CityCouncil_RegularSession_Attachments_11_01_2022 — Milpitas City Council, November 1, 2022 (part 1 of 2)

JOINT MEETING OF THE

MILPITAS CITY COUNCIL, HOUSING

AUTHORITY, AND SUCCESSOR AGENCY

November 1, 2022 Milpitas City Council Agenda Page 1

AG E N D A
TUESDAY, NOVEMBER 1, 2022
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBERS, 455 E CALAVERAS BLVD, MILPITAS, CA 6:00 PM (CLOSED SESSION)
7:00 PM (PUBLIC BUSINESS)

For assistance in the following languages, you may call:

Đối với Việt Nam, gọi 408-586-2400
Para sa Tagalog, tumawag sa 408-586-3051
Para español, llame 408-586-3072
The City Council meeting is held in the City Council Chamber at City Hall, 455 E. Calaveras Blvd., Milpitas and via teleconference/Zoom webinar.

You may watch the Council meeting without providing public comment by accessing it via links here.

Meeting shall be livestreamed - Go to:

Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/CityofMilpitas/
YouTube: https://www.milpitas.gov/youtube
Web Streaming: https://www.milpitas.gov/webstreaming

PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS
Oral public comments may be provided live during the City Council meeting in person or by registering for the zoom meeting in advance. To register you will need to provide an email address (not disclosed) and a name. To minimize technical difficulties, please make sure that you have the latest version of the Zoom Application. Below is the link to register for this meeting only:
https://ci-milpitas-ca-gov.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_SkpUHGY6T_GgNOSUH7GPzQ After you register a link will be sent to you to join the City Council meeting in order to give your comments.

All registered meeting attendees who wish to speak must click on the “raise hand” icon when the Mayor calls for public comments. If participating by calling in on your phone, dial *9 to use the “raise hand” feature, and when you are called upon, hit *6 to unmute your phone. Your phone number will be displayed in the live meeting. The Mayor will call the speakers to begin.

All comments provided shall be limited to three minutes or less as determined by the Mayor. All members of the public will be limited to one comment per agenda item, and one comment for non-agenda items.

MILPITAS CITY COUNCIL CODE OF CONDUCT
 Be respectful and courteous (words, tone, and body language).  Model civility.
 Avoid surprises.
 Praise publicly and criticize privately.
 Focus on the issue, not the person.
 Refrain from using electronic devices while on the Council dais.  Disclose conflicts of interest and affiliations related to agenda items.  Separate governing from campaigning.
 The Council speaks with one voice after making policy on issues.  Respect the line between policy and administration.
 Council will hold one another accountable to comply with this Code of Conduct.

1 November 1, 2022 Milpitas City Council Agenda Page 2

CALL MEETING TO ORDER by Mayor and ROLL CALL by City Clerk (6:00 PM)

ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION
(a) CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1)
City as Defendant
Steven Petrakovitz (Deceased) v. City of Milpitas, WCAB no. ADJ9926577

(b) CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(1)
City as Defendant
Alok Jain, et al. v. City of Milpitas, Santa Clara Superior Court Case no. 18CV325365

CLOSED SESSION ANNOUNCEMENT:

Report on action taken in Closed Session, if required per Government Code Section 54957.1, including the vote or abstention of each member present.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
INVOCATION (Mayor Tran)
PUBLIC FORUM (7:05 PM)
Those in the audience and via Zoom are invited to address City Council on any subject not on tonight’s agenda. In-person speakers wishing to address the Council are requested, but not required to complete a Speaker Card and submit it to the Mayor. In-person speakers will then be asked to come up to the podium and state their name for the record. Those interested in speaking via Zoom may do so by following the instructions on page one (1) of the agenda. Comments may be limited to three (3) minutes or less at the Mayor’s discretion. As an item not listed on the agenda, no response is required from City staff or the Council and no action can be taken. The City Council may instruct the City Manager to place the item on a future meeting agenda.

NOTE: If a member of the public wishes to share any presentation materials for Council consideration, they must be submitted to the Clerk’s Office by email to [email protected] by 12:00 p.m. on the day of the meeting. No presentations will be accepted in person in the Council Chambers.

ANNOUNCEMENTS AND FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS (7:10 PM)
Members of the City Council or City Manager may make brief announcements at this time. Members of the City Council may also suggest future agenda items at this time. For future agenda items, the City Council shall not debate the topic or engage in discussion but shall simply state a “yes” or “no” as to whether to direct the City Manager to place the item on a future meeting agenda. If a majority of the City Council agrees to place an item on a future meeting agenda, the City Manager shall place the item on a future agenda for City Council discussion.

ANNOUNCEMENT OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS

READING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CODE OF CONDUCT

APPROVAL OF AGENDA
CONSENT CALENDAR (7:15 PM)
Consent calendar items are considered to be routine and will be considered for adoption by one motion. There will be no separate discussion of these items unless a City Councilmember, member of the audience or staff requests the Council to remove an item from (or be added to) the consent calendar. Any person desiring to speak on any item on the consent calendar should ask to have that item removed from the consent calendar.

C1. Receive City Council Calendar of Meetings for November 2022 (Staff Contact: Suzanne Guzzetta, City Clerk, 408-586-3001)
Recommendation: Receive City Council Calendar of Meetings for November 2022. 2 November 1, 2022 Milpitas City Council Agenda Page 3

C2. Approve City Council City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of October 18, 2022 (Staff Contact:

Suzanne Guzzetta, City Clerk, 408-586-3001)
Recommendation: Approve City Council Regular Meeting minutes of October 18, 2022.

C3. Receive the Preview List of Anticipated Items for the Next Regular City Council Meeting (Staff Contact: Suzanne Guzzetta, City Clerk, 408-586-3001)
Recommendation: Receive the list of anticipated agenda items for the next regular City Council meeting.

C4. Receive and Review the List of Agenda Items Requested by City Councilmembers (Staff Contact: Suzanne Guzzetta, City Clerk, 408-586-3001)
Recommendation: Review the list of items that have been requested by City Councilmembers and provide direction to staff as necessary. No substantive discussion about any specific item shall occur and the City Council shall hold all debate about the item until it is scheduled as a full agenda item.

C5. Accept Commissioner Resignation (Staff Contact: Suzanne Guzzetta, City Clerk, 408-586-3001) Recommendation: Accept the resignation of Marshall Jones from the Economic Development and Trade Commission and direct the City Clerk to post the notice of unscheduled vacancy.

C6. Consider the Recommendation from Mayor Tran for Appointment to City Commissions (Contact: Mayor Tran, 408- 586-3029)
Recommendation: Receive the recommendation from Mayor Tran and approve appointment to the Science, Technology & Innovation Commission.

C7. Reconfirm Findings and Determinations Under Resolution No. 9165 and Assembly Bill 361 for the Continuation of Virtual Meetings of the City Council and Legislative Bodies (Staff Contact:

Michael Mutalipassi, City Attorney, 408-586-3040)
Recommendation: Move to reconfirm findings and determinations under Resolution No. 9165 and Assembly Bill 361 for the continuation of virtual meetings of the City Council and Legislative Bodies.

C8. Approve and Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Professional Services Agreement with SCI Consulting Group for Storm Drain Fee Analysis Services for a Not-to-Exceed Amount of $229,216.00 (Staff Contact: Roger Lee, Interim Public Works Director, 408-586-2602) Recommendation: (1) Receive report on professional services proposals received and approve a professional services agreement with SCI Consulting Group; (2) Authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement in the not to exceed amount of $229,216.00.

C9. Authorize the City Manager to Accept the 2022 Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant in the Amount of $11,078.17 and Approve a Related Budget Appropriation (Staff Contact: Jared Hernandez, Police Chief, 408-586-2406; and Frank Morales, Police Captain, 408-586-2521) Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to accept the 2022 Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant in the amount of $11,078.17 and approve a related budget appropriation.

C10. Receive a Report on Milpitas HOPE Suicide Prevention Task Force Activities Since September 2021 (Staff Contact: Renee Lorentzen, Director, Recreation and Community Services, 408-586- 3409)
3 November 1, 2022 Milpitas City Council Agenda Page 4

Recommendation: Receive the Report on Milpitas HOPE Suicide Prevention Task Force Activities Since September 2021.

C11. Approve the Purchase of a Police Vehicle, Find the Procurement to be in the Best Interest of the City, and Authorize the City Manager to Execute Any Documents Necessary to Effectuate the Purchase at the Negotiated Amount (Staff Contact: Jared Hernandez, Police Chief, 408-586- 2406; and Matthew Miller, Police Captain, 408-586-2522) Recommendation: Approve the purchase of a police vehicle, find the procurement to be in the best interest of the city, and authorize the City Manager to execute any documents necessary to effectuate the purchase at the negotiated amount.

C12. Approve an Additional Budget Appropriation of $17,151.00 to the Equipment Fund Non- Departmental FY 2022-23 Operating Budget for the Replacement Purchase of Two Police Vehicles through a Sourcewell Cooperative Contract with National Auto Fleet Group (Staff Contact: Jared Hernandez, Police Chief, 408-586-2406; and Matthew Miller, Police Captain, 408- 586-2522)
Recommendation: Approve an additional budget appropriation of $17,151.00 to the Equipment Fund Non-Departmental FY 2022-23 Operating Budget for the replacement purchase of two police vehicles through a Sourcewell Cooperative Contract with National Auto Fleet Group.

C13. Housing Authority/Successor Agency: Sale of the residential unit located at 254 Parc Place Drive (Staff Contact: Alex Andrade, Economic Development Director, 408-586-3046; and Michelle Silva, Administrative Analyst II, 408-586-3244)
Recommendation: (1) Adopt the resolution authorizing the Executive Director of the Milpitas Housing Authority to execute documents for the sale of the residential property located at 254 Parc Place Drive in the amount of $278,315.00; and (2) Approve related budget amendments due to the sale of the property located at 254 Parc Place Drive in the amount of $278,315.00.

C14. Approve and Authorize the City Manager to Execute Amendment No. 4 with AG Witt, LLC for Disaster and COVID19 Cost Recovery and Consultation Services to Extend the Term by 18 Months and Increase the Existing Contract by $67,975.00 for a Total Contract Amount of $229,211.25 (Staff Contact: Lauren Lai, Finance Director, 408-586-3111) Recommendation: Approve and authorize the City Manager to execute Amendment No. 4 with AG Witt, LLC for Disaster and COVID19 Cost Recovery and Consultation Services to extend the term by 18 months and increase the existing contract by $67,975.00 for a total contract amount of $229,211.25.

PUBLIC HEARINGS (7:20 PM)
Members of the public may be allotted up to three (3) minutes or less at the Mayor’s discretion, to comment on any public hearing item. Applicants/Appellants and their representatives may be allotted up to a total of ten (10) minutes for opening statements and up to a total of five (5) minutes maximum for closing statements. Items requested/recommended for continuance are subject to Council’s consent at the meeting.

15. Conduct a Public Hearing on a Site Development Permit for Development of a New 5,900-Square Foot, Two-Story Single-Family Residence, Two Detached Accessory Structures, an In-Ground Swimming Pool, and Associated Site Improvements; an Amendment to Planned Unit Development (PUD) No. 68 to modify the Previously Approved Design Standards for Single- Family Homes; and a Zoning Variance to Allow a Visible Intrusion into the Hillside Crestline Zone of Protection Sight Line, as Established by the City’s Hillside Development Standards, on a Vacant +1.14-Acre Lot Located within the R1-H Single-Family Residential-Hillside Zoning District at 1339 Terra Vista Court (Countryside Estates, Lot 1) (APN: 029-07-010) (Staff Contact:

Ned Thomas, Planning Director, 408-586-3273)
4 November 1, 2022 Milpitas City Council Agenda Page 5

Recommendation: Continued to Regular Meeting of January 17, 2023 at the request of the applicant.

16. Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the Funding Application to the PLHA Program, Approving a Five-Year Plan for the PLHA Program Formula Allocation of an Estimated $1,431,570.00 for the City of Milpitas, Authorizing the Receipt of the PLHA Grant, and Certifying to the California Department of Housing and Community Development Compliance with the PLHA Program Requirements (Staff Contact: Alex Andrade, Economic Development Director, 408-586-3046; and Sarah Balcha, Senior Administrative Analyst, 408-586-3268) Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the funding application to the PLHA program, approving a five-year Plan for the PLHA program formula allocation of an estimated $1,431,570 for the City of Milpitas, authorizing the receipt of the PLHA grant, and certifying to the California Department of Housing and Community Development compliance with the PLHA program requirements.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (8:00 PM)

17. Adopt a Resolution to Approve the Milpitas Residential and Mixed-Use Objective Design Standards (Staff Contact: Ned Thomas, Planning Director, 408-586-3273; and Jay Lee, AICP, Principal Planner, 408-586-3077)
Recommendation: (1) Conduct a public hearing and move to close the hearing following comments; and (2) Adopt a Resolution to approve the Milpitas Residential and Mixed-Use Objective Design Standards.

COMMUNITY SERVICES AND SUSTAINABLE INFRASTRUCTURE (8:30 PM)

18. Approve Revisions to the Speed Hump City Council Policy (Staff Contact: Steve Erickson, Engineering Director / City Engineer, 408-586-3301; and Steve Chan, Transportation and Traffic Manager, 408-586-3324)
Recommendation: Approve revisions to the Speed Hump City Council Policy.

ADJOURNMENT (9:00 PM)

KNOW YOUR RIGHTS UNDER THE OPEN GOVERNMENT ORDINANCE
Government’s duty is to serve the public, reaching its decisions in full view of the public. Commissions and other City agencies exist to conduct the people’s business. This ordinance assures that deliberations are conducted before the people and City operations are open to the people’s review. For more information on your rights under the Open Government Ordinance or to report a violation, contact the City Attorney’s office at Milpitas City Hall, 455 E. Calaveras Blvd., Milpitas, CA 95035 e-mail:[email protected] / Phone: 408-586-3040

The Open Government Ordinance is codified in the Milpitas Municipal Code as Title I Chapter 310 and is available online at the City’s website www.milpitas.gov by selecting the Milpitas Municipal Code link.

Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the City Council after initial distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection at the City Clerk’s office at Milpitas City Hall, 3rd floor 455 E. Calaveras Blvd., Milpitas and on City website. City Council agendas and related materials can be viewed online: www.milpitas.gov/government/council/agenda_minutes.asp (select meeting date)

APPLY TO SERVE ON A CITY COMMISSION
Commission application forms are available online at www.milpitas.gov or at Milpitas City Hall.

Contact the City Clerk’s Office at 408-586-3001 for more information.

5 November 1, 2022 Milpitas City Council Agenda Page 6

If you need assistance, per the Americans with Disabilities Act, for any City of Milpitas public meeting, please call the City Clerk at 408-586-3001 or send an e-mail to [email protected] prior to the meeting. You may request a larger font agenda.

6 Milpitas City Council Calendar
November 2022

Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday

1 6:00 PM-Closed Session
7:00 PM-City Council

2 2:00 PM-Santa Clara VTA
Monthly Briefing -
Northeast Group (CM)
7:00 PM-Community
Advisory Commission (EC)

3 5:30 PM-Santa Clara VTA Board
of Directors (CM)
5:30 PM-Milpitas Chamber of
Commerce Board (EC)

4 5

6 2:00 PM In Person
Native American Flag
Raising Ceremony at
Cesar Chavez Plaza
7 7:00 PM-Parks, Recreation
& Cultural Resources
Commission (CM)

8 4:00 PM-Milpitas HOPE
Suicide Prevention Task
Force

9 7:00 PM-Planning
Commission
7:00 PM-Silicon Valley
Clean Energy Board of
Directors (EC) (Hybrid
Meeting)

10 1:30 PM-SCC Emergency
Operational Area Council Meeting
(CM)
4:00 PM-Santa Clara VTA Policy
Advisory Committee (AP)
4:00 PM-Treatment Plant
Advisory Committee (CM)
6:00 PM-Youth Advisory
Commission (EC)
6:00 PM-Cities Assoc of SCC
Legislative Action Comm (CM)
7:00 PM-Cities Assoc of SCC
Board of Directors Mtg (CM)
11 CITY HALL CLOSED IN

OBSERVANCE OF

VETERANS DAY

Veterans Day Ceremony
taking place at Veterans
Plaza at 9am

12 13

14 4:30 PM-Economic
Development and Trade
Commission (KD)

15 ?:00 PM-Closed Session
7:00 PM-City Council

16 6:00 PM-Energy and
Environmental
Sustainability Commission
(EC)

17 10:00 AM-VTA Congestion Mgmt
Prog Planning Comm (CM)
4:00 PM-Silicon Valley Regional
Interoperability Authority (SVRIA)
(KD)
6:30 PM-Bay Area Water Supply
Conserv Agency (CM)
(Teleconference)
7:00 PM-Public Safety and
Emergency Preparedness
Commission (KD)
18 19
10-12pm Veteran’s
Resource Fair at
Barbara Lee Senior
Center
12-1pm Veteran’s
Lunch at Barbara Lee
Senior Center
20 21
7:00 PM-Library and
Education Commission (EC)
(Milpitas Public Library)
7:00 PM-Science,
Technology & Innovation
Commission (RT)

22 23

24 25

CITY HALL CLOSED FOR THANKSGIVING
26 27

28 7:00 PM-Arts Commission
(RT)

29 30
2:00 PM-VTA North East
City Group Briefing (CM)

Finance Subcommittee will meet only as needed
October 2022

S M T W T F S
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31
December 2022

S M T W T F S
1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30 31

7 Item # C1.

REGULAR MEETING OF THE MILPITAS

CITY COUNCIL

October 18, 2022 Milpitas City Council Agenda Page 1

M I NU TE S
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 18, 2022

The City Council of the City of Milpitas convened on the regular City Council meeting day of October 18, 2022, in the City Council Chamber at City Hall, 455 E. Calaveras Blvd., Milpitas, and via teleconference/Zoom webinar.

CALL MEETING TO ORDER by Mayor and ROLL CALL by City Clerk Mayor Tran called the regular City Council meeting to order at 7:00 PM. Roll call was taken by City Clerk Guzzetta.

PRESENT: Mayor Tran, Vice Mayor Montano, Councilmembers Chua, Dominguez, and Phan (7:01 pm).

ABSENT: None.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
The Pledge of Allegiance was led by Mayor Tran.

INVOCATION
Councilmember Chua introduced Brother Mariano Nucup of Iglesia Ni Cristo Church of Christ to present the invocation.

PRESENTATIONS
Mayor Tran presented proclamations recognizing the month of October 2022 as Breast Cancer Awareness Month and October 24, 2022 as Diwali in the City of Milpitas.

PUBLIC FORUM
The following people spoke under Public Forum:

1. Warren Wettenstein, Milpitas Chamber of Commerce President

2. Inderjit Mundra

3. Voltaire Montemayor

4. Resident of Milpitas

5. Christopher Martin

ANNOUNCEMENTS AND FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Mayor Tran announced the grand opening of Milpitas Fire Station No. 2 on Thursday morning, thanked staff for their hard work, and encouraged staff to continue upgrading the remaining City Fire Stations.

Councilmember Chua asked to staff to explore eliminating or waiving the fee for the gym at the Milpitas Senior Center.

Vice Mayor Montano responded to comments from the public forum and spoke regarding the Milpitas ArtWalk. 8 Item # C2.

October 18, 2022 Milpitas City Council Minutes Page 2

Councilmember Dominguez asked to review the City Council Handbook to ensure that Councilmembers are guaranteed paternity/maternity leave and not made to give up their seat due to missing consecutive meetings.

City Attorney Mutalipassi indicated he would investigate labor policies. Councilmember Dominguez asked for that information to be emailed to Council by next City Council meeting and clarify if Councilmembers are employees.

ANNOUNCEMENT OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS City Attorney Mutalipassi asked the Mayor and City Councilmembers if they had any personal conflicts of interest. By roll call, there were no conflicts of interest. City Attorney Mutalipassi asked the Mayor and City Councilmembers if they had any reportable campaign contributions. By roll call, there were no reportable campaign contributions.

READING OF THE CITY COUNCIL CODE OF CONDUCT
Mayor Tran read the Code of Conduct.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA
Motion: to approve the October 18, 2022 Regular Meeting Agenda.

Motion/Second: Mayor Tran / Councilmember Chua
Motion carried by the following:

AYES: Councilmembers Chua, Dominguez, Phan, Vice Mayor Montano, Mayor Tran NOES: None

CONSENT CALENDAR
Motion: to approve the consent calendar, moving Item 16 up to the Consent Calendar

Motion/Second: Mayor Tran / Vice Mayor Montano
Motion carried by the following:

AYES: Councilmembers Chua, Dominguez, Phan, Vice Mayor Montano, Mayor Tran NOES: None

C1. Receive City Council Calendar of Meetings for October and November 2022 (Staff Contact:

Suzanne Guzzetta, City Clerk, 408-586-3001)
Received City Council Calendar of Meetings for October and November 2022.

C2. Approve City Council City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of October 4, 2022 (Staff Contact:

Suzanne Guzzetta, City Clerk, 408-586-3001)
Approved City Council Regular Meeting minutes of October 4, 2022.

C3. Receive the Preview List of Anticipated Items for the Next Regular City Council Meeting (Staff Contact: Suzanne Guzzetta, City Clerk, 408-586-3001)
Received the list of anticipated agenda items for the next regular City Council meeting.

C4. Receive and Review the List of Agenda Items Requested by City Councilmembers (Staff Contact: Suzanne Guzzetta, City Clerk, 408-586-3001)
9 Item # C2.

October 18, 2022 Milpitas City Council Minutes Page 3

Reviewed the list of items that have been requested by City Councilmembers and provided direction to staff as necessary.

C5. Accept the FY 2021-22 Commissioners Annual Report for Seven (7) Commissions and Oversight Committee and Approve Seven (7) City of Milpitas Commission and Oversight Committee Work Plans for FY 2022-23 (Staff Contact: Ashwini Kantak, Assistant City Manager, 408-586-3053; and Walter C. Rossmann, Deputy City Manager, 408-586-3012)
Accepted the 2021-22 Commissioners Annual Report; and approved proposed Fiscal Year 2022-23 Work Plans for (a) Community Advisory Commission, (b) Economic Development and Trade Commission, (c) Energy and Environmental Sustainability Commission, (d) Planning Commission, (e) Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness Commission, (f) Science, Technology, and Innovation Commission, and (g) Measure F Oversight Committee.

C6. Receive the April – June 2022 Report for Unhoused Services (Staff Contact: Alex Andrade, Economic Development Director, 408-586-3046)
Received the April – June 2022 report for unhoused services.

C7. Approve and Authorize the City Manager to Execute a General Services Agreement with Banner Pest Services to Provide Pest Control Services at Various City Facilities for the Not-to-Exceed Amount $300,000.00 for a Five-Year Period Subject to the Annual Appropriation of Funds (Staff Contact: Roger Lee, Interim Public Works Director, 408-586-2602; and Chris Schroeder, Purchasing Agent, 408-586-3161)
Approved and authorized the City Manager to execute a general services agreement with Banner Pest Services to provide pest control services at various city facilities for the not-to-exceed amount $300,000.00 for a five-year period subject to the annual appropriation of funds.

C8. Introduce Ordinance No. 65.152 Adopting by Reference the 2022 California Building Codes with Amendments and Set a Public Hearing on December 6, 2022 for Adoption of the Ordinance (Staff Contact: Bill Tott, Building Official, 408-586-3263) Waived the first reading beyond the title and introduced Ordinance No. 65.152 amending Chapters 3,

3.5, 4, 5, 6, 7, 10,14,150, and 170 of Title II of the Milpitas Municipal Code relating to adopting by reference the 2022 California Building Code, 2022 California Residential Code, 2021 International Property Maintenance Code, 2022 California Mechanical Code, 2022 California Electrical Code, 2022 California Plumbing Code, 2021 International Swimming Pool and Spa Code, 2022 California Existing Building Code, and 2022 California Historical Building Code, with amendments; and set a public hearing on December 6, 2022, pursuant to California Government Code Section 50022.3, for adoption of the Ordinance.

C9. Introduce Ordinance No. 113.26 Adopting by Reference with Certain Local Amendments the 2022 Edition of the California Fire Code and Set a Public Hearing for December 6, 2022 (Staff Contact: Arthur Belton, Deputy Fire Chief / Fire Marshal, 408-586-3384) Waived the first reading beyond the title and introduced Ordinance No. 113.26 to be enacted as Chapter 300, Title V of the Milpitas Municipal Code, and set a public hearing for Tuesday, December 6, 2022 at 7:00 p.m. in the Milpitas City Council Chambers to consider adoption of Ordinance No. 113.26, adopting by reference with certain local amendments the 2022 Edition of the California Fire Code.

C10. Approve and Authorize the City Manager to Execute the Improvement Agreement with Parktown Plaza Pak, LLC, for the completion of Offsite Public Improvements Located at 1400 S. Park Victoria Drive Associated with Site Development Permit (SD1300014) and Conditional Use 10 Item # C2.

October 18, 2022 Milpitas City Council Minutes Page 4

Permit (UP14-0002) (Staff Contact: Steve Erickson, Engineering Director / City Engineer, 408- 586-3301; and Roberto Alonzo, Principal Civil Engineer, 408-586-3316) Approved and authorized the City Manager to execute the Improvement Agreement with Parktown Plaza Pak, LLC, for the completion of offsite public improvements located at 1400 S. Park Victoria Drive associated with Site Development Permit (SD1300014) and Conditional Use Permit (UP14-0002).

C11. Adopt a Resolution Approving a Site Development Permit to Allow Development of a New 5,602- Square Foot, 1.5-story Single-Family Residence and a Planned Unit Development (PUD) Amendment to Deviate from the Previously Approved PUD Architectural Standards, on a Vacant

1.135-acre Lot Located in the R1-H Single-family Residential Zoning District with a Hillside Combining District at 1333 Terra Vista Court (PUD No. 68 – Countryside Estates Subdivision, Lot 2) (Staff Contact: Ned Thomas, Planning Director, 408-586-3273) Adopted Resolution No. 9194 approving Site Development Permit No. SD21-0009 and PUD Amendment Permit No. PA21-0002, subject to the attached Conditions of Approval, for a new 5,602- square foot, 1.5-story single-family residence on a vacant 1,135-acre lot locate in the R-1-H Single- Family Residential Zoning District with an -H Hillside Combining District at 1333 Terra Vista Court (Countryside Estates, Lot 2) and making findings of CEQA exemption.

C12. Adopt a Resolution Approving the Revised Policy on Discontinuance of Residential Water Service (Staff Contact: Lauren Lai, Finance Director, 408-586-3111) Adopted Resolution No. 9195 approving the Revised Policy on Discontinuance of Residential Water Service.

16. Approve the Youth Scholarship Program City Council Policy (Staff Contact: Renee Lorentzen, Director of Recreation and Community Services, 408-586-3409) Approved the Youth Scholarship Program City Council Policy.

PUBLIC HEARINGS (7:45 PM)

13. Conduct a Public Hearing and Introduce an Ordinance Amending Sections of Chapter 10, Title XI (Zoning) of the Milpitas Municipal Code Relating to Definitions and Regulations for Commercial Service Land Uses (Staff Contact: Ned Thomas, Planning Director, 408-586-3273) Planning Director Thomas introduced the item. Senior Planner VanHua presented the report.

Mayor Tran opened the public hearing

There were the following speakers:

1. Voltaire Montemayor

Mayor Tran closed the public hearing.

Consultant Pearson responded to questions from Council.

City Attorney Mutalipassi read the title of the ordinance.

After discussion, motion: to waive the first reading beyond the title and introduce Ordinance No.

38.848 amending sections of Chapter 10 of Title XI (Zoning) of the Milpitas Municipal Code relating to Definitions and Regulations for Various Types of Commercial Service Land Uses and determine that the Municipal Code amendment is exempt from California Environmental Quality Act pursuant to CEQA 11 Item # C2.

October 18, 2022 Milpitas City Council Minutes Page 5

Guidelines Sections 15183 (Projects Consistent with a General Plan) and 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption).

Motion/Second: Mayor Tran / Vice Mayor Montano
Motion carried by the following:

AYES: Councilmembers Chua, Dominguez, Phan, Vice Mayor Montano, Mayor Tran NOES: None

14. Grant Funding from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) for the Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) and Budget Amendments (Staff Contact:

Alex Andrade, Economic Development Director, 408-586-3046 and Sarah Balcha, Senior Administrative Analyst, 408-586-3268)
Continued to the Regular City Council meeting on November 1, 2022.

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (8:45 PM)

15. Introduce Ordinance No. 65.153 Adopting by Reference the 2022 California Energy Code, Introduce Ordinance No. 65.154 Adopting by Reference the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code with Amendments, and Set a Public Hearing on December 6, 2022 for Adoption of the Ordinances (Staff Contact: Bill Tott, Building Official, 408-586-3263) Building Official Tott presented the report.

There were the following speakers:

1. Voltaire Montemayor

2. Tom Valore

3. Lauren Weston

Mayor Tran expressed concerns with electricity availability during extreme weather conditions.

Councilmember Chua asked to write a letter to PG&E on their plan for the influx of electric usage.

Mayor Tran suggested making it an amendment to invite PG&E to attend the public hearing.

Councilmember Chua asked for Slide 19 from the presentation to be reflected on City website Incentives Corner. Deputy City Manager Rossmann responded that the page was already updated.

Councilmember Phan cautioned to be mindful of the impact of policy as it relates to the needs of our community and its impact on the housing market and the economy. He questioned the equity of the accessibility of rebates and incentives.

TRC Representative Farhad Farahmand responded to questions from City Council.

Vice Mayor Montano asked how the City can inform the public about rebates for electric cars. Deputy Director of Public Works Marshall indicated the information can be added to the City website Incentives Corner.

Councilmember Dominguez stated she wanted to build a pathway to reliable and reachable situation and cautioned for care in how the programs are promoted.

City Attorney Mutalipassi read the title of the ordinances.

After discussion, Motion: to waive the first reading beyond the title and introduce Ordinance No.

65.153 amending Chapter 11 of Title II of the Milpitas Municipal Code adopting by reference the 2022 12 Item # C2.

October 18, 2022 Milpitas City Council Minutes Page 6

California Energy Code, introduce Ordinance No. 65.154 amending Chapter 19 of Title II of the Milpitas Municipal Code adopting by reference the 2022 California Green Building Standards Code with amendments, and set a public hearing on December 6, 2022, pursuant to California Government Code Section 50022.3, for adoption of the ordinances, and invite PG&E to attend the public hearing.

Motion/Second: Mayor Tran / Councilmember Chua
Motion carried by the following:

AYES: Councilmembers Chua, Dominguez, Phan, Vice Mayor Montano, Mayor Tran NOES: None

COMMUNITY SERVICES AND SUSTAINABLE INFRASTRUCTURE

16. Approve the Youth Scholarship Program City Council Policy (Staff Contact: Renee Lorentzen, Director of Recreation and Community Services, 408-586-3409) * Moved to Consent Calendar

ADJOURNMENT

Mayor Tran adjourned the meeting at 8:52 pm

Draft meeting minutes submitted by City Clerk, Suzanne Guzzetta

13 Item # C2.

TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM LIST
as of 10/27/2022

November 15, 2022 – 3rd Tuesday

CLOSED SESSION

INVOCATION (assigned to Mayor Tran)

PRESENTATION

CONSENT CALENDAR

1. Receive City Council calendar for November and December 2022 (City Clerk)

2. Approve City Council Regular Meeting Minutes of November 1, 2022 (City Clerk)

3. Preview list of items for December 6, 2022 (City Clerk)

4. Councilmember Request List (City Clerk)

5. Council Meetings Schedule (City Clerk)

6. Reconfirm Findings and Determinations Under Resolution No. 9156 and Set Forth in Assembly Bill 361 for the Continuation of Virtual Meetings of the City Council and Legislative Bodies (City Attorney)

7. Approve and Authorize the City Manager to Execute a New 4-Year Agreement with CivicPlus for the CivicEngage Municipal Website Platform (Information Technology)

8. Second Reading Ordinance Amending Sections of Chapter 10, Title XI (Zoning) of the Milpitas Municipal Code Relating to Definitions and Regulations for Commercial Service Land Uses (Planning)

9. Approve and Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Stormwater Management Facilities Operation and Maintenance Agreement between the City of Milpitas and Toll West Coast, LLC for the Parkside Project at 1980 and 1992 Tarob Court and 551 Lundy Place. (Engineering)

10. Sale of the residential unit located at 600 S. Abel Street Unit #208 (Housing)

PUBLIC HEARING

11. Introduction and 1st Reading of Zoning Ordinance for Outdoor Dining (Planning)

12. Introduction and 1st Reading of S. Hillview Zoning Map Amendment (Planning)

13. Adopt a Resolution Certifying Election Results and Adding the Property Located at 1724 Sunnyhills Drive – Parcel 2 into Community Facilities District No. 2005-1 (Annexation No. 22) (Engineering)

COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

COMMUNITY SERVICES

14. Facility Naming Subcommittee appointments (Recreation and Community Services)

PUBLIC SAFETY

15. 1000 Hillview Quarterly Report (Police)

LEADERSHIP

16. Approve the Prioritization of Additional Workplan Items City Council Policy (City Manager)

REPORTS
14 Item # C3.

MILPITAS CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM REQUESTS
Request
No. Topic Submitted by:

Date
Requested
STATUS and/or DATE scheduled on City
Council meeting agenda:
1 Investigate labor policies related to Councilmember
paternity/maternity leave, clarify if Councilmembers
are employees and email to City Council prior to the
next City Council meeting. Dominguez 10/18/2022
2 Review the City Council handbook to ensure that
Councilmembers are guaranteed paternity/maternity
leave and not made to give up their seat due to
missing consecutive meetings. Dominguez 10/18/2022
3 Staff explore eliminating or waiving the fee for the
gym at the Milpitas Senior Center Chua 10/18/2022

the Recreation and Community Service Cost
Recovery City Council Policy and bring it
back to Council for consideration as part of
approval of the FY 2023-24 Proposed Master
4 City Attorney or City Manager draft a written policy
regarding foreign language spoken at the dais Chua 9/20/2022 Item will be brought forward as part of the
next City Council additional workplan items
prioritization in December/January
5 City Manager to look into defining either a
standalone teen center or updating information to
indicate the Senior Center also functions as a Teen
Center Chua 9/20/2022
Item will be brought forward as part of the
next City Council additional workplan items
prioritization in December/January
6 Staff look into construction in the Sunnyhills area Dominguez 9/20/2022 Staff is following up on this request and will
send a status update to Council
7 Schedule an additional ADU workshop Chua 9/6/2022 Staff is evaluating this request 8 City Manager or Deputy City Manager to look into
underutilized areas of parks or a portion of parks not
being used and develop for use in the future. Chua 8/16/2022 Item will be brought forward as part of the
next City Council additional workplan items
prioritization in December/January
9 Discuss converting vacant lot that was a basketball
court into a community garden at Vasona and
Adobe Montano 8/16/2022
Item will be brought forward as part of the
next City Council additional workplan items
prioritization in December/January
10 City Manager look into implementing a workshop for
small businesses on the bidding process for
projects in the city Chua 8/9/2022
Item will be brought forward as part of the
next City Council additional workplan items
prioritization in December/January
11 Memory bench at Sunny Hills Park for one of the
founders, Dave Vohlberg, and to explore other
historical plaques or benches to remember our
history Tran 8/9/2022
Item will be brought forward as part of the
next City Council additional workplan items
prioritization in December/January
12 Review of the Milpitas Chamber of Commerce
previously approved request for funding including a
financial report dating back 12 months and the
workplan for the Art & Wine Festival Tran 8/9/2022
Staff is working with the Chamber to obtain
the requested documentation
13 Quarterly or Monthly crime statistics on Homekey
Project
Chua 6/7/2022
PD will present quarterly reports starting on
November 15, 2022.
14 Funding to hire a consultant for the Sunnyhills
Historical Designation on a state level Tran 6/7/2022
Request will be included with the Historic
Resources Master Plan project approved as
part of the 2023-2027 Capital Improvement
Program.
15 Requested the City create a youth scholarship fund
for under privileged kids to play sports Montano 5/17/2022 The City Council approved the Youth
Scholarship Program City Council Policy on
October 20, 2022 Council meeting.

OPEN ITEMS
NOTE: Deferred and Completed Items are not listed15
Item # C4.

MILPITAS CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM REQUESTS
Request
No. Topic Submitted by:

Date
Requested
STATUS and/or DATE scheduled on City
Council meeting agenda:
16 Request for Crossing Guards at McCandless and
Montague Expressway and review wages for
Crossing Guards Montano 4/5/2022
Staff is in the middle of a citywide traffic
study, which includes school aged pedestrian
counts around schools in the City including
the McCandless and Montague Expressway
intersection.
17 Host a Town Hall at City Hall in January, February,
and March for the community to share comments
about the issue of the unhoused. Tran 11/2/2021
This item was postponed by Mayor Tran due
to the Omicron variant and a rise in COVID-
19 cases
Request
No. Topic Submitted by:

Date
Requested
STATUS and/or DATE scheduled on City
Council meeting agenda:
18 Establish a SPAR fund modelled after the City of
Mountain View - sets asides moneys for
opportunities to buy real estate Montano 6/7/2022
Discussed at Spring Quarterly City Council
Workplan Items Prioritization Discussion;
Approved to move forward during Summer
Quarterly City Council Workplan Items
Prioritization Discussion on 9/06/2022
19 Memorial Plaque in honor of youth skateboarder
that passed away Montano 6/7/2022
Discussed at Spring Quarterly City Council
Workplan Items Prioritization Discussion;
Approved to move forward during Summer
Quarterly City Council Workplan Items
Prioritization Discussion on 9/06/2022
20 Prepare Vision Zero Action Plan Tran 6/7/2022
Discussed at Spring Quarterly City Council
Workplan Items Prioritization Discussion;
Approved to move forward during Summer
Quarterly City Council Workplan Items
Prioritization Discussion on 9/06/2022
21 Explore the policy for locking mechanisms on
shopping carts for large commercial businesses Tran 4/19/2022 Discussed at Spring Quarterly City Council
Workplan Items Prioritization Discussion;
Approved to move forward during Summer
Quarterly City Council Workplan Items
Prioritization Discussion on 9/06/2022
22 Explore an ordinance or policy to reduce thefts and
increase security in the commercial retail parking
areas Chua 4/5/2022
Discussed at Spring Quarterly City Council
Workplan Items Prioritization Discussion;
Approved to move forward during Summer
Quarterly City Council Workplan Items
Prioritization Discussion on 9/06/2022
23 Create a plan for future solar paneling at City
facilities Montano 3/1/2022
Discussed at Spring Quarterly City Council
Workplan Items Prioritization Discussion;
Approved to move forward at the 5/03/2022
meeting; Discussed at the May 10 budget
meeting and approved funding of $25,000 in
the 2022-23 budget
24 Evaluate reopening the childcare center with a non-
profit organization running the center Montano 2/1/2022 Approved during Spring Quarterly City
Council Workplan Items Prioritization
Discussion on 5/03/2022.
25 Requested an appropriation in an amount not to
exceed $250,000 to procure a contract to address
the streetlights that are pending fieldwork. Tran 2/1/2022 At this time, staff has sufficient Council
approved resources to address the remaining
streetlight outages; however, will bring
relevant actions for Council consideration, if
needed.

ACTIVE ITEMS
NOTE: Deferred and Completed Items are not listed16
Item # C4.

MILPITAS CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM REQUESTS
Request
No. Topic Submitted by:

Date
Requested
STATUS and/or DATE scheduled on City
Council meeting agenda:
26 Explore a lease for the vacant land adjacent to the
Library for City use Tran 1/18/2022
Discussed at Spring Quarterly City Council
Workplan Items Prioritization Discussion;
Approved to move forward at the 5/03/2022
meeting;
27 Staff to look into mural Art on Great Mall Parkway
on the VTA owned Light rail pillars Montano 11/16/2021
Discussed at Spring Quarterly City Council
Workplan Items Prioritization Discussion;
Approved at the 5/03/2022 meeting;
discussed funding at the 5/10/2022 budget
meeting and approved $100,000 of funding
for one site
28 Request for the City to make the temporary third-
party food deliver fee caps permanent and add
additional provisions for enforcement Phan 11/16/2021
Discussed at Spring Quarterly City Council
Workplan Items Prioritization Discussion;
Approved to move forward at the 5/03/2022
meeting
29 Have a picture of Albert Vogel Sr. put up in the
Senior Center Montano 10/19/2021
Approved to move forward at the 1/11/2022
Council meeting; Staff engaged the artist of
the existing mural regarding this Council
approved item.
30 Requested the City extend the outdoor dining
options through March of next year Phan 9/21/2021
Planning Director to provide information on
current outdoor dining extension
31 Partner with the Rotary Club of Silicon Andhra to
promote the stem cell donor outreach with a
webinar and campaign to help increase the number
of donors Chua 8/17/2021
Material for the stem cell donations will be
made available at the Senior Trunk-for-Treat
event scheduled for Oct. 28, 2022.
32 Include a bust of Maria Lemire on the Mural in front of the Senior Center Montano 8/17/2021
Approved to move forward at the 1/11/2022
Council meeting; Staff engaged the artist of
the existing mural regarding this Council
approved item.
33 Look into opening up the Senior Center on
Saturdays for half a day Chua 8/5/2021
This three-month pilot was kicked off on
Saturday Sept. 10.
34 Look into bringing back a roller rink Montano 8/5/2021 Approved to move forward at the 1/11/2022
Council meeting. Funding for the program will
need to be prioritized through the FY 22-23
budget process; Discussed at 5/10/2022
budget meeting and approved $100,000
funding for a two-day event in 2023
35 Staff to create a plan on how to increase the
number of local businesses doing business with the
City Chua 4/6/2021
At 8/9/2021 Council meeting, Council voted
that this item may have to come back for
additional discussion because there may be
some legal considerations.
36 Staff to provide information on a landmark policy for the City of Milpitas Tran 3/16/2021
8/09/2021 Council voted 5-0 to move this
item forward; this item will be included for
funding consideration in the development of
the FY 2023-27 CIP for assessment of
historical and cultural resources and
development of landmark policy; The funding
for the assessment of historical and cultural
resources and development of a landmark
policy will be included in the 2023-2027
Capital Improvement Program scheduled for
adoption on May 3, 2022. This project will be
scheduled to begin in FY 2022-23.

NOTE: Deferred and Completed Items are not listed17
Item # C4.

MILPITAS CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM REQUESTS
Request
No. Topic Submitted by:

Date
Requested
STATUS and/or DATE scheduled on City
Council meeting agenda:
37 Amendment to the existing ordinance for third-party
food delivery vendor services to prohibit regulatory
response fees Phan 2/16/2021
Agendized for discussion on 3/16/2021,
deferred to 4/06/2021; CC direction for City
Attorney to prepare a report; At the
11/12/2021 Transportation Subcommittee,
the Subcommittee directed to bring back this
request to Council as part of the FY 2022-23
budget process.
38 Requested that staff study the placement of a City
sign for the Milpitas Police Department and explore
the cost of a new sign Dominguez 1/18/2021
Staff has been working on upgrading signage
and landscaping around the Police
Department and Public Works Building. Lit-
up signs mounted on the building are
scheduled to be installed by the end of
December 2022
39 Ordinance to ban vaping in the City Montano 12/15/2020 Ordinance regarding a ban on use in certain
areas adopted by Council on 6/15/2021.

Council received a follow-up presentation
from staff on 6/21/22 and provided direction
on establishing a local tobacco retail
permitting program and regulating tobacco
retail locations and the sale of flavored
tobacco and electronic cigarette products in
Milpitas. Staff is now coordinating with the
Santa Clara County Department of
Environmental Health (DEH) to set up the
program, and those arrangement will be
brought back to the Council in early 2023.
40 Review City policy on speed bumps Tran 12/15/2020
Staff is scheduled to bring forward revisions
to the Policy at the 11/01/2022 City Council
meeting based on input from the
Transportation Subcommittee.
41 Consider Community Museum and Park on Main St. Phan 8/20/2019 to Rules Subcommittee 8/23/2019. Moved to
Specific Plan Community Conversation
events.

NOTE: Deferred and Completed Items are not listed18
Item # C4.

CITY OF MILPITAS

AGENDA REPORT
(AR)

Item Title: Accept Commissioner Resignation (Staff Contact: Suzanne Guzzetta, City Clerk, 408-586-3001)
Category: Consent Calendar-Leadership and Support Services Meeting Date: 11/1/2022
Recommendation: Accept the resignation of Marshall Jones from the Economic Development and Trade Commission and direct the City Clerk to post the notice of unscheduled vacancy.

BACKGROUND:

In accordance with the City of Milpitas Commission By-Laws adopted as Resolution No. 7702, any member or alternate member of a Commission who is no longer available to serve, must submit a resignation in writing by sending a written communication to the Mayor and the City Clerk. The written resignation must then be accepted and confirmed by City Council via action on the consent calendar at a regularly scheduled City Council meeting. Marshall Jones submitted a notice of resignation from the Economic Development and Trade Commission.

ANALYSIS:

By state law, a Notice of an Unscheduled Vacancy must be posted by the City Clerk to advertise the vacant Commission seat. Final appointment to the board, commission, or committee for the Unscheduled Vacancy shall not be made by the legislative body for at least ten working days after the posting of the notice in the Clerk’s office. The notice of the unscheduled vacancy for the Economic Development and Trade Commission will be posted Wednesday, November 2, 2022.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact associated with this item.

RECOMMENDATION:

Accept the resignation of Marshall Jones from the Economic Development and Trade Commission and direct the City Clerk to post the notice of unscheduled vacancy.

Attachments:

1. Email from Commissioner Marshall Jones

19 Item # C5.

Marshall E. Jones, CMP
Vice President, Regional Sales
prestige | global meeting source

From: Michael Thomas
To: Suzanne Guzzetta
Cc: Alex Andrade
Subject: EDTC Commission Marshall Jones
Date: Monday, October 24, 2022 12:40:06 PM
Attachments: image001.png
Dear Suzanne,

EDTC Commissioner Marshall Jones informed Director Andrade of his resignation per the forwarded message below. Mr. Jones’ message includes a replacement recommendation. I am forwarding to you so that Mayor and Council are informed. Please advise on next steps Econ Dev staff need to perform regarding this matter.

EDTC currently has six commissioners, one alternate and one student commissioner.

Regards,

Michael Thomas, MPA
Economic Development Specialist
Direct: (408) 586-3045
Email: [email protected]
455 E. Calaveras Blvd., Milpitas CA 95035
www.ci.milpitas.ca.gov

From: Marshall Jones
Sent: Monday, September 12, 2022 7:43 PM
To: Alex Andrade <[email protected]>
Cc: Marshall Jone
Subject: RE: Good morning

CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking links.

Alex,

I wanted to thank you again for taking time to speak with me.

Well, as you had surmised, I do not think that I will be able to make all of our in person meetings. Based on this, I am resigning from my post as Commissioner. With that said, I would like to submit Darrell March’s name as a replacement. I have spoken with him and think he would be an ideal candidate.

Please let me know what the next steps should be for me in either case.

Thank you again and my apologies.

Best regards,

Marshall Jones

Your single-source advocate for site selection planning and support. http://www.meetprestige.com

20 Item # C5.

CITY OF MILPITAS

AGENDA REPORT
(AR)

Item Title: Consider the Recommendation from Mayor Tran for Appointment to City Commissions (Contact: Mayor Tran, 408- 586-3029)
Category: Consent Calendar-Leadership and Support Services Meeting Date: 11/1/2022
Recommendation: Receive the recommendation from Mayor Tran and approve appointment to the Science, Technology and Innovation Commission.

