Recommendation to receive a report on the Strategy for the Tidelands Capital Budget and 5-Year Capital Plan and approve the Tidelands Capital prioritization criteria.  (Citywide)
Great. Thank you. Next item. Item number 13 report from Financial Management Recommendation to receive a report on the strategy five year capital plan and prioritization criteria for the Tidelands Capital City Wide. Thank you. Before I turn this over, I just want to say that there has been a lot of conversation, obviously, about our Tidelands Fund and the challenges we're having with oil, the production of oil, the cost that we are evaluating our our price of oil, and both the Highlands and the Uplands Oil Fund. I wanted to just take a quick moment and thank the city staff. You guys have done a great job up to this point for giving us a report and especially point out Councilwoman Price and Council and Vice Mayor Lowenthal, who have been all over this issue. And so I'm sure we'll hear from them tonight. So I'll turn this over to staff. Mayor, council members. Obviously, we have been paying a lot of attention to the oil industry and the price of oil during the past six months as it affects our budget both operationally and capital project wise. So tonight, we're gonna give you a quick update on where we're at. Does it or does it not affect us in the current fiscal year? What premises will we have to accept as we go forward in next fiscal year as we put together the budget? Our finance director, John GROSS, is going to talk more about the operating side. And then our assistant city manager, Tom Modica, is going to talk about the capital side. So with that, I'll turn it over to Mr. GROSS. Thank you very much. City Manager West, we're going to be talking as as the manager said about the strategy for the decline in the price of oil and how it impacts our main funds, primarily the Titans fund. But we're also going to talk about the Uplands Oil Fund. This is essentially going to parallel the memo that was that you got on December 31st, and it's included in your packet with some updates based on the most recent information that we have. Once I figure out how to. Get this. Slide to move forward, the you're going to hear about a background on oil prices, an update on the Uplands Fund and the general fund, an update on the Tidelands operating budget, the impact on the Tidelands capital budget and the five year plan. And then Assistant City Manager Modica will be talking about the impact on the capital projects, the updated strategy for Tidelands Capital Project and the five year plan and then next steps. Let's say you're allowed to do that. The oil was at about $100 a barrel for the last three years. There was no problem until about August of this year after the budget had been developed for oil price began declining. At that time, it looked like it was a pretty normal oscillation. But oil has continued to decline, and it's currently about $40 a barrel. Actually, today it's about 45, but it continues to oscillate subsequent to that decline. It's been pretty well determined that the price decline was caused by basic economics, that the supply of oil simply exceeds the demand at present. This is a chart that shows the history of the price of oil over the last eight years. It does oscillate, but in particular it jumped up and to that in 2008 and dropped in 2009. And then from about January 2011 to now, it's been at about $100 a barrel. It was at $100 a barrel when the price was when the budget was developed this year. And then it started its decline, as you see on the chart. So what is the impact of of these price declines on the budgets of the city? Well, the operating budgets of the city assume oil is at $70 a barrel. The titans capital plan assumes oil is at $100 a barrel. Those are the prices that are used when the budget is developed. We use $70 a barrel for the operating budget so that there is leeway. If the price of oil drops in this case, it could drop by more than 30%. We would still be okay with our operating budget if if the price of oil dropped no more than 30%. We've seen more than a 30% drop. The assumption of $100 for the Tidelands capital budget allowed for planning of important city council projects and how those projects would be allocated and when they would be done. If oil remained at what had been a relatively steady price for the last few years, so we used $70 to the operating budget and $100 for the capital budget in developing this year's budget. What has actually happened. Obviously, we're no longer at one. We looked at the market when we did this update at the end of November and felt that the best projection was that oil might be at $60 a barrel for FY 15 and 16 and maybe it would be at $70 for FY 17 through 19 for projection purposes. That projection is going to be just a starting point because any long term projection of oil is going to be problematic because the future price is unpredictable. That being said, there is no indication at present that oil is going to return to $100 any time soon. But it certainly could happen. It could continue to rise. It could fall at any time. The current oil price of Iran, $45 a barrel does require us to do an updated projection. The $60 and $70 projection that we just did no longer seems appropriate. We will be updating it in the first quarter of this year, the January through March period. On the next slide, I thought it was important to show what the commodities market and the people who speculate on the future who bet money on the price of oil, what are they saying in