Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-02-2025 FIC Special Meeting Agenda PacketJune 02, 2025 Dublin Finance and Investment Committee Agenda 1 Special Meeting of the DUBLIN FINANCE AND INVESTMENT COMMITTEE Monday, June 2, 2025 Location: Bray Community Room Dublin Civic Center 100 Civic Plaza Dublin, CA 94568 SPECIAL MEETING 12:00 PM 1. CALL TO ORDER 2. ACTION ITEMS 2.1 Approval of the May 6, 2025 Regular Finance and Investment Committee Meeting Minute The Committee will consider approval of the minutes of the May 6, 2025 Regular Finance and Investment Committee Meeting. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the minutes of the May 6, 2025 Regular Finance and Investment Committee Meeting May 6, 2025 Regular Finance and Investment Committee Meeting Minutes 2.2 Proposed Updates to the City’s Investment Policy The Finance and Investment Committee (FIC) will receive a report on the City’s Investment Policy, including a recommendation on how socially responsible investing (SRI) and environmental, social, and governance (ESG) principles may be incorporated therein. The FIC will also receive information on the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement and related actions taken by other agencies in their investment policies. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive the report and provide direction on proposed amendments to the City’s Investment Policy and practice, including: expanding the list of prohibited investments; citing the City’s Mission, Vision, and Values; and implementing ESG integration; or, provide alternative direction. The final Investment Policy will be brought to the City Council for approval. Staff Report Attachment 1 - ESG Rating Providers and Sector-Specific ESG Assessment Criteria Attachment 2 - City of Dublin Mission, Vision, and Values 3. ADJOURNMENT This AGENDA is posted in accordance with Government Code Section 54954.2(a) COMMITTEE MEMBERS Kashef Qaadri, Vice Mayor Michael McCorriston, Councilmember 1 June 02, 2025 Dublin Finance and Investment Committee Agenda 2 If requested, pursuant to Government Code Section 54953.2, this agenda shall be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability, as required by Section 202 of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (42 U.S.C. Section 12132) (ADA), and the federal rules and regulations adopted in implementation thereof. To make a request for disability-related modification or accommodation, please contact the City Clerk’s Office (925) 833-6650 in advance of the meeting. Upon receiving a request, the City will swiftly resolve requests for reasonable accommodation for individuals with disabilities, consistent with the federal ADA, and resolve any doubt in favor of accessibility. Agenda materials that become available within 72 hours in advance of the meeting, and after publishing of the agenda, will be available at Civic Center, 100 Civic Plaza, and will be posted on the City’s website at www.dublin.ca.gov/ccmeetings. 2 Tuesday, May 6, 2025 Finance and Investment Committee Minutes 1 MINUTES OF THE FINANCE AND INVESTMENT COMMITTEE REGULAR MEETING Tuesday, May 6, 2025 – 5:30 p.m. A regular meeting of the Finance and Investment Committee was held on Tuesday, May 6, 2025, at City Hall, in the Bray Community Room . The meeting was called to order at 5:33 p.m. by Council Member Michael McCorriston. 1. CALL TO ORDER PRESENT: Vice Mayor Kashef Qaadri and Councilmember Michael McCorriston ABSENT: None 2. PUBLIC COMMENT Sarah Diringer provided public comment. 3. ACTION ITEMS 3.1 Approval of the April 14, 2025 Regular Finance and Investment Committee Meeting Minutes ACTION: By consensus, the Committee approved the minutes of the Regular Meeting of April 14, 2025. 4. REPORTS 4.1 Presentation on the City of Dublin’s investment report through the quarter ending March 31, 2025 The Committee received a presentation from Bill Dennehy, Co-Chief Investment Officer at Chandler Asset Management Inc. The presentation provided an overview of the current economic outlook and the performance of the City’s portfolio, during the quarter ending March 31, 2025. 5. REQUEST FOR FUTURE MEETING AGENDA ITEMS The Committee did not make any requests. 6. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 6:28 p.m. COMMITTEE MEMBERS Kashef Qaadri, Vice Mayor Michael McCorriston, Councilmember 3 Tuesday, May 6, 2025 Finance and Investment Committee Minutes 2 Minutes prepared by Jay Baksa, Finance Director. ____________________________________ Vice Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________________ Finance Director 4 STAFF REPORT Finance and Investment Committee Page 1 of 9 Agenda Item 2.2 DATE: June 2, 2025 TO: Honorable Committee Members FROM: Colleen Tribby, City Manager SUBJECT: Proposed Updates to the City’s Investment Policy Prepared by: Jay Baksa, Finance Director EXECUTIVE SUMMARY: The Finance and Investment Committee (FIC) will receive a report on the City’s Investment Policy, including a recommendation on how socially responsible investing (SRI) and environmental, social, and governance (ESG) principles may be incorporated therein. The FIC will also receive information on the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement and related actions taken by other agencies in their investment policies. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive the report and provide direction on proposed amendments to the City’s Investment Policy and practice, including: expanding the list of prohibited investments; citing the City’s Mission, Vision, and Values; and implementing ESG integration; or, provide alternative direction. The final Investment Policy will be brought to the City Council for approval. FINANCIAL IMPACT: Should the City add ESG integration into its asset management service, the estimated cost would be one basis point (0.01%) of the portfolio’s market value, or approximately $31,000 annually. DESCRIPTION: At the February 10, 2025 meeting, the Finance and Investment Committee (FIC) received a presentation from the City’s investment manager, Chandler Asset Management Inc., on socially responsible investing (SRI) and environmental, social, and governance (ESG) principles. The FIC asked Staff to provide more research on ESG scoring and to research the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement and how it compares to SRI and ESG principles. At the April 14, 2025 meeting, the FIC received a presentation from Chandler that provided a 5 Page 2 of 9 more in-depth review of how ESG scoring is currently used. Staff also described the challenges in using BDS as an investment filter. Following the discussion, the FIC requested Staff bring back proposed language to be added to the Investment Policy that addresses socially responsible aspects of investing and reflects the prohibition of certain investments that do not align with the community’s core values. This report presents Staff’s additional research into SRI, ESG, and BDS, along with recommendations for the FIC that balance the desire to align the City’s investing practices with ethical and moral principles, while maintaining sound stewardship of the City’s portfolio. Socially Responsible Investing (SRI) SRI is an investment strategy that seeks to generate financial returns while also considering social, environmental, and ethical factors. The two key components of SRI as an investment tool are: 1. Negative Screening – Excluding companies or industries that conflict with certain values.  As an example, the City’s Investment Policy currently includes prohibitions on investing in fossil fuel companies, tobacco or tobacco-related companies, and companies in support of the production of firearms. 2. Positive Screening – Actively investing in companies with strong socially responsible performance (e.g., clean energy, fair labor practices).  The City currently does not have a positive screening policy or practice in place. Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) ESG investing is a more nuanced investment approach that incorporates non-financial factors, specifically environmental, social, and governance criteria , into the analysis and selection of investments. The goal is to better understand risks and opportunities that may not be visible through traditional financial analysis alone. Broadly speaking, ESG components are as follows:  Environmental (E): Climate change, carbon emissions, resource use, pollution, and sustainability practices.  Social (S): Labor practices, diversity and inclusion, community impact, data privacy, and customer treatment.  Governance (G): Board structure, executive pay, shareholder rights, transparency, and ethical investments. The most important part of ESG investing is establishing how to utilize an ESG score. Chandler currently employs an ESG screening tool internally on all portfolios they manage, including Dublin’s, as part of its investment process.1 Through this tool, Chandler evaluates the 1 Three major providers dominate the ESG scoring landscape: S&P Global, MSCI, and Sustainalytics (Morningstar). While their methodologies often overlap in broad themes, the specific criteria, weighting, and scoring mechanisms vary and are largely proprietary. Chandler currently uses S&P Global for its ESG scoring. A discussion of all three providers, as well as 6 Page 3 of 9 ESG scores of all potential investments relative to their peer groups. These scores are one of several factors incorporated into a broader matrix used to assess overall investment suitability. For example, right now, a company like Berkshire Hathaway—despite having a relatively low ESG score—may still be deemed suitable for investment if, from Chandler’s perspective, other financial and risk-based factors support the decision. The City does not currently have access to the ESG scores of individual investments, nor does it place primary weight on ESG scores or set any score thresholds that would trigger a restriction. There are, however, two other ways to incorporate ESG criteria into a portfolio that would provide an enhanced level of scrutiny: 1. Establish Investment-Level ESG Thresholds. One approach is to set a minimum ESG threshold for individual investments. For example, an investment may only be considered eligible if it ranks in the top 50% of ESG scores, either overall or within its specific sector. This approach recognizes the sector-specific nature of ESG scoring— where, for instance, a company with a score of 44 out of 100 may appear low in an absolute sense but still rank highest among peers within its sector (e.g., industrial materials). Thresholds can be customized to reflect either cross -sector benchmarks or sector-relative performance. 