Well, good afternoon, everybody, and welcome to the Active Transportation and Infrastructure Committee meeting of September 18th, 2025.

Our committee liaison, Sarah Jordan, will provide information and instruction for the public to participate in today's meeting.

Sarah, please proceed.

Thank you, Chair Whitburn.

While members of the public are able to attend the meeting in person, this meeting is being televised and live streamed on the city's website, and Council administration will continue to make arrangements for the public to comment using the Zoom webinar platform.

Members of the public who wish to provide testimony via a call-in or an internet-based service option must enter the virtual speaking queue within five minutes after conclusion of in-person public testimony or before the virtual speaking queue is exhausted, whichever occurs first.

This will allow for better meeting management between the two platforms and ensure the committee is able to manage and conduct city business.

Council Member Foster.

Councilmember Von Wilper.

Chair Whitburn.

Also attending the meeting today is City Attorney Representative Dana Fairchild, Mayor Representative Randy Wilde, and IBA representative Donnie Wynn.

If you are in person, please complete a speaker slip located at the entrance of chambers and place it in the speaker slip box on the table at the front of the room, and please do so in a timely manner to ensure proper meeting management.

Members of the public can join the webinar by computer, tablet, or smartphone by accessing the link, which is listed online in the preamble language of the agenda on the city's webpage to join the Zoom webinar by telephone.

Please dial 1669-2545252.

And when prompted, input webinar ID one six zero, six eight five, one one, six six pound.

Before we start today's meeting, I want to remind everybody about the city's practices and procedures for public comment at City Council meetings.

The city welcomes public participation at City Council meetings.

Speakers may address the council during public comment and also in connection with the specific item of business on the agenda.

However, the city must make sure that no person or group of people disrupt the meeting in a way that prohibits other speakers from expressing their ideas and opinions.

So to make sure that everybody here has an opportunity to address the council, I will alert an individual or individuals if I think their conduct becomes disruptive.

If the disruption continues, I will rule the individual out of order.

If the disruption continues further, I will declare a recess so that we can restore order.

At that point, I will direct the individual to leave the room.

If the individual refuses to leave, police will escort the individual out of the building.

Once again, we have these practices and procedures to protect the rights of other speakers who wish to address the council and allow the council conduct the city's business.

All right, we will now take up non-agenda public comment.

The council members respect and appreciate the public's input and are fully committed to protecting every participant's free speech rights at council and committee meetings.

Sarah, please proceed with further instructions.

Thank you, Chair Whitburn per Rule 2.7 on agenda public comment as an opportunity for members of the public to comment on items that are not on this agenda but are within the subject matter jurisdiction of this committee.

Each speaker will have two minutes to share their non-agenda public comment.

If you're watching on City TV at the live stream online and you'd like to dial into the meeting to speak, please call 1669-2545252.

Inputting webinar ID 160-685-1166 pound.

So we will begin with Perita Javier.

If you'll please approach the lecture and you will have two minutes, and you will be followed by Cesar Javier.

Good afternoon.

I am Rita Javier.

Since 1984.

Second highly possible home invasion from the last 14th occurrence.

And we need more petrols.

Moving traffic, our request for basic bomb for two sides since 2022 was never addressed despite D9 staff promises.

Um street connecting boys street for Alta Dina for service responder and shortcut for pupils going to school.

Find protection from erosion at Mosquito Victor from Toyo's Creek.

Six cracks and potholes are Toyah's parkway seven.

Allow farmers in toxicity or proximity.

Neighborhood to farm a new roots, CDC.

A we need protective walls against radiation from SDGE substation transversion law.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Caesar.

Thank you.

This is Cesar and Purita.

Thank you, Uncle Sam.

We are free.

But in this freedom.

When we greeted the mayor this morning before the public safety, I said, good morning, mayor.

You are a killer.

Proof.

District 8, residents.

Sick and dying.

Homeless people.

The guide there write out our parking space this morning.

Blanketed.

We don't know if he's dead or not.

Victims of fire.

Victims of flood.

They may not be killed by bullets.

They may not be killed by sharp knives or whatever weapons.

But they are killed by ineptness, unattendance, which is very, very serious crime to society.

Hear us, hear us, hear us.

And what did the city?

End of verse.

May I submit this to the legal counsel?

May somebody take this, ma'am.

This is the proof of shall we say retaliation.

Policeman.

You could just leave it right there.

Hey.

Detective bodyguard is now applying for my gun violence, protective whatever.

We will not stop because you for your comments.

I'll begin the five-minute timer for all those in the virtual queue to indicate if they wish to provide non-agenda public comment.

Each speaker will have two minutes.

We'll begin testimony with Becky Rapp.

Please unmute and begin.

Good afternoon.

My name is Becky Rapp, and I'm a member of my local planning group.

I come today as I'm concerned regarding the impact marijuana consumption has on road safety.

Recent data from the San Diego County Sheriff's Office reveals that in 2025 alone, 4,849 individuals were arrested for impaired driving.

While this figure includes all substances, it's crucial to acknowledge that marijuana is a significant contributor to impaired driving incidents.

A 2025 survey conducted by UC San Diego researchers found that more than a third of Californians consume marijuana with over half of these users consuming it daily.

This widespread use proves the need for public education and prevention measures.

San Diego ranks third in California for serious traffic injuries with 55 reported injuries.

As our city promotes walking, biking, and other forms of active transportation safety initiatives must consider marijuana impaired driving.

This includes education at the point of purchase, clear signage, and working with law enforcement to reduce impaired driving and ensure safe corridors for all users.

The Start Smart program offered to all new high school drivers and their parents emphasizes these concerns.

But unfortunately, this program can only reach so many San Diegans.

Every day residents are misled with signage and advertising across our city, telling lies that marijuana is safe.

But the research tells a different story, and it's time the public knows and understands the truth.

We have an opportunity to act proactively to integrate awareness of marijuana impairment into our traffic safety strategies and to protect our most vulnerable road users.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Terry Ann Skelly.

Please unmute and begin.

You'll have two minutes.

Good afternoon, Active Transportation and Infrastructure.

Committee Chair Whitburn.

My name is Terry Ann Skelly.

I am a planning group member, a parent, and a public health educator.

Since safe roads and dangerous drivings fall under the purview of the Active Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, I wanted to express my concern with drug impaired driving.

As I watch teens drive to and from high school, I am reminded that 16 to 25 year olds have the highest rate of drug impaired driving.

As healthychildren.org reminds us, more than 9% of drivers ages 16 to 20 admit to having driven under the influence of marijuana.

Recently, the National Safety Council fact sheet announced, and I quote, it is unsafe to be under the influence of cannabis because marijuana use slows reaction time, impacts memory, affects coordination, and impairs skills essential to driving.

Thanks to the San Diego Police Department for utilizing freeway signboards like drive high, get a DUI.

I think we all like to see the city attorney send out media messages regarding drug impaired driving.

Perhaps the city attorney would consider working with the county's marijuana youth access work group and create a press conference.

We need these messages to counter the marijuana business billboards around our city and aggressive social media and uh the obnoxious delivery vehicles.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comment.

Our next speaker is phone number ending in 870.

You can unmute by pressing star six, and you will have two minutes.

Thank you, Sarah.

Joy Signata District 3.

First of all, uh some uh thank yous.

Um thank you.

First of all, I'll say this before the thank yous.

Uh I really love freedom of speech, and I want to say that first.

Now I want to say this.

Thank you, uh, Chair Whitburn for once again saying the rules of order, and thank you to everyone for implementing those.

Those are really, really appreciated.

And I also want to say this about Coda and Randy and the rest of the team from the mayor's office.

I consider them the mayor.

The mayor has an office.

He is the mayor, and there is the office of the mayor, which includes the mayor and his staff.

I consider the office of the mayor, the mayor.

So when Coda and Randy and the rest of his team are there in the chambers, to me, that's the mayor.

So thank you for being there for us.

And I do miss when uh council member Henry the third is not present.

I really miss him.

So hope he's feeling good about things in general, and I just want to send love to him.

So I'll switch to my topic, which will have to be short now, but it's this is just part two anyway.

Uh here's my framework for the grand jury report on the gas lamp district.

And I'm going to say this, it'll be very positive.

But first, here's the framework.

We look at the words world and our community through a lens.

Each of our lens is different, and each lens has a different perspective.

And I really think that's important.

This is hardcore science.

It's not something I'm kind of, you know, that's out there.

It's hardcore science.

And so my perspective of the gas lamp after 19 years of being in it, around it, enjoying it.

Thank you for your comment.

Your time has concluded.

Thank you.

Thank you.

The five-minute timer has expired.

We have two hands remaining in the queue, and we'll take no other callers beyond these remaining two individuals.

Zoom user, I have given you permission to speak.

If you can please unmute, state your name for the record and begin.

Uh Leonard.

Thanks a lot for taking my call.

Hey, it's a whole new ball game today.

Donald Trump just did Antifa as a terrorist organization.

Antifa, those guys that were UCSD protesting the Israel and stuff, those guys were Antifa.

So throughout Sanity County, Antifa is in play now as a terrorist group.

And that brings me to Councilman Rivera, who broke out that fascist coffee cup at the meeting.

That's a sign for Antifa.

Those fascist anti-fascists.

That's their trademark.

He needs that's probably a cause for an investigation.

I think the uh DA should look into, or maybe the FBI could look into Rivera and his fascist coffee cup.

That's a threat.

And it's also linked with Antifa.

What's with that, man?

Come on, man.

And who's who's got fired so far for downgrading uh Charlie Kirk's uh murder?

How many of you guys got fired over celebrating that?

There's not 45 people in the city that should have been fired.

Who fired them?

Who works for you that celebrated that murder?

They need to go.

You guys had any integrity, they'd already be gone.

So just uh we need to launch an investigation into that.

And if you guys want a grant too, if you want a government grant, get a grant for the taco stand at Brown Field, rapid deportation.

We'll get a lot of money for building the new center down there to get rid of all these illegal aliens.

90,000 of them in San Diego County.

It'll open up a lot of housing when all the illegal aliens are out of here, man.

Thanks for the money we'll save on the pension fund and all the money we're giving them for lawsuits and stuff like that.

That's that'll impact the budget a lot more than parking meters.

Thanks for your time.

Thank you for your comment.

Your time has concluded, and the final speaker in the queue is iPhone.

If you can please unmute by pressing star six, state your name for the record and begin.

Hello everyone, my friends, it's Michael from Barney's district.

Hi.

Um I was just um telling you um for tell the cava that um the run up in um Lahoya on noble drive um needs done.

So please as soon as possible to get it done.

Thank you very much.

Done.

Thank you for your comment.

Absolutely.

And chair with no other hands in the virtual queue.

This concludes non-agenda public comment.

Thank you, sir.

Are there any committee member, buy all, city attorney, or independent budget analyst comments?

Seeing none, do we have any requests for continuance?

Seeing no requests for continuance, we'll move out of our agenda for today.

Let's dispense with the approval of our consent items.

Do we have any request to poll an item from the consent agenda?

Seeing none, uh, we'll move forward with public comment on the consent agenda.

Sarah, please proceed.

Thank you, Chair Whitburn.

The consent agenda includes four items.

Item number one, approval of the committee minutes from July 17th, 2025.

Item two request an extension of the construction contract with KTA construction for the construction of sewer and AC Water Group 1032 project.

Item number three, request an extension of the construction contract with Burtec Pipeline Incorporated for the construction of the Mission Beach Water and Sewer Replacement Project.

And item number four, request for an extension of the construction contract with Burtech Pipeline for the construction of sewer and AC Water Group 807 project.

Please note each speaker will have one minute per item with a maximum of three minutes to speak to the consent agenda.

Caesar Javier, you have submitted a speaker slip indicating you wish to speak to items one, two, three, and four.

You have been ceded time by Perita Javier for items one, two, three, and four, with a three-minute maximum per speaker.

You will have six minutes total.

Thank you, Uncle Sam, for this freedom.

Thank you, Uncle Sum for this dreams.

But as we swim upstream for SOCOR, we are being tyrannically suppressed.

This is now proceeding to the sphere of predatory kind of government.

But don't worry.

We are here to protect our constitution.

We are not here.

Mr.

Javier, we'll pause your time.

Uh, just a reminder that this is on the consent agenda.

So if you could direct your comments both to the committee and on the consent agenda.

Thank you, Your Honor.

This is all about the minutes.

Precedent minutes.

It's a record.

And I am just trying to repeat it again and again to wake us up.

I'm sorry.

Councillor Foster or making you uncomfortable.

You need an up sleep.

You can.

Mr.

Javier.

I am discussing now on this consent.

And this is the only way I could do to pronounce it, sir.

Contracts, after contracts.

Why not?

If we cannot do it by ourselves.

My only question, sir, is why can't we do it when in fact we have 47 departments and 3,000 manpower?

I want to save our money.

This is all about here.

Why not?

We buy materials that we cannot produce.

Procurement.

We rent or asked help from the experts, the contractors.

Right, uh, Councillor Foster.

It's here, very clear.

I think the uh attorney's office has something to do with the agenda.

Thank you, ma'am.

We just have given you one one evidence of that, what we call corruption.

