 Okay. Okay. Roll call. Chair Rogers. Here. Member Schwedhelm. Here. Member Sawyer. Let the order reflect that all subcommittee members are present with the exception of member Sawyer. Right. Thank you so much. We'll go to the public comments for a non agenda item. If you're interested in giving it a comment. Go ahead hit the raise hand feature on your zoom. All right. Madam recording secretary, I'm not seeing any hands. Do we have any pre recorded voicemail? No email received. Right. We have the special meeting minutes for June 24th, 2021. Council member, did you have any amendments to those minutes? Pretty brief, pretty accurate. Yeah, we'll see if there's any public comment on those. And again, I'm not saying. Any public hands pop up. There were no emails received. Great. Then without objection, we'll show those as adopted or adopted as submitted. Mr. City manager, Adam 4.1. Thank you. Mayor Rogers and council member Schwedhelm. We're here today to present our long term financial planning and. Subcommittee recommendations on our one-time money allocation process. And I believe that Alan Alton is ready to provide the staff report on this item and then staff will be available to answer any questions that the subcommittee has. Yep. Thanks, Jeff. So chair Rogers and members of the. The committee. This item has. Is the, our recommendations of spending plans for both the remaining PG and E. Settlement dollars and our American rescue plan act. Or ARPA funding that we have received and will receive. We've received a number of. This has been a long process. If you can recall, it's been about a year over a year. Since we received our PG and E funds and we've gone through a number of. Outreach. Meetings on that and meetings with the council. And we've also. Our last meeting was in July. We had a number of projects that were proposed by the council. We received additional council or projects. Proposed by staff. And we've. Taken all of those. Went through some preliminary. Eligibility scans. For ARPA funds. We use the consultant to help us with that. And all of that has led to where we are now. And so with the next slide, please. So one of the things that the city did when we did have our list of projects for both groups of. We have a group of staff members. I've listed them here. We have. Jason nut and Claire Hartman. Both assistant city managers. Eric McHenry, our chief information officer. Coral shells. Our diversion. Inclusion and EO officer. Is our deputy director of economic development. Gali. Was our deputy director of community engagement. Tasha right. Our sustainability coordinator in Santa Rosa water. And myself. This is a very diverse group. That has a wide. Ranging. Subject matter expertise. And as a group, we met many times. We were able to share information. Back and forth when we weren't meeting. Formally. And we've discussed projects. When scoring an old committee came up with. The consensus for the final recommendations. Just as, as a, as a personal note. Just for a brief second. When, when we got this, this was kind of a daunting task. And I know for myself. There's. This, this was seems to me to be the right way. To move forward with this to have all of these. Different ideas come forward as we looked at the projects. It opened my eyes to look at things from beyond just the finance. Perspective. So I was very appreciative to be a part of this team. And proud of the work that we were able to come up with. Next slide, please. So we applied the same review criteria for both the ARPA and the PG and E programs. Just in general, I'm going to call the projects programs because some of them are actual programs and some are capital projects, but we'll just use a. Just a general descriptor for them. So we looked at both of the programs through. Not only sustainability, economic and, and equity lenses, but also looking at them further in terms of diversity, equity and inclusion. We also put other factors into the review process. You know, we were very conscious and shared. What the interim final rule from Treasury was. The federal guidance does. Guide how we can apply the funds for ARPA. And we needed to be very cognizant of that. We were looking at those. Programs that were truly one time in nature versus ongoing. And we were also looking for return on investment or, you know, what, what can we get the most for the money that we're investing in, in this. We looked at a number of sustainable issues in, in including environmental equality. In other words, this is a citywide program identified funding to direct investment specifically. In vulnerable communities. We looked at environmental health projects and programs that aid or add to the health benefits or access to health benefits. And that can include things like, you know, even walking trails and those types of. Of issues when looking at, at health. And we looked at. Whether it was a one time money. If it freed up general fund. If it required ongoing funds. If it implemented the climate action plan. And those types of things. From an economic. Sam point, we were looking at the socio. Economic upstream investments that are pro. Program may have. Whether it addresses the. Inequities. And access to resources. Addressed factors. That comprise social and structural influences on health. Governmental policies. And social, physical and economic and environmental factors. We looked at the. Economic determinants of health. Whether projects and programs. That will affect or influence the social. Economic position. Neighborhood conditions. Or societal. And cultural factors that influence health and wellbeing. And we looked at whether they advance. Economic development in the downtown. Whether they. Eliminate bottlenecks. And we looked at. In the downtown. Whether they. Eliminate bottlenecks. And planning and economic development. Department. If it reduced ongoing. General fund maintenance costs. Or if it enhanced recruitment or intention. And finally, we looked at things from an equity standpoint of whether. The program advances. Diversity. And that's what we look at. Whether it's. Developing advances, equity, and access advances. Inclusion. Whether it impacted. Underserved populations. Addressing generational poverty. Improving access to city services. Advance in homeless. Or housing first strategies. Expanding on the availability of childcare. as I mentioned before, as we were looking at it through a federal lens of the prior priority investment in federally determined, qualified census tracts, or QCT as you'll see later on in slides, and place-based equity strategies. So next slide please. So this slide just graphically shows what we've done so far with the PG&E settlement funds, if you recall, we received $95 million. We have committed $88 million of that, so $20 million gone to fire recovery projects, $40 million to general fund reserves for fiscal stability, $8 million of fire resiliency projects, $10 million contribution to the Renewal Enterprise District, red, and $10 million contribution to the Rosalind Library, and that leaves $7 million uncommitted. So next slide. So, and just to remind you, these are just quick notes on the general fund fiscal stability, we restored reserves, we are doing vegetation management, and the Wildland Resiliency Response Strategic Plan, or WUI 2.0 with the fire resiliency money. Fire recovery is going to projects in the Hopper Avenue corridor, residential street repair, and re-landscaping and vegetation restoration in both the Coffee Park and Fountain Grove areas. We, the contribution to the Rosalind Library and also the contribution to the Renewal Enterprise District, that contribution matched the county's contribution to the red. Next slide please. So, as I said, we had $7 million of unspent funds. We received around $120 million of program requests that, and the way we looked at it is of all the requests that we received in, and I think offhand there were probably about $170 million worth. So, those that didn't match ARPA requirements, eligibility requirements through our review, that kind of lumped into the PG&E settlement fund, because, as you know, PG&E settlement does not have any legal strings attached to how we can use it. So, there's greater flexibility there. So, we developed, this is a summary of the spending plan we were able to go through and that $120 million come up with a plan of $6,988,550. So, just right there under budget. We used a scoring based off of the ranking criteria that we had before. So, we scored each project, and then came up with the total. The maximum score possible was 21. No program on either ARPA or PG&E scored that high, but you can see that we did have some that were in the 15s and 13s. So, where we knew ongoing costs, we list them on here, although some of these programs may end up being an ongoing budget ask in future budget cycle. In other words, were there pilot programs or were trying to determine what the true ongoing budget may be. So like I said, if we knew it, we put it down. If not, they, you know, we did it. And given the relatively small amount of funding available, we tried to focus on programs with smaller costs to be able to fund more programs. For example, some programs may have scored very high like fire station, but there simply wasn't enough available funds for it. So Dave, we, we ended up not going with that project as a recommendation. So in the preceding or in the next slides, we will go into a little bit more detail on on these programs. So next slide