CityCouncil_RegularSession_Attachments_02_15_2022 — Milpitas City Council, February 15, 2022 (part 3 of 4)

EDUCATION BY GENDER
-----------------------------------------
Q22 INCOME
----------------------------------------------------

FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES
CITY OF MILPITAS 2022 COMMUNITY SURVEY - 320-991 (JANUARY 3-17, 2022) 240
Table 79: Q14h. I am going to read you the same list of services provided to residents. This time, after I mention each one, please tell me how satisfied you are with that service: Maintaining public facilities and infrastructure
Total
--------

QD GENDER
-------------------
QB AGE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES
CITY OF MILPITAS 2022 COMMUNITY SURVEY - 320-991 (JANUARY 3-17, 2022) 241
Table 80: Q14i. I am going to read you the same list of services provided to residents. This time, after I mention each one, please tell me how satisfied you are with that service: Providing opportunities to be involved in City government
Total
-------
QA ON

CELL PHONE
------------------

DATA CLLCTN
MODE
------------------
Q1 MILPITAS DIRECTION
-----------------------------
Q2 LIFE QUALITY
----------------------------------------
Q7 GROWTH RATE
----------------------------------------
Q8 POLICE

CONTACT
------------------
Q9 POLICE SATISFACTION
----------------------------------------
YES
-------
NO
-------
PHONE
-------
ONLNE
-------
RIGHT
DIREC
-------
WRNG
TRACK
-------
DK/NA
-------
VERY
SAT
-------
VERY
DSSAT
-------
TOTAL
SAT
-------
TOTAL
DSSAT
-------
MUCH
TOO
FAST
-------
TOO
FAST
-------
TOO
SLOW
-------
ABT
RIGHT
/DK
-------
TOTAL
YES
-------
NO
-------
VERY
SAT
-------
VERY
DSSAT
-------
TOTAL
SAT
-------
TOTAL
DSSAT
-------
Column n-Size 346 104 69 173 173 204 62 80 99 22 291 55 73 148 24 174 102 242 63 7 88 13 TOTAL SATISFIED 53 61 77 67 38 61 37 43 65 42 56 38 42 51 19 59 50 54 53 49 51 45 Very satisfied 13 18 18 18 8 18 8 5 20 20 14 10 8 12 4 15 17 11 21 0 17 14 Somewhat satisfied 40 43 59 49 30 44 29 38 45 22 42 27 34 39 15 44 33 42 32 49 34 31 TOTAL DISSATISFIED 17 14 10 12 22 14 28 16 12 23 15 28 19 15 36 16 20 15 15 51 16 44 Somewhat dissatisfied 12 8 2 6 18 10 19 11 6 6 11 17 11 10 28 11 13 11 9 12 12 23 Very dissatisfied 5 5 8 6 4 4 9 5 6 17 4 12 7 5 8 5 6 5 6 39 4 21 NO OPINION/DK/NA 30 26 13 21 40 25 34 41 23 35 30 34 39 34 45 25 30 31 32 0 33 11 No opinion/DK/NA 30 26 13 21 40 25 34 41 23 35 30 34 39 34 45 25 30 31 32 0 33 11 Total
--------
Q12 CITY SERVICE SATISFACTION
-----------------------------------------
Q16 CONTACT

WITH CITY
-------------------
Q17 CITY CONTACT SATISFACTION
-----------------------------------------
Q19 RESIDENCY LENGTH
----------------------------------------------------
Q21 RESIDENCE
-------------------

FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES
CITY OF MILPITAS 2022 COMMUNITY SURVEY - 320-991 (JANUARY 3-17, 2022) 242
Table 80: Q14i. I am going to read you the same list of services provided to residents. This time, after I mention each one, please tell me how satisfied you are with that service: Providing opportunities to be involved in City government
Total
--------
Q20 CHILDREN
-----------------------------------------

PARENTS
-----------------------------------------

QC RACE/ETHNICITY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LANGUAGE OF

QE EDUCATION
---------------------------------------------------------------

EDUCATION BY GENDER
-----------------------------------------
Q22 INCOME
----------------------------------------------------

FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES
CITY OF MILPITAS 2022 COMMUNITY SURVEY - 320-991 (JANUARY 3-17, 2022) 243
Table 80: Q14i. I am going to read you the same list of services provided to residents. This time, after I mention each one, please tell me how satisfied you are with that service: Providing opportunities to be involved in City government
Total
--------

QD GENDER
-------------------
QB AGE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES
CITY OF MILPITAS 2022 COMMUNITY SURVEY - 320-991 (JANUARY 3-17, 2022) 244
Table 81: Q14j. I am going to read you the same list of services provided to residents. This time, after I mention each one, please tell me how satisfied you are with that service: Recruiting new businesses and companies to the city
Total
-------
QA ON

CELL PHONE
------------------

CONTACT
------------------
Q9 POLICE SATISFACTION
----------------------------------------
YES
-------
NO
-------
PHONE
-------
ONLNE
-------
RIGHT
DIREC
-------
WRNG
TRACK
-------
DK/NA
-------
VERY
SAT
-------
VERY
DSSAT
-------
TOTAL
SAT
-------
TOTAL
DSSAT
-------
MUCH
TOO
FAST
-------
TOO
FAST
-------
TOO
SLOW
-------
ABT
RIGHT
/DK
-------
TOTAL
YES
-------
NO
-------
VERY
SAT
-------
VERY
DSSAT
-------
TOTAL
SAT
-------
TOTAL
DSSAT
-------
Column n-Size 346 104 69 173 173 204 62 80 99 22 291 55 73 148 24 174 102 242 63 7 88 13 TOTAL SATISFIED 58 68 81 73 44 70 35 46 76 45 62 38 42 53 21 68 59 58 67 37 62 35 Very satisfied 17 27 19 24 10 22 3 14 26 16 18 8 11 14 2 21 18 16 20 0 20 4 Somewhat satisfied 42 41 62 49 34 48 32 32 49 29 44 30 31 38 19 48 41 42 46 37 42 31 TOTAL DISSATISFIED 20 12 13 12 27 15 37 19 11 36 18 29 30 24 37 14 25 17 18 63 21 54 Somewhat dissatisfied 14 10 3 7 21 11 25 14 5 14 14 17 15 15 32 11 19 12 12 31 16 36 Very dissatisfied 6 2 10 5 6 4 13 5 7 22 4 12 16 9 5 3 6 5 6 32 5 17 NO OPINION/DK/NA 22 20 7 15 29 15 27 36 13 20 20 33 28 23 42 18 16 25 15 0 17 11 No opinion/DK/NA 22 20 7 15 29 15 27 36 13 20 20 33 28 23 42 18 16 25 15 0 17 11 Total
--------
Q12 CITY SERVICE SATISFACTION
-----------------------------------------
Q16 CONTACT

FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES
CITY OF MILPITAS 2022 COMMUNITY SURVEY - 320-991 (JANUARY 3-17, 2022) 245
Table 81: Q14j. I am going to read you the same list of services provided to residents. This time, after I mention each one, please tell me how satisfied you are with that service: Recruiting new businesses and companies to the city
Total
--------
Q20 CHILDREN
-----------------------------------------

PARENTS
-----------------------------------------

QC RACE/ETHNICITY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LANGUAGE OF

QE EDUCATION
---------------------------------------------------------------

EDUCATION BY GENDER
-----------------------------------------
Q22 INCOME
----------------------------------------------------

FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES
CITY OF MILPITAS 2022 COMMUNITY SURVEY - 320-991 (JANUARY 3-17, 2022) 246
Table 81: Q14j. I am going to read you the same list of services provided to residents. This time, after I mention each one, please tell me how satisfied you are with that service: Recruiting new businesses and companies to the city
Total
--------

QD GENDER
-------------------
QB AGE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES
CITY OF MILPITAS 2022 COMMUNITY SURVEY - 320-991 (JANUARY 3-17, 2022) 247
Table 82: Q14k. I am going to read you the same list of services provided to residents. This time, after I mention each one, please tell me how satisfied you are with that service: Developing policies to support affordable housing
Total
-------
QA ON

CELL PHONE
------------------

CONTACT
------------------
Q9 POLICE SATISFACTION
----------------------------------------
YES
-------
NO
-------
PHONE
-------
ONLNE
-------
RIGHT
DIREC
-------
WRNG
TRACK
-------
DK/NA
-------
VERY
SAT
-------
VERY
DSSAT
-------
TOTAL
SAT
-------
TOTAL
DSSAT
-------
MUCH
TOO
FAST
-------
TOO
FAST
-------
TOO
SLOW
-------
ABT
RIGHT
/DK
-------
TOTAL
YES
-------
NO
-------
VERY
SAT
-------
VERY
DSSAT
-------
TOTAL
SAT
-------
TOTAL
DSSAT
-------
Column n-Size 346 104 69 173 173 204 62 80 99 22 291 55 73 148 24 174 102 242 63 7 88 13 TOTAL SATISFIED 46 57 58 58 35 56 24 39 57 45 48 36 33 38 31 55 44 47 47 49 44 41 Very satisfied 12 15 23 18 6 14 5 13 16 21 12 12 11 13 10 12 18 10 24 11 20 6 Somewhat satisfied 34 42 35 39 29 42 18 26 41 23 36 23 22 25 20 44 26 38 24 37 25 35 TOTAL DISSATISFIED 30 28 30 29 32 24 54 28 22 49 28 43 41 37 36 24 35 28 32 51 31 59 Somewhat dissatisfied 16 12 19 15 17 15 21 12 15 2 17 10 10 16 25 13 16 16 14 9 14 31 Very dissatisfied 15 16 12 14 15 9 33 16 7 47 11 33 31 20 10 11 19 13 17 43 17 28 NO OPINION/DK/NA 23 15 11 14 33 20 22 33 21 6 24 21 26 25 34 20 21 25 21 0 24 0 No opinion/DK/NA 23 15 11 14 33 20 22 33 21 6 24 21 26 25 34 20 21 25 21 0 24 0 Total
--------
Q12 CITY SERVICE SATISFACTION
-----------------------------------------
Q16 CONTACT

FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES
CITY OF MILPITAS 2022 COMMUNITY SURVEY - 320-991 (JANUARY 3-17, 2022) 248
Table 82: Q14k. I am going to read you the same list of services provided to residents. This time, after I mention each one, please tell me how satisfied you are with that service: Developing policies to support affordable housing
Total
--------
Q20 CHILDREN
-----------------------------------------

PARENTS
-----------------------------------------

QC RACE/ETHNICITY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LANGUAGE OF

INTERVIEW
------------------------------
YES/
<19
@ HME
--------
YES/
NT @
HOME
--------
HAVE
CHLDN
--------
NO
CHLDN
--------
DADS
--------
MOMS
--------
MEN
W/NO
CHLDN
--------
WOMEN
W/NO
CHLDN
--------
WHITE
--------
LATNO
--------
CHNSE
--------
FLPNO
--------
INDN
--------
VTNMS
--------
TOTAL
ASIAN
--------
PPLE
OF CLR
--------
ENGLS
--------
SPNSH
--------
VTNM
/CHNS
--------
Column n-Size 346 93 81 175 149 86 87 68 78 48 45 48 42 43 48 194 277 330 8 8 TOTAL SATISFIED 46 53 47 50 46 47 54 45 48 36 50 52 54 45 45 51 49 45 86 67 Very satisfied 12 13 22 17 8 12 23 7 10 8 18 12 9 13 4 11 13 12 0 31 Somewhat satisfied 34 40 25 33 37 35 31 39 38 28 32 39 45 32 41 39 36 33 86 36 TOTAL DISSATISFIED 30 28 25 27 30 23 29 35 22 40 34 23 31 14 30 24 27 31 14 11 Somewhat dissatisfied 16 12 14 13 17 9 17 20 16 20 23 15 18 3 19 14 15 16 14 11 Very dissatisfied 15 16 11 14 12 14 13 15 6 19 11 8 13 10 10 10 12 16 0 0 NO OPINION/DK/NA 23 19 28 23 25 30 16 19 29 24 16 25 15 42 26 26 24 24 0 23 No opinion/DK/NA 23 19 28 23 25 30 16 19 29 24 16 25 15 42 26 26 24 24 0 23 Total
--------

QE EDUCATION
---------------------------------------------------------------

EDUCATION BY GENDER
-----------------------------------------
Q22 INCOME
----------------------------------------------------

FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES
CITY OF MILPITAS 2022 COMMUNITY SURVEY - 320-991 (JANUARY 3-17, 2022) 249
Table 82: Q14k. I am going to read you the same list of services provided to residents. This time, after I mention each one, please tell me how satisfied you are with that service: Developing policies to support affordable housing
Total
--------

QD GENDER
-------------------
QB AGE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

GENDER BY AGE
-----------------------------------------
MEN
--------
WOMEN
--------
18-29
--------
30-39
--------
40-49
--------
50-64
--------
65-74
--------
75+
--------
18-49
--------
50+
--------
65+
--------
MEN
18-49
--------
MEN
50+
--------
WOMEN
18-49
--------
WOMEN
50+
--------
Column n-Size 346 163 173 69 73 52 83 35 24 194 142 59 93 66 93 76 TOTAL SATISFIED 46 44 51 46 43 57 34 59 68 48 46 62 49 39 50 52 Very satisfied 12 9 16 3 12 8 13 20 38 8 19 27 8 10 8 27 Somewhat satisfied 34 35 35 43 31 49 21 39 30 40 27 35 41 29 42 25 TOTAL DISSATISFIED 30 30 27 36 36 24 34 19 14 33 27 17 30 31 32 23 Somewhat dissatisfied 16 13 17 21 21 10 15 15 3 18 13 10 12 16 22 11 Very dissatisfied 15 17 11 15 15 14 19 4 10 15 14 7 18 16 9 12 NO OPINION/DK/NA 23 25 22 18 21 19 32 23 18 20 27 21 21 29 18 26 No opinion/DK/NA 23 25 22 18 21 19 32 23 18 20 27 21 21 29 18 26 434

FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES
CITY OF MILPITAS 2022 COMMUNITY SURVEY - 320-991 (JANUARY 3-17, 2022) 250
Table 83: Q14l. I am going to read you the same list of services provided to residents. This time, after I mention each one, please tell me how satisfied you are with that service: Providing services to people who are homeless Total
-------
QA ON

CELL PHONE
------------------

CONTACT
------------------
Q9 POLICE SATISFACTION
----------------------------------------
YES
-------
NO
-------
PHONE
-------
ONLNE
-------
RIGHT
DIREC
-------
WRNG
TRACK
-------
DK/NA
-------
VERY
SAT
-------
VERY
DSSAT
-------
TOTAL
SAT
-------
TOTAL
DSSAT
-------
MUCH
TOO
FAST
-------
TOO
FAST
-------
TOO
SLOW
-------
ABT
RIGHT
/DK
-------
TOTAL
YES
-------
NO
-------
VERY
SAT
-------
VERY
DSSAT
-------
TOTAL
SAT
-------
TOTAL
DSSAT
-------
Column n-Size 346 104 69 173 173 204 62 80 99 22 291 55 73 148 24 174 102 242 63 7 88 13 TOTAL SATISFIED 43 54 57 55 31 49 28 40 48 42 45 33 35 40 24 48 39 45 37 49 39 37 Very satisfied 15 14 35 22 9 18 6 16 21 32 15 15 10 17 4 16 17 15 14 49 14 37 Somewhat satisfied 28 40 22 33 23 31 22 24 27 10 30 17 25 23 20 32 22 30 23 0 24 0 TOTAL DISSATISFIED 31 28 33 30 32 29 52 17 33 48 29 42 35 32 49 27 40 26 44 38 38 52 Somewhat dissatisfied 19 17 22 19 18 21 22 9 27 8 19 15 18 19 26 17 20 18 23 9 19 25 Very dissatisfied 12 10 12 11 13 8 30 8 6 40 9 27 18 13 23 10 20 9 20 29 19 27 NO OPINION/DK/NA 26 19 10 15 37 22 20 43 19 11 26 26 30 28 27 25 21 29 19 13 23 12 No opinion/DK/NA 26 19 10 15 37 22 20 43 19 11 26 26 30 28 27 25 21 29 19 13 23 12 Total
--------
Q12 CITY SERVICE SATISFACTION
-----------------------------------------
Q16 CONTACT

FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES
CITY OF MILPITAS 2022 COMMUNITY SURVEY - 320-991 (JANUARY 3-17, 2022) 251
Table 83: Q14l. I am going to read you the same list of services provided to residents. This time, after I mention each one, please tell me how satisfied you are with that service: Providing services to people who are homeless
Total
--------
Q20 CHILDREN
-----------------------------------------

PARENTS
-----------------------------------------

QC RACE/ETHNICITY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LANGUAGE OF

INTERVIEW
------------------------------
YES/
<19
@ HME
--------
YES/
NT @
HOME
--------
HAVE
CHLDN
--------
NO
CHLDN
--------
DADS
--------
MOMS
--------
MEN
W/NO
CHLDN
--------
WOMEN
W/NO
CHLDN
--------
WHITE
--------
LATNO
--------
CHNSE
--------
FLPNO
--------
INDN
--------
VTNMS
--------
TOTAL
ASIAN
--------
PPLE
OF CLR
--------
ENGLS
--------
SPNSH
--------
VTNM
/CHNS
--------
Column n-Size 346 93 81 175 149 86 87 68 78 48 45 48 42 43 48 194 277 330 8 8 TOTAL SATISFIED 43 44 45 44 43 40 48 41 44 29 48 41 64 38 38 47 47 42 82 61 Very satisfied 15 14 21 17 15 18 18 14 13 8 12 17 36 8 4 18 18 15 34 31 Somewhat satisfied 28 30 24 27 28 23 30 27 30 22 36 24 28 30 34 29 29 27 48 31 TOTAL DISSATISFIED 31 30 29 30 30 33 27 33 29 49 35 19 21 21 35 24 27 31 18 12 Somewhat dissatisfied 19 16 18 17 22 18 16 22 22 33 18 12 18 13 21 16 16 19 0 5 Very dissatisfied 12 14 12 13 9 15 11 11 7 16 17 7 4 7 14 8 11 12 18 7 NO OPINION/DK/NA 26 26 26 26 27 27 25 26 27 22 17 39 15 41 27 29 26 27 0 27 No opinion/DK/NA 26 26 26 26 27 27 25 26 27 22 17 39 15 41 27 29 26 27 0 27 Total
--------

QE EDUCATION
---------------------------------------------------------------

EDUCATION BY GENDER
-----------------------------------------
Q22 INCOME
----------------------------------------------------

FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES
CITY OF MILPITAS 2022 COMMUNITY SURVEY - 320-991 (JANUARY 3-17, 2022) 252
Table 83: Q14l. I am going to read you the same list of services provided to residents. This time, after I mention each one, please tell me how satisfied you are with that service: Providing services to people who are homeless
Total
--------

QD GENDER
-------------------
QB AGE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

GENDER BY AGE
-----------------------------------------
MEN
--------
WOMEN
--------
18-29
--------
30-39
--------
40-49
--------
50-64
--------
65-74
--------
75+
--------
18-49
--------
50+
--------
65+
--------
MEN
18-49
--------
MEN
50+
--------
WOMEN
18-49
--------
WOMEN
50+
--------
Column n-Size 346 163 173 69 73 52 83 35 24 194 142 59 93 66 93 76 TOTAL SATISFIED 43 41 45 44 36 51 38 46 63 43 44 53 41 41 45 47 Very satisfied 15 15 15 22 16 5 7 22 43 15 17 31 15 16 13 18 Somewhat satisfied 28 26 30 23 20 46 31 24 19 28 28 22 27 26 32 29 TOTAL DISSATISFIED 31 33 28 37 35 25 33 25 10 33 27 19 36 29 30 25 Somewhat dissatisfied 19 19 18 24 19 13 21 20 8 19 18 15 18 20 19 17 Very dissatisfied 12 15 10 13 15 12 12 6 2 14 9 4 18 10 11 8 NO OPINION/DK/NA 26 26 27 19 29 23 29 28 27 24 28 28 23 29 25 28 No opinion/DK/NA 26 26 27 19 29 23 29 28 27 24 28 28 23 29 25 28 437

FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES
CITY OF MILPITAS 2022 COMMUNITY SURVEY - 320-991 (JANUARY 3-17, 2022) 253
Table 84: Q14m. I am going to read you the same list of services provided to residents. This time, after I mention each one, please tell me how satisfied you are with that service: Removing blight and illegal dumping Total
-------
QA ON

CELL PHONE
------------------

CONTACT
------------------
Q9 POLICE SATISFACTION
----------------------------------------
YES
-------
NO
-------
PHONE
-------
ONLNE
-------
RIGHT
DIREC
-------
WRNG
TRACK
-------
DK/NA
-------
VERY
SAT
-------
VERY
DSSAT
-------
TOTAL
SAT
-------
TOTAL
DSSAT
-------
MUCH
TOO
FAST
-------
TOO
FAST
-------
TOO
SLOW
-------
ABT
RIGHT
/DK
-------
TOTAL
YES
-------
NO
-------
VERY
SAT
-------
VERY
DSSAT
-------
TOTAL
SAT
-------
TOTAL
DSSAT
-------
Column n-Size 346 104 69 173 173 204 62 80 99 22 291 55 73 148 24 174 102 242 63 7 88 13 TOTAL SATISFIED 56 68 71 69 44 65 46 41 75 38 60 34 40 48 55 63 51 59 58 49 53 41 Very satisfied 14 23 24 23 6 16 14 10 25 9 16 8 11 16 8 13 19 13 24 0 20 10 Somewhat satisfied 42 45 47 46 38 49 32 31 50 29 45 26 29 32 47 50 33 46 34 49 33 31 TOTAL DISSATISFIED 26 13 20 15 37 21 41 27 16 23 23 45 34 35 20 19 34 22 31 51 32 49 Somewhat dissatisfied 16 10 16 12 19 16 11 18 12 5 16 16 12 20 11 13 15 16 13 22 14 25 Very dissatisfied 10 2 4 3 18 5 30 10 3 18 7 29 23 15 9 7 19 7 18 29 18 24 NO OPINION/DK/NA 18 20 10 16 20 13 14 32 10 39 17 21 26 17 25 17 14 19 11 0 15 10 No opinion/DK/NA 18 20 10 16 20 13 14 32 10 39 17 21 26 17 25 17 14 19 11 0 15 10 Total
--------
Q12 CITY SERVICE SATISFACTION
-----------------------------------------
Q16 CONTACT

FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES
CITY OF MILPITAS 2022 COMMUNITY SURVEY - 320-991 (JANUARY 3-17, 2022) 254
Table 84: Q14m. I am going to read you the same list of services provided to residents. This time, after I mention each one, please tell me how satisfied you are with that service: Removing blight and illegal dumping
Total
--------
Q20 CHILDREN
-----------------------------------------

PARENTS
-----------------------------------------

QC RACE/ETHNICITY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LANGUAGE OF

QE EDUCATION
---------------------------------------------------------------

EDUCATION BY GENDER
-----------------------------------------
Q22 INCOME
----------------------------------------------------

FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES
CITY OF MILPITAS 2022 COMMUNITY SURVEY - 320-991 (JANUARY 3-17, 2022) 255
Table 84: Q14m. I am going to read you the same list of services provided to residents. This time, after I mention each one, please tell me how satisfied you are with that service: Removing blight and illegal dumping
Total
--------

QD GENDER
-------------------
QB AGE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

GENDER BY AGE
-----------------------------------------
MEN
--------
WOMEN
--------
18-29
--------
30-39
--------
40-49
--------
50-64
--------
65-74
--------
75+
--------
18-49
--------
50+
--------
65+
--------
MEN
18-49
--------
MEN
50+
--------
WOMEN
18-49
--------
WOMEN
50+
--------
Column n-Size 346 163 173 69 73 52 83 35 24 194 142 59 93 66 93 76 TOTAL SATISFIED 56 58 55 57 54 57 52 62 73 56 58 67 59 59 53 57 Very satisfied 14 11 18 6 21 16 10 19 18 14 14 19 12 10 17 17 Somewhat satisfied 42 47 37 51 33 41 41 43 55 42 44 48 47 49 36 40 TOTAL DISSATISFIED 26 23 28 18 22 32 35 21 21 23 29 21 18 29 27 29 Somewhat dissatisfied 16 15 17 15 8 27 19 15 4 16 16 11 14 16 19 15 Very dissatisfied 10 8 11 2 14 4 16 5 16 7 14 10 4 12 8 14 NO OPINION/DK/NA 18 19 17 25 24 12 13 17 6 21 13 13 23 12 20 13 No opinion/DK/NA 18 19 17 25 24 12 13 17 6 21 13 13 23 12 20 13 440

FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES
CITY OF MILPITAS 2022 COMMUNITY SURVEY - 320-991 (JANUARY 3-17, 2022) 256
Table 85: Q14n. I am going to read you the same list of services provided to residents. This time, after I mention each one, please tell me how satisfied you are with that service: Enforcing traffic laws to protect the safety of pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers
Total
-------
QA ON

CELL PHONE
------------------

CONTACT
------------------
Q9 POLICE SATISFACTION
----------------------------------------
YES
-------
NO
-------
PHONE
-------
ONLNE
-------
RIGHT
DIREC
-------
WRNG
TRACK
-------
DK/NA
-------
VERY
SAT
-------
VERY
DSSAT
-------
TOTAL
SAT
-------
TOTAL
DSSAT
-------
MUCH
TOO
FAST
-------
TOO
FAST
-------
TOO
SLOW
-------
ABT
RIGHT
/DK
-------
TOTAL
YES
-------
NO
-------
VERY
SAT
-------
VERY
DSSAT
-------
TOTAL
SAT
-------
TOTAL
DSSAT
-------
Column n-Size 347 100 73 173 173 205 62 80 84 14 282 62 46 136 44 168 120 222 57 5 96 20 TOTAL SATISFIED 77 77 88 81 72 86 56 69 79 52 80 63 55 71 70 83 68 83 76 23 70 71 Very satisfied 25 25 28 26 23 26 22 22 42 9 25 25 24 29 22 22 19 28 32 0 24 0 Somewhat satisfied 52 52 60 55 49 60 34 47 38 43 55 38 31 42 48 61 49 55 44 23 46 71 TOTAL DISSATISFIED 12 13 7 10 14 7 32 10 11 45 8 33 31 19 23 4 18 9 13 77 12 29 Somewhat dissatisfied 9 12 2 8 11 6 24 6 11 33 6 24 14 13 21 4 13 7 8 15 10 14 Very dissatisfied 3 1 5 3 3 1 8 4 0 12 1 10 17 6 2 1 5 2 5 61 3 15 NO OPINION/DK/NA 11 10 6 8 14 7 12 21 10 3 12 4 14 10 7 13 15 8 11 0 18 0 No opinion/DK/NA 11 10 6 8 14 7 12 21 10 3 12 4 14 10 7 13 15 8 11 0 18 0 Total
--------
Q12 CITY SERVICE SATISFACTION
-----------------------------------------
Q16 CONTACT

FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES
CITY OF MILPITAS 2022 COMMUNITY SURVEY - 320-991 (JANUARY 3-17, 2022) 257
Table 85: Q14n. I am going to read you the same list of services provided to residents. This time, after I mention each one, please tell me how satisfied you are with that service: Enforcing traffic laws to protect the safety of pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers
Total
--------
Q20 CHILDREN
-----------------------------------------

PARENTS
-----------------------------------------

QC RACE/ETHNICITY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LANGUAGE OF

QE EDUCATION
---------------------------------------------------------------

EDUCATION BY GENDER
-----------------------------------------
Q22 INCOME
----------------------------------------------------

FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES
CITY OF MILPITAS 2022 COMMUNITY SURVEY - 320-991 (JANUARY 3-17, 2022) 258
Table 85: Q14n. I am going to read you the same list of services provided to residents. This time, after I mention each one, please tell me how satisfied you are with that service: Enforcing traffic laws to protect the safety of pedestrians, cyclists, and drivers
Total
--------

QD GENDER
-------------------
QB AGE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES
CITY OF MILPITAS 2022 COMMUNITY SURVEY - 320-991 (JANUARY 3-17, 2022) 259
Table 86: Q14o. I am going to read you the same list of services provided to residents. This time, after I mention each one, please tell me how satisfied you are with that service: Providing afterschool programs for young people
Total
-------
QA ON

CELL PHONE
------------------

CONTACT
------------------
Q9 POLICE SATISFACTION
----------------------------------------
YES
-------
NO
-------
PHONE
-------
ONLNE
-------
RIGHT
DIREC
-------
WRNG
TRACK
-------
DK/NA
-------
VERY
SAT
-------
VERY
DSSAT
-------
TOTAL
SAT
-------
TOTAL
DSSAT
-------
MUCH
TOO
FAST
-------
TOO
FAST
-------
TOO
SLOW
-------
ABT
RIGHT
/DK
-------
TOTAL
YES
-------
NO
-------
VERY
SAT
-------
VERY
DSSAT
-------
TOTAL
SAT
-------
TOTAL
DSSAT
-------
Column n-Size 347 100 73 173 173 205 62 80 84 14 282 62 46 136 44 168 120 222 57 5 96 20 TOTAL SATISFIED 60 72 74 73 47 69 48 46 73 65 62 51 52 59 37 67 58 63 57 58 57 74 Very satisfied 21 31 24 28 14 21 24 19 29 25 21 25 24 28 7 20 24 20 24 15 25 22 Somewhat satisfied 39 41 50 45 33 48 24 27 44 40 42 26 28 31 30 48 34 43 33 43 32 52 TOTAL DISSATISFIED 13 14 12 13 14 12 19 13 9 18 13 16 18 17 26 8 16 12 13 27 15 9 Somewhat dissatisfied 10 12 10 12 8 10 10 9 9 5 10 10 12 14 19 5 10 10 7 0 9 0 Very dissatisfied 4 1 2 1 6 2 9 4 0 13 3 6 6 3 7 3 6 2 6 27 6 9 NO OPINION/DK/NA 26 15 13 14 39 18 33 42 18 17 25 33 30 24 37 25 26 25 30 15 29 17 No opinion/DK/NA 26 15 13 14 39 18 33 42 18 17 25 33 30 24 37 25 26 25 30 15 29 17 Total
--------
Q12 CITY SERVICE SATISFACTION
-----------------------------------------
Q16 CONTACT

FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES
CITY OF MILPITAS 2022 COMMUNITY SURVEY - 320-991 (JANUARY 3-17, 2022) 260
Table 86: Q14o. I am going to read you the same list of services provided to residents. This time, after I mention each one, please tell me how satisfied you are with that service: Providing afterschool programs for young people
Total
--------
Q20 CHILDREN
-----------------------------------------

PARENTS
-----------------------------------------

QC RACE/ETHNICITY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LANGUAGE OF

QE EDUCATION
---------------------------------------------------------------

EDUCATION BY GENDER
-----------------------------------------
Q22 INCOME
----------------------------------------------------

FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES
CITY OF MILPITAS 2022 COMMUNITY SURVEY - 320-991 (JANUARY 3-17, 2022) 261
Table 86: Q14o. I am going to read you the same list of services provided to residents. This time, after I mention each one, please tell me how satisfied you are with that service: Providing afterschool programs for young people
Total
--------

QD GENDER
-------------------
QB AGE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES
CITY OF MILPITAS 2022 COMMUNITY SURVEY - 320-991 (JANUARY 3-17, 2022) 262
Table 87: Q14p. I am going to read you the same list of services provided to residents. This time, after I mention each one, please tell me how satisfied you are with that service: Maintaining the sewer and wastewater system Total
-------
QA ON