So our point here is let us bring the trust from us to you so we could work together to solve this issue, sir.

That's our point of view.

That's our point of view, not to destroy the process, but rather to remove those political virus in the contract, in the actual construction, you know, materials are very important in the contract, like pipelines, pipe materials, strength of materials as far as structural concern.

We need to buy the strongest quality materials, which is not spelled in here.

That's my point.

I I do not I do not try to compete with your intelligences.

We are after saving that money that came from our pocket, and this way we are trying to protect our people, our assets, our trust, which is very important in our resource in governance, trust of the people, because in our previous discussion you were asking community support.

How could we support you when we do not trust you?

These are all part of the agenda, sir, contract.

We issue the contract, they applied for the contract, these companies with the expectation that they will provide the quality service.

Question can we not do it?

Those things that we can do, like sweeping the road, like cleaning up the corner of this city hall from urine, giving clean food, clean water, clean air to our sick homeless.

These are contracts, unwritten contracts in here.

So our point here, us lawful citizen, peace-loving citizen, brave San Diegans.

Let's direct our airport on the right path, the right thing to do.

We call for moral dimension.

Let's distinguish between the wrong and the bad and the ugly.

That's our prayers.

That we may leave, because all this is for the survival of San Diegans.

The important pipeline for clean water, pipeline to clean the seaweeds, pipeline to keep our cables free from decay, destruction.

We need thinkers, solution makers, sirs, mom, because this is national security issue, survival of mankind, the descendants of the comme I, which we always repeat, repeat and repeat.

We are now the comme I, the inheritors of that gift of life and survival.

Hear us, hear us, help us, because we are being killed systematically with our next door's toxicity.

We need contract to someone who is a specialist to stop it.

The attorney cannot stop it, the public safety cannot stop it.

Who else shall we ask to to stop it, sir?

Officers, San Diego Police Department.

Who else?

Who else?

We are hurt.

We are hurt.

My wife has just been diagnosed.

Alzheimer's dementia at a moderate two crisis.

Thank you for your testimony.

I'll begin the five-minute timer for all those in the virtual queue to indicate if they wish to provide comment on the consent agenda.

We will begin testimony with phone number ending in 870.

You can unmute by pressing star six.

And if you can please indicate which item or items you'll be speaking to.

All right, three minutes on the clock to manage.

Please begin.

On number two, uh, yes to the contract extension with KTA.

And are we speaking on workforce and EOC agreements as I go along?

So for number two, the admin has 21 employees.

Trade has 42 employees.

There are 14 subcontracts.

That's quite a long list.

Under the admin workforce, the underrepresentation, female management and financial, Latino under crafts.

On the trade end, Latino in construction laborers.

Thank you on that one.

Number three.

Yes to the contract extension with Birdek Bird pipeline.

EOC and workforce.

13 subclient subcontracts.

That's another long list.

Under representation, often a friend African American and admin support under the trade category, African American pipe fitters, plumbers, pipe and steam fetters.

Under uh, excuse me, uh continuing.

Female in construction laborers.

That's an eye-opener, isn't it?

Admin total employees 28, trade 92.

That's a big workforce.

78 are Latino Hispanic male.

So uh that's a big group where the Latinos fit in comfortably, and there are brown people.

And when I look at Brown and Black representation, it's really amazing and great to see this abundance of Latino Hispanic males in this category.

And then number four, yes to the extension of the contract again with verdict, different contracts.

Workforce numbers are the same as in item number three.

There are 11 subcontracts on this project, and the same company, same, so there's the same underrepresentation with this other contract extension.

So there you go.

I love looking at these labor reports.

They're very informative.

I've encouraged other people to learn about them and do them.

So thanks for listening, love to all.

Thank you for your testimony.

Our next speaker is Blair Beekman.

If you can please unmute and indicate which item or items you'll be speaking to.

Hi, uh Blair Beakman.

Uh, wanted to speak to the approval of the meeting minutes from last time.

Okay, one minute, please begin.

Thank you.

Um on that item, there was item six where uh at that meeting you uh sandag issues were brought up and what they wanted to be working on.

Um just a good look in Sandag is a great resource for uh how they facilitate efforts with Mexico, and that our future they they have a way to work with Mexico that's open and clear, and good luck that we can make those future conversations with Mexico open and clear.

Um, I don't think there should be anything prevent preventing us from that.

Um, good luck on those efforts.

Uh it can be enjoyable and interesting, I think.

And also with um their issues of um uh bike trails and um pedestrian trails that they're building will be building for San Diego.

Real good luck that uh in the efforts for better uh tech uh for the bike trails in the future, that those tech apps can be asking for openness and accountability practices, uh, and a group community effort towards sustainability and accountability.

Uh good luck on those efforts from everyone.

Thank you.

Thank you for that concluding remark and chair, that concludes testimony for items one through four.

Thank you.

I'll now turn it over to committee members for questions and comments, and we'll entertain a motion on the consent agenda.

We'll begin with uh committee member Bud Wilbert.

Uh thank you very much, Chair, and I'm happy to make the motion to approve the consent agenda.

I just want to thank um ENCP and everyone in the staff for bringing for the contracts before they expire.

Definitely noticing the change in trend and the hard work in this, and so I'll support the consent agenda.

Thank you very much.

I am happy to second the motion to approve the consent agenda.

So we have a motion from Council Member Buddha.

Wolbert, seconded by myself, seeing no further discussion, Sarah, please call the roll.

Oh, uh, we have a comment from Council Barbara Foster.

Yes, please go ahead.

Thank you.

Um, and I guess Ms.

Joy, I am here.

Um, and thank you for your comments.

Is staff here to come up and can I give some insight into in regards to the under-representations and what's being done to potentially address those.

Good afternoon, council member.

Um, so part of our efforts go to our conversations we have with the industry.

Um we have we meet with them quarterly to discuss where we would like them to go as far as representation within their contracts.

We encourage them to go to different fairs and look at those areas where they have underrepresentation.

As you can see for different contractors or the different areas, doesn't mean that they were comp they were not compliant with the contract, it just means that there's certain areas where they are under.

And so we're asking them to continue their efforts and looking for those opportunities to beef up those percentages.

I can appreciate that, but if I look at a contractor such as Burtech, who has done work for the city of San Diego for decades, they're probably one of the only contractors that if we break down, I think we'll have an item later when we look at asset types.

They're one of the only companies that bid pipeline work.

When are we going to do more than encourage and take further steps to make sure that they are meeting our efforts in regards to inclusion?

So one of the things we work with is purchasing and contracts to make sure, first of all, that they're in compliance with the requirements of the contract.

Going beyond that as your recommending, what we do do is ask them on a certain frequency when we do meet with them.

Not everybody represent represents themselves during those quarterly meetings I was referring to.

Um we'd like to hear what those efforts are.

And not only because we want to see if there's results from what they're doing, but we want to see what they're saying is out there as an industry.

Are they finding any challenges?

Um are some efforts working or some efforts are not.

So we're trying to gather feedback to just see if it's something that could be improved, or do we see that the industry is finding challenges locally to find a certain workforce?

Um, so it's it's a dialogue that we're just trying to understand better.

Thank you, Luis.

Um, good afternoon, Ranya.

Amen, director of engineering uh capital project departments to add to what Luis mentioned.

We also bringing in back that uh pre-bid meetings.

Uh right now we're not doing mandatory, but at least an opportunity at a venue to have a conversations with all the interested contractors that they want to bid on the job, and um further uh explain to them the intent of the contract and presenting where opportunity can um expand to allow for um subcontractors to participate in this one.

And then there's an opportunity for us to go back and adjust some of the bid items to uh bring or broader this opportunities.

We can do this during the bid process.

So that's another step that we were taking on to have those conversations and and ensuring.

Uh the last thing I want to mention is having uh PLA implemented for all our public works contracts, especially coming July, the limit will be one million.

This is we're anticipating to change the the face of uh the our bidding dynamics and then the type of contractors that they will continue to uh do business with the city, especially on pipelines uh perspective, and then uh that will open the door for other players that not necessarily local contractor been doing a lot of business with the city that have the capability to uh address uh the underrepresentations that concerning us right now.

Okay, I appreciate that.

Um I think it's just important that um we do what we say we are going to do.

So um I'll have some further questions and um I I just think we need to do some more work.

So I'll be looking to the COO to make sure that this is a priority and that we are making a better effort to uh make sure making sure that we're being inclusive and uh we're seeing change in our efforts.

Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Fauster.

We have a motion from Councilmember Vaughn Wilbert.

I seconded it, seeing no further discussion.

Please call the roll.

And Chair, the consent agenda passes unanimously 4-0.

All right, we'll now move on to our discussion items.

Sarah, please introduce item number five.

Thank you, Chair.

Item number five, proposed amendments to council policy 200-15, increasing the loss revenue fee for valet zones, increasing the streetery permit fee, and an informational update on progress of parking reform items.

If you're watching on City TV or live stream online, you'd like to call in the meeting to speak, please dial 1669-2545252.

Inputting webinar ID 160-685-1166 pound.

Chair.

Thank you.

As always, please introduce yourselves for the record.

Uh let us know how much time you'd like for your presentation and feel free to begin.

Thank you.

Uh Committee Chairwoodburn, Ahmad Erikath with the Transportation Department, and we'll need seven minutes, please.

Good afternoon, committee chair and committee members.

Thank you for having us here again this week to talk on a about another parking item.

As mentioned, Ahmad Eric hat, program manager with the transportation department.

I'm also joined here by Samir Rao, Deputy Director with the Planning Department.

And we're here to talk about proposed amendments to Council Policy 200-15, increasing the loss of revenue fee for valet zones, increasing the streetery permit fee in metered zones, and an informational update on the progress of parking reform items.

Since the adoption of the parking reform in June, uh multiple city departments have collaborated very closely to implement the city's parking reform initiatives, ensuring a coordinated approach to policy changes, enforcement, and public communication.

This multi-departmental collaboration has been essential to the smooth rollout and ongoing success of the parking reforms.

Since June and the adoption of the uh parking reform, uh that reform gave city staff the flexibility to adapt to to uh adapt meter enforcement hours, establish Sunday parking fees in commercial zones, and implement search pricing for special events.

Though these reforms did not immediately adjust rates or enforcement schedules, they did empower city staff to make future data informed modifications backed by comprehensive outreach and coordination with the affected communities.

The reform package did also include amendments to some council policies, including council policy 200 15.

And since then, feedback from the hotel industry warranted the need for us to revisit council policy 200 15.

And it's important to note that uh some of the budget assumptions associated with the uh parking reform uh initiatives was included as a part of the FY26 budget.

What you see on that slide is our sum of those initiatives that the transportation departments taking the lead on.

Uh some of these include the implementation of parking meters on Fifth Avenue where the promenade used to exist, and that effort was completed in late July.

The special event special event zone was have already been established and is operational, and that has been completed since early September.

The extension of Sunday hours in commercial areas has also been completed, and now it's only limited to uh the Pacific Beach area.

The extension of hours has, to my knowledge, been completed as of yesterday, and uh the effort is uh ongoing to uh activate the meters to include those extended hours.

Some other initiatives that have not been completed yet include the Balboa Park uh parking management item, uh, on-street improvements on meter four meters on Sixth Avenue and Park Boulevard, and the Sunday enforcement within mixed-use permits that include residential areas, but those do require uh an accommodation with a residential permit as required per the municipal code.

And lastly, the expansion of parking meters within existing community parking districts.

Uh it's important to note that a uh a dashboard has been created by the performance analytics department to actually keep track of the revenues generated from each of these initiatives.

As noted, since the adoption of the updated policy fee uh council policy 200-15.

Feedback from the hotels and other hospitality stakeholders has emphasized a pressing need for more expansive valet zones than what was included in the recent council policy update.

These businesses argue that the valet zone size limit is current in the current policy, limits their capacity to provide convenient service for their guests, particularly where parking is not readily available.

To meet this demand, the proposed update updated policy has now evolved towards permitting larger zones, taking into consideration the specific needs for each of the entities applying for these extensions.

The proposed updates also include a fee increase for larger zones, which takes into consideration the recovery of any lost revenue resulting from expanding the valet zones into what otherwise would have been a metered parking space.

The proposed update to the policy allows for valet zones to extend beyond the 44-foot, which is two parking spaces as currently defined in the council policy.

If certain criteria is met.

It also includes proposed additional fees when these expansions are granted.

The proposed fees are $10,000 for each 22 feet or one parking space beyond the standard size for valet permits within parking meter zones outside of the special event zones, and $15,000 for each space beyond the standard size for valet permits within parking meter zones within special event zones.

The objective is to be as close as possible to cost to recovery with these extended spaces, considering that these fees would only apply when the valet zone size extend beyond the standard zone.

Current meter transactions show that the revenue generated for each parking space in the downtown area generates approximately 10,000 a year.

Parking spaces within special events zones generate approximately $15,000 a year.

In addition, a new fee is being added to accommodate the reduced loss of revenue fee for valet zones for entities that would utilize them for part of the day, primarily restaurants that would need valet zones between 5 p.m.

and midnight, and the fee for that uh loss of revenue would be $2,500 a year.

