Council Agenda: Airport layout, 2014-15 fiscal year budget items
by TP staff
Jun 01, 2014 | 5903 views | 28 28 comments | 24 24 recommendations | email to a friend | print
This is the preliminary agenda for the regular meeting of the Tracy City Council at 7 p.m. Tuesday at City Hall, 333 Civic Center Drive. The full agenda can be found at City Hall or online on the city website.

Discussion items

• Receive a presentation on an updated airport layout plan, provide input and authorize submittal to the Federal Aviation Administration

• Conduct a public hearing to authorize the acceptance of and approve the appropriation of $11,421 from the 2014 Edward Byrne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant program for the purchase of equipment for the Tracy Police Department

• Conduct a second reading and adopt Ordinance 1194, an ordinance of the city of Tracy approving the first amendment to an amended and restated development agreement with the Surland Communities LLC

Consent calendar

• Adopt resolutions regarding the election process, General Municipal Election to be held Nov. 4

• Approve professional services agreements with 11 companies for plan review or inspection services

• Award a construction contract to Trident Contractors Inc. of Daly City for sidewalk, curb and gutter replacement for fiscal year 2013–14

• Accept the storm drainage improvement of Robert Gabriel Drive and Gonzales Street, completed by Extreme Excavation of Tracy

• Approve master professional services agreements with GDR Engineering Inc. and Mid Valley Engineering Inc. to provide land surveying services for multiple capital improvement projects

• Award a construction contract to Modesto Sand and Gravel Inc. of Modesto for the Bessie Avenue building demolition project

• Amendment of two Holly Sugar Ranch leases with the Arnaudo Bros., a partnership, and the Arnaudo Bros. LLC

• Approve Amendment 1 to a Memorandum of Understanding between the city of Tracy and the Tracy African American Association to waive administrative processing and banner-hanging fees

• Adopt the appropriations limit for fiscal year 2014-15 for the city of Tracy

 
Comments
(28)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
minnesotaMike
|
June 05, 2014
Ya ya ya. Oh and one more thing. The Tracy Press did not delete my comments. At most they probably just reviewed them to see if calling you a liar was true. If people lie about the cost of something that makes them a liar. So they must have put my comments back after they realized I was right about the cost being lower. Good night Pinocchio.
minnesotaMike
|
June 05, 2014
For people reading this. I think that guy means well but is too smart for his own good or anybody elses. I don't mean it in a derogatory way, but there is just no other way to say it.

I think if somebody did something wrong then people ought to have an opportunity to say what they want in the paper, even though it ain't my paper. I'm glad we live in a free country and we have a community newspaper like this one.

I am glad he wrote his opinions, even though I think his opinion adds fiddly squat. I found out that sitting by listening to liars is a more a waste of time than anything else.

If anyone out of all seriousness thinks someone behind the airport or the swim center is dishonest or otherwise they should say so. I give Pinocchio credit for his feelings, but who the heck cares about Pinocchio's feelings. He's a wooden puppet with a long nose.

I care about a swim center and if someone can bring it then someone tell us why they object and why we should also care. Is the developer being dishonest? If so, let the community know you have a brain and care more about your community than Pinocchio.
rayderfan
|
June 10, 2014
I appreciate your opinion too mike. Unfortunately, you're wrong. The original costs, as I explained, were presented when the project was originally presented.

Do your homework.
minnesotaMike
|
June 05, 2014
I do not really care about credibility or what you said about outwitting me. That's silly nonsense for you to consider. You think I did not even read what I wrote. I do not care what you think. You said so much but you said essentially nothing of value to the discussion. Unless you start making sense you mean little less than nothing except someone has to clarify everything you said. So I called you a liar big whoop. Years from now nobody will even know you existed.
rayderfan
|
June 05, 2014
I can tell that you don't care about what you say mike. Clearly, you're out of touch with reality. If you're looking for someone to argue with you can find someone else. I'm finished trying to make any sense of your thoughts because you're rambling around like a crazy person.

Good luck.
minnesotaMike
|
June 05, 2014
Again you are lying. The entire town knows that the current plan is down from 20 to 6. The reason you are a liar is because you continue miking both numbers 20 and 6. And the other Pinocchio is a liar too. He said they will build a swim park that costs 20 million. And it will cost a million to run it. The truth is the park cannot cost the entire 20 because there is a new deal at 6 and 600k to run it.

