Agenda — Fairfield City Council, August 16, 2022 (part 4 of 7)

NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAIRFIELD HEREBY RESOLVES:

Section 1. The council hereby approves a budget adjustment and transfer of $165,000 from the General Fund (Fund 011) to the Intergovernmental Loan Fund (Fund 551).

Section 2. The council hereby approves a loan, budget adjustment, and transfer of $165,000 from the Intergovernmental Loan Fund (Fund 551) to LLMD No. 1 – Gateway (Fund 072).

Section 3. The loan shall be issued with a 0% interest rate and shall be repayable over five years in equal annual installments beginning in FY 2023-2024.

Section 4. The loan repayment will occur from assessment revenues available either as a result of increased assessments approved pursuant to a Proposition 218 proceeding or a reduction in services.

Section 5. The director of public works is hereby authorized to do all things necessary to implement this resolution.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of August, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: PRICE / BERTANI / MOY / PANDURO / TIMM / TONNESEN / VACCARO

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

MAYOR

ATTEST:

____________________________

CITY CLERK
Packet Page 631 of 1251Attachment 4 Page 2 of 2

CITY OF FAIRFIELD

RESOLUTION NO. 2022-211

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAIRFIELD AUTHORIZING A LOAN AND

BUDGET TRANSFER FROM THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOAN FUND TO LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 3 – WATERMAN HIGHLANDS FOR LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE SERVICES THROUGH THE FISCAL YEAR 2022-2023 AND AUTHORIZING AN UPDATE TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2022-2023 BUDGET

WHEREAS, on April 19, 2022, City staff informed the City Council that fiscal year (FY) 2022-2023 assessment revenue for Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District (LLMD) No. 3 – Waterman Highlands is insufficient to provide a level of landscape maintenance services comparable to the level of services provided in FY 2021-2022; and

WHEREAS, the council may approve intergovernmental fund loans in accordance with the Interfund Loan Policy; and

WHEREAS, the council may set the interest rate at 0% in accordance with Resolution 1991-213B; and

WHEREAS, the projected shortfall was initially calculated at $40,000; and

WHEREAS, the council authorized staff to offer a $40,000 loan from the Intergovernmental Loan Fund to LLMD No. 3 – Waterman, which would be repayable over five years in equal annual installments beginning in FY 2023-2024 with 0% interest to provide landscape maintenance services at the FY 2021-2022 levels through FY 2022-2023; and

WHEREAS, the shortfall was recalculated to be $32,000; and

WHEREAS, the General Fund will contribute $4,000, or 13%, of the total shortfall, which is proportionate to the regular General Fund contribution budgeted in FY 2021-2022; and

WHEREAS, the new loan amount required for the district is $28,000; and

WHEREAS, a community survey was conducted from May 27, 2022, to July 22, 2022, to ascertain property owners’ level of support for, or opposition to, receiving a loan and paying a greater assessment rate for five years to repay the loan; and

WHEREAS, providing for the loan to bear 0% interest will not pose a financial hardship to the General Fund; and

Packet Page 632 of 1251Attachment 5 Page 1 of 3

RES. NO. 2022-211

Page 2 ends

WHEREAS, funding was not allocated in the City’s approved FY 2022-2023 Budget, thus requiring an adjustment in the amount of $32,000 to cover the additional contribution and loan amount; and

WHEREAS, the revised appropriation constitutes an update to the FY 2022-2023 Budget approved pursuant to Resolution No. 2022-122.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAIRFIELD HEREBY RESOLVES:

Section 1. The council hereby approves a contribution, budget adjustment, and transfer of $4,000 from the General Fund (Fund 011) to LLMD No. 3 – Waterman Highlands (Fund 073).

Section 2. The council hereby approves a budget adjustment and transfer of $28,000 from the General Fund (Fund 011) to the Intergovernmental Loan Fund (Fund 551).

Section 3. The council hereby approves a loan, budget adjustment, and transfer of $28,000 from the Intergovernmental Loan Fund (Fund 551) to LLMD No. 3 – Waterman Highlands (Fund 073).

Section 4. The loan shall be issued with a 0% interest rate and shall be repayable over five years in equal annual installments beginning in FY 2023-2024.

Section 5. The loan repayment will occur from assessment revenues available either as a result of increased assessments approved pursuant to a Proposition 218 proceeding or a reduction in services.

Section 6. The director of public works is hereby authorized to do all things necessary to implement this resolution.

Packet Page 633 of 1251Attachment 5 Page 2 of 3

RES. NO. 2022-211

Page 3 ends

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of August, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: PRICE / BERTANI / MOY / PANDURO / TIMM / TONNESEN / VACCARO

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

MAYOR

ATTEST:

____________________________

CITY CLERK
Packet Page 634 of 1251Attachment 5 Page 3 of 3

CITY OF FAIRFIELD

RESOLUTION NO. 2022-212

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAIRFIELD AUTHORIZING A LOAN AND

BUDGET TRANSFER FROM THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOAN FUND TO LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 6 – PEPPERTREE FOR LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE SERVICES THROUGH THE FISCAL YEAR 2022-2023 AND AUTHORIZING AN UPDATE TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2022-2023 BUDGET

WHEREAS, on April 19, 2022, City staff informed the City Council that fiscal year (FY) 2022-2023 assessment revenue for Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District (LLMD) No. 6 – Peppertree is insufficient to provide a level of landscape maintenance services comparable to the level of services provided in FY 2021-2022; and

WHEREAS, the council may approve intergovernmental fund loans in accordance with the Interfund Loan Policy; and

WHEREAS, the council may set the interest rate at 0% in accordance with Resolution 1991-213B; and

WHEREAS, the projected shortfall was initially calculated at $40,000; and

WHEREAS, the council authorized staff to offer a $40,000 loan from the Intergovernmental Loan Fund to LLMD No. 6 – Peppertree, which would be repayable over five years in equal annual installments beginning in FY 2023-2024 with 0% interest to provide landscape maintenance services at the FY 2021-2022 levels through FY 2022-2023; and

WHEREAS, the shortfall was recalculated to be $28,000; and

WHEREAS, providing for the loan to bear 0% interest will not pose a financial hardship to the General Fund; and

WHEREAS, funding was not allocated in the City’s approved FY 2022-2023 Budget, thus requiring an adjustment in the amount of $28,000 to cover the loan amount; and

WHEREAS, the revised appropriation constitutes an update to the FY 2022-2023 Budget approved pursuant to Resolution No. 2022-122.

Packet Page 635 of 1251Attachment 6 Page 1 of 2

RES. NO. 2022-212

Page 2 ends

NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAIRFIELD HEREBY RESOLVES:

Section 1. The council hereby approves a budget adjustment and transfer of $28,000 from the General Fund (Fund 011) to the Intergovernmental Loan Fund (Fund 551).

Section 2. The council hereby approves a loan, budget adjustment, and transfer of $28,000 from the Intergovernmental Loan Fund (Fund 551) to LLMD No. 6 – Peppertree (Fund 076).

Section 3. The loan shall be issued with a 0% interest rate and shall be repayable over five years in equal annual installments beginning in FY 2023-2024.

Section 4. The loan repayment will occur from assessment revenues available either as a result of increased assessments approved pursuant to a Proposition 218 proceeding or a reduction in services.

Section 5. The director of public works is hereby authorized to do all things necessary to implement this resolution.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of August, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: PRICE / BERTANI / MOY / PANDURO / TIMM / TONNESEN / VACCARO

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

MAYOR

ATTEST:

____________________________

CITY CLERK
Packet Page 636 of 1251Attachment 6 Page 2 of 2

CITY OF FAIRFIELD

RESOLUTION NO. 2022-213

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAIRFIELD AUTHORIZING A LOAN AND

BUDGET TRANSFER FROM THE INTERGOVERNMENTAL LOAN FUND TO LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 12 – DOWNTOWN BUSINESS DISTRICT FOR LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE SERVICES THROUGH THE FISCAL YEAR 2022-2023 AND AUTHORIZING AN UPDATE TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2022-2023 BUDGET

WHEREAS, on July 5, 2022, City staff informed the City Council that fiscal year (FY) 2022-2023 assessment revenue for Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance District (LLMD) No. 12 – Downtown Business District is insufficient to provide a level of landscape maintenance services comparable to the level of services provided in FY 2021-2022; and

WHEREAS, the council may approve intergovernmental fund loans in accordance with the Interfund Loan Policy; and

WHEREAS, the council may set the interest rate at 0% in accordance with Resolution 1991-213B; and

WHEREAS, the council authorized staff to offer a $40,000 loan from the Intergovernmental Loan Fund to LLMD No. 12 – Downtown Business District which would be repayable over five years in equal annual installments beginning in FY 2023-2024 with 0% interest to provide landscape maintenance services at the FY 2021-2022 levels through FY 2022-2023; and

WHEREAS, a community survey was conducted from July 6, 2022, to July 22, 2022, to ascertain property owners’ level of support for, or opposition to, receiving a loan and paying a greater assessment rate for five years to repay the loan; and

WHEREAS, providing for the loan to bear 0% interest will not pose a financial hardship to the General Fund; and

WHEREAS, funding was not allocated in the City’s approved FY 2022-2023 Budget, thus requiring an adjustment in the amount of $40,000 to cover the loan amount; and

WHEREAS, the revised appropriation constitutes an update to the FY 2022-2023 Budget approved pursuant to Resolution No. 2022-122.

Packet Page 637 of 1251Attachment 7 Page 1 of 2

RES. NO. 2022-213

Page 2 ends

NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAIRFIELD HEREBY RESOLVES:

Section 1. The council hereby approves a budget adjustment and transfer of $40,000 from the General Fund (Fund 011) to the Intergovernmental Loan Fund (Fund 551).

Section 2. The council hereby approves a loan, budget adjustment, and transfer of $40,000 from the Intergovernmental Loan Fund (Fund 551) to LLMD No. 12 – Downtown Business District (Fund 084).

Section 3. The loan shall be issued with a 0% interest rate and shall be repayable over five years in equal annual installments beginning in FY 2023-2024.

Section 4. The loan repayment will occur from assessment revenues available either as a result of increased assessments approved pursuant to a Proposition 218 proceeding or a reduction in services.

Section 5. The director of public works is hereby authorized to do all things necessary to implement this resolution.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of August, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: PRICE / BERTANI / MOY / PANDURO / TIMM / TONNESEN / VACCARO

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

MAYOR

ATTEST:

____________________________

CITY CLERK
Packet Page 638 of 1251Attachment 7 Page 2 of 2

Agenda Item No: 19.

AGENDA REPORT
DATE:August 16, 2022
TO:Mayor and City Council
FROM:David Gassaway, Interim City Manager
SUBJECT:Resolution 2022214 of the City Council of the City of Fairfield Authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to Execute an Indemnification Agreement between Solano County and the City of Fairfield; and
Resolution 2022215 of the City Council of the City of Fairfield Authorizing the Mayor and City Manager to Execute a Potable Water Service Agreement Between Solano Irrigation District and the City of Fairfield for the Middle Green Valley Specific Plan Area RECOMMENDED ACTION
Adopt resolutions.

STATEMENT OF ISSUE
In February 2022, City Council directed City staff to negotiate a potable water service agreement with the Solano Irrigation District (SID) to serve those areas residing within SID’s water service area and Solano County’s Middle Green Valley Specific Plan (MGVSP). The core principle of the agreement to serve potable water to the Middle Green Valley Project (MGVP) through SID relies on the City accepting raw water supplied by SID, which in turn will be treated and delivered back to SID for distribution to customers within the MGVP. This agreement to serve the MGVP is substantively modeled after an existing agreement (Blue Ridge Oaks) between the City and SID. All costs associated with this agreement to serve the MGVP shall be borne by SID. Additionally, the County has agreed to indemnify the City for any legal actions where the City is named in connection to the MGVSP or MGVP.

DISCUSSION
The MGVP is a proposed development located in the unincorporated portion of Lower Green Valley in western Solano County, just outside Fairfield city limits and situated within a specific plan area denoted by the County as the MGVSP Area. The Fairfield city limits end approximately 750 feet south of Mason Road along Green Valley Road. Water service is provided by the City within city limits and by SID outside of city limits. SID’s water service area contains most of the Middle Green Valley Specific Plan Area, and all agricultural and nonpotable water demands for the MGVP are proposed to be met by SID or groundwater.

On December 4, 2012, the council adopted Resolution 2012271 which verified a water supply Packet Page 639 of 1251

On December 4, 2012, the council adopted Resolution 2012271 which verified a water supply assessment confirming the City’s ability to sufficiently supply all of the MGVP potable water demands.

Potable water demands for the MGVP have been evaluated multiple times by both the City and SID over the years and has been a specific point of contention on revised recirculated draft environmental impact reports (EIR). This point of contention has been resolved by an updated and finalized EIR.

Although the City’s water supply assessment confirmed that the City had enough water supply to meet the MGVP potable water demands, the City’s water supply will no longer be needed to meet any MGVP water demands.

On December 2, 2021, the County made a formal request of the City to revive efforts in working with SID to execute a potable water service agreement, with said request expressing that the City consider accepting all raw water supply from SID for treatment and delivery back to SID for distribution to the MGVP specific plan area. The City’s role would involve accepting raw water from SID, treating and distributing potable water back to SID through a newly constructed interconnection at the intersection of Green Valley Road and Eastridge Drive. SID would then be responsible for providing water service throughout the MGVP which includes, but is not limited to distribution, operations, maintenance and billing.

On February 15, 2022, City staff sought policy direction regarding the County’s formal request to establish a potable water services agreement with SID and on May 17, 2022, SID’s Board of Directors approved SID Resolution 2217 authorizing SID’s Board President and General Manger authority to execute a potable water service agreement. The potable water services agreement for the MGVP follows the form and structure of an existing agreement with SID (Blue Ridge Oaks Agreement), and the Middle Green Valley Specific Plan Area has received all the necessary approvals to move forward with their request to receive water from SID through establishment of a potable water services agreement with the City.

The County has received a number of public comments regarding the relationship between the City of Fairfield’s Measure L and the County’s Revised and Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Middle Green Valley Specific Plan which includes the MGVP. The voterapproved Measure L expired on December 31, 2020, and the City of Fairfield has the right to serve water as a wholesaler to portions outside the City’s annexed boundary. As such, the MGVP has faced legal challenges to which the City does not wish to be a part of or party to. Consequently, the City has sought an indemnification agreement with the County outlining an extension of safeguards and protections in the event the City is named as a party to any lawsuit pertaining to the MGVSP or the MGVP.

Adoption of these resolutions will authorize the mayor and city manager to execute a potable water service agreement and work with SID to construct two interconnections as shown in the agreement, and the city manager to execute an indemnification agreement with the County which is intended to include legal protection from any lawsuit in connection with the MGVSP or the MGVP.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
SID shall be responsible for all costs associated with serving potable water to MGVP through SID.

PUBLIC CONTACT/ADVISORY BODY RECOMMENDATION
N/A
ALTERNATIVE ACTION
The council may choose not to execute the agreement with SID to serve the Middle Green Valley Project, but choosing not to would be inconsistent with current practice.

STAFF CONTACT
Packet Page 640 of 1251

Agenda Item No: 19.AGENDA REPORTDATE:August 16, 2022 TO:Mayor and City CouncilFROM:David Gassaway, Interim City ManagerSUBJECT:Resolution 2022214 of the City Council of the City of Fairfield Authorizing the Mayorand City Manager to Execute an Indemnification Agreement between Solano Countyand the City of Fairfield; and Resolution 2022215 of the City Council of the City of Fairfield Authorizing the Mayorand City Manager to Execute a Potable Water Service Agreement Between SolanoIrrigation District and the City of Fairfield for the Middle Green Valley Specific Plan AreaRECOMMENDED ACTIONAdopt resolutions.STATEMENT OF ISSUEIn February 2022, City Council directed City staff to negotiate a potable water service agreement withthe Solano Irrigation District (SID) to serve those areas residing within SID’s water service area andSolano County’s Middle Green Valley Specific Plan (MGVSP). The core principle of the agreement toserve potable water to the Middle Green Valley Project (MGVP) through SID relies on the Cityaccepting raw water supplied by SID, which in turn will be treated and delivered back to SID fordistribution to customers within the MGVP. This agreement to serve the MGVP is substantively modeledafter an existing agreement (Blue Ridge Oaks) between the City and SID. All costs associated with thisagreement to serve the MGVP shall be borne by SID. Additionally, the County has agreed to indemnifythe City for any legal actions where the City is named in connection to the MGVSP or MGVP.DISCUSSIONThe MGVP is a proposed development located in the unincorporated portion of Lower Green Valley inwestern Solano County, just outside Fairfield city limits and situated within a specific plan area denotedby the County as the MGVSP Area. The Fairfield city limits end approximately 750 feet south of MasonRoad along Green Valley Road. Water service is provided by the City within city limits and by SIDoutside of city limits. SID’s water service area contains most of the Middle Green Valley Specific PlanArea, and all agricultural and nonpotable water demands for the MGVP are proposed to be met by SIDor groundwater.On December 4, 2012, the council adopted Resolution 2012271 which verified a water supplyassessment confirming the City’s ability to sufficiently supply all of the MGVP potable water demands.Potable water demands for the MGVP have been evaluated multiple times by both the City and SIDover the years and has been a specific point of contention on revised recirculated draft environmentalimpact reports (EIR). This point of contention has been resolved by an updated and finalized EIR.Although the City’s water supply assessment confirmed that the City had enough water supply to meetthe MGVP potable water demands, the City’s water supply will no longer be needed to meet any MGVPwater demands.On December 2, 2021, the County made a formal request of the City to revive efforts in working withSID to execute a potable water service agreement, with said request expressing that the City consideraccepting all raw water supply from SID for treatment and delivery back to SID for distribution to theMGVP specific plan area. The City’s role would involve accepting raw water from SID, treating anddistributing potable water back to SID through a newly constructed interconnection at the intersection ofGreen Valley Road and Eastridge Drive. SID would then be responsible for providing water servicethroughout the MGVP which includes, but is not limited to distribution, operations, maintenance andbilling.On February 15, 2022, City staff sought policy direction regarding the County’s formal request toestablish a potable water services agreement with SID and on May 17, 2022, SID’s Board of Directorsapproved SID Resolution 2217 authorizing SID’s Board President and General Manger authority toexecute a potable water service agreement. The potable water services agreement for the MGVPfollows the form and structure of an existing agreement with SID (Blue Ridge Oaks Agreement), and theMiddle Green Valley Specific Plan Area has received all the necessary approvals to move forward withtheir request to receive water from SID through establishment of a potable water services agreementwith the City.The County has received a number of public comments regarding the relationship between the City ofFairfield’s Measure L and the County’s Revised and Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report forthe Middle Green Valley Specific Plan which includes the MGVP. The voterapproved Measure Lexpired on December 31, 2020, and the City of Fairfield has the right to serve water as a wholesaler toportions outside the City’s annexed boundary. As such, the MGVP has faced legal challenges to whichthe City does not wish to be a part of or party to. Consequently, the City has sought an indemnificationagreement with the County outlining an extension of safeguards and protections in the event the City isnamed as a party to any lawsuit pertaining to the MGVSP or the MGVP.Adoption of these resolutions will authorize the mayor and city manager to execute a potable waterservice agreement and work with SID to construct two interconnections as shown in the agreement,and the city manager to execute an indemnification agreement with the County which is intended toinclude legal protection from any lawsuit in connection with the MGVSP or the MGVP.FINANCIAL IMPACTSID shall be responsible for all costs associated with serving potable water to MGVP through SID.PUBLIC CONTACT/ADVISORY BODY RECOMMENDATIONN/AALTERNATIVE ACTIONThe council may choose not to execute the agreement with SID to serve the Middle Green ValleyProject, but choosing not to would be inconsistent with current practice.

STAFF CONTACT
Michael Hether, Assistant Public Works Director/Utilities (707) 4287493
[email protected]
COORDINATED WITH
City Attorney's Office, City Manager's Office, County of Solano, and Solano Irrigation District.

ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Attachment 1: Proposed Resolution Indemnification Agreement Attachment 2: Proposed Agreement Indemnification
Attachment 3: Proposed Resolution Potable Water Service Agreement Attachment 4: Proposed Agreement Potable Water Service Attachment 5: Letter from Solano County dated December 2, 2021 (Emlen to Gassaway) Attachment 6: Solano Irrigation District Resolution Staff Report and Resolution 2217 REVIEWERS:

Reviewer Action Date
Hether, Michael Approved 8/3/2022 4:53 PM
Kaushal, Paul Approved 8/3/2022 8:19 PM
Beavers, Esther Approved 8/4/2022 10:47 AM
Beavers, Esther Approved 8/4/2022 10:48 AM
Packet Page 641 of 1251

CITY OF FAIRFIELD

RESOLUTION NO. 2022-214

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAIRFIELD AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR

AND CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AN INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN SOLANO

COUNTY AND THE CITY OF FAIRFIELD

WHEREAS, Solano County has prepared a Specific Plan called the Middle Green Valley Specific Plan that includes the development of a project called the Middle Green Valley Project ; and

WHEREAS, Solano County received a number of public comments on the County’s circulated Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Middle Green Valley Specific Plan; and

WHEREAS, Solano County was named as a defendant and respondent to lawsuits pertaining to the Middle Green Valley Specific Plan; and

WHEREAS, Solano County received a number of additional public comments on the County’s Revised Recirculated Draft Environmental Impact Report for the Middle Green Valley Specific Plan; and

WHEREAS, on December 2, 2021, Solano County made a formal request of the City to revive efforts in working with Solano Irrigation District to provide water to the Middle Green Valley Project; and

WHEREAS, the City seeks safeguards and protections in the event the City is named as a defendant, respondent, or party to any lawsuit arising out of the City’s connection with the County on matters pertaining to the Middle Green Valley Specific Plan or Middle Green Valley Project; and

WHEREAS, Solano County has agreed to extend indemnifications and hold the City harmless in the event the City is named as a defendant, respondent, or party to any lawsuit arising out of the City’s connection with the County on matters pertaining to the Middle Green Valley Specific Plan or Middle Green Valley Project.

NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAIRFIELD HEREBY RESOLVES:

Section 1. The mayor and city manager are hereby authorized to execute an indemnification agreement between Solano County and the City of Fairfield.

Section 2. The city manager is hereby authorized to do all things necessary and proper to preserve the safeguards and protections outlined in the indemnification agreement.

Packet Page 642 of 1251Attachment 1 Page 1 of 2

RES. NO. 2022-214

Page 2 ends

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of August, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: PRICE / BERTANI / MOY / PANDURO / TIMM / TONNESEN / VACCARO

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

MAYOR

ATTEST:

____________________________

CITY CLERK

Packet Page 643 of 1251Attachment 1 Page 2 of 2

- 1 –

INDEMNIFICATION AGREEMENT

This Indemnity Agreement ("Agreement") is made and entered into between the City of Fairfield, a political subdivision of the State of California (“City”), and County of Solano, a political subdivision of the State of California (“County”), and is effective as of _______________ , 2022.

This Agreement is made with regard to the following facts:

RECITALS

WHEREAS, in August of 2008, the County completed and adopted a comprehensive update to the County’s General Plan, portions of which were approved by the voters at the November 4, 2009 election; and

WHEREAS, the Middle Green Valley (“MGV”) area, located north of the City boundaries, was called out in the General Plan as a specific project area for further planning analysis; and

WHEREAS, originally adopted in 2010, the County has approved the MGV Specific Plan that includes a mix of land uses, including residential units, agricultural tourism, local retail and community facility uses, and over 1,400 acres of protected agriculture open space; and

WHEREAS, on April 9. 2015, the County and the MGV landowners entered into a Master Development Agreement (“MDA”), pursuant to Cal. Government Code section 65864 et seq., to establish certain development rights for the MGV Specific Plan; and

WHEREAS, the MGV Specific Plan was amended on August 8, 2017 and again on September 28, 2021 in which it was contemplated that one option was for the MGV Project to be served by a combination of using of municipal water from the City of Fairfield and the Solano Irrigation District; and

WHEREAS, MGV landowners have applied to the County for certain approvals under the California Subdivision Map Act, which includes the delivery of potable water to the MGV area, to allow for the development of the MGV Specific Plan to commence; and

WHEREAS, Solano Irrigation District has requested that the City enter into an Out of Area Service Agreement with SID (“Water Agreement”) to treat SID water that SID will, in turn, as the water purveyor, deliver the potable water to the MGV Specific Plan; and

WHEREAS, the City has requested that the County be legally responsible for liability for its entry into such Water Agreement; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to the MDA, the MGV landowners agreed to indemnify and cover the costs of any court action instituted by a third party challenging any subsequent project approval; and
Packet Page 644 of 1251Attachment 2 Page 1 of 4

- 2 –

WHEREAS, the County is willing to indemnify the City, and will include this obligation to indemnify in any future condition of approval of the MGV Project that involves the City, consistent with the provision of the MDA by which the MGV landowners have agreed to indemnify the County for any third party claims.

