[{"_1":2,"_99":-5,"_100":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75,87],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6680034,"mediaKeyId","2341417-71950db5d0b6866b05685fc4192908ad","parentId",2341417,"title","Council delays vote on gas‑line decommissioning pilot after federal funding uncertainty; staff asked for timeline and grant details","audioSeconds",2526,"startMs",12330000,"endMs",14856000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2341417-71950db5d0b6866b05685fc4192908ad&start=12330&end=14856","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2341417-71950db5d0b6866b05685fc4192908ad/thumbnail_12330000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6680034/Albany-City/Alameda-County/California/Council-delays-vote-on-gasline-decommissioning-pilot-after-federal-funding-uncertainty-staff-asked-for-timeline-and-grant-details","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6680034-c6fa01bbe301893c84236f63d48e5db0/orig.mp4?Expires=1777114810&Signature=ksU3X0wHHFvgUOwsXovMjGBUJAgT~Vjp2WqxGZD48fE911cCErbFdjArzr0iPRPbozIeBDOnC48AWwm458NOIgLVK9BC-PSY4MvgZk5P7q8tVF~rzPSc7Aj7IGJV5p-G~LaN1iJ3wKaOWtspqLrS6af5qCx~0utsQakPuvkv6I2FTeXGKEOCIac53FjOfLygvQ30GLAn1HL5miMM8AMYte-0pp3F9TeX1-siGxCXdjq0BDOTaQv2FpNiIIIU4P-U702xErLUL-PvgfIt0ZZD827xj56dPcobmdX~Q-2qxGMZ4zsvDE4rR8zr1Wvt-byC~C-~KyvosMLObIsWpFoTFg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","City of Albany, CA","date","2025-02-19T07:15:31.787Z","article","City staff told the council on Feb. 18 that Albany had secured a Department of Energy (DOE) grant to pilot electrification assessments and to map how to decommission a gas distribution section in conjunction with building electrification. Staff asked the council to authorize use of $125,000 from the city’s Measure DD climate action and adaptation reserve to continue the outreach and assessment work while DOE reimburses the project under the grant agreement.

A staff presenter (substituting for the program manager) summarized the project’s phases: community outreach and engagement; electrification assessments and design for selected buildings; and a later construction phase to implement electrification and decommissioning. The presenter said the city has an executed agreement with DOE and an outreach plan prepared by a consultant, Environmental Justice Solutions, and requested council appropriation of up to $125,000 from the climate reserve to complete the engagement/assessment phase.

Staff noted uncertainty created by recent federal actions affecting funding flows. The presenter said that executive order 14154 and associated federal reviews had paused DOE payment processes and delayed check‑in meetings; staff recommended proceeding with city funds with the expectation of future reimbursement but acknowledged the reimbursement timeline and likelihood are uncertain.

Staff outlined budget details: the overall pilot is a roughly $200,000 project; the current consultant contract for outreach/engagement is $100,000 and staff asked for authorization of up to $125,000 from the Measure DD climate adaptation reserve (the reserve balance at the meeting was about $143,000). Staff said if DOE reimbursement returns the reserve would be replenished, but that outcome could not be guaranteed.

Public comment included advocates who supported the pilot’s objectives but asked for more clarity about Measure DD revenues and prior uses and suggested pursuing additional funding sources rather than committing local reserves. Nick Peterson of the Albany Climate Action Coalition and other commenters urged transparency about Measure DD spending and asked staff to identify alternative funding partners, including state agencies or PG&E participation. Lucinda Young (Albany Climate Action Coalition) asked whether other cities facing similar pauses were taking a pause or pursuing alternate funding sources.

Councilmembers expressed divided views and asked detailed follow‑ups: they requested explicit clarification of grant obligations and deadlines, the likelihood DOE would still reimburse given the federal pause, whether DOE must approve materials before the city proceeds, and whether pausing would put Albany at a disadvantage for future construction funding. The city attorney’s office was asked to provide legal context about the contract and termination provisions.

Rather than appropriate the requested $125,000 at the meeting, councilmembers directed staff to return to a future council meeting with a clearer timeline, a Gantt‑style schedule of project phases, any DOE approval requirements, a summary of contract termination/reimbursement risk, and options for alternative funding should DOE reimbursement not be available. Councilmembers also asked staff to provide a clearer accounting of Measure DD (climate reserve) receipts and prior spending and to pursue outreach to state contacts and funders to explore other sources.

