Agenda, regular meeting — Campbell City Council, December 6, 2022 (part 2 of 2)

Library – Courts Building 916-323-9759
P.O. Box 942837 [email protected]
Sacramento, CA 94237-0001 www.library.ca.gov

the same rate as state grant funds. Neither grant funds nor match funds may be spent on unallowable costs, which includes work done outside of the grant period.

At this time, please acknowledge receipt of this Intent to Award as soon as possible, and no later than Friday, September 23, by email to [email protected].

Your official Award Packet will be issued in the coming weeks after we have received your acknowledgement of this Intent to Award correspondence. The Packet will include the Award Letter confirming the award amount, project period, and required match amount (if applicable), as well as the Grant Agreement, a list of unallowable costs, and templates and guidance for submitting the following items, which are required for us to process your first payment:

• Confirmed Project Budget
• Final Project Implementation Plan
• Certification of Compliance
• Letter Certifying Availability of Match Funds (if applicable) • Resolution Authorizing Acceptance of the Grant
• Signed Grant Agreement
• Completed Fiscal Claim Form for the first award payment

Please note: No payment will be made until the above items, free from errors, have been received by the State Library. Awardees may typically expect payment to be issued within 45 days from the date a grant payment request is properly submitted and approved by the Fiscal Analyst.

Hard copies of this correspondence will not follow. Please keep this Intent to Award correspondence as part of your official grant files. If you have any questions, please contact the Building Forward Team at [email protected].

The State Library looks forward to working to help you complete this project.

Respectfully,

Rebecca L. Wendt
California Deputy State Librarian

cc: Annly Roman
Reed Strege

22.b
Packet Pg. 235
Attachment: State Library Grant Award - Campbell Library - 9-12-2022 (Authorization for the Grant Application for Library) Received on 11-4-2022 Via Email

22.c
Packet Pg. 236
Attachment: Campbell Library - Award Letter - 10-19-2022 (Authorization for the Grant Application for Library)

22.c
Packet Pg. 237
Attachment: Campbell Library - Award Letter - 10-19-2022 (Authorization for the Grant Application for Library)

22.c
Packet Pg. 238
Attachment: Campbell Library - Award Letter - 10-19-2022 (Authorization for the Grant Application for Library)

22.c
Packet Pg. 239
Attachment: Campbell Library - Award Letter - 10-19-2022 (Authorization for the Grant Application for Library)

22.c
Packet Pg. 240
Attachment: Campbell Library - Award Letter - 10-19-2022 (Authorization for the Grant Application for Library) Building Forward Library Infrastructure Grant Program
Project Budget
Part 1: Project
Grant Number: BF-1-21-012
Organization: City of Campbell
Library Jurisdiction: SANTA CLARA COUNTY LIBRARY
Library Facility: Public Library Building
Project Title: Campbell Library Renovations project
Approved Match Reduction: No Match Reduction Select from dropdown list.

Part 2: Project Outputs
List all approved outputs from your Intent to Fund letter and related tangible parts of your project.

Include only costs that will be funded by the Building Forward Grant and local matching funds. If you have questions about what outputs or activities may be included, please refer to your Intent to Fund letter and the List of Unallowable Costs.

Project Outputs Includes
Mandated Fire and Life Safety
Improvements per 2019 California
Building Code & Fire and Smoke
Protection Requirements
These critical measures will protect the building from extreme temperatures, wind, water absorption, termites, noise, molds and all forms of pollution. It will help keep the building warm during cold weather and cool when temperatures are high, and overall the building will be more energy efficient and cost effective. The Library is often a refuge for residents in times of emergency or extreme weather. The cladding will help reduce the risk of fire destruction, and make the structure stronger, also increasing its durability. Waterproofing the subgrade foundation walls of the library building will prevent water infiltration, mold growth, protect the structural foundation, and improve the air quality to protect people in the building
2 HR Fire Rating
Fire Stopping
Fire Suppression
Fire Alarm
Hazmat Abatement
Critical Maintenance These critical measures will protect the building from extreme temperatures, wind, water absorption, termites, noise, molds and all forms of pollution. It will help keep the building warm during cold weather and cool when temperatures are high, and overall the building will be more energy efficient and cost effective. The Library is often a refuge for residents in times of emergency or extreme weather. The cladding will help reduce the risk of fire destruction, and make the structure stronger, also increasing its durability. Waterproofing the subgrade foundation walls of the library building will prevent water infiltration, mold growth, protect the structural foundation, and improve the air quality to protect people in the building.

Subgrade Waterproofing
Building Cladding
Roofing
Caulking & Sealants
Critical Systems The 48-year old Library building has experienced system failures on a regular basis. These caused work stoppages and limited patron access.

The Library requires a significant amount of resources to bring its electrical, lighting, HVAC, mechanical, plumping, communications, security, and elevator systems up to current and mandated California Building Codes, and meet industry standards. These critical improvements will provide consistent and safe community spaces.

Electrical
HVAC
Plumbing
Communications
Security
Compliance with California Americans with
Disabilities Act (ADA) and State statutes
The existing 48-year old Library building requires a significant amount of resources to bring the Library accessibility up to current with the mandated requirements of California Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and State statutes. These are essential modifications to ensure library services are available for all residents.

ADA Code Compliant Elevator
ADA Code Compliant Doors
ADA Code Compliant Stairs
Part 3: Administrative Costs
Enter any project or grant administration costs that will be incurred. Administrative costs are limited 10% of the grand total. Costs must be split between grant and local required match at the rate approved in the Intent to Fund letter.

Please refer to grant documentation to determine whether a cost is allowed under this grant.

Administrative Costs are directly related to administration of grant and local matching funds. The Cost Detail should include the FTE and hourly rates for staff working on the grant.

Item Building Forward Local Match Total Cost Detail
Permits and Inspection Fees $ 351,500 $ 351,500 $ 703,000 Building Forward Library Infrastructure Grant Program 1 of 3

22.d
Packet Pg. 241
Attachment: State Library Grant Budget (Authorization for the Grant Application for Library) Contracted Project Administration $ - $ - Construction Management $ 120,000 $ 120,000 $ 240,000 Equipment $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - Total Administrative Costs 471,500$ 471,500$ 943,000$ Part 4: Salaries/Wages/Benefits
Salaries/Wages/Benefits should represent costs, such as those associated with internal staff performing project related work. This may include public works staff providing direct project work, internal planning, project management, etc. Costs included in this section should represent salaries, wages, and benefits paid directly by your organization; employment related costs paid by any contractor or subrecipient should be listed in part 5 as applicable. Staff time devoted to the award or grant funds should be listed in part 3.

Major Outputs Building Forward Local Match Total Cost Detail Mandated Fire and Life Safety

$ - $ - 2 HR Fire Rating $ - $ - Fire Stopping $ - $ - Fire Suppression $ - $ - Fire Alarm $ - $ - Hazmat Abatement $ - $ - $ - $ - Critical Maintenance $ - $ - Subgrade Waterproofing $ - $ - Building Cladding $ - $ - Roofing $ - $ - Caulking & Sealants $ - $ - $ - $ - Critical Systems $ - $ - Electrical $ - $ - HVAC $ - $ - Plumbing $ - $ - Communications $ - $ - Security $ - $ - $ - $ - Compliance with California Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA) and State
statutes
$ - $ - ADA Code Compliant Elevator $ - $ - ADA Code Compliant Doors $ - $ - ADA Code Compliant Stairs $ - $ - Total Salaries/Wages/Benefits -$ -$ -$ Part 5: Consultant/Contractor Fees
Consultant/Contractor fees are costs related to external contractors, subrecipients, organizations, providing services, general contracting, planning, design, construction/project management, inspections, reviews, and other services required to accomplish outputs.

Major Outputs Building Forward Local Match Total Cost Detail Mandated Fire and Life Safety
Improvements per 2019 California
Building Code & Fire and Smoke
Protection Requirements
$ - $ - 2 HR Fire Rating $ - $ - Fire Stopping $ - $ - Fire Suppression $ - $ - Fire Alarm $ - $ - Hazmat Abatement $ - $ - $ - $ - Critical Maintenance $ - $ - Subgrade Waterproofing $ - $ - Building Cladding $ - $ - Roofing $ - $ - Caulking & Sealants $ - $ - $ - $ - Critical Systems $ - $ - Electrical $ - $ - HVAC $ - $ - Plumbing $ - $ - Communications $ - $ - Security $ - $ - $ - $ - Compliance with California Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA) and State
statutes
$ - $ - ADA Code Compliant Elevator $ - $ - ADA Code Compliant Doors $ - $ - ADA Code Compliant Stairs $ - $ - Total Consultant Fees -$ -$ -$ Part 6: Supplies/Materials/Equipment
Supplies/Materials/Equipment are costs for necessary supplies, materials, or equipment required to complete the project outputs. This may include equipment, building materials, tools, and related costs.

Major Outputs Building Forward Local Match Total Cost Detail Building Forward Library Infrastructure Grant Program 2 of 3

22.d
Packet Pg. 242
Attachment: State Library Grant Budget (Authorization for the Grant Application for Library) Mandated Fire and Life Safety
Improvements per 2019 California
Building Code & Fire and Smoke
Protection Requirements
$ - $ - 2 HR Fire Rating $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 500,000 Fire Stopping $ 4,500 $ 4,500 $ 9,000 Fire Suppression $ 180,500 $ 180,500 $ 361,000 Fire Alarm $ 106,000 $ 106,000 $ 212,000 Hazmat Abatement $ 154,000 $ 154,000 $ 308,000 $ - $ - Critical Maintenance $ - $ - Subgrade Waterproofing $ 80,000 $ 80,000 $ 160,000 Building Cladding $ 243,000 $ 243,000 $ 486,000 Roofing $ 243,000 $ 243,000 $ 486,000 Caulking & Sealants $ 17,500 $ 17,500 $ 35,000 $ - $ - Critical Systems $ - $ - Electrical $ 439,000 $ 439,000 $ 878,000 HVAC $ 581,500 $ 581,500 $ 1,163,000 Plumbing $ 649,500 $ 649,500 $ 1,299,000 Communications $ 330,000 $ 330,000 $ 660,000 Security $ 116,500 $ 116,500 $ 233,000 $ 28,500 $ 28,500 $ 57,000 Compliance with California Americans
with Disabilities Act (ADA) and State
statutes
$ 63,000 $ 63,000 $ 126,000 ADA Code Compliant Elevator $ 214,000 $ 214,000 $ 428,000 ADA Code Compliant Doors $ 14,000 $ 14,000 $ 28,000 ADA Code Compliant Stairs $ 103,500 $ 103,500 $ 207,000 Total Supplies/Materials 3,818,000$ 3,818,000$ 7,636,000$ Part 7: Contingency
Contingency is limited 10% of the subtotal. Costs must be split between grant and local required match at the rate approved in the Intent to Fund letter.

Item Grant Funded Match Funded Total
Contingency $ 428,950 $ 428,950 $ 857,900 Total Contingency 428,950$ 428,950$ 857,900$ Part 8: Totals
Subtotal
Item Grant Funded Match Funded Total
Subtotal 4,289,500$ 4,289,500$ 8,579,000$ Grand Total
Item Grant Funding Match Funding Grand Total
Grand total 4,718,450$ 4,718,450$ 9,436,900$ Review Check
Item Grant Funding Match Funding Status Check
Maximum Administration Costs 471,845$ 471,845$ Okay Maximum Contingency Costs 428,950$ 428,950$ Okay Minimum Allowable Match N/A 4,718,450$ Okay Building Forward Library Infrastructure Grant Program 3 of 3

22.d
Packet Pg. 243
Attachment: State Library Grant Budget (Authorization for the Grant Application for Library) Building Forward Library Infrastructure Grant Program
Implementation Plan
Part 1: Project
Grant Number: BF-1-21-012
Organization: City of Campbell
Library Jurisdiction: SANTA CLARA COUNTY LIBRARY
Library Facility: Public Library Building
Project Title: Campbell Library Renovations project
Part 2: Activities/Timeline
Using the table below, detail the major project activities or key milestones and when they will occur. Provide detail only for activities funded by the grant and matching funds.

Note: All grant activities must be completed within the grant period, beginning upon execution of the grant agreement and concluding by March 31, 2026.

Activity Month Started
(Select from dropdown list)
Month Completed
(Select from dropdown list)
Design Development Dec 2022 Jan 2023
Construction Documents Jan 2023 Mar 2023
Final construction Plans, Specs & Estimate (PS&E) Mar 2023 May 2023 Solicit Bids from Qualified Contractors May 2023 Jun 2023 Construction Jun 2023 Nov 2024
Grand Opening Dec 2024 Dec 2024
Building Forward Library Infrastructure Grant Program 1 of 1

22.e
Packet Pg. 244
Attachment: State Library Grant - Building Forward Implementation Plan (Authorization for the Grant Application for Library) City of Campbell
Request for Budget Adjustments
Department/Program Division Date Request No.

December 6, 2022 BA-13
Budget to be Reduced
Fund/Program Account Number Description Amount
Budget to be Increased
Fund/Program Account Number Description Amount

EXPENDITURES
448.23SS 7883 4,718,450

REVENUES
448.518 4543 4,718,450
REASON FOR REQUEST - BE SPECIFIC:

City Manager
Public Works
Will Fuentes Todd Capurso Brian Loventhal
To amend and increase the Civic Center Improvement - Library Renovation Project (23-SS) by $4,718,450 as a result of the Building Forward Grant award from the California State Library. 23-SS Civic Center Improvements - Library
Renovation
Civic Center Improv - Library Renovation
Finance Director Public Works Director
CA State Library - Building Forward Grant

22.f
Packet Pg. 245
Attachment: Budget Adjustment Form (Authorization for the Grant Application for Library) City
Council
Report
TITLE: Approval of a Professional Services Agreement with the Gordian Group for a Facilities Inventory and Condition Assessment of City - Owned Buildings through a Coop erative Purchasing Agreement with Sourcewell and Dispensing of Bidding Requirements as Specified in Campbell Municipal Code Section 3.20.030(6) (Resolution/Roll Call Vote)

RECOMMENDED ACTION
That the City Council adopt a resolution (1) authorizing the Ci ty Manager to enter into a Professional Services Agreement with the Gordian Group to perform a Facilities Inventory and Condition Assessment of various City -owned buildings with pricing and terms as determined by the City’s participation in a Cooperative S ervices Agreement with Soucewell (a Cooperative Purchasing Firm); and (2) to dispense with bidding requirements, as authorized in Campbell Municipal Code Section 3.20.030(6), for professional services intended to provide information for staff’s use during project development and implementation.

BACKGROUND
Throughout the years, preventative maintenance has played an important role in an agency’s ability to assess conditions and identify opportunities to improve the quality and accessibility of its amenities for staff and members of the community alike. Without such efforts, agencies would be in a constant cycle of applying ‘corrective’ measures in response to issues that have escalated beyond the point of basic repair and maintenance. As a result, an agency may be required to utilize whatever resources and funding are available at that time, limited or otherwise.

To avoid those financial and operational consequences, many public agencies have implemented asset management programs that incorporate the use of condition assessments, routine and preventative maintenance measures, and improvement projects to extend the useful life of its resources and amenities. Also, a robust asset management program will provide information for staff to adequately plan projects and the associated fiscal impact. Overall, the time, resources, and effort spent to establish an asset management program has proven its long -term value as both a cost -effective and efficient way for agencies to address both short and long-term maintenance needs.

Item: 23
Category: NEW BUSINESS
Meeting Date: December 6, 2022
23 Packet Pg. 246
Approval of a Professional Services Agreement with the Gordian Group Page 2 of 5 Additionally, an asset management program is especially useful for planning maintenance activities and improvement projects associated with an agency’s larger - scale operations (e.g., streets/pavement, utilities, parks, and facilities). As larger citywide operations typically require more time, resources and staffing to keep up with the higher demands placed on its everyday use, it becomes increasingly important to deploy the agency’s limited resources in the most efficient manner possi ble. Often, a large operation may also work in conjunction with other operations (regardless of size) as part of a network of systems that keep utilities and resources in working order. For example, a program managing the routine maintenance of city stre ets may improve flood prevention efforts by ensuring the pavement is maintained to best support proper stormwater drainage. For this reason, asset management programs may indirectly improve (or adversely impact) other operations that contribute to the fun ctionality of a common system.

An integral tool in the development of an agency’s asset management program is the use of detailed condition assessments that require the inspection of current conditions, developing preventive maintenance plan s, prioritizing needs, and identifying resources and opportunities for project implementation. However, the process involved with conducting the assessment itself requires an appropriate amount of staffing, time and resources that agencies may not have th e capacity to accommodate. To mitigate this impact, agencies will routinely hire outside firms to perform these assessments, which in turn, are used for planning and budgetary considerations - or to provide an agency with the opportunity to evaluate its existing maintenance programs against industry accepted preventive maintenance practices.

In recent years, the City has enlisted the services of outside firms to perform similar assessments of different citywide systems and a subsequent analysis of result s. Staff will then use the firm’s analysis as a starting point in the early stages of project development. A firm’s proposal may also include capital improvement recommendations, preventative maintenance solutions, possible funding sources (e.g., applying for funding through State -sponsored loans, utility programs, grants, etc.), and offering extended services related to project management, outreach efforts with other agencies, or hiring of qualified contractors to perform services that extend beyond an agency’s scope of work and resources.

In regard to City owned facilities, the FY 2023 Adopted Budget includes the following Work Plan item for the Public Works Department, to be jointly worked on with the Finance Department and the Recreation and Community Services Department:

Collaborate with the Finance and Recreation and Community Services Departments to prepare a facilities condition assessment and identify Citywide deferred maintenance issues to address in future Capital Improvement Plans (CIP); using consulting services to assist in the assessment as necessary. LEAD DEPARTMENT - Public Works [Council Priority – Financial Stability] 23 Packet Pg. 247
Approval of a Professional Services Agreement with the Gordian Group Page 3 of 5

DISCUSSION

The Maintenance Division of the Public Works Department is responsible for maintaining, operating, and impl ementing improvements on more than 450,000 combined square feet across twenty-six buildings and structures owned by the City (see Attachment B - Inventory of City-Owned Buildings). As such, the Maintenance Division is one of the City’s largest operations in terms of general maintenance services and project development. Additionally, many buildings in the City’s inventory are older in age, therefore requiring the need for frequent/increased maintenance and repair to sustain them in usable condition.

Despite the potential constraints associated with staffing, resources and funding, the Maintenance Division has made tireless efforts to address issues in a timely and cost - effective manner. Nevertheless, those same constraints have also hindered staff’s ability to create and implement an asset management program as part of the Division’s expansive oversight of City facilities and their related operations.

Before developing and implementing such a program, staff will need to complete a detailed inventory and condition assessment of all buildings and structures in the City’s inventory. However, the large inventory of buildings and structures throughout different locations - and the daily maintenance of their operations - will require a significant amount of support for maintenance staff to execute such an expansive and time - consuming task.

During a separate exchange in May 2022, staff was contacted by the Santa Clara County Fire Department regarding the condition of the Campbell Fire Stations, both of which are part of the City’s building inventory. County Fire invited City staff on a site tour of the City’s Sunnyoaks Fire Station #2, to provide City staff with the opportunity to view recent structural enhancements and speak with the County Fire administr ation team regarding potential additional improvements. During the site tour, City staff inquired about the Fire Department’s experience with the firm that performed the project’s condition assessment and the value it had on the subsequent project development. In response, County Fire identified the Gordian Group as the service provider who conducted the facility assessment of Fire Station #2.

The City’s Municipal Code allows the City to ‘piggyback’ off of County Fire’s contract with Gordian for the pu rchase of similar goods and services while being entitled to the same pricing and discounts offered by Gordian to County Fire. Furthermore, the City may utilize this method in place of the Request for Qualifications ( RFQ) process under the provisions of t he Campbell Municipal Code Section 3.20.30(6). Considering the time and resources spent on the RFQ process alone (i.e., drafting, reviewing, advertising, Council authorization, etc.), it could take anywhere from three to six months before a contract is executed and services commence. The City can use this time more efficiently by moving directly into the inventory and condition assessment processes and obtaining the needed information in a more expeditious manner.

23 Packet Pg. 248
Approval of a Professional Services Agreement with the Gordian Group Page 4 of 5 Based on the positive recommendation from County Fire, as well as verifying the quality of work performed by the Gordian Group, staff contacted a representative from Gordian Group to discuss the concept of performing similar condition assessments on all the City’s facilities along with other as sociated services. Following these informal discussions, staff requested a formal proposal from Gordian for the City’s interest in pursuing an inventory and condition assessment related services for all City buildings and related costs. During proposal p reparations, it was also confirmed the City’s pre - existing membership with Sourcewell, a government purchasing cooperative firm that provides public agencies with a selection of pre -qualified goods and services with pre - determined pricing, approximately 15% below the firms’ standard pricing.

Moreover, Sourcewell operates as a facilitator between vendors/firms and the government agencies seeking particular goods and/or services. Memberships are extended to government agencies free of charge. In terms of value, Sourcewell performs the vetting process of vendors based on the type of work they specialize in and recommends only those firms that are determined to be the best qualified for the related field of goods or services. Sourcewell’s pre -qualification process also meets the same industry standards used by public agencies for their own vetting and competitive procurement processes. Most vendors/firms also extend discounts to agencies who have a membership with Sourcewell and/or may have used the websit e to facilitate search efforts.

The Gordian Group has been vetted through Sourcewell’s prequalification process, reinforcing staff’s confidence in their ability and expertise to perform the condition assessments of the City -owned buildings and structures. Additionally, Gordian has applied a 15% discounted fee, consistent with the City’s Sourcewell membership, which is reflected in their proposal (See Attachment C, Gordian Facilities Condition Assessment).

The proposal from the Gordian Group includes a de tailed inventory listing of all City facilities and associated assets , a condition assessment of each asset (i.e., systems and/or features unique to the operations of each building or structure), installation of barcodes on all assets (to better track main tenance activities and history ) and developing preventive maintenance plans for each asset type. The proposed cost for the related services is $109,618.

Should Council authorize staff to move forward with the proposed work as described in the Gordian pro posal, staff estimates that work would commence in January 2023 and will be completed by June 2023. Although that estimated June completion date is beyond the City’s adoption of the FY23/24 budget and capital improvement plan (CIP) , staff anticipates it w ill have a sufficient amount of data collected from the assessments such that some recommended projects and improvements can be considered for funding at that time. More complete information will be available for the FY24/25 budget and CIP development process.
23 Packet Pg. 249
Approval of a Professional Services Agreement with the Gordian Group Page 5 of 5

FISCAL IMPACT
Staff has obtained a proposal from the Gordian Group in the amount of $109,618 (discounted from the standard list price of $128,961). The City has already budgeted $100,000 for this purpose in FY 2023 (i.e., asset management program development) in the Building Maintenance Section of Public Works (101.780.7430). The balance of the funding (approximately $9,618) can be absorbed by reallocating vacancy savings that occurred earlier in the fiscal year. This will be addressed during the mid-year budget review in February 2023.

ALTERNATIVES

1. Direct staff to develop a Request for Proposal and select a service provider using that methodology.

2. Direct staff not to perform a building inventory and condition assessment at this time.

Prepared by:

Carina Shattuck, Administrative Analyst I
Reviewed by:

Todd Capurso, Director of Public Works
Approved by:

Brian Loventhal, City Manager
Attachment:
a. Resolution
b. Inventory - City Owned Buildings
c. City of Campbell CA VFA Proposal_110422
23 Packet Pg. 250

RESOLUTION NO.________________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL

AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

AGREEMENT WITH THE GORDIAN GORUP TO PERFORM A FACILITIES INVENTORY

AND CONDITION ASSESSMENTS OF ALL CITY-OWNED BUILDINGS AND

STRUCTURES, AND DISPENSE WITH THE BIDDING REQUIREMENTS AS SPECIFIED BY THE CAMPBELL MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 3.20.030(6) FOR SPECIALIZED

SERVICES

WHEREAS, public agencies have implemented asset management programs that incorporate the use of co ndition assessments, routine and preventative maintenance, and improvement projects to extend the useful life of its resources and amenities; and WHERAS, a detailed conditio n assessment is an integral tool in the development of an asset management program to inspect current conditions, develop preventive maintenance plans, prioritize needs, and i dentify resources and opportunities for future project implementation; and
WHEREAS, the Public Works Department - Maintenance Division has a need to develop an asset ma nagement program for assistance wi th evaluating, maintaining, and implementing improvements for over more than 450,000 combined square feet across twenty-six City-owned buildings and structures; and
WHEREAS, before developing and implementing an asset management program, staff will need to complete an inventory and condition assessment of all City buildings and structures; and
WHEREAS, staffing, resource , and funding constraints have historically limited staff’s ability to perform a condition assessment of all City facilities and their related operations ; and,
WHEREAS, staff was recent ly presented with information gathered by the Santa Clara County Fire District regarding the City’s Sunnyoaks Fire Station #2 that prompted discussions with the Santa Clara County Fire Department and identified the Gordian Group as the service provider who conducted the facility assessment; and WHEREAS, the City’s membership with Sourcewell, a government purchasing cooperative, has been active since 2017 and includes Gordian Group in its netwo rk of pre -qualified vendors; and
WHEREAS, Sourcewell regularly evaluates service providers for public agencies with competitive pricing options; and
WHEREAS, the City ’s participation in such a co operative agreement allows the City to purchase goods and services, with the same pricing; and, WHEREAS, the City may dispense wit h bidding procedures under the provisions of the Campbell Municipal Code Section 3.20.30(6); and

23.a
Packet Pg. 251
Attachment: Resolution (Approval of a Professional Services Agreement with the Gordian Group) WHEREAS, staff subsequently contacted Gordian Group with details of the City’s buildings and st ructures for interest in performing similar condition assessments on all the City’s facilities along with other associated services; and
WHEREAS, Gordian Group submitted a proposal that includes an inventory and con dition assessment of all associat ed assets, installation of barcodes on all assets (to better track maintenance activities) and dev elopment of preventive maintenance plans for each asset type; and
WHEREAS, Gordian has provided a discounted fee in line with the City’s Sourcewell membership for a total proposed cost of $109,618; and
WHEREAS, staff estimates that Gordian Group will commence condition assessments in January 2023 and be completed by June 2023.