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of entering the Water Agreement and the mutual promises and agreements contained herein, the County hereby agrees as follows:

1. The County agrees to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City and its agents, officers, and employees from any claim, action, or proceeding against the City or its agents, officers, or employees (collectively “City Parties”) to attack, set aside, void or annul the above- referenced Water Agreement or any of the proceedings, acts or determinations taken done or made as a result of City’s processing and/or approval of the Water Agreement or to impose personal liability against such agents, officers, or employees based upon or arising out of entering the Water Agreement. County’s obligation to defend and indemnify under this Agreement shall apply to any lawsuit or challenge against the City, parties alleging failure to comply with the California Environmental Quality Act or with the requirements of any other federal, state, or local laws, including but not limited to general plan and zoning requirements. County’s obligations under this Agreement to defend and indemnify the City shall include, but not be limited to, payment of all court costs and attorneys’ fees, all litigation-related costs, all costs of any judgments or awards against the City, all settlement costs and/or any claim for private attorney general fees claimed by or awarded to any party from the City. County further agrees to cooperate in good faith with City in performance of obligations as set forth in this Agreement.

2. The City shall notify the County promptly of any claim, action or proceeding and cooperate fully in the defense. Upon receipt of such notification, County shall assume the cost of the City’s defense of the claim, action, or proceeding, including the employment of outside counsel reasonably satisfactory to the City Attorney’s Office and County Counsel, and the prompt payment of the attorneys’ fees and costs of such counsel. In the event of a disagreement between the City and County over litigation issues, the City will provide its position in writing to County and within 30 days therefrom, the City and County will meet and confer in good faith to attempt to resolve the disagreement. Should City and County not resolve the disagreement after a reasonable period of good faith negotiations, the City shall have the authority to control the litigation and make litigations decisions, including but not limited to, settlement or other disposition of the matter.

3. Failure to promptly defend or indemnify the City is a material breach which shall constitute grounds upon which the City decision-making body may rescind its approval of the Water Agreement.

4. All notices, requests and demands hereunder will be given by first class certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, or by a nationally recognized overnight courier, Packet Page 645 of 1251Attachment 2 Page 2 of 4

- 3 –

postage prepaid, to be effective when properly sent and received, refused or returned undelivered. Notices will be addressed to the parties as follows: :

For City: City Manager
City of Fairfield
1000 Webster Street
Fairfield, CA 94533

For County: County Administrator
Solano County
675 Texas St., Ste. 6500
Fairfield, CA 94533

Either party may change the place for the giving of notice to it by thirty (30) days prior written notice to the other party, as provided herein.

5. This Agreement shall be binding upon County and its heirs, executors, administrators, assigns and successors in interest.

6. This Agreement shall constitute the complete understanding of the parties with respect to the matters set forth herein. Neither party is relying on any other representation, oral or written. This Agreement may not be changed except by a written amendment signed by all parties.

7. It is agreed and understood that this Agreement shall be interpreted fairly in accordance with its terms to effectuate the intent of the parties and not strictly for or against any party by reason of authorship that none of them is to be deemed the party which prepared this Agreement within the meaning of Civil Code section 1654.

8. Each party executing this Agreement represents and warrants that it has been duly authorized to enter into this Agreement, that it has full and complete authority to do so, that it has consulted with or had the opportunity to consult with an attorney prior to executing this Agreement, that it enters into this Agreement knowingly and voluntarily, and that it agrees to be bound by the terms of this Agreement.

Packet Page 646 of 1251Attachment 2 Page 3 of 4

- 4 –

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City and County have executed this Agreement, as of the date first set forth above.

CITY OF FAIRFIELD, COUNTY OF SOLANO, a Political a municipal corporation Subdivision of the State of California

By ______________________________ ___ By _______________________________ David Gassaway, Interim City Manager Bill Emlen, County Administrator

APPROVED AS TO FORM APPROVED AS TO FORM

By ______________________________ ___ By _______________________________ City Attorney County Counsel
Packet Page 647 of 1251Attachment 2 Page 4 of 4

CITY OF FAIRFIELD

RESOLUTION NO. 2022-215

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAIRFIELD AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR

AND CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A POTABLE WATER SERVICE AGREEMENT BETWEEN

SOLANO IRRIGATION DISTRICT AND THE CITY OF FAIRFIELD FOR THE MIDDLE GREEN VALLEY

SPECIFIC PLAN AREA

WHEREAS, Solano County has prepared a Specific Plan called the Middle Green Valley Specific Plan that includes the development of a project called the Middle Green Valley Project ; and

WHEREAS, on December 4, 2012, the City of Fairfield adopted Resolution 2012-271, verifying the City’s water supply assessment and the capacity of the City’s water rights to sufficiently meet all potable water demands; and

WHEREAS, on December 31, 2020, the voter-approved Measure L expired, allowing the City of Fairfield discretion in making the determination to serve water as a wholesaler to portions outside the City’s annexed boundary; and

WHEREAS, on December 2, 2021, Solano County made a formal request to the City of Fairfield to revive efforts in working with Solano Irrigation District to provide water to the Middle Green Valley Project; and

WHEREAS, on February 15, 2022, City of Fairfield staff sought policy direction regarding Solano County’s formal request and informed City Council that the City’s water supply would no longer be needed as requested in the letter from Solano County dated December 2, 2021; and

WHEREAS, the City of Fairfield will agree to accept all raw water supply as a wholesaler from the Solano Irrigation District for treatment and delivery back to Solano Irrigation District for distribution and delivery to the Middle Green Valley Project through a newly adopted potable water service agreement; and

WHEREAS, City of Fairfield staff will work diligently with Solano Irrigation District Staff to execute the potable water service agreement and construct the two inter-connections at mutually agreeable points; and

WHEREAS, Solano Irrigation District will be responsible for all costs associated with the new connections.

Packet Page 648 of 1251Attachment 3 Page 1 of 2

RES. NO. 2022-215

Page 2 ends

NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAIRFIELD HEREBY RESOLVES:

Section 1. The mayor and city manager are hereby authorized to execute the potable water service agreement between Solano Irrigation District and the City of Fairfield.

Section 2. The city manager is hereby authorized to do all things necessary and proper to carry out the agreement mentioned above.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of August, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: PRICE / BERTANI / MOY / PANDURO / TIMM / TONNESEN / VACCARO

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

MAYOR

ATTEST:

____________________________

CITY CLERK

Packet Page 649 of 1251Attachment 3 Page 2 of 2

AGREEMENT FOR POTABLE WATER SERVICE BETWEEN

THE CITY OF FAIRFIELD

AND THE SOLANO IRRIGATION DISTRICT FOR THE

MIDDLE GREEN VALLEY SPECIFIC PLAN AREA

This Agreement is entered as of ___________________, 2022, between the CITY OF FAIRFIELD, a municipal corporation in the State of California ("FAIRFIELD"), and the SOLANO IRRIGATION DISTRICT, an irrigation district in the State of California ("SID"), hereinafter referred to as "the parties:"

WITNESSETH:

WHEREAS, SID serves non-potable water to the Middle Green Valley Specific Plan unincorporated area in the vicinity of FAIRFIELD ("MGVSP") shown in Figure 1; and

WHEREAS, Solano County has approved the MGVSP area for organized development that preserves agriculture; and,

WHEREAS, potable water is necessary for the development of the MGVSP; and

WHEREAS, FAIRFIELD has the capability of delivering potable water to a point in the vicinity of the MGVSP; and

WHEREAS, after considering its options, SID wishes to obtain potable water treatment services for the MGVSP from FAIRFIELD; and

WHEREAS, FAIRFIELD is willing to serve potable water to SID at two points of connection in the vicinity of the MGVSP if SID provides the raw water supply and pays for the cost of service and once constructed, both connections shall remain active and operational pursuant to the terms of this agreement; and

WHEREAS, voter-approved Measure L expired on December 31, 2020 and the City of Fairfield has the right to serve water as a wholesaler to portions outside the City’s annexed boundary.

Packet Page 650 of 1251Attachment 4 Page 1 of 9

Page 2 of 6 ends

WHEREAS, this agreement is a treat-and-wheel agreement and does not constitute a basic service (i.e. SID is providing the basic services pertaining to distribution, billing, maintenance and repairs):

NOW, THEREFORE, the parties, for and in consideration of the mutual agreements and covenants contained in this Agreement, do agree as follows:

A. Term

This Agreement shall become effective on the date above entered and shall continue in full force and effect until terminated by SID. SID may unilaterally terminate this Agreement with 60 days notice to FAIRFIELD and upon payment of all outstanding obligations.

B. Duties and Obligations

1. The parties shall construct two connections ("the connections") which are intended to remain active upon completion of construction, shown schematically in Figure 2 and Figure 3 attached, between the FAIRFIELD water system and the SID water system near the southerly boundary of the MGVSP area. The first connection shall be located near the intersection of Green Valley Road and Eastridge Drive and be served from the 24” transmission main, and the second connection shall be located on the west side of Green Valley Creek along Reservoir Lane and be served from the distribution main in Dynasty Drive at or near 742 Dynasty Drive of the FAIRFIELD water system; alternatively, at any other mutually agreeable location. Both connections shall conform to plans mutually approved by SID and FAIRFIELD.

The connections shall include a meter ("the meter"), valves, piping, conduits, programmable logic controllers, remote terminal units and any supervisory control and data acquisition equipment and other appurtenances FAIRFIELD may require to operate and maintain the connection, as shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3 but more specifically described in a future set of mutually approved plans.

Packet Page 651 of 1251Attachment 4 Page 2 of 9

Page 3 of 6 ends

FAIRFIELD shall provide the meter and the meter box for the connection. SID shall install the meter and provide the rest of the connections at SID's sole cost subject to FAIRFIELD's review, inspection, and approval. Said approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. The parties shall cooperate to obtain the rights-of-way and access permits necessary to complete the connection. SID shall pay all right-of-way or access costs.

FAIRFIELD shall own, operate, and maintain the connection from the FAIRFIELD water main up to the point shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3, and SID shall own, operate, and maintain the rest of the connections. SID shall paint and maintain the backflow protectors at the connections in accordance with FAIRFIELD standards.

2. Prior to the start of construction, SID shall pay to FAIRFIELD connection charges equal to the then current FAIRFIELD connection charges that apply within the FAIRFIELD city limits for a Zone One General Service meter of the same size and type as shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3, provided, however, that the connection charge for Zone One capacity shall be discounted by 1/3 (one-third) because SID will provide the raw water for the connection. SID shall reimburse FAIRFIELD for FAIRFIELD's actual other costs.

Connection charges shall be calculated as follows:
800 gpm – 8” compound connection fee (peak hour domestic) 2000 gpm fire flow- 6” turbine connection fee (10%)
Second redundant connection – 10% of above
Calculation: [(8” compound connection fee + 10%*(6” Turbine connection fee))]*2/3 Plus 10% of above for 2nd connection (for redundancy)

As an illustration, connection charges using 2022 rates are calculated as follows:

Total Connection Fees = [Connection 1 + Connection 2] x (2/3) + Redundant Connection
Where: Connection 1 = 8” Compound = $1,535,520
Connection 2 = 10% of 6” Turbine = $467,968
Redundant Connection = 10% of the above

Packet Page 652 of 1251Attachment 4 Page 3 of 9

Page 4 of 6 ends

Total Connection fees = [$1,535,000 + $467,968] x (2/3) + ($1,335,378 x 0.10)

Total Connection Fees = $1,335,378 + $133,538 = $1,468,916

2.A. Should peak hour demands in future exceed 800 gpm, and to allow for development that is not yet fully defined, but allowed under the County’s MGVSP area, SID shall have a right to purchase additional capacity pursuant to FAIRFIELD’s adopted schedule using the methodology in Section 2 above.

FAIRFIELD shall provide potable water to SID through both connections on demand of SID up to a maximum flow rate of 2,800 gallons per minute with a minimum pressure of 45 pounds per square inch.

3. SID shall provide FAIRFIELD with the raw water needed for FAIRFIELD to serve the connection. The procedure for raw water transfer shall be as follows:

FAIRFIELD shall read the meter and report to the Solano County Water Agency ("SCWA") and to SID the monthly water use through the connection that FAIRFIELD treated to serve the connection. SID shall authorize and direct SCWA to deduct the water use from FAIRFIELD's Solano Project water use in that month and to add it to SID's Solano Project use. SID shall pay SCWA for all of the raw water so used.

FAIRFIELD shall allocate no water losses in treatment or transmission to SID.

FAIRFIELD shall terminate water service through the connection if SID fails to provide the raw water as required by this paragraph.

4. FAIRFIELD shall supply water to the connection that meets all applicable state and federal water quality standards and shall be responsible for monitoring water quality and regulatory compliance up to the connection. For this purpose, SID shall permit FAIRFIELD to take water samples from the sample stations shown in Figure 2 and Figure 3. SID shall remain responsible for monitoring water quality and regulatory compliance in the SID water system serving the MGVSP area.

5. SID shall pay to FAIRFIELD all monthly volume charges based on total metered water use for Connection 1 and Connection 2 based on total days in that month. The Packet Page 653 of 1251Attachment 4 Page 4 of 9

Page 5 of 6 ends

volume charges shall be equal to the then current FAIRFIELD volume charges for the General Service user class within the FAIRFIELD city limits.

6. SID shall pay to FAIRFIELD user charges consisting of a monthly service charge based on total days in that month for Connection 1 only (Connection 2 is a redundant connection to allow the City to preserve service and reduce water service outages to the Middle Green Valley Specific Plan area). The user charges shall be equal to the then current FAIRFIELD user charges for the General Service user class within the FAIRFIELD city limits.

7. FAIRFIELD shall bill SID monthly for water service through the connections. SID shall make payment to FAIRFIELD within 30 days. Charges or other penalties for late payments shall be the same as would apply for the General Service user class within the FAIRFIELD city limits.

8. SID shall use water provided pursuant to this Agreement solely in the Middle Green Valley Specific Plan area as defined by Figure 1 and solely in support of activities that are permitted under the Solano County General Plan. SID shall not expand potable water service beyond the Middle Green Valley Specific Plan area without Fairfield approval.

C. Changes in Water Treatment

The parties acknowledge that future water treatment regulations or other considerations may require FAIRFIELD to modify its water treatment practices from time to time (e.g., conversion from chlorine to chloramine residual disinfectant or chemical addition for corrosion control). FAIRFIELD shall consult with SID and shall provide SID with 60 days minimum notice before making such modifications.

D. Water Entitlements

This Agreement shall not affect, alter, or modify the water entitlements of either party under any other agreement or arrangement now existing.

Packet Page 654 of 1251Attachment 4 Page 5 of 9

Page 6 of 6 ends

E. Severability

Should any part, term, or provision of this Agreement be decided by a court of competent jurisdiction to be illegal or in conflict with any law of the State of California, or otherwise be rendered unenforceable or ineffectual, the validity of the remaining parts, terms, or provisions hereof shall not be affected thereby. In this eventuality, the parties agree to confer in good faith for the purpose of remedying the defect.

F. Amendment of Agreement

This Agreement may be amended by a written supplemental agreement executed by the parties.

G. Successors and Assignment

This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the successors of each party. Either party may assign any right or obligation under this Agreement with the written approval of the other party.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date above entered:

CITY OF FAIRFIELD SOLANO IRRIGATION DISTRICT

By: _____________________________ By: __________________________ Mayor Chairman

By: _____________________________ By: __________________________ City Manager General Manager

Attest: Attest:

By: _____________________________ By: __________________________ City Clerk Secretary/Manager
Packet Page 655 of 1251Attachment 4 Page 6 of 9

Figure 1
Middle Green Valley Specific Plan
Proposed Boundary
Packet Page 656 of 1251Attachment 4 Page 7 of 9

Packet Page 657 of 1251Attachment 4 Page 8 of 9

Packet Page 658 of 1251Attachment 4 Page 9 of 9

Packet Page 659 of 1251Attachment 5 Page 1 of 1

Page 1 of 3 ends

SOLANO IRRIGATION DISTRICT

DATE: May 17, 2022 AGENDA ITEM NO. 6.2

TITLE: MGVSP Potable Water Service Agreement

SUBJECT: Approval of Resolution 22-17 Authorizing the President and General Manager to Execute a Potable Water Service Agreement between the City of Fairfield and Solano Irrigation District for the Middle Green Valley Specific Plan Area

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

This staff report is to authorize staff to conclude negotiations with the City of Fairfield for the provision of potable water to the Middle Green Valley area, and further authorize the General Manager and Board President to execute said agreement once negotiations are concluded and District’s legal counsel has approved the agreement. This process is a follow-up to the Water Supply Assessment approved by the Board at its April 15, 2014 Board Meeting, and the Conditional Will Serve letter dated April 18, 2018 and approved by the Board at its April 17, 2018 meeting.

The agreement will follow the form of Agreement of the June 8, 2002 Blue Ridge Oaks Agreement to treat District’s raw water and return potable water to a point south of the Middle Green Valley development. All costs associated with the Agreement are to be borne by the development.

The remaining points for clarification in the Agreement include changes to Sections 2 and 3:

1. Connection fee structure.
a. Negotiating the process to size meters based on peak hour demand and fire flow demand, where the combined meter sizes are used to determine the appropriate connection fee:
i. The planned peak hour demand is sized for a specific meter that will flow that amount and has an associated connection fee (charge A). ii. The necessary 2,000 gpm fire flow demand is sized using a meter size equivalent for that flow rate and fire flow connection fee (charge B). iii. A charge for a second meter for redundancy to supply the area (charge C). iv. Total cost of a connection is proposed to be charge A plus charge B plus charge C.

b. Because development has not yet occurred and is mixed use (commercial and residential) the actual demand is difficult to identify upfront. Therefore, the District will have the right to purchase additional capacity from Fairfield should it be necessary for a future development in Middle Green Valley that is allowed under the County’s general plan for the area.

2. The potable water delivered by Fairfield will only be able to be used within the Middle Green Valley area unless approved by Fairfield (section 8).

3. No substantial changes to other sections are anticipated.

Packet Page 660 of 1251Attachment 6 Page 1 of 17

TITLE: MGVSP Potable Water Service Agreement

Page 2 of 3 ends

In summary, staff requests the Board approve Resolution 22-17 authorizing the President and General Manager to execute a Potable Water Service Agreement between the City of Fairfield and District for the Middle Green Valley Specific Plan Area when negotiations are complete, and District’s legal counsel approves the agreement to form.

BACKGROUND:

Since the early 2000s the District has been working with the County and developer to provide potable water service to the Middle Green Valley Specific Plan (MGVSP) area. In April 2014 the Board approved a Water Supply Assessment for the MGVSP. Then at its April 2018 Board Meeting the Board approved a conditional will-serve letter for the MGVSP.

Staff, with input from the District’s legal counsel, prepared a Conditional Will Serve letter with three separate options to provide water to the development:

 Scenario 1 - Fairfield-SID partnership to treat and wheel water  Scenario 2 - Construct local water treatment plant plus use one groundwater well  Scenario 3 - Construct water treatment plant plus alternate surface water source

All three scenarios have a host of conditions that are common to each and are generally as follows:

1. Required to annex land to be served that is located outside of District Boundary

2. Amount of water to be served cannot exceed what has historically been served to the area

3. Fund all capital expenses and all operational and maintenance costs during development buildout.

4. Commit to funding incremental operational expenses (all the fixed costs of providing water)

5. Fire flow demands need to be reviewed and discussed as to how to accomplish the needs

6. Provide an agreement between SID and the project representative of the MGVSP to document conditions and requirements.

As noted in condition #6 above a future development agreement is forthcoming and will be the next step following executing the potable water supply agreement with Fairfield. This agreement with the developer will ensure the costs and risks for the development are borne by the developer and not the District. An agreement with Fairfield is necessary first to be able to define the costs with the developer for water supply and provide certainty to supply.

In addition, Fairfield City Council has authorized its staff to negotiate the Potable Waters Supply Agreement with the District.

RECOMMENDATION:

Staff requests the Board approve Resolution 22-17 authorizing the President and General Manager to execute a Potable Water Service Agreement between the City of Fairfield and District for the Middle Green Valley Specific Plan Area when negotiations are complete, and District’s legal counsel approves the agreement to form.

FINANCIAL IMPACT:

Costs to be borne by the developer. The project will help the District with economies of scale by adding an additional 400+ customers to its potable water base.

Packet Page 661 of 1251Attachment 6 Page 2 of 17

TITLE: MGVSP Potable Water Service Agreement

Page 3 of 3 ends

ATTACHMENTS:
 Resolution 22-17
 Water Supply Assessment
 Conditional Will Serve

STAFF RESPONSIBLE FOR REPORT:

____________________________________________ Date: 05/11/2022 Paul Fuchslin, Director of Engineering

____________________________________________ Date: 05/12/2022 Cary Keaten, General Manager

Packet Page 662 of 1251Attachment 6 Page 3 of 17

Page 1 of 2 ends

SOLANO IRRIGATION DISTRICT
RESOLUTION NO. 22-17

AUTHORIZE THE PRESIDENT AND GENERAL MANAGER TO EXECUTE A

POTABLE WATER SERVICE AGREEMENT BETWEEN THE CITY OF FAIRFIELD

AND SOLANO IRRIGATION DISTRICT TO SERVE POTABLE WATER TO THE

MIDDLE GREEN VALLEY SPECIFIC PLAN AREA

At a regular meeting of the Board of Directors of Solano Irrigation District held at the District Office on the 17th day of May, 2022, the following resolution was approved and adopted:

WHEREAS, the majority of the Middle Green Valley Specific Plan Area (MGVSP) development is located within the District’s boundary and needs potable water to develop; and,

WHEREAS, the Board approved a Water Supply Assessment for the MGVSP at its April 15, 2014 meeting; and,

WHEREAS, the Board approved a conditional Will-Serve Letter dated April 18, 2018 at its April 17, 2018 meeting; and,

WHEREAS, one of the three options for the provision of potable water was a treat and wheel agreement with the City of Fairfield similar to the Blue Ridge Oaks Potable Water Service Agreement; and,

WHEREAS, the City of Fairfield is willing to negotiate a Potable Water Service Agreement with the District; and,

WHEREAS, District and Fairfield are negotiating in good faith.

///

This area left intentionally blank

///

Packet Page 663 of 1251Attachment 6 Page 4 of 17

Resolution 22-17___ Potable Water Service Agreement – Middle Green Valley Specific Plan

Page 2 of 2 ends

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the General Manager is directed to conclude the negotiations with Fairfield modeled after the Blue Ridge Oaks Potable Water Service Agreement, and subject to District legal counsel approval, the President and General Manager are authorized to execute the Potable Water Service Agreement that will provide water to the District for the Middle Green Valley Specific Plan area.

PASSED AND ADOPTED the 17th day of May, 2022, by the Board of Directors of the Solano Irrigation District, County of Solano, State of California, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

DATED: May 17, 2022
________________________________________
John D. Kluge, President of the Board of Directors
Solano Irrigation District

ATTEST: I hereby certify that the foregoing Resolution was duly made, seconded and adopted by the Board of Directors of Solano Irrigation District at a regular meeting of this Board held May 17, 2022:

________________________________________
Cary Keaten, General Manager
Solano Irrigation District
Packet Page 664 of 1251Attachment 6 Page 5 of 17

AGREEMENT FOR POTABLE WATER SERVICE

BETWEEN THE CITY OF FAIRFIELD

AND THE SOLANO IRRIGATION DISTRICT

FOR BLUE RIDGE OAKS AREA
This Agreement is entered as of \,l'nc I 8 2002, between the CITY OF FAIRFIELD, a municipal corporation in the State of California ("FAlRFlELD"), and the SOLANO IRRIGATION DISTRICT, an irrigation district in the State of California ("SlD"), hereinafter referred to as "the parties:"
WITNESSETH:

WHEREAS, SID serves nonpotable water to the Blue Ridge Oaks unincorporated area in the vicinity of FAIRFIELD ("Blue Ridge Oaks") shown in Figure 1; and WHEREAS, new regulations require SID to serve potable water to Blue Ridge Oaks; and
WHEREAS, FAIRFIELD has the capability of delivering potable water to a point in the vicinity of Blue Ridge Oaks; and
WHEREAS, after considering its options, SID wishes to obtain potable water treatment services for Blue Ridge Oaks from FAIRFIELD; and
WHEREAS, FAIRFIELD is willing to serve potable water to SID at a point of connection in the vicinity of Blue Ridge Oaks if SID provides the raw water supply and pays for the cost of service:

NOW, THEREFORE, the parties, for and in consideration of the mutual agreements and covenants contained in this Agreement, do agree as follows:

Page 1 ends

Agenda Item 6.2
Attachment 2
Packet Page 665 of 1251Attachment 6 Page 6 of 17

1 A. Term
This Agreement shall become effective on the date above entered and shall continue in full force and effect until terminated by SlD. SID may unilaterally terminate this Agreement with 60 days notice to FAIRFIELD upon payment of all outstanding obligations.