And with that, I'd pass it to Samira for the street details.

Good afternoon, everybody.

Street trees were established as part of the spaces places ordinance adopted in October 2021.

Street trees are decks within the public right-of-way that extend a restaurant seating into outdoor space.

The program was designed for the post-pandemic environment where indoor dining returned to full capacity and outdoor dining became an expansion to enhance the public experience.

An exclusive use fee was adopted as part of the spaces as places program for street trees during operational hours to offset lost parking meter revenue and right-of-way management costs, support code compliance and enforcement, and advance equitable investment and right-of-way improvements.

Since adoption, parking meter revenue rates and enforcement costs have increased.

Special event zones and areas with dynamic meter management also face higher demand and public safety impacts.

In addition, the existing exemption for street trees that are open to the public at all times is inconsistent with the purpose of the fee.

The proposed resolution updates the spaces places exclusive use fee for street trees in the public right-of-way to better align with current parking meter revenues and enforcement costs.

Specifically, it establishes an annual base fee of $50 per square foot of permitted outdoor dining area and a $75 per square foot rate within areas designated by the city manager as special event meter zones, reflecting higher demand and operational impacts.

Street trees located in low resource or high segregation and poverty resource area, California Tax Credit Allocation Committee Opportunity Areas will receive a 15% reduction to the applicable annual rate.

The fee will remain subject to annual adjustments based on construction cost index.

The table below compares the existing exclusive use fees with the proposed amended fees for street trees shown both on a per square foot basis and translated into the equivalent costs per parking space, which is 200 square feet.

The resolution also repeals the prior exemption for outdoor dining areas open to the public at all times, as that exemption is inconsistent with the fee's purpose of offsetting loss meter revenue and right-of-way management costs.

City planning staff will continue to monitor the implementation of the amended exclusive use fee and evaluate its impact on revenue generation and equitable investment.

Thank you.

And that concludes Tess presentation.

Thank you.

Thank you for the presentation.

Before we go to public comment, I believe city attorney Data Fairchild has some uh comments for us.

Thank you, Chair Whitburn.

Yes, the city attorney's office is still in the process of legal review of the council policy updates.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Sarah, with that, please proceed with public comment.

Thank you, Chair.

We've received four speaker slips here in chambers.

Cesar Javier, you have been seated time by Parita Javier.

Each speaker will have two minutes, so I will place four minutes on the clock for you to manage.

Cesar and Purita, senior victims of toxicity and parking.

Uh delinquency fee.

This is all about your presentation.

And thank you for this thinking of uh keeping up with the changes.

Changes.

That's the heart of your presentation, and thank you for that.

Solution.

We also give you solution.

Refund our citation fee, 152 dollars, and the uh almost 500 uh dollars for illegal uh uh towing of our car.

You know, when we attended the first, just let me tell the story all about this policy change, which is good.

We park our car about half a mile or almost a mile, first street.

And having that blue tag, we were confident that if you park in a metered space, shape.

We did that.

We followed the MB policy, state, blue tag, seniors, handicap has not exactly right, but uh between rights and uh privilege.

We were seated here participating, where Lacaba was the chair for the first time, Council President.

And you know, the uh discussion reached up to what 8 o'clock, 8:30.

And when we go home, we have to search for our car.

Only to be fine found out that uh after three hours, we called the police and they said, Hey, your car was told.

Thank God it was not lost, but towed.

This is what we call happenings in the front line, which planners, legislatures should be thinking of measure to prevent, to prevent.

This is all about survival economically of San Diego's, Mr.

Chair, and this is exactly what we are trying to discuss: a change for good, best, better, not the ugly and bad.

Finally, this works on totality of summary.

Our loyalty should not be to a person, not the mayor, not the chair of commerce and industry, not director of planning, not director of uh I couldn't even pronounce.

The loyalty should be to Sandygans to the people, because we are the government.

We are the subject of service.

That's why we wake you up in other countries.

You will be line up.

And I use the word because that's what I heard.

They undergo firing squad.

We do not want that to happen here because we are brave and morally upright Sandygans.

We voted for you, and therefore we expect that good better best.

May God bless us all, because our thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Fred Taiko, and you will be followed by Michael Trimble.

Good afternoon, Mr.

Chair, members of the committee.

Uh, on behalf of the San Diego County Lodging Association, um, we'd like to speak on two issues uh related to this item, uh, particularly of cost as well as operational challenges.

First off, I want to thank the mayor's office, particularly Randy Wilde, for uh pausing the uh implementation of this ordinance to allow the downtown community to be able to speak and um uh um negotiate a more equitable solution to the valet parking um um ordinance.

Now, in the spirit of that, uh we respectfully request uh additional time to reach an equitable agreement.

Uh downtown business community understands the need for new revenue, uh, and we are a willing partner in that.

But unfortunately, the way the proposed ordinance is written, uh it would uh increase the fees from 10 to 15,000 dollars uh for additional spaces.

Now that is just too high for guests as well as the operators to be able to absorb.

Now just to put this as an example, uh, an existing hotel downtown would realize a ninety-five thousand dollar increase in their fees.

95,000.

So you know, to now to put that in perspective as policymakers, we agonize over what a one to two percent increase in TOT would do to travel.

This would far exceed that.

So that's speaking specifically for cost.

Now for the operations side of things, while valid park parking may appear like a uh a luxury for downtown, it's a necessity.

Many properties were not designed for self-parking.

Um, so the valley parking provides a public benefit to better manage the flow of downtown traffic.

It helps prevent double parking as well as uh reduces dangerous loading and unloading on uh through traffic, as well as improves overall circulation.

So I mean, without that active track traffic management, uh thank you for your time.

And again, we just uh uh request additional time.

Thank you.

Thank you for your comment, Michael Trimble.

Good afternoon, committee members.

My name is Michael Trimble, executive director of the Gaslam Quarter Association representing downtown businesses, restaurants, and hotels.

For nearly two decades, the valley operators paid simple predictable fees of six hundred dollars a year.

The stability allowed businesses to budget provide services to visitors and keep curb space orderly.

This year the city changed the rules dramatically.

Every business in the special event zone here.

Petco Park now pays a $600 permit fee, a $5,000 loss of revenue fee, and $15,000 for every 22 feet of frontage.

What does that mean in practice?

A small restaurant with one valley space now pays over $20,000 a year.

A medium property with three spaces pays more than $35,000 a year.

A large hotel year with seven spaces are facing nearly 9,000, 95,600 annually.

It's a 14,000 percent increase, like Fred was saying.

The city claims this is about cost recovery or lost revenue, but the math doesn't work.

Event days uh six thousand one hundred and twenty dollars per space.

A non-event baseline at 75% is approximately $3,945 per space.

So the total is 10,065 per space, still 4,935 short of the city's $15,000 fee.

With realistic overcapacity occupancy, the yield is closer to $8900, and the gap even gets wider.

This also uh approaches and violates the city's own council policy 100 05, which requires fees to be transparent, published, and tied to cost of service.

It also conflicts with proposition 218 and 26 under California Constitution, but prohibits local governments from imposing fees that exceed cost.

When do they do when are those charges considered?

And one of those cards is considered a tax.

So then that would must go to the voter.

We understand about you know recovering costs and we're support transparent fee cost basis, but we cannot support arbitrary unpublished surcharges that punish businesses.

Thank you.

Thank you for that concluding remark.

I'll begin the five-minute timer for all those in the virtual queue to indicate if they wish to provide comment for item number five.

Each speaker will have two minutes.

We'll begin testimony with phone number ending in 870.

You can unmute by pressing star six and please begin.

Uh did you say two minutes?

Two minutes, correct.

Thank you.

Uh Chair Whitburn, thank you for the two minutes.

Love you for that.

Um, yes to council policy 200-15 amendments, yes to the valet zone fee increase, yes to the streetery uh permit fee increase.

Thank you, thank you, thank you.

We need that, and we need the help of everyone to get that going.

Uh, you get five stars uh uh uh as do all the public speakers, you get five stars, as do all the public speakers, uh, and I'm referring to Transportation Department on the uh the first five stars there on parking reforms.

So we do, you know, we're one people in one San Diego, and that includes everybody, and we have to work together without taking sides instead of including everybody in the conversation and finding the best for all.

So just a couple of personal experiences on these uh from my family and their friends.

I have lots of knowledge of the valet business because they were uh valet drivers, and and I talk to valet drivers as I go through the downtown area.

I love talking with them, they're young often, and just really great people.

So I I'm really uh I think they do take cars off the street, and uh I I think the balance is good.

So I'm up to helping expand whatever they would like to have and having them cooperate with more fees too.

On the uh streeteries, I I really love the uh cafes in the street, the restaurants.

I miss the promenade ones that are gone.

Uh I do have a little uh this is off the point, but on the sidewalk, we need to do something about uh pulling back a little bit of the restaurants that that you know are on the sidewalk.

Some of them just are not fair for space.

So thank you for listening.

Uh a great day and uh chair uh great work and thank you, committee.

Good to see you, Councilmember.

Thank you for your comments.

This does conclude your time.

Thank you.

And our next speaker is Blair Beekman.

Please unmute and begin.

You will have two minutes.

Hi, thank you.

Uh Blair Beekman.

Um thanks for the words of the Javiers and Joyce previously.

Um I interestingly, I've been seeing uh a nice thread developing uh that I didn't think was there.

But I I'm wrong, and it has been developing uh this fall.

That council persons they are trying to continue to connect how to be how to have uh an open public process and to work the uh you know the with community on issues uh for an open public process.

And the good fight.

Um, you know, the parking issues previously were uh definitely contentious, and yet, you know, the councilpersons try to work all sides and and put off eventual parking things.

So they're as politicians, they're trying to you know please everyone, and that uh naturally always makes everybody upset, but they're trying to do their job, and they're trying to help everyone and to reach conclusions.

So thank you for that.

Good luck on our patience.

Um, we can make stronger demands um with this item uh you know from that working within that scope.

Um, with that said, uh these parking meter items.

Um, how is the implementation of new parking meters going in the downtown area and all the technology involved?

Council personal Overa made a very important point.

Where's the data collection from that uh parking meter check going?

Um, can we trust it?

What do we need to do for it?

So it can be trusting, a more trusting process.

Is you know the privacy advisory commission going to step in and work on this item?

And overall, is city staff are they willing to create more accountable policies and practices with new parking meter things that are also going to be affecting Balboa Park a lot, also.

Um good luck that we're making these conversations open and safe and comfortable.

Same with the trash cans and RFID stuff.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And Chair, this concludes comment for item number five.

Thank you very much, Sarah.

Thank you to all the members of the public for participating on this item.

I represent the downtown area, so I'll go ahead and start off the discussion.

I want to thank the mayor's office, uh, the transportation department, uh, and everybody affected by this policy who worked together to bring forward uh this update to the rules.

Uh when the city made changes to council policy 200-15 earlier this year, the goal was to modernize valet operations, but it became clear uh very quickly that the two space limit was too restrictive for some of the downtown hotels that rely on valet service.

Uh Mr.

Taiko is right, they do rely on it.

It is uh uh a service that uh both the hotels and uh their guests rely upon.

So with these revisions, operators can purchase additional spaces.

Uh that was a big priority of uh many of the hotel representatives that I uh personally had conversations with.

Uh Mr.

Taiko and Mr.

Tribble voiced concerns uh about the cost of the additional spaces.

Um Mr.

Erica, could you or somebody else elaborate on how the city got to the amounts of uh 10,000 and 15,000 dollars that are proposed in this policy?

Thank you, Councilmember with Burn.

Uh before I get into the details of the calculations, I just wanted to highlight two facts.

Number one, the size of the valet zone that was approved as a part of the previous policy, which is two spaces, is adequate from traffic operations perspective for the majority of the uh valley operations, if managed properly.

The second part about it is that the five thousand dollar fee that is associated with the two spaces is actually a significantly subsidized rate, considering the fact that the actual loss of revenue fee from these two spaces annually is about twenty thousand dollars.

So the five thousand dollar fee is subsidized, and it's meant to accommodate the majority of the uh valley operators.

These added fees for the expansion only apply if a hotel or a valley operator choose to have an additional space.

So back to your question.

The fees were based on actual revenues collected in the parking meter zones.

Data from the last three months of transactions show that parking meters on average in the downtown area generate $25 per day.

That's based on 10 hours of enforcement.

As I mentioned in my presentation, uh, we just extended enforcement for two additional hours per day.

That's an additional five dollars of revenue per day.

So that equals $30 per day.

If we were to assume 350 days of enforcement, that's excluding 15 days of holidays a year.

So we rounded that down to $10,000.

That's for the spaces within the standard parking meter zones.

For the special events and the need for that additional $5,000.

Currently, each special event, uh parking meters generate $60.

We are assuming uh the number of special events that was included in the budget, which is 80 special events a year, which only accounts for the Padres home games.

So if we were to use that figure, the total revenue is 60 times 80.

That's 44,800 a year.

What we are doing is that we're including many additional special events that qualify per the council policy, which are events that exceed 10,000 visitors.

So the number of actual special events significantly goes beyond the 80 spaces, however, or the 80 days.