2. Evaluate ESG at the Portfolio Level. Alternatively, the City may choose to assess ESG performance at the portfolio level, rather than at the level of individual investments. This method focuses on the aggregate ESG characteristics of the entire investment portfolio, allowing for a more balanced approach that accommodates variation among individual holdings while still maintaining an overall commitment to ESG principles. If the City were to engage Chandler in an enhanced level of ESG scoring and reporting (herein referred to as ESG integration), then Berkshire Hathaway from the example above could potentially no longer be an eligible investment. The FIC could recommend a threshold and a methodology for reviewing investment scores to determine their suitability. Divestment Movements and Considerations At the City Council meeting on September 17, 2024, and on several other occasions throughout the past year including the April 14, 2025 meeting of the FIC, some members of the public have advocated for the incorporation of boycott and divestment language into the City’s Investment Policy. Specifically, requests have been made to divest from certai n holdings identified on a divestment list created by the BDS movement. Other community members have reached out in opposition to using BDS as an investment filter. In addition, Staff was made aware of a similar divestment list published by the American Friends Service Committee (AFSC). This list also calls for the divestment of companies that supply weapons and military equipment to Israel and is aligned in intent with the BDS movement’s objectives. ESG criteria for three representative sectors, is included in Attachment 1. 7 Page 4 of 9 The following is a summary of the BDS and AFSC efforts, along with a report on local and state actions related to BDS, and finally a discussion of Assembly Bill 2844 (2016), which has some legal implications for agencies engaged in boycott or divestment activities. Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) The BDS movement is a Palestinian-led movement started in 2005 and aims to pressure Israel to comply with international law and uphold Palestinian rights through economic, cultural, and political means. Currently, the BDS movement is continuing its campaign to ap ply economic and political pressure on Israel to comply with international law and uphold Palestinian rights. The movement's divestment strategy has evolved to focus on targeting corporations, institutions, and governments that are perceived to be complicit in Israel's actions in the occupied Palestinian territories. Recently, BDS has intensified efforts to pressure companies that provide services or products to the Israeli military or operate in the occupied territories. Recent targets include:  Microsoft: Added to the boycott list in April 2025 due to its Azure cloud and AI services allegedly supporting Israeli military operations in Gaza.  Disney: Criticized for alleged support of Israeli actions against Palestinians, leading to calls for boycotts. Additionally, the movement has seen increased support from academic institutions and unions:  City University of New York (CUNY): The professors' union approved a resolution supporting divestment from Israeli companies and government bonds by January 2026.  University Protests: Students at various universities, including Columbia, have demanded that their institutions sever financial ties with companies involved in the conflict, such as Microsoft, Google, and Amazon. As of the date of this report, the City of Dublin’s investment portfolio contains one investment that is listed by BDS as a boycott/divestment target, which is Caterpillar. American Friends Service Committee (AFSC) AFSC is a Quaker-founded organization established in 1917, with a longstanding mission to promote peace, justice, and human rights globally. In recent years, AFSC has become an active advocate for Palestinian rights and has engaged in various initiatives, including investment screening and divestment campaigns. AFSC maintains a formal divestment list as part of its broader Investigate project. This initiative highlights publicly traded companies that, in AFSC’s assessment, are complicit in human rights violations—particularly those associated with the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories. Companies included on the divestment list are identified based on their direct involvement in activities that allegedly support or sustain such violations. In addition to concerns related to Israel and Palestine, AFSC’s divestment list is developed using a broader human rights screening process. This process includes companies involved in 8 Page 5 of 9 mass incarceration, border militarization, immigrant surveillance, and deportation systems. The Investigate project is intended to help individuals and institutions align investment decisions with ethical and human rights considerations. AFSC has also released a separate report titled “Companies Profiting from the Gaza Genocide,” which lists entities alleged to have provided Israel with weapons and militar y equipment. However, AFSC has stated that this report is not intended to serve as a boycott or divestment list. The organization’s official divestment recommendations remain limited to those companies screened through its formal human rights criteria. As of the date of this report, the City of Dublin’s investment portfolio contains two investments that are listed by AFSC as boycott/divestment target s – Honeywell