Background:

The City of Milpitas has 13 Commissions (including the Measure F Oversight Committee), with members appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the City Council. The Commissions advise the Milpitas elected officials on a variety of community interest and policy areas.

Any resident interested in serving on a City Commission must complete a Commission Application and submit the form to the City Clerk. Copies of the applications are provided to the Mayor for his consideration. Per Government Code 40605, in a general law city where the office of Mayor is an elective office, the Mayor with the approval of the City Council, shall make all appointments to boards, commissions, and committees unless otherwise specifically provided by statute.

Current Commissioners may seek to be reappointed upon the expiration of their current term, but reappointment to a new term is not automatic. Those Commissioners seeking reappointment must contact the City Clerk and the Mayor to convey their request. Re-appointment must be recommended by the Mayor and confirmed by the City Council.

Analysis:

Mayor Tran is making the following recommendations for appointment:

Science, Technology & Innovation Commission:

1. Appoint Aahan Shah to a non-voting student seat with a term expiring January 2025

All recommended Commissioner appointments have been reviewed and confirmed by the City Clerk’s office.

Fiscal Impact:

There is no fiscal impact associated with this item.

Recommendation:

Receive the recommendation from Mayor Tran and approve appointment to the Science, Technology and Innovation Commission.

Attachments:

1. Application for the Science, Technology & Innovation Commission 21 Item # C6.
22 Item # C6.
23 Item # C6.

CITY OF MILPITAS

AGENDA REPORT
(AR)

Item Title: Reconfirm Findings and Determinations Under Resolution No. 9165 and Assembly Bill 361 for the Continuation of Virtual Meetings of the City Council and Legislative Bodies (Staff Contact: Michael Mutalipassi, City Attorney, 408-586-3040) Category: Consent Calendar-Leadership and Support Services Meeting Date: 11/1/2022
Recommendation: Move to reconfirm findings and determinations under Resolution No. 9165 and Assembly Bill 361 for the continuation of virtual meetings of the City Council and Legislative Bodies.

Background:

On March 17, 2020, in the face of the COVID -19 pandemic, Governor Gavin Newsom issued Executive Order N-29-20 suspending certain provisions of the Ralph M. Brown Act in order to allow for local legislative bodies to conduct their meetings completely telephonically or by other electronic means.

The provisions in the Brown Act that were suspended by the Governor’s Executive Order are contained at Government Code Section 54953(b)(3) and require that when teleconferencing is used, outside of a statewide emergency, that the following occur:
 An agenda is required to be posted at all locations, including any teleconference locations  Each teleconference location must be identified on the actual agenda  Each teleconference location shall be accessible to the public  A quorum of the legislative body must be in the jurisdiction With the Governor’s Executive Order, the four above requirements were suspended, allowing Councilmembers to not have to post an agenda at their teleconference location, not have to identify their location on the meeting agenda, not have to ensure public accessibility at the teleconference location, and the legislative body did not need a quorum present in the jurisdiction. As the Council is well aware, this allowed all City Council meetings and other meetings of legislative bodies of the City to be conducted by Zoom with councilmembers, commission members, committee members, and staff all joining from remote virtual locations.

The suspension of certain provisions of the Brown Act was further extended by the Governor on June 11, 2021 by the issuance of Executive Order N -08-21 which continued to allow for complete virtual meetings until September 30, 2021.

With the expiration of the Governor’s Executive Order and the uncertainty that surrounded the Governor’s potential recall, the State Legislature also took the remote meeting issue into its own hands through the adoption of Assembly Bill 361, which is explained in more depth in the Analysis section below.

On May 17. 2022, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 9156, making findings that there is an existing State of Emergency and that state or local officials continue to recommend social distancing measures to prevent the spread of COVID -19. In particular, the r esolution included reference to Cal -OSHA regulation 3205, which recommends physical distancing in the workplace. By motion and majority vote, the City Council may reconfirm the findings of Resolution No. 9156 and continue to hold virtual meetings pursuant to AB 361. 24 Item # C7.

Analysis:

On September 16, 2021, the Governor signed AB 361, which allows legislative bodies to meet virtually provided there is a state of emergency declared by the Governor, and either (1) state or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing; or (2) the legislative body determines by majority vote that meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health and safety of attendees. The Governor by executive order signed on September 20, 2021, suspended the effective date of AB 361 to October 1, 2021. As a result, if the City desires to have virtual meetings on or after October 1, 2021, it must do so consistent with the requirements of AB 361.

AB 361 preserves many of the provisions of the earlier executive orders , including the suspension of the four teleconferencing requirements noted above, while also adding new requirements to the management of remote and teleconference public meetings in order to better achieve the levels of transparency that the Brown Act demands. Specifically, AB 361 imposes two new rules on remote public meetings:

1. Local governments and agencies hosting teleconference meetings in lieu of traditional in -person public meetings must permit direct public comment during the teleconference and must leave open the opportunity for public comment until the comment period for a given item is closed during the ordinary course of the meeting. The opportunity to make public comment must b e of a sufficient duration so as to allow actual public participation.

2. Any action by the governing body during a public teleconference meeting must occur while the agency is actively and successfully broadcasting to members of the public through a call -in option or an internet-based service option. If a technical disruption within the agency’s control prevents members of the public from either viewing the meeting of the public agency or prevents members of the public from offering public comment, the agency must cease all action on the meeting agenda until the disruption ends and the broadcast is restored. Action taken during an agency-caused disruption may be challenged as a violation of the Brown Act.

In order to continue to qualify for AB 361’s waiver of in -person meeting requirements, the City Council must, within thirty (30) days of its first meeting under AB 361, and every thirty (30) days thereafter, make findings that (a) state or local officials continue to recommend measures to promote social distancing, or that (b) an in-person meeting would constitute an imminent risk to the safety of attendees.

The above conditions continue to exist at this time, and staff recommends that the City Council by motion reconfirm the findings made in Resolution No. 9156 so that the City Council and all other subordinate legislative bodies may continue to meet virtually.

Lastly, it is important to note that AB 361 is optional. If the City Council wishes, it may meet in person. In addition, hybrid meetings are permissible.

Policy Alternatives:

Alternative 1: Do not by motion reconfirm the findings made in the resolution making findings and determinations under Assembly Bill 361 for the continuation of virtual meetings.

Pros: None
Cons: Many of the existing Commission, Committee, and Task Force meetings will not be able to meet virtually or through a hybrid format forcing all staff, commission or committee members, and the public to attend meetings in person.

Reason not recommended: The COVID-19 pandemic continues to be a global health issue and by forcing commission, committee, and task force meetings to be in person, public health may be put at risk.

Fiscal Impact:

The City Council’s reconfirmation of the findings made in the resolution to continue with virtual meetings will maintain the status quo and no financial impact is anticipated by the reconfirmation of the findings. 25 Item # C7.

California Environmental Quality Act:

The City Council’s reconfirmation of the find ings made in the resolution is not a project under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guideline 15378 (b)(5) as it constitutes an organizational or administrative activity of the government that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment. Further, virtual meetings are likely to reduce certain impacts associated with vehicular travel related to in-person public meetings.

Recommendation:

Move to reconfirm findings and determinations under Resolution No. 9105 and Assembly Bill 361 for the continuation of virtual meetings of the City Council and Legislative Bodies.

Attachment

1. Resolution 9165
26 Item # C7.
27 Item # C7.
28 Item # C7.

CITY OF MILPITAS

AGENDA REPORT
(AR)

Item Title: Approve and Authorize the City Manager to Execute a Professional Services Agreement with SCI Consulting Group for Storm Drain Fee Analysis Services for a Not-to-Exceed Amount of $229,216.00.
(Staff Contact: Roger Lee, Interim Public Works Director, 408-586-2602) Category: Consent Calendar-Community Services and Sustainable Infrastructure Meeting Date: 11/1/2022
Recommendation: (1) Receive report on professional services proposals received and approve a professional services agreement with SCI Consulting Group; (2) Authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement in the not to exceed amount of $229,216.00.

BACKGROUND:

The City of Milpitas storm system consists of 112 miles of pipeline, approximately 1,400 manholes and 3,500 storm drain inlets. The system collects surface stormwater runoff and conveys the stormwater to 13 pump stations located throughout the City. Operation of this separate storm system is permitted and regulated by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board through a National Pollutant Eliminate Discharge Permit known as the Municipal Regional Permit. The MRP, which was recently reissued, includes increasing regulatorily required activities to minimize pollutants flowing through the storm drain system into local water ways. Any expenditure for the stormwater utility, including operation and maintenance expenses, are funded only by the General Fund. The budgeted amount for FY23 is $1,018,152. To effectively meet all future system demands, staff estimates a minimum amount of approximately $5 million annually for O&M, regulatory compliance, and capital expenses are needed.

On November 2, 2021, staff and City consultant (Schaaf and Wheeler) presented to City Council the draft Milpitas Storm Master Plan. Input received from City Council centered around the lack of funding for the storm utility with an emphasis on exploring future funding options.

On August 9, 2022, the City Council adopted the Storm Master Plan (Plan). The adopted Plan identifies critical projects to rehabilitate the storm system infrastructure and increase conveyance capacity including but not limited to:
 Approximately five miles of pipe replacement and upsizing to alleviate stresses on the storm drain infrastructure and mitigate the likelihood of flooding. Estimated cost: $26 million.  Prioritization of storm pump stations based on maintenance requirements, on-going renewal and replacement and station capacity. Estimated cost $33 million As part of the recommended actions authorized by City Council, staff was to return to Council with various funding options for the Stormwater System by December 2022.

ANALYSIS:

On August 8, 2022 the City’s Purchasing Division released RFP No. 23-002 for Storm Drain Fee Analysis Services. The Request for Proposal (RFP) outlined several required tasks that included establishing benchmarks to enumerate revenue requirements, identification of potential revenue alternatives, developing a draft financial program report, preparing final report and delivering presentation to City Council, and community outreach. An optional task of Community Polling was also included.

The RFP was publicly noticed in accordance with the City’s Municipal Code, advertised on the City’s website, emailed to companies registered with the City via Procurement. OpenGov.com, the City’s eProcurement system.

Additionally, the RFP was published on the City’s website.

29 Item # C8.

Upon release, 864 firms were notified of the proposal opportunity and 17 firms downloaded the RFP documents. Staff issued no addenda related to this RFP, however twelve clarifying questions were answered by City staff. Three firms responded to the RFP by the published closing date of September 9, 2022 at 2:00 p.m. The proposals received were reviewed by Purchasing staff for compliance and responsiveness and all were accepted.

The three companies that continued in the evaluation process were:

1. SCI Consulting Group

2. NBS

3. Raftelis Financial Consultants, Inc.

The evaluation committee reviewed proposals based on the following criteria:

1. Cover Letter and Compliance

2. Company Profile

3. Execution Plan

4. References

5. Personnel Assigned

6. Proposed Compensation

The proposals submitted by the three firms then underwent evaluation by the three City staff members who comprised the evaluation committee. After compiling preliminary scoring, the top firm SCI Consulting Group (SCI) was selected and the firm most qualified to provide this service for the City. The evaluation committee finalized all scoring, and the table below shows the final evaluation scores with the recommended firm highlighted in green:

Storm Drain Fee Analysis
RFP No. 23-002
SCI Consulting
Group NBS Raftelis Financial
Consultants Inc.

Final Evaluation Score 89 72.17 77.33

Staff contacted the references provided by SCI, all of which were favorable.

To further clarify the workflow of SCI, staff negotiated proposed pricing and requested that SCI include in their work schedule the following milestone tasks that will require future City Council consideration and direction prior to preceding with the next task as shown in the table below. SCI has been successful in guiding cities to secure resident and business approval for balloted related stormwater fee.

Therefore, it is recommended that all tasks be funded with the not-to-exceed amount of $229,216. However, this amount will only be expended upon the completion of all specified milestones and future direction from City Council. If City Council chooses a storm system funding option other than a balloted property related fee (milestone #1) such as a par cel tax or general obligation bond; declines to proceed with a balloted property related fee due to any other reason (milestone #2) ; or if community survey is not favorable to support a ballot measure (milestone #3), the services of SCI would be respective ly stopped at the negotiated not -to-exceed amounts.

Milestone Task Product Presentation

Not to Exceed Amount
for each Milestone
Estimated City Council
consideration date
#1 Various funding options $31,726 Feb 2023

#2 Revenue requirement analysis $66,766 August 2023
#3 Community survey $91,470 December 2023
Receive completed fee report / Prop. 218
implementation/ Community outreach
$137,746 Feb/March 2024
TOTAL: $229,216

30 Item # C8.

If work is authorized through completion, SCI will assist the City in determining the feasibility of implementing a dedicated, sustainable revenue stream to fund the City’s storm water utility needs. SCI will evaluate the information contained in the Storm Master Plan including but not limited to, the City ’s capital improvement program projects, operations and maintenance program costs, and costs associated to regulatory compliance.

If authorized by City Council, this would result in various community surveys and outreach needed to establish the selected revenue mechanism through a Proposition 218 balloted process.

POLICY ALTERNATIVE(S):

Alternative 1: Do not award RFP No. 23-002 to SCI Consulting Group for Storm Drain Fee Analysis services.

Pros: Community would not be subjected to a balloted property related fee to fund the stormwater system.

Cons: Stormwater funding would continue requiring subsidy from the General Fund.

Reason not recommended: Storm water system provides vital service to community. Operation, maintenance and improvements to the system are critical to continue this service and there have been insufficient General Fund resources to adequately maintain and rehabilitate the stormwater system.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The fiscal impact of $229,216 will be funded from the Unanticipated Expenditure Reserve as needed per the milestone schedule.

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA):

Not applicable. The selection and contractual arrangement do not constitute a project, in accordance with Section 15378 of the CEQA Guidelines.

RECOMMENDATION:

Award RFP No. 23-002 and Authorize the City Manager to Execute the Professional Services Agreement with SCI Consulting Group to Provide Strom drain fee analysis services for the not to exceed amount of $229,216.00.

Attachment(s):

1. Professional Services Agreement with SCI Consulting Group

31 Item # C8.
38077.00180\29167975.12 C2

1 CITY OF MILPITAS

PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT

This Agreement is made and entered into as of ____________________ (“Effective Date”) by and between the City of Milpitas, a municipal corporation organized and operating under the laws of the State of California with its principal place of business at 455 E. Calaveras Boulevard, Milpitas, California 95035 (“City”), and SCI Consulting Group a corporation with its principal p lace of business at 4745 Mangels Blvd. Fairfield CA 94534 (hereinafter referred to as “Consultant”). City and Consultant are sometimes individually referred to as “Party” and collectively as “Parties” in this Agreement.

RECITALS
A. City is a public agency of the State of California and is in need of professional services for the following project:

STORM DRAIN FEE ANALYSIS
(hereinafter referred to as “the Project”).

B. Consultant is duly licensed and has the necessary qualifications to provide such services.

C. The Parties desire by this Agreement to establish the terms for City to retain Consultant to provide the services described herein.

AGREEMENT
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS AGREED AS FOLLOWS:

1. Services.

Consultant shall provide the City with the services described in the Scope of Servi ces attached hereto as Exhibit A.

2. Compensation.
a. Subject to paragraph 2(b) below, the City shall pay for such services in accordance with the Schedule of Charges set forth in Exhibit B.
b. In no event shall the total amount paid for services rendered by Consultant under this Agreement exceed the sum of Two Hundred Twenty-Nine Thousand Two Hundred Sixteen Dollars and Zero Cents ($229,216.00). This amount is to cover all printing and related costs, and the City will not pay any additional fees for printing expenses. Periodic payments shall be made within thirty (30) days of receipt of an invoice which includes a detailed description of the work performed. Payments to Consultant for work performed will be made on a monthly billing basis.

3. Additional Work.

If changes in the work seem merited by Consultant or the City, and informal consultations with the other party indicate that a change is warranted, it shall be pro cessed in the following manner: a letter outlining the changes shall be forwarded to the City by Consultant with a statement of estimated ch anges in fee or time schedule. An amendment to this Agreement shall be prepared by the City and executed by both Parties before performance of such services, or the City will not be required to pay for the changes in 32 Item # C8.
38077.00180\29167975.12 C2

2 the scope of work. Such amendment shall not render ineffective or invalidate unaffected portions of this Agreement.

4. Maintenance of Records.

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

5. Term.

The term of this Agreement shall be from The Date First Written Above to December 31, 2024, unless earlier terminated as provided herein. The City reserves the right to review the Consultant’s performance at the end of each year and cancel all or part of the Agreement.

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

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

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

9. Assignment and Subconsultant
Consultant shall not assign, sublet, or transfer this Agreement or any rights under or interest in this Agreement without the written consent of the City, which may be withheld for any reason. Any attempt to so assign or so transfer without such consent shall be void and without legal effect and shall cons titute 33 Item # C8.
38077.00180\29167975.12 C2

3 grounds for termination. Subcontracts, if any, shall contain a provision making them subject to all provisions stipulated in this Agreement. Nothing contained herein shall prevent Consultant from employing independent associates, and subconsultants as Consultant may deem appropriate to assist in the performance of services hereunder.

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

11. Insurance. Consultant shall not commence work for the City until it has provided evidence satisfactory to the City it has secured all insurance required under Exhibit D (Insurance Requirements), attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference . In addition, Consultant shall not allow any subcontractor to commence work on any subcontract until it has secured all insurance required therein.

12. Indemnification.
a. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant shall defend (with counsel of City’s choosing), indemnify and hold the City, its officials, officers, employees, volunteers, and agents free and harmless from any and all claims, demands, causes of action, costs, expenses, liability, loss, damage or injury of any kind, in law or equity, to property or persons, including wrongful death, in any manner arising out of, pertaining to, or incident to any acts, errors or omissions, or willful misconduct of Consultant, its officials, officers, employees, subcontractors, consultants or agents in connection with the performance of the Consultant’s services, the Project or this Agreement, including without limitation the payment of all damages, expert witness fees and attorney’s fees and oth er related costs and expenses. Consultant's obligation to indemnify shall not be restricted to insurance proceeds, if any, received by Consul tant, the City, its officials, officers, employees, agents, or volunteers.

b. If Consultant’s obligation to defend, indemnify, and/or hold harmless arises out of Consultant’s performance of “design professional” services (as that term is defined under Civil Code section 2782.8), then, and only to the extent required by Civil Code section 2782.8, which is fully incorporated herein, Consultant’s indemnification obligation shall be limited to claims that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligenc e, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the Consultant, and, upon Consultant obtaining a final adjudication by a court of competent jurisdiction, Consultant’s liability for such claim, including the cost to defend, shall not exceed the Consultant’s proportionate percentage of fault.

13. California Labor Code Requirements.
a. Consultant is aware of the requirements of California Labor Code Sections 1720 et seq. and 1770 et seq., which require the payment of prevailing wage rates and the performance of other requirements on certain “public works” and “maintenance” projects (“Prevailing Wage Laws”). If the services are being performed as part of an applicable “public works” or “maintenance” project, as defined by the Prevailing Wage Laws, and if the tota l compensation is One Thousand Dollars and Zero Cents ($1,000.00) or more, Consultant agrees to fully comply with such Prevailing Wage Laws. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officials, officers, employees and agents free and harml ess from any claims, liabilities, costs, penalties or interest arising out of any failure or alleged failure to comply with the Prevailing Wage Laws. It shall be mandatory upon the Consultant and all subconsultants to comply with all California Labor Code provisions, which include but are not limited to prevailing wages (Labor Code Sections 1771, 1774 and 1775), employment of apprentices (Labor Code Section 1777.5), certified payroll 34 Item # C8.
38077.00180\29167975.12 C2

4 records (Labor Code Sections 1771.4 and 1776), hours of labor (Labor Code Sections 1813 and 1815) and debarment of contractors and subcontractors (Labor Code Section 1777.1) . The requirement to submit certified payroll records directly to the Labor Commissioner under Labor Code section 1771.4 shall not apply to work performed on a public works project that is exempt pursuant to the small project exemption specified in Labor Code Section 1771.4.
b. If the services are being performed as part of an applicable “public works” or “maintenance” project, then pursuant to Labor Code Se ctions 1725.5 and 1771.1, the Consultant and all subconsultants performing such services must be registered with the Depar tment of Industrial Relations.

Consultant shall maintain registration for the duration of the Project and require the same of any subconsultants, as applicable. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the contractor registration requirements mandated by Labor Code Sections 1725.5 and 1771.1 shall not apply to work performed on a public works project that is exempt pursuant to the small project exemption specified in Labor Code Sections 1725.5 and 1771.1.
c. This Agreement may also be subject to compliance monitoring and enforcement by the Department of Industrial Relations. It shall be Consultant’s sole responsibility to comply with all applicable registration and labor compliance requireme nts. Any stop orders issued by the Department of Industrial Relations against Consultant or any subcontractor that affect Consultant’s performance of services, including any delay, shall be Consultant’s sole responsibility. Any delay arising out of or resulting from such stop orders shall be considered Consultant caused delay and shall not be compensable by the City. Consultant shall defend, indemnify and hold the City, its officials, officers, employees and agents free and harmless from any claim or liability arising out of stop orders issued by the Department of Industrial Relations against Consultant or any subcontractor.

14. Verification of Employment Eligibility.

By executing this Agreement, Consultant ve rifies that it fully complies with all requirements and restrictions of state and federal law respecting the employment of undocumented aliens, including, but not limited to, the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986, as may be amended from time to ti me, and shall require all subconsultants and sub-subconsultants to comply with the same.

15. City Material Requirements.
[RESERVED]

16. Laws and Venue.

This Agreement shall be interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of California. If any action is brought to interpret or enforce any term of this Agreement, the action shall be brought in a state or federal court situated in the County of Santa Clara, State of California. 17 Termination or Abandonment
a. City has the right to terminate or abandon any portion or all of the work under this Agreement by giving ten (10) calendar days written notice to Consultant. In such event, City shall be immediately given title and possession to all original field notes, drawings and specifications, written reports and other documents produced or developed for that portion of the work com pleted and/or being abandoned. City shall pay Consultant the reasonable value of services rendered for any portion of the work completed prior to termination. If said termination occurs prior to completion of any task for the Project for which a payment request has not been received, the charge for services performed during such task shall be 35 Item # C8.
38077.00180\29167975.12 C2

5 the reasonable value of such services, based on an amount mutually agreed to by City and Consultant of the portion of such task completed but not paid prior to said termination. City shall not be liable for any costs other than the charges or portions thereof which are specified herein. Consultant shall not be entitled to payment for unperformed services, and shall not be entitled to damages or compensation for termination of work.
b. Consultant may terminate its obligation to provide further services under this Agreement upon thirty (30) calendar days’ written notice to City only in the event of substantial failure by City to perform in accordance with the terms of this Agreement through no fault of Consultant. c. The C onsultant understands and accepts that at all times; the Agreement is subject to appropriation of funds by the Milpitas City Council. The Agreement may terminate without penalty, liability or expense of any kind to the City at the end of Agreement term. The City has no ob ligation to make appropriations for the Agreement in lieu of appropriations for new or other contracts. City budget decisions are subject to the discretion of the Mayor and City Council. Consultant’s assumption of risk of possible non-appropriation is a pa rt of the c onsideration for the Agreement. This section controls against any and all other provisions of the Agreement.
18 Documents. Except as otherwise provided in “Termination or Abandonment,” above, all original field notes, written reports, Drawings and Specifications and other documents, produced or developed for the Project shall, upon payment in full for the services described in this Agreement, be furnished to and become the property of the City.

19. Organization
Consultant shall assign John Bliss, P.E. as Project Manager. The Project Manager shall not be removed from the Project or reassigned without the prior written consent of the City.

20. Limitation of Agreement.

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

21. Notice

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

CITY:

City of Milpitas
455 E. Calaveras Boulevard
Milpitas, California 95035
Attn: City Manager
CONSULTANT:

SCI Consulting Group
4745 Mangels Blvd
Fairfield, CA 94534
Attn: John Bliss, P.E., President

and shall be effective upon receipt thereof.

22. Third Party Rights
36 Item # C8.
38077.00180\29167975.12 C2

6 Nothing in this Agreement shall be construed to give any rights or benefits to anyone other than the City and the Consultant.

23. Equal Opportunity Employment.

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

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

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

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

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

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

29. City’s Right to Employ Other Consultants
City reserves its right to employ other consultants, including eng ineers, in connection with this Project or other projects.

30. Prohibited Interests
Consultant maintains and warrants that it has not employed nor retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant, to solicit or secure this Agreement. Further, Consultant warrants that it has not paid nor has it agreed to pay any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working solely for Consultant, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift or other 37 Item # C8.
38077.00180\29167975.12 C2

7 consideration contingent upon or resulting from the awar d or making of this Agreement. For breach or violation of this warranty, City shall have the right to rescind this Agreement without liability. For the term of this Agreement, no director, official, officer or employee of City, during the term of his or her service with City, shall have any direct interest in this Agreement, or obtain any present or anticipated material benefit arising therefrom.

31. Wage Theft Prevention
a. Consultant, and any subconsultant it employs to complete work under this Agreement, shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local wage and hour laws. Applicable laws may include, but are not limited to, the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act, the California Labor Code and the Milpitas Minimum Wage Ordinance.
b. BY SIGNING THIS AGREEMENT, CONSULTANT AFFIRMS THAT IT HAS

DISCLOSED ANY FINAL JUDGMENTS, DECISIONS OR ORDERS FROM A COURT OR INVESTIGATORY GOVERNMENT AGENCY, FINDING IN THE FIVE (5) YEARS PRIOR TO

EXECUTING THIS AGREEMENT THAT CONSULTANT OR ITS SUBCONSULTANTS HAS VIOLATED ANY APPLICABLE WAGE AND HOUR LAWS. CONSULTANT FURTHER AFFIRMS

THAT IT OR ITS SUBCONSULTANT(S) HAS EITHER FULLY SATISFIED EACH JUDGMENT,

DECISION OR ORDER, OR, IF ANY JUDGMENT, DECISION OR ORDER HAS NOT BEEN FULLY

SATISFIED, CONSULTANT AFFIRMS THAT IT OR ITS SUBCONSULTANT(S) IS CURRENTLY

SATISFYING SAID JUDGMENT, DECISION OR ORDER THROUGH A PAYMENT OR

ALTERNATIVE PLAN APPROVED BY THE APPLICABLE COURT/GOVERNMENT AGENCY

AND THAT CONSULTANT OR ITS SUBCONSULTANT(S) ARE IN COMPLIANCE WITH SAID PLAN AS OF THE DATE OF EXECUTING THIS AGREEMENT.
c. If at any time during the term of this Agreement, a court or investigatory government agency issues a final judgment, decision or order finding that Consultant or a subconsultant it employs to perform work under this Agreement has violated any applicable wage and hour law, or Consultant learns of such a judgment, decision, or order that was not previously disclosed in its bid/proposal, Consultant shall inform the City no more than fifteen (15) calendar days after the judgment, decision or order becomes final or from the date of learning of the final judgment, decision or order.

Consultant or its subconsultant(s) shall, within thirty (30) calendar days after notifying the City, e ither (i) fully satisfy any such judgment, decision, or order and provide the City with documentary evidence of satisfying said judgment, decision or order; or (ii) provide the City documentary evidence of a payment or other alternative plan approved by the court/government agency to satisfy the judgment, decision or order.

If the Consultant or its subconsultant is subject to a payment or other alternative plan, the Consultant or its subconsultant shall continue to submit documentary evidence every thirty ( 30) calendar days during the term of the Agreement demonstrating continued compliance with the plan until the judgment, decision or order has been fully satisfied.
d. For purposes of this Section, a "final judgment, decision, or order" refers to one for which all appeals have been exhausted or the time period to appeal has expired. Relevant investigatory government agencies include: the United States Department of Labor, the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, the City, or any other governmental entity or division tasked with the investigation and enforcement of wage and hour laws.
e. Failure to comply with any part of this Section constitutes a material breach of this Agreement. Such breach may serve as a basis for immediate termination of this Agreement and/or any other remedies available under this Agreement and/or law.
38 Item # C8.
38077.00180\29167975.12 C2

8 f. Notice provided to the City shall be addressed to: Attention: Finance Director, 455 E. Calaveras Blvd. Milpitas, CA 95035. The Notice provisions of this Section are separate from any other notice provisions in this Agreement and, accordingly, only notice provided to the above address satisfies the notice requirements in this Section.
[SIGNATURES ON FOLLOWING PAGE]
39 Item # C8.
38077.00180\29167975.12 C2

9 SIGNATURE PAGE FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT

BETWEEN THE CITY OF MILPITAS

AND SCI CONSULTING GROUP

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Agreement as of the date first written above.

CITY OF MILPITAS
Approved By:

Steven G. McHarris, City Manager

Date

Approved As To Form:

Michael Mutalipassi, City Attorney

Approved:

Lauren Lai, CPA, MPA
Finance Director/Risk manager

Approved As To Content:

Roger Lee, Interim Director of Public Works

SCI Consulting Group

Signature

Name

Title

Date

DIR Registration Number (If Applicable)

40 Item # C8.
38077.00180\29167975.12 C2

10 EXHIBIT A
Scope of Services

The following scope of services described below are specific tasks the SCI Team will perform to conduct a comprehensive storm drainage fee study.

[CONSULTANT’S EXECUTION PLAN BEGINS ON FOLLOWING PAGE]

41 Item # C8.
38077.00180\29167975.12 C2

11 Task 1 – Project Management and Coordination Lead: SCI SCI, as prime consultant, will provide comprehensive project management for all project tasks, including internal consultant-staff coordination, invoicing and other support activities, and monthly budget and status updates for the City.

SCI will initiate the project with a kick-off meeting and prepare a comprehensive agenda for a productive and efficient meeting. The goal of this meeting will be to review the scope as well as discuss strategic objectives and identify key decision points and milestones. Also, SCI has well- developed approaches and processes to ensure control over overall project costs, schedules, and quality assurance/quality control, which will be discussed and customized for this project.

SCI will schedule periodic project meetings with appropriate City staff throughout the project.

Each session will be preceded by an agenda to identify the subject of the meeting and followed up by action notes. This PROPOSAL is based on the assumption that in-person meetings will be allowed during the life of the project. To the extent that COVID restrictions are still in place for portions or all of the project, SCI is prepared to conduct business through a virtual format without diminishing our communication, effectiveness or the deliverables outlined below.

SCI will also provide monthly updates in conjunction with the monthly invoicing cycle including a description of the work performed and task budget status for each billing period as well as schedule updates.

Deliverables
 Meeting agendas and action item summaries
 Monthly Status Reports, invoices, and schedule updates

Task 2 – Data Collection and Document Review Co-Leads: SCI and LWA Every city with which the SCI Team works provides a different starting point – particularly with stormwater funding where financial systems are not typically tailored for easy access to the full and true costs of the program. Documentation of capital needs are another area that differs from city to city. It is the Team’s understanding that the Storm Drain Master Plan was updated in 2021 and includes a comprehensive list of capital needs. This document, along with the recent collective experience of City staff, will be invaluable in helping to determine the City’s storm drainage needs.

We will develop and provide a comprehensive list of data requirements for the City staff to provide. These data items will support the Tasks 4, 5 and 6 work, including budget information, levels of service, program elements, and needs. We will interview key city staff and other stakeholders to confirm and augment the information contained in the various documents. This task’s primary goal is to catalog and vet previous documents as well as ensure 42 Item # C8.
38077.00180\29167975.12 C2

12 that the City’s approaches are in full harmony with various strategic goals set out by City leadership.

Deliverables
 List of data requirements
 A brief summary of essential discussion items, decisions, and findings

Meetings:
 One kick-off meeting
 Follow-up interviews with key staff in groups or individually

Timeline Implications:
 After several weeks of lead time, will run mostly concurrently with Task 3

Task 3 – Funding Options Lead: SCI
A variety of potential additional funding mechanisms will be evaluated, including special taxes, user taxes, transient occupancy taxes, sales taxes, balloted property-related-fees, non-balloted property-related fees, benefit assessments, regulatory fees, new development fees, service fees, and other non-balloted fees and revenues. Each potential source will be studied and evaluated along with important attributes such as political viability, legal rigor, sustainability, legislative factors, costs of implementation and administration, future reliability, timeline, and compatibility with other funding mechanisms.

One area of interest to most municipalities is the impact of Senate Bill 231 (Hertzberg) on storm drainage funding. On its face, SB 231 provides a rate-setting path forward that avoids the voter- approval requirement – making it identical to water and sewer rates. However, there are constitutional and separation of powers questions surrounding this important legislation. The authors of Proposition 218, Howard Jarvis Taxpayers Association, has vowed to bring suit against any municipality that proceeds along the SB 231 route.1 As an active member of Senator Hertzberg’s SB 231 Working Group, SCI is currently not encouraging cities to pursue SB 231 unless they have unique service characteristics that link stormwater to other property- related services (e.g., water, sewer, and solid waste) and have the appetite to be a test case along with the time and resources that would involve. This PROPOSAL is based on the City pursuing a mail ballot proceeding in accordance with Proposition 218 and the 2002 Salinas2 decision.

1 SCI is aware of at least one warning letter received by a small city along the Central Coast warning of that very outcome. That city subsequently ceased their effort.
2 A lawsuit was decided by the Sixth Appellate District against the City of Salinas (2002), which established a legal requirement to submit stormwater fees to a ballot proceeding. 43 Item # C8.
38077.00180\29167975.12 C2

13 This task will provide the City with all options, including balloted (fees or parcel taxes) and several non-balloted options. This effort will enable the City to answer the following question:
“Have you done all you can before asking me for a new fee?” The results of this analysis will provide the City with many options to consider before proceeding to a costly, risky, and time- consuming ballot measure.

Deliverables:
 PowerPoint summarizing funding options, and initial recommendations

Meetings:
 Staff interviews, as needed
 Iterative workshops with project staff to vet current and potential internal regulatory and development fees
 One PowerPoint presentation to senior staff
 PowerPoint presentation to City Council

Timeline Implications:
 Will run mostly concurrently with Task 2

Task 4 – Revenue Requirement Analysis Co-Leads: SCI and LWA Upon direction of the City Council per completion of Task 3, the SCI Team will proceed with a thorough financial analysis to determine the City’s revenue requirements for a storm drain fee structure.

Financial Analysis
SCI and LWA have comprehensive and extensive experience estimating existing and future stormwater program costs and has completed similar analyses for numerous other municipal clients. Stormwater rate-setting is unique among utility rates because of the voter-approval requirement and absence of the five-year rate limitation. The initial rate structure must be extremely durable and consistent for the long haul since the only adjustments in future years will be as prescribed by an inflationary index (such as the Consumer Price Index or Construction Cost Index). Accordingly, rates will automatically be smooth for future years, but the challenge is to build an expenditure plan that will fit sustainably within those “locked-in” revenues. For this to work, a robust long-range model is essential. Based on the data collection effort described above, SCI will utilize its long-range, 30-year financial forecasting tool to develop future stormwater program annual costs and the revenue requirement necessary to fund the program.

The work in this task will be iterative insomuch as City staff will be interviewed and continually involved in working through and coordinating the expenditure forecasting of costs in the three 44 Item # C8.
38077.00180\29167975.12 C2

14 main areas of concern: operations and maintenance, NPDES Permit compliance, and capital needs.

Parcel Analysis
An important part of this task will be the compilation of the parcel attributes. In particular, SCI will need to perform an audit of parcel lot coverage of impervious surfaces for the various land classes. The parcel audit is a time-consuming task that will require looking at all our data sources, viewing aerial photos, and possibly some site visits. The data generated in this effort will be the backbone of the analysis that follows, where the nexus of parcel attributes to the fee structure is developed. This analysis uses many layers of statistical work and a reasoned and stout rationale for the resulting nexus.

This task will also include rate credit provisions to incentivize on-site runoff abatement that could apply to traditionally impervious large sites such as commercial, industrial and institutional parcels as well as newly developed sites to help the City implement structural BMPs and hydrograph modification practices. Examples of this can be found in our recent Fee Reports for the cities of Cupertino, Alameda, and Davis.

This analysis will form the basis of setting the single-family equivalents (SFEs) for each parcel.

Preliminary Fee Levels
The fee calculation is a simple equation: Revenues Required divided by Single-Family Equivalents. Within this task, those two elements will be largely determined such that preliminary rate levels can be determined. The preliminary work will include at least four (4) rate structure options incorporating all necessary revenues, costs, fund balance targets, reserves, debt service considerations, and capital improvement scenarios. This is essential to prepare for the follow-on task (Task 5 – Community Opinion Poll).

Deliverables:
 Spreadsheet-level summary of costs, revenue requirements, and preliminary fees  PowerPoint summarizing financial findings and initial recommendations

Meetings:
 Staff interviews, as needed
 Iterative workshops with project staff to vet progress and scenarios  One PowerPoint presentation to senior staff
45 Item # C8.
38077.00180\29167975.12 C2

15  PowerPoint presentation to City Council

Timeline Implications:
 Will require three to five months
 Will not be concurrent with other tasks

Task 5 – Community Polling Lead: SCI
Upon direction of the City Council per completion of Task 4, the SCI Team will proceed with a community opinion poll.

A community poll and opinion research phase would provide the City with a highly accurate projection of ballot support for a new storm drain fee or tax. Also, the opinion research will provide a clear insight into the community’s priorities to enable the City to finalize a set of services and improvements that will best meet the community’s needs. This insight will support the refinement of branding, messaging, and communication with the community.

The SCI Team has developed a sophisticated research methodology for identifying the priorities of registered voters and property owners, their support for a local funding measure and how best to package it for success. One of the primary strengths of the recommended approach is its proven ability to identify support most accurately from different types of property owners, such as single family residential, business, industrial, apartment, and investment property owners. Moreover, the recommended approach and methodology have proven to provide accurate and reliable research findings in a wide range of social and economic environments.

These include rural areas and urban communities, ranges of income, and a variety of ethnic backgrounds.

Due to the demonstrated higher level of accuracy and improved ability to reach all types of property owners and voters, the SCI Team recommends a mailed survey approach specifically tailored to account for the unique aspects of the potential mail-ballot property-related fee. (The methodology developed by the SCI Team has proven to be materially more accurate than standard phone surveys in predicting actual ballot results for property-related fees.)

Based on the scenarios and the potential services and improvements developed in the previous tasks, the SCI Team would develop a preliminary storm water fee/tax structure. The fee/tax structure will allow us to assign each parcel an actual fee or tax amount to be tested in the survey phase. This is important because Proposition 218 requires the City to inform property owners about the fees that will be voted on by property owners. Unlike water, sewer and solid waste fees that are not required to go to the ballot, individual storm drain fees may appear on the final ballot. Therefore, an effective survey should show the same information in order to be predictive of the ultimate balloting. By developing a preliminary fee/tax structure and printing the individual fee/tax on each survey form, the SCI Team would ensure the opinion research 46 Item # C8.
38077.00180\29167975.12 C2

16 accurately measures support from all types of property owners and is based on the specific fee or tax they may be asked to support for their property, instead of an average rate that may have no relation to their proposed fee.

After the period allowed for the mailing and postage-paid return of the surveys, the SCI Team would conduct complex analysis and modeling of the survey results for the City as they relate to the expected property owner ballot participant profile and balloting scenario. After completing this detailed modeling and analysis, the SCI Team would prepare a PowerPoint level presentation that summarizes the opinion research findings and makes recommendations regarding residents’ and owners’ storm drain improvement and service priorities, as well as the feasibility of moving forward with a ballot measure to fund such priorities. The presentation will also include additional value-added elements such as the recommended ballot measure alternatives and services to be funded, an outline of the recommended action plan for proceeding with local funding measures, profiles of likely supporters and opponents, service priorities, support by geographic area, and key messaging elements and strategies. The SCI Team recommends mailing 6,000 survey questionnaires to achieve a +/-3% margin of error. .

Deliverables:
• Conduct statistically valid mailed community survey
• Printing, addressing, mailing, return postage of 6,000 surveys • PowerPoint presentation of survey findings and recommendations

Meetings:
 PowerPoint presentation to staff
 PowerPoint presentation to City Council asking for direction on proceeding with Final Fee Report

Timeline Implications:
 Will proceed after City Council direction from Task 4  The Survey task will require three to four months to complete

Task 6 – Fee Report Lead: SCI
The Fee Report will be done in two phases: Draft Report and Final Report. The draft report will be developed concurrently with the Community Survey (Task 5) with financial information and preliminary rates. The final report will be developed only after the results of the survey are known, analyzed and presented to the City Council. Upon completion of the survey and direction from the City Council regarding priority program elements and rates, the SCI Team will proceed with the Final Report.

47 Item # C8.
38077.00180\29167975.12 C2

17 Building on the information from previous tasks, the SCI Team will prepare a comprehensive Proposition 218-compliant property-related fee engineering and nexus/justification report (“Fee Report”) for the proposed programs and improvements to be funded. The Report will include a detailed description of the programs and improvements as identified in previous tasks as well as the rationale used for the fee apportionment (typically based on impervious area) and calculation of the specific proposed fee amount for each parcel in the City.

The Report will include legal considerations and issues for the fee methodology, appeal processes, and alternative revenue enhancement options. The process will build on the data gathered in previous tasks, including parcel data, community priorities, and budgets, cost estimates, and multi-year proforma for all services and improvements. The Fee Report will also include stormwater rate levels for various similar and nearby municipalities.

The Fee Report’s development is an iterative process and will be interwoven with the recommended early stakeholder outreach. This process varies depending on the community and will be tailored to fit the City’s situation. SCI will present these fiscal plans, data review and analysis, and various fee scenarios to the City in up to three review sessions. Issues uncovered by the reviews will be highlighted and remedies suggested. Depending on the iterative path decided upon, new scenarios may be presented to internal (and possibly selected external) stakeholders to help refine the rate structure and incorporate the community’s priorities.

Once City staff (and possibly the City’s legal counsel) have reviewed the data and information, we will prepare a Draft Fee Report for a consolidated review by City staff of the recommended revenue requirement, rate structure and fee levels. After that review and final input from the City Council on rate levels and program priorities, SCI will prepare the Final Fee Report that satisfies the requirements of Articles XIIIC and XIIID of the California Constitution (Proposition 218), the Government Code, and other relevant code sections. The Report will be prepared and signed by Edric Kwan, PE, a registered Civil Engineer. The Report will include a detailed description of the proposed fee structure for the programs and improvements, future capital and facility improvement needs, a detailed cost estimate, the rationale used for the fee apportionment, calculation of the specific proposed fee amount for each parcel in the City, any necessary maps or diagrams, and other elements.

Deliverables:
 Draft Stormwater Fee Report
 Final Draft Stormwater Fee Report 3 and supporting PowerPoint for City Council Study Session

3 Recent Examples of SCI’s Stormwater Fee Report can be found at the three following locations:
48 Item # C8.
38077.00180\29167975.12 C2

18  Final Fee Report for City Council Approval

Meetings:
 Iterative workshops with project staff
 One presentation to senior staff
 One study session with City Council
 One City Council presentation of Final Fee Report for Adoption

Timeline Implications:
 Draft Report development will run concurrently with Task 5  Final Report will require six to eight weeks to prepare for City Council Approval

Task 7 – Proposition 218 Fee Implementation Lead: SCI

SCI recognizes that this process is new for each of our clients, so we will lean on our extensive experience to advise the City on the process and advise (and, in many cases, train) City staff on these procedures. There are many documents that will be required to support the process, and SCI will draft each one for the City’s review.

 City of Davis):
http://documents.cityofdavis.org/Media/Default/Documents/PDF/Stor mwater/Stormwater-Utility-Cost-of- Service-Rate-Study-ATT1-Fee-Report.pdf
 City of Alameda (2019): https://www.alamedaca.gov/files/sharedassets/public/public-works/misc/exhibit- 1-draft-stormwater-fee-report.pdf
 City of Cupertino (2018): https://www.cupertino.org/home/showdocument?id=23893 49 Item # C8.
38077.00180\29167975.12 C2

19 Overview

Implementation of a property-related fee includes several steps:

a. City Council approval of the Fee Report, setting a public hearing4 date and time, and authorizing the mailing of notices.
b. Printing and mailing of notices.
c. Conduct a public hearing no less than 45 days after the mailing of notices. d. City Council authorization of mailing of ballots (if no majority protest is formed). e. Printing and mailing of ballots.
f. Tabulation of ballots after close of ballot period ( at least 45 days after public hearing).
g. City Council certification of results of the balloting, authorizing the fee structure if support is over 50%.
h. Roll out of fees into property tax bill system (or utility billing system).

As noted above, the Proposition 218 process for stormwater fees included a ballot proceeding.

The final step is the tabulation of ballots, and the City Clerk will be designated as the official tabulator. Since State law does not prescribe a detailed procedure for conducting the proceeding, one of the first actions of this task is to develop a Proposition 218 Procedures resolution to be adopted by the City Council. This kicks off a stream of documents that will require input and review by the City Clerk, City Attorney, Finance Director and other senior staff.

Documents
The SCI Team will draft all notices, resolutions, ordinances, and staff reports required for each step in the process as well as the final ballot packet. City staff, including the City Clerk and legal counsel, will review and finalize all these documents. We will also assist the City and its legal counsel with a public hearing script for the Mayor and responses to property owner testimony at the public hearing.

Municipal codes for each city are structured differently, and ordinance practices vary. Many cities choose to adopt a stormwater rate ordinance that clearly defines the City’s authority to do so, the services provided, areas serviced, initial rates, and other elements to demonstrate adherence to the California Constitution (e.g., Article XIIID) and statutes. The timing of the ordinance is also variable. Some cities have introduced an ordinance prior to the ballot proceeding, thus making the ordinance part of the voter approval process. However, this calls into question the ability of the City Council to make administrative changes later without voter

4 These public hearings are prescribed by Proposition 218, and commonly called “protest hearing” because if protests are received from owners of a majority of parcels, the rate implementation process is blocked. 50 Item # C8.
38077.00180\29167975.12 C2

20 approval. Another timing option is to adopt the ordinance after the successful balloting on the rates.

The design of the official notice, ballot, and supporting informational items and mailers is one of the most important elements of a successful ballot outcome. The SCI Team will utilize its unmatched expertise and track record to design these items that clearly and concisely explain the reason for the stormwater fee while meeting all legal requirements.

Printing and Mailing
After the designs of the notices and ballots are finalized, the SCI Team will oversee the printing, addressing and mailing of the notices and then the ballot packets. (This work will be performed by our reliable mail house partner, Admail West, a printing and mailing firm with industry- leading experience with registered voter elections and mail ballot proceedings.) Throughout the noticing and balloting periods, the SCI Team will also field and respond to property owner inquiries, will research and confirm new owners that are not reflected on the official county property ownership records, and will issue replacement ballots upon request.

Tabulation
Tabulation is required by law to be done either by an impartial third party (which the City Clerk is defined to be), or in public view. The SCI Team is proposing to do the manual work of the tabulation efforts using its proven bar scan technology under the direction of the City Clerk.

Further, we would recommend conducting the tabulation process in a room accessible to the public to avoid any appearance of impropriety. We estimate that the tabulation will take no more than two days to complete.

