February 11, 2020 Joint Meeting of Mountain View City Council and Shoreline Regional Park Community

Video

Transcript

[00:00:00] (archive recording) Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So, welcome to our meeting for February 11th, and I will call the meeting to order at 5:32. Uh, and this is, we will start with a study session. So, um, do we have attendance please?

[00:00:02] City Clerk: Sure. Council member Ramirez is absent. All other council members are present.

[00:00:06] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Great. Thank you. We will go to our study session. Item 3.one, which is a neighborhood traffic management program in TMP. as it's often known. And we have our presenters, Lorenzo Lopez, city traffic engineer, and Ed Orango, Newly. promoted assistant public works director city engineer. Welcome.

[00:00:30] Unknown Speaker: Did you say senior?

[00:00:33] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: City traffic engineer... Lorenzo is city traffic engineer. Is that higher than the city? There we go. Welcome.

[00:00:45] City Traffic Engineer Lorenzo Lopez: Thank you. Good evening, mayor, and honorable mayor and members of council. My name is Lorenzo Lopez, and I'm the city traffic engineer. I'm joined by Ed Arango, who is the assistant public works director and city engineer. Tonight's presentation is about the neighborhood traffic management program, also known as the NTMP. A little background on why we are here. One of council's goals was for staff to review the NTMP. Overall, staff believes the program currently works well, but we feel there's room for improvement. And we have identified a few areas that could potentially be revised. We are looking for feedback from you on potential changes, which I will get to shortly. Regarding the effectiveness of improvements. Staff has found that once the improvements have been installed, they have been very effective in reducing speeds. As I mentioned, NTMP improvements have been very effective in reducing speeds, and some examples of the effectiveness are shown on the screen. The 85th percentile speeds dropped from 32 to 24 on Jardon Drive, 33 to 22 on Plymouth Street, and 40 to 23 on Easy Street. In order to get those types of results, these seven steps of the NTMP, as described in more detail in the study session memo are followed. A petition is received to start the NTMP process, which is followed by data collection, to determine if the speeds on the street exceed the program threshold. If so, staff holds a neighborhood meeting to discuss potential traffic calming devices, which are then sent via postcard survey, to the established voting area. If the proposed devices are approved by the neighborhood. They then go do the approval process and are installed. Speed data is later collected to determine the effectiveness of the improvements. We do recognize the process can sometimes be lengthy, and staff has heard concerns about the amount of time it takes from the time of the petition is received to the time improvements are installed. As explained in the staff report. Each step requires a certain amount of time to complete. In staff's view, a lot of that time involves valuable community input and consensus building, which is one of the foundations of the program's success. When reviewing the NTMP for any potential changes, there are a lot of parameters that can be revised. The following are some potential changes proposed by staff. For step one, the current requirement is only a minimum of 10% of the residents or property owners on the street in question. Staff recommends changing the signature requirement to a minimum of five signatures, or a minimum of 10% of the residents or property owners on the street, in question, whichever is higher. For step three, staff proposes modifying the NTMP guidelines to add electronic speed feedback signs to the list of traffic homing devices, and to also allow staff to authorize additional traffic homing measures, as new techniques or devices are developed. For step four, currently, there is no minimum required percent of postcard ballots to be returned. Staff recommends requiring a minimum of 35% of the postcard ballots be returned, along with the minimum of 67% approval of those return postcards. Staff recommends modifying the NTMP guidelines to revise step five to make it optional, a staff's discretion and judgment about whether it is necessary to take a recommendation to CTC or even to counsel. And a general question to you, counsel. Are there any other revisions to the process or guidelines that you would like to develop? Based on council direction tonight, staff will revise the guidelines and return to council for adoption of revisions to the NTMP, if any. That concludes the presentation, and I'd be happy to answer any questions.

[00:05:37] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Great. Thank you very much. As this is a study session, we will open this up to public comment first. So are there any members of the public wishing to speak on this item, and if so, if you could please come to the podium and fill out a blue card either before or after you speak. And is it just if it's just the two of you, or... I think we can go three minutes. Yeah. Let's see.

[00:06:20] Albert Jeans: Hey, we'll start on this slide anyways. Hi, I'm Albert Jeans, longtime resident of Mountain View. Um, it's funny that we're talking about this tonight, because just by coincidence, this morning, I was woken up by this really loud car going down our street, and um, play the video here. Unfortunately, I couldn't get the sound of work on this. It's quite dramatic, but you'll just see the video anyways. It'll play here. I mean, it's one of those cars where you can hear it coming from a long way off, and it just got louder and louder and just whizzed by, just where comparison, you know, a regular car came by later. You couldn't even hear it. So, I decide to figure out how fast this car was going. So I took frames from the video. Um, it's a little hard because a lot of exposure, but I could catch the head light here and the head light here. Use Google Maps to figure out. I figured out the sight lines and the distance between these two points where I figured the car was, and the estimate it was going 39 miles an hour, which is pretty fast on this street. This is a narrow street. You know, I don't feel safe going more than 25 on this. It's one of those kind of streets. This guy's going almost 40. And so clearly there's a, could be a problem here. Also, you can barely see it. There is a little bend in the road right here, too. So there's a long, straight, stretch, a slight bend, and then there's a stop sign. Well, actually, there's no stop sign here either. So it's potentially a dangerous situation if somebody has to step out in a crosswalk here. So, I was thinking about this NTBMP program, and I read the staff report, and I understand that, actually, we're talking about mostly speed on this meeting rather than traffic diversion. And so I kind of don't understand why so much petitioning and buying from the neighbors is required, if it's a safety and law enforcement issue. I can understand that's true, if it's just a traffic diversion, you know, cut through traffic, people have an option, like, do you want cars going through or not? You know, nobody's breaking the law, they're just driving through, but this is clearly a law enforcement problem and definitely a safety problem. So I don't understand why you have to rely on the neighbors to bring that up. I mean, you may have a neighbor bring it up to you, but then I think the city has a responsibility. to determine whether it's really a safety issue. I mean, it is, they should do something about, just like you put in stop signs, double yellow lines, traffic lights. It shouldn't be up to a vote to the neighbors to decide whether or not to keep the cars going, you know, from 40 miles an hour. So that's my opinion. Thank you.

[00:09:08] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Next speaker.

[00:09:16] Selgemont: Good evening. My name is Selgemont, Montague residence. So, my street did a petition, you know, over 10 years ago, so that's not in your history. And, you know, that was not a problem to get the signatures and things like this, because people want, you know, slower traffic in their streets. Because raises on streets are streets where kids bike and walk to schools. In some of our streets, kids play in the streets, we have basketball hoops that are set up sometimes. Um, you know, that's also where kids actually learn how to ride their bikes. That's where my son learned how to ride his bike. So we all want like store things. But my street was denied because we didn't match the speed criteria. And this criteria is really what you should be addressing here. It is set up as taking the posted speed limit as Gospel, but 25 miles an hour in itself is already too fast in a residential soft street. You know, we set it up at that 15 miles an hour on your schools. Portland decided to put it at 20 miles an hour throughout the city in all residential areas. Um, And it's not just for the 25, But particular area, if you look at it, um, you know, it's only a 15% of a drivers drive above 25 +5 of or +7, um, if it's not within a score. So, pretty much, most of the traffic can be at 30 or 32 miles an hour, and we think it's okay. There is nothing to do. So, um, I think you need to address this, you know, um, I would suggest you pass something where you set the speed limit. But possibly spinning it in residential areas at 20 miles an hour as a starting point. But if you don't want to do this, at least use 20 miles an hour as your target speed when you do your speed criteria. So instead of looking at 25 +5, look at 20 +5 to do this or even lower. Because the changes you recommend will lead to can make it easier to put petitions, but they're gonna or fail at the speed criteria. And as was pointed out, it shouldn't even take a petition for this to have slower speeds in all of our streets in residential areas. Everybody is for this. Thank you.

[00:11:50] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Any other members of the public question this week? If that, I will close public comment and bring it back to council questions. Council member Metachek.

[00:12:05] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: So, uh, in response to Mr. Jeans is, uh, comments and question. Um, how did this come about that we require this and why don't we just go out and do this without a resident doing a petition?

[00:12:23] City Traffic Engineer Lorenzo Lopez: Okay. Um... Answer that? Traffic calming measures are potentially controversial. Not everybody wants to live on a street, for instance, with speed humps, and so, um, when we put the program together, we thought that consensus building was important, um, and we've found that to be true. So, um, we don't necessarily recommend going out and imposing traffic calming measures unilaterally. Um, there are some things we do, um, unilaterally as a city. We recommend, we fund, we install, but this is one that we think the consensus building is important.

[00:13:06] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay, thanks. And I do want to, when we get to that point, suggest another change to this process. And so I was wondering if you could describe, for everyone's, we're all on the same page, how it is determined what items go on the postcard, and what the question is that is asked. I went to the Sylvan Avenue, NTMP neighborhood meeting. And it was done differently at that meeting, or as a result of that meeting than previously, it was done. So I'm kind of wondering where we are now, in terms of what goes on the postcard, the people vote on.

[00:13:49] City Traffic Engineer Lorenzo Lopez: Sure. So typically, at the neighborhood meeting, staff presents all the tools in the toolbox. So, chokers, speed humps. Whatever devices are listed in the appendix of the guidelines. Some of these items, the residents, there's a lot of back and forth questioning from the residents, as you saw. And some of them, they ask for staff's advice, they say, you know, which one do you think is the most effective? Which one? Does it make sense? in some cases? And we'll provide him with that feedback, but really, we're trying to present all the options and let them decide what goes on the postcard. So the residents decide what goes on the postcard, and we send it out for a vote. What happened with Sylvan was, there were four options. And typically, it's an all or nothing. But because those four options, residents felt there was a chance that if one got shot down, which speed hums did, then everything gets shot down. So what they wanted to do was kind of have an à la carte approach. So we discussed among staff, and we agreed we would do it that way. And what happened was three of the four items did pass with the 67% majority, but the speed humps did not. And that's a good example of a really, it was split, 50, around 50% wanted them, and 50% did not. Does that answer your question?

[00:15:25] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: It does, absolutely. So have we thought about using that approach going forward with other, um, areas that might want an NTMP?

[00:15:37] City Traffic Engineer Lorenzo Lopez: Yes. Yes, 'cause I think that gives them the option to pick the ones that they do want. It's really a yes or no on that item versus, yes, to all of these, or no to all.

