1 Jozi Plut
From: Tim E Strinden <[email protected]>
Sent: Tuesday, September 27, 2022 11:38 AM
To: City Council; x-City Clerk's Office
Cc: Afshin Oskoui; Peter Brown; Nawel Voelker; Jared Barrilleaux; Grace Castaneda; Nawel Voelker; Jon Mays; Curtis Driscoll
Subject: Public Comment on Belmont City Council Agenda item 5 - Ralston Corridor Notice of Completion Dear Belmont City Council Members,
This is a Public Comment on Agenda item 5 for your regular meeting tonight at 7:00 p.m. This is a Public Comment on Items not on the Agenda. I watched the video of your last meeting on September 13 and saw that none of you addressed my concerns regarding Agenda item 7.G, as explained in this email string. Neither Mayor Mates nor City Clerk Plut acknowledged that there were any public comments on that item, and Councilmember Stone quickly moved approval of the Consent Calendar without discussion, which was quickly seconded and passed by the entire council. This effectively buried my comments without any public awareness they were made.
This is further evidence, as if any more was needed, of the lack of transparency and responsiveness of this Council. I made serious suggestions to amend the Staff Report to make clear the sources of funding, and to make sure that use of Measure I signs in the future does not deceive the public, as it did in this case. However, it's clear to me that you had no problem with that deception because it furthered your political agenda of exaggerating the benefits of Measure I, even when not deserved. Belmont residents are poorly served by a Council that does everything it can to suppress opposing points of view, rather than seriously discuss the issues raised.
After your meeting, Councilmember Lieberman sent me an email giving his perspective, but it did not seriously address any of the points I raised. If he really believed his argument was strong, why didn't he present it during the meeting? I believe the answer is that he and the rest of you did not want the public to even be aware of this controversy, because it would make clear the brazen and poorly reasoned efforts of city officials to manipulate the public with these signs. Belmont desperately needs new councilmembers who understand the meaning of ethics, integrity, and public service.
City Clerk, please retain this entire email string with the official records for the meeting, and in accordance with your filing system for correspondence from residents.
Sincerely,
Timothy E. Strinden
Belmont resident
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Subject:Public Comment on Belmont City Council Agenda item 7.G ‐ Ralston Corridor Notice of Completion Date:Sun, 11 Sep 2022 12:35:50 ‐0700
From:Tim E Strinden <[email protected]>
To:[email protected], [email protected]
CC:Afshin Oskoui <[email protected]>, Peter Brown <[email protected]>, [email protected], Grace Castaneda <[email protected]>, Nawel Voelker <[email protected]>, Jon Mays <[email protected]>, Curtis Driscoll <[email protected]> 2 Dear Belmont City Council Members,
This is a Public Comment on Agenda item 7.G for the regular Belmont City Council meeting at 7:00 p.m. on September 13, 2022. The Staff Report states that Segment 3 of the Ralston Corridor Improvement Project was substantially completed on July 22nd for a final contract cost of $2,252,285. This is less than project funding of $2.4 million from the One Bay Area (OBAG2) grant, County Transportation Authority award, and Measure W; so no funding was needed or provided by Measure I.
Unfortunately, the Staff Report does not make clear that none of the funding was from Measure I. It says that funding of $580K was authorized from Measure I, but does not state that none of the funding actually came from Measure I. Please amend the Staff Report to clearly identify the sources of the project funding of $2,252,285, and to make clear that Measure I was not one of those sources. As I previously informed you, Belmont's Fiscal Year 2022 Budget does not show any spending on Ralston 3 from Measure I.
The Staff Report supports my prior complaints to the Council on December 3, 2021 and January 23, 2022 that Measure I signs on Ralston gave the false impression that most or all of the funding was from Measure I.
Those complaints are included in this email string. In response to my complaints, some public officials said it was okay to place the signs even if a small percentage of the funding came from Measure I. However, even those arguments don't hold up because none of the funding came from Measure I.
The misleading Measure I signs were in place from the start of construction in summer 2021 until late January 2022, even though city officials knew that entire time that little, if any, Measure I money would be needed because the successful bid was for only $2,145,536. While the Staff Report indicates that Measure I may be used as a source for pavement work on Ralston in the future, that work was not performed while the signs were up and has been postponed until summer 2023.
As I requested on December 3, 2021, please take action to ensure that Measure I signs are not placed on streets where a majority of the construction funding does not come from Measure I, or as an alternative, list all the major funders on such signs. And again, please amend the Staff Report to avoid confusion and make clear that Measure I was not a source of funding for Segment 3.
City Clerk, please retain this entire email string with the official records for the meeting, and in accordance with your filing system for correspondence from residents.
