[00:00:01]
[ROLL CALL]
2025, BEGINNING AT 11:02 A.M.. AND, MADAM CLERK, WILL YOU PLEASE CALL THE ROLL? DIRECTOR COFFEY. DIRECTOR DESCHAMBAULT. HERE.DIRECTOR ECHOLS. ABSENT. DIRECTOR WAESPI. DIRECTOR ESPAÑA.
HERE. DIRECTOR SANWONG. HERE. PRESIDENT MERCURIO.
HERE. GENERAL MANAGER LANDRETH. HERE. GENERAL COUNSEL BOURGAULT .
HERE. THANK YOU. AND MADAM CLERK, DO WE HAVE ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WHO WISH TO PROVIDE COMMENTS ON CLOSED SESSION AGENDA ITEMS THIS MORNING? NO. NO PUBLIC COMMENTS. ALL RIGHT. WELL HEARING NO, WE WILL CLOSE.
WE WILL ADJOURN TO THE CLOSED SESSION AT THIS TIME.
[CLOSED SESSION ITEMS]
THANK YOU. WELL, GOOD AFTERNOON AND WELCOME TO ALL TO THIS REGULAR BOARD MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT FOR FEBRUARY 18,[ROLL CALL]
2022, BEGINNING AT 1:11 P.M.. WE HAVE DIRECTORS APPEARING ON ZOOM AND WE WILL TAKE A VOTE AND CAN PROCEED WITH THE REQUIREMENTS.DIRECTORS WAESPI AND DIRECTORS ECHOLS. CAN YOU PLEASE CONFIRM THAT NO OTHER INDIVIDUAL 18 YEARS OR OLDER WILL BE PRESENT IN THE ROOM WITH YOU AT YOUR REMOTE LOCATION? DIRECTOR ECHOLS. YES, I CAN CONFIRM THAT. DIRECTOR WAESPI.
I WILL NOW TAKE ROLL DIRECTOR COFFEY. HERE. DIRECTOR ECHOLS.
PRESENT. DIRECTOR DESCHAMBAULT. HERE. DIRECTOR ESPAÑA.
HERE. DIRECTOR WAESPI. HERE. DIRECTOR SANWONG.
HERE. PRESIDENT MERCURIO. HERE. GENERAL MANAGER LANDRETH.
PRESENT. GENERAL COUNSEL BOURGAULT. HERE. ALL RIGHT.
THANK YOU FOR THAT. AND NOW FOR PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE, DIRECTOR SANWONG.
ONE NATION UNDER GOD, INDIVISIBLE, WITH LIBERTY AND JUSTICE FOR ALL.
AND DIRECTOR DESCHAMBAULT WILL READ THE LAND ACKNOWLEDGMENT.
[LAND ACKNOWLEDGEMENT]
AS WE GATHER HERE TODAY WE, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS , WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT ALL OF THE LANDS WITHIN THE EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT ARE THE ANCESTRAL LANDS OF EAST BAY, OHLONE, BAY MIWOK, AND THE NORTHERN VALLEY YOKUTS, WHO ARE POLITICALLY ORGANIZED AND REPRESENTED BY A NUMBER OF TRIBES TODAY, WHO MAKE THIS RECOGNITION AS A WAY TO.THE PARK DISTRICT IS COMMITTED TO IDENTIFYING WAYS TO WORK AND CONSULT WITH EAST BAY TRIBES, AS WE RECOGNIZE THAT THESE TRIBAL CITIZENS REMAIN CONNECTED TO THEIR LAND AND THEIR CULTURE.
[APPROVAL OF AGENDA]
HEARING NONE. MOVE. OKAY. THERE IS NO MOTION.BUT WE NEED A MOTION TO APPROVE THE AGENDA CORRECT.
IF YOU ARE NOT MODIFYING THE AGENDA, YOU DON'T NEED ANY MOTION.
NO. NO MORE. OKAY. SO THEN WE MOVE ON TO ITEM FIVE.
WE HAVE NO SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS. DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA TODAY? NO PUBLIC COMMENT FOR ITEMS NOT ON THE AGENDA.
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WISHING TO MAKE A PUBLIC COMMENT CAN DO SO.
IF ATTENDING IN PERSON, THEY MAY SUBMIT A SPEAKER'S CARD TO THE CLERK'S STAFF, OR OTHERWISE INDICATE THEY WISH TO MAKE A PUBLIC COMMENT ON THE NON AGENDA ITEM. ALL WRITTEN COMMENTS RECEIVED PRIOR TO THE DEADLINE OF 3:00 PM ON MONDAY, FEBRUARY 17TH, 2025 HAVE BEEN DISTRIBUTED TO THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS AND POSTED ONLINE IN ADVANCE OF THE MEETING.
[00:05:06]
ANY WRITTEN COMMENTS THAT COME IN AFTER THIS TIME WILL BE PROVIDED TO THE BOARD, AND INCLUDED WITH THE SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS AFTER THE MEETING.ALL RIGHT. WELL THANK YOU. WE HAVE NO PUBLIC COMMENTS, BUT THAT'S HOW YOU DO IT.
YOU DID. SO WE HAVE DO WE HAVE ANY ANNOUNCEMENTS? NO ANNOUNCEMENTS. BUSINESS BEFORE THE BOARD. IS THE CONSENT CALENDAR?
[CONSENT CALENDAR]
DO ANY BOARD MEMBERS HAVE ANY QUESTIONS FOR REGARDING ITEMS ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR AT THIS POINT? DO WE HAVE ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WISHING TO SPEAK ON ANY ITEM ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR.NO. OKAY. DO WE HAVE A MOTION TO APPROVE THE CONSENT CALENDAR FROM THE BOARD? SO MOVED.
ALL RIGHT. DIRECTOR WAESPI. YES. ALL RIGHT. MOTION BY WAESPI.
SECOND. YOU WANT TO TAKE A. OH, SORRY. AND YOU WANT TO TAKE A ROLL CALL? VOTE. RIGHT. OKAY. MOTION TO SECOND WAS DESCHAMBAULT.
SO. MOVED BY WAESPI. SECONDED BY DESCHAMBAULT.
DIRECTOR COFFEY. AYE. DIRECTOR ECHOLS. AYE. DIRECTOR WAESPI.
AYE. DIRECTOR. ESPAÑA. AYE. DIRECTOR DESCHAMBAULT.
AYE. DIRECTOR SANWONG. YES. PRESIDENT MERCURIO.
[GENERAL MANAGER'S OFFICE]
ITEM IS A RECOMMENDATION TO SPONSOR PUBLIC RESOURCES C ODE ARTICLE THREE LEGISLATION.AND WE HAVE A PRESENTATION ON THAT. GOOD AFTERNOON.
ERICH PFUEHLER DIVISION LEAD FOR GOVERNMENT AND LEGISLATIVE AFFAIRS.
THE HOPE IS TO HAVE A LITTLE MORE FLEXIBILITY IN THE POLICIES THAT YOU ALL MAKE FOR GOVERNANCE.
WE ARE SEEKING A RECOMMENDATION TODAY, AND I DID WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE THE WORK OF JASON ROSENBERG, WHO IS NOT PRESENT BUT HAS WORKED VERY DILIGENTLY WITH LISA BALDINGER ON THIS EFFORT OVER THE LAST THREE YEARS OF RESEARCH AND EXCELLENT ANALYTICAL WORK. SO I REALLY WANT TO COMMEND ALL THE HARD STAFF WORK THAT'S GONE INTO THIS PROPOSAL.
AND WITH THAT, I'D LIKE TO TURN IT OVER TO LISA.
OKAY. THERE WE GO. GOOD AFTERNOON. LISA BALDINGER, LEGISLATIVE AND POLICY MANAGEMENT ANALYST AND I'LL BE WALKING US THROUGH A BRIEF PRESENTATION REGARDING THE PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE ARTICLE THREE, LEGISLATION THAT THE PARK DISTRICT IS SEEKING TO SPONSOR.
SO THE PURPOSE OF OUR PRESENTATION TODAY IS THE GENERAL MANAGER RECOMMENDS THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS SPONSOR LEGISLATION TO AMEND PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE ARTICLE THREE, WHICH INCLUDES SECTIONS 5500 THROUGH 5595. AND THIS PRESENTATION AIMS TO GIVE SOME BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT.
SO AS DIVISION LEAD ERICH PFUEHLER SHARED THE CURRENT FRAMEWORK GOVERNING THE PARK DISTRICT , WHICH IS PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE ARTICLE THREE IS OUTDATED AND NO LONGER MEETS THE NEEDS OF CALIFORNIA'S COMMUNITIES.
AND SO STAFF HAS PUT TOGETHER A COMPREHENSIVE UPDATE THAT WE WANTED TO BRIEF YOU ON TODAY IN RELATION TO GOVERNANCE, LAND MANAGEMENT AND OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCIES.
BY WAY OF CONTEXT THIS CODE SECTION HAS NOT BEEN TAKEN ON COMPREHENSIVELY AT ANY POINT DURING ITS EXISTENCE SO IT WAS CREATED ALONG WITH THE PARK DISTRICT IN THE 1930S. AND TO THIS DAY, THERE'S A NUMBER OF AMENDMENTS THAT ARE JUST NEEDING A BIT OF REFINEMENT OR REMOVAL IF THEY'RE NO LONGER RELEVANT.
SO THE PURPOSE OF THIS LEGISLATION WOULD TO BE A MODERNIZED GOVERNANCE. ADMINISTRATIVE PRACTICES.
WE'RE SEEKING TO ADDRESS ENVIRONMENTAL AND SOCIAL CHALLENGES BY ACKNOWLEDGING NATURE BASED INFRASTRUCTURE WITHIN THE LANGUAGE OF THE LEGISLATION, AND SOME OTHER ADDITIONAL AMENDMENTS RELATED TO THE PURPOSE OF LAND ACQUISITION AROUND CLIMATE CHANGE AND EQUITY, AND SEEKING TO IMPROVE LAND MANAGEMENT POLICIES AROUND LEASING
[00:10:07]
AND OTHER LAND MANAGEMENT PRACTICES. SO, THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS SHOULD HAVE RECEIVED A COMPREHENSIVE POLICY REPORT, WHICH GIVES AN OVERVIEW OF WHAT THE CHANGE IS BEING MADE, AS WELL AS THE PURPOSE OF THAT CHANGE.YOU ALL ALSO RECEIVED IN YOUR PACKET TODAY THE DRAFT LEGISLATIVE LANGUAGE, WHICH INCLUDES THE TRACK CHANGES OF THE ORIGINAL CODE SECTION AS WELL AS THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS. SO YOU HAVE A GREAT DEPTH OF DETAIL.
AND THE CONTEXT OF WHY IT'S IMPORTANT TO MAKE A DECISION TODAY IS THAT BUILD DEADLINE FOR INTRODUCTION IS FEBRUARY 21, 2025, AND THAT'S THE LAST DAY TO INTRODUCE A BILL.
AND SO WE HAVE BEEN WORKING WITH ASSEMBLY MEMBER LORI WILSON'S OFFICE.
BY WAY OF CONTEXT, 5536 IS AROUND SHIFTS TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE FUNCTIONS OF BOARD COMPENSATION.
SO WITH THAT, WE'RE HAPPY TO TAKE QUESTIONS. AND WE DO TURN TO THE BOARD FOR DISCUSSION.
OKAY. SO WHAT I'D LIKE TO PROPOSE HERE IS THAT WE TAKE WE DO QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD.
WE HAVE THE PUBLIC COMMENT PERIOD. AND THEN THE COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD WILL BE AFTER THAT.
SO THAT'S HOW WE'RE SET UP ON THE STRUCTURE OF IT RIGHT NOW.
SO DO ANY OF THE BOARD MEMBERS HAVE QUESTIONS? SURE. GO AHEAD. IS IT POSSIBLE DO WE HAVE A SLIDE OF WHAT WE'RE VOTING ON IN TERMS OF THE CHANGES.
SO WE DON'T HAVE A SLIDE PREPARED BECAUSE IT'S TOO MUCH TO FIT IN A SLIDE? WE HAVE 13 SECTION AMENDMENTS. SO IN YOUR PACKET YOU'VE RECEIVED IF YOU MAYBE GO FORWARD IN YOUR PACKET, YOU HAVE THE POLICY REPORT WHICH GIVES THE PURPOSE AND SOME CONTEXT ON EACH CHANGE, AS WELL AS ALL OF THE LEGISLATIVE DRAFT LANGUAGE THAT WE'RE PROPOSING.
BECAUSE SO DID WE REMOVE BOARD COMPENSATION. IS THAT SOMETHING WE HAVE TO DECIDE UP HERE NOW? YES. OKAY. SO WE HAVE A COUPLE CHOICES ON THAT.
THE BOARD LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDED TO MOVE FORWARD BUT WITHOUT THAT AMENDMENT.
SO THAT'S A DECISION FOR THE BOARD TODAY. OKAY.
AND IF WE DON'T AMEND THAT, THEN WE DEFAULT TO THE CURRENT.
THAT IS CORRECT. COMPENSATION. OKAY. YEAH. SO MY QUESTION IS LET ME PULL THEM UP.
SORRY, I WAS HAVING SOME PROBLEMS IN HERE. SO I HAVE THEM ON MY PHONE.
SO I KNOW I'VE BEEN FIELDING A LOT OF INQUIRIES ABOUT EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT 'S TRANSPARENCY AND OVERSIGHT AND SO GIVING THESE ONGOING CONCERNS ABOUT FINANCIAL TRANSPARENCY.
WHAT IS OUR PLAN IN REGARDS TO INCREASING THE GENERAL MANAGER SPENDING AUTHORITY TO ENSURE THAT IT DOES NOT REDUCE ACCOUNTABILITY AND BUDGET OVERSIGHT? OKAY. SO IN TERMS OF THE PROPOSAL AROUND INCREASING THE ADMINISTRATIVE LIMITS, SO THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE, WHAT IT WOULD DO IS IT WOULD LINK THE EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT , WHICH OPERATES AS AN INDEPENDENT SPECIAL PARK DISTRICT IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, TO THE GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION OF A COUNTY, AS THOUGH WE WERE A DEPENDENT PARK DISTRICT .
SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE SIMULATING THROUGH THE PROPOSED LANGUAGE. THEN THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS HERE AT THE EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT , YOU ALL WOULD BE THE DECISION MAKERS IN SETTING THE ADMINISTRATIVE LIMITS.
IN TERMS OF WHAT WE'VE BEEN REVIEWING THE LAST FIVE YEARS OF CONTRACTS THAT FALL WITHIN THAT SCOPE.
AND WHAT I'LL SHARE WITH YOU IS THAT THERE REALLY A LOT OF PURCHASING OF PRINTERS, OF TRUCKS, OF MOWERS AND MACHINES. SO THEY ARE VERY FUNCTIONAL.
SO THAT'S WHERE WE WOULD BE STREAMLINING IT. IN TERMS OF THE QUESTION OF HOW WILL THE PARK DISTRICT MAINTAIN ACCOUNTABILITY, I THINK THAT WOULD BE SOMETHING THAT COULD POTENTIALLY BE INCLUDED IN THE BOARD'S POLICY WHEN YOU'RE RESPONDING TO THE ADMINISTRATIVE LIMITS. SO I THINK MAYBE YOU MAY BE BEST SUITED TO ANSWER THAT QUESTION. AND THEN I KNOW AT THE LAST BOARD MEETING, WE HAD THE FEDERAL ADVOCATE CONTRACT, AND IT FALLS UNDER THE $200,000 THRESHOLD. SO WOULD THAT, YOU KNOW, I GUESS THERE'S ANOTHER STEP IN THE PROCESS IF THIS BILL WERE TO GO THROUGH THE STATE LEGISLATURE, THEN IT WOULD COME BACK TO THE BOARD TO DECIDE WHAT THAT ADMINISTRATIVE LIMIT IS.
[00:15:01]
WOULD THAT HAVE MEANT THAT AT THE PREVIOUS MEETING, THE FEDERAL ADVOCATE ITEM COULD HAVE POTENTIALLY NOT BEEN INCLUDED AS PART OF THE BOARD DECISION? POTENTIALLY. BUT WHAT'S FUN ABOUT POLICY SETTING IS THAT YOU GET TO THINK CREATIVELY.SO YOU WOULD HAVE THE OPTION TO SAY WE'LL RAISE THE ADMINISTRATIVE LIMIT, BUT CERTAIN CONTRACTS THAT MEET THIS CRITERIA WILL STILL COME BEFORE THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS . SO AGAIN, THAT'S A FUTURE BOARD DECISION.
SO THEORETICALLY ANYTHING IS POSSIBLE IN THAT THEORY.
THE ACTUALLY, THE ANSWER IS THE OPERATING GUIDELINES REQUIRE THAT THE BOARD APPROVE THE SACRAMENTO OR DC ADVOCATE IN ANY IN ANY CASE, SO THAT STILL WOULD HAVE GONE TO THE BOARD.
SO THAT WOULD MOST LIKELY OVERRIDE THEN ANY INCREASE IN THE ADMINISTRATIVE LIMIT.