However, we are keeping it at the $5,000 figure.

So this is how the $10,000 and the $15,000 figures came up.

Thank you very much for that explanation.

So uh from the city's perspective, uh, for most of the hotel operators, uh, the two spaces should be adequate.

Um from the city's perspective, the $5,000 fee that applies to those two spaces is actually a subsidized rate.

Uh and for those who do want additional space, the $10,000 or $15,000 that they could uh pay if they want those additional spaces, is based on specific data that you have collected in recent months.

That is correct.

The goal is full cost recovery for the additional spaces beyond the standard zone.

I know we're fairly early on in some of these uh parking rates downtown.

Will you be continuing to keep track of them so that after a certain period of time we could see if these projections are in fact bearing out so that uh the uh hotel operators or any other interested parties can kind of get a sense that this is in fact um cost recovery?

For sure.

And with the implementation of dynamic pricing, the these uh revenues would significantly increase per meter, but the goal is not to revisit those rates anytime soon.

Okay.

Um right, thank you very much for that answer.

I appreciate that.

Um, this policy ensures that the ballet services do remain possible uh while enabling the city to recover the true cost of lost parking revenue.

Um as Mr.

Eric had said, we will uh continue to keep tabs on uh this uh as the months go forward.

Uh and with that in my when when is this going to come to city council?

Do we know yet?

Uh Randy Wilde, Senior Policy Advisor in Mary Gloria's office.

We don't have yet have a council date.

I think we wanted to see the the how things went at committee.

Yeah, okay.

All right.

Well, with that, I'll go ahead and make the motion to approve the staff recommendation.

Uh and we will go to council member Vada Wilbert.

Um thank you.

Uh thank you for the presentation and thank you to um the folks who've come in to talk about the impact this could have.

Uh we don't have a lot of valley parking in uh the public right-of-way up in district five.

We don't have parking meters for that same reason at the same time.

I do know how tight things can be in areas that do.

And so one question I do have is I'm seeing this memorandum from the gas lamp quarter, and they're saying that the prior cost in 2020 was gonna be $650 a year, but the new cost to them in 2025, if they got the first 44 feet for $5,000 and the $15,000 per additional $2020, $22 feet frontage would be $95,000.

And they're saying it's a $14,000 percent increase over over one year to the next.

So is this is this correct?

Yes, council members.

So the $600 fee that was previously assessed for valet zones never accounted for the actual loss of revenue that the city is enduring because of the fact that these spaces are not being utilized for meters.

However, the uh math that is referenced here for eight spaces, again, those are six additional parking spaces on top of the standard valet zone.

So if a hotel chooses to expand their valet operations to almost a full block face, then yes, this would result in additional fees, especially if it's in a special event area.

Got it.

So I'm guessing most of the hotels generally have two to four spaces then.

That is correct.

Okay.

So then that fee would be around fifty, six hundred a year.

It would be five thousand dollars for the first two spaces and ten thousand for any additional space.

Oh, I see.

So fifteen thousand.

That's correct.

Okay.

Um got it.

Uh and have we done you know outreach to everybody who's gonna be involved in paying these things.

I guess I'll refer to uh Randy on the details of the outreach.

Uh as mentioned by some of the speakers and council members earlier, we we did uh hear loud and clear from a lot of the operators after the June action as part of the parking reform package.

Um we did put a pause on implementation of that due to their concerns about just traffic safety and operations uh in terms of the ability to utilize just those two spaces versus larger zones that some of those operators currently operate.

Um we uh had a series of working group meetings uh primarily with the lodging association uh membership, other hotels, and some of the parking operators who help the hotels actually operate these valet zones.

So we had two to three meetings over the course of the summer.

Okay.

Um I'm gonna see if my colleagues have other questions and gonna keep reading to this.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Wolpert.

Uh Councilmember Vice Chair Lee.

Uh thank you, Chair.

Um, and thank you for the presentation.

I um I think just just as you talk through some of it, it I I have to admit I I can't help but sort of wonder about the numbers as you've you've presented them.

So you mentioned that it was calculated out to to be about 25,000 um on average for a space in terms of the lost revenue.

And is that is that by through the parking meter district as a whole in terms of the total number of spaces and revenue, and then factoring some kind of you know, percentage about occupancy expectations.

How correct?

How is that?

It was based on a $25 on revenue a day on average currently.

Occupancy does not apply when we're dealing with actual revenues.

Occupancy only applies when we're talking about projections.

The numbers we're sharing are actual revenues that were collected at the metered zones on average per meter.

And we're looking at the specific when you talk about the meter zones, can you just explain?

Sure.

So so uh we're talking about the meter zones in the downtown area primarily, considering that this is where most of those valley, if not all of those valet permits are issued.

So uh depending on the neighborhood where the hotels are, we have we sampled data and came up with that average for how much each space is actually generating in revenue per day, and then multiplied it by the number of days in the year that this would be enforced.

So the 20, and and as I mentioned in my previous answer, although the average currently is $25 per day, but considering the fact that we are extending enforcement by two hours, that's 25 divided by 10 to get us 250 of additional revenue per hour.

So for the extra two hours, it's an additional five dollars.

This is why it's $30 of actual revenue per day multiplied by 350 days to get us to the 10,500 a year.

So we can just to clarify it is the parking meter revenue through the parking meter zone that we have in downtown as a whole, divided by the number of spaces, so you're coming up with a average per day.

Obviously, it's very different depending on where you are, right?

That's correct.

That's why it's not uh a whole, it's actually depending on the particular area where those valet zones are.

So I'm not, for example, looking at uh the Cortez area that is mostly residential because that's not really a true reflection of what the rates are.

We're looking in the heart of the downtown area where hotels are, where actual valet zones currently exist.

Now, do the valet zones apply um only if there's an existing metered space that is being taken away to utilize for the valet zone, or I mean there are valet zones or there are there are valets that exist in spaces that aren't there are curves that are not currently utilized as meters as well, correct?

That is clarify.

That is correct.

That's why the policy clearly, and actually in the municipal code clearly states that the loss of revenue fee applies for meters within parking meter zones, not just areas where we have meters, but the entire established parking meter zone.

So for context, when we get to council district six and the Kerny Mesa area is an established parking meter zone, a valet zone in that area would qualify to actually uh be subject to the loss of revenue fees.

If that makes sense.

Yeah, parking meter zone being different than a parking district.

That's that's correct.

Okay.

Uh I asking in part because you you you mentioned Kearney Mason.

I don't believe we have an established parking meter zone in Kirk.

It is actually, it was a part of the establishment of the community parking district.

There was an establishment of a parking meter zone in the Kearney Mesa area.

I see.

The two hours of additional enforcement are from six to eight PM.

Is that correct?

In some areas that is six to eight, and many downtown areas it is eight to ten, but it's an extension of two hours across the board.

And that has already taken effect.

So I'm sorry that I am pausing to think about this because on one hand, I I understand where this is headed, and by all means, I I will argue that I think this council has made a pretty significant effort to argue for cost recovery.

Um and so I recognize the that the numbers are based off of that.

And so especially when you look at additional spaces that are being utilized beyond the two, especially if transportation feels like two should be sufficient, that there is a direct cost recovery um model tied to that.

Um and then of course, the for the additional two spaces um having a calculation that is reasonable in terms of providing the subsidy for that, I I do appreciate that as well.

It's just hard for me to uh not hear all these numbers and the way they're calculating, and it feels almost too simple.

Um, because it is because it's based on actual revenues.

That's why it's simple.

Yeah, and I and I get that.

Um I think we're also in an era where I think we recognize that there are real consequences to how numbers get set and they will translate to behavior.

I mean, we we we have to pick and choose how we make those choices.

Um I think here I think we're really gonna be entrusting that it it really actually focuses on folks relying on the two spaces, um, which will create some limitations.

Uh I'd be very much curious to revisit this as well at some point in the future, especially as data begins to show us um what those numbers look like.

I mean, I could argue to you that 8 to 10 p.m.

is probably not gonna be the same as the number of other hours that meters are being utilized, and so it's really hard to gauge right the exact cost and that and maybe at the end of the day we're just talking about you know a small difference um in terms of the the cost because on the face value right now the increase is pretty significant.

Um but you know I think these these things do matter at the end of the day.

So I'll I'll see if there are any other comments and and then move from there.

Thank you very much, Vice Chair Lee.

Uh I don't see any comments other than Councilmember Foster.

I'm sorry, where are we at as far as staff's recommendation and motion?

I made a motion, it has not been seconded.

Okay.

I will second the motion.

Thank you.

Okay.

Uh thank you, Councilmember Foster.

Um I will just uh uh make a few comments uh real quick and uh uh our willingness to revisit this, I think is evidenced by the fact that we uh did pass an update to this policy earlier.

We did get feedback that it didn't work uh because when we initially passed this, we limited it to two spaces uh for each valet location, and uh we really heard from the hoteliers that that was unworkable.

Um it was quite persuasive.

And uh based on that feedback, that is why we are back here.

Um I will tell you that uh many of the hotel leaders at that time were very clear about the fact that they were more concerned about the spaces than they were about the cost.

Uh the um collection of valet parking revenues um results in some pretty significant revenue.

Uh but for them it was as much about the customer service aspect of it and the ability to be able to serve their guests uh as anything else.

And so that is why we came back here.

That is why we are here, uh, making it possible for these hotel leaders, particularly some of these larger hoteliers, uh, to be able to have the additional valet parking space.

Um and that is why I'm comfortable uh moving forward today based on what I heard personally uh from folks.

I get that nobody wants to spend more, but I haven't heard save for the fact that it is a significant job and that attention has been called and there was some question about the justification for it.

We've heard an explanation um from the city's perspective about how they got there.

Um I'm comfortable moving forward if for whatever reason down the road we want to take another look at it.

Clearly we have the capacity to do that, but that's why I'm approaching it the way I'm approaching it.

Um let's go back to Councilmember Von Wilbert.

Okay, thank you.

And I'm I definitely want to defer to the council member for this district since we don't have um parking districts up in D5.

Uh I just my request is you know continu before this goes to full council, just continue working with folks at a lodging association um as you've been doing uh to work out some of these questions because maybe not everyone's gonna be paying 14,000 percent increase in a year.

Um but that that's also I'll all support the motion.

Thank you, Councilmember Fogg Wilbur.

Vice Chair Lee.

Thank you, Chair.

Uh, and actually I do want to share my appreciation to the chair for um really diving into this and spending time speaking with stakeholders and trying to find some sense of the balance.

I think I think frankly, what you just said is is what I'm gonna rely on and be comfortable with.

So um appreciate your your work on that front.

Um, I think I I was admittedly a little bit surprised about the convoy Carnivesa component um in terms of the parking meter zone, but I I know that makes sense.

And I mentioned that because uh potential ballet options have been part of the discussion.

And I think there is a reality here that I I would not like to see the need for parking management and the need to address that issue suddenly be deterred simply because of um what what appears like the upfront cost right off the bat.

So um again, the cost recovery is really important.

So I I we're just in that space as a reality, and I appreciate the chair's work um to actually even create these options so that they'd be on the table because otherwise I don't think we'd be here today.

So um happy to support the motion.

Thank you.

Thank you very much, Vice Chair Lee.

All right, we have uh a motion that I made.

It was seconded by councilmember Foster.

Uh clerk, uh please call the role.

Chair item five passes unanimously 4-0.

All right, that brings us to item number six.

If you would please introduce that item, Sarah.

Thank you, Chair.

Item number six, fiscal year 2024 annual report on development impact fees and other city planning managed funds with CIP allocations.

If you're watching on City TV, the live stream online, you'd like to dial in to speak, please call 1669-2545252, inputting webinar ID 160-685-1166 pound.

Chair.

Thank you.

Uh please uh introduce yourselves for the record.

Uh let us know how much time you'd like for your presentation and feel free to begin whenever you're ready.

Good afternoon, everyone.

I'm Samira Rao, Assistant Deputy Director with City Planning Department.

With me today is Brianne Busby, senior engineer, city planning department, and also Heidi Von Blonde, City Planning Director.

Um, I will need around eight to ten minutes for the presentation.

Good afternoon, everyone.

Uh today we bring forward the annual DIF report, uh, on your annual report on development impact fees and other city planning managed funds, uh, in addition to a comprehensive report on development impact fees and other city planning managed funds for fiscal year 2024.

This item includes a request for city council approval to appropriate development impact fee funds towards a list of specific capital improvement projects to further spend down community specific funds that have long long been difficult to expand as well as create a project within the community of Del Mar Mesa.

As discussed briefly, this package includes three items.

The city is required by the mitigation fee act to provide an annual report on development impact fees to the city council.

This act mandates that local agencies with development impact fee programs make specific information available to the public and establish certain findings related to development impact fee funds that have been in the account and allocated for a period of five years or longer.

This annual report will be presented to the city council to satisfy the requirements of the mitigation fee act.

We have also broken out the report to include a separate section for habitat acquisition fee, climate equity fund, and the neighborhood enhancement fee.

In addition, we are requesting city council approval to allocate community-specific def funds that have been in the account for over five years to six specific infrastructure projects in Carmel Valley and Del Mar Mesa.

