April 25, 2019 Joint Special Meeting of Mountain View City Council and Shoreline Regional Park Community

Video

Transcript

[00:00:00] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, this is gonna be late. There's Lucas. Yeah. Chris is. Yes, thank you. Yeah. Okay. We will call this meeting to order. And our city clerk will announce attendance.

[00:00:23] City Clerk: Council member Clark is absent. All other council members are present.

[00:00:26] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Thank you. First item is oral communications from the public. This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the council on any matter, not on the agenda. Speakers are allowed to speak on any topic for up to three minutes during this section. State law prohibits counsel from acting on non agenda items. Is there anyone who wants to talk to us about an item that is not on the agenda tonight? And the items on the agenda are the budget and capital improvement projects. Okay, saying none. We'll close that portion, and we will move on to the 1st part of the study session, which is the proposed fiscal year 201920 through fiscal year 2024 capital improvement program, and our presenters, our public works director, Mike Fuller, and assistant public works director, Jacqueline Solomon.

[00:01:19] Assistant Public Works Director Jacqueline Solomon: Good evening, honorable mayor members of the council. We're here to discuss the 201920 through 202324 Capital Improvement Program. This is our 2nd study session on the five-year plan. The 1st study session was March 26th. And then the following day, we brought the item to the BPAC, and I will briefly go over what we heard at both of those meetings. In terms of council input on March 26th, council was generally okay with the role forward projects from the previous five-year plan to balance the 1st 2 years as described in the staff report. Some of the role forward projects were deferred or year or two, but still remain in the plan except for some utility projects that were rescheduled. Or excuse me, put on the unscheduled list. We are proceeding with the Charleston Corridor Improvement project on a reimbursement basis with Google and staff. We'll return to council with a reimbursement agreement and the proposed CIP and includes amendment to the existing Charleston Corridor Project to fund this effort. We will be proceeding with the El Camino Real bike improvements, to stay ahead, excuse me, to stay ahead of Caltrans anticipated resurfacing of El Camino Real. And at the last study session, council had not met on the goals yet. And so our presumption based on what we heard Tuesday is that the downtown precise plan is in in Terabella is not, and that is, of course, subject to counsel's final adoption of goals. Council declined to prioritize the villa tunnel over the Mayfield tunnel, so the Mayfield tunnel will proceed. And then there's a project in 202324 to begin feasibility study on the villa tunnel. The proposed plan includes $600,000 in funding to proceed with the Stevens Creek Trail, and we will also continue to have discussions with Sunnyvale about participation in the project, and we will be proceeding with Castro Central Moffat interim improvements, bringing plans and specs for approval to council in June. The plan also includes what we're calling the Castro Street Pedestrian Mall feasibility study. It is a, um, to evaluate the configuration of the Castro Evelyn intersection that you see that you saw in the Transit Center Master Plan study session. We will be doing that in parallel with the environmental clearance and preliminary design on the great separation project. So we will be coming back with a consultant contract to you on the pedestrian mall feasibility study. There's also a project to improve downtown lot 11 and also the lot over at View and Villa, a little bit of resurfacing and some restriping. And then once council member asks for an update on the 2015 California Escuela Shoreline study, and we provided a memo with an update on that. BPAC was generally supportive of the roll forward projects and prioritizing the Mayfield tunnel and moving forward with Stevens Creek Trail. They also supported the Castro Moffatt Central Improvements, and did recommend including a California Street project in the plan. Staff reviewed the status of all the active projects. They are shown in attachment. Attachment 2 is the projects we anticipate closing at the end of the fiscal year. And attachment 3 includes the active projects that will remain open. Many of them are near completion. Not a lot of work going on, but are being left open for close out. Then the staff report described 3 funding sources that do not currently balance after year 2 of the plan. And for purposes of discussion, I'm combining the construction conveyance tax and CIP Reserve is one source, as these can both be used for any capital projects. The city forecasts these funds fairly conservatively, and during good economic times, the delta between actual and projected revenues in the out years is generally substantial. Staff therefore included some projects in the outer years of the plan that put these funds in a projected deficit. But we have a fairly high degree of confidence that the funding will be available when these projects roll forward. If the funding is not available, adjustments can be made to the timing of these projects based on available resources. Water and wastewater funds are also negative after year 2, and staff anticipates a conversation with council during the next fiscal year to address this issue with some combination of rate increases, debt, or adjustments to fees that support these funds. And finally, staff also recommends that city consider a dedicated funding stores for storm drain improvements as a storm drainage system is not supported by an enterprise funds like the water and wastewater systems. Well, as demanding in the water and sewer systems, there are some capital expenditures needed in the coming years in the storm drainage system that will need to be funded. Now, the proposed nondiscretionary projects are listed in attachment for to the staff report and a short list of new or amended nondiscretionary projects is described in the report and shown here. These are all related to infrastructure maintenance and are therefore recommended to be considered nondiscretionary. Now, a topic that arose during gold setting, Tuesday is the city's pavement condition. Official biennial pavement numbers for 2018 are expected to be published in June, and we can expect Mountain View's numbers to be lower than they were in 2016. However, staff expects a significant increase in payment maintenance funding over the five-year plan with the addition of measure B and SB1 funding. This graph shows historic funding on annual street resurfacing projects and street reconstruction projects since 201011 and projected through the five-year plan. The historic funding averages just under $2 million, and there's a significant spike next fiscal year, and then annual funding settles in at around $5.5 million per year. The increases from dedicated measure B and SB1 funding. The graph does not capture all current and past projects like the shoreline reversible bus lane that will overlay Shoreline Boulevard from Middlefield to pair, Caltran's anticipated overlay of El Camino Real, and our OBEG funded resurfacing of Middlefield Road. In addition to pavement overlays and slurry seals, We have also programmed in annual street reconstruction projects like the 10 streets we did over a 10 year period in Rex Manor. So it will take a while to design and construct these projects. This additional funding will help our PCI bounce back to the current goal of 75. That's our goal. And that's what it was a couple of years ago, and it's going to be lower in 2018. They're still settling on a number, but it will be lower. So our 1st question for council, and we'll get back to these at the end of the meeting is, um, does council support the proposed amendment and new nondiscretionary projects? Then there are a large number of new discretionary projects in the five-year plan. I will flash through the lists relatively quickly and point out a couple of highlights in each list rather than go through them all. The projects in red are subject to some conflict of insurance. Interest segmenting we'll be doing when we ask for council input. So among the projects for next year is the 1st phase of the civic center upgrades. discussed at the March study session. And you'll be seeing an item, I believe, next week for May 14th. On May 14th, for a midyear CIP, the roof on this building is actually leaking. And we like to get to it this summer, so we're going to propose, we broke that one out and we're going to try and do a mid-year CIP to get to it before the end of summer. So you'll be seeing that on consent. Also, next year, we have construction funding for the Shoreline 101 off-ramp realignment, the Shoreline 101 pedestrian overcrossing, and the Plymouth Space Park realignment. We also have improvements to Michael's restaurant, the 400 San Antonio Mini Park, and a couple of large water and sewer projects. And then this list wraps up 201920. In year two, we have a couple of significant storm drain projects and construction funding for the ring store for Aquatic Center. Your 2 also includes construction funding for South Westman Park and design and construction of El Mani Corridor Improvements. For year three, we have the Steerlin Road and El Camino Real bike pit improvements, the design and construction of the Traffic Operations Center, and another installment of the Civic Center improvements. Another notable project for year 3 is repainting and deck replacement on the Stevens Creek Trail Bridge over Evelyn and Central Expressway. And year 3 also includes final design funding for the ringstorf grade separation and placeholder construction funding for the police fire building. Year four, we have 2 ped bike improvements on El Camino and an adaptive signal system on Ringsdorf. Construction funding for the Castro Street grade separation. And then in year 5, we have construction funding for the Mayfield tunnel. So if you have any questions about any of these, we'd be happy to answer them. Oh, I'm sorry, and year 5 also includes studying options for replacement of Fire Station 3, which we've been talking about for some time. And our 2nd question will be about discretionary projects, and we will be segmenting that question. We also have some amendments to existing projects described in the staff report, and we'll be asking counsel about those. And a list of unscheduled projects is provided in attachment six. And after council's input this evening, we will go to the parks and recreation commission and a June meeting to adopt the CIP. So at that, we have questions for counsel whenever you are ready.

[00:12:41] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Since this is a study session, we will next open it up for public comment, and then we'll have council questions and discussion. So if there's anyone who wishes to address the council on this item, please come up to the microphone and be sure to fill out a blue card either before or after you speak. And we will give you 3 minutes.

[00:13:07] Lori Robinson: I am Lori Robinson, I'm an 8 year resident of Mountain View. And 1st I would like to thank council members for supporting historical preservation, growing small businesses, and increasing project transparency. Thank you. So, like many other residents I've talked to, I believe the success of the transit center can determine whether Mountain View becomes a friendly destination, or just like a traffic center. So I support the further study of the proposed alternative that evaluates the design concepts for a green plaza or pedestrian mall at the Castro Evelyn intersection. Instead of just clapping down a new transit center in place of the old one, the alternative vision has the potential to create a pedestrian experience. The flow and the synergy between the new and the old will combine to make the 2 more robust than they are on their own on that alternative. And then, hopefully, Mountain View will become the most livable, vibrant city on the peninsula. Thank you.

[00:14:29] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Next, please.

[00:14:33] Bruce Carney: Good evening. My name is Bruce Carney. I am a long time Mountain View resident. I want to compliment the staff in the city on the number of projects related to biking, walking, and alternatives to drive alone single vehicles in the capital improvement plan. I've been coming to city council meetings for over 25 years, and I honestly cannot remember a document that is as visionary as this document is in terms of how Mountain View is choosing to allocate its capital dollars to create a city that will work for people who cannot drive, choose not to drive. And I hope that the safety issues that we've had to deal with in the last several years will be improved dramatically by some of the things like the crossings across El Camino Real. So I look forward with great enthusiasm to the adoption of the CIP that is in front of you tonight. Thank you.

[00:15:28] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So anyone else who wishes to speak on this topic? That was earlier in the meeting. Is there anyone else who wants to address this on this topic? Okay, we'll close public comment. And we will move to council questions and discussion. And it looks like we've divided this... Why don't we do questions first, and then we'll follow the order of the questions that are...

[00:16:08] Assistant Public Works Director Jacqueline Solomon: And I can preview how we're gonna do the questions, if that would be helpful.

[00:16:11] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yes.

[00:16:12] Assistant Public Works Director Jacqueline Solomon: Okay. Question one doesn't require any segmenting, nor does question three. And then question two about new projects. There are a couple council members who may want to recuse themselves. And so we've broken out two projects related, that we'll talk about individually. And then circle back to discuss the rest of the plan.

[00:16:36] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, great. Thank you. So that was our plan. Thank you. Okay, council member Hicks.

[00:16:42] Councilmember Alison Hicks: First, just a short question. Would I be recused from the discussion of if there's any discussion of the civic center?

[00:16:48] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: No.

[00:16:50] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay, then I won't worry about that.

[00:16:55] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Any other questions from council members? Council member McAllister.

[00:17:06] Councilmember John McAlister: I was glad to see... I also wanted discretionary, just to clarify that... They may be rude... They may be reviewed, but after further research that maybe decided not to go forward with, potentially, on some of these projects.

[00:17:23] Assistant Public Works Director Jacqueline Solomon: Could you give me an example? I'm not sure, I'm not sure what you mean.

[00:17:27] Councilmember John McAlister: Well, in an intersection, that there's supposed to be a traffic study, and you further just look into it, and it doesn't warrant going further down.

[00:17:36] Assistant Public Works Director Jacqueline Solomon: Yeah, on a lot of these projects. We have an idea, um, that requires further development and... public outreach and sometimes some policy input. I'll give us an example of sterling road bike lanes. During the development of the shoreline corridor study, We identified Steerland Road as lacking any bike improvements. It's a pretty narrow street. There's curbside parking on both sides. We developed a concept that was kind of a compromise. You lose parking on one side. You can put a bike lane in. And that's kind of what we assume the project is going to be. As we go into the project, obviously there's public outreach. And, you know, depending on, for instance, opposition, you might get to, um, losing it on straight parking or other ideas you might get from BPAC or the community, um, sometimes the concept for the project does change. And so, and sometimes we bring them all the way to council and say, this is what we're hearing, and give some choices for a policy decisions. Some are more straightforward than that, don't require that kind of iterative process, but some do.

[00:18:41] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. So, uh, you notice a park and rec has to recommend. Is that part of our charter? I just procedure why, I swear, there's a line in there, it says, part.

[00:18:53] Assistant Public Works Director Jacqueline Solomon: Yes, the Parks and Recommission recommends to council the allocation of Parkland fees to capital projects.

[00:19:01] Councilmember John McAlister: So that's just a recommendation.

[00:19:03] Assistant Public Works Director Jacqueline Solomon: Yeah, council is free to do what they...

[00:19:06] Unknown Speaker: Yes, it do.

[00:19:07] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. Hey, on the Shortline Boathouse expansion. Is any of that money going to, or any other projects like that going to be covered back through leases or anything along those lines since it's?

[00:19:19] Assistant Public Works Director Jacqueline Solomon: So do I understand that the shoreline boathouse expansion? Is that also for the lease out there?

[00:19:24] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, we had a conversation about that when counsel discussed renewing the lease with the current operator. We projected some, you know, revenues going forward and so on. And, um, ultimately, council decided that, um, facility was frankly undersized for its current use. and is aging and so on and so decided to put some city dollars into it. I think we recognize that if we do that, there will be increased revenues from increased sales. There wasn't a direct tie that said we're going to put in this much if you get that much revenue done. Actually, the final lease terms do include an increase in the percentage of proceeds they pay once we complete the kitchen expansion.

[00:20:12] Councilmember John McAlister: Thank you.

[00:20:13] Unknown Speaker: You're welcome.

[00:20:14] Councilmember John McAlister: Right.

[00:20:16] Assistant Public Works Director Jacqueline Solomon: But it's not a direct reimbursement to the city for a certain amount of capital dollars. But we will.

[00:20:21] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. I was just looking ways a week for recover. On the all-inclusive playgrounds, Is that 300,000 from us or is that sort of going to their request for more funding?

[00:20:36] Unknown Speaker: That's from us. The original project did not include some administrative costs, like our own project management staff time and so on. It was just design and construction. And so we put that funding in because once public works as a project manager working on it, we do need to charge time to the project.

[00:20:53] Councilmember John McAlister: Yep, okay. And this, this 200 and some, is this a record number of projects?

[00:21:04] Unknown Speaker: 10, 10,

[00:21:05] Councilmember John McAlister: okay. And is it just a general thought that while we have the money, we should invest and fix capital projects to get them?

[00:21:15] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, frankly, there are a lot of things we're doing that we're taking advantage of the revenue, like this, we never took a comprehensive look before at the Civic Center, and said, what do we need to do here? And so I think that's a reflection of the fact that we do have a lot of construction conveyance tax and CIP Reserve, and we want to invest that in our infrastructure while we have that funding, because those are the projects we don't get to when times aren't this good.