NOW, THEREFORE, the Council of the City of Campbell hereby resolves as follows:

The City Manager or designee is authorized to execute an agreement with the Gordian Group to perform an inventory and condition assess ment of all City -owned building and structures with the information to be used in the development of a facilities asset management program.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of December 2022 by the following roll call vote:

AYES: Council Members:

NOES: Council Members:

ABSENT: Council Members:

APPROVED:

Paul Resnikoff, Mayor

ATTEST:

Andrea Sanders, City Clerk

23.a
Packet Pg. 252
Attachment: Resolution (Approval of a Professional Services Agreement with the Gordian Group) City of Campbell
SUMMARY of CITY-OWNED BUILDINGS
Revised 11/21/2022
Ainsley House & Wood Frame/Stucco 1925
1 Carriage House Cement Basement (Relocated 11/90) 10,000 10,000 300 Grant, Campbell, CA
2 Campbell Library Building Wood Frame/Stucco - Block Basement Jan-74 24,000 77 Harrison Av., Campbell, CA EOC
3 Campbell Park Restroom Bldg. Block Frame Apr-66 240 240 638 E Campbell Av., Campbell, CA
4 City Hall Wood Frame/Stucco May-70 30,024 30,024
70 North First, Campbell, CA
City Hall-PD Annex Wood Frame & Siding Jan-05 1,440 1,440 70 North First, Campbell, CA
5 Community Center Metal & Wood Frame/Stucco 1936 - 1958 143,737 143,737 1 West Campbell Av., Campbell, CA (total sq 174,549)
OCBH(Kitchen, storage, lobby & hall) Remodeled 2012 9,038 9,038 6 Community Center-Bldg. Q Restrooms Metal & Wood Frame/Stucco Oct-95 400 400 1 West Campbell Av., Campbell, CA
7 Community Center-Heritage Theatre Metal Wood Frame/Stucco 1936/2003 20,229 20,229 1 West Campbell Av., Campbell, CA
8 Community Center-Skate Park (Restrooms) Wood Frame/Stucco Dec-03 225 225 1 West Campbell Av., Campbell, CA
9 Community Center-Con. Stnd. (Restrooms) Wood Frame/Stucco Dec-03 590 590 1 West Campbell Av., Campbell, CA
10 Community Center-Tennis Cts. (Restrooms) Wood Frame/Stucco Dec-03 330 330 1 West Campbell Av., Campbell, CA
11 Corp. Yard Admin. Building Block Frame Aug-65 3,500 3,500 290 Dillon Av., Campbell, CA
12 Corp. Yard Shop/Bays Block Frame Aug-65 9,396 9,396
290 Dillon Av., Campbell, CA
13 Edith Morley Park Block Frame Jun.-01 300 300
615 Campbell Technology Parkway, Campbell, CA
14 Fire Dept. Headquarters @ Union Wood Frame/Stucco Sep-81 9,000 123 Union Av., Campbell, CA
15 Fire Stn. #2 Sunnyoaks Wood Frame/Stucco + Concrete May-69 5,827 485 Sunnyoaks, Campbell, CA
16 Firehouse Museum Wood Frame/Stucco Jun-51 3,320 3,320 (Converted to Museum) Jun-83
51 North Central Av., Campbell, CA
17 Firehouse Museum Garage Wood Frame Jun-51 600 600
(Converted to Museum) 800 to clean Jun-83
51 North Central Av., Campbell, CA
18 Fischer Park Restrooms Block Frame Nov-96 600 600
1405 Abbott Ave., Campbell CA
19 Hyde Park Concrete Stucco Building Jan-03 600 600
90 South First, Campbell, CA
20 Morgan Park Building Block Frame Apr-75 1,600 1,600
540 West Rincon Av., Campbell, CA
21 Morgan Park North Restrooms Block Frame Apr-75 240 240 540 West Rincon Av., Campbell, CA
22 Morgan Park South Restrooms Block Frame Apr-04 600 600 540 West Rincon Av., Campbell, CA
23 Parking Garage Concrete 1970's 100,000 100,000
S. First Street @ Rincon, Campbell, CA
24 Parking Garage Concrete Jun-02 96,000 96,000
N. Second & Campbell Av., Campbell, CA
25 Stojanovich Park Concrete Jun-11 200 200
316 Union Ave., Campbell, CA
26 Traffic/Lighting Portable @ C.Yard Wood Frame & Siding 1970's 1,320 1,320 290 S Dillon, Campbell, CA
464,318 434,529
SQUARE FT. SQUARE FT.

MAINTAINED

TOTAL SQUARE FEET OWNED/MAINTAINED

BUILDING TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION DATE OF

CONSTRUCTION
J:\Bldgmtce\cityownedbuildings

23.b
Packet Pg. 253
Attachment: Inventory - City Owned Buildings (Approval of a Professional Services Agreement with the Gordian Group)

Professional Services Statement of Work

Client Name: City of Campbell (CA)
Quote #: CAMPBELL_CA SOW-2
Project Name: FCA, Equipment Inventory/BArcoding, PM Plans

Preamble
This Statement of Work (“SOW” and “Statement of Work”), issued on November 4, 2022 (“Issue Date”), incorporates by reference and is governed by the terms and conditions of Agreement (“Agreement") dated ____________, between City of Campbell (CA )(“Client”) and VFA, Inc., an affiliate of The Gordian Group, Inc., (“VFA”) and is effective as of _____________________________ (“Statement of Work Effective Date”). When in conﬂict, the terms of this SOW shall supersede those of the Agreement solely in relation to the Project listed below.

Term Information
Term of Offer
VFA reserves the right to reject this Statement of Work if it is not signed and returned to VFA, sent to David Tsung at [email protected], by December 30, 2022.

Term of Service
Professional Services ordered hereunder will be available to Client for 365 days from Statement of Work Effective Date. After such date, any unused portion of the Services defined will be forfeited, unless otherwise agreed to by both parties (however the obligation for payment shall remain). No forfeiture will occur, as long as the parties are diligently working to completion.

Services shall not be scheduled or started pursuant to this SOW, if Client has an Accounts Receivable balance with VFA that is more than thirty (30) days delinquent.

Client Contact Information
Client SOW Contact
Name: Todd Capurso
Email: [email protected]
Phone: 408.866.2150
Client Billing Information
All invoices will be sent to the billing contact on file, unless information is otherwise provided. 70 N. First St.

Campbell, CA 95008

23.c
Packet Pg. 254
Attachment: City of Campbell CA VFA Proposal_110422 (Approval of a Professional Services Agreement with the Gordian Group)

Service Fees
Fixed Fee Services
Service Description List Price Discounted Price
Facility Condition Assessments $67,702 $57,547
Equipment Inventory/Barcoding $43,213 $36,731
Preventive Maintenance Plans $18,046 $15,339
TOTAL: $128,961 $109,618
 All service fees have Sourcewell discounts applied per Contract # 020421-ACT  See detailed Scope of Work for more information
Payment Summary
Milestone Billing
Assessment Services Billing Milestones
# % of Fee Amount Description Timing
1 10% $10,962 Assessment Services Mobilization On SOW Signing 2 20% $21,924 Field Assessments Complete Approximately 3 months from signing
3 60% $65,770 Draft Report Complete Approximately 4 months from signing
4 10% $10,962 Final Deliverables Accepted Approximately 5 months from signing
Total 100% $109,618

Service Fee Terms

GENERAL

1.1 Above fees include reasonable and customary expenses, unless otherwise noted in the Scope of Work details (see below)

1.2 All fees exclude applicable taxes.

1.3 VFA reserves the right to request a change order should the number of assets or the square footage change

PAYMENT TERMS

2.1 Invoicing: Charges for this SOW will be invoiced according to the terms below. Payment will be due within 30 days of invoice date.

2.2 Milestone Billing: VFA will invoice per the Milestone Billing table displayed above in the Payment Summary section.

2.3 Timing: For Milestones set to invoice “On SOW Signing”, these invoices will be processed once the internal project(s) are created in VFA’s invoicing system and will typically be delivered to Client within 30 to 60 days of SOW Signing.

23.c
Packet Pg. 255
Attachment: City of Campbell CA VFA Proposal_110422 (Approval of a Professional Services Agreement with the Gordian Group)

Acknowledged and Agreed by the Duly Authorized Representatives of the Parties

Client: VFA Inc.

Signature: Signature:

Print Name: Print Name:

Title: Title:

Date: Effective Date:

PO Required? Yes [ ] No [ ]
If Yes, PO must be
provided.

Tax exempt? Yes [ ] No [ ]
If Yes, Tax Exemption Certiﬁcate must be provided.

23.c
Packet Pg. 256
Attachment: City of Campbell CA VFA Proposal_110422 (Approval of a Professional Services Agreement with the Gordian Group)

Facility Condition Assessments
VFA is a leader in the building assessment industry and has been a respected provider of property condition assessments, capital planning services and software internationally for many years.

VFA provides consistent, reliable data and transparent, easy-to-follow program management advice that will enable you to manage your facility capital program effectively and efficiently. VFA is often called upon to perform condition assessments ranging in size and complexity from complex research, healthcare and manufacturing facilities to linear asset site utilities and hardscapes.

Annually, VFA performs assessments for more than 5,000 facilities covering more than 250 million square feet with an average of 30 teams on projects or in the field during any week. We are highly experienced and have a strong track record of deploying multiple teams at a regional, national, and international level to meet client schedules. Our expert Project Manages, Directors and Capital Planning Consultants will guide and assist you through all phases of the project and beyond to enable you and your organization to strategically manage capital spend and advocate for capital funding to remain mission ready.

COVID-19 Safety
VFA has ensured that multiple effective strategies have been put in place to aid our plight in the prevention of COVID-19 transmission on and off the job site. Keeping the local and regional guidelines in mind, the field assessment protocol has been strategically adjusted to put in place specific engineering controls to ensure minimum contact between team members and any client during assessments. To start, all project meetings are held remotely, with only field operations being conducted in person. We have adjusted the field operations by mandating a 6ft rule to ensure physical distancing between personnel and clientele is always practiced. When social distancing cannot be maintained during a site visit, personnel is required to use the provided PPE which includes but not limited to nitrile gloves and non-surgical face masks. During the assessment, personnel will follow the one occupant per vehicle rule and continue to maintain physical distancing during breaks and any in person kick-off/close out meetings. Additionally, any accommodation, car rental, air travel to be used at this time must have a COVID-19 procedure that aligns with the local, regional and Fortive guidelines. Our team members are instructed to wash hands often and when unable to wash hands to utilize hand sanitizer.

We have adjusted work processes by introducing a risk assessment daily check in tool that all personnel must complete prior to departing to the job site. This is used to determine whether an assessor should return to the field or work remotely from home. As we strive to keep all our clients safe and comfortable, we have minimized client to personnel cross contamination by assigning one dedicated team to one client, for each assignment. Additionally, at the completion of every field assignment, assessors will not be permitted to go on another assessment for a minimum of two weeks. As we are currently living in a dynamic and volatile environment, Assessment Services will continue to regularly monitor our current enhanced procedures and adjust these measures as needed to ensure the safety of all persons involved remains our highest priority.

Adherence to Industry Standards
The facility condition assessment process implemented by VFA is based on the American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) Document E-2018-15, Standard Guide for Property Condition

23.c
Packet Pg. 257
Attachment: City of Campbell CA VFA Proposal_110422 (Approval of a Professional Services Agreement with the Gordian Group)

Assessments: Baseline Property Condition Assessment Process. Furthermore, our methodology’s data structure incorporates industry recognized standards into the process including:

Uniformat II Elemental Classification for Cost Analysis and Cost Estimating
 A method of arranging construction information based on functional elements. An asset (building in this case) is broken down by its systems/components and the assessment is conducted with the intent of delineating and reporting by UNIFORMAT Level 1 thru 4 depending on the system assembly.
 Two examples of utilizing different UNIFORMAT levels for systems within a building are as follows:
 Example 1: Building foundation may be assessed, documented, and valued by UNIFORMAT Level 2 (Group Elements) which would include the assembly of walls, footings and waterproofing where further UNIFORMAT division would not be necessary for future repairs.
 Example 2: Lighting equipment may be assessed, documented, and valued by UNIFORMAT Level 4 (Sub-Elements) to delineate the types of lights between fluorescent, incandescent, high-pressure sodium, LED, etc., thus allowing for more strategic capital investments in terms of upgrades for energy efficiency.

Building Owners and Managers Association International (BOMA) VFA utilizes BOMA’s average Expected Useful Life (EUL) for the development of asset systems and major equipment to develop the theoretical life expectancy of a given system or component based on install year and age. This theoretical age is the baseline for establishing a calculated renewal year and a calculated remaining useful life (RUL) of the system. The assessment team, through observation, review of documentation provided and interviews with knowledgeable staff, will determine if the system or component is aging as expected by BOMA or if an actual adjustment to the remaining useful life (RUL) of the system/component is required to either extend or shorten the life of the system.

RSMeans Construction Cost Data from Gordian
VFA utilizes RSMeans Construction Cost Data to develop cost estimates for asset systems and requirements.

Other Standards
In addition to the industry standards previously described, VFA incorporates the following standards and industry recognized metrics into the assessment methodology and resulting deliverables:
 National, State/Provincial and Local Building Codes/Standards  ASTM document E 2018–15, Baseline Evaluation–Abbreviated Accessibility Survey  VFA Assessment Methodology Guide based on best assessment practice of NACUBO, IFMA and APPA
 Current Replacement Value (CRV)

23.c
Packet Pg. 258
Attachment: City of Campbell CA VFA Proposal_110422 (Approval of a Professional Services Agreement with the Gordian Group)

 Facility Condition Index (FCI)
 Requirement Index (RI), also known as FCNI (Facility Condition Needs Index)  Systems Condition Index (SCI)
Phases of the Condition Assessment Process

Details about each phase of the work plan are provided in the following sections.

Pre-Assessment Phase

Set Goals
To kick off the project and typically within ten business days of contract signing or a notice to proceed, the designated VFA Project Manager will set up a meeting with Client key stakeholders to confirm the goals and objectives for the project. Understanding what the Client wants to achieve with this project is the key to its success and will drive the project effort. This will ensure that the end deliverable best meets Client expectations and goals.

Confirm Scope and Deliverables
During this planning phase, the VFA Project Manager will work with your key stakeholders to establish and document the parameters for the assessment/survey. A scoping meeting will be held to discuss and confirm schedules, assessment/survey criteria, data classifications, prioritizations and categorizations, and the best method for storing asset data to support your analysis, reporting, and planning needs.

Often the goal setting and confirmation of scope and deliverables can be discussed and agreed in one meeting.

Collect and Review Baseline Data/Documentation
The VFA Project Manager will communicate with your facility managers, plant maintenance managers, and staff members (via email or teleconference) to help them gather information that the VFA assessment team(s) will need. This data typically includes the following:
 Basic asset information (name, location/address, asset number, use/occupancy, dates of initial construction and any major renovations, number of floors, gross area, and any other relevant data.)
 Construction and as-built drawings, general floor plans and site plans  Known asset code or safety violations

23.c
Packet Pg. 259
Attachment: City of Campbell CA VFA Proposal_110422 (Approval of a Professional Services Agreement with the Gordian Group)

 Previous studies (5 years or fewer), including condition assessments, accessibility studies, roof inspections, and hazardous material inspections (Note: Information contained in prior assessments may be used by the VFA team if, in the team’s opinion, it is relevant)  Major capital improvement projects completed over the past 5 years  Major capital improvement projects planned over the next 5 years  Equipment lists data, typically from computerized maintenance management system (CMMS) indicating age/install date and providing level of routine or preventative maintenance exercised  Warranty information (roofs, boilers, chillers, cooling towers, etc.)  Historical costs incurred for repairs, improvements, recurring replacements, etc.

To facilitate information flow, VFA will host an information repository with an agreed upon secured method, SFTP, Google Drive, One Drive, Client Share, etc. that will provide information important to the ongoing progress of the project.

Client Responsibilities
To ensure the best possible quality of the final assessment information, some aspects of the work require support from our clients.
 Client shall provide a Project Representative who will be responsible for the coordination of the client's resources as necessary for the Project. The Client acknowledges that the Project Representative can plan and commit resources (human and otherwise) on behalf of the Client that are necessary to execute the Project.
 Ensure appropriate levels of Client executive and Client project team resources will be made available to the VFA project team to ensure successful completion of tasks by jointly developed timelines. If certain areas are identiﬁed as more complex than initially identiﬁed, additional Client or VFA resources may be requested to supplement the team to ensure timely delivery, which would be addressed separately under the Change Control procedures described in this SOW.
 Prior to the on-site assessment work, assistance with the development of a rational sequential work-plan, obtaining and preparing note-taking floor plans, facilitating any required security clearances, and arranging escorts for our assessment teams, are all important tasks.  During the assessment, providing a full-time (one per team) escort with access to all building spaces, ensures that we can accurately report back to you on complete observation-based information. It is also important to ensure that key operations and maintenance personnel are available to respond to questions.
 After the on-site work is complete, your assistance in the review of draft data is a further check on our own internal rigorous Quality Control process. A timely review of draft data helps keep the project on schedule and builds confidence that the information is complete and accurate.

Careful preparation of building plans and other documentation is important to our work. While we appreciate having access to large amounts of information, simply providing a link to an on-line library of large volumes of historical building construction documents, reports, and other data, can sometimes be overwhelming. We ask our clients to invest time in the orderly preparation of important reports, plans and other documents that the team can utilize to support the field assessment work.

VFA’s Responsibilities

23.c
Packet Pg. 260
Attachment: City of Campbell CA VFA Proposal_110422 (Approval of a Professional Services Agreement with the Gordian Group)

The VFA Project Manager will provide the assessment team members with all collected information for their review prior to the on-site assessment phase. The VFA Project Manager is responsible for developing the project instructions, project and resource scheduling and arranging and leading an internal kick-off meeting with all assessment team members. Assessment team members are assigned based on their experience and availability. Number of assessment teams and team make-up are determined by the VFA Project Manager and may include teams of 1, 2 or 3 assessment professionals.

Number of team members are determined based on property size and complexity. The larger the size and higher the complexity the more specialized experience is required typically.

The VFA manager will provide the following project documents to the client POC that will inform, track, and guide the project:
 Pre-assessment Questionnaire
 Client Responsibility Document
 Project Team Roster
 Draft Report Example
 Final Report Example
 Project Schedule
 Project Kick-off Meeting Agenda and Sign-in
 Project Exit Meeting Agenda and Sign-in
 RSMeans Project Cost Adjustment Factor Work Sheet
 Project Health Status and Tracker
 Project Completion Acceptance Form
 Client Satisfaction Survey
Management Plan
The VFA Project Manager will conduct regular progress meetings throughout the phases of the project to maintain open communication. The frequency of progress meetings will be determined during the pre-assessment phase of the project. A project schedule will be provided at project commencement to show the usual phases and milestones of the condition assessment project, including tasks (noting durations required) for client personnel during the review and feedback process. The project schedule will be maintained by VFA’s Project Manager. The VFA Project Manager will clearly define who oversees each task, communicate at both the project management and assessment team levels, and track changes closely.

Regular Meetings and Communication
The following meetings at a minimum should be expected and participation should be planned for:
 Pre-Survey Planning Meeting. A meeting with Client designated staff prior to the inspection, to confirm goals, methodology and identify existing information to be included in the study.  Field Kick-Off Meeting. First thing on the first field day for each team’s field inspection trip, for assessors and facility managers to meet each other, discuss how the field work will be done (including any security, passcodes, keys necessary), and identify the most important known issues.

23.c
Packet Pg. 261
Attachment: City of Campbell CA VFA Proposal_110422 (Approval of a Professional Services Agreement with the Gordian Group)

 Field Debrief. An exit meeting at the end of the team’s field inspections trip to recap preliminary findings and highlight any pressing needs such as life safety issues that may require immediate attention.
 Draft Data Meeting. To present and discuss the draft Facility Condition Assessment data.  Final Presentation. A final meeting/presentation to deliver and discuss the Final Facility Condition Report.

Progress meetings will be held with the intent to discuss and inform the collective team on project status. Meeting notes will be distributed by VFA and will include date of meeting, attendees, topics discussed, and decisions made. Meeting notes will be submitted to all project representatives for feedback and final acceptance. Meeting notes will serve as one vehicle for project decision point acceptance.

Typical progress meeting agenda will include the following:
 Overall progress against schedule, will include review and update of project schedule as needed, discuss upcoming milestones, changes to schedule, etc.
 Items identified by either party during the project execution that require follow-up, decision or escalation or may impose a risk to project completion.
 A risk management process will be used to address problems that cannot be resolved through routine interactions. VFA’s Project Manager will communicate (at a minimum) weekly with the Client on the progress of high-level risk mitigation activities.  Risk Identification. Potential risks will be identified and documented in the Risk Management Plan. Risks include any occurrence that can potentially cause delays, increase costs, or cause disruption of services. Areas of risk will be identified by any project team member or Client stakeholders.
 Risk Assessment. Each risk will be assessed to determine its probability (high, medium, low) of becoming “real” and the impact it might have on success (high, medium, low). Factors that impact risk probability will also identified.
 Risk Mitigation. Mitigation strategies and detailed action steps to implement them will be developed and agreed upon. Roles and responsibilities will be defined and communicated.

Actions assigned to team members will be tracked to completion, and any residual risk identified and reported. Throughout the risk mitigation activity, the VFA Project Manager will communicate risks and corrective action plans to Client stakeholders, project team members, and managers.
 Risk Tracking. Each risk will be monitored throughout the project. The VFA Project Manager will be responsible for ensuring related action items are completed and reported at regular intervals.

23.c
Packet Pg. 262
Attachment: City of Campbell CA VFA Proposal_110422 (Approval of a Professional Services Agreement with the Gordian Group)

Assessment Phase

The Assessment phase is the on-site work performed by VFA’s assessment team and subsequent data entry/analysis done at VFA’s offices.

Assessment Process
On the morning of the first day of the field visit, VFA will organize a meeting with the staff that will be involved with the field assessment phases of the project to kick off the on-site survey work. This meeting will enable your staff to meet the VFA assessment team and understand the project schedule. It will also include discussion of the logistics of the site visit, such as gaining access to all elements of the facility, and other practical information important to undertaking the physical assessment. VFA will ensure that all functional teams understand project objectives, conditions, and goals. We ask that the Client shall arrange for VFA’s field assessment team(s) to receive timely complete, supervised, and safe access to the subject properties (including roofs unless sloped).

As part of the kick-off meeting the following information is typically discussed as part of our assessment needs:
 Confirm/discuss existing asset information provided
 Overview of how the assessment team will conduct the assessment  Assessment Logistics, work times, access, security, parking, etc.  Interviews with client knowledgeable staff on known issues VFA’s team will visually inspect all the assets included in the scope of the project to identify deficient conditions and assess the remaining lifecycle of designated asset systems. The teams will document requirements, including digital photographs of asset exteriors and any observed conditions within the assets.

The VFA assessment team will typically conduct the walk-through as follows:
 Remain together during the property walk-through.
 Start with the exterior and then up to the roof and proceed to the lowest level, walking through all occupied and unoccupied spaces.
 Request Client custodial or maintenance staff to lift ceiling tiles to allow observation of building structure and distribution systems if needed. (Note: The assessment team will first look for removed ceiling areas to minimize tile lifting where possible for least occupant and environmental disruption.)
 Open access doors to reveal hidden equipment as necessary. (Note: The VFA team will require support from client-designated escort for opening access doors.)  Request, only if necessary, to have client maintenance open major equipment access panels/doors on air handling units to evaluate drip pans, coils, filters, motors, etc.

23.c
Packet Pg. 263
Attachment: City of Campbell CA VFA Proposal_110422 (Approval of a Professional Services Agreement with the Gordian Group)

The VFA assessment team will utilize several tools and techniques during their field assessment process.

This can include the following:
 Printed floor plans or PDFs of floor plans on tablet, provided by Client  Camera or Tablet for photo capture
 Checklist or Tablet for guided survey of minimum data to inspect and evaluate  Tape measures, measuring wheels or other digital measuring devices for sample dimension capture
 Flashlights for poorly lit spaces
Note: Our assessment team members will not carry tools (including ladders) while conducting their assessments. It is required that client maintenance staff provide this service when and if required during the assessment.

The survey will include a visual inspection of the building and all the building’s architectural, mechanical, and electrical systems. For details on UNIFORMAT level data capture, refer to Exhibit B. Process type equipment is excluded unless specified otherwise.
 Site (Approx. 10 ft. perimeter around building footprint)  Structure & Building Envelope
 Interior Elements & Conveyance
 Plumbing
 Heating, Cooling & Ventilation
 Electrical
 Fire and Life Safety
The visual nature of the assessment process requires close interaction with the Client’s maintenance and operations personnel. Many of the problems inherent in building systems and components may not be visually apparent during the time of the walk-through. As a result, the VFA assessment team members may request staff interviews to ensure all known problems are relayed to the VFA team and the VFA team has an opportunity to ask questions as it relates to their initial observations.

The inspection of the asset interiors will include all mechanical and electrical rooms, all public spaces as well as a representative sampling of similar room types (e.g., offices). For example, it is not the intent to survey every balcony, window, utility closet, every square foot of roofing, etc. Only representative observations of such areas are to be surveyed as per ASTM Document E-2018-15, Standard Guide for Property Condition Assessments. (Note: Additional review and delineation of equipment and architectural systems not specified above are considered outside this scope of work unless specified otherwise.)
The inspections of the asset exteriors will include an approximate ten-foot perimeter around the asset and the areas adjacent to and/or attached to the asset that are inherent to the asset’s use, such as ramps, stairs, paving, landscaping, and exterior, wall-mounted lighting. (Note: Additional site/property level assessments are outside of this scope of work unless specifically included.) VFA does not include intrusive and destructive testing such as infrared, roofing core sampling, soil testing, generator testing, and hazardous material testing as part of the standard assessment

23.c
Packet Pg. 264
Attachment: City of Campbell CA VFA Proposal_110422 (Approval of a Professional Services Agreement with the Gordian Group)

methodology. If observed field conditions warrant further testing, VFA will make recommendations for such investigation as appropriate and include in the final deliverable.