please. So translation services, this is for both oral and written communication but also for. It's not just for council meetings and board meetings but also for all of our written material that needs to go out. We're trying to determine what that cost is on a citywide basis. This may be what we're looking at here is we know that that that we're going to have an ongoing need for this. It funds it a little bit for probably a couple of years and gives us the ability to figure out what the right number is for an ongoing translation services program costs. Right now, those costs are spread throughout the, the organization in different budgets. So we have really good trend analysis on on some of the, the translation services that we know we will need going forward. We have the youth promoters and youth council. So within the community engagement area and this creates model for youth engagement, expands the outreach capacity uses place based models. The specific plan $6,000 to go or 600,000 to go into planning and economic development to replace Mendocino Avenue with south Santa Rosa Avenue specific plan and this is a one time cost. And we also have the Rosalind Creek Park and that was just discussed the council I think will last council meeting, or the one before that. And what this does is we'll, we'll complete the remainder of the bicycle and pedestrian trail access and completion of a loop pathway system. And that will do to pedestrian creek crossings bicycle and pedestrian multi use trail connecting McMen and Burbank avenues. And when we were going, this was actually one of those situations where we had park and ball fields listed at a much larger dollar amount but through our discussions as a group. We knew that we could take an amount of money, a smaller amount and address a very important part and be able to get some work done right away on on that part. So we were opposed to just blocking on the larger kind of generic park cost. So we were able to get specific with Rosalind Creek at this $1.5 million amount. Next slide please. So we should you have questions and I'm sure you will we do have members of the group that we're here that can speak individually to these programs and and probably explain it more detailed than what I'm going through here. So we have a number of DEI initiatives that we broke out there's an intern program that will use a local talent pool to provide city opportunities, we feel will augment diversity and inclusion. There's community equity speaker series. And that would be out in the in neighborhoods and in the in the community. There's staff equity training this would be more internal for city staff. There is the funding to support and develop multicultural spaces and events out in the community. So that's what we mean by DEI spaces they're literal, say in in community centers or the potential for going into other space to be able to develop these multicultural spaces and events in those areas. The idea of creating a stipend for boards and communities is something we haven't done before and this would be a policy going forward but the idea behind it is that it would encourage diversity and participation by providing some form of money for folks that would otherwise find it difficult to be able to apply to boards and commissions because of their, their, you know, current work status. There is the the in this amount is kind of a placeholder to implement the equity task force recommendations that are going to come forward through the through the seed process. So this one we don't know exactly what that would be but we know that they are going to have recommendations and we want to make sure that there's budget there to be able to implement the recommendations and to move forward on that as quickly as possible. We're looking at in a public facing dashboard for transparency and accountability to implement the city equity plan recommendations and so we figure it would be about $50,000 to create that dashboard to let the public know what we're doing. Next slide please. So we have the community empowerment plan so this is again this is one of those things where we are, we, we do not have a set operating budget in the, in the community engagement area. So this would provide that this would at least give us a bridge until the next full budget cycle to understand exactly what the cost will be to implement a lot of the community engagement strategies that the council wants us to do so. To do things like neighbor fast and listening sessions for the sunshine ordinance and engagement for redistricting and other important items going forward. Right now we have staff budget, but we don't have an actual operating budget to be able to do this and this provides us the ability to go out and do these things now. And then, again, like I said, provide that bridge for the upcoming budget year to actually create a suitable operating budget. The next is contract services and planning and economic development. And this also allows a little bit for on the fire side as well but basically plan check and plan review and inspection services. While we have staff that does this work, given the amount of development and the work coming through there, we will often use contract labor or contract services. Some, some of that may be on an expedited amount or process but we definitely needed to help keep the flow of plan check and plan review going forward. So this would provide contractual services to allow that to continue. So the public records management update. This is it again focusing more on planning and economic development. And what it would do is it would digitize the hard copy records that are in planning and economic development and move it into our trusted system. So it's so part of this cost supports digitizing and and ongoing, it will ultimately reduce costs of long term storage, make easier to be able to pull up documents and then we also have our, our trusted system as I mentioned what the public records would go into. We have the overall trusted system which is record management software. There's an initial cost and then there is an annual license fee these things tend to get for something like this it would be spread through the city as part of the information technology internal service fund. There's a fire inspection database which would streamline required reporting to the state. The transit radio upgrade with this would do is the police department has has begun the process of they have a new system record or radio system. This would take the transit radio and upgrade it into that same digital radio system. And then there's the work associated with the Asala fountain panels so this would be to cast and install the artwork on the Asala fountain be about 300,000 to do that and then there's ongoing maintenance costs that we estimate at about $10,000. Next slide please. There's work on the climate action plan so we would use these funds to support policy initiatives, build two kits for applicants developments remodels, all relating to the climate action plan. We would use money to invest in our evacuation equipment, including concrete K rail and other water filled barriers, lighted a frame barricades all of those things that we do and the unfortunate situation where we need to provide evacuation routes. So this would allow us to have more of that equipment on site and ready ready to use at that point. So we look at in getting a consultant on board to do a study on the enhanced infrastructure financing district. In other words to prepare a financing plan and fiscal impact report. And, you know, this is needed to show returns on investment. When we are negotiating with the county. And then we're looking at a couple of limited term positions. These would be two and three year terms so one, a limited term planner. And then we're focusing on renewal enterprise district funded development and, and other deadline driven affordable housing projects. So again, kind of augmenting the staff but on a short term basis, a two year limited term, and then looking at a media tech on a three year term and again, you know, we are, we are in a world now where we're doing things on zoom and having the media technicians to be able to assist with that is vital as last Thursday. Evidence. So that is the, that's in total our, our spending plan for that at the end of this presentation I have a number of the projects that didn't make the cut. David you would probably want to know those as well so we have those listed toward the end of this for right now those are the ones we're recommending. And I can stop now if you have any questions or move on to the American rescue plan. Mr Mayor, I got a question if. Okay Chris have I asked a question. Have we lost the mayor. Certainly not hearing him. I hate to ask a question that he doesn't hear. When you hear like this green is frozen. We need to get him back on in order to have a quorum as well. The hex does Allen when you mentioned last Thursday. I did like, right is it. I'm trying guys I Allen you might have needed to have proposed city hall Wi-Fi upgrade. Yeah. Can you hear now Chris I was going to ask a question. Yeah, go ahead Tom. Okay. Allen, can you just talk about the scoring process. I really appreciate the work that's been put into this. But my question is more with the large number of people there was that consensus that they came up with these numbers or did everyone score individually and these are the average numbers. How did those numbers actually. I really