Gustine City Council
December 19, 2023

CITY AGENDA

GUSTI CALIFOR

CITY OF GUSTINE

CITY COUNCIL

COUNCIL CHAMBERS, CITY HALL
INCO 1915 352 5th STREET GUSTINE, CALIFORNIA
PRORATED NOV, 1. DECEMBER 19, 2023 - 6:30 P.M.

The Council Chambers are open and in-person attendance is encouraged.

As a convenience, the City will be retaining the virtual component of public meetings for optional attendance with the use of an online meeting room.

Log-in and dial-in information is as follows:
https://meet.goto.com/898144317
or via telephone by dialing (872) 240-3311, access code: 898-144-317 Feedback and noise will be muted by the meeting organizer.

Please note, in the event of a technical issue causing a disruption in the call-in option or internet- based option, the meeting will continue unless otherwise required by law, such as when a Council Member is attending the meeting virtually pursuant to certain provisions of the Brown Act.

CALL TO ORDER - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Please take a moment to silence your cell phones.

ROLL CALL
Council Members: Giles - Marsigli - Bonta - Mayor Pro Tem Ford - Mayor Nagy

APPROVAL OF AGENDA
At this time, any member of the City Council or staff may advise of any updates to the order of, or changes to, the agenda as published.

Any requested changes or edits shall be offered in the form of a motion by any City Council member, requiring a second, and followed by a 3/5 vote of approval by the Council.

DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
At this time, any member of the City Council may declare their conflict of interest or their abstention from any item listed on, or within, the agenda.

PRESENTATIONS

PUBLIC COMMENT
At this time, any person may comment on any item which is not on the agenda. PLEASE STATE YOUR NAME FOR THE RECORD. Action will not be taken on the topic unless deemed an urgency matter by a 3/5 vote of the City Council. Topics not considered an urgency matter may be referred to City staff and/or placed on a subsequent agenda for consideration, by a 3/5 vote of the City Council.

Members of the public, who have questions or comments regarding a specific agenda item, may comment on that item before consideration of that item, when recognized by the Mayor.

CONSENT CALENDAR
All matters listed under the Consent Calendar are considered routine and may be approved by one action of the City Council, unless any member of the City Council wishes to remove an item for separate consideration.

Are there any items on the consent calendar that any member of the public would like to comment on?

1. Minutes of the December 5, 2023 Regular Meeting
Recommendation: Review and approve
(continued)

2. Warrants
Recommendation: Review and ratify

3. Treasurer's Report - November 2023
Recommendation: Review and file
Direct Staff to Send Out Warrant Checks Prior to January 16, 2024 Regular Council Meeting
Recommendation: Review and approve

5. Approve Request for Use of City Streets for Tip Top Farms Anniversary Event Recommendation: Review and approve

6. Approve Addition of Two Full-Time Police Sergeants to Budgeted Elected Officials and Staff Listing
Recommendation: Review and approve

7. Approve Appointment and Reappointments to Gustine Planning Commission Recommendation: Review and approve

ADMINISTRATIVE AGENDA

8. PUBLIC HEARING - Consider Approving Site Inventory List for Sixth Cycle Housing Element Submission

1. Receive Staff Report

2. Open the public hearing

3. Receive public comment

4. Close the public hearing

5. Consider a motion to approve the site inventory list for the City's Sixth Cycle Housing Element submission

9. Consider Resolution Amending Specific Project Deposit Collection Language in Gustine User & Regulatory Fee Schedule

1. Receive Staff Report

2. Receive Public Comment

3. Consider a motion to approve the resolution

10. DISCUSSION & DIRECTION - Regional Early Action Planning Grant Submittal

1. Receive Staff Report

2. Receive public comment

3. Conduct discussion and provide staff with direction application submittal

CITY DEPARTMENT REPORTS

CITY MANAGER REPORT

CITY ATTORNEY REPORT

CITY COUNCIL REPORTS

CLOSED SESSION PUBLIC COMMENT
Are there any items on the closed session calendar that any member of the public would like to comment on?

CLOSED SESSION

ADJOURNMENT
Note:

1. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, a disabled person requesting a disability-related modification or accommodation to participate in this meeting, must contact City Hall at (209) 854-6471 or (209) 854-2127 (fax). Requests must be made as early as possible, preferably one-full business day before the start of the meeting.

2. Any document provided to a majority of the City Council regarding any open session item on this agenda is available for public inspection during normal business hours at the front counter of City Hall located at 352 5TH Street, Gustine, CA. Documents or writings received after the general distribution of the agenda are also available for inspection.
(continued)

CERTIFICATION
I, Melanie Correa, Deputy City Clerk, do hereby declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing agenda was posted at the Gustine Cily Hall, 352 5th Street, Gustine CA and made available for public review on this 14th day of December, betore 6:00p.m.

Melanie Correa

MINUTES OF

REGULAR MEETING
December 5, 2023

CALL TO ORDER - PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Nagy called the meeting to order at 6:30 P.M. and conducted the pledge of allegiance

ROLL CALL
Council Members: Giles - Marsigli - Bonta - Ford - Mayor Nagy Staff present: Interim City Manager Melanie Correa, Assistant City Attorney Anne Branham, Economic & Community Development Director Westervelt, Recreation Manager Tiffany Vitorino, Police Chief Ruben Chavez, Finance Director Jenny Morrison, Administrative Assistant Desirae Porras, Fire Chief Pat Borrelli, and Public Works Director Gary Ingram.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Council member Marsigli invited Assistant City Attorney Branham to provide additional information in regards to the order of the administrative calendar, to which Assistant City Attorney Branham informed Council of their option to switch the order of administrative items #3 and #4.

Council member Marsigli made a motion to flip the order of administrative items #3 and #4.

The motion was seconded by Council member Giles and carried 5-0.

Mayor Nagy made a motion to pull closed session.

The motion was seconded by Council member Bonta and carried 5-0.

Council member Bonta made a motion to approve the agenda with the stated changes.

The motion was seconded by Council member Marsigli and carried 5-0.

DECLARATIONS OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
There were no declarations of conflict of interest.

PRESENTATIONS
None.

PUBLIC COMMENT
Craig Christenson, 657 West Ave., advised of his conversation with a Comcast representative in regards to the installation of 110 Comcast poles in town. He also advised of his opinion preferring more undergrounding and less poles in the City.

CONSENT CALENDAR
All matters listed under the Consent Calendar are considered routine and may be approved by one action of the City Council, unless any member of the City Council wishes to remove an item for separate consideration.

Are there any items on the consent calendar that any member of the public would like to comment on?

1. Minutes of the November 21, 2023 Regular Meeting
Recommendation: Review and approve

2.' Warrants
Recommendation: Review and ratity
Mayor Nagy introduced the consent calendar.

Interim City Manager Correa advised of a typographical error in the minutes on page 2.

There was no public comment.

Council member Marsigli made a motion to approve the consent calendar with the stated changes.

The motion was seconded by Council member Giles and carried 5-0, with Council member Bonta abstaining from consent calendar item #1 due to his absence.

ADMINISTRATIVE AGENDA

4. PUBLIC HEARING - Consider Resolutions Approving Vesting Tentative Subdivision Maps; Richard & Rebecca Rasmussen - APN: 063-180-032 and Michael and Dana Rasmussen; APN: 063-180-033

1. Receive Staff Report

2. Open the public hearing

3. Receive public comment

4. Close the public hearing

5. Consider a motion to approve Resolution adopting the Michael and Dana Rasmussen vesting tentative subdivision map for Southeast Gustine Development

6. Consider a motion to approve Resolution adopting the Richard and Rebecca Rasmussen vesting tentative subdivision map for Southeast Gustine Development Economic & Community Development Director Westervelt introduced Brad Kilger, Consulting Project Manager.

Mr. Kilger presented the staff report.

Mayor Nagy opened the public hearing at 6:54 P.M.

Max Garcia, Applicant Engineer, provided background of the projects, including the timeline this project has worked its way to this point, and advised of the importance in approving the tentative subdivision maps.

Tom Gomes, 1065 Brentwood, clarified when the project was brought to the Planning Commission with smaller lots the Commission spoke with the developers and expressed they did not want smaller lots. He recommended the Council approve the tentative subdivision maps.

Mike Rasmussen, applicant, advised the idea to have smaller lots was not their original idea and stated both Rasmussen applicants solely wanted what was best for the City.

He asked for the Council to approve the tentative subdivision maps.

The public hearing was closed at 7:03 P.M.

Council member Marsigli inquired why the resolutions for both tentative subdivision maps do not mention that the area can be served by the high school, to which Mr.

Kilger apologized and advised additional language can be added.

Council member Marsigli inquired if a fee agreement was in place the City could receive the fees earlier, to which Mr. Kilger advised he has not read that provision in State law and was unsure.

Assistant City Attorney Branham advised there is a voluntary component, which would apply if the developer was willing to meet with the City and come up with a mutually agreeable determination.

Mike Rasmussen advised he is willing to work with the City but at this point in time if changes were made it would stop the project completely.

Council member Marsigli inquired on including additional language in the resolution that would say "at the final map stage specific acres will be rezoned," to which Assistant City Attorney Branham advised the following language would have to be included in the resolution "applicant and City agree that prior to final map approval the applicant and City, voluntarily, will discuss rezoning." She stated the applicant has to be voluntarily willing to agree.

Mr. Kilger clarified it is purely the applicant's decision whether they want to proceed with rezoning.

Council member Marsigli inquired on making the final map contingent on rezoning, to which Assistant City Attorney Branham advised of the risks if the City made it contingent. She also advised by offering to discuss and come to an agreement prior to final map recordation the City will have more flexibility.

Mr. Kilger advised of items that will be required if the City decided to change the density, such as completing a separate Environmental Impact Report and having to amend the Master Plan. He suggested the City hire an Environmental Planning professional to scope out the requirements to amend documents.

Council member Giles inquired how long the Environmental Impact Report would push back the project, to which Assistant City Attorney Branham advised it would take approximately two years.

Council member Giles inquired what is waived during this process, to which Assistant City Attorney Branham advised there are specific CEQA provisions that apply and stated CEQA happens when development happens.

Mayor Pro Tem Ford expressed his opinion on moving the project forward.

Ron Katakis advised of the issues that could arise from stalling the project further. He suggested the City look at the smaller sites along Sullivan for the Housing Element. He provided his opinion on developing smaller units.

Council member Bonta made a motion to approve resolution adopting the Michael and Dana Rasmussen vesting tentative subdivision map for Southeast Gustine Development.

The motion was seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Ford and carried 4-1 by roll call vote, with Council member Marsigli in opposition.

Council member Bonta made a motion to approve resolution adopting the Richara and Rebecca Rasmussen vesting tentative subdivision map for Southeast Gustine Development.

The motion was seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Ford and carried 4-1 by roll call vote, with Council member Marsigli in opposition.

3. PUBLIC HEARING - Consider Approving Site Inventory List for Sixth Cycle Housing Element Submission

1. Receive Staff Report

2. Open the public hearing

3. Receive public comment

4. Close the public hearing

5. Consider a motion to approve the site inventory list for the City's Sixth Cycle Housing Element submission
Economic & Community Development Director Westervelt presented the staff report.

Assistant City Attorney Branham advised of each Council member's 1000' radius conflict of interest within the site inventory list and stated during discussion of specific sites the Council members will have to recuse themselves accordingly.

Mrs. Branham also addressed the minimum density topic. She stated single family residences are not a permitted use in R3 and R4 zones. She advised the State has mandated a minimum of 20 dwelling units per acre for high density. She also reminded the Council and residents that no one is required to sell or develop their parcels.

Economic & Community Development Director Westervelt clarified not all of the items up for rezoning are proposed to be the highest density.

Assistant City Attorney Branham also stated from the State's perspective, access would not be a reason to preclude the sites from the inventory list.

Mayor Pro Tem Ford inquired if he owns an R1 lot and it is rezoned to R3 and he can't build on the lot, who is paying for the loss, to which Assistant City Attorney Branham advised that cities are subject and required to rezone lots from time to time, per the law unless you have a vested tentative map, your rights over the zoning designation is subject to potential change. She also advised just owning a vested parcel is not sufficient vested rights under the law.

Council member Bonta inquired if the General Plan precludes building single family residences and asked if the General Plan can be amended, to which Assistant City Attorney Branham advised the General Plan and Zoning has to match and also stated the mandate for a minimum of 20 dwelling units per acre has to be included in both General Plan and Zoning Code.

Council member Marsigli advised the guidebook for site inventories states rural communities not having to meet some of the RHNA numbers, to which Assistant City Attorney Branham advised the rezoning is not effective tonight and stated it will be completed at a later time. She informed Council the City is considered a suburban community and advised the only communities that qualify as rural are unincorporated, low-populated areas.

Mayor Pro Tem Ford inquired on his conflict of interest due to having customers in the north area that he lists on his Statement of Economic Interest, to which Assistant City Attorney Branham clarified that the site inventory conflict of interest is calculated from a Council members primary residence location but advised if Mayor Pro Tem Ford feels as if he cannot make an unbiased decision, he can voluntarily recuse himself.

Council member Marsigli inquired on the lot size of sites 12 and 13, to which Mayor Nagy advised site 12 is 6.96 acres and stated the info is in one of the exhibits in the agenda packet.

Assistant City Attorney Branham reminded Council general questions can be asked about properties but Council is unable to further discuss on replacing the proposed sites with un-noticed sites.

Mayor Nagy opened the public hearing at 7:53 P.M.

Assistant City Attorney Branham advised public comment is not for back and forth discussion and stated she will write down all questions and answer at the end of public comment.

Lana Edwards, 51 West Ave., advised site 5 is currently being farmed and reminded Council the presentation states the site had to be vacant and reiterated that site 5 is not vacant and is currently being used for farming.

Keith Collins, 76 Linden Ave, advised the properties on exhibit A and B presents an amount over the required Housing Element recommendations. He also advised the residents of Gustine were not involved with the site inventory selection process. He asked Council to not approve the proposed site list. He provided his written statement to Council.

Mr. Cozzitoro, Gustine resident, asked for further detail on access and inquired who is liable for residents walking through his driveway to get to the development. He expressed his concerns with lack of right of way.

Rachel Correia, 1235 North Ave., reiterated her concerns over lack of access. She asked Council to direct staff to remove site 11 due to lack of access. She also advised of lack of consideration of site DD, she stated the site is fully accessible and meets size requirements. She asked Council to reconsider site DD and removing sites 2-5 and 11.

She suggested staff submit a Housing Element that works best for the City.

Gayle McWilliams, 1280 Brenda Drive, relayed her concerns with entrance access and increased traffic. She asked Council to not approve the proposed site list until further research is completed for access. She also asked Council to listen to residents' concerns and recommendations.

Mario, 205 Linden Ave., advised of a letter that was signed by his neighbors stating their opposition in the low-income housing development.

John Nunes, 1275 North Ave., commented on how low-income housing development could impact future development in Gustine. He asked Council to remove all sites on the north side of town.

Cara Oliveira, Brenda Drive, expressed frustration with trying to work with City staff on the site inventory list. She advised of the constraints in the sites in the northern quadrant of town. She pointed out that the 2023 Opportunity Map does not state rezoning must occur in each quadrant. She asked Council to not approve the site inventory list.

Melanie Gomes, 1065 Brentwood, reminded Council that no one is less than because they live in low-income housing and expressed her concern with having all sites established in one neighborhood. She advised of her agreeance with the site inventory as listed in exhibit A.

Craig Christenson, 657 West Ave., advised of his perspective that in order to make changes they need to vote out the State representatives.

Mr. Dylina, site 10 owner, advised of his purchase of this lot due to the current zoning sunset date. He also advised of a development project that was submitted to staff but has not yet been proposed to Council. He inquired on the minimums for the zoning code. He expressed his objection to the rezoning of site 10 to R4. He provided additional information on his development project for the City.

Lloyd Vierra, 68 Linden Ave., asked staff to go back and make sure the City will have adequate water, sewer, police and fire. He also inquired on who will be paying to make sure there is enough of those items for the City.

The public hearing was closed at 8:19 P.M.

Mayor Pro Tem Ford commented on site DD and advised how it will work perfectly for development, to which Assistant City Attorney Branham advised the site was not noticed for discussion for tonight's meeting and stated he can recommend staff reconsider site DD and discuss it further at the December 19th meeting.

Economic & Community Development Director Westervelt advised the project submitted by Mr. Dylina was not approved. She stated current zoning requires a 20-24 dwelling unit per acre requirement. She informed Council the site was submitted with the 5m cycle Housing Element.

Council member Marsigil inquired if the site is currently proposed as R3 or R4, to which Economic & Development Director Westervelt advised it is proposed as R4 in this cycle.

Mayor Pro Tem Ford inquired clarification of the sunset note on the current Housing Element, to which Economic & Community Development Director Westervelt advised the note states a requirement of 20-24 dwelling units per acre and stated there was additional information listed in regards to occupancy and income.

Assistant City Attorney Branham provided additional information in regards to a similar event in the Martinez vs. the City of Clovis. She advised the General Plan densities have to match the zoning codes.

Mayor Pro Tem Ford inquired how the sunset clause fits into the Housing Element, to which Economic & Community Development Director Westervelt advised the note on the last Housing Element cycle does not address what happens to the site zoning after the 2024 expiration date.

Assistant City Attorney Branham advised Mr. Dylina would have to establish the minimum density when submitting the project.

Council member Marsigli inquired on the maximum density amount listed in presentation, to which Assistant City Attorney Branham clarified that the portion to look at is the bottom portion of exhibit B, sites proposed to rezone high density.

Council member Marsigli inquired what the State looks at maximum density allowed or the realistic allowable density, to which Assistant City Attorney Branham advised the minimum density obviates the rest of the analysis.

Mayor Pro Tem Ford inquired on the minimum density for site 10, to which Assistant City Attorney advised going forward the minimum density will be 20 units per acre if it is not meeting low or very low income.

Mayor Pro Tem Ford expressed frustration with not being able to discuss sites that are not on the proposed list. He advised that he is not in agreeance with submitting a Housing Element that works for the State and stated the Housing Element should work for the City.

Council member Giles advised with enough justification for access, safety and infrastructure the sites would have to be considered.

Council member Marsigli recommended to add sites DD and EE and leave site 10 as R3.

Mayor Nagy expressed appreciation for all the work that has been done by staff, consultants, attorney and commissions. He advised he acknowledges the ramifications of non-compliance and what that could cost the City. He advised of grants and projects that came from being in compliance with past Housing Elements.

Mayor Nagy advised components of this Housing Element cycle is due to Attorney General Bonta's housing initiatives. He further stated none of the previous Housing Elements spurred any development. He discussed his position with the League of Cities and advised of their goal to protect local control. He advised of requests from the League of Cities for the Mayor to write letters and call local elected officials to vote for or against local legislations that could harm local control. He also advised of the lack of control the City has when submitting the Housing Element. He advised Council should have been more involved with the Housing Element process and stated that this is their fault not staffs. He recommended staff submit a Housing Element that makes sense for the City not for the State. He voiced his concerns with developing low income housing.

He advised he would like to send back the site inventory list back to staff for revision.

Assistant City Attorney Branham inquired on the Council consensus on the presented site inventory list, to which a consensus of the Council affirmed the proposed site inventory list is not the final list for submittal.

Assistant City Attorney Branham inquired consensus on site 6, to which Council advised to leave site 6 on the site inventory list.

Assistant City Attorney Branham inquired consensus on site 7, to which Council advised to leave site 7 on the site inventory list.

Assistant City Attorney Branham inquired consensus on site 9, to which Council advised to find an alternate site to use in the place of site 9.

Assistant City Attorney Branham inquired consensus on site 10, to which Council advised to leave at R3 and find an alternate site to allocate the additional units in place of site

10. Assistant City Attorney Branham advised if site 10 is left on the Housing Element then the 20 units per acre will be required. She also advised it is listed as a site for low income and the City is unable to go backwards and change the zoning from the 5th cycle designation.

Council member Marsigli inquired why the applicant was not informed of this information, to which Economic & Community Development Director Westervelt advised she did inform Mr. Dylina in October, prior to his purchase of the site.

Mayor Nagy inquired the difference between R3 and R4 if it is the same density, to which Assistant City Attorney Branham advised the low income and very low-income designations are what creates the difference. She provided the process for creating a site inventory list and defined "shortfall list" which happens when there are not enough already zoned sites to meet RHNA numbers.

Mayor Pro Tem Ford inquired who included the note in regards to site 10 in the 5th cycle, to which Economic & Community Development Director Westervelt advised she was unsure but clarified, it was a footnote included in the previous Housing Element submittal.

Mayor Pro Tem Ford inquired on credit for the site 10 project being high density, to which Assistant City Attorney Branham advised the City will only receive credits for sites that have entitlement.

Mayor Pro Tem Ford inquired if the City could still approve the project, to which Assistant City Attorney Branham advised the project would have to come in at 20 units per acre then the City could approve it.

Council member Giles inquired if 20 units per acre is the realistic number, to which Assistant City Attorney Branham advised the project would be permitted at 20 units per acre. She advised the realistic figures are only looked at specific to shortfall sites which are rezone sites that are required to meet RHNA numbers because the City does not have enough sites zoned.

Mayor Pro Tem Ford inquired if the lots could be split, to which Assistant City Attorney affirmed the applicant could come in for a lot split and advised the zoning would remain the same.

Mayor Nagy inquired if he can discuss sites that are not on the map, to which Assistant City Attorney Branham advised when proper noticing has been done, the Council can discuss it.

Mayor Nagy advised of sites that should not have been on the original site inventory list due to size requirements.

Mayor Pro Tem Ford also advised of access issues within the original site inventory list.

Mayor Nagy inquired on vacant lots down Meredith, to which Assistant City Attorney Branham advised the State has not given the City clear direction. She advised of the City's process when eliminating sites from the original site inventory list.

Council member Marsigli commented on the guidebook not stating that the City couldn't rezone commercial, to which Gina Paolini, contract Planner with CSG, advised if the City has enough vacant lots in their inventory then there is no reason to look further into rezoning commercial. She also advised as a planner, common practice is to not touch the commercial and industrial sites because you want to preserve those zoned sites because those developed sites could add revenue to the City.

Council member Marsigli inquired on dilapidated properties, to which Ms. Paolini advised those are redevelopment sites.

Mayor Pro Tem Ford inquired at what point outside of City limits sites can be considered, to which Ms. Paolini advised the Housing Element does not allow the City to step out of the sphere of influence.

Council member Giles inquired on City property being donated to be rezoned, to which Assistant City Attorney Branham advised there are specific requirements to dispose of park land. She also advised the burdens that arise from submitting non-vacant sites.

Council member Giles advised of his conversation with an Economic Developer and suggested the City look into non-vacant and under-utilized sites such as the old Beatrice Plant.

Assistant City Attorney Branham informed Council if they do not adopt the site inventory list by December 19th the City will be out of their jurisdictional Housing Element process and the City will be on their own to finish the Housing Element process.

Mayor Pro Tem Ford inquired what part of the jurisdictional plan is needed, to which Assistant City Attorney Branham advised the site inventory list is required to remain on schedule with that process.

Economic & Community Development Director Westervelt advised there are multiple Housing Element chapters the City has not worked on and stated the City could not begin the site environmental work until the site inventory portion is approved by Council.

Mayor Pro Tem Ford inquired who is doing the environmental work, to which Economic & Community Development Director Westervelt advised the jurisdictional consultants, Rincon Consultants, will be completing the required environmental work.

Mayor Pro Tem Ford inquired if the City could submit the December 19th final site list directly to the State, to which Economic & Community Development Director Westervelt answered no and stated the City has to complete further analysis, which is then included in the draft, the draft will then go to the public for review and then back to Council for approval, before being submitted to the state.

Assistant City Attorney Branham clarified the State requires the whole package to be completed before review.

Assistant City Attorney Branham reminded Council this item is just to finalize the site inventory list and this is not the rezoning process.

Mayor Pro Tem Ford inquired the deadline for the site inventory list, to which Economic & Community Development Director Westervelt advised it is December 15th and stated the City will be beyond the deadline due to the numerous processes that need to occur after the site list is approved.

Assistant City Attorney Branham inquired on the Council consensus on site CC, to which Council advised to remove site CC from the preferred discussion on December 19th.

Assistant City Attorney Branham inquired on the Council consensus on sites 2 and 3.

Council member Giles recused himself at 9:08 P.M., due to conflict of interest.

Council inquired the acreage for site 2, to which Interim City Manager Correa advised it is 0.58 acres.

Mayor Pro Tem Ford recused himself at 9:10 P.M., due to expressed conflict of interest.

Council members Bonta, Marsigli and Mayor Nagy advised to remove sites 2 and 3 with further intention to replace the allocations elsewhere.

Assistant City Attorney Branham clarified these sites may have to be added back on so the requirements of the Housing Element are met.

Assistant City Attorney Branham inquired on the Council consensus on site 4.

Council member Marsigli recused herself at 9:13 P.M.

Assistant City Attorney Branham informed the remaining Council members she would have to draw straws, according to the rule of necessity, to bring the Council back to a After drawing straws, Council member Marsigli returned to the Chambers at 9:15 P.M.

Council members Bonta, Marsigli and Mayor Nagy advised to remove site 4 with further intention to replace the allocations elsewhere.

Assistant City Attorney Branham inquired on the Council consensus on site 5.

Council member Marsigli recused herself at 9:16 P.M. due to conflict of interest.

Council member Giles returned to the Chambers at 9:17 P.M.

Council members Bonta, Giles and Mayor Nagy advised to remove site 5 with further intention to replace the allocations elsewhere.

Assistant City Attorney Branham inquired on the Council consensus on site 11.

Council members Bonta, Giles and Mayor Nagy advised to remove site #11 with further intention to replace the allocations elsewhere.

Assistant City Attorney Branham inquired on the Council consensus on site 8.

Council member Bonta recused himself at 9:18 P.M. due to conflict of interest.

Council member Marsigli and Mayor Pro Tem Ford returned to the Chambers at 9:18 P.M.

Council members Marsigli, Giles, Mayor Pro Tem Ford and Mayor Nagy advised to leave site 8 on the site inventory list.

Mayor Nagy inquired if staff could number the sites the same on all future maps.

Mayor Pro Tem Ford asked for hard copies of all future maps.

5. DISCUSSION & DIRECTION - North Ave Sidewalk Infill Project Sidewalk Drainage

1. Receive Staff Report

2. Receive public comment

3. Conduct discussion and provide staff with direction on remedial option City Engineer Gouveia presented the staff report.

There was no public comment.

Council member Marsigli advised of flooding at the North Ave/West Ave intersection that occurs. She distributed photos of flooding at that location from the November 2023 rain.

Mr. Gouveia provided his opinion that several CCID valves may need to be opened on the North side of North Avenue.

Council member Marsigli inquired if the valves were closed when the rain occurred, to which Mr. Gouveia advised he did not have that answer.

Council member Marsigli provided her opposing opinion of removing the two Modesto Ash trees and advised she did not believe this would help the issue at hand, to which Mr. Gouveia advised it would help alleviate the issue but would not remove the issue.

Mr. Gouveia advised the CCID valves should be opened now throughout the season.

Council member Marsigli inquired what other options are available, to which Mr.

Gouveia advised other options, outside of what is being proposed, will require a tremendous amount of funds.

Council member Marsigli commented on possible flooding that could occur due to the sidewalk infill project, to which Mr. Gouveia advised the project would not cause additional flooding.

Mayor Nagy inquired if the syphon would reduce the need to open the valve, to which Mr. Gouveia answered no and advised the valve allows run off from the City storm drain to go in CCID's pipe, Mr. Goveia continued that the syphon would be hooked up to this line, still requiring the seasonal opening.