Accessibility, Life Safety, Codes, Standards and Regulations The VFA team will document observed non-compliance deficiencies as it relates to accessibility, life- safety, building codes and standards and local regulations during the evaluation of asset system condition. Non-compliance findings are limited due to sampling of space and limited measurements and therefore should not be considered an exhaustive list of all non-compliance for a given property. Non- compliance may be noted with respect to codes for new construction, without implying non- conformance with older regulations in force at the time of original construction. (Note: A detailed study of the requirements of accessibility is beyond this scope, however VFA can provide this service if required. A separate scope and fee would be required.)
Data Development
After the on-site work is complete, the VFA assessment team will review their notes and findings and complete the tasks of documenting each facility, including systems data entry, requirements, costing, photos, analysis, and reporting. All data will be uploaded into VFA’s, VFA Facility software unless specified otherwise. The team will complete the documentation described in the following sections.

Asset Descriptions
A narrative summary of each assessed facility and its systems will be documented. This information is useful for having basic information about an asset, such as construction information including finishes and infrastructure. In addition to the narrative description, all essential information about the asset is also documented (e.g., Year Constructed, Gross Area, Number of Floors, etc.).

System Models and Conditions
Assets (buildings or Site Infrastructure) are broken down into their component systems. An asset may consist of one or more systems, referred to as system models. These system models provide an up-to- date record of what exists within the building at the time of the assessment (i.e., what type of roof?), and how much of it is present (i.e., how much acoustical ceiling tile vs. gypsum wallboard ceilings).

System models record the expected useful lifespan of each system (i.e., how long should this roof last?) and how much useful life remains based on the visual inspection (i.e., how long can we expect the roof will last?). A replacement value is established for each system as well as a projected renewal cost (i.e., how much should we expect to pay when the system is at the end of its life?). Replacement values are created using RSMeans data for replacement with current equivalent technology, materials, and methods.

Testing, measuring, or preparing calculations for any system or component to determine adequacy, capacity, or compliance with any standard is outside the scope of assessment.

The system installation date will be captured. If the install date is not known, it will be estimated. The expected useful life for each system is initially determined using BOMA standards and may be adjusted based on historical replacement records by if desired. The VFA assessment team will determine the remaining useful life of each system. Considerations on condition and remaining useful life include exposure to the elements, initial installation quality, material suitability and extent of preventative maintenance program. Systems may outperform or underperform average useful life expectancy and the VFA assessors will consider this in their final decision.

23.c
Packet Pg. 265
Attachment: City of Campbell CA VFA Proposal_110422 (Approval of a Professional Services Agreement with the Gordian Group)

Requirements
Requirements are issues such as systems or components that are unsafe, broken/damaged, can no longer perform the intended function, are approaching or have exceeded their useful life spans, do not conform to current codes, or may be an improvement to the facility, such as an energy conservation project. The survey will typically include capital needs rather than operational, such as major repair to air handling unit vs. changing a fan belt. Capital vs. operational expenses is often set by a dollar minimum threshold, we set this amount at $3,000 typically. The threshold will be agreed upon at the beginning of project. Life Safety deficiencies, if determined, will be identified regardless of dollar threshold amount. Deficiencies that may be remedied with routine maintenance, minor repair or normal operating maintenance are excluded unless it’s found to be systemic across the entire building asset.

Requirements will be identified for the entire asset or system (not by individual room or component unless specified otherwise).

Each requirement is individually classified by priority (urgency), category (cause), system, and inspector.

Based upon observations, professional judgement, and empirical data (Expected Useful Life), the VFA team will prioritize and categorize each deficiency.

Each Requirement will be assigned a Priority that indicates its severity and the ideal time frame for correction. These Priorities, their definitions and years offset may be modified based on client preference. VFA’s standard list of priorities is provided in the following table.

Priority Definition Years Offset
Priority 1 Due within 1 Year of Inspection 1
Priority 2 Due within 2 Years of Inspection 2
Priority 3 Due within 5 Years of Inspection 5
Priority 4 Not Time Based null
Each Requirement will be assigned a category that indicates the cause or reason for the deficiency. The standard Requirement Categories, listed below, include a broad range of topical causes, but may be modified based on client preference. VFA’s standard list of categories follows.

Category Sub-category
Integrity  Lifecycle
 Reliability
Regulatory  Life Safety
 Building Code
 HazMat
 Accessibility

23.c
Packet Pg. 266
Attachment: City of Campbell CA VFA Proposal_110422 (Approval of a Professional Services Agreement with the Gordian Group)

Optimization  Technological
Improvements
 Capacity
 Mission
 Maintenance
 Abandoned
 Energy
 Sustainability
Corrective Actions
VFA’s assessors will recommend a corrective action for each requirement. The actions are based upon the materials and equipment required to repair or replace the identified deficiency along with necessary labor. The proposed repair or replacement will be based on existing capacity and similar technology. (Note: Alternate remedies that align to client design/material standards that will outperform/be more resilient than existing installation are outside of this scope of work unless written otherwise.) RSMeans Cost Data
All cost estimates will be developed using RSMeans Construction and Facilities Maintenance and Repair Costs data which is embedded in VFA’s VFA Facility software. VFA has developed an extensive construction cost estimating library of renovation, repair, systems renewals, upgrades, and construction packages as well as building replacement values from the RSMeans data source. This yields consistent and reliable construction cost estimates for capital planning. The foundation of our library Cost data is updated on an annual basis as the cost of raw materials, supply and demand, shipping costs, market maturity, time of year, energy costs and industry trends all influence construction prices. Additionally, RSMeans data is regionally adjusted using location factors across North America.

The U.S. Department of Energy and many others use a system of five classes of estimates as shown in the following table. VFA’s estimates shall be considered Class 4, Intermediate, for purposes of seeking preliminary project approval.

Estimate
Class
Name Purpose Project Definition Level
Class 5 Order of
Magnitude
Screening or Feasibility 0% to 2%
Class 4 Intermediate Concept Study or
Feasibility
1% to 15%
Class 3 Preliminary Budget, Authorization, or
Control
10% to 40%
Class 2 Substantive Control or Bid/Tender 30% to 70%

23.c
Packet Pg. 267
Attachment: City of Campbell CA VFA Proposal_110422 (Approval of a Professional Services Agreement with the Gordian Group)

Class 1 Definitive Check Estimate or
Bid/Tender
50% to 100%
Adjustment Factors
The RSMeans system replacement cost estimates will be cross-checked against published square foot estimates to ensure alignment. Additionally, cost estimates may be compared to available historical cost information provided by the Client. Adjustments to the cost estimates above the initial installing contractor costs is recommended by VFA to maximize accuracy.

The VFA project manager will utilize an adjustment factor worksheet and facilitate a discussion to document and determine the appropriate adjustment factor. Considerations for adjustment will include local construction costs, capital project charges, as well as historic/heritage status.

In VFA’s experience, a premium cost multiplier sometimes needs to be used to reflect the additional cost to a client based on market conditions. These conditions could be related to the type/complexity of the building, tendering process (competing for Contractors with others), and geographic region.

Additional reasons for higher costs might include compressed work schedules; work in occupied spaces; public safety and security obligations; parking and layout restrictions; system quality; system redundancy; and diligent conformance to codes and standards. These costs can vary by facility system somewhat, but to promote consistency and continuity a single adjustment factor will be used for all systems.

Opinions of costs should only be construed as preliminary, order of magnitude budgets. Actual costs might vary from VFA’s requirement action values. Opinion of costs can vary depending on factors such as type and design of suggested remedy, quality of materials and installation, manufacturer and type of equipment or system selected, field conditions, whether a physical deficiency is repaired or replaced in whole, phasing of work (if applicable), quality of contractor, quality of project management, market conditions, and whether competitive pricing is solicited, etc. VFA makes no warranty, express or implied, that the bids or the negotiated costs of requirement actions will be the same as VFA’s estimate of probable cost.

Digital Photos
VFA will capture photos during the assessment process and associate them with assets systems, and requirements to visually illustrate existing conditions. A selection of photographs of the asset exterior and the critical requirements within each asset will be stored and linked to requirements where a supporting photo is beneficial.

Additionally, digital photo records of each major system are taken and imported for later use for reporting, referral, and to aid in future reassessments of each system.

Quality Control and Assurance
Accuracy, quality, and consistency in methodology are core focuses for the VFA team. VFA recognizes the importance that clients place on the data provided by VFA and how valuable the data is to clients depends on their trust of the quality of the data.

Quality assurance activities are the responsibility of every team member, with quality checks and balances throughout the life of the program at many levels. All levels of the assessment team have QA accountability. To ensure adherence to procedures and data consistency, all assessment data is checked by a core quality control team under VFA’s Center of Excellence (COE) group.

23.c
Packet Pg. 268
Attachment: City of Campbell CA VFA Proposal_110422 (Approval of a Professional Services Agreement with the Gordian Group)

Key elements of the QA process include the following:
 Expertise. VFA maintains one of the largest teams of dedicated assessment professionals in North America. VFA professional assessment consultants have an average of more than 15 years of facilities experience. Each is certified in VFA’s proven Facilities/Infrastructure Certification Program (F/ICP) which trains engineers and facilities professionals in the proper manner to collect and analyze data and the means to mitigate the noted issue. The implementation of the F/ICP methodology ensures comparative, accurate data and the overall success of a comprehensive, strategic facilities capital planning process.  Focus. Assessment teams are assigned to a single project at a time and are dedicated to the project from the engagement start to completion. This ensures that their knowledge is focused on the project without concern for competition for resources.  Quality Assurance/Quality Control. Through the use of a dedicated Quality Assurance/Quality Control Center of Excellence Team, we complement our team’s professional judgment and expertise with a dedicated quality control process. Experienced assessors who are independent from the team will perform data validation.

Our COE Quality Control team has more than 20 years of experience in capital planning and advanced data analytics. VFA’s committed team members will work alongside the field assessors during the data entry period to assure that the scope of the project is well understood and reflected accurately in the data. The team will vigorously conduct automated and manual checks at the data entry halfway point and at the end of the data entry period. This allows for internal consistency and plausibility, allowing for multiple levels of constructive feedback before any data is submitted to the project manager for reporting. Thereafter, a final review is conducted by the project manager, ensuring each deliverable supports your mission.

Regularly scheduled team meetings including the Project Manager, Team Leaders, assessors, and the COE Quality Control team members are used to ensure that the project remains consistent and accurate.

With such controls in place, fundamental data can be effectively gathered on facilities condition information, resulting in comparable data. Organizations can confidently rely on the results of VFA assessments to provide expert third-party validation to findings presented to constituencies such as executives, boards of directors, legislatures, and community groups.

23.c
Packet Pg. 269
Attachment: City of Campbell CA VFA Proposal_110422 (Approval of a Professional Services Agreement with the Gordian Group)

Post Assessment—Draft

Upon completion of QA/QC per assessment team trips, the VFA Project Manager will develop the preliminary draft reports and submit them for Client review and comment. Draft reports will be provided electronically in .pdf and excel format. At draft report stage, reports will be generated from VFA’s VFA Facility software. We ask our clients to review this data to ensure the highest possible level of accuracy. This review can seem daunting but is critical to the success of the project. Timely review of draft data helps to keep the overall project on schedule. Clients should be aware of, and prepare for, this step of the process.

VFA has automated a standard process to assess the relative condition of assets, facilitating comparison both within and among organizations and locations. A Facility Condition Index (FCI) will be calculated for each asset (building) providing a key benchmark indicator to quantify the condition of the property. It is calculated as the deferred maintenance and renewal needs divided by the current replacement value of the building. The lower the FCI value, the better the condition of the building. The FCI calculation can be modified (Requirement Categories & Priority Years) and will be discussed during the draft report phase of the project. The following figures show examples of 1-year and 5-year FCI scales as it relates to relative condition.

These preliminary reports will provide the client an opportunity to review Systems and Requirements data, including a review of data classifications (such as priorities, categories, and system renewal dates), and general consistency of overall estimates. Once a level of confidence is established during draft data review of selected Assets, the client may elect to allow VFA to forgo further detailed review of all asset information.

The draft reports will include:
 Review Instructions. These guide the reviewer in completing a review of the draft reports.

23.c
Packet Pg. 270
Attachment: City of Campbell CA VFA Proposal_110422 (Approval of a Professional Services Agreement with the Gordian Group)

 Asset List. This list provides essential data for each building, along with summary totals that allow confirmation of macro-level data. The draft data review process begins with a review of the Asset list, and a high-level confirmation of general accuracy of asset values, FCI ranking, and FCI cost amounts.
 Asset Overview Reports. For each Asset, a complete description of the facility and a summary of deficiencies listed within each section of the detailed report.  Requirement List Reports. These reports provide a summary breakdown of type of work and total costs for each facility. (This information is presented by priority, system and category and cross tabular format.)
 System List Reports. Systems form the foundation of the assessment data. These reports provide a summary breakdown of the total costs for a facility by assessed system along with system renewal forecasts.
 Major Deficiency Photographs. Photos collected during the assessment process are available on- line and might be selectively published at this stage as determined by the VFA Project Manager to support the draft data review process.
 Requirement Details. This report is useful when questions come up about items on the Requirements List reports, as it allows deeper understanding of what is included. This report might be provided, as determined by the VFA Project Manager, to support the draft data review process.

Based on the information gathered in the inspection, the Client will understand the reinvestment rate required on an annual basis to replace system components that have reached or exceeded the end of their useful lives.

Post Assessment—Final

Presentation of Findings
This a formal meeting, presented by the VFA Project Manager or Project Director to present the results of the condition assessment. VFA understands that facility conditions are not the only factor in determining what renovations, replacements, or repairs to undertake, and are in many cases considered in support of other drivers such as impact on mission, risk, space planning needs, or changes in use. The presentation of findings will include an analysis that turns technical and financial data into actionable and measurable capital plans. VFA will benchmark assets by FCI, explore considerations of level of funding and its impact on asset condition, and align data to your organizations business to enable you to remain mission ready. VFA will provide recommendations on best practices for going beyond the condition assessment results with the intent to drive success for you in your capital planning program.

At the end of the presentation, the following questions will have been answered:
 What assets do we need to maintain?
 What is the condition (needs) of my assets?
 How much funding do I need?

23.c
Packet Pg. 271
Attachment: City of Campbell CA VFA Proposal_110422 (Approval of a Professional Services Agreement with the Gordian Group)

 With X funding, what assets should we invest in first? VFA’s experience is that executive attendance at the final presentation often leads to requests for further editing prior to final reports.

Final Reports
Following client review and comment of the draft report data and the presentation of findings, the VFA team will incorporate comments and provide responses to the client on the actions taken. With client acceptance of corrections, the VFA Project Manager will make any adjustments to the assessment data and report content and will prepare the Final Property Condition Assessment Report package for all assets. The Final Report will document the findings and present analyses of the FCA.

Requirement and renewal costs and timing will be utilized to develop multiple funding scenarios, providing a comparative analysis of these funding options. Level of capital spend to support funding scenarios will be discussed. The client will be able to ascertain the impact of various funding levels on the FCI of the assets, or alternatively, the funding requirements to achieve a specific asset FCI.

The Final Property Condition Report Package will include the following elements:
 Executive Summary. This report provides high-level information to provide an overview of the asset portfolio. This includes:
 Overall Asset Value
 Overall FCI
 Overall FCI cost (deferred maintenance) values
 Assessment Methodology. This report covers the assessment process itself and includes:
 Recap of Data Provided by the Client
 An Overview of Assessment Process
 Terms and Definitions
 Appendix Report Data. This element includes major findings from the assessment process, which include:
 Funding Scenarios
 Capital Renewal Requirements
 Requirement Summaries and Cross-tabular Reports
 Detailed Requirement Reports (Including Asset Summary, Requirement Descriptions)  Terms and Definitions
Project Closeout
The project will be considered complete when final reports have been delivered.

Value-Add Software
VFA’s methodology is integrated with VFA’s Capital Planning software, VFA Facility, to fully capitalize on the features and functions, including data query, analysis, reporting and prioritization.

23.c
Packet Pg. 272
Attachment: City of Campbell CA VFA Proposal_110422 (Approval of a Professional Services Agreement with the Gordian Group)

Unlike static printed reports that quickly become outdated, VFA relies on our capital planning and management software to create a central repository of asset information. VFA has developed VFA Facility to align closely with VFA’s assessment methodology so that not only do VFA’s building assessment professionals understand the facilities construction and conditions but more importantly, Client staff will be able to use the information delivered in VFA Facility for ongoing asset management and strategic decision support.

VFA Facility will be utilized by the VFA team to upload, store, analyze and report the results of the condition assessment.

Where practical for field collection, VFA Auditor or Kykloud are used as tablet-based field assessment tools to allow for system selection, photo capture, condition rating and input of attributes such as installation year, quantity, or size.

During the pre-assessment planning phase of the project, the VFA Project Manager will configure the software tools to align with the level of assessments/surveys agreed to. Data points such as prioritization schemes, systems to be assessed, and level of detail required will be configured for downstream use by the assessment team and the Client.

The VFA Project Manager will establish read-only user accounts for designated Client personnel in VFA Facility during the project allowing the Client to monitor progress, review data, and make comments on facility condition assessment data as it is being entered into the database.

Clients may choose to continue to maintain this asset data and use the sophisticated decision support and assessment collection tools for ongoing facilities planning and management by licensing the VFA software.

Example Assessment Project Schedule
A detail project schedule will be created when the assessment project is confirmed. An example schedule for assessments of 1 MSF of assets follows.

23.c
Packet Pg. 273
Attachment: City of Campbell CA VFA Proposal_110422 (Approval of a Professional Services Agreement with the Gordian Group)

23.c
Packet Pg. 274
Attachment: City of Campbell CA VFA Proposal_110422 (Approval of a Professional Services Agreement with the Gordian Group)

Exhibit A: Asset List
The assets included in the proposed project are:

Building Name Included in Site
Assessment
SQ FT
Ainsley House & Carriage House Yes 10,000
Campbell Library Building Yes 24,000
Campbell Park Restroom Bldg. Yes 240
City Hall Yes 30,024
City Hall-PD Annex Yes 1,440
Community Center Yes 143,737
Community Center-Bldg. Q Restrooms Yes 400
Community Center-Heritage Theatre Yes 20,229
Community Center-Skate Park
(Restrooms)
Yes 225
Community Center-Con. Stnd.
(Restrooms)
Yes 590
Community Center-Tennis Cts.
(Restrooms)
Yes 330
Corp. Yard Admin. Building Yes 3,500
Corp. Yard Shop/Bays Yes 9,396
Edith Morley Park Yes 300
Fire Dept. Headquarters @ Union Yes 9,000
Fire Station #2 Sunnyoaks Yes 5,827
Firehouse Museum Yes 3,320
Firehouse Museum Garage Yes 600

23.c
Packet Pg. 275
Attachment: City of Campbell CA VFA Proposal_110422 (Approval of a Professional Services Agreement with the Gordian Group)

Fischer Park Restrooms Yes 600
Hyde Park Yes 600
Morgan Park Building Yes 1,600
Morgan Park North Restrooms Yes 240
Morgan Park South Restrooms Yes 600
Parking Garage Yes 96,000
Traffic/Lighting Portable @ C.Yard Yes 1,320
Parking Garage Yes 100,000
Total Facilities Condition Assessment
(SF)
464,118

23.c
Packet Pg. 276
Attachment: City of Campbell CA VFA Proposal_110422 (Approval of a Professional Services Agreement with the Gordian Group)

Exhibit B: Uniformat II Categories
The ASTM Uniformat II Classification for Building Elements defines a standard classification for building elements and related sitework. Each UNIFORMAT II Category performs a given function, regardless of the design specification, construction method, or materials used. Using UNIFORMAT II to classify systems provides a consistent reference for the description, economic analysis, and management of building components during all phases of their life cycles.

The Uniformat II Classification for Buildings Elements is made up of four levels:
 Level 1 is a general grouping of major elements.
 Level 2 contains grouped elements (e.g., roofing, conveying, plumbing).  Level 3 contains individual elements (e.g., basement walls, partitions, floor finishes).  Level 4 contains sub-elements of individual elements (e.g., specific equipment, door frames, roof canopies).

One use of the Uniformat classifications is to determine which systems are included in the assessment process.

The tables provided in this appendix identify the systems to be included in the assessment, those that are at the discretion of the assessors, and those that aren’t included. Systems are identified using the following formats:
 Systems that are highlighted are in the scope of this project as a system (when observable or when information is provided).
 Systems in grey are included at assessor’s option and might be created as separate systems for additional level of detail.
 Systems without formatting are not in scope for this project.

Group A: Substructure
Level 2:

Group Elements
Level 3:

Individual Elements
Level 4:

Sub-Elements
A10 Foundations A1010 Standard
Foundations
A1011 Wall Foundations
A1012 Column Foundations & Pile Caps
A1013 Perimeter Drainage & Insulation
A1020 Special
Foundations
A1021 Pile Foundations
A1022 Grade Beams
A1023 Caissons
A1024 Underpinning
A1025 Dewatering

23.c
Packet Pg. 277
Attachment: City of Campbell CA VFA Proposal_110422 (Approval of a Professional Services Agreement with the Gordian Group)

A1026 Raft Foundations
A1027 Pressure Injected Grouting
A1029 Other Special Conditions
A1030 Slab on Grade A1031 Standard Slab on Grade
A1032 Structural Slab on Grade
A1033 Inclined Slab on Grade
A1034 Trenches, Pits & Bases
A1035 Under-Slab Drainage & Insulation
A20 Basement
Construction
A2010 Basement
Excavation
A2011 Excavation for Basements
A2012 Structure Back Fill & Compaction
A2013 Shoring
A2020 Basement Walls A2021 Basement Wall Construction
A2022 Moisture Protection
A2023 Basement Wall Insulation
A2024 Interior Skin
Group B: Shell
Level 2:

Group Elements
Level 3:

Individual Elements
Level 4:

Sub-Elements
B10 Superstructure B1010 Floor
Construction
B1011 Suspended Basement Floors
Construction
B1012 Upper Floors Construction
B1013 Balcony Floors Construction
B1014 Ramps
B1015 Exterior Stairs & Fire Escapes
B1016 Floor Raceway Systems
B1019 Other Floor Construction
B1020 Roof
Construction
B1021 Flat Roof Construction
B1022 Pitched Roof Construction
B1023 Canopies

23.c
Packet Pg. 278
Attachment: City of Campbell CA VFA Proposal_110422 (Approval of a Professional Services Agreement with the Gordian Group)

B1029 Other Roof Systems
B20 Exterior
Enclosure
B2010 Exterior Walls B2011 Exterior Wall Construction
B2012 Parapets
B2013 Exterior Louvers, Screens &
Fencing
B2014 Exterior Sun Control Devices
B2015 Balcony Walls & Handrails
B2016 Exterior Soffits
B2020 Exterior
Windows
B2021 Windows
B2022 Curtain Walls
B2023 Storefronts
B2030 Exterior Doors B2031 Glazed Doors & Entrances
B2032 Solid Exterior Doors
B2033 Revolving Doors
B2034 Overhead Doors
B2039 Other Doors & Entrances
B30 Roofing B3010 Roof Coverings B3011 Roof Finishes
B3012 Traffic Toppings & Paving
Membranes
B3013 Roof Insulation & Fill
B3014 Flashings & Trim
B3015 Roof Eaves & Soffits
B3016 Gutters & Downspouts
B3020 Roof Openings B3021 Glazed Roof Openings
B3022 Roof Hatches
B3023 Gravity Roof Ventilators
Group C: Interiors
Level 2:

Group Elements
Level 3:

Individual Elements
Level 4:

Sub-Elements

23.c
Packet Pg. 279
Attachment: City of Campbell CA VFA Proposal_110422 (Approval of a Professional Services Agreement with the Gordian Group)

C10 Interior
Construction
C1010 Partitions C1011 Fixed Partitions
C1012 Demountable Partitions
C1013 Retractable Partitions
C1014 Site Built Toilet Partitions
C1015 Site Built Compartments Cubicles
C1016 Interior Balustrades & Screens
C1017 Interior Windows & Storefronts
C1020 Interior Doors C1021 Interior Doors
C1022 Interior Door Frames
C1023 Interior Door Hardware
C1024 Interior Door Wall Opening
Elements
C1025 Interior Door Sidelights &
Transoms
C1026 Interior Hatches & Access Doors
C1027 Door Painting & Decoration
C1030 Fittings C1031 Fabricated Toilet Partitions
C1032 Fabricated Compartments &
Cubicles
C1033 Storage Shelving & Lockers
C1034 Ornamental Metals & Handrails
C1035 Identifying Devices
C1036 Closet Specialties
C1037 General Fittings & Misc. Metals
C20 Stairs C2010 Stair
Construction
C2011 Regular Stairs
C2012 Curved Stairs
C2013 Spiral Stairs
C2014 Stair Handrails & Balustrades
C2020 Stair Finishes C2021 Stair, Tread, & Landing Finishes C2022 Stair Soffit Finishes
C2023 Stair Handrail & Balustrade
Finishes

23.c
Packet Pg. 280
Attachment: City of Campbell CA VFA Proposal_110422 (Approval of a Professional Services Agreement with the Gordian Group)

C30 Interior Finishes C3010 Wall Finishes C3011 Wall Finishes to Inside Exterior Walls
C3012 Wall Finishes to Interior Walls
C3013 Column Finishes
C3020 Floor Finishes C3021 Floor Toppings
C3022 Traffic Membranes
C3023 Hardeners & Sealers
C3024 Flooring
C3025 Carpeting
C3026 Bases, Curbs & Trim
C3027 Access Pedestal Flooring
C3030 Ceiling Finishes C3031 Ceiling Finishes
C3032 Suspended Ceilings
C3033 Other Ceilings
Group D: Services
Level 2:

Group Elements
Level 3:

Individual Elements
Level 4:

Sub-Elements
D10 Conveying D1010 Elevators & Lifts D1011 Passenger Elevators D1012 Freight Elevators
D1013 Lifts
D1020 Escalators &
Moving Walks
D1021 Escalators
D1022 Moving Walks
D1090 Other Conveying
Systems
D1091 Dumbwaiters
D1092 Pneumatic Tube Systems
D1093 Hoists & Cranes
D1094 Conveyors
D1095 Chutes
D1096 Turntables

