Update & direction on Child Care Services, plus approving $50,000 increase for 4Cs
The board is consider approving a funding increase for the Community Child Care Council and receive a report on the state and budget of the Child Care Services department. The recommended actions will have the following fiscal impact
Recommended Action (a)
The CalWORKs Child Care Resource and Referral Program cost of $50,000 for the period of April 1, 2018, to June 30, 2018, is 100% funded through California Work Opportunity and Responsibility to Kids (CalWORKs), a state and federally funded welfare program providing services and cash assistance to eligible needy families. The expenditure associated with the Recommended Action is included in the Agency’s Fiscal Year (FY) 2017-2018 Adopted Budget. No additional appropriation is required.
Recommended Action (b)
There will be a significant budget impact if the discussed child care services plan is implemented. The cost associated with implementation of child care services is estimated to be $66,420,142, which includes $1,123,500 in start-up costs, $33,396,642 in annual administration costs and $31,900,000 in direct client benefits costs to provide California Department of Education (CDE) funded Child Care services. The estimated annual funding from CDE is $42,500,000, of which up to $6,375,000 (15% of CDE estimated funding) can be used for administration cost and $31,900,000 for direct client benefits costs. The total reimbursable amount for direct client benefits and administration costs is $38,275,000. The difference between $38,275,000 and $42,500,000 is $4,225,000, which is available for future direct client benefits. The estimated net County cost is $28,145,142.
Where: Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors
When: January 23, 2018 9:30 AM. County Government Center 70 West Hedding Street, San Jose, CA
Link to item: http://sccgov.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx?Frame=&MeetingID=9674&MediaPosition=&ID=89477&CssClass=
Link to agenda: http://sccgov.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=9674
Appointing members to Redevelopment Successor Agency Oversight Board – as individual Oversight Boards are combined into a single Countywide board
The board will approve primary and alternate members to the Countywide Oversight Board. Since redevelopment agency dissolution in 2012, appointees from affected taxing entities have served on the oversight boards to the successor agencies for the former redevelopment agencies for the cities of San José, Santa Clara, Milpitas, Morgan Hill, Sunnyvale, Campbell, and the Town of Los Gatos. A core strategic team led by County Counsel James Williams and including staff from the Finance Agency, County Counsel, and the County Executive’s Office support the oversight boards’ work.
As the successor agencies continue to wind down and the individual oversight boards are combined into one Countywide Oversight Board on July 1, 2018, the workload for the oversight board members is expected to reduce significantly. The appointments recommended are chosen from the current Board appointments to the individual oversight boards.
Board of Supervisors appointment:
Glen Williams
Alternates:
David Barry
Anthony Filice
Miguel Marquez
Public Member of the Board of Supervisors:
Debra Cauble
Alternates:
David Barry
Anthony Filice
Miguel Marquez
Where: Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors
When: January 23, 2018 9:30 AM. County Government Center 70 West Hedding Street, San Jose, CA
Link to item: http://sccgov.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx?Frame=&MeetingID=9674&MediaPosition=&ID=89687&CssClass=
Link to agenda: http://sccgov.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_Meeting.aspx?ID=967
City of San Jose
Approving Station Area Advisory Group membership for Diridon station development
Staff recommend approving the Station Area Advisory Group (SAAG) membership as part of the community engagement for development of the Diridon Station Area.
The SAAG is a critical piece of the community engagement process for development of the Diridon Station Area. The initial purpose of the SAAG is to provide input that will help shape Administration’s recommendations to City Council. This will include input regarding the principles and terms of a future Memorandum of Understanding between the City and Google, as well as feedback on the Google development concepts.
While the initial focus is on the potential Google development near the station, the SAAG is expected to continue, supported by the City, in future years as plans evolve.
In addition to the SAAG, the City will sponsor at least one large open forum on a Saturday to bring feedback back to the City and SAAG; and four regional educational and feedback meetings.