Ending: No appropriation was made; staff will return with a clearer timeline, legal/risk analysis, a Gantt chart of phases, and options for alternative funding sources so the council can decide whether to commit the climate reserve funds or pause the project.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","Albany City Council - February 18, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","Staff asked the council to authorize $125,000 from the Measure DD climate reserve to continue a DOE‑funded pilot to assess building electrification and gas‑line decommissioning, but the council deferred action after learning DOE reimbursements are paused pending federal review.","taxTitle","Albany City, Alameda County, California","taxId",72346,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6680037,"Albany council directs staff to study parking impacts and two Solano Avenue alternatives as part of active transportation update",8026,3398000,11424000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2341417-71950db5d0b6866b05685fc4192908ad&start=3398&end=11424","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2341417-71950db5d0b6866b05685fc4192908ad/thumbnail_3398000.jpg","/articles/6680037/Albany-City/Alameda-County/California/Albany-council-directs-staff-to-study-parking-impacts-and-two-Solano-Avenue-alternatives-as-part-of-active-transportation-update","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6680037-70310beef2182a280bc19d84bdea0962/orig.mp4?Expires=1777114810&Signature=ZQZlI~ZqO-yHqrT0UmXCL1Aq3iCXh94ugLmF3F5OxDnKdDSxkIEYFljm67r06rTeeeZcgCDwzQIcNf0JdwYBfygnK61FI99HIpxRAaRfsIh6VuLZvzsAbVU24s7i-5BL4g-fUkTavw6vrxjyjXd2h8aSYUMuUe-3-MGiyFpBN0ncvXWtOWShXCUZs4-B94jKvr2h2sTPDwF4TqdrlGgJB2hzcLle1o0LU8t3ZjoSdNTjqX1qk~gMVWbxstseN70QEeEJEwl-Vf4-X0xkFmeSPDy~l1dwzRPml4JIHCODtXLrIb5iXGpwA9NW2Bwc-XkFmgUmRLV3ymiHqQaYA~8HGw__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","City transportation staff and consultants laid out draft goals and an existing‑conditions analysis on Feb. 18 as part of an update to Albany’s Active Transportation Plan (ATP), and the City Council directed staff to study parking impacts for two Solano Avenue alternatives before returning with more detailed cost and implementation information.

Justin Fried, the city’s transportation and sustainability manager, introduced the project’s first phase and asked the council what additional analysis it wanted before staff presented policy recommendations for Solano Avenue. “We’ve collected public comments for four weeks via the project website and at the first public open house,” Fried said, summarizing outreach and noting staff had received more than 700 public comments on existing conditions.

Consultant deputy project manager Jen Schreiber framed the ATP goals around four priorities — access and connectivity, safety and comfort, equity, and implementation and funding — telling the council the plan is intended to improve the walking, bicycling and rolling environment while aligning with the city’s general plan and climate goals. “Active transportation can have many benefits including benefits to the climate, to public health, equity, and to safety,” Schreiber said.

The council discussion focused on Solano Avenue, the city’s main commercial corridor. Staff reminded the council that an ADA settlement requires the city to upgrade curb ramps on Solano between Masonic and Tulare by December 2029, and that earlier studies — including the 2019 Solano Complete Streets effort — produced several design options. City staff said it is preparing parking and daylighting analyses and rough order‑of‑magnitude cost estimates and asked whether council wanted additional design alternatives studied before a policy decision.

Public comment at the meeting was extensive. Cyclists and pedestrian advocates urged protected, high‑comfort bicycle lanes and improved crosswalk lighting; parents and school‑area commenters pressed for safer school crossings. Local business owners, including Carly (owner, Flowerland on Solano Avenue), warned that aggressive removal of parking would harm deliveries and local commerce. “I am surprised … there really seems to be no addressing the importance of commerce on Solano Avenue,” Carly said, asking the council to consider loading zones, customer access and the role of parking in supporting storefronts.

After discussion, Councilmember Jordan moved that staff analyze parking impacts for the alternative that reorganizes parking to retain most existing spaces (the “Option 1” cross‑section from the 2019 memo), prepare a rough cost estimate for that alternative, and separately estimate the change in parking inventory that would result from the more ambitious “Option 5” cross‑section (a full two‑sided protected bikeway concept) without a full cost estimate. The motion passed; the clerk recorded the vote as unanimous among members present.

Staff said the parking inventory and daylighting analyses would take roughly two to three months and that those results and associated cost ranges would be returned to the council ahead of a formal policy decision. The council also discussed — without taking final action — the possibility of demonstration projects (a one‑day demonstration and a six‑to‑12‑month trial) for back‑in/angled parking and using temporary materials to test configurations before permanent construction.