OKAY. AND THEN I KNOW MIDPENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT IS MENTIONED HERE ON I SEE IT ON PAGE 61 AND IT'S ON OTHER PAGES IN THIS SECTION. I'M JUST CURIOUS, HAVE WE REACHED OUT TO THEM AND WHAT ARE SOME OF THE THINGS THAT THEY HAVE SHARED ABOUT THIS WORK THAT WE'RE DOING? GREAT. SO WE'VE BEEN WORKING WITH MID-PENINSULA REGIONAL OPEN SPACE DISTRICT STAFF AND PARTNERSHIP ON THIS LEGISLATION.
THEY ARE ALSO SEEKING TO DO THE GOVERNANCE UPDATES THAT WE ARE.
SO FOR ALL OF AMENDMENTS THEY'VE SEEN, WE'VE TALKED THROUGH THERE ARE TWO OTHER SPECIAL DISTRICTS OR INDEPENDENT SPECIAL DISTRICTS WHO WOULD HAVE THOSE SIMILAR IMPACTS; THAT'S MONTEREY AND NAPA, AND WE'VE BEEN SHARING AND KEEPING EVERYONE LOOPED INTO THE PROCESS.
SO I'D SAY MID-PEN IS A PARTNER. THE OTHER TWO AGENCIES DON'T HAVE A GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS TEAM, OR AS ROBUST OF STAFF TO BE ABLE TO SUPPORT THE EFFORTS.
AND HAVE THESE BOARDS ALSO VOTED ON THIS INITIATIVE? DO WE HAVE ANY INFORMATION ON THAT? I DON'T KNOW THE EXACT ANSWER.
OKAY, SO I ALSO HAVE A QUESTION ABOUT AFSCME 2428.
HAVE THEY DECIDED TO SUPPORT THIS OR HAVE THEY COME BACK WITH ANY OF THEIR COMMENTS IN REGARDS TO WHAT WE'RE LOOKING AT TODAY? OKAY. HI THERE. ALLYSON COOK, ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER OF HR AND DEPUTY GENERAL MANAGER .
SO WE HAVE BEEN IN DISCUSSIONS WITH COUNCIL 57 AND AFSCME LOCAL 2428.
CURRENTLY THEY HAVE SAID THEY DON'T WANT TO SUPPORT IT, BUT THEY DO WANT TO TRY AND WORK WITH THE PARK DISTRICT TO COME UP WITH SOMETHING THAT THEY COULD GET BEHIND. SO THOSE DISCUSSIONS ARE ONGOING.
AND THAT ENDED UP NOT MATERIALIZING, I THINK BECAUSE OF AFSCME IN SACRAMENTO AND COUNCIL 57 AND 242 8. IT MIGHT BE HELPFUL TO MAYBE SHARE JUST A QUICK, YOU KNOW, SUMMARY OF WHAT HAPPENED BACK IN 2023.
SURE. SO WE DID NOT HAVE THOSE DISCUSSIONS ON THE FRONT END WITH AFSCME OR COUNCIL 57.
SO WE WERE UNAWARE THAT THEY HAD OBJECTED TO IT.
I N SACRAMENTO, THEY DID NOT COME TO US AND WE HADN'T GONE TO THEM.
SO WE DIDN'T HAVE THOSE DISCUSSIONS LIKE WE'RE HAVING NOW IN TRYING TO REACH AGREEMENT.
IT'S GOOD THAT WE'RE DISCUSSING, I THINK. AND THEN MY FINAL QUESTION AGAIN, JUST BECAUSE THIS IS SOMETHING THAT I FEEL A LOT OF QUESTIONS ON RIGHT NOW IN REGARDS TO FISCAL RESPONSIBILITY, AND CERTAINLY SOME COMMUNITY MEMBERS HAVE EXPRESSED TO ME THEIR BELIEF THAT EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT HAS EXCESSIVE FINANCIAL RESOURCES AND LAND HOLDINGS. AND I'M CURIOUS HOW WE YOU KNOW, WITH THIS INITIATIVE, JUSTIFY THE PROPOSED SPENDING INCREASE AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE INCREASE WHILE ALSO DEMONSTRATING RESPONSIBLE STEWARDSHIP OF PUBLIC FUNDS? THAT'S A GREAT QUESTION. SO AGAIN, I THINK IT RELATES BACK TO THE EARLIER PREMISE OF THIS IS THE STATE IS INCREASING THE ADMINISTRATIVE LIMIT.
THAT'S ALL THE QUESTIONS I HAVE. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS BEFORE WE GO TO PUBLIC COMMENT? YES. GO AHEAD. OH, LET'S TAKE DIRECTOR ECHOLS OFF THE REMOTE MODE.
GO AHEAD. OH, OKAY. GREAT. THANK YOU. SO I JUST WANTED TO CLARIFY.
[00:20:08]
I'M NOT CLEAR WHAT IS WHAT IS BEFORE US, WHETHER THEIR EDITS ARE IN HERE OR NOT.IF YOU'RE LOOKING AT YOUR POLICY REPORT THAT'S ON PAGE TWO.
IT'S SECTION I'M SORRY, I DON'T KNOW THE PAGE OF THE BOARD PACKET, I APOLOGIZE. PAGE 65.
62. 62. 62. NO 65. OH. 65. THE ACTUAL LEGISLATIVE LANGUAGE.
OH ACTUAL LEGISLATIVE LANGUAGE THEN PAGE 65, SECTION TWO, RELATED TO BOARD COMPENSATION.
AND SO MAYBE SOMEONE FROM THE LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE COULD SAY WHY? WHY THE PROPOSAL IS TO TAKE THAT OUT. I COULD DO THAT.
YEAH. WHY DON'T YOU GO AHEAD AND DO THAT? THANK YOU.
SURE. I THINK THERE WERE SEVERAL LAYERS OF CONCERN RAISED ABOUT THE BOARD COMPENSATION LANGUAGE. AND IN NO PARTICULAR ORDER, MY OWN POSITION WAS THAT I WAS ELECTED TO THE OFFICE UNDER THE EXISTING COMPENSATION SCHEME FOR BOARD MEMBERS, SO THAT WOULD RENDER ME UNCOMFORTABLE CHANGING THAT METHOD OF COMPENSATING BOARD MEMBERS, HAVING ALREADY BEEN ELECTED AT THAT RATE.
THE OTHER CONCERN THAT HAS BEEN EXPRESSED WAS THAT THE AMOUNT OF $1,000 A MONTH WOULD RESULT IN A COMPENSATION INCREASE FOR SOME OF US. AND I IN PARTICULAR WAS UNCOMFORTABLE WITH THAT, THAT IMPACT OF THE COMPENSATION PROVISION AS WELL, ESPECIALLY AT A TIME WHEN WE'RE CONTEMPLATING IN THE NOT TOO DISTANT FUTURE, ASKING PEOPLE TO APPROVE A NEW REVENUE MEASURE ON THE BALLOT.
OTHER MEMBERS OF THE COMMITTEE MIGHT HAVE HAD OTHER REASONS.
THOSE ARE WHAT COME TO MY MIND. LUANA. YES. SO WE CURRENTLY GET COMPENSATED $133.6 9 FOR EACH MEETING. SO TO GO TO $100 THAT WOULD BE A REDUCTION.
BUT THEN AS $1,000 COULD BE EITHER AN UNDERPAYMENT.
SO LET'S SAY YOU WORK TEN MEETINGS, THEN YOU'RE GETTING PAID LESS FOR OVERALL MEETINGS BY OVER $300. BUT THEN IF YOU WORK LESS MEETINGS, AS FAR AS YOU'RE BEING OVERPAID.
SO IT'S NOT REFLECTIVE OF THE WORK THAT YOU'RE DOING.
AND THEN THE OTHER PART WAS JUST AS FAR AS ABOUT THE AUTOMATIC 5% INCREASE.
SO AS FAR AS IT JUST WASN'T REFLECTIVE OF WHAT WE'RE CURRENTLY GETTING COMPENSATED FOR MEETINGS, IT WAS EITHER AN OVERPAYMENT FOR TEN MEETINGS OR IT WAS A REDUCTION OF PAY IF YOU WERE ATTENDING ALL TEN MEETINGS.
SO THERE WASN'T NECESSARILY AN ADVANTAGE UNDER WHAT WE'RE CURRENTLY DOING.
AND THEN JUST THE SECOND PART WAS THE PERCENTAGE OF INCREASE WAS JUST AN AUTOMATIC 5%.
SO I WASN'T KIND OF IN FAVOR OF AN AUTOMATIC INCREASE OF 5%.
AND THE REASON WHY I WANTED TO REFLECT, JUST AS FAR AS ON THE MEETINGS, THAT I THINK EVERY SINGLE MEMBER MIGHT BE AT A DIFFERENT PLACE, THERE MIGHT. AND IF WE'RE LOOKING AT OTHER PARK DISTRICT S TWO.
I MEAN, WELL ON THIS PARK DISTRICT IS, I THINK JUST AS FAR AS MAYBE SOME MEMBERS THE COMPENSATION ISN'T AS IMPORTANT. AND THEN FOR OTHERS, IT MAY BE YOU KNOW, WITHIN THIS POLICY YOU CAN DECIDE NOT TO RECEIVE IT.
BUT JUST AS FAR AS WHAT'S BEING PROPOSED HERE WOULD BE A REDUCTION FOR MEMBERS WHO ARE ATTENDING, YOU KNOW, THE MAX MEETING SOME MONTHS. SO THAT WAS KIND OF.
IF I COULD RESPOND TO THAT, THEN WE MIGHT WANT OUR GENERAL COUNSEL TO CLARIFY.
[00:25:05]
BUT NOW WE ARE ONLY SUPPOSED TO GET COMPENSATED FOR THE MEETINGS THAT ARE JUST BOARD MEETING, STATUTORY MEETINGS. SO I DON'T KNOW ANYONE WHO IS ATTENDING MORE THAN TEN OF THOSE MEETINGS A MONTH, BECAUSE WE DON'T HAVE MORE THAN TEN MEETINGS OF THOSE A MONTH.SO I DON'T THINK THAT THIS WOULD BE REDUCING ANYONE'S PAY.
I MEAN, I GENERALLY I PROBABLY ATTEND 20 MEETINGS A MONTH, BUT BUT I'M ONLY COMPENSATED FOR 3 OR 4.
SO PRESIDENT MERCURIO, I'D BE HAPPY TO CLARIFY.
YES. GO AHEAD. THERE'S A COUPLE OF POINTS. ONE THING I WANTED TO CLARIFY IS THAT DIRECTOR ESPAÑA'S POINT, THAT CURRENTLY THE RATE IS $133 AND SOME CHANGE THAT IS PER MEETING, BUT PER DAY, YOU CAN'T. SO IF YOU ATTEND MORE THAN ONE BOARD MEETING IN A SINGLE DAY, FOR INSTANCE, LIKE YOU DID TODAY, YOU HAVE THE SPECIAL CLOSED SESSION MEETING AND THE BOARD MEETING.
YOU'RE ONLY COMPENSATED FOR ONE MEETING PER DAY.
SO THAT'S A CAP ON ON IT. AND THE EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT IS THE ONLY PARK DISTRICT THAT IS ALLOWED THEIR DIRECTORS TO BE COMPENSATED UP TO TEN MEETINGS PER MONTH ONLY IF EACH YEAR, THE BOARD MAKES FINDINGS THAT YOU HAVE THE KIND OF NEED TO ATTEND MORE THAN 5 OR 6 MEETINGS OF THE BOARD, UP TO TEN.
AND WHILE THERE ARE SOME DESCRIPTIONS OF THE KINDS OF MEETINGS THAT YOU CAN BE COMPENSATED FOR, IT IS NOT LIMITED SIMPLY TO MEETINGS OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OR COMMITTEE MEETINGS.
THERE ARE OUTSIDE MEETINGS THAT QUALIFY. I DON'T HAVE THAT LIST IN FRONT OF ME, BUT THE CLERK IS AWARE OF WHAT THOSE MEETINGS ARE AND CAN CERTAINLY COME TO ME FOR ADVICE IF YOU IF YOU HAVE ANY. I DON'T KNOW WHAT KIND OF MEETINGS YOU'RE ATTENDING THAT AREN'T BEING COMPENSATED, BUT CERTAINLY NOT ALL MEETINGS THAT YOU ATTEND WOULD NECESSARILY FIT THE DESCRIPTION IN THE GOVERNMENT CODE, BUT MANY OF THEM WOULD. I WOULD, ASSUME. YEAH, THE BOARD OPERATING GUIDELINES ARE IT'S A LITTLE MORE EXPANSIVE THAN JUST, YOU KNOW, FINANCE COMMITTEE BOARD MEETING AND THAT SORT OF THINGS THAT IT GOES OVER ALL THAT.
SO DIRECTOR ECHOLS, ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? WELL, I GUESS I'LL HAVE SOME FOLLOW UP QUESTIONS FOR THAT BECAUSE BASED ON PRIOR GUIDANCE I UNDERSTAND I MEAN, MY UNDERSTANDING IS THAT THE CLERK, BASED ON GUIDANCE FROM THE GENERAL COUNSEL , WAS TAKING A MUCH MORE A MUCH MORE CONFINED VIEW.
I MEAN, I KNOW SHE'S BEEN Y OU KNOW, SHE PREPARES FOR SOME OF US THE, THE THINGS THAT GO IN AND I MEAN, EVEN THINGS LIKE YOU KNOW, RIBBON CUTTING CEREMONIES OR THINGS LIKE THAT WHERE YOU HAVE A SPEAKING ROLE, WE'RE NOT CONSIDERED TO BE PAID MEETINGS. AND CERTAINLY OUR CONSTITUENT MEETINGS ARE NOT PAID MEETINGS.
SO, YOU KNOW, IT'D BE GOOD TO GET SOME CLARIFICATION AROUND THAT.
BECAUSE I THINK THAT DOES, YOU KNOW, THAT CERTAINLY MAKES A DIFFERENCE BECAUSE, I MEAN, HONESTLY, IF WE'RE GETTING PAID, YOU KNOW, $300 A MONTH, THAT I MEAN, NONE OF THIS GOES ANYWHERE NEAR COMPENSATING US FOR THE WORK WE DO.
I THINK MOST OF US WORK, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, I WORK AT LEAST 60% TIME.
SO, YOU KNOW, I'M NOT DOING THIS FOR THE MONEY, BUT IT WOULD BE NICE TO BE COMPENSATED MORE THAN A FEW HUNDRED DOLLARS A MONTH FOR SURE. AND I GUESS THE OTHER THING IS, IS THAT I, YOU KNOW, I ALSO, I'M NOT SURE THAT I SEE SORT OF THE SIMPLICITY OF THE $1,000 PER MONTH, BUT I, YOU KNOW, I DO FEEL LIKE IT SHOULD BE TIED TO WHAT WE ACTUALLY DO.
BUT I ALSO DON'T THINK IT'S. I WOULD LIKE TO SEE HOW A BOARD MEMBER CAN ACTUALLY GET COMPENSATED FOR TEN MEETINGS A MONTH, BECAUSE FROM WHAT I'VE BEEN TOLD IN THE PAST THAT'S NOT POSSIBLE.
SO I HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT I MEAN, YOU KNOW. YEAH, I HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT IT EITHER WAY.
I HAVE CONCERNS ABOUT JUST A FLAT $1,000 A MONTH.
BUT I ALSO FEEL LIKE WE'RE EXTREMELY UNDER COMPENSATED FOR THE AMOUNT OF WORK THAT WE PUT IN.
AND I THINK IT IS A DETERRENT TO SOME PEOPLE.
BUT THAT'S NOT THE SAME. I KNOW. I MEAN, I CERTAINLY I SPOKE TO CANDIDATES WHO ARE INTERESTED IN RUNNING FOR THIS OFFICE WHO FELT LIKE THEY COULDN'T BECAUSE IT WAS PAID SO MUCH LOWER THAN, YOU KNOW, OTHER BOARDS AND OTHER CITY COUNCILS.
[00:30:05]
SO I THINK IT IS AN ISSUE THAT WE SHOULD GRAPPLE.IT'S UNFORTUNATE. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. IF I MAY, I'D LIKE TO CALL FOR A LITTLE IN THE FUTURE, A REALLY CLEAR DESCRIPTION OF WHAT'S COMPENSABLE.
I KNOW IT'S IN THE BOARD GUIDELINES, BUT, I MEAN, MAYBE THERE'S A BETTER WAY TO DESCRIBE IT ALL, YOU KNOW, AT SOME POINT IN THE FUTURE. I MEAN, ABSOLUTELY IT IS.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THAT. I'M SURE WE HAVE OTHER QUESTIONS.
YEAH. GO AHEAD. I WOULD ACTUALLY APPRECIATE A LITTLE MORE BACKGROUND.
I UNDERSTAND THIS WAS SET UP. IT'S THE LAW THAT GOVERNS HOW WE OPERATE FOR 90 YEARS.
I'M JUST CURIOUS A COUPLE THINGS. I HAVE A TWO PART QUESTION AND THEN SOME MORE OVER THE LAST.
IS IT 90 YEARS THAT WE'VE OPERATED UNDER THIS? HOW MANY TIMES HAS THIS COME UP? AND LET ME FINISH MY QUESTION.