[00:15:50] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: I know, yeah. I was concerned that when it's all or nothing, you might get nothing.

[00:15:54] City Traffic Engineer Lorenzo Lopez: Right.

[00:15:55] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: And so listing them individually and having the ability to vote individually, I thought was really important. Let's see. I think that's all my questions, so when we're ready for comments, I have some. Thanks.

[00:16:11] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Councilman McAllister?

[00:16:15] Councilmember John McAlister: Is there on the, uh, speed limit? Is there criteria that the state says you can, you know, people want many things, but you have to go by state regulations?

[00:16:28] City Traffic Engineer Lorenzo Lopez: Yes, to establish speed limits?

[00:16:30] Councilmember John McAlister: Yes.

[00:16:30] City Traffic Engineer Lorenzo Lopez: Yeah. So, we have to do a radar survey, or engineering and traffic survey, which requires either police officers or traffic staff that are certified, go out and collect speed and, basically, an unmarked vehicle, so nobody knows that that's what you're doing. And then you perform the study and determine what the 85th percentile is, from the speeds that you collect. And then the 85th percentile is used to determine what speed limit you can set for that roadway. So, for example, if it comes in at 32 miles per hour, we round to the nearest 5 mile per hour increment. So that would go to 30. If there are reasons, like, a curve or visibility concerns that we feel we can lower an additional five, we're allowed to do that. So we have done that in some cases where it came in around 32, and we've reduced it down to 25 miles per hour.

[00:17:30] Councilmember John McAlister: So people, is that sometimes how some of the things fail, because it doesn't meet the statutory requirements, or, you know, people want certain things to speed, but, because the statutory says, the statute says you got to have to do a certain speed.

[00:17:46] City Traffic Engineer Lorenzo Lopez: Well, the threshold in the program is actually coincidentally the same as that 32 mile per hour threshold. But there's no real connection between the two. We establish the speeds in order for the police to radar, the radar survey, and cite people for speeding. That's what the engineering and traffic survey is intended for. The traffic calming policy, which was established years ago, took into account what other cities were doing and what their thresholds were, and they used that, along with cities across the country, not just locally, to establish the threshold. So that's how that was done.

[00:18:36] Councilmember John McAlister: So we could always set the speed limit lower, but we can't enforce it with radar, though. correct? Correct.

[00:18:41] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. The other question I had is, on the, uh, Pendix, they had all these, uh, the ways to reduce the speed and so forth, and there was cost associated with those. So the original report was made in 2002. Has the cost been updated since 200?

[00:19:05] City Staff: No, it has not.

[00:19:07] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, so we got 18 year old costs. Is there something that you need direction from us to do, or is that something that you guys would just do on your own, or just take the cost out of this particular study?

[00:19:20] City Staff: We could do bold. We can either update the cost or remove it. It's... we could go either way on that.

[00:19:26] Councilmember John McAlister: You could go either way. Okay. And... my other question... the postcards, a lot of times we hear people say they don't get a postcard, and we know it. And then this is whatever for development, or a neighbor changes them. Head the city, and this is a bigger question for the city. Had we ever thought of increasing the size of the postcard, so, and making it a large color or something. So it's more noticeable and people saying, Oh, well, I didn't get my little postcard.

[00:19:57] City Staff: That's something we could easily do if... if the ICM syncs so. There have been cases where people did not receive the card, and I would send them a PDF for them to sign it and email back to me. I've received phone calls.

[00:20:13] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay.

[00:20:13] City Traffic Engineer Lorenzo Lopez: for that, and their vote counts, even if it's by email.

[00:20:17] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, thank you.

[00:20:18] City Staff: Sure.

[00:20:20] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes, remember, Hicks?

[00:20:23] Councilmember Alison Hicks: My questions are related to council member McAllister's questions there. His the question and answer there, uh, clarified it a little for me, but I'm not completely clear still. It seems like we're talking the members of the public brought up things that are related to the neighborhood traffic management program, but not specifically within it, if I understand right. So there's the program that we read about with traffic calming measures, and then there's also settings, speeds, and enforcement. And so that leaves me wondering, so I'm not completely clear after the last set of questions, what freedom we have to reduce the speeds. And then I'm also wondering when public works interfaces with the neighborhoods. Do you talk at all about how much do you also talk about the related issues of speeds and enforcement? at that time.

[00:21:19] City Staff: Well, typically, we would, if they want to address the speeding, we offer this program. But we also offer for police department to do some enforcement, to do some targeted enforcement at certain times, because, you know, an officer can sit there all day, and not see anything, and then, as soon as they leave, something happens. So what we have asked the residents, we have engaged with them asking, is there a certain time period that you're seeing this occur? And then we get that window of time, and we can pass that on to the police officers to do some enforcement. So, we do engage with the public, if it is more than the program that they want to talk about, we definitely have a good working relationship with the police department.

[00:22:12] Councilmember Alison Hicks: So it is brought up as a separate but related issue.

[00:22:15] City Staff: Yes.

[00:22:15] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Thank you.

[00:22:16] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes. Any other questions from council members? Are you good, counselor?

[00:22:23] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Yes,

[00:22:23] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: customer repairs.

[00:22:24] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. Sorry to... Just to clarify, the threshold that we set to determine whether a street is eligible for traffic halming is a policy decision. We can decide whether it's 32 miles per hour, 3331. Right? And it may be a best practice, but if that's something that we want to review, then we have the discretion to do that.

[00:22:48] City Staff: Correct.

[00:22:49] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Great. Great. Thank you.

[00:22:51] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: All right. Uh, no, I don't see any other questions, so we can go into the questions for council. Um And... The full question is on the last page of the council report, if you want. This is a little summarized version of them. Oh, yes. Um, I was just trying to see if I could try to do Shikoui, try to do this as a straw vote on each item, and then if you have comments on any of them afterwards, we can entertain comments. So we try that? So, question when, the petition question, minimum of five signatures, or a minimum of 10%, are council members who support that change. Unanimous. Um, step three, the neighborhood meeting question, adding new measures as they come online, um, uh, council members supporting that. Great. A postcard survey requiring a minimum of 35% return postcards with a minimum of 67% approval. And extra large postcards, with big font as I get older and have trouble reading myself. Council versus support that requirement.

[00:24:23] Unknown Speaker: We're talking about changing the postcard size just for this. Right? Not a global change that would require cost estimates, I would hope, but...

[00:24:31] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes, just for the survey, because they have to fill it out and turn it in, correct? So I think that was unanimous as well. Great. And then, um, the approval, uh, it goes to either CTC or actually giving staff the discretion to take it to CTC or decide on staff's own accord. Is that the change? So giving staff, that latitude.

[00:25:01] City Staff: Unless we feel that it's probably gonna be controversial. We would then decide to take it to counselor CTC. Another factor, if it meets the financial threshold that counsel has to approve the expenditure. We don't have discretion over that. Okay. That happened on Sylvan, is why I bring it up. So there are some things we don't have discretion on, but...

[00:25:20] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. Okay. Kelly, customer McAllister. Your question, then.

[00:25:23] Councilmember John McAlister: Can CTC ask for something to come to it?

[00:25:28] City Staff: Sure. Yeah, I don't see why not.

[00:25:30] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, instead of you making the decision, if we get enough public input to say, hey, maybe CTC should take a first swing in it.

[00:25:37] City Staff: Yeah, that's a good idea. If, as we're going through the process, CTC, and maybe that's some of the outreach, we can provide, saying, If you feel this should go to CTC, or some sort of communication that they think it should be taken to that next level, then we can definitely do that.

[00:25:56] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. I like that. That's the flexibility that we're looking for, because there may be some slam dunks. that we just say, Let's just go install and skip that step, get it in sooner than later.

[00:26:07] City Staff: Yes.

[00:26:08] Unknown Speaker: Would you give us any kind of? criteria, or, I mean, how you're gonna decide that criteria?

[00:26:15] City Staff: We can. We can...

[00:26:17] Unknown Speaker: Would you? Just create some. A simple memo.

[00:26:18] City Staff: Sure.

[00:26:19] Unknown Speaker: So that we have understanding, so there's no confusion of, we can go to the, you know, Albert and say, Hey, Albert, bring it to CTC, or, and he might say, Yeah, I don't know, so, okay.

[00:26:29] City Staff: Sure, thank you.

[00:26:30] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So then, will this all come back to us as a agenda, regular agenda item? So at that time, could you, um, maybe create the criteria for us to review at that point? Could it come back as a consent calendar item?

[00:26:47] City Staff: Uh, yes, it could. Yeah.

[00:26:52] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Show a hands. Oh, I'm sorry. Oh, really? Okay. Show hands on question 5 about giving staff some discretion. And that's, you know, I'm sorry, question four. Step five. Um, and that's unanimous. Uh, any other revisions, uh, counselor number Matachek?

[00:27:13] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yeah, I saw it in the council questions, uh, a question about budget, and I really feel like I don't want budget to ever be an issue in implementing any, um, measures. And so, um, the answer did come back to say you could bring it to council. So I guess I'd like us to, um, be certain or be clear that that's what we'd want if we all want that. Um, I certainly would say, yes, if there's not enough budget, let us know so that we can see if we can allocate more budget to it. Do we need to take a vote on that?

[00:27:54] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Yes, see you on it. Straw vote. Um, So... I guess I would say that, um, if we have exhausted the budget for implementation of NTMP programs, staff would come back to council and let them know and request additional budget.

[00:28:15] Unknown Speaker: Could... Would you want to run out, or just say, Hey, were you reached a threshold of a minimum, asked for some more, instead of all of a sudden, would that be...?

[00:28:26] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: That's fine, yeah. Okay. Sure. Okay. So those who support the budget augmentation request. Great. So that's unanimous.

[00:28:37] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: And then the other is, I just want to make sure we're clear on what would be on the postcard, and make sure everybody has a chance to weigh in on that. So, uh, I kind of feel like staff is the experts um, on this topic. And so at those meetings, I appreciated staff saying, here's what we recommend. And I'm not quite sure how to do this. Maybe what's on the postcard is what staff recommends individually, so people can vote on him individually, as well as anything else the neighborhood might want to vote on, even if staff didn't recommend it. Or would that not be good? Like, what do we do now if the neighborhood wants something that staff doesn't recommend?