created. So it was, it was kind of both actually so clearly the ones where we were the, the individual members were more subject matter experts. They were able to provide initial scoring on there we all scored our own to the best that we could. And then we had rather robust discussion I would say that that address. Each individual project and why they were scored a certain way why they, they went and for each individual item or thing that we scored it was it was like a plus one or a zero so so we kind of tip away the whole idea, you know score from a range of like one to 10 or something it was either. If it met this criteria you gotta, you gotta one if it didn't, it was a zero. And then the, the individual would go through, and then us as a group would agree that yes, it met that criteria and it deserve that one and so we did that through each one of those. Okay, thank you. And then. Again, this is just use of PG&E funds. Yeah, so I had a couple of questions regarding let's take the Rosalind Creek Park. Yeah, in that $1.5 million investment. How does the use of the measure M funds factor into this and is a similar process used for the measure M funds that come to the city of Santa Rosa. So I think we have Jason that on the line and he, I'm sure he would be glad to answer that. My question is because I'm supportive of this product but it's we have so many different buckets of funding. Right. And I know that measure M one I hate to take any of these in isolation because especially this amount is has got the most amount of flexibility in it. Yeah, he's so so again we were focused specifically on on these PG&E funds. And to your point, typically when we go through this we know that that other funding sources can deal with other parts and then you have kind of leftover. So we don't want to be brought up by the general fund or in this case we had PG&E dollars that would save the general fund from coming back and doing this or through other part development fees that would take a longer time to a mess, a mess. So again, hopefully I'm not stepping too much on Jason here but that's typically what happens in these projects. So the, the measure M funding, we are going to be coming forward with an expenditure plan toward the end of the year, the expenditure plan will likely set aside between 40 and 50% of the funds that we receive toward capital investment strategy. And without being without defining exactly which capital projects would be included in that that would be something that we were doing at a at a future time. In addition, as, as Alan mentioned we do have park development impact fees that we collect, and we do have funds in the Southwest area and that particular zone. But we don't have enough currently collected to be able to invest in all of the project needs in any of the districts, or any of the of the park zones. And so we're always looking for additional funding needs, and knowing that we have roughly about a 15 to 18 million dollar cost estimate for the completion of Rosalind Creek Community Park. We felt that it met the scoring criteria for the project process that we went through. And therefore we felt it was a reasonable project to go ahead and include. We could have used other parks, particularly in the South and Southwest, instead of Rosalind Creek but we thought given the high level of public commentary that we had recently that that would be a good place for us to start at this point. Thank you Jason that's very helpful. And then on the slide here the limited term media tech, and I know today's Council meeting we have a consent item on the peg funds, and a question I'd be asking later this afternoon, because I know we're looking at $150k on an annual basis for the library, but it looks like we get three to 400k. Could those peg funds be used for these limited term media tech positions versus using PG and $8. I'm gonna, I just look to see if Eric was here but and I and I'm not seeing him but I'm going to dust off the, the rust on my knowledge of peg funds and peg funds are typically not typically peg peg funds are used more for capital. So you wouldn't want to find you couldn't find positions with peg funds so. Last question I had obviously got a lot of different community feedback about use of these PG and $8. All of these plans were staff generated correct and so my question is how do you intersect what we heard from the community members about how they would like to see the distribution PG any. How does that compare to this plan that you just presented. Well, that's, that's a good question. I would say that we have put a significant amount of existing commitment and dollars toward not only recovery but resiliency projects. We do have some projects here that will increase the evacuation and would be more on a on from that standpoint but I think what you're seeing and if we recall we had comments that were very specific to the areas that were directly impacted by the fires, but then others that had more global. And I think what we're looking at here is that these areas have been a number of different areas that impact other parts of the community. So, with a small amount of money that we have left this kind of spreads the wealth over over a number of different areas. We have some that are affecting maybe areas in the downtown but there's there's other things that are going to help our engagement and our outreach and more underserved areas and we were combining looking at that but also looking at what we would be able to do with our community as well. So, you know, it's it's an attempt to try to to address as many needs as possible with a very small amount of money. I look at balancing acting Mr colonist last question maybe for you on today's regular council agenda. We're talking about transfers and general fund dollars to balance the budget from the emergencies the glass fire and the coven 19. That's approximately 3.8 million where any of these dollars considered for that and I recognize since we did set aside 40 million of PG and it may be coming out of the same bucket already, but your thoughts on that. So the action you see on the agenda for this evening is an effort to allow us to close out our fiscal year and identify a funding source so that we have a balance or a funding source identified for those expenditures we occurred this year. We anticipate that those are going to be reimbursed next year through FEMA and other grant sources so I don't, we're going to draw on reserves on a temporary basis, those will be replenished once we receive the reimbursements from the federal government. And how optimistic are you with that federal agency reimbursing us. Based on the conversation from Alan and Jason very confident. Great. All right, thank you. Yeah, we made some very good progress there last week so that was. And this, this is also part of the challenge we face with PG and funds and the ARPA funds is. These are two very important sources of one time funds for us but we also have a large list of FEMA projects, oh yes projects that we are still working on on a daily basis to get reimbursement funds back in the city and those are going to fund a lot of the fire. Repair and damage stuff that we incurred. All right. All right. So Alan, if you could talk to me a little bit about the specific plan the 600,000. You know, looking at the list of things that did not get funded. One of them that's on there that we've talked a lot about with the p three, and particularly the timing of the city with the county. Give me a little bit of information about the specific plan and why this was rated above other projects for that cost. Actually, I think Claire Hartman is here and she might be able to provide a little bit more insight into that than I can. Yeah, she's an attendee at the moment if we could get her promoted. Okay, can you hear me now. Yeah. Great. So I can speak. I'll speak first to the specific plan. So just quick background, we were headed towards about a year or two ago actually, this is two years ago we were successful in getting a grant to start a process for Mendocino Avenue specific plan. And that was going to be part of the money that we needed. And we had secured 600,000 and grant monies for that, but we were going to look for other grants, or if need be the general fund to complete that. So either of those pass panned out. In the meantime, we did get grants for missing middle. And we also which will definitely speak to the Mendocino Avenue corridor. It speaks to especially areas already designated for medium density that are defined as walkable. So that layer will continue on for that area. So what happened in the last two years is the counties move forward with their complex government complex plans, whether it's the downtown site or their county campus. Either one in terms of their county complex will free up the other for housing so the catalytic site in that corridor was always going to be the county campus site, and that's going to be ahead of any effort, and through the community that's been sponsored. And also the JC move forward with their housing that was another catalytic area for that area so in essence we're moving away from focusing on a specific plan because there's really the need for that is definitely decreased with those three areas. And we're setting our sights on South Santa Rosa Avenue, which happens to be also within those qualified census tracks. So one of those areas that is a particular interest, as you start to look at areas that are deficient in