AND I GUESS AS PART OF THAT, THE TIMING I READ IN THE STAFF REPORT THAT IT SAID IT HAS NOT BEEN REVIEWED BY THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL AND COULD CHANGE, AND IT'S UNCLEAR WHEN THAT WILL OCCUR. WE HAVE A SPONSOR, BUT MAYBE YOU COULD TELL ME A LITTLE BIT ABOUT WHAT'S HAPPENED IN THE PAST WHAT HOW THE PROCESS. AND THEN JUST BECAUSE WE HAVE A DEADLINE OF 221 WHERE THOSE OTHER STEPS COME IN, THAT WOULD JUST HELP ME TO UNDERSTAND A LITTLE BIT BETTER HOW BIG OF AN UNDERTAKING THIS IS THAT WE'RE DOING, AND WHAT'S THE HURRY? GREAT. SO IN TERMS OF HOW OFTEN THE PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE HAS BEEN AMENDED, IT HAS BEEN AMENDED FREQUENTLY, AND IT'S BEEN FREQUENTLY AMENDED BY THE EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT . SO SOME OF THE PROPOSED REVISIONS THAT WE HAVE TODAY ARE IN RESPONSE TO AMENDMENTS THAT OUR COLLEAGUES MADE IN THE 1970S, THAT A SPECIFIC PROJECT OR A SPECIFIC LOCATION WAS REFERENCED.
THAT'S NO LONGER A PATHWAY THAT'S NECESSARY FOR US TO HAVE A SUCCESSFUL PROJECT DELIVERY.
SO THE PATHWAY FOR A BILL IS THAT WE DEVELOP DRAFT LANGUAGE.
WE WORK WITH AN AUTHOR AND BECOME COMFORTABLE WITH THAT DRAFT LANGUAGE.
AND THOSE ARE INDIVIDUALS THAT THEIR ENTIRE JOB IS JUST TO MAKE SURE THAT WHAT WE'RE ASKING FOR MAKES SENSE, THAT WE'RE ACHIEVING OUR INTENT. AND SO THAT WAS REALLY A CLAUSE IN THERE.
BUT IT'S MORE OF A PROCESS. LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL IS NOT A STAKEHOLDER PER SE.
HOWEVER, ONCE IT IS INTRODUCED, SHOULD IT BECOME INTRODUCED, IT THEN GOES THROUGH THE COMMITTEE PROCESS IN WHICH WE HAVE STAKEHOLDERS IN THE LEGISLATURE. WE HAVE STAKEHOLDERS IN NON-PROFITS AND OTHERS.
AND SO IT IS LIKELY THAT OVER THE COURSE OF THE NEXT YEAR, THE LEGISLATION WILL CONTINUE TO HAVE AMENDMENTS IN RESPONSE TO CONCERNS OR THOUGHTS OR IDEAS OR REFRAMING. THANK YOU. THAT IS VERY HELPFUL.
I HAVE A QUESTION GENERALLY ALSO ABOUT FISCAL IMPACT.
IS THERE A COST WHEN WE DO THESE AND DO WE SHARE THAT WITH MID-PEN OR YOU KNOW, IS THIS A HIGH PRIORITY THAT WE'RE DOING THIS AND RUSHING THIS? IS THERE A COST TO US? AND WHERE DOES THAT GET IS THERE A FISCAL IMPACT? THERE IS NOT AN ADDITIONAL FISCAL IMPACT. SO WE DON'T PAY FOR A STANDALONE BILL.
IT'S SIMPLY THE SORT OF THE COST OF DOING BUSINESS.
IT'S WITHIN OUR TEAM'S WORK PLAN. IT'S WITHIN OUR ADVOCATES WORK PLAN.
THANK YOU. THAT'S VERY HELPFUL. IF I MAY, JUST ON THE MID-PEN PIECE, I DON'T WANT TO SPEAK FOR THEM, BUT I WILL JUST RELAY BECAUSE I THINK THEY'D BE FINE WITH THIS IN CONVERSATION WITH THEIR GENERAL MANAGER .
THEIR NUMBER ONE PRIORITY IS TO INCREASE THAT ADMIN SPENDING LIMIT.
SO THE OTHER CLEANUP ITEMS, YOU KNOW, GOOD, FINE.
YOU KNOW, NOT AT THE TOP OF THEIR LIST, BUT THEY ARE VERY, VERY FOCUSED AND ALL OF THEIR, ALL OF THEIR PRIORITY IS ON INCREASING THAT ADMIN SPENDING LIMIT.
THANK YOU. I HAVE SOME COMMENTS ON THE COMPENSATION MAYBE I'LL SAVE.
I'LL STICK TO QUESTIONS FOR RIGHT NOW. THANK YOU THAT'S GOOD.
BUT I DO HAVE TWO MORE QUESTIONS. GO AHEAD WITH YOUR QUESTIONS. ON THE SECTION 55541.
[00:35:07]
AND I JUST WANTED TO MAKE SURE THAT WE ARE STILL, I DON'T KNOW, THE STORY BEHIND THE LAFAYETTE TREES THAT'S MENTIONED IN THE PUBLIC STAFF REPORT AND WHAT THAT ACTUALLY MEANS, BUT I WOULD HATE TO.AND IT'S MENTIONED THAT WE'RE CUTTING THE GREEN TAPE, BUT DOES IT ARE WE STOPPING OURSELVES FROM HAVING TO DO CEQA OR EIRS? IT SEEMS SO BROAD. IT JUST WAS IT MADE ME SLIGHTLY NERVOUS TO JUST READ THE WORDING WAS TO EXCLUDE THE PARKS FROM REQUIREMENTS OF COUNTIES AND CITIES.
YEAH, SO I'D BE HAPPY TO TO RESPOND TO THAT. AND I WELCOME COUNCIL'S ADDITIONS.
THIS IS SEEKING TO CODIFY A COURT CASE DECISION.
AND MUCH LIKE THE ADMINISTRATIVE LIMIT, IT'S SEEKING TO CONNECT US SIMILAR TO COUNTY GOVERNMENTS BY RELIEVING US OF SOME LOCAL REGULATORY REQUIREMENTS AND RECOGNIZING THE PARK DISTRICT AS A LOCAL GOVERNMENT AGENCY WHO HAS THE STAFF AND THE EXPERTISE TO MOVE PROJECTS FORWARD SIMILAR TO A COUNTY GOVERNMENT.
SO WHAT EXACTLY AN ELEVATOR SPEECH? I MEAN, WHAT CAN WE SAY WHAT HAPPENED THAT THIS HAS TO OCCUR TODAY OR LIKE, DID LAFAYETTE SAY YOU CAN'T CUT TREES TILL YOU DO AN EIR OR SOMETHING LIKE THAT? OR WAS IT? THERE? WELL, THERE IS A COURT CASE THAT THE PARK DISTRICT WAS PARTY TO.
IT WAS BEFORE I GOT HERE, BUT IT'S A WELL KNOWN CASE WHERE IN THE CITY OF LAFAYETTE WAS TRYING TO IMPOSE ITS TREE CUTTING ORDINANCE. PG&E WANTED TO GO IN AND CUT A NUMBER OF TREES, AND THERE WERE SOME OF THE TREES WERE ON PARK DISTRICT LAND.
AND THE PARK DISTRICT OBJECTED TO THE CITY OF LAFAYETTE TRYING TO IMPOSE ITS TREE ORDINANCE ON THE PARK DISTRICT , AND ARGUED THAT IF WE WERE SUBJECT TO EVERY DIFFERENT CITY OR TOWNS LIKE TREE ORDINANCE, WE WOULD HAVE TO DEAL WITH JUST A RAFT OF VARYING REGULATIONS, AND WE COULDN'T HAVE ANY COHERENT PLAN OR PROCEDURE OR THOUGHTS OF OUR OWN.
AND SO THAT CASE WENT TO THE COURT OF APPEAL AND THE COURT OF APPEAL AGREED WITH THE PARK DISTRICT ON THE FACTS OF THAT CASE, SAYING, YES, IT'S UNREASONABLE TO EXPECT YOU TO FOLLOW A CHECKERBOARD OF REGULATIONS.
AND SO WE WERE FOUND NOT TO BE SUBJECT TO THAT.
AND TO BE VERY CLEAR, THIS DOES NOT EXEMPT US FROM CEQA.
IT DOES NOT EXEMPT US FROM ANY STATE OR FEDERAL REGULATIONS.
OKAY. STILL, I MEAN, IF A CITY'S ORDINANCE IS MORE STRICT, EVEN WHEN I WORKED AT THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, LIKE IF WE ARE IN THE BUSINESS OF PARKS AND PROTECTING TREES AND LAFAYETTE WAS TRYING TO PROTECT TREES AND PG&E, WHO I'VE SEEN THEM TAKE DOWN SWATHS BECAUSE THEY ONLY CARE ABOUT FIRE.
IT JUST SEEMED, IN MY EXPERIENCE, THAT WE WOULD TYPICALLY GO TO THE MORE STRINGENT REQUIREMENT AND SUPPORT THE NOT CUTTING THE TREES VERSUS GO TO COURT AND DEMAND WE HAVE A RIGHT TO CUT DOWN TREES OR AM I COMPLETELY MISSING THIS? AND MAYBE I AM. THANK YOU COLIN. THE ATTORNEY.
TO IF I. YOU DO. IF IT'S HELPFUL. I MEAN I THINK FROM COMING FROM WORKING FOR A COUNTY FOR INSTANCE THE LOCAL JURISDICTION RULES, IN SOME CASES IT MIGHT BE MORE STRICT ENVIRONMENTALLY.
RIGHT. IN OTHER CASES IT MIGHT BE THE OPPOSITE, RIGHT.
WHERE IT MIGHT FORCE US TO DO SOMETHING THAT EIR BOARD WAS UNCOMFORTABLE WITH.
AND SO I THINK WHAT THIS IS TRYING TO ALIGN US IS WITH THE COUNTY OR ANOTHER LARGER REGIONAL AGENCY THAT JUST CAN HAVE A REGIONAL APPROACH TO YOUR WORK AND A CONSISTENT APPROACH ACROSS THE REGION AND WOULDN'T BE HAVE OUR APPROACH BE CHANGED BY EVERY JURISDICTION THAT OUR LANDS ARE WITHIN. AND SO YOUR BOARD WOULD STILL HAVE THE OPTION OF ADOPTING A MORE STRINGENT APPROACH DEPENDING ON THE JURISDICTION.
BUT THIS GIVES YOU THE OPPORTUNITY TO HAVE A CONSISTENT APPROACH ACROSS THE REGION.
AND THAT THOSE POLICIES OF THE LOCAL JURISDICTIONS, IN ONE CASE, THEY MIGHT BE CONSISTENT WITH THE ENVIRONMENTAL ETHIC THAT OUR TEAM HAS, BUT IN OTHER CASES, THEY MIGHT NOT BE. AND SO WE'RE TRYING TO GIVE YOU THAT ABILITY.
WHAT WOULD BE THE HARM OF LEAVING THIS ONE SENTENCE OFF? IT'S BEEN OFF FOR 90 YEARS. THAT'S CERTAINLY UP TO YOUR.
THAT'S JUST THE POLICY DIRECTION OF YOUR BOARD.
SO. OKAY. JUST I'M STILL FEELING A LITTLE ODD, AND MAYBE WE'LL HEAR FROM THE PUBLIC.
MY OTHER QUESTION I HAVE IS THE REMOVAL OF 5558 ABOUT RECREATIONAL VEHICLES.
ACTUALLY, IT DOESN'T SEEM TO BE ABOUT RECREATIONAL VEHICLES.
IT SEEMS TO BE ABOUT US HAVING ABILITY TO REGULATE AND CONTROL PARKING AND PARKING AREAS AND MOTORIZED VEHICLES ON TRAILS. I JUST AM WONDERING WHAT'S CHANGED OVER THE 90 YEARS.
[00:40:03]
AND I HAVE TO BE HONEST, I WONDERED IF THIS WAS SOMEHOW RELATED TO MOTORIZED E-BIKES AND POLICIES.AND IS MID-PEN ON BOARD WITH THIS NEW LANGUAGE FOR THAT SECTION AS WELL.
SO AGAIN, THIS IS A SECTION THAT BY REMOVING THE LANGUAGE WITHIN THE STATE CODE, IT WOULD PROVIDE THE LATITUDE FOR OUR BOARD TO BE THE DECISION MAKER IN THAT AREA. SO IT WOULDN'T RESTRICT OR PREVENT OR DIRECT.
BUT IT WOULD GIVE YOU THE DECISION MAKING POWER ON THAT.
OKAY. I THINK THAT'S IT FOR QUESTIONS FOR NOW.
OKAY. THANK YOU. DIRECTOR WAESPI ANY QUESTIONS? YEAH. IT'S I GUESS ONE OF MY CONCERNS OR MY MAJOR CONCERN IS THE ADMINISTRATIVE SPENDING LIMIT, AND I KNOW WE THE PROPOSAL IS TO RAISE THE RATE OF THE GENERAL MANAGER'S SPENDING LIMIT FROM $50,000 TO $200,000.
BUT I ASSURE YOU, LISA, YOU'VE KIND OF GIVEN US THE ASSURANCE THAT THE BOARD WOULD SET THAT LIMIT, AND I UNDERSTAND THAT. SO I ASSUME THAT IF THIS PASSES, WE'LL GET TOGETHER AT SOME POINT AND CHANGE THE LIMIT.
IF FOR SOME REASON WE WENT, LET'S JUST USE A NUMBER, WE WERE ABLE TO GO FROM $50 TO $200,000.
WE PRUDENTLY WENT TO $150,000. IF THAT DIDN'T WORK, CAN WE MODIFY THAT OR DO WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH A WHOLE CHANGE OF LAW LIKE THIS SEEMS LIKE I DON'T KNOW WHY THIS IS WORTH IT.
WE'RE SPENDING A LOT OF TIME, A LOT OF EFFORT. I DON'T KNOW WHAT WE'RE GETTING OUT OF THIS. I STILL HAVEN'T FIGURED THAT OUT, BUT THAT DOESN'T MATTER. BUT WOULD IT JUST BE CHANGING THE BOARD ADMINISTRATIVE MANUAL OR WOULD IT GO? WOULD WE HAVE TO GO THROUGH A WHOLE PROCESS LIKE WE'RE GOING THROUGH RIGHT NOW? THAT IS A GREAT QUESTION AND THANK YOU, DIRECTOR WAESPI. SO WHAT THIS LEGISLATION IS DOING IS IT IS RAISING THE UPPER LIMIT OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE LIMIT TO $200,000.
AND THEN YOU ALL, AS THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS , HOLD THAT POLICY POWER TO SET THE ADMINISTRATIVE LIMIT OF THE EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT AS A PUBLIC AGENCY. SO IF THIS BOARD WERE TO FOLLOWING THE CODIFICATION OF THIS LEGISLATION, SHOULD IT MOVE FORWARD AND BE SUCCESSFUL, SET AN ADMINISTRATIVE LIMIT TO $150,000 IN YOUR EXAMPLE, AND YOU FEEL THAT YOU NEED TO RAISE THAT OR LOWER THAT AT ANY POINT.
SO YOU COULD RAISE IT TO $151,000. YOU COULD LOWER IT.
SO THAT WOULD BE FOR YOUR ROLE AND YOUR POLICY OVERSIGHT AND POLICY SETTING.
FANTASTIC. I THINK WE'VE DISCUSSED BEFORE ON ISSUES OF THAT CONCERN THE UNION.
YOU KNOW, WE COULD DO THAT. WE CAN DETERMINE WHETHER OR NOT THAT THAT WORKS IN THAT VEIN.
I DON'T THINK ANYONE HAS ANY CONCERN OVER THAT OR WOULD EVER CHANGE THAT.
BUT SO WE WOULD HAVE THE ABILITY TO CHANGE AS A BOARD JUST BY CHANGING SOME OF OUR GUIDELINES.
THAT IS CORRECT. SO THIS IS A PATHWAY TO CHANGE THE ADMINISTRATIVE LIMIT AT THE STATE LEVEL.
THIS BOARD OF DIRECTORS THEN CAN SET A NEW ADMINISTRATIVE LIMIT.
YOU COULD SET QUALIFICATION REQUIREMENTS FOR THAT ADMINISTRATIVE LIMIT.
YOU HOLD THAT FLEXIBILITY AN THAT ADAPTABILITY.
GREAT. THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT.
VERY GOOD. APPRECIATE IT. ALL RIGHT, SO DO WE HAVE ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS RIGHT NOW ON THIS? OKAY. INTERESTING. ALL RIGHT. SO THERE ARE NO PUBLIC COMMENTS.
I'D LIKE TO OFFER THE OPPORTUNITY FOR THE BOARD TO NOW MAKE THEIR OWN COMMENTS ON THIS.
HOW YOU FEEL ABOUT THIS? OH, SURE. GO AHEAD COLIN.
SO I SUPPORT THE SPONSORSHIP OF THE LEGISLATION AS PRESENTED WITH REMOVAL OF THE BOARD COMPENSATION LANGUAGE. SO, IN OTHER WORDS, I'M GOING TO SUPPORT THE PACKAGE AS APPROVED BY THE LEDGE COMMITTEE AND PRESENTED TO THE FULL BOARD.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER COMMENTS? YES, I AM MAKING.
