Agenda Item # 4 - Zach Hilton | Received 12/08/2023From:Council Member Zachary Hilton
To:All Council Members; All Planning Commissioners
Cc:Jimmy Forbis; Andy Faber; Sharon Goei; Ariana Fabian; Public Comments; City Clerk; Arts and Culture
Commissioners; Parks and Recreation Commissioners; Open Government Commissioners; Library Commissioners;
Personnel Commissioners; Youth Commissioners; Downtown Committee; Building Board of Appeals
Subject:Complete Streets Policy (Public Comment for Item #4 Planning Commission Agenda December 4)
Date:Friday, December 8, 2023 9:18:33 AM
Attachments:Agenda Item # 4 - Marie Blankley _ Received 12_01_2023.pdf
Resolution No. 2022-27 _ Updated Complete Street Policy _ Adopted 05_16_2022.pdf
MTC RES-4108.pdf
CM Zach Hilton Official Status and Compensation of Mayor and Council Members May 2023.pdf
Gilroy Planning Commissioners and Gilroy City Council,
(Please do not hit reply-all, and submit this as official Public Comment for Item #4 Planning
Commission Agenda December 4)
In response to the attached email that the Mayor sent to you all. “Dear commissioners,
Some of you have forwarded to me an email you received from councilmember Hilton
attempting to give you his own direction, interpretation of and influence over your role and
responsibilities as planning commissioners. The Gilroy City Council’s adopted policy and norms
specifically denounce such action from an individual council member circumventing the
authority and policy of the Council body and city staff. I write to you on behalf of the Gilroy City
Council to assure you that the councilmember has no authority to dictate your roles and
responsibilities on his own, or to direct or otherwise attempt to influence your actions. Thank
you for calling this to my attention and to the attention of city staff.” Mayor Blankley
Below you will see an email that I sent to all Planning Commissioners after Planning
Commission Chair Bhandal's presentation to the City Council on 11/20/23. Chair Bhandal and I
had a phone conversation before the presentation so that he would have a "heads up" on my
questions. It's normal practice for anyone on the City Council to ask questions and have an
open dialogue with any member of a city commission/committee and even more during the
annual public presentations. We don't operate in silos and are all here to serve the
community. As a former Commissioner myself, I understand the process thoroughly and
worked with many Council Members and Mayors throughout my four years on the Bike/Ped
Commission to achieve our work plan, goals, funding, and projects.
The purpose of my email was to provide context to the questions for those Planning
Commissioners that were not in attendance or didn't watch the video. That's exactly what I
stated in the opening of my email and thank you to those on the Planning Commission that
said thank you for sending it. Providing context and an open line of communication is how we
all (City Council, Commissions, Staff) work together in serving the community. We send
communications to elected bodies and commission bodies by blind copy (bcc) because it's
best practice and how we are trained. We want to prevent anyone from accidentally hitting
reply all and creating a serial meeting (brown act violation). This is how we receive emails from
staff. An example of what is NOT allowed would be for a member of the City Council telling
you how to vote or telling a staff member what to do. By reinforcing what is already policy
and providing you approved documents, this is NOT providing direction to you. It's providing
you tools and documents to fulfill your duties. Attached you will find the City of Gilroy
Complete Streets Resolution that has one of your roles written into it, and the MTC Resolution
that explains why we needed to establish our Complete Streets Resolution in order to receive
funding. Both of these documents have already been voted on and implemented.
As attached, our form of government is there are 7 of us elected (at-large) to the Gilroy City
Council including the Mayor. We are all considered officers of the city, we all have equal
votes, and none of us govern or rule over the other. The Mayor has no authority to address
my actions except to provide her opinion.
Thank you for reading and listening. My office is always open to new ideas and questions.
Zach Hilton
Gilroy City Council Member
www.zachhilton.com
#HiltonForCouncil @zachhilton_ca
From: Council Member Zachary Hilton
Sent: Sunday, November 26, 2023 3:44 PM
Subject: Complete Streets Policy
Planning Commissioners,
Excellent presentation to the City Council last week by your Chair. For those that watched it,
here's some more context behind my questions that I gave to Manny ahead of time. I'm glad
to hear that you all will be receiving some training around this role of yours. There's many
organizations that provide education around this topic specifically throughout the year too.
https://youtu.be/7K1tJx7VB_E
Since the bike/ped infrastructure duties were transferred from the Bicycle Pedestrian
Commission to the Planning Commission in 2022, we needed to update this language in the
Complete Streets Policy which we did after in 2022.
