From: Serge Bonte
To: Hicks, Alison; Abe-Koga, Margaret; Ramirez, Lucas; Kamei, Ellen; Matichak, Lisa; Lieber, Sally; Showalter, Pat; City Council FORWARD
Cc: McCarthy, Kimbra
Subject: 3.22.22 Meeting - Re: Agenda Item 4.1 Virtual City Council ground hog day resolution and re: Agenda Item 6.2 Recycled Water Feasibility Study Update
Date: Sunday, March 20, 2022 12:54:49 PM
CAUTION: EXTERNAL EMAIL - Ensure you trust this email before clicking on any links or attachments.
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members:
re: Agenda Item 4.1.
I appreciate the City Council being very prudent by going virtual about 2 years ago. But I think it's time to come back to normal in person meetings at City Hall. The findings in your resolution seem detached from reality in Mountain View, - where kids have been back to schools for a while now and recently without masks in 2 of the 3 districts serving Mountain View,
- where local school boards have been meeting in person for a while now, - where yourselves are taking part into indoor in person meetings (often w/o masks): National League of Cities, upcoming State of the City meeting....
I can understand if there are some logistical issues in reopening the City chambers this month, but please discuss this item and commit to resuming in person meetings in no less than a month into Spring.
re: Agenda Item 6.3
I support improving water purification levels and extending -where feasible- the purple pipe network.
But I was shocked to read that the Water District was trying to claw back some tax excess funds it had agreed to return to Mountain View (taking 6 of the promised 8.5M to pay for its own share of the project !!!).
I am glad that "Staff is working with Palo Alto staff to draft a joint letter to Valley Water to express our cities’ objections to this action" but I would encourage the City Council to make sure the joint letter is well publicized and written in strong terms (I will preemptively excuse all the French you wish to use :) ).
Sincerely,
Serge Bonte
Lloyd Way, Mountain View
PS: Also, the Water District doesn't seem to have money issues as it is putting Measure A on the ballot in June at a cost of 3.2M dollars. The sole purpose of this measure seems to insure one of their board member can get extend his 26 years tenure but another 4 year term.
See: https://sanjosespotlight.com/santa-clara-county-silicon-valley-water-leaders-want-longer- term-limits-election-2022/