Subject:     CERTIFICATION OF COUNCIL’S POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS AND DIRECTION TO THE CITY MANAGER AS DESCRIBED BELOW

 

 

RECOMMENDATION

 

(a)                Direction to the City Manager to undertake actions on the following top ten ranked Policy Recommendations, as detailed in the report:

(1)               Construction Dispute Resolution Program

(2)               School Traffic Calming

(3)               Day Laborers

(4)               Construction Impact Mitigation Ordinance

(5)               Increased Garbage/Litter Clean-up

(6)               Neighborhood Street Improvements

(7)               Updated Parking Ratio Requirements

(8)               Ordinance Change Notification

(9)               Public Utility Blight

(10)           Business District Cleaning.

(b)        Direction to the City Manager to undertake action on the Policy Recommendations that ranked 11 through 20 and that were assigned an Impact Assessment 1:

(1)        Self Insurance Claims

(2)        Home Value for Home Improvement Loans

(3)        Increased Underground Wiring

 

(a)   For the Aviation Services CSA, (1) begin an evaluation of the taxi concession structure as described in PR 35) and (2) absorb the remainder of the Policy Recommendations (PRs 33 and 34) within the current workload and strategy, to the extent feasible, and without additional resources.  

For the Economic and Neighborhood Development CSA, (1) implement Policy Recommendations (PRs 8, 2, ___,  ___, ____,) that were assigned Assessment 1 and 2, within the current fiscal environment, and (2) to address those Policy Recommendations assigned Assessment 3 (PRs   ____, ____,  ____, ____) as part of current efforts, without additional resources unless appropriated by Council, and to further evaluate these PRs as part of the FY 2002-2003 budget process.

For the Environment and Utility Services CSA, (1) begin a six month assessment of targeted areas for litter removal and to report to Council as scheduled in the related Impact Statement, (2) continue current efforts consistent with the Smart Energy Plan, without additional funds, and to develop the related proposal for the re-allocation of funds as part of the FY 2002-2003 budget process.

For the Public Safety CSA, Direction to the (1) City Manager to pursue future Truancy Reduction Strategies, as outlined in the related Impact Statement and (2) for the City Manager and Independent Police Auditor to address the dropped PRs (16, 17, and 18), without any additional resources, as discussed at the Policy Priority Setting Session.

For the Recreation and Cultural Services CSA, prepare the appropriate budget documentation for the Trails Completion Program (PR 15) for consideration as part of the FY 2002-2003 budget process..

For the Transportation CSA, (1) begin the initial studies for School Traffic Calming, Neighborhood Street Improvements and Business District Clean (PRs 24, 27 and 29), within the current cost per study as outlined in the Staff Analysis Form, and to report the findings to Council for future action (2) take no action on PR 31, Median Island Landscaping (3) implement a Tree Removal Fine (PR30) program, without additional resources, and (4) to address City Wide Tree Trimming and Effective Street Sweeping (PRs 25 and 26) as directed during the Policy Priority Setting Session.

For the Strategic Support CSA, (1) address all Strategic Support related Policy Recommendations (PRs 43, 28, 29, 36, and 37) assigned Impact Assessment 1 in FY 2001-2002, (2) prepare the appropriate budget documentation with a net zero impact for PR 44, Development of Procurement Policy Guidelines, for consideration during the FY 2002-2003 budget process and upon completion of the current study, (3) for PR 40, No-Smoking in Proximity to City Buildings, take no action at this time and, (4) for PR 39, Living Wage Ordinance, postpone Council action until the two studies referenced in this report are brought to Council for review, discussion and action.

BACKGROUND

 

On October 25 and 26, 2001, Council held a Policy Priority Setting Session to discuss key trends and issues related to each City Service Area (CSA) and to set policy priorities for achieving service delivery needs. The Council’s actions at the session produced a ranking of policy recommendations from 1 to 29, with three of the original 45 policy recommendations being combined and 13 being dropped for various reasons.  Attachment A depicts the final ranking of policy recommendations based on the Policy Priority Setting Session.

 

The following analysis discusses staff’s proposed workplan for addressing the policy recommendations.  The proposed workplan is based on the ranking of policy recommendations, and on the current trends and issues affecting implementation of the recommendations.