Its clear that you are using falsified information to scare the people into thinking the cost is greater.

That's why I called you a liar.
minnesotaMike
|
June 05, 2014
Should have read. mixing both numbers 20 and 6.
rayderfan
|
June 05, 2014
Mike you really should stop and listen to yourself. You are making absolutely no sense. If you read my post it said that the original estimate for the swim park, which was originally presented to council in approximately 2007 was $20 million to design and build. At that time the operational costs were approximately $1.2 million.

That plan was scrapped and Serpa then proposed giving the city $10 million to build the park. That plan was rejected and Serpa has most recently come back with an offer of $6 million.

City staff estimated the cost to operate the park at $600K.

Please stop rambling and take a few minutes to read what others are saying. I think you're opinion is valuable but your delivery and your name calling are causing you to lose credibility for your opinion.
rayderfan
|
June 05, 2014
Thank you Tracy Press for deleting the offensive comments.
minnesotaMike
|
June 03, 2014
For those of you reading scare stories, by people who have reasons to lie to you. Know that I took their advice and started doing the research.

Read what the say and then read this.

http://www.markey-consult.com/faqs.html

It gives the cost of a swim centers and other amenities.

Don't be lied to by fools. Do what I did. Listen to their lies then take note and start digging.

If you want a better community then I'm with you. But if you think you can better society by lying then be prepared to prove your lies Pinocchio.
rayderfan
|
June 02, 2014
I say leave both alone until the City of Tracy gets its house in order. Right now the taxpayers are paying an additional sales tax to fund basic services. This tax is due to expire in a few years. Before we start spending money on things like airport expansion, swim centers and other ammenities we really need to get our financial picture straightened out.

With all the public scandal surrounding mismanagement of city issued credit cards, the cost of public record requests and the cut backs to public services over the past four years don't you think it's time we (the city) get back to basics regarding public services.

This will certainly require some prioritization of services, by the public along with the city staff. Once that's finished then we can re-start the discussions about swim centers and the like.
Rudy_Santos
|
June 01, 2014
Having the taxpayers subsidize the operations at Tracy Municipal Airport through Federal Grants is corporate welfare. A better choice is to have those who use the airport pay their own way, or park their airplanes someplace else.

Bird_Man
|
June 02, 2014
Some people want a swim center with competition pool and others want to use a small airport. Why say only one has value or is a better use of taxpayer dollars?
minnesotaMike
|
June 03, 2014
You really believe I tried to outwit you. I took your advice to do some checking things out. And when I checked out what you and others said about the swim center it didn't make sense. I called you a liar. Clearly when you label someone a liar, this is a lot different than trying to outwit someone. I blatantly called you a liar and therefore have no regard for your wit.

Its obvious you and others are lying. In one persons post he makes unsubstantiated claims that the swim center would not be built with the $6 million from Surland and the $6 to 10 million the other guy claimed was in the budget. He made up some number like $25 million instead. Everything you say is lies Pinocchio. You have no wit. You have circles, lies, and nothing.

I called you a liar liar pants on fire. That sounds childish not wit and I'm well aware of that fact. I'm not leaning on wit. I'm calling you a friggin liar.

rayderfan
|
June 03, 2014
Clearly, minnesotaMike, there is no reason to continue our discussion. I am tired of trying to have a battle of witts with an "Unarmed Opponent".

Good Night.
minnesotaMike
|
June 03, 2014
Of course you are lying. You just said politicians are in it for the money and then you also said they don't make much money. That is the same game the other guy played with the cost of the swim center. He claimed the cost would be $25 million when the real cost is $12 million. I don't care why politicians are in the game, but I will be interested that you are playing fast and loose with your numbers.

And with regard to the cost of running a swim center if it costs $500k for the summer that's what irks you about Surland? Surland offered to pay for the airport and half of the cost of building the swim center.

You can't see value in the cost of running a swim center because you think Churchill did something that still makes you feel bad about yourself. And you want Surland to pay for the swim center but you don't want him to pay for the airport.