This will allow the city to expend funds and invest in these communities rather than refunding the fees.

In allocating these funds, we are also asking City Council to create a trails project in Del Mar Mesa in order to expend these community funds as needed in that community.

The report provides information on the type of fees and the amount of fee, beginning and ending fund balance, amount of fees collected and interest earned, projects funded, and any interfund transfers or loans made.

It also provides findings for funds that have been in the fund for over five years and have not yet been allocated.

Development impact fees are fees imposed on projects to cover all or a portion of the cost of public infrastructure needed due to new growth and development.

The report in front of you today is for the fiscal year 2024, and it's important to note that the citywide div fees for parks, mobility, library, and fire were adopted with pipeline clauses to facilitate a smooth transition from community-specific fees to citywide fees.

For this reporting fees, sorry, for this reporting period, all citywide development impact fees for parks, mobility, fire, and library were fully in effect.

However, in addition to the effective date of the adopted programs, State Bill 330 requires that if an application for a development was submitted before the new fees went into effect, the applicant is entitled to the lower of the two fees, meaning that in many instances, applicants continue to pay into the community specific funds.

For that reason, a complete transition from community specific funds to citywide funds is anticipated to take multiple years.

It is, however, important to note that development impact fees are just one of the several funding sources to fund infrastructure and continue to be a critical component and support the capital improvement program's budget to provide the needed infrastructure.

While the report goes into a lot of detail regarding each of the funds, revenue collected and expended, total fees collected for the fiscal year 2024 was around 69.2 million, and the city was able to expend around 94.6 million on infrastructure projects.

This is a step in the right direction as we have been able to successfully expand development impact fee funds on the much needed infrastructure projects across the city.

This is helped significantly by having access to citywide development impact fee funds to be able to make up any funding gaps from community specific funds.

Along with the newly adopted citywide funds, the city has established several specialized funding mechanisms outside of the development impact fee structure to address the emergency uh the emerging priorities.

The habitat acquisition fee dates back to the year to the early 1990s when the city sought to create a consistent program for mitigating development impacts to sensitive biological resources.

In 2020, the neighborhood enhancement in Lou fee was brought as part of the complete communities program, offering a funding pathway in place of constructing required promenades.

Revenue from this fee are restricted to affordable housing preservation, neighborhood recreation amenities, active transportation, and transit infrastructure projects within transit priority areas.

The following year, the climate equity fund was launched to align with the city's climate action plan, directing revenues from franchise fees towards climate resilient infrastructure in communities most vulnerable to climate change.

These programs were adopted independently of citywide and community diff and have been collected under their respective authorizations since their inception.

Our annual report goes into more detail about the amounts collected, expended and balances for each of these funds.

All current financial summaries for funds managed by the city planning department can be found on City of San Diego Planning Financial Summaries web page or by using the QR code on the slide.

One of the actions we are proposing with this item is for council approval for to appropriate community specific funds that have been in the account for over five years toward the following projects.

Please keep in mind that these are funds collected from the community and can only be expanded in the same community in which they were collected unless otherwise called out in the public festives financing plans.

These appropriations will further support the city's efforts to reduce the fund balances in community specific funds.

We will also be requesting city council approval for the formation of the capital improvement program, uh capital improvement project for Del Mar Mesa Resource Management Trails.

As next steps, city planning staff will continue to bring the annual DIF report to the City Council each year and will also work on keeping the citywide development impact Phoenix studies updated and current to meet the infrastructure needs of community members across the city due to new growth and development.

Thank you so much.

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Chair.

We've received four speaker slips here in chambers.

So we will begin testimony with Cesar Javier.

Parita Javier has ceded her time to you.

Each speaker will have two minutes, so I will place four minutes on the clock for you to manage.

We represent 78 residents in our community.

And we are really delighted to learn from this university.

Planning department is encroaching the specialty of the budget.

And government efficiency.

It is encroaching the executive branch.

You know, supposed to be united front as far as the development of our great city.

From the pillars that we refer to in our effort programs, our environment or shell, man, his shelter, our society, mobility transportation, which is one of the shelter being discussed here.

I wonder how we could really focus our intelligence to look at that CIP projects.

We have been attending CPGs.

We just recently participated in Rancho Bernardo Mam.

Your board members are active.

And they were surprised we were we were able to intrude into your privacy there and tell our stories.

Lesson learned.

As far as districts planning group.

They only look after their own district.

They do not even give idea on how to solve others' district, which is related, the same issues occurring in their respective.

That's what our observations are.

And that is the truth.

How shall we work together?

That is the requirement of our constitution.

That's that's the plan.

That is term and condition.

Working together, united.

Ensuring that there is justice for the rich and the poor.

What is happening is look at this.

Mr.

Habier, you're straying somewhat from the topic.

Yes, sir.

I'm sorry.

I am just, you know, emotionally impacted by this learning.

We are hurt every day.

We hear this discussion psychologically, physically, if not.

We come here almost every day spending gasoline, and we we were taxed that violation in parking.

Anyway, we go back.

How come that you can plan?

How come that we could craft a law to implement this?

How come that it looks like it's inadequate, untimely?

It's not a response to the existing problem.

I say this because of the byproducts of our ineptness, forgetfulness, or probably negligence, if I may say that.

People are dying.

People are sick.

They need cure.

They need nutrition.

They need clean air.

They need clean food.

They need clean and shaped neighborhood.

This is all about what we are discussing as far as mobility and circulation.

We cannot circulate.

We are packed like sergeants.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Our next speaker is Jeff Johnson, and you have been seated time by Ashley Harrington.

Ashley, can you please raise your hand?

Thank you.

So I will place four minutes on the clock for you to manage.

That extra two minutes cost me a lunch.

Well, good afternoon, Council, or committee, I guess.

My name is Jeff Johnson.

I'm the chair of the Mission Bay Park Committee, and I'm here speaking as an individual, not having anything to do with the committee, except for one example.

As I sat out here in the audience this afternoon, you know, I hear mentions of cost recovery, parking fee increases and stuff like that.

And I'm not here speaking in opposition or support of this item.

I'm here to make a request.

And that request is balance all of the effort to find additional revenue with efficiency, using the dollars that you take in more efficiently, saving where you can.

And for the years I've been on Mission Bay Park Committee, as someone who's an outsider, not involved in city politics, don't work inside City Hall, relative neophyte when it comes to how all this stuff works.

I run into situations like I saw in the in the uh presentation.

Comfort stations.

We rebuild comfort stations in Michigan Bay Park constantly.

All the old 60s ones getting wiped out.

And we're buying for what, $650,000 delivered these pre-fab comfort stations that are being delivered on a truck.

We're spending an additional eight hundred thousand dollars per comfort station in all the bureaucracy, all the planning, all the design work for something that we're buying the same thing over and over again.

Like we're not taking the plan off the shelf for the bathroom in one part of the park and just tearing off the front page and putting on a new picture and a new address and reusing the same plans and saving the city a half a million dollars in bureaucratic overhead to get another bathroom done, money that could be spent doing another project, handling another issue.

It's there there are situations in this city where there's low-hanging fruit that if you guys just championed some efficiency in working with the revenue that you're taking in with all these increases, I think we'd be a lot better off.

You know, that's like you know, like I hate politics.

Right.

Everything is through the lens of left or right.

We're all San Diegans, we're all on the airplane.

If it hits the mountain, we're all affected.

And I would like this council to champion the idea of reaching into the departments that work within the city and finding opportunities to save money, not just increase revenue and continue business as usual.

Thank you very much.

Thank you for your testimony.

I'll begin the five-minute timer for all those in the virtual queue to indicate if they wish to provide public comment for item number six.

We will begin testimony with phone number ending in 870.

You can unmute by pressing star six, and you will have two minutes.

Thank you, Sarah.

Joyce and Yata District 3.

Uh, first of all, this popped up just now from the man in the blue jacket.

I really appreciated what he said.

Um a lot of it was for me was right on point.

And so I wanted to thank him for that.

And uh I'm gonna re-listen to him uh over the weekend, and uh, but I I he's on point for me in several areas.

So thank you for that.

And now on this item, more on this.

Uh, first of all, Heidi and the rest of the team.

I love your work.

I watched you go through some very dicey from very complex issues.

You do a great job.

You get a five-star award for your work.

I thank you so very much.

And of course, this is more great work from you.

So with just one question on the in move fee.

Um, I didn't look in detail at the whole backup, but that one popped up to me.

Uh, and when you went to the end of the chart and you showed for a 2024, I believe it was one million uh four hundred and some thousand, and then for 2025, it went down to 200 and some thousand.

So that must have been extended, about one million two hundred was expended.

So I was just curious to know what affordable housing that one million two hundred was spent on.

Maybe I'm not reading the chart well.

I'm not good at statistics, but in any case, uh, I've followed in Lu fees and did not like them from the very beginning in 05 when I worked with C C D C.

I I had I struggled with them.

But in any case, uh I think we've made progress.

And uh if that's the total fund balance, that's pretty low.

And so we've obviously expended a lot on affordable housing.

So we thank you for anything you do for affordable housing, and thank you for the presentation.

Uh, love to all.

Thank you for your testimony, and chair.

This concludes public comment for item number six.

Thank you very much, Sarah.

Thank you to the members of the public for participating.

We'll turn it over to the committee members for questions and comments, and we'll entertain a motion.

We will begin with Councilmember von Wolbert.

Uh thank you very much for the presentation.

And I have um a couple of questions.

Thank you also for serving on planning commission.

That's never easy.

We appreciate you, and thank you for your comments today.

If we could bring up slide number seven first.

This one, what what year is this?

It's the reporting period, FY2024.

FY2024.

So can you go down to the next slide then, please?

The one above says total diff collected 69.2 million.

But this first column here says total community diff 39 million.

That's because uh the total diff collected is a combination of community diff as well as citywide diffs.

And so uh if we added the 39 million with 14 million and all the other line items, then that should total up to the 69.2 million dollars.

Okay, so explain that again.

Uh so total community diff is just the community diff, but the 69.2 million dollars is all development impact fees, which includes citywide development impact fees as well as regional transportation um congestion improvement program and everything that is a diff, not just community diff.

So we would have to add the rows here.

It would be 39 million plus 14 million plus 153, 992, citywide mobility 4.6, active transportation in Luffy, and regional transportation congestion improvement program.

So if we combined all that one, two, three, four, five, six, seven rows, and that should be sixty-nine point two million dollars.

Okay, and the community diffs, I thought we eliminated those since we went to citywide.

I I can um try to explain this a little bit more clearly.

It is very complicated because we have state law requirements um as well as the transition that we're still transitioning from community based um to development impact fees citywide.

This should have been the first reporting year where we had all citywide diffs, but because we are constrained by state laws, specifically SB330, which requires us to charge the lower of the two fees if an application had been submitted prior to the time that the new citywide fees were adopted.

We are still collecting citywide.

I mean, sorry, we are still collecting community-based diff, and we will continue to be required to do that for several years into the future.

However, as time goes along, we are transitioning and making that transition.

We are just highly constrained by state law.

Okay, and the community diffs need to be used in those communities, or can it go to the correct?

That is correct.

So those fees are essentially the lower of the two fees, the applicants are choosing to pay the lower of the two fees.

And because the calculation for those fees is based off of the calculation made for the community-based diff, we are continuing to be constrained to spend that funding for the purpose for which it is being collected.

It is basically state law has caused us to draw out our uh implementation and transition away from community-based diff into citywide diff.

Okay, I don't think I was familiar with that when we voted on the citywide diff that state law would be requiring us to do this.

So then we in this chart, the cash balance at the end of FY24 was 425 million dollars in the community diffs alone.

Um that is correct, yes.

That's a lot of money that we're not spending.

Um again, it's just cash balance.

Um, cash balance is different from fund balance.

So a majority of the uh money is already allocated to projects.

What is unallocated, what was unallocated at the end of fiscal year 2024 is the 172 million dollars.

So everything apart from that 172 million dollars was already allocated to projects and was just waiting to be expanded as those projects incur expenditures and get invoices that need to be paid out, and that balance is further come down to 158 million dollars as of June of 2025.

So we are actively working with Department of Finance and Engineering and Capital Projects to allocate community diff funds to projects that to make sure that we are in full compliance with the mitigation fee act as well as our public festive financing plans to make sure that funds are only going towards projects for which the fees were collected.

And council member, if I can just add to that, it it seems a little bit um like we're never gonna be able to transition out of this because of this delayed implementation, but as Samira has stated, and we can provide you with specific facts, and we'll make sure we come back with the specific numbers for council.

But as Samira has stated, and we can provide you with specific facts, and we'll make sure we come back with the specific numbers for council.

The amount of unappropriate and unexpended funds before we move to citywide fees was astronomically higher than the amount that we are at now.

We've made significant progress in spending down that community-based uh diff.

This is the reporting year ending FY 24.

And so this does not include allocations that have been made from that.

We tried to add just for your purposes this right hand column to show that the fund balances have um you know come down further.

And then in the in a positive note, Samara, I don't know if we have another slide on there, but in terms of citywide diff that has come in versus citywide diff that has been expended, we are almost able to expand citywide diff that we receive near instantly.