Mayor Nagy inquired if it would need its own valve, to which Mr. Gouveia answered no Mayor Nagy inquired if option 2 was chosen how far down West Avenue would the fix extend, to which Mr. Gouveia answered a couple hundred feet.

Mayor Pro Tem Ford inquired if any issues would arise if the project was pushed to a later date, to which Mr. Gouveia advised it would be most economical to take care of the issue now but stated solutions can be accomodated at a later date.

Council member Giles inquired if the fiscal impact would be larger at a later date, to which Mr. Gouveia affirmed.

Council member Marsigli inquired the deadline to use CMAQ funds, to which Mr.

Gouveia advised it is June 30, 2025.

Council member Giles inquired the amount of water that would be there if the valve was open, to which Mr. Gouveia advised this would be a question for Public Works.

Mr. Gouveia clarified the project would have to be completed and fully expended by June of 2025.

Council member Bonta inquired if the tree roots can be cut instead of removing the trees, to which Mr. Gouveia advised the trees would be unstable if the roots were cut.

Mayor Pro Tem inquired the amount in the storm drain account, to which Finance Director Morrison advised the balance is $15K in the other contract services account.

Mayor Nagy inquired which option would alleviate the issue the most, to which Mr.

Gouveia advised the syphon while adding another maintenance component to the Public Works department, would best alleviate the issue.

Mayor Nagy inquired if the inlet would collect the other three storm drains along North Ave., to which Mr. Gouveia advised the drain pipe would cross over North Ave, and travel along the north side dumping into CCID's line.

Mayor Nagy inquired if the design and construction is included in the estimate, to which Mr. Gouveia advised it is an educated approximation.

Council provided direction to authorize option #1, constructing a strom drain inlet on the south side of North Ave and connecting it to the existing inlet on the north side of the road to connect to CCID's conveyance system.

6. DISCUSSION & DIRECTION - Police Vehicle Graphics

1. Receive Staff Report

2. Receive public comment

3. Conduct discussion and provide staff with direction on vehicle graphics options Police Chief Chavez presented the staff report
Police Volunteer Janis Peters handed out toy car duplicates that match the proposed graphics to Council along with a printed mockup of the Ford Explorers.

Craig Christenson, 657 West Ave, provided his opinion on the all black vehicle graphics option and advised he likes the design and stated it would make it harder for criminals to see them coming.

Mayor Nagy inquired if the existing vehicles will be painted all black, to which Police Chief Chavez answered no and advised he is hoping to continue adding to his department fleet since his current fleet is deteriorating.

Council member Marsigli inquired on the outline of the design, to which Police Chief Chavez advised it will just state Gustine Police and will be a little more visible than the printed mockup.

Mayor Nagy informed residents that the department is also bringing a motorcycle Officer to the City.

Police Chief Chavez thanked Mayor Nagy for allowing him to drive the Sister-City officials around in the new police vehicles.

Council provided direction to move forward with the all black contemporary design.

CITY DEPARTMENT REPORTS
Fire Chief Borrelli thanked everyone for attending the Breakfast with Santa event on November 25th and assisting with the breakfast. He advised they served almost 630 plates and raised $1700 and was able to leave $300 in the bank for next years' event.

He also thanked the 4H group for their help. He expressed appreciation to the community for attending.

Public Works Director Ingram advised of normal routine maintenance and tree maintenance. He also advised they are doing their best with leaf pickup and stated when the leaf pick-up truck goes down the departments top priority is to get it back up and running.

Council member Marsigli inquired if the aerator at Schmidt Park pond is running because she noted a green oil slick on the pond, to which Public Works Director answered no and advised the oil slick could be from the geese. He further stated muck can come to surface as the weather changes.

Council member Giles inquired if the aerator is installed in the pond, to which Public Works Director Ingram answered no and advised the aerator project will not begin until spring.

Mayor Nagy inquired why there is a section that has been saw cut and removed in Schmidt Park on the side part of the walking path, to which Public Works Director Ingram advised of estimates received for a new crack sealing and an overlay or a slurry coat for the walking path. He further advised he will bring these estimates to a future meeting for Council's approval.

Mayor Nagy inquired if the crosswalk signs were installed along Sullivan Rd., to which Public Works Director Ingram affirmed and stated the signs have been installed in front of school and advised he has two lighted LED stop signs that will be installed along the Roundabout detour route.

Recreation Manager Vitorino advised of her and Recreation Volunteer, Tianah Vitorino's, attendance at the California Aquatics Management School. She informed Council of new Red Cross Lifeguard training that will be in effect for the next pool season. She updated on the Downtown Christmas event. She also updated on sound system. She also advised Soundscapes will be replacing all speakers due to corroding and relayed the speakers are still under warranty. She informed Council they served around 650 people and were able to pay for all hot chocolate and s'mores due to sponsors. She also advised of volunteers assisting with train rides and bounce houses.

She thanked all sponsors. She updated on the aeration project and stated it will begin in spring 2024. She informed Council of upcoming Miss Gustine Toy Drive and Gustine Lion's Club Food Drive and advised they are looking for toy and food donations and stated the final donation date is December 15th.

Council member Giles inquired if the City is still tied in with the aeration contractor, to which Recreation Manager Vitorino advised the City is tied in with the contractor because it was approved at a past Council meeting and stated the contractor has already purchased items for the project.

Council member Giles suggested purchasing a smaller aerator and sharing parts with the WWTP aerators. Recreation Manager advised she will discuss this with Public Works Director Ingram.

Mayor Nagy commented on how outstanding the national anthem was and how great the speakers were remitting sound at the recent lighted holiday parade.

Finance Director Morrison advised the City has received its last draw down for the body-worn camera grant and is awaiting final payment.

Economic & Community Development Director Westervelt advised that she had nothing to report.

CITY ATTORNEY REPORT
None.

CITY MANAGER REPORT
Interim City Manager Correa updated Council on new legislature that is coming through the pipeline in regards to labor such as updates to the part time sick leave policy, and bereavement policy. She advised of a vacancy on the Airport Commission.

She also advised City Manager recruitment will be going out for a request for proposals for another executive search firm very soon.

CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
Council member Marsigli advised of the fun she had helping at Breakfast with Santa.

She updated on Pat's House of Beauty open house on November 16th and Crinklaw's Art Gallery 5-year anniversary on Saturday. She advised of the upcoming One Voice meeting and asked for City project recommendations.

Council member Bonta advised that he had nothing to report.

Council member Giles advised that he had nothing to report.

Mayor Pro Tem Ford advised that he had nothing to report.

Mayor Nagy thanked Chief for the toy car. He advised of his attendance at Crinklaw's Fine Art 5-year anniversary gathering. He reminded everyone Gustine Lion's Club will be picking up food donations on December 15th. He commended Crue Correa for dressing up as the cow at the Downtown Christmas event. He advised of his attendance at the 80th Annual Rotary Tournament at the high school. He thanked the community for attending the meeting.

CLOSED SESSION
None.

ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Nagy adjourned the meeting at 10:05 P.M.

THE BITY CALIC City of Gustine, CA Warrant List
By Vendor Name
Post Dates 12/06/2023 - 12/19/2023

ROTE HOTTER
Vendor Name Payable Number Post Date Description (Item) Amount Vendor: 209 MULTIMEDIA CORPORATION
Fund: 001 - GENERAL FUND
209 MULTIMEDIA CORPOR 355388 12/19/2023 REC NPH MAPS MIKE & 135.00

RICK RASMUSSEN
209 MULTIMEDIA CORPOR 355389 12/19/2023 HOUSING ELEMENT 6TH 135.00

CYCLE PHN
Fund 001 - GENERAL FUND Total: 270.00
Vendor 209 MULTIMEDIA CORPORATION Total: 270.00
Vendor: ACE HARDWARE OF GUSTINE
Fund: 001 - GENERAL FUND
ACE HARDWARE OF GUSTI 557208 12/19/2023 PW HARDWARE FOR 6.48

DOWNTOWN CHRISTMAS

DECORATIONS
ACE HARDWARE OF GUSTI 557230 12/19/2023 PW HARDWARE FOR 19.20

DOWNTOWN CHRISTMAS

DECORATION
ACE HARDWARE OF GUSTI 557591 12/19/2023 PW HARDWARE FOR 11.89

DOWNTOWN CHRISTMAS

DECOTATIONS
ACE HARDWARE OF GUSTI 557597 12/19/2023 PW HARDWARE FOR 16.22

DOWNTOWN CHRISTMAS

DECORATIONS
ACE HARDWARE OF GUST 557605 12/19/2023 PW DEPT OP SUPPLIES- 6.48

ELECTRICAL TAPE
ACE HARDWARE OF GUSTI 557611 12/19/2023 PW HARDWARE FOR 14.72

DOWNTOWN CHRISTMAS

DECORATIONS
Fund 001 - GENERAL FUND Total: 74.99
Fund: 060 - WATER FUND
ACE HARDWARE OF GUSTI 557194 12/19/2023 BALL FOR HITCH 21.64 ACE HARDWARE OF GUSTI 557201 12/19/2023 PW JANITORIAL SUPPLIES 12.73 ACE HARDWARE OF GUSTI 557231 12/19/2023 PW DEPT OP SUPPLIES- 29.22

GARDEN HOSE
ACE HARDWARE OF GUST 557675 12/19/2023 PW SPARE KEYS 15.09 ACE HARDWARE OF GUSTI 557681 12/19/2023 PW PROPANE FOR HAND 14.05 TORCH
ACE HARDWARE OF GUST 557707 12/19/2023 PW DEPT OP TOOLS AND 168.76

HARDWARE
Fund 060 - WATER FUND Total: 261.49
Fund: 061 - SEWER FUND
ACE HARDWARE OF GUSTI 557531 12/19/2023 FLOATING AERATOR 22.92

REPAIR HARDWARE
Fund 061 - SEWER FUND Total: 22.92
Vendor ACE HARDWARE OF GUSTINE Total: 359.40
Vendor: AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES, INC.

Fund: 001 - GENERAL FUND
AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICE IJGC-N6PF-6HKQ 12/19/2023 ADAPTER PLUGS FOR 16.20

DOWNTOWN CHRISTMAS
AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICE 1HDM-K9PK-G6VQ 12/19/2023 PD OFFICE SUPPLIES - 64.86

MONITOR PRIVACY SCREE
Warrant List Post Dates: 12/06/2023 - 12/19/2023
Vendor Name Payable Number Post Date Description (Item) Amount AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICE 1P6N-HVMJ-67NH 12/19/2023 PD OFFICE SUPPLIES - TAG 20.30 Fund 001 - GENERAL FUND Total: 101.36
Fund: 019 - RECREATION FUND
AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICE 1WWWG-XDNV-XRGL 12/19/2023 REC CHRISTMAS TREE 164.56

ROAD SIGNS
Fund 019 - RECREATION FUND Total: 164.56
Fund: 047 - FIREWORKS
AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICE 1LTP-NQQX-49P3 12/19/2023 REC OPERATING SUPPLIES 51.95 - COSTUME
Fund 047 - FIREWORKS Total: 51.95
Fund: 060 - WATER FUND
AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICE 143N-36Q6-MX7Y 12/19/2023 PW MISC SUPPLIES- 23.20

EXTENSION CORDS
AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICE 174F-XVMK-C4RP 12/19/2023 PW OFFICE SUPPLIES-PEN 25.61 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICE 174F-XYMK-1KPX 12/19/2023 PW MISC SUPPLIES- 25.54

EXTENSION CORDS
AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICE 1FD9-FCP7-NWYD 12/19/2023 PW DEPT OP SUPPLIES- 168.00

GLUE FOR WATER REPAIRS
AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICE 1P4D-YYG3-DRCF 12/19/2023 SAFETY GUARDS FOR MAN 60.58 LIFTS
Fund 060 - WATER FUND Total: 302.93
Fund: 061 - SEWER FUND
AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICE 143N-36Q6-MX7Y 12/19/2023 PW MISC SUPPLIES- 23.21

EXTENSION CORDS
AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICE 144Q-LD6X-D93M 12/19/2023 CASE OF LUBRICANT SPRA 76.86 AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICE 174F-XYMK-1KPX 12/19/2023 PW MISC SUPPLIES- 25.54

EXTENSION CORDS
AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICE 1CFF-W4QP-5GJ9 12/19/2023 TOOLS FOR TRAILER 21.53

RESTORATION
AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICE 1CL1-DGDN-937P 12/19/2023 KUBOTA TRACTOR 139.70

HARDWARE FOR

ATTACHMENT
AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICE 1TH1-DRV5-LHVY 12/19/2023 CONNECTORS FOR 103.90

AERATORS
AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICE 1XCT-L7DP-4GKP 12/19/2023 EXTENSION POLES FOR 134.73

PRUNING
Fund 061 - SEWER FUND Total: 525.47
Vendor AMAZON CAPITAL SERVICES, INC. Total: 1,146.27
Vendor: APPLIED CONCEPTS INC
Fund: 001 - GENERAL FUND
APPLIED CONCEPTS INC 429092 12/19/2023 PD OPERATING SUPPLIES - 6,946.04

MESSAGE TRAILER
Fund 001 - GENERAL FUND Total: 6,946.04
Fund: 060 - WATER FUND
APPLIED CONCEPTS INC 429092 12/19/2023 PD OPERATING SUPPLIES - 6,946.04

MESSAGE TRAILER
Fund 060 - WATER FUND Total: 6,946.04
Fund: 061 - SEWER FUND
APPLIED CONCEPTS INC 429092 12/19/2023 PD OPERATING SUPPLIES - 6,946.05

MESSAGE TRAILER
Fund 061 - SEWER FUND Total: 6,946.05
Vendor APPLIED CONCEPTS INC Total: 20,838.13
Warrant List Post Dates: 12/06/2023 -12/19/2023
Vendor Name Payable Number Post Date Description (Item) Amount Vendor: ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES INC
Fund: 001 - GENERAL FUND
ARAMARK UNIFORM SERV 5040232026 12/19/2023 PW DEPT OP SUPPLIES - 27.10

TOWELS, MOPS, MATS
Fund 001 - GENERAL FUND Total: 27.10
Fund: 059 -STORM DRAIN
ARAMARK UNIFORM SERV 5040232026 12/19/2023 PW DEPT OP SUPPLIES - 21.68

TOWELS, MOPS, MATS
Fund 059 - STORM DRAIN Total: 21.68
Fund: 060 - WATER FUND
ARAMARK UNIFORM SERV 5040232026 12/19/2023 PW DEPT OP SUPPLIES - 59.61

TOWELS, MOPS, MATS
Fund 060 - WATER FUND Total: 59.61
Fund: 061 - SEWER FUND
ARAMARK UNIFORM SERV 5040232026 12/19/2023 PW DEPT OP SUPPLIES - 72.25

TOWELS, MOPS, MATS
Fund 061 -SEWER FUND Total: 72.25
Vendor ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES INC Total: 180.64
Vendor: ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES
Fund: 001 - GENERAL FUND
ARAMARK UNIFORM SERV 2580291800 12/19/2023 FD CUSTODIAL SUPPLIES 189.63 Fund 001 - GENERAL FUND Total: 189.63
Vendor ARAMARK UNIFORM SERVICES Total: 189.63
Vendor: BADGER METER INC.

Fund: 060 - WATER FUND
BADGER METER INC. 80143382 12/19/2023 WATER METER MONTHLY 1,648.28

SUBSCRIPTION
NOVEMBER 2023
Fund 060 - WATER FUND Total: 1,648.28
Vendor BADGER METER INC. Total: 1,648.28
Vendor: BAKER SUPPLIES AND REPAIRS
Fund: 001 - GENERAL FUND
BAKER SUPPLIES AND REP 92701 12/19/2023 PW BELTS AND BLADES 722.35

FOR MOWERS
Fund 001 - GENERAL FUND Total: 722.35
Vendor BAKER SUPPLIES AND REPAIRS Total: 722.35
Vendor: BARBARA B. PARKIN
Fund: 019 - RECREATION FUND
BARBARA B. PARKIN YOGA SESSION 11/22/202 12/19/2023 YOGA SESSION 26 495.00 PARTICIPANTS SESSION R2
Fund 019 - RECREATION FUND Total: 495.00
Vendor BARBARA B. PARKIN Total: 495.00
Vendor: BEST BEST & KRIEGER
Fund: 001 - GENERAL FUND
BEST BEST & KRIEGER 982157 12/19/2023 ATTY SVCS-GENERAL 8,857.00 RETAINER NOV 2023
BEST BEST & KRIEGER 982158 12/19/2023 ATTY SVCS - CSPA V. 268.53

INTERESTED PARTIES NOV
2023
BEST BEST & KRIEGER 982159 12/19/2023 ATTY SVCS - 750.30

TELECOMMUNICATIONS
NOV 2023
Warrant List Post Dates: 12/06/2023 - 12/19/2023
Vendor Name Payable Number Post Date Description (Item) Amount BEST BEST & KRIEGER 982159 12/19/2023 ATTY SVCS- 2,079.70

TELECOMMUNICATIONS
NOV 2023
Fund 001 - GENERAL FUND Total: 11,955.53
Vendor BEST BEST & KRIEGER Total: 11,955.53
Vendor: CAPITOL ADVOCACY PARTNERS
Fund: 001 - GENERAL FUND
CAPITOL ADVOCACY PART 2023CAP237 12/19/2023 FEDERAL ADVOCACY & 49.20 GRANT WRITING NOV 202
CAPITOL ADVOCACY PART 2023CAP237 12/19/2023 FEDERAL ADVOCACY & 49.20 GRANT WRITING NOV 202
CAPITOL ADVOCACY PART 2023CAP237 12/19/2023 FEDERAL ADVOCACY & 246.00 GRANT WRITING NOV 202
CAPITOL ADVOCACY PART 2023CAP237 12/19/2023 FEDERAL ADVOCACY & 73.80 GRANT WRITING NOV 202
Fund 001 - GENERAL FUND Total: 418.20
Fund: 009 - COMMUNITY CENTER FUND
CAPITOL ADVOCACY PART 2023CAP237 12/19/2023 FEDERAL ADVOCACY & 73.80 GRANT WRITING NOV 202
Fund 009 - COMMUNITY CENTER FUND Total: 73.80
Fund: 016 - SWIM POOL FUND
CAPITOL ADVOCACY PART 2023CAP237 12/19/2023 FEDERAL ADVOCACY & 49.20 GRANT WRITING NOV 202
Fund 016 - SWIM POOL FUND Total: 49.20
Fund: 019 - RECREATION FUND
CAPITOL ADVOCACY PART 2023CAP237 12/19/2023 FEDERAL ADVOCACY & 73.80 GRANT WRITING NOV 202
Fund 019 - RECREATION FUND Total: 73.80
Fund: 059 - STORM DRAIN
CAPITOL ADVOCACY PART 2023CAP237 12/19/2023 FEDERAL ADVOCACY & 369.00 GRANT WRITING NOV 202
Fund 059 - STORM DRAIN Total: 369.00
Fund: 060 - WATER FUND
CAPITOL ADVOCACY PART 2023CAP237 12/19/2023 FEDERAL ADVOCACY & 492.00 GRANT WRITING NOV 202
Fund 060 - WATER FUND Total: 492.00
Fund: 061 - SEWER FUND
CAPITOL ADVOCACY PART 2023CAP237 12/19/2023 FEDERAL ADVOCACY & 492.00 GRANT WRITING NOV 202
Fund 061 - SEWER FUND Total: 492.00
Fund: 062 - REFUSE
CAPITOL ADVOCACY PART 2023CAP237 12/19/2023 FEDERAL ADVOCACY & 492.00 GRANT WRITING NOV 202
Fund 062 - REFUSE Total: 492.00
Vendor CAPITOL ADVOCACY PARTNERS Total: 2,460.00
Vendor: CENTRAL SANITARY SUPPLY
Fund: 060 - WATER FUND
CENTRAL SANITARY SUPPL 8465024 12/19/2023 PW JANITORIAL SUPPLIES 27.42 Fund 060 - WATER FUND Total: 27.42
Fund: 061 - SEWER FUND
CENTRAL SANITARY SUPPL 8465024 12/19/2023 PW JANITORIAL SUPPLIES 27.43 Fund 061 - SEWER FUND Total: 27.43
Vendor CENTRAL SANITARY SUPPLY Total: 54.85
Warrant List Post Dates: 12/06/2023 - 12/19/2023
Vendor Name Payable Number Post Date Description (Item) Amount Vendor: CINTAS CORPORATION #2
Fund: 001 - GENERAL FUND
CINTAS CORPORATION #2 5184055813 12/19/2023 FIRST AID KIT RESTOCK 29.89 Fund 001 - GENERAL FUND Total: 29.89
Vendor CINTAS CORPORATION #2 Total: 29.89
Vendor: CINTAS CORPORATION #3
Fund: 001 - GENERAL FUND
CINTAS CORPORATION #3 4172999078 12/19/2023 PW UNIFORM 12.28

ALLOWANCE / CUSTODIAL

SUPPLIES
CINTAS CORPORATION #3 4172999078 12/19/2023 PW UNIFORM 27.03

ALLOWANCE / CUSTODIAL

SUPPLIES
CINTAS CORPORATION #3 4172999078 12/19/2023 PW UNIFORM 11.05

ALLOWANCE / CUSTODIAL

SUPPLIES
CINTAS CORPORATION #3 4173808113 12/19/2023 PW UNIFORM 12.28

ALLOWANCE / CUSTODIAL

SUPPLIES
CINTAS CORPORATION #3 4173808113 12/19/2023 PW UNIFORM 27.03

ALLOWANCE / CUSTODIAL

SUPPLIES
CINTAS CORPORATION #3 4173808113 12/19/2023 PW UNIFORM 11.05

ALLOWANCE / CUSTODIAL

SUPPLIES
CINTAS CORPORATION #3 4174582705 12/19/2023 PW UNIFORM 14.75

ALLOWANCE / CUSTODIAL

SUPPLIES
CINTAS CORPORATION #3 4174582705 12/19/2023 PW UNIFORM 30.27

ALLOWANCE / CUSTODIAL

SUPPLIES
CINTAS CORPORATION #3 4174582705 12/19/2023 PW UNIFORM 10.56

ALLOWANCE / CUSTODIAL

SUPPLIES
CINTAS CORPORATION #3 4175182761 12/19/2023 PW UNIFORM 22.65

ALLOWANCE / CUSTODIAL

SUPPLIES
CINTAS CORPORATION #3 4175182761 12/19/2023 PW UNIFORM 27.91

ALLOWANCE/CUSTODIAL

SUPPLIES
CINTAS CORPORATION #3 4175182761 12/19/2023 PW UNIFORM 18:13

ALLOWANCE/CUSTODIAL

SUPPLIES
Fund 001 - GENERAL FUND Total: 224.99
Fund: 017 - CITY WIDE LIGHTING & LAND
CINTAS CORPORATION #3 4172999078 12/19/2023 PW UNIFORM 18.84

ALLOWANCE / CUSTODIAL

SUPPLIES
CINTAS CORPORATION #3 4173808113 12/19/2023 PW UNIFORM 18.84

ALLOWANCE / CUSTODIAL

SUPPLIES
CINTAS CORPORATION #3 4174582705 12/19/2023 PW UNIFORM 17.84

ALLOWANCE / CUSTODIAL

SUPPLIES
CINTAS CORPORATION #3 4175182761 12/19/2023 PW UNIFORM 24.71

ALLOWANCE / CUSTODIAL

SUPPLIES
Fund 017 - CITY WIDE LIGHTING & LAND Total: 80.23
Warrant List Post Dates: 12/06/2023 -12/19/2023
Vendor Name Payable Number Post Date Description (Item) Amount Fund: 059 - STORM DRAIN
CINTAS CORPORATION #3 4172999078 12/19/2023 PW UNIFORM 22.76

ALLOWANCE / CUSTODIAL

SUPPLIES
CINTAS CORPORATION #3 4173808113 12/19/2023 PW UNIFORM 22.76

ALLOWANCE / CUSTODIAL

SUPPLIES
CINTAS CORPORATION #3 4174582705 12/19/2023 PW UNIFORM 22.70

ALLOWANCE / CUSTODIAL

SUPPLIES
CINTAS CORPORATION #3 4175182761 12/19/2023 PW UNIFORM 21.99

ALLOWANCE / CUSTODIAL

SUPPLIES
Fund 059 - STORM DRAIN Total: 90.21
Fund: 060 - WATER FUND
CINTAS CORPORATION #3 4172999078 12/19/2023 PW UNIFORM 47.84

ALLOWANCE / CUSTODIAL

SUPPLIES
CINTAS CORPORATION #3 4172999078 12/19/2023 PW UNIFORM 73.93

ALLOWANCE / CUSTODIAL

SUPPLIES
CINTAS CORPORATION #3 4173808113 12/19/2023 PW UNIFORM 47.84

ALLOWANCE/CUSTODIAL

SUPPLIES
CINTAS CORPORATION #3 4173808113 12/19/2023 PW UNIFORM 73.93

ALLOWANCE / CUSTODIAL

SUPPLIES
CINTAS CORPORATION #3 4174582705 12/19/2023 PW UNIFORM 47.78

ALLOWANCE / CUSTODIAL

SUPPLIES
CINTAS CORPORATION #3 4174582705 12/19/2023 PW UNIFORM 71.93

ALLOWANCE / CUSTODIAL

SUPPLIES
CINTAS CORPORATION #3 4175182761 12/19/2023 PW UNIFORM 47.79

ALLOWANCE / CUSTODIAL

SUPPLIES
CINTAS CORPORATION #3 4175182761 12/19/2023 PW UNIFORM 67.49

ALLOWANCE / CUSTODIAL

SUPPLIES
Fund 060 - WATER FUND Total: 478.53
Fund: 061 - SEWER FUND
CINTAS CORPORATION #3 4172999078 12/19/2023 PW UNIFORM 53.18

ALLOWANCE / CUSTODIAL

SUPPLIES
CINTAS CORPORATION #3 4172999078 12/19/2023 PW UNIFORM 94.19

ALLOWANCE / CUSTODIAL

SUPPLIES
CINTAS CORPORATION #3 4173808113 12/19/2023 PW UNIFORM 53.18

ALLOWANCE / CUSTODIAL

SUPPLIES
CINTAS CORPORATION #3 4173808113 12/19/2023 PW UNIFORM 94.19

ALLOWANCE / CUSTODIAL

SUPPLIES
CINTAS CORPORATION #3 4174582705 12/19/2023 PW UNIFORM 50.06

ALLOWANCE / CUSTODIAL

SUPPLIES
Warrant List Post Dates: 12/06/2023-12/19/2023
Vendor Name Payable Number Post Date Description (Item) Amount CINTAS CORPORATION #3 4174582705 12/19/2023 PW UNIFORM 94.19

ALLOWANCE / CUSTODIAL

SUPPLIES
CINTAS CORPORATION #3 4175182761 12/19/2023 PW UNIFORM 53.12

ALLOWANCE / CUSTODIAL

SUPPLIES
CINTAS CORPORATION #3 4175182761 12/19/2023 PW UNIFORM 75.31

ALLOWANCE / CUSTODIAL

SUPPLIES
Fund 061 - SEWER FUND Total: 567.42
Fund: 062 - REFUSE
CINTAS CORPORATION #3 4172999078 12/19/2023 PW UNIFORM 29.53

ALLOWANCE/CUSTODIAL
CINTAS CORPORATION #3 4173808113 12/19/2023 PW UNIFORM 29.53

ALLOWANCE/CUSTODIAL
CINTAS CORPORATION #3 4174582705 12/19/2023 PW UNIFORM 30.55

ALLOWANCE / CUSTODIAL
CINTAS CORPORATION #3 4175182761 12/19/2023 PW UNIFORM 31.53

ALLOWANCE / CUSTODIAL
Fund 062 - REFUSE Total: 121.14
Vendor CINTAS CORPORATION #3 Total: 1,562.52
Vendor: CITY OF GUSTINE
Fund: 074 - ASSESS - BORRELLI
CITY OF GUSTINE BORELLI WATER 10/23/20 12/19/2023 BORRELLI WATER 48.00 10/23/2023 & 11/22/2023
Fund 074 - ASSESS - BORRELLI Total: 48.00
Vendor CITY OF GUSTINE Total: 48.00
Vendor: CSG CONSULTING - PRECISION
Fund: 001 - GENERAL FUND
CSG CONSULTING - PRECIS 53175 12/19/2023 BUILDING SERVICES JULY 4,676.00 29 - AUGUST 25, 2023
CSG CONSULTING - PRECIS 53704 12/19/2023 BUILDING SERVICES 4,998.00 AUGUST 26 - SEPT 29, 202
CSG CONSULTING - PRECIS B231703 12/19/2023 BUILDING PLAN REVIEW 228.42 2023-109
Fund 001 - GENERAL FUND Total: 9,902.42
Vendor CSG CONSULTING - PRECISION Total: 9,902.42
Vendor: DEREK SAWYER SMART ENERGY HEATING & AIR INC.