CELL PHONE
------------------

CONTACT
------------------
Q9 POLICE SATISFACTION
----------------------------------------
YES
-------
NO
-------
PHONE
-------
ONLNE
-------
RIGHT
DIREC
-------
WRNG
TRACK
-------
DK/NA
-------
VERY
SAT
-------
VERY
DSSAT
-------
TOTAL
SAT
-------
TOTAL
DSSAT
-------
MUCH
TOO
FAST
-------
TOO
FAST
-------
TOO
SLOW
-------
ABT
RIGHT
/DK
-------
TOTAL
YES
-------
NO
-------
VERY
SAT
-------
VERY
DSSAT
-------
TOTAL
SAT
-------
TOTAL
DSSAT
-------
Column n-Size 347 100 73 173 173 205 62 80 84 14 282 62 46 136 44 168 120 222 57 5 96 20 TOTAL SATISFIED 71 72 91 80 62 79 56 64 82 24 74 60 65 70 58 76 62 78 67 39 62 75 Very satisfied 26 33 29 31 21 31 22 17 49 3 27 23 24 30 24 23 23 28 33 24 27 8 Somewhat satisfied 45 39 63 49 42 48 34 47 33 22 47 37 41 40 33 53 39 50 34 15 35 67 TOTAL DISSATISFIED 15 22 7 16 15 12 29 13 10 66 11 34 19 15 27 12 22 11 14 61 20 23 Somewhat dissatisfied 11 16 6 12 10 8 17 12 6 50 9 22 12 9 19 10 14 9 5 34 11 17 Very dissatisfied 4 6 2 4 5 3 12 2 5 16 3 12 7 7 8 2 8 2 9 27 8 7 NO OPINION/DK/NA 14 7 1 4 23 9 15 23 8 10 15 6 16 14 15 12 16 11 20 0 18 2 No opinion/DK/NA 14 7 1 4 23 9 15 23 8 10 15 6 16 14 15 12 16 11 20 0 18 2 Total
--------
Q12 CITY SERVICE SATISFACTION
-----------------------------------------
Q16 CONTACT

FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES
CITY OF MILPITAS 2022 COMMUNITY SURVEY - 320-991 (JANUARY 3-17, 2022) 263
Table 87: Q14p. I am going to read you the same list of services provided to residents. This time, after I mention each one, please tell me how satisfied you are with that service: Maintaining the sewer and wastewater system
Total
--------
Q20 CHILDREN
-----------------------------------------

PARENTS
-----------------------------------------

QC RACE/ETHNICITY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LANGUAGE OF

QE EDUCATION
---------------------------------------------------------------

EDUCATION BY GENDER
-----------------------------------------
Q22 INCOME
----------------------------------------------------

FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES
CITY OF MILPITAS 2022 COMMUNITY SURVEY - 320-991 (JANUARY 3-17, 2022) 264
Table 87: Q14p. I am going to read you the same list of services provided to residents. This time, after I mention each one, please tell me how satisfied you are with that service: Maintaining the sewer and wastewater system
Total
--------

QD GENDER
-------------------
QB AGE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES
CITY OF MILPITAS 2022 COMMUNITY SURVEY - 320-991 (JANUARY 3-17, 2022) 265
Table 88: Q14q. I am going to read you the same list of services provided to residents. This time, after I mention each one, please tell me how satisfied you are with that service: Supporting a diverse range of arts and cultural activities
Total
-------
QA ON

CELL PHONE
------------------

CONTACT
------------------
Q9 POLICE SATISFACTION
----------------------------------------
YES
-------
NO
-------
PHONE
-------
ONLNE
-------
RIGHT
DIREC
-------
WRNG
TRACK
-------
DK/NA
-------
VERY
SAT
-------
VERY
DSSAT
-------
TOTAL
SAT
-------
TOTAL
DSSAT
-------
MUCH
TOO
FAST
-------
TOO
FAST
-------
TOO
SLOW
-------
ABT
RIGHT
/DK
-------
TOTAL
YES
-------
NO
-------
VERY
SAT
-------
VERY
DSSAT
-------
TOTAL
SAT
-------
TOTAL
DSSAT
-------
Column n-Size 347 100 73 173 173 205 62 80 84 14 282 62 46 136 44 168 120 222 57 5 96 20 TOTAL SATISFIED 57 66 75 70 45 67 52 38 74 55 60 46 54 56 35 65 50 63 56 58 50 57 Very satisfied 20 26 31 28 12 21 26 14 39 23 19 26 18 25 15 18 22 20 30 15 26 4 Somewhat satisfied 37 40 44 42 33 46 26 24 35 32 41 20 36 31 20 47 28 43 26 43 24 53 TOTAL DISSATISFIED 17 20 10 15 19 18 14 17 12 22 16 25 17 20 27 12 25 13 14 27 21 35 Somewhat dissatisfied 14 16 8 12 16 15 10 14 9 12 13 21 14 18 14 11 18 12 14 0 18 26 Very dissatisfied 3 4 2 3 3 3 4 3 3 10 3 4 3 2 12 1 7 1 0 27 4 9 NO OPINION/DK/NA 25 14 15 15 36 15 34 44 14 23 24 29 29 25 38 23 25 24 30 15 29 8 No opinion/DK/NA 25 14 15 15 36 15 34 44 14 23 24 29 29 25 38 23 25 24 30 15 29 8 Total
--------
Q12 CITY SERVICE SATISFACTION
-----------------------------------------
Q16 CONTACT

FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES
CITY OF MILPITAS 2022 COMMUNITY SURVEY - 320-991 (JANUARY 3-17, 2022) 266
Table 88: Q14q. I am going to read you the same list of services provided to residents. This time, after I mention each one, please tell me how satisfied you are with that service: Supporting a diverse range of arts and cultural activities
Total
--------
Q20 CHILDREN
-----------------------------------------

PARENTS
-----------------------------------------

QC RACE/ETHNICITY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LANGUAGE OF

QE EDUCATION
---------------------------------------------------------------

EDUCATION BY GENDER
-----------------------------------------
Q22 INCOME
----------------------------------------------------

FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES
CITY OF MILPITAS 2022 COMMUNITY SURVEY - 320-991 (JANUARY 3-17, 2022) 267
Table 88: Q14q. I am going to read you the same list of services provided to residents. This time, after I mention each one, please tell me how satisfied you are with that service: Supporting a diverse range of arts and cultural activities
Total
--------

QD GENDER
-------------------
QB AGE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES
CITY OF MILPITAS 2022 COMMUNITY SURVEY - 320-991 (JANUARY 3-17, 2022) 268
Table 89: Q14r. I am going to read you the same list of services provided to residents. This time, after I mention each one, please tell me how satisfied you are with that service: Attracting new employers and jobs to the city Total
-------
QA ON

CELL PHONE
------------------

CONTACT
------------------
Q9 POLICE SATISFACTION
----------------------------------------
YES
-------
NO
-------
PHONE
-------
ONLNE
-------
RIGHT
DIREC
-------
WRNG
TRACK
-------
DK/NA
-------
VERY
SAT
-------
VERY
DSSAT
-------
TOTAL
SAT
-------
TOTAL
DSSAT
-------
MUCH
TOO
FAST
-------
TOO
FAST
-------
TOO
SLOW
-------
ABT
RIGHT
/DK
-------
TOTAL
YES
-------
NO
-------
VERY
SAT
-------
VERY
DSSAT
-------
TOTAL
SAT
-------
TOTAL
DSSAT
-------
Column n-Size 347 100 73 173 173 205 62 80 84 14 282 62 46 136 44 168 120 222 57 5 96 20 TOTAL SATISFIED 55 59 70 64 46 66 38 40 71 16 58 38 52 52 38 61 41 63 42 66 39 56 Very satisfied 12 17 13 15 8 12 17 7 23 6 11 16 11 14 10 10 11 12 15 0 12 6 Somewhat satisfied 43 42 57 49 37 54 21 34 48 10 48 22 42 38 29 51 30 51 27 66 27 51 TOTAL DISSATISFIED 20 25 18 22 17 15 34 21 17 66 16 38 18 20 48 12 28 15 22 34 25 33 Somewhat dissatisfied 16 23 13 19 13 14 18 19 17 42 14 26 16 18 31 10 23 12 20 34 19 32 Very dissatisfied 4 2 5 3 4 1 15 3 0 25 2 12 2 2 17 1 4 3 2 0 5 1 NO OPINION/DK/NA 26 16 12 14 37 20 28 38 13 18 26 24 30 28 14 27 31 22 36 0 36 10 No opinion/DK/NA 26 16 12 14 37 20 28 38 13 18 26 24 30 28 14 27 31 22 36 0 36 10 Total
--------
Q12 CITY SERVICE SATISFACTION
-----------------------------------------
Q16 CONTACT

FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES
CITY OF MILPITAS 2022 COMMUNITY SURVEY - 320-991 (JANUARY 3-17, 2022) 269
Table 89: Q14r. I am going to read you the same list of services provided to residents. This time, after I mention each one, please tell me how satisfied you are with that service: Attracting new employers and jobs to the city
Total
--------
Q20 CHILDREN
-----------------------------------------

PARENTS
-----------------------------------------

QC RACE/ETHNICITY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LANGUAGE OF

QE EDUCATION
---------------------------------------------------------------

EDUCATION BY GENDER
-----------------------------------------
Q22 INCOME
----------------------------------------------------

FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES
CITY OF MILPITAS 2022 COMMUNITY SURVEY - 320-991 (JANUARY 3-17, 2022) 270
Table 89: Q14r. I am going to read you the same list of services provided to residents. This time, after I mention each one, please tell me how satisfied you are with that service: Attracting new employers and jobs to the city
Total
--------

QD GENDER
-------------------
QB AGE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES
CITY OF MILPITAS 2022 COMMUNITY SURVEY - 320-991 (JANUARY 3-17, 2022) 271
Table 90: Q14s. I am going to read you the same list of services provided to residents. This time, after I mention each one, please tell me how satisfied you are with that service: Keeping the community informed about important City programs
Total
-------
QA ON

CELL PHONE
------------------

CONTACT
------------------
Q9 POLICE SATISFACTION
----------------------------------------
YES
-------
NO
-------
PHONE
-------
ONLNE
-------
RIGHT
DIREC
-------
WRNG
TRACK
-------
DK/NA
-------
VERY
SAT
-------
VERY
DSSAT
-------
TOTAL
SAT
-------
TOTAL
DSSAT
-------
MUCH
TOO
FAST
-------
TOO
FAST
-------
TOO
SLOW
-------
ABT
RIGHT
/DK
-------
TOTAL
YES
-------
NO
-------
VERY
SAT
-------
VERY
DSSAT
-------
TOTAL
SAT
-------
TOTAL
DSSAT
-------
Column n-Size 347 100 73 173 173 205 62 80 84 14 282 62 46 136 44 168 120 222 57 5 96 20 TOTAL SATISFIED 66 74 78 76 57 75 44 62 85 28 71 46 55 66 56 70 57 73 69 24 59 46 Very satisfied 17 18 29 22 11 21 11 10 32 6 18 12 16 16 12 19 18 17 26 0 22 1 Somewhat satisfied 50 57 50 54 45 54 33 52 54 22 53 34 39 49 44 51 39 56 44 24 37 45 TOTAL DISSATISFIED 22 23 19 21 22 17 42 18 5 51 17 45 28 21 36 19 29 17 16 61 25 50 Somewhat dissatisfied 16 15 15 15 18 14 30 11 5 31 13 31 24 17 22 15 21 14 8 34 16 43 Very dissatisfied 5 8 5 6 4 3 12 6 0 19 4 13 5 4 13 4 8 3 9 27 9 7 NO OPINION/DK/NA 12 3 2 3 21 8 14 20 9 22 12 9 17 14 8 11 14 10 15 15 16 4 No opinion/DK/NA 12 3 2 3 21 8 14 20 9 22 12 9 17 14 8 11 14 10 15 15 16 4 Total
--------
Q12 CITY SERVICE SATISFACTION
-----------------------------------------
Q16 CONTACT

FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES
CITY OF MILPITAS 2022 COMMUNITY SURVEY - 320-991 (JANUARY 3-17, 2022) 272
Table 90: Q14s. I am going to read you the same list of services provided to residents. This time, after I mention each one, please tell me how satisfied you are with that service: Keeping the community informed about important City programs
Total
--------
Q20 CHILDREN
-----------------------------------------

PARENTS
-----------------------------------------

QC RACE/ETHNICITY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LANGUAGE OF

QE EDUCATION
---------------------------------------------------------------

EDUCATION BY GENDER
-----------------------------------------
Q22 INCOME
----------------------------------------------------

FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES
CITY OF MILPITAS 2022 COMMUNITY SURVEY - 320-991 (JANUARY 3-17, 2022) 273
Table 90: Q14s. I am going to read you the same list of services provided to residents. This time, after I mention each one, please tell me how satisfied you are with that service: Keeping the community informed about important City programs
Total
--------

QD GENDER
-------------------
QB AGE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES
CITY OF MILPITAS 2022 COMMUNITY SURVEY - 320-991 (JANUARY 3-17, 2022) 274
Table 91: Q14t. I am going to read you the same list of services provided to residents. This time, after I mention each one, please tell me how satisfied you are with that service: Providing programs that celebrate diversity and inclusion of different cultures
Total
-------
QA ON

CELL PHONE
------------------

CONTACT
------------------
Q9 POLICE SATISFACTION
----------------------------------------
YES
-------
NO
-------
PHONE
-------
ONLNE
-------
RIGHT
DIREC
-------
WRNG
TRACK
-------
DK/NA
-------
VERY
SAT
-------
VERY
DSSAT
-------
TOTAL
SAT
-------
TOTAL
DSSAT
-------
MUCH
TOO
FAST
-------
TOO
FAST
-------
TOO
SLOW
-------
ABT
RIGHT
/DK
-------
TOTAL
YES
-------
NO
-------
VERY
SAT
-------
VERY
DSSAT
-------
TOTAL
SAT
-------
TOTAL
DSSAT
-------
Column n-Size 347 100 73 173 173 205 62 80 84 14 282 62 46 136 44 168 120 222 57 5 96 20 TOTAL SATISFIED 64 70 77 73 55 74 53 46 80 44 66 53 53 64 46 68 59 67 74 58 59 55 Very satisfied 17 24 21 23 11 17 19 13 33 14 17 16 15 17 12 18 16 17 29 15 19 5 Somewhat satisfied 47 46 56 50 44 57 34 33 47 30 50 37 38 48 34 50 43 50 45 43 40 50 TOTAL DISSATISFIED 13 17 14 16 11 12 14 15 9 20 12 17 9 9 20 14 17 11 4 27 14 35 Somewhat dissatisfied 10 14 5 10 10 10 12 9 8 15 9 15 6 5 15 13 11 9 2 0 13 3 Very dissatisfied 3 3 8 5 1 3 1 6 1 5 4 2 3 5 6 2 6 2 2 27 1 32 NO OPINION/DK/NA 23 13 9 11 35 14 33 39 12 35 21 31 38 27 34 17 23 22 22 15 26 10 No opinion/DK/NA 23 13 9 11 35 14 33 39 12 35 21 31 38 27 34 17 23 22 22 15 26 10 Total
--------
Q12 CITY SERVICE SATISFACTION
-----------------------------------------
Q16 CONTACT

FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES
CITY OF MILPITAS 2022 COMMUNITY SURVEY - 320-991 (JANUARY 3-17, 2022) 275
Table 91: Q14t. I am going to read you the same list of services provided to residents. This time, after I mention each one, please tell me how satisfied you are with that service: Providing programs that celebrate diversity and inclusion of different cultures
Total
--------
Q20 CHILDREN
-----------------------------------------

PARENTS
-----------------------------------------

QC RACE/ETHNICITY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LANGUAGE OF

QE EDUCATION
---------------------------------------------------------------

EDUCATION BY GENDER
-----------------------------------------
Q22 INCOME
----------------------------------------------------

FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES
CITY OF MILPITAS 2022 COMMUNITY SURVEY - 320-991 (JANUARY 3-17, 2022) 276
Table 91: Q14t. I am going to read you the same list of services provided to residents. This time, after I mention each one, please tell me how satisfied you are with that service: Providing programs that celebrate diversity and inclusion of different cultures
Total
--------

QD GENDER
-------------------
QB AGE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES
CITY OF MILPITAS 2022 COMMUNITY SURVEY - 320-991 (JANUARY 3-17, 2022) 277
Table 92: Q14u. I am going to read you the same list of services provided to residents. This time, after I mention each one, please tell me how satisfied you are with that service: Assisting new businesses in obtaining required permits and licenses
Total
-------
QA ON

CELL PHONE
------------------

CONTACT
------------------
Q9 POLICE SATISFACTION
----------------------------------------
YES
-------
NO
-------
PHONE
-------
ONLNE
-------
RIGHT
DIREC
-------
WRNG
TRACK
-------
DK/NA
-------
VERY
SAT
-------
VERY
DSSAT
-------
TOTAL
SAT
-------
TOTAL
DSSAT
-------
MUCH
TOO
FAST
-------
TOO
FAST
-------
TOO
SLOW
-------
ABT
RIGHT
/DK
-------
TOTAL
YES
-------
NO
-------
VERY
SAT
-------
VERY
DSSAT
-------
TOTAL
SAT
-------
TOTAL
DSSAT
-------
Column n-Size 347 100 73 173 173 205 62 80 84 14 282 62 46 136 44 168 120 222 57 5 96 20 TOTAL SATISFIED 53 58 78 66 41 63 36 43 64 32 56 43 57 56 23 59 48 57 44 100 42 83 Very satisfied 14 19 24 21 7 18 9 7 32 0 15 9 15 11 8 18 10 16 16 0 11 6 Somewhat satisfied 39 39 53 45 34 44 27 36 32 32 41 34 41 45 15 42 38 41 28 100 31 77 TOTAL DISSATISFIED 9 15 6 11 7 6 21 8 6 39 7 18 13 11 22 5 12 7 5 0 11 7 Somewhat dissatisfied 7 13 4 9 5 6 13 6 6 18 6 10 13 9 13 4 9 6 2 0 7 5 Very dissatisfied 2 2 2 2 2 0 8 2 0 21 1 7 0 2 9 1 4 1 3 0 5 1 NO OPINION/DK/NA 38 27 16 23 53 32 43 49 30 28 37 40 30 34 55 36 40 35 51 0 47 10 No opinion/DK/NA 38 27 16 23 53 32 43 49 30 28 37 40 30 34 55 36 40 35 51 0 47 10 Total
--------
Q12 CITY SERVICE SATISFACTION
-----------------------------------------
Q16 CONTACT

FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES
CITY OF MILPITAS 2022 COMMUNITY SURVEY - 320-991 (JANUARY 3-17, 2022) 278
Table 92: Q14u. I am going to read you the same list of services provided to residents. This time, after I mention each one, please tell me how satisfied you are with that service: Assisting new businesses in obtaining required permits and licenses
Total
--------
Q20 CHILDREN
-----------------------------------------

PARENTS
-----------------------------------------

QC RACE/ETHNICITY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LANGUAGE OF

QE EDUCATION
---------------------------------------------------------------

EDUCATION BY GENDER
-----------------------------------------
Q22 INCOME
----------------------------------------------------

FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES
CITY OF MILPITAS 2022 COMMUNITY SURVEY - 320-991 (JANUARY 3-17, 2022) 279
Table 92: Q14u. I am going to read you the same list of services provided to residents. This time, after I mention each one, please tell me how satisfied you are with that service: Assisting new businesses in obtaining required permits and licenses
Total
--------

QD GENDER
-------------------
QB AGE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES
CITY OF MILPITAS 2022 COMMUNITY SURVEY - 320-991 (JANUARY 3-17, 2022) 280
Table 93: Q14v. I am going to read you the same list of services provided to residents. This time, after I mention each one, please tell me how satisfied you are with that service: Developing programs that promote sustainable living, such as clean energy, water conservation, and recycling Total
-------
QA ON

CELL PHONE
------------------

CONTACT
------------------
Q9 POLICE SATISFACTION
----------------------------------------
YES
-------
NO
-------
PHONE
-------
ONLNE
-------
RIGHT
DIREC
-------
WRNG
TRACK
-------
DK/NA
-------
VERY
SAT
-------
VERY
DSSAT
-------
TOTAL
SAT
-------
TOTAL
DSSAT
-------
MUCH
TOO
FAST
-------
TOO
FAST
-------
TOO
SLOW
-------
ABT
RIGHT
/DK
-------
TOTAL
YES
-------
NO
-------
VERY
SAT
-------
VERY
DSSAT
-------
TOTAL
SAT
-------
TOTAL
DSSAT
-------
Column n-Size 347 100 73 173 173 205 62 80 84 14 282 62 46 136 44 168 120 222 57 5 96 20 TOTAL SATISFIED 57 59 72 64 51 63 42 55 68 39 58 54 56 54 39 65 47 64 42 85 46 56 Very satisfied 21 26 31 28 14 21 23 19 31 14 21 21 23 27 11 18 21 21 27 15 22 22 Somewhat satisfied 37 33 41 36 37 42 19 37 37 25 37 33 32 27 28 47 25 43 15 70 24 34 TOTAL DISSATISFIED 24 32 20 27 21 24 38 13 19 41 23 28 16 23 41 20 34 19 35 0 31 40 Somewhat dissatisfied 20 25 18 22 18 20 30 12 12 35 20 24 16 20 31 18 28 16 33 0 28 34 Very dissatisfied 3 7 2 5 2 3 7 1 7 6 4 3 0 3 10 2 6 2 2 0 3 6 NO OPINION/DK/NA 19 9 9 9 29 13 21 32 13 20 19 18 28 23 19 15 20 17 23 15 23 4 No opinion/DK/NA 19 9 9 9 29 13 21 32 13 20 19 18 28 23 19 15 20 17 23 15 23 4 Total
--------
Q12 CITY SERVICE SATISFACTION
-----------------------------------------
Q16 CONTACT

FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES
CITY OF MILPITAS 2022 COMMUNITY SURVEY - 320-991 (JANUARY 3-17, 2022) 281
Table 93: Q14v. I am going to read you the same list of services provided to residents. This time, after I mention each one, please tell me how satisfied you are with that service: Developing programs that promote sustainable living, such as clean energy, water conservation, and recycling Total
--------
Q20 CHILDREN
-----------------------------------------

PARENTS
-----------------------------------------

QC RACE/ETHNICITY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LANGUAGE OF

QE EDUCATION
---------------------------------------------------------------

EDUCATION BY GENDER
-----------------------------------------
Q22 INCOME
----------------------------------------------------

FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES
CITY OF MILPITAS 2022 COMMUNITY SURVEY - 320-991 (JANUARY 3-17, 2022) 282
Table 93: Q14v. I am going to read you the same list of services provided to residents. This time, after I mention each one, please tell me how satisfied you are with that service: Developing programs that promote sustainable living, such as clean energy, water conservation, and recycling Total
--------

QD GENDER
-------------------
QB AGE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES
CITY OF MILPITAS 2022 COMMUNITY SURVEY - 320-991 (JANUARY 3-17, 2022) 283
Table 94: Q14w. I am going to read you the same list of services provided to residents. This time, after I mention each one, please tell me how satisfied you are with that service: Providing emergency 911 and fire response Total
-------
QA ON

CELL PHONE
------------------

CONTACT
------------------
Q9 POLICE SATISFACTION
----------------------------------------
YES
-------
NO
-------
PHONE
-------
ONLNE
-------
RIGHT
DIREC
-------
WRNG
TRACK
-------
DK/NA
-------
VERY
SAT
-------
VERY
DSSAT
-------
TOTAL
SAT
-------
TOTAL
DSSAT
-------
MUCH
TOO
FAST
-------
TOO
FAST
-------
TOO
SLOW
-------
ABT
RIGHT
/DK
-------
TOTAL
YES
-------
NO
-------
VERY
SAT
-------
VERY
DSSAT
-------
TOTAL
SAT
-------
TOTAL
DSSAT
-------
Column n-Size 347 100 73 173 173 205 62 80 84 14 282 62 46 136 44 168 120 222 57 5 96 20 TOTAL SATISFIED 84 92 95 93 74 87 81 78 84 67 85 81 89 90 75 82 82 86 82 100 81 98 Very satisfied 40 45 39 43 38 41 36 41 54 19 41 38 59 48 27 37 42 39 57 61 48 19 Somewhat satisfied 44 47 56 51 37 46 45 37 30 49 44 43 30 41 47 45 40 46 25 39 33 79 TOTAL DISSATISFIED 3 5 1 3 3 3 6 0 4 15 2 6 1 1 11 3 5 2 2 0 3 0 Somewhat dissatisfied 3 4 1 3 3 3 6 0 4 15 2 6 1 0 11 3 4 2 2 0 2 0 Very dissatisfied 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 NO OPINION/DK/NA 13 2 4 3 23 10 12 22 12 18 13 13 10 10 14 16 13 12 15 0 16 2 No opinion/DK/NA 13 2 4 3 23 10 12 22 12 18 13 13 10 10 14 16 13 12 15 0 16 2 Total
--------
Q12 CITY SERVICE SATISFACTION
-----------------------------------------
Q16 CONTACT

FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES
CITY OF MILPITAS 2022 COMMUNITY SURVEY - 320-991 (JANUARY 3-17, 2022) 284
Table 94: Q14w. I am going to read you the same list of services provided to residents. This time, after I mention each one, please tell me how satisfied you are with that service: Providing emergency 911 and fire response
Total
--------
Q20 CHILDREN
-----------------------------------------

PARENTS
-----------------------------------------

QC RACE/ETHNICITY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LANGUAGE OF

QE EDUCATION
---------------------------------------------------------------

EDUCATION BY GENDER
-----------------------------------------
Q22 INCOME
----------------------------------------------------

FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES
CITY OF MILPITAS 2022 COMMUNITY SURVEY - 320-991 (JANUARY 3-17, 2022) 285
Table 94: Q14w. I am going to read you the same list of services provided to residents. This time, after I mention each one, please tell me how satisfied you are with that service: Providing emergency 911 and fire response
Total
--------

QD GENDER
-------------------
QB AGE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES
CITY OF MILPITAS 2022 COMMUNITY SURVEY - 320-991 (JANUARY 3-17, 2022) 286
Table 95: Q14x. I am going to read you the same list of services provided to residents. This time, after I mention each one, please tell me how satisfied you are with that service: Providing rent relief to prevent residents from becoming homeless
Total
-------
QA ON

CELL PHONE
------------------

CONTACT
------------------
Q9 POLICE SATISFACTION
----------------------------------------
YES
-------
NO
-------
PHONE
-------
ONLNE
-------
RIGHT
DIREC
-------
WRNG
TRACK
-------
DK/NA
-------
VERY
SAT
-------
VERY
DSSAT
-------
TOTAL
SAT
-------
TOTAL
DSSAT
-------
MUCH
TOO
FAST
-------
TOO
FAST
-------
TOO
SLOW
-------
ABT
RIGHT
/DK
-------
TOTAL
YES
-------
NO
-------
VERY
SAT
-------
VERY
DSSAT
-------
TOTAL
SAT
-------
TOTAL
DSSAT
-------
Column n-Size 347 100 73 173 173 205 62 80 84 14 282 62 46 136 44 168 120 222 57 5 96 20 TOTAL SATISFIED 45 59 61 60 31 50 33 43 56 42 47 37 40 43 28 52 34 52 36 9 40 10 Very satisfied 16 25 23 24 8 16 18 15 25 23 16 17 15 18 8 16 15 17 15 9 17 9 Somewhat satisfied 29 34 39 36 23 34 15 28 31 19 31 19 24 25 20 35 19 36 21 0 24 1 TOTAL DISSATISFIED 23 25 28 27 20 26 33 8 16 13 22 31 22 24 41 18 33 19 25 42 21 77 Somewhat dissatisfied 15 18 17 18 12 18 21 2 11 9 14 21 9 14 29 12 24 11 19 15 16 50 Very dissatisfied 8 8 11 9 8 8 12 6 5 3 8 9 13 10 12 6 9 8 6 27 5 27 NO OPINION/DK/NA 31 16 10 14 49 24 34 49 27 46 31 33 38 32 31 30 33 29 39 49 38 12 No opinion/DK/NA 31 16 10 14 49 24 34 49 27 46 31 33 38 32 31 30 33 29 39 49 38 12 Total
--------
Q12 CITY SERVICE SATISFACTION
-----------------------------------------
Q16 CONTACT

FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES
CITY OF MILPITAS 2022 COMMUNITY SURVEY - 320-991 (JANUARY 3-17, 2022) 287
Table 95: Q14x. I am going to read you the same list of services provided to residents. This time, after I mention each one, please tell me how satisfied you are with that service: Providing rent relief to prevent residents from becoming homeless
Total
--------
Q20 CHILDREN
-----------------------------------------

PARENTS
-----------------------------------------

QC RACE/ETHNICITY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LANGUAGE OF

QE EDUCATION
---------------------------------------------------------------

EDUCATION BY GENDER
-----------------------------------------
Q22 INCOME
----------------------------------------------------

FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES
CITY OF MILPITAS 2022 COMMUNITY SURVEY - 320-991 (JANUARY 3-17, 2022) 288
Table 95: Q14x. I am going to read you the same list of services provided to residents. This time, after I mention each one, please tell me how satisfied you are with that service: Providing rent relief to prevent residents from becoming homeless
Total
--------

QD GENDER
-------------------
QB AGE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

GENDER BY AGE
-----------------------------------------
MEN
--------
WOMEN
--------
18-29
--------
30-39
--------
40-49
--------
50-64
--------
65-74
--------
75+
--------
18-49
--------
50+
--------
65+
--------
MEN
18-49
--------
MEN
50+
--------
WOMEN
18-49
--------
WOMEN
50+
--------
Column n-Size 347 163 174 69 73 52 83 35 24 194 142 59 94 66 95 75 TOTAL SATISFIED 45 47 45 49 35 37 53 48 55 40 52 51 42 53 41 52 Very satisfied 16 11 21 24 15 11 16 10 12 17 14 11 11 10 24 17 Somewhat satisfied 29 36 25 25 20 26 37 38 43 23 38 40 31 43 17 34 TOTAL DISSATISFIED 23 23 24 31 34 17 19 15 8 28 16 12 29 14 29 18 Somewhat dissatisfied 15 16 14 17 21 12 12 14 8 17 12 12 20 11 14 13 Very dissatisfied 8 7 10 14 13 5 7 1 0 11 4 0 9 3 14 5
NO OPINION/DK/NA 31 30 30 20 32 46 28 37 36 31 32 37 29 33 31 30 No opinion/DK/NA 31 30 30 20 32 46 28 37 36 31 32 37 29 33 31 30 473

FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES
CITY OF MILPITAS 2022 COMMUNITY SURVEY - 320-991 (JANUARY 3-17, 2022) 289
Table 96: Q16. CONTACT WITH CITY
Total
-------
QA ON

CELL PHONE
------------------

PARENTS
-----------------------------------------

QC RACE/ETHNICITY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LANGUAGE OF

QE EDUCATION
---------------------------------------------------------------

EDUCATION BY GENDER
-----------------------------------------
Q22 INCOME
----------------------------------------------------

FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES
CITY OF MILPITAS 2022 COMMUNITY SURVEY - 320-991 (JANUARY 3-17, 2022) 290
Table 96: Q16. CONTACT WITH CITY
Total
--------

QD GENDER
-------------------
QB AGE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES
CITY OF MILPITAS 2022 COMMUNITY SURVEY - 320-991 (JANUARY 3-17, 2022) 291
Table 97: Q17. CITY CONTACT SATISFACTION
Total
-------
QA ON

CELL PHONE
------------------

PARENTS
-----------------------------------------

QC RACE/ETHNICITY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LANGUAGE OF

FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES
CITY OF MILPITAS 2022 COMMUNITY SURVEY - 320-991 (JANUARY 3-17, 2022) 292
Table 97: Q17. CITY CONTACT SATISFACTION
Total
--------