Complete Streets Policy (Planning Commission Consultation)- Transportation projects and
new development projects with private and public streets shall be reviewed by the Planning
Commission early in the planning and design stage, to provide the Planning Commission an
opportunity to provide comments and recommendations regarding Complete Streets features
to be incorporated into the project.
The Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) and other agencies that are a critical
source of funding road and transportation projects, requiring a public citizen review board
(BPAC) or a citizen review board with equivalent qualifications (i.e., Transportation Committee
or Complete Streets Committee) to review projects and make recommendations to City
Council. MTC Resolution 4108 (1) Each County and City are required to have a Bicycle and
Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) or equivalent body review and prioritize TDA Article 3
bicycle and pedestrian projects and to participate in the development and review of
comprehensive bicycle pedestrian, or active transportation plans. BPACs should be composed
of both bicyclists and pedestrians. In Gilroy it's the Planning Commission and these are a
part of your role.
Questions:
-Over the past year how have you incorporated the Complete Streets Policy requirements into
your project reviews?
-Do you think that the Planning Commission is composed of bicyclists and pedestrians in order
to provide comprehensive recommendations to staff and the city council?
-Are you all receiving enough professional development and training opportunities to fulfill all
of your duties?
Zach Hilton
Gilroy City Council Member
www.zachhilton.com
#HiltonForCouncil @zachhilton_ca
From: Mayor Marie Blankley <Marie.Blankley@ci.gilroy.ca.us>
Sent: Friday, December 1, 2023 7:38 AM
To: Planning Commissioner Kelly Ramirez <Kelly.Ramirez@ci.gilroy.ca.us>; Planning Commissioner
Manny Bhandal <Manny.Bhandal@ci.gilroy.ca.us>; Planning Commissioner Joan Lewis
Joan.Lewis@ci.gilroy.ca.us>; Planning Commissioner Annedore Kushner
Annedore.Kushner@ci.gilroy.ca.us>; Planning Commissioner Adriana Leongardt
Adriana.Leongardt@ci.gilroy.ca.us>; Commissioner Terence Fugazzi
Terence.Fugazzi@ci.gilroy.ca.us>; Planning Commissioner Stefanie Elle
Stefanie.Elle@ci.gilroy.ca.us>
Cc: Ariana Fabian <Ariana.Fabian@ci.gilroy.ca.us>; Sharon Goei <Sharon.Goei@ci.gilroy.ca.us>;
Jimmy Forbis <Jimmy.Forbis@ci.gilroy.ca.us>
Subject: Council policy and norms
Dear commissioners,
Some of you have forwarded to me an email you received from councilmember Hilton attempting to
give you his own direction, interpretation of and influence over your role and responsibilities as
planning commissioners. The Gilroy City Council’s adopted policy and norms specifically denounce
such action from an individual council member circumventing the authority and policy of the Council
body and city staff. I write to you on behalf of the Gilroy City Council to assure you that the
councilmember has no authority to dictate your roles and responsibilities on his own, or to direct or
otherwise attempt to influence your actions. Thank you for calling this to my attention and to the
attention of city staff.
I ask that my response here be included as official correspondence under item 4 of your 12/7/23
agenda. I would speak to it in person if not for a VTA board meeting that evening.