WELL, I JUST HAVE OPINION ON THE COMPENSATION.
I THINK. THIS IS THE TIME. FROM STAFF BECAUSE TO ME, IT SEEMS MORE LIKE A STREAMLINING EFFORT THAT WE JUST DID RECENTLY. WE ALL JUST AGREED TO A FLAT SUM FOR OUR COSTS, FOR MILEAGE AND TRANSPORTATION.
[00:45:08]
SO I'M NOT QUITE SURE WHY IT'S A BIGGER DEAL THAN MAYBE IT IS.I DON'T SEE IT AS CHANGING. WE'RE VOLUNTEERS, AND CERTAINLY IT'S NOT EVEN MINIMUM WAGE.
AND TO FIND OUT, WE SPENT THE WHOLE DAY HERE AT TWO MEETINGS AND ONLY GET COMPENSATED FOR ONE.
I MEAN, WE KNOW WE ARE VOLUNTEERS. WE ALL TOOK THIS ON THAT WAY.
BUT I DO ALSO SEE YOUNGER PERSONS AND OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE FUTURE IF PEOPLE WANT TO GET SOME MINIMAL AMOUNT AND THE PAPERWORK AND GOING BACK AND FORTH WAS COMPENSABLE, JUST SEEMS LIKE A LOT OF STAFF TIME.
AND THE 133 PER MEETING TIMES TEN WOULD BE $1,337 AND EFFORT I THINK THE COMMENT WAS MADE WE'RE ACTUALLY IN SOME CASES TAKING A CUT, AND IF WE ONLY DO 5% PER YEAR, IT WOULD TAKE US SIX YEARS TO GET BACK TO THE MAX WE'RE ALLOWED NOW.
IT JUST SEEMS LIKE THAT'S MY OPINION. I FEEL LIKE IT'S SOMETHING THAT WOULD HELP STAFF IN PAPERWORK AND I DON'T SEE IT CERTAINLY $1,000 A MONTH IS A SALARY OF ANY KIND. SO THAT'S MY OPINION ON THAT.
GREAT. OKAY, YEAH. I SAID. DR. SANWONG. OH, OLIVIA GO AHEAD.
YOU WANT TO YIELD? OKAY. YEAH. GO AHEAD. COMMENTS.
I WAS JUST GOING TO SAY THAT I ALSO SUPPORT IT AS WRITTEN.
I MEAN, IT'S NEVER GOING TO BE PERFECT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER, BUT I DO THINK IT'S SINCE WE HAVE A SPONSOR LINED UP, I THINK THAT WE SHOULD MOVE FORWARD. AND, YOU KNOW, IT'S GOING TO IT WILL LIKELY CHANGE SOMEWHAT AND THERE WILL BE CONVERSATIONS.
AND SO IF THERE ARE THINGS THAT NEED TO BE FINE TUNED, WE CAN DO THAT.
BUT I DO THINK THAT STAFF PUT A LOT OF THOUGHT INTO THIS.
AND WHAT THEY HAVE PROPOSED MAKES SENSE WITH CERTAINLY WITH THE UNDERSTANDING IN TERMS OF THE, YOU KNOW, THE AUTHORIZATION LIMITS THAT THAT ALSO CAN BE THAT THAT IS ACTUALLY SOMETHING THAT IS STILL IN OUR COURT THAT WE CAN CHANGE, AS LISA EXPLAINED, THAT THIS IS A AN OVERALL STATE LIMIT, AND THEN WE CAN DO WHAT WE FEEL IS IMPORTANT AND NECESSARY.
SO I SUPPORT IT AS RECOMMENDED BY THE STAFF. PRESIDENT MERCURIO, I THINK THAT WHAT YOU HAVE ON THE FLOOR IS A SUBSTITUTE MOTION. IT SOUNDS LIKE YOU HAVE THAT FROM DIRECTOR DESCHAMBAULT WITH A POTENTIAL SECOND BY DIRECTOR ECHOLS.
WELL, WE DON'T I THINK DIRECTOR MERCURIO ASKED US JUST FOR OUR OPINION, SO.
WE'RE STILL IN THE COMMENT PERIOD. OKAY. YEAH.
I CAN STILL MAKE A COMMENT. OR BECAUSE I THINK EVERYONE GOT A CHANCE TO MAKE A COMMENT.
SO I WANTED TO BE. WE'RE DISCUSSING SOMETHING ELSE.
SORRY. YOU ARE FREE TO MAKE A COMMENT. YEAH. YOU KNOW I GUESS FOR ME RIGHT NOW, I'M DEALING WITH A LOT OF, YOU KNOW, FISCAL TRANSPARENCY AND TRUST ISSUES WITH SOME OF THE MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITIES THAT I REPRESENT HERE AS THE WARD FIVE DIRECTOR.
AND I DO WORRY THAT THE OPTICS OF THIS COULD BE MISCONSTRUED.
AND I THINK THAT, YOU KNOW, INCREASING THE ADMINISTRATIVE SPENDING LIMIT TO $200,000, IT COULD POTENTIALLY SEND THE WRONG MESSAGE TO THE PUBLIC. YOU KNOW, SOME ALREADY BELIEVE THAT EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT HAS EXCESSIVE FINANCIAL RESOURCES AND WITHOUT, YOU KNOW, GOOD SAFEGUARDS. THIS CHANGE COULD FURTHER ERODE TRUST IN OUR ORGANIZATION AND HOW WE MANAGE TAXPAYER DOLLARS.
AND SO AT THIS MOMENT IN TIME, I CAN'T SUPPORT THIS EFFORT.
SO I WILL BE VOTING NO. THANK YOU. DIRECTOR WAESPI.
ANY COMMENTS AT THIS POINT? WELL, SHOOT. YOU KNOW, I'M A LITTLE CONFUSED.
[00:50:03]
I'M NOT CONFUSED, I'M TORN. I AGREE WITH ALL OF THE PERCEPTION OF US NOT BEING AS TRANSPARENT WITH OUR FINANCES WORRIES ME A BIT. AS FAR AS THE COMPENSATION IS CONCERNED, W E ALL KNOW WE'RE WORTH A THOUSAND A MONTH. IT WOULD BE SO MUCH SIMPLER ADMINISTRATIVELY TO DO THAT.I THINK AT JUST UNDER EIGHT MEETINGS, OR IF YOU HAD EIGHT MEETINGS, YOU'D BE MAKING MORE THAN YOU COULD MAKE IF WE JUST WENT TO THE FLAT $1000 A MONTH. IT DOESN'T MATTER TO ME.
I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S THE STANDARD. I DON'T KNOW THAT THAT'S SOMETHING THAT I NEVER EVEN CONSIDERED IT WHEN I RAN, AS A MATTER OF FACT. AND I DON'T THINK ANYBODY ELSE DID EITHER.
THE PERCEPTION IN AN ELECTION, I THINK WOULD IT MIGHT AFFECT US.
SO I DON'T KNOW. I'M PERFECTLY SATISFIED WITH THE WAY THE SYSTEM WORKS NOW AT $133.69 A MEETING.
I JUST DON'T LIKE HAVING TO TRY TO FIGURE OUT WHAT'S RIGHT, WHAT'S WRONG? IS THIS COMPENSABLE? IS THIS NOT YOU KNOW, PERSONALLY? WELL, IT DOESN'T MATTER MY PERSONAL PREFERENCES, BUT FOR ME TO PREPARE TO GIVE A TALK IN FRONT OF YOU KNOW, A GROUP OF PEOPLE LIKE THE MAYOR'S CONFERENCE WHEN I THINK THAT WAS THE HARDEST $100 I'VE EVER EARNED.
THAT WAS WORTH 100 BUCKS OR WORTH A LOT MORE THAN 100 BUCKS.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. A QUESTION FOR EITHER COUNSEL OR GENERAL MANAGER .
IS THE CLERK OF THE BOARD ULTIMATELY THE DECIDER ON WHATEVER WE SUBMIT AS TO WHETHER IT'S COMPENSABLE OR NOT? I MEAN, WE I KNOW I DO MY BEST TO INTERPRET THINGS, BUT THERE'S SOME THINGS THAT AREN'T NECESSARILY CLEAR.
ULTIMATELY, IT'S THE CLERK OF THE BOARD . IS THAT CORRECT? THAT. YEAH. THAT'S CORRECT. I MEAN, I WOULD CERTAINLY IF SOMEBODY CAME TO ME TO ASK ADVICE ABOUT WHETHER A CERTAIN MEETING THAT THEY WERE, YOU KNOW, ON THE FENCE ABOUT, I WOULD GIVE ADVICE.
BUT ULTIMATELY IT'S THE CLERK OF THE BOARD WHO MAKES THE DECISION.
AND THAT WAS ALWAYS MY IMPRESSION AS WELL MY UNDERSTANDING OF IT.
OKAY. SO IF THERE'S NO OTHER. OH DIRECTOR SANWONG, DO YOU HAVE ANY ADDITIONAL COMMENTS THAT YOU WANTED TO MAKE? I THOUGHT I SAW SOMETHING GOING ON. NO, NO. OKAY.
ALL RIGHT. SO I GUESS I'M LAST. I JUST WANTED TO KIND OF HIGHLIGHT A FEW POINTS THAT I, SAW IN THERE. ONE OF THEM, I WANT TO AGAIN MENTION THAT THERE IS A PROVISION TO WAIVE COMPENSATION.
THERE'S ALWAYS A PROVISION IN YOUR OWN HEART TO DONATE.
I'VE KNOWN ELECTED PEOPLE DON'T MAKE DONATIONS.
WE HAVE A FINE FOUNDATION THAT WOULD BE WELCOME TO TAKE WHATEVER YOU WANTED TO GIVE THEM.
I ALSO YOU KNOW, I'VE SAID THIS BEFORE WHEN WE VOTE ON THE INCREASE EVERY YEAR THE ORIGINAL $100 THAT THE STATE SET AS A CEILING IN 1983, WHATEVER IT WAS, WOULD NOW BE EQUIVALENT TO THE OVER $300.
AND SO WE'RE NOT WE GOT SET BACK MANY, MANY, MANY YEARS AGO, AND WE'VE NEVER REALLY CAUGHT UP.
SO THAT'S ONE THING TO CONSIDER. THAT'S NOT THE MAIN THING BY ANY STRETCH OF THE IMAGINATION.
BUT AGAIN AND I'M LOOKING I SORT OF SEE THAT MOST OF THE QUESTION THAT WE HAVE HERE ABOUT WHAT WE'RE GOING TO DO IS RELATED TO THE COMPENSATION. SO THAT'S WHAT I'M FOCUSING ON HERE.
AND FOR, ME, IT WOULD, IT'S ABOUT THE SAME EITHER WAY.
IT'S JUST NOT VERY MUCH DIFFERENCE WHETHER WE GET PAID BY THE MEETING OR WE GET PAID BY $1,000.
BUT I'M REALLY, REALLY INTERESTED IN THE STREAMLINING EFFECT THAT IT HAS ON ISSUING THE COMPENSATION. IT WOULD BE JUST, YOU KNOW, A REALLY KIND OF A JUST A DONE DEAL, YOU KNOW, $1,000 AND IT'S MANY, MANY HOURS FOR SEVEN PEOPLE.
[00:55:06]
NOW THAT HAS TO BE DONE. AND I DON'T I JUST DON'T THINK IT'S NECESSARY.SO I LIKE THAT ASPECT OF IT. I ALSO THINK THAT $1,000 FOR A DISTRICT OF THIS SIZE, WITH THIS COMPLEXITY, WITH THE THINGS YOU KNOW, DIRECTOR WAESPI KIND OF TOUCHED UPON THIS A LITTLE BIT.
AND OTHERS HAVE TOO, THAT IF YOU LOOK AT OTHER, OTHER AGENCIES, SPECIAL DISTRICTS OR NOT I THINK THE $1,000 IS IT'S NOT UNREASONABLE AT ALL.
SO I WOULD BE IN FAVOR OF THE MAKING THE RECOMMENDATION AS PRESENTED BY STAFF, WHICH INCLUDES THAT. ALL RIGHT. SO. I WILL TAKE A MOTION OF SOME FORM. WELL, I'LL MAKE A MOTION CONSISTENT WITH THE LEDGE COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION, IF I COULD. OKAY. AND, YOU KNOW, I BELIEVE IN MAKING THIS MOTION.
WHAT? I GUESS IN ADDITION TO THE POINTS I'VE MADE ABOUT GIVING OURSELVES A PAY RAISE, I THINK WE'RE GOING TO HAVE ENOUGH DIFFICULTY WITH AFSCME AND THE ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENDITURE INCREASE UNDER STATE LAW THAT WE'RE ADVOCATING GIVING OURSELVES A PAY RAISE IN EXCESS OF WHAT WE GIVE OUR WORKFORCE IS ALSO GOING TO MEET WITH AFSCME OBJECTION.
SO IN ANY EVENT, MY MOTION IS TO APPROVE SPONSORSHIP OF THE LEGISLATIVE PACKAGE AS PRESENTED LESS THE LANGUAGE PERTAINING TO OUR PAY RAISE. AND PRESIDENT MERCURIO, WE ALREADY HAVE THIS MOTION ON THE FLOOR.
DIRECTOR COFFEY MADE THE MOTION AND DIRECTOR ESPAÑA SECONDED IT BEFORE.
NO, NO, THAT WAS NOT A FORMAL. IT WAS JUST A COMMENT.
SHE WAS JUST MAKING A COMMENT. RIGHT. I'M SORRY.
IT WAS JUST A GENERAL COMMENT. THAT'S NOT THE WAY I UNDERSTOOD IT.
SO. YEAH. YEAH. OKAY. SO IF I GUESS, WELL, I WOULD LIKE TO MAKE A SUBSTITUTE MOTION OR WE CAN VOTE ON THIS AND THEN I DON'T KNOW HOW EXACTLY WE HAVE TO PROCEED, BUT, BUT I MEAN, I HAVE NOT HEARD DIRECTLY FROM AFSCME ABOUT THEIR CONCERNS. MAYBE THEY PRESENTED AT THE LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE.
I THINK THAT IT'S APPLES AND ORANGES TO TRY TO COMPARE, YOU KNOW, A 5% RAISE FOR AFSCME WITH YOU KNOW, SOME LESS THAN MINIMUM WAGE ADJUSTMENT THAT WE WOULD BE GIVING OURSELVES.
I, YOU KNOW, I HAVEN'T HEARD FROM THEM ON THAT, SO I CAN'T SPEAK FOR THEM.
AND I ALSO CERTAINLY CAN'T SPEAK FOR THEM ON THE ADMIN PIECE.
I THINK THAT THAT IF THERE ARE CONCERNS, IT CAN BE ADJUSTED IN CONVERSATIONS WITH THE LEGISLATURE.
I DON'T THINK THE LEGISLATURE IS GOING TO BE.
WELL, CERTAINLY IT'LL MAKE IT MORE [INAUDIBLE] IF AFSCME OBJECTS.
SO MY PROPOSAL WOULD BE TO GO WITH THE STAFF PROPOSAL.
AND THEN WHEN WE HEAR SPECIFICALLY WHAT AFSCME'S CONCERNS ARE, WE CAN TRY TO WORK THROUGH IT AND WORK WITH THE AUTHOR ON THAT AND WORK WITH THE LEGISLATIVE COUNCIL ON THAT. AND IT'S A WHOLE LOT EASIER TO TAKE THINGS OUT THAN TO PUT THEM IN.
SO. SO I WOULD JUST SUGGEST GOING WITH THE PROPOSAL WE HAVE NOW AND, YOU KNOW, WORKING WITH OUR LABOR PARTNERS TO FIGURE OUT, YOU KNOW, WHAT, YOU KNOW, WHAT IS OBJECTIONABLE AND WHAT ISN'T.
AND TAKE IT FROM THERE. WELL, THE MOTION ON THE FLOOR, THOUGH, IS TO NOT INCLUDE THE COMPENSATION ELEMENT OF IT, SO. THAT'S RIGHT. I HAD MY HAND UP AT THE SAME TIME.
BUT SINCE I'M NOT IN THE ROOM COLIN BEAT ME TO IT, SO I DON'T KNOW, YOU KNOW, I MEAN, I GUESS WE CAN WE CAN VOTE ON THIS ONE AND THEN WE CAN DO A SUBSTITUTE. RIGHT? IF THAT ONE DOESN'T PASS.
OKAY. THANK YOU. SO SO BASICALLY WE'RE AT THE POINT OF WE'RE LOOKING FOR A SECOND NOW FOR THIS.
AND SO WE HAVE A SECOND FROM DIRECTOR ESPAÑA.
ON COLIN'S. YES EXACTLY. THAT'S THE ONE THAT'S STANDING THAT'S ON THE FLOOR RIGHT NOW.
SO MADAM CLERK, COULD YOU CALL THE VOTE. MOVED BY COFFEY AND SECONDED BY DIRECTOR ESPAÑA. YES. DIRECTOR COFFEY. AYE. DIRECTOR ECHOLS.
NO. DIRECTOR WAESPI. NO. DIRECTOR ESPAÑA. YES.