 

Current Trends and Issues

 

In the period since the Policy Priority Setting Session, it has become clear that the impact of the September 11th event, on top of the overall impact of the economic downturn, is producing a deteriorating fiscal situation for the City.  All of the City’s economically sensitive revenues continue to decline.  Collections through October show a 49.1% drop in year-to-date Transient Occupancy Tax collections over the prior year and a decrease of 4% in sales tax collections through the first quarter.  Real estate and development-related fees also continued a sharp decline:  Construction and Conveyance Tax receipts declined by 45%, Construction Excise Tax receipts experience a 26% decline, and Building and Structure Taxes were down by 38%.  The aviation industry was particularly affected by the September 11th event, resulting in a 30% drop in revenues and passenger activities at the Airport.  Economists are most recently predicting the beginning of an economic recovery by the second quarter of 2002.  The predictions assume that Silicon Valley’s recovery will lag that of the nation.

 

In recognition of the continuing decline in municipal revenues and the expected budget impacts, the Administration is taking a number of steps to prepare for the worsening financial situation in both the current and next fiscal year.  Actions include implementing a targeted hiring freeze in departments funded largely by real estate and development-related fees, and the formation of a Budget Mini-Cabinet to provide ongoing review and recommendations for additional cost-containment strategies.  In addition, City Service Areas (CSAs) are adjusting their business plans to redeploy resources towards high priority services, such as the Strong Neighborhoods Initiative plans and traffic calming efforts.  CSAs are exploring opportunities to reduce other services or service levels to accommodate this redeployment of resources to high priority services. 

 

At the same time that this downward trend in revenue is continuing, the City has significant resources earmarked for improving our community infrastructure through last year’s successful bond measures.  Combined with San Jose’s other capital improvement projects, the libraries and parks projects contribute to a five-year Capital Improvement Program totaling $2.03 billion and approximately 750 projects in the pipeline. The upcoming March 2002 ballot measure presents another potential opportunity for an additional $159 million in bonds for public safety facilities.

 

In combination, these trends present a challenging economic backdrop for achieving the City’s service priorities over the coming fiscal year.

 

ANALYSIS

 

Policy Recommendation Implementation Approach

 

The recommended workplan for implementing the policy recommendations takes into account the City’s fiscal condition, capital opportunities, existing high priorities such as SNI and traffic calming, and the impact statements prepared by the CSAs for each recommendation (Attachment C).  The impact statements include the assignment of one of three levels of impact to the CSA’s on-going workload:

 

1.                  Can accomplish policy using existing resources with no impact on service delivery.

2.                  Cannot accomplish policy, or a portion of it, with existing resources; requires redeployment of existing resources resulting in potential impact to other services; refer to budget process for consideration of redeployment/service impact options.

3.                  Requires significant resource commitment, with no available/identifiable resources likely for redeployment.

 

Based on this comprehensive analysis, staff recommends that the City focus on the top ten policy recommendations as high priorities for follow-up by the CSAs.  In general, in those cases where there is no impact on current service delivery (Impact Assessment 1), implementation may begin this fiscal year.  If additional resources and/or redeployment is necessary to achieve the policy recommendation (Impact Assessment 2 and 3), these recommendations will be referred to the budget process for FY 2002-2003 for consideration as priorities.  This approach results in staff addressing 13 Policy Recommendations out of 29: six that can be absorbed within current resources and seven that will need a resource/redeployment strategy in order to implement.  It is important to note that the large majority of dropped Policy Recommendations were because of current efforts in place to address the policy or because staff was directed to begin implementation immediately. 

 

Top 10 Policy Recommendations

 

The following section describes the specific actions related to each of the top ten policy recommendations.  Attachment B provides a summary of estimated staff hours and costs associated with each Policy Recommendation.

