Clayton City Council
June 21, 2022

Landscape
Maintenance
District
In June 2007, Clayton voters approved a replacement real property special tax to continue funding the operation and maintenance of its citywide public landscaped areas. This voter action created the City of Clayton Landscape Maintenance Community Facilities District 2007-1 (LMD). This annual special parcel tax is restricted to landscape costs associated with: arterial and speci¦ed roadway medians and parkways, the trails system, the annual open space non-native (exotic) invasive weed abatement in city-owned open space of the area hills, the annual open space and trails maintenance including weed abatement for ¦re and public safety, landscape and turf irrigation and the monthly maintenance and special occasion/holiday operation of the “Clayton Fountain”. Operations for the LMD are separately accounted for by the City in a restricted-use special revenue fund.

Measure B, the 2007 ballot measure, expired June 30, 2017. Given this was the only source of funds for the maintenance and operation of the LMD, in order to continue this sole funding source, a special parcel tax, “Measure H” was placed before the voters on the June 7, 2016 ballot; needing two-thirds (66.67%) voter approval. In June 2016, the voters overwhelmingly elected (77.1% positive vote) to extend the LMD special parcel tax for an additional ten (10) years.

Maintenance of City parks is not included as an authorized expenditure under the LMD Act; park maintenance obligations fall to the City’s General Fund. Citywide public landscaping services have always been funded by a special parcel tax levied on private properties throughout the City.

City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 64
Landscape Maintenance District Operations
The LMD is now completing its ¦fth year of operation under Measure H. The LMD has a City Council-appointed Trails and Landscaping Citizens’ Oversight Committee (TLC) that meets periodically to ensure the these special-purpose tax revenues are used for their intended purpose as established under the previous ballot measure for the LMD. The TLC met on March 7, May 9 and May 16, 2022. The May meetings were for the review and input on the proposed LMD budget for City Council action in June. The Proposed Budget incorporates the Committee's recommendations for FY2022/23. The Committee's work is greatly appreciated and vital to the success of the District.

Pursuant to the terms of voter-approved Measure H, the special parcel tax rate may be modi¦ed annually by the change in the consumer price index (CPI) as published by the U.S. Bureau of Labor and Statistics from April to April for this geographic region (San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA). In no event shall the special parcel tax rate be increased by more than three percent (3.0%) annually. Given the local CPI change (from April 2020 to April 2021) of 5%, the LMD’s projected revenues are recommended by the TLC and included in the proposed budget to be increased by 3.0% to a total of $1,241,053 for FY 2022/23. This results in a modest increase to LMD special parcel tax revenues of apx. $36,121 over the prior year’s adopted budget. The capped CPI growth adjustment will result in an increase of $8.22 per residential parcel over the prior year's rate (last year’s FY 2021/22 single-family rate was $274.46; including the CPI adjustment factor, the new single-family parcel rate will be $282.70).

Over the past ¦fteen years, from FY 2007/08 through FY 2020/21, it is estimated the LMD will have used approximately $2.6 million of these special parcel tax funds for public landscape and irrigation and trail system improvements. When including additional LMD improvement projects planned for FY 2022/23, the LMD will have invested over $3.3 million in various improvements in addition to more routine maintenance of landscaping.

For FY 2021/22, the LMD budgeted to fund the following landscape maintenance improvement projects:

Project Description
Budget
Amount $ used Project ID
*Cardinet trail section repave $185,000 0 7306 postponed to 22/23 *Trail reconstruct end of Peacock Ck $100,000 0 7306 postponed to 22/23 *Repave/Repair/Crack Seal Trails $30,000 0 7306 postponed to 23/24 Replace Irrigation Control (6 of them) $90,000 $116,500 LMD 2021-2 in process Native open space planting pilot
project $12,500
$12,500
7520 completed
Trim up trees btwn Blue Oak/Keller $100,000 $50,000 LMD 2021-2 completed Tree Trimming streets/trails $300,000 $300,000 7440 in process Total $817,500 $479,000 ÁÁ
*projects that were planned for 21/22, but postponed
Due to sta¨ng shortages and project scheduling issues, the trail projects were not able to be completed during FY2021/22.

For FY 2022/23, the LMD budgeted to fund the following landscape maintenance improvement projects:

Project Description Amount Account ID
*Cardinet trail section repave $185,000 7306
*Trail reconstruct end of Peacock Ck $100,000 7306
Native wild§ower open space planting project $25,000 7520 Strategic/safety/sustainability plan $30,000 7419
Enhanced non-native invasive weed management open
space $35,000 7445
Trim trees open space areas $50,000 7520
Tree Trimming streets/trails $200,000 7440
Bark/compost/mulch landscape areas 0 7520
Weed control medians/rights-of-way non-glyphosate $30,000 7445 Total $655,000
Á Á Á ÁÁ Á Á Á Á
*projects that were planned for 21/22, but postponed to FY 22/23 City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 65
Due to insu¨cient funds and lower priority, staff has not included crack sealing of trails in the proposed FY 2022/23 budget.

There are not any city street projects anticipated in FY 2022/23 that would have crack sealing so the ability to achieve a project at a reasonable cost is not viable. This will be re-evaluated in FY 2023/24 and a mircoseal/coatseal might be an appropriate method to be done concurrently with a future street paving project.

Due to drought conditions, replanting projects are not proposed that would require additional water. Therefore, it is planned to focus on trails maintenance, tree trimming, mulch/compost/barking landscape areas, weed management, enhanced native wild§ower planting, and enhanced non native invasive plant management.

In addition, during FY 2022/23, funding in the amount of $30,000 is proposed for the preparation of a strategic/safety/sustainability plan for the Landscape Maintenance District. This will greatly assist in future project planning, workload scheduling, etc. The City Engineer will be leading this effort and associated funds are included in the line item for other professional services [7419].

The proposed LMD budget is a balanced operational budget, responsibly utilizing fund balance to undertake non-recurring capital improvement projects. This practice is consistent with prior year budgets as the LMD is pay-as-you-go for such improvements, responsibly drawing on fund balance as needed. Proposed appropriations are annually adjusted for anticipated water and electrical utility rate increases as well as for fuel, fertilizer, etc.

Over the past year, the LMD has generated a modest reserve balance to allow the consideration of the aforementioned nonoperational landscaping improvement projects to be undertaken. Although the proposed budget anticipates an ending fund balance reserve of $111,276 by the close of FY 2022/23, staff is not proposing additional capital projects beyond those listed in order to allow time to complete these budgeted projects and to have su¨cient funds for normal operational cash §ow purposes.

An enormous impact on LMD operations from FY 2012/13 through FY 2016/17 was the declared drought conditions and the severe water conservation reductions imposed by Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) as directed by the Governor’s Executive Order Emergency declaration, resulting in a 45% mandatory water reduction order. With irrigation cutbacks of that magnitude, the City Council ordered the LMD to suspend irrigation water to turf and bushes, reserving restricted water supplies to irrigate public trees. This action plan negatively impacted some of the landscape, however many shrubs and trees were sustained in the LMD. Capital improvement projects engaged during the extended drought timeframe were hardscape-only oriented. There have only been two sections of the Clayton Road median replanted since the prior drought.

Although the State of California and CCWD returned to unrestricted water conditions for a number of years, we are now in the third year of a new drought cycle, and the State is in drought conditions again, with many areas in or likely to be in Severe or Exceptional Drought, the highest category. CCWD has asked for 15% voluntary reductions, and may place a temporary drought surcharge on water bills of 15%. Additionally, it is forecasted that the dry conditions will likely continue into next year.

Therefore, as with last year, no new replanting projects are being proposed, as it would require additional water to establish from irrigation and/or a normal “rainy” season. Water districts were required by case law to change billing rate structures to incorporate greater costs for service areas with greater water delivery demands (i.e. higher elevations requiring more energy for delivery). Clayton’s geographic location resulted in a rate tier increase by CCWD in January 2022 of approximately 6%. CCWD increases the tier rates annually in January and staff have used a 6% increase based on discussions with CCWD staff that it is likely to be similar due to increased costs in energy from PGE that is used to pump water throughout their system. The proposed budget for the LMD includes the increased water costs with the adjusted rate estimated expenditure of $230,000.

Personnel services (permanent including bene¦ts etc. and contract seasonal) for this labor-intensive work effort account for 26% of the LMD budget expenditures in FY 2022/23 ($488,570). Whenever possible, less complex tasks within the LMD are assigned to contract temporary seasonal personnel, which allows full-time permanent City maintenance personnel to focus their efforts on tasks requiring journeyman-level experience (i.e. irrigation line and system repairs). The LMD has only one fulltime dedicated staff person of the six (6) permanent Maintenance Department personnel.

During this past ¦scal year (2021/22) the continued pandemic had unexpected impacts to the LMD operations. The ability to use part-time/seasonal contract personnel was not fully possible due to many factors, including the lack of personnel available from the sta¨ng agencies. In addition, there have been staff out for unexpected needs. Generally, in a given week over the past year, the staff levels have been three to four people on average, and one or two seasonal workers. However, as noted previously, these staff spend only a portion of their time in the LMD, as they also maintain parks, grounds/buildings, City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 66
street signs, some street lights. With limited resources, staff continued to prioritize trimming to keep walks and paths clear, and irrigation repairs. Other trimming and weeding along rights of ways and medians were able to be partially done, and chips were placed in portions of the Clayton Road medians to help reduce weed growth and retain moisture. Staff is hopeful that as public health conditions continue to improve, overall temporary seasonal workers will be available to assist in the LMD in the future.

As approved by Measure H voters, the LMD’S budget includes a recurring line item (account 7316) for the purchase of replacement plants, budgeted at $20,000. However, with drought conditions this expenditure will not occur. The LMD further contributes an annual allocation to the City’s Capital Equipment Replacement Fund (CERF) for its shared cost of utilizing City Maintenance Department vehicles for LMD operations budgeted at $30,000 in FY 2022/23. A relatively nominal amount of $42,713 (3.4% of annual LMD revenue) is transferred to the City’s General Fund to help defray the LMD’s share of administrative support and overhead incurred by the City (i.e. telephones, payroll processing, accounts payable, management, compliance, legal, etc.).

With all of these actions, the LMD’s ending fund balance on June 30, 2023 is projected to be $89,726. The LMD’s reserve position is evidence the City does not siphon “surplus” monies into its General Fund but uses the special parcel tax revenues for its intended voter-approved purposes. Its monetary existence allows the LMD to re-evaluate priorities in the future to replace landscape lost (including adding in more hardscape treatments) from the water conservation measures resulting from drought conditions.

City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 67
Summary
For the Landscape Maintenance District, the City of Clayton is projecting $1,256,053 of revenue in FY2023, which represents a 3% increase over the prior year. Budgeted expenditures are projected to decrease by 12% or $253,311 to $1,862,077 in FY2023 relative to the original adopted budget in FY2021/22. Actual expenditures for FY2021/22 are expected to come in signi¦cantly lower than budget.

Revenues by Source
Budgeted and Historical 2023 Revenues by Source
Millions
Other Revenues
Interest
Charges for Services
FY2020FY2021FY2022FY2023
$-0.25
$0
$0.25
$0.5
$0.75
$1
$1.25
$1.5
Revenue Source
Charges for Services
Name FY2021 Actuals FY2022 Amended FY2022 Projected FY2023 Budgeted FY2022 Amended vs. FY2023 Budgeted (% Change)
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 68
LMD Special Parcel Tax $1,169,764 $1,204,857 $1,204,857 $1,241,053 3% Total Charges for Services: $1,169,764 $1,204,857 $1,204,857 $1,241,053 3% Interest
Interest $26,584 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 0%
Total Interest: $26,584 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 0%
Other Revenues
Unrealized Inv. Gain/Loss -$12,530 $0 $0 $0 N/A
Total Other Revenues: -$12,530 $0 $0 $0 N/A
Total Revenue Source: $1,183,819 $1,219,857 $1,219,857 $1,256,053 3% Name FY2021 Actuals FY2022 Amended FY2022 Projected FY2023 Budgeted FY2022 Amended vs. FY2023 Budgeted (% Change)
Expenditures by Expense Type
Budgeted Expenditures by Expense Type
Operating (71.9%) Operating (71.9%) perating (71.9%)
Salaries (12.9%) Salaries (12.9%) alaries (12.9%)
Benefits (6.6%) ts (6.6%) ts (6.6%)
Capital (6%) Capital (6%) apital (6%)
Transfers (2.4%) Transfers (2.4%) ransfers (2.4%)
Debt (0.2%) Debt (0.2%) ebt (0.2%)
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 69
Budgeted and Historical Expenditures by Expense Type
Millions
Debt
Transfers
Capital
Benefits
Salaries
Operating
FY2020FY2021FY2022FY2023
$0
$0.5
$1
$1.5
$2
$2.5
Expense Objects
Salaries
Regular Salaries $243,827 $237,756 $265,336 $238,989 0.5% Temporary Salaries $6,987 $20,665 $0 $0 -100%
Overtime $1,907 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 0%
Total Salaries: $252,721 $260,421 $267,336 $240,989 -7.5% Bene¦ts
Long/Short Term Disability Insurance $2,382 $2,061 $2,061 $4,254 106.4% PERS Retirement-Normal Cost $23,147 $21,966 $24,000 $23,439 6.7% PERS Retirement - Unfunded Liability $26,422 $29,540 $36,000 $33,031 11.8% Workers' Compensation $10,484 $9,587 $8,677 $10,223 6.6% Unemployment Compensation $0 $4,464 $0 $529 -88.1%
FICA Taxes $4,258 $5,057 $3,818 $3,815 -24.6%
Bene¦t Insurance $43,315 $43,013 $57,895 $47,291 9.9%
Total Bene¦ts: $110,008 $115,688 $132,451 $122,581 6%
Operating
Recruitment/Pre-employment $0 $250 $0 $250 0%
Trail Fixture Repairs/Replacement $178 $320,000 $0 $290,000 -9.4% Irrigation Supplies and Materials $0 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 0% Weed Abatement Supplies and Materials $0 $20,000 $10,000 $15,000 -25% Plant Nutrition Supplies and Materials $0 $10,000 $10,000 $12,500 25% General Supplies $8,222 $14,300 $7,300 $4,500 -68.5%
Name FY2021
Actuals
FY2022
Amended
FY2022
Projected
FY2023
Budgeted
FY2022 Amended vs.

FY2023 Budgeted (%
Change)
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 70
Landscape Replacement Plants (Shrubs, Trees,
Etc.) $2,822 $20,000 $0 $0 -100%
Gas & Electric Services $26,995 $50,000 $28,000 $30,000 -40% Water Services $223,936 $240,000 $225,000 $230,000 -4.2% Tra¨c Safety Supplies $292 $1,000 $1,159 $1,000 0%
Buildings/Grounds Maintenance $38,149 $36,910 $28,169 $26,200 -29% Machinery/Equipment Maintenanc $13,793 $21,050 $10,750 $26,550 26.1% Vehicle Maintenance $9,482 $15,000 $22,000 $20,000 33.3% Vehicle Gas, Oil, and Supplies $12,374 $14,000 $14,000 $14,000 0% Property Tax Admin. Costs $3,740 $4,100 $4,100 $4,100 0% Other Professional Services $6,198 $7,100 $7,685 $37,500 428.2% Animal/Pest Control Services $4,653 $15,000 $15,000 $51,000 240% Contract Seasonal Labor $98,742 $160,000 $121,975 $125,000 -21.9% Tree Trimming Services $101,100 $300,000 $300,000 $200,000 -33.3% Weed Abatement Services $120,990 $201,230 $141,230 $212,000 5.4% CERF Charges/Depreciation $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 0% Total Operating: $701,664 $1,489,940 $986,368 $1,339,600 -10.1% Capital
Project Program Costs $53,813 $204,500 $179,000 $112,000 -45.2% Total Capital: $53,813 $204,500 $179,000 $112,000 -45.2% Debt
CCC Property Tax $2,994 $3,030 $3,030 $3,030 0%
Total Debt: $2,994 $3,030 $3,030 $3,030 0%
Transfers
Transfer To General Fund $39,190 $40,679 $40,679 $42,713 5% Transfer to Stormwater Fund $1,130 $1,130 $1,130 $1,164 3% Total Transfers: $40,320 $41,809 $41,809 $43,877 4.9%
Total Expense Objects: $1,161,519 $2,115,388 $1,609,994 $1,862,077 -12% Name FY2021
Actuals
FY2022
Amended
FY2022
Projected
FY2023
Budgeted
FY2022 Amended vs.

FY2023 Budgeted (%
Change)
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 71
Fund Balance
Fund Balance Projections
FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 % Change
Fund Balance Audited Fund Balance Audited Fund Balance Projected Proposed Unassigned $563,887 $190,355 $695,750 $89,726 -87.1%
Assigned $499,700 $895,531 $0 $0 0%
Total Fund Balance: $1,063,587 $1,085,886 $695,750 $89,726 -87.1% City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 72
[Type here] Agenda Item: 6(f)

AGENDA REPORT
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: Larry Theis, P.E., Public Works Director/City Engineer DATE: JUNE 21, 2022
SUBJECT: A RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF ASSESSMENTS FOR FY 2022/23 WITHIN THE LYDIA LANE SEWER ASSESSMENT DISTRICT FOR

THE REPAYMENT OF BONDS ISSUED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF

MUNICIPAL SANITARY SEWERS

RECOMMENDATION
Approve the attached Resolution.

BACKGROUND
The Lydia Lane Sewer Assessment District was formed to fund the installation of sanitary sewers and sewer laterals in the Lydia Lane and Verna Way area south of Clayton Road.

The City issued bonds to provide funding for the construction of the sewer improvements. The bonds are being repaid by the property owners through annual assessments collected by the County through each property owner’s property taxes. Along with the principal and interest, the assessments also include an administrative fee of $150.00 per parcel to cover District overhead costs.

The first assessment was levied in Fiscal Year 2002/03 and the final assessment will be levied in Fiscal Year 2031/32.

On June 6, 2022, the property owner of APN 120-052-011 paid-off their assessment lien in full, and therefore will no longer be assessed annually.

The attached resolution confirms the proposed assessments for Fiscal Year 2022/23.

Subject: Lydia Lane Sewer Assessment District – FY 2022/23 Levy of Assessments Date: June 21, 2022

FISCAL IMPACT
The Fiscal Year 2022/23 assessments will yield approximately $18,497.67 for the District. If this Resolution is not approved, the City will have to pursue separate action against each property owner to directly bill the annual assessment and if assessments are not billed and collected, the City may default on the bonds.

CONCLUSION
Based upon the above, staff recommends the City Council approve the Resolution confirming the levy of annual assessments for the Lydia Lane Sewer Assessment District.

ATTACHMENTS
Attachment: Resolution Confirming the Levying of Assessments for FY 2022/23

RESOLUTION NO. ##-2022

A RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE LEVY OF ASSESSMENTS FOR
FY 2022/23 WITHIN THE LYDIA LANE SEWER ASSESSMENT DISTRICT

FOR THE REPAYMENT OF BONDS ISSUED FOR THE CONSTRUCTION

OF MUNICIPAL SANITARY SEWERS

THE CITY COUNCIL
City of Clayton, California
WHEREAS, by passage of Resolution 36-2002, the City Council ordered the formation of the Lydia Lane Sewer Assessment District in accordance with and pursuant to the Municipal Improvement Act of 1913; and
WHEREAS, the City of Clayton issued and sold bonds in the amount of $228,332 to fund the construction of municipal sanitary sewer Improvements in the Lydia Lane Assessment District which must be repaid by the real property owners within the assessment district; and
WHEREAS, the repayment of the bonds by the property owners is provided through the levy of annual assessments, for principal, interest, and administrative costs, on each property owner’s County property tax bill; and
WHEREAS, the proposed assessments for Fiscal Year 2022/23 are shown on Exhibit A attached hereto;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Clayton, California, does hereby:

1. Orders the levy of assessments for FY 2022/23 on those parcels within the Lydia Lane Sewer Assessment District for repayment of bonds issued for the construction of municipal sanitary sewers within the assessment district.

2. Lists the annual assessment for each parcel in the assessment district shall as shown on Exhibit A attached hereto.

3. Orders the assessments to be levied and collected by the County of Contra Costa along with the regular property taxes.

PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council of Clayton, California at a regular public meeting thereof held on the 21st day of June 2022 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

THE CITY COUNCIL OF CLAYTON, CA
Peter Cloven, Mayor
ATTEST:
__________________________________
Janet Calderon, City Clerk

EXHIBIT A
ANNUAL ASSESSMENT AMOUNTS FOR FY 2022/23

FOR THE LYDIA LANE SEWER ASSESSMENT DISTRICT
Lydia Lane Sewer Assessment District
Parcel ID (APN) Amount1
120-042-005 $1,044.33
120-042-006 $1,044.33
120-043-007 $1,044.33
120-043-009 $1,044.33
120-051-007 $1,301.85
120-051-008 $1,301.85
120-051-010 $1,301.85
120-052-003 $1,301.85
120-052-004 $1,301.85
120-052-005 $1,301.85
120-052-006 $1,301.85
120-052-009 $1,301.85
120-052-015 $1,301.85
120-052-016 $1,301.85
120-052-017 $1,301.85
Total Assessment $18,497.67
1 The Amounts shown above may differ from the amounts placed on the Contra Costa County’s secured property tax bill by $0.01 due to County rounding requirements.

Agenda Item: 6(g)

AGENDA REPORT
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS
FROM: CITY MANAGER
DATE: June 21, 2022
SUBJECT: ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING A FIVE-YEAR AGREEMENT WITH

ALL OUT SPORTS LEAGUE (AOSL) TO DEVELOP AND OPERATE

COMMUNITY RECREATION PROGRAMS AT THE CLAYTON COMMUNITY

GYM AND AT CLAYTON COMMUNITY PARK AND SET RENTAL RATES

FOR AOSL TO PAY THE CITY DURING THE TERM OF THE AGREEMENT

AND ANY OPTIONAL RENEWALS
___________________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION
Adopt a resolution approving a five-year agreement with All Out Sports League (AOSL) for development and operation of community recreation programs at the Clayton Community Gymnasium and at Clayton Community Park and set rental rates for AOSL to pay the City during the term of the agreement and any optional renewals.

BACKGROUND
At its public meeting held on March 3, 2015, the City Council approved (by Consent Calendar action) a multiple-year contract with All Out Sports League (AOSL) for its continued provision of community recreation programs held in the Clayton Community Gymnasium and at the adjacent Clayton Community Park. The Agreement for AOSL’s independent development and operation of recreation and enrichment programs was a

7.25-year contract that expires at the end of this fiscal year.

DISCUSSION
As an independent contractor of the City, AOSL determines the types of community recreation programs it offers primarily based on factors such as community interest and participation experience, in addition to discerning which programs match unfilled niches in area recreation programming. In addition to its production of AOSL-operated recreation programs, AOSL is also authorized by the City to manage third party rentals of the Clayton Community Gymnasium during the City’s allocated shared-use time of this public facility located on the campus of Diablo View Middle School (in accordance with the Master Agreement between the City and the Mt. Diablo Unified School District). Such facility rentals Subject: Resolution Approving a Five-Year Agreement with All Out Sports League to Develop and Operate Community Recreation Programs at the Clayton Community Gym and at Clayton Community Park and Set Rental Rates for AOSL to Pay the City
Date: June 21, 2022

range from private party rentals (e.g. birthdays) to other organized sports leagues desiring use of the gymnasium for its own programs (e.g. CYO Basketball). AOSL also offers drop-in volleyball and basketball time slots, subject to other competing programs for gym floor time.

SUMMATION
AOSL has provided recreation programs for many years and has performed well under its contract with the City to date. Mr. Copeland and his AOSL organization have well served the City and its Clayton Valley community during his tenure at the Clayton Community Gymnasium. He works cooperatively with the middle school campus administration and is very accommodating when public school events necessitate priority uses or unexpected scheduling bumps.

FISCAL IMPACT
By terms of the Agreement, AOSL will pay monthly rent of $2,200 for its exclusive right to manage, schedule and operate the joint use Clayton Community Gymnasium. This will result in $26,400 annual revenue to the City in FY2022/23. The agreement also identifies an annual escalation of 5% per year for the initial five-year term.

The City incurs no expense or obligation in its Agreement with AOSL for this purpose.

Attachments: 1. Resolution

2. City Agreement with AOSL
Resolution ##-2022 AOSL Agreement June 21, 2022
RESOLUTION NO. ##-2022

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLAYTON APPROVING

AN AGREEMENT WITH ALL OUT SPORTS LEAGUE (AOSL) TO DEVELOP AND

OPERATE COMMUNITY RECREATION PROGRAMS AT THE CLAYTON COMMUNITY

GYM AND AT CLAYTON COMMUNITY PARK AND SETTING RENTAL RATES FOR AOSL

TO PAY THE CITY DURING THE TERM OF THE AGREEMENT AND ANY OPTIONAL

RENEWALS

THE CITY COUNCIL
City of Clayton, California
WHEREAS, pursuant to the Agreement between the City of Clayton (herein "City"), the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Clayton (herein "Agency"), and the Mt. Diablo Unified School District (herein "District") dated 22 May 2001, a gymnasium known as the Clayton Community Gymnasium (herein "Gymnasium") was constructed on land donated by the City at the Diablo View Middle School in Clayton, CA; WHEREAS, All Out Sports League, Inc. (herein “AOSL”) is a 501 (c) (3) public charity recognized by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) of the Department of Treasury effective 13 June 2008, and is a nonprofit Mutual Benefit Corporation organized in the State of California;
WHEREAS, at its regular public meeting held on June 1, 2010, the Clayton City Council did review, approve and authorize an Agreement with AOSL for the development and operation of recreation and enrichment programs at the Gymnasium; WHEREAS, since July 2010, AOSL has offered, provided and operated community recreation programs, leagues and classes at the Gymnasium and at Clayton Community Park to the general satisfaction and acceptance of the City; and WHEREAS, the current agreement with AOSL for programming and operation of the Clayton Community Gym will expire on June 30, 2022.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Clayton does hereby approve the Agreement between the City of Clayton and All Out Sports League for the development and operation of community recreation programs at the Clayton Community Gym and Clayton Community Park and setting rental rates for AOSL to pay the City during the term of the agreement and any optional renewals.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute the Agreement in the form attached to the staff report, with minor revisions that may be approved by the City Manager and the City Attorney, and to execute any other necessary documents to effectuate the terms of the Agreement.

Resolution ##-2022 AOSL Agreement June 21, 2022
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Clayton, California, at a regular public meeting thereof held on the 21st day of June, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

THE CITY COUNCIL OF CLAYTON, CA
Peter Cloven, Mayor
ATTEST:

Janet Calderon, City Clerk
38044.03101\30483741.3
1 CITY OF CLAYTON
AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF CLAYTON AND ALL OUT SPORTS LEAGUE, INC.,

FOR DEVELOPMENT AND OPERATION OF RECREATION AND ENRICHMENT

PROGRAMS AT THE CLAYTON COMMUNITY GYMNASIUM
This Agreement is made and entered into as of July 1, 2022 by and between the City of Clayton, a municipal corporation organized and operating under the laws of the State of California with its principal place of business at 6000 Heritage Trail, Clayton, California 94517 (“City”), and All Out Sports League, a 501 (c) (3) public charity recognized by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) of the Department of Treasury and a nonprofit Mutual Benefit Corporation organized in the State of California with its principal place of business at 5433 Clayton Road, Ste. K #196, Clayton, CA 94517 (hereinafter referred to as “AOSL”). City and AOSL are sometimes individually referred to as “Party” and collectively as “Parties” in this Agreement.

RECITALS
A. WHEREAS, City is a public agency of the State of California and is in need of services for the development and operation of recreation and enrichment programs at the Clayton Community Gymnasium (hereinafter referred to as “the Project”); B. WHEREAS, AOSL is duly licensed and has the necessary qualifications to provide such services and is a 501 (c) (3) public charity recognized by the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) of the Department of Treasury effective 13 June 2008, and is a nonprofit Mutual Benefit Corporation organized in the State of California with Articles of Incorporation first endorsed and filed with the CA Secretary of State on 22 December 2008; C. WHEREAS, since July 2010, AOSL has offered, provided and operated community recreation programs, leagues and classes at the Gymnasium and at Clayton Community Park to the general satisfaction and acceptance of the City; D. WHEREAS, AOSL has indicated to the City its continued and renewed desire and capacity to continue offering such recreation services to the greater Clayton community at said facilities under a renewed agreement; and
E. WHEREAS, the City and AOSL each wish to continue the existing mutuallybeneficial relationship in this regard for the betterment and well-being of City residents and the greater Clayton community.
38044.03101\30483741.3
2 AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS:

1. Services.

AOSL shall provide the City with development and operation of recreation and enrichment programs for the community at the Clayton Community Gym. These include but are not limited to, leagues, camps, clinics, free financial seminars, mentoring programs, scholarships for kids with good grades, and adult sports. Additionally, AOSL shall ensure that the Clayton Community gym is safe, clean and secure for all participants. Additional detail on the scope of work can be found in Exhibit A.

2. Compensation.
a. In valuable consideration thereof for the opportunity to perform community recreation programs and services under this Agreement and for the exclusive right of access to and priority use and management of the Clayton Community Gymnasium during the City’s facility use days and hours, AOSL agrees to pay the City the sum of $2,200 per month beginning July 1, 2022 for Fiscal Year 2022/23 and subject to a 5% escalator annually through the term of the Agreement. Attachment B shows the monthly rental amounts through the first term of the Agreement.

3. Additional Work.

If changes in the work seem merited by AOSL or the City, and informal consultations with the other party indicate that a change is warranted, it shall be processed in the following manner:
a letter outlining the changes shall be forwarded to the City by AOSL with a statement of estimated changes in rent or time schedule. An amendment to this Agreement shall be prepared by the City and executed by both Parties before such a change to services is implemented. Such amendment shall not render ineffective or invalidate unaffected portions of this Agreement.

4. Maintenance of Records.

Books, documents, papers, accounting records, and other evidence pertaining to costs incurred shall be maintained by AOSL and made available at all reasonable times during the contract period and for four (4) years from the date of final payment under the contract for inspection by City.

5. Term
The term of this Agreement shall be from July 1, 2022 to June 30, 2027, unless earlier terminated as provided herein. The Parties may, by mutual, written consent, extend the term of this Agreement by one five (5)-year term. AOSL shall perform its services in a prompt and timely manner within the term of this Agreement. Either party may terminate the Agreement during the term by giving the other party sixty (60) days prior written notice of termination.

6. Delays in Performance.
a. Neither City nor AOSL shall be considered in default of this Agreement for delays in performance caused by circumstances beyond the reasonable control of the non-performing 38044.03101\30483741.3
3 party. For purposes of this Agreement, such circumstances include but are not limited to, abnormal weather conditions; floods; earthquakes; fire; epidemics; pandemics, war; riots and other civil disturbances; strikes, lockouts, work slowdowns, and other labor disturbances; sabotage or judicial restraint.
b. Should such circumstances occur, the non-performing party shall, within a reasonable time of being prevented from performing, give written notice to the other party describing the circumstances preventing continued performance and the efforts being made to resume performance of this Agreement.

7. Compliance with Law.
a. AOSL shall comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, codes and regulations of the federal, state and local government, including Cal/OSHA requirements. b. If required, AOSL shall assist the City, as requested, in obtaining and maintaining all permits required of AOSL by federal, state and local regulatory agencies. c. If applicable, AOSL is responsible for all costs of clean up and/ or removal of hazardous and toxic substances spilled as a result of his or her services or operations performed under this Agreement.

8. Standard of Care
AOSL’s services will be performed in accordance with generally accepted professional practices and principles and in a manner consistent with the level of care and skill ordinarily exercised by members of the profession currently practicing under similar conditions.

9. Assignment and Subconsultants
AOSL shall not assign, sublet, or transfer this Agreement or any rights under or interest in this Agreement without the written consent of the City, which may be withheld for any reason.

Any attempt to so assign or so transfer without such consent shall be void and without legal effect and shall constitute grounds for termination. Subcontracts, if any, shall contain a provision making them subject to all provisions stipulated in this Agreement. Nothing contained herein shall prevent AOSL from employing independent associates, and subconsultants as AOSL may deem appropriate to assist in the performance of services hereunder.

10. Independent Contractor
AOSL is retained as an independent contractor and is not an employee of City. No employee or agent of AOSL shall become an employee of City. The work to be performed shall be in accordance with the work described in this Agreement, subject to such directions and amendments from City as herein provided.

11. Insurance. AOSL shall not commence work for the City until it has provided evidence satisfactory to the City it has secured all insurance required under this section. In addition, AOSL shall not allow any subcontractor to commence work on any subcontract until it has secured all insurance required under this section.
38044.03101\30483741.3
4 a. Commercial General Liability
(i) The AOSL shall take out and maintain, during the performance of all work under this Agreement, in amounts not less than specified herein, Commercial General Liability Insurance, in a form and with insurance companies acceptable to the City. (ii) Coverage for Commercial General Liability insurance shall be at least as broad as the following:
(1) Insurance Services Office Commercial General Liability coverage (Occurrence Form CG 00 01) or exact equivalent. (iii) Commercial General Liability Insurance must include coverage for the following:
(1) Bodily Injury and Property Damage
(2) Personal Injury/Advertising Injury
(3) Premises/Operations Liability
(4) Products/Completed Operations Liability
(5) Aggregate Limits that Apply per Project
(6) Explosion, Collapse and Underground (UCX) exclusion deleted
(7) Contractual Liability with respect to this Agreement (8) Property Damage
(9) Independent Contractors Coverage
(iv) The policy shall contain no endorsements or provisions limiting coverage for (1) contractual liability; (2) cross liability exclusion for claims or suits by one insured against another; (3) products/completed operations liability; or (4) contain any other exclusion contrary to the Agreement.
(v) The policy shall give City, the City Council and each member of the City Council, its officers, employees, agents and City designated volunteers additional insured status using ISO endorsement forms CG 20 10 10 01 and 20 37 10 01, or endorsements providing the exact same coverage.
(vi) The general liability program may utilize either deductibles or provide coverage excess of a self-insured retention, subject to written approval by the City, and provided that such deductibles shall not apply to the City as an additional insured. b. Automobile Liability
(i) At all times during the performance of the work under this Agreement, the AOSL shall maintain Automobile Liability Insurance for bodily injury and property damage including coverage for owned, non-owned and hired vehicles, in a form and with insurance companies acceptable to the City.
(ii) Coverage for automobile liability insurance shall be at least as broad as Insurance Services Office Form Number CA 00 01 covering automobile liability (Coverage Symbol 1, any auto).
38044.03101\30483741.3
5 (iii) The policy shall give City, the City Council and each member of the City Council, its officers, employees, agents and City designated volunteers additional insured status.
(iv) Subject to written approval by the City, the automobile liability program may utilize deductibles, provided that such deductibles shall not apply to the City as an additional insured, but not a self-insured retention.
c. Workers’ Compensation/Employer’s Liability
(i) AOSL certifies that he/she is aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the California Labor Code which requires every employer to be insured against liability for workers’ compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that code, and he/she will comply with such provisions before commencing work under this Agreement.
(ii) To the extent AOSL has employees at any time during the term of this Agreement, at all times during the performance of the work under this Agreement, the AOSL shall maintain full compensation insurance for all persons employed directly by him/her to carry out the work contemplated under this Agreement, all in accordance with the “Workers’ Compensation and Insurance Act,” Division IV of the Labor Code of the State of California and any acts amendatory thereof, and Employer’s Liability Coverage in amounts indicated herein.

AOSL shall require all subconsultants to obtain and maintain, for the period required by this Agreement, workers’ compensation coverage of the same type and limits as specified in this section.
d. Reserved
e. Minimum Policy Limits Required
(i) The following insurance limits are required for the Agreement:

Combined Single Limit
Commercial General Liability $2,000,000 per occurrence/ $4,000,000 aggregate for bodily injury, personal injury, and property
damage
Automobile Liability $2,000,000 combined single limit
Employer’s Liability $2,000,000 per accident or disease (ii) Defense costs shall be payable in addition to the limits. (iii) Requirements of specific coverage or limits contained in this section are not intended as a limitation on coverage, limits, or other requirement, or a waiver of any coverage normally provided by any insurance. Any available coverage shall be provided to the parties required to be named as Additional Insured pursuant to this Agreement. f. Evidence Required
38044.03101\30483741.3
6 Prior to execution of the Agreement, the AOSL shall file with the City evidence of insurance from an insurer or insurers certifying to the coverage of all insurance required herein.

Such evidence shall include original copies of the ISO CG 00 01 (or insurer’s equivalent) signed by the insurer’s representative and Certificate of Insurance (Acord Form 25-S or equivalent), together with required endorsements. All evidence of insurance shall be signed by a properly authorized officer, agent, or qualified representative of the insurer and shall certify the names of the insured, any additional insureds, where appropriate, the type and amount of the insurance, the location and operations to which the insurance applies, and the expiration date of such insurance.
g. Policy Provisions Required
(i) AOSL shall provide the City at least thirty (30) days prior written notice of cancellation of any policy required by this Agreement, except that the AOSL shall provide at least ten (10) days prior written notice of cancellation of any such policy due to nonpayment of premium. If any of the required coverage is cancelled or expires during the term of this Agreement, the AOSL shall deliver renewal certificate(s) including the General Liability Additional Insured Endorsement to the City at least ten (10) days prior to the effective date of cancellation or expiration.
(ii) The Commercial General Liability Policy and Automobile Policy shall each contain a provision stating that AOSL’s policy is primary insurance and that any insurance, self-insurance or other coverage maintained by the City or any named insureds shall not be called upon to contribute to any loss.
(iii) The retroactive date (if any) of each policy is to be no later than the effective date of this Agreement. AOSL shall maintain such coverage continuously for a period of at least three years after the completion of the work under this Agreement. AOSL shall purchase a one (1) year extended reporting period A) if the retroactive date is advanced past the effective date of this Agreement; B) if the policy is cancelled or not renewed; or C) if the policy is replaced by another claims-made policy with a retroactive date subsequent to the effective date of this Agreement.
(iv) All required insurance coverages, except for the professional liability coverage, shall contain or be endorsed to provide a waiver of subrogation in favor of the City, its officials, officers, employees, agents, and volunteers or shall specifically allow AOSL or others providing insurance evidence in compliance with these specifications to waive their right of recovery prior to a loss. AOSL hereby waives its own right of recovery against City, and shall require similar written express waivers and insurance clauses from each of its subconsultants. (v) The limits set forth herein shall apply separately to each insured against whom claims are made or suits are brought, except with respect to the limits of liability.

Further the limits set forth herein shall not be construed to relieve the AOSL from liability in excess of such coverage, nor shall it limit the AOSL’s indemnification obligations to the City and shall not preclude the City from taking such other actions available to the City under other provisions of the Agreement or law.
h. Qualifying Insurers
(i) All policies required shall be issued by acceptable insurance companies, as determined by the City, which satisfy the following minimum requirements:
38044.03101\30483741.3
7 (1) Each such policy shall be from a company or companies with a current A.M. Best's rating of no less than A:VII and admitted to transact in the business of insurance in the State of California, or otherwise allowed to place insurance through surplus line brokers under applicable provisions of the California Insurance Code or any federal law.
i. Additional Insurance Provisions
(i) The foregoing requirements as to the types and limits of insurance coverage to be maintained by AOSL, and any approval of said insurance by the City, is not intended to and shall not in any manner limit or qualify the liabilities and obligations otherwise assumed by the AOSL pursuant to this Agreement, including but not limited to, the provisions concerning indemnification.
(ii) If at any time during the life of the Agreement, any policy of insurance required under this Agreement does not comply with these specifications or is canceled and not replaced, City has the right but not the duty to obtain the insurance it deems necessary and any premium paid by City will be promptly reimbursed by AOSL or City will withhold amounts sufficient to pay premium from AOSL payments. In the alternative, City may cancel this Agreement.
(iii) The City may require the AOSL to provide complete copies of all insurance policies in effect for the duration of the Project. (iv) Neither the City nor the City Council, nor any member of the City Council, nor any of the officials, officers, employees, agents or volunteers shall be personally responsible for any liability arising under or by virtue of this Agreement. j. Subconsultant Insurance Requirements. AOSL shall not allow any subcontractors to commence work on any subcontract until they have provided evidence satisfactory to the City that they have secured all insurance required under this section. Policies of commercial general liability insurance provided by such subcontractors shall be endorsed to name the City as an additional insured using ISO form CG 20 38 04 13 or an endorsement providing the exact same coverage. If requested by AOSL, City may approve different scopes or minimum limits of insurance for particular subcontractors.

12. Indemnification.

To the fullest extent permitted by law, AOSL shall defend (with counsel of City’s choosing), indemnify and hold the City, its officials, officers, employees, volunteers, and agents free and harmless from any and all claims, demands, causes of action, costs, expenses, liability, loss, damage or injury of any kind, in law or equity, to property or persons, including wrongful death, in any manner arising out of, pertaining to, or incident to any acts, errors or omissions, or willful misconduct of AOSL, its officials, officers, employees, subcontractors, AOSLs or agents in connection with the performance of the AOSL’s services, or this Agreement, including without limitation the payment of all damages, expert witness fees and attorney’s fees and other related costs and expenses. AOSL's obligation to indemnify shall not be restricted to insurance proceeds, if any, received by AOSL, the City, its officials, officers, employees, agents, or volunteers. 38044.03101\30483741.3
8 13. California Labor Code Requirements.
a. AOSL is aware of the requirements of California Labor Code Sections 1720 et seq. and 1770 et seq., which require the payment of prevailing wage rates and the performance of other requirements on certain “public works” and “maintenance” projects (“Prevailing Wage Laws”). If the services are being performed as part of an applicable “public works” or “maintenance” project, as defined by the Prevailing Wage Laws, and if the total compensation is $1,000 or more, AOSL agrees to fully comply with such Prevailing Wage Laws. AOSL shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officials, officers, employees and agents free and harmless from any claims, liabilities, costs, penalties or interest arising out of any failure or alleged failure to comply with the Prevailing Wage Laws. It shall be mandatory upon the AOSL and all subconsultants to comply with all California Labor Code provisions, which include but are not limited to prevailing wages (Labor Code Sections 1771, 1774 and 1775), employment of apprentices (Labor Code Section 1777.5), certified payroll records (Labor Code Sections 1771.4 and 1776), hours of labor (Labor Code Sections 1813 and 1815) and debarment of contractors and subcontractors (Labor Code Section 1777.1). The requirement to submit certified payroll records directly to the Labor Commissioner under Labor Code section 1771.4 shall not apply to work performed on a public works project that is exempt pursuant to the small project exemption specified in Labor Code Section 1771.4.
b. If the services are being performed as part of an applicable “public works” or “maintenance” project, then pursuant to Labor Code Sections 1725.5 and 1771.1, the AOSL and all subconsultants performing such services must be registered with the Department of Industrial Relations. AOSL shall maintain registration for the duration of the Project and require the same of any subconsultants, as applicable. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the contractor registration requirements mandated by Labor Code Sections 1725.5 and 1771.1 shall not apply to work performed on a public works project that is exempt pursuant to the small project exemption specified in Labor Code Sections 1725.5 and 1771.1.
c. This Agreement may also be subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the Department of Industrial Relations. It shall be AOSL’s sole responsibility to comply with all applicable registration and labor compliance requirements. Any stop orders issued by the Department of Industrial Relations against AOSL or any subcontractor that affect AOSL’s performance of services, including any delay, shall be AOSL’s sole responsibility. Any delay arising out of or resulting from such stop orders shall be considered AOSL caused delay and shall not be compensable by the City. AOSL shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officials, officers, employees and agents free and harmless from any claim or liability arising out of stop orders issued by the Department of Industrial Relations against AOSL or any subcontractor.

14. Verification of Employment Eligibility.

By executing this Agreement, AOSL verifies that it fully complies with all requirements and restrictions of state and federal law respecting the employment of undocumented aliens, including, but not limited to, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, as may be amended from time to time.

15. Reserved.

16. Laws and Venue.
38044.03101\30483741.3
9 This Agreement shall be interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California.

If any action is brought to interpret or enforce any term of this Agreement, the action shall be brought in a state or federal court situated in the County of Contra Costa, State of California. 17 Termination or Abandonment
a. City has the right to terminate or abandon any portion or all of the work under this Agreement by giving ten (10) calendar days written notice to AOSL. In such event, City shall be immediately given title and possession to all original field notes, drawings and specifications, written reports and other documents produced or developed for that portion of the work completed and/or being abandoned. City shall pay AOSL the reasonable value of services rendered for any portion of the work completed prior to termination. If said termination occurs prior to completion of any task for which a payment request has not been received, the charge for services performed during such task shall be the reasonable value of such services, based on an amount mutually agreed to by City and AOSL of the portion of such task completed but not paid prior to said termination. City shall not be liable for any costs other than the charges or portions thereof which are specified herein. AOSL shall not be entitled to payment for unperformed services, and shall not be entitled to damages or compensation for termination of work. b. AOSL may terminate its obligation to provide further services under this Agreement upon thirty (30) calendar days’ written notice to City only in the event of substantial failure by City to perform in accordance with the terms of this Agreement through no fault of AOSL. 18 Documents. Except as otherwise provided in “Termination or Abandonment,” above, all original field notes, written reports, Drawings and Specifications and other documents, produced or developed for the Project shall, upon payment in full for the services described in this Agreement, be furnished to and become the property of the City.

19. Organization
AOSL shall assign Casey Copeland as Project Manager. The Project Manager shall not be removed from the Project or reassigned without the prior written consent of the City.

20. Limitation of Agreement.

This Agreement is limited to and includes only the work included in the Project described above.

21. Notice
Any notice or instrument required to be given or delivered by this Agreement may be given or delivered by depositing the same in any United States Post Office, certified mail, return receipt requested, postage prepaid, addressed to:

CITY:

City of Clayton
6000 Heritage Trail
Clayton, CA 94517
AOSL:

All Out Sports League
Attention: Casey Copeland, CEO
5433 Clayton Road, Ste. K #196
Clayton, CA 94517
38044.03101\30483741.3
10 Attn: Reina Schwartz, City Manager
and shall be effective upon receipt thereof.

22. Third Party Rights
Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to give any rights or benefits to anyone other than the City and the AOSL.

23. Equal Opportunity Employment.

AOSL represents that it is an equal opportunity employer and that it shall not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, age or other interests protected by the State or Federal Constitutions. Such nondiscrimination shall include, but not be limited to, all activities related to initial employment, upgrading, demotion, transfer, recruitment or recruitment advertising, layoff or termination.

24. Entire Agreement
This Agreement, with its exhibits, represents the entire understanding of City and AOSL as to those matters contained herein, and supersedes and cancels any prior or contemporaneous oral or written understanding, promises or representations with respect to those matters covered hereunder. Each Party acknowledges that no representations, inducements, promises or agreements have been made by any person which are not incorporated herein, and that any other agreements shall be void. This Agreement may not be modified or altered except in writing signed by both Parties hereto. This is an integrated Agreement.

25. Severability
The unenforceability, invalidity or illegality of any provision(s) of this Agreement shall not render the remaining provisions unenforceable, invalid or illegal.

26. Successors and Assigns
This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the successors in interest, executors, administrators and assigns of each Party to this Agreement. However, AOSL shall not assign or transfer by operation of law or otherwise any or all of its rights, burdens, duties or obligations without the prior written consent of City. Any attempted assignment without such consent shall be invalid and void.

27. Non-Waiver
None of the provisions of this Agreement shall be considered waived by either Party, unless such waiver is specifically specified in writing.

28. Time of Essence
Time is of the essence for each and every provision of this Agreement.

29. Reserved

30. Prohibited Interests
38044.03101\30483741.3
11 AOSL maintains and warrants that it has not employed nor retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for AOSL, to solicit or secure this Agreement. Further, AOSL warrants that it has not paid nor has it agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for AOSL, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift or other consideration contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this Agreement. For breach or violation of this warranty, City shall have the right to rescind this Agreement without liability. For the term of this Agreement, no director, official, officer or employee of City, during the term of his or her service with City, shall have any direct interest in this Agreement, or obtain any present or anticipated material benefit arising therefrom. [SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
38044.03101\30483741.3
12 SIGNATURE PAGE FOR AGREEMENT

BETWEEN THE CITY OF CLAYTON

AND ALL OUT SPORTS LEAGUE
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first written above.

CITY OF CLAYTON ALL OUT SPORTS LEAGUE
By: By:

Reina J. Schwartz
City Manager Its:

Printed Name:

ATTEST:

By: _______
Janet Calderon, City Clerk
38044.03101\30483741.3
13 EXHIBIT A
Scope of Services
AOSL will develop and operate diversified recreation and enrichment programs for youth, adults, and seniors, will advertise and market the same to take place at the Gymnasium and at other designated City-owned sites within the city of Clayton as may be agreed upon by City and AOSL. City will assist AOSL in marketing its programs through the City's existing web site and placement of City-approved AOSL-provided banners at locations within and approved by the City.

The hours of operation of the Gymnasium shall be within the City's available and authorized use of the Gymnasium pursuant to the City/District Agreement.

AOSL shall hire, train, and supervise its staff, and shall oversee and supervise all of its activities and programs offered at the Gymnasium or at other agreed upon sites pursuant to this Agreement. AOSL shall ensure each of its staff and individuals working with or volunteering to work with youth in its programs have cleared background checks and received necessary training as required by applicable state laws, prior to working with program youth.

City may suggest from time-to-time community programs to be offered at the Gymnasium, which AOSL will give good faith consideration to implement. City and AOSL staff will meet on a regular basis to discuss and review the operation of the programs in the Gymnasium and other aspects of this Agreement. The City will have the right to participate in the mutual development of additional programs and the option to promulgate rules and regulations for such programs that are made available in the Gymnasium to non-AOSL affiliated groups.

AOSL will generate and recommend rules for use of the Gymnasium and rental policies to be reviewed and approved by City before they are implemented. In this regard, in its fees schedule AOSL agrees it shall ensure each of its community recreation and program fees that it charges is, at a minimum, at least ten percent (10%) less than comparable public recreation fees charged for comparable community recreation programs in the general East Bay area.

AOSL will exercise and implement due diligence and care of the Gymnasium pertaining to reasonable use of the facility during each and all activities under its supervision or operation, including the immediate report to the City of damages to the Gymnasium and the identification of responsible third parties, whenever possible.

The City's prior approval must be obtained before any long term or reoccurring third party rental contracts are entered into by AOSL lasting longer than six (6) months. All contracts entered into between AOSL and any third party in any way related to this Agreement and the rights created herein shall include the following provision; “The parties are aware that AOSL is the City’s independent contractor and that said parties will not have any enforceable rights as to the City of Clayton should ASOL be in default under this Contract.” All literature and collateral materials, related to the programs offered by the AOSL pursuant to this Agreement, including but not limited to uniforms, tee shirts, trophies, medals, banners, and other paraphernalia pertaining to the programs, will be printed with or bear both the AOSL and the City of Clayton logos, all of which are to be reviewed and approved in advance by staff of both agencies. AOSL will provide, and cause to be worn, appropriate shirts for its on-site staff identifying the “Clayton Community Gym” and the respective logos of each entity in order to assist users in the identification of the program and supervising personnel. 38044.03101\30483741.3
14 EXHIBIT B
Schedule of Charges/Payments
AOSL will remit to the City on a monthly basis the rental amounts indicated below for each time period.

Time Period Monthly Rental Amount
Fiscal Year 2022/23 $ 2,200
Fiscal Year 2023/24 $ 2,310
Fiscal Year 2024/25 $ 2,425
Fiscal Year 2025/26 $ 2,547
Fiscal Year 2026/27 $ 2,674
Fiscal Year 2027/28 $ 2,808
Fiscal Year 2028/29 $ 2,948
Fiscal Year 2029/30 $ 3,095
If the Agreement is renewed for an additional five-year term, the monthly rental amounts would continue to increase by 5% per year of the term.

Agenda Item: 6(h)

AGENDA REPORT
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS
FROM: REINA J. SCHWARTZ, CITY MANAGER
DATE: June 21, 2022
SUBJECT: ADOPT A RESOLUTION APPROVING A CORRECTED INTERAGENCY

AGREEMENT WITH THE CONTRA COSTA COUNTY ANIMAL SERVICES

DEPARTMENT FOR ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES FOR AN INITIAL
TWO-YEAR TERM IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $200,000 OVER THE

TWO-YEAR PERIOD, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO

EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT
___________________________________________________________________________

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council, by Resolution, approve a corrected Interagency Agreement with Contra Costa County Animal Services Department for animal control services within the City of Clayton.

BACKGROUND
Since the City’s incorporation in 1964, Contra Costa County has always provided contract animal control services within and to our community. Chapter 6.04 of the Clayton Municipal Code adopts the County’s animal services ordinance by reference. Under the current arrangement, Animal Services enforces all legal requirements related to animal control within the City. Additionally, Animal Services responds to animal-related incidents, impounds stray animals, investigates animal bites, attacks, animal cruelty/abuse and related crimes, and removes dead animals from public areas. Animal Services also provides veterinary care to animals, low cost spay and neuter clinics, pet adoptions, low cost vaccination clinics and public education programs. Almost all of the cities and towns in Contra Costa contract with the County for these services.