B. Duties and Obligations
The parties shall construct a connection ("the connection"), shown schematically in Figure 2 attached, between the FAIRFIELD water system and the SID water system near the most northerly extension of the FAIRFIELD water system on Lyon Road or, alternatively, at any other mutually agreeable location.

The connection shall include a meter ("the meter"), valves, and other appurtenances FAIRFIELD may require to operate and maintain the connection, as shown in Figure 2.

FAIRFIELD shall provide the tap to the FAIRFIELD water system, the meter (with strainer), and the meter box for the connection. SID shall install the meter and provide the rest of the connection at SID's sole cost subject to FAIRFIELD's review, inspection, and approval. Said approval shall not be unreasonably withheld. The parties shall cooperate to obtain the rights-of-way and access permits necessary to complete the connection. SID shall pay all right-of-way or access costs.

FAIRFIELD shall own, operate, and maintain the connection from the FAIRFIELD water main up to the point shown in Figure 2, and SID shall own, operate, and maintain the rest of the connection. SID shall paint and maintain the backflow protector at the connection in accordance with FAIRFIELD standards.

Prior to the start of construction, SID shall pay to FAIRFIELD connection charges equal to the then current FAIRFIELD connection charges that apply within the FAIRFIELD city limits for a Zone Two General Service meter of the same size and type as shown in Figure 2, provided, however, that the connection charge for Zone One capacity shall be discounted by 1/3 (one-third) because SID will provide 2

Page 2 of 5 ends

Packet Page 666 of 1251Attachment 6 Page 7 of 17

3 the raw water for the connection. SID shall reimburse FAIRFIELD for FAIRFIELD's actual other costs of providing the connection, provided said reimbursement shall not exceed $7,500.

FAIRFIELD shall provide potable water to SID through the connection on demand of SID up to a maximum flow rate of 80 gallons per minute with a minimum pressure of 45 pounds per square inch. Nothing in this Agreement shall require FAIRFIELD to serve demands through the connection in excess of 77,000 gallons for any 24-hour period or 5 acre-feet for any month.

SID shall provide FAIRFIELD with the raw water needed for FAIRFIELD to serve the connection. The procedure for raw water transfer shall be as follows:

FAIRFIELD shall read the meter and report to the Solano County Water Agency ("SCWA') and to SID the monthly water use through the connection that FAIRFIELD treated to serve the connection. SID shall authorize and direct SCWA to deduct the water use from FAIRFIELD's Solano Project water use in that month and to add it to SID's Solano Project use. SID shall pay SCWA for all of the raw water so used. FAIRFIELD shall allocate no water losses in treatment or transmission to SlD. FAIRFIELD shall terminate water service through the connection if SID fails to provide the raw water as required by this paragraph.

FAIRFIELD shall supply water to the connection that meets all applicable state and federal water quality standards and shall be responsible for monitoring water quality and regulatory compliance up to the connection. For this purpose, SID shall permit FAIRFIELD to take water samples from the backflow protector at the connection shown in Figure 2. SID shall remain responsible for monitoring water quality and regulatory compliance in the SID water system serving Blue Ridge Oaks.

SID shall pay to FAIRFIELD user charges consisting of a monthly volume charge based on total metered water use and a monthly service charge based on total days in that month. The user charges shall be equal to the then current FAIRFIELD user charges for the General Service user class within the FAIRFIELD city limits.
4 5
b

Page 3 of 5 ends

Packet Page 667 of 1251Attachment 6 Page 8 of 17

7 B
FAIRFIELD shall bill SID monthly for water service through the connection. SID shall make payment to FAIRFIELD within 30 days. Charges or other penalties for late payments shall be the same as would apply for the General Service user class within the FAIRFIELD city limits.

SID shall use water provided pursuant to this Agreement solely in Blue Ridge Oaks as defined by Figure 1 and solely in support of activities that are permitted under the Solano County General Plan. SID shall not expand potable water service in Blue Ridge Oaks beyond 25 single-family residences without FAIRFIELD approval.

C. Changes in Water Treatment
The parties acknowledge that future water treatment regulations or other considerations may require FAIRFIELD to modify its water treatment practices from time to time (e.9., conversion from chlorine to chloramine residual disinfectant or chemical addition for corrosion control). FAIRFIELD shall consult with SID and shall provide SID with 60 days minimum notice before making such modifications.

D. Water Entitlements
This Agreement shall not affect, alter, or modify the water entitlements of either party under any other agreement or arrangement now existing.

E. Severability
Should any part, term, or provision of this Agreement be decided by a court of competent jurisdiction to be illegal or in conflict with any law of the State of California, or otherwise be rendered unenforceable or ineffectual, the validity of the remaining parts, terms, or provisions hereof shall not be affected thereby. ln this eventuality, the parties agree to confer in good faith for the purpose of remedying the defect.

F. Amendment of Agreement
This Agreement may be amended by a written supplemental agreement executed by the parties.

Page 4 of 5 ends

Packet Page 668 of 1251Attachment 6 Page 9 of 17

G. Successors and Ass nment
This Agreement shall be binding upon and shall inure to the benefit of the successors of each party. Either party may assign any right or obligation under this Agreement with the written approval of the other party.
lN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement on the date above entered:

CITY OF FAIRFIELD SOLANO IRRIGATION DISTRICT
t
By
ncM
Attest Attest:

ByBy
City Clerk Secretary/Manager
SID BlueRidge 4-23-02

Page 5 of 5 ends

Packet Page 669 of 1251Attachment 6 Page 10 of 17

X,IDRE'16
-21tyAlt(EP
-26
u000s
-r9
t22-t40-15CAll,l
122-t,ro-27
sutlrs @&H
-2A
STMNOE-toEPINO,At22-r40-t1
t22-t10-JtsAt'tDERS

IAUILNN
cocKEnnil
,22-r10-J2
iltuSERf,22-t10-05
,22-r10-02
s4ccA SNOHilAER,22-t10-Of
s4604t22-
aEMiltsoil
-tJ
Figure /
Blue Ridge Oaks lmprovement District
lmpro uem en t Dis trict fit I Oproposed Boundary
MAy ts, 2oo2
Packet Page 670 of 1251Attachment 6 Page 11 of 17

FIGURE 2CONNECT I ON SCHEMAT ICD't.AIN)oot\)-+rrlI(tt-9DtJrrl-'.o-J'€cirtt-c)ovIJ'!Ifz" ciTy coltpouNDI'€TER W./ ,\{EfiRBOX PER FAIRFIELDSTANDARO D€TAIL 30 1"y5"R-DUCE.C4'' RP BACKFLOI,JPREVEhJiION DEVICEPER FAIRF IELDSTANDARD DETAJL 342"S. I.D.OI,,IhIERSH I P6"TO S, I. DSERV i CESTID><a-tc)-l5f\)@-t6)c)-tCCNNECTION TO EX ISTING T/ATER jlIAINPER F4IilFI5LD SiANDARD OETATL-3C{ IAP TO EXISTING I.,IAIN AY CI;;. NCIE NO. 5 ):Eo(^)\;-,TNG FAIRFIELO YJATFR b,IAINPacket Page 671 of 1251Attachment 6 Page 12 of 17

CITY OF FAIRFIELD
REsoLUiloN No. 2oo2- /e7
-TA RESOLUTION APPROVING OUTSIDE.CITY

WATER SERVICE AGREEMENTS BETWEEN

THE CITY OF FAIRFIELD AND

SOLANO IRRIGATION DISTRIGT
WHEREAS, City has negotiated acceptable agreements for outside City water service with the Solano lrrigation District (SlD) for the Blue Ridge Oaks and Peabody Road areas; and
WHEREAS, SID will reimburse the City for the City's cost of establishing the water connections; and
WHEREAS, the rates set by the agreements will compensate Fairfield for more than its direct costs; and
WHEREAS, SID will provide the raw water supply required for the City to serve the connections.

BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAIRFIELD:

1. The Mayor is hereby authorized and directed to execute on behalf of the City of Fairfield certain Outside-City Water Service Agreements for the Blue Ridge Oaks and Peabody Road areas.

2. The City Manager is hereby authorized to do all things necessary and proper to implement the above-mentioned amendment.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this lBth day of June 2002, by the following vote:

AYES: COUnCilmembefS: Batson / Enqtish / Fartey t price tMacMilan NOES: Councilmembers:

ABSENT: Councilmembers:futfrht -t
ABSTAI N ED: Councilmembers:lt"ilrfifl ,,
Attest:
ity Clerk
PW
ayor
Packet Page 672 of 1251Attachment 6 Page 13 of 17

810 VACA VALLEY PARKWAY, SUITE 201, VACAVILLE, CA 95688 • TELEPHONE (707) 448-6847 • FAX (707) 448-7347 WWW.SIDWATER.ORG • @WE_ARE_SID

April 18, 2018
Matt Walsh
Principal Planner
Department of Resource Management
675 Texas Street, Suite 5500
Fairfield, CA 94533
Subject: Conditional Will Serve Letter, Middle Green Valley Specific Plan Dear Matt:

The majority of parcels included in the County’s approved Middle Green Valley (MGV) Specific Plan project approved by the Solano County Board of Supervisors in August 8, 2017, are located within the boundary of the Solano Irrigation District (District) and are subject to District assessments, rates, and charges for water service connections and existing District untreated water service, and the District’s Rules and Regulation. Pursuant to District rules and regulations for water service, provided all District costs are paid, all requirements of law are complied with, and the conditions described herein are fully complied with, the District will endeavor to conditionally serve treated and therefore potable water to the MGV Specific Plan residential, commercial and institutional properties, as well as to agricultural uses, so long as no material quantitative increase in demand for water supplies in the development area from District sources or from sources that District users rely upon will occur. The potable water service (238 acre-feet per year), as noted in the attached Exhibit B and Figure 1.4 of the Middle Green Valley Specific Plan EIR (also attached), will be accomplished under the conditions contained in this “Conditional Will Serve Letter” and at the expense of the MGV Specific Plan developer.

Although this “Conditional Will Serve Letter” identifies three (3) alternative scenarios to serve the MGV Specific Plan, the District recommends Scenario 2 because it may pose the least risk in that the District would not be relying on other outside agencies or parties to provide the service.

Scenario 3 is also a scenario worth considering given that the District is currently negotiating to obtain non-Solano Project Water…….All three scenarios are presented as follows:

DIRECTORS
JOHN D. KLUGE
PRESIDENT – DIV#1

LANCE PORTER
VICE PRESIDENT - DIV #2
GUIDO E. COLLA
DIV #4

MIKE BARRETT
DIV #3

MIKE GERMAN
DIV #5

OFFICERS

CARY KEATEN

GENERAL MANAGER
JAMES S. DANIELS, P.E.

DISTRICT ENGINEER

MINASIAN, MEITH, SOARES,

SEXTON & COOPER, LLC

ATTORNEYS
Agenda Item 6.2
Attachment 3
Packet Page 673 of 1251Attachment 6 Page 14 of 17

Page 2 of 4 ends

Scenario 1. Fairfield-SID Partnership to Treat & Wheel Water

1. Primary Water Source. The water supply identified in the MGV Specific Plan is based on partnering with the City of Fairfield to treat and convey the District’s water to the MGV Specific Plan project boundary.

2. Secondary Water Source. The District has the ability to supply water for the RF, RN and RC land use areas as the District already supplies water to said areas. However, the RM land use areas are located outside the Solano Place of Use and, as such, the City of Fairfield agreement would need to address this issue through an exchange or similar.

3. Environmental Review. Environmental review for the implementation of this Scenario may already be included in the MGV Specific Plan project. However, the project environmental advisors would need make this determination.

Scenario 2. Construct Local Water Treatment Plant Plus Use 1 Groundwater Well

1. Primary Water Source. The water supply shall be as identified in the MGV Specific Plan project area identified the use of groundwater or, surface water for its source. This scenario would rely on both groundwater and surface water but, it does not rely on the City of Fairfield. Rather, this scenario includes constructing a small water treatment plant to locally treat the District’s surface water.

2. Secondary Water Source. The District has the ability to supply water for the RF, RN and RC land use areas as the District already supplies water to said areas. However, the RM land use areas are located outside the Solano Place of Use and, as such, requires a second source of water supply. This scenario includes the construction of one (1) or the three (3) groundwater wells as a secondary water source to the RM land use areas. As such, the District supplies and treats all the water needs of the project.

3. Environmental Review. Environmental review may be required for the inclusion of a small water treatment plant. The project environmental advisors would need make this determination.

Scenario 3. Construct water treatment plant plus alternate surface water source

1. Primary Water Source. Similar to Scenario 2, the primary water supply shall be as identified in the MGV Specific Plan project area identified but, using the District’s surface water for its source. This scenario does not rely on the City of Fairfield. Rather, this scenario also includes constructing a small water treatment plant to locally treat the District’s surface water.

2. Secondary Water Source. The District has the ability to supply water for the RF, RN and RC land use areas as the District already supplies water to said areas. However, the RM land use areas are located outside the Solano Place of Use and, as such, requires a second source of water supply. This scenario includes the construction of an intertie from the North Bay Aqueduct (NBA) forebay to the District’s Green Valley Conduit. This scenario, therefore, requires partnering with one of the local County recipients of the NBA water.

3. Environmental Review. Environmental review may be required for the inclusion of a small water treatment plant and the NBA intertie. The project environmental advisors would need make this determination.

In addition to the scenario specific conditions, all of the scenarios have the following common requirements and conditions:

Packet Page 674 of 1251Attachment 6 Page 15 of 17

Page 3 of 4 ends

A. The majority of the Project’s Land Use designations are located within the existing jurisdiction of the District. This includes the Rural Farm (RF), Rural Neighborhood (RN) and Rural Mixed- Use Center (RC). The Rural Meadow (RM) designations, however, are not. Therefore, the Solano County LAFCo would need to allow for the expansion of the District’s service authority for the RM land use designated properties. Nothing in this description of service areas proposes any action that would constitute paralleling or supplanting existing water service by other water systems or entities serving water.

B. The installation of a separate distribution system for the service of non-potable water to properties for yard or agricultural use, while possible, is discouraged because of operation, management and maintenance costs. The District operates several non-potable water service systems in the County and it is difficult to cost effectively provide the service. For example, the cost is not much less than potable water. Nonetheless, should the project approval documents require non-potable service for outdoor use, the District is prepared to provide the service along with the potable water service.

C. The amounts of water reasonably necessary from District supplies for service of the urban or domestic demand needs and the needs of agricultural or open space uses of the Specific Plan area must be limited to the amounts of water which have been historically made available to the whole development area and not increase demands upon the District supplies or the groundwater supplies and resources sustained by the District service within the area. A condition of the service by the District will be the specifications of crops, uses or non-uses on areas not to be developed for urban uses, and specification of the landscaping, urban consumption standards and enforcement tools within urban use areas such as building standards and landscaping requirements which will assure that the amounts of water to be utilized from either groundwater or District supplies will be limited to the amounts historically supplied by the District and still available to the District.

D. The Project will need to fund all District capital expenses and all operation and maintenance costs during development buildout as identified in the project approval documents and as modified by any final engineering plans or MGV Specific Plan project changes. For example, the installation and operation of the potable and non-potable water distribution system and associated facilities, water treatment plant, water storage tanks, etc.

E. The Project will also need to commit to funding incremental operational expenses by the establishment of a Stand-by District under the Mello-Roos Act, Irrigation District Improvement District, or similar instrument. For example, in the first few years of service, the drinking water system will have a certain cost of operations but, the customer base may only be a fraction of the ultimate customer base. As such, the Stand-by District would be assigned the increment of operational expenses not covered by the first few customers. The Stand-by District would sunset when the new customers are covering the basic operational expenses of the drinking water system.

F. Fire flow demands and ability to serve particular areas deserves additional discussion along with the costs to do so. The end result may be a combination of both system fire flow capacity supplemented by on-site storage for some areas. The fire flow demands as well as how landscaping water is handled will drive the size of the water storage tanks.

G. Provide a development agreement between the Developer and District to document the conditions and requirements.

Packet Page 675 of 1251Attachment 6 Page 16 of 17

Page 4 of 4 ends

Water service provided pursuant to this conditional will-serve commitment remains subject to written, mutual agreement as to all conditions and to the District rules and regulations as they may be revised from time to time. This conditional commitment, of course, requires good faith of all parties in attempting to implement its general outlines into the form of specific, enforceable and feasible measures in the form of detailed written agreements. Therefore, this communication should not be viewed as one inviting detrimental reliance by any landowners within the area or those individuals proposing development of land, and should not be considered to be assignable, transferrable, or a commitment that may not be modifiable or subject to withdrawal. Until those specific and comprehensive written agreements can be prepared and executed with a full knowledge of all relevant facts, laws and other considerations, this letter should instead be considered as a proposal which may be pursued by interested parties in a timely fashion but which must be placed in a more specific written form to have binding effect. Upon deposit with District of its estimated costs of analyzing and studying mutually identified issues, the District will be happy to undertake that work so authorized. We look forward to discussing the options further and moving forward with the project.

Sincerely,

Paul Fuchslin, P.E.

Director of Engineering

Cc: Anthony Russo
Paul R. Minasian, Esq
Bill Emlen

Packet Page 676 of 1251Attachment 6 Page 17 of 17

Agenda Item No: 20.

AGENDA REPORT
DATE:August 16, 2022
TO:Mayor and City Council
FROM:David Gassaway, Interim City Manager
SUBJECT:Public Hearing;
and Resolution 2022216 of the City Council of the City of Fairfield [Approving/Sustaining] [Denying/Overruling] the Appeal of the Revocation of Business License Number 21001161 Belonging to Auto Service and Towing, Located at 1350 North Texas Street, Fairfield, CA
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Hold public haring and adopt resolution.

STATEMENT OF ISSUE
The Fairfield Municipal Code allows the holder of a City business license to appeal the revocation of their license to the council. Fairfield Municipal Code section 10B.33 requires the council to conduct a hearing and approve/sustain or deny/overrule the appeal.

DISCUSSION
On May 31, 2022, the City of Fairfield revoked business license #21001161 belonging to Auto Service and Towing located at 1350 North Texas. The owner of Auto Service and Towing, (dba, “Payless Towing”), Mr. Mubasher Chudhery has appealed the revocation of his City business license #21001161 and asked for the date of August 16, 2022, at 6:00 PM during the regularly scheduled City Council meeting to have the appeal heard.

On July 19, 2022, the council passed Resolution 2022177, setting the appeal of the revocation of business license #21001161 for August 16, 2022, at 6:00 PM during the regularly scheduled City Council meeting.

The council is required to hold a hearing on this matter and approve or deny the appeal brought by Auto Service and Towing.

Fairfield Municipal Code 10B.33 states:
10B.33 Appeal to council; findings conclusive.

Packet Page 677 of 1251

Agenda Item No: 20.AGENDA REPORTDATE:August 16, 2022 TO:Mayor and City CouncilFROM:David Gassaway, Interim City ManagerSUBJECT:Public Hearing;and Resolution 2022216 of the City Council of the City of Fairfield[Approving/Sustaining] [Denying/Overruling] the Appeal of the Revocation of BusinessLicense Number 21001161 Belonging to Auto Service and Towing, Located at 1350North Texas Street, Fairfield, CARECOMMENDED ACTIONHold public haring and adopt resolution.STATEMENT OF ISSUEThe Fairfield Municipal Code allows the holder of a City business license to appeal the revocation oftheir license to the council. Fairfield Municipal Code section 10B.33 requires the council to conduct ahearing and approve/sustain or deny/overrule the appeal.DISCUSSIONOn May 31, 2022, the City of Fairfield revoked business license #21001161 belonging to Auto Serviceand Towing located at 1350 North Texas. The owner of Auto Service and Towing, (dba, “PaylessTowing”), Mr. Mubasher Chudhery has appealed the revocation of his City business license #21001161and asked for the date of August 16, 2022, at 6:00 PM during the regularly scheduled City Councilmeeting to have the appeal heard. On July 19, 2022, the council passed Resolution 2022177, setting the appeal of the revocation ofbusiness license #21001161 for August 16, 2022, at 6:00 PM during the regularly scheduled CityCouncil meeting. The council is required to hold a hearing on this matter and approve or deny the appeal brought by AutoService and Towing. Fairfield Municipal Code 10B.33 states:
10B.33 Appeal to council; findings conclusive.

Any person aggrieved by any decision of the collector with respect to the issuance or denial of a license, the revocation of a license, or the amount of a license tax may appeal to the council by filing a notice of appeal with the collector within fifteen days of such decision. The notice of appeal shall describe the reason why the decision of the collector should be reversed or modified. The council shall fix a time and place for hearing such appeal and the collector shall give notice in writing to such person of the time and place of hearing by serving it personally or by depositing it in the post office in the city, postage prepaid, addressed to such person at the address appearing on his last license or application.

If a timely appeal is filed, the effect of the decision of the collector shall be stayed until the appeal is decided by the council. The findings of the council shall be final and conclusive and shall be served upon the applicant in the manner prescribed above for service of notice of hearing.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
N/A
PUBLIC CONTACT/ADVISORY BODY RECOMMENDATION
N/A
ALTERNATIVE ACTION
By operation of the Municipal Code, the council must set a date and time to hear the appeal of the business license holder. The council may choose the date and time and are not bound to set the hearing on August 16, 2022.

STAFF CONTACT
David Lim, City Attorney
[email protected]
(415) 4218484
COORDINATED WITH
Finance Department, Police Department
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Attachment 1: Proposed Resolution
Attachment 2: Hearing Packet
REVIEWERS:

Reviewer Action Date
Beavers, Esther Approved 8/2/2022 12:00 PM
Packet Page 678 of 1251

RESOLUTION NO. 2022-216

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAIRFIELD [APPROVING/SUSTAINING] [DENYING/OVERRULING] THE APPEAL OF THE REVOCATION OF BUSINESS LICENSE NUMBER 21001161 BELONGING TO AUTO SERVICE AND TOWING, LOCATED AT 1350 NORTH TEXAS STREET, FAIRFIELD, CA

WHEREAS, on or about May 31, 2022, the City of Fairfield revoked business license number 21001161 belonging to Auto Service and Towing (dba Payless Towing) located at 1350 North Texas Street in the City of Fairfield, State of California; and

WHEREAS, Fairfield Municipal Code section 10B.33 states, “Any person aggrieved by any decision of the collector with respect to the issuance or denial of a license, the revocation of a license, or the amount of a license tax may appeal to the council by filing a notice of appeal with the collector within fifteen days of such decision. The notice of appeal shall describe the reason why the decision of the collector should be reversed or modified ;” and

WHEREAS, Auto Service and Towing (dba, Payless Towing) has timely exercised their right of appeal to the City Council through delivery to the City requesting an appeal of the revocation of their license on June 9, 2022; and

WHEREAS, Fairfield Municipal Code section 10B.33 requires the City Council to “fix a time and place for hearing such appeal and the collector shall give notice in writing to such person of the time and place of hearing by serving it personally or by depositing it in the post office in the city, postage prepaid, addressed to such person at the address appearing on his last license or application;” and

WHEREAS, the City Council set a hearing date on the appeal of the revocation of business license number 21001161 for August 16, 2022, by passing Resolution 2022-177; and

WHEREAS, the City Council has held the hearing on the appeal of the revocation of business license number 21001161 by hearing and considering sworn testimony from all parties wishing to be heard and receiving and considering all evidence lawfully admitted before it.

Packet Page 679 of 1251Attachment 1 Page 1 of 2

RES. NO. 2022-216

Page 2 ends

NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAIRFIELD HEREBY RESOLVES:

Section 1. The City Council finds that the appeal brought by Auto Service and Towing regarding the revocation of business license 21001161 is:

______ Approved/Sustained (Business license is not revoked)

______ Denied/Overruled (Business license is revoked)

Section 2. The collector for the City of Fairfield is authorized to do all things proper and necessary consistent with the findings of this resolution.

Section 3. The findings of the City Council are final and conclusive.