infrastructure and have a population that is at lower incomes than the rest of the city. And so, and we have a lot of development pressure down there so the money. In this case the 600,000 would help us be plant the seed for that specific plan process that wouldn't start. Obviously not this year we would look maybe to the end of next year at the beginning of the next. We would couple it with some advanced planning fee. We weren't successful in getting other grants that we do think because of being in a qualified census track. We would definitely be eligible and competitive to get grants we're also working with the county to see if there would be a financial partnership with the county because a lot of the pressure frankly is coming from projects entitled in the county that are landing in South Santa Rosa Avenue area. So it scored high because of going through the criteria, particularly with the DEI lens. It really speaks to trying to support that part of the community. I think we have three P and I probably raise a dollar Rosa can speak better to this and I think she's on the panel today. The P three was less ready. It's seed money for a long term project. So that five, I think it was 500 or about 600,000 to your point mayor equivalent but the likelihood of be able to carry that through. That's a much bigger ask in the long run where South Santa Rosa specific plan, you know, this is something that we can finance and accomplish within the next, at least get started within the next couple years. And if desired I can speak on the P three, if you still have questions on that. Thank you. For the, for the board and committee stipends, who owns that project, who's going to put that together. The criteria. Sorry, Tom, did you have a question about the, the last item. So once you're done, I got to have a question, a new question. Okay, great. Yeah, who's going to own that. It says 75,000. Do we have any type of program criteria that we're thinking of already in terms of who gets it and how much they get per meeting. Have we started to put that together. I guess the broader question is does the 75,000 actually cover everyone who is on a board and committee, or are you going to have staff and council sort of in a position of having to pick and choose who deserves to be paid and who doesn't. So this was a preliminary number. And the golly's got her hand up to as well. We could promote my golly. Good morning, everyone. My golly day is here. Yeah, if the regarding the 75,000 dollars this was kind of a starting point with really looking at some of the primary issues have to do with folks having access to childcare and covering those types of costs. Definitely the question or the, the thing at the forefront is, you know, how do we get the most diverse voices at the table and mitigating some of the barriers for community to getting to these spaces. But childcare being one of them so if, if there isn't a direct path for the 75,000 to be outlined that way, definitely being able to use the $75,000 for childcare so that folks can participate on these boards and commission, I think would definitely be a step forward. I appreciate that I'd be very supportive if I've got questions about the stipend just because I don't really want us in a position of picking winners and losers and, and saying that if your service on one board, you get paid in service on another you don't that we're de facto saying one board's more important than the others. If we use this money for childcare at all of our meetings or had it available at all of our meetings that that covered it. So I think that that would be a really strong case for for addressing that barrier without putting us in a position of, of having to pick winners. So, that's my two cents on that one. And the final one and Alan we can go into it I guess a little bit later. I was a little bit surprised on the not funded list to see the hot EOC. Particularly given that we received a million dollars in earmark from our congressional partners for that project. I'd hate to see it not move forward. And I have to potentially give that money back or explain explain to them why when they went to bat and got us funding. We ended up not being able to move forward with the project. Well, and we, we could talk about that now. I think at the time. When we were going through that. The certainty of the earmarks wasn't wasn't clear. We had originally discussed a kind of a smaller warmer EOC. You know, and let me be clear, we currently have an EOC that is functional and operational. We made that clear, or we, we, we needed that information we so we have that. This is just a scalable process to get to a better more permanent EOC and like you said a hot EOC. So, obviously, we have the ability to, you know, potentially reprogram or, or, and with the idea that there are earmarks there. I think that helps with that process and that's something that that we can go through, but with the, the information that we had on the time at the time we, we program the funds in other areas. I appreciate that. I think also one of the criteria and I think Tom mentioned it, that I'm looking at these through a lens of is where's the money going to come from if not from PG&E. And so there are some things on here that perhaps when we go to the full council we can have conversations about is, are there alternative funding sources. I know, for example, the fire stations is a hot button issue that does have other funding sources that are available to it or other types of financing mechanism. So being able to sort of explain that, because there are some important projects that are on the, on the, on the, on the shelf, when we come out of this. Tom question. Alan, beginning you talked about the qualified census tracks, do we have a map of that or can you talk a little bit about how those are federally defined so that everyone on the subcommittee understands it and I think the council is a whole body would be interested in seeing that same information. Sure, so at the, when this comes to the council. On the 26. I've attached to the council packet, the map. We had our GIS folks do an overlay of the qualified census track so basically it's, it's done by median income. It's a, it's a HUD developed criteria. So we have that there I couldn't quite get it into a slide or attach it to this. At the late notice we had already, we had already noticed this and again this was thinking it was Thursday and in hindsight I guess maybe I could have done it for this special meeting but definitely for the 26. I think it's a good idea to have a map of the council packet so the council will see it and also have the link there so the public could see it. All right, yeah, I'd be very interested in seeing that because not only this funding stream but also violence prevention partnership funding streams, continue of care funding streams. It'd be nice if all of us were using a consistent database and it sounds like one's in existence if we're in agreement with the federal designation of those areas. Right. Yeah. So we can send that out. So that the subcommittee members can see it and it'll be part of the council packet I believe. Right, right. So right after this meeting I'll send it out. Great, thank you. Okay. So shall I move forward to ARPA. Next slide please. Okay. So this is kind of a rehash on on some slides that you've seen regarding the American Alan we might have lost Chris. Oh, are you back Chris. I'm back. Okay. Moving moving forward. So the American rescue plan. So this is kind of review review of what you've seen before. We've received 17.1 million dollars in May of 2021 will receive another equal amount in May of 2022. We need to obligate those funds by December 31, 2024. And we will allow for obligated programs or projects to run through if they're in the pipeline but I believe they all must be spent and accounted for by at the very latest 2026. The sooner the better we're at all possible, just to make sure that we stay within federal guidelines. And just kind of for overall context, not to get too far in the weeds here but here's what we're going to what we have done and what we will do relative to to this. So we put these funds in a special revenue fund so they're not in the general fund. They exist in their own funding source. And once the council agrees on a spending plan. We will come back to the council and create appropriations within that special fund that will house each of the ARPA programs. That will allow us to have the clear reporting that that's necessary for Treasury moving moving forward. So little bit of sausage making for you but I think it's important context, especially as we talk about the different funding sources as we go along. So, next slide please. So this gives an overview that you've seen before on what we can and cannot use the revenue replacement for government government services just to expand on that a bit since it comes up every now and then. So this is not a one for one revenue loss item. In other words, we know that we've lost a certain amount of money and, like, let's say to T revenue or recreation revenue or Santa Rosa tourism bia revenue. What ARPA does is has you look at the, the entire general government. And when you include all those funding sources and there's, there's a lot of funds. And go through that lens, we'll find that that our calculation was that the revenue loss on that basis was about 1.3 million. And we use the obviously for COVID-19 expenditures, or negative impacts from