Ending: Council directed staff to return with parking‑impact analysis, rough order‑of‑magnitude cost estimates for the reorganized‑parking cross‑section, and an inventory estimate for the full protected‑facility option; the city will also continue broader ATP work covering intersections, school zones and east‑west connectivity.","City staff presented draft goals and existing conditions for an Active Transportation Plan update and the City Council asked staff to analyze parking impacts and costs for selected Solano Avenue alternatives before making policy decisions.",{"_33":88,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":89,"_41":90,"_43":91,"_45":92,"_47":93,"_49":94,"_51":95,"_53":96,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":97,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":98,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6680041,"Albany midyear budget review: city projects smaller deficit after one-time costs",1026,1693000,2719000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2341417-71950db5d0b6866b05685fc4192908ad&start=1693&end=2719","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2341417-71950db5d0b6866b05685fc4192908ad/thumbnail_1693000.jpg","/articles/6680041/Albany-City/Alameda-County/California/Albany-midyear-budget-review-city-projects-smaller-deficit-after-one-time-costs","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6680041-107094be1e3bab31a7138ec196962586/orig.mp4?Expires=1777114810&Signature=bFz0eXcJ-0AZOki4RwZEIQ3ZDfuXGQxYi886hKMEceIpGDB~ntdlB2uWzRmQSGJa3DitQrT8VfnS5rCDLlJbYjaUlYfBHGxVWMK1lhb9qTaN-4DcErczVN-UuDZfp~oJp5OHAHGxCF0C4OPwrMDMYjhWwj8Nqu082T0kUTM6kN04V6gOuLXEHhY47rN~4-wKjRPB0CCIIbk6TMmXqJSm1IN18eon2ymGlZXwyv7XMgt5oWME6lxZ2HxM-C9X5Hi99e8zxrNvrd4DK1mylym684MhkcVXJ4NS0vmvyNpBRBhv----hftleZq3ZOEaqMay5gLd1NE~cN62TKnSWlcjaQ__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","Finance Director Raina Schwartz presented the city’s FY2025 midyear budget review on Feb. 18, telling the Albany City Council the city is in “cautiously optimistic” shape but has seen a handful of early, large payments that make the first half of the fiscal year look heavier than usual.

“The good news, bottom line is that things are going fine. We’re in slightly better shape than we thought we would be when the budget was adopted,” Schwartz said, summarizing the midyear analysis.

The midyear review matters because the council adopted a two-year budgeting process this year and the city has a 25% general-fund reserve policy. Schwartz told the council that while ongoing revenues and expenses are broadly tracking to plan, several timed, large payments — principally CalPERS pension unfunded actuarial liability (UAL) payments and annual insurance premiums due early in the fiscal year — make first‑half spending appear elevated. The city also recorded a one-time increase tied to a lawsuit settlement with the Lions Club.

Among key figures presented by finance staff: revenues are tracking near the midyear expectation and projected year‑end revenues are roughly $32.4 million, while projected year‑end expenses are about $33.7 million. When the FY2025 budget was adopted the city estimated a potential deficit near $2.2 million; based on midyear results Schwartz said that gap could shrink by roughly $1 million if current trends continue. The presentation noted revenues and expenses are influenced by timing and a typically large first‑quarter outlay for pension and insurance costs.

Schwartz also told council members the city recorded a one‑time settlement payment tied to litigation with the Lions Club. The total settlement was $1,500,000; the city had previously set aside $500,000, creating roughly a $1.0 million net increase in expenditures tied to that case.

Council members pressed staff on grant and targeted funding risks. Vice Mayor McQuay and others asked about federal grants, and Schwartz said the city continues to monitor Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds and other federal pass‑through transportation funds and is coordinating with department directors to understand potential impacts. She also said the city expects to continue watching sales tax receipts, which are a more volatile revenue stream and were softer in recent months.

Schwartz and councilmembers discussed a notable drop in revenue from the city’s sugar‑sweetened beverage (SSB) tax. Schwartz said the city is following up with local businesses and vendors to ensure collections are complete and to understand whether the decline reflects business changes or reporting differences; initial projections expect SSB receipts to land between roughly $200,000 and $300,000 for FY2025, below earlier recent years’ levels but above the low figure posted in one interim report.

Members of the public asked for more detail on specific items, including the Lions Club settlement and the fiscal effect of the Golden Gate Fields closure; staff pointed to detailed information already posted on the city website and said more detail could be provided in follow‑up reports. Schwartz reiterated the city will return with updated, third‑quarter numbers and that staff are preparing a proposed two‑year budget for FY2026–27.

Council members responded to the midyear review by stressing caution. Councilmember McQuaid summed up the tone of the discussion: amid continued economic uncertainty the council should “proceed cautiously in our budgeting,” noting that revenue softening or rising pension costs could change the picture.

The council did not take a formal budget action at the meeting; staff will present a third‑quarter update and proposed FY2026–27 budget materials in the coming months.

Ending: The city will watch sales tax and federal grant developments closely and return to the council with third‑quarter projections and a proposed two‑year budget for FY2026–27. If trends hold, the projected FY2025 shortfall could be substantially smaller than the figure used when the budget was adopted.

","Finance Director Raina Schwartz told the Albany City Council during a Feb. 18 presentation that revenues are roughly on track for FY2025 but one‑time costs — including a $1.5 million settlement in litigation with the Lions Club and large pension and insurance payments due early in the year — have pushed first‑half spending higher.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Council delays vote on gas‑line decommissioning pilot after federal funding uncertainty; staff asked for timeline and grant details

Albany council directs staff to study parking impacts and two Solano Avenue alternatives as part of active transportation update

Albany midyear budget review: city projects smaller deficit after one-time costs