Campbell City Council
October 18, 2022

City Council Agenda
City of Campbell, 70 N. First St., Campbell, California

NOTE: To protect our constituents, City officials, and City staff, the City requests all members of the public follow the guidance of the California Department of Health Servi ces', and the County of Santa Clara Health Officer Order, to help control the spread of COVID -19. Additional information regarding COVID-19 is available on the City's website at www.campbellca.gov.

This City Council Regular meeting will be conducted in person as well as telecommunication and is compliant with provisions of the Brown Act.

The City Council meeting will be live -streamed on Channel 26 or Channel 88, the City's website and on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/user/CityofCampbell for those who only wish to view the meeting.

Those members of the public wishing to provide public comment virtually are asked to register in advance at: https://www.campbellca.gov/signup. After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information abo ut joining the meeting. Members of the public may attend the meeting in person at Campbell City Hall - Council Chambers.

Public comment will also be accepted via email at [email protected] prior to the start of the meeting. Written comments will be posted on the website and distributed to the Co uncil. If you choose to email your comments, please indicate in the subject line “FOR PUBLIC COMMENT” and indicate the item number.

REGULAR MEETING OF THE CAMPBELL CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, October 18, 2022 – 7:30 p.m.

City Hall Council Chamber – 70 N. First Street

CALL TO ORDER

ROLL CALL

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS AND PROCLAMATIONS

COMMUNICATIONS AND PETITIONS

ORAL REQUESTS
NOTE: This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the City Council on any matter not on the agenda. Persons wishing to address the Council are requested, but not required to complete a Speaker’s Card. Speakers are limited to two (2) minutes. The law generally prohibits the Council from discussion or taking action on such items. However, the Council may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Requests.

COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS

CONSENT CALENDAR
NOTE: All matters listed under consent calendar are considered by the City Council to be routine and will be enacted by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a request is made by a member of City Council, City staff, or a member of the public.

Any person wishing to speak on any item on the consent calendar should ask to have the item removed from the consent calendar prior to the time the Council votes to approve. If removed, the item will be discussed in the order in which it appears.

1. Minutes of City Council Executive Session Meeting of September 27, 2022 Recommended Action : Approve the executive session meeting minutes of September 27, 2022.

2. Minutes of City Council Regular Meeting of October 4, 2022 Recommended Action: Approve the regular meeting minutes of October 4, 2022.

3. Approving Bills and Claims
Recommended Action: Approve the bills and claims in the amount of $591,802.86.

4. Monthly Investment Transactions Report (September 2022) Recommended Action: That the City Council review and accept the Monthly Investment Transactions Report for September 2022.

5. Second Reading of Ordinance 2289 Amending Chapter 11. 15 (Parklets in the Public Right-Of-Way) (Ordinance/Roll Call Vote)
Recommended Action: That the City Council adopt Ordinance 2289 amending Chapter 11.15 (Parklets in the Public Right -of Way) of the Campbell Municipal Code to remove the requirement for a security deposit.

6. Approval of the Vacation of a Portion of Westmont Avenue, Authorizing the Public Works Director to Sign the Quitclaim Deed, and Directing the City Clerk to Record the Resolution – 1445 Westmont Avenue (Resolution/Roll Call Vote)
Recommended Action: That the City Council adopt a resolution: 1) vacating a portion of Westmont Avenue; 2) authorizing the Public Works Director to sign the Quitclaim Deed; and 3) directing the City Clerk to record the resolution.

7. Approval of Parcel Map Inc luding Acceptance of Street Dedication and Public Service Easements Shown on Said Map – 16160 East Mozart Avenue (Resolution Roll Call Vote)
Recommended Action: That the City Council adopt a resolution approving the Parcel Map and accept the street dedic ation and public service easements as shown on the map for the property located at 16160 East Mozart Avenue.

PUBLIC HEARINGS AND INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES
NOTE: Members of the public may be allotted up to two (2) minutes to comment on any public hearing item. Applicants/Appellants and their representatives may be allotted up to a total of five (5) minutes for opening statements and up to a total of three (3) minutes maximum for closing statements. Items requested/recommended for continuance are subject to Council’s consent at the meeting.

8. Public Hearing to Consider Revisions to Approved Mills Act Contracts for Properties Located at 73 S. 1St Street, 204 Alice Avenue, and 81 Alice Avenue, to Extend the Contract Term (Resolution/Roll Call Vote)

Recommended Action: That the City Council adopt a Resolution approving revisions to three approved Mills Act contracts for properties located at 73 S. 1st Street, 204 Alice Avenue, and 81 Alice Avenue, to extend the contract term.

NEW BUSINESS

9. Receive a Report f rom the Historic Preservation Board Regarding Review of the Mills Act Program and Recommended Program Improvements, and Consider Authorizing Expansion of the Mills Act Program as Part of the Recently Authorized Historic Preservation Ordinance Update (CDD F Y23 Work Plan).

Recommended Action: That the City Council receive an update on the Mills Act Program and authorize preparation of an expanded Mills Act Program to be incorporated into the Historic Preservation Ordinance Update (CDD FY23 Work Plan).

10. Fiscal Year 2022 Year-End Fiscal Update (Resolution/Roll Call Vote) Recommended Action: It is recommended that the City Council receive an update on un -audited Fiscal Year (FY) 2022 year -end General Fund actual revenues and expenditures and adopt a Resolu tion authorizing year -end correcting Budget Adjustments.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS

COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS

11. Council Committee Reports
Recommended Action: That the City Council report on activities from their committee assignments.

ADJOURN
IMPORTANT NOTIC E: Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the City Council after distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection with the agenda packet in the lobby of City Clerk’s Office, 70 N. First Street, Campbell, CA 95008, dur ing normal business hours. These materials will also be available on the City website at https://www.ci.campbell.ca.us/agendacenter with the agenda packet following the last item of the agenda, subject to staff’s ability to post the documents prior to the meeting. All documents not posted prior to the meeting will be posted the next business day.

In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, listening assistive devices are available for all meetings held in the City Council Chambers. If you require accommodation, please contact the City Clerk’s Office, (408) 866-2117, at least one week in advance of the meeting.

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
City of Campbell, 70 N. First St., Campbell, California

CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SESSION
Tuesday, September 27, 2022 – 8:30 AM
Community Center Room E-42
1 W. Campbell Ave., Campbell, California
This City Council meeting was duly not iced pursuant to open meeting requirements of the Ralph M. Brown Act (G.C. Section 54956).

CALL TO ORDER
The City Council of the City of Campbell convened this day in the special meeting place, at the Community Center Room E-42, 1 W. Campbell Ave., Campbell, California.

ROLL CALL
Attendee Name Title Status
Paul Resnikoff Mayor Present
Anne Bybee Vice Mayor Present
Elizabeth 'Liz' Gibbons Councilmember Present
Susan M. Landry Councilmember Present
Sergio Lopez Councilmember Present

PUBLIC COMMENT
There was no public comment.

MOVE INTO CLOSED EXECUTIVE SESSION
A. Personnel – Pursuant to G.C. Section 54957(b)(1): Public Employee Evaluation – City Manager
B. Litigation –
C. Real Property
D. Labor Negotiations
The City Council met in Executive Session to discuss item A. Mike Messina of Messina and Associates, Inc. was in attendance.
1 Packet Pg. 4
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Sep 27, 2022 8:30 AM (CONSENT CALENDAR)

Minutes of September 27, 2022 City Council Meeting Page 2

ADJOURN
Mayor Resnikoff adjourned the meeting at approximately 7:20 p.m.

APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Paul Resnikoff, Mayor

Andrea Sanders, City Clerk

1 Packet Pg. 5
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Sep 27, 2022 8:30 AM (CONSENT CALENDAR)

CITY COUNCIL MINUTES
City of Campbell, 70 N. First St., Campbell, California

REGULAR MEETING OF THE CAMPBELL CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, October 4, 2022 7:30 p.m.

City Hall Council Chamber – 70 N. First Street

This City Council meeting was duly noticed pursu ant to open meeting requirements of the Ralph M. Brown Act (G.C. Section 54956).

This meeting was recorded and can be viewed in its entirety at www.cityofcampbell.com/agendacenter.

CALL TO ORDER
The City Council of the City of Campbell convened this day in the regular meeting place, the City Hall Council Chamber, 70 N. First St., Campbell, California.

ROLL CALL
Attendee Name Title Status
Paul Resnikoff Mayor Present
Anne Bybee Vice Mayor Present
Elizabeth 'Liz' Gibbons Councilmember Present
Susan M. Landry Councilmember Present
Sergio Lopez Councilmember Present

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Resnikoff led the Pledge of Allegiance.

SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS AND PROCLAMATIONS
There were no special presentations and proclamations.

COMMUNICATIONS AND PETITIONS
There were no communications and petitions.

ORAL REQUESTS

Mary Beth Bykowsky, of the California Department of Insurance, spoke of the California Low-Cost Auto Program that offers affordable liabil ity insurance to eligible drivers and the Senior Gateway Portal which provides information and resources for seniors and their caregivers.

COUNCIL ANNOUNCEMENTS
2 Packet Pg. 6
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Oct 4, 2022 7:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR)

Minutes of October 4, 2022 City Council Meeting Page 2 City Hall is open to the public for in -person services Monday through Friday, from 8:00 am to 5 :00 pm. For your convenience, online services including permits, business license applications and virtual appointments are available online. V isit the city’s website at campbellca.gov to view information for all city departments and services available.

The City Clerk’s office is accepting applications for Boards and Commissions. To find out more about these positions, or to apply, please contact the City Clerk’s office at (408) 866-2117, or visit the city’s website at campbellca.gov.

The City of Campbell will be hosting their annual community garage sale on Saturday, October 8 from 8:00 am – 4:00 pm. Don’t miss out on the fun, join others as they look for amazing off ers and treasures. For locations and a listing by category of item s for sale, visit the City’s website at campbellca.gov.

History Happy Hour presents “Cold Wrath, the 1896 Rampage of James C. Dunham”.

Author and Historian Barney Terrell will discuss his book about the 1896 McGli ncy murders that took place in Campbell. The event is on Saturday, October 8 from 5 -6 pm.

To purchase tickets, visit campbellmuseums.com.

Oktobertfest returns to Campbell on Oct. 15 and 16. There is still t ime to participate in the 15th annual Oktoberfest 5K and 10K Fun Run. The Run will take place on Saturday, October 15 at 9:00 am at Campbell Park. The cost is $45 for adults and $25 for y outh.

For more information, please visit campbellca.gov.

Live music is back at the Ainsley House through the Fall Garden Concert Series featuring talented musicians. Tony Lindsay will perform on October 23 and Bri an Ho on November 13. Registration is required. For additional inf ormation, please visit campbellmuseums.com.

CONSENT CALENDAR

Mayor Resnikoff asked if anyone wished to remove an item from the Consent Calendar.

Item five was pulled from the Consent Calendar.

The Consent Calendar was considered as follows:

1. Minutes of City Council Regular Meeting of September 20, 2022 Recommended Action: Approve the regular meeting minutes of September 20, 2022.

This action approves the regular meeting minutes of September 20, 2022.

2. Approving Bills and Claims
Recommended Action: Approve the attached lists of bills and claims in the amount of $4,876,578.52.

This action approves the bills and claims in the amo unt of $4,876,578.52 as follows: payroll checks dated September 1, 2022, in the amount of $37,11.64; bills and claims checks dated September 5, 2022, in the amount of 2 Packet Pg. 7
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Oct 4, 2022 7:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR)

Minutes of October 4, 2022 City Council Meeting Page 3 $3,776,883.88; and bills and claims checks dated September 12, 2022 in the amount of $1,062,580.00.

3. Monthly Investment Transactions Report (August 2022) Recommended Action: That the City Council review and accept the Monthly Investment Transactions Report for August 2022.

This action notes and files the Monthly Investment Transactions Rep ort for August 2022.

4. Biennial Review of the City of Campbell Conflict of Interest Code (Resolution/Roll Call Vote)
Recommended Action: That the City Council adopt a Resolution approving the Conflict of Interest Code Appendix A and B.

Resolution 12894 adopts the City of Campbell Conflict of Interest Code Appendix A and B including the desk item.

6. Building Plan Check Services - RFQ (Resolution / Roll Call Vote) Recommended Action: That the City Council adopt a Resolution authorizing the Community Development Director to issue a Request for Qualifications for Building Plan Check services; and authorize the City Manager to execute a service contract with the most responsive bidders for a period of two (2) years with options to renew another twelve (12) months.

Resolution 12895 authorizes the Community Development Director to issue a Request for Qualifications for Building Plan Check services; and authorizes the City Manager to execute a service contract with the most responsive bidders for a period of two (2) years with options to renew another twelve (12) months, including the desk item.

7. Approval of Salary Adjustments for Lighting and Traffic Signal Assistant, Lighting and Traffic Signal Supervisor, S enior Services Supervisor and Salary Schedules (Resolution/Roll Call Vote)
Recommended Action: That the City Council adopt a resolution updating Salary Schedules to reflect 2022 market adjustments for the classifications of Lighting and Traffic Signal Ass istant, Lighting and Traffic Signal Supervisor, and Sen ior Services Supervisor, retroactively to be effective July 1, 2022.

Resolution 12896 – updates Salary Schedules to reflect 2022 market adjustments for the classifications of Lighting and Traffic Sig nal Assistant, Lighting and Traffic Signal Supervisor, and Senior Services Supervisor, retroactively to be effective July 1, 2022.

M/S: Gibbons/Landry – That the City Council approve the Consent Calendar including the desk items with the exception of ite m five. The motion was adopted by the following roll call vote:

RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Gibbons
SECONDER: Landry
2 Packet Pg. 8
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Oct 4, 2022 7:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR)

Minutes of October 4, 2022 City Council Meeting Page 4 AYES: Resnikoff, Bybee, Gibbons, Landry, Lopez

ITEMS CONSIDERED SEPARATE FROM CONSENT

5. St. Lucy Fun Fest 2022 Carnival Permit for St. Lucy Fun Fest 2022 (Resolution/Roll Call Vote)
Recommended Action: That the City Council adopt a resolution approving the issuance of a Carnival Permit for the St. Lucy Parish School Fun Fest Carnival on October 21-23, 2022, subject to the restrictions and conditions as described in the resolution and denying the request for a fee waiver.

City Manager Loventhal removed this item from the Consent Calendar and stated that this item will be considered through an administrative process.

PUBLIC HEARINGS AND INTRODUCTION OF ORDINANCES

8. Resolution Approving Us e of the Supplemental Law Enforcement Service Funds (SLESF) and Related Budget Adjustments Appropriating the Remaining Supplemental Law Enforcement Service Funds (SLESF) Balance Towards Police Equipment for FY 2022-23 (Resolution/Roll Call Vote) Recommended Action: That the City Council adopt a resolution to authorize use the Supplemental Law Enforcement Service Funds (SLESF) to fund a Community Service Officer and approv e a budget adjustment to allocate the remaining SLESF balance towards police equipment for FY2022-23.

This is the time and place for a public hearing to consider approving use of the Supplemental Law Enforcement Service Funds (SLESF) and related budget adjustments appropriating the remaining Supplemental Law Enforcement Service Funds (SLESF) balance towards police equipment for FY 2022-23.

Police Captain Livingston presented a staff report dated October 4, 2022.

Mayor Resnikoff opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak.

Seeing no one wishing to speak, Mayor Resnikoff closed the public hearing.

After discussion, M/S: Bybee/Landry – That the City Council adopt Resolution 12897 to authorize use the Supplemental Law Enforcement Service Funds (SLESF) to fund a Community Service Officer and approve a budget adjustment to allocate the remaining SLESF balance towards police equipment for FY2022 -23. The motion was adopted by the following roll call vote:

RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Bybee
SECONDER: Landry
AYES: Resnikoff, Bybee, Gibbons, Landry, Lopez

9. Continued Pub lic Hearing and Introduction of Ordinance to Consider a City-Initiated Text Amendment to the Campbell Municipal Code Removing the Requirement for a Security Deposi t for Parklet Permits; Adoption of a Resolution Approving an Amendment to the Semi -Permanent Parklet Program Guide to Incorporate Preferred Parklet Designs and Remove 2 Packet Pg. 9
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Oct 4, 2022 7:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR)

Minutes of October 4, 2022 City Council Meeting Page 5 References to the Requirement for a Security Deposit; Adoption of a Resolution Approving an Amendment to the City’s Master Fee Schedule Reducing the Parklet Permit Application Fee fr om $1,500 to $500, Deferring the Effective Date of the Parklet Annual Compliance Verification Fee to FY 2024, Removing Security Deposits Related to Parklets in the Public Right- Of-Way and Approving Associated Budget Adjustments for FY 2023; and Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Execute a Contract Amendment with the Parklet Design Consultant, Sidell Parkravan Architects, to Provide for the Cust omization of Up to 16 Parklets at a Cost Not to Exceed $3,000 Per Parklet ($48,000 Total), and Approving Associated Budget Adjustments for FY 2023. File No. PLN -2022-39. (Introduction of Ordinance/Resolutions/Roll Call Vote)
Recommended Action: That the City Council introduce an Ordinance amending Chapter 11.15 (Parklets in the Public Right -of W ay) of the Campbell Municipal Code to remove the requirement for a security deposit; adopt a Resolution approving Amendments to the Semi -Permanent Parklet Program Guide to incorporate preferred parklet designs and removing references to the requirement for a security deposit; adopt a Resolution approving an amendment to the City’s Master Fee Schedule to reduce the Parklet Permit Application Fee from $1,500 to $500, deferring the effective date of the Parklet Annual Compliance Verification Fee to FY 2024, re moving security deposits related to parklets in the public right -of-way, and approving associated budget adjustments for FY 2023; and adopt a Resolution authorizin g the City Manager to execute a contract amendment with the parklet design consultant, Sidell Parkravan Architects, to provide for the customization of up to 16 parklets at a cost not to $3,000 per parklet ($48,000 total), and approving associated budget a djustments for FY 2023.

This is the time and place for a public hearing to consider a City -Initiated Text Amendment to the Campbell Municipal Code removing the requirement for a security deposit for Parklet Permits; approving an amendment to the Semi - Permanent Parklet Program Guide to incorporate preferred Parklet designs, approving an amendment to the City’s Master Fee Schedule reducing the Parklet Permit Application Fee from $1,500 to $500, deferring the effective date of the Parklet Annual Compliance Ve rification Fee to FY 2024, and authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract amendment w ith the Parklet Design Consultant, Sidell Parkravan Architects, to provide for the customization of up to 16 Parklets at a cost not to exceed $3,000 per Parklet ($ 48,000 Total), and approving associated Budget Adjustments for FY 2023.

Economic Development Program Manager Parks presented a staff report dated October 4, 2022. Ms. Parks noted the results to the outreach survey given to downtown businesses. Also discus sed was prevailing wage, and design alternatives to the picket fence.

Councilmembers asked about parklet materials and prevailing wage.

Mayor Resnikoff opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to speak.

2 Packet Pg. 10
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Oct 4, 2022 7:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR)

Minutes of October 4, 2022 City Council Meeting Page 6 Alex Hult of Flights Restaurant noted that Campbell should look at what other cities did for their parklets to understand the pros and cons. He stressed the importance of getting all the businesses input and encouraged the Council to keep the parklets affordable as businesses are struggling.

Councilmember Gibbons offered considerations for a solid waterproof roof height of 10 feet m aximum, the need for heating elements, and supported using ARPA funds to support businesses with a grant in the range of $400,000 - $500,000.

Councilmember Lopez agreed with Councilmember Gibbons’ comments in providing a business grant with an overall cap. He noted allowing different design options for the businesses to choose.

Councilwoman Landry was not supportive of the thick roof and slat walls. She was not supportive of the various design options, noted the parklets should have a cohesive look. She spoke to the business signs or allowing identifying plaques on the parklet. She was supportive of the rounded corner design and cautioned staff to be aware of tree s and signs on the street. Councilwoman Landry was supportive of contributing $400,000 in grant money.

Vice Mayor Bybee favored the closed -in parklet design but wanted businesses to have design options to choose from. Vice Mayor Bybee was not supportive of using ARPA funds for grants, stating concerns that it only helped downtown businesses.