The Administration recommends the SAAG membership total no more than 35 members. SAAG meetings will be open to the public, and will provide opportunity for public comment. Proposed membership is as follows (one representative to be appointed by each named organization):
- Adobe Systems
- Alameda Business Association
- Cahill & Georgetown Home Owners Associations
- California High Speed Rail Authority (staff)
- CalTrain (staff)
- Delmas Park NAC
- Gardner Neighborhood Association
- Greenbelt Alliance
- Guadalupe River Park Conservancy
- Lofts on the Alameda
- Market Almaden NAC
- North Willow Glen Neighborhood Association
- Plant 51
- San Jose Downtown Association
- San Jose Downtown Residents Association #1
- San Jose Downtown Residents Association #2
- San Jose Downtown Residents Association #3
- San Jose State University
- San Jose Unified School District
- Santa Clara & San Benito Counties Building and
- Construction Trades Council
- Santa Clara County (staff)
- Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (staff)
- Santa Clara Valley Water District (staff)
- SAP at San Jose
- Shasta Hanchett Park Neighborhood Association
- Silicon Valley Bike Coalition
- Silicon Valley Leadership Group (SVLG)
- South Bay AFL-CIO Labor Council
- SPUR
- Leo’s Resident
- SV Rising
- SV@Home
- The Silicon Valley Organization
- Working Partnerships USA
Where: San Jose City Council
When: January 30, 1.30pm, City Chamber
Link to item: http://sanjose.legistar.com/gateway.aspx?m=l&id=/matter.aspx?key=2584
Link to agenda: https://sanjose.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=573598&GUID=37E5C82A-B87C-46A3-AA7D-B06D32E31332&Options=&Search=
Direction on service delivery options for workers’ comp program
(a) As recommended by the Public Safety, Finance and Strategic Support Committee on December 14, 2017, accept the evaluation of service delivery options for administering workers’ compensation claims, including providing services In-House with City staff, through a Third-Party Administrator, and a Hybrid Model that includes both In-House and Third Party claims administration. (b) Additional recommendation by the Public Safety, Finance and Strategic Support Committee on December 14, 2017, direct the City Manager to:
- Continue the current Worker’s Compensation Pilot Program (Hybrid Model) through the completion of the State audit of the In-House program;
- Develop a work plan for bringing the entire worker’s compensation program In-House in stages upon successful completion of the State audit; and
- Return through the budget process with funding recommendations for bringing the program In-House in stages beginning in 2019-2020.
Based on an analysis of the advantages and disadvantages of each potential service delivery model, the following policy alternatives are available to the City:
- Outsource the current In-House operation to a Third-Party Administrator (TPA). According to the State, if the In-House operation is outsourced to a TPA in the early part of calendar year 2018, the State will cancel the re-Audit and the City’s ability to self-insure will no longer be in jeopardy from a failure of the re-Audit. The current contract with TPA Intercare includes an option to extend beyond the Pilot period and makes this option viable from a contracting perspective. However, Council Policy 0-41 (Service Delivery Evaluation) requires a preliminary business case analysis be conducted to evaluate service delivery changes that could impact four or more full-time employees. Initial work was done prior to launching the Pilot Program, and this staff report provides much of the business case analysis required under Council Policy 0-41. However, if directed to bring the City Council a recommendation regarding outsourcing in early 2018, staff would complete the Service Delivery Evaluation and issue a Supplemental Memorandum to this report for full City Council consideration.
- Continue the current Hybrid Model. Staff recommends continuing the Pilot Hybrid Model until the audit is concluded. This action would minimize the number of cases subject to audit. The InHouse program currently handles only workers’ compensation cases for the Police Department; all others have been transferred to the TPA. In the long-term, however, staff would not recommend the Hybrid Model due to duplication of services.
- Bringing the entire program and caseload In-House is not recommended in the short-term due to the upcoming State re-Audit. Bringing the cases currently with the TPA in-house would subject those cases to the audit. Should the City Council wish to bring the program In-House, staff recommends waiting until after the State Audit is completed to ensure that the City passes the audit.
Where: San Jose City Council
When: January 30, 1.30pm, City Chamber
Link to item: http://sanjose.legistar.com/gateway.aspx?m=l&id=/matter.aspx?key=2513
Link to agenda: https://sanjose.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=573598&GUID=37E5C82A-B87C-46A3-AA7D-B06D32E31332&Options=&Search=
Memo from Liccardo/Carrasco/Arenas regarding Evergreen Senior Homes Initiative
Memo from Liccardo/Carrasco/Arenas recommends ordering a report to be presented to City Council on Feb. 13.