23.c
Packet Pg. 281
Attachment: City of Campbell CA VFA Proposal_110422 (Approval of a Professional Services Agreement with the Gordian Group)

D1097 Baggage Handling & Loading
Systems
D1098 Transportation Systems
D20 Plumbing D2010 Plumbing
Fixtures
D2011 Water Closets
D2012 Urinals
D2013 Lavatories
D2014 Sinks
D2015 Bathtubs
D2016 Wash Fountains
D2017 Showers
D2018 Drinking Fountains & Coolers
D2019 Bidets & Other Plumbing Fixtures
D2020 Domestic Water
Distribution
D2021 Cold Water Service
D2022 Hot Water Service
D2023 Domestic Water Supply
Equipment
D2030 Sanitary Waste D2031 Waste Piping
D2032 Vent Piping
D2033 Floor Drains
D2034 Sanitary Waste Equipment
D2035 Pipe Insulation
D2040 Rainwater
Drainage
D2041 Pipe & Fittings
D2042 Roof Drains
D2043 Rainwater Drainage Equipment
D2044 Pipe Insulation
D2090 Other Plumbing
Systems
D2091 Gas Distribution
D2092 Acid Waste Systems
D2093 Interceptors
D2094 Pool Piping & Equipment
D2095 Decorative Fountain Piping
Devices
D2099 Other Piping Systems

23.c
Packet Pg. 282
Attachment: City of Campbell CA VFA Proposal_110422 (Approval of a Professional Services Agreement with the Gordian Group)

D30 HVAC D3010 Energy Supply D3011 Oil Supply System
D3012 Gas Supply System
D3013 Coal Supply System
D3014 Steam Supply System
D3015 Hot Water Supply System
D3016 Solar Energy System
D3017 Wind Energy System
D3020 Heat Generating
Systems
D3021 Boilers
D3022 Boiler Room Piping & Specialties
D3023 Auxiliary Equipment
D3024 Insulation
D3030 Cooling
Generating Systems
D3031 Chilled Water Systems
D3032 Direct Expansion Systems
D3040 Distribution
Systems
D3041 Air Distribution Systems
D3042 Exhaust Ventilation Systems
D3043 Steam Distribution Systems
D3044 Hot Water Distribution
D3045 Chilled Water Distribution
D3046 Change-over Distribution Systems
D3047 Glycol Distribution Systems
D3050 Terminal &
Package Units
D3051 Terminal Self-Contained Units
D3052 Package Units
D3060 Controls &
Instrumentation
D3061 Heating Generating Systems
D3062 Cooling Generating Systems
D3063 Heating/Cooling Air Handling
Units
D3064 Exhaust & Ventilating Systems
D3065 Hoods & Exhaust Systems
D3066 Terminal Devices
D3067 Energy Monitoring & Control
D3068 Building Automation Systems

23.c
Packet Pg. 283
Attachment: City of Campbell CA VFA Proposal_110422 (Approval of a Professional Services Agreement with the Gordian Group)

D3069 Other Controls & Instrumentation
D3070 Systems Testing
& Balancing
D3071 Piping System Testing & Balancing
D3072 Air Systems Testing & Balancing
D3073 HVAC Commissioning
D3079 Other Systems Testing &
Balancing
D3090 Other HVAC
Systems & Equipment
D3091 Special Cooling Systems & Devices
D3092 Special Humidity Control
D3093 Dust & Fume Collectors
D3094 Air Curtains
D3095 Air Purifiers
D3096 Paint Spray Booth Ventilation
D3097 General Construction Items
(HVAC)
D40 Fire Protection D4010 Sprinklers D4011 Sprinkler Water Supply D4012 Sprinkler Pumping Equipment
D4013 Dry Sprinkler System
D4020 Standpipes D4021 Standpipe Water Supply
D4022 Pumping Equipment
D4023 Standpipe Equipment
D4024 Fire Hose Equipment
D4030 Fire Protection
Specialties
D4031 Fire Extinguishers
D4032 Fire Extinguisher Cabinets
D4090 Other Fire
Protection Systems
D4091 Carbon Dioxide Systems
D4092 Foam Generating Equipment
D4093 Clean Agent Systems
D4094 Dry Chemical System
D4095 Hood & Duct Fire Protection
D50 Electrical D5010 Electrical Service
& Distribution
D5011 High Tension Service & Dist.

D5012 Low Tension Service & Dist.

23.c
Packet Pg. 284
Attachment: City of Campbell CA VFA Proposal_110422 (Approval of a Professional Services Agreement with the Gordian Group)

D5020 Lighting &
Branch Wiring
D5021 Branch Wiring Devices
D5022 Lighting Equipment
D5030 Communications
& Security
D5031 Public Address & Music Systems
D5032 Intercommunication & Paging
System
D5033 Telephone Systems
D5034 Call Systems
D5035 Television Systems
D5036 Clock & Program Systems
D5037 Fire Alarm Systems
D5038 Security & Detection Systems
D5039 Local Area Networks
D5090 Other Electrical
System
D5091 Grounding Systems
D5092 Emergency Light & Power Systems
D5093 Floor Raceway Systems
D5094 Other Special Systems & Devices
D5095 General Construction Items
(Elect.)
Group E: Equipment and Furnishings
Level 2:

Group Elements
Level 3:

Individual Elements
Level 4:

Sub-Elements
E10 Equipment E1010 Commercial
Equipment
E1011 Security & Vault Equipment
E1012 Teller & Service Equipment
E1013 Registration Equipment
E1014 Checkroom Equipment
E1015 Mercantile Equipment
E1016 Laundry & Dry-Cleaning
Equipment
E1017 Vending Equipment
E1018 Office Equipment

23.c
Packet Pg. 285
Attachment: City of Campbell CA VFA Proposal_110422 (Approval of a Professional Services Agreement with the Gordian Group)

E1020 Institutional
Equipment
E1021 Ecclesiastical Equipment
E1022 Library Equipment
E1023 Theater & Stage Equipment
E1024 Instrumental Equipment
E1025 Audio-visual Equipment
E1026 Detention Equipment
E1027 Laboratory Equipment
E1028 Medical Equipment
E1029 Other Institutional Equipment
E1030 Vehicular
Equipment
E1031 Vehicular Service Equipment
E1032 Parking Control Equipment
E1033 Loading Dock Equipment
E1039 Other Vehicular Equipment
E1090 Other Equipment E1091 Maintenance Equipment
E1092 Solid Waste Handling Equipment
E1093 Food Service Equipment
E1094 Residential Equipment
E1095 Unit Kitchens
E1097 Window Washing Equipment
E1099 Other Equipment
E20 Furnishings E2010 Fixed Furnishings E2011 Fixed Artwork E2012 Fixed Casework
E2013 Blinds & Other Window
Treatments
E2014 Fixed Floor Grilles & Mats
E2015 Fixed Multiple Seating
E2016 Fixed Interior Landscaping
E2020 Movable
Furnishings
E2021 Movable Artwork
E2022 Furniture & Accessories
E2023 Movable Rugs & Mats
E2024 Movable Interior Landscaping

23.c
Packet Pg. 286
Attachment: City of Campbell CA VFA Proposal_110422 (Approval of a Professional Services Agreement with the Gordian Group)

Group F: Special Construction and Demolition
Level 2:

Group Elements
Level 3:

Individual Elements
Level 4:

Sub-Elements
F10 Special
Construction
F1010 Special
Structures
F1011 Air Supported Structures
F1012 Pre-engineered Structures
F1013 Other Special Structures
F1020 Integrated
Construction
F1021 Integrated Assemblies
F1022 Special Purpose Rooms
F1023 Other Integrated Construction
F1030 Special
Construction Systems
F1031 Sound, Vibration & Seismic Const.

F1032 Radiation Protection
F1033 Special Security Systems
F1034 Vaults
F1039 Special Construction Systems
F1040 Special Facilities F1041 Aquatic Facilities
F1042 Ice Rinks
F1043 Site Constructed Incinerators
F1044 Kennels & Animal Shelters
F1045 Liquid & Gas Storage Tanks
F1049 Other Special Facilities
F1050 Special Controls
& Instrumentation
F1051 Recording Instrumentation
F1052 Building Automation System
F1059 Other Special Controls &
Instrumentation
F20 Selective Building
Demolition
F2010 Building
Elements Demolition
F2011 Building Interior Demolition
F2012 Building Exterior Demolition
F2020 Hazardous
Components
Abatement
F2021 Removal of Hazardous
Components
F2022 Encapsulation of Hazardous
Components

23.c
Packet Pg. 287
Attachment: City of Campbell CA VFA Proposal_110422 (Approval of a Professional Services Agreement with the Gordian Group)

Equipment Inventory
VFA will perform the inventory assessment of fixed, visibly accessible equipment by capturing information about the pieces of equipment for later upload to client’s Computer Maintenance Management System (CMMS). Each piece of equipment will be tagged with a unique bar code that will serve as the unique identifier for each inventory asset. VFA will work with client on asset naming conventions and will ensure all required data fields and user defined fields for assets are captured in the proper format for loading into the CMMS.

For the inventory piece of this project, VFA suggests the recording of the following information for each piece of equipment where it may be obtained:
 Manufacturer
 Model Number
 Serial Number
 Capacity; Rating; Service Size; Operating Limits; Refrigerant Type; and/or other primary operating data/specifications as noted on equipment tags, appropriate to type of equipment.  Location of the equipment (building, floor, room) Using posted room numbers, or numbers provided on floor plans.
 Date placed in service (if available)
 Inventory tag number (durable weather resistant bar-coded tag directly attached to the equipment
 Equipment Condition (Failed, Poor, Average, Good, New) The suggested scope and associated fee is designed for a data collector to be able to conduct the inventory effort independent of any additional research such as reviewing client files for purchase or warranty information. Equipment that is located within areas determined as confined space, or otherwise unsafe locations for our assessors, that may not be accessed during the field assessment will not be visibly observed but will be recorded based on information provided by client via technical drawings and maintenance staff input. VFA can capture more information about each piece of equipment if requested prior to the commencement of the inventory work.

The following table is an example of major equipment that will be inventoried during this phase of the project.
 Boilers
 Chillers
 Condensing units
 Air handling units, fan
coil units and other unit
ventilators
 Pumps, 5hp and above
 Heat exchangers
 Building electrical
service entrances,
transformers, panels
and switchgear
 Generators
 Air compressors
 Fire suppression
systems (wet, dry, gas
and chemical)
 Wet sprinkler system -
main service supply only
(Pump, Back-flow
Preventer)

23.c
Packet Pg. 288
Attachment: City of Campbell CA VFA Proposal_110422 (Approval of a Professional Services Agreement with the Gordian Group)

 Packaged roof top units
 Variable speed drives
 Return air fans, roof
fans, and exhaust fans
(excluding small in-line
duct fans)
 Hot water heaters
 Water storage tanks
 Motor control centers
 Cooling towers
 Unit air conditioners
(excluding window
units)
 Building control systems
(Main Panel)
 Energy management
systems (Main Panel)
 Fire alarm systems
(Main and Auxiliary
Panels)
 Dry sprinklers - main
service supply only
 Automatic
(Chemical/Gas) fire
Suppression
 Building distribution
panels, lighting panels,
power panels
 Building Utility meters
 Elevator equipment,
pumps, motors, control
Exclusions to the VFA proposed major equipment inventory service include the following equipment that is generally inaccessible for visual observation, too small to individually locate and inventory or typically not required to perform maintenance on but rather run to failure then replace:
 Individual VAV boxes, fan-coil units & reheat coils
 HVAC control valves and actuators
 Individual HVAC sensors.
 Fire alarm signal devices including pull stations, heat & smoke detectors, horn/strobes  Circulation pumps less than 5hp
 Any similar terminal devices on distribution systems.  Individual electrical power distribution panels which are downstream of main panels for power, lighting, and emergency circuits on each floor level. (the team will tag items in each main electrical panel room on each floor level)

If client would like VFA to perform equipment inventory of the above list of excluded equipment, VFA will work with client to negotiate an additional fee.

23.c
Packet Pg. 289
Attachment: City of Campbell CA VFA Proposal_110422 (Approval of a Professional Services Agreement with the Gordian Group)

Preventive Maintenance Plans
Facility maintenance schedules can be developed in several different methods using a review of the facilities, equipment, and current staffing that work together to develop the best program that meets the individual needs of the Fresno County. As an extension to the standard facility condition assessment, facility systems that require routine inspection and maintenance will be inventoried and rated on condition. Recommended preventive maintenance tasks and frequencies shall be produced for the various facility component types. These task lists and frequencies will be compiled using manufacturer’s recommendations where available and any industry standards or client/consultant experiences otherwise.

The premise for developing the PM tasks is that similar equipment requires similar maintenance tasks. Therefore, the PM tasks for a 5-ton packaged rooftop air conditioning unit are fundamentally the same as a 50-ton unit. The effort and time required to perform these tasks may differ but the steps involved are the same. The equipment data will be sorted and grouped together by common types of equipment and the PM tasks distributed among equipment of the same type.

It should be noted that every PM plan needs to be allowed to evolve and change over time. These PM plans serve as a starting point but it is expected that as feedback comes in from closed work orders, adjustments should be made to the program accordingly. For instance, it may be determined that the 5-ton unit does not need to receive exactly the same PM steps or perhaps a slightly different frequency as the 50-ton unit. These can and should be adjusted based on feedback from the technicians and data that supports the uptime that has resulted. The following would be an example of PM equipment tasks:

Asset Group Asset Type Frequency Task Name
HVAC Packaged Roof Top
Unit - Gas Heat
1 / yr. Summer Start Up
Task Description
Remove old air filters
Clean coils
Inspect coils
Check compressor efficiency
Check refrigerant levels. Note any losses and
report as required.

Visually inspect belts - tighten / replace as
necessary
Clean condensate pan and trap
Inspect contactors and wiring
Check and adjust for proper air flow
Lubricate motors and bearings
Check and calibrate sensors and thermostats
PM tasks are provided in either an Excel or PDF format.

23.c
Packet Pg. 290
Attachment: City of Campbell CA VFA Proposal_110422 (Approval of a Professional Services Agreement with the Gordian Group)

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT

This Professional Services Agreement (“Agreement”) is entered into between VFA, Inc an affiliate of The Gordian Group, Inc., with its principal place of business at 30 Patewood Drive, Suite 350, Greenville, SC 29615 (“VFA”) and _________________ with its principal place of business at _________________________ (“Client”).

The effective date of this Agreement is _________________ (“Effective Date”). For good and valuable consideration, the sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows:

1. DEFINITIONS
“Client Data”: any data and information that Client provides, generates, transfers or makes available to VFA under this Agreement in any format.
"Notification Period" is defined as the period of time in which the Client must notify VFA of material nonconformance with services provided herein.
“Professional Services”: data conversion, implementation, site planning, configuration, integration and deployment of the Software, training, project management, facility condition assessment and other services. “Software”: each VFA-developed and/or VFA-owned software product in machine readable object code (not source code), the documentation for such product, and any updates thereto. “SOW”: a statement of work identifying the mutually agreed to Professional Services.

2. PROFESSIONAL SERVICES

2.1 Work Authorizations/Statements of Work. VFA will perform the mutually agreed upon Professional Services for Client described in one or more SOWs as the parties may agree to in writing from time to time. Each SOW, once signed by the authorized representatives of each of the parties, shall become a part of the Agreement.

2.2 Change Orders. Either party may propose a change order to add to, reduce or change the work ordered in the SOW. Each change order shall specify the change(s) to the services or deliverables, and the effect on the time of performance and on the fees owed to VFA, due to the change. Once executed by both parties, a change order shall become a part of the SOW.

2.3 Costs. Professional Services shall be provided on either a fixed fee basis or a time and materials (“T&M”) basis, as set out in the Statement of Work. If the SOW is a T&M engagement and an estimated total amount is stated in the applicable SOW, that amount is solely a good faith estimate for Client's budgeting and VFA’s resource scheduling purposes and not a guarantee that the work will be completed for that amount. If Client wishes the VFA personnel to perform on Client’s site, Client agrees it shall give VFA at least two (2) weeks’ prior notice so VFA can make appropriate travel arrangements.

2.4 Delays/Costs Overruns. In the event of any delay in Client’s performance of any of the obligations set forth herein or any other delays caused by Client, the milestones, fees and date(s) set forth in the SOW may be adjusted on a T&M basis as reasonably necessary to account for such delays, and the adjustment shall be made by change order in accordance with the provisions of section 2.2 (Change Orders) above. Unless otherwise set forth in an SOW, if Client reschedules Professional Services hereunder on less than ten (10) days prior written notice, Customer will reimburse VFA for the delayed resources for the duration of the delay up to ten (10) days on a T&M basis.

2.5 Responsibility. VFA shall be responsible for securing, managing, scheduling, coordinating and supervising VFA personnel, including its subcontractors, in performing the Professional Services.

23.c
Packet Pg. 291
Attachment: City of Campbell CA VFA Proposal_110422 (Approval of a Professional Services Agreement with the Gordian Group)

2.6 Cooperation. Client shall provide VFA with commercially reasonable cooperation and access to such information, facilities, personnel and equipment as may be reasonably required by VFA in order to provide the Professional Services, including, but not limited to, providing security access, information, and software interfaces to Client’s applications, and Client personnel, as may be reasonably requested by VFA from time to time. Client acknowledges and agrees that VFA performance is dependent upon the timely and effective satisfaction of Client’s responsibilities hereunder and timely decisions and approvals of Client in connection with the Professional Services. VFA shall be entitled to rely on all decisions and approvals of Client.

2.7 Client Data. Client’s data shall be provided to VFA in a format approved by VFA or additional charges will apply. Client is responsible for the accuracy and completeness of its information and Client Data. VFA’s performance is dependent on Client’s timely provision of accurate and complete resources and information, including but not limited to detailed, precise and clear specifications for any deliverables.

2.8 Client Responsibilities

4.1 Client acknowledges that its participation and cooperation is both required and critical for the success of the Project. Deviations from these responsibilities may lead to commensurate changes in the timeline and fees:

4.2 VFA will make available its then-current platform for web-based video or teleconferencing. Client must either be able to access such web-based video or teleconferencing platform or provide an alternative web- based video or teleconferencing platform for use by VFA, including any necessary supporting software.

4.3 Ensure appropriate levels of Client executive and Client project team resources will be made available to the VFA project team to ensure successful completion of tasks by jointly developed timelines. If certain areas are identiﬁed as more complex than initially identiﬁed, additional Client or VFA resources may be requested to supplement the team in order to ensure timely delivery, which would be addressed separately under the Change Control procedures described in this SOW.

4.4 Further, Client acknowledges that its timely provision of and access to ofﬁces accommodations; skilled personnel; facilities; equipment; assistance; cooperation; complete and accurate information and data from its ofﬁcers, agents, and employees; and suitably conﬁgured computer products (collectively, "Cooperation") are essential to performance of any Services as set forth in this SOW. VFA shall not be responsible for performance of the services in this SOW to the extent VFA is prevented from performing due to Client's failure to provide full Cooperation. Client agrees to allow VFA to post, at a site at which Services are performed, any documents necessary for VFA to provide Services in compliance with the law.

2.9 Assumptions
In addition, each SOW is based upon the following assumptions:

5.1 Product enhancements are not part of an SOW and considered out of scope, unless the SOW specifies otherwise.

5.2 VFA resources are not dedicated solely to Client during the engagement. Reasonable notice is required by Client to request VFA resources whether work is performed on-site or off-site.

5.3 Client will be required to provide VFA with a minimum of 30 days prior notice of Client's requested services date for allocation of VFA consultant resources and provision of Professional Services ("Requested Dates"). While VFA will use commercially reasonable efforts to allocate resources in accordance with Requested Dates, VFA shall be under no obligation or penalty to meet such Requested Dates and shall be entitled to reject or offer alternatives to Client for any reason.

5.4 Once Client and VFA agree on a Project plan that identiﬁes speciﬁc dates when VFA and Client will perform the work described therein, Client will pay for 50% of the costs associated with any change in VFA's resource scheduling tied to a change in the Project schedule or VFA stafﬁng plan introduced by Client, including any rescheduling of the time for performance of any VFA services. Any such fee will be in addition to the fees provided within the impacted SOW.

5.5 Should Client (or participant) cancel any training session or on-site engagement with VFA Consultant(s) more than five (5) business days but less than ten (10) business days prior to the date that such

23.c
Packet Pg. 292
Attachment: City of Campbell CA VFA Proposal_110422 (Approval of a Professional Services Agreement with the Gordian Group)

engagement was scheduled to commence, Client shall pay VFA a cancelation fee of fifty percent (50%) of the training session or on-site engagement fees. Should Client (or participant) cancel a training session or on-site engagement five (5) days (or less) prior to the date that such engagement was scheduled to commence, Client shall pay VFA a cancelation fee of one hundred percent (100%) of the training session or on-site engagement fees. Any such fee will be over and above the fees provided within this SOW.

2.10 Project Close. The Notification Period prior to the closure of the project is 10 business days from the date that VFA provides written notice to Client that states the delivery of services is complete. In the event Client does not provide notice of material nonconformance or request for change during Notification Period, the project will be closed, and no additional work will be performed by VFA pursuant to the services contained herein. In the event Client does provide notice of material nonconformance or request for change after the expiration of Notification Period, such work shall only be performed under a new contractual arrangement. In the event material non- conformance is identified within the Notification Period, VFA shall promptly correct such non-conformance, which was due to fault or negligence of VFA, at no additional cost to Client.

3. FINANCIAL TERMS

3.1 Fees and Payment Terms. Fees are specified in the applicable SOW and unless stated otherwise are denominated and payable in United States dollars. Unless agreed otherwise in an applicable SOW, fees are due within forty-five (45) days of invoice date.

3.2 Overdue Charges. In the event any fees are not received by VFA by the due date, then VFA may (i) charge interest on past due balances in accordance Miss. Code Section 31-7-305.

3.3 Suspension of Services and Acceleration. In the event any undisputed amounts are forty-five (45) or more days overdue, VFA may (without limiting any of its other rights and remedies) (i) suspend its performance and (ii) require full payment of undisputed, past due amounts before any additional performance is rendered by VFA and (iii) accelerate all future amounts to be due, such that all remaining periodic payments for the then current Term of the applicable SOW shall be due and owing.

3.4 Taxes. Unless expressly provided otherwise, the prices in the Agreement do not include taxes. Client agrees to pay any taxes, other than those based on VFA’s net income, arising out of the Agreement. If Client is tax- exempt, Client agrees to send VFA a copy of its tax-exempt certificate prior to execution of an SOW.

3.5 T&E Expenses. Unless otherwise noted within the SOW, VFA’s reasonable travel and lodging expenses incurred by VFA in the performance of Professional Services on Client’s site will be billed separately at actual cost. (a) VFA will provide notice of any requested travel that will occur on a non-business day (weekend or holiday. (b) VFA will provide services via phone, internet, and email or otherwise remotely from the VFA premises unless otherwise stated in the relevant SOW.
(c) In the event Client cancels or reschedules any on-site engagement with VFA Consultant(s) with less than 15 business days lead time but more than 10 business days, VFA will invoice Client and Client will pay for 50% of the cancellation and/or change fees associated with rebooking travel and arrangement. In the event Client cancels or reschedules any VFA resource(s) with less than 10 business days lead time, VFA will invoice Client and Client will pay for 100% of the associated fee.
(d) If applicable, travel time is calculated as the time between departure from VFA premises, local airport or home office and arrival at destination address, as determined by both Parties prior to departure, or destination airport.

4. CONFIDENTIALITY

23.c
Packet Pg. 293
Attachment: City of Campbell CA VFA Proposal_110422 (Approval of a Professional Services Agreement with the Gordian Group)

4.1 Defined. By virtue of the Agreement, the parties may be exposed to or be provided with certain confidential and proprietary information of the other party or third parties, including but not limited to information designated as confidential in writing or information which ought to be in good faith considered confidential and proprietary to the disclosing party (“Confidential Information”). Confidential Information includes, but is not limited to, all trade secrets, software, source code, object code, specifications, documentation, business plans, customer lists and customer-related information, financial information, proposals, budgets as well as results of testing and benchmarking of the Software or other services, product roadmap, data and other information of VFA and its licensors relating to or embodied in the Software or documentation. VFA’s placement of a copyright notice on any portion of any Software will not be construed to mean that such portion has been published and will not derogate from any claim that such portion contains proprietary and confidential information of VFA.

4.2 Non-Disclosure. Each party will protect the other party’s Confidential Information from unauthorized dissemination and use the same degree of care that each such party uses to protect its own confidential information, but in no event less than a reasonable amount of care. Neither party will use Confidential Information of the other party for purposes other than those necessary to directly further the purposes of the Agreement. Except as required by applicable law, neither party will disclose to third parties Confidential Information without prior written consent of the other party.

4.3 Exceptions. Information shall not be considered Confidential Information to the extent, but only to the extent, that the receiving party can establish that such information (i) is or becomes generally known or available to the public through no fault of the receiving party; (ii) was in the receiving party's possession before receipt from the disclosing party; (iii) is lawfully obtained from a third party who has the right to make such disclosure; or (iv) has been independently developed by one party without reference to any Confidential Information of the other.

4.4 Compelled Disclosure. The receiving party may disclose Confidential Information of the disclosing party if it is compelled by law to do so, provided the receiving party gives the disclosing party prior notice of such compelled disclosure (to the extent legally permitted).

5. PRIVACY
Client represents and warrants that before providing personal information to VFA or its agents, it will comply with any laws applicable to the disclosure of personal information, including providing notices to or obtaining permission from third parties to allow sharing of their personal information with VFA under the Agreement. No personal information will be disseminated by VFA to any third parties, except as consented to by Client or required by law.

6. LIMITED RIGHTS AND OWNERSHIP

6.1 Reservation of Rights. All rights not expressly granted in the Agreement are reserved by VFA and its licensors. Client acknowledges that Client acquires only the right to use the Professional Services and VFA, its licensors, and content providers shall retain sole and exclusive ownership of and all rights, title, and interest in the Professional Services, including (whether developed by VFA, Client or a third party) (a) intellectual property embodied or associated with, (b) deliverables and work product associated with, and (c) all copies and derivative works thereof.