Mayor Resnikoff wanted flexibility with parklet designs. He suggeste d giving businesses design parameters with general criteria and allowing them to pick their designs from approved options. He noted that the City has been conservative with ARPA funds to this point. He offered a tiered approach to giving 16 business grants with the first 10 businesses to submit an application getting a higher grant amount and the next 6 businesses to receive a lower amount with a $400,000 cap to the grant funding.

After discussion, M/S: Gibbons/Landry - That the City Council introduce an Ordinance amending Chapter 11.15 (Parklets in the Public Right -of Way) of the Campbell Municipal Code to remove the requirement for a security deposit; adopt a Resolution approving Amendments to the Semi - Permanent Parklet Program Guide to incorporate prefer red parklet designs (both options, no taller than 10ft no less than 8ft for the canopies, solid canopies, both panel options, either square or round corners) and removing references to the re quirement for a security deposit; adopt a Resolution approving an amendment to the City’s Master Fee Schedule to not reduce the Parklet Permit Application Fee from $1,500 to $500, deferring the effective date of the Parklet Annual Compliance Verification Fee to FY 2024, removing security deposits related to parklets in the public right-of-way, and approving associated budget adjustments for FY 2023; setting a 400K allocation of ARPA funds for the Semi -Permanent Parklet program, support for up to 16 parklets with a minimum grant of 25,000 and a maximum grant of $40,000; a nd adopt a Resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract amendment with the parklet design 2 Packet Pg. 11
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Oct 4, 2022 7:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR)

Minutes of October 4, 2022 City Council Meeting Page 7 consultant, Sidell Parkravan Architects, to provide for the customization of up to 1 6 parklets at a cost not to exceed $3,000 per parklet ($48,000 to tal), and approving associated budget adjustments for FY 2023.

After discussing allowing certain design options such as rounded corners, Councilwoman Landry rescinded her second of the motion.

Councilmember Lopez seconded the motion.

The motion was as f ollows: M/S: Gibbons/Lopez - That the City Council introduce Ordinance 2289 amending Chapter 11.15 (Parklets in the Public Right-of Way) of the Campbell Municipal Code to remove the requireme nt for a security deposit; adopt Resolution 12898 approving Amend ments to the Semi -Permanent Parklet Program Guide to incorporate preferred parklet designs (both options, no taller than 10ft no less than 8ft for the canopies, solid canopies, both panel opt ions, either square or round corners) and removing references to the requirement for a security deposit; adopt Resolution 12899 approving an amendment to the City’s Master Fee Schedule to not reduce the Parklet Permit Application Fee from $1,500 to $500, d eferring the effective date of the Parklet Annual Compliance Verification Fee to FY 2024, removing security deposits related to parklets in the public right -of-way, and approving associated budget adjustments for FY 2023; setting a 400K allocation of ARPA funds for the Semi - Permanent Parklet program, support for up to 1 6 parklets with a minimum grant of 25,000 and a maximum grant of $40,000; and adopt Resolution 12900 authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract amendment with the parklet design consu ltant, Sidell Parkravan Architects, to provide for the customization of up to 16 parklets at a cost not to exceed $3,000 per parklet ($48,000 total), and approving associated budget adjustments for FY 2023. The motion was adopted by the following roll call vote.

RESULT: ADOPTED [4 TO 1]
MOVER: Gibbons
SECONDER: Lopez
AYES: Resnikoff, Gibbons, Landry, Lopez
NAYS: Bybee
City Clerk Sanders read the full title of Ordinance 2289.

M/S: Gibbons/Landry – That the City Council waive further reading of Ordinance 2286. The motion was adopted by the following roll call vote:

RESULT: ADOPTED [UNANIMOUS]
MOVER: Gibbons
SECONDER: Lopez
AYES: Resnikoff, Bybee, Gibbons, Landry, Lopez
Council took a 5-minute recess and convened at 6:335 p.m.

NEW BUSINESS
2 Packet Pg. 12
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Oct 4, 2022 7:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR)

Minutes of October 4, 2022 City Council Meeting Page 8

10. Potential Reach Code Updates to be Considered with the Adoption of the 2022 Building Code and Authorization to Initiate a Zoning Code Text Amendment to CMC 21.18 (Parking and Loading) to Comply with Recent Amendments to State Law.

Recommended Action: That the City C ouncil take the following actions: receive the report and provide direction to staff on potential Reach Code updates to be pursued with the adoption of the 2022 Building Code later this year; and authorize the initiation of a Zoning Code Text Amendment to amend CMC 21.28 (Parking and Loading) to comply with recent amendments to state law.

Community Development Director Eastwood introduced Senior Planner Rose, Acting Building Official Lennon and Silicon Valley Clean Energy representative Anthony Eulo.

Community Development Director Eastwood presented a staff report dated October 4, 2022. Three options of Reach Codes were presented. Option 1 was a holistic look at ‘green building’ reach codes with Cal Green Tier 1 and 2 codes.

Option 2 included higher elec trification standards, and option 3 was to maintain existing Reach Codes.

Council asked questions relating to the staff report presentation.

Mayor Resnikoff asked if anyone from the public wished to speak. There was no one wishing to speak.

Councilwoman Lan dry noted she had distributed to the Council the CalGreen Code requirements stating support for option 1 but recognizing option 2 may be better for this current Reach Code adoption. She was not supportive of 100% electric.

Councilmember Lopez stated support for option 2 for the current Building Code adoptions. He expressed interest in looking closer at the restaurants for more information on what works for them and also future water conservation efforts.

He supported looking into option 1 in the futu re as part of the Climate Action Workplan item.

Councilmember Gibbons stated support for option 2.

Vice Mayor Bybee stated support for option 2. It was noted that converting gas to electric is very costly.

Mayor Resnikoff agreed that converting gas is expensive, with lengthy inspection time frames. He stated support for option 3. He thought it would be helpful if organizations like Silicon Valley Clean Energy had programs that offered loans on upgrades to residents.

Councilmember Gibbons noted the Sil icon Valley Clean Energy eHub program offering grants and rebates.

UNFINISHED BUSINESS
2 Packet Pg. 13
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Oct 4, 2022 7:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR)

Minutes of October 4, 2022 City Council Meeting Page 9 There was no unfinished business.

COUNCIL COMMITTEE REPORTS

11. Council Committee Reports
Recommended Action: That the City Council report on activities from their committee assignments.

Councilwoman Landry attended the Wild Rose opening, spoke of the upcoming Library meeting to review the Stakeholder Report.

Councilmember Lopez attended the Bay Area Air District Meeting.

Councilmember Gibbons attended Silicon Valley Clean Energy meetings; webinars on establishing equitable energy rates; and Reach Codes; the CalCCA Gala; a seminar discussing optimizing building decarbonization and the Mayor’s State of the City event with the Council.

Vice Mayor Bybee attended the Fri ends of the Heritage Theatre; the Wild Rose ribbon cutting ceremony and the Saratoga State of the City.

Mayor Resnikoff attended the west Valley Sanitation District meeting; Silicon Valley Animal Control Authority meetin g; the West Valley Mayors and Manag ers; Saratoga State of the City and spoke about attending a volunteer event with Vice Mayor Bybee at Edith Morley to build and replace fences.

ADJOURN
Mayor Paul Resnikoff, adjourned the meeting at 10:46 PM APPROVED:

ATTEST:

Paul Resnikoff, Mayor

Andrea Sanders, City Clerk

2 Packet Pg. 14
Minutes Acceptance: Minutes of Oct 4, 2022 7:30 PM (CONSENT CALENDAR) City
Council
Report
TITLE: Approving Bills and Claims

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Approve the bills and claims in the amount of $591,802.86

DISCUSSION
The bills and claims that have been a udited and approved by staff for payments made as noted below:

Type Check Date Amount
Payroll Sept 15,2022 65,016.25
Bills & Claims Sept 19,2022 197,162.24
Bills & Claims Sept 26,2022 329,624.37
Total $591,802.86

FISCAL IMPACT
Requested action do es not require a budget adjustment. Adequate funding was available to cover all expenses as listed.

Prepared by:

Celia Deniz, Accounting Clerk II
Item: 3
Category: CONSENT CALENDAR
Meeting Date: October 18, 2022
3 Packet Pg. 15
Reviewed by:

Will Fuentes, Finance Director

Approving Bills and Claims Page 2 of 2
Brian Loventhal, City Manager
3 Packet Pg. 16
Approved by:

City
Council
Report
TITLE: Monthly Investment Transactions Report (September 2022)

RECOMMENDED ACTION
That the City Council review and accept the Monthly Investment Transactions Report for September 2022.

BACKGROUND
As required by California Government Code ( GC) Section 53607, staff will submit to Council Monthly Investment Transaction Reports within 45 days of the prior month end that show a listing of investments purchased, sold, called, or that have reached maturity, along with any Local Agency Investment Fund ( LAIF) transfers. This is in addition to the Quarterly Investment Report, which shows a number of other items listed under Section VII.A of the City’s Investment Policy and has been historically prepared by staff and submitted to Council within 30 days from the end of the prior quarter.

DISCUSSION
This Monthly Investment Transaction Report covers September 2022. As shown in Attachment A, staff made a $0.5 million withdrawal from and deposited $0.7 million into the City’s Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) account to support weekly operating cash flow needs . The primary cash outlays this month were the TARB & LRB debt service payments, totaling $1.6 million as well as a 3rd payroll falling into the calendar month. Consistent with the recommended FY 2022-23 Investment Strategy approved by Council on August 1 6, 202 2, staff will continue looking for longer -term investment opportunities outside of LAIF , as interest rates steadily rise, providing a higher, yet still safe return consistent with the City’s Investment Policy. The LAIF investment rat e equaled 1.513%, representing a 130 basis point increase over the past year. Staff continues to look for attractive and appropriate long er-term investment opportunities throughout FY 202 3; contingent on continued positive economic interest rate trends.

Please note that all investment purchases made adhere to the City’s Investment Policy.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with the review and acceptance of the Monthly Investment Transactions Report.

Item: 4
Category: CONSENT CALENDAR
Meeting Date: October 18, 2022
4 Packet Pg. 17
Monthly Investment Transactions Report (September 2022) Page 2 of 2 Prepared by:

John Formale, Accountant
Reviewed by:

Will Fuentes, Finance Director
Approved by:

Brian Loventhal, City Manager
Attachment:
a. Monthly Investment Activity Report-9.30.22
4 Packet Pg. 18

CITY OF CAMPBELL
Monthly Investment Transactions Report
September 1 to September 30, 2022
Account Trans. Date September 2022
LAIF - ******137
Average Monthly Yield 1.513%
Beginning Balance 64,885,975$
Transactions
Withdrawal 09/23/2022 (500,000)
Deposit 09/28/2023 700,000
Monthly Total 200,000
Ending Balance 65,085,975$
Account Trans. Date September 2022
Bank of New York (BNY) - ******818
Beginning Balance 23,999,860$
Transactions
Monthly Total -
Ending Balance 23,999,860$

4.a
Packet Pg. 19
Attachment: Monthly Investment Activity Report-9.30.22 (Monthly Investment Transactions Report (September 2022)) City
Council
Report
TITLE: Second Reading of Ordinance 2289 Amending Chapter 11.15 (Parklets in the Public Right-Of-Way) (Ordinance/Roll Call Vote)

RECOMMENDED ACTION
That the City Council adopt Ordinance 2289 amending Chapter 11.15 (Parklets in the Public Right-of Way) of the Campbell Municipal Code to remove the requirement for a security deposit.

BACKGROUND
The Semi -Permanent Parklet Program incorporates direction provided by the City Council at the Janua ry 18, April 19, July 5 , and September 20 Council meetings and presents feedback from key stakeholders, the public, and additional information from other cities implementing similar parklet programs. At the July 5 meeting, Council adopted Resolution 12859 approving an amendment to the City’s Master Fee Schedule adding fees and deposits related to parklets in the public right -of-way, providing for a one-time Construction Grant to program applicants and approving associated budget adjustments for Fiscal Year 2023.

At its September 20, 2022 meeting, the City Council decided not to implement a security deposit requirement into the Parklet Program.

On October 4, 2022, the City Council held a public hearing and voted 4 - 1 (Vice Mayor Bybee voted no) to approve and take first reading of Ordinance 2289. Ordinance 2289 will become effective 30 days following second reading approval.

FISCAL IMPACT
Nominal publication costs are associated with approving the Ordinance second reading to meet the requirement of Gov. Code 36933, but can be absorbed within the current FY 2022 Operating Budget. Cost s for codification of th e Ordinance in the Campbell Municipal Code are also included in the current budget by way of purchase order. Other fiscal impacts are included in the s taff report introducing the Ordinance on October 4, 2022.

Item: 5
Category: CONSENT CALENDAR
Meeting Date: October 18, 2022
5 Packet Pg. 20
Second Reading of Ordinance 2289 Page 2 of 2

Prepared by:

Andrea Sanders, City Clerk

Approved by:

Brian Loventhal, City Manager

Attachment:
a. Ordinance 2289
5 Packet Pg. 21
ORDINANCE 2289

BEING AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL AMENDING CHAPTER 11.15 (PARKLETS IN THE PUBLIC RIGHT-OF-WAY) TO THE CAMPBELL MUNICIPAL CODE (“CMC”). FILE NO. PLN-2022-39
After notification and public h earing, as sp ecified by l aw and after pr esentation by t he Community Development Director, proponents and opponents, the hearing was closed.

After due consideration of all evidence presented, the City Council of the City of Campbell does hereby ordain as follows:

SECTION 1. The legislature of the State of California has, in Government Code Sections 65302, 65560, and 65800 conferred upon local government units authority to adopt regulations designed to promote the public health, safety and general welfare of its citizenry.

SECTION 2. The City Council finds and determines that nothing in this Ordinance is intended to authorize, legalize, or permit the establishment, operation, or maintenance of any business, building, or use which violates any City ordinance or any statue of the State of California.

SECTION 3. The City Council finds and determines that the proposed amendments to Chapter 11.15 (Parklets in the Public Right -of-Way) of the Campbell Municipal Code would not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or general welfare of the City.

SECTION 4. The City Council finds and determines that the adoption of an Ordinance is considered a "project" under Section 15378(a)(1) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines, typically subject to environmental review. However, such an action may be exempted from environmental review if the City finds that: 1) the project is exempt pursuant to a categorical exemption; and 2) the application of that categorical exemption is not barred by one of the exceptions set forth in Sec. 15300.2 (Sec. 15061(b)(2)).

SECTION 5. The City Council finds and determines that in review of the CEQA statute, the project may be found categorically exempt under Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) given that it would result in only minor alterations of existing public or private facilities (e.g., alterations to streets, sidewalks, and parking facilities) and negligible expansion of existing uses (parklets expand on outdoor dining activities already allowed in the City).

The project may also be found categorically exempt under Section 15311 (Accessory Structures) give n that it would only allow for the construction or placement of minor structures accessory to existing commercial facilities (parklets would only be allowed in association with a “bona fide public eating place”). Further, as none of the exceptions set forth in Sec. 15300.2 apply (i.e., not in a particularly sensitive environment, the cumulative impact of the project is not significant, there is no reasonable possibility that the project

5.a
Packet Pg. 22
Attachment: Ordinance 2289 (Second Reading of Ordinance 2289) City Council Ordinance No. Page 2 of 3 Amending Chapter 11.15 (Parklets in the Public Right-of-Way) of the Campbell Municipal Code
File No.: PLN-2022-39
will have a significant impact due to usual circumstances, impact scenic highways, the project would not impact a hazardous waste site, does not result in a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource) the City Council finds and determines that project may be found categorically exempt under CEQA.

SECTION 6. Section 11.15.80 (Conditions of approval.) of Chapter 11.15 (Parklets in the Public Right -of-Way) is hereby amended to read as follows with underlining ( i.e., underlining) indicating new text and strikeouts (i.e., strikeouts) indicating deleted text.

11.15.080 Conditions of approval.

The following conditions of approval shall apply to all Parklet Permits approved under this Chapter in addition to any additional conditions of approved imposed by the City Engineer:
(a) Fees. The applicant for a Parklet Permit shall be subject to all applicable fees and charges for the issuance and operation of a Parklet Permit, which shall be determined by resolution adopted by the city council. If no resolution has been adopted, then the applicant must submit a signed written statement that acknowledges that the applicant will be required to reimburse the city for its reasonable costs incurred in connection with the application within ten days after the city issues a written demand for reimbursement. Applicant shall also be responsible for paying all costs associated with the parklet installation and operation including, but not limited to, an annual fee collected to ensure the ongoing compliance of the Parklet with the requirements of this Chapter.
(b) Inspection and reporting. The permittee under the Parklet Permit, when directed by the city, must perform an inspection of the parklet and submit a report to the Public Works Department on the condition of the facility to include any identified concerns and corrective action taken or to be taken. The permittee shall also maintain and repair the parklet at its sole expense during its placement in the public right -of-way. The permittee must correct or repair the parklet within thirty days after th e city's notice for corrective action; after which the city reserves the right to take any action it deems necessary, which may include revocation of any applicable permit(s). The permittee is responsible for any costs associated with necessary actions performed by the city due to permittee's failure to comply with this section and with the Parklet Design Requirements. The permittee has the burden to demonstrate compliance with this chapter. (c) Expiration. The applicable permit(s) may be rescinded if construction is not substantially commenced within one year of the Permit being granted, absent a showing of good cause. The applicant may not renew the Permit or resubmit an application to develop a parklet at the same location for six months from date of rescission.
(d) Abandonment. Abandoned parklets shall be removed by the last known owner of record of such parklet, at the sole cost of said owner and to the satisfaction of the city. For the purposes of this chapter, a parklet shall be considered abandoned when it is no longer used by the applicant to provide service for a period of one - hundred and eighty (180) days without a new Parklet Permit being submitted. It shall be the obligation of the applicant of any Parklet Permit not in active use to respond to any comments issued by the City within thirty (30) calendar days of their transmittal by the City or the Parklet shall be considered abandoned. (e) Insurance. The applicant and operator shall obtain and maintain insurance in compliance with Chapter 11.30 (Insurance Requirements for Encroachment) of the Campbell Municipal Code. (f) Business License. The business utilizing the parklet shall be required to obtain and maintain a valid City business license at all times.
(g) No Smoking. “No Smoking" signs shall be posted on the premises in compliance with CMC 6.11.060.

5.a
Packet Pg. 23
Attachment: Ordinance 2289 (Second Reading of Ordinance 2289) City Council Ordinance No. Page 3 of 3 Amending Chapter 11.15 (Parklets in the Public Right-of-Way) of the Campbell Municipal Code
File No.: PLN-2022-39
(h) Security Deposit. A security deposit, in an amount established by the City’s schedule of fees and charges, shall be paid to the City to cover the cost of removal and/or enforcing the removal of the parklet prior to the issuance of building permits. Every three (3) years following the receipt of the initial security deposit, an additional security deposit shall be paid to account for any difference in the security deposit held by the City and the security deposit required by the City’s most recently adopted schedule of fees and charges. (hi) Non-Transferable. Parklet Permits shall not be transferable and a new parklet permit shall be required whenever the applicant is no longer associated with the operation, maintenance, or removal of the Parklet or insurance policy required under subsection (e) of this Section. (i j ) Operational Requirements. Parklet Permits shall be operated in accordance with all operational requirements established by any permit pertaining to the bona fide public eating establishment, including those required by other agencies (e.g., Alcohol Beverage Control). The preceding sentence notwithstanding, an exception to the maximum number or type of seats permitted by a permit issued under Title 21 of the Campbell Municipal Code shall be permitted.

SECTION 7. This Ordinance shall become effective thirty (30) days following its passage and adoption and shall be published, or summary thereof, one time within fifteen (15) days upon passage and adoption in the Metro Silicon Valley , a newspaper of general circulation for the City of Campbell, County of Santa Clara.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this _____ day of ____________, 2022 by the following roll call vote:

AYES: Councilmembers:

NOES: Councilmembers:

ABSENT: Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN: Councilmembers:

APPROVED:

_______________________
Paul Resnikoff, Mayor

ATTEST:

_______________________________
Andrea Sanders, City Clerk

5.a
Packet Pg. 24
Attachment: Ordinance 2289 (Second Reading of Ordinance 2289)

City
Council
Report

TITLE: Approval of the Vacation of a Portion of Westmont Avenue, Authorizing the Public Works Director to Sign the Quitclaim Deed, and Directing the City Clerk to Record the Resolution – 1445 Westmont Avenue (Resolution/Roll Call Vote)

RECOMMENDED ACTION

That the City Council adopt a resolution: 1) vacating a portion of Westmont Avenue; 2) authorizing the Public Works Director to sign the Quitclaim Deed; and 3) di recting the City Clerk to record the resolution.

