3. Marsh Road Summary Memorandum
Linked here is a project summary for Marsh Road We met with Recology earlier this week to determine if there was a need to alter the planned project schedule for route audits to accommodate the Marsh Road Channel Project. At this time, the route audits do not need to be adjusted. Recology will be participants in the public engagement meetings and we will work closely with them for collection services during the project.
4. Articles of Note
Linked here are several articles of note.
5. Joint Venture Silicon Valley & Sustainable Silicon Valley
Checks have been issued to JVSV and SSV in the amounts of $750 each. These contributions are technically related to the FY 2015/16 requests for funding. I anticipate that these agencies will return with another request for FY 2016/17. We will be requesting more detail on their methodology for determining the amount(s) of their contribution requests.
6. Experimental Signage
I continue to receive a requests from Transportation Committee Member Gary Lauder for the Town to consider the use of experimental signage as he proposed in his 2010 TED talk. The sign is a hybrid stop and yield sign that says “Take Turns” instead of STOP or YIELD. Mr. Lauder asserts that the sign would alleviate the congestion at the intersection of Alameda de las Pulgas and Atherton Avenue. All traffic signs are to be installed consistent with the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. There is a process for using experimental signage under the MUTCD; however, the Town is liable for any incident that occurs upon use of the alternative signage unless and until it is approved for use. I have prior and have recently again advised Mr. Lauder that the Town is not interested in using alternative signage at this time. Mr. Lauder has asked to speak with the Town’s insurance carrier (ABAG) to determine what the cost would be to cover the Town for experimenting with the sign asserting that the savings of using the sign outweighs the cost of insurance should something occur. I have declined to connect Mr. Lauder with ABAG. It is not simply a matter of obtaining insurance coverage to cover any incident that occurs as a result of using the sign - rather, it is exposing the Town to that liability in the first place.
7. Super Bowl & POTUS visits
We have submitted an invoice for the February Super Bowl event ($3,720.25) and have received full reimbursement for all costs incurred by the Town.
Last week, we submitted the invoice for the POTUS visit ($5,909.79). We anticipate full reimbursement of costs from the property owner.
The recent visits by Hillary Clinton were varied. The first visit did not trigger any local resources. The most recent visit (just last week) did trigger local resources (1 officer) and the property owner paid directly for those services during the event.
8. Countywide HOT (homeless) Program
I received an inquiry from Barbara Wood on Thursday regarding the County Homeless Services Fund. Barbara’s editor advised that the County has a longstanding initiative to fund homeless outreach efforts. Using a formula based on per capita and assessed valuation, the County requested funding from each City and Town. Portola Valley was asked for $2,763. Two communities choose not to participate - Woodside and Atherton. In one of those communities, the Mayor made the decision in consultation with the Town Manager without bringing it before the City Council. Barbara asked me to find out what happened in Atherton.
I advised that I thought she was talking about the HOT program. There has not been an actual, formal ask to the Town to contribute. The issue came through the City Manager’s Association as informational and the original distribution depicted $10,000 for Woodside and $10,000 for Atherton. Both Kevin Bryant and I objected and told the County that they need to work out something formulaically. They came back with something that was around $5,000 per agency, I think. We advised that even that was likely too high. The issue appeared to be the Assessed Valuation portion of the formula. The last iteration (at least reported at the last meeting) was a $0 allocation to the two communities. The Manager’s Association directed that model to move forward but with the caveat that a future model should examine a “cost for service” model for communities that did not participate outright. I never received an actual ask or allocation request that I would then move up to the Council.