6.2 Client Data. Client retains sole and exclusive ownership to any and all Client Data.

6.3 License Grant by Client. Client grants to VFA a non-exclusive, royalty free license, to use Client Data or other material of Client for the purpose of performing its obligations under the Agreement and in order to generate aggregated, system-wide collations of industry and business data in a non-attributed manner for marketing and other purposes.

7. WARRANTY AND DISCLAIMER OF WARRANTIES.

23.c
Packet Pg. 294
Attachment: City of Campbell CA VFA Proposal_110422 (Approval of a Professional Services Agreement with the Gordian Group)

7.1 VFA warrants the Professional Services shall be performed in a professional and workman-like manner and in material conformance with the applicable SOW.

7.2 VFA, VFAS’ LICENSORS AND SUPPLIERS EXPRESSLY DISCLAIM TO THE MAXIMUM EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, ALL OTHER WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, ORAL OR WRITTEN, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, (i) ANY

WARRANTY THAT ANY SAAS SERVICES, ARE ERROR-FREE OR WILL OPERATE WITHOUT INTERRUPTION OR THAT ALL ERRORS WILL BE CORRECTED; (ii) ANY AND ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, AND NON-INFRINGEMENT, (iii) ANY WARRANTY THAT CONTENT AND/OR THIRD PARTY SOFTWARE WILL BE ACCURATE, RELIABLE AND ERROR-FREE AND (iv) ANY AND ALL IMPLIED WARRANTIES ARISING FROM STATUTE, COURSE OF DEALING, COURSE OF PERFORMANCE OR USAGE OF TRADE. NO ADVICE, STATEMENT

OR INFORMATION GIVEN BY VFA, ITS AFFILIATES, CONTRACTORS OR EMPLOYEES SHALL CREATE OR CHANGE ANY WARRANTY PROVIDED HEREIN.

7.3 NOTHING CONTAINED HEREIN THIS SECTION 7. (WARRANTIES) SHALL AIM TO LIMIT ANY LIABILITY TO THE EXTENT PROHIBITED BY LAW.

8. LIMITATION OF LIABILITY.

8.1 Limitation of Liability. TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, EACH PARTY’S TOTAL LIABILITY (INCLUDING ATTORNEYS FEES AWARDED UNDER THE AGREEMENT) TO THE OTHER FOR ANY CLAIM UNDER THIS AGREEMENTWILL BE LIMITED TO THE FEES PAID FOR THE PRIOR TWELVE (12) MONTHS FOR THE SERVICE WHICH IS THE SUBJECT MATTER OF THE CLAIM. NOTWITHSTANDING THE FOREGOING, THE ABOVE LIMITATIONS SHALL NOT APPLY TO CLIENT’S OBLIGATIONS TO PAY VFA UNDER SECTION 3. FINANCIAL TERMS.

8.2 Exclusion of Indirect and Consequential Damages. TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW, IN

NO EVENT WILL EITHER PARTY BE LIABLE TO THE OTHER FOR ANY INDIRECT, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL, EXEMPLARY,

PUNITIVE, TREBLE OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES (INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, LOSS OF BUSINESS,

REVENUE, PROFITS, STAFF TIME, GOODWILL, USE, DATA, OR OTHER ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE), WHETHER BASED

ON BREACH OF CONTRACT, BREACH OF WARRANTY, TORT (INCLUDING NEGLIGENCE), PRODUCT LIABILITY OR OTHERWISE, WHETHER OR NOT A PARTY HAS PREVIOUSLY BEEN ADVISED OF THE POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.

8.3 Damages Prohibited by Law. NOTHING CONTAINED HEREIN THIS SECTION 8 (LIMITATION OF LIABILITY) SHALL AIM TO LIMIT ANY LIABILITY TO THE EXTENT PROHIBITED BY LAW.

8.4 Survival. THIS SECTION SHALL SURVIVE FAILURE OF ANY EXCLUSIVE REMEDY.

9. TERM AND TERMINATION

9.1 Term. The term of this Agreement shall commence on the Effective Date set forth above and shall continue in full force and effect until the expiration or termination of all SOW’s, unless otherwise terminated earlier as provided hereunder.

9.2 Termination. Either party may terminate the Agreement including all SOW’s immediately upon written notice in the event of the following:
(i) in the event that the other party commits a non-remediable material breach of the Agreement, or if the other party fails to cure any remediable material breach or provide a written plan of cure acceptable to the non- breaching party within 30 days of being notified in writing of such breach except for breach of Section 3 (Financial Terms) which shall have a ten (10) day cure period; or
(ii) in the event of institution of bankruptcy, receivership, insolvency, reorganization, or other similar proceedings by or against either party under any section or chapter of the United States Bankruptcy Code, as amended, or under any similar laws or statutes of the United States or any state thereof, if such proceedings have not been dismissed or discharged within thirty (30) calendar days after they are instituted; or the insolvency or making of an assignment for the benefit of creditors or the admittance by either party of any involuntary debts as they mature

23.c
Packet Pg. 295
Attachment: City of Campbell CA VFA Proposal_110422 (Approval of a Professional Services Agreement with the Gordian Group)

or the institution of any reorganization arrangement or other readjustment of debt plan of either party not involving the United States Bankruptcy Code.

Where a party has a right to terminate the Agreement, the terminating party may, at its discretion, either terminate the Agreement or the applicable SOW. SOWs that are not terminated shall continue in full force and effect under the terms of this Agreement.

10. GENERAL PROVISIONS

10.1 Force Majeure. Notwithstanding in this Agreement to the contrary, neither party shall have the right to terminate the Agreement or an SOW and neither party shall incur any liability to the other party on account of any loss, claim, damage or liability to the extent resulting from any delay or failure to perform all or any part of this Agreement, or SOW (except for the obligation to pay, but not the timing of payment), if and to the extent such delay or failure is caused, in whole or in part, by events, occurrences, or causes beyond the control and without any negligence on the part of the party seeking protection under this section. Such events, occurrences, or causes shall include, without limitation, acts of God, strikes, lockouts, riots, acts of war, terrorism, pandemics, earthquake, fire or explosions (“Force Majeure Events”). Dates by which performance obligations are scheduled to be met will be extended for a period of time equal to the time lost due to any delay so caused.

10.2 Assignment. Neither party may assign the Agreement or any of its rights and obligations herein without the other party’s prior written consent (such consent shall not be unreasonably withheld). Notwithstanding the foregoing, either party may assign this Agreement in its entirety (including all SOWs to its parent company or other affiliated company, or to a successor by operation of law, or by reason of the sale or transfer of all or substantially all of its stock or assets to another entity.

10.3 Notice of U.S. Government Restricted Rights. If the Client hereunder is the U.S. Government, or if the Software is acquired hereunder on behalf of the U.S. Government with U.S. Government federal funding, notice is hereby given that the Software is commercial computer software and documentation developed exclusively at private expense and are furnished as follows: “U.S. GOVERNMENT RESTRICTED RIGHTS. Software and the Protected Rights delivered subject to the FAR 52.227-19. All use, duplication and disclosure of the Software and/or the Protected Rights by or on behalf of the U.S. Government shall be subject to this Agreement and the restrictions contained in FAR 52.227-19, Commercial Computer Software License - (December 2007)”.

10.4 Export. Client shall comply fully with all applicable export laws and regulations of the United States.

10.5 Non-solicitation. During the term of this Agreement and for a period of one year following its termination, neither party will solicit for employment directly or through other parties, without the other party’s written permission, any individual employed by the other party, provided however that the solicitation or hiring of individuals responding to general public marketing and recruiting advertisements and events shall not be a violation of this provision; only active, targeted solicitation is prohibited.

10.6 Notices. Any notice required or permitted to be sent under the Agreement shall be delivered by hand, by overnight courier, or by registered mail, return receipt requested, to the address of the parties first set forth in the Agreement or to such other address of the parties designated in writing in accordance with this subsection.

10.7 Relationship. The Agreement is not intended to create a partnership, franchise, joint venture, agency, or a fiduciary or employment relationship. Neither party may bind the other party or act in a manner which expresses or implies a relationship other than that of independent contractor.

10.8 10.9 Invalidity. If any provision of the Agreement shall be held to be invalid, illegal or unenforceable, the validity, legality and enforceability of the remaining provisions shall not in any way be affected or impaired.

23.c
Packet Pg. 296
Attachment: City of Campbell CA VFA Proposal_110422 (Approval of a Professional Services Agreement with the Gordian Group)

10.10 Survival. The following provisions will survive any termination or expiration of the Agreement: sections 1, 3, 4, 5, 6.1, 6.2, 7.2, 7.3 8, 9, and 10.

10.11 No Waiver. Any waiver of the provisions of the Agreement or of a party’s rights or remedies under the Agreement must be in writing to be effective. Any such waiver shall constitute a waiver only with respect to the specific matter described in such writing and shall in no way impair the rights of the party granting such waiver in any other respect or at any other time. The waiver by either of the parties hereto of a breach or of a default under any of the provisions of the Agreement shall not be construed as a waiver of any other breach or default of a similar nature, or as a waiver of any of such provisions, rights or privileges hereunder. The rights and remedies herein provided are cumulative and none is exclusive of any other, or of any rights or remedies that any party may otherwise have at law or in equity. Failure, neglect, or delay by a party to enforce the provisions of the Agreement or its rights or remedies at any time, shall not be construed and shall not be deemed to be a waiver of such party’s rights under the Agreement and shall not in any way affect the validity of the whole or any part of the Agreement or prejudice such party’s right to take subsequent action.

10.12 Entire Agreement. The Agreement and the applicable SOW(s) constitute the parties’ entire agreement relating to its subject matter. It cancels and supersedes all prior or contemporaneous oral or written communications, requests for proposals, proposals, conditions, representations, and warranties, or other communication between the parties relating to its subject matter as well as any prior contractual agreements between the parties. No modification to the Agreement will be binding unless in writing and includes a signature by an authorized representative of each party. All pre-printed terms of any Client purchase order or other business processing document shall have no effect.

10.13 No Third Party Beneficiaries. This Agreement is for the benefit of the parties and their successors and permitted assigns and does not confer any rights or benefits on any third party, including any employee of a party, any client of a party, or any employee of a client of a party.

10.14 Governing Law and Venue. The Agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of xxxxxx without giving effect to its principles of conflict of laws. Any dispute shall be litigated in the state or federal courts located in xxxxxx to whose exclusive jurisdiction the parties hereby consent. For purposes of establishing jurisdiction in xxxxxx under this Agreement, each party hereby waives, to the fullest extent permitted by applicable law, any claim that: (i) it is not personally subject to the jurisdiction of such court; (ii) it is immune from any legal process with respect to it or its property; and (iii) any such suit, action or proceeding is brought in an inconvenient forum. The parties agree that this contract is not a contract for the sale of goods; therefore, the Agreement shall not be governed by any codification of Article 2 or 2A of the Uniform Commercial Code, or any codification of the Uniform Computer Information Technology Act (“UCITA”), or any references to the United National Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods.

10.15 Order of Precedence. In the event of a conflict between an SOW and this Agreement, the Statement of Work shall prevail with respect to the service contained within that Statement of Work All pre-printed terms of any Client purchase order or other business processing document shall have no effect.

10.16 Headings and Drafting. The headings in the Agreement shall not be used to construe or interpret the Agreement. The Agreement shall not be construed in favor of or against a party based on the author of the document.

10.17 Counterparts. The Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall constitute an enforceable original of the Agreement, and that facsimile and/or pdf scanned copies of signatures shall be as effective and binding as original signatures.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the duly authorized representatives of the parties agree to the terms and conditions of this Agreement.

23.c
Packet Pg. 297
Attachment: City of Campbell CA VFA Proposal_110422 (Approval of a Professional Services Agreement with the Gordian Group)

VFA, Inc.

Sign: ________________________________ Sign: _________________________________

Print Name: _________________________

Print Name: __________________________

Title: ________________________________

Title: _________________________________
Date: ________________________________

Date: _________________________________

23.c
Packet Pg. 298
Attachment: City of Campbell CA VFA Proposal_110422 (Approval of a Professional Services Agreement with the Gordian Group) City
Council
Report
TITLE: Amending Classification Plan to Adjust the Salary Range of Unrepresented Unclassified Management Police Chief Position (Resolution/Roll Call Vote)

RECOMMENDED ACTION
That the City Council approve the Resolution that will amend the compensation for the unrepresented unclassified management Police Chief classification.

DISCUSSION
As a result of the 2022 labor negotiations, all bargaining units, including depar tment heads, were afforded a 4% salary increase including the Police Chief classification. All represented, and unrepresented labor groups receive this increase retroactively on the first full pay period after July 1, 2022. Additionally, total compensat ion surveys were conducted and represented labor groups received market adjustments bringing those benchmarked classifications that were below the labor market mean to the labor market mean per City Council direction.

As a follow -up to labor negotiations , the Human Resources Division analyzed all salaries to determine if salary compaction was occurring to align with compensation standards and best practices. Based on the analysis, internal compaction has been occurring since January 25, 2021, to date wit h the classification of Police Captain; per Section 4.3.C.1 of the Personnel Rules and Regulations which requires the Police Chief classification’s salary to be at a minimum of 10% above the classification of all subordinates.

The attached Resolution se t fourth reflects the compensation structure for the Police Chief classification to address the current compaction issue between the Police Chief classification and Police Captain classification. Staff is recommending the Police Chief’s classification salary band to increase the Step 5 compensation from $132.18 per hour to $133.12 per hour to address the compaction issue. As a result of the compaction issue occurring since January 25, 2021, staff is recommending a one -time retroactivity payment of $3,489.60 on or before December 8, 2022, for the period of January 25, 2021, to November 27, 2022.

Item: 24
Category: NEW BUSINESS
Meeting Date: December 6, 2022
24 Packet Pg. 299
Amending Classification Plan to Adjust the Salary Range of Unrepresented Management Page 2 of 2 Classification Current
Step 1
Hourly
Current
Step 5
Hourly
Differential Proposed
Step 1
Hourly
Proposed
Step 5
Hourly
Differential
Chief of
Police
$91.29 $132.18 9.29% $91.94 $133.12 10%
Police
Captain
$99.55 $121.02

FISCAL IMPACT
The Police Chief classification is fully funded for Fiscal Year 2023 adopted budget at an amount that assumed annual cost of living increases, consistent with the City’s long range budget model.

By increasing the salary band, the current expenses will be increased; however, at this time, staff is not requesting a budget adjustment for FY 2023 as the proposed salary rate of the Police Chief classificat ion is very close to the proje cted salary rate for FY 2023. However, staff will continue to evaluate all expenditures for FY 2023 and propose budget adjustments during the mid-year update in February 2023, if necessary.

ALTERNATIVES
Do not adopt the attached resolution and/or provide direction on alternate changes.

Prepared by:

Jenny Le, HR Manager
Approved by:

Brian Loventhal, City Manager
Attachment:
a. RESOLUTION - Police Chief Salary Range
b. City of Campbell Salary Schedule Police Chief 12.6.2022 24 Packet Pg. 300

RESOLUTION NO. ________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL

AMENDING COMPENSATION AND/OR BENEFITS FOR UNCLASSIFIED

MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES POLICE CHIEF CLASSIFICATION AS DEFINED IN RESOLUTION 10016 AND AS DESIGNATED IN RESOLUTION 8553

WHEREAS, Title 2, Section 2.16.020 of the Campbell Municipal Code provides that the City Council may, from time to time, by resolution, change the compensation and/or benefit amendments of employees of said City, and may, by resolution, adopt salary and wage scales; and

WHEREAS, Title 2, Section 2.12.030(7) of the Campbell Municipal Code requires the City Manager to prepare and submit an annual salary plan to the City Council for its approval; and

WHEREAS, the City Council and the City of Campbell desires to adopt such salary increases and approve benefit and working condition amendments.

WHEREAS, in keeping with Campbell Personnel Rules and Regulations section 4.3.C.1, the City Counci l desires to amend the Police Chief classification salary band to mitigate the compaction between the salary of the Police Chief classification and the Police Captain classification; and

WHEREAS, the compaction between the salary of the Police Captain cla ssification and the Police Chief classification has existed since January 25, 2021; and

WHEREAS, the City Manager desires to address the compaction issue and compensate the Police Chief for any retro -active compensation due in the amount of $3,489.60 on or before December 8, 2022, for the period of January 25, 2021, to November 27, 2022,

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Campbell hereby authorizes, effective December 6, 2022, a 0.71% increase to the salary ranges of Unclassified Management Police Chief classification as defined in Resolution 10016 and as designed in Resolution 8553;

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that all other supplemental benefits and working conditi ons shall remain as established.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of December 2022, by the following roll call vote:

AYES: Councilmembers:

NOES: Councilmembers:

ABSENT: Councilmembers:

APPROVED:

Paul Resnikoff, Mayor
ATTEST:

24.a
Packet Pg. 301
Attachment: RESOLUTION - Police Chief Salary Range (Amending Classification Plan to Adjust the Salary Range of Unrepresented

Andrea Sanders, City Clerk

24.a
Packet Pg. 302
Attachment: RESOLUTION - Police Chief Salary Range (Amending Classification Plan to Adjust the Salary Range of Unrepresented Effective: 12/6/2022

CLASS CD JOB TITLE
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5
1010 POLICE CHIEF UNC02 UNCL Hourly 91.94 - - - 133.12 Bi-Weekly 7,355.20 - - - 10,649.60 Monthly 15,936.27 - - - 23,074.13 Annual 191,235.20 - - - 276,889.60 Notes:
1) Salary increases per MOU's effective July 11, 2022 (CPCEA, CMEA,CARP CONF, MGMT, UNCL, and CM) 2) CMGR incease per Resolution to address compaction
3) Police Chief Classification increase per Resolution to address compaction

CITY OF CAMPBELL

POSITION CLASSIFICATION - ALL GROUPS
FY 22/23 - SALARY SCHEDULE

STEP RANGES
Range
[Page]1

24.b
Packet Pg. 303
Attachment: City of Campbell Salary Schedule Police Chief 12.6.2022 (Amending Classification Plan to Adjust the Salary Range of Unrepresented Management) City
Council
Report
TITLE: Resolution Amending Agreement for City Manager Services (Resolution/Roll Call Vote)

RECOMMENDED ACTION
That the City Council adopt a Resolution amending the Second Amended Agreement for City Manager services, authorizing a one -time retro -active payment to the City Manager, and updating the City's Salary Schedule for the City Manager Classification.

DISCUSSION
The City of Campbell entered into an Agreement fo r City Manager Services with Brian Loventhal in December 2016. Per the terms of the Agreement, the City Council is authorized to make amendments to the compensation of the City Manager. The attached Resolution authorizes an amendment to the salary provis ions of the Agreement.

As a result of the 2022 labor negotiations, all bargaining units, including department heads, were afforded a 4% salary increase. All represented, and unrepresented labor groups receive this increase retroactively on the first full pay period after July 1, 2022.

Additionally, total compensation surveys were conducted and represented labor groups received market adjustments bringing those benchmarked classifications that were below the labor market mean to the labor market mean per City Council direction.

After labor negotiations, the Human Resources Division analyzed all salaries to determine if salary compaction was occurring to align with compensation standards and best practices. Based on the analysis, internal compaction has been occurring since January 25, 2021 with the classification of Police Chief. Per Section 4.3.C.1 of the Personnel Rules and Regulations, the City Manager’s salary must be at a minimum of 10% above the classification of all subordinates. In reviewin g the compaction compensation factors, the City Manager’s current salary does not meet this requirement. In addition, the City Manager’s current compensation package review did not include a total compensation survey of other comparable agencies in our region.

Classification Current
Step 1
Hourly
Current
Step 5
Hourly
%
Differential
Proposed
Step 1
Hourly
Proposed
Step 5
Hourly
%
Differential
Item: 25
Category: NEW BUSINESS
Meeting Date: December 6, 2022
25 Packet Pg. 304
Resolution Amending Agreement for City Manager Services Page 2 of 2 City Manager ------ $139.81 5.27% ------ $146.43 10%
Police Chief $91.29 $132.18 ------ ------ ------ ------ The attached Resolution reflects an amendment to both the Agreement for City Manager Services and the City’s Salary schedule to reflect an annual salary increase from $290,804.80 to $304,574.40 per year, or $146.43 hourly, which is at the minimum required 10% over the salary rate of the Police Chief. The attached Resolution also provides that the City will pay the City Manager a one -time payment of $8,307.20 on or before December 8, 2022, as retroactive compensation for the period of January 25, 2021 to November 27, 2022.

FISCAL IMPACT
The Agreement for City Manager Services is fully funded for Fiscal Year 2023 adopted budget at an amount that assumed annual cost of living increases, consistent with the City’s long range budget model.

At this time, staf f is not requesting a budget adjustment for FY 2023 as the proposed salary rate of the City Manager is very close to the projected salary rate for FY 2023.

However, staff will continue to evaluate all expenditures for FY 2023 and propose budget adjustments during the mid-year update in February 2023, if necessary.

ALTERNATIVES
Do not adopt the attached resolution and provide direction on alternate changes to the Agreement for City Manager Services.

Prepared by:

Jenny Le, HR Manager
Attachment:
a. CM Resolution
b. City of Campbell Salary Schedule CM Only 12.6.2022
25 Packet Pg. 305
Approved by:

Angelique Gaeta, Assistant City Manager

RESOLUTION NO. _______________

A RESOLU TION OF THE CITY COUN CIL OF THE CITY OF CAMPBELL

AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE SECOND AMENDED AGREEMENT FOR

CITY MANAGER SERVICES WITH BRIAN L OVENTHAL, AN ONE -TIME RETRO-

ACTIVE PAYMENT FOR CITY MANAGER SERVICES , AND AN AMENDMENT TO THE CITY’S SALARY SCHEDULE FOR THE CITY MANAGER CLASSIFICATION WHEREAS, the City Council appointed Br ian Loventhal as City Manager, effective December 5, 2016; and
WHEREAS, the City Department Heads have recently received compensation increases that have resulted in compens ation com paction between the Police Ch ief classification and the City Manager classification; and WHEREAS, in keeping with Campbell Personnel Rules and Regulations section

4.3.C.1, the City Council desires to am end the City Manager’s compensation to mitigate the compaction b etween the salary of the Police Chief classification and the City Manager classification; and
WHEREAS, the compaction between the salary of the Police Chief classification and the City Manager classification has existed since January 25, 2021; and WHEREAS, the City Cou ncil desires to address the compaction issue and compensate the City Manager for any retro-active compensation due.

NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council hereby au thorizes:
(1) an amendment to the Second Amended Agreement for City Manager Services with Brian Loventhal to reflect an increase in the City Manager’s salary from $290,804.80 to $304,574.40 per year commencing retroactively to the first full pay perio d in July 2022; (2) a one-time payment of $8,307.20 to be made to the City Manager on or before December 8, 2022 as retroactive c ompensation for the period of January 25, 2021 to November 27, 2022 ; and (3) an amendment to the City ’s Salary Schedule for the Cit y Manager Classification.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of December 2022, by the following roll call vote:

AYES: Councilmembers:

NOES: Councilmembers:

ABSENT: Councilmembers:

APPROVED:
_____________________
Paul Resnikoff, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________
Andrea Sanders, City Clerk

25.a
Packet Pg. 306
Attachment: CM Resolution (Resolution Amending Agreement for City Manager Services) Effective: 12/6/2022

CLASS CD JOB TITLE
Step 1 Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Step 5
1005 CITY MANAGER UNC01 CMGR Hourly 146.43 - - - - Bi-Weekly 11,714.40 - - - -
Monthly 25,381.20 - - - -
Annual 304,574.40 - - - -
Notes:
1) Salary increases per MOU's effective July 11, 2022 (CPCEA, CMEA,CARP CONF, MGMT, UNCL, and CM) 2) CMGR incease per Resolution to address compaction

CITY OF CAMPBELL

POSITION CLASSIFICATION - ALL GROUPS
FY 22/23 - SALARY SCHEDULE

STEP RANGES
Range
[Page]1

25.b
Packet Pg. 307
Attachment: City of Campbell Salary Schedule CM Only 12.6.2022 (Resolution Amending Agreement for City Manager Services) City
Council
Report
TITLE: Update to Legislative Advocacy Principles

RECOMMENDED ACTION
Consider Recommendation of the Legislative Subcommittee to Update the Legislative Advocacy Principles Policy

BACKGROUND
The Legislative Subcommittee (Subcommittee) is a standing City Council Subcommittee that reviews pending legislation to determine whether it might potentially have an impact on the City of Campbell (City). More specifically, at t he beginning of e ach calendar year, the Mayor appoints two councilmembers to serve on th e Subcommittee and, pursuant to City Council Policy 1.31–Legislative Advocacy Principles, review senate and assembly bills to determine if any could:
• Directly impact the City’s finances, responsibilities, legal authority, public safety or operations;
• Increase or decrease local revenues;
• Protect or reduce local control;
• Be consistent with existing City policy or current City Council strategic priorities; or
• Create an unfunded mandate.

In 2022, the Subcommittee met regularly, took positions on a number of senate and assembly bills and submitted position letters to the California State Legislature for consideration before legislators voted on each.

DISCUSSION
This year, during the Subcommittee’s review of pending legislation, it was observed that updates might be needed to the Legislative Advocacy Principles (Policy) to further support the City’s ability to act quickly on bills of urgent concern. As such, on October 24, 2022, the Subcommittee met and agreed that updates to the Policy, as outlined below and as provided in a red -lined version of the Policy ( Attachment A), warranted consideration by the full City Council.

Membership:

Item: 26
Category: NEW BUSINESS
Meeting Date: December 6, 2022
26 Packet Pg. 308
Update to Legislative Advocacy Principles Page 2 of 5
As mentioned, the Subcommittee is co mprised of two councilmembers. There are no alternate members assigned. This absence of alternate members presents a challenge when, for example, one of the two councilmembers assigned is unable able to attend a meeting or must recuse themself from voting, and urgent work needs to be done.

Accordingly, the Subcommittee recommended the Policy be updated to require three councilmembers be appointed as members of the Subcommittee, two to regularly serve on the Subcommittee and one to serve as an alternate.