BACKGROUND

On March 26, 2003, the City of Campbell accepted a street dedication along the frontage of 1445 Westmont Avenue as part of the Westmont Sidewalk Improvements project. Subsequently, the City Cou ncil approved the subdivision of 1429 & 1445 Westmont Avenue (PLN2018 -236), including the vacation of a portion of Westmont Avenue considered to be excess right -of-way. The current property owner has filed an application (ENG-2021-371) requesting that the City of Campbell abandon this excess right-of-way so that it may be included with their pending subdivision known as Tract Map No. 10580.

DISCUSSION

During the review of the proposed subdivision of 1429 & 1445 Westmont Avenue (PLN2018-236), it was dete rmined that a small portion, an area of 133 square feet of Westmont Avenue, was not needed as public right -of-way. The subdivision was conditioned to apply for abandonment of this excess right -of-way during the implementation phase of the project. The cu rrent property owner of 1445 Westmont Avenue has applied for the vacation of this excess right -of-way, as well as the associated Tract Map to implement the approved subdivision and to incorporate the excess right-of-way should Council approve this vacation . As part of the application process, all utility companies with a potential interest in this right -of-way have been contacted, and all have indicated no objection to the proposed vacation.

Upon recordation of the vacation, the Public Works Director will execute a Quitclaim Deed on behalf of the City, transferring the underlying property back to the property Item: 6
Category: CONSENT CALENDAR
Meeting Date: October 18, 2022
6 Packet Pg. 25
Vacation of Westmont Ave. Page 2 of 2
owner of 1445 Westmont Avenue. This land will then be merged into the property with pending Tract Map No. 10580.

FISCAL IMPACT

There is no fiscal impact associated with this action.

Prepared by:

Roger Storz, Senior Civil Engineer

Reviewed by:

Todd Capurso, Director of Public Works

Approved by:

Brian Loventhal, City Manager

Attachment:
a. Resolution
b. Exhibit A-Legal Description
c. Exhibit B-Plat Map
6 Packet Pg. 26

RESOLUTION NO. ______________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL VACATING

A PORTION OF WESTMONT AVENUE, AUTHORIZING THE PUBLIC WORKS

DIRECTOR TO SIGN THE QUITCLAIM DEED, AND DIRECTING THE CITY CLERK TO RECORD THE RESOLUTION (1445 WESTMONT AVENUE)

WHEREAS, on March 26, 2003 the subject property dedicated right -of-way to the City of Campbell, recorded as Document No. 16913379, of Official Records; and

WHEREAS, on June 18, 2019 the City Council of the City of Campbell approved a Tentative Subdivision Map (PLN2018 -236), including the the vacation of a portion of Westmont Avenue considered to be excess right-of-way; and

WHEREAS, the portion of Westmont Avenue to be va cated shall be merged into the adjacent property (APN 403-10-116) as part of pending Tract Map No. 10580; and

WHEREAS, all public utility companies have been contacted and have indicated no objection to said vacation; and

WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of C ampbell adopts the finding that pursuant to Section 892 of t he Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, the portion of Westmont Avenue proposed for abandonment is not useful as a non -motorized transportation facility; and

WHEREAS, the vacation is to be made pursuant to Chapter 4, Summary Vacation, of Part 3 of Division 9 of the California Street and Highway Code.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Campbell does hereby vacate this excess right -of-way, authorizes the Public Works Director to sign the Quitclaim Deed and d irects t he City Clerk to record this Resolution for the property at 1445 Westmont Avenue as shown on Exhibits A and B

PASSED AND ADOPTED this _______ day of __________, 2022 by the following roll call vote:

AYES: Councilmembers:

NOES: Councilmembers:

ABSENT: Councilmembers:

APPROVED:

____________________________
Paul Resnikoff, Mayor
ATTEST:

_______________________________
Andrea Sanders, City Clerk

6.a
Packet Pg. 27
Attachment: Resolution (Vacation of Westmont Ave.)

6.b
Packet Pg. 28
Attachment: Exhibit A-Legal Description (Vacation of Westmont Ave.)

6.c
Packet Pg. 29
Attachment: Exhibit B-Plat Map (Vacation of Westmont Ave.)

City
Council
Report

TITLE: Approval of Parcel Map Including Acceptance of Street Dedication and Public Service Easements Shown on Said Map – 16160 East Mozart Avenue (Resolution Roll Call Vote)

RECOMMENDED ACTION

That the City Council adopt a resolution approving the Parcel Map and accept the street dedication and public service easements as shown on the map for the property located at 16160 East Mozart Avenue.

BACKGROUND

On Januar y 27, 2022, the Community Development Director conditionally approved a Tentative Parcel Map (PLN2021 -192) to allow a four -lot, single -family, residential subdivision of property located at 16160 East Mozart Avenue.

DISCUSSION

The Parcel Map includes th e public street dedication and public service easements necessary to accommodate the approved use of the property. Staff has reviewed the map and found it in compliance with the approved Tentative Parcel Map, the Subdivision Map Act, and Title 20 of the C ampbell Municipal Code. The attached resolution has been prepared for Council’s consideration for approval of the Parcel Map and acceptance of the street dedication and public service easements offered for dedication.

FISCAL IMPACT

In addition to the e ntitlement application fees already paid, and permit fees required for building permits and off -site improvement review, the developer has contributed $74,706.00 in Park Impact Fees.

ALTERNATIVES

Item: 7
Category: CONSENT CALENDAR
Meeting Date: October 18, 2022
7 Packet Pg. 30
Approval of Parcel Map 16160 E. Mozart Ave. Page 2 of 2 Determine that the Parcel Map is not consistent with the Tentative Parcel Map or applicable codes, and do not approve the Parcel Map or accept dedications.

Prepared by:

Roger Storz, Senior Civil Engineer

Reviewed by:

Todd Capurso, Director of Public Works

Approved by:

Brian Loventhal, City Manager

Attachment:
a. Resolution
b. Parcel Map
7 Packet Pg. 31

RESOLUTION NO. ______________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL

APPROVING THE PARCEL MAP AND ACCEPTING THE

PUBLIC STREET AND PUBLIC SERVICE EASEMENTS OFFERED FOR

DEDICATION FOR THE PROPERTY LOCATED AT
16160 EAST MOZART AVENUE

WHEREAS, on January 27, 2022, the Community Developement Director conditionally approved a Tentative Parcel Map ( PLN2021-192) to allow a four-lot, single -family, residential subdivision of property located at 16160 East Mozart Avenue; and

WHEREAS, public street dedication and public service easement s are necessary to accommodate the approved use of the property and have been offered for dedication on the Parcel Map; and

WHEREAS, the Parcel Map has been prepared, reviewed by staff, and found to be in compliance with the Tentative Parcel Map, the Subdivision Map Act and Title 20 of the Campbell Municipal Code.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Campbell that the Parcel Map is hereby approved and the Public Street and Public Se rvice Easements offered for dedication as shown on said map are hereby accepted in conformity with the terms for which they are offered.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this _______ day of __________, 2022 by the following roll call vote:

AYES: Councilmembers:

NOES: Councilmembers:

ABSENT: Councilmembers:

APPROVED:

____________________________
Paul Resnikoff, Mayor
ATTEST:

_______________________________
Andrea Sanders, City Clerk

7.a
Packet Pg. 32
Attachment: Resolution (Approval of Parcel Map 16160 E. Mozart Ave.)

7.b
Packet Pg. 33
Attachment: Parcel Map (Approval of Parcel Map 16160 E. Mozart Ave.)

7.b
Packet Pg. 34
Attachment: Parcel Map (Approval of Parcel Map 16160 E. Mozart Ave.)

City
Council
Report

TITLE: Public Hearing to Consider Revisions to Approved Mills Act Contracts for Properties Located at 73 S. 1St Street, 204 Alice Avenue, and 81 Alice Avenue, to Extend the Contract Term (Resolution/Roll Call Vote)

RECOMMENDED ACTION

That the City Council adopt a Resolution approving revisions to three approved Mills Act contracts for properties located at 73 S. 1st Street, 204 Alice Avenue, and 81 Alice Avenue, to extend the contract term.

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Staff recommends that the City Council determine approval of a Mills Act contract is categorically exempt under Section 15331, Class 31 of the CEQA Guidelines, pertaining to projects involving the maintenance, rehabilitation, restoration, preservation, or reconstruction of historical resources.

BACKGROUND

Program History: The Mills Act is a state law allowing cities to enter into contracts with the owners of historic structures. Such contracts require a reduction of property taxes in exchange for the continued preservation of the historic building . Property taxes are recalculated using a formula in the Mills Act and Revenue and Taxation Code. The City's local Mills Ac t pilot program was originally created on October 4, 2011, with an allowance for five contracts and expanded to 10 contracts on February 3, 2015.

Recent Applications : At its September 7, 2021, meeting, the City Council approved three contracts for 73 S. 1 st Street, 204 Alice Avenue, and 81 Alice Avenue, bringing the total to eleven contracts (reference Exhibit B – Staff Report). At the recommendation of the Historic Preservation Board, these contracts were approved for a 10 -year term through issuance of a Notice of Non -Renewal at the time of contract execution, to ensure the contracts would expire in 10 years. Since Mills Act contracts have an initial 10 -year term (per State law) and automatically renew annually for one additional year, they run indefinitely unless the City or contract-holder wishes to end the agreement. The mechanism to end an agreement is known as a Notice of Non - Renewal, which ends the automatic renewal of the contract allowing it to expire in 10 years.

Item: 8
Category: PUBLIC HEARINGS AND

INTRODUCTION OF

ORDINANCES
Meeting Date: October 18, 2022
8 Packet Pg. 35
Mills Act Applications Page 2 of 3

The intent of the term -limit was two-fold. It would allow the contracts to expire in 10 - years allowing slots to be freed up for other homeowners in the future (assuming a numeric cap on the overall number of contracts was maintained). Secondly, a defined term more closely tied the homeown ers proposed workplan to the duration of the contract.

Consistent with the Council's approval, each contract contained a clause indicating the City's intention to file a Notice of Non -Renewal. The Notice of Non -Renewal was provided to each contract -holder upon recordation of the agreements, as well as to the County Assessor's Office, earlier this year.

In discussions with the County Assessor's Office following recordation of the agreements, it was brough to staff's attention that filing of a Notice of No n-Renewal will immediately begin to remove the property -tax savings provided by the Mills Act Contract, significantly reducing any financial incentive associated with enrollment in the program. As this was not disclosed to the Council and not an intended r esult of the City's goal to impose a 10 -year term, the contracts are being returned to the Council for further consideration of extending the duration of the term . The County Assessor's Office has indicated that so long as the modified contracts are record ed by the end of the year, the savings will still go into effect next tax year.

DISCUSSION

To ensure that the recently approved Mills Act contracts provide a full 10 -years of property tax savings, staff recommends that the Council reauthorize the agreem ents with a provision that the City issue a Notice of Non -Renewal in 10 years, resulting in an effective 20 -year contract term. This would allow the contract -holders to realize a full decade's worth of savings before the savings would begin to winddown.

Under State law, the contract -holders do have recourse to appeal the City's decision to file a Notice of Non -Renewal in 10 years. Should a contract -holder file an appeal, the City Council would consider the grounds for the appeal (e.g., that additional improvements are required for the property), and may grant additional time on the agreement if warranted.

ALTERNATIVE

Instead of extending the contract period, the Council may alternatively consider not imposing an expiration period at this time, consistent with the contracts that had been previously approved in years prior. This would allow the Council to consider the broader policy question of contract term as part of a future update to the Mills Act Program, as the City may file a Notice of Non-Renewal at any time.

FISCAL IMPACT
8 Packet Pg. 36
Mills Act Applications Page 3 of 3
Based on estimated property tax savings worksheets provided by the applicants last year, the three approved contracts would together reduce the property taxes for the three properties by approximately $33,000 annually. Since the Ci ty receives approximately 14% of property taxes with adjustment for special districts and assessments, the City's annual revenue loss would approximately $4,600. If a notice of non-renewal is filed in ten years to terminate the contract in 20 years, the re venue loss would continue, but at declining rate determined by the Assessor's Office.

Prepared by:

Daniel Fama, Senior Planner
Approved by:

Brian Loventhal, City Manager
Attachment:
a. CC Resolution - Mills Act (2022)
b. City Council Staff Report, dated Sept. 7, 2021
8 Packet Pg. 37

RESOLUTION NO._______

BEING A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF

CAMPBELL APPROVING REVISIONS TO THREE APPROVED

MILLS ACT CONTRACT APPLICATIONS FOR PROPERTIES
LOCATED A T 73 S. 1ST STREET , 204 ALICE AVENUE , AND 81 ALICE AVENUE, TO EXTEND THE CONTRACT TERM.

After notification and public hearing, as specified by law and after presentation by the Community Development Director, proponents and opponents, the hearing was closed.

The City Council finds as follows with regards to file numbers PLN-2021-26/49/72:

Environmental Finding

1. Approval of a Mills Act contract is categorically exempt under Section 15331, Class 31 of the CEQA Guidelines, pertaining to projects involving the maintenance, rehabilitation, restoration, preservation, or reconstruction of historical resources.

Evidentiary Findings

1. California Governme nt Code, Section 50280 et seq., and California Revenue and Taxation Code, Section 439 et seq., authorize the City of Campbell to enter into contract with owner(s) of qualified historical property; defined as property that is (a) located entirely within the City of Campbell; (b) is privately owned; (c) is taxed as residential property; and (e) is individually listed on the City of Campbell's adopted Historic Resource Inventory List, to restrict the use of the property in a manner which the City deems reasonable to carry out the purposes of the relevant state regulations.

2. The Mills Act program allows private property owners of qualified historic property to receive property tax relief in exchange for agreeing to preserve, rehabilitate, and maintain their historic properties for a specific period.

3. On October 4, 2011, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 11334, initiating a three - year pilot Mills Act Incentive Program, allowing up to five (5) Mills Act contracts to assist property owners of locally-designated historic residences to benefit from property tax savings in exchange for reinvestment towards the structures’ preservation.

4. On February 3, 2015, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 11776, approving an extension of the Mills Act Incentive Program, allowing a combined maximum of ten (10) Mills Act contracts over the course of the program.

5. At its meeting of September 7, 2022, the City Council adopted a resolution approving approval of three new Mills Act contracts for properties located at 73 S. 1st Street, 204 Alice Avenue, and 81 Alice Avenue, commonly known as the Laura Campbell Swope House, the William & Dorothy (Mills) Harrison House, and the Doc and Cora Beal House, respectively.

8.a
Packet Pg. 38
Attachment: CC Resolution - Mills Act (2022) (Mills Act Applications) City Council Resolution Page 2
Approval of a Mills Act Contracts

6. In approving the contracts, the City Council directed the City Manager to file a Notice of Non-Renewal in 10-years to establish a de-facto 10-year contract term.

7. In discussions with the County Assessor's Office following recordation of the agreements, it was brought to staff's attention that filing of a Notice of Non-Renewal will immediately begin to remove the property -tax savings provided by the Mills Act Contract, significantly reducing any financial incentive associated with enrollment in the program. As this was not disclosed to the Council and not an intended result of the City's goal to impose a 10 -year term, to the items are being returned to the Council for further consideration.

THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council approves revisions to three approved Mills Act contracts for properties located at 73 S. 1st Street, 204 Alice Avenue, and 81 Alice Avenue, to extend the contract term for a period of 20-years.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this __ day of ______, 2022, by the following roll call vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAINED: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

APPROVED:______________________________
Paul Resnikoff, Mayor

ATTEST:______________________________
Andrea Sanders, City Clerk

8.a
Packet Pg. 39
Attachment: CC Resolution - Mills Act (2022) (Mills Act Applications)

EXHIBIT A

CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
Mills Act Contracts

1. Approval: Approval is granted by the City Council to authorize the City Manager to enter into revised Mills Act contracts for properties located at 73 S. 1st Street , 204 Alice Avenue , and 81 Alice Avenue , commonly known as the Laura Campbell Swope House, the William & Dorothy ( Mills) Harrison House, and the Doc and Cora Beal House, respectively. The contracts shall conform to the submitted Proposed Schedule and Plan for Maintenance and Treatment of the Historic Property, as may be modified by the Conditions of Approval contained herein.

2. Expiration: The Mills Act Historic contract approval shall be valid for one year from City Council action. Within this one -year period each property owner shall enter into the Mills Act contract with the City. Failure to execute a contract within this one -year period will result in the approval being rendered void

3. Annual Reports : The property owner shall be required to submit to the City an annual report which documents how the property owner is satisfying th e terms and provisions of the Mills Act Historic Property Contract. An annual monitoring fee established by the City Council may be required to be submitted with the annual report.

4. Inspections: The property owner shall allow periodic interior and exterior inspections by the City, County Tax Assessor, Department of Parks and Recreati on, and State Board of Equalization to determine the property owner’s compliance with the Mills Act Historic contract.

5. Length of Mills Act Contract : The term of the contract shall be for a period of (20) twenty years. In ten (10) years following contract execution, the City Manager shall issue a Notice of Non-Renewal, which shall result in the termination of the contract in ten (10) additional years.

6. Continued Applicability : The contract must be binding upon successive property owners for the term of the contract. Successive property owners shall have the same rights and obligations under the contract as the owner who entered the contract.

7. Cancellation fee: A cancellation fee of 12.5% of the full market value of the property must be assessed upon the property owner if the contract is canceled for breach of the provisions of the contract or if the property is altered or allowed to deteriorate so that it is no longer considered a significant historic structure.

8. Compliance with Standards : All work must comply with the rules and regulations of the California State Office of Historic Preservation of the Department of Parks and Recreation, the United States Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation, the California State Historic Building Code , and the Campbell Historic Design Guidelines.

8.a
Packet Pg. 40
Attachment: CC Resolution - Mills Act (2022) (Mills Act Applications)

City
Council
Report

TITLE: Public Hearing to Consider Applications for Mills Act Contracts for Properties Located at 73 S. 1St Street, 204 Alice Avenue, and 81 Alice Avenue, Commonly Known as the Laura Campbell Swope House, the William and Dorothy (Mills) Harrison House, and the Doc and Cora Beal House, Respectively. (Resolution/Roll Call Vote)

RECOMMENDED ACTION

That the City Council adopt a Resolutio n accepting the recommendation of the Historic Preservation Board (HPB) to approve Mills Act contracts for properties located at 73 S. 1st Street (Laura Campbell Swope House) and 204 Alice Avenue (William and Dorothy Mills Harrison House).

ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION
Staff recommends that the City Council determine approval of a Mills Act contract is categorically exempt under Section 15331, Class 31 of the CEQA Guidelines, pertaining to projects involving the maintenance, rehabilitation, restoration, pre servation, or reconstruction of historical resources.

BACKGROUND
Program History: The Mills Act is a state law allowing cities to enter into contracts with the owners of historic structures. Such contracts require a reduction of property taxes in exchange for the continued preservation of the property. Property taxes are recalculated using a formula in the Mills Act and Revenue and Taxation Code.

On October 4, 2011, the City Council adopted Resolution 11334, initiating a three -year pilot Mills Act Progr am, allowing up to five (5) Mills Act contracts to assist property owners of locally -designated historic residences to benefit from property tax savings in exchange for reinvestment towards the structures’ preservation. During this three -year period, the City Council authorized three (3) Mills Act contracts.

On February 3, 2015, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 11776, approving an extension of the Mills Act Program, allowing a combined maximum of ten Mills Act contracts over the course of the progr am. To date, the City has approved eight contracts, leaving two additional contracts to be approved under the current program.

Item: 11
Category: PUBLIC HEARINGS AND

INTRODUCTION OF

ORDINANCES
Meeting Date: September 7, 2021
11 Packet Pg. 105

8.b
Packet Pg. 41
Attachment: City Council Staff Report, dated Sept. 7, 2021 (Mills Act Applications) Mills Act Applications Page 2 of 6
Applications: The following three Mills Act applications are under consideration. A fourth application for 51 Alice Avenue was a lso submitted but withdrawn by the applicant prior to final consideration.