this chart? Shows what they have said at three different time periods. On the horizontal axis is years. This is a chart that represents 2014. Basically at the time the budget was adopted through 2020 and shows the prices that people are betting money on what the price of oil might be over the future. The top graph, which was as of June 30, 2014, when we did the budget, shows that in 2014 the price of oil people bet on the price of oil being $100 and the betting was then that it would drop it down to about $82 a barrel over the next five years through 2020. That was what the expectation was of the commodities market when we did the budget, $100 a barrel and dropping over time. The next graph, the line, the gray one is the price of oil in the commodities market over the years, over the future. On November 28th, the day we did this projection that you're seeing tonight, it said that the immediate price of oil would be around $60 a barrel and the betting was that it would rise to a little above $70 a barrel over the next five years. Today or as close today as we could get January 28th. The bottom curve says that the commodities market, oil market is betting that the price of oil will be in the area of $40 over the next few months and then rise slowly over the next five years to about $60 a barrel. That's the betting of the market, that of the commodities market. That by no means mean that that's what actually going to happen. It probably doesn't represent what is actually going to happen, but it is a guess by the people who actually bet on the market. So how does that information impact our revenues for our various two oil funds, uplands and Tidelands? As I mentioned, the Uplands oil fund revenue is budgeted at $70 per barrel by policy. Anything above $70 per barrel is budgeted the next year and used for one time expenditures. Uplands oil money has two sources. It isn't just from the sale of oil. That's about half the revenue. The other half of the revenue is actually a contractual fee assessed on production and exploration costs in the city's oil production area. That is as production and exploration goes up. The money in the uplands fund goes up also. So based on the current projection of $60 and $70 oil, we expect that the uplands oil revenues will be adversely impacted by several million dollars a year from both the lower price of oil and lower production costs. That is important because the uplands oil revenue supports the general fund and general fund operations. We transfer about $17 million a year to the general fund to support operations such as police and fire and parks and public works purposes. That's about 4.4% of the general fund. And we put that number in there to show that it's not 10%. It's not 15%. It's not that big of a number. But it's also not a small number like 1%. So it's significant, but not not an overly large percentage of the general fund. We are also suggesting by way of this projection that all the money will be needed for operations and there probably will not be any one time revenue that the city has had for the last several years. Coming from the Uplands Oil Fund, that one time money is typically used for capital purposes to support improvements throughout the city . We do need to update this projection. The projection is and was not very specific in November because the production costs were changing. We knew that whatever projection we had would be out of date before we even printed it. So we will be doing an updated projection in the first quarter of 2015, January through March. As an aside, we also expect that production of oil will decline somewhat in Long Beach and that will reduce revenue from an oil barrel tax. Probably not a huge amount of money. It generates about $600,000 a year, $6 million a year. So there'll be some reduction in that source also. So let's switch to the Titans fund entitlements, oil revenue first that revenue. Oil revenue is impacted by three factors the price of oil and the amount of oil produced. The price of oil times the amount of oil produced gives you a revenue, but that revenue is offset by the cost of production and exploration. Both production cost and investment in oil exploration are being reduced in Long Beach. This is happening throughout the country where many oil companies are scrambling to reduce their production and exploration costs. And the company in Long Beach is doing exactly the same. Those lower production costs and lower investment in oil exploration will somewhat temper the loss of revenue because even though will have lower revenue will also have lower costs. Also, the projections show that even if oil returned to $70, the revenue that's generated in this current market may be somewhat lower than the current $70 limit that we had. So some of these dollars in the future may not being quite as much revenue, at least in the immediate future, even when the price comes up. So let's talk about what the impact is on the Tidelands operating budget. The projection at the 60 and $70 level shows that all Tidelands revenues will be need. Oil revenues will be needed to support operations. Even with all the revenues going to operations and none to capital, that tidelands operations may still have a shortfall in the area of 1 to $2 million in FY15, and deficits could exist in the future. Also, in fact, they're likely now we are doing an updated projection. You you've heard that oil is now in the 40, $45 a level, which is much lower than the 60 to $70 projection you're seeing here. But production costs will also be lower. So we're not sure what those numbers will say. And that's why we need a new projection. And we're working on that now. In the Tidelands Capital area. I mentioned before that all revenues will be needed to support operations, so there aren't going to be any new capital moneys available for the foreseeable future until revenues increase and oil prices increase. However, there is still a substantial amount of capital revenue available, even if there's no new money. We have a total of about $95 million available that can be used for capital. 