DISCUSSION
On June 7, 2022, the City Council approved an Interagency Agreement with the Contra Costa County Animal Services Department by Resolution 45-2022. On June 9, 2022, the County notified the City that the Agreement contained an error in the language that stated that the population used to calculate the per-capita rate would include both the cities for which the Subject: Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Clayton Approving a Corrected Interagency Agreement with Contra Costa County Animal Services Department for Animal Control Services and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Agreement Date: June 21, 2022

County provides animal services and the unincorporated population and requested a correction (see Attachment 3). The correct formula should only include the total population of the cities served, without the unincorporated area. The agreement presented June 7, 2022 included the language below:

13. Annual Fee
a. In consideration for Services provided by the County to the City, and in addition to any fees and fines imposed on City residents, the City agrees to pay to the county the following amounts (“Annual Fee”): …
iii. For each fiscal year thereafter, the per capita rate for the Annual Fee shall be calculated using the following formula: (A) the County’s budgeted cost to provide Animal Services throughout the County in that fiscal year, minus the sum of animal licensing fees and user fees projected to be received from all County residents in that fiscal year, minus the budgeted County general fund contribution for that fiscal year, divided by (B) the sum of the population of the unincorporated area plus the population of all cities for which the County provides Animal Services. For example, if the budgeted cost to provide Animal Services throughout the County is $12,640,000, the animal licensing and user fees projected to be received are $1,620,000, the budgeted general fund contribution is $4,112,000, and the population is 866,583, then the per capita Annual Fee would be $7.97 per capita [($12,640,000 -$1,620,000 - $4,112,000) / 866,583]. For a City with a population of 100,000, the total Annual Fee would be $797,000.

This does not accurately capture the fee structure as developed in the County’s strategic planning process and which had been previously communicated during meetings between city officials and Animal Services, nor does it match the example calculation provided which only uses the populations of the cities, without the unincorporated area (showing a population denominator of 866,583 which is the total population of the cities without the unincorporated area for the relevant period).

Contra Costa County Animal Services has submitted a Corrected City-County Animal Services Agreement which makes the following change to Section 13. a. iii, removing the words “…population of the unincorporated area…” from the formula used to calculate the annual rate.
iii. For each fiscal year thereafter, the per capita rate for the Annual Fee shall be calculated using the following formula: (A) The County’s budgeted cost to provide Animal Services throughout the County in that fiscal year, minus the sum of animal licensing fees and user fees projected to be received from all County Subject: Adopt a Resolution of the City Council of the City of Clayton Approving a Corrected Interagency Agreement with Contra Costa County Animal Services Department for Animal Control Services and Authorizing the City Manager to Execute the Agreement Date: June 21, 2022

residents in that fiscal year, minus the budgeted County general fund contribution for that fiscal year, divided by (B) the sum of the population of all cities for which the County provides Animal Services. For example, if the budgeted cost to provide Animal Services throughout the County is $12,640,000, the animal licensing and user fees projected to be received are $1,620,000, the budgeted general fund contribution is $4,112,000, and the population is 866,583, then the per capita Annual Fee would be $7.97 per capita [($12,640,000 - $1,620,000 - $4,112,000) / 866,583]. For a City with a population of 100,000, the total Annual Fee would be $797,000.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
The revised agreement does not change the estimates included in the prior report which were already based on the formula without the unincorporated area included. They remain as follows:
• FY2022/23 - $7.97 per capita (population as of January 2022). This will result in an increase of approximately $15,000 (20%) over the current year and is included as a cost in the Proposed FY2022/23 budget.
• FY2023/24 - $9.11 per capita (14%) (population as of January 2023). • FY2024/25 and beyond – per capita formula taking into account the County’s budgeted cost to provide Animal Services throughout the County, net of fees and the County’s General Fund contribution, divided by population, revised to calculate the City’s share of the costs as the City’s relative percentage of the total population of all of the cities served by County Animal Services.

After each year, the County will reconcile actual costs against budget and any cost savings will be applied to the following fiscal year.

Attachment:1: Resolution
Attachment 2: Corrected Interagency Agreement with Contra Costa County Animal Services Department Attachment 3: Letter from County Animal Services Regarding Revised Agreement & Example Correction from the City of Walnut Creek
Resolution ##-2022 Revised Animal Care Agrmnt June 21, 2022 RESOLUTION NO. ##-2022

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLAYTON APPROVING

A CORRECTED INTERAGENCY AGREEMENT WITH THE CONTRA COSTA

COUNTY ANIMAL SERVICES DEPARTMENT FOR ANIMAL CONTROL SERVICES FOR AN INITIAL TWO-YEAR TERM IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $200,000

OVER THE TWO-YEAR PERIOD, AND AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO

EXECUTE THE AGREEMENT

THE CITY COUNCIL
City of Clayton, California
WHEREAS, the City of Clayton currently contracts with the Contra Costa County Animal Services Department for animal control services for the City of Clayton through an interagency agreement; and
WHEREAS, the Animal Services Department has a demonstrated history of providing professional animal control services to the City since the City’s incorporation and through an agreement that was last approved in 2005; and
WHEREAS, the Animal Services Department is especially suited to provide animal control services and is also doing so for most of the cities in Contra Costa County; and WHEREAS, there is funding budgeted in the Fiscal Year 2022/23 budget for animal control services; and
WHEREAS, the Interagency Agreement would commence on July 1, 2022, providing a seamless transition and allowing for animal control services with the Contra Costa County Animal Services Department for a two (2) year term for a maximum total cost of $200,000 with an automatic renewal for successive three (3) year periods and the Annual Fee in the initial term varies per fiscal year based on population with a formula specified for calculation of the Annual Fee in the renewal periods; and WHEREAS, on June 9, 2022, the County notified the City that the Agreement approved by the City Council on June 7, 2022 via Resolution 45-2022, but not yet executed contained an error in the description of the formula for calculation of Annual Fees after the initial term of the Agreement and requested that a corrected Agreement be approved.

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Clayton does hereby approve the corrected Interagency Agreement between the City of Clayton and Contra Costa County Animal Services Department for animal control services for a Two (2) Year Initial Term, with an Automatic Renewal for Successive Three (3) Year Periods, pursuant to the City of Clayton Purchasing Policy.

BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the City Manager is hereby authorized to execute the Agreement in the form attached to the staff report, with minor revisions that may be Resolution ##-2022 Revised Animal Care Agrmnt June 21, 2022 approved by the City Manager and the City Attorney, and to execute any other necessary documents to effectuate the terms of the Agreement.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Clayton, California, at a regular public meeting thereof held on the 21st day of June, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

THE CITY COUNCIL OF CLAYTON, CA
Peter Cloven, Mayor
ATTEST:

Janet Calderon, City Clerk

1 CITY-COUNTY ANIMAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
The County of Contra Costa, a political subdivision of the State of California ("County"), and the City of Clayton , a municipal corporation in the County ("City"), enter into this City-County Animal Services Agreement (“Agreement”) effective as of July 1, 2022 (“Effective Date”).

1. Authority. The City has adopted by reference Division 416 of the Contra Costa County Ordinance Code (hereafter "Division 416") governing animals.

Division 416 establishes requirements and procedures for animal control by the County’s Animal Services Department. This Agreement is entered into to memorialize the County’s provision of Animal Services and enforcement of Division 416 within the City as provided in Section 416-4.208, and as authorized by California Government Code section 51301.

2. Enforcement Duties and Personnel. The County will enforce Division 416 within the City’s boundaries. The City hereby designates and appoints the County's Animal Services Director and his or her staff as public officers of the City for the purposes of this Agreement and enforcing and carrying out its provisions.

3. Scope of Services.
a. In addition to enforcing Division 416, the County will provide to the City the Field Services, Shelter Services, and Deceased Animal Services described in this Agreement (collectively, “Animal Services”) in the manner provided for in this Agreement. During periods of emergency (such as fire, earthquake, flooding, pandemic), it might not be possible to provide the Animal Services to the same extent and within the same time frames as during non-emergency times.
b. Calls made to the County for services that are not provided by the County pursuant to this Agreement will be referred back to the City in which the call was requested. In such a case, the City is responsible for determining the next appropriate action.
c. The County will provide Animal Services within the City’s boundaries in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, including the Ordinance Code.

4. Definitions.
a. “Critically Sick or Injured Animals” means those animals that have lifethreatening conditions. b. “Emergency Calls” means complaints of animal bites, potential rabies exposure, or attacks on humans or domestic animals that are in progress, or, when a bite or attack has occurred, where the animal remains an immediate threat to humans.
c. “Livestock” means a large domesticated agricultural animal, such as a

2 cow, bull, steer, horse, sheep, or other large agricultural animal. d. “Regular Field Services hours” means between 8:00 am and 9:00 pm each day of the week, including Saturdays and Sundays.

5. Field Services. The County will provide the following services (collectively, “Field Services”) within the City upon a request from a City resident or person within the boundaries of the City.
a. Pick up and attempt to return to their owners domesticated animals that are found “at large,” to the extent possible without impoundment by relying on the animal’s identification, including dogs, trapped, injured, or sick cats, and other small, domesticated animals, including rabbits, chickens, turkey, geese, and ducks, but excluding wildlife, such as deer, mountain lions, opossums, wild turkeys, raccoons, skunks or squirrels unless a rabies exposure has occurred.
b. Investigate complaints of animal bites, rabies exposure and attacks to humans or domestic animals, including documenting the incident, interviewing witnesses, quarantining animals, preparing and transporting animals for rabies testing, and investigating any alleged violations of a quarantine order.
c. Enforce provisions governing potentially dangerous and dangerous animals, including but not limited to investigating complaints, designating animals, impounding animals, conducting hearings, and issuing permits for animals designated dangerous or potentially dangerous. d. Enforce provisions governing barking dogs and other noisy animals, including but not limited to conducting hearings.
e. Respond during regular business hours to police or fire department calls for assistance regarding animal-related issues. The County may provide after-hours warrant support to the City with advance notice, if County Animal Services personnel are available and willing to volunteer for the assignment, and provided the City pays additional fees sufficient to cover the County’s actual costs.
f. Investigate, cite, impound, and seek resolution of complaints regarding potential mistreatment of domestic animals by their owners.

6. Response Times for Field Services.
a. The County will attempt to respond to requests for Field Services during the hours and within the times specified in this section. The County shall maintain records of its response times to calls for Field Services. i. Priority 1 calls are Emergency Calls, which are calls for assistance from police or fire personnel and calls regarding rabies exposure, dangerous animals, and Critically Sick or Injured Animals.

1. The County will respond to Priority 1, 2, and 3 calls between 8:00 AM and 9:00 PM, seven (7) days per week, including

3 holidays.

2. For ninety-five percent (95%) of responses to Priority 1 calls, County personnel will attempt to arrive on the scene within two (2) hours from the time when the call for service is received by County staff.
ii. Priority 2 calls are calls to pick up animals that were at large but have since been confined at a location within the County, and calls regarding urgent, animal-related requests for assistance not involving Critically Sick or Injured Animals.

1. The County will respond to Priority 2 calls during regular Field Services hours.

2. For eighty percent (80%) of responses to Priority 2 calls received during regular Field Services hours, County personnel will attempt to arrive on the scene within 12 hours from the time the call for service is received by County staff.

3. The County will respond to Priority 2 calls received outside of regular Field Services hours no later than 7:00 pm on the next day.

4. The County may respond to Priority 2 calls by taking a report by phone or by contacting parties and witnesses at the scene. iii. Priority 3 calls are all other calls, such as calls regarding animals at large, animals causing a nuisance, and dead animals.

1. The County will respond to Priority 3 calls during regular Field Services hours.

2. For sixty-five percent (65%) of responses to Priority 3 calls received during regular Field Services hours, County personnel will attempt to arrive on the scene within 24 hours from the time the call for service is received by County staff.

3. The County will respond to calls received outside of regular Field Services hours on the next day.

4. The County will respond to Priority 3 calls only after the County has responded to all then-outstanding Priority 1 and Priority 2 calls.

5. The County may respond to Priority 3 calls by taking a report by phone or by contacting parties and witnesses at the scene.

7. Shelter Services.
a. The County will provide the following services to City residents (“Shelter Services”):
i. Impound and shelter lost or stray dogs, injured/sick, lost or endangered community cats, and other small, domesticated

4 animals that are brought to the shelter by County staff, residents of the County or cities that have contracts with the County for the provision of Animal Services. A community cat is considered endangered if it is in imminent risk of being killed, poisoned, or injured but not if, due to being at large, it is at risk of starvation, being attacked by another animal, or hit by an automobile. Orphaned kittens that cannot survive without human intervention are also considered endangered.
ii. Impound and quarantine biting animals.
iii. Provide rabies testing of animals suspected of infection. iv. Provide for reclamation of abandoned, lost or stray domestic animals.
v. Provide onsite services to the public at the County’s Martinez shelter for the following: search for lost animals, reclaim animals, adopt animals, answer inquiries regarding animals, accept complaints regarding animals, provide vaccines and spay/neuter services for a small fee, conduct humane education programs, and license animals onsite or online.
vi. Provide care for sheltered animals based on the California Veterinary Board Guidelines for Standards of Care in Animal Shelters published by the Association of Shelter Veterinarians. vii. Provide services as required by the California Penal Code Section 597.1 and other laws governing shelters for animal care, treatment, holding periods, placements, and dispositions.
b. Medical Services. As part of the Shelter Services, the County will provide the following medical services (“Medical Services”):
i. The County will provide veterinarian services twenty-four (24) hours per day through partnerships with emergency vets to treat injured or sick impounded animals.
ii. If an animal’s condition requires immediate treatment outside of the County shelter’s regular business hours or when no veterinarian is on staff at the County’s shelter, then County Animal Services Department officers or Good Samaritans may take the animal to any emergency veterinarian clinic/hospital that is under contract with the County to provide emergency veterinary services (as posted on the County shelter’s doors and on the County’s Animal Services Department’s website).
iii. The County will monitor animals on a rabies virus quarantine. iv. The County will conduct a minimum of one vaccine clinic per month and maintain a spay and neuter clinic in Martinez, which for a fee paid by the animal’s owner will provide vaccine and spay/neuter services for County residents’ dogs and cats. The fee will be

5 approved by the County Board of Supervisors and published on the County Animal Services Department fee schedule.
v. Provide rabies control information free of charge to the public. vi. The County will provide emergency veterinary services in accordance with Section 597(f) of the California Penal Code. c. Shelter Services Hours
i. The Martinez shelter will be open to the public for a minimum of 30 hours per week, 5 days per week, 6 hours per day, including one weekend day each week except during weeks that are shortened by a County holiday.
ii. The Martinez Shelter will be closed on designated County holidays and one day per year dedicated to in-house staff training.

8. Deceased Animal Services. The County will provide the following services within the City in response to calls regarding deceased animals during regular Field Services hours:
a. Pick up deceased domestic animals, wildlife, and livestock from public property.
b. With property owners’ consent, pick up deceased domestic or wild animals from private property for a fee based on the Department’s fee schedule paid directly to the County Animal Services Department by the property owner or reporting party.
c. Identify and notify the owner of deceased animals, whenever possible. d. Dispose of the body of any deceased animal picked up by the County.

9. Excluded Services. The County will not provide the following services to the City under this Agreement:
a. Respond to requests for removal of live or deceased marine animals and disposal of deceased marine animals.
b. Pick up and transport wildlife, including baby birds. c. Pick up live animals for surrender. The County may, at its discretion, accept live animals belonging to County residents for surrender at the Martinez shelter and charge a fee to the animal owner or property owner as part of its regular operations.
d. Respond to pest control issues (i.e., infestations, perceived or real, of squirrels, rats, mice, insects, gophers, wasps, bees, spiders, or other pests).
e. Respond to calls regarding live, sick and injured racoons, opossum, deer, mountain lions, coyotes, wild turkeys, wild pigs, peacocks, or other wildlife unless a rabies exposure has occurred. The County will refer calls regarding live wildlife to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

6 10. Policies and Procedures. All policies and procedures shall be developed with the goal of ensuring animal welfare, enhancing cost efficiency and quality of services provided to the contracted cities and unincorporated areas of Contra Costa County. They will be developed to reflect best practices in the industry for animal control and shelter animal care using the Guidelines for Standards of Care in Animal Shelters published by the Association of Shelter Veterinarians, ASPCA, the Humane Society of the United States, National Animal Control Association (NACA) and/or other currently accepted best practices for animal control and animal sheltering.

11. Performance and Activity Reports. The County will deliver to the City within 14 days of the end of each quarter, an Animal Control and Results Report summarizing Animal Services provided by the County to the City during the previous quarter and including year-to-date data. This report will include the following information:
a. The total number of calls for service received by the County under this Agreement, identified by type of service and Priority level. b. A response time report identifying response times by Priority level. c. The outcomes for animals impounded, identified by City/County jurisdiction.
d. The number of calls for service received from City residents or persons within the City’s boundaries.
e. A listing of dogs registered to City residents identified as potentially dangerous or dangerous (PDA/DA) that have a valid County-issued PDA/DA permit.

12. Fees and Fines. Pursuant to Food and Agricultural Code Section 30652, all fees and fines collected by the County for providing Animal Services to the City shall be deposited into the County Treasury and shall be used to meet the County’s cost of providing Animal Services to the City.

13. Annual Fee.
a. In consideration for Services provided by the County to the City, and in addition to any fees and fines imposed on City residents, the City agrees to pay to the County the following amounts (“Annual Fee”):
i. For fiscal year 2022-2023, $7.97 for each person residing within the City limits as of January 2022. For example, if the City’s population is 50,000, the Annual Fee is $398,500.
ii. For fiscal year 2023-2024, $9.11 for each person residing within the City limits as of January 2023. For example, if the City’s population is 50,000, the Annual Fee is $455,500.
iii. For each fiscal year thereafter, the per capita rate for the Annual Fee shall be calculated using the following formula: (A) The County’s budgeted cost to provide Animal Services throughout the

7 County in that fiscal year, minus the sum of animal licensing fees and user fees projected to be received from all County residents in that fiscal year, minus the budgeted County general fund contribution for that fiscal year, divided by (B) the sum of the population of all cities for which the County provides Animal Services. For example, if the budgeted cost to provide Animal Services throughout the County is $12,640,000, the animal licensing and user fees projected to be received are $1,620,000, the budgeted general fund contribution is $4,112,000, and the population is 866,583, then the per capita Annual Fee would be $7.97 per capita [($12,640,000 - $1,620,000 - $4,112,000) / 866,583]. For a City with a population of 100,000, the total Annual Fee would be $797,000.
b. The City shall pay the Annual Fee to the County in four equal quarterly installments. Each installment shall be due on the first day of each fiscal quarter (i.e., July 1, October 1, January 1, and April 1). The City shall make the payment to the County Treasurer-Tax Collector, 625 Court Street, Martinez, CA 94553.
c. The City shall pay the Annual Fee to the County regardless of the amount of any fees and fines collected by the County pursuant to Division 416.
d. Each year, the County will prepare a reconciliation report of actual costs incurred by the County to provide Animal Services during the immediately preceding year to ensure the Annual Fee paid by the City covers only actual costs incurred to provide Animal Services. The reconciliation report will be completed and sent to the City in the month of August for each fiscal year. Any cost savings for that fiscal year will be applied to the following fiscal year.
e. For purposes of calculating the Annual Fee, the County shall rely on the population figures reported by the California State Department of Finance E1 Population Estimates report as of January of each year. f. The County shall notify the City of the amount of the Annual Fee for the next fiscal year by March 1st of each year.

14. Term; Termination.
a. The term of this Agreement begins on the Effective Date and continues for two (2) years. This Agreement shall automatically renew for successive three-year periods until either party terminates this Agreement by giving the other party 90 days advance written notice of termination.
b. This Agreement shall automatically terminate if the County repeals Division 416 or if the City repeals its resolution incorporating and applying Division 416 within the City.
c. The County may terminate this Agreement if the City fails to pay the

8 Annual Fee by its due date by giving the City 30-days advance written notice.
d. The County agrees to meet jointly with all contracting city agencies annually during Quarter 2 of each fiscal year (i.e., October) to discuss potential revisions or updates through the Public Managers Association.

15. Entire Agreement; Amendment. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties, and supersedes any prior agreement between the parties, with respect to the subject matter hereof. Any amendment to this Agreement must be in writing and approved by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors.

16. Governing law; Venue. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. Any dispute arising out of or related to this Agreement shall be brought in Contra Costa County Superior Court.

17. Notices. Any notice to be given to either of the parties in connection with this Agreement shall be sent by U.S. mail to the following address:

If to County:

Director, Animal Services
4800 Imhoff Place
Martinez, California 94553-4300
If to City:
__________________________
__________________________
__________________________
__________________________
The parties are signing this Agreement as of the Effective Date set forth above.

COUNTY CITY
By: Beth Ward By:

Title: Animal Services Director Title:

Date: Date:

Animal Services Department
4800 Imhoff Place
Martinez, California 94553-4300
(925) 608-8400
Beth Ward Contra Animal Services Director
Costa
County
June 9, 2022
Reina Schwartz
City of Clayton
6000 Heritage Trail,
Clayton, CA 94517
Re: Service Agreement Correction
Dear City Manager Reina Schwartz,
I wanted to reach out to you today to bring forward a correction in Section 13. a. iii of the City – County Animal Services Agreement that pertains to the calculation of the Annual Fee. Unfortunately, I was not aware of the need for the correction at the time your city council members approved the agreement.

The agreement states that the population used to calculate the per-capita rate would include both the cities for which the County provides animal services and the unincorporated population. That needed to be corrected because it should only reflect the incorporated populations of the cities and towns we contract with. See below with the highlighted portion that would be removed to properly reflect the formula:

13. Annual Fee a. In consideration for Services provided by the County to the City, and in addition to any fees and fines imposed on City residents, the City agrees to pay to the county the following amounts (“Annual Fee”):
… iii. For each fiscal year thereafter, the per capita rate for the Annual Fee shall be calculated using the following formula: (A) the County’s budgeted cost to provide Animal Services throughout the County in that fiscal year, minus the sum of animal licensing fees and user fees projected to be received from all County residents in that fiscal year, minus the budgeted County general fund contribution for that fiscal year, divided by (B) the sum of the population of the unincorporated area plus the population of all cities for which the County provides Animal Services. For example, if the budgeted cost to provide Animal Services throughout the County is $12,640,000, the animal licensing and user fees projected to be received are $1,620,000, the budgeted general fund contribution is $4,112,000, and the population is 866,583, then the per capita Annual Fee would be $7.97 per capita [($12,640,000 - $1,620,000 - $4,112,000) / 866,583]. For a City with a population of 100,000, the total Annual Fee would be $797,000.

While the example below that excerpt in the agreement reflects the correct formula, the narrative does not accurately capture the fee structure as devised in the County’s strategic planning process and what had been previously communicated during meetings between city officials and Animal Services. I have attached a corrected agreement that removes the highlighted section above to ensure the narrative matches the formula below the narrative in section 13.( a.iii) of the agreement. I have also attached an addendum that the City of Walnut Creek used in their packet when the agreement was approved on consent during their City Council meeting this week.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Thank you,
Beth Ward
Beth Ward
Director of Animal Services
Addendum to: 2e
City Council Meeting Agenda Item 2e
June 7, 2022
Consent Calendar
ADOPTION OF RESOLUTION authorizing City Manager to execute an updated City-County Animal Services Agreement with the Contra Costa County Animal Services Department.
• Revised Attachment 3
1666 North Main Street
Walnut Creek, CA 94596
walnut-creek.org
1666 North Main Street, Walnut Creek, CA 94596
www.walnut-creek.org

MEMORANDUM
To: City Council
From: Ryndie Azevedo, City Manager’s Office
Subject: Correction - Item 2e: Adoption of Resolution authorizing City Manager to execute an updated City-County Animal Services Agreement with the Contra Costa County Animal Services Department
Date: June 7, 2022
Attachment 3 – New City-County Animal Services Agreement, included as part of Agenda Item 2e, Adoption of resolution authorizing City Manager to execute an updated City-County Animal Services Agreement with the Contra Costa County Animal Service Department, has an error in Section 13. a. iii that pertains to the calculation of the Annual Fee.

The agreement states that the population used to calculate the per-capita rate would include both the cities for which the County provides animal services and the unincorporated population:

13. Annual Fee
a. In consideration for Services provided by the County to the City, and in addition to any fees and fines imposed on City residents, the City agrees to pay to the county the following amounts (“Annual Fee”): …
iii. For each fiscal year thereafter, the per capita rate for the Annual Fee shall be calculated using the following formula: (A) the County’s budgeted cost to provide Animal Services throughout the County in that fiscal year, minus the sum of animal licensing fees and user fees projected to be received from all County residents in that fiscal year, minus the budgeted County general fund contribution for that fiscal year, divided by (B) the sum of the population of the unincorporated area plus the population of all cities for which the County provides Animal Services. For example, if the budgeted cost to provide Animal Services throughout the County is $12,640,000, the animal licensing and user fees projected to be received are $1,620,000, the budgeted general fund contribution is $4,112,000, and the population is 866,583, then the per capita Annual Fee would be $7.97 per capita [($12,640,000 - $1,620,000 - $4,112,000) / 866,583]. For a City with a population of 100,000, the total Annual Fee would be $797,000.

This does not accurately capture the fee structure as devised in the County’s strategic planning process and which had been previously communicated during meetings between city officials and Animal Services. Contra Costa County Animal Services has submitted a Revised CityCounty Animal Services Agreement which makes the following change to Section 13. a. iii, removing the unincorporated population from the formula used to calculate the annual rate. iii. For each fiscal year thereafter, the per capita rate for the Annual Fee shall be calculated using the following formula: (A) The County’s budgeted cost to provide Animal Services throughout the County in that fiscal year, minus the sum of animal licensing fees and user fees projected to be received from all County residents in that fiscal year, minus the budgeted County general fund contribution for that fiscal year, divided by (B) the sum of the population of all cities for which the County provides Animal Services. For example, if the budgeted cost to provide Animal Services throughout the County is $12,640,000, the animal licensing and user fees projected to be received are $1,620,000, the budgeted general fund contribution is $4,112,000, and the population is 866,583, then the per capita Annual Fee would be $7.97 per capita [($12,640,000 - $1,620,000 - $4,112,000) / 866,583]. For a City with a population of 100,000, the total Annual Fee would be $797,000.

The County will provide a revised agreement, incorporating this change, to all cities for which they provide Animal Services.

1 CITY-COUNTY ANIMAL SERVICES AGREEMENT
The County of Contra Costa, a political subdivision of the State of California ("County"), and the City of Walnut Creek, a municipal corporation in the County ("City"), enter into this City-County Animal Services Agreement (“Agreement”) effective as of July 1, 2022 (“Effective Date”).

1. Authority. The City has adopted by reference Division 416 of the Contra Costa County Ordinance Code (hereafter "Division 416") governing animals.

Division 416 establishes requirements and procedures for animal control by the County’s Animal Services Department. This Agreement is entered into to memorialize the County’s provision of Animal Services and enforcement of Division 416 within the City as provided in Section 416-4.208, and as authorized by California Government Code section 51301.

2. Enforcement Duties and Personnel. The County will enforce Division 416 within the City’s boundaries. The City hereby designates and appoints the County's Animal Services Director and his or her staff as public officers of the City for the purposes of this Agreement and enforcing and carrying out its provisions.

3. Scope of Services.
a. In addition to enforcing Division 416, the County will provide to the City the Field Services, Shelter Services, and Deceased Animal Services described in this Agreement (collectively, “Animal Services”) in the manner provided for in this Agreement. During periods of emergency (such as fire, earthquake, flooding, pandemic), it might not be possible to provide the Animal Services to the same extent and within the same time frames as during non-emergency times.
b. Calls made to the County for services that are not provided by the County pursuant to this Agreement will be referred back to the City in which the call was requested. In such a case, the City is responsible for determining the next appropriate action.
c. The County will provide Animal Services within the City’s boundaries in accordance with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, including the Ordinance Code.

4. Definitions.
a. “Critically Sick or Injured Animals” means those animals that have lifethreatening conditions. b. “Emergency Calls” means complaints of animal bites, potential rabies exposure, or attacks on humans or domestic animals that are in progress, or, when a bite or attack has occurred, where the animal remains an immediate threat to humans.
c. “Livestock” means a large domesticated agricultural animal, such as a REVISED Attachment 3

2 cow, bull, steer, horse, sheep, or other large agricultural animal. d. “Regular Field Services hours” means between 8:00 am and 9:00 pm each day of the week, including Saturdays and Sundays.

5. Field Services. The County will provide the following services (collectively, “Field Services”) within the City upon a request from a City resident or person within the boundaries of the City.
a. Pick up and attempt to return to their owners domesticated animals that are found “at large,” to the extent possible without impoundment by relying on the animal’s identification, including dogs, trapped, injured, or sick cats, and other small, domesticated animals, including rabbits, chickens, turkey, geese, and ducks, but excluding wildlife, such as deer, mountain lions, opossums, wild turkeys, raccoons, skunks or squirrels unless a rabies exposure has occurred.
b. Investigate complaints of animal bites, rabies exposure and attacks to humans or domestic animals, including documenting the incident, interviewing witnesses, quarantining animals, preparing and transporting animals for rabies testing, and investigating any alleged violations of a quarantine order.
c. Enforce provisions governing potentially dangerous and dangerous animals, including but not limited to investigating complaints, designating animals, impounding animals, conducting hearings, and issuing permits for animals designated dangerous or potentially dangerous. d. Enforce provisions governing barking dogs and other noisy animals, including but not limited to conducting hearings.
e. Respond during regular business hours to police or fire department calls for assistance regarding animal-related issues. The County may provide after-hours warrant support to the City with advance notice, if County Animal Services personnel are available and willing to volunteer for the assignment, and provided the City pays additional fees sufficient to cover the County’s actual costs.
f. Investigate, cite, impound, and seek resolution of complaints regarding potential mistreatment of domestic animals by their owners.

6. Response Times for Field Services.
a. The County will attempt to respond to requests for Field Services during the hours and within the times specified in this section. The County shall maintain records of its response times to calls for Field Services. i. Priority 1 calls are Emergency Calls, which are calls for assistance from police or fire personnel and calls regarding rabies exposure, dangerous animals, and Critically Sick or Injured Animals.

1. The County will respond to Priority 1, 2, and 3 calls between 8:00 AM and 9:00 PM, seven (7) days per week, including

3 holidays.

2. For ninety-five percent (95%) of responses to Priority 1 calls, County personnel will attempt to arrive on the scene within two (2) hours from the time when the call for service is received by County staff.
ii. Priority 2 calls are calls to pick up animals that were at large but have since been confined at a location within the County, and calls regarding urgent, animal-related requests for assistance not involving Critically Sick or Injured Animals.

1. The County will respond to Priority 2 calls during regular Field Services hours.

2. For eighty percent (80%) of responses to Priority 2 calls received during regular Field Services hours, County personnel will attempt to arrive on the scene within 12 hours from the time the call for service is received by County staff.

3. The County will respond to Priority 2 calls received outside of regular Field Services hours no later than 7:00 pm on the next day.

4. The County may respond to Priority 2 calls by taking a report by phone or by contacting parties and witnesses at the scene. iii. Priority 3 calls are all other calls, such as calls regarding animals at large, animals causing a nuisance, and dead animals.

1. The County will respond to Priority 3 calls during regular Field Services hours.

2. For sixty-five percent (65%) of responses to Priority 3 calls received during regular Field Services hours, County personnel will attempt to arrive on the scene within 24 hours from the time the call for service is received by County staff.

3. The County will respond to calls received outside of regular Field Services hours on the next day.

4. The County will respond to Priority 3 calls only after the County has responded to all then-outstanding Priority 1 and Priority 2 calls.

5. The County may respond to Priority 3 calls by taking a report by phone or by contacting parties and witnesses at the scene.

7. Shelter Services.
a. The County will provide the following services to City residents (“Shelter Services”):
i. Impound and shelter lost or stray dogs, injured/sick, lost or endangered community cats, and other small, domesticated

4 animals that are brought to the shelter by County staff, residents of the County or cities that have contracts with the County for the provision of Animal Services. A community cat is considered endangered if it is in imminent risk of being killed, poisoned, or injured but not if, due to being at large, it is at risk of starvation, being attacked by another animal, or hit by an automobile. Orphaned kittens that cannot survive without human intervention are also considered endangered.
ii. Impound and quarantine biting animals.
iii. Provide rabies testing of animals suspected of infection. iv. Provide for reclamation of abandoned, lost or stray domestic animals.
v. Provide onsite services to the public at the County’s Martinez shelter for the following: search for lost animals, reclaim animals, adopt animals, answer inquiries regarding animals, accept complaints regarding animals, provide vaccines and spay/neuter services for a small fee, conduct humane education programs, and license animals onsite or online.
vi. Provide care for sheltered animals based on the California Veterinary Board Guidelines for Standards of Care in Animal Shelters published by the Association of Shelter Veterinarians. vii. Provide services as required by the California Penal Code Section 597.1 and other laws governing shelters for animal care, treatment, holding periods, placements, and dispositions.
b. Medical Services. As part of the Shelter Services, the County will provide the following medical services (“Medical Services”):
i. The County will provide veterinarian services twenty-four (24) hours per day through partnerships with emergency vets to treat injured or sick impounded animals.
ii. If an animal’s condition requires immediate treatment outside of the County shelter’s regular business hours or when no veterinarian is on staff at the County’s shelter, then County Animal Services Department officers or Good Samaritans may take the animal to any emergency veterinarian clinic/hospital that is under contract with the County to provide emergency veterinary services (as posted on the County shelter’s doors and on the County’s Animal Services Department’s website).
iii. The County will monitor animals on a rabies virus quarantine. iv. The County will conduct a minimum of one vaccine clinic per month and maintain a spay and neuter clinic in Martinez, which for a fee paid by the animal’s owner will provide vaccine and spay/neuter services for County residents’ dogs and cats. The fee will be

5 approved by the County Board of Supervisors and published on the County Animal Services Department fee schedule.
v. Provide rabies control information free of charge to the public. vi. The County will provide emergency veterinary services in accordance with Section 597(f) of the California Penal Code. c. Shelter Services Hours
i. The Martinez shelter will be open to the public for a minimum of 30 hours per week, 5 days per week, 6 hours per day, including one weekend day each week except during weeks that are shortened by a County holiday.
ii. The Martinez Shelter will be closed on designated County holidays and one day per year dedicated to in-house staff training.

8. Deceased Animal Services. The County will provide the following services within the City in response to calls regarding deceased animals during regular Field Services hours:
a. Pick up deceased domestic animals, wildlife, and livestock from public property.
b. With property owners’ consent, pick up deceased domestic or wild animals from private property for a fee based on the Department’s fee schedule paid directly to the County Animal Services Department by the property owner or reporting party.
c. Identify and notify the owner of deceased animals, whenever possible. d. Dispose of the body of any deceased animal picked up by the County.

9. Excluded Services. The County will not provide the following services to the City under this Agreement:
a. Respond to requests for removal of live or deceased marine animals and disposal of deceased marine animals.
b. Pick up and transport wildlife, including baby birds. c. Pick up live animals for surrender. The County may, at its discretion, accept live animals belonging to County residents for surrender at the Martinez shelter and charge a fee to the animal owner or property owner as part of its regular operations.
d. Respond to pest control issues (i.e., infestations, perceived or real, of squirrels, rats, mice, insects, gophers, wasps, bees, spiders, or other pests).
e. Respond to calls regarding live, sick and injured racoons, opossum, deer, mountain lions, coyotes, wild turkeys, wild pigs, peacocks, or other wildlife unless a rabies exposure has occurred. The County will refer calls regarding live wildlife to the California Department of Fish and Wildlife.

6 10. Policies and Procedures. All policies and procedures shall be developed with the goal of ensuring animal welfare, enhancing cost efficiency and quality of services provided to the contracted cities and unincorporated areas of Contra Costa County. They will be developed to reflect best practices in the industry for animal control and shelter animal care using the Guidelines for Standards of Care in Animal Shelters published by the Association of Shelter Veterinarians, ASPCA, the Humane Society of the United States, National Animal Control Association (NACA) and/or other currently accepted best practices for animal control and animal sheltering.

11. Performance and Activity Reports. The County will deliver to the City within 14 days of the end of each quarter, an Animal Control and Results Report summarizing Animal Services provided by the County to the City during the previous quarter and including year-to-date data. This report will include the following information:
a. The total number of calls for service received by the County under this Agreement, identified by type of service and Priority level. b. A response time report identifying response times by Priority level. c. The outcomes for animals impounded, identified by City/County jurisdiction.
d. The number of calls for service received from City residents or persons within the City’s boundaries.
e. A listing of dogs registered to City residents identified as potentially dangerous or dangerous (PDA/DA) that have a valid County-issued PDA/DA permit.

12. Fees and Fines. Pursuant to Food and Agricultural Code Section 30652, all fees and fines collected by the County for providing Animal Services to the City shall be deposited into the County Treasury and shall be used to meet the County’s cost of providing Animal Services to the City.

13. Annual Fee.
a. In consideration for Services provided by the County to the City, and in addition to any fees and fines imposed on City residents, the City agrees to pay to the County the following amounts (“Annual Fee”):
i. For fiscal year 2022-2023, $7.97 for each person residing within the City limits as of January 2022. For example, if the City’s population is 50,000, the Annual Fee is $398,500.
ii. For fiscal year 2023-2024, $9.11 for each person residing within the City limits as of January 2023. For example, if the City’s population is 50,000, the Annual Fee is $455,500.
iii. For each fiscal year thereafter, the per capita rate for the Annual Fee shall be calculated using the following formula: (A) The County’s budgeted cost to provide Animal Services throughout the

7 County in that fiscal year, minus the sum of animal licensing fees and user fees projected to be received from all County residents in that fiscal year, minus the budgeted County general fund contribution for that fiscal year, divided by (B) the sum of the population of all cities for which the County provides Animal Services. For example, if the budgeted cost to provide Animal Services throughout the County is $12,640,000, the animal licensing and user fees projected to be received are $1,620,000, the budgeted general fund contribution is $4,112,000, and the population is 866,583, then the per capita Annual Fee would be $7.97 per capita [($12,640,000 - $1,620,000 - $4,112,000) / 866,583]. For a City with a population of 100,000, the total Annual Fee would be $797,000.
b. The City shall pay the Annual Fee to the County in four equal quarterly installments. Each installment shall be due on the first day of each fiscal quarter (i.e., July 1, October 1, January 1, and April 1). The City shall make the payment to the County Treasurer-Tax Collector, 625 Court Street, Martinez, CA 94553.
c. The City shall pay the Annual Fee to the County regardless of the amount of any fees and fines collected by the County pursuant to Division 416.
d. Each year, the County will prepare a reconciliation report of actual costs incurred by the County to provide Animal Services during the immediately preceding year to ensure the Annual Fee paid by the City covers only actual costs incurred to provide Animal Services. The reconciliation report will be completed and sent to the City in the month of August for each fiscal year. Any cost savings for that fiscal year will be applied to the following fiscal year.
e. For purposes of calculating the Annual Fee, the County shall rely on the population figures reported by the California State Department of Finance E1 Population Estimates report as of January of each year. f. The County shall notify the City of the amount of the Annual Fee for the next fiscal year by March 1st of each year.

14. Term; Termination.
a. The term of this Agreement begins on the Effective Date and continues for two (2) years. This Agreement shall automatically renew for successive three-year periods until either party terminates this Agreement by giving the other party 90 days advance written notice of termination.
b. This Agreement shall automatically terminate if the County repeals Division 416 or if the City repeals its resolution incorporating and applying Division 416 within the City.
c. The County may terminate this Agreement if the City fails to pay the

8 Annual Fee by its due date by giving the City 30-days advance written notice.
d. The County agrees to meet jointly with all contracting city agencies annually during Quarter 2 of each fiscal year (i.e., October) to discuss potential revisions or updates through the Public Managers Association.

15. Entire Agreement; Amendment. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties, and supersedes any prior agreement between the parties, with respect to the subject matter hereof. Any amendment to this Agreement must be in writing and approved by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors.

16. Governing law; Venue. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. Any dispute arising out of or related to this Agreement shall be brought in Contra Costa County Superior Court.

17. Notices. Any notice to be given to either of the parties in connection with this Agreement shall be sent by U.S. mail to the following address:

If to County:

Director, Animal Services
4800 Imhoff Place
Martinez, California 94553-4300
If to City:
__________________________
__________________________
__________________________
__________________________
The parties are signing this Agreement as of the Effective Date set forth above.

COUNTY CITY
By: Beth Ward By:

Title: Animal Services Director Title:

Date: Date:
[Type here] [Type here] Agenda Item: 10(a)

STAFF REPORT
TO: HONORABLE CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: Katherine Korsak, Finance Director
Reina Schwartz, City Manager
MEETING DATE: June 21, 2022
SUBJECT: Public Hearing and Recommended Adoption of a Resolution Adopting the Annual Budget for the City of Clayton for the FY2022/23 Fiscal Year, Commencing July 1, 2022 and Ending June 30, 2023, the FY2022/23 Appropriations Limit and the 5-year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) For Fiscal Years 2022/23 Through 2026/27

RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended the City Council: (1) Receive the staff report and presentation; (2) Open the Public Hearing and receive public comments; (3) Close the Public Hearing; (4) Provide any final budget modifications; and then (5) By motion adopt a Resolution approving the City’s Budget for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2023 (FY 2022/23), the FY2022/23 Gann Appropriations Limit, and a 5-year CIP Budget for FYs 2022/23 through 2026/27.

BACKGROUND
The City budget process has typically included a City Council subcommittee review then introduction at a public meeting in June then adoption at a second public meeting in June. This report transmits the final proposed budgets for FY2022/23 for City Council Public Hearing and Adoption.

Total General Fund operating revenues for the FY 2022/23 proposed budget are $6,887,459 including the transfer in of the second tranche of ARPA funding. Absent the impact of the ARPA funding, the total General Fund proposed revenues are $5,420,435, a $234,985 or 4.5% increase over FY2021/22.

General Fund operating expenditures are proposed at $6,887,459 including ARPA and $5,420,435 absent the ARPA funding. This represents an increase of $242,950 or 4.7% over FY2021/22. The Proposed Budget is balanced based on direction from the June 7, 2022 City Council meeting as described below. In addition to the financial challenge in the General Fund, the city’s Street Light Assessment District is anticipated to need a subsidy of $20,403 for FY2022/23 just to maintain the basic services in the district.

Revenues. For FY 2022/23, the proposed budget has been prepared with revenue estimates based on input from HdL Companies, who assist the City (and many other cities) in tax revenue estimates, and in consultation with the Contra Costa County Tax Collector and Controller/Auditor offices. The largest revenue sources of Property Taxes and Property Tax In-Lieu of VLF are both estimated to grow significantly, largely due to the increases in home values and turnover/sales of homes resulting in higher assessed values. Sales tax revenues, however, are not faring as well, and are estimated to come in slightly below the prior year’s budget. Overall tax revenue is projected to grow by about 6% and all General Fund revenue sources other than transfers to grow by approximately 3.8%.

Subject: Public Hearing and Adoption of FY2022/23 Operating and Capital Budgets Date: June 21, 2022
Page: 2
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Expenditures. The single most significant factor in overall expenditure growth is salaries; labor costs represent nearly 70 percent of the General Fund budget. This is true even though Clayton salaries lag significantly behind comparable small cities in Contra Costa and Alameda counties. Having salaries so far below the comparable market limits the City’s ability to recruit and retain adequate talent which leads to nearly continual organizational disruption. The disruption is costly in its own right and damaging to employee morale. Labor cost increases in the budget are the result of the negotiated 4% COLA for Police Officers Association employees, a proposed 3% COLA for unrepresented miscellaneous employees, and increases in health care costs and required contributions to PERS toward the City’s Unfunded Accrued Liability (UAL). A table showing the major General Fund expenditure changes is attached (as well as being included in the overall attached Proposed Budget).

Special Funds. Of the various special restricted funds, there are three – the Geological Hazard Abatement District [GHAD] (Fund 212), Neighborhood Street Lights (Fund 214), and Stormwater (Fund 216) which have potential fund balance issues within the next few years. Each of these have declining fund balances and are forecast that they may not have sufficient revenues to cover future costs.

Increases in revenues would then be needed to maintain the services these funds provide. Any revenue increases may be subject to Proposition 218 majority protest, a 50% plus on if a general revenue measure; or if a special revenue measure a voter approved 2/3 approval.

Without sufficient special fund revenue, the City’s General Fund would need to subsidize these special purpose funds, and which would place increased pressure to reduce other General Fund operations.

In FY2022/23, the Street Light Fund in fact cannot cover all of the costs typically assigned to that budget function. This will result in the need to fund approximately $20,403 from the General Fund (which is already predicted to end the year in a deficit absent additional actions) or from ARPA or other reserves.

The Landscape Maintenance District (Fund 210) Budget and Grove Park (Fund 211) budgets are projected to have the annual CPI increase of 3% as stipulated in the ballot measures. Both funds have sufficient revenue and fund balances to address various operational and capital needs.

CITY COUNCIL DIRECTION FROM JUNE 7, 2022 MEETING
On June 7, 2022, the City Council reviewed the Proposed Budget and recommendations including discussion from the Budget/Audit Committee consisting of Vice Mayor Tillman and Councilmember Jeff Wan. The City Council gave the following direction for items to include in the final proposed budget:
• Include funding for the 4% negotiated cost of living adjustments for Clayton Police Officers Association members and a 3% COLA for unrepresented miscellaneous employees • Remove General Fund contribution to the Capital Equipment Replacement Fund (CERF) for the purchase of one replacement police vehicle in FY2022/23 Relative to the Pandemic Recovery Reserve Fund, the City Council provided the following direction for budgetary items:
• Senior Accountant - one-year limited term appointment - approximately $135,348 • Additional IT support for modernization and cybersecurity - $50,000 • Records Management and digitization of records - $35,000 • Organizational assessment - $35,000
Subject: Public Hearing and Adoption of FY2022/23 Operating and Capital Budgets Date: June 21, 2022
Page: 3
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ • ClearGov Software (previously approved) - $16,500
• Transfers:
o $37,139 to the General Fund for budget stabilization
o $70,000 to the Capital Equipment Replacement Fund to maintain an adequate balance in the fund
o $20,403 to the Street Light Assessment District fund to cover the shortfall in district funds relative to needed expenses
Proposition 4 Appropriations Limit
In 1978, the California electorate voted to end the perceived runaway "tax and spend" practices of local governments by restricting the amount of annual growth in tax money expenditures allowed for each public entity. This tax limit, known as the "Gann Appropriations Limitation" (Proposition No. 4), remains in law today. As part of the annual budget cycle, it is incumbent upon each public entity to calculate and declare its associated compliance with this tax limitation.

After applying the specified adjustments, our new statutory tax limitation would allow the City to spend $13,553,444 in tax revenues over the next twelve months ending June 30, 2023. The City-wide Proposed Budget submitted for adoption this year contains only $5,573,298 in tax revenues subject to the limit, which is still a wide gap from the City's voter-imposed Appropriations Limit.

Planning Commission Conformance Finding
Section 65401 of the California Government Code requires each planning commission of a public agency to determine if projects proposed in a city's capital improvement program (CIP) for the upcoming fiscal year are in conformity with the jurisdiction's adopted General Plan. At its public meeting held on June 14, 2022, the Clayton Planning Commission did consider the City's proposed Capital Improvement Program ( CIP) for Fiscal Year 2022/23 and did, by attached Planning Commission Resolution No. 02-2022, determine a finding of conformity as required.

FISCAL IMPACT
If adopted as proposed, the City's General Fund operational budget for FY 2021/22 would be $6,887,459. The total City-wide operating and capital budget for all City funds would be $15,867,095.

A detailed fiscal analysis narrative of the budget is included in the attached Proposed FY2022/23 Budget. The budget is also available as a digital interactive book at:
https://cleargov.com/california/contra-costa/city/clayton It should be noted that, as discussed in several previous meetings, the long-term projections for the City show that there is a structural gap between ongoing revenues and ongoing expenses.

Furthermore, since historically we have seen that revenues are growing more slowly than expenditures, it will be imperative for the City to spend time over the coming months on developing a long-term budget balancing strategy.

Subject: Public Hearing and Adoption of FY2022/23 Operating and Capital Budgets Date: June 21, 2022
Page: 4
_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Attachments:

1. Resolution
a. Calculation of Appropriations Limit for FY2022/23
b. May 2022 California Department of Finance Price Factor and Population Information Letter

2. Summary of Proposed Increases and Unmet Needs in the FY2022/23 Budget

3. FY2022/23 Proposed Budget

4. Clayton Planning Commission Resolution 02-2022
RESOLUTION NO. ##-2022

A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE ANNUAL BUDGET FOR THE CITY
OF CLAYTON FOR THE 2022/23 FISCAL YEAR COMMENCING
JULY 1, 2022 AND ENDING JUNE 30, 2023, ADOPTING THE FY2022/23 APPROPRIATIONS LIMIT, AND THE 5-YEAR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP) FOR FISCAL YEARS 2022/23 THROUGH 2026/27

THE CITY COUNCIL
City of Clayton, California
WHEREAS, on June 7, 2022 and June 21, 2022 the City Council did receive presentations on the proposed budgets for operation of the City of Clayton in Fiscal Year 2022/23 commencing July 1, 2022; and
WHEREAS, on June 21, 2022, a Public Hearing was set and duly held on the proposed budgets whereat opportunities were provided accordingly for members of the public to offer comments and provide input on the fiscal plans presented; and WHEREAS, after due consideration and review, the Clayton City Council finds it is in the best interest of the general health, welfare and safety of this City, its citizens and businesspersons, to formally adopt a financial plan governing the receipt and expenditure of public monies in Fiscal Year 2022/23; and
WHEREAS, Section 7910 of the California Government Code and Article XIIIB of the California Constitution, established by Proposition 4, requires the adoption of an annual Appropriations Limit for each fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, this Appropriations Limit fixes the amount of general tax revenue that can be appropriated in a given fiscal year; and
WHEREAS, the Fiscal Year 2022/23 Appropriations Limit is based upon the prior year’s City Council adopted Appropriation Limit adjusted for the change in County population and the change in State per capita income; and
WHEREAS, City staff has calculated the fiscal year 2022/23 Appropriations Limit to be $13,553,444 while the City’s annual tax proceeds total $5,573,298, an amount less than one-half (41.1%) of the City’s allowable tax expenditure cap.