[00:29:29] City Staff: Typically, at the neighborhood meeting, there's a lot of discussion about what the neighborhood does want, and whatever they don't want is kind of thrown aside, and we focus on the elements that they do want. So, um, when we do the postcard survey, we can revise it to identify what, we identify it at the neighborhood meeting, but it would be more of an à la carte approach, like the Sylvan project versus the previous projects that were all, all or nothing approach. So I think I worry about adding a bunch of extra items on there, because I feel like they probably wouldn't get approved anyways, or the likelihood of them getting approved wouldn't happen. What we focus on at the meeting is really what I would want to put on the postcard.

[00:30:25] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: I guess, um, two questions. So, what if the neighborhood wants something on the postcard that staff does not recommend? What do we do?

[00:30:36] City Staff: Oh, we would, in that case, we would put it on, because that's what the neighborhood wants. Okay. The way I look at it, we're the facilitator. We're giving them the tools, and then they're discussing and getting feedback from staff, and then they decide at the neighborhood meeting. Okay, these are the things we want. I, I don't see that really happening too much where there's something that staff is, is just not gonna put on, that wouldn't, that we wouldn't put on the postcard.

[00:31:07] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Okay. So I was not suggesting that everything go on the postcard. I was thinking that staff maybe had three or four things that they would recommend, and maybe the neighborhood had won more, or didn't support some of the ones staff did, because I feel like staff has got the expertise, that maybe an item that staff recommended, that the neighborhood didn't necessarily bring up. should be on the postcard. But if you're saying, you know, I understand the rationale to say if the neighborhood didn't bring it up and doesn't really support it, then, yeah, you wouldn't put it on the postcard. Um, Okay. But I guess I just want everyone to have a chance to weigh in on that, from now on, these items will be listed individually, so it's no longer all or nothing. Sure. Go ahead, yes.

[00:32:02] Unknown Speaker: So, I like the direction you're going in, and I had a related issue, which is, when I read the staff report, there were a number of, uh, a number of devices in the traffic management, device inventory, like curbside trees, roundabouts, necked intersections, ones that were, um, greener, but which staff responded, sometimes were not the top most effective of, you know, a speed hump might be more effective in slowing traffic down. At the same time, the, um, public may, the neighborhood may prefer to have the others instead of the humps, or may prefer to have both of them, maybe the two interacting, would be better. So, the sort of menu of options, and that way of presenting it on your part is possibly complementary, and, you know, maybe they go better together or something. Seems to be getting at what my concern was when I read the staff report, that we wouldn't just always go for one, but allow neighborhoods to look at the various options they have and see, which, which together might produce the best result for their neighborhood. So I like where you're going.

[00:33:18] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Well, let me finish with the comments, and then we can come back to that. So count some of our Ramirez.

[00:33:23] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: I have a different set of comments, or another recommendation, so if you want to finish this one.

[00:33:29] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: All right, well, um, so this is to, um, itemize the different strategies. Right, so on the postcard that goes out to the residence in the defined area, um, rather than the all or nothing approach that had been used in the past. Each measure is listed separately, and you can vote on each measure separately. And what would go on there, it would sort of depend on what the neighborhood's looking at with some guidance, and an explanation of all the various options. I remember you did that at Sylvan at the very beginning. Here's all the things that are possible. And then there was discussion about what did the neighborhood want. But that's a small set that attends that meeting. And so, um, That's why it goes out to the entire area. Right. Okay, so, um, those who agree with, I, I'm gonna say itemizing, um, all those different measures. show hands? What discussion, please? Yes.

[00:34:33] Councilmember John McAlister: So, I also read in the council question, or it wasn't a report, but... staff puts in the things that are most effective, and probably goes from the most effective, the next, da, da, da. So, if we are giving this Smorgasford approach to people, I think we could get some confusion, is that they say, well, we're recommending humps, and they're saying, no, we don't want them, even though it's the most effective, then are you saying, well, then we'll go with items two or three? And then what happens if, well, you're right. Let's go back to the other one, then they have to wait a year. So, I have just concerned that, I don't mind them listening. I mean, listening them, but the cost, I know it costs us shouldn't be an impediment, but the fact that you're gonna do something, and all of a sudden, you've given people choices, that is there any chance that it would be an overkill, on a particular, you know, well, we want this, ta, ta, ta. And we're going, Wait a minute, all you need is this. So I'm a little concerned if they vote all this stuff, then his staff have the discretion to say, okay, here's what we would have final say and recommendation, I'm listening to look at Elisa to say, I'm going to try to get your thought process on.

[00:35:50] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Well I feel like we kind of talked about that. And I was suggesting that what was on the postcard was staff's recommendation in maybe if there was something else, the neighborhood wanted. But, um, I guess at the Silva one, if that's a typical one, I don't feel like the neighborhoods were trying to do overkill, I think they were trying to figure out what would be the most effective, and they ask a lot of questions. Weren't you there?

[00:36:15] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, I was there.

[00:36:16] Councilmember Lisa Matichak: Yeah. That's right. You were there. And I think it turned out okay. They didn't ask for a lot, and speed humps did not make the cut.

[00:36:24] Councilmember John McAlister: But yeah. But I guess, you know, I've only been to a couple of those meetings. Did you ever feel like in the past and other meetings. There was a potential for overkill, and you needed to provide more guidance.

[00:36:36] Unknown Speaker: No. I think our job is to guide them to, based on their questions, what we think is most effective, if they do, if we suggest something, they just flat out don't want it, we don't include it on the postcard. So it's, we only include on the postcard what they agree to at the meeting. And so, as far as your question, I haven't seen that happen, there's been times where it actually shrunk down from the original list. We had a list of four. items, let's say, and it shrunk down to just two or one, because as the discussion went on, the neighbors said, Well, I don't really want that. That's not gonna do anything, or I don't want that in front of my house, or, you know, that's a big thing. I don't want it in front of my house and the noise. So, Sometimes it goes the other direction, and the list shrinks versus increasing.

[00:37:30] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Mr. Fuller.

[00:37:31] Mr. Fuller: I think in the rare circumstance, if that did happen, that could be one of those cases we bring to CTC for a little more vetting and a little policy discussion, and, um, you know, maybe get it down to something we don't think is overkill.

[00:37:47] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, so on this item of itemizing the different strategies, support that. Yeah, you know, anonymous again, Councilman Ramirez.

[00:37:58] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you, Mayor. I have one that might be a little more controversial. So I do think we should review the speed criteria for a couple of reasons. We know based on the staff analysis that that's really, that's the step at which most requests for traffic calming fail. And I think that's, I mean, my one experience with the program, that's where, that's where our attempt failed. Um, I'm aware of another city that has a, that set that threshold with a specific purpose unrelated to safety. The threshold is one mile per hour than ours, and it has the effect of dramatically reducing the number of streets that are eligible for traffic calming that was done during the recession because of financial constraints. And I would be curious to know, if we were to reduce hours from 32 to 31 miles per hour, 85th percentile, how many additional streets would become eligible, or how many requests would be successful. And, you know, there's, I know there's a fine balance between just, um, between improving traffic safety and appeasing neighborhoods, but, you know, if, if, if there is a discernible impact on traffic safety by, you know, by rendering these streets eligible for traffic calming, I think, I think it may be worthwhile in the end. So doing the analysis of how many requests would have been successful if the threshold had been slightly lower. I'm not suggesting we bring it down to 26 or 27. But if it were 31 for instance, would that mean that those requests would have been successful? And if there's maybe some analysis or narrative that could be provided on, you know, is, you know, 31 miles per hour, 85th percentile that much more safe than 32 miles per hour that it no longer warrants traffic calming.

[00:40:15] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Mr. Fuller, did you have it?

[00:40:17] Mr. Fuller: I think, uh, Ed and Lorenzo are reviewing some data over there, they may actually have an answer to the question. So we, um, the spreadsheet that was included with the report identified over the last few years, all the locations, and the results from that, we took it one step further over the last day to evaluate what the actual 85th percentile was. So just give us a minute. We can just kind of look at that if we reduce it to 31 miles per hour as 80 for the percentile. We can give you a number of, based on that, what that would have meant for the last set of requests that were received.

[00:40:54] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Great. So, um, we'll come back to your item then? Counselor McAllister, did you have another item?

[00:40:59] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, I just don't want a clarification. So, when we were talking about dollars and timing of a particular event, back in 2015, we had a fatality on Elmani. And the neighborhood sort of came along and said, Hey, you know, we gotta do something, et cetera, et cetera. It was a neighborhood type of event, but the neighborhood wanted a traffic coming to go in there. And it took for years to get that to go forward like that. So, um, would that be related to this a little bit, or is it a totally different animal, even though community wanted, you know, it was on a major street versus a neighborhood street. And it took us four years to get to that calming event and so forth. So.

[00:41:49] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Who would like to tackle that?

[00:41:54] Mr. Fuller: That incident was handled outside of the NTMP program. Um, what we saw that as was more, um, of an intersection design issue than a speeding issue. And so we went through a process of evaluating intersection improvements. We had several public meetings over it. There was some discussion about removing a crosswalk or not. Um, that generated quite a bit of, um, conversation and controversy. I think we went to CTC a couple of times on that project. So I went through quite a process to decide exactly what to do. We wound up with the lighted crosswalk. We wound up with eliminating a left turn conflict by eliminating one of the legs of the intersection. So it was really more complicated than a typical NTMP process. Out of that, though, we also heard concern about speeding. Um, and we view El Monte as um, different than your typical NTMP street. It's bounded by Springer and El Camino, and it's wide. And, um, so what we, and it wasn't obvious what to do. I mean, you know, just go out in Elmani and put in speed home. So we actually funded a separate project that's underway now to evaluate options at that intersection or at that corridor from Springer up to El Camino. So it's really a different animal than most of your MTMPs. It did take a while. There was a lot of process. We had to go through a formal design and bidding and contracting process and so on. So there are a lot of reasons that took quite a while.

[00:43:37] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, I know, I know the commute, but is there any avenue other than, I mean, a lot of that was brought up by the community in that neighborhood, particularly.

[00:43:47] Mr. Fuller: Absolutely.

[00:43:48] Councilmember John McAlister: So, is there any type of a procedure or device that, if that happens, something similar to that on a major street, that the community will reach out and will just do the same process that we sort of did on Elmani?