 

Table 1:   Top 10 Policy Recommendations

 

Top 10 Policy Recommendation Title

 

Rank

Impact Assessment

PR 7:    Construction Dispute Resolution Process

1

1

PR 29:  School Traffic Calming (combined with #32)

2

3

PR 8:    Day Laborers

3

2

PR 41:  Construction Impact Mitigation Ordinance

4

1

PR 20:  Increased Garbage/Litter Cleanup

5

2

PR 27   Neighborhood Street Improvements (combined with #28)

6

3

PR 6:    Update Parking Ratio Requirements

7

2

PR 12:  Ordinance Change Notification

8

2

PR 13:  Public Improvement Reimbursements

9

1

PR 24:  Business District Cleaning

10

2

 

 

Of the top ten ranked Policy Recommendations, three were assigned an Impact Assessment 1:

 

PR 7: Construction Dispute Resolution Process (Rank 1) ––  Developing a procedure and a resolution for Council adoption will integrate dispute resolution into existing City/RDA construction management processes and will involve close coordination with the City Attorney’s Office. The goal of this policy would be to settle disputes on potential construction claims to avoid litigation without impacting project costs or project schedules.  This new process will be coordinated with Contractor’s Groups and other agencies to ensure that it represents the best example of current practices.  Implementation is scheduled to occur in FY 2002-2003, with a report from the City Attorney and staff scheduled for May 2002.  Given that this policy was already in the City Attorney’s current year workload, it can be absorbed without the need for additional resources and this fiscal year.

 

PR 41:  Construction Impact Mitigation Ordinance (Rank 4) ––  This ordinance can be developed this fiscal year, with implementation following Council’s approval.  Currently, on City administered projects, construction mitigation plans are required that address effects on local businesses.  On projects administered by utilities and other agencies, the City reviews the mitigation plans and makes permit requirements similar to what the City imposes on itself.  Staff will complete a benchmarking effort with other agencies to determine construction mitigation best practices that would work best to achieve San Jose’s goals.  This could entail an increase in construction bids due to contractors passing this potential additional cost into the contract.  Once the best practices are adopted into the ordinance, the requirements and procedures will be imposed on all projects administered in San Jose, and an outreach program will be developed to assure that potentially affected businesses understand these practices.  It is estimated that the benchmarking effort can be complete by July 2002, with the outreach occurring throughout FY 2002-03.

 

PR 13:  Public Improvement Reimbursements (Rank 9) ––  Currently, the Director of Public Works can enter into Public Improvement Contracts with developers allowing for reimbursement for certain public improvements under $100,000.  Staff will prepare an ordinance amendment to increase the amount that the Director can approve administratively.  Upon Council’s approval, this Policy Recommendation will be implemented.  Preparation of the ordinance amendment and presentation to Council for consideration can occur this fiscal year.  

 

Of the top ten ranked Policy Recommendations, five were assigned an Impact Assessment 2:

 

PR 8:  Day Laborers (Rank 3) ––  This Policy Recommendation calls for a more strategic and expanded approach to address Day Laborer issues than current efforts.  Current efforts to address the Day Laborer issue include:  $68,000 to St. Vincent De Paul to operate day laborer center; $100,000 to the Police Department for overtime expenditures to patrol day laborers congregating areas; $750,000 for a new Day Laborer Center (HNVF); $250,000 in FY 02-03 for a new site (HNVF); and $500,000 in CDBG reserve for a new site.  Given the complexity of this issue, as well as the multi-CSA approach, it is evident that expanding current efforts will result in the need to redeploy resources.  Given that efforts are already underway to address this issue, redeployment of resources may occur this fiscal year.

 

PR 20:  Increased Garbage and Litter Clean-Up  (Rank 5) –– Currently, there are several programs that have been implemented or are going to be implemented to address clean streets and neighborhoods.  These include:

 

§         Increasing the frequency of street sweeping with the onset of the new Recycle Plus contracts (July 1, 2002);

§         Offering residents optional containerized yard trimmings collection with the enhanced Recycle Plus services (July 1, 2002);

§         Promotion of the City’s Large Item Collection Program to reduce the amount of illegal dumping (in progress); and,

§         Public Area Recycling Program, increased number of litter and recyclables receptacles throughout 133 local parks and other public areas (in progress). 

 

To enhance the current strategy, staff is proposing to conduct an assessment of neighborhoods to identify target areas.  Upon completion of the litter assessment, staff will develop a coordinated program to reduce litter on City streets for Council consideration.  This program may employ different tactics which may include a broad based or targeted public education campaign(s), increased litter removal efforts from transit corridors, increased deployment of litter modules in local business districts, and increased coordination of litter removal efforts with Valley Transportation Authority and/or CalTrans.   The assessment and the proposed programs following the assessment will require additional funding and/or redeployment of staff.