Meeting Times:

The Policy currently provides that the Subcommittee shall meet regularly during the active legislative year of January through August. However, the legislative year actually extends through the end of September, at which time the Gove rnor must decide to sign or veto bills that come across their desk. Therefore, the Subcommittee recommended the Policy be updated to reflect the legislative year to extend from January through September of each year.

Policy Scope:

The Policy provides that the Subcommittee may take a position on pending legislation if it meets one of the following “Guiding Principles”:
• Directly impacts the City’s finances, responsibilities, legal authority, public safety or operations;
• Increases or decreases local revenues;
• Protects or reduces local control;
• Is consistent with existing City policy or current City Council strategic priorities; or
• Creates an unfunded mandate.

The Subcommittee felt it was important for members to also focus on bills that fell within one of the following “Legislative Priorities”:
• General Administration;
• Municipal Revenue;
• Land Use (Housing);
• Public Works;
• Environment;
• Economic Development;
• Library Services;
• Education; or
• Human Rights.
26 Packet Pg. 309
Update to Legislative Advocacy Principles Page 3 of 5
These priorities align with those identified by the Ci ties Association of Santa Clara County (CASCC) and with the Subcommittee’s existing work and focus.

Objectives:

The Policy also requires the Subcommittee to inform the public of the City’s position on pending legislation by posting a copy of the position statement on the City’s website.

The Subcommittee recommended that the updates also be given at the City Council meetings.

Process:

The Policy sets forth a limited process for supporting or opposing bills that includes staff preparation of position letters for the Mayor’s signature, submission of the position letter to the federal, state or regional body that is considering the bill, and provision of a copy of the letter to the full City Council.

The Subcommittee recommended more robust language to c over, in detail, the process the Subcommittee must follow and work through with City staff to shepherd relevant bills and ensure they reach appropriate senators and assemblymembers, including, among other things:
• Requiring the Subcommittee to, at the firs t meeting of the calendar year, review the Legislative Priorities and decide, by consensus, to:
o Recommend to the City Council that changes be made to the Legislative Priorities; or
o Direct staff to track specific bills related to any of the Legislative Pr iorities that meet the Guiding Principles;
• Requiring City staff, by the second meeting of the calendar year, to prepare a matrix of bills that fall within the Legislative Priorities and meet the Guiding Principles;
• Requiring that the matrix include: the bill number, the author(s) of the bill, when the bill is next scheduled for hearing/action, a summary of what the bill proposes to do, and whether the bill is supported or opposed by the League, CASCC, or the City;
• Requiring the Subcommittee to meet and discuss the bills included in the matrix and, upon consensus, decide whether to:
o Direct staff to develop a position statement either opposing or supporting a specific bill; or
o Adopt a position statement authored by another public agency or an association that collaborates across local governments, i.e., CASCC or the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG);
26 Packet Pg. 310
Update to Legislative Advocacy Principles Page 4 of 5
• Requiring the City staff to include in any position statement the City’s position and potential impacts the bill can have on Campbell and tho se who live in, work in, and visit the City;
• Requiring the City staff to prepare the directed position statement for either the Mayor’s or the Chair’s signature, depending on their availability; • Requiring the City staff to provide members of the City Cou ncil with a copy of the statement;
• Requiring the City staff to, at the conclusion of the legislative calendar year, inform the City Council of any legislation that was signed into law and will impact City operations; and
• Requiring the City staff to info rm the City Council on the status of pending bills at least twice during the Legislative Session.

Recusal & Membership In Other Associations:

The Policy is silent on the subjects of Subcommittee members’ participation on other committees or associations a nd recusal. The Subcommittee recommended the following language be added to the Policy to address each:
• “When a Subcommittee member recuses themself from discussing or acting on a particular bill, the remaining Subcommittee member may consult with the alternate Subcommittee member on that, and only that, specific legislation for possible consensus and/or action.”
• “It is anticipated that the City’s representative on CASCC’s Legislative Subcommittee will vote as a member of CASCC on legislation brought be fore CASCC. The City’s CASCC representative is authorized to vote on all legislation brought before CASCC if it meets the Legislative Priorities and Guiding Principles outlined in this policy, even if the Subcommittee has yet to act on the legislation.”
The above updates to the Policy were recommended by the Subcommittee and are supported by City staff in order to achieve the City’s objectives of actively advocating, protecting, and advancing the City’s interests as new legislation is developed at various levels of government. The updates also recognize the importance of being able to act quickly to address areas of urgent concern which may arise without much notice during the legislative process. Accordingly staff recommends the City Council approve the recommended updates to the Policy, as shown in Attachment A.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact related to the adoption of the updated Policy. Implementation 26 Packet Pg. 311
Update to Legislative Advocacy Principles Page 5 of 5
of any additional processes recommended by the Subcommittee will be absorbed by the responsibilities of the City Manager’s Office.

ALTERNATIVES

1. Adopt the updates to the Policy.

2. Provide alternate language to include in the Policy.

3. Do not adopt the updated Policy and provide other direction.

Prepared by:

Angelique Gaeta, Assistant City Manager
Approved by:

Brian Loventhal, City Manager
Attachment:
a. Redlined Legislative Advocacy Principles Policy
b. Clean Legislative Advocacy Principles Policy
26 Packet Pg. 312
Rev. 7/9/202012/6/22
SECTION 1.31 LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY PRINCIPLES
I. PURPOSE
The purpose of establishing these “ lLegislative aAdvocacy pPrinciples” is to authorize a City of Campbell's (City) position on a legislative bills in a timely manner.

As more fully set forth below, Tthese principles will allow the City’s Legislative Subcommittee (Subcommittee) to consider pending legislativeon bills toand determine if itthey falls within the City Council's adopted Legislative Priorities and Guiding pPrinciples, thereby allowing the City, through the Subcommittee, to issue a position statement without taking the pending legislation tobefore the full City Council. If the Subcommittee wishes to issue a position statement on the legislationa bill that the City Manager determines does not fall within the Legislative Priorities or Guiding Principlesguidelines, the City Manager shall recommend it will be taken to City Council for discussion and direction, in accordance with City Council Policy 1.10 -- Legislation.

II. ROLE OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE
a. The Subcommittee shall be comprised of a total of three City Councilmembers, two who shall regularly serve as members of the Subcommittee and one who shall serve as an alternate. All Subcommittee members shall be appointed by the Mayor each calendar year. It is recommended that the Councilmember appointed to represent Campbell on the Cities Association of Santa Clara County’s (CASCC) Legislative Action Committee also be appointed as a regular member of the Subcommittee to provide continuity of information and knowledge of legislation advocacy.
b. The Legislative Subcommittee (Subcommittee) shall meet regularly during the active legislative year (January through AugustSeptember), orand additionally asif needed. For ease of reference, the legislative calendars for the California State Senate and the California State Assembly can be found at the following links:
https://www.senate.ca.gov/legdeadlines
https://www.assembly.ca.gov/legislativedeadlines
c. The Subcommittee shall meet, and shall review and may take action on Sstate legislation, ballot measures, and positions to take on specific

26.a
Packet Pg. 313
Attachment: Redlined Legislative Advocacy Principles Policy (Update to Legislative Advocacy Principles) Rev. 7/9/202012/6/22

senate and assembly bills. The Subcommittee can recommend to the City Council a legislative and policy platform that establishes the City’s legislative priorities for that calendar year.

The two members of the Subcommittee are appointed by the Mayor each calendar year. It is recommended that the Councilmember appointed to represent the City of Campbell on the Cities Association of Santa Clara County Legislative Action Committee is also appointed as one member of the Subcommittee in order to provide continuity of information and knowledge of legislation advocacy.

III. POLICY SCOPE

The Subcommittee may take a position on proposed legislative billson if such bills legislation: is consistent with the following guiding principles

a. Fall within one of the following “Legislative Priorities”:

• General Administration;
• Municipal Revenue;
• Land Use (Housing);
• Public Works;
• Environment;
• Economic Development;
• Library Services;
• Education; or
• Human Rights;1 and

a.b. Meet one of the following “Guiding Principles”:

• Directly impacts the City’s finances, responsibilities, legal authority, public safety or operations;
• Increases or decreases local revenues;
• Protects or reduces local control;
• Is consistent with existing City policy or current City Council strategic priorities; or
• Creates an unfunded mandate.

IV. OBJECTIVES

1 When considering appropriate categories to be included in “Legislative Priorities,” the Subcommittee may review CASCC’s Legislative Guiding Principles found at: www.citiesassociation.org.

26.a
Packet Pg. 314
Attachment: Redlined Legislative Advocacy Principles Policy (Update to Legislative Advocacy Principles) Rev. 7/9/202012/6/22

a. Advocate the City’s legislative position at the federal, state, regional and county levels.

b. Inform and provide information to legislators of the potential impacts that key legislation would have on the City of Campbell.

c. Work cooperatively with other local governments, the League of California Cities (League), the CASCCities Association of Santa Clara County , and other professional organizations on legislative issues that may impact the City and region.

d. Actively track bills through their legislative process.

e. Proactively meet with legislators and their representatives to discuss local government issues, and proposed legislation.

e.f. Proactively meet with legislators and their representatives to pursue, and potential funding requests for City of Campbell programs and services.

f.g. To i Inform the public of the City of Campbell ’s position on proposed legislation through timely Subcommittee updates at City Council meeting s and through the posting of City position statements on the City’s website.

V. PROCESS

a. At the first meeting of the calendar year, the Subcommittee will review the Legislative Priorities listed in section III.a. and may decide, by consensus, to do any of the following:

1. Recommend to the City Council that changes be made to the Legislative Priorities; or

2. Direct staff to track specific bills related to any of the Legislative Priorities that meet the Guiding Principles.

b. By the second meeting of the calendar year, staff will prepare a matrix of bills that fall within the Legislative Priorities and meet the Guiding Principles. This matrix shall include the following: the bill number, the author(s) of the bill, when the bill is next scheduled for hearing/action, a summary of what the bill proposes to do, and whether the bill is supported or opposed by the League, CASCC, or the City. Staff shall update this matrix as appropriate for Subcommittee consideration and action.

c. The Subcommittee shall meet and discuss the bills included in the matrix and, upon consensus, may:

26.a
Packet Pg. 315
Attachment: Redlined Legislative Advocacy Principles Policy (Update to Legislative Advocacy Principles) Rev. 7/9/202012/6/22

• Direct staff to develop a position statement either opposing or supporting a specific bill (with or without amendments); or • Adopt a position statement authored by another public agency or an association that collaborates across local governments, i.e., CASCC or the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG).

d. Any position statement drafted by staff at the direction of the Subcommittee shall outline the City’s position and shall identify the potential impacts the bill can have on Campbell and those who live in, work inin, own a business in, and visit the City.

a.e. Staff will prepare the directed position letterstatement for either the Mayor’s or the Chair’s signature, depending on their availability on a legislative proposal that may impact the City of Campbell based on the guiding principles in Section III. The letter shall outline the City’s position and shall identify the potential impacts the legislation will have to the City of Campbell.

f. Once signed, Tthe position letterstatements shall be submitted by staff via the established process of the federal, state, or regional body that is receiving the letterstatement. Additionally, members of the City Council shall receive a copy of the statementletter and a copy letter posted to the City of Campbell’s website.

g. At the conclusion of the legislative calendar year, staff will inform the City Council of any legislation that was signed into law and will impact City operations.

b.h. City staff shall inform the City Council on the status of pending bills at least twice during the Legislative Session.

VI. RECUSAL & MEMBERSHIP IN OTHER ASSOCIATIONS

a. When a Subcommittee member recuses themself from discussing or acting on a particular bill, the remaining Subcommittee member may consult with the alternate Subcommittee member on that, and only that, specific legislation for possible consensus and/or action.

b. It is anticipated that the City’s representative on other legislative committees or subcommittees, including CASCC’s Legislative Subcommittee, will vote as a member of those respective committees and subcommittees on legislation brought before them. The City’s representative on those committees and subcommittees is authorized to vote on all legislation brought before them if it meets the Legislative

26.a
Packet Pg. 316
Attachment: Redlined Legislative Advocacy Principles Policy (Update to Legislative Advocacy Principles) Rev. 7/9/202012/6/22

Priorities and Guiding Principles outlined in this policy, even if the Subcommittee has yet to act on the legislation.

26.a
Packet Pg. 317
Attachment: Redlined Legislative Advocacy Principles Policy (Update to Legislative Advocacy Principles) Rev. 12/6/22

SECTION 1.31 LEGISLATIVE ADVOCACY PRINCIPLES

I. PURPOSE

The purpose of establishing these “Legislative Advocacy Principles” is to authorize a City of Campbell (City) position on legislative bills in a timely manner. As more fully set forth below, these principles will allow the City’s Legislative Subcommittee (Subcommittee) to consider legislative bills and determine if they fall within the City Council's adopted Legislative Priorities and Guiding Principles, thereby allowing the City, through the Subcommittee, to issue a position statement without taking the pending legislation before the full City Council. If the Subcommittee wishes to issue a position statement on a bill that the City Manager determines does not fall within the Legislative Priorities or Guiding Principles, the City Manager shall recommend it be taken to City Council for discussion and direction, in accordance with City Council Policy 1.10 -- Legislation.

II. ROLE OF THE SUBCOMMITTEE

a. The Subcommittee shall be comprised of a total of three City Councilmembers, two who shall regularly serve as members of the Subcommittee and one who shall serve as an alternate. All Subcommittee members shall be appointed by the Mayor each calendar year. It is recommended that the Councilmember appointed to represent Campbell on the Cities Association of Santa Clara County’s (CASCC) Legislative Action Committee also be appointed as a regular member of the Subcommittee to provide continuity of information and knowledge of legislation advocacy.

b. The Subcommittee shall meet regularly during the active legislative year (January through September), and additionally if needed. For ease of reference, the legislative calendars for the California State Senate and the California State Assembly can be found at the following links:

https://www.senate.ca.gov/legdeadlines
https://www.assembly.ca.gov/legislativedeadlines

c. The Subcommittee shall meet, and shall review and may take action on state legislation, ballot measures, and senate and assembly bills.

26.b
Packet Pg. 318
Attachment: Clean Legislative Advocacy Principles Policy (Update to Legislative Advocacy Principles) Rev. 12/6/22

III. POLICY SCOPE

The Subcommittee may take a position on legislative bills if such bills:

a. Fall within one of the following “Legislative Priorities”:

• General Administration;
• Municipal Revenue;
• Land Use (Housing);
• Public Works;
• Environment;
• Economic Development;
• Library Services;
• Education; or
• Human Rights;1 and

b. Meet one of the following “Guiding Principles”:

IV. OBJECTIVES

a. Advocate the City’s legislative position at the federal, state, regional and county levels.

b. Inform and provide information to legislators of the potential impacts that key legislation would have on the City.

c. Work cooperatively with other local governments, the League of California Cities (League), CASCC, and other professional organizations on legislative issues that may impact the City and region.

d. Actively track bills through their legislative process.

e. Proactively meet with legislators and their representatives to discuss local government issues, and proposed legislation.

1 When considering appropriate categories to be included in “Legislative Priorities,” the Subcommittee may review CASCC’s Legislative Guiding Principles found at: www.citiesassociation.org.

26.b
Packet Pg. 319
Attachment: Clean Legislative Advocacy Principles Policy (Update to Legislative Advocacy Principles) Rev. 12/6/22

f. Proactively meet with legislators and their representatives to pursue potential funding for City programs and services.

g. Inform the public of the City’s position on proposed legislation through timely Subcommittee updates at City Council meetings and through the posting of City position statements on the City’s website.

V. PROCESS

a. At the first meeting of the calendar year, the Subcommittee will review the Legislative Priorities listed in section III.a. and may decide, by consensus, to do any of the following:

1. Recommend to the City Council that changes be made to the Legislative Priorities; or

2. Direct staff to track specific bills related to any of the Legislative Priorities that meet the Guiding Principles.

c. The Subcommittee shall meet and discuss the bills included in the matrix and, upon consensus, may:

e. Staff will prepare the directed position statement for either the Mayor’s or the Chair’s signature, depending on their availability.

f. Once signed, the position statements shall be submitted by staff via the established process of the federal, state, or regional body that is receiving

26.b
Packet Pg. 320
Attachment: Clean Legislative Advocacy Principles Policy (Update to Legislative Advocacy Principles) Rev. 12/6/22

the statement. Additionally, members of the City Council shall receive a copy of the statement.

g. At the conclusion of the legislative calendar year, staff will inform the City Council of any legislation that was signed into law and will impact City operations.

h. City staff shall inform the City Council on the status of pending bills at least twice during the Legislative Session.

VI. RECUSAL & MEMBERSHIP IN OTHER ASSOCIATIONS

26.b
Packet Pg. 321
Attachment: Clean Legislative Advocacy Principles Policy (Update to Legislative Advocacy Principles) City
Council
Report
TITLE: Response to 2022 Civil Grand Jury Report on Ballot Measure Language

RECOMMENDED ACTION
That the City Council authorize the Mayor to submit, on behalf of the City Council, the attached letter as the City’s response to the 2022 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report, “If You Only Read the Ballot, You’re Being Duped.”

BACKGROUND
The 2022 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury (“Civil Grand Jury”) is an investi gative arm of the judicial branch of government consisting of 19 members of the public, appointed by a Superior Court Judge, for a one -year term. The primary function of the Civil Grand Jury is devoted to “civil watchdog responsibilities” including analyzing procedures, methods and systems utilized by county/city government to determine whether more efficient and economical programs may be employed . During its term, the Civil Grand Jury may issue report(s) with findings of encountered problems and recommendations for solutions.

Pursuant to California Penal Code (CPC) Section 933(c), the City Council must comment on the findings and recommendations of a Civil Grand Jury report within 90 days of the release of the Civil Grand Jury report. Furthermore, and pu rsuant to CPC §933.05, the response shall indicate the City’s agreement or disagreement (wholly or partially) with the findings, specifying the portion of the finding that is disputed with an explanation of the reasons therefor. The City shall also indicat e when t he recommendation has or has not been implemented, with a summary regarding the implemented action or timeframe for implementation. Alternatively, the City could explain why the recommendation requires further analysis or that the recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. If additional analysis is desired, the City shall provide an explanation, scope and parameters of the analysis, and a timeframe for the matter to be prepared for discussion (not to exceed six months from the date of publication of the Civil Grand Jury report).

DISCUSSION
The 2022 Civil Grand Jury Report , “If You Only Read the Ballot, You’re Being Duped” (Attachment B) investigated the language of ballot measure questions submitted by Item: 27
Category: NEW BUSINESS
Meeting Date: December 6, 2022
27 Packet Pg. 322
Response to Civil Grand Jury Page 2 of 4
City, County and local government entities of Santa Clara County. Pursuant to the Penal Code, the Grand Jury requests that the City of Campbell respond to finding 1 and recommendations 1b,1c and 1e. The finding and recommendations, along with the City’s draft responses, are included below and in Attachment A. In addition, the City’s responses to each have been drafted in accordance with the requirements of California Penal Code § 933.05.

Finding 1
The Civil Grand Jury finds that in the current enviro nment, which is unregulated at the local level, it is easy for the author of a ballot measure question to write the question in a way that is confusing or misleading to voters.

Response: Partially Agree
While the language of ballot measure questions are subject to some degree of discretion.

The City disagrees that misleading wording is because of a lack of regulation at the local level. As the report points out that the official who drafts the ballot question “shall give a true and impartial statement o f the purpose of the measure in such language that the ballot title and summary shall neither be an argument, nor be likely to create prejudice, for or against the proposed measure” (Elec. C. §9051(c)).

Recommendation 1b
Governing entities within Santa C lara County should voluntarily submit their ballot questions to the County Counsel for review prior to submission to the Registrar of Voters, unless and until Recommendation 1d is implemented.

Response: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted The trust of voters is a tremendous incentive for local agencies to adopt clear ballot language. The City of Campbell is committed to transparency in governance including conducting meetings open to the public to approve ballot questio n language. The process to develop and approve the submittal of a ballot question includes the review of professional staff and the City Attorney to ensure the language conforms with the law. This process of review allows the City to address problematic l anguage while still recognizing community priorities and values in a manner that it easy to understand.

Recommendation 1c
Governing entities within Santa Clara County should, by March 31, 2023, adopt their own resolution or ordinance to require submissio n of their ballot questions to the County Counsel for review prior to submission to the Registrar of Voters, unless and until Recommendations 1d and 1e are implemented.

Response: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted 27 Packet Pg. 323
Response to Civil Grand Jury Page 3 of 4
The City of Campbell is committed to transparency in governance including conducting meetings open to the public to approve ballot question language. The process to develop and approve the submittal of a ballot question includes the review of professional sta ff and the City Attorney to ensure the language conforms with the law. This process of review allows the City to address problematic language while still recognizing community priorities and values in a manner that it easy to understand.

Additionally, the existing statutory deadlines make it challenging to accommodate additional reviews, meetings and determinations by County Counsel to enforce existing law.

Recommendation 1e
Governing entities within Santa Clara County should submit their ballot que stions for review by the Good Governance in Ballots Commission pursuant to Recommendation 1d.

Response: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted The formation of a Good Governance in Ballots Commission with advisory powers to recommend ballot language would eliminate the ability of local elected officials to address local priorities and values in a ma nner that reflects the local community.

Existing law requires that ballot measures give a true and impartial statement of the purpose of the measure in such language that the ballot title and summary shall neither be an argument, nor be likely to create prejudice, for or against the proposed measure.

It is not warranted to create additional processes through an independent comm ission to ensure the existing requirements of the law are met. Campbell’s existing process affords the City the ability to address problematic language in an efficient manner, while still meeting statutory deadlines.

FISCAL IMPACTS
There are no fisca l impacts associated with staff’s recommendation contained in this Council Report.

ALTERNATIVES
1) Modify the letter and responses to the Civil Grand Jury; or 2) Provide other direction to staff.

Prepared by:

Brian Loventhal, City Manager
27 Packet Pg. 324
Response to Civil Grand Jury Page 4 of 4
Reviewed by:

Angelique Gaeta, Assistant City
Manager
Attachment:
a. 2022 Civil Grand Jury Response Letter
b. If You Only Read the Ballot, You’re Being Duped_10.07.2022 27 Packet Pg. 325
December 7, 2022
Honorable Beth McGowen
2023 Presiding Judge
Superior Court of California
County of Santa Clara
191 North First Street
San Jose, CA 95113
RE: Response to the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Rep ort, “If You Only Read the Ballot, You’re Being Duped” Dated October 7, 2022 Dear Honorable Judge McGowen,
The City of Campbell thanks you and the members of the Civil Grand Jury for your work on this important topic. Attached, p lease find the City’s response to the San ta Clara Civil Grand Jury Report, “If You Only Read the Ballot, You’re Being Duped.” The response was reviewed and approved by the Campbell City Council on December 6, 202 2. The attached document contains the City’s responses to Fi nding 1 and to Recommendations 1b, 1c and 1e.

If you have any questions, please contact Brian Loventhal, City Manager at [email protected] or (408) 866-2125.

Sincerely,
Paul Resnikoff
Mayor

27.a
Packet Pg. 326
Attachment: 2022 Civil Grand Jury Response Letter (Response to Civil Grand Jury) City of Campbell Response to the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report

Attachment: City of Campbell Response t o the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report

cc: City of Campbell City Council
Foreperson, 2022 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury
Clerk of the Santa Clara County Superior Court

27.a
Packet Pg. 327
Attachment: 2022 Civil Grand Jury Response Letter (Response to Civil Grand Jury) City of Campbell Response to the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report

Finding 1

The Civil Grand Jury find s that in the current environment, which is unregulated at the local level, it is easy for the author of a ballot measure question to write the question in a way that is confusing or misleading to voters.

Response: Partially Agree

While the language of ballot measure questions is subject to some degree of discretion. The City disagrees that misleading wording is because of a lack of regulation at the local level.

As the report points out that the official who drafts the ballot question “shall give a t rue and impartial statement of the purpose of the measure in such language that the ballot title and summary shall neither be an argument, nor be likely to create prejudice, for or against the proposed measure” (Elec. C. §9051(c)).

Recommendation 1b
Governing entities within Santa Clara County should voluntarily submit their ballot questions to the County Counsel for review prior to submission to the Registrar of Voters, unless and until Recommendation 1d is implemented.

Response: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted The trust of v oters is a tremendous incentive for local agencies to adopt clear ballot language. The City of Campbell is commit ted to transparency in govern ance including conducting meetings open to the public to approve ballot question language. The process to develop and approve the submittal of a ballot question includes the review of professional staff and the City Attorney to ensure the language conforms with the law . This process of review allows the City to address problematic language while still recognizing community priorities and values in a manner that it easy to understand

Recommendation 1c
Governing entities within Santa Clara County should, by March 31, 2023, adopt their own resolution or ordinance to require submission of their ballot questions to the County Counsel for review prior to submission to the Registrar of Voters, unless and until Recommendations 1d and 1e are implemented.

Response: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted The City of Campbell is commit ted to transparency in govern ance including conducting meetings open to t he public to approve ballot question language. The process to develop and approve the submittal of a ballot question includes the revi ew of professional staff and the City Attorney to ensure the language con forms with the law . This process of review allows the City to address problematic language while still recognizing community priorities and values in a manner that it easy to understand.

Additionally, the existing statutory deadlines make it challenging to accommodate additional reviews, meetings and determinations by County Counsel to enforce existing law.

27.a
Packet Pg. 328
Attachment: 2022 Civil Grand Jury Response Letter (Response to Civil Grand Jury) City of Campbell Response to the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report

Recommendation 1e
Governing entities within Santa Clara County should submit their ballot questions for review by the Good Governance in Ballots Commission pursuant to Recommendation 1d.

Response: The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted

The formation of a Good Governance in Ballots Commission with advisory powers to recommend ballot language would eliminate the ability of local elected officials to ad dress local priorities and values in a manor that reflects the local community. Existing law requires that ballot measures give a t rue and impart ial statement of the purpose of the measure in such language that the ballot title and summary shall neither be an argument, nor be likely to create prejudice, for or against the proposed measure . It is not warranted to create additional processes through an independent commission to ensure the exi sting requirements of the l aw are met. Campbell’s existing process affords a public process t o address problematic language in an efficient manner, while still meeting statutory deadlines.