Resolution No. ##-2022 FY23 Budget Adoption 2 June 21, 2022 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED the City Council of Clayton, California does hereby adopt the budget revenue by fund for the City of Clayton for the Fiscal Year commencing July 1, 2022 and ending June 30, 2023 as follows:

FUND
2022/23

REVENUES
General Fund – Fund No. 101 $ 6,887,459
Rainy Day Fund – Fund No. 110 1,500
Pandemic Recovery Reserve - Fund No. 111 1,470,024
HUTA Gas Taxes – Fund No. 201 334,021
RMRA Gas Taxes – Fund No. 202 261,050
Landscape Maintenance District – Fund No. 210 1,256,053 The Grove Park Maintenance District – Fund 211 179,116
Oakhurst Geological Hazard Abatement District – Fund No. 212 87,796 Presley GHAD Settlement – Fund 213 1,000
Street Light Assessment District – Fund No. 214 126,322 Stormwater Assessment – Fund No. 216 149,950
High Street Bridge Assessment District – Fund No. 217 1,844 Oak Street Bridge Assessment District – Fund No. 218 1,860 Measure “J” Fund – Fund No. 220 364,720
Lydia Lane Sewer Assessment District – Fund No. 222 18,598 Oak Street Sewer Assessment District – Fund No. 223 11,977 Restricted Grants – Fund No. 230 1,340,074
Diablo Estates at Clayton BAD – Fund No. 231 96,112
American Rescue Plan Act - Fund 232 1,467,024
Capital Improvement Projects – Fund No. 303 606,000
Development Impact Fees – Fund No. 304 4,000
Clayton Financing Authority – Fund 405 9,200
Middle School CFD – Fund No. 420 579,142
Middle School Refunding – Fund 422 470,800
Self Insurance Fund – Fund No. 501 400
Capital Equipment Replacement Fund – Fund No. 502 123,200 Pension Rate Stabilization Fund – Fund No. 503 4,000
Endeavor Hall – Fund No. 702 24,000
Successor Agency (Former RDA) – Fund No. 615 564,079
Successor Housing Agency – Fund No. 616 125,000
TOTAL REVENUE: $ 16,566,321 ; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the budget appropriations by fund for the City of Clayton for the Fiscal Year beginning July 1, 2022 and ending June 30, 2023 are adopted as follows:

Resolution No. ##-2022 FY23 Budget Adoption 3 June 21, 2022 FUND
2022/23

APPROPRIATIONS
General Fund – Fund No. 101 $ 6,887,459
Rainy Day Fund – Fund No. 110 33,525
Pandemic Recovery Reserve - Fund No. 111 399,390
HUTA Gas Taxes – Fund No. 201 259,708
RMRA Gas Taxes – Fund No. 202 143,000
Landscape Maintenance District – Fund No. 210 1,862,077 The Grove Park Maintenance District – Fund 211 153,389
Oakhurst Geological Hazard Abatement District – Fund No. 212 138,969 Presley GHAD Settlement – Fund 213 40,478
Street Light Assessment District – Fund No. 214 170,006 Stormwater Assessment – Fund No. 216 178,193
High Street Bridge Assessment District – Fund No. 217 1,454 Oak Street Bridge Assessment District – Fund No. 218 258 Measure “J” Fund – Fund No. 220 37,330
Lydia Lane Sewer Assessment District – Fund No. 222 21,014 Oak Street Sewer Assessment District – Fund No. 223 11,264 Restricted Grants – Fund No. 230 1,303,707
Diablo Estates at Clayton BAD – Fund No. 231 71,399
American Rescue Plan Act - Fund No. 232 1,467,024
Development Impact Fees – Fund No. 304 221,074
Clayton Financing Authority – Fund 405 80,000
Middle School CFD – Fund No. 420 527,496
Middle School Refunding – Fund 422 1,020,588
Self Insurance Fund – Fund No. 501 6,300
Capital Equipment Replacement Fund – Fund No. 502 117,000 Pension Rate Stabilization Fund – Fund No. 503 -
Endeavor Hall – Fund No. 702 72,032
Successor Agency (Former RDA) – Fund No. 615 595,961
Successor Housing Agency – Fund No. 616 47,000
TOTAL APPROPRIATIONS: $ 15,867,095 ; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the 5-Year Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Budget of the City of Clayton for the fiscal years commencing July 1, 2022 and ending June 30, 2027 is hereby adopted with the following CIP Projects scheduled for undertaking in FY2022/23:

Resolution No. ##-2022 FY23 Budget Adoption 4 June 21, 2022 Capital Improvement Projects - Fund 303
2022/23

APPROPRIATIONS
Pine Hollow Road Upgrades (CIP 10379) $ -
ADA Transition Compliance (CIP 10394A) $ 6,000
North Valley Playground Rehabilitation (CIP 10442) 48,000 School Intersection Improvement (CIP 10448) 50,000
2022 Neighborhood Streets Repave (CIP 10449) 833,497
Downtown Pedestrian Improvement (CIP 10450) 72,000
2023 Neighborhood Paving Project (new) 343,000
Local Roadway Safety Plan (new) 10,000
$ 1,362,497 ; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the appropriations listed above constitute the budget for the Fiscal Year 2022/23 and the City Manager is herein authorized to transfer appropriations within the control accounts as deemed necessary, provided no change is made in the total amount designated for any one fund; and
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED the City Council of Clayton does hereby find and determine it has complied with all of the provisions of Article XIII B of the California Constitution in determining the annual Appropriations Limit for Fiscal Year 2022/23; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED pursuant to Government Code Section 7910 and Article XIIIB of the California Constitution the approved Appropriations Limit for fiscal year 2021/22 is hereby established at $13,553,444 as shown in “Exhibit A”.

PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of Clayton, California during a public hearing at a special public meeting thereof held on the June 21, 2022 by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

Resolution No. ##-2022 FY23 Budget Adoption 5 June 21, 2022

THE CITY COUNCIL OF CLAYTON, CA
________________________________
Peter Cloven, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
Janet Calderon, City Clerk
Exhibit A
FY 2021/22 Appropriations Limit: 12,653,880 $
A. Change in California Per Capita Cost of Living
(Converted to a Ratio) 1.07550
B. Greater of the Change in Population (Converted to a Ratio) (Converted to a Ratio)
City of Clayton (0.19%) 0.99080
County of Contra Costa (0.26%) 0.99590 0.99590
Compound Adjustment Factor (A multiplied by B) 1.07109
FY 2022/23 Appropriations Limit: 13,553,444
Estimated Appropriations Subject to Limit: 5,573,298

41.1%
Available Annual Tax Gap: $ 7,980,146
City of Clayton Appropriations Limit
FY 2022/23
Resolution No. ##-2022 June 21, 2022
: http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes.xhtml.

May 2022
Dear Fiscal Officer:

Subject: Price Factor and Population Information
Appropriations Limit
California Revenue and Taxation Code section 2227 requires the Department of Finance to transmit an estimate of the percentage change in population to local governments. Each local jurisdiction must use their percentage change in population factor for January 1, 2022, in conjunction with a change in the cost of living, or price factor, to calculate their appropriations limit for fiscal year 2022-23. Attachment A provides the change in California’s per capita personal income and an example for utilizing the price factor and population percentage change factor to calculate the 2022-23 appropriations limit. Attachment B provides the city and unincorporated county population percentage change. Attachment C provides the population percentage change for counties and their summed incorporated areas. The population percentage change data excludes federal and state institutionalized populations and military populations.

Population Percent Change for Special Districts
Some special districts must establish an annual appropriations limit. California Revenue and Taxation Code section 2228 provides additional information regarding the appropriations limit.

Article XIII B, section 9(C) of the California Constitution exempts certain special districts from the appropriations limit calculation mandate. The code section and the California Constitution can be accessed at the following website
Special districts required by law to calculate their appropriations limit must present the calculation as part of their annual audit. Any questions special districts have on this requirement should be directed to their county, district legal counsel, or the law itself. No state agency reviews the local appropriations limits.

Population Certification
The population certification program applies only to cities and counties. California Revenue and Taxation Code section 11005.6 mandates Finance to automatically certify any population estimate that exceeds the current certified population with the State Controller’s Office. Finance will certify the higher estimate to the State Controller by June 1, 2022.

Please Note: The prior year’s city population estimates may be revised. The per capita personal income change is based on historical data.

If you have any questions regarding this data, please contact the Demographic Research Unit at (916) 323-4086.

KEELY MARTIN BOSLER
Director
By:

ERIKA LI
Chief Deputy Director
Attachment

May 2022
Attachment A
A. Price Factor: Article XIII B specifies that local jurisdictions select their cost of living factor to compute their appropriation limit by a vote of their governing body. The cost of living factor provided here is per capita personal income. If the percentage change in per capita personal income is selected, the percentage change to be used in setting the fiscal year 2022-23 appropriation limit is:

Per Capita Personal Income
Fiscal Year Percentage change
(FY) over prior year
2022-23 7.55
B. Following is an example using sample population change and the change in California per capita personal income as growth factors in computing a 2022-23 appropriation limit.
2022-23:

Per Capita Cost of Living Change = 7.55 percent
Population Change = -0.30 percent
Per Capita Cost of Living converted to a ratio: 7.55 + 100 = 1.0755 100
Population converted to a ratio: -0.30 + 100 = 0.997
100
Calculation of factor for FY 2022-23: 1.0755 x 0.997 = 1.0723

Fiscal Year 2022-23
Attachment B
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2021 to January 1, 2022 and Total Population, January 1, 2022 Total
County Percent Change --- Population Minus Exclusions --- Population City 2021-2022 1-1-21 1-1-22 1-1-2022
Contra Costa
Antioch -0.06 115,142 115,074 115,074
Brentwood 0.18 64,224 64,342 64,342
Clayton -0.92 10,964 10,863 10,863
Concord -0.90 124,755 123,634 123,634
Danville -0.05 43,373 43,352 43,352
El Cerrito -0.08 25,671 25,650 25,650
Hercules -1.01 26,357 26,091 26,091
Lafayette -0.61 25,217 25,064 25,064
Martinez -0.77 37,195 36,908 36,908
Moraga -0.59 17,206 17,105 17,105
Oakley 2.08 43,627 44,533 44,533
Orinda -0.09 19,496 19,478 19,478
Pinole -1.01 18,819 18,628 18,628
Pittsburg -0.83 75,788 75,156 75,156
Pleasant Hill -0.90 34,335 34,026 34,026
Richmond -0.13 114,643 114,489 114,489
San Pablo -0.89 31,793 31,510 31,510
San Ramon -0.48 84,226 83,820 83,820
Walnut Creek -0.96 70,566 69,891 69,891
Unincorporated -0.55 177,843 176,857 176,941
County Total -0.41 1,161,240 1,156,471 1,156,555
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.

Fiscal Year 2022-23
Attachment C
Annual Percent Change in Population Minus Exclusions*
January 1, 2021 to January 1, 2022
County Percent Change
2021-22
--- Population
1-1-21
Minus Exclusions ---
1-1-22
Alameda
Incorporated
County Total
-0.53
-0.62
1,507,763
1,659,616
1,499,840
1,649,285
Alpine
Incorporated
County Total

0.00 0.42
0 1,195
0 1,200
Amador
Incorporated
County Total

1.23 0.16
13,780
36,382
13,949
36,440
Butte
Incorporated
County Total

0.44 -2.44
138,002
206,640
138,604
201,608
Calaveras
Incorporated
County Total
-0.49
-0.40
3,641
45,166
3,623
44,986
Colusa
Incorporated
County Total

0.50 0.16
11,886
21,773
11,946
21,807
Contra Costa
Incorporated
County Total
-0.38
-0.41
983,397
1,161,240
979,614
1,156,471
Del Norte
Incorporated
County Total
-0.88
-0.56
4,111
25,330
4,075
25,187
El Dorado
Incorporated
County Total
-0.93
-0.32
32,144
190,989
31,845
190,383
*Exclusions include residents on federal military installations and group quarters residents in state mental institutions, state and federal correctional institutions and veteran homes.

City of Clayton
City of Clayton Fiscal Year 2022/23 Budget
Proposed Version
Last updated 06/17/22
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Budget Overview 3
Proposed Increases and Unmet Needs 4
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 2

BUDGET OVERVIEW
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 3
Proposed Budget Changes
The Proposed Budget for FY2022/23 reflects cost increases in a number of areas.

The most significant changes are summarized in the table below:

Major Budget Changes for the General Fund
Budget Item Increased Cost Reduced Cost Comments
POA COLA $43,218 Already negotiated agreement for 4%
Health Care Premiums $12,390 Anticipate increased costs of at least 5% Insurance (MPA) $53,823 Insurance premium amounts for FY2022/23 from MPA PERS Unfunded Liability $46,265 Per PERS Actuarial Report Dispatch $15,388 Contract with Concord for 5% increase
Animal Care $14,180 Contract with CC County; reflects increased costs.

Electric/Gas $11,480 Anticipated increases in electric costs Election $20,000 Every other year.

Required Actuarial Reports $11,500 GASB 68 and GASB 75 reports.

Legal Services $5,820 Agreement with BBK has CPI escalator (5% for FY23) COLA Miscellaneous Empl $55,820 Proposed 3% COLA for Miscellaneous Employees Engineering Services
$28,949
Reflects minor increase in hourly costs and an increase in work hours.

Capital Equip Replacement $10,000 Reflects increased costs for Police vehicles IT support for Council Meetings $7,400 Additional support needed for hybrid meetings.

PD Radio Lease Payment
$35,000
Transfer from Rainy Day Fund shown in Revenues; no
net General Fund Cost
Add 0.2 FTE Assistant Planner $21,000 Needed to address workload increases Other changes ($20,902)
PERS Normal cost ($20,607)
This reflects the impact of turnover, both in terms of
lower salaries as well as an increasing percentage of
the workforce covered under PEPRA rather than Classic
PERS formulas.

Recruitment ($24,850)
Less need for recruitment expense with department
head positions filled.

Water ($23,585)
Appears to have been over-budgeted in the past.

Adjusted to better reflect actual experience, plus an
anticipated increase in rates due to the drought.

Totals $392,683 ($79,733)
Net Total $321,950
In the preliminary budget preparation as reflected above, total proposed costs compared to total proposed revenues, the General Fund shows a net deficit of $107,139.

Additionally, the Neighborhood Streetlight Maintenance District (Fund 214) will exhaust its reserves this upcoming fiscal year and will require a subsidy of $20,403 in FY2022/23 in order to maintain services. To the extent that this cost would revert to the General Fund absent any other action, the initial deficit is $127,542.

To address this shortfall the City Council has given preliminary direction as shown below:

Delay for one year the General Fund contribution for police vehicle replacement saving $70,000. A replacement vehicle will still be purchased in FY2022/23 with a transfer from the Pandemic Recovery Reserve (Fund 111). This is a one-time action. Absent any additional funding, this cost will need to be accommodated in the General Fund in future years.

City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 4
Transfer from the Pandemic Recovery Reserve in the amount of $37,139 to the General Fund to stabilize the budget while allowing needed expenditure increases to be incorporated.

Transfer from the Pandemic Recovery Reserve in the amount of $20,403 to the Neighborhood Streetlight Maintenance District (Fund 214) to stabilize that budget.

The City Council also gave direction to include the following additional expenditures from the Pandemic Recovery Reserve:

Senior Accountant - one-year limited term appointment - approximately $135,348 Additional IT support for modernization and cybersecurity - $50,000 Records Management and digitization of records - $35,000 Organizational assessment - $35,000
ClearGov Software (previously approved) - $16,500
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 5
City Council Approved Uses of the Pandemic Recovery
Reserve Fund
Based on the needs described above, the following uses are recommended for the Pandemic Recovery Reserve in FY2022/23:

As directed at the June 7, 2022 City Council Meeting:

1. Budget Stabilization (3 Major Items that contribute to this) Replenish Fund 502 CERF for Police Vehicle Replacement $ 70,000 Transfer to General Fund $ 37,139
Replenish Shortfall in Fund 214 Neighborhood Streetlights $ 20,403 Total Transfer from Fund 111 for FY23 Budget Stabilization $ 127,542

2. One time Costs
Full Time Senior Accountant Limited One Year Term $ 135,348 Software and Services to Digitize Records $ 35,000
Increased IT Support for cybersecurity $ 50,000
City Council Recommended Organizational Assessment $ 35,000 $ 255,348
Previously Approved but will be spent in FY23
Clear Gov Software $ 16,500
Total Use of Pandemic Recovery Reserve Fund in FY23 $ 399,390 Fund 111 Pandemic Recovery Reserve Summary:

Proposed Fund Balance at beginning of FY23 $ 382,392
Revenue in FY23 $ 1,470,024
Proposed Expenditures in FY23 $ (399,390)
Proposed TOTAL Ending Fund Balance FY23 $ 1,453,026
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 6
City of Clayton
City of Clayton Fiscal Year 2022/23 Budget
Proposed Version
Last updated 06/17/22
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 1

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Proposed Budget FY2022/23 4
Proposed Budget Fiscal Year 2022/23 5
Background Information 6
Directory of Officials and Advisory Bodies 7
Organizational Chart 8
Mission/Vision 9
Demographics 10
History of Clayton 14
Fund Structure 17
Basis of Budgeting 19
Budget Overview 21
Budget Message 22
Improvement Opportunities 23
Economic Recovery 25
Public Employees Retirement Pension System (CalPERS) 26 American Rescue Plan Act 31
Proposed Increases and Unmet Needs 32
Long Range General Fund Forecast 35
Staffing 36
How to Read the Budget Document 37
Fund Summaries 38
General Fund 101 39
Rainy Day Fund 110 55
Pandemic Recovery Reserve (111) 57
Gas Tax (HUTA) 61
RMRA Gas Tax 66
Landscape Maintenance District 71
The Grove Park CFD 80
Oakhurst Geological Hazard Abatement District 86
Presley GHAD Settlement 91
Street Light Assessment District 95
Stormwater Assessment 99
Measure J 107
Development Impact Fees 112
Successor Housing Agency 115
American Rescue Plan Act - State & Local Fiscal Recovery 119 Restricted Grants 122
Self Insurance Fund 129
Capital Equipment Replacement Fund 133
Pension Rate Stabilization 138
Endeavor Hall 141
High Street Bridge Assessment District 146
Oak Street Bridge Assessment District 150
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 2
Lydia Lane Sewer Assessment 154
Oak Street Sewer Assessment 158
Diablo Estates Benefit Assessment District 162
Clayton Financing Authority 166
Middle School CFD 171
CFA 2007 Middle School Refunding Bonds 175
Redevelopment Successor Agency 178
Capital Improvements Fund 183
Departments 187
Legislative 188
Admin/Finance/Legal 192
Public Works 197
Community Development 201
General Services 205
Police 208
Library 212
Engineering 215
Clayton Community Park 218
Capital Improvements 221
One year plan 222
Multi-year plan 224
Appendix 226
Engineering Requests 227
Glossary 250
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 3
PROPOSED BUDGET FY2022/23
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 4
Proposed Budget FY 2022/23
The City Council
Peter Cloven, Mayor
Letecia "Holly" Tillman, Vice-Mayor
Jeff Wan, Councilmember
Jim Diaz, Councilmember
Carl "CW" Wolfe, Councilmember
Recommended by:

Reina J. Schwartz, City Manager
Prepared and Presented by:

Reina J. Schwartz, City Manager
Katherine Korsak, Finance Director
City of Clayton
6000 Heritage Trail Drive
Clayton, CA 94517
www.claytonca.gov 
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 5

BACKGROUND INFORMATION
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 6
Directory of Officials and Advisory Bodies
The City of Clayton operates under the Council-Manager form of government. Under this system, the City Council hires a professional City Manager who is responsible for translating council policy into action, as well as the daily administration and management of all City departments. The strength of the Council-Manager form of government lies in the political leadership of the City Council combined with the managerial expertise of the City Manager.

The City Council
Peter Cloven, Mayor
Letecia "Holly" Tillman, Vice-Mayor
Jeff Wan, Councilmember
Jim Diaz, Councilmember
Carl "CW" Wolfe, Councilmember
Commissions
Planning Commission
Committees
Trails and Landscape Committee
Appointed Officials and Department Heads
City Manager, Reina J. Schwartz
City Attorney (contract), Malathy Subramanian
Interim Chief of Police, Joseph Kreins
City Clerk/HR Manager, Janet Calderon
Finance Director, Katherine Korsak
City Treasurer, Hank Stratford
Community Development Director, Dana Ayers
City Engineer (contract), Larry Theis
Assistant to the City Manager, Laura Hoffmeister
Maintenance Supervisor, Jim Warburton
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 7
City of Clayton Organization Chart

CITIZENS
City Council
5 Member Elected Officials
PlanningCommission
5 member
Appointedby City Council
Trails & LandscapingCom...

City Council Appointed
11 members
City Manager
Reina Schwartz
Assistant to the City Mana...

Laura Hoffmeister
City Clerk/HR Manager
Janet Calderon
Community Developer Dir...

Dana Ayers
Code Enforcement Officer
30%
Assistant Planner
Chief of Police
Interim Chief Jospeh Kriens
Police Sergeants (3)
Police Administrative Clerk
Police Officers (7)
Police Office Coordinator
Finance Director
Katherine Korsak
AccountingTechnician
Administrative Assistant/B...
70%
City Engineer
Larry Theis&Jason Chen
Anchor CM (contractedposit...

Maintenance Supervisor
Jim Warburton
Senior Maintenance Worker
Maintenance Workers (4)
City Treasurer
Hank Stratford
City Attorney
Malathy Subramanian
Best, Best & Krieger, LLP(co...

City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 8
Mission, Vision, Values
Mission
Enhance the City of Clayton by providing quality of service through:

Responsible Stewardship
Effective Collaboration
Continuous Progress
Our Vision
The City of Clayton organization will be recognized as a premier small city. Customer service will be our hallmark; organizational processes will be a model of efficiency and effectiveness; innovation will be commonplace; and excellence of work product will be the norm. The employees will enjoy their work environment, and each will be a valued and respected member in his or her field of work. All residents and the City Council will be proud of their City government.

Our Values
Excellence
Integrity
Respect
Teamwork
(Updated 2020)
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 9
Population Overview

TOTAL POPULATION
11,585

4.1%
vs. 2019

GROWTH RANK
467 out of 484
Municipalities in California

DAYTIME POPULATION
8,450
Daytime population represents the effect of persons coming into or leaving a community for work, entertainment, shopping, etc. during the typical workday. An increased daytime population puts greater demand on host community services which directly impacts operational costs. * Data Source: American Community Survey, 2010 Census, 2000 US Census and 1990 US Census

POPULATION BY AGE GROUP
Aging affects the needs and lifestyle choices of residents. Municipalities must adjust and plan services accordingly. * Data Source: American Community Survey, 2010 Census, 2000 US Census and 1990 US Census * Data Source: American Community Survey, 2010 Census, 2000 US Census and 1990 US Census 1990
1991
19921993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
20022003
2004
2005
2006
2007
20082009
2010
2011
20122013
2014
2015
2016
2017
20182019
2020
7k
8k
9k
10k
11k
12k
<5 5-9 10-14 15-19 20-24 25-34 35-44 45-54 55-59 60-64 65-74 75-84 >85 City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 10
Household Analysis

TOTAL HOUSEHOLDS
Municipalities must consider the dynamics of household types to plan for and provide services effectively. Household type also has a general correlation to income levels which affect the municipal tax base.
* Data Source: Clayton, CA 2020
Family Households
67%
Married Couples
5%
Singles
17%
Senior Living Alone
11%
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 11
Economic Analysis
Household income is a key data point in evaluating a community’s wealth and spending power. Pay levels and earnings typically vary by geographic regions and should be looked at in context of the overall cost of living.

HOUSEHOLD INCOME
Above $200,000
34%
Median Income
$153,607
Below $25,000
3%
* Data Source: American Community Survey, 2010 Census, 2000 US Census and 1990 US Census Over $200,000
$150,000 to $200,000
$125,000 to $150,000
$100,000 to $125,000
$75,000 to $100,000
$50,000 to $75,000
$25,000 to $50,000
Below $25,000
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 12
Housing Overview
2020 MEDIAN HOME VALUE
$806,600
* Data Source: 2020 US Census Bureau (http://www.census.gov/data/developers/datasets.html), American Community Survey. Home value data includes all types of owneroccupied housing.

HOME VALUE DISTRIBUTION
* Data Source: 2020 US Census Bureau (http://www.census.gov/data/developers/datasets.html), American Community Survey. Home value data includes all types of owneroccupied housing.

HOME OWNERS VS RENTERS
Clayton
10%
Rent
90%
Own
State Avg.
%
Rent
%
Own
* Data Source: 2020 US Census Bureau
(http://www.census.gov/data/developers/data-sets.html), American Community Survey. Home value data includes all types of owner-occupied housing.
2009
2010
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
20162017
2018
2019
2020
600k
700k
800k
500k
900k
> $1,000,000
$750,000 to $999,999
$500,000 to $749,999
$400,000 to $499,999
$300,000 to $399,999
$250,000 to $299,999
$200,000 to $249,999
$150,000 to $199,999
$100,000 to $149,999
$50,000 to $99,999
< $49,999
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 13
History of Clayton
~
The Incorporation of Clayton
by Eldora Hoyer and Julie Pierce
A California voting record was established when ninety-one percent of Clayton’s 364 registered voters approved incorporation of Contra Costa County’s 13th city on March 3, 1964, in Endeavor Hall. Clayton residents wanted local control of planning and development. They worried about development quality and density and the commercial strip zoning racing their way. They did not oppose development, but after many futile hearings in Martinez and elsewhere, they wanted to retain the semi-rural ambience of the Upper Clayton Valley.

In 1959, some leading Clayton citizens discussed incorporating Clayton to retain its historic identity and rural atmosphere through local control of land use planning and zoning. They were Randall “Chubby” Humble, owner of the Pioneer Inn; George Murchio, land owner; M. F Ohman, general manager of Pittsburg’s Dow Chemical plant; Judge Wroy Renaghan; and Lawrence Wallace, real estate appraiser. Appointed to their committee were Henry White, Martinez Hospital administrator; Thomas Grundy, Eldora Hoyer and Robert Kuntz.

Although an initial incorporation attempt failed in 1960, when two quarry properties requested exclusion, the Clayton Revolution was rekindled in 1963 by an impending annexation that would divide the town and forever prevent incorporation of historic Clayton.

News of a cherry stem annexation using streets and the Clayton home of Concord’s city attorney to access Cardinet Glen [the subdivision of homes near City Hall on Wallace and Cardinet] was seen in an obscure paragraph of the Oakland Tribune by Clayton’s Nan Wallace on March 3, 1963, who alerted Clayton residents and formed an incorporation study committee.

To delay the Concord annexation long enough to explore alternatives, shocked Claytonians immediately filed notice of intention to begin incorporation proceedings. Many residents circulated petitions and Eldora had the honor of delivering the papers to the county offices in Martinez to place it on the ballot. James Conley walked house to house collecting contributions for election expenses and ended up with enough extra money to buy a flag for city meetings. This time, the proposed incorporation area excluded large properties whose owners, wanting Concord sewers, could be expected to withdraw their lands and defeat the attempt to bring incorporation to a vote. It was hoped that future residents would annex to Clayton later.

City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 14
While exploring alternatives to incorporation, the Clayton Incorporation Committee managed to have the Concord annexation attempt withdrawn because of irregularities, but it seemed evident that annexation attempts would continue. Clayton residents decided to bring incorporation to a vote feeling that it must be done now or probably never.

At 8:00 pm on March 3, 1964, Sigrid Frank, a 69-year-old Clayton old-timer who was the poll inspector, stepped onto the front porch of Endeavor Hall, rang a brass bell, and in traditional style proclaimed, “Hear Ye! Hear Ye! Hear Ye! The polls are closed.” The incorporation workers were tired but hopeful and euphoria built as the votes were tallied, with community “watchdogs” looking on. On top of the hill above town, Ken Byrd and Richard Hamb began ringing victory news across the valley with Clayton’s old school bell. The community had successfully declared its independence on March 3, 1964 in that historic vote.

Clayton’s first official meeting was March 18, 1964, when the council was sworn into office by Judge Wroy Renaghan with a large crowd in attendance. George Abbott and Al Liming drove to Sacramento to file the incorporation papers directly with the Secretary of State, to ensure prompt processing.

Maurice Huguet, Jr. was hired as city attorney and Marguerite Ellingson became the city’s part-time clerk. Huguet was then the youngest city attorney in Contra Costa County.

Our inaugural Planning Commission consisted of Joe Wallace, chairman, Joe Swicegood, Beth Laurence, Charles Levine and Howard Sumerlin. William Walker, a professional accountant, was appointed the first City Treasurer. Clayton’s city letterhead, still in use today, was designed in 1964 by Bob Hoyer with art by Ray Hare, a Clayton Valley High School art student.

Clayton’s standing among other jurisdictions grew with its activity on county, district, and regional boards and commissions and in the League of California Cities. In 1966-67 Clayton’s mayor chaired the Contra Costa Mayors’ Conference, and Clayton’s part-time clerk was Conference secretary. Clayton was represented at the 1967 National Mayors’ Conference in Honolulu (at no expense to Clayton). Clayton councilmen and appointees filled many key roles and influenced regional decisions affecting Clayton.

On Clayton’s first anniversary, the City received a resolution from the County Board of Supervisors commending the City on its first year and its efforts to comply with the wishes of its citizens in terms of community life, and for its forward-looking actions related to balanced development. The resolution noted that Clayton was incorporated to maintain a careful balance between progressive development and preservation of one of the most scenic landscapes in the central part of Contra Costa County.

Incorporation Facts:

Election Day: March 3, 1964
Number of Registered: Voters in Clayton 364
Number of Voters who cast ballots in election: 312
Turnout 91% of Registered Voters cast ballots, the largest percentage in the history of California for a municipal election.

Votes in Favor of Incorporation: 251
Votes Against Incorporation: 61
Clayton became the 13th City in Contra Costa County
Results of Council Election: Robert Hoyer-183; Henry Wagner-179; George Abbott-151; David Cook-147; Alvin Liming-140; Clyde Baker-113; Richard Hamb-104; Kenneth Byrd-90; Jack Leue-68; Gloria Patten-56.

City’s First Treasurer: William Walker
City’s First Clerk: Marguerite Ellingson
Police Services Contracted with the City of Concord
Public Works/Engineering Services Contracted with County City Attorney Maurice Huguet, Jr.

Population Approximately: 600
Clayton City Limits consisted of ½ square mile
City Boundaries: Clayton Road and Mt. Diablo Creek on the north, Marsh Creek Road on the east, Mitchell Canyon Road on the west and certain properties on the east.

Assessed Land Valuation: $1,200,000
City’s Budget: $23,517.00
Year-end Surplus: $2,589.00
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 15
Partial List of Expenses: City Attorney, $2,000; City Clerk, $1,500; Police Services, $8,875.00; Accounting Services, $250; Insurance and Bonding, $425; Utilities, $48; Telephone, $160; Supplies, $250; Rent, $175.

One year after incorporating, the City of Clayton was recognized by the Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors for their superb effort. In 1966, just two years following cityhood, Clayton hosted the Mayor’s Conference. Robert Hoyer served the City of Clayton for 16 years, and chaired the Bay Area Air District in 1971 after being appointed in 1968 to the District.

City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 16
Fund Structure
According to the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA), fund accounting is used to meet the reporting objective of providing information as to whether resources were obtained and used in accordance with the budget and other finance related requirements by accounting for financial transactions and balances through several separate funds, each accounting for designated assets, liabilities and equity. The City of Clayton reviews our fund structures annually to ensure appropriate and relevant data is reflected in our financial reporting. Additionally, all new funds must be reviewed and approved by the City Council. Healthy fund balances are essential to making good long-term decisions for any government organization. Our funds are broken into four different types: General Government (General fund with 9 different departments and 2 reserve accounts), Proprietary (business-like activities), Fiduciary (held in trust) and Special Revenue Funds (used for specific projects or uses).

Fund Categories
General Government
Fiduciary
Proprietary
Special Revenue
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 17
Listing of Funds
General Fund Fund
General Fund 101
Rainy Day Fund 110
Pandemic Recovery Reserve Fund 111
Special Revenue Funds
HUTA Gas Tax 201
RMRA Gas Tax 202
Landscape Maintenance District 210
The Grove Park 211
Geological Hazard & Abatement District 212
Presley GHAD Settlement Fund 213
Neighborhood Street Lights 214
Stormwater 216
Measure J 220
Restricted Grants 230
American Rescue Plan Act Fund 232
Development Impact Fees 304
Successor Housing Agency 616
Proprietary Funds
Self Insurance 501
Capital Equipment Replacement 502
Pension Rate Stabilization 503
Endeavor Hall 702
Fiduciary Funds
High Street Bridge Benefit Assessment District 217
Oak Street Bridge Benefit Assessment District 218
Lydia Lane Sewer Benefit Assessment District 222
Oak Street Sewer Benefit Assessment District 223
Diablo Estates Benefit Assessment District 231
Clayton Financing Authority 405
Middle School Community Facilities District No.1990-1 420 Clayton Financing Authority 2007 Refunding 422
Successor Agency 615
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 18
Basis of Budgeting
Basis of budgeting - the basis of accounting utilized throughout the budget process. The City of Clayton is required by law to pass an annual balanced budget.

Basis of accounting - a term used to refer to when revenues and obligations are recognized in the accounts and reported in the financial statements. The City of Clayton's budgets for the General, Special Revenue, and Fiduciary funds are prepared on essentially the same as a modified accrual basis of accounting. This method is also used for the City’s financial reporting and financial statements. Although the City of Clayton utilizes Modified Accrual that does not require budgeting for depreciation, the City still budgets for depreciation for Endeavor Hall, the main enterprise fund.

City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 19
Overall Financial Structure
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 20

BUDGET OVERVIEW
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 21
Budget Message
Transmittal
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members:

Through the annual budget process, the City of Clayton ensures the efficient and effective use of economic resources as well as establishes that the highest priorities are accomplished. Through the budget, the City Council sets the direction of the City. The budget is expected to keep in mind both the positive and negative events happening within the City of Clayton and how they affect our bottom line. This document gives the City Council an ability to allocate resources and establish priorities.

The Fiscal Year 2022/23 Budget is respectfully submitted to the City Council and to the residents of Clayton, California. This budget represents the City Council’s commitment to strong financial management practices and a strategic plan for a sustainable future.

This budget document has been a collaboration between the City Manager, Department Managers, City staff, and members of the Clayton City Council to be used as a tool to identify funding priorities, reflect the needs and desires of the community, and to guide management throughout the year by clearly setting forth the goals and objectives of the Council for the coming year. The broad goals that the City Council adopted for FY2022/23 were as follows:

Pursue a structurally sustainable budget;
Identify what it takes to support staff in terms of technology and tools to bring the City into the 21st century; Present a compliant Housing Element to HCD.

In general, there is little added to the Proposed Budget other than acknowledging the impacts of inflation, price increases and the need to retain our city staff. The Proposed Budget reflects the previously negotiated cost-of-living adjustment (COLA) for the Clayton Police Officers Association (POA) members of 4%. It also reflects a proposed 3% COLA for the City's unrepresented miscellaneous employees.

As a whole, the City of Clayton is in a good position to be able to plan for the future, now. The authorization of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 has provided funding to help stabilize the City in the short term. With this money we were able to provide short-term relief to residents and local businesses who were negatively impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic. As we plan for future cost increases, we will have the option to use the Pandemic Recovery Reserve Fund to allocate funds as directed by the City Council as a possible stop-gap instrument to shore up the deficits that we will continue to have.

More than two years after the COVID-19 pandemic began, the local and national economies continue to be challenged. While overall, City of Clayton revenues have escaped deep impacts due to the public health shut-downs and economic contraction, the pandemic has nonetheless affected the City both financially and in terms of staffing.

At the time of the Proposed Budget, the most significant economic impact is that of inflation. Over the first part of calendar year 2022, inflation has increased more quickly than at any time in the last 40 years. In February, the national inflation rate was near 8% and the Bay Area inflation rate was over 5%. By the time the April-to-April CPI measure, which is the specific CPI calculation that is used for many local fiscal calculations, was released, it seems that while inflation is still at a high level, the rate of increase may be slowing. This may be in part due to the Federal Reserve already taking steps to increase interest rates, with indications that they will continue to increase borrowing rates over the next year to temper the effects of inflation.

We have our work cut out for us, but with thoughtful partnership with the City Council and local community members, we will be able to plan for the best uses of our financial resources and work together to ensure a sustainable future for the City of Clayton.

Reina J. Schwartz
City Manager
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 22
Policy and Process Improvement Opportunities
Comprehensive Review and development of a Fiscal Management Policy which will include:

Pension and OPEB Policy
Reserve Policy
Investment Policy and Investment Management
Pension and OPEB Policy
The Pension policy will provide goals for funding the pension debt, a clear structure for sustainability, risk tolerance, funding status and funding plans and clearly defined oversight.

The Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB) Policy will be a separate policy from the Pension Policy and will provide ways to invest funds to pay for these benefits as well as to reduce overall liabilities and increase overall net position of the City as well as manage this debt with a plan that maximizes the use of the City's resources.

Reserve Policy
One of the key components of a financially stable municipality is the adherence to a policy of maintaining an appropriate level of reserves. Establishing a target minimum General Fund reserve is a mechanism that governments can implement to help ensure adequate levels of fund balance are available to help mitigate current and future risks. A minimum General Fund reserve is generally considered a prudent and conservative fiscal policy to deal with unforeseen situations. Some examples of unforeseen situations include, but are not limited to: extreme events, economic downturns, reduced revenues, Federal/State/County Budget Cuts, unfunded legislative or judicial mandates, capital obligations, one-time City Council approved expenditures, and innovative opportunities for the betterment of the community. To provide guidelines for establishing, maintaining, and reviewing minimum target General Fund reserves for the City of Clayton. This policy is developed to consider the minimum level necessary to:

Maintain creditworthiness;
Ensure cash availability during times of economic uncertainties and other financial hardships or downturns in the local or national economy or extreme events;
Provide for long-range planning, especially around future debt or capital obligations; Deciding when to use reserves, define what the minimum level is and how to replenish this if it should fall below the defined minimum threshold.

City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 23
Investment Policy and Investment Management/Oversight
The objective of the investment portfolio is to meet the short and long-term cash flow demands of the City. To achieve this objective, the portfolio will be structured to provide Safety of Principal, Liquidity and Return on Investments.

It is the policy of the City of Clayton to meet the short and long-term cash flow demands of the City in a manner which will provide for the safety of principal monies with sufficient liquidity, while providing a reasonable investment return. The purpose of this Investment Policy is to identify and outline various methods and procedures for the prudent and systematic investment of public funds. This Investment Policy applies to all investment activities and financial assets of the City. The following Funds are covered by this Investment Policy and are accounted for in the City’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report:

A. General Fund
B. Special Revenue Fund
C. Debt Service Fund
D. Capital Project Funds
E. Enterprise Funds
F. Internal Services Funds
G. Trust and Agency Funds
H. Any new funds created by the City Council.

City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 24
Economic Recovery & Fiscal Stability
Recent Economic Trends
Sales Tax
Although the City of Clayton has a relatively small sales tax base, it is affected by global, national and local economic factors.

Overall, in California, local sales tax receipts grew more than 11% in FY202/21 (nearly 9% above pre-pandemic levels). Year-todate, local tax receipts statewide are nearly 17% above one year ago.

For the coming year, it is likely that inflation will continue to be a significant factor, although the April to April Bay Area CPI increase was only 5% compared to the February to February increase of nearly 8%.

An additional factor is the international outlook which has increased economic disruption, particularly to the supply chain that was already stressed due to more than two years of COVID-related impacts.

Overall, statewide and likely locally, consumers are healthy in terms of savings, equity and stock market gains that preceded the increases in inflation.

HdL's short-term forecast for sales tax revenues calls for a continued expansion but a deceleration of growth in FY 2022/23 and FY 2023/24.

Property Tax
The property tax estimates included in the Proposed Budget are based on data and projections from HdL with whom the City contracts for both property and sales tax analysis and advice. The assumptions included in the estimate for the Proposed Budget are as follows:

All real property (except those that had Proposition 8 reduced assessments) will receive the maximum 2% CPI adjustment.

For those properties that have sold between January and December 2021, the difference between the value on the prior property tax roll released for FY 2021/22 and the price paid for the property in the sale transaction has been calculated and used as a basis for increased overall market value of properties within the City.

The personal property on the secured tax rolls and the unsecured property values are being budgeted flat at FY2021/22 levels. This is based on the analysis that depreciation of these business assets will be offset by new purchases.

Because overall there has been relatively little new construction in Clayton, no additional increases are added to the projection associated with new construction.

The projection reflects the reality that Clayton is a relatively "low" property tax City in that the City receives only about 6.5 percent of the base property tax bill paid by a Clayton property owner.

The full net taxable value of property in Clayton is estimated to grow approximately 5.3% compared to the prior year.

It appears that the City's adopted General Fund budget for property tax revenues was conservative and actual revenues for FY2021/22 have come in above the budgeted amounts.

City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 25
Public Employees Retirement Pension System (CalPERS)

PUBLIC EMPLOYEES RETIREMENT PENSION SYSTEM
A Brief History
Eleven years after its incorporation as a municipality in 1964, the City of Clayton joined the California Public Employees Retirement System (CalPERS) to establish a pension system for its public employees (June 1975). At that time, it contracted for a retirement system plan of 2% at age 55 for its sworn law enforcement officers and 2% at age 60 for its general (miscellaneous) employees. Each enrolled plan was the least costly “defined benefit” plan offered by CalPERS. For the next 40 years and continuing today, permanent employees of the City are members of CalPERS for retirement pension purposes. The City organization does not belong to Social Security; therefore, its employees rely on this public pension system as the primary retirement program.

A plan change occurred in 1997 when the City moved its law enforcement employees from the CalPERS 2% at age 55 Plan to a 2% at age 50 Plan; miscellaneous employees were kept on the 2% at age 60 Plan. Presumably at that time the City elevated the retirement benefits of its Police Department in order to attract and retain quality sworn personnel in the competitive public sector market. In early 2001 the retirement plans were again modified (through the collective bargaining process) to the existing “Classic” contracts of 3% at age 55 for Public Safety (sworn law enforcement) and 2% at age 55 for the Miscellaneous Unit (civilian). CalPERS also initiated unilateral action to eliminate small-employer public agency members from consideration as independent agencies and “pooled” them together to share some of the pension risk. These new pooled plans (in effect today) are referred to as Multiple-Employer “Cost-Sharing” Defined Benefit Plans. Although cost sharing plans are designed to bundle employer pension expenses of several employer plans that provide identical benefits, plans that had super- or underfunded statuses carried forward their positive or negative balances into the new plan in what is referred to as a “Side-Fund”.

Thus, this CalPERS action caused several of the small employers (including Clayton) to report separate side-fund “unfunded liabilities” which the City of Clayton has been reducing over time within its annual employer contribution pension rates as analyzed in greater detail later.

In 2008, coinciding with the abrupt downturn in the national and local economies and the wave of retiring Baby Boomers (born 1946 - 1964), the press and the public waged a vigorous debate concerning the amount and scope of unfunded liabilities of governments [taxpayers] for the CalPERS defined benefit retirement plan. Public pension policies have been modified, reformed and threatened over the course of this examination and it continues today in the form of state legislation reform bills, statewide initiatives and court cases. Resulting from this, the State of California legislature enacted the Public Employee Pension Reform Act (PEPRA) effective January 2013 creating a new defined benefit pension tier for any newly-enrolled CalPERS-covered employees.

However, even in advance of PEPRA and most other public agencies, the City of Clayton established a 2 Tier Plan effective January 2011 for all new “Classic” hires. To further mitigate its unfunded liability exposure, the Clayton City Council took action in March 2012 to prohibit all future local elected officials (e.g., city council members) from becoming members of the CalPERS pension plan.

In regards to action taken to address the reasonableness of actuarial assumptions, the 2016 Annual Review of Funding Levels and Risks published by CalPERS on September 20, 2016 concluded economic conditions at that time increased the risk associated with achieving a 7.5% rate of return over the medium term (10 years or so). With this in mind, action was taken by the CalPERS Board to re-address the viability of the actuarially assumed discount rate for future years with the goal of increasing funded status of pension plans. Accordingly, on December 21, 2016 the CalPERS Board voted to lower its discount rate from 7.5% to 7.0% over a three-year timeframe with the hope the incremental lowering of the rate would give employers more time to prepare for the changes in contribution costs. The first year of pension contribution increases resulting from lowering the discount rate was FY 2018/19.

Various Pension Plan Groups and Composition
As a consequence of the actions taken as described previously the City of Clayton now has three (3) separate CalPERS pension plan tiers for its employees for both the Public Safety and Miscellaneous employee groups:

1. Tier I “Classic” – This plan covers existing City employees hired prior to January 2011. No future employee of the City can ever enroll into the Tier I Plan and accordingly this pool of existing employees will shrink in number as these employees move to other employment or retire from the City. The benefit formula for Public Safety Tier I members is 3% @ 55 and the benefit nd
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 26
formula for Miscellaneous Tier I members is 2% @ 55.

Previously, the City made the required employee contributions on behalf of all Tier I employees, which is defined as “Employer Paid Member Contributions” (EPMC) by CalPERS. As part of three-year Police Officers Association (POA) labor agreement approved on July 7, 2015, the previous 9% EPMC for Public Safety Tier I members has now been entirely phased out, with members of this group paying the full required employee contribution rate. While beneficial for future pension obligations, this phase-out did come at a cost and was offset by a negotiated 4% annual cost of living adjustment for all sworn officers for the three- year period ending June 30, 2018. In accordance with labor agreements currently in place and assuming status quo terms, the proposed budget for FY 2021/22 assumes the City will continue to make the full 7% EPMC for all Miscellaneous Tier I Plan Members, which comprises two full-time employees and one part-time employee. To add some perspective, this small group of Tier I Miscellaneous employees represents less than one quarter (25%) of the entire unrepresented Miscellaneous employee group of sixteen (16) permanent employees.

Commencing FY 2018/19, as part of the current three (3) year labor agreement with the POA, Tier I Public Safety members of the POA were required to help contribute towards the escalating normal cost employer rate. Referred to as “cost-sharing”, these member-paid employer contribution sharing rates were 0.5%, 1.25%, and 2.25% for FY 2018/19, FY 2019/20, and FY 2020/21, respectively. In FY 2021/22, net of any member-paid employer contributions, employer contribution rates for Tier I employees will be 20.64% and 10.34% for Public Safety and Miscellaneous Plan Members, respectively.

2. Tier II “Classic” – This plan covers City employees hired during the timeframe January 2011 through December 2012, plus any new hire of the City that comes from an employer previously enrolled in a CalPERS pension system (without a break in service longer than six months). The benefit formula for Public Safety Tier II members is 2% @ 50 and the benefit formula for Miscellaneous Tier II members is 2% @ 60. There is no EPMC provision, making employees responsible for the entire employee pension contribution rate, which is 9% for Public Safety plan members and 7% for Miscellaneous Plan members. In FY 2021/22 employer contribution rates for Tier II employees will be 18.19% and 8.65% for Public Safety and Miscellaneous Plan members, respectively.

3. Tier III “PEPRA” – This plan automatically covers any new employee of the City not previously a member of CalPERS or with a break in service longer than six months. The benefit formula for Public Safety Tier III members is 2.7% @ 57 and the benefit formula for Miscellaneous Tier III members is 2% @ 62. Under PEPRA law, members are required to pay at least 50% of the normal cost of benefits, essentially splitting the pension contribution rate requirement with some exceptions. In FY 2021/22 employer contribution rates for Tier III employees will be 13.13% and 7.59% for Public Safety and Miscellaneous Plan Members, respectively.

The following chart summarizes the organization-wide spread of the City’s pension contributions projected for FY 2021/22:

City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 27
As depicted in the pie chart above, the Police Department makes up over fifty percent of the budgeted employer pension contributions. This statistic is generally reflective of the Police Department’s share of the City’s permanent workforce.

Status of the City’s Unfunded Actuarial Liability
An unfunded actuarial liability (UAL) is the difference between the estimated current liability to pay future benefits and the current market value of assets accumulated to pay those benefits. If assets are greater, a plan is overfunded and if the liability is greater, a plan is underfunded, creating an unfunded liability. The unfunded liability is an estimated figure changing with each actuarial valuation pursuant to changes in market value of assets, investment earnings and actual results of the plan as compared to actuarial assumptions. Unfunded liabilities are not amounts that are actually due today but are estimates of what pension actuaries believe will be needed to pay future benefits. The funding policies established by CalPERS are intended to provide for full funding of the pension plan by the time employees retire. The following is a line chart summarizing the City’s UALs for both the Public Safety Tier I and Miscellaneous Tier I employee plans over the past seven (7) years (since CalPERS began publishing this information in the actuarial reports) and CalPERS’ estimates for the next ten (10) fiscal years:

As depicted in the chart above, when considering the current funded status of the City’s pension plan’s, the most recently issued actuarial reports (annual valuation report as of June 30, 2020/contributions for FY2022/23) reflect increases to both the Safety and Miscellaneous Tier I Plan UALs. As of the June 30, 2020 valuation, the Safety Tier I Plan UAL increased by approximately 9.5 % to $3,255,816 reflecting a funded status of 72%. Similarly, the Miscellaneous Tier I Plan UAL also increased, by 6.1% to $2,392,453, reflecting a funded status of 73.1%.

CalPERS reported a 21.3% investment return in FY 2020/21, which is substantially higher than the assumed 7.0% discount rate benchmark that was in place at the time. In response to these high earnings and consistent with previously adopted CalPERS policy, the Board considered and ultimately approved a reduction in the discount rate to 6.8%. While the positive results in FY 20202/21 will help reduce the increases in City pension costs, in future years the lower discount rate may put more pressure on employer funding of pension costs.

Prospectively, arising from policies adopted by the City, the state legislature, and CalPERS, gradual reductions are predicted for the City’s UALs. These gradual reductions incorporate CalPERS policies to amortize annual plan investment gains and losses over thirty (30) year periods well as its five (5) year ramp up and down phases to smooth the volatility these annual conditions can have on employer pension contribution requirements. Consequently, the latest actuarial valuation reports project employer UAL pension contributions for the two “Classic” Tier I plans to gradually increase until reaching their ceiling in FY 2020/21, after which they steadily reduce until both plan UALs are fully paid off in FY 2043/44 (under present value calculations and CalPERS methodologies).

Impacts of Statutory Pension Reform – Short and Long-term Since the adoption of PEPRA and due to measures taken by the City Council in 2011 to create second retirement tiers, noteworthy savings were realized by the City in the three-year timeframe from FY 2012/13 to FY 2014/15. Ultimately, these savings were realized by the City through the gradual attrition of several Tier I “Classic” employees with those positions subsequently filled by less expensive Tier II and PEPRA enrolled employees. However, commencing in FY 2015/16, in an City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 28
aggressive and deliberate measure to recapture these savings realized by participating agencies, CalPERS began billing for the unfunded portion of the City’s Tier I pension liabilities as a fixed dollar amount as opposed to the “percentage of payroll” method used in all prior years leading up to FY 2015/16. Therefore, to understand and better prepare for fluctuations in employer pension costs, a city must monitor both the percentage of payroll (or “Normal Cost”) rate as well as the relatively new fixed dollar UAL contribution components.

The latest CalPERS actuarial reports for the year ended June 30, 2020 establish the City’s normal cost contribution rates as well as the fixed dollar UAL contribution requirements for the upcoming fiscal year. The City’s FY 20221/23 contribution requirements relative to the prior year (FY 2020/21) are as follows:

FY 2021/22 FY 2022/23
Pension Tier
Normal Cost
Rate
Normal Cost
Safety Classic 20.64%* 20.64%*
Safety Tier II 18.19% none
Safety PEPRA 13.13% 12.78%
Miscellaneous Classic 17.34%** 17.32%**
Miscellaneous Tier II 8.65% 8.63%
Miscellaneous PEPRA 7.59% 7.59%
*Excludes negotiated member-paid employer contribution portions. **Includes employer-paid member contribution (EPMC) of 7.0%.

Changes in legislation, employee workforce attrition, and volatility of CalPERS estimates (i.e., investment returns), make it challenging to predict future pension costs as well as the status of the UAL with absolute certainty. However, the following chart provides a summary of historical City-wide employer pension contributions over the past ten (10) years as well as a projection for the current fiscal year still underway (FY 2021/22) and the following five future years thereafter using employment and actuarial information known at this time. As noted previously, the unpredictability of workforce and market factors makes these future year projections subject to change prospectively.

The steady decline in required employer pension contributions from FY 2011/12 to FY 2014/15 was caused by the gradual attrition of the City’s Tier I employees (i.e., retirement, employment separation to pursue employment at another agency, etc.) and filling those vacancies with less expensive Tier II and Tier III “PEPRA” employees. Thereafter, the spike in FY 2015/16 and subsequent two (2) years is caused by CalPERS’ implementation of fixed dollar UAL billings to supplement normal cost percentage-of-payroll contribution rates.

The chart also incorporates the impact of the CalPERS Board voting to decrease the discount rate in December 2016 impacting employer pension contribution assumptions from FY 2018/19 and onward. Pension costs are projected to rise with actuarially assumed wage growth as well as CalPERS’ policy to (eventually) achieve “fully funded” status through calculated annual UAL payment increases.

City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 29
The drop shown in FY2018/19 reflected the City paying off the “side fund” that was described earlier, thus reducing the annual pension cost to just the normal cost plus the standard UAL requirement.

In all, the total amount of monies in the proposed budget projected to be required to pay CalPERS retirement contributions in FY 2022/23 is approximately $765,938 across all City funds, representing an increase of $67,444 or 9.7%. The significant increase in FY2022/23, comes after a year in which the City already had a significant increase of nearly $90,000 in PERS costs in FY2021/22. It should be noted as well that it appears the statewide pension reform that was enacted a decade ago, PEPRA, does seem to be having an impact on reducing at least the annual "normal" cost of the City's PERS requirements. It does not, however, yet have an impact on the unfunded accrued liability which continues to increase each year. This year it represents more than 60% of the City's total PERS costs for FY2022/23. This means for every one dollar spent on employer pension contributions, 60¢ is used to address the buildup of the unfunded liability reported by CalPERS actuaries and not to address future retirement benefits of the current workforce.

Summary of Pension Analysis
The purpose of this information published annually is not to marginalize the seriousness of the unfunded pension plan debate, but to provide transparency and context to a story often sensationalized by the media. Acknowledging the importance of addressing the City’s exposure to the growth of unfunded pension liabilities, several actions outlined in detail previously have been taken by the City Council, CalPERS, and the state legislature. These actions were designed to address the issue in the long-run, without causing immediate and detrimental set-backs to the City’s current ability to provide public services.

Considering the already scarce local resources available, it is encouraging to see the City appears to be headed in the right fiscal direction on this matter. Nevertheless, prudent and regular monitoring of the City’s progress will be essential to achieving sustainable and sensible budgets well into the future.

City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 30
American Rescue Plan Act
On March 11, 2021, President Biden signed into law HR 1319, the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (“ARPA”), which provides a total of $1.9 trillion in financial assistance to individuals, businesses, and state and local government agencies to assist in the economic recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic. ARPA included a provision entitled “Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds” (“SLFRF”) that includes $350 billion in funding for state and local governments, of which $65 billion was dedicated to local government agencies.