22 million of that is unassigned from unassigned funds available. Bottom line, money that hasn't been assigned yet and $73 million is available that has already been assigned by city council to existing projects. But these projects are either incomplete or not under construction and could be reassigned or could be used for the projects for which they were originally intended. So $95 million estimated is available. We're still fine tuning that number. It could be a little different as we really fine tune the accounts that also be updated in the first quarter. At this time, I'm going to turn the presentation over to Assistant City Manager Modica, who will talk about the existing capital projects that haven't been built, what our strategy is and what our next steps are. Thank you, Mr. GROSS. Mr. Mayor, members of the council. As John mentioned, we do have significant resources available to us in cash, not a projection that's actual dollars. That's that $95 million that we have identified that can be reprogramed for funding. And so while that's a very large number, we also have approximately 232 million in projects that are budgeted or in the five year capital plan that are incomplete or that construction has not started. Those projects, it's a long list. You have it in the in the materials, but includes things like remaining phases of the elements. Bay, Marina rebuild remaining phases of the Naples seawalls. The Belmont Beach, an aquatic center, the Seaside Way Bridge, Belmont Pier, Pine Avenue, public dock concession stands, and many, many other smaller projects. And so what we are recommending is that the Council prioritize the existing projects that we have and go through a prioritization project process. And so we will be prioritizing those incomplete and unconstructive projects based on prioritization criteria, which are what are before you tonight. We believe by putting those criteria in front of the council and getting direction, we'll be able to use those criteria to put essentially all of our projects into a priority order list. New oil revenues when they are received, will also be assigned to that list based on the prioritization. And then we will proceed with those projects when the funding matches the estimated current project cost. This won't be a static list. We will have the council adopted this year, but then we'll be able to update it as we go through the budget process annually. And so the proposed prioritization criteria that you'll be considering tonight in ranked order are public health and safety. The extent to which it's a health project or a safety project to the number of California residents impacted. We are in the Tidelands area, so we do have to think of all of the residents in California. We're also obviously very concerned about the impact on our local residents as well, urgency and whether there's an urgency to do the project, the poor condition or of the current project or the need and unmet need that we have in our community. Number five, the contribution to the quality of life. Number six, whether or not it generates revenue and and the extent that operating costs play a factor in that as well. Number seven, the ability to attract additional funding or a match. Number eight, the lack of alternative funding sources. And number nine, the capital cost. And as we look at all the projects, we also want to bear in mind that we look at the overall diversity and balance of projects as a criteria, as an overall criteria. And so tonight, we're looking forward to your direction on those proposed criteria and and receive comments and direction. We will then take that criteria once adopted and create that list of prioritized capital projects and return to the City Council in the first quarter of 2015 for further discussion and approval of that list. We'll continue to update our projections for capital, Thailand's capital and our operating budgets and our uplands oil fund budget during the first quarter as well. And then in March is when we kick off our budget process and we'll be coming back with how does oil factor into all of our revenues. So while oil, as you see tonight, is is trending downward, there are other revenues that are moving in other directions and there's costs as well. And we'll be putting all of that into a comprehensive analysis to come back and talk to you about in March. With that, that is. Our report and staff are available to take your input on the criteria and to answer questions. Thank you. I want to thank the staff for putting together this presentation and want to share that. Vice Mayor Lowenthal and I have had an opportunity to meet regarding this issue and the agenda item tonight, which is specifically limited to prioritizing the projects that are pending in both of our districts and determining whether or not the criteria that's been proposed by staff is something that we believe is is a is a proper way to assess what the priorities of our districts are and how we will be able to fund the most necessary projects. And I