Original item:
Staff recommend accepting the Certification of Sufficiency issued by the County of Santa Clara Registrar of Voters regarding the Petition Initiative Amending the Envision San Jose 2040 General Plan; and (b) Adopt a resolution directing the City Manager to prepare a report on the effects of the proposed initiative consistent with California Elections Code Section 9212, on any and all of the following, to be presented to the Council no later than 30 days from this meeting (Thursday, February 22, 2018):
(1) Its fiscal impact.
(2) Its effect on the internal consistency of the City’s General and Specific Plans, including the housing element, the consistency between planning and zoning, and the limitations on City actions under Section 65008 of the Government Code and Chapters 4.2 (commencing with Section 65913) and 4.3 (commencing with Section 65915) of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code.
(3) Its effect on the use of land, the impact on the availability and location of housing and the ability of the city to meet its regional housing needs.
(4) Its impact on funding for infrastructure of all types, including, but not limited to, transportation, schools, parks and open space. The report may also discuss whether the measure would be likely to result in increased infrastructure costs or savings, including the costs of infrastructure maintenance, to current residents and businesses.
(5) Its impact on the community’s ability to attract and retain business and employment.
(6) Its impact on the uses of vacant parcels of land.
(7) Its impact on agricultural lands, open space, traffic congestion, existing business districts, and developed areas designated for revitalization.
(8) Its economic impact.
(9) Its environmental impact.
Where: San Jose City Council
When: Tuesday 23 January 2018
Memo from Liccardo, Carrasco and Arenas: http://sanjose.legistar.com/gateway.aspx?M=F&ID=72398876-c598-427b-9eaa-b509cb634475.pdf
Link to item: http://sanjose.legistar.com/gateway.aspx?m=l&id=/matter.aspx?key=2592
Link to agenda: https://sanjose.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=573591&GUID=B106572F-CDFB-42E9-8944-DE9FE1EEB6E7&Options=&Search=
Adopting policy and questions for selecting a new Planning Director
Adopt a Statement of Policy and City Council Questions related to the selection of a prospective Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement.
The results of this action will be Council input to the City Manager regarding his selection of a Director of Planning, Building, and Code Enforcement. The proposed City Council Questions reflect those adopted for recent department director hiring processes, as well as ones specific to this recruitment. The City Council may modify, add, or subtract from this list of suggested questions at this time.
Hiring process: During the next month, Administration will conduct an interview process guided by the input provided by the City Council through its adoption of the attached policy and questions. City Manager Dave Sykes will then present his recommended candidate to the City Council for confirmation in a closed session. If the City Council confirms Sykes’ nominee, the appointment would be formally approved at that afternoon’s City Council meeting.
Where: San Jose City Council
When: January 30, 1.30pm, City Chamber
Link to item: http://sanjose.legistar.com/gateway.aspx?m=l&id=/matter.aspx?key=2553
Link to agenda: https://sanjose.legistar.com/MeetingDetail.aspx?ID=573598&GUID=37E5C82A-B87C-46A3-AA7D-B06D32E31332&Options=&Search=
City of Gilroy
Considering process for appointing a candidate to fill vacancy on Council until next general municipal election
Staff are recommending that Council review applications, interview candidates and appoint a member to fill the vacancy on the City Council until the next Council member is elected at the general municipal election of November 6, 2018.
Following the unfortunate passing of Council Member Paul Kloecker on December 15, 2017, his Council seat with a term ending in November, 2020 became vacant. In accordance with Charter Section 406 “Vacancies” the Council declared the existence of a vacancy and opened a recruitment period to fill the vacancy by appointment. Any appointment must be made within 30 days of the date the vacancy was declared on January 8, 2018 and must take place no later than February 7, 2018, to avoid causing a special election to occur.
Where: Gilroy City Council
When: January 22, 2018, 6:00pm
Link to item: http://gilroyca.iqm2.com/Citizens/Detail_LegiFile.aspx?Frame=&MeetingID=1098&MediaPosition=&ID=1549&CssClass=
Link to agenda: http://gilroyca.iqm2.com/Citizens/FileOpen.aspx?Type=14&ID=1105&Inline=True
City of Mountain View
Work Plan for Possible Revenue Measures
Over the years, from time to time Councilmembers have expressed a desire to secure additional funding to maintain and improve services in the community, including for new transportation projects. On December 5, 2017, the City Council discussed a number of options related to revenue measures and provided direction to staff to explore three possible measures for the November 2018 ballot: Taxation of cannabis; an increase in the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT); and an employee tax.