ARPA provided flexibility for each government to meet local needs in four areas: 1) supporting public health response to and economic impacts from the pandemic; 2) provide premium pay for essential workers; 3) replace lost public sector revenues; and 4) invest in water, wastewater and broadband infrastructure; and The City is classified as a non-entitlement unit within the provisions of SLFRF and will receive a total of $2,934,049, in federal relief funds divided into two equal payments (or “tranches”) of approximately $1,467,025. The City received its first payment in July 2021 and the second payment will be received on or before the same time this year.

In the fall of 2021, the City Council embarked on a process to identify investment opportunities of the one-time ARPA funds and approved an agreement with Management Partners to engage the community and provide an analysis of such investment opportunities for Council consideration. As a result of that outreach and analysis, the City Council has approved a series of programs related to COVID recovery.

The programs approved by the City Council included appropriating the initial tranche of $1,467,025 for the Clayton Cares program to provide relief to businesses and community members and related administrative expenses. Subsequently, in January 2022, the City Council reappropriated $242,000 of these funds to provide one-time essential worker premium pay to City employees. Additionally, in March, the City Council approved the use of $49,500 in ARPA funding for the purchase and implementation of a 3-year license of the ClearGov budget software platform. The City Council also recently approved the creation of the American Rescue Plan Act special revenue fund (#232) for purposes of tracking revenues and expenditures associated with ARPA funds.

The US Treasury Department (“Treasury”) is responsible for administering the provisions of the SLFRF. They issued an Interim Final Rule (IFR) on the use and reporting of SLFRF funds in May 2021, and issued their Final Ruling (FR) on January 6, 2022, the latter of which becomes effective April 1, 2022. Treasury also issued compliance and reporting guidelines on February 28, 2022 that assist local agencies in understanding the reporting requirements under the legislation.

One of the key changes that occurred in the FR is that Treasury determined that they would allow a standard revenue loss allowance for each agency of up to $10 million, rather than having to rely on the formula originally contained in the Interim Rule. Under this category, known as the “Revenue Replacement” category, any agency can stipulate to this $10 million revenue loss amount and claim up to that amount based on the funds they received. In practice, agencies that received less than $10 million (like Clayton) are allowed to report their use of ARPA funds entirely as revenue replacement to streamline reporting of the use of the funds to the Treasury Department.

By assigning the use of ARPA funds for the purpose of reporting to Treasury under this category, the City has chosen to use the funds for the provision of general government services”, which the FR defines as any service normally provided by the local government. The City has been able to report use of all of its ARPA funds under this revenue replacement category based on the expenditures incurred in the City’s General Fund (which well exceed the ARPA funds received in any fiscal year).

The replenishment/inflow of these one-time revenues in the General Fund has allowed the City Council to designate the resulting unanticipated surplus from these funds as a “Pandemic Recovery Reserve Fund” (Fund 111) which then captures the ultimate use of the ARPA funds. The City Council has the ultimate discretion to invest these funds for purposes already identified such as the Clayton Cares program, premium pay for City essential workers and purchase of a 3-year license for the ClearGov software platform. The Council also has the discretion to program any funds remaining from the first tranche of ARPA funding and an amount equal to the full second tranche of the funding.

City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 31
Proposed Budget Changes
The Proposed Budget for FY2022/23 reflects cost increases in a number of areas.

The most significant changes are summarized in the table below:

Major Budget Changes for the General Fund
Budget Item Increased Cost Reduced Cost Comments
POA COLA $43,218 Already negotiated agreement for 4%
Health Care Premiums $12,390 Anticipate increased costs of at least 5% Insurance (MPA) $53,823 Insurance premium amounts for FY2022/23 from MPA PERS Unfunded Liability $46,265 Per PERS Actuarial Report Dispatch $15,388 Contract with Concord for 5% increase
Animal Care $14,180 Contract with CC County; reflects increased costs.

Electric/Gas $11,480 Anticipated increases in electric costs Election $20,000 Every other year.

Required Actuarial Reports $11,500 GASB 68 and GASB 75 reports.

Legal Services $5,820 Agreement with BBK has CPI escalator (5% for FY23) COLA Miscellaneous Empl $55,820 Proposed 3% COLA for Miscellaneous Employees Engineering Services
$28,949
Reflects minor increase in hourly costs and an increase in work hours.

Capital Equip Replacement $10,000 Reflects increased costs for Police vehicles IT support for Council Meetings $7,400 Additional support needed for hybrid meetings.

PD Radio Lease Payment
$35,000
Transfer from Rainy Day Fund shown in Revenues; no
net General Fund Cost
Add 0.2 FTE Assistant Planner $21,000 Needed to address workload increases Other changes ($20,902)
PERS Normal cost ($20,607)
This reflects the impact of turnover, both in terms of
lower salaries as well as an increasing percentage of
the workforce covered under PEPRA rather than Classic
PERS formulas.

Recruitment ($24,850)
Less need for recruitment expense with department
head positions filled.

Water ($23,585)
Appears to have been over-budgeted in the past.

Adjusted to better reflect actual experience, plus an
anticipated increase in rates due to the drought.

Totals $392,683 ($79,733)
Net Total $321,950
In the preliminary budget preparation as reflected above, total proposed costs compared to total proposed revenues, the General Fund shows a net deficit of $107,139.

Additionally, the Neighborhood Streetlight Maintenance District (Fund 214) will exhaust its reserves this upcoming fiscal year and will require a subsidy of $20,403 in FY2022/23 in order to maintain services. To the extent that this cost would revert to the General Fund absent any other action, the initial deficit is $127,542.

To address this shortfall the City Council has given preliminary direction as shown below:

Delay for one year the General Fund contribution for police vehicle replacement saving $70,000. A replacement vehicle will still be purchased in FY2022/23 with a transfer from the Pandemic Recovery Reserve (Fund 111). This is a one-time action. Absent any additional funding, this cost will need to be accommodated in the General Fund in future years.

City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 32
Transfer from the Pandemic Recovery Reserve in the amount of $37,139 to the General Fund to stabilize the budget while allowing needed expenditure increases to be incorporated.

Transfer from the Pandemic Recovery Reserve in the amount of $20,403 to the Neighborhood Streetlight Maintenance District (Fund 214) to stabilize that budget.

The City Council also gave direction to include the following additional expenditures from the Pandemic Recovery Reserve:

Senior Accountant - one-year limited term appointment - approximately $135,348 Additional IT support for modernization and cybersecurity - $50,000 Records Management and digitization of records - $35,000 Organizational assessment - $35,000
ClearGov Software (previously approved) - $16,500
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 33
City Council Approved Uses of the Pandemic Recovery
Reserve Fund
Based on the needs described above, the following uses are recommended for the Pandemic Recovery Reserve in FY2022/23:

As directed at the June 7, 2022 City Council Meeting:

1. Budget Stabilization (3 Major Items that contribute to this) Replenish Fund 502 CERF for Police Vehicle Replacement $ 70,000 Transfer to General Fund $ 37,139
Replenish Shortfall in Fund 214 Neighborhood Streetlights $ 20,403 Total Transfer from Fund 111 for FY23 Budget Stabilization $ 127,542

2. One time Costs
Full Time Senior Accountant Limited One Year Term $ 135,348 Software and Services to Digitize Records $ 35,000
Increased IT Support for cybersecurity $ 50,000
City Council Recommended Organizational Assessment $ 35,000 $ 255,348
Previously Approved but will be spent in FY23
Clear Gov Software $ 16,500
Total Use of Pandemic Recovery Reserve Fund in FY23 $ 399,390 Fund 111 Pandemic Recovery Reserve Summary:

Proposed Fund Balance at beginning of FY23 $ 382,392
Revenue in FY23 $ 1,470,024
Proposed Expenditures in FY23 $ (399,390)
Proposed TOTAL Ending Fund Balance FY23 $ 1,453,026
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 34
Long Range General Fund Forecast
While the proposed FY2022/23 General Fund budget is balanced, there remains an underlying structural imbalance between revenues and expenditures. Historical and current revenue growth is on the order of 2-3% per year, where expenditures are continuing to grow at 4% per year or more. This trend may worsen in the coming year due to historically high levels of inflation and general economic uncertainty that has resulted from the COVID-19 pandemic, and other world economic factors.

Ultimately, the City will need to significantly reduce costs and services or pursue new ongoing sources of revenue to support the current level of services. At the direction of the City Council, the City will undergo an organizational assessment to fully understand what the needs are, where the deficiencies exist, and how we will be able to maintain long-term stability for the future of the residents of Clayton.

City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 35
Staffing
Job Title FY2019/20 FY2020/21 FY2021/22 FY 2022/23
Administration
Accounting Technician 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.6
Assistant to the City Manager 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
City Clerk/HR Manager 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
City Manager 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Finance Director 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Office Assistant 0.7 0.7 0.7 0.7
Senior Accountant (new) 0.0 0.0 0.0 1.0
Public Works
Maintenance Senior 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Maintenance Supervisor 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Maintenance Worker I 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Maintenance Worker II 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Community Development
Assistant Planner 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.8
Community Development Director 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Office Assistant 0.3 0.3 0.3 0.3
Police
Chief of Police 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Police Sergeant 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
Police Officer 7.0 7.0 7.0 7.0
Police Office Coordinator 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Police Admin Clerk 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Total FTE 26.2 26.2 26.2 27.4
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 36
How to Read the Budget Document
The most significant value of a Budget document is to communicate to the City Council, employees and the public the City's priorities and plans for allocating scarce resources. This section of the budget document describes the sections of the document, the purpose of each and how the information is presented. The budget document includes the following sections:

Introduction
This section of the document provides an overview of the City organization, its elected officials, mission and vision and some history and current statistics.

Budget Overview
This section provides a broad overview of the context and challenges addressed in the Proposed Budget. It includes a Budget Message transmitting the document to the City Council; a discussion of priorities and issues including the City's economic recovery related to the COVID19 pandemic, the ongoing significant impact of pension obligations as well as a look forward to improvement opportunities in the coming years.

Fund Summaries
This section provides financial information regarding each of the City's funds including anticipated revenues and expenditures as well as information on the anticipated fund balances.

Departments
This section provides an overview of each of the City's operating departments, including goals and proposed spending for FY2022/23.

Capital Improvement Program
This section includes the City's proposed spending on capital projects. It includes information on the projects, the proposed spending for FY2022/23 as well as a look at future funding needs for each of the projects.

City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 37

FUND SUMMARIES
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 38
General Fund
101
The General Fund is the City's largest and most flexible source for funding operations. The General Fund typically receives all tax and fee revenues that are not specifically restricted or dedicated to a specific purpose.

Summary
The City of Clayton is projecting $6,887,459 in revenue in FY2022/23, which represents a 32.8% increase over the prior year. Budgeted expenditures are projected to increase by 33% or $1,709,974 to $6,887,459 in FY2023. Absent the impact of the ARPA funds, revenues are projected at $5,420,435, a $234,985 (4.5%) increase over FY2021/22; and expenditures are projected at $5,420,435, a $242,950 (4.7%) increase over FY2021/22.

Actual Revenue Source
Budgeted Revenue Source
Over Budget Revenue Source
Actual Expenditures
Budgeted Expenditures
FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023
$0
$2M
$4M
$6M
$8M
Revenues by Source
Projected 2023 Revenues by Source
Taxes (51.7%)
Admin Support Transfers (24.4%)
Franchise Fees (8.4%)
Charges for Services (5.9%)
Licenses & Permits (3.4%)
Other In Lieu (2.7%)
Operating Grants and Contributions (1.5%)
Interest (1.2%)
Other Revenues (0.4%)
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 39
Budgeted and Historical 2023 Revenues by Source
Millions
Fines & Forfeitures
Other Revenues
Interest
Operating Grants and Contributions
Other In Lieu
Licenses & Permits
Charges for Services
Franchise Fees
Admin Support Transfers
Taxes
FY2020
FY2021
FY2022
FY2023
$0
$2
$4
$6
$8
$-2
As illustrated in the previous pie chart, a noteworthy portion (76.2% of General Fund revenues) is concentrated in just four sources. The “slice of the pie” of these four major revenue sources remained consistent with the prior year’s budget. In order of significance, these four key revenue sources include: (1) property tax in-lieu of vehicle license fees (VLF), (2) local secured ad valorem property taxes, (3) sales & use taxes, and (4) franchise fees. The following chart illustrates the ten-year trend of these four major revenue sources for the City:

This trend analysis illustrates the gradual recovery of local revenue sources following the “Great Recession.” Revenue sources with delayed downturns arising from the recession (i.e. property tax in-lieu of VLF and general property taxes) have made a comeback and have exceeded pre-recession levels since FY 2014/15, while sales and use taxes are steadily increasing, and franchise fees have flattened or started to decrease slightly.

City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 40
The following section provides background and analysis of the City’s most significant revenue sources.

Property Tax in - Lieu of Vehicle License Fees
The largest revenue source, making up 22.1% of General Fund budgeted revenues for FY 2022/23, is property tax in-lieu of vehicle license fees (VLF). The VLF is an annual value tax on the ownership of registered vehicles. It is collected by the California Department of Motor Vehicles and then distributed to cities and counties. In 2004, the California State Legislature permanently reduced the tax rate from 2.0% to 0.65% of a vehicle’s current market value. The reduction in VLF revenue to cities and counties was offset by an increased transfer of the state’s share of local secured property taxes. The VLF in-lieu estimate is based on the change in Net Taxable Value in the entire city. This revenue source is now tied to the property value change between tax years.The City is projecting revenue of $1,198,595 in FY 2022/23, which is an increase of approximately 5.4% over last year’s budgeted figure.

Local Secured Ad Valorem Property Taxes
The second largest revenue source, making up 20.6% of General Fund budgeted revenues for FY 2022/23, is the City’s share of the local ad valorem secured property taxes. Secured property taxes are taxes imposed on the calculated and controlled value of real property such as land and permanently attached improvements. Proposition 13 (1978) limits the real property tax rate to one percent (1%) of a property’s assessed value for ad valorem tax purposes. Furthermore, Proposition 13 also restricts annual assessed property value growth to an inflationary factor equal to the lessor of the annual October to October California Consumer Price Index or two percent (2%). For FY2022/23, the Assessor's applied CPI factor will be 2%.

For properties that sold between January and December 2021, the market value increase due to the sales is calculated as the difference between the value on the roll used for FY2021/22 and the price paid for the property in the sale transaction.

Following the County Assessor’s Office completion of the annual assessment roll, individual parcel taxes are calculated by the County Auditor-Controller’s Office (ACO) and levied and collected by the County Tax Collector’s Office. The County ACO then allocates taxes levied to local taxing agencies pursuant to a statutory allocation formula applicable to the tax rate area (TRA) the underlying parcel is located within.

The City of Clayton has ten (10) such TRAs, with the largest TRA by current assessed value returning only 6.63% of the full one percent tax back to the General Fund. Comparatively, the City is considered a “low property tax city” stemming from the original implementation of Proposition 13 in 1978. For FY 2022/23, the City’s share of secured local property tax revenues is projected to be significantly higher than in past years at $1,118,781. This represents a projected increase of over 12% from the current year. This is almost entirely due to the rapid increase in home prices over the last two years coupled with increased turnover of homes in the City.

The following illustration summarizes the statutory allocation of the 1% general ad valorem secured property tax to each taxing entity:

City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 41
Franchise Fees
The third largest revenue source, making up 10.7% of General Fund budgeted revenues for FY 2022/23, is franchise fees.

Franchise fees are rent paid by utilities or other businesses for the privilege of using the City’s right-of-way (i.e. streets, sidewalks, etc.) to locate utility lines, operate vehicles, and/or conduct private business for profit. The City currently collects a 1% franchise fee from Pacific Gas & Electric and a 5% franchise fee from cable operators (i.e. Comcast and AT&T/Pacific Bell). In addition, the City collects a 10% franchise fee from Republic Services for its collection, transportation, disposal and diversion of solid waste and recyclable materials.

In the City’s long-term forecasting of franchise revenues, staff had previously identified and communicated that the growth of streaming operations may eventually negatively impact the Comcast franchise fee as a reliable revenue source to local governments. This risk has now become a reality with FY 2018/19 Comcast franchise fee revenues falling short of the budget by $18,000 (8.1%), which is the most significant year-to-year decrease in at least ten years. Again, this reduction is due to consumer migration to alternative cable-less options. Accordingly, budgeted revenues for Comcast franchise fees have been adjusted to reflect this reduction, and continued decreases seem to have curtailed.

Despite PG&E franchise revenues decreasing as recently as FY 2018/19, with franchise fee revenues falling short of the budget by $10,872 (8.4%), revenues since have been increasing. Due tp recent fluctuations, the proposed PG&E franchise revenues are projected to be essentially flat for FY2022/23.

In the aggregate, however, it is expected total franchise fee revenues from all sources will remain stable, growing by less than 1 over FY2021/22 projected revenues for a total of $580,380.

Sales & Use Taxes
The fourth largest revenue source, making up 10.5% of General Fund budgeted revenues for FY 2022/23, is sales & use taxes. This is a tax imposed on the total retail price of any tangible personal property, unless deemed specifically exempt by the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA), as well as the use or storage of such property when sales tax is not paid. Although the unadjusted general state-wide sales tax rate applied to transactions is 7.25%, the basic local rate (aka “Bradley-Burns” rate) returned to local agencies (i.e. City of Clayton) is only one percent (1%). This local share is unrestricted and must be received into the General Fund. In the City of Clayton, the applicable sales tax rate is currently 8.75% due to a combination of other additional local and regional voter-approved measures. The following is a pie chart depicting the current allocation of the 8.75% sales tax rate applied to all taxable transactions in the City of Clayton:

City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 42
The City is projecting sales & use tax revenue of $571,816 in FY 2022/23, which is a decrease of approximately 2.4% from the current year adopted budget, but anticipated to be a slight increase over the anticipated FY2021/22 actuals. This projection is supported by historical local revenue trends as well as analysis performed by sales tax analysts HdL, Coren & Cone (HdL). On a regional level the economic outlook for the Bay Area anticipates continued recovery from the COVID-19 pandemic although inflation is starting to hamper further recovery efforts.

Along with the COVID-19 pandemic, there have been two other factors significantly affecting Clayton's sales tax revenues.

The first has had a positive impact, which is the result of the California state legislature’s passage of Assembly Bill 147 (AB 147) on April 25, 2019. This bill authorized the CDTFA to enforce the collection of sales and use taxes on online retailers with “significant nexus” effective April 1, 2019. Consistent with the U.S. Supreme Court’s South Dakota v. Wayfair decision, AB 147 defines significant nexus as online sales of tangible property in excess of $500,000 during the preceding or current calendar year. Given the City of Clayton’s limited presence of “brick and mortar” retail businesses generating sales taxes, this new legislation has resulted in a noticeable increase in sales & use tax revenues.

A second factor has dampened the potential upside to the City for sales tax revenue and that reflects a change in how Amazon fulfillment centers (distribution warehouses) are owned and thus how their revenues are allocated. Previously, as the fulfillment centers were owned by Amazon directly, the revenues derived from the centers was allocated via the County "pool", meaning a (small) portion of all of these revenues were allocated to Clayton regardless of where in Contra Costa County the fulfillment center was located. For 2021 and beyond (at this point), the fulfillment centers are treated as if they are locally owned, meaning only those jurisdictions that have a fulfillment center receive revenues based on those sales; those revenues no longer flow through the County pool. Since Clayton does not have a fulfillment center, the City no longer receives a share of those revenues.

Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund Revenue
The fifth largest revenue source, making up 8.7% of General Fund budgeted revenues for FY 2022/23, is the City’s share of the Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund (RPTTF) tax increment. Pursuant to Assembly Bill 1 26x, with the Clayton Redevelopment Agency’s (RDA) dissolution in February 2012 (FY 2011/12), the Clayton “Successor Agency” became the heir to the RDA. The Successor Agency receives funds through the RPTTF sufficient to pay/retire debt service and enforceable obligations of the former RDA as requested through the semi-annual “Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule” (ROPS) process, which is subject to approval by the California Department of Finance (DOF). Prior to the City of Clayton receiving its share of RPTTF taxes levied by the County, monies are first used to pay County administrative fees, required tax sharing payments (i.e. pass through payments), and approved enforceable obligations on the Successor Agency’s ROPS. Thereafter, the residual balance of the County RPTTF is distributed by the County to the school entities, city, county, and special districts based on their proportionate share of property tax revenues. The City of Clayton’s share of this residual balance is approximately 6.96%.

The amount of RPTTF residual balance allocated to the City is negatively correlated with the amount of state-approved obligations included in each ROPS. For FY 2022/23, after incorporating the state-approved ROPS and pass-through payments as well as total RPTTF expected to be available in the County pool for funding, it is projected the City will receive approximately $367,756 in RPTTF revenues.As previously described, due to the process by which the amount of RPTTF distributable to the City is calculated, historical allocations of RPTTF to the City are not germane in predicting future allocations.

Fiduciary Funds Administrative Service Charges
The sixth largest revenue source making up 5.1% of General Fund budgeted revenues for FY 2022/23 is derived from administrative support charges from the Successor Agency and other fiduciary funds of the City. Since the creation of the Successor Agency in 2012, the City has received $250,000 on an annual basis for administrative support services in accordance with California Health & Safety Code Section 34171(b). However, a few years following the dissolution of the Successor Agency, the Governor’s May 2015 trailer bill (AB 113) placed additional restrictions on the amount of administrative allowance an administering agency may receive, potentially resulting in a cap substantially less than the previous $250,000 floor amount. The most detrimental impact of this trailer bill was to apply an administrative allowance cap of 50% to RPTTF monies actually “received” in the prior year, rather than to the total amount of “approved” enforceable obligations. The City experienced its first loss from this new state decree in FY 2016/17 when the City was allocated only $231,915 for Successor Agency administrative support purposes.

City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 43
Pursuant to the April 13, 2022 Determination Letter issued by the California Department of Finance (DOF) approving the Successor Agency’s 2022/23 Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS), the City will not be receiving the full administrative allowance of $250,000 for FY 2022/23 and will instead receive only $196,338 pursuant to the cap described above. This one change results in a loss of $53,662 in General Fund revenue when compared to last year. It is anticipated that the Successor Agency administrative allowance revenues will remain in the range of the $196,000 being received this year until the dissolution of the Successor Agency in FY 2025/26 following the maturity of the 2014 refunding Tax Allocation Bonds. Including administrative cost recovery from the other fiduciary funds of the City, the total Fiduciary Funds Administrative Charges line item is expected to be $220,878. This reflects an 18.8% decrease from projected actuals for FY 2021/22 for Fiduciary Funds.

When looking at a twenty (20) year history of General Fund budgeted revenues, actual revenue growth has clearly not kept pace with inflation. The following line chart, updated and presented annually, illustrates the growing difference between General Fund budgeted revenues versus FY 2002/03 base year revenues adjusted for annual changes in the consumer price index for the San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward region, with the difference in FY 2021/22 being $989,457:

City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 44
Revenue Source
Taxes
Real Property Transfer Tax $125,221 $112,000 $116,493 $114,240 2% Sales and Use Tax $510,029 $585,965 $560,463 $571,816 -2.4% Property Taxes - Secured $964,432 $992,164 $996,817 $1,118,781 12.8% Property Taxes - Unsecured $43,102 $40,000 $37,403 $30,748 -23.1% Property Taxes - Unitary Tax $15,048 $15,349 $16,448 $14,413 -6.1% Property Taxes - Supplemental $24,831 $2,300 $25,007 $30,000 1,204.3% Property Taxes - Other $8,975 $9,100 $8,801 $9,100 0%
Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund -
Distribution
$447,771 $464,424 $460,203 $471,390 1.5%
Property Tax In-Lieu of VLF $1,093,525 $1,137,266 $1,132,352 $1,198,595 5.4% Total Taxes: $3,232,934 $3,358,568 $3,353,987 $3,559,083 6% Charges for Services
Engineering Service Fees $6,407 $5,457 $11,210 $5,566 2% Abandoned Veh Abate (AVA) $6,385 $5,600 $2,552 $5,712 2% POST Reimbursements $4,145 $6,000 $2,223 $6,120 2%
Planning Permits/Fees $10,903 $11,115 $16,410 $15,000 35% Police Permits/Fees $7,242 $20,000 $10,468 $12,500 -37.5% City Hall Rental Fees $0 $200 $0 $204 2%
Planning Service Charges $41,367 $48,000 $10,234 $35,000 -27.1% Well Water Usage Charge $7,725 $6,000 $5,804 $6,000 0%
Miscellaneous City Services $52 $100 $146 $100 0%
Fiduciary Funds Administration $271,471 $272,151 $272,151 $220,878 -18.8% Park Use Fee $11,722 $14,000 $32,267 $32,000 128.6%
Meeting Room Fee -$112 $3,000 $3,008 $0 -100%
Cattle Grazing Lease Rent $10,526 $10,710 $10,710 $10,710 0% Cell Tower Lease Rent $36,627 $37,587 $37,447 $37,587 0% Fountain Use Fee $430 $0 $0 $0 0%
Clayton Community Gymnasium Rent $5,900 $18,600 $0 $18,600 0% Total Charges for Services: $420,790 $458,520 $414,630 $405,977 -11.5% Licenses & Permits
Business Licenses $90,872 $150,000 $151,667 $154,500 3% Building Permit Remit Fees (Surcharge) $81,134 $80,000 $80,207 $80,000 0% Total Licenses & Permits: $172,005 $230,000 $231,874 $234,500 2% Operating Grants and Contributions
Public Safety Allocation $99,966 $103,531 $103,884 $103,531 0% State Mandated Cost Reimbursement $2,620 $0 $0 $0 N/A
Total Operating Grants and Contributions: $102,586 $103,531 $103,884 $103,531 0% Name FY2021
Actuals
FY2022
Amended
FY2022
Projected
FY2023
Budgeted
FY2022 Amended vs.

FY2023 Budgeted (%
Change)
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 45
Other In Lieu
Motor Vehicle In Lieu $8,315 $8,320 $13,017 $12,000 44.2% Other In Lieu $171,029 $174,389 $174,443 $174,389 0%
Total Other In Lieu: $179,344 $182,709 $187,460 $186,389 2% Franchise Fees
Franchises - Comcast Cable $198,606 $204,400 $207,784 $208,488 2% Franchises - Garbage Fees $211,855 $216,000 $212,809 $214,000 -0.9% Franchises - PG&E $139,858 $140,000 $138,001 $140,000 0% Franchises - Equilon Pipe $17,006 $17,193 $17,892 $17,892 4.1% AT&T Mobility Francise Fees $25 $100 $0 $0 -100%
Total Franchise Fees: $567,350 $577,693 $576,486 $580,380 0.5% Fines & Forfeitures
Fines and Forfeitures $33,487 $32,800 $25,394 $25,000 -23.8% Total Fines & Forfeitures: $33,487 $32,800 $25,394 $25,000 -23.8% Interest
Interest $113,321 $86,000 $85,198 $86,000 0%
Total Interest: $113,321 $86,000 $85,198 $86,000 0%
Other Revenues
Unrealized Inv. Gain/Loss -$50,967 $0 $0 $0 N/A
Reimbursements/Refunds $0 $1,000 $8,000 $8,000 700%
Other Revenues $14,571 $8,000 $13,179 $8,000 0%
Overhead Cost Recovery $16,086 $11,000 $10,166 $11,000 0% Total Other Revenues: -$20,310 $20,000 $31,345 $27,000 35% Admin Support Transfers
Admin Exp Rec - Measure J Fund $4,890 $5,076 $5,076 $5,330 5% Admin Exp Rec - HUTA Gas Tax Fund $8,150 $8,460 $8,460 $8,883 5% Admin Exp Rec - Neighborhood Street Lights
Fund
$12,530 $13,006 $13,006 $13,656 5%
Admin Exp Rec - GHAD Fund $7,870 $8,169 $8,169 $8,577 5% Admin Exp Rec - Landscape Maint CFD Fund $39,190 $40,679 $40,679 $42,713 5% Admin Exp Rec - The Grove Park CFD Fund $7,970 $8,273 $8,273 $8,687 5% Admin Exp Rec - Stormwater Assessment Fund $40,430 $41,966 $41,966 $44,064 5% Trx. From Grant Fund $14,814 $10,000 $1,467,024 $1,510,549 15,005.5% Transfer from Fund 111 - Pandemic RR $0 $0 $0 $37,139 N/A Total Admin Support Transfers: $135,844 $135,629 $1,592,653 $1,679,598 1,138.4% Total Revenue Source: $4,937,351 $5,185,450 $6,602,911 $6,887,459 32.8% Name FY2021
Actuals
FY2022
Amended
FY2022
Projected
FY2023
Budgeted
FY2022 Amended vs.

FY2023 Budgeted (%
Change)
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 46
General Fund Expenditures
The proposed FY 2022/23 budget incorporates total General Fund appropriations of $6,887,459 which reflects an overall increase of 6% compared to the prior year’s projected expenditures. It should be noted that both revenue and expenditure figures for FY2021/22 and proposed for FY2022/23 reflect the impact of receiving $1,467,024 in American Rescue Plan Funds, which are transferred into the Pandemic Recovery Reserve established by the City Council. Any programmatic spending of ARPA funds will occur from the Pandemic Recovery Reserve (Fund 111).

FY 2021/22 Operating Expenditure Projections
The starting point for developing next year’s budget is forecasting current year results and comparing to the budgetary projections. General Fund operational expenditures are expected to total approximately $5,135,600 absent the impact of ARPA funds by the close of FY 2021/22. If realized, this projection will result in expenditures coming in just under budgeted expectations. This variance suggests departments were generally successful in controlling their budgets within the constraints of the City Council approved legally enforceable departmental budgets. This is particularly important given that in FY2021/22, there were a number of extraordinary expenses related to accounting clean-up and IT related costs that were ultimately absorbed within existing budget parameters.

City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 47
Expenditures by Function
The following pie chart illustrates each department’s proportionate share of total proposed General Fund operating expenditures for FY 2022/23.

The order of departmental appropriations by proportional share of the General Fund is consistent with the prior year’s adopted budget, suggesting no significant change in the priority of City programs.

Budgeted Expenditures by Function
Police (39.8%)
City (21.3%)
Admin/Finance/Legal (16.1%)
Community Development (5.5%)
General Services (4.3%)
Clayton Community Park (4%)
Public Works - Buildings & Parks (3.2%)
Engineering (2.4%)
Library (1.9%)
Legislative (1.4%)
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 48
Budgeted and Historical Expenditures by Function
Millions
Legislative
Library
Engineering
Public Works - Buildings & Parks
Clayton Community Park
General Services
Community Development
Admin/Finance/Legal
City
Police
FY2020FY2021FY2022FY2023
$0
$2
$4
$6
$8
As anticipated, the Police Department’s share of proposed General Fund appropriations in FY 2022/23 is a majority share of total appropriations at 51.3% when ARPA transfers are not included; although the first pie chart above shows a lower percentage when the "City" department which includes the $1,467,024 transfer to/from ARPA is included. As such, when considering the departmental distribution of appropriations, it is important to note for every $1.00 paid by taxpayers as general tax revenue to the City, slightly over one-half of the tax monies (~52¢ of every $1) are re-invested in the community to provide provide local law enforcement services.

City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 49
As a service organization, unsurprisingly, the cost for personnel services comprises the bulk of General Fund appropriations.

The proportion of expenditures related to personnel services remained relatively steady decreasing by less than 1% to a total of approximately 64.8% of the overall proposed operating General Fund budget. Overall, the proportion of General Fund appropriations attributable to labor-related costs has been controlled and remained relatively steady at approximately two-thirds of the General Fund budget over the past eight-plus years.

Legislative Department (No. 01)
This is the smallest General Fund department, making up 1.7% of proposed budgeted operating expenditures. Services funded by this department generally include: City Council members setting policy goals and objectives for the community, regular and special meetings of the City Council and recordings thereof, administering elections, and steering City promotional activities. Proposed appropriations for this department reflect an increase of $28,150, consisting primarily of election year costs and additional information technology and audio-visual costs associated with the move to hybrid Council meetings.

Admin / Finance / Legal Department (No. 02)
This department makes up 20.2% of proposed General Fund budgeted operating expenditures. By its nature, the Admin/Finance/Legal Department provides essential administrative, oversight, and supportive services for all of the City’s direct-cost programs, including but not limited to: police, community development, parks and landscape maintenance services, capital improvements, etc. Comprised of approximately 5.3 permanent full-time equivalent employees, functions funded by this department include, but are not limited to: executive management and policy execution; legal counsel; human resources; financial, budgetary and compliance reporting; treasury and investment management; payroll and benefits administration; disbursements; revenue collection; records retention management and public records act facilitation; and facility rentals. Proposed appropriations reflect an increase of 5% from the prior year adopted budget, primarily due to increases in salaries, benefits and IT-related costs.

Public Works Department (No. 03)
This department makes up 4% of proposed General Fund budgeted operating expenditures. Services funded by the Public Works Department include the maintenance of city hall and the adjacent corporation yard as well as maintenance of the City’s five neighborhood parks (El Molino, Lydia Lane, North Valley, Stranahan, Westwood), as well as the Dog Park.

Proposed appropriations for this department reflect an increase of 9.1% over the prior year primarily attributable to increases in labor and energy costs, janitorial and general building maintenance costs.

Community Development Department (No. 04)
This department makes up 6.9% of proposed General Fund budgeted operating expenditures. Comprised of approximately

1.9 permanent full-time equivalent employees, services funded by the Community Development Department generally include, but are not limited to: long-range planning and special studies (i.e. transportation, housing, zoning, etc.); ensuring compliance of land development and private party design proposals with local, state, and federal regulations; municipal code enforcement; and administration of the city’s low to moderate income housing program. Proposed appropriations reflect an increase of 11.2% over the prior year adopted budget. This increase is the result of changes in labor costs as well as document recording fees and allocated legal costs.

General Services Department (No. 05)
This department makes up 5.7% of proposed General Fund operating budgeted expenditures. By its nature, the General Services Department captures essential support costs shared amongst all of the City’s departments and funds. Functions funded by this department include, but are not limited to: city-wide risk management and insurance premiums; computer, software, and network technology support; and office supplies and shared printer/copy/scanning costs (excluding those of the police department, which are tracked separately). Proposed appropriations for this department are expected to increase

20.4% over the prior budget due primarily to increased insurance costs. Computer/IT services previously used by this department will continue to be paid using Comcast PEG fees in the Restricted Grant Fund.

Police Department (No. 06)
This is by far the largest General Fund department, making up 51.3% of proposed General Fund budgeted operating expenditures. This is the only department that works 24 hours, 7 days a week, and 365 days a year. This includes staffing and associated operations, such as contract dispatch services and vehicles. Services funded by the Police Department include, but are not limited to: traffic enforcement, vehicle collision investigation, crime investigation, animal control (contract), dispatch services (contract), and police records management. This department is comprised of thirteen (13) City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 50
permanent full-time equivalent employees, ten (10) of whom are permanent full-time sworn police officers (including the Chief of Police) and two (2) of whom are police operations support personnel funded through the General Fund. The City’s eleventh (11 ) sworn police officer is and has long been funded by the Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund (SLESF) restricted-use funding source, which is tracked in the City’s Grants Fund and discussed in greater detail later. Proposed operating appropriations for this department reflect an increase of 5% over the prior year adopted budget.

Of this increase, the majority is related to increases in negotiated salaries, salary step increases and contract cost increases for dispatch and animal control services.

Library Department (No. 07)
This department makes up 2.4% of proposed General Fund budgeted operating expenditures. Services funded by the Library Department include, but are not limited to: City maintenance of the City-owned Clayton Community Library building, grounds and equipment. Funding for Sunday and weekday County Library staffing hours beyond the County’s base has been discontinued due to the cost estimate from the County increasing over 400%. Proposed operating appropriations reflect an increase of 3.1% over the prior year’s budget.

Engineering Department (No. 08)
This department makes up 3% of proposed General Fund budgeted expenditures. Services funded by the contract Engineering Department include but are not limited to: administration of the City’s capital improvement program, plan check and review of construction/development plans, administration of the City’s encroachment permit program, and management of several benefit assessment districts. Professional engineering services are estimated to increase by 21.3%.

While the City has brought in a new firm for City Engineer services, Anchor CM, the rates charged by this firm are not significantly greater than the rates that were charged by the prior contractor. The increase in costs is a reflection of the increased demand and need for capital and engineering services.

Clayton Community Park Department (No. 09)
This department makes up 5% of General Fund operating appropriations included in the Proposed Budget. Services funded by the Clayton Community Park Department include but are not limited to: landscaping of the park grounds, maintenance of recreational sporting fields and related equipment/facilities, repairs and maintenance of the water irrigation network, and trash removal. Operating appropriations of this department are proposed to decrease by nearly 10% to more accurately reflect water and energy costs associated with the Park.

Detailed budgets for each of the departments can be found in the individual sections. th
Expenditures
City $655,090 $0 $1,467,024 $1,467,024 N/A
Legislative $52,921 $63,471 $57,125 $96,621 52.2%
Admin/Finance/Legal $1,004,996 $1,055,988 $1,092,262 $1,109,133 5% Public Works - Buildings & Parks $184,780 $201,462 $187,599 $219,718 9.1% Community Development $290,222 $343,416 $305,031 $381,717 11.2% General Services $208,891 $252,597 $273,299 $298,885 18.3% Police $2,354,313 $2,689,035 $2,692,176 $2,738,617 1.8% Library $98,873 $127,181 $124,883 $131,104 3.1%
Engineering $146,203 $137,835 $166,800 $167,148 21.3%
Clayton Community Park $174,148 $306,500 $236,425 $277,492 -9.5% Total Expenditures: $5,170,437 $5,177,485 $6,602,624 $6,887,459 33% Name FY2021 Actuals FY2022 Amended FY2022 Projected FY2023 Budgeted FY2022 Amended vs. FY2023 Budgeted (% Change)
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 51
Expenditures by Expense Type
Budgeted Expenditures by Expense Type
Salaries (34.1%)
Operating (27.3%)
Transfers (21.3%)
Benefififits (17.2%)
Budgeted and Historical Expenditures by Expense Type
Millions
Benefits
Transfers
Operating
Salaries
FY2020FY2021
FY2022FY2023
$0
$2
$4
$6
$8
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 52
Expense Objects
Salaries $2,052,298 $2,268,629 $2,263,355 $2,351,230 3.6% Benefits $1,003,840 $1,124,618 $1,039,757 $1,187,676 5.6% Operating $1,459,209 $1,784,238 $1,832,488 $1,881,529 5.5% Transfers $655,090 $1,467,024 $1,467,024 N/A
Total Expense Objects: $5,170,437 $5,177,485 $6,602,624 $6,887,459 33% Name FY2021 Actuals FY2022 Amended FY2022 Projected FY2023 Budgeted FY2022 Amended vs. FY2023 Budgeted (% Change)
General Fund Summary
The chart below shows the trend of General Fund expenditures over the last several years and reflects the anticipated deficit underlying the proposed FY2022/23 budget were it not for the transfer of $37,139 from the Pandemic Recovery Reserve. With the transfer from the Pandemic Recovery Reserve, the overall General Fund budget is balanced.

Values
General Fund Revenues & Expenditures Without ARPA
Revenues Expenditures
FY2012/13
FY2013/14FY2014/15FY2015/16FY2016/17FY2017/18
FY2018/19
FY2019/20
FY2020/21
FY2021/22
FY2022/23
3,500k
4,000k
4,500k
5,000k
5,500k
6,000k
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 53
Fund Balance
Fund Balance Projections
Assigned Nonspendable Restricted Unassigned
FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023
$0
$1M
$2M
$3M
$4M
$5M
$6M
$7M
FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 % Change
Fund Balance Audited Fund Balance Audited Fund Balance Projected Proposed Unassigned $5,654,925 $5,810,862 $5,811,772 $5,561,772 -4.3% Assigned $409,482 $0 $0 $0 0%
Restricted $0 $0 $0 $250,000 0%
Nonspendable $100,163 $120,623 $120,000 $120,000 0%
Total Fund Balance: $6,164,570 $5,931,485 $5,931,772 $5,931,772 0% City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 54
Rainy Day Fund
110
In FY2020/21, the City Council established the Rainy-Day Fund, into which unanticipated yearend surplus funds can be transferred for specified projects or programs.

Summary
The City of Clayton is projecting $1.5K of revenue in FY2023, which represents a 50% decrease over the prior year. Budgeted expenditures are projected to decrease by 89.8% or $296.48K to $33.53K in FY2023.

Actual Revenue Source
Budgeted Revenue Source
Over Budget Revenue Source
Actual Expenditures
Budgeted Expenditures
Over Budget Expenditures
FY2021 FY2022 FY2023
$0
$200K
$400K
$600K
$800K
Expenditures by Expense Type
Budgeted and Historical Expenditures by Expense Type
Millions
Salaries
Transfers
Operating
Operating
FY2021
FY2022FY2023
$0
$0.1
$0.2
$0.3
$0.4
$0.5
$0.6
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 55
Expense Objects
Salaries $118,774 $0 $0 $0 N/A
Operating $32,841 $0 $30,000 $0 0%
Operating $0 $0 $0 $33,525 N/A
Transfers $330,000 $330,000 $0 $0 -100%
Total Expense Objects: $481,615 $330,000 $30,000 $33,525 -89.8% Name FY2021 Actuals FY2022 Amended FY2022 Projected FY2023 Budgeted FY2022 Amended vs. FY2023 Budgeted (% Change)
FY2022 Amended vs. FY2023
Budgeted (% Change)
Fund Balance
Fund Balance Projections
Committed
FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023
$0
$50K
$100K
$150K
$200K
FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 % Change
Fund Balance Audited Fund Balance Projected Proposed
Committed $177,496 $148,996 $116,971 -21.5%
Total Fund Balance: $177,496 $148,996 $116,971 -21.5%
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 56
Pandemic
Recovery
Reserve (111)
The Pandemic Recovery Reserve (Fund 111) was established by the City Council to capture programmatic funding decisions associated with the American Rescue Plan Act funds the City has received. For the initial tranche of $1,467,024 (and planned for the tranche to be received in July 2022), the City Council has chosen to transfer the funds to the City's General Fund to pay for public safety services. This funding for public safety then allows the transfer of an equal amount from the General Fund to the Pandemic Recovery Reserve. The funds in the Pandemic Recovery Reserve can be used for any valid general government purpose.

For FY2021/22, the City Council allocated Pandemic Recovery Reserve Funds in the following categories:

Essential Worker Premium pay
Clayton Cares Grants
Business
Household
Program Administration and Management
ClearGov Budget Software
The proposed expenditures of $399,390 in the FY2022/23 budget include:

Senior Accountant - one-year limited term appointment - approximately $135,348 Additional IT support for modernization and cybersecurity - $50,000 Records Management and digitization of records - $35,000 Organizational assessment - $35,000
ClearGov Software (previously approved) - $16,500
Transfers:
$37,139 to the General Fund for budget stabilization
$70,000 to the Capital Equipment Replacement Fund to maintain an adequate balance in the fund
20,403 to the Street Light Assessment District fund to cover the shortfall in district funds relative to needed expenses
Summary
The City of Clayton is projecting $1.47M of revenue in FY2023, which is equal to the amount received in FY2021/22. Proposed Budgeted expenditures are projected to drop to $399,390 in FY2023.

Actual Revenue Source
Budgeted Revenue Source
Actual Expenditures
Budgeted Expenditures
FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023
$0
$500K
$1M
$1.5M
$2M
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 57
Revenues by Source
Revenue Source
Interest
Interest $0 $0 $3,000 $0 N/A
Total Interest: $0 $0 $3,000 $0 N/A
Admin Support Transfers
Transfer From CERF $0 $0 $1,467,024 $0 0%
Transfer from General Fund $0 $0 $0 $1,470,024 N/A
Total Admin Support Transfers: $0 $0 $1,467,024 $1,470,024 N/A Total Revenue Source: $0 $0 $1,470,024 $1,470,024 N/A
Name FY2021 Actuals FY2022 Amended FY2022 Projected FY2023 Budgeted FY2022 Amended vs. FY2023 Budgeted (% Change)
Expenditures by Expense Type
Budgeted Expenditures by Expense Type
Operating (34.2%)
Transfers (31.9%)
Salaries (22.7%)
Benefififits (11.2%)
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 58
Expense Objects
Salaries
Regular Salaries $0 $242,575 $90,608 N/A
Total Salaries: $0 $242,575 $90,608 N/A
Benefits
PERS Normal Cost $0 $0 $8,000 N/A
FICA Taxes $0 $4,507 $17,042 N/A
Benefit Insurance $0 $0 $19,698 N/A
Total Benefits: $0 $4,507 $44,740 N/A
Operating
General Supplies $0 $650 $0 N/A
Office Supplies/Expense $0 $775 $0 N/A
Dues and Subscriptions $0 $4,125 $16,500 N/A
Computer/IT Support $0 $0 $85,000 N/A
Other Professional Services $0 $35,000 $35,000 N/A
Project Expenses $0 $800,000 $0 0%
Total Operating: $0 $840,550 $136,500 N/A
Transfers
Transfer To General Fund $0 $0 $37,139 N/A
Transfer to CERF $0 $0 $70,000 N/A
Transfer to Streetlighting 214 $0 $0 $20,403 N/A
Total Transfers: $0 $0 $127,542 N/A
Total Expense Objects: $0 $1,087,632 $399,390 N/A
Name FY2022 Amended FY2022 Projected FY2023 Budgeted FY2022 Amended vs. FY2023 Budgeted (% Change)
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 59
Fund Balance
Fund Balance Projections
Assigned
FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023
$0
$250K
$500K
$750K
$1M
$1.25M
$1.5M
$1.75M
FY2022 FY2023 % Change
Fund Balance Projected Proposed
Assigned $382,392 $1,468,914 284.1%
Total Fund Balance: $382,392 $1,468,914 284.1%
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 60
Gas Tax (HUTA)
Derived from layers of state transportation taxes on the sale of gasoline [California Street and Highway Code, Sections 2105, 2106, 2107 and 2107.5; voter-approved Proposition 42 “Traffic Congestion Relief Act” monies], this group of revenues is deposited into a fund referred to as the City’s “Highway Users Tax Account (HUTA) Gas Tax Fund”. Local HUTA funds in the past have been a reliable source of funding for cities since the 1970s and are universally used to fund local road maintenance and repairs. The use of HUTA gas taxes is restricted by Article XIX of the California State Constitution and by California Streets and Highways Code section 2101. All HUTA gas taxes must be expended for the following:

The research, planning, construction, improvement, maintenance, and operation of public streets and highways (and their related public facilities for nonmotorized traffic), including the mitigation of their environmental impacts, the payment for property taken or damaged for such purposes, and the administrative costs necessarily incurred in the foregoing purposes.

The research and planning for exclusive public mass transit guideways (and their related fixed facilities), the payment for property taken or damaged for such purposes, and the administrative costs necessarily incurred in the foregoing purposes.

The construction and improvement of exclusive public mass transit guideways (and their related fixed facilities), including the mitigation of their environmental effects, the payment for property taken or damaged for such purposes, the administrative costs necessarily incurred in the foregoing purposes, and the maintenance of the structures and the immediate right-of-way for the public mass transit guideways.

The payment of principal and interest on voter-approved bonds issued for these purposes.

Historically, the City of Clayton has generally used HUTA monies to perform annual street re-striping and safety re-markings, traffic regulation and warning signs and replacements, resealing of street cracks, sidewalk and gutter repairs, replacement of street name signs, operation and repair of arterial street lights, and traffic signal maintenance.

Due to the City’s pattern of heavy reinvestment of HUTA tax funds into maintenance and repair of local streets and roads, our City has been successful in its upkeep of this infrastructure. In total, the City has invested over $1.5 million of HUTA tax monies into street repaving and capital projects over the last ten fiscal years (since FY 2010/11). This accomplishment has enabled Clayton to consistently remain in the Top 5 best average pavement condition streets within Contra Costa County and greater Bay Area. Clayton is currently ranked No. 3 in all of the Bay Area and tied for No. 1 in Contra Costa County with a PCI of 82. This Pavement Condition Index (PCI) ranks Clayton’s overall street system in the “Very Good” category, with the average Contra Costa PCI being 70 (Good) and Bay Area PCI being 67 (Fair). Pavements are rated from 0 to 100 with 100 being the index assigned to a newly paved street.

Utilizing the latest projections published by the League of California Cities, the FY 2022/23 HUTA gas tax revenues are estimated to total $334,022, reflecting an increase of approximately 4.3% from FY 2021/22.

Consistent with the prior year plan in order to use existing HUTA Gas Tax fund reserves for eligible City streets projects, the proposed budget reflects expenditures of $259,708. This is less than the anticipated expenditures in FY2021/22, which related to completing a significant ADA curb ramp project in conjunction with the 2022 Neighborhood Pavement Preservation Project.

City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 61
Summary
The City of Clayton is projecting $334,021 of revenue in FY2023, which represents a 2.8% increase over the prior year. Budgeted expenditures are projected to decrease by 40.1% or $139.85K to $334,021 in FY2023.

Actual Revenue Source
Budgeted Revenue Source
Over Budget Revenue Source
Actual Expenditures
Budgeted Expenditures
FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023
$0
$200K
$400K
$600K
$800K
Expenditures by Expense Type
Budgeted Expenditures by Expense Type
Operating (65.8%)
Transfers (25.8%)
Salaries (4.8%)
Benefififits (3.6%)
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 62
Budgeted and Historical Expenditures by Expense Type
Millions
Benefits
Salaries
Transfers
Operating
FY2020FY2021FY2022
FY2023
$0
$0.1
$0.2
$0.3
$0.4
Expense Objects
Salaries
Regular Salaries $6,497 $19,813 $19,813 $11,949 -39.7%
Temporary Salaries $213 $500 $500 $500 0%
Overtime $1,160 $0 $0 $0 N/A
Total Salaries: $7,869 $20,313 $20,313 $12,449 -38.7%
Benefits
Long/Short Term Disability Insurance $54 $172 $172 $118 -31.4% PERS Retirement-Normal Cost $593 $1,830 $1,830 $991 -45.8% PERS Retirement - Unfunded Liability $640 $2,462 $2,462 $2,462 0% Workers' Compensation $776 $707 $707 $511 -27.7%
Unemployment Compensation $0 $200 $200 $24 -88%
FICA Taxes $127 $326 $326 $326 0%
Benefit Insurance $1,211 $3,584 $3,584 $5,044 40.7%
Total Benefits: $3,400 $9,281 $9,281 $9,476 2.1%
Operating
General Supplies $1,512 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 0%
Pavement Repair Supplies $14 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 0%
Arterial Street Light Supplies $0 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 0% Gas & Electricity $52,098 $48,000 $48,000 $48,000 0%
Traffic Safety Supplies $5,575 $9,000 $9,000 $9,000 0%
Machinery/Equipment Maintenance $162 $0 $0 $0 N/A
Name FY2021
Actuals
FY2022
Amended
FY2022
Projected
FY2023
Budgeted
FY2022 Amended vs.

FY2023 Budgeted (%
Change)
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 63
Vehicle Maintenance $270 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 0%
Vehicles: Gas, Oil & Supplies $330 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 0% Traffic Signal Maintenance $31,448 $35,000 $35,000 $35,000 0% Pavement Repairs/Maintenance $1,985 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 0% Property Tax Admin. Costs $320 $400 $400 $400 0%
Other Professional Services $19,773 $25,000 $25,000 $35,000 40% Street Light Maintenance $4,963 $4,000 $4,000 $4,000 0% Capital Outlay - Machinery, Vehicles &
Equipment
$13,347 $0 $0 $0 N/A
CERF Charges $4,500 $4,500 $4,500 $4,500 0%
Total Operating: $136,297 $160,900 $160,900 $170,900 6.2% Transfers
Transfer To General Fund $8,150 $8,460 $8,460 $8,883 5% Transfer to CIP Fund $27,173 $149,825 $504,444 $58,000 -61.3% Total Transfers: $35,323 $158,285 $512,904 $66,883 -57.7% Total Expense Objects: $182,889 $348,779 $703,398 $259,708 -25.5% Name FY2021
Actuals
FY2022
Amended
FY2022
Projected
FY2023
Budgeted
FY2022 Amended vs.

FY2023 Budgeted (%
Change)
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 64
Fund Balance
Fund Balance Projections
Unassigned
FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023
$0
$100K
$200K
$300K
$400K
$500K
$600K
FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 % Change
Fund Balance Audited Fund Balance Audited Fund Balance Projected Proposed Unassigned $395,287 $509,771 $121,781 $196,094 61%
Total Fund Balance: $395,287 $509,771 $121,781 $196,094 61% City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 65
RMRA Gas Tax
The Road Repair and Accountability Act of 2017, also referred to as Senate Bill 1 (SB1), is a significant new investment in California’s transportation systems of approximately $5.2 billion per year. SB1 increased the per gallon fuel excise taxes, diesel fuel sales taxes and vehicle registration taxes, sought to stabilize the problematic price-based fuel tax rates and provide for inflationary adjustments to rates in future years. In result, SB1 more than doubled local streets and road funds allocated through the existing Highway Users Tax Account (HUTA) gas taxes described previously, allocating monies from new taxes through the establishment of a new Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation Account (RMRA).