[00:21:39] Councilmember John McAlister: That's a great policy. I've asked you this question. Where do new projects with data and big data collecting things is related to water and water, you know, smart water meters? Are new projects going in with smart water meters? Do they just have one main water meter and then, is there any, what's going on with those big projects?

[00:22:02] Unknown Speaker: All the water meters going in now, have remote read capabilities, and we are slowly changing all the water meters throughout the city for that capability? We discuss doing it all at once, but frankly, the meters wear out. And so if we just get some kind of a replacement cycle, we do a certain percentage every year. So we still have some meters that have no electronic capability whatsoever, but we're slowly getting to having all of them. Um, in terms of, you know, an actual dashboard for a customer and so on. I think we're still in a pilot phase on that. So we're not, like, implementing that citywide. We're still figuring out the best course of action on that, and we'll be coming back to see that. That's an expensive project. We'll have to weigh the costs and benefits with council on that.

[00:22:46] Councilmember John McAlister: You know, we talked about it before and you said it was sort of like a 20 year switch out by the time you've switched out the 20, the nuke technology. How much money is it? Any of this involved in this discretionary projects?

[00:22:59] Unknown Speaker: No, the money for the water meter replacements is in the annual water system improvements. CIP, and we just set aside a certain amount of that for meter replacements, and then the rest of it goes to valves and other things we need to replace throughout the year.

[00:23:16] Councilmember John McAlister: Are there any grants or external funding that would increase the number of water meters replaced? I keep hearing companies that are, you know, organizations are trying to get that going. So is there any?

[00:23:32] Unknown Speaker: Not that I know of. Um, I think, um, Elizabeth Playgirl, our water conservation coordinator might know a little bit about that. I'm happy to ask her, but not that I'm aware.

[00:23:41] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, thank you.

[00:23:43] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Vice mayor, Abbe Coca?

[00:23:46] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Um, just a general question about SBY funds. So I remember we adopted a resolution that list starts to, are we required to do that every year and does the funding come down every year?

[00:24:00] Unknown Speaker: Yes. To both.

[00:24:02] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, great. The HET study, and I know we'll talk about this set of study session, but the funding. I had asked about the Google offer for 250,000, and then we saw the MV Go letter come in a few days ago. Is that are those both part of the 375 other funding pieces or is it in addition?

[00:24:30] Unknown Speaker: 100,000? That's part of the 375,000 shown as other funding.

[00:24:35] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, great. Um, There's question, there are questions and I think in your comments about, oh, BPAC recommending we move forward with the California Street improvements and is that from the CES study? And, um, if so, is I thought I saw it still on unscheduled, would you move that forward and what year would you look at?

[00:25:01] Unknown Speaker: We could do that. Council member Clark asked about that and he's not here, but if council wishes us to do that, We do have an unscheduled project. There are a couple ways to go on that. There was a phasing plan in the study, and then staff came up with another phasing plan. One of the big questions is, are we are interested in looking at lane reduction? Because part of the project is things like bulb bouts and increased lighting, and then another part is lane reduction, and obviously we'd want to analyze that, and it's actually something that we could pilot and try.

[00:25:33] Unknown Speaker: We had talked about it.

[00:25:34] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, we did. And so what staff came up with in the on the unscheduled list is an idea for that. If it went into year one, we would have to move something out because... idea of how much that would cost. Is it on here? Jacqueline would know that very. quickly. And so if counsel wishes us to go forward with that, I'd recommend putting it in, say, year 2 or something. Um, and then, um, I think what we could do next year during, during consideration of the CIP is talking a little more detail about exactly what that means, um, and to find the project a little better. I don't think we can get to it in year one unless we really move something out so we probably don't need to worry about that tonight.

[00:26:15] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Uh huh.

[00:26:17] Unknown Speaker: We put in $750,000 for that. So if council wishes, we could put that in and outer year and then discuss it further next year or maybe refine it a little bit and talk about implementing.

[00:26:28] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Great. And then finally, another item, we just talked about Tuesday, but the Shenandoah precise plan. It's on the unscheduled list as of today, but depending on what we decide at our last school setting session in May, well, could that potentially be moved up?

[00:26:45] Unknown Speaker: It could. It's a funding and a workload issue, but we'll react to the council's direction on that.

[00:26:51] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Great. Thank you.

[00:26:54] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Kameh.

[00:26:55] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. Um, so I'm gonna, I have a question. related to um, a prior, I think item, which is when staff had looked at, I think, a bus shelter over at the high school. Um, and I'm looking to the city manager. We've been having a conversation after receiving some feedback, especially during these past rainy months for a bus shelter, um, over at, um, the, at Crittenden. Um, and so, um, in initial conversations, it could be something that the, we could do a partnership with the school district, um, in an initial conversation. Um, and I know that that it didn't, the conversation didn't happen during the 1st time the CIP came up. But since has since come up now that the CIP's coming back. And so I'm not sure if this is the time where I can bring it up as a potential project. Um, but I just wanted to share that with my colleagues more of the interest in, you know, the just the cost and feasibility because I believe, you know, it ended up not being peaceable at the high school. So just wanted to put that out there.

[00:28:11] Unknown Speaker: We costed that out, didn't we?

[00:28:14] Unknown Speaker: We've done some preliminary. Obviously, each site's different, so we don't know for sure. I just sent you an email. We probably haven't even seen yet about an hour ago. It probably is more expensive than initially thought in terms of having to put in the pads and the engineering and everything. It could be somewhere in the $100,000 total neighborhood. But again, every site's different because you don't know what all has to go with it. The shelter itself is about 20,000, but there's more to a project than just the shelter. I mean, we can certainly have discussion with the school district to see if they're interested in sharing that. It's obviously not on the plan, but we can come back and report and either put a placeholder in the CIP or come back with a mid-year CIP if that's something that's a priority for the council.

[00:29:00] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay. Thank you.

[00:29:03] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Hicks?

[00:29:08] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Some of the projects are signalization, and I've been getting, like, increasing the cycles, if I remember, right after all this reading from 6 to 8. And I've been getting some feedback from people who walk a lot that that means they have to stand there for a very long time. And I'm wondering if in any of those, I know it may not be appropriate at every intersection, like the very heavily used ones, maybe, but, whether there's a way, whether some of those could include an option to change them with, when pedestrians tap the button, or whether, you know, I'm just, people have asked me repeatedly, whether that can happen with this very long cycle, or maybe you're already planning that. I don't know.

[00:29:55] Unknown Speaker: Um, describe to me the change again. sorry.

[00:29:58] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So when... Yeah, when you go from... Oh. When you go from... when there's a separate, I may not be using the right terminology, but when there's a separate phase for going directly straight, turning right, turning left, for the people at the cars at both on both streets, for pedestrians, it takes a very long time, and people feel it becomes unsa... People try to bolt or, um, you know, slam on the thing to get it working quicker. So I'm wondering if there's a way of handling that differently in some intersections, because I would be more supportive of the change in signalization, if that were possible.

[00:30:46] Unknown Speaker: Things are more possible with some of the newer controllers. We have some controllers out there, frankly, that date to the 60s and 70s. Um, and one of the one of the things we're trying to do with a lot of these projects is update those, um, and have more flexibility and control. I think I'd like to do is talk to the traffic engineers a little bit about that. And maybe I can get you some information offline about it. I know that we're The new controllers have a lot more flexibility than the older ones. And so I think we can make more changes like that with the newer intersections just as a broad statement.

[00:31:20] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay, as a broad statement, I will support those projects. If you have that conversation. Let's see. Next, um, you know, I was wondering, I looked, on page five, there's a statement about an intrusion of salty groundwater, and I'm wondering if for this or any other part of any other project, whether you're starting to see any impacts of climate change, in terms of maintenance, and I know little about groundwater and climate. So I'm just wondering whether that's affecting our projects in the future.

[00:31:51] Unknown Speaker: You know, not that I know of, I think the groundwater is gets pretty salty near the bay, as you'd imagine, because you get seawater intrusion. Um, one of the effects we anticipate is that um, as sea levels rise, you're gonna get that intrusion further inland, um, that may be happening. If it is, it's pretty subtle and it's not really impacting us. Um, So I would say not yet.

[00:32:15] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay.

[00:32:15] Unknown Speaker: And I, a lot of the sea level, we have the sea level rise study and those projects moving forward. Most of those relate to levees and pump stations right at the bay, and don't really affect our, like, for instance, our sewer system inland.

[00:32:28] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay, thank you. And then the, for the California Street complete streets, I just wanted, when you said, uh, 750,000 was that, is that for the pilot that you?

[00:32:41] Unknown Speaker: Okay. Yes. I thought it was a bargain for the whole thing.

[00:32:47] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So you're proposing a pilot in year two. I just wasn't quite clear on what that possible pilot in year two.

[00:32:55] Unknown Speaker: Uh, yes.

[00:32:57] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay.

[00:32:57] Unknown Speaker: And then we can discuss it further next year, both in terms of funding and workload, we can evaluate.

[00:33:04] Unknown Speaker: And configuration. Yeah.

[00:33:05] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay. And then, my last question is, if you had to defer a project or two, because of... either things we decide during the sustainability session, or other projects that we just voted on, what would be your, what project or two would you defer?

[00:33:27] Unknown Speaker: I don't know. It almost depends on what you want to include, because I have different groups now working on different projects, so I'd be afraid to commit to one and not solve the problem.

[00:33:39] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay, good enough.

[00:33:43] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Ramirez?

[00:33:45] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. Two quick questions, hopefully. So are the grade separation projects scheduled to be completed in time for the anticipated impact of increased Caltrane service, or are we going to have some of the impact of the additional, you know, gate downtime before we get the benefits of the grade separations?

[00:34:09] Unknown Speaker: I'll take that question. Thank you. There is going to be some increase in service. Once the electrification project is completed in 2021, 2022. We will not be able to complete the great separations before that time. And in fact, Cal train does not want us to start construction on the grade separation projects until electrification is completed because they've got a lot of construction work going on with the electrification project. Our goal is to be ready to go into construction for both of those great separations as soon as they give us the green light that we can start, so that they are built and finished before Caltrain goes forward with their business plan to significantly increase service.

[00:34:52] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Got it, thank you. And then, do you have sort of an ongoing pot of funds for the installation of audible pedestrian signals or where does that fit in here? Is that our new annual?

[00:35:07] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, we have an annual traffic signal system, CIP, and that's what it's for. We identify an improvement or something breaks or something. So we do have a pot of money for that.

[00:35:17] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: You know roughly how many you install each year. Unfair question.

[00:35:21] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, we do it based on request, you know?

[00:35:24] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Okay, got it. Thank you.

[00:35:28] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So before I get into the questions, and I just have a few because I sent in a bunch. I think all of those were mine. Thank you so much for the chart on page 16. That is on the roadway pavement investment that is exactly what I was looking for. So thank you very much. I appreciate it. Um, Let's see. In an attachment for, it's got a CIP, um, Xx 18 for the increase for planned and emergency facilities. And that certainly bumps up in that 1st year. Is there one in particular that is at the roof?

[00:36:11] Unknown Speaker: No. Do you know it is?

[00:36:14] Unknown Speaker: Yes, the most significant need for that increase is to replace the HVAC system at Fire Station One, which will cost about $900,000.

[00:36:27] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you.

[00:36:28] Unknown Speaker: You're welcome.

[00:36:31] Mayor Lisa Matichak: And then, um, let's see, I had one other... On page 11 of the staff report, it talks about the bike ped crossing over 101, and it's listed for construction in 2019, 2020. But has it been designed?

[00:36:49] Unknown Speaker: We're in design right now. I think we may get to it by the end of the fiscal year that may be a little optimistic, but it's not too far off. So we're into design right now.

[00:37:01] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay.

[00:37:01] Unknown Speaker: And, um, I think we'll probably come to council in the fall was something on that if we if we need a study session on that or something.

[00:37:09] City Staff: I think that's our tentative plan. We't have a date prepared yet, but we're actively designing right now.

[00:37:14] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Great. Okay, thank you. Are there any other council questions? Allister?

[00:37:23] Councilmember John McAlister: So, You brought up controllers. And to me, that's the heart of the new generation of traffic signalings. So, wow. Is there... a constraint on... Where does public works consider the priority of replacing controllers if we're trying to get to that transportation smart city?

[00:37:49] Unknown Speaker: I think we would... If we had to prioritize, we'd prioritize on corridors. Like for instance, Grant Road was our first adaptive system. Shoreline was our second, um, in the five-year plan. I think there's a system on ring store. And so doing little isolated intersections, I think, are less critical. Um, but in terms of getting more sophisticated controllers, our top priorities. generally going to be the corridors where we're trying to make the main movement as efficient as we can, move as many cars as we can. Oh, and then, um, on a lot of projects, we're putting in protected left turns to separate the um, the left turn movement from the PET movement, and those usually require a new controller. It's like a 6 phase to an 8 phase, that requires a new controller too. So a lot of the isolated intersections will get a new controller because of that.

[00:38:47] Councilmember John McAlister: So I agree with you that a corridor is very important because we're trying to move the most people the most effective. So are those not having those controllers and not having to be in the CIP project because they're part of a overall? Oh, thing, I got to nod, yes. Okay.

[00:39:02] City Staff: Yeah, the, the, the... Yeah, we haven't really done many as an individual project to replace a controller. We replace them for 2 reasons. One is we're redoing the intersection or the signal, and sometimes they get hit by a car. And, um, So we go replace them with a new controller.

[00:39:19] Councilmember John McAlister: Do you have a list of corridors that you have said, okay, as the money comes in, we will replace the controllers along that line?

[00:39:27] City Staff: No, we've got a list of traffic signals we plan to replace, and it kind of, really the, the, some other issue generally drives replacement of the controller. We want to redo the intersection for some reason, and that'll drive replacement of the controller. It's usually not just to replace a controller.

[00:39:45] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, but if we're going through the CIP project for the next 4 or 5 years, I would like to see that if that's important, well, getting controllers, which therefore approves our mobility throughout the city, is a priority for me, and that's why I was asking is that somewhere down the line, will you, instead of doing, I know you're doing certain things at certain times, but getting those corridors.

[00:40:09] City Staff: You know, we have a pretty good list of signals in the pipeline, and what I'd like to do is kind of put that information together, and I think that'll give you a sense of what we've done recently and what we have planned and why.

[00:40:22] Councilmember John McAlister: Does San Antonio have all new controllers?

[00:40:27] City Staff: I don't. Yeah, I don't remember when we've done those intersections. Well, wasn't there in phase one of Merlyn Guiler, that they had to do some mitigation. El Camino and so forth. Yeah, those would all be new. And then we've got one planned at Pachetti, or we have one at Pachetti, and those are all new. Yeah, a lot of times the developer will touch an intersection and have to do that.