think we have a very good start. We're moving forward in a spirit of collaboration and looking forward to addressing these issues together as we move ahead. I do, and I'm going to be actually motioning at this point to approve the recommendation, and I would ask a few questions in regards to that. First of all, I will say that the number one question that I get asked about this issue in my district is whether or not this is going to impact the building of the Belmont Pool. That's the first question I get. Well, actually, it depends on what community I'm in, but the first general question I get is whether it's going to impact the pool. If I'm in Naples, they ask if it's going to impact the sea walls and if I'm near a body of water, they ask if it's going to impact the marina. But generally speaking, people are concerned about whether it's going to impact the pool. And I will say, I think it's important to note that and perhaps Mr. Modica can help me with this, the pool where we're approximately 12 months away from being in a position where we would be able to start construction on the pool because we still need to go through the Coastal Commission process. Is that correct? That is correct. There's a number of steps that we still need to do. We need to unveil the Environmental Impact Report and to comment on that and on the design and then go through the entitlement process, including the Coastal Commission. So we are at least a year away, if not longer. And so we would not be in a position to fully fund the pool and begin construction this year regardless of the condition of the Tidelands Fund. Is that correct? Correct. At our at our most aggressive estimate, if all funding were available, we would not begin construction until the beginning of 2016. Okay. And as I understand from your comments, Mr. Modica, we will be this is whatever priority list we come up with is not it's going to be fluid and we're going to adjust as the market adjusts and as funds become available. Would that be accurate? Absolutely. In regards to and and so we my my position has always been that I would rather build the right pool for our city than a lesser pool based on a fluctuating budget that could change at any time. And that that it's my opinion that we wait and we do it right. And that is just the prudent thing to do and it's the fiscally responsible thing to do. And that's just my personal opinion. In regards to the operating budget and this is perhaps a question for for Mr. West and he and I have talked about this. I think it's really important at this juncture that we take a look at our operating budget and make a determination as to whether all of the charges that are going to that fund are appropriate and that we are exercising diligence and making sure that we're not charging anything to that budget that perhaps doesn't belong in that area . Mr. West, is that something that you think city staff is committed to or can take a look at? Absolutely. We're committed to that and we will look at that. Okay. Because I think if there's opportunities to tighten that budget up a little bit more in terms of what we're charging to it, then then the deficit issues may be lessened to that potential deficit. So that's something that I would request be given some priority. And my understanding is that we are going to come back at some date certain to talk about the specific projects and the priority list for those projects. When do we expect that to be? So in our report, we were saying the first quarter of 2015, which essentially means February or March. So I think we're shooting between March, end of March as the time frame to come back once we get this criteria will be going through it and kind of ranking each one, probably using a color coded type of a system so that it's easy to and visual to see and then put those in a list to see how much funding we have to fund the projects and then bring that back. I want to take a moment to thank our Parks Rec and Marine Department. I had an opportunity last week to take a tour and look at all of the bathrooms in. That are on the project list in my district in the Tidelands area, and it was very informative. I mean, we literally went in and looked at every stall and tried to be to think in a fiscally prudent way to determine, is this something that we can rehabilitate by changing a few tiles or changing the paint? Or is this something that we really, truly need to rebuild? And I think that for me, that was a very diligent and thorough process because it has allowed me, in my mind at least to reprioritize a few projects. And I think that that's just something we're going to need to do. The reality of this fund is that it is a fluctuating fund, and just like one would do in a regular household budget, we have to make some adjustments in light of the fluctuations. And so I do expect that as a result of the information I received from our city staff during the tour, that was very helpful to me that that we will really be focusing on things that need to be fixed and need to be repaired, and so that we are as fiscally prudent as we can be with the amount of money that we have, understanding what a what an asset is it is to the city. So I want to thank staff for their work and for educating us on the issues and giving us the options that you've prepared tonight and for working with us to come up with the best possible solutions in light of the circumstances. So thank you. Thank you, Councilwoman. Councilmember Ringo. Thank you, Mayor. In looking at these criteria for prioritization, I see somewhat