Respectfully,
Mayor Marie Blankley, CPA
Sent from my iPhone
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-27
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF
GILROY RESCINDING RESOLUTION NO. 2012-46 AND
ADOPTING THE UPDATED COMPLETE STREETS POLICY
WHEREAS, the term "Complete Streets" describes a comprehensive, integrated
transportation network with infrastructure and design that allows safe and convenient travel along
and across streets for all users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, persons with disabilities, motorists,
movers of commercial goods, users and operators of public transportation, seniors, children, youth,
and families; and
WHEREAS, City of Gilroy acknowledges the benefits and value for the public health and
welfare of reducing vehicle miles traveled and increasing transportation by walking, bicycling, and
public transportation; and
WHEREAS, City of Gilroy recognizes that the planning and coordinated development of
Complete Streets infrastructure provides benefits for local governments in the areas of infrastructure
cost savings; public health; and environmental sustainability; and
WHEREAS, the State of California has emphasized the importance of Complete Streets by
enacting the California Complete Streets Act of 2008 (also known as AB 1358), which requires that
when cities or counties revise general plans, they identify how they will provide for the mobility
needs of all users of the roadways, as well as through Deputy Directive 64, in which the California
Department of Transportation explained that it "views all transportation improvements as
opportunities to improve safety, access, and mobility for all travelers in California and recognizes
bicycle, pedestrian, and transit modes as integral elements of the transportation system"; and
WHEREAS, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (known as AB 32) sets a
mandate for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in California, and the Sustainable
Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (known as SB 375) requires emissions reductions
through coordinated regional planning that integrates transportation, housing, and land -use policy,
and achieving the goals of these laws will require significant increases in travel by public transit,
bicycling, and walking; and
WHEREAS, numerous California counties, cities, and agencies have adopted Complete
Streets policies and legislation in order to further the health, safety, welfare, economic vitality, and
environmental well-being of their communities; and
WHEREAS, City of Gilroy therefore, in light of the foregoing benefits and considerations,
wishes to improve its commitment to Complete Streets and desires that its streets form a
comprehensive and integrated transportation network promoting safe, equitable, and convenient
travel for all users while preserving flexibility, recognizing community context, and using the latest
and best design guidelines and standards; and
DocuSign Envelope ID: 9D4E2D2E-709A-4214-9FC3-EC123962C34E
Resolution No. 2022-27
Updated Complete Street Policy
City Council Regular Meeting | May 16, 2022
Page 2 of 4
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Gilroy previously adopted Resolution No. 2012-
46 adopting the Complete Streets Policy, which referenced the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission for
review of projects; and
WHEREAS, the Complete Streets Policy needs to be updated to reference the Planning
Commissions in-lieu of the Bicycle Pedestrian Commission as the project review duties of the
Bicycle Pedestrian Commission now rest with the Planning Commission.
NOW, THEREFORE IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Gilroy
as follows:
1. That the City of Gilroy adopts the updated Complete Streets Policy attached hereto as
Exhibit A, and made part of this Resolution, and that said exhibit is hereby approved and
adopted.
2. That the next substantial revision of the City of Gilroy General Plan circulation shall
incorporate Complete Streets policies and principles consistent with the California
Complete Streets Act of 2008 (AB 1358) and with the Complete Streets Policy adopted by
this resolution.
PASSED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of May 2022 by the following vote:
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: ARMENDARIZ, BRACCO, HILTON,
LEROE-MUÑOZ, MARQUES, TOVAR,
BLANKLEY
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: NONE
APPROVED:
Marie Blankley, Mayor
ATTEST:
Thai Nam Pham, City Clerk
DocuSign Envelope ID: 9D4E2D2E-709A-4214-9FC3-EC123962C34E
Exhibit A
This Updated Complete Streets Policy was adopted by the City Council of the City of Gilroy on
May 16, 2022 by Resolution No. 2022-27.
COMPLETE STREETS POLICY OF THE CITY OF GILROY
A. Complete Streets Principles
1. Complete Streets Serving All Users. City of Gilroy expresses its commitment to creating
and maintaining Complete Streets that provide safe, comfortable, and convenient travel
along and across streets (including streets, roads, highways, bridges, and other portions of
the transportation system) through a comprehensive, integrated transportation network that
serves all categories of users, including pedestrians, bicyclists, persons with disabilities,
motorists, movers of commercial goods, users and operators of public transportation,
seniors, children, youth, and families.
2. Context Sensitivity. In planning and implementing street projects, departments and
agencies of City of Gilroy shall maintain sensitivity to local conditions in both residential
and business districts as well as urban, suburb an, and rural areas, and shall work with
residents, merchants, and other stakeholders to ensure that a strong sense of place ensues.
Improvements that will be considered include sidewalks, shared use paths, bicycle lanes,
bicycle routes, paved shoulders, street trees and landscaping, planting strips, accessible
curb ramps, crosswalks, refuge islands, pedestrian signals, signs, street furniture, bicycle
parking facilities, public transportation stops and facilities, transit priority signalization,
and other features assisting in the provision of safe travel for all users, such as traffic
calming circles, transit bulb outs, and road diets.