Deliverables:
 Management of noticing and balloting process
 Designing, printing, mailing of fee notices (Approx. 20,000)  Designing, printing, mailing of ballot packets (Approx. 20,000)  Supporting staff reports, resolutions, and ordinances  Property owner support throughout process
 Training City Clerk and staff on procedures and scripts for answering citizen questions

Exclusion:
 Integration of parcel-based fee data (required for balloting) with the City’s account-based utility billing system. If the fees are approved by the voters, SCI can assist the City in this effort for an additional fee

Meetings:
 Three City Council meetings
 Fee Report Approval / Initiation of Proposition 218 process  Public Hearing
51 Item # C8.
38077.00180\29167975.12 C2

21  Certify ballot results / take final actions

Timeline Implications:
 Four to five months subsequent to City Council approval of Fee Report and initiation of Proposition 218 process

Task 8 – Community Outreach Lead: SCI
SCI is a firm believer in bringing the community’s voice into the process early and often, and defined in two phases:
 A listening phase where early concepts for system needs and revenue mechanisms are presented to trusted stakeholders for their input and feedback. This helps the City to broaden its perspective and develop a work product that is responsive to the community’s priorities. It also allows the City to develop a robust messaging program to engage the broader community better.
 An education phase where the rate structure is well -developed along with message components. This phase typically occurs after the City Council has approv ed the rate structure along with the City’s stormwater system goals and objectives.

Figure 3 shows two parallel tracks for a
typical stormwater ballot measure. The
tasks in green are the procedural and
administrative milestones. The tasks in
blue show a typical community outreach
program and how it begins right at the
beginning (listening phase) and continues
right through to the final step (education
phase) in a progressive manner.

With this in mind, the SCI Team will assist
with public informational and educational
outreach strategies and property owner
informational services. Our firm's
informational outreach efforts, which will
continue throughout the ballot proceeding,
include tasks necessary to ensure that the
property owners are adequately informed about the assessment ballot proceeding and the proposed services/improvements in their area before the mailing of ballots. The SCI Team understands that basic message components will need to be simple, clear and transparent, and need to be well supported with detailed and substantive information. Credibility is the most important factor in this outreach.

a. Develop Communication Infrastructure
Figure 1
How Community Engagement informs all steps in
a revenue measure
52 Item # C8.
38077.00180\29167975.12 C2

22 The SCI Team will carefully evaluate and develop potential communication infrastructure. Working with City staff (i.e., Public Information Officer, etc.), we will evaluate and ultimately coordinate existing communication infrastructure, including stakeholder contacts, print media, website, social media, print publications, neighborhood groups, newsletters, etc. We will prioritize and integrate the various methods as appropriate. We will also look at e-mail contacts with HOA and neighborhood leaders, and web-based platforms like nextdoor.com. We will develop a schedule for community stakeholder meetings, due dates for local group newsletters, etc. Our extensive experience has shown that the most effective communication mechanisms for this type of infrastructure are small, local, and neighborhood-based, with a personal communication or face-to-face element. This approach is not expensive, but it is a fair amount of work, and is very effective when well-executed.

b. Develop Communication Messaging
The development of the messaging and supporting information is an iterative process with City staff, the SCI Team, and members of the public. Throughout this process, the SCI Team will analyze and refine messaging associated with stormwater infrastructure. In this task, the SCI Team will develop draft communications of various types. These may include website content, Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ) documents, camera-ready mailers and brochures, PowerPoint presentations, and emails, scripts and other adaptable messages.

c. Communications Rollout and Implementation
Once the outreach plan is well-vetted, reviewed and refined, the SCI Team will coordinate the rollout and implementation of the plan. SCI will provide preparation and support for City staff each step along the way and can be available to attend selected meetings. SCI will also develop detailed rates and parcel data for selected stakeholders (e.g., Chamber of Commerce, school districts, large landowners, etc.).

Deliverables:
 Outreach Action Plan
 Draft messaging documents, updated as needed (website content, FAQ, fact sheet, handouts, PowerPoint, adaptable messaging)
 Curation of stakeholders list and meeting schedules

Exclusions: This proposal and pricing do not include the printing and mailing of any outreach material.

Meetings: Five community/stakeholder meetings (in addition to Task 7 meetings)

53 Item # C8.
38077.00180\29167975.12 C2

23 EXHIBIT B
Schedule of Charges/Payments

Consultant will invoice City on a monthly cycle. Consultant will in clude with each invoice a detail ed progress report that indicates the amount of budget spent on each task. Consultant will inform City regarding any out-of-scope work being performed by Consultant.

Consultant proposes to perform all work contained in the propossed scope of work on a fixed-fee basis with the exception of incidental costs as shown above, which charges shall be billed as incurred. Cost estimates include up to 11 in-person meetings with staff or in public settings. Any additional meetings shall be charged at the rate of $1,050.00 per meeting.

Potential Project Phasing
John
Bliss
Edric
Kwan
Jerry
Bradshaw
Susa
Barnes
Karen
Ashby
Airy
Krich-Brinton
President
& Senior
Engineer
Vice
President
Senior
Advisor
Senior
Consultant
Vice
President
Project
Engineer II
$286 $275 $265 $203 $310 $224 $70
Subcontractor Markup: 10% 10%
Total Hours Total Costs
8 24 32 7,072$
24 6 16 20 24 90 24,172$
16 2 8 26 6,554$

4. Revenue Requirement 42 32 16 20 16 126 34,040$

5. Community Survey 8 28 4 52 30 122 23,704$

6. Fee Report 4 32 8 8 13,688$

7. Prop 218 Fee Implementation 20 8 60 20 21,200$
16 16 6 20 8 66 15,186$
28 186 66 204 40 40 58 622 145,616$
Total Labor Cost: 145,616$
Units Cost Total Costs
Incidentals 12 550$ 6,600$
Mailed Survey 6,000 2.00$ 12,000$
Notice 20,000 1.25$ 25,000$
Ballot 20,000 2.00$ 40,000$
Direct Costs: 83,600$
229,216$
Work Plan Task Number/Description
Classification:

Support Staff

1. Project Management and Admin

2. Data Collection and Doc Review

3. Funding Options

8. Community Outreach
Fully Loaded Hourly Rate:

SCI LWA
Assigned staff:

Firm:

Direct Costs
Travel, data and other items
SCI Consulting Group -- Larry Walker Associates
City of Milpitas
Storm Drain Fee Analysis
Hours

BASE BUDGET ALLOCATION
TOTAL DIRECT HOURS:

Printing, Addressing, Mailing, Return Postage
Printing, Addressing, Mailing, Return Postage
54 Item # C8.
38077.00180\29167975.12 C2

24 The execution plan and schedule includes frequent City Council meetings at certain milestones. At any of these, the City Council may consider terminating or delaying the project. Based on that potential, the compensation schedule can be broken into at least three partial-completion phases:
 If the work is terminated or delayed at the Task 3 (Funding Options) milestone, the compensation due would be limited to $31,726.
 If the work is terminated or delayed at the Task 4 (Revenue Requirement Analysis) milestone, the compensation due would be limited to $66, 766
 If the work is terminated or delayed at the Task 5 (Community Survey) milestone, the compensation due would be limited to $91,470.

55 Item # C8.
38077.00180\29167975.12 C2

25 EXHIBIT C
Activity Schedule

2 Data Collection & Doc Review
3 Funding Options
4 Revenue Requirement Analysis
5 Community Survey
6 Fee Report
7 Prop 218 Fee Implementation
8 Community Outreach
Legend: Task Work Council
City of Milpitas
Storm Drain Fee Analysis
Tenative Timeline
Revised October 2022
Jul 24Jun 24Dec 23 Jan 24 Feb 24 Mar 24 Apr 24 May 24Jun 23 Jul 23 Aug 23 Sep 23 Oct 23 Nov 23Apr 23 May 23Nov 22 Dec 22 Jan 23 Feb 23 Mar 23 56 Item # C8.
38077.00180\29167975.12 C2

26 EXHIBIT D

INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS

Please refer to the insurance requirements listed below. Those that have an “X” indicated in the space before the requirement apply to Contractor’s or Consultant’s Agreement.

Contractor or Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of the Agreement insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder and the results of that work by the Contractor or Consultant, its agents, representatives, employees or subcontractors.

Contractor or Consultant shall provide its insurance broker(s)/agent(s) with a copy of these requirements and request that they provide Certificates of Insurance complete with copies of all required endorsements.

Contractor or Consultant shall furnish City with copies of original endorsements affecting coverage required by this Exhibit D. The endorsements are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. All endorsements and certificates are to be received and approved by City before work commences. City has the right to require Contractor’s or Consultant’s insurer to provide complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements affecting the coverage required by these specifications.

Commercial General Liability (CGL):

___ Coverage at least as broad as Insurance Services Office (“ISO”) Form CG 00 01 covering CGL on an “occurrence” basis, including products and completed operations, p roperty damage, bodily injury and personal and advertising injury with limits no less than $2,000,000.00 per occurrence. If a general aggregate limit applies, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit.

_X_ Coverage at least as broad as ISO Form CG 00 01 covering CGL on an “occurrence” basis, including products and completed operations, property damage, bodily injury and personal and advertising injury with limits no less than $1,000,000.00 per occurrence. If a general aggregate limit applies, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit.

___ Coverage at least as broad as ISO Form CG 00 01 covering CGL on an “occurrence” basis, including products and completed operations, property damage, bodily injury and personal and advertising injury with limits no less than $5,000,000.00 per occurrence. If a general aggregate limit applies, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit.

Automobile Liability:

57 Item # C8.
38077.00180\29167975.12 C2

27 _X_ Coverage at least as broad as ISO Form Number CA 0001 covering, Code 1 (any auto), of if Contractor or Consultant has no owned autos, Code 8 (hired) and 9 (non-owned), with limits no less than $1,000,000.00 combined single limit for bodily injury and property damage.

___ Coverage at least as broad as ISO Form Number CA 0001 covering, Code 1 (any auto), with limits no less than $5,000,000.00 combined single liit for bodily injury and property damage.

___ Garage keepers’ extra liability endorsement to extend coverage to all vehicles in the care, custody and control of the Contractor or Consultant, regardless of where the vehicles are kept or driven.

Professional Liability (Errors and Omissions):

___ Insurance appropriates to the Contractor or Consultant’s profession, with limit no less than $1,000,000.00 per occurrence or claim, $2,000,000.00 aggregate.

___ (If Design/Build), with limits no less than $1,000,000.00 per occurrence or claim, and $2,000,000.00 policy aggregate.

___ Insurance appropriates to the Contractor or Consultant’s profession, with limit no less than ______ per occurrence or claim, ______ aggregate

Workers’ Compensation Insurance:

_X_ Insurance as required by the State of California, with Statutory Limits, and Employer’s Liability Insurance wi th limit of no less than $1,000,000.00 per accident for bodily injury or disease. (Not required if Contractor or Consultant provides written verification it has no employees)

The Employer’s Liability policy shall be endorsed to waive any right of subrogation as respects the City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, attorneys, agents, and employees.

Builder’s Risk (Course of Construction):

___ Insurance utilizing an “All Risk” (Special Perils) coverage form, with limits equal to the completed value of the project and no coinsurance penalty provisions. If the project does not involve new or major reconstruction, at the option of the City, an Installation Floater ma y be acceptable. For such projects, a Property Installation Floater shall be obtained that provides for the improvement, remodel, modification, alteration, conversion or adjustment to existing buildings, structures, processes, machinery and equipment. The Property Installation Floater shall provide property damage coverage for any building, structure, machinery or equipment damaged, impaired, broken, or destroyed during the performance of the Work, including during transit, installation, and testing at the City’s site.

Contractor’s or Consultant’s Pollution Legal Liability:

58 Item # C8.
38077.00180\29167975.12 C2

28 ___ Contractor’s or Consultant’s pollution legal liability and/or Asbestos Legal Liability and/or Errors and Omissions (if project involves environmental hazards) with limits no less th an $1,000,000.00 per occurrence or claim and $2,000,000.00 policy aggregate.

If the Contractor or Consultant maintains higher limits than the minimums shown above, the City requires and shall be entitled to coverage for the higher limits maintained by t he Contractor or Consultant. Any available insurance proceeds in excess of the specified minimum limits of insurance and coverage shall be available to City.

Cyber Liability Insurance

___ Cyber Liability Insurance with limits not less than $1,000,000 per claim.

Coverage shall be sufficiently broad to respond to the duties and obligations as is undertaken by Contractor or Consultant in this Agreement and shall include, but not be limited to, claims involving infringement of intellectual property, including but not limited to infringement of copyright, trademark, trade dress, invasion of privacy violations, information theft, damage to or destruction of electronic information, release of pr ivate information, alteration of electronic information, extortion, and network security.

The policy shall provide coverage for breach response costs as well as regulatory fines and penalties, and credit monitoring expenses with limits sufficient to respond to these obligations.

Surety Bonds:

Contractor shall provide the following Surety Bonds:

____ Bid Bond
____ Performance Bond
____ Payment Bond

The Payment Bond and Performance Bond shall be in a sum equal to the contract price. Bonds shall be duly executed by a responsible corporate surety, authorized to issue such bonds in the State of California and secured through an authorized agent with an office in California.

Other Insurance Provisions:

The insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain the following provisions:

_X_ Additional Insured Status and Primary/Non-Contributory Language:

Contractor’s general liability and automobile liability policies shall be primary and shall not seek contribution from the City’s coverage and be endorsed to add the City and its elected and appointed officials, officers, attorneys, agents, employees, and volunteers as additional insureds under such policies using Insurance Services Office form CG 20 10 (or equivalent) on the general liability policy. For construction projects, an endorsement providing completed operations coverage for 59 Item # C8.
38077.00180\29167975.12 C2

29 the additional insured on the general liability policy, ISO form CG 20 37 (or equivalent), is also required.

The limits of insurance required in this Agreement may be satisfied by a combination of primary and umbrella or excess insurance. Any umbrella or excess insurance shall contain or be endorsed to contain a provision that such coverage shall also apply on a primary and non-contributory basis for the benefit of C ity (if agreed to in a written contract or agreement) before the City’s own insurance or self-insurance shall be called upon to protect it as a named insured.

___ Loss Payee Status – Builder’s Risk/Course of Construction Insurance (applicable to Construction Contracts only)

Contractor or Consultant may submit evidence of Builder’s Risk insurance in the form of Course of Construction coverage. Such coverage shall name the City as a loss payee as their interest may appear.

___ Notice of Cancellation, Suspension or Otherwise Voiding Policies:

Each insurance policy required above shall contain or be endorsed to contain that coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled or reduced in coverage or in limits except with thirty (30) days’ prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested to the City.

_X_ Waiver of Subrogation:

Contractor or Consultant hereby grants to City a waiver of any right to subrogation which any insurer of said Contractor or Consultant may acquire against the City by virtue of the payment of any loss under such insurance. Contractor or Consultant agrees to obtain any endorsement that may be necessary to affect this waiver of subrogation, but this provision applies regardless of whether or not the City has received a waiver of subrogation endorsement from the insurer. The Workers’ Compensation Policy shall be endorsed with a waiver of subrogation in favor of the City for all work performed by Contractor or Consultant, its employees, agents and subcontractors.

___ Completed Operations

For Construction Agreements, Contractor shall maintain insurance as required by this Agreement to the fullest amount allowed by law and shall maintain insurance for a minimum of five (5) years following the completion of this project. In the event Contractor fails to obtain or maintain completed operations coverage as required by this Agreement, the City at its sole discretion may purchase the coverage required and the cost will be paid by Contractor.

THE FOLLOWING PROVISIONS APPLY TO ALL AGREEMENTS

Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions (“SIR”):

Any deductibles or self -insured retentions must be declared to and approved by City. The City may require the Contractor or Consultant to purchase coverage with a lower deductible or retention 60 Item # C8.
38077.00180\29167975.12 C2

30 or provide proof of ability to pay losses and related investigations, claim administration, and defense expenses within the retention. At the option of the City, either (1) the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self -insured retentions a s respects the City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, attorneys, agents, and employees; or (2) the Contractor or Consultant shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration and defense expenses.

All SIRs must be disclosed to Risk Management for approval and shall not reduce the limits of liability.

Policies containing any SIR provision shall provide or be endorsed to provide that the SIR may be satisfied by either the named insured or the City.

City reserves the right to obtain a full -certified copy of any insurance policy and endorsements.

Failure to exercise this right shall not constitute a waiver of right to exercise later.

Acceptability of Insurers:

Insurance is to be placed with i nsurers with a current A.M. Best’s rating of no less than A -:VII, unless otherwise acceptable to City.

Claims Made Policies: (note - should be applicable only to professional liability, see below)

1. The Retroactive Date must be shown and must be before the date of the contract or the beginning of contract work.

2. Insurance must be maintained, and evidence of insurance must be provided for at least five (5) years after completion of contract of work.

3. If coverage is canceled or non-renewed, and not replaced with another claims-made policy form with a Retroactive Date prior to the contract effective date, the Contractor or Consultant must purchase “extended reporting” coverage for a minimum of five (5) years after completion of work.

4. A copy of the claims report ing requirements must be submitted to the City for review.

5. If the services involve lead -based paint or asbestos identification/remediation, the Contractor’s Pollution Liability Policy shall not contain lead -based paint or asbestos exclusions. If the servic es involve mold identification/remediation, the Contractors Pollution Liability Policy shall not contain a mold exclusion, and the definition of Pollution shall include microbial matter, including mold.

Subcontractors:

61 Item # C8.
38077.00180\29167975.12 C2

31 Contractor or Consultant shall require and verify that all subcontractors maintain insurance meeting all the requirements stated herein, and Contractor shall ensure that City is an additional insured on insurance required from subcontractors.

Subcontractor agrees to be bound to Contractor and City in the same manner and to the same extent as Contractor is bound to City under this Agreement and any other contract documents.

Subcontractor further agrees to include the same requirements and provisions of this Agreement, including the indemnity and insurance requirements, with any sub-subcontractor to the extent they apply to the scope of the sub -subcontractor’s work. A copy of the City indemnity and insurance provisions will be furnished to the subcontractor upon request.

Verification of Coverage:

Contractor or Consultant shall furnish the City with original certificates and amendatory endorsements or copies of the applicable policy language effecting coverage required by this clause. All certificates and endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. However, failure to obtain the required documents prior to the work beginning shall not waive the Contractor or Consultant’s obligation to provide them. The City reserves the right to require complete, certifie d copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements required by these specifications, at any time.

Special Risks or Circumstances

City reserves the right to modify these requirements, including limits, based on the nature of the risk, prior experience, insurer, coverage or other special circumstances.

Failure to Comply:

Each insurance policy required above shall contain or be endo rsed to contain that any failure to comply with reporting provisions of the policies shall not affect coverage provided to the City, its elected and appointed officials, officers, attorneys, agents, and employees.

Applicability of Coverage:

Each insurance policy required above shall contain or be endorsed to contain that the Contractor’s or Consultant’s insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability.

62 Item # C8.

CITY OF MILPITAS

AGENDA REPORT
(AR)

Item Title: Authorize the City Manager to Accept the 2022 Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant in the Amount of $11,078.17 and Approve a Related Budget Appropriation (Staff Contact: Frank Morales, Police Captain, 408-586-2521)
Category: Consent Calendar-Public Safety
Meeting Date: 11/1/2022
Recommendation: Authorize the City Manager to Accept the 2022 Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant in the Amount of $11,078.17 and Approve a Related Budget Appropriation

BACKGROUND:

The Bulletproof Vest Partnership (BVP) Grant Act of 1998 is a unique U.S. Department of Justice initiative designed to provide a critical resource to state and local law enforcement. The BVP program’s purpose is to reimburse state and local law enforcement up to fifty percent of body armor costs. The Milpitas Police Department has been participating in the BVP Grant Program consecutively since 2008.

The United States Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs and Bureau of Justice Assistance has awarded the Milpitas Police Department a BVP grant in the amount of $11,078.17. The grant will reimburse the City of Milpitas fifty (50) percent of the cost for each ballistic vest purchased between April 1, 2022 and August 31, 2024.

ANALYSIS:

The Police Officer’s Association Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) section 22.11 compels all uniformed officers to wear a ballistic vest and requires the City of Milpitas to provide each officer with a ballistic vest, and three ballistic vest covers. Officers not in a uniformed assignment, are required to wear a ballistic vest when circumstances dictate the need for the equipment. The life span of a ballistic vest is five years. After a five- year period, all ballistic vests must be replaced as soon as reasonably possible.

The Police Department anticipates purchasing approximately twenty-eight (28) ballistic vests during this award period and the expense will be approximately $22,156.33. Under this grant, the Department of Justice will reimburse the City of Milpitas fifty (50) percent of this cost, up to the grant award of $11,078.17.

Ballistic vests have been proven to save lives. The Chief of Police will continue to require officers to maintain this equipment in good working order and use the equipment consistent with the MOU, department policy, and sound officer safety practice.

POLICY ALTERNATIVE(S):

Alternative 1: Refuse the 2022 Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant of $11,078.17.

Pros: There are no identified benefits to this alternative.

Cons: The City would not be reimbursed for fifty (50) percent of the cost for each ballistic vest purchased by the Police Department through August 31, 2024.

Reason for Not Recommending: The City will incur the cost of bulletproof vests for sworn Police Department employees regardless of acceptance of the grant, therefore; refusal of the grant would result in the City incurring one hundred (100) percent of the cost of the needed bulletproof vests as opposed to fifty (50) percent of the cost.

FISCAL IMPACT:
63 Item # C9.

If approved, the City will be reimbursed up to $11,078.17 for fifty (50) percent of the cost of the needed bulletproof vests, therefore; a budget appropriation is needed for $11,078.17 into the Police Department’s FY 2022-23 operating budget. There are sufficient funds in the Police Department’s FY 2022-23 operating budget to cover the remainder of the cost for the acquisition of the bulletproof vests. Per the Council approved Budget Guidelines, any unused funds related to this grant will be carried over to the next fiscal year.

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA):

The City Council’s action authorizing the City Manager to accept the grant is exempt from environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15378(b)(2) as a continuing administrative or maintenance activity which is defined in the CEQA Guideline to include the purchases of supplies. It is also exempt under CEQA Guideline 15378(b)(4) as a government fiscal activity.

RECOMMENDATION:

Authorize the City Manager to Accept the 2022 Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant in the Amount of $11,078.17 and Approve a Related Budget Appropriation

Attachment(s):

1. Budget Change Form

2. 2022 BVP Awards List

64 Item # C9.

FY 2022 BVP Awards
State Jurisdiction Name (City) BVP Funding Amount
AK ALASKA $14,305.41
AK ANCHORAGE MUNICIPALITY $21,818.19
AK CORDOVA CITY $1,537.50
AK FAIRBANKS CITY $2,999.50
AK HOMER CITY $6,395.00
AK JUNEAU CITY AND BOROUGH $6,156.00
AK KENAI CITY $2,815.00
AK KODIAK CITY $3,300.00
AK PALMER CITY $4,758.00
AK SEWARD CITY $3,378.00
AK SITKA CITY AND BOROUGH $1,921.50
AK SOLDOTNA CITY $1,175.00
AK WASILLA CITY $5,630.00
AK WRANGELL CITY $1,330.00
Totals for AK(14 Jurisdictions): $77,519.10
AL ALABAMA $34,012.42
AL ALABASTER CITY $3,930.36
AL ANNISTON CITY $5,006.50
AL ARAB CITY $4,253.18
AL ATHENS CITY $11,028.50
AL AUTAUGA COUNTY $4,009.50
AL BAY MINETTE CITY $2,187.00
AL BUTLER COUNTY $800.00
AL CENTRE CITY $3,232.83
AL COFFEE COUNTY $2,516.50
AL COTTONWOOD TOWN $400.00
AL CULLMAN COUNTY $4,312.50
AL DAPHNE CITY $7,590.13
AL DECATUR CITY $16,222.50
AL DEMOPOLIS CITY $1,083.00
AL DOTHAN CITY $26,900.00
AL FAIRHOPE CITY $3,690.00
AL FLORENCE CITY $12,213.00
AL FOLEY CITY $5,788.50
AL FULTONDALE CITY $6,930.00
AL GADSDEN CITY $18,037.50
AL GORDO TOWN $2,717.50
AL GREENVILLE CITY $3,316.52
AL GUNTERSVILLE CITY $3,636.00
AL HALE COUNTY $2,322.05
AL HARTSELLE CITY $11,462.00
AL HENRY COUNTY $2,000.00
AL HOOVER CITY $28,636.00
AL HUEYTOWN CITY $3,514.07
AL JACKSONVILLE CITY $5,614.41
AL JEFFERSON COUNTY $21,822.45

Page 1 ends

65 Item # C9.

AL LEE COUNTY $4,007.42
AL LIMESTONE COUNTY $2,064.40
AL LOXLEY TOWN $6,642.50
AL MADISON CITY $7,120.00
AL MONTGOMERY CITY $5,892.86
AL MONTGOMERY COUNTY $8,905.38
AL MORGAN COUNTY $651.52
AL MOUNTAIN BROOK CITY $3,200.00
AL NORTHPORT CITY $5,242.50
AL OPELIKA CITY $10,015.50
AL PELL CITY $4,210.00
AL PHENIX CITY $6,561.00
AL PRATTVILLE CITY $9,477.00
AL RED BAY CITY $2,555.00
AL ROANOKE CITY $9,345.00
AL ROBERTSDALE CITY $1,757.50
AL SCOTTSBORO CITY $6,468.00
AL TALLAPOOSA COUNTY $2,131.50
AL TALLASSEE CITY $6,908.00
AL THOMASVILLE CITY $1,407.00
AL TROY CITY $4,374.00
AL TRUSSVILLE CITY $3,795.00
Totals for AL(53 Jurisdictions): $371,916.00
AR ALMA CITY $3,687.60
AR ARKANSAS $43,794.05
AR AUSTIN TOWN $1,183.43
AR BATESVILLE CITY $2,450.00
AR BELLA VISTA CITY $3,613.89
AR BENTON CITY $12,194.81
AR BENTON COUNTY $14,638.23
AR BERRYVILLE CITY $1,119.98
AR BONANZA CITY $1,599.50
AR CABOT CITY $2,271.96
AR CADDO VALLEY TOWN $2,497.50
AR CLARK COUNTY $13,813.87
AR CONWAY CITY $18,529.56
AR EL DORADO CITY $9,979.00
AR FAYETTEVILLE CITY $19,183.68
AR FORT SMITH CITY $28,959.00
AR GARLAND COUNTY $2,035.98
AR GASSVILLE CITY $2,422.93
AR GENTRY CITY $2,350.00
AR GRAVETTE CITY $1,606.86
AR GREENBRIER CITY $3,795.00
AR GREERS FERRY CITY $1,279.31
AR HAMBURG CITY $3,773.70
AR HEBER SPRINGS CITY $2,773.72
AR HOPE CITY $4,520.03
AR HOT SPRINGS CITY $15,211.62

Page 2 ends

66 Item # C9.

AR JACKSONVILLE CITY $2,214.65
AR JONESBORO CITY $19,922.36
AR LAKEVIEW CITY $1,564.61
AR LOGAN COUNTY $890.34
AR LONOKE COUNTY $2,278.14
AR MAGNOLIA CITY $1,600.00
AR MONTICELLO CITY $8,445.00
AR MOUNTAIN HOME CITY $2,507.93
AR NORTH LITTLE ROCK CITY $20,075.00
AR OSCEOLA CITY $2,510.07
AR PEA RIDGE CITY $2,022.00
AR PINE BLUFF CITY $15,494.80
AR POINSETT COUNTY $800.00
AR POLK COUNTY $487.28
AR ROGERS CITY $20,000.00
AR RUSSELVILLE CITY $9,710.70
AR SHERIDAN CITY $1,272.95
AR SPRINGDALE CITY $20,166.65
AR TEXARKANA CITY $12,821.27
AR VAN BUREN CITY $7,340.47
AR WEST MEMPHIS CITY $439.00
AR WHITE HALL CITY $2,709.94
AR WYNNE CITY $1,500.00
Totals for AR(49 Jurisdictions): $376,058.37
AZ APACHE COUNTY $3,068.45
AZ ARIZONA $66,169.34
AZ AVONDALE CITY $18,000.00
AZ BUCKEYE TOWN $6,139.57
AZ BULLHEAD CITY $10,564.95
AZ CASA GRANDE CITY $5,229.50
AZ CHANDLER CITY $12,318.03
AZ CHINO VALLEY TOWN $4,023.00
AZ CLARKDALE TOWN $2,400.00
AZ COOLIDGE CITY $4,210.85
AZ EAGAR TOWN $830.00
AZ ELOY CITY $5,599.03
AZ FLAGSTAFF CITY $14,485.36
AZ FLORENCE TOWN $3,123.30
AZ GLENDALE CITY $2,458.21
AZ GOODYEAR CITY $11,678.21
AZ GRAHAM COUNTY $14,679.73
AZ KINGMAN CITY $11,600.00
AZ LA PAZ COUNTY $7,963.99
AZ LAKE HAVASU CITY $17,740.68
AZ MARANA TOWN $9,407.63
AZ MARICOPA CITY $20,342.50
AZ MOHAVE COUNTY $4,585.85
AZ ORO VALLEY TOWN $17,273.37
AZ PAGE CITY $2,805.49

Page 3 ends

67 Item # C9.

AZ PARADISE VALLEY TOWN $6,000.00
AZ PARKER TOWN $897.41
AZ PAYSON TOWN $5,158.76
AZ PEORIA CITY $11,315.80
AZ PIMA COUNTY $1,942.17
AZ PINETOP-LAKESIDE TOWN $1,017.02
AZ PRESCOTT CITY $10,178.34
AZ PRESCOTT VALLEY TOWN $6,000.00
AZ QUARTZSITE TOWN $2,870.00
AZ SANTA CRUZ COUNTY $9,116.97
AZ SIERRA VISTA CITY $6,400.00
AZ SNOWFLAKE TOWN $6,185.70
AZ ST JOHNS CITY $2,111.18
AZ TEMPE CITY $31,374.04
AZ THATCHER TOWN $4,590.10
AZ TUCSON CITY $93,933.99
AZ WICKENBURG TOWN $2,957.59
AZ WINSLOW CITY $4,850.00
AZ YAVAPAI APACHE NATION $2,782.50
AZ YUMA CITY $25,885.44
Totals for AZ(45 Jurisdictions): $512,264.05
CA ALAMEDA COUNTY $58,473.34
CA ALBANY CITY $2,168.19
CA AMADOR COUNTY $11,100.00
CA ANAHEIM CITY $40,352.90
CA ANDERSON CITY $8,402.80
CA ARCADIA CITY $6,755.06
CA AUBURN CITY $1,521.75
CA AZUSA CITY $6,000.00
CA BANNING CITY $1,911.63
CA BARSTOW CITY $5,355.21
CA BEAUMONT CITY $4,621.61
CA BELL GARDENS CITY $11,218.00
CA BELMONT CITY $2,949.84
CA BEVERLY HILLS CITY $8,147.11
CA BISHOP CITY $3,356.13
CA BLYTHE CITY $6,361.50
CA BRAWLEY CITY $9,937.25
CA BREA CITY $4,553.22
CA BUENA PARK CITY $6,785.42
CA BURLINGAME CITY $9,740.00
CA CALIFORNIA $1,054,305.98
CA CAMPBELL CITY $4,542.33
CA CARMEL BY THE SEA CITY $899.00
CA CERES CITY $7,482.26
CA CHINO CITY $15,265.55
CA CHOWCHILLA CITY $2,653.59
CA CHULA VISTA CITY $7,219.88
CA CITRUS HEIGHTS CITY $11,631.62

Page 4 ends

68 Item # C9.

CA CLAREMONT CITY $4,164.19
CA CLEARLAKE CITY $1,792.34
CA COALINGA CITY $2,990.00
CA COLTON CITY $4,148.63
CA COLUSA COUNTY $3,579.24
CA CORONA CITY $3,251.78
CA CORONADO CITY $5,442.85
CA COSTA MESA CITY $5,967.19
CA COVINA CITY $10,500.00
CA CULVER CITY $18,304.65
CA CYPRESS CITY $6,353.64
CA DEL NORTE COUNTY $5,382.70
CA DESERT HOT SPRINGS CITY $1,825.50
CA DINUBA CITY $1,609.50
CA DIXON CITY $3,567.65
CA DOWNEY CITY $6,866.68
CA DUBLIN CITY $6,400.00
CA EAST BAY REGIONAL PARK DIST $1,061.97
CA EL PASO DE ROBLES CITY $5,223.00
CA EL SEGUNDO CITY $4,765.56
CA EMERYVILLE CITY $4,002.46
CA ESCALON CITY $5,172.23
CA EUREKA CITY $5,861.20
CA EXETER CITY $3,099.22
CA FOLSOM CITY $10,043.52
CA FONTANA UNIFIED SCH DIST $3,235.91
CA FORT BRAGG CITY $1,981.00
CA FORTUNA CITY $2,481.07
CA FOSTER CITY $4,038.75
CA FOWLER CITY $1,429.01
CA FRESNO COUNTY $50,208.87
CA FULLERTON CITY $4,329.33
CA GALT CITY $4,666.22
CA GARDENA CITY $9,471.69
CA GLENDORA CITY $7,762.69
CA GLENN COUNTY $12,548.55
CA GONZALES CITY $4,031.96
CA GRASS VALLEY CITY $5,360.47
CA GREENFIELD CITY $5,140.33
CA GRIDLEY CITY $3,312.50
CA GROVER BEACH CITY $2,371.58
CA HANFORD CITY $9,612.94
CA HEMET CITY $11,461.82
CA HERCULES CITY $4,708.54
CA HOLLISTER CITY $10,100.81
CA HUMBOLDT COUNTY $19,881.75
CA IMPERIAL COUNTY $4,960.28
CA INDIO CITY $7,468.00
CA INGLEWOOD CITY $8,453.90

Page 5 ends

69 Item # C9.

CA INYO COUNTY $20,769.80
CA KINGSBURG CITY $7,134.62
CA LA HABRA CITY $6,200.90
CA LA VERNE CITY $469.63
CA LAKEPORT CITY $2,170.38
CA LARKSPUR CITY $8,366.10
CA LASSEN COUNTY $7,303.01
CA LIVERMORE CITY $14,512.50
CA LODI CITY $9,417.50
CA LOMPOC CITY $4,982.30
CA LOS ANGELES CITY $128,234.95
CA LOS GATOS TOWN $6,029.96
CA MADERA COUNTY $1,797.92
CA MANHATTAN BEACH CITY $9,017.33
CA MANTECA CITY $10,483.00
CA MARIN COUNTY $5,721.11
CA MARIPOSA COUNTY $11,992.58
CA MARYSVILLE CITY $4,662.82
CA MENDOTA CITY $2,813.62
CA MENIFEE CITY $5,119.34
CA MERCED CITY $21,912.88
CA MILL VALLEY CITY $2,048.00
CA MILPITAS CITY $11,078.17
CA MONO COUNTY $7,663.91
CA MONROVIA CITY $6,543.98
CA MONTCLAIR CITY $9,878.76
CA MONTEBELLO CITY $21,628.49
CA MONTEREY CITY $6,437.50
CA MONTEREY PARK CITY $7,773.84
CA MOUNTAIN VIEW CITY $6,377.28
CA MURRIETA CITY $2,943.47
CA NAPA CITY $4,310.00
CA NATIONAL CITY $29,673.79
CA NEVADA CITY $2,865.01
CA NEWARK CITY $4,390.83
CA NEWMAN CITY $2,088.46
CA NEWPORT BEACH CITY $21,184.73
CA NORWALK CITY $789.50
CA NOVATO CITY $3,578.20
CA ONTARIO CITY $7,830.86
CA ORANGE CITY $6,240.40
CA ORANGE COVE CITY $3,800.00
CA PALM SPRINGS CITY $18,700.00
CA PALO ALTO CITY $14,888.00
CA PALOS VERDES ESTATES CITY $6,417.50
CA PARADISE TOWN $3,412.50
CA PARLIER CITY $4,668.75
CA PECHANGA BAND OF MISSION INDIANS $4,000.00
CA PETALUMA CITY $4,877.50

Page 6 ends

70 Item # C9.

CA PIEDMONT CITY $1,884.23
CA PLACENTIA CITY $13,016.00
CA PLACERVILLE CITY $3,572.22
CA PLEASANT HILL CITY $7,077.90
CA PLUMAS COUNTY $5,501.00
CA POMONA CITY $8,978.67
CA RED BLUFF CITY $6,297.25
CA REDDING CITY $11,973.00
CA REDLANDS CITY $6,877.08
CA REDONDO BEACH CITY $4,832.80
CA REEDLEY CITY $5,017.50
CA RIPON CITY $3,059.00
CA RIVERSIDE CITY $8,872.21
CA ROCKLIN CITY $6,637.50
CA ROHNERT PARK CITY $12,889.25
CA SAN BERNARDINO CITY $4,335.17
CA SAN BERNARDINO CITY UNIF SCHOOL DIST $10,398.62
CA SAN BRUNO CITY $19,998.90
CA SAN FERNANDO CITY $21,891.62
CA SAN FRANCISCO BAY AREA RAPID TRANSIT DIST $6,515.14
CA SAN FRANCISCO CITY AND COUNTY $137,683.12
CA SAN JOAQUIN COUNTY $12,983.12
CA SAN JOSE CITY $15,361.94
CA SAN LUIS OBISPO CITY $7,546.49
CA SAN MARINO CITY $4,031.70
CA SAN MATEO CITY $5,696.34
CA SAN RAFAEL CITY $11,252.90
CA SAN RAMON CITY $17,293.01
CA SANGER CITY $11,909.65
CA SANTA ANA CITY $14,377.52
CA SANTA CLARA COUNTY $139,135.29
CA SANTA CRUZ CITY $16,422.09
CA SANTA CRUZ COUNTY $11,268.95
CA SANTA FE SPRINGS CITY $2,747.01
CA SANTA MONICA CITY $34,496.29
CA SAUSALITO CITY $2,664.38
CA SCOTTS VALLEY CITY $8,789.00
CA SEAL BEACH CITY $9,781.76
CA SHASTA COUNTY $6,477.61
CA SIERRA MADRE CITY $510.78
CA SIMI VALLEY CITY $3,459.49
CA SOLANO COUNTY $1,090.68
CA SOUTH GATE CITY $9,865.00
CA SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CITY $7,918.09
CA SUTTER COUNTY $7,062.00
CA TEHAMA COUNTY $10,628.00
CA TORRANCE CITY $10,751.00
CA TRINITY COUNTY $12,000.00
CA TUOLUMNE COUNTY $19,496.95

Page 7 ends

71 Item # C9.

CA TURLOCK CITY $5,658.24
CA TWIN RIVERS DISTRICT $5,784.24
CA UNION CITY $5,559.67
CA VACAVILLE CITY $12,106.96
CA VENTURA COUNTY $31,473.37
CA WATSONVILLE CITY $9,877.90
CA WEST SACRAMENTO CITY $6,900.25
CA WESTMINSTER CITY $2,174.67
CA WHITTIER CITY $15,577.19
CA WILLIAMS CITY $1,296.36
CA WINTERS CITY $2,417.82
CA WOODLAKE CITY $2,234.82
CA WOODLAND CITY $4,767.13
CA YREKA CITY $3,848.77
CA YUROK TRIBE $2,757.50
Totals for CA(190 Jurisdictions): $2,994,066.63
CO ALAMOSA CITY $3,832.50
CO ARAPAHOE COUNTY $8,632.56
CO ARVADA CITY $8,632.56
CO AURORA CITY $24,431.76
CO AVON TOWN $2,375.00
CO BASALT TOWN $1,385.28
CO BENT COUNTY $2,100.00
CO BRIGHTON CITY $8,000.00
CO BROOMFIELD CITY $12,000.00
CO CASTLE ROCK TOWN $10,350.00
CO CHERRY HILLS VILLAGE CITY $1,425.00
CO COLORADO $4,805.42
CO COLUMBINE VALLEY TOWN $1,393.59
CO CORTEZ CITY $2,014.35
CO CRIPPLE CREEK CITY $475.00
CO DELTA CITY $5,535.00
CO DILLON TOWN $4,669.90
CO DOLORES COUNTY $2,250.00
CO DURANGO CITY $5,179.31
CO EAGLE COUNTY $3,257.06
CO EAGLE TOWN $3,513.00
CO ELBERT COUNTY $7,350.00
CO EMPIRE TOWN $2,566.00
CO ENGLEWOOD CITY $7,200.00
CO ESTES PARK TOWN $6,742.00
CO FOUNTAIN CITY $6,258.00
CO FRISCO TOWN $3,035.46
CO GILPIN COUNTY $7,650.00
CO GLENWOOD SPRINGS CITY $2,000.00
CO GOLDEN CITY $4,000.00
CO GRAND COUNTY $9,750.00
CO GRAND JUNCTION CITY $12,450.00
CO GREELEY CITY $1,478.94

Page 8 ends

72 Item # C9.

CO GREENWOOD VILLAGE CITY $6,750.00
CO GUNNISON COUNTY $4,275.00
CO IGNACIO TOWN $3,999.96
CO KIT CARSON COUNTY $3,619.57
CO LAFAYETTE CITY $8,492.07
CO LARIMER COUNTY $3,616.92
CO LEADVILLE CITY $1,389.00
CO LITTLETON CITY $9,000.00
CO LONE TREE CITY $1,600.00
CO LONGMONT CITY $4,047.53
CO LOUISVILLE CITY $5,500.00
CO MANITOU SPRINGS CITY $2,037.00
CO MEAD TOWN $2,667.50
CO MOFFAT COUNTY $3,600.00
CO MONTE VISTA CITY $1,900.00
CO MONTEZUMA COUNTY $4,793.75
CO MONTROSE CITY $3,958.50
CO MORGAN COUNTY $7,177.95
CO MOUNT CRESTED BUTTE TOWN $400.00
CO NEW CASTLE TOWN $640.13
CO NORTHGLENN CITY $10,800.00
CO OAK CREEK TOWN $425.00
CO PARACHUTE TOWN $1,247.00
CO PARK COUNTY $5,391.39
CO PUEBLO CITY $5,537.87
CO ROUTT COUNTY $5,600.00
CO STEAMBOAT SPRINGS CITY $4,348.00
CO STERLING CITY $3,431.03
CO SUMMIT COUNTY $11,223.42
CO TELLURIDE TOWN $3,800.00
CO TRINIDAD CITY $2,000.00
CO WHEAT RIDGE CITY $7,600.00
CO WRAY CITY $800.00
CO YUMA COUNTY $2,350.00
Totals for CO(67 Jurisdictions): $330,756.28
CT ANSONIA CITY $15,151.50
CT AVON TOWN $4,905.00
CT BEACON FALLS TOWN $406.50
CT BETHEL TOWN $2,400.00
CT BLOOMFIELD CITY $4,907.50
CT BRANFORD TOWN $20,800.00
CT BRISTOL CITY $18,000.00
CT CANTON TOWN $2,400.00
CT DERBY CITY $3,600.00
CT EAST HAMPTON TOWN $2,025.00
CT EAST HAVEN TOWN $8,320.00
CT EAST LYME TOWN $4,245.00
CT ENFIELD TOWN $12,784.00
CT FARMINGTON TOWN $10,248.50

Page 9 ends

73 Item # C9.

CT GRANBY TOWN $960.00
CT GREENWICH TOWN $11,925.00
CT GROTON CITY $2,030.00
CT GROTON TOWN $7,770.00
CT GUILFORD TOWN $3,320.00
CT HAMDEN TOWN $10,692.00
CT LEDYARD TOWN $4,995.00
CT MADISON TOWN $548.65
CT MANCHESTER TOWN $2,957.82
CT MERIDEN CITY $12,608.00
CT MILFORD CITY $12,866.00
CT MONROE TOWN $4,500.00
CT NAUGATUCK BOROUGH $4,800.00
CT NEW BRITAIN CITY $10,125.00
CT NEW CANAAN TOWN $4,016.77
CT NEWINGTON TOWN $8,517.00
CT NORWALK CITY $9,000.00
CT NORWICH CITY $7,172.50
CT OLD SAYBROOK TOWN $7,484.40
CT ORANGE TOWN $9,800.00
CT PLYMOUTH TOWN $1,790.00
CT SEYMOUR TOWN $5,600.00
CT SIMSBURY TOWN $2,490.00
CT SOUTH WINDSOR TOWN $1,492.50
CT STRATFORD TOWN $13,414.50
CT SUFFIELD TOWN $4,340.00
CT TRUMBULL TOWN $9,054.00
CT WATERTOWN TOWN $5,157.16
CT WEST HAVEN CITY $10,300.00
CT WESTPORT TOWN $2,370.00
CT WETHERSFIELD TOWN $10,400.00
CT WILTON TOWN $5,995.00
CT WINDHAM TOWN $3,200.00
CT WOODBRIDGE TOWN $2,100.00
Totals for CT(48 Jurisdictions): $323,984.30
DC WASHINGTON D C CITY $107,560.81
Totals for DC(1 Jurisdictions): $107,560.81
DE BETHANY BEACH TOWN $3,200.00
DE DELAWARE $70,130.60
DE DELAWARE RIVER AND BAY AUTHORITY $9,699.50
DE LAUREL TOWN $1,159.00
DE MIDDLETOWN TOWN $5,600.00
DE MILFORD CITY $5,088.00
DE MILLSBORO TOWN $2,015.12
DE NEW CASTLE CITY $2,200.00
DE NEWARK CITY $9,182.64
DE SEAFORD CITY $1,604.00
DE SELBYVILLE TOWN $486.06
DE WILMINGTON CITY $34,401.05

Page 10 ends

74 Item # C9.

Totals for DE(12 Jurisdictions): $144,765.97
FL ALTAMONTE SPRINGS CITY $7,680.42
FL APOPKA CITY $7,424.00
FL ATLANTIC BEACH CITY $7,460.26
FL ATLANTIS CITY $1,790.00
FL AUBURNDALE CITY $7,500.00
FL BAKER COUNTY $4,800.00
FL BELLE ISLE CITY $3,559.50
FL BELLEAIR TOWN $3,375.00
FL BOYNTON BEACH CITY $6,000.00
FL BRADENTON CITY $13,200.00
FL BRADFORD COUNTY $9,342.00
FL CASSELBERRY CITY $6,035.00
FL CEDAR KEY CITY $2,266.25
FL CHIPLEY CITY $1,600.00
FL COCOA BEACH CITY $4,746.00
FL COCOA CITY $1,959.50
FL COCONUT CREEK CITY $18,261.38
FL COLUMBIA COUNTY $6,899.31
FL DAYTONA BEACH SHORES CITY $1,582.00
FL DE FUNIAK SPRINGS CITY $5,810.00
FL DESOTO COUNTY $6,050.00
FL EDGEWATER CITY $7,034.85
FL EUSTIS CITY $2,399.76
FL FLORIDA CITY $1,999.08
FL FORT MYERS CITY $17,200.00
FL FORT WALTON BEACH CITY $4,052.70
FL FRUITLAND PARK CITY $2,768.50
FL FT PIERCE CITY $52,250.00
FL GREEN COVE SPRINGS CITY $1,040.58
FL GULF STREAM TOWN $3,092.50
FL GULFPORT CITY $2,373.00
FL HAINES CITY $3,600.00
FL HARDEE COUNTY $3,060.00
FL HIGHLAND BEACH TOWN $1,835.32
FL HILLSBORO BEACH TOWN $1,751.32
FL HOLLY HILL CITY $1,559.00
FL HOLMES BEACH CITY $2,500.00
FL HOWEY IN THE HILLS TOWN $2,241.00
FL INDIALANTIC CITY $1,611.24
FL INDIAN HARBOUR BEACH CITY $5,644.90
FL INDIAN SHORES TOWN $1,155.00
FL JACKSONVILLE BEACH CITY $3,750.00
FL JUPITER TOWN $18,494.38
FL KENNETH CITY TOWN $2,155.00
FL KEY WEST CITY $11,312.00
FL KISSIMMEE CITY $12,458.25
FL LADY LAKE TOWN $4,000.00
FL LAKE HAMILTON TOWN $229.97