 

PR 6:  Update Parking Ratio Requirement  (Rank 7)  ––   The City’s current zoning regulations set forth a minimum number of parking spaces required for new development based on the square footage (non-residential) or the number of bedrooms (residential).  In order to implement this policy recommendation, staff will collect empirical data from a sample of projects throughout the City.  Upon evaluating the data, staff will prepare amendments to the current Parking Ratio requirements for Council’s consideration.  If the Council directs this study, it will take about 24 weeks to complete with a report to Council tentatively scheduled for January 2003.  Redeployment would occur throughout the Planning Divisions, especially for the field work activity. The team responsible for overseeing the study and its administration would be the Zoning Code team. Since staff is being diverted from the development of new ordinances, work on this policy item is expected to slow the completion time of other ordinance changes that Council may request in upcoming months.

 

PR 12:  Ordinance Change Notification (Rank 8) ––  Notification of proposed ordinance changes have complied with City Council Policy, which sets forth the noticing requirements for projects with a potential to generate significant neighborhood concern.  The policy acknowledges a range of outreach techniques, including mailed notices, newspaper advertisements, City website, community meetings, and other outreach efforts.  In response to this Policy Recommendation, staff has already begun to employ more targeted noticing for ordinance changes as of October 2001.  Staff expects to develop a specific program for ordinance change modification during FY 2001-02, and to report back to Council before June 2002.  Since staff is being diverted from the development of new ordinances, work on this policy item is expected to slow the completion time of other ordinance changes that Council may request in upcoming months.

 

PR 24:  Business District Cleaning (Rank 10) ––  The City and the Redevelopment Agency spend approximately $1.63 million annually on street and sidewalk cleaning and blight abatement services for the Central Business District (CBD) and redevelopment area Neighborhood Business Districts (NBDs).  The funding sources are the General Fund ($700,000), Storm Sewer Operating Fund ($330,000) and RDA funds ($600,000).  The bulk of the funds are spent on the Transit Mall (First and Second Streets) and the CBD.  The Transit Mall is serviced 7 days a week, while the rest of the CBD receives street sweeping every other day, weekly litter service, and some spot cleaning.  The NBDs receive weekly street sweeping and bi-annual cleaning.  Additionally, all areas receive ongoing graffiti abatement services.

 

To respond to this Policy Recommendation, staff with contractual assistance will be conducting a study of the NBDs to evaluate the level of cleanliness of the street and sidewalks and identify options to improve the streetscape appearance.  The study will document current streetscape and graffiti services and provide options for improved levels of cleanliness, and related cost, for Council consideration. This study can be completed by March 2002 by the redeployment of staff and use of a consultant, so that Council may consider options as part of the FY 2002-03 budget process.  Since most resources are currently directed to the CBD, any redirection of funds to other business districts may impact the services offered to the CBD’s, unless a new funding stream is identified as part of this process. 

 

Of the top ten ranked Policy Recommendations, two were assigned an Impact Assessment 3:

 

PR 27:  Neighborhood Street Improvements (Rank 6) –– Over the past 5 years, the 10-Year Street Maintenance Recovery Plan has made significant progress in reaching its goal of making 97% of streets fair to excellent condition.  When the Recovery Program began, 86% were in fair to excellent condition, with that figure rising to 93% today.  The Street Maintenance Program is at a critical point in that less than two-thirds of the remainder of the 10-Year Recovery Plan is funded, with a projected $10 million shortfall in FY 2002-03, if the current Plan strategy is applied.  In past years, shortfalls associated with the Program have been addressed by the use of one-time funds, which will be absent during the FY 2002-03 budget process.  This Policy Recommendation requests that improvements in the program be made, including an evaluation of the current residential street sealing method of chip sealing and alternatives to it (e.g. slurry sealing). 