Sincerely,
Timothy E. Strinden
Belmont resident
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Subject:Public Comment on Belmont City Council Agenda item 5 ‐ Measure I Signs Misleading Date:Sun, 23 Jan 2022 15:39:06 ‐0800
From:Tim E Strinden <[email protected]>
To:[email protected], [email protected]
CC:Afshin Oskoui <[email protected]>, Peter Brown <[email protected]>, [email protected], Grace Castaneda <[email protected]>, Nawel Voelker <[email protected]> Dear Belmont City Council Members,
This is a Public Comment on Agenda item 5 for the Belmont City Council meeting on January 25, 2022. This comment is a follow-up to my email to the Council and other city officials on December 3, 2021, that is included in this email string. None of the Council members or other city officials saw fit to respond to my email complaining that placement of Measure I signs on Ralston Avenue was misleading, and suggesting rules for placement of signs that were not misleading. I saw today that the two misleading signs on Ralston were still 3 there. Please discuss my complaint and suggestions at your meeting, and take action to place this subject on the agenda for a future meeting.
City Clerk, please retain this email string with the official records for the meeting, and in accordance with your filing system for correspondence from residents.
Sincerely,
Timothy E. Strinden
Belmont resident
‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐ Forwarded Message ‐‐‐‐‐‐‐‐
Subject:Measure I Signs Misleading
Date:Fri, 3 Dec 2021 09:40:18 ‐0800
From:Tim E Strinden <[email protected]>
To:[email protected]
CC:[email protected], Afshin Oskoui <[email protected]>, Peter Brown <[email protected]>, Grace Castaneda <[email protected]>, Nawel Voelker <[email protected]> Dear Belmont Council Members,
On October 16, 2021, I posted on Nextdoor that the Measure I signs on Ralston and other streets in Belmont are misleading because they give the false impression that all, or nearly all, of the construction costs were funded by Measure I. Please see the following post for more details. I complained to City Manager Oskoui and Public Works Director Brown about this, but Brown responded he believed it was okay to place the signs even if only 10% of a project was paid for by Measure I. I believe this is deceptive and gives Measure I more credit than it is due. The deceptive sign at Ralston and Maywood is still there.
Please take action so that such signs are not placed on streets where a majority of the construction funding does not come from Measure I. Alternatively, please list all the major funders on such signs so they serve to honestly inform the public and not mislead them.
Sincerely,
Timothy E. Strinden
From my neighborhood:
https://nextdoor.com/p/cQ_YBn7JBy_x?utm_source=share&extras=MzE4NzM2NA%3D%3D Tim E StrindenCipriani • 16 Oct
4 To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Measure I Signs Misleading The signs on Ralston and other streets in Belmont saying, "Measure I...Fixing Your Streets," are misleading because they give the false impression that all, or nearly all, of the construction costs were funded by Measure I. Measure I is the one-half percent sales tax increase passed in 2016 and promised for street and storm drain improvements. In fact, little of the money for the current Ralston project came from Measure I, and it was just "borrowed" for matching purposes, and expected to be completely repaid once grant money was received. For more details, see the Staff Report for the City Council meeting on January 26, 2021. Belmont's Budget for Fiscal Year 2022 shows that 80% of the funding of $2.5 million for Ralston 3 came from federal and state grants, and shows nothing from Measure I. See page 240 for Fund 234. According to Public Works Director (PWD) Peter Brown, the other two major projects where signs were placed this year were for slurry seals and pavement reconstruction.
However, a large portion of the spending for these projects came from the gas tax, Senate Bill 1 (SB1), Fund 232, not just Measure I. 45% of the $1.92 million in spending for slurry sealing was from SB1, and 24% of the spending for pavement reconstruction was also funded by SB1. See pages 219, 220, 228, and 229 in the FY 2022 Budget. PWD Brown told me he didn't believe the signs imply that all of a project is paid for by Measure I, and that they indicate only that some "large or small portion" is paid by Measure I, and it is okay to place the signs even if that portion is just 10%. For readers out there, has that been your impression when seeing the signs? Do you think it's okay to place the signs where Measure I funding is just 10%? Brown said the signs are also justified because some projects couldn't proceed without matching funds from Measure I. However, that logic doesn't apply in the case of the Ralston 3 project. The matching funds of $400K could have just as easily come from the General Fund or another source, especially since they would be repaid shortly. So, Measure I was not essential to that project. On another Nextdoor post regarding the Ralston 3 project, Mayor Charles Stone said he thought it was okay to put out the signs on projects funded only in part by Measure I because it "...helps validate the trust of the voters who approved Measure I...." But, what about the 45% of voters who opposed Measure I? Is it okay to invalidate them? It seems City officials should be impartial in that regard. This seems more like an attempt to validate the City Council and city management for placing Measure I on the ballot and promoting its passage. Stone also posted that placing these signs "...seems like a basic and good transparency effort." But, it seems anything but transparent because the practice overstates the impact of Measure I by withholding information about other key funding sources. To be truly transparent, the signs should list all major sources of funding for projects, not just Measure I. That is what the County does, as they did for the 5 Crystal Springs dam project. If that isn't done, the signs should not be placed at all, because they often do more to misinform than inform.
Posted in
General
to
29 neighborhoods
To help protect your priv acy, Microsoft Office prevented automatic download of this picture from the Internet.
Virus-free. www.avast.com