Page 11 ends

75 Item # C9.

FL LARGO CITY $16,483.50
FL LAUDERHILL CITY $21,811.00
FL LEESBURG CITY $11,004.00
FL LIGHTHOUSE POINT CITY $7,488.00
FL LIVE OAK CITY $6,178.26
FL LONGWOOD CITY $4,765.00
FL MANALAPAN TOWN $1,450.00
FL MARGATE CITY $7,647.45
FL MARIANNA CITY $703.50
FL MELBOURNE BEACH TOWN $1,180.00
FL MELBOURNE CITY $11,134.50
FL MELBOURNE VILLAGE TOWN $2,562.48
FL MICCOSUKEE TRIBE $7,620.00
FL MONROE COUNTY $23,440.50
FL MOUNT DORA CITY $3,712.50
FL NAPLES CITY $11,250.00
FL NASSAU COUNTY $9,280.00
FL NEW SMYRNA BEACH CITY $9,918.10
FL NORTH MIAMI BEACH CITY $12,000.00
FL NORTH PALM BEACH VILLAGE $2,957.85
FL NORTH PORT CITY $15,720.00
FL OAKLAND TOWN $2,250.00
FL OCALA CITY $23,025.00
FL OCEAN RIDGE TOWN $3,045.00
FL OCOEE CITY $16,909.56
FL OKEECHOBEE COUNTY $9,287.50
FL PALM BEACH TOWN $10,323.00
FL PALM SPRINGS VILLAGE $6,800.00
FL PALMETTO CITY $3,600.00
FL PANAMA CITY $8,400.00
FL PANAMA CITY BEACH CITY $13,583.00
FL PENSACOLA CITY $19,742.80
FL PINECREST VILLAGE $4,499.55
FL PLANT CITY $8,800.00
FL PLANTATION CITY $39,065.00
FL PONCE INLET TOWN $1,499.85
FL PORT ORANGE CITY $17,278.50
FL PUNTA GORDA CITY $4,500.00
FL PUTNAM COUNTY $23,672.00
FL PEMBROKE PARK CITY $11,600.00
FL RIVIERA BEACH CITY $17,622.50
FL ROCKLEDGE CITY $6,780.00
FL SANFORD CITY $13,948.20
FL SARASOTA CITY $34,675.52
FL SEBASTIAN CITY $4,627.50
FL SEBRING CITY $3,532.50
FL SEMINOLE TRIBE OF FLORIDA $13,332.77
FL SEWALLS POINT TOWN $1,200.00
FL SHALIMAR TOWN $3,200.00

Page 12 ends

76 Item # C9.

FL ST CLOUD CITY $21,808.00
FL STARKE CITY $2,000.00
FL STUART CITY $1,750.00
FL SUNRISE CITY $24,379.00
FL TARPON SPRINGS CITY $3,655.14
FL TEMPLE TERRACE CITY $6,175.00
FL TEQUESTA VILLAGE $3,475.50
FL TITUSVILLE CITY $10,000.00
FL VENICE CITY $4,704.00
FL VERO BEACH CITY $2,662.38
FL WAKULLA COUNTY $6,689.08
FL WAUCHULA CITY $1,837.50
FL WEST MELBOURNE CITY $10,897.00
FL WILDWOOD CITY $3,200.00
FL WINDERMERE TOWN $3,007.50
FL WINTER GARDEN CITY $6,800.00
FL WINTER HAVEN CITY $5,970.00
FL WINTER PARK CITY $12,417.30
Totals for FL(115 Jurisdictions): $945,442.76
GA ACWORTH CITY $6,800.00
GA ADAIRSVILLE CITY $1,514.60
GA ALMA CITY $2,522.50
GA ALPHARETTA CITY $27,408.00
GA AMERICUS CITY $3,418.75
GA ATHENS-CLARKE COUNTY GOVERNMENT $977.28
GA AUBURN CITY $3,903.00
GA BARNESVILLE CITY $1,390.00
GA BOSTON CITY $1,900.00
GA BREMEN CITY $875.00
GA BROOKHAVEN CITY $16,166.74
GA BURKE COUNTY $7,125.00
GA BYRON CITY $3,500.00
GA CALHOUN CITY $2,258.70
GA CAMDEN COUNTY $8,632.00
GA CANDLER COUNTY $3,845.00
GA CARROLL COUNTY $4,071.96
GA CARROLLTON CITY $12,000.00
GA CARTERSVILLE CITY $2,983.98
GA CATOOSA COUNTY $3,750.00
GA CEDARTOWN CITY $2,189.00
GA CHAMBLEE CITY $4,217.50
GA CHARLTON COUNTY $1,200.00
GA CHATTOOGA COUNTY $2,700.00
GA CLARKSTON CITY $2,250.00
GA CLAY COUNTY $1,662.00
GA CLAYTON COUNTY $47,336.53
GA COBB COUNTY $43,757.28
GA COCHRAN CITY $2,555.00
GA COLLEGE PARK CITY $10,060.00

Page 13 ends

77 Item # C9.

GA CONYERS CITY $4,410.00
GA CORDELE CITY $7,950.00
GA CRISP COUNTY $5,150.00
GA CITY OF SOUTH FULTON $5,833.09
GA DAHLONEGA CITY $1,215.00
GA DALLAS CITY $7,770.00
GA DALTON CITY $6,385.00
GA DAWSON COUNTY $5,837.50
GA DECATUR COUNTY $3,200.00
GA DEKALB COUNTY $35,342.98
GA DOUGHERTY COUNTY $22,400.00
GA DOUGLAS CITY $8,500.00
GA DOUGLASVILLE CITY $15,300.00
GA DUBLIN CITY $4,037.50
GA DULUTH CITY $8,400.00
GA DUNWOODY CITY $7,859.00
GA EAST POINT CITY $10,410.00
GA ELLIJAY CITY $2,095.00
GA EMERSON CITY $2,787.50
GA ETON CITY $640.00
GA FITZGERALD CITY $4,162.50
GA FOLKSTON CITY $2,339.98
GA FOREST PARK CITY $7,450.00
GA FRANKLIN CITY $1,740.00
GA FRANKLIN COUNTY $2,955.00
GA FULTON CO SCHOOL DIST $10,150.00
GA GAINESVILLE CITY $10,000.00
GA GEORGIA $147,444.65
GA GILMER COUNTY $4,505.00
GA GLYNN COUNTY $17,350.00
GA HABERSHAM COUNTY $9,436.50
GA HARALSON COUNTY $3,200.00
GA HARRIS COUNTY $21,938.50
GA HART COUNTY $13,955.00
GA HENRY COUNTY $43,177.02
GA JOHNS CREEK CITY $20,812.50
GA JONESBORO CITY $3,813.70
GA LA FAYETTE CITY $3,500.00
GA LAMAR COUNTY $4,970.00
GA LAURENS COUNTY $8,030.00
GA LAVONIA CITY $2,396.00
GA LAWRENCEVILLE CITY $7,278.75
GA LENOX TOWN $1,942.50
GA LIBERTY COUNTY $14,000.00
GA LILBURN CITY $2,407.50
GA LONG COUNTY $11,300.00
GA MADISON CITY $880.00
GA MARIETTA CITY $10,762.50
GA MERIWETHER COUNTY $2,800.00

Page 14 ends

78 Item # C9.

GA METTER CITY $2,400.00
GA MONROE CITY $2,037.50
GA MONROE COUNTY $7,700.00
GA MORGAN COUNTY $6,475.00
GA MURRAY COUNTY $7,440.00
GA MILTON CITY $5,891.50
GA OCONEE COUNTY $5,145.00
GA PERRY CITY $7,140.55
GA PINE MOUNTAIN TOWN $3,987.50
GA POLK COUNTY $6,510.00
GA PORTERDALE TOWN $1,692.50
GA PUTNAM COUNTY $2,537.50
GA RICHMOND HILL CITY $5,315.00
GA ROCKDALE COUNTY $22,030.00
GA ROME CITY $6,500.00
GA ROSWELL CITY $24,864.75
GA SANDY SPRINGS CITY $2,349.53
GA SMYRNA CITY $25,105.00
GA SPALDING COUNTY $16,300.00
GA ST MARYS CITY $400.00
GA STATESBORO CITY $4,502.50
GA STOCKBRIDGE CITY $22,400.00
GA SUGAR HILL CITY $2,000.00
GA SUMMERVILLE CITY $2,138.40
GA SUWANEE CITY $400.00
GA THOMASVILLE CITY $3,152.50
GA TOCCOA CITY $357.50
GA TROUP COUNTY $5,120.85
GA TYBEE ISLAND CITY $6,455.00
GA TYRONE TOWN $657.50
GA VALDOSTA CITY $10,500.00
GA VILLA RICA CITY $2,000.00
GA WALTON COUNTY $9,555.00
GA WARE COUNTY $5,075.00
GA WARNER ROBINS CITY $10,231.00
GA WASHINGTON COUNTY $8,817.50
GA WINDER CITY $8,900.00
GA WOODSTOCK CITY $9,917.50
Totals for GA(117 Jurisdictions): $1,067,191.57
IA AMES CITY $3,595.00
IA ANKENY CITY $9,600.00
IA ATLANTIC CITY $1,633.60
IA BETTENDORF CITY $4,165.00
IA BURLINGTON CITY $1,975.00
IA CARROLL CITY $1,156.50
IA CHARLES CITY $1,490.00
IA CLARINDA CITY $1,566.00
IA CLAY COUNTY $1,427.50
IA CLEAR LAKE CITY $1,914.00

Page 15 ends

79 Item # C9.

IA CLINTON CITY $3,825.00
IA CLINTON COUNTY $2,462.50
IA CLIVE CITY $4,000.00
IA CORALVILLE CITY $4,163.50
IA COUNCIL BLUFFS CITY $10,000.00
IA DE WITT CITY $819.02
IA DUBUQUE COUNTY $4,717.18
IA FLOYD COUNTY $1,497.00
IA GLENWOOD CITY $1,814.00
IA GRUNDY CENTER CITY $1,188.50
IA HANCOCK COUNTY SHERIFF $3,599.93
IA HARLAN CITY $1,088.00
IA HENRY COUNTY $2,800.00
IA HOWARD COUNTY $1,070.00
IA INDIANOLA CITY $2,250.00
IA IOWA CITY CITY $6,800.00
IA IOWA FALLS CITY $2,720.50
IA JASPER COUNTY $2,100.00
IA JEFFERSON CITY $3,600.00
IA JESUP CITY $1,497.50
IA JEWELL CITY $1,200.00
IA LE MARS CITY $3,150.00
IA LYON COUNTY $5,149.69
IA MARION COUNTY $1,570.00
IA MARSHALL COUNTY $3,997.50
IA MARSHALLTOWN CITY $3,420.00
IA MCGREGOR CITY $3,475.00
IA MONONA CITY $813.11
IA MOUNT VERNON CITY $1,324.00
IA MUSCATINE CITY $1,600.00
IA NEW HAMPTON CITY $823.48
IA NEWTON CITY $800.00
IA OELWEIN CITY $1,947.50
IA OSAGE CITY $2,800.00
IA OSCEOLA COUNTY $810.00
IA OSKALOOSA CITY $1,598.00
IA PELLA CITY $1,417.50
IA PLYMOUTH COUNTY $3,600.00
IA SHELDON CITY $1,286.03
IA SIOUX CITY $19,287.00
IA STORY COUNTY $4,800.00
IA TAMA COUNTY $1,950.00
IA URBANDALE CITY $7,020.00
IA WAPELLO COUNTY $5,600.00
IA WASHINGTON CITY $897.50
IA WEBSTER COUNTY $3,555.00
IA WINDSOR HEIGHTS CITY $1,410.00
Totals for IA(57 Jurisdictions): $175,836.54
ID BANNOCK COUNTY $3,624.21

Page 16 ends

80 Item # C9.

ID BENEWAH COUNTY $872.64
ID BLACKFOOT CITY $3,292.91
ID BLAINE COUNTY $6,000.00
ID BONNER COUNTY $7,200.00
ID CARIBOU COUNTY $3,311.88
ID COEUR D ALENE CITY $16,732.76
ID ELMORE COUNTY $7,425.00
ID FREMONT COUNTY $3,175.73
ID FRUITLAND CITY $2,375.00
ID GOODING COUNTY $3,075.00
ID HOMEDALE CITY $1,600.00
ID IDAHO COUNTY $5,628.00
ID IDAHO FALLS CITY $12,000.00
ID JEFFERSON COUNTY $6,400.00
ID KELLOGG CITY $3,529.40
ID LATAH COUNTY $3,100.00
ID LEWISTON CITY $7,225.20
ID MADISON COUNTY $3,200.00
ID MCCALL CITY $1,650.00
ID MINIDOKA COUNTY $2,392.50
ID MOSCOW CITY $5,922.40
ID NEZ PERCE COUNTY $2,890.08
ID OSBURN CITY $1,200.00
ID OWYHEE COUNTY $4,760.00
ID PAYETTE CITY $1,200.00
ID POCATELLO CITY $6,402.00
ID PONDERAY CITY $558.09
ID POWER COUNTY $2,770.15
ID REXBURG CITY $3,795.00
ID RUPERT CITY $1,382.76
ID SHOSHONE COUNTY $15,197.00
ID TWIN FALLS COUNTY $12,364.00
ID VALLEY COUNTY $7,570.80
ID WASHINGTON COUNTY $9,900.00
ID WEISER CITY $4,800.00
Totals for ID(36 Jurisdictions): $184,522.51
IL ADAMS COUNTY $17,155.00
IL ADDISON VILLAGE $10,266.50
IL ALGONQUIN VILLAGE $4,735.00
IL ALTAMONT CITY $942.00
IL ALTON CITY $3,038.00
IL ANTIOCH VILLAGE $3,970.00
IL ARLINGTON HEIGHTS VILLAGE $12,825.00
IL BARRINGTON HILLS VILLAGE $3,393.50
IL BARRINGTON VILLAGE $2,491.80
IL BARTLETT VILLAGE $11,152.50
IL BEDFORD PARK VILLAGE $4,262.50
IL BEECHER VILLAGE $2,399.50
IL BELVIDERE CITY $2,009.70

Page 17 ends

81 Item # C9.

IL BENSENVILLE VILLAGE $5,660.19
IL BERKELEY VILLAGE $2,375.00
IL BLOOMINGDALE VILLAGE $5,199.94
IL BLOOMINGTON CITY $7,975.00
IL BLUE ISLAND CITY $2,320.00
IL BOURBONNAIS VILLAGE $1,360.00
IL BRADLEY VILLAGE $3,306.69
IL BRIDGEVIEW VILLAGE $4,000.00
IL BUFFALO GROVE VILLAGE $5,940.00
IL BURBANK CITY $6,185.16
IL BURR RIDGE VILLAGE $4,075.00
IL CARBONDALE CITY $6,729.93
IL CAROL STREAM VILLAGE $12,285.00
IL CARPENTERSVILLE VILLAGE $2,837.50
IL CARY VILLAGE $896.25
IL CASEY CITY $1,525.00
IL CASEYVILLE VILLAGE $2,240.00
IL CENTRAL CITY VILLAGE $1,984.49
IL CENTRALIA CITY $2,730.00
IL CHARLESTON CITY $3,235.00
IL CHERRY VALLEY VILLAGE $1,566.25
IL CHICAGO RIDGE VILLAGE $3,200.00
IL CICERO TOWN $17,700.00
IL CLARENDON HILLS VILLAGE $2,000.00
IL CLINTON CITY $1,600.00
IL COAL CITY VILLAGE $1,875.00
IL COLES COUNTY $3,310.00
IL COLLINSVILLE CITY $3,300.00
IL COLONA CITY $1,417.50
IL COUNTRY CLUB HILLS $5,037.50
IL CREST HILL CITY $3,748.15
IL CREVE COEUR VILLAGE $2,000.00
IL CRYSTAL LAKE CITY $8,200.00
IL DANVILLE CITY $9,375.00
IL DARIEN CITY $1,550.00
IL DE KALB CITY $8,000.00
IL DEER CREEK VILLAGE $1,125.00
IL DELAVAN CITY $1,600.00
IL DOUGLAS COUNTY $4,408.13
IL DOWNERS GROVE VILLAGE $7,850.00
IL EAST DUNDEE VILLAGE $2,512.50
IL EAST HAZEL CREST VILLAGE $1,875.00
IL EAST MOLINE CITY $3,570.00
IL EAST PEORIA CITY $12,570.00
IL EDWARDSVILLE $5,959.00
IL EFFINGHAM CITY $3,152.50
IL ELBURN VILLAGE $995.00
IL ELMHURST CITY $8,040.00
IL EVANSTON CITY $12,000.00

Page 18 ends

82 Item # C9.

IL EVERGREEN PARK VILLAGE $8,582.75
IL FAIRVIEW HEIGHTS CITY $3,865.00
IL FLOSSMOOR VILLAGE $1,650.00
IL FOREST PARK VILLAGE $3,375.00
IL FOX LAKE VILLAGE $4,400.00
IL FRANKFORT VILLAGE $2,845.60
IL FRANKLIN PARK VILLAGE $10,000.00
IL FOREST PRESERVE DISTRICT OF DUPAGE COUNTY $2,117.42
IL GALESBURG CITY $11,800.00
IL GLEN CARBON VILLAGE $2,100.00
IL GRANITE CITY $8,805.00
IL GRANT PARK VILLAGE $855.00
IL GRANTFORK VILLAGE $1,200.00
IL GRANVILLE VILLAGE $1,926.99
IL GRAYSLAKE VILLAGE $1,875.00
IL GREENVILLE CITY $1,310.00
IL GURNEE VILLAGE $10,552.50
IL HANOVER PARK VILLAGE $3,375.00
IL HARWOOD HEIGHTS VILLAGE $4,400.00
IL HENDERSON COUNTY $5,185.00
IL HIGHLAND CITY $1,147.50
IL HIGHWOOD CITY $362.50
IL HINSDALE VILLAGE $1,752.50
IL HOFFMAN ESTATES VILLAGE $6,875.00
IL HOMETOWN CITY $5,100.00
IL HOMEWOOD VILLAGE $4,326.00
IL HUNTLEY VILLAGE $1,537.50
IL ILLINOIS $3,626.31
IL KANKAKEE CITY $8,881.35
IL KENDALL COUNTY $1,723.35
IL KENILWORTH VILLAGE $1,760.00
IL KNOX COUNTY $3,150.00
IL LA GRANGE VILLAGE $9,250.00
IL LADD VILLAGE $1,544.88
IL LAKE BLUFF VILLAGE $1,760.00
IL LAKE COUNTY $11,569.48
IL LAKE IN THE HILLS VILLAGE $2,348.50
IL LAKE ZURICH VILLAGE $1,910.00
IL LANSING VILLAGE $9,082.50
IL LEE COUNTY $9,550.00
IL LEMONT VILLAGE $1,950.00
IL LINCOLN CITY $2,000.31
IL LINCOLNSHIRE VILLAGE $4,835.05
IL LINCOLNWOOD VILLAGE $2,137.50
IL LIVINGSTON VILLAGE $780.50
IL LOCKPORT CITY $2,778.00
IL LOVES PARK CITY $2,245.80
IL MADISON CITY $4,833.36
IL MAHOMET VILLAGE $2,285.13

Page 19 ends

83 Item # C9.

IL MANTENO VILLAGE $2,241.00
IL MARENGO CITY $2,000.00
IL MARSHALL CITY $1,036.51
IL MARSHALL COUNTY $1,222.50
IL MARYVILLE VILLAGE $1,200.00
IL MASCOUTAH CITY $1,600.00
IL MATTOON CITY $2,793.50
IL MCCOOK VILLAGE $787.50
IL MCHENRY CITY $3,847.50
IL MCLEANSBORO CITY $988.21
IL MELROSE PARK VILLAGE $18,677.50
IL MIDLOTHIAN VILLAGE $2,640.00
IL MILLEDGEVILLE VILLAGE $1,172.93
IL MILLSTADT VILLAGE $1,124.93
IL MINOOKA VILLAGE $2,220.00
IL MOKENA VILLAGE $5,537.50
IL MOLINE CITY $6,682.50
IL MONTGOMERY VILLAGE $3,540.00
IL MORRIS CITY $1,600.00
IL MORRISON CITY $1,380.00
IL MORTON GROVE VILLAGE $6,400.00
IL MOUNT PROSPECT VILLAGE $8,190.00
IL MOUNT VERNON CITY $4,872.50
IL MT. PULASKI CITY $500.00
IL MUNDELEIN VILLAGE $4,647.50
IL MURPHYSBORO CITY $1,922.99
IL NAPERVILLE CITY $3,181.22
IL NEW ATHENS VILLAGE $425.00
IL NEW LENOX VILLAGE $5,553.00
IL NEWTON CITY $770.00
IL NILES VILLAGE $3,847.50
IL NORMAL TOWN $10,780.00
IL NORTH AURORA VILLAGE $4,350.00
IL NORTH RIVERSIDE VILLAGE $2,742.48
IL NORTHFIELD VILLAGE $1,320.00
IL O FALLON CITY $4,800.00
IL OAK BROOK VILLAGE $5,880.00
IL OAK PARK VILLAGE $8,040.00
IL OAKBROOK TERRACE CITY $1,755.32
IL OGLE COUNTY $4,000.00
IL OGLESBY CITY $4,450.00
IL OLYMPIA FIELDS VILLAGE $3,250.00
IL OREGON CITY $3,820.50
IL ORLAND PARK VILLAGE $14,350.00
IL OSWEGO VILLAGE $1,274.00
IL PALMYRA VILLAGE $3,132.45
IL PALOS HEIGHTS CITY $2,651.00
IL PALOS HILL CITY $2,316.23
IL PARK FOREST VILLAGE $2,900.00

Page 20 ends

84 Item # C9.

IL PEKIN CITY $8,880.00
IL PERU CITY $2,800.00
IL PIKE COUNTY $9,200.00
IL PINGREE GROVE VILLAGE $1,258.81
IL PLAINFIELD VILLAGE $5,311.00
IL PLANO CITY $3,335.55
IL PROSPECT HEIGHTS CITY $2,137.50
IL PULASKI COUNTY $3,700.79
IL QUINCY CITY $7,957.50
IL RANTOUL VILLAGE $2,440.00
IL RIVER FOREST VILLAGE $6,400.00
IL RIVER GROVE VILLAGE $14,962.50
IL RIVERSIDE VILLAGE $4,800.00
IL RIVERWOODS VILLAGE $3,850.00
IL ROCHESTER VILLAGE $1,990.26
IL ROCK ISLAND CITY $5,830.00
IL ROLLING MEADOWS CITY $8,000.00
IL ROMEOVILLE VILLAGE $8,000.00
IL ROSCOE VILLAGE $280.73
IL ROSEMONT VILLAGE $10,010.00
IL ROUND LAKE VILLAGE $1,557.50
IL ROXANA VILLAGE $1,600.00
IL SAUGET VILLAGE $4,270.00
IL SAVANNA CITY $611.00
IL SCHAUMBURG VILLAGE $10,834.50
IL SHERMAN VILLAGE $467.11
IL SHILOH VILLAGE $1,468.70
IL SHOREWOOD VILLAGE $2,107.50
IL SKOKIE VILLAGE $7,799.50
IL SLEEPY HOLLOW VILLAGE $1,130.00
IL SOMONAUK VILLAGE $2,240.00
IL SOUTH HOLLAND VILLAGE $4,275.00
IL SPRING GROVE VILLAGE $1,750.00
IL SPRING VALLEY CITY $1,981.50
IL ST.CHARLES CITY $6,667.50
IL STANFORD VILLAGE $1,132.58
IL STERLING CITY $3,395.00
IL SUMMIT VILLAGE $1,816.25
IL SWANSEA VILLAGE $2,071.50
IL THORNTON VILLAGE $1,450.00
IL TUSCOLA CITY $458.04
IL UNION COUNTY $2,617.96
IL VERNON HILLS VILLAGE $4,000.00
IL VILLA PARK VILLAGE $3,000.00
IL VILLAGE OF LAGRANGE PARK $2,225.00
IL WASHINGTON CITY $6,000.00
IL WASHINGTON COUNTY $2,339.78
IL WEST CHICAGO CITY $6,550.00
IL WEST DUNDEE VILLAGE $3,380.37

Page 21 ends

85 Item # C9.

IL WESTERN SPRINGS VILLAGE $1,850.00
IL WESTMONT VILLAGE $4,000.00
IL WHEATON CITY $7,200.00
IL WHEELING VILLAGE $4,275.00
IL WILLOW SPRINGS VILLAGE $5,600.00
IL WILMETTE VILLAGE $2,900.00
IL WILMINGTON CITY $5,761.50
IL WINNETKA VILLAGE $2,400.00
IL WOOD DALE CITY $2,800.00
IL WOODRIDGE VILLAGE $6,380.00
IL WOODSTOCK CITY $2,092.50
IL WORTH VILLAGE $4,800.00
IL ZION CITY $5,102.50
Totals for IL(222 Jurisdictions): $942,277.16
IN ANDERSON CITY $8,212.50
IN ANGOLA CITY $4,280.00
IN AUBURN CITY $1,798.50
IN AVON TOWN $5,565.00
IN BATESVILLE CITY $955.10
IN BLOOMINGTON CITY $8,800.00
IN BLUFFTON CITY $2,122.50
IN BOONE COUNTY $4,800.00
IN BOURBON TOWN $1,997.50
IN BRISTOL TOWN $2,808.00
IN BROWNSBURG TOWN $3,837.50
IN BROWNSTOWN TOWN $3,887.38
IN CANNELTON CITY $4,000.00
IN CEDAR LAKE TOWN $2,530.50
IN CHESTERTON TOWN $2,391.00
IN CICERO TOWN $2,636.38
IN CLINTON COUNTY $6,914.10
IN CONNERSVILLE CITY $2,000.00
IN CROWN POINT CITY $3,150.00
IN DANVILLE TOWN $2,000.00
IN DAVIESS COUNTY $12,087.50
IN DELPHI CITY $2,862.50
IN DEMOTTE TOWN $2,075.00
IN DYER TOWN $3,875.00
IN ELKHART CITY $10,454.40
IN ELLETTSVILLE TOWN $487.75
IN FAYETTE COUNTY $3,200.00
IN FERDINAND TOWN $849.00
IN FRANKLIN COUNTY $2,837.50
IN GARY CITY $66,850.00
IN GOSHEN CITY $13,300.00
IN GREENSBURG CITY $1,175.00
IN GREENTOWN TOWN $1,612.50
IN GREENWOOD CITY $5,565.00
IN GRIFFITH TOWN $2,600.00

Page 22 ends

86 Item # C9.

IN HIGHLAND TOWN $4,427.50
IN HOMECROFT TOWN $3,196.00
IN HUNTINGTON CITY $3,960.00
IN JEFFERSONVILLE CITY $10,229.63
IN KNOX COUNTY $4,820.00
IN KOKOMO CITY $12,650.00
IN LAFAYETTE CITY $7,000.00
IN LAPORTE CITY $4,400.00
IN LAWRENCE CITY $18,962.50
IN LAWRENCE COUNTY $9,644.40
IN LAWRENCEBURG CITY $4,160.00
IN LEBANON CITY $5,762.50
IN LIGONIER CITY $6,148.00
IN LOGANSPORT CITY $2,767.50
IN LOWELL TOWN $1,582.50
IN LEAVENWORTH TOWN $1,725.00
IN MERRILLVILLE TOWN $4,100.00
IN MILFORD TOWN $4,550.00
IN MONTGOMERY COUNTY $4,007.95
IN MOORESVILLE TOWN $2,550.00
IN MORGAN COUNTY $5,747.00
IN MUNCIE CITY $14,306.25
IN MUNSTER TOWN $3,850.00
IN NASHVILLE TOWN $2,400.00
IN NEW CARLISLE TOWN $3,446.00
IN NEW HAVEN CITY $3,280.00
IN NEW WHITELAND TOWN $4,482.50
IN NEWBURGH TOWN $700.00
IN NOBLESVILLE CITY $20,125.00
IN NORTH VERNON CITY $1,522.50
IN NORTH WEBSTER TOWN $2,000.00
IN PARKE COUNTY $7,684.26
IN PENDLETON TOWN $1,050.00
IN PERU CITY $2,312.50
IN PETERSBURG CITY $2,014.00
IN PIERCETON TOWN $1,268.00
IN PLYMOUTH CITY $2,100.00
IN PORTAGE CITY $13,690.00
IN PORTLAND CITY $1,590.00
IN POSEY COUNTY $3,937.50
IN SCHERERVILLE TOWN $2,085.00
IN SCOTTSBURG CITY $2,938.00
IN SEYMOUR CITY $14,207.92
IN SHELBY COUNTY $3,247.50
IN STEUBEN COUNTY GOVERNMENT $5,675.00
IN TELL CITY $5,335.00
IN TERRE HAUTE CITY $3,537.73
IN VINCENNES CITY $5,912.50
IN WARRICK COUNTY $4,650.00

Page 23 ends

87 Item # C9.

IN WARSAW CITY $8,050.00
IN WAYNE COUNTY $4,422.51
IN WEST LAFAYETTE CITY $6,488.00
IN WHITESTOWN TOWN $2,961.35
IN WHITLEY COUNTY $7,085.00
Totals for IN(89 Jurisdictions): $495,261.61
KS ABILENE CITY $1,318.50
KS ARKANSAS CITY $3,076.50
KS ATCHISON COUNTY $1,239.00
KS AUGUSTA CITY $7,206.00
KS BEL AIRE CITY $3,200.00
KS BONNER SPRINGS CITY $4,420.00
KS BURLINGTON CITY $539.00
KS BUTLER COUNTY $4,375.00
KS CHANUTE CITY $7,997.80
KS CHEROKEE COUNTY $2,841.97
KS CHERRYVALE CITY $4,800.00
KS COLBY CITY $1,409.72
KS CRAWFORD COUNTY $4,378.00
KS DERBY CITY $6,300.00
KS DOUGLAS COUNTY $7,706.19
KS EL DORADO CITY $3,294.00
KS ELK COUNTY $1,400.00
KS ELLIS COUNTY $9,120.00
KS FORD COUNTY $5,890.26
KS FORT SCOTT CITY $1,787.50
KS FRANKLIN COUNTY $5,045.00
KS GALENA CITY $3,215.95
KS GARDEN CITY $4,427.00
KS GARNETT CITY $1,300.00
KS GIRARD CITY $1,200.00
KS GOODLAND CITY $1,600.00
KS HALSTEAD CITY $1,432.50
KS HAYSVILLE CITY $1,590.50
KS HESSTON CITY $1,105.62
KS HUTCHINSON CITY $3,675.00
KS IOLA CITY $1,520.50
KS JUNCTION CITY $8,458.29
KS KANSAS $2,301.88
KS LARNED CITY $1,200.00
KS LAWRENCE CITY $3,395.21
KS LEAVENWORTH CITY $2,500.00
KS LEAWOOD CITY $7,312.50
KS LENEXA CITY $13,849.13
KS LIBERAL CITY $3,454.50
KS LINDSBORG CITY $800.00
KS LITTLE RIVER CITY $225.24
KS MARYSVILLE CITY $2,184.10
KS MCPHERSON CITY $3,937.50

Page 24 ends

88 Item # C9.

KS MERRIAM CITY $5,240.00
KS MISSION CITY $2,975.00
KS NEODESHA CITY $1,912.50
KS NEOSHO COUNTY $7,599.94
KS NEWTON CITY $4,759.59
KS OLATHE CITY $6,184.29
KS OSAGE CITY $540.00
KS OSAGE COUNTY $6,204.15
KS OTTAWA COUNTY $665.00
KS OVERLAND PARK CITY $8,795.44
KS PARK CITY $1,426.50
KS POTTAWATOMIE COUNTY $3,690.93
KS PRAIRIE BAND POTAWATOMI INDIANS $3,125.00
KS RENO COUNTY $5,258.00
KS RILEY COUNTY $7,182.50
KS ROSE HILL CITY $2,800.00
KS ROSSVILLE CITY $3,232.50
KS SALINA CITY $8,743.70
KS SALINE COUNTY $7,393.62
KS SHAWNEE CITY $18,153.93
KS SPRING HILL CITY $1,620.00
KS STERLING CITY $2,812.50
KS THOMAS COUNTY $2,300.00
KS TONGANOXIE CITY $1,074.50
KS WYANDOTTE COUNTY AND KANSAS CITY KS UNIFIED GOVERNMENT $8,520.58 Totals for KS(68 Jurisdictions): $280,240.03
KY BOWLING GREEN CITY $15,510.00
KY CAMPBELL COUNTY $4,547.50
KY CAMPBELLSVILLE CITY $4,840.00
KY COVINGTON CITY $17,200.00
KY DAYTON CITY $1,440.00
KY ELSMERE CITY $1,605.40
KY ERLANGER CITY $7,200.00
KY GEORGETOWN CITY $5,120.16
KY GLASGOW CITY $3,180.00
KY HENDERSON CITY $5,100.00
KY HENDERSON COUNTY $9,350.00
KY HOPKINSVILLE CITY $14,302.25
KY INDEPENDENCE CITY $4,380.00
KY JEFFERSONTOWN CITY $4,712.50
KY MADISONVILLE CITY $12,000.00
KY MAYSVILLE CITY $4,420.00
KY MURRAY CITY $1,984.50
KY OWENSBORO CITY $14,708.40
KY PADUCAH CITY $6,804.00
KY RADCLIFF CITY $4,690.80
KY RICHMOND CITY $9,394.12
KY RUSSELLVILLE CITY $2,488.50
KY SCOTT COUNTY $3,350.00

Page 25 ends

89 Item # C9.

KY SHELBYVILLE CITY $4,425.00
KY TOMPKINSVILLE CITY $3,600.00
Totals for KY(25 Jurisdictions): $166,353.13
LA ACADIA PARISH $8,000.00
LA ALEXANDRIA CITY $31,265.00
LA ASCENSION PARISH $9,435.14
LA AVOYELLES PARISH $9,580.12
LA BEAUREGARD PARISH $14,713.50
LA BIENVILLE PARISH $17,062.50
LA BREAUX BRIDGE CITY $2,517.47
LA BROUSSARD TOWN $3,885.39
LA CADDO PARISH $17,834.17
LA CAMERON PARISH $8,729.00
LA CARENCRO CITY $7,392.06
LA CATAHOULA PARISH $6,180.00
LA DE RIDDER CITY $3,618.27
LA DENHAM SPRINGS CITY $4,800.00
LA EAST BATON ROUGE PARISH SHERIFF'S OFFICE $47,336.53
LA FRANKLIN CITY $1,115.40
LA GONZALES CITY $13,808.00
LA GRANT PARISH SHERIFF DEPARTMENT $28,272.00
LA GRETNA CITY $24,601.00
LA HAMMOND CITY $4,000.00
LA HARAHAN CITY $1,097.57
LA HAUGHTON TOWN $365.00
LA HOUMA CITY $12,000.00
LA KENNER CITY $5,225.60
LA KINDER TOWN $2,394.65
LA LAFAYETTE CITY-PARISH $1,375.04
LA LAKE CHARLES CITY $18,711.80
LA LIVINGSTON PARISH $5,607.09
LA LOUISIANA $17,522.20
LA LAFAYETTE PARISH SHERIFFS DEPARTMENT $1,995.26
LA MONROE CITY $14,872.00
LA MOREHOUSE PARISH $2,399.76
LA MORGAN CITY $3,893.78
LA NATCHITOCHES CITY $4,387.50
LA NATCHITOCHES PARISH $3,958.47
LA NEW IBERIA CITY $3,897.40
LA PATTERSON CITY $7,350.00
LA PINEVILLE CITY $11,440.00
LA PLAQUEMINES PARISH $14,375.00
LA POINTE COUPEE PARISH $7,772.00
LA PONCHATOULA CITY $4,925.00
LA PORT ALLEN CITY $1,663.38
LA RAPIDES PARISH $18,707.60
LA RAYNE CITY $4,000.00
LA ROSEPINE TOWN $3,600.00
LA SLIDELL CITY $32,916.16

Page 26 ends

90 Item # C9.

LA ST LANDRY PARISH SHERIFF DEPARTMENT $2,974.40
LA ST MARTIN PARISH $9,674.00
LA ST MARY PARISH $13,390.23
LA ST TAMMANY PARISH $18,527.42
LA SULPHUR CITY $6,220.89
LA TANGIPAHOA PARISH $2,176.47
LA THIBODAUX CITY $8,442.10
LA VINTON TOWN $7,047.00
LA WALKER TOWN $2,055.55
LA WINN PARISH $20,057.14
Totals for LA(56 Jurisdictions): $561,163.01
MA ABINGTON TOWN $895.00
MA ACTON TOWN $7,125.00
MA ACUSHNET TOWN $2,237.50
MA ADAMS TOWN $4,112.50
MA AGAWAM CITY $6,695.00
MA AMESBURY TOWN $4,800.00
MA ASHBURNHAM TOWN $1,195.50
MA ASHBY TOWN $2,912.50
MA ATTLEBORO CITY $18,347.50
MA BARNSTABLE CITY $10,000.00
MA BARRE TOWN $1,927.50
MA BEDFORD TOWN $3,580.00
MA BELMONT TOWN $10,800.00
MA BERKLEY TOWN $1,990.00
MA BILLERICA TOWN $13,600.00
MA BOURNE TOWN $17,170.00
MA BRAINTREE TOWN $23,683.50
MA CARVER TOWN $6,228.75
MA CHARLTON TOWN $5,780.00
MA CHELMSFORD TOWN $5,700.00
MA CHELSEA CITY $9,750.00
MA CHESTER TOWN $950.00
MA CHICOPEE CITY $21,000.00
MA DARTMOUTH TOWN $5,550.00
MA DEDHAM TOWN $9,540.00
MA DEERFIELD TOWN $1,967.50
MA DENNIS TOWN $5,350.00
MA DIGHTON TOWN $3,580.00
MA DOVER TOWN $2,237.50
MA DRACUT TOWN $2,237.50
MA DUXBURY TOWN $11,484.20
MA EAST BRIDGEWATER TOWN $2,000.00
MA EAST LONGMEADOW TOWN $8,475.00
MA EASTHAM TOWN $1,269.00
MA EASTHAMPTON TOWN $15,999.89
MA EASTON TOWN $4,027.50
MA FAIRHAVEN TOWN $7,950.00
MA FALL RIVER CITY $28,275.00

Page 27 ends

91 Item # C9.

MA FALMOUTH TOWN $6,525.00
MA FITCHBURG CITY $11,765.28
MA FOXBOROUGH TOWN $3,975.00
MA FRAMINGHAM TOWN $15,143.00
MA FRANKLIN CITY $15,960.00
MA GARDNER CITY $5,665.50
MA GRANBY TOWN $1,716.00
MA GREAT BARRINGTON TOWN $2,050.00
MA GROVELAND TOWN $5,925.15
MA HALIFAX TOWN $3,132.50
MA HAMPDEN TOWN $3,432.00
MA HANOVER TOWN $13,425.00
MA HARDWICK TOWN $850.00
MA HAVERHILL CITY $25,588.50
MA HINGHAM TOWN $5,600.00
MA HINSDALE TOWN $575.00
MA HOLYOKE CITY $13,200.00
MA HOPEDALE TOWN $1,602.21
MA HUBBARDSTON TOWN $2,250.00
MA HULL TOWN $3,878.00
MA KINGSTON TOWN $1,790.00
MA LAKEVILLE TOWN $5,925.15
MA LEXINGTON TOWN $8,502.50
MA LONGMEADOW TOWN $3,430.00
MA LUDLOW TOWN $4,959.00
MA LYNNFIELD TOWN $6,800.00
MA MANCHESTER-BY-THE-SEA TOWN $2,000.00
MA MANSFIELD TOWN $6,000.00
MA MARBLEHEAD TOWN $10,945.00
MA MARSHFIELD TOWN $13,120.20
MA MATTAPOISETT TOWN $8,502.50
MA MAYNARD TOWN $457.50
MA MEDFORD CITY $18,000.00
MA MELROSE CITY $10,740.00
MA MENDON TOWN $1,200.00
MA METHUEN CITY $15,984.00
MA MIDDLEBOROUGH TOWN $17,005.00
MA MIDDLETON TOWN $920.00
MA MILFORD TOWN $18,800.00
MA MILLIS TOWN $4,517.25
MA MILTON TOWN $7,332.00
MA MERRIMAC TOWN $7,200.00
MA NEEDHAM TOWN $6,265.00
MA NEWBURY TOWN $912.00
MA NEWTON CITY $42,800.00
MA NORFOLK TOWN $958.00
MA NORTHAMPTON CITY $4,750.00
MA NORTHBOROUGH TOWN $4,630.00
MA NORTON TOWN $8,887.73

Page 28 ends

92 Item # C9.

MA NORWELL TOWN $5,525.00
MA NORTH READING $13,800.00
MA PALMER TOWN $4,000.00
MA PEABODY CITY $9,741.60
MA PITTSFIELD CITY $37,950.00
MA PLYMOUTH TOWN $11,187.50
MA PRINCETON TOWN $2,795.85
MA PROVINCETOWN TOWN $3,980.00
MA RANDOLPH TOWN $11,187.50
MA RAYNHAM TOWN $797.00
MA READING TOWN $3,600.00
MA REVERE CITY $8,176.00
MA ROCKLAND TOWN $8,055.00
MA ROWLEY TOWN $2,576.91
MA SALEM CITY $7,800.00
MA SAUGUS TOWN $4,971.80
MA SCITUATE TOWN $3,918.75
MA SHARON TOWN $4,815.00
MA SHERBORN TOWN $2,685.00
MA SHREWSBURY TOWN $7,432.32
MA SOUTHBOROUGH TOWN $2,265.16
MA SOUTHBRIDGE TOWN $15,200.00
MA SOUTHWICK TOWN $2,850.00
MA STOUGHTON TOWN $7,615.25
MA STURBRIDGE TOWN $3,196.00
MA SUDBURY TOWN $2,685.00
MA TAUNTON CITY $4,027.50
MA TEMPLETON TOWN $3,043.80
MA TOPSFIELD TOWN $3,546.27
MA TOWNSEND TOWN $3,636.50
MA TYNGS BOROUGH TOWN $3,750.00
MA UPTON TOWN $5,565.00
MA WAKEFIELD TOWN $12,460.47
MA WALPOLE TOWN $3,580.00
MA WARE TOWN $8,000.00
MA WAREHAM TOWN $4,085.00
MA WARREN TOWN $1,600.00
MA WATERTOWN CITY $4,000.00
MA WAYLAND TOWN $3,580.00
MA WEBSTER TOWN $3,999.95
MA WELLESLEY TOWN $2,685.00
MA WENHAM TOWN $5,250.00
MA WEST BOYLSTON TOWN $3,905.50
MA WEST SPRINGFIELD TOWN $27,285.00
MA WESTBOROUGH TOWN $3,580.00
MA WESTFIELD CITY $6,600.00
MA WESTFORD TOWN $5,653.04
MA WESTPORT TOWN $8,869.20
MA WESTWOOD TOWN $3,132.50

Page 29 ends

93 Item # C9.

MA WHITMAN TOWN $16,000.00
MA WILBRAHAM TOWN $2,300.00
MA WINTHROP TOWN $17,000.00
MA WOBURN CITY $6,184.50
MA YARMOUTH TOWN $2,487.50
Totals for MA(141 Jurisdictions): $1,040,627.68
MD ABERDEEN CITY $3,595.50
MD BALTIMORE COUNTY $45,788.17
MD BEL AIR TOWN $5,891.50
MD BOWIE CITY $8,100.00
MD BRUNSWICK CITY $2,496.00
MD CALVERT COUNTY $14,900.13
MD CAMBRIDGE CITY $2,066.00
MD CAROLINE COUNTY $2,964.98
MD CECIL COUNTY $9,489.41
MD CHARLES COUNTY $22,090.38
MD CHEVY CHASE VILLAGE TOWN $1,068.85
MD COTTAGE CITY TOWN $1,600.00
MD CUMBERLAND CITY $4,800.00
MD DORCHESTER COUNTY $7,327.50
MD FREDERICK CITY $19,200.00
MD FRUITLAND CITY $2,370.00
MD GAITHERSBURG CITY $10,800.00
MD GARRETT COUNTY $2,632.50
MD HAGERSTOWN CITY $13,929.38
MD HAMPSTEAD TOWN $2,100.00
MD HARFORD COUNTY $20,147.20
MD LANDOVER HILLS TOWN $823.00
MD LAUREL CITY $3,825.00
MD MARYLAND $427.56
MD MOUNT AIRY TOWN $2,999.99
MD OAKLAND TOWN $508.50
MD OCEAN CITY TOWN $13,800.00
MD RIVERDALE TOWN $2,887.50
MD ROCKVILLE CITY $6,450.00
MD WESTMINSTER CITY $2,275.00
MD WICOMICO COUNTY $1,807.74
MD WORCESTER COUNTY $11,705.20
Totals for MD(32 Jurisdictions): $250,866.99
ME AROOSTOOK COUNTY $3,069.00
ME AUBURN CITY $9,120.00
ME AUGUSTA CITY $4,119.38
ME BANGOR CITY $7,841.60
ME BAR HARBOR TOWN $2,100.00
ME BATH CITY $4,892.50
ME BIDDEFORD CITY $4,000.00
ME BRIDGTON TOWN $1,112.50
ME BRUNSWICK TOWN $7,980.00
ME BUCKSPORT TOWN $6,000.00

Page 30 ends

94 Item # C9.

ME CARIBOU CITY $2,400.00
ME CUMBERLAND TOWN $1,252.79
ME ELIOT TOWN $1,885.00
ME FARMINGTON TOWN $2,230.00
ME FORT KENT TOWN $1,595.00
ME FORTFAIRFIELD TOWN $2,000.00
ME FREEPORT TOWN $2,035.24
ME GARDINER CITY $1,285.01
ME HAMPDEN TOWN $2,000.00
ME KENNEBUNK TOWN $1,600.00
ME KITTERY TOWN $4,592.50
ME KNOX COUNTY $6,023.00
ME LEWISTON CITY $5,012.50
ME LINCOLN COUNTY $5,637.50
ME MOUNT DESERT TOWN $1,050.00
ME OLD TOWN CITY $1,960.00
ME PORTLAND CITY $6,343.00
ME PRESQUE ISLE CITY $3,000.00
ME RUMFORD TOWN $2,432.40
ME SACO CITY $5,197.50
ME SAGADAHOC COUNTY $2,150.00
ME SCARBOROUGH TOWN $4,225.00
ME SKOWHEGAN TOWN $2,050.00
ME SOMERSET COUNTY $6,592.50
ME SOUTH BERWICK TOWN $1,691.54
ME TOPSHAM $3,200.00
ME WALDOBORO TOWN $1,762.93
ME WATERVILLE CITY $4,000.00
ME WELLS TOWN $1,607.38
ME WESTBROOK CITY $6,172.50
ME WISCASSET TOWN $1,275.00
ME YARMOUTH TOWN $1,706.00
Totals for ME(42 Jurisdictions): $146,199.27
MI ALCONA COUNTY $1,019.00
MI ALLEGAN CITY $2,640.00
MI ALPENA COUNTY $5,448.00
MI ARMADA VILLAGE $4,470.00
MI AUBURN HILLS CITY $5,225.00
MI BATTLE CREEK CITY $12,288.73
MI BAY CITY $3,972.50
MI BEAVERTON CITY $2,000.00
MI BENTON HARBOR CITY $2,835.00
MI BENZIE COUNTY $2,964.00
MI BERKLEY CITY $1,600.00
MI BIRCH RUN VILLAGE $883.36
MI BLOOMFIELD TOWNSHIP $1,540.00
MI BOYNE CITY $1,538.00
MI BRIDGEPORT CHARTER TOWNSHIP $800.00
MI BRIGHTON CITY $3,797.00