Section 4. A copy of this resolution shall be served on the business license holder by serving it personally or by depositing it in the post office in the city, postage prepaid, addressed to such person at the address appearing on h is last license or application within 10 business days of this hearing. The City Clerk is directed to keep a copy of the proof of service.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 16th day of August, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: PRICE / BERTANI / MOY / PANDURO / TIMM / TONNESEN / VACCARO

NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

MAYOR

ATTEST:

____________________________

CITY CLERK

Packet Page 680 of 1251Attachment 1 Page 2 of 2

6/21/22, 1:20 PM Business Search
https://eservices.fairfield.ca.gov/HdlWeb/Search/SearchBy 1/1 Home Report a Problem
Business Search
Search By:Business Name Value:auto service and towing Specify Start Date Range (Optional)
Account #Business Name Start Date Expire Date Address Phone Website 21001161 Auto Service and Towing 11/1/2021 12/31/2022 1350 N TEXAS ST, FAIRFIELD, CA 94533-5662
(888) 542-6400
Total records found: 1
-->
SearchSearch
0001Packet Page 681 of 1251Attachment 2 Page 1 of 26

0002Packet Page 682 of 1251Attachment 2 Page 2 of 26

0003Packet Page 683 of 1251Attachment 2 Page 3 of 26

0004Packet Page 684 of 1251Attachment 2 Page 4 of 26

0005Packet Page 685 of 1251Attachment 2 Page 5 of 26

0006Packet Page 686 of 1251Attachment 2 Page 6 of 26

0007Packet Page 687 of 1251Attachment 2 Page 7 of 26

0008Packet Page 688 of 1251Attachment 2 Page 8 of 26

0009Packet Page 689 of 1251Attachment 2 Page 9 of 26

0010Packet Page 690 of 1251Attachment 2 Page 10 of 26

0011Packet Page 691 of 1251Attachment 2 Page 11 of 26

0012Packet Page 692 of 1251Attachment 2 Page 12 of 26

0013Packet Page 693 of 1251Attachment 2 Page 13 of 26

0014Packet Page 694 of 1251Attachment 2 Page 14 of 26

0015Packet Page 695 of 1251Attachment 2 Page 15 of 26

0016Packet Page 696 of 1251Attachment 2 Page 16 of 26

0017Packet Page 697 of 1251Attachment 2 Page 17 of 26

0018Packet Page 698 of 1251Attachment 2 Page 18 of 26

0019Packet Page 699 of 1251Attachment 2 Page 19 of 26

0020Packet Page 700 of 1251Attachment 2 Page 20 of 26

0021Packet Page 701 of 1251Attachment 2 Page 21 of 26

Agenda Item No.____
Agenda Report
DATE:July 19, 2022
TO:The Mayor and City Council
FROM:David G. Lim, City Attorney
SUBJECT:Resolution 2022-xxx of the City Council of the City of Fairfield Setting A Hearing for August 16, 2022 Re: Appeal of Revocation of Business License #21001161 for Auto Service and Towing Pursuant to Chapter 10 of the Fairfield Municipal Code

RECOMMENDED ACTION
The City Council is asked to set a hearing date on an appeal of revocation of business license #21001161 for Auto and Service Towing.

STATEMENT OF ISSUE
The Fairfield Municipal Code allows the holder of a City business license to appeal the revocation of their license to the City Council. Fairfield Municipal Code section 10B.33 requires the City Council to set a time and place for the hearing.

DISCUSSION
On May 31, 2022, the City of Fairfield revoked business license #21001161 belonging to Auto Service and Towing located at 1350 North Texas. The owner of Auto Service and Towing, (dba, “Payless Towing”) has appealed the revocation of his City business license #21001161 and has asked for the date of August 16, 2022 at 6:00 PM during the normal City Council meeting to have the appeal heard.

Staff recommends the City Council set the appeal of the revocation of business license #21001161 on August 16, 2022 at 6:00 PM during the normal City Council meeting. 0022Packet Page 702 of 1251Attachment 2 Page 22 of 26

FINANCIAL IMPACT
The financial impact is minimal, as the hearing will take place during a regularly scheduled City Council meeting.

PUBLIC CONTACT/ADVISORY BODY RECOMMENDATION
None.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION
By operation of the Municipal Code, the City Council must set a date and time to hear the appeal of the business license holder. The City Council can choose whatever date and time they like, and are not bound to set the hearing on August 16, 2022.

DOCUMENTS ATTACHED
Attachment 1: Resolution 2022-xxx

STAFF CONTACT
David Lim, City Attorney
Phone number: (415) 421-8484
E-mail address: [email protected]
Coordinated with: Finance Department
0023Packet Page 703 of 1251Attachment 2 Page 23 of 26

CITY OF FAIRFIELD
RESOLUTION NO. 2022-_____
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAIRFIELD… [INSERT TITLE, CALIBRI 12 FONT, CENTER & BOLD THE TITLE, FULLY JUSTIFIED MARGINS ON BOTH SIDES OF THE DOCUMENT TEXT]
WHEREAS, On May 31, 2022 the City of Fairfield revoked business license number 21001161 belonging to Auto Service and Towing (dba Payless Towing) located at 1350 North Texas Street in the City of Fairfield, State of California; and
WHEREAS, Fairfield Municipal Code section 10B.33 states, “Any person aggrieved by any decision of the collector with respect to the issuance or denial of a license, the revocation of a license, or the amount of a license tax may appeal to the council by filing a notice of appeal with the collector within fifteen days of such decision. The notice of appeal shall describe the reason why the decision of the collector should be reversed or modified.”; and WHEREAS, Auto Service and Towing (dba, Payless Towing) has timely exercised their right of appeal to the City Council through delivery to the City requesting an appeal of the revocation of their license on June 9, 2022; and
WHEREAS, Fairfield Municipal Code section 10B.33 requires the City Council to “fix a time and place for hearing such appeal and the collector shall give notice in writing to such person of the time and place of hearing by serving it personally or by depositing it in the post office in the city, postage prepaid, addressed to such person at the address appearing on his last license or application.”; and
WHEREAS, Fairfield Municipal Code section 10B.33 states “ If a timely appeal is filed, the effect of the decision of the collector shall be stayed until the appeal is decided by the council;” NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAIRFIELD HEREBY RESOLVES:

Section 1. A hearing on the revocation of business license number 21001161 belonging to Auto Service and Towing (dba Payless Towing), located at 1350 North Texas Street in the City of Fairfield, State of California shall be fixed for August 16, 2022 at the regular meeting of the Fairfield City Council which begins at 6:00 PM. The hearing shall be heard at any time during the regular meeting of the City Council and does not need to begin at 6:00 PM. 0024Packet Page 704 of 1251Attachment 2 Page 24 of 26

RES. NO. 2021-_____

Page 2 ends

Section 2. The collector for the City of Fairfield or their authorized representative shall give notice in writing to the authorized representative of Auto Service and Towing of the time and place of the hearing by serving it personally or by depositing it in the post office in the city, postage prepaid, addressed to the person at the address appearing on the last license or application. Notice shall also be given to the attorney of the appellant, if applicable.

Section 3. The revocation of business license number 21001161 is hereby stayed until the appeal is decided by the City Council.

Section 4. The Collector and City Staff are authorized to do all things proper and necessary to prepare for the appeal hearing on August 16, 2022.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this ______ day of ___________________, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCILMEMBERS: PRICE / BERTANI / MOY / PANDURO / TIMM / TONNESEN / VACCARO NOES: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCILMEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCILMEMBERS:

MAYOR
ATTEST:
____________________________

CITY CLERK
0025Packet Page 705 of 1251Attachment 2 Page 25 of 26

RES. NO. 2021-_____

Page 3 ends

0026Packet Page 706 of 1251Attachment 2 Page 26 of 26

Agenda Item No: 21.

AGENDA REPORT
DATE:August 16, 2022
TO:Mayor and City Council
FROM:David Gassaway, Interim City Manager
SUBJECT:Public Hearing;
and First Reading and Introduction of Ordinance 202209 of the City Council of the City of Fairfield Amending Chapter 27, Article X, Section 27.1104 of the Fairfield Municipal Code, Also Known as the City of Fairfield Community Preservation, to Establish the Regulations of Vacant Window Storefronts in the Downtown RECOMMENDED ACTION
Hold public hearing; waive full reading, read by title only, and introduce ordinance for first reading.

STATEMENT OF ISSUE
The proposed ordinance amendment to Chapter 27, Article X, Section 27.1104: Community Preservation of the Fairfield Municipal Code (Code) mandates certain window displays in vacant commercial spaces in the downtown and downtown core district. Further, it provides Code compliance guidelines for property owners and establishes the administration of the guidelines.

DISCUSSION
Poorly kept storefronts of vacant commercial spaces downtown leads to visual blight. Blight attracts qualityoflife issues resulting in trespassing, squatting, trash, debris, and graffiti. These issues discourage pedestrian activity, particularly when visible in public rightsofways and public places.

Current language exists under Chapter 27, Article X, of the Code that addresses neglected vacant and foreclosed properties throughout the City of Fairfield. However, there is no codified language specific to vacant commercial properties and their storefront windows in downtown Fairfield.

The council identified the revitalization of downtown Fairfield as a priority. To achieve this objective, the council directed City staff to implement a series of strategies under the Heart of Fairfield Specific Plan that includes cultivating downtown as the food and arts district of the city. To accomplish this, City staff from the Police Department and the Economic Development Division recognized the need for the City to codify language and create processes to support revitalization and enforcement efforts.

Enforcement of minimum standards on vacant commercial spaces downtown is critical to revitalizing the district. Poorly maintained properties deter prospective tenants, prolong vacancy, drain limited public safety resources when qualityoflife issues become chronic, discourage pedestrian activity and Packet Page 707 of 1251

The proposed ordinance establishes four modes of compliance for property owners. The guidelines apply to the storefront windows of vacant commercial properties downtown. These properties are required to display one of the following types of displays:

1. Faux window dressings containing goods or services with the appearance of a vibrant business using background panels or other methods to screen views of the vacant commercial space from public rightsofway and public places.

2. Works of art, including paintings or sculptures or other displays of cultural, historical, seasonal, or educational value, utilizing colorful and vibrant materials, and using background panels or other methods to screen views of the vacant commercial space from the public rightsofway and public places.

3. Paintings applied directly to the window surface featuring visually appealing, colorful, vibrant scenes, shapes, or images visible from public rightsofway and public places.

4. Other measures approved by the city manager, or their designee in writing, that achieve the purposes of this article to avoid visual blight in the downtown and downtown core district and to enliven pedestrian experiences there.

Under the proposed ordinance, property owners must notify the City within 30 days of any building or structure becoming vacant. Property owners must then submit an action plan to the City, within 10 days of notification of vacancy, describing their proposed window display in compliance with one of the categories prescribed above. The city manager, or their designee, acts as the approving authority to determine if the action plan meets the requirements of the proposed code change. The community development staff will work with property owners, as necessary, to assist with compliance.

The Code Enforcement Division will help to enforce noncompliance with the new provisions of the proposed ordinance. The goal of Code Enforcement is to broker compliance as opposed to issuing citations. The ultimate objective of this proposed amendment is to support the City’s strategies to revitalize downtown and prevent public safety issues that can arise from vacant commercial spaces.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
There is no direct financial impact on the adoption of the proposed ordinance. However, the City may potentially provide nominal financial assistance through the Public Art Fund to support property owners in reaching compliance. First, the City will provide a variety of options that are either no cost or low cost to the owner. This may involve City staff facilitating an arrangement between property owners and individual artists or artists groups to feature their work and meet compliance. Further, if property owners submit an action plan that satisfies the objective of the ordinance to revitalize downtown Fairfield and activate public art, the City may match a percentage or reimburse the total cost of the proposed installations.

PUBLIC CONTACT/ADVISORY BODY RECOMMENDATION
A public hearing notice was published in the Daily Republic newspaper on Friday, July 8, 2022. The City has received no questions or comments regarding this proposal at the time of this writing.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION
Packet Page 708 of 1251

Agenda Item No: 21.AGENDA REPORTDATE:August 16, 2022 TO:Mayor and City CouncilFROM:David Gassaway, Interim City ManagerSUBJECT:Public Hearing; and First Reading and Introduction of Ordinance 202209 of the City Council of the Cityof Fairfield Amending Chapter 27, Article X, Section 27.1104 of the Fairfield MunicipalCode, Also Known as the City of Fairfield Community Preservation, to Establish theRegulations of Vacant Window Storefronts in the DowntownRECOMMENDED ACTIONHold public hearing; waive full reading, read by title only, and introduce ordinance for first reading.STATEMENT OF ISSUEThe proposed ordinance amendment to Chapter 27, Article X, Section 27.1104: CommunityPreservation of the Fairfield Municipal Code (Code) mandates certain window displays in vacantcommercial spaces in the downtown and downtown core district. Further, it provides Code complianceguidelines for property owners and establishes the administration of the guidelines.DISCUSSIONPoorly kept storefronts of vacant commercial spaces downtown leads to visual blight. Blight attractsqualityoflife issues resulting in trespassing, squatting, trash, debris, and graffiti. These issuesdiscourage pedestrian activity, particularly when visible in public rightsofways and public places.Current language exists under Chapter 27, Article X, of the Code that addresses neglected vacant andforeclosed properties throughout the City of Fairfield. However, there is no codified language specific tovacant commercial properties and their storefront windows in downtown Fairfield. The council identified the revitalization of downtown Fairfield as a priority. To achieve this objective, thecouncil directed City staff to implement a series of strategies under the Heart of Fairfield Specific Planthat includes cultivating downtown as the food and arts district of the city. To accomplish this, City stafffrom the Police Department and the Economic Development Division recognized the need for the Cityto codify language and create processes to support revitalization and enforcement efforts. Enforcement of minimum standards on vacant commercial spaces downtown is critical to revitalizingthe district. Poorly maintained properties deter prospective tenants, prolong vacancy, drain limitedpublic safety resources when qualityoflife issues become chronic, discourage pedestrian activity andpatronage, and hinder future economic activity and investment. Implementing standards for vacantwindow storefronts is one strategy to proactively abate blight and improve public perception of safetydowntown. The proposed ordinance establishes four modes of compliance for property owners. The guidelinesapply to the storefront windows of vacant commercial properties downtown. These properties arerequired to display one of the following types of displays:1. Faux window dressings containing goods or services with the appearance of a vibrant businessusing background panels or other methods to screen views of the vacant commercial space frompublic rightsofway and public places.2. Works of art, including paintings or sculptures or other displays of cultural, historical, seasonal, oreducational value, utilizing colorful and vibrant materials, and using background panels or othermethods to screen views of the vacant commercial space from the public rightsofway and publicplaces.3. Paintings applied directly to the window surface featuring visually appealing, colorful, vibrantscenes, shapes, or images visible from public rightsofway and public places.4. Other measures approved by the city manager, or their designee in writing, that achieve thepurposes of this article to avoid visual blight in the downtown and downtown core district and toenliven pedestrian experiences there.Under the proposed ordinance, property owners must notify the City within 30 days of any building orstructure becoming vacant. Property owners must then submit an action plan to the City, within 10 daysof notification of vacancy, describing their proposed window display in compliance with one of thecategories prescribed above. The city manager, or their designee, acts as the approving authority todetermine if the action plan meets the requirements of the proposed code change. The communitydevelopment staff will work with property owners, as necessary, to assist with compliance. The Code Enforcement Division will help to enforce noncompliance with the new provisions of theproposed ordinance. The goal of Code Enforcement is to broker compliance as opposed to issuingcitations. The ultimate objective of this proposed amendment is to support the City’s strategies torevitalize downtown and prevent public safety issues that can arise from vacant commercial spaces. FINANCIAL IMPACTThere is no direct financial impact on the adoption of the proposed ordinance. However, the City maypotentially provide nominal financial assistance through the Public Art Fund to support property ownersin reaching compliance. First, the City will provide a variety of options that are either no cost or low costto the owner. This may involve City staff facilitating an arrangement between property owners andindividual artists or artists groups to feature their work and meet compliance. Further, if property ownerssubmit an action plan that satisfies the objective of the ordinance to revitalize downtown Fairfield andactivate public art, the City may match a percentage or reimburse the total cost of the proposedinstallations.PUBLIC CONTACT/ADVISORY BODY RECOMMENDATIONA public hearing notice was published in the Daily Republic newspaper on Friday, July 8, 2022. The Cityhas received no questions or comments regarding this proposal at the time of this writing.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION
The council may choose not to adopt the proposed ordinance, adopt portions of the ordinance regarding the definitions or requirements, or direct City staff to return with revisions to the ordinance.

STAFF CONTACT
Jonathan, Luong
(707) 4287463
[email protected]
COORDINATED WITH
City Attorney's Office, Community Development Department, Police Department ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Proposed Ordinance
Action Plan Form
REVIEWERS:

Reviewer Action Date
Beavers, Esther Approved 8/1/2022 5:15 PM
Packet Page 709 of 1251

CITY OF FAIRFIELD

ORDINANCE NO. 2022-09

ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAIRFIELD AMENDING CHAPTER 27 ARTICLE X, SECTION 27.1104 OF THE FAIRFIELD MUNICIPAL CODE, ALSO KNOWN AS THE CITY

OF FAIRFIELD COMMUNITY PRESERVATION, TO ESTABLISH THE REGULATIONS OF VACANT

WINDOW STOREFRONTS IN THE DOWNTOWN

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAIRFIELD DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

SECTION 1. Chapter 27, Article X, Section 27.1104 of the Fairfield Municipal Code, also known as the City of Fairfield Community Preservation, is hereby amended as follows, with additions in underline and deletions in strikethrough text:

“27.1104 Repealed. (Ord. 2008-11 § 1; Ord. 2008-10 § 1.) Vacant Window Storefronts

(a) Purpose. This section mandates window displays for vacant commercial spaces within the downtown and downtown core district as defined in Section 25.23.1(A) and provides for the submission of action plans to the city manager or their designee for approval of window displays before they are installed.

(b) Applicability. This chapter applies to any building or structure in the downtown and downtown core district unless otherwise stated, including, but not limited to, properties that have been the subject of a foreclosure sale wherein title has been transferred to the beneficiary of a deed of trust, and to any properties transferred under a deed in lieu of foreclosure or sale. All responsible parties as to such buildings and structures shall comply with this section.

(c) Administration. The city manager or their designee shall administer this section and may adopt administrative rules and regulations consistent with its terms to aid in doing so. They shall give notices of such rules or regulations as required for an ordinance of the city and such rules or regulations shall take effect upon such notice or at such later times as they may specify.

(d) Action Plan. A responsible agent shall contact the office of the city manager or their designee within thirty days of the date that any building or structure contains vacant commercial space to coordinate any future requirements for tenant improvements.

Within ten days of the conclusion of this contact, the responsible agent shall submit an action plan to the city manager or their designee. The action plan shall describe:

Packet Page 710 of 1251Attachment 1 Page 1 of 4

ORD. NO. 2022-09

Page 2 ends

1. The proposed window display; and

2. How the proposed window display falls within one or more of the types of displays described in Section 27.1104(k)(1)—(4); and

3. Any other information the city manager or their designee reasonably requests to aid the administration of this section including, but not limited to, what is defined in Section 27.1107(A) of this article.

(e) The city manager or their designee shall approve or deny action plans in writing. If the city manager or their designee denies an action plan, he or she shall provide the reasons for denial and describe modifications which would make the action plan comply with this article.

(f) If the city manager or their designee approves an action plan, a responsible agent shall install the proposed window display within thirty days of the date of the approval.

(g) If the city manager or their designee denies an action plan, a responsible agent shall either:

1. Implement the action plan with the modifications proposed by the city manager or their designee within thirty days of the date of their denial; or

2. Submit a revised action plan within ten days of the date of the denial by the city manager or their designee.

(h) If the city manager or their designee approves a revised action plan, a responsible agent shall install the proposed window display within twenty days of the date of their approval of the revised action plan.

(i) If the city manager or their designee denies a revised action plan, a responsible agent must implement the original action plan as proposed by the city manager or their designee within twenty days of the date of the denial of the revised action plan.

(j) This chapter shall not apply to a vacant commercial space of a building or structure if the window display area space is the subject of an active, valid building permit for repair or rehabilitation and a responsible agent provides proof to the city manager or their designee, such as receipts, invoices or executed contracts, that the repair or rehabilitation is proceeding without significant delay.

Packet Page 711 of 1251Attachment 1 Page 2 of 4

ORD. NO. 2022-09

Page 3 ends

(k) Window displays for vacant commercial spaces. Each responsible agent as to a vacant commercial space shall maintain at least one of the following types of displays on or inside all ground-floor windows visible from public rights-of-way or public places:

3. Paintings applied directly to the window surface featuring visually appealing, colorful, vibrant scenes, shapes, or images visible from public rights -of-way and public places; or

4. Other measures approved by the city manager or their designee in writing that achieve the purposes of this article, to avoid visual blight in the downtown and downtown core district and to enliven pedestrian experiences.

(l) Displays should occupy at least eighty percent of the window area. No window display is required for a vacant commercial space when a responsible agent has submitted an action plan or revised action plan for that vacant commercial space, and is otherwise in compliance with implementation requirements described in Section 27.1104 of this Code.

(m) Updated designs for window displays. A responsible agent shall submit a renewed action plan every six months while the space remains vacant. Each renewed action plan shall propose a new window display design for the vacant commercial space that complies with Section 27.1104 of this article so as to freshen the display’s appearance from public rights-of-way and public places.

Packet Page 712 of 1251Attachment 1 Page 3 of 4

ORD. NO. 2022-09

Page 4 ends

SECTION 2. This ordinance shall be effective 30 days following its adoption by the City Council.

A summary of this ordinance shall, within 15 days after passage, be published in accordance with Section 36933 of the Government Code of the State of California with the names of the council members voting for and against it.

INTRODUCED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Fairfield on the 16th day of August, 2022, and

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 6th day of September, 2022, by the following vote:

AYES: Councilmembers: PRICE / BERTANI / MOY / PANDURO / TIMM / TONNESEN / VACCARO

NOES: Councilmembers:

ABSENT: Councilmembers:

ABSTAIN: Councilmembers:

MAYOR
ATTEST:

_________________________

CITY CLERK

Packet Page 713 of 1251Attachment 1 Page 4 of 4

ACTION PLAN FORM

VACANT WINDOW STOREFRONTS

Date:

SECTION A. A responsible agent shall contact the
office of the city manager or their designee within
thirty days of the date that any building or
structure contains vacant commercial space to
coordinate any future requirements for tenant
improvements. Within ten days of the conclusion
of this contact, the responsible agent shall submit
an action plan to the city manager or their
designee.

Property Address:

Name of Responsible Agent:

The action plan shall describe:

• The proposed window display; and
• How the proposed window display falls within one or more types of displays in Section B. • Any other information the City reasonably requests to aid the administration of this section.

SECTION B. Each responsible agent as to a vacant commercial space shall maintain at least one of the following types of displays on or inside all ground-floor windows visible from public rights-of-way or public places:

3. Paintings applied directly to the window surface featuring visually appealing, colorful, vibrant scenes, shapes, or images visible from public rights-of-way and public places; or

Packet Page 714 of 1251Attachment 2 Page 1 of 2

SECTION C1. Describe your proposal for window display:

SECTION C2. How does the proposed window display fall within one or more of the types of displays defined in Section B?

SECTION C3. Additional information:

OFFICE USE ONLY

Date:

X
City Manager, or Designee

Packet Page 715 of 1251Attachment 2 Page 2 of 2

Agenda Item No: 22.

AGENDA REPORT
DATE:August 16, 2022
TO:Mayor and City Council
FROM:David Gassaway, Interim City Manager
SUBJECT:Public hearings; and
Resolutions 2022217 to 2022232 of the City Council of the City of Fairfield Approving the Fiscal Year 20222023 Engineer’s Reports, Confirming the Fiscal Year 20222023 Diagrams and Assessments, and Ordering the Fiscal Year 20222023 Improvements for Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance Districts No. 1 – Gateway, No. 3 – Waterman Highlands, No. 5 – Smith Ranch, No. 6 – Peppertree, No. 7 – Rolling Hills, No. 8 – Kolob Estates, No. 10 – Southbrook, No. 11 – Paradise Valley North, No. 12 – Downtown Business District, No. 13 – North Cordelia, No. 14 – Woodlake, No. 15 – Gold Ridge, No. 16 – Creekside at Cordelia, No. 17 – ChadbourneBeckCordelia, No. 18 – Gold Ridge Park, and No. 19 – Corporate Commons
RECOMMENDED ACTION
Hold public hearing and adopt resolutions.

STATEMENT OF ISSUE
The adoption of these resolutions will approve the fiscal year (FY) 20222023 engineer’s reports, confirm the FY 20222023 diagrams and assessments, and order the FY 20222023 improvements for 16 landscaping and lighting maintenance districts (LLMDs).

DISCUSSION
The City formed LLMD Nos. 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19 (Districts) between 1984, and 2010, under the State of California Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, Streets and Highways Code Section 22500, et seq. (Act), to provide a funding source for the maintenance of landscaping and lighting improvements within the various development areas.

On July 5, 2022, City Council adopted Resolution Nos. 2022156 through 2022171 granting preliminary approval of FY 20222023 engineer’s reports, declaring intention to order the levy and collection of assessments, and providing notice of a public hearing for all 16 landscaping and lighting maintenance districts. The public hearing was set for July 19, 2022. At the July 19, 2022, public hearing, all interested persons were given an opportunity to hear and be heard regarding protests and Packet Page 716 of 1251

Due to the threat of litigation by several district property owners, the council rescheduled the public hearing to a later date pending a closed session meeting with the city attorney.