Which was the goal of the goal.

So it's so my kind of my point too is that it is not perfect and it is a frustratingly slow transition, but in terms of the overall transition, there is significant success seen from that citywide uh fee fund, and we are receiving revenues into that fund, and the proportion that we receive into that fund versus the community diff will continue to increase as the years advance.

Okay.

Uh no, and that's good news on that front.

I am still worried about this cash balance because even though it's expenditive funds, it's still sitting in the city's coffers.

Right.

So that is correct.

The kind of process to spend down funding is that it's allocated or appropriated, and then from appropriate appropriations that is spent, but we can't spend money until it's been appropriated.

So the first step was to get the items appropriated, and then our partners and our asset managing departments and engineering capital projects are working to get the improvements actually built, and that's when you will see the cash balances decrease further.

Okay, none of this can be used for ONM, right?

It all has to be for new construction.

That is correct.

How much of that 425 million can be used for fire stations?

It depends.

Um, in each of the different community funds, this was one of the significant challenges we face with community-based DIF is it depended on which community it was, and it depended on which uh facilities those fees were based off of at the time that they were collected.

So, kind of off the top of my head, I I can't I can't give you a precise answer on that.

The answer is it depends on the community, um, and it depends on what the fund balances are, um, and it depends on if there was a fire station anticipated and which the fee was based upon at the time that they originally adopted.

With respect to the fire stations from the citywide uh development impact fees for fire, uh, we do have that number on here that numbers that there's a current fund balance of 1.9 million dollars.

Yeah, we only collected a million dollars last year for fire rescue.

So let's see.

That was for fiscal year 24.

There was additional revenue that did come into the fund in FY25, which will be back here with another report for that one.

Um, and then we do anticipate additional revenues.

I would also like to note um that we're currently working on updating our citywide fees, and we plan to be in front of this council next spring to discuss um additional amendments to the Nexus studies for the citywide fees.

Um, and so we can have ongoing discussions with your office if you would like about the methodologies in particular for the fire development impact fees.

Yeah, we we can't build a fire station or any fire stations with this amount of money.

Um the other thing I also do need to highlight is that uh development impact fees are never going to build um all of the needed facilities across the city.

Development impact fees are necessarily constricted to uh being related to the impacts of new development.

We all know that there are existing deficiencies in our infrastructure across the city, and development impact fees cannot be used as a basis to form the the new funding.

If we had gone back a couple of decades ago and we were looking at a type of development that was entirely greenfield development, we could attribute 100% of the cost of facilities to new development, and we could expect for development impact fees to fund that infrastructure.

We are not in that place.

We are a largely built-out city, we are seeing largely in-filled development, and we are a city that has substantial existing deficiencies in infrastructure.

Development impact fees make up about five to ten percent of the total CIP budget for funding infrastructure.

So it is it is it is never going to be a reality where development impact fees are funding the full cost of fire stations.

So I just want to set that expectation.

Yes, but how are we collecting 14 million for parks and only 900,000 for fire stations when it comes to collecting money, public safety should really come first?

So it is based off of Nexus studies, and it's based off of the methodology for that.

For the parks fees that across the city have historically always been the most significant portion of development impact fees because they are directly attributable to you know that particular project.

The calculation for the fire is a little bit more complicated, um, especially as we've moved into this um you know phase where we you know have some level of existing deficiencies, we have existing needs that have nothing to do with new development.

So we cannot attribute the same proportion of those fees to the need for the fire facilities.

What we really need if we want to talk about constructing these improvements that the city absolutely needs is we need to have that discussion through the larger capital improvement program budget again, development impact fees.

Kind of unfortunately, we're bringing this item to you in a vacuum without the larger context of the total budget.

And the reason why we do that is because we are required to do that under a state reporting law.

Okay.

Um, let me collect answer more questions.

Thank you.

Thank you, Councilmember Wolper.

Let's go to the Vice Chair Lee.

Thank you, Chair.

Um, I'll start off by moving the staff's recommendation on this item.

Um, and want to thank uh you for the presentation, the detailed staff report, um, and then also just really answering a lot of these questions.

Because I I think when we look at the data and some of the challenges that you're facing in the transition from community diffs to citywide, it's apparent that that is that challenge is greater than probably was anticipated.

I think at some point we will all breathe a sigh of a relief when it's fully completed and we're fully in the new system because I I think looking back, it'll be a little bit easier to see where the uh positives are in terms of how we've chosen to move forward.

Um I I think we've we've talked a lot about the grand jury reports that come relating to development impact fees.

And so for me to be able to see that um that with that big cash balance that we have the fund balance down to an amount that is a significant change compared to you know, say a decade ago, um shows that we're we're getting money allocated out into projects.

Um I have a big one in my district that took almost 20 years to collect in DIF fees and FBA um fund money, and it relied on waiting for development to actually take place in order to allow for that to happen.

Um, and it's always so frustrating to explain to people the limitations that we had because literally we could not move forward with this major community park project until there was a significant amount of development to fund what was envisioned for it, and it took you know 20 years.

And I can bet that the costs in that time frame also had increased exponentially and just made it even harder because we were basically catching up through this whole time.

So I I want to reflect on a couple of examples that I I think when you look at this report that are really relevant to each of our communities, and and it shows why we can be really constrained when it comes to community uh diffs in University City.

Um, as an example, um, there's a project that we had an opportunity to get groundbreak on this last year from Marcy Neighborhood Park.

Again, a project that was really demanded by community members and pushed for for a better part of a decade.

And the only reason it finally kicked off was because the last three quarter of a million dollars was funded out of the new citywide diff.

There is no additional development currently in South University City that would have funded that remaining balance.

And if we just relied on defunding, we would have just sat.

Um, in the meanwhile, in North University City, there's a diff and FBA balance that's now like 40 million dollars, and that has continued to grow because until the plan update was completed, there's not been we've not successfully charted out a plan that would entail the expenditure of those CIF funds, and I'm really hopeful because the community's always been asking how is it that we have this huge balance up here and a very little balance down south, um, that we begin seeing that actually expended um in support of the community, and knowing that we have the the backstop of the citywide diff to move that forward as well.

In Mira Mesa, again, I think similar picture.

There's that diff fund the balance at FY24, I think, uh is a little tricky to see because it's in the 50 million dollar range, but now this year, much of that is being expended through the new Mira Mason Community Park Phase 2 project, uh, which is in that dollar range.

Um, and so I do want to think that a number of the projects that the community has been expecting and asking for, in some cases for better part of a decade or longer made a list of them here.

The Aquarius and communal rubies traffic signal was one that was um funded through um FBA funds I believe and it came on the tail of a number of accidents that were taking place on that specific corner.

So it was just nice to see that moved forward.

We've talked about the park project uh a number of um efforts to think about the future of Carroll Canyon Road are still underway at the moment and I think the one thing the community recognizes is that that is an area where we we simply don't have we will not have ex um remaining FBA or DIF funds left to support that project there's a huge necessity to it because the plan update um had Carroll Canyon Road going through from the 805 to the 15 it's a decades long effort um but I'm committed to trying to work even within our challenged resources in the years ahead to figure out how we can continue to move that forward because as the community grows that will be absolutely necessary to to find a vision to complete so um so I do again want to thank the department for really taking their really working to manage this and to to begin getting funds allocated to projects and I think I'm most excited to hear that in with the new citywide diff you're you're now facing this opposite problem where we're not pulling tens and then hundreds of millions of dollars that just sit but we're actually getting those dollars out for projects and again that is the only reason why Marcy neighborhood park broke ground last year was because Citywide Diff finally was able to fill the the remaining gap so again with that said happy to move the ummiddle and thank you chair thank you Vice Chair Lee Council member Foster uh yes thank you um I guess I I don't know if I missed it in the report um but as we talk about community diff versus citywide do we have a better um target as to when the community will sunset and we will have the citywide like is there do we have a timeline actually targeted out on say a schedule right can we have you seems like ENCP should be able to come up with a schedule so at least we have something that we're tracking against to monitor.

So I I think there's two parts to your question one of them is do we know when we can stop collecting community based diff and the answer is the soonest we can stop doing that is I believe 2029 and that is because that is because that is when SB330 sunsets there was an extension to FB330 that SP 330 that would have previously sunset it earlier and the state extended that.

So that that's kind of where we are from our you know regulatory landscape there.

The second um answer to that though is where community based diff is still being collected varies across the city and the answer is where fees were generally lower than the citywide diff, that is where we're still continuing to see city uh community based diff in place.

And where the citywide diff resulted in a fee decrease that that is where we are getting the revenue into the citywide um diff.

Because of the complexities of the system that we had in place for decades with respect to over 40 different community based diff funds the answer about how much money is available for what it depends according to the community so they're very complicated answers but kind of a long and short answer to your question is when will we see a full phase out of it it is when SB330 phases out.

Okay so the driver is and that also assumes that there's not an additional regulatory extension.

Okay and and thank you for that because my next my follow-up is and and I just I'm just gonna ask I just want to make sure we are not we don't have anything built in our policies that is adding to that timeline.

It is just solely SBT it is a hundred percent driven by state law and nothing in our local regulations.

Okay so even if there's some projects where we sometimes where we say you know what submit your you can pay your DIF fees in a three years after the fact or as we're prolonging nothing with nothing and in fact so we're clear fees have to be paid at final inspection there's no extension from that.

Okay.

Okay.

Very good um I think I'm uh clear as mud on on what this is um I would agree you know I think it would have been probably some further discussion when we were moving to the citywide to truly understand just what the impact was because I was not if you go back in time I wouldn't have said oh we'll be here till 2029 struggling through this process right um the the one last question I will ask is and what's very interesting as we look to allocate diff fees it seems like there's a clear distinction on say infrastructure that is things we should have been maintaining right in in and taking care of that we can't go back and use these to say hey we need to address this my question is a little nuanced what about where we have things that are where because of I I guess is there a line to where we may have something that was built under one set of regulations that says you need to meet this capacity and then we have time has gone on we've taken on more density now we have to increase capacity of our system

We can't go back and use these two, say, hey, we need to address this.

My question is a little nuanced.

What about where we have things that are where because of I I guess is there a line to where we may have something that was built under one set of regulations that says you need to meet this capacity, and then we have time has gone on, we've taken on more density, and now we have to increase capacity of our system.

Is that increased capacity able to do that versus just kind of a movement replacing the case?

The answer is generally yes.

So, with respect to the citywide fees, yes.

With respect to the community-based fees, yes, if it was planned for in the underlying facilities financing plan for that community-based diff.

The community-based IFs are significantly more constrained in what we can allocate their uses for than the citywide diff.

And if if you'll allow me just one minute to say that while I understand the frustration with the slow implementation and transition, if we had not made that transition in 2021 and 2022, we would be even further behind in the transition.

Okay.

Um understood.

Um I I guess I'll end there, um, turn it back over to the chair.

Thank you, Heidi, as always, for your clarification.

Thank you, Councilmember Foster.

Let's go back to Councilmember Vogue Wilbert.

Thank you.

Um thank you, Heidi and your team for having to go through all these things and deal with state law as well, which is never helpful for us when they make decisions about how we can do our own infrastructure here in the city.

But I do have a question about the next Nexus study and whether or not we're going to be putting in the overall fire rescue training facility that we need to build into that study because we will be demolishing ours soon when the appropriate broader phase two comes in.

So will the diff be able to pay for that?

So it's not a question of will it be able to pay for a facility or not, it's a question of what percent of the total cost of the facility will be able to be paid for.

So for any new facility, it's not going to be 100% of the cost.

Correct, but if but it would be an up, it would be a project that would be eligible because it would be expanding fire services.

So we currently are working, our staff has been working um to develop an update to the Nexus studies for all four of the citywide uh development impact fees.

Um, and um, I think we probably pretty soon um could provide you with an initial briefing if you're interested in any of the particular details for the methodologies.

Okay.

We'll follow up.

Okay, okay.

Um, and I think we might might need to be increasing some of the fees we charge.

I'm hearing from developers of my district, because a lot of the infill is going up into the suburban areas, they're paying less now than they would have under the community diff because the citywide diff is less for them.

And so if it's up in areas such as D5, they should, in my opinion, be paying the old amount because it's infrastructure we need.

So we look forward to having a lively discussion uh in early 2026.

Okay, all right, thank you.

Appreciate it.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much, Councilmember Von Welpert.

All right, seeing no further discussion, we have a motion by Vice Chair Lee.

I will second that motion.

Uh clerk, please call the roll.

And item number six passes unanimously four zero.

Thank you, Sarah.

Uh let's move on to item number seven.

Thank you, Chair.

Informational item number seven is the assessment of the city's current construction bid environment.

If you're watching on City TV or the live stream online, and you'd like to dial in to speak, please call 1669-2545252.

Inputting webinar ID 160-685-1166 pound, Chair.

Thank you, Sarah.

All right, please uh introduce yourselves for the record and let us know how much time you would like for your presentation and feel free to begin whenever you're ready to go.

Thank you, Chair Witburn.

I can handle introductions and stuff gets situated.

Um, I am Donnie Wynne with the office of the IBA.