Page 31 ends

95 Item # C9.

MI BROWNSTOWN CHARTER TOWNSHIP $3,605.00
MI CADILLAC CITY $5,599.00
MI CANTON CHARTER TOWNSHIP $6,617.50
MI CASS COUNTY $4,812.50
MI CENTER LINE CITY $4,356.00
MI CHARLEVOIX CITY $593.55
MI CHARLEVOIX COUNTY $20,250.00
MI CLAWSON CITY $3,723.00
MI CLAY TOWNSHIP $6,800.00
MI CLINTON CHARTER TOWNSHIP $1,601.30
MI CLINTON COUNTY $4,000.00
MI COLOMA CHARTER TOWNSHIP $3,500.00
MI COLUMBIA TOWNSHIP $3,165.00
MI CONSTANTINE VILLAGE $1,098.00
MI CRAWFORD COUNTY $2,562.50
MI DE WITT CITY $1,101.50
MI DEARBORN CITY $9,284.07
MI DEARBORN HEIGHTS CITY $2,990.00
MI DRYDEN TOWNSHIP $1,566.78
MI DURAND CITY $1,292.50
MI EAST LANSING CITY $4,648.00
MI EASTPOINTE CITY $4,290.00
MI ELSIE VILLAGE $1,200.00
MI EMMET COUNTY $4,190.50
MI ERIE TOWNSHIP $800.00
MI FARMINGTON CITY $3,199.00
MI FARMINGTON HILLS CITY $17,902.50
MI FENTON CITY $1,553.00
MI FLAT ROCK CITY $2,082.50
MI FLINT CHARTER TOWNSHIP $10,830.00
MI FLUSHING CHARTER TOWNSHIP $825.00
MI FRANKLIN VILLAGE $1,412.50
MI FRASER CITY $12,000.00
MI FREMONT CITY $3,285.00
MI GARDEN CITY $5,755.00
MI GOGEBIC COUNTY $2,308.03
MI GRAND BLANC CHARTER TOWNSHIP $4,027.50
MI GRAND LEDGE CITY $1,627.50
MI GRAND RAPIDS CITY $9,766.60
MI GRAND TRAVERSE COUNTY $3,640.00
MI GRANDVILLE CITY $3,045.00
MI GREENVILLE CITY $1,764.00
MI GROSSE ILE TOWNSHIP $4,000.00
MI GROSSE POINTE CITY $9,200.00
MI GUN LAKE TRIBE PUBLIC SAFETY $2,500.00
MI HAMBURG TOWNSHIP $3,448.50
MI HAMPTON CHARTER TOWNSHIP $1,600.00
MI HAMTRAMCK CITY $2,860.00
MI HARBOR BEACH CITY $1,402.50

Page 32 ends

96 Item # C9.

MI HART CITY $524.00
MI HARTFORD CITY $929.50
MI HASTINGS CITY $2,000.00
MI HAZEL PARK CITY $6,857.50
MI HOLLAND CITY $6,222.50
MI HOUGHTON COUNTY $670.00
MI HURON CHARTER TOWNSHIP $3,883.30
MI HURON COUNTY $800.00
MI IONIA CITY $2,222.00
MI IOSCO COUNTY $1,200.00
MI IRON COUNTY $3,956.50
MI ISABELLA COUNTY $3,137.00
MI ISHPEMING CITY $1,820.00
MI JACKSON CITY $3,125.00
MI JACKSON COUNTY $1,791.67
MI KALAMAZOO CITY $28,171.88
MI KALKASKA VILLAGE $450.00
MI KENTWOOD CITY $7,172.50
MI LAKE COUNTY $1,490.00
MI LANSING CITY $7,344.80
MI LAPEER COUNTY $6,125.00
MI LAPEER TOWNSHIP $2,000.00
MI LAURIUM VILLAGE $311.00
MI LEELANAU COUNTY $312.50
MI LENAWEE COUNTY $7,227.00
MI LINCOLN PARK CITY $3,037.50
MI LIVONIA CITY $5,407.50
MI LAWRENCE VILLAGE $1,887.50
MI MACKINAW CITY VILLAGE $400.00
MI MADISON HEIGHTS CITY $11,187.50
MI MANISTEE COUNTY $3,307.50
MI MARQUETTE COUNTY $2,847.50
MI MARSHALL CITY $1,500.00
MI MARYSVILLE CITY $1,387.50
MI MASON CITY $1,750.00
MI MASON COUNTY $6,282.00
MI MENOMINEE CITY $3,146.50
MI MERIDIAN CHARTER TOWNSHIP $3,891.50
MI MICHIGAN $13,175.87
MI MIDLAND CITY $6,750.00
MI MIDLAND COUNTY $7,920.00
MI MONROE CITY $4,470.00
MI MONTCALM COUNTY $6,210.00
MI MONTMORENCY COUNTY $2,225.00
MI METRO POLICE AUTHORITY OF GENESEE COUNTY $1,382.00
MI NEGAUNEE CITY $3,875.00
MI NEW BALTIMORE CITY $2,060.00
MI NEWAYGO CITY $807.50
MI NEWAYGO COUNTY $3,242.91

Page 33 ends

97 Item # C9.

MI NILES CITY $2,360.00
MI NORTHVILLE CITY $1,777.50
MI NORTON SHORES CITY $2,572.50
MI NORWAY CITY $2,282.50
MI NOVI CITY $3,825.00
MI OAK PARK CITY $5,625.00
MI OAKLAND COUNTY $22,619.74
MI OLIVET CITY $800.00
MI ORONOKO CHARTER TOWNSHIP $11.27
MI PAW PAW VILLAGE $367.50
MI PENTWATER VILLAGE $2,800.00
MI PITTSFIELD CHARTER TOWNSHIP $4,000.00
MI PLYMOUTH CHARTER TOWNSHIP $5,600.00
MI PORT HURON CITY $4,400.00
MI POKAGON BAND OF POTAWATOMI $3,960.00
MI REDFORD CHARTER TOWNSHIP $4,537.50
MI RICHMOND CITY $2,744.00
MI ROMULUS CITY $11,400.00
MI ROSCOMMON COUNTY $2,137.50
MI ROSEVILLE CITY $2,940.00
MI ROYAL OAK CITY $8,725.50
MI SAGINAW CITY $4,600.50
MI SAGINAW COUNTY $2,280.30
MI SANILAC COUNTY $3,725.00
MI SAULT STE MARIE CITY $1,020.00
MI SCHOOLCRAFT COUNTY $2,528.10
MI SHELBY CHARTER TOWNSHIP $7,580.00
MI SHIAWASSEE COUNTY $2,090.50
MI SOUTH HAVEN CITY $4,397.50
MI SOUTH LYON CITY $3,975.00
MI SOUTHFIELD CITY $8,350.00
MI SOUTHGATE CITY $3,232.50
MI ST CLAIR SHORES CITY $6,800.00
MI ST IGNACE CITY $1,606.00
MI ST JOHNS CITY $1,947.50
MI ST JOSEPH COUNTY $2,331.25
MI STERLING HEIGHTS CITY $1,477.11
MI SUMPTER TOWNSHIP $689.00
MI ST. CLAIR COUNTY $2,137.78
MI TAYLOR CITY $4,000.00
MI TECUMSEH CITY $485.10
MI THREE RIVERS CITY $3,125.39
MI TRAVERSE CITY $10,900.00
MI TROY CITY $14,785.00
MI TUSCOLA COUNTY $2,400.00
MI UNADILLA TOWNSHIP $1,117.00
MI UTICA CITY $3,712.50
MI VAN BUREN CHARTER TOWNSHIP $1,500.00
MI VAN BUREN COUNTY $5,349.00

Page 34 ends

98 Item # C9.

MI WALKER CITY $2,920.00
MI WARREN CITY $11,602.03
MI WATERFORD CHARTER TOWNSHIP $7,987.50
MI WAYNE COUNTY AIRPORT AUTHORITY $10,364.57
MI WEST BLOOMFIELD CHARTER TOWNSHIP $9,375.00
MI WEXFORD COUNTY $1,882.50
MI WHITE LAKE CHARTER TOWNSHIP $9,780.00
MI WYOMING CITY $11,220.00
MI YPSILANTI CITY $3,160.00
MI ZEELAND CITY $901.50
Totals for MI(173 Jurisdictions): $737,416.49
MN AITKIN COUNTY $2,100.00
MN ALBERT LEA CITY $4,050.00
MN AUSTIN CITY $4,725.00
MN BAXTER CITY $1,326.00
MN BECKER CITY $2,217.50
MN BECKER COUNTY $4,085.00
MN BELGRADE CITY $642.99
MN BELTRAMI COUNTY $3,000.00
MN BEMIDJI CITY $5,130.00
MN BENTON COUNTY $4,400.00
MN BLOOMINGTON CITY $21,292.50
MN BLUE EARTH COUNTY $3,600.00
MN BRAINERD CITY $3,675.00
MN BREEZY POINT CITY $1,974.50
MN BROOKLYN PARK CITY $37,999.96
MN BROWN COUNTY $1,181.98
MN BURNSVILLE CITY $13,606.50
MN CAMBRIDGE CITY $3,178.78
MN CANNON FALLS CITY $1,200.00
MN CASS COUNTY $2,551.50
MN CHAMPLIN CITY $3,300.00
MN CHATFIELD CITY $761.55
MN CHISHOLM CITY $2,100.00
MN CLAY COUNTY $506.10
MN CLEARWATER COUNTY $1,444.64
MN CLEVELAND CITY $1,800.00
MN CLOQUET CITY $2,000.00
MN COLD SPRING CITY $614.16
MN COLUMBIA HEIGHTS CITY $2,625.00
MN COTTAGE GROVE CITY $5,020.00
MN CROW WING COUNTY $5,508.00
MN COUNTY OF COTTONWOOD $1,725.00
MN DAWSON CITY $1,225.00
MN DAYTON CITY $4,832.00
MN DEER RIVER CITY $1,200.00
MN DEERWOOD CITY $3,501.07
MN DETROIT LAKES CITY $3,855.00
MN DODGE COUNTY $12,000.00

Page 35 ends

99 Item # C9.

MN DOUGLAS COUNTY $2,625.00
MN DULUTH CITY $22,899.11
MN EAST GRAND FORKS CITY $3,669.37
MN EDEN PRAIRIE CITY $7,218.00
MN ELY CITY $1,483.50
MN FARMINGTON CITY $6,500.00
MN FERGUS FALLS CITY $4,032.00
MN FILLMORE COUNTY $2,000.00
MN FLOODWOOD CITY $1,077.99
MN FOREST LAKE CITY $3,600.00
MN FREEBORN COUNTY $2,000.00
MN FRIDLEY CITY $4,595.00
MN GAYLORD CITY $1,331.33
MN GOLDEN VALLEY CITY $7,996.50
MN GOODHUE COUNTY $8,400.00
MN GRAND RAPIDS CITY $2,400.00
MN HAWLEY CITY $2,000.00
MN HERMANTOWN CITY $2,530.00
MN HIBBING CITY $5,695.00
MN HILL CITY $1,653.00
MN HUTCHINSON CITY $1,978.78
MN INDEPENDENCE CITY $1,889.01
MN INTERNATIONAL FALLS CITY $1,666.37
MN ISLE CITY $341.47
MN KANDIYOHI COUNTY $7,855.00
MN KOOCHICHING COUNTY $1,828.50
MN LA CRESCENT CITY $2,005.00
MN LAKE CRYSTAL CITY $400.00
MN LAKEFIELD CITY $658.50
MN LAKEVILLE CITY $9,349.12
MN LE SUEUR CITY $1,050.00
MN LE SUEUR COUNTY $2,200.00
MN LINO LAKES CITY $1,600.00
MN LITTLE FALLS CITY $8,019.00
MN LYON COUNTY $2,000.00
MN MAHNOMEN COUNTY $3,128.48
MN MAPLE GROVE CITY $8,100.00
MN MAPLETON CITY $376.11
MN MAPLEWOOD CITY $9,000.00
MN MCLEOD COUNTY $3,320.00
MN MENDOTA HEIGHTS CITY $3,146.38
MN MINNETONKA CITY $21,976.50
MN MOORHEAD CITY $9,799.40
MN MOTLEY CITY $518.50
MN MILLE LACS BAND OF OJIBWE $3,917.85
MN NEW BRIGHTON CITY $3,200.00
MN NEW HOPE CITY $5,200.00
MN NICOLLET COUNTY $3,150.00
MN NISSWA CITY $524.10

Page 36 ends

100
Item # C9.

MN NOBLES COUNTY $1,451.00
MN NORTH BRANCH CITY $1,200.00
MN NORTHFIELD CITY $3,685.50
MN ONAMIA CITY $1,107.15
MN ORONO CITY $2,582.50
MN OWATONNA CITY $6,400.00
MN PLYMOUTH CITY $13,200.00
MN PRIOR LAKE CITY $3,600.00
MN RAMSEY CITY $2,389.90
MN REDWOOD COUNTY $4,857.84
MN RICE CITY $1,174.05
MN RICHFIELD CITY $2,395.90
MN ROBBINSDALE CITY $1,972.50
MN ROCK COUNTY $1,354.00
MN ROSEMOUNT CITY $4,400.00
MN SARTELL CITY $1,168.83
MN SAUK CENTRE CITY $1,200.00
MN SAUK RAPIDS CITY $2,487.26
MN SAVAGE CITY $7,004.31
MN SHAKOPEE CITY $9,012.00
MN SHERBURNE COUNTY $9,082.50
MN SOUTH ST PAUL CITY $6,400.00
MN SPRINGFIELD CITY $2,300.00
MN SPRINGLAKE PARK CITY $1,544.43
MN ST CLOUD CITY $8,385.80
MN ST JAMES CITY $429.00
MN ST JOSEPH CITY $4,044.15
MN ST LOUIS PARK CITY $10,641.00
MN STILLWATER CITY $5,000.00
MN SWIFT COUNTY $963.09
MN THIEF RIVER FALLS CITY $1,950.00
MN TODD COUNTY $1,600.00
MN VIRGINIA CITY $3,096.15
MN WABASHA COUNTY $7,122.50
MN WASECA CITY $1,500.00
MN WAYZATA CITY $3,776.50
MN WEST CONCORD CITY $1,717.68
MN WHEATON CITY $800.00
MN WHITE BEAR LAKE CITY $4,860.00
MN WILLMAR CITY $4,896.82
MN WINONA CITY $14,625.00
MN WINONA COUNTY $6,000.00
MN WOODBURY CITY $9,474.50
MN ZUMBROTA CITY $1,100.00
Totals for MN(131 Jurisdictions): $571,810.46
MO ADAIR COUNTY $3,283.00
MO ARNOLD CITY $5,100.00
MO ASHLAND CITY $2,118.80
MO AURORA CITY $2,800.00

Page 37 ends

101
Item # C9.

MO BERKELEY CITY $9,966.00
MO BERNIE CITY $2,400.00
MO BOLIVAR CITY $6,025.00
MO BOONVILLE CITY $4,000.00
MO BOWLING GREEN CITY $1,700.00
MO BRANSON CITY $5,232.50
MO BRANSON WEST CITY $1,799.50
MO BUFFALO CITY $1,790.00
MO BUTLER CITY $2,297.50
MO BYRNES MILL CITY $2,125.00
MO CALLAWAY COUNTY $5,100.00
MO CAMDENTON CITY $1,400.00
MO CANTON CITY $392.50
MO CAPE GIRARDEAU CITY $12,240.00
MO CAPE GIRARDEAU COUNTY $7,910.00
MO CARL JUNCTION CITY $1,134.00
MO CASSVILLE CITY $2,954.00
MO CHAFFEE CITY $527.69
MO CHESTERFIELD CITY $8,250.00
MO CHRISTIAN COUNTY $7,587.45
MO CLAY COUNTY $7,841.73
MO CLAYTON CITY $3,712.50
MO COLE COUNTY $6,600.00
MO CREVE COEUR CITY $4,125.00
MO CROCKER CITY $2,250.00
MO DES PERES CITY $4,000.00
MO DESLOGE CITY $4,337.49
MO ELLISVILE CITY $2,000.00
MO EUREKA CITY $2,363.33
MO FAIR GROVE CITY $3,150.00
MO FLORISSANT CITY $6,187.50
MO FRANKLIN COUNTY $13,525.02
MO FRONTENAC CITY $425.00
MO FULTON CITY $2,082.50
MO GASCONADE COUNTY $3,975.00
MO GLADSTONE CITY $11,390.00
MO GLENDALE CITY $800.00
MO GRAIN VALLEY CITY $3,960.00
MO GRANDVIEW CITY $6,800.00
MO HANNIBAL CITY $2,453.66
MO HAZELWOOD CITY $6,000.00
MO HIGGINSVILLE CITY $2,349.87
MO HILLSBORO CITY $3,600.00
MO HOLLISTER CITY $2,070.00
MO HOLT COUNTY $3,595.00
MO HOWELL COUNTY $4,483.75
MO JACKSON CITY $7,827.50
MO JACKSON COUNTY $4,398.94
MO JEFFERSON CITY $10,468.62

Page 38 ends

102
Item # C9.

MO JOHNSON COUNTY $7,593.72
MO JOPLIN CITY $12,420.20
MO KANSAS CITY $125,175.85
MO KIMBERLING CITY CITY $2,712.50
MO KIRKSVILLE CITY $9,200.00
MO KIRKWOOD CITY $8,797.50
MO KNOB NOSTER CITY $419.77
MO LAKE ST LOUIS CITY $3,240.00
MO LAMAR CITY $1,700.00
MO LEES SUMMIT CITY $4,845.57
MO LIBERTY CITY $2,991.63
MO LINCOLN COUNTY $10,350.00
MO LIVINGSTON COUNTY $2,000.00
MO MARSHALL CITY $2,053.98
MO MARYVILLE CITY $2,673.00
MO MCDONALD COUNTY $2,282.48
MO MILLER COUNTY $8,250.00
MO MISSOURI $11,411.39
MO MOBERLY CITY $5,830.00
MO MONETT CITY $4,960.00
MO MONTGOMERY CITY $3,069.88
MO MOUNT VERNON CITY $4,240.50
MO MOUNTAIN VIEW CITY $5,525.00
MO NEOSHO CITY $4,200.00
MO NEVADA CITY $2,699.97
MO NEWTON COUNTY $8,500.00
MO NIXA CITY $4,866.50
MO O FALLON CITY $20,563.85
MO ODESSA CITY $728.67
MO OLIVETTE CITY $4,350.00
MO OSAGE BEACH CITY $2,070.00
MO OSAGE COUNTY $629.00
MO OVERLAND CITY $6,135.00
MO OZARK CITY $3,228.68
MO PACIFIC CITY $9,910.00
MO PAGEDALE CITY $9,975.00
MO PECULIAR CITY $5,114.94
MO PERRYVILLE CITY $2,400.00
MO PETTIS COUNTY $17,537.43
MO PEVELY CITY $6,375.00
MO PIEDMONT CITY $3,552.50
MO PLATTE CITY $1,500.00
MO PLEASANT VALLEY CITY $400.00
MO RAYMORE CITY $5,398.00
MO REPUBLIC CITY $1,980.98
MO RICHMOND HEIGHTS CITY $8,250.00
MO ROLLA CITY $4,125.00
MO SEDALIA CITY $7,880.42
MO SHREWSBURY CITY $4,000.00

Page 39 ends

103
Item # C9.

MO SIKESTON CITY $5,987.50
MO SMITHVILLE CITY $3,679.50
MO ST CHARLES CITY $14,450.00
MO ST CHARLES COUNTY $3,191.40
MO ST CLAIR COUNTY $4,777.50
MO ST JOSEPH CITY $11,861.00
MO ST LOUIS CITY $43,274.75
MO ST PETERS CITY $7,600.00
MO ST. JOHN P.D. $2,000.00
MO STONE COUNTY $8,165.00
MO SULLIVAN CITY $5,850.00
MO TANEY COUNTY $8,383.50
MO TEXAS COUNTY $1,433.00
MO THAYER CITY $3,200.00
MO TRENTON CITY $2,162.50
MO TROY CITY $3,834.05
MO UNION CITY $2,062.50
MO UNIVERSITY CITY $10,480.00
MO VELDA VILLAGE CITY $3,425.00
MO WARRENSBURG CITY $961.00
MO WARRENTON CITY $1,700.00
MO WASHINGTON CITY $3,309.00
MO WEATHERBY LAKE CITY $1,940.43
MO WEBB CITY $4,428.00
MO WEBSTER GROVES CITY $4,125.00
MO WENTZVILLE CITY $14,025.00
MO WEST PLAINS CITY $3,932.50
MO WILLARD CITY $410.00
MO WILLOW SPRINGS CITY $2,550.00
Totals for MO(131 Jurisdictions): $806,217.39
MS AMITE COUNTY $3,668.00
MS BATESVILLE CITY $1,600.00
MS BAY ST LOUIS CITY $8,738.28
MS BILOXI CITY $9,009.00
MS BOONEVILLE CITY $11,100.00
MS BYRAM CITY $3,600.00
MS CENTREVILLE TOWN $1,760.94
MS CLARKSDALE CITY $8,627.50
MS COLUMBIA CITY $10,822.50
MS CORINTH CITY $2,376.60
MS D IBERVILLE CITY $4,000.00
MS DERMA TOWN $489.50
MS EUPORA TOWN $2,800.00
MS FLORENCE TOWN $1,013.85
MS FOREST CITY $2,027.70
MS FORREST COUNTY $8,799.89
MS GAUTIER CITY $6,762.60
MS GLOSTER TOWN $1,834.00
MS GULFPORT CITY $9,525.00

Page 40 ends

104
Item # C9.

MS HATTIESBURG CITY $12,400.00
MS HERNANDO CITY $3,500.00
MS HORN LAKE CITY $3,348.32
MS KOSCIUSKO CITY $6,190.24
MS LAUREL CITY $7,437.50
MS LEE COUNTY $4,668.54
MS LINCOLN COUNTY $5,069.25
MS LOWNDES COUNTY $421.17
MS LONG BEACH $2,782.50
MS MADISON CITY $13,982.50
MS MERIDIAN CITY $15,554.45
MS MORTON CITY $2,932.00
MS NEW ALBANY CITY $3,600.00
MS NEWTON CITY $2,000.00
MS OKOLONA CITY $5,600.00
MS OKTIBBEHA COUNTY SHERIFFS OFFICE $9,782.04
MS OXFORD CITY $12,000.00
MS PASCAGOULA CITY $2,025.00
MS PASS CHRISTIAN CITY $1,500.00
MS PEARL RIVER VALLEY WATER SUPPLY DISTRICT $2,340.00
MS PICAYUNE CITY $2,791.88
MS PRENTISS COUNTY $9,200.00
MS RIDGELAND CITY $8,500.00
MS RIPLEY CITY $3,250.00
MS SIMPSON COUNTY $2,703.60
MS SMITH COUNTY $6,957.00
MS STONE COUNTY $4,820.00
MS TUPELO CITY $7,850.00
MS UNION COUNTY $7,437.50
MS VICKSBURG CITY $5,200.00
MS WASHINGTON COUNTY $5,062.50
MS WAVELAND CITY $3,100.50
MS WAYNESBORO CITY $5,797.50
MS WIGGINS CITY $2,568.00
Totals for MS(53 Jurisdictions): $290,927.35
MT BUTTE-SILVER BOW CITY AND COUNTY $6,953.00
MT BOZEMAN CITY $3,294.00
MT CASCADE COUNTY $9,600.00
MT FAIRVIEW TOWN $585.37
MT FERGUS COUNTY $3,849.95
MT FLATHEAD COUNTY $5,236.54
MT GLACIER COUNTY $4,716.63
MT GLASGOW CITY $1,600.00
MT GREAT FALLS CITY $8,799.75
MT HELENA CITY $3,520.27
MT KALISPELL CITY $4,350.00
MT LAKE COUNTY $7,940.68
MT LEWIS AND CLARK COUNTY $5,090.00
MT LINCOLN COUNTY $2,082.99

Page 41 ends

105
Item # C9.

MT LIVINGSTON CITY $2,397.50
MT MILES CITY $815.90
MT PETROLEUM COUNTY $47.73
MT POLSON CITY $2,069.81
MT RAVALLI COUNTY $8,310.00
MT RED LODGE CITY $1,688.50
MT ROSEBUD COUNTY $6,183.18
MT TROY CITY $550.05
MT VALLEY COUNTY $1,672.50
MT WHITEFISH CITY $3,216.25
Totals for MT(24 Jurisdictions): $94,570.60
NC APEX TOWN $12,725.88
NC ASHEVILLE CITY $10,163.61
NC AVERY COUNTY $10,880.00
NC AYDEN TOWN $2,000.00
NC BEAUFORT TOWN $843.33
NC BEECH MOUNTAIN TOWN $2,134.35
NC BELHAVEN TOWN $1,657.50
NC BELMONT CITY $7,479.33
NC BILTMORE FOREST TOWN $7,004.55
NC BLACK MOUNTAIN TOWN $2,215.13
NC BLOWING ROCK TOWN $2,782.49
NC BOONE TOWN $4,945.00
NC BURGAW TOWN $2,270.80
NC BURLINGTON CITY $17,015.00
NC BURNSVILLE TOWN $1,530.29
NC CALDWELL COUNTY $7,300.00
NC CARRBORO TOWN $1,636.70
NC CHAPEL HILL TOWN $17,225.00
NC CHERRYVILLE CITY $2,100.00
NC CHINA GROVE TOWN $2,425.00
NC CLAYTON TOWN $5,459.26
NC CLEVELAND COUNTY $3,031.99
NC COATS TOWN $1,641.95
NC COLUMBUS COUNTY $7,815.00
NC CONCORD CITY $6,040.76
NC CRAMERTON TOWN $1,480.96
NC CRAVEN COUNTY $4,071.96
NC DUCK TOWN $1,925.00
NC DUPLIN COUNTY $6,808.24
NC DURHAM CITY $24,106.00
NC EDEN CITY $3,600.00
NC EDENTON TOWN $4,997.48
NC EDGECOMBE COUNTY $21,330.00
NC ELIZABETH CITY $6,714.98
NC ELKIN TOWN $575.64
NC ELON COLLEGE TOWN $3,200.00
NC FOREST CITY TOWN $5,101.67
NC FRANKLIN COUNTY $4,499.63

Page 42 ends

106
Item # C9.

NC FUQUAY-VARINA TOWN $7,318.31
NC GARNER TOWN $7,200.00
NC GASTONIA CITY $14,437.50
NC GRAHAM CITY $5,505.09
NC GRANVILLE COUNTY $12,916.55
NC HARNETT COUNTY $2,176.06
NC HAVELOCK CITY $2,758.75
NC HAW RIVER TOWN $2,483.75
NC HENDERSON CITY $4,480.69
NC HICKORY CITY $18,060.00
NC HIGH POINT CITY $13,734.84
NC HOPE MILLS TOWN $3,640.18
NC JONESVILLE TOWN $4,800.00
NC KERNERSVILLE TOWN $11,925.00
NC KINGS MOUNTAIN CITY $3,360.00
NC KINSTON CITY $7,272.88
NC KNIGHTDALE TOWN $2,903.54
NC LELAND TOWN $3,000.00
NC LEXINGTON CITY $11,912.50
NC LILLINGTON TOWN $9,562.00
NC LUMBERTON CITY $15,400.00
NC MACON COUNTY $4,807.23
NC MAIDEN TOWN $2,124.74
NC MARION CITY $5,593.00
NC MARTIN COUNTY $3,022.31
NC MCDOWELL COUNTY $6,444.25
NC MECKLENBURG COUNTY $26,220.57
NC MONTGOMERY COUNTY $1,575.00
NC MOORE COUNTY $4,367.18
NC MOORESVILLE TOWN $12,287.50
NC MOREHEAD CITY $3,180.00
NC MOUNT HOLLY CITY $2,582.40
NC NAGS HEAD TOWN $1,162.50
NC NEW BERN CITY $14,891.30
NC NEWTON CITY $2,586.50
NC NORTH CAROLINA $2,668.36
NC NORTH TOPSAIL BEACH TOWN $2,632.97
NC PAMLICO COUNTY $3,249.36
NC PENDER COUNTY $4,567.50
NC PERQUIMANS COUNTY $4,803.75
NC PERSON COUNTY $8,800.00
NC PILOT MOUNTAIN TOWN $7,675.00
NC PINEVILLE TOWN $2,938.35
NC PRINCETON TOWN $2,866.68
NC RALEIGH CITY $58,694.85
NC RED SPRINGS TOWN $2,782.00
NC REIDSVILLE CITY $6,032.28
NC RICHMOND COUNTY $30,137.48
NC ROANOKE RAPIDS CITY $6,983.48

Page 43 ends

107
Item # C9.

NC ROCKINGHAM COUNTY $7,938.00
NC ROCKY MOUNT CITY $13,164.00
NC ROLESVILLE TOWN $4,399.45
NC RUTHERFORD COUNTY $2,152.22
NC SALISBURY CITY $8,409.00
NC SAMPSON COUNTY $9,803.70
NC SCOTLAND COUNTY $6,880.94
NC SMITHFIELD TOWN $2,954.54
NC SOUTHERN PINES TOWN $9,603.00
NC SOUTHERN SHORES TOWN $1,123.74
NC SPARTA TOWN $3,988.00
NC SPRUCE PINE TOWN $1,505.50
NC STALLINGS TOWN $4,925.00
NC STATESVILLE CITY $11,380.00
NC SURRY COUNTY $5,462.48
NC SHELBY $7,200.00
NC SUGAR MOUNTAIN VILLAGE $322.89
NC TOWN OF BUTNER $3,277.28
NC VALDESE TOWN $3,287.93
NC WADESBORO TOWN $3,517.29
NC WAKE FOREST TOWN $7,532.50
NC WARSAW TOWN $3,065.00
NC WATAUGA COUNTY $8,794.57
NC WHISPERING PINES VILLAGE $1,125.02
NC WILLIAMSTON TOWN $3,554.25
NC WILSON CITY $16,765.00
NC WILSON COUNTY $8,688.73
NC WINSTON SALEM CITY $2,931.82
NC YOUNGSVILLE TOWN $2,800.00
NC ZEBULON TOWN $2,700.98
Totals for NC(117 Jurisdictions): $798,511.49
ND BISMARCK CITY $15,013.70
ND BURLEIGH COUNTY $4,400.00
ND DEVILS LAKE CITY $2,036.64
ND DICKINSON CITY $5,645.63
ND GRAFTON CITY $3,254.00
ND GRAND FORKS CITY $18,735.00
ND GRAND FORKS COUNTY $3,120.00
ND JAMESTOWN CITY $5,600.00
ND MANDAN CITY $3,225.00
ND MCKENZIE COUNTY $4,738.21
ND MCLEAN COUNTY $2,646.00
ND MINOT CITY $11,200.00
ND MORTON COUNTY $5,600.00
ND RENVILLE COUNTY $2,800.00
ND RUGBY CITY $1,025.00
ND STEELE COUNTY $1,950.00
ND TRAILL COUNTY $3,402.00
ND WAHPETON CITY $1,600.00

Page 44 ends

108
Item # C9.

ND WALSH COUNTY $2,361.44
ND WARD COUNTY $4,938.00
ND WATFORD CITY $5,155.93
ND WEST FARGO CITY $18,679.85
Totals for ND(22 Jurisdictions): $127,126.40
NE AURORA CITY $3,600.00
NE BEATRICE CITY $4,000.00
NE BELLEVUE CITY $8,000.00
NE BOYS TOWN VILLAGE $1,080.00
NE BROKEN BOW CITY $1,074.00
NE CHADRON CITY $2,125.00
NE COLUMBUS CITY $3,385.00
NE DODGE COUNTY $4,500.00
NE GOTHENBURG CITY $945.00
NE GRAND ISLAND CITY $17,817.93
NE HALL COUNTY $6,517.90
NE HASTINGS CITY $4,400.00
NE LA VISTA CITY $4,800.00
NE LEXINGTON CITY $2,400.00
NE MINATARE CITY $1,200.00
NE NEMAHA COUNTY $2,250.00
NE NORFOLK CITY $2,000.00
NE PAPILLION CITY $5,167.50
NE PHELPS COUNTY $1,725.00
NE PLATTE COUNTY $1,746.50
NE PLATTSMOUTH CITY $2,800.00
NE RALSTON CITY $1,150.00
NE RICHARDSON COUNTY $3,600.00
NE SAUNDERS COUNTY $1,800.00
NE SCOTTS BLUFF COUNTY $1,154.50
NE SIDNEY CITY $1,440.00
NE SOUTH SIOUX CITY $3,832.50
NE STANTON COUNTY $462.50
NE WASHINGTON COUNTY $5,525.00
Totals for NE(29 Jurisdictions): $100,498.33
NH ALTON TOWN $1,423.13
NH BARRINGTON TOWN $474.00
NH BEDFORD TOWN $3,459.23
NH BOW TOWN $1,737.50
NH CAMPTON TOWN $1,050.00
NH CHESHIRE COUNTY $1,900.00
NH CHESTER TOWN $2,152.00
NH CONCORD CITY $6,712.50
NH CONWAY TOWN $4,250.00
NH DERRY TOWN $11,187.00
NH DOVER CITY $3,375.00
NH DUBLIN TOWN $1,209.25
NH DUNBARTON TOWN $1,835.63
NH EXETER TOWN $1,436.60

Page 45 ends

109
Item # C9.

NH FRANCONIA TOWN $2,120.00
NH GILFORD TOWN $2,093.75
NH GOFFSTOWN TOWN $1,600.00
NH GREENLAND TOWN $4,400.00
NH HANOVER TOWN $2,569.88
NH HAVERHILL TOWN $2,457.00
NH HILLSBORO TOWN $3,500.00
NH HOOKSETT TOWN $3,132.50
NH HUDSON TOWN $3,255.00
NH KEENE CITY $6,750.00
NH LACONIA CITY $1,940.00
NH LEBANON CITY $2,937.00
NH LONDONDERRY TOWN $6,000.00
NH MARLBOROUGH TOWN $572.50
NH MERRIMACK TOWN $2,714.25
NH MILFORD TOWN $2,132.50
NH MILTON TOWN $2,807.50
NH MONT VERNON TOWN $1,885.00
NH NASHUA CITY $25,231.25
NH NEWFIELDS TOWN $3,000.00
NH NEWMARKET TOWN $1,205.50
NH NORTH HAMPTON TOWN $1,988.00
NH PORTSMOUTH CITY $11,883.00
NH ROCHESTER CITY $5,640.25
NH SOMERSWORTH CITY $8,525.00
NH STRATHAM TOWN $948.75
NH WAKEFIELD TOWN $1,857.50
NH WINDHAM TOWN $2,800.00
Totals for NH(42 Jurisdictions): $158,147.97
NJ ABSECON CITY $4,000.00
NJ ALLENDALE BOROUGH $1,200.00
NJ ALLENTOWN BOROUGH $945.45
NJ ANDOVER TOWNSHIP $800.00
NJ ASBURY PARK CITY $10,908.82
NJ ATLANTIC CITY $23,520.00
NJ ATLANTIC HIGHLANDS BOROUGH $1,618.50
NJ BARNEGAT TOWNSHIP $4,213.65
NJ BAYONNE CITY $21,609.00
NJ BEDMINSTER TOWNSHIP $3,480.50
NJ BELLEVILLE TOWNSHIP $7,177.50
NJ BELLMAWR BOROUGH $2,650.50
NJ BERGENFIELD BOROUGH $2,887.65
NJ BERLIN BOROUGH $880.00
NJ BERNARDS TOWNSHIP $4,906.37
NJ BLOOMFIELD TOWNSHIP $7,565.00
NJ BLOOMINGDALE BOROUGH $2,656.50
NJ BOGOTA BOROUGH $1,600.00
NJ BOONTON TOWNSHIP $2,863.00
NJ BORDENTOWN TOWNSHIP $6,842.55

Page 46 ends

110
Item # C9.

NJ BOUND BROOK BOROUGH $2,138.00
NJ BRICK TOWNSHIP $20,040.80
NJ BRIGANTINE CITY $6,360.00
NJ BROOKLAWN BOROUGH $2,524.95
NJ BURLINGTON TOWNSHIP $9,523.48
NJ BUTLER BOROUGH $2,500.00
NJ BRIDGEWATER TOWNSHIP $20,072.50
NJ CALDWELL BOROUGH $2,190.00
NJ CAPE MAY CITY $2,610.00
NJ CAPE MAY COUNTY $24,400.00
NJ CARLSTADT BOROUGH $7,878.91
NJ CARTERET BOROUGH $12,624.75
NJ CHERRY HILL TOWNSHIP $6,339.50
NJ CHESTERFIELD TOWNSHIP $1,395.00
NJ CINNAMINSON TOWNSHIP $3,776.00
NJ CLARK TOWNSHIP $2,025.00
NJ CLAYTON BOROUGH $2,570.40
NJ COLTS NECK TOWNSHIP $2,084.10
NJ CRANFORD TOWNSHIP $4,039.92
NJ DEAL BOROUGH $2,375.95
NJ DELANCO TOWNSHIP $2,717.15
NJ DELAWARE TOWNSHIP $472.73
NJ DENVILLE TOWNSHIP $6,000.00
NJ DOVER TOWN $6,891.30
NJ DUMONT BOROUGH $4,632.95
NJ DUNELLEN BOROUGH $1,268.28
NJ EASTAMPTON TOWNSHIP $2,377.70
NJ EDGEWATER BOROUGH $3,796.80
NJ EGG HARBOR TOWNSHIP $9,105.08
NJ ELMWOOD PARK BOROUGH $4,208.56
NJ ENGLEWOOD CITY $4,862.45
NJ ENGLEWOOD CLIFFS BOROUGH $9,438.50
NJ EVESHAM TOWNSHIP $11,184.60
NJ EWING TOWNSHIP $4,727.25
NJ EAST WINDSOR TOWNSHIP $6,549.73
NJ FAIRFIELD TOWNSHIP $4,794.00
NJ FLORENCE TOWNSHIP $3,421.60
NJ FLORHAM PARK BOROUGH $5,073.60
NJ FRANKLIN BOROUGH $3,600.00
NJ FREEHOLD BOROUGH $1,701.00
NJ GALLOWAY TOWNSHIP $9,996.00
NJ GARWOOD BOROUGH $2,737.00
NJ GLOUCESTER CITY $2,000.00
NJ GLOUCESTER TOWNSHIP $10,800.00
NJ GREEN BROOK TOWNSHIP $4,418.12
NJ GREENWICH TOWNSHIP $2,000.00
NJ HACKENSACK CITY $8,417.12
NJ HACKETTSTOWN TOWN $2,000.00
NJ HADDON HEIGHTS BOROUGH $714.00

Page 47 ends

111
Item # C9.

NJ HADDONFIELD BOROUGH $1,837.50
NJ HALEDON BOROUGH $4,000.00
NJ HAMILTON TOWNSHIP $17,784.98
NJ HARDYSTON TOWNSHIP $2,100.00
NJ HARVEY CEDARS BOROUGH $835.00
NJ HAZLET TOWNSHIP $3,360.00
NJ HI NELLA BOROUGH $1,425.00
NJ HIGHTSTOWN BOROUGH $3,362.49
NJ HILLSBOROUGH TOWNSHIP $7,350.00
NJ HILLSDALE BOROUGH $4,400.00
NJ HOBOKEN CITY $17,082.16
NJ HOLMDEL TOWNSHIP $4,500.00
NJ HIGHLAND PARK $1,500.00
NJ JACKSON TOWNSHIP $31,130.50
NJ JEFFERSON TOWNSHIP $3,029.94
NJ KEANSBURG BOROUGH $8,500.80
NJ KEARNY TOWN $11,687.50
NJ KENILWORTH BOROUGH $1,798.00
NJ KEYPORT BOROUGH $2,672.50
NJ KINNELON BOROUGH $1,359.38
NJ LACEY TOWNSHIP $8,944.74
NJ LAWRENCE TOWNSHIP $4,174.50
NJ LEONIA BOROUGH $2,250.00
NJ LINWOOD CITY $1,504.74
NJ LITTLE EGG HARBOR TOWNSHIP $8,589.00
NJ LITTLE FALLS TOWNSHIP $4,356.00
NJ LODI BOROUGH $10,000.00
NJ LOGAN TOWNSHIP $3,192.00
NJ LONG BEACH TOWNSHIP $7,991.49
NJ LOWER ALLOWAYS CREEK TOWNSHIP $975.00
NJ LOWER TOWNSHIP $6,210.00
NJ MADISON BOROUGH $4,278.40
NJ MAGNOLIA BOROUGH $1,426.62
NJ MANALAPAN TOWNSHIP $6,807.60
NJ MANCHESTER TOWNSHIP $9,541.80
NJ MANVILLE BOROUGH $2,688.00
NJ MAPLE SHADE TOWNSHIP $5,451.66
NJ MARLBORO TOWNSHIP $11,649.40
NJ MAYWOOD BOROUGH $2,470.00
NJ MEDFORD TOWNSHIP $2,794.65
NJ MENDHAM TOWNSHIP $1,551.24
NJ METUCHEN BOROUGH $2,800.00
NJ MIDDLESEX BOROUGH $4,254.53
NJ MILLTOWN BOROUGH $2,145.00
NJ MILLVILLE CITY $4,657.50
NJ MONROE TOWNSHIP $12,140.38
NJ MONTCLAIR TOWNSHIP $7,942.20
NJ MONTVALE BOROUGH $2,800.00
NJ MOORESTOWN TOWNSHIP $2,166.89

Page 48 ends

112
Item # C9.

NJ MORRIS PLAINS BOROUGH $1,145.20
NJ MORRIS TOWNSHIP $7,200.00
NJ MOUNT ARLINGTON BOROUGH $2,625.00
NJ MOUNT HOLLY TOWNSHIP $4,400.00
NJ MOUNT LAUREL TOWNSHIP $7,055.88
NJ MOUNT OLIVE TOWNSHIP $7,896.00
NJ MOUNTAIN LAKES BOROUGH $2,524.95
NJ MOUNTAINSIDE BOROUGH $3,500.00
NJ MULLICA TOWNSHIP $1,732.80
NJ NEPTUNE CITY BOROUGH $1,283.10
NJ NEPTUNE TOWNSHIP $11,157.30
NJ NEW BRUNSWICK CITY $9,287.85
NJ NEW MILFORD BOROUGH $5,460.00
NJ NEW PROVIDENCE BOROUGH $3,534.93
NJ NEWTON TOWN $2,000.00
NJ NORTH ARLINGTON BOROUGH $1,161.00
NJ NORTH BERGEN TOWNSHIP $15,715.00
NJ NORTH BRUNSWICK TOWNSHIP $8,708.40
NJ NORTH CALDWELL BOROUGH $434.00
NJ NORTH PLAINFIELD BOROUGH $1,465.68
NJ NORTHFIELD CITY $4,704.70
NJ NUTLEY TOWNSHIP $5,484.05
NJ OAKLAND BOROUGH $455.00
NJ OAKLYN BOROUGH $1,846.50
NJ OCEAN CITY $5,880.00
NJ OCEAN TOWNSHIP (OAKHURST) $5,148.00
NJ OCEAN TOWNSHIP (WARETOWN) $2,335.00
NJ OLD BRIDGE TOWNSHIP $13,650.00
NJ OLD TAPPAN BOROUGH $1,200.00
NJ ORANGE CITY TOWNSHIP $29,824.48
NJ PALISADES PARK BOROUGH $6,077.50
NJ PALMYRA BOROUGH $1,470.00
NJ PARAMUS BOROUGH $16,855.10
NJ PARK RIDGE BOROUGH $2,400.00
NJ PARSIPPANY-TROY HILLS TOWNSHIP $8,100.00
NJ PASSAIC CITY $25,561.25
NJ PAULSBORO BOROUGH $5,263.50
NJ PEMBERTON TOWNSHIP $4,615.28
NJ PENNSVILLE TOWNSHIP $1,897.63
NJ PEQUANNOCK TOWNSHIP $2,877.00
NJ PERTH AMBOY CITY $10,620.00
NJ PHILLIPSBURG TOWN $8,481.60
NJ PINE HILL BOROUGH $3,029.94
NJ PISCATAWAY TOWNSHIP $6,564.87
NJ PLAINFIELD CITY $16,625.00
NJ PLAINSBORO TOWNSHIP $1,787.50
NJ PLEASANTVILLE CITY $17,019.00
NJ PLUMSTED TOWNSHIP $2,138.50
NJ POINT PLEASANT BEACH BOROUGH $2,443.00

Page 49 ends

113
Item # C9.

NJ POINT PLEASANT BOROUGH $2,674.00
NJ RAHWAY CITY $8,584.83
NJ RAMSEY BOROUGH $4,125.00
NJ RANDOLPH TOWNSHIP $1,600.00
NJ RARITAN BOROUGH $2,650.50
NJ RARITAN TOWNSHIP $2,833.60
NJ RED BANK BOROUGH $2,800.00
NJ RIDGEFIELD BOROUGH $2,630.35
NJ RIDGEFIELD PARK VILLAGE $4,990.00
NJ RIDGEWOOD VILLAGE $9,337.50
NJ RINGWOOD BOROUGH $3,131.38
NJ RIVERDALE BOROUGH $3,029.94
NJ RIVERTON BOROUGH $1,200.00
NJ ROCKAWAY BOROUGH $2,050.00
NJ ROSELAND BOROUGH $6,400.00
NJ ROSELLE BOROUGH $13,782.60
NJ ROSELLE PARK BOROUGH $3,029.94
NJ ROXBURY TOWNSHIP $2,548.80
NJ RUTHERFORD BOROUGH $4,039.92
NJ ROBBINSVILLE TOWNSHIP $2,836.35
NJ SADDLE BROOK TOWNSHIP $4,708.96
NJ SADDLE RIVER BOROUGH $3,087.00
NJ SALEM COUNTY $20,556.79
NJ SCOTCH PLAINS TOWNSHIP $5,313.00
NJ SECAUCUS TOWN $11,452.00
NJ SOMERDALE BOROUGH $1,514.97
NJ SOMERVILLE BOROUGH $2,625.00
NJ SOUTH BRUNSWICK TOWNSHIP $2,140.00
NJ SOUTH ORANGE VILLAGE TOWNSHIP $9,011.70
NJ SPARTA TOWNSHIP $4,000.00
NJ SUMMIT CITY $2,190.00
NJ TEANECK TOWNSHIP $22,386.00
NJ TENAFLY BOROUGH $2,621.82
NJ TRENTON CITY $42,553.30
NJ UNION CITY $13,640.00
NJ UNION TOWNSHIP $8,250.00
NJ UPPER SADDLE RIVER BOROUGH $2,000.00
NJ VINELAND CITY $19,548.00
NJ VOORHEES TOWNSHIP $1,786.90
NJ WALDWICK BOROUGH $3,157.91
NJ WALL TOWNSHIP $7,414.40
NJ WALLINGTON BOROUGH $4,000.00
NJ WANAQUE BOROUGH $3,822.00
NJ WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP $9,594.81
NJ WAYNE TOWNSHIP $22,440.60
NJ WEEHAWKEN TOWNSHIP $7,574.85
NJ WEST DEPTFORD TOWNSHIP $4,544.91
NJ WEST MILFORD TOWNSHIP $4,447.23
NJ WEST NEW YORK TOWN $12,000.00

