_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Agenda August 15, 2023 Page 1
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
* * *
CLAYTON CITY COUNCIL
* * *
TUESDAY, August 15, 2023
7:00 P.M.
*** NOTICE ***
Members of the public will be able to participate either in-person at Hoyer Hall, Clayton Community Library
6125 Clayton Road, Clayton, CA 94517
or
remotely via Zoom.
Mayor: Jeff Wan
Vice Mayor: Jim Diaz
Council Members
Peter Cloven
Holly Tillman
Kim Trupiano
• A complete packet of information containing staff reports and exhibits related to each public item is available for public review in City Hall located at 6000 Heritage Trail and on the City’s website at www.claytonca.gov
• Agendas are posted at: 1) City Hall, 6000 Heritage Trail; 2) Library, 6125 Clayton Road; 3) Ohm’s Bulletin Board, 1028 Diablo Street, Clayton; and 4) City Website at www.claytonca.gov • Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the City Council after distribution of the Agenda Packet and regarding any public item on this Agenda will be made available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s office located at 6000 Heritage Trail during normal business hours and is available for review on the City’s website at www.claytonca.gov • If you have a physical impairment that requires special accommodation to participate, please call the City Clerk’s office at least 72 hours in advance of the meeting at (925) 673-7300. _____________________________________________________________________________________________ Agenda August 15, 2023 Page 2
Instructions for Virtual City Council Meeting – August 15, 2023 Tonight’s meeting will be available to the public both in-person and remotely via Zoom.
As a courtesy, and technology permitting, members of the public may continue to provide live remote oral comment via the Zoom video conferencing platform. However, the City cannot guarantee that the public’s access to teleconferencing technology will be uninterrupted, and technical difficulties may occur from time to time.
To follow or participate in the meeting:
1. Videoconference: to follow the meeting on-line, click here to register:
https://us02web.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_suxMeIgbQNWPGzIqaBNXFw After clicking on the URL, please take a few seconds to submit your first and last name, and e-mail address then click “Register”, which will approve your registration, and a new URL to join the meeting will appear.
2. Phone-in: Register for the meeting using the URL in the paragraph above. Once registered, you will receive an e-mail with instructions to join the meeting telephonically, and then dial toll-free 877-853-5257 and use the Webinar ID and Password found in the e-mail.
3. E-mail Public Comments: If preferred, please e-mail public comments to the City Clerk, Ms. Calderon at [email protected] by 5:00 p.m. on the day of the City Council meeting. All e-mailed public comments will be forwarded to the entire City Council.
Each person attending the meeting via video conferencing or telephone and who wishes to speak on an agendized or non-agendized matter shall have a set amount of time to speak as determined by the Mayor.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Agenda August 15, 2023 Page 3
* CITY COUNCIL *
August 15, 2023
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL – Mayor Wan.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – Led by Mayor Wan.
3. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON - AGENDA ITEMS
Members of the public may address the City Council on items within the Council’s jurisdiction (which are not on the agenda) at this time. To assure an orderly meeting and an equal opportunity for everyone, each speaker is limited to 3 minutes, enforced at the Mayor’s discretion. In accordance with State Law, no action may take place on any item not appearing on the posted agenda. The Council may respond to statements made or questions asked or may at its discretion request Staff to report back at a future meeting concerning the matter.
Public comment and input on Public Hearing, Action Items and other Agenda Items will be allowed when each item is considered by the City Council.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
Consent Calendar items are typically routine in nature and are considered for approval by one single motion of the City Council. Members of the Council, Audience, or Staff wishing an item removed from the Consent Calendar for purpose of public comment, question, discussion or alternative action may request so through the Mayor.
(a) Approve the minutes of the City Council’s regular meeting of July 18, 2023. (City Clerk) (View here)
(b) Approve by Minute Order the City of Clayton’s Response to Contra Costa Civil Grand Jury Report No. 2306, Authorize the Mayor to Sign the Transmittal Cover Letter to the Response, and Direct the City Manager to Submit the Response to the Grand Jury. (City Manager) (View here)
(c) Resolution of the City Council of the City of Clayton Appointing CalPERS Retired Annuitant Richard Sanders to the Position of “Extra Help” and Approving an Employment contract Pursuant to California Government Code Section 21224. (Finance Director) (View here)
5. RECOGNITIONS AND PRESENTATIONS
(a) Contra Costa Mosquito and Vector Control District Presentation. (Nola Woods) (View here)
_____________________________________________________________________________________________ Agenda August 15, 2023 Page 4
6. REPORTS
(a) City Manager/Staff
7. ACTION ITEMS
(a) Quarterly Financial Reports On The City’s Investment Portfolio For The Period Ending June 30, 2023. (Finance Director) (View here)
8. PUBLIC HEARINGS
(a) FY24 Master Fee Schedule for Certain User-Benefit, Regulatory, and Rental City Services and Activities. (Finance Consultant) (View here)
7. ACTION ITEMS - Continued
(b) Provide Staff Direction on Utilizing both ClearGov Transparency and Continuing to Post Accounts Payable Information Every Two Weeks on the Agenda. (City Manager) (View here)
(c) Designation of Voting Delegate and Alternate Delegate for League of California Cities 2023 Annual Conference being held September 20 through 22, in Sacramento. (City Clerk) (View here)
9. COUNCIL ITEMS – limited to Council requests and directives for future meetings.
10. COUNCIL REPORTS
(a) City Council - Reports from Council liaisons to Regional Committees, Commissions and Boards.
11. ADJOURNMENT
The next regularly scheduled meeting of the City Council will be September 19, 2023.
# # # #
Agenda Item: 4(a)
____________________________________________________________________________ City Council Minutes July 18, 2023 Page 1
MINUTES
OF THE
REGULAR MEETING
CLAYTON CITY COUNCIL
TUESDAY, July 18, 2023
1. CALL TO ORDER AND ROLL CALL – The meeting was called to order at 7:00 p.m. by Mayor Wan held via a hybrid meeting format live in-person and Zoom videoconference and broadcast from Hoyer Hall, Clayton Community Library, 6125 Clayton Road, Clayton, California. Councilmembers present: Mayor Wan, Vice Mayor Diaz, and Councilmembers Cloven, Tillman and Trupiano. Councilmembers absent: None. Staff present: City Manager Bret Prebula, City Attorney Mala Subramanian, Executive Assistant to the City Manager/HR Manager Amy Walcker, Finance Director Prapti Aryal, Community Development Director Dana Ayers, City Engineer Larry Theis, and City Clerk Janet Calderon.
2. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE – Led by Mayor Wan.
3. PUBLIC COMMENT ON NON - AGENDA ITEMS
Ann Stanaway expressed her dissatisfaction with the City Manager newsletter and the City Manager conversation on July 13.
Bill Walcutt requested the City Council consider a parking permit program for the area of Lower Easley, Upper Easley, Stranahan, Diablo Village, Center Street, and parts of downtown due to The Olivia project.
Gary Hood supported Mr. Walcutt’s request in the City Council consider a parking permit program with representation from each neighborhood due to The Olivia project.
Mayor Wan closed public comment.
4. CONSENT CALENDAR
It was moved by Vice Mayor Diaz, seconded by Councilmember Tillman, to approve the Consent Calendar items 4(a) – 4(e) as submitted. (Passed 5-0). (a) Approved the minutes of the City Council’s regular meeting of June 20, 2023. (City Clerk)
(b) Approved the Financial Demands and Obligations of the City. (Finance Director) (c) Adopted Resolution No. 41-2023 of the City Council of the City of Clayton Adopting the City of Clayton’s Salary Schedule Effective July 1, 2023 in Conformance with CalPERS Requirements to Provide a Publicly Available Salary Schedule. (Executive Assistant to City Manager/HR Manager)
____________________________________________________________________________ City Council Minutes July 18, 2023 Page 2
(d) Adopted Resolution No. 42-2023 Accepting the Clayton Community Park Play Structure Replacement Project (Capital Improvement Project No. 10454) Performed by Specified Equipment Company (SPEC) as Complete, Approving the Notice of Completion, Directing the City Clerk to Record Same with the County Recorder, and Authorizing the Payment of All Retained Funds to SPEC 35 Days After Recording the Notice of Completion. (Community Development Director)
(e) Multi-Year Agreement with Konica Minolta Business Solutions (Konica Minolta) for a Konica Minolta Bizhub C650i Copier Lease with Maintenance Agreement. (City Clerk)
5. RECOGNITIONS AND PRESENTATIONS
(a) Save Mount Diablo Presentation. (Councilmember Trupiano) Ted Clement, Executive Director Save Mount Diablo presented a PowerPoint presentation providing a brief overview of the efforts of Save Mount Diablo.
6. REPORTS
(a) City Manager Bret Prebula introduced new employees Finance Director Prapti Aryal and Executive Assistant to the City Manager/HR Manager Amy Walcker.
7. PUBLIC HEARINGS
(a) Public Hearing on Proposed Real Property Assessments for the Diablo Estates at Clayton Benefit Assessment District (BAD); Ordering Improvements and Levying Annual Assessments in Fiscal Year 2023/24. (City Engineer)
City Engineer Larry Theis presented the report.
Following discussion by the City Council, Mayor Wan opened the item to public comments; no comments were offered.
It was moved by Councilmember Tillman, seconded by Councilmember Trupiano, to Adopt Resolution No. 43-2023 Confirming Assessments for the Operation and Maintenance of Improvements Within the Diablo Estates at Clayton Benefit Assessment District for Fiscal Year 2023/24. (Passed; 5-0). (b) Resolution Adopting the 2022 East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (HCP/NCCP) Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study and Update of the East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fees, and Finding the Action to be Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. (Community Development Director)
Community Development Director Dana Ayers presented the report.
Following discussion by the City Council, Mayor Wan opened the item to public comments; no comments were offered.
Agenda Item: 4(a)
____________________________________________________________________________ City Council Minutes July 18, 2023 Page 3 It was moved by Councilmember Trupiano, seconded by Vice Mayor Diaz, to Adopt Resolution No. 44-2023 the 2022 East Contra Costa County Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural Community Conservation Plan (HCP/NCCP) Mitigation Fee Audit and Nexus Study and Updating the East Contra Costa County HCP/NCCP Mitigation Fees, and Finding the Action to be Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act. (Passed; 5-0).
8. ACTION ITEMS
(a) Adopt a resolution approving a Franchise Agreement with Allied Waste Systems, Inc. (Republic Services) for garbage, recyclable materials and organic waste collection services and revising the maximum limit for rates for such services starting on January 1, 2024. (City Manager) City Manager Bret Prebula presented the report.
Following discussion by the City Council, Mayor Wan opened the item to public comments.
J Smyth expressed concern in the presentation chart city over city, he felt Republic Services ask of 25.51% increase is excessive with 19% also excessive, and felt the notices of violation and penalties should also include Republic Services when garage falls on the street and not picked up.
David had questions on the cost for the replacement of the containers.
Cassie Bartholomew expressed support of food scrap recycling and compost giveaways.
It was moved by Councilmember Cloven, seconded by Councilmember Tillman, to Adopt Resolution No. 45-2023 Approving an Agreement with Allied Waste Systems, Inc. and Approving the new Solid Waste Collection Rates Effective January 1, 2024. (Passed; 5-0).
(b) Approve Funding Agreement between Contra Costa Transportation Authority and City of Clayton for Cost Sharing Commitments to Design and Construct the Countywide Smart Signals Project. (City Engineer)
City Engineer Larry Theis presented the report.
Joy Bhattacharya, Vice President Advance Mobility Group, clarified some questions of the City Council.
John Wong, Planning Director Contra Costa Transportation Authority, also clarified some questions of the City Council.
Following discussion by the City Council, Mayor Wan opened the item to public comments; no comments were offered.
It was moved by Councilmember Tillman, seconded by Councilmember Cloven, to Approve Funding Agreement between Contra Costa Transportation Authority and ____________________________________________________________________________ City Council Minutes July 18, 2023 Page 4
City of Clayton for Cost Sharing Commitments to Design and Construct the Countywide Smart Signals Project as modified to June 30, 2024. (Passed; 5-0). (c) Provide Direction To Staff On Pursuing Opportunities For Cell Tower Leases. (City Manager)
City Manager Bret Prebula presented the report.
Following discussion by the City Council, Mayor Wan opened the item to public comments; no comments were offered.
Direction provided to staff.
(d) Approve On-call Citywide Service Contract with Waraner Brothers Tree Service. (Maintenance Supervisor)
City Manager Bret Prebula presented the report.
Following discussion by the City Council, Mayor Wan opened the item to public comments; no comments were offered.
It was moved by Councilmember Cloven, seconded by Councilmember Tillman, to Adopt Resolution No. 46-2023 Awarding a Contract for On-call Tree Service. (Passed; 5-0).
(e) Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the City Manager to Sign All Documents Related to Obtaining and Implementing Granicus Agenda Management Software and Any Necessary Budget Amendments. (City Manager)
City Manager Bret Prebula presented the report and introduced Emery Hensel to present a PowerPoint.
Following discussion by the City Council, Mayor Wan opened the item to public comments; no comments were offered.
It was moved by Councilmember Cloven, seconded by Councilmember Trupiano, to Adopt Resolution No. 47-2023 Authorizing the City manager to Sign Any and All Documents Related to the Implementation of the Granicus Agenda Management Software and Approval of Any Necessary Budget Amendments. (Passed; 5-0).
9. COUNCIL ITEMS
Vice Mayor Diaz requested a future agenda item to include a consideration a parking permit program for the area of Lower Easley, Upper Easley, Stranahan, Diablo Village, Center Street, and parts of downtown.
Agenda Item: 4(a)
____________________________________________________________________________ City Council Minutes July 18, 2023 Page 5
10. COUNCIL REPORTS
(a) City Council - Reports from Council liaisons to Regional Committees, Commissions and Boards.
Councilmember Cloven spoke with constituents regarding the Master Fee Schedule specially the event fees, announced the VFW will be hosting a 9/11 event, and advised he will be organizing another service day prior to the 9/11 event.
Councilmember Tillman attended the Cal Cities Community Services Policy Committee meeting, attended the Juneteenth celebration in Concord, attended the Clayton City Council Special meeting, spoke with constituents regarding various concerns, attended the Citpac Bocce Ball event, attended the Clayton 4th of July Parade, met with the Clayton Pride committee, and met with the City Manager.
Councilmember Trupiano attended the Clayton 4th of July Parade, met with the Contra Costa Library Foundation President, attended the Contra Costa Mayors’ Conference, attended the Concerts in The Grove, and met with Sonja Wilkin from Clayton Valley Village.
Vice Mayor Diaz attended the Clayton 4th of July Parade, attended the County Connection Finance and Administrative Board meeting, attended the Contra Costa County Mayors’ Conference, attended the Concerts in The Grove, attended the Contra Costa Mineral and Gem Society meeting, attended the Clayton Classic Car Show, and requested this evening’s meeting be adjourned in memory of Allen “Bud” Krohn, David Skuba, and Karen Ann Mangini who recently passed away.
Mayor Wan attended the Clayton 4th of July Parade, and attended the Contra Costa Mayors’ Conference.
11. ADJOURNMENT - on call by Mayor Wan, the City Council adjourned its meeting at 10:40 p.m. in memory of Allen “Bud” Krohn, Dave Skuba, and Karen Ann Mangini who recently passed away.
# # # # #
Respectfully submitted,
________________________________
Janet Calderon, City Clerk
APPROVED BY THE CLAYTON CITY COUNCIL
______________________________________
Jeff Wan, Mayor
Agenda Item: 4(b)
STAFF REPORT
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: Bret Prebula, City Manager
DATE: August 15, 2023
SUBJECT: Approve by Minute Order the City of Clayton’s Response to Contra Costa Civil Grand Jury Report No. 2306, Authorize the Mayor to Sign the Transmittal Cover Letter to the Response, and Direct the City Manager to Submit the Response to the Grand Jury
___________________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended the City Council consider the prepared City of Clayton’s response regarding Civil Grand Jury Report No. 2306, “Affordable Housing; A Plan Without a Home”, and subject to any Council modifications to the proposed response, by Consent Calendar minutes motion, approve the Exhibit as the City’s official response and authorize the Mayor to sign the official cover letter.
BACKGROUND
A Civil Grand Jury is commissioned annually in Contra Costa County to investigate city and county governments, special districts and certain non-profit corporations to ensure functions are performed in a lawful, economical and efficient manner. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 933.5(a), whenever a civil grand jury issues a report that involves matters within a particular municipality’s jurisdiction or area of responsibility, the respective city is required to respond in writing and in accord with a specific response format.
On June 14, 2023, the Fiscal Year 2022-23 Civil Grand Jury of Contra Costa County released a Report directed to all nineteen cities and the County. Report No. 2306 investigated factors affecting affordable housing throughout the county.
Since affordable housing is a countywide issue, Chief Executives from all Contra Costa cities and the County agreed to approach the responses in a united manner. This does not preclude the City Councils or Board of Supervisors from making changes to their respective Subject: Approve by Minute Order the City of Clayton’s Response to Contra Costa Civil Grand Jury Report No. 2306, Authorize the Mayor to Sign the Transmittal Cover Letter to the Response, and Direct the City Manager to Submit the Response to the Grand Jury
Date: August 15, 2023
Page: 2 of 2
sections, but staff are attempting to use the singular response with tailoring to our specific jurisdiction.
FISCAL IMPACTS
None
ATTACHMENTS
Exhibit A: Proposed City Response and Cover Letter
Exhibit B: Civil Grand Jury Report No. 2306, with accompanying Cover Letter
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT:
(925) 673-7340
ENGINEERING:
(925) 673-7300
6000 HERITAGE TRAIL
CLAYTON, CALIFORNIA 94517-1250
TELEPHONE: (925) 673-7300
FAX: (925) 672-4917
CITY COUNCIL
Jeff Wan, Mayor
Jim Diaz, Vice Mayor
Peter Cloven, Councilmember
Holly Tillman, Councilmember
Kim Trupiano, Councilmember
August 15, 2023
Via U.S. First Class Mail and Requested Electronic Mail to:
Contra Costa County Civil Grand Jury
P.O. Box 431
Martinez, CA 94553
[email protected]
Re: City of Clayton Response to Findings and Recommendations of Grand Jury Report No. 2306, “Affordable Housing: A Plan Without a Home”
Dear Grand Jury Foreperson,
Thank you for your letter and the accompanying Grand Jury Report No. 2306, in which you highlighted several findings that align with the prevailing trends and challenges in our jurisdiction.
As part of our review process, we carefully considered your concerns, and we acknowledge that some findings may lack context. As you highlighted in your letter and report, one significant challenge is the lack of funding for affordable housing initiatives. Additionally, even when funding is available, the competition for these dollars often discourages developers from pursuing projects with a lower probability of receiving funding. However essential it is to emphasize that local jurisdictions play a pivotal role in fostering housing development, including affordable housing options, development activity will often follow the path of least resistance.
Your letter and report indicate that all findings and recommendations uniformly apply to Contra Costa County and the 19 incorporated towns/cities. We recognize the challenges, and associated solutions, for Contra Costa County are different, based on geography/location, demographics, market conditions, land availability and associated costs, and land use/transportation options.
Individual jurisdictions may also face unique constraints, especially environmental constraints, which may compromise a jurisdiction’s ability to address housing needs.
Exhibit A
Finally, among the key points from our review and your findings, unfunded mandates from the State that add to the administrative burden continue to impact local jurisdictions and their ability to take proactive steps to increasing housing production. On January 1, 2023, additional housing laws went into effect, including changes to the State Density Bonus law and the Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) law. On July 1, 2023, two additional laws came into effect, requiring local jurisdiction staff to create handouts and checklists and re-prioritize workloads to process housing applications on commercial corridors. Before January 1, 2024, local building and public works departments need to develop specific submittal requirements for post-entitlement permit applications, and all such applications, such as building and grading permits, will be subject to a “shot clock” to review and approve permits. The expectations and costs to local jurisdictions and their staff are significant and, without adequate funding and resources, impact local jurisdictions’ ability to focus their resources on implementation of various housing policies and goals.
The lack of accessible housing options has particularly impacted vulnerable populations, including low-income households, seniors, disabled, and individuals experiencing homelessness.
As local jurisdictions endeavor to tackle this crisis, they are confronted with the daunting challenge of vying for limited resources and funding. The competition among jurisdictions with diverse capacities and needs often accentuates the difficulty of implementing comprehensive and equitable housing solutions.
Your report has shed some light on critical aspects of the housing crisis we face today and affirmed that we are not alone as a jurisdiction in facing these challenges. Despite potential areas of partial disagreement, we acknowledge the factual basis of your findings and recognize the interconnectedness of the underlying conditions that have given rise to the current challenges.
By working collaboratively and understanding the broader context of the housing crisis, we strive to develop more effective strategies and policies to address this pressing issue and create a more inclusive and sustainable housing landscape for all members of our community.
The response was reviewed and authorized by the Clayton City Council at its public meeting held on August 15, 2023.
Sincerely,
Jeff Wan
Mayor
Attachment:
City of Clayton Response to Findings and Recommendations of Grand Jury Report No. 2306, “Affordable Housing: A Plan Without a Home”
cc: Honorable Clayton City Council Members
City of Clayton Response to Findings and Recommendations of Grand Jury Report No. 2306, “Affordable Housing: A Plan Without a Home” Grand Jury Findings
F1. Within existing city or County infrastructure, there is no clear owner who is responsible for achieving RHNA permitting targets.
Partially Disagree. The City of Clayton partially disagrees with Finding 1. While a single entity is responsible for reporting on regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) permitting targets, implementing policies and measures to streamline the permitting process for housing, and ensuring the efficient processing of permits and approvals, the City of Clayton like other local jurisdictions is not a “developer” of housing projects. State Housing Law only requires that jurisdictions plan to address barriers to development through land use actions and policy, accommodate all types of housing based on the RHNA allocations, and report their progress towards RHNA. The Community Development/Planning Department is responsible for processing permits and preparing the Annual Progress Report (APR) as required by State Housing Law. These reports are presented before the City Council early in the calendar year, prior to submission to the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and the Governor’s Office of Planning and Research (OPR). Furthermore, the City of Clayton’s Housing Element does specifically identify that the Community Development Department is responsible for carrying out the Housing Element’s Plans and Programs.
F2. City and County officials see no direct path to meet state-mandated regional housing. (RHNA) targets.
Partially Disagree. The City of Clayton partially disagrees with Finding 2. While City officials recognize the challenges ahead, our Housing Element identifies a clear path to accommodate the RHNA targets, and we are actively exploring and implementing strategies to work towards meeting those targets. Despite acknowledging the complexity of the task, we at the local level are committed to finding viable solutions and collaborating with stakeholders to address the housing needs of the region. Through ongoing assessments and adaptive planning, we aim to identify feasible pathways to make progress toward meeting RHNA targets. While it may be a challenging endeavor, the dedication and proactive approach of City officials, with assistance from the County, demonstrates our commitment to addressing the housing crisis and fulfilling our obligations in accordance with state mandates. However, the City of Clayton, like other local jurisdictions, is not a housing developer and does not physically construct the units.
F3. There are currently no measurable penalties if a city or a County does not achieve RHNA targets in an approved housing element plan.
Partially Disagree. The City of Clayton partially disagrees with Finding 3. While there are no legal or financial penalties if cities and counties do not achieve their RHNA targets, there are penalties for not accommodating RHNA in a Housing Element and the consequences for not issuing adequate permits can be considered punitive.
In addition, jurisdictions are subject to penalties if they do not adopt a Housing Element that is certified by the State, including designating adequate sites to accommodate the RHNA targets.
For example, cities and counties may be subject to litigation from individuals, housing rights organizations, developers, and/or HCD in connection with deficient Housing Elements.
Depending on court and administrative decisions, local control may further diminish, beyond that prescribed in State law, including, for example, suspending local agencies’ authority to issue building permits or approve certain land use permits. Local agencies may also be subject to courtissued fines, court receivership, and streamlined approval processes that remove local discretion.
Regardless of the reasons for lack of building permit activities, if local agencies do not issue building permits that meet the RHNA targets, developers may choose to use a ministerial process for housing projects that meet specified criteria (e.g., Senate Bill [SB] 35). In addition, a developer could choose to construct housing on certain sites that the city has not designated for housing.
F4. Data published by ABAG shows that Contra Costa County and most of its cities have missed their current RHNA targets for very low- and low-income housing allocations. The allocation requirements continue to increase (16x for very low-income and 4x for low-income residents).
Partially Disagree. It is true that many cities and the County as a whole missed their RHNA targets for very low and low-income housing, and that RHNA Allocation for very low- and lowincome housing has continued to increase. However, the increase in RHNA allocation is not to the extent mentioned in this report. RHNA numbers from the past 3 cycles indicate that the current (6th) cycle has had the largest increase of 2.5x from the previous cycle in very low- and lowincome housing requirements.
Cycle Very Low % permitted Low % permitted Source
1999 - 2006 6,481 44% 3,741 48% link
2007 - 2014 6,512 21% 4,325 24% link
2015 - 2020 5,264 16% 3,086 55% link
2023 - 2031 13,346 n/a 7,685 n/a link
F5. Many obstacles hinder the development of AH [affordable housing] at the local level, specifically for very low and low-income housing, including:
a. Limited availability of land;
b. Restrictive zoning policies specific to AH development;
c. Limited developer interest to bring projects forward; d. Limited available funding;
e. Lack of community support;
f. NIMBY [Not in My Backyard] opposition & city council response to NIMBY opposition.
Partially Disagree. Though the above list of obstacles can hinder the development of affordable housing, the City of Clayton has addressed each item in our adopted Housing Element programs, policies, and actions to the extent feasible and considered acceptable to HCD. a. Limited availability of land;
o Policy 2.4: Recognize urban lot splits, as defined and allowed by State law, as a viable means to create new housing.
o Policy 2.5: Promote mixed-use development in Downtown Clayton. o Policy 2.6: Create land use regulations that encourage the development of housing, particularly below market-rate housing on properties owned by religious institutions.
o Program C: Comply with the surplus land act (SLA) and No Net Loss requirement. o Program K: Adopt a replacement housing policy when a proposed housing. development involves the demolition or removal of existing residential units. b. Restrictive zoning policies specific to AH development; o Policy 4.2: Review and adjust residential development standards, regulations, ordinances, departmental processing procedures, and residential fees related to rehabilitation and construction that are determined to constrain housing development.
o Policy 4.3: Identify, assess, and, when appropriate, amend ordinances and policies that adversely affect housing cost.
o Program D-2: Amend the zoning code to rezone properties required to meet RHNA, revised development standards, and remove potential constraints to development.
c. Limited developer interest to bring projects forward; o Program B3: Encourage development by developing process that prioritizes the processing of affordable housing applications, encourage the use of density bonus provisions through technical assistance and information dissemination, etc. d. Limited available funding;
o Program H1: Seek funding under the Federal Housing Opportunities for special needs households such as seniors, persons with disabilities, and persons at risk for homelessness; City will continue to work with developers who cater to disable and other special needs populations to develop a housing project in Clayton. e. Lack of community support;
o Program E: Educate community of homebuying opportunities by referring interested persons to information on mortgage and downpayment programs.
f. NIMBY [Not in My Backyard] opposition & city council response to NIMBY opposition.
The City of Clayton has a long history of retaining and enhancing its small-town character, taking pride in its residential nature, and working hard to protect its historic downtown. The City recognizes that while pressures to meet housing allocations have continued, resident opposition to new development and the construction of denser, more affordable housing units has remained consistent for many residents. With this awareness, the City Council has committed to the following Meaningful Actions in its current Housing Element adopted January 2023:
o Prioritize alternate and affordable housing types like such as affordable multifamily and accessory dwelling units, transitional housing, and supportive housing for individuals unable to afford the high cost of rent and home prices, by streamlining zoning and fees and offering incentives for these housing types. This will also contribute to more diverse individuals being able to move into the City and may encourage younger families to establish roots.
o Prioritize capital improvement projects to bring greater alternative mobility connectivity into, out of, and within Clayton (transit, bicycle infrastructure, sidewalks). This can help to provide more economic opportunities in Clayton by attracting more businesses and allow lower-income families without personal vehicles to live in the City.
A multitude of policies and programs in the Housing Element prescribe the steps that the City has committed to taking toward achieving these meaningful actions. These include the policies and programs listed above, as well as programs that commit the City to amending its land use and zoning regulations to increase residential density ranges to foster greater diversity in multifamily housing types (Program D1); remove discretionary land use permits for residential developments that meet a standard of 20 percent lowincome affordability (Program D2); and amending land use regulations in its Town Center to allow for and encourage compact housing types including live-work, efficiency apartments and co-housing (Program B2).
F6. Zoning changes are generally addressed only when a project is presented for development.
Zoning obstacles include:
a. Housing element plans that offer poor land choices for AH development; b. Restrictive height and high-density zoning policies; c. Lack of inclusionary housing ordinance(s) in many cities.
Partially Disagree. Assembly Bill (AB) 1397 set forth strict criteria for adequate sites. These criteria are somewhat arbitrary (e.g., not smaller than 0.5 acre and not larger than 10 acres). The requirement to demonstrate substantial evidence that existing uses do not impede redevelopment also tends to steer sites selection to properties with declining uses and low building-to-land-value ratios.
Most jurisdictions consider amending/changing the zoning while reviewing their Housing Element and/or updating the General Plan, not just when a project is proposed for development.
a. Pursuant to Government Code Section 65583.2(b), Housing Element sites must include information on the number of dwelling units that a site can realistically accommodate, the RHNA income category the parcel is anticipated to accommodate, whether the parcel has available or planned and accessible infrastructure, and the existing use of the site, amongst other details. When selecting sites to accommodate the lower income RHNA, HCD provides jurisdictions with best practices to consider factors such as:
(1) Proximity to transit
(2) Access to high performing schools and jobs
(3) Access to amenities, such as parks and services
(4) Access to health care facilities and grocery stores (5) Locational scoring criteria for Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (TCAC) Program funding
(6) Proximity to available infrastructure and utilities (7) Sites that do not require environmental mitigation
(8) Presence of development streamlining processes, environmental exemptions, and other development incentives
However, sites that meet these locational criteria do not always meet the other existing use criteria needed to demonstrate substantial evidence for existing uses to discontinue within the planning period. These other criteria include high vacancies, deteriorating conditions, marginally operating businesses, underutilization of sites, etc. These conditions are often directly contrary to access to high performing schools and jobs, amenities, adequate infrastructure, and clear of environmental hazards.