COVID-19, including small business assistance industries that were hard hit economic recovery specific items. The revenue and pay for essential workers investments in water sewer broadband, all of those things are identified as, as permissible uses within the interim final rule from treasure. And it states what you can't use it for so you cannot be used to directly or indirectly offset tax reductions or in conjunction with other federal sources. You cannot be deposited deposited into pension fund systems. Again, I mentioned when they need to be obligated. And then spent at least by 2026. And then, but it's also important to understand that that there was federal recognition that negative pandemic impacts have, and quote, fallen most severely on communities and populations disadvantage before it began. So the, the intent of the act was really to help those underserved populations because it because they have been hardest hit and we're, we're essentially going to be hardest hit by this pandemic so it allows us to provide funding in areas that are less sure of those communities that was the intent. So moving forward to the next slide. We have a, this is the summary of our of our spending plan as proposed. This is laid out the same way as before. But there are some differences. Again, like I said, we've already received one tranche of $17.1 million. We're going to get another one later on this fiscal year. But it's laid out in a way that you have year one costs that are that are tied to the year one budget. That said, any dollars that aren't spent in year one can just move forward into the next year. So in other words, there's, there's carryover of these programs as they go. So that's why you see a another column here that says remaining. And so basically what we tried to do was one, stay within budget on year one, and then develop a budget for year two and then any remaining program costs that can, that can go into the year four and all the way up. I suppose up until December of 2026 when they win all funds must be spent. But then again ideally what we're looking for is to have all these things obligated and used by 2024 again. The intention of the act was to try to get the money out into the public or be used in a timely basis. So we've tried to do that here. We mentioned terms of some programs. You're going to, you're going to see, I can looking at this chart I can already see one typo on there. So what we're looking at after school programs is was really, I think additional, initially we looked at it on a three year basis and then as we started plugging in the numbers to align with budget. We kind of knocked that down to two years, but we didn't knock it down on this slide so I apologize for that. What we're going to look at is that you're going to see some asterisks on areas like after school programs or fiber backbone, and what those are is that those programs are intended to be within that qualified census track and again, that will be visible to the council, the full council for the council meeting, and we'll have this out to the committee after this. So let's move on to the next slide. So, one of the things that we were able to do, or that we tried to do one of the, again, looking at all of the different criteria that we had, but there was also a part of that criteria was basis of freeing up general funds. The one off the top that addressed that was homeless assistance. So essentially, the homeless assistance addresses two things with ARPA, some of it has to do with qualified census tracks, but it's also a vulnerable population. So this is a program which we can go ahead and use ARPA funds to pay for. And we did this based on what we traditionally transfer out of the general fund into the homeless services fund for the first year for sure. And then we estimated for the second year of an equal amount, and then whatever was remaining went into the left into the last year, as we kind of move through these projects. So this is the Samuel Jones Hall Capital Project. So this is one of those things where we were able to use our revenue calculation dollars, and, and apply it toward capital project, which we've had difficulty in the past, finding resources that would pay for capital. They pay for the programs, but, but we were struggling with the capital part of it. And this through the revenue loss calculation. We were, we were able to do that. And to be able to look at it also being a vulnerable population. So, and I should have prefaced this before all of these projects. So we've been reviewed with our, with, with our consultants that are doing this type of review for a number of different jurisdictions. So we feel pretty confident that the, that in getting the thumbs up for them that these are eligible expenses as, as we go along. So looking at the pilot and wraparound services for two years of the safe parking program. A continuation phase two, if you will, over the next three years of the childcare program and we kind of started that program. In 2020. And so this will allow this to continue forward and as possible, targeting in the qualified census tracts area. In fact, that's where we do need to target that. And then to jumpstart the in spot, the in response program and taking it from a 10 hours a day, seven days a week up to a 24 seven operation and then having that. And that would be for the two years there. It would note that this is one of those things that will definitely if it works. And if we do need to continue that forward, this would be something that we would need to find another funding source for it after ARPA is out. We're looking at the after school programs in the affordable housing sites. So those are generally with by definition within the the qualified census tracts. Again, works well with with ARPA, hitting a lot of those. Checking a lot of the boxes there. I think that's where we need to go. I think we need to go back to recreation sensation. We would need to target those in the qualified census tracts area. Ellen, not to interrupt, but I think we just lost the mayor, which means we lost a quorum. I don't see him. All right. We'll hold on. And let's see if I'm missing something. There he is. And there he goes. Right. Thanks. Okay. I think I was at the secure family fund. So this is. We just lost them again. Oh, there he is. Sorry. No, I'm here. Okay. So, So we would look at the secure family fund, which would provide youth immigration legal services. Within there, it helps augment what we, what we send over there. So next. Next slide, please. So here we have a universal basic income. This was, this was a program that was. It's just by the mayor, I believe. Or by council, I should just say in general. This would, we would look at partnering with the county for the administration of, of this leave. They are looking at doing a similar program. The calculation that we have is, is a hundred families at $400 a month or two years. And we're looking at, at baby bonds as an investment. Again, this would need to be targeted and qualified census tracts area. This would be one that, that we would. We, we need to look at the. How we would administer this. This is to kind of. Pull from an earlier question. Do we have. The infrastructure in place, if you will, to administer this type of a program. No, but it is a, a, a program that, that meets a lot of the criteria that we were looking at. I think it ranked pretty, pretty high. And so it is. I think we're on the, the deal at rank seven. Or it had a score of seven. So we have it on here as a way to invest in our community. But there is some work that needs to be done with that, I would admit. Tenant improvements. Again, these are grants would be for small business tenant improvements within qualified census tract. This will allow us. To see the, to see this as discussed with Raisa about this, this would provide the most impact to those small businesses in those areas. For the amount of dollars that we're talking about. And then in broadband, we're looking at fiber background. Backbone projects within. The west side qualified census tracts. This is scalable. We're initially looking at about $10 million. We kind of bump that down a little bit and kind of move some from one year over another to make the, the overall budgets work. We do plan on, we want to take advantage of the work that the county's doing in that same area. So this would be kind of a regional partnership. So money that would kind of go, go toward that as well. So that's why it's, it's, it's important for us to do it again. Very preliminary in terms of, of where we would go with that. And we would really be looking toward the county there as well. And then the last two are kind of administration and, and organizational support. And so part of, part of this is, and this is kind of a two prong. So the, the plan that we have here is to do for employees. To do. COVID-19 testing. So under the, the, the council's. Policy is that. Those unvaccinated employees. Would submit to weekly testing. So I think that's a good idea. And I think that's a good idea. And this. Could provide funding for it is definitely eligible under ARPA. That said, we think that we can take it. Well, we know. We have met with, with. Our consultants that are. That help us in these matters with both FEMA. And with ARPA. And so the plan that we have. Is to. And through FEMA public assistance, they're a hundred percent funding. Of this type of testing. It should. The testing that we're doing doesn't raise any red