3. Complete Streets Routinely Addressed by All Departments. All relevant departments
and agencies of City of Gilroy shall work towards making Complete Streets practices a
routine part of everyday operations, approach every relevant project, program, and practice
as an opportunity to improve streets and the transportation network for all categories of
users, and work in coordination with other departments, agencies, and jurisdictions to
maximize opportunities for Complete Streets, connectivity, and cooperation. The
following projects provide opportunities: pavement resurfacing, restriping, accessing
above and underground utilities, signalization operations or modifications, maintenance of
landscaping/related features, and new development of private and public streets.
4. All Projects and Phases. Complete Streets infrastructure sufficient to enable reasonably
safe travel along and across the right of way for each category of users shall be incorporated
into all planning, funding, design, approval, and implementation processes for any
construction, reconstruction, retrofit, maintenance, operations, alteration, or repair of
streets (including streets, roads, highways, bridges, and other portions of the transportation
system), except that specific infrastructure for a given category of users may be ex cluded
if an exemption is approved via the process set forth in section C. 1of this policy.
DocuSign Envelope ID: 9D4E2D2E-709A-4214-9FC3-EC123962C34E
B. Implementation
1. Plan Consultation and Consistency. Maintenance, planning, design of transportation
projects and new development projects affecting the transportation system shall be
consistent with local bicycle, pedestrian, transit, multimodal, and other relevant plans,
except that where such consistency cannot be achieved without negative consequences,
consistency shall not be required if the head of the relevant department provides written
approval explaining the basis of such deviation. Such deviations shall be presented to the
Gilroy Planning Commission early in the planning and design stage, to ensure the Gilroy
Planning Commission has an opportunity to provide comments and recommendations.
2. Street Network/Connectivity. As feasible, City of Gilroy shall incorporate Complete
Streets infrastructure into existing streets to improve the safety and convenience of users
and to create employment, with the particular goal of creating a connected network of
facilities accommodating each category of users, and increasing connectivity across
jurisdictional boundaries and for existing and anticipated future areas of travel origination
or destination.
3. Planning Commission Consultation. Transportation projects and new development
projects with private and public streets shall be reviewed by the Planning Commission
early in the planning and design stage, to provide the Planning Commission an
opportunity to provide comments and recommendations regarding Complete Streets
features to be incorporated into the project.
4. Evaluation. All relevant agencies or departments shall perform evaluations of how well
the streets and transportation network of City of Gilroy are serving each category of users
by collecting baseline data and collecting follow-up data on a regular basis.
C. Exemptions
1. Leadership Approval for Exemptions. Projects that seek Complete Streets exemptions
must provide written finding of why accommodations for all modes that were not included
in the project and signed off by the Public Works Director or equivalent high-level staff
person. Projects that are granted exceptions must be made publicly available for review.
Federal guidance on exceptions can be found from the Federal Highway Administration
FHWA) Accommodating Bicycle and Pedestrian Travel:
https://www.fhwa.dot.gov/environment/bicycle_pedestrian/guidance/design.cfm
DocuSign Envelope ID: 9D4E2D2E-709A-4214-9FC3-EC123962C34E
CERTIFICATE OF THE CLERK
I, THAI NAM PHAM, City Clerk of the City of Gilroy, do hereby certify that the attached
Resolution No. 2022-27 is an original resolution, or true and correct copy of a city Resolution,
duly adopted by the Council of the City of Gilroy at a Regular Meeting of said held on Council
held Monday, May 16, 2022, at which meeting a quorum was present.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the Official Seal of
the City of Gilroy this Monday, May 16, 2022.
Thai Nam Pham, CMC, CPMC
City Clerk of the City of Gilroy
Seal)
DocuSign Envelope ID: 5E6C33CE-97C1-4883-A521-73726F51B370
Date: June 26, 2013
W.I.: 1514
Referred By: PAC
Revised: 02/24/16-C
12/16/20-C
ABSTRACT
Resolution No. 4108, Revised
This resolution establishes policies and procedures for the submission of claims for Article 3
funding for pedestrian and bicycle facilities as required by the Transportation Development Act
in Public Utilities Code (PUC) Section 99401.(a). Funding for pedestrian and bicycle projects is
established by PUC Section 99233.3.
This resolution supersedes MTC Resolution No. 875, Revised commencing with the FY2014-15
funding cycle.