Application No. 2 (73 S. 1st Street)
Property Owner: Chung Chan
Property Address: 73 S. 1st Street (click link for a map) Common Name: Laura Campbell Swope House
HRI Designation: Landmark
Construction Date: 1895
Architectural Style: Queen Anne Victorian
Application File No.: PLN-2021-26
➢ Attachment B(1) - Priority Consideration Worksheet
➢ Attachment B(2) - Proposed Schedule and Plan
➢ Attachment B(3) - Prop. Tax Adjustment Worksheet
➢ Attachment B(4) - DPR Primary Record Form
➢ Attachment B(5) - City Permit History
➢ Attachment B(6) - Property Photographs
➢ Attachment B(7) - Project Plans (reference only)

Application No. 3 (204 Alice Avenue)
Property Owner: Kornel Kovacs
Property Address: 204 Alice Avenue (click link for a map) Common Name: William & Dorothy Harrison House
HRI Designation: Historic District
Construction Date: 1940/1941
Architectural Style: Colonial Revival
Application File No.: PLN-2021-49
➢ Attachment C(1) - Priority Consideration Worksheet
➢ Attachment C(2) - Proposed Schedule and Plan
➢ Attachment C(3) - Prop. Tax Adjustment Worksheet
➢ Attachment C(4) - DPR Primary Record Form
➢ Attachment C(5) - City Permit History
➢ Attachment C(6) - Property Photographs
➢ Attachment C(7) - Project Plans (reference only)

11 Packet Pg. 106

8.b
Packet Pg. 42
Attachment: City Council Staff Report, dated Sept. 7, 2021 (Mills Act Applications) Mills Act Applications Page 3 of 6
Application No. 4 (81 Alice Avenue)
Property Owner: Douglas and Rebecca Fournier
Property Address: 81 Alice Avenue (click link for a map) Common Name: Doc and Cora Beal House
HRI Designation: Historic District
Construction Date: 1926
Architectural Style: California Bungalow
Application File No.: PLN-2021-72
➢ Attachment D(1) - Priority Consideration Worksheet
➢ Attachment D(2) - Proposed Schedule and Plan
➢ Attachment D(3) - Prop. Tax Adjustment Worksheet
➢ Attachment D(4) - DPR Primary Record Form
➢ Attachment D(5) - City Permit History
➢ Attachment D(6) - Property Photographs
➢ Attachment D(7) - Project Plans (reference only)
➢ Attachment D(8) - Written Statement

HPB Meetings: The Historic Preservation Board (HPB) first considered the applications at its meeting of May 26, 2021. As the number of applications reviewed exceeded the two r emaining allocated contracts available, review of the applications was a competitive process and the HPB used the City's Mills Act application package as a framework to rank the (then) four applications (reference Attachment E – Staff Report).

Due to the competitive nature of the review and some discrepancies in the application materials, the Board continued the public hearing and directed the applicants to provide revised proposals per their direction (reference Attachment F – Meeting Minutes).

The Board reconvened the public hearing at is June 23, 2021 meeting and considered the three remaining applications (reference Attachment G – Staff Report). Using th e methodology described, the Board adopted a resolution ranking the applications as (1) 73 S. 1st Street, (2) 204 Alice Avenue, and (3) 81 Alice Avenue ( Attachment H – Meeting Minutes). As part of its review and recommendation, the Board recommended the Council to authorize an eleventh application so that 81 Alice Avenue may also be granted a Mills Act contract. Additionally, the Board's recommendation also includes a 10-year term for the contracts.

DISCUSSION
Ranking Process: The City Council resolution es tablishing the Mills Act program did not provide specific guidance as to how applications should be reviewed other than consistency with the criteria for listing on the Historic Resource Inventory (HRI). In 2011, the Board prepared its own selection criter ia, which is included on Page 3 of the Mills Act application package and restated on the Priority Consideration Worksheet (Supplemental Form #1). Although the criteria references "ranking" of applications, the Board had not performed this exercise before, previously there have been more available contracts than applications.
11 Packet Pg. 107

8.b
Packet Pg. 43
Attachment: City Council Staff Report, dated Sept. 7, 2021 (Mills Act Applications) Mills Act Applications Page 4 of 6
With staff and the Mills Act ad hoc Subcommittee support, the Board used a weighted point system for the ranking, such that up to five points (0-5) could be granted for Criteria No. 1, No. 2, and No. 4 each, and up to one point for Criteria No. 5. An application could receive up to 16 points using this methodology.

• Criteria No. 1 (5 points) : A higher ranking will be given to those applications that demonstrate that entering into a Mills Act Contract will result in the greatest number or value of improvements to the historic property thereby resulting in the greatest benefit to the public.
• Criteria No. 2 (5 points) : A higher ranking will be given to those applications that demonstrate that entering into a Mills Act Contract will substantially reduce the threat to the historic property of demolition, deterioration, abandonment, and/or general neglect.
• Criteria No. 3 (1 point): A higher ranking will be given to those applications that demonstrate, in cases of economic hardship, that entering into a Mills Act Contract will result in the preservation and maintenance of a historic property. • Criteria No. 4 (5 points) : A higher ranking will be given to those applications that demonstrate the hig hest percentage of tax savings being used to finance the property maintenance and improvements.

The Board used a comparison table, prepared by staff, included as Attachment I that identified the proposed work, proposed cost 1, estimated property tax saving s2 (annual and over a 10 -year period 3), and the percentage of savings reinvested into the property (cost ÷ savings) for each application. This information was used to evaluate the applications with regard to Criteria No. 1 (number and/or value of improveme nts) and No. 4 (percentage of tax savings used to finance improvements).

The comparison table is based on each applicant's revised Proposed Schedule and Plan Spreadsheet. Per the Board's May 26, 2021 direction, the comparison table excludes HVAC system wo rk, fence construction/repair, interior repainting, security systems, lighting systems, kitchen and bathroom remodels, hardwood floor installation/refinishing, and general ongoing maintenance, as well as any work already completed or not otherwise specified by the Mills Act application package.

With regard to Criteria No. 4 (percentage of tax savings used to finance improvements), staff also suggests that for greater consistency points be granted based on a numerical spectrum at 10% intervals:

1 The cost for reoccurring maintenance at a specified interval is counted more than once as appropriate. 2 The savings is based on the applicant's estimate as provided in the Property Tax Adjustment Worksheet. The actual reduced property tax will be calculated by the County Assessor's Office. 3 Since Mills Act contracts have a minimum 10-year duration, a 10-year contract period was assumed. 11 Packet Pg. 108

8.b
Packet Pg. 44
Attachment: City Council Staff Report, dated Sept. 7, 2021 (Mills Act Applications) Mills Act Applications Page 5 of 6
• 90%-100% of savings reinvested = 5 points
• 80%-89% of savings reinvested = 4 points
• 70%-79% of savings reinvested = 3 points
• 60%-69% of savings reinvested = 2 points
• 50%-59% of savings reinvested = 1 point
• <49% than savings reinvested = 0 points
Contract Duration: As currently structured, the City's Mills Act contracts have an initial 10-year duration (the minimum required by State law) and automatically renew annually unless a non -renewal is initiated by the City or property owner. As noted, the Board's recommendation for the current applications includes a 10 -year duration. If approved by Council, this term limit would be effectuated with an issuance of a Notice of Non - Renewal upon execution of the contract, which would then expire the contract in 10 years. The Council may also wish to consider if existing contracts should be limited in a similar manner. Issuance of a Notice of Non -Renewal for the existing contracts would mean that all of the existing contracts would expire in 10 years, freeing up the slots for other homeowners in the future.

FISCAL IMPACT
Each of the application packets includes an estimated property tax savings worksheet.

The homeowners for 73 S 1 st Street and 204 Alice Avenue estimate saving s approximately $9,200 and $14,500 respectively , in annual property taxes under a Mills Act Contract. Since the City receives approximately 14% of property taxes with adjustment for special districts and assessments, the City's annual revenue loss would be approximately $3,300.

ALTERNATIVE
Program Status: At its meeting of December 4, 2018, during consideration of the last Mills Act contract request, Council provided direction to staff regarding a review of the Mills Act Program, including conducting an audit of the existing contracts before providing direct ion on expanding the program. At its January 22, 2020 meeting, the Historic Preservation Board voted to form a Mills Act ad hoc Subcommittee to aid staff in a review of the program and an audit of the existing projects. The subcommittee worked with staff o n improving the Mills Act Program over the course of last year, however, due to the COVID-19 pandemic and resulting layoff of the Planning intern, the audit was not completed.

The HPB believes that the inability to complete this work should not holdup a worthwhile Mills Act request for 81 Alice Avenue. If Council is accepting of the HPB's request for the third Mills Act application to be approved (for a total of 11 contracts), it may continue the hearing and direct staff to prepare a revised resolution a pproving all three applications.

Prepared by:

Daniel Fama, Senior Planner
11 Packet Pg. 109

8.b
Packet Pg. 45
Attachment: City Council Staff Report, dated Sept. 7, 2021 (Mills Act Applications) Mills Act Applications Page 6 of 6
Approved by:

Brian Loventhal, City Manager
Attachment:
a. Draft Resolution
b. Application Package (73 S 1st St.)
c. Application Package (204 Alice Ave.)
d. Application Package (81 Alice Ave.)
e. HPB Staff Report, dated 5-26-21
f. HPB Meeting Minutes, dated 5-26-21
g. HPB Staff Report, dated 6-23-21
h. HPB Meeting Minutes, dated 6-23-21
i. Staff Comparison Table
11 Packet Pg. 110

8.b
Packet Pg. 46
Attachment: City Council Staff Report, dated Sept. 7, 2021 (Mills Act Applications) City
Council
Report
TITLE: Receive a Report from the Historic Preservation Board Regarding Review of the Mills Act Program and Recommended Program Improvements, and Consider Authorizing E xpansion of the Mills Act Program as Part of the Recently Authorized Historic Preservation Ordinance Update (CDD FY23 Work Plan).

RECOMMENDED ACTION
That the City Council receive an update on the Mills Act Program and authorize preparation of an expanded Mills Act Program to be incorporated into the Historic Preservation Ordinance Update (CDD FY23 Work Plan).

BACKGROUND
Program History : The Mills Act is a State law allowing cities to voluntarily enter into contracts with the owners of historically design ated properties that allow a reduction in property taxes in exchange for the continued maintenance and restoration of the historic structure. Under the terms of the contract, the property taxes are reduced using a formula specified by the Revenue and Taxat ion Code, allowing the savings to be reinvested into the property. The fiscal impact to the City from reduced property taxes under the Mills Act is limited as less than 15% of property tax revenue is appropriated to local cities.

In furtherance of General Policy 1, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 11333 at its October 4, 2011, meeting initiating a three -year "pilot" Mills Act Program, allowing up to five Mills Act contracts to be executed (reference Exhibit A). During this initial three - year period, the City Council authorized three Mills Act contracts. On February 3, 2015, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 11776, approving an extension of th e "pilot" Mills Act Program, allowing a combined maximum of ten Mills Act contracts (reference Exhibit B).

Council Direction: On December 4, 2018, in approving the eighth Mills Act contract, the City Council also provided direction regarding review and ex pansion of the Mills Act Program. Specifically, the Council indicated a comprehensive review the existing contracts and an overview of the program would be required prior to considering expansion of the program beyond ten contracts , including an evaluation if the 1 See Policy LUT-8.1 (Historic Buildings, Landmarks and Districts and Cultural Resources) and Policy CNR-1.1 (Historic Resource Preservation).

Item: 9
Category: NEW BUSINESS
Meeting Date: October 18, 2022
9 Packet Pg. 47
Mills Act Program Review Page 2 of 6
homeowners were using property tax savings to invest in improvement, maintenance, and restoration of the historic home.

HPB Activity : Beginning in February of 2019, the Historic Preservation Board (HPB) began its evaluation of the Mills Act progr am, and subsequently created a Mills Act ad hoc Subcommittee in January 2020 to support the ongoing evaluation. The two -member subcommittee, consisting of Board Member Blake and Vice Chair Walter, was tasked with assisting staff in reviewing contract holde r materials, and working on program improvements, per HPB Resolution No. 2020-02 (reference Exhibit C).

During this time, staff sought copies of records (invoices/receipts) that had been provided by the contract -holders to the County Assessor's Office to facilitate an evaluation of the existing contracts. The Assessor's Office responded that this information was not public record and that Revenue and Taxation Code § 451 obligated the Assessor's Office to hold the information confidential, even from the Cit y. The legality of this position was affirmed by the City Attorney.

As this information could not be obtained from the County Assessor’s Office, the City requested this documentation directly from the contract -holders. On February 24, 2020, staff issued letters to the existing contract-holders requesting copies of materials so that an evaluation could be conducted (reference Exhibit D – Example Letter). All contract - holders provide responsive documents to the City, which were generally sufficient to conduct a review. A Planning Division intern was tasked to review these materials and assisting the subcommittee. Unfortunately, the onset of the COVID -19 pandemic in March 2020 delayed this work due to the layoff off temporary staff, including the Planning i ntern, compounded with City's operational challenges during the early pandemic period.

In early 2021, the HPB subcommittee continued to work on the program evaluation with limited staff support and conducted inspections of three of properties that are un der the oldest contracts. As required by the resolution allowing its formation, the subcommittee presented its work during regularly scheduled HPB meetings, most recently at the June 22, 2022 meeting (reference Exhibit E – Meeting Minutes), which is summarized, below.

A second ad-hoc sub-committee, consisting of Board Member Corteway, was created on March 23, 2022, under adopted Resolution No. 2022 -02, to conduct a detailed financial audit of the submitted mater ials. Board Member Corteway presented his preliminary results to the HPB at its July 27, 2022 meeting (reference Exhibit F – Meeting Minutes), which is summarized, below
Current Program Status: The Council has authorized a total of eleven contracts to date.

The program, therefore, is currently closed to new applications.

DISCUSSION
9 Packet Pg. 48
Mills Act Program Review Page 3 of 6
Audit Results : Board Member Corteway has reviewed the submitted receipts/invoices and permit records, and compared the expenditures against public property tax records.

He combined this information into a spreadsheet that is included digitally as Exhibit G2.

The following executive summary has been provided by Board Member Corteway:
• In total, by the calculations completed in this au dit, which are based on the data provided (now partially-validated by permit data), these Mills Act homeowners spent $684,214 on the improvement, maintenance, and restoration of their homes. The tax benefits they received by virtue of becoming a Mills Act home totaled $270,636 on a County-level basis, and $37,889 on a City -level basis over the same period. It follows that $413,578 more was spent by the homeowners than the tax benefits received on a County basis, and $646,325 more was spent than the tax bene fits received at the City-level.
• Homeowners of properties designated as Structures of Merit in the City of Campbell Historic Resource Inventory with Mills Act contracts have spent a significant amount of money on the improvement, maintenance, and restorati on of their homes. On a cumulative basis, these expenditures far exceed any tax benefits provided to them by virtue of the Mills Act. Three of the eight homes under consideration did not provide verifiable, transaction / receipt -level evidence of expenditures that exceeded the tax savings on a County basis, but all exceeded on a City basis. The County - level deltas in these three cases are very small. It is also very likely that eligible expenses did exceed tax savings for these three homes, however some of the data provided to the County via its Mills Act survey was destroyed or lost in the process. It follows that the benefit to the quantifiable market and non -quantifiable historical values of each home far exceeds the loss in tax revenue to the County of S anta Clara and the City of Campbell.
• It could aid the efficiency of the ongoing implementation of the Campbell Mills Act program if the Santa Clara County Assessor’s office would maintain reporting provided to them by the homeowners for the County’s Mills Act survey purposes and share this information with the City of Campbell. There are gaps in data solely caused by the County destroying or losing this information. However, it must be noted that despite these gaps in reporting, it is conclusive that homeo wners’ expenditures far exceed their tax reductions. It follows that with a complete data set, it would be proven that the homeowners’ expenditures would exceed tax reductions by an even greater amount than this audit has found.
• With few exceptions, each Mills Act homeowner acted in good faith to provide ample information, and with sufficient detail to adhere to the requirements of their Mills Act contracts.
• This audit found no intentional or blatant attempts on the part of the homeowners to claim inelig ible expenses as being applicable towards the maintenance, improvement, or restoration of these homes.

2 https://www.campbellca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/19546/Mills-Act-Audit-Project-Summary--September-2022 9 Packet Pg. 49
Mills Act Program Review Page 4 of 6
Based on the results of Mr. Corteway's analysis, staff recommends that the City Council determine that the existing Mills Act Program has been successful in that tax savings have been reinvested into the historic properties . Staff therefore recommends that the Council consider expanding the Mills Act Program, including allowing additional contracts beyond the current cap of 10. Subsequent to Council direction regarding this, staff would return with the required program modifications.

Proposed Program Improvements: Separate and related, the HPB has identified several areas for proposed improvements to the Mills Act Program. The HPB 's evaluation of other Mills Act programs throughout the State has highlighted a need to codify various program components into the Municipal Code (Historic Preservation Chapter), which would constitute creation of a new City Mills Act Program superseding the existing program. As discussed by the HPB, a new Mills Act Program (and related administrative procedures) would address the following elements:
• Allowable Improvements
• Number of Contracts
• Application Deadline
• Priority Consideration
• Contract Duration
• Approval Process
• Application Fees
• Annual Maintenance Fee
• Eligibility
• FAQ Document
• Required Technical Reports
• Application Package
• Program Oversight
The overarching intent would be to establish clear upfront expectations for homeowners considering a contract and reduce the subjectivity of application reviews. For example, a new Mills Act Program would identify the specific types of improvements that would be allowable in a proposed workplan, such critical improvements related to structural and architectural integrity (e.g., foundation repair, seismic retrofit, window repair etc.).

Should the Council direct preparation of a new Mills Act program (and allow additional contracts to approved), the details will be further refined and informed by Council direction, Planning Commission feedback, public comment, and further staff analysis.

NEXT STEPS
9 Packet Pg. 50
Mills Act Program Review Page 5 of 6
If the Council is agreeable to creation of a new Mills Act Program , staff recommends that it be incorporated into the Historic Preservation Ordinance update that was recently added to the De partment's FY23 Workplan in August that addresses unauthorized modifications to historic buildings . Combining these two efforts also provides a more efficient use of staff time and improves the Historic program holistically to provide both financial incentives (Mills Act) with a deterrent ( potential penalties for unauthorized modifications) to support historic preservation.

The Historic Preservation Ordinance update will begin at the HPB's October 26 th meeting with an introductory study session. Additional study sessions with the HPB and the Planning Commission will also be held next year. Following these study sessions, staff will return to the City Council with a summary of the HPB and Planning Commission recommendations for confirmation of policy dire ction, after which staff will begin drafting of a formal ordinance.

FISCAL IMPACT
The fiscal impact to the City from any individual Mills Act contract is fairly low given that the City receives less than 15% of property taxes with adjustment for special d istricts and assessments. For instance, if the property taxes for a $1.5M home (assessed value) was reduced from $15,000 annually to $5,000 annually, the City's share of loss would only be $1,500 per year. Some of this fiscal cost may be offset through b uilding permit fee revenue associated with the approved work for maintenance / restoration.

The City's building permit fees (inclusive of all additive fees) is approximately 4% of valuation (e.g., $400 of fees per $10,000 of project valuation cost).

Prepared by:

Daniel Fama, Senior Planner
Approved by:

Brian Loventhal, City Manager
Attachment:
a. CC Resolution 11333
b. CC Resolution 11776
9 Packet Pg. 51

Mills Act Program Review Page 6 of 6
c. HPB Resolution No. 2020-02
d. Letter Template Example
e. HPB Minutes (2022-06-22)
f. HPB Minutes (2022-07-27)
g. Exhibit G - Audit Review Spreadsheet
9 Packet Pg. 52
RESOLUTION NO. 11333

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL

ESTABLISHING THE MILLS ACT HISTORIC PROPERTY INCENTIVE PILOT

PROGRAM CITYWIDE FOR HISTORIC RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES
WHEREAS, the establishment of the Mills Act Historic Property Tax Incentive Pilot Program is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA) per Section 15061(b) ( 3) whereby CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential to cause a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to further CEQA review; and WHEREAS, California Government Code, Section 50280 et seq., and California Revenue and Taxation Code, Section 439 et seq., authorize the City of Campbell to enter into contract with owner(s) of qualified historical property; defined as property that is ( a) located entirely within the City of Campbell; ( b) is privately owned; ( c) is taxed as residential property; and ( e) is individually listed on the City of Campbell's adopted Historic Resource Inventory List, to restrict the use of the property in a manner which the City deems reasonable to carry out the purposes of the relevant state regulations; and
WHEREAS, historic preservation is a comprehensive approach to land use, which serves to promote community identity and enhance the quality of life for citizens.