flags with them. So it should be eligible expenditure. FEMA will pay a hundred percent reimbursement through. December that we know. We know that they could modify that to go longer. But as far as we know right now. Through the end of December, it's a hundred percent reimbursement. And then it moves to a 75, 25 split with the city. Needing to share 25% of the cost. So at that point, what we would do is start using ARPA money. To kind of backfill that. And then once. We're going to start using ARPA funds. And then we're going to start using them. And then we're going to start using FEMA PA. Runs out because they would typically have an end date. If. We still needed to do testing. We could then use. ARPA funds to fund the rest of the testing for that. Or. We could reprogram come back to council and reprogram those funds. Into a different area. And then we have ARPA administration. And this is. This is my only selfish act on the, on the whole list. If you. If you will. This is a team to work with. That's our consultant. Who has helped us with the, with eligibility. There's a significant amount of reporting that needs to go on with this. Frankly, I don't have the bandwidth for it. A lot of cities don't. That's why treasury. Carved out the ability to. Have this type of administrative support. So what this would do is. Provide us that help. In. In reporting out. And. And any other type of work relative to that. Going forward through this process. So with that, I think these, that is the end of our proposed spending plan. Kind of the way that I broke those up was by either. Community. Community investment or. Or. Community support or. Administrative support. And then so we can either talk more about those, or we can move into the list of programs that we have. That did not. Make that cut. Tom, do you want to kick off questions? Sure. Thank you. Because. My first one is more of a general thing. As you and I both have been dealing with our measure O for years. And the whole issue is supplanting. I take it that is not the same situation with these funds. Correct. It is not. Okay. Thank you. Just for that clarification. And this isn't so much of a question, but more of a. Well. How some of the metrics for success. And specifically. I'm thinking in the, the city's total investment in childcare. So I think it was cares act. We allocated 2 million for that effort. And here's 2.9 million. Hey, I think it would be helpful for the community to know we're making these investments. But also. By this level of investment here, the results were seen. Going along with other things that I know we don't have a lot of free staff time. Do we have a lot of free staff time? Do we have a lot of free staff time? Do we have a lot of free staff time going along with other things that I know we don't have a lot of free staff time. Do we have mechanisms in place so that we can share the success of these investments? Okay. Well, we, we definitely want to be able to. Talk about and share those successes. As we go through, especially for the amount of money we're investing in that. I think. Right. So it might still be on the line. I know that she worked. A lot with the economic development subcommittee in terms of the childcare program. And this moves off of that. So I think that what we have a foundation there now moving into this next phase. I believe. We're set up to do that. And then obviously. Yeah, we, we, we should be coming back and. For. If not all of these, a lot of, a lot of. These programs, I would suggest that we. That we let the community know after the fact, just what we've done and how they've benefited from the use of these dollars. And just using that, you know, it's almost $5 million. I knew we are doing teacher education, recruitment, guessing, also providing opportunities for childcare. And actually some of those numbers, I think we'd be very beneficial for the public to understand and for a council to understand too. So I guess I would just suggest that if it comes back to council, you could give us the plan as to how we'll know the return of these investments. We'll have a more robust. Explanation. Okay. Thank you. Go ahead. Really fast. Really fast time. I also, I can send around to you. First five put out a infograph in partnership with the city and with the county that for the first phase walks through how many kids were helped, how many childcare providers were saved, all that kind of thing. So, so that partnership. I think it's the community foundation as well. That partnership has put out some information. So I think that's a good idea. I think that's a good idea. I think that sounds great. Thank you. And then Alan, you touched a little bit on this about the baby bonds. And it sounds like more work needs to be done. I'm just wondering, it's almost like what the mayor asked earlier. Who gets to decide who gets it because even if you look at the baby bonds, 700 families in the qualified census track. I'm sure there's more that are qualified. So. And again, since we don't have a department of baby ponds in the city, I think that's a good idea. I think that's a good idea. I think that's a good idea. I think that's a good idea. I think that's a good idea. I think that's a good idea. Yeah. I don't have a good answer for that. I'll be honest with you. I, that is, that is a challenge that we would have to be able to develop that type of criteria. And. And we. So we have a concept. And we need to refine that concept. Into a specific program. And so we, we still need to do that. But we felt that the concept was, was a good one to, to continue to move forward. And so we're, you know, that's where it landed on the, on the list. But yes, there's absolutely, we need somebody to champion the program and we need. Good criteria around it. So that's, that is, that's what we would need to do moving forward. I see raises got our hand up. Did you want to add something? Yeah, I can just add that for universal basic income, baby bonds and the childcare funds. We're working with the county and other providers, like first five, Sakura, I think has already started fleshing out the ideas of the baby bonds with first five, but I'm specifically for universal basic income and baby bonds. We don't have the expertise in house. We're looking to partner in the same way that we did for the childcare funds so that we can leverage them, expand them and use the expertise of our community partners to best and most effectively disperse the funds. I would, I would add on to that wherever possible where we could move any of these programs out to have a third party. Doing that work where it's where it's eligible to have that happen. That's, that's probably a better way to go about. There's, there's, you know, there's a lot of programs here that, that, that. You know, to Roy's point, we just don't have that particular expertise within the city right now, at least not identified. So those are areas where, where we would absolutely be looking for a partner in being able to have that program run smoothly. And Mr. May, I think Sakura had her hand up at a point or not. Okay. Yeah. No, I do. There she is. Oh, I. Good morning, everyone. And just to add on to, Reyesa's point, the baby bonds. And universal basic income. Those figures are estimates at this time because we would be working with multiple partners and because the county is also receiving dollars and considering these investments as well, we would be looking for a, a harmonious way to identify the priority investments and who would qualify and ensure that it wouldn't, that these would make sense together and help the intended recipients versus kind of create an unseen and undue burden. And so as Reyesa mentioned, we would be looking for a way to identify the priority investments as well. And again, and because again, the county will is considering many similar investments to this, making sure that we would come back to council with a criteria and an explanation on kind of how people got identified, what the processes were, and what the investments were, and how we would measure it over time to see the effect, because these would be pilots. And so we would be looking for a way to identify the priority investments that would be needed in the community. Great. Thank you for that. And does anyone know it may be too premature, but at what point if the council does approve this, would some of these dollars start getting distributed to community members who apply and are selected? Well, for the universal basic income, if the county funds that we would be working with them to make sure that they're set up to be fairly responsive, understanding the timeline of the ARPA money. And then for childcare, we have some projects already in the pike. We know that, for example, the Ross Street childcare center, the provider's been identified. We have a good understanding of potential costs for that. And so that would go, I believe in 2023. But we would have other smaller projects, not built from scratch projects, that we would be able to release earlier than that. So both of those are set up to be refined in the next few months. And then we can start providing money probably in the, in the early next year. Great. Thank you for that. And then my last question is regarding the broadband. So I've heard that term. I know it's a big focus of these dollars. What would be the product that we get in metrics for success? So we invest 8.6 million. What changes would we see in the community with this investment? This is