This resolution was revised on February 24, 2016 to make pedestrian safety education projects
eligible for funding, in accordance with recent state law changes.
This resolution was revised on December 16, 2020 to add quick builds and separated bikeways
as eligible project types and make other minor updates.
Further discussion of these procedures and criteria are contained in the Programming and
Allocations Summary Sheet dated June 12, 2013 February 10, 2016, and December 9, 2020.
Date:June26,2013W.I.:1514ReferredBy:PACRE:TransportationDevelopmentAct,Article3.PedestrianandBicycleProjects.METROPOLITANTRANSPORTATIONCOMMISSIONRESOLUTIONNO.4108WHEREAS,theTransportationDevelopmentAct(TDA),PublicUtilitiesCode(PUC)Section99200ç,requirestheTransportationPlanningAgencytoadoptrulesandregulationsdelineatingproceduresforthesubmissionofclaimsforfundingforpedestrianandbicyclefacilities(Article3,PUCSection99233.3);statecriteriabywhichtheclaimswillbeanalyzedandevaluated(PUCSection99401(a);andtoprepareaprioritylistforfundingtheconstructionofpedestrianandbicyclefacilities(PUCSection99234(b));andWHEREAS,theMetropolitanTransportationCommission(MTC),astheTransportationPlanningAgencyfortheSanFranciscoBayRegion,adoptedMTCResolutionNo.875entitled‘TransportationDevelopmentAct,Article3,Pedestrian/BicycleProjects’,thatdelineatesproceduresandcriteriaforsubmissionofclaimsforArticle3fundingforpedestrianandbicyclefacilities;andWHEREAS,MTCdesirestoupdatetheseproceduresandcriteriacommencingwiththeFY2014-15fundingcycle,nowthereforebeitRESOLVED,thatMTCadoptsitspoliciesandproceduresforTDAfundingforpedestrianandbicyclefacilitiesdescribedinAttachmentA;andbeitfurtherRESOLVED,thatthepriorpolicygoverningallocationoffundscontainedinResolutionNo.875issupersededbythisresolution,effectivewiththeFY2014-15fundingcycle.METROPOLITANTRANSPORTATIONCOMMISSIONJLtjAmyReinWth,ChairTheaboveresolutionwasapprovedbytheMetropolitanTransportationCommissionataregularmeetingoftheCommissionheldinOakland,California,onJune26,2013.
Date: June 26, 2013
W.I.: 1514
Referred By: PAC
Revised: 02/24/16-C 12/16/20-C
Attachment A
Resolution No. 4108
Page 1 of 7
TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT, ARTICLE 3,
PEDESTRIAN/BICYCLE PROJECTS
Policies and Procedures
Eligible Claimants
The Transportation Development Act (TDA), Public Utilities Code Sections 99233.3 and 99234,
makes funds available in the nine-county Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC)
Region for the exclusive use of pedestrian and bicycle projects. MTC makes annual allocations
of TDA Article 3 funds to eligible claimants after review of applications submitted by county
coordinator which may be the county, County Transportation Agency (CTA) or Congestion
Management Agency (CMA) of the county.
All cities and counties in the nine counties in the MTC region are eligible to claim funds under
TDA Article 3. Joint powers agencies composed of cities and/or counties are also eligible
provided their JPA agreement allows it to claim TDA funds.
Application
1. The county coordinator will be responsible for developing a program of projects not more
than annually, which they initiate by contacting the county and all cities and joint powers
agencies within their jurisdiction and encouraging submission of project applications.
2. Claimants will send one or more copies of project applications to the county coordinator
(see "Priority Setting" below).
3. A project is eligible for funding if:
a. The project sponsor submits a resolution of its governing board that addresses the
following six points:
1. There are no legal impediments regarding the project.
2. Jurisdictional or agency staffing resources are adequate to complete the project.
3. There is no pending or threatened litigation that might adversely affect the project
or the ability of the project sponsor to carry out the project.
4. Environmental and right-of-way issues have been reviewed and found to be in such
a state that fund obligation deadlines will not be jeopardized.
5. Adequate local funding is available to complete the project.
Attachment A
Resolution No. 4108
Page 2 of 7
6. The project has been conceptually reviewed to the point that all contingent issues
have been considered.
b. The funding requested is for one or more of the following purposes:
1. Construction and/or engineering of a bicycle or pedestrian capital or quick build
projects.