QE EDUCATION
---------------------------------------------------------------

EDUCATION BY GENDER
-----------------------------------------
Q22 INCOME
----------------------------------------------------

QD GENDER
-------------------
QB AGE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES
CITY OF MILPITAS 2022 COMMUNITY SURVEY - 320-991 (JANUARY 3-17, 2022) 293
Table 98: Q19. YEARS LIVED IN MILPITAS
Total
-------
QA ON

CELL PHONE
------------------

CONTACT
------------------
Q9 POLICE SATISFACTION
----------------------------------------
YES
-------
NO
-------
PHONE
-------
ONLNE
-------
RIGHT
DIREC
-------
WRNG
TRACK
-------
DK/NA
-------
VERY
SAT
-------
VERY
DSSAT
-------
TOTAL
SAT
-------
TOTAL
DSSAT
-------
MUCH
TOO
FAST
-------
TOO
FAST
-------
TOO
SLOW
-------
ABT
RIGHT
/DK
-------
TOTAL
YES
-------
NO
-------
VERY
SAT
-------
VERY
DSSAT
-------
TOTAL
SAT
-------
TOTAL
DSSAT
-------
Column n-Size 693 204 142 346 346 409 125 159 183 36 573 117 119 283 68 341 222 464 119 12 184 33 <11 YEARS 32 45 22 36 27 37 19 29 29 14 34 18 16 26 61 30 36 29 34 18 35 36 Two years or less 5 7 2 5 6 6 2 5 3 0 6 4 5 3 8 7 5 5 8 0 6 3 Three to four years 8 13 3 9 6 9 6 4 5 2 8 7 2 4 32 5 8 7 4 0 8 0 Five to six years 8 7 7 7 8 7 4 10 7 5 8 4 3 8 10 6 13 5 12 7 13 14 Seven to ten years 11 18 10 15 7 13 6 9 14 7 12 4 6 10 11 12 10 11 10 11 9 19 11-20 YEARS 25 31 27 30 21 25 29 24 26 34 24 32 22 23 19 28 15 30 16 5 17 7 11 to 15 years 12 18 9 15 9 11 18 9 9 31 10 18 12 11 11 13 8 14 7 0 9 5 16 to 20 years 13 13 18 15 12 14 11 15 17 3 13 13 10 12 8 16 7 17 9 5 8 2 21-40 YEARS 33 21 34 26 39 32 34 34 34 45 32 38 37 35 17 34 34 32 33 67 32 49 21 to 30 years 21 15 22 18 23 22 20 18 26 30 20 23 23 21 16 21 20 20 19 55 17 40 31 to 40 years 12 5 12 8 16 10 14 16 8 15 12 15 15 14 1 13 13 12 14 11 14 9 41+ YEARS 11 3 16 8 13 7 19 14 11 7 10 12 24 17 3 7 15 9 17 10 16 8 41 years or more 11 3 16 8 13 7 19 14 11 7 10 12 24 17 3 7 15 9 17 10 16 8 DK/REFUSED 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
DK/Refused 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
478

FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES
CITY OF MILPITAS 2022 COMMUNITY SURVEY - 320-991 (JANUARY 3-17, 2022) 294
Table 98: Q19. YEARS LIVED IN MILPITAS
Total
--------
Q12 CITY SERVICE SATISFACTION
-----------------------------------------
Q16 CONTACT

A/B SPLIT
-------------------
VERY
SAT
--------
VERY
DSSAT
--------
TOTAL
SAT
--------
TOTAL
DSSAT
--------
YES
--------
NO
--------
VERY
SAT
--------
NT AT
ALL
--------
TOTAL
SAT
--------
TOTAL
NOT
--------
<11
YEARS
--------
11-20
YEARS
--------
21-30
YEARS
--------
31-40
YEARS
--------
41+
YEARS
--------
OWN
--------
RENT
--------
A
--------
B
--------
Column n-Size 693 157 26 554 92 223 436 95 18 174 49 218 174 143 84 73 481 160 346 347 <11 YEARS 32 25 8 32 20 37 29 33 34 37 33 100 0 0 0 0 26 49 30 33 Two years or less 5 2 4 4 5 4 6 7 0 5 2 17 0 0 0 0 3 15 5 6 Three to four years 8 7 0 8 5 11 6 6 6 10 17 24 0 0 0 0 6 16 7 8 Five to six years 8 7 4 8 4 6 8 4 18 6 8 24 0 0 0 0 9 4 8 8 Seven to ten years 11 9 0 11 7 15 10 15 11 17 7 35 0 0 0 0 9 15 11 10 11-20 YEARS 25 30 12 27 21 15 31 13 19 14 17 0 100 0 0 0 26 24 26 24 11 to 15 years 12 6 8 12 13 8 14 7 19 7 14 0 47 0 0 0 12 12 13 11 16 to 20 years 13 24 4 14 9 6 17 7 0 7 3 0 53 0 0 0 14 12 13 14 21-40 YEARS 33 36 59 32 44 34 32 35 41 33 38 0 0 100 100 0 35 24 31 34 21 to 30 years 21 25 41 20 28 20 21 23 28 20 21 0 0 100 0 0 20 18 20 21 31 to 40 years 12 11 17 11 16 14 11 12 13 13 17 0 0 0 100 0 14 6 11 14 41+ YEARS 11 9 21 10 14 15 8 20 5 16 11 0 0 0 0 100 13 3 12 9 41 years or more 11 9 21 10 14 15 8 20 5 16 11 0 0 0 0 100 13 3 12 9 DK/REFUSED 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
DK/Refused 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0
479

FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES
CITY OF MILPITAS 2022 COMMUNITY SURVEY - 320-991 (JANUARY 3-17, 2022) 295
Table 98: Q19. YEARS LIVED IN MILPITAS
Total
--------
Q20 CHILDREN
-----------------------------------------

PARENTS
-----------------------------------------

QC RACE/ETHNICITY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LANGUAGE OF

INTERVIEW
------------------------------
YES/
<19
@ HME
--------
YES/
NT @
HOME
--------
HAVE
CHLDN
--------
NO
CHLDN
--------
DADS
--------
MOMS
--------
MEN
W/NO
CHLDN
--------
WOMEN
W/NO
CHLDN
--------
WHITE
--------
LATNO
--------
CHNSE
--------
FLPNO
--------
INDN
--------
VTNMS
--------
TOTAL
ASIAN
--------
PPLE
OF CLR
--------
ENGLS
--------
SPNSH
--------
VTNM
/CHNS
--------
Column n-Size 693 188 164 352 307 167 181 145 153 97 90 97 83 91 97 388 550 655 17 21 <11 YEARS 32 44 13 30 34 33 28 38 30 29 31 28 29 48 24 31 32 32 28 33 Two years or less 5 9 2 6 6 5 6 7 4 9 5 5 3 10 3 5 5 6 11 0 Three to four years 8 12 4 9 7 12 6 5 6 7 6 4 9 11 6 7 8 8 0 3 Five to six years 8 11 2 7 7 6 8 6 9 7 6 5 7 10 3 6 6 8 2 0 Seven to ten years 11 12 4 8 14 10 7 19 11 5 14 15 10 17 11 13 13 10 16 29 11-20 YEARS 25 30 15 23 28 26 20 26 31 16 23 27 27 28 35 30 28 25 23 25 11 to 15 years 12 12 7 10 15 10 9 11 19 3 11 14 7 10 23 14 13 12 2 20 16 to 20 years 13 18 9 14 13 16 11 14 12 12 13 14 20 17 12 16 15 13 21 5 21-40 YEARS 33 22 47 34 31 32 35 32 30 29 31 36 39 24 39 34 33 32 34 39 21 to 30 years 21 15 24 19 22 21 17 23 22 14 24 23 23 21 21 22 22 21 28 16 31 to 40 years 12 7 23 15 9 11 18 9 8 15 7 13 15 3 18 13 12 12 6 23 41+ YEARS 11 3 25 13 7 10 17 4 9 27 14 8 5 0 3 5 7 11 15 4 41 years or more 11 3 25 13 7 10 17 4 9 27 14 8 5 0 3 5 7 11 15 4 DK/REFUSED 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
DK/Refused 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
480

FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES
CITY OF MILPITAS 2022 COMMUNITY SURVEY - 320-991 (JANUARY 3-17, 2022) 296
Table 98: Q19. YEARS LIVED IN MILPITAS
Total
--------

QE EDUCATION
---------------------------------------------------------------

EDUCATION BY GENDER
-----------------------------------------
Q22 INCOME
----------------------------------------------------

CONTACT METHOD
------------------------------
HS OR
LESS
--------
SOME
COLL
--------
COLL
GRAD
--------
POST-
GRAD
--------
NON-
COLL
--------
COLL+
--------
NCOLL
MEN
--------
NCOLL
WOMEN
--------
COLL+
MEN
--------
COLL+
WOMEN
--------
$0-
$60K
--------
$60K-
$90K
--------
$90K-
$120K
--------
$120K-
$150K
--------
$150K+
--------
PHONE
--------
EMAIL
--------
POST
CARD
--------
Column n-Size 693 147 194 201 125 341 326 154 178 169 155 70 125 153 70 155 346 266 81 <11 YEARS 32 31 26 29 47 28 35 28 28 39 31 32 28 25 26 45 36 20 51 Two years or less 5 1 7 4 13 4 7 3 4 8 6 3 4 3 10 8 5 4 13 Three to four years 8 10 6 5 12 8 8 7 8 10 4 9 8 2 2 16 9 4 12 Five to six years 8 7 5 7 12 6 9 3 9 8 9 2 6 9 3 11 7 5 17 Seven to ten years 11 13 8 13 10 10 12 15 7 12 12 17 11 11 10 11 15 6 9 11-20 YEARS 25 32 30 23 17 31 21 32 30 21 20 24 34 36 17 16 30 22 15 11 to 15 years 12 9 16 11 12 13 11 11 15 10 12 9 18 17 8 9 15 10 6 16 to 20 years 13 23 14 12 5 18 9 21 15 11 8 15 16 19 10 7 15 13 9 21-40 YEARS 33 25 29 44 31 27 39 29 26 35 43 22 33 31 34 32 26 42 30 21 to 30 years 21 14 18 26 24 16 25 19 14 24 27 18 24 16 18 23 18 23 25 31 to 40 years 12 11 11 18 7 11 14 10 12 11 17 4 10 15 16 9 8 19 5 41+ YEARS 11 11 15 5 5 13 5 11 16 5 5 22 4 8 22 7 8 15 4 41 years or more 11 11 15 5 5 13 5 11 16 5 5 22 4 8 22 7 8 15 4 DK/REFUSED 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
DK/Refused 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total
--------

QD GENDER
-------------------
QB AGE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

GENDER BY AGE
-----------------------------------------
MEN
--------
WOMEN
--------
18-29
--------
30-39
--------
40-49
--------
50-64
--------
65-74
--------
75+
--------
18-49
--------
50+
--------
65+
--------
MEN
18-49
--------
MEN
50+
--------
WOMEN
18-49
--------
WOMEN
50+
--------
Column n-Size 693 326 346 139 146 104 166 69 49 388 284 118 187 132 187 151 <11 YEARS 32 34 28 39 56 38 15 12 13 45 14 12 48 12 40 16 Two years or less 5 6 5 8 11 4 2 3 2 8 2 3 7 4 8 1
Three to four years 8 9 6 14 13 8 2 0 1 12 2 1 14 2 10 1 Five to six years 8 6 9 3 19 7 4 2 10 10 5 5 8 3 11 6
Seven to ten years 11 14 9 14 13 19 6 7 0 15 5 4 20 3 11 7 11-20 YEARS 25 26 25 25 23 33 34 13 5 26 24 10 26 28 28 20 11 to 15 years 12 10 13 8 14 17 15 4 4 13 10 4 12 9 14 12 16 to 20 years 13 16 11 17 9 16 19 9 1 13 13 6 14 19 13 9 21-40 YEARS 33 32 33 37 21 25 40 48 23 28 39 38 25 42 30 37 21 to 30 years 21 22 20 36 12 14 22 17 12 21 19 15 19 26 25 13 31 to 40 years 12 11 13 0 9 10 18 31 11 6 20 23 6 16 5 23 41+ YEARS 11 8 13 0 0 4 11 27 58 1 23 40 0 19 2 28
41 years or more 11 8 13 0 0 4 11 27 58 1 23 40 0 19 2 28 DK/REFUSED 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
DK/Refused 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 481

FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES
CITY OF MILPITAS 2022 COMMUNITY SURVEY - 320-991 (JANUARY 3-17, 2022) 297
Table 99: Q20. CHILDREN
Total
-------
QA ON

CELL PHONE
------------------

FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES
CITY OF MILPITAS 2022 COMMUNITY SURVEY - 320-991 (JANUARY 3-17, 2022) 298
Table 99: Q20. CHILDREN
Total
--------
Q20 CHILDREN
-----------------------------------------

PARENTS
-----------------------------------------

QC RACE/ETHNICITY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LANGUAGE OF

QE EDUCATION
---------------------------------------------------------------

EDUCATION BY GENDER
-----------------------------------------
Q22 INCOME
----------------------------------------------------

QD GENDER
-------------------
QB AGE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES
CITY OF MILPITAS 2022 COMMUNITY SURVEY - 320-991 (JANUARY 3-17, 2022) 299
Table 100: Q21. RESIDENCE
Total
-------
QA ON

CELL PHONE
------------------

PARENTS
-----------------------------------------

QC RACE/ETHNICITY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LANGUAGE OF

QE EDUCATION
---------------------------------------------------------------

EDUCATION BY GENDER
-----------------------------------------
Q22 INCOME
----------------------------------------------------

FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES
CITY OF MILPITAS 2022 COMMUNITY SURVEY - 320-991 (JANUARY 3-17, 2022) 300
Table 100: Q21. RESIDENCE
Total
--------

QD GENDER
-------------------
QB AGE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES
CITY OF MILPITAS 2022 COMMUNITY SURVEY - 320-991 (JANUARY 3-17, 2022) 301
Table 101: Q22. INCOME
Total
-------
QA ON

CELL PHONE
------------------

CONTACT
------------------
Q9 POLICE SATISFACTION
----------------------------------------
YES
-------
NO
-------
PHONE
-------
ONLNE
-------
RIGHT
DIREC
-------
WRNG
TRACK
-------
DK/NA
-------
VERY
SAT
-------
VERY
DSSAT
-------
TOTAL
SAT
-------
TOTAL
DSSAT
-------
MUCH
TOO
FAST
-------
TOO
FAST
-------
TOO
SLOW
-------
ABT
RIGHT
/DK
-------
TOTAL
YES
-------
NO
-------
VERY
SAT
-------
VERY
DSSAT
-------
TOTAL
SAT
-------
TOTAL
DSSAT
-------
Column n-Size 693 204 142 346 346 409 125 159 183 36 573 117 119 283 68 341 222 464 119 12 184 33 $0-$60K 10 15 13 14 6 11 9 7 11 9 10 12 12 12 8 9 16 7 19 32 16 15 $30,000 and under 3 4 5 4 2 4 2 1 4 0 3 2 5 5 0 2 5 2 7 0 5 3 $30,001 - $60,000 7 11 8 10 4 7 7 6 7 9 6 10 7 7 8 6 11 5 12 32 11 12 $60K-$90K 18 26 24 25 11 18 16 19 21 15 19 13 12 15 11 22 17 19 13 7 15 25 $60,001 - $90,000 18 26 24 25 11 18 16 19 21 15 19 13 12 15 11 22 17 19 13 7 15 25 $90K-$120K 22 27 28 28 17 25 19 18 31 22 23 17 17 19 12 26 14 26 8 11 13 19 $90,001 - $120,000 22 27 28 28 17 25 19 18 31 22 23 17 17 19 12 26 14 26 8 11 13 19 $120K-$150K 10 8 16 11 9 10 12 10 10 10 10 10 9 10 9 10 12 9 12 5 12 12 $120,001 - $150,000 10 8 16 11 9 10 12 10 10 10 10 10 9 10 9 10 12 9 12 5 12 12 $150K+ 22 18 7 13 31 23 23 20 17 12 22 23 25 24 53 15 25 21 29 34 24 20 $150,001 - $180,000 6 6 0 3 8 5 7 7 6 0 6 4 12 8 13 2 6 5 6 12 6 6 More than $180,000 17 12 7 10 23 18 16 13 11 12 16 18 13 16 40 13 18 16 23 22 18 14 REFUSED 17 6 12 9 26 12 21 27 10 32 15 26 25 19 8 17 17 17 19 11 19 10 Refused 17 6 12 9 26 12 21 27 10 32 15 26 25 19 8 17 17 17 19 11 19 10 486

FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES
CITY OF MILPITAS 2022 COMMUNITY SURVEY - 320-991 (JANUARY 3-17, 2022) 302
Table 101: Q22. INCOME
Total
--------
Q12 CITY SERVICE SATISFACTION
-----------------------------------------
Q16 CONTACT

A/B SPLIT
-------------------
VERY
SAT
--------
VERY
DSSAT
--------
TOTAL
SAT
--------
TOTAL
DSSAT
--------
YES
--------
NO
--------
VERY
SAT
--------
NT AT
ALL
--------
TOTAL
SAT
--------
TOTAL
NOT
--------
<11
YEARS
--------
11-20
YEARS
--------
21-30
YEARS
--------
31-40
YEARS
--------
41+
YEARS
--------
OWN
--------
RENT
--------
A
--------
B
--------
Column n-Size 693 157 26 554 92 223 436 95 18 174 49 218 174 143 84 73 481 160 346 347 $0-$60K 10 14 16 11 9 10 10 16 3 12 2 10 10 9 4 21 6 21 9 11 $30,000 and under 3 3 8 3 3 4 3 6 0 5 0 2 2 3 2 8 2 5 3 3 $30,001 - $60,000 7 11 8 7 6 6 7 10 3 7 2 8 7 5 1 13 4 16 6 8 $60K-$90K 18 23 8 20 11 14 20 14 4 17 5 16 25 21 15 7 16 29 19 17 $60,001 - $90,000 18 23 8 20 11 14 20 14 4 17 5 16 25 21 15 7 16 29 19 17 $90K-$120K 22 24 25 24 17 11 29 12 7 11 11 18 32 17 27 17 27 14 21 23 $90,001 - $120,000 22 24 25 24 17 11 29 12 7 11 11 18 32 17 27 17 27 14 21 23 $120K-$150K 10 9 1 10 4 10 11 11 9 11 7 8 7 9 13 21 12 8 11 9 $120,001 - $150,000 10 9 1 10 4 10 11 11 9 11 7 8 7 9 13 21 12 8 11 9 $150K+ 22 16 27 21 30 31 18 32 26 27 43 32 14 25 17 15 25 17 22 23 $150,001 - $180,000 6 6 5 6 4 7 6 6 0 7 7 6 5 9 2 6 5 7 5 6 More than $180,000 17 11 22 15 26 24 13 26 26 20 36 26 10 16 15 9 20 10 16 17 REFUSED 17 13 23 15 29 24 13 14 50 22 31 15 13 20 25 19 15 12 19 16 Refused 17 13 23 15 29 24 13 14 50 22 31 15 13 20 25 19 15 12 19 16 487

FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES
CITY OF MILPITAS 2022 COMMUNITY SURVEY - 320-991 (JANUARY 3-17, 2022) 303
Table 101: Q22. INCOME
Total
--------
Q20 CHILDREN
-----------------------------------------

PARENTS
-----------------------------------------

QC RACE/ETHNICITY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LANGUAGE OF

INTERVIEW
------------------------------
YES/
<19
@ HME
--------
YES/
NT @
HOME
--------
HAVE
CHLDN
--------
NO
CHLDN
--------
DADS
--------
MOMS
--------
MEN
W/NO
CHLDN
--------
WOMEN
W/NO
CHLDN
--------
WHITE
--------
LATNO
--------
CHNSE
--------
FLPNO
--------
INDN
--------
VTNMS
--------
TOTAL
ASIAN
--------
PPLE
OF CLR
--------
ENGLS
--------
SPNSH
--------
VTNM
/CHNS
--------
Column n-Size 693 188 164 352 307 167 181 145 153 97 90 97 83 91 97 388 550 655 17 21 $0-$60K 10 1 10 5 15 5 6 17 12 10 19 16 7 7 6 9 10 10 15 19 $30,000 and under 3 1 4 2 4 2 3 5 3 3 3 8 2 0 3 3 3 3 0 9 $30,001 - $60,000 7 1 6 3 11 3 4 13 9 7 15 8 5 7 3 6 7 7 15 10 $60K-$90K 18 18 11 15 24 13 17 27 21 16 19 16 25 17 25 20 20 18 8 19 $60,001 - $90,000 18 18 11 15 24 13 17 27 21 16 19 16 25 17 25 20 20 18 8 19 $90K-$120K 22 20 26 23 23 27 19 18 30 17 26 26 25 16 24 22 23 21 40 28 $90,001 - $120,000 22 20 26 23 23 27 19 18 30 17 26 26 25 16 24 22 23 21 40 28 $120K-$150K 10 11 17 14 7 12 16 6 7 10 11 8 12 6 11 10 11 10 23 4 $120,001 - $150,000 10 11 17 14 7 12 16 6 7 10 11 8 12 6 11 10 11 10 23 4 $150K+ 22 38 20 30 15 33 27 20 11 28 18 26 11 41 16 24 22 23 13 14 $150,001 - $180,000 6 7 5 6 5 5 7 5 5 9 11 4 4 7 1 4 5 6 11 4 More than $180,000 17 31 15 23 10 28 20 15 6 19 7 22 7 35 15 20 17 17 3 9 REFUSED 17 12 15 13 15 10 15 11 18 19 8 9 21 13 19 14 14 18 0 16 Refused 17 12 15 13 15 10 15 11 18 19 8 9 21 13 19 14 14 18 0 16 488

FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES
CITY OF MILPITAS 2022 COMMUNITY SURVEY - 320-991 (JANUARY 3-17, 2022) 304
Table 101: Q22. INCOME
Total
--------

QE EDUCATION
---------------------------------------------------------------

EDUCATION BY GENDER
-----------------------------------------
Q22 INCOME
----------------------------------------------------

CONTACT METHOD
------------------------------
HS OR
LESS
--------
SOME
COLL
--------
COLL
GRAD
--------
POST-
GRAD
--------
NON-
COLL
--------
COLL+
--------
NCOLL
MEN
--------
NCOLL
WOMEN
--------
COLL+
MEN
--------
COLL+
WOMEN
--------
$0-
$60K
--------
$60K-
$90K
--------
$90K-
$120K
--------
$120K-
$150K
--------
$150K+
--------
PHONE
--------
EMAIL
--------
POST
CARD
--------
Column n-Size 693 147 194 201 125 341 326 154 178 169 155 70 125 153 70 155 346 266 81 $0-$60K 10 17 13 7 5 14 7 17 11 6 7 100 0 0 0 0 14 7 5
$30,000 and under 3 6 3 2 2 4 2 4 3 2 3 31 0 0 0 0 4 1 4 $30,001 - $60,000 7 11 10 5 3 10 4 13 8 4 4 69 0 0 0 0 10 5 1 $60K-$90K 18 21 18 23 11 19 18 25 15 13 24 0 100 0 0 0 25 14 4 $60,001 - $90,000 18 21 18 23 11 19 18 25 15 13 24 0 100 0 0 0 25 14 4 $90K-$120K 22 24 30 19 14 28 18 26 31 19 16 0 0 100 0 0 28 18 12 $90,001 - $120,000 22 24 30 19 14 28 18 26 31 19 16 0 0 100 0 0 28 18 12 $120K-$150K 10 8 14 8 7 12 7 11 12 7 7 0 0 0 100 0 11 10 5 $120,001 - $150,000 10 8 14 8 7 12 7 11 12 7 7 0 0 0 100 0 11 10 5 $150K+ 22 11 13 26 50 12 35 9 15 43 26 0 0 0 0 100 13 28 41 $150,001 - $180,000 6 3 6 7 6 5 7 4 6 7 7 0 0 0 0 26 3 9 6 More than $180,000 17 8 6 18 44 7 28 5 9 36 19 0 0 0 0 74 10 20 35 REFUSED 17 18 13 17 13 15 16 12 16 12 19 0 0 0 0 0 9 23 34 Refused 17 18 13 17 13 15 16 12 16 12 19 0 0 0 0 0 9 23 34 Total
--------

QD GENDER
-------------------
QB AGE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

GENDER BY AGE
-----------------------------------------
MEN
--------
WOMEN
--------
18-29
--------
30-39
--------
40-49
--------
50-64
--------
65-74
--------
75+
--------
18-49
--------
50+
--------
65+
--------
MEN
18-49
--------
MEN
50+
--------
WOMEN
18-49
--------
WOMEN
50+
--------
Column n-Size 693 326 346 139 146 104 166 69 49 388 284 118 187 132 187 151 $0-$60K 10 11 9 16 8 7 7 6 21 11 9 12 13 8 8 10
$30,000 and under 3 3 3 5 3 4 1 3 8 4 2 5 4 2 3 2
$30,001 - $60,000 7 8 6 10 6 3 7 3 13 7 7 7 9 6 5 8
$60K-$90K 18 19 18 27 21 12 15 19 9 21 15 15 21 15 21 15 $60,001 - $90,000 18 19 18 27 21 12 15 19 9 21 15 15 21 15 21 15 $90K-$120K 22 22 23 16 24 19 27 27 21 20 26 24 19 28 23 24 $90,001 - $120,000 22 22 23 16 24 19 27 27 21 20 26 24 19 28 23 24 $120K-$150K 10 9 11 6 9 12 11 9 19 9 12 13 7 13 11 11
$120,001 - $150,000 10 9 11 6 9 12 11 9 19 9 12 13 7 13 11 11 $150K+ 22 27 20 15 25 37 24 19 7 25 20 14 30 23 22 18
$150,001 - $180,000 6 6 6 6 5 7 8 6 1 6 6 4 5 7 7 5
More than $180,000 17 21 13 10 21 30 16 13 6 19 14 10 25 15 15 12 REFUSED 17 12 19 20 12 12 16 20 23 15 18 21 10 14 15 22 Refused 17 12 19 20 12 12 16 20 23 15 18 21 10 14 15 22 489

FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES
CITY OF MILPITAS 2022 COMMUNITY SURVEY - 320-991 (JANUARY 3-17, 2022) 305
Table 102: LANGUAGE OF INTERVIEW
Total
-------
QA ON

CELL PHONE
------------------

FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES
CITY OF MILPITAS 2022 COMMUNITY SURVEY - 320-991 (JANUARY 3-17, 2022) 306
Table 102: LANGUAGE OF INTERVIEW
Total
--------
Q20 CHILDREN
-----------------------------------------

PARENTS
-----------------------------------------

QC RACE/ETHNICITY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LANGUAGE OF

QE EDUCATION
---------------------------------------------------------------

EDUCATION BY GENDER
-----------------------------------------
Q22 INCOME
----------------------------------------------------

QD GENDER
-------------------
QB AGE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES
CITY OF MILPITAS 2022 COMMUNITY SURVEY - 320-991 (JANUARY 3-17, 2022) 307
Table 103: MODE OF INTERVIEW
Total
-------
QA ON

CELL PHONE
------------------

PARENTS
-----------------------------------------

QC RACE/ETHNICITY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LANGUAGE OF

QE EDUCATION
---------------------------------------------------------------

EDUCATION BY GENDER
-----------------------------------------
Q22 INCOME
----------------------------------------------------

FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES
CITY OF MILPITAS 2022 COMMUNITY SURVEY - 320-991 (JANUARY 3-17, 2022) 308
Table 103: MODE OF INTERVIEW
Total
--------

QD GENDER
-------------------
QB AGE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES
CITY OF MILPITAS 2022 COMMUNITY SURVEY - 320-991 (JANUARY 3-17, 2022) 309
Table 104: CONTACT METHOD
Total
-------
QA ON

CELL PHONE
------------------

PARENTS
-----------------------------------------

QC RACE/ETHNICITY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LANGUAGE OF

QE EDUCATION
---------------------------------------------------------------

EDUCATION BY GENDER
-----------------------------------------
Q22 INCOME
----------------------------------------------------

FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES
CITY OF MILPITAS 2022 COMMUNITY SURVEY - 320-991 (JANUARY 3-17, 2022) 310
Table 104: CONTACT METHOD
Total
--------

QD GENDER
-------------------
QB AGE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES
CITY OF MILPITAS 2022 COMMUNITY SURVEY - 320-991 (JANUARY 3-17, 2022) 311
Table 105: A/B SPLIT
Total
-------
QA ON

CELL PHONE
------------------

PARENTS
-----------------------------------------

QC RACE/ETHNICITY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LANGUAGE OF

QE EDUCATION
---------------------------------------------------------------

EDUCATION BY GENDER
-----------------------------------------
Q22 INCOME
----------------------------------------------------

FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES
CITY OF MILPITAS 2022 COMMUNITY SURVEY - 320-991 (JANUARY 3-17, 2022) 312
Table 105: A/B SPLIT
Total
--------

QD GENDER
-------------------
QB AGE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES
CITY OF MILPITAS 2022 COMMUNITY SURVEY - 320-991 (JANUARY 3-17, 2022) 313
Table 106: DEMOGRAPHIC COMBINATIONS
Total
-------
QA ON

CELL PHONE
------------------

CONTACT
------------------
Q9 POLICE SATISFACTION
----------------------------------------
YES
-------
NO
-------
PHONE
-------
ONLNE
-------
RIGHT
DIREC
-------
WRNG
TRACK
-------
DK/NA
-------
VERY
SAT
-------
VERY
DSSAT
-------
TOTAL
SAT
-------
TOTAL
DSSAT
-------
MUCH
TOO
FAST
-------
TOO
FAST
-------
TOO
SLOW
-------
ABT
RIGHT
/DK
-------
TOTAL
YES
-------
NO
-------
VERY
SAT
-------
VERY
DSSAT
-------
TOTAL
SAT
-------
TOTAL
DSSAT
-------
Column n-Size 671 201 137 337 334 400 117 154 179 32 560 109 116 279 65 326 212 452 114 11 176 32 PARENTS 96 99 100 99 93 98 92 94 99 89 97 92 94 94 96 98 94 97 96 100 94 94 DADS 25 23 18 21 28 26 24 21 24 33 26 22 24 23 36 24 22 26 21 43 22 21 MOMS 27 18 26 21 33 25 31 28 27 20 27 28 31 31 24 24 32 24 36 26 33 24 MEN W/NO CHILDREN 22 29 27 28 15 25 17 17 22 24 21 23 18 16 24 26 18 23 15 0 16 27 WOMEN W/NO CHILDREN 23 29 28 29 17 22 18 29 25 11 24 19 21 24 13 24 22 23 23 31 23 22 EDUCATION BY GENDER 98 99 97 98 97 99 92 99 100 93 99 93 96 98 96 98 97 98 100 100 97 97 NON-COLLEGE MEN 23 27 29 28 18 24 20 23 25 36 23 20 24 23 20 24 23 23 20 24 21 34 NON-COLLEGE WOMEN 27 26 34 29 24 23 32 30 29 20 27 26 30 33 16 23 33 24 33 57 31 35 COLLEGE+ MEN 25 26 17 22 28 28 25 18 23 26 25 28 20 19 39 28 20 28 20 19 20 16 COLLEGE+ WOMEN 23 21 18 19 27 23 16 28 23 12 24 19 22 24 21 23 22 23 27 0 25 12 GENDER BY AGE 98 96 99 97 99 98 96 99 99 93 98 96 98 98 98 98 97 98 98 100 97 98 MEN 18-49 28 40 30 36 20 34 20 19 25 31 28 26 20 21 37 32 24 30 21 18 23 30 MEN 50+ 20 11 15 13 27 17 24 23 22 30 19 21 24 20 23 19 18 21 19 25 18 19 WOMEN 18-49 28 32 25 29 27 27 24 32 29 19 29 25 24 31 33 24 30 27 25 31 27 38 WOMEN 50+ 22 13 29 19 26 20 27 25 23 13 22 24 30 26 4 23 26 21 33 26 29 11 498

FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES
CITY OF MILPITAS 2022 COMMUNITY SURVEY - 320-991 (JANUARY 3-17, 2022) 314
Table 106: DEMOGRAPHIC COMBINATIONS
Total
--------
Q12 CITY SERVICE SATISFACTION
-----------------------------------------
Q16 CONTACT

A/B SPLIT
-------------------
VERY
SAT
--------
VERY
DSSAT
--------
TOTAL
SAT
--------
TOTAL
DSSAT
--------
YES
--------
NO
--------
VERY
SAT
--------
NT AT
ALL
--------
TOTAL
SAT
--------
TOTAL
NOT
--------
<11
YEARS
--------
11-20
YEARS
--------
21-30
YEARS
--------
31-40
YEARS
--------
41+
YEARS
--------
OWN
--------
RENT
--------
A
--------
B
--------
Column n-Size 671 151 19 541 84 206 431 94 11 165 41 210 171 138 81 71 468 157 334 337 PARENTS 96 100 93 97 90 94 98 95 86 95 89 98 97 96 93 93 97 96 95 97 DADS 25 29 38 25 29 26 25 21 28 24 32 26 25 25 23 23 30 14 26 24 MOMS 27 29 28 26 30 36 22 39 42 35 39 24 21 23 40 43 31 22 26 28 MEN W/NO CHILDREN 22 22 25 22 21 16 24 13 12 17 11 26 22 25 15 8 16 35 20 23 WOMEN W/NO CHILDREN 23 20 2 25 10 17 27 21 4 19 7 22 28 24 15 19 21 25 23 22 EDUCATION BY GENDER 98 100 100 99 95 97 98 98 91 97 97 98 100 99 100 87 97 99 97 98 NON-COLLEGE MEN 23 28 38 24 25 18 25 10 15 17 20 21 29 21 18 24 18 36 22 24 NON-COLLEGE WOMEN 27 27 19 27 20 27 27 36 23 27 28 24 32 19 26 40 28 25 27 26 COLLEGE+ MEN 25 23 32 25 29 26 25 26 25 26 27 31 21 29 24 11 28 16 27 24 COLLEGE+ WOMEN 23 22 11 24 20 27 21 26 28 28 22 23 18 30 32 12 23 22 22 24 GENDER BY AGE 98 99 100 98 99 97 98 97 90 98 95 97 98 99 97 99 98 97 98 98 MEN 18-49 28 28 32 28 29 19 32 18 20 21 11 43 28 26 14 1 22 42 28 28 MEN 50+ 20 22 38 20 25 23 17 17 14 21 32 8 21 24 27 34 24 10 20 20 WOMEN 18-49 28 28 6 29 19 31 27 31 42 32 26 36 30 34 13 6 24 37 28 28 WOMEN 50+ 22 21 23 21 26 24 22 31 13 23 26 11 18 15 43 59 28 8 23 22 Total
--------
Q20 CHILDREN
-----------------------------------------

PARENTS
-----------------------------------------

QC RACE/ETHNICITY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LANGUAGE OF

INTERVIEW
------------------------------
YES/
<19
@ HME
--------
YES/
NT @
HOME
--------
HAVE
CHLDN
--------
NO
CHLDN
--------
DADS
--------
MOMS
--------
MEN
W/NO
CHLDN
--------
WOMEN
W/NO
CHLDN
--------
WHITE
--------
LATNO
--------
CHNSE
--------
FLPNO
--------
INDN
--------
VTNMS
--------
TOTAL
ASIAN
--------
PPLE
OF CLR
--------
ENGLS
--------
SPNSH
--------
VTNM
/CHNS
--------
Column n-Size 671 185 162 347 298 167 181 145 153 95 90 97 83 89 97 387 544 633 17 21 PARENTS 96 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 96 97 93 97 98 97 97 96 100 100 DADS 25 49 47 48 0 100 0 0 0 22 23 23 17 36 26 26 25 25 29 25 MOMS 27 51 53 52 0 0 100 0 0 38 30 16 36 22 21 24 25 27 38 19 MEN W/NO CHILDREN 22 0 0 0 49 0 0 100 0 20 13 33 15 23 28 25 23 21 5 39 WOMEN W/NO CHILDREN 23 0 0 0 51 0 0 0 100 19 30 25 26 16 23 22 23 23 29 18 EDUCATION BY GENDER 98 100 96 98 99 99 97 99 99 99 99 99 100 100 100 98 99 98 100 94 NON-COLLEGE MEN 23 20 22 21 25 43 0 51 0 22 29 12 22 17 37 22 23 23 22 28 NON-COLLEGE WOMEN 27 23 33 28 26 0 54 0 51 43 49 8 33 11 23 18 24 26 61 8 COLLEGE+ MEN 25 29 25 27 23 56 0 48 0 19 7 45 14 44 17 31 26 25 12 30 COLLEGE+ WOMEN 23 28 16 22 25 0 43 0 48 14 14 33 31 27 23 28 25 23 6 29 GENDER BY AGE 98 98 99 99 97 98 99 98 97 99 100 97 100 99 97 98 98 98 100 92 MEN 18-49 28 34 9 22 36 46 0 74 0 14 23 32 21 47 34 33 31 28 32 31 MEN 50+ 20 14 37 25 11 52 0 24 0 26 14 25 15 14 20 19 18 20 2 26 WOMEN 18-49 28 42 7 26 31 0 49 0 61 17 40 20 46 28 24 28 30 27 64 18 WOMEN 50+ 22 8 46 26 19 0 50 0 36 41 23 21 19 9 19 18 19 23 3 16 499

FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES
CITY OF MILPITAS 2022 COMMUNITY SURVEY - 320-991 (JANUARY 3-17, 2022) 315
Table 106: DEMOGRAPHIC COMBINATIONS
Total
--------

QE EDUCATION
---------------------------------------------------------------

EDUCATION BY GENDER
-----------------------------------------
Q22 INCOME
----------------------------------------------------

CONTACT METHOD
------------------------------
HS OR
LESS
--------
SOME
COLL
--------
COLL
GRAD
--------
POST-
GRAD
--------
NON-
COLL
--------
COLL+
--------
NCOLL
MEN
--------
NCOLL
WOMEN
--------
COLL+
MEN
--------
COLL+
WOMEN
--------
$0-
$60K
--------
$60K-
$90K
--------
$90K-
$120K
--------
$120K-
$150K
--------
$150K+
--------
PHONE
--------
EMAIL
--------
POST
CARD
--------
Column n-Size 671 140 192 201 123 332 324 154 178 169 155 66 124 152 69 155 337 259 75 PARENTS 96 97 96 97 98 96 97 95 98 97 98 96 100 99 100 97 99 94 89 DADS 25 23 21 23 39 22 29 47 0 55 0 12 17 30 30 36 21 27 32 MOMS 27 22 34 24 24 29 24 0 54 0 50 17 25 23 41 32 21 35 27 MEN W/NO CHILDREN 22 25 21 23 19 22 21 48 0 41 0 38 32 17 14 19 28 13 20 WOMEN W/NO CHILDREN 23 27 20 27 17 23 23 0 43 0 47 29 26 30 16 11 29 19 10 EDUCATION BY GENDER 98 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 99 91 99 98 99 93 NON-COLLEGE MEN 23 49 44 0 0 46 0 100 0 0 0 39 31 26 25 9 28 21 9 NON-COLLEGE WOMEN 27 51 56 0 0 54 0 0 100 0 0 29 21 36 31 18 29 27 16 COLLEGE+ MEN 25 0 0 48 59 0 52 0 0 100 0 15 18 21 18 47 22 24 44 COLLEGE+ WOMEN 23 0 0 52 41 0 48 0 0 0 100 17 30 17 17 26 19 27 25 GENDER BY AGE 98 98 99 98 99 99 98 99 98 98 98 99 98 99 99 99 97 99 99 MEN 18-49 28 29 25 27 36 27 31 57 0 59 0 37 32 23 19 36 36 13 42 MEN 50+ 20 20 19 20 22 19 21 42 0 40 0 16 16 24 24 19 13 31 12 WOMEN 18-49 28 24 29 31 26 27 29 0 51 0 61 23 32 28 30 26 29 27 26 WOMEN 50+ 22 25 26 20 14 26 18 0 47 0 37 23 18 24 25 17 19 28 20 Total
--------

QD GENDER
-------------------
QB AGE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

GENDER BY AGE
-----------------------------------------
MEN
--------
WOMEN
--------
18-29
--------
30-39
--------
40-49
--------
50-64
--------
65-74
--------
75+
--------
18-49
--------
50+
--------
65+
--------
MEN
18-49
--------
MEN
50+
--------
WOMEN
18-49
--------
WOMEN
50+
--------
Column n-Size 671 326 345 134 137 103 165 69 49 375 283 117 187 132 187 151 PARENTS 96 96 97 98 99 96 95 96 89 98 94 93 99 92 97 96 DADS 25 51 0 5 25 35 31 33 28 21 31 31 41 66 0 0
MOMS 27 0 52 11 26 37 30 33 35 24 32 34 0 0 47 59
MEN W/NO CHILDREN 22 44 0 43 26 14 13 16 6 29 12 11 57 26 0 0 WOMEN W/NO CHILDREN 23 0 44 39 23 10 22 14 21 25 20 17 0 0 50 37 EDUCATION BY GENDER 98 99 96 98 100 100 99 96 86 99 96 92 100 99 99 94 NON-COLLEGE MEN 23 47 0 33 19 17 21 23 27 24 23 24 47 49 0 0 NON-COLLEGE WOMEN 27 0 52 27 21 25 29 32 31 24 30 32 0 0 48 56 COLLEGE+ MEN 25 52 0 16 31 35 25 27 13 26 24 22 53 51 0 0 COLLEGE+ WOMEN 23 0 45 23 29 24 24 14 15 25 20 14 0 0 51 38 GENDER BY AGE 98 98 98 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 100 MEN 18-49 28 58 0 48 50 52 0 0 0 50 0 0 100 0 0 0
MEN 50+ 20 40 0 0 0 0 47 50 40 0 47 46 0 100 0 0
WOMEN 18-49 28 0 54 52 50 48 0 0 0 50 0 0 0 0 100 0
WOMEN 50+ 22 0 44 0 0 0 53 50 60 0 53 54 0 0 0 100
500

FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES
CITY OF MILPITAS 2022 COMMUNITY SURVEY - 320-991 (JANUARY 3-17, 2022) 1 Table 1: Q15 MILPITAS CITY BUDGET FUNDING PRIORITY MEAN SCORE SUMMARY TABLE Total
-------
QA ON

CELL PHONE
------------------

CONTACT
------------------
Q9 POLICE SATISFACTION
----------------------------------------
YES
-------
NO
-------
PHONE
-------
ONLNE
-------
RIGHT
DIREC
-------
WRNG
TRACK
-------
DK/NA
-------
VERY
SAT
-------
VERY
DSSAT
-------
TOTAL
SAT
-------
TOTAL
DSSAT
-------
MUCH
TOO
FAST
-------
TOO
FAST
-------
TOO
SLOW
-------
ABT
RIGHT
/DK
-------
TOTAL
YES
-------
NO
-------
VERY
SAT
-------
VERY
DSSAT
-------
TOTAL
SAT
-------
TOTAL
DSSAT
-------
Column n-Size 693 204 142 346 346 409 125 159 183 36 573 117 119 283 68 341 222 464 119 12 184 33 PUBLIC SAFETY 22.46 20.37 18.80 19.73 25.19 20.78 29.46 21.30 20.28 26.24 21.70 26.40 28.02 23.81 23.67 21.10 23.46 21.99 26.95 23.41 24.58 16.47 NEIGHBORHOODS/HOUSING 17.23 19.04 16.93 18.18 16.27 17.65 15.99 17.10 18.48 18.13 17.27 16.97 16.83 17.46 17.89 16.90 18.10 16.82 16.76 22.29 17.78 19.74 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 16.60 16.58 20.80 18.31 14.90 17.23 14.46 16.68 17.67 13.28 17.16 13.87 13.91 14.70 16.98 18.10 15.02 17.40 14.56 16.14 14.32 19.36 ENVIRONMENT 15.03 14.57 15.35 14.89 15.17 14.92 14.03 16.09 14.85 14.24 14.95 15.44 13.79 15.47 15.70 14.53 15.18 14.94 14.54 20.55 14.40 19.03 CMMNTY WELLNESS/OPEN SPACE 14.65 13.57 15.03 14.17 15.14 14.42 13.75 15.96 13.73 16.05 14.56 15.05 14.48 14.96 12.37 14.85 15.55 14.24 14.84 7.12 16.57 11.52 TRANSPORTATION/TRANSIT 14.03 15.87 13.08 14.73 13.33 15.00 12.32 12.86 14.98 12.06 14.36 12.27 12.99 13.60 13.38 14.51 12.70 14.62 12.35 10.49 12.35 13.88 Total
--------
Q12 CITY SERVICE SATISFACTION
-----------------------------------------
Q16 CONTACT

A/B SPLIT
-------------------
VERY
SAT
--------
VERY
DSSAT
--------
TOTAL
SAT
--------
TOTAL
DSSAT
--------
YES
--------
NO
--------
VERY
SAT
--------
NT AT
ALL
--------
TOTAL
SAT
--------
TOTAL
NOT
--------
<11
YEARS
--------
11-20
YEARS
--------
21-30
YEARS
--------
31-40
YEARS
--------
41+
YEARS
--------
OWN
--------
RENT
--------
A
--------
B
--------
Column n-Size 693 157 26 554 92 223 436 95 18 174 49 218 174 143 84 73 481 160 346 347 PUBLIC SAFETY 22.46 21.77 31.13 21.53 27.72 25.72 20.87 24.29 29.63 24.10 31.47 19.66 21.96 22.76 23.95 29.68 22.91 20.61 22.06 22.86 NEIGHBORHOODS/HOUSING 17.23 18.35 14.77 17.79 15.05 17.18 17.11 17.43 13.95 17.49 16.10 18.54 16.78 16.49 17.85 15.09 16.30 20.19 18.33 16.12 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 16.60 16.28 17.18 16.82 15.70 15.71 17.21 16.58 15.96 16.04 14.52 15.70 18.30 17.58 14.68 15.64 16.63 16.21 16.57 16.64 ENVIRONMENT 15.03 15.07 15.23 15.04 15.17 15.75 14.63 15.98 18.39 15.82 15.51 16.51 14.29 14.33 15.21 13.58 15.17 14.84 15.53 14.53 CMMNTY WELLNESS/OPEN SPACE 14.65 13.27 11.30 14.53 13.61 13.04 15.41 13.92 10.94 13.87 10.08 14.81 14.50 13.69 14.87 16.18 15.19 13.39 14.26 15.04 TRANSPORTATION/TRANSIT 14.03 15.27 10.40 14.29 12.75 12.60 14.78 11.82 11.13 12.68 12.32 14.78 14.17 15.15 13.44 9.84 13.80 14.76 13.25 14.81 Total
--------
Q20 CHILDREN
-----------------------------------------

PARENTS
-----------------------------------------

QC RACE/ETHNICITY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

LANGUAGE OF

INTERVIEW
------------------------------
YES/
<19
@ HME
--------
YES/
NT @
HOME
--------
HAVE
CHLDN
--------
NO
CHLDN
--------
DADS
--------
MOMS
--------
MEN
W/NO
CHLDN
--------
WOMEN
W/NO
CHLDN
--------
WHITE
--------
LATNO
--------
CHNSE
--------
FLPNO
--------
INDN
--------
VTNMS
--------
TOTAL
ASIAN
--------
PPLE
OF CLR
--------
ENGLS
--------
SPNSH
--------
VTNM
/CHNS
--------
Column n-Size 693 188 164 352 307 167 181 145 153 97 90 97 83 91 97 388 550 655 17 21 PUBLIC SAFETY 22.46 22.84 25.09 23.89 20.44 23.76 23.77 19.45 20.88 27.31 19.98 22.97 20.03 21.15 19.84 21.27 21.06 22.53 19.53 22.60 NEIGHBORHOODS/HOUSING 17.23 16.24 16.21 16.23 18.21 16.09 16.50 18.70 17.52 15.66 18.45 16.08 19.38 16.01 18.06 17.10 17.80 17.17 16.10 20.05 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 16.60 15.93 16.79 16.33 17.17 15.59 16.71 18.33 16.30 14.49 16.90 16.50 15.27 17.87 17.17 16.98 17.05 16.71 15.53 14.23 ENVIRONMENT 15.03 15.83 14.66 15.29 14.63 15.56 15.19 13.56 15.52 15.67 14.82 15.40 16.15 15.07 14.45 14.91 14.75 15.16 13.79 11.88 CMMNTY WELLNESS/OPEN SPACE 14.65 14.08 14.85 14.43 15.02 15.07 13.91 14.50 15.94 13.72 15.27 15.79 14.37 14.06 14.11 15.03 14.98 14.64 16.39 13.61 TRANSPORTATION/TRANSIT 14.03 15.08 12.41 13.83 14.53 13.94 13.93 15.47 13.83 13.15 14.59 13.25 14.79 15.83 16.37 14.71 14.37 13.79 18.66 17.63 501

FAIRBANK, MASLIN, MAULLIN, METZ & ASSOCIATES
CITY OF MILPITAS 2022 COMMUNITY SURVEY - 320-991 (JANUARY 3-17, 2022) 2 Table 1: Q15 MILPITAS CITY BUDGET FUNDING PRIORITY MEAN SCORE SUMMARY TABLE Total
--------

QE EDUCATION
---------------------------------------------------------------

EDUCATION BY GENDER
-----------------------------------------
Q22 INCOME
----------------------------------------------------

CONTACT METHOD
------------------------------
HS OR
LESS
--------
SOME
COLL
--------
COLL
GRAD
--------
POST-
GRAD
--------
NON-
COLL
--------
COLL+
--------
NCOLL
MEN
--------
NCOLL
WOMEN
--------
COLL+
MEN
--------
COLL+
WOMEN
--------
$0-
$60K
--------
$60K-
$90K
--------
$90K-
$120K
--------
$120K-
$150K
--------
$150K+
--------
PHONE
--------
EMAIL
--------
POST
CARD
--------
Column n-Size 693 147 194 201 125 341 326 154 178 169 155 70 125 153 70 155 346 266 81 PUBLIC SAFETY 22.46 21.45 22.02 21.11 25.00 21.77 22.60 21.21 21.75 22.85 22.41 22.28 17.98 20.88 21.13 25.83 19.73 25.09 25.52 NEIGHBORHOODS/HOUSING 17.23 18.62 17.71 17.24 15.04 18.10 16.40 18.90 17.22 15.66 17.18 17.65 17.65 18.48 16.95 15.54 18.18 16.54 15.41 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 16.60 16.29 15.58 17.36 17.26 15.88 17.32 15.77 16.17 17.99 16.58 18.96 18.14 16.96 16.89 15.09 18.31 14.61 15.85 ENVIRONMENT 15.03 15.99 15.35 15.11 13.86 15.63 14.63 15.11 15.96 14.03 15.27 14.81 15.23 15.16 16.69 14.35 14.89 15.07 15.49 CMMNTY WELLNESS/OPEN SPACE 14.65 13.61 14.76 15.43 14.17 14.27 14.95 15.13 13.91 14.33 15.62 13.41 15.80 13.66 16.04 14.55 14.17 15.30 14.61 TRANSPORTATION/TRANSIT 14.03 14.03 14.59 13.75 14.66 14.35 14.10 13.87 14.99 15.14 12.94 12.89 15.19 14.86 12.30 14.63 14.73 13.39 13.12 Total
--------

QD GENDER
-------------------
QB AGE
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

GENDER BY AGE
-----------------------------------------
MEN
--------
WOMEN
--------
18-29
--------
30-39
--------
40-49
--------
50-64
--------
65-74
--------
75+
--------
18-49
--------
50+
--------
65+
--------
MEN
18-49
--------
MEN
50+
--------
WOMEN
18-49
--------
WOMEN
50+
--------
Column n-Size 693 326 346 139 146 104 166 69 49 388 284 118 187 132 187 151 PUBLIC SAFETY 22.46 21.98 22.48 19.71 19.49 22.91 24.91 25.95 25.79 20.49 25.31 25.88 19.72 25.37 20.49 25.14 NEIGHBORHOODS/HOUSING 17.23 17.45 17.05 19.18 16.93 16.11 16.57 17.10 15.10 17.51 16.45 16.28 17.29 17.02 17.82 15.95 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 16.60 16.88 16.37 16.97 17.31 15.82 16.98 15.37 16.00 16.79 16.42 15.63 18.16 15.06 15.36 17.65 ENVIRONMENT 15.03 14.49 15.39 15.04 16.25 14.50 15.06 14.77 14.01 15.35 14.81 14.46 13.84 15.61 16.63 14.09 CMMNTY WELLNESS/OPEN SPACE 14.65 14.70 14.88 13.67 14.92 16.13 13.86 13.54 16.47 14.80 14.22 14.74 15.18 14.03 14.93 14.47 TRANSPORTATION/TRANSIT 14.03 14.49 13.83 15.43 15.10 14.52 12.62 13.27 12.63 15.06 12.78 13.01 15.81 12.91 14.77 12.69 502

CITY OF MILPITAS

AGENDA REPORT
(AR)

Item Title: Review Fiscal Year 2021-22 Mid-Year Report, Approve FY2021-22 Mid-year Budget Amendments, Adopt a Resolution Amending Resolution No. 1626, the Classification Plan, to Reclassify Positions, Approve and Adopt the Pay Schedule titled “New Job Classifications/Salary Table”, and Amend Budgeted Allocated Positions, and Approve and Authorize the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute a contract amendment with Bateman Community Living, LLC (dba TRIO COMMUNITY MEALS, LLC) FY21-22 for additional meals through the Senior Nutrition Program, not to exceed $124,000
Category: Leadership and Support Services

Meeting Date: 2/15/2022
Staff Contact: Lauren Lai, Finance Director, 408-586-3111 Recommendation: 1. Review the FY 20211-22 Mid-Year Report

2. Approve FY 2021-22 Mid-Year Budget Amendments

3. Adopt a Resolution Amending Resolution No. 1626,
the Classification Plan, to Reclassify Positions, Approve and Adopt the Pay Schedule titled “New Job Classifications/Salary Table”, and Amend Budgeted Allocated Positions

4. Approve and Authorize the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute a contract amendment with Bateman Community Living, LLC (dba TRIO COMMUNITY MEALS, LLC) FY21-22 for additional meals through the Senior Nutrition Program, not to exceed $124,000.

Background:

On June 1, 2021, the City Council approved the Fiscal Year (FY) 2021-22 Adopted Operating Budget in the amount of $195.2 million and the General Fund Budget in the amount of $110.8 million. After adoption of the budget, staff monitors revenues and expenditures for all funds with an emphasis on the General Fund and Enterprise Funds.

Per the California Code of Regulations § 570.5, any CalPERS agency such as the City is required to bring all pay schedules for its CalPERS benefited employees before the governing board for review and approval.

Analysis:

This staff report provides FY2021-22 mid-year budget adjustments and position change recommendations for Council consideration. The final section of this report discusses the recommendation to adopt salary tables for various employee classifications.

General Fund
On June 1, 2021, the City Council approved the Fiscal Year (FY) 2021-22 Adopted Operating General Fund Budget in the amount of $110.8 million. As of December 31, 2021, the City received $31.9 million in revenues and incurred $60.3 million in expenditures. Revenues and expenditures are seasonal with cash flow fluctuations due to timing of revenue receipts and City services rendered. As such, actual percentage of revenues may not match the lapsed time period.

503

Revenues
For the six months ending December 31, 2021, the General Fund has received $31.9 million. The proposed FY21-22 mid-year adjustments total $1.5 million, resulting in $112.8 million FY21-22 amended revenue budget.

 Sales & Use Tax (Increase $1,002,511): Personal and business sales transactions increased in 2021.

HdL provides sales tax audit and reporting to the City. For FY2021-22, HdL estimates City Sales & Use tax revenue at $25.7 million or approximately $1 million higher than the adopted budget.

 Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) (Decrease $243,522): Revenues are 67% higher than last year at the same time primarily due to easing of COVID-19 restrictions. However, the TOT had some flatting trends in fall 2021. Two new hotels are anticipated grand opening in the upcoming months and the Fy2021-22 TOT revenue is amended to reflect a mid-year opening.

 Licenses, Permits and Fees (Decrease $361,053): For FY2021-22, the proposed amendment decreases revenue by $0.4 million, resulting in estimated License, Permits & Fees of $9.9 million. The proposed amendments align the estimated budget with current trends, as follows:
o Building Plan Check - The proposed decrease is $0.9 million as the FY2021-22 adopted budget was overstated. The anticipated FY2021-22 revenue is $2 million which is the highest level since 2017.
o Building Miscellaneous Revenues – The proposed increase is $0.7 million and FY2021-22 revenue estimate is $1.4 million. Building Miscellaneous Fees is for the fees called miscellaneous fees on the City fee schedule. A large part of this is stand-alone electrical, mechanical, and plumbing permits.
o Various Fire Permits - The proposed decrease is $0.1 million, net and FY2021-22 revenue estimate is $2 million

 Charges for Services (Increase $459,099): For FY2021-22, the proposed amendment increases revenue by $0.4 million, resulting in estimated Charges for Services of $4.7 million. The proposed amendments align the estimated budget with current trends, as follows:
o Recreation Fees – The proposed decrease is $0.4 million and FY2021-22 revenue estimate is $0.9 million. COVID-19 continues to impact Recreation programs and recovery. 504

o Police Charges for Services – The proposed increase is $0.4 million as the FY2021-22 adopted budget was understated. The anticipated FY2021-22 revenue is $0.7 million and relates to the police services for Great Mall.
o Rents and Concession -- The proposed increase is $0.2 million and FY2021-22 revenue estimate is $0.5 million.
o Plan Check and Discretionary Reviews – The proposed increase is $0.2 million and FY2021-22 revenue estimate is $0.2 million.

 Franchise Fees (Decrease $452,477) : Garbage franchise – commercial and cable television franchises are both trending lower than the adopted budget. Cable subscriptions have decreased due to other entertainment platform not subject to franchise tax. For FY2021-22, the proposed amendment reduces the revenue by $0.5 million, resulting in estimated City franchise revenue of $5.3 million.

 Intergovernmental (Increase $1,038,907): For FY2021-22, the proposed amendment increases intergovernmental revenue by $1 million for the Fire strike team State reimbursement ($0.9M overtime and $0.1M for administrative services). This is offset by the correlating budget overtime amendment.

 Use of Money and Property (Decrease $200,000): Revenues are 71% lower than last year at the same time due to lower invested cash balance. Per Council direction, in June 2020, staff transferred $33.9 million of General Fund CalPERS reserve to establish the Section 115 Pension Trust, which is recorded in an Internal Service Fund. Chandler Asset manages the City funds and estimates FY2021-22 interest income of $0.3 million or $0,2 million less than the adopted budget. This aligns with the current trend and current investment environment.

 Operating Transfer-In (Increase $300,000): For FY2021-22, the proposed amended increases revenue by $0.3 million, resulting in estimated City $2.7 million. This aligns the CFD 2008 revenues and use of funds for General Fund services.

Expenditures

For the six months ending December 31, 2021, the General Fund incurred $60.3 million of expenditures and encumbrances. The proposed FY21-22 mid-year adjustments total $1.5 million, resulting in $112.3 million FY21-22 amended expenditure budget.

505

 Salaries (Increase $931,305): For FY2021-22, the proposed amendment increases salaries by $0.9 million due to the following:
o Fire reimbursable overtime for strike team amendment is $0.9 million increase. o Reclassifications of Junior Accountant is $11k amendment increase. Council previously approved the reclassification of the Accounting Technician II to Junior Accountant (resolution # 8881).
o Reclassification of vacant Junior Planner to Planning Technician is $9k amendment decrease. o Vacancy saving is estimated at $2.2 million (or 2.4% of staffing costs) in the adopted budget.

This proposed amendment allocates the savings amongst the departments accordingly.  Services & Supplies (Increase $612,130: For FY2021-22, the proposed amendment increases services & supplies by $0.6 million due to the following:
o Fire recruitment costs amendment is $147,000 amendment increase. o Utilities (gas and water) cost higher and CIP energy projects delayed, combined the amendment is $275,000, net increase.
o General liability and worker’s compensation insurance combined premium amendment is $127k. o Recreation senior nutrition program costs increased due to higher participation and higher costs. The proposed increase amendment is $47,000. The program experienced an exponential increase in participation from an average of 80 meals per day, pre-pandemic, to a new consistent daily average of 126 meals per day. In response to the continuing need, an additional $25,000 of ARPA funding was approved by City Council to assist with funding the program for the remainder of FY2021-22. Staff has continued to monitor the daily average of meals served to determine adequate funding and contract allotment. A contract amendment for the meal provider is needed in the amount of $46,900 to fund services through the end of the fiscal year.

Other Funds
 Enterprise funds (#400, 450, 295 and 500) - The proposed amendment is to increase appropriation $33,573 for General Liability insurance premium, net amongst these funds.  Solid Waste Services Fund 280 - The proposed amendment is to increase revenues (MSI deposit) and appropriation by $250,000 for the Milpitas Sanitation request for assignment of contract project.  Sewer Waste Water Operations Fund 450 - The proposed amendment is to increase appropriation $484,000 for Common Interest Group legal services associated with the SJ/SC Regional Waste Water Facility.
 Affordable Housing Community Benefit Fund 216 – The proposed amendment is to increase appropriation $123,000 related to the Turing Apartment CSCDA Project.  ARPA Fund 180 –
o Approve the Senior Buyer classification, which has appropriations previously approved in the ARPA administrative project.
o Add four (4) fire fighters FTEs to position control, which were previously defunded due to COVID budget impacts and later funded via ARPA and summarized in the Informational Memo dated October 15, 2021. This has appropriation previously approved in the ARPA Public Safety project.
o Restore Program Coordinator funded via ARPA, which has appropriations previously approved in the ARPA Community Events project.
 Fire Pumper – The proposed amendment is to increase revenue by $170,000 and appropriation by $70,000 to recognize revenue for reimbursable Fire strike team engine costs and appropriate funding for the Fire pumper purchased via ARPA funding.
 Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
o CIP Project CP6118 – SJ/SC Regional Waste Water Facility (Sewer Infrastructure Fund 455)– The proposed amendment is to increase appropriation $4.2 million to reflect the final FY2021- 2022 contribution funded from the Sewer Infrastructure Fund for $4,200,000. As part of the budget setting process for Regional Wastewater Facility, the City of San Jose provides all tributary agencies with a notice of their respective preliminary operations & maintenance (“O&M”) and capital contributions for the upcoming fiscal year in March, and the final O&M and 506

capital contributions are approved by the Treatment Plant Advisory Committee (TPAC) in May of each year. As with past practice, CP 6118 was updated with the preliminary contribution amounts as noted by San Jose in March 2021 to align with the City’s timeline for approving the CIP budget. The contribution amounts provided by San Jose in March and in May typically do not vary significantly; however, for FY 2021-2022, the contribution amount did vary significantly to reflect the City’s portion of the Dewatering Facility project that will be discussed at Treatment Plant Advisory Committee (“TPAC”) at its February 10, 2022 meeting. There were no other project-related changes/additions between the preliminary and final Proposed 2022-2026 Regional Wastewater Facility (“RWF”) CIP budget.
o CIP Project CP3402 - McCarthy Blvd. LLMD Improvement 95-1 – The proposed amendment defunds $85,000 for the project due to insufficient reserve in LMD-95 Fund 235. o CIP Project CP3719 - On-Call Storm Maintenance & Repair Services – The proposed amendment updates the funding source from Storm Drain Development CIP Fund 340 to General Government CIP fund #330.

