CC 05-21-2024 Item No. 7. RMRA_Supplemental Report
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
SUPPLEMENTAL 1
Meeting: May 21, 2024
Agenda Item #7
Subject
Fiscal Year (FY) 2024/2025 projects proposed to receive funding from the Road
Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA), created by Senate Bill (SB) 1.
Recommended Action
Adopt Resolution No. 2024-XXX (Attachment A) establishing a list of projects
proposed to be funded by $1,549,796 of SB 1 revenues, estimated to be received in FY
2024/2025.
Background:
No additional background information, only council questions.
Q1: What do you mean by “park pathway improvements”? (Chao and Moore)
Staff response: Repair of asphalt pavement at existing pathways, including pathways
near Hyde Middle School and Three Oaks Park.
Q2: What exact streets is this referring to? (Chao and Moore)
Staff response: A list of streets is provided in the staff report and Resolution.
Q3: CLARIFY: The Staff Report says cities must submit a FY 2024/2025 project
list before the end of FY 2024 which is June 30, 2024, to receive the SB1 funds.
BUT after the 2 listed projects, it includes a statement that the staff can change
these projects any time and the Council and public will only find out about it
AFTER the fact, during the annual reporting process!
What is the process to change the priority of the use of these funds? (Chao and
Moore)
Staff response: Any changes to the list of projects that are funded by SB1 dollars
would be presented to City Council for authorization prior to award of contract. Such
change is allowable under SB1.
Q4: Who makes that priority change decision? Is there any review BEFORE
the change is done? (Chao and Moore)
Staff response: Staff recommends funds be used for pavement maintenance and other
transportation priorities identified in Capital Improvement Program and the 2016
Bicycle Transportation Plan (BTP). Any changes to the list of projects that are funded
by SB1 dollars would be presented to City Council for authorization prior to award of
contract.
Q5: CLARIFY: on page 1 of the Staff Report, it appears that so long as the city
keeps their Pavement Condition Index at 80 or above, they can spend these
SB1 funds on just about anything in transportation, even if it is NOT a high
priority item.
(Chao and Moore)
Staff response: Retaining a PCI above 80 allows the City greater latitude in projects.
Q6: Is there a Council-approved prioritized list of transportation items? (Chao
and Moore)
Staff response: The BTP, adopted by Council June 21, 2016, and the Pedestrian
Transportation Plan (PTP), adopted by City Council on February 20, 2018.
Q7: If So, where is it? What’s the process to make changes to it? (Chao and
Moore)
Staff response: The BTP can be found at:
https://www.cupertino.org/home/showpublisheddocument/3479/63644357834003000
0;
The PTP can be found at:
https://www.cupertino.org/home/showpublisheddocument/16864/6366500349744700
00
The FY 24-25 City Work Plan that is proposed for City Council approval includes an
update to these two plans through the creation of an Active Transportation Plan,
which will be adopted by City Council prior to finalization.
Q8: When will the Monthly Treasurer’s Reports have this account (270-85-821 440-437
Intergovernmental SB1) added to them as a separate line item? If not, why? (Chao and
Moore)
Staff Response: The Monthly Treasurer’s Reports present information at the Fund level rather
than at the individual account level. For detailed information regarding the account 270-85-
821 440-437 (Intergovernmental SB1), we recommend using OpenGov, the City’s accounting
and finance transparency platform.
Q9: Are there other accounts that have or should be added to the Treasurer’s Report
due to special reporting requirements for new funding sources? (Chao and Moore)
Staff Response: As mentioned in the response to the previous question, individual accounts are
not included in the Treasurer’s Report. However, detailed information about such accounts can
be accessed through OpenGov, the City’s accounting and finance transparency platform.
Q10: It would be my preference that the SB 1, Measure B 2016, and other funds be
broken out of the Transportation fund for clarity, but that does get into the question of
where to stop such as grants and individual developer conditions of approval that
show up in the AB 1600 report. I do not know what the right balance is, but there should
be a capability to break down the Transportation fund by its parts?
(Moore)
Staff Response: Thank you for the input on information you would like to see.
Attachments Provided with Original Staff Report:
A. Draft Resolution