In addition to the above requirements and pursuant to AB 686 (Government Code Section 65583(c)(10)), for Housing Elements due on or after January 1, 2021, sites must be identified throughout the community in a manner that affirmatively furthers fair housing (AFFH). AFFH means taking meaningful actions, in addition to combating discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics.
Very often the approach to sites selection is to target declining areas for redevelopment.
Without tax increment financing as a reinvestment tool, jurisdictions must rely on private investments as catalyst to induce redevelopment in declining neighborhoods. Housing is the best catalyst. For jurisdictions that take a neighborhood revitalization approach to accommodating the RHNA, place-based strategies that focus on public improvements, economic development, prioritization of funding, and targeted outreach are used to complement the sites inventory strategies.
As such, Housing Element plans provide an inventory of land that addresses the unique conditions of each jurisdiction.
b. According to State Density Bonus Law (SDBL), local agencies are required to allow increased density, reduced standards, and development incentives based on the number and type of affordable housing units proposed in a project. The SDBL applies to housing
projects, including mixed-use developments, new subdivisions, or common-interest developments. Developers may request incentives and concessions from the jurisdiction’s regulatory or development standards that result in actual and identifiable cost reductions to provide for affordable housing costs or rents. The number of required incentives is based on the percentage of affordable units provided in the qualifying project. For example, developers may ask for increased height above that allowed by the zoning regulations. As such, height and density do not represent a restriction to development. Furthermore, many sites are located in transit-oriented neighborhoods where recent State laws have preempted restrictions on height and density.
The City of Clayton in the previous and current housing cycles has demonstrated flexibility in high-density zoning policies and implementation of regulations. During the previous (5th) housing cycle, the City of Clayton approved a residential development with very low-income units and an increase in allowed density from 20 to 27 units in accordance with SDBL. For the current (6th) housing cycle, the City of Clayton adopted programs to increase permitted density ranges from maximums of 20 units per acre to maximums of 30 units per acre, and as high as 40 units per acre for 100 percent affordable housing developments. The General Plan Land Use Element amendments establishing these expanded density ranges were adopted in January 2023, concurrently with the update of the Housing Element for the current 6th cycle.
c. The City of Clayton adopted an inclusionary housing ordinance, codified as Chapter 17.92 of Clayton Municipal Code, in August 2016. While the initial iteration of the ordinance applied only to ownership housing, the ordinance was subsequently amended in January 2019 to reflect changes in the law that allowed inclusionary requirements to apply to rental housing developments, as well. The ordinance applies to any residential development of 10 or more units and requires that at least 10 percent of all newly constructed dwelling units be developed, offered to and sold or rented to very low, low and moderate income households. To meet the inclusionary requirements of new development, developers have the option to incorporate the inclusionary units into the proposed development; to build inclusionary units off-site; to pay a fee in lieu of building affordable units (with those in lieu fees to be used to fund affordable units elsewhere in the City); or to dedicate land for construction of affordable units, where the land value is equal to or greater than the in lieu fee amount.
Program G-1 in the City of Clayton Housing Element for the 6th cycle commits the City to reviewing its current inclusionary ordinance in the next three years to evaluate more of options for compliance, such as purchase of affordability covenants of existing units, rehabilitation of substandard existing units, and funding ADU production on other properties. The City will also re-evaluate the in lieu fee option to ensure that funds collected do not fall short of the funds required to construct the affordable unit(s) required by the market rate development.
F7. Penalties directed at cities and the County (financial, loss of control over local planning) are tied to not meeting state deadlines for Housing Element plan approval.
Partially Disagree. The City of Clayton agrees that there are penalties that are directly related to not meeting statutory deadline of the Housing Element.
The City partially disagrees with Finding 7, however, because there are other penalties that are not directly tied to the statutory deadline. There are penalties associated with lawsuits, which are rarely brought forward for simply missing the statutory deadline, but more due to a perception of continued inactions. Penalties can also include ineligibility for funding.
As stated in the response to Finding 3, local agencies may also be subject to litigation from individuals, housing rights organizations, developers, and/or HCD. Depending on court and administrative decisions, local agencies may lose additional local control, such as suspension of authority to issue building permits or approve certain land use permits; and/or local agencies may be subject to court-issued fines, court receivership, and streamlined approval processes that remove local discretion.
In addition, depending on specific programs, eligibility for some state funds requires a certified Housing Element (such as PLHA and State HOME funds). Finally, loss of local control is not limited to jurisdictions that do not meet specified timeframes for a certified housing element. For example, SB 35, the Housing Accountability Act, the No Net Loss Act, SDBL, and AB 2011/SB 6 specify what types of projects local jurisdictions must approve and where such projects must be approved, regardless of whether jurisdictions meet state deadlines for Housing Elements.
More information on HCD’s accountability efforts and enforcement authority can be found on their website: https://www.hcd.ca.gov/planning-and-community-development/accountability-andenforcement F8. Builder's Remedy and SB35 projects do not address ingrained local obstacles identified in this report that prevent the completion of approved AH projects.
Partially Disagree. While Builder's Remedy and SB35 projects are valuable tools that can expedite affordable housing development, they may not comprehensively address all the ingrained local obstacles identified in the report that hinder the completion of approved AH projects. The effectiveness of these streamlined processes can vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, and while they can help overcome certain barriers like restrictive zoning policies and prolonged approval timelines, other challenges mentioned in the report, such as limited available funding, community support, and NIMBY opposition, may continue to persist in diverse degrees in different locations. To achieve the successful completion of approved AH projects and effectively address these obstacles, a multifaceted and jurisdiction-specific approach is required, taking into account the unique circumstances and complexities faced by each locality.
Completion of AH projects is further affected by a variety of non-regulatory factors. Market conditions, capital costs, availability of financing, supply chain disruptions, and labor market constraints may affect the construction and completion of approved affordable housing projects.
These factors are rarely associated with local obstacles and are beyond a jurisdiction’s purview.
Thus, a jurisdiction that entitles development pursuant to Builder’s Remedy or SB 35 may still not see that development built if these other non-regulatory factors are not favorable to construction of the project following entitlement.
F9. When local Redevelopment Agencies (RDA’s) were discontinued by the state in 2012, the County and cities, did not address the loss of funding for affordable housing or find alternative funding to support affordable housing projects until voters passed Measure X in November 2020. Projects that target very low- and low-income residents were particularly impacted.
Partially Disagree. As noted in response to Finding F6, Clayton’s inclusionary housing ordinance allows market rate housing developers to elect to meet their developments’ inclusionary housing requirements through payment of fees. However, developers of housing projects that have been subject to the ordinance have so far found it more economically viable to build their requisite affordable units within their market-rate developments, and the City has not received in lieu funds from this alternative approach to meeting the inclusionary requirements.
While the City of Clayton did not create or find substantial new sources of funds for affordable housing after the State discontinued 452 RDAs, including Clayton’s RDA, State law limits local jurisdictions’ ability to create other new funding sources.
While Measure X, the Contra Costa countywide 20-year ½ cent sales tax, was approved in November 2020, Measure X is projected to provide up to $12 million annually for “housing and related services” for the entire County (emphasis added). Measure X Affordable Housing funds will be distributed through a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) process, a competitive process.
F10. Measure X housing funds are not fully dedicated to building AH for very low- and lowincome residents.
Agree.
F11. Local funding provided by bonds like Measure X Housing Fund is a critical component of a developer’s overall ability to raise funds for an AH development.
Partially Disagree. Depending on the timing (economic conditions and bond measures for other competing interests), bond financing has not been the most significant source of affordable housing financing. While local funding provided by bonds like Measure X Housing Fund in Contra Costa County are a beneficial component to help fund affordable housing construction, the amount of funding available from Measure X is not high enough to be a critical factor in a developer's overall ability to raise funds for an affordable housing development. Under the Measure X Program Allocation Summary, only $10 million dollars (about 13 percent of Fiscal Year [FY] 2022-23 funding and about 4.5 percent of total funding) were allocated to a Local Housing Trust Fund; for FY 2023-24, $12 million dollars were allocated. The Measure X Housing Funds are to be dispersed by the County Department of Conservation and Development (DCD), the Health Services’ Health, Housing and Homeless (HSD-H3) Services, and the Housing Authority of the County of Contra Costa. While a contributing factor, Measure X dollars allocated to housing production is not critical to the overall ability of the jurisdictions to meet their RHNA requirements for affordable housing.
F12. Cities that proactively engage citizens, address zoning obstacles, make reasonable zoning concessions, work collaboratively with developers, provide local funding support, and are united in addressing NIMBY opposition, have been successful in attracting AH projects.
Partially Disagree. The City of Clayton agrees that proactive strategies can help attract affordable housing developers and mitigate the barriers to housing production; however, proactive strategies alone do not result in affordable housing projects being constructed. For example, the City of Clayton staff and officials strive to proactively engage citizens through in-person meetings and virtually through social media; to work collaboratively with potential developers of both affordable and market rate housing developments in predevelopment meetings; and have committed in the City’s current Housing Element to address and remove regulatory obstacles in its zoning regulations to foster a broader variety of housing types in the City. Even with all of these efforts, a variety of other obstacles towards affordable housing development exist beyond the City’s control. These obstacles include: the gap in financing between constructing market-rate versus affordable housing; land costs; the land-to-building ratio when a property contains an underutilized building; the cost to upgrade or renovate an existing nonresidential building to accommodate housing; infrastructure costs (on- and off-site); and fees for public utilities (particularly for non-municipal utilities), among others.
F13. The latest RHNA targets for cities and unincorporated Contra Costa County show a significant increase in the number of units that are expected to be permitted for very low and low-income housing.
Partially Disagree. It is true that the RHNA for very low- and low-income housing has continued to increase. However, the increase in the RHNA is not to the extent mentioned in this report.
RHNA numbers from the past 3 cycles indicate that the current (6th) cycle has had the largest increase of 2.5x from the previous cycle in very low- and low-income housing requirements.
Please see the response to Finding 4 for detailed RHNA numbers from previous Housing Element cycles.
Grand Jury Recommendations
R1. Each city and the County should consider assigning a staff position with clear leadership, ownership and accountability to achieve allocated RHNA targets. The individual in this position would be responsible for establishing and promoting an operational plan to achieve the RHNA goals set forth in the housing element plan.
The recommendation has been implemented. California’s Housing Element Law acknowledges that, in order for the private market to adequately address the housing needs and demands of Californians, local governments must adopt plans and regulatory systems that provide opportunities for (and do not unduly constrain) housing development. Cities and Counties are not responsible for the development and construction of housing to achieve the allocated RHNA targets. Instead, they are responsible for the effective implementation of their housing elements and associated programs to address any existing constraints to housing and for tracking and reporting the jurisdiction’s progress toward achieving their RHNA. The Community Development Department of Clayton is assigned with the responsibility of the above tasks.
R2. Each city and the County should report AH progress and lack of progress using data across all four measured income groups. Special attention should be paid to tracking the housing needs of residents categorized as very low- and low-income. Cities and the County should communicate their progress biannually, against RHNA targets at council and supervisor Meetings.
The recommendation has been implemented. The City of Clayton has complied with State Law (Government Code §65400) that requires each jurisdiction (city council or board of supervisors) to prepare an APR on the jurisdiction’s status and progress in implementing its housing element (HE) using forms and definitions adopted by HCD.
The HE APR allows HCD to track the progress of the implementation of a jurisdiction’s HE and requires its submission as a threshold requirement for several State housing funding programs (source).
Through the forms and tables provided by HCD (link), jurisdictions must report annual data on housing in the APR, including the following:
● Housing development applications received (including proposed number of units, types of tenancy, and affordability levels)
● Building/construction activity
● Progress towards the RHNA
● Sites identified or rezoned to accommodate a shortfall in housing need ● Program implementation status
● Local efforts to remove governmental constraints to the development of housing ● Projects with a commercial development bonus
● Units rehabilitated or preserved
● Locally owned lands included in the sites inventory that have been sold ● Locally owned surplus sites
Government Code §65400 requires the planning agency to provide this report to the legislative body (i.e., local Council or Board), HCD, and OPR by April 1 of each year (covering the previous calendar year). APRs are presented to the local legislative body for its review and acceptance, usually as a consent or discussion on a regular meeting agenda.
The statute does not specify in which order report should be provided to the legislative body, HCD, or OPR, and HCD does not require the report to be submitted to the legislative body prior to submitting it to HCD. However, HCD recommends that planning departments provide the report to the local legislative body prior to sending it to HCD and OPR (source). Biannual reporting would divert staff time from other housing programs.
R3. Each city and the County should consider creating a dedicated AH commission comprised of a multi-disciplinary team of diverse citizens and led by a current, nonelected, city expert in planning. Each commission would be charged with providing a community voice in the process and helping to identify and address obstacles that hinder the development of affordable housing projects in their community.
The recommendation will not be implemented. The City of Clayton appreciates the thoughtful recommendation to create a dedicated AH commission comprised of a multi-disciplinary team of diverse citizens, led by a current, non-elected, city expert in planning. While we acknowledge the potential benefits of such a commission, after careful consideration, we have decided not to pursue its implementation due to the following reasons:
Existing Planning Mechanisms: The City of Clayton already has established planning mechanisms and committees responsible for addressing affordable housing issues. These existing structures provide platforms for community engagement and collaboration, making the formation of a separate commission redundant and potentially duplicative of efforts.
Resource Constraints: Establishing and maintaining a dedicated AH commission would require additional financial and administrative resources, including assignment of a City staff member to support the commission in creation of agendas, minutes, reports and noticing. At present, the City of Clayton is already allocating its limited staff resources to multiple initiatives aimed at addressing affordable housing needs, including technology enhancements in land use and infrastructure mapping; a program to promote private construction of accessory dwelling units; and zoning amendments to implement adopted Housing Element policies pertaining to increased density, greater flexibility in residential development regulations, and more streamlined permitting processes. Adding another commission would spread resources too thin and hinder the efficiency of current efforts to facilitate construction of affordable housing in the City.
Efficient Decision-Making: The City of Clayton has a Planning Commission comprised of five appointed residents that are empowered to review and approve development projects; provide a platform for public comment and sharing of community voices; and provide recommendations on policy changes and changes to zoning regulations that can lead to a reduced number of obstacles to development. The Planning Commission is supported by
the Community Development Director, a professional land use and environmental planner.
By involving a diverse range of citizens and experts in the City’s existing planning committee, we maintain a balanced and inclusive approach. This integration ensures streamlined decision-making processes and comprehensive representation of community interests without creating an additional layer of bureaucracy that would detract from the process of entitling housing projects.
Alternative Approaches: Instead of forming a separate AH commission, we are committed to strengthening the involvement of community members and experts in our existing planning and housing committees. Enhancing public outreach, conducting regular town hall meetings, and encouraging community feedback will remain focal points in our efforts to address obstacles hindering affordable housing development.
While we do not intend to pursue the recommended dedicated AH commission, we value the underlying principle of community engagement and recognize the importance of community input in the decision-making process. We will continue to explore alternative strategies that promote transparency, inclusivity, and community-driven solutions for affordable housing development in our city and County.
We remain committed to finding the most effective and sustainable approaches to address affordable housing challenges, working in collaboration with stakeholders and community members to achieve our shared goals.
R4. Each city and the County should consider reviewing existing processes and identifying changes that would address or resolve the specific obstacles identified in this report that hinder achieving RHNA allocation targets for very low- and low-income housing in their Community.
The recommendation has been implemented.
Comprehensive Process Review: As required by State Law, the City of Clayton has reviewed existing processes and identified programs to address any potential constraints to development through the Housing Element’s Constraints section.
The City of Clayton has conducted a thorough review of existing processes related to affordable housing development, permitting, and zoning regulations. This review aimed to identify any inefficiencies or barriers (“constraints”) that may have contributed to the challenges in meeting RHNA allocation targets.
Stakeholder Engagement: To ensure a comprehensive and inclusive approach, stakeholders, including community members, developers, housing advocates, and relevant government agencies, were actively engaged throughout the process. Feedback and input from these stakeholders played a pivotal role in shaping the subsequent actions.
Identifying Key Obstacles: Based on the review and stakeholder input, specific constraints hindering the achievement of RHNA allocation targets were identified. These included issues
related to zoning restrictions, lengthy permitting processes, funding constraints, and limited community support.
Development of a Housing Plan: With a clear understanding of the obstacles, the City of Clayton developed tailored action plans to address the identified challenges. These action plans outlined concrete steps, timelines, and responsible parties for implementation.
Policy and Regulatory Reforms: To streamline affordable housing development, policy and regulatory reforms were introduced to the broader community at both the Planning Commission and City Council levels and noticed public hearings. These reforms aimed to remove unnecessary barriers, expedite permitting processes, and incentivize the construction of affordable housing.
Community Outreach and Education: Recognizing the importance of community support, extensive outreach and education efforts were undertaken to inform residents about the benefits of affordable housing and dispel common misconceptions.
Outcomes Achieved: As a result of these actions, tangible progress can be made towards meeting RHNA allocation targets for very low- and low-income housing in each community. The review and reforms will lead to a more efficient and supportive environment for affordable housing development.
While challenges persist, the City’s ongoing commitment to address the obstacles identified in the report demonstrates significant strides in advancing affordable housing goals. Continued efforts and collaboration will be crucial in achieving sustained progress and ensuring housing accessibility for all members of our communities.
R5. Each city and the County should consider developing a public dashboard to report progress against RHNA targets.
The recommendation has been implemented. The City of Clayton has complied with State Law (Government Code §65400) that requires each jurisdiction (city council or board of supervisors) to prepare an APR on the jurisdiction’s status and progress in implementing its housing element using forms and definitions adopted by HCD. Each jurisdiction’s APR must be submitted to HCD and OPR by April 1 of each year (covering the previous calendar year). HCD compiles and showcases all APRs through their interactive digital data dashboard with downloadable data sets. (link)
In addition, all jurisdictions are subject to Government Code Section 65863 (No Net Loss Law), which was amended in 2017 with SB 166, and requires jurisdictions to maintain adequate sites to accommodate remaining unmet RHNA at each income level throughout the life of an adopted Housing Element. The No Net Loss Law restricts local agencies from approving a housing project at a lower density, or with fewer units than identified in the Housing Element unless a corresponding number of units are accommodated and identified elsewhere in the local jurisdiction. To assist with the monitoring, the City of Clayton along with other jurisdictions in Contra Costa County are developing standard language to include in staff reports when housing
projects come forward to decision-makers for approval and are exploring a No Net Loss Tool to help monitor RHNA progress.
R6. Each city and the County should consider, in their individual Housing Element plans, putting forth land zoned "suitable for residential use," without development obstacles, and located strategically close to existing services, for AH purposes.
The recommendation has been implemented. As required by State Law, jurisdictions are required to prepare a site inventory identifying land suitable and available for residential development to meet the locality’s regional housing needs by income level. Please see the response to Finding 6(a) for details. Further, in addressing HCD’s Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH) requirements, there is a thorough review of the site selection via the Tax Credit Allocation’s Committee (TCAC) Resource Map that designates areas of low-, moderate-, high-, and highest-resource within a jurisdiction and requires specific justification for placing affordable housing projects within low-resources areas.
R7. Each city and the County should consider reviewing their zoning policies to identify restrictive zoning policies unique to their jurisdiction that impede AH projects and consider making zoning changes in light of that review that will support AH in their community.
The recommendation has been implemented. Through the Housing Element process, the City of Clayton has reviewed our zoning policies and identified potential barriers to affordable housing development in our codes and regulations. The Housing Element – Housing Plan section outlines forthcoming changes to the City’s zoning policies with specified timeframes to address the identified constraints.
R8. Cities should consider adopting an inclusionary housing ordinance as part of their standard development policy by the end of 2023 (if not already in place).
The recommendation has been implemented. As stated in response to Finding F6.c, the City of Clayton adopted an inclusionary housing ordinance, codified as Chapter 17.92 of Clayton Municipal Code in 2016 (as amended in 2019), and has committed to re-evaluating certain provisions of its ordinance during this current housing cycle to ensure ongoing success of the intent of the regulation to provide affordable housing in the City.
R9. Each city and the County should consider how to prioritize the implementation of housing projects that promote development of very low- and low-income housing.
The recommendation has been implemented. The City of Clayton processes development projects in the sequence they are received and deemed complete in accordance with statutory timelines. The City has, in its current Housing Element, committed to implementing programs that prioritize housing opportunities that would meet housing needs for low and moderate income households and special needs groups:
• Policy 3.2: Assistance and Incentives. Facilitate the development of lower- and moderateincome housing by offering developers incentives such as density bonuses, streamlined
entitlement and permitting processes, City participation in on- and off-site public improvements, and flexible development standards.
• Program B3: Encourage development by developing process that prioritizes the processing of affordable housing applications, encourage the use of density bonus provisions through technical assistance and information dissemination, etc. • Program H4: Expedited Processing Give priority to development projects that include a component for special needs groups (including the elderly, disabled, large families, the homeless, students, and transitional foster youth) in addition to other lower-income households. Priority will consist of advancing applications for review ahead of development applications not addressing special needs households. Implement priority based on community needs to ensure adequate housing for all residents within special needs groups.
Our City staff also supports and fosters collaborative efforts between and among public entities, religious institutions and private developers to maximize available resources and expertise.
Through these partnerships, the City strives to leverage private sector investments to create a greater number of affordable housing units.
Further, the preservation and promotion of naturally occurring affordable housing (NOAH) is also part of our affordable housing strategy. While developing housing that is affordable to lower income households is important and a key strategy, preservation of affordable units is equally important and requires additional resources. It may, in some cases, be more cost effective to preserve existing units. Additionally, the promotion of Accessory Dwelling Units, as NOAH, is a key strategy identified in Clayton’s Housing Plan.
R10. Each city and the County should consider prioritizing Measure X funding requests that support projects that address RHNA targets for very low- and low-income residents. Each city and County should consider reporting regularly to their residents on the use of Measure X funds for such purposes.
The recommendation will not be implemented. Measure X is a countywide 20-year, ½ cent sales tax approved by Contra Costa County voters on November 3, 2020 “to keep Contra Costa’s regional hospital open and staffed; fund community health centers, emergency response; support crucial safety-net services; invest in early childhood services; protect vulnerable populations; and for other essential county services.” Under the Measure X Program Allocation Summary, only $10 million dollars (about 13 percent of FY 2022-23 funding and about 4.5 percent of total funding) were allocated to a Local Housing Trust Fund; for FY 2023-24, $12 million dollars were allocated. The Measure X Housing Funds are to be dispersed by the County DCD, the Health Services’ Health, Housing and Homeless (HSD-H3) Services, and the Housing Authority of the County of Contra Costa. The use of Measure X funds for housing are reported by the County here: https://www.contracosta.ca.gov/8530/Measure-X
The jurisdiction has identified local funding sources for each of their Program Actions in their Housing Element to support affordable housing projects that address RHNA targets for very lowand low-income residents.
Exhibit B
Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
2022-2023
Contra Costa County
Civil Grand Jury
Report 2306
June 14, 2023
Contact: Cynthia Roberts
Foreperson
(925) 608-2621
Contra Costa County Grand Jury Report 2306
Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
TO:
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors
City Councils for All Cities in Contra Costa County
Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 i of i Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury Table of Contents
GLOSSARY AND ABBREVIATIONS......................................................................................1 SUMMARY................................................................................................................................2 METHODOLOGY......................................................................................................................3 DOCUMENTS .........................................................................................................................3 INTERVIEWS...........................................................................................................................3 BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................4 DISCUSSION...........................................................................................................................12 RHNA TARGETS AND CITY AND COUNTY RESPONSIBILITY ...........................................12 ADDITIONAL OBSTACLES THAT HINDER THE DEVELOPMENT OF AH ........................13 Limited Availability of Land ...............................................................................................13 Restrictive Zoning Policies Specific to AH Development ....................................................13 Developer Interest to Bring Projects Forward ......................................................................14 Limited Funding..................................................................................................................14 Lack of Community Support ...............................................................................................14 NIMBY Opposition & City Council response to NIMBY opposition...................................14 CITIES AND THEIR RELATIONSHIP WITH THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA........................15 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ..............................................................................16 FINDINGS:............................................................................................................................16 RECOMMENDATIONS:........................................................................................................17 REQUIRED RESPONSES........................................................................................................19 REFERENCES: ........................................................................................................................20 BIBLIOGRAPHY: ..................................................................................................................20 APPENDICES .............................................................................................................................
A-1. CONTRA COSTA COUNTY AVERAGE MEDIAN INCOME 2022.................................21 A-2. 2022 CCC WAGES, RENT TO INCOME, AMI STATUS ................................................22 A-3. BAY AREA RHNA ALLOCATIONS AND PROGRESS ...................................................23 A-4. SB 35 VERY LOW-INCOME AND LOW-INCOME DETERMINATION SUMMARIES ..27 A-5. NEWS ARTICLES REGARDING AFFORDABLE HOUSING ........................................34 Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 1 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury
GLOSSARY AND ABBREVIATIONS
ABAG Association of Bay Area Governments
AH Affordable Housing
Allocations State-issued housing goals by income category that must be planned for and included in each County and city housing element plan AMI Area Median Income – Refer to Table 1
Builder’s Remedy A provision found in California’s Housing Accountability Act (HAA) that allows developers of affordable housing projects to bypass the zoning code and general plan of cities that are out of compliance with the Housing Element Law.
Extremely Low
Income
30% or less of area AMI
HEP Housing Element Plans
HCD The State Department of Housing and Community Development Inclusionary Housing
Ordinance
Regulation, when adopted by a city or the County, requires new residential developments to include a minimum percentage of very low-, low-, and moderate-income households into residential developments of five units or more (generally 15%)
Low Income (LI) 50- 80% or less of area AMI.
RDA Redevelopment Agency - dedicated to urban renewal.
RHNA Regional Housing Needs Allocation
Measure X Housing
Fund
Contra Costa County’s 20-year, $12 million annual share of Measure X ½ cent sales tax to be used for housing & services.
NIMBY Not in my back yard
SB 35 California Senate Bill 35 streamlines the housing construction process for cities and counties that fail to build enough housing to meet state-mandated requirements for very low- and low-income households.
Very Low Income
(VLI)
30-50% of area AMI. Qualifications for this designation are based on the collective income of all the persons in a household (total household income).
Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 2 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury
SUMMARY
The civil grand jury began this investigation to understand how Contra Costa County is addressing the need for affordable housing. We started by reviewing California Housing and Community reports titled Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) results for the County.
These reports, issued at the end of each Housing Element cycle, show housing permits issued for various resident income classification groups against state mandated targets. Each city plus unincorporated County areas of responsibility results are listed. Appendix 3 comprises results for the past 3 Housing Element cycles plus targets for the latest cycle 2023-2031.
After reviewing these reports, we realized that most cities and our County were not providing the required number of housing permits primarily for very low- and low-income resident housing.
Close examination of these reports reveals the scale and accelerated progression of missed targets. Additionally, these reports show that the very low- and low-income resident categories reflect the largest percentage of missed RHNA and plan targets over the past 20 years.
Based on these initial findings, we focused our efforts on housing for residents classified as very low or low income. We wanted to understand who in local government is responsible for implementation of approved housing plans and why were those plans failing to address permit targets for very low- and low-income residents. What are the drivers/obstacles behind these missed targets, and what actions were being taken to increase the availability of affordable housing for these residents throughout our County.
What we found was that although there is ownership for the creation and approval of Housing Elements that address affordable housing targets, we could not find clear assigned responsibility inside local government to implement plans after approval. This problem, combined with the myriad of challenging obstacles outlined in this report has translated into years of missed targets for residents classified as very low or low income. Without significant changes to how local governments address affordable housing, cities and the County risk the imposition of State mandated solutions that bypass local development protocols. This report is a summation of our work, findings and recommendations for improvement.
.
Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 3 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury
METHODOLOGY
Documents
The grand jury reviewed numerous documents from local, County, regional, and State agencies. For a comprehensive list see the References section of this document.
Interviews
The grand jury conducted interviews with city and County leaders knowledgeable about the housing development process in the west, central and east County cities. We also interviewed:
• developers that specialize in affordable housing construction projects • leaders with experience in addressing housing development issues • various staff members with housing responsibilities
Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 4 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury
BACKGROUND
The housing element cycle was introduced in 1969, when the California State Legislature passed laws requiring that all cities and counties adequately plan to meet the housing needs of people at all income levels in the community. California’s local governments meet this requirement by adopting housing plans as part of their “general plan” (also required by the state).
The process involves significant planning from experts in local government, and citizens are asked proactively for input on these proposed plans before being submitted to the State for approval. The Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) approves all HEPs.
The role of the state, besides approval of each HEP, is to identify the total number of homes required by resident income classification so that cities and counties can include these numbers in their HEPs. These numbers are required to be included in each city and County HEP.
Determining individual income classifications is a County-specific exercise. It starts with a determination of County Area Median Income (AMI). As noted in Table 1 below, the state defines for each County, which is then extrapolated into specific resident income classifications.
After development of housing allocation numbers by HCD, the data is passed down to the regional authority, the Association of Bay Area Governments, (ABAG), as a Regional Housing Need Determination (RHND). This is the first step in California’s process to plan for the housing needs in each region of the state. It is RHND’s responsibility to also track permits issued against allocation targets in each Housing Element Plan (HEP). This tracking of progress against targets is communicated through ABAG issued reports (Appendix 3).