 

In response to the Policy Recommendation, and as part of staff’s annual reporting process on the funding needs of the Street Maintenance Program, the Transportation CSA is currently completing a comprehensive review of street maintenance needs and alternatives.  The report is tentatively scheduled for the Finance and Infrastructure Committee on January 9, 2002, pending the Rules Committee’s approval of the proposed committee workplans on December 19, 2001.  The report will review alternative maintenance treatments for residential streets and the relative costs.  Given the concern with chip sealing raised in the Policy Recommendation, special attention will be given to that issue in the report.  If an alternative to chip sealing is to be used, the overall program costs may be impacted by changes to the 10-Year Recover Plan schedule due to reduced alternate product performance and durability.  While current resources can absorb the initial study, the findings of the study will require a significant resource commitment, with no identifiable resources at this time.

 

PR 29:  School Traffic Calming (Mandatory Crossing Guards) (Rank 2) –– Many of the Traffic Calming Program improvements are occurring near schools, including enhanced crosswalks, curb accessibility ramps, new sidewalks, signals and stop signs, as well as the use of speed deterrent efforts such as added photo radar enforcement, automated speed signs and deployment of radar trailers.  Targeted enforcement by the Police Department’s Traffic Enforcement Unit is also provided as resources permit to deter speeding.  New policies are in place to make it easier for areas around schools to qualify for stop signs and crosswalks.  Additional assistance in guiding students safely onto the school campus is provided by student safety patrols at some schools. The City has also just received a State grant of almost $600,000 for pedestrian safety improvements as part of the State’s Safe Routes to School Program.  This will provide for flashing lights in crosswalks when occupied at 10 locations and radar speed display signs at 10 additional locations. 

 

A study is currently underway that will identify operational (e.g. traffic and parking controls and enforcement) and capital improvements at all elementary and middle schools, with 25% of the schools (43 schools) studied in FY 2001-02.   The remaining schools will be studied in the next three years, with an estimated completion date of June 2005 and cost of $1.1 million.  Staff has been targeting one quarter of the schools each FY, beginning with this FY 2001-02, at an estimated cost of $250,000 per FY from the Traffic Capital budget (plus cost of living increases).  The cost associated with this effort includes other traffic calming elements, besides school crossing guards.  The amount needed to complete this effort over the next three years is $850,000 (funding source: Traffic Calming in Traffic Capital budget). In terms of staff time, the primary commitment of staff hours to continue the major four-year study would be about 25% of the School Safety Program Manager, or 520 hours per year through June 2005. This time is being absorbed through reprioritization of current responsibilities. Implementation of recommendations coming out of the study would require additional time of both this person and others, depending on the magnitude of the recommendations and resources available for implementation.

 

The study will look at all the elements that contribute to reduction of congestion and promote “walkability” and “bikeability” around schools, including the presence of traffic calming features, pedestrian access, trip generation, crosswalks, etc.  As one of these elements, the consultant will identify intersections that meet the City’s safety index for crossing guards. The Policy Recommendation calls for a study on the need for School Crossing Guards at all schools, regardless of safety index.  In the previous Staff Analysis Form, the consultant study was estimated at $130,000, and that figure represents the cost to only study the school crossing guard component of this comprehensive study.  While staff’s efforts have been more focused on traffic calming devices and strategies, this policy recommendation largely focuses on applying personnel resources to address pedestrian and traffic safety around schools.  If the study’s findings include a need for a large augmentation of School Crossing Guards at schools, this will require a significant resource commitment with no identifiable resources readily available.  Preliminary review of the worst-case scenario, assuming that all schools will need a School Crossing Guard, shows the estimated cost at $3 - $3.5 million per year. 

 

Policy Recommendations Ranked 11 through 20

 

The following section describes the specific actions related to each of the policy recommendations ranked 11 through 20 and assigned an Impact Assessment 1.  Staff recommends that only those assigned an Impact Assessment 1 be implemented, given that current resources can absorb them and, in general, be accomplished this fiscal year.  Impact Statements for the remaining Policy Recommendations (Impact Assessment 2 and 3) are attached.