You make no sense. No wonder you cannot see value in a swim center. The numbers you sent us show that the other liar, lied when he said the cost was higher than what you said.

Now your only point is that you think it will cost more than you think it will cost. Now you have gone full circle with the rest. You are going in circles.
rayderfan
|
June 03, 2014
By the way Mike; I would challenge you to provide information that substantiates that I, and others, have exaggerated the numbers. If you check the staff reports from as recently as July 31, 2012.

In the Dev. Agreement, on page 56 it states, "The Family Swim Center will be maintained by the City of Tracy and is not part of the Landscape Maintenance District (LMD) or Communit Facilities District (CFD)"

If you go back a little farther you will find that in the 2010-2011 budget proposal for Parks and Rec. Pages E119 you will find the cost of operating a part time staff at the West High School was $416K annually, and this doesn't include any capital costs or year round overhead. This is just a summer cost. Here is the link: http://www.ci.tracy.ca.us/documents/2010_to_2011_Budget.pdf

So say what you want; The swim center at Ellis is going to cost the city well more than the original estimates.

I would strongly suggest you do some additional homework before you start claiming that people are making up things and misrepresenting the facts because they don't like Les.

By the way, there's no need to lie because this stuff is far more unbelievable than any lie.
rayderfan
|
June 03, 2014
That would be the best solution for Tracy. If he doesn't want to take that risk then obviously we don't need it.

At least give us a business plan, with a good solid business reason why we need a swim center in Tracy and how it will be profitable over time. If there is no business need then there is no need. Maybe when we can afford it (down the road) then we can build it but right now the City has raised taxes to cover the cost of basic services and will most likely, want to extend that tax for another five years. What this says is we don't have the money to fund more operating expenses.

Whether you believe me or not, I truly don't begrudge Les for his business venture. I do think Les should step up and take the risk if he wants the city to have a swim center. What I see going on here is that Les has taken something the City has wanted for years, put it out there as the "carrot on a stick" and is using it to sway the public so he can get what he wants without any risk.

I don't chase scandals; however, I am appauled by the number of scandals that have occurred in this city of only 83,000 people.

Has it ever occurred to you that maybe there are people, who have been elected to office, in Tracy who are only out for their own benefit. I mean, why else would someone want to spend all that time and money to get a position that doesn't pay anything and requires you to be away from your family most evenings and weekends?

Could it be because they have issues with self esteem? Think about it.

Finally, say what you want about my opinion. It doesn't bother me. What does bother me is when people follow blindly and fail to look beyond the curtain to see what could very well be going on in the background. Then again, I could be wrong, but I don't think so.

I suggest you do your homework; ask some difficult questions; and challenge the status quo once in a while. At least it will cause you to think more and type less. :-)
rayderfan
|
June 03, 2014
Let's begin by saying that I have not resorted to calling you names and discounting your opinion so I would appreciate it if you refrain from doing this as well.

Regarding the topic; If you go back to previous staff presentations, regarding the swim center, there has been volumes of information presented identifying the cost of operating the swim center at somewhere between $600K and $1.2 million (annually). A portion of this will be offset by users but the majority of the cost will be payed by the taxpayers in the way of General Fund Operating Expenses.

Keep in mind that Surland (Les Serpa) originally offered $20 million then reduced it to $10 million and now has it at about $6 million, less the price for water use. So the reality is Surland (Serpa) will only be contributing about 25% of what they originally offered.

Now keep in mind I don't begrudge Surland (Serpa) for getting what he can; but I don't like the idea of doing it on the backs of the taxpayers in Tracy.

If Surland (Serpa) thinks the swim park is a great idea then he should build it, operate it and pay for maintenance of it, then recover his costs through the revenue he collects.
minnesotaMike
|
June 03, 2014
Well. That information was already printed in the newspaper a few years ago. The problem is you need to read the paper. I googled and see you support the airport. Is that why you don't want a swim center?

If I remember the details. The swim center will only cost what they have to build a swim center currently. Not the full quote you gave. It is the wrong number because you are referring to all the phases. Two or three I can't remember all the details.