[00:40:50] Councilmember John McAlister: Is there any been outreach to, let's say, go back to San Antonio along the entire and sort of like our grant road where it goes through different cities. Is there any outreach along San Antonio to sort of say, okay, everybody get their controllers improve. So that will...

[00:41:04] City Staff: I don't think we've got we've talked about a corridor project on San Antonio. I think Ringstorf is ahead of it, though, and so we just haven't engaged it too deeply.

[00:41:13] Councilmember John McAlister: Oh, no, that's a great quarter. So, okay, we'll go offline, but then you can, but you'll have money. Or do you need the money?

[00:41:22] City Staff: For San Antonio?

[00:41:23] Councilmember John McAlister: No, for a ring store.

[00:41:24] City Staff: Ringstorf is in the plan.

[00:41:25] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, good. Thank you.

[00:41:31] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, no other questions. So, we will take these. 1st question one and we can also do question three, right?

[00:41:46] City Staff: Yes. Staff report pages? Yes. You can take them together, if you wish.

[00:41:52] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yeah, I think we can. Questions one and three. So question one is, um, the proposed new and amended nondiscretionary projects. Oh, and Counselor Park is here. you have any questions? Okay, thank you. And then question three, the proposed amendments to existing projects. And then we can get into question two.

[00:42:25] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Well, Council member McAllister made a motion. This is a study session.

[00:42:29] Councilmember John McAlister: Oh, well, okay. I was just trying to move you along.

[00:42:32] Mayor Lisa Matichak: I know. Councilman McClarke would have done something similar, so I just figured out... I'm showing up. Did we do public? And can't some ever come May seconded it, so.... Okay. Well, we can do that. Why don't we just do strong motion? I assume you're... Did you have any comments or anything?

[00:42:55] Councilmember John McAlister: Yes, we... Extra vote that we approve the... proposed new and amended nondiscretionary project, and that we... support the proposed amendments to existing projects.

[00:43:10] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Well, that's the two questions, I guess, to ask. So, is there any comment on that? Anyone have a proposed change? Council member Hicks.

[00:43:20] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I just want to know, is the California Street pilot considered one of the amendments? Is that?

[00:43:28] City Staff: Well, that would be a new project that we would add to the discretionary project list.

[00:43:31] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Oh, that's part of two. Okay.

[00:43:36] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, so, um, should we just do, uh, show hands? Okay. Okay, so... That's unanimous. That is unanimous. Thank you. Okay, on to question two.

[00:43:51] City Staff: Thank you. Which we need to divide this. And...

[00:43:59] Mayor Lisa Matichak: I don't think you're right, but...

[00:44:03] City Staff: You don't think we need to divide this?

[00:44:05] Mayor Lisa Matichak: No, no. I had comment for the city attendance.

[00:44:08] City Attorney Jannie Quinn: Oh. Yes, there are two council members who may want to make an announcement for this portion.

[00:44:17] Mayor Lisa Matichak: We'll make an announcement. It's council members, McAllister and Clark. Yeah.

[00:44:29] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Actually, are the questions in a different order in the staff report than in the... Actually, number. They're numbered twice. I noticed. There's 2 ones, 2, 2, 3s, right? It's one page 38. Got it.

[00:44:45] Unknown Speaker: So, due to interest in real property near the El Camino bike improvements, I'll overcuse myself from this item.

[00:44:56] Unknown Speaker: I'm sorry, point of... What happened to question number two on page 31?

[00:45:03] City Staff: Um, slide 31?

[00:45:05] Unknown Speaker: Yes.

[00:45:06] City Staff: I think it's now on 33. Oh, that's a non segmented version of the question.

[00:45:10] Unknown Speaker: Oh, so okay. I just wonder why they were...

[00:45:14] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yeah, we'll get to that after we break out the other two projects.

[00:45:19] Unknown Speaker: It's my turn. The advice. of our steam senior city attorney, because I have a leasehold improvement, at least old lease, on El Camino, I need to recuse myself because of any potential conflict.

[00:45:47] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, so take these two questions first, and... um... Just one question, and then we have another segment in question after then.

[00:46:03] City Staff: Right, we do. Two projects, yes.

[00:46:04] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Two projects. Okay, so... We're just gonna do question two on page 38 of the staff report, which is, um, discouncil support the proposed El Camino Real bike improvements, design, and then construction a few years later. Vice Mayor Abbe Koga.

[00:46:27] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So since the motions are still on there from the previous one, um, a straw bant straw vote on, um, and I do support moving forward with El Camino bike improvements.

[00:46:44] Mayor Lisa Matichak: And he stated. Any comments on that? So, this is the one where last time we talked about it. I wanted to understand the implications for parking and the impact of businesses as well as have the comprehensive modal plan done before we made any changes. Would that comprehensive modal plan come back to us before anything's done?

[00:47:13] City Staff: Yes, it will. So, at this point, what's being put in the CIP as a placeholder, uh, until we do, um, as we said in response to the questions, on May 13th, we're coming to the council transportation committee to present the initial results of the parking utilization study to start helping answer those questions to how it may affect parking. And then the comprehensive modal plan is going to be done over this next year. So before we get too far along on any design work, we'll be able to have the results of that as well.

[00:47:48] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Great. Thank you. Any other comments on this? Okay, then, um...

[00:47:56] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Sure. Um, just... Uh, and I guess somewhat response to the mayor's question. We had a pretty extensive discussion about this. I think it was when we were doing the El Camino precise plan, and then the BRT came about. And, um, you know, at that time, we had quite a bit of public input on in the interest of having bike lanes on El Camino, um, because people actually bike on El Camino as it is. And the parking was an issue, but the idea was that as redevelopment happened on El Camino, we would look at or having the developers put parking within their projects, and so gradually we could hopefully eliminate the need for parking on El Camino. So that's how this all came about. And so I just wanted to share that and to just, yeah, share that. We did have quite a bit of discussion back then, and so I've always supported it, and I think as we see even more interest in, you know, non-car travel, it's becoming even more relevant. So that's why I'd like to move it forward.

[00:49:08] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Any other comments? Okay, buy a show of hands in favor of this one. Thank you. Okay, that's unanimous with five of us. Okay, then, um, we can get... the two council members back, and then council member Kameh. We're going to move to, um, the second question number two, which is... the AGT phase two. Sorry, and Plan Moffat Boulevard, Bike Way.

[00:49:48] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Okay, and I will recuse myself and not participate due to a potential conflict of interest.

[00:49:55] Mayor Lisa Matichak: We are on page 39 of the... staff presentation. Any, um, sorry, did I forget to clear you? Did you push it? Vice Mayor Abbe Koga?

[00:50:14] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. My question with the AGT study and I know we're still doing a study session, is that right? About the phase 2 study? Is that...?

[00:50:26] City Staff: one 1st question. What's on the tentative agenda, agenda list is on... I think it's May 21st to come to you with a more detailed scope and approach for the phase 2 study.

[00:50:41] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, because I met with one of the potential funders, just earlier this afternoon, and I guess I was looking for clarification on what the scope will be. There might be some, I'm not sure. What I thought was we're focusing on the AGT, um, this entity, was looking at a more comprehensive, you know, what are other alternatives, um, type of vis- scoping.

[00:51:16] City Staff: Right. So based upon council direction from when we brought the phase one feasibility study results forward in February 2018, which looked at all the various technologies and settled on that the technology we're most interested in pursuing is autonomous transit on dedicated guideways. It doesn't mean that as new technologies come on board, that we can't keep the door open to considering them as we continue our work towards a potential HET system. The phase 2 study was going to primarily focused on a preferred alignment. Is it a loop system, which roads, what would it look like? And regardless of what technology ends up being used, As you know, there are a lot of land use decisions being made constantly in road improvement plans. So if there is going to be preferred alignment that we want to keep in mind as other plans are made, this is what the phase 2 study will help answer that question.

[00:52:23] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Thank you. Council member McAllister.

[00:52:28] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, why is this question here? I thought that you got council direction to continue this study.

[00:52:35] City Staff: This is actually to create a phase 2 project.

[00:52:38] Councilmember John McAlister: But we didn't authorize a phase 2 project.

[00:52:42] City Staff: You authorize staff to develop a scope and a budget and pursue funding partners, and when that was in place to come back and request the budget in order to move forward with the phase 2 projects. So what you see here tonight is, you know, the start of approving a budget to move forward with the phase 2 project.

[00:53:03] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, thank you. Any other questions or comments on this one? Okay, um... You want to make a motion? Or... we'll do a straw vote. All those in favor? Quite safe. looks like that's unanimous. Thank you. And this is the rest of them.

[00:53:27] City Staff: Yes. Yes.

[00:53:30] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So, the remaining discretionary projects. Any comments on this one? Vice mayor, Abbe Koga.

[00:53:46] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Well, I just, I didn't see anybody, so I stuck my name in, but I can move it. Um, so, if this is the right place, too, include bringing in the California Street project. It's like, is this right place to do it?

[00:54:03] City Staff: Yeah, I think so. If you direct us to do so, um... Oh, year two? Year two, the unscheduled California Street pilot, we will do that.

[00:54:14] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: If anything needs to get bumped.

[00:54:16] City Staff: Yes. We'll let you know when we come back with adoption of the plan.

[00:54:18] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Please do that.

[00:54:20] City Staff: Yes.

[00:54:20] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Um, and then I'm sorry, was Shenandoah? Do I need to do something now or you come back?

[00:54:26] City Staff: I, you're going to consider that during goals, I think? Or, yeah, we were anticipating you'd give us direction then.

[00:54:32] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, great. Thank you. So other than adding California, I would move to accept the other proposed discretionary projects. in the next 5 year, in the five-year plan. Got Sorry. I'm sorry, adding and including California with the caveat that something might come off later.

[00:54:55] Unknown Speaker: Okay. I was wondering if it's possible to pull in fire station number three. I mean, move it earlier in the plan?

[00:55:06] City Staff: Yep. We can examine that.

[00:55:10] Unknown Speaker: If anyone's been to Fire Station 3 and spent any time there. I personally feel like it would be nice to have a much nicer facility.

[00:55:19] City Staff: Okay. Yeah, and if you'd allow staff to take a look at funding, I think, in particular on that one, and we'll come back with what we come up with, with the adopted plan.

[00:55:32] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Great. Thank you. Any other comments? Oh, sorry, I did have one more. So, um, the pedestrian master plan. So, I don't think it's all that old. Certainly, we've had other plans that are much older by the time we updated them. And again, I come back to this comprehensive modal plan. I'm really counting on that to help us understand, what are the optimal ways to get around the city? Which routes are going to be optimized for pedestrians, which for bicyclists, and which for cars? And so if we do that, and now we also, at the same time, are updating the pedestrian master plan, it seems like they might not be in sync. So just doing it right after we make any decisions on the comprehensive modal plan makes more sense from my perspective. And maybe that finds a little money for the projects that we want to pull in. Not much, but.

[00:56:37] Unknown Speaker: It's actually in 2324. So, depending on the results of the comprehensive modal plan, you'll have two or three more opportunities to consider pushing that back. I mean, we can do it, we can do it now, if that's council's wish, but it's still a few years out, and the comprehensive modal plan will be well done by then.

[00:57:01] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Okay, any other comments? Okay, saying none. Um... So, it's the... The strong motion is, uh, or the straw vote is to accept the five years, CIP, and add in the California Street, um, pilot into next fiscal year. And, um...

[00:57:36] City Staff: 20, yeah, that's right, 20, 20, 20, 2021.

[00:57:42] Unknown Speaker: Oh, two fiscal years out.

[00:57:44] City Staff: 2021. We just caught that. That was... It's the bike plan, this 23 20. Actually, yeah. It is in year two. I misspoke. The bike plan is in 2324. Pedestrian master plan is in 2021.

[00:58:11] Unknown Speaker: If I may add in about the pedestrian master plan. That's excellent. A few things. One is the B pack is recommending to continue forward with it. It is getting dated. It is older than we think it is. And also, I would like to mention that since that plan was put together, we've really hired a mobility planner, a transportation manager. They both really have looked through it and have identified a lot of deficiencies in it, that they are really looking forward to addressing by doing a new pedestrian master plan. I think you will find that the timing of the comprehensive modal plan, it's not going to go to that fine level of detail that the pedestrian master plan will go to, and it will follow nicely. We'll finish the comprehensive modal plan, and then can take up the pedestrian master plan to take it to the, you know, what conference mode plan says about pedestrians to a finer level of detail and update our master plan.

[00:59:09] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, I guess my point was, I want to make sure we have finished the comprehensive modal plan before we start on the pedestrian weekends. And if the comprehensive modal plan gets delayed for any reason, then the pedestrian master plan, I would say, should get delayed, because I agree, it would go to a much more detailed level for what needs to be done. And I really want to make sure we focus on the routes that we say are gonna be optimized for pedestrians.

[00:59:34] Unknown Speaker: Agreed. Okay, thank you. Did your motion include considering moving Fire Station 3 earlier in the plan?

[00:59:44] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Um, yeah, I guess, you know, my concern is just the list right now, and to be honest, my priority is the police fire. It had been building first. So I know station 3 is dated. Perhaps folks have changed their minds, but in the past, I guess when we were talking about fire station 5 and whatnot, the fire fire department folks were willing to hold off on three. And so for me, it's just an issue of prioritization in the list, so I'd like to keep it the way it is for now.

[01:00:20] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, any other comments or questions? Okay, so, um, let's see, show hands on the, um, motion by Vice Mayor Abi Koka. Okay, that's unanimous. Thank you. Thank you.

[01:01:14] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, next is item 4.2. And this is the fiscal year 201920 narrative budget report, and five year financial forecast. And...

[01:01:31] City Manager Dan Rich: That'd be me.

[01:01:32] Mayor Lisa Matichak: I was gonna say... And our finance director, our assistant finance director, who's not quite here yet, but we can... Yeah, I thought, uh... kids' story. Yeah, where are the other people? Okay, so we have our city manager here. They're more efficient than we thought. And our, um, finance and administrative services director, Jesse Takahashi, and Assistance Finance, and Administrative Director, Services Director, Susie Naderhofer.