On July 29, 2022, the council held a special meeting and adopted Resolution Nos. 2022182 through 2022197 granting preliminary approval of FY 20222023 engineer’s reports, declaring intention to order the levy and collection of assessments, and providing notice of a continued public hearing for all 16 landscaping and lighting maintenance districts. The continued public hearing was set for August 16, 2022, and notice thereof was published on August 3, 2022, at least 10 days prior to the hearing. The Solano County Auditor granted the City a formal extension of the deadline to submit the FY 20222023 tax rolls from August 10, 2022, to August 17, 2022.

As described below, the FY 20222023 assessment amounts for each of the districts is set at or below, as applicable, (1) the assessment amount adopted at the time the district was formed, (2) the assessment amount or range adopted after the district was formed, but prior to the passage of Proposition 218 in 1996, or (3) the assessment amount or range adopted in accordance with Proposition 218 proceedings. Accordingly, Proposition 218 balloting proceedings were not undertaken in connection with the levy of the FY 20222023 annual assessments. The following summaries describe the proposed FY 20222023 annual assessments and any applicable rate adjustments for each district.

LLMD No. 1 – Gateway:The FY 20222023 assessments for the Gateway district are proposed to increase approximately 11% from the FY 20212022 rates to the maximum allowable rate for each parcel established in 1995. Assessment rates for each parcel vary depending on parcel size.

The total proposed revenue for this district is $205,971, which includes assessments of $205,965 and interest of $6. The special projects for this district include landscape repair.

While the annual authorized maximum assessments for the Gateway district have remained unchanged since 1995, the district’s operation and maintenance costs have increased due to general inflation over time. The district would be projected to have a fund balance deficit of approximately $170,000 by the end of FY 20222023 if services were to be provided at the current levels. In previous fiscal years when a budget deficit existed, assessment revenues were supplemented with funds from the district’s unreserved fund balance. However, because the unreserved fund balance has been reduced over time, the district is projected to close FY 20212022 with an overall deficit of ($29,710). Pursuant to the Streets and Highways Code Section 22656, the deficit will be carried forward to FY 20222023. To prevent such deficit in FY 20222023, the FY 20222023 engineer’s report reflects an approximate 75% reduction in the landscaping services and irrigation budget from FY 20212022 levels.

On April 19, 2022, City staff informed council of the projected deficit and was granted authorization to propose to the district property owners a onetime General Fund loan, issued at 0% interest with a five year repayment term, as a shortterm solution. Staff engaged the district property owners in June and July 2022, via mailed flyer to inform them of the proposed loan and requested that they affirm their support for, or opposition to, the loan by taking a short online survey posted at www.civicmic.com/city of fairfield/. The website also disclosed historical and current information regarding the district’s formation, legal requirements, operations, and financial position. On August 16, 2022, staff will provide council with the results of the property owner engagement and receive council’s direction regarding the issuance of the loan and any applicable budget adjustments and increases to landscape and irrigation services.

Packet Page 717 of 1251

The City will continue to engage with the property owners regarding future services and assessment rates, and will conduct a Proposition 218 balloting process during FY 20222023.

LLMD No. 3 – Waterman Highlands:The FY 20222023 assessment for the Waterman Highlands district is proposed to remain at the FY 20212022 rate of $195 per parcel. The assessment is the maximum rate allowable by the district’s adopted assessment range established in 1996.

The total proposed revenue for this district is $60,194, which includes assessments of $47,190, a General Fund contribution of $13,000, and interest of $4. The special projects for this district include landscape renovation and repair.

While the annual authorized maximum assessments for the Waterman Highlands district have remained unchanged since 1996, the district’s operation and maintenance costs have increased due to general inflation overtime. The district would be projected to have a fund balance deficit of approximately $30,000 in FY 20222023 if services were to be provided at the current levels. In previous fiscal years when a budget deficit existed, assessment revenues were supplemented with funds from the district’s unreserved fund balance. However, the district is projected to close FY 20212022 with an available fund balance of just over $93,000, which is approximately $30,000 less than the balance required to fully supplement FY 20222023 revenues. To prevent such deficit in FY 20222023, an approximate 40% reduction in the landscaping services budget and 25% reduction in the irrigation budget from FY 20212022 levels is necessary.

On April 19, 2022, City staff informed council of the projected deficit and was granted authorization to propose to the district property owners a onetime General Fund loan, issued at 0% interest with a five year repayment term, as a shortterm solution. Staff engaged the district property owners in June and July 2022, via mailed flyer and virtual community meeting to inform them of the proposed loan and requested that they affirm their support for, or opposition to, the loan by taking a short online survey posted at www.civicmic.com/city offairfield/. The site also disclosed historical and current information regarding the district’s formation, legal requirements, operations, and financial position. On August 16, 2022, City staff will provide the council with the results of the property owner engagement and receive council’s direction regarding the issuance of the loan and any applicable budget adjustments and increases to landscape and irrigation services.

The City will continue to engage with the property owners regarding future services and assessment rates, and will conduct a Proposition 218 balloting process during FY 20222023.

LLMD No. 5 – Smith Ranch (Rancho Solano):The FY 20222023 assessment for the Smith Ranch (also known as “Rancho Solano”) district is proposed to increase from the FY 20212022 rate of $570 per parcel to $663.66 per parcel. The assessment is the maximum rate allowable by the district’s adopted assessment range, which was established in 1999 and is adjusted each year by the October SFOaklandHayward Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers CPI.

The total proposed revenue for this district is $831,766, which includes assessments of $796,392, a General Fund contribution of $35,373, and interest of $1. The special projects for this district include landscape repair.

On April 19, 2022, City staff informed the council that this district is projected to have a fund balance deficit by FY 20232024 if services continued to be provided at the current levels without a property owner approved assessment rate increase. Staff reported that the City will be engaging with the property owners regarding future services and assessment rates and will conduct a Proposition 218 balloting process during FY 20222023.

Packet Page 718 of 1251

LLMD No. 6 – Peppertree:The FY 20222023 assessment for the Peppertree district is proposed to remain at the FY 20212022 rate of $60 per residential unit. The assessment is the maximum rate allowable by the district’s adopted assessment range established in 1996.

The total proposed revenue for this district is $28,320, which includes assessments of $28,320, and interest of $1. There are no special projects planned for this district.

While the annual authorized maximum assessments for the Peppertree district have remained unchanged since 1996, the district’s operation and maintenance costs have increased due to general inflation overtime. The district would be projected to have a fund balance deficit of approximately $30,000 in FY 20222023 if services were to be provided at the current levels. In previous fiscal years when a budget deficit existed, assessment revenues were supplemented with funds from the district’s unreserved fund balance. However, the district is projected to close FY 20212022 with an available fund balance of just over $63,000, which is approximately $30,000 less than the balance required to fully supplement FY 20222023 revenues. To prevent such deficit in FY 20222023, all landscaping services must cease by September 1, 2022.

On April 19, 2022, City staff informed the council of the projected deficit and was granted authorization to propose to the district property owners a onetime General Fund loan, issued at 0% interest with a fiveyear repayment term, as a shortterm solution. Staff engaged the district property owners in June and July 2022, via mailed flyer and virtual community meeting to inform them of the proposed loan and requested that they affirm their support for, or opposition to, the loan by taking a short online survey posted at www.civicmic.com/city offairfield/. The site also disclosed historical and current information regarding the district’s formation, legal requirements, operations, and financial position. On August 16, 2022, City staff will provide the council with the results of the property owner engagement and receive council’s direction regarding the issuance of the loan and any applicable budget adjustments and increases to landscape and irrigation services.

The City will continue to engage with the property owners regarding future services and assessment rates, and will conduct a Proposition 218 balloting process during FY 20222023.

LLMD No. 7 – Rolling Hills:The FY 20222023 assessments for the Rolling Hills district are proposed to remain at the FY 20212022 rates of $300 per parcel for the Rolling Hills development, and $250 per parcel for the Serpas Ranch development. These assessments are the maximum rates allowable by the district’s adopted assessment ranges. The assessments for commercial properties at the intersection of Hilborn Road and Lyon Road are proposed to increase by the October SFOaklandHayward Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers CPI.

The total proposed revenue for this district is $351,850, which includes assessments of $316,447, a General Fund contribution of $35,374, and interest of $29. There are no special projects planned for this district.

While the annual authorized maximum assessments for the Rolling Hills district have remained unchanged since the 1990s, the district’s operation and maintenance costs have increased due to general inflation overtime. The district was projected to have a fund balance deficit of approximately $81,000 by the end of FY 20212022, and an additional deficit of $364,000 by the end of FY 2022 2023 for a total deficit of $445,000 if services continued to be provided at the FY 20202021 levels. In previous fiscal years when a budget deficit existed, assessment revenues were supplemented with funds from the district’s unreserved fund balance, however, the district’s unreserved fund balance was depleted in FY 20212022.

As a shortterm solution, the council authorized an additional $35,000 General Fund contribution and Packet Page 719 of 1251

As a shortterm solution, the council authorized an additional $35,000 General Fund contribution and directed staff to propose to the Rolling Hills property owners a onetime $410,000 General Fund loan, issued at 0% interest with a fiveyear repayment term commencing in FY 20232024. Staff conducted a community engagement process, which included a virtual town hall and an online survey. The loan and additional General Fund contribution were authorized on May 3, 2022, by Resolution No. 202297, and issued in FY 20212022.

The City will continue to engage with the property owners regarding future services and assessment rates, and will conduct a Proposition 218 balloting process during FY 20222023.

LLMD No. 8 – Kolob Estates:The FY 20222023 assessment for the Kolob Estates district is proposed to remain at the FY 20212022 rate of $400 per parcel. The assessment is the maximum rate allowable by the district’s adopted assessment range established in 1994.

The total proposed revenue for this district is $53,511, which includes assessments of $52,000, a General Fund contribution of $1,040, and interest of $71. The special projects for this district include landscape renovation and repair.

On April 19, 2022, City staff informed the council that this district was projected to have a fund balance deficit in FY 20222023 if services continued to be provided at the current levels without a property owner approved assessment rate increase, however, updated projections indicate that the deficit will not occur until FY 20232024. The City will be engaging with the property owners regarding future services and assessment rates and will conduct a Proposition 218 balloting process during FY 2022 2023.

LLMD No. 10 – Southbrook:The FY 20222023 assessments for the Southbrook district are proposed to increase from the FY 20212022 rates of $215 per parcel to $235 per parcel for the original development and annexation areas 19. The FY 20212022 assessment for the Gold Hill Village 3 development, annexation no. 10, was $155.83 per lot, which was a prorated rate due to the timing of the annexation. The FY 20222023 assessment for this development is proposed at $386.26 per lot. The assessments do not exceed the maximum rates allowable by the district’s adopted assessment ranges, which are adjusted each year by the October SFOaklandHayward Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers CPI.

The total proposed revenue for this district is $545,358, which includes assessments of $532,710, a General Fund contribution of $12,485, and interest of $163. The special projects for this district include landscape renovation and repair.

LLMD No. 11 – Paradise Valley North:The FY 20222023 assessment for the Paradise Valley North district is proposed to remain at the FY 20212022 rate of $190 per residential unit. The assessment is the maximum rate allowable by the district’s adopted assessment range established in 1995.

The total proposed revenue for this district is $269,659, which includes assessments of $259,160, a General Fund contribution of $10,404, and interest of $95. There are no special projects planned for this district.

While the annual authorized maximum assessments for the Paradise Valley North district have remained unchanged since the 1995, the district’s operation and maintenance costs have increased due to general inflation overtime. The district was projected to have a fund balance deficit of approximately $40,000 by the end of FY 20212022, and an additional deficit of $142,000 by the end of FY 20222023 for a total deficit of $182,000 if services continued to be provided at the FY 20202021 levels. In previous fiscal years when a budget deficit existed, assessment revenues were supplemented with funds from the district’s unreserved fund balance, however, the district’s unreserved fund balance Packet Page 720 of 1251

As a shortterm solution, the council authorized an additional $7,000 General Fund contribution and directed staff to propose to the Paradise Valley North property owners a onetime $175,000 General Fund loan, issued at 0% interest with a fiveyear repayment term commencing in FY 20232024. City staff conducted a community engagement process, which included a virtual town hall and an online survey. The loan and additional General Fund contribution were authorized on May 3, 2022, by Resolution No. 202298, and issued in FY 20212022.

The City will continue to engage with the property owners regarding future services and assessment rates, and will conduct a Proposition 218 balloting process during FY 20222023.

LLMD No. 12 – Downtown Business District:The total FY 20222023 assessments for the District are proposed to increase approximately 2% from the total amount levied in FY 20212022. The proposed assessments for individual parcels vary by parcel size and are the maximum rates allowable by the district’s adopted assessment range established in 1997.

The total proposed revenue for this district is $62,021, which includes assessments of $62,020, and interest of $1. There are no special projects planned for this district.

In August 2021, the City hired NBS to conduct an initial review of the City’s 16 LLMDs to determine the operational and financial viability of each district. The City planned to initiate Phase 2 of the review in mid to late 2022, which will include an indepth audit of each district’s governing documents, operations, financial and budgetary projections, and administrative best practices.

Based on the results of the initial review, LLMD No. 12 was projected to have sufficient assessment revenue to sustain services and maintain an adequate fund balance reserve through at least FY 2026 2027 based on the automatic CPI adjustment to the annual assessments authorized by Resolution Nos. 1991204 and 1991205. However, in early June 2022, upon further inspection of the district’s historical governing documents, it was determined that the automatic CPI adjustment to the annual assessments authorized by Resolution Nos. 1991204 and 1991205 was superseded by Resolution Nos. 199763 and 1997144 which set static maximum annual assessments for each parcel with no automatic CPI adjustment as a result of a Proposition 218 balloting process.

Consequently, the district would be projected to have a fund balance deficit of approximately $40,000 in FY 20222023 if services were to be provided at the current levels. In previous fiscal years when a budget deficit existed, assessment revenues were supplemented with funds from the district’s unreserved fund balance. However, the district is projected to close FY 20212022 with an available fund balance of just over $87,000, which is approximately $40,000 less than the balance required to fully supplement FY 20222023 revenues. To prevent such deficit in FY 20222023, an approximate 45% reduction in the landscaping services budget and 20% reduction in the irrigation budget from FY 20212022 levels is necessary.

On July 5, 2022, City staff informed the council of the projected deficit. The council authorized City staff to propose to the district property owners a onetime General Fund loan, issued at 0% interest with a fiveyear repayment term, as a shortterm solution. City staff engaged the district property owners in July 2022, via mailed flyer and/or virtual community meeting to inform them of the proposed loan and request that they affirm their support for, or opposition to, the loan by taking a short online survey posted at www.civicmic.com/city offairfield/. The site disclosed historical and current information regarding the district’s formation, legal requirements, operations, and financial position. On August 16, 2022, City staff will provide the council with the results of the property owner engagement and receive council’s direction regarding the issuance of the loan and any applicable budget adjustments and increases to Packet Page 721 of 1251

The City will continue to engage with the property owners regarding future services and assessment rates, and will conduct a Proposition 218 balloting process during FY 20222023.

City staff has prepared a modification to the Engineer’s Report to correct and remove Assessors Parcel Number 0030236010 which was subdivided and replaced with parcels 0030236240, 0030 236250, and 0030236260, and also to remove Assessors Parcel Number 0030243010 which was subdivided and replaced with parcels 0030243170 and 0030243180. There are no changes to the overall assessment revenue for the district.

LLMD No. 13 – North Cordelia:The FY 20222023 assessments for the North Cordelia district are proposed as follows: Citation and Pulte developments are proposed to remain at the FY 20212022 rate of $180 per unit; Hidden Meadows subdivision is proposed to increase from the FY 20212022 rate of $850.45 per unit to $882.77 per unit; Village Oaks subdivision is proposed to increase from the FY 20212022 rate of $207.40 per unit to $215.28 per unit; Jayo subdivision is proposed to increase from the FY 20212022 rate of $218.31 per unit to $226.61 per unit; all other subdivisions are proposed to remain at the FY 20212022 rate of $170 per unit. The assessments for commercial properties are proposed to increase by the October SFOaklandHayward All Urban Consumers CPI. The assessments are the maximum rate allowable by the district’s adopted assessment range established for each development/subdivision. The maximum rates for the Hidden Meadows, Village Oaks, and Jayo subdivisions are adjusted each year by the October SFOaklandHayward All Urban Consumers CPI.

The total proposed revenue for this district is $644,129, which includes assessments of $613,895, a General Fund contribution of $30,172, and interest of 62. There are no special projects planned for this district.

While the annual authorized maximum assessments for the majority of development in the North Cordelia district have remained unchanged since the 1990s, the district’s operation and maintenance costs have increased due to general inflation overtime. The district was projected to have a fund balance deficit of approximately $40,000 by the end of FY 20212022, and an additional deficit of $119,000 by the end of FY 20222023 for a total deficit of $159,000 if services continued to be provided at the FY 20202021 levels. In previous fiscal years when a budget deficit existed, assessment revenues were supplemented with funds from the district’s unreserved fund balance, however, the district’s unreserved fund balance was depleted in FY 20212022.

As a shortterm solution, the council authorized an additional $8,000 General Fund contribution and directed City staff to propose to the North Cordelia property owners a onetime $151,000 General Fund loan, issued at 0% interest with a fiveyear repayment term commencing in FY 20232024. City staff conducted a community engagement process, which included a virtual town hall and an online survey.

The loan and additional General Fund contribution were authorized on May 3, 2022, by Resolution No. 202299, and issued in FY 20212022.

The City will continue to engage with the property owners regarding future services and assessment rates, and will conduct a Proposition 218 balloting process during FY 20222023.

LLMD No. 14 – Woodlake:The FY 20222023 assessments for the Woodlake district are proposed to remain at the FY 20212022 rates as follows: $206.25 per lot in the Woodlake/Horseshoe Lake Estates subdivision, $251.25 per lot in the Paradise Crest (Annexation No. 1) and Paradise Glen (Annexation No. 2) subdivisions, $95.25 per lot in the Bedford Falls subdivision (Annexation No. 3), $251.25 per lot in the Villages I subdivision (Annexation No. 4), and $251.25 in the Villages II subdivision (Annexation Packet Page 722 of 1251