of a relationship between number seven and eight. In regards to revenue can be made on some of these projects eight and one number seven says the ability to attract additional funding. And number eight says a lack of alternative funding. But in the wording here, it has the extent of number seven, the extent to which partially funding this project from talent funds will result in additional funding from Nancy Resources to support the project. The projected financing and eight. It says the extent to which the project lacks the ability to be funded from other city sources. There's somewhat of a contradiction there. So what I would I would ask you maybe to change number eight, to see the ability to look or seek or get additional funding by either these these these methods , as opposed to saying the lack of it. We need to look at positive ways of trying to generate some revenue that would supplement or add to the criteria so that we could be in a stronger position to look at those. So any comment on that? Yeah, Councilman, we're actually we're we're in agreement with that. The reason it reads this way is we were trying to set up a metric that was consistent so that when we use a red, yellow and green and green means the same thing for each one. So in this one, if it had if it lacks the ability to be funded, it would probably be a one that is green rather than red. It just has to do with the scale that we were using. But we totally agree with you. It's it's the question is whether or not this thing in this project has to be funded out of Highlands or it'll get a different score if it can be funded out of a different funding source are opposed to. And when I say different funding source, we're not talking general fund. That's the one thing that everything could have been funded by the General Fund. It's we're talking grants or assessments or donations, those types of things. Well, I'm always very complimentary of people who have fully sighted with color. I'm colorblind. So the only thing that I can rely on are words. So if it's not clearly stated, color coding doesn't doesn't help me understand. So that's why I bring that up in regards to the the prices of oil. We saw the chart here in terms of the projections for the next four years to 20, 20 or six years. And it has there been any discussion in terms of where we're at? Lowering the bar, if you will, from the 70 to 80 something that's more reasonable with what's going on in the oil markets as a whole and what other agencies are doing to adjust their budgets from 65 to 50 7 to 40 or whatever I would look at, yeah, if we were, if we were at 70 and we're projecting a 30% loss, maybe we're looking at putting it somewhere between 40 and 50 so that when in the event the price stabilizes and it starts coming back up and the projections are that it will be around 60 to 65, we at least have a little buffer that we can have between now and 2020. How does that how does that look? It's there. We think that's exactly the right thing that we should be doing. We plan to be doing that in the next several months as we go through our 16 budget development process. And we'll be recommending to you what that new number should be. I don't think we're prepared today to say whether it's a certain number, but that will be what we recommend in the budget to the council. And then the council will have the ultimate ability to say we want to lower it and which will have an impact on the general fund but actually have higher impact on on capital that would come in or, you know, maybe go the other direction. So we'll we'll definitely have a recommendation for you on that. And I know it's a little premature to bring this up now, perhaps, but for my council colleagues, we might want to start revisiting some of these funds and the the assessments that we have currently that would that have been stable for many years. And when I look at revisiting those and making some adjustments to that, and I'm specifically looking at the you you to the utility users tax as a one that we need to revisit. It's been with that ten or 12 years maybe since we changed it, we might want to revisit that. And that's that's just a comment. Let me say it might be premature. The the the the sky hasn't fallen yet, but it's certainly something that we might want to consider. Thank you. Thank you. Councilmember Kathryn Richardson. Thank you. So. Right, I. Appreciate that. A lot of this has been worked over and reviewed by both of the council members with titling areas. I think it's that is the appropriate way to do things when local council members become experts on these projects is very difficult for us without knowing the nuances of these projects to to help establish a priority for one project versus the other. So that is a good thing. I have a few comments and questions. One. Regarding the uplands fund. How much? I know we we we budget our general fund based on this volatile commodity. How, how much of our budget, what percentage of our budget is based on oil revenue. For the operating budget? That number is in the general fund. It is 4.4%. 