Page 50 ends

114
Item # C9.

NJ WEST ORANGE TOWNSHIP $8,882.50
NJ WEST WILDWOOD BOROUGH $800.00
NJ WESTAMPTON TOWNSHIP $3,067.63
NJ WESTFIELD TOWN $5,049.90
NJ WHARTON BOROUGH $7,051.44
NJ WILLINGBORO TOWNSHIP $6,800.00
NJ WINSLOW TOWNSHIP $10,604.79
NJ WOODBURY CITY $2,685.00
NJ WOODCLIFF LAKE BOROUGH $4,208.56
NJ WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP $3,704.40
NJ WINFIELD TOWNSHIP $1,787.50
Totals for NJ(227 Jurisdictions): $1,375,108.93
NM ALAMOGORDO CITY $6,000.00
NM ALBUQUERQUE CITY $32,586.87
NM BOSQUE FARMS VILLAGE $6,000.00
NM CLOVIS CITY $2,500.00
NM CORRALES VILLAGE $2,505.00
NM CURRY COUNTY $13,842.00
NM DEMING CITY $6,772.50
NM DONA ANA COUNTY $6,075.65
NM EDDY COUNTY $16,584.00
NM FARMINGTON CITY $23,200.00
NM HOBBS CITY $355.00
NM LOS LUNAS VILLAGE $3,200.00
NM LOS ALAMOS COUNTY $2,650.00
NM NEW MEXICO $5,797.67
NM PUEBLO OF SANDIA $4,818.00
NM RAMAH NAVAJO CHAPTER $1,500.00
NM RIO ARRIBA COUNTY $1,866.00
NM RIO RANCHO CITY $13,844.67
NM RUIDOSO VILLAGE $4,692.00
NM SANTA FE COUNTY $4,434.37
NM SILVER CITY TOWN $4,400.00
NM SOCORRO COUNTY $5,390.00
NM SPRINGER TOWN $1,200.00
NM TAOS TOWN $5,724.00
NM TORRANCE COUNTY $9,200.00
NM VALENCIA COUNTY $8,077.50
Totals for NM(26 Jurisdictions): $193,215.23
NV BOULDER CITY $3,974.50
NV CLARK COUNTY SCH DIST $11,126.63
NV ELKO CITY $1,820.00
NV ELKO COUNTY $13,750.00
NV EUREKA COUNTY $2,250.00
NV FALLON CITY $1,999.98
NV LINCOLN COUNTY $7,200.00
NV LYON COUNTY $13,216.00
NV NEVADA $1,826.28
NV NYE COUNTY $37,960.00

Page 51 ends

115
Item # C9.

NV PYRAMID LAKE PAIUTE TRIBE $7,425.00
NV STOREY COUNTY $2,441.10
Totals for NV(12 Jurisdictions): $104,989.49
NY ALBANY CITY $49,275.00
NY AMITYVILLE VILLAGE $4,800.00
NY AMSTERDAM CITY $5,472.50
NY ARCADE VILLAGE $2,121.50
NY AUBURN CITY $4,000.00
NY AVON VILLAGE $800.00
NY BATAVIA CITY $2,833.65
NY BEACON CITY $4,365.35
NY BETHLEHEM TOWN $2,912.00
NY BINGHAMTON CITY $22,000.00
NY BLASDELL VILLAGE $4,032.00
NY BREWSTER VILLAGE $2,975.00
NY BRIGHTON TOWN $2,500.00
NY CANAJOHARIE VILLAGE $3,722.84
NY CANANDAIGUA CITY $3,825.00
NY CANASTOTA VILLAGE $5,599.98
NY CANTON VILLAGE $1,530.00
NY CATTARAUGUS COUNTY $11,200.00
NY CHEEKTOWAGA TOWN $11,047.46
NY CHEMUNG COUNTY $5,805.80
NY CHENANGO COUNTY $3,694.25
NY CHESTER TOWN $5,518.00
NY CICERO TOWN $2,705.50
NY CLARKSTOWN TOWN $29,550.00
NY CLINTON COUNTY $2,500.00
NY COHOES CITY $13,995.50
NY COLONIE TOWN $13,230.00
NY COLUMBIA COUNTY $12,381.25
NY CORNWALL ON HUDSON VILLAGE $1,140.00
NY CORNWALL TOWN $2,347.38
NY CORTLAND CITY $6,023.00
NY CORTLAND COUNTY $10,944.88
NY CRAWFORD TOWN $6,250.00
NY CROTON ON HUDSON VILLAGE $1,970.00
NY DE WITT TOWN $4,333.89
NY DEERPARK TOWN $2,874.20
NY DELAWARE COUNTY $3,300.00
NY DEPEW VILLAGE $3,035.60
NY DOBBS FERRY VILLAGE $4,571.45
NY DUNKIRK CITY $3,149.60
NY EAST AURORA VILLAGE $1,564.86
NY EAST HAMPTON TOWN $12,325.00
NY EASTCHESTER TOWN $3,872.40
NY ELMIRA CITY $5,162.35
NY ENDICOTT VILLAGE $6,576.85
NY EVANS TOWN $4,207.50

Page 52 ends

116
Item # C9.

NY FALLSBURG TOWN $3,806.40
NY FISHKILL TOWN $10,450.30
NY FORT PLAIN VILLAGE $1,200.00
NY FRANKFORT TOWN $800.00
NY FRANKFORT VILLAGE $2,005.00
NY FREEPORT VILLAGE $5,648.48
NY GATES TOWN $1,789.88
NY GENESEE COUNTY $5,305.15
NY GENESEO VILLAGE $438.86
NY GENEVA CITY $2,316.60
NY GLENVILLE TOWN $1,402.08
NY GLOVERSVILLE CITY $5,753.40
NY GRAND ISLAND TOWN $2,250.00
NY GREECE TOWN $7,004.00
NY GREENBURGH TOWN $8,052.00
NY GREENE COUNTY $4,800.00
NY GREENWOOD LAKE VILLAGE $2,115.75
NY GUILDERLAND TOWN $2,934.75
NY HAMBURG TOWN $6,948.00
NY HASTINGS ON HUDSON VILLAGE $7,572.95
NY HEMPSTEAD VILLAGE $11,805.80
NY HERKIMER COUNTY $3,200.00
NY HOLLEY VILLAGE $3,976.05
NY HORNELL CITY $7,822.35
NY HUDSON CITY $7,980.88
NY HUDSON FALLS VILLAGE $1,087.50
NY HUNTER TOWN $2,985.80
NY HUNTINGTON BAY VILLAGE $4,852.50
NY HYDE PARK TOWN $1,905.33
NY ILION VILLAGE $3,325.00
NY IRONDEQUOIT TOWN $4,590.00
NY ITHACA CITY $11,937.00
NY JAMESTOWN CITY $2,603.65
NY JOHNSTOWN CITY $2,184.00
NY KENMORE VILLAGE $2,259.00
NY KENT TOWN $1,854.78
NY KINGSTON CITY $20,000.00
NY LACKAWANNA CITY $12,119.38
NY LAKE SUCCESS VILLAGE $511.00
NY LAKEWOOD VILLAGE $1,787.50
NY LANCASTER TOWN $5,122.00
NY LE ROY VILLAGE $1,380.30
NY LEWISBORO TOWN $1,050.00
NY LEWISTON VILLAGE $2,875.00
NY LIBERTY VILLAGE $2,823.60
NY LITTLE FALLS CITY $4,800.56
NY LOCKPORT CITY $2,351.90
NY LONG BEACH CITY $1,800.00
NY MACEDON TOWN $2,158.65

Page 53 ends

117
Item # C9.

NY MADISON COUNTY $15,625.00
NY MAMARONECK TOWN $7,635.60
NY MAMARONECK VILLAGE $14,836.97
NY MANLIUS TOWN $2,702.70
NY MARLBOROUGH TOWN $2,565.00
NY MEDINA VILLAGE $1,650.00
NY MENANDS VILLAGE $4,855.50
NY MIDDLEPORT VILLAGE $2,375.00
NY MIDDLETOWN CITY $7,125.00
NY MONROE VILLAGE $2,803.00
NY MONTGOMERY VILLAGE $2,012.04
NY MOUNT HOPE TOWN $1,450.00
NY MOUNT VERNON CITY $16,957.50
NY MT. MORRIS $1,018.80
NY NEW CASTLE TOWN $3,800.00
NY NEW HARTFORD TOWN $3,015.35
NY NEW ROCHELLE CITY $25,758.00
NY NEW WINDSOR TOWN $7,600.00
NY NEWBURGH CITY $5,400.00
NY NIAGARA FALLS CITY $57,200.00
NY NORFOLK TOWN $2,288.58
NY NORTH COLLINS TOWN $393.99
NY NORTH GREENBUSH TOWN $2,944.74
NY NORTH SALEM TOWN $1,200.00
NY NORTH TONAWANDA CITY $11,811.65
NY NORWICH CITY $787.98
NY OGDEN TOWN $906.75
NY OGDENSBURG CITY $3,122.40
NY OLD WESTBURY VILLAGE $2,151.20
NY ONEIDA CITY $4,452.00
NY ORISKANY VILLAGE $6,000.00
NY OWEGO VILLAGE $3,150.00
NY PEEKSKILL CITY $4,808.44
NY PENN YAN VILLAGE $800.00
NY PERRY VILLAGE $1,589.00
NY PIERMONT VILLAGE $1,600.00
NY PLATTSBURGH CITY $5,662.50
NY PLEASANTVILLE VILLAGE $4,242.24
NY PORT BYRON VILLAGE $772.20
NY PORT CHESTER VILLAGE $3,582.96
NY PORT JERVIS CITY $6,650.00
NY POTSDAM VILLAGE $995.00
NY POUGHKEEPSIE CITY $10,169.60
NY POUGHKEEPSIE TOWN $8,996.82
NY PUTNAM COUNTY $49,764.00
NY QUOGUE VILLAGE $3,702.60
NY RIVERHEAD TOWN $20,900.00
NY ROME CITY $2,548.00
NY ROTTERDAM TOWN $5,490.00

Page 54 ends

118
Item # C9.

NY RYE BROOK VILLAGE $4,020.00
NY RYE CITY $3,740.00
NY SARATOGA SPRINGS CITY $9,600.00
NY SCHENECTADY CITY $12,720.65
NY SCHOHARIE COUNTY $10,275.00
NY SCHUYLER COUNTY $3,664.04
NY SENECA COUNTY $5,004.00
NY SENECA FALLS VILLAGE $1,590.00
NY SHERRILL CITY $800.00
NY SLEEPY HOLLOW VILLAGE $2,222.85
NY SOLVAY VILLAGE $4,192.50
NY SOMERS TOWN $1,969.95
NY SOUTH GLENS FALLS VILLAGE $5,131.62
NY SOUTHAMPTON TOWNSHIP $16,653.95
NY SPRING VALLEY VILLAGE $5,865.00
NY SPRINGVILLE VILLAGE $1,050.00
NY STEUBEN COUNTY $9,150.00
NY SUFFERN VILLAGE $5,542.00
NY SULLIVAN COUNTY $7,425.00
NY TARRYTOWN VILLAGE $850.00
NY TIOGA COUNTY $6,116.25
NY TONAWANDA CITY $1,731.00
NY TONAWANDA TOWN $7,998.08
NY TROY CITY $16,800.00
NY TUCKAHOE VILLAGE $3,880.00
NY TUPPER LAKE VILLAGE $1,200.00
NY UTICA CITY $36,800.00
NY VERNON VILLAGE $2,800.00
NY VESTAL TOWN $9,075.00
NY WALDEN VILLAGE $2,232.42
NY WALLKILL TOWN $3,156.00
NY WAPPINGERS FALLS VILLAGE $1,880.85
NY WARREN COUNTY $22,110.81
NY WATERFRONT COMM OF NEW YORK HARBOR $4,900.00
NY WAYNE COUNTY $11,851.78
NY WELLSVILLE VILLAGE $2,133.35
NY WEST SENECA TOWN $1,575.96
NY WESTFIELD VILLAGE $4,244.12
NY WHITE PLAINS CITY $18,000.00
NY WHITESBORO VILLAGE $1,474.20
NY WOODBURY TOWN $4,114.31
NY WOODSTOCK TOWN $2,983.20
NY WYOMING COUNTY $8,000.00
NY YATES COUNTY $9,456.75
NY YORKTOWN TOWN $6,867.38
Totals for NY(189 Jurisdictions): $1,194,500.80
OH ARCHBOLD VILLAGE $1,128.09
OH ASHLAND COUNTY $9,184.00
OH ATHENS CITY $6,000.00

Page 55 ends

119
Item # C9.

OH ATHENS COUNTY $8,559.20
OH AURORA CITY $11,667.50
OH BARBERTON CITY $3,250.00
OH BAY VILLAGE CITY $1,355.00
OH BEACHWOOD CITY $4,237.10
OH BEAVERCREEK CITY $7,496.25
OH BEDFORD CITY $3,325.00
OH BEDFORD HEIGHTS CITY $4,472.50
OH BELLVILLE VILLAGE $4,361.99
OH BLUE ASH CITY $2,062.50
OH BRATENAHL VILLAGE $4,385.00
OH BRIMFIELD TOWNSHIP $1,653.72
OH BRUNSWICK HILLS TOWNSHIP $800.00
OH CANFIELD CITY $3,581.40
OH CANTON CITY $22,080.00
OH CHAGRIN FALLS VILLAGE $2,096.20
OH CHILLICOTHE CITY $3,955.99
OH CLAY TOWNSHIP $1,505.82
OH COLERAIN TOWNSHIP $5,248.80
OH CORTLAND CITY $1,888.00
OH CUYAHOGA FALLS CITY $2,820.00
OH CUYAHOGA METROPOLITAN HOUSING AUTHORITY $13,289.25
OH DALTON VILLAGE $4,000.00
OH DEER PARK CITY $1,462.50
OH DEFIANCE CITY $2,514.00
OH DELHI TOWNSHIP $1,600.00
OH DOYLESTOWN VILLAGE $500.00
OH EUCLID CITY $14,000.00
OH EVENDALE VILLAGE $2,064.00
OH FAIRBORN CITY $1,600.00
OH FINDLAY CITY $8,215.99
OH FOREST PARK CITY $3,196.50
OH FRANKLIN TOWNSHIP $5,610.00
OH FREMONT CITY $3,600.00
OH GALLIA COUNTY $3,200.00
OH GARFIELD HEIGHTS CITY $13,500.00
OH GERMANTOWN VILLAGE $4,575.00
OH GREEN TOWNSHIP $3,600.00
OH GROVE CITY $4,043.50
OH GROVEPORT VILLAGE $4,163.18
OH HAMILTON CITY $30,917.69
OH HANCOCK COUNTY $9,410.00
OH HIGHLAND HEIGHTS CITY $4,910.18
OH HILLIARD CITY $9,516.76
OH HILLSBORO CITY $2,180.48
OH HOLLAND VILLAGE $1,000.00
OH HUBER HEIGHTS CITY $2,433.29
OH HURON CITY $2,340.00
OH HURON COUNTY $4,305.00

Page 56 ends

120
Item # C9.

OH KENTON CITY $1,456.00
OH KIRTLAND CITY $893.00
OH LAKEWOOD CITY $17,004.00
OH LANCASTER CITY $10,400.00
OH LIMA CITY $11,200.00
OH LORAIN CITY $1,061.00
OH MACEDONIA CITY $1,010.50
OH MANSFIELD CITY $13,600.00
OH MARSHALLVILLE VILLAGE $1,200.00
OH MARYSVILLE CITY $2,500.00
OH MASON CITY $5,627.50
OH MAYFIELD VILLAGE $5,052.50
OH MEDINA CITY $1,988.00
OH MENTOR CITY $9,763.20
OH MIAMI TOWNSHIP $10,375.13
OH MIAMISBURG CITY $4,359.25
OH MILFORD CITY $5,070.00
OH MILTON TOWNSHIP $2,000.00
OH MORAINE CITY $4,761.50
OH MOUNT HEALTHY CITY $1,781.25
OH MUSKINGUM COUNTY $10,526.76
OH NEW LEBANON VILLAGE $2,924.97
OH NEWARK CITY $2,000.00
OH NORTH OLMSTED CITY $7,950.00
OH NORTH ROYALTON CITY $6,000.00
OH NORTHFIELD VILLAGE $2,400.00
OH NORTON CITY $740.60
OH NORWOOD CITY $3,280.00
OH OAKWOOD CITY $2,375.00
OH OAKWOOD VILLAGE $1,600.00
OH OREGON CITY $5,634.00
OH OTTAWA COUNTY $6,140.99
OH OTTAWA HILLS VILLAGE $3,140.00
OH OWENSVILLE VILLAGE $5,242.50
OH OXFORD CITY $2,000.00
OH PAINESVILLE CITY $6,931.94
OH PARMA CITY $9,050.00
OH PERRYSBURG CITY $5,000.00
OH PICKAWAY COUNTY $23,169.83
OH PIERCE TOWNSHIP $2,400.00
OH PIQUA CITY $4,613.58
OH PORTSMOUTH CITY $5,850.18
OH POWELL VILLAGE $5,031.36
OH PERRY TOWNSHIP $3,464.95
OH RAVENNA CITY $2,500.00
OH REMINDERVILLE VILLAGE $3,983.00
OH RICHMOND HEIGHTS CITY $6,800.00
OH SANDUSKY CITY $3,440.00
OH SCIOTO COUNTY $5,496.00

Page 57 ends

121
Item # C9.

OH SHAKER HEIGHTS CITY $6,486.00
OH SHARONVILLE CITY $4,519.50
OH SHAWNEE TOWNSHIP $5,089.58
OH SHELBY CITY $1,487.50
OH SIDNEY CITY $4,714.05
OH SILVER LAKE VILLAGE $799.99
OH SINCLAIR COMMUNITY COLL $4,013.00
OH SPRINGBORO CITY $9,758.68
OH SPRINGFIELD CITY $15,153.13
OH STREETSBORO CITY $2,830.00
OH TROTWOOD CITY $1,092.75
OH TROY CITY $3,216.65
OH TUSCARAWAS COUNTY $4,998.75
OH TWINSBURG CITY $3,800.00
OH UNION CITY $4,466.00
OH UNION COUNTY $9,080.00
OH UNIVERSITY HEIGHTS CITY $2,100.00
OH UPPER ARLINGTON CITY $4,226.00
OH URBANA CITY $800.00
OH VALLEY VIEW VILLAGE $2,200.00
OH VANDALIA CITY $6,201.65
OH WADSWORTH CITY $3,578.80
OH WALTON HILLS VILLAGE $1,504.00
OH WARREN CITY $4,000.00
OH WASHINGTON COUNTY $10,081.50
OH WEST MILTON VILLAGE $719.27
OH WESTERVILLE CITY $4,000.00
OH WESTLAKE CITY $5,911.20
OH WICKLIFFE CITY $5,317.20
OH WILLOUGHBY HILLS CITY $2,415.80
OH WORTHINGTON CITY $4,206.30
OH XENIA CITY $1,480.50
OH YOUNGSTOWN CITY $12,800.00
Totals for OH(134 Jurisdictions): $692,697.67
OK ADA CITY $9,405.00
OK ARDMORE CITY $4,800.00
OK BARTLESVILLE CITY $6,012.50
OK BIXBY CITY $7,665.00
OK BLANCHARD CITY $5,840.00
OK CANADIAN COUNTY $2,915.48
OK CHICKASHA CITY $4,323.75
OK CHOCTAW CITY $735.00
OK CLAREMORE CITY $9,056.25
OK COLLINSVILLE CITY $1,513.00
OK ELK CITY $4,035.00
OK ENID CITY $9,885.50
OK GLENPOOL CITY $4,008.76
OK MCALESTER CITY $5,355.00
OK MOORE CITY $16,705.50

Page 58 ends

122
Item # C9.

OK MUSKOGEE CITY $5,268.68
OK MUSKOGEE COUNTY $6,800.00
OK MUSTANG CITY $3,040.00
OK NEWCASTLE CITY $9,730.88
OK NINNEKAH TOWN $1,600.00
OK NOBLE CITY $1,017.00
OK OKLAHOMA $81,659.07
OK OKLAHOMA COUNTY $814.40
OK OWASSO CITY $6,075.00
OK PONCA CITY $4,725.00
OK SALLISAW CITY $3,595.00
OK SHAWNEE CITY $5,850.00
OK STROUD CITY $795.00
OK TUTTLE CITY $2,291.75
OK WOODWARD CITY $2,706.00
Totals for OK(30 Jurisdictions): $228,223.52
OR ALBANY CITY $5,530.00
OR ASHLAND CITY $9,292.50
OR ASTORIA CITY $1,361.00
OR AUMSVILLE CITY $2,164.50
OR BEAVERTON CITY $20,475.00
OR BOARDMAN CITY $9,190.00
OR BURNS CITY $1,600.00
OR CANBY CITY $2,695.00
OR CENTRAL POINT CITY $2,850.00
OR CLATSOP COUNTY $14,000.00
OR COOS COUNTY $26,880.00
OR COQUILLE CITY $2,280.00
OR CORVALLIS CITY $10,000.00
OR CROOK COUNTY $3,000.00
OR DALLAS CITY $3,640.00
OR FLORENCE CITY $2,975.00
OR GLADSTONE CITY $1,820.00
OR GRANTS PASS CITY $11,010.00
OR HERMISTON CITY $4,149.47
OR HOOD RIVER CITY $2,100.00
OR HUBBARD CITY $1,200.00
OR INDEPENDENCE CITY $2,810.00
OR JOSEPHINE COUNTY $9,430.00
OR JUNCTION CITY $3,870.00
OR KEIZER CITY $5,745.00
OR LA GRANDE CITY $1,710.00
OR LAKE OSWEGO CITY $13,110.00
OR LEBANON CITY $2,370.00
OR LINCOLN CITY $5,500.20
OR LINCOLN COUNTY $5,700.00
OR MCMINNVILLE CITY $5,125.00
OR MILWAUKIE CITY $4,075.00
OR MONMOUTH TOWN $4,875.50

Page 59 ends

123
Item # C9.

OR MOUNT ANGEL CITY $1,211.50
OR MYRTLE CREEK CITY $2,800.00
OR NYSSA CITY $2,058.00
OR OREGON CITY $2,957.50
OR POLK COUNTY $2,782.50
OR REDMOND CITY $4,400.00
OR REEDSPORT CITY $3,245.00
OR ROSEBURG CITY $6,030.00
OR SILVERTON CITY $2,150.00
OR SPRINGFIELD CITY $9,749.04
OR STAYTON CITY $2,300.00
OR SUTHERLIN CITY $2,679.00
OR SWEET HOME CITY $2,167.00
OR THE DALLES CITY $7,951.59
OR TILLAMOOK CITY $4,398.00
OR TILLAMOOK COUNTY $6,454.00
OR TOLEDO CITY $1,856.17
OR TUALATIN CITY $6,355.00
OR WARRENTON CITY $1,600.00
OR WASCO COUNTY $4,537.50
OR WOODBURN CITY $2,625.00
Totals for OR(54 Jurisdictions): $282,839.97
PA ABINGTON TOWNSHIP $10,174.42
PA ADAMS TOWNSHIP (MARS) $6,195.00
PA ADAMS TOWNSHIP (SIDMAN) $3,600.00
PA ALBURTIS BOROUGH $2,241.87
PA ALLEGHENY COUNTY HOUSING AUTHORITY $2,430.00
PA ARMSTRONG COUNTY $2,432.02
PA ASTON TOWNSHIP $3,306.45
PA ATHENS TOWNSHIP $6,000.00
PA BALLY BOROUGH $1,438.05
PA BEAVER BOROUGH $3,200.00
PA BEDFORD COUNTY $9,600.00
PA BELL ACRES BOROUGH $1,125.00
PA BELLEVUE BOROUGH $1,200.00
PA BELLWOOD BOROUGH $2,312.48
PA BENSALEM TOWNSHIP $17,705.40
PA BERLIN BOROUGH $1,185.00
PA BERWICK BOROUGH $4,079.96
PA BETHEL PARK MUNICIPALITY $6,862.50
PA BETHLEHEM CITY $18,400.00
PA BIRMINGHAM TOWNSHIP $1,677.98
PA BLOOMSBURG TOWN $4,526.02
PA BRADFORD CITY $2,537.50
PA BRECKNOCK TOWNSHIP $3,542.50
PA BRISTOL BOROUGH $1,787.50
PA BRISTOL TOWNSHIP $6,307.13
PA BUCKINGHAM TOWNSHIP $1,782.78
PA BUSHKILL TOWNSHIP $1,218.00

Page 60 ends

124
Item # C9.

PA BUTLER CITY $1,600.00
PA BUTLER TOWNSHIP $3,600.00
PA CAMBRIDGE SPRGS BOROUGH $2,800.00
PA CARBON COUNTY $2,175.00
PA CARROLL TOWNSHIP (DILLSBURG) $1,835.78
PA CARROLL TOWNSHIP (MONONGAHELA) $2,800.00
PA CARROLL VALLEY BOROUGH $1,807.50
PA CENTRAL BUCKS REGIONAL POLICE DEPT $5,732.00
PA CHARLEROI BOROUGH $5,700.00
PA CHELTENHAM TOWNSHIP $15,600.00
PA CHESTER CITY $13,958.85
PA CHRISTIANA BOROUGH $1,537.50
PA CLAIRTON CITY $1,964.00
PA CLARION BOROUGH $4,500.00
PA CLARKS SUMMIT BOROUGH $441.87
PA CLEARFIELD BOROUGH $1,200.00
PA CLEONA BOROUGH $1,200.00
PA COAL TOWNSHIP $2,157.00
PA COATESVILLE CITY $1,122.59
PA COLLIER TOWNSHIP $6,359.78
PA CONEMAUGH TOWNSHIP $2,970.00
PA CONEWAGO TOWNSHIP $1,742.82
PA CORAOPOLIS BOROUGH $552.50
PA CRANBERRY TOWNSHIP $1,912.50
PA CRAWFORD COUNTY $4,304.97
PA CUMRU TOWNSHIP $3,745.56
PA DANVILLE BOROUGH $400.00
PA DARBY BOROUGH $4,205.00
PA DERRY TOWNSHIP $3,000.00
PA DOUGLASS TOWNSHIP $1,230.00
PA DOVER TOWNSHIP $4,895.40
PA DOWNINGTOWN BOROUGH $956.00
PA DUBLIN BOROUGH $985.00
PA EAST BRANDYWINE TOWNSHIP POLICE $1,191.06
PA EAST PIKELAND TOWNSHIP $1,968.00
PA EAST WHITELAND TOWNSHIP $7,165.13
PA ELK COUNTY $3,482.43
PA EMMAUS BOROUGH $2,315.95
PA ERIE CITY $26,125.00
PA ETNA BOROUGH $3,598.00
PA EAST FALLOWFIELD TOWNSHIP $1,799.90
PA EASTTOWN TOWNSHIP $2,195.00
PA FARRELL CITY $2,820.00
PA FERGUSON TOWNSHIP $3,780.00
PA FINDLAY TOWNSHIP $2,662.50
PA FOREST CITY BOROUGH $3,300.00
PA FOUNTAIN HILL BOROUGH $999.00
PA FRACKVILLE BOROUGH $2,000.00
PA FREEDOM TOWNSHIP $597.50

Page 61 ends

125
Item # C9.

PA GETTYSBURG BOROUGH $2,321.99
PA GIRARD BOROUGH $3,600.00
PA GLASSPORT BOROUGH $1,101.09
PA GREEN TREE BOROUGH $2,937.50
PA HALIFAX BOROUGH $2,400.00
PA HANOVER BOROUGH $3,459.00
PA HARRISBURG CITY $30,375.00
PA HATBORO BOROUGH $1,110.00
PA HATFIELD TOWNSHIP $4,621.95
PA HAVERFORD TOWNSHIP $8,742.65
PA HAWLEY BOROUGH $2,400.00
PA HELLERTOWN BOROUGH $3,205.70
PA HEMLOCK TOWNSHIP $3,059.65
PA HIGHSPIRE BOROUGH $400.00
PA HILLTOWN TOWNSHIP $1,604.39
PA HOPEWELL TOWNSHIP $7,072.50
PA HORSHAM TOWNSHIP $2,698.85
PA HULMEVILLE BOROUGH $916.35
PA HUNTINGDON BOROUGH $5,400.00
PA HARRISBURG INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT $984.73
PA INDIANA COUNTY $2,769.48
PA INDIANA TOWNSHIP $3,100.00
PA JEANNETTE CITY $4,800.00
PA JEFFERSON BOROUGH $4,050.00
PA JENKINTOWN BOROUGH $4,536.56
PA JUNIATA COUNTY $1,200.00
PA KENNEDY TOWNSHIP $983.00
PA KENNETT SQUARE BOROUGH $2,187.50
PA KINGSTON BOROUGH $7,682.40
PA LANCASTER CITY $17,612.00
PA LANCASTER TOWNSHIP $482.70
PA LANSDALE BOROUGH $4,896.84
PA LANSDOWNE BOROUGH $3,343.95
PA LAWRENCE TOWNSHIP $1,679.00
PA LEBANON CITY $4,702.50
PA LEHIGHTON BOROUGH $3,699.00
PA LEWISTOWN BOROUGH $2,245.00
PA LINESVILLE BOROUGH $536.89
PA LOCK HAVEN CITY $2,080.00
PA LOCUST TOWNSHIP $487.76
PA LOWER MERION TOWNSHIP $21,913.00
PA LOWER MORELAND TOWNSHIP $2,888.61
PA LOWER PAXTON TOWNSHIP $7,260.50
PA LOWER PROVIDENCE TOWNSHIP $1,988.93
PA LOWER SALFORD TOWNSHIP $3,525.00
PA LOWER SAUCON TOWNSHIP $1,890.00
PA LOWER SOUTHAMPTON TOWNSHIP $1,585.46
PA MAHONING TOWNSHIP $994.80
PA MAIDEN CREEK TOWNSHIP $2,741.81

Page 62 ends

126
Item # C9.

PA MALVERN BOROUGH $1,208.00
PA MANHEIM TOWNSHIP $8,228.00
PA MARCUS HOOK BOROUGH $1,600.00
PA MARLBOROUGH TOWNSHIP $761.98
PA MARPLE TOWNSHIP $2,527.77
PA MCCANDLESS TOWN $11,590.00
PA MCDONALD BOROUGH $1,600.00
PA MCKEAN COUNTY $4,590.00
PA MEADVILLE CITY $1,709.56
PA MIDDLEBURG BOROUGH $617.50
PA MIDDLESEX TOWNSHIP $400.00
PA MIDDLETOWN TOWNSHIP $6,180.00
PA MIFFLIN COUNTY $10,460.49
PA MIFFLIN COUNTY REGIONAL DISTRICT $1,300.00
PA MILLCREEK TOWNSHIP $8,800.00
PA MILLERSVILLE BOROUGH $2,000.00
PA MILTON BOROUGH $2,582.00
PA MORRISVILLE BOROUGH $6,378.32
PA MOSCOW BOROUGH $900.00
PA MOUNT JOY BOROUGH $3,834.00
PA MUHLENBERG TOWNSHIP $4,172.00
PA MUNCY BOROUGH $1,400.00
PA MURRYSVILLE MUNICIPALITY $2,450.00
PA NEW BRITAIN TOWNSHIP $2,835.00
PA NEW CASTLE CITY $7,113.00
PA NEW SEWICKLEY TOWNSHIP $2,400.00
PA NEW WILMINGTON BOROUGH $399.50
PA NEWBERRY TOWNSHIP $1,517.50
PA NEWTOWN TOWNSHIP $4,715.37
PA NEWVILLE BOROUGH $1,202.33
PA NORRISTOWN BOROUGH $10,021.22
PA NORTH LONDONDERRY TOWNSHIP $1,103.93
PA NORTH MIDDLETON TOWNSHIP $4,400.00
PA NORTHAMPTON BOROUGH $2,098.00
PA NORTHAMPTON TOWNSHIP $4,250.40
PA NORTHERN CAMBRIA BOROUGH $400.00
PA NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY $4,400.00
PA NEW TOWN BOROUGH $1,634.00
PA NORTHWEST REGIONAL POLICE $1,936.00
PA O HARA TOWNSHIP $2,000.00
PA OXFORD BOROUGH $445.70
PA PALMERTON BOROUGH $3,532.00
PA PALMYRA BOROUGH $1,162.35
PA PARKSIDE BOROUGH $2,033.12
PA PATTON TOWNSHIP $2,569.93
PA PENN HILLS MUNICIPALITY $5,256.00
PA PENN TOWNSHIP (HANOVER) $1,243.39
PA PENN TOWNSHIP (IRWIN) $3,860.00
PA PERKASIE BOROUGH $6,337.50

Page 63 ends

127
Item # C9.

PA PETERS TOWNSHIP $10,485.00
PA PHOENIXVILLE BOROUGH $4,206.36
PA PINE CREEK TOWNSHIP $764.99
PA PITTSTON CITY $1,371.24
PA PLAINFIELD TOWNSHIP $1,258.00
PA PLYMOUTH TOWNSHIP $2,909.73
PA POTTSVILLE CITY $3,200.00
PA PROSPECT BOROUGH $1,047.25
PA PUNXSUTAWNEY BOROUGH $3,807.00
PA POCONO MOUNTAIN REGIONAL POLICE COMMISSION $3,195.00 PA QUAKERTOWN BOROUGH $1,532.50
PA QUARRYVILLE BOROUGH $3,883.50
PA RICE TOWNSHIP $2,400.00
PA RIDLEY PARK BOROUGH $4,000.00
PA RIVERSIDE BOROUGH $1,045.00
PA ROCKLEDGE BOROUGH $1,600.00
PA ROSCOE BOROUGH $2,540.00
PA ROSS TOWNSHIP $2,800.00
PA RICHLAND TOWNSHIP $1,539.71
PA SADSBURY TOWNSHIP $2,625.00
PA SALISBURY TOWNSHIP $2,827.48
PA SCHUYLKILL TOWNSHIP BOARD OF SUPERVISORS $899.91
PA SCOTT TOWNSHIP (BLOOMBURG) $4,000.00
PA SCOTT TOWNSHIP (CARNEGIE) $4,387.50
PA SCOTT TOWNSHIP (SCOTT TOWNSHIP) $4,125.00
PA SELLERSVILLE BOROUGH $527.00
PA SHAMOKIN DAM BOROUGH $2,000.00
PA SHARPSVILLE BOROUGH $1,250.00
PA SLIPPERY ROCK BOROUGH $2,660.00
PA SNYDER COUNTY $4,004.90
PA SOLEBURY TOWNSHIP $1,193.36
PA SOMERSET COUNTY $3,200.00
PA SOUDERTON BOROUGH $399.62
PA SOUTH BEAVER TOWNSHIP $3,242.28
PA SOUTH LEBANON TOWNSHIP $4,000.00
PA SOUTH PARK TOWNSHIP $494.00
PA SOUTH STRABANE TOWNSHIP $2,900.00
PA SOUTH WEST GREENSBURG BOROUGH $3,472.50
PA SOUTH WILLIAMSPORT BOROUGH $753.54
PA SOUTHERN CHESTER COUNTY REGIONAL $2,578.77
PA SPRING CITY BOROUGH $530.62
PA SPRING TOWNSHIP $550.00
PA SPRINGETTSBURY TOWNSHIP $3,412.50
PA SPRINGFIELD TOWNSHIP (SPRINGFIELD) $3,024.51
PA SPRINGFIELD TOWNSHIP (WYNDMOOR) $2,976.45
PA STATE COLLEGE BOROUGH $10,400.00
PA STEELTON BOROUGH $1,141.30
PA STRASBURG BOROUGH $429.50
PA STROUD AREA REGIONAL POLICE DEPARTMENT $13,870.50

Page 64 ends

128
Item # C9.

PA SUGARLOAF TOWNSHIP $2,062.44
PA SUMMIT HILL BOROUGH $1,124.00
PA SUSQUEHANNA COUNTY $12,730.00
PA SUSQUEHANNA TOWNSHIP $2,760.25
PA SWATARA TOWNSHIP $8,643.91
PA TARENTUM BOROUGH $1,252.00
PA TELFORD BOROUGH $1,557.28
PA TOWAMENCIN TOWNSHIP $3,830.19
PA TREDYFFRIN TOWNSHIP $2,164.53
PA TULPEHOCKEN TOWNSHIP $1,200.00
PA UNION CITY BOROUGH $324.50
PA UPPER DARBY TOWNSHIP $8,899.50
PA UPPER DUBLIN TOWNSHIP $6,695.00
PA UPPER MAKEFIELD TOWNSHIP $2,864.23
PA UPPER NAZARETH TOWNSHIP $2,172.15
PA UPPER POTTSGROVE TOWNSHIP $1,200.00
PA UPPER SOUTHAMPTON TOWNSHIP $2,887.50
PA UPPER ST CLAIR TOWNSHIP $2,348.00
PA UPPER PERK POLICE DISTRICT $1,607.97
PA VERONA BOROUGH $2,400.00
PA WARREN CITY $2,487.50
PA WARREN COUNTY $7,757.91
PA WARRINGTON TOWNSHIP $2,222.50
PA WASHINGTON CITY $2,000.00
PA WASHINGTON TOWNSHIP $2,400.05
PA WAYNE COUNTY $11,109.43
PA WEATHERLY BOROUGH $330.04
PA WELLSBORO BOROUGH $2,062.50
PA WEST BRANDYWINE TOWNSHIP $1,275.00
PA WEST CHESTER BOROUGH $5,300.00
PA WEST DEER TOWNSHIP $1,747.50
PA WEST EARL TOWNSHIP $1,920.00
PA WEST FALLOWFIELD TOWNSHIP $800.00
PA WEST LAMPETER TOWNSHIP $2,939.15
PA WEST MANHEIM TOWNSHIP $716.48
PA WEST NORRITON TOWNSHIP $3,472.54
PA WEST READING BOROUGH $1,221.89
PA WEST SHORE REGIONAL POLICE DEPARTMENT $3,837.60
PA WEST VINCENT TOWNSHIP $800.66
PA WEST WHITELAND TOWNSHIP $2,400.00
PA WHITEHALL TOWNSHIP $3,147.00
PA WHITEMARSH TOWNSHIP $3,822.00
PA WHITPAIN TOWNSHIP $5,410.80
PA WILKES BARRE CITY $12,170.40
PA WILLIAMSPORT CITY $8,750.00
PA WILSON BOROUGH $1,958.00
PA WRIGHT TOWNSHIP $2,400.00
PA WYOMISSING BOROUGH $1,325.00
PA YEADON BOROUGH $3,086.07

Page 65 ends

129
Item # C9.

PA YORK CITY $10,881.57
Totals for PA(273 Jurisdictions): $992,225.11
PR ISABELA $10,000.00
PR MUNICIPALITY OF CABO ROJO $18,000.00
Totals for PR(2 Jurisdictions): $28,000.00
RI BURRILLVILLE TOWN $5,370.00
RI CENTRAL FALLS CITY $12,259.00
RI CUMBERLAND TOWN $5,687.50
RI EAST GREENWICH TOWN $13,425.00
RI GLOCESTER TOWN $2,400.00
RI HOPKINTON TOWN $6,475.00
RI JAMESTOWN TOWN $1,073.00
RI LINCOLN TOWN $8,973.00
RI LITTLE COMPTON TOWN $1,706.18
RI MIDDLETOWN TOWN $5,882.40
RI NARRAGANSETT TOWN $9,397.50
RI NORTH KINGSTOWN TOWN $4,734.00
RI NORTH PROVIDENCE TOWN $12,000.00
RI NORTH SMITHFIELD TOWN $2,880.00
RI PAWTUCKET CITY $21,000.00
RI PORTSMOUTH TOWN $4,750.00
RI RICHMOND TOWN $2,450.00
RI SOUTH KINGSTOWN TOWN $4,400.00
RI SMITHFIELD $6,800.00
RI TIVERTON TOWN $14,188.99
RI WARWICK CITY $34,023.50
RI WEST WARWICK TOWN $4,719.60
RI WESTERLY TOWN $12,306.25
RI WOONSOCKET CITY $10,200.00
Totals for RI(24 Jurisdictions): $207,100.92
SC ABBEVILLE COUNTY $2,337.50
SC ANDERSON CITY $18,476.59
SC BARNWELL CITY $1,998.00
SC BEAUFORT CITY $3,888.08
SC BENNETTSVILLE CITY $10,044.50
SC CENTRAL TOWN $805.50
SC CHARLESTON COUNTY AVIATION AUTHORITY $1,267.40
SC CHEROKEE COUNTY $4,344.84
SC CHESTER COUNTY $2,030.00
SC CHESTERFIELD COUNTY $7,237.50
SC CLARENDON COUNTY $2,484.00
SC CLEMSON CITY $3,729.54
SC CLINTON CITY $2,914.00
SC CONWAY $2,696.43
SC DORCHESTER COUNTY $7,492.33
SC EDGEFIELD COUNTY $4,280.00
SC EDISTO BEACH TOWN $2,418.93
SC FLORENCE CITY $3,200.00
SC GOOSE CREEK CITY $8,665.00

Page 66 ends

130
Item # C9.

SC GREENVILLE COUNTY $4,870.66
SC GREENWOOD CITY $4,319.73
SC GREER CITY $9,116.13
SC GREENVILLE-SPARTANBURG INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT $2,033.45 SC HARDEEVILLE CITY $1,825.00
SC HARTSVILLE CITY $4,406.50
SC HORRY COUNTY $21,262.97
SC JASPER COUNTY $10,726.00
SC LANCASTER COUNTY $6,443.36
SC LANDRUM CITY $493.09
SC LORIS CITY $1,434.29
SC MAULDIN CITY $440.96
SC MOUNT PLEASANT TOWN $5,444.47
SC MYRTLE BEACH CITY $39,473.26
SC NEWBERRY COUNTY $3,199.00
SC NORTH AUGUSTA CITY $8,618.88
SC NORTH CHARLESTON CITY $4,747.91
SC OCONEE COUNTY $13,780.00
SC PICKENS COUNTY $4,282.20
SC PORT ROYAL TOWN $3,626.04
SC RICHLAND COUNTY $11,513.55
SC ROCK HILL CITY $15,525.90
SC SIMPSONVILLE CITY $8,008.00
SC SOUTH CAROLINA $148,097.88
SC SPARTANBURG CITY $8,025.00
SC SPARTANBURG COUNTY $24,181.33
SC SUMMERVILLE TOWN $6,933.60
SC SUMTER CITY $13,022.88
SC SURF SIDE BEACH $3,788.00
SC TEGA CAY CITY $3,820.15
SC TRAVELERS REST CITY $3,249.04
SC WEST COLUMBIA CITY $2,889.90
SC WILLIAMSTON TOWN $1,546.16
Totals for SC(52 Jurisdictions): $491,455.43
SD ABERDEEN CITY $4,276.86
SD BEADLE COUNTY $1,940.00
SD BELLE FOURCHE CITY $4,811.00
SD BROOKINGS CITY $2,865.00
SD CANTON CITY $750.00
SD CHARLES MIX COUNTY $1,275.00
SD CLAY COUNTY $4,313.44
SD CUSTER COUNTY $2,392.65
SD DAVISON COUNTY $426.34
SD HURON CITY $3,000.00
SD LINCOLN COUNTY $3,118.50
SD MCPHERSON COUNTY $1,950.00
SD MOBRIDGE CITY $4,275.00
SD PERKINS COUNTY $3,200.00
SD POTTER COUNTY $843.05

Page 67 ends

131
Item # C9.

SD RAPID CITY $12,168.00
SD SISSETON CITY $1,541.54
SD UNION COUNTY $1,647.50
SD VERMILLION CITY $2,400.00
SD YANKTON CITY $3,857.50
SD YANKTON COUNTY $2,521.60
Totals for SD(21 Jurisdictions): $63,572.98
TN ALCOA CITY $10,013.00
TN ANDERSON COUNTY $29,295.00
TN BAXTER TOWN $1,560.00
TN BOLIVAR CITY $3,575.00
TN BRISTOL CITY $3,810.00
TN BROWNSVILLE CITY $4,305.57
TN BARTLETT $15,000.00
TN CARROLL COUNTY $3,736.00
TN COCKE COUNTY $3,695.90
TN COLLIERVILLE TOWN $7,800.00
TN COOKEVILLE CITY $10,000.00
TN CROSSVILLE CITY $4,000.00
TN DANDRIDGE TOWN $2,055.00
TN DAYTON CITY $5,200.00
TN DUNLAP CITY $1,350.00
TN DYER CITY $2,350.00
TN DYERSBURG CITY $4,200.00
TN EAST RIDGE CITY $6,175.00
TN ELIZABETHTON CITY $5,590.00
TN FAIRVIEW CITY $3,300.00
TN FRANKLIN CITY $11,250.00
TN GALLATIN CITY $7,742.50
TN GATLINBURG CITY $555.00
TN GOODLETTSVILLE CITY $5,850.00
TN GREENE COUNTY $7,350.00
TN GREENEVILLE TOWN $6,291.00
TN GRUNDY COUNTY $2,800.00
TN HAMILTON COUNTY $9,467.31
TN HAWKINS COUNTY $16,875.00
TN HAYWOOD COUNTY $6,289.50
TN HENDERSON COUNTY $4,218.68
TN HENDERSONVILLE CITY $12,599.79
TN HICKMAN COUNTY $4,193.75
TN HUMBOLDT CITY $2,760.00
TN JACKSBORO TOWN $2,205.00
TN JEFFERSON CITY $2,634.00
TN JOHNSON CITY $12,600.00
TN KINGSPORT CITY $7,035.00
TN KNOX COUNTY SCHOOLS SCHOOL SECURITY DIVISION $11,134.00 TN LA FOLLETTE CITY $1,755.00
TN LAVERGNE CITY $2,626.28
TN LENOIR CITY $3,300.00