Developing revenue measures for the ballot is a significant undertaking that usually requires more than a year for planning and community outreach leading up to the decision to place a measure on the ballot. Any ballot measure(s) for the November election must be finalized by August 9, 2018. Given the current Council meeting schedule, final action would need to be taken by the June 26, 2018 Council meeting.
Generally, one of the first steps in determining whether to pursue a ballot measure is to poll the community to gauge support. In anticipation of this possibility, staff issued a Request for Proposals for polling firms on January 3, 2018. As of the due date of January 16, 2018, 3 proposals had been received with professional fees ranging from $19,750 to $42,475. The proposals include a wide variety of the length of the survey (15 minutes to 25 minutes), sample sizes (400 to 600), and whether the survey is conducted in multiple languages. Staff recommends that the Council appoint a subcommittee to select a firm and initiate a preliminary poll. In most cases, a secondary poll is done before finalizing and placing any measure on the ballot. Funding for a second poll is not requested at this time.
Community outreach is often a critical component of developing a revenue measure. For a TOT, outreach to the hospitality industry would be appropriate. For a tax on the sale of cannabis, there are a number of stakeholders to reach out to. For an employee tax, the business community is a key stakeholder. Staff would recommend a combination of targeted and general outreach to engage the community in the conversation. Various methods of outreach could include online communication and surveys, community meetings, focus groups, stakeholder meetings, and development of fact sheets.
Should Council continue to be interested in an employee tax, developing the methodology will be one of the primary challenges. The City’s current Business License Tax is very low, generating approximately $250,000 per year with most businesses paying a flat $30 (plus an additional $4 for SB1186).
Fiscal Impact: In December, it was estimated that the cost of a ballot measure would be $165,000 to $230,000. At this point, updated estimated costs, based on a more narrow scope, are:
Polling Survey assuming one split survey: $37,000
Temporary Help: $20,000
Placing measures(s) on the ballot $60,000 to $70,000
Misc. outside expertise (legal, etc.)… $10,000
Contingency… $5,000
Staff is not asking for appropriations for the placement on the ballot or more than one poll at this time. Should those items be needed, staff will return to Council as the process unfolds. Thus, the financial request of this item is $72,000.
ALTERNATIVES:
- Discontinue efforts on any revenue measures.
- Focus the effort on only one or two revenue measures.
- Appropriate additional funding at this time.
- Provide other direction.
Staff recommendation:
- Adopt a work plan to explore possible revenue measures for the November 2018 ballot (Attachment 1 to the Council report).
- Appoint a Council subcommittee of three members to serve in an advisory role to staff in implementing the work plan.
- Appropriate and transfer $72,000 from the General Fund Reserve to the City Manager’s Office for a preliminary poll and temporary staffing to manage this project. (Five votes required).
Where: Mountain View City Council
When: January 23, 2018, 6:30pm
Link to item: https://mountainview.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3316172&GUID=80BA47D8-D0BA-4E9B-B271-7330D06F088A
Link to agenda: https://mountainview.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=A&ID=583899&GUID=A837AF8B-9033-45B3-A12F-52F9AC3F227C
City of Santa Clara
Direction on studying a Living Wage Policy for city workers
In July 2017, concurrent with an update on the City’s minimum wage ordinance, Council directed staff to evaluate a living wage policy that would potentially apply to individuals working in City owned facilities.
The City Manager is presenting initial research on a sample of California cities with Living Wage Policies included:
- Oakland,
- San Diego,
- San Francisco,
- San Jose,
- Santa Cruz, and
- Santa Clara County.
The City mange further states that: Though rare, it’s important to note that there are a number of cities where living wage ordinances were repealed after enactment or legislated out of existence by higher levels of government; and in a few cities, living wage ordinances were overturned after passage due to ideological opposition or budget concerns.
As part of the Study Session, staff will provide an overview of the preliminary analyses on the above named cities and research’ conducted on living wage. Our goal is to present the City Council with programmatic features and areas where the City Council would need to make further decisions to establish a program and the required resources to sustain it. It should be noted that all programmatic elements of a living wage policy would be unfunded and the exact fiscal impact to the City is unknown without further City Council policy development to assess costs. For that reason, staff proposes that we continue to examine the development of a living wage policy through additional study sessions to allow for staff to do follow up research with input from the City Council.