Position-related Amendment Recommendations
To improve service delivery and align the position complement to current service demands, Staff is proposing position recommendations in fire, building safety & housing, recreation, finance and housing. The recommendations include: four (4) position reclassifications, two (2) position addition/deletion and restoring five (5) positions. The fiscal impacts are summarized below and where possible absorbed within the existing FY2021-22 budget. These actions were previously approved by the City Council and/or through delegation to the City Manager. Staff request Council’s approval to update the classification plans and/or pay schedules accordingly.

1. Four (4) Position Reclassifications
a. Finance Department – Reclass Accountant Technician II to Junior Accountant to align position to Department’ operational needs. The fiscal impact is approximately $11,500 to the General Fund. Council previously approved the Junior Accountant in resolution #8881 (FY2019-20 budget) and Staff request approval of the proposed pay range of $83,473.37 - $101,462.40. b. Finance Department – Reclass Buyer to Senior Buyer for a limited term to support complex Federal procurement requirement for Federal Grants including American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA). Staff request approval of the proposed pay range $103,512.46- $126,023.04. Both the job description and proposed salary are currently under review with labor. c. Planning Department – Reclass the underfilled Junior Planner to Planning Technician and the fiscal impact is approximately $9,000 reduction to the General Fund. Staff request approval of the proposed pay range of $76,739.00 - $93,280.20.
d. Fire – Reclass a currently filled Administrative Analyst II to Senior Administrative Analyst based upon a classification study.

2. Two (2) Position Additions & Deletions
a. Building Safety & Housing Department – Add Senior Administrative Analyst and delete Housing Manager
b. Recreation & Cultural Services – Add Program Coordinator and delete Marketing Coordinator

3. Five (5) Restored Positions
a. Fire Department – Restore four (4) fire fighters that were defunded in FY2021-22. These positions are funded via ARPA in the first year, and provide the new ambulance services. b. Recreation & Community Services – Restore Program Coordinator funded via ARPA in the first year.

Policy Alternative:

Alternative 1: Do not approve FY 2021-22 Mid-Year Budget Amendment Recommendations

Pros: Not approving certain budget amendment recommendations will result in not aligning the budget with actual trends and make it more difficult to manage the budget and address urgent service demands.

507

Cons: The recommended budget amendment recommendations include urgent funding recommendations and adjustments to revenue estimates, positions and pay schedules.

Reason not recommended: Not approving the FY 2021-22 Mid-Year budget amendment recommendations will result in not funding certain programs, adjust revenue estimates to year-to-date revenue proceeds received, and adjust positions and/or pay schedules.

Fiscal Impact:

In summary, if Council approves the recommendations in this section, the General Fund revenues and appropriations would increase by $1,543,435, respectively. General Fund reserves and fund balances would remain unchanged by the proposed amendments.

California Environmental Quality Act:

The action being considered is exempt from environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15378(b)(4) as a governmental fiscal activity without a commitment to any project that would result in a potentially significant impact on the environment. Further, it is also exempt pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15378(b)(2) as a continuing administrative activity including the purchases of supplies and personnel-related actions, etc.

Recommendation:

1. Review the FY 20211-22 Mid-Year Report

2. Approve FY 2021-22 Mid-Year Budget Amendments

3. Adopt a Resolution Amending Resolution No. 1626, the Classification Plan, to Reclassify Positions, Approve and Adopt the Pay Schedule titled “New Job Classifications/Salary Table”, and Amend Budgeted Allocated Positions

Attachments:

1. FY 2021-22 Mid-Year Budget Adjustment Recommendations

2. Exhibit A – New Job Classifications/Salary Table

3. Resolution

508
509
510
(EXHIBIT A)

NEW JOB CLASSIFICATION/SALARY TABLE
Classification Union CodeHourly BiweeklyAnnual Hourly BiweeklyAnnual Hourly BiweeklyAnnual Hourly BiweeklyAnnual Hourly BiweeklyAnnual Planning Technician 50 36.89$ 2,951.50$ 76,739.00$ 38.74$ 3,099.19$ 80,578.94$ 40.68$ 3,254.15$ 84,607.89$ 42.71$ 3,416.86$ 88,838.29$ 44.85$ 3,587.70$ 93,280.20$ Junior Accountant 50 40.13$ 3,210.51$ 83,473.37$ 42.14$ 3,371.04$ 87,647.04$ 44.24$ 3,539.59$ 92,029.39$ 46.46$ 3,716.57$ 96,630.86$ 48.78$ 3,902.40$ 101,462.40$ Senior Buyer 80 49.77$ 3,981.25$ 103,512.46$ 60.59$ 4,847.04$ 126,023.04$ Step A Step B Step C Step D Step E
511
RESOLUTION NO.

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MILPITAS AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 1626, THE CLASSIFICATION PLAN, TO RECLASSIFY POSITIONS, APPROVE AND ADOPT THE PAY SCHEDULE TITLED “NEW JOB CLASSIFICATIONS/SALARY TABLE,” AND AMEND BUDGETED, ALLOCATED

POSITIONS

WHEREAS, the City of Milpitas has a Classification Plan adopted as Resolution No. 1626 on December 17, 1968, which has been amended from time to time, and which is in accordance with the Personnel Rules and Regulations of the City of Milpitas (Resolution No. 792 as amended); and

WHEREAS, amendments to the Classification Plan are necessary to account for changes within the organization, transfer of duties, new job responsibilities, and adjustments to salary ranges; and

WHEREAS, the annual mid-year budget process necessitates changes in classification titles, salary ranges, and budgeted classification authorizations; and

WHEREAS, the City is required to publish publicly available approved and adopted pay schedule(s) for all positions within the Classification Plan pursuant to the California Code of Regulations, 2 CCR §570.5.

NOW THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Milpitas hereby finds, determines, and resolves as follows:

1. The City Council has considered the full record before it, which may include but is not limited to such things as the staff report, testimony by staff and the public, and other materials and evidence submitted or provided to it. Furthermore, the recitals set forth above are found to be true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference.

2. Resolution No. 1626, as amended, is hereby further amended effective February 15, 2022, as set forth below.

A. RECLASSIFY THE FOLLOWING POSITIONS:

Reclassify Accounting Technician I/II to Junior Accountant $83,473.37 - $101,462.40)
Reclassify Junior Planner to Planning Technician ($76,739 - $93,280.20) Reclassify Buyer to Senior Buyer (Limited Term) ($103,512.46 - $126,023.04) Reclassify Administrative Analyst II to Senior Administrative Analyst ($107,715.70 - $ 141,792)

B. APPROVE AND ADOPT THE PAY SCHEDULE “NEW JOB
CLASSIFICATIONS/SALARY TABLE EFFECTIVE FEBRUARY 15,
2022”:

A pay schedule, that includes but is not limited to Classification (Position), Title, Payrate; Hourly, Bi-Weekly, Monthly and Annual Wage, is attached hereto as Exhibit A (“New Job Classifications/Salary Table effective 02-15-2022”).

512
C. AMEND THE FOLLOWING BUDGETED ALLOCATED POSITIONS:

Delete one (1) FTE Housing Manager and authorize one (1) FTE Senior Administrative Analyst in the Building Safety and Housing Department.

Delete one (1) FTE Marketing Coordinator and authorize one (1) FTE Program Coordinator in the Recreation and Community Services Department.

Restore four (4) FTE Firefighter positions in the Fire Department.

Restore one (1) FTE Program Coordinator in the Recreation & Community Services Department.

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

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

ATTEST: APPROVED:

Wendy Wood, City Clerk Rich Tran, Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Christopher J. Diaz, City Attorney
513

CITY OF MILPITAS

AGENDA REPORT
(AR)

Item Title: Provide Direction on American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Funding for Council Priority Items and Modifications to the ARPA Investment Plan and Provide Input on Proposed Process for Future Changes to the ARPA Investment Plan Category: Leadership and Support Services

Meeting Date: 2/15/2022
Staff Contact: Ashwini Kantak, Assistant City Manager, 408-586-3053 Lauren Lai, Director of Finance, 408-586-3111

Recommendations: 1. Consider Council priority items for American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding and provide direction to staff on any required modifications to the ARPA Investment Plan to allow for the additional allocation

2. Review and provide input to staff on proposed process for future changes to the ARPA Investment Plan

Background:

In March 2020, due to the rampant spread of the Coronavirus (Pandemic), a state of emergency was declared at the local, state, and federal levels and stay-at-home orders issued, which had an enormous impact on the local, state and national economy as well as the City’s finances.

On March 11, 2021, President Biden signed into law the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA), a $1.9 trillion stimulus package, to counteract the economic impacts of the pandemic. The City’s ARPA allocation of $16,736,815 is available in two tranches; the first half was received in June 2021, and the second half will be provided in June 2022. Funds need to be either expended or encumbered by December 31, 2024, with all funds to be expended by December 31, 2026.

On May 11 (link to staff report), staff presented preliminary information on ARPA’s Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funding. Staff also provided information on other funding through ARPA that could benefit the Milpitas community since the Coronavirus Local Fiscal Recovery Funding (CLFRF) is only a portion of the total ARPA funding. Staff received Council input on ARPA Plan spending priorities in May and June (June 8 Council Meeting agenda report). A majority of the spending priorities were related to financial assistance and social services to those impacted by the pandemic, economic vitality, infrastructure, public safety, and technology.

On June 21 (link to the agenda report), Council approved the ARPA Investment Framework including the Fiscal Guidelines and Five Investment Areas. Fiscal Guidelines include the following:

1. Identify and promote other ARPA or State funding sources to the extent possible before dedicating local ARPA funds.

2. Use one-time ARPA funds for one-time expenditures such as investment in infrastructure or technology with minimum ongoing operating costs.

3. Avoid ongoing General Fund commitments with additional programs and positions.

4. Avoid creating a structural budget deficit if restoring any reduced services.

5. Leverage regional agencies, non-profit partners, and existing programs to maximize efficiency in delivering programs and services.
514

On August 9 (link to the agenda report), Council approved funding for 25 programs in the ARPA Investment Plan and delegated authority to the City Manager to proceed with appropriation actions and contract approvals, up to the approved amount for each program approved by Council, once compliance with ARPA procurement, contracting, and reporting requirements are confirmed. This will allow the funding to go to residents and businesses significantly impacted by the pandemic, in an efficient and expeditious manner.

Funding for the Five Investment areas of Community Services, Economic Vitality, Infrastructure, Public Safety, and Technology is as follows:

On January 11, 2022 (link to the agenda report), Council approved program funding re-allocations to enhance service delivery and/or streamline implementation, especially procurement.

Based on Council feedback at the January 25, 2022, Budget Study Session and as a part of the Fiscal Year 2022-23 budget development, Staff is requesting the Council consideration of priority items for potential ARPA funding and direction to staff on any required modifications to the ARPA Investment Plan to allow for the additional allocation.

Analysis:

As part of the budget development process, Staff strategically evaluates priorities and funding options. In this process, Staff is exploring the option of ARPA funding for various City services that may align with the Council’s Five ARPA Investment Areas. Staff is requesting Council consider these priority items for ARPA funding and provide direction to any modifications, if any, to the ARPA Investment Plan.

515

Business Improvement District ($75,000)

ARPA funding could be used for the business improvement district (BID) feasibility analysis and technical support for property owners and business owners on Main Street to assist with the formation of a BID and an engineer's report. A feasibility and analysis study will cost approximately $75,000 in one-time funding.

A business improvement district (BID) is a geographic area in which businesses opt to pay a self-assessed levy to fund projects and services within the district's boundaries. The services provided by BIDs are supplemental to those already provided by the City of Milpitas. In alignment with Strategy 31 of the Economic Development Strategy (EDS) to position Main Street (Midtown) as a community destination for local, independent retail and restaurants, the Office of Economic Development is proposing that a consultant conduct a feasibility analysis for the creation of either a property-based BID or a business-based BID for a portion of downtown on North and South Main Street.

Specifically, the BID is aligned with EDS Implementation Actions 31.3: Provide technical support for property/business owners on Main Street to explore forming a BID; funding services for BID formation consultant, and Action 31.6: Work with businesses to explore/implement rebranding of Main Street; possible funding from a new area BID. In addition, the formation of a BID would support the vision of Main Street as will be articulated in the ongoing Milpitas Gateway - Main Street Specific Plan update, for which its purpose is described in the General Plan 2040 as "to create an economically-viable main street type development that serves as a cultural hub of the city." Furthermore, the section Fiscal Sustainability under the Economic Development Element of the General Plan specifies Action ED-2c to "evaluate the feasibility of creating business improvement districts...to fund improvements and maintenance that support economic development."

As part of COVID-19 economic recovery, the City Council has been particularly focused on Main Street Revitalization efforts including the Pilot Storefront Improvement Grant Program, for both of which a BID would serve as a positive catalyst. BIDs are employed as an economic development tool to fund services such as cleaning streets, providing security, making capital improvements, construction of pedestrian and streetscape enhancements, various public infrastructure improvements, restoring and re-establishing historic districts, and marketing the area.

The formation of a BID is also aligned with Council Priority Area Economic Development and Job Growth (as listed in FY22 Adopted Budget and Financial Plan); and at the October 5, 2021, City Council meeting, Council recommended that the BID topic be sent to the Economic Development and Trade Commission, which will consider this matter on February 14, 2022. Staff is requesting Council consideration of a potential allocation of $75,000 of ARPA funding to the BID feasibility and analysis.

Unhoused Services ($100,000)

ARPA funding could be used to continue the current services with Santa Clara County Office of Supportive Housing and the County’s Homeless Engagement and Access Team (HEAT). The County and City collaborate to engage and provide resources to the City’s unhoused residents. Since the HEAT program began in March 2021, a total of 116 clients have enrolled and 119 clients have been assessed. Since the HEAT Team has been conducting proactive outreach throughout Milpitas, they have been able to locate and connect with unhoused residents both at known and new locations. The funding for this initial year of services will be expended by the end of this fiscal year. Given the major assessment and enrollment effort completed in the first year of services, staff anticipates requiring reduced funding for ongoing services. Staff is requesting Council consideration of a potential allocation of up to $100,000 of ARPA funding to continue the services with the County.

Milpitas Sustainable Neighbor Education Program ($60,000) Per Councilmember Chua’s request at the January 11 Council meeting, $60,000 of ARPA funding could be allocated to fund a Sustainable Neighbor Education Program. The purpose of this program is to support Milpitas in achieving its CAP (Climate Action Plan) goals by demonstrating how the community can utilize the 516

many city-promoted and city-supported sustainability and resiliency programs to reduce GHG emissions; developing and instilling long term skills and behaviors that can be shared with neighbors, family, friends and future generations to continue a low environmental impact community; promoting “how-to” steps that work; and proving Milpitas' resilience to global trends, like climate change and pandemics.

The funding would be used to recruit up to 8 - 10 Milpitas volunteers (from different housing types) that will receive specific training and technical assistance to identify and implement a person sustainability plan that can serve as a road map for various home improvements and behavioral changes that will reduce GHG emissions and resource impact. The program will provide training and support (coaching, technical assistance, and connecting to financial incentives such as rebates from SVCE or Energy Upgrade California program) over the course of participation; develop documentation (written, audio and video) of the challenges faced by each participant, coaching provided, attempts made, and failures and successes encountered. The program willhighlight learnings; publish and highlight key changes that contribute to significantly lowering a resident’s GHG emissions and environmental impact through home electrification (building, appliances, products, services and behavior) and other indoor and outdoor water efficiency retrofits and encourage other Milpitas residents to learn from their neighbors and implement their own actions at home. City will also seek funding from Silicon Valley Clean Energy to augment/enhance this budget.

Estimated costs of the program:

Fellow or intern to develop and administer program $25,000 Grant/incentive for each volunteer participant of up to $2,000 each
$20,000
Outreach and education materials include video showcases that will serve as models to encourage other residents to make similar electrification/sustainability retrofits.
$15,000
Total $60,000

Parks ($350,000)
While the current ARPA Investment Plan allocates a signification amount of $4.4 million (or 26%) of the total $16.7 million Milpitas ARPA funding, there has been Council discussion of funding an additional $350,000 to complete short-time improvements for the remaining six parks that were determined to be in poor condition.

ARPA could be a funding source, albeit it may be difficult to re-allocate up to $350,000 from the existing Five Investment Areas. An additional consideration is staff capacity to deliver these projects within the required timeline.

Potential Re-allocation From Milpitas ARPA Programs

Since the City received its first tranche of ARPA funding in June 2021, more information, opportunities, and priorities present themselves which weren’t known when the 25 ARPA funded programs were authorized.

Accordingly, Council may want to consider re-allocation from some programs such as Main Street Revitalization, Chamber of Commerce and Community Events.

Main St. Revitalization -- Since spring 2020, the Pilot Storefront Improvement Grant Program (See Attachment 1 for additional information) has been underway. This $50,000 program is funded by the Community Benefit Fund. The Pilot Program’s purpose is to improve the appearance of commercial storefronts to encourage economic vitality, enhance business marketability, increase property values, and attract residents, visitors, and new businesses to the enhanced business district. The Pilot Program is designed to benefit businesses located on Main Street and be a catalyst for future investment in the downtown and Main Street Revitalization. While there have been applicants and some interest in the Pilot Program, based upon the information to date, it appears the current ARPA allocation of $400,000 to Main St. Revitalization may not be expediently deployed as intended. Council may want to consider reducing this amount to $300,000 and reallocating $70,000 to the BID study and the remaining $30,000 to other Main Street Revitalization efforts. This will allow for longer term 517

enhancements and services on Main Street, contingent on the businesses agreeing to form a BID, and will play an important role in the revitalization of Main Street through infrastructure improvements, landscaping, branding and economic vitality elements.

Chamber of Commerce – The Council approved a $200,000 ARPA financial contribution to the Milpitas Chamber of Commerce (Chamber) to support the business community. Based on City Council interest and the Chamber’s available resources, the Chamber proposed using the funding for a Job Fair in September 2021, Crab Feed in March 2022, an Art and Wine Festival in May 2022, and quarterly Business Workshops. Funding was also anticipated to be used for an event consultant.

Due to the pandemic’s public health and safety concerns, availability of financial and human resources, and interest by the business community, the Chamber is experiencing challenges in scheduling and implementation of previously proposed events and programs. Event and program dates continue to be in flux.

ARPA is governed by federal rules and has rigorous reporting and compliance requirements. The ARPA Investment Plan envisioned the Chamber as a beneficiary. Unlike sub-recipients, beneficiaries do not require a competitive procurement process and the reporting requirements are less rigorous. As stated above, the Council was interested in having the Chamber use the money towards specific events and activities. Given the funding amount of $200,000 and the potential appearance of the Chamber delivering services on behalf of the City, the Chamber could be classified as a sub-recipient. This would require a competitive solicitation (with no guarantee of the Chamber receiving the funding), specific commitments on deliverables and rigorous reporting requirements.

Given the possibility that the City may be required to classify the scope of work as attributable to a sub- recipient, it could trigger a competitive procurement. Even if the Chamber is the successful sub-recipient, it could result in challenges around reporting given the uncertainty around the specific programs and events. In light of this information, Council may want to consider reducing the amount of funding and allowing for more flexibility in what the funding could be used for. This would support the Chamber being classified as a beneficiary.

Community Events – Council approved $200,000 in ARPA funding for Community Events to support business revitalization. Funding would provide enhancements to the July 4th 2022 celebrations with the addition of a Ferris Wheel and a parade, four pop-up events related to agriculture, art walks, and camping in the park, cultural events reflective of our community such as Holi, Hoi An (Vietnamese Lantern Festival), and Día de los Muertos (Day of the Dead). $70,000 of this funding is already committed for the first year, leaving $62,000 of uncommitted funds for year 1. For all three program years, there is a total of $130,000 of uncommitted funds.

An example of an event that could be considered for funding in lieu of other community events is a 3-Day Roller Skating Summer Event, estimated at $105,000 and recently approved by Council as a priority item.

Uncommitted estimated costs of ARPA Community Events are:
4th of July Enhancements Ferris Wheel (3-year funding), Parade (1-year funding)

$75,000
Earth Day/Agriculture (3-year funding) $7,500
Art Walk/Project Event (2-year funding) $5,000
Camping in the Park (3-year funding) $10,500
Holi Event (2-year funding) $6,000
Lantern Festival (2-year funding) $8,000
Day of the Dead (2-year funding) $6,000
Marketing & Outreach (3-year funding) $12,000
Total $130,000

518

TABLE 1: SUMMARY OF ARPA INVESTMENT PLAN – as of January 11, 2022 (For Reference)

No. Program/Activity Proposed
Funding
FY 21-22
Funding
Estimated
Time
Community Services

1. Rent relief and mortgage assistance to low and
moderate income residents – related to pandemic
$1,200,000 $600,000 2 years

2. Social services – mental health services, services for domestic violence and abuse victims and LGBTQ
plus community, senior nutrition program
$500,000 $125,000 3 years

3. Financial assistance to low and moderate income
residents for utility payments, recreation classes, and digital access
$400,000 $100,000 3 years
4a. Beautify Milpitas program $100,000 $25,000 4 years
4b. Weed Abatement $90,000 $90,000 1 year

5. Pilot curbside trash pickup program $85,000 $85,000 3 months Subtotal $2,375,000 $1,025,000

Economic Vitality

6. Small business assistance – related to pandemic $1,500,000 $1,500,000 1 year

7. Assistance to hotels $200,000 $200,000 1 year

8. Accessory Dwelling Unit program $1,290,000 $500,000 3 years

9. Main Street Revitalization $500,000 $250,000 2 years

10. Community events $200,000 $100,000 2 years

11. Financial assistance to the Chamber of Commerce $200,000 $100,000 2 years

12. Workforce development $300,000 $150,000 2 years

13. Limited term Economic Development Specialist
position
$330,000 $165,000 2 years
Subtotal $4,520,000 $2,965,000

Infrastructure

14. Parks Rehabilitation $4,386,815 $2,000,000 4 years

15. Public Safety Facilities’ Rehabilitation $250,000 - 1 year (FY 22-23)

16. Mobile Emergency Operations Center (in lieu of
COVID Safe Facilities Improvements)
$375,000 $375,000 1 year
Subtotal $5,011,815 $2,375,000

Public Safety

17. Public Safety staffing (funding for 2 Police and 4 Fire positions for one year)
$1,200,000 $800,000 2 years

18. Fire Vehicles (fire pumper) $920,000 $920,000 1 year

19. Implementation of High Priority Emergency
Management Program Assessment Study
$200,000 $100,000 2 years

20. Virtual Reality Simulator Training Equipment $50,000 $50,000 1 year Subtotal $2,370,000 $1,870,000

Technology

21. Human Resources Information System $1,100,000 $100,000 TBD

22. Financial Management System $100,000 $100,000 1 year

23. Cybersecurity programs and training $300,000 $100,000 4 years

24. Technology infrastructure $610,000 $320,000 4 years Subtotal $2,110,000 $620,000
Recommendations for Unassigned Allocation

25. ARPA Funds Administration $350,000 $100,000 4 years Subtotal $350,000 $100,000

Grand Total $16,736,815 $8,955,000
519

Proposed process for future changes to the ARPA Investment Plan While on August 9, Council approved funding for 25 programs in the ARPA Investment Plan and delegated authority to the City Manager to proceed with appropriation actions and contract approvals, up to the approved amount for each program approved by Council, Staff recommends an annual review of the ARPA funding allocation as a part of the annual budget development. The fiscal year 2022-23 budget development is currently underway, and Staff is requesting Council consideration of these and other priorities which may warrant ARPA funding re-allocation. This is the proposed process for ARPA funding, which would align with the citywide budget development and also maximizes efficacy of budget management and service delivery.

Policy Alternative:

Alternative 1: Do not approved the proposed process for future changes to the ARPA Investment Plan.

Pros: Provides additional flexibility to change the ARPA Investment Plan.

Cons: As ARPA funds are expended for the various programs and projects, it will not be efficient or at times even feasible to continue to re-allocate funding.

Reason for not Recommending: Considering any re-allocation of ARPA funding through the budget process will allow Council to consider the funding in the context of all priorities. This process will also allow for more efficient use of staff time.

Fiscal Impact:

The ARPA allocation to the City is in the amount of $16,736,815. Re-allocation of funding does not impact the total ARPA revenue and/or appropriation.

California Environmental Quality Act:

This item is not a Project under CEQA in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) as it can be seen with certainty that a general discussion of funding priorities by the City Council will not have a significant effect on the environment. Further, the item is also not a Project pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378(b)(2) as an administrative activity which is defined in the CEQA Guidelines to include the purchase of supplies and personnel related actions. It is further exempt under CEQA Guideline 15378(b)(4) as it is a government fiscal activity that does not involve a commitment to any specific project which may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment. Although the use of funding will be discussed for various potential projects, future environmental analysis will be conducted for the various potential projects prior to the City making any commitment or approval of any project, or it is covered by the CEQA Guideline 15061(b)(3) and/or 15378(b)(2).

Recommendations:

1. Consider Council priority items for American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding and provide direction to staff on any required modifications to the ARPA Investment Plan to allow for the additional allocation

2. Review and provide input to staff on proposed process for future changes to the ARPA Investment Plan

Attachments
Attachment 1 – Storefront Grant Program
520
Attachment 1 - Storefront Improvement Grant Program

In Spring 2020, the Office of Economic Development launched the Pilot Storefront Improvement Grant Program with $50,000 from the Community Benefit Fund. The Pilot Program’s purpose is to improve the appearance of commercial storefronts to encourage economic vitality, enhance business marketability, increase property values, and attract residents, visitors, and new businesses to the enhanced business district. The Pilot Program is designed to benefit businesses located on Main Street and be a catalyst for future investment in the downtown and Main Street Revitalization. Eligible improvements include, but are not limited to paint, lighting, signage, awnings, windows, outdoor seating/dining, landscaping, benches, and historic architectural features.

Staff has entered into a contract with Architectural firm William Maston and Associates to assist applicants with design services. Staff has marketed one grant at $15,000 including design services, and a second grant at $20,000 grant, which does not include design services but instead allows the applicant to utilize $5,000 for an Architect of their choosing for the required permit and design plan set.

Due to the limited nature of the Pilot Program, staff targeted smaller buildings with one to three businesses located along Main Street. Outreach was conducted to businesses and property owners including Neeka Corporation, Tequila Shots, Red Chillies, The Best Sandwiches, and Reiki Energy Healing/Black Cat Comics.

The property owner of 167 and 187 South Main Street, where Red Chillies and The Best Sandwiches reside, submitted the Pilot Program’s first application in August 2021. There is a current proposal to design and build a shared outdoor dining area between the two restaurants to create a festive and safe destination to dine outdoors during the pandemic and beyond. The applicant will receive up to $15,000 in grant funding and design services from the Architect retained by the City and will be required to pay for up to 25% of the overall improvement costs.

The architectural team will provide design sketches, as-builts, and guide the applicant through the City’s permitting process. Staff has met several times with the business and property owners, Architect, and other City staff from Planning, Building Safety, and Fire Departments to analyze the site and work through any anticipated issues. Preliminary drawings have been prepared and staff is currently collaborating on solutions for meeting minimum parking and accessibility requirements.

While staff received one grant application in 2021, other property and business owners expressed interest in the Pilot Program, but shared concerns related to the pandemic, future tax increases due to improved properties, and inability to get property owners’ consent for improvements.

To start marketing the second Pilot Program grant project without design services, as well as garner interest in the future ARPA funded Storefront Improvement Grant Program, staff conducted in-person outreach to approximately a dozen property and business owners along Main Street on January 28, 2022. As a result of the recent outreach, staff has received interest from five additional property and business owners to participate in the grant program. They include Seema Beauty Salon, Bombay Chaat House, Gurus of Dance, NPS Medical Clinic and 521
Olinger’s Real Estate. Each interested party has received a flyer, Program Guidelines and Application. On February 8, 2022, staff received an application from Seema Beauty Salon, a property and business owner. Based on the recent strong interest, staff anticipates receiving several completed applications soon.

To continue spurring Main Street revitalization through ARPA investment, staff recommends the following Storefront Improvement Grant Program structure:

Level 1 Grants: Up to $15,000 for the following improvements: paint, landscaping, and signage.

Level 2 Grants: Up to $25,000 for the following improvements: lighting, awnings, outdoor seating and dining, benches, windows, historic architectural features, and more.

In addition to the grant amount, grantees will receive design services from an architectural firm obtained via a Request for Proposals (RFP) at a contract amount of not to exceed $75,000. The design services will consist of conceptual drawings and guiding applicants through the City's permitting process. Taking into consideration number of potential applicants, staff capacity, and the ability to complete the projects within the deadlines required by ARPA, staff is recommending that the ARPA funded grant program could include five Level 1 Grants of up to $15,000 each, six Level 2 Grants of up to $25,000 each and design services for a total grant program amount of $300,000.

The completion of these projects will help create placemaking and the pedestrian-scale appeal that is desired along Main Street. Presently, staff continues to implement the Pilot Storefront Improvement Grant Program and will apply any lessons learned and necessary changes to the ARPA-funded Storefront Improvement Grant Program to best set up business and property owners for success.

522

CITY OF MILPITAS

AGENDA REPORT
(AR)

Item Title: Consider resolution to adopt Draft Goals and Performance Measures to provide a framework for evaluating potential City participation in middle-income workforce housing projects; and consider proposal to convert the Turing Apartments to low, median, and moderate income-housing with housing bonds from the California Statewide Communities Development Authority Community Improvement Authority (Authority).

Category: Community Development

Meeting Date: 2/15/2022
Staff Contact: Ashwini Kantak, Assistant City Manager, 408-586-3053 Recommendations: 1. Consider resolution to adopt Draft Goals and Performance Measures to provide a framework for evaluating potential City participation in middle- income workforce housing projects, with revisions as directed by the Council;

2. Consider proposal to convert the Turing Apartments located at 1355 McCandless Drive to low, median, and moderate-income housing; and

3. Consider resolution to authorize the City to become a member of the Authority and City Manager to execute a Public Benefit Agreement that allows for future acquisition of the property by the City, with recommended amendments pertaining to: Affordability covenant; Local preference policy; City financial risks; Host and other fees; Property conveyance; Capital improvement reserves; Management and maintenance plans; and City enforcement authority.

Executive Summary
On November 1, 2021, the City Council directed staff to return with a framework and goals for evaluating the Turing Apartments proposal as well as future middle-income workforce housing proposals that may be considered by the Council; and to work further with the Turing Project Team (Project Team) to resolve identified concerns consistent with the framework and goals. The Council further authorized staff to require the project proponent to fund additional work by staff, consultants, and City Attorney to complete the evaluation of the proposal.

In response to Council direction at the September 21, 2021, and November 1, 2021, meetings (refer to agenda reports in Attachments 1 and 2), staff has prepared Draft Goals and Performance Measures (Attachment 3) to provide a policy framework for evaluating workforce housing proposals. This policy framework has been applied to further evaluate the proposal from the California Statewide Communities Development Authority Community Improvement Authority (Authority) to purchase and convert the Turing Apartments (Project) into low, median, and moderate-income housing.

An updated proposal from the Project Team was submitted on January 10, 2022 (Attachment 4). A revised Public Benefit Agreement (PBA) was also submitted that includes provisions to respond to some of the Council and staff concerns. A key change is that an annual Host Fee of $361,970 will be 523

provided to fully cover the City’s lost property taxes and property tax in lieu of vehicle license fee (PTILVLF) with an annual 2% increase. However, several items have been modified from their earlier statements. The Project Team is no longer agreeing to City review and approval authority for any refinancing or restructuring of the bond debt. They have also indicated that Local Preference Guidelines cannot be included in the Regulatory Agreement.