Page 68 ends

132
Item # C9.

TN LEWISBURG CITY $1,937.50
TN MADISON COUNTY $15,480.00
TN MANCHESTER CITY $2,975.00
TN MARTIN CITY $625.00
TN MAURY COUNTY $4,473.81
TN MOSHEIM TOWN $1,600.00
TN MOUNT PLEASANT CITY $2,105.63
TN MT JULIET CITY $9,209.59
TN OLIVER SPRINGS TOWN $8,589.00
TN OVERTON COUNTY $5,035.50
TN PARIS CITY $3,200.00
TN PIGEON FORGE CITY $5,700.00
TN PLAINVIEW CITY $945.00
TN PULASKI CITY $3,572.00
TN ROBERTSON COUNTY $5,062.50
TN ROANE COUNTY GOVERNMENT $4,603.05
TN SEVIER COUNTY $5,651.19
TN SEVIERVILLE CITY $8,000.00
TN SHELBYVILLE CITY $7,600.00
TN SIGNAL MOUNTAIN TOWN $3,473.75
TN SMITHVILLE CITY $4,000.00
TN SOUTH PITTSBURG CITY $3,600.00
TN SPARTA CITY $1,499.98
TN SULLIVAN COUNTY $24,075.46
TN SWEETWATER CITY $1,260.00
TN TENNESSEE $3,452.58
TN TIPTON COUNTY $1,380.00
TN TRACY CITY TOWN $1,600.00
TN TULLAHOMA CITY $4,340.00
TN WASHINGTON COUNTY $5,552.94
TN WHITE BLUFF TOWN $1,153.50
TN WHITE COUNTY $8,000.00
TN WHITE HOUSE CITY $2,312.50
TN SPRINGFIELD $4,070.00
Totals for TN(76 Jurisdictions): $434,677.76
TX ABILENE CITY $1,465.91
TX ALAMO HEIGHTS CITY $895.00
TX ALDINE IND SCH DISTRICT 902 $13,019.13
TX ALICE CITY $7,170.00
TX ALLEN CITY $6,990.13
TX ALVIN CITY $6,000.00
TX ANNA CITY $2,790.00
TX ATASCOSA COUNTY $16,900.00
TX AUBREY CITY $3,325.50
TX AZLE CITY $2,761.50
TX BALCH SPRINGS CITY $6,400.00
TX BALCONES HEIGHTS CITY $7,300.00
TX BANDERA TOWN $3,132.22
TX BASTROP COUNTY $3,309.29

Page 69 ends

133
Item # C9.

TX BAY CITY $4,039.20
TX BAYTOWN CITY $18,665.00
TX BEDFORD TOWN $8,000.00
TX BELLAIRE CITY $3,088.73
TX BELLMEAD CITY $1,406.00
TX BELTON CITY $2,000.00
TX BENBROOK CITY $5,068.70
TX BEVERLY HILLS CITY $2,183.94
TX BIG SPRING CITY $4,367.75
TX BORGER CITY $5,151.83
TX BOWIE COUNTY $5,950.00
TX BRAZORIA COUNTY $2,901.57
TX BRENHAM CITY $4,160.00
TX BRIDGEPORT CITY $2,820.00
TX BRYAN CITY $16,165.50
TX BUDA CITY $985.00
TX BURNET COUNTY $8,300.00
TX BRIDGE CITY $2,347.80
TX CAMERON CITY $4,400.00
TX CANYON CITY $2,562.60
TX CEDAR HILL CITY $3,980.00
TX CEDAR PARK CITY $6,400.00
TX CLEBURNE CITY $7,485.00
TX COMAL COUNTY $14,837.21
TX CONROE CITY $18,702.00
TX CONROE IND SCH DIST 902 $8,000.00
TX CORINTH CITY $8,347.00
TX CORPUS CHRISTI CITY $3,257.57
TX CORSICANA CITY $3,575.00
TX CRANE COUNTY $1,719.82
TX CROWLEY CITY $4,274.96
TX CITY OF RED OAK $2,025.00
TX DAYTON CITY $7,600.00
TX DECATUR CITY $1,801.50
TX DEER PARK CITY $5,817.50
TX DEL RIO CITY $5,821.50
TX DENISON CITY $5,600.00
TX DESOTO CITY $12,024.26
TX DICKINSON CITY $2,937.50
TX DUNCANVILLE CITY $13,670.00
TX DALLAS-FORT WORTH INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT BOARD $7,546.57 TX EAGLE LAKE CITY $1,842.96
TX EARLY CITY $1,020.00
TX EDNA CITY $2,135.74
TX EL CAMPO CITY $11,391.75
TX EL PASO COUNTY $7,583.62
TX EL PASO IND SCH DIST 902 $11,050.00
TX ELLIS COUNTY $4,096.40
TX ENNIS CITY $14,700.00

Page 70 ends

134
Item # C9.

TX EULESS CITY $9,200.00
TX FAIR OAKS RANCH CITY $3,600.00
TX FARMERS BRANCH CITY $9,850.00
TX FLOWER MOUND CITY $4,427.25
TX FORT BEND COUNTY $9,452.04
TX FREDERICKSBURG CITY $8,078.75
TX FRIENDSWOOD CITY $4,800.00
TX FULSHEAR CITY $2,582.50
TX GAINESVILLE CITY $1,845.12
TX GARRISON CITY $305.43
TX GARZA COUNTY $2,379.67
TX GATESVILLE CITY $1,967.50
TX GILLESPIE COUNTY $2,000.00
TX GRANBURY CITY $5,937.00
TX GRAPEVINE CITY $12,554.87
TX GRAYSON COUNTY $1,988.12
TX GREENVILLE CITY $6,448.84
TX GROVES CITY $765.65
TX HALLETTSVILLE CITY $1,453.49
TX HALTOM CITY $2,671.41
TX HARKER HEIGHTS CITY $5,850.00
TX HARLINGEN CITY $6,529.00
TX HARRIS COUNTY $119,186.24
TX HAYS COUNTY $10,475.12
TX HEARNE CITY $2,275.00
TX HEATH CITY $4,432.50
TX HELOTES CITY $4,232.19
TX HENDERSON COUNTY $22,695.00
TX HEREFORD CITY $4,115.00
TX HEWITT CITY $2,754.50
TX HICKORY CREEK TOWN $2,905.83
TX HIGHLAND PARK CITY $10,191.50
TX HIGHLAND VILLAGE CITY $2,697.00
TX HILL COUNTRY VILLAGE $3,275.79
TX HONDO CITY $4,000.00
TX HOOD COUNTY $10,601.00
TX HOUSTON CITY $126,230.73
TX HOWARD COUNTY $2,250.00
TX HUNT COUNTY $2,765.06
TX HUNTSVILLE CITY $10,000.00
TX HURST CITY $7,886.83
TX HUTCHINS CITY $7,200.00
TX HEMPSTEAD INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT $1,190.00
TX HOUSTON INDEPENDENT SCHOOL $1,234.95
TX INGLESIDE CITY $5,896.50
TX IOWA PARK CITY $1,208.35
TX JACINTO CITY $2,780.00
TX JACK COUNTY $2,624.83
TX JACKSBORO CITY $2,278.90

Page 71 ends

135
Item # C9.

TX JACKSON COUNTY $2,220.00
TX JASPER CITY $2,201.85
TX JONES COUNTY $1,250.00
TX JOURDANTON CITY $2,000.00
TX KAUFMAN CITY $4,975.00
TX KELLER CITY $7,547.50
TX KERR COUNTY $3,163.50
TX KILGORE CITY $7,097.81
TX KILLEEN CITY $13,030.27
TX KINGSVILLE CITY $5,996.80
TX LA GRANGE CITY $795.85
TX LA PORTE CITY $7,880.00
TX LAKEWAY CITY $5,260.50
TX LAMPASAS CITY $2,782.62
TX LAREDO CITY $20,034.04
TX LEE COUNTY $1,400.00
TX LEVELLAND CITY $9,375.00
TX LITTLE ELM TOWN $10,272.00
TX LIVE OAK CITY $1,350.00
TX LIVINGSTON TOWN $4,435.76
TX LOCKHART CITY $2,125.00
TX LONGVIEW CITY $30,424.50
TX LORENA CITY $815.00
TX LOS FRESNOS CITY $1,040.99
TX LUFKIN CITY $5,690.00
TX LYTLE CITY $1,110.00
TX MABANK TOWN $5,100.00
TX MANOR CITY $5,176.71
TX MANSFIELD IND SCH DIST 908 $7,935.66
TX MCLENNAN COUNTY $8,049.08
TX MEDINA COUNTY $13,597.88
TX MELISSA CITY $2,422.00
TX MINERAL WELLS CITY $4,000.00
TX MISSION CITY $14,382.00
TX MONT BELVIEU TOWN $4,960.00
TX MONTGOMERY CITY $5,783.40
TX MORGANS POINT CITY $2,400.00
TX MULESHOE CITY $2,650.28
TX MCALLEN INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT $24,043.34
TX NAVASOTA CITY $2,923.83
TX NEDERLAND CITY $5,237.00
TX NEW BRAUNFELS CITY $18,300.00
TX NORTH RICHLAND HILLS CITY $15,585.44
TX ODESSA CITY $2,931.82
TX ORANGE CITY $5,443.50
TX PALMHURST CITY $6,000.00
TX PALO PINTO COUNTY $1,421.81
TX PARIS CITY $8,407.50
TX PASADENA CITY $12,154.80

Page 72 ends

136
Item # C9.

TX PINEHURST CITY $442.50
TX PLAINVIEW CITY $2,810.00
TX PRINCETON CITY $2,006.61
TX RICHARDSON CITY $9,008.60
TX RICHLAND HILLS CITY $2,800.00
TX RICHMOND CITY $2,775.00
TX RIO GRANDE CITY IND SCH DIST 901 $6,399.97
TX RIVER OAKS CITY $4,000.00
TX ROBINSON CITY $2,603.83
TX ROCKDALE CITY $4,230.00
TX ROCKWALL CITY $10,771.54
TX ROCKWALL COUNTY $3,039.93
TX ROSENBERG CITY $12,487.50
TX ROUND ROCK CITY $12,132.41
TX ROWLETT CITY $10,617.72
TX SACHSE CITY $2,243.08
TX SAGINAW CITY $6,170.46
TX SAN ANGELO CITY $826.61
TX SAN BENITO CITY $4,700.39
TX SCHERTZ CITY $1,611.33
TX SEABROOK CITY $3,120.00
TX SEAGOVILLE CITY $3,360.00
TX SEGUIN CITY $5,406.96
TX SELMA CITY $4,261.36
TX SHAVANO PARK CITY $5,600.00
TX SHERMAN CITY $10,615.63
TX SMITHVILLE CITY $1,959.10
TX SUGAR LAND CITY $2,864.63
TX SULPHUR SPRINGS CITY $2,156.97
TX SWEETWATER CITY $2,311.20
TX TAYLOR CITY $3,960.00
TX TEMPLE CITY $14,368.00
TX TERRELL CITY $11,936.00
TX TEXARKANA CITY $3,629.14
TX TEXAS $34,702.03
TX THE COLONY CITY $8,834.91
TX TROPHY CLUB TOWN $1,600.00
TX TROY CITY $1,064.51
TX TULIA CITY $1,131.00
TX UNITED IND SCH DIST 903 $4,211.31
TX VAL VERDE COUNTY $8,400.00
TX VAN ALSTYNE TOWN $2,307.00
TX VICTORIA COUNTY $16,410.20
TX WACO CITY $5,558.23
TX WALKER COUNTY $2,600.00
TX WALLER TOWN $1,790.00
TX WEATHERFORD CITY $12,000.00
TX WESLACO CITY $4,174.50
TX WESTWORTH VILLAGE $1,917.96

Page 73 ends

137
Item # C9.

TX WHARTON CITY $2,851.78
TX WHARTON COUNTY $26,680.00
TX WICHITA FALLS CITY $2,244.67
TX WILLOW PARK CITY $4,477.50
TX WINDCREST CITY $4,474.60
TX WISE COUNTY $6,000.00
TX WOOD COUNTY $400.00
TX WOODWAY CITY $2,225.00
TX WYLIE CITY $6,001.14
Totals for TX(219 Jurisdictions): $1,539,797.47
UT BOUNTIFUL CITY $2,400.00
UT BRIGHAM CITY $3,465.21
UT CARBON COUNTY $6,750.00
UT CENTERVILLE CITY $1,500.00
UT CLEARFIELD CITY $4,956.00
UT COTTONWOOD HEIGHTS $2,718.30
UT DRAPER CITY $2,850.00
UT DUCHESNE COUNTY $5,985.56
UT EMERY COUNTY $13,110.00
UT FARMINGTON CITY $2,400.00
UT GARFIELD COUNTY $4,314.27
UT HEBER CITY $2,800.00
UT HERRIMAN CITY $8,000.00
UT HURRICANE CITY $5,497.25
UT KAYSVILLE CITY $2,970.00
UT LAYTON CITY $11,085.75
UT LOGAN CITY $11,400.00
UT MORGAN COUNTY $2,000.00
UT NAPLES CITY $900.00
UT NEPHI CITY $2,095.00
UT NORTH LOGAN CITY $1,290.00
UT NORTH OGDEN CITY $6,400.00
UT NORTH SALT LAKE CITY $2,722.50
UT OREM CITY $20,000.00
UT ROY CITY $9,000.00
UT SANDY CITY $16,125.00
UT SARATOGA SPRINGS TOWN $9,174.00
UT SOUTH SALT LAKE CITY $9,742.20
UT SPANISH FORK CITY $4,364.84
UT SPRINGVILLE CITY $7,200.00
UT SYRACUSE CITY $645.00
UT TOOELE CITY $1,950.00
UT TOOELE COUNTY $12,340.00
UT UINTAH COUNTY $11,151.00
UT WASATCH COUNTY $11,400.00
UT WASHINGTON CITY $7,012.50
UT WEST BOUNTIFUL CITY $2,110.50
UT WILLARD CITY $652.00
Totals for UT(38 Jurisdictions): $230,476.88

Page 74 ends

138
Item # C9.

VA AMHERST COUNTY $3,875.00
VA ASHLAND TOWN $2,572.50
VA BEDFORD COUNTY $11,905.30
VA BERRYVILLE TOWN $800.00
VA BIG STONE GAP TOWN $5,070.00
VA BLACKSTONE TOWN $750.00
VA BOTETOURT COUNTY $4,141.50
VA BUCKINGHAM COUNTY $2,100.00
VA CAMPBELL COUNTY $5,640.00
VA CAROLINE COUNTY $6,392.00
VA CHARLOTTESVILLE CITY $16,942.17
VA CHILHOWIE TOWN $761.61
VA CHRISTIANSBURG TOWN $4,674.20
VA COLONIAL HEIGHTS CITY $4,130.00
VA COVINGTON CITY $2,400.00
VA CULPEPER COUNTY $10,407.00
VA DANVILLE CITY $13,202.50
VA DINWIDDIE COUNTY $4,536.00
VA DUMFRIES TOWN $2,319.60
VA EMPORIA CITY $3,875.00
VA FAIRFAX CITY $8,000.00
VA FARMVILLE TOWN $1,557.50
VA FAUQUIER COUNTY $13,353.00
VA FLOYD COUNTY $735.00
VA FLUVANNA COUNTY $955.08
VA FRANKLIN COUNTY $5,699.40
VA FREDERICKSBURG CITY $10,800.00
VA FRONT ROYAL TOWN $5,929.00
VA GALAX CITY $3,097.80
VA GORDONSVILLE TOWN $1,009.50
VA GRAYSON COUNTY $2,045.50
VA GREENE COUNTY $6,144.41
VA GREENSVILLE COUNTY $5,600.00
VA HAYSI TOWN $1,285.00
VA HENRY COUNTY $25,964.40
VA HERNDON TOWN $4,950.00
VA HOPEWELL CITY $2,030.00
VA JAMES CITY COUNTY $16,239.13
VA KING AND QUEEN COUNTY $1,177.50
VA KING GEORGE COUNTY $3,148.90
VA KING WILLIAM COUNTY $2,793.00
VA LEESBURG TOWN $7,741.83
VA LEXINGTON CITY $3,552.50
VA LOUISA COUNTY $5,600.00
VA LURAY TOWN $1,483.56
VA LYNCHBURG CITY $29,838.00
VA MANASSAS CITY $7,437.50
VA MARTINSVILLE CITY $7,020.30
VA MIDDLEBURG TOWN $1,855.00

Page 75 ends

139
Item # C9.

VA MOUNT JACKSON TOWN $2,185.24
VA NEW KENT COUNTY $3,200.00
VA NOTTOWAY COUNTY $2,372.50
VA ORANGE COUNTY $8,372.84
VA PAGE COUNTY $10,938.60
VA PATRICK COUNTY $3,509.80
VA PENINSULA AIRPORT COMMISSION $2,667.00
VA PETERSBURG CITY $8,731.25
VA PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY $23,600.00
VA PORTSMOUTH CITY $59,405.00
VA PRINCE EDWARD COUNTY $4,716.00
VA PRINCE GEORGE COUNTY $6,813.94
VA PULASKI TOWN $6,129.20
VA RAPPAHANNOCK COUNTY $1,960.00
VA ROANOKE COUNTY $20,564.12
VA ROCKBRIDGE COUNTY $8,400.00
VA ROCKY MOUNT TOWN $1,632.50
VA RAPPAHANNOCK REGIONAL JAIL $6,400.00
VA SALEM CITY $4,650.00
VA SHENANDOAH COUNTY $15,852.40
VA SMITHFIELD TOWN $3,960.00
VA SOUTH BOSTON TOWN $11,508.00
VA SOUTH HILL TOWN $7,950.00
VA STANLEY TOWN $1,194.00
VA SUFFOLK CITY $20,947.50
VA SURRY COUNTY $4,005.00
VA VINTON TOWN $2,667.50
VA WASHINGTON COUNTY $8,109.00
VA WESTMORELAND COUNTY $2,940.00
VA WINCHESTER CITY $14,800.00
VA WISE COUNTY $9,785.00
VA WISE TOWN $700.00
VA WESTERN VIRGINIA REGIONAL JAIL $6,400.00
Totals for VA(82 Jurisdictions): $590,603.58
VT BARRE CITY $1,956.00
VT BARRE TOWN $1,398.00
VT BENNINGTON TOWN $4,477.50
VT BERLIN TOWN $600.50
VT BRANDON TOWN $1,596.00
VT BRATTLEBORO TOWN $4,945.50
VT BURLINGTON CITY $6,805.80
VT CASTLETON TOWN $2,125.00
VT ESSEX JUNCTION VILLAGE $3,245.00
VT GRAND ISLE COUNTY $1,398.00
VT HARDWICK TOWN $800.00
VT HARTFORD TOWN $5,716.00
VT LAMOILLE COUNTY $4,800.00
VT MIDDLEBURY TOWN $2,334.14
VT MILTON TOWN $2,337.88

Page 76 ends

140
Item # C9.

VT MONTPELIER CITY $4,000.00
VT MORRISTOWN TOWN $2,395.00
VT NORTHFIELD TOWN $2,000.01
VT NORWICH TOWN $800.00
VT ORANGE COUNTY $3,600.00
VT RUTLAND CITY $1,582.50
VT SHELBURNE TOWN $1,950.00
VT SOUTH BURLINGTON CITY $6,000.00
VT SPRINGFIELD TOWN $1,048.50
VT VERGENNES CITY $2,800.00
VT WASHINGTON COUNTY $1,820.00
VT WILMINGTON TOWN $995.00
Totals for VT(27 Jurisdictions): $73,526.33
WA ABERDEEN CITY $9,355.89
WA ADAMS COUNTY $3,849.40
WA AIRWAY HEIGHTS CITY $5,619.50
WA ANACORTES CITY $2,234.25
WA ASOTIN COUNTY $2,349.50
WA AUBURN CITY $17,698.55
WA ASOTIN CITY $732.91
WA BAINBRIDGE ISLAND CITY $4,630.00
WA BATTLE GROUND CITY $5,531.54
WA BELLINGHAM CITY $18,278.40
WA BLACK DIAMOND TOWN $1,912.90
WA BOTHELL CITY $16,807.13
WA BREMERTON CITY $9,036.96
WA BRIER CITY $490.50
WA BURLINGTON CITY $5,642.50
WA CASTLE ROCK CITY $2,965.00
WA CHEHALIS CITY $2,272.20
WA CHELAN COUNTY $11,826.31
WA CHENEY CITY $2,525.87
WA CLALLAM COUNTY $15,211.57
WA CLARKSTON CITY $1,898.46
WA CLE ELUM CITY $3,742.94
WA DES MOINES CITY $5,850.00
WA DOUGLAS COUNTY $3,092.91
WA EAST WENATCHEE CITY $2,698.50
WA EATONVILLE TOWN $482.07
WA ELLENSBURG CITY $4,741.27
WA ELMA CITY $532.66
WA ENUMCLAW CITY $5,040.00
WA EPHRATA CITY $1,331.54
WA FEDERAL WAY CITY $29,600.00
WA FERNDALE CITY $2,375.00
WA FIFE CITY $7,009.60
WA GARFIELD COUNTY $1,849.00
WA GIG HARBOR CITY $687.07
WA GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY $11,562.80

Page 77 ends

141
Item # C9.

WA HOQUIAM CITY $480.00
WA ISLAND COUNTY $6,437.01
WA JEFFERSON COUNTY $4,477.97
WA KALAMA CITY $1,117.50
WA KELSO CITY $4,227.36
WA KIRKLAND CITY $17,092.81
WA KITTITAS COUNTY $19,200.00
WA LACEY CITY $6,087.78
WA LAKE FOREST PARK CITY $3,462.56
WA LAKE STEVENS CITY $5,740.34
WA LAKEWOOD CITY $14,800.00
WA LEWIS COUNTY $6,000.00
WA LONGVIEW CITY $7,073.92
WA LYNNWOOD CITY $6,100.81
WA MASON COUNTY $7,854.06
WA MEDINA CITY $627.00
WA MILTON CITY $4,265.00
WA MOSES LAKE CITY $2,205.06
WA MOUNTLAKE TERRACE CITY $7,758.00
WA NEWPORT CITY $382.16
WA OAK HARBOR CITY $3,656.33
WA OCEAN SHORES CITY $2,453.61
WA OKANOGAN COUNTY $4,936.75
WA OLYMPIA CITY $8,128.12
WA OTHELLO CITY $4,541.95
WA PASCO CITY $16,614.50
WA PORT ANGELES CITY $4,809.49
WA PORT TOWNSEND CITY $1,710.00
WA PULLMAN CITY $1,027.48
WA PUYALLUP CITY $5,500.00
WA QUINCY CITY $3,214.89
WA REDMOND CITY $28,187.10
WA RICHLAND CITY $7,452.50
WA RIDGEFIELD CITY $2,280.00
WA SHELTON CITY $6,571.50
WA STEILACOOM TOWN $555.63
WA STEVENS COUNTY $9,194.90
WA SUMNER CITY $4,570.50
WA SUNNYSIDE CITY $11,217.84
WA TOPPENISH CITY $1,012.50
WA TUKWILA CITY $11,957.27
WA TUMWATER CITY $8,300.00
WA TWISP TOWN $947.50
WA UNION GAP CITY $1,275.00
WA WAHKIAKUM COUNTY $7,206.30
WA WALLA WALLA CITY $8,798.00
WA WENATCHEE CITY $8,602.89
WA WESTPORT CITY $1,148.00
WA WHITE SALMON CITY $828.00

Page 78 ends

142
Item # C9.

WA YAKIMA CITY $23,535.00
Totals for WA(86 Jurisdictions): $547,087.59
WI ADAMS COUNTY $2,237.50
WI ALTOONA CITY $1,600.00
WI ANTIGO CITY $1,734.00
WI APPLETON CITY $9,750.00
WI ASHLAND CITY $2,347.48
WI ATHENS VILLAGE $330.00
WI BARABOO CITY $2,570.00
WI BARRON COUNTY $3,130.50
WI BAYFIELD COUNTY $3,570.00
WI BAYSIDE VILLAGE $1,766.00
WI BEAVER DAM CITY $3,419.81
WI BELOIT CITY $14,404.32
WI BELOIT TOWN $2,000.00
WI BERLIN CITY $1,665.22
WI BLACK RIVER FALLS CITY $1,410.84
WI BLOOMER CITY $2,272.50
WI BOSCOBEL CITY $4,007.50
WI BRODHEAD CITY $2,800.00
WI BROOKFIELD CITY $4,092.50
WI BROOKFIELD TOWN $2,500.00
WI BROWN DEER VILLAGE $3,150.00
WI BURLINGTON CITY $2,727.98
WI CALUMET COUNTY $3,232.50
WI CHILTON CITY $4,773.92
WI CHIPPEWA COUNTY $7,793.44
WI CHIPPEWA FALLS CITY $3,267.00
WI CLARK COUNTY $3,338.35
WI COLUMBIA COUNTY $7,353.26
WI CRAWFORD COUNTY $2,000.00
WI CUDAHY CITY $4,249.95
WI DE FOREST VILLAGE $2,237.50
WI DELAVAN TOWN $3,600.00
WI DODGE COUNTY $4,400.00
WI DODGEVILLE CITY $1,806.93
WI DOOR COUNTY $3,241.10
WI DOUGLAS COUNTY $5,421.43
WI DUNN COUNTY $5,700.00
WI EAU CLAIRE CITY $5,746.00
WI EDGERTON CITY $773.08
WI ELLSWORTH VILLAGE $1,989.00
WI ELM GROVE VILLAGE $2,313.50
WI FALL RIVER VILLAGE $3,826.13
WI FITCHBURG CITY $8,063.61
WI FOND DU LAC CITY $9,517.50
WI FOREST COUNTY $3,377.50
WI FORT ATKINSON CITY $1,790.00
WI FOX POINT VILLAGE $1,600.00

Page 79 ends

143
Item # C9.

WI FRANKLIN CITY $5,600.00
WI GENOA CITY VILLAGE $2,487.50
WI GLENDALE CITY $5,200.00
WI GRAFTON VILLAGE $2,600.00
WI GRAND CHUTE TOWN $7,352.50
WI GRANT COUNTY $2,872.50
WI GREEN COUNTY $3,132.50
WI GREEN LAKE COUNTY $8,800.00
WI GREENFIELD CITY $8,800.00
WI HALES CORNERS VILLAGE $1,987.50
WI HAMMOND VILLAGE $430.00
WI HARTFORD CITY $4,553.95
WI HARTLAND VILLAGE $2,000.00
WI HOLMEN VILLAGE $2,115.00
WI HORICON CITY $1,200.00
WI HORTONVILLE VILLAGE $2,109.16
WI IOWA COUNTY $3,200.00
WI JACKSON COUNTY $3,692.57
WI JACKSON VILLAGE $1,200.00
WI JANESVILLE CITY $20,580.00
WI JEFFERSON COUNTY $6,849.22
WI JUNEAU COUNTY $4,400.00
WI KENOSHA CITY $20,982.50
WI KEWASKUM VILLAGE $1,599.98
WI KEWAUNEE COUNTY $1,997.50
WI KIEL CITY $2,247.50
WI KRONEWETTER TOWN $1,025.00
WI LA CROSSE CITY $6,800.00
WI LAFAYETTE COUNTY $13,795.00
WI LAKE DELTON VILLAGE $2,487.50
WI LAKE GENEVA CITY $8,391.00
WI LAKE HALLIE VILLAGE $1,575.00
WI LANCASTER CITY $400.00
WI LANGLADE COUNTY $1,890.50
WI LINCOLN COUNTY $3,940.00
WI LITTLE CHUTE VILLAGE $4,000.00
WI LUXEMBURG VILLAGE $760.36
WI MANITOWOC CITY $8,010.00
WI MANITOWOC COUNTY $3,382.00
WI MARINETTE CITY $4,050.00
WI MARINETTE COUNTY $2,000.00
WI MARQUETTE COUNTY $2,010.00
WI MARSHFIELD CITY $4,042.50
WI MAYVILLE CITY $1,000.00
WI MCFARLAND VILLAGE $375.00
WI MEDFORD CITY $3,877.50
WI MELROSE VILLAGE $412.50
WI MENASHA CITY $3,149.83
WI MENOMINEE COUNTY $800.00

Page 80 ends

144
Item # C9.

WI MENOMONEE FALLS VILLAGE $17,081.00
WI MENOMONIE CITY $4,575.00
WI MEQUON CITY $3,030.00
WI MERRILL CITY $4,286.06
WI MIDDLETON CITY $3,500.00
WI MILTON CITY $1,860.99
WI MONONA CITY $4,027.50
WI MONROE COUNTY $3,144.00
WI MOUNT HOREB VILLAGE $1,342.50
WI MOUNT PLEASANT TOWN $8,239.00
WI MUKWONAGO TOWN $1,315.00
WI MUKWONAGO VILLAGE $1,477.50
WI MUSKEGO CITY $4,800.00
WI NEENAH CITY $3,060.13
WI NEW BERLIN CITY $10,500.00
WI NEW LONDON CITY $1,600.00
WI OAK CREEK CITY $5,017.88
WI OCONOMOWOC TOWN $1,425.00
WI OCONTO COUNTY $2,850.00
WI OMRO CITY $582.00
WI ONALASKA CITY $2,647.00
WI ONEIDA COUNTY $4,185.05
WI OREGON VILLAGE $3,325.00
WI OSHKOSH CITY $10,504.00
WI PALMYRA VILLAGE $1,007.99
WI PEPIN COUNTY $4,000.00
WI PEWAUKEE VILLAGE $1,712.48
WI PIERCE COUNTY $1,200.00
WI PLATTEVILLE CITY $3,672.03
WI PLOVER VILLAGE $2,400.00
WI PLYMOUTH CITY $2,132.85
WI PORT WASHINGTON CITY $9,707.50
WI PORTAGE CITY $982.50
WI PORTAGE COUNTY $4,572.50
WI RACINE CITY $9,387.50
WI RANDOLPH VILLAGE $800.00
WI REEDSBURG CITY $2,685.00
WI RHINELANDER CITY $907.45
WI RICE LAKE CITY $1,461.60
WI RICHLAND CENTER CITY $968.10
WI RICHLAND COUNTY $4,217.50
WI RIVER FALLS CITY $2,312.50
WI RIVER HILLS VILLAGE $4,225.00
WI ROBERTS VILLAGE $610.00
WI ROME TOWN $904.95
WI SAUK COUNTY $4,922.50
WI SAWYER COUNTY $3,080.00
WI SCHOFIELD CITY $1,890.00
WI SEYMOUR CITY $2,400.00

Page 81 ends

145
Item # C9.

WI SHARON VILLAGE $667.80
WI SHAWANO CITY $800.00
WI SHAWANO COUNTY $4,500.00
WI SHOREWOOD VILLAGE $2,247.50
WI SIREN VILLAGE $1,741.50
WI SLINGER VILLAGE $1,850.00
WI SOMERSET VILLAGE $2,328.00
WI SOUTH MILWAUKEE CITY $1,559.25
WI ST FRANCIS CITY $2,125.00
WI STEVENS POINT CITY $4,056.96
WI SUPERIOR CITY $5,405.00
WI ST. CROIX FALLS CITY $457.65
WI SUMMIT VILLAGE $1,343.50
WI TAYLOR COUNTY $1,633.50
WI TOMAH CITY $1,685.50
WI TOMAHAWK CITY $1,775.00
WI TREMPEALEAU COUNTY $2,055.00
WI TREMPEALEAU VILLAGE $1,380.00
WI TWIN LAKES VILLAGE $3,561.50
WI VERNON COUNTY $2,235.00
WI VILLAGE OF FOX CROSSING $1,945.00
WI WALWORTH VILLAGE $1,200.00
WI WATERLOO CITY $1,348.50
WI WATERTOWN CITY $1,875.00
WI WAUKESHA CITY $8,500.00
WI WAUNAKEE VILLAGE $3,150.00
WI WAUPACA CITY $1,938.00
WI WAUPACA COUNTY $5,953.08
WI WAUSAU CITY $9,981.00
WI WAUTOMA CITY $1,512.50
WI WAUWATOSA CITY $8,625.00
WI WEST ALLIS CITY $32,777.04
WI WEST MILWAUKEE VILLAGE $3,237.50
WI WEST SALEM VILLAGE $2,862.50
WI WHITEFISH BAY VILLAGE $3,424.50
WI WHITEHALL CITY $1,000.00
WI WHITEWATER CITY $2,100.00
WI WILLIAMS BAY VILLAGE $1,795.00
WI WOOD COUNTY $5,175.00
WI WRIGHTSTOWN VILLAGE $800.00
Totals for WI(185 Jurisdictions): $700,203.26
WV BARBOURSVILLE VILLAGE $6,699.00
WV BECKLEY CITY $5,167.50
WV CABELL COUNTY $11,639.00
WV CHARLES TOWN CITY $2,787.06
WV CLARKSBURG CITY $4,710.00
WV FAYETTEVILLE TOWN $5,400.00
WV HARRISON COUNTY $9,565.00
WV HUNTINGTON CITY $12,012.50

Page 82 ends

146
Item # C9.

WV HURRICANE CITY $5,109.50
WV LOGAN COUNTY $5,310.00
WV MORGANTOWN CITY $5,600.00
WV MOUNDSVILLE CITY $1,539.98
WV NICHOLAS COUNTY $6,465.00
WV OHIO COUNTY $3,381.00
WV PRINCETON CITY $800.00
WV PUTNAM COUNTY $4,395.00
WV WEIRTON CITY $6,021.00
WV WINFIELD TOWN $800.00
WV WYOMING COUNTY $3,225.00
Totals for WV(19 Jurisdictions): $100,626.54
WY ALBANY COUNTY $7,792.50
WY CODY CITY $2,468.08
WY CROOK COUNTY $520.00
WY DOUGLAS CITY $1,910.00
WY EVANSTON CITY $4,336.50
WY FREMONT COUNTY $18,150.00
WY GILLETTE CITY $4,560.00
WY GREEN RIVER CITY $5,850.00
WY HANNA TOWN $475.00
WY HOT SPRINGS COUNTY $3,579.90
WY LARAMIE CITY $6,174.00
WY MILLS TOWN $3,860.00
WY NATRONA COUNTY $9,600.00
WY RAWLINS CITY $7,599.96
WY RIVERTON CITY $4,020.00
WY ROCK SPRINGS CITY $8,622.00
WY SARATOGA TOWN $1,150.00
WY SHERIDAN CITY $4,626.91
WY SHERIDAN COUNTY $3,337.75
WY SUBLETTE COUNTY $10,939.50
WY TETON COUNTY $6,400.00
WY TORRINGTON TOWN $1,448.69
WY WASHAKIE COUNTY $2,394.50
Totals for WY(23 Jurisdictions): $119,815.29
Report Totals for (4000 Jurisdictions): $25,370,845.00

Page 83 ends

147
Item # C9.

City of Milpitas, California

BUDGET CHANGE FORM

From* To*
Type of Change

Account

Amount

Account

Amount
Check one:

Budget Appropriation

Budget Transfer

100-3557

$11,078

100-7214223

$11,078

Authorize the City Manager to Accept the 2022 Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant in the Amount of $11,078.17 and Approve a Related Budget Appropriation

Background:

The Bulletproof Vest Partnership (BVP) Grant Act of 1998 is a unique U.S. Department of Justice initiative des igned to provide a critical resource to state and local law enforcement. The BVP program ’s purpose is to reimburse state and local law enforcement up to fifty percent of body armor costs. The Milpitas Police Department has been participating in the BVP Grant Program consecutively since 2008.

Analysis:

The Police Officer’s Association Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) section 22.11 compels all uniformed officers to wear a ballistic vest and requires the City of Milpitas to provide each officer with a ballistic vest, and three ballistic ve st covers. Officers not in a uniformed assignment, are required to wear a ballistic vest when circumstances dictate the need for the equipment. The life span of a ballistic vest is five years. After a five -year period, all ballistic vests must be replaced as soon as reasonably possible.

Policy Alternatives:

Alternative 1: Refuse the 2022 Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant of $11,078.17.

Pros: There are no identified benefits to this alternative.

Cons: The City would not be reimbursed for fifty (50) percent of the cost for each ballistic vest purchased by the Police Department through August 31, 2024.

Fiscal Impact:

There are sufficient funds in the Police Department’s FY 2022-23 operating budget to cover the remainder of the cost for 148
Item # C9.
the acquisition of the bulletproof vests. Per the Council approved Budget Guidelines, any unused funds related to this grant will be carried over to the next fiscal year.

California Environmental Quality Act:

Recommendation:

Authorize the City Manager to Accept the 2022 Bulletproof Vest Partnership Grant in the Amount of $11,078.17 and Approve a Related Budget Appropriation.

Attachments:

1. Budget Change Form

2. 2022 BVP Awards List

Check if City Council Approval required. Meeting Date: November 01, 2022

Requested by: Department Head: Jared Hernandez Date: November 01, 2022 Reviewed by: Finance Director: Lauren Lai Date: November 01, 2022

Date approved by City Council, if required: Confirmed by:

FI/24786/V Form 30-222 (Rev. 1/92)
149
Item # C9.

CITY OF MILPITAS

AGENDA REPORT
(AR)

Item Title: Receive a Report on Milpitas HOPE Suicide Prevention Task Force Activities Since September 2021 (Staff Contact: Renee Lorentzen, Director, Recreation and Community Services, 408-586-3409)
Category: Consent Calendar-Community Services and Sustainable Infrastructure Meeting Date: 11/1/2022
Recommendation: Receive the Report on Milpitas HOPE Suicide Prevention Task Force Activities Since September 2021.

BACKGROUND
At its June 19, 2018 meeting, the Milpitas City Council established a Suicide Prevention Policy and Resolution supporting the greater message that suicides are preventable, and “now” is the opportunity to unite as a community in commitment and action to ensure: Suicides are prevented; Those living with mental illness receive support services; Community-based care and close follow-ups are available to people who attempt suicide; Resources and trainings are available to the broader Milpitas Community, in regard to suicide- prevention education.

Following the adoption of the Resolution and Policy, the City staff began forming a collaborative Task Force in September 2018 to support the Policy’s comprehensive goals, objectives and action steps. Now called Milpitas HOPE, the Suicide Prevention Task Force includes both local residents and representatives from other local agencies committed to preventing suicide and supporting survivors. In addition to Milpitas Recreation and Community Services and the Milpitas Police Department, participating agencies include:

- CASSY Bay Area
- Cathedral of Faith
- Child Advocates
- Hope for the Unhoused
- Kaiser Permanente
- Leaders of Tomorrow
- Mid-Peninsula Housing
- Milpitas Unified School District
- NAMI Santa Clara County
- Santa Clara County Behavioral Health Services
- Show Up and Love
- Santa Clara County Veteran Service Office

Milpitas HOPE meets monthly to work on suicide prevention strategies and initiatives in Milpitas and each September, during Suicide Prevention Month, compiles a report on its progress during the previous year and goals for the coming year. Milpitas HOPE met virtually from July 2021-March 2022 and returned to in-person monthly meetings in April. Attendance dipped upon returning to in-person meetings, prompting some discussion of moving to bimonthly meetings. However, attendance has been climbing since July with new members and new initiatives planned.

ANALYSIS:

During 2021-2022, Milpitas HOPE focused on the following areas:

- Continuing to increase cultural diversity on the Task Force and in outreach efforts. - Completing the planned outreach to teens and transitional youth. 150 Item # C10.

- Partnering with public safety to ensure Police are familiar with the many agencies that can help families and individuals experiencing a mental health crisis.
- Providing support and resources to the Asian American Pacific Islander (AAPI) community to address increased fear/stress/depression following an increase in Asian Hate crimes nationwide.

Highlights in cultural diversity and outreach area included adding new resident members from AAPI communities, tabling at Veteran's Day, Holiday Magic and Memorial Day.

The group's most significant outreach to teens and transitional youth was a virtual screening of the documentary Like, about the negative impact of social media. It was viewed by 35 students in the Recreation and Community Services’ middle school LYFE program and online by 25 families.

HOPE's partnership with public safety was its most fruitful effort this year. HOPE worked with the Milpitas Police Department staff to bring guest speakers from local mental health service providers to police shift briefings to provide trainings about the resources they can provide to individuals in crisis. The providers repeat the presentations several times to make the trainings available to every officer on the force. HOPE coordinated presentations by NAMI Santa Clara County, Uplift, Bill Wilson Center and Momentum for Health. These briefing trainings were successful in equipping Milpitas police officers to handle calls for service involving people suffering from mental health illness and, in many cases, allowing officers to quickly summon appropriate mental health services to assist and/or to refer people to alternative resources. The briefing training model is now well-established and ongoing with little need for HOPE's continued involvement. The Milpitas Police Department lieutenant serving on the HOPE task force continues to schedule briefing trainings as new partner organizations are identified. Through its public safety partnership, Milpitas HOPE continues to provide support for families who have experienced a suicide. This year, Social Services staff assisted one bereaved family in making final arrangements, working with insurance, and obtaining financial aid.

Support and resources for the AAPI community included a series of healing circles for both adults and teens emotionally impacted by the spate of Asian hate crimes nationwide.

Other activities this year included supporting and reinforcing County mental health efforts, including the County-wide Gun Buyback in May 2022 and promotion the new, nationwide 988 Suicide and Crisis Lifeline this summer, and additional community discussion on postvention media coverage following a student death in October.

In addition, Milpitas HOPE has promoted various workshops on mental health topics, such as stress and anxiety, as well as social services topics that directly affect mental health in the community, such as financial wellness and domestic violence resources. A total of 418 participants attended 35 workshops this year.

Milpitas HOPE also works through the City's social media and publicity channels to keep suicide prevention resources in the public eye.

Milpitas HOPE’s new focus areas for the coming 2022-23 year are:
- Continuing to increase outreach efforts and cultural diversity to build awareness. - Continuing outreach to teens and transitional youth. Providing outreach to older adults. - Providing outreach to veterans and unhoused.

Workgroups have been assigned to each area and are developing strategies and action items to accomplish in the coming year. The workgroups and staff coordinate closely with Santa Clara County’s Suicide Prevention Program and other local agencies to ensure Milpitas’ projects tie in with regional suicide prevention efforts.

FISCAL IMPACT:

None. HOPE is budgeted within Recreation and Community Services’ Social Services Program area.

RECOMMENDATION:

Receive the Report on Milpitas HOPE Suicide Prevention Task Force Activities Since September 2021. 151
Item # C10.

CITY OF MILPITAS

AGENDA REPORT
(AR)

Item Title: Approve the Purchase of a Police Vehicle, Find the Procurement to be in the Best Interest of the City, and Authorize the City Manager to Execute Any Documents Necessary to Effectuate the Purchase at the Negotiated Amount (Staff Contact:

Matthew Miller, Police Captain, 408-586-2522)
Category: Consent Calendar-Public Safety
Meeting Date: 11/1/2022
Recommendation: Approve the Purchase of a Police Vehicle, Find the Procurement to be in the Best Interest of the City, and Authorize the City Manager to Execute Any Documents Necessary to Effectuate the Purchase at the Negotiated Amount

BACKGROUND:

The Milpitas Police Department currently manages a fleet of police vehicles assigned to Field Services and Special Operations staff throughout the department’s 24-7 operation. The City of Milpitas has a contractual obligation under the Milpitas Police Officer Association’s (MPOA) Memorandum of Understanding to provide vehicles for police operations. It is imperative the police department maintain its fleet of vehicles to effectively provide public safety services to the community.

As part of the FY 2022-23 Adopted Budget approved by Council on June 7, 2022, one (1) unmarked Police Department vehicle was approved to be replaced through the Capital Outlay process. This vehicle is one of nine (9) vehicles currently utilized by the eleven (11) staff members assigned to the Special Operations Division. Without replacement of this vehicle, there would be insufficient vehicles available for Detectives to effectively perform their duties and there is an immediate need to replace this vehicle.

Municipal Code Section I-2-3.03 titled “Procurements where competitive methods are not practicable” provides that the City is not required to engage in competitive procurement as authorized by the City Council to be “in the best interest of the City”.

ANALYSIS:

Typically, the City purchases vehicles using a Sourcewell cooperative agreement such as the National Auto Fleet Group (NAFG) one of the largest cooperative vehicle suppliers in the country, especially for sedans. The use of cooperative agreements, which are a result of competitive solicitations, is typically more effective and efficient than for the City to undergo a competitive procurement process. However, purchases through these agreements are severely impacted by the current supply shortage of vehicles in the automobile market and have an extended delivery period. There are currently no vehicles available for government wholesale purchase through NAFG. While NAFG has limited inventory for patrol vehicles, NAFG has no inventory for unmarked vehicles suitable for police fleet. Furthermore, NAFG also has very limited vehicle availability for retail purchase. The majority of retail vehicles are sold before they are delivered to the dealership due to a backlog of orders. Retail vehicles are not available to the City through the existing cooperative agreement with NAFG.

Staff contacted several local dealerships. Local dealerships also have very limited inventory and are not interested in responding to competitive solicitations. Therefore, as all viable options have been exhausted, staff requests Council authority to purchase a police vehicle directly from a dealership with available inventory consistent with Municipal Code Section 1-2-3.03(d). With this authority, staff will be able to replace the vehicle as soon as possible to meet contractual obligations to replace police vehicles, in support of effective police operations.

POLICY ALTERNATIVE(S): 152
Item # C11.

Alternative 1: Do not authorize the purchase of a police vehicle without a competitive process.

Pros: The City may not incur the open retail market cost of a police vehicle.

Cons: The substantial delay would mean the Police Department would not have enough vehicles for effective operations.

Reason for Not Recommending: The replacement of this vehicle has already been approved by Council through the FY 2022-23 budget adoption and capital outlay process. Due to supply chain and the priority of public safety, the Police Department needs to replace this vehicle as soon as possible.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The purchase would be at the negotiated amount; and the FY2022-23 budget includes $43,013 of appropriations within the equipment replacement fund allocation ($34,987) and the general fund allocation ($8,026). Any amount for the vehicle purchase that exceeds the FY2022-23 budget appropriation can be absorbed in the Police Department’s FY 2022-23 operating budget.

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA):

The action being requested is not a project as defined by CEQA (CEQA Guidelines exemption 15378(b)(2)).

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve the Purchase of a Police Vehicle, Find the Procurement to be in the Best Interest of the City, and Authorize the City Manager to Execute Any Documents Necessary to Effectuate the Purchase.

Attachment(s):

N/A

153
Item # C11.

CITY OF MILPITAS

AGENDA REPORT
(AR)

Item Title: Approve an Additional Budget Appropriation of $17,151 to the Equipment Fund Non-Departmental FY22-23 Operating Budget for the Replacement Purchase of Two Police Vehicles through a Sourcewell Cooperative Contract with National Auto Fleet Group (Staff Contact: Matthew Miller, Police Captain, 408-586-2522) Category: Consent Calendar-Public Safety
Meeting Date: 11/1/2022
Recommendation: Approve an Additional Budget Appropriation of $17,151 to the Equipment Fund Non-Departmental FY22-23 Operating Budget for the Replacement Purchase of Two Police Vehicles through a Sourcewell Cooperative Contract with National Auto Fleet Group

BACKGROUND:

On March 1, 2022, City Council approved a budget appropriation in the amount of $103,931 to the equipment fund non-departmental fiscal year 2021-22 operating budget for the replacement purchase of two police vehicles through a Sourcewell Cooperative Contract with the National Auto Fleet Group (Attachment 1).

Subsequently, an order was placed for the two police vehicles (2022 Ford Interceptors) in March of 2022.

ANALYSIS:

Due to significant delays in production of the vehicles, the manufacturer, Ford, was unable to fulfill the order placed for the two (2) 2022 model vehicles and therefore cancelled the order. As a result, National Auto Fleet Group secured two (2) 2023 model vehicles from Ford to fulfill this order, pending the City’s approval.

However, the cost of the 2023 vehicles is $17,150.66 higher than the original total purchase price approved by Council on March 1, 2022. The total cost of the vehicles is now $121,081.44, therefore; Council approval is requested for the additional cost that exceeds the Purchasing Agent’s change order authority.

Replacing these two vehicles in a timely manner is critical to enable staff to provide essential public safety services. Therefore, a budget appropriation to the Equipment Fund Non-Departmental FY 2022-23 operating budget in the amount of $17,151 is recommended to complete the purchase of two (2) replacement police vehicles through a Sourcewell cooperative contract with the National Auto Fleet Group, thus maintaining the department’s fleet of thirty (30) marked police vehicles.

POLICY ALTERNATIVE(S):

Alternative 1: Do not approve an additional budget appropriation of $17,151 to the equipment fund non- departmental FY22-23 operating budget.