 

Table 2:  Policy Recommendations Ranked 11- 20

 

Title of Policy Recommendations Ranked 11 - 20

 

Rank

Impact Assessment

PR 43:  Self-Insurance Claims

11

1

PR 14:  Public Utility Blight

12

2

PR 2:    Home Value for Home Improvement Loans

13

1

PR 10:  Increased Underground Wiring

14

1

PR 35:  Taxi Advisory Team Evaluation of Opening Airport Concession

15

2

PR 22:  Renewable Energy Generation

16

3

PR 19:  Truancy Abatement/Daytime Curfew

17

2

PR 31:  Median Island Type 1 Standard

18

3

PR 34:  Minimizing Airport Impacts

19

2

PR 4:    Policy for Solar Access Single-Family Homes

20

2

 

Of this set of ranked Policy Recommendations, three were assigned an Impact Assessment 1:

 

PR 43:  Self Insurance Claims (Ranked 11) –– The City purchases property insurance for catastrophic events including fire. The City’s property insurance policy provides coverage for $1 billion of City owned and leased real and personal property.  For most occurrences, the insurance deductible per qualified event is $100,000.  In accordance with common industry practices, the City is expected to file a claim to seek reimbursement for costs incurred in restoring or replacing the damaged property.  Once the restoration or replacement of the damaged property is complete, the insurance company reviews the claim and reimburses the City for allowable expenditures net of the $100,000 deductible. 

 

The City is self-insured for losses incurred above the City’s insurance coverage. The City has no specific funds dedicated for insurance reserves.  To provide immediate accessibility to remedy claims at parks and other City owned public property, funds to cover uninsured losses may be appropriated from existing reserves or other available funds on a case by case basis requiring City Council approval of such appropriation within thirty days of the need for the funds to allocate to a project to restore or replace damaged City owned property.  If other funds are subsequently identified, the reserves can be replenished. No funds would be re-allocated from Council District’s Construction and Conveyance Tax funds or from any projects that have been budgeted and are not yet complete. This policy can be implemented in FY 2001-2002, without the need for additional resources.  Systems and staff are currently in place to handle these situations as they occur.

 

PR 2:    Home Value for Home Improvement Loans (Ranked 13) ––  Pursuant to a policy adopted by Council in 1993, single-family homes are eligible for Housing Rehabilitation Program assistance only if their value is no greater than 110% of the medial sales price of homes in San Jose,  adjusted periodically.  A relatively short report to the City Council can explain the background of the current policy and provide alternatives for Council consideration. The proposed policy change would increase the universe of eligible applicants for repairs to single-family homes, which could result in greater demand for and a broader expectation of receiving this service.  However, an increase in the resources available for the Housing Rehabilitation Program from the Redevelopment Agency is programmed for later in FY 2001-02, so this increased demand for service should not result in the need for tradeoffs.  A policy recommendation can be forwarded to City Council and implemented in FY 2001-02.

 

PR 10:  Increased Underground Wiring (Ranked 14) –– Public Works currently administers a $5 million per year program to place aerial utility facilities underground.  PG&E allocates $3.3 million for the City to underground utilities in areas meeting certain criteria.  Private developers also contribute fees in lieu of undergrounding in front of their development projects.  Public Works staff submits an annual report to City Council on the status of the existing Utility Undergrounding Program and provides a Five-year Workplan and Undergrounding Masterplan for approval.  The current report was sent to City Council in June 2001.  An updated report and workplan is currently being prepared and will be submitted to City Council as part of the January 29, 2002 Council agenda. 

 

CSA Recommendation:  Direct the City Manager to (1) address all Strategic Support related Policy Recommendations (PRs 43, 28, 29, 36, and 37) assigned Impact Assessment 1 in FY 2001-2002, (2) prepare the appropriate budget documentation with a net zero impact for PR 44, Development of Procurement Policy Guidelines, for consideration during the FY 2002-2003 budget process and upon completion of the current study, (3) for PR 40, No-Smoking in Proximity to City Buildings, take no action at this time and, (4) for PR 39, Living Wage Ordinance, postpone Council action until the two studies referenced in this report are brought to Council for review, discussion and action.

 

PUBLIC OUTREACH

 

The various Policy Recommendations each require different levels of public outreach.  Public Outreach efforts will be tailored for each policy and handled on a case-by-case basis.  Staff is available to provide more detail on this matter.

 

COORDINATION

 

These materials have been coordinated with the Mayor’s Office and the City Service Areas.

 

 

DEL D. BORGSDORF

City Manager