The following table summarizes conformance of the Project with staff recommendations from the November Council meeting. A complete assessment of the Project regarding conformance to the Draft Goals and Performance Measures is provided in Attachment 5.

TABLE A
Conformance of Turing Proposal to Council-Approved Measures Measures
(November 2021) Comply? Notes

1. Rents set below market rate in
Milpitas
No Latest submittal proposes 10-18% rent deduction
below current rents for qualifying existing tenants, but no language in Regulatory Agreement.

2. Rents and increases conform to
California Department of Housing and
Community Development (HCD)
standards for low/moderate-income
households.

No Rents for new qualifying tenants based on higher
standards from California Tax Credit Allocation
Committee (CTCAC) with no deduction for utility
allowance.in maximum rents.

3. Capital improvement covered
through 35-year bond term
No Capital improvement coverage increased to $17.8
million, but cashflow assumptions are optimistic to
cover higher cost.

4. Refinancing subject to City approval No No approval authority included in Public Benefit Agreement.

5. City authority to enforce
affordability standards
No No enforcement provisions included in Public
Benefit Agreement.

6. Annual report confirming
affordability compliance
Yes Annual report will be submitted to City.

7. Certification of affordability covenants Yes Project Administrator/Property Manager will submit to City annual certification of affordability and program
requirements.

8. Cashflow projections based on
conservative assumptions
No Higher cashflow and debt coverage risks with
optimistic revenue assumptions.

9. Bond advisor to analyze City bond
risk and exposure
Yes Project Team has funded bond advisor.

10. Submittal of tenant selection plan,
maintenance plan, staffing plan, and
marketing plan
No Project Team has agreed to submit, but no language
in Public Benefit or Regulatory Agreement

11. Submittal of annual financial and
management reports
Yes Project Administrator/Property Manager will submit annual financial and management reports.

12. Delineation of roles of City and project
team
Yes Public Benefit Agreement defines role of City as
“Host”; agreements define role of Owner, Trustee,
Project Administrator, and Property Manager.

13. City enforcement abilities, remedies,
and consequences for Items 6, 7, 10,
11, and 12
No Public Benefit Agreement does not address project
oversight and enforcement authority by the City.

14. City Property Tax and PTILVLF
Backfill
No Host Fee to backfill for lost property taxes and
PTILVLF, but no guarantee or senior lien position for
annual payment.

While the Project meets many of the Council-approved measures, other previously identified issues and concerns remain unresolved. Summarized below are outstanding issues with staff recommendations to 524

comply with the Council-approved measures and the Draft Goals and Performance Measures. The Project Team’s most recent responses to the recommendations are also noted. The Draft Public Benefit Agreement has been amended to incorporate the recommendations (Attachment 6: Project Team submittal, Attachment 7: redlined version with staff recommendations). A fuller discussion of these issues is contained in the Analysis section of this agenda report.

Affordability Considerations
1) Deeper Affordability: The Authority references income and rent limits from the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (CTCAC). These are higher than the recommended limits set by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD). For the Project, 40% of the units would have allowable rents that exceed the HCD rent limit for moderate-income households as well as existing market rents in Milpitas. No housing units would be affordable to low-income households as defined by HCD.

Recommendation: Deepen the affordability level for the Project by applying the HCD household income and rent limits for Santa Clara County. Set maximum rents at 120% AMI per HCD standards so that all units will be affordable for low to moderate-income households. Allow City approval of rent increases to confirm long-term affordability.

Project Team Response: DECLINE deepening affordability for Project, but 10-18% rent reduction for qualified existing tenants will be specified in Regulatory Agreement.

2) Local Preference Policy: The Project Team has agreed to implement a local preference program, but details are pending.

Recommendation: Require Owner or Project Administrator to submit a proposal for review and approval by the City prior to issuance of any bonds.

Project Team Response: AGREE to include provision in Regulatory Agreement.

3) Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Credit: As presented to the City Council on November 1, 2021, the Project will not qualify for RHNA credits.

Recommendation: Continue to evaluate the feasibility of RHNA credits for future proposals.

Project Team Response: Not applicable (Staff did not recommend RHNA credit.)

Financial Considerations
4) City Financial Risks: The Bond Proposal Review from Fieldman, Rolapp & Associates (Attachment 7) describes the financial risks to the City with participation in the Project, including the uncertain fiscal condition of the Project for conveyance of the property to the City at the end of the 35-year bond term. The analysis underscores the importance of incorporating the recommended amendments into the PBA to allow for greater project oversight by the City.

Recommendation: Require a more progressive paydown of the bond principal consistent with investment grade financing. Require City approval of any proposed refinancing or issuance of additional encumbrances. Add language to indemnify and limit the City’s liability as the Host.

Project Team Response: DECLINE progressive bond principal paydown, City approval of refinancing, and Host indemnification. AGREE to limit Host liability.

5) Host, Infrastructure, and Monitoring Fees: The Host Fee backfills lost City property taxes and PTILVLF. The Infrastructure Fee covers the existing special tax levied under Community Facilities District 2008-1. The Monitoring Fee pays City staff costs for ongoing monitoring and compliance.

Whereas prior understanding was that the City would receive an upfront lump sum Host Fee payment for the entire bond period, annual payments are now proposed. If operating revenue is insufficient to cover operating expenses, debt service, r administrative fees, the City may not receive the annual fees.
525

Recommendation: Require City fees to be paid in advance of the annual payment of Owner or Project Administrator fees and the interest and principal due on the bonds.

Project Team Response: AGREE to senior position for Host Fee payment. DECLINE payment of Monitoring Fee.

6) Property Conveyance: Language in the PBA is uncertain about the City’s obligation to share net proceeds with other taxing entities when the property is conveyed to the City. Proposal is to deliver property in “As Is” condition.

Recommendation: Remove uncertainty regarding the City’s obligation to share net proceeds.

Require the Owner to fund a Property Conditions Assessment and appraisal. Require Project to be delivered in “good and clean” condition except for normal wear and tear with repairs and capital improvements satisfactorily completed.

Project Team Response: AGREE to remove uncertainty and to prepare assessment and appraisal. DECLINE property delivery condition (propose “As Is”).

Level of Capital Investment
7) Capital Improvement Reserves: The cashflow model for the Project has been modified to fund projected capital needs for the full 35-year bond term. Sufficient capital reserves should be maintained until conveyance of the Project.

Recommendation: Prepare a Capital Needs Assessment with approval of the consultant by the City, and require replenishing capital reserves, as necessary, to fully cover capital needs for the entire bond term.

Project Team Response: DECLINE City approval of consultant and reserves replenishment.

Transparency and Oversight
8) Management and Maintenance Plans: The Project Team has agreed to have the Property Manager submit management and maintenance plans to the City.

Recommendation: Require early submittal of management and maintenance plans for City review and approval before issuance of any bonds for the Project.

Project Team Response: DECLINE to submit for City approval; management plan addressed in Regulatory Agreement

9) City Enforcement Authority: Annual reports and certifications will be submitted to confirm compliance with project conditions and affordability covenants.

Recommendation: Owner should fund an independent assessment of annual reports, if requested, and define the City’s enforcement authority with remedies, and consequences if the Project is found to be deficient or non-compliant with conditions and covenants.

Project Team Response: DECLINE City assessment, enforcement authority, and remedies.

Background
In May 2021, the Council received a proposal from the California Statewide Community Development Authority Community Improvement Authority (Authority) to purchase the Turing Apartments, located at 1355 McCandless Drive in the Milpitas Metro Specific Plan area (herein referred to as the “Project,”) for the purpose of converting the Project to “missing middle” or workforce housing. The Authority is a joint powers authority that through its Workforce Housing Program, issues tax-exempt government bonds to acquire market-rate apartment buildings. The program was created to respond to the financing gap for 526

much needed housing for moderate-income households, defined as households earning between 81- 120 percent of area median income (AMI).

The Project is currently owned by Lyon Living and consists of 371 market-rate studio, one-bedroom, two-bedroom, and three-bedroom units. The ground-level commercial space would remain privately owned by Lyon Living and would not be transferred to the Authority. The acquisition would be financed through the issuance of a series of Authority bonds; the longest bond term would be 35 years. The Authority would be the “Owner” of the Project while the City of Milpitas would be the “Host.” As the Host, through a Public Benefit Agreement (PBA) executed between the Authority and the City, the City would have the option to purchase the Project after 15 years and could choose to own it at the end of the 35-year bond term. In addition to executing a PBA, the City would become a member of the Authority which does not require a financial commitment.

The Authority would enter into a separate Regulatory Agreement with Wilmington Trust National Association, the “Bond Trustee.” While the City would not be a party to the Regulatory Agreement, it is an essential agreement that defines qualifying households, affordability covenants, and requirements for administering and managing the Project. The Authority further proposes to enter into agreements with Waterford Property Company, LLC, to serve as the “Project Administrator,” and with Greystar Management Services, LP, to serve as the “Property Manager.”

Extensive discussion has occurred with the Authority, Lyon Living, and Waterford Property (herein referred to as the “Project Team”) to assess the Turing proposal since the Authority/s Workforce Housing Program is a recently created bond financing program. The City Council considered the Turing proposal on September 21, 2021, and November 1, 2021. Staff identified primary concerns relating to the level of affordability, the financial assumptions for project cashflow and debt coverage, the level of capital investment during the bond term, and lack of City oversight and enforcement remedies.

Recommendations were outlined by staff to alleviate these affordability and financial concerns.

The Council directed staff to return with a framework and goals for evaluating the Turing proposal as well as future workforce housing or Authority proposals that may come before the Council for consideration; and to work further with the Project Team to resolve issues pertaining to the PBA and Regulatory Agreement consistent with the framework and goals for creating middle-income workforce housing. The Council further authorized staff to require the Project Team to fund additional work by staff, consultants, and City Attorney to complete the evaluation of the proposal.

Analysis
Policy Framework: Draft Goals and Performance Measures
As directed by the Council, staff has prepared Draft Goals and Performance Measures that provide a policy framework for evaluating middle-income workforce housing proposals. This framework incorporates the staff and consultant recommendations that were previously approved by the Council on November 1st.

The Draft Goals and Performance Measures are not specifically prepared for the Turing proposal and are intended to provide a policy framework for evaluating other Authority or similar housing proposals that might be presented to the City. Additional goals and performance measures are included for the intended broader application of the framework to other middle-income housing programs beyond the Authority’s program, The following goals are grouped into four categories and specific performance measures for each goal are included in Attachment 3.

AFFORDABILITY CONSIDERATIONS
527

GOAL A Affordability Level: Project will primarily serve Moderate-Income Households during the entire bond period as defined by HCD.

GOAL B Rent Increases: Rent increases will be limited to maintain the affordability of the project for primarily Moderate-Income Households during the entire bond period.

GOAL C Existing Tenants: Existing tenants will not be displaced by the public benefit, regulatory, or other agreements.

GOAL D Local Preference Policy: A preference program will be established for qualifying residents and employees with a primary work location in the City of Milpitas.

GOAL E Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Credit: Project will qualify for full or partial RHNA credit, if feasible.

FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS
GOAL F Qualifications of Project Team: Project will be owned and managed by a highly experienced and reputable Project Administrator and Property Manager.

GOAL G City Evaluation of Proposals: Proposals will be evaluated for compliance with adopted Goals and Performance Measures with required professional and technical assistance funded by the Project.

GOAL H City Revenue: City participation will not result in a loss of property taxes, special taxes, and property tax in lieu of vehicle license fees (PTILVLF).

GOAL I Project Financial Viability: Project demonstrates positive cashflow and ability to fully cover its debt service and operating expenses during the bond or agreement period to reduce financial risks and assure long-term viability.

GOAL J City Risks: The financial plan for the project is sound and consistent with industry standards for multi-family revenue bonds and reduces City risks and liability.

GOAL K Debt Refinancing/Additional Debt: City will have the authority to approve any refinancing, restructuring, or issuance of additional debt or encumbrances.

LEVEL OF CAPITAL INVESTMENT
GOAL L Capital Improvements: Capital improvement needs for the project are fully identified and funded for the entire bond or agreement period.

TRANSPARENCY AND OVERSIGHT
GOAL M City Enforcement Authority: City will have enforcement authority over management of the project to ensure compliance with goals and performance measures during the bond or agreement period.

GOAL N Monitoring and Reporting: City will be provided with regular reports on the financial and operational performance of the project during the bond or agreement period for project monitoring.

GOAL O Project Management and Management: Project proponent demonstrates to the City that the project will comply with best real estate practices for management of residential property.

Conformance of Turing Project to Draft Goals and Performance Measures Ongoing discussions between the Project Team and staff have occurred since the November 1st Council meeting to address Council direction and the staff recommendations presented at that meeting.

The Project Team has submitted an updated Project proposal that responds to the Draft Goals and Performance Measures (Attachment 4). Staff has prepared a table that indicates where the Project complies or does not comply with the Draft Goals and Performance Measures (Attachment 5). While 528

the Project complies with many of the Draft Goals and Performance Measures, staff could not reach resolution with the Project Team on other items. The following analysis highlights key issues where provisions should be added or revised in the PBA or Regulatory Agreement to ensure conformance to the Draft Goals and Performance Measures.

Affordability Considerations
1) Deeper Affordability: The primary public benefit of authorizing the acquisition of the residential development through the Authority housing bond program is that market-rate units would be reserved for median and moderate-income households. Annual rent increases would also be capped at a maximum of four percent or the percentage set by the federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), whichever is less. Existing tenants would benefit from a reduction in their existing rents. The Project Team proposes to reduce rents for current qualifying tenants as follows: 18% for households at 80% AMI or below, 12% for households at 81-100% AMI, and 10% for households at 101-120% AMI. They tentatively indicate that 131 existing households or 35 percent of the units could qualify for a rent reduction, but the Regulatory Agreement does not contain language regarding the 10-18% rent reduction for qualifying tenants. Non-qualifying tenants consisting of 197 existing households or over half (53 percent) of the units would not qualify for this benefit, but they could continue to occupy their unit after transfer of the property to the Authority.

Staff recommends basing the affordability level on the definitions of low, median, and moderate- income households as established by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for Santa Clara County. HCD income and rent limits are commonly referenced by communities to formulate their housing policies and programs. These income and rent definitions are universally used by the state to set each jurisdiction’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) by income level. Housing Elements also report housing needs and production in accordance with the HCD income standards.

The Authority program defines median and moderate-income households using different standards established by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (CTCAC). Based on CTCAC standards, the following affordability levels are proposed by the Project Team:

 40 percent of units restricted for moderate-income households (101-120% AMI)  20 percent of the units restricted for median-income households (81-100% AMI)  40 percent of the units restricted for low-income households (80% or below AMI)

The CTCAC income ranges and associated rent limits are higher than the corresponding HCD standards. The upper rent range also exceeds current market rents in Milpitas. Applying HCD standards, Project rents would not be low enough to be affordable to low-income households.

Additionally, maximum allowable rents for the upper income tier (101-120% AMI), which consists of 40% of the units, would exceed the affordability range for moderate-income households. Therefore, only 60% of the units would have maximum rents affordable to median and moderate-income households using HCD standards.

The variance between CTCAC and HCD incomes and rents are illustrated in Tables B and C below.

The two tables provide a representative comparison of the proposed Turing maximum income and rents (based on CTCAC) with the corresponding HCD maximum income and rents for Santa Clara County in 2021. Incidentally, the HCD income and rent limits for Santa Clara County are the highest in the state, which reflect the elevated housing costs in the County.

TABLE B
Comparison of Turing and HCD Maximum Household Income
529

(two-person household)
Household Category Turing HCD Difference % Diff. (1)
Low Income (80% AMI) $106,080 $ 94,200 $11,880 13%
Median Income (100% AMI) $132,600 $121,050 $11,550 10%
Moderate Income (120% AMI) $159,120 $145,250 $13,870 10%

1. Percentage Turing maximum household income exceeds maximum household income.

TABLE C
Comparison of Turing and HCD Maximum Base Rents (1)
(excluding utility costs paid by tenants)
Apartment Type (2) Turing HCD Difference % Diff. (3)
One-bedroom:

Low Income (80% AMI) $2,652 $2,169 $483 22%
Median Income (100% AMI) $3,315 $2,840 $475 17%
Moderate Income (120% AMI) $3,978 $3,445 $533 16%
Two-bedroom:

Low Income (80% AMI) $2,984 $2,434 $550 23%
Median Income (100% AMI) $3,730 $3,188 $542 17%
Moderate Income (120% AMI) $4,476 $3,869 $607 16%
Notes:

1. Maximum housing cost (which include both base rent and utility costs) is typically defined by HUD as not exceeding 30 percent of gross household income.

2. The Turing Apartments consist of 19 studios, 193 one-bedrooms, 150 two-bedrooms, and 9 three-bedrooms units.

3. Percentage Turing maximum base rent exceeds HCD maximum base rent.

Recommendation: Deepen the affordability level for the Project by applying the HCD household income and rent limits for Santa Clara County (highlighted column in Tables B and C). Set maximum rents at 120% AMI per HCD standards so that all units will be affordable to lot to moderate-income households. Allow City approval of rent increases to confirm long-term affordability.

These affordability adjustments will ensure that the entire Project meets the goal of benefitting low to moderate-income households in Milpitas as defined by HCD. A reduction in rents will impact rental income and cashflow, so reassessing the financial model for the project is advised.

2) Local Preference Policy: Council has expressed interest in incorporating a Local Preference Policy for the Project that provides priority or a preferential status for public school employees that have a primary work address in the City of Milpitas and meet the income qualifications for a rent-restricted unit. Subject to compliance with state and federal fair housing laws, the Project Team has agreed to develop a local preference program for City review and approval. They have shared administrative procedures and criteria from another city where they have implemented a similar program. Details for a City of Milpitas program are pending but can be adapted from existing program examples. The program should include administrative guidelines, tenant selection criteria, and a marketing and outreach plan. The Council might wish to comment on whether the Local Preference Policy should be expanded to include other employee classifications such as income qualifying medical and emergency workers.

Whereas previously the Project Team indicated their agreement to include Local Preference Guidelines in the Regulatory Agreement, they now indicate that this is no longer possible. If this goal will be a Project requirement, a separate agreement is advisable to document implementation of this policy in accordance with City expectations.

530

Recommendation: Require the Owner or Project Administrator to submit a proposal for review and approval by the City prior to issuance of any bonds.

3) Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) Credit: The Draft Goals and Performance Measures include qualifying projects for RHNA credits to assist the City in meeting its Housing Element goal of producing “missing middle” or moderate-income housing units (81-120% AMI). In accordance with AB787, qualifying housing units could receive partial RHNA credit (0.25 credit/unit) if specified criteria are met. One criterion is that the Project must be restricted for moderate-income housing for 55 years. While the Project Team has agreed to this condition, Authority ownership of the Project would be maximum 35 years or the length of the bond term. It would be the decision of the City to extend the affordability covenant after it acquires the Project. The Council has previously stated that the 55-year affordability covenant and partial RHNA credit are not essential for this Project.

Another AB 787 criterion is that converted housing units cannot be pre-existing very low, low, or moderate-income units. While verification would be needed, the Project Team has tentatively indicated that 131 units in the Project are currently occupied by low or moderate-income households. Therefore, it is conceivable that only a portion of the Project could qualify for RHNA credit. Furthermore, AB 787 stipulates that rents cannot exceed the CTCAC 100% AMI rent limit.

Units in the moderate-income rent range (101-120% AMI), which comprise 40 percent of the Project, would not qualify for RHNA credit. While RHNA credit should be a goal for evaluating middle-income workforce housing proposals, the Project would not comply with AB 787 criteria for RHNA credit.

Recommendation: Continue to evaluate the feasibility of RHNA credit for future proposals.

Financial Considerations
4) City Financial Risks: The City engaged Fieldman, Rolapp & Associates, Inc., a foremost expert in municipal bond financing, to further review the proposed Authority bond structure for the Project and to assess the potential financial risk exposure to the City in the event of default and fiscal stress on the Project. Findings from the consultant’s Bond Proposal Review (Attachment 8) are as follows:

a. Bond Fees: Upfront bond issuance fees of 5.38% of the total principal amount of $302.99 million are extraordinarily high relative to industry standards for investment grade municipal bonds which are generally no greater than 2% of the total principal amount. i. Through bond proceeds, Waterford will receive an initial $8 million payment plus annual fees. The Authority will receive an initial $3 million payment plus annual fees. Neither the Authority or Waterford will contribute equity or other investment to the Project.

b. Bond Principal: While the payment schedule for the bonds is amortized (principal and interest), payment of principal is not mandatory and is only paid if excess project revenue is available. If not available, the principal is deferred, and the bond period could be extended to 40 years. i. It will be infeasible for the City to exercise its purchase option at Year 15. At best, only about 5% of the bond principal will be paid. For comparison, Standard and Poor’s favors 50% of the debt retired after 10 years for investment grade financing. ii. Modeling project cashflow using more conservation income assumptions that reflect historic market trends, 40% to 50% of the bond principal would remain unpaid at Year 35. The outstanding principal would be due upon sale of the property to the City.

c. Cashflow: The cashflow analysis uses optimistic revenue projections to demonstrate a 1.0 debt coverage ratio (DCR).
i. Modeling with more prudent assumptions, the Project would not be able to fully cover its administrative fees, debt service, and operating expenses with operating income only. ii. With the financing structure and high annual fees for the Owner and Project Administrator, the Project will have difficulty adjusting to a weak economy or soft rental housing market.

The ability to fund major repairs and unforeseen capital expenses would be at risk. 531

d. Debt Management Policy: The City’s debt management policy (adopted October 17, 2017) provides guidance for issuance and management of long-term and short-term debt. While the City is not a direct party to issuance of the bonds, the bond structure does not conform with the City’s policy to use conservative financing methods to protect taxpayers and constituents.

Recommendation: The consultant offers the following recommendations:

1. Bond Payment Schedule:
i. Require a more progressive paydown of the bond principal of a minimum of 25% of the total principal amount to be paid within the first 10 years which is more consistent with investment grade rated financings.
ii. Limit the term of the bonds to be no greater than 35 years. iii. Require all bonds to be optionally redeemable within 10 years of issuance with no call premium which is consistent with investment grade rated municipal bonds. iv. Require bond principal redemptions be mandatory and paid under the same lien position as interest payments.

2. Fees:
i. Require annual fee payments to the Authority and to the Project Administrator be payable from excess revenues after payment of bond interest and principal payments, and any deposits to Bond reserve funds.
ii. Require the City’s host, infrastructure, and monitoring fees be in a senior position to bond interest and principal payments, deposits to Bond reserve funds, and annual fee payments to the Authority and to the Project Administrator. iii. Limit bond issuance and ongoing expenses to be no greater than fee charges by other similar programs in the state.

3. City Notification and Approval:
i. Require any refunding, issuance of additional bonds, or any encumbrances receive the written consent of the City; and
ii. Require the City to receive all event-based disclosures and timely notification of material changes to the Project.

5) Host, Infrastructure, and Monitoring Fees: City staff and the Project Team have reached agreement on the amount of the annual Host Fee ($361,970 for 2022) that would be paid through project income to fully cover the City’s lost property taxes and property tax in lieu of vehicle license fees (PTILVLF). The Host Fee would be increased by two percent each year until the property is transferred to the City. The Project Team indicates that the Host Fee would be paid as an operating expense solely from available Project revenue.

The City is also requesting an annual Monitoring Fee of $100 per unit or $37,100, with annual two percent increase, to cover ongoing staff costs for project oversight and monitoring during the term of the PBA. The Project Team had previously agreed to this fee, but with the increase in the Host Fee, they are indicating that this fee is now included in the Host Fee.

The Project would continue to pay the Community Facilities District 2008-1 (CFD) special tax for the residential units during the bond term, which is described an “Infrastructure Fee” in the PBA. The estimated fee for 2022 is $275,693 for 371 residential units, which will be adjusted annually in accordance with the provisions of the CFD. Additionally, the ground floor commercial space will continue to be privately owned and this portion of the property will continue to be assessed property taxes through an apportionment of the property tax bill.

A concern is ensuring or guaranteeing the payment of annual City fees and the position of this obligation relative to other fees, liens, and expenses. The PBA is deficient on this issue. The bond 532

analysis indicates that the Project could experience a revenue shortfall that could affect the ability to pay its debt service and operating expenses if income projections are not meet. Because the City’s fees will come from net operating revenue, certainty or high assurance that these fees will be paid should be specified in the agreement.

Recommendation: Require the annual City fees to be paid in advance of annual payment of Owner and Project Administrator fees and the principal and interest due on the bonds.

6) Property Conveyance: A future concern pertains to uncertain language in the PBA regarding the City’s obligation to share net proceeds with other taxing entities when the property is conveyed to the City. The sharing of proceeds relates to the loss of property taxes incurred by other entities when the property becomes tax exempt upon acquisition by the Authority. Currently, the language suggests that the City has the sole discretion to share net proceeds, but the wording is not clear and could result in conflicting interpretations. This uncertainty should be resolved before executing the Agreement.

The PBA also proposes conveying the property to the City in “As Is” condition. Before conveyance, any necessary repairs and capital improvements should be completed by the Owner.

Recommendation: Remove uncertainty regarding the City’s obligation to share net proceeds.

Require the Owner to fund a Property Conditions Assessment and appraisal. Require the Project to be delivered in “good and clean” condition except for normal wear and tear with repairs and capital improvements satisfactorily completed.

Level of Capital Investment
7) Capital Improvement Reserves: The Project Team has amended the Project Conditions Report and cashflow model to incorporate improvement needs for the Project during the 35-year bond term.

The estimated cost for capital improvements totals $17.8 million ($11.9 million in 2021 dollars) for the bond term. Capital needs include: building upgrades; exterior wall/roof resurfacing; refurbishing landscaping, parking, site improvements, and common area facilities; replacement of mechanical, plumbing, electrical, fire sprinkler, and HVAC systems; and apartment remodeling and appliance replacement. Capital needs would be funded through initial reserve funds and annual contributions from operating revenue. A Capital Needs Assessment would be completed every ten years by an independent consultant to reassess the capital improvement needs for the property. The sufficiency of capital reserves is essential to fund scheduled and unexpected capital needs and to preserve and enhance the market value of the property.

Transparency and Oversight
8) Management and Maintenance Plans: The Project Team has agreed to have the Property Manager submit management and maintenance plans to the City. However, this item is currently not addressed in the Regulatory Agreement or PBA. Provisions should be added that specifies the plans to be submitted, the timing for submittal, and the City’s ability to review and approve the plans. Requested plans include the following:

o Tenant Leasing Plan
o Local Preference Policy
o Maintenance Plan
o Property Management Plan, including staffing
o Marketing Plan

533

Recommendation: Require early submittal of management and maintenance plans for City review and approval before issuance of any bonds for the Project.

9) City Enforcement Authority: The Project Team added provisions in the Draft PBA that partially respond to the staff recommendations in the November 1st agenda report to address project monitoring and reporting. These provisions include:

o Annual report and certification of compliance with affordability covenant o Preparation of a Capital Needs Assessment every ten years o City authority to review any replacement Property Manager and to address deficiencies in property management
o Annual Property Maintenance Report to document completed capital improvements and the condition of the property.

Staff is requesting that the annual reports and certifications include information on: a) all capital expenditures completed in the previous year and scheduled of capital expenditures for the following year; b) current rent roll and vacancy rate; c) past year’s and next year’s projected operating income and expenses; d) cash flow projection, current operating funds, and current reserve funds; e) bond interest and redemption payments and all bond specific payments; and f) a description and reasonable photo documentation of the Project’s general condition.

While the annual reports will be beneficial for ongoing project oversight and monitoring, the PBA is silent on the City’s enforcement authority. This could be problematic if the reports reveal deficiencies or non-compliance with project conditions or covenants. As the Host participant, the City should have recourse to resolve issues that might arise and to ensure that the Project complies with management, maintenance, and affordability requirements until conveyance of the property to the City. Reports should cover affordability, financial condition, cashflow and debt service status, capital improvements, and property management. City oversight and enforcement authority are essential and should be inserted in the PBA to address this outstanding concern

Recommendation: The Owner should fund an independent assessment of these reports, if requested, and define the City’s enforcement authority with remedies and consequences if the Project is found to be deficient or non-compliant with conditions and covenants.

Policy Alternatives

Alternative 1: Do not approve the Draft Goals and Performance Measures.

Pros: The Draft Goals and Performance Measures will provide project proponents with Council policy direction and expectations and establish a framework for evaluating workforce housing proposals.

Cons: No policy framework would be in place for evaluating workforce housing proposals. This could lead to inconsistencies and considerable staff time to evaluate each proposal independently without Council policy guidance or standards.

Reason not recommended: The Draft Goals and Performance Measures would outline for project proponents the City’s expectations and standards and would facilitate the review of future proposals.

Alternative 2: Approve the Public Benefit Agreement without staff recommended changes.

Pros: Unless the PBA is amended to address outstanding concerns, Host participation would expose the City to performance uncertainties, financial risks, and lack of enforcement oversight. Conveyance of the property at the end of the bond period could be financially infeasible if Project revenue is deficient and the unpaid bond principal is significant.
534

Cons: The City would not realize the potential housing affordability benefits from the Authority’s acquisition and financing of the Project to create rent-restricted workforce housing at a transit-oriented location.

Reason not recommended: None

Fiscal Impact
Joining the Authority as a member and participating in the Project as the Host do not require any financial contribution from the City. The Project Team has agreed to fully fund the City’s lost property taxes and PTILVLF through payment of a Host Fee ($361,970 for 2022). The Project will continue to pay the CFD 2008-1 special tax for the residential units (estimated $275,693 for 2022), and all property taxes for the commercial portion of the property will continue to be paid.

The Council had inquired about the fiscal impact of the Project on school districts since the residential portion of the Project would be tax exempt upon sale of the property. It has been confirmed that the Milpitas Unified School District’s lost property tax revenue from the Project would be backfilled by the State ($716,786 levied in Tax Year 2021-22), but the San Jose-Evergreen Community College District, as a “Basic Aid” district, would not qualify for a property tax backfill ($116,245 levied in Tax Year 2021- 22), Further, the Turing property tax bill includes general obligation bonds issued by the County, the School Districts, and other agencies totaling $317,363 for Tax Year 2021-22. These obligations would no longer be levied on the property, but the property tax on other properties in the issuers’ territories would slightly increase to fulfill the debt service obligation.

The Project Team has substantially covered the City’s staff, attorney, and consultant costs to evaluate their proposal. If Council chooses to approve the PBA as amended, a monitoring fee is included to cover ongoing City administrative costs. The agreement also requires coverage of consultant services as needed.

The potential fiscal benefits for the City at the end of the 35-year bond period is highly speculative and is predicated on rental housing market conditions and the ability of the Project to meet its optimistic revenue projections, fund capital and operating expenses, and pay down the principal on the Authority bonds. The net proceeds that the City could receive will also be dependent on the future sale price of the property.

California Environmental Quality Act
The project consists of adoption of a policy framework with goals and performance measures for evaluating potential City participation in acquiring and converting existing residential projects to middle- income workforce housing. The project also includes authorizing the acquisition and financing of an existing residential project with Authority tax-exempt government bonds. Both actions do not include or require any physical alteration or expansion of the residential project. The City finds that the project is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to Section 15061 of the CEQA Guidelines because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the project will have a significant effect on the environment.

Recommendations:

1. Consider resolution to adopt Draft Goals and Performance Measures to provide a framework for evaluating potential City participation in middle-income workforce housing projects, with revisions as directed by the Council;

2. Consider proposal to convert the Turing Apartments located at 1355 McCandless Drive to low, median, and moderate-income housing; and

3. Consider resolution to authorize City to become a member of the Authority and City Manager to execute a Public Benefit Agreement that allows for future acquisition of the property by the City, with recommended amendments pertaining to: affordability covenant; local preference policy; City 535

financial risks; host and other fees; property conveyance; capital improvement reserves; management and maintenance plans; and City enforcement authority.