The next step, allocation, is also the role of the regional authority, ABAG. It is their responsibility to allocate a share of the RHND housing numbers to each city and County as a Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA). These numbers are broken out by resident income, classified as very low income, low income, moderate income and above moderate income.
The next two tables reflect Contra Costa County’s average median income, occupation, and wages of some of the County residents. We wanted to understand who in our community is part of the very low- and low-income groups. We realized that we all probably know someone who may be impacted by the shortage of affordable housing in the County.
Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 5 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury Table 1 below, from the California Department of Housing and Community Development website, shows the state definition of income limits for residents in Contra Costa County based on the calculation of the average median income (AMI). AMI is based on the collective income of all the persons in a household (total household income).
Table 1: 2022 State Income Limits by Household
Contra Costa County
Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 6 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury Table 2 below contains data from govsalaries.com. It identifies by occupation some of the County occupations that fall into the very low- and low-income classifications as well as a few occupations that are just over the threshold, falling into the median income group.
Table 2: 2022 CCC Wages, Rent to Income, AMI Status
In addition to residents in these occupational categories, a lack of very low- and low-income affordable housing impacts senior County residents (over the age of 65). Seniors are one of the fastest growing population segments in the County. The most recent US Census for the County indicates that 6.7 percent of the total population, over 200,000 residents, is over the age of 65, an increase of 12.5 percent since 2010. The California Department of Aging projects that this group of residents will grow by over 150 percent by 2060.
Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 7 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury The next two charts contain data extracted from published ABAG housing reports (Appendix 3).
They highlight the disappointing results in housing permits issued against mandated allocations for very low- and low-income residents.
Chart 1 shows a 21-year decline in the percentage of permits issued for very low-income residents, even as allocation targets stayed relatively flat. For the upcoming 2023-2031 allocation cycle for very low-income housing, allocations have tripled.
Chart 1: Very-low Income Housing Allocations and Permits for CCC 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0 2
4 6
8 10
12 14
16 1999-2006 Progress 2007 -2014 2015 -2020 2023-2031
Thousands
Percentage
RHNA Cycle
Contra Costa County Very Low Income
RHNA Allocation and Permits
RHNA Allocation Permits Issued Percent of Allocation Permitted Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 8 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury Chart 2 shows a 15-year decline in low-income housing permits, with an uplift in the most recent allocation cycle. However, the County still only issued permits for about half of the allocations mandated by the state for this same period. And again, the upcoming allocation cycle for 2023- 2031 has a significant bump in the mandated allocation for low-income housing.
Chart 2: Low Income Housing Allocations and Permits for CCC The data published in charts 1 & 2 above illustrates that over the period 1999-2020 the County has failed to provide the number of housing units mandated by the State of California and as they have planned for in their individual city and County element plans for very low- and low-income residents.
To understand the allocation targets and whether all income groups were equally impacted, the grand jury again looked at whether there had been any progress made against RHNA targets within any of the other income groups. What we found was that housing permits for high income housing had outpaced other income groups, with high income permits more than double all other income group housing permits combined. Close examination of the details published in the reports found in Appendix 3 validates this reality. The next 2 charts again use graphic descriptions of this published data to reinforce the magnitude of the problem. 0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
0 1
2 3
4 5
6 7
8 9
1999-2006 Progress 2007 -2014
Progress4325
2015 - 2020 Progress 2023 - 2031
Thousands
Percentage
RHNA Cycle
Contra Costa County Low Income
RHNA Allocation and Permits
RHNA Allocation Permits Issued Percent of Allocations Permitted Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 9 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury Chart 3 looks at the past three Housing Element cycles results against allocations for the four income categories measured by RHNA reports for Contra Costa County. It also identifies new allocations for the current 2023-2031 Housing Element cycle. The income categories are VLI (very low), L (low), M (moderate), and H- (above moderate), which align with income categories measured in RHNA published progress reports. This chart also shows what percentage of the planned permits (allocation) resulted in a corresponding permit (Permits Issued) being issued for each income group as a percentage (Percent Permitted).
Chart 3: Contra Costa County
RHNA Allocations and Permits by Income Group
0%
50%
100%
150%
200%
250%
0 5
10 15
20 25
30 35
40 VLI L M H VLI L M H VLI L M H VLI L M H
1999-2006 2007 -2014 2015 -2020 2023-2031
Thousands
Contra Costa County RHNA Allocations
and Permits
Allocation Permits Issued Percent Permitted
Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 10 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury Chart 4 below takes a representative sample of cities in the County and shows the percentage of housing permits issued for very low- and low-income residents measured against all housing permits issued for the time period 1999-2020. Most of the cities identified fell short of their allocation goals.
Chart 4: Very Low and Low-Income Housing Permits as a % of All Permits by City Chart 5 is a listing of all 19 cities in the County, showing how much housing was permitted for very low- and low-income residents in the last Housing Element cycle 2015-2020 and what is expected to be accomplished in 2023-2031. As the chart shows, the State of California has increased the mandatory allocation for very low- and low-income housing for many Contra Costa County cities and for the County itself.
Chart 5: Very Low and Low-Income Permit Allocations by City Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 11 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury Whether reviewing individual city details in Appendix 3 or reviewing the County results overall, the track record regarding very low- and low-income permitted units for affordable housing over the past 20 years is dismal. How will each city and the County meet more challenging targets (Appendix 5) for very low- and low-income housing in the next Housing Element cycle and what might enable attainment in the future?
Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 12 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury
DISCUSSION
In every interview the grand jury conducted with city and County officials, all communicated that they care deeply about the affordable housing issue in their communities. However, none of those interviewed acknowledged or identified themselves, their department or any other agency as having responsibility for the actual attainment of RHNA housing targets. Although we found the Housing Element Plans on the various city and the County entities, we did not find any language or group description that identified an owning entity that is either accountable or responsible for the execution of the Housing Element Plan, identifying and addressing obstacles, or attaining state mandated targets. The grand jury was unable to find any owner for the actual achievement of state mandated housing targets. Meaning that once a Housing Element plan containing the mandated housing targets for each income group was approved, no individual or department was responsible for implementing the approved Housing Element plan or accountable for the progress/results against the established targets within the plan.
Our investigation looked at three specific areas that should enable affordable housing. First, the RHNA targets identified in housing element plans and who in local government takes ownership to implement approved HEPs. Second, what control do our cities and the County have in the affordable housing development process? Finally, the state’s relationship with our cities and the County: how decisions by the state impact affordable housing development in our County.
RHNA Targets and City and County Responsibility
Each city is required by the State of California to provide an updated housing element plan for approval every eight years. The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG), a Bay Area local government consortium whose mission is to strengthen cooperation and collaboration across local governments in order to build healthier and stronger communities, receives the affordable housing target data from the state. This data outlines how much housing will be needed, by income category, for the next reporting cycle. ABAG distributes the individual targets for each city and the County for the current cycle. ABAG then provides a report, before the next housing element cycle, which documents each city and the County results against targets.
Contra Costa County city and County performance in issuing housing permits for very low- and low-income residents for the last three housing element cycles, 1999-2006, 2007-2014 and 2015- 2020, showed significant misses of actual permits issued against the targets.
The charts in Appendix 3 reflect the number of permits issued by city, against RHNA allocation targets for each housing element. Appendix 5 is the final RHNA allocation for 2023-2031. All data presented in appendices 3 and 5 reflect that our cities and County are permitting housing, primarily for residents in the 120 percent of median or higher income classification.
City and County officials are primarily focused on getting HCD to approve an individual housing element plan. In multiple interviews with various city officials, after HEP approval we did not find examples of consistent communication of progress to meeting targets for very low- and lowincome residents. In these same interviews, RHNA targets were described as “aspirational, not Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 13 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury realistic, or not attainable.” Interviewees used different words, but overall, RHNA targets were considered mostly an academic exercise that no one takes seriously. Furthermore, we did not find a specific owner for attainment of the housing element plan allocations, leading us to believe that this could well be one of the key reasons for our County’s failure to realize (permit and build) affordable housing for very low- and low-income residents.
Additional Obstacles that Hinder the Development of AH
Six additional obstacles to the development of AH for residents identified as very low- and lowincome are:
• limited availability of land;
• restrictive zoning policies specific to AH development; • limited developer interest to bring projects forward; • limited funding;
• lack of community support;
• NIMBY – an industry term that denotes opposition to development in a neighborhood, community, or city.
These obstacles are not uniform or constant across the County. Rather, some are more pronounced in one area or at one time.
Limited Availability of Land
Cities with less available land, but access to mass transit hubs, benefit from incentives to build AH close to transit centers. West County cities have benefitted the most from these projects. East County cities with large tracts of undeveloped land have had recent success in building AH projects for very low- and low-income residents. The Antioch Family and Senior Apartments project, completed in 2022, is an example of a successful AH project, in that it was submitted, approved, and completed in a relatively short time period with minimal roadblocks (References/ Bibliography East Bay Times October 22, 2022). Central County cities must balance extremely high land costs against AH development needs.
Restrictive Zoning Policies Specific to AH Development
City zoning ordinances vary greatly throughout the County but in many instances are not conducive to the development of AH. For instance, we conducted a limited proactive review of existing zoning policies to see if there were any subtle changes to local building codes that could be made to ease the approval of AH projects. Some cities zone land for AH development, but land that is far from basic services, in very expensive-to-develop areas, or in environmentally sensitive locations. Some cities have restrictive height zoning ordinances. Many cities do not have an inclusionary housing ordinance. (An inclusionary housing ordinance requires developers to set aside select units for very low- and low-income residents when proposing projects or to pay cities for the exclusion creating a local funding opportunity.) Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 14 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury Developer Interest to Bring Projects Forward
Actions by local city councils greatly influence how developers view their ability to successfully create an AH development. In our interviews with city officials and developers, it was determined that city councils that work openly to mitigate community concerns, don’t flip flop after a project has been properly vetted, and are willing to team with developers as partners throughout the long approval and development process are viewed as fostering conducive and supportive environments for AH development. Failure to team with a developer or to actively address obstacles during the approval and development process often results in failing to meet AH targets.
Limited Funding
The lack of funding and the complexity associated with getting funding support for AH projects are obstacles. The state prioritizes AH projects that provide some local funding support.
Developers who rely on tax incentives to help secure project funding get a better place in line to have their projects approved if there is demonstrated local funding support. City officials attribute the elimination of redevelopment agencies as a local funding source in 2012 as a key reason local funding has been so difficult to obtain. The County has been slow to provide alternative funding sources. Voters passed Measure X in 2020, and housing funds will finally be available in 2023. Other Bay Area counties took a more assertive role in providing alternative funding support for their cities.
In 2016, Alameda County passed measure A1, which dedicated $580 million for AH. In 2016, Santa Clara County passed Measure A, which allocated $950 million for AH. In Contra Costa County, Measure X carved out $240 million as a dedicated housing fund, with a stipulation that only $12 million annually for 20 years will be allocated to support housing. No funds are dedicated specifically to building housing for very low- and low-income residents, and there is no direct link of fund requests to achieving RHNA targets.
Lack of Community Support
Cities across the County have a wide range of policies around outreach and education about AH.
The effort to educate communities as to why this housing issue is so important is broadly different across the County. In reviewing successful AH projects completed in the County citizen involvement and participation has shown to lessen local opposition to AH.
NIMBY Opposition and City Council response to NIMBY Opposition NIMBY opposition was frequently cited by the developers that we interviewed as a primary cause of wasted resources and unnecessary project delays. Communities where projects get tied up in extensive local battles with non-supportive citizens or with city councils that reverse earlier decisions made through the normal local development process were cited by developers as influencing whether they would consider proposing AH projects in these communities.
Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 15 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury Cities and Their Relationship with the State of California The state grants cities and counties broad independence to do what is best for their community regarding housing development. But the state retains the ability to override local city jurisdiction.
The Builder’s Remedy provision in California’s Housing Accountability Act has been in place since 1990. It grants developers the authority to bypass any local zoning or approval process and move projects forward if a local government entity is not in compliance with its current Housing Element plans. Compliance has meant meeting the requirement to have an approved HEP. While in place for many years, the state, until recently, has rarely enforced this provision. City and County officials who were interviewed recognize that there is now a more intense state oversight process to plan submissions, and there are potential penalties for poor content plans or plans that do not get approved by state deadlines. This renewed intensity of focus has forced cities and counties to improve the quality of their Housing Element plans. The Builder’s Remedy is the draconian solution that the state may enforce if cities insist on proposing Housing Element plans that are not implementable. The city and County officials interviewed for this investigation expect to get their housing element plans approved. But again, plan approval does not equal plan implementation.
Senate Bill 35 allows qualifying development projects with certain minimum affordable housing guarantees to move more quickly through the local government review process. The bill amended the Government Code to restrict the ability of local governments to reject these projects. A project approved under SB 35 cannot be challenged under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). This is an important feature of projects developed under SB35 as much has been discussed publicly about how CEQA lawsuits have been used to slow or stop the development of AH projects. Appendix 4 identifies individual cities and counties that have met their prorated very low- and low-income RHNA goals for the latest reporting period.
It’s a small list. In this County, only El Cerrito qualified for exemption from SB 35. We did not find examples of projects being developed in this County that have been or could be streamlined under SB 35.
Cities in this County that propose Housing Element plans, implement their approved plans, and meet RHNA targets for very low- and low-income residents will not run the risk of losing local development control through either Builder’s Remedy or SB35.
Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 16 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury Findings and Recommendations
Findings:
F1. Within existing city or County infrastructure there is no clear owner who is responsible for achieving RHNA permitting targets.
F2. City and County officials see no direct path to meet state-mandated regional housing (RHNA) targets.
F3. There are currently no measurable penalties if a city or a County does not achieve RHNA targets in an approved housing element plan.
F4. Data published by ABAG shows that Contra Costa County and most of its cities have missed their current RHNA targets for very low- and low-income housing allocations. The allocation requirements continue to increase (16x for very low-income and 4x for lowincome residents).
F5. Many obstacles hinder the development of AH at the local level, specifically for very lowand low-income housing, including:
a. Limited availability of land;
b. Restrictive zoning policies specific to AH development; c. Limited developer interest to bring projects forward; d. Limited available funding;
e. Lack of community support;
f. NIMBY opposition & city council response to NIMBY opposition.
F6. Zoning changes are generally addressed only when a project is presented for development.
Zoning obstacles include:
a. Housing element plans that offer poor land choices for AH development; b. Restrictive height and high-density zoning policies; c. Lack of inclusionary housing ordinance(s) in many cities.
F7. Penalties directed at cities and the County (financial, loss of control over local planning) are tied to not meeting state deadlines for Housing Element plan approval F8. Builder’s Remedy and SB35 projects do not address ingrained local obstacles identified in this report that prevent the completion of approved AH projects.
F9. When local Redevelopment Agencies (RDA’s) were discontinued by the state in 2012, the County and cities did not address the loss of funding for affordable housing or find alternative funding to support affordable housing projects until voters passed Measure X in November 2020. Projects that target very low- and low-income residents were particularly impacted.
Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 17 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury F10. Measure X housing funds are not fully dedicated to building AH for very low- and lowincome residents.
F11. Local funding provided by bonds like Measure X Housing Fund is a critical component of a developer’s overall ability to raise funds for an AH development.
F12. Cities that proactively engage citizens, address zoning obstacles, make reasonable zoning concessions, work collaboratively with developers, provide local funding support, and are united in addressing NIMBY opposition, have been successful in attracting AH projects.
F13. The latest RHNA targets for cities and unincorporated Contra Costa County show a significant increase in the number of units that are expected to be permitted for very lowand low-income housing.
Recommendations:
R1. Each city and the County should consider assigning a staff position with clear leadership, ownership and accountability to achieve allocated RHNA targets. The individual in this position would be responsible for establishing and promoting an operational plan to achieve the RHNA goals set forth in the housing element plan.
R2. Each city and the County should report AH progress and lack of progress using data across all four measured income groups. Special attention should be paid to tracking the housing needs of residents categorized as very low- and low-income. Cities and the County should communicate their progress, biannually, against RHNA targets at council and supervisor meetings.
R3. Each city and the County should consider creating a dedicated AH commission comprised of a multi-disciplinary team of diverse citizens and led by a current, nonelected, city expert in planning. Each commission would be charged with providing a community voice in the process and helping to identify and address obstacles that hinder the development of affordable housing projects in their community.
R4. Each city and the County should consider reviewing existing processes and identifying changes that would address or resolve the specific obstacles identified in this report that hinder achieving RHNA allocation targets for very low- and low-income housing in their community.
R5. Each city and the County should consider developing a public dashboard to report progress against RHNA targets.
R6. Each city and the County should consider, in their individual Housing Element plans, putting forth land zoned “suitable for residential use,” without development obstacles, and located strategically close to existing services, for AH purposes.
Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 18 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury R7. Each city and the County should consider reviewing their zoning policies to identify restrictive zoning policies unique to their jurisdiction that impede AH projects and consider making zoning changes in light of that review that will support AH in their community.
R8. Cities should consider adopting an inclusionary housing ordinance as part of their standard development policy by the end of 2023 (if not already in place).
R9. Each city and the County should consider how to prioritize the implementation of housing projects that promote development of very low- and low-income housing.
R10. Each city and the County should consider prioritizing Measure X funding requests that support projects that address RHNA targets for very low- and low-income residents. Each city and County should consider reporting regularly to their residents on the use of Measure X funds for such purposes.
Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 19 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury
REQUIRED RESPONSES
As required by California Penal Code sections 933(b) and 933.05, the 2022-2023 Contra Costa County civil grand jury requires responses from the following governing bodies:
Responding Agency Findings Recommendations
Contra Costa County Board of Supervisors F1--F13 R1-R7 & R9-R10 Antioch City Council F1-F13 R1-R10
Brentwood City Council F1-F13 R1-R10
Clayton City Council F1-F13 R1-R10
Concord City Council F1-F13 R1-R10
Danville City Council F1-F13 R1-R10
El Cerrito City Council F1-F13 R1-R10
Hercules City Council F1-F13 R1-R10
Lafayette City Council F1-F13 R1-R10
Martinez City Council F1-F13 R1-R10
Moraga City Council F1-F13 R1-R10
Oakley City Council F1-F13 R1-R10
Orinda City Council F1-F13 R1-R10
Pinole City Council F1-F13 R1-R10
Pittsburg City Council F1-F13 R1-R10
Pleasant Hill City Council F1-F13 R1-R10
Richmond City Council F1-F13 R1-R10
San Pablo City Council F1-F13 R1-R10
San Ramon City Council F1-F13 R1-R10
Walnut Creek City Council F1-F13 R1-R10
These responses must be provided in the format and by the date set forth in the cover letter that accompanies this report. An electronic copy of these responses in the form of a Word document should be sent by e-mail to [email protected] and a hard (paper) copy should be sent to:
Civil Grand Jury – Foreperson
725 Court Street
P.O. Box 431
Martinez, CA 94553-0091
Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 20 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury REFERENCES:
Bibliography:
• Association of Bay Area Governments:
o RHNA 1999-2006 Final Report
o RHNA San Francisco Bay Area Progress in Meeting 2007-2014 o RHNA 2015 - 2020 Bay Area Building Permit Activity Report o RHNA Final Regional Housing Needs Allocation Plan: San Francisco Bay Area, 2023-2031
o RHNA - Regional Housing Needs Allocation
o RHNA: Housing Element Law Changes from 1969 to 2020
• U.S. Census Quick Facts / Contra Costa County, CA
• Fannie Mae Area Median Income Lookup Tool / Contra Costa County, CA • CEQA: The California Environmental Quality Act
• SB35 Affordable Housing: Streamlined Approval Process • Housing Accountability Act (Government Code Section 65589.51): Builder's Remedy and Housing Elements
• Mercury News, February 13, 2023: New bill would extend controversial California housing law
• Mercury News, October 20, 2022: Antioch unveils its newest and largest affordable income apartment complex
• Contra Costa County Civil Grand Jury, 2015-2016, Report 1614: Where Will We Live? The Affordable Housing Waiting List is Closed
• Contra Costa Conservation and Development: Measure X Housing Fund • Santa Clara County Office of Supportive Housing: 2016 Measure A - Affordable Housing Bond
• Alameda County HCD: Measure A1 Implementation Policies - Rental Housing Development Fund & Innovation and Opportunity Fund
Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 21 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury Appendices
A-1. Contra Costa County Average Median Income 2022
Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 22 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury A-2. 2022 CCC Wages, Rent to Income, AMI Status
Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 23 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury A-3. Bay Area RHNA Allocations and Progress
CCC Progress in Meeting 1999-2006 Regional Housing Need Allocation Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 24 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury CCC Progress in Meeting 2007-2014 Regional Housing Need Allocation CCC Progress in Meeting 2015 - 2020 Regional Housing Need Allocation Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 25 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury Very Low Income Low Income Moderate Income Above Moderate Income Jurisdiction RHNA
Permits Issued %
RHNA
Met
RHNA
Permits Issued %
RHNA
Met
RHNA
Permits Issued %
RHNA
Met
RHNA Permits
Issued
%
RHNA
Met Deed
Restricted
NonDeed
Restricted
Total Deed
Restricted
NonDeed
Restricted
Total Deed
Restricted
NonDeed
Restricted
Total
Contra Costa County 5,264 798 19 817 16% 3,086 1,580 116 1,696 55% 3,496 260 953 1,213 35% 8,784 14,020 128% Antioch 349 175 18 193 55% 205 299 1 300 146% 214 0 34 34 16% 680 795 117%
Brentwood 234 2 0 2 1% 124 6 10 16 13% 123 0 85 85 69% 279 3,192 1144% Clayton 51 0 0 0 0% 25 0 5 5 20% 31 0 0 0 0% 34 8
24%
Concord 798 0 0 0 0% 444 0 0 0 0% 559 5 5 10 2% 1,677 501 30% Danville 196 20 0 20 10% 111 3 27 30 27% 124 2 38 40 32% 126 484 384% El Cerrito 100 62 0 62 62% 63 6 0 6 10% 69 0 13 13 19% 166 459 277% Hercules 220 0 0 0 0% 118 0 16 16 14% 100 0 217 217 217% 244 509 209% Lafayette 138 7 0 7 5% 78 6 0 6 8% 85 24 40 64 75% 99 319 322% Martinez 124 0 0 0 0% 72 0 0 0 0% 78 0 0 0 0% 195 88 45% Moraga 75 0 0 0 0% 44 0 0 0 0% 50 0 6 6 12% 60 86 143%
Oakley 317 8 0 8 3% 174 170 0 170 98% 175 26 208 234 134% 502 1,273 254% Orinda 84 0 0 0 0% 47 0 0 0 0% 54 0 30 30 56% 42 254 605% Pinole 80 0 0 0 0% 48 0 0 0 0% 43 0 1 1 2% 126 25 20%
Pittsburg 392 75 0 75 19% 254 708 34 742 292% 316 0 71 71 22% 1,063 976 92% Pleasant Hill 118 0 0 0 0% 69 19 0 19 28% 84 0 41 41 49% 177 112 63% Richmond 438 266 0 266 61% 305 81 0 81 27% 410 0 0 0 0% 1,282 612 48% San Pablo 56 0 0 0 0% 53 3 4 7 13% 75 8 21 29 39% 265 36 14% San Ramon 516 25 0 25 5% 279 87 0 87 31% 282 164 0 164 58% 340 1,547 455% Walnut Creek 604 96 0 96 16% 355 18 10 28 8% 381 0 44 44 12% 895 1,210 135% Contra Costa
Unincorporated 374 62 1 63 17% 218 174 9 183 84% 243 31 99 130 53% 532 1,534 288% RHNA: Regional Housing Needs Allocation
%RHMA Met >100
75> %RHNA Met >100
%RHN Met <75
Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 26 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury Final RHNA Allocations for 2023-2031
Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 27 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury A-4. SB 35 Very Low Income and Low-Income Determination Summaries
Cities and Counties Not Currently Subject to SB 35 Streamlining Provisions This determination represents Housing Element Annual Progress Report (APR) data received as of June 1, 2022. The following 38 jurisdictions have met their prorated Lower (Very-Low and Low) and Above-Moderate Income Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) for the Reporting Period and submitted their latest APR (2021).
These jurisdictions are not currently subject to the streamlined ministerial approval process (SB 35 (Chapter 366, Statutes of 2017) streamlining), but the jurisdictions are still encouraged to promote streamlining. All other cities and counties beyond these 38 are subject to at least some form of SB 35 streamlining, as indicated on the following pages.
For more detail on the proration methodology or background data see the SB 35 Determination Methodology.
JURISDICTION JURISDICTION
1 ATHERTON 20 MILL VALLEY
2 BELL 21 MONTE SERENO
3 BELLFLOWER 22 NEWPORT BEACH
4 BEVERLY HILLS 23 NORWALK
5 BUENA PARK 24 PLUMAS CO.
6 CALISTOGA 25 ROHNERT PARK
7 CARPINTERIA 26 ROLLING HILLS ESTATES
8 CORTE MADERA 27 SAINT HELENA
9 EL CERRITO 28 SAN BERNARDINO CO.
10 FOSTER CITY 29 SANTA ANA
11 FOUNTAIN VALLEY 30 SANTA CLARA CO.
12 GUADALUPE 31 SANTA MONICA
13 HILLSBOROUGH 32 SIERRA CO.
14 INDUSTRY 33 SOLVANG
15 LA HABRA 34 SONOMA CO.
16 LA QUINTA 35 UKIAH
17 LAGUNA NIGUEL 36 VILLA PARK
18 MENDOCINO CO. 37 WESTMINSTER
19 MENLO PARK 38 WOODSIDE
Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 28 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury Cities and Counties Subject to SB 35 Streamlining Provisions When Proposed Developments Include ≥10% Affordability
These 263 jurisdictions have insufficient progress toward their Above Moderate income RHNA and/or have not submitted the latest Housing Element Annual Progress Report (APR) (2021) and therefore are subject to the streamlined ministerial approval process (SB 35 (Chapter 366, Statutes of 2017) streamlining) for proposed developments with at least 10% affordability.
JURISDICTION JURISDICTION JURISDICTION
1 ADELANTO 28 BURBANK 55 DEL REY OAKS
2 ALAMEDA CO. 29 BUTTE CO. 56 DELANO
3 ALISO VIEJO 30 CALAVERAS CO. 57 DESERT HOT SPRINGS
4 ALTURAS 31 CALEXICO 58 DIAMOND BAR
5 AMADOR 32 CALIFORNIA CITY 59 DORRIS
6 AMADOR CO. 33 CALIPATRIA 60 DOS PALOS
7 APPLE VALLEY 34 CARSON 61 DUNSMUIR
8 ARCADIA 35 CERES 62 EAST PALO ALTO
9 ARCATA 36 CHOWCHILLA 63 EL CAJON
10 ARROYO GRANDE 37 CITRUS HEIGHTS 64 EL CENTRO
11 ARVIN 47 38 CLAYTON 65 EL MONTE
12 AUBURN 39 CLEARLAKE 66 ESCALON
13 AVALON 40 CLOVERDALE 67 ESCONDIDO
14 AVENAL 41 COACHELLA 68 ETNA
15 AZUSA 42 COLMA 69 EUREKA
16 BAKERSFIELD 43 COLTON 70 EXETER
17 BANNING 44 COLUSA 71 FAIRFAX 107
18 BARSTOW 45 COLUSA CO. 72 FARMERSVILLE
19 BEAUMONT 46 COMMERCE 73 FERNDALE
20 BELVEDERE 47 COMPTON 74 FILLMORE
21 BENICIA 48 CONCORD 75 FIREBAUGH
22 BIGGS 49 CORCORAN 76 FORT JONES
23 BISHOP 50 CORNING 77 FORTUNA
24 BLUE LAKE 51 COSTA MESA 78 FRESNO CO.
25 BLYTHE 52 CRESCENT CITY 79 GLENN CO.
26 BRADBURY 53 CUDAHY 80 GONZALES
27 BRAWLEY 54 DEL NORTE CO. 81 GRASS VALLEY
Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 29 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury
JURISDICTION JURISDICTION JURISDICTION
82 GREENFIELD 117 LEMON GROVE 152 NOVATO
83 GRIDLEY 118 LEMOORE 153 OCEANSIDE
84 GUSTINE 119 LINCOLN 154 OJAI
85 HALF MOON BAY 120 LINDSAY 155 ORANGE COVE
86 HANFORD 121 LIVINGSTON 156 ORLAND
87 HAWAIIAN GARDENS 122 LOMA LINDA 157 OROVILLE
88 HAYWARD 123 LOMPOC 158 OXNARD
89 HESPERIA 124 LOOMIS 159 PACIFICA
90 HIGHLAND 125 LOS ANGELES CO. 160 PALMDALE
91 HOLTVILLE 126 LOS GATOS 161 PARLIER
92 HUGHSON 127 LYNWOOD 162 PASO ROBLES
93 HUMBOLDT CO. 128 MADERA 163 PATTERSON
94 HUNTINGTON BEACH 129 MADERA CO. 164 PERRIS
95 HUNTINGTON PARK 130 MARICOPA 165 PICO RIVERA
96 HURON 131 MARTINEZ 166 PINOLE
97 IMPERIAL 132 MARYSVILLE 167 PLACERVILLE
98 IMPERIAL CO. 133 MAYWOOD 168 PLEASANT HILL
99 INGLEWOOD 134 MCFARLAND 169 POMONA
100 INYO CO. 135 MENDOTA 170 PORTERVILLE
101 IRWINDALE 136 MERCED CO. 171 PORTOLA
102 ISLETON 137 MILLBRAE 172 POWAY
103 KERMAN 138 MODESTO 173 RANCHO CORDOVA
104 KERN CO. 139 MONTAGUE 174 RED BLUFF
105 KINGS CO. 140 MONTEBELLO 175 REDLANDS
106 KINGSBURG 141 MONTEREY 176 REDONDO BEACH
107 LA HABRA HEIGHTS 142 MONTEREY PARK 177 REEDLEY
108 LA MIRADA 143 MORENO VALLEY 178 RIALTO
109 LA PUENTE 144 MORRO BAY 179 RICHMOND
110 LAKE CO. 145 MOUNT SHASTA 180 RIDGECREST
111 LAKE ELSINORE 146 NATIONAL CITY 181 RIO DELL
112 LAKEPORT 147 NEEDLES 182 RIPON
113 LAKEWOOD 148 NEVADA CITY 183 RIVERBANK
114 LANCASTER 149 NEVADA CO. 184 RIVERSIDE
Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 30 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury
JURISDICTION JURISDICTION JURISDICTION
115 LASSEN CO. 150 NEWMAN 185 RIVERSIDE CO.
116 LAWNDALE 151 NORCO 186 ROLLING HILLS
187 ROSS 213 SANTEE 239 TUOLUMNE CO.
188 SACRAMENTO 214 SARATOGA 240 TURLOCK
189 SACRAMENTO CO. 215 SAUSALITO 241 TWENTYNINE PALMS
190 SALINAS 216 SEASIDE 242 VALLEJO
191 SAN BERNARDINO 217 SEBASTOPOL 243 VENTURA CO.
192 SAN BRUNO 218 SELMA 244 VICTORVILLE
193 SAN DIEGO CO. 219 SHAFTER 245 VISALIA
194 SAN DIMAS 220 SHASTA CO. 246 WATERFORD
195 SAN FERNANDO 221 SHASTA LAKE 247 WEED
196 SAN GABRIEL 222 SIGNAL HILL 248 WEST HOLLYWOOD
197 SAN JACINTO 223 SISKIYOU CO. 249 WEST SACRAMENTO
198 SAN JOAQUIN 224 SOLANA BEACH 250 WESTLAKE VILLAGE
199 SAN JOAQUIN CO. 225 SONORA 260 251 WESTMORLAND
200 SAN JUAN BAUTISTA 226 SOUTH GATE 252 WHEATLAND
201 SAN LEANDRO 227 SOUTH LAKE TAHOE 253 WILDOMAR
202 SAN MARINO 228 STANISLAUS CO. 254 WILLIAMS
203 SAN MATEO CO. 229 STOCKTON 255 WILLITS
204 SAN PABLO 230 SUISUN CITY 256 WILLOWS
205 SAN RAFAEL 231 SUTTER CO. 257 WINDSOR
206 SAND CITY 232 TAFT 258 WOODLAKE
207 SANGER 233 TEHACHAPI 259 YOLO CO.
208 SANTA CLARITA 234 TEHAMA 260 YREKA
209 SANTA CRUZ CO. 235 TEHAMA CO. 261 YUBA CITY
210 SANTA MARIA 236 TORRANCE 262 YUCAIPA
211 SANTA PAULA 237 TULARE CO. 263 YUCCA VALLEY
212 SANTA ROSA 238 TULELAKE
Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 31 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury Cities and Counties Subject to SB 35 Streamlining Provisions When Proposed Developments Include ≥ 50 Percent Affordability These 238 jurisdictions have insufficient progress toward their Lower income RHNA (Very low- and low-income) and are therefore subject to the streamlined ministerial approval process (SB 35 (Chapter 366, Statutes of 2017) streamlining) for proposed developments with at least 50% affordability. If the jurisdiction also has insufficient progress toward their Above Moderate income RHNA, then they are subject to the more inclusive streamlining for developments with at least 50% affordability.