27.a
Packet Pg. 329
Attachment: 2022 Civil Grand Jury Response Letter (Response to Civil Grand Jury) Release date here Page 0 of 23

IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT,
YOU’RE BEING DUPED
2022 Santa Clara County
Civil Grand Jury
October 7, 2022

27.b
Packet Pg. 330
Attachment: If You Only Read the Ballot, You’re Being Duped_10.07.2022 (Response to Civil Grand Jury)

Page 1 of 23 ends

IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED

TABLE OF CONTENTS
GLOSSARY AND ABBREVIATIONS..........................................................................................2 SUMMARY .....................................................................................................................................4 BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................................5 METHODOLOGY ..........................................................................................................................6 INVESTIGATION ...........................................................................................................................6 CONCLUSION ..............................................................................................................................16 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS..................................................................................17 REQUIRED RESPONSES ............................................................................................................19 REFERENCES ..............................................................................................................................21

27.b
Packet Pg. 331
Attachment: If You Only Read the Ballot, You’re Being Duped_10.07.2022 (Response to Civil Grand Jury)

Page 2 of 23 ends

IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED

GLOSSARY AND ABBREVIATIONS

Attorney General The chief law officer who represents a state in legal proceedings.

Ballot Card The printed ballot, usually on high-grade paper, consisting of the ballot questions and names of individuals running for elected office.

Ballot Measure Ballot measures are proposals, usually at a county or local level, to enact new laws or repeal existing laws, which are placed on the ballot for approval or rejection by the
electorate.

Ballot Proposition

Ballot propositions are proposals, usually at the state level, to enact new laws or constitutional amendments or repeal existing laws or constitutional amendments, which are
placed on the ballot for approval or rejection by the
electorate.

Ballot Question or Ballot
Label

Boards and Commissions

For purposes of this report, Ballot Question or Ballot
Label means the 75- word or less statement of a measure that precedes “Yes” or “No” on the ballot card.

Boards and Commissions are made up of residents who
volunteer their time and expertise to assist and advi se governing bodies in the chosen capacity.

Caselaw

Law or legal precedent established by the outcome of
court cases.

County Counsel or Office of
the County Counsel

The County Counsel is the chief legal advisor and
representative for the county, including the county board of supervisors and all county agencies and departments.

Elections Code

A collection of California laws related to public elections.

27.b
Packet Pg. 332
Attachment: If You Only Read the Ballot, You’re Being Duped_10.07.2022 (Response to Civil Grand Jury)

Page 3 of 23 ends

IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED

Governing Entity

A jurisdiction such as a city, county, school district, special district, or political subdivision.

Home Rule

The right of self -government that is granted by state
constitution or statute to give autonomy to a local
government. Home Rule implies that each level of
government has a separate realm of authority.

Public Opinion Pollsters

Registrar of Voters

Opinion polls are designed to represent the opinions o f a population by conducting a series of questions and then extrapolating generalities in ratio or within confidence intervals. A person who conducts polls is referred to as a pollster.

The department responsible for the operation,
administration, and direction of the elections department, with primary responsibility for the registration of voters, the holding of elections , and all matters pertaining to elections.

Single Subject Rule

Per Article II, Section 8(d) of the California Constitution, “An initiative measure embracing more than one subject
may not be submitted to the electors or have any effect.” Essentially, the rule stands for the notion that where an initiative embraces more than one subject, it can neither be submitted to, nor enacted by, the voters.

Term Limits

A specified number of terms (in years) that a person in office is allowed to serve.

Writ of Mandate

In California, writs of mandate are used by superior courts, courts of appeal , and the Supreme Court to command
lower bodies, including both courts and government
agencies, to do or not to do certain things.

27.b
Packet Pg. 333
Attachment: If You Only Read the Ballot, You’re Being Duped_10.07.2022 (Response to Civil Grand Jury)

Page 4 of 23 ends

IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED

SUMMARY

It is not uncommon for the public to be confronted daily with news and information through multiple sources —tradi tional television programming, 24/7 cable news, satellite radio, social media, and phone alerts. In the context of elections, voters’ busy lives can be overwhelmed with many different voices. County and state voter information guides are required by law to be mailed to every registered voter, but voters today do not have a lot of time to read these resources. As a result, the ballot measure question printed on the ballot itself becomes a key factor in the outcome of an election.

There is an expectation in California law that ballot questions be drafted in a manner that is not false, misleading, or partial to one side.1 But there are ways to work around it. Among the fifty or so jurisdictions in Santa Clara County that are eligible to put forth a ballot measure, the 2022 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury (Civil Grand Jury) has seen ballot question language that is confusing, advocacy-oriented, or simply dishonest. Yes, sometimes voters are being deceived.

Many voters cannot compr ehend the complicated language or the implications of that "yes” or "no” vote. In a perfect world, voters would have the luxury of time to research these issues. In reality, however, voters almost always rely on the language of the ballot measure question itself.

What can be done about this ? The Civil Grand Jury proposes an oversight person or body, one who has taken an oath to act with integrity, is well versed in the requirements of the law, and is empowered to review and to reject ballot question wording that is false, misleading, or partial to one side. Santa Clara C ounty should have a climate whereby governing entities in Santa Clara County are discouraged from using dishonest or deceitful wording in a ballot question, especially when they know it will be reviewed and could be rejected. In so doing, due process will be strengthened. With clearer writing, ballot measure questions will be more tr ansparent and straightforward, which will lead to a better perception of government by the voters. It is time to remove impediments to good governance.

1 California Elections Code section 10403 requires a ballot question to “conform to this code governing the wording of propositions submitted to the voters at a statewide election.” The California Elections Code contains Section 9051, which provides that in a statewide election the ballot title and summary of an initiative or referendum must be a “true and impartial statement of the purpose of the measure in such language that the ballot title and summary shall neither be an argument, nor be likely to create prejudice, for or against the proposed measure.” (Elec. C. §9051(c); see also, McDonough v. Superior Ct. (2012) 204 Cal. App. 4th 1169, 1172.)

27.b
Packet Pg. 334
Attachment: If You Only Read the Ballot, You’re Being Duped_10.07.2022 (Response to Civil Grand Jury)

Page 5 of 23 ends

IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED

BACKGROUND

Ballot measures or ballot propositions are proposals to enact new laws or constitutional amendments or to repeal existing laws or constitutional amendments. They are placed on the ballot for approval or rejection by the voting public. The words “ballot mea sures” are often used by county, city, and local governing entities, whereas at the state level, the California State Legislature uses the term “ballot propositions ” to refer to the same concept. The ballot measure question, which is the subject of this report, refers to the maximum 75-word text that precedes the “Yes” or “No” selection on the ballot card itself. Because most voters never read beyond what is printed on the ballot card, it is of critical importance that ballot measure questions be concise, a ccurate, and impartial.

Recently, two local newspaper articles highlighted the tactics that governing entities have used to manipulate voters:
• Borenstein, Daniel, Tricks California Local Officials Use To Trick Voters, Bay Area News Group, January 21, 2022.
• Mercury News and East Bay Times Editorial Boards, Stop Deceiving Bay Area Voters on Local Tax Measure Costs, June 26, 2020, updated September 5, 2020.

As part of its charge, the Civil Grand Jury is responsible for identifying areas within local government that lack good governance or practices. This Civil Grand Jury identified as a problem the choice of wording used in local ballot measure questions. Specifically, the C ivil Grand Jury discovered that some local governing entities presenting measures for a public vote create ballot questions that are purposefully misleading so they may obtain their desired result. In particular, it was noted that the wording of a ballot question from the June 2022 election, although representing a relatively simple issue, created confusion among the public. When voters found out what the text of the measure actually meant, they felt deceived by the wording of the ballot question. Deception in ballot questions is worth the attention of the Civil Grand Jury. This problem must be remediated to reinstate good governance in the election process.

27.b
Packet Pg. 335
Attachment: If You Only Read the Ballot, You’re Being Duped_10.07.2022 (Response to Civil Grand Jury)

Page 6 of 23 ends

IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED

METHODOLOGY

The Civil Grand Jury used the following investigative methods:
• Interviews with ten individuals who are well versed in the intricacies of the election process and experts in political science and local governments
• Three published Civil Grand Jury reports: 2021-22 Alameda County, 2021-22 Santa Cruz County, 2021 Santa Clara County
• Editorials from local and regional newspapers: Mercury News, Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle
• Close reviews of ballot measures, past and upcoming, from the counties of San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, and the City and County of San Francisco • Legal research of court challenges involving ballot questions

INVESTIGATION

Throughout this report, the Civil Grand Jury wa s interested only in the process of ballot measure question drafting, not the substance of the underlying ballot measure itself. In its research and analysis, the Civil Grand Jury does not examine the merits of the measure, but rather whether the question as drafted is truthful, impartial, and fair . Ballot questions must conform to statutory requirements and should provide voters with sufficient information and transparency to make informed decisions.

A straightforward ballot question can be summarized this way: A vote for “Yes” means yes and a vote for “No” means no. Unfortunately, it is common for ballot questions to be presented whereby a vote for “Yes” actually means no, and vice versa. T his wording is arguably confusing. Inching farther away from confusing questions, the research performed by the C ivil Grand Jury found ballot questions that are even worse—they are misleading.

Santa Clara Valley Water District’s Measure A

During the last election in June 2022, the question for Measure A put forth by the Santa Clara Valley Water District (Water District) employed such a tactic:

Shall the measure amending the Santa Clara Valley Water District Ordinance 11- 01 to limit Board members to four successive four-year terms be adopted?

The Water District had term limits already in place for board members to serve three four -year terms, or 12 years at most. Measure A sought to increase term limits to four four-year terms, or 16 years at most. However, the ballot question hid the fact that a term limit was already in place; it

27.b
Packet Pg. 336
Attachment: If You Only Read the Ballot, You’re Being Duped_10.07.2022 (Response to Civil Grand Jury)

Page 7 of 23 ends

IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED

asked voters whether a term limit of four terms should be adopted, thereby couching the question as a measure to adopt term limits generally, which one political science expert described to the Civil Grand Jury as a concept widely favorable to the voting public. The ballot question did not reflect what the Water District wanted to do. The Water District wanted to extend term limits, but it wrote the ballot question without using the words “extend,” “change,” or “increase.” Instead, the Water District characterized the ballot measure as setting term limits, which is a mischaracterization of what Measure A was actually about.

Further, it is notable that in November 1998, the County of Santa Clara placed a substantially similar measure on the ballot using the same tactic. Measure E asked:

Shall the County of Santa Clara amend section 202 to limit the number of terms a member of the Board of Supervisors may serve to three terms, consisting of four years each?

Again, the ballot question failed to inform the reader that each member of the County of Santa Clara Board of Supervisors was already limited to two terms and that the ballot measure proposed to extend years served, not “limit” them. By not being transparent, this tactic of ballot question drafting is tantamount to a lie by omission; it borders on deceiving the public. From Measure E in 1998 to Measure A this year, 24 years later, the climate has not changed.

Regulations that Govern Ballot Questions

Sections 9100-9190 of the California Elections Code specifically address county- level elections.

Other sections of the Elections Code, while they do not specifically address county-level elections, have import and therefore apply as well. The County of Santa Clara has not enacted local ordinance code provisions regarding ballot question language.

Under the Elections Code, the wording of a ballot measure must state the ballot question, or what the Elections Code calls the “label,” in 75 words or less (Elec. C. §9051(b), §10403, §13247). The ballot question must state “the nature” of the measure (Elec. C. §13120). The official who drafts the ballot question “shall give a true and impartial statement of the purpose of the measure in such language that the ballot title and summary shall neither be an argument, nor be likely to create prejudice, for or against the proposed measure” (Elec. C. §9051(c)). In other words, ballot measure questions shall not be false, misleading, or partial to one side.

Who is Responsible for Writing Ballot Questions?

Today, ballot questions are rarely written “from scratch.” Residing in the public domain are hundreds, if not thousands, of boilerplate questions spanning the universe of issues typically faced by government and public agencies. Putting a measure on the ba llot usually starts with selecting

27.b
Packet Pg. 337
Attachment: If You Only Read the Ballot, You’re Being Duped_10.07.2022 (Response to Civil Grand Jury)

Page 8 of 23 ends

IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED

an existing template, preferably one that had been used successfully within a reasonable timeframe and geographic proximity to the one at hand. Tweaks are then made to the chosen template to fit the measure being proposed.

Governing entities are ultimately responsible for approving the final text of the ballot question, but the actual selection of words is often the calculated and carefully calibrated work product of hired election experts, consultants, and attorneys. These outside consultants often rely on public opinion pollsters to determine the type of proposal and wording to put before voters that would achieve the desired outcome. Often, this includes using “feel good” wording that is shown to resonate with voters: “reduce crime;” “funds spent locally;” “all money locally controlled;” and “with citizen oversight.” Results from public opinion polls often dictate the structure and selection of words used within the ballot question, which is then voted on and, if successful, adopted by the governing body such as a city council, a county board of supervisors, the board members of a school district, or any governing body of a government entity operating within the county. During the course of this investigation, the Civil Grand Jury learned that local measures on the ballot that governing entities choose wording likely to be most successful at the ballot box over clarity of language to the voter.

For purposes of this investigation, the Civil Grand Jury focused on ballot questions relating to local ballot measures, not state propositions, because according to the California Elections Code, the state attorney general is responsible for providing ballot questions for state propositions. In contrast, there is no similar requirement that a certain officer provide the ballot question for local elections, so it is instead drafted by the proponent of the measure at the local level.

Advocacy and Tactical Wordplay Result in Poorly Drafted Ballot Questions

It has been widely observed today that the 75- word ballot questions are being used as advocacy pieces, at the expense of fairness and impartiality. In an aptly titled report published in June of last year, the Alameda County Civil Grand Jury advocated for “The Need for Accuracy and Impartiality of Ballot Measure Questions.” The jury explained how and why the desire to achieve a certain outcome has tainted the process to produce ballot measure questions that are not accurate and impartial:

In general, we found ballot questions suffer from a “proponent’s bias” that is a natural outgrowth of the typical process through which questions are selected, drafted, and proposed. … In general, we found that ballot questions too often fall short of what voters have a right to expect in terms of transparency and impartiality, even w hen satisfying minimum legal standards.

27.b
Packet Pg. 338
Attachment: If You Only Read the Ballot, You’re Being Duped_10.07.2022 (Response to Civil Grand Jury)

Page 9 of 23 ends

IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED

The jury in Alameda reviewed and provided an in- depth analysis of six ballot questions to reach their conclusion. In so doing, they exposed the “tricks of the trade”—wording chosen for the sole purpose of increasing the odds of success at the polls. Adopting the same methodology as the Alameda report, the Civil Grand Jury reviewed past and upcoming ballot measure questions from local jurisdictions within Santa Clara County. The Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury observed the same tricks and tactics used by governing bodies to deceive voters:

(1) Using “feel-good" words to garner voter approval. Measure F, November 2020, said “all funds spent locally,” which is meaningless when one pauses to think about it. (2) Adding favorable language even where it plainly does not apply. Measure F, November 2020, said “independent audits, citizens’ oversight” where the underlying ordinance implementing the measure makes no mention whatsoever of audit and oversight requirements.
(3) Adding misleading words to lead voters astray. Measure S, November 2020, said “until ended by voters,” falsely implying that the measure itself provided for repeal or that voters would have an opportunity to repeal the tax when they did not; Measure L, November 2020, conveyed the same with “can be ended by voters.” Measure A, March 2017, said “[funds] cannot be taken away by the State,” falsely implying that the state may access local funds when it may not.
(4) Manipulating words to divert voters from what is actually at issue. Upcoming Measure N, November 2022, which seeks authorization of $572 million in school bonds costing approximately 3 cents per $100 of assessed valuation, states “no increase in tax rates.” (5) Omitting relevant information necessary for voters to m ake informed decisions. Measure AA, November 2016, and Measure H, November 2014, made no mention of the tax increase that would be required to fund the school bonds that were at issue. (6) Putting multiple issues on a single measure, ostensibly violating the s ingle subject rule.

Measure H, November 2020, sought to increase card room tax and the number of card tables allowed in gambling facilities.

At the writing of this report, the following measures slated for the upcoming November 2022 election also rely on at least one of the tactics described:

E “all funds spent locally with no money taken by the State and spent elsewhere” - see (1) and (3) above.

G, H, J, L “until ended by voters” - see (3) above.

I “Shall the City Charter be amended to add the City's ethics and elections commission (Board of Fair Campaign and Political Practices) to the Charter; remove requirements that members of the Planning, Civil Service, and Salary Setting Commissions be electors and/or citizens; remove gender-specific language; and require the City Council to adopt equity values, standards, and assessments in making certain decisions?” - see (6) above.

O “all money staying local” - see (1) above.

27.b
Packet Pg. 339
Attachment: If You Only Read the Ballot, You’re Being Duped_10.07.2022 (Response to Civil Grand Jury)

Page 10 of 23 ends

IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED

Along the same lines, it is worth noting that in June 2022, the Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury released its report , “Words Matter: Did Measure G Deceive Voters?” The question confronting the jury was whether the County of Santa Cruz was honoring the provisions in the ballot measure following its passage. The jury concluded that the ballot question behind the November 2018 Measure G was misleading after its investigation and research revealed no basis whatsoever for including the words “annual audits and independent citizens oversight” within the ballot question.

Arguably, these words were used for no purpose other than to elicit good feelings in the voter.

The Elephant in the Room: Big Money

Elections cost money—lots of money. In an article published June 30, 2002, updated June 22, 2022, CalMatters put it succinctly: “Ballot measures are big business.” The Civil Grand Jury learned that cost is a major factor in the decision to g et to the ballot. San Jose’s Mercury News reported that the Water District’s Measure A from the June 2022 election cost taxpayers $3.2 million.

Once the decision is made by the government entity to spend the money to go to ballot, a lot of pressure is put on the entity to do whatever it takes to secure a win. For this reason, proponents of ballot measures stay focused on the result, hiri ng high-priced election consultants, attorneys, and opinion pollsters to carefully frame the ballot question to achieve the desired outcome. Successful elections will reward those that are behind them. It does not take much imagination to understand how this practice has evolved to become “high stakes.” For example, a school district superintendent who has successfully secured funding through school bond measures may parlay these wins to rally support for a more prestigious role or a position at a larger public institution.

On the other hand, if a measure fails, individuals’ livelihoods are at stake because someone will likely have to take the blame for it —usually either someone on staff or the board proponents of the governing body. This is why proponents advocate so strongly, often—as exemplified above — sacrificing context, clarity, truthfulness, and transparency in ballot question wording in favor of pure advocacy. The Civil Grand Jury learned from those in the ballot question business that it is understood that the drafter will make sure the statement is “lawful,” but it is also understood that it will not necessarily provide full disclosure.

Eroding the Public’s Trust

Many voters in Santa Clara County felt that they were tricked by the Water District based on how Measure A was worded. The Civil Grand Jury compiled the following descriptors of Measure A from local news sources and through its interviews: “deceitful,” “deceptive ballot language,” “designed to confuse voters,” “dishonest,” “false,” “hiding the ball,” “lacks integrity,” “lie by omission,” “misleading,” “not ethical,” “not transparent,” “not clear,” “violates the norm,”

27.b
Packet Pg. 340
Attachment: If You Only Read the Ballot, You’re Being Duped_10.07.2022 (Response to Civil Grand Jury)

Page 11 of 23 ends

IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED

“violates standards of good governance,” “board must be held accountable,” “board should resign,” “board violated its fiduciary duty,” “board violated the trust of the people,” “board wasting money,” “failure of character,” “failure to represent its constituents,” “fraudulent misappropriation of public funds,” “misled t he public for political gain,” “self -serving hoodwinking of the electorate,” “self-serving dishonesty,” “unacceptable in a democracy.”

Public opinion made it clear that where a ballot question fails to provide voters with sufficient information to make an informed decision, it does so at the expense of public trust. Forming distrust between government and its citizenry hurts. What the Water District did through Measure A has severe ramifications because it creates distrust between the government agency and the people the agency is supposed to serve and protect. Going forward, Santa Clara County residents will likely question the integrity and ethical behavior of the Water District. Once the bonds of trust have been weakened, citizens are less inclined to trust the actions and decisions of this agency and more inclined to ask, “If the Water District cannot be trusted to be truthful on the ballot, how can we know them to be truthful in other matters?”

With the passage of Measure A, many residents lost confidence in the Water District. It may take a long time to regain trust from the community. While the Civil Grand Jury appreciates the desire of a government entity to advocate for itself when putting ballot measures up for a public vote, ballot questions cannot be false, misleading, or partial to one side . Based on Civil Grand Jury research and reports, too many local measures fail to meet this standard in favor of advocacy and “proponent’s bias.”

Lack of Oversight Results in Poorly Drafted Ballot Questions

Despite the number of hands that touch a proposal from inception to ballot card, the Civil Grand Jury was surprised to discover that there is no filter or oversight by an appropriate official prior to the adoption of ballot question wording. At the state level, the “Attorney General gives a true and impartial statement of the purpose of the measure in such language that the ballot title [e.g., the ballot question] and summary shall neither be an argument, nor likely to create prejudice, for or against the p roposed measure” (Elec. C. §9051(c)) . But the Attorney General does not have jurisdiction over local measures and thus does not provide the ballot question. When it comes to local measures, the Civil Grand Jury learned that there is not a similar role performed by an official, like the Attorney General, that can provide the wording for ballot questions. Rather, when the ballot question is submitted to the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters, their review is narrowly limited to enforcement of the 75 -word limit. Staff at the County Registrar of Voters manually count the number of words to ensure that the word cap has not been stretched. They do not monitor the content of the ballot question.

27.b
Packet Pg. 341
Attachment: If You Only Read the Ballot, You’re Being Duped_10.07.2022 (Response to Civil Grand Jury)

Page 12 of 23 ends

IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED

At the local level, the County of Santa Clara Office of the County Counsel performs legal services that are most analogous to the Attorney General’s role at the state level with respect to elections.

Further, County Counsel has expertise in election law and advises the County of Santa Clara Registrar of Voters. The County Counsel does not, however, have authority over cities and political subdivisions within the boundaries of the county. Therefore, when a city, school district, or special district places a local measure on the ballot, they are permitted under curren t law to draft the language themselves. They have every incentive to adopt wording proposed by their polling consultants, who will give weight to “feel good” words over simplicity, transparency, and impartiality. Fundamentally, the government entity’s self-interest dictates the ballot question wording.

The Current Sole Remedy—I nitiating a Court Challenge— Falls Short

Under current legislation, there is no realistically expedient method to challenge problematic ballot questions. When a measure is to be placed on the ballot for an upcoming election, it is subject to a 10-day public examination period during which any voter in the jurisdiction may file a lawsuit to amend the language of the measure. California Elections Code section 9295 sets forth the procedure:

During the 10-calendar-day public examination period provided by this section, any voter of the jurisdiction in which the election is being held, or the elections official, himself or herself, may seek a writ of mandate or an injunction requiring any or all of the materials to be amended or deleted. The writ of mandate or injunction request shall be filed no later than the end of the 10-calendar-day public examination period.

A peremptory writ of mandate or an injunction shall be issued only upon clear and convincing proof that the material in question is false, misleading, or inconsistent with the requirements of this chapter, and that issuance of the writ or injunction will not substantially interfere with the printing or distribution of official election materials as provided by law.

There are several reasons why the 10-calendar-day public examination period to object in a formal court setting does not work well:

(1) The public tends not to hear about ballot measures until it is too late. This is due in part to a dearth of media coverage of local news, a result of the consolidation of local news outlets by media conglomerates. It is no secret that in today’s news environment, local news coverage has been reduced significantly. Furthermore, ten days is a very short window to react, let alone mount a court challenge to remediate.

27.b
Packet Pg. 342
Attachment: If You Only Read the Ballot, You’re Being Duped_10.07.2022 (Response to Civil Grand Jury)

Page 13 of 23 ends

IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED

(2) Ten days is much too short a time to locate an attorney well versed in the laws and processes of elections to file a lawsuit in this specialized field. (3) Even if an attorney can be available within the 10 -day window, it is not within the means of the average person to afford the attorney fees necessary to pursue a remedy. (4) Voters challenging the wording in a ballot question face an uphill battle because the courts give deference and considerable latitude to the original author. Further, courts uphold the ballot measure question if it substantially complies with the requirement not to be “false, misleading, or partial to one side.” (See Bibliography, Amador and McDonough decisions.) (5) There is practically no recourse to fix non- conforming ballot questions after the 10- calendar day public examination period has passed. (See Bibliography, Denny decision.) (6) Even the single subject rule —a state constitutional doctrine—has been watered down by case law; hence it is no longer vigorously enforced. (See Bibliography, Amador and Harbor decisions.)
When confronted with challenges to ballot measures, the courts have stated:

• Relief under a writ of mandate may be granted "only upon clear and convincing evidence" that the challenged election material is "false or misleading or otherwise inconsistent with the provisions." (See Bibliography, McDonough decision.) • The test is not whether the ballot quest ion could be more complete . (See Bibliography, Martinez decision.)
• The ballot title need not be the “most accurate,” “most comprehensive,” or “fairest” that a skilled wordsmith might imagine. (See Bibliography, Yes on 25, Citizens for an On- Time Budget decision.)
• The courts are not free to change an accurate statement to reflect their interpretation of the common sense understanding of the language . (See Bibliography, Yes on 25, Citizens for an On-Time Budget decision.)
• The courts are not free to wordsmith the ballot question and change it just because they believe it could be better. (See Bibliography, Martinez decision.) • The courts must give deference to the official who drafts the ballot question; “all legitimate presumptions should be indulged in favor of the propriety” of the drafter’s actions. (See Bibliography, Becerra decision.)
Solutions

The Civil Grand Jury has learned that the sole legal remedy currently available to right a wrong when it comes to ballot measure questions is insurmountable for the average citizen. Nonetheless, the Civil Grand Jury notes that there could be two potential mechanisms to improve the current process.