Fund: 001 - GENERAL FUND
DEREK SAWYER SMART EN 61752 12/19/2023 FD HVAC CLEANED SYSTE 80.00 Fund 001 - GENERAL FUND Total: 80.00
Vendor DEREK SAWYER SMART ENERGY HEATING & AIR INC. Total: 80.00 Vendor: DESIRAE PORRAS
Fund: 001 - GENERAL FUND
DESIRAE PORRAS PR - 12/8/23 EAL 12/19/2023 EAL 2023 135.00 Fund 001 - GENERAL FUND Total: 135.00
Vendor DESIRAE PORRAS Total: 135.00
Warrant List Post Dates: 12/06/2023 - 12/19/2023
Vendor Name Payable Number Post Date Description (Item) Amount Vendor: DM OLIVEIRA ENTERPRISES, INC.

Fund: 001 - GENERAL FUND
DM OLIVEIRA ENTERPRISE 23-1187 12/19/2023 TROUBLESHOOT NEWLY 540.00

INSTALLED SOUNDSYSTEM

HARDWARE
Fund 001 - GENERAL FUND Total: 540.00
Vendor DM OLIVEIRA ENTERPRISES, INC. Total: 540.00
Vendor: GOUVEIA ENGINEERING INC
Fund: 001 - GENERAL FUND
GOUVEIA ENGINEERING | 15349 12/19/2023 COMCAST CITY WIDE 3,303.56 IMPR JB951037 OCT 2023
GOUVEIA ENGINEERING I 15350 12/19/2023 UNWIRED CITY WIDE 805.88 IMPROV OCT 2023
Fund 001 - GENERAL FUND Total: 4,109.44
Fund: 063 - AIRPORT FUND
GOUVEIA ENGINEERING | 15343 12/19/2023 AIRPORT GENERAL OCT 1,220.63 2023
GOUVEIA ENGINEERING | 15345 12/19/2023 PAVEMENT 1,810.36

MANAGEMENT PROG OCT
Fund 063 - AIRPORT FUND Total: 3,030.99
Fund: 501 - PIONEER PARK REHABILITATION GRANT
GOUVEIA ENGINEERING | 15342 12/19/2023 PIONEER PARK 399.00 IMPROVEMENTS ОС 202
Fund 501 - PIONEER PARK REHABILITATION GRANT Total: 399.00 Vendor GOUVEIA ENGINEERING INC Total: 7,539.43
Vendor: GUERREROS TIRE AND AUTO REPAIR INC.

Fund: 061 - SEWER FUND
GUERREROS TIRE AND AU 11/19/2023 12/19/2023 PW #1021 LEAF TRUCK 443.39

REAR TIRES
GUERREROS TIRE AND AU 11/21/2023 12/19/2023 PW #1051 NEW TUBE 299.50 INSTALLED FOR ВАСКНОЕ
TIRE
Fund 061 - SEWER FUND Total: 742.89
Vendor GUERREROS TIRE AND AUTO REPAIR INC. Total: 742.89 Vendor: IEH-JL ANALYTICAL
Fund: 061 - SEWER FUND
lEH-JL. ANALYTICAL 617619 12/19/2023 WWTP WATER SAMPLES 361.00 10/26/23-11/2/23
IEH-JL ANALYTICAL 618340 12/19/2023 WWTP WATER SAMPLES 1,039.00 6/9/23, 6/12/23-6/16/23
Fund 061 - SEWER FUND Total: 1,400.00
Vendor IEH-JL ANALYTICAL Total: 1,400.00
Vendor: INFOSEND BILLING
Fund: 001 - GENERAL FUND
INFOSEND BILLING 25147 12/19/2023 UTILITY BILLING AND 47.04 MAILING 10/23/2023-
11/23/202
INFOSEND BILLING 25147 12/19/2023 UTILITY BILLING AND 28.54 MAILING 10/23/2023 -
11/23/202
Fund 001 - GENERAL FUND Total: 75.58
Fund: 059 - STORM DRAIN
INFOSEND BILLING 25147 12/19/2023 UTILITY BILLING AND 18.82 MAILING 10/23/2023 -
11/23/202
Warrant List Post Dates: 12/06/2023 - 12/19/2023
Vendor Name Payable Number Post Date Description (Item) Amount INFOSEND BILLING 25147 12/19/2023 UTILITY BILLING AND 11.42 MAILING 10/23/2023-
11/23/202
Fund 059 - STORM DRAIN Total: 30.24
Fund: 060 - WATER FUND
INFOSEND BILLING 25147 12/19/2023 UTILITY BILLING AND 310.48 MAILING 10/23/2023 -
11/23/202
INFOSEND BILLING 25147 12/19/2023 UTILITY BILLING AND 188.35 MAILING 10/23/2023 -
11/23/202
Fund 060 - WATER FUND Total: 498.83
Fund: 061 - SEWER FUND
INFOSEND BILLING 25147 12/19/2023 UTILITY BILLING AND 310.48 MAILING 10/23/2023 -
11/23/202
INFOSEND BILLING 25147 12/19/2023 UTILITY BILLING AND 188.35 MAILING 10/23/2023 -
11/23/202
Fund 061 - SEWER FUND Total: 498.83
Fund: 062 - REFUSE
INFOSEND BILLING 25147 12/19/2023 UTILITY BILLING AND 254.03 MAILING 10/23/2023 -
11/23/202
INFOSEND BILLING 25147 12/19/2023 UTILITY BILLING AND 154.10 MAILING 10/23/2023 -
11/23/202
Fund 062 - REFUSE Total: 408.13
Vendor INFOSEND BILLING Total: 1,511.61
Vendor: JOCELYN ROLAND, PHD
Fund: 001 - GENERAL FUND
JOCELYN ROLAND, PHD 22305 12/19/2023 PD PREEMPLOYMENT 475.00

SCREENING
Fund 001 - GENERAL FUND Total: 475.00
Vendor JOCELYN ROLAND, PHD Total: 475.00
Vendor: LANGUAGE LINE SERVICES
Fund: 001 - GENERAL FUND
LANGUAGE LINE SERVICES 11171156 12/19/2023 PD LANGUAGE LINE 145.31

ASSISTANCE
Fund 001 - GENERAL FUND Total: 145.31
Vendor LANGUAGE LINE SERVICES Total: 145.31
Vendor: LARRY VIVEIROS
Fund: 001 - GENERAL FUND
LARRY VIVEIROS 12/05/2023 12/19/2023 ENCROACHMENT #2023- 100.00 017 REVALUATION REFUN
Fund 001 - GENERAL FUND Total: 100.00
Vendor LARRY VIVEIROS Total: 100.00
Vendor: MADERA UNIFORM & ACCESSORIES, LLC
Fund: 221 - PAL EXPLORERS - PD PROGRAMS
MADERA UNIFORM & ACC 271631 12/19/2023 PD EXPLORER UNIFORMS 523.50 Fund 221 - PAL EXPLORERS - PD PROGRAMS Total: 523.50
Vendor MADERA UNIFORM & ACCESSORIES, LLC Total: 523.50
Warrant List Post Dates: 12/06/2023 - 12/19/2023
Vendor Name Payable Number Post Date Description (Item) Amount Vendor: MERCED COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH
Fund: 063 - AIRPORT FUND
MERCED COUNTY ENVIRO INO113133 12/19/2023 AIRPORT FUEL PERMIT 833.00 2023
Fund 063 - AIRPORT FUND Total: 833.00
Vendor MERCED COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL HEALTH Total: 833.00 Vendor: MID CAL PIPELINE & UTILITIES, INC
Fund: 060 - WATER FUND
MID CAL PIPELINE & UTILI 90315 12/19/2023 WATER VALVE AND 9,500.00

HYDRANT REPLACEMENT
(EXTRA DAYS)
Fund 060 - WATER FUND Total: 9,500.00
Vendor MID CAL PIPELINE & UTILITIES, INC Total: 9,500.00 Vendor: MID-VALLEY DISPOSAL LLC
Fund: 062 - REFUSE
MID-VALLEY DISPOSAL LLC NOVEMBER 2023 12/19/2023 REFUSE SERVICE 54,599.48 10/23/2023 - 11/23/2023
Fund 062 - REFUSE Total: 54,599.48
Vendor MID-VALLEY DISPOSAL LLC Total: 54,599.48
Vendor: MODERN WILDLIFE SOLUTIONS
Fund: 001 - GENERAL FUND
MODERN WILDLIFE SOLUT 10065 12/19/2023 GOPHER ABATEMENT AT 300.00

SCHMIDT PARK
NOVEMBER 2023
Fund 001 - GENERAL FUND Total: 300.00
Vendor MODERN WILDLIFE SOLUTIONS Total: 300.00
Vendor: MUNICIPAL CMS
Fund: 001 - GENERAL FUND
MUNICIPAL CMS 2124068 12/19/2023 ANNUAL WEDSITE 179.11

HOSTING & SUPPORT
1/6/24 - 1/5/2025
MUNICIPAL CMS 2124068 12/19/2023 ANNUAL WEDSITE 251.11

HOSTING & SUPPORT
1/6/24 - 1/5/2025
Fund 001 - GENERAL FUND Total: 430.22
Fund: 009 - COMMUNITY CENTER FUND
MUNICIPAL CMS 2124068 12/19/2023 ANNUAL WEDSITE 83.12

HOSTING & SUPPORT
1/6/24 - 1/5/2025
Fund 009 - COMMUNITY CENTER FUND Total: 83.12
Fund: 016 - SWIM POOL FUND
MUNICIPAL CMS 2124068 12/19/2023 ANNUAL WEDSITE 371.11

HOSTING & SUPPORT
1/6/24 - 1/5/2025
Fund 016 - SWIM POOL FUND Total: 371.11
Fund: 019 - RECREATION FUND
MUNICIPAL CMS 2124068 12/19/2023 ANNUAL WEDSITE 371.11

HOSTING & SUPPORT
1/6/24-1/5/2025
Fund 019 - RECREATION FUND Total: 371.11
Fund: 059 - STORM DRAIN
MUNICIPAL CMS 2124068 12/19/2023 ANNUAL WEDSITE 131.11

HOSTING & SUPPORT
1/6/24 - 1/5/2025
Fund 059 - STORM DRAIN Total: 131.11
Warrant List Post Dates: 12/06/2023 - 12/19/2023
Vendor Name Payable Number Post Date Description (Item) Amount Fund: 060 - WATER FUND
MUNICIPAL CMS 2124068 12/19/2023 ANNUAL WEDSITE 491.11

HOSTING & SUPPORT
1/6/24-1/5/2025
Fund 060 - WATER FUND Total: 491.11
Fund: 061 - SEWER FUND
MUNICIPAL CMS 2124068 12/19/2023 ANNUAL WEDSITE 491.11

HOSTING & SUPPORT
1/6/24 - 1/5/2025
Fund 061 - SEWER FUND Total: 491.11
Fund: 062 - REFUSE
MUNICIPAL CMS 2124068 12/19/2023 ANNUAL WEDSITE 131.11

HOSTING & SUPPORT
1/6/24 - 1/5/2025
Fund 062 - REFUSE Total: 131.11
Vendor MUNICIPAL CMS Total: 2,500.00
Vendor: OCONNOR & COMPANY
Fund: 001 - GENERAL FUND
OCONNOR & COMPANY 1123-45 12/19/2023 PROFESSIONAL AUDIT 45.00 SERV THRU OCT & NOV 20
OCONNOR & COMPANY 1123-46 12/19/2023 PROFESSIONAL AUDIT 7.50 SERV THRU NOV 19& 302 _
Fund 001 - GENERAL FUND Total: 52.50
Fund: 017 - CITY WIDE LIGHTING & LAND
OCONNOR & COMPANY 1123-45 12/19/2023 PROFESSIONAL AUDIT 45.00 SERV THRU OCT & NOV 20
OCONNOR & COMPANY 1123-46 12/19/2023 PROFESSIONAL AUDIT 7.50 SERV THRU NOV 19 & 302
Fund 017 - CITY WIDE LIGHTING & LAND Total: 52.50
Fund: 059 - STORM DRAIN
OCONNOR & COMPANY 1123-45 12/19/2023 PROFESSIONAL AUDIT 33.75 SERV THRU OCT & NOV 20
OCONNOR & COMPANY 1123-46 12/19/2023 PROFESSIONAL AUDIT 5.62 SERV THRU NOV 19 & 302
Fund 059 - STORM DRAIN Total: 39.37
Fund: 060 - WATER FUND
OCONNOR & COMPANY 1123-45 12/19/2023 PROFESSIONAL AUDIT 450.00 SERV THRU OCT & NOV 20
OCONNOR & COMPANY 1123-46 12/19/2023 PROFESSIONAL AUDIT 75.00 SERV THRU NOV 19 & 302
Fund 060 - WATER FUND Total: 525.00
Fund: 061 - SEWER FUND
OCONNOR & COMPANY 1123-45 12/19/2023 PROFESSIONAL AUDIT 450.00 SERV THRU OCT & NOV 20
OCONNOR & COMPANY 1123-46 12/19/2023 PROFESSIONAL AUDIT 75.00 SERV THRU NOV 19 & 302
Fund 061 - SEWER FUND Total: 525.00
Fund: 062 - REFUSE
OCONNOR & COMPANY 1123-45 12/19/2023 PROFESSIONAL AUDIT 45.00 SERV THRU OCT & NOV 20
OCONNOR & COMPANY 1123-46 12/19/2023 PROFESSIONAL AUDIT 7.50 SERV THRU NOV 19 & 30 2
Fund 062 - REFUSE Total: 52.50
Warrant List Post Dates: 12/06/2023 - 12/19/2023
Vendor Name Payable Number Post Date Description (Item) Amount Fund: 063 - AIRPORT FUND
OCONNOR & COMPANY 1123-45 12/19/2023 PROFESSIONAL AUDIT 56.25 SERV THRU OCT & NOV 20
OCONNOR & COMPANY 1123-46 12/19/2023 PROFESSIONAL AUDIT 9.38 SERV THRU NOV 19 & 302
Fund 063 - AIRPORT FUND Total: 65.63
Vendor OCONNOR & COMPANY Total: 1,312.50
Vendor: OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL #3
Fund: 099 - PAYROLL TRUST FUND
OPERATING ENGINEERS L PR - 12/8/23 12/19/2023 PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS 324.00 Fund 099 - PAYROLL TRUST FUND Total: 324.00
Vendor OPERATING ENGINEERS LOCAL #3 Total: 324.00
Vendor: O'REILLY AUTO ENTERPRISES, LLC
Fund: 001 - GENERAL FUND
O'REILLY AUTO ENTERPRIS 5718-365116 12/19/2023 PD OPERATING SUPPLIES 7.03

CAR WASH
Fund 001 - GENERAL FUND Total: 7.03
Fund: 060 - WATER FUND
O'REILLY AUTO ENTERPRIS 5718-364128 12/19/2023 BALL FOR HITCH 21.64 O'REILLY AUTO ENTERPRIS 5718-364719 12/19/2023 PW #1021 LEAF TRUCK 79.96

BATTERY
Fund 060 - WATER FUND Total: 101.60
Fund: 061 - SEWER FUND
O'REILLY AUTO ENTERPRIS 5718-364719 12/19/2023 PW #1021 LEAF TRUCK 79.95

BATTERY
Fund 061 - SEWER FUND Total: 79.95
Vendor O'REILLY AUTO ENTERPRISES, LLC Total: 188.58
Vendor: PACE SUPPLY CORP
Fund: 060 - WATER FUND
PACE SUPPLY CORP 199073676 12/19/2023 WATER DISTRIBUTION 1,652.20 PARTS
Fund 060 - WATER FUND Total: 1,652.20
Vendor PACE SUPPLY CORP Total: 1,652.20
Vendor: PACIFIC STAR CHEMICAL, LLC.

Fund: 060 - WATER FUND
PACIFIC STAR CHEMICAL, L 268777 12/19/2023 WELL #5 CHLORINE 1,011.22 Fund 060 - WATER FUND Total: 1,011.22
Vendor PACIFIC STAR CHEMICAL, LLC. Total: 1,011.22
Vendor: PG&E
Fund: 001 - GENERAL FUND
PG&E 11/30/2023 12/19/2023 GAS AND ELECTRIC 2,307.37
10/20/2023 - 11/17/2023
PG&E 11/30/2023 12/19/2023 GAS AND ELECTRIC 179.23
10/20/2023 - 11/17/2023
PG&E 11/30/2023 12/19/2023 GAS AND ELECTRIC 70.62
10/20/2023 - 11/17/2023
PG&E 11/30/2023 12/19/2023 GAS AND ELECTRIC 63.24
10/20/2023 - 11/17/2023
PG&E 11/30/2023 12/19/2023 GAS AND ELECTRIC 9.85
10/20/2023 - 11/17/2023
PG&E 11/30/2023 12/19/2023 GAS AND ELECTRIC 17.70
10/20/2023 - 11/17/2023
Fund 001 - GENERAL FUND Total: 2,648.01
Warrant List Post Dates: 12/06/2023 - 12/19/2023
Vendor Name Payable Number Post Date Description (Item) Amount Fund: 009 - COMMUNITY CENTER FUND
PG&E 11/30/.2023 12/19/2023 GAS AND ELECTRIC 26.94
10/20/2023 - 11/17/2023
PG&E 11/30/2023 12/19/2023 GAS AND ELECTRIC 113.43
10/20/2023 - 11/17/2023
Fund 009 - COMMUNITY CENTER FUND Total: 140.37
Fund: 016 - SWIM POOL FUND
PG&E 11/30/2023 12/19/2023 GAS AND ELECTRIC 8,850.49
10/20/2023 - 11/17/2023
Fund 016 - SWIM POOL FUND Total: 8,850.49
Fund: 017 - CITY WIDE LIGHTING & LAND
PG&E 11/30/.2023 12/19/2023 GAS AND ELECTRIC 5,421.91
10/20/2023 - 11/17/2023
Fund 017 - CITY WIDE LIGHTING & LAND Total: 5,421.91
Fund: 019 - RECREATION FUND
PG&E 11/30/2023 12/19/2023 GAS AND ELECTRIC 26.28
10/20/2023 - 11/17/2023
Fund 019 - RECREATION FUND Total: 26.28
Fund: 060 - WATER FUND
PG&E 11/30/.2023 12/19/2023 GAS AND ELECTRIC 855.86
10/20/2023-11/17/2023
Fund 060 - WATER FUND Total: 855.86
Fund: 061 - SEWER FUND
PG&E 11/30/2023 12/19/2023 GAS AND ELECTRIC 1,631.06
10/20/2023 - 11/17/2023
Fund 061 - SEWER FUND Total: 1,631.06
Fund: 063 - AIRPORT FUND
PG&E 11/30/.2023 12/19/2023 GAS AND ELECTRIC 233.32
10/20/2023 - 11/17/2023
Fund 063 - AIRPORT FUND Total: 233.32
Fund: 074 - ASSESS - BORRELLI
PG&E 11/30/2023 12/19/2023 GAS AND ELECTRIC 265.42
10/20/2023 - 11/17/2023
Fund 074 - ASSESS - BORRELLI Total: 265.42
Vendor PG&E Total: 20,072.72
Vendor: PITNEY BOWES
Fund: 001 - GENERAL FUND
PITNEY BOWES 3106409665 12/19/2023 POSTAGE MACHINE 17.00 01/01/21 - 03/31/21
PITNEY BOWES 3106409665 12/19/2023 POSTAGE MACHINE 17.00 01/01/21 - 03/31/21
PITNEY BOWES 3106409665 12/19/2023 POSTAGE MACHINE 34.00 01/01/21-03/31/21
Fund 001 - GENERAL FUND Total: 68.00
Fund: 060 - WATER FUND
PITNEY BOWES 3106409665 12/19/2023 POSTAGE MACHINE 42.50 01/01/21 - 03/31/21
Fund 060 - WATER FUND Total: 42.50
Fund: 061 - SEWER FUND
PITNEY BOWES 3106409665 12/19/2023 POSTAGE MACHINE 42.50 01/01/21 - 03/31/21
Fund 061 - SEWER FUND Total: 42.50
Warrant List Post Dates: 12/06/2023 - 12/19/2023
Vendor Name Payable Number Post Date Description (Item) Amount Fund: 063 - AIRPORT FUND
PITNEY BOWES 3106409665 12/19/2023 POSTAGE MACHINE 16.98 01/01/21 - 03/31/21
Fund 063 - AIRPORT FUND Total: 16.98
Vendor PITNEY BOWES Total: 169.98
Vendor: POLICE OFFICERS ASSOC
Fund: 099 - PAYROLL TRUST FUND
POLICE OFFICERS ASSOC PR - 12/8/23 12/19/2023 PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS 540.00 Fund 099 - PAYROLL TRUST FUND Total: 540.00
Vendor POLICE OFFICERS ASSOC Total: 540.00
Vendor: PUBLIC EMP RETIREMENT SYSTEM
Fund: 099 - PAYROLL TRUST FUND
PUBLIC EMP RETIREMENT PR - 12/8/23 EE CLASSIC 12/19/2023 RETIREMENT 1,059.24

CONTRIBUTIONS
PUBLIC EMP RETIREMENT PR - 12/8/23 EE PEPRA MI 12/19/2023 RETIREMENT 2,560.56

CONTRIBUTIONS
PUBLIC EMP RETIREMENT PR - 12/8/23 EE CLASSICS 12/19/2023 RETIREMENT 380.44

CONTRIBUTIONS
PUBLIC EMP RETIREMENT PR - 12/8/23 EE PEPRA SA 12/19/2023 RETIREMENT 2,484.86

CONTRIBUTIONS
PUBLIC EMP RETIREMENT PR - 12/8/23 ER CLASSIC 12/19/2023 RETIREMENT 1,798.88

CONTRIBUTIONS
PUBLIC EMP RETIREMENT PR - 12/8/23 ER PEPRA MI 12/19/2023 RETIREMENT 2,537.46

CONTRIBUTIONS
PUBLIC EMP RETIREMENT PR - 12/8/23 ER CLASSICS 12/19/2023 RETIREMENT 978.95

CONTRIBUTIONS
PUBLIC EMP RETIREMENT PR - 12/8/23 ER PEPRA SA 12/19/2023 RETIREMENT 2,446.75

CONTRIBUTIONS
Fund 099 - PAYROLL TRUST FUND Total: 14,247.14
Vendor PUBLIC EMP RETIREMENT SYSTEM Total: 14,247.14
Vendor: RICHARD A. FORD II
Fund: 001 - GENERAL FUND
RICHARD A. FORD II 177186 12/19/2023 FD OPERATING SUPPLIES - 58.46

WATER SOFT SALT
Fund 001 - GENERAL FUND Total: 58.46
Vendor RICHARD A. FORD Il Total: 58.46
Vendor: RICHARD MARTIN (DBA RESCUE 74 CPR
Fund: 019 - RECREATION FUND
RICHARD MARTIN (DBA RE 1204 12/19/2023 REC CONTRACT SERVICES 455.00

CPR FIRST AID
Fund 019 - RECREATION FUND Total: 455.00
Vendor RICHARD MARTIN (DBA RESCUE 74 CPR) Total: 455.00 Vendor: SHRED-IT
Fund: 001 - GENERAL FUND
SHRED-IT 8005450086 12/19/2023 PD SHRED IT SERVICES 221.33 11/29/2023
SHRED-IT 8005541505 12/19/2023 SHRED SERVICE 6.25
11/07/2023
SHRED-IT 8005541505 12/19/2023 SHRED SERVICE 10.41
11/07/2023
SHRED-IT 8005541505 12/19/2023 SHRED SERVICE 6.25
11/07/2023
SHRED-IT 8005541505 12/19/2023 SHRED SERVICE 83.30
11/07/2023
Warrant List Post Dates: 12/06/2023 - 12/19/2023
Vendor Name Payable Number Post Date Description (Item) Amount SHRED-IT 8005541505 12/19/2023 SHRED SERVICE 2.08
11/07/2023
Fund 001 - GENERAL FUND Total: 329.62
Fund: 019 - RECREATION FUND
SHRED-IT 8005541505 12/19/2023 SHRED SERVICE 6.24
11/07/2023
Fund 019 - RECREATION FUND Total: 6.24
Fund: 060 - WATER FUND
SHRED-IT 8005541505 12/19/2023 SHRED SERVICE 41.65
11/07/2023
Fund 060 - WATER FUND Total: 41.65
Fund: 061 - SEWER FUND
SHRED-IT 8005541505 12/19/2023 SHRED SERVICE 41.65
11/07/2023
Fund 061 - SEWER FUND Total: 41.65
Fund: 062 - REFUSE
SHRED-IT 8005541505 12/19/2023 SHRED SERVICE 10.41
11/07/2023
Fund 062 - REFUSE Total: 10.41
Vendor SHRED-IT Total: 429.57
Vendor: SILKE COMMUNICATIONS SOLUTIONS INC
Fund: 001 - GENERAL FUND
SILKE COMMUNICATIONS 136067 12/19/2023 PD OPERATING SUPPLIES - 7,918.49 RADIOS
Fund 001 - GENERAL FUND Total: 7,918.49
Vendor SILKE COMMUNICATIONS SOLUTIONS ING Total: 7,918.49 Vendor: SLOAN SAKAI YEUNG & WONG LLP
Fund: 001 - GENERAL FUND
SLOAN SAKAI YEUNG & W 53470 12/19/2023 PROJECT MANAGEMENT 4,520.00 CONSULT SERV OCT 2023
Fund 001 - GENERAL FUND Total: 4,520.00
Vendor SLOAN SAKAI YEUNG & WONG LLP Total: 4,520.00
Vendor: STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES INC (SCSI)
Fund: 200 - REGIONAL MEASURE V
STANTEC CONSULTING SER 2164633 12/19/2023 HWY 140/33 24,439.25