[01:00:02]
DIRECTOR DESCHAMBAULT. NO. DIRECTOR SANWONG. NO.PRESIDENT MERCURIO. NO. TWO YESES AND FIVE NO'S.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. DO I HAVE AN ALTERNATE OR ANOTHER MOTION? A NEW MOTION. I WOULD BE HAPPY TO MOVE THE STAFF PROPOSAL.
OKAY. DO I HAVE A SECOND FOR THAT? MOVED BY ECHOLS.
SECONDED BY? SECOND. DESCHAMBAULT. ALL RIGHT.
ROLL CALL. VOTE, PLEASE. MOVED BY DIRECTOR ECHOLS.
SECONDED BY DIRECTOR DESCHAMBAULT. DIRECTOR COFFEY.
NO. DIRECTOR ECHOLS. YES. DIRECTOR WAESPI. YES.
DIRECTOR ESPAÑA. NO. DIRECTOR DESCHAMBAULT. YES.
DIRECTOR SANWONG. NO. THREE. YES. OH, DIRECTOR MERCURIO, PRESIDENT MERCURIO. YES. WE HAVE FOUR YESES. SO THAT CARRIES.
I KNOW THERE WAS A NUMBER OF ITERATIONS THERE.
AS THIS BILL MOVES THROUGH THE PROCESS, WE'LL KEEP THE NOT JUST THE LEDGE COMMITTEE INFORMED OF WHERE WE ARE AND IF THERE ARE ANY CHANGES BUT THE FULL BOARD, EITHER THROUGH THE PUBLIC MEETING OR JUST VIA INFORMATIONAL MEMOS.
SO THERE'S NO SURPRISES. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU.
OUR NEXT AGENDA ITEM IS C1 AUTHORIZATION TO APPROPRIATE $1,525,000 FROM THE EQUIPMENT FUND FOR
[OPERATIONS DIVISION]
2025 VEHICLE REPLACEMENT AND PURCHASE FLEET VEHICLES.I'LL TRUNCATE IT THERE. SO I THINK I'M GOING TO PINCH HIT HERE REAL QUICKLY.
AGM GOORJIAN IS OUT TODAY. WHAT WE ARE GOING TO I'M GOING TO GO AHEAD AND HAND THIS OVER TO JASON MCCRYSTLE, OUR FLEET MANAGER, TO WALK US THROUGH THIS. JUST TO GIVE SOME OVERARCHING REMARKS ON THIS.
THIS DID GO TO THE OPERATIONS COMMITTEE , I THINK, LATE LAST YEAR.
AND WAS SUPPORTED THERE. THIS IS REALLY JUST TO TO TRY TO BRING ANOTHER BEST PRACTICE INTO OUR BUDGET PROCESS HERE AROUND OUR, OUR FLEET PURCHASES. AND CERTAINLY I THINK THIS IS SHOULDN'T BE SUPER CONTROVERSIAL, BUT JASON WILL WALK YOU THROUGH THE DETAILS.
SO THANK YOU, JIM. OH. I'M SORRY. THANK YOU. GENERAL MANAGER LANDRETH.
GOOD AFTERNOON, PRESIDENT MERCURIO BOARD MEMBERS HERE BEFORE YOU TODAY TO BRING UP A REQUEST TO AUTHORIZE APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS AND TO MAKE A. EXCUSE ME.
THIS WOULD HELP US STREAMLINE THE PROCESS OF PURCHASING BY ALLOWING FOR A MULTITUDE OF VENDORS TO THE STATE BID OF CALIFORNIA, OUR SOURCEWELL CONTRACTS, AND ALSO OUR OMNIA CONTRACT VENDORS.
TYPICALLY WE WOULD GO IN CHUNKS OF LIGHT TYPE OF VEHICLES FROM A SINGLE VENDOR, AND A LOT OF THOSE ARE SOMEWHAT STYMIED BY SOME OF THE MORE, MORE DIFFICULT VEHICLES TO SPEC. SO WE'D HAVE TO WAIT.
SO THIS ALLOWS US TO PURCHASE THROUGHOUT THE YEAR WITHOUT MULTIPLE BOARD REPORTS.
TYPICALLY DURING PROCUREMENT, WE'RE OVERSEEING A FLEET OF ABOUT 1100 VEHICLES.
WE'RE CURRENTLY AT 1075 WITH A LOT OF GOING OUT, A LOT COMING IN.
WE HAVE A TOTAL OF 74 ITEMS THAT WE'RE ACTUALLY GOING TO PURCHASE.
45 ARE FLEET REPLACEMENTS, 12 ARE ADDITIONS TO THE FLEET AND 17 ARE CAPITAL EQUIPMENT.
WE PRIMARILY PURCHASE VEHICLES THROUGH CALIFORNIA STATE BID OR CMAS CONTRACT SOURCEWELL OMNIA.
AND LATELY WE HAD A LATE ADD OF A BALTIMORE COUNTY, MARYLAND FOR POLICE VEHICLES.
[01:05:01]
WHATEVER IS RIGHT FOR THE JOB BASED ON THE OPERATIONS.WE ALSO LOOK FOR ALTERNATIVE FUEL VEHICLES PICK HYBRIDS, PLUG IN HYBRIDS, ALL ELECTRIC OR USING RENEWABLE FUELS OF WHICH THE DISTRICT'S BEEN USING RENEWABLE DIESEL SINCE 2016. AND OF COURSE, PURCHASING NEWER TECHNOLOGY VEHICLES WITH BETTER FUEL EFFICIENCY AND LOWER EMISSIONS HAPPENS JUST ON A REGULAR REPLACEMENT, BECAUSE WE'RE REPLACING 10 TO 12 YEAR OLD TECHNOLOGY WITH MOST CURRENT.
LIST OF OUR VENDORS THAT WE'RE POTENTIALLY GOING TO USE THIS YEAR.
WE HAVE CALIFORNIA STATE BID OUR CMAS CONTRACT VENDORS ON THE LEFT, FOLLOWED BY THE LATE ADDITION OF THE BALTIMORE COUNTY MARYLAND CONTRACT, AS WELL AS OUR SOURCEWELL CONTRACT DEALERS, WHICH IS MOSTLY OFF ROAD EQUIPMENT.
AND THEN OMNIA CONTRACT FOR ALSO OFF ROAD EQUIPMENT THROUGH TURF STAR.
WE HAVE A TOTAL OF, LIKE I SAID, 74 THINGS THAT WE'RE LOOKING AT PURCHASING THIS YEAR, 45 OF WHICH ARE REPLACEMENTS, 17 ARE CAPITAL EQUIPMENT VALUED AT $50,000 AND GREATER, AND 12 ADDITIONS TO THE FLEET THAT WERE APPROVED THROUGH THE BUDGET REQUEST PROCESS.
AS WE STATED, WE WOULD LIKE TO BRING JUST A SINGLE ANNUAL BOARD REPORT PRESENTED TO YOU FOR OUR ANNUAL FLEET PURCHASES. WE'D LIKE TO UTILIZE AN UP TO RESOLUTION FOR ALL POSSIBLE VENDORS FOR A TOTAL OF UP TO THE TOTAL BUDGET LIMIT, AND INITIATE AN ANNUAL FLEET PURCHASING REPORT TO THE BOARD OPS COMMITTEE IN DECEMBER, OR POSSIBLY THROUGHOUT THE YEAR TO REPORT ON THE YEAR AND PROVIDE AN UPDATE ALSO OF THE YEAR AHEAD FOR FLEET PURCHASES. OUR DESIRED OUTCOME, OF COURSE, IS TO CONTINUE TO HAVE BOARD ENGAGEMENT REGARDING FLEET PURCHASES, LIMIT THE NUMBER OF RESOLUTIONS, CREATE EFFICIENCIES WITHIN THE FLEET DEPARTMENT, AND BOLSTER FLEXIBILITY IN OUR PURCHASING WHILE SUPPLY IS AVAILABLE. AS STATED WE'RE LOOKING TO IMPROVE THE CURRENT PROCUREMENT PROCESS AND OF COURSE, TO CONSIDER THE NONE TO EXCEED RESOLUTION. IT CREATES EFFICIENCY THROUGHOUT THE DISTRICT BECAUSE WE CAN PURCHASE EQUIPMENT AS WE GO ALONG AND ACTUALLY GET IT IN THE HANDS OF OUR END USERS SOONER. ALLOW STAFF TO BE NIMBLE WITH THEIR PURCHASING, AND THIS IS ALSO CONSISTENT WITH OTHER AGENCIES AND THEIR PURCHASING GUIDELINES.
AND THAT'S MY PRESENTATION FOR TODAY. THANK YOU.
I THINK THIS BOARD IS REALLY WELL AWARE OF SOME OF THE CHALLENGES IN THE INDUSTRY THAT WE'VE HAD ON BEING ABLE TO MAKE SOME OF THESE PURCHASES OVER THE YEARS, KIND OF THROUGHOUT COVID COMING OUT OF COVID.
BUT IT IS FOR LACK OF A BETTER WORD, KIND OF A MONOPOLY ON A LOT OF THESE GOVERNMENT VEHICLES.
AND SO WE ARE REALLY WANTING TO TRY TO POSITION OURSELVES TO BE THE MOST COMPETITIVE AND TO BE ABLE TO MOVE THE FASTEST SO THAT WE CAN GET THESE THESE VEHICLES OUT THERE FOR OUR STAFF. AND IT'S PROBABLY THE NUMBER ONE THING THAT I HEAR WHEN I GO OUT AND MEET WITH STAFF.
I USUALLY SAY TO THEM, YOU KNOW, IF YOU HAD ONE WISH, WHAT WOULD IT BE? AND THEY ALMOST ALWAYS IT RESULTS IN ME CALLING JASON AND ASKING ABOUT FLEET.
AND JUST URGE YOUR SUPPORT. OKAY. WELL, THANK YOU FOR THAT.
ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD TO STAFF AT THIS POINT? SUMMARY OF COMMITTEE MEETINGS. AND I DON'T BELIEVE I SEE THAT ANYMORE IN HERE.
IS THAT CORRECT? THAT'S MY QUESTION. AND THE REASON I ASK IS, YOU KNOW, THE DECEMBER OPERATIONS COMMITTEE MEETING? I WAS THE OPERATIONS COMMITTEE CHAIR. I KNOW DIRECTOR COFFEY WAS THERE, AND THEN DIRECTOR ROSARIO WAS THERE WAS ACTUALLY HIS FINAL MEETING WITH THE PARK DISTRICT . I'LL SHARE AS A TRIVIA ANECDOTE, BUT I'M JUST CURIOUS.
I DIDN'T SEE THAT WE HAVE COMMITTEE MEETING NOTES.
AND IS THAT SOMETHING THAT WE CONTINUE TO INCLUDE? BECAUSE I KNOW THAT THAT WAS INCLUDED. BEFORE INITIALLY, THE COMMITTEE MINUTES WERE INCLUDED IN THE BOARD PACKET, BUT NOW THEY ARE PART OF THE COMMITTEE PACKET.
SO THEY'RE APPROVED AT THE COMMITTEE LEVEL. SO ANY MINUTES THAT YOU'RE LOOKING FOR AT A COMMITTEE LEVEL, YOU'D FIND IN THE COMMITTEE PACKET IF THEY'RE AVAILABLE. YEAH.
[01:10:04]
INCLUDED TO GIVE A REPORT WHEN SOMETHING LIKE THIS TOPIC IS REVIEWED AT COMMITTEE.WE DO TRY TO BE GOOD ABOUT SOMETIMES WE MISS IT.
I ALWAYS OWN THAT ABOUT INCLUDING THAT IN THE STAFF REPORTS.
SO IT MAY HAVE BEEN A LITTLE BIT BURIED THE ACTION THAT THE OPERATIONS COMMITTEE TOOK.
BUT WE ARE INCLUDING IT IN THE STAFF REPORTS, BUT CERTAINLY UP TO YOU ALL IN TERMS OF YOUR OWN PRACTICES, WHETHER OR NOT YOU WOULD WANT THE COMMITTEE CHAIR TO REPORT OUT.
BUT AS DEBORAH NOTES, WE ARE INCLUDING THOSE MINUTES NOW IN EACH OF THE COMMITTEE'S PACKETS.
YEAH. I'M SORRY. I DON'T SEE THEM. THE MINUTES ARE IN THE PACKET.
I'M SORRY, I'M SORRY. THEY ARE INCLUDED IN EACH BOARD COMMITTEE'S PACKET.
SO, FOR EXAMPLE, THE OPERATIONS COMMITTEE WILL HAVE THE MINUTES FOR THE OPERATIONS COMMITTEE , IF THAT MAKES SENSE. BUT THEY'RE NOT THEY AREN'T INCLUDED IN THE BOARD.
THE BOARD PACKET. CORRECT. COULD I ASK THE CHAIR TO GIVE A SUMMARY OF THE.
YEAH, SURE. YEAH. AS I AS I RECALL, I THINK THAT THE OPERATIONS COMMITTEE WAS FAIRLY UNANIMOUS IN SUPPORTING THIS. AND I THOUGHT, I THINK WE THOUGHT THAT THIS WAS VERY HELPFUL INITIATIVE TO TAKE I BELIEVE WHEN IT WAS PRESENTED TO US, I DON'T THINK IT WAS GOING TO COME BACK THIS SOON.
IT WAS PRESENTED TO US AS AN IDEA THAT WE MAY SEE AT SOME POINT IN 2025.
I DIDN'T REALIZE IT WAS GOING TO BE THIS SOON AFTER, BUT THAT'S OKAY.
I DON'T THINK, ACTUALLY THAT THAT TIMING IS A FACTOR.
BUT IF I RECALL THAT WAS HOW IT WAS PRESENTED.
I THINK GIVEN THE SIZE OF OUR FLEET THIS DOES HELP IN REGARDS TO YOU KNOW, MAKING OUR ADMINISTRATIVE PROCESSES MORE STRAIGHTFORWARD. I JUST KNOW THAT IN GENERAL, I'VE NOTICED WITH COMMITTEES, YOU KNOW, THAT'S WHEN WE TYPICALLY DIG INTO THE DETAILS AND REALLY GO IN DEPTH. AND I THINK THAT WHEN WE'RE MAKING DECISIONS AS AN ENTIRE BOARD, IT IS HELPFUL TO SEE YOU KNOW, WHAT THE COMMITTEE WORK IS IN REGARDS TO THE IN-DEPTH QUESTIONS AND THE COMMENTS.
SO THAT IS SOMETHING I THINK THAT WE MAY WANT TO CONSIDER BECAUSE THERE ARE, YOU KNOW, OTHER ITEMS THAT COME FORWARD THAT WHERE IT WOULD BE HELPFUL TO HEAR WHAT THE COMMITTEE DISCUSSION WAS, WHETHER IT'S IN THE MINUTES OR, YOU KNOW, SOME MORE ADDITIONAL BACKGROUND.
OKAY. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? DIRECTOR DESCHAMBAULT.
I'M STILL INTERESTED IN WHAT THE COMMITTEE, DEE ROSARIO REQUESTED.
IF THERE'S BUT MY OTHER QUESTION OVERALL IS HOW DOES FISCALLY JUST FISCAL IMPACT OVER THE PAST 5 OR 10 YEARS? IS THIS NORMAL? IS THIS PRICE RANGE TRYING TO BE FISCALLY HAS ANYTHING CHANGED? THERE'S NO I DON'T SEE ANY INDICATION INCREASE DECREASE.
THAT'S MY ONLY. IS THIS A NORMAL RANGE? I LOVE COOPERATIVE PURCHASING AGREEMENTS.
I'M HOPING THAT WITHIN THAT, THERE'LL BE LOTS OF OPPORTUNITY TO LOOK FOR LEVS OR EVS.
BUT I'M JUST CURIOUS OVERALL, IS THERE ANY SIGNIFICANT CHANGE OR IS THIS WHAT IT'S LIKE EVERY YEAR? THIS IS CONSISTENT WITH WHAT IT'S LIKE EVERY YEAR.
WE DO HAVE DIFFERENT HIGHS AND LOWS WITH ADDITIONS TO THE FLEET BASED ON THE BUDGET REQUEST PROCESS, CAPITAL EQUIPMENT DEPENDING ON THE REPLACEMENT YEAR. IT CAN FLUCTUATE AS AS DO THE REPLACEMENTS, BUT IT IS CONSISTENT AS FAR AS MORE EFFICIENT VEHICLES.
I JUST KNOW FROM EXPERIENCE WITH FLEETS AT THE LOCAL GOVERNMENT, FORD IS NOT ON THE CUTTING EDGE OF ELECTRIC VEHICLES, AND YET ALL THE ONES WE'RE REPLACING ARE FORD.
SO ANY OPPORTUNITY IN THIS COOPERATIVE PURCHASING AGREEMENT TO LOOK AT ALTERNATIVES OR LOOK AT, YOU KNOW, CUTTING DOWN FOSSIL FUEL EMISSIONS.
DEE ROSARIO. DID HE HAVE ANY SUGGESTIONS? I DON'T THINK THERE'S AN ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM.
NO. AND I'M ACTUALLY TRYING TO PULL IT UP RIGHT NOW TO SEE IF WE HAVE THE MINUTES ONLINE.