Attachments

1. Council Agenda Report, September 21, 2021

2. Council Agenda Report, November 1, 2021

3. Draft Goals and Performance Measures for Evaluating Middle-Income Workforce Housing Proposals

4. Turing Project Team Project Proposal, January 10, 2022

5. Conformance of the Authority Turing Proposal to Draft Goals and Performance Measures

6. Draft Public Benefit Agreement (Turing Project Team submittal)

7. Draft Public Benefit Agreement (redlined version with staff recommendations)

8. Bond Proposal Review, Fieldman, Rolapp & Associates, Inc., February 7, 2022

9. Resolution for Adoption of Goals and Performance MeasuresResolution for City Membership in the Authority and adoption of Public Benefit Agreement

536

CITY OF MILPITAS

AGENDA REPORT
(AR)
Item Title: Receive a report on the proposed project proposal for moderate income housing at Turing Apartments through a California Statewide Communities Development Authority program and provide direction to staff on next steps, if any.

Category: Leadership and Support Services
Meeting Date: 9/21/2021
Staff Contact: Ashwini Kantak, Assistant City Manager, 408-586-3053 Sharon Goei, Building Safety and Housing Director, 408-586-3260 Recommendations: 1. Receive a report on the proposed project proposal for moderate income housing at Turing Apartments through a California Statewide Communities Development Authority program.

2. If Council wishes to pursue the proposed project, (a) provide input to staff on the preliminary recommendations; (b) direct staff to bring back a framework and goals for this type of a moderate income housing program for Council consideration based on staff recommendations and Council input, and (c) direct staff to bring back for Council consideration along with a revised project proposal consistent with the framework and goals for a moderate income housing program.

Executive Summary
In June 2021, Council directed staff to analyze a proposal to join the Community Improvement Authority (Authority), an affiliate of the California Statewide Communities Development Authority (CSCDA), and to support the purchase of the Turing Apartments for the purpose of converting the 371-unit market rate project to moderate income housing.

This program is premised on providing potential benefits that include: creating moderate income housing; providing management and oversight of the project without City resources; and providing a valuable asset to the City at the end of the bond term. However, it is important for the Council to look at the assumptions of the project as well as consider implications of no City oversight, control, or assurance of affordability, for a project that will be indirectly associated with the City and could be a City asset in the future.

The consultant and staff note four key areas for Council consideration and discussion:

1. Level of affordability;

2. Financial projections and assumptions;

3. Level of capital investment; and

4. Transparency and oversight.

As an example with Level of Affordability, the proposed discounts to current rents at the Turing Apartments would still place the rents higher than the market rents. Furthermore, if the rate of rent increases is adjusted to be in line with past historical trends, the value of the asset at the end of the bond term becomes significantly lower than projected by the project team. Also, since the City will be receiving the asset in “as-is” condition after the bonds are paid off, it is important to ensure that the asset will be maintained in good condition; the ATTACHMENT 1
537

planned dollars for capital investment are not based on a project condition report for the term of the bond.

Lastly, since the City does not have a role in oversight and management of the project, it will be important to require adequate transparency, reporting, and oversight on how the affordability covenants are implemented and enforced and how the property is managed.

Another area of consideration for Council is the impact to the General Fund. Over a 30-year period, it is estimated that the City would forego a total of $15.4 million ($9.7 million in 2021 dollars) of property tax revenue, comprised of $12.4 million of ad valorem property tax revenue and $3 million of property tax in-lieu of vehicle license fee revenues from the state that are linked to taxable assessed property values. Other taxing entities would forgo a total of approximately $77.5 million in property tax revenue. Thus, including all taxing agencies, foregone tax revenues would approximate $92.9 million over a 30-year period. The City would not be responsible for repaying the revenues forgone by the other taxing entities. Staff also notes that the analysis of the proposed project required a significant amount of staff resources. If Council directs additional work on this project or other similar moderate income housing programs, staff will need to bring back information on costs for additional resources and impacts on other workplan items for Council direction.

If Council wishes to pursue this specific project, staff recommends follow up on the preliminary recommendations as a next step. Additionally, staff recommends developing a framework and goals for a moderate income program, based on staff recommendations and Council input, and bringing back a revised proposal for Council consideration, consistent with the framework and goals for a moderate income housing program.

Background:

The greater Bay Area is experiencing a housing crisis of unaffordability. As home prices and rents continue to increase, the result has disproportionately affected long term, lower income residents in Milpitas who do not have the financial resources to remain in the area. The City Council has taken measures to minimize the impact of the overall housing crisis by providing direct aid to Milpitas residents and families and adopting policies to increase affordable housing.

For example, in late 2019, the Milpitas Rent Relief Program began as a pilot program to aid renters experiencing emergency housing assistance needs. Its prescient formation was instrumental in delivering immediate aid to those most affected by COVID-19, as other jurisdictions were in the process of creating similar programs. To date, the program has provided assistance to over 100 families with over 300 Milpitas residents.

Other similar programs adopted by the Council are intended to ensure that Milpitas residents avoid displacement and are protected from the rising cost of housing. Some examples include the Rent Review and Just Cause Eviction Protection Urgency Ordinances, housing services funded by Community Development Block Grants, and a new Mortgage Relief Program and expanded Rent Relief Program eligibility to be created with the American Rescue Plan Act funding.

For affordable housing production, the City Council adopted an inclusionary ordinance in 2018 to increase the supply of affordable units in the community. Currently, the City has approximately 50 moderate-income units that are projected to be built in the next few years. While this helps, it is not sufficient to meet the Regional Housing Needs Allocation goal of 565 units in the moderate-income category. State financing tools for moderate-income rental housing are also limited. For the next Regional Housing Needs Allocation cycle, through the upcoming Housing Element and Assessment of Fair Housing, the City will plan for new housing growth in a way that responds to the City’s unique context and to promote fair housing opportunities throughout the community.

On May 11, 2021, at the request of Councilmember Phan, the City Council directed staff to retain a consultant to analyze a proposal by Lyon Living (Owner) to convert the apartments at Turing to moderate income housing via a California Statewide Communities Development Authority (CSCDA) program. The project team is comprised of the Owner, CSCDA, and Waterford Residential (Administrator). Since this direction was received, staff have been approached by several other entities to request consideration of similar programs. 538

In order for this proposal to move forward the City would need to join the Community Improvement Authority (Authority), which is an affiliate of CSCDA, and support the conversion through the adoption of a resolution and approval of a public benefit agreement. Council directed that all consultant costs were to be paid for by the project Owner.

In consultation with the project team, City staff retained the services of Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. (Consultant). At the time of preparation of the consultant professional services agreement in June, the consultant services were estimated to cost $38,000. Due to additional meetings and analytical work starting in late August, including meetings with the project team and Housing Subcommittee, and further anticipated work, the Consultant updated the estimated service costs to $63,000. The project Owner agreed to fund this amount for consultant services.

Staff asked the Consultant to review the proposal from the project team and to assess the following:

1. The degree to which the proposed rent reductions will enhance the affordability of the project and meet the City’s affordable housing objectives.

2. The potential financial returns to the City relative to the value of foregone property tax revenues over the 30+ year term.

3. Economic aspects of transaction structure and potential risks and liabilities to the City.

4. The factors that led three other cities to decline to participate in a similar offer by CSCDA.

To undertake this review, the Consultant received and reviewed the following:

1. Financial pro forma information provided by the proposed Project Administrator, Waterford Residential.

The information provides estimates of sources and uses of funds for the purchase of the Project by the Authority, proposed reductions in unit rental rates, anticipated operating projections for a 34-year term and anticipated reversion value to the City of Milpitas upon conveyance. Waterford also provided recent property tax assessments, an appraisal of the property, and a property condition report.

2. A Draft Public Benefit Agreement for execution by the CSCDA Community Improvement Authority (Owner) and the City of Milpitas (Host).

3. A Draft Project Administration Agreement for execution by the CSCDA Community Improvement Authority (Owner) and Waterford Property Company, LLC (Administrator).

4. Draft Purchase and Sale Agreement for execution between Milpitas -District 1 Owner, LLC (Owner) and Waterford Residential 8, LLC (Buyer).

5. Draft Property Management Agreement between CSCDA Improvement Authority (Owner) and Greystar California, Inc. (Manager).

6. Information from the City of Milpitas regarding the City’s affordable housing goals. Market information from CoStar and other public sources on the City of Milpitas and the subject property.

7. Santa Clara County Controller data on ad valorem property taxes and property tax assessments that apply to the Project.

8. A sample trust indenture, which Waterford proposes would be similar to the indenture for the Turing transaction.

Time was of the essence for the project team and the Consultant and City staff did their best to complete and review the analysis respectively.

Analysis:

The Consultant prepared a draft report which was shared with the project team and discussed with them on August 27. The proposed program would convert 371 market rate units at the Turing Apartments in Milpitas into moderate income housing. This would be made possible by the sale of the property to the California Statewide Communities Development Authority (CSCDA), which is a Joint Powers Authority. The abatement of property taxes would reduce the Project’s operating expenses, which in turn would enable the Authority to decrease monthly rental rates.

Under the terms of the program, the rental rates being charged to existing income eligible residents would be decreased by approximately 10%, as existing leases are renewed. Annual rent increases over the 34-year bond term would be limited to the lesser of the annual increase in the Area Median Income (AMI) or 4%. Rents on units that turn over would be subject to the maximum permitted rents under the Regulatory Agreement.

Existing residents who do not meet the income requirements would not be displaced. During the regulatory 539

term, the City of Milpitas would not bear any responsibility or liability for the operation of the Project or the repayment of the bonds. The Authority is a public entity separate and apart from its members, and any debts or obligations incurred by the Authority will not constitute debt or obligations of its member agencies. The term for the repayment of the bonds is anticipated to be 34 years. The City, at its sole discretion, would be permitted to purchase or force a sale of the Project at any time between year 15 and the end of the bond term. The net proceeds from the sale of the Project after the payment of any outstanding debt would accrue to the City. The Project would be conveyed on an “as-is” basis and the City or future owner would be responsible for making any needed capital improvements as well as paying ad valorem property taxes, which would be reinstated (unless the new owner is a non-profit and eligible for abatement).

Key Considerations

Affordability Considerations

1. The proposed program would provide restricted rents for existing tenants that are within HCD’s limits for Moderate Income housing, for a period of 34 years.

2. Under the proposal, rental rates charged to existing tenants would be decreased by a percentage ranging from 8% to 12%, with an average monthly saving of $323 per unit. Keyser Marston Associates, Inc. Page 2 \\SF-FS2\wp\16\16005\015\001-004.docx

3. The Turing commands premium rents relative to other market rate projects in Milpitas. As a result, even with an average 10% reduction in rental rates, the proposed reduced rental rates would exceed average market rental rates in Milpitas.

4. The rental rates to be charged on new tenants as spaces turn over would be subject to the CSCDA maximum rents, which exceed market area rents and, in most cases, exceed the current market rate rents currently charged by Turing.

5. Given that the proposed reduced rents would exceed average market rate rents in Milpitas and that the rents on new leases would likely be significantly higher than the market rate rents in Milpitas, the Project’s affordability benefits are, at best, very limited.

6. The rent restrictions will not provide the City with any credit towards meeting its Regional Housing Needs Allocation, which is of critical importance to the City of Milpitas

Financial Feasibility Considerations

1. The Project’s financing does not require an investment of cash equity and all debt is secured solely by the revenue generated by the Project. The structure of the transaction provides significant up-front compensation to the Administrator (Waterford) ($4.25 million), CSCDA ($1.25 million), and the current owner of the Project ($235.25 million). In contrast, the potential financial returns to the bond holders, the City and other taxing agencies are entirely at risk and subject to the financial performance of the Project.

2. The cash flow is based on an assumption that rents will increase by 3% every year. This is not supported by historical data.

3. The money set aside for capital investment is based upon a project condition report for the first 12 years of the project and does not envision major infrastructure projects that may be required over the 34 year term of the bond. For example, the condition report currently does not anticipate investment in infrastructure elements that will need replacement between 12 and 34 years such as, the roof, windows, doors, or landscaping.

Preliminary Recommendations

Based on the consideration noted above and if Council chooses to participate in the proposed CSCDA program at Turing, the Consultant has developed several preliminary recommendations, which staff concurs with.

rental rates, which largely nullifies the argument that the Project will enhance the affordability of apartments in Milpitas.

2. Rent and income restrictions contained in the Regulatory Agreement should conform to the Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) income and rent formulas. As proposed, the rent and income formulas are not consistent with the HCD formulas and result in significantly higher rents than what would be permitted by HCD.

3. The Property Condition Report should address the Project’s needs for a 34-year term and the Project’s financing plan provide funding to cover the anticipated capital improvement costs over the 34-year term. The draft property condition report only addresses 12 years of needs. The proposed annual contributions for capital improvements appears to be inadequate.

4. Any refinancing of Project debt should be subject to the City’s approval.

5. The Project should be required to submit proposed rent increases to the City’s approval to ensure that the affordability restrictions are enforced.

6. The Project should be required to submit an annual report to the City demonstrating that the affordability covenants are being properly implemented and enforced.

7. The Administrator should be obligated to certify that the affordability covenants are being property implemented and enforced.

8. The Project’s cash flow projection should be based on more conservative assumptions to reduce the level of risk and provide greater assurance for long-term viability.

10. Greystar (Manager) should be required to submit its tenant selection plan, maintenance plan, staffing plan and marketing plan for the City’s approval.

11. Greystar (Manager) should be required to submit annual reports on the Project’s operations, including the Project’s rent roll, that clearly track the annual increase in rental rates, operating expenses, capital improvements, vacancy rates, bond interest and redemption payments, and all bond specific payments.

12. In addition to the preliminary recommendations developed by the consultant, the City should consider entering into an agreement with the project team so as to clearly capture the roles of the project team and the City through the term of the bond and to describe the process for enforcement.

City Council Housing Subcommittee

This topic was agendized for discussion at the City Council Housing Subcommittee on September 2 and 9, 2021.

On September 2, 2021, the City Council Housing Subcommittee convened to hear a presentation from the Waterford Property Company and CSCDA on the proposed acquisition of the Turing Apartments and its conversion to a workforce housing community. Their presentation provided an overview of the moderate income housing program, the specifics of the Turing Apartments proposal, and an overview of the benefits to the City.

A representative of the Consultant was also present to discuss the findings from the draft report. The Consultant summarized the report findings relating to affordability considerations, financial feasibility considerations, the economics of the transaction structure and potential risks to the City, and a list of recommendations should the City decide to move forward with this proposal.

Councilmember Chua requested a second meeting to further discuss the financial analysis, with specific requests to discuss the repayment of the bond term, bond insurance, property insurance, replacement coverage, and housing availability for tenants during replacement.

541

Councilmember Phan was interested in an option discussed by Waterford to deepen affordability and agreed that another meeting and more time was needed to discuss the exit value of the property and how the project would be maintained over time.

On September 9, 2021, the City Council Housing Subcommittee held another meeting to further discuss the proposed project and asked follow-up questions.

Councilmember Chua expressed concern over the structure of the project including the fact that Waterford and CSCDA would receive their payment upfront and that payment is not based on performance metrics. The Councilmember also expressed concern that the City was not an oversight partner with the project administrator. The City Attorney representative noted that under this arrangement, the City has no local control or oversight of the project.

Councilmember Phan expressed optimism that the benefits of the project outweigh the potential concerns. The Councilmember noted that Milpitas is in search of housing options for Milpitas residents now, and that this project could serve as a model for other developments regionwide. The Councilmember also expressed a desire to participate in additional similar projects in the future.

Benchmarking
According to a September 13, 2021 Orange County Resister article about middle income housing programs, there are 28 middle income housing programs in California, with 21 of them established in 2021, across 16 cities. Of the 28 programs, more than half are located in Southern California, with the rest located in the larger San Francisco Bay Area. There are no programs currently established in Santa Clara County. The closest cities to Milpitas that have one or more of these programs are Dublin and Hayward. The three largest cities in the Bay Area, San Jose, San Francisco, and Oakland did evaluate participation in these programs but decided not to participate.

The San Jose City Council voted not to move forward under this program structure for a variety of reasons.

The program gave the City no way to enforce the affordability restrictions. Staff had concerns about the amount of debt the project would carry and whether the bond would actually be repaid in 30 years. The 100% and 120% AMI affordable rent levels were close to market rates rents. Thus, the City did not see a significant affordability benefit to its residents.

The City of Santa Clara also evaluated participation in the program but did not move forward with the proposed workforce housing project. Their reasons echoed those expressed by the City of San Jose, and the units not being able to count toward the Reginal Housing Needs Allocation was also a concern.

Staffing Resources
Over the past year, while staff resources were already fully committed to delivering existing services and programs, several new programs and initiatives have been added because of increased federal funding and other Council funded priorities. These include managing the $1.28 million CDBG and Coronavirus funding compliance process and conducting monitoring and reporting with 23 contract service providers; implementing homeless outreach, assessment, street-based case management services and analyzing monthly data; implementing mobile shower and laundry services for unhoused residents; and working with the Homelessness Task Force and Santa Clara County on homeless resources. Staff has also been working on other major policy initiatives including monitoring the Regional Housing Needs Allocation process; preparing for the Housing Element update and Assessment of Fair Housing; updating the Affordable Housing Ordinance; tracking housing legislation; exploring strategies for the development and disposition of City-owned properties on South Main Street; and developing a new Consolidated Plan for CDBG.

542

Earlier in 2021, staff was approached with several inquiries regarding other potential moderate-income housing programs and project. If Council provides direction for staff to continue to work on this project as well as other similar projects, staff will need to bring back a discussion to Council on the need for additional resources and prioritization of other workplan items. It is important to note that staff may not be able to pause work on many of the workplan items since there are state and federal requirements associated with those items.

Policy Alternative:

Not Applicable

Fiscal Impact:

Although the consultant costs will be paid for by the Owner, staff has spent a substantial amount of time working with the consultant and project team. If the City moves forward with this proposed project, over a 30- year period, it is estimated that the City would forego a total of $15.4 million or approximately ($9.7 million in 2021 dollars) of property tax revenue, comprised of $12.4 million of ad valorem property tax revenue and $3.0 million of property tax in-lieu of vehicle license fee revenues from the state that are linked to taxable assessed property values. Including all taxing agencies, foregone tax revenues would approximate $92.9 million over a 30-year period. At the end of the bond term, the City may be able to recoup this lost revenue. However the amount will depend on the project performance over the term of the bond and the current project performance assumptions may be optimistic, which causes the risk of overstating the net return to the City.

California Environmental Quality Act:

Recommendation

1. Receive a report on the proposed project proposal for moderate income housing at Turing Apartments through a California Statewide Communities Development Authority program.

Attachments:

1. Keyser Marston Associates report dated 9/16/2021

543

CITY OF MILPITAS

AGENDA REPORT
(AR)
Item Title: Receive a report on the proposed project proposal for low and moderate income housing at Turing Apartments through a California Statewide Communities Development Authority program and provide direction to staff on next steps, if any.

Category: Community Development
Meeting Date: 11/1/2021
Staff Contact: Ashwini Kantak, Assistant City Manager, 408-586-3053 Sharon Goei, Building Safety and Housing Director, 408-586-3260 Recommendations: 1. Receive follow-up information on the proposed project proposal for low and moderate income housing at Turing Apartments through a California Statewide Communities Development Authority program.

2. If Council wishes to pursue the proposed project, staff recommends Council (a) require project team to provide needed funding for additional staff, City Attorney, and consultant resources; (b) direct staff to bring back a framework and goals for this type of a moderate income housing program for Council consideration based on staff recommendations and Council input; and (c) direct staff to work with the project team on an agreement that is consistent with the approved framework and goals for a moderate income housing program.

Background:

In May 2021, Council directed staff to analyze a proposal to join the Community Improvement Authority (Authority), an affiliate of the California Statewide Communities Development Authority (CSCDA), and to support the purchase of the Turing Apartments for the purpose of converting the 371-unit market rate project to moderate income housing. In response to the many questions that have been asked about this project, staff has prepared a Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) document (Attachment 1).

On September 21, the City Council received a presentation, including findings and preliminary recommendations, on the project proposal. Here is the link to the September 21 Staff Report and it is also included as Attachment 2.

Council directed the CSCDA team to return to the City Council in October with a revised proposal that would address staff recommendations including deepening affordability levels, increasing capital investment and improving numbers across the board. Some Councilmembers also noted their desire for community outreach.

The project proposal was on the agenda for the October 19 City Council meeting. The City Council postponed the item to a future date.

Analysis:

The CSCDA team submitted a preliminary revised proposal on October 8, however some additional clarification was requested by staff, which was provided on October 13 (See Attachment 3). The project team also submitted a revised proposal on October 15 (See Attachment 5). Staff has not completed its in-depth analysis of these revised proposals; however, the consultant did provide a brief analysis of the October 13 proposal (See Attachment 4).

ATTACHMENT 2
544

If Council directs staff to continue work on this proposal, additional funding for consultant and City Attorney services will be required from the project team.

Additionally, staff continues to spend a significant amount of time on this proposed project and if additional staff work is required, the work will not be able to continue on an accelerated timeline since there are many other Council priority projects, including those with federal and state mandated deadlines, that need to be completed.

Key Areas that were recommended by staff and deemed important by Council are:

1. Affordability
a. Rents higher than market rate apartments in Milpitas b. Different income eligibility for California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) and CSCDA
c. Units do not count towards City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) numbers, no new housing stock added

2. Financial Assumptions
a. Assumptions are too optimistic; more conservative assumptions could result in significantly decreased Return on Investment (ROI). A 3% rent increase assumption is not realistic, based on historical data in Milpitas and rent increase restrictions related to the Area Median Income.

This is important since City will be foregoing property taxes and may not reap the benefits as projected.

3. Level of Capital Investment
a. Capital investment was initially based on a 12-year condition report, not on life of project/bond term; this has since been updated.

4. Transparency and Oversight
a. City does not control rental rates, implementation of affordability covenants, timing of re- financing, if any, and appropriate maintenance of asset.

A few additional items of note are as follows:

1. The current agreements do not include any performance metrics or enforcement mechanisms in favor of the City.

2. Cash flow projections and proforma are based on assumptions regarding tenant turnover, however, since existing tenants are not asked to leave and the rents are higher than market-rate, the likelihood of a turnover to low and moderate income households within a three year timeframe appears highly unlikely. In fact, once rents are reduced one would expect less tenant turnover as with other rent controlled projects.

3. Also, the process of tenant selection when a unit becomes vacant is not clearly defined. It could take several years for the project to serve the tenant population that is at the 60-80% AMI and the 80-100% AMI.

4. There are no enforceable metrics associated with the level of affordability. Thus, it is important for the City to negotiate terms that will provide true affordability in exchange for foregoing property taxes and vehicle license fees so as to ensure that the project does not inadvertently just provide rent control for luxury apartments at the expense of City property tax revenues.

545

Information about how the revised proposal as received on October 13 and 15 addresses the preliminary recommendations discussed by Council on September 21 is noted below. An updated brief analysis by the consultant is included as Attachment 4.

1. The rent reductions should be set at levels that are below market rate levels in Milpitas so that the Project truly delivers enhanced affordability. The proposed rent levels exceed average market rate rental rates, which largely nullifies the argument that the Project will meaningfully enhance the affordability of apartments in Milpitas.

The revised proposal does not address this recommendation.

2. Rent and income restrictions contained in the Regulatory Agreement should conform to the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) income limits. As proposed, the rent and income formulas are not consistent with the HCD formulas and result in significantly higher rents than what would be permitted by HCD.

The revised proposal does not address this recommendation. The revised proposal does reduce the allowable maximum rents based on 30% of income versus 35% of income but it still does not align with HCD formulas.

The revised proposal includes an updated Property Condition Report based on the 35 year term and the capital investment has been increased from $7.6 million to $11.8 million in 2021 dollars.

However, this increase is made possible by making cash flow projections more favorable in two primary ways – increased current rent assumptions and decreased vacancy rate projections in the first three years of the project. Staff has already noted concerns about previously proposed cash flow projections including its underlying assumptions and these changes appear to further exacerbate these concerns.

4. Any refinancing of Project debt should be subject to the City’s approval.

The project team is amenable to this recommendation in concept; however, this will require staff and City Attorney coordination with CSCDA. Staff is recommending that performance metrics, remedies and consequences of not meeting those metrics be included in the agreement.

5. The Project should be required to submit proposed rent increases to the City’s approval to ensure that the affordability restrictions are enforced.

The revised proposal does not address this recommendation. The project team has noted concerns with this recommendation.

6. The Project should be required to submit an annual report to the City demonstrating that the affordability covenants are being properly implemented and enforced and meeting the identified affordability goals.

7. The Administrator should be obligated to certify that the affordability covenants are being properly implemented and enforced to meet the agreed upon affordability goals. 546

8. The Project’s cash flow projection should be based on more conservative assumptions to reduce the level of risk and provide greater assurance for long-term viability.

The revised proposal does not address this recommendation rather, the assumptions are increasing risk as noted in Item #3.

9. The bond underwriting assumptions should be reviewed by an underwriter retained by the City and the City’s Financial Advisor to ensure that the financial structure is sound and consistent with industry standards for multifamily revenue bonds and is appropriate for the City’s participation, as well as review the City purchase option price and evaluate if the project can recoup the substantial lost property tax revenue.

The project team has advised that the City should rely on the underwriter retained by them; this does not address the recommendation of review by an underwriter hired by the City.

10. Greystar (Manager) should be required to submit its tenant selection plan, maintenance plan, staffing plan and marketing plan for the City’s review and approval.

The project team is amenable to this recommendation in concept; however, this will require staff and City Attorney coordination with CSCDA on specific agreement terms. Staff is recommending that in order to ensure the project meets the City’s affordability goals, performance metrics, remedies and consequences of not meeting those metrics be included in the agreement.

The project team has indicated that the Public Benefit Agreement could be amended to address this recommendation; however, this will require staff and City Attorney coordination with CSCDA. Staff is recommending that performance metrics, remedies and consequences of not meeting those metrics be included in the agreement.

In addition to the responses noted above, the project team has proposed local preference guidelines so as to enable a preference to households which include one or more persons who are employed by a public school district or public higher education institution within the City of Milpitas. This will require further analysis by the City Attorney to evaluate risk of implementation and compliance with State and federal fair housing laws.

The revised proposal submitted on October 15 includes additional items that will need further financial and legal review as noted below:

547

• Term of Regulatory Agreement - potentially change to a 55-year term; will require legal and financial review.
• Affordable Housing Monitoring Fee - $37,100; since agreement terms have not been negotiated and actual costs of monitoring are yet to be determined.
• Mandated Rental Savings in Regulatory Agreement – designated 8 units to be market rate, with minimum discounts for different income groups; any changes to proforma have not been submitted to and evaluated by the City.
• Partial Property Tax Backfill - $100,000 per year for five years; will require legal review.

The project team conducted community outreach at the Milpitas Chamber of Commerce and at Turing Apartments. Information about the community input received will be presented by the project team at the Council meeting.

If Council wishes to pursue this proposed project, there are several actions that will need to undertaken prior to approval of the project. Also, some of these actions will be applicable for any similar types of projects that may be brought to the Council for consideration.

1. Authorization of funding for additional staff, Attorney, and consultant resources As noted in the September 21 staff report, staff resources are already fully committed to delivering existing services and programs as well as several new programs and initiatives added because of increased federal funding and other Council funded priorities. If Council provides direction for staff to continue to work on this project as well as other similar projects, staff will need to bring back a discussion to Council on the need for additional resources and prioritization of other workplan items. It is important to note that staff may not be able to pause work on many of the work plan items since there are state and federal requirements and deadlines associated with those work plan items.

Additionally, based on the recommendations, the services of the City Attorney and a third-party financial advisor will also be needed. To date the project team has paid for consultant services provided by KMA but has not paid for staff or City Attorney time. If Council provides direction to move forward with additional work on the proposed project, additional funding will have to be provided by the project team.

2. Develop City goals and framework for this type of program and bring back for Council consideration
Since the proposed project will be providing a substantial City subsidy with the foregoing of approximately $15.4 million in property tax and property tax in-lieu of vehicle license fee revenues over 30 years, staff recommends developing specific goals and a framework for decision making for this type of project. A framework with goals could include the following:
a. Percentage of low and moderate income units for each project with a timeline for meeting that percentage
b. Alignment with City’s Housing goals, including RHNA numbers c. Condition of asset and proposed improvements
d. Number of years that bonds need to be paid off by
e. Amount of lost City revenue and total public subsidy f. Types of performance metrics and consequences of not meeting those metrics g. Level of oversight and enforcement and remedies
h. Establishment of associated fees to be paid for by the project to provide oversight and enforcement

3. Work with the project team to develop an agreement that meets the Council approved goals The proposed Public Benefit Agreement submitted by the project team only addresses the purchase of the asset by the City. Staff and the City Attorney will need to work with the project team on agreement terms that align with approved City goals and framework for this type of program.

548

Policy Alternative:

Not Applicable

Fiscal Impact:

Although the consultant costs to date have been paid for by the Owner, staff has spent a substantial amount of time working with the consultant and project team. Any additional work on this project will require additional funding for staff and City Attorney time as well as for a financial consultant.

If the City moves forward with this proposed project, over a 30-year period, it is estimated that the City would forego a total of $15.4 million (or approximately $9.7 million in 2021 dollars) of property tax revenue, comprised of $12.4 million of ad valorem property tax revenue and $3.0 million of property tax in-lieu of vehicle license fee revenues from the state that are linked to taxable assessed property values.

Including all taxing agencies, foregone tax revenues would approximate $92.9 million over a 30-year period.

Property tax is the City’s General Fund top revenue source, representing 37% of total revenues. Property taxes are therefore used to provide vital City services. Any agreement to reduce City property tax revenue for 30+ years will have City service level ramifications.

At the end of the bond term, the project team has suggested that the City may be able to recoup this lost revenue. However, project performance assumptions appear optimistic, which causes the risk of overstating the net return to the City. This proposed agreement does not guarantee the City would recover the $15.4 million of property tax foregone.

California Environmental Quality Act:

Recommendations

1. Receive follow-up information on the proposed project proposal for low and moderate income housing at Turing Apartments through a California Statewide Communities Development Authority program.

2. If Council wishes to pursue the proposed project, staff recommends Council (a) require project team to provide needed funding for additional staff, City Attorney, and consultant resources, (b) direct staff to bring back a framework and goals for this type of a moderate income housing program for Council consideration based on staff recommendations and Council input, and (c) direct staff to work with the project team on an agreement that is consistent with the approved framework and goals for a moderate income housing program.

Attachments:

Attachment 1 – FAQs
Attachment 2 – September 21 Agenda Report
Attachment 3 – Response letter from CSCDA and Waterford Attachment 4 – Consultant (KMA) analysis of revised project proposal Attachment 5 – Revised proposal from CSCDA and Waterford (dated October 15)

549
Attachment 3

1 City of Milpitas
Framework for Evaluating
City Participation in Middle-Income Workforce Housing Proposals

DRAFT GOALS AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES

GOAL A: AFFORDABILITY LEVEL
Project will primarily serve Moderate Income Households during the entire bond period.

Performance Measures:

A1. Housing units will be below market-rate and affordable to Moderate-Income Households earning 81-120% average median income (AMI), as defined by the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) maximum household income and rent limits for Santa Clara County. Units for Low-Income Households (80% AMI or below) as defined by HCD are also encouraged.

A2. Maximum rents shall be based on Moderate Income Households paying a maximum of the 30% of their gross household income for housing costs consisting of rent and utility expenses paid by tenants.

GOAL B: RENT INCREASES
Rent increases will be limited to maintain the affordability of the project for primarily Moderate Income Households during the entire bond period.

Performance Measures:

B1. Annual rent increases will not exceed 4% or the annual allowable percentage rent increase established by federal Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), whichever is lower.