[01:02:04] City Manager Dan Rich: Thank you, Mayor, as we're getting the presentation up for you. Let me just set the stage. We are pleased to be here. All your department heads are pleased to be here. Some new smiling faces, some old smiling faces, all smiling faces, all almost all in the front row. The newer folks take instructions better than some of the older folks, but anyway, we're pleased to provide the narrative to you. As in past years, tonight will be a tag team between myself and this year featuring a new duo of Jesse and Susie. I want to acknowledge them as well as Lauren, the newest member of our budget team. So for the 1st time in 20 some odd years, Patty Kong was not involved in the budget. So it was a 1st for both Jesse, Susie and Lauren, and I want to acknowledge all of them for doing an incredible job. It's a Herculean task to put together a budget in the first place. And for all of them going through it for the first time. Um, and so, uh, also not not part of the core team, but Anne, as well as, I think, Helen also helped us with the fees. So thank you to them, but special shout out to Susie, honestly, who has really done an incredible job of shepherding this process this year. So thank you to all of them. So moving on, this is what we will cover tonight, and in the spirit of continuous improvement, I believe, every year for the last 7 years. We have reduced the number of slides, and we have broken the 40 slight barrier as of this afternoon. I believe in some point in history. There were 70 some odd slides, so we're down to, I think, 39 this year. So this is what we will cover, real brief update on the five-year forecast and kind of the current state of the current fiscal year, and then we'll focus primarily on the recommendations for the 1920 year. So because it's a study session and we want to get public comments before you provide any direction. We'll pretty much go through the entire presentation. We'll stop once or twice in case there are any pressing clarifying questions, but we're not going to break it up into segments for direction until the end. So, um, but do interrupt if there's something that you need right away. Okay. The 5 year forecast, long range planning is really a critical tool for us and really all organizations to look out and do our planning. We, as most of you know, we always include at least a five-year forecast with the budget every once in a while. extend that out to do a 10-year look. And obviously, we don't expect to be exact in year 4 or 5 or 9 or 10, but it is very helpful to us as staff, and we hope to you as policymakers in terms of, you know, trends and the direction things are going. So with that context, you know, as we develop the five-year plan, you know, we do our best using a variety of different sources. Next light. Thank you. We use a variety of different sources in building our forecast, obviously, you know, we try to be conservative in our assumptions, but we're not making up, I've had a whole cloth. We look, as I say, a lot of different data sets and historical trends. So, you know, while we don't know exactly when the next slowdown in the economy be will be, we do know historically, we're at the, or approaching the longest ever, um, recovery period in the post-war era, we're at 10 years now, and that's the longest gap between slowdowns. So again, what we don't know exactly when it will be, I think, pretty much everyone agrees that sometime in our five-year horizon, there will be a slowdown in the economy. We have projected it actually starting technically next fiscal year in 2020. I'm not in year two, 2021. But because of the strength of our current economy, it actually doesn't show up in our budget until the 3rd year, in terms of a deficit. So, obviously, we're doing very well right now. We've had several years of very strong revenue and growth and development activity. As a result, we project a surplus this year, and next year, and into 2021, even though we actually modeled the recession starting in 21 because our revenue is so strong, it carries us through. But we do project the impacts of that slowdown coming in 21, 22, and 22, 23. Now, our projections, again, because of the strength of the economy, is there'll be relatively mild impacts in terms of the bottom line, which is really good news. But again, it's the trend and the inability to continue growth in spending with that on the horizon. So with that, context, we'll move on to some historical comparisons, and it's really just to show you the cyclical nature of government finances, sales tax and property tax are on the left axis, and the TOT is on the because they're on different orders of magnitude. But if you notice, you know, the blue line, I'm sorry, yeah, the blue, the property tax, pretty steady growth, obviously growing, more rapid rate in recent years, but pretty steady, this slide actually covers 2 recessionary periods. and the dot com bust, and then the Great Recession. So when you look, it's most noticeable in the TOT, the yellow line where you see kind of the roller coaster there. Partly, again, that's because it's a smaller scale. If you look at the red, the sales tax, very dramatic drop after the dot com boom, we were at 20 plus $1000000 in 2000, and we are literally just now, you know, 18, 19 years later, just getting back to that same level of revenue. So what was once a very, you know, major source of revenue, frankly, has become a lot less significant to our budget. And again, very signical, but TOT is much more dramatic. It can drop 30, 40% in a recession. So looking at revenue and expenditures together in the trends, And this really is sort of post recession area, so it's not as dramatic. The black line being the expenditures, I believe. No, I'm sorry, the revenues, and the blue bars, the expenditures. Really, this is just to show you in tough economic times as we were just coming out of the recession in 2010, 11. You know, there's virtually no gap between revenue and expenditures, but obviously in more recent years with a strong economy. There's a much bigger gap. And then again, in the projection years, you see how that plays out, getting tighter. with the 2 negative years, but then we do project. Again, relatively minor 2 years of negative, but then coming out positive. So all in all, it's a good forecast, but it's, you know, we still have to be cautious about the impact of that recession. So, you know, as you know, we are a service organization, about 80% of our budget is personnel, because that's what we do. We provide services. And this is really just to show you how the composition of that cost has changed over time coming out of the dot com boom of 2000, 2001 as we were just busting 83% of our employee services costs were direct salary, dollars in people's pockets. Now, only 65% of our personnel costs are, you know, kind of direct salary and pays. The most dramatic change there is really in the pension side, which used to be 7% of the cost and is now 19%. Just to put that in context. That 19% for the current fiscal year is $18.400000 that we're contributing to per. So, you know, that's a pretty significant chunk of change. So looking at the current fiscal year 1819 and where we sort of think we're going to end up. Again, we have the mid-year update to you in February, so you've seen most of this. But what is new, I believe, Susie, correct me if I'm wrong here is the OPEB contribution and the spar transfer.

[01:12:02] Assistant Finance Director Susie Naderhofer: Yes, at the midyear and the additional spar transfer and OPEB contribution were approved.

[01:12:07] City Manager Dan Rich: Yes, so those are add-ons. What we're projecting this current year balance is about $9 million, and that's about a million dollar improvement from what we saw at mid year, mostly due to more recent sales tax data we've seen. So that's a good sign for the current year. And while that's a, you know, a very nice ending balance. If you go to the next slide, you see that, really, we need that money. And even more, to do all the things that we want to do, and this shows you, you know, for next year, how we, after we close the year where we expect to be, again, that 8.7 from the last slide carries forward. You may recall, at the mid-year this year, we consciously did not ask you to allocate the 5.8 million that was leftover from 1718, because we were looking at a variety of different things that we might want to put significant funding into. So that is still available. But then you start taking away from that balance of those two with the recommended limited periods, which we'll talk about in a minute, which is almost $4 million, the restocking of our reserves, both the general fund and the compensated absences, and then a recommended additional per's contribution. Now, that is above the 4 million that we had already recommended for 1819. So, you know, that's up to you. That's disc discretionary. So this is what we would say we would take an additional $2 million into purse. And you'll notice that the TBD for capital improvement and sustainability, capital improvement, our recommendation is that up to $3 million of whatever is left over goes into that. But obviously, we won't know what that number is until we get to the end of the year. And we're going to be talking about sustainability next Tuesday night. So, you know, there are some some money is available, and until you decide how much you want to allocate to that and from what areas, we've got a placeholder for that. But so taking those 2 out of the mix, we anticipate a $5000000 ending balance. So moving on to the recommendations, kind of the heart of tonight for next year. Um So total, total revenue and total expenditures, $148 million in revenue and 134 in expenditures. Revenues are anticipated to increase 7.8%. And as a general practice, I like expenditures to go up less than revenues, but we are recommending and increase in expenditures totaling 8.9%. So it actually is more than the revenue increase. Obviously, that's not sustainable over the long term, but we believe we can sustain it for this year. because of the position we're in. And then summarizing the key recommendations for nondiscretionary and discretionary. The revenue changes, those are actually pretty much offset with expenditures. So it's sort of a net zero, but technically it shows up that way. So that leads to about a $12 million operating balance. And then the recommendations are to increase the general fund reserve beyond the normal increase, which just takes us to the floor of our reserve, you know, as you recall, our policies as between 20 and 25%. So the additional $2 billion, $2 million, $2 billion. The additional $2000000 contribution would take us to about $21.5% reserve. What is that? Yeah, I've got 2 billion dollars. So we are recommending putting $3 million into the CIP reserve, and that's really, we talked about, I believe, last year, socking away some money to pay for the debt for the police fire building until the revenue starts coming in from the Ameswell project. So this gives us an ability to keep that project moving forward before the debt. The revenue is there to pay for the debt. That obviously may change depending on the scope and scale of the PD fire building, if it ends up being a totally new building, the prices and the cost will alter, but we think this is helpful to have that pot they're available. And then an additional contribution to the strategic property acquisition reserve and an additional contribution to pay down our unfunded purse liabilities. And then doesn't show up here, because it's not an ongoing general fund impact, but with the net, limited period of $3.7 million of recommendations, and we'll walk through those momentarily. But before we do, just looking at the personnel changes in summary. Again, as I said, you know, what our budget is, is people, and so it's not surprising that the bulk of the expenditure changes are on the personnel side. But again, to call, to highlight the composition of that, about, you know, more than $2 million of the approximately $8000000 of total personnel costs as directly going into the purse system. That's our obligation to pay that, about 4 million of it is direct compensation. So the total personnel costs are going up, as I said, about $8 million. And then there's a total of about a $1000000 of non-personnel expenditure recommendations. And then the other recommendations net that 243,000 there is some relatively minor things, equipment, our self-insurance, and retiree health payments, those sorts of things. So diving deeper into personnel, and the specific recommendations, as you know, we've been down personnel over the last 2 economic cycles, and we've been replenishing them in the last few years, but we were down about 15% at one and we're slowly winding our way out of that. In the last 2 years, we've added 27.5 . net new positions in this budget. You see the recommendations there in front of you. It's 10.25 actual new bodies added to what we currently have here, you know, when you count for limited periods and those sorts of things. So with these recommendations, we would still be a little over 8 positions below our high, but we're getting really close and we're pleased to be able to be in a position to, you know, to restock, I think, um, you all acknowledge the tremendous workload we have in the organization right now and the strains that puts on staff. And so we want to add as many bodies as that we believe are sustainable as we can. But, you know, honestly, in an ideal world. I'd add another 20 positions to manage the workload and to be able to take on more. But I don't believe that's sustainable budgetarily. So getting into the specifics of the nondiscretionary and this is really just the highlights of the major ones. We're summer, we're cutting our threshold to defining major for tonight's purposes at $50,000 in the budget narrative summary document, it actually goes down to 25,000, and then attachment 2 has the detail on every single one of them. But we're just going to focus on the biggest ticket items here. Nondiscretionary, as the title says, or things we don't have a lot of choice of. It's really contract amendments, cola increases, those sorts of things. that are the cost of doing business. So in total, that's about $800,000. Discretionary. The next slide, as the title indicates, is really up to you. These are our recommendations for the year. Again, using the $50,000 threshold for tonight's purposes, the detail on all of these are an attachment for, I'm sorry, am I doing that right? attachment 3 is discretionary, yeah. So this, we're breaking this down into the personnel side, and then the next slide will be the non-personnel side on the personnel side. We've got a, this is all but one. 85 of the positions where these are the major ones, the total of all the positions, adding up to about one.4 million. And all these smiling faces in the audience are happy to answer questions when we get to that point about, you know, any of the specific recommendations and why they're in there. But these are, you know, these are the ones that we deem to be kind of most critical to keeping things going. And you'll see, they really run the gamut of departments from city manager and city attorney to police, library, IT, and public works. So for the discretionary ones that are not personnel, There's really only a few over the 50,000 threshold, so it's not a whole heck of a lot there. And the 1st one, the short term rental actually is offset by an equal amount of revenue. So it kind of doesn't even count. But when you take all of the discretionary recommendations together, Again, these are ongoing general fund costs, they total up to about $1.7 million. So then moving on to the limited period ones. And as you know, limited period funding has really been a critical tool we've used over a number of years to sustain service levels and to be able to do as much as we are and our carry over balances, obviously, or other critical funding mechanism to allow that to happen. So for limited period. Again, we've broken it down to both personnel and nonpersonnel. This slide shows you the main personnel ones, all but one. 75 FTE of the limited periods are existing ones. So we're really just continuing other than a very small basis. the biggest one there, again, a continuing one is the police officer, and this is the targeted community outreach position that's been working on homeless and outreach services. Honestly, this isn't, you know, the reason it's limited period exists, we may not want to or need to have that targeted position over the long term, but we do believe it's necessary. And that was one of the things we talked about in the report in March and continuing that at least for another year. So again, you see a wide range of different personnel and different.

[01:24:01] Unknown Speaker: Dan, on these all these personnel positions, this total compensation. Least number here.

[01:24:07] City Manager Dan Rich: Yeah, it's a fully loaded cost.

[01:24:08] Unknown Speaker: Okay. With benefits. Thank you.

[01:24:12] City Manager Dan Rich: So, yeah, the total cost of the limit period positions is about $1.2 million. And then when you go to the non-personnel side of it, you know, there's a number of big ticket items there, contract services, the biggest one there, the bulk of that is IT services. There's also services for outside attorneys and consultants studies and assistants with special projects like Lot 12, things like that. That's the big one. And then Firefighter Recruit Academy, we've had that for the last few years as the turnover and retirements necessitates a lot more onboarding. Frankly, there's a lot of costs associated with that, including overtime, both to staff, the academy, as well as to backfill those positions, while the trainees are in the academy. So, um, that adds up, but I believe this, um, fund six, or is our chief, I think this fund six, um, six positions through that process. We don't know the exact number. It may be higher, maybe lower. All in all, total limited period there, you see, comes out at $3.7 million. So moving on to the next category. Fees is not as exciting as... The ones we just covered, but important nonetheless. Really not a lot of big new or different stuff in the fee schedule this year. It's attachment, one, to the narrative, all the details are there, including a cover memo summarizing the changes. Most of them are just inflationary adjustments. There are a few new and modified ones, as well as a few recommended for elimination, including the marriage efficiant by the city clerk, as well as some police booking fees, which due to changes in state law, needs to come off the books. So next, we've been talking about this for the last few years in terms of our contributions to unfunded liability. So this shows you kind of what our actual liability is for pers. We're currently about 70% funded, a difference between safety and miscellaneous, but the blended total is about 70%. And for OPEV, which is really the health retiree health, we're currently at about 77%. Now, the 70% for pers does not yet include the credit for our recent major contributions, the $10 million. So we believe our next valuation next year will be an improvement. When we came up with that strategy a year or 2 ago, our goal was to get to 80% between that one time we've already done and the ongoing we're doing now as well as a 2nd kind of traunch that some of you may recall is $2000000 a year for 5 years from Google's leasing of the shoreline lot. We've, um, this current strategies to allocate that 10000000 as it comes in into purrs again, because it's one time funding. So we believe with all those things, you know, barring changes from purrs, which, um, I would not, um, bet against, but based on where things are today, you know, we're very hopeful that those strategies will get us to 80%. And while there's no magic number or law, you know, we believe that 80% really is a good place to be, if we're there, we're not really all that worried about it. We would certainly want to stay there, but we wouldn't necessarily have to continue these substantial increases we're putting in now. So in that last column, the recommended additional contribution, 7.59, that's for all funds. So that includes the 4000000 from the general operating fund and the recommendation as well as an additional 2000000 of carryover from 1819. So finally, for kind of this chunk of the session, these are the 4 specific things we'll come back to you and ask for direction on later in the evening, the library fee modification, which is discussed in attachment 10, we are recommending, eliminating some of the fines. The fiscal impact is about $60,000. It's sort of a growing trend in the library business. Some libraries, primarily larger ones have eliminated all fines. Some of our neighbors have eliminated them just for children. Kind of our feelings, if we're going to go there, we should do it for all of them, and it versus differentiating. So that is what the recommendation is. The council budget, the council finance committee, this year, discussed it just this Tuesday and is not recommending any changes to the council budget, but that's something we'd like the whole council to provide direction on tonight. And then the check, I think you have the attachment from them requesting a 5% increase. I see their executive director here, who I'm sure will have some comments during public comments, but we would like to get direction on whether or not, or what level to include in the proposed budget, when it comes back to you. And then finally, drones was an issue. We thought we'd come back to you to propose, but given that you've had the study session, that appeared to be supportive of the concept pending adoption of a policy we're recommending or asking you to authorize going ahead and putting the $28,000 requested into the budget, with the understanding we would not expend any funds prior to a council adopting a policy on it. So for whatever reason, you choose not to proceed or change it dramatically, you know, those funds would not be expended, but we think it's easier just to get them built into the budget. And then there are a number of things that are not in the budget narrative that, well, we will come back to you with the formal budget, most notably environmental sustainability, which we'll talk about next Tuesday. And so that really covers all the general fund issues. Let me just pause very, very briefly to see if there are clarifying questions. We don't want to get into any substantive discussion at this point until after we've had the public comments, but if there's a pressing clarifying question, we welcome it.