4.4%. And and. Okay. And then when timelines factors in I know that they take on certain services that that our general fund doesn't have to take in. Is that considered in factored into that 4.4% as well? No, that's a different percent. I don't have that on the top of my head. I don't know if John has it. Okay. The the Tidelands Fund is is a it's separately calculated. So, no, we don't. Have there's no way to evaluate like how much, how dependent we are on. Oh, well, you know, it doesn't matter. I know that you were going to come back with some recommendations soon on how to make those adjustments. I would just chime in and just say that, you know, now is the time. We we are seeing what the what the impact is on basing our our budgets, our police and fire vital services on oil funds. It's not it's a gamble for our constituents. And I think we need to continue to have a discussion about new revenue, identifying new revenue. So I would hope and expect to see when these things come back with some recommendations that it's a balanced recommendation where we look at adjustments to the budget, whether that means cuts, but also opportunities for new revenue as we move forward . Secondly, so what so we we budgeted $70 a barrel in UPLANDS for operating, correct? Yes, sir. And what do we budget per barrel entitlements. Same thing. We budget $70 as the operating amount. And then we had planned out a five year capital plan at the time based on $100 a barrel, knowing that if it dropped, then projects would need to be extended out further until funding was available. So the expectation that, you know, if we don't have those resources, then for infrastructure for a one time projects, we can extend those and we can extend services on an ongoing basis. Right. Is that the thinking behind that? Correct. And the council really should be applauded for taking such a conservative approach with such a volatile substance. So and, you know, both in operating and in capital, it's actually been very, you know, very encouraging that the council over the last several years has been very diligent in being conservative. And I think that's that's been very good for us. However, this this is kind of a unique time where it's dropped even further than than what anybody had expected. Well, I would say that this experience underscores why we shouldn't necessarily be conservative when it comes to operating, but we should also do the same thing as it comes to capital projects. Why base a plan around development of a project based on a certain level of income with the plan that if this goes away, we'll just extend the project? I would think we need to keep that same approach for capital as we have with operations, but that's just my opinion. And then lastly, one of the criteria that I think is I see a lot of criteria here. And and obviously I think, you know, what you're doing here. And I would just say one thing, you know, we're taking steps to to do local hiring. We're taking steps to consider adopting a project labor agreement. I just think that with a lot of these things, we always talk about the impact that these infrastructure projects have on the whole city, and that should be considered. The job aspect needs to be considered in this criteria. Like what does one project in terms of jobs mean versus another project? Does does it make sense to advance one project that has a larger impact on local hire and an economic impact than it does to advance another? So that would be just a suggestion to the maker of the motion to include that as well. It's okay. I'll give it to you again. No problem. It's all good. For good. I would say. Would you would you would you be okay with adding in jobs? You know, economic impact to everyone, like jobs to one of your criteria as you figure these these infrastructure projects out. Yeah. I think jobs for Lumbee should be considered in the criteria, as you know, as we decide. Does it make sense to move one project versus the other? That's something that should be factored into the actual factor in. Member? Richardson That's a really great point, but I don't think that that's something that we'd be prepared to. And I'm not going to speak for Vice Mayor Lowenthal. I certainly would not be prepared to go down that road. Right now, there are a lot of projects in there that I don't know that everyone on council is as familiar with. I mean, we live and breathe these projects. And so is it more important to me that the residents of Naples have seawalls that keep them seismically safe or that people get jobs? Seismic safety is obviously. I get it. I think I do. Or, for example, is it important that that, you know, a bathroom in our neighborhood has the ability to have a flushing toilet that's more important to us than jobs? So I think, you know, it's a good point and it's certainly a valid point, but I think it really is something that you have to have a deep understanding of the specific projects, because the focus of these projects are, for the most part, public health and safety and that kind of thing for a lot. By no means would ever want to make you choose between a job and a toilet. That is not the point of what I'm saying. What I'm saying is the point of what I'm saying is, you know, a lot of us on the council, we rarely engage in these timelines issues when it comes to us here at the council. We in good faith a lot of times go along with the council member in District two, in District three, and we've had a long discussion about jobs and local hire and stuff moving forward. I would just think that if we're going to continue to say that these projects are city wide projects, then it should be represented in the documents and the criterias we put forth. I'm pretty sure city staff is going to confer with the council members as we move these projects forward. I just think that it is it is a good point to say as we evaluate criteria for projects, we look at the local job piece and that's fine. That's fine if we don't want to do that. I just wanted to. Say I think it's a good