International and Caterpillar. Bay Area Jurisdiction Actions Related to BDS-Aligned Investment Decisions As discussed during the April 14, 2025 Committee meeting, three Bay Area jurisdictions— Alameda County, the City of Hayward, and the City of Richmond—have taken actions that have been described as aligning with the objectives of the BDS movement. These actions vary in scope and implementation, and in some cases, jurisdictions have clarified that their decisions are independent of any formal alignment with BDS. Alameda County. In April 2025 Alameda County Treasurer-Tax Collector Henry Levy, an independently elected official, announced that the County had sold off most of its holdings in Caterpillar Inc., with plans to finalize full divestment. In parallel, the Alameda County Board of Supervisors unanimously voted to develop an Ethical Investment Policy intended to incorporate human rights and environmental criteria into investment decision-making. As of the date of this report, it could not be confirmed whether the Alameda County Investment Policy had been formally amended to reflect this new framework. City of Hayward. On January 23, 2024 the Hayward City Council approved a resolution to initiate divestment from four companies—Caterpillar, Chevron, Hyundai, and Intel— representing approximately $1.6 million in holdings. This action was taken during a review of the City’s Investment Policy. Additionally, the Council directed the City’s Budget and Finance Committee to evaluate and potentially revise the policy to reflect broader ethical considerations. However, on January 25, 2024 the City issued a public statement clarifying its position: “The Hayward City Council voted 4-3 on Tuesday to remove four companies from the City’s investment portfolio. The action was neither an endorsement of the Boycott, Divestment, and Sanctions (BDS) movement, nor did it direct staff to align City investment policy with BDS guidance.” As of the date of this report, the City of Hayward’s investment policy has not been formally revised. 9 Page 6 of 9 City of Richmond. On April 30, 2024, the Richmond City Council directed staff to revise the City's investment policy to include new ethical restrictions. During the drafting process, the proposed restrictions were revised twice to ensure compliance with State law and best practices established by the California Municipal Treasurers Association. On April 15, 2025 the Richmond City Council adopted a revised investment policy, which includes the following prohibitions: 1. Investments in companies that develop or manufacture commodities that facilitate violence, war, oppression, or apartheid. 2. Investments in companies involved in the development or manufacturing of arms and weapons. 3. Investments in companies engaged in border control or mass surveillance industries. 4. Investments in companies involved in mass incarceration or detention industries, including those that utilize prison labor for product manufacturing. A previously proposed provision—which would have prohibited investments in a predetermined list of companies alleged to be involved in Israel’s violations of Palestinian rights—was ultimately removed from the policy due to concerns related to compliance with State law and professional investment standards. Opposing Perspectives: Local and State Government Actions Against BDS In contrast to jurisdictions that have taken actions aligned with the BDS movement, several local and state governments have explicitly opposed BDS efforts. These actions often emphasize support for Israel, condemnation of antisemitism, and the reinforcement of anti - discrimination standards in government contracting and investment. City of Beverly Hills. The Beverly Hills City Council has taken a strong position against the BDS movement. It has passed multiple resolutions affirming support for the State of Israel and denouncing efforts to boycott Israeli businesses and institutions. In response to an antisemitic attack in the region, the City Council issued a public statement condemning antisemitism and labeling the BDS movement as “unjustifiable.” The City Council further emphasized its commitment to opposing all forms of discrimination and maintaining support for Israel. State-Level Actions. As of 2025, 38 U.S. states have enacted laws, executive orders, or resolutions designed to discourage or penalize participation in boycotts against Israel. These measures often apply to state contracts or public investments and typically require certification that contractors or vendors are not engaged in such boycotts. Some states also maintain public lists of entities deemed to be participating in boycott activities. Examples include:  Texas – In 2017, Texas enacted House Bill 89, which prohibits the state from entering into contracts with companies that boycott Israel.  Arkansas – Also in 2017, Arkansas implemented Act 710, requiring public entities to refrain from contracting with or investing in companies that boycott Israel. 