ROUNDABOUT WELL

DECOMISSIONING
Fund 200 - REGIONAL MEASURE V Total: 24,439.25
Vendor STANTEC CONSULTING SERVICES INC (SCSI) Total: 24,439.25 Vendor: STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPT OF JUSTICE
Fund: 001 - GENERAL FUND
STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEP 695449 12/19/2023 PD LIVE SCANS OCTOBER 497.00 2023
Fund 001 - GENERAL FUND Total: 497.00
Vendor STATE OF CALIFORNIA DEPT OF JUSTICE Total: 497.00 Vendor: STATE STREET BANK & TRUST COMPANY
Fund: 099 - PAYROLL TRUST FUND
STATE STREET BANK & TRU PR - 12/8/23 12/19/2023 PAYROLL DEDUCTIONS 250.00 Fund 099 - PAYROLL TRUST FUND Total: 250.00
Vendor STATE STREET BANK & TRUST COMPANY Total: 250.00
Warrant List Post Dates: 12/06/2023 - 12/19/2023
Vendor Name Payable Number Post Date Description (Item) Amount Vendor: STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BD
Fund: 060 - WATER FUND
STATE WATER RESOURCES WD-0232772 12/19/2023 WATER SYSTEM ANNUAL 3,746.00 PERMIT FEE 7/1/23-
6/30/24
Fund 060 - WATER FUND Total: 3,746.00
Fund: 061 - SEWER FUND
STATE WATER RESOURCES WD-0232938 12/19/2023 WWTP ANNUAL PERMIT 44,554.00 FEE 7/1/23-6/30/24
Fund 061 - SEWER FUND Total: 44,554.00
Vendor STATE WATER RESOURCES CONTROL BD Total: 48,300.00 Vendor: THE SHERWIN-WILLIAMS COMPANY
Fund: 001 - GENERAL FUND
THE SHERWIN-WILLIAMS 9767-2 12/19/2023 PAINT FOR AL GOMAN 193.37

EXTERIOR
Fund 001 - GENERAL FUND Total: 193.37
Vendor THE SHERWIN-WILLIAMS COMPANY Total: 193.37
Vendor: T-MOBILE USA, INC
Fund: 001 - GENERAL FUND
T-MOBILE USA, INC 10/21/23 - 11/20/23 12/19/2023 TELEPHONE SERVICE 3.03 10/21/2023 - 11/20/2023
T-MOBILE USA, INC 10/21/23 - 11/20/23 12/19/2023 TELEPHONE SERVICE 3.03 10/21/2023 - 11/20/2023
T-MOBILE USA, INC 10/21/23 - 11/20/23 12/19/2023 TELEPHONE SERVICE 3.03 10/21/2023 - 11/20/2023
T-MOBILE USA, INC 10/21/23 - 11/20/23 12/19/2023 TELEPHONE SERVICE 3.03 10/21/2023 - 11/20/2023
T-MOBILE USA, INC 10/21/23 - 11/20/23 12/19/2023 TELEPHONE SERVICE 667.42 10/21/2023 - 11/20/2023
T-MOBILE USA, INC 10/21/23 - 11/20/23 12/19/2023 TELEPHONE SERVICE 3.03 10/21/2023 - 11/20/2023
T-MOBILE USA, INC 10/21/23 - 11/20/23 12/19/2023 TELEPHONE SERVICE 3.03 10/21/2023-11/20/2023
T-MOBILE USA, INC 10/21/23 - 11/20/23 12/19/2023 TELEPHONE SERVICE 3.03 10/21/2023 - 13/20/2023
Fund 001 - GENERAL FUND Total: 688.63
Fund: 009 - COMMUNITY CENTER FUND
T-MOBILE USA, INC 10/21/23 - 11/20/23 12/19/2023 TELEPHONE SERVICE 9.70 10/21/2023 - 11/20/2023
Fund 009 - COMMUNITY CENTER FUND Total: 9.70
Fund: 016 - SWIM POOL FUND
T-MOBILE USA, INC 10/21/23 - 11/20/23 12/19/2023 TELEPHONE SERVICE 9.70 10/21/2023 - 11/20/2023
Fund 016 - SWIM POOL FUND Total: 9.70
Fund: 019 - RECREATION FUND
T-MOBILE USA, INC 10/21/23 - 11/20/23 12/19/2023 TELEPHONE SERVICE 9.70 10/21/2023 - 11/20/2023
Fund 019 - RECREATION FUND Total: 9.70
Fund: 060 - WATER FUND
T-MOBILE USA, INC 10/21/23 - 11/20/23 12/19/2023 TELEPHONE SERVICE 181.88 10/21/2023 - 11/20/2023
Fund 060 - WATER FUND Total: 181.88
Warrant List Post Dates: 12/06/2023 - 12/19/2023
Vendor Name Payable Number Post Date Description (Item) Amount Fund: 061 - SEWER FUND
T-MOBILE USA, INC 10/21/23 - 11/20/23 12/19/2023 TELEPHONE SERVICE 181.88 10/21/2023 - 11/20/2023
Fund 061 - SEWER FUND Total: 181.88
Fund: 062 - REFUSE
T-MOBILE USA, INC 10/21/23 - 11/20/23 12/19/2023 TELEPHONE SERVICE 102.10 10/21/2023 - 11/20/2023
Fund 062 - REFUSE Total: 102.10
Fund: 063 - AIRPORT FUND
T-MOBILE USA, INC 10/21/23 - 11/20/23 12/19/2023 TELEPHONE SERVICE 3.03 10/21/2023 - 11/20/2023
Fund 063 - AIRPORT FUND Total: 3.03
Fund: 505 - CAL VIP GRANT
T-MOBILE USA, INC 10/21/23 - 11/20/23 12/19/2023 TELEPHONE SERVICE 25.92 10/21/2023 - 11/20/2023
Fund 505 - CAL VIP GRANT Total: 25.92
Vendor T-MOBILE USA, INC Total: 1,212.54
Vendor: TRI COUNTIES BANK CARDMEMBER SERVICES
Fund: 001 - GENERAL FUND
TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 11/30/2023 GI TRI COUNT 12/19/2023 GI CC FINANCE CHARGE 43.83 TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 11/01/2023 JM GOTO 12/19/2023 TELEPHONE SERVICE 1.96 11/01/2023-11/30/2023
TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 11/01/2023 JM GOTO 12/19/2023 TELEPHONE SERVICE 1.96 11/01/2023-11/30/2023
TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 11/01/2023 JM GOTO 12/19/2023 TELEPHONE SERVICE 1.96 11/01/2023-11/30/2023
TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 11/01/2023 JM GOTO 12/19/2023 TELEPHONE SERVICE 1.96 11/01/2023-11/30/2023
TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 11/01/2023 JM GOTO 12/19/2023 TELEPHONE SERVICE 392.70 11/01/2023-11/30/2023
TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 11/01/2023 JM GOTO 12/19/2023 TELEPHONE SERVICE 1.96 11/01/2023-11/30/2023
TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 11/01/2023 JM GOTO 12/19/2023 TELEPHONE SERVICE 1.96 11/01/2023-11/30/2023
TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 11/01/2023 JM GOTO 12/19/2023 TELEPHONE SERVICE 1.96 11/01/2023-11/30/2023
TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 11/13/2023 JM ADOBE 12/19/2023 ADOBE ACCOUNT FOR 19.99 LAPTOP 11/13/23-
12/12/23
TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 11/30/2023 JM TRI COUN 12/19/2023 IM CC FINANCE CHARGE 8.24 TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 11/02/2023 JW PIONEER 12/19/2023 HOUSING ELEMENT 13.49

WORKSHOP SUPPLIES
TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 11/13/2023 JW FEDEX 12/19/2023 HOUSING ELEMENT 43.79

WORKSHOP SUPPLIES
TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 11/30/2023 JW TRI COUN 12/19/2023 JW CC FINANCE CHRGE 2.54 TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 11/01/2023 MC CRINKLA 12/19/2023 SISTER-CITY GIFT 90.00 TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 11/06/2023 MC LEAGUE O 12/19/2023 B. GILES NEW MEMBER 675.00

ACADEMY
TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 11/07/2023 MC EL PICOSI 12/19/2023 SISTER-CITY DEPT LUNCH 239.59 TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 11/07/2023 MC NOB HILL 12/19/2023 SISTER-CITY VISIT 25.65 TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 11/14/2023 MC LEE'S FLO 12/19/2023 SYMPATHY- M. GANDY 235.93 TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 11/30/2023 MC TRI COUN 12/19/2023 MC CC FINANCE CHARGE 1.79 TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 11/10/2023 SJ ASCEND 12/19/2023 RECORDS TRAINING-N. 770.64 CANALS
TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 11/13/2023 SJ THE EMBLE 12/19/2023 BADGES PATCHES 193.00 Warrant List Post Dates: 12/06/2023-12/19/2023
Vendor Name Payable Number Post Date Description (Item) Amount TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 11/30/2023 SJ TRI COUNTI 12/19/2023 SI CC FINANCE CHARGE 23.10 TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 12/06/2023 SJ EBAY 12/19/2023 F. MARTINEZ EBAY 52.33

PERSONAL ACCIDENT

PURCHASES
TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 11/30/2023 TV TRI COUNT 12/19/2023 TV CC FINANCE CHARGE 4.94 Fund 001 - GENERAL FUND Total: 2,850.27
Fund: 009 - COMMUNITY CENTER FUND
TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 11/01/2023 JM GOTO 12/19/2023 TELEPHONE SERVICE 7.85 11/01/2023-11/30/2023
Fund 009 - COMMUNITY CENTER FUND Total: 7.85
Fund: 016 - SWIM POOL FUND
TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 11/01/2023 JM GOTO 12/19/2023 TELEPHONE SERVICE 7.85 11/01/2023-11/30/2023
TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 11/06/2023 TV UBER 12/19/2023 CAMS AQUATIC SCHOOL 9.97

TRANSPORTATION
TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 11/07/2023 TV UBER 12/19/2023 CAMS AQUATIC SCHOOL 12.96

TRANSPORTATION
TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 11/08/2023 TV UBER 12/19/2023 CAMS AQUATIC SCHOOL 12.97

TRANSPORTATION
TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 11/09/2023 TV DOUBLET 12/19/2023 CAMS AQUATIC SCHOOL 511.61

LODGING
Fund 016 - SWIM POOL FUND Total: 555.36
Fund: 019 - RECREATION FUND
TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 11/01/2023 JM GOTO 12/19/2023 TELEPHONE SERVICE 7.85 11/01/2023-11/30/2023
TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 10/31/2023 TV DOLLAR G 12/19/2023 HALLOWEEN CANDY 152.00 SUPPLY
TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 11/16/2023 TV WALMART 12/19/2023 S'MORES AND HOT 296.32

CHOCOLATE SUPPUES
TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 11/17/2023 TV FUN & GA 12/19/2023 DEPOSIT TRAIN AND 400.00

BOUNCE HOUSE
TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 11/18/2023 TV WALMART 12/19/2023 REC DEPT OP SUPPLIES- 51.65

TOOL BOX
TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 11/24/2023 TV ROSS 12/19/2023 MINUTE TO WIN IT 19.54

SUPPLIES
TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 11/24/2023 TV WALMART 12/19/2023 REC CHRISTMAS 32.13

DECORATIONS
TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 11/25/2023 TV FUN & GA 12/19/2023 BOUNCE HOUSE AND 1,950.00

TRAIN BALANCE
TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 11/25/2023 TV RICHARDS 12/19/2023 HOT CHOCOLATE BOOTH 75.76

PROPANE TANK
TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 11/29/2023 TV CPRS 12/19/2023 2024 CPRS CONFERENCE 235.00 FEES-T. VITORINO
TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 11/29/2023 TV CPRS 12/19/2023 2024 CPRS CONFERENCE 350.00 FEES-T. VITORINO
Fund 019 - RECREATION FUND Total: 3,570.25
Fund: 060 - WATER FUND
TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 11/03/2023 GI TWILIO 12/19/2023 SCADA SERVICE FOR 10.01

WATER WELLS
TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 11/04/2023 GI TWILIO 12/19/2023 SCADA SERVICE FOR 10.02

WATER WELLS
TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 11/05/2023 GI TWILIO 12/19/2023 SCADA SERVICE FOR 10.00

WATER WELLS
TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 11/24/2023 GI IONOS 12/19/2023 WATER CLOUD SERVER 25.00 FEE 11/22/23-12/22/23
Warrant List Post Dates: 12/06/2023-12/19/2023
Vendor Name Payable Number Post Date Description (Item) Amount TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 11/01/2023 JM GOTO 12/19/2023 TELEPHONE SERVICE 137.44 11/01/2023-11/30/2023
Fund 060 - WATER FUND Total: 192.47
Fund: 061 - SEWER FUND
TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 11/01/2023 JM GOTO 12/19/2023 TELEPHONE SERVICE 137.44 11/01/2023-11/30/2023
Fund 061 - SEWER FUND Total: 137.44
Fund: 062 - REFUSE
TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 11/01/2023 JM GOTO 12/19/2023 TELEPHONE SERVICE 78.54 11/01/2023-11/30/2023
Fund 062 - REFUSE Total: 78.54
Fund: 063 - AIRPORT FUND
TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 11/01/2023 JM GOTO 12/19/2023 TELEPHONE SERVICE 2.01 11/01/2023-11/30/2023
TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 11/18/2023 JW ELIKA 12/19/2023 AIRPORT GATE OPENER 59.48 CARD READER 11/18/23-
12/18/23
Fund 063 - AIRPORT FUND Total: 61.49
Fund: 093 - INSURANCE TRUST FUND (RENTAL)
TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 10/31/2023 TV HUB (1) 12/19/2023 INSURANCE-AL GOMAN 150.82 CENTER RENTAL 11/8/202
TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 10/31/2023 TV HUB (2) 12/19/2023 INSURANCE- HENRY 100.63 MILLER PARK RENTAL 11/0
TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 10/31/2023 TV HUB (3) 12/19/2023 INSURANCE-ED 108.11

PETERSON SHELTER
RENTAL 11/05/2023
TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 11/07/2023 TV HUB 12/19/2023 INSURANCE-AL GOMAN 129.46

CENTER RENTAL
11/11/2023
TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 11/10/2023 TV HUB 12/19/2023 INSURANCE- AL GOMAN 148.69

CENTER RENTAL
11/15/2023
TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 11/13/2023 TV HUB (2) 12/19/2023 INSURANCE-ED 100.63

PETERSON SHELTER
RENTAL 11/18/2023
TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 11/13/2023 TV HUB 12/19/2023 INSURANCE-AL GOMAN 129.46

CENTER RENTAL
11/18/2023
TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 11/21/2023 TV HUB 12/19/2023 INSURANCE-AL GOMAN 129.46

CENTER RENTAL
11/25/2023
Fund 093 - INSURANCE TRUST FUND (RENTAL) Total: 997.26
Fund: 221 - PAL EXPLORERS - PD PROGRAMS
TRI COUNTIES BANK CARD 11/27/2023 SJ QUICKBOO 12/19/2023 EXPLORER PATCHES 188.56 Fund 221 - PAL EXPLORERS - PD PROGRAMS Total: 188.56
Vendor TRI COUNTIES BANK CARDMEMBER SERVICES Total: 8,639.49 Vendor: UNITED RENTALS (NORTH AMERICA), INC
Fund: 060 - WATER FUND
UNITED RENTALS (NORTH 220211872-001 12/19/2023 GENIE (BLUE MAN LIFT) 5,899.31

REPAIRS
Fund 060 - WATER FUND Total: 5,899.31
Vendor UNITED RENTALS (NORTH AMERICA), INC Total: 5,899.31 Warrant List Post Dates: 12/06/2023 - 12/19/2023
Vendor Name Payable Number Post Date Description (Item) Amount Vendor: USAM1 LLC
Fund: 001 - GENERAL FUND
USAMI LLC 56780 12/19/2023 PD MOTORCYCLES R&R 1,115.53

TIRES AND M/C REPAIR
Fund 001 - GENERAL FUND Total: 1,115.53
Vendor USAM1 LLC Total: 1,115.53
Vendor: VAN DE POL ENTERPRISES
Fund: 001 - GENERAL FUND
VAN DE POL ENTERPRISES CL64564 12/19/2023 FUEL PD/PW VEHICLE 120.09 11/16/2023 - 11/30/2023
VAN DE POL ENTERPRISES CL64564 12/19/2023 FUEL PD/PW VEHICLE 1,228.89 11/16/2023 - 11/30/2023
Fund 001 - GENERAL FUND Total: 1,348.98
Fund: 009 - COMMUNITY CENTER FUND
VAN DE POL ENTERPRISES CL64564 12/19/2023 FUEL PD/PW VEHICLE 305.68 11/16/2023 - 11/30/2023
Fund 009 - COMMUNITY CENTER FUND Total: 305.68
Fund: 017 - CITY WIDE LIGHTING & LAND
VAN DE POL ENTERPRISES CL64564 12/19/2023 FUEL PD/PW VEHICLE 65.50 11/16/2023 - 11/30/2023
Fund 017 - CITY WIDE LIGHTING & LAND Total: 65.50
Fund: 060 - WATER FUND
VAN DE POL ENTERPRISES CL64564 12/19/2023 FUEL PD/PW VEHICLE 319.87 11/16/2023 - 11/30/2023
Fund 060 - WATER FUND Total: 319.87
Fund: 061 - SEWER FUND
VAN DE POL ENTERPRISES CL64564 12/19/2023 FUEL PD/PW VEHICLE 320.96 11/16/2023 - 11/30/2023
Fund 061 - SEWER FUND Total: 320.96
Vendor VAN DE POL ENTERPRISES Total: 2,360.99
Vendor: WESTSIDE WELDING & RADIATOR
Fund: 061 - SEWER FUND
WESTSIDE WELDING & RA 11695 12/19/2023 LEAF TRUCK HOSE REPAIR 217.00 WESTSIDE WELDING & RA 11698 12/19/2023 LEAF TRUCK REPAIRS 372.00 Fund 061 - SEWER FUND Total: 589.00
Vendor WESTSIDE WELDING & RADIATOR Total: 589.00
Vendor: WINDECKER, INC
Fund: 060 - WATER FUND
WINDECKER, INC 296048 12/19/2023 PW REG ULD GASOLINE & 826.60

RED DIESEL
Fund 060 - WATER FUND Total: 826.60
Fund: 061 - SEWER FUND
WINDECKER, INC 296048 12/19/2023 PW REG ULD GASOLINE & 826.59

RED DIESEL
Fund 061 - SEWER FUND Total: 826.59
Vendor WINDECKER, INC Total: 1,653.19
Grand Total: 280,837.66
Warrant List Post Dates: 12/06/2023 - 12/19/2023
Report Summary
Fund Summary
Fund Payment Amount
001 - GENERAL FUND 59,548.94
009 - COMMUNITY CENTER FUND 620.52
016 - SWIM POOL FUND 9,835.86
017 - CITY WIDE LIGHTING & LAND 5,620.14
019 - RECREATION FUND 5,171.94
047 - FIREWORKS 51.95
059 - STORM DRAIN 681.61
060 - WATER FUND 36,102.40
061 - SEWER FUND 60,716.40
55,995.41
063 - AIRPORT FUND 4,244.44
074 - ASSESS - BORRELLI 313.42
093 - INSURANCE TRUST FUND (RENTAL) 997.26
099 - PAYROLL TRUST FUND 15,361.14
200 - REGIONAL MEASURE V 24,439.25
221 - PAL EXPLORERS - PD PROGRAMS 712.06
501 - PIONEER PARK REHABILITATION GRANT 399.00
505 - CAL VIP GRANT 25.92
Grand Total: 280,837.66
Account Summary
Account Number Account Name Payment Amount
001-0000-300.010 COMCAST 3,303.56
001-0000-300.014 UNWIRED 1,556.18
001-0000-300.015 SB2 GRANT 192.28
001-0110-530.089-00 COMMUNITY PROMOTI 355.24
001-0110-530.091-00 MEETINGS & TRAINING 675.00
001-0110-530.201-00 OTHER CONTRACT SERVI 228.31
001-0120-530.011-00 TELEPHONE & INTERNET 4.99
001-0120-530.201-00 OTHER CONTRACT SERVI 6.25
001-0140-530.000-00 ACCOUNTING & AUDITI 52.50
001-0140-530.011-00 TELEPHONE & INTERNET 4.99
001-0140-530.014-00 POSTAGE 64.04
001-0140-530.090-00 MEMBERSHIPS/SUBSCRI 19.99
001-0140-530.092-00 BANK COSTS 84.44
001-0140-530.201-00 OTHER CONTRACT SERVI 88.15
001-0141-530.201-00 OTHER CONTRACT SERVI 2,348.23
001-0142-530.011-00 TELEPHONE & INTERNET
001-0142-530.014-00 POSTAGE 17.00
001-0142-530.091-00 MEETINGS & TRAINING 135.00
001-0142-530.201-00 OTHER CONTRACT SERVI
001-0150-520.010-00 DEPT OPERATING SUPPL
001-0150-520.011-00 UNIFORM ALLOWANCE 61.96
001-0150-520.040-00 FUEL 120.09
001-0150-530.011-00 TELEPHONE & INTERNET
001-0150-530.060-00 ELECTRIC 2,307.37
001-0150-530.062-00 GAS 179.23
001-0210-520.000-00 OFFICE SUPPLIES
001-0210-520.010-00 DEPT OPERATING SUPPL 273.66
001-0210-520.011-00 UNIFORM ALLOWANCE 193.00
001-0210-520.030-00 MOTOR VEHICLE EXPEN 1,122.56
001-0210-520.040-00 FUEL 1,228.89
001-0210-530.009-00 OTHER PROFESSIONALS 497.00
001-0210-530.011-00 TELEPHONE & INTERNET 1,060.12
001-0210-530.014-00 POSTAGE 34.00
001-0210-530.060-00 ELECTRIC 70.62
001-0210-530.091-00 MEETINGS & TRAINING 770.64
Warrant List Post Dates: 12/06/2023 - 12/19/2023
Account Summary
Account Number Account Name Payment Amount
001-0210-530.201-00 OTHER CONTRACT SERVI 1,200.72
001-0210-540.030-00 MACHINERY & EQUIPME 6,946.04
001-0210-540.038-00 TECHNOLOGY PURCH/R 7,918.49
001-0220-520.010-00 DEPT OPERATING SUPPL 328.09
001-0220-530.060-00 ELECTRIC 63.24
001-0220-530.062-00 GAS 9.85
001-0410-530.011-00 TELEPHONE 4.99
001-0410-530.030-00 ADVERTISING 135.00
001-0410-530.091-00 MEETINGS & TRAINING 235.93
001-0410-530.201-00 OTHER CONTRACT SERVI 23,379.42
001-0460-530.011-00 TELEPHONE 4.99
001-0460-530.201-00 OTHER CONTRACT SERVI 2.08
001-0610-520.010-00 DEPT OPERATING SUPPL 139.34
001-0610-520.011-00 UNIFORM ALLOWANCE 50.79
001-0610-530.011-00 TELEPHONE 4.99
001-0610-530.060-00 ELECTRIC 17.70
001-0610-530.201-00 OTHER CONTRACT SERVI 613.80
001-0610-540.030-00 MACHINERY & EQUIPME 1,306.91
009-0150-520.040-00 FUEL 305.68
009-0150-530.011-00 TELEPHONE
009-0150-530.060-00 ELECTRIC
009-0150-530.062-00 GAS
009-0150-530.201-00 OTHER CONTRACT SERVI
016-0613-530.011-00 TELEPHONE
016-0613-530.060-00 ELECTRIC 8,850.49
016-0613-530.091-00 MEETINGS & TRAINING 547.51
016-0613-530.201-00 OTHER CONTRACT SERVI
017-0260-530.060-00 ELECTRIC
017-0610-520.011-00 UNIFORM ALLOWANCE
017-0610-520.040-00 FUEL
017-0610-530.000-00 ACCOUNTING & AUDITI
019-0440-520.030-00 DEPT OPERATING SUPPL 152.00
019-0613-520.010-00 DEPT OPERATING SUPPL
019-0613-530.011-00 TELEPHONE
019-0613-530.060-00 ELECTRIC 26.28
019-0613-530.091-00 MEETINGS & TRAINING 235.00
019-0613-530.201-00 OTHER CONTRACT SERVI 1,401.15
019-0613-530.240-00 Professional Developme
019-0613-613.030-00 DEPT OPS SUPPLIES - CH 2,938.31
047-0704-520.011-00 DEPT OPERATING SUPPL 51.95
059-0140-530.014-00 POSTAGE
059-0140-530.201-00 OTHER CONTRACT SERVI 11.42
059-0730-520.010-00 DEPT OPERATING SUPPL 111.89
059-0730-530.000-00 ACCOUNTING & AUDITI 39.37
059-0730-530.201-00 OTHER CONTRACT SERVI 500.11
060-0140-520.000-00 OFFICE SUPPLIES 25.61
060-0140-530.014-00 POSTAGE 352.98
060-0140-530.201-00 OTHER CONTRACT SERVI 230.00
060-0710-520.010-00 DEPT OPERATING SUPPL 2,544.48
060-0710-520.011-00 UNIFORM ALLOWANCE 287.28
060-0710-520.040-00 319.87
060-0710-530.000-00 ACCOUNTING & AUDITI 525.00
060-0710-530.009-00 OTHER PROFESSIONAL S 25.00
060-0710-530.011-00 TELEPHONE 319.32
060-0710-530.060-00 ELECTRIC 855.86
060-0710-530.094-00 LICENSES & PERMIT FEE 5,394.28
060-0710-530.201-00 OTHER CONTRACT SERVI 1,013.14
060-0710-540.030-00 MACHINERY & EQUIPME 14,709.58
Warrant List Post Dates: 12/06/2023 - 12/19/2023
Account Summary
Account Number Account Name Payment Amount
060-1080-550.108-00 FIRE HYDRANT REPLACE 9,500.00
061-0140-530.014-00 POSTAGE 352.98
061-0140-530.201-00 OTHER CONTRACT SERVI 230.00
061-0520-520.010-00 DEPT OPERATING SUPPL 1,580.00
061-0520-520.011-00 UNIFORM ALLOWANCE 357.88
061-0520-520.040-00 FUEL 320.96
061-0520-530.000-00 ACCOUNTING & AUDITI 525.00
061-0520-530.011-00 TELEPHONE 319.32
061-0520-530.060-00 ELECTRIC 1,631.06
061-0520-530.094-00 LICENSES & PERMIT FEE 44,554.00
061-0520-530.201-00 OTHER CONTRACT SERVI 2,383.11
061-0520-540.020-00 OTHER IMPROVEMENTS 21.53
061-0520-540.030-00 MACHINERY & EQUIPME 8,440.56
062-0140-530.000-00 ACCOUNTING & AUDITI 52.50
062-0140-530.014-00 POSTAGE 254.03
062-0140-530.201-00 OTHER CONTRACT SERVI 164.51
062-0510-520.011-00 UNIFORM ALLOWANCE 121.14
062-0510-530.009-00 OTHER PROFESSIONALS 54,599.48
062-0510-530.011-00 TELEPHONE & INTERNET 180.64
062-0510-530.201-00 OTHER CONTRACT SERVI 623.11
063-0340-530.000-00 ACCOUNTING & AUDITI 65.63
063-0340-530.011-00 TELEPHONE 5.04
063-0340-530.014-00 POSTAGE 16.98
063-0340-530.060-00 ELECTRIC 233.32
063-0340-530.094-00 AIRPORT LICENSE/PERM 833.00
063-0340-530.201-00 OTHER CONTRACT SERVI 3,090.47
074-0610-530.059-00 WATER UTILITY 48.00
074-0610-530.060-00 ELECTRIC 265.42
093-0000-220.070 INSURANCE TRUST 997.26
099-0000-220.050 PERS PAYÁBLE 14,247.14
099-0000-220.071 POA DEDUCT PAYABLE 540.00
099-0000-220.081 UNION DUES PAYABLE 324.00
099-0000-220.092 CAL PERS 457 DEF COMP 250.00
200-1080-550.106-00 CONTRACT SERVICES H 24,439.25
221-0210-520.010-00 DEPT OPERATING SUPPL 712.06
501-0610-530.009-00 OTHER PROFESSIONALS 399.00
505-0210-520.040-00 TELEPHONE EXPENSE 25.92
Grand Total: 280,837.66
Project Account Summary
Project Account Key Payment Amount
**None** 256,237.49
CAL VIP GRANT EXPENSE 25.92
HWY 33/140 ROUNDABOUT EXPENSE CON 24,439.25
M. RASMUSSEN 135.00
Grand Total: 280,837.66
Jenny torrison 14/1/2023

TREASURER'S REPORT
Month Ending November 30, 2023
Balance Balance
Accounts Beginning of Month Deposits Withdrawals End of Month State of California Local Agency $ 5,275,072.79
$ 5,275,072.79 $ - $ -
Investment Fund
General Checking Account $ 6,195,820.92 $ 829,954.43 $ 641,492.54 $ 6,384,282.81 Payroll Account $ 474,999.90 $ 183.273.84 $ 144,411.32 $ 513,862.42 Total Cash and Investments 11,945,893.61 $ 1,013,228.27 $ 785,903.86 $ 12,173,218.02 (The following statements are required by California Government Code Section 53646 (b) (2.3)) Investments are made pursuant to the City Council approved Investment Policy and Guidelines.