[00:44:02] Mr. Fuller: That is, um, a process that happens? There's an incident or an observation by a resident, they bring it up, generally getting a project like that into the capital improvement program, and then getting assigned to a project manager, getting it designed, getting it bid, it just takes a while. One of the things we've done to streamline that the last couple years, we have some placeholder funding in the CIP. They're either annuals or semi-annuals for intersection improvements where we can go out, we don't have to wait, get it in the CIP cycle and fund it and so on. We actually have some pots of money, we can go out and do spot improvements. Obviously, if they're, if they're large dollar amounts beyond that annual budget, Um, then we'd have to go through the normal CIP process. But that was an effort to streamline it so that if somebody did come in, we did see it as something that should be taken care of and should be taken care of quickly, we already have reserved pot of money for it.

[00:44:57] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay, so you sort of answer my next question is, what did we learn from that incident, and you said you...

[00:45:03] Mr. Fuller: Yeah, that's one of the things we learned.

[00:45:05] Councilmember John McAlister: And how quickly did that streamlining will affect from four years down to,

[00:45:09] Mr. Fuller: don't really have a number. It's very situational. Honestly, one of our issues right now is enough traffic staffing to manage the projects, but that's different than the capital budgeting issue. Independent contractor in me.

[00:45:22] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. All right. Do you have numbers?

[00:45:28] Unknown Speaker: Yes. So, just over some background, there were, again, the spreadsheet that was in the report, identified 38 locations since 2011. 10 qualified and were improvements were installed. So that means 28 did not qualify. If we had reduced the threshold for the 85th percent down, down to 31, out of the 28 that didn't qualify, 4 would have qualified.

[00:45:53] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Consumer Mirrors, did any further comments on that?

[00:45:57] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Um... Well, I would still be interested in... at least exploring that possibility if it makes possible some additional traffic calming, and having a better appreciation for the difference between 32 and 31, I think, would be helpful. You know, if, in my mind, the paramount concern is traffic safety. And if there's, if there's a material concern about traffic safety, you know, if it's 31 miles per hour at the 85th percentile, then it may still be worth pursuing traffic calming. The other thing that comes to mind is we make a distinction between, um, residential streets and residential streets in the school zone. And I wonder if it may be helpful to explore, um, include, you know, making a distinction between, you know, sort of conventional residential streets and then streets that are adjacent to other pedestrian generators. So, like a park, or community center, or something, if maybe a reduced threshold would make sense in those circumstances, because we can reasonably anticipate, you know, additional pedestrian traffic to get to that park, or other, um, you know, public facility. So that, that, those would be the 2 things I'd be interested in exploring.

[00:47:14] Unknown Speaker: Yes, uh, this stuff. One way we can handle those type of things are outside of NTMP, we can do intersection improvements, as Mike had mentioned, crosswalk improvements. Sylvan was a good example where we did several lighted crosswalks to get to the park, and we didn't light every crosswalk on Sylvan, but the ones that were focused near the park near the generator. So we can handle some of those type of things outside of NTMP.

[00:47:47] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Do you have a request or...? What would you like to do?

[00:47:51] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Well, I mean, would there be interested in exploring and producing the threshold, I guess? I don't know how effective it would be.

[00:48:02] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Well, if a council would like to have staff look at this further, Could you bring it back again when you bring the entire item back? Is that satisfactory? Right?

[00:48:16] Unknown Speaker: I guess we would just want to know, how do you want us to... We need some direction on what you want us to analyze.

[00:48:24] Unknown Speaker: If I could just weigh in with the impacts of changing the threshold. Basically, what it's gonna mean is, more streets are gonna qualify. And that means probably more streets are gonna get these traffic calming measures. You can see, in this particular data set, four more streets would have qualified for the program. I don't know that we're going to come back with anything that is definitive on, you know, 31 versus 32 other than, um, you know, some percentage are going to be higher. So what I don't want to do is disappoint you with the level of analysis we're capable of doing. Um, you know, it's going to be some version of we're going to qualify and some fraction of those are going to survive through the process and get the, um, get the improvements installed. Are you looking for different numbers? So 31 versus 30 versus 32 or...

[00:49:25] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: The challenge, I faces, the number feels arbitrary, right? And I don't I don't know what a good number would be. And it may be, I don't know if there's a way to determine what a fair number would be. But I assume that staff landed on 32 miles per hour for some specific reason. And if it's just, you know, it ties into the enforcement threshold very well, you know, that's, I guess, as good a reason as any, but if we're looking at, if part of the intention of modifying the program is to, um, make additional requests for traffic only successful, this is probably the key barrier. And so it would be worth evaluating. If we don't want to evaluate it, that's fine. But, you know, the other modifications that we make probably won't significantly increase the number of traffic combing requests that ultimately are implemented.

[00:50:21] Unknown Speaker: What we can certainly come back with is that key question, a number on the threshold. We can provide the data from that data set on how many more would have qualified with as we would lower the threshold. And then it's a very simple question about one parameter of the program. And if that serves your desire and counsel's wish, then we can do that.

[00:50:43] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: I'd be comfortable. with that.

[00:50:46] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Council members who would like that information, hands up, please.

[00:50:49] Unknown Speaker: I have a question. Okay. So my question is how, okay, was that the only criteria? Was it Miles? Was there any other criteria that would say this particular street didn't qualify? Was it the one mile an hour?

[00:51:05] Unknown Speaker: In this case, yes. Up for the four. Yes.

[00:51:08] Unknown Speaker: Okay, so, okay, that's what I just... I'm gonna get to counseling their matter check, yes. Um, I won't ask my question. That's okay. Never mind.

[00:51:20] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. Okay. So, um, those interested in getting this information about the different speed thresholds? Hands up, please.

[00:51:46] (archive recording) Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: And if they could just include, if there's anything we're not thinking of other than, yes, more will qualify. Are there any other sort of secondary second order impacts that I'm not thinking of, that would be helpful to know, if you think of any, yeah.

[00:51:59] (archive recording) Unknown Speaker: We'll think of that.

[00:52:00] (archive recording) Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Great. All right, and that was unanimous. So anything else on this item? No? Steph, good. All right. Thank you very much. That concludes our study session. We will start the regular session at 6:30. So we have a few minutes before that. Thank you.

[00:59:50] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. And before I start the next item, I just want to remind the members of the public. Um, if you wish to speak on an item, and you'd like to consolidate your time, um, with 5 or more members of, in the, of the public in attendance, um, if you can complete the speaker cards, and, um, give them to the city clerk. Um, we can give you up to 10 minutes if those members choose not to speak. So I just wanted to mention that before we start, so you have some time to organize if you'd like to do that. And we will now move to our presentation. And this evening, we have a proclamation, a recognizing gate path on their 100th anniversary. Gate path is our operator. Hello, welcome. GamePath is our operator of our childcare center at Rankstorff Park. And so I will come down and read the proclamation, and if you'd like to come up and receive it. Nice. Yes. Great. Thank you. Um, so, I'm gonna go ahead and read the proclamation. Whereas gate path, a nonprofit established in 1920, to improve the health and welfare of children with developmental disabilities in San Mateo County, is celebrating its milestone 100th anniversary in 2020. And whereas over the years, GatePath has developed a large portfolio of services that today supports individuals with special needs and developmental disabilities of all ages from infants to seniors. And whereas gate path with 300 dedicated staff members provides direct services at 13 locations in both Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties, and whereas gate path now one of the largest nonprofits serving the disabled community on the peninsula, impacts more than 15,000 families, caregivers, and individuals each year with its programs. And whereas gate pass services include developmental screenings for children, early intervention and pediatric therapy, inclusive preschools, social, and recreational opportunities for youth, employment training and placement, as well as community integration, and independent living skills for adults. And whereas GatePath is proud to celebrate 100 years of creating a world where people of all abilities are accepted, respected, and included in all aspects of our society, from the classroom to the workplace, and is committed to ensuring inclusive opportunities are available to the disabled population for decades to come. Now, therefore, I, Margaret Abecoga, mayor of the city of Mountain View, along with my colleagues on the city council, do hereby congratulate GatePath, on its celebration of 100 years of serving the community, and for its work to empower people with special needs, and developmental disabilities, to achieve their full potential through innovative, inclusive programs, and community partnerships signed and sealed this 11th day of February 2020. Congratulations, and thank you for your service in our community. We're grateful to have you.

[01:03:58] Presenter: Want to let the folks know who you are?

[01:04:00] Pere Moraska: Uh, good evening, city council members. My name is Pere Moraska. I've lived at 1585, Studios in Mountain View, just a short joint down here for about a record 5 years now. I mean, it's it's been an incredible, uh, crazy journey. Wow. But now, seeing as I am the ambassador of abilities United and Game Pass, I feel somewhat like a superhero, because I woke up to my favorite Marvel superhero, Mr. Tony Stark, a.k.a. Iron Man. So I feel like Iron Man.

[01:04:43] Presenter: You are a superhero pair. Thai?

[01:04:45] Ty: Hello, my name is Ty. I am adult participant at Abilities United slash gatepath and I am also on our children's development committee.

[01:04:56] Presenter: Thank you, gentlemen. Appreciate you being up here with me. As the mayor mentioned, we were celebrating 100 years. I started as an intern. That was supposed to be a joke. 100 years ago. There you go. Anyway, we have revenues about 22 million, which puts us in the top 2% of nonprofits in the United States. So believe it or not, we're one of the larger ones out there at 22 million. As the proclamation noted, we have 13 locations in both counties, and 300 dedicated staff reaching about 1250 people every single day. Um, we provide a lifespan of service. We start with early intervention and early assessments. We do free screenings across all of San Mateo County. Uh, and then that goes into a uh, several therapeutic services provide from early intervention, physical therapy, occupational therapy, speech, and then we operate 3 inclusive preschools. After that, we have adult service programs, which include employment, independent living support, day programs, community access programs. And then we also are working on a new program to help integrate high school programs into adulthood, developing a curriculum that is helping to lead to the next stage of life, which is independence, acceptance and inclusion in the community. So we're very proud of all of that. Our mission, vision and values. It really is 3 words, except respect include. Very simple statement, but a very big heart and a very big mission of what we're hoping to achieve. I think we made a lot of progress. And we think Mountain View has certainly been a wonderful partner for us and being able to bring inclusion in the preschool over a ringstorf. Um, We also summer uh, sponsor the summer movie nights for Mountain View families. We have 100s of children receiving therapy and family support services. So we've been a provider of family support services for nearly 30 years. It is a very complicated web of support for the families that we serve. And we have a resource center that is there to help them navigate the complex system. We have community access groups. And local business partners helping further our mission here in beautiful Mountain View. Next is the list of a lot of our community partners. I hope there's a lot of logos here that you recognize. They're helping make employment a reality for the folks we serve before joining GatePath in Belize United. I work in the tech industry for about 30 years on electronic arts. And electronic arts was a very early employer and inclusive campus. And I think once you've seen the power of an inclusive setting, It makes the community that much better. Everybody has something to gain from it. And so, certainly, we want to acknowledge all of these employers and many more to help further our mission of independence. Some things that we continue to look for in community support. It's client and workforce housing. So workforce for our staffs and also, as per mentioned, he lives in an independent center, as does Thai, right down the street on El Camino Real. Employment opportunities, volunteer opportunities, access to facilities for programs. Improve state and federal funding. I hate to say this, but California's 50th out of all 50 states in per capita funding for our community, which is pretty sad. Voter accessibility and improved transportation options are critically important. And those are things that we can all do to help improve the access to our community at large for the folks that we serve. Last but not least, on May 14th, for a 100 celebration, we have Henry Winkler and Dr. Temple Granting coming to our event at the Marriott Airport Hotel. If you'd like, I'll take your credit cards and process your tickets now. Should be another fun evening. And with that, I just want to thank the mayor and the city council in the city of Mountain View for all of your support. Per, thank you for being up here. Thai, thank you for joining me. Thank you. So with that, again, appreciate the proclamation, the recognition of our work in the community. Thank you.