YEAH. HE SUPPORTED THIS. YES. TO BE PERFECTLY CLEAR, HE SUPPORTED THIS.
[01:15:03]
AND I THINK THAT THERE WAS ALMOST UNANIMOUS SUPPORT OF THIS.THERE WAS NO THERE'S NO ELEPHANT IN THE ROOM. THERE'S NO AND IF ANYTHING, THIS IS JUST A GOOD OPPORTUNITY TO THINK ABOUT MAYBE HOW WE WANT TO YOU KNOW, CONNECT BETTER, CONNECT OUR COMMITTEE MEETINGS WITH OUR BOARD MEETINGS AS WE'RE MAKING, AS WE ARE THE DECISION MAKING BODY.
WHEREAS THE COMMITTEES WILL MAKE RECOMMENDATIONS BUT DON'T MAKE DECISIONS.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. ANY OTHER ANY QUESTIONS FROM.
YES. DIRECTOR WAESPI HAS A QUESTION OR TWO? YES.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH FOR THE PRESENTATION, JASON. THE QUESTION I HAVE, WE'RE MOVING OUT TO BALTIMORE AND OTHER PLACES WHERE IF I'M DOING THIS, I KNOW I'M DOING MY MATH TOTALLY INCORRECTLY, BUT I KNOW $4.5 MILLION ON A SALES TAX RATE THAT WE PAY SALES TAX ON ALL THESE CARS.
WHO GETS THAT? IS THERE SOME ARRANGEMENT? IT WAS EXPLAINED TO ME BEFORE, BUT IS THE SALES TAX GOING TO BE APPLIED IN ALAMEDA AND CONTRA COSTA COUNTIES, OR IS IT GOING TO BE IN BALTIMORE? SALES TAX IS BASED ON THE REGISTRATION ADDRESS FOR THAT VEHICLE.
AND FOR US IT IS CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. AND SALES TAX WON'T BE PAID TO THAT VENDOR IN MARYLAND.
WE'LL PAY IT DIRECTLY TO THE DMV. EXCELLENT. OOH, WE CAN START A LITTLE WAR HERE.
SO. AND IT ONLY GOES TO CONTRA COSTA COUNTY. SOMEBODY BACK ME, WHERE ARE YOU ALAMEDA COUNTY FOLKS? WHY IS THAT? THAT'S WHERE THE REGISTRATION ADDRESS IS, ACTUALLY THE TILDEN COURTYARD, WHERE THE VEHICLES ARE DELIVERED.
WOW. RIGHT ON THE ALAMEDA COUNTY BORDER. [LAUGHTER] OKAY, COOL.
SOUNDS GOOD. THANK YOU. YES. DIRECTOR ECHOLS.
YEAH. WELL, JASON, THANK YOU SO MUCH FOR THE REPORT.
REALLY APPRECIATE IT. AND I'M FULLY IN SUPPORT OF MAKING THE PROCESS MORE EFFICIENT AND MORE NIMBLE, SO THANKS FOR THAT. I DID HAVE A QUESTION. I APPRECIATE YOU INCLUDING THE PARAGRAPH IN THE ANALYSIS ABOUT GREEN VEHICLES AND THE FOCUS ON BUYING ENVIRONMENTALLY FRIENDLY VEHICLES WHEN YOU CAN.
AND I'M JUST CURIOUS, SO WITH THIS POLICY THAT WE'RE THAT'S BEFORE US.
WOULD YOU THINK IT WILL HELP US IN THOSE EFFORTS OR IS IT JUST NEUTRAL IN TERMS OF THOSE EFFORTS OR.
I'M JUST CURIOUS TO KNOW. I'M SORRY. I DON'T UNDERSTAND THAT QUESTION.
OH, OKAY. IN TERMS OF THE YOU KNOW, THE RESOLUTION BEFORE US, THE AUTHORIZATION AND THE ABILITY TO USE THESE COOPERATIVE PURCHASING ARRANGEMENTS. DO YOU THINK IT WILL HELP FURTHER OUR ABILITY TO PURCHASE THE, YOU KNOW, MORE GREEN ELECTRIC VEHICLES OR IS IT PRETTY MUCH NEUTRAL? I WOULD SAY IT WOULD ACTUALLY BENEFIT US BECAUSE WE HAVE A EARLIER OPPORTUNITY IN THAT CURRENT MODEL YEAR TO MAKE THE PURCHASES OF VEHICLES THAT ARE ACTUALLY AVAILABLE BECAUSE UNFORTUNATELY EVER SINCE WE HAD THE SUPPLY CHAIN ISSUES DUE TO COVID, A LOT OF PURCHASING GOT TRIMMED DOWN TO A VERY SMALL WINDOW TO WHERE IF WE HAVE TO WAIT LATER IN THE YEAR, WE MISS A LOT OF THE OPPORTUNITY TO BUY A CURRENT MODEL YEAR VEHICLES THAT POTENTIALLY COULD ACTUALLY BE ON THE GROUND AND AVAILABLE.
GOT IT. OKAY. THANK YOU. OKAY. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? NO OTHER QUESTIONS. I DON'T HAVE ANY QUESTIONS EXCEPT.
THANK YOU FOR THAT. AND I'M WONDERING IF THERE'S ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS ON THIS ITEM.
NO PUBLIC COMMENTS. THERE ARE NO PUBLIC COMMENTS. ALL RIGHT.
ARE THERE ANY COMMENTS FROM THE BOARD AS SEPARATE FROM QUESTIONS OF STAFF? NO. OKAY. THEN I'M LOOKING FOR A MOTION. IS THERE A MOTION TO APPROVE THIS ITEM? SO MOVED. MOVED BY WAESPI. SECOND. SECOND. SECOND.
I HEARD IT FROM ESPAÑA FIRST. OKAY. THAT'S FINE.
DIRECTOR ESPAÑA. THANK YOU. ALL IN FAVOR? AND WE'RE GOING TO HAVE A ROLL CALL VOTE.
RIGHT. SO IT WAS MOVED BY DIRECTOR WAESPI. SECONDED BY DIRECTOR ESPAÑA.
DIRECTOR COFFEY. DIRECTOR ECHOLS. AYE. DIRECTOR WAESPI.
DIRECTOR ESPAÑA . AYE. DIRECTOR DESCHAMBAULT.
AYE. DIRECTOR SANWONG. YES. PRESIDENT MERCURIO.
AYE. ALL IN FAVOR? OKAY. IT CARRIES. VERY GOOD.
THANK YOU VERY MUCH. THANKS AGAIN. THANKS FOR FILLING IN.
ALL RIGHT. THE NEXT ITEM IS LET'S SEE ITEM D 1 OUR ANNUAL REVIEW AND APPROVAL
[PUBLIC SAFETY DIVISION]
OF AB 481 MILITARY EQUIPMENT USE POLICY. AND WE HAVE A PRESENTATION ON THAT.[01:20:28]
PRESIDENT MERCURIO, BOARD OF DIRECTORS , GENERAL MANAGER LANDRETH.GOOD AFTERNOON. THANK YOU FOR THE OPPORTUNITY TO SPEAK WITH YOU TODAY. MY NAME IS JOE SCOTT.
I'M A LIEUTENANT WITH OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT, AND I'M HERE TO PRESENT ON THE DEPARTMENT'S USE OF MILITARY EQUIPMENT PURSUANT TO ASSEMBLY BILL 481. SO HERE ARE THE TOPICS THAT I'M GOING TO GO OVER IN THIS PRESENTATION, ALONG WITH THE SLIDE NUMBERS.
I'M GOING TO COVER WHAT IS AB 481, OUR DEPARTMENT'S AB 41 ANNUAL REPORT, OUR POLICE DEPARTMENT'S USE POLICY AB 481 REQUIREMENTS, OUR CURRENT INVENTORY AND REQUESTED ACQUISITIONS.
SO WHAT IS FOR. WHAT IS AB 41? THIS BILL REQUIRES THAT LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES ADOPT A WRITTEN MILITARY EQUIPMENT USE POLICY, OBTAIN APPROVAL OF THAT POLICY BY THE AGENCY'S GOVERNING BODY, AND CREATE AN ANNUAL REPORT REGARDING MILITARY EQUIPMENT USE, AMONG OTHER REQUIREMENTS. OUR ANNUAL REPORT FOR 2024 HAS BEEN SUBMITTED TO THE BOARD FOR BOARD FOR REVIEW.
IT CONTAINS A DETAILED LIST OF OUR INVENTORY, INCLUDING AN EQUIPMENT DESCRIPTION, QUANTITY, CAPABILITIES, EXPECTED LIFESPAN, PURPOSE, AND AUTHORIZED USE.
INITIAL COST AND FISCAL IMPACT. LEGAL AND PROCEDURAL RULES REQUIRED TRAINING, COMPLIANCE MECHANISMS, AND PROCEDURES IN WHICH MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC MAY REGISTER COMMENTS OR COMPLAINTS.
SO WE HAVE A POLICY ON THE USE OF MILITARY EQUIPMENT.
SECTION 709 OF OUR LEXIPOL POLICY, WHICH ESSENTIALLY MIRRORS AB 481.
THIS POLICY WAS APPROVED BY THE BOARD LAST YEAR AND IS AVAILABLE TO THE PUBLIC ON OUR WEBSITE.
AS PART OF THE AB 41 REQUIREMENTS, WE WILL HOLD A COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT MEETING OPEN TO THE PUBLIC WHERE WE EXPLAIN THE LAW AND WHAT EQUIPMENT EBRPD POSSESSES THAT QUALIFIES UNDER AB 41. THIS MEETING IS CURRENTLY SCHEDULED FOR THURSDAY, MARCH 6, 2025, FROM NOON TO 1 P.M.
AT OUR POLICE HEADQUARTERS. APPROVAL IS REQUIRED FOR FUTURE ACQUISITIONS OF EQUIPMENT, AND WE ARE REQUIRED TO INCLUDE DETAILED INFORMATION ABOUT OUR INVENTORY AND REQUESTED ACQUISITION ACQUISITIONS IN THE ANNUAL REPORT.
SO AB 41 SPECIFIES 15 CATEGORIES OF MILITARY EQUIPMENT, AND WE CURRENTLY POSSESS ITEMS IN FIVE OF THESE CATEGORIES, WHICH I WILL NOW GO OVER IN MORE DETAIL. CATEGORY ONE IS UNMANNED AERIAL VEHICLES UAVS OR DRONES.
WE CURRENTLY HAVE SIX OF THE MAVIC AIR THREE MODELS.
WE LOG EVERY FLIGHT. THERE WERE 242 TOTAL FLIGHTS IN 2024, MOST OF WHICH WERE TRAINING FLIGHTS.
THE PROGRAM IS NOW OFF AND RUNNING. THERE WERE NO COMPLAINTS OR UNAUTHORIZED USAGES IN 2024.
IT WAS USED TO PROTECT PERSONNEL DURING THE SEARCH FOR THE SUSPECT.
THIS IS AN EXAMPLE OF HOW THIS IS A VALUABLE REGIONAL ASSET USED TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC.
IT'S AN INVALUABLE TOOL TO PROTECT LIVES DURING SITUATIONS LIKE THESE.
THERE WERE NO COMPLAINTS OR UNAUTHORIZED USAGES IN 2024.
CATEGORY FIVE IS OUR MOBILE INCIDENT COMMAND VEHICLE.
IT IS A MOBILE EMERGENCY COMMUNICATIONS CENTER EQUIPPED WITH A BATHROOM.
IT SERVES AS A SHELTER WITH AIR CONDITIONING AND A HEATER.
IT CAN BE DEPLOYED TO EXTENDED CRIME SCENES AND USED AS A COMMAND POST FOR MAJOR EVENTS.
AND THERE WERE NO COMPLAINTS OR UNAUTHORIZED USAGES IN 2024.
THERE WERE NO USES OF FORCE, UNAUTHORIZED USAGES, OR COMPLAINTS REGARDING RIFLES IN 2024.
[01:25:07]
CATEGORY 14 COVERS OUR LESS LETHAL 40 MILLIMETER LAUNCHERS.THESE ARE KINETIC ENERGY PROJECTILES THAT ARE LESS LETHAL FORCE OPTION, AND A DE-ESCALATION TOOL THAT CAN BE CAN BE DEPLOYED UPON A SUBJECT WHO IS VIOLENT OR WHO DEMONSTRATES THE INTENT TO BE VIOLENT. THEY FIRE A SPONGE ROUND WHICH DISPERSES ENERGY UPON IMPACT.
WE POSSESS 34 OF THEM, INCLUDING THE 108 SPONGE ROUNDS.
THERE WERE NO USES OF FORCE UNAUTHORIZED USAGES OR COMPLAINTS REGARDING 40MM LAUNCHERS IN 2024.
SO WE ARE REQUESTING ADDITIONAL ITEMS THIS YEAR IN THREE CATEGORIES.
CATEGORY ONE IS ADDITIONAL DRONES WITH DIFFERENT CAPABILITIES THAN THOSE WE HAVE NOW.
SO REGARDING THE DRONE REQUESTS, THERE FOR TWO DIFFERENT MODELS.
THE FIRST ONE IS CALLED THE DJI AVATA 2 , AND WE PLAN TO USE THIS TO CLEAR INDOOR AREAS.
OUR CURRENT DRONES THAT WE HAVE ARE NOT EQUIPPED FOR THIS. THESE DRONES ARE SMALLER.
THEY LAST ABOUT 7 TO 10 YEARS, AND WE ARE REQUESTING TWO OF THEM.
THE SECOND DRONE REQUEST IS FOR A DRONE CALLED THE MATRICE 4.
IT IS LARGER THAN THE CURRENT DRONES THAT WE HAVE.
IT CAN BE USED FOR PROLONGED SEARCH AND RESCUE MISSIONS DAY OR NIGHT.
THE BENEFITS ARE THAT IT HAS LONGER FLIGHT TIMES, IT FLIES BETTER IN BAD WEATHER, AND EVEN HAS THE ABILITY TO DELIVER PAYLOADS SUCH AS DROPPING SOMEBODY A LIFE JACKET IF THEY'RE IN A LAKE, OR DELIVERING A BOTTLE OF WATER TO SOMEBODY WHO IS LOST IN THE MIDDLE OF A HOT AREA IN THE MIDDLE OF A RURAL AREA. AND IT HAS A LASER RANGEFINDER TO HELP GET GPS COORDINATES FOR WHERE PEOPLE ARE AT.
AND SO THESE ARE CAPABILITIES THAT ARE THAT OUR CURRENT DRONES DO NOT HAVE.
THEY HAVE A LIFE SPAN OF ABOUT 7 TO 10 YEARS.
AND WE ARE REQUESTING ONE. SO NOW WE'LL GO OVER THE LESS LETHAL ITEMS THAT WE ARE REQUESTING.
OUR DEPARTMENT STRESSES DE-ESCALATION WHEN DEALING WITH THESE SITUATIONS.
SO THIS MEANS THAT ONLY 0.0014% OF POLICE CONTACTS RESULTED IN A USE OF USE OF FORCE, UNDERSCORING THE COMMITMENT THAT WE HAVE TO DE-ESCALATING SITUATIONS AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE. HOWEVER, WE MUST KEEP IN MIND THAT NEGOTIATION DOES NOT ALWAYS WORK, AND WE HAVE TO BE PREPARED TO UTILIZE LESS LETHAL OPTIONS IN THESE SITUATIONS.
SO WHILE THESE OPTIONS, WHILE THESE ITEMS ARE COVERED UNDER AB 41, THEY ARE ALL CONSIDERED LESS LETHAL AND ARE INTENDED TO HELP APPREHEND AN ARMED OR VIOLENT SUBJECT WITHOUT USING LETHAL FORCE. IT IS IMPORTANT TO RECOGNIZE THAT EVERY LETHAL FORCE OPTION HAS STRENGTHS AND WEAKNESSES, AND THEREFORE IS NOT USABLE IN EVERY SITUATION.
THIS IS WHY IT'S CRITICAL TO HAVE NUMEROUS OPTIONS AVAILABLE.
WE HAVE POLICY AND TRAINING REQUIREMENTS IN PLACE FOR THE USE OF EACH OF THESE ITEMS, WHICH OUR OFFICERS ARE HELD ACCOUNTABLE TO, AND I'LL NOW GO OVER EACH REQUESTED ITEM IN MORE DETAIL.
SO THE FIRST ONE AT THE TOP IS CALLED A LIGHT SOUND DIVERSIONARY DEVICE.
IT CREATES A LOUD SOUND AND A BRIGHT FLASH. IT'S USED TO DISTRACT AND DISORIENT SUSPECTS, TEMPORARILY OVERWHELMING THEIR SENSES, AND IT'S USED TO CREATE A TACTICAL ADVANTAGE WHEN ARRESTING VIOLENT SUSPECTS.
THIS REQUEST WOULD REPLENISH THE STOCK WHICH RECENTLY EXPIRED.
THEY HAVE A LIMITED SHELF LIFE OF FIVE YEARS.
WE HAVE MANY DEPARTMENT MEMBERS TRAINED IN THE USAGE OF THIS DEVICE, INCLUDING IN-HOUSE INSTRUCTORS.
WE ARE REQUESTING 24 OF THESE ITEMS, SOME OF WHICH SOME OF WHICH WILL BE USED FOR TRAINING PURPOSES.