Prepared by: GunMorison
Jenny Mokrison, Finance Director
ITEM NO. 4

COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
DECEMBER 19, 2023
PREPARED BY: Jenny Morrison, Finance Director
SUBJECT: Direct Staff to Send out Warrant Checks prior to January 16, 2024 Meeting

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
At their regular meeting on August 1, 2023, Council approved the cancellation of their regular meeting scheduled for January 2, 2024. Council will instead meet on January 16, 2024 for their regular meeting. During this time, the City will still have bills that must be paid in order to continue to do business.

In order to continue business as usual, staff requests Council's direction to send out payments for bills in advance of the January 16'h Council meeting. Staff will mail out the checks ahead of the meeting and all checks sent after the December 19th meeting will be listed on the warrant list included in the January 16t agenda packet to be ratified by Council as normal.

FISCAL IMPACT
No negative impact. The action is expected to save the City money from potential late fees on City accounts.

RECOMMENDATION
Direct staff to send out payments in advance of the January 16th meeting and include those payments on the Warrant List for that same meeting.

EXHIBIT(S)
None.

APPROVED BY:

Melanie Correa, Interim City Manager
TITIVE CITY CRITER ITEM NO. 5

COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
DECEMBER 19, 2023
PREPARED BY: Ruben Chavez, Chief of Police
SUBJECT: Approve Request from Tip Top Farms to Close 3rd Ave between 4th Street and 3d Street to host 2nd Anniversary Celebration

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
Staff has received a request from the Tip Top Farms to host a two-year anniversary celebration on Saturday, January 20, 2024. The business wishes to host an event to celebrate their two years of conducting business in Gustine and to showcase the dispensary and all it has to offer customers. Tip Top Farms respectfully requests the closure of 3rd Ave between 4th St (Hwy 33) and the alleyway, using a section of 3d Ave of about 100' in length. The closure would be from 9:00 am to 5:00 pm. This would allow them to host food booths and entertainment. City Council authorization is necessary, as the request requires the use and closure of City Streets and the use of City Personnel.

The businesses which may be impacted have been contacted and support the event.

These include 33 Market, Parreira's Auto Repair, and Savannas Donut Shop. In addition, the owner, Robert Villalobos has contacted all the adjacent businesses who have signed waivers approving the special event and that it would not impact their business.

Mr. Villalobos further promoted the benefit to the local restaurants who may see an increase in customers during the event.

Tip Top Farms would like to have several food vendors and would like Council's authorization to allow these vendors at the event. According to the Gustine Municipal Code Section 5-6-3, mobile kitchen type vendors are only allowed in manufacturing districts, except otherwise by special permission of the City Council during festivals, parades and other public events. If approved, these vendors will be responsible to obtain the necessary business license with the City and with the guidance of the Recreation Manager, the owner of Tip Top Farms, will be submitting the proper paperwork to Merced County Environmental Health Department to obtain the appropriate health permits.

Similar to other closures and special events, this would require Public Works dropping off approximately 8 barricades behind on 3rd Ave and have two Police Reserve Officers staff the event through the duration.

To date, Mr. Villalobos has not met with Recreation Manager Vitorino to establish the "Special Event" information packet. However, he has committed to work closely with the Recreation Department and Police Department to ensure the event complies with all Merced County and Gustine City health and business requirements.

FISCAL IMPACT

1. Public Works Director, Gary Ingram, estimated that barricade placement and retrieval would require one labor hour. The projected labor cost was set at $50.00.

2. Additional Police staffing will be required to provide security at this event. The two Reserve Police Officers at 8 hours for a total of 16 hours at $50/hour. The total would be $800.

Total staff cost (Public Works and additional Police staffing) is $850.00.

3. Applicant is also responsible for paying a $50 fee for obtaining a dance permit if amplified music will be had as it was in their prior event.

Robert Villalobos is aware of the estimated labor and permit costs.

RECOMMENDATION
Approve the request from Tip Top Farms to close a 100-foot section of 3rd Ave between Fourth Street (Hwy 33) and the alleyway to host the special event.

EXHIBIT(S)
A) Map showing Street Closure
APPROVED BY:

Melanie Correa, Interim City Manager
Palater Insurancen -Sovanna's Donuts
Agency DMV Service
3rd Ave
5th St erysiMore than Pizza
3rd Ave
3rd Ave Pareras Auto Repara
a Bruce 8
д08
Main Venue is located in @ Reilly Auto Par
ard Ave AdVICE
ed Toda
Tip Top Parking Lot
Yellow lines outline 33 Drive Up Market
Con ventanse tote
Me
barricades to close street Phils Pluming Service: Distributte Tri Countles Bank AuM:

La Green marks stine City Hall
entertainment areas
Tip Top Farms •Bia
Dig ai saion Texas Burger
Hamburgers
5th St eeta by glena
Gustine Museum
J aru Auto Body
Which Craft Taproa
Depot Garage
Bank of enca ATM
I Luna Busineas Services
kens Cobble
® Ath Ave
- Crinkiaw Fine Art Gallery Cornerstone Dance
Piontar tonin store
368
ITEM NO. 6

COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
SLEI
DECEMBER 19, 2023
PREPARED BY: Melanie Correa, Interim City Manager
SUBJECT: Consider Updates to Police Department Staffing Allocations

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
At their regular meeting on July 18, 2023, Council approved an additional full-time (FT) Police Officer position, bringing the department sworn staffing allocation to: 1- Chief; 1- Lieutenant; 0- Sergeant; 1 - Corporal; 6- Police Officers. At the end of September, 2023, the Lieutenant position became, and has remained, vacant.

In considering the needs of the department, and recognizing the constraints current staff levels present to the responsibilities of managerial positions within the department, internal discussions centered on the idea of abandoning the Lieutenant position, in lieu of reinstating two Sergeant positions. In speaking with Police Chief Chavez, two Sergeant roles would benefit the department greatly in ensuring managerial oversight and availability around the clock, and provides for double coverage during all shifts.

Sergeant responsibilities would both be in-field duty with the added responsibilities of supervision which is significant for a smaller agency, especially as it pertains to developing personnel and oversight. Two positions would enable two squads with direct supervision from one assigned squad sergeant. Both sergeants however would have the same department oversight and share department-wide extracurricular duties, such as report review, training, equipment and vehicular maintenance, and on-call, amongst many others.

If approved, the budgeted Elected Officials and Staff list would be updated as reflected in Exhibit A. The Lieutenant and Corporal allocations would change to zero, while Sergeant would be updated to 2 positions.

The Sergeant classifications would be hourly and non-exempt, and would be assigned to the Gustine Police Officer's Association (GPOA) bargaining group. As to the salary schedule, staff proposes the following schedule, which has been escalated in the same fashion as the other positions within the Gustine Police Officer Association (GPOA) since the Sergeant classification was abandoned in FY2018.

A B C D E
Sergeant 74,384 78,104 82,010 86,112 90,416
If approved, a recruitment will be conducted to fill the positions as soon as possible, and the Council will consider adopting an updated Annual Salary Schedule at their next regular meeting.

FISCAL IMPACT
The full-weighted allocation of the Lieutenant position, inclusive of benefits costs and employer-mandated contributions, and approved through the FY 2024 budget, is 169,876, of which $127,407 remains as the position was vacated 3 months into the fiscal year. Full-weighted costs for two Sergeant classifications for the remainder of this fiscal year are estimated at $115,448, with heavy presumptions on benefit tier, and retirement group classification. As the positions are all allocated from the City's General Fund, Fund 100, no budget amendments are necessary from this change in allocation.

RECOMMENDATION
Approve the abandonment of the Lieutenant allocated position, and the addition of two Sergeant allocations to the approved Budgeted Elected Officials and Staff list.

EXHIBIT(S)
(A) Budgeted Elected Officials and Staff List
APPROVED BY:

Melanie Correa, Interim City Manager

ELECTED OFFICIALS & STAFF - BUDGETED
Position FY 2019-20 FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Mayor

1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Mayor Pro-Tem
City Council 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0 3.0
City Manager 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Administrative Service Director 1.0 1.0
Deputy City Clerk/HR Director 1.0 1.0 1.0
Administrative Assistant 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Economic/Community Development Director 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 Recreation Manager 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Finance Director 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Account Clerk
Account Clerk (part-time) 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5
Police Chief 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Lieutenant 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 -
Sergeant 2.0
Corporal 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0
Police Officer 4.0 4.0 4.0 4.0 6.0
Youth Services Program Coordinator (Cal-VIP Grant) 1.0 1.0 1.0 Community Services Officer 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Records Clerk 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Records Clerk (part-time) 0.5
Public Works Director 0.5 0.5 0.5 0.5 1.0
Public Works Supervisor 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Maintenance Worker 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0 5.0
Maintenance Worker (part-time) 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
WWTP Operator 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0
Custodian 0.5 0.5 1.0 1.0 1.0
Total Budgeted Positions 32.5 32.5 34.0 33.0 36.0
C.

STINE CITY ITEM NO. 7

COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
1915
DECEMBER 19, 2023
PREPARED By: Melanie Correa, Interim City Manager
SUBJECT: Consider Appointments to Gustine Planning Commission

BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
The Gustine Planning Commission consists of 5 commissioner seats and one ex-officio. As per Years Seineris redeered asia, prepositionision one for in or vacant.

Effective December 31, 2023 three terms are set to expire. One of those seats is currently vacant as a result of former Chairperson Gandy's resignation, and the othertwo are currently held by Thomas Gomes and Derek Alexander. Per Government Code Section 54974(a), staff noticed the vacancy, and communicated with the current commissioners on their interest in being reappointed. Both commissioners have returned their expressed interest forms, and a new applicant presented themselves for the vacant seat.

Attached to this staff report is the expressed interest forms and the new applicant's completed application. If appointed by Council, as per Gustine Municipal Code section 4- 2-32 (a), all three appointees would be set to serve full four-year terms through December 2027.

FISCAL IMPACT
None.

RECOMMENDATION
Council consider reappointing Thomas Gomes, and Derek Alexander to the Planning Commission, and consider appointing Phaidra Medeiros to the vacant seat on the same Commission.

EXHIBIT(S)
A) Planning Commission expressed interest (Gomes)
B) Planning Commission expressed interest (Alexander)
C) Planning Commission application for appointment (Medeiros)

CITY OF GUSTINE
PO BOX 16 - 352 5TH STREET
GUSTINE CA 95322
OFFICE (209) 854-6471 - Fax (209) 854-2127
www.cityofgustine.com
November 20, 2023
Thomas Gomes
1065 Brentwood Ave
Gustine, CA 95322
Chairperson Gomes,
On behalf of the Gustine City Council, I write to thank you for your service on the Gustine Planning Commission. According to Gustine Municipal Code Section 4-2-32, Commissioners appointed to the Planning Commission shall serve for a period of four years, at which point the appointee may re-apply for appointment. Your current term is set to conclude at the end of this year on December 31, 2023.

We hope you are interested in continuing your service on the Planning Commission and are interested in being re-appointed. Please complete the election form located at the bottom of this letter and return it to my attention at City Hall before close of business on December 8, Appointment considerations will be scheduled for a regular City Council meeting on December 19,2023. I will be in touch with you in advance to confirm the meeting date.

Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.

Kind Regards
Melanie Correa
Interim City Manager
Direct: (209) 854-9407
[email protected]
I would like to be re-appointed to the Planning Commission.

I would not like to be re-appointed to the Planning Commission. 1/29/23
Signed: Date:

Thomas Gome

CITY OF GUSTINE
PO BOX 16 - 352 5TH STREET
GUSTINE CA 95322
OFFICE (209) 854-6471 - Fax (209) 854-2127
www.cityofgustine.com
November 20, 2023
Derek Alexander
1071 South Ave
Gustine, CA 95322
Commissioner Alexander,
On behalf of the Gustine City Council, I write to thank you for your service on the Gustine Planning Commission. According to Gustine Municipal Code Section 4-2-32, Commissioners appointed to the Planning Commission shall serve for a period of four years, at which point the appointee may re-apply for appointment. Your appointment was made mid-term, therefore your initial appointment did not stretch the full four years. Your current term is set to conclude at the end of this year on December 31, 2023.

We hope you are interested in continuing your service on the Planning Commission and are interested in being re-appointed. Please complete the election form located at the bottom of this letter and return it to my attention at City Hall before close of business on December 8, 2023.

Appointment considerations will be scheduled for a regular City Council meeting on December 19, 2023. I will be in touch with you in advance to confirm the meeting date.

Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions.

Kind Regards,
IF OWE
Melanie Correa
interim City Manager
Direct: (209) 854-9407
[email protected]
I would like to be re-appointed to the Planning Commission.

I would not like to be re-appointed to the Planning Commission.

Signed: Date: November 22, 2023
Derek Alexander

CITY OF GUSTINE
PO BOX 16 - 352 5TH STREET
GUSTINE CA 95322
OFFICE (209) 854-6471 - Fax (209) 854-2127 PORATED HOT, TA9D www.cityofgustine.com
Planning Commission meetings are held on the fourth Wednesday of each month at 7:00 pm. In the Council Chambers at City Hall.

The Commission is also subject to special meetings as necessary.

Raiar Меликаю
NAME.

ADDRESS_

HOME PHONE BUSINESS PHONE
CELL PHONE _E-MAIL ADDRESS
Retired

OCCUPATION
EDUCATION (List highest year completed and all degrees received.) Leage Washington High deku Dipanal 1967
люте College
EVERENCE lease see My statiment on Myself.

STATE YOUR INTEREST IN THIS COMMISSION Because V'in retired and lave time, I thought this would be
a way of me ginning back to my community.

Please attach a written statement outlining your pertinent education and expertence as it applies to this appointment or any documents you believe would be helpfullin reviewing your application.
thada Medint 11/22/23

GNATURE SATR
Greetings City of Gustine, 11/22/2023
My name is Phaidra Medeiros and i was born and raised in San Francisco. I have been a resident of Gustine since 1992 when I married a local farmer, though I was not born and raised here, I do consider Gustine my forever home where my husband and I have raised 2 successful daughters. I have helped my husband throughout the years with the family farm along with being a stay at home mom while our daughters were growing up. I did return to work in the early 20's with Precision Inspection as a Permit Tech. at the City of Patterson and then transferred to the Plan Check Department which the office was in Newman, handling multiple jurisdictions. I originally left that position because of transportation issues with my daughters. In 2012 I was diagnosed with stage 3 colon cancer and once I was done with treatment and was given a clean bill of health I returned to work as a licensed insurance agent for Western Valley Insurance in their Los Banos Office. I resigned in 2021 when my office was shut down temporarily due to COVID. When my prier boss with Precision Inspection, now CSG Consultants, heard I was unemployed I was offered a job as a Permit Tech. for Contra Costa County Fire District working remotely, I also filled in as Permit Tech for the City of Gustine until they were able to find a permanent employee, due to my workload I was unable to do both jurisdictions. Because of some minor health issues related to my past cancer surgery, I had to resign from my full time position retiring this past August.

I am familiar with local ordinances, zoning, what type of plans are needed for a project and when a permit is required, the type of permit along with what inspections would be needed Because I do have a lot of free time on my hands and saw the Planning Commission had an opening I thought this would be the perfect opportunity for me to give back to my community.

References available upon request.

Best Regards,
Phaidra Medeiros
Phaidra Medeiros
HE CITY ITEM NO. 8

COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
SLei
DECEMBER 19, 2023
PREPARED BY: Jami Westervelt, Economic and Community Development Director Anne Branham, Assistant City Attorney
SUBJECT: Site Inventory Direction Required for Sixth Cycle Housing Element

BACKGROUND
The City has been working in earnest on its required Sixth Cycle Housing Element (HE) submission, including working on a portion that is specific to Gustine as well as participating in the Merced County Multi-Jurisdictional Housing Element (MJHE) process, for which all the jurisdictions in Merced County are participating.

Work has included not only gathering information and data to ensure compliance with legal requirements and HCD guidance, but also comments from the public on options the City may consider as part of the work. Comments have been gathered through public workshops and public meetings, with significant numbers of community members representing the majority of neighborhoods in the City providing comments.

Council first received a comprehensive report on the project in a special workshop, open to the public, held July 11, 2023; during additional public meetings at the Planning Commission in September and October; and at Council meetings again on November 21st and December 5th. In response to public comments and feedback from the City Council; staff, consultants, and legal counsel have worked over the past weeks to ensure that the mandate before the City, and the options the City has to meet that mandate, have been clarified.

The City is currently in the stage where Council needs to specify the parcels, within the State requirements, that it would like to include on a draft Site Inventory. The sites on that list will undergo additional analysis, including a site-by-site environmental analysis that is a mandatory procedural step in order for the consultant to proceed with compilation of the Draft Housing Element for the City. This draft will go back to the public for comment prior to coming back to the Council for its approval to submit to the State. This is a long process and the current schedule, which calls for determining the final list of parcels for the site inventory at this meeting, would have the submission to the State not taking place until approximately April 2024. It is important to note that the decision tonight is not a final action to rezone or otherwise change the designation of existing parcels; it is a request to identify the sites within the City that are most appropriate for future rezone to meet State mandates on housing.

During all presentations to the public and at Council, it has been important to highlight the following three facts:

1. The State of California mandates this process and it is NOT something the City can opt out of or receive an extension on the deadline imposed by the State.

2. The City is NOT involved in the development of these sites identified for inclusion in the sites inventory, and is NOT "building" any units based on the RHNA. Any future development will go through the full, applicable legal process at the time of application. Designating sites for inclusion on the inventory does not mandate any specific kind of development, or indeed any development at all.

3. The City is NOT forcing any property owner to sell a site, or attempting to take ownership of any private property.

However, as part of the State statute, the City will be required to rezone parcels in the Inventory approved by the State as necessary to guarantee that the zoning on each of those sites would ALLOW for those sites to be developed in the manner described in the inventory-again, should the owners wish to take steps to allow for that.

Nothing would be mandatory to build, but parcels rezoned for higher densities could no longer be built as single-family homes following the rezone to higher densities. The concept of municipality rezones impacting property owners' ability to develop property in a certain way is not a new concept, in either residential or commercial land use.

Ownership of a parcel that is zoned a certain way at the time of acquisition is not, in and of itself, the basis of a vested right for that property to remain that zoning in perpetuity. However, understandably, the community has expressed concerns over the State mandate that the City take further steps in this direction in order to meet the housing numbers mandated by the State. Again, the City does not have enough sites to accomplish its RHNA numbers without some rezoning.

The Sixth Cycle HE represents the most demanding to date for municipalities and it includes mandates from the State for housing inventory at all income levels. ALL municipalities in California have Regional Housing Need Allocation (RHNA) numbers for which they must provide opportunities for development of units at multiple levels of affordability. For Gustine, those numbers are as follows:

RHNA Distribution Required by Income Level
TOTAL RHNA 346 % by income Level
Above Moderate 152 43.9%
Moderate 64 18.5%
Low 53 15.3%
Very Low 77 22.3%
On Dec 5'h, the Council considered a recommendation from the planning team regarding a potential Site Inventory and the Council provided additional direction on what it would like to see for discussion at the December 19th meeting. Council clarified its priorities regarding consideration of the 15 potential sites that go back to the first special workshop in July and that were assigned the map numbers in September as listed on the Exhibit A map. For the remainder of this report, the site numbers listed on that map are the numbers that will be utilized when referencing sites for inclusion in or removal from the inventory.

The Council has provided direction on which sites, of the 15 identified initially, that it preferred to consider as first priority, with the understanding that the City will need to find a combination which can meet all of its RHNA number requirements, in regard to both units overall and units by affordability level. The below Table 1 lists all 15 sites, indicating those which the Council directed it would prefer to utilize as first priority.

Table 1- Council preferred sites for inclusion
MAP APN # ACRES NEIGHBORHOOD PREFER
ID TO

INCLUDE
1 020-270-001 NOT proposed for N/A Not applicable. N/A
rezone.
2 020-191-015 2.80 Northwest No
3 020-270-013 0.58 Northwest No
4 020-270-004 0.60 Northwest No
5 021-102-006 4.05 Southwest Yes
6 020-101-073 1.22 Northwest No
7 020-191-001 1.74 Northwest No
8 020-072-035 0.83 Northeast Yes
9 020-072-050 1.01 Northeast Yes
10 021-061-004 2.20 Southwest Yes
11 021-104-006 4.05 Southwest Yes
12 021-062-001 6.96 Southeast Yes
13 021-062-003 2.17 Southeast Yes
14 021-082-009 3.22 Southeast No
15 021-110-031 3.38 Southeast Yes
16 021-062-005 6.21 Southeast Yes
As the table illustrates, the sites are of all different sizes and could accommodate a different number of units, meaning that replacement of one site with another is not a one-for-one exchange, as the State mandates a total number of units Citywide by income requirements. Four of the sites from above were included on the City's previous Inventory submission as higher density sites. These are Site 8, Site 9, Site 10 and Site 16.

This also makes removal of those sites more complicated than removal of other sites not submitted in the previous Cycle.

Density Considerations
The Council has also asked for clarity on the concept of minimum and maximum density, specifically in regard to what size and type of project could be developed under the proposed density scenarios in the Site Inventory. Additionally, some Council members suggested that the City might be best served to utilize higher figures in its projections in order to minimize the number of sites and asked about options toward that end.

As confirmed by legal counsel and the consultant's conversations with HCD following the last Council meeting, any City sites proposed to be rezoned "R-4" in order to accommodate some portion of the City's low or very-low income RHNA units will require a minimum density of 20 units per acre. (Government Code section 65583.2(h).) This also means that the City can recalculate the number of each type of unit that can be accommodated on each site by using 20 per acre (rather than a lower "realistic capacity" that was previously suggested). Staff has worked with the City's consultants to update the charts and graphics for the City accordingly; those up-to-date versions are included in this staff report and attached as exhibits hereto. The updated minimum density requirements will allow the City to use fewer total sites to meet its RHNA obligation, which is reflected in the updated map showing an alternate option for Council's consideration.
"Equitable Distribution" Requirement
Council has also held discussions over the last couple of meetings regarding use of larger sites in the southeast and southwest areas of town versus a higher number of more "well-distributed" (based on HCD guidance) smaller sites. This direction is reflected in the revised recommendation before Council; by utilizing the required higher minimum density for some of the larger sites that fit the threshold State criteria for rezone, the City can utilize fewer sites to accomplish its RHNA goals. This allows for removing sites the Council prioritized removing, as well as one other that received significant comments of community concern at the September and October Planning Commission meetings.

Additionally, the City could consider leaving one of the sites from the Fifth Cycle at the R-3 level, rather than rezoning to R-4 for this cycle. This would not allow for single-family homes on that site (note too that R-3-zoned lots are not currently allowed to develop single-family uses, under the existing City land use regulations and land use element of the general plan) but would provide for development of lower density projects than if rezoning to an R-4.

While using fewer sites overall may help address State concerns over "equitable distribution" (since it is inherently harder to "distribute" fewer sites in any particular way), it is possible that HCD could return comments indicating that the City must consider a site in another area of town. Staff has put together the current option as a way to address Council's concern as stated at the previous meeting and can move forward with submittal of this option to HCD but will need to bring any comments it may receive from HCD on the site inventory back to Council for reconsideration if necessary.

New Scenario for Consideration
Based on the specific direction Council provided at its December 5'h meeting, the planning team presents for Council's consideration the option outlined in the Exhibit B map and on the Exhibit C spreadsheet attached hereto. The new proposed inventory removes all the sites in the Northwest (Sites 2, 3, 4, 6 & 7) and one in the Southwest (Site 5) and replaces that with the addition of one site (previously identified as an alternate) in Southeast (Site 12). The sites that would remain (shown on the Exhibit B map) would be zoned as follows:

Site 8—R-4
• Site 9-R-4
Site 10R-4
Site 12—R-4
• Site 16—R-3
The planning team has identified, based on Council direction, that Site 16 and Site 12 are better sites than other alternatives on Council's preferred list, due to their locations very close to the elementary and middle schools. Access for both has not been brought up as a concern. As mentioned, Site 16 is already zoned for higher density (it is currently R-3, subject to a current required density of 10-15). Site 12 is not higher density.

Subdivisions in the Southeast Master Plan area, all of which now have Council- approved Vesting and Tentative Subdivision Maps (VTSM) for those properties, remain on the Credit Sites list, which will enable the City to meet its goal for above-moderate income homes and add to the single-family inventory available in the City of Gustine.

Should the Council wish to not approve the revised scenario, it could direct inclusion of other sites—insofar as those sites are listed on the map on Exhibit A, since those property owners received notice that their sites were going to be considered.

If the Council wishes to take any action on sites outside of those noticed (which would be any not listed on Exhibit A) the City must first notice property owners of any of those potential sites so that they have the opportunity to provide their comments at a public meeting prior to the Council's consideration and decision on those sites.

FISCAL IMPACT
None definitive or measurable at this time as a direct result of this action. By utilizing existing residential sites, the City retains its available commercial sites for commercial development. Future development projects, if any, will be evaluated on independent bases at the time of proposal.

RECOMMENDATION
Council receive staff report and public input and direct staff on the parcels to move forward on the Site Inventory for the Sixth-Cycle Housing Element.