10 Page 7 of 9 These state-level actions reflect a broader national trend of legislating against economic discrimination based on national origin, particularly in relation to Israel. Assembly Bill 2844 (AB 2844) – State Contracting and Anti-Discrimination Compliance In September 2016, the State of California enacted AB 2844, which imposes specific requirements on individuals and entities entering into or renewing contracts with the State valued at $100,000 or more. Under AB 2844, prospective contractors must certify, u nder penalty of perjury, that: 1. They are in compliance with the Unruh Civil Rights Act and the Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA), which prohibit discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations based on protected characteristics, including race, religion, and national origin; and 2. Any policy they maintain regarding a sovereign nation or its people recognized by the U.S. government—including, but not limited to, Israel—is not used to unlawfully discriminate in violation of the Unruh Act or FEHA. It is important to note that divestment from Israel is not, in itself, a violation of AB 2844. The law does not prohibit divestment activities; rather, it requires that such activities result in unlawful discrimination, and that entities certify compliance with California’s anti-discrimination laws. However, AB 2844’s certification requirement —made under penalty of perjury—may subject organizations engaged in boycott or divestment activities (such as those aligned with BDS or AFSC campaigns) to increased legal scrutiny. Conclusion and Staff Recommendation There has been a significant amount of community interest in the topics presented in this Staff Report, particularly from individuals and groups who have strong positions on the Israeli- Palestine conflict and BDS. While some of the principles promoted by the BDS movement include elements consistent with more general ESG filters, Staff does not recommend aligning the City’s Investment Policy with the platform of any specific advocacy group . Instead, policy updates should be guided by the City’s core values, which align more with the guidelines of SRI and ESG. Therefore, Staff recommends a three-pronged approach to revising the City’s Investment Policy and practice: 1) Expand the list of prohibited investments via SRI Negative Screening; 2) Add language in the Policy that ties investments to the City’s Mission, Vision, and Values; and 3) Implement ESG integration. This approach balances ethical investment restrictions with enhanced portfolio evaluation tools to support long-term sustainability and alignment with City values. Recommended actions are detailed as follows: 1. SRI Enhancements Staff recommends expanding the list of prohibited investment categories in “Section XI: Prohibited Investment Practices and Instruments” of the City’s Investment Policy. Rather than identifying individual companies, restrictions will focus on entire sectors deemed inconsistent with the City’s social and ethical priorities. 11 Page 8 of 9 Recommended language to add to Section XI: The City also prohibits investments in any of the following:  Fossil fuel companies.  Tobacco and tobacco-related companies.  Companies supporting the production of firearms.  (New) Companies that develop or manufacture commodities that facilitate violence or war.  (New) Companies engaged in border or mass surveillance industries.  (New) Companies involved in mass incarceration or detention industries. If the City adopts the proposed expansion of prohibited investment categories, the only company currently held in the City’s investment portfolio that could potentially no longer be eligible for future investment is Honeywell International Inc. Staff, in collaboration with Chandler, would further review the portfolio to identify any additional companies affected by the updated policy. Importantly, there would be no cost or loss of revenue associated with this action, provided the City adheres to the transition provisions outlined in the Investment Policy. These provisions allow existing non-compliant holdings to be held until maturity but prohibit reinvestment in those entities thereafter. 2. Incorporation of Mission, Vision, and Values Staff also recommends citing the City’s Mission, Vision, and Values statements (Attachment 2), either explicitly or by reference, in the Investment Policy. This will not only provide additional guidance through which investment vehicles could be evaluated but will make a formal statement tying investment activities to the ethos of the community. 3. ESG Integration and Portfolio Scoring Finally, Staff recommends that the City formally engage Chandler to implement ESG integration into its investment management services for Dublin. While Chandler already utilizes ESG screening tools, using the enhanced scoring integration would require amending the City’s agreement with the firm. Estimated Cost. The addition of ESG portfolio scoring and integration services is estimated at 1 basis point (0.01%) of the portfolio’s market value, or approximately $31,000 annually. Implementation Recommendation. Before establishing ESG benchmarks or exclusions, Staff recommends conducting an initial assessment of the City’s current portfolio. This would provide a baseline ESG score to help inform future decisions on how best to incorporate ESG standards into the City’s investment strategy. A presentation of the ESG scoring results and potential benchmarks could be scheduled for a future FIC meeting once all relevant data has been received. 