[01:31:02] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member McAllister.

[01:31:03] Councilmember John McAlister: Don't understand clarifying. Okay, a couple of questions. The TOT, with the onset of potentially of having a item on the ballot for 2020, this wouldn't affect anything here, or your projections you showed it. So...

[01:31:20] City Manager Dan Rich: Yeah, I mean, there's nothing built in in terms of an increase in the rate, the projection, they're all based on the current rate.

[01:31:26] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. And has there been any increase on the online tax and now that that law has been passed that, you know...

[01:31:32] City Manager Dan Rich: I'm sorry, say that again.

[01:31:33] Councilmember John McAlister: Like the Amazon tax where people out of state, so forth.

[01:31:36] City Manager Dan Rich: Yeah, and Jesse and Susie may be able to answer more. I mean, so out of state sales tax, internet sales tax goes through the county pool, and then gets allocated out. So that number has increased over time. That's already built into, you know, our current numbers and our projections. You know, we assume that will continue to grow, but it's less reliable and doesn't come directly to us at this point.

[01:32:03] Councilmember John McAlister: And is any of these projections or earlier expenses? When we were talking, because we're potentially reopening some of the labor contracts, are those to be added later?

[01:32:17] City Manager Dan Rich: Yeah, whatever comes out of the contracts, we would put in either the proposed, if we're far enough down the line to include it, but more likely it would end up being in the adopted budget, and we'll wrap that in at the end of the line.

[01:32:31] Councilmember John McAlister: And the question about the reserves, if it's our sort of philosophy that we have capital of projects, and we have the money now, to go do it for one time, why would we be putting, I know you said there was a disclaimer or a little more clarification on the capital improvement project's CIP reserve, but that was for building of the public safety building, but would we want to keep spending and not put more money into other reserves because we want to spend it now when we have it for capital projects?

[01:33:05] City Manager Dan Rich: Well, our general policy is to use whatever's left over at the end of the year does go into CIP. And for the last few years, because the surplus has been larger than normal. We've said, you know, the 1st X amount, I believe, generally up to 3 million. It's varied from year to year, will go into CIP, and then they'll come back to you and say, do you want to put more into that, or do you want to put it into a spar, or do you want to put it into whatever? So that's up to you. So, I mean, I think that what you're asking is, could you shift from putting it into other funds versus CAP? Yes, you could.

[01:33:42] Councilmember John McAlister: Well, that, I mean, we already have a huge, Where's Mike? We have a huge list already. So additional funds, would that matter to what gets done, or just maybe we go to bigger projects?

[01:33:53] City Manager Dan Rich: Well, sure, it matters. As Mike indicated, we actually only have enough funding to fully fund the first two years right now. We believe, by the time we get to year three, we'll have more money and be able to fund more. Um, but, you know, there's always, there's always more need for capital funding. You know, there's projects on our unfunded list. There's also capacity restraints, so there's only so much we physically can do. There are a couple of big projects out there, like fire station three. We don't, I mean, if we start planning that a few years out. We don't have dedicated funding for that police fire and so on. Those are projects that could really use some planning ahead and setting money aside while ahead.

[01:34:34] Councilmember John McAlister: So that, basically, if we decide to go down that route, it would be a discussion for council to say, well, let's not put in reserves, let's say, let's go to fire station three.

[01:34:43] City Manager Dan Rich: Well, really, the way to do it would be to put it into the CIP reserve, so that there's more money in that pot that Mike then has to allocate, and the next time we come back with, you know, you can say, generally, what your priorities are, but that's really conversation for the last study session we had. Fire station 3 is a priority, we can start amassing a pot of money for that.

[01:35:05] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, well, that's in theory.

[01:35:06] City Manager Dan Rich: Okay, well, just using fire station three. That would just be, like, a hypothetical. It says, We have what, we want to spend money on a particular item, so we're gonna start putting it aside. It's geared, it's targeted for fire station three, but it may go elsewhere, but this is what we intend to use it for.

[01:35:22] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, thank you. Vice mayor, Abbe Koga?

[01:35:26] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Uh, it's a clarification. Regarding the discount rate from Kelpers. So, it is now 6.25. Is that correct how I read this on page 60? Did I read it correctly? Because you had modeled it at 6.25. And then it says, the discount rate was reduced, and the liability reflected for 1920 is at the 6.25 discount rate. So is that...

[01:35:57] City Manager Dan Rich: Are you talking about SIRP or purse?

[01:35:59] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Cert, yes.

[01:36:01] City Manager Dan Rich: But that's... And that's not per's pensions, that's retiree health fund.

[01:36:05] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. So there are different discount rates between perrs and the retiree health.

[01:36:10] City Manager Dan Rich: Whatever that acronym is, is managed by perrs, but it's a totally separate fund with different rules and different discount rates.

[01:36:19] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: And then purrs is at what?

[01:36:21] City Manager Dan Rich: Seven, I believe.

[01:36:22] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Oh, seven. Okay. Or is it, are they currently at seven?

[01:36:25] City Manager Dan Rich: Yeah. And they might go down to six, seven, five, or six, five. Yeah, they're currently at seven. They just reduced it a couple years ago from 7.5 . They are winding their way to seven, phased in. And there is some potential that it could go to a even lower percent at some point in the future, but that action hasn't happened yet.

[01:36:48] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, great. Um, so then going to OPEV on page aside 20, um, is it because we're about 80% funded that we're not, there's no recommendation to do additional funding in this coming year, or is there a reason why?

[01:37:03] City Manager Dan Rich: Yeah, I think that's... generally it. We feel we're less concerned about OPEB than purrs. Yeah, we've made several contributions in the last few years, and we think we're in pretty good shape there. It's not to say we wouldn't necessarily ever want to make additional contributions, but it's a lower priority.

[01:37:21] Vice Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, yeah. I'm on another agency where we're gonna be 100% funded in, like, two or three years. So that's why I'm thinking, should we just try to go that way? Sorry, that's a comment. Um, I think those were it for now. Thanks.

[01:37:33] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Hicks.

[01:37:36] Councilmember Alison Hicks: My question is related. Do you have a target date for getting both of them to 80%?

[01:37:44] City Manager Dan Rich: We don't have a hard day, but, yeah, the Google $10 million won't be fully in until 2025. So kind of unofficially, that's our target. And on OPEB, you know, again, we're at 77% now. You know, I think with keeping an eye on it and some modest contributions here and there, you know, we're going to fluctuate between the high 70s, low 80s.

[01:38:14] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So is the target when the Google Money comes in to get to 80% or above 80%?

[01:38:19] City Manager Dan Rich: To get to or around 80 for per, you know?

[01:38:25] Unknown Speaker: I just had one question, and I apologize if I missed this in the material since we had tons of material to go through this week. Um, what are the assumptions about revenue from, like, an increase in revenue from TOT on short term rentals? And then the 2nd part is what's the assumption about the revenue from cannabis sales.

[01:38:51] City Manager Dan Rich: So for short term rentals, we haven't received any TOT revenue in yet, so we can't make that assumption yet. I think, um, at the end of this month will be the 1st quarter that they're submitting their payments. Okay. And as far as cannabis, there are no assumptions for the tax, there are registration fees for, I believe, the assumption is 3 businesses. I'd have to double check that, but registration fees are included, but no tax revenue.

[01:39:22] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Clarifying questions? Okay. We can move on.

[01:39:32] City Manager Dan Rich: All right, turn it over to Jesse.

[01:39:36] Finance Director Jesse Takahashi: Okay, thank you very much. Mr. city manager. I'll be covering some of the other major funds, other than the general operating fund, the first of which is the Development Services Fund. This fund accounts for all the development activity within the city, and it was meant to really do a matching of all of the effort and resources that go into managing the development activity, as we know, and as I think everyone is pretty well familiar, still that the economic environment and conditions are still pretty robust. these days, and things are humming along, as evidenced by the requests and the workload in our departments. There's still a strong desirability to build and do things here in Silicon Valley and in Mountain View. Revenues this year are estimated higher than budget. Although they are slightly lower than the prior year actual revenues, expenditures are also higher than adopted budget due to increases in the appropriations and encumbrance carryovers for contractual services related to the volume of development activity. Looking at next year, fiscal 20, revenues are projected to be 5% lower than the current fiscal year estimate, reflecting a possible leveling off after several years of growth. So, not to say that things are slow, but, you know, they've been at such a toward pace, I think, over the last several years that we may be seeing a slight breather, as it were. The land use document reserve is projected to increase to the level of about $9.8 million next year. And it's important to note that a balance in this fund is necessary, since the fees that are paid, are paid in advance, prior to services being performed, and so these funds are needed to maintain the services through the period, of which those expenses will happen over the course of, you know, ensuing years, or where a slowdown in the development activity maker. recommendations for next year are just about 5.5 positions recommended in order to address the high volume of activity that has been ongoing. 2.3 positions are ongoing, primarily building inspectors, 3 and a quarter positions are limited positions, primarily engineers in the construction and land development, as well as an associate planner. These recommendations consist of about 241,000 and ongoing and $1.9 million in limited period funding, which are primarily in consulting contracts, as well as staffing. So, as you can see, we do utilize a lot of outside help. And again, this is to ensure that when we finally do hit a slower period, that we have flexibility in terms of being able to match to the level of the workload. The next fund is the Shoreline golf links, and restaurant, which is new for this year, beginning in January, just a few months ago, the city took over operations of Michael's restaurant. And this is through a management agreement with touchstone, who has also been operating the golf course. So this is a little different arrangement, but we'll be operating as a unit going forward. Revenues are projected, combined revenues at $4.5 million, expenditures at $4.2 million. So, slightly projected surplus there. The fund is estimated to end the year with an operating surplus that would be sufficient to cover a transfer to the general operating fund of about $275,000. And so this is an improvement over what it was from the current year. And so, because of the, I think, the combination and the synergies by the touchstone, they're able to do this. So that's very positive. As far as fee increases recommended, There's about a 3% increase to the frequent player programs and a dollar per player increase for things such as loyalty program fees, tournament fees, and all other green fees. The next Fund is the Shoreline Regional Park community, and for the current fiscal year, revenues are estimated at 42.5 million, or about a million dollars lower than the budget. This decline is a result, primarily, of a approximately 23% decline in assessed value on some unsecured property tax compared to the prior or the previous year. Looking at fiscal 1920, property taxes are going to increase, however, about $8 million, and this is due, in large part, to two property purchases on Sterlin Court, by Google, back in November 2018. This added approximately $6 million to the revenue base in that area. So that's certainly a positive impact there. The remaining increase in the revenues will result from ownership changes, new development, and, of course, the overall base increase, which increases by the California CPI. Expenditures are recommended are projected at $31.5 million. And with respect to capital projects, there's actually a pretty significant amount that we have at about just under $88 million being recommended from a combination of sources, primarily from the issuance of the 2018 tax allocation bonds, just this past December, to help finance number of significant infrastructure projects in that area. Reserves of about $19.8 million are recommended next year, and in the general fund, that would be roughly 25% of expenditures, also looking to increase the landfill reserve incrementally to $8 million. There was a study that was done in the recent past that identified $12 million as needed for this purpose. And so for this upcoming year, we would get to $8 million for that. There was another reserve for sea level rise, which was also studied in the past, and council approved this policy, that recommended that funding of $3 million a year be done over the next 10 years to get to a $30000000 total aggregate amount necessary for various projects that would be needed to address this issue. Major recommendations for fiscal 20 essentially include increased cost or utilities, adding an additional quarter FTE position, and then various other staffing, and consulting support as well as funds for risk assessment. The total ongoing funding of 193,000 and limited period recommendation funding of $179,000. So that is the funds that I will be addressing, and I will now turn that over to Susie, I need her offer, who will handle the utility funds.

[01:48:18] Suzanne Niederhofer: So the utilities funds start on page 33 of the report, and overall, all 3 utility funds are in pretty good shape operation operationally. For the water fund in the current fiscal year, revenues are higher by about a $1000000 or 2.7%. The financial condition of this fund is really has improved over the last few years with increased water usage, but we're still about 22% below the baseline of the 2013 drought baseline. For next fiscal year, the SFPUC is not increasing the rate. It's staying the same. They will be adopting rates at the end of May. The Santa Clara Valley water district is proposing a 6.6% increase to well water or groundwater, which corresponds to a 6.one% increase for treated water. Staff is recommending a one% increase to water rates and meter rates. which account for operations, CPI, and the Santa Clara Valley water rate increase. And also the recycle water rate increasing 20%. This is the 2nd year of a three-year phase in to align the recycled water rate with costs to recover all costs of recycled water program. So the operating balance in the water fund for fiscal year in 1920 is estimated at $4 million, which will fund capital projects of to $320000 and other recommendations or other costs, I should say. And recommendations for the water fund for fiscal year 1920 total $433,000, which are all limited period recommendations. For the wastewater fund in the current fiscal year, revenues are trending about as budgeted, and expenditures are trending lower by about $860,000. This is primarily due to a $419,000 credit from the treatment plant based on the reconciliation for the prior year. This credit is being reserved, as it is an encumbrance, that has not yet been spent by the treatment plant. So we assume that it's going to be come forward in next year's reconciliation. So that's why we reserve it. For next fiscal year, there is no estimated increase for the treatment plant. The treatment plant. We've talked about this in prior years, but the treatment plants, long-term plan for capital expenditures has been previously discussed with council. Staff recommended it phasing in a 2% rate increase over 10 years for a total of 20% and fiscal year 1920 will be the 6th year of this phase in. So the total rate increase is recommended to be 3%, one% for operating cost increases, and 2% for the phase in of the treatment plant, capital costs. They're a major city sewer, main replacement projects included in the CIP for which we issued a loan in the current fiscal year. for about $10 million. The recommendations for fiscal year 1920 total $103,000 of which $50,000 is ongoing. For the solid waste fund, in the current fiscal year, revenues are trending about $1.4 million over budget, and expenditures are also trending very slightly under budget. It's the combination of higher smart station costs offset by operating savings. For next fiscal year, Recology is receiving their CPI increase of 3.97%. Smart station costs are continuing to see an increase of 16%. It's mainly due to higher tonnage for construction debris boxes, which have offsetting revenues. So adjusting for that tonnage, smart stations, costs are increasing 4.5%. A 3% rate increase is recommended based on those changes. And recommendations for fiscal year 1920 total $256,000 of which $96,000 is ongoing. A prop to 18 hearing is not required for any of the recommended rates this year, as all rates are within the prescribed limits as approved at the rate hearings on June 21st, 2016 and June 19th, 2018. A summary of increases and there's a 2.one% total average increase for a single family residence based on these assumptions, with a total estimated increase of $3.17 a month. Attachment 11 in your narrative budget report also has the rate impact for multifamily and commercial customers. So you can see that there. And this is a comparison to our surrounding cities. for water. Palo Alto is more comparable as they receive their water from the SF PUC as we do. And Palo Alto does not have a minimum purchase like we do. For sewer rates, Palo Alto is comparable, as we are partners in the treatment plant, and the city is proactively, as stated earlier, ramping up rates for future treatment plant costs. capital costs. And for trash, all 3 cities are partners with the smart station, and mountain views rates are lower, but the other agencies have weekly recycling. And I'm going to turn it back over to Jesse.