EXHIBIT(S)
A) Sixth Cycle HE Inventory Discussion-Sites noticed and able to be considered by Council at December 19, 2023 Meeting
B) Revised Scenario Addressing Council Directives from December 5, 2023 Council Meeting
C) Spreadsheet of Counts for Scenario Presented December 19, 2023 D) Numbers related to the Site Inventory for all Sites noticed for the December 19, 2023 Meeting
APPROVED BY:

Melanie Correa, Interim City Manager
Exhibit A: Sixth Cycle HE Inventory Discussion-Sites noticed and able to be considered by Council at December 19, 2023 Meeting (33)
2 1-
4 8Rd Ave
3-
Lucerne Ave
Northwest
Northeast 8
Gustine 9
Gustine
GTh Ave
- South Avo-
East Ave
Southwest Southeast
Gustine Gustine
12 10 14
13 5 11 16
15 Sullivan Rd
City Boundary
i Neighborhoods
Rezone Sites
Site Inventory by Zoning
R-1
R-3 S Hunt Rd
R-E 700 1,400 N
PD
Feet
Exhibit B: Revised Scenario Addressing Council Directives from December 5, 2023 Council Meeting 33 BRO Ave
Unceme Ave
Northwest 8
Northeast
Gustine
Gustine 9

STD ASC
South Ave-
Cast Ave
Southwest Southeast
Gustine Gustine
12 10
16 Sullivan Ra
City Boundary
1 Neighborhoods
Rezone Sites
Site Inventory by Zoning SHunt Rd
R-3 700 1,400 N
PD A
Feet
Exhibit C: Spreadsheet of Counts for Scenario Presented December 19, 2023 Minimum Maximum Realistic Above
Density Density Allowable Maximum Capacity Lower Moderate Moderate Map Site Address or Current Land Current Proposed Land Proposed Rezone? Allowed Allowed Density Realistic Income Income Income Total ID APN Acres Street Use Zoning Use Zoning (du/ac) (du/ac) (du/ac) Capacity Units Units Units Units 20 25 20 20 16 11 3 16
8 20072035 0.83 5th Avenue Medium Density R-3 High Density R4 Yes 2 20 25 20 25 20 14 2 20
9 20072050 1.01 6th Avenue Medium Density R-3 High Density R4 Yes 4

2.20 Hwy 33 20 25 20 44 31 9 4 44
10| 21061004 Medium Density R3 High Density Yes
Meredith Ave & Planned
20 25 20 174 139 97 28 14 139
12 210620016.96 Railroad Ave Development PD High Density R4 Yes Sullivan Rd & Planned
10 10 93 62 0 31 31 62
16 21062005 6.21 Grove Ave Development R3 Medium Density R3 No Total 17.21 153 75 53 281
Exhibit D: Numbers related to the Site Inventory for all Sites noticed for the December 19, 2023 Meeting Minimum Maximum Realistic Above
Density Density Allowable Maximum Capacity Lower Moderate Moderate Map Site Address or Current Land Current Proposed Land Proposed Rezone? Allowed Allowed Density Realistic Income Income Income Total ID APN Acres Street Use Zoning Zoning (du/ac) (du/ac) (du/ac) Capacity Units Units Units Units 120270001 0.26 North Ave Low Density R-1 No Change None No 2 7 5.25 1 0 1 1 Residential 56
28 North Ave Estate R-E R4 Yes 20 25 20 70 56 42 14 0
2 20191015 High Density
10 10 8 5 2 3 5
3 20270013 0.58 207 Linden Ave [Low Density R-1 Medium Density R-3 Yes Yes 10 15 10 9 6 3 3 6
4 20270004 0,60 Linden Ave Low Density R-1 Medium Density R-3 0 Linden Ave & 20 20 40
Medium Density R3 Yes 10 10 60 40 0
5 211020064,05 Sullivan Rd Low Density R-1
Linden Ave &
Yes 20 25 20 30 24 5 0 24
6 20101073 1.22 Brenda Dr Low Density R-1 High Density R4 19 Residential
20 25 43 34 34
7 20191001 1.74 21 West Ave Estate R-1 High Density R4 Yes 26 0 20 25 20 20 16 16
8 20072035 0.83 5th Avenue Medium Density R3 High Density R4 Yes 12 0 20 25 20 25 20 20
9 20072050 1.01 6th Avenue Medium Density R-3 High Density R4 Yes 15 0 / 220 High Density Yes 20 25 20 55 44 33 11 0 44
1021061004 Hwy 33 Medium Density R-3 R4
Linden Ave & 81
Low Density R-1 High Density R4 Yes 20 25 20 101 81 61 20 0 11| 21104006 4.05 Sullivan Rd
Meredith Ave & Planned
Yes 20 25 20 174 139 28 0 139
12 21062001 6.96 Railroad Ave Development PD High Density R4 111 Planned
20 25 20 54 43 43
13 21062003 217 Railroad Ave Development PD High Density R4 Yes 34 9 20 25 20 80 64 16 64
14 21082009 3.22 Point Ceste Ave Low Density R-1 High Density R4 Yes 48 West Ave & 25
20 20 84 67 17 67
15 21110031 3.38 Sullivan Rd Low Density R-1 High Density R4 Yes 50 0 Sullivan Rd & Planned
20 25 20 155 124 124
16 21062005 6.21 Grove Ave Development High Density R4 Yes 93 31 0 ITEM NO. 9

COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
DECEMBER 19, 2023
PREPAREd BY: Jami Westervelt, Economic and Community Development Director SUBJECT: Potential Amendment to Language for Specific Deposits on the Approved City Fee Schedule

BACKGROUND
Cost recovery is an important element to the fiscal stability of a City. As the City of Gustine depends upon revenue sources such as property and sales tax revenue to pay for important services for all of its residents, including police, fire and parks; it must look at cost recovery mechanisms for development projects of all sorts so that it can retain those other very limited resources for those vital services.

While residential development ultimately results in additional property taxes and retail development results in additional sales tax and other economic benefits, thorough review of the planning and oversight of the construction of projects is time consuming and expensive for the City. Jurisdictions must recover costs to some degree from those developing and constructing the projects, who will ultimately financially benefit from the development. Jurisdictions make their own assessments on the degree to which, up to 100%, they will recover. Law allows for full recovery by a jurisdiction.

Fees are established within statutes that provide for the parameters that the City must follow regarding fee development. The overwhelming concept is that fees retained do not exceed the cost of providing the service. The legal mandate in California is that fees estimated are "reasonable" when comparing cost to the City to provide them.

Deposits versus Fees
A fee on the City schedule is the set amount that a customer of any type (for development that is an applicant) will pay for that process. However, for certain kinds of work, the scope of the work is too variable to reliably set a certain fee.

This is often seen in development work where the scope of projects ranges significantly.

Additionally, for plan review specifically, the amount of time the work takes to review depends upon not only the complexity of the project but also the amount of corrections the submitted plans require. The latter is impossible for the City to know ahead of time because it depends entirely upon each individual applicant's submission and varies wildly in practice.

In the City of Gustine, plan review is, and has historically been, conducted by contractors paid for time and materials by project. The City must pay the contractor for any time related to the project. Therefore, the City charges applicants and holds a deposit and bills against it, asking the applicant for additional deposit when project work is within 20% of the deposit, if the review is expected to take more time. If the review never gets to that point, and project review concludes with deposit funds remaining, the City refunds the difference to the applicant.

Deposit collection is a common practice for jurisdictions and especially so for a small City where contractor billings are charges that must be paid, versus use of staff time for regular employees as is the case for larger municipalities with staff for these functions.

In its history, the City has moved projects forward without collecting deposit and has found that payment after the fact can prove challenging. Non-payment after the fact impacts the City's limited general fund. Requiring deposits up front is a financially- responsible way to make sure that development does not impact other functions.

The City utilizes this deposit process specifically related to recovery for several public works types of projects, including Encroachment Permits, Improvement Plans and Grading, as noted in the highlights made to the Public Works section of the approved Fee Schedule attached (Exhibit C).

Deposits based on valuation
Since the size and scope of review varies so widely, the City of Gustine bases deposits of many sorts on valuation across the above-mentioned functions. Applicants provide a valuation of what they believe the project cost is and, if confirmed by the applicable City department as valid, the applicant pays the percentage of the total cost on the confirmed valuation as a deposit.

Since the deposits are not a fee, the City has much more flexibility on determining how it sets deposit amounts. Jurisdictions use a variety of means for determining deposits but basing upon valuation is a defensible practice.

Jurisdictions use valuation as a basis for deposit based upon the logic that cost of the project, to a degree, indicates the size and scope of the project and that larger size and scope normally costs the City more time to review than smaller projects. This is clear cut when comparing a $1,000 and $1 Million project but when talking about 10 times that million dollars, the question of reasonableness becomes less clear cut.

Deposit request by current applicant
Earlier this calendar year, the Council approved a Vested and Tentative Subdivision Map (VTSM) for Mr. Ronald Katakis, which is one of the projects in the approved Southeast Master Plan for the City. Mr. Katakis has indicated he personally will be moving forward with the next steps on his subdivision which will require payment of a deposit as outlined above and as spelled out on the Council-approved fee schedule.

In the attached letter (Exhibit D), Mr. Katakis makes a request to pay a deposit less than as dictated by the approved City fee schedule. His letter outlines portions of the City's User and Regulatory Fee Schedule and indicates points regarding fees. As staff has discussed with him, the same requirements for determining the fee itself are not applicable to the determination of the deposit-they are two different things.

As Mr. Katakis is requesting waiver of standardized deposit amounts in order to pay a different deposit amount, rather than a waiver of a flat fee the City would retain, staff finds discussion of the fee methodology not germane to the request before Council and is not addressing that methodology in this staff report.

Importance of a standardized deposit
In his letter, Mr. Katakis proposes an amount he would like to pay as an initial deposit.

He suggests an amount of $50,000. Staff confirmed with him that this does not correspond with valuation and he has stated this suggestion is based upon the amount he paid to another City for what he characterizes as similar work. While the Council could direct staff to take this action, staff recommends against doing so, which sets the precedent of allowing an applicant to dictate the deposit amount to pay.

Staff must recommend to Council deposit policies that can be applied uniformly and consistently, as a City has a responsibility to the best of its ability to provide equal treatment to all applicants. It is for this reason that the City establishes standardized fee policies as well as deposit amounts.

While staff does not recommend Council take a direction to approve the deposit proposed by this applicant, staff advises that Council could consider making changes to its deposit thresholds if it believes the potential is there for the deposits to be unreasonable in implementation for higher-dollar projects.

Consistency in Deposits
The City deposit amounts related to engineering-related review, listed under planning and public works in the fee schedule document, are consistent and currently require a deposit of 5% of the valuation amount.

Earlier this year, staff brought forward to Council a concern that all Encroachment Permits were listed as a 5% fee related to review. Council rectified that with action to change that language, based upon the staff recommendation that charging a definitive fee for review of very large projects was not reasonable when projects reached a certain dollar level. This previously meant that, because this was a fee, if the City were to review an $11 Million project it would collect and retain $550,000— regardless of how much the City actually spent to review. Staff advised this appeared to be an unreasonable fee, not the deposit amount, and Council agreed.

In the attached letter on page four, Mr. Katakis states that his "request to the City Council is identical in nature" to that item taken to Council in February. However, that item addressed by Council was whether the City should charge and retain a full 5% fee- regardless of what the review costs. The council-approved changes did not include any change in the 5% of valuation collected as deposit. The City policy for Encroachment Permit fees was amended and currently states that any project over $50,000 will require an initial deposit of 5% of valuation.

On page five of his letter, referring to one of the large telecommunications companies that brought forward the concern about the Encroachment Permit Fee amount, Mr.

Katakis asks to be "given the same consideration by the City Council that was afforded the telecommunications projects." As staff confirmed to Mr. Katakis, both telecommunication companies paid the full 5% of valuation as the deposit to begin review of those projects.

Clarifying desire of Council for additional changes for deposits in general Excerpts from the attached fee schedule (Exhibit C) show the City has established a deposit of 5% total for activities related to improvement plans and that the schedule breaks that into two halves: 2.5% deposit due at submittal related to plan review and

2.5% due upon completion for construction inspection.

Below is a screenshot of how this appears on the current Fee Schedule.

Improvement / Grading Plan Check and Inspection
8 Improvement Plan Check and Inspection 5% Deposit
a) Due at Submittal (% of Eng. Construction Estimate) 2.5% Deposit b) Due at Plan Approval (% of Eng. Construction Estimate) 2.5% Deposit While staff has notified Mr. Katakis that staff interprets A & B as being able to be paid by separate individuals, his letter formally requests that. Staff suggests the Council could direct staff to clarify this further in the fee schedule with language also included on Exhibit A attached.

Beyond confirmation on this recommendation, staff also seeks to clarify whether Council would like to further modify relevant deposit language on the published schedule to provide for further reduction of up-front deposits for large-dollar projects.

Separating the 5% deposit into two distinct halves for the improvements plans recognizes that the two may be funded by completely different entities, and also brings the burden for up-front payments down to half the amount for improvement plans. For a high-dollar project, half of 5% is already a significant difference.

Under the current schedule, the $11 Million dollar project scenario proposed by Mr.

Katakis on page three of his letter, would result in an initial deposit payment of $275,000 for Plan Check (2.5% of $11,000,000). As Mr. Katakis points out, this would be significant amount of time on review when looking at hourly rates billing against deposit.

Under that scenario, if any of the $275,000 was not utilized in plan review, the remainder would be returned to the applicant or, upon the applicant's written request, the City could apply any portions not billed against toward the 2.5% that would be due for inspection review-reducing additional out of pocket for the second deposit.

The City has had few projects submitted in its history in the highest-dollar (multi-million) ranges. The telecommunications projects recently submitted had valuations in the $2-$3 Million range and deposits were collected up to $175,000, based solely upon 5% of the valuation. Both projects are extensive and detailed-as one might expect of subdivision plans. The initial first plan set of the two started several months ago and is still underway with additional significant review anticipated. However, review work on recent telecommunications projects is not yet able to help confirm whether 5% deposit of valuation is either reasonable or unreasonable. The projects are not close enough to approval to make determinations regarding percentage of deposit collected that will ultimately be used.

At the same time, staff suggests that there would seem to be an economy of scale at some point in review for larger projects. If Council agrees in theory, it could consider a means of recognizing that possibility while still proving for a consistent way for staff to implement deposit-based billing.

Potential Cap on Initial Deposit
One way to limit the burden of initial deposit for the types of projects being discussed would be for the City to adopt a cap on initial deposit amounts as an option if the Council desires.

In presenting figures on deposit amounts, Mr. Katakis presents scenarios of time to review for one individual working on plan review. In reality, there are multiple consultant staff working on a review. At the same time, Council may want to consider the reasonableness of charges for staff time overall and whether it finds that a fair point.

As the review time in question is normally within the office of the City's contract consultant for engineering, staff has consulted with the engineer. The City Engineer has confirmed that he is comfortable using a cap of $175,000 for initial deposit at this time.

This means that should the City receive a confirmable valuation of over $4 Million for a project for of this type that the City will still only charge $175,000 for the initial deposit.

This amount is also the amount recently collected by the City for a complex development project. Any unbilled amounts would be returned to the applicant once review concludes.

If Council wishes to implement this cap, or any other option to change deposits stemming from Mr. Katakis' request, staff strongly recommends the Council apply this cap to all of the projects of the same type: Encroachment Permits, Improvement Plans and Grading, as noted in the Public Works section of the approved Fee Schedule (Exhibit C). Staff would recommend language in these sections both match the clarification of those which split in 2.5% and those for which the whole deposit is 5%, as shown in Exhibit A.

If the Council wishes to change the language on the fee schedule, it will need to approve the attached Resolution (Exhibit B). The resolution will change if Council has different direction regarding the potential language amendment. If the Council prefers to stay with the current 5% and not make any changes, it is not necessary to approve the attached resolution.

FISCAL IMPACT
Financial impacts related as listed throughout this report.

RECOMMENDATION
City Council to direct staff in regard to clarification of language on the fee schedule for the 5% deposits listed in Exhibit A and potentially approve the attached resolution as applicable.

EXHIBIT(S)
A) Fee Schedule Language Amendment Related to Specific Public Works Project Deposits.

B) Resolution Amending Language on the City Fee Schedule Related to Collection of Deposit for Specific Projects on the Public Works Portion of the Schedule.

C) Current Fee Schedule with deposit sections highlighted.

D) December 7 Letter from Ron Katakis regarding Improvement Plan Check Deposits.

METEO
APPROVED BY:

Melanie Correa, Interim City Manager
Exhibit A:

Fee Schedule Language Amendment Related to Specific Public Works Project Deposits Fixed
Fee /
Fee Description Minimum Fee Initial Deposit Deposit Note 1 | Encroachment (Excavation) Permits*
Project Valuation
a) Less than $2,000 $100 n/a Fixed
Fee
b) Between $2,001 and $50,000 5% of Valuation 5% of Valuation Deposit c) Greater than $50,000 $2,500 5% of Valuation Deposit * *= Maximum initial deposit collected prior to start of
work is capped at $175,000 with replenishment
required as listed at the bottom of this section.

Improvement / Grading Plan Check and Inspection
8 Improvement Plan Check and Inspection * 5% (see below) Deposit * Deposits are based upon Engineer-approved construction
estimates and are broken down and due as follows:
a) Plan Check- Due at Submittal of plans for review 2.5% Deposit * b) Inspections- Due after Plan approval, prior to 2.5% Deposit * start of inspection period.
*= Maximum initial deposit collected prior to start of
work is capped at $175,000 with replenishment
required as listed at the bottom of this section.
9 Grading *
a) Subdivision, Commercial, or Industrial Sites 5% (see below) Deposit * Deposits are based upon Engineer-approved
construction estimates and are broken down and
due as follows:
i) Plan Check- Due at Submittal of plans for review 2.5% Deposit * ii) Inspections- Due after Plan approval, prior to 2.5% Deposit * start of inspection period.
*= Maximum initial deposit collected prior to start of
work is capped at $175,000 with replenishment
required as listed at the bottom of this section.
b) All Other Sites
i) Up to 500 Cubic Yards $465 $465 Deposit
ii) Greater than 500 Cubic Yards $1,488 $1,488 Deposit
RESOLUTION 2023-XXXX

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF GUSTINE

AMENDING LANGUAGE ON THE CITY FEE SCHEDULE RELATED TO COLLECTION OF

DEPOSIT FOR SPECIFIC PROJECTS ON THE PUBLIC WORKS PORTION OF THE SCHEDULE WHEREAS, the City of Gustine has a responsibility to structure its fees to attempt to recover as many costs associated with projects as possible; and WHEREAS, the City also has a responsibility to structure fees so that they do not charge applicants beyond reasonable recovery costs; and WHEREAS, the City has more flexibility on setting deposits but seeks to also keep its deposits reasonable in order to not discourage projects or unnecessarily burden applicants; and
WHEREAS, the City expects to receive applications for large projects in the future where the full deposit percentage when applied to project valuation would call for collection of a potentially unreasonably large deposit; and WHEREAS, City staff has evaluated the current deposit structure and determined that proposed changes will continue to provide reasonable recovery for smaller projects as well as reasonable recovery for higher-valuation projects; and WHEREAS, the City Council may approve amendments to the fee schedule language as included herein; and
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Gustine a directive to amend the language on the City Fee Schedule related to deposit to read as listed on Exhibit A to this resolution.

THE FOREGOING RESOLUTION of the City Council of the City of Gustine was passed by the City Council at a regular meeting held on the 19th day of December, 2023, the resolution was adopted by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSTAIN:

ABSENT:

APPROVED:

Patrick Nagy, Mayor
City of Gustine
ATTEST:

Desirae Porras, Deputy City Clerk
City of Gustine
GUSTIA
Master Schedule of User and Regulatory Fees
This fee schedule does not include all fees, rates, or charges that may be imposed by the City of Gustine.

Examples of excluded items include, but are not limited to, development impact fees, utility rates, and punitive fines and penalties.

Effective October 16, 2023
City of Gustine

MASTER FEE SCHEDULE

SERVICE CATEGORY PAGE
AQUATICS FEES 1
FACILITY RENTAL FEES 2
RECREATION FEES 4

POLICE FEES

ANIMAL CONTROL FEES
PLANNING FEES 8
PUBLIC WORKS FEES 10
BUILDING FEES 12
FIRE FEES 17
WATER FEES 19
FINANCE / ADMINISTRATIVE FEES 20
AIRPORT FEES 21
City of Gustine
Schedule of Fees
Public Works Fees
| Fixed Fee /|
Fee Description Minimum Fee Initial Deposit Deposit Note 1 Encroachment (Excavation) Permits
Project Valuation
a) Less than $2,000 $100 n/a Fixed Fee
b) Between $2,001 and $50,000 5% of Valuation 5% of Valuation Deposit c) Greater than $50,000 $2,500 5% of Valuation Deposit
Subdivision / Mapping Fees
2 Lot Line Adjustment $1,488 $1,488
3 Lot Merger $1,488 $1,488
4 Lot Splits $1,488 $1,488
Final Map
a) Parcel Map $2,976 $3,500
b) Subdivision Map $4,464 $5,000
6 Certificate of Compliance $372 $744
7 Certificate of Correction $372 $744
Improvement / Grading Plan Check and Inspection
8 Improvement Plan Check and Inspection 5% Deposit
a) Due at Submittal (% of Eng. Construction Estimate) 2.5% Deposit b) Due at Plan Approval (% of Eng. Construction Estimate) 2.5% Deposit Grading
a) Subdivision, Commercial, or Industrial Sites 5% Deposit i) Due at Submittal (% of Eng. Construction Estimate) 2.5% Deposit ) Due at Plan Approval (% of Eng. Construction Estimate) 2.5% Deposit b) All Other Sites
i) Up to 500 Cubic Yards $465 $465 Deposit
il) Greater than 500 Cubic Yards $1,488 $1,488 Deposit
Special Study Review
10 Special Study Review $1,000 Deposit
11 Transportation Permit (oversize load)
a) One-Time $16 Fixed Fee
b) Annual $90 Fixed Fee
Revocable Permit
12 General Revocable Permit Fee $279 $279 Deposit
13 Gated Access Fee $93 $93 Fixed Fee
14 Drilling Permit / Well Permit (Construction / Destruction) $744 $744 Deposit Other
15 Extension of Time (each) $140 each
16 Revisions (per hour) $186 per hour
17 Excessive Resubmittals (after 3rd Submittal) (per hour) $186 per hour 18 After Hours Inspection (per hour; 2-hour minimum) $223 per hour 19 Re-Inspection (3rd time or more) (per hour) $186 per hour 20 Missed Inspection (each) $93 each
10 City of Gustine
Schedule of Fees
Public Works Fees
| Fixed Fee /l
Fee Description Minimum Fee Initial Deposit Deposit Note Hourly Rate for Deposit Based Billings or Services Not Listed in [a] this Schedule
21 Engineering In-House $186 per hour
22 Planning In-House $180 per hour
23 Building In-House or Contract Service Building $167 per hour 24 Special Maintenance Services (escort, barriers, etc.) (per hour) $92 per hour 25 Contract Service Provider / Attorney / Other Professional Sves Actual Cost plus 15% T&M 26 Peer Review Actual Cost plus 15% T&M
* The City will pass through to the applicant all costs of required mailings, noticing, and amounts payable to other agencies (e.g. County Recorder, Survey, special report preparation, etc).
[a] Examples include, but are not limited to, requests for easements or vacations, support to other departments, etc.

Full Cost Deposits and Deposit Replenishment
Applicants for full cost (deposit-based) submittals shall pay for all City staff and contract service provider time and materials required to process the application.

Initial deposits will be collected and held by the City in a deposit account at the time the application is submitted. Project billing amounts will be drawn from the deposit account. A positive account balance shall be maintained at all times during the review process. No work will be performed on a project with a negative fund balance. If the deposit is reduced to below 20% of the initial deposit amount, the applicant shall deposit additional monies as determined by the City Manager or City Manager designee.

Funds expended for staff time shall not be dependent upon the City's approval or disapproval of the application request. Applications will not be approved and commission / City Council meetings shall not be conducted unless deposit account is sufficiently funded. Any deposit amounts remaining after final project close out will be returned to applicant (less minimum fees or bond amounts held by the City).

As may be required for project evaluation or environmental review, all payment for consultant work shall be the responsibility of the applicant.

Overview of Fee Structure
Fees may be either fixed fees, deposits, or deposits with a minimum fee amount due. When a fee is deposit-based, the City will collect the initial depots and bill against that deposit. The minimum total amount charged for deposit-based fees shall be the amount shown in the minimum fee / initial deposit column.
11 TO: Gustine City Councilmembers
FROM: Ron Katakis
DATE: December 7, 2023
SUBJECT: 1. Item #8 on page 31, Improvement Plan Check and Inspection, from the Cost of Service Analysis, Engineering and Encroachment Permit Fees of the User and Regulatory Fee Study completed in July of 2023-currently on December 19, 2023 Council Agenda.

1. Item #8 on page 31, Fee Description- Improvement Plan Check and Inspection, from the Cost of Service Analysis, Engineering and Encroachment Permit Fees of the User and Regulatory Fee Study completed in July of 2023.

I am anticipating turning in the improvement plans for my Sullivan Road subdivision sometime in late December. Upon reviewing the newly adopted October 16, 2023 Master Schedule of User and Regulatory Fees, I immediately noticed that the Schedule requires a 5% Minimum Deposit for Improvement Plan Check and Inspection, broken down into a) Due at Submittal (2.5% of Engineering Construction Estimate) and b) Due at Plan Approval (2.5% of Engineering Construction Estimate), which is cause for concern for me.

Per the July 2023 User and Regulatory Fee Study:

Engineering and Encroachment Permit Fees and initial deposit amounts are calculated based on the type of project reviewed and inspected. California cities regularly conduct fee studies to justify fee amounts imposed and to optimize the overall body of revenues available to the municipality to fund its reserves. Per Article 13C of the California Constitution and Section 66014 of the California Government Code, it states that the local government bears the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that a levy, charge or other exaction is not a tax, that the amount is no more than necessary to cover the reasonable costs of the governmental activity and that the manner in which those costs are allocated to a payer bear a fair and reasonable relationship to the payer's burdens on, or benefits received from the governmental activity.

Section 66014 (a) of the California Government Code includes the following: "Notwithstanding any other provision of law, when a local agency charges fees for zoning variances; zoning changes, use permits, building inspections; building permits; ...the processing of maps under the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act...; or planning services...; those fees may not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fee is charged, unless a question regarding the amount of the fee charged in excess of the estimated reasonable cost 1 of providing the services or materials is submitted to, and approved by, a popular vote of two- thirds of those electors voting on the issue.

Under Methodology and Data Sources, the User and Regulatory Fee Study states further that:
... this study calculated the estimated reasonable cost of providing various fee-related services across the City organization. Generally, the estimated reasonable cost of providing the fee- related services and activities examined in this study can be calculated as the product of the composite fully-burdened hourly labor rate of the division responsible for providing services and the estimated labor time required to process a typical request for service.

The composite fully-burdened hourly rates calculated in this study are based on the estimated annual hours spent providing fee-related services, and estimated labor, services and supplies, and citywide overhead expenditures, sourced as follows:
• Labor expenditures for in-house personnel were based on budgeted salary and benefits expenditures.
• Contract service personnel related costs were based on current market rates for similar services in the region.

Citywide overhead cost allocations were developed to assign a reasonable share of central service support to the City's direct service units. • Estimated labor times were developed based on responses from the staff primarily responsible for the provision of services examined in the study. Commonly used industry data also aided in the development of time estimates and proposed fee structures.

The User and Regulatory Fee Study also went on to state that full cost recovery requires the calculation of various indirect costs as well.

The User and Regulatory Fee Study suggests using a consolidated hourly billing rate of $186.00 per hour, which is comprised of $150.00 per hour for Contract Share, defined as hourly rates and allocations based on current industry contract service rates and contract service/agency allocations and $36.00 per hour based on citywide overhead per page 30 of the Cost-of-Service Analysis for Engineering and Encroachment Permit Fees.

Since the City of Gustine contracts with Gouveia Engineering to provide its engineering services, and I do not know the hourly rate that Gouveia Engineering would charge for an improvement plan review, I will have to use the rate of $186.00 per fully-burdened hourly rate for a calculation. My desire is to put into context a realistic perspective of how excessive and exorbitant the updated fee requirement is for the Improvement Plan Check and Inspection Deposit is.