Historic preservation in the City of Campbell involves the identification, protection and preservation of historic sites and structures in the City. Such historic sites and properties contribute to the character of a neighborhood and help us follow the evolution of the City; and
WHEREAS, Campbell's older neighborhoods are rich in history and architectural styles. By protecting historic buildings, the City encourages the cultural enrichment, economic prosperity and visual scenery of Campbell, which benefits its residents by creating a sense of place in an urban landscape; and
WHEREAS, historic properties are ' non- renewable' resources. Preservation and rehabilitation saves resources, utilizes the local labor pool, and promotes heritage tourism; and
WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Ordinance grants authority to the City Council to establish by Resolution a Mills Act Historic Property Tax Incentive Program; and
WHEREAS, in 2001, for the purpose of furthering the objective of supporting historic preservation within the City, the City of Campbell became a certified Local Government ( CLG); and

9.a
Packet Pg. 53
Attachment: CC Resolution 11333 (Mills Act Program Review) WHEREAS, the City of Campbell is dedicated to providing economic and other incentives to assist owners of historic property with the preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, and/ or reconstruction of historic resources; and WHEREAS, the Mills Act is state sponsored legislation that grants local governments the authority to participate in a locally based preservation incentive program; and
WHEREAS, the Mills Act program allows private property owners of qualified historic property to receive property tax relief in exchange for agreeing to preserve, rehabilitate, and maintain their historic properties for a specific period.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Campbell as follows:

Section 1. There shall be established in the City of Campbell a Mills Act Historic Property Tax Incentive Program.
a. The City of Campbell Mills Act Historic Property Tax Incentive Program will initially be a pilot program. The pilot program shall be limited as follows:

1. Three years from the date the City Council establishes the Mills Act Historic Property Tax Incentive Program or after five residential properties have entered into contract, whichever comes first, the program shall be suspended
and no new applications will be accepted or processed
unless a new Resolution extending the Mills Act Historic Property Tax Incentive Program is passed by the City
Council.

2. No more than five ( 5) Mills Act Historic Property Contracts shall be entered into and recorded until and unless a new Resolution extending the Mills Act Program is passed by the City Council.

3. Within the first year of the Mills Act Program, two ( 2) of the five ( 5) total contracts shall be open to application solely from new residential additions to the Historic Resource Inventory List. After the first year, application for any remaining contract will be open to any residence on the adopted Historic Resource Inventory List.

4. Properties under application for a Mills Act Historic Property Contracts shall be evaluated by the Historic

9.a
Packet Pg. 54
Attachment: CC Resolution 11333 (Mills Act Program Review) Preservation Board against the review criteria set forth in Campbell Municipal Code Section 21. 33.060( B)(1).

Applications will be ranked by level of conformance to the review criteria and a recommendation for Mills Act Historic Property Contracts will be forwarded to the City Council for a decision. A property may be selected that does not
qualify for each of the criteria set forth, but is an
exceptional example of a property meeting a specific
criteria category.

5. Any property owner under contract will be required to install a plaque as determined by the City of Campbell, similar to the previously installed Historic Landmark
plaques acknowledging the historic nature of the property and the use of the Mills Act as a historic preservation tool.

Section 2. A qualified historic property for the purposes of the City of Campbell Mills Act Historic Property Tax Incentive Program is defined as residential property that is ( a) located entirely within the City of Campbell; ( b) is privately owned; ( c) is not exempt from property taxation; ( d) is taxed as residential property; and ( e) is individually listed on the City of Campbell Historic Resource Inventory ( HRI) list.

Section 3. The City Manager or authorized designee is appointed as the agent of the City of Campbell to execute each Mills Act Historic Preservation Contract following approval and adoption of the Resolution of the City Council of the City of Campbell approving a Mills Act Historic Preservation Contract.

Section 4. Prior to Council action on the Resolution of the Council of the City of Campbell approving a Mills Act Historic Property Contract, the Historic Preservation Board shall review the application for a Mills Act Historic Preservation Contract and provide their recommendation(s) to the City Council.

Section 5. It is the expectation of the City Council that the property owner will use the Mills Act property tax savings to finance the preservation, maintenance and improvements of the qualified historic property as specified in the recorded Mills Act Contract.

9.a
Packet Pg. 55
Attachment: CC Resolution 11333 (Mills Act Program Review)

9.a
Packet Pg. 56
Attachment: CC Resolution 11333 (Mills Act Program Review) RESOLUTION NO. ii~~ 6

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL EXTENDING

THE MILLS ACT HISTORIC PROPERTY INCENTIVE PROGRAM CITYWIDE FOR

HISTORIC RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES
WHEREAS, the extension of the Mills Act Historic Property Tax Incentive Pilot Program to that of a permanent Program is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act ( CEQA) per Section 15061 ( b) ( 3) whereby CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential to cause a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to further CEQA review and
WHEREAS, on October 4 2011 the City Council of the City of Campbell established the Mills Act Historic Property Tax Incentive Pilot Program by adopting Resolution No 11333 and Resolution No. 11334 approving a modification to the adopted City of Campbell Fee Schedule to establish a Mills Act Contract application fee; and
WHEREAS, California Government Code, Section 50280 et seq. and California Revenue and Taxation Code, Section 439 et seq. authorize the City of Campbell to enter into contract with owner(s) of qualified historical property defined as property that is ( a) located entirely within the City of Campbell; ( b) is privately owned; ( c) is taxed as residential property and ( e) is individually listed on the City of Campbell's adopted Historic Resource Inventory List, to restrict the use of the property in a manner which the City deems reasonable to carry out the purposes of the relevant state regulations, and
WHEREAS, historic preservation is a comprehensive approach to land use, which serves to promote community identity and enhance the quality of life for citizens.

Historic preservation in the City of Campbell involves the identification, protection and preservation of historic sites and structures in the City Such historic sites and properties contribute to the character of a neighborhood and help us follow the evolution of the City and
WHEREAS, Campbell's older neighborhoods are rich in history and architectural styles. By protecting historic buildings, the City encourages the cultural enrichment, economic prosperity and visual scenery of Campbell, which benefits its residents by creating a sense of place in an urban landscape; and
WHEREAS, historic properties are ` non- renewable resources. Preservation and rehabilitation saves resources, utilizes the local labor pool, and promotes heritage tourism; and

9.b
Packet Pg. 57
Attachment: CC Resolution 11776 (Mills Act Program Review) WHEREAS, the Historic Preservation Ordinance grants authority to the City Council to establish a Resolution to extend the Mills Act Historic Property Tax Incentive Program, and
WHEREAS, in 2001 for the purpose of furthering the objective of supporting historic preservation within the City the City of Campbell became a certified Local Government ( CLG); and
WHEREAS, the City of Campbell is dedicated to providing economic and other incentives to assist owners of historic property with the preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, and/or reconstruction of historic resources, and WHEREAS, the Mills Act is state sponsored legislation that grants local governments the authority to participate in a locally based preservation incentive program and
WHEREAS, the Mills Act program allows private property owners of qualified historic property to receive property tax relief in exchange for agreeing to preserve, rehabilitate, and maintain their historic properties for a specific period NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Campbell as follows.

Section 1 There shall be established in the City of Campbell a Mills Act Historic Property Tax Incentive Program.
a. The City of Campbell Mills Act Historic Property Tax Incentive Program shall be limited as follows:
1 No more than ten ( 10) residential properties may enter into contract and record with the City unless a new Resolution expanding the number of eligible properties is passed by the City Council. Three ( 3) properties have already been approved but only two ( 2) have been recorded.

2. Within the first year of the Mills Act Program extension two 2) of the remaining seven ( 7) contracts shall be open to application solely from new residential additions to the Historic Resource
InventoryList. After the first year
application for any remaining contracts will be open to any residence on the adopted Historic Resource Inventory List.

Page2

9.b
Packet Pg. 58
Attachment: CC Resolution 11776 (Mills Act Program Review) 3 Properties under application for a Mills Act Historic Property Contracts shall be evaluated by the Historic
Preservation Board against the review criteria set forth in Campbell Municipal Code Section 21 33 060( 6)(1)
Applications will be ranked by level of conformance to the review criteria and a recommendation for Mills Act Historic Property Contracts will be forwarded to the City Council for a decision. A property may be selected that does not
qualify for each of the criteria set forth, but is an
exceptional example of a property meeting a specific
criteria category
4 Any property owner under contract will be required to install a plaque as determined by the City of Campbell, similar to the previously installed Historic Landmark
plaques acknowledging the historic nature of the property and the use of the Mills Act as a historic preservation tool.

Section 2. A qualified historic property for the purposes of the City of Campbell Mills Act Historic Property Tax Incentive Program is defined as residential property that is ( a) located entirely within the City of Campbell; ( b) is privately owned; ( c) is not exempt from property taxation; ( d) is taxed as residential property and ( e) is individually listed on the City of Campbell Historic Resource Inventory (HRI) list.

Section 3 The City Manager or authorized designee is appointed as the agent of the City of Campbell to execute each Mills Act Historic Preservation Contract following approval and adoption of the Resolution of the City Council of the City of Campbell approving a Mills Act Historic Preservation Contract.

Section 4 Prior to Council action on the Resolution of the Council of the City of Campbell approving a Mills Act Historic Property Contract, the Historic Preservation Board shall review the application for a Mills Act Historic Preservation Contract and provide their recommendation(s) to the City Council.

Section 5 It is the expectation of the City Council that the property owner will use the Mills Act property tax savings to finance the preservation, maintenance and improvements of the qualified historic property as specified in the recorded Mills Act Contract.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 3rd day of February 2015 by the following roll call vote.

9.b
Packet Pg. 59
Attachment: CC Resolution 11776 (Mills Act Program Review)

9.b
Packet Pg. 60
Attachment: CC Resolution 11776 (Mills Act Program Review)

9.c
Packet Pg. 61
Attachment: HPB Resolution No. 2020-02 (Mills Act Program Review)

9.c
Packet Pg. 62
Attachment: HPB Resolution No. 2020-02 (Mills Act Program Review)

CITY OF CAMPBELL
Community Development Department

70 North First Street • Campbell, CA 95008-1423 • TEL (408) 866-2140 • E-MAIL [email protected]

via USPS Certified Mail
February 14, 2020

Name
Address
Campbell, CA 95008

Re: File No: PLN2013-241
Address: 61 Catalpa Ln.

Subject: Mills Act Contract Review

Dear Mr. xxxx,

The City is conducting a review of its Mills Act Historical Property Contract Program (“Mills Act”). Your property was granted a Mills Act contract in 2013, a copy of which is enclosed for your reference. As part of this review, the City requests that you provide the following information, pursuant to Term No. 7 of your Mills Act contract. Please provide this information within 30 days, no later than March 13, 2020.

• A completed Reporting Form (copy enclosed).
• Invoices/receipts for all work specified in your 10 Year Work Plan, organized by year. • Photographs of all related work specified in your 10 Year Work Plan, organized by year. • Copies of all Mills Act Annual Surveys submitted to the Santa Clara County Assessor.

Additionally, as noted in your Mills Act contract (Term No. 6) and as required by State law (GC § 50281), the City must also conduct an inspection of the interior and exterior of your property five years after execution of the contract. Since it has been five years since your contract was approved, an inspection is required.

To aid in this review, the Historic Preservation Board has established a two -member Mills Act subcommittee. Please coordinate with Board Member Susan Blake to submit the requested information and to schedu le the requested inspection. Board Member Blake may be contacted by email at [email protected].

If you should have any questions, please f eel free to contact me at (408) 866 -2193 or by email at [email protected].

Sincerely,

Daniel Fama, Senior Planner

9.d
Packet Pg. 63
Attachment: Letter Template Example (Mills Act Program Review) Mills Act Review Letter Page 2 of 2

70 North First Street • Campbell, CA 95008-1423 • TEL (408) 866-2140 • E-MAIL [email protected] Encl: Annual Reporting Form

cc: Mike Foulkes, Chair, Historic Preservation Board
Susan Blake, Board Member, Historic Preservation Board
Todd Walter, Board Member, Historic Preservation Board
Brian Loventhal, City Manager
Paul Kermoyan, Community Development Director
Michael Shwe, Planning Intern
Laserfiche

9.d
Packet Pg. 64
Attachment: Letter Template Example (Mills Act Program Review)

9.e
Packet Pg. 65
Attachment: HPB Minutes (2022-06-22) (Mills Act Program Review) Campbell Historic Preservation Board Meeting Minutes – July 27, 2022 Page 2

OLD BUSINESS

2. Mills Act ad hoc Subcommittees Report and Program Update Discussion

Board Member Corteway presented summary of completed audit for Campbell’s Mills Act program which is a tax incentive program for an allotment of homes that are on the registry of historically significant sites in Campbell. State law allows for property tax deductions.

Tax benefit for home expenses focused on the restoration and preservation of the home.

Goal of the audit ; 1) Gauge the quality of information that homeowners provided and 2) Quantify whether the benefits they are receiving tax wise are reinvested into the home.

Conclusion: 1) Campbell residents that own a historic home are making a good faith based effort to provide adequate documentation; 2) Have put in a significant effort to maintaining and preserving the homes; and 3) Holding true to their contractual commitments.

Per Board Member Corteway, “Mills Act homeowners spent $576,812 on the improvement, maintenance, and restoration of their homes. The tax benefits they received by virtue of becoming a Mills Act home total ed $270,636. It follows that $306,176 more was spent by the homeowners than the tax benefits received”

Board Members discussed tax savings across specific years , how formula/calculation is generated for homeowners, data provided by the Santa Clara County tax assessor’s office, and what other quantifiable data could be added or captured within the report to reflect the benefits of the program to the City.

Senior Planner, Daniel Fama, recommended possibly using the Community Development Department’s online permitting system to create casefiles for each participating homeowner of the Mills Act program to allow homeowners to update receipts or expenses frequently.

ADJOURNMENT

The Regular Historic Preservation Board meeting adjourned at 6:02 pm to the next Historic Preservation Board Meeting on Wednesday, August 24, 2022, at City Hall, Council Chambers, 70 N. First Street, Campbell, CA.

PREPARED BY: _______________________________
Ken Ramirez, Administrative Analyst

APPROVED: ______________________________
Todd Walter, Acting Chair

ATTEST: ________________________________
Daniel Fama, Secretary

9.f
Packet Pg. 66
Attachment: HPB Minutes (2022-07-27) (Mills Act Program Review) Address
Year Of Mills Act
Contract
Year of
Verifiable
Eligible
Expenditures
Fiscal Year For
Tax Purposes Tax Amount
County‐Level Tax Savings To
The Homeowner From Year
Prior To Mills Act Reduction
(Normalizing For 2%
Potential Annual Increase)
14% Of County‐Level Tax Savings To
The Homeowner (Approximating City
Of Campbell‐Level Tax Savings To The
Homeowner)
Permit
Traceable To
Receipts
(Y/N)
Permit
Provides New
Information
(Y/N) Verified
Eligible Expenditures
61 Catalpa Lane
2012 10,930$
2013 2013 15,154$
2014 2014 18,039 $                Y N 135,17 6$
2015 18,021$
2016 2016 6,330$                   (12,051)$   (1,687)$   4,601$ 2017 6,10 4$                   (12,644)$   (1,770)$
2018 2018 8,381$                   (10,742)$   (1,504)$   26,194$ 2019 7,710$                   (11,796)$   (1,651)$
61 Catalpa Lane Verified Eligible Expenditures Total: 165,971$ Sum of Year‐Over‐Year Changes In Property Taxes Since Mills Act Expenditures Were Claimed: (47,233)$   (6,613)$
Difference Between Verified Eligible
Expenditures Total And Sum Of Year‐Over‐Year
County‐Level  Changes In Property Taxes Since
Mills Act Expenditures Were Claimed: 118,738$
Difference Between Verified Eligible
Expenditures Total And Sum Of Year‐Over‐Year
City‐Level  Changes In Property Taxes Since Mills
Act Expenditures Were Claimed: 159,358$
75 North 2nd Street
2014 11,024$
2015 2015 11,923 $
2016 2016 12,332 $                1,516$
2017 2017 4,142 $                   (8,437)$   (1,181)$   1,639$ 2018 2018 5,57 6$                   (7,255)$   (1,016)$   800$ 2019 2019 5,125$                   (7,962)$   (1,115)$   7,276$ 2020 2020 5,021 $                   (8,327)$   (1,166)$   15,459$ 2021 10,203$                (3,413)$   (478)$
75 North 2nd Street Verified Eligible Expenditures Total: 26,690$ Sum of Year‐Over‐Year Changes In Property Taxes Since Mills Act Expenditures Were Claimed: (35,394)$   (4,955)$
Difference Between Verified Eligible
Expenditures Total And Sum Of Year‐Over‐Year
County‐Level  Changes In Property Taxes Since
Mills Act Expenditures Were Claimed: (8,704)$
Difference Between Verified Eligible
Expenditures Total And Sum Of Year‐Over‐Year
City‐Level  Changes In Property Taxes Since Mills
Act Expenditures Were Claimed: 21,735$
110 South 2nd Street
2016 14,344$
2017 14,60 4$
2018 2018 2018 15,53 8$                3,752$
2019 2019 23,85 0$                14,603$
2020 7,277$                   (17,051)$   (2,387)$
110 South 2nd Street Verified Eligible Expenditures Total: 18,355$ Sum of Year‐Over‐Year Changes In Property Taxes Since Mills Act Expenditures Were Claimed: (17,051)$   (2,387)$
Difference Between Verified Eligible
Expenditures Total And Sum Of Year‐Over‐Year
County‐Level  Changes In Property Taxes Since
Mills Act Expenditures Were Claimed: 1,304$
Difference Between Verified Eligible
Expenditures Total And Sum Of Year‐Over‐Year
City‐Level  Changes In Property Taxes Since Mills
Act Expenditures Were Claimed: 15,968$
140 South Peter Drive
2013 2013 17,351$
2014 17,772$
2015 2015 4,730$                   (13,397)$   (1,876)$   Y N 18,10 7$ 2016 2016 4,879$                   (13,611)$   (1,906)$   Y N 5,80 0$ 2017 2017 4,75 4$                   (14,106)$   (1,975)$   Y N 86,482 $ 2018 6,315$                   (12,922)$   (1,809)$
140 South Peter Drive Verified Eligible Expenditures Total: 110,389$ Sum of Year‐Over‐Year Changes In Property Taxes Since Mills Act Expenditures Were Claimed: (54,036)$   (7,565)$
Difference Between Verified Eligible
Expenditures Total And Sum Of Year‐Over‐Year
County‐Level  Changes In Property Taxes Since
Mills Act Expenditures Were Claimed: 56,353$
Difference Between Verified Eligible
Expenditures Total And Sum Of Year‐Over‐Year
City‐Level  Changes In Property Taxes Since Mills
Act Expenditures Were Claimed: 102,824$
146 Alice Avenue
2015 8,935 $
2016 2016 2016 9,265 $                   Y N 19,952 $
2017 2017 9,427$                   Y N 5,550$
2018 4,085 $                   (5,530)$   (774)$
2019 2019 3,794$                   (6,014)$   (842)$   Y N 44,060$ 2020 2020 3,728$                   (6,276)$   (879)$   Y N 5,255$ 2021 3,797$                   (6,407)$   (897)$
146 Alice Avenue Verified Eligible Expenditures Total: 74,817$ Sum of Year‐Over‐Year Changes In Property Taxes Since Mills Act Expenditures Were Claimed: (24,227)$   (3,392)$
Difference Between Verified Eligible
Expenditures Total And Sum Of Year‐Over‐Year
County‐Level  Changes In Property Taxes Since
Mills Act Expenditures Were Claimed: 50,590$