[01:53:58] Finance Director Jesse Takahashi: Thank you very much. We also have some non major funds. That are also showing recommendations up there on the screen, as you can see. I won't go over all of those, but there's certainly a variety of different functions and services that these funds deal with. Just a couple. The childcare commitment reserve is being recommended as limited period funding for $100,000. We have measure B funds of ongoing, 184,000 in ongoing funding for use of these funds. The general liability insurance fund, $180, $1,000 increase for this recognized increase in insurance costs. And then various equipment maintenance and replacement needs, recommendations for $130,000 and ongoing and $25,000 in limited period funds. And moving on to reserves, it's always an interesting area, because this is certainly an area that provides some flexibility in terms of how council would like to address various issues, as we've been talking about. The reserves that are generally or are established by council policy, and the city's policy A11 guides and provides direction on use of the reserves. And they are generally, there are two types of reserves, those that are designated for specific purposes. Typically general fund reserves. We also have reserves, that fund liabilities. And many of these are contributed to by other funds, in addition to the general fund. The city is fortunate to have a number of reserves, and most of these reserves are funded at the policy target levels. Some may still be on its way, on their way to reaching their funding target levels. But overall, we are in good shape. And just one of the, I would also just point out, is one of the reasons when credit rating agencies look at this organization, that weighs heavily into their ratings, and just to reiterate that, you know, the city does maintain a AAA rating, and has for quite some time. So that's certainly a positive thing when, especially when we have the need to go out and issue debt. Recommendations for next year are as follows, what the general fund reserve. We have a $1.8 million, that are being recommended from the carryover, and an additional $2 million from the fiscal 20, additional funding from next year, which would maintain the policy balance above the 20% level that is required. With respect to the Capital Improvement Reserve, up to $3 million is being recommended from the general fund carryover plus up to another $3 million for fiscal 20. The compensated absence of reserve total of $2 million from the general fund care over plus an additional 170,000 from other funds which will help maintain this reserve at its policy level of 80% of the liability. And then, lastly, $1 million being recommended to the strategic property acquisition reserve for next year. So that covers the reserves, and at this point, just wanted to see if there were any questions on any of those.

[01:58:12] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member McAllister.

[01:58:15] Councilmember John McAlister: Couple of questions. I know it's a little early on the solid, solid waste management, and the fees that we're going to charge, but I was just reading about Los Altos Hills. They were going through some major changes, uh, expenses for their, depending how the Chinese are taking garbage. So how far in advance, when you guys look at our fees, do you base the fees based on our current contract? So if there's an escalation that you'll just match whatever the contract causes to go up, so you'll say the fees will match that.

[01:58:56] City Staff: So, um, in the solid waste, there is the smart station and there is recology and there, um, they have increases, but it's a percentage of the budget. There's also the city's operating costs. So percentage wise. So let's say smart costs or 60% of the budget. It's not just taking their fee. It's a percentage based, you know, on the total cost. Does that make sense?

[01:59:21] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, no, I was just curious. Because I know Los Altos Hills, they're going to have some people might have 100% increase in their garbage collection, but a lot of that had to do with going up and down their driveways. But I wonder, looking into the future, no, never mind, because that's gonna be more related to negotiations down the road. My other question is, to major fundings, childcare commitment, reserve. When I hear the word reserve, it means it's not being used, so... to find that one for me. Please.

[01:59:54] City Staff: Um, childcare commitment reserve. We have a reserve, a childcare commitment reserve. It was established when we built the childcare center. There is a balance in the childcare commitment reserve of just under $500,000. And, um, I believe it was council's direction to use $100,000 a year for, um,

[02:00:14] Councilmember John McAlister: Subsidies?

[02:00:15] City Staff: Yes. Yeah, so just to add on to what Susie saying, my understanding is, this was initially set up to pay back the debt or the obligations we had. I believe it was a Hewlett or Peckard, one of those foundations that provided funding initially. So we set this up to collect those funds. That obligation has been paid off, and there remains $500,000 left in the pot, so to speak, which at council's direction, is we're using $100,000 a year for five years to subsidize low income folks.

[02:00:50] Councilmember John McAlister: So is this a replenishment?

[02:00:52] City Staff: No, this, I mean, the reserve is there, the balance is there, we're actually drawing down on it each year by 100,000, and it will get to zero in a few more years. And then, we'll have to come back to council for, if we want to subsidize more childcare.

[02:01:06] City Staff: Yeah, council would need to find another source of funding, should they want to continue that amount, or any other amount of funding.

[02:01:13] Councilmember John McAlister: So when is the five years up?

[02:01:18] City Staff: I think we have three more years, but I'm not positive. We can get back to you on that.

[02:01:23] Councilmember John McAlister: Is that something that we could bring up now, just to continue it? versus ending it in so much my time?

[02:01:33] City Staff: I mean, you certainly could, but there's really no impact to that for multiple years, so...

[02:01:39] Councilmember John McAlister: I'd just like to have some more life to it when I'm gone, so that's all.

[02:01:43] City Staff: Well, what you would have to do is find another funding source, if you wanted additional funding beyond the end of that reserve. So my suggestion would be to wait until we get closer to the end of that. I believe we tied it to the timing of the existing contractor's term. So, you know, we'll be looking at a new RFP, or how to use that building, or a new contract. And so, there's kind of a bigger picture that all could be looked at together.

[02:02:13] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, so when would that picture be looked at?

[02:02:17] City Staff: As we get closer to the end of that contract, which we don't recall the data, but I think there's a few more years. I think it's, like, three more years. But we can come back to you with more information.

[02:02:27] Councilmember John McAlister: I'll talk offline with you, but one of the concerns is, is that 100,000, depending how you look at it, could get you four kids or eight kids with the cost of childcare these days, and so that's why I might want to consider bumping that up if we want to get more kids.

[02:02:43] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Council member Clark?

[02:02:48] Councilmember Chris Clark: On the wastewater phone, can you just remind me? I remember going over this, but I can't remember the number of years. So the 2% per year phase in. I know it was over six years, but what year are we in now?

[02:03:02] City Staff: 1920 will be the sixth year.

[02:03:04] Councilmember Chris Clark: Oh, so this is it?

[02:03:05] City Staff: I believe it's a 10 year plan, not a 6 year plan. So we're in year 6 of 10.

[02:03:10] Councilmember Chris Clark: Oh, we're in year 6 of 10. Okay.

[02:03:14] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Any other clarifying questions? Council member Hicks.

[02:03:17] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yeah, I was just curious, actually, about the wastewater fund, as well. Um, it sounds like the wastewater treatment plan phase in for capital cost goes up 2% a year for a number of years, and then stays up. Why would it not be that after the capital project is done, it goes down. How does that work?

[02:03:41] City Staff: So we're phasing up to pay for the debt service cost of the treatment plant, which reach about $3 million a year. And so they go up for over 10 years. We're reserving that money. We'll be paying down using that reserve. Then those debt service payments will be $3 million a year, and then we have a plan to ramp back down over 10 years.

[02:04:02] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Okay, that's what I was that's what I was asking about, the ramping down. Thanks.

[02:04:07] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Any other clarifying questions? Okay. Seeing none? Um, did you have anything else? Of the staff presentation?

[02:04:19] City Staff: Yep, we're just wrapping it up here, and the next steps, our next to last slide. We will be coming back with the proposed budget on June the 11th, for a public hearing to address the operating as well as a capital improvement program, adoption. And then the following week, on the 18th, we'll have another public hearing to adopt the budget as well as to adopt the funding for the capital improvement program. So those are the next steps in this process. And then our last slide, I will turn it back over to our city manager, who will wrap the presentation up.

[02:04:54] City Manager Dan Rich: Wrap it up. So, this slide is really both for the benefit of the public comment period, as well as when we come back to you. These are the specific areas that we'll be asking for. direction on or any dialogue you want to have. We'll break it up or we recommend breaking up it into each of these bullet points. And, you know, if you can talk about each of them, give us direction, then we'll move on to the next one. But we really have nothing else at this point, unless you have more questions. We can take public helmet, and then we'll come back for direction.

[02:05:27] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, at this point, we will open it up for public comment. So if you have anything on the narrative budget that you want to share with us, please come up and to the microphone. No comments. Well, I thought there was one person out there who, I might want to make a comment. Be sure to speak into the microphone, please.

[02:05:58] Marsha DeLaurier: Thank you. I appreciate that, and all of the work that you do. It's absolutely amazing. Marsha DeLaurier, I'm the executive director of check. I just want to take a couple of minutes. First of all, thank you for your consideration of our request for funding. You know, Chack provides mental health services for the community, and we consider ourselves the emotional safety net, for the more than 5000 Mountain View residents that we serve. We're most known for our services, for the schools, and a large focus, for us, has been on the schools for the last few years and strengthening that relationship. But the schools also include the parents. We see more than 3,000 students and their parents that are residents of Mountain View each year. Three years ago, we saw 5% of the students. Today, we see 16% of the students and their families. That's one in every 6th Mountain View resident students on our roster. With funding from the city, however, we can continue to provide services at our in-house clinic, and that's what I want to talk to you about. We have many programs there I only want to touch on for. Because we cover all age ranges from 0 to adult, our family resource center at the Trinity Church, serves ages 0 through 5, And mostly with prevention services, because in mental health right now, prevention is the key. Second program is our Latin X services. We serve 240 families last year with support for acculturation and immigration issues, parenting classes and counseling service. These are highly traumatized clients, really needing very specialized services, and it's an expanded program for us. Substance abuse program health for the families and individuals overcome dependencies with substance abuse and now technology addiction as well. And our 4th program that I wanted to mention is our counseling services. They're used by nearly a 1000 clients each year for anxiety, depression, domestic violence, gender issues, LGBTQ issues, and others. 70% of CHAC clients are either low or very low income clients. And check is really there for the working poor, regardless of their ability to pay. Often, these clients are also those that make too much to qualify for MediCal, but not enough for private practice, and we see that area increasing as well. But beyond impact to direct services for our residents. We also share our professional expertise with other providers. We work closely with the police department, particularly recently outreach requests from their outreach officers, for example, working with the homeless population. We help equip them with the knowledge and the impact of the emotional issues of homelessness on kids and families, so they can be more effective. And we also work with the school resource officers on campus and the school engagement facilitators. in the same capacity. This professional expertise comes from our staff. We leverage and stretch the funding dollars that we get. by providing these services through our accredited training programs, at PhDs and master level therapists. Um, This came up the other night and I want to comment on it. We only use evidence-based methodologies in our treatment, and all of our services are measured. We use nationally normmed outcome measurement tools, and these help us assess the efficacy of treatment for all of our clients. Thank you.

[02:09:18] Mayor Lisa Matichak: If you could wrap it up.

[02:09:19] Marsha DeLaurier: Wrap it up. Yes, I can. We have a 5% request, and that's really to cover staffing costs. I just want to close by saying community mental health is about safety and equity. Safety, because unattended mental health issues end up on the doorstep of the police department, and equity, because every single individual in our community deserves the same access to education and lifestyle and shouldn't be encumbered by emotional issues that prevent them from learning or living. That's what the city is funding. I thank you so much.

[02:09:48] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member McAllister has a question for you.

[02:09:49] Marsha DeLaurier: Sure.

[02:09:52] Councilmember John McAlister: Do you turn people away, or you just say we can't handle it, or is there a large backlog of appointments?

[02:10:00] Marsha DeLaurier: We do have a wait list. We have 40 families in our wait list and our Latinx program. The only time we turn people away is when it's out of scope of practice, and then we use other partnerships in the Santa Clara County for those.

[02:10:11] Councilmember John McAlister: What does it mean to be 40 people on a wait list? What's the timeline? If you're number one or number 40 on that wait list?

[02:10:17] Marsha DeLaurier: Um, it's anywhere from, uh, probably three months to five months for services.

[02:10:25] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. And more resources would give you more...

[02:10:29] Marsha DeLaurier: More resources. Two thirds of our budget is payroll, and just gives us the ability to hire clinical supervisors, then how that can supervise the interns providing these services. We can see more people.

[02:10:42] Councilmember John McAlister: Compared to what would be a comparable agency in the peninsula?

[02:10:47] Marsha DeLaurier: Um, we work with uplift family services, um, Aki, um, which provides services for the Asian community. Um, and, uh...

[02:10:56] Councilmember John McAlister: Do they have similar weightless?

[02:10:59] Marsha DeLaurier: I actually, yes, at this moment, the problem with mental health is that there is nowhere to refer clients. The schools have so much of an influx of need, that they want to refer out their clients to agencies such as ours, and all of the agencies are full. This is actually mental health, I think, is a real crisis for our society.

[02:11:18] Councilmember John McAlister: What could occur in that three to five months that somebody's waiting?

[02:11:22] Marsha DeLaurier: Well, that's where we assess, we assess everybody that asks for services, and the 1st thing we assess is the risk, risk assessments done for suicidality and issues like that, radicalization, things like that, where we think that there's a real, um, impact on on the community or a risk to the community.

[02:11:37] Councilmember John McAlister: So when you were on a wait list. Does that mean that they're not assessed or they are initially assessed and then put on a wait list?

[02:11:42] Marsha DeLaurier: Yeah, initially assessed and wait lists.

[02:11:44] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. So you do take so the high risk people?