The RMRA receives monies from the following new taxes imposed under SB1:

A 12¢ per gallon increase to the gasoline excise tax effective November 1, 2017.

A 12¢ per gallon increase to the diesel fuel excise tax effective November 1, 2017, half of which is allocated to the Trade Corridors Enhancement Account with the remaining half to the RMRA.

A new vehicle registration tax called the “transportation improvement fee,”effective January 1, 2018, based on vehicle market value.

An additional new $100 vehicle registration tax on zero emission vehicles model year 2020 and later effective July 1, 2020.

Annual rate increases to these taxes beginning July 1, 2020 (July 1, 2021 for the ZEV fee), and every July 1st thereafter for the change in the California consumer price index (CPI). The first adjustment made on July 1, 2020 will cover the CPI change for the two-year timeframe November 1, 2017 through November 12, 2019.

The restricted-use of RMRA gas tax monies is similar, but not identical, to HUTA gas tax monies. Pursuant to California Streets and Highways Code section 2030, RMRA allocations must be deposited into a separate restricted-use fund and may only be used for projects that include but are not limited to: road maintenance and rehabilitation, safety projects, railroad grade separations, traffic control devices, and complete street components.

Consistent with the City’s regular objective to use all available HUTA gas tax reserves for eligible City streets projects, the proposed RMRA Gas Tax fund budget also plans to draw down all available reserves over the next several years, transferring funds to the Capital Improvement fund for eligible streets projects.

In FY2021/22, RMRA Gas Tax funding was used to complete a long-awaited pavement project. For FY2022/23, RMRA Gas Tax will again be used to fund a paving project, in conjunction with grant funding from OBAG 2 and Measure J funds.

City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 66
Summary
The City of Clayton is projecting $261,050 of revenue in FY2023, which represents a 17.6% increase over the prior year. Budgeted expenditures are projected to decrease by 67.9% or $302K to$143,000 in FY2023.

Actual Revenue Source
Budgeted Revenue Source
Over Budget Revenue Source
Actual Expenditures
Budgeted Expenditures
FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023
$0
$100K
$200K
$300K
$400K
$500K
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 67
Revenues by Source
Budgeted and Historical 2023 Revenues by Source
Millions
Other Revenues
Interest
Operating Grants and Contributions
FY2020
FY2021FY2022FY2023
$-0.05
$0
$0.05
$0.1
$0.15
$0.2
$0.25
$0.3
Revenue Source
Operating Grants and Contributions
State Gasoline 2030 (RMRA) $192,360 $217,787 $217,787 $256,850 17.9% Total Operating Grants and Contributions: $192,360 $217,787 $217,787 $256,850 17.9% Interest
Interest $2,273 $4,200 $4,200 $4,200 0%
Total Interest: $2,273 $4,200 $4,200 $4,200 0%
Other Revenues
Unrealized Inv. Gain/Loss -$2,215 $0 $0 $0 N/A
Total Other Revenues: -$2,215 $0 $0 $0 N/A
Total Revenue Source: $192,417 $221,987 $221,987 $261,050 17.6% Name FY2021 Actuals FY2022 Amended FY2022 Projected FY2023 Budgeted FY2022 Amended vs. FY2023 Budgeted (% Change)
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 68
Expenditures by Expense Type
Budgeted and Historical Expenditures by Expense Type
Millions
Transfers
FY2022
FY2023
$0
$0.1
$0.2
$0.3
$0.4
$0.5
Expense Objects
Transfers
Transfer to CIP Fund $0 $445,000 $624,880 $143,000 -67.9% Total Transfers: $0 $445,000 $624,880 $143,000 -67.9%
Total Expense Objects: $0 $445,000 $624,880 $143,000 -67.9% Name FY2021 Actuals FY2022 Amended FY2022 Projected FY2023 Budgeted FY2022 Amended vs. FY2023 Budgeted (% Change)
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 69
Fund Balance
Fund Balance Projections
Unassigned
FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023
$0
$100K
$200K
$300K
$400K
$500K
$600K
$700K
FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 % Change
Fund Balance Audited Fund Balance Audited Fund Balance Projected Proposed Unassigned $428,499 $620,917 $218,024 $336,074 54.1%
Total Fund Balance: $428,499 $620,917 $218,024 $336,074 54.1% City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 70
Landscape
Maintenance
District
In June 2007, Clayton voters approved a replacement real property special tax to continue funding the operation and maintenance of its citywide public landscaped areas. This voter action created the City of Clayton Landscape Maintenance Community Facilities District 2007-1 (LMD). This annual special parcel tax is restricted to landscape costs associated with: arterial and specified roadway medians and parkways, the trails system, the annual open space non-native (exotic) invasive weed abatement in city-owned open space of the area hills, the annual open space and trails maintenance including weed abatement for fire and public safety, landscape and turf irrigation and the monthly maintenance and special occasion/holiday operation of the “Clayton Fountain”. Operations for the LMD are separately accounted for by the City in a restricted-use special revenue fund.

Measure B, the 2007 ballot measure, expired June 30, 2017. Given this was the only source of funds for the maintenance and operation of the LMD, in order to continue this sole funding source, a special parcel tax, “Measure H” was placed before the voters on the June 7, 2016 ballot; needing two-thirds (66.67%) voter approval. In June 2016, the voters overwhelmingly elected (77.1% positive vote) to extend the LMD special parcel tax for an additional ten (10) years.

Maintenance of City parks is not included as an authorized expenditure under the LMD Act; park maintenance obligations fall to the City’s General Fund. Citywide public landscaping services have always been funded by a special parcel tax levied on private properties throughout the City.

City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 71
Landscape Maintenance District Operations
The LMD is now completing its fifth year of operation under Measure H. The LMD has a City Council-appointed Trails and Landscaping Citizens’ Oversight Committee (TLC) that meets periodically to ensure the these special-purpose tax revenues are used for their intended purpose as established under the previous ballot measure for the LMD. The TLC met on March 7, May 9 and May 16, 2022. The May meetings were for the review and input on the proposed LMD budget for City Council action in June. The Proposed Budget incorporates the Committee's recommendations for FY2022/23. The Committee's work is greatly appreciated and vital to the success of the District.

Pursuant to the terms of voter-approved Measure H, the special parcel tax rate may be modified annually by the change in the consumer price index (CPI) as published by the U.S. Bureau of Labor and Statistics from April to April for this geographic region (San Francisco-Oakland-Hayward, CA). In no event shall the special parcel tax rate be increased by more than three percent (3.0%) annually. Given the local CPI change (from April 2020 to April 2021) of 5%, the LMD’s projected revenues are recommended by the TLC and included in the proposed budget to be increased by 3.0% to a total of $1,241,053 for FY 2022/23. This results in a modest increase to LMD special parcel tax revenues of apx. $36,121 over the prior year’s adopted budget. The capped CPI growth adjustment will result in an increase of $8.22 per residential parcel over the prior year's rate (last year’s FY 2021/22 single-family rate was $274.46; including the CPI adjustment factor, the new single-family parcel rate will be $282.70).

Over the past fifteen years, from FY 2007/08 through FY 2020/21, it is estimated the LMD will have used approximately $2.6 million of these special parcel tax funds for public landscape and irrigation and trail system improvements. When including additional LMD improvement projects planned for FY 2022/23, the LMD will have invested over $3.3 million in various improvements in addition to more routine maintenance of landscaping.

For FY 2021/22, the LMD budgeted to fund the following landscape maintenance improvement projects:

Project Description
Budget
Amount $ used Project ID
*Cardinet trail section repave $185,000 0 7306 postponed to 22/23 *Trail reconstruct end of Peacock Ck $100,000 0 7306 postponed to 22/23 *Repave/Repair/Crack Seal Trails $30,000 0 7306 postponed to 23/24 Replace Irrigation Control (6 of them) $90,000 $116,500 LMD 2021-2 in process Native open space planting pilot
project $12,500
$12,500
7520 completed
Trim up trees btwn Blue Oak/Keller $100,000 $50,000 LMD 2021-2 completed Tree Trimming streets/trails $300,000 $300,000 7440 in process Total $817,500 $479,000
*projects that were planned for 21/22, but postponed
Due to staffing shortages and project scheduling issues, the trail projects were not able to be completed during FY2021/22.

For FY 2022/23, the LMD budgeted to fund the following landscape maintenance improvement projects:

Project Description Amount Account ID
*Cardinet trail section repave $185,000 7306
*Trail reconstruct end of Peacock Ck $100,000 7306
Native wildflower open space planting project $25,000 7520 Strategic/safety/sustainability plan $30,000 7419
Enhanced non-native invasive weed management open
space $35,000 7445
Trim trees open space areas $50,000 7520
Tree Trimming streets/trails $200,000 7440
Bark/compost/mulch landscape areas 0 7520
Weed control medians/rights-of-way non-glyphosate $30,000 7445 Total $655,000
*projects that were planned for 21/22, but postponed to FY 22/23 City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 72
Due to insufficient funds and lower priority, staff has not included crack sealing of trails in the proposed FY 2022/23 budget.

There are not any city street projects anticipated in FY 2022/23 that would have crack sealing so the ability to achieve a project at a reasonable cost is not viable. This will be re-evaluated in FY 2023/24 and a mircoseal/coatseal might be an appropriate method to be done concurrently with a future street paving project.

Due to drought conditions, replanting projects are not proposed that would require additional water. Therefore, it is planned to focus on trails maintenance, tree trimming, mulch/compost/barking landscape areas, weed management, enhanced native wildflower planting, and enhanced non native invasive plant management.

In addition, during FY 2022/23, funding in the amount of $30,000 is proposed for the preparation of a strategic/safety/sustainability plan for the Landscape Maintenance District. This will greatly assist in future project planning, workload scheduling, etc. The City Engineer will be leading this effort and associated funds are included in the line item for other professional services [7419].

The proposed LMD budget is a balanced operational budget, responsibly utilizing fund balance to undertake non-recurring capital improvement projects. This practice is consistent with prior year budgets as the LMD is pay-as-you-go for such improvements, responsibly drawing on fund balance as needed. Proposed appropriations are annually adjusted for anticipated water and electrical utility rate increases as well as for fuel, fertilizer, etc.

Over the past year, the LMD has generated a modest reserve balance to allow the consideration of the aforementioned nonoperational landscaping improvement projects to be undertaken. Although the proposed budget anticipates an ending fund balance reserve of $111,276 by the close of FY 2022/23, staff is not proposing additional capital projects beyond those listed in order to allow time to complete these budgeted projects and to have sufficient funds for normal operational cash flow purposes.

An enormous impact on LMD operations from FY 2012/13 through FY 2016/17 was the declared drought conditions and the severe water conservation reductions imposed by Contra Costa Water District (CCWD) as directed by the Governor’s Executive Order Emergency declaration, resulting in a 45% mandatory water reduction order. With irrigation cutbacks of that magnitude, the City Council ordered the LMD to suspend irrigation water to turf and bushes, reserving restricted water supplies to irrigate public trees. This action plan negatively impacted some of the landscape, however many shrubs and trees were sustained in the LMD. Capital improvement projects engaged during the extended drought timeframe were hardscape-only oriented. There have only been two sections of the Clayton Road median replanted since the prior drought.

Although the State of California and CCWD returned to unrestricted water conditions for a number of years, we are now in the third year of a new drought cycle, and the State is in drought conditions again, with many areas in or likely to be in Severe or Exceptional Drought, the highest category. CCWD has asked for 15% voluntary reductions, and may place a temporary drought surcharge on water bills of 15%. Additionally, it is forecasted that the dry conditions will likely continue into next year.

Therefore, as with last year, no new replanting projects are being proposed, as it would require additional water to establish from irrigation and/or a normal “rainy” season. Water districts were required by case law to change billing rate structures to incorporate greater costs for service areas with greater water delivery demands (i.e. higher elevations requiring more energy for delivery). Clayton’s geographic location resulted in a rate tier increase by CCWD in January 2022 of approximately 6%. CCWD increases the tier rates annually in January and staff have used a 6% increase based on discussions with CCWD staff that it is likely to be similar due to increased costs in energy from PGE that is used to pump water throughout their system. The proposed budget for the LMD includes the increased water costs with the adjusted rate estimated expenditure of $230,000.

Personnel services (permanent including benefits etc. and contract seasonal) for this labor-intensive work effort account for 26% of the LMD budget expenditures in FY 2022/23 ($488,570). Whenever possible, less complex tasks within the LMD are assigned to contract temporary seasonal personnel, which allows full-time permanent City maintenance personnel to focus their efforts on tasks requiring journeyman-level experience (i.e. irrigation line and system repairs). The LMD has only one fulltime dedicated staff person of the six (6) permanent Maintenance Department personnel.

During this past fiscal year (2021/22) the continued pandemic had unexpected impacts to the LMD operations. The ability to use part-time/seasonal contract personnel was not fully possible due to many factors, including the lack of personnel available from the staffing agencies. In addition, there have been staff out for unexpected needs. Generally, in a given week over the past year, the staff levels have been three to four people on average, and one or two seasonal workers. However, as noted previously, these staff spend only a portion of their time in the LMD, as they also maintain parks, grounds/buildings, City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 73
street signs, some street lights. With limited resources, staff continued to prioritize trimming to keep walks and paths clear, and irrigation repairs. Other trimming and weeding along rights of ways and medians were able to be partially done, and chips were placed in portions of the Clayton Road medians to help reduce weed growth and retain moisture. Staff is hopeful that as public health conditions continue to improve, overall temporary seasonal workers will be available to assist in the LMD in the future.

As approved by Measure H voters, the LMD’S budget includes a recurring line item (account 7316) for the purchase of replacement plants, budgeted at $20,000. However, with drought conditions this expenditure will not occur. The LMD further contributes an annual allocation to the City’s Capital Equipment Replacement Fund (CERF) for its shared cost of utilizing City Maintenance Department vehicles for LMD operations budgeted at $30,000 in FY 2022/23. A relatively nominal amount of $42,713 (3.4% of annual LMD revenue) is transferred to the City’s General Fund to help defray the LMD’s share of administrative support and overhead incurred by the City (i.e. telephones, payroll processing, accounts payable, management, compliance, legal, etc.).

With all of these actions, the LMD’s ending fund balance on June 30, 2023 is projected to be $89,726. The LMD’s reserve position is evidence the City does not siphon “surplus” monies into its General Fund but uses the special parcel tax revenues for its intended voter-approved purposes. Its monetary existence allows the LMD to re-evaluate priorities in the future to replace landscape lost (including adding in more hardscape treatments) from the water conservation measures resulting from drought conditions.

City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 74
Summary
For the Landscape Maintenance District, the City of Clayton is projecting $1,256,053 of revenue in FY2023, which represents a 3% increase over the prior year. Budgeted expenditures are projected to decrease by 12% or $253,311 to $1,862,077 in FY2023 relative to the original adopted budget in FY2021/22. Actual expenditures for FY2021/22 are expected to come in significantly lower than budget.

Actual Revenue Source
Budgeted Revenue Source
Over Budget Revenue Source
Actual Expenditures
Budgeted Expenditures
FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023
$0
$500K
$1M
$1.5M
$2M
$2.5M
Revenues by Source
Budgeted and Historical 2023 Revenues by Source
Millions
Other Revenues
Interest
Charges for Services
FY2020
FY2021
FY2022
FY2023
$-0.25
$0
$0.25
$0.5
$0.75
$1
$1.25
$1.5
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 75
Revenue Source
Charges for Services
LMD Special Parcel Tax $1,169,764 $1,204,857 $1,204,857 $1,241,053 3% Total Charges for Services: $1,169,764 $1,204,857 $1,204,857 $1,241,053 3% Interest
Interest $26,584 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 0%
Total Interest: $26,584 $15,000 $15,000 $15,000 0%
Other Revenues
Unrealized Inv. Gain/Loss -$12,530 $0 $0 $0 N/A
Total Other Revenues: -$12,530 $0 $0 $0 N/A
Total Revenue Source: $1,183,819 $1,219,857 $1,219,857 $1,256,053 3% Name FY2021 Actuals FY2022 Amended FY2022 Projected FY2023 Budgeted FY2022 Amended vs. FY2023 Budgeted (% Change)
Expenditures by Expense Type
Budgeted Expenditures by Expense Type
Operating (71.9%)
Salaries (12.9%)
Benefififits (6.6%)
Capital (6%)
Transfers (2.4%)
Debt (0.2%)
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 76
Budgeted and Historical Expenditures by Expense Type
Millions
Debt
Transfers
Capital
Benefits
Salaries
Operating
FY2020
FY2021
FY2022FY2023
$0
$0.5
$1
$1.5
$2
$2.5
Expense Objects
Salaries
Regular Salaries $243,827 $237,756 $265,336 $238,989 0.5% Temporary Salaries $6,987 $20,665 $0 $0 -100%
Overtime $1,907 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 0%
Total Salaries: $252,721 $260,421 $267,336 $240,989 -7.5% Benefits
Long/Short Term Disability Insurance $2,382 $2,061 $2,061 $4,254 106.4% PERS Retirement-Normal Cost $23,147 $21,966 $24,000 $23,439 6.7% PERS Retirement - Unfunded Liability $26,422 $29,540 $36,000 $33,031 11.8% Workers' Compensation $10,484 $9,587 $8,677 $10,223 6.6% Unemployment Compensation $0 $4,464 $0 $529 -88.1%
FICA Taxes $4,258 $5,057 $3,818 $3,815 -24.6%
Benefit Insurance $43,315 $43,013 $57,895 $47,291 9.9%
Total Benefits: $110,008 $115,688 $132,451 $122,581 6%
Operating
Recruitment/Pre-employment $0 $250 $0 $250 0%
Trail Fixture Repairs/Replacement $178 $320,000 $0 $290,000 -9.4% Irrigation Supplies and Materials $0 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 0% Weed Abatement Supplies and Materials $0 $20,000 $10,000 $15,000 -25% Plant Nutrition Supplies and Materials $0 $10,000 $10,000 $12,500 25% General Supplies $8,222 $14,300 $7,300 $4,500 -68.5%
Name FY2021
Actuals
FY2022
Amended
FY2022
Projected
FY2023
Budgeted
FY2022 Amended vs.

FY2023 Budgeted (%
Change)
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 77
Landscape Replacement Plants (Shrubs, Trees,
Etc.)
$2,822 $20,000 $0 $0 -100%
Gas & Electric Services $26,995 $50,000 $28,000 $30,000 -40% Water Services $223,936 $240,000 $225,000 $230,000 -4.2% Traffic Safety Supplies $292 $1,000 $1,159 $1,000 0%
Buildings/Grounds Maintenance $38,149 $36,910 $28,169 $26,200 -29% Machinery/Equipment Maintenanc $13,793 $21,050 $10,750 $26,550 26.1% Vehicle Maintenance $9,482 $15,000 $22,000 $20,000 33.3% Vehicle Gas, Oil, and Supplies $12,374 $14,000 $14,000 $14,000 0% Property Tax Admin. Costs $3,740 $4,100 $4,100 $4,100 0% Other Professional Services $6,198 $7,100 $7,685 $37,500 428.2% Animal/Pest Control Services $4,653 $15,000 $15,000 $51,000 240% Contract Seasonal Labor $98,742 $160,000 $121,975 $125,000 -21.9% Tree Trimming Services $101,100 $300,000 $300,000 $200,000 -33.3% Weed Abatement Services $120,990 $201,230 $141,230 $212,000 5.4% CERF Charges/Depreciation $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 0% Total Operating: $701,664 $1,489,940 $986,368 $1,339,600 -10.1% Capital
Project Program Costs $53,813 $204,500 $179,000 $112,000 -45.2% Total Capital: $53,813 $204,500 $179,000 $112,000 -45.2% Debt
CCC Property Tax $2,994 $3,030 $3,030 $3,030 0%
Total Debt: $2,994 $3,030 $3,030 $3,030 0%
Transfers
Transfer To General Fund $39,190 $40,679 $40,679 $42,713 5% Transfer to Stormwater Fund $1,130 $1,130 $1,130 $1,164 3% Total Transfers: $40,320 $41,809 $41,809 $43,877 4.9%
Total Expense Objects: $1,161,519 $2,115,388 $1,609,994 $1,862,077 -12% Name FY2021
Actuals
FY2022
Amended
FY2022
Projected
FY2023
Budgeted
FY2022 Amended vs.

FY2023 Budgeted (%
Change)
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 78
Fund Balance
Fund Balance Projections
Assigned Unassigned
FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023
$0
$1M
$250K
$500K
$750K
$1.25M
FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 % Change
Fund Balance Audited Fund Balance Audited Fund Balance Projected Proposed Unassigned $563,887 $190,355 $695,750 $89,726 -87.1%
Assigned $499,700 $895,531 $0 $0 0%
Total Fund Balance: $1,063,587 $1,085,886 $695,750 $89,726 -87.1% City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 79
The Grove Park
CFD
The Grove Park officially opened to the community on January 12, 2008 and on May 29, 2008, the City Maintenance Department assumed full responsibility for the care and maintenance of The Grove Park. On Opening Day, the public park immediately became the signature statement of our community, and ever since it has been the popular gathering place for residents and visitors to the Clayton Town Center. Voters originally approved this restricted special parcel tax in November 2006 (Measure O) to maintain the park for ten (10) years, with the levy first collected in FY 2007/08. In November 2014, the voters overwhelmingly elected to extend The Grove Park special parcel tax for an additional twenty (20) years [from 2017/18 through 2036/37] through the passage of Measure P (81.3% positive vote) making FY 2022/23 the 16 year of the restricted-use special parcel tax’s existence. Operations for The Grove Park are accounted for by the City in a legally separate restricted-use special revenue fund.

Pursuant to the terms of voter-approved Measure P, the special parcel tax rate may be modified annually by the change in the consumer price index (CPI) from April to April.

However, in no event shall the tax rate be increased by more than 3.0% each year. The CPI change (from April 2021 to April 2022) was 5%. Accordingly, The Grove Park’s proposed budget for FY 2022/23 incorporates an increase to the special parcel tax levy of 3.0% to a total of $148,110, resulting in a minor increase of $4,314 over the prior year’s adopted budget. The capped CPI growth adjustment will result in an increase of $0.69 per residential parcel over the prior year's rate (last year’s single family rate was $22.84; with the CPI adjustment factor the new rate will be $23.54.

The Grove Park fund received its 10 and final installment of the generous $10,000 annual donation from Endashiian, Inc. (developers and landowners of the CVS/Pharmacy store site - formerly Longs Drugs Store), six years ago in FY 2016/17.

Despite the conclusion of this ten-year pledge, Endeashiian, Inc. graciously donated an additional $1,000 to The Grove Park fund in both FY 2017/18 and FY 2018/19, which was both unexpected and unsolicited. No additional funds have been received in the fiscal years since.

During FY 2021/22, due to more limited use of the Park due to the COVID-19 pandemic, overall actual expenses were less than budgeted. The Grove Park fund is projected to maintain a positive reserve balance of approximately $445,849 by the close of FY 2021/22. As The Grove Park’s apparatus and infrastructure ages following fourteen years of heavy public use, fund balance reserves will be critical to maintaining this public gem.

For FY 2022/23, total operational expenses of $153,389 are projected. The expenses will be offset by revenues totaling $179,116.

As The Grove Park continues to mature and its public attraction increases, more City Maintenance Department personnel time may be necessary to keep it in excellent condition. During the summer and on Saturday Concert Series weekends, existing maintenance staff work additional hours to ensure that The Grove Park is well maintained around event usage. The adjacent municipal well provides landscape irrigation and other non-potable water needs of The Grove Park, saving considerable taxpayer monies compared to the metered water prices of Contra Costa Water District.
th
th
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 80
Summary
The City of Clayton is projecting $179.12K of revenue in FY2023, which represents a 18.5% increase over the prior year due primarily to the ability to use grant funds to pay for the expenses incurred to improve security cameras at the park. Budgeted expenditures are projected to decrease by 29.4% or $63.78K to $153.39K in FY2023.

Actual Revenue Source
Budgeted Revenue Source
Over Budget Revenue Source
Actual Expenditures
Budgeted Expenditures
FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023
$0
$50K
$100K
$150K
$200K
$250K
Revenues by Source
Projected 2023 Revenues by Source
Charges for Services (83.2%)
Other Revenues (13.2%)
Interest (3.6%)
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 81
Budgeted and Historical 2023 Revenues by Source
Millions
Interest
Other Revenues
Charges for Services
FY2020FY2021FY2022
FY2023
$-0.05
$0
$0.05
$0.1
$0.15
$0.2
Revenue Source
Charges for Services
Downtown Park Special Parcel Tax -
O&M
$139,609 $143,796 $143,796 $148,110 3%
Park Use Fee $0 $1,000 $4,603 $1,000 0%
Total Charges for Services: $139,609 $144,796 $148,399 $149,110 3% Interest
Interest $7,417 $6,400 $6,400 $6,400 0%
Total Interest: $7,417 $6,400 $6,400 $6,400 0%
Other Revenues
Unrealized Inv. Gain/Loss -$3,634 $0 $0 $0 N/A
Transfer In from Fund 230 $0 $0 $0 $23,606 N/A
Total Other Revenues: -$3,634 $0 $0 $23,606 N/A
Total Revenue Source: $143,391 $151,196 $154,799 $179,116 18.5% Name FY2021
Actuals
FY2022
Amended
FY2022
Projected
FY2023
Budgeted
FY2022 Amended vs. FY2023
Budgeted (% Change)
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 82
Expenditures by Expense Type
Budgeted Expenditures by Expense Type
Operating (64.6%)
Salaries (18.2%)
Benefififits (11.2%)
Transfers (5.7%)
Debt (0.4%)
Budgeted and Historical Expenditures by Expense Type
Millions
Debt
Transfers
Benefits
Salaries
Operating
FY2020
FY2021
FY2022
FY2023
$0
$0.05
$0.1
$0.15
$0.2
$0.25
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 83
Expense Objects
Salaries
Regular Salaries $18,253 $15,850 $22,000 $27,882 75.9%
Temporary Salaries $1,241 $5,100 $2,000 $0 -100%
Overtime $672 $2,000 $2,000 $0 -100%
Total Salaries: $20,166 $22,950 $26,000 $27,882 21.5%
Benefits
Long/Short Term Disability Insurance $137 $137 $137 $274 99.7% PERS Retirement-Normal Cost $1,653 $1,464 $1,464 $2,487 69.9% PERS Retirement - Unfunded Liability $1,833 $1,969 $1,969 $3,762 91.1% Workers' Compensation $1,048 $965 $965 $1,193 23.6%
Unemployment Compensation $0 $820 $820 $62 -92.5%
FICA Taxes $316 $649 $649 $0 -100%
Benefit Insurance $2,965 $2,868 $2,868 $9,458 229.8%
Total Benefits: $7,953 $8,872 $8,872 $17,235 94.3%
Operating
General Supplies $886 $2,800 $2,800 $2,800 0%
Rentals/leases $0 $0 $0 $1,500 N/A
Telecommunications $0 $0 $575 $1,500 N/A
Gas & Electric Services $1,619 $2,000 $2,000 $1,800 -10% Water Services $11,511 $22,000 $22,000 $20,000 -9.1%
Buildings/Grounds Maintenance $9,197 $7,800 $10,000 $10,000 28.2% Machinery/Equipt Maintenance $2,513 $500 $500 $500 0%
Vehicle Maintenance $735 $1,000 $1,000 $2,400 140%
Vehicle Gas, Oil and Supplies $892 $1,200 $1,200 $1,500 25% Property Tax Admin. Costs $3,744 $3,744 $3,744 $4,000 6.8% Janitorial Services $9,412 $13,000 $13,000 $1,500 -88.5% Other Professional Services $4,943 $5,020 $5,020 $5,275 5.1% Animal/Pest Control Services $29 $750 $750 $750 0%
Contract Seasonal Labor $0 $7,000 $7,000 $12,500 78.6%
Tree Trimming Services $0 $10,000 $15,000 $15,000 50%
Capital Outlay - Structures and Improvements $0 $27,000 $13,000 $15,000 -44.4% Capital Outlay - Machinery, Vehicles &
Equipment
$0 $70,000 $30,000 $0 -100%
CERF Charges/Depreciation $2,700 $2,700 $2,700 $3,000 11.1% Total Operating: $48,181 $176,514 $130,289 $99,025 -43.9% Debt
CCC Property Tax $533 $560 $560 $560 0%
Total Debt: $533 $560 $560 $560 0%
Name FY2021
Actuals
FY2022
Amended
FY2022
Projected
FY2023
Budgeted
FY2022 Amended vs.

FY2023 Budgeted (%
Change)
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 84
Transfers
Transfer To General Fund $7,970 $8,273 $8,273 $8,687 5% Total Transfers: $7,970 $8,273 $8,273 $8,687 5%
Total Expense Objects: $84,803 $217,169 $173,994 $153,389 -29.4% Name FY2021
Actuals
FY2022
Amended
FY2022
Projected
FY2023
Budgeted
FY2022 Amended vs.

FY2023 Budgeted (%
Change)
Fund Balance
Fund Balance Projections
Assigned
FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023
$0
$100K
$200K
$300K
$400K
$500K
FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 % Change
Fund Balance Audited Fund Balance Audited Fund Balance Projected Proposed Assigned $406,456 $465,044 $445,849 $471,576 5.8%
Total Fund Balance: $406,456 $465,044 $445,849 $471,576 5.8% City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 85
Oakhurst
Geological
Hazard
Abatement
District
Formed by the City Council during the construction of the Oakhurst Development Project, this benefit assessment district encompasses all of the lots and open spaces within the Oakhurst [residential] Development. The Oakhurst Geological Hazard Abatement District (GHAD) has the authority but not the obligation to perform repairs to public, or authorized private, properties caused by certain geologic hazards such as landslides within this area. In order to fund any such operations, the GHAD Board of Directors (City Council) is required by state law to receive an affirmative vote by the real property owners within the district for any increase in the assessment rate. Although insufficient assessment revenues have always existed to perform much of the identified or anticipated hillside repairs, the property owners within the district have rejected any increase to their assessment three (3) times in the past. The GHAD Manager (contract City Engineer) manages the district and provides a separate budget and annual report to the Board of Directors in June or July annually.

Due to the restricted amount of voter-approved assessments, the GHAD levies an annual assessment that generally produces the same amount of revenue each year for general geologic hazard abatement purposes within the Oakhurst Development (adjusted only for CPI annually). For FY 2022/23, assessment revenue is projected to be approximately $87,796 which incorporates an April 2021 to April 2022 consumer price index (CPI) inflationary increase of 5% as well as a transfer of $40,478.48 from the Presley Settlement Fund to cover one-time project costs. Currently, it is unlikely property owners within the district would approve a significant rate increase sufficient to arrest or mitigate hillside movements. Interest earnings are insignificant for the GHAD fund estimated to be $210, which operates for most of the 12 months in a cash-flow deficit. The assessment revenues are not received by the GHAD until property owners pay their property tax bills in December and again in April each year.

Management expenses proposed for the GHAD this year include $5,000 for City Engineering services (District Manager) and $1,000 allocated for specialized legal services. Although litigation has been settled, the GHAD is still internally assessed a share of the City’s general liability insurance premium increases, which were historically propelled by the Oakhurst hillside movement litigation, which served lawsuits against the GHAD as well as the City. This annual expenditure ($7,000 in FY 2021/22) must remain for several years following settlement of the litigation as those defenses pertaining to the GHAD’s share of General Fund insurance premium expenses still impact the annual calculation of the City’s general liability insurance premium for that prospective time period. Since the GHAD does not have its own employees, a base transfer of $8,169 to the City’s General Fund for general administrative and clerical support services is critical to sustain the bare existence of the District (18% of annual assessment). County administrative fees to levy, collect, and disburse the GHAD property tax bill assessment are estimated at $1,550.

Project costs totaling $95,000 are planned for FY 2022/23, which includes monitoring reports, minor/emergency repairs and repair to a section of Ahwanee Lane near Miwok. Accordingly, and due to the limited financial resources available, the GHAD is projected to fully utilize its reserves and need a transfer of $40,478.48 from the Presley Settlement Fund (Fund 213) to fund these key projects by the close FY 2022/23. Although these projects are designed to improve current conditions, no new or additional significant geologic hazards can be abated in exchange for the relatively small total assessment levy. The GHAD maintains its legal life with the foresight and wisdom that affected property owners might someday wish, or need, to proactively utilize this legal instrument to address hillside movement remediation.

City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 86
Summary
The City of Clayton is projecting $87.8K of revenue in FY2023, which represents a 34.7% increase over the prior year. Budgeted expenditures are projected to increase by 8.2% or $10.59K to $138.97K in FY2023.

Actual Revenue Source
Budgeted Revenue Source
Over Budget Revenue Source
Actual Expenditures
Budgeted Expenditures
FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023
$0
$50K
$100K
$150K
Revenues by Source
Budgeted and Historical 2023 Revenues by Source
Millions
Other Revenues
Interest
Admin Support Transfers
Charges for Services
FY2020
FY2021
FY2022FY2023
$-0.02
$0
$0.02
$0.04
$0.06
$0.08
$0.1
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 87
Revenue Source
Charges for Services
Oakhurst GHAD Assessment $42,778 $44,894 $44,894 $47,108 4.9% Total Charges for Services: $42,778 $44,894 $44,894 $47,108 4.9% Interest
Interest $320 $210 $283 $210 0%
Total Interest: $320 $210 $283 $210 0%
Other Revenues
Unrealized Inv. Gain/Loss -$632 $0 $0 $0 N/A
Total Other Revenues: -$632 $0 $0 $0 N/A
Admin Support Transfers
Trx from Presley Settlement $0 $20,084 $20,084 $40,478 101.5% Total Admin Support Transfers: $0 $20,084 $20,084 $40,478 101.5% Total Revenue Source: $42,466 $65,188 $65,261 $87,796 34.7% Name FY2021 Actuals FY2022 Amended FY2022 Projected FY2023 Budgeted FY2022 Amended vs. FY2023 Budgeted (% Change)
Expenditures by Expense Type
Budgeted Expenditures by Expense Type
Capital (68.4%)
Operating (25.8%)
Transfers (5.9%)
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 88
Budgeted and Historical Expenditures by Expense Type
Millions
Transfers
Operating
Capital
FY2020FY2021FY2022FY2023
$0
$0.025
$0.05
$0.075
$0.1
$0.125
$0.15
Expense Objects
Operating
Postage $850 $850 $850 $850 0%
Liability Insurance $6,486 $7,000 $5,944 $7,000 0%
Property Tax Admin. Costs $1,038 $1,550 $1,550 $1,550 0% Legal Notices $0 $100 $100 $100 0%
Misc. Expense $0 $300 $300 $300 0%
Engineering/Inspection Service $49,476 $5,000 $5,000 $25,000 400% Special Legal Services $0 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 0%
Total Operating: $57,849 $15,800 $14,744 $35,800 126.6% Capital
Project Costs $1,707 $104,412 $220 $95,000 -9%
Total Capital: $1,707 $104,412 $220 $95,000 -9%
Transfers
Transfer To General Fund $7,870 $8,169 $8,169 $8,169 0% Total Transfers: $7,870 $8,169 $8,169 $8,169 0%
Total Expense Objects: $67,427 $128,381 $23,133 $138,969 8.2% Name FY2021 Actuals FY2022 Amended FY2022 Projected FY2023 Budgeted FY2022 Amended vs. FY2023 Budgeted (% Change)
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 89
Fund Balance
Fund Balance Projections
Unassigned
FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023
$0
$20K
$40K
$60K
$80K
FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 % Change
Fund Balance Audited Fund Balance Audited Fund Balance Projected Proposed Unassigned $56,612 $31,651 $73,779 $22,606 -69.4%
Total Fund Balance: $56,612 $31,651 $73,779 $22,606 -69.4% City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 90
Presley GHAD
Settlement
In 2003 the City and Geological Hazard and Abatement District (GHAD) settled its lawsuit against Presley regarding damages to City infrastructures in the Kelok Way area of the Oakhurst Development. After reimbursement to the City of advanced legal expenses, proceeds from the settlement were retained in a separate fund for use to clean V-ditches in the area, monitor hillside movement and explore mitigation options to protect public infrastructures in the development. During FY 2010/11, funds were appropriated from this reserve ($110,000) to perform road resurfacings within the development in conjunction with the 2010 Pavement Rehabilitation Project (CIP No. 10409). More recently, in FY 2017/18 this fund incurred $19,870 for the removal and replacement of broken concrete V-ditches in three separate locations within the GHAD.

For FY 2022/23 $40,479 is planned to be used and transferred to the GHAD Fund 212, to cover the GHAD operational/project shortfall. After the inclusion of projected interest earnings to this fund of approximately $1,000 it is anticipated this fund will end FY 2022/23 with a positive reserve balance of $55,711. These monies may yet be tapped for further area repairs to damaged public infrastructure and/or arrest hillside movement in the future, as well as deficit operations of the GHAD fund.

Summary
The City of Clayton is projecting $1K of revenue in FY2023, which represents a 44.4% decrease over the prior year. Budgeted expenditures are projected to increase by 101.5% or $20.39K to $40.48K in FY2023.

Actual Revenue Source
Budgeted Revenue Source
Over Budget Revenue Source
Actual Expenditures
Budgeted Expenditures
FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023
$0
$10K
$20K
$30K
$40K
$50K
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 91
Revenues by Source
Budgeted and Historical 2023 Revenues by Source
Millions
Other Revenues
Interest
FY2020
FY2021
FY2022FY2023
$-0.002
$-0.001
$0
$0.001
$0.002
$0.003
$0.004
$0.005
Revenue Source
Interest
Interest $2,455 $1,800 $1,800 $1,000 -44.4%
Total Interest: $2,455 $1,800 $1,800 $1,000 -44.4%
Other Revenues
Unrealized Inv. Gain/Loss -$1,135 $0 $0 $0 N/A
Total Other Revenues: -$1,135 $0 $0 $0 N/A
Total Revenue Source: $1,320 $1,800 $1,800 $1,000 -44.4% Name FY2021 Actuals FY2022 Amended FY2022 Projected FY2023 Budgeted FY2022 Amended vs. FY2023 Budgeted (% Change)
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 92
Expenditures by Expense Type
Budgeted and Historical Expenditures by Expense Type
Millions
Transfers
FY2022
FY2023
$0
$0.01
$0.02
$0.03
$0.04
$0.05
Expense Objects
Transfers
Transfer to GHAD $20,084 $20,084 $40,478 101.5%
Total Transfers: $20,084 $20,084 $40,478 101.5%
Total Expense Objects: $20,084 $20,084 $40,478 101.5%
Name FY2022 Amended FY2022 Projected FY2023 Budgeted FY2022 Amended vs. FY2023 Budgeted (% Change)
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 93
Fund Balance
Fund Balance Projections
Unassigned
FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023
$0
$25K
$50K
$75K
$100K
$125K
FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 % Change
Fund Balance Audited Fund Balance Audited Fund Balance Projected Proposed Unassigned $112,153 $113,473 $95,189 $55,711 -41.5%
Total Fund Balance: $112,153 $113,473 $95,189 $55,711 -41.5% City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 94
Street Light
Assessment
District
This fund accounts for the operations of the Clayton Neighborhood Streetlight Benefit Assessment District. This restricted-use assessment is collected through the real property tax bill on Clayton residential properties [current assessment ranges from $8.34 - $43.54 per residential unit per year]. Since FY 2000/01, the City has not requested or increased the rate charged to real property owners for the public street lights in their neighborhoods. These assessments are restricted for public street light operations and maintenance within residential neighborhoods, excluding arterial streetlights, which are funded through HUTA gas taxes accounted for in a separate restricted-use fund. This fund’s proposed budget incorporates the same amount in revenues as last year ($126,000) since this assessment can only be increased by affirmative vote of the assessed property owners pursuant to the law (Proposition 218). Total proposed appropriations of the fund are $170,000.

For FY2022/23, it will not be possible to cover all of the costs of streetlights via the assessment revenue, even with fully depleting the reserves. In fact, one alarming projection in the proposed budget is the expectation the gas and electrical line item (account 7335) will now exceed the total assessment of the district by itself.

This fiscal year the City will need to supplement funding in the amount of $20,403 from another source to continue to fund all streetlight costs on the City’s streets. In the near future, the City will need to examine and potentially submit to the voters an assessment increase to sustain the operations and maintenance of these streetlights since power costs have risen along with expenses to replace burned-out streetlamps.

Summary
The City of Clayton is projecting $126,322 in revenue in FY2023, which represents a 0.4% decrease over the prior year due to reduced interest earnings. Budgeted expenditures are projected to increase by 4.7% to $170,006 in FY2023.

Actual Revenue Source
Budgeted Revenue Source
Over Budget Revenue Source
Actual Expenditures
Budgeted Expenditures
FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023
$0
$50K
$100K
$150K
$200K
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 95
Revenues by Source
Budgeted and Historical 2023 Revenues by Source
Millions
Other Revenues
Interest
Charges for Services
FY2020
FY2021FY2022
FY2023
$-0.025
$0
$0.025
$0.05
$0.075
$0.1
$0.125
$0.15
Revenue Source
Charges for Services
Neighborhood Street Light Assessment $125,991 $125,991 $125,992 $126,122 0.1% Total Charges for Services: $125,991 $125,991 $125,992 $126,122 0.1% Interest
Interest $1,951 $800 $807 $200 -75%
Total Interest: $1,951 $800 $807 $200 -75%
Other Revenues
Unrealized Inv. Gain/Loss -$1,276 $0 $0 $0 N/A
Total Other Revenues: -$1,276 $0 $0 $0 N/A
Total Revenue Source: $126,666 $126,791 $126,799 $126,322 -0.4% Name FY2021 Actuals FY2022 Amended FY2022 Projected FY2023 Budgeted FY2022 Amended vs. FY2023 Budgeted (% Change)
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 96
Expenditures by Expense Type
Budgeted and Historical Expenditures by Expense Type
Millions
Salaries
Transfers
Operating
FY2020FY2021FY2022FY2023
$0
$0.05
$0.1
$0.15
$0.2
Expense Objects
Salaries
Regular Salaries $518 $0 $0 $0 N/A
Overtime $3,681 $0 $0 $0 N/A
Total Salaries: $4,199 $0 $0 $0 0%
Operating
General Supplies $0 $500 $500 $0 -100%
Gas & Electric Services $120,201 $127,600 $121,434 $135,000 5.8% Property Tax Admin. Costs $3,680 $3,680 $3,680 $5,000 35.9% Misc. Expense $0 $330 $0 $0 -100%
Engineering/Inspection Service $5,050 $1,000 $0 $0 -100% Other Professional Services $233 $250 $0 $0 -100%
Street Light Maintenance $14,411 $16,000 $15,767 $17,000 6.3% Total Operating: $143,575 $149,360 $141,381 $157,000 5.1% Transfers
Transfer To General Fund $12,530 $13,006 $13,006 $13,006 0% Total Transfers: $12,530 $13,006 $13,006 $13,006 0%
Total Expense Objects: $160,304 $162,366 $154,387 $170,006 4.7% Name FY2021 Actuals FY2022 Amended FY2022 Projected FY2023 Budgeted FY2022 Amended vs. FY2023 Budgeted (% Change)
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 97
Fund Balance
Fund Balance Projections
Unassigned Assigned
FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023
$0
$100K
$-50000
$-25000
$25K
$50K
$75K
FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 % Change
Fund Balance Audited Fund Balance Audited Fund Balance Projected Proposed Unassigned $0 $0 $0 $-20,403 0%
Assigned $84,507 $50,869 $23,281 $0 -100%
Total Fund Balance: $84,507 $50,869 $23,281 $-20,403 -187.6% City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 98
Stormwater
Assessment
This account manages collection and use of Stormwater Equivalent Runoff Units (ERU) levied locally to assist the City in compliance with unfunded Statemandated regulations through our National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Permit. Case law has now confirmed (previously challenged and lost by southern California cities) Regional Water Quality Control Boards do indeed have authority to levy unfunded mandates against pollutant dischargers (cities and counties) by virtue of the federal Clean Water Act and the California Porter-Cologne Water Quality Control Act.

City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 99
Stormwater Assessment Operations
By previous Council action long ago, this real property tax levy was maximized at its allowable cap in year 2000, which is projected to net the City $74,109 for local use in FY 2021/22. In reality, the assessment generates higher gross revenues ($126,306), however the following purposes snag portions of the City’s local levy before ever touching our local coffers:

Contra Costa [Cities] Clean Water Program $ 34,397
Commercial Building Inspections by Sanitary Dist. $8,000 County Auditor-Controller Administrative Fee $3,800
Reserve Fund for the Clean Water Program $3,000
Flood Control District Management Expense $3,000
Total Revenue Offsets: $ 52,197

41.32%
In addition the City must pay an annual NPDES Regional Discharger Fee to the State projected to be approximately $9,000, further dipping into the annual local assessment levied by the City.

The City’s 5-year Stormwater Permit (MRP) is issued by the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board. Public agencies, including Clayton, are now under requirements to elevate enforcement, monitoring measures, and treatment projects each year to ensure cleaner stormwaters. This permit, called MRP 2.0, was issued in 2016. The permit contains additional and enhanced requirements for cities such as: managing litter that can get into its drainage and creeks from private and public properties; PCB and Mercury pollutant testing/monitoring; maintenance and enforcement activities; “green infrastructure” which would set forth standards for cities to redirect existing storm drainage water from streets, sidewalks and parking lots and buildings into landscape areas; and enhanced Integrated Pest Management (IPM) policies, practices and mandatory training and certifications. These additional permit terms will continue to impact the Stormwater fund’s reserves. As other cities in the state are experiencing similar funding constraints, State legislation (SB 231) did allow for consideration by the voters through a Prop 218 process to address some Stormwater improvements; however the legislation did not fully rectify the needs of local cities as it related to the permit mandates. The next permit (MRP 3.0) has been approved for use beginning in FY 2022/23 and will likely contain even more unfunded mandates.

MRP 2.0 required information on the latest Green Infrastructure (GI) requirements to be disclosed to elected officials and the public each year by June 30, 2017 along with additional reporting thereafter. MRP 2.0 defines GI as “Infrastructure that uses vegetation, soils, and natural processes to manage water and create healthier urban environments…, green infrastructure refers to stormwater management systems that mimic nature by soaking up and storing water.” GI is designed to capture and reduce existing PCB including background levels, and Mercury. The second objective of GI is to recharge runoff into the ground creating more filtering and more natural infiltration into creeks and waterways. The permit mandates the retrofitting of existing impervious surfaces with Green Infrastructure be evaluated, analyzed, planned for, costed, and reported upon.

The GI mandate has two main elements to be implemented:

Preparation of a Green Infrastructure Plan for the inclusion of bioswale/landscape planter (LID) drainage design into existing storm drain infrastructure, including streets, roads, storm drains, etc.

Identification of early opportunities for implementation of Green Infrastructure Projects Green Infrastructure Plan The Green Infrastructure Plan requirements and deadlines are:

Prepare a framework or workplan to be approved by the Permittee’s City Manager or governing body, and submit it to the SF Regional Water Board with its FY 2016/17 Annual Report. This was completed in October 2018.

Prepare a Green Infrastructure Plan and show estimated costs/budget for a GI projects and submit it to the SF Regional Water Board with the 2019 Annual Report.

The permit requires the Annual Report include: a review of current infrastructure (capital improvement) projects; preparation of a list of infrastructure projects planned for implementation with potential for GI measures; and an annual review, update, and submission of the list. Specifically, this list must include: “a summary of how each public infrastructure project with green infrastructure potential will include green infrastructure measures to the maximum extent practical during the permit term. For any public infrastructure project where implementation of green infrastructure measures is not practicable, submit a brief description for the project and the reasons green infrastructure measures were impracticable to implement.” City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 100
The purpose of the GI Plan is to identify opportunities and projects, and include and incorporate them into its planned Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). Each public agency’s Plan is intended to serve as an implementation and reporting tool, to set goals for reducing over the long term, the adverse water quality impacts of existing and new urban runoff on receiving waters.

City staff reviewed and compiled an initial list of its City Council approved CIP budget projects and submitted it with its FY 2015/16 Annual Report, and has updated it thereafter as needed in its Annual Report filings. During FY 2019/20 a City staff working group consisting of the Stormwater Manager/Assistant to the City Manager, City Engineer, and Community Development Director, along with outside consultants prepared Clayton’s draft GI Plan. This work effort was funded by a City Council earmark of $50,000 of FY 2016/17 General Fund annual excess monies. In April 2019 the City Council authorized a consultant contract to prepare this plan, which was filed with the Annual Report as required in the permit in October 2019. [Of the $50,000 allocated only $18,685 was utilized, the residual ($31,315) was placed in the Rainy Day Fund 110 for future allocation].

Cities are also tasked with reviewing, and updating as necessary, their standard engineering designs and planning policies/ordinances to incorporate GI. The Contra Costa Clean Water Program (CCCWP) is currently working on guidance to the cities for reviewing capital improvement programs and projects, identifying GI potential, advancing planning and design of potential green infrastructure features, and documenting decisions regarding implementation of green infrastructure.

As noted previously, the current permit contains mandated trash reduction requirements which are met through the implementation of the full trash capture devices. The City has installed and maintains twenty-five (25) devices in its four (4) designated trash management areas. Through this effort we have been able to achieve a 100% reduction in trash load baseline, and thereby permit compliance. The City of Clayton is one of only a few Bay Area cities to have already achieved this goal. However, recent refinements by the SF Regional Water Board to this requirement may mandate the installation and maintenance of additional full trash capture devices to remain in compliance.

The new permit also requires the use of GIS for database mapping and public viewing availability. The Clean Water Program has begun the establishment of a cloud-based GIS mapping program as a group funded effort for all Contra Costa cities. Each city will have its own section for stormwater mapping with the ability to have additional data layers as it desires. Therefore no additional City funds are needed at this time for the GIS program.

Such permit conditions necessitate ever-increasing expenditures (for reports, studies, documentation, monitoring and projects) which will eventually consume current levy revenues. However, no new funds exist to help address these state mandates. Initial staff analyses reveal an additional $225,000 to $515,000 in annual costs could someday impact the City’s fiscal operations for current and future state-mandated stormwater purpose alone. Only a Proposition 218 voter approval action can increase the levied rates. The failure of the Clean Water Coalition’s Proposition 218 ballot in FY 2012/13 to raise levy revenues turned aside a potential $93,700 for use in meeting state unfunded mandates for cleaner stormwaters. Since the City reached its parcel levy cap twenty-one (21) years ago there have been an astounding 512 additional permit requirements mandated by the SF Regional Water Board, with no increase in revenue to offset the associated costs, resulting in an erosion of the Stormwater Fund’s reserves.

In the FY 2022/23 budget, the City’s stormwater costs under the permit regulations exceed available revenues by approximately $28,243. Fortunately, the proposed budget projects the Stormwater Fund will begin next year with a positive reserve balance of $36,742, which is sufficient to cover the anticipated unavoidable operating deficit. The depletion of the Stormwater Fund’s reserve balance over past several years is a direct result of added permit requirements imposed by the Regional Board in 1996 (referred to as “C-3 amendments”), MRP 1.0 (issued in 2010), and the current MRP 2.0 (issued in November 2015). All of these were state-imposed unfunded mandates, and the forthcoming MRP 3.0 will only exacerbate this fund’s fiscal crisis.

Total budgeted FY 2022/23 labor-related expenditures are $47,607, including contracted seasonal labor, are necessary for the City’s maintenance of the municipal storm drain system including annual debris clearance of creeks and drainage ways as well as proactive measures for the prevention of pollutants into these waters, which ultimately emerge into the San Francisco – Oakland Bay. Educational materials and supplies are also part of the Stormwater Fund’s budget, along with our membership in the Contra Costa County Clean Water Program. Recoverable expenses include the portion of staff time when working on clean water issues, programs, while Regional Water Quality Control Board directives target specific programs (i.e. “diaper” inserts in storm drain inlets) and local enforcement (i.e. fines). City administrative staff expends a significant portion of time City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 101
(approximately one-third or more) engaged in the management, administration and implementation of this federal and state mandated program for cleaner runoff waters. As such, the proposed budgeted transfer of $41,966 to the City’s General Fund to partially offset this incurred staff time as well as administrative and fiscal support costs is both reasonable and essential.

Total FY 2022/23 street sweeping costs are estimated at $57,200 to cover monthly street sweeping services. Street sweeping services are paid through this fund as a program component of cleaner stormwater from street gutters. To clarify a common misconception, public streets and gutters are swept monthly to mitigate roadway pollutants from entering the storm drain system, not for street aesthetics or as the substitute broom for an abutting property owner’s sweeping/clearance of leaves and debris from the front and/or side yard curbs of one’s property. Offsetting revenue for this street sweeping is tendered by real property owners through their trash bills which is projected to be an equal and offsetting $57,200.