Agenda Item No: 22.AGENDA REPORTDATE:August 16, 2022 TO:Mayor and City CouncilFROM:David Gassaway, Interim City ManagerSUBJECT:Public hearings; andResolutions 2022217 to 2022232 of the City Council of the City of Fairfield Approvingthe Fiscal Year 20222023 Engineer’s Reports, Confirming the Fiscal Year 20222023Diagrams and Assessments, and Ordering the Fiscal Year 20222023 Improvementsfor Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance Districts No. 1 – Gateway, No. 3 –Waterman Highlands, No. 5 – Smith Ranch, No. 6 – Peppertree, No. 7 – Rolling Hills,No. 8 – Kolob Estates, No. 10 – Southbrook, No. 11 – Paradise Valley North, No. 12 –Downtown Business District, No. 13 – North Cordelia, No. 14 – Woodlake, No. 15 –Gold Ridge, No. 16 – Creekside at Cordelia, No. 17 – ChadbourneBeckCordelia, No.18 – Gold Ridge Park, and No. 19 – Corporate CommonsRECOMMENDED ACTIONHold public hearing and adopt resolutions.STATEMENT OF ISSUEThe adoption of these resolutions will approve the fiscal year (FY) 20222023 engineer’s reports,confirm the FY 20222023 diagrams and assessments, and order the FY 20222023 improvements for16 landscaping and lighting maintenance districts (LLMDs).DISCUSSIONThe City formed LLMD Nos. 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19 (Districts)between 1984, and 2010, under the State of California Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, Streetsand Highways Code Section 22500, et seq. (Act), to provide a funding source for the maintenance oflandscaping and lighting improvements within the various development areas. On July 5, 2022, City Council adopted Resolution Nos. 2022156 through 2022171 grantingpreliminary approval of FY 20222023 engineer’s reports, declaring intention to order the levy andcollection of assessments, and providing notice of a public hearing for all 16 landscaping and lightingmaintenance districts. The public hearing was set for July 19, 2022. At the July 19, 2022, public hearing,all interested persons were given an opportunity to hear and be heard regarding protests andobjections to the levy and collection of the proposed assessments against lots or parcels of realproperty within the districts for the 20222023 fiscal year. The council considered all oral and writtenstatements, protests, and communications made or filed by interested persons. Due to the threat of litigation by several district property owners, the council rescheduled the publichearing to a later date pending a closed session meeting with the city attorney.On July 29, 2022, the council held a special meeting and adopted Resolution Nos. 2022182 through2022197 granting preliminary approval of FY 20222023 engineer’s reports, declaring intention toorder the levy and collection of assessments, and providing notice of a continued public hearing for all16 landscaping and lighting maintenance districts. The continued public hearing was set for August 16,2022, and notice thereof was published on August 3, 2022, at least 10 days prior to the hearing. TheSolano County Auditor granted the City a formal extension of the deadline to submit the FY 20222023tax rolls from August 10, 2022, to August 17, 2022.As described below, the FY 20222023 assessment amounts for each of the districts is set at or below,as applicable, (1) the assessment amount adopted at the time the district was formed, (2) theassessment amount or range adopted after the district was formed, but prior to the passage ofProposition 218 in 1996, or (3) the assessment amount or range adopted in accordance withProposition 218 proceedings. Accordingly, Proposition 218 balloting proceedings were not undertakenin connection with the levy of the FY 20222023 annual assessments. The following summariesdescribe the proposed FY 20222023 annual assessments and any applicable rate adjustments foreach district.LLMD No. 1 – Gateway:The FY 20222023 assessments for the Gateway district are proposed toincrease approximately 11% from the FY 20212022 rates to the maximum allowable rate for eachparcel established in 1995. Assessment rates for each parcel vary depending on parcel size. The total proposed revenue for this district is $205,971, which includes assessments of $205,965 andinterest of $6. The special projects for this district include landscape repair.While the annual authorized maximum assessments for the Gateway district have remained unchangedsince 1995, the district’s operation and maintenance costs have increased due to general inflation overtime. The district would be projected to have a fund balance deficit of approximately $170,000 by theend of FY 20222023 if services were to be provided at the current levels. In previous fiscal years whena budget deficit existed, assessment revenues were supplemented with funds from the district’sunreserved fund balance. However, because the unreserved fund balance has been reduced over time,the district is projected to close FY 20212022 with an overall deficit of ($29,710). Pursuant to theStreets and Highways Code Section 22656, the deficit will be carried forward to FY 20222023. Toprevent such deficit in FY 20222023, the FY 20222023 engineer’s report reflects an approximate75% reduction in the landscaping services and irrigation budget from FY 20212022 levels. On April 19, 2022, City staff informed council of the projected deficit and was granted authorization topropose to the district property owners a onetime General Fund loan, issued at 0% interest with a fiveyear repayment term, as a shortterm solution. Staff engaged the district property owners in June andJuly 2022, via mailed flyer to inform them of the proposed loan and requested that they affirm theirsupport for, or opposition to, the loan by taking a short online survey posted at www.civicmic.com/city offairfield/. The website also disclosed historical and current information regarding the district’s formation,legal requirements, operations, and financial position. On August 16, 2022, staff will provide council withthe results of the property owner engagement and receive council’s direction regarding the issuance ofthe loan and any applicable budget adjustments and increases to landscape and irrigation services.The City will continue to engage with the property owners regarding future services and assessmentrates, and will conduct a Proposition 218 balloting process during FY 20222023.LLMD No. 3 – Waterman Highlands:The FY 20222023 assessment for the Waterman Highlandsdistrict is proposed to remain at the FY 20212022 rate of $195 per parcel. The assessment is themaximum rate allowable by the district’s adopted assessment range established in 1996. The total proposed revenue for this district is $60,194, which includes assessments of $47,190, aGeneral Fund contribution of $13,000, and interest of $4. The special projects for this district includelandscape renovation and repair.While the annual authorized maximum assessments for the Waterman Highlands district have remainedunchanged since 1996, the district’s operation and maintenance costs have increased due to generalinflation overtime. The district would be projected to have a fund balance deficit of approximately$30,000 in FY 20222023 if services were to be provided at the current levels. In previous fiscal yearswhen a budget deficit existed, assessment revenues were supplemented with funds from the district’sunreserved fund balance. However, the district is projected to close FY 20212022 with an availablefund balance of just over $93,000, which is approximately $30,000 less than the balance required tofully supplement FY 20222023 revenues. To prevent such deficit in FY 20222023, an approximate40% reduction in the landscaping services budget and 25% reduction in the irrigation budget from FY20212022 levels is necessary. On April 19, 2022, City staff informed council of the projected deficit and was granted authorization topropose to the district property owners a onetime General Fund loan, issued at 0% interest with a fiveyear repayment term, as a shortterm solution. Staff engaged the district property owners in June andJuly 2022, via mailed flyer and virtual community meeting to inform them of the proposed loan andrequested that they affirm their support for, or opposition to, the loan by taking a short online surveyposted at www.civicmic.com/city offairfield/. The site also disclosed historical and current informationregarding the district’s formation, legal requirements, operations, and financial position. On August 16,2022, City staff will provide the council with the results of the property owner engagement and receivecouncil’s direction regarding the issuance of the loan and any applicable budget adjustments andincreases to landscape and irrigation services.The City will continue to engage with the property owners regarding future services and assessmentrates, and will conduct a Proposition 218 balloting process during FY 20222023.LLMD No. 5 – Smith Ranch (Rancho Solano):The FY 20222023 assessment for the Smith Ranch(also known as “Rancho Solano”) district is proposed to increase from the FY 20212022 rate of $570per parcel to $663.66 per parcel. The assessment is the maximum rate allowable by the district’sadopted assessment range, which was established in 1999 and is adjusted each year by the OctoberSFOaklandHayward Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers CPI. The total proposed revenue for this district is $831,766, which includes assessments of $796,392, aGeneral Fund contribution of $35,373, and interest of $1. The special projects for this district includelandscape repair.On April 19, 2022, City staff informed the council that this district is projected to have a fund balancedeficit by FY 20232024 if services continued to be provided at the current levels without a propertyowner approved assessment rate increase. Staff reported that the City will be engaging with theproperty owners regarding future services and assessment rates and will conduct a Proposition 218balloting process during FY 20222023.LLMD No. 6 – Peppertree:The FY 20222023 assessment for the Peppertree district is proposed toremain at the FY 20212022 rate of $60 per residential unit. The assessment is the maximum rateallowable by the district’s adopted assessment range established in 1996. The total proposed revenue for this district is $28,320, which includes assessments of $28,320, andinterest of $1. There are no special projects planned for this district.While the annual authorized maximum assessments for the Peppertree district have remainedunchanged since 1996, the district’s operation and maintenance costs have increased due to generalinflation overtime. The district would be projected to have a fund balance deficit of approximately$30,000 in FY 20222023 if services were to be provided at the current levels. In previous fiscal yearswhen a budget deficit existed, assessment revenues were supplemented with funds from the district’sunreserved fund balance. However, the district is projected to close FY 20212022 with an availablefund balance of just over $63,000, which is approximately $30,000 less than the balance required tofully supplement FY 20222023 revenues. To prevent such deficit in FY 20222023, all landscapingservices must cease by September 1, 2022. On April 19, 2022, City staff informed the council of the projected deficit and was granted authorizationto propose to the district property owners a onetime General Fund loan, issued at 0% interest with afiveyear repayment term, as a shortterm solution. Staff engaged the district property owners in Juneand July 2022, via mailed flyer and virtual community meeting to inform them of the proposed loan andrequested that they affirm their support for, or opposition to, the loan by taking a short online surveyposted at www.civicmic.com/city offairfield/. The site also disclosed historical and current informationregarding the district’s formation, legal requirements, operations, and financial position. On August 16,2022, City staff will provide the council with the results of the property owner engagement and receivecouncil’s direction regarding the issuance of the loan and any applicable budget adjustments andincreases to landscape and irrigation services.The City will continue to engage with the property owners regarding future services and assessmentrates, and will conduct a Proposition 218 balloting process during FY 20222023.LLMD No. 7 – Rolling Hills:The FY 20222023 assessments for the Rolling Hills district are proposedto remain at the FY 20212022 rates of $300 per parcel for the Rolling Hills development, and $250 perparcel for the Serpas Ranch development. These assessments are the maximum rates allowable by thedistrict’s adopted assessment ranges. The assessments for commercial properties at the intersectionof Hilborn Road and Lyon Road are proposed to increase by the October SFOaklandHayward UrbanWage Earners and Clerical Workers CPI.The total proposed revenue for this district is $351,850, which includes assessments of $316,447, aGeneral Fund contribution of $35,374, and interest of $29. There are no special projects planned forthis district. While the annual authorized maximum assessments for the Rolling Hills district have remainedunchanged since the 1990s, the district’s operation and maintenance costs have increased due togeneral inflation overtime. The district was projected to have a fund balance deficit of approximately$81,000 by the end of FY 20212022, and an additional deficit of $364,000 by the end of FY 20222023 for a total deficit of $445,000 if services continued to be provided at the FY 20202021 levels. Inprevious fiscal years when a budget deficit existed, assessment revenues were supplemented withfunds from the district’s unreserved fund balance, however, the district’s unreserved fund balance wasdepleted in FY 20212022. As a shortterm solution, the council authorized an additional $35,000 General Fund contribution anddirected staff to propose to the Rolling Hills property owners a onetime $410,000 General Fund loan,issued at 0% interest with a fiveyear repayment term commencing in FY 20232024. Staff conducted acommunity engagement process, which included a virtual town hall and an online survey. The loan andadditional General Fund contribution were authorized on May 3, 2022, by Resolution No. 202297, andissued in FY 20212022. The City will continue to engage with the property owners regarding future services and assessmentrates, and will conduct a Proposition 218 balloting process during FY 20222023.LLMD No. 8 – Kolob Estates:The FY 20222023 assessment for the Kolob Estates district isproposed to remain at the FY 20212022 rate of $400 per parcel. The assessment is the maximum rateallowable by the district’s adopted assessment range established in 1994. The total proposed revenue for this district is $53,511, which includes assessments of $52,000, aGeneral Fund contribution of $1,040, and interest of $71. The special projects for this district includelandscape renovation and repair.On April 19, 2022, City staff informed the council that this district was projected to have a fund balancedeficit in FY 20222023 if services continued to be provided at the current levels without a propertyowner approved assessment rate increase, however, updated projections indicate that the deficit willnot occur until FY 20232024. The City will be engaging with the property owners regarding futureservices and assessment rates and will conduct a Proposition 218 balloting process during FY 20222023.LLMD No. 10 – Southbrook:The FY 20222023 assessments for the Southbrook district are proposedto increase from the FY 20212022 rates of $215 per parcel to $235 per parcel for the originaldevelopment and annexation areas 19. The FY 20212022 assessment for the Gold Hill Village 3development, annexation no. 10, was $155.83 per lot, which was a prorated rate due to the timing of theannexation. The FY 20222023 assessment for this development is proposed at $386.26 per lot. Theassessments do not exceed the maximum rates allowable by the district’s adopted assessmentranges, which are adjusted each year by the October SFOaklandHayward Urban Wage Earners andClerical Workers CPI.The total proposed revenue for this district is $545,358, which includes assessments of $532,710, aGeneral Fund contribution of $12,485, and interest of $163. The special projects for this district includelandscape renovation and repair.LLMD No. 11 – Paradise Valley North:The FY 20222023 assessment for the Paradise Valley Northdistrict is proposed to remain at the FY 20212022 rate of $190 per residential unit. The assessment isthe maximum rate allowable by the district’s adopted assessment range established in 1995. The total proposed revenue for this district is $269,659, which includes assessments of $259,160, aGeneral Fund contribution of $10,404, and interest of $95. There are no special projects planned forthis district.While the annual authorized maximum assessments for the Paradise Valley North district haveremained unchanged since the 1995, the district’s operation and maintenance costs have increaseddue to general inflation overtime. The district was projected to have a fund balance deficit ofapproximately $40,000 by the end of FY 20212022, and an additional deficit of $142,000 by the end ofFY 20222023 for a total deficit of $182,000 if services continued to be provided at the FY 20202021levels. In previous fiscal years when a budget deficit existed, assessment revenues were supplementedwith funds from the district’s unreserved fund balance, however, the district’s unreserved fund balancewas depleted in FY 20212022. As a shortterm solution, the council authorized an additional $7,000 General Fund contribution anddirected staff to propose to the Paradise Valley North property owners a onetime $175,000 GeneralFund loan, issued at 0% interest with a fiveyear repayment term commencing in FY 20232024. Citystaff conducted a community engagement process, which included a virtual town hall and an onlinesurvey. The loan and additional General Fund contribution were authorized on May 3, 2022, byResolution No. 202298, and issued in FY 20212022.The City will continue to engage with the property owners regarding future services and assessmentrates, and will conduct a Proposition 218 balloting process during FY 20222023.LLMD No. 12 – Downtown Business District:The total FY 20222023 assessments for the District areproposed to increase approximately 2% from the total amount levied in FY 20212022. The proposedassessments for individual parcels vary by parcel size and are the maximum rates allowable by thedistrict’s adopted assessment range established in 1997. The total proposed revenue for this district is $62,021, which includes assessments of $62,020, andinterest of $1. There are no special projects planned for this district.In August 2021, the City hired NBS to conduct an initial review of the City’s 16 LLMDs to determine theoperational and financial viability of each district. The City planned to initiate Phase 2 of the review inmid to late 2022, which will include an indepth audit of each district’s governing documents,operations, financial and budgetary projections, and administrative best practices. Based on the results of the initial review, LLMD No. 12 was projected to have sufficient assessmentrevenue to sustain services and maintain an adequate fund balance reserve through at least FY 20262027 based on the automatic CPI adjustment to the annual assessments authorized by Resolution Nos.1991204 and 1991205. However, in early June 2022, upon further inspection of the district’s historicalgoverning documents, it was determined that the automatic CPI adjustment to the annual assessmentsauthorized by Resolution Nos. 1991204 and 1991205 was superseded by Resolution Nos. 199763and 1997144 which set static maximum annual assessments for each parcel with no automatic CPIadjustment as a result of a Proposition 218 balloting process. Consequently, the district would be projected to have a fund balance deficit of approximately $40,000 inFY 20222023 if services were to be provided at the current levels. In previous fiscal years when abudget deficit existed, assessment revenues were supplemented with funds from the district’sunreserved fund balance. However, the district is projected to close FY 20212022 with an availablefund balance of just over $87,000, which is approximately $40,000 less than the balance required tofully supplement FY 20222023 revenues. To prevent such deficit in FY 20222023, an approximate45% reduction in the landscaping services budget and 20% reduction in the irrigation budget from FY20212022 levels is necessary.On July 5, 2022, City staff informed the council of the projected deficit. The council authorized City staffto propose to the district property owners a onetime General Fund loan, issued at 0% interest with afiveyear repayment term, as a shortterm solution. City staff engaged the district property owners in July2022, via mailed flyer and/or virtual community meeting to inform them of the proposed loan andrequest that they affirm their support for, or opposition to, the loan by taking a short online survey postedat www.civicmic.com/city offairfield/. The site disclosed historical and current information regarding thedistrict’s formation, legal requirements, operations, and financial position. On August 16, 2022, Citystaff will provide the council with the results of the property owner engagement and receive council’sdirection regarding the issuance of the loan and any applicable budget adjustments and increases tolandscape and irrigation services.The City will continue to engage with the property owners regarding future services and assessmentrates, and will conduct a Proposition 218 balloting process during FY 20222023.City staff has prepared a modification to the Engineer’s Report to correct and remove AssessorsParcel Number 0030236010 which was subdivided and replaced with parcels 0030236240, 0030236250, and 0030236260, and also to remove Assessors Parcel Number 0030243010 which wassubdivided and replaced with parcels 0030243170 and 0030243180. There are no changes to theoverall assessment revenue for the district. LLMD No. 13 – North Cordelia:The FY 20222023 assessments for the North Cordelia district areproposed as follows: Citation and Pulte developments are proposed to remain at the FY 20212022rate of $180 per unit; Hidden Meadows subdivision is proposed to increase from the FY 20212022rate of $850.45 per unit to $882.77 per unit; Village Oaks subdivision is proposed to increase from theFY 20212022 rate of $207.40 per unit to $215.28 per unit; Jayo subdivision is proposed to increasefrom the FY 20212022 rate of $218.31 per unit to $226.61 per unit; all other subdivisions are proposedto remain at the FY 20212022 rate of $170 per unit. The assessments for commercial properties areproposed to increase by the October SFOaklandHayward All Urban Consumers CPI. Theassessments are the maximum rate allowable by the district’s adopted assessment range establishedfor each development/subdivision. The maximum rates for the Hidden Meadows, Village Oaks, andJayo subdivisions are adjusted each year by the October SFOaklandHayward All Urban ConsumersCPI.The total proposed revenue for this district is $644,129, which includes assessments of $613,895, aGeneral Fund contribution of $30,172, and interest of 62. There are no special projects planned for thisdistrict.While the annual authorized maximum assessments for the majority of development in the NorthCordelia district have remained unchanged since the 1990s, the district’s operation and maintenancecosts have increased due to general inflation overtime. The district was projected to have a fundbalance deficit of approximately $40,000 by the end of FY 20212022, and an additional deficit of$119,000 by the end of FY 20222023 for a total deficit of $159,000 if services continued to beprovided at the FY 20202021 levels. In previous fiscal years when a budget deficit existed,assessment revenues were supplemented with funds from the district’s unreserved fund balance,however, the district’s unreserved fund balance was depleted in FY 20212022. As a shortterm solution, the council authorized an additional $8,000 General Fund contribution anddirected City staff to propose to the North Cordelia property owners a onetime $151,000 General Fundloan, issued at 0% interest with a fiveyear repayment term commencing in FY 20232024. City staffconducted a community engagement process, which included a virtual town hall and an online survey.The loan and additional General Fund contribution were authorized on May 3, 2022, by Resolution No.202299, and issued in FY 20212022.The City will continue to engage with the property owners regarding future services and assessmentrates, and will conduct a Proposition 218 balloting process during FY 20222023.LLMD No. 14 – Woodlake:The FY 20222023 assessments for the Woodlake district are proposed toremain at the FY 20212022 rates as follows: $206.25 per lot in the Woodlake/Horseshoe Lake Estatessubdivision, $251.25 per lot in the Paradise Crest (Annexation No. 1) and Paradise Glen (Annexation No. 2) subdivisions, $95.25 per lot in the Bedford Falls subdivision (Annexation No. 3), $251.25 per lot in the Villages I subdivision (Annexation No. 4), and $251.25 in the Villages II subdivision (Annexation No. 5). These assessments are below the district’s adopted assessment rate maximums for each subdivision, which are adjusted each year by the October SFOaklandHayward All Urban Consumers CPI, as follows: $593 per lot in Woodlake/Horseshoe Lake Estates, $641.98 per lot in Paradise Crest (Annexation No. 1), $629.39 per lot in Paradise Glen (Annexation No. 2), $600.28 per lot in Bedford Falls (Annexation No. 3), $630.81 per lot in Villages I (Annexation No. 4), and $630.17 per lot in Villages II (Annexation No. 5).

The total proposed revenue for this district is $316,796, which includes assessments of $284,012, a General Fund contribution of $16,646, and interest of $16,138. The special projects for this district include landscape renovation and repair.

LLMD No. 15 – Gold Ridge:The FY 20222023 assessment for the Gold Ridge district is proposed to remain at the FY 20212022 rate of $120 per dwelling for the Madison Subdivision and $150 per dwelling for all other subdivisions. This assessment is below the district’s adopted assessment rate maximums for each subdivision, which are adjusted each year by the October SFOaklandHayward All Urban Consumers CPI, as follows: $419.03 per dwelling in Gold Ridge Units 13, $578.06 per dwelling in Gold Ridge Units 4 and 68 (Annexation No. 1), $475.81 per dwelling Gold Ridge Unit 5 (Annexation No. 2), $273.49 per dwelling in Madison (Annexation No. 3), $518.18 per dwelling in Gold Ridge Unit 9 (Annexation No. 4), $190.69 per dwelling in Gold Ridge North Phase II (Annexation No. 5), $190.69 per dwelling in Gold Ridge Unit 10 (Annexation No. 6), $180.10 per dwelling in Villages at FairfieldVillages IV (Annexation No. 7), and $169.27 per dwelling in Discovery I & III and Gold Ridge IIIA (Annexation No. 8).

The total proposed revenue for this district is $271,326, which includes assessments of $258,810, a General Fund contribution of $5,202, and interest of $7,314. The special projects for this district include landscape renovation and repair.

LLMD No. 16 – Creekside at Cordelia:The FY 20222023 assessments for the Creekside at Cordelia district are proposed to decrease from the FY 20212022 rate of $300 per parcel to $213 per parcel in the Creekside at Cordelia subdivision and the Enclave at Red Top development (Annexation No. 1).

This assessment is below the district’s adopted assessment rate maximum for each subdivision as follows: $365.81 for the Creekside at Cordelia and $379.12 for the Enclave at Red Top.

The total proposed revenue for this district is $44,664, which includes assessments of $44,091, and interest of $573. The special projects for this district include landscape renovation and repair.

LLMD No. 17 – ChadbourneBeckCordelia:The FY 20222023 assessments for the Chadbourne BeckCordelia district are proposed to remain at the FY 20212022 rates which vary depending on parcel size. The assessment rates are below the district’s adopted assessment rate maximums for each parcel.

The total proposed revenue for this district is $288,699, which includes assessments of $280,293, and interest of $8,406. The special projects for this district include landscape renovation and repair.

LLMD No. 18 – Gold Ridge Park:The FY 20222023 assessment for the Gold Ridge Park district is proposed to remain at the FY 20212022 rate of $63.75 per parcel. This assessment is below the district’s adopted assessment rate maximum for each subdivision as follows: $118.10 per parcel in the Gold Ridge Neighborhood Park area, and $118.47 per parcel in the Discovery II & III and Gold Ridge IIIA subdivisions.

The total proposed revenue for this district is $110,020, which includes assessments of $93,203, a General Fund contribution of $14,064, and interest of $2,753. The special projects for this district Packet Page 723 of 1251