12 Page 9 of 9 ATTACHMENTS: 1) ESG Rating Providers and Sector-Specific ESG Assessment Criteria 2) City of Dublin Mission, Vision, and Values 13 Attachment 1 ESG Ratings Providers and Methodologies S&P Global. S&P Global utilizes the Corporate Sustainability Assessment (CSA), which includes up to 120 industry-specific questions across approximately 30 criteria. Assessments are based on corporate disclosures, media analysis, and modeling. Note that S&P Global is the ESG scoring service used by Chandler.  Environmental: Climate strategy, emissions, resource efficiency, and environmental reporting.  Social: Labor practices, human rights, customer relationship management, and community engagement.  Governance: Corporate governance structures, ethics policies, and risk management frameworks. MSCI. MSCI uses an ESG Industry Materiality Map to identify the most significant ESG issues per industry. Companies are rated from AAA (highest) to CCC (lowest) based on their exposure to sector-specific ESG risks and their capacity to manage those risks.  Environmental: Carbon emissions, energy efficiency, water stress, and waste management.  Social: Labor management, product safety, data security, and community relations.  Governance: Corporate governance, business ethics, and tax transparency. Sustainalytics (Morningstar). Sustainalytics focuses on ESG risk by evaluating a company’s exposure to ESG-related issues and how well those risks are managed. Companies are categorized into five risk levels: negligible, low, medium, high, and severe.  Environmental: Emissions, resource usage, and environmental impact of products.  Social: Human rights, occupational health and safety, and stakeholder engagement.  Governance: Business ethics, board oversight, and compliance systems. Sector-Specific ESG Assessment Criteria Given the materiality-based nature of ESG scoring, each industry is evaluated using a tailored set of metrics. Below are summaries of ESG criteria for three representative sectors: Heavy Machinery, Technology, and Banking. Heavy Machinery Environmental (E):  Energy efficiency of products and manufacturing operations  Product lifecycle management and recyclability  Use of sustainable materials and reduction of manufacturing waste  Greenhouse gas emission control  Transparency in environmental reporting 14 Attachment 1 Social (S):  Occupational health and safety policies  Labor practices and supply chain standards  Product safety and customer support  Community investment and stakeholder engagement Governance (G):  Board composition and independence  Risk and crisis management strategies  Ethics and anti-corruption policies Technology Sector Environmental (E):  Energy efficiency in data centers and manufacturing  Emissions reduction initiatives  Resource consumption and waste management  End-of-life product recycling and e-waste mitigation Social (S):  Fair labor practices and diversity initiatives  Data privacy and cybersecurity protocols  Customer satisfaction and ethical marketing  Corporate social responsibility programs Governance (G):  Board structure and governance transparency  Ethical standards and compliance programs  Public disclosure of ESG-related risks  Strategic risk mitigation planning Banking and Financial Services Environmental (E):  Climate risk strategy and environmental policy commitments  Transparency in environmental disclosures  Measurement of financed emissions from loans and investments Social (S):  Employee development and training initiatives  Efforts to promote financial inclusion  Customer service quality and grievance resolution Governance (G):  Board oversight, diversity, and independence  Enterprise risk and crisis management practices  Business ethics and anti-fraud controls 15 Strategic Plan City of Dublin Fiscal Years 2024-25 and 2025-26 Budget Page 1 City of Dublin STRATEGIC PLAN City of Dublin Two-Year Strategic Plan Adopted on April 2, 2024 Adopted for Fiscal Years 2024-25 & 2025-26 (updated every two years) Mission The City of Dublin promotes and supports a high quality of life, ensures a safe, secure, and sustainable environment, fosters new opportunities, and champions a culture of equity, diversity, and inclusion. Vision Dublin is a great community to live, work, and raise a family. Values •Business – We will provide a full spectrum of opportunity by supporting current and prospective businesses through ongoing economic development efforts and helping them grow and thrive locally. •Customer Service – We will provide welcoming, excellent customer services to our residents and businesses at all times. •Diversity – We will support a wide range of programs and events that reflect and cater to the diversity of our residents. •Environmental Sustainability – We will continue to lead in building a well-planned sustainable community and protecting our natural resources. •Equity – We will deliver our services in a way that ensures equitable access to all. •Finances – We will strive to be fiscally transparent and balance our budgets annually. •History – We will honor our history through places and programs that remind people of our beginnings. •Inclusivity – We will advocate for programs and policies that support inclusive access to housing and cultural opportunities. •Innovation – We will continue to innovate in every aspect of government and promote innovation within the business community. •Living an Active Lifestyle – We will continuously promote an active lifestyle through our parks and facilities and encourage participation in local sports. •Safety – We are dedicated to excellent public safety resources, including police and fire. Attachment 2 16