Annual expenditures are incorporated into the proposed budget for required contracted services including: $2,000 for engineering services, $1,720 estimated for other professional services (i.e. bioswale inspections, etc.), and $1,200 for contracted services for building/grounds maintenance (i.e. drainage insert cleaning, emergency tree removal, clearing, etc.). As needed contracted engineering services will assist in providing the City’s response to state-mandates for performing additional drainage/GI analysis, evaluation and annual reporting of our mapped “trash management areas”, and PCB analysis. The City Council has addressed the stormwater impact caused by new private construction activities and newer private developments through the requirement of self-supporting mechanisms and has implemented cost recovery through the establishment of fees for homeowners association and benefit assessment districts. Accordingly, new development generally has minimal to no net budgetary impact on either the Stormwater fund or the City’s General Fund.

As noted previously, the Stormwater fund is projected to open FY 2022/23 with approximately $36,742 in reserves, and projects a year-end fund balance of $8,500 on June 30, 2023, nearly completely depleting the fund balance. At this rate, and with additional requirements associated with the new permit (MRP 3.0), the Stormwater fund will be oversubscribed beginning in FY2023/24, with the only sources of discretionary funds to patch the mandated gap being an annual budgeted operational subsidy from the Rainy Day Fund 110 or General Fund. Absent a new or increased funding source, the first course of action would likely result in either a reduction of permit compliance potentially triggering SF Regional Board action of fines of up to $10,000 per day and/or other legal actions/financial penalties, or reduction in other non-mandated city services.

Summary
The City of Clayton is projecting $149,950 of revenue in FY2023, which represents a 9.6% increase over the prior year. Budgeted expenditures are projected to increase by 7.6% to $178,193 in FY2023.

Actual Revenue Source
Budgeted Revenue Source
Over Budget Revenue Source
Actual Expenditures
Budgeted Expenditures
FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023
$0
$50K
$100K
$150K
$200K
$250K
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 102
Revenues by Source
Budgeted and Historical 2023 Revenues by Source
Millions
Other Revenues
Interest
Admin Support Transfers
Charges for Services
FY2020
FY2021FY2022FY2023
$-0.025
$0
$0.025
$0.05
$0.075
$0.1
$0.125
$0.15
$0.175
Revenue Source
Charges for Services
Stormwater Assessment $86,401 $74,109 $84,000 $84,000 13.3% Stormwater O&M Annual Fee $0 $5,020 $5,020 $5,020 0%
Street Sweeping Fees $59,430 $55,900 $59,200 $59,200 5.9% Total Charges for Services: $145,830 $135,029 $148,220 $148,220 9.8% Interest
Interest $1,000 $600 $600 $600 0%
Total Interest: $1,000 $600 $600 $600 0%
Other Revenues
Unrealized Inv. Gain/Loss -$398 $0 $0 $0 N/A
Total Other Revenues: -$398 $0 $0 $0 N/A
Admin Support Transfers
Trx. From Landscape Mtnce. $1,130 $1,130 $1,130 $1,130 0% Total Admin Support Transfers: $1,130 $1,130 $1,130 $1,130 0% Total Revenue Source: $147,562 $136,759 $149,950 $149,950 9.6% Name FY2021 Actuals FY2022 Amended FY2022 Projected FY2023 Budgeted FY2022 Amended vs. FY2023 Budgeted (% Change)
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 103
Expenditures by Expense Type
Budgeted Expenditures by Expense Type
Operating (49.6%)
Transfers (23.6%)
Salaries (15.6%)
Benefififits (11.1%)
Capital (0.2%)
Budgeted and Historical Expenditures by Expense Type
Millions
Capital
Benefits
Salaries
Transfers
Operating
FY2020
FY2021
FY2022FY2023
$0
$0.05
$0.1
$0.15
$0.2
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 104
Expense Objects
Salaries
Regular Salaries $14,310 $23,776 $23,776 $27,882 17.3%
Temporary Salaries $578 $2,635 $2,635 $0 -100%
Overtime $123 $0 $0 $0 N/A
Total Salaries: $15,011 $26,411 $26,411 $27,882 5.6%
Benefits
Long/Short Term Disability Insurance $73 $206 $206 $274 32.8% PERS Retirement-Normal Cost $1,285 $2,197 $2,197 $2,359 7.4% PERS Retirement - Unfunded Liability $1,307 $2,954 $2,954 $5,016 69.8% Workers' Compensation $1,083 $992 $992 $1,193 20.2%
Unemployment Compensation $0 $526 $526 $62 -88.3%
FICA Taxes $286 $546 $546 $0 -100%
Benefit Insurance $2,245 $4,301 $4,301 $10,822 151.6%
Total Benefits: $6,278 $11,722 $11,722 $19,725 68.3%
Operating
General Supplies $2,551 $1,000 $2,650 $2,500 150%
Buildings/Grounds Maintenance $24,349 $1,200 $1,200 $1,200 0% Vehicle Maintenance $712 $2,000 $800 $1,000 -50%
Vehicles: Gas, Oil & Supplies $720 $2,000 $500 $1,000 -50% Street Sweeping $53,775 $55,900 $54,000 $57,200 2.3%
Engineering Services $0 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 0%
Other Professional Services $205 $1,720 $1,720 $1,720 0% Contract Seasonal Labor $14,938 $6,000 $4,000 $6,000 0% State Regional Annual Discharge Fee $8,992 $9,000 $10,602 $11,000 22.2% CERF Charges/Depreciation $4,700 $4,700 $4,700 $4,700 0% Total Operating: $110,942 $85,520 $82,172 $88,320 3.3%
Capital
Project/Program Costs - Outreach $0 $0 $0 $300 N/A
Total Capital: $0 $0 $0 $300 N/A
Transfers
Transfer To General Fund $40,430 $41,966 $41,966 $41,966 0% Total Transfers: $40,430 $41,966 $41,966 $41,966 0%
Total Expense Objects: $172,660 $165,619 $162,271 $178,193 7.6% Name FY2021 Actuals FY2022 Amended FY2022 Projected FY2023 Budgeted FY2022 Amended vs. FY2023 Budgeted (% Change)
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 105
Fund Balance
Fund Balance Projections
Unassigned
FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023
$0
$20K
$40K
$60K
$80K
FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 % Change
Fund Balance Audited Fund Balance Audited Fund Balance Projected Proposed Unassigned $74,161 $49,063 $36,742 $8,499 -76.9%
Total Fund Balance: $74,161 $49,063 $36,742 $8,499 -76.9% City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 106
Measure J
This restricted-use special revenue fund tracks the receipt and expenditure of revenues from the ½ cent sales tax levy approved by County voters in 1988 (Measure C) to provide regional and local transportation and street improvements, a growth management process, and a regional planning process to address quality of life issues. One of the program components of the Measure is its “Return to Local Source” monies wherein cities fully complying with the Measure’s Growth Management Program (GMP) Checklist are eligible to receive an annual allocation of monies for local streets and roads maintenance. Disbursement of these monies hinges on a city earning and maintaining a certified Housing Element (either by the California Department of Housing and Community Development [HCD] or via selfcertification), and filing a biennial Compliance Checklist. The Contra Costa Transportation Authority (CCTA), cities, and the Contra Costa County were successful in 2004 in obtaining voter approval of Measure J, which extended the authorization of the current sales tax in the County for an additional 25 years beyond Measure C’s expiration on March 31, 2009. Accordingly, Measure J is now in effect.

A letter to the City from HCD dated December 11, 2014 stated “The Department is pleased to find the adopted housing element in full compliance with State housing element law”. This letter effectively covers the City’s compliance with housing element requirements for eight (8) years from the date of issuance. In addition, with CCTA’s acceptance of the City’s most recent Compliance Checklist covering calendar years 2016 and 2017, the City is eligible to receive its full Measure J Local Streets Maintenance (LSM) or “Return to Local Source” funds for FY 2018/19 and FY 2019/20. The next biennial CCTA Compliance Checklist is scheduled to be presented to the City Council for approval sometime in the near future covering calendar years 2018 and 2019. For FY 2021/22 the City projects to receive “Return to Local Source” funds in an amount totaling $239,204. This revenue, along with future Measure J revenue would be available for future eligible CIP transportation projects.

In addition to this funding, on October 7, 2014 the City signed a cooperative agreement with CCTA and its member cities to receive Program 28a grant funding for Sub-regional Transportation Needs. The co-operative agreement stipulated funds will be allocated starting in January 2015, and then each November until 2034 using a 50/50 population and road miles split formula. In FY 2021/22 the City is estimated to receive an additional $31,072 per the co-operative agreement, which will also be available for future eligible projects.

For FY2021/22, a total of $417,178 will ultimately be spent on capital projects including the 2022 Neighborhood Pavement Preservation Project that were not approved until after the FY2021/22 Budget was adopted. For FY2022/23, the only planned expenditure is for the City's participation in the Regional Transportation Planning Group, TRANSPAC. Additional capital expenditures may be brought during the course of the year as it is anticipated that there will be funding available of $335,164 based on anticipated revenues for the year.

City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 107
Summary
The City of Clayton is projecting $364.72K of revenue in FY2023, which represents a 34.5% increase over the prior year. Budgeted expenditures are projected to increase by 0.7% to $37.33K in FY2023 absent additional capital spending.

Actual Revenue Source
Budgeted Revenue Source
Over Budget Revenue Source
Actual Expenditures
Budgeted Expenditures
Over Budget Expenditures
FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023
$0
$100K
$200K
$300K
$400K
$500K
Revenues by Source
Budgeted and Historical 2023 Revenues by Source
Millions
Other Revenues
Interest
Operating Grants and Contributions
FY2020FY2021
FY2022FY2023
$-0.1
$0
$0.1
$0.2
$0.3
$0.4
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 108
Revenue Source
Operating Grants and Contributions
Measure J Funds (Local Streets) $0 $239,204 $239,204 $334,140 39.7% Measure J Program 28a (Co-op) $30,576 $31,072 $31,072 $29,680 -4.5% Total Operating Grants and Contributions: $30,576 $270,276 $270,276 $363,820 34.6% Interest
Interest $2,193 $900 $900 $900 0%
Total Interest: $2,193 $900 $900 $900 0%
Other Revenues
Unrealized Inv. Gain/Loss -$5,427 $0 $0 $0 N/A
Total Other Revenues: -$5,427 $0 $0 $0 N/A
Total Revenue Source: $27,343 $271,176 $271,176 $364,720 34.5% Name FY2021 Actuals FY2022 Amended FY2022 Projected FY2023 Budgeted FY2022 Amended vs. FY2023 Budgeted (% Change)
Expenditures by Expense Type
Budgeted Expenditures by Expense Type
Operating (85.7%)
Transfers (14.3%)
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 109
Budgeted and Historical Expenditures by Expense Type
Millions
Transfers
Operating
FY2020FY2021
FY2022
FY2023
$0
$0.01
$0.02
$0.03
$0.04
Expense Objects
Operating
Dues and Subscriptions $1,209 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 0%
TRANSPAC Fees $23,292 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 0%
Total Operating: $24,501 $32,000 $32,000 $32,000 0%
Transfers
Transfer To General Fund $4,890 $5,076 $5,076 $5,330 5% Transfer to CIP Fund $0 $0 $346,967 $0 N/A
Total Transfers: $4,890 $5,076 $352,043 $5,330 5%
Total Expense Objects: $29,391 $37,076 $384,043 $37,330 0.7% Name FY2021 Actuals FY2022 Amended FY2022 Projected FY2023 Budgeted FY2022 Amended vs. FY2023 Budgeted (% Change)
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 110
Fund Balance
Fund Balance Projections
Unassigned
FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023
$0
$100K
$200K
$300K
$400K
FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 % Change
Fund Balance Audited Fund Balance Audited Fund Balance Projected Proposed Unassigned $88,291 $86,243 $7,774 $335,164 %
Total Fund Balance: $88,291 $86,243 $7,774 $335,164 %
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 111
Development
Impact Fees
This restricted-use special revenue fund accounts for the impact fees the City has collected from new development within the community. Revenues are private development driven and restricted for use based on the purpose of the impact fee. In recent years, minor development impact fees collected have pertained to relatively small two to six lot developments or accessory dwelling units. Since no new development occurred there were no additional development impact fees received in FY 2021/22, and none projected for FY 2021/22 at this time. Additionally, recent State legislation no longer allows for the collection of these fees for accessory dwelling units. The sole revenue source budgeted in FY 2022/23 is from interest earnings projected to total $4,000, which is allocated on a quarterly basis to each respective impact fee account.

New community development may result in the collection of additional fees, and trigger the necessity to plan new projects to mitigate the increased city costs associated with development expansion. That being said, it is reasonably possible amendments may be required during FY 2021/22 to appropriately reflect new projects to address the demands of more development. Although $49,838 was budgeted in 2019/20 to utilize unspent Childcare Fee reserves for eligible purposes, and not expended, and a $12,012 in expense during FY 2019/20 for review of the open space development impact fee.

For FY2022/23, the Proposed Budget reflects spending of balances reflects collected from Developer Fees for prior projects, specifically for the types of uses collected. A total of $221,074 is recommended for expenditure which is made of $48,000 for the completion of ADA work at North Valley Park and $173,074 to help complete a grantfunded project for improvements at Clayton Community Park. This will leave a balance of $365,586 at FY2022/23 year end.

Summary
The City of Clayton is projecting $4K of revenue in FY2023, which represents a 50% decrease over the prior year. Budgeted expenditures are projected to increase to $221.07K in FY2023.

Actual Revenue Source
Budgeted Revenue Source
Over Budget Revenue Source
Actual Expenditures
Budgeted Expenditures
FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023
$0
$50K
$100K
$150K
$200K
$250K
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 112
Revenues by Source
Budgeted and Historical 2023 Revenues by Source
Millions
Other Revenues
Interest
FY2020FY2021FY2022FY2023
$-0.01
$-0.005
$0
$0.005
$0.01
$0.015
$0.02
$0.025
Revenue Source
Charges for Services
Parkland Dedication Fees $0 $0 $4,640 $0 N/A
Total Charges for Services: $0 $0 $4,640 $0 0%
Interest
Interest $13,287 $8,000 $4,000 $4,000 -50%
Total Interest: $13,287 $8,000 $4,000 $4,000 -50%
Other Revenues
Unrealized Inv. Gain/Loss -$5,781 $0 $0 $0 N/A
Total Other Revenues: -$5,781 $0 $0 $0 N/A
Total Revenue Source: $7,505 $8,000 $8,640 $4,000 -50%
Name FY2021 Actuals FY2022 Amended FY2022 Projected FY2023 Budgeted FY2022 Amended vs. FY2023 Budgeted (% Change)
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 113
Expenditures by Expense Type
Expense Objects
Capital
Projects $12,012 $0 N/A
Total Capital: $12,012 $0 N/A
Transfers
Transfer to CIP Fund $0 $48,000 N/A
Transfer to 230 for Prop 68 Per Capita $0 $173,074 N/A
Total Transfers: $0 $221,074 N/A
Total Expense Objects: $12,012 $221,074 N/A
Name FY2020 Actuals FY2023 Budgeted FY2022 undefined vs. FY2023 Budgeted (% Change)
Fund Balance
Fund Balance Projections
Unassigned
FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023
$0
$100K
$200K
$300K
$400K
$500K
$600K
$700K
FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 % Change
Fund Balance Audited Fund Balance Audited Fund Balance Projected Proposed Unassigned $566,515 $574,020 $582,660 $365,586 -37.3%
Total Fund Balance: $566,515 $574,020 $582,660 $365,586 -37.3% City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 114
Successor
Housing Agency
This restricted-use special revenue fund was created as a result of the dissolution of the City’s former redevelopment agency (RDA) pursuant to state law (AB1x 26).

Through the adoption of Resolution 03-2012 the City Council elected to retain the affordable housing assets of the former RDA in accordance with Section 34176 of the California Health and Safety Code.

All monies in the former RDA’s Low and Moderate Income (LMI) Housing Fund were transferred on the dissolution date (February 1, 2012) to the City’s Successor Housing Agency Fund. In accordance with the law, the Successor Housing Agency is separate and distinct from all other funds and accounts of the City, to hold, administer and spend the monies originating from the former RDA’s LMI Housing Fund to perform housing functions consistent with the Dissolution Act.

On April 24, 2015, the California Department of Finance (DOF) issued its Final Determination Letter approving the Low-Moderate Fund Due Diligence Review Report.

This report, performed by an independent accountant in accordance with the law (AB 1484), was also approved via Resolution by the Oversight Board to the Successor Agency and authorized payment to be remitted to the County Auditor-Controller’s Office totaling $3,679,225, representing the “unencumbered balance” of LowModerate RDA funds. In accordance with the order letter from the DOF, this payment was remitted shortly thereafter on May 1, 2015. Furthermore, on December 30, 2015, the City received its Finding of Completion from the DOF, formally concluding the AB 1484 RDA dissolution and audit process.

With the demise of the City’s LMI housing fund by the State pursuant to AB1484, the City’s housing functions have now been largely reduced to loan transactions initiated by residents of existing low to moderate income housing units within the City’s current inventory. In FY 2022/23 this fund is projected to incur expenditures totaling $47,000. Total revenues for FY 2022/23 are projected to come in at $125,000, comprised primarily of a $110,000 loan repayment on the Diamond Terrace note, maturing in FY 2030/31, plus interest earnings of $15,000. At the close of FY 2022/23, it is projected the Successor Housing Agency will report a restricted fund balance of $5,602,643.

City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 115
Summary
The City of Clayton is projecting $125K of revenue in FY2023, which represents a 6.3% decrease over the prior year. Budgeted expenditures are projected to increase by 135% or $27K to $47K in FY2023.

Actual Revenue Source
Budgeted Revenue Source
Over Budget Revenue Source
Actual Expenditures
Budgeted Expenditures
FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023
$0
$100K
$200K
$300K
$400K
$500K
$600K
Revenues by Source
Revenue Source
Program Revenue-Successor Housing
Agency
$106,400 $111,400 $111,400 $110,000 -1.3%
Interest $23,566 $22,000 $15,000 $15,000 -31.8%
Unrealized Inv. Gain/Loss $370,276 $0 $0 $0 N/A
Total Revenue Source: $500,242 $133,400 $126,400 $125,000 -6.3% Name FY2021
Actuals
FY2022
Amended
FY2022
Projected
FY2023
Budgeted
FY2022 Amended vs. FY2023
Budgeted (% Change)
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 116
Expenditures by Expense Type
Budgeted and Historical Expenditures by Expense Type
Millions
Operating
FY2020FY2021FY2022FY2023
$0
$0.01
$0.02
$0.03
$0.04
$0.05
Expense Objects
Operating
Misc. Expense $27,951 $0 $27,000 $27,000 N/A
Special Legal Services $0 $5,000 $0 $5,000 0%
Other Professional Services $0 $10,000 $5,000 $10,000 0% Administrative Costs $0 $5,000 $0 $5,000 0%
Total Operating: $27,951 $20,000 $32,000 $47,000 135%
Total Expense Objects: $27,951 $20,000 $32,000 $47,000 135% Name FY2021 Actuals FY2022 Amended FY2022 Projected FY2023 Budgeted FY2022 Amended vs. FY2023 Budgeted (% Change)
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 117
Fund Balance
Fund Balance Projections
Restricted
FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023
$0
$1M
$2M
$3M
$4M
$5M
$6M
FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 % Change
Fund Balance Audited Fund Balance Audited Fund Balance Projected Proposed Restricted $4,984,389 $5,430,243 $5,524,643 $5,602,643 1.4% Total Fund Balance: $4,984,389 $5,430,243 $5,524,643 $5,602,643 1.4% City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 118
American
Rescue Plan
Act - State &
Local Fiscal
Recovery
This fund was established to recieve the federal grant funding of $2.9 million coming to the City of Clayton in 2021 and 2022. Consistent with the restrictions placed on these funds, the funds are transferred to the City's General Fund for purposes of providing general governmental services, in this case public safety services. These funds are reported on annually to the US Department of Treasury.

Summary
The City of Clayton is projecting $1.47M of revenue in FY2023, which represents a % increase over the prior year. Budgeted expenditures are projected to increase by % or $1.47M to $1.47M in FY2023.

Actual Revenue Source
Budgeted Revenue Source
Actual Expenditures
Budgeted Expenditures
FY2022 FY2023
$0
$500K
$1M
$1.5M
$2M
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 119
Revenues by Source
Budgeted and Historical 2023 Revenues by Source
Millions
Operating Grants and Contributions
FY2023
$0
$0.25
$0.5
$0.75
$1
$1.25
$1.5
$1.75
Revenue Source
Operating Grants and Contributions
Restricted Grants $0 $1,467,024 $1,459,705 N/A
Interest Income $0 $0 $7,319 N/A
Total Operating Grants and Contributions: $0 $1,467,024 $1,467,024 N/A Total Revenue Source: $0 $1,467,024 $1,467,024 N/A
Name FY2022 Amended FY2022 Projected FY2023 Budgeted FY2022 Amended vs. FY2023 Budgeted (% Change)
Expenditures by Expense Type
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 120
Budgeted and Historical Expenditures by Expense Type
Millions
Operating
FY2023
$0
$0.25
$0.5
$0.75
$1
$1.25
$1.5
$1.75
Expense Objects
Project/Program Costs $0 $1,467,024 $1,467,024 N/A
Total Expense Objects: $0 $1,467,024 $1,467,024 N/A
Name FY2022 Amended FY2022 Projected FY2023 Budgeted FY2022 Amended vs. FY2023 Budgeted (% Change)
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 121
Restricted
Grants
This fund is the repository for grants and other subvention funding restricted by law or the underlying grant agreement for specific purposes. The following is a summary of the City’s more significant activities funded from grants.

1. SLESF Grant Program
The Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Funds (SLESF) grant [previously referred to as the Citizen’s Option for Public Safety or “COPS” grant] is funded by a portion of the formerly-local Vehicle License Fees (VLF) and is passed through from the State to Contra Costa County, and then to the City of Clayton. This revenue is distributed from the County to the City on a monthly basis in varying increments based on sales tax allocations from the state. SLESF/COPS funds are allocated among cities and counties and special districts that provide law enforcement services in proportion to population, except that a) county populations are the populations in unincorporated areas; and b) each agency is to be allocated a minimum of $100,000. Pursuant to state legislation the use of these funds is restricted to “front-line law enforcement purposes.” Although previously required, pursuant to a letter from the California State Controller’s Office dated August 17, 2012, annual reporting on the use of these funds is no longer necessary.

Throughout the course of the year, the City receives monthly installments of SLESF funding from the County Auditor-Controller’s Office based on County pool sales tax figures. Once the City receives its statutory minimum of $100,000, monthly installments cease for the remainder of the fiscal year. Following the close of the fiscal year, the State Controller’s Office calculates the growth in VLF (redirected by the State from city general funds in 2011) above and beyond the base allocation. Any growth in VLF revenues is allocated to participating local agencies essentially on a per capita basis. For the City’s purposes, the growth allocation is received so long after the fiscal year end that it is reported on a cash basis in the fiscal year it is received. In FY 2021/22, the City is estimated to receive $161,285 from this source.

These funds were used to fund the 11 officer plus overtime and other related eligible public safety costs.

The proposed FY 2022/23 budget projects the City will receive SLESF funding of $150,000. This revenue will be utilized to continue underwriting a portion of the costs associated with the City’s 11 sworn police officer working patrol in the community as well as to cover costs associated with maintaining the state-mandated secure technology line for the Police Department and other related eligible public safety costs. In addition to the approximately $110,000 to defray these recurring ongoing costs for the 11 officer, $ of the SLESF grant is budgeted for other eligible expenses such as police supplies, training and computer replacement and state required secure data line costs.

2. Other Grant Funds
Beyond the SLESF grant monies, the Grants Fund expects receipt of $14,500 in annual revenue from the City’s cable communications franchise company (Comcast) for restricted use in Public, Education & Government (PEG) broadcast services and equipment. Computer and IT costs paid from the General Fund are eligible to be paid from the PEG grant and have been budgeted in FY 2020/21, FY2021/22 and FY2022/23.

The FY 2022/23 proposed budget also projects the City will receive an allocation of $5,000 for the annual CalRecycle Beverage Container Recycling grant, which is used to offset City staff time associated with eligible recycling and litter abatement projects mandated by the State.

Added in FY 2022/23 are new line items for:
th
th
th
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 122
Housing Element Update Expense (grant funds totaling $85,000 (REAP and LEAP)
SB2 ($160,000 Accessory Dwelling Unit plans and potential GIS work); Prop 68 Park Grant Fund - Per Capita grant of $185,000 which will be used for improvements at Clayton Community Park. This project will also include the use of approximately $173,100 from Developer Impact Fees and a generous $20,000 donation from Clayton Valley/Concord Sunrise Rotary Club.

Prop 68 Recreation Infrastructure Revenue Enhancement (RIRE) grant of $250,000 for improvements at The Grove Park.

Measure J Major Streets Grant and Transportation for Livable Communities Grant for a total of approximately $300,000 toward the Downtown Pedestrian Improvement Project and the 2023 Neighborhood Pavement Preservation Project.

Summary
The City of Clayton is projecting $1.34M of revenue in FY2023, which represents a % increase over the prior year. Budgeted expenditures are projected to increase by % or $1.3M to $1.3M in FY2023.

Actual Revenue Source
Budgeted Revenue Source
Over Budget Revenue Source
Actual Expenditures
Budgeted Expenditures
Over Budget Expenditures
FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023
$0
$500K
$1M
$1.5M
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 123
Revenues by Source
Projected 2023 Revenues by Source
Capital Grants and Contributions (87.5%)
Operating Grants and Contributions (12.5%)
Budgeted and Historical 2023 Revenues by Source
Millions
Interest
Other Revenues
CARES
Operating Grants and Contributions
Capital Grants and Contributions
FY2020
FY2021
FY2023
$-0.25
$0
$0.25
$0.5
$0.75
$1
$1.25
$1.5
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 124
Revenue Source
Operating Grants and Contributions
CalRecycle Grant $5,000 $0 $0 $5,000 N/A
Public Education Government (PEG) Fees $14,449 $0 $14,449 $12,000 N/A Supplemental Law Enforcement Services Fund
(SLESF)
$156,727 $0 $161,285 $150,000 N/A
Total Operating Grants and Contributions: $176,176 $0 $175,734 $167,000 N/A Interest
Interest $7,824 $0 $2,000 $0 0%
Total Interest: $7,824 $0 $2,000 $0 0%
Other Revenues
Unrealized Inv. Gain/Loss -$4,895 $0 $0 $0 N/A
Total Other Revenues: -$4,895 $0 $0 $0 N/A
Capital Grants and Contributions
Measure J Grant $0 $0 $0 $300,000 N/A
REAP Grant - Housing Element Update $0 $0 $0 $20,000 N/A LEAP Grant - Housing Element Update $0 $0 $0 $65,000 N/A SB2 Grant - ADU $0 $0 $0 $160,000 N/A
Prop 68 - Per Capita (CCP) $0 $0 $0 $378,074 N/A
Prop 68- RIRE (The Grove Park) $0 $0 $0 $250,000 N/A
Total Capital Grants and Contributions: $0 $0 $0 $1,173,074 N/A CARES
Cares Grant $139,979 $0 $0 $0 N/A
Total CARES: $139,979 $0 $0 $0 N/A
Total Revenue Source: $319,084 $0 $177,734 $1,340,074 N/A Name FY2021
Actuals
FY2022
Amended
FY2022
Projected
FY2023
Budgeted
FY2022 Amended vs.

FY2023 Budgeted (%
Change)
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 125
Expenditures by Expense Type
Budgeted Expenditures by Expense Type
Operating (47.6%)
Transfers (30%)
Capital (12.1%)
Salaries (8%)
Benefififits (2.3%)
Budgeted and Historical Expenditures by Expense Type
Millions
Benefits
Salaries
Capital
Transfers
Operating
FY2020FY2021
FY2023
$0
$0.25
$0.5
$0.75
$1
$1.25
$1.5
Expense Objects
Salaries
Regular Salaries $162,742 $0 $79,000 $78,913 N/A
Name FY2021
Actuals
FY2022
Amended
FY2022
Projected
FY2023
Budgeted
FY2022 Amended vs. FY2023
Budgeted (% Change)
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 126
Overtime $2,949 $0 $1,000 $25,000 N/A
Total Salaries: $165,691 $0 $80,000 $103,913 N/A
Benefits
Long/Short Term Disability Insurance $635 $0 $0 $579 N/A PERS Retirement-Normal Cost $9,994 $0 $12,000 $7,337 N/A PERS Retirement Unfunded Liability $0 $0 $0 $9,280 N/A
Workers' Compensation $3,077 $0 $0 $2,461 N/A
Unemployment Compensation $0 $0 $0 $103 N/A
FICA Taxes $1,143 $0 $0 $832 N/A
Uniform Allowance $900 $0 $1,200 $0 N/A
Benefit Insurance $104 $0 $9,000 $9,484 N/A
Total Benefits: $15,853 $0 $22,200 $30,077 N/A
Operating
General Supplies $17,541 $0 $1,500 $0 N/A
Office Supplies/Expense $1,512 $0 $0 $0 N/A
Postage $0 $0 $110 $0 N/A
Dues and Subscriptions $0 $0 $17,000 $0 N/A
Rentals/Leases $2,330 $0 $0 $0 N/A
Telecommunications $17,802 $0 $11,300 $11,300 N/A
Buildings/Grounds Maintenance $8,799 $0 $0 $0 N/A
Computer/IT Support $93,562 $0 $0 $55,000 N/A
Janitorial Service $756 $0 $0 $0 N/A
Other Professional Services $55,841 $0 $4,900 $28,242 N/A CAL ID $0 $0 $1,600 $0 N/A
Capital Outlay - Structures and
Improvements
$0 $0 $0 $526,468 N/A
Capital Outlay - Equipment & Machinery $47,175 $0 $8,613 $0 N/A Total Operating: $245,318 $0 $45,023 $621,010 N/A
Capital
Project/Program Costs $0 $0 $0 $158,100 N/A
Total Capital: $0 $0 $0 $158,100 N/A
Transfers
Transfer To General Fund $14,814 $0 $0 $10,000 N/A
Transfer to Fund 303 CIP $0 $0 $0 $357,000 N/A
Transfer to Fund 211 - RIRE $0 $0 $0 $23,606 N/A
Total Transfers: $14,814 $0 $0 $390,606 N/A
Total Expense Objects: $441,676 $0 $147,223 $1,303,707 N/A Name FY2021
Actuals
FY2022
Amended
FY2022
Projected
FY2023
Budgeted
FY2022 Amended vs. FY2023
Budgeted (% Change)
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 127
Fund Balance
Fund Balance Projections
Restricted
FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023
$0
$100K
$200K
$300K
$400K
$500K
FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 % Change
Fund Balance Audited Fund Balance Audited Fund Balance Projected Proposed Restricted $381,399 $258,807 $204,318 $240,685 17.8%
Total Fund Balance: $381,399 $258,807 $204,318 $240,685 17.8% City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 128
Self Insurance
Fund
This internal-service fund manages the fiscal obligations of the City’s self-insured program for our retention deductible ($5,000 per claim) on initial claims filed against the City for general liability and workers’ compensation as well as deductibles for property, auto, and other insured losses incurred by the City. Pursuant to our membership in the Municipal Pooling Authority of Northern California (“MPA”; a municipal self-insured/pooled risk excess coverage joint powers authority [JPA]), our City is responsible for payment of the first $5,000 in expense and/or damage on each filed claim. This fund also handles other periodic legal expenses to defend the City’s interest in related cases. A recurring expense incurred by this fund is the annual premium (approximately $1,300) to cover an Employee Assistance Program (EAP), a shared public entity consortium for City employee good-health counseling and wellness services benefiting our permanent organization.

Since there is no recurring or reliable replenishing source of revenue for this fund, the City Council must periodically authorize one-time transfers of General Fund reserves or Rainy Day Fund (Fund 110) to replenish the internal service fund’s reserve balance.

The most recent source of such funding was made in FY 2013/14, when the City Council authorized a transfer of $54,154 from General Fund annual excess supported by the audited FY 2011/12 financial statements. This transfer assisted in replenishing losses arising from legal expenses on the Oakhurst Hillside litigation cases beginning in FY 2008/09. With total proposed FY 2022/23 expenditures of $6,300, this fund is projected to utilize $5,900 in reserves and close the fiscal year with a positive net position of $19,049. The option to make “replenishment” transfers from the General Fund Reserve or Rainy Day Fund into the Self-Insurance Fund can be considered at a future time if needed by the City Council, no request by staff is proposed at this time.

Summary
The City of Clayton is projecting $400 of revenue in FY2023, which represents a 0% increase over the prior year. Budgeted expenditures are projected to increase by 0% or N/A to $6.3K in FY2023.

Actual Revenue Source
Budgeted Revenue Source
Over Budget Revenue Source
Actual Expenditures
Budgeted Expenditures
FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023
$0
$2K
$4K
$6K
$8K
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 129
Revenues by Source
Budgeted and Historical 2023 Revenues by Source
Millions
Other Revenues
Interest
FY2020FY2021FY2022FY2023
$-0.0005
$0
$0.0005
$0.001
$0.0015
Revenue Source
Interest
Interest $473 $400 $400 $400 0%
Total Interest: $473 $400 $400 $400 0%
Other Revenues
Unrealized Inv. Gain/Loss -$360 $0 $0 $0 N/A
Total Other Revenues: -$360 $0 $0 $0 N/A
Total Revenue Source: $113 $400 $400 $400 0%
Name FY2021 Actuals FY2022 Amended FY2022 Projected FY2023 Budgeted FY2022 Amended vs. FY2023 Budgeted (% Change)
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 130
Expenditures by Function
Budgeted and Historical Expenditures by Function
Millions
City
FY2020FY2021
FY2022
FY2023
$0
$0.001
$0.002
$0.003
$0.004
$0.005
$0.006
$0.007
Expenditures
City
Insurance Premiums (EAP Plan) $1,074 $1,300 $1,300 $1,300 0% Insurance Claims Deductibles $1,598 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 0% Total City: $2,672 $6,300 $6,300 $6,300 0%
Total Expenditures: $2,672 $6,300 $6,300 $6,300 0%
Name FY2021 Actuals FY2022 Amended FY2022 Projected FY2023 Budgeted FY2022 Amended vs. FY2023 Budgeted (% Change)
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 131
Fund Balance
Fund Balance Projections
Assigned
FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023
$0
$10K
$20K
$30K
$40K
FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 % Change
Fund Balance Audited Fund Balance Audited Fund Balance Projected Proposed Assigned $33,408 $30,849 $24,949 $19,049 -23.6%
Total Fund Balance: $33,408 $30,849 $24,949 $19,049 -23.6% City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 132
Capital
Equipment
Replacement
Fund
This fund serves to track the depreciation and finance the replacement of City-owned vehicles, computers and other capital equipment used in operations, generally in excess of $5,000, which is the minimum threshold per the City’s capital asset policy.

The Capital Equipment Replacement Fund (CERF) is projected to open FY 2022/23 with a positive reserve balance of $573,921, of which $190,339 is the fund’s cash position available to finance the purchase of replacement assets. The remainder of this fund’s net position pertains to equity resulting from the fund’s non-liquid net investment in capital assets (i.e. fixed asset book value).

Ideally, though often not feasible, the CERF would annually recover its depreciation expense in the form of internal service fund service charges to the various departments using CERF assets in their respective operations. During previous challenging budgetary years, the General Fund had to cut back or even eliminate CERF funding altogether in an effort to stabilize the annual operating budget. These challenging budgetary years, paired with departments doing their best to stretch the useful lives of assets, has resulted in a current active fleet that is much depreciated.

This hybrid “pay as you go” asset replacement strategy has left the CERF in an unavoidably under-funded position. With the June 30, 2021 annual comprehensive financial report (ACFR) reporting total CERF accumulated depreciation of $1,185,949 and a total cash position available to finance the replacement of fixed assets was only $185,929. This represents a total funded position of only 15.7%, which is the same struggle encountered by many of our neighboring public agencies.

Using the current annual depreciation expense presented in the City’s latest audited CAFR, CERF depreciation expense is projected to be $70,000 for FY 2022/23. The FY 2022/23 proposed CERF budget includes total revenues of $123,200, nearly all of which is attributable to CERF charges. FY 2022/23 CERF charges are derived from the following sources: $70,000 from the General Fund’s Police Department, $10,000 from General Fund’s Maintenance Department, $4,500 from HUTA Gas Tax Fund, $30,000 from Landscape Maintenance District, $3,000 from The Grove Park, $4,700 from the Stormwater fund.

On an annual basis the Police and Public Works Departments communicate their capital equipment replacement needs to the City Manager and Finance Director.

Based on an analysis of funds available as well as the most up-to-date CERF depreciation schedule, the urgency as well as prioritization of asset replacements is considered. The proposed FY 2022/23 CERF budget incorporates plans to purchase one replacement Ford Police Explorer SUV patrol response unit at an estimated cost of $70,000. Furthermore, the proposed budget includes appropriations for the Maintenance Department to purchase a new mower for large field areas at a cost of $30,000, and a new mower deck for existing equipment for $17,000.

City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 133
Summary
The City of Clayton is projecting $123.2K of revenue in FY2023, which represents a 6.9% increase over the prior year. Budgeted expenditures are projected to decrease by 50.8% or $121K to $117K in FY2023.

Actual Revenue Source
Budgeted Revenue Source
Over Budget Revenue Source
Actual Expenditures
Budgeted Expenditures
Over Budget Expenditures
FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023
$0
$50K
$100K
$150K
$200K
$250K
Revenues by Source
Budgeted and Historical 2023 Revenues by Source
Millions
Interest
Operating Grants and Contributions
Other Revenues
FY2020
FY2021
FY2022
FY2023
$0
$0.025
$0.05
$0.075
$0.1
$0.125
$0.15
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 134
Revenue Source
Operating Grants and Contributions
CERF Charges to Depts. $111,900 $111,900 $111,900 $52,200 -53.4% Total Operating Grants and Contributions: $111,900 $111,900 $111,900 $52,200 -53.4% Interest
Interest $2,913 $2,300 $2,300 $1,000 -56.5%
Total Interest: $2,913 $2,300 $2,300 $1,000 -56.5%
Other Revenues
Unrealized Inv. Gain/Loss -$1,599 $0 $0 $0 N/A
Sale of Assets $1,741 $1,000 $1,000 $0 -100%
Trx from Fund 111 - Pandemic R.R $0 $0 $0 $70,000 N/A
Total Other Revenues: $142 $1,000 $1,000 $70,000 6,900% Total Revenue Source: $114,955 $115,200 $115,200 $123,200 6.9% Name FY2021 Actuals FY2022 Amended FY2022 Projected FY2023 Budgeted FY2022 Amended vs. FY2023 Budgeted (% Change)
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 135
Expenditures by Expense Type
Budgeted and Historical Expenditures by Expense Type
Millions
Operating
FY2020FY2021FY2022FY2023
$0
$0.05
$0.1
$0.15
$0.2
$0.25
Expense Objects
Operating
Depreciation Expense $99,979 $70,000 $70,000 $0 -100%
Capital Outlay - Machinery, Vehicles &
Equipment
$8,851 $168,000 $157,185 $117,000 -30.4%
Total Operating: $108,830 $238,000 $227,185 $117,000 -50.8% Total Expense Objects: $108,830 $238,000 $227,185 $117,000 -50.8% Name FY2021
Actuals
FY2022
Amended
FY2022
Projected
FY2023
Budgeted
FY2022 Amended vs.

FY2023 Budgeted (%
Change)
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 136
Fund Balance
Fund Balance Projections
Unassigned Restricted
FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023
$0
$200K
$400K
$600K
$800K
FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 % Change
Fund Balance Audited Fund Balance Audited Fund Balance Projected Proposed Unassigned $185,929 $197,749 $195,029 $197,137 1.1%
Restricted $493,547 $487,851 $378,586 $382,678 1.1%
Total Fund Balance: $679,476 $685,600 $573,615 $579,815 1.1% City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 137
Pension Rate
Stabilization
In FY 2017/18, given the growing apprehension surrounding CalPERS unfunded pension liabilities and consideration of the ever-growing list of factors beyond the City’s control that can significantly and adversely impact the annual employer pension contribution obligations, the City Council established the Pension Rate Stabilization Fund. The Pension Rate Stabilization Fund is an internal service fund designed to help smooth major fluctuations in annual pension contribution costs driven by market factors and actuarial changes. In recent years, the City’s operating budget had to overcome the burden of large hikes in employer pension contributions due to fluctuations in its unfunded liability caused by CalPERS investment returns falling short of the actuarially assumed discount rate. As it appeared these hikes would continue into the foreseeable future, the City’s Pension Rate Stabilization Fund was established to act as a hedging tool to stabilize future General Fund operating budgets.

As summarized in the General Fund Reserves section previously, the City Council has three times now authorized the transfer of General Fund annual excess reserves to the newly created Pension Rate Stabilization Fund as seed monies. The last time being at the close of FY 2018/19 General Fund excess reserves of $268,000 were transferred to this fund. By the close of FY 2021/22, when incorporating projected interest earnings, this fund is anticipated to close with a positive reserve balance of $293,531.

While staff will continue to work on absorbing the employer pension contribution requirements within a balanced annual operating budget, unpredictability associated with future pension contributions makes this policy goal increasingly difficult. As illustrated in the Public Employees Retirement System section of the Budget Message, staff projects an upward, not downward, trend in employer pension contribution requirements over the next several years following CalPERS’ reduction to the long-term actuarially-assumed discount rate and other funding policy changes.

The establishment of the City’s Pension Rate Stabilization Fund will greatly aid the City’s mission to maintain and sustain current public services to the community.

In addition to the three sources of seed monies described previously, as a stand-alone fund separate and distinct from the City’s General Fund, our Pension Rate Stabilization Fund generates interest earnings from its share in the City’s Investment Pool. Beyond ongoing allocations of interest earnings, future revenue sources could come from one-time transfers of Rainy Day Funds (Fund 110), General Fund Reserves as authorized by the City Council or budgeted charges to the City’s various governmental funds utilizing City staff.

Contributions to this fund have no direct impact on City’s unfunded pension liability, as that is only achieved by direct contributions to a CalPERS-administered irrevocable trust, which is not being recommended at this time. However, much like the City’s Capital Equipment Replacement Fund (CERF) and the Self Insurance Fund, this fund is a useful tool to help mitigate the risk of fluctuations in future pension contribution requirements to the City’s ongoing General Fund operating budget.

City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 138
Summary
The City of Clayton is projecting $4K of revenue in FY2023, which represents a 0% increase over the prior year. Budgeted expenditures are projected to increase by 0% or N/A to N/A in FY2023.

Actual Revenue Source
Budgeted Revenue Source
Over Budget Revenue Source
FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023
$0
$2.5K
$5K
$7.5K
$10K
$12.5K
Fund Balance
Fund Balance Projections
Assigned
FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023
$0
$50K
$100K
$150K
$200K
$250K
$300K
$350K
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 139
FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 % Change
Fund Balance Audited Fund Balance Audited Fund Balance Projected Proposed Assigned $285,331 $289,093 $293,093 $297,093 1.4%
Total Fund Balance: $285,331 $289,093 $293,093 $297,093 1.4% City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 140
Endeavor Hall
This fund was established in the FY 2002/03 adopted budget to track specific revenues and expenses related to the million dollar historic Endeavor Hall renovation project. More residents and local organizations continue to discover Endeavor Hall’s historical charm for hosting special occasions and meetings. Additionally, the Clayton Theatre Company used the Hall for its 8 consecutive year of theatrical productions. Facility-use rental fees for FY 2020/21 had a deficit of $2,443 due to refund of FY 2019/20 rental fee that was processed in FY 2020/21, due to the COVID19 pandemic. Rental income is projected about half of actuals from 2019/20, at a modest $10,000. During FY 2020/21 the building front stairs/porch, rear stairs/porch and gates replaced apx. $19,350. Operational expenditures (excluding depreciation), are projected to come in at $37,532. This results in a projected FY 2021/22 operational deficit of $27,532. When including depreciation, this shortfall increases to $65,032. This structural deficit is result of several factors, largely beyond of the control of staff alone. On the expenditure side, increases in unavoidable fixed costs as well as maintenance costs necessary to maintain the facility in prime rental condition have been outpacing the rental revenue stream.

For FY 2022/23, minimal City staff labor costs of $14,442 are projected for upkeep of the facility and staffing evening and weekend events as needed. Maintenance time is necessary for landscaping and gardening to ensure the facilities grounds have annual color plants sufficient to keep it desirable for the rental community. Naturally, when vandalism occurs on the building and grounds, extra expenses are incurred to make the necessary repairs. Furthermore, periodic staff time is necessary for the maintenance and upkeep of on-site equipment and fixtures. Total proposed (nonlabor) operational and maintenance expenses in FY 2021/22 are budgeted at $23,090, including one-time repairs/replacements of stairs and gates. Depreciation expense in this fund is projected to remain consistent at $37,500 in FY 2022/23.

Most recently, during FY 2015/16 action was taken by the City Council to earmark $25,863 in General Fund FY 2014/15 excess reserves for much needed facility repairs and replacements at Endeavor Hall. Specific activities funded by this action included: repainting of the exterior and interior walls, refinishing the oak wood flooring, and resealing the concrete walkway. During FY 2020/21 $19,500 was used to replace the front and rear stairs/parch and gates. These improvements to the facility are a prime example of the periodic financial support needed from the General Fund for capital improvements/replacements as Endeavor Hall operations are not self-sustaining.

Ultimately, although the fund is projected to close FY 2022/23 with a total fund net position of $742,351, a closer look at the components of fund equity reveals the positive position is caused by the fund’s large net investment in capital assets (i.e. fixed asset book value) estimated to be $998,175 as of June 30, 2021. This exceeds total net position due to a negative net unrestricted position expected be $144,433 at June 30, 2022. This negative position is reflective of the unavoidable structural deficit this fund has found itself in since its establishment. Increasing rental fees to solve this issue may only further discourage potential renters, worsening the already challenging rental position this fund finds itself in as described previously. As past rental experiences generate positive word of mouth promotion and expand the customer base, staff is hopeful Endeavor Hall operations will eventually become selfsustaining. Staff will continue to monitor this issue and provide updates to the City Council periodically as it has in past annual and mid-year budget as well as CAFR presentations.
th
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 141
Summary
The City of Clayton is projecting $10K of revenue in FY2023, which represents a 0% increase over the prior year. Budgeted expenditures are projected to increase by 0% or N/A to $75.03K in FY2023.

Actual Revenue Source
Budgeted Revenue Source
Actual Expenditures
Budgeted Expenditures
Over Budget Expenditures
FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023
$-25000
$0
$25K
$50K
$75K
$100K
Revenues by Source
Budgeted and Historical 2023 Revenues by Source
Millions
Interest
Other Revenues
FY2020
FY2021
FY2022
FY2023
$-0.005
$0
$0.005
$0.01
$0.015
$0.02
$0.025
$0.03
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 142
Revenue Source
Other Revenues
Unrealized Inv. Gain/Loss -$378 $0 $0 N/A
Endeavor Hall Rental Fee -$1,443 $10,000 $10,000 0%
Total Other Revenues: -$1,821 $10,000 $10,000 0%
Total Revenue Source: -$1,821 $10,000 $10,000 0%
Name FY2021 Actuals FY2022 Amended FY2023 Budgeted FY2022 Amended vs. FY2023 Budgeted (% Change)
Expenditures by Expense Type
Budgeted Expenditures by Expense Type
Operating (80.8%)
Salaries (13.8%)
Benefififits (5.4%)
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 143
Budgeted and Historical Expenditures by Expense Type
Millions
Benefits
Salaries
Operating
FY2020
FY2021FY2022
FY2023
$0
$0.02
$0.04
$0.06
$0.08
Expense Objects
Salaries
Regular Salaries $2,425 $7,925 $7,925 0%
Overtime $0 $200 $200 0%
Part-time Salaries $0 $2,262 $2,262 0%
Total Salaries: $2,425 $10,387 $10,387 0%
Benefits
Long/Short Term Disability Insurance $18 $69 $69 0%
PERS Retirement-Normal Cost $217 $732 $732 0%
PERS Retirement - Unfunded Liability $251 $985 $985 0%
Workers' Compensation $344 $352 $352 0%
Unemployment Compensation $0 $192 $192 0%
FICA Taxes $40 $291 $291 0%
Benefit Insurance $404 $1,434 $1,434 0%
Total Benefits: $1,273 $4,055 $4,055 0%
Operating
General Supplies $10 $200 $200 0%
Telecommunications $1,092 $1,100 $1,100 0%
Gas & Electric Services $1,686 $3,000 $3,000 0%
Water Services $3,908 $4,500 $4,500 0%
Buildings/Grounds Maintenance $24,834 $7,070 $7,070 0%
Vehicle Maintenance $88 $400 $400 0%
Name FY2021 Actuals FY2022 Amended FY2023 Budgeted FY2022 Amended vs. FY2023 Budgeted (% Change)
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 144
Vehicles: Gas, Oil & Supplies $115 $200 $200 0%
HVAC Mtn & Repairs $591 $1,500 $1,500 0%
Depreciation Expense $35,667 $37,500 $37,500 0%
Janitorial Service $0 $2,620 $2,620 0%
Animal/Pest Control Services $1,428 $1,500 $1,500 0%
Contract Seasonal Labor $0 $1,000 $1,000 0%
Total Operating: $69,419 $60,590 $60,590 0%
Total Expense Objects: $73,117 $75,032 $75,032 0%
Name FY2021 Actuals FY2022 Amended FY2023 Budgeted FY2022 Amended vs. FY2023 Budgeted (% Change)
Fund Balance
Fund Balance Projections
Committed Nonspendable
FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023
$-250000
$0
$250K
$500K
$750K
$1M
$1.25M
FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 % Change
Fund Balance Audited Fund Balance Audited Fund Balance Projected Proposed Committed $-74,819 $-114,090 $-129,997 $-113,000 -13.1% Nonspendable $1,073,743 $1,038,076 $937,380 $855,351 -8.8% Total Fund Balance: $998,924 $923,986 $807,383 $742,351 -8.1% City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 145
High Street
Bridge
Assessment
District
In 1998 the City Council ordered the formation of the High Street Permanent Road Division for the purpose of reconstructing and maintaining the High Street Bridge over Mitchell Creek. This annual assessment is levied against specified private property parcel owners within the High Street Bridge Benefit Assessment District in order to repay construction-related financing and for future maintenance of the bridge. The High Street Bridge debt is repaid over thirty (30) years with its ultimate maturity in FY 2028/29. The fund will continue to assess annual levies against covered parcels within the district until the underlying long-term debt owed to the Successor Agency to the former Redevelopment Agency is fulfilled. In FY 2022/23 the total budgeted assessment of $1,754 will cover debt service payments and contribute to the annual bridge maintenance reserve ($300 per year). This fund is projected to close FY 2022/23 with a positive reserve balance of $7,567, of which $6,600 (87%) is restricted for future bridge maintenance of the district.

Summary
The City of Clayton is projecting $1,844 of revenue in FY2023, which represents a 0% increase over the prior year. Budgeted expenditures are projected to remain at $1,454 in FY2023.

Actual Revenue Source
Budgeted Revenue Source
Over Budget Revenue Source
Actual Expenditures
Budgeted Expenditures
Over Budget Expenditures
FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023
$0
$500
$1K
$1.5K
$2K
$2.5K
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 146
Revenues by Source
Budgeted and Historical 2023 Revenues by Source
Millions
Other Revenues
Interest
Charges for Services
FY2020
FY2021FY2022
FY2023
$-0.0005
$0
$0.0005
$0.001
$0.0015
$0.002
$0.0025
Revenue Source
Charges for Services
High Street Bridge Assessment $1,754 $1,754 $1,754 $1,754 0% Total Charges for Services: $1,754 $1,754 $1,754 $1,754 0% Interest
Interest $72 $90 $90 $90 0%
Total Interest: $72 $90 $90 $90 0%
Other Revenues
Unrealized Inv Gain/Loss -$84 $0 $0 $0 N/A
Total Other Revenues: -$84 $0 $0 $0 N/A
Total Revenue Source: $1,742 $1,844 $1,844 $1,844 0%
Name FY2021 Actuals FY2022 Amended FY2022 Projected FY2023 Budgeted FY2022 Amended vs. FY2023 Budgeted (% Change)
Expenditures by Expense Type
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 147
Budgeted and Historical Expenditures by Expense Type
Millions
Operating
Debt
FY2020FY2021FY2022
FY2023
$0
$0.0005
$0.001
$0.0015
$0.002
$0.0025
Expense Objects
Operating
Engineering/Inspection Service $2,010 $0 $0 $0 N/A
Total Operating: $2,010 $0 $0 $0 N/A
Debt
Principal (RDA Successor Agency) $0 $915 $915 $915 0%
Interest Expense $0 $539 $539 $539 0%
Total Debt: $0 $1,454 $1,454 $1,454 0%
Total Expense Objects: $2,010 $1,454 $1,454 $1,454 0%
Name FY2021 Actuals FY2022 Amended FY2022 Projected FY2023 Budgeted FY2022 Amended vs. FY2023 Budgeted (% Change)
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 148
Fund Balance
Fund Balance Projections
Assigned
FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023
$0
$2K
$4K
$6K
$8K
FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 % Change
Fund Balance Audited Fund Balance Audited Fund Balance Projected Proposed Assigned $7,054 $6,787 $7,177 $7,567 5.4%
Total Fund Balance: $7,054 $6,787 $7,177 $7,567 5.4%
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 149
Oak Street
Bridge
Assessment
District
In 1999 the City Council ordered the formation of the Oak Street Permanent Road Division for the purpose of reconstructing and maintaining the Oak Street Bridge over Mitchell Creek. This annual assessment is levied against specified private property parcel owners within the Oak Street Bridge Benefit Assessment District in order to repay construction-related financing and for future maintenance of the bridge. Five years ago in FY 2016/17 this fund contributed $12,000 to the City’s Arterial Rehabilitation Project (CIP 10437A) to perform street re-pavement improvements needed in the District. In FY 2017/18, the district incurred $4,396 for urgent pavement repairs on Oak Ct. No bridge or road maintenance is scheduled for FY 2021/22 in an effort to rebuild district maintenance reserves considering the maintenance projects already completed in recent years.