Agenda Item No: 22.AGENDA REPORTDATE:August 16, 2022 TO:Mayor and City CouncilFROM:David Gassaway, Interim City ManagerSUBJECT:Public hearings; andResolutions 2022217 to 2022232 of the City Council of the City of Fairfield Approvingthe Fiscal Year 20222023 Engineer’s Reports, Confirming the Fiscal Year 20222023Diagrams and Assessments, and Ordering the Fiscal Year 20222023 Improvementsfor Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance Districts No. 1 – Gateway, No. 3 –Waterman Highlands, No. 5 – Smith Ranch, No. 6 – Peppertree, No. 7 – Rolling Hills,No. 8 – Kolob Estates, No. 10 – Southbrook, No. 11 – Paradise Valley North, No. 12 –Downtown Business District, No. 13 – North Cordelia, No. 14 – Woodlake, No. 15 –Gold Ridge, No. 16 – Creekside at Cordelia, No. 17 – ChadbourneBeckCordelia, No.18 – Gold Ridge Park, and No. 19 – Corporate CommonsRECOMMENDED ACTIONHold public hearing and adopt resolutions.STATEMENT OF ISSUEThe adoption of these resolutions will approve the fiscal year (FY) 20222023 engineer’s reports,confirm the FY 20222023 diagrams and assessments, and order the FY 20222023 improvements for16 landscaping and lighting maintenance districts (LLMDs).DISCUSSIONThe City formed LLMD Nos. 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19 (Districts)between 1984, and 2010, under the State of California Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, Streetsand Highways Code Section 22500, et seq. (Act), to provide a funding source for the maintenance oflandscaping and lighting improvements within the various development areas. On July 5, 2022, City Council adopted Resolution Nos. 2022156 through 2022171 grantingpreliminary approval of FY 20222023 engineer’s reports, declaring intention to order the levy andcollection of assessments, and providing notice of a public hearing for all 16 landscaping and lightingmaintenance districts. The public hearing was set for July 19, 2022. At the July 19, 2022, public hearing,all interested persons were given an opportunity to hear and be heard regarding protests andobjections to the levy and collection of the proposed assessments against lots or parcels of realproperty within the districts for the 20222023 fiscal year. The council considered all oral and writtenstatements, protests, and communications made or filed by interested persons. Due to the threat of litigation by several district property owners, the council rescheduled the publichearing to a later date pending a closed session meeting with the city attorney.On July 29, 2022, the council held a special meeting and adopted Resolution Nos. 2022182 through2022197 granting preliminary approval of FY 20222023 engineer’s reports, declaring intention toorder the levy and collection of assessments, and providing notice of a continued public hearing for all16 landscaping and lighting maintenance districts. The continued public hearing was set for August 16,2022, and notice thereof was published on August 3, 2022, at least 10 days prior to the hearing. TheSolano County Auditor granted the City a formal extension of the deadline to submit the FY 20222023tax rolls from August 10, 2022, to August 17, 2022.As described below, the FY 20222023 assessment amounts for each of the districts is set at or below,as applicable, (1) the assessment amount adopted at the time the district was formed, (2) theassessment amount or range adopted after the district was formed, but prior to the passage ofProposition 218 in 1996, or (3) the assessment amount or range adopted in accordance withProposition 218 proceedings. Accordingly, Proposition 218 balloting proceedings were not undertakenin connection with the levy of the FY 20222023 annual assessments. The following summariesdescribe the proposed FY 20222023 annual assessments and any applicable rate adjustments foreach district.LLMD No. 1 – Gateway:The FY 20222023 assessments for the Gateway district are proposed toincrease approximately 11% from the FY 20212022 rates to the maximum allowable rate for eachparcel established in 1995. Assessment rates for each parcel vary depending on parcel size. The total proposed revenue for this district is $205,971, which includes assessments of $205,965 andinterest of $6. The special projects for this district include landscape repair.While the annual authorized maximum assessments for the Gateway district have remained unchangedsince 1995, the district’s operation and maintenance costs have increased due to general inflation overtime. The district would be projected to have a fund balance deficit of approximately $170,000 by theend of FY 20222023 if services were to be provided at the current levels. In previous fiscal years whena budget deficit existed, assessment revenues were supplemented with funds from the district’sunreserved fund balance. However, because the unreserved fund balance has been reduced over time,the district is projected to close FY 20212022 with an overall deficit of ($29,710). Pursuant to theStreets and Highways Code Section 22656, the deficit will be carried forward to FY 20222023. Toprevent such deficit in FY 20222023, the FY 20222023 engineer’s report reflects an approximate75% reduction in the landscaping services and irrigation budget from FY 20212022 levels. On April 19, 2022, City staff informed council of the projected deficit and was granted authorization topropose to the district property owners a onetime General Fund loan, issued at 0% interest with a fiveyear repayment term, as a shortterm solution. Staff engaged the district property owners in June andJuly 2022, via mailed flyer to inform them of the proposed loan and requested that they affirm theirsupport for, or opposition to, the loan by taking a short online survey posted at www.civicmic.com/city offairfield/. The website also disclosed historical and current information regarding the district’s formation,legal requirements, operations, and financial position. On August 16, 2022, staff will provide council withthe results of the property owner engagement and receive council’s direction regarding the issuance ofthe loan and any applicable budget adjustments and increases to landscape and irrigation services.The City will continue to engage with the property owners regarding future services and assessmentrates, and will conduct a Proposition 218 balloting process during FY 20222023.LLMD No. 3 – Waterman Highlands:The FY 20222023 assessment for the Waterman Highlandsdistrict is proposed to remain at the FY 20212022 rate of $195 per parcel. The assessment is themaximum rate allowable by the district’s adopted assessment range established in 1996. The total proposed revenue for this district is $60,194, which includes assessments of $47,190, aGeneral Fund contribution of $13,000, and interest of $4. The special projects for this district includelandscape renovation and repair.While the annual authorized maximum assessments for the Waterman Highlands district have remainedunchanged since 1996, the district’s operation and maintenance costs have increased due to generalinflation overtime. The district would be projected to have a fund balance deficit of approximately$30,000 in FY 20222023 if services were to be provided at the current levels. In previous fiscal yearswhen a budget deficit existed, assessment revenues were supplemented with funds from the district’sunreserved fund balance. However, the district is projected to close FY 20212022 with an availablefund balance of just over $93,000, which is approximately $30,000 less than the balance required tofully supplement FY 20222023 revenues. To prevent such deficit in FY 20222023, an approximate40% reduction in the landscaping services budget and 25% reduction in the irrigation budget from FY20212022 levels is necessary. On April 19, 2022, City staff informed council of the projected deficit and was granted authorization topropose to the district property owners a onetime General Fund loan, issued at 0% interest with a fiveyear repayment term, as a shortterm solution. Staff engaged the district property owners in June andJuly 2022, via mailed flyer and virtual community meeting to inform them of the proposed loan andrequested that they affirm their support for, or opposition to, the loan by taking a short online surveyposted at www.civicmic.com/city offairfield/. The site also disclosed historical and current informationregarding the district’s formation, legal requirements, operations, and financial position. On August 16,2022, City staff will provide the council with the results of the property owner engagement and receivecouncil’s direction regarding the issuance of the loan and any applicable budget adjustments andincreases to landscape and irrigation services.The City will continue to engage with the property owners regarding future services and assessmentrates, and will conduct a Proposition 218 balloting process during FY 20222023.LLMD No. 5 – Smith Ranch (Rancho Solano):The FY 20222023 assessment for the Smith Ranch(also known as “Rancho Solano”) district is proposed to increase from the FY 20212022 rate of $570per parcel to $663.66 per parcel. The assessment is the maximum rate allowable by the district’sadopted assessment range, which was established in 1999 and is adjusted each year by the OctoberSFOaklandHayward Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers CPI. The total proposed revenue for this district is $831,766, which includes assessments of $796,392, aGeneral Fund contribution of $35,373, and interest of $1. The special projects for this district includelandscape repair.On April 19, 2022, City staff informed the council that this district is projected to have a fund balancedeficit by FY 20232024 if services continued to be provided at the current levels without a propertyowner approved assessment rate increase. Staff reported that the City will be engaging with theproperty owners regarding future services and assessment rates and will conduct a Proposition 218balloting process during FY 20222023.LLMD No. 6 – Peppertree:The FY 20222023 assessment for the Peppertree district is proposed toremain at the FY 20212022 rate of $60 per residential unit. The assessment is the maximum rateallowable by the district’s adopted assessment range established in 1996. The total proposed revenue for this district is $28,320, which includes assessments of $28,320, andinterest of $1. There are no special projects planned for this district.While the annual authorized maximum assessments for the Peppertree district have remainedunchanged since 1996, the district’s operation and maintenance costs have increased due to generalinflation overtime. The district would be projected to have a fund balance deficit of approximately$30,000 in FY 20222023 if services were to be provided at the current levels. In previous fiscal yearswhen a budget deficit existed, assessment revenues were supplemented with funds from the district’sunreserved fund balance. However, the district is projected to close FY 20212022 with an availablefund balance of just over $63,000, which is approximately $30,000 less than the balance required tofully supplement FY 20222023 revenues. To prevent such deficit in FY 20222023, all landscapingservices must cease by September 1, 2022. On April 19, 2022, City staff informed the council of the projected deficit and was granted authorizationto propose to the district property owners a onetime General Fund loan, issued at 0% interest with afiveyear repayment term, as a shortterm solution. Staff engaged the district property owners in Juneand July 2022, via mailed flyer and virtual community meeting to inform them of the proposed loan andrequested that they affirm their support for, or opposition to, the loan by taking a short online surveyposted at www.civicmic.com/city offairfield/. The site also disclosed historical and current informationregarding the district’s formation, legal requirements, operations, and financial position. On August 16,2022, City staff will provide the council with the results of the property owner engagement and receivecouncil’s direction regarding the issuance of the loan and any applicable budget adjustments andincreases to landscape and irrigation services.The City will continue to engage with the property owners regarding future services and assessmentrates, and will conduct a Proposition 218 balloting process during FY 20222023.LLMD No. 7 – Rolling Hills:The FY 20222023 assessments for the Rolling Hills district are proposedto remain at the FY 20212022 rates of $300 per parcel for the Rolling Hills development, and $250 perparcel for the Serpas Ranch development. These assessments are the maximum rates allowable by thedistrict’s adopted assessment ranges. The assessments for commercial properties at the intersectionof Hilborn Road and Lyon Road are proposed to increase by the October SFOaklandHayward UrbanWage Earners and Clerical Workers CPI.The total proposed revenue for this district is $351,850, which includes assessments of $316,447, aGeneral Fund contribution of $35,374, and interest of $29. There are no special projects planned forthis district. While the annual authorized maximum assessments for the Rolling Hills district have remainedunchanged since the 1990s, the district’s operation and maintenance costs have increased due togeneral inflation overtime. The district was projected to have a fund balance deficit of approximately$81,000 by the end of FY 20212022, and an additional deficit of $364,000 by the end of FY 20222023 for a total deficit of $445,000 if services continued to be provided at the FY 20202021 levels. Inprevious fiscal years when a budget deficit existed, assessment revenues were supplemented withfunds from the district’s unreserved fund balance, however, the district’s unreserved fund balance wasdepleted in FY 20212022. As a shortterm solution, the council authorized an additional $35,000 General Fund contribution anddirected staff to propose to the Rolling Hills property owners a onetime $410,000 General Fund loan,issued at 0% interest with a fiveyear repayment term commencing in FY 20232024. Staff conducted acommunity engagement process, which included a virtual town hall and an online survey. The loan andadditional General Fund contribution were authorized on May 3, 2022, by Resolution No. 202297, andissued in FY 20212022. The City will continue to engage with the property owners regarding future services and assessmentrates, and will conduct a Proposition 218 balloting process during FY 20222023.LLMD No. 8 – Kolob Estates:The FY 20222023 assessment for the Kolob Estates district isproposed to remain at the FY 20212022 rate of $400 per parcel. The assessment is the maximum rateallowable by the district’s adopted assessment range established in 1994. The total proposed revenue for this district is $53,511, which includes assessments of $52,000, aGeneral Fund contribution of $1,040, and interest of $71. The special projects for this district includelandscape renovation and repair.On April 19, 2022, City staff informed the council that this district was projected to have a fund balancedeficit in FY 20222023 if services continued to be provided at the current levels without a propertyowner approved assessment rate increase, however, updated projections indicate that the deficit willnot occur until FY 20232024. The City will be engaging with the property owners regarding futureservices and assessment rates and will conduct a Proposition 218 balloting process during FY 20222023.LLMD No. 10 – Southbrook:The FY 20222023 assessments for the Southbrook district are proposedto increase from the FY 20212022 rates of $215 per parcel to $235 per parcel for the originaldevelopment and annexation areas 19. The FY 20212022 assessment for the Gold Hill Village 3development, annexation no. 10, was $155.83 per lot, which was a prorated rate due to the timing of theannexation. The FY 20222023 assessment for this development is proposed at $386.26 per lot. Theassessments do not exceed the maximum rates allowable by the district’s adopted assessmentranges, which are adjusted each year by the October SFOaklandHayward Urban Wage Earners andClerical Workers CPI.The total proposed revenue for this district is $545,358, which includes assessments of $532,710, aGeneral Fund contribution of $12,485, and interest of $163. The special projects for this district includelandscape renovation and repair.LLMD No. 11 – Paradise Valley North:The FY 20222023 assessment for the Paradise Valley Northdistrict is proposed to remain at the FY 20212022 rate of $190 per residential unit. The assessment isthe maximum rate allowable by the district’s adopted assessment range established in 1995. The total proposed revenue for this district is $269,659, which includes assessments of $259,160, aGeneral Fund contribution of $10,404, and interest of $95. There are no special projects planned forthis district.While the annual authorized maximum assessments for the Paradise Valley North district haveremained unchanged since the 1995, the district’s operation and maintenance costs have increaseddue to general inflation overtime. The district was projected to have a fund balance deficit ofapproximately $40,000 by the end of FY 20212022, and an additional deficit of $142,000 by the end ofFY 20222023 for a total deficit of $182,000 if services continued to be provided at the FY 20202021levels. In previous fiscal years when a budget deficit existed, assessment revenues were supplementedwith funds from the district’s unreserved fund balance, however, the district’s unreserved fund balancewas depleted in FY 20212022. As a shortterm solution, the council authorized an additional $7,000 General Fund contribution anddirected staff to propose to the Paradise Valley North property owners a onetime $175,000 GeneralFund loan, issued at 0% interest with a fiveyear repayment term commencing in FY 20232024. Citystaff conducted a community engagement process, which included a virtual town hall and an onlinesurvey. The loan and additional General Fund contribution were authorized on May 3, 2022, byResolution No. 202298, and issued in FY 20212022.The City will continue to engage with the property owners regarding future services and assessmentrates, and will conduct a Proposition 218 balloting process during FY 20222023.LLMD No. 12 – Downtown Business District:The total FY 20222023 assessments for the District areproposed to increase approximately 2% from the total amount levied in FY 20212022. The proposedassessments for individual parcels vary by parcel size and are the maximum rates allowable by thedistrict’s adopted assessment range established in 1997. The total proposed revenue for this district is $62,021, which includes assessments of $62,020, andinterest of $1. There are no special projects planned for this district.In August 2021, the City hired NBS to conduct an initial review of the City’s 16 LLMDs to determine theoperational and financial viability of each district. The City planned to initiate Phase 2 of the review inmid to late 2022, which will include an indepth audit of each district’s governing documents,operations, financial and budgetary projections, and administrative best practices. Based on the results of the initial review, LLMD No. 12 was projected to have sufficient assessmentrevenue to sustain services and maintain an adequate fund balance reserve through at least FY 20262027 based on the automatic CPI adjustment to the annual assessments authorized by Resolution Nos.1991204 and 1991205. However, in early June 2022, upon further inspection of the district’s historicalgoverning documents, it was determined that the automatic CPI adjustment to the annual assessmentsauthorized by Resolution Nos. 1991204 and 1991205 was superseded by Resolution Nos. 199763and 1997144 which set static maximum annual assessments for each parcel with no automatic CPIadjustment as a result of a Proposition 218 balloting process. Consequently, the district would be projected to have a fund balance deficit of approximately $40,000 inFY 20222023 if services were to be provided at the current levels. In previous fiscal years when abudget deficit existed, assessment revenues were supplemented with funds from the district’sunreserved fund balance. However, the district is projected to close FY 20212022 with an availablefund balance of just over $87,000, which is approximately $40,000 less than the balance required tofully supplement FY 20222023 revenues. To prevent such deficit in FY 20222023, an approximate45% reduction in the landscaping services budget and 20% reduction in the irrigation budget from FY20212022 levels is necessary.On July 5, 2022, City staff informed the council of the projected deficit. The council authorized City staffto propose to the district property owners a onetime General Fund loan, issued at 0% interest with afiveyear repayment term, as a shortterm solution. City staff engaged the district property owners in July2022, via mailed flyer and/or virtual community meeting to inform them of the proposed loan andrequest that they affirm their support for, or opposition to, the loan by taking a short online survey postedat www.civicmic.com/city offairfield/. The site disclosed historical and current information regarding thedistrict’s formation, legal requirements, operations, and financial position. On August 16, 2022, Citystaff will provide the council with the results of the property owner engagement and receive council’sdirection regarding the issuance of the loan and any applicable budget adjustments and increases tolandscape and irrigation services.The City will continue to engage with the property owners regarding future services and assessmentrates, and will conduct a Proposition 218 balloting process during FY 20222023.City staff has prepared a modification to the Engineer’s Report to correct and remove AssessorsParcel Number 0030236010 which was subdivided and replaced with parcels 0030236240, 0030236250, and 0030236260, and also to remove Assessors Parcel Number 0030243010 which wassubdivided and replaced with parcels 0030243170 and 0030243180. There are no changes to theoverall assessment revenue for the district. LLMD No. 13 – North Cordelia:The FY 20222023 assessments for the North Cordelia district areproposed as follows: Citation and Pulte developments are proposed to remain at the FY 20212022rate of $180 per unit; Hidden Meadows subdivision is proposed to increase from the FY 20212022rate of $850.45 per unit to $882.77 per unit; Village Oaks subdivision is proposed to increase from theFY 20212022 rate of $207.40 per unit to $215.28 per unit; Jayo subdivision is proposed to increasefrom the FY 20212022 rate of $218.31 per unit to $226.61 per unit; all other subdivisions are proposedto remain at the FY 20212022 rate of $170 per unit. The assessments for commercial properties areproposed to increase by the October SFOaklandHayward All Urban Consumers CPI. Theassessments are the maximum rate allowable by the district’s adopted assessment range establishedfor each development/subdivision. The maximum rates for the Hidden Meadows, Village Oaks, andJayo subdivisions are adjusted each year by the October SFOaklandHayward All Urban ConsumersCPI.The total proposed revenue for this district is $644,129, which includes assessments of $613,895, aGeneral Fund contribution of $30,172, and interest of 62. There are no special projects planned for thisdistrict.While the annual authorized maximum assessments for the majority of development in the NorthCordelia district have remained unchanged since the 1990s, the district’s operation and maintenancecosts have increased due to general inflation overtime. The district was projected to have a fundbalance deficit of approximately $40,000 by the end of FY 20212022, and an additional deficit of$119,000 by the end of FY 20222023 for a total deficit of $159,000 if services continued to beprovided at the FY 20202021 levels. In previous fiscal years when a budget deficit existed,assessment revenues were supplemented with funds from the district’s unreserved fund balance,however, the district’s unreserved fund balance was depleted in FY 20212022. As a shortterm solution, the council authorized an additional $8,000 General Fund contribution anddirected City staff to propose to the North Cordelia property owners a onetime $151,000 General Fundloan, issued at 0% interest with a fiveyear repayment term commencing in FY 20232024. City staffconducted a community engagement process, which included a virtual town hall and an online survey.The loan and additional General Fund contribution were authorized on May 3, 2022, by Resolution No.202299, and issued in FY 20212022.The City will continue to engage with the property owners regarding future services and assessmentrates, and will conduct a Proposition 218 balloting process during FY 20222023.LLMD No. 14 – Woodlake:The FY 20222023 assessments for the Woodlake district are proposed toremain at the FY 20212022 rates as follows: $206.25 per lot in the Woodlake/Horseshoe Lake Estatessubdivision, $251.25 per lot in the Paradise Crest (Annexation No. 1) and Paradise Glen (AnnexationNo. 2) subdivisions, $95.25 per lot in the Bedford Falls subdivision (Annexation No. 3), $251.25 per lotin the Villages I subdivision (Annexation No. 4), and $251.25 in the Villages II subdivision (AnnexationNo. 5). These assessments are below the district’s adopted assessment rate maximums for eachsubdivision, which are adjusted each year by the October SFOaklandHayward All Urban ConsumersCPI, as follows: $593 per lot in Woodlake/Horseshoe Lake Estates, $641.98 per lot in Paradise Crest(Annexation No. 1), $629.39 per lot in Paradise Glen (Annexation No. 2), $600.28 per lot in BedfordFalls (Annexation No. 3), $630.81 per lot in Villages I (Annexation No. 4), and $630.17 per lot inVillages II (Annexation No. 5). The total proposed revenue for this district is $316,796, which includes assessments of $284,012, aGeneral Fund contribution of $16,646, and interest of $16,138. The special projects for this districtinclude landscape renovation and repair.LLMD No. 15 – Gold Ridge:The FY 20222023 assessment for the Gold Ridge district is proposed toremain at the FY 20212022 rate of $120 per dwelling for the Madison Subdivision and $150 perdwelling for all other subdivisions. This assessment is below the district’s adopted assessment ratemaximums for each subdivision, which are adjusted each year by the October SFOaklandHayward AllUrban Consumers CPI, as follows: $419.03 per dwelling in Gold Ridge Units 13, $578.06 per dwellingin Gold Ridge Units 4 and 68 (Annexation No. 1), $475.81 per dwelling Gold Ridge Unit 5 (AnnexationNo. 2), $273.49 per dwelling in Madison (Annexation No. 3), $518.18 per dwelling in Gold Ridge Unit 9(Annexation No. 4), $190.69 per dwelling in Gold Ridge North Phase II (Annexation No. 5), $190.69 perdwelling in Gold Ridge Unit 10 (Annexation No. 6), $180.10 per dwelling in Villages at FairfieldVillagesIV (Annexation No. 7), and $169.27 per dwelling in Discovery I & III and Gold Ridge IIIA (Annexation No.8).The total proposed revenue for this district is $271,326, which includes assessments of $258,810, aGeneral Fund contribution of $5,202, and interest of $7,314. The special projects for this district includelandscape renovation and repair.LLMD No. 16 – Creekside at Cordelia:The FY 20222023 assessments for the Creekside at Cordeliadistrict are proposed to decrease from the FY 20212022 rate of $300 per parcel to $213 per parcel inthe Creekside at Cordelia subdivision and the Enclave at Red Top development (Annexation No. 1).This assessment is below the district’s adopted assessment rate maximum for each subdivision asfollows: $365.81 for the Creekside at Cordelia and $379.12 for the Enclave at Red Top. The total proposed revenue for this district is $44,664, which includes assessments of $44,091, andinterest of $573. The special projects for this district include landscape renovation and repair.LLMD No. 17 – ChadbourneBeckCordelia:The FY 20222023 assessments for the ChadbourneBeckCordelia district are proposed to remain at the FY 20212022 rates which vary depending onparcel size. The assessment rates are below the district’s adopted assessment rate maximums foreach parcel. The total proposed revenue for this district is $288,699, which includes assessments of $280,293, andinterest of $8,406. The special projects for this district include landscape renovation and repair.LLMD No. 18 – Gold Ridge Park:The FY 20222023 assessment for the Gold Ridge Park district isproposed to remain at the FY 20212022 rate of $63.75 per parcel. This assessment is below thedistrict’s adopted assessment rate maximum for each subdivision as follows: $118.10 per parcel in theGold Ridge Neighborhood Park area, and $118.47 per parcel in the Discovery II & III and Gold RidgeIIIA subdivisions.

LLMD No. 19 – Corporate Commons:The FY 20222023 assessments for the Corporate Commons (also known as Suisun Valley Road/Kaiser) district are proposed to remain at the FY 20212022 rates which vary depending on parcel size. The assessment rates are below the district’s adopted assessment rate maximums for each parcel.

The total proposed revenue for this district is $128,811, which includes assessments of $127,192, and interest of $1,619. The special projects for this district include landscape renovation and repair.

The adoption of these resolutions will provide final approval of the engineer’s reports, confirm the diagrams and assessments for FY 20222023, and order the improvements for the districts.

FINANCIAL IMPACT
The total proposed FY 20222023 revenue for all districts is $4,212,696, which includes assessments of $4,001,700, General Fund (Fund 011, Division 99, Responsibility Code 000) contributions of $173,760, and interest of $37,236.

PUBLIC CONTACT/ADVISORY BODY RECOMMENDATION
Budget and assessment information was presented to the property owners of LLMD Nos. 1, 3, 6, 7, 11, 12, and 13 at various virtual community meetings between JanuaryJune 2022, and on the www.civicmic.com/city offairfield/ website. Budget and assessment information was also shared with the LLMD No. 5 – Smith Ranch and LLMD No. 7 – Rolling Hills landscape committees, the Rancho Solano, Paradise Valley, and North Cordelia homeowners’ associations, and the Rolling Hills Neighborhood Network.

ALTERNATIVE ACTION
If the council has any questions regarding the adoption of these resolutions, this item may be rescheduled until the next council meeting to allow City staff time to provide the necessary background information. However, not approving these resolutions will prevent the City from collecting assessments for the 20222023 tax year.

STAFF CONTACT
Chris Lewis, Management Analyst
(707) 4287089
[email protected]
COORDINATED WITH
City Attorney's Office
ATTACHMENTS:

Description
Attachment 1: Proposed Resolution LLMD No. 1 Gateway Attachment 2: Proposed Resolution LLMD No. 3 Waterman Highlands Attachment 3: Proposed Resolution LLMD No. 5 Smith Ranch Attachment 4: Proposed Resolution LLMD No. 6 Peppertree Attachment 5: Proposed Resolution LLMD No. 7 Rolling Hills Attachment 6: Proposed Resolution LLMD No. 8 Kolob Estates Attachment 7: Proposed Resolution LLMD No. 10 Southbrook Packet Page 724 of 1251