2. Maintenance of a Class I shared-use path and Class IV separated bikeways.
3. Bicycle and/or pedestrian safety education program (no more than 5% of county
total).
4. Development of a comprehensive bicycle or pedestrian facilities plans (allocations
to a claimant for this purpose may not be made more than once every five years).
5. Restriping Class II bicycle lanes and buffered bicycle lanes.
Refer to Appendix A for examples of eligible projects.
c. The claimant is eligible to claim TDA Article 3 funds under Sections 99233.3 or
99234 of the Public Utilities Code.
d. If it is a Class I, II, III, or IV bikeway project, it must meet the mandatory minimum
safety design criteria published in Chapter 1000 of the California Highway Design
Manual (Available via Caltrans website); or if it is a pedestrian facility, it must meet
the mandatory minimum safety design criteria published in Chapter 100 of the
California Highway Design Manual. Funds may not be used for Class III projects on
arterials or streets with posted speed limits above 25 mph.
e. The project is ready to implement and can be completed within the three-year
eligibility period.
f. If the project includes construction, that it meets the requirements of the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA, Public Resources Code Sections 21000 et seq.)
and project sponsor submits an environmental document that has been stamped by the
County Clerk within the past three years.
g. A jurisdiction agrees to maintain the facility. If the project is a quick build project, the
jurisdiction agrees to maintain the project until permanent improvements are
implemented. If the project is removed before such time, justification shall be
provided to MTC.
h. The project is included in a locally approved bicycle, pedestrian, transit, multimodal,
complete streets, or other relevant plan.
Attachment A
Resolution No. 4108
Page 3 of 7
Priority Setting
1. The county coordinator shall create a process for establishing project priorities in order to
prepare an annual list of projects being recommended for funding.
2. Each county and city is required to have a Bicycle and Pedestrian Advisory Committee
(BPAC) or equivalent body review and prioritize TDA Article 3 bicycle and pedestrian
projects and to participate in the development and review of comprehensive bicycle
pedestrian, or active transportation plans. BPACs should be composed of both bicyclists
and pedestrians.
A city BPAC shall be composed of at least 3 members who live or work in the city. More
members may be added as desired. They will be appointed by the City Council. The City
or Town Manager will designate staff to provide administrative and technical support to the
Committee.
An agency can apply to MTC for exemption from the city BPAC requirement if they can
demonstrate that the countywide BPAC provides for expanded city representation.
A countywide BPAC shall be composed of at least 5 members who live or work in the
county. More members may be added as desired. The countywide agency will appoint
BPAC members. The county or congestion management agency executive/administrator
will designate staff to provide administration and technical support to the Committee.
3. All proposed projects shall be submitted to the county coordinator for
evaluation/prioritization. Consistent with the county process, the Board of the county
coordinator will adopt the countywide list and forward it to MTC for approval.
4. The county coordinator will forward to MTC a copy of the following:
a) Applications for the recommended projects, including a governing body resolution,
stamped environmental document, and map for each, as well as a cover letter stating
the total amount of money being claimed; and confirmation that each project meets
Caltrans’ minimum safety design criteria and can be completed before the allocation
expires.
b) The complete priority list of projects with an electronic version to facilitate grant
processing.
c) A resolution of the county coordinator approving the priority list and authorizing the
claim.
Attachment A
Resolution No. 4108
Page 4 of 7
MTC Staff Evaluation
MTC Staff will review the list of projects submitted by each county. If a recommended project
is eligible for funding, falls within the overall TDA Article 3 fund estimate level for that county,
and has a completed application, staff will recommend that funds be allocated to the project.
Allocation
The Commission will approve the allocation of funds for the recommended projects. The
County Auditor will be notified by allocation instructions to reserve funds for the approved
projects. Claimants will be sent copies of the allocation instructions and funds should be
invoiced in accordance with the “Disbursement” section below.
Eligible Expenditures
Eligible expenditures may be incurred from the start of the fiscal year of award plus two
additional fiscal years. Allocations expire at the end of third fiscal year following allocation.
For example, if funds are allocated to a project in October 2021, a claimant may be reimbursed
for eligible expenses that were incurred on or after July 1, 2021. The allocation expires on June
30, 2024 and all eligible expenses must be incurred before this date. All disbursement requests
should be submitted by August 31, 2024.