THE NEXT ITEMS ARE PEPPER BALL ROUNDS. SO THOSE ARE THE TWO REMAINING ITEMS ON THE SLIDE THERE.
[01:30:03]
THEY ARE HELPFUL IN SITUATIONS WHERE SOMEBODY IS BARRICADED, POTENTIALLY VIOLENT, REFUSING TO EXIT AN AREA, FOR EXAMPLE A VEHICLE THERE, JUST LIKE THE PEPPER SPRAY OUR OFFICERS CARRY, BUT THEY CAN BE DELIVERED WITHOUT NEEDING TO GET CLOSE TO A SUBJECT, GREATLY ENHANCING SAFETY. WE ARE REQUESTING TWO TYPES OF THESE PROJECTILES THE BALL PROJECTILE IN THE MIDDLE AND THE VXR ROUND, WHICH CAN BE USED FROM A FURTHER DISTANCE. YOU'LL SEE THEY'RE SHAPED DIFFERENTLY. THE BALL ROUND CAN TRAVEL FOR ABOUT 60FT AND THE VXR ROUND CAN TRAVEL FOR ABOUT 150FT. SO DEPENDING ON THE SITUATION, THEY MAY NEED TO BE DEPLOYED FROM DIFFERENT DISTANCES DEPENDING ON HOW WIDE THE PERIMETER AROUND A PARTICULAR SITUATION IS.WE'VE HISTORICALLY HAD CHEMICAL IRRITANTS LIKE THESE AVAILABLE.
THIS REQUEST WOULD REPLENISH STOCK, WHICH RECENTLY EXPIRED.
THE NEXT ITEM IS AT THE TOP, THE PEPPER BALL CARBINE.
THIS IS THE DELIVERY SYSTEM FOR THE PEPPER BALL ROUNDS.
IT'S NOT A FIREARM. IT USES COMPRESSED AIR TO FIRE PLASTIC PROJECTILES.
IT CAN DELIVER MULTIPLE DIFFERENT TYPES OF PEPPER BALL AMMUNITION.
SO WE PLAN TO HAVE TWO AT OUR HEADQUARTERS, TWO AT OUR SAN PABLO DEPLOYMENT POINT, TWO AT OUR CONTRA LOMA DEPLOYMENT POINT, AND TWO AT THE LIVERMORE AIRPORT. THE NEXT ITEM ARE 40 MILLIMETER LAUNCHERS.
SO THIS WOULD BE IN ADDITION TO THE NUMBER THAT WE ALREADY HAVE.
AND THEN THE LAST ITEM IS CALLED A GLASS BREAKER ROUND.
AND THIS IS A PROJECTILE THAT CAN BE USED FROM THE PEPPER BALL CARBINE.
IT CAN BE USEFUL FOR BARRICADED SUSPECTS, SUCH AS THOSE IN A VEHICLE.
IF A POTENTIALLY VIOLENT PERSON IS REFUSING TO EXIT A VEHICLE THE ROUNDS CAN BE USED FROM A DISTANCE TO BREAK OUT THE WINDOW, AND THEN INTRODUCE PEPPER BALLS INSIDE THE VEHICLE IF NEEDED.
THESE ROUNDS ARE NOT INTENDED TO BE USED ON PEOPLE ONLY WINDOWS AND WE ARE REQUESTING 100 OF THEM, SOME OF WHICH WILL BE USED FOR TRAINING. SO FOR ALL THE AFOREMENTIONED ITEMS, WE HAVE RESEARCHED OTHER AVAILABLE ALTERNATIVES AND BELIEVE THAT THESE ARE THE INDUSTRY STANDARD AND ARE BEST SUITED TO ACCOMPLISH OUR MISSION TO SAFEGUARD LIVES WITHIN THE PARK DISTRICT .
THESE ITEMS ARE ALSO USED USE WIDESPREAD THROUGHOUT LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES IN OUR REGION. THE MAJORITY OF LAW ENFORCEMENT AGENCIES IN ALAMEDA AND CONTRA COSTA COUNTIES ARE EQUIPPED WITH IDENTICAL, LESS LETHAL ITEMS. IF APPROVED, THESE PURCHASES WILL BE MADE FROM THE POLICE DEPARTMENT'S 2025 OPERATING BUDGET.
WE RESPECTFULLY REQUEST THAT THE BOARD APPROVE OUR DEPARTMENT'S AB 41 INVENTORY AND REQUESTED ACQUISITIONS, AND THAT IS THE END OF THE PRESENTATION. I'M HAPPY TO ANSWER ANY QUESTIONS YOU MAY HAVE.
WELL VERY GOOD. THANK YOU FOR THAT. THAT'S VERY INFORMATIVE, VERY EDUCATIONAL.
GOT TO HAVE THE PICTURES BECAUSE THANKFULLY I DON'T KNOW ABOUT ANY OF THAT STUFF.
SO BUT NOW I DO. SO ARE THERE ANY QUESTIONS FROM THE BOARD TODAY ON THIS ONE? YEAH. GO AHEAD. OKAY. MY FIRST IS A CONCERN, AND THAT'S ABOUT THE COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT MEETING.
IT'S BEING HELD DURING THE DAY FROM NOON TO ONE.
AND ALSO IT'S BEING HELD AT THE POLICE HEADQUARTERS.
I THINK THAT SOMETHING LIKE THAT SHOULD BE AT A MORE NEUTRAL AND ACCESSIBLE SITE, AND THEN AT OURS, WHERE THE COMMUNITY CAN PARTICIPATE. AND THEN ALSO I WAS KIND OF CONCERNED IS HOW ARE YOU DOING COMMUNITY OUTREACH TO MAKE SURE THAT OUR DIFFERENT COMMUNITY MEMBERS ARE ATTENDING THAT MEETING.
YOU HAVE A LOT OF GOOD INFORMATION AND STORIES TO SHARE.
SO THIS MIGHT BE AN OPPORTUNITY NOT JUST TO SHARE THIS REPORT, BUT SPEAK ABOUT GOOD WORK THAT YOU'RE DOING AND ALSO MAKE FURTHER CONNECTIONS WITH COMMUNITY ORGANIZATIONS.
SO THAT WAS A PLAN TO PUT IT ON OUR WEBSITE AND LET PEOPLE KNOW THAT WE'RE HAVING THIS MEETING AND THAT PEOPLE ARE INVITED TO COME LEARN, LEARN ABOUT THE ITEMS AND TO BRING US ANY QUESTIONS THAT THEY MIGHT HAVE.
[01:35:08]
MR. PRESIDENT, IF I MAY ADDRESS THE LAST COMMENT.YES. GOOD AFTERNOON. ROBERTO FILICE AGM OF PUBLIC SAFETY.
JUST SO YOU KNOW, DIRECTOR ESPAÑA, THIS PARTICULAR TOPIC, OBVIOUSLY, IT'S FOR SOME MUNICIPALITIES, A CONTROVERSIAL TOPIC. HAVING EXPERIENCE IN PRESENTING THIS TO VARIOUS MUNICIPALITIES, I'VE TAKEN THIS ON THE ROAD OUTSIDE OF THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, AND I'VE TAKEN INTO COMMUNITIES AT DIFFERENT TIMES JUST TO MAKE SO THAT PEOPLE CAN COME TO IT.
AND EVERY SINGLE TIME WE HAD VERY LITTLE RESPONSE FOR PEOPLE COMING OUT.
NOW, I'M NOT SAYING THAT EVERYBODY IS THE SAME, AND WE CERTAINLY WOULD ENCOURAGE ANY SUGGESTION WE WOULD TAKE ANY SUGGESTION COMING FORWARD. JUST WE FELT THAT THIS WAY IT'S PROBABLY THE MOST APPROPRIATE BECAUSE WE ALSO HAVE ALL THE EQUIPMENT THERE.
IF SOMEBODY WANTS TO SEE IT, WE GLADLY DISPLAY IT.
OKAY. WELL, IT'S GOOD TO KNOW THAT YOU'RE MAKING EFFORTS.
YOU'RE GOING OUT TO THE COMMUNITIES AND SHARING THE INFORMATION AND THEN INVITING MEMBERS.
AND IF YOU'RE HAVING IT THERE AS A REASON SO THEY CAN SEE THE DIFFERENT MATERIALS.
BUT STILL JUST A CONCERN IS A NOON TO ONE TIME.
AND I BELIEVE THAT'S A WEEKDAY MARCH 6TH. I BELIEVE SO.
IT JUST LIMITS THE AMOUNT OF COMMUNITY THAT CAN PARTICIPATE.
THE SECOND THING I JUST WANTED TO ASK ABOUT IS IT WAS KIND OF A NEWER REQUEST.
IT LOOKED LIKE IN THERE, AND YOU MAY HAVE REQUESTED IT IN THE PAST.
SO IF SO, IS THE USE OF MORE OF THE PEPPER TYPE OF EQUIPMENT? SO IS THAT A NEWER REQUEST? AS FAR AS FOR YOUR DIFFERENT TOOLS, AND IF SO, KIND OF WHAT IS CHANGED IN THE ENVIRONMENTS THAT YOU HAVE TO POLICE.
AND THEN WHY IS THAT SOMETHING THAT HAS BEEN JUST DETERMINED AS A NECESSARY NEED FOR.
THE STAFF TO AS FAR AS PROTECT THE DIFFERENT VISITORS WITHIN THE PARK TO DO THEIR JOB.
AND SO FORTH. YEAH. SO WE HAVE SEEN AN INCREASE IN PEOPLE BARRICADING THEMSELVES.
OCCASIONALLY INSIDE VEHICLES, WHICH PROMPTED THIS REQUEST.
FOR OUR OFFICERS PREVIOUSLY IN A SITUATION LIKE THAT, WE MAY HAVE TO SEND OFFICERS ALL THE WAY.
UP TO A VEHICLE WHICH COULD CONTAIN A PERSON THAT HAS A FIREARM.
AND THEY WOULD HAVE TO. ACTUALLY BREAK OPEN THE WINDOW, THE WINDOW THEMSELVES.
THIS ALLOWS US TO DO IT FROM A DISTANCE. AND TO DO IT SAFELY.
SO HOPEFULLY THAT ANSWERS YOUR QUESTION. YES.
YES IT DOES. BECAUSE THERE ARE ITEMS THAT RENEWALS.
JUST TO GIVE YOU SOME NUMBERS, IN 2024, THERE WERE 147 POLICE OFFICERS KILLED IN THE LINE OF DUTY, WHICH IS AN UPTICK OF 25% FROM THE PREVIOUS YEAR WHEN THERE WERE 118.
SO THERE ARE A LOT MORE ASSAULTS ON POLICE OFFICERS, AND WE'RE TRYING TO IF WE CAN KEEP THE DISTANCE AND BRING THE USE ANY TOOLS AVAILABLE TO BRING THE SOLUTION TO A PEACEFUL SOLUTION AND RESOLVE THE ISSUE WITHOUT HAVING TO USE ANY FORCE.
THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? HOW ABOUT DIRECTOR WAESPI OR DIRECTOR ECHOLS? ANY QUESTIONS? NO, THANKS. OKAY. OKAY. I HAVE ONE QUESTION.
I HAD SOME OF THE SIMILAR. THAT'S ACTUALLY VERY HELPFUL TO UNDERSTAND THE TRYING TO DE-ESCALATE AND SEE THAT THE UPTAKE, I MEAN, AS POPULATIONS GROW AND WE HAVE MORE AND MORE INTERACTIONS WITH ONE ANOTHER, I MEAN, THIS IS JUST WHERE WE'RE HEADED. BUT AND I REALLY APPRECIATED THE LITTLE SNIPPETS, LITTLE STORIES OF HOW MANY TIMES YOU'VE USED THINGS AND IN WHAT SITUATION.
IT GIVES ME A REAL VISUAL, BUT I HAVE A QUESTION ON THE CATEGORY TEN.
[01:40:02]
I DON'T THINK YOU MENTIONED HOW OFTEN THE AR IN A CLOSED, SHORTER BARREL HAVE BEEN DEPLOYED OR USED IN THE PAST.DO YOU HAVE ANY SPECIFICS OF THAT AN EXAMPLE OF THAT.
SO THOSE WELL THOSE ARE ISSUED TO OUR OFFICERS ALONG WITH OTHER RIFLES.
BUT THEY QUALIFY FOR THE SECTION JUST BECAUSE OF THAT SHORTER BARREL LENGTH, WHICH IS WHY THEY'RE INCLUDED. SO THESE ARE THE RIFLES THAT OUR OFFICERS CARRY WITH THEM ON A DAILY BASIS. USED? THEY'VE NOT BEEN FIRED AT ANYBODY.
OKAY. AND ON THE DRONES, I KNOW SOME PEOPLE ARE WORRIED ABOUT INVASION OF PRIVACY OR WHATEVER.
DO YOU SEE ANY PROBLEMS WITH THAT? I MEAN, I ACTUALLY HAVE HEARD YOU KNOW, ON MILITARY BASES LARGE RALLIES, OPPOSING DRONES THAT I HONESTLY DON'T UNDERSTAND MAYBE IS THERE, BUT IT'S SOME, CONCERN WITH INVASION OF PRIVACY OF IS THAT OF ANY CONCERN TO YOU WITH THESE HIGHER LEVEL GPS? IS THAT ANYTHING YOU KNOW ABOUT OR SHED LIGHT ON ME FOR TO, ON.
YEAH. WE HAVE POLICIES IN PLACE. WE DON'T DO SURVEILLANCE ON PEOPLE THAT'S NOT WHAT THESE ARE FOR.
IT WOULD BE IT WOULD BE THE SAME THING. WE WOULD HAVE TO GO INTO THAT BUILDING ANYWAY. SO THIS IS JUST A WAY OF CLEARING IT BEFORE WE GO IN TO MAKE SURE IT'S AS SAFE AS POSSIBLE FOR OUR OFFICERS GO IN. YOU KNOW, TO ADD TO THAT, IF I MAY OUR POLICY IS DESIGNED UNDER THE US CONSTITUTION, THE FOURTH AMENDMENT, AND WE FOLLOW THAT TO A T.
SO OUR DRONES ARE NONINVASIVE. AS A MATTER OF FACT, THE PUBLIC ACTUALLY USES DRONES.
ALL RIGHT. ANY OTHER QUESTIONS? OKAY. YES. SO WITH THIS, I GUESS WHEN I FIRST RECEIVED MY PACKET, I THOUGHT WE WERE MOSTLY APPROVING THE 2024 REPORT, BUT IT LOOKS LIKE ARE WE ALSO APPROVING THE BUDGET FOR THE NEW ACQUISITIONS, OR ARE THESE ARE YOU JUST GIVING US A PREVIEW OF WHAT YOU PLAN TO REQUEST? AND THEN AT SOME OTHER POINT IN THE FUTURE, WE WILL HAVE TO THEN MAKE THE DECISION ON THE BUDGET FOR THE NEW FOR THE REQUESTED ACQUISITIONS.
SO THE ITEMS THAT WE'RE ASKING FOR, WE'RE NOT ASKING FOR ADDITIONAL MONEY, WE'RE JUST ASKING FOR THE PERMISSION FROM THE BOARD TO PURCHASE THEM. SO IF APPROVED, WE PLAN TO PURCHASE THEM OUT OF OUR OWN OPERATING BUDGET, AND THAT DOES NOT COME TO THE BOARD AT THAT POINT.
IF IT'S UNDER $50,000, IT WOULD NOT . OUT TO SOMEONE.
I JUST WANT TO SAY, THOUGH, I DO BELIEVE AND CHIEF, YOU CORRECT ME IF I'M WRONG. I THINK WE ARE NOW HAVING YOU COME TO THE OPERATIONS COMMITTEE ONCE A YEAR. AND YOU ARE FOR TRANSPARENCY SAKE, AND YOU ARE REPORTING OUT ON THE USE OF THESE DRONES.
THIS WAS JUST A TIMING ISSUE. AND ALSO THE PRESENTATION TO YOU TODAY IS TWO PRONGS.
ONE IS FOR YOU TO RE-UP THE APPROVAL OF AB 481 POLICY THAT WE UTILIZE.
EXCUSE ME FOR A REQUEST FOR APPROVAL OF THE POLICY.
SO THAT'S WHAT WE'RE BEFORE YOU TODAY. ALL RIGHT.
YEAH. YEAH, SURE. SO WE APPROVE THIS TODAY, AND THEN THERE'S THE COMMUNITY MEETING WITHIN 30 DAYS.
THAT'S PART OF THE ASSEMBLY BILL REQUIREMENT, BUT IT DOESN'T COME BACK TO US, SO WE WON'T GET TO HEAR ANY OF THE COMMENTS THAT MIGHT HAVE BEEN MADE BY MEMBERS OF THE COMMUNITY AT THAT COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT MEETING.
WE COULD CERTAINLY DO THAT IF THAT'S WHAT YOU'D LIKE.
T HAT WOULD BE HELPFUL. I THINK WE COULD WE COULD WE COULD PROVIDE THE BOARD AN INFORMATIONAL MEMO AFTER THEY HAVE THAT MEETING OF ANY COMMENTS OR LACK OF COMMENTS IF THAT WOULD BE HELPFUL. OKAY, YEAH, WE CAN DO THAT.