27.b
Packet Pg. 343
Attachment: If You Only Read the Ballot, You’re Being Duped_10.07.2022 (Response to Civil Grand Jury)

Page 14 of 23 ends

IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED

1. Task an appropriate official to review ballot measure questions

Current law requires that t he individual who drafts the ballot question do so in a way that is not false, misleading, or partial to one side. In order to meet this requirement, a n objective, neutral third party is needed to speak on behalf of the voting public, ideally someone who is well versed in the law, has a fiduciary duty to uphold the law, and has taken an oath to act with integrity. The Civil Grand Jury recommends that County Counsel perform this task. F urther, the Civil Grand Jury recommends that the County of Santa Clara Board of Supervisors should endorse the County Counsel to act in a role, like that of the Attorney General, to provide for ballot question wording for all local measures.

What this might look like: After the governing entity ratifies the concept behind the proposed measure, as is the practice today, the entity’s lawyer, whether a city attorney, school district attorney, or special district attorney, would draft a ballot question that is impartial, unbiased, and non-argumentative. The proposed ballot question would then be submitted to the County Counsel, who would be charged with overseeing the narrow task of ensuring that the wording of the question is not false, misleading, or biased in favor of one view. Most importantly, County Counsel would also be authorized to reject non- conforming or deficient wording and to compel revisions. Only when the ballot question at issue conforms to statutory requirements would County Counsel approve it for use.

2. Create an independent oversight commission to review ballot questions

It is not unusual for jurisdictions to convene independent advisory commissions to assist in county governance. The County of Santa Clara alone boasts over 75 boards and commissions, ranging from an Advisory Commission on Consumer Affairs to a Youth Task Force.

For purposes of overseeing conformity of ballot measure questions, the Civil Grand Jury recommends that the County form a Good Governance in Ballots Commission (Good Governance Commission). Th is advisory commi ssion should act quickly to review and comment on ballot questions or provide recommendations to remediate questions that that are false, misleading, or partial to one side. The composition of the Good Governance Commission should, at a minimum, include an attorney member of the California S tate Bar, either to participate as a full member or act as an ex officio member without voting privileges. Because County Counsel is the attorney to most Santa Clara County advisory boards and commission s, it could therefore be tasked to help members of this commission navigate the intricacies of California’s statutory requirements.

Apart from the obvious benefits—non- partisanship and public representation—another advantage of having a single commission perform the task of reviewing ballot questions would be to maintain consistency across all governing entities. Regardless of whether a city, county, school district, or

27.b
Packet Pg. 344
Attachment: If You Only Read the Ballot, You’re Being Duped_10.07.2022 (Response to Civil Grand Jury)

Page 15 of 23 ends

IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED

other jurisdiction puts forth the measure, the output from a neutral, uninterested third party would probably help eliminate the rhetoric and advocacy inherent in the current practice.

To be successful, the Good Governance Commission should ideally have the ability to review and to reject language that is biased and partial. The power of rejection is crucial because it would also likely have the effect of encouraging the gover ning entity to self-police. It must not be merely optional for governing entities to submit their ballot questions for review. If the commission were granted mere advisory powers, then it would have very limited impact; it is reasonable to surmise that most, if not all, governing entities would choose to decline to submit their ballot questions for consideration in the interest of the time required to add a layer of review.

Unfortunately, adoption of a Good Governance Commission that has the power to reject language would require passage of a state law that would enable the County of Santa Clara to have an express grant of power to impose a requirement on other entities. This is because “[t]he board of supervisors has no inherent powers; the counties are legal subdivisions of the state, and the county board of supervisors can exercise only those powers expressly granted it by Constitution or statutes and those necessarily implied therefrom” (Hicks v. Board of Supervisors (1977) 69 Cal. App. 3d 228, 242). In general, absent other express authorization, one governmental entity cannot regulate another.

Put another way, charter cities operate under home rule, which means that they do not answer to the county the city is located in. For example, the County of Santa Clara Board of Supervisors does not have jurisdiction to compel the City of Gilroy, a charter city, to abide by a county ordinance. Absent some legislative authorization, the County of Santa Clara cannot impose a mandatory review process for ballot questions on other entities. For this reason, the Civil Grand Jury urges the County to pursue legislative solutions to facilitate a process by which the County Counsel would be required to review and approve local measure ballot questions before they are voted on.

Formation of a Good Governance in Ballots Commission

The Civil Grand Jury believes that having an independent oversight commi ssion with advisory powers will improve the local electoral process. It puts pressure on governing bodies, sending the message that their ballot questions are being monitored for clarity, truthfulness, fairness, and impartiality.

The Alameda Civil Grand Jury report provides detailed instructions around the formation, structure, and operation of an oversight committee. This can be found in Appendix B of their June 2021 report. Last, but not least, another possibility is to lean on an existing Santa Clara County advisory body, the Citizens’ Advisory Commission on Elections, to create a subcommittee focused

27.b
Packet Pg. 345
Attachment: If You Only Read the Ballot, You’re Being Duped_10.07.2022 (Response to Civil Grand Jury)

Page 16 of 23 ends

IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED

on ballot question integrity and good governance. Because time is of the essence when it comes to the elections process, the subcommittee must act within the short turnaround timeframe established by state statutes and county ordinances.

There do not appear to be any advocates for transparent and neutral language. Action must be taken. Having the Office of the County Counsel review and approve ballot questions to ensure conformity to statutory requirements would be a good start. Convening a citizen-led, independent oversight Good Governance Commission is another solution.

CONCLUSION

Civil Grand Juries are charged to help government develop practical solutions to improve government operations. Poorly worded ballot questions may not be illegal, but if they withhold information to shield what is really at issue, they are unethical. There are insufficient workable checks and balances to prevent this ongoing issue from being curtailed. Not doing anything about this only adds to the distrust of government. The Civil Grand Jury recommends that elected officials be held accountable—ballot ques tions must be transparent and clear in order to enable today’s voters to make informed decisions. The Civil Grand Jury wants governing entities to know that the public is paying attention and will not tolerate questions that are anything less than truthful, impartial, and fair. Further, ballot measure questions need to be straightforward, understandable, transparent, and honest.

27.b
Packet Pg. 346
Attachment: If You Only Read the Ballot, You’re Being Duped_10.07.2022 (Response to Civil Grand Jury)

Page 17 of 23 ends

IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

Finding 1

The Civil Grand Jury finds that in the current environment, which is unregulated at the local level, it is easy for the author of a ballot measure question to write the question in a way that is confusing or misleading to voters.

Recommendation 1a

The Board of Supervisors should ask the County Counsel to review all ballot questions submitted to it pursuant to Recommendation 1b.

Recommendation 1b

Governing entities2 within Santa Clara County should voluntarily submit their ballot questions to the County Counsel for review prior to submission to the Registrar of Voters, unless and until Recommendation 1d is implemented.

Recommendation 1c

Governing entities3 within Santa Clara County should, by March 31, 2023, adopt their own resolution or ordinance to require submission of their ballot questions to the County Counsel for review prior to submission to the Registrar of Voters, unless and until Recommendation s 1d and 1e are implemented.

Recommendation 1d

The County should create an independent, citizen-led oversight commission like the recommended Good Governance in Ballots Commi ssion as described in the “Solutions” section of this report.

The Commission should be implemented by August 1, 2024.

2 There are approximately 50 governing entities within Santa Clara County. The Civil Grand Jury has elected to address these recommendations to the County, cities, and a select number of special districts and school districts that have historically the most measures on the ballot for response. The Civil Grand Jury encourages all governing entities to adopt these recommendations.
3 Id.

27.b
Packet Pg. 347
Attachment: If You Only Read the Ballot, You’re Being Duped_10.07.2022 (Response to Civil Grand Jury)

Page 18 of 23 ends

IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED

Recommendation 1e

Governing entities4 within Santa Clara County should submit their ballot questions for review by the Good Governance in Ballots Commission pursuant to Recommendation 1d.

Recommendation 1f

The County should, by March 31, 2023, take appropriate action to request that the state legislature consider amending current law to require the County Counsel to review and approve local ballot measure questions before they are voted on.

4 Id.

27.b
Packet Pg. 348
Attachment: If You Only Read the Ballot, You’re Being Duped_10.07.2022 (Response to Civil Grand Jury)

Page 19 of 23 ends

IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED

REQUIRED RESPONSES

Pursuant to California Penal Code § 933(b) et seq. and California Penal Code § 933.05, the County of Santa Clara 2022 Civil Grand Jury requests responses from the following governing bodies:

Responding Agency Findings Recommendations
County of Santa Clara Board of Supervisors 1 1a, 1b, 1d, 1f City of Campbell 1 1b, 1c, 1e
City of Cupertino 1 1b, 1c, 1e
City of Gilroy 1 1b, 1c, 1e
City of Los Altos 1 1b, 1c, 1e
Town of Los Altos Hills 1 1b, 1c, 1e
Town of Los Gatos 1 1b, 1c, 1e
City of Milpitas 1 1b, 1c, 1e
City of Monte Sereno 1 1b, 1c, 1e
City of Morgan Hill 1 1b, 1c, 1e
City of Mountain View 1 1b, 1c, 1e
City of Palo Alto 1 1b, 1c, 1e

27.b
Packet Pg. 349
Attachment: If You Only Read the Ballot, You’re Being Duped_10.07.2022 (Response to Civil Grand Jury)

Page 20 of 23 ends

IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED

Responding Agency Findings Recommendations
City of San Jose 1 1b, 1c, 1e
City of Santa Clara 1 1b, 1c, 1e
City of Saratoga 1 1b, 1c, 1e
City Sunnyvale 1 1b, 1c, 1e
Santa Clara Valley Water District 1 1b, 1c, 1e
Valley Transportation Authority 1 1b, 1c, 1e
El Camino Healthcare 1 1b, 1c, 1e
Foothill-DeAnza Community College District 1 1b, 1c, 1e San Jose Unified School District 1 1b, 1c, 1e
East Side Union High School District 1 1b, 1c, 1e
Cupertino Union School District 1 1b, 1c, 1e

27.b
Packet Pg. 350
Attachment: If You Only Read the Ballot, You’re Being Duped_10.07.2022 (Response to Civil Grand Jury)

Page 21 of 23 ends

IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED

REFERENCES

Bibliography:

Alameda County 2020-2021 Grand Jury, Final Report, “The Need for Accuracy and Impartiality of Ballot Measure Questions,” June 2022.

Ballotpedia.org, https://ballotpedia.org/Santa_Clara_County,_California, Measure A (June 2022); Measures F, G, H, L, and S (November 2020); Measure AA (November 2016); Measure H (November 2014); Measure E (November 1998) (accessed September 22, 2022).

Borenstein, Daniel, “Tricks California Local Officials Use To Trick Voters,” The Bay Area News Group, https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/01/21/borenstein-tricks-california-local-officials- use-to-deceive-voters/ January 21, 2022 (accessed August 23, 2022).

California Elections Code sections 303, 9051, 9100-9190, 9295, 13120, and 133247.

Christopher, Ben; Kamal, Sameea, “California Ballot Measures: What You Need to Know,” https://calmatters.org/explainers/california-ballot-measures-2022/ June 30, 2022, updated July 1, 2022 (accessed August 23, 2022).

City and County of San Francisco Department of Elections, https://sfelections.sfgov.org/measures (accessed August 2, 2022).

County of Santa Clara 2020-21 Grand Jury, Final Report, “Gavilan College Measure X Bond Program: Oversight Shortchanged.” June 2022.

County of Santa Clara, Office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, List of Boards and Commissions, https://stenttssaim2publicportal.blob.core.windows.net/bc- entcabodocs/MaddyReport.pdf (accessed August 24, 2022).

County of Santa Clara Registrar of Voters, Ballot Measures proposed for the upcoming November 2022 election, https://sccvote.sccgov.org/candidates-measures/november-8-2022- general-election-list-local-measures (accessed Aug 20, 2022).

Editorial, Mercury News and East Bay Times, “Stop Deceiving Bay Area Voters On Local Tax Measure Costs,” MercuryNews.com, https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/06/26/editorial-stop- deceiving-voters-on-local-tax-measure-costs/ June 26, 2020 (accessed August 23, 2022).

Kumar, Rishi, “Opinion: Why 4 Valley Water board members should resign,” MercuryNews.com, https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/05/11/opinion-why-4-valley-water- board-members-should-resign/ May 11, 2022 (accessed August 23, 2022).

27.b
Packet Pg. 351
Attachment: If You Only Read the Ballot, You’re Being Duped_10.07.2022 (Response to Civil Grand Jury)

Page 22 of 23 ends

IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED

Rogers, Paul, “Self-Serving Dishonesty: Liccardo Blasts Santa Clara Valley Water District Measure To Extend Term Limits, Even After Polling Shows Voters Oppose,” Mercury News, March 30, 2022 (accessed August 23, 2022).

Santa Cruz County 2020-2021 Grand Jury, Final Report, “Words Matter: Did Measure G Deceive Voters?” June 2022.

Caselaw:

Amador Valley Joint Union High School District v. State Board of Equalization, 22 Cal.3d. 208 (1978).

Becerra v. Superior Court, 19 Cal.App.5th 967 (2017).

Denny v. Arntz, 55 Cal.App.5th 914 (2020).

Harbor v. Deukmejian, 43 Cal.3d 1078 (1987).

Hicks v. Bd. of Supervisors, 69 Cal. App. 3d 228 (1977).

Home Gardens Sanitary Dist. v. City of Corona, 96 Cal. App. 4th 87 (2002).

Martinez v. Superior Court, 142 Cal.App.4th 1245 (2006).

McDonough v. Superior Court of Santa Clara, 204 Cal.App.4th 1169 (2012).

People v. Langdon, 54 Cal. App.3d 384 (1976).

Rodeo Sanitary Dist. v. Bd. of Supervisors, 71 Cal. App.4th 1443 (1999).

Yes on 25, Citizens for an On-Time Budget v. Superior Court, 189 Cal.App.4th 1445 (2010).

Interviews:

The Civil Grand Jury conducted interviews with ten individuals between June 28, 2022, and August 22, 2022.

27.b
Packet Pg. 352
Attachment: If You Only Read the Ballot, You’re Being Duped_10.07.2022 (Response to Civil Grand Jury)

P age 23 of 23
IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPEDIF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED

This report was ADOPTED by the Santa Clara County 2022 Civil Grand Jury on th
is 7th day of October, 2022.
______________________________
M
r. James Renalds
Foreperson

27.b
Packet Pg. 353
Attachment: If You Only Read the Ballot, You’re Being Duped_10.07.2022 (Response to Civil Grand Jury)

City
Council
Report

TITLE: Code of Conduct Policy for Boards and Commissions

RECOMMENDED ACTION

Consider adoption of Code of Conduct Policy for City Boards and Commissions

BACKGROUND

On August 25, 2022, the City Council received a report from staff on creating a “Code of Conduct” policy for City of Campbell (City) B oards and Commissions. The purpose behind the policy would be to provide clear guidance to members of the City’s Boards and Commissions on how to avoid perceived conflicts of interest, in furtherance of the City’s Statement of Values.

The City Council provided feedback and directed the City Manager to draft a policy to address perceived conflicts of interest, vet the draft policy through the City’s Boards and Commissions, and return to the City Council with the draft policy following consideration and possible adoption.

The attached draft “Code of Conduct ” policy (Attachment A) provides direction for members who sit on the City’s Boards and Commission on avoiding perceived conflict s of interest and identifies prohibited actions that would represent a perceived conflict of interest. The draft policy has been vetted through the City Attorney and with executive staff members. Per City Council direction, it has also been presented to the following City Boards and Commissions for review and comments:

• Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee
• Civic Improvement Commission
• Historic Preservation Board
• Parks & Recreation Commission
• Planning Commission

DISCUSSION

Below is a summary of comments and questions received by members from the respective City B oards and Commission s. Where appropriate, s taff has included a response which staff would respectfully request the City Co uncil consider prior to considering any modifications to the attached draft policy.

Item: 28
Category: UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Meeting Date: December 6, 2022
28 Packet Pg. 354
Code of Conduct Policy for Boards and Commissions Page 2 of 5

Bicycle & Pedestrian Advisory Committee (BPAC) - On November 17, 2022, the draft policy was brought before the BPAC for consideration and comment. While there was some discussion of the item, it was mainly to help understand the difference between an actual conflict of interest versus a perceived conflict of interest. In the end, no member of the BPAC expressed concern with the proposed policy.

Comment Conflict of interest v. Perceived conflict of interest.

Staff
Response
A member of a City Board or Commission has a conflict of interest and may not make, participate in making, or in any way use or attempt to use the member’s position to influence a governmental decision when the member knows or has reason to know they have a disqualifying financial interest. A member has a disqualifying financial interest if the decision will have a reasonably foreseeable and material financial effect directly on the member, on the member’s immediate family, or on any financial interest; and, this effect is distinguishable from the effect on the public generally.

A conflict of interest would also exist if:
• The member has a financial interest in a contract coming before the body on which they serve;
• The member has a bias on a quasi-judicial decision (generally a permit application) that comes before the body on which the member serves, which would prevent them from being fair and open-minded; or
• The member serves on an incompatible governmental body.

A conflict of interest is also presumed to exist for any member who serves on a City Board or Commission and lives within 500 feet of a project location coming before the City Board or Commission upon which the member serves.

A perceived conflict of interest would be defined as outlined in the attached draft policy.

Civic Improvement Commission (CIC) - On October 13, 2022, the CIC reviewed the draft policy at their regular meeting and had the following comments:

Comment #1 Consider a new title for the policy that directly defines its intent rather than suggesting that it will be a general code of conduct.

Staff
Response
Staff is happy to give the policy whatever title the City Council deems appropriate.

Comment #2 Consider including a legal definition for “affiliated”.

Staff
Response
If the City Council agrees that a definition is helpful, staff would recommend the following:

28 Packet Pg. 355
Code of Conduct Policy for Boards and Commissions Page 3 of 5 The state or relation of being closely connected with, associated with, or related to a particular person, group, party, company, etc.

Comment #3 Consider including more examples in the policy itself.

Staff
Response
Staff would not recommend including more examples in the policy. Instead, staff would recommend the policy be updated to direct any Board or Commission member to confer with the City Attorney if they are unclear as to whether the policy applies in a particular situation. Staff would also recommend the above direction be provided during training of all Board and Commission members on the policy, once adopted.

Historic Preservation Board (HPB) – The HPB reviewed the draft policy at their regular meeting on October 26, 2022, and had the following comments / questions:

Comment #1 If a member of a City Board or Commission identifies a potential conflict of interest based on their membership in an advocacy organization and items coming before the City, should they: (a) recuse only on the item itself (b) step down from the Board / Commission permanently or (c) step down from their membership in the advocacy organization?

Staff
Response
Staff recommends that in each instance where a member believes a perceived conflict of interest exists, the member recuse themself from the item. If a member is unclear whether the policy applies to the situation, the member should consult with the City Attorney.

Comment #2 If a member of a Board or Commission is appointed to an organization during their time on the Board or Commission and the appointment may present a potential conflict of interest in the future, should the member immediately step down from the Board or Commission?

Staff
Response
Staff recommends that perceived conflicts of interest be considered when they are believed to have arisen and, on a case-by-case basis. If at that time it is determined that a perceived conflict of interest does in fact exist, the member should recuse themself from the item.

Parks & Recreation Commission (PRC) – The PRC discussed the draft policy on November 2, 2022. Although the PRC asked some clarifying questions, there was consensus that the policy looked good, as is, and was needed.

Planning Commission – The Planning Commission reviewed the draft policy on October 11, 2022, and had the following comments / questions:

Comment #1 If the City has taken a position on proposed state legislation, can a Commissioner advocate separately regarding that legislation (on behalf of an 28 Packet Pg. 356
Code of Conduct Policy for Boards and Commissions Page 4 of 5 organization)?

Staff
Response
Yes, provided that they do so as an individual and not as a Planning Commissioner for the City of Campbell or as a representative speaking on behalf of the City of Campbell.

Comment #2 If you are a member of an advocacy organization, can you advocate to another city (i.e., Cupertino) on an issue (i.e., developing trails) before that city?

Staff
Response
Yes, as long as you do not hold yourself out to that city as a Planning Commissioner for the City of Campbell or represent that you are speaking on behalf of the City of Campbell.

Comment #3 If a Commissioner is part of an advocacy organization and advocating on a certain issue, how would they know if the issue will come to the City in the future?

Staff
Response
The policy has been updated to address this concern and provides that a Commissioner not advocate on an item that could result in a perceived conflict of interest if the Commissioner should reasonably know the matter will come before the City Council or any City board or commission and on which the City has not made a final decision.

The Planning Commission also requested (1) more examples be included in the policy, (2) training on the policy be provided if the policy was adopted, and (3) confirmation that the policy does not prohibit City Commissioners and Board Members from being members of other non -City organizations. As ind icated earlier, it would not be staff’s recommendation to include more examples in the policy. Instead, Board and Commission members would be encouraged to check in with the City Attorney if they have questions regarding the applicability of the policy. Staff will also provide training on the policy once it is adopted and re -iterate that any uncertainty regarding the applicability of the policy should be vetted through the City Attorney. Lastly, staff can confirm that the policy alone would not prohibit C ity Commissioners or Board Members from participating in other non-City organizations.

FISCAL IMPACT

There is no fiscal impact related to the adoption of the policy. Implementation of any additional processes related to the policy will be absorbed by th e responsibilities of the City Manager’s Office.

ALTERNATIVES

1. Provide alternate language to include in the policy. 28 Packet Pg. 357
Code of Conduct Policy for Boards and Commissions Page 5 of 5

2. Do not adopt the policy and provide other direction.

Prepared by:

Angelique Gaeta, Assistant City Manager
Attachment:
a. Draft Code of Conduct Policy_11292022_clean
28 Packet Pg. 358
Approved by:

Brian Loventhal, City Manager

____________________________________________________________________________________ -1-
Code of Conduct – City of Campbell Boards & Commissions October 3, 2022
Council Policy X.XX
DRAFT Code of Conduct Policy
City of Campbell Board Members & Commissioners
Policy Purpose:

The purpose of this policy is t o establish rules for individuals who serve on one of the City of Campbell’s (City) boards or commissions when there is a perceived conflict of interest with an item that is being or will be considered by the Ci ty Council or any City board or commission. The provisions of this policy are in addition to any ethical obligations imposed by applicable law Perceived Conflict of Interest:

A member of a City board or commission shall not participate in any decision in which the member has a perceived conflict of interest as defined in this policy.

A perceived conflict of interest means a situation where a member of a City board or commission is affiliated with a person or organization that has taken a position on a matter coming before the City Council or any City board or commission and the member would appear, to a reasonable and well- informed person, to have aligned his/her interest with that person or organization in such a way that would affect the independence, impartiality and objectivity of the member’s role as a City board member or commissioner.

Prohibited actions involving a perceived conflict of interest by member of a City board or commission include:
• Representing, appearing for, or speaking on behalf of a person or organization with which the member is affiliated on a matter that has come or will come before the City Council or any City board or commission; or
• Representing, appearing for, or speaking on behalf of a person or organization with which the member is affiliated before another governmental agency on a matter pending before that governmental agency and the matter has come, or the member should reasonably know the matter will come, before the City Council or any City board or commission, and on which the City has not made a final decision.

28.a
Packet Pg. 359
Attachment: Draft Code of Conduct Policy_11292022_clean (Code of Conduct Policy for Boards and Commissions) City
Council
Report
TITLE: Approve Appointments to Civic Improvement Commission

RECOMMENDED ACTION
It is recommended that the City Council approve the recommendation of th e Advisory Commissioner Appointment Interview Subcommittee regarding appointments to the Civic Improvement Commission for two four -year terms expiring August 2026; and the Historic Preservation Board for two four-year terms expiring October 2026.

BACKGROUND
Pursuant to Council Policy #1.9b regarding Advisory Commission Reappointments, current Commissioners were notified of their term expiration and notices of the upcoming vacancies were posted at City Hall, at the Campbell Library and on the City’s website.

Civic Improvement Commission: The terms of William Kaufman , Davis Fields and Chris Bracher expired August 31, 20 22. Commissioner Bracher applied for reappointment. Commissioners Kaufman and Davis did not apply for reappointment.

At its August 2, 202 2 meeting, the City Council directed the Advisory Commission Appointment Interview Subcommittee to interview Chris Bracher and for the City Clerk to extend the recruitment period until a sufficient number of applications was received in order to fill the remaining vacancies.

On August 9, 2022 the Advisory Commission Appointment Interview Subcommittee interviewed Chris Bracher and recommended his reappointment at the August 16, 2022 City Council meeting.

Historic Preservation Board: The terms of Susan Blak e and Laura Taylor Moore expired October 31, 2022. Both Board Members Blake and Moore applied for reappointment. No new applications were received.

DISCUSSION
The Advisory Commissioner Appointment Interview Subcommittee ( Councilwoman Landry and Vice May or Bybee) met on December 5, 2022 and interviewed two Item: 29
Category: COUNCIL COMMITTEE

REPORTS
Meeting Date: December 6, 2022
29 Packet Pg. 360
Approve Appointments to HPB and CIC Page 2 of 2
applicants to fill t wo four-year terms for the Civic Improvement Commission ; and Board Members Blake and Moore for reappointment to the Historic Preservation Board. The Council Subcommittee will report on the interviews and make recommendations regarding the appointment of t wo members to the Civic Improvement Commission to four year terms expiring August 202 6 and two members to the Historic Preservation Board to four year terms expiring October 2026.

FISCAL IMPACT
There is no fiscal impact associated with these appointment recommendations.

Prepared by:

Andrea Sanders, City Clerk
Approved by:

Brian Loventhal, City Manager
Attachment:
a. Applications
29 Packet Pg. 361

29.a
Packet Pg. 362
Attachment: Applications (Approve Appointments to HPB and CIC)

29.a
Packet Pg. 363
Attachment: Applications (Approve Appointments to HPB and CIC)

29.a
Packet Pg. 364
Attachment: Applications (Approve Appointments to HPB and CIC)

29.a
Packet Pg. 365
Attachment: Applications (Approve Appointments to HPB and CIC)

29.a
Packet Pg. 366
Attachment: Applications (Approve Appointments to HPB and CIC)

29.a
Packet Pg. 367
Attachment: Applications (Approve Appointments to HPB and CIC) 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: 30
Category: COUNCIL COMMITTEE

REPORTS
Meeting Date: December 6, 2022
30 Packet Pg. 368
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
30 Packet Pg. 369

Campbell City CouncilDecember 6, 2022

Campbell City Council
December 6, 2022