Additionally, if the Council would like to continue to explore next steps of implementing a living wage policy, staff recommends seeking professional consulting services to further evaluate applicability and exemptions, monitoring and enforcement options, legal compliance parameters, and to provide recommendations for Council and community input. If so directed, the evaluation of resource needs would be presented to Council as part of the FY2018-2019 budget process. We look forward to presenting our findings and current issues that the City would need to undertake operationally to further develop a living wage policy.
Where: Santa Clara City Council
When: January 23, 2018, 4:00pm
Link to item: http://sireweb.santaclaraca.gov/sirepub/agdocs.aspx?doctype=agenda&itemid=63684
Link to agenda: http://sireweb.santaclaraca.gov/sirepub/mtgviewer.aspx?meetid=2111&doctype=AGENDA
Brandon Reinhardt resigns from Planning Commission; City to accept applications for vacant seat
Brandon Reinhardt submitted the attached resignation from the Planning Commission effective January 2, 2018. Mr. Reinhardt was appointed to serve on the Commission June 21, 2016. One vacancy now exists on the Commission for the partial term ending June 30, 2021. Interviews to fill Planning Commission vacancies are held during the Council meeting in the Council Chambers.
In order to inform those who are potentially interested in applying, a presentation by either a
Commissioner or a staff member will be held during Special Orders of Business at the February 6, 2018 City Council meeting regarding the role of the Planning Commission. Advertising of the vacancy will be posted on the City’s website, communicated via social media, provided to traditional news outlets and community service organizations, and sent to previous board and commission applicants and those who have submitted an interest form. Applications can be submitted online through the City’s website or in paper format to the City Clerk’s Office before 5:00 pm on February 27, 2018. Interviews of the applicants by the City Council will be held in the City Council Chambers during the 7:00 pm City Council meeting of March 6, 2018.
Staff recommends that the Council:
- Accept the resignation of Brandon Reinhardt from the Planning Commission effective January 2, 2018.
- Declare one vacancy on the Planning Commission for the partial term ending June 30, 2021.
- Set February 6, 2018 as a Special Order of Business for the promotion of the vacancy.
- Set February 27, 2018 at 5:00 pm as the deadline for the receipt of applications and March 6, 2018 during the City Council meeting as the interview date and time.
Where: Santa Clara City Council
When: January 23, 2018, 7:00pm
Link to item: http://sireweb.santaclaraca.gov/sirepub/cache/2/sqozwwplmk5k4r45t32w1njo/80926301202018102659329.PDF
Link to agenda: http://sireweb.santaclaraca.gov/sirepub/mtgviewer.aspx?meetid=2111&doctype=AGENDA
Second reading of inclusionary housing & impact fee ordinance
Ordinance No. 1974, which adds Chapter 17.40 (“Citywide Affordable Housing Requirements”) to Title 17 (“Development”) of the City Code was passed on its first reading on December 5, 2017.
The proposed ordinance would establish an inclusionary housing development requirement for new residential projects and impose impact fees on most new non-residential developments. Housing projects of 10 or more units would be required to construct 15% of dwellings at prices and rents affordable to persons of moderate, low, and very low income, with the average income not to exceed 100% of area median income. Housing projects of 9 or fewer units and non-residential development projects would pay an affordable housing impact fee proportional to floor area, in an amount to be established annually by City Council resolution.
On December 5, 2017, the Council adopted a resolution setting initial fee levels, contingent upon the final adoption of this ordinance. Fee levels are based upon the results of an affordable housing nexus study prepared by Keyser Marston Associates, but are significantly reduced from the maximum allowable under the nexus study. The resolution also established a phase-in period, pursuant to which applications completed within six months would not be subject to the new requirements, and applications completed within twelve months would be eligible for reduced fees.
Although most cities in California require some form of inclusionary housing, the proposed ordinance will increase development costs, which could be a disincentive to some developers to building in Santa Clara.
Staff recommends that the Council adopt Ordinance No. 1974, to codify inclusionary housing requirements and establish housing impact fees for residential, nonresidential and mixed use developments.