[01:08:44] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Thank you so much, and congratulations. Thank you. Moving on now to item four, the consent calendar. These items will be approved by one motion, unless any member of the council wishes to remove an item for discussion. The reading of the full text of resolutions will be waived unless the council member requests otherwise. Would any member of the council like to pull an item, and would, uh, there might be some announcements, I believe, on these items, Councilman or Clark?

[01:09:22] Councilmember Chris Clark: So I, um, I'm recusing myself from item 4.3 to do a, uh, real property ownership interest located in close proximity to the project site. Thank you.

[01:09:34] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: And customer member McAllister.

[01:09:36] Councilmember John McAlister: I, too, am recruiting myself from this item due to my leasehold and business entity interest located in close proximity to this project site. But I also wanted to make a comment on the minutes from last week also.

[01:09:53] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So, uh, would you like to pull that item, then?

[01:09:59] Councilmember John McAlister: It is not a particular item. Well, it's the minutes. It's not a consent calendar, but it's the minute, still. 4. 4.1. Yeah, 4. point point.

[01:10:06] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Is it comments or corrections?

[01:10:07] Councilmember John McAlister: Comments. Comments.

[01:10:09] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: All right, so... I will go ahead and... I'll pull four pint. One, any other items to be pulled by council members?

[01:10:18] Unknown Speaker: No.

[01:10:19] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: If not, are there any members of the public wishing to speak on an item on consent calendar? If not, I'll close public comment. Um, why don't we go ahead and vote on the balance of the... consent calendar, so all items, other than 4.1. Actually, why don't we go ahead and if it's just a comment, could we do 4.one? If you can make your comments, Counselor McAllister on 4.1.

[01:10:51] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, so, um, I'd like to make a comment. On the janitorial service request for proposals last week, I wasn't here, so I really can't say too much about the voting. But I had a couple observations that were concerning to me. And the 2 were, one, we... I've been doing accounts for 8 years, and been a businessman for 40 years, and to go with an R of P, that you have no idea what the dollar amount's going to be is concerning to me. I mean, I think, in some regard, you're setting a precedent that, you know, when staff says, staff does not recommend requiring that Danutorial service contract be a signature to the NCMCA due to the potential budget impacts and obligations. The city obligating the city to an agreement, resulting from negotiations that the city is not a party, too. You guys made decisions and we'll live with it. But I think we need to be very cautious about obligating city funds on a contract. And I, in my 40 years, I've never entered into a contract that I didn't know where it was going to come out. So that was concerning to me. And the second part of this thing was that, I felt the staff report was presenting labor's position and telling the city, this is what you're going to have in an RFP. And I don't think that's appropriate. I think staff that laid out a good project, you know, a good consensus. But when a third party says, this is what you need to do for an RFP, I think that's crossing the line, and we should be very cautious about how third parties come to us and try to advocate for their position. And that I think staff reports need to continue to be independent and focused on what's best for the city. So, those are my comments on that particular app. Thank you.

[01:12:54] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Councilman Ramirez.

[01:12:57] Councilmember Lucas Ramirez: Thank you. I move to approve the consent calendar, including, adopt a resolution authorizing the city manager to execute program supplement agreement number F 025 to the administering, uh, agency state agreement of uh, for federal aid projects agreement number, uh, 04, uh, 512, for F15, with the state of California, acting by, and through its department of transportation for intersection traffic signal system, uh, major replacements and upgrades, Shoreline Boulevard and Villa Street, Project 16-27 to be read entitled only for the reading wave.

[01:13:35] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Any other discussion on this item? We have a motion by Council member Ramirez? Second by council member McAllister. Let's vote. And motion carries unanimously. Thank you. We are moving on to 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 3 minutes during this section. If there appears to be a large number of speakers, speaking time may be reduced to no less than one. 5 minutes. State law prohibits counsel from acting on non-agenda items. Are there any members of the public wishing to speak on a nonagenda? Item? Could you could raise your hands, please? Is it one, two, three, four, five, six? Um, all right, I will set the time for two minutes. And if you can fill out a blue card before or after. Appreciate it, and please come up to the podium. Welcome.

[01:14:45] Jackie Cashin: Okay, Jackie Cashin, thankfully, still a resident of Mountain View, despite almost losing that opportunity, I am here to speak about measuring D, as I'm sure you all know, measure D's creating some very strong feelings on both sides. Um, We understand the city council's efforts to create a new measure or modify the existing measure in an attempt to make it more fair to both sides. Um, I speak for myself and many others when I say I just don't think we've gotten there yet. When it was tied to the CPI, the maximum rent increase, stayed under 4%. Now the minimum increase will be 4%. In addition, now that the landlords are allowed to pass certain costs through without having to get approval from the rental housing committee. Those effective, we've estimated those effective rent increases could approach 10%. And given the economy and the number of people in a city like this who are struggling just to maintain a roof over their heads. It's just wrong. I mean, we just cannot do that to the citizens of Mountain View. The other part of it, which is something I want to address is the funding. Now, obviously, California Apartments Association has a very strong vested interest in this. As to a lot of parties in this city. But they have port a huge amount of money into this campaign, even though many of them, although they have business interests in this city, do not actually live in Mountain View. They won't be affected by this in some of the ways that the rest of us will. And I am concerned that the amount of money that they have funneled into the campaign will just overwhelm the efforts of anybody who disagrees with them. And I don't think this is how we should be running politics in our city. It should be the citizens who are making these decisions, not special interests. Thank you.

[01:16:48] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Next speaker. Welcome.

[01:16:53] Lisa Guevara: Good evening. My name is Lisa Guevara. I am a longtime Mountain View resident since 1995, and I have lived at 440 Moffatt Boulevard, number 35. I currently work in tech, although I haven't always, and I do not believe that measure D is representative of both my interests and the interests of the mobile home community. I appreciate and would thank you if you would rethink your sport. Thank you.

[01:17:26] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Next speaker. please.

[01:17:33] Public Speaker: Hi, honorable city council, thank you for this time. I also support No and Measure D. I also just came from the rental stabilization, um, meeting at, uh, the community center. Um, we talked about a lot of things. Hopefully that you, as our elected officials, can please listen to that, hopefully get a committee going to help seniors. And veterans like myself and other people that try to keep some kind of affordable housing in the Bay Area. Uh, we keep uh, we keep uh, complaining about the homelessness in the city. You guys made a band on mobile homes, um, motor homes, not parking certain places. You know, you're slowly trying to push people out. I grew up here in Mountain View all my life. I, uh, I went to school here, graduated high school here. I went to elementary school here, everything. And I, gee, I like to stay here. My daughter who just walked out. Also was raised in Mountain View. Um, so I just hope you, you know, use your conscience. You know, think about the people. You know, we all pledge of allegiance, right, to the flag, and one of it says, justice for all. Think about that word, justice for all. Thank you.

[01:19:02] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Next speaker, welcome up.

[01:19:09] Tim Mackenzie: My name's Tim Mackenzie, I live on Rankstorfav. I'm also here to say that I'm against measure D, and I wanted to also bring up the The funding campaign. There's less than a handful of groups that in a month or 2 were able to bring together more money than I make in 2 years working a full-time job as a scientist. Um, and it's sort of, it's just an example of the erosion of our democracy that has been happening since Citizens United, and we shouldn't be having special interest groups funneling in money to try to that overturn what people in the city want, have been knocking on doors, talking to my neighbors about measure D, and some people actually thought that the mailer that was sent out by the California Department Association was official communications from the city council, um, which is really troubling development to me. Um, I just wanted to make that known, and, against the, against the special interest money that's coming in, trying to change what, what people are thinking because they have more money than we do. Thank you.

[01:20:16] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Thanks, speaker. Welcome up.

[01:20:24] Megan Fraley: Hi, I'm Megan Fraley, Mountain View resident, clinical psychologist, and very active community member. Um, just a couple things. One, I wanted to say thank you to all of you for the unanimous vote in support of the janitorial RFP that will really guarantee that we're not paying poverty wages with public money. So, thank you for kind of taking a stand here in Mountain View, on continued progress and human dignity. Um, in that vein. I think one thing every single person in this room, I would imagine, agrees on is that rent is too high, and our community is becoming less and less accessible to people, and the diversity, racial, economic diversity is on the decrease. Um, you know, we all have different um, kind of perspectives and ideologies in terms of how to solve the housing crisis. So that's just a given and to put that aside, um, I would just want to speak to, um, a request for city council to kind of stand with the community and, um, Can take a stand with the community against the influx of special interest money. There's a lot of people in the community that are kind of coming together that believe in no one D, and we're up against, for those of us who have that stance, all opinions are welcome, but for those of us who think no on D, we're facing, I can't remember, but it might be up to half $10000, 200, just an incredible amount of special interest money that's not Mountain View residents, and some of what we see on the flyers are half truths, um, the tenants were kind of anyway. So what I would request is that we kind of take a stand against disinformation in this era, where that is the number one threat to democracy. So thank you again for taking a stand on the janitorial RFP and human dignity and diversity in Mountain View. Thank you.