9.g
Packet Pg. 67
Attachment: Exhibit G - Audit Review Spreadsheet (Mills Act Program Review) Difference Between Verified Eligible
Expenditures Total And Sum Of Year‐Over‐Year
City‐Level  Changes In Property Taxes Since Mills
Act Expenditures Were Claimed: 71,425$
155 Alice Avenue
2014 11,74 8$
2015 2015 11,75 0$
2016 12,15 6$
2017 2017 3,907 $                   (8,493)$                                       (1,189)$                                                      3,172$ 2018 2018 4,751 $                   (7,897)$                                       (1,106)$                                                      10,360$ 2019 2019 4,37 8$                   (8,523)$                                       (1,193)$                                                      14,195$ 2020 4,29 6$                   (8,863)$                                       (1,241)$ 155 Alice Avenue Verified Eligible Expenditures Total: 27,727$ Sum of Year‐Over‐Year Changes In Property Taxes Since Mills Act Expenditures Were Claimed: (33,775)$                         (4,728)$ Difference Between Verified Eligible
Expenditures Total And Sum Of Year‐Over‐Year
County‐Level  Changes In Property Taxes Since
Mills Act Expenditures Were Claimed: (6,048)$
Difference Between Verified Eligible
Expenditures Total And Sum Of Year‐Over‐Year
City‐Level  Changes In Property Taxes Since Mills
Act Expenditures Were Claimed: 22,999$
167 Alice Avenue
2017 2,40 8$
2018 2018 2018 11,06 0$                N Y 109,543 $
2019 19,541 $
2020 2020 4,549 $                   (15,383)$                                     (2,154)$                                                      Y N 128,75 0$ 2021 4,62 6$                   (15,705)$                                     (2,199)$ 167 Alice Avenue Verified Eligible Expenditures Total: 238,293$ Sum of Year‐Over‐Year Changes In Property Taxes Since Mills Act Expenditures Were Claimed: (31,088)$                         (4,352)$ Difference Between Verified Eligible
Expenditures Total And Sum Of Year‐Over‐Year
County‐Level  Changes In Property Taxes Since
Mills Act Expenditures Were Claimed: 207,205$
Difference Between Verified Eligible
Expenditures Total And Sum Of Year‐Over‐Year
City‐Level  Changes In Property Taxes Since Mills
Act Expenditures Were Claimed: 233,941$
226 Alice Avenue
2015 8,33 6$
2016 2016 2016 9,429 $                   142$
2017 2017 9,751 $                   13,339$
2018 3,481 $                   (6,464)$                                       (905)$ 2019 2019 3,237 $                   (6,908)$                                       (967)$                                                          6,844$ 2020 2020 3,191 $                   (7,157)$                                       (1,002)$                                                      1,647$ 2021 3,25 0$                   (7,304)$                                       (1,023)$ 226 Alice Avenue Verified Eligible Expenditures Total: 21,972$ Sum of Year‐Over‐Year Changes In Property Taxes Since Mills Act Expenditures Were Claimed: (27,833)$                         (3,897)$ Difference Between Verified Eligible
Expenditures Total And Sum Of Year‐Over‐Year
County‐Level  Changes In Property Taxes Since
Mills Act Expenditures Were Claimed: (5,861)$
Difference Between Verified Eligible
Expenditures Total And Sum Of Year‐Over‐Year
City‐Level  Changes In Property Taxes Since Mills
Act Expenditures Were Claimed: 18,075$
GRAND TOTALS (COUNTY‐LEVEL) 413,57 8$       (270,636)$          684,214$ GRAND TOTALS (CITY‐LEVEL) 646,325 $       (37,889)$

9.g
Packet Pg. 68
Attachment: Exhibit G - Audit Review Spreadsheet (Mills Act Program Review) 61 Catalpa Lane
Address Contractor  / Vendor Date Description Cost Reciept  (Y/N) Permit
Traceable To
Receipts (Y/N)
Permit
Provides New
Information
(Y/N) Notes
61 Catalpa Lane:
2013 ‐ 2014 Kitchen
Project Tobiason + Rook Builders 1/31/14 ‐ 6/4/14
Kitchen: Demolition, framing, carpentry,
stucco, plaster, doors, cabinetry, insulation,
drywall, counters, tile, plumbing, flooring,
windows, project management, painting, and
sheetmetal.  112,135$                              YY N Package shows numerous invoices over time for the work done on the kitchen by this contractor. This summary spreadsheet will combine the work for which an individual service provider / contractor bills. Therefore, each line is on a per‐provider, per‐project basis. Each invoice provided by the homeowner keeps a running total of project tasks completed and costs accrued to date, less amount paid to date, resulting in a current amount due. It would be superfluous and misleading to note the details of every invoice in this summary. Doing so could potentially lead to a mis‐ interpretation of the costs and multiple‐counting of invoices, and thus an inflated number. The numbers shown here come from the latest (6/4/14) invoice which keep the running total of accrued costs. The "Description" column summarizes the various pieces of work done as part of this project.

Package provided by the homeowner includes estimates, invoices, and receipts. However it did not include the Campbell reporting form, photographs, nor County Mills Act annual surveys (Pursuant to term #7 of the Mills Act contract). Inspection after 5 years from the date of contract (Required per term #6 of the Mills Act contract) is TBD.

Mills Act contract appears to be entered into in 2013
CPL Consulting Engineers & Eaton
Hall Architecture 12/18/13 ‐ 2/16/14
Structural design and construction support for
kitchen remodel.  1,163$                                   YY N Not duplicative of items billed to the homeowner via Tobiason + Rook Builders, nor any other vendors listed herein.

University Electric Home
Appliance Center 1/23/14
Appliances for kitchen project. Includes
refrigerator, dishwasher, microwave, range,
and vents. 16,741$                                YY N
Not duplicative of items billed to the homeowner via Tobiason + Rook Builders, nor any other vendors listed herein.

City of Campbell 10/29/13 City Planning fees. 660$                                      YY N Are city planning fees eligible for tax deduction under the Mills Act? Not duplicative of items billed to the homeowner via Tobiason + Rook Builders, nor any other vendors listed herein.

Eaton Hall Architecture 10/21/13
Pre‐design, schematic design, construction
documents. 4,477$                                   YY N Not duplicative of items billed to the homeowner via Tobiason + Rook Builders, nor any other vendors listed herein. For the avoidance of doubt, this includes the items billed by CPL Consulting Engineers & Eaton Hall Architecture on a combined basis.
61 Catalpa Lane:
2013 ‐ 2014 Kitchen
Project Total 135,176$
Package provided by the homeowner includes additional estimates and billings from other providers / wholesalers which have acted as subcontractors and service providers to the primary contractor, Tobiason + Rook Builders. Products and services in these additional documents were subsequently billed to the homeowner via Tobiason + Rook Builders. These pass‐through costs are therefore not inserted as separate line items in this analysis, as this would be duplicative to the items billed in the above 5 lines.
61 Catalpa Lane:
2016 Front Yard
Project
R.N. Pearman Landscape
Management, Inc. 3/3/16
Front Yard: Lighting installations, concrete
removal and replacement, power‐washing and
re‐painting of landing, fertilizing and re‐
seeding, mulch installation. 4,601$                                   Y 61 Catalpa Lane:
2016 Front Yard
Project Total 4,601$
All work was completed and billed by R.N. Pearman. No subcontractors, service providers, or pass‐through costs were identified. 61 Catalpa Lane:
2018 Heating and
Air Conditioning
Project Allied Aire Service 10/2/18
Heating / Air Conditioning (Upstairs): AC
Condenser, furnace, evaporation coil, ducting,
furnace filter box, asbestos removal,
thermostat, panel breakers, copper electric
circuit, condensing unit, vibration pads,
warranty. 16,588$                                Y
Allied Aire Service 10/2/18
Heating / Air Conditioning (Downstairs):

Furnace, ducting, filter, thermostat, 120 volt
panel, waranty. 9,606$                                   Y 61 Catalpa Lane:
2018 Heating and
Air Conditioning
Project Total 26,194$
All work was completed and billed by Allied Aire Service. No subcontractors, service providers, or pass‐through costs were identified. 61 Catalpa Lane Grand Total 165,970 $

9.g
Packet Pg. 69
Attachment: Exhibit G - Audit Review Spreadsheet (Mills Act Program Review) 75 North 2nd Street
Address Contractor  / Vendor Date Description Cost Reciept  (Y/N) Notes 75 North 2nd Street: Attic
and Security Projects Home Depot 2016
Security camera wiring and smart doorbell
camera. 280$                                       Y
Package provided by the homeowner includes the Mills Act Campbell reporting form and County annual survey, receipts, and photographs (All the aforementioned pursuant to term #7 of the Mills Act contract).

Inspection after 5 years from the date of contract (Required per term #6 of the Mills Act contract) is TBD.

Amazon 2016 Attic fan, vent switch, and timer. 1,236$                                    Y Mills Act contract date is 9/18/15. 75 North 2nd Street: Attic
and Security Projects Total       1,516$
75 North 2nd Street:

Insulation and Security
Projects Universal Insulation 2017 Wall insulation. 1,015$                                    Y Home Depot 2017
Security lighting, outdoor security camera,
miscellaneous home repairs. 624$
Y except for miscellaneous home
repairs No  receipts nor itemization for miscellaneous home repairs. 75 North 2nd Street:

Insulation and Security
Projects Total                              1,639$
75 North 2nd Street:

Miscellaneous Home Repairs Home Depot 2018 Miscellaneous home repairs. 800$                                       N No receipts nor itemization for miscellaneous home repairs. Homeowner notes that these receipts were sent‐into the County for their annual package.
75 North 2nd Street:

Insulation and Security
Projects Total                              800$
75 North 2nd Street: Garage,
Gutters, Tree Trimming,
Drain Clearing, Fences,
Security Camera 2019 Gutters, tree trimming. 250$                                       Y Roto Rooter 2019 Drain clearing. 292$                                       Y Cal's Garage Door 2019 Garage. 186$                                       Y The Fence Man 2019 Fences. 4,240$                                    Y David Rodriguez 2019 Fences. 2,100$                                    Y Home Depot 2019 Security camera. 208$                                       Y 75 North 2nd Street: Garage,
Gutters, Tree Trimming,
Drain Clearing, Fences,
Security Camera Total 7,276$
75 North 2nd Street: Termite
Services, Porch Repair, Paint,
Concrete Sealer, Dry Rot
Repair Might Mite Termite Service 2020 Termite services. 2,850$                                    Y Home Depot 2020 Porch repair and concrete sealer. 426$                                       Y Kelly Moore 2020 Porch repair and paint. 142$                                       Y Bruce Baur Lumber 2020 Porch repair. 182$                                       Y DJS Painting 2020 Paint. 10,060$                                 Y Antonio Fernandez 2020 Dry rot repair. 1,800$                                    Y

9.g
Packet Pg. 70
Attachment: Exhibit G - Audit Review Spreadsheet (Mills Act Program Review) 75 North 2nd Street: Termite
Services, Porch Repair,
Paint, Concrete Sealer, Dry
Rot Repair Total 15,459$
75 North 2nd Street Grand Total 26,690 $

9.g
Packet Pg. 71
Attachment: Exhibit G - Audit Review Spreadsheet (Mills Act Program Review) 110 South 2nd Street
Address Contractor  / Vendor Date Description Cost Reciept  (Y/N) Notes 110 South 2nd Street: Wood Trim, Chandelier, Termite
Inspection and Repair, HVAC, Microwave, Fireplace, Faucet, Kitchen Upgrades, Alarm System, Carbon Monoxide
Sensors, Security Cameras, Security Lighting, Driveway Gate, Humidity Filters, Landscaping, Gutters, French Door,
Furnace, Toilet Seats, Mills Act Enrollment, Termite
Inspection & Maintenance, Landscaping, City Planning Fees.

Package provided by the homeowner includes the Mills Act Campbell reporting form and County annual survey, receipts, and photographs (All the aforementioned pursuant to term #7 of the Mills Act contract). Inspection after 5 years from the date of contract (Required per term #6 of the Mills Act contract) is TBD.

All expenses in this package were outlaid in 2018 and 2019, and the great majority of projects noted in the Mills Act Campbell reporting form specify dates of 2018 and 2019. However, three projects in this form are noted as being in 2020, 2025, and 2026 respectively. Based on the homeowner‐ provided commentary and backup detail, it appears this was written as such because the projects will be ongoing for multiple years through those three dates. Despite future dates noted, these were expenses incurred in 2018 and 2019 for projects completed and / or begun in those years. As such they are appropriate for being claimed in 2018 and 2019 for tax purposes.

Homeowners entered into Mills Act contract 12/17/18 after purchasing the home 8/17/18.

Home Depot 8/29/18 New faucet. 204$                                        Y For backup documentation, only a pick‐up confirmation was provided, and there were no receipts.

The $204.07 total was written‐in on the confirmation by the homeowner, as that document had no Home Depot‐provided expense numbers.

Costco 9/5/18 New chandelier. 90$                                          Y Frontier Pacific 9/12/18 Gate movement and modification. 460$                                        Y San Jose Plumbing 9/12/18 Kitchen sink installation. 325$                                        Y Rando AAA HVAC 12/4/18 Humidity filters in basement. 75$                                          Y Valley Heating, Cooling, Electrical 11/5/18 Furnace / AC tuneup. 325$                                        Y This expense / project was not noted on the Mills Act Campbell reporting form.

WindStar 9/4/18 Wood trim on door. 275$                                        Y City of Campbell 9/7/18 City Planning fees. 1,706$                                     Y It is assumed that city planning fees are eligible for tax deduction under the Mills Act.

Home Depot 9/2/18 & 9/19/18 Landscaping materials. 119$                                        Y Homeowner was very diligent in excluding expenses from receipt that do not directly represent improvements to the home.

Costco 9/4/18 Landscaping materials. 15$                                          Y Homeowner was very diligent in excluding expenses from receipt that do not directly represent improvements to the home.

Home Depot 11/12/18 Replace toilet seat. 22$                                          Y It is indeterminate whether this expense / project was noted on the Mills Act Campbell reporting form.

Home Depot 9/13/18 Spackling 12$                                          Y Home Depot 11/24/18 Landscaping materials. 44$                                          Y Home Depot 9/8/18 Carbon monoxide detectors. 62$                                          Y Assumption is that this item is related to the aforementioned alarm system.

Home Depot 10/14/18 Furnace filter. 20$                                          Y 110 South 2nd Street: Wood Trim, Chandelier, Termite
Inspection and Repair, HVAC, Microwave, Fireplace, Faucet, Kitchen Upgrades, Alarm System, Carbon Monoxide
Sensors, Security Cameras, Security Lighting, Driveway
Gate, Humidity Filters, Landscaping, Gutters, French Door, Furnace, Toilet Seats, Mills Act Enrollment, Termite
Inspection & Maintenance, Landscaping, City Planning Fees Total: 3,752$
110 South 2nd Street: Exterior Power Wash and Painting, Home Siding, Termite Inspection and Maintenance, Smoke
Alarm, Electrical Repair, Toilet Seat, Basement Foundation Seal, Landscaping, Light Bulbs, Air Filters, Window
Coverings, Kitchen Upgrade Materials, Insulation, Outdoor Lighting, Furnace, AC Hope Painting 10/11/19 ‐ 10/27/19 Exterior power wash and painting. 6,575$                                     Y Ercanbrack Siding 8/28/19 Home siding repair. 1,120$                                     Y Taps Termite 9/24/19 Termite inspection & maintenance. 1,375$                                     Y CVS NA Smoke alarm batteries. 15$                                          Y Home Depot 3/30/19 Materials for electrical repair. 55$                                          Y NA 3/30/19 Labor for electrical repair. 125$                                        N No description of work completed or vendor used, and no invoice provided.

Home Depot 7/14/19 New toilet seat. 20$                                          Y Home Depot 12/13/19 Concrete seal for basement foundation. 6$                                            Y Home Depot 2/9/19 Landscaping materials, light bulbs, air filters. 90$                                          Y Home Depot 12/11/19 Water intrusion materials for basement. 71$                                          Y Decorview 3/11/19
Design consultation and product purchase for
window shades. 3,894$                                     Y Home Depot 2/24/19 Materials for kitchen upgrade and cleaning. 50$                                          Y Home Depot 4/26/19 Landscaping materials. 3$                                            Y Home Depot 4/26/19 Landscaping materials and toilet seat. 36$                                          Y

9.g
Packet Pg. 72
Attachment: Exhibit G - Audit Review Spreadsheet (Mills Act Program Review) Home Depot 4/26/19 Landscaping materials and insulation wires. 250$                                        Y Home Depot 2/2/19 Drain tube. 10$                                          Y Home Depot 5/26/19
Landscaping materials, caulking, and plumbing
supplies. 27$                                          Y Home Depot 5/5/19 LED light. 9$                                            Y Home Depot 11/17/19 Landscaping materials. 43$                                          Y Home Depot 5/19/19 Landscaping materials. 19$                                          Y Home Depot 3/14/19 Landscaping materials. 141$                                        Y Home Depot 3/30/19 Landscaping materials. 7$                                            Y Home Depot 10/25/19 Landscaping materials. 14$                                          Y Costco 1/29/19 Outdoor solar light. 30$                                          Y Costco 2/10/19 LED lightbulbs and 60W light bulbs. 30$                                          Y Home Depot 4/14/19 Landscaping materials and lighting supplies. 82$                                          Y Home Depot 8/18/19 Lighting supplies. 11$                                          Y Home Depot 4/26/19 Window coverings. 32$                                          Y Lowe's 7/23/19 Window coverings. 50$                                          Y Western Appliance 7/28/19
Microwave and related trimkit purchase and
installation. 415$                                        Y 110 South 2nd Street: Exterior Power Wash and Painting, Home Siding, Termite Inspection and Maintenance, Smoke
Alarm, Electrical Repair, Toilet Seat, Basement Foundation Seal, Landscaping, Light Bulbs, Air Filters, Window
Coverings, Kitchen Upgrade Materials, Insulation, Outdoor Lighting, Furnace, AC Total: 14,603$
110 South 2nd Street Grand Total 18,356 $

9.g
Packet Pg. 73
Attachment: Exhibit G - Audit Review Spreadsheet (Mills Act Program Review) 140 South Peter Drive
Address Contractor  / Vendor Date Description Cost Reciept  (Y/N) Permit Traceable To
Receipts (Y/N)
Permit Provides New
Information (Y/N) Notes
140 South Peter Drive Carriage House
Baseboards, Doors, Floors, Stairs, Door
Handles, Door Locks, & Main House
Storm Cellar Door
Package provided by the homeowner includes the Mills Act Campbell reporting form, two Mills Act County Surveys (2010 ‐ 2014 & 2015) including Supplemental Form #2 (Detailing projects that took place from 2010 ‐ 2013, and projected through 2015), photographs, and receipts (All the aforementioned pursuant to term #7 of the Mills Act contract). Inspection after 5 years from the date of contract (Required per term #6 of the Mills Act contract) is TBD.

Homeowners note that it has been a difficult task to recreate what had been sent to the County for their audit. Homeowners further note that the County threw these materials away. They have attempted to re‐create what the County threw away and stated that the amounts provided cover the items credited through the Mills Act. Homeowners note that while the materials provided cover the credit amount, there are additional items completed and money spent.

In the Mills Act reporting forms, the homeowner notes $150,000 in projects in 2011, $55,000 in 2012, $80,000 in 2013 (Projected), and $75,000 in 2014 (Projected). The receipt‐level detail that follows is the entirety of payment confirmation provided. Noted that the homeowner wrote that a significant amount of information that was provided to the County was not returned. Receipt‐level detail has not been provided for projects taking place between 2010 ‐ 2014.

Homeowners entered into the Mills Act contract on 11/1/13.

Unidentified Labor 2015
Labor related to these projects. 5 workers,
ranging from $30 ‐ $40 per hour. 4,620$                                    NY N Hand‐written. "Terrys" Store 2015 Unidentified product for this project. 496$                                        NY N Hand‐written.

Unidentified Store 2015 Unidentified product for this project. 1,859$                                    NY N Hand‐written.

Unidentified Labor 2015
Labor related to these projects. 5 workers,
ranging from $30 ‐ $40 per hour. 3,480$                                    NY N Hand‐written.

Unidentified Store 2015 Unidentified product for this project. 82$                                          NY N Hand‐written.