JURISDICTION JURISDICTION JURISDICTION
1 AGOURA HILLS 28 CANYON LAKE 55 DINUBA
2 ALAMEDA 29 CAPITOLA 56 DIXON
3 ALBANY 30 CARLSBAD 57 DOWNEY
4 ALHAMBRA 31 CARMEL 58 DUARTE
5 ALPINE CO. 32 CATHEDRAL 59 DUBLIN
6 AMERICAN CANYON 33 CERRITOS 60 EASTVALE
7 ANAHEIM 34 CHICO 61 EL DORADO CO.
8 ANDERSON 35 CHINO 62 EL SEGUNDO
9 ANGELS CAMP 36 CHINO HILLS 63 ELK GROVE
10 ANTIOCH 37 CHULA VISTA 64 EMERYVILLE
11 ARTESIA 38 CLAREMONT 65 ENCINITAS
12 ATASCADERO 39 CLOVIS 66 FAIRFIELD
13 ATWATER 40 COALINGA 67 FOLSOM
14 BALDWIN PARK 41 COLFAX 68 FONTANA
15 BELL GARDENS 42 CONTRA COSTA CO. 69 FORT BRAGG
16 BELMONT 43 CORONA 70 FOWLER
17 BERKELEY 44 CORONADO 71 FREMONT
18 BIG BEAR LAKE 45 COTATI 72 FRESNO
19 BREA 46 COVINA 73 FULLERTON
20 BRENTWOOD 47 CULVER CITY 74 GALT
21 BRISBANE 48 CUPERTINO 75 GARDEN GROVE
22 BUELLTON 49 CYPRESS 76 GARDENA
23 BURLINGAME 50 DALY CITY 77 GILROY
24 CALABASAS 51 DANA POINT 78 GLENDALE
25 CALIMESA 52 DANVILLE 79 GLENDORA
26 CAMARILLO 53 DAVIS 80 GOLETA
27 CAMPBELL 54 DEL MAR 81 GRAND TERRACE
82 GROVER BEACH 114 LOS ALAMITOS 146 OAKLEY
Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 32 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury
JURISDICTION JURISDICTION JURISDICTION
83 HAWTHORNE 115 LOS ALTOS 147 ONTARIO
84 HEALDSBURG 116 LOS ALTOS HILLS 148 ORANGE
85 HEMET 117 LOS ANGELES 149 ORANGE CO.
86 HERCULES 118 LOS BANOS 150 ORINDA
87 HERMOSA BEACH 119 LOYALTON 151 PACIFIC GROVE
88 HIDDEN HILLS 120 MALIBU 152 PALM DESERT
89 HOLLISTER 121 MAMMOTH LAKES 153 PALM SPRINGS
90 IMPERIAL BEACH 122 MANHATTAN BEACH 154 PALO ALTO
91 INDIAN WELLS 123 MANTECA 155 PALOS VERDES ESTATES
92 INDIO 124 MARIN CO. 156 PARADISE
93 IONE 125 MARINA 157 PARAMOUNT
94 IRVINE 126 MARIPOSA CO. 158 PASADENA
95 JACKSON 127 MENIFEE 159 PETALUMA
96 JURUPA VALLEY 128 MERCED 160 PIEDMONT
97 KING CITY 129 MILPITAS 161 PISMO BEACH
98 LA CANADA FLINTRIDGE 130 MISSION VIEJO 162 PITTSBURG 99 LA MESA 131 MODOC CO. 163 PLACENTIA
100 LA PALMA 132 MONO CO. 164 PLACER CO.
101 LA VERNE 133 MONROVIA 165 PLEASANTON
102 LAFAYETTE 134 MONTCLAIR 166 PLYMOUTH
103 LAGUNA BEACH 135 MONTEREY CO. 167 POINT ARENA
104 LAGUNA HILLS 136 MOORPARK 168 PORT HUENEME
105 LAGUNA WOODS 137 MORAGA 169 PORTOLA VALLEY
106 LAKE FOREST 138 MORGAN HILL 170 RANCHO CUCAMONGA
107 LARKSPUR 139 MOUNTAIN VIEW 171 RANCHO MIRAGE
108 LATHROP 140 MURRIETA 172 RANCHO PALOS VERDES
109 LIVE OAK 141 NAPA 173 RANCHO SANTA MARGARITA
110 LIVERMORE 142 NAPA CO. 174 REDDING
111 LODI 143 NEWARK 175 REDWOOD CITY
112 LOMITA 144 OAKDALE 176 RIO VISTA
113 LONG BEACH 145 OAKLAND 177 ROCKLIN
Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 33 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury
JURISDICTION JURISDICTION JURISDICTION
178 ROSEMEAD 199 SEAL BEACH 220 TULARE
179 ROSEVILLE 200 SIERRA MADRE 221 TUSTIN
180 SAN ANSELMO 201 SIMI VALLEY 222 UNION CITY
181 SAN BENITO CO. 202 SOLANO CO. 223 UPLAND
182 SAN CARLOS 203 SOLEDAD 224 VACAVILLE
183 SAN CLEMENTE 204 SONOMA 225 VENTURA
184 SAN DIEGO 205 SOUTH EL MONTE 226 VERNON
185 SAN FRANCISCO 206 SOUTH PASADENA 227 VISTA
186 SAN JOSE 207 SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO 228 WALNUT
187 SAN JUAN CAPISTRANO 208 STANTON 229 WALNUT CREEK
188 SAN LUIS OBISPO 209 SUNNYVALE 230 WASCO
189 SAN LUIS OBISPO CO. 210 SUSANVILLE 231 WATSONVILLE
190 SAN MARCOS 211 SUTTER CREEK 232 WEST COVINA
191 SAN MATEO 212 TEMECULA 233 WHITTIER
192 SAN RAMON 213 TEMPLE CITY 234 WINTERS
193 SANTA BARBARA 214 THOUSAND OAKS 235 WOODLAND
194 SANTA BARBARA CO. 215 TIBURON 236 YORBA LINDA
195 SANTA CLARA 216 TRACY 237 YOUNTVILLE
196 SANTA CRUZ 217 TRINIDAD 238 YUBA CO.
197 SANTA FE SPRINGS 218 TRINITY CO.
198 SCOTTS VALLEY 219 TRUCKEE
Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 34 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury A-5. News Articles Regarding Affordable Housing
Bay Area News Group article
Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 35 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 36 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury East Bay Times article
Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 37 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury Builder’s Remedy Article - The Fix
Affordable Housing
A Plan Without a Home
Contra Costa County 2022-2023 Civil Grand Jury Report 2306 38 of 38 Grand Jury Reports are posted at http://www.cc-courts.org/grandjury Agenda Item: 4(c)
AGENDA REPORT
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS
FROM: BRET PREBULA, CITY MANAGER
PRAPTI ARYAL, FINANCE DIRECTOR
DATE: August 15, 2023
SUBJECT: RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLAYTON
APPOINTING CALPERS RETIRED ANNUITANT RICHARD SANDERS TO THE POSITION OF “EXTRA HELP” AND APPROVING AN EMPLOYMENT
CONTRACT PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE
SECTION 21224
___________________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended the City Council adopt the attached Resolution appointing CalPERS retired annuitant Richard Sanders to the position of Extra Help and approving an employment contract pursuant to California Government Code Section 21224.
BACKGROUND
As has been previously reported, the City has faced significant turnover in the Finance Director role over several years.
To assist with FY2022/23 audit and various other finance and accounting projects, Richard Sanders, a retired annuitant will be helping the staff. Richard Sanders has helped the City last fiscal year with year-end close and various projects within Finance Department. Richard Sanders has over 25 years of government accounting experience and has direct experience with the accounting software the City uses, which will help to ensure that the City is able to close the FY2022/23 in a timely manner and complete special project work that is critically needed.
DISCUSSION
The Public Employee’s Retirement Law (PERL) generally prohibits CalPERS employers from hiring retirees unless they are first reinstated from retirement; however, an exception to this rule allows local agencies to hire retired annuitants pursuant to Government Code Subject: Appointment of CalPERS retired annuitant Richard Sanders as “Extra Help” and Approving an Employment Contract Pursuant to California Government Code 21224 Date:
Section 21224 provided certain key eligibility requirements are satisfied.
Under this Government Code provision, a retiree may serve without reinstatement when the services of a retiree possessing specialized skills to work as “extra help” in order to eliminate backlog or work on special projects. Specifically, the temporary employment under Government Code section 21224 requires the following conditions and limitations be met:
• the interim appointment is for a “limited duration” and requires “specialized skills” in the area of finance and accounting;
• the annuitant’s employment will not exceed 960 hours in a fiscal year (July 1 through June 30) for employment with all CalPERS employers combined; • the annuitant’s pay rate will not exceed the maximum monthly paid to other employees performing comparable duties as listed on a publicly available pay schedule for the vacant position;
• the annuitant will not receive any benefit, incentive, compensation in lieu of benefits, or other form of compensation in addition to the hourly pay rate; and • the retired annuitant will certify that they have not received unemployment insurance payments for prior retired annuitant work for any CalPERS employer within 12 months prior to the appointment date.
FISCAL IMPACT
The annuitant will be compensated $70.00 per hour for approximately 20 hours per week ($5,600 monthly) beginning on or about August 21, 2023 ending no later than June 30, 2024, and will receive no other benefit, incentive, compensation in lieu of benefits, or other form of compensation in addition to the hourly pay rate Attachments: 1. Resolution
2. “Exhibit A”, Employment Agreement
3. “Exhibit B”, Richard Sanders Resume
Resolution XX-2023 Annuitant Sanders Page 1 August 15, 2023 RESOLUTION XX-2023
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLAYTON APPOINTING
CALPERS RETIRED ANNUITANT RICHARD SANDERS TO THE POSITION OF “EXTRA HELP” FOR THE CITY OF CLAYTON, CA AND APPROVING AN
EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT PURSUANT TO CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 21224
WHEREAS, this is not a project as defined by CEQA;
WHEREAS, there is a backlog of accounting and finance work to be performed; WHEREAS, there are multiple special projects in the Finance Department to be completed.
WHEREAS, the City Manager seeks to execute a contract with Richard Sanders to serve as “extra help” in the Finance Department for the City of Clayton, consistent with the Public Employees’ Pension Reform Act (California Government Code Section 21224); WHEREAS, the Public Employee’s Retirement Law (PERL) generally prohibits CalPERS employers from hiring retirees unless they are first reinstated from retirement; however, an exception to this rule allows local agencies to hire retired annuitants pursuant to Government Code section 21224, subject to certain key eligibility requirements; WHEREAS, under the Government Code, a retiree may serve without reinstatement when the services of a retiree possessing specialized skills to work as “extra help” in order to eliminate backlog or work on special projects. Specifically, the temporary employment under Government Code section 21224;
WHEREAS, Mr. Sanders is a highly qualified and experienced government accountant with over 25 years of experience and retired government Accounting Manager who possesses the critically needed skills and experience to assist on clearing the backlog of work and completing special projects;
WHEREAS, this temporary employment assignment under Government Code section 21221(h) requires the following conditions and limitations be met:
• the candidate is deemed to possess specialized skills; • Mr. Sander’s appointment is for a “limited duration” and requires “specialized skills” in the area of finance and accounting; the contract term is from August 15, 2023 - June 30, 2024.
• the annuitant’s employment will not exceed 960 hours in a fiscal year (July 1 through June 30) for employment with all CalPERS employers combined; Resolution XX-2023 Annuitant Sanders Page 2 August 15, 2023 • the annuitant’s pay rate will not exceed the maximum monthly paid to other employees performing comparable duties as listed on a publicly available pay schedule for the vacant position;
• the annuitant will not receive any benefit, incentive, compensation in lieu of benefits, or other form of compensation in addition to the hourly pay rate; and • the retired annuitant will certify that they have not received unemployment insurance payments for prior retired annuitant work for any CalPERS employer within 12 months prior to the appointment date;
WHEREAS, the annuitant will be compensated at the maximum salary permissible for this position of $70.00 per hour ($5,600 monthly salary/80.00 hours per month) and will receive no other benefit, incentive, compensation in lieu of benefits, or other form of compensation in addition to the hourly pay rate;
WHEREAS no additional budget resources are requested.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Clayton hereby authorizes the City Manager to execute the attached contract (Exhibit 1) to appoint Richard Sanders to serve as “Extra Help”.
* * * * *
ADOPTED ON the 15th day of August, 2023 by the City Council of the City of Clayton by the following vote count:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN
THE CITY COUNCIL OF CLAYTON, CA
_________________________________
Jeff Wan, Mayor
ATTEST
_________________________
Janet Calderon, City Clerk
RICHARD SANDERS, CPA (inactive status)
NOTABLES
Complete responsibility for general ledgers; annual budgets; cash flow projections; management reports; complex reconciliations; and special projects.
Improve decision‐making by providing more relevant information. Dramatically increased collections and cash flows by automating and improving developer project billing functions. Researched and corrected prior years (5‐10 years) general ledger balances resulting in major changes to previously issued audited financial statements. Received acknowledgement from upper management and governing boards. Substantially increased annual indirect cost recovery rate by developing a comprehensive cost template accepted by federal agency (DHHS).
Streamlined accounting operations while maintaining productivity during periods of economic downsizing. Substantially reduced year‐end audit adjustments thereby improving the quality of interim financial reports. Proficient with accounting software and a strong understanding of features common among popular systems. Specific knowledge with Financial Edge, Eden, AS400, Superion, Pentamation, Sage and QuickBooks systems. Passed all four parts of CPA exam in first attempt.
SKILLS
Bookkeeping; accounting; budgeting; forecasting; reporting; GAAP; CAFR; problem‐solving; strong analytical skills; Excel; Word; Financial Edge software; Eden software; AS400 software; QuickBooks; team building; work well with others at all levels; forensic accounting; project accounting; fixed assets; cash flow projections; water rate analyses; creative ideas; complex reconciliations; experience in private, government and nonprofits.
PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE
Summary:
CPA since 1976
5 years Auditor in public accounting (GAAP)
10 years Controller in private industry and nonprofits $10M to $125M (GAAP) 20+ years Accounting Manager in government (fund accounting and GAAP) 12 Years working for cities (subject to PERS limitations), non‐for‐profits and a fire district
EDUCATION
1970 St. Olaf College, BA Economics
1975‐1976 University of Minnesota ‐ Accounting, Legal and IT courses required to sit for CPA exam Nola Woods
Public Affairs Director
The District
protecting public health since 1927
The District
protecting public health since 1927
Mosquitoes
Rats/mice
Skunks
Ticks
Yellowjackets
Bees
protecting public health since 1927
Special District
protecting public health since 1927
District Facts
protecting public health since 1927
2019 Trustee Photo
Board of Trustees
Represent the best interests of your community,
ensure the delivery of essential local services and
infrastructure, and faithfully serve the public good
while upholding the law.
Source: CSDA Board Member Handbook
Latest Vector-related Issues in Clayton
protecting public health since 1927
Latest Vector-related Issues in Clayton
protecting public health since 1927
Latest Vector-related Issues in Contra
Costa County
protecting public health since 1927
Latest Vector-related Issues in Contra
Costa County
protecting public health since 1927
155 Mason Circle, Concord
www.ContraCostaMosquito.com
Agenda Item: 7(a)
1 STAFF REPORT
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: Prapti Aryal, Finance Director
DATE: August 15, 2023
SUBJECT: Quarterly Financial Reports On The City’s Investment Portfolio For The Period Ending June 30, 2023.
___________________________________________________________________________
RECOMMENDATION
Staff respectfully recommends that the Committee receive and file the Treasurer’s Quarterly Financial Reports on the City’s investment portfolio for the periods ending June 30, 2023.
BACKGROUND
All local agencies are required to file regular financial reports with their legislative body on the status of their investment portfolio. One of the roles of the City’s Finance Department is to manage investments of the City Funds to ensure that cash flow needs are met.
This report includes:
1. The type of investment, issuer, date of maturity, and par and dollar amount invested on all securities, investments and funds held by the City;
2. A current market value as of the date of the report;
3. A stated compliance of the portfolio to the statement of the City’s adopted investment policy, or manner in which the portfolio is not in compliance; and
4. A statement denoting the ability of the local agency to meet its pool’s expenditure requirements for the next six months, or provide an explanation as to why sufficient money shall or may not be available.
The attached quarterly reports were prepared by UBS Financial Services, with a revised format that provides enhanced reporting with more analysis, better graphics, and an expanded analysis of the City’s Investment Portfolio. UBS Financial Services is a Warren, New Jersey based firm with municipal clients throughout California and the United States. 2 Investment Report as of June 30, 2023
August 15, 2023
DISCUSSION
The attached quarterly financial reports summarize the status of pooled treasury investments as of June 30, 2023. The City received a total of $238,294 in investment earnings for the entire cash and investment pool for the Fiscal Year 2023. The total investment earnings of $238,294 exceeded budget by $119,684. Increase is primarily due to the City re-investing the proceeds in a shorter term with a higher rate investment. For the most recent quarter, the City-held treasury investments consisted of investments with a book value of $11.3 million. The largest amount of the City’s portfolio continues to be invested in CDs as well as in 100% liquid investments, including money markets, and pooled investment funds. However, because of a diversification strategy, the portfolio now also includes certificates of deposit, federal agencies, medium term notes, and municipal bonds.
The City’s investments are held in the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) and the California Asset Management Program (CAMP) and Financial broker firm UBS. The concentration in 100% liquid investments and is 12.12% of the total portfolio in LAIF and CAMP. The current yield for LAIF as of June 2023 was reported at 3.17% while the CAMP yield was 5.24%. Portion of LAIF fund has been invested in higher yield US Treasury Notes.
Staff continues to seek to increase portfolio returns through other higher-yielding investments in compliance with the City’s adopted Investment Policy.
The following is a summary of performance by investment type managed by UBS.
Current Yield is 1.99%, this is up 0.11% from 3 months ago, the average duration is 1.94 years, this is 0.07 years shorter than 3 months ago. The Portfolio consists of $7.6 millions of Insured CDs, $2.4 million if US Treasuries and $704,000 of US Federal Agency Bonds.
Expected Annual Cash Flow is $187,395, this is $28,703 higher than last quarter, should be expected to move higher as lower investment rates mature and funds are reinvested into higher yielding investments.
It should be noted that the gain or loss within a given quarter is not an issue since the City intends to hold the securities to maturity. The “Book Value” represents what the City paid for the security whereas “Market Value” is a constantly changing amount based on the current value. Market values fluctuate with changes in interest rates, and price has an inverse relationship to interest rates. Thus, while the City is required to calculate market values on an ongoing basis, at maturity the investment will achieve the stated “Yield to Maturity” based on the Book Value, or what the City paid for the security. As of June 2023, the market value of the portfolio exceeds the book value by $627,756. Increasing interest rates decreases the value of the portfolio, and loss would not be realized unless assets were to be sold prior to the maturity date.
In the current quarter, staff will continue to evaluate liquidity needs and, where possible, continue the investment in higher yielding securities. At the same time, the fixed income market is experiencing significant instability and sharply rising yields. This will likely be reflected in lower market values to be reported in the next quarterly report.
Investment Report as of June 30, 2023
August 15, 2023
3 FISCAL IMPACTS
The investment portfolio, as a whole, earned returns at least consistent with the revenue estimates contained in the budget, and the steady increase in portfolio yield during the last 6 months and expect to increase continuously as staff is reinvesting the lower yielding investments and reinvesting the fund into higher yielding options.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Investment Portfolio Review from UBS
2. Consolidated Investment Summary through June 30, 2023
3. Quarterly Investment Report as of June 30, 2023
July 12, 2023
Investment Portfolio Review
Prepared for:
City of Clayton
Market Overview – Financial markets have traded higher over the past month, led by large cap US stocks. The S&P 500 hit a one-year high, while treasury yields also rose.
Persistent inflation, high rates, falling growth estimates, and heightened financial stress make the short-term risk-reward for markets unfavorable. We think a more constructive environment for risky assets will emerge later in 2023, and we see the longer-term return outlook for diversified investors as relatively good. We therefore focus on mitigating nearterm downside risks, while maintaining upside exposure for the long-term.
In our global asset allocation, we keep global equities at least preferred while fixed income is most preferred. At this stage of the cycle, we think bonds offer better value and lower volatility than equities. Aggressive rate hikes by the Federal Reserve combined with bank failures earlier this year have caused credit conditions to tighten, although relatively few companies have completely lost access to financing. The pace of economic growth is likely to continue to slow, and recession risks are high. Balance sheets are unusually strong for this stage of the business cycle, which should help to prevent a severe downturn.
Resilient growth has made it more difficult for the Fed to get inflation down toward its 2% target. While clearly down from its peak, the Fed needs to see more progress before it ends the rate hiking cycle. Supply chain issues have mostly been resolved, reducing inflationary pressure at the producer level, which should help retail price inflation.
While many market participants believed the Fed to be done hiking after their pause, inflation remains elevated. The Fed’s most recent dot plot suggests one or even two more hikes are likely this year. At the time of writing, markets are pricing in a total of one more rate hike in 2023 with cuts beginning in the first quarter of 2024.
Current Portfolio Observations - Current Yield is 1.99%, this is up 0.11% from 3 months ago, the average duration is 1.94 years, this is 0.07 years shorter than 3 months ago. The Portfolio consists of $7.6 million of Insured CDs, $2.4 million if US Treasuries and $704,000 of US Federal Agency Bonds. Expected Annual Cash Flow is $187,395 this is $28,703 higher than last quarter, should be expected to move higher as lower investment rates mature and funds are reinvested into higher yielding investments.
Portfolio Considerations
1. Breakeven Analysis on selling some lower yielding investments and reinvesting the funds into higher yielding options. Thus far losses have been too high to breakeven.
2. Based on Investment Policy, consider High Grade Corporate Bonds, yields are +5.50% and spreads are attractive based on historical averages.
3. Bank and Credit Unions CDs in the 2yr-5yr range are also attractive options for excess liquidity, yields range from 5.00% to 5.40%.
Attachment 1 - Portfolio Review
Attachment 2 Consolidated Investment Summary through June 30, 2023 Investment Account Investment Type Institution Cost Basis Rate Current Yield Market Value Percentage of Portfolio CAMP Local Agency Pool California Asset Management Program $ 5.24% 5.24% 928,920.99 928,920.99 $ 5.73% LAIF Local Agency Pool Local Agency Investment Fund $ 3.17% 3.17% 1,033,738.30 1,033,738.30 $ 6.38%UBS Financial Services Inc. Cash UBS Cash Holding * $ 533,751.07 n/a n/a * $ 533,751.07 Fixed Income UBS - Certificates of Deposit * $ 8,138,817.50 varies by holding varies by holding * $ 7,614,614.30Fixed Income UBS - Government Securities * $ 3,223,415.50 varies by holding varies by holding * $ 3,102,692.88 Fixed Income UBS- Accrued Interest @ 6/30/2023 * * $ 17,336.70 Total UBS Finanical Services $ 11,268,394.95 11,895,984.07 $ 69.56% * The figures in the consolidated report are based off the numbers from the monthly statement. The performance report market values are calculated slightly different.
Bank of America Checking (General Ledger - book value) 2,967,792.97 0.00% 0.00% 18.32% 2,967,792.97 Total Investment Portfolio 16,826,436.33 16,198,847.21
Budgeted Actual Actual
Fiscal Year 2023 through 3/31/23 through 6/30/23
General Fund $ 92,047 86,000 $ 172,779 $ All Other Funds $ 46,073 32,610 $ 65,515 $ Total 118,610 $ 138,120 $ 238,294 $ Budget to Actual Analysis of Interest Revenue
7/1/2022 to 6/30/2023
James Dill
908-4706-200
Financial Advisor:
Warren, NJ 070596868Branch office:184 Liberty Corner RoadSuite 101 UBS Client Reviewas of June 30, 2023Prepared forCity of ClaytonAccounts included in this reviewAccount Name TypeEX XX244 • City of Clayton • Business Service AccountRisk profile:Return Objective: Current Income and Capital Appreciation Conservative
What's insideBond summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2Bond holdings. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4Expected cash flow. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10House View - Executive Summary. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15Important information about this report. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
Bond summary
as of June 30, 2023Bond overviewTotal quantity 11,393,000Total market value $10,717,307.18Total accrued interest $17,169.79Total market value plus accrued interest $10,734,476.97Total estimated annual bond interest $213,514.50Average yield to maturityAverage coupon 2.00%
5.26%1.99%5.26%
Average current yieldAverage yield to worstAverage modified duration 1.94Average effective maturity 2.02 Investment type allocationInvestment type Taxable ($) Total ($) Tax-exempt /
deferred ($)
% of
bond
port.
Certificates of deposit 7,627,500.04 0.00 7,627,500.04 71.06U.S. federal agencies 704,198.69 0.00 704,198.69 6.56U.S. treasuries 2,402,778.23 0.00 2,402,778.23 22.38Total $10,734,476.96 $0.00 $10,734,476.96 100% Credit quality of bond holdings
Effective credit rating
% of
port.
Value on
Issues 06/30/2023 ($)
A Aaa/AAA/AAA 13 3,106,976.92 28.95B Aa/AA/AA 0 0.00 0.00C A/A/A 0 0.00 0.00D Baa/BBB/BBB 0 0.00 0.00E Non-investment grade 0 0.00 0.00F Certificate of deposit 41 7,627,500.04 71.05G Not rated 0 0.00 0.00Total 54 $10,734,476.97 100% Bond maturity schedule
$ Millions
Cash, mutual funds and some preferred securities are not included.
Includes all fixed income securities in the selected porfolio. Average yields and durations exclude Structured Product, Pass-Through, Perpetual Preferred, and Foreign securities.Report created on: July 02, 2023 Page 2 of 17 Attachment 3: Quarterly Investment Report as of June 30, 2023 Bond summary - as of June 30, 2023 (continued)
Expected bond cash flow
$ Thousands
Total taxable income: $204,120.73Total expected bond cash flow: $204,120.73Cash flows displayed account for known events such as maturities and mandatory puts.