First, I would like to point out that the User and Regulatory Fee Study, specifically Item #8 on page 31, contradicts itself regarding its statement of "The composite fully-burdened hourly rates calculated in this study are based on the estimated annual hours spend providing fee related services and estimated labor, services and supplies and citywide overhead 2 expenditures..." There are no Estimated City Staff Labor Hours nor a Fully-Burdened Hourly rate as every other line item on page 31 has, with the exception of line Item 1b & 1c (Encroachment/Excavation Permits), line Item 9 (Grading), and line Item 10 (Special Study Review). There is only an Estimated Cost of Service of 5%, 2.5% of which is due at Plan submittal and 2.5% which is due at Plan approval. Based on these numbers and a hypothetical $11,000,000.00 Engineering Construction Cost Estimate by my engineer, NorthStar Engineering, the first and second 2.5% deposits of $275,000.00 total $550,000.00 for plan check and inspection to be provided by Gouveia Engineering. This amount far exceeds the $427,429.00 that I contracted with NorthStar Engineering and five sub-consultants to create my Improvement Plans from scratch, of which work started on in July of 2023. Based on the newly adopted 5% deposit figure, which equates to a total deposit of $550,000.00 and using the fully- burdened hourly rate of $186.00, it would take 2,956.99 hours, 73.92 weeks or 1.42 years for a full plan review, which will undoubtedly include several reviews. Now, I am not saying that it will take Gouveia Engineering this amount of money or length of time to complete the review of my improvement plans, but what I am saying is that it illustrates the exorbitant amount of money that is required to be collected for a routine plan review. There are six different firms that have been working on my improvement plans for close to five months at a total cost of $427,429.00, so how can it possibly make sense to require total deposits of $550,000.00, which assumes that the first deposit of $275,000.00 is completely used up. There is absolutely no way that a plan review is going to come anywhere close to $275,000.00, much less $550,000.00.

What I am going to propose is that an initial deposit of $50,000.00 be made, and if the deposit is reduced to below $10,000.00 (20%), then I will make another deposit to restore the deposit balance to $50,000.00 and will continue to do so until the improvement plan review is complete. Upon completion of the review, then the balance of the deposit, if any, will be returned to me. I believe that this is a far more equitable way to address this issue because as l stated above, no identifiable methodology has been provided as to how an estimate of 5% was arrived at as there is no fully-burdened hourly rate nor an estimate of labor time, both of which are required to process a typical request for service. Further, the processing of maps under the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act...; or planning services...; requires that the fees may not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service for which the fee is charged...

There is no basis for charging 5% or $550,000.00 in total deposits to review a set of improvement plans that actually cost $427,429.00 to create as this also undermines the Subdivision Map Act's requirement that fees not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service. I realize that it appears as if I am conflating the terms "deposit" and "fee," but I am trying to focus on the obvious fact that there is no "reasonable" relationship to the amount of the deposit that is being required for a plan check review of improvement plans, relative to the actual cost of developing the improvement plans from scratch, and ultimately to the amount of the fee charged by Gouveia Engineering. In this instance, the amount of the deposit required would no doubt far exceed the actual fee that would be realized. I believe that what I am asking for is quite similar to Item #11, Consider Resolution Amending Encroachment Permit Fees in Gustine User & Regulatory Fee Schedule, which went before the City Council on February 21, 2023
I would also like to mention the fact that I will not be installing any of the underground infrastructure improvements. From my review of Item 8, Improvement Plan Check and Inspection, I am interpreting it as if the cost of physical inspections for installed infrastructure is included in the required deposit, and since I will not be installing any infrastructure, I should not be responsible for paying for any inspections that will ultimately be required once the infrastructure improvements are actually installed. Whatever the actual cost is from Gouveia Engineering, I should only be financially responsible for paying for an improvement plan review and nothing more.

My request to the City Council is identical in nature to the two telecommunications projects to be built by Comcast that were addressed by the City Council earlier this year. Following are excerpts taken from the City Council February 21, 2023 Agenda, Administrative Agenda Item #11, Consider Resolution Amending Encroachment Permit Fees in Gustine User & Regulatory Fee Schedule.

As staff involved in the 2019 fee schedule update are no longer with the City, current staff queried the consultant that assisted in that update to ask about the lack of a sliding scale for encroachment fees. ClearSource Financial reflected that the fee schedule likely did not take into account large projects because the City simply had not encountered such requests previously. The majority of applications the City receives for encroachment permits are for valuations on the lower end of the spectrum. Most City valuations in the last decade were well below $50,000 valuation ($2,500 fee). The 5% fee amount is reasonable for projects within the valuation of $0- $50,000.

Recently, however, the City has been approached with projects that have valuations in the millions of dollars. Two telecommunications projects which offer widespread Broadband access to the community will soon apply for encroachment permits to install fiber. The City's existing fee schedule sets forth that the projects require a minimum payment-not simply a deposit-of 5%. That fee has the potential to outweigh the costs the City would spend in reviewing the project permits. Charging substantially more would not be reasonable and is not the intent of the City in collecting fees. The aim is to recover all the various costs associated with work on projects.

Staff and ClearSource concur that the City needs to address this in the next fee schedule being worked on in an existing contract with that consultant. The fee schedule requires hearing and public notice. Staff and the consultant believe to delay these large projects until Council approves the full fee schedule does not seem reasonable. Therefore, staff recommends Council consider reducing the mandatory fee obligation amount until the new fee schedule is adopted in the coming months.

Review work for encroachment permits on large-dollar encroachment projects is similar to the type of review on large planning projects: It has many variables that can result in large variance in the number of review hours and costs related. Staff suggests that using a recovery structure similar to planning provides a reasonable alternative: The City collects a set deposit for large projects prior to starting work and then essentially bills against the 4 deposit as the project progresses. When the deposit gets within 20% of the initial deposit, the City requires additional deposit to continue work. The City refunds any deposit not billed against the project at completion.

This process is time-consuming in regards to tracking and as is not being recommended for the majority of the encroachment permits the City receives-which are lower dollar.

However, for larger-valuation projects, it provides a structure that provides for a clearly reasonable nexus between the costs and fees charged and provides fair recovery. The revised fee schedule being discussed with the consultant currently follows this model.

Staff's recommendation on the item is below:

RECOMMENDATION:

City Council to approve the proposed Amendment to encroachment fee as outlined in the Staff Report.

Below is the City Council's approval of Staff's recommendation:

11. Consider Resolution Amending Encroachment Permit Fees in Gustine User & Regulatory Fee Schedule.

1. Receive Staff Report
Receive public comment

3. Consider a motion to approve the resolution
Economic & Community Development Director Westervelt presented the staff report.

Council member Marsigli inquired what other cities do, to which Economic & Community Development Director Westervelt advised after researching, she could not find consistency Council member Marsigli requested staff report Exhibit A, be added as Exhibit A to the resolution.

Nathan Olli, Comcast Representative, advised Comcast is bringing full fiber build-out to the City of Gustine. He advised Comcast's goal is to have this project completed in 2023. He also advised he would come back to a later meeting to provide additional details on this project and their services.

Council member Marsigli made a motion to approve resolution as amended.

The motion was seconded by Mayor Pro Tem Ford and carried 4-0, with Council member Bonta absent.

I simply request that I am given the same consideration by the City Council that was afforded the telecommunication projects by Comcast.

I would like to thank the City Council in advance for their consideration of my requests. 5 Ron Katakis
9 HE CIL LIFOR ITEM NO. 10

COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM
DECEMBER 19, 2023
PREPAREd BY: Jami Westervelt, Economic and Community Development Director SUBJECT: Regional Early Action Planning Grants for 2021 (REAP 2.0) through Merced County Association of Governments

BACKGROUND
Merced County Association of Governments (MCAG) seeks applications for its Local Suballocation Grant Program (LSGP), authorized under the Regional Early Action Planning Grants of 2021 (REAP 2.0) provisions.

The REAP 2.0 program was established through AB 140 (July 2021) to provide Eligible Entities with tools and resources to help implement and advance plans, primarily including Sustainable Communities Strategies (SCS) as part of Regional Transportation Plans to pursue greenhouse gas emission reduction targets through land use and transportation changes.

The Governing Board for MCAG approved guidelines for two programs for dispersing the funds as allowable by the State:

1.) Local Suballocation Grant Program- A set amount for each jurisdiction was approved by the Governing Board, based upon the percentage of the region's RHNA that each was allocated for the Sixth Cycle. The formula funding for the City of Gustine is $103,142.

2.) Regional Competitive Grant Program- This money will be distributed via a competitive process open to all MCAG jurisdictions.

The attached guidelines and application packet provide additional information on the program. Based on review of these materials, staff does not believe Gustine has a project that could be competitive with the larger cities or the County and is advising the City not expend resources attempting to develop a project and application for the competitive grants. However, staff recommends that the City consider applying for its suballocation of $103,142. The deadline for the initial application is Friday. December 22, 2023.

When sharing this information with City staff, MCAG staff advised that HCD has been firm in requiring that funds awarded must meet all three program objectives:
accelerating infill development, affirmatively furthering fair housing, and reducing vehicle miles travelled (VT). Therefore, when looking at the guidelines, it is important to keep in mind the need to develop a potential project to meet all three of these objectives.

MCAG staff has advised that by December 22, the City needs to submit its desired project and complete the application to the best of its ability but that extensive discussions with the State will ultimately determine the project MCAG will be allowed to fund through suballocation.

In order to submit an application, City staff needs Council direction on a project it would like to see brought forward. The award amount of $103,142 alone is likely not enough to fund a project to meet all three of the above criteria.

Therefore staff sees value in considering the following two types of projects:
• One in which City has an existing, overwhelming need to complete the project and additional funding would assist to bring the need to fruition. • One in which the City might be able to find other funding sources to supplement the project.

In considering the guidelines and the above, staff thinks it might be worthwhile for Council to consider applying for the funds to update its General Plan and/or additional zoning and related code work.

Staff asks that Council members share feedback on the above and also bring forward any other ideas for discussion prior to providing definitive direction to staff.

FISCAL IMPACT
If approved, the City would receive $103,142 to implement as ultimately approved by the State.

RECOMMENDATION
City Council to review the attached documents and provide input and potential direction regarding submission of an application for LSGP REAP 2.0 funding to MCAG by Friday, December 22.

EXHIBIT(S)
A) MCAG REAP 2.0 Final Guidelines
B) MCAG Local Suballocation Grant Program Application
APPROVED BY:

Melanie Correa, Interim City Manager
MCAG

MERCED COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS
MCAG REAP 2.0 Final Guidelines

LOCAL SUBALLOCATION GRANT PROGRAM
ADOPTED OCTOBER 19, 2023
MCAG
MCAG REAP 2.0 Local Suballocation Grant Program Guidelines

MERCED COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF ADVERNMENTS
Table of Contents
Section 1 - Overview ...1
1a. Background 1
1b. REAP 2.0 Program Objectives. ...2
Section 2 - Eligibility ...3
2a. Allocation Methodology and Eligible Applicants. ..3 2b. Eligible Partnerships ..4
2c. Eligible Uses and Activities 5
2d. Ineligible Activities • 6
Section 3 - Application Process ...7
3a. Applying for Funding. ...7
3b. Unallocated Funds ... 7
3c. Funding Criteria ....7
Section 4 - Contract Administration ....8
4a. Implementing Agencies. 8
4b. Administrative Fee ....8
4c. Expenditure Period ...8
4d. Reimbursement. ...8
4e. Reporting Requirements.. 9
4f. Technical Assistance .. 9
4g. Timeline.. 9
Section 5 - Local Suballocation Grant Program Scoring Criteria and Methodology. ...9 5a. REAP 2.0 Objectives. ..10
5b. Primary Factors ... ...11
5c. Secondary Factors .. ...12
5d. Local Suballocation Grant Program Criteria.. ...13
MCAG
MCAG REAP 2.0 Local Suballocation Grant Program Guidelines

MERCED COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF BOVERNMENTS
Section 1 - Overview
The Merced County Association of Government's (MCAG) Regional Early Action Planning 2021 (REAP 2.0) Program guidelines have been developed to align with MCAG's adopted REAP 2.0 Program Framework and the state final REAP 2.0 Program Guidelines. The MCAG REAP 2.0 Local Suballocation Grant Program (LSGP) Guidelines ("Guidelines") implement the REAP 2.0 Suballocation funding programs in the MCAG REAP 2.0 Program Framework. The state REAP 2.0 grant supports accelerating housing production, reducing vehicle miles traveled (VMT), and Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH). These guidelines are consistent with, and when necessary, defer to, the state REAP 2.0 Program Guidelines for establishing terms, conditions, forms, procedures, and other mechanisms necessary to effectuate the program. The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) released REAP 2.0 final program guidelines on July 26, 2022. The MCAG REAP 2.0 program application is based on inclusive and broad engagement. These guidelines and program will be adjusted as necessary to comply with the state program.

In the REAP 2.0 Guidelines, the state reserves the right, at their sole discretion, to suspend, amend, or modify the provisions of the REAP 2.0 Guidelines at any time, including, without limitation, the amount of funds available hereunder. If such an action occurs, the Department will notify all interested parties.

As such, MCAG reserves the right, at its sole discretion, to suspend or amend the provisions of the REAP

2.0 LSGP guidelines in collaboration with the State, including but not limited to, grant award amounts. 1a. Background
REAP 2.0 was established through AB 140 (July 2021) as part of the mid-year budget revise for the State's FY 21-22 budget for transformative and innovative projects that implement a region's Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) and help achieve the objectives of more housing and transportation options that reduce reliance on cars. REAP 2.0 builds on actions completed through the 2019 REAP grant program but expands the focus by integrating housing and climate goals, and by allowing for broader planning and implementation investments, including infrastructure investments supporting housing development.

The REAP 2.0 Program is funded with $600 million from the State General Fund. MCAG's share of this funding is $3,912,152.75. The REAP 2.0 Program is administered by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) (Department), in collaboration with the Governor's Office of Planning and Research (OPR), the Strategic Growth Council (SGC), and the California Air Resources Board (CARB).

The State's REAP 2.0 Guidelines allow for eligible entities to submit an Advanced Application for up to 10 percent of available funding in advance of the Full Application for outreach, program development, and administration. MCAG submitted an Advanced Application to the State in July 2022 for $290,607 to conduct the required outreach for the development and submission of the full application, as well as to administer and manage the REAP 2.0 programs through the June 2026 expenditure deadline. After the Advanced Allocation, MCAG has $3,621,545.75 remaining to go towards two grant programs.

In December 2022, the MCAG Governing Board adopted the REAP 2.0 Program Framework, which consists of two major components:

1. Regional Competitive Grant Program (75%, $2,716,159) developed and administered by MCAG that supports all REAP 2.0 objectives.
• Proposed primary applicants to include local jurisdictions and transit agencies.

MCAG
MCAG REAP 2.0 Local Suballocation Grant Program Guidelines

MERCED COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS
• Priority focus on implementation projects.

2. Local Suballocation Grant Program (25%, $905,386) to cities and the County to implement sixth cycle housing elements with an emphasis on supporting activities that meet all the REAP

2.0 objectives.
• Rezoning and updating planning documents, development standards, and zoning ordinances, including general plans, community plans, and specific plans. • Performing infrastructure planning and upgrades, including for sewers, water systems, transit, active transportation, or other public facilities necessary to enable reduction in Per Capita VMT and accelerate infill development.
• Revamping local planning processes to accelerate infill development. • Completing environmental clearance to eliminate the need for project-specific review for infill development.

The REAP 2.0 Program provides funds to regional governments to achieve the three core REAP 2.0 objectives listed below. This includes accelerating housing production and facilitating compliance with 6th Cycle housing elements, including regional housing need allocations. REAP 2.0 is specifically designed to provide Metropolitan Planning Organizations (MPO) and other Eligible Entities with tools and resources to help implement and advance plans, primarily including Sustainable Communities Strategies (SCS) as part of Regional Transportation Plans to pursue greenhouse gas emission reduction targets through land use and transportation changes.
1b. REAP 2.0 Program Objectives
Based on feedback from regional jurisdictions and stakeholders, the REAP 2.0 LSGP has been developed within the MCAG REAP 2.0 Final Program Framework. REAP 2.0 LSGP supports implementation of the region's housing element work plans as a means of investing in actions identified at the local level that support housing production throughout the region and achieve the REAP 2.0 Program Objectives. Both MCAG's Regional Competitive and Local Suballocation Grant Programs must meet the REAP 2.0 objectives which are:

1. Accelerating Infill* Development that Facilitates Housing Supply, Choice, and Affordability • Accelerates infill development that facilitates housing supply, choice, and affordability and AFFH through various planning programs, services, or capital expenditures in a way that reduces VMT and greenhouse gas emissions.

Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
• Combats discrimination, overcomes patterns of segregation, and fosters equitable and inclusive communities.

Includes meaningful actions to address disparities in housing needs and in access to opportunity, replace segregated living patterns with balanced living patterns, and transform racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity; targets funding to benefit disadvantaged and historically underserved communities.

Enhances mobility or place-based strategies benefitting housing that meets AFFH goals, or protects existing residents from displacement, or preserves housing choices and affordability in areas of lower- or moderate-opportunity and concentrated poverty.

Supports regional and local efforts to work toward ensuring all people have full and equal access to opportunities enabling them to lead healthy lives.

Reducing Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
2 MCAG
MCAG REAP 2.0 Local Suballocation Grant Program Guidelines

MERCED COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS
• Supports new infill housing development and shifts travel away from driving by implementing or supporting pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and other alternative transportation programs.

Realizes multimodal communities through programs, plans, and implementation actions.
• Shifts travel behavior by reducing driving through programs, ordinances, funds, and other mechanisms.
• Increases transit ridership through funding, implementation actions, and planning. *The REAP 2.0 Infill definition pursuant to State guidelines provides that:
"Infil", for the purposes of the REAP 2.0 Program, means areas where all the following apply: (1) the area consists of unused or underutilized lands (2) within existing development patterns (3) that is or will be accessible to destinations and daily services by transit, walking, or bicycling and located in either:

1. An urban center, urban corridor, or area with transit-supportive densities, or

2. An established community that meets all the following criteria:
i. The area consists or previously consisted of qualified urban uses; ii. The area is predominantly surrounded (approximately 75 percent of the perimeter) by parcels that are developed or previously developed with qualified urban uses. In counting this, perimeters bordering navigable bodies of water and improved parks shall not be included; and ili. No parcel within or adjoining the area is classified as agricultural or natural and working lands.

Section 2 - Eligibility
The Merced County Association of Government's REAP 2.0 LSGP is the non-competitive component of the suballocation funds. Local jurisdictions proposing projects which meet the core REAP 2.0 objectives such as improving housing affordability, increasing housing production, establishing housing closer to jobs, reducing VMT, addressing housing and infrastructure needs in all communities, advancing AFFH and promoting multimodal communities with the best and highest use of grant funds will receive funding.

The REAP 2.0 LSGP program will have thresholding criteria which mirror REAP 2.0 objectives to assure funded projects meet all REAP 2.0 goals, objectives, and scoring criteria. Project metrics will assist in the project selection process including screening or thresholding criteria to focus funding in existing urban areas, criteria for infill and measuring how projects reduce VMT, whether projects implement the SCS, and criteria to evaluate whether projects are meeting AFFH goals. All project screening and threshold criteria will be grounded in the REAP 2.0 guidance on program goals and objectives. Once the suballocation program design is finalized, MCAG will conduct a regional call for projects for all eligible applicants.

Screening or threshold criteria will be included in the suballocation program evaluation to assure eligible projects are in areas that satisfy an applicable definition of infill development. All suballocation project applications must also include a project location which will assist MCAG in determining if the location is in an eligible infill area.
2a. Allocation Methodology and Eligible Applicants
Contingent on approval from the state and subject to change, up to $905,386 of MCAG's REAP 2.0 funding allocation shall be available for the LSGP. Cities and Merced County in the MCAG region are eligible for funding if an eligible project can be proposed. Funding shall be disbursed on a non- 3 MCAG
MCAG REAP 2.0 Local Suballocation Grant Program Guidelines

MERCED COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF OOVERNMENTS
competitive basis based on whether applicants achieve core REAP 2.0 objectives and pass threshold criteria.

Eligible jurisdictions within the MCAG region and the maximum amount they may apply for are shown in the following table:

Table 1: Local Suballocation Grant Program Allocation
Jurisdiction Sixth Cycle Share of Base Allocation Total RHNA RHNA Allocation based off Formula
Allocation share of Funding
RHNA Available
City of Dos Palos 261 1% $100,000 $2,370 $102,370
City of Gustine 346 2% $100,000 $3,142 $103,142
City of Livingston 1,097 5% $100,000 $9,961 $109,961
City of Atwater 3,017 13% $100,000 $27,394 $127,394
City of Los Banos 3,132 14% $100,000 $28,438 $128,438
City of Merced 10,517 46% $100,000 $95,493 $195,493
County of Merced 4,250 19% $100,000 $38,589 $138,589
Total 22,620 100% $700,000 $205,386 $905,386
2b. Eligible Partnerships
Eligible partners include, but are not limited to, other local governments, housing authorities, school districts, special districts, universities, transit agencies, and community-based organizations. An eligible applicant may partner with other eligible entities to fulfill one or more projects included in the application. One or more eligible applicants may form a partnership to expend part, or all, of a recipient's LSGP funding.

Applicants forming partnerships must provide a legally binding agreement between all partners.

Applicants that are considering this are encouraged to discuss their proposals with MCAG staff prior to applying to ensure projects are eligible and the work can be completed prior to the end of the expenditure period.
4 MCAG
MCAG REAP 2.0 Local Suballocation Grant Program Guidelines

MERCED COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF BOVERNMENTS
2c. Eligible Uses and Activities
To receive funding, applicants must:

1. Submit a qualifying application that is approved by MCAG. Applicants are not required to directly implement projects and may contract for services following state requirements, and when applicable federal requirements. Applicants are not required to apply for all funds available.

2. Demonstrate a nexus to all three REAP 2.0 Program Objectives for each project proposed:

Accelerating Infill Development that Facilitates Housing Supply, Choice, and Affordability Accelerates infill development that facilitates housing supply, choice, and affordability and AFFH through various planning programs, services, or capital expenditures in a way that reduces VT and greenhouse gas emissions, and goes beyond existing commitments.
• Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
Combats discrimination, overcomes patterns of segregation, and fosters equitable and inclusive communities.

Includes meaningful actions to address disparities in housing needs and in access to opportunity, replace segregated living patterns with balanced living patterns, and transform racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity; targets funding to benefit disadvantaged and historically underserved Enhances mobility or place-based strategies benefitting housing that meets AFFH goals, or protects existing residents from displacement, or preserves housing choices and affordability in areas of lower- or moderate-opportunity and concentrated poverty.

Support regional and local efforts to work toward ensuring all people have full and equal access to opportunities enabling them to lead healthy lives.

Reducing Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
Supports new infill housing development and shifts travel away from driving by implementing or supporting pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and other alternative transportation programs.

Realizes multimodal communities through programs, plans, and implementation actions.

Shifts travel behavior by reducing driving through programs, ordinances, funds, and other mechanisms.

Increases transit ridership through funding, implementation actions, and planning.

3. Demonstrate project is eligible for funding and describe how project meets objectives in Section 1, REAP 2.0 Program Objectives. Based on the final State REAP 2.0 Program Guidelines (dated July 26, 2022) example activities and uses include but are not limited to the following:

Affordable Housing development programs;
• Planning activities that lead to increased residential and/or mixed-use zoned capacity in areas identified as infill, or land use planning, related studies and/or programs that result in implementable/adoptable programs and policies (meaning subject to adoption or approval of the legislative body) required to meet the programs, projects, and commitments in draft, adopted and/or compliant 6th Cycle Housing Elements;
Program-level environmental clearance for infill projects with AFFH components; Upgrading infrastructure for sewer, water, and dry utility systems that may serve affordable infill housing;
5 MCAG
MCAG REAP 2.0 Local Suballocation Grant Program Guidelines

MERCED COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF BOVERNMENTS
Housing mobility strategies that serve affordable housing; • Affordable Housing unit production;
Reductions to barriers to higher density Housing, buildings with four or more units, and accessibility;
Outreach strategies to address local opposition to Proposed Use; Affordable Housing unit production or preservation;
Anti-displacement protections;
Expanded Housing options;
Housing-supportive infrastructure;
• Activities that develop, support, or implement land use planning, policies, or investment strategies that result in substantial changes to travel behavior from increasing population and employment densities, land use mix, street network connectivity, linkages and pathways with active transportation infrastructure, accessibility between destinations, and/or contiguousness of land uses and transportation networks; • Activities, subject to applicable program funding requirements, that would develop, support, or implement transportation planning, policies, and investment strategies that support Infill development that facilitates housing supply, choice, and affordability such as increasing transit services and access;
Building at walkable community scales;
Enhancing pedestrian and bicycling safety measures;
Protecting pedestrian and bicycling amenities;
Multimodal infrastructure connections with multimodal-mobility transportation systems.

4. Submit a complete application along with all required supporting documents within the application period. See Section 3 for information on applying for funding.

Consultants or other external resources may be used for work on eligible activities but are not required.

Applicants will indicate in their funding application whether they intend to use existing staff, temporary staff, consultants, or other resources for each activity. 2d. Ineligible Activities
• Activities where clear nexuses to all Program Objectives listed in Section 1 are not demonstrated.
• Activities that obstruct or hinder housing production, e.g., moratoriums, downzoning, planning documents with conditional use permits that significantly impact approval certainty and timing, planned development, or other similarly constraining processes. • Administrative costs of persons employed by the grantee for activities not directly related to the preparation and adoption of the proposed Activity or Activities.

MCAG will not accept applications for, nor reimburse for, ineligible activities or projects. Expenditure reimbursement requires prior authorization in writing from MCAG for the eligible projects and activities.

MCAG may be subject to repayment of REAP 2.0 funds to HCD if it is found in breach of its agreement with HCD, which can occur if REAP 2.0 funds are used for ineligible activities. If MCAG is required to repay funds to HCD, MCAG will require reimbursement from the LSGP recipient.

MCAG
MCAG REAP 2.0 Local Suballocation Grant Program Guidelines

MERCED COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS
Section 3 - Application Process
All activities proposed must meet the requirements established in these guidelines and the state's REAP

2.0 Program Guidelines.

Зa. Applying for Funding
Process and Timing:

The application period will be opened on October 19, 2023 and close at 5:00 PM on December 22, 2023.

Application Submittal and Review:

The application must include information on proposed projects and activities, key tasks and deliverables, estimated costs, and identification of the implementing agency for each project and activity, among other requirements provided in the application template.

Once applications are reviewed, MCAG will provide an award letter to the eligible applicant indicating whether the submitted projects are approved for funding, or a letter indicating how the application needs to be revised to be accepted. Projects that do not meet the funding criteria cannot be funded through REAP 2.0 LSGP. A jurisdiction may revise its application or project scope to meet the funding criteria and resubmit the application up until the final due date.

Applications for ineligible activities or projects that do not meet the funding criteria in Section 1 will not be accepted. Applicants may resubmit revised projects that address the reasons the original submittal Applications will be accepted until the final date to apply, which is by 5:00 PM on December 22, 2023.

Given the schedule requirements of the REAP 2.0 Guidelines to award suballocations, if a successful application is submitted, conditional award letters shall be distributed within 60 days of a complete application received from an applicant for a suballocation (not inclusive of encumbrance or an executed Standard Agreement).
3b. Unallocated Funds
Remaining funds that are unencumbered after the application deadline will be available for qualifying projects in the MCAG Region at MCAG's discretion through April 1, 2024.