Along with me today is Aaron Noel and Sergi Alcalde.

We will be presenting an information item on the assessment of the city's current construction bid environment.

We'll need about 15 minutes, and Aaron will go ahead and start us off.

Thank you, and good afternoon.

As Donnie mentioned, I'm Aaron Noel with the office of the IBA.

Um, so we're here to discuss our June 18th report on the city's current construction bid environment.

Over the past several years, the city has faced rising construction costs, reduced competition in the bidding process, and an increase in the frequency of solicitation rebids.

These challenges have the potential to delay project delivery, reduce the city's purchasing power, and limit the effectiveness of the CIP.

In response to these concerns, our office conducted a comprehensive review of the city's current construction bid environment.

And our report, IBA Report 2527 provides this assessment based on a detailed analysis of contract award data from FY 2017 through FY 2025.

We also examined internal processes and policy factors that may be contributing to these trends, as well as benchmarking with other public agencies in the San Diego region to see if they're experiencing similar trends.

We'll discuss our analysis and findings in more detail during this briefing, but overall, the data is showing us a decline in bidder participation over time, with the average number of bids per construction contract falling from 4.5 in FY 2017 to 3.1 in FY 2025.

And we're also seeing fewer bids coming in for certain project types.

We're seeing a reduction in competition is correlated with the higher award costs, and this is evidenced through a growing share of contracts exceeding the engineer's estimate, as well as increased use significantly of emergency contracts over the time period.

Also, we note the percentage of contracts that require rebidding has increased over time, often driven by non-responsive bids, unclear project scopes, or funding limitations.

And last but not least, a small number of contractors appear to receive a disproportionate share of awards, and we note a large portion of which is for emergency work.

So we'll provide a summary of our report.

We'll start with the results of our analysis, and we'll conclude with key findings and recommendations.

While the number of contracts varied from year to year based on the size of the CIP budget and the types of projects prioritized, the total dollar value increased by 157.9% from 29, 297.7 million dollars in FY 2017 to 767.8 million dollars in FY2025.

Just changing our focus to emergency contracts, the chart shows here the total dollar value of emergency contracts has increased by over 1,550% over the nine-year period, rising from $1.1 million in FY 2017 to $84.5 million in FY 2025.

And this is primarily driven by a growing reliance on emergency contracting to address aging infrastructure, public utilities assets, and stormwater systems failure.

As you know, emergency contracts often cost more than standard contracts due to the urgency, unpredictability, and resource demands that are involved.

A key indicator of the city's construction bid environment is the number of bids received per solicitation.

Bid participation directly affects competition, pricing, and project delivery outcomes.

We analyze trends in bid volume from FY 2017 through FY 2025, highlighting a steady decline in average bid counts and its correlation with rising award costs, rebid frequency, and reduced mark and participation.

So it's shown in the table, the average bid per awarded contract dropped from 4.5 in FY 2017 to just 3.1, and this was in FY FY 2024 and 25.

This is likely due to a number of both external market conditions and internal factors, which showed Sergio will discuss later.

Now just let's move to rising prices.

While bids within 10% of an engineer's estimate are generally considered acceptable, any recent many recent awards have exceeded this threshold.

The table shows that design bid build contracts awarded more than 10% above the engineer's estimate have increased from 28% in FY 2017 to 53% in FY 2025.

For FY23 through 25, more than 40% of the awarded contracts exceeded the engineer's estimate by more than 10%.

So our analysis reveals that certain project types consistently receive fewer bids, typically just one to three per solicitation, making them more vulnerable to cost escalation, rebids, and delays.

The table here summarizes these findings.

Project types which generally receive three or fewer bids include sloracial, water and sewer pipelines, and traffic signals and street lights.

Now let's discuss rebid rates.

Over the time period, the average rate for all awarded contracts needing to be rebid is 16%.

As the chart shows, rebid rates peaked in FY 2022 at 25% and 2023 at 21%.

The chart also shows the most frequent causes for rebids, and these include no responsive bidders, which occurred in 29% of the cases, and flawed solicitations, which uh occurred in 20% of the cases.

Notably, for 19% of cases, staff could not identify a clear justification for rebids due to insufficient information.

Now I'll hand it off to Sergio to discuss the factors why we are seeing fewer bids and higher costs.

Thanks, Aaron.

Based on the data and the discussions we'd had with city staff, different government entities within the region, and the association of general contractors or AGC, our office identified several factors that are contributing to the decline in bidder participation.

These include labor and capacity constraints.

Contractors in the region are facing workforce shortages, making it tough for them to take on new projects.

And according to a recent AGC presentation, the construction labor market in San Diego remains tight, and while some cost pressures may be stabilizing, capacity remains constrained given the abundance of available infrastructure work in the region.

Next is project complexity and risk.

Large or unbundled, sorry, large or bundled projects can deter smaller firms or firms without strong financial backing.

Also, if the scope is unclear and niche or seen as risky, contractors might either build in a risk premium or decide not to bid at all.

Next is administrative and program requirements.

So contractors have shared unclear bid documents, complex contract and labor compliance requirements such as the PLA can be discouraging.

Now we have market saturation and timing conflicts.

The city's bid schedule may overlap with other regional agencies, creating competition for the same pool of contractors.

Additionally, staff have meant have noted that the city has issued several solicitations for the same type of work at the same time, which can lead to market saturation.

And lastly, perceived administrative delays.

Delays in award decisions, change order processing or city payment timeline may also discourage contractors.

Our analysis also shows that a substantial portion of contracts were awarded to a small group of contractors.

On average, the top 10 firms received 40% of total contracts awarded each year and received about 35% of total dollars awarded.

Notably, 40% of those contracts were for emergency contracts.

Many of these firms are on the city's pre-qualified emergency contractor rotation list, which allows them to receive time-sensitive awards outside the standard competitive bid process.

This level of concentration of emergency work among these firms is significant and may warrant policy review to expand competition and market access.

Starting with the small or emerging local business enterprise program.

This program is intended to increase access to city contracts, diversified competition, and increase the firm's capacity capacity to compete.

Recently, to help reduce disqualifications, the city shifted away from a past fail approach to a point system instead.

That said, requirements to comply with this program still has some administrative complexity and risk for bidders.

Moving on to the city's project labor agreement or PLA.

Adopted in 2023, the PLA is intended to ensure fair wages from local hiring and support workforce development goals by requiring contractors to follow specific labor standards.

Right now we're in a two-year ramp-up period, giving firms time to adjust to these new requirements.

And at this stage, the PLA applies only to large-scale projects valued at $5 million or more.

However, starting July 1st, 2026, the PLA will apply to all projects over $1 million.

We note that the requirements imposed by the PLA may increase complexity of bidding and project execution, particularly for non-union or smaller firms.

Since the PLA was only recently adopted, it's still too early to determine whether it has directly impacted the number of bidders or amounts of their bids.

As the PLA expands to cover more projects, however, it will be important to report on its impacts as soon as possible.

To get a better sense of whether the city's construction bid challenges are unique or a part of a broader regional trend, our office reached out to peer agencies in the San Diego region, including Sandag, the county, the port, and the cities of Carlsbat, Chulovista, and Notion Side.

What we found is that most agencies are facing similar issues.

These trends were often attributed to inflation, labor shortages, administrative delays, and the complexity of labor compliance requirements, such as PLAs and small business participation goals.

These agencies also share the strategies they are using to address these challenges.

These include updating cost estimates at multiple design milestones, coordinating bid schedules regionally to avoid market saturation, simplifying bid documents to reduce disqualifications, and improving program level data tracking to better identify trends and inform future procurement decisions.

Now I'll hand it over to Don Yuen to cover major takeaways and recommendations.

Thank you, Sergio.

I'll walk through five key findings with recommendations.

The first key finding is strong correlation with fewer bids leading to higher price and more rebids.

To counter this, the city should focus on improving project timing by implementing a central bid calendar, shared across departments and regional partners and setting deadlines to avoid overlapping large projects.

The city sets a certain amount of goals each year, and if there's any delays, any solicitation that could lead to a high number of solicitations at the end of the fiscal year, which could saturate our own market, and contractors are in a rush to provide those bids, which could lead to errors.

So by staggering major solicitations across quarters to prevent market saturation.

Providing early forecasts for of upcoming projects so contractors can develop competitive and accurate bids.

The city should also regularly assess market capacity when deciding whether to bundle or on the bundle projects.

There can be benefits to bundling projects, such as streamlining processes, taking advantage of economies of scale, and limiting impacts to the community.

However, a large scope can limit the number of bidders, and if those contractors get busy or face issues with resources, it can lead to increased bids to compensate.

In certain cases, splitting projects into smaller packages can draw more bidders and create more opportunities for SLBE and ELB participation.

By staggering solicitations, coordinating across agencies, and finding the happy medium between project size and market capacity, the city can avoid flooding the market, give contractors time to prepare quality bids, increase competition and give cost and keep costs closer to engineering estimates.

As Aaron mentioned, the share of rebid and council solicitations rose between 2017 and 2025, mainly due to unclear scopes, non-responsive bids, or bids over budget, all which have costly delays.

To address this, the city should keep a central log of every rebid with clear reasons, continue to update engineer estimates at key design points using current market data, and make bid documents clear and consistent through peer reviews, peer reviews and checklists.

Purchasing contracting should also hold post-bid debriefs after each rebid to capture lessons learned for future solicitations.

The goal here is to sharpen estimates, reduce errors, and improve competition so projects move forward on time and within budget.

Another key finding is that the small group of contractors are winning a large share of city projects, reinforced by the city's reliance on a pre-qualified emergency list.

While these firms are capable, heavy dependence on a limited pool reduces competition and can raise costs.

To address this, the city should analyze award data regularly to spot concentration and then use that insight for targeted outreach, pre-bid meetings, and info sessions to track new smaller and out-of-area bidders.

Purchasing contracting should also give city council regular updates on award trends and emergency contract use to improve transparency and help guide future procurement strategies.

The city's SLBE, ELB program and project leader agreement support equity and workforce goals, but can also add another layer of complexity that can affect bidding.

The PLA is still new, so its full impact is on participation and pricing isn't clear yet.

Though contractors have raised concerns.

The city should track the cost and impact of both programs, review whether recent scoring changes are improving responsiveness, and monitor how PLA affects competition as more data becomes available.

Providing clear guidance and targeted training will help contractors, especially small or first-time bidders navigate these requirements, and regular policy review will allow timely adjustment to balance equity goals with healthy competition and cost control.

The final takeaway is the city's gaps in internal data systems.

There is no single place to track key metrics like bid response rates, variance from engineers' estimates, war timelines, and rebid frequencies.

This is an area where we had difficulties in in our analysis, attract uh trying to retrieve different analysis from different databases.

Um a lot of times most of the time um inconsistent data or missing data altogether.

Um I would like to note that this is not privy to only city of San Diego in conversations with all other local agencies.

Um there is no central system to track all this data.

It's either a large uh manual spreadsheet or database.

Um because the data is scattered, staff cannot easily spot trends and make it challenging to make informed decisions to address this.

The city should create real-time dashboards and reporting tools accessible to engineering capital projects, purchasing contracting, and asset management departments, so everyone can monitor performance, improve coordination, and base decision on consistent data.

In conclusion, the IBA report was prepared in response to growing concerns of the city's construction bid environment.

Our report highlights several factors that are driving fewer bidders and highlight costs on city construction projects.

Some challenges like inflation, labor shortages, terrors, and supply chain issues may be beyond the city's control, but there are internal processes and policies that can be improved.

The takeaways and recommendations in the report are designed to help the city improve big competitiveness, strength cost strengthen cost predictability, and support more efficient project delivery.

We thank you for your time and attention.

We are here, we are available to answer any questions along today with us as engineering capital projects and purchasing and contracting.

Thank you.

Do we have any public comment on this item?

Thank you, Chair.

Yes, we've received two slips here in chambers.

Cesar Javier, if you will please approach the electron.

Farita Javier has indicated she wishes to cede her time to you.

Each speaker will have one minute, so I will place two minutes on the clock for you to manage to speak to item number seven.

I will just give an example regarding this item.

In our community, this is about the infrastructure, Mr.

Chair.

I could insert my head into the storm drain.

It's a big opening.

There is no system of sipping, catching debris.

In the long term, you will be buying a sophisticated equipment to suck this debris.

At least without tearing those underground manhole, infrastructure, contracting business.

Come on.

Let's think twice.

Thrice.

Let's put screen.

That's our offer to you, solution, because we are one San Diego.

Please, San Diegans, please, lawful authority, do not restrain us for whatever reason for stopping us retaliating over us seniors when we are only trying to voice how hurting.

How excruciating the performance of the leadership of this San Diego City.

Where is the mayor?

Please come out.

We are heard.

We tell all the words of the recipe to ease our pain, seniors in a community predominantly Asian, Latinos.

Thank you.

Thank you.

And Chair seeing no hands up in the virtual queue and that exhausting testimony here in chambers.

That concludes comment for item number seven.

Thank you, Sarah.

We will now turn it over to the committee for any questions or comments.

This is an informational item, so no motion is necessary.

Appreciate the findings of the recommendations and will look forward to uh continued follow up.