I KNOW IT'S KIND OF A LONG WAYS AWAY, BUT ALSO REMEMBER THAT THOSE SAME COMMENTS WOULD BE PRESENTED TO YOU IN NEXT YEAR'S ANNUAL REPORT, BECAUSE WE HAVE TO REPORT ANY NEGATIVE COMMENTS THAT WERE PRESENTED TO US.
AND I'M WONDERING WHAT METHOD OF PUBLICIZING THIS MEETING YOU DO YOU UTILIZE?
[01:45:06]
OH GO AHEAD. SORRY. AT THIS POINT, WE WERE PLANNING ON PUTTING IT ON OUR WEBSITE.SO WE HAVE A SECTION OF FACEBOOK AS WELL. SOCIAL MEDIA.
SO LISTED ON THERE, MAKE SURE THAT WE REACH AS MANY PEOPLE AS POSSIBLE.
YEAH, I THINK THAT I THINK THAT HAS ROOM FOR A LITTLE BIT MORE OF EXPANSION.
I DON'T KNOW THAT JUST I DON'T KNOW A PRESS, NOT EVEN A PRESS RELEASE THAT GOES OUT.
YOU KNOW, I DON'T KNOW HOW EFFECTIVE THAT IS. I'M NOT AN EXPERT ON THIS. I'M JUST TRYING TO THINK OF, YOU KNOW YOU KNOW, REFLECTING ON DIRECTOR ESPANA'S CONCERNS YOU KNOW HOW TO DO THIS.
YOU KNOW, MY CONCERN WAS JUST THAT NORMALLY WITH DIFFERENT ISSUES, YOU HAVE A GROUP OF INVESTED COMMUNITY PARTNERS. SO JUST MAKING SURE THAT THE PEOPLE WHO ARE ON THOSE LISTS ARE GETTING INFORMATION THAT THAT TYPE OF MEETING IS HAPPENING. SO MY CONCERN WAS THAT ARE THOSE DIFFERENT POPULATIONS KNOW O F THE MEETING THAT'S HAPPENING. AND THEN THE SECOND PART, TOO, WAS IF AND THIS IS WITH WAS MENTIONED AS FAR AS THAT, THERE IS SOME TAKING THE REPORT OUT TO THE COMMUNITY.
AT LEAST THAT WAS MY UNDERSTANDING FROM YOUR COMMENTS.
SO, SO THOSE ARE MY CONCERNS. SO IT WOULD BE NICE AS FAR AS THAT THERE IS A LIST OF THOSE PARTNERS SO THAT THERE'S OPPORTUNITY FOR THEM TO BE AWARE OF IT. NOW, IF PEOPLE CHOOSE OR CHOOSE NOT TO COME, THEN THAT'S DIFFERENT.
BUT KNOWING THAT THEY HAVE THE AWARENESS OF IT.
AND THEN I THINK TOO LIKE CONSIDERING IN THE FUTURE IS THERE ANOTHER TIME THAT WE SHOULD BE CONSIDERING TO IMPROVE ACCESS? SO THAT MIGHT BE A WEEKEND DATE OR AN EVENING DATE AND THEN BECAUSE THOSE ARE KIND OF MORE OF MY SUGGESTIONS. OKAY.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. I CAN TELL YOU THAT WE, AS THE POLICE DEPARTMENT, I WILL TAKE IT UPON MYSELF TO CONTACT THE EXTERNAL AFFAIRS TO HELP US DRAFT A MESSAGE THAT CAN BE BROUGHT OUT AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE TO EVERYBODY.
ALSO, I WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR TO THE PUBLIC THAT JUST BECAUSE WE PRESENT TO YOU TODAY.
ALL RIGHT. DIRECTOR WAESPI OR ECHOLS. ANY QUESTIONS? NO. NO. OKAY, GREAT. HOW ABOUT THE PUBLIC? ANY PUBLIC COMMENTS? NO PUBLIC COMMENT. NO PUBLIC COMMENTS. OKAY. ANY FINAL COMMENTS TO MAKE FROM THE BOARD BEFORE A VOTE.
JUST HAVE A GENERAL QUESTION. HOW MANY MEMBERS DO WE HAVE? MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC. CAN YOU PULL THAT IN A LITTLE BIT CLOSER? YEAH. SORRY. DO WE HAVE ANY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC WATCHING? THERE ARE TWO PEOPLE THAT ARE GUESTS HERE, BUT THEY WOULD.
THEY MAY BE EMPLOYEES STAFF. BUT I'M NOT SURE.
AND THEN THERE'S FOLKS THAT MIGHT WATCH IT NEXT WEEK OR THE WEEK AFTER.
I MEAN, YOU KNOW, IT'S ALL OVER THE PLACE. WE REALLY. THAT'S KIND OF INTERESTING, ISN'T IT? WE CAN'T REALLY TELL TELL, YOU KNOW, BUT I GUESS THERE ARE FOLKS.
BUT YEAH, CHIEF, I THINK THAT IDEA ABOUT USING PUBLIC AFFAIRS TO HELP OUT.
I THINK THAT'S KIND OF WHAT I WAS THINKING, TOO.
WE DO SIR. YEAH. YEAH. OKAY. ALL RIGHT. DO I HAVE A MOTION.
CAN I GET A MOTION FOR TO APPROVE THIS ITEM? SO MOVED DIRECTOR WAESPI MOVED.
SECOND. I'LL SECOND. SECOND BY COFFEY. ALL IN FAVOR OR A ROLL CALL VOTE? YEAH. MOVED BY DIRECTOR WAESPI. SECONDED BY DIRECTOR COFFEY.
DIRECTOR COFFEY. AYE. DIRECTOR ECHOLS. AYE. DIRECTOR WAESPI.
AYE. DIRECTOR ESPAÑA. AYE. DIRECTOR DESCHAMBAULT.
YES. DIRECTOR SANWONG. YES. PRESIDENT MERCURIO.
AYE. ALL IN FAVOR? THANK YOU. OKAY. IT PASSES.
VERY GOOD. THANK YOU. THANK YOU SO MUCH. THAT HELPS.
DO WE HAVE ANY GENERAL, ANY COMMENTS FROM THE GENERAL MANAGER 'S OFFICE?
[GENERAL MANAGER'S COMMENTS]
SURE. I HAVE JUST ONE QUICK THING, AND IT'S GOING TO SOUND MAYBE TRIVIAL OR NOT OF INTEREST TO THE PUBLIC,[01:50:03]
BUT I'LL TIE IT INTO WHY IT IS. YOU ALL MAY HAVE NOTICED OUT IN THE PARKING LOT THERE, WE HAD TOOK DELIVERY OF.THAT IS TO HELP ALLEVIATE SOME OF THE SPACE PRESSURE THAT WE HAVE HERE IN THE BUILDING WHILE WE ARE AWAITING OUR LARGE NEW HEADQUARTERS BUILT ACROSS THE STREET. WE KNOW IT'S GOING TO BE ANOTHER YEAR AND A HALF OR SO.
AND WHY DOES THAT MATTER? WELL, UNLIKE MOST PUBLIC AGENCIES RIGHT NOW THAT WE'RE SEEING, SADLY, OUR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AND AN EXTREME SENSE, BUT ALSO JUST A LOT OF OTHER LOCALS AND ALSO AT THE STATE LEVEL, HIRING FREEZES AND POSITIONS THAT ARE BEING CUT ALL OVER.
UNLIKE THOSE SISTER AGENCIES, THE PARK DISTRICT CONTINUES TO EXPAND.
WE CONTINUE TO ADD STAFF. THE BOARD HAS BEEN VERY GENEROUS IN YOUR BUDGET.
YOU ADDED ANOTHER I BELIEVE, 17 FTES IN THIS LAST ROUND, AND WE ARE BUSTING AT THE SEAMS. THAT IS REALLY EXCITING. AND I HAVE TO TELL YOU, IT IS PROBABLY ONE OF THE NUMBER ONE QUESTIONS THAT WE GET IN JOB INTERVIEWS RIGHT NOW AS WE ARE COURTING CANDIDATES, THAT WE ARE STABLE, THAT WE ARE EXPANDING NOT JUST IN OUR LANDS AND OUR PORTFOLIO, BUT ALSO IN TERMS OF OUR WORKFORCE, SO THAT PORTABLE OUT THERE, IT'S A LITTLE BIT FUNKY.
IT'S NOT THE MOST BEAUTIFUL THING OUT THERE, BUT IT SPEAKS TO REALLY THE SUCCESS OF THIS AGENCY AND REALLY THE RESPONSIBLE STEWARDS THAT WE'VE BEEN OF THE PUBLIC DIME AND ALL OF THE HARD WORK THAT WE NEED TO CONTINUE TO LEAN INTO.
SO JUST WANTED TO LET THE BOARD KNOW WHAT WAS HAPPENING OUTSIDE THERE.
WE WILL BE ALSO EXAMINING RIGHT NOW WE'RE DOING AN ENTIRE SPACE PLANNING EFFORT.
AND ANALYSIS ALL OVER THE DISTRICT, BECAUSE IT'S NOT JUST HERE IN PERALTA OAKS WHERE WE'RE BUSTING AT THE SEAMS, BUT IT'S ALSO IN ALL OF OUR PARK OFFICES AND AND OTHER SATELLITE SPACES.
SO IT'S ACTUALLY REALLY EXCITING MOMENT. BEAR WITH US.
BUT THAT'S WHAT THOSE VERY LARGE CUBES ARE OUT IN THE PARKING LOT.
I WAS TALKING TO THE MAYOR OF SAN PABLO WHO ASKED ME.
I REALLY AM, I REALLY WOULD LIKE TO SEE OUR YOUTH WORKING AT THE EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT .
AND I SAID, WELL, YOU KNOW, WE HAVE A JOB FAIR.
THEN THE NEXT DAY THAT ANNOUNCEMENT WENT OUT AND I WAS ABLE TO FORWARD IT TO HIM.
AND SO YEAH, I'M GLAD YOU MENTIONED THAT. YES, WE DO HAVE OUR JOB FAIR.
WE'RE HAVING A VIRTUAL ONE THAT'S COMING UP DOING OUR SEASONAL HIRES.
AND WE ARE AS JUST FOR THE BENEFIT OF THE PUBLIC, ALL OF OUR JOBS ARE POSTED ONLINE, AND WE ARE SEEING REALLY AN UPTICK IN THE VOLUME OF APPLICANTS THAT WE'RE GETTING FOR POSITIONS ALL THE WAY UP AND DOWN THE DISTRICT.
JUST TO GIVE YOU ONE ANECDOTE. WE CLOSED THE ASSISTANT GENERAL MANAGER FOR HUMAN RESOURCES AND RECEIVED, I BELIEVE IT WAS 135 APPLICATIONS FOR THAT EXECUTIVE LEVEL POSITION.
I HAVE NEVER SEEN AN OUR RECRUITER HAS NEVER SEEN THAT MANY FOR THAT LEVEL OF CERTAINLY NOT IN HUMAN RESOURCES, WHICH IS VERY, VERY COMPETITIVE OUT THERE. SO WE DON'T KNOW WHAT I HAVE NOT I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE POOL IS YET, BUT WE'RE GOING TO GET DGM COOK SOME RELIEF HERE SOMEDAY.
[LAUGHTER] WELL, I HOPE THERE'S A GOOD FILTERING SYSTEM GOING ON THERE FOR THAT.
ALL RIGHT. WELL, THANK YOU FOR THAT. I APPRECIATE THOSE THAT THAT INFO.
ARE THERE ANY ANNOUNCEMENTS FROM CLOSED SESSION TODAY? NO THERE AREN'T. THANK YOU. OKAY. ARE THERE ANY PROPOSED FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS?
[PROPOSED FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS]
I'D LIKE TO ASK IF WE COULD REVIEW THE ISSUE OF HOW COMMITTEES REPORT OUT TO US.AND I FIND THAT VERY HELPFUL. THANK YOU. OKAY.
[BOARD COMMENTS]
WOULD YOU LIKE TO START US OFF DIRECTOR? WELL, I WAS OFF AT A FAMILY MEDICAL EMERGENCY FOR MOST OF THE WEEK.I DID ATTEND THE MAYOR'S CONFERENCE IN MORAGA.
[01:55:07]
BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT . ALL RIGHT. DIRECTOR SANWONG.NO COMMENT. DIRECTOR ESPAÑA. YES. ON 2/5 , I ATTENDED THE LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE AS AN ALTERNATE ON 2/7 I ATTENDED THE BOARD STUDY ON THE LAND ACQUISITION ON 2/8 I DID MY EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DISTRICT POLICE RIDE ALONG AND LEARNED A LOT MORE ABOUT OUR ORGANIZATION AND EVEN HAD AN OPPORTUNITY TO GO UP IN A HELICOPTER AND LEARN ABOUT HOW THAT DIVISION HELPS OUR OFFICERS ON THE GROUND.
SO I WANT TO JUST HAVE GREAT APPRECIATION FOR ALL THE STAFF THAT HELPED PUT THAT TOGETHER.
ON 2/9 , I MET WITH OUR GENERAL COUNSEL BOURGAULT AS FAR AS WE LEARN MORE ABOUT THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN GENERAL COUNSEL AND THE BOARD.
ON 2/16, I PARTICIPATED IN CELEBRATING BLACK HISTORY WALKS AT THURGOOD MARSHALL REGIONAL PARK, THE HOME OF THE PORT CHICAGO 50, AND HAD A GREAT OPPORTUNITY.
WE HAD THE AKA'S THERE AND SOME OF OUR BLACK BIRDING COMMUNITY AND HAD SOME GREAT DISCUSSIONS ABOUT ALL OF THE HISTORY THAT HAS HAPPENED ON THAT SITE.
THANK YOU. I ATTENDED THE COMMUNITY INPUT SESSION HELD AT BIG BREAK LAST SATURDAY, I BELIEVE ON THE RESILIENCY PROJECT THAT OUR PLANNING STAFF HAS EMBARKED UPON AT BIG BREAK.
I ATTENDED THE CITY OF OAKLEY MEETING PUT TOGETHER BY GOVERNMENT AFFAIRS WITH OUR GENERAL MANAGER .
I ATTENDED THE LAND SESSION AS WELL AS LEDGE COMMITTEE AND THE FINANCE COMMITTEE THIS MONTH.
ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. AND DIRECTOR WAESPI. YEAH.
THANK YOU. I THINK MY ACTIVITIES THIS PAST COUPLE WEEKS WERE LIMITED TO THE LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE MEETING AND THE L AND SESSION, WHICH I THOUGHT WAS VERY WELL DONE. I APPRECIATE ALL THE WORK, EVERYBODY.
AND THE REST OF THE TIME. WELL, I'VE BEEN OCCUPIED WITH OTHER THINGS, SO.
THANK YOU. ALL RIGHT. THANK YOU. AND I DO NOT SEE DIRECTOR ECHOLS ON THERE.
SHE NEEDED TO STEP AWAY. YES. YEAH. PARDON ME.
SHE HAD TO STEP AWAY. SHE HAD TO STEP AWAY. OKAY.
ALL RIGHT, WELL, THEN IT'S UP TO ME TO FINISH IT OFF THEN HERE.
ON THE FEBRUARY 4TH THE BOARD MEETING WITH THE BROWN ACT.
TRAINING ON THE FIFTH I ATTENDED THE LAND STUDY SESSION PREP WITH DIRECTOR COFFEY.
AND ON FEBRUARY 6TH A VERY, VERY WELL ATTENDED CITY OF CONCORD STATE OF THE CITY PRESENTATION BY THE MAYOR, MAYOR CARLYN OBRINGER, WHO IS ALSO ONE OF OUR PARK ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS AND THE PAST CHAIR OF THAT GROUP. ALSO ON THE SIXTH I ATTENDED THE REGIONAL PARKS FOUNDATION BOARD MEETING BY ZOOM.
ON THE SEVENTH, WE HAD THE ACTUAL BOARD LAND ACQUISITION STUDY SESSION.
THAT WAS VERY THAT WAS VERY, VERY USEFUL. AND ON THE 13TH, IT WAS A FOUR WAY DEAL FOR ME.
I HAD FOUR MEETINGS ON THE 13TH, THE FINANCE COMMITTEE, MY ONE ON ONE WITH THE GENERAL MANAGER , THE PRE BOARD MEETING. AND THEN THE MAYOR'S CONFERENCE MEETING IN MORAGA.
ON A VERY, VERY RAINY NIGHT. BUT YET THAT DIDN'T STOP ANYBODY FROM GOING.
IT WAS VERY, VERY BUSY. SO LOTS GOING ON. AND ALSO, I JUST WANTED TO SAY I WAS REALLY DISAPPOINTED THAT I WAS NOT ABLE TO JOIN YOU AT THURGOOD MARSHALL BECAUSE I WAS VISITING MY SISTER OUT OF STATE.
IT WAS AN IMPORTANT VISIT THAT I HAD TO MAKE IN ARIZONA.
SO OUR NEXT ITEM IS ADJOURNMENT, WHICH IS OCCURRING AT 3:09.
[02:00:04]
THANK YOU VERY MUCH.* This transcript was compiled from uncorrected Closed Captioning.