The Moulding Company 6/25/15 Moulding materials. 168$                                        YY N Economy Lumber 6/24/15 Lumber, drill bits, finish. 1,099$                                    YY N Fence Specialties Inc. 6/25/15 Fencing materials. 229$                                        YY N The Moulding Company 6/25/15 Moulding materials. 84$                                          YY N The Moulding Company 6/30/15 Moulding materials. 127$                                        YY N Golden State Lumber 8/26/15 Lumber. 2,414$                                    YY N Buena Vista Hardwood Floors 8/13/15 Sand and finish hardwood floors. 2,650$                                    YY N Buena Vista Hardwood Floors 10/8/15 Sand and finish stairs. 800$                                        YY N 140 South Peter Drive Carriage House
Baseboards, Doors, Floors, Stairs, Door
Handles, Door Locks, & Main House
Storm Cellar Door Total: 18,107$                       While the 2015 County Survey notes $15,670 in eligible expenses, receipts provided total $18,107. 140 South Peter Drive Tennis Court
Resurface 4/19/16 Tennis court resurface. 5,800$                                    NY N Detailed documentation was provided including the proposal, estimate, contract, and acceptance.

However there was not a receipt / evidence of payment.
140 South Peter Drive Tennis Court
Resurface Total: 5,800$
140 South Peter Drive Deck Work,
Painting, Gutter Work Aynax.com 5/14/17 Deck repair. 10,500$                                  YY N ROS Builder 6/21/17 Deck work. 13,800$                                  YY N Luis Franco 12/12/17 Painting. 38,100$                                  YY N Golden State Lumber 3/31/17 Lumber. 7,891$                                    YY N Leaf Filter North 2017 Gutter work. 16,191$                                  YY N 140 South Peter Drive Deck Work,
Painting, Gutter Work Total: 86,482$                       While the 2017 County Survey notes $70,977 in eligible expenses, receipts provided total $86,482. 140 South Peter Drive Total 110,389 $

9.g
Packet Pg. 74
Attachment: Exhibit G - Audit Review Spreadsheet (Mills Act Program Review) 146 Alice Avenue
Address Contractor  / Vendor Date Description Cost
Reciept
(Y/N)
Permit
Traceable To
Receipts
(Y/N)
Permit
Provides New
Information
(Y/N) Notes
146 Alice Avenue Windows, Cabinets,
Baseboard, Electrical Outlet, Termite Repair,
Bathroom Window, Front Porch, City Planning
Fees, Vent Gas Inserts, Fireplace
Package provided by the homeowner includes the Mills Act Campbell reporting form, receipts, and Mills Act County Surveys (2017, 2018, and 2019). It does not include photographs. Inspection after 5 years from the date of contract (Required per term #6 of the Mills Act contract) is TBD.

Mills Act contract date is 4/12/16.

Sheets Enterprises 6/11/19
Windows, cabinets, baseboard, electrical
outlet, termite repair, bathroom window, front
porch.  38,942$                     YY N
Homeowner also provided a proposal on 8/27/19 for work that appears to be the same or similar. It was classified as "Fenestration Restoration." However it came after the invoice. This is no the normal order in which proposals / statements of work lead to billing. Unclear as to whether the work described in the proposal lead to a billing. It is clear however that the work in the 6/11/19 receipt was fulfilled and billed.

City of Campbell 7/11/19 City Planning fees. 1,542$                       YY N It is assumed that city planning fees are eligible for tax deduction under the Mills Act.

Volheim & Sons 12/23/19 Vent gas inserts. 600$                           YY N California Window & Fireplace 12/30/19 Fireplace 2,976$                       YY N 146 Alice Avenue Windows, Cabinets,
Baseboard, Electrical Outlet, Termite Repair,
Bathroom Window, Front Porch, Vent Gas
Inserts, Fireplace Total: 44,060$
146 Alice Avenue Gas Line, Tile, City Planning
Fees Mike Fox's A & A Plumbing 1/6/20 New gas line from meter to fireplace. 1,800$                       Y Sole documentary evidence is an unsigned proposal where it is handwritten that $1,800 was paid for this service. It is noted that $1,800 was "paid to  the equity line" via a check for this. Paying to an equity line is not germain to the purpose of an equity line. It is understandable if it was stated that this was paid from  an equity line since that line is a source of cash and the check would be a use of cash.

Motawi Tileworks 4/2/20 New tile. 3,122$                       Y Documentary evidence is a sales order but this confirms neither that a sale was completed nor that product was delivered, nor that payment was made.

City of Campbell 2/13/20 City Planning fees. 333$                           Y It is assumed that city planning fees are eligible for tax deduction under the Mills Act. 146 Alice Avenue Gas Line, Tile, City Planning
Fees Total: 5,255$              `
146 Alice Avenue Roofing Kent Roofing 11/14/16 Roofing. 19,952$                     NA Y N Documentary evidence is a proposal / contract but this confirms neither that a sale was completed nor that product was delivered, nor that payment was made. 146 Alice Avenue Roofing Total: 19,952$
146 Alice Avenue Drywall Repair Dan Pena Drywall 4/8/17 Drywall Repair 5,550$                       Y In early 2018, homeowner submitted a Santa Clara County Mills Act survey that claimed $32,252 in eligible expenses for 2017, however invoices provided for 2017 expenses show $5,550. City of Campbell Mills Act survey claims the same $32,252 in expenses for 2017.

In early 2019, homeowner submitted a Santa Clara County Mills Act survey that claimed $3,050 in eligible expenses for 2018, however no receipts were provided showing expenses incurred in 2018. City of Campbell Mills Act survey claimed $3,050 in eligible expenses for 2018.

Superseding any inconsistencies provided to Santa Clara County's Mills Act survey, actual paid home expenses as verified by receipts given exceed the expense totals provided to Santa Clara County.
146 Alice Avenue Drywall Repair Total: 5,550$
146 Alice Avenue Total 74,816 $

9.g
Packet Pg. 75
Attachment: Exhibit G - Audit Review Spreadsheet (Mills Act Program Review) 155 Alice Avenue
Address Contractor  / Vendor Date Description Cost Reciept  (Y/N) Permit
Traceable To
Receipts (Y/N)
Permit
Provides New
Information
(Y/N) Notes
155 Alice Avenue Igniter, Diagnostics,
Shower Valve, Fawcet, Leak Repair
Package provided by the homeowner includes the Mills Act Campbell reporting forms, the original copy of the 2015 Mills Act contract, Mills Act County surveys, and receipts. Photographs not provided. Inspection after 5 years from the date of contract (Required per term #6 of the Mills Act contract) is TBD.

City of Campbell Mills Act reporting form which itemizes proposed / scheduled plans for maintenance and treatment does not necessarily align with actual expenses incurred.

Homeowner notes that most photos provided to the County for its Mills Act survey were not retained. No photos were provided in package.

Homeowners entered into the Mills Act contract on 9/15/15.

Despite a Mills Act contract of 9/15/15, receipts were provided for work done in 2012.

Residential Heating and Air
Conditioning 12/22/17 Replace igniter. 330$                                      Y Residential Heating and Air
Conditioning 12/19/17 Diagnostic fee. 132$                                      Y Plumb Perfect 12/2/17 New shower valve. 1,200$                                   Y Plumb Perfect 11/27/17 New kitchen fawcet. 617$                                      Y Plumb Perfect 8/1/17 Leak repair. 753$                                      Y Plumb Perfect 5/23/17 Leak repair. 140$                                      Y 155 Alice Avenue Igniter, Diagnostics,
Shower Valve, Fawcet, Leak Repair
Total: 3,172$
County Mills Act Survey revealed a similar amount claimed for 2017 compared to receipts provided.
155 Alice Avenue Capacitor, Gate
System
Residential Heating and Air
Conditioning 6/17/19 New capacitor. 198$                                      Y Automatic Gate Installations 1/9/19 New automatic gate system. 11,622$                                 NA Proposal and contract provided, however no conclusive evidence of fulfilled work or payment is included.

Van Briggle Floors 11/21/19 Unidentified labor. 2,375$                                   Y Nature of work is not identified. 155 Alice Avenue Capacitor, Gate
System Total 14,195$
155 Alice Avenue Painting The Painting Pros 11/2/18 Painting. 10,360$                                 Y 155 Alice Avenue Painting Total: 10,360$
155 Alice Avenue Total: 27,727 $

9.g
Packet Pg. 76
Attachment: Exhibit G - Audit Review Spreadsheet (Mills Act Program Review) 167 Alice Avenue
Address Contractor  / Vendor Date Description Cost Valid  Reciept (Y/N) Permit
Traceable To
Receipts (Y/N)
Permit
Provides New
Information
(Y/N) Notes
167 Alice Avenue Drywood Fumigation,
Chimney Cleaning, Dry Rot, Electrical,
Flooring, Windows, Roof, Stucco, Paint
Package provided by the homeowner includes the Mills Act Campbell reporting form, photographs, one (Relatively) small invoice, and a letter from a contractor attesting to the other expenses. There is no Mills Act County survey. Inspection after 5 years from the date of contract (Required per term #6 of the Mills Act contract) is TBD.

Homeowners entered into the Mills Act contract on 12/31/18.

While the Mills Act contract date is 12/31/18, the dates of expenses incurred are indeterminant.

In their 2019 City of Campbell Mills Act reporting form, homeowner notes that proposed projects would total an estimated $60,450, whereas actual spend was $152,041. Further, homeowner states that there was a 10 year commitment of $235,750 in expenditures, leading to a remaining balance of $91,591. It is unclear as to what is meant by a 10 year commitment.

Additionally, the math is incorrect. If there was a commitment, and if it was $235,750, the remaining balance after spending $152,041 would be $83,709. Ten year projections are simply conjectures as to future anticipated projects, and the concept of fulfilling a "balance" or "10 year commitment" is not germain to any Mills Act requirement.

In the City of Campbell Mills Act reporting form, a total of $152,041 in eligible expenses was attested. The sum total of receipts / payment confirmations was $130,891. It could be a worthwhile exercise to verify the County's tax calculation against verifiable expenses, and compare that to expenses merely claimed on Mills Act surveys.

D 0 3 Inc. 12/17/18 New photo voltaic system on roof. 5,707$                                   N  NY Van Hooser Enterprises 6/28/18 Drywood fumigation. 2,141$                                   YY N Star Custom Builders 5/23/18
Remodel of existing home, replace all windows,
relocate furnace. 95,518$                                 NN Y Conner Builders 3/10/18 New shingles. 6,177$                                   NN Y Sken‐Con Construction 3/12/20 Chimney cleaning. 500$                                      NA Y N Evidence of this expense was provided in the form of a letter from the owner of Sken‐Con Construction (Skender Kraja), who confirmed this work was completed, and its cost. While not an invoice per se, it is likely as valid. While the letter is dated 3/12/20, it is unclear when the work took place, but it is likely to have taken place after the date of the Mills Act contract.

Sken‐Con Construction 3/12/20 Dry rot repair. 5,000$                                   NA Y N Evidence of this expense was provided in the form of a letter from the owner of Sken‐Con Construction (Skender Kraja), who confirmed this work was completed, and its cost. While not an invoice per se, it is likely as valid. While the letter is dated 3/12/20, it is unclear when the work took place, but it is likely to have taken place after the date of the Mills Act contract.

Sken‐Con Construction 3/12/20 Electrical rewiring. 20,000$                                 NA Y N Evidence of this expense was provided in the form of a letter from the owner of Sken‐Con Construction (Skender Kraja), who confirmed this work was completed, and its cost. While not an invoice per se, it is likely as valid. While the letter is dated 3/12/20, it is unclear when the work took place, but it is likely to have taken place after the date of the Mills Act contract.

Sken‐Con Construction 3/12/20 Flooring. 8,000$                                   NA Y N Evidence of this expense was provided in the form of a letter from the owner of Sken‐Con Construction (Skender Kraja), who confirmed this work was completed, and its cost. While not an invoice per se, it is likely as valid. While the letter is dated 3/12/20, it is unclear when the work took place, but it is likely to have taken place after the date of the Mills Act contract.

Sken‐Con Construction 3/12/20 Windows and trim. 37,500$                                 NA Y N Evidence of this expense was provided in the form of a letter from the owner of Sken‐Con Construction (Skender Kraja), who confirmed this work was completed, and its cost. While not an invoice per se, it is likely as valid. While the letter is dated 3/12/20, it is unclear when the work took place, but it is likely to have taken place after the date of the Mills Act contract.

Sken‐Con Construction 3/12/20 Roof. 35,750$                                 NA Y N Evidence of this expense was provided in the form of a letter from the owner of Sken‐Con Construction (Skender Kraja), who confirmed this work was completed, and its cost. While not an invoice per se, it is likely as valid. While the letter is dated 3/12/20, it is unclear when the work took place, but it is likely to have taken place after the date of the Mills Act contract.

Sken‐Con Construction 3/12/20 Stucco / paint. 22,000$                                 NA Y N Evidence of this expense was provided in the form of a letter from the owner of Sken‐Con Construction (Skender Kraja), who confirmed this work was completed, and its cost. While not an invoice per se, it is likely as valid. While the letter is dated 3/12/20, it is unclear when the work took place, but it is likely to have taken place after the date of the Mills Act contract. 167 Alice Avenue Drywood
Fumigation, Chimney Cleaning, Dry
Rot, Electrical, Flooring, Windows,
Roof, Stucco, Paint Total: 238,293$
167 Alice Avenue Total: 238,293 $

9.g
Packet Pg. 77
Attachment: Exhibit G - Audit Review Spreadsheet (Mills Act Program Review) 226 Alice Avenue "
Address Contractor  / Vendor Date Description Cost Valid  Reciept (Y/N) Notes 226 Alice Avenue Main Line, Permit
Fees
Package provided by the homeowner includes the Mills Act Campbell reporting form, photographs, receipts, and permits. There is no Mills Act County survey. Inspection after 5 years from the date of contract (Required per term #6 of the Mills Act contract) is TBD.

Homeowners entered into the Mills Act contract on 11/15/16.

Owner Builder 3/28/16 Repair water main line. ‐$                                           NA The assumption is that "Owner Builder" listed as the contractor denotes that this is work done by the owner of the property. No valuation of the of the cost of the project is quantified.

City of Campbell 3/28/16 Permit fees. 142$                                      Y It is assumed that city planning fees are eligible for tax deduction under the Mills Act. 226 Alice Avenue Main Line, Permit
Fees Total: 142$
226 Alice Avenue Shingles, Permit
Fees F F F Roofing 9/5/17 Replace shingles. 13,000$                                NA Documentary evidence provided is a City of Campbell permit estimating the cost of this work to be $13,000. Proof of payment not included.

City of Campbell 9/5/17 Permit fees. 339$                                      Y It is assumed that city planning fees are eligible for tax deduction under the Mills Act. 226 Alice Avenue Shingles, Permit
Fees Total: 13,339$
226 Alice Avenue Patio Bay Area Interlocking Pavers 11/15/19 Patio. 6,844$                                   Y 226 Alice Avenue Patio Total: 6,844$
226 Alice Avenue Garden Materials Garden Supply 1/21/20 Garden materials. 1,647$                                   Y 226 Alice Avenue Garden Materials
Total: 1,647$
226 Alice Avenue Total 21,972 $

9.g
Packet Pg. 78
Attachment: Exhibit G - Audit Review Spreadsheet (Mills Act Program Review)

City
Council
Report

TITLE: Fiscal Year 2022 Year-End Fiscal Update (Resolution/Roll Call Vote)

RECOMMENDED ACTION

It is recommended that the City Council receive an update on un -audited Fiscal Year (FY) 2022 year -end General Fund actual revenues and expenditures and adopt a Resolution authorizing year-end correcting Budget Adjustments.

BACKGROUND

The current report before Council will provide a n update regarding actual un-audited year-end results for FY 202 2, the amount of ARPA funds necessary (if any) to balance General Fund operations in FY 2022, and correcting year-end budget adjustments.

DISCUSSION

FY 2022 Year-End Fiscal Update (Un-Audited)

As of the Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2022, General Fund un -audited revenues were $57.68 million and General Fund un -audited expenditures were $56.29 million; thereby resulting in an operating surplus of $1.39 million for FY 2022. This is further detailed in Attachment C.

If results hold t hrough the preparation of the final audit and Annual Comprehensive Financial Report (ACFR) (to be completed by end of December 2022 and formally presented to Council February 2023 ), staff recommends placing $927, 376 of the estimated surplus into the General Fund Economic Fluctuations Reserve (to meet the City’s policy target of 16.67% of FY 2023 Adopted General Fund Operating Expenditures) and $46 7,518 of the surplus into the General Fund Emergency Reserve (to build it back closer to the City’s policy targe t of 10% of General Fund Revenues). The second proposed action will bring the Emergency Reserve up to $3.05 million and closer to the policy target of $6.15 million; leaving a remaining policy target gap of $3.09 million. Attachment A (Resolution) would approve staff’s recommended uses of the estimated FY 2022 surplus. Council though may choose to provide staff with different direction on how to utilize the estimated surplus . For reference, due to the COVID -19 pandemic and subsequent revenue shortfalls in primary revenue categories, the City utilized $3.0 million of the Emergency Reserve in FY 2020.

Item: 10
Category: NEW BUSINESS
Meeting Date: October 18, 2022
10 Packet Pg. 79
FY 2022 Year-End Fiscal Update Page 2 of 6
Furthermore, a s of the last update of the City’s Seven -Year Financial Forecast , the General Fund was expected to have an operating deficit of $2.21 million in FY 202 2; caused by an estimated $ 55.88 million in revenues and $ 58.14 million in expenditures.

This would have resulted in a previously approved transfer by City Council of $2.21 million from the City’s American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Fund (#221) to the General Fund (#101) to balance operations in FY 2022 . However, the $2.21 million use of ARPA funds in FY 2022 is no longer needed and staff recommends keeping it within the ARPA Fund for other uses as determined by Council at a later date and as allowable under ARPA guidelines. Attachment A (Resolution) and Attachment B (Budget Adjustment Form) proposes cancelling the planned transfer for FY 2022.

For reference, the City received $9.997 million total in one-time ARPA funding. These monies must be committed (appropriated and encumbered) by December 31, 2024 and spent down fully by December 31, 2026 . Table A below provides a summary of ARPA funds received, expended to date, and appropriated to be used through FY 2024:

Table A – ARPA Fund (#221) Status
FY 2021
Actual
FY 2022
Actual
FY 2023
Budget
FY 2024
Budget
TOTAL
Beg. Bal. July 1 $0 $2,784,217 $7,783,104 $6,482,637

Revenues - ARPA $4,998,887 $4,998,887 $9,997,774

Expenditures
Transf. to General Fund $2,214,670 $725,467 $2,940,137 CCC WiFi (1) $125,000 $125,000
COVID Supplies $50,000 $50,000
Parklet Grant Program $400,000 $400,000
OBAG Downtown PDA (2) $580,000 $580,000
OBAG Hamilton Specific (2) $100,000 $100,000
Expenditures Total $2,214,670 $0 $1,300,467 $680,000 $4,195,137

End. Bal. July 1 $2,784,217 $7,783,104 $6,482,637 $5,802,637 (1) Capital Project to be rolled over from FY 2022 to FY 2023 (2) Pending formal approval as part of the FY 2024 Budget and CIP approval process

As shown above, w ith no need to balance General Fund operations in FY 2022, the ARPA Fund is now estimated to have a balance of $7.78 million at the end of FY 2022, $6.48 million at the end of FY 2023 , and $5.80 million at the end of FY 2024 ; after all actual and planned usages shown above are taken into account.

General Fund Revenues

On a year -over-year basis, total General Fund revenues grew by $3.71 million or

6.88%. The following will provide a more detailed comparison of FY 2022 year -end revenues to FY 2021 year -end r evenues in the top 10 General Fund revenue categories:

10 Packet Pg. 80
FY 2022 Year-End Fiscal Update Page 3 of 6

1. Property Tax – Un-audited year -end Property Tax for FY 202 2 equaled $19.51 million; $1.60 million or 8.93% greater than FY 202 1. This was caused by a strong housing market, increas ed sales prices, an d better than expected Educational Revenue Augmentation Fund (ERAF) monies sent to the City by Santa Clara County via Property Tax payments. While the housing market has cooled slightly in the past few months due to inflation and rising interest rates , the housing market in Campbell was still very strong in FY 2022.

2. Sales Tax – Un-audited year -end Sales Tax for FY 202 2 equaled $16.42 million; $1.94 million or 13.41% greater than FY 2021. This was caused by continued strong consumer spending on taxable go ods and services. However, it must be noted that as prices increase due to inflation, it also causes City sales tax revenues to increase as well since it is a percentage tax based off those higher prices.