Includes all fixed income securities in the selected porfolio. Average yields and durations exclude Structured Product, Pass-Through, Perpetual Preferred, and Foreign securities.Report created on: July 02, 2023 Page 3 of 17 Bond holdings
as of June 30, 2023Summary of bond holdingsMaturityYear Yield to
maturity (%)
Yield to
worst (%)
Unrealized
Issues gain/loss ($) Mkt. value ($)
Est. annual
income ($)
Adjusted
cost basis ($)
Modified
duration
Current
Quantity yield (%) % of bond portfolio maturing
2023 6 1,700,000 13,575.00 0.81% 5.18 % 5.18 % 0.41 1,688,225 -7,672.00 1,680,987.922024 12 2,242,000 48,581.00 2.24% 5.45 % 5.45 % 1.09 2,235,977.2 -71,936.97 2,169,442.042025 18 3,837,000 74,664.00 2.08% 5.23 % 5.23 % 1.97 3,826,730.8 -243,821.54 3,590,106.922026 11 2,137,000 30,759.50 1.61% 5.22 % 5.22 % 2.90 2,134,300 -217,949.64 1,918,097.212027 6 1,227,000 34,560.00 3.06% 5.11 % 5.11 % 3.57 1,227,000 -95,798.17 1,133,528.052028 1 250,000 11,375.00 4.70% 5.28 % 5.28 % 4.31 250,000 -7,747.50 242,314.832029 0 0 NA NA NA2030 0 0 NA NA NA2031 0 0 NA NA NA2032 0 0 NA NA NA2033 0 0 NA NA NA2034 0 0 NA NA NA2035 0 0 NA NA NA2036 0 0 NA NA NA2037 0 0 NA NA NA2038 0 0 NA NA NA2039 0 0 NA NA NA2040 0 0 NA NA NA2041 0 0 NA NA NA2042 0 0 NA NA NA2043 0 0 NA NA NA2044 0 0 NA NA NA2045 0 0 NA NA NA2046 0 0 NA NA NA2047 0 0 NA NA NA2048 0 0 NA NA NA2049 0 0 NA NA NA2050 0 0 NA NA NA2051 0 0 NA NA NA2052 0 0 NA NA NA2052 + 0 0 NA NA NAOther 0 0 NA NA NATotal 54 11,393,000 $213,514.50 1.99% 5.26 % 5.26 % 1.94 $11,362,233.00 $-644,925.82 $10,734,476.97Includes all fixed-rate securities in the selected portfolio. Average yields and durations exclude Structured Product, Pass-Through, Perpetual Preferred, and Foreign securities.Report created on: July 02, 2023 Page 4 of 17 Bond holdings - as of June 30, 2023 (continued)
Effective rating/
Underlying rating
(Mdy/Fitch/S&P)
Mkt. value ($)/
Accr. interest ($)
Adjusted
cost basis ($)/
Unreal. g/l ($)
Call date/
Coupon Call price ($)
Modified
duration
YTM (%)/
YTW (%)
Est. annual
income ($)/
Quantity Curr. yield (%)
Effective
maturity
% of
bond
port.
Market
price ($)
Details of bond holdings
5.26%5.26%
07/05/2025 NA 1.94 $11,362,233.0 NA $10,717,307.18
$-644,925.82
11,393,000
1.99% $17,169.79
2.00% $213,514.50 100%
$10,734,476.97
Total Bond PortfolioMaturing 2023
Effective rating/
Underlying rating
(Mdy/Fitch/S&P) Quantity Coupon
Effective
maturity
Call date/
Call price ($)
Est. annual
income ($)/
Curr. yield (%)
YTM (%)/
YTW (%)
Modified
duration
Market
price ($)
Mkt. value ($)/
Accr. interest ($)
% of
bond
port.
Adjusted
cost basis ($)/
Unreal. g/l ($)
100,000 100,000.00 99.828
0.00 3.20%
3.21% -172.00
07/31/2023 NA 99,828.00 0.93%
NA
ENERBANK UT US RT 03.2000% 3,200.00 NAMAT 07/31/23 FIXED RATE CD /UT CD
200,000 200,000.00 99.289
179.45
0.25%
0.25% -1,422.00
08/21/2023 0.14 198,578.00 1.85%
5.27%
THIRD FED S&L ASSN OH US RT 500.00 5.27%00.2500% MAT 08/21/23 FIXEDRATE CD /OH CD
500,000 489,000.00 98.751
4,755.00 0.00
09/28/2023 0.25 493,755.00 4.61%
5.06%5.06%
NR/NR/NR
UNITED STATES TREAS BILL DUE Aaa/NR/AA+09/28/23
500,000 499,225.00 98.555
129.78
0.13%
0.13% -6,450.00
10/15/2023 0.68 492,775.00 4.60%
5.14%
625.00 5.14%
NR/NR/NR
US TSY NOTE 00.125 % DUE Aaa/AAA/NR10/15/23 DTD 10/15/20 FC04/15/21 150,000 150,000.00 98.508
77.05 0.25%
0.25% -2,238.00
10/16/2023 0.29 147,762.00 1.38%
5.38%
NEW YORK CMNTY BK NY US RT 375.00 5.38%00.2500% MAT 10/16/23 FIXEDRATE CD /NY CD
250,000 250,000.00 99.142
48.63 3.55%
3.58% -2,145.00
12/28/2023 0.48 247,855.00 2.31%
5.33%
BANK OF BARODA NY US RT 8,875.00 5.33%03.5500% MAT 12/28/23 FIXEDRATE CD /NY CD
Total 2023 1,700,000 1.14% 10/10/2023 $13,575.00
0.81%
5.18%5.18%
0.41 $1,688,225.00
$-7,672.00
$1,680,553.00
$434.92
15.68%
Maturing 2024
Effective rating/
Underlying rating
(Mdy/Fitch/S&P) Quantity Coupon
Effective
maturity
Call date/
Call price ($)
Est. annual
income ($)/
Curr. yield (%)
YTM (%)/
YTW (%)
Modified
duration
Market
price ($)
Mkt. value ($)/
Accr. interest ($)
% of
bond
port.
Adjusted
cost basis ($)/
Unreal. g/l ($)
115,000 115,000.00 98.660
40.96 3.25%
3.29% -1,541.00
02/26/2024 0.65 113,459.00 1.06%
5.33%
CITY & CNTY CREDIT MN US RT 3,737.50 5.33%03.2500% MAT 02/26/24 CREDITUNION SHARE CERT /MN CD
120,000 116,509.20 97.602
497.28
2.50%
2.56% 613.20
04/30/2024 0.81 117,122.40 1.09%
5.48%
3,000.00 5.48%
NR/NR/NR
US TSY NOTE 02.500 % DUE Aaa/AAA/NR04/30/24 DTD 04/30/22 FC10/31/22 197,000 197,000.00 97.823
400.75
2.75%
2.81% -4,288.69
05/03/2024 0.83 192,711.31 1.80%
5.40%
WELLS FARGO BK NA SD US RT 5,417.50 5.40%02.7500% MAT 05/03/24 FIXEDRATE CD /SD CD
Includes all fixed-rate securities in the selected portfolio. Average yields and durations exclude Structured Product, Pass-Through, Perpetual Preferred, and Foreign securities.Report created on: July 02, 2023 Page 5 of 17 Bond holdings - as of June 30, 2023 (continued)
Maturing 2024
Effective rating/
Underlying rating
(Mdy/Fitch/S&P) Quantity Coupon
Effective
maturity
Call date/
Call price ($)
Est. annual
income ($)/
Curr. yield (%)
YTM (%)/
YTW (%)
Modified
duration
Market
price ($)
Mkt. value ($)/
Accr. interest ($)
% of
bond
port.
Adjusted
cost basis ($)/
Unreal. g/l ($)
198,000 198,000.00 95.216
25.77 0.25%
0.26% -9,472.32
06/11/2024 0.92 188,527.68 1.76%
5.49%
BMW BANK NORTH AME UT US RT 495.00 5.49%00.2500% MAT 06/11/24 FIXEDRATE CD /UT CD
250,000 250,000.00 94.763
233.56
0.55%
0.58% -13,092.50
07/29/2024 07/29/2023 1.06 236,907.50 2.21%
5.58%5.58%
100.00
BMO HARRIS BK NA IL US RT 1,375.0000.5500% MAT 07/29/24 FIXEDRATE CD /IL CD
250,000 250,000.00 94.774
567.12
0.60%
0.63% -13,065.00
08/12/2024 1.09 236,935.00 2.21%
5.48%
TOYOTA FINL SVGS B NV US RT 1,500.00 5.48%00.6000% MAT 08/12/24 FIXEDRATE CD /NV CD
250,000 250,000.00 94.676
71.58 0.55%
0.58% -13,310.00
08/12/2024 1.11 236,690.00 2.21%
5.47%
UBS BANK UT US RT 00.5500% 1,375.00 5.47%MAT 08/12/24 FIXED RATE CD /UT CD
120,000 118,621.20 98.664
1,268.03
4.25%
4.31% -224.40
09/30/2024 1.19 118,396.80 1.10%
5.36%
5,100.00 5.36%
NR/NR/NR
US TSY NOTE 04.250 % DUE Aaa/AAA/AA+09/30/24 DTD 09/30/22 FC03/31/23 250,000 250,000.00 99.281
67.12 4.90%
4.94% -1,797.50
10/28/2024 1.28 248,202.50 2.32%
5.46%
FREEDOM FIRST FED VA US RT 12,250.00 5.46%04.9000% MAT 10/28/24 LICUSHARE CERTIFICATE /VA CD
120,000 118,846.80 98.781
870.24
4.38%
4.43% -309.60
10/31/2024 1.27 118,537.20 1.11%
5.33%
5,250.00 5.33%
NR/NR/NR
US TSY NOTE 04.375 % DUE Aaa/AAA/AA+10/31/24 DTD 10/31/22 FC04/30/23 174,000 174,000.00 98.949
1,307.86
4.65%
4.70% -1,828.74
11/04/2024 1.28 172,171.26 1.61%
5.46%
AMERICAN EXP NATL UT US RT 8,091.00 5.46%04.6500% MAT 11/04/24 FIXEDRATE CD /UT CD
198,000 198,000.00 93.121
51.53 0.50%
0.54% -13,620.42
12/11/2024 07/11/2023 1.44 184,379.58 1.72%
5.44%5.44%
100.00
TEXAS EXCHANGE BK TX US RT 990.0000.5000% MAT 12/11/24 FIXEDRATE CD /TX CD
Total 2024 2,242,000 2.21% 08/15/2024 $48,581.00
2.24%
5.45%5.45%
1.09 $2,235,977.20
$-71,936.97
$2,164,040.23
$5,401.81
20.19%
Maturing 2025
Effective rating/
Underlying rating
(Mdy/Fitch/S&P) Quantity Coupon
Effective
maturity
Call date/
Call price ($)
Est. annual
income ($)/
Curr. yield (%)
YTM (%)/
YTW (%)
Modified
duration
Market
price ($)
Mkt. value ($)/
Accr. interest ($)
% of
bond
port.
Adjusted
cost basis ($)/
Unreal. g/l ($)
248,000 248,000.00 99.332
373.70
5.00%
5.03% -1,656.64
01/21/2025 1.50 246,343.36 2.30%
5.45%
TECHNOLOGY CREDIT CA US RT 12,400.00 5.45%05.0000% MAT 01/21/25 CREDITUNION SHARE CERT /CA CD
250,000 250,000.00 96.844
685.27
3.45%
3.56% -7,890.00
02/28/2025 1.61 242,110.00 2.26%
5.43%
MOUNTAIN AMERICA C UT US RT 8,625.00 5.43%03.4500% MAT 02/28/25 LICUSHARE CERTIFICATE /UT CD
110,000 105,374.50 95.965
717.93
2.63%
2.74% 187.00
03/31/2025 1.67 105,561.50 0.98%
5.06%
2,887.50 5.06%
NR/NR/NR
US TSY NOTE 02.625 % DUE Aaa/AAA/NR03/31/25 DTD 03/31/18 FC09/30/18Includes all fixed-rate securities in the selected portfolio. Average yields and durations exclude Structured Product, Pass-Through, Perpetual Preferred, and Foreign securities.Report created on: July 02, 2023 Page 6 of 17 Bond holdings - as of June 30, 2023 (continued)
Maturing 2025
Effective rating/
Underlying rating
(Mdy/Fitch/S&P) Quantity Coupon
Effective
maturity
Call date/
Call price ($)
Est. annual
income ($)/
Curr. yield (%)
YTM (%)/
YTW (%)
Modified
duration
Market
price ($)
Mkt. value ($)/
Accr. interest ($)
% of
bond
port.
Adjusted
cost basis ($)/
Unreal. g/l ($)
250,000 259,817.50 93.197
685.27
1.45%
1.56% -26,825.00
04/22/2025 1.74 232,992.50 2.17%
5.44%
CPTL ONE NATL ASSN VA US RT 3,625.00 5.44%01.4500% MAT 04/22/25 FIXEDRATE CD /VA CD
236,000 236,000.00 98.733
1,944.90
4.70%
4.76% -2,990.12
04/28/2025 1.72 233,009.88 2.17%
5.43%
MORGAN STANLEY PRV NY US RT 11,092.00 5.43%04.7000% MAT 04/28/25 FIXEDRATE CD /NY CD
250,000 250,000.00 92.612
488.36
1.15%
1.24% -18,470.00
04/29/2025 1.77 231,530.00 2.16%
5.44%
FLAGSTAR BANK, FSB MI US RT 2,875.00 5.44%01.1500% MAT 04/29/25 FIXEDRATE CD /MI CD
100,000 95,835.00 96.035
343.75
2.75%
2.86% 200.00
05/15/2025 1.79 96,035.00 0.90%
4.99%
2,750.00 4.99%
NR/NR/NR
US TSY NOTE 02.750 % DUE Aaa/AAA/NR05/15/25 DTD 05/15/22 FC11/15/22 100,000 96,075.00 96.180
117.83
2.88%
2.99% 105.00
06/15/2025 1.87 96,180.00 0.90%
4.94%
2,875.00 4.94%
NR/NR/NR
US TSY NOTE 02.875 % DUE Aaa/AAA/AA+06/15/25 DTD 06/15/22 FC12/15/22 250,000 250,000.00 90.624
565.07
0.55%
0.61% -23,440.00
07/21/2025 1.99 226,560.00 2.11%
5.42%
DELTA NATL B&T CO NY US RT 1,375.00 5.42%00.5500% MAT 07/21/25 FIXEDRATE CD /NY CD
150,000 150,000.00 90.374
71.51 0.60%
0.66% -14,439.00
08/13/2025 2.10 135,561.00 1.26%
5.41%
LIVE OAK BKG CO NC US RT 900.00 5.41%00.6000% MAT 08/13/25 FIXEDRATE CD /NC CD
250,000 250,000.00 95.954
0.00 3.40%
3.54% -10,115.00
08/15/2025 NA 239,885.00 2.24%
NA
CONNEXUS CREDIT UN WI US RT 8,500.00 NA03.4000% MAT 08/15/25 LICUSHARE CERTIFICATE /WI CD
149,000 149,000.00 90.096
4.49 0.55%
0.61% -14,756.96
08/28/2025 08/28/2023 2.14 134,243.04 1.25%
5.41%5.41%
100.00
USALLIANCE FED CRE NY US RT 819.5000.5500% MAT 08/28/25 FIXEDRATE CD /NY CD
250,000 250,000.00 97.036
794.52
4.00%
4.12% -7,410.00
09/22/2025 07/21/2023 2.12 242,590.00 2.26%
5.41%5.41%
100.00
KEMBA FINL CREDIT OH US RT 10,000.0004.0000% MAT 09/22/25 FIXEDRATE CD /OH CD
200,000 200,000.00 89.789
273.97
0.50%
0.56% -20,422.00
09/22/2025 2.16 179,578.00 1.68%
5.42%
STATE BK IL US RT 00.5000% MAT 1,000.00 5.42%09/22/25 FIXED RATE CD /IL CD
250,000 250,000.00 89.840
0.00 0.40%
0.45% -25,400.00
10/30/2025 10/30/2023 NA 224,600.00 2.10%
NANA
100.00
JPMORGAN CHASE BK DE US RT 1,000.0000.4000% MAT 10/30/25 STEPRATE CD /DE CD
150,000 150,000.00 90.635
90.00 0.60%
0.66% -14,047.50
11/24/2025 2.33 135,952.50 1.27%
4.78%
900.00 4.78%
NR/NR/NR
FFCB BOND 00.600 % DUE 112425 Aaa/AAA/AA+DTD 112420 FC 05242021 100,000 100,000.00 89.941
41.10 1.00%
1.11% -10,059.00
12/15/2025 2.37 89,941.00 0.84%
5.42%
BARCLAYS BK DE US RT 01.0000% 1,000.00 5.42%MAT 12/15/25 FIXED RATE CD /DE CD
544,000 536,628.80 90.117
0.00 0.38%
0.42% -46,392.32
12/31/2025 2.43 490,236.48 4.57%
4.61%
2,040.00 4.61%
NR/NR/NR
US TSY NOTE 00.375 % DUE Aaa/AAA/NR12/31/25 DTD 12/31/20 FC06/30/21 Total 2025 3,837,000 2.01% 07/25/2025 $74,664.00
2.08%
5.23%5.23%
1.97 $3,826,730.80
$-243,821.54
$3,582,909.26
$7,197.66
33.43%
Includes all fixed-rate securities in the selected portfolio. Average yields and durations exclude Structured Product, Pass-Through, Perpetual Preferred, and Foreign securities.Report created on: July 02, 2023 Page 7 of 17 Bond holdings - as of June 30, 2023 (continued)
Maturing 2026
Effective rating/
Underlying rating
(Mdy/Fitch/S&P) Quantity Coupon
Effective
maturity
Call date/
Call price ($)
Est. annual
income ($)/
Curr. yield (%)
YTM (%)/
YTW (%)
Modified
duration
Market
price ($)
Mkt. value ($)/
Accr. interest ($)
% of
bond
port.
Adjusted
cost basis ($)/
Unreal. g/l ($)
245,000 245,000.00 88.191
0.00 0.50%
0.57% -28,932.05
01/29/2026 2.56 216,067.95 2.02%
5.41%
MERRICK BK UT US RT 00.5000% 1,225.00 5.41%MAT 01/29/26 FIXED RATE CD /UT CD
100,000 100,000.00 89.522
199.33
0.52%
0.58% -10,478.00
02/12/2026 2.53 89,522.00 0.84%
4.83%
520.00 4.83%
NR/NR/NR
FHLB NTS 00.520 % DUE 021226 Aaa/NR/AA+DTD 021221 FC 08122021 94,000 94,000.00 88.184
41.85 0.65%
0.74% -11,107.04
03/05/2026 09/05/2023 2.62 82,892.96 0.77%
5.42%5.42%
100.00
BANKUNITED NA FLOR FL US RT 611.0000.6500% MAT 03/05/26 FIXEDRATE CD /FL CD
135,000 135,000.00 88.630
0.00 0.95%
1.07% -15,349.50
03/31/2026 06/30/2023 NA 119,650.50 1.12%
NANA
100.00
BANKUNITED NA FLOR FL US RT 1,282.5000.9500% MAT 03/31/26 FIXEDRATE CD /FL CD
215,000 215,000.00 92.755
245.04
2.60%
2.80% -15,576.75
04/14/2026 2.67 199,423.25 1.86%
5.40%
COMENITY CAP BK UT US RT 5,590.00 5.40%02.6000% MAT 04/14/26 FIXEDRATE CD /UT CD
248,000 248,000.00 88.215
271.10
0.95%
1.08% -29,226.80
05/19/2026 2.77 218,773.20 2.04%
5.41%
STATE BANK OF INDI NY US RT 2,356.00 5.41%00.9500% MAT 05/19/26 FIXEDRATE CD /NY CD
300,000 297,300.00 90.078
0.00 0.88%
0.97% -27,066.00
06/30/2026 2.90 270,234.00 2.52%
4.44%
2,625.00 4.44%
NR/NR/NR
US TSY NOTE 00.875 % DUE Aaa/AAA/NR06/30/26 DTD 06/30/21 FC12/31/21 250,000 250,000.00 87.228
188.70
0.95%
1.09% -31,930.00
08/18/2026 3.07 218,070.00 2.03%
5.39%
GREENSTATE CREDIT IA US RT 2,375.00 5.39%00.9500% MAT 08/18/26 LICUSHARE CERTIFICATE /IA CD
200,000 200,000.00 98.557
698.08
4.90%
4.97% -2,886.00
11/04/2026 3.07 197,114.00 1.84%
5.37%
NUMERICA CREDIT UN WA US RT 9,800.00 5.37%04.9000% MAT 11/04/26 LICUSHARE CERTIFICATE /WA CD
150,000 150,000.00 87.187
102.74
1.25%
1.43% -19,219.50
12/10/2026 3.29 130,780.50 1.22%
5.37%
SYNCHRONY BANK UT US RT 1,875.00 5.37%01.2500% MAT 12/10/26 FIXEDRATE CD /UT CD
200,000 200,000.00 86.911
0.00 1.25%
1.44% -26,178.00
12/30/2026 3.41 173,822.00 1.62%
5.36%
MEDALLION BK UT US RT 2,500.00 5.36%01.2500% MAT 12/30/26 FIXEDRATE CD /UT CD
Total 2026 2,137,000 1.48% 06/30/2026 $30,759.50
1.61%
5.22%5.22%
2.90 $2,134,300.00
$-217,949.64
$1,916,350.36
$1,746.85
17.88%
Maturing 2027
Effective rating/
Underlying rating
(Mdy/Fitch/S&P) Quantity Coupon
Effective
maturity
Call date/
Call price ($)
Est. annual
income ($)/
Curr. yield (%)
YTM (%)/
YTW (%)
Modified
duration
Market
price ($)
Mkt. value ($)/
Accr. interest ($)
% of
bond
port.
Adjusted
cost basis ($)/
Unreal. g/l ($)
80,000 80,000.00 88.262
513.97
1.75%
1.98% -9,390.40
02/16/2027 3.41 70,609.60 0.66%
5.35%
NELNET BK UT US RT 01.7500% 1,400.00 5.35%MAT 02/16/27 FIXED RATE CD /UT CD
Includes all fixed-rate securities in the selected portfolio. Average yields and durations exclude Structured Product, Pass-Through, Perpetual Preferred, and Foreign securities.Report created on: July 02, 2023 Page 8 of 17 Bond holdings - as of June 30, 2023 (continued)
Maturing 2027
Effective rating/
Underlying rating
(Mdy/Fitch/S&P) Quantity Coupon
Effective
maturity
Call date/
Call price ($)
Est. annual
income ($)/
Curr. yield (%)
YTM (%)/
YTW (%)
Modified
duration
Market
price ($)
Mkt. value ($)/
Accr. interest ($)
% of
bond
port.
Adjusted
cost basis ($)/
Unreal. g/l ($)
50,000 50,000.00 88.751
348.77
1.90%
2.14% -5,624.50
02/16/2027 3.40 44,375.50 0.41%
5.35%
SALLIE MAE BANK UT US RT 950.00 5.35%01.9000% MAT 02/16/27 FIXEDRATE CD /UT CD
250,000 250,000.00 87.653
131.51
1.60%
1.83% -30,867.50
02/18/2027 07/18/2023 3.51 219,132.50 2.04%
5.34%5.34%
100.00
HARDIN CNTY SVGS B IA US RT 4,000.0001.6000% MAT 02/18/27 FIXEDRATE CD /IA CD
100,000 100,000.00 91.437
23.42 2.85%
3.12% -8,563.00
04/27/2027 07/27/2023 3.60 91,437.00 0.85%
5.33%5.33%
100.00
USALLIANCE FED CRE NY US RT 2,850.0002.8500% MAT 04/27/27 FIXEDRATE CD /NY CD
247,000 247,000.00 92.009
1,258.68
3.00%
3.26% -19,737.77
04/29/2027 10/29/2023 3.53 227,262.23 2.12%
5.33%5.33%
100.00
MORGAN STANLEY BK UT US RT 7,410.0003.0000% MAT 04/29/27 FIXEDRATE CD /UT CD
500,000 500,000.00 95.677
49.86 3.59%
3.75% -21,615.00
06/29/2027 3.66 478,385.00 4.46%
4.79%
17,950.00 4.79%
NR/NR/NR
FHLB BOND 03.590 % DUE 062927 Aaa/NR/AA+DTD 062922 FC 12292022 Total 2027 1,227,000 2.85% 05/04/2027 $34,560.00
3.06%
5.11%5.11%
3.57 $1,227,000.00
$-95,798.17
$1,131,201.83
$2,326.22
10.55%
Maturing 2028
Effective rating/
Underlying rating
(Mdy/Fitch/S&P) Quantity Coupon
Effective
maturity
Call date/
Call price ($)
Est. annual
income ($)/
Curr. yield (%)
YTM (%)/
YTW (%)
Modified
duration
Market
price ($)
Mkt. value ($)/
Accr. interest ($)
% of
bond
port.
Adjusted
cost basis ($)/
Unreal. g/l ($)
250,000 250,000.00 96.901
62.33 4.55%
4.70% -7,747.50
04/28/2028 4.31 242,252.50 2.26%
5.28%
A PLUS FED CREDIT TX US RT 11,375.00 5.28%04.5500% MAT 04/28/28 LICUSHARE CERTIFICATE /TX CD
Total 2028 250,000 4.55% 04/28/2028 $11,375.00
4.70%
5.28%5.28%
4.31 $250,000.00
$-7,747.50
$242,252.50
$62.33
2.26%
Effective rating/
Underlying rating
(Mdy/Fitch/S&P)
Mkt. value ($)/
Accr. interest ($)
Adjusted
cost basis ($)/
Unreal. g/l ($)
Call date/
Coupon Call price ($)
Modified
duration
YTM (%)/
YTW (%)
Est. annual
income ($)/
Quantity Curr. yield (%)
Effective
maturity
% of
bond
port.