Disbursement
1. The claimant shall submit to MTC the following, no later than two months after the grant
expiration date:
a) A copy of the allocation instructions along with a dated cover letter referring to
the project by name, dollar amount and allocation instruction number and the request
for a disbursement of funds;
b) Documents showing that costs have been incurred during the period of time
covered by the allocation.
c) With the final invoice, the claimant shall submit a one paragraph summary of
work completed with the allocated funds. This information may be included in the
cover letter identified in bullet “a” above and is required before final disbursement is
made.
Reimbursement requests should be emailed to acctpay@bayareametro.gov.
2. MTC will approve the disbursement and, if the disbursement request was received in a
timely fashion and the allocation instruction has not expired, been totally drawn down nor
been rescinded, issue an authorization to the County Auditor to disburse funds to the
claimant.
Attachment A
Resolution No. 4108
Page 5 of 7
Rescissions and Expired Allocations
Funds will be allocated to claimants for specific projects, so transfers of funds to other projects
sponsored by the same claimant may not be made. If a claimant has to abandon a project or
cannot complete it within the time allowed, it should ask the county or congestion management
agency to request that MTC rescind the allocation. Rescission requests may be submitted to and
acted upon by MTC at any time during the year. Rescinded funds will be returned to the
county’s apportionment.
Allocations that expire without being fully disbursed will be disencumbered in the fiscal year
following expiration. The funds will be returned to county’s apportionment and will be available
for allocation.
Fiscal Audit
All claimants that have received a disbursement of TDA funds are required to submit an annual
certified fiscal and compliance audit for that fiscal year to MTC and to the Secretary of Business
and Transportation Agency within 180 days after the close of the fiscal year, in accordance with
PUC Section 99245. Article 3 applicants need not file a fiscal audit if TDA funds were not
disbursed (that is, reimbursed by MTC) during a given fiscal year. Reimbursement may cover
eligible expenditures from a previous fiscal year. Failure to submit the required audit for any
TDA article will preclude MTC from making a new Article 3 allocation. For example, a
delinquent Article 4.5 fiscal audit will delay any other TDA allocation to the city/county with an
outstanding audit. Until the audit requirement is met, no new Article 3 allocations will be made.
TDA Article 3 funds may be used to pay for the fiscal audit required for this funding.
Attachment A
Resolution No. 4108
Page 6 of 7
Appendix A: Examples of Eligible Projects
Below are some examples of eligible projects. If you have questions about whether a proposed
project is eligible for funding, please contact the MTC Program Coordinator.
1. Projects that eliminate or improve an identified problem area (specific safety hazards such
as high-traffic narrow roadways or barriers to travel) on routes that would otherwise
provide relatively safe and direct bicycle or pedestrian travel use. For example, restriping
or parking removal to provide space for bicycles; a bicycle/pedestrian bridge across a
stream or railroad tracks on an otherwise useful route; a segment of multi-purpose path to
divert young bicyclists from a high traffic arterial; a multi-purpose path to provide safe
access to a school or other activity center; replacement of substandard grates or culverts;
adjustment of traffic-actuated signals to make them bicycle sensitive. Projects based on
NACTO (National Association of City Transportation Officials) guidance or similar best
practices guidance.
2. Roadway improvements or construction of a continuous interconnected route to provide
reasonably direct access to activity centers (employment, educational, cultural,
recreational) where access did not previously exist or was hazardous. For example,
development of multi-purpose paths on continuous rights-of-way with few intersections
(such as abandoned railroad rights-of-way) which lead to activity centers; an appropriate
combination of shared-use paths (Class I), bike lanes (Class II), Class III, or separated
bikeways (Class IV)
3. Secure bicycle parking facilities, especially in high use activity areas, at transit terminals,
and at park-and-ride lots. Desirable facilities include lockers, sheltered and guarded check-
in areas; self-locking sheltered racks that eliminate the need to carry a chain and racks that
accept U-shaped locks.
4. Other provisions that facilitate bicycle/transit trips and walk/transit. For example, bike
racks on buses, paratransit/trailer combinations, and bicycle loan or check-in facilities at
transit terminals, bus stop improvements, wayfinding signage.
5. Maintenance of multiple purpose pathways that are closed to motorized traffic or for the
purposes of restriping Class II bicycle lanes (provided that the total amount for Class II
bicycle lane restriping does not exceed twenty percent of the county’s total TDA Article 3
allocation).
