Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Infrastructure Gates Funding topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Rancho Murieta committee maps multi‑year gate replacement and weighs funding options including barcode fee
Summary
Committee set priorities for gate replacements and gate‑operation technology, discussed quotes (ABDI activation $6,000 + $2,000/month; earlier $62,000 gate quote) and asked staff to audit security tax/impact fee collections and revisit a barcode fee ordinance as possible revenue sources.
The Security Committee outlined a multi‑year plan to upgrade gate mechanisms, replace aging gate controls and adopt upgraded gate‑operation software to handle rising traffic from planned new housing developments.
Chair and security staff said the district has nine gates (one already replaced) and discussed replacing the remaining eight mechanisms over several years. Brandon noted an ABDI license/AI activation initial cost of about $6,000 (separate from new‑vendor quotes) and an ABDI subscription scenario that could raise ABDI costs to roughly $2,000 per month. An alternative vendor (GoAccess) provided a higher initial quote of about $19,000–$20,000. Earlier gate replacement work by a vendor was quoted at about $62,000 per gate; committee members asked staff to secure multiple, current bids before deciding.
The committee also reviewed revenue sources. One member recited current undeveloped‑property security rates: "$28.32 per acre" inside the gates and "$4.22 per acre" outside the gates, with the tax adjusted annually by about 2 percent. Members noted both delinquent undeveloped lots and a possible pool of security impact fees dating to when developments began being charged in 2015; Cecilia will audit historical collections and report how much is available to apply to gates or equipment.
Because gate replacement and integrated gate software are costly, the committee discussed a barcode program (previously drafted but not adopted by ordinance) as a potential revenue stream. Committee members recalled draft proposals that referenced a one‑time startup fee and a recurring user fee (draft figures cited in discussion included a $25 startup charge and recurring $10 amounts, though participants used both "per year" and "per month" in the discussion), and they flagged implementation challenges: backlog of non‑active stickers in the database, the risk of long visitor‑gate backups if access is cut off to non‑paying vehicles, the need to integrate billing with utilities and the potential for voter‑approval requirements if the program were characterized as a tax.
Next steps: Brandon will seek updated gate replacement and vendor quotes (Central Valley and others); Cecilia will audit security tax and impact fee receipts to identify usable balances; finance will model revenue scenarios including barcode implementation; legal counsel will be asked to clarify Prop‑218 and tax/fee restrictions before any new fee is imposed.
Committee members emphasized the need for an integrated plan (gates, software, radios) rather than piecemeal fixes, and asked staff to return with numbers for budget consideration.