Where: Santa Clara City Council
When: January 23, 2018, 7:00pm
Link to item: http://sireweb.santaclaraca.gov/sirepub/cache/2/sqozwwplmk5k4r45t32w1njo/80927401202018110744344.PDF
Link to agenda: http://sireweb.santaclaraca.gov/sirepub/mtgviewer.aspx?meetid=2111&doctype=AGENDA
City of Sunnyvale
Public input on potential Council Study Issues and Budget Issues for 2018
Council typically reviews all study and budget issues once a year at the Annual Public Hearing which provides the opportunity for members of the public to comment on proposed issues for study or budget consideration, and/or to suggest potential new issues. The public may provide further testimony regarding study and budget issues during the February 16, 2018 annual workshop on study and budget issues.
On February 16, 2018, Council will conduct a workshop devoted to a review of all proposed study and budget issues. At the workshop, Council will rank study issues for completion during 2018 and will identify budget issues to be forwarded to the City Manager for consideration in the FY 2018/19 budget. A study issue is a topic of concern that can result in a new City policy or a revision to an existing policy. A budget issue represents a new City service or a change in the level of an existing City service (including possible service reduction or elimination).
A few of the many proposed Study Issues are:
- Rent Stabilization for Mobile Home Parks
- Explore Policies to Preserve Space for Light Industrial Uses
- Create Development Guidelines for Future Accommodation of Autonomous Vehicle Use
- Planning for Post-2021 Solid Waste & Recycling Collection Franchise
To help guide decision making, staff recommends that Council continue to focus on prioritizing study and budget issues that align with existing policy priorities. The following is the list of policy priorities established by Council during the 2017 Strategic Workshop:
- Civic Center Campus and Main Library
- Ability of Infrastructure to Support Development and Traffic
- Open Space Acquisition Planning: Future of Golf Courses
- Downtown Sunnyvale
- Improved Processes and Services through the use of Technology
- Accelerating Climate Action
If Council changes any of the priorities listed above at its January 19 meeting, the Council will be provided an updated list of policy priorities on January 23.
Where: Sunnyvale City Council
When: January 23, 2018, 7:00pm
Link to proposed Study Issues: https://sunnyvale.ca.gov/government/governance/study/studyissues.htm
Link to item: https://sunnyvaleca.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3315148&GUID=ED0CF739-4FAA-435C-98C8-A147B1E95504
Link to agenda: https://sunnyvaleca.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=A&ID=527769&GUID=69310926-6162-491A-A71C-C58220CAE64C
Deciding whether to study potential for additional housing units in Peery Park area; staff recommends against study
In September 2016, the City Council adopted the Peery Park Specific Plan (PPSP). The Council approval included an alternative that stated: “Direct staff to undertake the appropriate environmental analysis and community outreach and return to Planning Commission and City Council to consider whether the Peery Park Specific Plan should be amended to include additional housing opportunities. Further direct that the PPSP housing amendment study for the California Avenue and Hermosa Court sites be completed within three years of PPSP approval and that, if formal applications to amend the Plan to include housing have not been submitted by either of the owners of the two properties within one year, staff will return to City Council for a Budget Modification for staff to proceed with the housing amendment study.”
The two areas that were identified as potential mixed-use housing sites in the PPSP are a portion of the site on California Avenue (Sunnyvale Business Park), approx. 9.5 acres, and four parcels on Hermosa Court, approx. 16 acres. Total number of housing units, depending on density, could be between 612 and 1,734 units.
The evaluation of the housing opportunity sites within the PPSP would require environmental review, community outreach, and site design/development planning. The PPSP Housing Study would consider potential minimum and maximum housing densities for the opportunity sites.
If the budget modification is approved, staff will work on the details of the study and create a timeline for the project. It is anticipated that if work commences in early 2018; the environmental review, community outreach, and efforts by staff could be completed by Summer 2019. If there is not an applicant, the City would be responsible for funding the costs of this study.
Staff recommendation is Alternative 1: Do not Approve Budget Modification No. 34 in the amount of $200,000 for the Peery Park Specific Plan Housing Study. A main reason for this recommendation is that most of the allowable square footage for the PPSP area has already been allotted to approved development projects; if the property owners of the housing opportunity sites wished to significantly redevelop their properties in the future, housing could be studied at that time with funding from the applicant(s).