Agenda Item No: 22.AGENDA REPORTDATE:August 16, 2022 TO:Mayor and City CouncilFROM:David Gassaway, Interim City ManagerSUBJECT:Public hearings; andResolutions 2022217 to 2022232 of the City Council of the City of Fairfield Approvingthe Fiscal Year 20222023 Engineer’s Reports, Confirming the Fiscal Year 20222023Diagrams and Assessments, and Ordering the Fiscal Year 20222023 Improvementsfor Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance Districts No. 1 – Gateway, No. 3 –Waterman Highlands, No. 5 – Smith Ranch, No. 6 – Peppertree, No. 7 – Rolling Hills,No. 8 – Kolob Estates, No. 10 – Southbrook, No. 11 – Paradise Valley North, No. 12 –Downtown Business District, No. 13 – North Cordelia, No. 14 – Woodlake, No. 15 –Gold Ridge, No. 16 – Creekside at Cordelia, No. 17 – ChadbourneBeckCordelia, No.18 – Gold Ridge Park, and No. 19 – Corporate CommonsRECOMMENDED ACTIONHold public hearing and adopt resolutions.STATEMENT OF ISSUEThe adoption of these resolutions will approve the fiscal year (FY) 20222023 engineer’s reports,confirm the FY 20222023 diagrams and assessments, and order the FY 20222023 improvements for16 landscaping and lighting maintenance districts (LLMDs).DISCUSSIONThe City formed LLMD Nos. 1, 3, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, and 19 (Districts)between 1984, and 2010, under the State of California Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, Streetsand Highways Code Section 22500, et seq. (Act), to provide a funding source for the maintenance oflandscaping and lighting improvements within the various development areas. On July 5, 2022, City Council adopted Resolution Nos. 2022156 through 2022171 grantingpreliminary approval of FY 20222023 engineer’s reports, declaring intention to order the levy andcollection of assessments, and providing notice of a public hearing for all 16 landscaping and lightingmaintenance districts. The public hearing was set for July 19, 2022. At the July 19, 2022, public hearing,all interested persons were given an opportunity to hear and be heard regarding protests andobjections to the levy and collection of the proposed assessments against lots or parcels of realproperty within the districts for the 20222023 fiscal year. The council considered all oral and writtenstatements, protests, and communications made or filed by interested persons. Due to the threat of litigation by several district property owners, the council rescheduled the publichearing to a later date pending a closed session meeting with the city attorney.On July 29, 2022, the council held a special meeting and adopted Resolution Nos. 2022182 through2022197 granting preliminary approval of FY 20222023 engineer’s reports, declaring intention toorder the levy and collection of assessments, and providing notice of a continued public hearing for all16 landscaping and lighting maintenance districts. The continued public hearing was set for August 16,2022, and notice thereof was published on August 3, 2022, at least 10 days prior to the hearing. TheSolano County Auditor granted the City a formal extension of the deadline to submit the FY 20222023tax rolls from August 10, 2022, to August 17, 2022.As described below, the FY 20222023 assessment amounts for each of the districts is set at or below,as applicable, (1) the assessment amount adopted at the time the district was formed, (2) theassessment amount or range adopted after the district was formed, but prior to the passage ofProposition 218 in 1996, or (3) the assessment amount or range adopted in accordance withProposition 218 proceedings. Accordingly, Proposition 218 balloting proceedings were not undertakenin connection with the levy of the FY 20222023 annual assessments. The following summariesdescribe the proposed FY 20222023 annual assessments and any applicable rate adjustments foreach district.LLMD No. 1 – Gateway:The FY 20222023 assessments for the Gateway district are proposed toincrease approximately 11% from the FY 20212022 rates to the maximum allowable rate for eachparcel established in 1995. Assessment rates for each parcel vary depending on parcel size. The total proposed revenue for this district is $205,971, which includes assessments of $205,965 andinterest of $6. The special projects for this district include landscape repair.While the annual authorized maximum assessments for the Gateway district have remained unchangedsince 1995, the district’s operation and maintenance costs have increased due to general inflation overtime. The district would be projected to have a fund balance deficit of approximately $170,000 by theend of FY 20222023 if services were to be provided at the current levels. In previous fiscal years whena budget deficit existed, assessment revenues were supplemented with funds from the district’sunreserved fund balance. However, because the unreserved fund balance has been reduced over time,the district is projected to close FY 20212022 with an overall deficit of ($29,710). Pursuant to theStreets and Highways Code Section 22656, the deficit will be carried forward to FY 20222023. Toprevent such deficit in FY 20222023, the FY 20222023 engineer’s report reflects an approximate75% reduction in the landscaping services and irrigation budget from FY 20212022 levels. On April 19, 2022, City staff informed council of the projected deficit and was granted authorization topropose to the district property owners a onetime General Fund loan, issued at 0% interest with a fiveyear repayment term, as a shortterm solution. Staff engaged the district property owners in June andJuly 2022, via mailed flyer to inform them of the proposed loan and requested that they affirm theirsupport for, or opposition to, the loan by taking a short online survey posted at www.civicmic.com/city offairfield/. The website also disclosed historical and current information regarding the district’s formation,legal requirements, operations, and financial position. On August 16, 2022, staff will provide council withthe results of the property owner engagement and receive council’s direction regarding the issuance ofthe loan and any applicable budget adjustments and increases to landscape and irrigation services.The City will continue to engage with the property owners regarding future services and assessmentrates, and will conduct a Proposition 218 balloting process during FY 20222023.LLMD No. 3 – Waterman Highlands:The FY 20222023 assessment for the Waterman Highlandsdistrict is proposed to remain at the FY 20212022 rate of $195 per parcel. The assessment is themaximum rate allowable by the district’s adopted assessment range established in 1996. The total proposed revenue for this district is $60,194, which includes assessments of $47,190, aGeneral Fund contribution of $13,000, and interest of $4. The special projects for this district includelandscape renovation and repair.While the annual authorized maximum assessments for the Waterman Highlands district have remainedunchanged since 1996, the district’s operation and maintenance costs have increased due to generalinflation overtime. The district would be projected to have a fund balance deficit of approximately$30,000 in FY 20222023 if services were to be provided at the current levels. In previous fiscal yearswhen a budget deficit existed, assessment revenues were supplemented with funds from the district’sunreserved fund balance. However, the district is projected to close FY 20212022 with an availablefund balance of just over $93,000, which is approximately $30,000 less than the balance required tofully supplement FY 20222023 revenues. To prevent such deficit in FY 20222023, an approximate40% reduction in the landscaping services budget and 25% reduction in the irrigation budget from FY20212022 levels is necessary. On April 19, 2022, City staff informed council of the projected deficit and was granted authorization topropose to the district property owners a onetime General Fund loan, issued at 0% interest with a fiveyear repayment term, as a shortterm solution. Staff engaged the district property owners in June andJuly 2022, via mailed flyer and virtual community meeting to inform them of the proposed loan andrequested that they affirm their support for, or opposition to, the loan by taking a short online surveyposted at www.civicmic.com/city offairfield/. The site also disclosed historical and current informationregarding the district’s formation, legal requirements, operations, and financial position. On August 16,2022, City staff will provide the council with the results of the property owner engagement and receivecouncil’s direction regarding the issuance of the loan and any applicable budget adjustments andincreases to landscape and irrigation services.The City will continue to engage with the property owners regarding future services and assessmentrates, and will conduct a Proposition 218 balloting process during FY 20222023.LLMD No. 5 – Smith Ranch (Rancho Solano):The FY 20222023 assessment for the Smith Ranch(also known as “Rancho Solano”) district is proposed to increase from the FY 20212022 rate of $570per parcel to $663.66 per parcel. The assessment is the maximum rate allowable by the district’sadopted assessment range, which was established in 1999 and is adjusted each year by the OctoberSFOaklandHayward Urban Wage Earners and Clerical Workers CPI. The total proposed revenue for this district is $831,766, which includes assessments of $796,392, aGeneral Fund contribution of $35,373, and interest of $1. The special projects for this district includelandscape repair.On April 19, 2022, City staff informed the council that this district is projected to have a fund balancedeficit by FY 20232024 if services continued to be provided at the current levels without a propertyowner approved assessment rate increase. Staff reported that the City will be engaging with theproperty owners regarding future services and assessment rates and will conduct a Proposition 218balloting process during FY 20222023.LLMD No. 6 – Peppertree:The FY 20222023 assessment for the Peppertree district is proposed toremain at the FY 20212022 rate of $60 per residential unit. The assessment is the maximum rateallowable by the district’s adopted assessment range established in 1996. The total proposed revenue for this district is $28,320, which includes assessments of $28,320, andinterest of $1. There are no special projects planned for this district.While the annual authorized maximum assessments for the Peppertree district have remainedunchanged since 1996, the district’s operation and maintenance costs have increased due to generalinflation overtime. The district would be projected to have a fund balance deficit of approximately$30,000 in FY 20222023 if services were to be provided at the current levels. In previous fiscal yearswhen a budget deficit existed, assessment revenues were supplemented with funds from the district’sunreserved fund balance. However, the district is projected to close FY 20212022 with an availablefund balance of just over $63,000, which is approximately $30,000 less than the balance required tofully supplement FY 20222023 revenues. To prevent such deficit in FY 20222023, all landscapingservices must cease by September 1, 2022. On April 19, 2022, City staff informed the council of the projected deficit and was granted authorizationto propose to the district property owners a onetime General Fund loan, issued at 0% interest with afiveyear repayment term, as a shortterm solution. Staff engaged the district property owners in Juneand July 2022, via mailed flyer and virtual community meeting to inform them of the proposed loan andrequested that they affirm their support for, or opposition to, the loan by taking a short online surveyposted at www.civicmic.com/city offairfield/. The site also disclosed historical and current informationregarding the district’s formation, legal requirements, operations, and financial position. On August 16,2022, City staff will provide the council with the results of the property owner engagement and receivecouncil’s direction regarding the issuance of the loan and any applicable budget adjustments andincreases to landscape and irrigation services.The City will continue to engage with the property owners regarding future services and assessmentrates, and will conduct a Proposition 218 balloting process during FY 20222023.LLMD No. 7 – Rolling Hills:The FY 20222023 assessments for the Rolling Hills district are proposedto remain at the FY 20212022 rates of $300 per parcel for the Rolling Hills development, and $250 perparcel for the Serpas Ranch development. These assessments are the maximum rates allowable by thedistrict’s adopted assessment ranges. The assessments for commercial properties at the intersectionof Hilborn Road and Lyon Road are proposed to increase by the October SFOaklandHayward UrbanWage Earners and Clerical Workers CPI.The total proposed revenue for this district is $351,850, which includes assessments of $316,447, aGeneral Fund contribution of $35,374, and interest of $29. There are no special projects planned forthis district. While the annual authorized maximum assessments for the Rolling Hills district have remainedunchanged since the 1990s, the district’s operation and maintenance costs have increased due togeneral inflation overtime. The district was projected to have a fund balance deficit of approximately$81,000 by the end of FY 20212022, and an additional deficit of $364,000 by the end of FY 20222023 for a total deficit of $445,000 if services continued to be provided at the FY 20202021 levels. Inprevious fiscal years when a budget deficit existed, assessment revenues were supplemented withfunds from the district’s unreserved fund balance, however, the district’s unreserved fund balance wasdepleted in FY 20212022. As a shortterm solution, the council authorized an additional $35,000 General Fund contribution anddirected staff to propose to the Rolling Hills property owners a onetime $410,000 General Fund loan,issued at 0% interest with a fiveyear repayment term commencing in FY 20232024. Staff conducted acommunity engagement process, which included a virtual town hall and an online survey. The loan andadditional General Fund contribution were authorized on May 3, 2022, by Resolution No. 202297, andissued in FY 20212022. The City will continue to engage with the property owners regarding future services and assessmentrates, and will conduct a Proposition 218 balloting process during FY 20222023.LLMD No. 8 – Kolob Estates:The FY 20222023 assessment for the Kolob Estates district isproposed to remain at the FY 20212022 rate of $400 per parcel. The assessment is the maximum rateallowable by the district’s adopted assessment range established in 1994. The total proposed revenue for this district is $53,511, which includes assessments of $52,000, aGeneral Fund contribution of $1,040, and interest of $71. The special projects for this district includelandscape renovation and repair.On April 19, 2022, City staff informed the council that this district was projected to have a fund balancedeficit in FY 20222023 if services continued to be provided at the current levels without a propertyowner approved assessment rate increase, however, updated projections indicate that the deficit willnot occur until FY 20232024. The City will be engaging with the property owners regarding futureservices and assessment rates and will conduct a Proposition 218 balloting process during FY 20222023.LLMD No. 10 – Southbrook:The FY 20222023 assessments for the Southbrook district are proposedto increase from the FY 20212022 rates of $215 per parcel to $235 per parcel for the originaldevelopment and annexation areas 19. The FY 20212022 assessment for the Gold Hill Village 3development, annexation no. 10, was $155.83 per lot, which was a prorated rate due to the timing of theannexation. The FY 20222023 assessment for this development is proposed at $386.26 per lot. Theassessments do not exceed the maximum rates allowable by the district’s adopted assessmentranges, which are adjusted each year by the October SFOaklandHayward Urban Wage Earners andClerical Workers CPI.The total proposed revenue for this district is $545,358, which includes assessments of $532,710, aGeneral Fund contribution of $12,485, and interest of $163. The special projects for this district includelandscape renovation and repair.LLMD No. 11 – Paradise Valley North:The FY 20222023 assessment for the Paradise Valley Northdistrict is proposed to remain at the FY 20212022 rate of $190 per residential unit. The assessment isthe maximum rate allowable by the district’s adopted assessment range established in 1995. The total proposed revenue for this district is $269,659, which includes assessments of $259,160, aGeneral Fund contribution of $10,404, and interest of $95. There are no special projects planned forthis district.While the annual authorized maximum assessments for the Paradise Valley North district haveremained unchanged since the 1995, the district’s operation and maintenance costs have increaseddue to general inflation overtime. The district was projected to have a fund balance deficit ofapproximately $40,000 by the end of FY 20212022, and an additional deficit of $142,000 by the end ofFY 20222023 for a total deficit of $182,000 if services continued to be provided at the FY 20202021levels. In previous fiscal years when a budget deficit existed, assessment revenues were supplementedwith funds from the district’s unreserved fund balance, however, the district’s unreserved fund balancewas depleted in FY 20212022. As a shortterm solution, the council authorized an additional $7,000 General Fund contribution anddirected staff to propose to the Paradise Valley North property owners a onetime $175,000 GeneralFund loan, issued at 0% interest with a fiveyear repayment term commencing in FY 20232024. Citystaff conducted a community engagement process, which included a virtual town hall and an onlinesurvey. The loan and additional General Fund contribution were authorized on May 3, 2022, byResolution No. 202298, and issued in FY 20212022.The City will continue to engage with the property owners regarding future services and assessmentrates, and will conduct a Proposition 218 balloting process during FY 20222023.LLMD No. 12 – Downtown Business District:The total FY 20222023 assessments for the District areproposed to increase approximately 2% from the total amount levied in FY 20212022. The proposedassessments for individual parcels vary by parcel size and are the maximum rates allowable by thedistrict’s adopted assessment range established in 1997. The total proposed revenue for this district is $62,021, which includes assessments of $62,020, andinterest of $1. There are no special projects planned for this district.In August 2021, the City hired NBS to conduct an initial review of the City’s 16 LLMDs to determine theoperational and financial viability of each district. The City planned to initiate Phase 2 of the review inmid to late 2022, which will include an indepth audit of each district’s governing documents,operations, financial and budgetary projections, and administrative best practices. Based on the results of the initial review, LLMD No. 12 was projected to have sufficient assessmentrevenue to sustain services and maintain an adequate fund balance reserve through at least FY 20262027 based on the automatic CPI adjustment to the annual assessments authorized by Resolution Nos.1991204 and 1991205. However, in early June 2022, upon further inspection of the district’s historicalgoverning documents, it was determined that the automatic CPI adjustment to the annual assessmentsauthorized by Resolution Nos. 1991204 and 1991205 was superseded by Resolution Nos. 199763and 1997144 which set static maximum annual assessments for each parcel with no automatic CPIadjustment as a result of a Proposition 218 balloting process. Consequently, the district would be projected to have a fund balance deficit of approximately $40,000 inFY 20222023 if services were to be provided at the current levels. In previous fiscal years when abudget deficit existed, assessment revenues were supplemented with funds from the district’sunreserved fund balance. However, the district is projected to close FY 20212022 with an availablefund balance of just over $87,000, which is approximately $40,000 less than the balance required tofully supplement FY 20222023 revenues. To prevent such deficit in FY 20222023, an approximate45% reduction in the landscaping services budget and 20% reduction in the irrigation budget from FY20212022 levels is necessary.On July 5, 2022, City staff informed the council of the projected deficit. The council authorized City staffto propose to the district property owners a onetime General Fund loan, issued at 0% interest with afiveyear repayment term, as a shortterm solution. City staff engaged the district property owners in July2022, via mailed flyer and/or virtual community meeting to inform them of the proposed loan andrequest that they affirm their support for, or opposition to, the loan by taking a short online survey postedat www.civicmic.com/city offairfield/. The site disclosed historical and current information regarding thedistrict’s formation, legal requirements, operations, and financial position. On August 16, 2022, Citystaff will provide the council with the results of the property owner engagement and receive council’sdirection regarding the issuance of the loan and any applicable budget adjustments and increases tolandscape and irrigation services.The City will continue to engage with the property owners regarding future services and assessmentrates, and will conduct a Proposition 218 balloting process during FY 20222023.City staff has prepared a modification to the Engineer’s Report to correct and remove AssessorsParcel Number 0030236010 which was subdivided and replaced with parcels 0030236240, 0030236250, and 0030236260, and also to remove Assessors Parcel Number 0030243010 which wassubdivided and replaced with parcels 0030243170 and 0030243180. There are no changes to theoverall assessment revenue for the district. LLMD No. 13 – North Cordelia:The FY 20222023 assessments for the North Cordelia district areproposed as follows: Citation and Pulte developments are proposed to remain at the FY 20212022rate of $180 per unit; Hidden Meadows subdivision is proposed to increase from the FY 20212022rate of $850.45 per unit to $882.77 per unit; Village Oaks subdivision is proposed to increase from theFY 20212022 rate of $207.40 per unit to $215.28 per unit; Jayo subdivision is proposed to increasefrom the FY 20212022 rate of $218.31 per unit to $226.61 per unit; all other subdivisions are proposedto remain at the FY 20212022 rate of $170 per unit. The assessments for commercial properties areproposed to increase by the October SFOaklandHayward All Urban Consumers CPI. Theassessments are the maximum rate allowable by the district’s adopted assessment range establishedfor each development/subdivision. The maximum rates for the Hidden Meadows, Village Oaks, andJayo subdivisions are adjusted each year by the October SFOaklandHayward All Urban ConsumersCPI.The total proposed revenue for this district is $644,129, which includes assessments of $613,895, aGeneral Fund contribution of $30,172, and interest of 62. There are no special projects planned for thisdistrict.While the annual authorized maximum assessments for the majority of development in the NorthCordelia district have remained unchanged since the 1990s, the district’s operation and maintenancecosts have increased due to general inflation overtime. The district was projected to have a fundbalance deficit of approximately $40,000 by the end of FY 20212022, and an additional deficit of$119,000 by the end of FY 20222023 for a total deficit of $159,000 if services continued to beprovided at the FY 20202021 levels. In previous fiscal years when a budget deficit existed,assessment revenues were supplemented with funds from the district’s unreserved fund balance,however, the district’s unreserved fund balance was depleted in FY 20212022. As a shortterm solution, the council authorized an additional $8,000 General Fund contribution anddirected City staff to propose to the North Cordelia property owners a onetime $151,000 General Fundloan, issued at 0% interest with a fiveyear repayment term commencing in FY 20232024. City staffconducted a community engagement process, which included a virtual town hall and an online survey.The loan and additional General Fund contribution were authorized on May 3, 2022, by Resolution No.202299, and issued in FY 20212022.The City will continue to engage with the property owners regarding future services and assessmentrates, and will conduct a Proposition 218 balloting process during FY 20222023.LLMD No. 14 – Woodlake:The FY 20222023 assessments for the Woodlake district are proposed toremain at the FY 20212022 rates as follows: $206.25 per lot in the Woodlake/Horseshoe Lake Estatessubdivision, $251.25 per lot in the Paradise Crest (Annexation No. 1) and Paradise Glen (AnnexationNo. 2) subdivisions, $95.25 per lot in the Bedford Falls subdivision (Annexation No. 3), $251.25 per lotin the Villages I subdivision (Annexation No. 4), and $251.25 in the Villages II subdivision (AnnexationNo. 5). These assessments are below the district’s adopted assessment rate maximums for eachsubdivision, which are adjusted each year by the October SFOaklandHayward All Urban ConsumersCPI, as follows: $593 per lot in Woodlake/Horseshoe Lake Estates, $641.98 per lot in Paradise Crest(Annexation No. 1), $629.39 per lot in Paradise Glen (Annexation No. 2), $600.28 per lot in BedfordFalls (Annexation No. 3), $630.81 per lot in Villages I (Annexation No. 4), and $630.17 per lot inVillages II (Annexation No. 5). The total proposed revenue for this district is $316,796, which includes assessments of $284,012, aGeneral Fund contribution of $16,646, and interest of $16,138. The special projects for this districtinclude landscape renovation and repair.LLMD No. 15 – Gold Ridge:The FY 20222023 assessment for the Gold Ridge district is proposed toremain at the FY 20212022 rate of $120 per dwelling for the Madison Subdivision and $150 perdwelling for all other subdivisions. This assessment is below the district’s adopted assessment ratemaximums for each subdivision, which are adjusted each year by the October SFOaklandHayward AllUrban Consumers CPI, as follows: $419.03 per dwelling in Gold Ridge Units 13, $578.06 per dwellingin Gold Ridge Units 4 and 68 (Annexation No. 1), $475.81 per dwelling Gold Ridge Unit 5 (AnnexationNo. 2), $273.49 per dwelling in Madison (Annexation No. 3), $518.18 per dwelling in Gold Ridge Unit 9(Annexation No. 4), $190.69 per dwelling in Gold Ridge North Phase II (Annexation No. 5), $190.69 perdwelling in Gold Ridge Unit 10 (Annexation No. 6), $180.10 per dwelling in Villages at FairfieldVillagesIV (Annexation No. 7), and $169.27 per dwelling in Discovery I & III and Gold Ridge IIIA (Annexation No.8).The total proposed revenue for this district is $271,326, which includes assessments of $258,810, aGeneral Fund contribution of $5,202, and interest of $7,314. The special projects for this district includelandscape renovation and repair.LLMD No. 16 – Creekside at Cordelia:The FY 20222023 assessments for the Creekside at Cordeliadistrict are proposed to decrease from the FY 20212022 rate of $300 per parcel to $213 per parcel inthe Creekside at Cordelia subdivision and the Enclave at Red Top development (Annexation No. 1).This assessment is below the district’s adopted assessment rate maximum for each subdivision asfollows: $365.81 for the Creekside at Cordelia and $379.12 for the Enclave at Red Top. The total proposed revenue for this district is $44,664, which includes assessments of $44,091, andinterest of $573. The special projects for this district include landscape renovation and repair.LLMD No. 17 – ChadbourneBeckCordelia:The FY 20222023 assessments for the ChadbourneBeckCordelia district are proposed to remain at the FY 20212022 rates which vary depending onparcel size. The assessment rates are below the district’s adopted assessment rate maximums foreach parcel. The total proposed revenue for this district is $288,699, which includes assessments of $280,293, andinterest of $8,406. The special projects for this district include landscape renovation and repair.LLMD No. 18 – Gold Ridge Park:The FY 20222023 assessment for the Gold Ridge Park district isproposed to remain at the FY 20212022 rate of $63.75 per parcel. This assessment is below thedistrict’s adopted assessment rate maximum for each subdivision as follows: $118.10 per parcel in theGold Ridge Neighborhood Park area, and $118.47 per parcel in the Discovery II & III and Gold RidgeIIIA subdivisions. The total proposed revenue for this district is $110,020, which includes assessments of $93,203, aGeneral Fund contribution of $14,064, and interest of $2,753. The special projects for this districtinclude landscape repair.LLMD No. 19 – Corporate Commons:The FY 20222023 assessments for the Corporate Commons(also known as Suisun Valley Road/Kaiser) district are proposed to remain at the FY 20212022 rateswhich vary depending on parcel size. The assessment rates are below the district’s adoptedassessment rate maximums for each parcel. The total proposed revenue for this district is $128,811, which includes assessments of $127,192, andinterest of $1,619. The special projects for this district include landscape renovation and repair.The adoption of these resolutions will provide final approval of the engineer’s reports, confirm thediagrams and assessments for FY 20222023, and order the improvements for the districts.FINANCIAL IMPACTThe total proposed FY 20222023 revenue for all districts is $4,212,696, which includes assessmentsof $4,001,700, General Fund (Fund 011, Division 99, Responsibility Code 000) contributions of$173,760, and interest of $37,236.PUBLIC CONTACT/ADVISORY BODY RECOMMENDATIONBudget and assessment information was presented to the property owners of LLMD Nos. 1, 3, 6, 7, 11,12, and 13 at various virtual community meetings between JanuaryJune 2022, and on the www.civicmic.com/city offairfield/ website. Budget and assessment information was also shared withthe LLMD No. 5 – Smith Ranch and LLMD No. 7 – Rolling Hills landscape committees, the RanchoSolano, Paradise Valley, and North Cordelia homeowners’ associations, and the Rolling HillsNeighborhood Network.ALTERNATIVE ACTIONIf the council has any questions regarding the adoption of these resolutions, this item may berescheduled until the next council meeting to allow City staff time to provide the necessary backgroundinformation. However, not approving these resolutions will prevent the City from collecting assessmentsfor the 20222023 tax year.STAFF CONTACTChris Lewis, Management Analyst(707) 428[email protected] WITHCity Attorney's OfficeATTACHMENTS:DescriptionAttachment 1: Proposed Resolution LLMD No. 1 GatewayAttachment 2: Proposed Resolution LLMD No. 3 Waterman HighlandsAttachment 3: Proposed Resolution LLMD No. 5 Smith RanchAttachment 4: Proposed Resolution LLMD No. 6 PeppertreeAttachment 5: Proposed Resolution LLMD No. 7 Rolling Hills Attachment 6: Proposed Resolution LLMD No. 8 Kolob Estates Attachment 7: Proposed Resolution LLMD No. 10 Southbrook Attachment 8: Proposed Resolution LLMD No. 11 Paradise Valley North Attachment 9: Proposed Resolution LLMD No. 12 Downtown Business District Attachment 10: Proposed Resolution LLMD No. 13 North Cordelia Attachment 11: Proposed Resolution LLMD No. 14 Woodlake Attachment 12: Proposed Resolution LLMD No. 15 Gold Ridge Attachment 13: Proposed Resolution LLMD No. 16 Creekside at Cordelia Attachment 14: Proposed Resolution LLMD No. 17 ChadbourneBeckCordelia Attachment 15: Proposed Resolution LLMD No. 18 Gold Ridge Park Attachment 16: Proposed Resolution LLMD No. 19 Corporate Commons Attachment 17: Supplements to the Engineer's Report by Maintenance District No.

REVIEWERS:

Reviewer Action Date
Panganiban, Ryan Approved 8/4/2022 8:21 PM
Hether, Michael Approved 8/4/2022 8:39 PM
Beavers, Esther Approved 8/9/2022 7:30 PM
Beavers, Esther Approved 8/9/2022 7:30 PM
Packet Page 725 of 1251

CITY OF FAIRFIELD

RESOLUTION NO. 2022-217

RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF FAIRFIELD APPROVING THE FISCAL YEAR 2022-2023 ENGINEER’S REPORT, CONFIRMING THE FISCAL YEAR 2022-2023 DIAGRAM AND ASSESSMENTS, AND ORDERING THE FISCAL YEAR 2022-2023 IMPROVEMENTS FOR LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING MAINTENANCE DISTRICT NO. 1 – GATEWAY

WHEREAS, by its Resolution No. 91-136, A Continuing Resolution Directing Preparation of Annual Report for Maintenance Assessment Districts, this City Council designated an engineer (“Engineer”) and ordered said Engineer to make and file a report in writing in accordance with and pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2 of Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code (commencing with Section 22500) (the “Act”), which report is on file in the office of the city clerk; and

WHEREAS, pursuant to Resolution No. 91-136, the Engineer prepared a supplement to said report in accordance with the Act for Maintenance District No. 1 - Gateway (“District”) for the fiscal year commencing July 1, 2022, and ending June 30, 2023, and said report, as supplemented by the supplemental report, on file in the office of the city clerk, shall constitute the engineer’s report for fiscal year 2022-2023 (“Engineer’s Report”); and

WHEREAS, on July 5, 2022, the council adopted Resolutions 2022-156 to 2022-171 of the City Council of the City of Fairfield, Granting Preliminary Approval of Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Engineer’s Reports, Declaring Intention to Order the Levy and Collection of Assessments, and Providing Notice of a Hearing for Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance Districts No. 1 – Gateway, No. 3 – Waterman Highlands, No. 5 – Smith Ranch, No. 6 – Peppertree, No. 7 – Rolling Hills, No. 8 – Kolob Estates, No. 10 – Southbrook, No. 11 – Paradise Valley North, No. 12 – Downtown Business District, No. 13 – North Cordelia, No. 14 – Woodlake, No. 15 – Gold Ridge, No. 16 – Creekside at Cordelia, No. 17 – Chadbourne-Beck-Cordelia, No. 18 – Gold Ridge Park, and No. 19 – Corporate Commons; and

WHEREAS, on July 19, 2022, the council held a public hearing to consider adoption of Resolutions 2022-182 to 2022-197 of the City Council of the City of Fairfield Approving the Fiscal Year 2022 - 2023 Engineer’s Reports, Confirming the Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Diagrams and Assessments, and Ordering the Fiscal Year 2022-2023 Improvements for Landscaping and Lighting Maintenance Districts No. 1 – Gateway, No. 3 – Waterman Highlands, No. 5 – Smith Ranch, No. 6 – Peppertree, No. 7 – Rolling Hills, No. 8 – Kolob Estates, No. 10 – Southbrook, No. 11 – Paradise Valley North, No. 12 – Downtown Business District, No. 13 – North Cordelia, No. 14 – Woodlake, No. 15 – Gold Ridge, No. 16 – Creekside at Cordelia, No. 17 – Chadbourne-Beck-Cordelia, No. 18 – Gold Ridge Park, and No. 19 – Corporate Commons, and said public hearing was continued by the council after receiving evidence and testimony from City staff and the general public; and Packet Page 726 of 1251Attachment 1 Page 1 of 4

RES. NO. 2022-217

Page 2 ends

Fairfield City CouncilAugust 16, 2022

Fairfield City Council
August 16, 2022