The Oak Street Bridge debt was repaid over twenty (20) years and was fully paid off in FY 2018/19. Despite the maturity of the debt, a minimal annual district levy is still necessary for bridge maintenance purposes as outlined in the district’s establishing documents. After the inclusion of projected interest earnings and the continuing annual assessment for bridge maintenance purposes of $1,760 (total), this fund is projected to close FY 2022/23 with a positive reserve balance of $22,782.

Summary
The City of Clayton is projecting $1,860 of revenue in FY2023, which represents a 6% decrease over the prior year largely due to reduced interest earnings. Budgeted expenditures are projected to be flat at$258 in FY2023.

Actual Revenue Source
Budgeted Revenue Source
Over Budget Revenue Source
Actual Expenditures
Budgeted Expenditures
Over Budget Expenditures
FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023
$0
$2K
$4K
$6K
$8K
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 150
Revenues by Source
Budgeted and Historical 2023 Revenues by Source
Millions
Other Revenues
Interest
Charges for Services
FY2020
FY2021FY2022
FY2023
$0
$0.002
$0.004
$0.006
$0.008
$-0.002
Revenue Source
Charges for Services
Oak Street Bridge Assessment $1,760 $1,760 $1,760 $1,760 0% Total Charges for Services: $1,760 $1,760 $1,760 $1,760 0% Interest
Interest $169 $280 $100 $100 -64.3%
Total Interest: $169 $280 $100 $100 -64.3%
Other Revenues
Unrealied Inv. Gain/Loss -$195 $0 $0 $0 N/A
Total Other Revenues: -$195 $0 $0 $0 N/A
Total Revenue Source: $1,734 $2,040 $1,860 $1,860 -8.8% Name FY2021 Actuals FY2022 Amended FY2022 Projected FY2023 Budgeted FY2022 Amended vs. FY2023 Budgeted (% Change)
Expenditures by Expense Type
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 151
Budgeted and Historical Expenditures by Expense Type
Millions
Operating
FY2020FY2021FY2022
FY2023
$0
$0.0005
$0.001
$0.0015
$0.002
Expense Objects
Operating
Property Tax Admin. Costs $258 $258 $258 $258 0%
Engineering/Inspection Service $190 $0 $0 $0 N/A
Administrative Costs $1,455 $0 $0 $0 N/A
Total Operating: $1,903 $258 $258 $258 0%
Total Expense Objects: $1,903 $258 $258 $258 0%
Name FY2021 Actuals FY2022 Amended FY2022 Projected FY2023 Budgeted FY2022 Amended vs. FY2023 Budgeted (% Change)
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 152
Fund Balance
Fund Balance Projections
Assigned
FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023
$0
$5K
$10K
$15K
$20K
$25K
FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 % Change
Fund Balance Audited Fund Balance Audited Fund Balance Projected Proposed Assigned $20,589 $20,420 $21,180 $22,782 7.6%
Total Fund Balance: $20,589 $20,420 $21,180 $22,782 7.6% City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 153
Lydia Lane
Sewer
Assessment
In 2002 the City Council ordered the formation of the Lydia Lane Sewer Benefit Assessment District along south Lydia Lane for the purpose of funding the construction of municipal sewer main line lateral connections to specified homes within the District plus an associated street overlay. The project was funded by the private property parcel owners since they “opted out” of inclusion in the original Project Area of the since- dissolved Redevelopment Agency (RDA). As a result of opting out of inclusion, they were ineligible to receive RDA funds to address public health and safety blight for the installation of a municipal sewer line to eliminate their private septic tank systems. The project was completed in 2003 with bonds issued by the City for repayment by the district over a thirty (30) year life maturing in FY 2032/33. This annual assessment is levied against specified private property parcel owners within the Lydia Lane Sewer Benefit Assessment District in order to repay construction-related financing and to address ongoing operational and administrative costs. This fund will continue to assess annual levies against covered parcels within the district until the underlying long-term obligation due to private bondholders is fulfilled. Parcel assessments are projected to produce $19,799 in FY 2022/23. Debt service payments for FY 2022/23 total $18,000 or 91% of the District’s annual expenses. From the current fund balance $2,2264 will be used to cover the residual needed for FY2022/23 district expenses. The principal balance of the bonds will be $123,325 as of June 30, 2023. This fund is projected to close FY 2022/23 with a positive reserve balance of $68,875 for future sewer system maintenance in the district. Of this reserve balance, $12,500 (18%) pertains to the bond reserve fund, held by the trustee and restricted for debt service per the bond indenture.

Summary
The City of Clayton is projecting $18.6K of revenue in FY2023, which represents a 4.5% increase over the prior year. Budgeted expenditures are projected to decrease by 6.5% or $1.45K to $21.01K in FY2023.

Actual Revenue Source
Budgeted Revenue Source
Over Budget Revenue Source
Actual Expenditures
Budgeted Expenditures
Over Budget Expenditures
FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023
$0
$5K
$10K
$15K
$20K
$25K
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 154
Revenues by Source
Budgeted and Historical 2023 Revenues by Source
Millions
Other Revenues
Interest
Charges for Services
FY2020
FY2021FY2022
FY2023
$-0.005
$0
$0.005
$0.01
$0.015
$0.02
$0.025
Revenue Source
Charges for Services
Lydia Lane Sewer Assessment $16,900 $16,900 $16,900 $18,498 9.5% Total Charges for Services: $16,900 $16,900 $16,900 $18,498 9.5% Interest
Interest $849 $900 $125 $100 -88.9%
Total Interest: $849 $900 $125 $100 -88.9%
Other Revenues
Unrealized Inv. Gain/Loss -$705 $0 $0 $0 N/A
Total Other Revenues: -$705 $0 $0 $0 N/A
Total Revenue Source: $17,044 $17,800 $17,025 $18,598 4.5% Name FY2021 Actuals FY2022 Amended FY2022 Projected FY2023 Budgeted FY2022 Amended vs. FY2023 Budgeted (% Change)
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 155
Expenditures by Expense Type
Budgeted Expenditures by Expense Type
Debt (82.6%)
Operating (17.4%)
Budgeted and Historical Expenditures by Expense Type
Millions
Operating
Debt
FY2020
FY2021
FY2022FY2023
$0
$0.005
$0.01
$0.015
$0.02
$0.025
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 156
Expense Objects
Operating
Property Tax Admin. Costs $264 $264 $264 $264 0%
Other Professional Services $48 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 0% Other Outside Services $3,815 $2,400 $2,400 $2,400 0%
Total Operating: $4,126 $3,664 $3,664 $3,664 0%
Debt
Principal $5,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 0%
Interest Expense $8,658 $8,300 $8,600 $6,850 -17.5%
Paying Agent Fee $500 $500 $500 $500 0%
Total Debt: $14,158 $18,800 $19,100 $17,350 -7.7%
Total Expense Objects: $18,284 $22,464 $22,764 $21,014 -6.5% Name FY2021 Actuals FY2022 Amended FY2022 Projected FY2023 Budgeted FY2022 Amended vs. FY2023 Budgeted (% Change)
Fund Balance
Fund Balance Projections
Assigned
FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023
$0
$20K
$40K
$60K
$80K
$100K
FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 % Change
Fund Balance Audited Fund Balance Audited Fund Balance Projected Proposed Assigned $78,270 $77,030 $71,291 $68,875 -3.4%
Total Fund Balance: $78,270 $77,030 $71,291 $68,875 -3.4% City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 157
Oak Street
Sewer
Assessment
In 2002 the City Council ordered the formation of the Oak Street Sewer Assessment Division for the purpose of funding the construction of municipal sewer main line lateral connections to specified homes within the District. This neighborhood sewer project was completed in 2004. Under its mission to eliminate public health and safety concerns, the former Clayton Redevelopment Agency (RDA) paid for half (50%) of the project and the adjacent real property owners agreed to annual parcel assessments for the balance of the capital project. This annual assessment is levied against specified private property parcel owners within the Oak Street Sewer Benefit Assessment District in order to repay construction-related financing. The Oak Street Sewer debt is repaid over twenty five (25) years with its ultimate maturity in FY 2027/28. This fund will continue to assess annual levies against covered parcels within the district until the underlying debt owed to the Successor Agency of the RDA is fulfilled. After incorporating any pre-payments by district members, the outstanding principal on the debt was $60,909 as of June 30, 2020.

Annual parcel assessments are projected to produce $11,977 in district revenue in FY 2022/23. Debt service payments for FY 2022/23 total $9,764 or 82% of the district’s proposed appropriations. The fund is projected to close FY 2022/23 with a modest reserve balance of $1,968.

Summary
The City of Clayton is projecting $11.98K of revenue in FY2023, which represents a 5.4% increase over the prior year. Budgeted expenditures are projected to increase by 0% or N/A to $11.26K in FY2023.

Actual Revenue Source
Budgeted Revenue Source
Actual Expenditures
Budgeted Expenditures
Over Budget Expenditures
FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023
$0
$2.5K
$5K
$7.5K
$10K
$12.5K
$15K
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 158
Revenues by Source
Budgeted and Historical 2023 Revenues by Source
Millions
Other Revenues
Interest
Charges for Services
FY2020
FY2021
FY2022
FY2023
$-0.0025
$0
$0.0025
$0.005
$0.0075
$0.01
$0.0125
$0.015
Revenue Source
Charges for Services
Oak Street Sewer Assessment $11,309 $11,309 $11,309 $11,927 5.5% Total Charges for Services: $11,309 $11,309 $11,309 $11,927 5.5% Interest
Interest $101 $50 $50 $50 0%
Total Interest: $101 $50 $50 $50 0%
Other Revenues
Unrealized Inv. Gain/Loss -$132 $0 $0 $0 N/A
Total Other Revenues: -$132 $0 $0 $0 N/A
Total Revenue Source: $11,278 $11,359 $11,359 $11,977 5.4% Name FY2021 Actuals FY2022 Amended FY2022 Projected FY2023 Budgeted FY2022 Amended vs. FY2023 Budgeted (% Change)
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 159
Expenditures by Expense Type
Budgeted Expenditures by Expense Type
Debt (86.7%)
Operating (13.3%)
Budgeted and Historical Expenditures by Expense Type
Millions
Operating
Debt
FY2020
FY2021
FY2022FY2023
$0
$0.0025
$0.005
$0.0075
$0.01
$0.0125
$0.015
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 160
Expense Objects
Operating
Property Tax Admin. Costs $259 $259 $259 $259 0%
Other Outside Services $2,674 $1,241 $1,241 $1,241 0%
Total Operating: $2,932 $1,500 $1,500 $1,500 0%
Debt
Principal $8,183 $8,182 $8,182 $8,182 0%
Interest Expense $1,827 $1,582 $1,582 $1,582 0%
Total Debt: $10,010 $9,764 $9,764 $9,764 0%
Total Expense Objects: $12,942 $11,264 $11,264 $11,264 0% Name FY2021 Actuals FY2022 Amended FY2022 Projected FY2023 Budgeted FY2022 Amended vs. FY2023 Budgeted (% Change)
Fund Balance
Fund Balance Projections
Assigned
FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023
$0
$500
$1K
$1.5K
$2K
$2.5K
FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 % Change
Fund Balance Audited Fund Balance Audited Fund Balance Projected Proposed Assigned $2,206 $542 $1,255 $1,968 56.8%
Total Fund Balance: $2,206 $542 $1,255 $1,968 56.8%
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 161
Diablo Estates
Benefit
Assessment
District
In 2012 at the request of the developer of the Diablo Estates subdivision, the City Council formed the Diablo Estates Benefit Assessment District. The purpose of the District is to generate funds for the maintenance of various improvements constructed as part of the development to solely benefit the real property owners within the district. The duties specified in the original Engineer’s Report included the maintenance of landscaping and irrigation, weed abatement, storm drainage facilities, and private street lighting, which are funded by an annual assessment levied against the twenty five (25) lot residential subdivision. The fund functions essentially as a depository account from which the City contracts with and pays for a property management company to actually perform and execute the subdivision maintenance and infrastructure repairs.

In FY 2022/23 the assessment revenue is projected to be approximately $93,712, the same as the current year. Total proposed appropriations of the district are $71,399 for FY 2022/23, of which the expense pertains to costs associated with a contracted property management services firm, estimated at $59,000. The fund is projected to close FY 2022/23 with a positive reserve balance of approximately $239,413, primarily retained for future infrastructure replacements in the District.

Summary
The City of Clayton is projecting $96,112 of revenue in FY2023, which represents a 0% increase over the prior year. Budgeted expenditures are projected to increase by 0.5% or $350 to $71,399 in FY2023.

Actual Revenue Source
Budgeted Revenue Source
Over Budget Revenue Source
Actual Expenditures
Budgeted Expenditures
Over Budget Expenditures
FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023
$0
$25K
$50K
$75K
$100K
$125K
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 162
Revenues by Source
Budgeted and Historical 2023 Revenues by Source
Millions
Other Revenues
Interest
Charges for Services
FY2020
FY2021FY2022
FY2023
$0
$0.1
$-0.025
$0.025
$0.05
$0.075
$0.125
Revenue Source
Charges for Services
Diablo Estates Fiduciary Fund
Assessment
$93,997 $93,712 $93,712 $93,712 0%
Total Charges for Services: $93,997 $93,712 $93,712 $93,712 0% Interest
Interest $1,649 $2,400 $2,366 $2,400 0%
Total Interest: $1,649 $2,400 $2,366 $2,400 0%
Other Revenues
Unrealized Inv. Gain/Loss -$1,675 $0 $0 $0 N/A
Total Other Revenues: -$1,675 $0 $0 $0 N/A
Total Revenue Source: $93,971 $96,112 $96,078 $96,112 0% Name FY2021
Actuals
FY2022
Amended
FY2022
Projected
FY2023
Budgeted
FY2022 Amended vs. FY2023
Budgeted (% Change)
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 163
Expenditures by Expense Type
Budgeted and Historical Expenditures by Expense Type
Millions
Operating
FY2020FY2021FY2022FY2023
$0
$0.02
$0.04
$0.06
$0.08
$0.1
Expense Objects
Operating
Gas & Electric Services $422 $300 $300 $650 116.7%
Water Services $4,163 $8,600 $8,600 $8,600 0%
Property Tax Admin. Costs $558 $270 $270 $270 0%
Legal Notices $0 $100 $100 $100 0%
Engineering/Inspection Service $7,490 $0 $0 $0 N/A
Other Professional Services $74,030 $59,390 $48,832 $59,390 0% Administrative Costs $0 $2,389 $2,389 $2,389 0%
Tree Trimming Services $4,200 $0 $0 $0 N/A
Total Operating: $90,863 $71,049 $60,491 $71,399 0.5%
Total Expense Objects: $90,863 $71,049 $60,491 $71,399 0.5% Name FY2021 Actuals FY2022 Amended FY2022 Projected FY2023 Budgeted FY2022 Amended vs. FY2023 Budgeted (% Change)
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 164
Fund Balance
Fund Balance Projections
Assigned
FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023
$0
$50K
$100K
$150K
$200K
$250K
$300K
FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 % Change
Fund Balance Audited Fund Balance Audited Fund Balance Projected Proposed Assigned $176,007 $179,114 $214,701 $239,413 11.5%
Total Fund Balance: $176,007 $179,114 $214,701 $239,413 11.5% City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 165
Clayton
Financing
Authority
On December 4, 1990, the City Council of Clayton, California adopted Resolution No.120-90, which created the Clayton Financing Authority (CFA) through a joint exercise of powers agreement. Consistent with most local financing authorities, the joint powers agreement established the City Council as the Board of Directors of the CFA. The CFA was initially established to allow redevelopment tax allocation bonds to be sold at a more favorable negotiation basis versus a public basis. The CFA is registered with the State of California Controller’s Office and is subject to the laws pertaining to special districts. As a legally separate public entity from the City, the CFA is required to file an Annual Report with the State of California in accordance with California Government Code Section 26909.

Arising from matters associated with the Oakhurst Development Project, the CFA held title to a one acre parcel located at the southwest corner of the Clayton RoadOakhurst Drive-Center Street intersection. In October 2006, the CFA sold the real property for
$800,815 to a commercial developer (Endashiian, Inc.), which ultimately led to the construction and opening of the former Longs Drug Store at this location (currently a CVS/Pharmacy). A small portion of these monies was used in the 2008 park renovations at Clayton Community Park for tot lot and picnic facility improvements.

In addition, during FY 2012/13, the CFA Board of Directors authorized the use of a portion of these discretionary funds to help finance the City’s 2013 Neighborhood Street Project (CIP No. 10417).

During FY 2017/18, the replacement of the city hall HVAC system became a top priority as three of the five condensing units had failed and were rendered inoperable.

This system failure resulted in a total cooling capacity of only 40% for the three-story building. Furthermore, the city hall boiler had completely failed eliminating all heating capacity of the HVAC unit essential for a productive office workplace. Acknowledging the importance of a functioning HVAC during the hot summer months and cold winter months for a productive office work environment, on July 18, 2017 the CFA Board authorized $170,126 of this project to be financed with CFA fund reserves. No appropriations have been made in since FY 2017/18. It is recommended, however, that an appropriation be made to support needed HVAC repair/replacement at the Clayton Community Library. this facility has some aging systems and currently they are in need of major repair. A total of $80,000 is recommended for this project.

City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 166
Summary
The City of Clayton is projecting $9.2K of revenue in FY2023, which represents a 0% increase over the prior year. Budgeted expenditures are projected to increase by $80,000 for needed repairs at Clayton Community Library in FY2023.

Actual Revenue Source
Budgeted Revenue Source
Over Budget Revenue Source
Budgeted Expenditures
FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023
$0
$20K
$40K
$60K
$80K
$100K
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 167
Revenues by Source
Budgeted and Historical 2023 Revenues by Source
Millions
Other Revenues
Interest
FY2020
FY2021
FY2022FY2023
$-0.01
$-0.005
$0
$0.005
$0.01
$0.015
$0.02
$0.025
Revenue Source
Interest
Interest $13,941 $9,200 $9,200 $9,200 0%
Total Interest: $13,941 $9,200 $9,200 $9,200 0%
Other Revenues
Unrealized Inv. Gain/Loss -$5,973 $0 $0 $0 N/A
Total Other Revenues: -$5,973 $0 $0 $0 0%
Total Revenue Source: $7,968 $9,200 $9,200 $9,200 0%
Name FY2021 Actuals FY2022 Amended FY2022 Projected FY2023 Budgeted FY2022 Amended vs. FY2023 Budgeted (% Change)
Expenditures by Fund
Expenditures by Function
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 168
Budgeted and Historical Expenditures by Function
Millions
City
FY2023
$0
$0.02
$0.04
$0.06
$0.08
$0.1
Expenditures
City $0 $0 $80,000 N/A
Total Expenditures: $0 $0 $80,000 N/A
Name FY2022 Amended FY2022 Projected FY2023 Budgeted FY2022 Amended vs. FY2023 Budgeted (% Change)
Expenditures by Expense Type
Expense Objects
Operating $0 $0 $80,000 N/A
Total Expense Objects: $0 $0 $80,000 N/A
Name FY2022 Amended FY2022 Projected FY2023 Budgeted FY2022 Amended vs. FY2023 Budgeted (% Change)
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 169
Fund Balance
Fund Balance Projections
Committed
FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023
$0
$100K
$200K
$300K
$400K
$500K
$600K
$700K
FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 % Change
Fund Balance Audited Fund Balance Audited Fund Balance Projected Proposed Committed $590,288 $598,256 $607,456 $536,656 -11.7%
Total Fund Balance: $590,288 $598,256 $607,456 $536,656 -11.7% City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 170
Middle School
CFD
As its name implies, this fund manages the annual collection of the real property Mello-Roos special parcel tax that helped finance the construction of the Diablo View Middle School, a 2017 California Gold Ribbon School. During FY 2007/08 the outstanding debt of the district was refunded to obtain a lower interest rate on the remaining principal (see Fund No. 422). The reduced interest rate savings achieved with the May 2007 refinancing are passed along to the rate payers over the remaining life of the bond. This was a City-initiated transaction which resulted in lower annual payments for the assessed real property owners of this district (Oakhurst Development properties). The savings vary by size of parcel; however, generally result in $300 to $500 in cumulative total savings from 2007/08 through 2022/23. The remainder of the budgeted expenses of the district covers required debt administration costs.

Summary
The City of Clayton is projecting $579.14K of revenue in FY2023, which represents a 48.4% increase over the prior year. Budgeted expenditures are projected to increase by 9.7% or $46.66K to $527.5K in FY2023.

Actual Revenue Source
Budgeted Revenue Source
Over Budget Revenue Source
Actual Expenditures
Budgeted Expenditures
FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023
$0
$200K
$400K
$600K
$800K
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 171
Revenues by Source
Budgeted and Historical 2023 Revenues by Source
Millions
Other Revenues
Interest
Charges for Services
FY2020FY2021
FY2022
FY2023
$-0.1
$0
$0.1
$0.2
$0.3
$0.4
$0.5
$0.6
$0.7
Revenue Source
Charges for Services
Middle School CFD 1990-1 Parcel Tax
Assessment
$383,465 $385,784 $385,784 $574,542 48.9%
Total Charges for Services: $383,465 $385,784 $385,784 $574,542 48.9% Interest
Interest $3,199 $4,600 $4,600 $4,600 0%
Total Interest: $3,199 $4,600 $4,600 $4,600 0%
Other Revenues
Unrealized Inv. Gain/Loss -$10,045 $0 $0 $0 N/A
Total Other Revenues: -$10,045 $0 $0 $0 N/A
Total Revenue Source: $376,619 $390,384 $390,384 $579,142 48.4% Name FY2021
Actuals
FY2022
Amended
FY2022
Projected
FY2023
Budgeted
FY2022 Amended vs.

FY2023 Budgeted (%
Change)
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 172
Expenditures by Expense Type
Budgeted Expenditures by Expense Type
Debt (92.5%)
Operating (7.5%)
Budgeted and Historical Expenditures by Expense Type
Millions
Operating
Debt
FY2020
FY2021
FY2022FY2023
$0
$0.1
$0.2
$0.3
$0.4
$0.5
$0.6
Expense Objects
Operating
Property Tax Admin. Costs $1,404 $1,404 $1,404 $1,404 0% Name FY2021 Actuals FY2022 Amended FY2022 Projected FY2023 Budgeted FY2022 Amended vs. FY2023 Budgeted (% Change)
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 173
Other Professional Services $10,642 $19,450 $19,450 $19,450 0% Other Outside Services $17,830 $18,510 $18,510 $18,510 0% Total Operating: $29,876 $39,364 $39,364 $39,364 0%
Debt
Principal $409,000 $434,000 $434,000 $470,000 8.3%
Interest Expense $0 $5,827 $5,827 $15,282 162.3%
Paying Agent Fee $787 $1,000 $1,000 $2,200 120%
CCC Property Tax $603 $650 $650 $650 0%
Total Debt: $410,390 $441,477 $441,477 $488,132 10.6%
Total Expense Objects: $440,266 $480,841 $480,841 $527,496 9.7% Name FY2021 Actuals FY2022 Amended FY2022 Projected FY2023 Budgeted FY2022 Amended vs. FY2023 Budgeted (% Change)
Fund Balance
Fund Balance Projections
Assigned
FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023
$0
$50K
$100K
$150K
$200K
$250K
$300K
FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 % Change
Fund Balance Audited Fund Balance Audited Fund Balance Projected Proposed Assigned $270,400 $134,668 $44,211 $95,857 116.8%
Total Fund Balance: $270,400 $134,668 $44,211 $95,857 116.8% City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 174
CFA 2007
Middle School
Refunding
Bonds
In 1997 the Clayton Financing Authority (CFA) issued $7.16 million in Special Tax Bonds to provide financing assistance in completing the construction of the Diablo View Middle School (see Fund No. 420). In May 2007 the CFA’s Board of Directors (City Council) determined it was financially advantageous to the Oakhurst Development real property owners for the CFA to refinance the outstanding debt to achieve savings in annual debt payments. Upon its issuance the refunding action captured a savings of $600,000 to the Middle School Community Facilities District 1990 - 1 (CFD 1990-1) saving individual property taxpayers approximately $20 - $51 per year. Bond interest rates fell from the range of 5.25% - 5.90% down to 3.5% - 4.2%.

As the CFA is the owner of the 1997 local obligations, the 2007 Refunding Bonds are ultimately secured by the annual Mello-Roos special parcel tax levy from the Middle School Benefit Assessment District (CFD 1990-1) and the corresponding annual payment on the 1997 local obligations.

Summary
The City of Clayton is projecting $470.8K of revenue in FY2023, which represents a % increase over the prior year. Budgeted expenditures are projected to increase by % or $991.03K to $1.02M in FY2023.

Actual Revenue Source
Budgeted Revenue Source
Actual Expenditures
Budgeted Expenditures
Over Budget Expenditures
FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023
$-250000
$0
$250K
$500K
$750K
$1M
$1.25M
Revenues by Source
Revenue Source
Interest
Interest -$6,360 $800 $800 $800 0%
Total Interest: -$6,360 $800 $800 $800 0%
Other Revenues
Principal Payment $0 $0 $434,000 $470,000 N/A
Unrealized Inv. Gain/Loss $1,151 $0 $0 $0 N/A
Reimbursements/Refunds (CFD 1990-
1)
$0 $9,550 $9,550 $0 -100%
Name FY2021
Actuals
FY2022
Amended
FY2022 Projected FY2023 Budgeted FY2022 Amended vs. FY2023 Budgeted (% Change)
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 175
Interest on Loans/Bonds $0 $8,000 $8,000 $0 -100%
Total Other Revenues: $1,151 $17,550 $451,550 $470,000 2,578.1% Total Revenue Source: -$5,209 $18,350 $452,350 $470,800 2,465.7% Name FY2021
Actuals
FY2022
Amended
FY2022 Projected FY2023 Budgeted FY2022 Amended vs. FY2023 Budgeted (% Change)
Expenditures by Expense Type
Budgeted and Historical Expenditures by Expense Type
Millions
Operating
Debt
FY2020FY2021FY2022FY2023
$0
$1
$0.25
$0.5
$0.75
$1.25
Expense Objects
Operating
Other Professional Services $3,228 $7,050 $7,050 $7,050 0% Total Operating: $3,228 $7,050 $7,050 $7,050 0%
Debt
Principal $0 $0 $0 $1,002,276 N/A
Interest Expense $107,711 $19,965 $19,965 $8,663 -56.6% Paying Agent Fee $2,541 $2,541 $2,541 $2,600 2.3%
Total Debt: $110,252 $22,506 $22,506 $1,013,538 4,403.4% Total Expense Objects: $113,479 $29,556 $29,556 $1,020,588 3,353.1% Name FY2021 Actuals FY2022 Amended FY2022 Projected FY2023 Budgeted FY2022 Amended vs. FY2023 Budgeted (% Change)
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 176
Fund Balance
Fund Balance Projections
Unassigned Restricted
FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023
$0
$100K
$200K
$300K
$400K
$500K
$600K
$700K
FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 % Change
Fund Balance Audited Fund Balance Audited Fund Balance Projected Proposed Unassigned $155,111 $0 $0 $0 0%
Restricted $355,111 $550,953 $578,747 $28,959 -95%
Total Fund Balance: $510,222 $550,953 $578,747 $28,959 -95% City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 177
Redevelopment
Successor
Agency
On June 28, 2011 the California State Legislature adopted two pieces of legislation – AB 1X 26 and AB 1X 27 (the Bill) – which eliminated redevelopment agencies (RDAs) and provided cities with the opportunity to preserve one’s RDA if they agreed to make certain payments to the County Auditor-Controller’s Office (ACO). On behalf of cities and redevelopment agencies throughout the State, the League of California Cities and California Redevelopment Association requested a stay on the implementation of both pieces of legislation and filed a lawsuit with the California Supreme Court challenging both pieces of legislation. The stay was rejected and on December 29, 2011, the Supreme Court validated AB 1X 26 and overturned AB 1X 27. Further, the Supreme Court indicated that all RDAs in the State of California were to be dissolved and cease operations as a legal entity as of February 1, 2012. On January 11, 2012, the City Council elected to become the Successor Agency to the former RDA in accordance with AB IX 26 as part of City Resolution 03-2012. As a result of the restrictions placed on the assets and liabilities of the former RDA, the balances were transferred to a private purpose trust fund (Fund No. 615) on February 1, 2012.

Under the new law, successor agencies in the State of California are prohibited from entering into new projects, obligations, or commitments. Subject to the control of a newly established Oversight Board, remaining assets can only be used to pay enforceable obligations in existence at the date of dissolution. Commencing FY 2011/12, Successor Agencies are only allocated tax increment revenue in an amount necessary to finance the estimated annual installment payments on enforceable obligations of the former RDA until all such enforceable obligations have been paid in full and all assets have been liquidated. On an annual basis, in accordance with the law, the Successor Agency prepares a Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS) outlining all of the funding requirements for upcoming fiscal year. The ROPS must be approved by the County-Wide Oversight Board via Resolution and thereafter be immediately submitted to the California Department of Finance (DOF) for review and approval. After a scrutinizing review by the DOF and its subsequent approval, funding for the obligations on the ROPS is received from the ACO in January and June each year. In FY 2015/16, following the DOF’s approval of the All Other Funds Due Diligence Review pursuant to AB 1484, the DOF ordered the Successor Agency to first use any existing cash reserves before receiving additional ROPS funding for enforceable obligations. Pursuant to this action, the Successor Agency has and will continue to use remaining bond proceeds for the payment of interest on the 2014 Refunding Tax Allocation Bonds (2014 TABs) and trustee fees.

For FY 2022/23, the Successor Agency anticipates total expenses of $595,961 of which 67% pertains to annual debt service on the 2014 TABs.

Through the ROPS process described previously, it is projected the Successor Agency will receive Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund (RPTTF) revenues totaling $573,797 in FY 2022/23. At the close of FY 2022/23, it is expected the Successor Agency will close with a positive reserve balance of approximately $497,436, which is nearly entirely restricted to ROPS obligations in the six month ROPS cycle ending December 31, 2023 (ROPS 2023-24A cycle). This positive reserve balance results from the timing of payments, as the first of two annual ROPS payments is received in June of each year, immediately prior to the fiscal year for which funds are restricted.

Summary
The City of Clayton is projecting $564.08K of revenue in FY2023, which represents a 15.4% decrease over the prior year. Budgeted expenditures are projected to increase by 110.8% or $313.28K to $595.96K in FY2023.

City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 178
Actual Revenue Source
Budgeted Revenue Source
Over Budget Revenue Source
Actual Expenditures
Budgeted Expenditures
FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023
$0
$250K
$500K
$750K
$1M
Revenues by Source
Budgeted and Historical 2023 Revenues by Source
Millions
Other Revenues
Interest
Taxes
FY2020
FY2021
FY2022
FY2023
$-0.2
$0
$0.2
$0.4
$0.6
$0.8
$1
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 179
Revenue Source
Taxes
Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund -
Distribution
$646,816 $653,536 $618,000 $560,579 -14.2%
Total Taxes: $646,816 $653,536 $618,000 $560,579 -14.2% Interest
Interest $2,368 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 0%
Total Interest: $2,368 $2,000 $2,000 $2,000 0%
Other Revenues
Unrealized Inv. Gain/Loss -$11,676 $0 $0 $0 N/A
Other Revenues-RDA Successor Agency $1,827 $11,218 $1,500 $1,500 -86.6% Total Other Revenues: -$9,849 $11,218 $1,500 $1,500 -86.6% Total Revenue Source: $639,336 $666,754 $621,500 $564,079 -15.4% Name FY2021
Actuals
FY2022
Amended
FY2022
Projected
FY2023
Budgeted
FY2022 Amended vs.

FY2023 Budgeted (%
Change)
Expenditures by Expense Type
Budgeted Expenditures by Expense Type
Debt (67.1%)
Operating (32.9%)
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 180
Budgeted and Historical Expenditures by Expense Type
Millions
Operating
Debt
FY2020FY2021FY2022
FY2023
$0
$0.1
$0.2
$0.3
$0.4
$0.5
$0.6
$0.7
Expense Objects
Operating
Administrative Costs $250,864 $250,000 $250,000 $196,338 -21.5% Total Operating: $250,864 $250,000 $250,000 $196,338 -21.5% Debt
2014 Refunding Bonds $0 $0 $360,000 $375,000 N/A
Interest Expense $38,302 $30,476 $30,476 $22,023 -27.7% Paying Agent Fee $0 $2,200 $2,200 $2,600 18.2%
Total Debt: $38,302 $32,676 $392,676 $399,623 1,123%
Total Expense Objects: $289,166 $282,676 $642,676 $595,961 110.8% Name FY2021 Actuals FY2022 Amended FY2022 Projected FY2023 Budgeted FY2022 Amended vs. FY2023 Budgeted (% Change)
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 181
Fund Balance
Fund Balance Projections
Assigned
FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023
$0
$200K
$400K
$600K
$800K
FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 % Change
Fund Balance Audited Fund Balance Audited Fund Balance Projected Proposed Assigned $758,475 $550,494 $529,318 $497,436 -6%
Total Fund Balance: $758,475 $550,494 $529,318 $497,436 -6% City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 182
Capital
Improvements
Fund
This fund is used to track and monitor funds spent for capital improvement projects. It reflects "revenue" as transfers from other funds and expenses via the individual capital projects. See Capital Improvement Section for more information.

Summary
The City of Clayton is projecting $1,026,179 of revenue/transfers in FY2023. Budgeted expenditures are projected at $1,314,497 in FY2023, including spending of some prior year project funds.

Actual Revenue Source
Budgeted Revenue Source
Actual Expenditures
Budgeted Expenditures
FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023
$0
$500K
$1M
$1.5M
$2M
$2.5M
Revenues by Source
Projected 2023 Revenues by Source
Capital Grants and Contributions (66.8%)
Admin Support Transfers (33.2%)
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 183
Budgeted and Historical 2023 Revenues by Source
Millions
Operating Grants and Contributions
Interest
Other Revenues
Admin Support Transfers
Capital Grants and Contributions
FY2020
FY2021
FY2023
$0
$0.2
$0.4
$0.6
$-0.2
$0.8
Revenue Source
CalRecycle Grant -$16,389 $0 $0 $0 N/A
Interest $32,759 $0 $3,823 $0 N/A
Unrealized Inv. Gain/Loss -$17,838 $0 $0 $0 N/A
Trx. From Measure J Fund $0 $0 $417,178 $0 N/A
Trx. From CIP Fund $2,767 $0 $37,912 $0 N/A
Trx. From HUTA Gas Tax Fund $27,173 $0 $630,549 $58,000 N/A Transfer from RMRA Gas Tax Fund $0 $0 $584,883 $143,000 N/A Transfer from Rainy Day Fund $330,000 $0 $0 $0 N/A
Measure J Grant $0 $0 $0 $92,000 N/A
Federal Grant - Local Streets & Roads
Shortfall
-$10,785 $0 $0 $180,000 N/A
Project Revenue $0 $0 $0 $48,000 N/A
Transfer from Grant Fund $0 $0 $0 $85,000 N/A
Intergovernmental Capital Contributions
(Sewer)
$27,375 $0 $0 $0 N/A
Total Revenue Source: $375,062 $0 $1,674,345 $606,000 N/A Name FY2021
Actuals
FY2022
Amended
FY2022
Projected
FY2023
Budgeted
FY2022 Amended vs. FY2023
Budgeted (% Change)
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 184
Expenditures by Expense Type
Budgeted and Historical Expenditures by Expense Type
Millions
Salaries
Transfers
Capital
FY2020
FY2021
FY2023
$0
$0.25
$0.5
$0.75
$1
$1.25
$1.5
Expense Objects
Capital
Project Expenses $2,628 $0 $2,707 $0 N/A
Project Costs-Planning/Design $51,944 $0 $45,460 $161,800 N/A Project Costs-Construction/Execution $49,398 $0 $614,400 $1,090,487 N/A Project Costs-Monitoring/Inspections $190 $0 $0 $110,210 N/A Project Costs-Close-out/Punch List $6,756 $0 $0 $0 N/A
Total Capital: $110,916 $0 $662,568 $1,362,497 N/A
Transfers
Transfer to CIP Fund $2,767 $0 $37,912 $0 N/A
Total Transfers: $2,767 $0 $37,912 $0 N/A
Total Expense Objects: $113,683 $0 $700,480 $1,362,497 N/A Name FY2021 Actuals FY2022 Amended FY2022 Projected FY2023 Budgeted FY2022 Amended vs. FY2023 Budgeted (% Change)
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 185
Fund Balance
Fund Balance Projections
Assigned
FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023
$0
$500K
$1M
$1.5M
$2M
$2.5M
$3M
$3.5M
FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 % Change
Fund Balance Audited Fund Balance Audited Fund Balance Projected Proposed Assigned $1,663,367 $1,924,746 $2,898,611 $2,610,293 -9.9% Total Fund Balance: $1,663,367 $1,924,746 $2,898,611 $2,610,293 -9.9% City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 186

DEPARTMENTS
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 187
Legislative Department - 01
The five-member City Council is the elected policy-making body for the City of Clayton. Members of the City Council are elected to four-year overlapping terms at General Municipal elections held in November of even-numbered years. The City Council receives a monthly stipend of $470 for their services. The Mayor and Vice-Mayor are selected annually by the Council from amongst its membership in December of each year.

Services funded:

Hold regular, twice monthly City Council meetings on Tuesday evenings, and special meetings on an as-needed basis; includes closed sessions as permitted by law.

Set policy goals and objectives for all City service functions.

Members serve on various ad-hoc subcommittees and inter-governmental boards to represent the community on critical local and regional issues.

Appoint citizens to City boards and commissions, and advisory committees including:

The Trails and Landscape Committee (TLC)
Budget and Audit Committee
Planning Commission
Coordinate, attend and participate in community events such as the 4th of July.

Parade and the Concerts in The Grove Park.

Video City Council meetings for playback on the City Cable Channel 24 for public viewing.

General Municipal Election costs and expenses every even-numbered year through contract with the County Elections Office.

Hires the City Manager and the City Attorney, and appoints the City Treasurer.

Expenditures Summary
$96,621
$33,150
(52.23% vs. prior year)
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 188
Legislative Proposed and Historical Budget vs. Actual
Actual Budgeted
FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023
0 100k
25k
50k
75k
125k
Expenditures by Expense Type
Budgeted Expenditures by Expense Type
Operating (65.8%)
Salaries (29.2%)
Benefififits (5%)
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 189
Budgeted and Historical Expenditures by Expense Type
Millions
Benefits
Salaries
Operating
FY2020FY2021FY2022FY2023
$0
$0.02
$0.04
$0.06
$0.08
$0.1
$0.12
Expense Objects
Salaries
Council/Commission Compensatio $28,200 $28,200 $28,634 $28,200 0% Total Salaries: $28,200 $28,200 $28,634 $28,200 0%
Benefits
PERS Retirement-Normal Cost $251 $0 $0 $0 N/A
PERS Retirement - Unfunded Liability $2,767 $0 $0 $0 N/A Workers' Compensation $1,093 $956 $1,582 $956 0%
Unemployment Compensation $0 $1,748 $1,748 $1,748 0%
FICA Taxes $2,012 $2,157 $2,157 $2,157 0%
Total Benefits: $6,123 $4,861 $5,487 $4,861 0%
Operating
Printing and Binding $0 $300 $0 $500 66.7%
Dues and Subscriptions $11,351 $13,660 $13,000 $13,660 0% City Promotional Activity $5,646 $4,500 $4,500 $4,500 0% Business Meeting Expense $0 $250 $904 $500 100%
Conferences/Meetings $1,500 $1,700 $0 $2,000 17.6%
Education & Training $0 $0 $600 $5,000 N/A
Election Services $332 $0 $0 $20,000 N/A
Other Professional Services -$230 $10,000 $4,000 $17,400 74% Total Operating: $18,599 $30,410 $23,004 $63,560 109%
Total Expense Objects: $52,921 $63,471 $57,125 $96,621 52.2% Name FY2021 Actuals FY2022 Amended FY2022 Projected FY2023 Budgeted FY2022 Amended vs. FY2023 Budgeted (% Change)
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 190
Goal #1
Collaborate to create a structurally sustainable budget including long range planning and management of the long term liabilities.

Goal #2
Concentrate on supporting City Staff - fostering dedicated people who want to be here long term and feel valued. Partnering with City staff to help them get the needed tools to do their work in the 21st Century - using technology to create efficiencies Citywide and ultimately make the best use of taxpayers' dollars.

Goal #3
Develop and submit a compliant housing element by January 2023.

City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 191
Admin/Finance/Legal - Department 02
Department Description
City Manager
The City Manager functions as the chief executive officer of the municipal organization responsible for managing all departments of the City and carrying out City Council-adopted policy. The department is comprised of three (3) full-time professional staff members: City Manager, Assistant to the City Manager and HR Manager/City Clerk.

Services funded:

Provide leadership to professional staff and municipal employees.

Advise and recommend policies to the City Council; receive and implement policy directions from the City Council.

Act as lead negotiator for real property transactions and labor negotiations.

Oversee the day to day operations of the City.

Respond to general public inquiries.

Research and analysis of municipal issues and special projects as assigned.

Oversee and negotiate various franchise agreements.

Prepare and distribute agenda packets and minutes.

Administer contracts, coordinate staffing, and prepare administrative forms and permits for the City’s large community and special events.

Manage consultant contracts and lease agreements.

Maintain and update the City’s website.

Coordinate all human resource functions responsible for recruitment, employee benefits, risk management, OSHA compliance, and workers’ compensation administration.

Oversee a citywide training plan for OSHA compliance and safety program.

Research and respond to inquiries by citizens and press in compliance with the Public Records Act.

Contract with Contra Costa County for municipal elections.

Process general liability and workers’ compensation claims filed against the City.

Provide notary services.

Coordinate the self-insured risk management tasks of the organization.

City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 192
Finance
The City’s Finance Department has one full-time professional Finance Director and utilizes two permanent part-time employees, one part-time accounting technician and one administrative assistant/code enforcement officer. The department is responsible for the City’s budgetary, financial/accounting, treasury/investment, business licenses, and facilities rental functions. The Department also includes the appointed City Treasurer (citizen), who provides auditing and investment oversight.

Services funded:

Preparation and monitoring of the annual budget.

Preparation of an annually audited comprehensive annual financial report for the City and the Clayton Financing Authority.

Manage general ledger and budgetary financial records.

Manage investments in accordance with City investment policy and the California Government Code.

Maintaining compliance with the State of California, Contra Costa County and other regulatory agency financial reporting requirements.

Management and preparation of Successor Agency Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS) process.

Administer and maintain records for the following operational cycles: payroll, accounts payable and recievables, employee benefits, cash receipts and disbursements.

Administer business licenses.

Manage rental of City-owned facilities and parks (Endeavor Hall, Library Meeting Room, Clayton Community Park, The Grove Park).

City Attorney
The City Attorney is selected and appointed by the City Council. Although this is the primary department the contracted City Attorney conducts work in, retainer time is also charged to other City departments where time is spent.

Services funded:

Attend City Council meetings as the City’s legal counsel.

Draft and Review ordinances, resolutions, contracts, and other legal documents.

Provide legal opinions and advise on matters of interest or concern to the City Council and City Staff.

Advise on land use issues.

Oversee litigation involving the City.

Assist the Council and staff in limiting litigation exposure and containing liability costs.

Advise the City on changes to and impacts of state and federal laws, and case laws.

City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 193
Expenditures Summary
$1,109,133
$53,145
(5.03% vs. prior year)
Admin/Finance/Legal Proposed and Historical Budget vs. Actual Actual Budgeted Over Budget
FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023
0 1,000k
250k
500k
750k
1,250k
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 194
Expenditures by Expense Type
Budgeted Expenditures by Expense Type
Salaries (57.3%) Benefififits (27.2%)
Operating (15.5%)
Budgeted and Historical Expenditures by Expense Type
Millions
Operating
Benefits
Salaries
FY2020
FY2021
FY2022FY2023
$0
$1
$0.25
$0.5
$0.75
$1.25
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 195
Expense Objects
Salaries
Regular Salaries $589,797 $622,698 $621,784 $635,808 2.1% Total Salaries: $589,797 $622,698 $621,784 $635,808 2.1% Benefits
Long/Short Term Disability Insurance $5,376 $5,191 $4,674 $6,255 20.5% Deferred Compensation Retirement $2,585 $4,800 $6,462 $9,600 100% PERS Retirement-Normal Cost $60,762 $60,278 $54,763 $62,775 4.1% PERS Retirement - Unfunded Liability $58,664 $77,368 $74,794 $78,415 1.4% Workers' Compensation $23,205 $21,107 $19,103 $27,354 29.6% Unemployment Compensation $0 $2,604 $2,604 $867 -66.7%
FICA Taxes $14,752 $9,029 $9,272 $9,252 2.5%
Auto Allowance/Mileage $8,755 $9,540 $8,940 $8,940 -6.3% Benefit Insurance $90,336 $88,388 $88,388 $98,327 11.2% Total Benefits: $264,437 $278,305 $269,000 $301,785 8.4% Operating
Dues and Subscriptions $454 $2,278 $2,720 $2,800 22.9%
Telecommunications $6,774 $6,860 $6,900 $7,460 8.7%
Travel $0 $100 $0 $100 0%
Conferences/Meetings $654 $1,225 $2,680 $1,250 2%
Education & Training $387 $6,500 $0 $5,000 -23.1%
Misc. Expense $0 $0 $300 $500 N/A
Legal Services Retainer $81,197 $73,332 $85,557 $76,999 5% Legal Services $14,352 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 0%
Audit & Financial Reporting Services $29,262 $39,350 $36,772 $40,531 3% Computer/IT Services $0 $0 $7,649 $7,600 N/A
Other Professional Services $17,651 $19,340 $52,900 $23,300 20.5% Bank Service Charge $30 $0 $0 $0 N/A
Total Operating: $150,762 $154,985 $201,478 $171,539 10.7% Total Expense Objects: $1,004,996 $1,055,988 $1,092,262 $1,109,133 5% Name FY2021 Actuals FY2022 Amended FY2022 Projected FY2023 Budgeted FY2022 Amended vs. FY2023 Budgeted (% Change)
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 196
Public Works - Department 03
This department maintains city-owned buildings and grounds, and provides maintenance for all non-special district facilities and land. The core employee unit of six (6) permanent employees consists of one Maintenance Supervisor, one Senior Maintenance Worker and four Maintenance Workers. Labor is augmented by temporary seasonal workers. Although the General Fund’s Public Works department serves as the “base” department for these maintenance employees, their direct labor costs are shared with two other departments of the General Fund as well as five other restricted-use special purposes funds based on actual hours worked.

Services funded:

Provide routine building and grounds maintenance.

Provide landscaping maintenance for all neighborhood parks in the City including:

Lydia Lane
The Grove Park
North Valley Park
Westwood
Stranahan
El Molino
Dog Park
Tree trimming services (contract supervision).

Ensure fire inspection compliance.

HVAC system repairs (contract supervision).

Ensure compliance with elevator safety and inspection services.

Pest extermination services (contract supervision).

Janitorial services (contract supervision).

City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 197
Expenditures Summary
$219,718
$18,256
(9.06% vs. prior year)
Public Works Proposed and Historical Budget vs. Actual
Actual Budgeted Over Budget
FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023
0 50k
100k
150k
200k
250k
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 198
Expenditures by Expense Type
Budgeted Expenditures by Expense Type
Operating (75.6%)
Salaries (15%)
Benefififits (9.4%)
Budgeted and Historical Expenditures by Expense Type
Millions
Benefits
Salaries
Operating
FY2020
FY2021
FY2022FY2023
$0
$0.05
$0.1
$0.15
$0.2
$0.25
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 199
Expense Objects
Salaries
Regular Salaries $20,253 $27,738 $32,026 15.5%
Temporary Salaries $663 $1,122 $0 -100%
Overtime $830 $1,000 $1,030 3%
Total Salaries: $21,747 $29,860 $33,056 10.7%
Benefits
Long/Short Term Disability Insurance $197 $240 $1,126 369.2% PERS Retirement-Normal Cost $1,799 $2,563 $2,745 7.1%
PERS Retirement - Unfunded Liability $926 $3,446 $2,914 -15.4% Workers' Compensation $1,312 $1,053 $1,370 30.1%
Unemployment Compensation $0 $340 $71 -79.2%
FICA Taxes $106 $503 $1,957 289.1%
Benefit Insurance $3,792 $5,018 $10,425 107.7%
Total Benefits: $8,132 $13,163 $20,607 56.6%
Operating
Recruitment/Pre-employment $190 $500 $500 0%
General Supplies $6,635 $10,000 $7,500 -25%
Dues and Subscriptions $0 $0 $139 N/A
Telecommunications $5,107 $4,915 $4,010 -18.4%
Gas & Electricity $47,346 $47,000 $51,700 10%
Water Services $15,711 $20,000 $21,000 5%
Buildings/Grounds Maintenance $7,736 $15,250 $19,433 27.4% Machinery/Equipment Maintenanc $7,011 $1,750 $1,750 0%
Vehicle Maintenance $785 $1,500 $1,500 0%
Vehicles: Gas, Oil & Supplies $973 $1,100 $1,100 0%
HVAC Mtn & Repairs $31,874 $12,000 $12,360 3%
Education & Training $675 $2,000 $2,000 0%
Legal Services Retainer $88 $1,164 $1,222 5%
Janitorial Service $13,331 $12,500 $13,900 11.2%
Animal/Pest Control Services $1,956 $2,760 $1,700 -38.4% Contract Seasonal Labor $488 $3,000 $3,090 3%
Tree Trimming Services $4,995 $5,000 $5,150 3%
Dog Park Operating Costs $0 $8,000 $8,000 0%
CERF Charges $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 0%
Total Operating: $154,902 $158,439 $166,054 4.8%
Total Expense Objects: $184,780 $201,462 $219,718 9.1%
Name FY2021 Actuals FY2022 Amended FY2023 Budgeted FY2022 Amended vs. FY2023 Budgeted (% Change)
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 200
Community Development - Department 04
The Community Development Department is responsible for the general administration, development processing, zoning administration, architectural review, subdivision processing, Municipal Code and Zoning enforcement, General Plan administration, environmental review, housing, and special planning studies for the City, including associated staff support for the City Council and the Planning Commission. The Department provides guidance on the physical development of the City while protecting and maintaining the quality of its physical environment. The Department facilitates public participation and community involvement in planning issues. The Department consistently seeks to enhance the community's safety, welfare, economic opportunities and quality of life through land use controls. It consists of a Community Development Director, a part-time Assistant Planner and a part-time Code Enforcement Officer (this position is split with the Finance Department).

Services funded:

Long Range Planning and Special Studies Program including:

Prepare and update Town Center Specific Plan.

Prepare and update the Marsh Creek Road Specific Plan.

Prepare the state-mandated General Plan which includes the Housing Element.

Prepare studies to update the Cities policies in response to changes in California state law, resource availability, and community goals.

Facilitate public participation and community involvement in planning issues.

Participate in development and review of regional studies prepared by ABAG, Contra Costa Transportation Authority, and TRANSPAC.

Support the City Council and City Manager in addressing regional governance and planning issues.

Development and Design Review Program
Review, analyze, and provide recommendations on land development and design proposals by private property owners and governmental agencies.

Provide support to City Council, Planning Commission, and City Manager.

Reviews land development plans for compliance with City zoning requirements.

Coordinate and oversee contract with Contra Costa County Building Inspection Department.

Department on building permits for construction projects.

Administer environmental review process in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA).

Ordinance Information and Code Enforcement Program
Provide zoning information and permit services at the City Hall public counter.

Investigate and enforce zoning and land use complaints.