Market
price ($)
5.26%5.26%
07/05/2025 NA 1.94 $11,362,233.0 NA $10,717,307.18
$-644,925.82
11,393,000
1.99% $17,169.79
2.00% $213,514.50 100%
Total Bond Portfolio
$10,734,476.97
Includes all fixed-rate securities in the selected portfolio. Average yields and durations exclude Structured Product, Pass-Through, Perpetual Preferred, and Foreign securities.Report created on: July 02, 2023 Page 9 of 17 Expected cash flow
from 07/01/2023 to 06/30/2024Summary of expected cash flows 2023 2024
July August September October November December January February June Total ($) Total Portfolio 10,040 11,424 13,625 26,755 16,065 27,780 10,043 11,137 12,838 26,158 15,470 22,785 204,121 March April May
Taxable 10,040 11,424 13,625 26,755 16,065 27,780 10,043 11,137 12,838 26,158 15,470 22,785 204,121 Taxable U.S. income 10,040 11,424 13,121 26,755 14,877 23,330 10,043 11,137 12,339 26,158 14,296 22,785 Interest payments 10,040 11,424 13,121 26,755 14,877 23,330 10,043 11,137 12,339 26,158 14,296 22,785 196,306 Taxable non-U.S. income 504 1,188 4,450 499 1,175 Interest payments 504 1,188 4,450 499 1,175 7,815Includes all fixed income securities in the selected portfolio.Report created on: July 02, 2023 Page 10 of 17 Expected cash flow - from 07/01/2023 to 06/30/2024 (continued) Details of expected cash flows
2023 2024
July August September October November December January February March April May June Total ($) Total Portfolio 10,040 11,424 13,625 26,755 16,065 27,780 10,043 11,137 12,838 26,158 15,470 22,785 204,121TaxableTaxable U.S. incomeInterest payments 2023 2024 Quantity July August September October November December January February March April May June Total ($) A PLUS FED CREDIT TX US RT04.5500% MAT 04/28/28LICU SHARE CERTIFICATE 250,000.00 934.93
Jul 28
966.10
Aug 28
966.10
Sep 28
934.93
Oct 28
966.10
Nov 28
934.93
Dec 28
966.10
Jan 28
966.10
Feb 28
903.77
Mar 28
966.10
Apr 28
934.93
May 28
966.10
Jun 28
11,406.16
AMERICAN EXP NATL UT USRT 04.6500% MAT 11/04/24FIXED RATE CD 174,000.00 4,078.75
Nov 02
4,034.42
May 02
8,113.17
BANKUNITED NA FLOR FL USRT 00.6500% MAT 03/05/26FIXED RATE CD 94,000.00 154.01
Sep 05
152.33
Dec 05
152.33
Mar 05
154.01
Jun 05
612.67
BANKUNITED NA FLOR FL USRT 00.9500% MAT 03/31/26FIXED RATE CD 135,000.00 108.92
Jul 31
108.92
Aug 31
105.41
Sep 30
108.92
Oct 31
105.41
Nov 30
108.92
Dec 31
108.92
Jan 31
101.90
Feb 29
108.92
Mar 31
105.41
Apr 30
108.92
May 31
105.41
Jun 30
1,286.01
BARCLAYS BK DE US RT01.0000% MAT 12/15/25FIXED RATE CD
100,000.00 501.37
Dec 15
501.37
Jun 15
1,002.74
BMO HARRIS BK NA IL US RT00.5500% MAT 07/29/24FIXED RATE CD 250,000.00 342.81
Jul 29
346.58
Oct 29
346.58
Jan 29
342.81
Apr 29
1,378.77
BMW BANK NORTH AME UTUS RT 00.2500% MAT06/11/24 FIXED RATE CD 198,000.00 248.18
Dec 11
248.18
Jun 11
496.36
CITY & CNTY CREDIT MN USRT 03.2500% MAT 02/26/24CREDIT UNION SHARE CERT 115,000.00 307.19
Jul 26
317.43
Aug 26
317.43
Sep 26
307.19
Oct 26
317.43
Nov 26
307.19
Dec 26
317.43
Jan 26
317.43
Feb 26
2,508.73
COMENITY CAP BK UT US RT02.6000% MAT 04/14/26FIXED RATE CD 215,000.00 459.45
Jul 14
474.77
Aug 14
474.77
Sep 14
459.45
Oct 14
474.77
Nov 14
459.45
Dec 14
474.77
Jan 14
474.77
Feb 14
444.14
Mar 14
474.77
Apr 14
459.45
May 14
474.77
Jun 14
5,605.32
CONNEXUS CREDIT UN WI USRT 03.4000% MAT 08/15/25LICU SHARE CERTIFICATE 250,000.00 721.92
Jul 31
721.92
Aug 31
698.63
Sep 30
721.92
Oct 31
698.63
Nov 30
721.92
Dec 31
721.92
Jan 31
675.34
Feb 29
721.92
Mar 31
698.63
Apr 30
721.92
May 31
698.63
Jun 30
8,523.29
CPTL ONE NATL ASSN VA USRT 01.4500% MAT 04/22/25FIXED RATE CD 250,000.00 1,817.47
Oct 22
1,817.47
Apr 22
3,634.93
Includes all fixed income securities in the selected portfolio.Report created on: July 02, 2023 Page 11 of 17 Expected cash flow - from 07/01/2023 to 06/30/2024 (continued) Interest payments 2023 2024
Quantity July August September October November December January February March April May June Total ($) DELTA NATL B&T CO NY USRT 00.5500% MAT 07/21/25FIXED RATE CD 250,000.00 681.85
Jul 31
693.15
Jan 31
1,375.00
ENERBANK UT US RT03.2000% MAT 07/31/23FIXED RATE CD
100,000.00 271.78
Jul 31
271.78
FFCB BOND 00.600 % DUE112425 DTD 112420 FC05242021
150,000.00 450.00
Nov 24
450.00
May 24
900.00
FHLB BOND 03.590 % DUE062927 DTD 062922 FC12292022
500,000.00 8,975.00
Dec 29
8,975.00
Jun 29
17,950.00
FHLB NTS 00.520 % DUE021226 DTD 021221 FC08122021
100,000.00 260.00
Aug 12
260.00
Feb 12
520.00
FLAGSTAR BANK, FSB MI USRT 01.1500% MAT 04/29/25FIXED RATE CD 250,000.00 1,441.44
Oct 29
1,441.44
Apr 29
2,882.88
FREEDOM FIRST FED VA US RT04.9000% MAT 10/28/24LICU SHARE CERTIFICATE 250,000.00 1,006.85
Jul 28
1,040.41
Aug 28
1,040.41
Sep 28
1,006.85
Oct 28
1,040.41
Nov 28
1,006.85
Dec 28
1,040.41
Jan 28
1,040.41
Feb 28
973.29
Mar 28
1,040.41
Apr 28
1,006.85
May 28
1,040.41
Jun 28
12,283.56
GREENSTATE CREDIT IA US RT00.9500% MAT 08/18/26LICU SHARE CERTIFICATE 250,000.00 195.21
Jul 01
201.71
Aug 01
201.71
Sep 01
195.21
Oct 01
201.71
Nov 01
195.21
Dec 01
201.71
Jan 01
201.71
Feb 01
188.70
Mar 01
201.71
Apr 01
195.21
May 01
201.71
Jun 01
2,381.51
HARDIN CNTY SVGS B IA USRT 01.6000% MAT 02/18/27FIXED RATE CD 250,000.00 328.77
Jul 18
339.73
Aug 18
339.73
Sep 18
328.77
Oct 18
339.73
Nov 18
328.77
Dec 18
339.73
Jan 18
339.73
Feb 18
317.81
Mar 18
339.73
Apr 18
328.77
May 18
339.73
Jun 18
4,010.96
JPMORGAN CHASE BK DE USRT 00.4000% MAT 10/30/25STEP RATE CD 250,000.00 504.11
Oct 31
498.63
Apr 30
1,002.74
KEMBA FINL CREDIT OH US RT04.0000% MAT 09/22/25FIXED RATE CD 250,000.00 821.92
Jul 01
849.32
Aug 01
849.32
Sep 01
821.92
Oct 01
849.32
Nov 01
821.92
Dec 01
849.32
Jan 01
849.32
Feb 01
794.52
Mar 01
849.32
Apr 01
821.92
May 01
849.32
Jun 01
10,027.40
LIVE OAK BKG CO NC US RT00.6000% MAT 08/13/25FIXED RATE CD 150,000.00 73.97
Jul 01
76.44 Aug 01
76.44 Sep 01
73.97 Oct 01
76.44 Nov 01
73.97 Dec 01
76.44 Jan 01
76.44 Feb 01
71.51 Mar 01
76.44 Apr 01
73.97 May 01
76.44 Jun 01
902.47
MEDALLION BK UT US RT01.2500% MAT 12/30/26FIXED RATE CD 200,000.00 205.48
Jul 30
212.33
Aug 30
212.33
Sep 30
205.48
Oct 30
212.33
Nov 30
205.48
Dec 30
212.33
Jan 30
205.48
Feb 29
205.48
Mar 30
212.33
Apr 30
205.48
May 30
212.33
Jun 30
2,506.85
MERRICK BK UT US RT00.5000% MAT 01/29/26FIXED RATE CD
245,000.00 104.04
Jul 31
104.04
Aug 31
100.68
Sep 30
104.04
Oct 31
100.68
Nov 30
104.04
Dec 31
104.04
Jan 31
97.33 Feb 29
104.04
Mar 31
100.68
Apr 30
104.04
May 31
100.68
Jun 30
1,228.36
MORGAN STANLEY BK UT USRT 03.0000% MAT 04/29/27FIXED RATE CD 247,000.00 3,715.15
Oct 29
3,715.15
Apr 29
7,430.30
MORGAN STANLEY PRV NYUS RT 04.7000% MAT04/28/25 FIXED RATE CD 236,000.00 5,561.19
Oct 27
5,561.19
Apr 27
11,122.39
Includes all fixed income securities in the selected portfolio.Report created on: July 02, 2023 Page 12 of 17 Expected cash flow - from 07/01/2023 to 06/30/2024 (continued) Interest payments 2023 2024
Quantity July August September October November December January February March April May June Total ($) MOUNTAIN AMERICA C UTUS RT 03.4500% MAT02/28/25 LICU SHARECERTIFICATE 250,000.00 708.90
Jul 01
732.53
Aug 01
732.53
Sep 01
708.90
Oct 01
732.53
Nov 01
708.90
Dec 01
732.53
Jan 01
732.53
Feb 01
685.27
Mar 01
732.53
Apr 01
708.90
May 01
732.53
Jun 01
8,648.63
NELNET BK UT US RT01.7500% MAT 02/16/27FIXED RATE CD
80,000.00 694.25
Aug 16
705.75
Feb 16
1,400.00
NEW YORK CMNTY BK NY USRT 00.2500% MAT 10/16/23FIXED RATE CD 150,000.00 188.01
Oct 16
188.01
NUMERICA CREDIT UN WAUS RT 04.9000% MAT11/04/26 LICU SHARECERTIFICATE 200,000.00 805.48
Jul 04
832.33
Aug 04
832.33
Sep 04
805.48
Oct 04
832.33
Nov 04
805.48
Dec 04
832.33
Jan 04
832.33
Feb 04
778.63
Mar 04
832.33
Apr 04
805.48
May 04
832.33
Jun 04
9,826.85
SALLIE MAE BANK UT US RT01.9000% MAT 02/16/27FIXED RATE CD 50,000.00 471.10
Aug 16
478.90
Feb 16
950.00
SYNCHRONY BANK UT US RT01.2500% MAT 12/10/26FIXED RATE CD 150,000.00 940.07
Dec 10
940.07
Jun 10
1,880.14
TECHNOLOGY CREDIT CA USRT 05.0000% MAT 01/21/25CREDIT UNION SHARE CERT 248,000.00 1,019.18
Jul 19
1,053.15
Aug 19
1,053.15
Sep 19
1,019.18
Oct 19
1,053.15
Nov 19
1,019.18
Dec 19
1,053.15
Jan 19
1,053.15
Feb 19
985.21
Mar 19
1,053.15
Apr 19
1,019.18
May 19
1,053.15
Jun 19
12,433.97
TEXAS EXCHANGE BK TX USRT 00.5000% MAT 12/11/24FIXED RATE CD 198,000.00 81.37
Jul 11
84.08 Aug 11
84.08 Sep 11
81.37 Oct 11
84.08 Nov 11
81.37 Dec 11
84.08 Jan 11
84.08 Feb 11
78.66 Mar 11
84.08 Apr 11
81.37 May 11
84.08 Jun 11
992.71
THIRD FED S&L ASSN OH USRT 00.2500% MAT 08/21/23FIXED RATE CD 200,000.00 247.95
Aug 19
250.68
TOYOTA FINL SVGS B NV USRT 00.6000% MAT 08/12/24FIXED RATE CD 250,000.00 743.84
Aug 12
756.16
Feb 12
1,500.00
UBS BANK UT US RT00.5500% MAT 08/12/24FIXED RATE CD
250,000.00 113.01
Jul 11
116.78
Aug 11
116.78
Sep 11
113.01
Oct 11
116.78
Nov 11
113.01
Dec 11
116.78
Jan 11
116.78
Feb 11
109.25
Mar 11
116.78
Apr 11
113.01
May 11
116.78
Jun 11
1,378.77
US TSY NOTE 00.125 % DUE10/15/23 DTD 10/15/20 FC04/15/21 500,000.00 312.50
Oct 15
312.50
US TSY NOTE 00.375 % DUE12/31/25 DTD 12/31/20 FC06/30/21 544,000.00 1,020.00
Dec 31
1,020.00
Jun 30
2,040.00
US TSY NOTE 00.875 % DUE06/30/26 DTD 06/30/21 FC12/31/21 300,000.00 1,312.50
Dec 31
1,312.50
Jun 30
2,625.00
US TSY NOTE 02.500 % DUE04/30/24 DTD 04/30/22 FC10/31/22 120,000.00 1,500.00
Oct 31
1,500.00
Apr 30
3,000.00
US TSY NOTE 02.625 % DUE03/31/25 DTD 03/31/18 FC09/30/18 110,000.00 1,443.75
Sep 30
1,443.75
Mar 31
2,887.50
Includes all fixed income securities in the selected portfolio.Report created on: July 02, 2023 Page 13 of 17 Expected cash flow - from 07/01/2023 to 06/30/2024 (continued) Interest payments 2023 2024
Quantity July August September October November December January February March April May June Total ($) US TSY NOTE 02.750 % DUE05/15/25 DTD 05/15/22 FC11/15/22 100,000.00 1,375.00
Nov 15
1,375.00
May 15
2,750.00
US TSY NOTE 02.875 % DUE06/15/25 DTD 06/15/22 FC12/15/22 100,000.00 1,437.50
Dec 15
1,437.50
Jun 15
2,875.00
US TSY NOTE 04.250 % DUE09/30/24 DTD 09/30/22 FC03/31/23 120,000.00 2,550.00
Sep 30
2,550.00
Mar 31
5,100.00
US TSY NOTE 04.375 % DUE10/31/24 DTD 10/31/22 FC04/30/23 120,000.00 2,625.00
Oct 31
2,625.00
Apr 30
5,250.00
USALLIANCE FED CRE NY USRT 00.5500% MAT 08/28/25FIXED RATE CD 149,000.00 67.36
Jul 28
69.60 Aug 28
69.60 Sep 28
67.36 Oct 28
69.60 Nov 28
67.36 Dec 28
69.60 Jan 28
69.60 Feb 28
65.11 Mar 28
69.60 Apr 28
67.36 May 28
69.60 Jun 28
821.75
USALLIANCE FED CRE NY USRT 02.8500% MAT 04/27/27FIXED RATE CD 100,000.00 234.25
Jul 27
242.05
Aug 27
242.05
Sep 27
234.25
Oct 27
242.05
Nov 27
234.25
Dec 27
242.05
Jan 27
242.05
Feb 27
226.44
Mar 27
242.05
Apr 27
234.25
May 27
242.05
Jun 27
2,857.81
WELLS FARGO BK NA SD USRT 02.7500% MAT 05/03/24FIXED RATE CD 197,000.00 445.27
Jul 03
460.12
Aug 03
460.12
Sep 03
445.27
Oct 03
460.12
Nov 03
445.27
Dec 03
460.12
Jan 03
460.12
Feb 03
430.43
Mar 03
460.12
Apr 03
445.27
May 03
4,972.23
Total Interest payments 10,040 11,424 13,121 26,755 14,877 23,330 10,043 11,137 12,339 26,158 14,296 22,785 196,306Taxable non-U.S. incomeInterest payments 2023 2024 Quantity July August September October November December January February March April May June Total ($) BANK OF BARODA NY US RT03.5500% MAT 12/28/23FIXED RATE CD 250,000.00 4,449.66
Dec 28
4,449.66
STATE BANK OF INDI NY USRT 00.9500% MAT 05/19/26FIXED RATE CD 248,000.00 1,187.68
Nov 19
1,174.77
May 19
2,362.45
STATE BK IL US RT 00.5000%MAT 09/22/25 FIXED RATE CD
200,000.00 504.11
Sep 22
498.63
Mar 22
1,002.74
Total Interest payments 504 1,188 4,450 499 1,175 7,815 2023 2024
July August September October November December January February March April May June Total ($) Total Portfolio 10,040 11,424 13,625 26,755 16,065 27,780 10,043 11,137 12,838 26,158 15,470 22,785 204,121Includes all fixed income securities in the selected portfolio.Report created on: July 02, 2023 Page 14 of 17 House View: Executive summary
• Financial markets have traded higher over the past month, led by large cap US stocks. The S&P 500 hit a one-year high, while treasury yields also rose. • Persistent inflation, high rates, falling growth estimates, and heightened financial stress make the short-term risk-reward for markets unfavorable.We think a more constructive environment for risky assets will emergelater in 2023, and we see the longer-term return outlook for diversified investors as relatively good. We therefore focus on mitigating near-term downside risks, while maintaining upside exposure for the long-term. • In our global asset allocation, we keep global equities at least preferred while fixed income is most preferred. At this stage of the cycle, we think bonds offer better value and lower volatility than equities. • Aggressive rate hikes by the Federal Reserve combined with bank failures earlier this year have caused credit conditions to tighten, although relatively few companies have completely lost access to financing. The pace of economic growth is likely to continue to slow, and recession risks are high. Balance sheets are unusually strong for this stage of the business cycle, which should help to prevent a severe downturn.
• Resilient growth has made it more difficult for the Fed to get inflation down toward its 2% target. While clearly down from its peak, the Fedneeds to see more progress before it ends the rate hiking cycle. Supply chain issues have mostly been resolved, reducing inflationary pressure atthe producer level, which should help retail price inflation. • While many market participants believed the Fed to be done hiking after their pause, inflation remains elevated. The Fed’s most recent dot plot suggests one or even two more hikes are likely this year. At the time ofwriting, markets are pricing in a total of one more rate hike in 2023 with cuts beginning in the first quarter of 2024.
US economic outlook
Month in review
Source: UBS, as of 26 June 2023
The views expressed in this slide belong to CIO Americas, GWM Tactical preferences
EquitiesFixed income Foreign exchangeReal assetsUS sectors • Emerging market equity• Australia equity• Fixed income• IG corporate bonds• Agency MBS• Preferreds• EM hard currency FI• AUD• Commodities• Oil• Gold• Industrials• Energy• Consumer staples Asset Classes Most Preferred Least Preferred
Preferred Investment Views
• Global equities• US equities• US large-cap growth• USD• Financials• Information technology
• Utilities
2021 2022 2023E
US 5.9 2.1 1.4
Eurozone 5.3 3.5 0.8
China 8.4 3.0 5.2
Latin America 6.8 3.7 1.9
World 6.5 3.4 2.8
Economic forecasts (real GDP, in %) Report created on: July 02, 2023 Page 15 of 17 Important information about this report
Disclosures applicable to accounts at UBS Financial Services Inc.This section contains important disclosures regarding theinformation and valuations presented here. Allinformation presented is subject to change at any timeand is provided only as of the date indicated. Theinformation in this report is for informational purposesonly and should not be relied upon as the basis of aninvestment or liquidation decision. UBS FS accountstatements and official tax documents are the onlyofficial record of your accounts and are not replaced,amended or superseded by any of the informationpresented in these reports. You should not rely on thisinformation in making purchase or sell decisions, for taxpurposes or otherwise.UBS FS offers a number of investment advisory programsto clients, acting in our capacity as an investmentadviser, including fee-based financial planning,discretionary account management, non-discretionaryinvestment advisory programs, and advice on theselection of investment managers and mutual fundsoffered through our investment advisory programs.When we act as your investment adviser, we will have awritten agreement with you expressly acknowledgingour investment advisory relationship with you anddescribing our obligations to you. At the beginning ofour advisory relationship, we will give you our Form ADVbrochure(s) for the program(s) you selected that providesdetailed information about, among other things, theadvisory services we provide, our fees, our personnel,our other business activities and financial industryaffiliations and conflicts between our interests and yourinterests.In our attempt to provide you with the highest qualityinformation available, we have compiled this reportusing data obtained from recognized statistical sourcesand authorities in the financial industry. While webelieve this information to be reliable, we cannot makeany representations regarding its accuracy orcompleteness. Please keep this guide as your AdvisoryReview.Please keep in mind that most investment objectives arelong term. Although it is important to evaluate yourportfolio's performance over multiple time periods, webelieve the greatest emphasis should be placed on thelonger period returns.Please review the report content carefully and contactyour Financial Advisor with any questions.Portfolio: For purposes of this report "portfolio" isdefined as all of the accounts presented on the coverpage or the header of this report and does notnecessarily include all of the client's accounts held atUBS FS or elsewhere.Tax lots: This report displays security tax lots as eitherone line item (i.e., lumped tax lots) or as separate tax lot level information. If you choose to display security taxlots as one line item, the total cost equals the total valueof all tax lots. The unit cost is an average of the totalcost divided by the total number of shares. If the shareswere purchased in different lots, the unit price listeddoes not represent the actual cost paid for each lot. Theunrealized gain/loss value is calculated by combining thetotal value of all tax lots plus or minus the total marketvalue of the security.If you choose to display tax lot level information asseparate line items on the Portfolio Holdings report, thetax lot information may include information fromsources other than UBS FS. The Firm does notindependently verify or guarantee the accuracy orvalidity of any information provided by sources otherthan UBS FS. As a result this information may not beaccurate and is provided for informational purposesonly. Clients should not rely on this information inmaking purchase or sell decisions, for tax purposes orotherwise. See your monthly statement for additionalinformation.Pricing: All securities are priced using the closing pricereported on the last business day preceding the date ofthis report. Every reasonable attempt has been made toaccurately price securities; however, we make nowarranty with respect to any security's price. Please referto the back of the first page of your UBS FS accountstatement for important information regarding thepricing used for certain types of securities, the sources ofpricing data and other qualifications concerning thepricing of securities. To determine the value of securitiesin your account, we generally rely on third partyquotation services. If a price is unavailable or believed tobe unreliable, we may determine the price in good faithand may use other sources such as the last recordedtransaction. When securities are held at anothercustodian or if you hold illiquid or restricted securities forwhich there is no published price, we will generally relyon the value provided by the custodian or issuer of thatsecurity.Estimated Annual Income: The Estimated AnnualIncome is the dividend/interest rate paid by theinvestment solely as of the date of this report,annualized yearly per share and multiplied by thequantity of shares held in the selected account(s). ForExpected Cash Flow and Portfolio Holdings reports priorto June 23, 2023, savings products & sweep funds donot display such calculations and instead, values aredisplayed as N/A. For all other reports, Estimated AnnualIncome for savings products & sweep funds is notcalculated or factored into aggregate calculations andwill be displayed as 0.Current Yield: Current yield calculations display thecurrent yield of the investment solely as of the date ofthis report, is defined as the estimated annual incomedivided by the total market value. For Portfolio Holdings report generated prior to June 23, 2023, savingsproducts & sweep funds do not include suchinformation and instead, values are displayed as N/A. Forall other reports, Current Yield for savings products &sweep funds is not calculated or factored into aggregatecalculations and will be displayed as 0.Bond Rating: These ratings are obtained fromindependent industry sources and are not verified byUBS FS. Securities without rating information are leftblank. Rating agencies may discontinue ratings on highyield securities.NR: When NR is displayed under bond rating column, noratings are currently available from that rating agency.High Yield: This report may designate a security as ahigh yield fixed income security even though one ormore rating agencies rate the security as an investmentgrade security. Further, this report may incorporate arating that is no longer current with the rating agency.For more information about the rating for any high yieldfixed income security, or to consider whether to hold orsell a high yield fixed income security, please contactyour financial advisor or representative and do not makeany investment decision based on this report.Credit/Event Risk: Investments are subject to event riskand changes in credit quality of the issuer. Issuers canexperience economic situations that may have adverseeffects on the market value of their securities.Interest Rate Risk: Bonds are subject to market valuefluctuations as interest rates rise and fall. If sold prior tomaturity, the price received for an issue may be less thanthe original purchase price.Reinvestment Risk: Since most corporate issues payinterest semiannually, the coupon payments over the lifeof the bond can have a major impact on the bond's totalreturn.Call Provisions: When evaluating the purchase of acorporate bond, one should be aware of any featuresthat may allow the issuer to call the security. This isparticularly important when considering an issue that istrading at a premium to its call price, since the returnmay be negatively impacted if the issue is redeemed.Should an issue be called, investors may be faced withan earlier than anticipated reinvestment decision, andmay be unable to reinvest their principal at equallyfavorable rates.Effective Maturity: Effective maturity is the expectedredemption due to pre-refunding, puts, or maturity anddoes not reflect any sinking fund activity, optional orextraordinary calls. Securities without a maturity date areleft blank and typically include Preferred Securities,Mutual Funds and Fixed Income UITs.
Yields: Yield to Maturity and Yield to Worst arecalculated to the worst call.Accrued Interest: Interest that has accumulatedbetween the most recent payment and the report datemay be reflected in market values for interest bearingsecurities.Bond Averages: All averages are weighted averagescalculated based on market value of the holding, notincluding accrued interest.Tax Status: "Taxable" includes all securities held in ataxable account that are subject to federal and/or stateor local taxation. "Tax-exempt" includes all securitiesheld in a taxable account that are exempt from federal,state and local taxation. "Tax-deferred" includes allsecurities held in a tax-deferred account, regardless ofthe status of the security.Taxability unknown: Taxability unknown items mayinclude, but not to be limited to, Money Market interest,ordinary interest, and ordinary dividends. The valueshown for interest bearing securities that have beendeposited or received in your account includes accruedinterest, where applicable.Cash Flow: This Cash Flow analysis is based on thehistorical dividend, coupon and interest payments youhave received as of the Record Date in connection withthe securities listed and assumes that you will continueto hold the securities for the periods for which cashflows are projected. The attached may or may notinclude principal paybacks for the securities listed. Thesepotential cash flows are subject to change due to avariety of reasons, including but not limited to,contractual provisions, changes in corporate policies,changes in the value of the underlying securities andinterest rate fluctuations. The effect of a call on anysecurity(s) and the consequential impact on its potentialcash flow(s) is not reflected in this report. Payments thatoccur in the same month in which the report isgenerated -- but prior to the report run ("As of") date --are not reflected in this report. In determining thepotential cash flows, UBS FS relies on informationobtained from third party services it believes to bereliable. UBS FS does not independently verify orguarantee the accuracy or validity of any informationprovided by third parties. Although UBS FS generallyupdates this information as it is received, the Firm doesnot provide any assurances that the information listed isaccurate as of the Record Date. Cash flows formortgage-backed, asset-backed, factored, and otherpass-through securities are based on the assumptionsthat the current face amount, principal pay-down,interest payment and payment frequency remainconstant. Calculations may include principal payments,are intended to be an estimate of future projectedinterest cash flows and do not in any way guaranteeaccuracy.
Report created on: July 02, 2023 Page 16 of 17
Disclosures applicable to accounts at UBS Financial Services Inc. (continued) Expected Cash Flow reporting for Puerto RicoIncome Tax Purposes: Expected Cash Flow reportingmay be prepared solely for Puerto Rico income taxpurposes only. If you have received expected cash flowreporting for Puerto Rico income tax purposes only andare NOT subject to Puerto Rico income taxes, you havereceived this reporting in error and you should contactyour Financial Advisor immediately. Both the Firm andyour Financial Advisor will rely solely upon yourrepresentations and will not make the determination ofwhether you are subject to Puerto Rico income taxes. Ifyou have received this reporting and you are NOTsubject to Puerto Rico income taxes, the informationprovided in this reporting is inaccurate and should notbe relied upon by you or your advisers. Neither UBS FSnor its employees or associated persons provide tax orlegal advice. You should consult with your tax and/orlegal advisors regarding your personal circumstances.Bond sensitivity analysis: This analysis uses ModifiedDuration which approximates the percentage pricechange of a security for a given change in yield. Thehigher the modified duration of a security, the higher itsrisk. For callable securities, modified duration does notaddress the impact of changing interest rates on abond's expected cash flow as a result of a call orprepayment.Gain/Loss: The gain/loss information may includecalculations based upon non-UBS FS cost basisinformation. The Firm does not independently verify orguarantee the accuracy or validity of any informationprovided by sources other than UBS FS. In addition, ifthis report contains positions with unavailable cost basis,the gain/(loss) for these positions are excluded in thecalculation for the Gain/(Loss). As a result these figuresmay not be accurate and are provided for informationalpurposes only. Clients should not rely on thisinformation in making purchase or sell decisions, for taxpurposes or otherwise. Rely only on year-end tax formswhen preparing your tax return. See your monthlystatement for additional information.Accounts Included in this Report: The account listingmay or may not include all of your accounts with UBSFS. The accounts included in this report are listed underthe "Accounts included in this review" shown on thefirst page or listed at the top of each page. If an accountnumber begins with "@" this denotes assets or liabilitiesheld at other financial institutions. Information aboutthese assets, including valuation, account type and costbasis, is based on the information you provided to us, orprovided to us by third party data aggregators orcustodians at your direction. We have not verified, andare not responsible for, the accuracy or completeness ofthis information.Account name(s) displayed in this report and labels used for groupings of accounts can be customizable"nicknames" chosen by you to assist you with yourrecordkeeping or may have been included by yourfinancial advisor for reference purposes only. The namesused have no legal effect, are not intended to reflect anystrategy, product, recommendation, investmentobjective or risk profile associated with your accounts orany group of accounts, and are not a promise orguarantee that wealth, or any financial results, can orwill be achieved. All investments involve the risk of loss,including the risk of loss of the entire investment.For more information about account or group names, orto make changes, contact your Financial Advisor.Account changes: At UBS, we are committed tohelping you work toward your financial goals. So thatwe may continue providing you with financial advicethat is consistent with your investment objectives, pleaseconsider the following two questions:1) Have there been any changes to your financialsituation or investment objectives?2) Would you like to implement or modify anyrestrictions regarding the management of your account?If the answer to either question is "yes," it is importantthat you contact your Financial Advisor as soon aspossible to discuss these changes. For MAC advisoryaccounts, please contact your investment managerdirectly if you would like to impose or change anyinvestment restrictions on your account.ADV disclosure: A complimentary copy of our currentForm ADV Disclosure Brochure that describes theadvisory program and related fees is available throughyour Financial Advisor. Please contact your FinancialAdvisor if you have any questions.Important information for former Piper Jaffray andMcDonald Investments clients: As an accommodationto former Piper Jaffray and McDonald Investmentsclients, these reports include performance history fortheir Piper Jaffray accounts prior to August 12, 2006 andMcDonald Investments accounts prior to February 9,2007, the date the respective accounts were convertedto UBS FS. UBS FS has not independently verified thisinformation nor do we make any representations orwarranties as to the accuracy or completeness of thatinformation and will not be liable to you if any suchinformation is unavailable, delayed or inaccurate.For insurance, annuities, and 529 Plans, UBS FS relies oninformation obtained from third party services it believesto be reliable. UBS FS does not independently verify orguarantee the accuracy or validity of any informationprovided by third parties. Information for insurance,annuities, and 529 Plans that has been provided by athird party service may not reflect the quantity andmarket value as of the previous business day. Whenavailable, an "as of" date is included in the description.
Investors outside the U.S. are subject to securities andtax regulations within their applicable jurisdiction thatare not addressed in this report. Nothing in this reportshall be construed to be a solicitation to buy or offer tosell any security, product or service to any non-U.S.investor, nor shall any such security, product or servicebe solicited, offered or sold in any jurisdiction wheresuch activity would be contrary to the securities laws orother local laws and regulations or would subject UBS toany registration requirement within such jurisdiction.Performance History prior to the account's inception atUBS Financial Services, Inc. may have been included inthis report and is based on data provided by third partysources. UBS Financial Services Inc. has notindependently verified this information nor does UBSFinancial Services Inc. guarantee the accuracy or validityof the information.Important information about brokerage andadvisory services. As a firm providing wealthmanagement services to clients, UBS Financial ServicesInc. offers investment advisory services in its capacity asan SEC-registered investment adviser and brokerageservices in its capacity as an SEC-registered brokerdealer. Investment advisory services and brokerageservices are separate and distinct, differ in material waysand are governed by different laws and separatearrangements. It is important that clients understand theways in which we conduct business, that they carefullyread the agreements and disclosures that we provide tothem about the products or services we offer. For moreinformation, please review client relationship summaryprovided at ubs.com/relationshipsummary. UBS FS All Rights Reserved. Member SIPC.
Report created on: July 02, 2023 Page 17 of 17
Agenda Item: 8(a)
STAFF REPORT
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCIL MEMBERS
FROM: Nitish Sharma, Finance Consultant
DATE: August 15, 2023
SUBJECT: Update to Master Fee Schedule
RECOMMENDED ACTION
The City Council:
1.Conduct a public hearing for certain fees pursuant to Government Code, section 66018; and
2.Consider adoption of a resolution amending the Book of Fees for various regulatory activities, products, and services.
BACKGROUND
Revenue from fees and charges represents about $405,977, or 5.9%, of the City’s total operating revenue. Accordingly, each year departments review their fee schedules as they relate to their costs for providing regulatory activities, products, and services. Any proposed fee adjustments are brought forward to Council for consideration. During this review, departments also examine the need for new fees. These are brought forward at the same time for Council consideration.