point, but I will say that any policy that we set as a council in regards to local hire will apply to Tidelands projects as well. Those are considered city projects. So if we have, for example, a play in effect that would apply to all city projects, presumably unless there's an exemption for , you know, a specific type of project. Is that correct? Mr.. City Attorney. Mayor invites member members of the Council. There could be exceptions under Tidelands that would prohibit the certain aspects of a play, for example, or would have to be tailored specifically because of the restrictions on the Tidelands funds. It couldn't impact like a Long Beach hire. It would have to be a regional or a regional impact. And so the economic benefit could be taken into effect, but it couldn't be directed specifically to Long Beach residents. So that my view wouldn't be my suggestion wasn't limited to like a play or a union job. I just think when staff considers a priority for what projects, we should always keep jobs in mind as a criteria. That's just the point. And Councilmember Watterson as a second year of the motion. Mr. Mayor, I'm sorry, I just. You're actually cued up next. Good. Thank you. I think what you raise and address is something that everyone on this council is behind. And so I trust that the staff has that in mind when we're going forward. But as Councilmember Price and city attorney affirms, in some of these situations, we don't really have a choice to prioritize that at the top of the list, but certainly it is a priority. Thank you. Oh, I am queued up. I just. That was you. Thank you. I wanted to thank Councilmember Price for the extensive work that she has done with her constituents regarding the projects. And I know that this particular item and this meeting is not to discuss projects specifically, but really our set of priorities. And so I think the list will achieve the intended result of prioritizing the available funding that we have for Tidelands projects. I want to thank staff for helping us work through how we can continue to fund the most critical projects. As Councilmember Price mentioned, the criticality of these projects. Sometimes it doesn't seem obvious when we're just talking about a restroom facility, but it really is obvious there is a safety issue and the way these restrooms have been redesigned will ensure that we offer as much safety to the extent possible. Now I want to just re restate my commitment to working with Councilmember Price and the rest of the Council to ensure that the projects move forward in the interest of our residents and businesses. And while all these projects are within our two districts, when you look at the patronage, especially the huge amount of patronage, that is whether it's at Bixby Park or in the downtown area of the block from all over the city. And in large part, they're also from other parts of cities around us. So it's a great obligation that we have to ensure that it is as inviting and attractive and safe as possible. Thank you. Thank you. Councilor Andrews. Yes, thank you. I have a question, you know, to the Mr. Walker, what what impact would this have on our civic center? If things continue to go at the rate is going now. So we don't expect an impact to the civic center from oil. The funding source that we are using to as part of the DB UFO DB foam isn't specifically oil related. It's from the Civic Center Fund and all the other funds in the general fund. But it certainly oil does impact our general fund. So we'll have to as we update our project, we'll have to make sure that there is available funds to be able to as we update our budget, available funds to be able to fund that commitment. Yes. And also, I'd like to commend, you know, our vice mayor and Mrs. Price, you know, in the way in which you individually are working on these projects, especially when we talk about priorities. Because the fact that, you know, I'm just like Rex, you know, my whole, whole concept is all the way. It's about jobs. And if I know the priorities come into that, I would hope that anything that you talk them down along the shoreline, anything else, it would be local jobs. You know, I understand that we can do a lot of those things. But if you do in prioritizing those things, I would really hope that you would take that into consideration. Thank you. Thank you. I don't see any other comments. Are there any public comment? Please come forward. That evening. Council staff My name is Susan Miller. I've lived across from Belmont Pool for 22 and a half years. First of all, I'd like to thank the city for protecting the old growth trees during the demolition of the pool. This is a renewed energy in this park land with the hummingbirds, the squirrels, the monarch butterflies. We wait the migration of the snowy egrets in the black crowned night herons. The pool project being considered at Belmont Plaza would require expansive site preparations due to the liquefaction ground and the new sea level rising rules, which require raising the entire structure. These two factors alone could mean wasting 30 to $40 million if this site is selected. Instead, this site can easily be restored to a beautiful natural park on the ocean. Make it in an area that can be enjoyed by residents, visitors in the increasing wildlife population. This was the intent of the California Coastal Act and the local coastal program. It would cost very little to return this area to a natural park, but the value is priceless. The oil market has changed the title and funds adequately and projects that are truly needed must become Ford luxuries. If and when the funds are available for an aquatic facility. A downtown location such as the Harry Bridges Memorial Park is ideal for this purpose and would be covered by the tidal bond funds. There is far less site preparation that would be needed. Plenty of existing parking doesn't negatively impact the endangered birds, would not intrude on reserve residential neighborhood, and has easier access for those traveling to the aquatic center. Most importantly, there would be substantial cost savings to end up with the same facility. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker, please. Your timing is not very good. Hugh Clark has the address. First of all, is this suggestion for the council person that has color blind issues? I think that's easily addressed. Seem to be we can put the city staff can put on BGR. In other words, the first letter of what the color is. Put it in bold. I need sheet for. A number of issues. First of all, I think this this argues well for immediately stopping. Any further urination of money relative to the bike path of the extended bike path. The dual one going down. Whatever is there now of the if it's not filled in. Cover it up with sand. If we get money later, I think by that time we'll be able to get some clear thinking and realize it's a it's folly to do it anyway. I want to make sure, absolutely sure that we're that there's a clear understanding of what the projects are. I heard for the first time that I've ever heard the word Belmont Beach Aquatic Center. I don't know where that is. I've never seen that in any any city listing. Want to make sure. Also that note, we don't go within 100 yards, 200 yards, a leeway center. That building does not need to come down. There certainly could be some renovations within this existing the existing footprint, so forth. Additionally, no single state, no structure within the Marine Stadium needs to be touched, period. I want to make sure that that doesn't that doesn't happen. The restrooms that are there that are used only at special events and they're fine that are operational. I'm speaking at the three. Yes. Will be rebuilt. And the cost for that will not be borne by the taxpayers, that the courts will make the decision and assign the portion of liability to those found complicit in the crime of not only taking it down, which I believe was close to 300,000, but rebuilding it. And the last thing is I want to make sure that. The. The Belmont pool itself goes through. As was originally planned. It is not that is that swimming pool is actually a magic I think to the aquatic dynamic here and to return it to a. Open Space Park. Is at war with, I think, the concept of a full range of aquatic dynamics and so forth. Obviously it's going to be tough. We will find the money eventually, but I strongly object to returning it back to what it was before the pool was there. Thank you. Thank you. Next speaker. Please. Gonzales that is on file. My comments are in line with the previous speaker, the speaker before the previous speaker about the Harriet Perry Bridges Memorial Park. I just wanted to just make one suggestion about the proposed prioritization criteria. I would like for impacts to the environment to be considered, especially considering that these revenues are oil driven revenues. And some of the procedures to drive this or this oil are unconventional and controversial at best. I also did want to say that I support the councilmembers comment that the city look into generating new revenue with whatever whatever is set forth with these funds. And I also wanted to be very specific about the $22 million that are unassigned. I wanted to ask that less than a 10th, actually, 1/22, 121 20th of $1,000,000 be set towards something that can actually generate energy, clean energy. I just think that would be a very symbolic gesture to one of our buildings by generating solar energy or some sort of green technology to one of our parks or to one of our buildings. I believe if we're going to take the money from an oil source, it would be appropriate to reinvest it in technology of the future. I know that we often speak about these types of things on Earth Day or things like that, but it would be great to see that practice in action. Thank you. Thank you. See no other public speakers. There is a motion on the floor by Councilwoman Price and Vice Mayor Lowenthal. And I just want to add that I did like Councilman Price this last week, and I did my own unofficial Tidelands tour, and I ran from the Villa Riviera and went and visited all of our new restrooms and went all up and down the Titans through past the around the peninsula and back over to to Naples. And one thing that I was really struck by is first, the amount of work that is currently happening right now on the Tidelands. And if you haven't had a chance to run up and down the coast, it is amazing the amount of work that's happening, not just clearly the Bluff Project and the The Path project, but the new bathrooms that have been installed. The work that's happening up and down. And so I just wanted to take a moment to also just kind of call out Eric, who's in the audience here. And if you don't know Eric, you know, Eric does an incredible amount of work in the Highlands area and, you know, thank you and the whole kind of tidelands team for for all those projects, it is not easy to manage and they're doing a really good job on that. So thank you very much. With that, there's a motion. Please cast your votes. Motion carries seven zero. Thank you. Next item.