[01:22:22] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. Thanks, speaker, welcome.

[01:22:29] Michael Chase: Hi, my name is Michael Chase, I've been a resident in Mountain View for 32 years. In October, the staff put together a presentation to discuss things that could be done about the housing crisis in Mountain View. And I think that was a positive step. Measure D is a step backwards. It is, in fact, a an increase in rents, plus whatever landlords can tack on to, and tack on to that. I think we need to consider the fact that the majority of people in Mountain View are renters, and rent is too high in Mound View, as well as the rest of the Bay Area. Wages do not keep up with inflation, they do not keep up with rent increases. And eventually, people will be kicked out of the area by virtue of the fact that they can't afford to live here anymore. So I think the council should strongly consider the proposals they put together by staff in October, rather than going through with measure D. Also, I think you should consider the fact that many of the people who here who rent are immigrants and can't participate in this process. Housing is a necessity. It's not something that we can do without. We all need housing. And we say housing is a human right. Thank you.

[01:24:05] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Next speaker, welcome.

[01:24:09] Public Speaker: Yeah, so, uh, I guess when I was a kid, I used to watch the History Channel a lot, and they used to call it the Hitler Channel because it was all about Hitler all the time in World War II. And I used to think, oh, look, you know, my year old self used to think, oh, look, the United States, so good. We're all about good. We're the best. And, oh, those crazy people. Uh, they are bad. They use power to do bad things. We use power to do good things. And I used to think that, um, and I guess, you know, with Bush and with, uh, you know, all the other stuff that's going on right now, I've obviously learned that that's not always the case. But I always used to think that local government was too small to actually try to hurt people, to use their power, to hurt people. And then, obviously, you know, for those of you who don't know, I'm from Bell. So then I actually learned that that isn't also the case, but then I thought in Mountain View, certainly our local elected officials use their power to help us. And so, I'm just wondering, like, what is the reason that people amass power, why do they seek it? Why do they want it? I would hope that they would do it to help others, to really help others. that when they're on a certain elevated position, if you will, that they will use that opportunity to help and communicate what the truth of the matter is, and to actually look out for people. And so I'm very, very disheartened when there is lies of omission and have truths that are being perpetuated in order to convince people to vote against their own interests. Just like, why? I think some people just genuinely believe it. And I think it's worse when you know it's wrong and you do it anyway. Thank you.

[01:26:14] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Any other members of the public wishing to speak? If not, I will close oral communication and move on to item six, we have no public hearings, so we'll go to item seven, new business. 7.1, fiscal year 2019, 20, mid-year budget status report, and recommended mid-year adjustments for fiscal year 2020 and 2021 preliminary general operating fund forecast, as well as fiscal year 2019, 20, performance workload measures, and we have the presentation by Mr. Jesse Takahashi, our finance and administrative services director, welcome.

[01:26:57] Finance and Administrative Services Director Jesse Takahashi: Thank you very much. Good evening. Mayor McCoge, and council members. Tonight, we'll be covering the midyear budget status report for Fiscal 1920. And before I do get into that, I just wanted to acknowledge and thank my staff, who's worked very hard on not only putting together this report, and a lot of the numbers and information, but also on the budget and process in general. So they're with us tonight. Should there be any questions at the outset or at the end of this presentation. So, what I'd like to do is go into just an overview, the outline of what we'll be covering tonight, and hopefully, we'll be getting through most of this fairly quickly. will cover the status itself for this fiscal year. We'll cover some of the recommended adjustments that we're asking counsel to consider tonight. And then we'll also get into a look at the fiscal 2021 preliminary general operating fund forecast and then go over some of the remaining steps to the budget process and then have time for question and answer. So the 1st chart here is a summary of our revenues for the general operating fund. They're broken down into several categories, as you can see, the largest to the left, property tax, sales tax, other local taxes, use of money and property, other revenues, enter fund, revenues, and transfers. Total estimated revenues for the fiscal years, it revised revenues are $149 million at the midyear, which is close to our adjusted budget. So that's pretty much on track in the aggregate. With respect to some of the components, the largest portion, property taxes are estimated at just under 55 million. That is running about 4% below budget. Although it is higher than prior actuals. Residential and commercial property values do remain strong, although we are seeing some signs of slowing growth of late. Moving on to sales tax, sales tax are estimated at 22.7 million, or about 5.7% higher than budget, but really flat with the prior year after adjusting for corrections that were made by the CDTFA or the state agency that allocates the sales taxes to the city. This is a trend that we have been watching for the last several years, and essentially is one where sales taxes effectively have been slowing down and flat or even in slight decline. So this is something that we are continuing to monitor ongoing. The other category of local taxes, which includes transient occupancy tax, business license, utility taxes, or estimated $18.5 million, a little bit over one% under budget, and again, indicative of a broader downturn that we're seeing in both TOT and utility users' tax revenues. The increase over the prior year is actually due to a the increase from the prior year is actually due to the restructured business license tax that we expect will yield about $6 million over the next several years in additional revenues, but this is being phased in over a three-year period. So we're going to see like a one third increase each year until we get to the full amount. And then, use of money and property. is estimated at $23 million, which is in line with budget, and the remaining categories, there are no significant variances to report. Looking at the expenditures for the general operating fund, Total expenditures are estimated at $135 million, which is net of assumed budget savings of $2.3 million, and that's something that we've been doing for some time now. We understand there's a lot of transition and vacancies, and so we've built in that amount of savings into our estimates. The budget is currently trending about 2.9%, under adjusted budget, or roughly $4 million, so that's a good thing. Personnel costs represent the majority of those total salaries and benefits. And there's a lot of projected savings due to vacancies and employee turnover services and supplies are on track with the adopted budget. Or with the adopted budget, yes, and however, 15% below the adjusted budget. The remaining categories are on track with budget. And uh, Almost all departments are trending below budget, individually at the midyear, with in the aggregate, the adopted or positive, the aggregate positive variance is about $4 million. The next slide is really the combination of what our general operating fund made your summary looks like, including revenues, expenditures, and the bottom line, $149 million in revenues, expenditures being $4 million, um, below adjusted budget. And after recommended contributions, including unfunded pension and retiree health, and other reserves, that we have provided four. There is a positive operating balance of $4.2 million for that we estimate at the end of the fiscal year. So again, positive positive news to report. So that's the general operating fund summary, is where we are, and we'll move on to other major funds. And so in the other major funds, we have the 1st is our development services fund. We have noted that activity has been slowing down a bit. relative to prior years. Revenues are estimated at 17, a little over 17 million, which is a little bit over 6.5%, lower than budget, operating expenditures are estimated at $17.5 million, which is about $26 million lower than adjusted budget. And that significant difference is primarily due to salary savings, resulting from various vacancies and transition, as well as other operating savings. There's a projected ending balance at $17 million. And for this fund, that balance is needed to provide support for multi year projects, in which fees have been already paid up front, as well as to maintain operations, should there be another economic slowdown, which we are anticipating in the near future. Cost of services study is also underway, which we expect to be completed later this fiscal year. The next major fund is the shoreline golf links and restaurant. And so, this is our Michael's restaurant, as well as the golf course that we have out the shoreline, revenues and expenditures for this fund are running below budget, both. We expect to have an operating balance of about $27,000, close to break even by the end of the fiscal year. And if there's, we estimate that there won't be a transfer to the general operating fund this year. We had budgeted about a $275,000 transfer, but it appears that there will likely not be that made this year. The last, well, major fund is the shoreline community, and its operating revenues, which are made up generally, property taxes are estimated at $48 million, running about 5% lower than budget. And this was due to lower, unsecured, assessed values, as well as due to lower praise value on 2 large properties this past year than what we had anticipated. Expenditures for the shoreline community are estimated at $30 million, about $1.7 million lower than budget. And the current fiscal year includes approximately $88 million in capital improvement projects, and these are primarily funded by long term debt proceeds from debt that we issued last year. The estimated balance for this is $8.7 million, with reserves is $21 million. And then we'll move on to our enterprise funds, so we have three enterprise funds, water waste, water solid waste. These water revenues are trending at $38 million, or $38 million, about one% higher than the budget. Water usage is up from the priors, which is a good thing, which helps improve the financial condition of the fund, but still way below the 2013 drought baseline. The expenditure side, our estimated $33 million, which is about $12.5 million below the budget, and would point out that there is a minimum water purchase requirement that the city has, which approximate $2.3 million for this year. And that amount is included in the water funds budget. Going to the wastewater fund, wastewater revenues estimated it just under $25 million, and these are on track with budget. The expenditures are at 18.1 million, running about almost $4.5 million below budget, partly due to a credit that was received related to the treatment plan expenses as well as operating savings. And then our last enterprise fund, solid waste fund, city revenues are estimated at $16.7 million, the midyear, a little bit under $5.5 million, higher than budgeted, expenditures at just under $15 million, which is 7.5% lower than the budget. And that, again, being due to operating savings, which were somewhat offset by higher smart station costs that come out of an annual reconciliation that is done. So that represents a summary of our utilities, and that leads us to our next slide, which is recommended mid year adjustments, that are proposed. And these, there's a number of those, the first being the positions, seven positions that are related to sustainability spending plan that was approved by the council back in October of 2019. Seven positions are being recommended tonight, again, for midyear. Three additional positions will be brought forward with the operating budget for the fiscal 21 budget. We also have a 1.0 mechanic equipment mechanic that's being proposed, as well as reclassification of a communications operations supervisor position, to emergency communications manager, and salary range adjustment for the public safety support services manager position. We also have recommendation for increasing steps for public safety dispatcher positions, and as well, finally, a salary plant update, which would incorporate all of these items, assuming that they are approved by council. So moving on to the preliminary general operating fund forecast. If there's no questions at this time, for next year, some of the assumptions that are built into the forecast were just summarized here for some of the major revenue sources. So property taxes, of course, is our largest revenue source. We are actually forecasting a relatively small change at 1.3%. We're saying that property values, while they're still growing, are not quite as strong as we've seen in the past. Or if we look from what we're estimating for this fiscal year, it still represents about a 5.7% increase. So, but still is down from prior years. So this is based on existing, the existing tax base, as well as continue new developments that are in the pipeline. Sales tax, we see a 3% increase, so thus far from the FY20 adopted budget. However, we will be seeing a 3% decrease reflecting the recent weakness from the source over the past few years. So, again, that trend has been more a little bit more negative than of late. And so, yeah, and that's something that we're watching. Other local taxes is a little bit higher at a 9% expected increase, and that primarily is due to the restructured business license tax that I had mentioned, which became effective this January, and which is expected to bring in approximately $4 million next year. These revenues are, well, well, that $4 million will come into the general fund, the majority of that, almost 90% actually will be transferred out. to other funds for transportation and housing, and we'll see that a little bit on the expenditure side. use of money and property. We're expecting a 5% increase, primarily related to escalation clauses in our lease agreements. And in summary, total revenues are expected to increase about $4 million, $4.2 million, or 2.9% next year. So we will move on to the expenditure side, and some of the expected percentage changes there, salary and benefits that we're including will provide for minimum wage increases that are effective, this last month, increases in retirement contributions and health care changes. And I would just point out that it does not include any changes or impacts for requested from the mid year adjustments here tonight, as well as any new staffing requests, or any of the salary benefit adjustments that would be coming forth from the upcoming labor negotiations. So, we didn't put any of that in. So that's just a reminder note, to be aware of. Services and supplies, being projected at about 4 a little over 4%, capital outlay equipment, and replacement, as well, at a similar rate. These actually are reflecting somewhat of a lower average than our annual replacement percentages are given our history. But this year, we will probably have a slightly lower than average need for replacement of equipment compared to prior years. And then, the interfund expenditures transfers, 27.3, pretty high, primarily, again, that is related to about $3.7 million that are going to be transferred out of those business license tax revenues out to the transportation reserve and to the housing reserve. So that's why that looks relatively high for this year, or for next year. And then we had a new item for debt service. We expect to issue about $12 million in COPs, certificates of participation, long term debt related to the help street development, and so we are building in about a million dollars for debt service. Again, just to sum next year, we anticipate about a 4% increase, or $5.5 million in general operating fund expenses expenditures. And this is a summary of what that forecast looks like. So we have revenues of 152 and a half million, 141 million of expenditures, including the contributions transfers to the reserves, that would leave a balance of $9.7 million projected for next year. And again, I just, just to reiterate, that does exclude items that are being requested for next year, any positions, the major adjustments, the impacts from the recent decision on the janitorial services. So those items are not built into that $9.7 million balance yet. The forecast will be updated. When we come back, staff comes back with the narrative budget report in April, along with the city managers recommendations for allocating any operating balances. And then, after all that, this is what is remaining in terms of the process for the budget. We will have a couple of CIP study sessions. Actually, prior to that, we'll be meeting department meetings with the city manager will be later this month in February. Then we'll have CIP study sessions in March and April. We'll have the narrative budget report in April, and then finally, we'll have a public hearing for the proposed budget, as well as hearings for utility rates, if that's needed, and then also finally, hopefully, to adopt the budget and capital improvement on June 23rd. So that's the, hopefully, end of the process. And those are our remaining steps. Lastly, we have just a couple of slides that summarize the recommendations for counsel. They're actually in two slides. And that concludes my presentation, and this is the time, if we have comments, direction, or questions, that staff is here to be happy to answer. Thank you.