[02:11:46] Marsha DeLaurier: Absolutely.

[02:11:47] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. Governed by life insurance and things like that. Thank you.

[02:11:49] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Anyone else wanting to provide this input on this topic? Okay, seeing none, we will close the public input portion, and return it back to council. And are there any other questions about any of the material we kind of did it as we went along, but are there any other questions that folks out? That's a number, McAllister.

[02:12:11] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, innovation. Smart city innovation. Who's, what department's that going to? $150,000.

[02:12:22] City Staff: I believe the lead goes to IT, which is developing a smart city kind of strategy, but ultimately, the work will be in our departmental. A lot of the projects related to smart cities actually have to do transportation and public works kinds of things, so it will be a team working on this, but Roger and his team will be the lead.

[02:12:42] Councilmember John McAlister: And 150 was a nice rounded number, or was it something that was...

[02:12:48] City Staff: Okay, testing the wind. You know, I've been hopping on this one though. It was actually, we worked with a county consultant that had worked with Santa Clara County, or San Mateo County, and that was a quote that they gave us to establish...

[02:13:07] Councilmember John McAlister: Oh, see, this is for a consultant to get us going down the road. Okay. Thank you. That helped clarify.

[02:13:14] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Kumei.

[02:13:15] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great, thanks. One of the things that I had removed on Tuesday from our council golf list was looking into the potential exploration of providing feminine hygiene products in our city facilities. Um, you know, I think I'd be interested in just figuring out what the cost would be in terms of in city hall versus kind of all our city facilities. Um, and I don't, and I thought that maybe the budget narrative would be the better place to explore the possibility versus, um, putting it as a, as a council goal. So I thought I would maybe just like a, it would be maybe a one time allocation. I'm not sure looking to city manager.

[02:14:05] City Manager Dan Rich: Yeah, I mean, what I would suggest, and as often happens at the budget narrative, as council members raise issues or questions, and then we go do some kind of preliminary research, and we'll come back to you with a memo or an estimate, and we'll bring that back to you with the proposed budget. So if there's council direction to do that. That's what I would suggest we could explore, you know, at a high level, kind of what the what both the one time and potential operating costs of something like that would be. I know that the city of San Jose did something similar. I don't remember what the final cost ended up being, but that might be helpful as staff is exploring to look at that.

[02:14:50] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. I think we know someone over there that might be able to point us in the right direction. Any other questions? Council member Ramirez?

[02:15:01] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. Just a couple of quick questions. How many vacant positions? How many vacant planner positions are there? So budgeted, but not filled?

[02:15:10] City Manager Dan Rich: I believe there's only one right now.

[02:15:13] Unknown Speaker: Well, we just made two offers. I don't believe they've started yet. Um, but or one's an internal promotion and one new person.

[02:15:21] City Manager Dan Rich: well, RT can answer this question. I will tell you that overall, we have about 60 vacancies. HR is literally working around the clock and has anywhere from 40 to 50 recruitments going on at any given time, but there are about 60 vacancies, which is approximately 10% of our employment base. We did just fill a deputy ZA position, and we have one planner position that we didn't get to fill, so we might have to go back and take another look at the pool.

[02:16:00] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Great. Thank you. And then how many full-time positions are there in the multilingual community our reach program?

[02:16:11] City Manager Dan Rich: Right now, there's 0.5 ongoing, what we're recommending in the budget is another 0.25 to add to that, as a limited period, as well as a fair amount of hourly, part time folks that supplement the program.

[02:16:28] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: One halftime position ongoing, but there are other folks staffing them.

[02:16:33] City Manager Dan Rich: Yeah, there's a number of hourly personnel that most of the translators and folks that you see at the council meeting are not permanent staff. They're hourly.

[02:16:44] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. Councilman for Kamei.

[02:16:48] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. you. I remember I had one more question. So related to the drones. I know that some counties and cities have been looking at grant opportunities. I was wondering if the fire chief might want to share or either chief chair, if that's something they'll also be exploring. Thank you.

[02:17:08] Fire Chief: Good evening, yes, the fire department is actually the recipient of one drone through the Santa Clara County. So we have on waiting and hoping that if we get approval, then we'll...

[02:17:19] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: For the drone policy waiting for the drone policy to come forward to be able to use, because you already have one. Okay, great. Thank you.

[02:17:27] Unknown Speaker: So the 28,000 that we're asking for tonight would be for the police department. I don't believe currently they're aware of any grants available.

[02:17:45] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, any other questions? And your comments? Um, I'm wondering if we can take all of the items instead of one by one, all of the items on the left-hand side of that slide. Or do you have specific questions?

[02:18:00] City Manager Dan Rich: I mean, you can do it anyway, unless, yeah, I would suggest do it at least by bullet. If there's consensus, you can do all the quote, recommended actions, those 3 sub bullets as one, but there may be some amendments. The only item that I heard come up tonight, which we would want direction on is the feminine hygiene product. Yeah, so then if you have no other issues on any of the others, you really could take them all as one.

[02:18:31] Unknown Speaker: Well, I was gonna bring up something under other, but I was waiting until we got to other.

[02:18:36] City Manager Dan Rich: Yeah, well, that's... Right. That might be a better way to do it, is to, um, do anything that's not in the recommendation, settle those, and then put anything else in the other category.

[02:18:49] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, so let's start with the recommended actions, nondiscretionary, discretionary, and limited period, as one... So, sorry, that's the general operating fund. altogether. Are there any changes anybody wants to propose to that or questions? Okay, then, oh, council member Ramirez?

[02:19:13] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. So, I appreciate the modest increase to the multilingual community outreach program. This is a program that I've been, I haven't been a part of personally, but I've been interacting with a lot of the folks who are graduates of the Civic Leadership Academy, and I've heard nothing but good things. But I would encourage the council to consider boosting it a little bit more. I have heard from a number of folks who are close to the monolingual Spanish speaking community, that there is a desire for greater information that is accurate and unbiased from the city. I shared this with the city manager recently, that there have historically been a couple of folks who have transmitted information to this community, and it comes with a certain slant.

[02:20:13] Unknown Speaker: Clarify, he's not referring to city employees. He's referring to other people transmitting information.

[02:20:19] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: And I was interested in just seeing if there are opportunities to enhance the city's ability to communicate directly with this community. And longer term, you know, we didn't prioritize it, but I really appreciate council member Ken Mays, a suggestion to create a similar academy, but for the Chinese community, which I think we've seen is increasingly active, but doesn't really have the same kind of access to those kinds of opportunities that we've given the Spanish speaking communities. So I'd like to explore that longer term. But just generally speaking, you know, looking at opportunities to enhance this program, um, I have a general comment too. I don't, is this what, not unrelated to this? So the budget is important. And, you know, I've been attending meetings for a while, and I'm invariably distressed by the lack of community input that we receive. And again, I've shared this with the city manager. you know, this it's not something that we could address with this cycle, but in future cycles, I would like to see if there are, again, opportunities to solicit community input on right now what to do with the surplus. And then, you know, when the recession hits, what are the community priorities to ensure we know what, you know, what not to cut and what is more acceptable? We had a lot of input on the goal setting process, which I think is appropriate. But I would like to see something close to that with the budget as well. You know, I, I, I like all of you. You do great work for the city, but, you know, I would like to see some folks who are unaffiliated with the city have input in this process as well. Thank you.

[02:22:08] City Manager Dan Rich: So, just to clarify, we do as much, if not more outreach, for the budget process, including one, if not two, ads in the voice, than we do for almost any other agenda items. So, and I believe last year, the room was pretty close to packed budget night. Um, so I think it does depend on, you know, the issue and the interest, um, certainly we can explore other ways to do more out. But, um, I think people come when they're interested in a topic, and a lot of people are interested in goal setting this year. Less people are interested in budget this year. You know, it's just, it's a nature of democracy.

[02:22:51] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member McAllister?

[02:22:53] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, I was looking at the limited period and going back to the childcare. So... you said you'd be looking into that a little bit. So what does that mean? Is that it's a mid-year that we could look at, possibly, or would, say, if we got council support to increase the reserve?

[02:23:14] City Manager Dan Rich: What I meant by the statement was, we would either tell you offline or come back with a proposed budget to answer the specific question, which is, what's the current balance? When does the contract end? And therefore, when would the subsidization, you know, the $500,000 run out? There is no plan unless directed by council in the next fiscal year to come back to discuss it further. I believe we had a discussion of this in the past year, and we came up with a strategy, and that strategy included this amount of funding, and through the current contract period. So absent direction from council to do something different. That's the path we're on.

[02:23:54] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, well, that's why I was asking. You clarified the first time, so if there was enough consensus to increase that, based on aft... So let's say you gathered any information, give us the reserves and so forth like that. Would that have to be, would that, once you got all that information, would that be too late for this fiscal year, or would it, or, I mean, the next fiscal year budget?

[02:24:13] City Manager Dan Rich: Well, if the issue is simply allocating additional funding to childcare, you know, depending on what the balance is and where you would want to take it from, that's a decision you could make at the proposed meeting for the final budget this year, if the issue is, you know, go off and do exploration, and, you know, find out other options and opportunities for subsidies or research or whatnot, then that really becomes a work plan item. So it really just depends.

[02:24:41] Councilmember John McAlister: No, I wasn't thinking it would work on it, but okay, so if it's just a funding issue, but there, you know, depending on the size of the funding, there would be tradeoffs in the budget. Okay, thank you.

[02:24:52] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Hicks.

[02:24:54] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I just have a question for council member Ramarez. Um, so it sounds like you may ask for more for, uh, translating services. I'm just curious to hear a little more about the problem that was encountered, like, under what circumstances there was a lack of translation services from the city and sort of slanted information being, you know, where you would like to apply that being given out.

[02:25:23] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Right. So, um, it's not, it's not so much lack of translation services. I think it's more about more broadly, access to the city. which a lot of folks struggle with because the city, you know, we've had this conversation. I had this conversation with the city manager. The city is designed for people who speak English. And what I think we've all observed with this community as a desire to have more opportunities for participation. I think the civic leadership academy is a great opportunity for that. I've heard some folks express concerns that once you graduate, there really isn't the place to go after that. I've heard from folks that there is a desire for access to information, and I think we do a good job distributing information, and, you know, when there are things that appear to be of greater interest to that community. It's translated into Spanish, but there might be opportunities to, you know, enhance that. I don't know if we have a Spanish Facebook page, for instance, I don't know if we do a lot of social media stuff in Spanish. or Mandarin. So I don't have a fleshed out proposal. I'm just more thinking about, is this, is this a sufficient increase, or are there more things that we can do to make sure that non-English speaking communities have full act, have as much access as we can reasonably expect to provide, you know, just sort of given how the city operates?

[02:27:01] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member, come in.

[02:27:03] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Great. So, I'll be supporting the .75 increase for the FTE. I think that on Tuesday, during goal setting, we had an opportunity to prioritize a number of projects, which I think will benefit the community in Mountain View. And I think one of the elements there that we talked about was, um, you know, further funding, um, immigration services and know your rights, clinics, uh, that funding, as we discussed, Tuesday runs out, um, at the end of this year. So I think that there are ways for that the city is exploring doing more. Um, you know, and I would say, uh, in my reflections from going to the fair that the academy had last week. really great conversations came up, which I shared with both the city manager and our public safety and being able to speak Spanish with the attendees. And so shared that. And I think that that was reflected when public safety had their day yesterday with the academy. Um, so I think that a lot of it is, um, uh, you know, encouraging that dialogue, perhaps ourselves as council members. So funding it not only through, um, a city avenue, um, but also programmatically through things like, uh, know your rights workshops, and then also, you know, um, encouraging people to attend. The mayor had her link up with Lisa today. I think there are a multitude of ways that we can increased community engagement with everybody. Um, and and those should be explored. My concern about going and and fully funding something or is what happens when the recession hits, um, and then having to do any type of scaling back. I think a slow, gradual increase, um, is helpful while we also try to augment with other, you know, city services.

[02:29:18] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Any other comments? Okay, um, Then, I guess we do a show of hands. How many are, uh, okay with the, um, items for non-discretionary, discretionary and limitary, limited period funding that staff has proposed? And clearly council member McAllister supports this? And it sounds like with no changes. But you might bring some back next time we talk about this. With the help of the city manager. Okay, all those in favor? So... Okay, guys, are you in favor of this?

[02:30:03] Unknown Speaker: Yes.

[02:30:04] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, that's unanimous. Thank you. Yeah, just everything under the general operating fund. So, yeah, why don't we see how many comments there are on the next set fees, other major funds, utility rates, non major funds, and reserves. And if there's a lot of discussion, maybe we divide them up, but if there's not, we can take them together. Any comments or quick further questions on these? Okay. I think we might be able to take them all at once, all those in favor of the staff proposal for those items. I'm not gonna repeat them again. That was unanimous. Okay, then, um, for the council discussion items, and I'm okay taking these one at a time, um, because I think some of them might have more discussion. So the first one, the library services, department, potential fee modification. Were there any questions about that, or concerns, or comments?

[02:31:11] Unknown Speaker: No, I've seen a lot. A fair number of other cities are doing this, just because the administrative overhead associated with handling all these things is actually more than the vines. And I think we should just cover everything if we're gonna do that, so...

[02:31:27] Unknown Speaker: I hadn't really thought about this before, but when I read the material for this item, I thought, oh, this makes a lot of sense. So, I am fine with it.

[02:31:38] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Others, okay, all those in favor of...

[02:31:42] City Manager Dan Rich: Just to clarify, there is administrative overhead that certainly would be saved. I don't think it nets out, but it's a relatively small amount of money, for sure.

[02:31:50] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yeah. So all those in favor of modifying the library fees, and that's unanimous. And then the council budget. We did have the council finance committee meeting, and we discussed the budget. We, I certainly had questions about it. I hadn't looked at it that closely before, and we talked about a number of things, but in the end, yes, we felt that the current budget was fine. Any questions?

[02:32:19] Councilmember John McAlister: No. First class upgrades?

[02:32:21] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Oh, sorry, John. So, no questions, all those in favor? That's unanimous. Okay, then we have, um, next is the funding for check. Were there any questions or comments on that one? Council member Hicks.

[02:32:40] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Thank you. Yeah, I was just going to say that during our goals and projects setting. There were a couple of projects relating to mental health and youth surveys that might touch on mental health. And I guess my, I don't know if I don't think any of those floated to the top when we voted, but I think my perspective on it is that working with check would be better, probably, than taking any of those in-house ourselves, although a survey certainly we could do. But maybe even that we'd rather do with checks. So in future, I will be supporting the recommended increase. And I think in future years, maybe talking to Czech about some of those things, because I, you know, I certainly agree that there's a mental health crisis, but I think that probably nonprofits like Czech can take care of it better than the city itself.

[02:33:32] City Manager Dan Rich: It's just clarification. This is actually their requested increase. Staff didn't do a recommendation on this one. They're requested.

[02:33:40] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Yes. Um, Council member Kameh?