Where: Sunnyvale City Council
When: January 23, 2018, 7:00pm
Link to item: https://sunnyvaleca.legistar.com/LegislationDetail.aspx?ID=3315135&GUID=7DF4893F-787A-4367-999A-5E5D8A5B19FD
Link to agenda: https://sunnyvaleca.legistar.com/View.ashx?M=A&ID=527769&GUID=69310926-6162-491A-A71C-C58220CAE64C
City of Palo Alto
Approval of SEIU Hourly Unit Memorandum of Agreement
Hourly employees serve as a contingent workforce for the City, providing City departments increased flexibility to accomplish supplemental work or sporadic projects that do not require full time equivalent employees. SEIU Local 521 represents a group of approximately 120-170 hourly employees who generally work on a consistent, typically part-time basis in positions including Librarian, Arts and Sciences Professional, Library Clerk, and Administrative Specialist.
The most recent contract with the SEIU Hourly Unit expired on June 30, 2017. SEIU and the City began negotiating a successor agreement in June of 2017 and held 7 negotiations session between June of 2017 and December of 2017.
Of the 36 classifications represented within this Bargaining Unit, 7 classifications will need to be adjusted to comply with the City of Palo Alto Council adopted Minimum Wage standards of $13.50 effective January 1, 2018 and $15.00 effective January 1, 2019. These 7 classifications will need to be adjusted even after taking into account the salary increases described below.
The SEIU Hourly unit sought a salary increase and an increase to the medical stipend that hourly employees receive in lieu of City-provided medical coverage. The parties agreed on the following key economic issues and a few modest changes to administrative provisions in the contract. SEIU ratified the tentative agreement on December 22, 2017 for a new MOA that includes the following changes:
- Salary
- 3% increase effective the first full pay period following adoption by City Council
- 5% increase effective the pay period including July 1, 2018
- 5% increase effective the pay period including July 1, 2019
- 2% increase effective the pay period including July 1, 2020
- Medical Stipend
- 3% increase or $0.09 to a total of $3.24 effective the first full pay period following adoption by City Council
- 3% increase or $0.10 to a total of $3.34 effective the pay period including July 1, 2018
- 2% increase or $0.07 to a total of $3.41 effective the pay period including July 1, 2019
- 2% increase or $0.07 to a total of $3.48 effective the pay period including July 1, 2020
- Alignment with SEIU general unit for any employees who are enrolled in CalPERS pensions to contribute 1% towards the Employer PERS contributions and other minor changes.
The total cost over the term of the contract is anticipated to be approximately $975,000 across all funds.
Staff recommends that Council adopt a new Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) between the City of Palo Alto and Service Employees’ International Union (SEIU), Local 521 for represented hourly employees, effective through June 30, 2021.
Where: Palo Alto City Council
When: January 29, 2018, 6:00pm
Link to item: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/62943
Link to agenda: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/62948
Santa Clara Unified School District
Presentation of plan for a potential June 2018 $875M GO Bond Measure
Lori Raineri from Government Financial Strategies Inc. will present a plan for a potential Bond measure on the June 2018 ballot and related information. The plan assumes an $875 million bond measure. To move forward with the bond measure, the Board would adopt a resolution calling for an election in February or early March.
The Board will also receive an update on the district’s financial stewardship, general information regarding the Bond, and an overview of tax base demographics.
Where: Santa Clara Unified School District Board of Education
When: January 25, 2018, 5:00p.m.
Link to item: http://agendaonline.net/public/Meeting/Attachments/DisplayAttachment.aspx?AttachmentID=744065&IsArchive=0
Link to agenda: Link to Meeting Agenda
Approving the District Facility Needs Summary and possible projects list for June 2018 GO Bond
Staff will present the final version of the Facilities Needs Summary document that will be the basis for an informational outreach effort to the community and also for a Bond Projects List for a possible future General Obligation Bond.
Where: Santa Clara Unified School District Board of Education
When: January 25, 2018, 5:00p.m.
Link to item: http://agendaonline.net/public/Meeting/Attachments/DisplayAttachment.aspx?AttachmentID=744700&IsArchive=0
Link to agenda: Link to Meeting Agenda
Do you have a news tip you would like to share? Would you like to contribute to The Left Hook? Email us at LeftHookBlog@gmail.com
No Comments