another one where the county is also talking about making similar kinds of investments in broadband. And our focus would be on the federally qualifying census tracks and making the investment in that area. We don't frankly have a lot of specifics about what 8.5 million would get us. It's more of a conceptual project right now of trying to increase broadband access through public investment in fiber and providing access to the community. So that it's a little bit closer to the community in the pipe. So that it's closer to the communities that don't have that access now. And I see Jason's got his hand up. Yeah. So I'll just add that the county is actively working on hiring a consultant that's going to look at what it would be for there to be a municipal oriented broadband network within the county. So that's a strategy in place. And so that's, it's, it's, it's helping us be part of a broader scheme toward providing. Better access and internet for internet and download speeds to communities that are in desperate need at this point. And so that's, that was the impetus and having this in the list. So Jason, could you, how did we come up with 8.6? That's a good question. You know, we did a couple of quick investments, investment evaluations when we originally started talking about the PG and E funds. If you remember back in last December, we brought forward a similar project, which is a broadband backbone for the east side of town that would benefit our evacuation process. It would enhance our traffic signal coordination. It would provide CCTVs. It would do a lot of different things. And so we calculated in very rough numbers what that cost and investment would look like. And it was roughly $10 million. And so our, our, we more or less just transplanted that generalized infrastructure investment to the west side. There wasn't anything really scientific about it at this point, at least not for the program that we're putting forward. And then when the county approached us about two months ago and asked us to be part of their program for hiring a consultant to really look at this municipal aspect of broadband service, we felt that this would be a really good spot for us to step into, to have funds available should a strategy come, should a strategy come forward in the next 24 months. Okay. So I guess if just given the time frames as to when we, this funding needs to be expended, we're confident that we could do all that with these fiber backbone projects within those ARPA timelines. So I have a baseline project, even if we don't align well with the county administration, that baseline project looks very similar to the one that I described back in December of 20, which would install a fiber. It's called a midway line, or the, the, it's basically the backbone that would, that would run up and down Sevastopol Road, Stony Point Road, Dutton Avenue, and other primary arterial and collector streets that would connect traffic signal and, and public infrastructure, whether it's the library or potentially schools. And so that would be the backbone if there isn't a different strategy presented by the county in that period of time. And, and yes, I believe that we have the ability to be able to implement and utilize those funds in the timeframe should we have to fall back on that project. Okay. Thank you. Those are the questions I have now. All right. Thanks, Tom. Jason, I'll talk to you a little bit offline. I think about the broadband one. I remain a little bit skeptical. Mostly because it's almost the cost of running our homeless assistance programs for three years. And I'm just like Tom, I'm wondering how do I go back to the public and tell them what they're getting. For the investment. In a program that is supposed to be for helping people recover from the pandemic. And so let's just talk a little bit more about it. I'm not going to remove it from the list today, but I still have a number of different questions. For UBI, I do know. Just to Tom's question around program management. Just in case everybody is not tracking it. Healdsburg also voted last week to do a UBA UBI program. And they chose to partner with Corazon. To make sure that they do the administration through one of their partners. So that might be a good model to look at as well. And then the other question that I do have. It kind of goes back to still some of the things that are pending that are, they're not in there. I guess, Alan, I guess you'll go through that next. So I'll hold those questions. Yeah. Okay. And we can. So there's a lot of projects that didn't make the list, especially on the PG and East side, there are three on the ARPA side, which is fire station remodel, the water, the water system fire damage and the park let program. So the fire station remodel. One that was a, from a cost standpoint, it was an essential project. Absolutely. I think, I think when it was originally put on that list, it was at a broad brush looking at it as a. You know, an essential. You know, worker facility type, type of. it probably is less ARPA eligible as than when we first thought. And so it would fall under something like the, you know, the revenue calculation, you know, trying to fit it under there, of course it wouldn't fit under that. So, so that's why it raked very low and it would have probably just been moved over to the PG&E side, although it was more than what PG&E funds we had. So it was just, it's just too big of a price tag right now. The water system fire damage, that was to do the, for the PG&E project, or not the PG&E, the FEMA PA projects from the Tubbs Fire was to pay for the cost share of those that were on the water side. So that's what that was. We reviewed it, but at the end of the day, we were, you know, looking at it just didn't stack up with the other projects that were ARPA. And, you know, we kind of, as we were going through and trying to plug in projects with the dollars, Parklet program seemed that we just didn't have really, you know, firm footing on it. At one point it seemed like it was possibility. I don't even know. I think the council has an item on a future council agenda to look at it and we just, we pulled it off. We felt that the money would be better with the tenant improvements and some of the other things. So we just kind of agreed, you know, to mix that one as we were going through and it ranked zero as a result. With PG&E settlement funds, there are a lot of projects. I don't know how much detail. Maybe you've seen them if you have specific questions, I can try to go through them. I will say this, a lot of them are large dollar items. So again, with the idea of trying to get the most projects for the small amount of money that we had, some of those that just had a large price tag to them, we either found a way like with Rosalind Park to kind of whittle that down and make it more project specific or we just kind of pressed on with some of the smaller ones that we have. So, but with that, I can try to answer any specific questions that you have. And obviously we have staff here that can pick me up where I can't quite give a good answer. So that helps. I appreciate that, Alan. I'll start off by saying I think council member Sawyer, if he was here, would be disappointed that the roof replacement was left on the wayside. So I think council's gonna hear about that in next year's budget. Mr. City Manager, one of the things that's missing from all of the lists, including the programs not in spending, not particularly a program, but we've had at least one employee contract that's come forward that has essential worker pay bonus in it. Where are those funds proposed to come from if not from ARPA and PG&E? So they would be funded by the general fund. We have some of the projects that have been identified for ARPA are currently funded with general fund. If they are funded with ARPA, that would free up the general fund dollars for things like one time cash payments and some years of ongoing costs. So, for example, the proposal to do homeless assistance for three years, that's currently money that's slated in the general fund. And by identifying using ARPA for it, we create more flexibility in our budgeting. That's correct. Okay, great. Tom, any questions? Oh, and Mr. City Manager, did you have something else to add? I just wanted to point out the kind of the challenge and the process ahead of us. As we've mentioned a number of times, and as Alan did an excellent job of explaining, PG&E funds are our most flexible source of funding. And if we wanna reach down and fund some of the projects that aren't eligible for ARPA, it means we have to free up additional PG&E funds. So as an example, if we were to be able to qualify the Mendocino Avenue, South of Santa Rosa Avenue specific plan as a qualifying census tract project and pay for it under ARPA or the Roseland Creek Park, another one that's currently recommended for PG&E settlement funds, if that were to be determined either to be eligible for ARPA funding or Measure M or something else, that would free up some of the PG&E settlement money and allow us to fund something else. So that's part of what we're seeking in terms of feedback from the council subcommittee today is are there programs that you see on the unfunded list? That you want to have staff focus on to see if we can figure out a strategy to provide them with funding. And on the other side of that, are there things on the proposed either PG&E fund list or ARPA funding list that you feel are a lower priority than