[02:33:44] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Thank you. So one of the conversations that happened on Tuesday related to the CDBG allocations was, you know, reporting structures for those that we do allocations funding for. And I thought it might be helpful for us to, um, do the do the same in this instance where, you know, we have an opportunity where Jack, uh, or Marcia is able to come and give us an annual update or send over, you know, a quarterly report and just keep us appraised of of the need. And I think that that could be, you know, something that could be helpful going forward.

[02:34:31] City Manager Dan Rich: So it's the quarterly reports only for CDBG and home funded. My recollection of it. Tim said on Tuesday night was historically, they've only been from federally funded groups, which have very stringent reporting requirements, but I believe he indicated we are instituting a similar, although probably not as paperwork intensive requirement for our general fund, supported nonprofits. I think this year would be the 1st one. Audrey, you want to correct me, all the errors I'm making?

[02:35:05] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: I can't say definitively, but those are for that statement is true for the general fund grants that go through the CDBG home process with this being funded in a different way. I'm not sure what the...

[02:35:18] City Manager Dan Rich: Yeah, so yeah, I agree with that. All I'm saying is we are now instituting that for those going through that process, we do not. And I honestly don't remember, I haven't looked at the JPA in a number of years. I don't know if there's a requirement for reporting. I don't think we get much on it on a regular basis. Marcia may want to ask her, but certainly we could, if it's counsel's interest, we could work with them to use something similar to what we're using or plan to use for the other nonprofits, the general fund nonprofits.

[02:35:53] Unknown Speaker: So why is this one different than all the others? Why didn't this go through the same process?

[02:35:58] Unknown Speaker: Did you just celebrate Passover? Manish Tana? Halilah, how's that? Sorry, inside joke. Clearly, the Jews on the council are all gone. Why is this night different from all other nights?

[02:36:16] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: It is always traditionally been treated differently. It is a JPA. It's been sort of funded in the operating budget. What you don't see in tonight's budget, but you will see in the proposed budget, as the list of there are other nonprofits that we fund through operating budgets that are also not, don't go through the HRC process. You will see those with the narrative, I'm sorry, with the proposed budget, but they're not included tonight because they're sort of in the baseline. And that's something actually we're thinking about changing for next year, so you do see them. But this has always been sort of dealt with in a separate process, I think, primarily because it's a longstanding JPA, not just with us, but 3 cities and 3 or more school districts, as I recall.

[02:37:02] Unknown Speaker: Okay, thank you. That a question. So the amount that they're at the 3%, did you say?

[02:37:08] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: They ask for 5%. Yeah, they ask for five. Their request.

[02:37:13] Unknown Speaker: Okay, so... And this is different than the AVAC and all that stuff. Two different. We're getting air conditioning we're going to. Thank you.

[02:37:23] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: The recommendation from Tuesday night was to use federal home funds, I believe. Okay, no, I just want... This is an addition, this is the operating costs. Traditionally, we have funded them for operating costs every year.

[02:37:35] Unknown Speaker: Okay. Through the JPA, or just... So, when they say our 5%, do other cities increase their country?

[02:37:45] Assistant City Manager Audrey Seymour Ramberg: I can't answer. I would imagine other cities are asked to. increase on a regular basis as well.

[02:37:55] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, any other comment? Okay, so I guess, um... Are folks okay with the requested amount of 5% increase for check, if you are, raise your hand. Okay, that's unanimous.

[02:38:18] City Manager Dan Rich: Does the council wish for us to explore some sort of more formal reporting? Marcia and I talked about kind of informal ways to communicate better and more often, but is the council interested in something either the same or similar to what the reporting will be for other funded nonprofits? I'll defer to what others want in the past. You know, Monique used to come once a year and would provide an update during the public comment period. I actually found the written reports. Their annual report is actually quite comprehensive, and they do, I think, mid-year updates to that, and that gives a really good sense of where all the funding goes. So for me, the written report was more valuable. But we can also, I'm sure they'd be more than happy to come once a year and just provide an update on, you know, what's new, um, where, you know, where the need is in a particular year and what programs are there too. It's really up to what you prefer.

[02:39:15] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member Hicks?

[02:39:17] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yeah, I would, since they do an annual report, I would prefer not to add more kind of bureaucracy and written reporting, but I would like to hear a thorough, you know, a thorough verbal update where we can ask questions. I think that would be good.

[02:39:33] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, I agree. I think that, um, it would good, it would be good to see the annual report. I haven't ever gone to the website to look at it. Just so we see where the money's being spent. I assume it's in there. And then, yeah, an annual update is fine with me.

[02:39:51] Mayor Lisa Matichak: So it looks like there's a bunch of nodding heads for that. Okay. Drones. And we talked about this when we talked about the policy and, um, we wouldn't use the drones until we have the policy in place. I think the voice holder is fine. Okay, all those in favor of that. I can't see Allison's hand.

[02:40:16] Councilmember Alison Hicks: I wasn't there, but... I trust my fellow colleagues.

[02:40:21] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Thank you. So that's unanimous. Okay, then, Council member Komei. You want to... talk about yours?

[02:40:29] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yes. So, um, council member Ramirez was kind enough to look up the San Jose budget message from fiscal year 2017, 2018. Um, they place it under worth place equity, and it looked like it was about $1000 annually. I see dance face. This is what's allocated in their budget document, but so hopefully it'll be de minimus, hoping for colleagues support on the exploration of this item. Thank you.

[02:41:08] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Any discussion about that?

[02:41:11] City Manager Dan Rich: I like to minimize numbers. Yes. But obviously, we'll look into it. I'm happy to report back if that's the desire of the council.

[02:41:18] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Yeah, I'm fine with it. All those in favor.

[02:41:21] Unknown Speaker: Wait, I'm sorry. I didn't hear the 1st half of your sentence, so I don't know what we're using our hands.

[02:41:30] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Uh, looking into exploring, um, uh, putting in uh, employee restroom facilities, um, the feminine hygiene products.

[02:41:42] Unknown Speaker: Okay, I get it. No problem. Okay. No way, I can't comment on it. I mean, just why can't it be done administrative? I mean, if it's... It's a $1,000.

[02:41:54] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: Yeah. Well, it could have do. I asked him, it was suggested to bring it up at this.

[02:42:00] Unknown Speaker: I mean, if it's truly $1,000, that's obviously...

[02:42:03] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: I think it's also just for their city hall facility, which is why it's so, so smart.

[02:42:07] Unknown Speaker: The issue is what buildings is in every restroom. Is there implications for our janitorial contract? What are the one time installation costs? What's the mechanics of restocking, et cetera? So I just, I think it's worthy of understanding it before we just...

[02:42:25] Unknown Speaker: this is council worthiness? This item? I thought, okay, that's new. What plays that? What plays that?

[02:42:34] Unknown Speaker: No, I think it's important, but I think, you know, just work it with the city manager and get it done.

[02:42:42] Mayor Lisa Matichak: That sounds like a yes.

[02:42:43] City Manager Dan Rich: Yeah. Yep, I'll listen in paper. of exploring this.

[02:42:48] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. Anybody else have other items they want to bring up? So the one I wanted to bring up, um, which we talked about last year was, um, it's not listed specifically in the budget narrative, but, uh, the city manager, I talked about it that maybe it should be. And this is when he talked about maybe adding all the other organizations that get funding. And the one that has stood out for me for a couple years as friends of Caltrain. So I view them as an advocacy organization. They come here all the time and advocate to us, even though they say that they're using our funding for providing information. I'm having a hard time separating that. And to me, it just feels like we're paying somebody to come advocate to us. And that just doesn't seem right. So, um, I would like to remove the friends of Caltrain funding from the budget. And it's, I believe, 5000 a year. Any comments on that? Council member Clark?

[02:43:51] Councilmember Chris Clark: I mean, there are lots of organizations, including some that I've volunteered for that have C3s and C4s and advocacy organizations, and they're required to keep the funds very, very separate, and, you know, people may cross work for both organizations or do some advocacy or otherwise. But I think overall, it's a worthy organization that does a lot of great things for their C3. And I think it's important. I just, I, most organizations are able to separate those things out, and I think they do too, and I'm not worried that our $5000 is working on advocacy, even though they do some advocacy through their their other arm. But this is my opinion.

[02:44:35] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Council member hicks.

[02:44:37] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yeah, before cutting it, I'd like to know what else they do, I guess this is related to what council member Clark just said, but I'd like to know if there's a, you know, regular nonprofit and the other things and what we're cutting from and what, you know, what they do besides advocacy. So I would like, you know, I wouldn't vote for it now, I would like to ask those questions first. Do we know if they have, as the council member clerk said, different organizations or different activities?

[02:45:08] City Manager Dan Rich: Well, I don't know for sure. I don't believe there are, you know, some organizations, larger ones have separate 501 C3 versus C4. I would be quite surprised if they did that. But the stipulation of our funding was that our money, not go to advocacy, and I believe they do annually, you know, provide proof of that. You know, we could certainly request, and it looks like Dawn has something to add a lot more than I do. But we could certainly request that they come to the proposed meeting and explain or submit something in writing to us on what they do and how they separate their funding.

[02:45:47] Dawn: Just to reiterate what you said. They've actually already, as part of their funding request, submitted a list of the educational efforts they do. For instance, they have a blog they produce that is not advocacy, but just informing people, for instance, when this city council is considering items, and it is more statement of facts. The council's considering something. And they also do a lot of other educational efforts. So we can definitely reach out to them and ask that they be present at your next meeting to answer any questions you have as well as provide that information offline that they've already provided to us.

[02:46:22] City Manager Dan Rich: Yeah, I mean, similar as we would come back with a memo, an update on the feminine hygiene issue. We can put provide a little bit more information, including anything they have at the proposed, and you can make a final decision at that time.

[02:46:34] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay. All those in favor of exploring this with friends of Caltrain? At the next meeting, then we would discuss it. So if they just come back similar to feminine hygiene products, it would be information for us to discuss next time. I think that was four. Okay. Any other items? Are you sure?

[02:47:09] City Manager Dan Rich: The only one I would seek some clarity on that I have in my notes, that was raised, that hasn't been definitively addressed, is Council member Ramirez talked about the multicultural program and potentially increasing funding to that. We do have the .25 limited period, but it sounded like there might be interest in more than that. I just want to get clarity on that.

[02:47:33] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Any comments on that?

[02:47:34] Unknown Speaker: I thought it was going to come backwards. Are you going to come back with some kind of a staff evaluation? Actually, if we did somebody, what would they do versus what we do now?

[02:47:43] City Manager Dan Rich: Well, I guess we are already proposing a .25 increase. The recommendation that you endorsed a few minutes ago is a .25 limited period increase, and, frankly, the reasoning behind that recommendation is, you know, we certainly agree there's increased need, particularly in the short term. We'd like to sort of test it and see what we get for that additional .25, whether that alleviates some of the concerns, whether there's pent up demand, whether there's, you know, a sense of this will be ongoing or more short term in nature. Um, so, uh, my recommendation would be to leave it as it is for now, and then next year come back kind of with an evaluation. But certainly it's council's prerogative to direct additional resources now.

[02:48:34] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Any comments?

[02:48:37] Unknown Speaker: Similar to what we've discussed with other items, it just maybe a memo with some information about the utilization of the time staff spends now, and I don't want to delve too deeply into this. One of the things I've heard, for instance, is that one of the staff members does a lot of, spends a lot of time on work outside of her budgeted hours, you know, so exploring, you know, how much this would alleviate that, I don't know what to call it. not really a challenge. He does it voluntarily. But, you know, that there may, at least some more information about what value add this would have and if there's additional value in exploring a little bit more of a boost.

[02:49:24] Unknown Speaker: So maybe it's also a better understanding what the .25 would do.

[02:49:29] Unknown Speaker: Would that cover all the activities that you're referencing?

[02:49:33] Unknown Speaker: Yeah.

[02:49:34] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Other comments?

[02:49:35] City Manager Dan Rich: Yeah, we can certainly come back with a memo that further explains what we would hope and expect to get out of that .25. Obviously, it's untested, so we don't know exactly how it's going to be used, but we can certainly do that. And spoiler alert, next Tuesday, we'll be discussing sustainability and there may be a component of that, that does relate to the multicultural outreach program.

[02:50:08] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Are you in the queue? Council member, come I?

[02:50:11] Councilmember Ellen Kamei: I am. I don't know what to do with that new information. But I mean, I would be interested not only in the .25, but actually maybe going to .5. So equaling a whole one. Um, I think just the range would be helpful in terms of being able to properly assess the concerns that we're hearing. So I don't know if that's a customer clerk.

[02:50:34] Unknown Speaker: I think rather than dictating where the money should go, like additional .25 or whatever. We could indicate that we're possibly interested in providing some additional resources there and maybe those additional resources. Maybe it is additional, maybe the staff would say it's 0.25, maybe.

[02:50:50] Unknown Speaker: Yeah, I just say that administratively, they can ship things around and fund more hours and different things. I think in the memo they're addressing, they can suggest something.

[02:51:05] Mayor Lisa Matichak: We're good. Okay, any other comments?

[02:51:13] Unknown Speaker: Other than this particular item?

[02:51:15] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Um, no, I'm still on this item. Anything else?

[02:51:19] Unknown Speaker: Well, okay. First item, I do have some of this to ask.

[02:51:22] Mayor Lisa Matichak: Okay, well, the next item is to adjourn, so...

[02:51:26] Unknown Speaker: Well, we can't adjourn. do, as they say, until we give acknowledgment to our community service director, JP. For this, I understand, will be his last council meeting. What? I wanted to personally thank him for his patience, his understanding, his drive, his passion for that department. It's grown quite a bit. It's one of the things that most of the city residents have a visual contact or a physical contact with everything almost every single day. And I've just seen its improvements over the years, and it's a disappointment, but a thrilling expedition for our friend to continue on different path of retirement, even though they did take the number one drafts, and pick, and I don't know where he's going with that one. But, you know, JP, I just, again, for me personally, I appreciate all the time, all the tours, John Marchand, that we've had and seen, and your ability to quickly react to make the residence quality of life better quickly. So the best of luck to you. I enjoy your travels and I like to see you maybe with the chief in Scottsdale in March. So congratulations for everything and I hearty thankful.

[02:52:58] City Manager Dan Rich: And for the record, there will be a little bit more formal recognition of JP Tuesday, which from 2 to 3 over at the community center, he is a very modest man, and his 40 years of public service, he was very explicit that he did not want a big public recognition, but we certainly appreciate everything he's done and look forward to celebrating him. Tuesday.

[02:53:20] Mayor Lisa Matichak: I would echo that. It has been an absolute pleasure to work with you, since I've been on council, and actually before that. So thank you for everything you've done. Okay, if there's nothing else. We will adjourn the meeting to the next city council meeting to be held on Tuesday, April 30th, 2019 at 5 p.m. in the council chambers 500 Castro Street. at 800.

• ← Previous
• Next →