Let's go to Councilmember Bodwilford.

Thank you.

And thank you so much to the IBA for your work on this.

And thank you also to our city engineer, Ronnie Dumen.

It's been a lot to try and wrap everyone's hands around what happened with the pandemic and supply chains and inflation at the same time.

We're years out from that now.

So we're still trying to figure out why these were costing so much more than they were before.

I mean, the price of paving a road has gone up much higher than most products for inflation.

And so paving a road is not more complicated post the pandemic.

And why is it that the bidders coming back are continuing to increase their prices?

Um I do have a question about the receiving bids above the engineers' estimate from about 28% a few years ago to over 50% of the bids are coming back above our engineers' estimate this year.

So can ENCP shares what steps your team is taking to strengthen our cost estimating so when the bids go out, we get responsive bidders.

Good afternoon, Luis Our Assistant Director, Engineering Capital Projects Department.

Um sorry.

That one's higher.

Okay, hopefully that's better.

All right, thank you.

Um yeah, first let me start with um this goes beyond, I think, being a regional discussion.

It's actually a discussion that we're seeing up and down the state.

The engineering capital projects department does participate in a statewide benchmarking committee meeting where we meet with similar-sized agencies to compare notes, especially on this topic.

This is one of the things that we look at exclusively to talk about soft costs, talk about estimates, um, and comparing same deliverable methods, delivery methods in order to come to a conclusion of comparable information.

And so we've been discussing this for quite a bit some time because you mentioned the pandemic now has passed, although we're still seeing the effects of that, and why is that?

Um at the beginning, what we did see a lot of the volatility had to do with there was so much infrastructure dollars coming in, and the industry couldn't keep up really.

There was so much work out there, and so they had an opportunity really to bid higher than they typically would because we weren't getting as many bids.

At this point in time, I think what we're seeing now is that there's still a little bit of that volatility left.

There's still some uh contractors in different uh sectors that can be selective to the work that they want to perform.

And so you're still seeing some remnants of that.

Um we are also now working with consultants as well to provide more QAQC for those estimates.

And we find though that even by working with consultants, we're still seeing those increases.

So it's not so much that the work that our in-house engineers were doing wasn't was not up to par with current trends.

I think it's just a it's an industry issue that we're seeing that it's very difficult because of volatility, even with per trained professional consultants to come to those numbers within acceptable percentages.

But again, having said all that, we have seen some success stories this year, even though maybe this data doesn't fully reflect that.

But we have seen some projects that have been near our engineers' estimate within 10% or less, which is something that we have not been seeing too much in previous years.

So we are starting to see a little bit of movement in the right direction.

Um, but we continue to use our resources.

Um we're gonna do additional training with staff, of course, and use our consultants to help us and bring that back.

Um, but again, we also work with our agency partners too to see exactly what um opportunities they're looking at so that we can adopt those that have been successful.

Okay.

Um I'm glad you're gonna continue to monitor it because it's so it's very frustrating, I'm sure, for you as well when you put out a bid and nothing comes back at the reasonable price, and then we have to redo the whole thing.

Um can I ask also why the stormwater projects?

We had so many more emergencies this year than we seem to have before, and we were investing in a second in-house pipe repair team that I thought was helping, but that graph showing how many stormwater emergencies we had this year was kind of shocking.

Yeah, I mean, really, we're still seeing the impacts of the two of January 2024 storms to this day.

The significant amount of emergency projects we're seeing is staggering compared to previous years.

Um it's just that you know, we have currently um a system right now that can be severely impacted by storms of those intensities.

And sometimes it could be that the storm just causes certain type of damage and then it just takes the next storm to take it to that point where it becomes an emergency.

So, unfortunately, the the um the condition of our stormwater infrastructure is is really sensitive to those types of storms.

Okay, are other cities seeing this too?

Yeah, I I think um it's the lack of prior investments in this particular infrastructure.

This is all correlated mouth pipes, like that reaching its useful lifetime, and then just it takes one heavy storm event, it just uh collapse that the whole remaining of the core the eroded pipe and saw cause sinkholes and then require us to respond to those emergency.

So that's been the the main trend for all those stormwater emergency projects is mainly the CMP pipe that is uh been failing uh repeatedly.

Okay.

And in terms of the number of bidders we have on well, that you don't bid those out, an emergency contract, that's part of why it's so expensive.

We have to get whoever is available.

We have a panel of available contractors, though.

Is that correct?

Correct.

We have a rotation list of emergency contractors that we maintain five of them that we rotate those um tasks or those uh emergency contractor contract as they come up.

Uh having said that, uh right now we're about to put another set of um RFQ requests for qualification for emergency contract, and then will we have a really deep conversations with the PNC and city attorney's office on how we can structure those contracts a little different that where we can have a better control of the cost so we're not constantly paying premium.

Um another approach is um how we can focus using those contracts to just stabilize the site and then look for other ways to go and do the needed repairs, either through uh city crews, uh some of them is beyond their available equipment and capability, especially if it's in Kenyan area or whatnot, but we also can look into using our job as needed contractors to come and do the more permanent repair.

So another approach that we are evaluating as we speak.

Okay, great.

Um what about expanding the number of contractors?

If we have more than five, do you think that could lower the cost at all?

Or um yes, um, I think there is no limitation.

I can uh see if city attorney has a different perspective.

I don't think there is a a limitation of the number of contracts that we can have uh active on board that we can rotate those contracts through them.

So another another option that we can look into it.

Okay.

Um and I know we just voted recently to implement the progressive design build and construction manager risk models.

Are we seeing any return that yet or is it still too soon?

Actually, it's coming to council next Monday.

So we haven't approved it.

The city committee approved it.

Okay.

Yeah.

We I think we were waiting for the recess period, and then uh we were uh reviewing it through the city attorney's office all the menu code changes, so we're we're good.

It's gonna be on the docket for Monday.

For Monday.

Okay, thank you.

I appreciate it.

Um then in terms of bundling projects, um, especially you know, in Rancho Bernardo, for example, with our one community park we have, it was we weren't getting anything built because I understand the idea of bundling, get economy of scale, get a bunch of projects in at once, but nobody was bidding on it, it was taking forever, and when we split it up, I think we're getting people to actually do the work.

And so, how do you balance bundling versus actually getting things done?

Yeah, I think that takes a lot of evaluation also um unbundling or doing a smaller project, we're trying to meet certain commitments through the disparity study as well, uh, presenting opportunity for more smaller local businesses, but in the meantime, there is other elements of the job has to be done all together, right?

So I know prior speaker talked about confrontation, why it takes so long to design them or whatnot.

And then I wish it's as easy as that said, like a cookie curve.

Yes, we're looking for efficiency to deliver certain aspects of the project, but sometimes that work triggers additional improvement that we need to comply with.

Example, uh the uh water quality requirement, and then how we are uh addressing those part of um any improvement that we do within the park.

So these are the different elements that we look into it when we start making decisions or right sizing a project along with the available fundings, right?

We had the conversation about deaf, and then every time we have a gap of funding, this is the first door we knock as city planning department and see what opportunity that we can expand tap to the the deaf funding.

So those are all uh different factors are really influenced about how we're gonna shape up the scope and be able to move forward with it.

Okay, got it, thank you.

This is the fire station of Black Mountain Ranch Dillon track.

Yes, ma'am.

Okay, thank you.

All right, thank you.

I appreciate it.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you very much.

Councilmember Broad Wilbur.

Uh let's go to Council Member Foster.

Uh yes, thank you, um, Chair, and thank you, um, IBA for um taking a shot at this.

Um things that are highlighted in here are not new.

Things that are highlighted in here are not new.

I think the city has consistently struggled in regards to delivery of the CIP.

We started having conversations back in 2012 about streamlining and made concerted efforts to make improvements.

You have heard me say from this dais quite often that we need to look at unbundling projects.

And I have been met for some reason with what I think is unfortunate resistance.

Your unit cost tends to go down.

And the one thing that I would like to point out, and I guess I'll ask the IBA and then turn to Randy.

As I look at this and the things that are highlighted in here, a very large majority of the feedback and recommendations are operational issues.

When we talk about clear scopes of work, that is an internal city issue.

That is something that should be driven by the chief operating officer and making sure that we are doing what needs to be done.

Would we agree with that assessment?

Definitely, so we really tried to point out that there are differences, there are external market factors that are out there that the city does not have control over, supply chain inflation tariffs and all of the uncertainties that are happening.

So when we were looking at what could we recommend, we really tried to focus on things that are within the city's control, like these things like having a clear scope to try to reduce the amount of rebids, which end up costing money and time.

So yeah, that's definitely our focus.

Um I think my colleague talked about the engineer's estimate.

Again, this is speaking to how we do business internally, um, which I think needs to be addressed and resolved.

Um I'm a little taken back that we want to talk about the small local business enterprise program being complex and adding um issues to our process, where I believe that program has been in place for how long now?

How long?

Can you please I apologize about it's it's more than 15 years?

15 years, correct?

Yes.

And as we come here today, we say that a majority of our work, which is what I have said since I've been here at this city.

We have about seven contractors that do all of our work.

So to come here today and say the SLBE program is complex and creates issues.

I don't believe that.

I'm not buying that.

To come in here and say that the PLA is causing issues, I'm not buying that.

We implemented prevailing wages.

How long ago?

Almost around the same same time, yeah.

No, I don't think we've seen immediate.

Well, 15 years ago or so, right?

Yeah.

Right.

So those that has been a requirement when we talk about the administrative side of uh certified payrolls, things of that nature, right?

What a PLA does do, it ensures that there's no work stoppages.

For someone that worked in the construction industry as long as I have, that's gold.

That's gold.

So I guess just as we look at next steps, can someone help me to understand what those next steps are?

Where do we go from here?

Because I think again, I will say this, Randy.

The COO should be here to address all of these internal issues.

We just had a gentleman talk about efficiencies.

When are we going to realize that we need to do better internally?

Right?

When we talk about errors and omissions.

When we talk about errors and omissions, how are we keeping our designers accountable?

Not only to errors and omissions, but timelines.

If we're having an uncertainty in regards to tariffs and all the things that are happening at the federal level, the one thing we should be able to control is making sure our scope of work is accurate, making sure that we're doing things in a timely fashion and getting the bids out to the street and getting the projects done.

That's what we can handle.

We should be able to handle.

So Randy, I'll go to you.

The COO is not here.

How what are the next steps?

And how are we going to look at addressing the issues in this document or this analysis that are under our control?

Thank you, Councilmember Foster.

I I think as you stated, uh a lot of what's pointed out in this report is not necessarily new or or unknown to us.

I think there's continuous process improvements that need to occur across the board within the capital improvement program delivery.

I think you've you've seen us take some of those steps and continuing to make those process improvements and changes as needed based on what we're seeing out in the market and what we're seeing happen operationally within the city.

I think Ronia uh our chief engineer has already highlighted some of those things that she and her team are working on.

So I think uh in our office we're we're working to support that and help bring things to council as needed when there's municipal code or uh policy changes that are involved with that.

Um, but some of it can be done within the department as well.

Uh may I add council member?

We also in constant collaborations and partnership with PNC and City Attorney's Office to answer your question about the SLB LPE, it's not a new program.

It's about the new generation of contractors coming to do business with the city, and that will require ongoing education.

And then this is something that we are working closely hand in hand to provide those opportunities to continue educate new contractors that they want to do business with the city, what would it take to do business with the city?

Um adding back the pre-bid process that opened the door for more dialogue and be able to walk them through those requirements for a contract specific, so that will encourage them to provide uh bids that really reflect that the work is in that contract.

Um we uh there's booth camps trainings uh for smaller and local that uh Claudia's team is taking the lead on it.

So there is a lot of ongoing effort along where we are trying to continue streamline and improve our internal process when it comes to scoping, uh cost estimating and uh engineering work generally speaking.

Okay, uh I appreciate that.

Um, Randy, why don't we do this?

If we can fall back and have some very specific conversations on how we are going to progress through this and where we can make improvements, I would greatly appreciate that.

Because again, even as we look at what we are doing, and we had the conversation about emergency projects, right?

One thing my colleagues need to understand as we are trying to deliver a CIP that has a billion dollar backlog.

If we are executing the CIP through emergency projects, that means we are doing these projects on a time and material basis, a time and material basis.

That is not how we should be delivering the CIP.

That is irresponsible.

So again, I think there's some work to do.

I think we need to um understand what's in front of us and put our best foot forward.

Um my doors always open.

But we need to we need to do better.

We need to increase our contractors or contractor pool.

I've said that from day one.

We have done a poor job at doing that.

I appreciate the efforts of person and contracting as they I believe they just did a boot camp not too long ago.

I think they were in the dist in my district.

I appreciate those efforts.

We need to have unbundled projects so those same contractors that are going through that type of process can actually come in and start to do projects and understand the city process.

But we also need to make sure we're holding our designers accountable, our staff accountable, and making sure that we are progressing.

So I would appreciate that, Andy, if we can or or Randy, if we can fall back, have some additional conversation because I see there's a lot of internal things that we can take care of as we are dealing with the uncertainty and things that are out of our control.

And I think it's even more important that we address those.