The City’s fee program has three key principles: (1) avoidance of large increases from time to time by adopting smaller annual increases; (2) establishment of fees that are reflective of the City’s actual costs and are reasonable as determined by similar municipalities; and (3) ensure communication of our policies and programs to developers to foster understanding and feedback.
ANALYSIS
Since the passage of Proposition 26, (1) fees cannot exceed the cost of providing services; and, (2) individual customers paying for these fees cannot be charged for more than the services they receive, meaning they cannot be overcharged to subsidize fees for other customers. Included in the analysis of each of the proposed Book of Fees changes below is an explanation of the proposed change in compliance with Proposition 26.
Subject: Update to Master Fee Schedule
Date: August 15, 2023 Agenda Item: 8(b)
A. Citywide Fee Reimbursement Recovery Rate: A huge part of the fee update is the calculation of the fully burden labor rate. The proposed cost of labor reimbursement rate is developed based on salaries and benefits, operations and maintenance to support the delivery of services, and the administrative overhead to support the departments delivering the services. Each of the components of the fully burdened labor rate analysis is described below:
1. Salaries and Benefits: The City team and the consultant have developed a labor cost analysis based on the current employee census data file. This census data file includes employees title, salary/wages, and healthcare benefits. The census data file also includes any compensation or benefits (compensatory) as part of the labor agreements. The base salary/ wages are based on the salary/wages information posted on the City’s website. (https://claytonca.gov/fc/human-resources/Salary%20Schedule%20FY23_REVISED.pdf)
2. Operating Expense Multiplier: Each Department has operating expenses that support the delivery of services. As part of the analysis, the operating expenses are distributed to each department based on the type of services provided. For example, the Finance Department provides support to Community Development Department to manage and record fees, process accounts payables, payroll and other functions as deemed appropriate and reasonable. Only a portion of the Finance Department costs can be applied to the Community Development as the Department supports other functional areas of the City. The type of expenses included in this category are listed below:
• General Supplies
• Books/Periodicals
• Dues and Subscriptions
• Telecommunications
• Travel/Training
• Conferences/Meetings
• Education & Training
• Recording Fees
• Legal Notices
• Legal Services (if related to fees, these costs are billed directly to the vendor) • Other Professional Services (if related to fees, these costs are billed directly to the vendor)
• Unemployment Compensation
• Recruitment/Pre-employment
• Office Supplies/Expense
• Postage
• Printing and Binding
• Rentals/Leases – Copiers and Other Equipment
• Telecommunications/Technology Expenses
• Insurance Premiums as allocated to different departments • Employee Recognition
3. General Support Services Cost Multiplier: The General Support Services includes the costs from the Administrative Services Department to support the Departments delivering the services. Only the portion of the Administrative Services Departments costs are allocated using the percentage of the fee revenues received when compared to the total revenue budget. The type of expenses included in this category are listed below:
• Regular Salaries
• Temporary Salaries
• Overtime
• Long/Short Term Disability Insurance
Subject: Update to Master Fee Schedule
Date: August 15, 2023 Agenda Item: 8(b)
• PERS Retirement-Normal Cost
• Workers' Compensation
• Unemployment Compensation
• FICA Taxes
• Benefit Insurance
• Materials and Supplies
• Training and Education
B. Community Development Fees
The Community Development fees includes some fees that are charged to the initial deposits received from the project applicant. There are other fees that have direct fee charge upon submission of the permit application. The proposed fees for the Community Development are attached for the Council’s consideration.
C. Police Department Fees
The Police Department fees are only charged if the services are provided and benefits an individual or organization. Most of the police services are provided and funded from the general revenues (property taxes, sales taxes, etc.).
D. Facility and Rental Fees
Facility and rental fees are based on the time utilized by the maintenance staff to ensure that the facilities are clean and ready for the next event.
E. Clayton Community Park Fees
Clayton Community Park Fees are charged for events or other functions that require a permit and reservation. These events require the services of the Maintenance Division and a portion of the Administrative Division to ensure that the park facility is clean and maintained.
F. Special Event Fees/Street Closure
The Special Event Fees are charged for events at different sites. These events usually require significant staff resources and city owned assets to meet the event requirements. The City has not been very active in this area when collecting fees from the impacts of the events. It is important to note that the City needs to develop a policy on special event/street closure applications to ensure that the definitions and intent of the fees adheres to the Councils goals and objectives.
On June 26, 2023, the City Council provided direction to staff to adjust the City of Clayton based nonprofit organization fees to be set 30% and the non-Clayton based nonprofit fee be set at 15% below the normal fees. The Special Event Fees attached to this report has been adjusted appropriately.
G. Administrative Fees
Administrative Fees are allocated and charged to individuals or organizations receiving services that are not normally covered by the general revenues.
The City staff is estimating an annual increase of $36,000 to the fee revenues based on the current year activities. The fee adjustments will help off-set the actual cost of providing services to individual or certain organizations that seek various City services.
Environmental Considerations
The City Council’s consideration of fee adjustments is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15378 as it constitutes a government fiscal activity which does not involve any commitment to any specific project which may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment.
Coordination and Review
The update to the Book of Fees schedules is a citywide project.
Subject: Update to Master Fee Schedule
Date: August 15, 2023 Agenda Item: 8(b)
Budget/Cost Impact
The estimate revenue from the adoption of these fees will increase the General Fund Budget by approximately $36,000.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Resolution 23-xx: Adoption of the Master Fee Schedule
2. City of Clayton Book of Fee Schedule: Citywide Service/Reimbursement Fees
3. Community Development Fees
4. Police Department Fees
5. Facility and Rental Fees
6. Clayton Community Park Fees
7. Special Event Fees
8. Administrative Fees
RESOLUTION NO. XX-2023
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CLAYTON, COUNTY OF
CONTRA COSTA, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AMENDING THE BOOK OF FEES TO ADOPT
FEES FOR VARIOUS CITY REGULATORY ACTIVITIES, PRODUCTS AND/OR SERVICES WHEREAS, the City of Clayton (“City”) City Council has the authority to establish fees or service charges which do not exceed the reasonable cost of various regulatory activities or providing various products or services; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has exercised this authority by adopting a resolution establishing the City of Clayton Master Fee Schedules; and WHEREAS, the City maintains separate funds for administrative facilities, police, cultural/recreational, community development; and
WHEREAS, this Book of Fees is amended from time to time to reflect changes in the cost of enforcing regulatory activities or providing certain products or services; and WHEREAS, the City Council wishes to amend the Book of Fees to adopt fees for various City services and permits which more closely relate to actual costs.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Clayton, California, does hereby find the following:
Section 1: Recitals: The foregoing recitals are true and correct and are incorporated herein by this reference.
Section 2: Findings: The City Council finds the following:
A. The City Council finds that as required by California Government Code, section 66016, it has held at least one public meeting at which oral or written presentations could be made, as a part of a regularly scheduled meeting, and that notice of the time and place of the meeting, including a general explanation of the matter to be considered, and a statement that the data of this matter is available for review and a first class mailing was made to anyone filing a written request at least fourteen (14) days in advance of the public meeting.
B. The City made publicly available the data indicating the amount of cost, or estimated cost, required to provide the service for which the fees or charges are to be imposed, and the revenue sources anticipated to provide the service at least ten (10) days prior to the date of the public meeting.
C. The City further finds that certain fees included in the City of Clayton Book of Fees require adoption pursuant to Government Code, section 66018. As such, the City has held a duly noticed public hearing at which all oral and written presentations were made as part of a regularly scheduled meeting. Prior to holding said public hearing, the City published notice in a newspaper of general circulation at least ten (10) days prior to the date of the public hearing pursuant to Government code, section 6062a. Said notice provided that the public hearing would be held on August 15, 2023 at 7:00pm in Hoyer Hall, Clayton Community Library, 6125 Clayton Road, Clayton, California and included a general explanation of the matter to be considered.
D. The City Council hereby finds, based on the information and documents prepared for and presented to the City Council to support this action, that the rates, fees, charges and costs are for the purpose of and necessary for (a) meeting operating expenses, including employee wage rates and fringe benefits, (b) purchasing or leasing supplies, equipment, or materials, (c) meeting financial reserve needs and requirements, and (d) obtaining funds necessary for the operations and maintenance of City property and facilities.
E. The City Council finds that the fees specified by this Resolution do not exceed the cost of providing the product or service or the regulation for which the fee is imposed.
F. The various modifications to the fee and fine schedules attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein are hereby approved and adopted by the City Council and adopted into the City of Clayton Book of Fees.
G. Any fees or charges that have been previously adopted by resolution of the City Council and which are not being modified in the Book of Fees attached hereto are incorporated for ease of reference only and without modifying or amending such fees or charges or the underlying approvals in any manner.
Section 3: Effective Date: This resolution shall take effect sixty (60) days after adoption.
Section 4: Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, phase, or portion of this Resolution is for any reason held invalid or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Resolution. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Resolution and each section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phase thereof irrespective of the fact that any one of or more sections, subsections, clauses, or phases be declared unconstitutional on their face or as applied.
PASSED, APPROVED and ADOPTED by the City Council of Clayton, California at a regular public meeting thereof held on the 15th day of August 2023 was introduced and passed at a regular meeting of the Clayton City Council by the following roll call vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
___________________________________ _____________________________ Janet Calderon, City Clerk Jeff Wan, Mayor
Attachment 2 ‐ City of Clayton Book of Fee Schedule: Citywide Service/Reimbursement Fees ATTACHMENT 2
DESCRIPTION OF FEES
Departments Position
Cost
Reimbursement
Fee Rate/ Hour
Admin/Finance Accounting Technician 56 $
Community Dev Assistant Planner 90 $
Admin/Finance Assistant to the City Manager 72 $
Endeavor Hall Attendant 16 $
Police Chief of Police 131 $
Admin/Finance City Clerk 63 $
Admin/Finance City Manager 142 $
Community Dev Community Development Director 136 $
Admin/Finance Finance Director 132 $
PW/Mtn Maintenance Senior 75 $
PW/Mtn Maintenance Supervisor 87 $
PW/Mtn Maintenance Worker I 63 $
PW/Mtn Maintenance Worker II 67 $
Admin/Finance Office Assistant/Code Officer 42 $
Police Police Administrative Clerk 51 $
Police Police Office Coordinator 59 $
Police Police Officers 97 $
Police Police Officers (PEPRA) 79 $
Police Police Sergeant (PEPRA) 105 $
Police Police Sergeant 117 $
CITY OF CLAYTON- BOOK OF FEES
CITYWIDE STAFF HOURLY REIMBURSEMENT FEES
1 of 1
Attachment 3 ‐ Community Development Fees
ATTACHMENT 3
DESCRIPTION OF FEES CURRENT FEES PROPOSED FEES
Annexation - This fee may include the items as
illustrated below.
Time - $5,000 minimum
deposit
Actual Cost - $5,000
minimum deposit
Local Agency Formation Commission Actual Costs
Legal Costs for City plus 15% administrative
overhead Actual Costs
City Engineering Costs plus 15% administrative
overhead Actual Costs
Pre-annexation fees (legal costs, engineering cost
and other City costs ) Actual Costs
General Plan Map or Text Amendment
Time - $5,000 minimum
deposit
Actual Cost- $5,000
minimum deposit
Pre Zoning / Re Zoning
Time - $5,000 minimum
deposit
Actual Cost - $5,000
minimum deposit
Zoning Ordinance Text Amendment
Time - $5,000 minimum
deposit
Actual Cost- $5,000
minimum deposit
Site Plans / Development Plans
Site Plan Review Permit - Residential
Time - $1,000 minimum
deposit
Actual Cost- $1,000
minimum deposit
Site Plan Review Permit - Residential Amendment
Time - $1,000 minimum
deposit
Actual Cost- $1,000
minimum deposit
Site Plan Review Permit - Non Residential
Time - $5,000 minimum
deposit
Actual Cost - $5,000
minimum deposit
Site Plan Review Permit - Non Residential
Amendment
Time - $2,000 minimum
deposit
Actual Cost- $2,000
minimum deposit
Development Plan
Time - $5,000 minimum
deposit
Actual Cost- $5,000
minimum deposit
New
Development Services Agreement - Negotiating,
processing, reviewing, drafting, and finalizing
development agreements including, but not limited to
development, disposition, and owner participation
agreement and related documents.
Actual Cost- $5,000
minimum deposit
Tentative Subdivision Map Application
Time - $5,000 minimum
deposit
Actual Cost - $5,000
minimum deposit
Lot Line Adjustment
Time - $1,000 minimum
deposit
Actual Cost- $2,500
minimum deposit
Lot Merger
Time - $2,000 minimum
deposit
Actual Cost - $2,500
minimum deposit
Tentative Parcel Map Application
Time - $2,000 minimum
deposit
Actual Cost - $2,000
minimum deposit
Environmental Impact Report
Time - $5,000 minimum
deposit
Actual Cost - $5,000
minimum deposit
Negative Declaration with Mitigations (Mitigated Neg.
Dec.)
Time - $2,500 minimum
deposit
Actual Cost- $2,500
minimum deposit
Negative Declaration without Mitigations
Time - $2,000 minimum
deposit
Actual Cost - $2,000
minimum deposit
Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan
Included with Mitigated
Neg Dec/ EIR
Included with Mitigated Neg
Dec/ EIR
CITY OF CLAYTON- BOOK OF FEES
PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT FEES
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
SUBDIVISIONS
SUBDIVISIONS
GENERAL PLAN /ZONING ORDINANCE FEES
ANNEXATION
1 of 7
Attachment 3 ‐ Community Development Fees
ATTACHMENT 3
DESCRIPTION OF FEES CURRENT FEES PROPOSED FEES
CITY OF CLAYTON- BOOK OF FEES
Categorical Exemption County filing fee + Time
New
County Recorder Fees
https://www.contracostavote.gov/recorder/recordingfees/recorder-fee-schedule/ Actual cost New
Staff Time based on the Citywide Fee
Reimbursement Schedule Actual cost
New
Mileage Costs (To and From) per IRS rate
established (https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/irs-issuesstandard-mileage-rates-for-2023-business-useincreases-3-cents-per-mile) 2023 IRS Rate: 65.5 cents
per mile
Home Occupation Permit - Administrative Review $216 $237 Home Occupation Permit - Planning Commission
Review
Time - $750 minimum
deposit
Actual Cost - $750 minimum
deposit
Use Permit - Fences Administrative Review $216 $293
Use Permit - Residential - Planning Commission
Review
Time - $1,000 minimum
deposit
Actual Cos - $1,000
minimum deposit
Use Permit - Non- Residential - Planning
Commission Review
Time - $5,000 minimum
deposit
Actual Costs - $2,000
minimum deposit
Temporary Use Permit - Administrative Review $216 $660
Temporary Use Permit - Planning Commission
Review
Time $500 minimum
deposit
Actual Cost- $1,000
minimum deposit
Sign Permit - Administrative Review $70 $90
Sign Permit - Planning Commission Review
Time - $1,000 minimum
deposit
Actual Cost- $1,000
minimum deposit
Temporary Storage Permit $70 $90
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Permit -
Administrative Review $360 $372
Tree Removal Permit - Administrative Review
Without Notice (Minimum) $43 $45
Tree Removal Non-Compliance Penalty (Admin
Review Without Notice) $43 $135
Tree Removal Permit - Administrative Review with
Notice (per tree - minimum
applies see below) $65 $135
Tree Removal Non-Compliance Penalty (Notice
Required) $143 $259
Tree Removal Permit - Planning Commission Review
Time - $500 minimum
deposit
Actual Cost - $500 minimum
deposit
Tree Replacement In-Lieu Fee (CMC §15.70.040 F &
15.70.55) (per 24'' box
tree) $840 $840
Building Moving Permit
Time - $1,000 minimum
deposit
Actual Cost - $1,000
minimum deposit
Noise Permit - Administrative Review $216 $383
Reasonable Accommodations Permit - Administrative
Review $216 $338
Reasonable Accommodations Permit - Planning
Commission Review
Time - $500 minimum
deposit
Actual Cost- $600 minimum
deposit
Outdoor Seating Permit (CMC §17.24.020 -
H/Standard Policy No 3) $112 $112
MISCELLANEOUS
PERMITS
2 of 7
Attachment 3 ‐ Community Development Fees
ATTACHMENT 3
DESCRIPTION OF FEES CURRENT FEES PROPOSED FEES
CITY OF CLAYTON- BOOK OF FEES
Variance - Residential
Time - $1,000 minimum
deposit
Actual Cost - $1,000
minimum deposit
Variance - Non Residential
Time - $5,000 minimum
deposit
Actual Cost - $2,000
minimum deposit
New
Pre-application review of development of 2 hours
(additional hours will be based on actual costs). Two
hour Minimum : $272 (additional hours at $136/hour).
Actual Cost- $2,500
minimum deposit
New
Community Facility District or Other Assessment
District formation fees
Actual Cost- $8,000
minimum deposit
Appeal - Administrative Decisions $70 $90
Appeal-Administrative Code Enforcement Citation
Time - $1,800 minimum
deposit
Actual Cost- $1,800
minimum deposit
Appeal - Planning Commission Decisions -
Residential $360 $375
Appeal - Planning Commission Decisions - Non
Residential $723 $753
Initial Fees- Appeals to Planning Commission
Decisions - Non Residential $723
Actual Costs- $1,500
minimum deposit
Time Extension Request
Time - $500 minimum
deposit
Actual Cost - $500 minimum
deposit
Contract Administration
Time - $1,000 minimum
deposit
Actual Cost - $1,000
minimum deposit
Large Family Day Care Home Permit
Time - $500 minimum
deposit
Actual Cost - $500 minimum
deposit
Pre Application Consultation Deposit
Time - $1,000 minimum
deposit
Time - $1,000 minimum
deposit
New
Technology Fee: A technology fee shall be charged
as an additional permit fee for structures requiring full plan review. The amount of this fee shall be 8% of
the fee charged per the total valuation of the project. .The fee shall be used for permit document scanning
costs, expansion of the city’s EGovernment and
Geographical Information System (GIS) programs,
along with their operating and maintenance costs 8% of total permit fees Permit processing Fee - Single Family $186 $203
Permit processing Fee - Commercial & Multifamily $376 $417 Mgmt. Plan Deposit - Single Family (Minor Projects
Including: re-roof,
additions, remodeling, tenant improvements, etc.)
$1,000 plus $1/sq. ft.
overs 2,000 sq.
ft.
$1,000 plus $1/sq. ft. overs
2,000 sq.
ft.
Mgmt. Plan Deposit - Single Family (New
Construction) per unit
$2,000 plus $1/sq. ft.
over 2,000 sq.
ft.
$2,000 plus $1/sq. ft. over
2,000 sq.
ft.
Mgmt. Plan Deposit - Commercial & Multifamily (New
Construction)
$2,000 plus $1/sq. ft.
over 2,000 sq.
ft.
$2,000 plus $1/sq. ft. over
2,000 sq.
ft.
HABITAT CONSERVATION AREA COMPLIANCE
CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION (C&D) RECYCLING PLANS
3 of 7
Attachment 3 ‐ Community Development Fees
ATTACHMENT 3
DESCRIPTION OF FEES CURRENT FEES PROPOSED FEES
CITY OF CLAYTON- BOOK OF FEES
Habitat Conservation Plan/Natural CC Plan
Time - $1,000 minimum
deposit
Time - $1,000 minimum
deposit
Bid or Plan Sets Actual Cost Actual Cost
Deed Restriction / Covenant Agreement Preparation
(Does not include
recordation extra cost. See Administrative Fees.) $533 $562 Final Map Filing Fee (per map) $878 $915
Final Map Checking Fee
Time - $2,500 minimum
deposit
Time - $5,000 minimum
deposit
Construction Plans Checking Fee
Time - $2,500 minimum
deposit
Time - $5,000 minimum
deposit
Construction Inspection Fee - Public Improvements 9% of Bond Estimates 9% of Bond Estimates Construction Inspection Fee - Private Improvements 9% of Bond Estimates 9% of Bond Estimates Construction Inspection Fee - Sanitary Sewer 3% of Bond Estimates 3% of Bond Estimates Final Parcel Map Filing Fee (per map) $174 $182
Final Parcel Map Plan Checking Fee
Time - $1,000 minimum
deposit
Time - $2,500 minimum
deposit
Construction Plan Checking Fee
Time - $1,000 minimum
deposit
Time - $2,500 minimum
deposit
Construction Inspection Fee - Public Improvements 9% of Bond Estimates 9% of Bond Estimates Construction Inspection Fee - Private Improvements 9% of Bond Estimates 9% of Bond Estimates Construction Inspection Fee - Sanitary Sewer 3% of Bond Estimates 3% of Bond Estimates Grading Permit Filing Fee (per permit) $263 $275
Grading Permit Plan Check
Time - $1,000 minimum
deposit
Time - $2,500 minimum
deposit
Grading Inspection
Time - $1,000 minimum
deposit
Time - $2,500 minimum
deposit
Projects that do not disturb the ground (i.e. interior
remodels, roof
replacement, etc.) (per permit + time - $500 minimum
deposit) $159 $166
Room additions (including other projects that disturb
the ground) (per permit +
time - $2,400 minimum deposit) $159 $166
Minor concrete repairs or replacement (i.e.
sidewalks, curb & gutter) (per
permit + time - $1,000 minimum deposit) $294 $307
CITY ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT
MINOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY PERMITS (INCLUDING ENCROACHMENT)
MAJOR GRADING
PARCEL MAPS
SUBDIVISION
4 of 7
Attachment 3 ‐ Community Development Fees
ATTACHMENT 3
DESCRIPTION OF FEES CURRENT FEES PROPOSED FEES
CITY OF CLAYTON- BOOK OF FEES
New driveway construction or replacement (Work
may require the granting of
additional street right of way requiring the preparation of grant deed and
recordation. See Deed Restriction/Covenant
Agreement Preparation fee
above and Document Recording fee in Administrative
Fees section.) (per
permit + time - $2,400 minimum deposit). The fees is
based on 2.25 hours of services being provided. The
City will charge actual costs for any time outside the
base time allocated in this fee item.
$289 $302
Pool installation or total removal of existing pool
(requires inspection and
testing by applicant's third party soils engineer) (per permit + time - $2,400
minimum deposit) The fees is based on 2.25 hours of
services being provided. The City will charge actual
costs for any time outside the base time allocated in
this fee item. $294 $307
Partial removal of existing pool (Work requires a
grading permit and the
preparation and recording of a restricted use
covenant. See Deed
Restriction/Covenant Agreement Preparation fee
above and Document
Recording fee in Administrative Fees section.) (per
permit + time - $2,400
minimum deposit) The fees is based on 2.25 hours of
services being provided. The City will charge actual
costs for any time outside the base time allocated in
this fee item. $294 $307
Wireless Installation Encroachment Permit
Time - $2,000 minimum
deposit
Time - $2,500 minimum
deposit
Transportation Permit Fee (single trip)- State of
California Fixed Fee $16 $16
New
Transportation Permit Fee (annual) State of
California Fixed Fee $90
Major Construction Activity Permit (per permit) $83 $104 Major Plan Check
Time- $2,500 minimum
deposit
Time- $2,500 minimum
deposit
Major Inspection
Time- $2,500 minimum
deposit
Time- $2,500 minimum
deposit
Cash Bond Major Encroachments (may be surety if
more than $10,000) Per City Engineer
Cash Bond Major Encroachments (may be surety if
more than $10,000)- Administrative Fee $124.00 plus Actual Costs
POST CONSTRUCTION STORMWATER COMPLIANCE
MAJOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITY PERMITS
5 of 7
Attachment 3 ‐ Community Development Fees
ATTACHMENT 3
DESCRIPTION OF FEES CURRENT FEES PROPOSED FEES
CITY OF CLAYTON- BOOK OF FEES
Post construction Annual Verification Inspection -
Individual Single Family Lot
Non-HOA (per lot) $280 $304
Post construction Annual Verification Inspection -
Single Family HOA (per
HOA - first 10 lots) $280 $394
Post construction Annual Verification Inspection -
Single Family HOA (per
HOA - additional lots >10) $78 $90
Post construction Annual Verification Inspection -
Commercial (per acre - min.
1 acre) $280 $394
Documentation Compliance Review Fee - Individual
Single Family (per lot) $280 $394
- First 10 lots $280 $394
- Each additional lot after 10th $80 $90
Documentation Compliance Review Fee -
Commercial (per acre - min. 1 acre) $280 $394
Annual State Reporting preparation/filing Fee -
Individual Single Family Lot
(per lot) $100 $124
Annual State Reporting preparation/filing Fee - Single
Family HOA (per HOA) $195 $205
Annual State Reporting preparation/filing Fee -
Commercial (per acre - min. 1
acre) $195 $205
New
Inspection Outside Normal Business Hours: 1.5 times
rate of Inspector Actual Costs
New
Permit Research Letter: Building Official 1/2 hour
time Actual Costs
New
Issuance of Temporary Certificate of Occupancy, first
extension of 30 days $350
New Issuance of Duplicate Certificate of Occupancy $50
New
Reinspection when work for which inspection has
been called and is not ready: Building Official
approved hourly rate. Minimum 1 hour $136
New
Contract services: The City hires a number of
consultant to support the City's Community
Development functions. Some of the contract
services are the City Engineer and Legal support.
The City will pass-through the costs of any consultant
that is hired to support any of the Community
Development functions with the actual costs plus the
administrative overhead of 15% to support the
management and oversight of the contractors.
Actual Costs +
Administrative Service Fee of
15%
New
Labor Rates - Actual Reimbursement Rate as
published in the Citywide Reimbursement Schedule Actual Costs
PUBLIC WORKS SERVICE FEES
SPECIAL SERVICE FEES
DOCUMENTATION COMPLIANCE REVIEW FEES- HOA (PER HOA)
6 of 7
Attachment 3 ‐ Community Development Fees
ATTACHMENT 3
DESCRIPTION OF FEES CURRENT FEES PROPOSED FEES
CITY OF CLAYTON- BOOK OF FEES
New
Equipment Rates: 2 hour minimum, unless noted
otherwise. Rates established per the California
Department of Transportation.
https://dot.ca.gov/programs/construction Actual Costs
New
Annual Fee Update: The City will update these costs
annually based on the annual Consumer Price Index
(CPI) Change for "All Items". April to April Year. San
Francisco Bay Area Average CPI. Base Year April
2023 CPI was 4.2%. Fees that are set by regulatory
agencies and are not in the City's fee program will
not be adjusted with the CPI. Annual Escalator
OTHER FEE UPDATES
7 of 7
Attachment 4 ‐ Police Department Fees
ATTACHMENT 4
DESCRIPTION OF FEES CURRENT FEES
PROPOSED
FEES
Residential Alarm System Registration Fee (per
residential unit) $36.00 $38.00
Commercial Alarm System Registration Fee (per
commercial occupancy) $74.00 $78.00
Vehicle Release (per vehicle - cash, credit, debit
only) $186.00 $194.00
Police Reports (per report) $35.00 $37.00
VIN Verification (per vehicle) $49.00 $52.00
Clearance Letters (Notary fee extra. See
Administrative Fees section) (per
letter) $36.00
$38.00
Police Enforcement on Party Ordinance (CMC
§6.19.040)
Time - Maximum
$500
Time - Maximum
$500
Police Enforcement of DUI Involving Accident (CA
Vehicle Code §53150-53158)
Time - Maximum
$12,000
Time - Maximum
$12,000
City Alcohol Beverage Permit $70.00 $73.00
Booking Fees - Fees set by County or pursuant to
Agreement with the City of Concord
As established by
County or
agreement w/
Concord
Eliminate (Not
allowed per law)
False Alarm Fee (Fixed per City Ordinance
9.18.060(a)(b)) $52.00
$50.00
Tobacco Sales Permit (City Ordinance 8.16.130) $107.00 $107.00 Tobacco Sales Permit Fee Renewal (City Ordinance
8.16.130) $52.00 $52.00
Taxicab Permit Fee (City Ordinance 5.36.050) (per
taxicab) $364.00 $364.00
Taxicab Permit Fee - Renewal (City Ordinance
5.36.190) (per taxicab) $135.00 $135.00
Subpoena Duces Tecum (Per CA Evidence Code
1563) $24/hr, $6/qtr hr. $24/hr, $6/qtr hr.
Repossession Filing Fee (Fixed per CA Gov Code
Sec 41612) $15.00 $15.00
Witness Fees per California Gov. Code §68096.1 if
City Employee
subpoenaed (per employee subpoena per day +
IRS reimbursement min. rate
per CA Gov. Code) $288.00 $275.00
Administrative Fee for Failure to Display Disabled
Placards per vehicle code
§40226 (per violation) $31.00 $33.00
CITY OF CLAYTON- BOOK OF FEES
POLICE SERVICE FEES
1 of 2
Attachment 4 ‐ Police Department Fees
ATTACHMENT 4
DESCRIPTION OF FEES CURRENT FEES
PROPOSED
FEES
CITY OF CLAYTON- BOOK OF FEES
Firearms Seizure and Processing Fee (per violation) $144.00 $151.00 RV Public parking Permit Fee - Bona fide guest of
Clayton Resident (per
permit) $36.00 $38.00
RV Public Parking Permit Fee - Clayton Resident No charge No charge Solicitation Permit (Not including live scan.