3. Other Taxes - Un-audited year-end Other Taxes for FY 2022 equaled $7.78 million; $1.41 or 22.09% greater than FY 202 1. This revenue category consists of Construction Tax, Business License Tax, Real Property Tax Transfers , Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT). In regard to TOT, un-audited year-end revenues for FY 2022 equaled $2.55 million; an increase of $978,000 or 62.31% over FY 2021 year -end.

While TOT is not back to its pre-pandemic level of $4.8 million annually, it is showing strong recovery and is above pandemic level low of $1.58 million in FY 2021.

4. Charges for Service - Un-audited year -end Charges for Service for FY 2022 equaled $4.84 million; $1.52 million or 45.54% greater than FY 2021. This was largely caused by improved enrollments for Recreation and Community Services classes and programs and o ther miscellaneous fees for service within the Public Works, Police, and Community Development Departments.

5. Licenses and Permits - Un-audited year -end Licenses and Permits for FY 202 2 equaled $3.74 million; $779,000 or 22.09% greater than FY 2021. This was largely fueled by increased construction activity and an uptick in building and associated permits processed within the Community Development Department. Please note though that this revenue area can fluctuate greatly from year to year and should not be counted on as a dependable and stable revenue source . Nevertheless, for the foreseeable future, it is an area that is predicted to remain strong.

6. Leases and Rentals - Un-audited year -end Leases and Rentals for FY 2022 equaled $2.75 million; $859,000 or 45.34% greater than FY 2021. This increase was fueled largely by improving lease and rental revenue at the Campbell Community Center (CCC) and the lessoning of pandemic-related restrictions.

7. Intergovernmental Revenue - Un-audited year-end Intergovernmental Revenue for FY 2022 equaled $986,000; $429,000 or 30.32% less than FY 2021. This decrease was caused by $522,000 in one -time Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act money that was received in FY 2021 and not in FY 2022; 10 Packet Pg. 81
FY 2022 Year-End Fiscal Update Page 4 of 6
offset by increases in Santa Clara County Regional Auto Theft Task Force (RATTF) reimbursements.

8. Operating Transfers In - Un-audited year-end Operating Transfers In for FY 2022 equaled $866,000; $4.50 million or 83.85% less than FY 2021. This decrease is largely due to $1.78 million of one -time transfers from other funds to the General Fund to balance operations as part of approved FY 2021 mid -year budget correction strategies as well as a $2.21 transfer from the ARPA fund to balance General Fund operations at FY 2021 year-end. The remainder of the decrease is due to $522,000 less transferred from the Environmental Service Fund (#209) to the General Fund to pay for West Valley Solid Waste Management Authority (WVSWA) JPA expenditures that are now paid directly by the JPA.

9. Use of Committed/Assigned Reserves – Un-audited year -end Use of Committed/Assigned Reserves for FY 2022 equaled $522,000 and consisted of $250,000 spent from the General Plan Update Reserve on associated consultant expenses and $353,000 spent towards capital projects from CIPR; offset by changes in target levels for reserves such as Compensated Absences, Other Post - Employment Benefits, and Liability Insurance.

10. Miscellaneous Revenue - Un-audited year -end Miscellaneous Revenue for FY 2022 equaled $274,000; $192,000 or 232.35% greater than FY 202 1. This was due caused largely by a $137,000 one-time donation to the Historical Museum.

General Fund Expenditures

On a year -over-year basis, total General Fund expenditures grew by $964,000 or

1.74%; signi ficantly less than revenue growth as noted previously. Most all of the expenditure growth was due to filling of vacant positions in FY 2022 previously frozen for all or part of FY 2021 as well a resumption of many Recreation programs and services; offset b y lower pandemic related personnel and non -personnel related expenses than FY 2021.

Correcting Year-End Budget Adjustments

As previously stated, the $2.21 million approved use of ARPA funds in FY 2022 is no longer needed and staff recommends keeping it within the ARPA Fund for other uses as determined by City Council at a later date and as allowable under ARPA guidelines.

Attachment A (Resolution) and Attachment B (Budget Adjustment Form) proposes cancelling the planned transfer for FY 2022.

In addition to the proposed adjustments above, staff also recommends the following correcting year -end budget adjustments for FY 2022 . These recommendations are also included within Attachment A (Resolution) and Attachment B (Budget Adjustment Form):

10 Packet Pg. 82
FY 2022 Year-End Fiscal Update Page 5 of 6
• 22-BB - Annual Street Maintenance FY22 – Due to the receipt of a CalRecycle Grant for $49,308, staff recommends using it to pay for capital expenditures under the FY 2022 Annual Street Maintenance Project. These are allowable expenses under the grant terms and conditions.

• 21-OO - ESCO Project – Due to a higher than anticipated rebate from PG&E of $112,709 to make energy efficiency upgrades, staff recommends using it to pay for associated ESCO project expenses. The higher than anticipated rebate also allows for a sligh tly reduced use of the Capital Improvement Project Reserve (CIPR) by $9,986.

FISCAL IMPACT

As of the Fiscal Year ended June 30, 2022, General Fund un -audited revenues were $57.68 million and General Fund un -audited expenditures were $56.29 million; there by resulting in an operating surplus of $1.39 million for FY 2022 . Staff is recommending placing $927,376 of the surplus into the General Fund Economic Fluctuations Reserve (to meet the City’s policy target of 16.67% of FY 2023 Adopted General Fund Operating Expenditures) and $46 7,518 of the surplus into the General Fund Emergency Reserve (to build it back closer to the City’s policy target of 10% of General Fund Revenues).

Furthermore, as of the last update of the City’s Seven -Year Financial Forecast, the General Fund was expected to have an operating deficit of $2.21 million in FY 2022; caused by an estimated $55.88 million in revenues and $58.14 million in expenditures.

This would have resulted in a previously approved transfer by the City Council of $2.21 million from the City’s American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Fund (#221) to the General Fund (#101) to balance operations in FY 2022. However, the $2.21 million use of ARPA funds in FY 2022 is no longer needed and staff recommends keeping it within the ARPA Fund for other uses as determined by City Council at a later date and as allowable under ARPA guidelines.

And lastly, staff is recommending some minor budget adjustments to Capital Projects as detailed in the previous sections. If approved, these adj ustments would increase Project 22-BB (Annual Street Maintenance FY22 ) by $49,308 and Project 21-OO (ESCO Project) by $112,709.

ALTERNATIVES

1. Do not approve the recommended use of the estimated $1.39 million General Fund operating surplus in FY 2022 to br ing the Economic Fluctuations Reserve up to the City Policy target and the Emergency Reserve closer to the City Policy target, but instead provide staff with other direction.

2. Do not approve the minor budget adjustments to Capital Projects as detailed in the previous sections, but instead provide staff with other direction.

10 Packet Pg. 83
FY 2022 Year-End Fiscal Update Page 6 of 6

Prepared by:

Will Fuentes, Finance Director

Approved by:

Brian Loventhal, City Manager

Attachment:
a. Resolution
b. Budget Adjustment Forms
c. Financial Status Update (General Fund Q4 YTD 2022)
10 Packet Pg. 84
1 RESOLUTION NO. __________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL AUTHORIZING FISCAL YEAR (FY) 2022 YEAR-END CORRECTING BUDGET ADJUSTMENTS AND USAGE OF FY 2022 ESTIMATED GENERAL FUND OPERATING

SURPLUS TO MEET ECONOMIC FLUCTATIONS RESERVE POLICY TARGET AND WORK

TOWARDS EMERGENCY RESERVE POLICY TARGET

WHEREAS, as of the Fiscal Year end June 30, 2022, General Fund un -audited revenues were $57.68 million and General Fund un -audited expenditures were $56.29 million; thereby resulting in an operating surplus of $1.39 million for FY 2022, and

WHEREAS, staff recommends placing $92 7,376 of the surplus into the General Fund Economic Fluctuations Reserve (to meet the City’s policy target of 16.67% of the FY 2023 Adopted Operating Expenditure Budg et) and $46 7,517 of the surplus into the General Fund Emergency Reserve (to build it back closer to the City’s policy target of 10% of General Fund Revenues), and

WHEREAS, as of the last update of the City’s Seven -Year Financial Forecast, the General Fund was expected to have an operating deficit of $2.21 million in FY 2022; thereby resulted in a previously approved transfer by the City Council of $2.21 million from the City’s American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Fund (#221) to the General Fund (#101) to bala nce operations in FY 2022, and

WHEREAS, the $2.21 million use of ARPA funds in FY 2022 is no longer needed and staff recommends keeping it within the ARPA Fund for other uses as determined at a later date by Council and as allowable under the ARPA legislation, and

WHEREAS, staff also recommends the following corre cting year -end budget adjustments for FY 2022:

• 22-BB - Annual Street Maintenance FY22 – Due to the receipt of a CalRecycle Grant for $49,308, staff recommends using it to pay for capital expend itures under the FY 2022 Annual Street Maintenance Project as allowed under the grant terms and conditions.

• 21-OO - ESCO Project – Due to a higher than anticipated rebate from PG&E of $112,709 to make energy efficiency upgrades, staff recommends using it to pay for associated ESCO project expenses. The higher than anticipated rebate also allows a slightly reduced use of the Capital Improvement Project Reserve (CIPR) by $9,986, and

WHEREAS, Attachment C of the un-audited FY 2022 Fiscal Update rep ort details the requested budget adjustments and is incorporated by reference, and

10.a
Packet Pg. 85
Attachment: Resolution (FY 2022 Year-End Fiscal Update) 2 WHEREAS, audited General Fund year -end actual results for FY 2 022 will not be finalized u ntil Dec ember 202 2 and may increase or decrease the actual General Fund operating surplus in FY 2022, and

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOL VED, by the City Coun cil that as of October 18, 2022, the budget adjustments contained in Attachment C of the un-audited FY 2022 Fiscal Update report and the u se of the FY 2022 estimated General Fund operating surplus to meet Economic Fluc tuations Reserve policy target and work towards Emergency Reserve policy target is approved.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 18th day of October, 2022, by the following roll call vote:

AYES: Councilmembers:

NOES: Councilmembers:

ABSENT: Councilmembers:

APPROVED:

__________________________
Paul Resnikoff, Mayor

ATTEST:

__________________________
Andrea Sanders, City Clerk

10.a
Packet Pg. 86
Attachment: Resolution (FY 2022 Year-End Fiscal Update) City of Campbell
Request for Budget Adjustments
Department/Program Division Date Request No.

October 18, 2022 BA-15
Budget to be Reduced
Fund Account Number Description Amount
101.980 6899 Operating Transfer In 2,210,039
221.980 9899 Operating Transfer Out 2,210,039
Budget to be Increased
Fund/Program Account Number Description
REASON FOR REQUEST - BE SPECIFIC:

Finance Manager Finance Director Cit y Manager
Non-Departmental
Norite Vong Will Fuentes Brian Loventhal
Cancelling transfer of ARPA Funds to the General Fund to balance operations in FY 2022 due to lack of actual need. 980 - Operating Transfers

10.b
Packet Pg. 87
Attachment: Budget Adjustment Forms (FY 2022 Year-End Fiscal Update) City of Campbell
Request for Budget Adjustments
Department/Program Division Date Request No.

October 18, 2022 BA-16
Budget to be Reduced
Fund Account Number Description Amount
Project 21-OO (ESCO Project)
101.990 9999 Capital Transfer Out 9,986
Budget to be Increased
Fund/Program Account Number Description
Project 22-BB (Annual Street Maintenance FY22)
435.22BB 7883 Improvements Ot her than Building 49,308
435.990 6999 Capital Transfer In 49,308
212.990 9999 Capital Transfer Out 49,308
212.535 4543 Other State Gran ts - CalRecycle 49,308
Project 21-OO (ESCO Project)
435.21OO 7883 Improvements Ot her than Building 112,709 435.990 6999 Capital Transfer In 112,709
212.990 9999 Capital Transfer Out 122,695
212.535 4965 Other Revenue - PG&E Rebate 122,695
REASON FOR REQUEST - BE SPECIFIC:

Finance Manager Finance Director Cit y Manager
Non-Departmental
Norite Vong Will Fuentes Brian Loventhal
CIP clean-up adjustments at FY 2022 year-end to account for CalRecycle Grant and higher than anticipated PG&E rebate for energy efficiency upgrades.
990 - Capital Transfers / Projects

10.b
Packet Pg. 88
Attachment: Budget Adjustment Forms (FY 2022 Year-End Fiscal Update) SUMMARY ‐ Fiscal Year (FY) 2022
Q4 ‐ Ending June 30, 2022
GENERAL FUND
Year‐End Amd. Budget % of Budget Year‐End YTD Growth ($) YTD Growth (%)

REVENUES
Property Tax 19,510,782 $       18,583,168$   104.99% 17,911,445$   1,599,337$          8.93% Sales & Use Taxes 16,419,362 $       15,587,825$   105.33% 14,478,163$   1,941,200$          13.41% Other Taxes 7,783,615 $         7,637,896$      101.91% 6,375,527$      1,408,088$          22.09% Licenses and Permits 3,742,394 $         3,319,200$      112.75% 2,963,368$      779,026$              26.29% Fines/Forfeits/Penalties 222,721 $            62,000$           359.23% 85,149$           137,572$              161.57% Investments Income (317,035) $           207,282$         ‐ 152.95% (8,137)$            (308,898)$            3796.09% Intergovernmental Revenue 985,556 $            1,001,924$      98.37% 1,414,419$      (428,863)$            ‐ 30.32% Charges for Service 4,843,230 $         4,223,576$      114.67% 3,327,691$      1,515,539$          45.54% Leases & Rentals 2,752,838 $         2,556,900$      107.66% 1,894,089$      858,749$              45.34% Miscellaneous Revenues 274,216 $            268,064$         102.30% 82,509$           191,707$              232.35% Other Revenues 77,059 $               82,100$           93.86% 79,962$           (2,903)$                 ‐ 3.63% OFS ‐ Operating Transfers In 866,425 $            3,078,886$      28.14% 5,364,551$      (4,498,125)$         ‐ 83.85% OFS ‐ Committed / Assigned Reserves 522,194$            1,630,584$      32.02% ‐$                  522,194$              N/A TOTAL REVENUES 57,683,357 $      58,239,405$   99.05% 53,968,736$   3,714,621$          6.88%

TRUE TRUE TRUE
YTD Actuals Amd. Budget % of Budget Year‐End YTD Growth ($) YTD Growth (%)

EXPENDITURES
City Council 316,539 $            343,601$         92.12% 310,840$         5,699$                  1.83% City Manager's Office 2,365,432 $         2,557,215$      92.50% 2,242,302$      123,131$              5.49% City Clerk's Office 535,646 $            572,244$         93.60% 339,328$         196,318$              57.85% Recreation & Comm Srvcs 4,581,380 $         4,305,549$      106.41% 4,018,012$      563,368$              14.02% Finance 1,977,207 $         1,933,485$      102.26% 1,783,488$      193,720$              10.86% Community Development 3,120,853 $         4,399,943$      70.93% 2,554,639$      566,214$              22.16% Legal Services 544,434 $            532,544$         102.23% 577,601$         (33,166)$               ‐ 5.74% Police Department 20,668,639 $       19,749,619$   104.65% 21,496,304$   (827,665)$            ‐ 3.85% Fire Services 9,867,228 $         9,856,600$      100.11% 9,556,560$      310,668$              3.25% Public Works 5,750,100 $         6,064,683$      94.81% 5,044,678$      705,422$              13.98% COVID‐19 (Payroll) 275,135 $            ‐ $                  N/A 422,541$         (147,407)$            ‐ 34.89% COVID‐19 (Non‐Payroll) 55,521 $               144,021$         38.55% 108,363$         (52,842)$               ‐ 48.76% Non‐Departmental (Other) 6,230,349 $         7,732,160$      80.58% 6,870,140$      (639,792)$            ‐ 9.31% TOTAL EXPENDITURES 56,288,463 $      58,191,664$   96.73% 55,324,796$   963,668$             1.74% Revenues vs. Expenditures 1,394,894$         47,741$           (1,356,060)$ FY 2021 Year over Year FY 2022
FY 2022 FY  2021 Year over Year

10.c
Packet Pg. 89
Attachment: Financial Status Update (General Fund Q4 YTD 2022) (FY 2022 Year-End Fiscal Update) CHART REVENUES VS. EXPENDITURES  ‐ Fiscal Year (FY) 2022 Q4 ‐ Ending June 30, 2022
GENERAL FUND
FY 2022 YE FY 2021 YE Growth (%)
Revenues 57,683,357 $       53,968,736$   6.88%
Expenditures 56,288,463 $       55,324,796$   1.74%
$52,000,000
$53,000,000
$54,000,000
$55,000,000
$56,000,000
$57,000,000
$58,000,000
FY 2022 YE FY 2021 YE
Revenues vs. Expenditures  ‐ Q4 Fiscal Year (FY) 2022 to FY 2021 Comparison
Revenues Expenditures

10.c
Packet Pg. 90
Attachment: Financial Status Update (General Fund Q4 YTD 2022) (FY 2022 Year-End Fiscal Update)

City
Council
Report

TITLE: Council Committee Reports

RECOMMENDED ACTION

That the City Council report on activities from their committee assignments.

DISCUSSION
This is th e section of the City Council Agenda that allows the City Councilmembers to report on items of interest and the work of City Council Subcommittees.

MAYOR RESNIKOFF:

City Attorney Performance/Compensation Subcommittee
City Clerk Performance/Compensation Subcommittee
City Manager Performance/Compensation Subcommittee
Silicon Valley Animal Control Authority Board (SVACA)
West Valley Clean Water JPA
West Valley Mayors and Managers
West Valley Sanitation District
West Valley Solid Waste Authority JPA

VICE MAYOR BYBEE
Advisory Commissioner Appointment Interview Subcommittee City Attorney Performance/Compensation Subcommittee
City Clerk Performance/Compensation Subcommittee
City Manager Performance/Compensation Subcommittee
Cities Association of SCC Representative
Downtown Subcommittee
Finance Subcommittee
Friends of the Heritage Theater Liaison

Association of Bay Area Governments (Alt.)
Cities Association Selection Committee & Legislative Action Committee (Alt.) Silicon Valley Animal Control Authority Board (SVACA) (Alt.) Valley Transportation Authority Policy Advisory Committee (Alt.) West Valley Mayors and Managers (Alt.)

COUNCILMEMBER GIBBONS:

Association of Bay Area Governments Executive Committee** Item: 11
Category: COUNCIL COMMITTEE

REPORTS
Meeting Date: October 18, 2022
11 Packet Pg. 91
Council Committee Reports Page 2 of 3
Campbell Historical Museum & Ainsley House Foundation Liaison Cities Association of SCC Selection Committee & Legislative Action Committee Education Subcommittee
Legislative Subcommittee
Silicon Valley Clean Energy JPA Board of Directors & Executive Committee (SVCE)

County Library District JPA Board of Directors (Alt.)
SCC Housing and Community Development Advisory Committee (Alt.)

COUNCILWOMAN LANDRY
Advisory Commissioner Appointment Interview Subcommittee County Library District JPA Board of Directors
Downtown Subcommittee
Education Subcommittee
Economic Development Subcommittee
Recycling and Waste Reduction Commission of SCC**
Santa Clara Valley Water District: County Water Commission

Cities Association of Santa Clara County Representative (Alt.) State Route (SR) 85 Corridor Policy Advisory Board (Alt.) West Valley Solid Waste Authority JPA (Alt.)
West Valley Clean Water JPA (Alt.)

COUNCILMEMBER LOPEZ:

Association of Bay Area Governments
Economic Development Subcommittee
Finance Subcommittee
Legislative Subcommittee
SCC Housing and Community Development Advisory Committee State Route (SR) 85 Corridor Policy Advisory Board
Valley Transportation Authority Policy Advisory Committee

Campbell Historical Museum & Ainsley House Foundation Liaison (Alt.) Friends of the Heritage Theater Liaison (Alt.)
Santa Clara Valley Water District: County Water Commission (Alt.) Silicon Valley Clean Energy JPA Board of Directors Executive Committee (Alt.) West Valley Sanitation District (Alt.)

**appointed by other agencies

Prepared by:

Andrea Sanders, City Clerk
11 Packet Pg. 92