Prepare amendments of zoning ordinance and zoning map.

Housing Program
Administer the low-and moderate-income housing programs of the City.

Ensure low-and moderate-income units remain available to qualified applicants upon sale of units.

Lead update to the City’s Housing Element.

City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 201
Expenditures Summary
The primary changes in cost for the Community Development Department reflect updated labor costs as well as the increase from 60% to 80% funding for the Assistant Planner position.
$381,717
$38,301
(11.15% vs. prior year)
Community Development Proposed and Historical Budget vs. Actual Actual Budgeted
FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023
0 100k
200k
300k
400k
500k
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 202
Expenditures by Expense Type
Budgeted Expenditures by Expense Type
Salaries (60.6%)
Benefififits (28.4%)
Operating (11%)
Budgeted and Historical Expenditures by Expense Type
Millions
Operating
Benefits
Salaries
FY2020FY2021
FY2022FY2023
$0
$0.1
$0.2
$0.3
$0.4
$0.5
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 203
Expense Objects
Salaries
Regular Salaries $184,689 $199,274 $185,587 $223,947 12.4% Council/Commission Compensatio $6,960 $7,200 $4,440 $7,200 0% Total Salaries: $191,649 $206,474 $190,027 $231,147 11.9% Benefits
Long/Short Term Disability Insurance $1,258 $1,728 $1,245 $2,074 20% PERS Retirement-Normal Cost $16,760 $21,554 $17,817 $21,210 -1.6% PERS Retirement - Unfunded Liability $19,568 $24,759 $23,935 $26,406 6.7% Workers' Compensation $7,800 $6,755 $6,114 $8,914 32%
Unemployment Compensation $0 $868 $868 $353 -59.4%
FICA Taxes $2,008 $2,889 $2,411 $3,015 4.4%
Auto Allowance/Mileage $3,185 $4,140 $3,397 $4,140 0%
Benefit Insurance $26,819 $37,619 $26,691 $42,314 12.5% Total Benefits: $77,397 $100,312 $82,478 $108,426 8.1%
Operating
Books/Periodicals $0 $200 $200 $200 0%
Dues and Subscriptions $0 $950 $1,800 $1,800 89.5%
Telecommunications $705 $700 $674 $700 0%
Travel $3,000 $500 $0 $500 0%
Conferences/Meetings $0 $1,500 $652 $1,500 0%
Education & Training $1,099 $2,000 $0 $2,000 0%
Recording Fees $0 $500 $0 $4,000 700%
Legal Notices $841 $2,000 $1,200 $2,000 0%
Legal Services Retainer $9,179 $23,280 $14,000 $24,444 5% Legal Services $333 $5,000 $14,000 $5,000 0%
Other Professional Services $6,019 $0 $0 $0 N/A
Total Operating: $21,175 $36,630 $32,526 $42,144 15.1%
Total Expense Objects: $290,222 $343,416 $305,031 $381,717 11.2% Name FY2021 Actuals FY2022 Amended FY2022 Projected FY2023 Budgeted FY2022 Amended vs. FY2023 Budgeted (% Change)
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 204
General Services - Department 05
This department functions as the internal support service fund for expenses which aid the efficient and effective operation of the City organization. It has no assigned employees or revenue-generating capabilities.

Services funded:

City-wide risk management (Clayton is one of the original members of the Municipal Pooling Authority of Northern California [MPA] Joint Powers Authority [JPA] for self-insured and risk pooled programs of general liability, workers' compensation, and employee wellness).

Copier and postage machine services.

Office supplies for administration and general City functions.

Information technology support for all departments as needed.

Property tax administration fees (levied by Contra Costa County).

Payroll and benefits administration software functions.

Internet services for all departments.

Provides funding for Other Post-Employment Benefits (OPEB) required of the City through contract with CalPERS medical insurance coverage.

Expenditures Summary
$298,885
$46,288
(18.32% vs. prior year)
General Services Proposed and Historical Budget vs. Actual Actual Budgeted Over Budget
FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023
0 50k
100k
150k
200k
250k
300k
350k
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 205
Expenditures by Expense Type
Budgeted Expenditures by Expense Type
Operating (94.3%)
Benefififits (5.7%)
Budgeted and Historical Expenditures by Expense Type
Millions
Benefits
Operating
FY2020
FY2021
FY2022FY2023
$0
$0.05
$0.1
$0.15
$0.2
$0.25
$0.3
$0.35
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 206
Expense Objects
Benefits
Unemployment Compensation $7,856 $0 $0 $0 0%
OPEB Contributions (Health Plan) $15,228 $15,100 $15,768 $17,000 12.6% Total Benefits: $23,084 $15,100 $15,768 $17,000 12.6%
Operating
Recruitment/Pre-employment $460 $30,000 $21,183 $5,000 -83.3% Office Supplies/Expense $3,373 $8,000 $9,473 $8,000 0%
Postage $2,392 $4,500 $3,500 $4,500 0%
Printing and Binding $1,002 $1,500 $1,000 $1,500 0%
Rentals/Leases $17,780 $16,438 $19,700 $17,591 7%
Telecommunications $4,633 $5,000 $5,000 $4,700 -6%
Insurance Premiums $127,359 $145,349 $150,946 $199,172 37% Employee Recognition $578 $1,500 $1,415 $1,500 0%
Property Tax Admin. Costs $9,023 $9,300 $8,735 $9,319 0.2% Janitorial Service -$2,500 $0 $0 $0 N/A
Other Professional Services $15,355 $10,800 $22,869 $13,954 29.2% Merchant Fees $6,353 $5,110 $13,710 $16,649 225.8%
Total Operating: $185,808 $237,497 $257,531 $281,885 18.7% Total Expense Objects: $208,891 $252,597 $273,299 $298,885 18.3% Name FY2021 Actuals FY2022 Amended FY2022 Projected FY2023 Budgeted FY2022 Amended vs. FY2023 Budgeted (% Change)
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 207
Police Department - 06
The Clayton Police Department has a present authorized strength of 11 full-time sworn members ( including the Chief), two civilians as well as volunteers in police services (“VIPS”), community emergency response team (“CERT”), and cadet programs. The Department is a generalist law enforcement agency with duties that include all aspects of local law enforcement. Sworn positions currently work on a 4-10/3-12 plan and may be assigned to specialized assignments such as field training officer, traffic accident investigator, bicycle patrol, and motorcycle patrol. The Department’s employees take pride in their jobs and the community they serve and strive to perform their duties in a professional but sensitive, friendly, and positive manner. It subscribes to a community- oriented policing philosophy.

Services funded:

Provide traffic enforcement and collision investigation throughout the City and the trail system.

Investigate crimes and submit to the District Attorney for prosecution.

Represent the City in meetings with community groups, civic organizations, and inter-agencies concerned with law enforcement problems and policies.

Event services for various City-sponsored events, such as the 4th of July Parade, Concerts in The Grove, and many community-sponsored events such as the Clayton Art and Wine and Oktoberfest.

Facilitate the VIPS and CERT programs to serve the community.

Participation in the East Bay Regional Interoperability Communications system.

Oversee contracted animal control services through Contra Costa County.

Oversee contracted police dispatch services and police records management through the City of Concord.

Expenditures Summary
$2,738,617
$49,582
(1.84% vs. prior year)
Police Proposed and Historical Budget vs. Actual
Actual Budgeted
FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023
0 500k
1,000k
1,500k
2,000k
2,500k
3,000k
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 208
Expenditures by Expense Type
Budgeted Expenditures by Expense Type
Salaries (49.5%)
Benefififits (25.5%)
Operating (25%)
Budgeted and Historical Expenditures by Expense Type
Millions
Operating
Benefits
Salaries
FY2020
FY2021
FY2022FY2023
$0
$0.5
$1
$1.5
$2
$2.5
$3
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 209
Expense Objects
Salaries
Regular Salaries $1,026,721 $1,205,892 $1,161,000 $1,250,688 3.7% Overtime $131,663 $100,000 $194,662 $100,000 0%
Part-time Salaries $0 $6,125 $2,526 $6,125 0%
Total Salaries: $1,158,385 $1,312,017 $1,358,188 $1,356,813 3.4% Benefits
Long/Short Term Disability Insurance $7,538 $10,455 $9,171 $11,381 8.9% Deferred Compensation Retirement $2,700 $2,700 $2,326 $2,700 0% PERS Retirement-Normal Cost $152,410 $176,439 $155,348 $158,116 -10.4% PERS Retirement - Unfunded Liability $199,180 $243,966 $235,850 $289,629 18.7% Workers' Compensation $44,163 $41,082 $37,224 $48,948 19.1% Unemployment Compensation $0 $5,588 $5,588 $1,808 -67.6% FICA Taxes $17,296 $19,404 $19,404 $16,555 -14.7%
Auto Allowance/Mileage $4,800 $4,800 $4,135 $4,800 0%
Uniform Allowance $9,000 $9,000 $11,400 $12,000 33.3%
Benefit Insurance $162,120 $168,962 $152,043 $152,054 -10% Total Benefits: $599,208 $682,396 $632,489 $697,990 2.3% Operating
Recruitment/Pre-employment $4,436 $5,000 $14,000 $5,150 3% General Supplies $8,558 $17,000 $29,885 $17,000 0%
Office Supplies/Expense $3,873 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 0%
Postage $274 $100 $500 $500 400%
Printing and Binding $0 $0 $253 $100 N/A
Books/Periodicals $384 $400 $400 $250 -37.5%
Dues and Subscriptions $11,242 $10,200 $11,500 $10,506 3% EBRCSA System Subscription $10,077 $10,800 $10,620 $11,000 1.9% Radio Lease - Txfr f/ Rainy Day $0 $0 $0 $33,525 N/A
Telecommunications $15,220 $20,000 $15,000 $15,000 -25% Machinery/Equipment Maintenanc $605 $2,000 $2,000 $500 -75% Vehicle Maintenance $22,046 $30,000 $16,500 $30,000 0%
Vehicles: Gas, Oil & Supplies $30,071 $40,000 $40,000 $41,200 3% Office Equip-Maint/Repairs $2,018 $3,200 $3,200 $3,200 0% Business Meeting Expense $0 $200 $1,000 $206 3%
Employee Recognition $0 $200 $200 $206 3%
Education & Training $10,381 $15,000 $10,000 $10,000 -33.3% Crossing guard services -$1,813 $28,000 $28,457 $29,400 5% Legal Services Retainer $8,723 $11,640 $9,920 $12,222 5% Legal Services $15,957 $5,000 $10,235 $5,000 0%
Janitorial Service $4,082 $3,000 $3,000 $3,090 3%
Other Professional Services $7,482 $4,000 $2,570 $1,600 -60% Dispatch Services $293,027 $307,755 $307,755 $323,143 5% Name FY2021 Actuals FY2022 Amended FY2022 Projected FY2023 Budgeted FY2022 Amended vs. FY2023 Budgeted (% Change)
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 210
Crime Lab $5,658 $10,000 $15,256 $14,000 40%
Jail Booking Fee $0 $5,500 $5,500 $0 -100%
CAL ID $13,290 $13,000 $13,000 $13,000 0%
Animal/Pest Control Services $76,264 $75,627 $76,978 $89,807 18.7% Integrated Justice System $11,173 $12,000 $8,770 $9,209 -23.3% CERF Charges $43,694 $60,000 $60,000 $0 -100%
Total Operating: $596,720 $694,622 $701,499 $683,814 -1.6% Total Expense Objects: $2,354,313 $2,689,035 $2,692,176 $2,738,617 1.8% Name FY2021 Actuals FY2022 Amended FY2022 Projected FY2023 Budgeted FY2022 Amended vs. FY2023 Budgeted (% Change)
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 211
Library - Department 07
The operation of the Clayton Community Library was the original model for other cities and is looked to as the example of County-City partnerships. While staffing of the Library is run by the Contra Costa County Library System, the City owns and maintains the building and grounds surrounding the Library at City expense. Beginning in FY 2021/22, the County will be providing 40 base hours of library service. This is an increase from their prior 35 hours of base library service.

Services funded:

General maintenance of library facilities and parking lot.

Ensure fire inspection compliance of library facility.

HVAC system repairs (contract supervision).

Pest extermination services (contract supervision).

Tree trimming services (contract supervision).

Janitorial services (contract supervision).

Expenditures Summary
$131,104
$3,923
(3.08% vs. prior year)
Library Proposed and Historical Budget vs. Actual
Actual Budgeted
FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023
0 25k
50k
75k
100k
125k
150k
175k
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 212
Expenditures by Expense Type
Budgeted Expenditures by Expense Type
Operating (89.9%)
Salaries (6.1%)
Benefififits (4%)
Budgeted and Historical Expenditures by Expense Type
Millions
Benefits
Salaries
Operating
FY2020
FY2021
FY2022FY2023
$0
$0.025
$0.05
$0.075
$0.1
$0.125
$0.15
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 213
Expense Objects
Salaries
Regular Salaries $1,698 $7,925 $4,500 $8,007 1%
Total Salaries: $1,698 $7,925 $4,500 $8,007 1%
Benefits
Long/Short Term Disability Insurance $22 $69 $50 $80 16.1% PERS Retirement-Normal Cost $160 $732 $250 $750 2.5%
PERS Retirement - Unfunded Liability $182 $985 $373 $975 -1% Workers' Compensation $296 $269 $243 $342 27.3%
Unemployment Compensation $0 $52 $52 $18 -66.1%
FICA Taxes $29 $115 $55 $118 3%
Benefit Insurance $252 $1,434 $548 $2,943 105.3%
Total Benefits: $941 $3,656 $1,571 $5,227 43%
Operating
Telecommunications $2,398 $2,500 $3,600 $2,700 8%
Gas & Electricity $56,434 $58,000 $58,000 $63,800 10%
Water Services $2,339 $2,300 $2,600 $2,415 5%
Buildings/Grounds Maintenance $9,196 $14,300 $14,160 $10,150 -29% Vehicle Maintenance $58 $500 $310 $450 -10%
Vehicles: Gas, Oil & Supplies $84 $500 $328 $500 0%
HVAC Mtn & Repairs $3,537 $8,500 $8,500 $8,755 3%
Janitorial Service $7,278 $20,000 $23,120 $23,394 17%
Library Additional Hours $11,344 $0 $0 $0 N/A
Animal/Pest Control Services $1,572 $2,000 $1,694 $1,846 -7.7% Contract Seasonal Labor $0 $2,000 $1,500 $2,060 3%
Tree Trimming Services $1,995 $5,000 $5,000 $1,800 -64% Total Operating: $96,234 $115,600 $118,812 $117,870 2%
Total Expense Objects: $98,873 $127,181 $124,883 $131,104 3.1% Name FY2021 Actuals FY2022 Amended FY2022 Projected FY2023 Budgeted FY2022 Amended vs. FY2023 Budgeted (% Change)
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 214
Engineering
The Department's duties can be divided into three basic categories: administrative, capital improvements, and land development. The City contracts with Anchor CM for the performance of these services as the City Engineer.

Services funded:

Administrative
Administer the City's encroachment permit program as well as the Geological Hazard Abatement District and various special Assessment Districts.

Coordinate with the Maintenance Department regarding maintenance, operations and the repair of public transportation facilities (e.g. streets & sidewalks).

Enforcement and continuous update of the City's Standard Plans and Specifications for design and construction.

Represent the City's interests in regional transportation and funding issues.

Response to flood zone information requests.

Serve as the City Engineer.

Capital Improvements
Administer the City's Capital Improvements Program, including coordination with the City Manager; evaluation and prioritization of Capital Improvement Projects; procurement of funds; right-of-way and land acquisition; and administration of the public bidding process.
·Administer the City's Pavement Management System.

Supervision of the design and construction of all street and infrastructure projects, including sanitary sewer and storm drainage systems, local roads and traffic lights.

Land Development
Coordinate with the Planning Department in the review and approval process for all land development projects.

Plan check and review of construction plans, collection of fees, and construction inspection for all private development and improvements thereto.

City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 215
Expenditures Summary
$167,148
$29,313
(21.27% vs. prior year)
Engineering Proposed and Historical Budget vs. Actual
Actual Budgeted Over Budget
FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023
0 50k
100k
150k
200k
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 216
Expenditures by Expense Type
Budgeted and Historical Expenditures by Expense Type
Millions
Operating
FY2020FY2021FY2022FY2023
$0
$0.05
$0.1
$0.15
$0.2
Expense Objects
Operating
Dues and Subscriptions $3,319 $3,300 $3,300 $3,300 0%
Professional Engineering Services $123,369 $127,051 $150,000 $156,000 22.8% Legal Services Retainer $13,822 $6,984 $13,000 $7,333 5% Engineering Inspection Service $0 $500 $500 $515 3%
Legal Services $899 $0 $0 $0 N/A
Other Professional Services $4,793 $0 $0 $0 N/A
Total Operating: $146,203 $137,835 $166,800 $167,148 21.3% Total Expense Objects: $146,203 $137,835 $166,800 $167,148 21.3% Name FY2021 Actuals FY2022 Amended FY2022 Projected FY2023 Budgeted FY2022 Amended vs. FY2023 Budgeted (% Change)
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 217
Clayton Community Park
In 2009, the Clayton Community Park was separated into its own department in order to capture the actual costs of maintaining this well loved multi-sport and recreational public park.

Services funded:

Mowing of the turf.

Ball field turf and sports field grooming.

Water irrigation supply to ball fields and surrounding vegetation Safety inspections of play equipment and apparatus.

Trash removal and general park clean-up.

Landscape pruning.

Janitorial services contract supervision.

Repairs to and maintenance of the irrigation system.

Pest extermination services contract supervision.

Tree trimming services contract supervision.

All other general maintenance of park fields and facilities.

Expenditures Summary
$277,492
-$29,008
(-9.46% vs. prior year)
Clayton Community Park Proposed and Historical Budget vs. Actual Actual Budgeted
FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023
0 50k
100k
150k
200k
250k
300k
350k
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 218
Expenditures by Expense Type
Budgeted Expenditures by Expense Type
Operating (67.6%)
Salaries (21%)
Benefififits (11.5%)
Budgeted and Historical Expenditures by Expense Type
Millions
Benefits
Salaries
Operating
FY2020
FY2021
FY2022FY2023
$0
$0.05
$0.1
$0.15
$0.2
$0.25
$0.3
$0.35
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 219
Expense Objects
Salaries
Regular Salaries $56,804 $55,477 $40,000 $52,042 -6.2%
Temporary Salaries $3,137 $3,978 $1,500 $4,097 3%
Overtime $882 $2,000 $1,600 $2,060 3%
Total Salaries: $60,822 $61,455 $43,100 $58,200 -5.3%
Benefits
Long/Short Term Disability Insurance $552 $481 $481 $519 7.9% PERS Retirement-Normal Cost $5,096 $5,125 $3,464 $4,620 -9.8% PERS Retirement - Unfunded Liability $5,802 $6,893 $5,384 $5,343 -22.5% Workers' Compensation $2,521 $2,229 $2,017 $2,226 -0.1% Unemployment Compensation $0 $923 $982 $115 -87.6%
FICA Taxes $1,249 $1,138 $582 $1,172 3%
Benefit Insurance $9,299 $10,036 $9,515 $17,783 77.2%
Total Benefits: $24,519 $26,825 $22,425 $31,778 18.5%
Operating
Irrigation Supplies and Materials $4,303 $5,000 $3,000 $5,150 3% General Supplies $3,814 $9,300 $3,000 $9,579 3%
Gas & Electricity $2,241 $2,100 $2,800 $3,080 46.7%
Water Services $32,177 $134,700 $100,000 $110,000 -18.3% Buildings/Grounds Maintenance $12,080 $10,500 $10,000 $10,000 -4.8% Machinery/Equipment Maintenanc $0 $5,000 $1,500 $5,000 0% Vehicle Maintenance $1,978 $2,500 $4,500 $3,800 52%
Vehicles: Gas, Oil & Supplies $2,718 $3,500 $3,000 $3,605 3% Janitorial Service $10,258 $13,600 $13,200 $13,200 -2.9% Animal/Pest Control Services $5,228 $9,020 $9,900 $740 -91.8% Contract Seasonal Labor $6,017 $11,000 $8,000 $11,000 0% Tree Trimming Services $7,995 $12,000 $12,000 $12,360 3% Total Operating: $88,808 $218,220 $170,900 $187,514 -14.1% Total Expense Objects: $174,148 $306,500 $236,425 $277,492 -9.5% Name FY2021 Actuals FY2022 Amended FY2022 Projected FY2023 Budgeted FY2022 Amended vs. FY2023 Budgeted (% Change)
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 220

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 221
Capital Improvements: One-year Plan
Total Capital Requested
$1,362,497
7 Capital Improvement Projects
Total Funding Requested by Source
TOTAL $431,000.00
RMRA Gas Taxes - Fund #202 (33%) $143,000.00
Restricted Grants - Fund #230 (46%) $200,000.00
HUTA Gas Taxes - Fund #201 (2%) $8,000.00
Measure J Grant (17%) $72,000.00
Unfunded (2%) $8,000.00
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 222
Engineering Requests
Itemized Requests for 2023
2023 Clayton Neighborhood Pavement Rehab Project $343,000 ADA Transition Compliance Program $6,000
Downtown Pedestrian Improvement $72,000
Local Roadway Safety Plan $10,000
2022 Neighborhood Street Repave Project $833,497
School Intersection Safety $50,000
North Valley Playground Rehabilitation $48,000
Total: $1,362,497
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 223
Capital Improvements: Multi-year Plan
Total Capital Requested
$2,212,747
8 Capital Improvement Projects
Total Funding Requested by Department
Engineering
2023
2024
2025
2026
$1,362,497.00
$838,250.00
$6,000.00
$6,000.00
$0 $400K $800K $1.2M
Total Funding Requested by Source
RMRA Gas Taxes - Fund #202 Restricted Grants - Fund #230 HUTA Gas Taxes - Fund #201 Measure J Grant
Unfunded
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
$431,000.00
$838,250.00
$6,000.00
$6,000.00
$6,000.00
$0 $250K $500K $750K
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 224
Capital Costs Breakdown
Capital Costs
2023
2024
2025
2026
$1,362,497.00
$838,250.00
$6,000.00
$6,000.00
$0 $400K $800K $1.2M
Engineering Requests
Itemized Requests for 2023-2027
2023 Clayton Neighborhood Pavement Rehab Project $955,250 ADA Transition Compliance Program $24,000
Downtown Pedestrian Improvement $252,000
Local Roadway Safety Plan $50,000
2022 Neighborhood Street Repave Project $833,497
School Intersection Safety $50,000
North Valley Playground Rehabilitation $48,000
Total: $2,212,747
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 225

APPENDIX
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 226

ENGINEERING REQUESTS
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 227
This requests information is generated from , Proposed Version. 2023 Clayton Neighborhood Pavement Rehab Project
Overview
Submitted By Jason Chen, Deputy City Engineer
Request Owner Jason Chen, Deputy City Engineer
Est. Start Date 07/01/2021
Est. Completion Date 12/31/2023
Department Engineering
Type Capital Improvement
Description
On Mountaire Parkway from Marsh Creek Rd to Mountaire Circle; On Mitchell Canyon Rd from Clayton Rd to Herriman Ct; On Regency Dr from El Molino Dr to Weatherly Dr; On Capistrano Ct; On Caulfield Ct; On Mt. Dell Dr. from Mt. Washington Way to End; On Mount Vernon Drive from Mt. Edna Dr to End; On Fleming Drive; On Pinot Ct; on Bigelow St: Pavement Maintenance and restoration including replacing pavement markings. Maintenance or rehabilitation may include seal coat(s), AC overlay with ancillary work including pavement grinding, full depth asphalt repairs, adjusting utility frames and grates and replacing pavement markings as needed.

Images
Paving Operation
Details
Type of Project Transportation/Drainage
Location
Benefit to Community
Road way pavement rehabilitation work is necessary to prevent the pavement condition to fall into the "Poor" condition rating. Research has shown it would cost more to repair a roadway that deteriorated to the point where major rehabilitation or reconstruction is necessary.

City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 228
Capital Cost Breakdown
Capital Cost To Date FY2023 FY2024
Planning/Design $40,000 $105,000 $20,000
Construction $215,000 $492,250
Construction Engineering $23,000 $100,000
Total $40,000 $343,000 $612,250
Capital Cost
Total To Date
$40,000
FY2023 Budget
$343,000
Total Budget (all years)
$955.25K
Capital Cost by Year (Proposed)
Planning/Design Construction
Construction Engineering
2023
2024
$343,000.00
$612,250.00
$0 $150K $300K $450K $600K
Capital Cost for Budgeted Years (Proposed)
TOTAL $955,250.00
Planning/Design (13%) $125,000.00
Construction (74%) $707,250.00
Construction Engineering (13%) $123,000.00
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 229
Funding Sources Breakdown
Funding Sources To Date FY2023 FY2024
RMRA Gas Taxes - Fund #202 $40,000 $143,000 $107,071
Restricted Grants - Fund #230 $200,000 $505,179
Total $40,000 $343,000 $612,250
Funding Sources
Total To Date
$40,000
FY2023 Budget
$343,000
Total Budget (all years)
$955.25K
Funding Sources by Year (Proposed)
RMRA Gas Taxes - Fund #202 Restricted Grants - Fund #230 2023
2024
$343,000.00
$612,250.00
$0 $150K $300K $450K $600K
Funding Sources for Budgeted Years (Proposed)
TOTAL $955,250.00
RMRA Gas Taxes - Fund #202 (26%)$250,071.0
Restricted Grants - Fund #230 (74%)$705,179.0
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 230
This requests information is generated from , Proposed Version.

ADA Transition Compliance Program
Overview
Submitted By Jason Chen, Deputy City Engineer
Request Owner Jason Chen, Deputy City Engineer
Est. Start Date 07/01/2021
Est. Completion Date 06/30/2026
Department Engineering
Type Capital Improvement
Project Number 10394A
Description
This is an ongoing program which removes barriers to accessibility in the public right of way by replacing curbs with curb ramps at crosswalks and other public roadway locations and upgrading curb ramps to current standards. The annual funding is $6,000. The City may elect to combine funds from multiple years to proceed with larger projects for economics of scale in project costs.

Images
Cub Ramp
Details
Type of Project Transportation/Drainage
Benefit to Community
This program will remove barriers to accessibility in the right of way.

City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 231
Capital Cost Breakdown
Capital Cost To Date FY2023 FY2024 FY2025 FY2026
Planning/Design $9,310 $800 $800 $800 $800
Construction $48,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000
Construction Engineering $200 $200 $200 $200
Total $57,310 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000
Capital Cost
Total To Date
$57,310
FY2023 Budget
$6,000
Total Budget (all years)
$24K
Capital Cost by Year (Proposed)
Planning/Design Construction
Construction Engineering
2023
2024
2025
2026
$6,000.00
$6,000.00
$6,000.00
$6,000.00
$0 $1.5K $3K $4.5K $6K
Capital Cost for Budgeted Years (Proposed)
TOTAL $24,000.00
Planning/Design (13%) $3,200.00
Construction (83%) $20,000.00
Construction Engineering (3%) $800.00
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 232
Funding Sources Breakdown
Funding Sources To Date FY2023 FY2024 FY2025 FY2026 FY2027 HUTA Gas Taxes - Fund #201 $42,000 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 Interest $1,327
Total $43,327 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000 $6,000
Funding Sources
Total To Date
$43,327
FY2023 Budget
$6,000
Total Budget (all years)
$30K
Funding Sources by Year (Proposed)
HUTA Gas Taxes - Fund #201
2023
2024
2025
2026
2027
$6,000.00
$6,000.00
$6,000.00
$6,000.00
$6,000.00
$0 $1.5K $3K $4.5K $6K
Funding Sources for Budgeted Years (Proposed)
TOTAL $30,000.00
HUTA Gas Taxes - Fund #201 (100%)$30,000.00
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 233
This requests information is generated from , Proposed Version.

Pine Hollow Road Upgrade
Overview
Submitted By Jason Chen, Deputy City Engineer
Request Owner Jason Chen, Deputy City Engineer
Department Engineering
Type Capital Improvement
Project Number 10379
Description
Improve Pine Hollow Road as a complete street including pedestrian and bicycle facilities and green street drainage along Pine Hollow Road from the City limit to Mt Diablo Elementary School. This project is currently at the feasibility study stage. This is a joint project with the City of Concord. The full project limit from Pine Hollow Rd/Alberta Way from Clayton Valley Charter High School to Mt Diablo Elementary School.

Images
Pine Hollow Road Section
Details
Type of Project None
Location
Benefit to Community
The proposed improvements will enhance bicycle and pedestrian safety, auto circulation, trail connectivity, and residential and school access.

City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 234
This requests information is generated from , Proposed Version.

Downtown Pedestrian Improvement
Overview
Submitted By Jason Chen, Deputy City Engineer
Request Owner Jason Chen, Deputy City Engineer
Est. Start Date 07/01/2022
Est. Completion Date 12/31/2023
Department Engineering
Type Capital Improvement
Project Number 10450
Description
This project is comprised of three elements:

Raised and lighted crosswalk system to be located on Oak Street in the east/west direction at Center Street An additional raised and lighted crosswalk system to be located on Center Street in the north/south direction at Oak Street A tabletop or raised intersection at Marsh Creek Road and Main Street Images
Map showing the improvements
Details
Type of Project Transportation/Drainage
Location
Benefit to Community
This project is to improve pedestrian safety in the Town Center of Clayton.

City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 235
Capital Cost Breakdown
Capital Cost FY2023 FY2024
Planning/Design $36,000
Construction $30,000 $150,000
Construction Engineering $6,000 $30,000
Total $72,000 $180,000
Capital Cost
FY2023 Budget
$72,000
Total Budget (all years)
$252K
Capital Cost by Year (Proposed)
Planning/Design Construction
Construction Engineering
2023
2024
$72,000.00
$180,000.00
$0 $50K $100K $150K
Capital Cost for Budgeted Years (Proposed)
TOTAL $252,000.00
Planning/Design (14%) $36,000.00
Construction (71%) $180,000.00
Construction Engineering (14%) $36,000.00
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 236
Funding Sources Breakdown
Funding Sources FY2023 FY2024
Measure J Grant $72,000 $180,000
Total $72,000 $180,000
Funding Sources
FY2023 Budget
$72,000
Total Budget (all years)
$252K
Funding Sources by Year (Proposed)
Measure J Grant
2023
2024
$72,000.00
$180,000.00
$0 $50K $100K $150K
Funding Sources for Budgeted Years (Proposed)
TOTAL $252,000.00
Measure J Grant (100%) $252,000.00
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 237
This requests information is generated from , Proposed Version.

Local Roadway Safety Plan
Overview
Submitted By Jason Chen, Deputy City Engineer
Request Owner Jason Chen, Deputy City Engineer
Est. Start Date 01/01/2023
Est. Completion Date 12/31/2023
Department Engineering
Type Capital Improvement
Description
The process of preparing a Local Roadway Safety Plan (LRSP) creates a framework to systematically identify and analyze safety problems and recommend safety improvements. The City will be seeking a grant opportunity that will fund the development of this grant.

Images
Local Roadway Safety Plan
Details
Type of Project Transportation/Drainage
Benefit to Community
Preparing an LRSP facilitates the development of local agency partnerships and collaboration, resulting in a prioritized list of improvements and actions that can demonstrate defined needs. More and more grants are transitioning to requiring the City to have a LRSP before the City can apply for those grants. An adopted LRSP will allow the City to apply to those grants.

City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 238
Capital Cost Breakdown
Capital Cost FY2023 FY2024
Planning/Design $10,000 $40,000
Total $10,000 $40,000
Capital Cost
FY2023 Budget
$10,000
Total Budget (all years)
$50K
Capital Cost by Year (Proposed)
Planning/Design
2023
2024
$10,000.00
$40,000.00
$0 $10K $20K $30K $40K
Capital Cost for Budgeted Years (Proposed)
TOTAL $50,000.00
Planning/Design (100%) $50,000.00
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 239
Funding Sources Breakdown
Funding Sources FY2023 FY2024
HUTA Gas Taxes - Fund #201 $2,000 $8,000
Unfunded $8,000 $32,000
Total $10,000 $40,000
Funding Sources
FY2023 Budget
$10,000
Total Budget (all years)
$50K
Funding Sources by Year (Proposed)
HUTA Gas Taxes - Fund #201 Unfunded
2023
2024
$10,000.00
$40,000.00
$0 $10K $20K $30K $40K
Funding Sources for Budgeted Years (Proposed)
TOTAL $50,000.00
HUTA Gas Taxes - Fund #201 (20%)$10,000.00
Unfunded (80%) $40,000.00
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 240
This requests information is generated from , Proposed Version. 2022 Neighborhood Street Repave Project
Overview
Submitted By Jason Chen, Deputy City Engineer
Request Owner Jason Chen, Deputy City Engineer
Est. Start Date 06/01/2020
Est. Completion Date 12/31/2022
Department Engineering
Type Capital Improvement
Project Number 10449
Description
Perform pavement rehabilitation to elevate neighborhood streets to a Pavement Condition Index (PCI) of 80 or greater (where PCI score of 100 is equivalent to a brand-new street). The street consists of El Molino, Mitchell Canyon, Kenston Dr, Kenston Ct, Newman Ct, Tiffin Dr, Rolen Ct, Chardonnay Cir, Peacock Creek, and Pebble Beach Dr.

Images
Paving Operation
Details
Type of Project Transportation/Drainage
Location
Benefit to Community
Road way pavement rehabilitation work is necessary to prevent the pavement condition to fall into the "Poor" condition rating. Research has shown it would cost more to repair a roadway that deteriorated to the point where major rehabilitation or reconstruction is necessary.

City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 241
Capital Cost Breakdown
Capital Cost To Date FY2023
Planning/Design $74,300
Construction $737,287
Construction Engineering $24,050 $96,210
Total $98,350 $833,497
Capital Cost
Total To Date
$98,350
FY2023 Budget
$833,497
Total Budget (all years)
$833.497K
Capital Cost by Year (Proposed)
Construction Construction Engineering
2023 $833,497.00
$0 $250K $500K $750K
Capital Cost for Budgeted Years (Proposed)
TOTAL $833,497.00
Construction (88%) $737,287.00
Construction Engineering (12%) $96,210.00
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 242
Funding Sources Breakdown
Funding Sources To Date FY2023
RMRA Gas Taxes - Fund #202 $584,880 $0
Measure J Fund - Fund #220 $346,967 $0
Total $931,847 $0
Funding Sources
Total To Date
$931,847
FY2023 Budget
$0
Total Budget (all years)
$0.45
Funding Sources by Year (Proposed)
Measure J Fund - Fund #220
2023 $.5
$0 $0.12 $0.24 $0.36
Funding Sources for Budgeted Years (Proposed)
TOTAL $.5
Measure J Fund - Fund #220 (100%) $.5
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 243
This requests information is generated from , Proposed Version.

School Intersection Safety
Overview
Submitted By Reina Schwartz, City Manager
Request Owner Reina Schwartz, City Manager
Est. Start Date 07/01/2020
Est. Completion Date 06/30/2023
Department Engineering
Type Capital Improvement
Project Number 10448
Description
Various school intersection safety projects.

Details
Type of Project Transportation/Drainage
Benefit to Community
Improved school safety.

City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 244
Capital Cost Breakdown
Capital Cost To Date FY2023
Construction Engineering $70,211 $50,000
Total $70,211 $50,000
Capital Cost
Total To Date
$70,211
FY2023 Budget
$50,000
Total Budget (all years)
$50K
Capital Cost by Year (Proposed)
Construction Engineering
2023 $50,000.00
$0 $12K $24K $36K $48K
Capital Cost for Budgeted Years (Proposed)
TOTAL $50,000.00
Construction Engineering (100%) $50,000.00
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 245
Funding Sources Breakdown
Funding Sources To Date FY2023
HUTA Gas Taxes - Fund #201 $50,000
Measure J Fund - Fund #220 $70,211
Total $70,211 $50,000
Funding Sources
Total To Date
$70,211
FY2023 Budget
$50,000
Total Budget (all years)
$50K
Funding Sources by Year (Proposed)
HUTA Gas Taxes - Fund #201
2023 $50,000.00
$0 $12K $24K $36K $48K
Funding Sources for Budgeted Years (Proposed)
TOTAL $50,000.00
HUTA Gas Taxes - Fund #201 (100%)$50,000.00
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 246
This requests information is generated from , Proposed Version.

North Valley Playground Rehabilitation
Overview
Submitted By Jason Chen, Deputy City Engineer
Request Owner Jason Chen, Deputy City Engineer
Est. Start Date 03/01/2018
Est. Completion Date 12/31/2023
Department Engineering
Type Capital Improvement
Project Number CIP10442
Description
Install new playground equipment, shade structure, and play surface. The majority of the project has been completed. The remaining item is to construct an ADA drop off area.

Images
North Valley Playground Structure
Details
Type of Project New Construction
Location
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 247
Capital Cost Breakdown
Capital Cost To Date FY2023
Planning and Design $850 $10,000
Construction/Maintenance $174,021 $30,000
Construction Management $8,000
Total $174,871 $48,000
Capital Cost
Total To Date
$174,871
FY2023 Budget
$48,000
Total Budget (all years)
$48K
Capital Cost by Year (Proposed)
Planning and Design Construction/Maintenance
Construction Management
2023 $48,000.00
$0 $12K $24K $36K $48K
Capital Cost for Budgeted Years (Proposed)
TOTAL $48,000.00
Planning and Design (21%) $10,000.00
Construction/Maintenance (63%) $30,000.00
Construction Management (17%) $8,000.00
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 248
Funding Sources Breakdown
Funding Sources To Date FY2023
Development Impact Fees - Fund #304 $94,000 $48,000
Deposits Fund $50,000
Interest $32,053
Total $176,053 $48,000
Funding Sources
Total To Date
$176,053
FY2023 Budget
$48,000
Total Budget (all years)
$48K
Funding Sources by Year (Proposed)
Development Impact Fees - F…
2023 $48,000.00
$0 $12K $24K $36K $48K
Funding Sources for Budgeted Years (Proposed)
TOTAL $48,000.00
Development Impact Fees - Fund #304 (100%
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 249
Glossary
Abatement: A reduction or elimination of a real or personal property tax, motor vehicle excise, a fee, charge, or special assessment imposed by a governmental unit. Granted only on application of the person seeking the abatement and only by the committing governmental unit.

Accounting System: The total structure of records and procedures that identify record, classify, and report information on the financial position and operations of a governmental unit or any of its funds, account groups, and organizational components.

Accrued Interest: The amount of interest that has accumulated on the debt since the date of the last interest payment, and on the sale of a bond, the amount accrued up to but not including the date of delivery (settlement date). (See Interest) Amortization: The gradual repayment of an obligation over time and in accordance with a predetermined payment schedule.

Appropriation: A legal authorization from the community's legislative body to expend money and incur obligations for specific public purposes.

An appropriation is usually limited in amount and as to the time period within which it may be expended.

Arbitrage: As applied to municipal debt, the investment of tax-exempt bonds or note proceeds in higher yielding, taxable securities. Section 103 of the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Code restricts this practice and requires (beyond certain limits) that earnings be rebated (paid) to the IRS.

Assessed Valuation: A value assigned to real estate or other property by a government as the basis for levying taxes.

Audit: An examination of a community's financial systems, procedures, and data by a certified public accountant (independent auditor), and a report on the fairness of financial statements and on local compliance with statutes and regulations. The audit serves as a valuable management tool in evaluating the fiscal performance of a community.

Audit Report: Prepared by an independent auditor, an audit report includes: (a) a statement of the scope of the audit; (b) explanatory comments as to application of auditing procedures; (c) findings and opinions. It is almost always accompanied by a management letter which contains supplementary comments and recommendations.

Available Funds: Balances in the various fund types that represent non-recurring revenue sources. As a matter of sound practice, they are frequently appropriated to meet unforeseen expenses, for capital expenditures or other one-time costs.

Balance Sheet: A statement that discloses the assets, liabilities, reserves and equities of a fund or governmental unit at a specified date.

Betterments (Special Assessments): Whenever a specific area of a community receives benefit from a public improvement (e.g., water, sewer, sidewalk, etc.), special property taxes may be assessed to reimburse the governmental entity for all or part of the costs it incurred. Each parcel receiving benefit from the improvement is assessed for its proportionate share of the cost of such improvements. The proportionate share may be paid in full or the property owner may request that the assessors apportion the betterment over 20 years. Over the life of the betterment, one year’s apportionment along with one year’s committed interest computed from October 1 to October 1 is added to the tax bill until the betterment has been paid.

Bond: A means to raise money through the issuance of debt. A bond issuer/borrower promises in writing to repay a specified sum of money, alternately referred to as face value, par value or bond principal, to the buyer of the bond on a specified future date (maturity date), together with periodic interest at a specified rate. The term of a bond is always greater than one year. (See Note) Bond and Interest Record: (Bond Register) – The permanent and complete record maintained by a treasurer for each bond issue. It shows the amount of interest and principal coming due each date and all other pertinent information concerning the bond issue.

Bonds Authorized and Unissued: Balance of a bond authorization not yet sold. Upon completion or abandonment of a project, any remaining balance of authorized and unissued bonds may not be used for other purposes, but must be rescinded by the community's legislative body to be removed from community's books.

Bond Issue: Generally, the sale of a certain number of bonds at one time by a governmental unit.

Bond Rating (Municipal): A credit rating assigned to a municipality to help investors assess the future ability, legal obligation, and willingness of the municipality (bond issuer) to make timely debt service payments. Stated otherwise, a rating helps prospective investors determine the level of risk associated with a given fixed-income investment. Rating agencies, such as Moody's and Standard and Poors, use rating systems, which designate a letter or a combination of letters and numerals where AAA is the highest rating and C1 is a very low rating.

Budget: A plan for allocating resources to support particular services, purposes and functions over a specified period of time. (See Performance Budget, Program Budget)
City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 250
Capital Assets: All real and tangible property used in the operation of government, which is not easily converted into cash, and has an initial useful live extending beyond a single financial reporting period. Capital assets include land and land improvements; infrastructure such as roads, bridges, water and sewer lines; easements; buildings and building improvements; vehicles, machinery and equipment. Communities typically define capital assets in terms of a minimum useful life and a minimum initial cost. (See Fixed Assets) Capital Budget: An appropriation or spending plan that uses borrowing or direct outlay for capital or fixed asset improvements. Among other information, a capital budget should identify the method of financing each recommended expenditure, i.e., tax levy or rates, and identify those items that were not recommended. (See Capital Assets, Fixed Assets) Cash: Currency, coin, checks, postal and express money orders and bankers’ drafts on hand or on deposit with an official or agent designated as custodian of cash and bank deposits.

Cash Management: The process of monitoring the ebb and flow of money in an out of municipal accounts to ensure cash availability to pay bills and to facilitate decisions on the need for short- term borrowing and investment of idle cash.

Certificate of Deposit (CD): A bank deposit evidenced by a negotiable or non-negotiable instrument, which provides on its face that the amount of such deposit plus a specified interest payable to a bearer or to any specified person on a certain specified date, at the expiration of a certain specified time, or upon notice in writing.

Classification of Real Property: Assessors are required to classify all real property according to use into one of four classes: residential, open space, commercial, and industrial. Having classified its real properties, local officials are permitted to determine locally, within limitations established by statute and the Commissioner of Revenue, what percentage of the tax burden is to be borne by each class of real property and by personal property owners.

Collective Bargaining: The process of negotiating workers' wages, hours, benefits, working conditions, etc., between an employer and some or all of its employees, who are represented by a recognized labor union. regarding wages, hours and working conditions.

Consumer Price Index: The statistical measure of changes, if any, in the overall price level of consumer goods and services. The index is often called the "cost-of-living index."
Cost-Benefit Analysis: A decision-making tool that allows a comparison of options based on the level of benefit derived and the cost to achieve the benefit from different alternatives.

Debt Burden: The amount of debt carried by an issuer usually expressed as a measure of value (i.e., debt as a percentage of assessed value, debt per capita, etc.). Sometimes debt burden refers to debt service costs as a percentage of the total annual budget.

Debt Service: The repayment cost, usually stated in annual terms and based on an amortization schedule, of the principal and interest on any particular bond issue.

Encumbrance: A reservation of funds to cover obligations arising from purchase orders, contracts, or salary commitments that are chargeable to, but not yet paid from, a specific appropriation account.

Enterprise Funds: An enterprise fund is a separate accounting and financial reporting mechanism for municipal services for which a fee is charged in exchange for goods or services. It allows a community to demonstrate to the public the portion of total costs of a service that is recovered through user charges and the portion that is subsidized by the tax levy, if any. With an enterprise fund, all costs of service delivery-- direct, indirect, and capital costs—are identified. This allows the community to recover total service costs through user fees if it chooses.

Enterprise accounting also enables communities to reserve the "surplus" or net assets unrestricted generated by the operation of the enterprise rather than closing it out to the general fund at year-end. Services that may be treated as enterprises include, but are not limited to, water, sewer, hospital, and airport services.

Equalized Valuations (EQVs): The determination of the full and fair cash value of all property in the community that is subject to local taxation.

Estimated Receipts: A term that typically refers to anticipated local revenues often based on the previous year's receipts and represent funding sources necessary to support a community's annual budget. (See Local Receipts) Exemptions: A discharge, established by statute, from the obligation to pay all or a portion of a property tax. The exemption is available to particular categories of property or persons upon the timely submission and approval of an application to the assessors. Properties exempt from taxation include hospitals, schools, houses of worship, and cultural institutions. Persons who may qualify for exemptions include disabled veterans, blind individuals, surviving spouses, and seniors.

City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 251
Expenditure: An outlay of money made by municipalities to provide the programs and services within their approved budget.

Fiduciary Funds: Repository of money held by a municipality in a trustee capacity or as an agent for individuals, private organizations, other governmental units, and other funds. These include pension (and other employee benefit) trust funds, investment trust funds, private- purpose trust funds, and agency funds.

Fixed Assets: Long-lived, assets such as buildings, equipment and land obtained or controlled as a result of past transactions or circumstances.

Fixed Costs: Costs that are legally or contractually mandated such as retirement, FICA/Social Security, insurance, debt service costs or interest on loans.

Float: The difference between the bank balance for a local government’s account and its book balance at the end of the day. The primary factor creating float is clearing time on checks and deposits. Delays in receiving deposit and withdrawal information also influence float.

Full Faith and Credit: A pledge of the general taxing powers for the payment of governmental obligations. Bonds carrying such pledges are usually referred to as general obligation or full faith and credit bonds.

Fund: An accounting entity with a self-balancing set of accounts that are segregated for the purpose of carrying on identified activities or attaining certain objectives in accordance with specific regulations, restrictions, or limitations.

Fund Accounting: Organizing financial records into multiple, segregated locations for money. A fund is a distinct entity within the municipal government in which financial resources and activity (assets, liabilities, fund balances, revenues, and expenditures) are accounted for independently in accordance with specific regulations, restrictions or limitations. Examples of funds include the general fund and enterprise funds. Communities whose accounting records are organized according to the Uniform Municipal Accounting System (UMAS) use multiple funds.

GASB 34: A major pronouncement of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board that establishes new criteria on the form and content of governmental financial statements. GASB 34 requires a report on overall financial health, not just on individual funds. It requires more complete information on the cost of delivering value estimates on public infrastructure assets, such as bridges, road, sewers, etc. It also requires the presentation of a narrative statement the government's financial performance, trends and prospects for the future.

GASB 45: This is another Governmental Accounting Standards Board major pronouncement that each public entity account for and report other postemployment benefits in its accounting statements. Through actuarial analysis, municipalities must identify the true costs of the OPEB earned by employees over their estimated years of actual service.

General Fund: The fund used to account for most financial resources and activities governed by the normal appropriation process.

General Obligation Bonds: Bonds issued by a municipality for purposes allowed by statute that are backed by the full faith and credit of its taxing authority.

Governing Body: A board, committee, commission, or other executive or policymaking bodyof a municipality or school district.

Indirect Cost: Costs of a service not reflected in the operating budget of the entity providing the service. An example of an indirect cost of providing water service would be the value of time spent by non-water department employees processing water bills. A determination of these costs is necessary to analyze the total cost of service delivery. The matter of indirect costs arises most often in the context of enterprise funds.

Interest: Compensation paid or to be paid for the use of money, including amounts payable at periodic intervals or discounted at the time a loan is made. In the case of municipal bonds, interest payments accrue on a day-to-day basis, but are paid every six months.

Interest Rate: The interest payable, expressed as a percentage of the principal available for use during a specified period of time. It is always expressed in annual terms.

Investments: Securities and real estate held for the production of income in the form of interest, dividends, rentals or lease payments. The term does not include fixed assets used in governmental operations.

Line Item Budget: A budget that separates spending into categories, or greater detail, such as supplies, equipment, maintenance, or salaries, as opposed to a program budget.

Local Aid: Revenue allocated by the state or counties to municipalities and school districts.

Maturity Date: The date that the principal of a bond becomes due and payable in full.

City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 252
Municipal(s): (As used in the bond trade) "Municipal" refers to any state or subordinate governmental unit. "Municipals" (i.e., municipal bonds) include not only the bonds of all political subdivisions, such as cities, towns, school districts, special districts, counties but also bonds of the state and agencies of the state.

Note: A short-term loan, typically with a maturity date of a year or less.

Objects of Expenditures: A classification of expenditures that is used for coding any department disbursement, such as “personal services,” “expenses,” or “capital outlay.”
Official Statement: A document prepared for potential investors that contains information about a prospective bond or note issue and the issuer.

The official statement is typically published with the notice of sale. It is sometimes called an offering circular or prospectus.

Operating Budget: A plan of proposed expenditures for personnel, supplies, and other expenses for the coming fiscal year.

Overlapping Debt: A community's proportionate share of the debt incurred by an overlapping government entity, such as a regional school district, regional transit authority, etc.

Performance Budget: A budget that stresses output both in terms of economy and efficiency.

Principal: The face amount of a bond, exclusive of accrued interest.

Program: A combination of activities to accomplish an end.

Program Budget: A budget that relates expenditures to the programs they fund. The emphasis of a program budget is on output.

Purchased Services: The cost of services that are provided by a vendor.

Refunding of Debt: Transaction where one bond issue is redeemed and replaced by a new bond issue under conditions generally more favorable to the issuer.

Reserve Fund: An amount set aside annually within the budget of a town to provide a funding source for extraordinary or unforeseen expenditures.

Revaluation: The assessors of each community are responsible for developing a reasonable and realistic program to achieve the fair cash valuation of property in accordance with constitutional and statutory requirements. The nature and extent of that program will depend on the assessors’ analysis and consideration of many factors, including, but not limited to, the status of the existing valuation system, the results of an in-depth sales ratio study, and the accuracy of existing property record information.

Revenue Anticipation Note (RAN): A short-term loan issued to be paid off by revenues, such as tax collections and state aid. RANs are full faith and credit obligations.

Revenue Bond: A bond payable from and secured solely by specific revenues and thereby not a full faith and credit obligation.

Revolving Fund: Allows a community to raise revenues from a specific service and use those revenues without appropriation to support the service.

Sale of Real Estate Fund: A fund established to account for the proceeds of the sale of municipal real estate other than proceeds acquired through tax title foreclosure.

Stabilization Fund: A fund designed to accumulate amounts for capital and other future spending purposes, although it may be appropriated for any lawful purpose.

Surplus Revenue: The amount by which cash, accounts receivable, and other assets exceed liabilities and reserves.

Tax Rate: The amount of property tax stated in terms of a unit of the municipal tax base; for example, $14.80 per $1,000 of assessed valuation of taxable real and personal property.

Tax Title Foreclosure: The procedure initiated by a municipality to obtain legal title to real property already in tax title and on which property taxes are overdue.

City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 253
Trust Fund: In general, a fund for money donated or transferred to a municipality with specific instructions on its use. As custodian of trust funds, the treasurer invests and expends such funds as stipulated by trust agreements, as directed by the commissioners of trust funds or by the community's legislative body. Both principal and interest may be used if the trust is established as an expendable trust. For nonexpendable trust funds, only interest (not principal) may be expended as directed.

Uncollected Funds: Recently deposited checks included in an account’s balance but drawn on other banks and not yet credited by the Federal Reserve Bank or local clearinghouse to the bank cashing the checks. (These funds may not be loaned or used as part of the bank’s reserves and they are not available for disbursement.)
Undesignated Fund Balance: Monies in the various government funds as of the end of the fiscal year that are neither encumbered nor reserved, and are therefore available for expenditure once certified as part of free cash.

Unreserved Fund Balance (Surplus Revenue Account): The amount by which cash, accounts receivable, and other assets exceed liabilities and restricted reserves. It is akin to a "stockholders’ equity" account on a corporate balance sheet. It is not, however, available for appropriation in full because a portion of the assets listed as "accounts receivable" may be taxes receivable and uncollected. (See Free Cash) Valuation (100 Percent): The legal requirement that a community’s assessed value on property must reflect its market, or full and fair cash value.

City of Clayton | FY2022/23 Budget Page 254