B2. Owner or Property Administrator agrees to submit proposed rent increases for City review and approval that verifies affordability requirements/covenants will continue to be maintained. City will be allowed 30 days to review and approve the rent increase proposal.

AFFORDABILITY CONSIDERATIONS
550
Attachment 3

2 B3. Owner or Property Administrator agrees to submit an annual report to City that certifies and confirms that affordability covenants, including rent increases, comply with HCD standards for affordability to Moderate Income Households.

GOAL C: EXISTING TENANTS
Existing project tenants will not be displaced by the public benefit, regulatory, or other agreements.

Performance Measures:

C1. Non-Qualified Tenants (exceeding 120% AMI per California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (CTCAC) standards) will be allowed to remain in unit paying market rents until they choose to move out.

C2. Qualified Tenants (120% AMI or below per CTCAC standards) will be allowed to benefit from a minimum 10% reduction in current project market rents.

GOAL D: LOCAL PREFERENCE POLICY
A preference program will be established for qualifying residents and employees with a primary work location in the City of Milpitas.

Performance Measures:

D1. Subject to City review and approval, Owner or Property Administrator agrees to establish and administer a tenant preference program with administrative guidelines, marketing plan, and screening procedures that define benefiting households and employees. Confirm compliance with state and federal fair housing regulations.

D2. Priority will be provided to qualifying teachers and administrative, maintenance, and support staff that are employed by the Milpitas Unified School District or other public education institution with a Milpitas job location.

GOAL E: REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION (RHNA) CREDIT Projects will qualify for full or partial RHNA credit, if feasible.

Performance Measures:

E1. Project complies with AB 787 criteria for full or partial RHNA credit:
a. No existing units affordable to very low, low, or moderate-income households; b. Affordable to moderate income households for 55 years; c. At least 10% reduction in average monthly rents from previous 12 months; d. Rents based on 100% AMI established by CTCAC;
e. Units in decent, safe, and sanitary condition;
f. Project not acquired by eminent domain;
g. Government monitoring program established to ensure affordability and occupancy by qualifying households; and
h. A public entity shall hold an assignable right to purchase development. 551
Attachment 3

3 GOAL F: QUALIFICATIONS OF PROJECT TEAM
Project will be owned and managed by a highly experienced and reputable Property Administrator and Property Manager.

Performance Measures:

F1: Property Administrator demonstrates a minimum of ten years of extensive expertise and financial capability in financing, developing, and managing at least 5,000 units of comparable market-rate and affordable (income and rent restricted) residential projects in California.

F2. Property Manager demonstrates a minimum of ten years of extensive financial and operations experience managing a portfolio of at least 5,000 units of comparable market-rate and affordable (income and rent restricted) residential projects in California, including administering local preference programs.

GOAL G: CITY EVALUATION OF PROPOSALS
Proposals will be evaluated for compliance with Goals and Performance Measures with professional and technical assistance as necessary.

Performance Measure:

G1. Project proponent deposits funds as determined by the City to retain independent financial, economic. and/or property management consultants to analyze the proposal and provide findings and recommendations.

GOAL H CITY REVENUES
City participation will not result in a loss of City property taxes, special taxes, or property tax in lieu of vehicle license fees (PTILVLF).

Performance Measures:

H1. Project will fully backfill the City's any lost property tax and PTILVLF revenues through an upfront and/or annual payment of a Host Fee to the City with an annual increase of 2%. Host Fee shall be based on the post-sale assessed valuation of the property.

H2. Host and other applicable City fees will be paid before administrator fees, debt service (bond principal and interest), and any bond reserve fund deposits, and will be paid from other sources if operating revenue is insufficient to meet this obligation.

H3. For mixed used projects, property taxes pertaining to the non-residential portion of the property will continue to be paid.

H4. Where applicable, an annual Infrastructure Fee will be paid equivalent to City special taxes pertaining to inclusion in a community facilities district or assessment district with annual increase as specified.

FINANCIAL CONSIDERATIONS
552
Attachment 3

4 GOAL I. PROJECT FINANCIAL VIABILITY
Project demonstrates positive cashflow and ability to fully cover its debt service and operating expenses during the bond or agreement period to reduce financial risks and assure long-term viability.

Performance Measures:

I1. Through consultation with an independent real estate or economic consultant, income and expense assumptions conservatively reflect historical trends for residential projects in Milpitas or Santa Clara County.

J2. Project Condition Report demonstrates a minimum 1.0 Debt Coverage Ratio (DCR) during the entire bond period with rental income based on conservative assumptions and the affordability goals and performance measures in Goals A and B.

I3. Cash flow analysis demonstrates ability to cover amortized principal and interest payments during the bond term based on conservative assumptions.

GOAL J: CITY FINANCIAL RISK/BOND STRUCTURE
The financing plan and bond structure for the project is sound and consistent with industry standards for multi-family revenue bonds and reduces City risks and liability.

Performance Measures:

J1. A minimum of 25% of the aggregate principal within 10 years of the bond issuance; bond term will not exceed 35 years.

J2 Bonds will be optionally redeemable within 10 years of issuance with call premium consistent with investment grade municipal bonds.

J3 Bond principal redemption will be mandatory and paid under the same lien position as bond interest payments
J4 Administrator fees will be paid after payment of bond interest and principal, any bond reserve fund deposits, and payable with annual excess cashflow only.

J5 Bond issuance fees and expenses will be in line with other similar middle income housing programs in California.

J6. Bond issuer will notify the City of any material changes to the project during the bond term.

J7. Public Benefit Agreement or Regulatory Agreement includes indemnification clause that limits the City’s liability and exposure at the Project Host and program participant.

J8. City will be entitled to 100% of the property’s reversion value at the end of the bond term, without any obligation to share any proceeds to other taxing entities.

553
Attachment 3

5 GOAL K: REFINANCING/ADDITIONAL DEBT
City will have the authority to approve any refinancing, restructuring, or issuance of additional debt.

Performance Measure:

K1. Public Benefit Agreement or Regulatory Agreement includes provisions that stipulate the City's approval authority for any debt refinancing, restructuring, or issuance of additional debt or encumbrances during the bond term.

GOAL L: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS
Capital improvement needs for the project are fully identified and funded for the entire bond or agreement period.

Performance Measures:

L1. Capital improvement and replacement needs with estimated costs are determined that cover the entire bond period.

L2. Project Condition Report (pro forma or cash flow analysis) demonstrates that capital improvement and replacement costs will be covered by project reserves and operating income during the entire bond period.

L3. An updated capital improvement assessment will be prepared at least every ten years, or sooner if requested by the City, that assesses the capital needs and expenses for the project during the next ten years and the sufficiency of reserve funds and operating income.

L4. Owner or Property Administrator agrees to fund an independent consultant approved by the City to prepare the capital improvement assessment and agrees to adjust reserve funds to cover revised capital costs for the project, if necessary.

GOAL M: CITY ENFORCEMENT AUTHORITY
City will have enforcement authority over management of the project to ensure compliance with goals and performance measures during the bond or agreement period.

Performance Measures:

M1. Public Benefit Agreement or Regulatory Agreement cites the City’s authority and remedies to enforce compliance with the housing affordability requirements.

M2. Public Benefit Agreement or Regulatory Agreement defines the City’s enforcement abilities, remedies, consequences, and resolution process if, upon review of annual

LEVEL OF CAPITAL INVESTMENT

TRANSPARENCY AND OVERSIGHT
554
Attachment 3

6 certification and reports, project operations or responsible parties are found to be out of compliance with agreements.

GOAL N: MONITORING AND REPORTING
City will be provided with regular reports regarding the financial and operational performance of the project during the bond or agreement period for project monitoring.

Performance Measures:

N1. Certification: Owner or Property Administrator agrees to submit to the City an annual Certificate of Continuing Program Compliance for the project.

N2. Property Financial, Management, and Maintenance Reports: Owner or Property Administrator agrees to submit an annual report to the City that describes the project operations and finances, including but not limited to:
a. Rent roll and rent increases;
b. Vacancy rate;
c. Operating income and expenses;
d. Cashflow projection, operating funds, and reserves; e. Bond interest and redemption payments and all bond specific payments; f. Completed and planned capital improvements and replacements; and g. Documentation on the general condition of the Project.

N3. Independent Review: City reserves the right to require the property owner to fund an independent property and/or financial management consultant to review the reports required under G2 and provide an assessment of the project based on industry standards and best practices for management of residential property.

N4. Monitoring Fee: Owner or Project Administrator agrees to submit to City an annual monitoring fee to cover City staff costs for project oversight and monitoring, with provision for an annual fee increase.

GOAL O: PROJECT ADMINISTRATION AND MANAGEMENT
Project proponent demonstrates to the City that the project will comply with best real estate practices for management of residential property.

Performance Measures:

O1. Owner or Property Administrator agrees to submit the following plans for City review and approval prior to execution of PBA: Tenant Selection Plan, with screening and qualification procedures; Local Preference Policy (per Goal D); Maintenance Plan; Property Management Plan, including staffing; and Marketing Plan.

O2. City will have the authority to review and approve the selection of any replacement Property Administrator or Property Manager that may be proposed during the bond period, including new or revised agreements pertaining to the replacement company.

555
January 10, 2022
Mayor Rich Tran & Hon. Council Members
City of Milpitas
455 E. Calaveras Blvd.

Milpitas, CA 95035
RE: “MIDDLE-INCOME” WORK FORCE HOUSING PROPOSAL, TURING Dear Mayor Tran & Hon. Council Members:

Since March 2021, Waterford and Lyon Living (“Applicant”) have been working with the City of Milpitas staff, Keyser Marston, and other third-party consultants, including Fieldman Rolapp & Associates , in an effort for the City of Milpitas to approve the conversion of Turing into a moderate-income housing project through the California Statewide Communities Development Authority (“CSCDA”) financing program (“Project”). Over the course of the last 10 months, City Staff, third party consultants, and City Council members have provided meaningful feedback and requested modifications to the program through a series of weekly in-person meetings, City Council meetings, email correspondences, and conference calls. The purpose of this letter is to provide a revised proposal that that outlines the Applicant’s Draft Performance Goals & Measures, addressing the latest round of requirements proposed by the City Staff to the conversion of Turing into a moderate-income housing project.

In the pages below you will find the Performance Goals & Measures outlined by the C ity, followed by the Applicant’s proposal for each requirement (Appendix A). In addition, our bond underwriting team at Goldman Sachs has submitted the requested draft bond cash flows for Turing (Appendix D) and set up a call with City Staff and the Fieldman Rolapp & Associates team on January 12, 2022, to discuss the bond underwriting, as requested by City Staff and the Fieldman team . In this report you will also find an example of the report that Waterford Asset Management Team updates each week that tracks the rent savings at e ach asset across the Waterford/CSCDA Essential Housing Portfolio (Appendix B). Finally, the Applicant has also included the latest version of the Waterford/CSCDA Essential Housing Proposal for Turing – Milpitas, CA (Appendix C), which is now updated with all pertinent info outl ined in the Performance Goals & Measures. All relevant deal points will be memorialized in The Public Benefit Agreement and Regulatory Agreement. This is standard practice for all CSCDA “Essential Housing” projects and something that can be finalized expeditiously.

We appreciate your continued work on this very important topic of middle-income housing for the hard- working families of the City of Milpitas.

Sincerely,
Sean Rawson
Co-Founder
Waterford Property Company
ATTACHMENT 4
556

Appendix A
Waterford / CSCDA Turing Milpitas Performance Goals & Measures

GOAL A: PUBLIC BENEFIT AGREEMENT (PBA)
Terms for City participation in CSCDA PBA are incorporated into the agreement.

Performance Measures:

A1. Incorporate all City performance metrics and requirements into the PBA (such as Section 14 or Addendum) with description of review, approval, and enforcement authority where applicable. Include performance metrics, remedies, consequences, and resolution process to address non-compliance and City concerns.

CSCDA Turing Proposal: Turing has proposed language in Draft Public Benefit Agreement, Section 14 to address Host Fee, Regulatory Agreement Reporting, Capital Needs Assessment, Property Management, and Property Maintenance Report.

A2. Agree to terms for City option to acquire Project after year 15 and to have Project transferred to City at the end of bond term.

CSCDA Turing Proposal: CSCDA to submit an updated Draft Public Benefit Agreement for City review that clearly outlines the previously agreed-upon terms under which the City of Milpitas will have the option to acquire the Project after year 15 and to have Project transferred to City at the end of the bond term.

GOAL B: AFFORDABILITY
Project will primarily serve Moderate Income Households during the full CSCDA bond period.

Performance Measures:

B1. Rents for all units shall be below market rates based on similar projects in Milpitas. With consideration of project characteristics such as year of construction, amenities, and unit mix and size, units shall be affordable to Moderate Income Households (81-120% AMI) as defined by the current California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) Maximum Household Income and Rent Limits for Santa Clara County. Units for Low Income Households are also encouraged when feasible.

CSCDA Turing Proposal: Moderate Income Housing Rents at Turing will be based on

COMMUNITY BENEFIT
557

TCAC/HUD maximum allowable rent and household income limits. Turing proposed affordability mix is 40% of the units will be designated to households earning up to 80% of the Area Median Income (AMI). 20% of the units will be designated to households earning between 81% and 100% of the AMI. 40% of the units designated to households earning between 101% and 120% AMI. This proposal includes a deeper affordability allocation than most other “Essential Housing” conversions in 2021, in which typically 1/3 of the asset is allocated to each income threshold.

B2. Maximum rents shall be based on Moderate Income Households paying a maximum of the 30% of their gross household income for living expenses (rent and utilities) based on HCD standards.

CSCDA Turing Proposal: Maximum rents will be based on 30% of gross household income using higher TCAC income and rent limits.

GOAL C: LOCAL PREFERENCE POLICY
Establish a preference program for qualifying residents and employees that live and/or work in Milpitas.

Performance Measure:

C1. Local Preference Policy: With City review and approval, Project proponent shall establish a tenant preference program with guidelines that define benefiting households and screening procedures. Confirm compliance with fair housing regulations.

CSCDA Turing Proposal : Turing has agreed in concept to submit a program to provide preference to households with a ho usehold member employed by a public school district or public higher education institution within Milpitas. Provision proposed to be included in the Regulatory Agreement.

GOAL D: RENT INCREASES
Maintain the project to be primarily affordable to Moderate Income Households.

Performance Measures:

D1. Annual rent increases shall not exceed 4% or the annual allowable percentage rent increase established by HCD, whichever is lower.

CSCDA Turing Proposal: Annual rent increases shall not exceed 4% or the allowable annual rent increase established by HCD, whichever is lower.

D2. Project shall submit proposed rent increases to the City for review that verifies affordability requirements/covenants will continue to be maintained.

CSCDA Turing Proposal: Turing does not agree with this proposed requirement, as requiring approval before the rent increases are put in place will cause too many delays in 558

the resident renting process. As a compromise, Turing has agreed to provide annual reports that verify compliance with affordability covenants and restrictions based on TCAC rent and income limits. These reports will also show the amount of units that have converted to the Essential Housing program at each AMI threshold along with the annual rent savings of each threshold. See Appendix B for example of resident rent savings from other Waterford / CSCDA assets that began conversion in 2021.

D3. Project shall submit an annual report to City that certifies and confirms that affordability covenants, including rent increases, comply with HCD standards for affordability to Moderate Income Households.

CSCDA Turing Proposal: Turing has agreed to provide annual reports that verify compliance with affordability covenants and restrictions based on TCAC rent and income limits.

GOAL E: EXISTING TENANTS
Existing project tenants shall not be displaced by the CSCDA Public Benefit and Regulatory Agreements.

Performance Measures:

E1. Non-Qualified Tenants (exceeding 120% AMI per California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (CTCAC) standards) shall be allowed to remain in unit paying market rents until they choose to move out.

CSCDA Turing Proposal: Non-Qualified Tenants (exceeding 120% AMI) will be allowed to stay in units. Turing projects fill turnover of non-qualified tenants in three years. Per Turing, 197 existing households exceed 120% AMI.

E2. Qualified Tenants (120% AMI or below per CTCAC standards) shall be allowed to benefit from a minimum 10% reduction in current project market rents.

CSCDA Turing Proposal: Qualified tenants allowed to stay and will initially receive an average 8-12% reduction from current markets rents, or average $323/month. Per Turing, 131 existing households are at 120% AMI or below.

559

GOAL F: REGIONAL HOUSING NEEDS ALLOCATION (RHNA) CREDIT Desirable to have projects qualify for partial RHNA credit, if feasible.

Performance Measures:

F1. Evaluate project on compliance with AB 787 criteria for potential 25% RHNA credit, including:
a. No existing units affordable to very low, low, or moderate-income households; b. Affordable to moderate income households for 55 years; c. At least 10% reduction in average monthly rents from previous 12 months; d. Initial rents based on 100% AMI established by CTCAC; e. Units in decent, safe, and sanitary condition;
f. Project not acquired by eminent domain;
g. Subject to government monitoring program to ensure affordability and occupancy by qualifying households; and
h. A public entity shall hold an assignable right to purchase development.

CSCDA Turing Proposal: Project has agreed to an affordability term for the regulatory agreement will be 55 years, if required by the City for RHNA credit.
560

GOAL G: PROPERTY TAX BACKFILL
City participation in the CSCDA bond will not result in a loss of City property tax and property tax in lieu of vehicle license fee (PTILVLF) revenues.

Performance Measure:

G1. Project shall fully backfill the City's lost property tax and PTILVLF revenues through an annual payment of a Host Fee with an annual increase of 2%.

CSCDA Turing Proposal: Project will contribute $361,970 to the City in 2022 (1st year) to backfill Milpitas's share of property taxes and PTILVLF with annual 2% increase. Public Benefit Agreement, Section 14(l). Payment subordinate to bonds and paid from project income. Taxes for retail portion will continue to be paid with apportionment adjustment as needed.

GOAL H. PROJECT FINANCIAL VIABILITY
Project demonstrates positive cash flow and ability to fully cover its debt service, capital improvements, and operating expenses during the entire bond period to reduce financial risk and assure long-term viability.

Performance Measures:

H1. Project Condition Report (pro forma or cash flow analysis) demonstrates that capital improvement costs will be fully covered by reserves and operating income during the entire bond period.

CSCDA Turing Proposal: Project proponent has adjusted underwriting to cover projected capital improvements needs for 35 years ($17,865,253 Capital Expense Reserves).

H2. Project Condition Report demonstrates a minimum 1:1 Debt Coverage Ratio (DCR) during the entire bond period.

CSCDA Turing Proposal: Project Condition Report shows a minimum 1:1 DCR.

H3. Income/expense variables that conservatively reflect historical trends for residential project in Milpitas or Santa Clara County.

PUBLIC RISK
561

CSCDA Turing Proposal: Project Conditions report projects a 5% vacancy rate, 3% annual rent increase, and three year turnover of existing tenants.

GOAL I: CITY BOND RISK
Ensure that the financial structure is sound and consistent with industry standards for multi-family revenue bonds and reduces City risks and liability.

Performance Measures:

I1. City to obtain a bond underwriter to evaluate the financial structure of the project and the City's purchase option; incorporate the recommendations of the bond underwriter into the PBA.

CSCDA Turing Proposal: Turing has agreed to fund the bond underwriter under the purview of the City. Goldman Sachs has submitted their bond underwriting cash flows to the City’s consultants (Fieldman) for review on 1/10/22. Meeting with City Staff, Fieldman, Goldman Sachs, CSCDA, Waterford, and Lyon Living set for 1/12/22.

I2. PBA includes indemnification clause to limit City liability and backfill provisions in the event insufficient funds are available to cover debt service.

CSCDA Turing Proposal: Turing does not propose to add these provisions in PBA.

I3. City shall be entitled to 100% of the property’s reversion value at the end of the bond term, without any obligation to share any proceeds to other taxing entities.

CSCDA Turing Proposal: To be resolved. Pending

GOAL J: DEBT REFINANCING
City shall have the authority to approve any refinancing of the CSCDA bond for the project.

Performance Measure:

J1. PBA shall include provisions that stipulate the City's approval authority for any refinancing that may be proposed for Project during the bond term.

562

CSCDA Turing Proposal: Refinancing prior to taking ownership in year 15 is not applicable / possible given the financial mechanics and structure of the Essential Housing Bond Finance program. Because refinancing is not applicable / possible, Turing has not agreed to provide the City approval authority for any refinancing that may occur.

GOAL K: PROJECT MANAGEMENT
Project proponent demonstrates to the City that the project will comply with best real estate practices for management of residential property.

Performance Measures:

K1. Project proponent shall submit the following plans for City review and approval prior to execution of PBA:
a. Tenant Selection Plan, with screening and qualification procedures b. Maintenance Plan
c. Property Management Plan, including staffing
d. Marketing Plan

CSCDA Turing Proposal: Turing has agreed in concept to submit the plans requested by the City.

GOAL L: CITY OVERSIGHT AND MONITORING
City is granted review authority over the project with defined remedies or resolution process for non-compliance.

Performance Measures:

L1. Regulatory Agreement: City will be provided a Certificate of Continuing Program Compliance in accordance with Regulatory Agreement.

CSCDA Turing Proposal: City will be provided an annual Certificate of Continuing Program Compliance in accordance to Section 4(e) of Regulatory Agreement.

L2. Capital Needs Assessment: City will receive a capital needs assessment at least every five years that assess the capital needs for the Project during the next ten years.

COMPLIANCE
563

CSCDA Turing Proposal: City will receive a capital needs assessment at least every ten years that assess the capital needs for the Project during the next ten years. PBA, Section 14(n)
L3. Property Management: City will have the authority to review and approve the selection of original and any replacement property management company and management agreement.

CSCDA Turing Proposal: Turing has agreed to allow City to review management company and management agreement. Good faith discussion to address deficiencies and determine remedies. PBA, Section 14(o).

L4. Property Maintenance Report: Annual report shall be submitted to the City for review that describes the project operations and finances, including but not limited to:
a. Rent roll and rent increases;
b. Vacancy rate;
c. Operating income and expenses;
d. Operating funds and reserves;
e. Bond interest and redemption payments and all bond specific payments; f. Completed and planned capital improvements; and
g. Documentation on the general condition of the Project.

CSCDA Turing Proposal: Turing has agreed to submit an annual Property Maintenance Report per PBA, Section 14(p).

L5. Monitoring Fee: Owner shall submit to City an annual monitoring fee to cover City staff and consultant costs (as needed) for oversight and monitoring of Project.

CSCDA Turing Proposal: Turing has proposed an annual monitoring fee of $100 per unit or total $37,100.

564

Appendix B

Waterford / CSCDA Essential Housing Portfolio AMI Savings (as of December 2021)

565

ESSENTIAL HOUSING RENT SAVINGS
80% 100% 120% TOTAL SAVINGS TARGET UNITS PER BUCKET
Market Rents (per
Costar data) as of: Market Rent* Asking Rent Rent Savings From Market
Max Allowable
Authority Rent
VAR between
Max and Asking Market Rent* Asking Rent Rent Savings From Market
Max Allowable
Authority Rent
VAR between
Max and Asking Market Rent* Asking Rent Rent Savings From Market
Max Allowable
Authority Rent
VAR between
Max and Asking
Monthly Rent
Savings Per Unit
vs. Market Rents
Yearly Rent
Savings Per Unit
% Savings off
Market
Total Savings per
Year
11/23/2021 Parallel
0 BR (39 Units) $2,556 $1,671 $885 $2,198 $527 $2,556 $1,744 $812 $2,748 $1,004 $2,556 $1,818 $738 $3,297 $1,479 1 BR (243 Units) $2,793 $1,879 $914 $2,511 $632 $2,793 $1,961 $832 $3,138 $1,177 $2,793 $2,044 $749 $3,766 $1,722 2 BR (104 Units) $3,718 $2,361 $1,357 $2,826 $465 $3,718 $2,465 $1,253 $3,532 $1,067 $3,718 $2,569 $1,149 $4,239 $1,670 AVG $3,018 $1,988 $1,030 $2,564 $576 $3,018 $2,075 $943 $3,205 $1,130 $3,018 $2,163 $855 $3,846 $1,683 $943 $11,318 31.25% $4,368,770 11/23/2021 Paramount
0 BR (28 Units) $2,556 $1,671 $885 $2,198 $527 $2,556 $1,744 $811 $2,748 $1,003 $2,556 $1,818 $738 $3,297 $1,479 1 BR (161 Units) $2,793 $1,879 $914 $2,511 $632 $2,793 $1,889 $904 $3,138 $1,249 $2,793 $1,928 $865 $3,766 $1,838 2 BR (193 Units) $3,718 $2,361 $1,357 $2,826 $464 $3,718 $2,383 $1,336 $3,532 $1,149 $3,718 $2,432 $1,287 $4,239 $1,807 3 BR (18 Units) $4,707 $2,917 $1,790 $3,138 $221 $4,707 $3,110 $1,597 $3,923 $813 $4,707 $3,174 $1,533 $4,708 $1,533 AVG $3,309 $2,144 $1,165 $2,669 $525 $3,309 $2,172 $1,137 $3,336 $1,164 $3,309 $2,219 $1,090 $4,004 $1,784 $1,129 $13,551 34.13% $5,420,206 11/23/2021 Oceanaire
0 BR (15 Units) $2,344 $1,841 $503 $1,932 $91 $2,344 $2,301 $43 $2,415 $114 $2,344 $2,351 ($7) $2,898 $547 1 BR (100 Units) $2,822 $2,102 $720 $2,207 $105 $2,822 $2,480 $342 $2,759 $279 $2,822 $2,592 $230 $3,311 $719 2 BR (94 Units) $3,855 $2,366 $1,489 $2,483 $117 $3,855 $2,958 $897 $3,103 $145 $3,855 $3,549 $306 $3,724 $175 3 BR (7 Units) $4,198 $2,627 $1,571 $2,627 $0 $4,198 $3,284 $914 $3,448 $164 $4,198 $3,941 $257 $4,137 $196 AVG $3,283 $2,216 $1,067 $2,322 $106 $3,283 $2,702 $581 $2,907 $206 $3,283 $3,035 $247 $3,489 $453 $642 $7,710 19.57% $1,665,354 11/23/2021 Altana
1 BR (329 Units) $2,762 $2,102 $660 $2,207 $105 $2,762 $2,392 $370 $2,759 $367 $2,762 $2,492 $270 $3,311 $819 2 BR (155 Units) $3,866 $2,366 $1,500 $2,483 $117 $3,866 $2,958 $908 $3,103 $145 $3,866 $3,366 $500 $3,724 $358 3 BR (23 Units) $4,610 $2,627 $1,983 $2,869 $242 $4,610 $3,284 $1,326 $3,586 $302 $4,610 $3,869 $741 $4,303 $434 AVG $3,184 $2,207 $977 $2,321 $115 $3,184 $2,606 $578 $2,902 $296 $3,184 $2,822 $362 $3,482 $661 $571 $6,854 17.94% $3,474,867 11/23/2021 Westgate II & III
0 BR (11 Units) $2,521 $1,932 $589 $1,932 $0 $2,521 $2,198 $323 $2,415 $217 $2,521 $2,291 $230 $2,898 $607 1 BR (177 Units) $2,792 $2,207 $585 $2,207 $0 $2,792 $2,476 $316 $2,759 $283 $2,792 $2,580 $212 $3,311 $731 2 BR (95 Units) $3,717 $2,483 $1,235 $2,483 $0 $3,717 $3,103 $614 $3,103 $0 $3,717 $3,484 $233 $3,724 $240 3 BR (57 Units) $4,926 $2,758 $2,168 $2,869 $111 $4,926 $3,448 $1,478 $3,586 $138 $4,926 $4,137 $789 $4,303 $166 AVG $3,400 $2,368 $1,032 $2,386 $19 $3,400 $2,805 $594 $2,983 $178 $3,400 $3,084 $315 $3,579 $495 $658 $7,894 19.35% $2,683,893 11/23/2021 Hudson
0 BR (18 Units) $2,521 $1,932 $589 $1,932 $0 $2,521 $2,055 $466 $2,415 $360 $2,521 $2,141 $380 $2,898 $757 1 BR (85 Units) $2,792 $2,207 $585 $2,207 $0 $2,792 $2,334 $458 $2,759 $425 $2,792 $2,432 $360 $3,311 $879 2 BR (70 Units) $3,717 $2,483 $1,234 $2,483 $0 $3,717 $3,021 $696 $3,103 $82 $3,717 $3,148 $569 $3,724 $576 AVG $3,138 $2,290 $848 $2,290 $0 $3,138 $2,583 $555 $2,862 $279 $3,138 $2,691 $447 $3,435 $744 $631 $7,574 20.11% $1,310,266 11/23/2021 Cameo
0 BR (60 Units) $2,338 $2,004 $334 $2,198 $194 $2,338 $2,092 $246 $2,748 $656 $2,338 $2,158 $180 $3,297 $1,139 1 BR (90 Units) $2,628 $2,351 $277 $2,511 $160 $2,628 $2,455 $173 $3,138 $683 $2,628 $2,532 $96 $3,766 $1,234 2 BR (93 Units) $3,312 $2,826 $486 $2,826 $0 $3,312 $3,182 $130 $3,532 $350 $3,312 $3,283 $29 $4,239 $956 3 BR (19 Units) $4,528 $3,138 $1,390 $3,264 $126 $4,528 $3,923 $605 $4,080 $157 $4,528 $4,203 $325 $4,897 $694 AVG $2,942 $2,497 $445 $2,606 $109 $2,942 $2,736 $206 $3,257 $520 $2,942 $2,834 $108 $3,909 $1,074 $254 $3,052 8.64% $799,620 11/23/2021 Garrison
0 BR (20 Units) $2,338 $1,815 $523 $2,198 $383 $2,338 $1,895 $443 $2,748 $853 $2,338 $1,955 $383 $3,297 $1,342 1 BR (51 Units) $2,628 $2,270 $358 $2,511 $241 $2,628 $2,370 $258 $3,138 $768 $2,628 $2,445 $183 $3,766 $1,321 2 BR (23 Units) $3,312 $2,826 $486 $2,826 $0 $3,312 $3,292 $20 $3,532 $240 $3,312 $3,396 ($84) $4,239 $843 AVG $2,734 $2,309 $425 $2,521 $212 $2,734 $2,495 $239 $3,151 $657 $2,734 $2,573 $161 $3,782 $1,209 $276 $3,318 10.11% $311,878 11/23/2021 1818
1 BR (160 Units) $2,793 $1,979 $814 $2,511 $532 $2,793 $2,044 $749 $3,138 $1,094 $2,793 $2,109 $684 $3,766 $1,657 2 BR (105 Units) $3,718 $2,552 $1,166 $2,826 $274 $3,718 $2,636 $1,082 $3,532 $896 $3,718 $2,720 $998 $4,239 $1,519 AVG $3,159 $2,206 $953 $2,636 $430 $3,159 $2,279 $881 $3,294 $1,016 $3,159 $2,351 $808 $3,953 $1,602 $866 $10,396 27.42% $2,755,032 11/23/2021 Theo
96 BMR units at the property, accounted for in
80% "Asking Rent".
1 BR (56 Units) $2,792 $2,044 $748 $2,207 $163 $2,792 $2,759 $33 $2,759 $0 $2,792 $3,311 ($519) $3,311 $0 2 BR (49 Units) $3,717 $2,357 $1,360 $2,483 $126 $3,717 $3,103 $614 $3,103 $0 $3,717 $3,724 ($7) $3,724 $0 AVG $3,224 $2,190 $1,034 $2,336 $145 $3,224 $2,920 $304 $2,920 $0 $3,224 $3,504 ($280) $3,504 $0 $364 $4,364 11.28% $458,223

ASSET / UNIT COUNT

Page 1 of 2 ends

Milpitas City CouncilFebruary 15, 2022

Milpitas City Council
February 15, 2022