some of the ones on the unfunded list where we could either adjust the amount of funding or substitute projects? We did the best job possible given the direction we had from the council on how to prioritize. But that's the purpose of these subcommittee meetings and the public participation in them is to help us prepare for the council meeting and make whatever adjustments are appropriate. Yeah, I guess I'll start by just saying that I really appreciate all the work that everybody has done. There's clearly not only good programs being recommended, but there's a sound methodology that I think we can go out and explain to the public how we got there. For me, some of the ones on the program is not in the spending plan that I don't necessarily need them to come from PG&E or ARPA that I do think are gonna be particularly important for us as we move forward. I joke about the roof replacement, but we do at some point have to replace the roof. Vegetation management, then very clear on, you have the fire department let us know what they need for vegetation management. I don't know that there's a higher priority for me in these funds, the vegetation management and our fire projects that we have moving forward. I'd love to see more of an investment in climate action solutions, but I think the 200,000 is a good start. The hot EOC is an important one to me and it sounds like we potentially have other types of funding that are available. And then I also think one that scored fairly low that doesn't necessarily need to come out of these funds but that the council does need to figure out how to address is the replenishing of the parking fund. That was sort of, I don't wanna call it an agreement but it was sort of a de facto agreement that the council acknowledged when we moved forward with the county with the three years of reduced or free parking for their spots that we would backfill to make sure that the parking district remained solvent or remained whole. So again, I don't need it to come from these funds but it is something that's on my mind. Tom? Do you wanna go, Jason has his hand up. I'm not sure if you had some comments on what you just said. Yeah, go ahead, Jason. Yeah, thank you mayor. I just wanted to touch base on the Luther Burbank Home and Garden Roof. I have spoken with council member Sawyer and we'll speak again before this comes to council. We actually are currently in the process of designing the roof material. That's the project I think he was referencing and we did fund that in this capital improvement program budget year. And so there really isn't an actual capital replacement program yet because we don't know the cost because we don't know the material that's historically relevant to go back on it. That's why we're doing this in a phased approach. So that's why that shows $0 in there because we have no idea where that's gonna land and we're not even close to that stage of the game yet. The current report shows that we have 12 more years of life on the existing roof. So the eminency of failure is very low. And so we feel fairly confident. So I just wanted to give you a little context as to why we didn't work harder to provide detail on that particular one. And I will again go back to council member Sawyer and let him know. Honestly, surprised council member Sawyer doesn't remember what they used when they built it. All right, go ahead Tom. Really after that. So for me, your comments about vegetation management. Again, I'd be looking forward to some of the metrics because I know the fire resiliency, $8 million first trunks that we used. I thought some of that was covered here. And so again, I'd be interested in hearing more details about what will we get with the vegetation management. On the list of suggested distribution, it's the limited term planner and the limited term media tech. I have some more questions on that because I know in the public or the head contract services for 798K and then we're also doing specific to your limited term focus on red funded development. I'd like to know more information about that. Is the county doing something similar? But what's the product that we're gonna get from those investments? And then as we talked earlier, I'm still a little concerned of the price tag for the broadband because I really do appreciate, Alan, all that you described about the process that was used because we could talk forever about this and you can make solid arguments for investing in any of these. And so the challenge before council is what is the community need right now? That's long-term investment. And I don't quite understand the 8.6 million for the broadband, who will get a better ROI with some of the other needs of the community. So it's more of just, I'm not a no right now. I just need to know more information. What's that look like and what product will be the community to be receiving with that investment? Thanks. So I think I have, I think I can provide a little bit more information on the vegetation management. I did speak with Chief Westrop about that. And so you're right. We do have vegetation management. We have a five year program to, I think it's about a million dollars a year. I think what was that they have a number of grants that are in the pipeline and that the additional dollars that they're talking about here would be the local match for that. So in talking with him, I think a way to deal with this would be that if those grants such as, and I think he said that there's like another $5 million worth of grants that we might be able to get is that you shave off that fifth year. So in other words, he already has the dollars that he could use the fifth year of the vegetation management program and replace that with those grant dollars to go in to expand that program. So I think that there's a way that we can work to still get that moving forward. But anyway, that's just further context. All right. I think Jeff went over or city manager went over our next steps. We'll be coming back to the council with in-study session with proposed. We, I think we will have definitely for some of the projects a little bit more information to pass on even if it's just what was further explained here we'll provide that presentation to the full council and then at that point seek direction on moving forward with those plans. And if so, we would then come back to council at the soonest possible date and create the actual program or project accounts within either the regular budget for PG&E funds or in the special ARPA fund. And it will be helpful for us to know if there is anything you want us to prepare as alternatives for that study session, let us know. An example of that would be reduced funding for the fiber project and see if we could fund vegetation management or two or three other things with that funding instead. All right, Tom. Yeah, I would just ask when you come back to the whole council, if we could get timelines that if this funding is approved, here's the timeline for implementation. Just the best they can because I know there's been some confusion over we approve this and okay, it's gonna happen like tomorrow, right? And that's typically not the case. So if staff could give us a realistic expectation about when we might actually see these the implementation of the funding. All right, let's go ahead and take public comment on this item and Tom, can I have you run the public comment? I jumped over to my phone and I can't see all of the attendees. Okay, if there's anyone from the public who'd like to make a comment, please raise your virtual hand and I am not seeing any, Mr. Mayor. All right, and then the last thing on our item on our agenda for today was items for a future agenda. Is there anything that you wanted to add, Tom? Like this hasn't been enough, not at this point. Okay. You know, we had talked about some of the pension obligation. I'd be interested when we're gonna have that further discussion because some of us in Sacramento attended some sessions that I'd be interested in having discussions about that. So that would be your 115 trust concept. Yes. So we are, I'm sorry. No, go ahead, Alan. Okay, we are planning on doing yet another special meeting at the end of October to give a update on our first quarter budget performance. This is our reporting out quarterly to the subcommittee on where we are in terms of budget. We could add an informational item on section 115 if there's something specific that you want or if you want an overview of it, I'm happy that we could add that. For me, I'm interested in identifying a strategy to deal with our unfund liability. Again, in Sacramento, we've already talked about pension obligation bonds, the IRS trust. There's a lot of different options. I'm a proponent. I'd really like to see this council establish it. So we give staff some directions to how we're gonna try to mitigate this and actually make some decisions about our strategy. Sure. So we can go through that. And this is something that Jan kind of laid out in her last study session about the pension obligation bond. She talked about a 12 point strategy for moving forward and addressing it. And a section 115 trust was a part of that strategy. So we can expand on that at the end of October. We'll add that on the list. Thank you. All right. We'll see if there's any public comment on this item as well. And I'm not seeing any hands raised, Mr. Mayor. All right. Thank you so much, Tom. With that, we'll go ahead and adjourn. We'll see you all a little bit later today.