Applicant pays for Live scan
directly to Live scan entity) (per permit) $95.00 $99.00 Citation Sign off for correctable offenses - Non
Resident (per citation) $30.00 $32
Citation Sign off for correctable offenses - Resident No charge No charge Late Fee- Parking Violations (per citation) $49.00 $52
California Vehicle Code: (Actual Fine + $15 AddNew V.C. Section 4000A Expired Registration $54.00 New V.C. Section 5204a Wrong Registration Displayed $54.00 New
Annual Fee Update: The City will update these
costs annually based on the annual Consumer Price
Index (CPI) Change for "All Items". April to April
Year. San Francisco Bay Area Average CPI. Base
Year April 2023 CPI was 4.2%. Fees that are set by
regulatory agencies and are not in the City's fee
program will not be adjusted with the CPI. Annual Escalator
OTHER FEE UPDATES
2 of 2
Attachment 5 ‐ Facility and Rental Fees
ATTACHMENT 5
DESCRIPTION OF FEES
CURRENT
FEES
PROPOSED
FEES
Non-profit (Non-Clayton Based) (per hour) $59.00 $73.00 Non-profit (Clayton Based) (per hour) $31.00 $39.00
Resident (per hour) $72.00 $89.00
Non resident or Commercial (per hour) $90.00 $112.00
Deposit (for all) - clean up/damage - refundable (per rental) $217.00 $300.00
Reservation rental time change (same date) (less than 7 calendar days prior
to use date) $49.00 $61.00
Reservation rental date change (less than 7 calendar days prior to use date) $64.00
$80.00
Rental Cancellation Fee (30 or more days prior to event) $31.00 $39.00
Rental Cancellation Fee (15-29 days prior to event)
50% refund
and $30
processing
fee
50% refund and
$42 processing
fee
Rental Cancellation Fee (14 days or less) No refund No refund Non-profits (Non-Clayton-based Weekdays) (per hour
Sun 5pm - Fri 5pm) $57.00 $76.00
Non-profits (Clayton-based Weekdays) (per hour Sun
5pm - Fri 5pm)
Gross annual revenue ≤ $10,000 (up to 3 days/year) $0.00 $0.00 Gross annual revenue > $10,000 or Gross annual
revenue ≤ $10,000 (more than 3 days per year) $11.40 $16.00 Clayton-based non-profit only (maximum daily weekday
rental) $144.00 $190.00
Non-profits (Non-Clayton-based Weekends) (per hour
Fri 5pm
- Sun 5pm) $216.00 $285.00
Non-profits (Clayton-based Weekends) (per hour Fri
5pm - Sun 5pm)
Gross annual revenue ≤ $10,000 (up to 3 days/year) $0.00 $0.00 Gross annual revenue > $10,000 or Gross annual
revenue ≤ $10,000 (more than 3 days per year) $43.20 $57.00 Resident - Weekdays (per hour Sun 5pm - Fri 5pm) $144.00 $190.00 Non-resident or Commercial - Weekdays (per hour Sun
5pm - Fri 5pm) $173.00 $229.00
Resident - Weekends (per hour Fri 5pm - Sun 5pm) $216.00 $285.00
FACILITIES AND PARKS RENTAL
CITY OF CLAYTON- BOOK OF FEES
Library Meeting Room - Hoyer Hall
Endeavor Hall Meeting Room
1 of 3
Attachment 5 ‐ Facility and Rental Fees
ATTACHMENT 5
DESCRIPTION OF FEES
CURRENT
FEES
PROPOSED
FEES
CITY OF CLAYTON- BOOK OF FEES
Non-resident or Commercial - Weekends (per hour Fri
5pm - Sun 5pm) $260.00 $344.00
Deposit (all) - no alcohol (clean up/damage per
reservation) $500.00 $500.00
Deposit (all) - with alcohol (clean up/damage per
reservation) $1,000.00 $1,000.00
Reservation rental time change (same date) (less than
30 days prior to the event) $49.00 $65.00
Reservation rental date change (less than 90 days prior to event) $64.00 $85.00
Rental Cancellation Fee (181 or more days prior to
event)
95%
reservation
fee and
$30
processing
fee
95%
reservation fees
refund and
$42 processing
fee
Rental Cancellation Fee (91 - 180 days prior to event) 75% deposit
refund and
$30
processing
fee
75% reservattion
fees refund and
$42 processing
fee
Rental Cancellation Fee (61 - 90 days prior to event) 50% deposit
refund and
$30
processing
fee
50% reservation
fees refund and
$42 processing
fee
Rental Cancellation Fee (31 - 60 days prior to event) 25% deposit
refund and
$30
processing
fee
25% reservation
fees refund and
$42 processing
fee
Rental Cancellation Fee (30 days or less prior to event) No refund No refund
Non-profit (Clayton-based or non-Clayton-based non profits) (per hour) $59.00 $110.00
Resident (per hour) $72.00 $134.00
Non-resident or Commercial (per hour) $90.00 $168.00
Deposit (clean up/damage per reservation) $100.00 $150.00 City Hall Courtyard
2 of 3
Attachment 5 ‐ Facility and Rental Fees
ATTACHMENT 5
DESCRIPTION OF FEES
CURRENT
FEES
PROPOSED
FEES
CITY OF CLAYTON- BOOK OF FEES
Reservation rental time change (same date) (less than 7 calendar days prior
to use date) $49.00 $92.00
Reservation rental date change (less than 7 calendar days prior to use date) $64.00 $120.00
Rental Cancellation Fee (30 or more days prior to event) $31.00 $58.00 Rental Cancellation Fee (15-29 days prior to event)
50% refund
and $30
processing
fee
50% refund and
$42 processing
fee
Rental Cancellation Fee (14 days or less) No refund No refund New
Annual Fee Update: The City will update these costs
annually based on the annual Consumer Price Index (CPI) Change for "All Items". April to April Year. San Francisco Bay Area Average CPI. Base Year April 2023 CPI was 4.2%.
Fees that are set by regulatory agencies and are not in the City's fee program will not be adjusted with the CPI. Annual Escalator
OTHER FEE UPDATES
3 of 3
Attachment 6 ‐ Clayton Community Park Fees
ATTACHMENT 6
DESCRIPTION OF FEES
CURRENT
FEES
Employee
Classification Hourly Rate
Number of
Hours
PROPOSED
FEES
Picnic Area #2 - Resident (flat fee for 4 hours block) $22 Maint Work II $67 2.0 $134 Picnic Area #2 - Non Resident or Commercial (flat fee for 4 hour block) $31 Maint Work II $67 2.8 $189
Picnic Area #3 - Resident (flat fee for 4 hours block) $22 Maint Work II $67 2.0 $134 Picnic Area #3 - Non Resident or Commercial (flat fee for 4 hour block) $31 Maint Work II $67 2.8
$189
Picnic Area #4 - Resident (flat fee for 4 hour block) $52 Maint Work II $67 2.0 $134 Picnic Area #4 - Non Resident or Commercial (flat fee for 4 hour block) $67 Maint Work II $67 2.8
$189
Picnic Area #5 - Resident (6 separate areas) Maint Work II $67 2.0 $134 - 1st 2 tables - flat fee for 4 hours block (per table) $43 Maint Work II $67 1.0 $67 - Each additional table - flat fee for 4 hour block (per table) $7 Maint Work II $67 0.5
$34
Deposit (all) - no alcohol (clean up/damage per
reservation) $500
Deposit (all) - with alcohol (clean up/damage per
reservation) $1,000
Extra Trash Pick Up and Maintenance Fee Actual Costs
Picnic Area #6 Resident (Large Group Area) (per day) $360 Maint Work
I/II/Temp $64 8.9 $569
Picnic Area #6 Resident (Large Group Area) (per hour - 4 hr min) $43 Maint Work II $67 3.0 $201
Picnic Area #6 Non Resident or Commercial (Large Group
Area) (per day) $469
Maint Work
I/II/Temp $77 8.9 $683
Picnic Area #6 Non Resident or Commercial (Large Group
Area) (per hour - 4 hr min) $60
Maint Work
I/II/Temp $80 3.0 $242
Picnic Area #5 & #6 Combined - Resident (per day) $577
Maint Work
I/II/Temp $64 12.0 $769
Picnic Area #5 & #6 Combined - Resident (per hour - 4 hr min) $70
Maint Work
I/II/Temp $67 5.0 $335
Picnic Area #5 & #6 Combined - Non Resident or
Commercial (per day) $751
Maint Work
I/II/Temp $101 8.9 $898
Picnic Area #5 & #6 Combined - Non Resident or
Commercial (per hour - 4 hr.
min) $94
Maint Work
I/II/Temp $97 3.0 $291
Picnic Area #7 - Resident (per 4 hour block) $57 Main Work II $67 4.0 $268 Picnic Area #7 - Non Resident or Commercial (flat fee for 4 hour block) $72 Main Work II $80 4.0 $322
Reservation rental time change (same date) (less than 7 calendar days prior to use date) $49 $230
Reservation rental date change (less than 7 calendar days prior to use date) $64 $179
Rental Cancellation Fee (30 or more days prior to event) $31 $145 Rental Cancellation Fee (15-29 days prior to event)
50% refund
and $30
processing fee 0.5
50% refund and
$42 processing
fee
Rental Cancellation Fee (14 days or less) No refund No refund Rain out Reschedule to Reschedule to
Sports Fees
Adult Sports Field Rental (per hour per field) $43 $50 1.0 $50 Youth Sports Field Rental (per hour per field) $24 $28
Field Rental Change of Time, Same Date (less than 7
calendar days prior to use date) $49 $57
Field Rental Change of Date (less than 7 calendar days
prior to use date) $64 $75
CITY OF CLAYTON- BOOK OF FEES
PICNIC AREA
FACILITIES AND PARKS RENTAL
1of 5
Attachment 6 ‐ Clayton Community Park Fees
ATTACHMENT 6
DESCRIPTION OF FEES
CURRENT
FEES
Employee
Classification Hourly Rate
Number of
Hours
PROPOSED
FEES
CITY OF CLAYTON- BOOK OF FEES
Field Rental Cancellation
No refund less
than 14 days
prior to use
No refund less
than 14 days
prior to use
Rain out
Reschedule to
alt. date at no
additional cost
(no refund)
Reschedule to
alt. date at no
additional cost
(no refund)
Entire Facility Security Deposits $1,800 $1,800
Entire Facility Security Deposits
Events closing
street (i.e.:
either Main or
Center etc.)
$2,200
Events closing
street (i.e.: either
Main or Center
etc.) $2,200
Gazebo only Rental Security Deposit $271 $271
Amplified Sound Equipment Use Fee (Noise Permit also
required) (per hour) - damage/security deposit if using City sound equip $1,000 $1,000
Amplified Sound Equipment Use Fee (Noise Permit also
required) (per hour) $31 $42 1.0 $42
City provided Sound Equipment Tech if needed for use of City equip cost Actual Costs
Reservation rental time change (same date) (less than 7 calendar days prior to use date) $49 $66
Reservation rental date change (less than 7 calendar days prior to use date) $64 $87
Rental Cancellation Fee (30 or more days prior to event) $31 $42 Rental Cancellation Fee (15-29 days prior to event)
50% refund
and $30
processing fee
50% refund and
$42 processing
fee
Rental Cancellation Fee (14 days or less) No refund No refund Rain out
Reschedule to
alt. date at no
additional cost
(no refund)
Reschedule to
alt. date at no
additional cost
(no refund)
Rental Entire Facility - Resident -- Weekends (per hour) $216 Maint Work
I/II/Temp $101 3 $302
Rental Entire Facility - Resident -- Weekends (per day) $1,734 Average of 6.5
Hours Costs $1,982
Rental Entire Facility - Non-profit (verification req'd) -- Weekends (per hour) $216
Maint Work
I/II/Temp $101 3 $302
Rental Entire Facility - Non-profit (verification req'd) -- Weekends (per day) $1,734
Average of 6.5
Hours Costs $1,982
Rental Entire Facility - Non-resident or Commercial -
Weekends (per hour) $260
Maint Work
I/II/Temp $121 3 $363
Rental Entire Facility - Non-resident or Commercial
Weekends (per day) $2,081
Average of 6.5
Hours Costs $2,379
Rental Entire Facility - Resident -- Weekdays (per hour) $144 Maint Work
I/II/Temp $67 3 $201
Grove Park and Related Facilities
ENTIRE GROVE PARK FACILITY
2of 5
Attachment 6 ‐ Clayton Community Park Fees
ATTACHMENT 6
DESCRIPTION OF FEES
CURRENT
FEES
Employee
Classification Hourly Rate
Number of
Hours
PROPOSED
FEES
CITY OF CLAYTON- BOOK OF FEES
Rental Entire Facility - Resident -- Weekdays (per day) $1,156 Average of 6.5
Hours Costs $1,321
Rental Entire Facility - Non-profit (verification req'd) -- Weekdays (per hour) $144
Maint Work
I/II/Temp $67 3 $201
Rental Entire Facility - Non-profit (verification req'd) -- Weekdays (per day) $1,128
Average of 6.5
Hours Costs $1,321
Rental Entire Facility - Non-resident or Commercial $173 Maint Work
I/II/Temp $80 3 $242
Rental Entire Facility - Non-resident or Commercial --
Weekdays (per day) $1,526
Average of 6.5
Hours Costs $1,586
Rental Gazebo only -Resident - Weekends (per hour) $151 Maint Work
I/II/Temp $116 1.6 $185
Rental Gazebo only -Resident - Weekends (per day) $1,214 Average of 4.2
Hours Costs $777
Rental Gazebo only -Non-profit (verification req'd) -
Weekends (per hour) $151
Maint Work
I/II/Temp $116 1.6 $185
Rental Gazebo only -Non-profit (verification req'd) -
Weekends (per day) $1,214
Average of 4.2
Hours Costs $777
Rental Gazebo only - Non-resident or Commercial
Weekends (per hour) $181
Maint Work
I/II/Temp $139 1.6 $222
Rental Gazebo only - Non-resident or Commercial -
Weekends (per day) $1,456
Average of 4.2
Hours Costs $932
Rental Gazebo only -Resident - Weekdays (per hour) $107 Maint Work
I/II/Sup $77 1.6 $123
Rental Gazebo only -Resident - Weekdays (per day) $433
Average of 4.2
Hours Costs $518
Rental Gazebo only -Non-profit (verification req'd) -
Weekdays (per hour) $107
Maint Work
I/II/Temp $77 1.6 $123
Rental Gazebo only -Non-profit (verification req'd) -
Weekdays (per day) $433
Average of 4.2
Hours Costs $518
Rental Gazebo only - Non-resident Weekdays (per hour) $128 Maint Work
I/II/Temp $92 1.6 $147
Rental Gazebo only - Non-resident or CommercialWeekdays (per day) $520Average of 4.2 Hours Costs $622
Group Picnic Area - Resident - Weekends (per hour - 4 hour minimum) $36 Maint Work I $95 1.5 $143
Group Picnic Area - Resident - Weekends (per day) $250
Average of 3.5
Hours Costs $497
Group Picnic Area - Non-profit (verification req'd) -
Weekends (per hour - 4 hour minimum) $36 Maint Work I $95 1.5 $143 Group Picnic Area - Non-profit (verification req'd) -
Weekends (per day) $250
Average of 3.5
Hours Costs $497
Group Picnic Area - Non-resident or Commercial -
Weekends (per hour - 4 hour minimum) $43 Maint Work I $113 1.5 $172 Group Picnic Area - Non-resident or Commercial -
Weekends (per day) $302
Average of 3.5
Hours Costs $597
GAZEBO ONLY
GROUP PICNIC AREA (NEAR TOT LOT)
3of 5
Attachment 6 ‐ Clayton Community Park Fees
ATTACHMENT 6
DESCRIPTION OF FEES
CURRENT
FEES
Employee
Classification Hourly Rate
Number of
Hours
PROPOSED
FEES
CITY OF CLAYTON- BOOK OF FEES
Group Picnic Area - Resident - Weekdays (per hour - 4 hour minimum) $30 Maint Work I $63 1.5 $95
Group Picnic Area - Resident - Weekdays (per day) $231
Average of 3.5
Hours Costs $331
Group Picnic Area - Non-profit (verification req'd) -
Weekdays (per hour - 4 hour minimum) $30 Maint Work I $63 1.5 $95 Group Picnic Area - Non-profit (verification req'd) -
Weekdays (per day) $231
Average of 3.5
Hours Costs $331
Group Picnic Area - Non-resident or Commercial -
Weekdays (per hour - 4 hour minimum) $30 Maint Work I $63 1.5 $95 Group Picnic Area - Non-profit (verification req'd) -
Weekdays (per day) $231
Average of 3.5
Hours Costs $331
Group Picnic Area - Non-resident or Commercial -
Weekdays (per hour - 4 hour minimum) $35 Maint Work I $76 1.5 $114 Group Picnic Area - Non-resident or Commercial -
Weekdays (per day) $277
Average of 3.5
Hours Costs $397
Plaza Picnic Area - Resident - Weekends (per hour - 4 hour minimum) $36 Maint Work I $95 1.5 $143
Plaza Picnic Area - Resident - Weekends (per day) $250
Average of 3.5
Hours Costs $497
Plaza Picnic Area - Non-profit (verification req'd) -
Weekends (per hour - 4
hour minimum) $36 Maint Work I $95 1.5 $143
Plaza Picnic Area - Non-profit (verification req'd) -
Weekends (per day) $250
Average of 3.5
Hours Costs $497
Plaza Picnic Area - Non-resident or Commercial -
Weekends (per hour - 4
hour minimum) $43 Maint Work I $113 1.5 $172
Plaza Picnic Area - Non-resident - or Commercial -
Weekends (per day) $302
Average of 3.5
Hours Costs $597
Plaza Picnic Area - Resident - Weekdays (per hour - 4 hour minimum) $30 Maint Work I $63 1.5 $95
Plaza Picnic Area - Resident - Weekdays (per day) $231
Average of 3.5
Hours Costs $331
Plaza Area - Non Profit (verification req'd) - Weekdays (per hour - 4 hour
minimum) $30 Maint Work I $63 1.5 $95
Plaza Picnic Area - Non-profit (verification req'd) -
Weekdays (per day) $231
Average of 3.5
Hours Costs $331
Plaza Picnic Area - Non-resident or Commercial -
Weekdays (per hour - 4
hour minimum) $35 Maint Work I $76 1.5 $114
Plaza Picnic Area - Non-resident or Commercial -
Weekdays (per day) $277
Average of 3.5
Hours Costs $397
Fountain operation with geysers (per 48 hour block) $468 Average of 3.5
Hours Costs $513
Special Event Liability Insurance Administrative Fee (per certificate) $43
Maint Work
I/II/Temp $56 1.0 $56
PLAZA PICNIC AREA (PER TABLE)
OTHER SPECIAL SERVICES
4of 5
Attachment 6 ‐ Clayton Community Park Fees
ATTACHMENT 6
DESCRIPTION OF FEES
CURRENT
FEES
Employee
Classification Hourly Rate
Number of
Hours
PROPOSED
FEES
CITY OF CLAYTON- BOOK OF FEES
New
Fee Trash Disposal Fee (if needed) $200
New
Fee
Facility Attendant Fee : Maintenance Worker I or II and Other City Staff Actual Costs
New
Annual Fee Update: The City will update these costs
annually based on the annual Consumer Price Index (CPI) Change for "All Items". April to April Year. San Francisco Bay Area Average CPI. Base Year April 2023 CPI was
4.2%. Fees that are set by regulatory agencies and are not in the City's fee program will not be adjusted with the CPI. Annual Escalator
OTHER FEE UPDATES
5of 5
Attachment 7 ‐ Special Event Fees
ATTACHMENT 7
DESCRIPTION OF FEES
CURRENT
FEES
PROPOSED
FEES
Preapplication Meeting with the City Staff Required
Special Event Permit/Application Process (non refundable) - events closing
streets (Main or Center etc.) + other permit fees:TUP/NP $359 Special Event Permit Fees $144
Small events- (0-99 participants) Cul-De-Sac Block Parties Application Fees (non-refundable) $42
Small events permit fees - (0-99 participants) $250
Special Event Fees
Application Fees (non-refundable) $42
Special Event Notification (included in the Application Fees) Included
above
City Staff Reimbursement Fees- Based on the Citywide
Reimbursement Fee Schedule Actual Costs
Minimum Deposit (Required) $1,000
Special Event Fees per day and paid in advance
Event (100-499 participants) - $700
Event (500-999 participants) - $1,300
Event (1000-2499 participants) - $3,500
Event (3000-4999 participants) - $6,000
Event (5,000 + participants) $10,000
Extra Trash Fee Actual Costs
Special Event Fees per day and paid in advance - Clayton Based Nonprofit
Event (100-499 participants) - 490
Event (500-999 participants) - 910
Event (1000-2499 participants) - 2,450
Event (3000-4999 participants) - 4,200
Event (5,000 + participants) 7,000
Extra Trash Fee Actual Costs
Special Event Fees per day and paid in advance - Non
Clayton Based Nonprofit
Event (100-499 participants) - 595
Event (500-999 participants) - 1,105
Event (1000-2499 participants) - 2,975
Event (3000-4999 participants) - 5,100
Event (5,000 + participants) 8,500
CITY OF CLAYTON- BOOK OF FEES
SPECIAL EVENT FEES
1 of 2
Attachment 7 ‐ Special Event Fees
ATTACHMENT 7
DESCRIPTION OF FEES
CURRENT
FEES
PROPOSED
FEES
CITY OF CLAYTON- BOOK OF FEES
SPECIAL EVENT FEES
Extra Trash Fee Actual Costs
New
Annual Fee Update: The City will update these costs annually based on the annual Consumer Price Index (CPI) Change for "All Items". April to April Year. San Francisco Bay Area Average CPI.
Base Year April 2023 CPI was 4.2%. Fees that are set by regulatory agencies and are not in the City's fee program will not be adjusted with the CPI.
Annual
Escalator
OTHER FEE UPDATES
2 of 2
Attachment 8 ‐ Administrative Fees
ATTACHMENT 8
DESCRIPTION OF FEES
CURRENT
FEES
PROPOSED
FEES
Document Copying (10 pages or less) No charge Eliminate Document Copying- Charges of less than $1.00 will be waived Document Copying (per page > 10 pages) $0.10 Eliminate
New 8½”x11” and 8½”x14” per page 11”x17” per page $0.20 New C size drawing (18”X24”) $0.25
New D size drawing (24”X36”) $2.10
New E size drawing (36”X48”) $4.20
New Any size not listed – per square foot of paper or any fraction thereof $8.40
Document Recording [with County Clerk Recorders Office] (Actual recording fee costs plus staff time & mileage) (per document) $150.00 Country Recorder Fees
https://www.contracostavote.gov/recorder/recording-fees/recorderfee-schedule/ Actual costs Staff Time based on the Citywide Fee Reimbursement Schedule Actual costs Mileage Costs (To and From) per IRS rate established
(https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/irs-issues-standard-mileage-ratesfor-2023-business-use-increases-3-cents-per-mile) 2023 IRS
Rate: 65.5
cents per mile
Trail Maps (Fixed - per map) $2.00 $2.00
Video/Audio Recording(s) of City Council or Planning Commission Meetings
(placed on CD, DVD, flash drive, etc. as applicable) Cost Actual Costs Printed documents (i.e. general plan, budget, zoning ord., etc.) Cost Actual Costs Video Recordings of Meetings Cost Actual Costs
FPPC Document Copying (per page - State law) (per page) $0.10 $0.10 Notary Public Fee (per document - State law) (per document) $15.00 $15.00 Business License Initial Registration Fee - New Business $70.00 $70.00 Duplicate Business License Fee (CMC §5.04.790) $13.00 $13.00 First Returned Check Service Charge - Fixed $25.00
New
Returned Check Service Charge - Actual Cost from the City's Financial Institution $35
New
Administrative Fee (Staff) - Charge to returned checks to collect payment again $28
Subsequent Returned Check Service Charge - Fixed $37.00 Eliminate New
Late Payment Charges for Administrative Fines of original fine for every 30 days or portion thereof. The Late Payment Charge shall not exceed 100 percent (100%) of the original fine. 10% 10% New Release of Claim of Lien (in addition to fee imposed by the County) County
Recorder Fees
plus $28 City
Fees
CITY OF CLAYTON- BOOK OF FEES
ADMINISTRATIVE FEES
1 of 2
Attachment 8 ‐ Administrative Fees
ATTACHMENT 8
DESCRIPTION OF FEES
CURRENT
FEES
PROPOSED
FEES
CITY OF CLAYTON- BOOK OF FEES
ADMINISTRATIVE FEES
New
Credit Card Convenience Fees: the credit card convenience fee shall be 3% of the transaction amount. This fee shall be applied to all credit card transactions and fee schedules where credit cards may be used except payment of utility charges or Parks and Recreation activity fees. There is no fee to pay by e-check or debit card. 3%
Administrative penalty for City issued permits after the fact (encroachment permit; tree removal permit, etc.)
Double the
original
permit fee
Double the
original permit
fee
Code Enforcement non-compliance re-inspection after the first inspection (in addition to any citation fines) (per inspection) $5.00 $ 21.00 New
Annual Fee Update: The City will update these costs annually based on the annual Consumer Price Index (CPI) Change for "All Items". April to April Year. San Francisco Bay Area Average CPI.
Base Year April 2023 CPI was 4.2%. Fees that are set by regulatory agencies and are not in the City's fee program will not be adjusted with the CPI.
Annual
Escalator
OTHER FEE UPDATES
2 of 2
[Type here] Agenda Item: 7(b)
STAFF REPORT
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS
FROM: Bret Prebula, City Manager
DATE: August 15, 2023
SUBJECT: Provide Staff Direction on Utilizing both ClearGov Transparency and Continuing to Post Accounts Payable Information Every Two Weeks on the Agenda
RECOMMENDATION
Provide staff direction on utilizing both ClearGov Transparency and continuing to post accounts payable information every two weeks on the agenda.
BACKGROUND
In March 2022, the City Council approved the software license with ClearGov. The purpose of the software was multifaceted as it was/is intended to be the City’s budget development tool, digital budget book, and transparency portal. Today’s requested discussion is around the transparency portal segment of the ClearGov software. With our small administrative and finance staff the City needs to use technology to our advantage. Since the purchase and implementation of the transparency portal, approximately a year plus in use, the ClearGov transparency portal has been available and utilized by the public. The software allows the user, through a simple interface, to review accounts payable by date range, vendor, or item description. Additionally, the accounts payable information can be downloaded by the user into excel if that format is easier for the individual to use.
This type of transparency portal continues to be the standard utilized by many agencies throughout the State of California.
DISCUSSION
As staff continues to evaluate the foundational work that needs to occur in various areas of the organization one variable that continues to be clear is the need to be as efficient as possible.
Transitioning the operational culture of the organization will be a vital step to moving city operations to a long-term sustainable place. Currently, the City has a redundant process of posting accounts Subject:
Date:
Page:
Provide Staff Direction on Utilizing both ClearGov Transparency and Continuing to Post Accounts Payable Information Every Two Weeks on the Agenda
August 15, 2023
2 of 2
payable as an agenda item within the City Council agenda packet every two weeks which is the exact same information available on ClearGov 24 hours a day, with much more detail and flexibility.
Since the public has had ClearGov for some time, it is staff’s desire to eliminate the redundant process of posting the accounts payable every two weeks to the agenda. Staff’s reasons for this request are as follows:
• Staff believe only utilizing ClearGov meets the City Council’s desire for continued transparency and operational efficiency.
• An operational culture change is occurring; staff would like to look to technology to save time, improve the efficiency of service delivery, and improve staff’s working environment. Being consistent in this approach is important to staff as ongoing chnages occur in the coming months and years.
• ClearGov offers significantly more information and flexibility than the static agenda item information, increasing transparency.
• ClearGov can be accessed 24 hours a day; the agenda item report is only available every two weeks (current process).
• The section of the community that may have access issues to a computer or the internet would have the same difficulty in reviewing the agenda item report or the ClearGov report, thus the redundancy doesn’t assist with this specific issue. Staff will work with the library on promoting ClearGov as individuals without access to the internet or computers can log on through library access.
Although it is staff’s desire to only utilize ClearGov transparency moving forward, if Council desires to keep the redundant process, staff would request the information only be provided in the agenda on a quarterly basis, with the ongoing goal of phasing it out altogether within the next 6 months.
FISCAL IMPACT
This action does not provide any additional fiscal impact, but the ability to continually foster an efficient and effective operation will allow for long term savings/cost avoidance. Eliminating as many redundancies as possible will be one of the key factors in improving the culture of efficiency throughout the City. [Type here] Agenda Item: 7(c)
STAFF REPORT
TO: HONORABLE MAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS
FROM: Janet Calderon, City Clerk
DATE: August 15, 2023
SUBJECT: Designation of Voting Delegate and Alternate Delegate for League of California Cities 2023 Annual Conference being held September 20 through 22, in Sacramento and the City’s position on League Conference General Resolutions (documents were not available at the time of publishing, and will be provided as a supplemental document, if available)
RECOMMENDATION
Consider designating a City Council member as the Voting Delegate and one member as the Alternate to represent the City of Clayton during the 2023 League of California Cities Annual Business Meeting.
BACKGROUND
The League of California Cities’ Annual Conference is scheduled for September 20-22 in Sacramento. A Business Meeting will take place on September 22.
League Bylaws provide that each City is entitled to one vote in matters affecting municipal or League policy. Per the attached Annual Conference Voting Procedures, a City official must have in possession the City’s Voting Card and be registered with the Credentials Committee to cast that City’s vote. A voting card will be issued to the City officials designated by the City Council on the attached Voting Delegate Form.
Conference registration is required for voting delegates. The League Conference General Resolutions were not available at the time of publication, and will be provided as a supplemental document when available.
FISCAL IMPACT
Staff is recommending covering the cost of Registration, transportation and lodging for the Voting Delegate and alternate.
The cost of conference registration is $700 per person for the full event plus the cost of transportation and hotel. The one-day registration for Friday’s voting session is $350.
Subject: Designation of Voting Delegate for 2023 League Annual Conference Date: August 15, 2023
Attachment
A. League of California Cities Annual Conference Voting Procedures (4 pages) NOTE: The League Conference General Resolutions were not available at the time of publication, and will be provided as a supplemental document when available.