But more important is your argument about the cost of the swim center where you make a good point is regarding the cost to run it. But what you fail to mention is the cost of admission is probamey lowered in most cities because a swim center is an amenity.

If you want the airport and people to fund it then make it more attractive to the people. I'm not opposed to it. I just wish the airport would have let Surland pay for the airport.

More people would use a swim center than an airport. I was at Great America watching airplanes fly over and it occurred to me that you airport supporters are making up scare stories for no good reason.

Why the airport when less than 1/1000 of the population use it then scream about swimming. Why?
DunkMan
|
June 03, 2014
MinnesotaMike

Your optimism about the aquatic center is apparent and I'm sure that optimism is based on your identification of funding sources that don't tap the City's General Fund.

Would you share with us the source of the funds to build the center? I think the cost of the center is somewhere between 25 and 30 million dollars, and the City has perhaps a third of that available.

Would you also share with us the source of funds that will be used to operate the center? If it is based solely on admission fees, could you share with us the name of one or more aquatic center of a similar nature that charge enough to pay the expenses?

I appreciate the fact that you have solved the funding issues and trust that you will be sharing your knowledge with TP readers and most importantly with the City Council.

Cheers, Stephen
minnesotaMike
|
June 03, 2014
I'm sorry but I had a hard time believing you, when you wrote that you have nothing against Surland's business. I almost didn't bother to reply because you are in such denial. You act like a swim center will cost you more money. And you act like Churchill is still bothering you. And you act like you are a scandal chaser. Kinda reminds me of a tornado chaser.

Uhoh. There goes another scandal, and obviously Surland is involved right? And we can't have a swim center because you know Jack. Ecsuse me but you are full of BS that it can be smelled a mile away.

Connect your scandall dots to Surland and I will believe you if you have something. Or show us how a swim center is what you believe to be a waste of money. I'm challenging you because I don't think you know what the hell you're talking about, but I could be wrong. Prove it and I will listen. Maybe you know more than smack talk. Let's see.
rayderfan
|
June 02, 2014
Actually, minnesotamike. I could care less about Surland, the swim center, or the airport. I'm just tired of flitting the bill for every hair brained scheme that comes down the pike.

The swim team people want everyone to pay for their kids pool, the developers want the taxpayers to subsidize their projects so they don't have to take it out of their profits, and city officials want to be able to waste taxpayer dollars for their own benefits and personal purchases.

I'm just tired of people expecting someone else to carry their water for them. No pun intended.

By the way, Churchill didn't pay back what he owed. The check bounced. If it was one dollar or one hundred million dollars doesn't. Matter. It was the publics dollars and he used them for his own benefit. That's a violation of the policy he helped write and he deserved to be fired. Let it be a lesson to all public officials that theft of public money is grounds for termination.
minnesotaMike
|
June 02, 2014
1.BirdFan and RayderMan hate Surland. They are haters from the same cloth.

2.The airport should have let Surland pay for it when Surland offered to pay for it.

3.Regarding credit cards. It was a waste of few thousand and then afterwards it was paid back.

rayderfan
|
June 04, 2014
Let me clarify something for you minnesotaMike.

Clearly, you have not done your homework. If you had you would be aware that the original amount offered by Surland was $20 million, which was established during the very first Development Agreement (DA). When that was rejected, by the courts, Surland came back with an offer of $10 million. Keep in mind all of that money was for design and construction of the swim center, not operations.

The third and final offer, by Surland, was approximately $6 million and has not been finalized. That money is identified for design and construction as well. In return Surland will get additional water capacity rights for the development, which comes with a price.

So the correct answer to the entire situation is that Surland has come down from the original $20 million to approximately $6 million.

Operationally the cost of running the swim center was estimated, by city staff, at somewhere between $600K and $1 million per year.

If you would spend as much time doing your research as you do calling people names you might have a better grip on what is really going on.



We encourage readers to share online comments in this forum, but please keep them respectful and constructive. This is not a space for personal attacks, libelous statements, profanity or racist slurs. Comments that stray from the topic of the story or are found to contain abusive language are subject to removal at the Press’ discretion, and the writer responsible will be subject to being blocked from making further comments and have their past comments deleted. Readers may report inappropriate comments by e-mailing the editor at tpnews@tracypress.com.