6. Funds may be used for construction and plans, specification, and estimates (PS&E) phases
of work. Funds may be used for quick build projects. Quick build projects are interim
capital improvements that are built with durable, low to moderate cost material to
immediately address pedestrian and bicycle needs until capital upgrades are possible.
Project level environmental, planning, and right-of-way phases are not eligible uses of
funds.
Attachment A
Resolution No. 4108
Page 7 of 7
7. Projects that enhance or encourage bicycle or pedestrian commutes, including Safe Routes
to Schools projects.
8. Projects that address bicycle and pedestrian safety such as those in the Local Roadway
Safety Manual. Intersection safety improvements including protected intersections, bulb-
outs/curb extensions, transit stop extensions, installation of pedestrian countdown or
accessible pedestrian signals, or pedestrian signal timing adjustments. Striping high-
visibility crosswalks or advanced stop-back lines, where warranted.
9. Purchase and installation of pedestrian traffic control devices, such as High-intensity
Activated crossWalK (HAWK) beacons, rectangular rapid flashing beacons (RRFB), or
pedestrian safety “refuge” islands, where warranted.
10. The project may be part of a larger roadway improvement project as long as the funds are
used only for the bicycle and/or pedestrian component of the larger project.
11. Bicycle and Pedestrian Safety Education Programs. Up to five percent of a county's Article
3 fund may be expended to supplement monies from other sources to fund public bicycle
and pedestrian safety education programs and staffing.
12. Comprehensive Bicycle and Pedestrian Facilities Plan. Funds may be allocated for these
plans (emphasis should be for accommodation of bicycle and walking commuters rather
than recreational uses). A city or county may not receive allocations for these plans more
than once every five years. Environmental documentation and approval necessary for plan
adoption is an eligible expense.
-1- 4880-4168-5601v3 ALF\04706083
MEMORANDUM
TO: Jimmy Forbis, City Administrator
FROM: Andrew L. Faber, City Attorney
RE: Official Status and Compensation of Mayor and Council Members
DATE: May 4, 2023
FILE REF: 04706.083
The purpose of this memo is to clarify the status of the Mayor and Council Members as officers
of the City, to summarize their compensation and benefits, and to correct and clarify some
information that we understand was provided to the OGO Commission on those subjects. This
analysis is based upon our own research and upon information provided by LeeAnn McPhillips
and Thai Pham.
The corrected and clarified information is in italics for each major point.
We are considered full time employees of the City and receive most if not all the same benefits.
Elected officials are not considered employees of the City. However, as provided in the
Charter, they are officers of the City and may be compensated by salary, provided certain
benefits, and allowed expense reimbursements.
-Stipend Council Members $945/Month (when unrepresented bargaining groups get a raise, so
do we).
The salaries of the Mayor and Council Members were established by ordinance in 1999.
Their salaries are adjusted once a year in accordance with the Consumer Price Index. They are
not adjusted based on changes applicable to employees or bargaining groups. Effective July 1,
2022, the salary of Council Members is $944.58 per month.
-Mayor always makes $400/month more.
The Mayor’s salary, effective July 1, 2022, is $1416.33 per month.
-Full Family Medical Coverage or if you already have insurance the City pays you to not take it
$720ish/month.
Elected officials receive medical and dental insurance; a cash payment is made if
medical coverage is waived.
-2- 4880-4168-5601v3 ALF\04706083
-CALPERS Retirement and automatically vested.
Elected officials are enrolled in CalPERS per contract with CalPERS; they are not
automatically vested but must be in the plan for five years per CalPERS regulations.
-Life Insurance.
This is provided.
-Vision Insurance.
This is optional if the elected official wishes to enroll and pay the premium.
-Dental Insurance.
This is included in the health cafeteria plan as noted above.
-Employee Assistance Program Services.
Provided.
-Cell Phone.
Provided if requested by the elected official.
-Laptop.
Provided if requested by the elected official.
-Mail Service through City Clerk.
Elected officials each have a mailbox at City Hall, and the City Clerk distributes the mail
on the dais to the elected officials.
-Meeting space at City Hall when needed.
Provided as available and necessary to meet with constituents or groups.
-Travel/Training expenses paid.
Such expenses are reimbursed if approved by Council.