By June 30, 2024, all REAP 2.0 funds must be fully encumbered. 3c. Funding Criteria
Funding applications are required to meet all three REAP 2.0 Objectives (Section 1 of the Guidelines) and shall be evaluated for funding based on the Local Suballocation Grant Program Methodology listed at the end of this document, including but not limited to the following criteria:

Are the proposed projects eligible uses and activities (Section 2c.)? Is a clear statement included demonstrating a nexus between each proposed project (or activity) and all three of the following state program objectives? Accelerating Infill Development that Facilitates Housing Supply, Choice, and Affordability; and
Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing; and
Reducing Vehicle Miles Traveled
7 MCAG
MCAG REAP 2.0 Local Suballocation Grant Program Guidelines

MERCED COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS
Does the project support compliance with a jurisdiction's housing element? • Does the project provide transformative planning and/or implementation activities? Does the project target funding to benefit disadvantaged and historically underserved communities?
Does the project lead to substantial changes in land use patterns and travel behaviors? .. Does the project support California Planning Priorities? This may include promotion of infill development, supporting environmental and agricultural resources, and/or encouraging efficient development patterns.

Section 4 - Contract Administration
4a. Implementing Agencies
Jurisdictions are required to serve as the implementing agency of the projects and activities applied for.

Implementing agencies must be entities eligible to enter into intergovernmental agreements and must demonstrate capacity to implement government grant administration tasks in a timely manner, including applications, contract execution and monitoring, funds management and transfer, and accounting and reporting, including any competitive sub-contracting if applicable. The implementing agency cannot have any unresolved audit findings from prior government contracts and cannot be party to pending land use, housing, or environmental litigation which could impact the proposed activities.

The implementing agency will be responsible for developing the scope of work for the project or activity and leading the procurement process for obtaining consultants and/or resources. The implementing agency must also manage and administer the project, which includes tasks such as monitoring activity progress, reviewing tasks and deliverables, and reviewing and processing invoices. 4b. Administrative Fee
None of a jurisdiction's or eligible applicant's allocation may be charged as administrative activities by the jurisdiction or eligible applicants. Tasks such as reviewing and processing project invoices, processing contract amendments, and preparing reports and metrics of project progress and completion are considered administrative activities. Activities such as developing scopes of work and requests for proposals (RFP), reviewing tasks and deliverables, and outreach with jurisdictions related to the project are considered programmatic and can be charged as a program activity. 4c. Expenditure Period
Per the requirements of AB 140, all funds distributed under REAP 2.0 must be obligated by June 30, 2024 and expended by June 30, 2026. To meet this deadline and receive reimbursement in alignment with REAP 2.0 guidelines, MCAG will require all funds to be obligated by March 1, 2024, unless otherwise directed by MCAG. All invoices associated with LSGP must be submitted to MCAG no later than March 31, 2026. Invoices received by MCAG after this date cannot be guaranteed for reimbursement. 4d. Reimbursement
All projects must submit invoices and a status report to MCAG quarterly to receive reimbursement.

Invoices must follow the requirements set forth in the Grant Agreement and MCAG's regular invoicing procedures and must comply with applicable state and/or federal requirements. Expenditure reimbursement requires prior authorization of the eligible projects and activities, and MCAG may be subject to repayment of REAP funds to HCD if it is found in breach of its agreement with HCD, which can 8 MCAG
MCAG REAP 2.0 Local Suballocation Grant Program Guidelines

MERCED COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS
occur if REAP funds are used for ineligible activities. If MCAG must repay REAP 2.0 funds to the state, MCAG will require reimbursement from the eligible applicant or jurisdiction.

MCAG will provide reimbursement only for costs as specified in the signed agreement(s) with the jurisdictions or eligible applicants or designee. Costs incurred prior to the date of the grant agreement for the LSGP will not be reimbursed.
4e. Reporting Requirements
Consistent with MCAG's Overall Work Program reporting procedures, each jurisdictional partner will be required to provide a quarterly progress report and quarterly invoices to track and measure activity progress. Project progress will be measured according to the tasks, deliverables, costs, and timeline outlined in the Grant Agreement.
4t. Technical Assistance
MCAG staff will provide technical assistance to eligible applicants starting in early 2023 through June 2026. Technical assistance will be available to help local jurisdictions and partners prioritize activities and complete the application and contracting process. After the start of projects, MCAG staff will be available for guidance with invoicing and reporting.
4g. Timeline
Below is a tentative schedule:

August 2023: Released draft LSGP Guidelines for public review October 19, 2023: MCAG adopts final LSGP Guidelines and releases call for applications December 22, 2023: Final application and list of prioritized projects from eligible applicants due to MCAG (unless due date is extended)
January 2024: Grant applications are reviewed and evaluated February 2024: MCAG approves applications and awards REAP 2.0 funds February - April 2024: Execute grant agreements with awardees June 30, 2024: Deadline to encumber REAP 2.0 funds
March 31, 2026: AlI REAP 2.0 projects and activities must be completed; final activity reports due to MCAG; final project invoices due to MCAG.
9 MCAG
MCAG REAP 2.0 Local Suballocation Grant Program Guidelines

MERCED COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS
Section 5 - Local Suballocation Grant Program Scoring Criteria and Methodology
MCAG staff developed draft criteria for both the Regional Competitive and Local Suballocation Grant Programs based on the REAP 2.0 Final Guidelines for Metropolitan Planning Organizations and direction from the State Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). 5a. REAP 2.0 Objectives
The REAP 2.0 program has three objectives that each project must satisfy. If a project receives a score of 0/FAIL on any REAP 2.0 objective, the project would be deemed ineligible in the application review (regardless of the score on any other objective or factor). Both MCAG's Regional Competitive and Local Suballocation Grant Programs must meet the following REAP 2.0 objectives:
• Accelerating Infill* Development that Facilitates Housing Supply, Choice, and Affordability

1. Does the project accelerate infill development near jobs and other key destinations to support housing choice and affordability that effectively reduces VT and greenhouse gas emissions?

2. Is the project at an infill site and does it have affordability components that serve low- and moderate-income households?

3. Is the project for affordable housing development programs - which may involve predevelopment costs (studies, land acquisition, entitlements, etc.), that accelerate the supply of long-term affordable housing for lower and moderate-income households? • Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)

1. Does the project combat discrimination, overcome patterns of segregation, and foster equitable and inclusive communities?

2. Does the project include meaningful actions to address disparities in housing needs and in access to opportunity, replace segregated living patterns with balanced living patterns, and transform racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity?

3. Does the project support regional and local efforts to work toward ensuring all people have full and equal access to opportunities enabling them to lead healthy lives?

4. Does the project:

Enhance housing mobility strategies that remove barriers to housing, housing-supportive infrastructure, increased transportation options, and affordability in areas of high opportunity and outside areas of concentrated poverty; or
•• Improve place-based strategies to encourage community revitalization; or Protect existing residents from displacement and preserve housing choices and affordability in areas of lower- or moderate-opportunity and concentrated poverty?

5. Is the project materially inconsistent with AFFH?

6. Geographic equity - will be addressed post initial scoring.

7. Does the project target funding to benefit disadvantaged and historically underserved communities?
Unique equity priorities - weighting of scores addresses unique equity priorities. 10 MCAG
MCAG REAP 2.0 Local Suballocation Grant Program Guidelines

MERCED COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF BOVERNMENTS
• Reducing Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)

1. Does the applicant explain how the proposed use promotes development and aligns housing production in infill locations consistent with the state's climate targets and goals discussed in the California Climate Change Scoping Plan?

2. Is the project consistent with the region's Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) through:

Land use planning, policies, and investment strategies by infill development that facilitates housing supply, choice, and affordability and is serviced by existing and planned expansions of a multimodal transportation system; or
• Transportation planning, policies, and investment strategies by increasing travel options to homes, jobs, services, and other key destinations that provide, support, or enhance multimodal communities and reduce the number or length of vehicle trips?
Does the project support new housing development and shift travel away from driving by implementing or supporting pedestrian, bicycle, transit, and other alternative transportation programs?
*The REAP 2.0 Infill definition pursuant to State guidelines provides that:
"Infill", for the purposes of the REAP 2.0 Program, means areas where all the following apply: (1) the area consists of unused or underutilized lands (2) within existing development patterns (3) that is or will be accessible to destinations and daily services by transit, walking, or bicycling and located in either:

1. An urban center, urban corridor, or area with transit-supportive densities, or

2. An established community that meets all the following criteria:
i. The area consists or previously consisted of qualified urban uses; The area is predominantly surrounded (approximately 75 percent of the perimeter) by parcels that are developed or previously developed with qualified urban uses. In counting this, perimeters bordering navigable bodies of water and improved parks shall not be included; and ili. No parcel within or adjoining the area is classified as agricultural or natural and working lands. 5b. Primary Factors
The primary factors represent factors from the REAP 2.0 guidelines. In addition to providing a primary factor score, the application narratives associated with the primary factors may inform scoring for the REAP 2.0 objectives portion of the scoring matrix. Each primary factor is described below.

Housing Element Compliance
• Does the project support compliance with a jurisdiction's housing element? Transformative Planning and Implementation Activities
Does the project provide for housing, planning, or infrastructure investments supporting infill housing, and other actions that enable meeting housing goals that also result in per capita vehicle miles traveled reductions, including accelerating infill development, supporting residents through realizing multimodal communities, shifting travel behavior through reducing driving, and increasing transit ridership?
Public Outreach
• Did the proposed project arise from or go through a public process to solicit community input? • If this is a planning project, does the scope of work include a public process? 11 MCAG
MCAG REAP 2.0 Local Suballocation Grant Program Guidelines

MERCED COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF OOVERNMENTS
Benefit to Disadvantaged Populations
• Does the project target funding to benefit disadvantaged and historically underserved communities?
Significant Beneficial Impacts
• Does the project lead to substantial changes in land use patterns and travel behaviors, demonstrated by:
• A rate of change compared to the baseline; or
• The magnitude of impact relative to variables or targets; or • The proportion of need achieved; or
• The impact relative to past trends, policies, and practices? California Planning Priorities
• Does the project support promotion of infill development and equity by rehabilitating, maintaining, and improving existing infrastructure that supports infill development and appropriate reuse and redevelopment of previously developed, underutilized land that is presently served by transit, streets, water, sewer and other essential services, particularly in underserved areas, and to preserve cultural and historic resources? Does the project support protection of environmental and agricultural resources by protecting, preserving, and enhancing the state's most valuable natural resources, including working landscapes such as farm, range, and forest lands, natural lands such as wetlands, watersheds, wildlife habitats, and other wildlands, recreation lands such as parks, trails, greenbelts, and other open space, and landscapes with locally unique features and areas identified by the state as deserving special protection?
• Does the project encourage efficient development patterns by ensuring that any infrastructure associated with development, other than infill development, supports new development that does all of the following:
• Uses land efficiently; and
• Is consistent with the infill definition provided above; and • Is located in an area appropriately planned for growth; and • Is served by adequate transportation and other essential utilities and services; and • Minimizes ongoing costs to taxpayers?
5c. Secondary Factors
A variety of secondary factors can be considered in the scoring process. These are not tied directly to the REAP 2.0 program but demonstrate the thoroughness of the application and the deliverability of the project.

Project Scope of Work and Budget
• Is a project scope of work and budget provided that demonstrates an understanding of the work and financial considerations required to deliver the project? Project Risk Assessment
• Has the applicant thoroughly considered risks associated with delivering the project consistent with the scope of work and budget?
• Has the applicant demonstrated realistic means for mitigating risk associated with delivering the project?
Risks alone should not result in a deficiency, but should be considered if they are unmitigated, not fully understood, or unmanageable.
12 MCAG
MCAG REAP 2.0 Local Suballocation Grant Program Guidelines

MERCED COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERMMENTS
5d. Local Suballocation Grant Program Criteria
Local suballocation Project elements will be rated on a Pass or Fail basis. Any project that fails one or more of the core three REAP 2.0 objectives or goals will be rejected. Draft scoring focuses on pass or fail evaluation per direction from HCD. Projects that meet all REAP 2.0 objectives and goals will be considered for approval as eligible projects.

Criteria PASS/FAIL
REAP 2.0 Objectives

1. Accelerating Infill Development Pass/Fail

2. Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing Pass/Fail

3. Reducing VMT Pass/Fail
Primary Factors

1. Housing Element Compliance Pass/Fail

2. Transformative Planning and Implementation Activities Pass/Fail

3. Public Outreach Pass/Fail

4. Benefit to Disadvantaged Populations Pass/Fail

5. Significant Beneficial Impacts Pass/Fail

6. California Planning Priorities Pass/Fail
Secondary Factors

1. Scope of Work and Budget Pass/Fail

2. Project Risk Assessment Pass/Fail
Total
MCAG staff will review each application with a pass or fail rating. If any one or more thresholding criteria rated "fail," the entire application will be deemed ineligible and rejected. Applicants are allowed to revise their application and resubmit. Applications that pass all thresholding criteria will be submitted to the MCAG Executive Director for approval.
13 MCAG

MERCED COUNTY ASSOCIATION OF GOVERNMENTS
Regional Early Action Planning Grants of 2021 (REAP 2.0)

LOCAL SUBALLOCATION GRANT PROGRAM (LSGP)

APPLICATION
Deadline: December 22, 2023
A. Background
This application to the Merced County Association of Governments (MCAG) is for the Local Suballocation Grant Program, a grant authorized under the Regional Early Action Planning Grants of 2021 (REAP 2.0) provisions. The REAP 2.0 program was established through AB 140 (July 2021) for transformative and innovative projects that implement a region's Sustainable Communities Strategy (SCS) and help achieve the objectives of more housing and transportation options that reduce reliance on cars. REAP 2.0 builds on actions completed through the REAP

1.0 grant program but expands the focus by integrating housing and vehicle miles traveled (VMT) reduction, and by allowing for broader planning and implementation investments, including infrastructure investments supporting housing development. This includes accelerating housing production and facilitating compliance with the Sixth Cycle of the housing element.

REAP 2.0 is specifically designed to provide Eligible Entities with tools and resources to help implement and advance plans, primarily including Sustainable Communities Strategies (SCS) as part of Regional Transportation Plans to pursue greenhouse gas emission reduction targets through land use and transportation changes.

The REAP 2.0 Program Framework includes two core components:

1. Local Suballocation Grant Program

2. Regional Competitive Grant Program
This is the application for the REAP 2.0 Local Suballocation Grant Program. The Local Suballocation Grant Program sets aside $905,386 for jurisdictions throughout the region for eligible projects which meet all REAP 2.0 goals and objectives. The goal of this suballocation program is to provide MCAG member jurisdictions an opportunity to propose REAP 2.0 eligible projects while allowing for both implementation and planning uses. All projects or programs must achieve all REAP 2.0 goals, objectives, and pass thresholding criteria. Full guidance and requirements for this grant program can be found in the MCAG REAP 2.0 Local Suballocation Grant Program Final Guidelines.

B. REAP 2.0 Program Objectives
The goals of the REAP 2.0 program are to invest in housing, planning, and Infill Housing-supportive infrastructure across the entire state in a manner that reduces VMT, increases Housing affordability, and advances equity. The REAP 2.0 program has three objectives that any single use of the fund must further. The three objectives are:
• Accelerating Infill Development that Facilitates Housing Supply, Choice, and Affordability • Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing (AFFH)
• Reducing Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT)
Regional Early Action Planning Grants of 2021 (REAP 2.0)

LOCAL SUBALLOCATION GRANT PROGRAM APPLICATION
C. Submission Instructions
Applicants must submit the following to MCAG by 5:00 PM on December 22, 2023 to be considered for the award:

1. A completed REAP 2.0 LSGP application along with all required supporting documents.

2. A fully executed Government Agency Taxpayer ID Form (see Attachment 1).

All applications must be submitted electronically to MCAG by email to [email protected]. No hard copies will be accepted.

D. Timeline
Below is a tentative schedule, which is subject to change in the final guidelines:
• August 15, 2023: Release draft LSGP Guidelines for public review • October 19, 2023: MCAG adopts final LSGP Program guidelines, releases call for applications • December 22, 2023: Final applications from eligible applicants due to MCAG January 2024: Grant applications are reviewed and evaluated • February 2024: MCAG approves awarded grants
March 2024: Execute grant agreements with REAP 2.0 awardees • June 30, 2024: Deadline to encumber REAP 2.0 funds
March 31, 2026: AlI REAP projects and activities must be completed; final activity reports due to MCAG; final project invoices due to MCAG
E. Contact
If you have questions regarding this application or the REAP 2.0 program, contact Meg Prince at [email protected].
2 Regional Early Action Planning Grants of 2021 (REAP 2.0)

LOCAL SUBALLOCATION GRANT PROGRAM APPLICATION

1. Application Information
Agency Name
Agency Type
Applicant's Mailing Address*
City
Zip Code
Website
Authorized Representative Name
Authorized Representative Title
Phone
Email
Contact Person Name
Contact Person Title
Phone
Email
Grant Amount (See the program $
guidelines Section 2 for amount
which your jurisdiction is eligible to
apply)
* Ensure the Government Agency Taxpayer ID Form matches the Applicant's Mailing Address listed above exactly. (See Attachment 1, "Government Agency Taxpayer ID Form") Regional Early Action Planning Grants of 2021 (REAP 2.0)

LOCAL SUBALLOCATION GRANT PROGRAM APPLICATION

2. Signature and Threshold Requirements
Project elements will be rated on a pass or fail basis. Any project that fails one or more of the REAP 2.0 objectives or primary factors will be rejected. Projects that meet all REAP 2.0 objectives and goals will be considered for approval as eligible projects. In the box below, indicate whether your project meets each threshold criteria.

Threshold Criteria
REAP 2.0 Objectives - Does the project: Yes No

1. Accelerate Infill Development? (see Section 5a below for more detail)

2. Affirmatively Further Fair Housing? (see Section 5b below for more detail)

3. Reduce VMT? (see section 5c below for more detail)
Primary Factors - Does the project:

1. Advance Housing Element Compliance?

2. Result in Transformative Planning and Implementation Activities? (see Section 6b below for more detail)

3. Include a public engagement process in the planning scope or arise from or go through a public process to solicit community input?

4. Benefit to Disadvantaged and Historically Underserved Populations? (see section 6d below for more detail)

5. Have Significant Beneficial Impacts? (see section 6e below for more detail)

6. Advance California Planning Priorities per Government Code 65041.1? As the official designated by the governing body, I hereby certify that the proposed project is consistent with the MCAG REAP 2.0 Local Suballocation Final Program Guidelines and meets all program requirements.

I further certify that, if approved by MCAG for a suballocation of funding through the REAP 2.0 program, the [Insert Agency Name Here] assumes the responsibilities specified in this application and certifies that the information statements and other content contained in this application are true and correct.

Signature: Name:

Date: Title:
4 Regional Early Action Planning Grants of 2021 (REAP 2.0)

LOCAL SUBALLOCATION GRANT PROGRAM APPLICATION

3. Eligible Activities Checklist
Eligible uses under the LSGP must accelerate infill development, affirmatively further fair housing, reduce vehicles miles traveled, support housing element implementation and create expanded opportunities for local efforts to align with MAG's regional plans, and support state planning goals. The full list of eligible and ineligible activities can be found in the State's REAP 2.0 Guidelines for MPOs.

Check one or more eligible activity category that most closely matches the proposed project. Proposed projects falling under these general project categories below must be shown to meet all threshold criteria in Section 2 through the project narrative section of this application to be approved for funding.

Projects or programs leading to or supporting affordable housing development programs or unit production or preservation;
Planning activities that lead to increased residential and/or mixed-use zoned capacity in areas identified as infill (see Section 5a for infill definition), or land use planning, related studies and/or programs that result in implementable/adoptable programs and policies (meaning subject to adoption or approval of the legislative body) required to meet the programs, projects, and commitments in draft, adopted and/or compliant 6*h Cycle Housing Elements;
Program-level environmental clearance for infill projects (see Section 5a for infill definition) with AFFH component (See Section 5b for more detail on AFFH);
Upgrading infrastructure for sewer, water, and dry utility systems that may serve affordable infill housing;
Housing mobility strategies that serve affordable housing; Reductions to barriers to higher density Housing, buildings with four or more units, and accessibility; Outreach strategies to address local opposition to Proposed Use; Anti-displacement protections;
Expanded Housing options;
Housing-supportive infrastructure;
Activities that develop, support, or implement land use planning, policies, or investment strategies that result in substantial changes to travel behavior from increasing population and employment densities, land use mix, street network connectivity, linkages and pathways with active transportation infrastructure, accessibility between destinations, and/or contiguousness of land uses and transportation networks; Activities, subject to applicable program funding requirements, that would develop, support, or implement transportation planning, policies, and investment strategies that support Infill development that facilitates housing supply, choice, and affordability such as increasing transit services and access;
Building at walkable community scales;
Enhancing pedestrian and bicycling safety measures;
Protecting pedestrian and bicycling amenities;
Multimodal infrastructure connections with multimodal-mobility transportation systems.

Other Eligible Activity consistent with the program guidelines. 5 Regional Early Action Planning Grants of 2021 (REAP 2.0)

LOCAL SUBALLOCATION GRANT PROGRAM APPLICATION

4. Project Description
Provide a description of the project including a description of the project's impact on accelerating housing roduction, affirmatively furthering fair housing, and reducing vehicle miles traveled. Describe how your project implements the eligible activities indicated in Section 3 - Eligible Activities Checklist. Include whether plans will be adopted. If consultants are used, identify what tasks they will be responsible for. This box will overflow to add additional pages if additional space is needed.

Regional Early Action Planning Grants of 2021 (REAP 2.0)

LOCAL SUBALLOCATION GRANT PROGRAM APPLICATION

5. REAP 2.0 Objectives (300-word limit each)
a. Explain how the project accelerates infill development near jobs and other key destinations to support housing choice and affordability that effectively reduces VT and greenhouse gas emissions. "Accelerating Infill Housing Production" or "Accelerating Infill Development, Including Housing" means planning, infrastructure, and other investment and actions that improve the affordability, timing, cost, feasibility, approval, and amount of Housing development.

Include the address(es) of the project area(s), satellite map (Google Maps or similar) of the project site(s) including surrounding parcels so MCAG can verify that the project is not adjacent to natural or agricultural lands and is in an appropriate infill site. If a zoning map is available to show the project location and associated land use designation, that will help assist in confirming the project is in an eligible infill area.
"Infill", for the purposes of the REAP 2.0 Program, means areas where all the following apply: (1) the area consists of unused or underutilized lands (2) within existing development patterns (3) that is or will be accessible to destinations and daily services by transit, walking, or bicycling and located in either:
a. An urban center, urban corridor, or area with transit-supportive densities, or b. An established community that meets all the following criteria:
i. The area consists or previously consisted of qualified urban uses ii. The area is predominantly surrounded (approximately 75 percent of the perimeter) by parcels that are developed or previously developed with qualified urban uses. In counting this, perimeters bordering navigable bodies of water and improved parks shall not be included, and
ili. No parcel within or adjoining the area is classified as agricultural or natural and working lands.
b. Explain how the project affirmatively furthers fair housing. "Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing", pursuant to Government Code section 8899.50, means taking meaningful actions, in addition to combating discrimination, that overcome patterns of segregation and foster inclusive communities free from barriers that restrict access to opportunity based on protected characteristics. Specifically, Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing means taking meaningful actions that, taken together, address significant disparities in Housing needs and in access to opportunity, replacing segregated living patterns with truly integrated and balanced living patterns, transforming racially and ethnically concentrated areas of poverty into areas of opportunity, and fostering and maintaining compliance with Civil Rights and Fair Housing Laws. HCD provides an AFFH Data Viewer which may assist the applicant in identifying the project's AFFH impacts.
c. Explain how the project reduces Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) and is consistent with the MCAG 2022 RTP/SCS strategies.
7 Regional Early Action Planning Grants of 2021 (REAP 2.0)

LOCAL SUBALLOCATION GRANT PROGRAM APPLICATION

6. Primary Factors (300-word limit each)
a. Explain how the project advances compliance with your jurisdiction's draft 6th Cycle Housing Element. b. Explain how the project will result in Transformative Planning and Implementation Activities. "Transformative planning and implementation activities" means housing, planning, infrastructure investments supporting infill housing, and other actions that enable meeting housing goals that also result in per capita vehicle miles traveled reductions, including accelerating infill development, supporting residents through realizing Multimodal Communities, shifting travel behavior through reducing driving, and increasing transit ridership.
c. Explain the public engagement that will be included in the scope of work for this planning effort. Also, explain if the proposed project arose from or went through a public process to solicit community input. d. Explain how the project has a Benefit to Disadvantaged and Historically Underserved Communities. "Disadvantaged and Historically Underserved Communities" includes concentrated areas of poverty; Areas of High Segregation and Poverty and areas of low to moderate access to opportunity (TCAC/HCD Opportunity Area Maps); Communities of Concern, Disadvantaged Communities (SB 535 Disadvantaged Communities Map), and Low-Income Communities pursuant to Senate Bill 535 (De León, Chapter 830, Statutes of 2012) and Assembly Bill 1550 (Gomez, Chapter 369, Statutes of 2016); areas of high Housing cost burdens; areas with high vulnerability of displacement; areas related to Tribal Entities; and other areas experiencing disproportionate impacts of California's Housing and climate crisis. e. Explain how your project has Significant Beneficial Impacts. Significant beneficial impacts must lead to substantial changes in land use patterns and travel behaviors. In demonstrating significant beneficial impacts, applicants may consider rates of change (e.g., percent increase over a baseline), the magnitude of impact relative to variables or targets, the proportion of need achieved, and the impact relative to past trends, policies, and practices. Variables or targets may include but are not limited to benefitting households by income group; Regional Housing Needs Assessment; Housing units (new construction, preservation/conservation, and rehabilitation); density; infrastructure; infrastructure capacity and accessibility; public space; community amenities; investments; Vehicle Miles Traveled reduction goals or targets; regional or local equity policies and programs included in an adopted RTP/SCS; and GHG reduction goals or targets.

Explain how your project Advances California Planning Priorities per Government Code 65041.1.

Regional Early Action Planning Grants of 2021 (REAP 2.0)

LOCAL SUBALLOCATION GRANT PROGRAM APPLICATION

7. Project Schedule and Budget
All tasks, budget amounts, dates and deliverables should be included under one line item. Indicate what tasks will be completed by the consultant and include dates for draft and final deliverables if applicable. Budget must account for the full amount the jurisdiction is applying for.

All tasks and spending must be completed by March 31, 2026.

Project Title:

Start End
Tasks Budget Date Description and Deliverables
Date
Total:
9 Attachment 1: Government Agency Taxpayer ID Form
Financial Information System for California (FIŞCal)

GOVERNMENT AGENCY TAXPAYER ID FORM
2000 Evergreen Street, Suite 215 FIŞCal
Sacramento, CA 95815
www.fiscal.ca.gov Financial Information System for California 1-855-347-2250
The principal purpose of the information provided is to establish the unique identification of the government entity.

Instructions: You may submit one form for the principal government agency and all subsidiaries sharing the same TIN. Subsidiaries with a different TIN must submit a separate form. Fields bordered in red are required. Hover over fields to view help information. Please print the form to sign prior to submittal.

You may email the form to: [email protected], or fax it to (916) 576-5200, or mail it to the address above.

Principal
Government
Agency Name
Remit-To
Address (Street
or PO Box)
City State Zip Code+4
Government Type: City • County Federal
• Federal Employer
Special District Identification
Other (Specify) Number
(FEIN)
List other subsidiary Departments, Divisions or Units under your principal agency's jurisdiction who share the same FEIN and receives payment from the State of California.

Dept/Division/Unit Complete
Name
Address
Dept/Division/Unit Complete
Name Address
Dept/Division/Unit Complete
Name Address
Dept/Division/Unit
Complete
Name
Address
Contact Person
Title
Phone number Email Address L
Signature Date