[01:47:00] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: We have some questions from Council members, Council member Clark.

[01:47:04] Councilmember Chris Clark: Just had one, the, um, the 2020, 2021 preliminary, um, revenue forecast. I was just surprised to see sales tax at 3%, given its recent history tax. Do you just have data from early 2020, suggesting it's gonna grow versus shrink like it, or stay...

[01:47:26] Finance Director: Yeah, and the sales tax number or percentage?

[01:47:30] Councilmember Chris Clark: No, 3%. I was just surprised, because I think, in the prior, prior year, we predicted it would fall, but...

[01:47:36] Finance Director: Yeah, and the, um... Let's see. The sales tax amount, and that was, may have been compared to the, um, adopted budget. So depending upon which budget that we are looking at, and...

[01:47:53] Councilmember Chris Clark: It was slide nine. It's not that important. I was just curious about the assumptions beyond it.

[01:47:57] Finance Director: We can, I can follow up off line, if you want.

[01:47:59] Councilmember Chris Clark: But it was like...

[01:48:00] Finance Director: Essential, yeah, and that, because we're comparing it to the adopted or to the adjusted, and because of the correction, I had reference that affected our previous adopted budget, because we didn't know at that time that they were making those late payment. And so,

[01:48:20] Councilmember Chris Clark: oh, I see. I understand.

[01:48:23] Finance Director: Consistency, that's what we're using. But when we actually look at the actual, so if you adjust and try to remove the effects of that, those late payments of timing, the trend is that it's been flat. So it's not really going to be a 3%. And, actually, I'll ask Suzy if she, if that is correct, but it's a timing issue in terms of that 3%, and it was based on our adopted budget for fiscal 20,

[01:48:57] Councilmember Chris Clark: Fiscal 20? Okay. That's helpful. Thank you.

[01:49:00] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Got some McAllister.

[01:49:02] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, um... So, in this report, there was a couple things that were in bold print, and that related to the janitorial service, will that be coming back to the council before you start doing any more of your, uh, forecasting a budgeting items, that particular contract?

[01:49:22] Finance Director: Well, there is a process that's gonna go out for an RFP, and so, and we actually have our public works director here, that could certainly help address that, but the timing is such that it may be difficult to get new information before that contract is awarded.

[01:49:40] Public Works Director Dawn Cameron: Generally that's correct. Don Cameron, public works directly. RRP timeline has his receiving proposals back around July, and it'll probably be September before we negotiate a contract and have an idea what it's going to cost.

[01:49:56] Councilmember John McAlister: So then, for budgetary purposes, You just...

[01:49:59] Public Works Director Dawn Cameron: We provided an estimate of what we think it could cost, and have provided that as part of our annual budget request to account for what we estimate it will cost, if it will cost significantly more than that, or the results are significantly different, we would have to come back to council to change the appropriation.

[01:50:21] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. Thank you. As I was reading through here, it seemed a little bit foretelling, because I kept reading decline in unsecured asset value, GOF forecasting revenue growing, but at a slower rate. Revenue under budget. Sales tax revenue has either declined or seen little growth, indicating a possible economic slow turn. Slow down. Development actually is slowing, showing signs of slowing in the current fiscal year. So these are... If you read the tea leaves, it doesn't sound like we're going to, we need to buckle up our felts here, and we'll be a little more conservative. So is that an approach that you're taking throughout this budgetary process, with this particular one, that you are going to be more conservative than normal?

[01:51:13] Finance Director: So, yeah, very good question. And I should note that over the last couple of years, several years, we've been sort of on the lookout for the change in the economic winds. We have been seeing signs that there are things locally in our city that are giving way to concern for possible slowdown, even though there's sort of mixed signals right now out there. And so this budget for fiscal 21 as well as for 22, we have been a little bit more conservative in our estimates and projections, giving an assumption that there would be a slowdown, not necessarily a recession. But some kind of a slowdown. So that's part of what we're building into the next couple of years' budget estimates. We do anticipate that we'll come out of it. say year three and beyond. But for the first couple years, Fiscal 21, Fiscal 22, we are being a little bit more conservative in what we're projecting for that very reason.

[01:52:31] Councilmember John McAlister: Have we then, since labor and salaries of one of our highest cost, our budget item, are we looking at tightening up our hiring? Has that started yet? When you go out to the department head, say, Hey, be cautious on really, how you hire now?

[01:52:52] Finance Director: Well, I think we've actually been cautious, at least, you know, as long as I've been here. I know, well, first of all, we have a lot of vacancies, and we've had a hard time actually hiring staffing. And so, you know, that's been kind of taken care of some of the budgetary, you know, savings that we've been having. We just can't find people. But there's also workload issue that has to be dealt with. And so there are quite a few requests in the budget for this year, and that those requests are yet to be sort of analyzed and brought forward as far as recommendations, but that's definitely something that, I think, staff, city manager in the transition is looking at. and is very mindful of what potentially is forthcoming, and how sustainable can we go, but at the same time, trying to balance out the need for additional staffing based on, you know, workload, um, with what we can afford fiscally.

[01:53:57] Councilmember John McAlister: So going along on that idea of vacancies of employees. I've always noticed that it's sort of a holder place, because you never have full employment here. And so we're always under budget because of the vacancies that goes up and goes down. And I guess you got, in your report, you sort of said it's a tough guess of where we're going at that. So, Has there been any trying to get a little better analytical approach to saying, well, if what our true vacancy of jobs is going to be, and so that would give a truer picture of the budget, then?

[01:54:35] Finance Director: Well, we work with the city manager's office in HR and trying to maintain, you know, where we are position wise, but it is, I think, a difficult, it's a moving target. We've seen a lot of retirements over the last handful of years, and I think that's going to continue. So, I don't think we've, you know, found the answer in terms of, here's how we come up with, you know, what our exact rate is, because, you know, they're various positions, um, we do know, um, over time, based on, you know, those folks that have long tenure, that are retiring, that is, uh, that are being replaced with newer folks, which is coming in at lower, um, salaries. which, actually, in some of the projections, the salary projections are actually a little lower than you might otherwise expect, and that's one of the reasons, is because a lot of the folks are retiring and replacing with newer staff, as well as, you know, the retirement, the cow per's benefit, too. So there's sort of this offset of costs, you know, as people are leaving, get new people in, so that, you know, we might have some savings there. But, you know, in terms of the actual number positions and the type of positions, I think it's been a little difficult, and I don't know if we have any other staff here that would like to sort of address how we're monitoring the number.

[01:56:04] Councilmember John McAlister: That's okay. You're pretty good. My last question is, is on the water. So this 2.3 penalty that you were talking about. You said that's in this on page 17 somewhere. Because, I mean, how can it be a penalty? Because we know we're going to be charged for X amount of water. We use it, we don't use it. We're still being charged. So how can it be a penalty? If, you know, in that. So answer that, and then the next question is, why isn't everybody just, that dollar amount that we know and divide it up and say everybody pays for it instead of, all of a sudden, it's a penalty coming out of a reserve, so.

[01:56:47] Finance Director: So I think I will defer this to our assistant finance director, Susie. Okay. And see if she can take a good stab at that first.

[01:56:57] Assistant Finance Director Susie: So you don't have to call it a penalty, but we do have a minimum water purchase. So at the end of the fiscal year, after we've been billed for water usage, if we didn't meet that minimum water purchase requirement, that's what we call the penalty, because we'll get a bill for that difference.

[01:57:13] Councilmember John McAlister: And they don't bill us up front saying,

[01:57:15] Assistant Finance Director Susie: No. No, because they don't know how much we're gonna use.

[01:57:17] Councilmember John McAlister: So they're billing us just in case. They only bill us to what we use, and then they put the extra on, but do we ever exceed our minimum?

[01:57:25] Assistant Finance Director Susie: We have in the past, but we haven't, probably, in the last, I want to say, at least five years in his...

[01:57:32] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay.

[01:57:32] Assistant Finance Director Susie: More than that. At least five years.

[01:57:36] Councilmember John McAlister: Since the drought?

[01:57:37] Assistant Finance Director Susie: I... Yeah.

[01:57:39] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. But we didn't get penalized for the drought.

[01:57:42] Assistant Finance Director Susie: Yeah. They waive the penalty for the drop.

[01:57:46] Councilmember John McAlister: So is the 2.3 in your numbers here?

[01:57:48] Assistant Finance Director Susie: Yes, it is.

[01:57:49] Councilmember John McAlister: And what line item?

[01:57:50] Assistant Finance Director Susie: I always budget the full amount, and estimate the full amount.

[01:57:54] Councilmember John McAlister: Where would that, when you say full amount?

[01:57:56] Assistant Finance Director Susie: So if you go to page 17 expenditures of $33 million? It's included in that $33 million.

[01:58:04] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. Thank you.

[01:58:06] Assistant Finance Director Susie: You're welcome.

[01:58:08] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Any other questions from council members? Um, I have one. It's related to slide 11. And then page 34 on the staff report, um, having to do with, uh, the reserve funds, and I'm not sure if I'm reading this correctly, but um, is the recommendation for 2020 2021 to not, um, transfer funds into the GNOF and General Fund Reserve and Capital Improvement Reserve Fund, or is it pending all of the reconciliation of all the other items. And then related to that, um, with the transportation fund. This is the 4.4 million minus... What is it? Projection includes 3.3 million, transferred to the transferation reserve fund. Will that be reflected on that line item here, or, am I reading this differently?

[01:59:18] Finance Director: Okay, uh, actually, Susie, would like to take that.

[01:59:21] Assistant Finance Director Susie: So first, on slide 11. The transfers, those are what was we, the $2 million, $1 million for transportation and $1 million for Cal's helpers. That was what was reflected in the forecast for this for 2020 in the current year budget. So, when we don't carry those transfers over year year, they change from year to year, and that's what is reflected in the forecast for fiscal year, 2021 in the current fiscal year budget. So, for instance, with Kelpers, we were doing 4 million, but this year's recommendation will be one million. That's not a recommendation. It's we carry over what's in the forecast for that year.

[02:00:01] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay. So then we could... you can change it. Add add to that if we have funds available.

[02:00:07] Assistant Finance Director Susie: Yes.

[02:00:09] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Got it. And then the, so then, okay, so the 2nd question is the transportation reserve? Will that 3 point?

[02:00:15] Assistant Finance Director Susie: So the transportation reserve isn't shown anywhere in in this.

[02:00:18] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay.

[02:00:19] City Staff: It will, when you get the budget document or narrative budget report, it will be shown in the reserve section in the balance.

[02:00:26] Unknown Speaker: Great. Great. And then you'll have a recommendation for the general fund, reserve, possibly.

[02:00:34] City Staff: Yes.

[02:00:36] Unknown Speaker: Do you have off the top of your head? No, what is, is it 20% now that we have in there?

[02:00:42] City Staff: It's a range of between 20 and 25%, and it will have to be supplemented because I think it's some of it's been used this year.

[02:00:49] Unknown Speaker: Okay, so we might be under 20. Great, great. Thank you.

[02:00:52] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Any other questions? If not, I will open this for public comment. Any members of the public wishing to speak on this item, please come forward. Seeing no one, I'll close public comment and bring it back to council for further discussion and an emotion. Yes, Council member McAllister.

[02:01:18] Councilmember John McAlister: Not money, no public comment, and no other questions from the council, I will make a motion. So, let me get to that page. Where would you recommend that we be reading this from?

[02:01:31] Unknown Speaker: You could, um...

[02:01:33] Councilmember John McAlister: Oh. It's very simple then, huh? Just the red?

[02:01:42] Unknown Speaker: You could, um, since there is one resolution, I recommend you can shorten items one through five to the staff recommendation, and then read the title of the resolution, which is required for item six.

[02:01:57] Councilmember John McAlister: Okay. Uh, I make a motion that we accept staff recommendation, and make a motion to include the following, adopt a resolution authorizing the city manager, or designee to amend the classification and salary plans for regular and hourly employees for fiscal year 201920, to be read entitled only for the reading wave attachment to it of the council report. And so, what about, is that all? Well, keep it short.

[02:02:27] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Council member McAllister, for making that motion, and we have a second by Council member Ramirez. Any other discussion on this item? Got Summer McAllister, did you have more?

[02:02:39] Councilmember John McAlister: One comic. No, that's all a comment. So, going back to the city of Mount View has had a reputation for being fiduciary, fiscally prudent, and everything that we do in conservative, and, again, this latest thing on the janitorial, as it shows up in here, is it's an unknown quantity, and we need to be very cautious about doing items. that we really makes us stray away from our heritage of how we do our financial budgeting, and we do it usually with knowledge, data, and history, and this could be unintended consequences that we're not expecting to see with this particular deviation from our norm. So, I just want to make sure that people, when you saw the report that it was highlighted, and it was highlighted a couple of times, how important it is, to make sure we have our financial house in order, and we always know where things are going. Thank you.

[02:03:43] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Any other discussion on this item?

[02:03:48] Unknown Speaker: I just want to thank Steph for the report. And I do agree that we, as a city, have been fiscally responsible for quite a long time now, at least, I don't know, even before my time. And I know that it may look like we are adding, we're adding quite a few positions, but these have already been budgeted, and most of them are limited period items. So, um, we, we knew this was coming, and, um, so we, we've already planned for it. But I will agree that moving forward, as Counselor McAllister recognized, there may be some slowdowns ahead, and so we need to continue to be mindful. But I trust that staff will keep us on track on that.

[02:04:37] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: So with that, I will call the question. And motion carry 70. Thank you very much. All right. Moving along to item eight, council staff committee reports. Are there any council members with any reports? Council number Hicks.

[02:05:05] Councilmember Alison Hicks: Well, I did substitute for the, um, vice mayor at, um, at the A Bag General Assembly, where, um, there are a lot of people in attendance, and we discussed, uh, the regional housing needs, allocation process, and new legislation coming up, and we, uh, voted to approve amendments to the budget, including regional early action planning grants to help as, the rena allocation in the legislation makes us plan more. So that's one announcement I have, and the other is that I have postcards for the upcoming Green Streets for Sustainable Communities Symposium on March 12th, and I will, you're all invited. It's symposium that we hope to include council members, public works folks, people working in parks and recs, community development, a number of different professions that would be faced with the changing nature of our streets, both for sustainability and for people's use and transportation. So I will, you each, you're all invited. You can all take a postcard and pass it on, and maybe leave a pile in case anybody from the general public wants to come.

[02:06:33] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Okay, thank you. Council member McAllister.

[02:06:36] Councilmember John McAlister: Yeah, I attended a VTA meeting last Thursday. The board meeting, and it was interesting to note that our city is so far ahead of other cities when it comes to sustainability and environmental action plans that VTA does not have one. And so the VTA decided to declare a emerge, a climate emergency crisis, and start implementing, and looking into developing a environmental action plan. So, um, for our size, we are exceedingly beyond their capabilities that sometimes amazes me. And another interesting note with VTA, that they came out with a report on Highway 237. This is the new express lane. This is VTA's approach to traffic congestion. And in the report, it says it's making a lot of money. But it also states that during the travel times, congestion on the 2 general purpose lanes has slowed by 5 minutes. from getting point to A to point B. Which is sort of counterproductive of the point of the express lane is to move more cars. So there is what's happening is those who can afford, go quickly, and the rest pay the price of sitting in traffic. And so that may be considered one of those unintended consequences. But I, um, anytime you take a three lane highway and you take one lane out, you better expect some kind of congestion. And everybody says, no, it's going to be great, but if you look at all the other express lanes, they're 5 and 6 lanes. And so there was capacity to move over. So, um, I am I'll keep you informed about some of the other things. But, you know, we're talking, a lot of people on the VTA board are always constantly talking about equity, justice, and here's an example of, you know, the Lexus lane mentality and they say, oh, that's fine. We're collecting money, but it's interesting. So, I'll keep you in tuned of all the exciting thing happening at BTA.

[02:08:51] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you, Counselor Vice Mayor.

[02:08:54] Vice Mayor Ellen Kamei: Great. Thank you. So, um, I just have 2 items I wanted to share. One, the council Use Services Committee met today. And, um, discussed one of our council goals, which is the after school program. So more is going to be coming back to the full council at a later date. And then, um, we are, as a committee are going to start inviting the different school districts to our CYSC meeting. It's a practice that used to happen in the past and CYS, he's looking to continue that in the future. So I just wanted to let you all know that. And then this Thursday, the city is hosting a census multicultural event at our community center from 6.30 to 8.30. There's only 50 more days left until the census, which is really important so we can get all that critical funding so we can do all of the different programs as we, you know, as I reflect that we were talking about the budget. And so just wanted to make sure everyone knew about it will be hosting it along with the county. Thank you.

[02:09:56] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Thank you. And since we are not meeting next Tuesday, I just wanted to announce that, um, I had a great 1st meet up with Mac session last week, and my next one will be on Sunday, February 23rd at the Clock Tower Coffee Shop from 3 to 4.30 PM. So I had a nice group of folks the 1st time. Hope to see others there this next time. And I just also wanted to mention that during public comment, there were speakers on the city council initiated ballot measure D. And there are some inaccuracies in some of the comments. And so, um, I just wanted to um, refer folks to our website. There's a link to from the mountain view.gov website on information regarding the measure. So please take a look at that. And with that, if there's nothing else. Oh, is there a closed session report?

[02:11:01] City Attorney Krishan Chopra: No, close session report tonight.

[02:11:02] Mayor Margaret Abe-Koga: Great, thank you. So, we stand adjourned at 740. Is that right? 743, and the next 742. And then next council, let's say council meeting will be held on Tuesday, February 25th, 2020 at 530 in the Plaza conference room.

[02:11:21] Unknown Speaker: Good evening.

• ← Previous
• Next →