Pros: The City would not incur the additional cost of $17,151 for the two police vehicles.

Cons: The Police Department would not be able to replace the two (2) vehicles needed to maintain current service levels, as the prior amount approved by Council, $103,931, is no longer sufficient to cover the increased cost of the vehicles.

Reason for Not Recommending: $103,931 has already been appropriated for the purchase of these two vehicles. Furthermore, if the vehicles are not replaced, the Police Department would be at risk of not maintaining current service levels and not meeting MOU obligations in respect to vehicle mileage limits.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Staff recommends approval of an additional budget appropriation to the Equipment Fund Non-Departmental FY 2022-23 operating budget in the amount of $17,151 for the purchase of two (2) replacement vehicles, so a total of $121,081.44 is available for the purchase. Any additional cost associated with the purchase of these 154
Item # C12.

two (2) replacement vehicles exceeding this amount can be absorbed by the Police Department’s operating budget.

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA):

The City Council’s action authorizing the City Manager to approve a budget appropriation is exempt from environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15378(b)(2) as a continuing administrative or maintenance activity which is defined in the CEQA Guideline to include the purchases of supplies. It is also exempt under CEQA Guideline 15378(b)(4) as a government fiscal activity.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve an Additional Budget Appropriation of $17,151 to the Equipment Fund Non-Departmental FY22-23 Operating Budget for the Replacement Purchase of Two Police Vehicles through a Sourcewell Cooperative Contract with National Auto Fleet Group

Attachment(s):

1. Agenda Report – March 1, 2022

2. Budget Change Form

155
Item # C12.

CITY OF MILPITAS

AGENDA REPORT
(AR)

Item Title: Approve a Budget Appropriation in the amount of $103,931 to the Equipment Fund Non-departmental FY 2021-22 Operating Budget and Approve the Replacement Purchase of Two Police Vehicles Through a Sourcewell Cooperative Contract with National Auto Fleet Group
Category: Consent Calendar-Public Safety
Meeting Date: 3/1/2022
Staff Contact: Captain Frank Morales, 408-586-2521 & Chris Schroeder, 408-586-3161 Recommendation: Approve a budget appropriation in the amount of $103,931 to the Equipment Fund Non- departmental FY 2021-22 operating budget and approve the replacement purchase of two Police vehicles through a Sourcewell cooperative contract with National Auto Fleet

Background:

The Milpitas Police Department currently manages a fleet of thirty (30) marked police vehicles, assigned to various patrol staff throughout the department’s 24-7 operation. The City of Milpitas has a contractual obligation under the Milpitas Police Officer Association’s (MPOA) Memorandum of Understanding to replace marked patrol vehicles once they acquire 75,000-miles, or up to a maximum extension of 90,000-miles, if the marked patrol vehicle is deemed safe and suitable for patrol purposes. It is imperative the number of vehicles in the police department’s fleet remains furnished to support mileage requirements and staffing needs, in order to maintain current service levels and response times.

In September and October of 2021, two (2) police vehicles were involved in separate traffic collisions within the course of duty which reduced the current fleet from 30 to 28 marked police vehicles. Both collisions resulted in total losses and subsequent insurance payouts for the actual cash value loss of the vehicles, less the City’s insurance deductible of $5,000 for each incident.

Analysis:

The total insurance payout for both vehicles is sufficient to cover the cost of two (2) replacement vehicles; the total insurance payout is $113,653.87 and the total cost for two (2) replacement vehicles is $103,931.

Replacing these two vehicles is critical to enable staff to provide essential public safety services.

Therefore, a budget appropriation to the Equipment Fund Non-departmental FY 2021-22 operating budget in the amount of $103,931 for the two (2) totaled vehicles is recommended and is recommended to be used to purchase two (2) replacement vehicles through a Sourcewell cooperative contract with the National Auto Fleet Group. The insurance payoff exceeds the cost by $9,722.87 which will be added to the fund balance in the Equipment Fund for future use.

Municipal Code Section I-2-3.05 Public Agency Purchases, specifically authorizes the Purchasing Agent to purchase supplies or services without complying with the quotation or bidding requirements of the Chapter, and to make such purchases based on an agreement or cooperative purchasing. On July 28, 2021 Sourcewell solicited Request for Proposal (RFP) No. 091521 for “Automobiles, SUVs, Vans, and Light Trucks with Related Equipment and Accessories” On November 4, 2021 contract No.091521-NAF awarded to the National Auto Fleet Group took effect. Sourcewell is a State of Minnesota local government unit and service cooperative created under the laws of the State of Minnesota through legislative authority of Minnesota Statute 123A.21.Feb 315
Item # C11.
156
Item # C12.

24, 2017, that offers cooperative procurement solutions to government entities.(See: attached Not-To-File – Coop.)
Therefore, staff recommends a budget appropriation of the total insurance payout to the Equipment Fund Non- departmental operating budget for the purchase of two (2) replacement vehicles through a Sourcewell cooperative contract with the National Auto Fleet Group, thus maintaining the department’s fleet of thirty (30) marked police vehicles.

Policy Alternatives:

Alternative 1: Do not approve a budget appropriation in the amount of $103,931 to the Equipment Fund Non- departmental fiscal year 2021-2022 operating budget.

Pros: The City would receive the insurance payout for the two vehicles but not incur the expense of purchasing two (2) Police vehicles.

Cons: The Police Department would not be able to replace the two (2) vehicles needed to maintain current service levels.

Reason not recommended: If the vehicles are not replaced, the Police Department would be at risk of not maintaining current service levels and not meeting MOU obligations in respect to vehicle mileage limits.

Fiscal Impact:

Staff recommends approval of a budget appropriation to the Equipment Fund Non-departmental FY 2021-22 operating budget in the amount of $103,931 for the purchase of two (2) replacement vehicles. The difference between the insurance payout of $113,653.87 and the funds needed to purchase the replacement vehicles in the amount of $9,722.87 will be added to the fund balance in the Equipment Fund for future use. Any additional cost associated with the purchase of these two (2) replacement vehicles exceeding this amount can be absorbed by the Police Department’s operating budget.

California Environmental Quality Act:

The action being requested is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guideline 15378(b)(2) as a continuing administrative activity involving the purchase of supplies and other related equipment for the City which is specifically listed as an action in that respective Guideline.

Recommendation:

Approve a budget appropriation in the amount of $103,931 to the Equipment Fund Non-departmental FY 2021- 22 operating budget for the purchase of two replacement Police vehicles through a Sourcewell cooperative contract with the National Auto Fleet Group.

Attachments:

1. Proof of Loss – September 16, 2021

2. Proof of Loss – October 10, 2021

3. Budget change form

4. Note-To-File - Coop
316
Item # C11.
157
Item # C12.

Sworn Statement in Proof of Loss

$As per form 2021/2022

AMOUNT OF POLICY AT TIME OF LOSS POLICY NUMBER
07/01/2021 N/A

DATE ISSUED AGENCY AT
07/01/2022 N/A

DATE EXPIRES AGENT
To the PLAN JPA
At time of loss, by the above indicated policy of insurance you insured City of Milpitas

against loss by all risk of physical damage to the property described under , according to the terms and conditions of the said policy of and all forms, endorsements, transfers and assignments attached thereto.

1. Time and origin: A vehicle loss occurred about the hour of 11 o’clock A M.

STATE KIND
on the 16th day of September , 2021. The cause and origin of the said loss were: Collision

2. Occupancy: The building described, or containing the property described, was occupied at the time of loss as follows, and for no oth er purpose whatever: 2014 Ford Taurus Police Unit #PT-17, license plate 1442399, VIN 1FAHP2MT1EG163016

3. Title and Interest: At the time of the loss the interest of your insured in the property described therein was sole and unconditional ownership. No other person or persons had any interest therein or encumbrance thereon, except: NO EXCEPTIONS

4. Changes: Since the said policy was issued there has been no assignment thereof, or change of interest, use, occupancy, possession, location or exposure of the property described, except: NO EXCEPTIONS

5. Total Insurance: The total amount of insurance upon the property described by this policy was, at the time of the loss $ As per form

6. Full Replacement Cost of said property at the time of the loss was………………………………………………... $N/A

7. Full Cost of Repair or Replacement is………………………………………………………………………………… $64,090.07

8. Applicable Salvage is……………………………………………………………………………. $ 1,260.00

9. Actual Cash Value Loss is (Line 7 minus Line 8)…………………………………………………………………….. $62,830.70

10. Less Amount of Deductible and/or participation by the insured……………………………………………………. $ 5,000.00

11. Actual Cash Value Claim is (Line 9 minus Line 10)………………………………………………………………….. $57,830.70 Any person who knowingly and with intent to injure, defraud, or deceive any insurance company files a statement of claim or an application containing false, incomplete or misleading information is guilty of a felony of the third degree.

State of California Insured:

County of Notary Public:

Subscribed and sworn before me this day of , Notary Seal 317
Item # C11.
158
Item # C12.

Sworn Statement in Proof of Loss

$As per form 2021/2022

AMOUNT OF POLICY AT TIME OF LOSS POLICY NUMBER
07/01/2021 N/A

DATE ISSUED AGENCY AT
07/01/2022 N/A

DATE EXPIRES AGENT
To the PLAN JPA
At time of loss, by the above indicated policy of insurance you insured City of Milpitas

1. Time and origin: A vehicle loss occurred about the hour of 5 o’clock P M.

STATE KIND
on the 10th day of October , 2021. The cause and origin of the said loss were: Collision

2. Occupancy: The building described, or containing the property described, was occupied at the time of loss as follows, and for no oth er purpose whatever: 2017 Ford Explorer Police Unit #PT-07, license plate 1514513, VIN 1FM5K8AR0HGB39017

5. Total Insurance: The total amount of insurance upon the property described by this policy was, at the time of the loss $ As per form

6. Full Replacement Cost of said property at the time of the loss was………………………………………………... $N/A

7. Full Cost of Repair or Replacement is………………………………………………………………………………… $64,123.17

8. Applicable Salvage is……………………………………………………………………………. $ 3,300.00

9. Actual Cash Value Loss is (Line 7 minus Line 8)…………………………………………………………………….. $60,823.17

10. Less Amount of Deductible and/or participation by the insured……………………………………………………. $ 5,000.00

11. Actual Cash Value Claim is (Line 9 minus Line 10)………………………………………………………………….. $55,823.17 Any person who knowingly and with intent to injure, defraud, or deceive any insurance company files a statement of claim or an application containing false, incomplete or misleading information is guilty of a felony of the third degree.

State of California Insured:

County of Notary Public:

Subscribed and sworn before me this day of , Notary Seal 318
Item # C11.
159
Item # C12.
319
Item # C11.
160
Item # C12.
320
Item # C11.
161
Item # C12.
321
Item # C11.
162
Item # C12.
322
Item # C11.
163
Item # C12.
323
Item # C11.
164
Item # C12.
324
Item # C11.
165
Item # C12.
325
Item # C11.
166
Item # C12.
326
Item # C11.
167
Item # C12.
327
Item # C11.
168
Item # C12.
328
Item # C11.
169
Item # C12.
329
Item # C11.
170
Item # C12.
330
Item # C11.
171
Item # C12.

City of Milpitas, California

BUDGET CHANGE FORM

From* To*
Type of Change

Account

Amount

Account

Amount
Check one:

Budget Appropriation

Budget Transfer

500-3799

$113,653.87 500-9304851
500-2909
$103,931
$9,722.87

Approve a budget appropriation in the amount of $103,931 to the Equipment Fund Non-departmental FY 2021-22 operating budget for the replacement of two Police vehicles.

Background:

In September and October of 2021, two (2) police vehicles were involved in separate traffic collisions within the course of duties. Both collisions resulted in total losses and subsequent insurance payouts for the actual cash value loss of the vehicles, less the City’s insurance deductible of $5,000 for each incident. This recommended budget appropriation of the total insurance payout to the Equipment Fund Non-departmental operating budget would be used to purchase two (2) replacement vehicles, this maintaining the department’s fleet of thirty (30) marked police vehicles.

Analysis:

However, due to staffing levels and mileage requirements, if this budget appropriation is not approved and the vehicles are not replaced, the current fleet of police vehicles will reach mileage limits faster and there is a risk of insufficient availability of vehicles when other vehicles are out for maintenance or repair. In order for the Police Department to maintain appropriate service levels and response times, replacement of these two (2) patrol vehicles is essential. Therefore, a budget appropriation to the Equipment Fund Non-departmental FY 2021-22 operating budget in the amount of $103,931 for the two (2) totaled vehicles is recommended and would be used to purchase two (2) replacement vehicles. The difference between the insurance payout and 331
Item # C11.
172
Item # C12.
the funds needed to purchase the replacement vehicles in the amount of $9,722.87 will fall to fund balance in the Equipment Fund for future use.

Policy Alternative:

Alternative 1: Do not approve a budget appropriation in the amount of $103,931 to the Equipment Fund Non-departmental fiscal year 2021-2022 operating budget.

Pros: The City would receive the insurance payout for the two vehicles but not incur the expense of purchasing two (2) Police vehicles.

Cons: The Police Department would not be able to replace the two (2) vehicles needed to maintain current service levels.

Fiscal Impact:

Staff recommends approval of a budget appropriation to the Equipment Fund Non-departmental FY 2021-22 operating budget in the amount of $103,931 for the purchase of two (2) replacement vehicles. The difference between the insurance payout of $113,653.87 and the funds needed to purchase the replacement vehicles in the amount of $9,722.87 will fall to fund balance in the Equipment Fund for future use. Any additional cost associated with the purchase of these two (2) replacement vehicles exceeding this amount can be absorbed by the Police Department’s operating budget.

California Environmental Quality Act:

N/A

Recommendations:

Approve a budget appropriation in the amount of $103,931 to the Equipment Fund Non-departmental FY 2021-22 operating budget for the replacement of two Police vehicles.

Attachments:

1. Proof of Loss – September 16, 2021

2. Proof of Loss – October 10, 2021

3. Budget change form

4. Note-To-File_Coop

Check if City Council Approval required. Meeting Date: February 15, 2022

Requested by: Department Head: Jared Hernandez Date: February 15, 2022 Reviewed by: Finance Director: Lauren Lai Date: February 15, 2022

Date approved by City Council, if required: Confirmed by:

FI/24786/V Form 30-222 (Rev. 1/92)
332
Item # C11.
173
Item # C12.
333
Item # C11.
174
Item # C12.

City of Milpitas, California

BUDGET CHANGE FORM

From* To*
Type of Change

Account

Amount

Account

Amount
Check one:

Budget Appropriation

Budget Transfer

500-2909

$17,151

500-9304851

$17,151

Approve an Additional Budget Appropriation of $17,151 to the Equipment Fund Non-Departmental FY22-23 Operating Budget

BACKGROUND:

Subsequently, an order was placed for the two police vehicles (2022 Ford Interceptors) in March of 2022.

ANALYSIS:

At time of order in March 2022, the total cost for the two (2) replacement vehicles was $103,931. However, due to delays in the production of the vehicles, the order now must be fulfilled with the next year’s model of vehicle, the 2023 model, which has a higher cost. The total cost for the two (2) replacement vehicles is now $121,081.44, which is a difference of $17,150.66 from the total cost originally approved by Council on March 1, 2022. Replacing these two vehicles is critical to enable staff to provide essential public safety services.

Therefore, a budget appropriation to the Equipment Fund Non-Departmental FY 2022-23 operating budget in the amount of $17,151 is recommended and is recommended to be used to purchase two (2) replacement police vehicles through a Sourcewell cooperative contract with the National Auto Fleet Group, thus maintaining the department’s fleet of thirty (30) marked police vehicles.

POLICY ALTERNATIVE(S):

Alternative 1: Do not approve an additional budget appropriation of $17,151 to the equipment fund non- departmental FY22-23 operating budget.

Pros: The City would not incur the additional cost of $17,151 for the two police vehicles.

FISCAL IMPACT:

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA):

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve an Additional Budget Appropriation of $17,151 to the Equipment Fund Non-Departmental FY22-23 Operating Budget

Attachment(s):

1. Agenda Report – March 1, 2022

2. Budget Change Form

Check if City Council Approval required. Meeting Date: November 01, 2022

Requested by: Department Head: Jared Hernandez Date: November 01, 2022 Reviewed by: Finance Director: Lauren Lai Date: November 01, 2022

Date approved by City Council, if required: Confirmed by:

FI/24786/V Form 30-222 (Rev. 1/92)
176
Item # C12.

CITY OF MILPITAS

HOUSING AUTHORITY &

SUCCESSOR AGENCY

AGENDA REPORT
(AR)

Item Title: Sale of the residential unit located at 254 Parc Place Drive (Staff Contact: Alex Andrade, Economic Development Director, 408-586-3046 and Michelle Silva, Administrative Analyst II, 408-586-3244)
Category: Consent Calendar-Community Development
Meeting Date: 11/1/2022
Recommendation:

1. Adopt the resolution authorizing the Executive Director of the Milpitas Housing Authority to execute documents for the sale of the residential property located at 254 Parc Place Drive in the amount of $278,315.

2. Approve related budget amendments due to the sale of the property located at 254 Parc Place Drive in the amount of $278,315.

BACKGROUND:

On February 1, 2012, Assembly Bill X1 26 resulted in the dissolution of all Redevelopment Agencies throughout the State. In anticipation of the dissolution, the Milpitas City Council adopted Resolution No. 8062 in February 2011. The Resolution established the City of Milpitas Housing Authority as the Successor Housing Agency to the Milpitas Redevelopment Agency. Thirteen real properties were transferred from the former Redevelopment Agency to the Milpitas Housing Authority. The transferred properties and its current disposition are summarized in the table below.

Address Developed with
Affordable Housing
Sold by Housing
Authority
Retained by Housing
Authority
1 340 Celebration Dr. X X
2 600 S. Abel St. #208 X X
3 1101 S. Main St. #313 X X
4 254 Parc Place Dr. X X
5 1432 S. Main St. X
6 1434 S. Main St. X
7 1436 S. Main St. X
8 1438 S. Main St. X
9 1438A S. Main St. X
10 1440 S. Main St. X
11 1444 S. Main St. X
12 1446 S. Main St. X
13 1504-1620 S. Main St. X X

Health and Safety Code section 34176.l(e) requires that all properties acquired by the Redevelopment Agency prior to February 1, 2012, and transferred to the Housing Authority, be developed within certain time frames.

According to Health and Safety Code section 33334.16, within five years, from the date the property is acquired, activities must be initiated consistent with the development of the property for affordable housing purposes, or the property must be sold, and the proceeds deposited into the City’s Low and Moderate Income 177
Item # C13.

Housing Asset Fund. This Health and Safety Code Section also allows for one additional period not to exceed five years.

Properties located at 1432-1446 S. Main Street, also known as Parcel 1, will be sold in Quarter 1 of 2023 (Properties 5-12 in the chart above).

The purpose of this agenda item is to authorize the sale of 254 Parc Place Drive to be in compliance with the California Department of Housing and Community Development.

ANALYSIS:

There are two remaining residential units of the thirteen total properties owned by the Housing Authority for sale (Properties 2 and 4 in the chart above). The residential properties located at 600 S. Abel Street Unit #208 and 254 Parc Place Drive were being rented to low-income households at a low-income rent level. Tenants of these properties signed a Lease Agreement with an Option to Purchase from the Housing Authority. The leases, which were executed in 2013, expired in 2014. Tenants have been on month-to-month since that time.

Staff anticipates bringing the sale of 600 S. Abel Street Unit 208 to the Housing Authority and Successor Agency on November 15, 2022.

Housing staff has periodically reached out to the tenants about purchasing their units. Staff worked with the two remaining tenants to purchase their units so that the sale to low-income households occurs before August 31, 2022. The Option to Purchase provided the opportunity for the tenant of 254 Parc Place Drive to purchase the unit (Attachment 1).

254 Parc Place Drive Unit Purchase

The current tenant has been diligently pursuing the purchase of the unit. Staff certified that she is income- eligible to purchase the unit and is a first-time homebuyer, thus meeting two requirements in the City’s Below Market Rate program.

As part of the sale, the homebuyer will be required to sign the City’s Resale Restriction Agreement, Option to Purchase, and adhere to its owner-occupied requirement. The Resale Restriction will limit the appreciation in the unit and will give the City the purchase option on the unit if the unit falls into default. Staff will monitor the unit to ensure that it will continue to be the primary residence of the occupant through the required Annual Occupancy form.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Proceeds from the sale will be posted into the Housing Authority Fund for future appropriation.

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA):

The recommendations have no potential for causing a significant effect on the environment and are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3).

RECOMMENDATION:

2. Approve related budget amendments due to the sale of the property located at 254 Parc Place Drive in the amount of $278,315.

Attachment(s):

1. Sale of 254 Parc Place Resolution

2. Purchase Agreement

3. Resale Restriction Agreement

4. 254 Parc Place Budget Change Form
179
Item # C13.

Resolution No. ____
RESOLUTION NO. ______

A RESOLUTION OF THE HOUSING AUTHORITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF MILPITAS APPROVING THE SALE OF 254 PARC PLACE DRIVE FOR $278,315 WHEREAS, the Redevelopment Agency of the City of Milpitas provided funding to financially support 1,248 affordable housing units; and WHEREAS, on June 16, 2009, the Redevelopment Agency approved Resolution No. RA 334 to purchase 254 Parc Place Drive; and
WHEREAS, on August 1, 2013, the Milpitas Housing Authority entered into a Residential Lease and Option to Purchase Agreement (“Agreement”) with Marisela Campos in which the Agreement provided the tenant the opportunity to purchase the unit; and WHEREAS, the Agreement also stipulated that the purchase price of the unit shall not exceed $250,000 and acknowledged $18,315 in past-due rent and $10,000 seller credit; and WHEREAS, pursuant to ABx1 26 enacted effective June 28, 2011, as clarified and amended by AB 1484 effective June 27, 201 2, (collectively, the "Redevelopment Dissolution Law"):

1. The Redevelopment Agency, together with every redevelopment agency in California, was dissolved as of February 1, 2012; and

2. The City of Milpitas Housing Authority (the "Housing Authority") Comm ission, the City Council, and the Agency Board of Directors adopted Joint Resolution HA3/8151/RA426 on January 4, 2012, whereby (a) the City, acting in a separate legal capacity and as a separate legal entity, elected to be the successor agency (the "Succe ssor Agency") to the dissolved Redevelopment Agency for purposes of paying the obligations, unwinding the affairs, and liquidating specified assets of the dissolved Redevelopment Agency; and (b) the Housing Authority, acting in a separate legal capacity an d as a separate legal entity, assumed the responsibility of performing the housing functions and accepted transfer of all assets of the dissolved Agency pursuant to California Health and Safety Code Section 34176(b)(2); and WHEREAS, the Successor Agency does not have a legal interest in the subject of this Resolution since it involves assets now in the control of the Housing Authority under the Redevelopment Dissolution Law, but out of an abundance of caution, so that no cloud will remain on the validity of actions taken herein, the Successor Agency does act in concurrence with the other Public Entity parties; and
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Milpitas hereby find s, determines, and resolves as follows:

1. The Housing Authority Commission, the City Council, and the Successor Agency Board have considered the full record before them, which includes, but is not limited to, the supporting documentation, testimony by staff and the public, and other materials and 180
Item # C13.

Resolution No. ____
evidence submitted or provided to them. Furthermore, the recitals set forth above are found to be true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference.

2. The Successor Agency Board and Housing Authority Commission hereby authorize their Executive Directors or designees, to negotiate and execute all documents necessary for the sale of 254 Parc Place Drive in the amount of $ 278,315 including but not limited to the Purchase Agreement, Resale Restriction Agreement and Option to Purchase.

3. The Housing Authority Commission, the City Council, and the Successor Agency Board hereby designate the City Clerk as the custodian of the documents and other materials which constitute the record of proceedings upon which the decision herein is based. These documents may be found at the City Clerk's Office at 445 East Calaveras Street, Milpitas, California 95035.

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

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

ATTEST: APPROVED:

Suzanne Guzzetta, City Clerk Rich Tran, Mayor

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Michael Mutalipassi, City Attorney
181
Item # C13.

Milpitas Housing Authority
Milpitas Housing Authority
182
Item # C13.
183
Item # C13.
184
Item # C13.
185
Item # C13.
186
Item # C13.
187
Item # C13.
188
Item # C13.
189
Item # C13.
190
Item # C13.
191
Item # C13.
192
Item # C13.
193
Item # C13.
194
Item # C13.
195
Item # C13.
196
Item # C13.

Milpitas Housing Authority
197
Item # C13.
198
Item # C13.

Milpitas Housing Authority
Milpitas Housing Authority
199
Item # C13.
200
Item # C13.
201
Item # C13.
202
Item # C13.
203
Item # C13.
204
Item # C13.

Milpitas Housing Authority
205
Item # C13.
206
Item # C13.

Milpitas Housing Authority
207
Item # C13.

Milpitas Housing Authority
208
Item # C13.
209
Item # C13.

Milpitas Housing Authority
210
Item # C13.

Milpitas Housing Authority
211
Item # C13.
38077.01007\32986635.1

RECORDING REQUESTED BY
AND WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:

CITY OF MILPITAS HOUSING AUTHORITY
455 East Calaveras Boulevard
Milpitas, CA 95035

To be recorded without fee.
(Gov. Code, §§ 6103 and 27383.)

(Space Above This Line For Recorder’s Use Only)

RESALE RESTRICTION AGREEMENT

AND OPTION TO PURCHASE

Owners: Marisela Campos

Property 254 Parc Place Drive
Milpitas, California 95035

Name of Development: Parc Place

Income Level: Low
Purchase Price: $278,315
Unit Size: 2 bed/ 1.5 bath
Household Size: 2

This RESALE RESTRICTION AND OPTION TO PURCHASE AGREEMENT (“Agreement”) is entered into by and between the Housing Authority of the City of Milpitas as the housing successor to the former Milpitas Redevelopment Agency (“the Authority”) and (“Owner”) regarding certain improved real property, which is more particularly described in Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein and commonly known as, Milpitas, CA 95035 (the “Property”) effective as of __________________, 2022 (Effective Date”). Authority and Owner are hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Parties.”

RECITALS
A. The Authority is the successor in interest to the former Milpitas Redevelopment Agency, which was dissolved by operation of law in 2012 (the “Redevelopment Agency”).

Pursuant to the previous Community Redevelopment Law (Health & Safety Code section 33000 et seq.) and the former Redevelopment Plan, the Redevelopment Agency maintained an affordable housing fund, which it used for the purpose encouraging the construction of housing 212
Item # C13.
38077.01007\32986635.1

within the Redevelopment Plan Area that is affordable to persons of low, and moderate income (“the Program”).

B. Pursuant to the Program, the Redevelopment Agency and the Developer of the Parc Place development entered into a Memorandum of Understanding, and Owner Participation Agreement (collectively “the Agreements”) pursuant to which Developer agreed to construct and sell 58 homes at prices that are affordable to persons of very low, low and moderate incomes and in exchange the former Milpitas Redevelopment Agency agreed to provided certain financial incentives.

C. In accordance with the Agreements, the Redevelopment Agency entered into a “Property Value Restrictions, Resale Agreement and Option to Purchase” (the “Original Resale Agreement”) with the prior owner of that certain property located within the City of Milpitas, legally described in Exhibit A and commonly known as 254 Parc Place Drive, Milpitas, CA 95035 (the “Property”), which was recorded in the Official Records of Santa Clara County as Document No. __________ on _______________. The Property is one of the affordable homes constructed by the Developer pursuant to the Agreement. The Original Resale Agreement granted the Redevelopment Agency an Option to Purchase the Property from the prior owner, unless the prior owner sold the Property to a moderate income household for an affordable housing cost, subject to the purchaser agreeing to being subject to resale restrictions similar to those set forth in the Original Resale Agreement.

D. Owner is the owner of Property, which Owner purchased from the prior owner on the condition that Owner would enter into this Agreement to maintain the conditions and restrictions on resale of the Property similar to those set forth in the Original Resale Agreement.

E. Owner is an eligible low purchaser under the Program, intends to live in the Property as an owner occupant, and agrees to maintain the Property as Owner’s principal residence.

F. In order to maintain and preserve the Property as housing affordable to eligible [very low-, low-, or moderate-] income purchasers, it is necessary to restrict the use and resale of the Property through imposition of the occupancy and resale restrictions set forth in this Agreement.

These restrictions are intended to prevent initial and subsequent purchasers from using the Property for purposes incompatible with the Program and realizing unwarranted gains from sales of the Property at unrestricted prices. The terms and conditions of this Agreement are intended to provide the necessary occupancy and resale restrictions to ensure that the Property is used, maintained, and preserved as housing affordable to eligible [very low-, low-, or moderate-] purchasers. To further serve the purposes of the Program, it is necessary that the Authority be granted an option to purchase the property so that the property may be resold by the Authority to an eligible household.

G. Accordingly, the Parties desire to enter into this Resale Restriction and Option to Purchase Agreement, which provides, generally, that Owner may only sell the property to Eligible Households (i.e. households meeting the household income limitations set forth herein) at a price not to exceed the price equal to the initial purchase price adjusted to reflect increases in median household income since the Property was initially purchased by Owner. Alternatively, 213
Item # C13.
38077.01007\32986635.1

the Agreement provides that the City may exercise its option to purchase the Property at the same price.

H. The Property constitutes a valuable community resource by providing decent, safe, and sanitary housing to persons and families of low and moderate income who otherwise would be unable to afford such housing. To protect and preserve this resource it is necessary, proper, and in the public interest for the Authority to administer occupancy and resale controls consistent with the Program by means of this Agreement.

AGREEMENT

NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the substantial economic benefits inuring to Owner and the public purposes to be achieved under the Program, Owner and Authority hereby agree as follows:

1. Definitions.
a. “Affordable Unit Cost” means a sales price that results in annual housing expenses that do not exceed 30% of the maximum income level for persons and families of [very low-, low-, or moderate-], adjusted for household size and as defined below. b. “Area Median Income for Santa Clara County” means those income and eligibility levels determined, updated, and published each year by the California Department of Housing and Community Development, based on Santa Clara County median income levels, adjusted for household size.
c. “Persons and families of [very low-, low-, or moderate-] income” means persons and families whose income do not exceed [fifty percent (50%); eighty percent (80%); or one hundred twenty percent (120%)] of the Area Median Income for Santa Clara County, as adjusted for household size.
d. Persons and families meeting the definition set forth in Paragraph 1(c) above shall be referred to as “Eligible Households.”

2. Program Requirements.
a. Affordability Restrictions. Owner hereby covenants and agrees that during the term of this Agreement all of the requirements and restrictions of this Agreement shall apply, and the Property shall be sold or otherwise transferred only pursuant to the terms and conditions of this Agreement and only to (i) Eligible Households at a price not to exceed the Adjusted Resale Price, as defined in Paragraph 5, (ii) the Authority pursuant to Paragraph 3, or (iii) a permitted transferee pursuant to Paragraph 9.
b. Disclosure. DURING THE TERM OF THIS AGREEMENT THERE

SHALL BE NO SALE OR OTHER TRANSFER OF THE PROPERTY WITHOUT THE

WRITTEN CERTIFICATION BY THE AUTHORITY THAT THE TRANSFEREE

QUALIFIES AS AN ELIGIBLE HOUSEHOLD AND THAT THE PROPERTY IS BEING

TRANSFERRED AT A PRICE NOT TO EXCEED THE ADJUSTED RESALE PRICE, 214
Item # C13.
38077.01007\32986635.1

WHICH IS CAPPED AT THE AFFORDABLE UNIT COST AS DEFINED IN PARAGRAPH

1.a. ANY SALE OR OTHER TRANSFER OF THE PROPERTY IN VIOLATION OF THIS COVENANT SHALL BE VOID.
c. Principal Residence Requirement. OWNER COVENANTS AND

AGREES THAT HE/SHE/THEY SHALL OCCUPY THE PROPERTY AS HIS/HER/THEIR

PRINCIPAL RESIDENCE FOR THE DURATION OF HIS/HER/THEIR OWNERSHIP AND

SHALL NOT RENT OR LEASE THE PROPERTY OR PORTION THEREOF DURING THE TERM OF THIS AGREEMENT. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, any absence from the Property by Owner for a period of ninety (90) or more days shall be deemed an abandonment of the Property as the principal residence of Owner in violation of the conditions of this Paragraph. Upon request by the Authority made from time to time, the Owner of the Property shall submit an affidavit to the Authority certifying that the Property is the Owner’s principal residence and provide such documents and other evidence as may be requested to verify Owner’s compliance with this requirement. Abandonment of the Property shall constitute an Option Event (as defined in Paragraph 3.c below) and shall entitle the Authority to exercise its Option to purchase the Property.

3. Option to Purchase.
a. Grant of Option to Purchase. Owner hereby grants to the Authority an option (“Option”) to purchase all of Owner’s right, title and interest in and to the Property upon the occurrence of an Option Event (defined in Paragraph 3.c below), subject to the terms and conditions contained herein.
b. Assignment of the Option. The Authority may assign the Option to another government entity, a non-profit affordable housing provider or a person or family that qualifies as an Eligible Household. The Authority’s assignment of the Option shall not extend any time limits contained herein with respect to the exercise period of the Option or the period within which the Property must be purchased.
c. Events Giving Rise to Right to Exercise Option. The Authority shall have the right to exercise its Option upon the occurrence of any of the following events (each, an “Option Event”):
i. Receipt of a Notice of Intent to Transfer (defined in Paragraph

3.d.i below);
ii. Any actual, attempted or pending sale, conveyance, transfer, lease or other attempted disposition of the Property or of any estate or interest therein, except as provided in Paragraph 10 below;
iii. Any actual, attempted or pending encumbrance of the Property, including without limitation by way of mortgage or deed of trust, or by judgment, mechanics, tax or other lien, except as provided in Paragraph 9 below; 215
Item # C13.
38077.01007\32986635.1

iv. Recordation of a notice of default and/or notice of sale pursuant to California Civil Code section 2924 (or successor provisions) under any deed of trust or mortgage with a power of sale encumbering the Property;
v. Commencement of a judicial foreclosure proceeding regarding the Property;
vi. Execution by Owner of any deed in lieu of foreclosure transferring ownership of the Property;
vii. Commencement of a proceeding or action in bankruptcy, whether voluntary or involuntary, pursuant to Title 11 of the United States Code or other bankruptcy statute, or any other insolvency, reorganization, arrangement, assignment for the benefit of creditors, receivership or trusteeship, concerning the Owner; or viii. Any violation by Owner of any provision of this Agreement including, without limitation, the conditions set forth in Paragraph 2 above. d. Method of Exercising the Option.
i. Notice of Intent to Transfer. If Owner desires to sell, convey, transfer (other than pursuant to Paragraph 9), lease, encumber (other than pursuant to Paragraph 10) or otherwise dispose of the Property or of any estate or interest therein, no less than 120 days prior to the date of such proposed sale, conveyance, transfer, lease, encumbrance or disposition, Owner shall notify Authority in writing to that effect (the “Notice of Intent to Transfer”). The Notice of Intent to Transfer shall be in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit B. In the case of a proposed sale of the Property to an identified prospective purchaser, the Owner shall submit to the Authority, together with the Notice of Intent to Transfer, a copy of the prospective purchaser’s income certification, a list of all assets owned by the prospective purchaser, and other financial information reasonably requested by Authority, in a form approved by the Authority, along with the income certification to be provided to any lender making a loan to the prospective purchaser. The Authority may require documentation evidencing and supporting the income and other financial information contained in the certifications. ii. Notice of Exercise. Upon the occurrence of any Option Event, the Authority may exercise its Option by delivering notice, pursuant to Paragraph 16 and within the time period specified in Paragraph 3(d) (iv), to Owner of Authority’s intent to exercise such Option pursuant to the terms of this Agreement (“Notice of Exercise”). The Notice of Exercise may be in the form attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit C, or in such other form as the Authority may from time to time adopt. If the Option Event relates to the potential foreclosure of a mortgage under Paragraphs 3.c.iv, 3.c.v, or 3.c.vi, then the Authority shall also deliver the Notice of Exercise to the mortgagee or beneficiary under such mortgage, at such mortgagee’s or beneficiary’s address of record in the Office of the Recorder of Santa Clara County.
iii. Notice of Consent to Transfer. If the Authority does not exercise the Option, it may give its consent to the occurrence of the Option Event (“Consent to Transfer”). If the Option Event involves a proposed sale of the Property to a prospective 216
Item # C13.
38077.01007\32986635.1

purchaser, the Authority’s consent shall be conditioned upon (i) the proposed purchaser’s qualification as an Eligible Household; (ii) the sale of the Property at a price not to exceed the Adjusted Resale Price; (iii) the proposed purchaser’s execution of a Disclosure Statement in the form attached hereto as Exhibit F or such other form or forms as may be promulgated by the Authority ; and (iv) the proposed purchaser’s assumption of Owner’s duties and obligations under this Agreement pursuant to a written assumption agreement in a form acceptable to Authority, or execution of an agreement substantially similar to this Agreement, within One hundred twenty (120) days after the Consent to Transfer has been delivered to Owner and recordation of such assumption agreement or substitute agreement. If the prospective purchaser (i) fails to qualify as an Eligible Household, (ii) fails to execute and deliver the Disclosure Statement to the Authority, or (iii) fails to execute and deliver to the Authority an assumption agreement or an agreement substantially similar to this Agreement within such one hundred twenty (120) day period, then the Consent to Transfer shall expire and the Authority may, at its option, either notify Owner of the disqualification, thereby entitling Owner to locate another purchaser who qualifies as Eligible Household, or exercise the Option, as if no Consent to Transfer had been delivered.
iv. Time Period for Notice. The Authority shall deliver a Consent to Transfer, if applicable, not later than ninety (90) days after the date that it receives notification of an Option Event. The Authority shall deliver a Notice of Exercise, if applicable, on or before the date which is the later to occur of the following: (i) one hundred twenty (120) days after the date that the Authority receives notification of an Option Event or (ii) thirty (30) days after a Consent to Transfer has expired. For purposes of computing commencement of the delivery periods, the Authority shall be deemed to have received notification of an Option Event on the date of delivery of a Notice of Intent to Transfer, pursuant to the terms of Paragraph 16 below or on the date it actually receives notice of default, summons and complaint or other pleading, or other writing specifically stating that an Option Event has occurred. The Authority shall have no obligation to deliver a Notice of Exercise or Consent to Transfer, and the applicable time period for exercise of the Option shall not commence to run, unless and until the Agency has received notification of an Option Event in the manner specified in this subparagraph. If there is a stay or injunction imposed by court order precluding the Authority from delivering its Consent to Transfer or Notice of Exercise within the applicable time period, then the running of such period shall cease until such time as the stay is lifted or the injunction is dissolved and the Authority has been given written notice thereof, at which time the period for delivery of a Consent to Transfer or Notice of Exercise shall again begin to run.
v. Notice of Abandonment. If the Authority fails to deliver a Notice of Exercise or Consent to Transfer within the time periods set forth in paragraph 3.d.iv, upon request by Owner, the Authority shall cause to be filed for recordation in the Office of the Recorder of Santa Clara County, a notice of abandonment, which shall declare that the provisions of the Option are no longer applicable to the Property. Unless Owner requests recordation of notice of abandonment within 30 days of the Authority’s failure to deliver Notice of Exercise or Consent to Transfer, the Authority shall have no obligation to record the notice of abandonment. Upon recordation of a notice of abandonment, the Option shall terminate and have no further force and effect. If the Authority fails to record a notice of abandonment, the sole remedy of Owner shall be to obtain a judicial order instructing prompt recordation of such a notice.
217
Item # C13.
38077.01007\32986635.1

vi. Right to Reinstatement. If the Option Event is the recordation of a notice of default, then the Agency shall be deemed to be Owner’s successor in interest under California Civil Code Section 2924c (or successor section) solely for purposes of reinstatement of any mortgage on the Property that has led to the recordation of the notice of default. As Owner’s deemed successor in interest, the Authority shall be entitled to pay all amounts of principal, interest, taxes, assessments, homeowners’ association fees, insurance premiums, advances, costs, attorneys’ fees and expenses required to cure the default. If the Agency exercises the Option, then any and all amounts paid by the Authority pursuant to this Paragraph shall be treated as Adjustments to the Base Resale Price for the Property, as defined in Paragraph 5 below.
vii. Inspection of Property. After receiving a Notice of Intent to transfer or delivering a Notice of Exercise, the Authority shall be entitled to inspect the Property one or more times prior to the close of escrow to determine the amount of any Adjustments to the Base Resale Price. Before inspecting the Property, the Authority shall give Owner not less than forty-eight (48) hours’ written notice of the date, time and expected duration of the inspection.

The inspection shall be conducted between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding court holidays, unless the parties mutually agree in writing to another date and time. Owner shall make the Property available for inspection on the date and at the time specified in the Authority’s request for inspection. viii. Escrow. Promptly after delivering a Notice of Exercise, the Authority shall open an escrow account for its purchase of the Property. Close of escrow shall take place on the date that is the later to occur of the following, (a) ninety (90) days after a Notice of Exercise has been delivered, or (b) ten (10) days after Owner has performed all acts and executed all documents required for close of escrow. Prior to the close of escrow, the Authority shall deposit into escrow with a title company of Authority’s choosing, an amount equal to the Adjusted Resale Price as defined in Paragraph 5 below and all escrow fees and closing costs to be paid by Authority. Commissions (not to exceed 6% of the actual sales price), closing costs and title insurance shall be paid pursuant to the custom and practice in the County of Santa Clara at the time of the opening of escrow, or as may otherwise be provided by mutual agreement. Owner agrees to perform all acts and execute all documents reasonably necessary to effectuate the close of escrow and transfer of the Property to the Authority. ix. Proceeds of Escrow; Removal of Exceptions to Title. Prior to close of escrow, Owner shall cause the removal of all exceptions to title to the Property that were recorded after the Effective Date with the exception of (i) taxes for the fiscal year in which the escrow for this transaction closes, which taxes shall be prorated as between Owner and Authority as of the date of close of escrow; (ii) quasi-public utility, public alley, public street easements, and rights of way of record, and (iii) such other liens, encumbrances, reservations and restrictions as may be approved in writing by Authority (“Permitted Exceptions”).

The purchase price deposited into escrow by the Authority shall be applied first to the payment of any and all Permitted Encumbrances (as defined in Paragraph 10) recorded against the Property in order of lien priority, and thereafter to the payment of Owner’s share of escrow fees and closing costs. Any amounts remaining after the purchase price has been so applied, if any, shall be paid to Owner upon the close of escrow. If the purchase price is 218
Item # C13.
38077.01007\32986635.1

insufficient to satisfy all liens and encumbrances recorded against the Property, the Owner shall deposit into escrow such additional sums as may be required to remove said liens and encumbrances. In the event that the Authority agrees to proceed with close of escrow prior to the date that Owner has caused all exceptions to title recorded after the Effective Date other than Permitted Exceptions to be removed, then Owner shall indemnify, defend and hold Authority harmless from any and all costs expenses or liabilities (including attorneys’ fees) incurred or suffered by Authority that relate to such exceptions and their removal as exceptions to title to the Property.

4. Base Resale Price. Prior to adjustment pursuant to Paragraph 5 the base resale price (“Base Resale Price”) of the Property shall be the lowest of:
a. Median Income. The original price(“Base Price”) paid by Owner for acquisition of the Property pursuant to the Program as set forth on page 1 of this Agreement, increased (but not decreased) by an amount, if any, equal to the Base Price multiplied by the percentage increase in the median household income (“Median Income”) for Santa Clara County published by the California Department of Housing and Community Development, Division of Housing Policy Development, between the Effective Date and the date that the Authority receives notification of an Option Event; or
b. Index Price. The Base Price increased (but not decreased) by an amount, if any, equal to the Base Price multiplied by the percentage increase in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers for the San Francisco-Oakland-San Jose published by the U.S.

Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics (“Index”) between the Recording Date and the date that the City receives notification of an Option Event; or c. Fair Market Value. The fair market value of the Property as determined by an appraiser selected and paid for by Owner and approved in writing by the Authority.

5. Adjustments to Base Resale Price. Subject to the Affordable Unit Cost restriction described in subparagraph (d) below, the Base Resale Price shall be increased or decreased, as applicable, by the following adjustment factors (“Adjustment”):

a. Capital Improvements. An increase for capital improvements made to the Property, but only if the amount of such improvements has been previously approved in writing by the Authority after Owner has submitted original written documentation of the cost to the Authority for verification. The amount of the Adjustment shall equal to the depreciated value of any such capital improvements.

b. Damages. A decrease by the amount necessary to repair damage to the Property, if any, and to place the Property into saleable condition as reasonably determined by the Authority upon Authority’s exercise of its Option hereunder, including, without limitation, amounts attributed to cleaning; painting; replacing worn carpeting and draperies; making necessary structural, mechanical, electrical and plumbing repairs; and repairing or replacing built-in appliances and fixtures. Owner hereby covenants to, at Owner’s expense, maintain the Property in the same condition as in existence on the date of Authority’s Notice of Exercise, reasonable wear and tear excepted.
219
Item # C13.
38077.01007\32986635.1

c. Advances by the Authority. A decrease in an amount equal to the sum of all costs advanced by the Authority for the payment of mortgages, taxes, assessments, insurance premiums, homeowner’s association fees and/or associated late fees, costs, penalties, interest, attorneys’ fees, pest inspections, resale inspections and other expenses related to the Property, which Owner has failed to pay or has permitted to become delinquent.

d. Adjusted Resale Price Not to Exceed Affordable Unit Cost. The Base Resale Price as adjusted, is hereinafter referred to as the “Adjusted Resale Price.” Notwithstanding any other provision hereof to the contrary, in no event shall the Adjusted Resale Price exceed the Affordable Unit Cost.

6. Priority and Effectiveness of the Option.

a. Recordation. This Agreement shall be recorded in the Office of the Recorder of the County of Santa Clara on or as soon as practicable after the Effective Date. The Option shall have priority over any subsequent sale, conveyance, transfer, lease or other disposition or encumbrance of the Property, or of any estate or interest therein, and in the event of exercise of the Option by Authority, the Authority shall take the Property subject only to Permitted Exceptions. Except as otherwise provided in Paragraph 7.a, the exercise of the Option by the Authority at any time and from time to time shall not extinguish the Option or cause a merger of the Option into any estate or other interest in the Property, and the Option shall continue to exist and be effective with respect to the Property against any and all subsequent owners in accordance with the terms and conditions hereof.

b. Request for Notice of Default. The Authority shall file a Request for Notice of Default for recordation in the Office of the Recorder of the County of Santa Clara promptly upon execution of this Agreement (see Exhibit E).

7. Survival of Option Upon Transfer.

a. In General. The Authority’s right to exercise the Option shall survive any transfer of the Property by Owner. Each transferee, assignee or purchaser of the Property during the term hereof shall be required to execute an agreement substantially in the form of this Agreement, provided that the term of any such agreement shall be for the duration of the term hereof as of the date of any such transfer, assignment or sale. The Option may be exercised against the Property throughout the term hereof, regardless of whether the Property is owned, possessed or occupied by Owner or any successor, transferee, assignee, heir, executor, or administrator of Owner, regardless of household income (if applicable) including a debtor-in- possession, debtor or trustee pursuant to Title 11 of the United States Code. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the Option shall not survive (i) the sale and transfer of the Property to a third party purchaser pursuant to a judicial or non-judicial foreclosure or a deed-in-lieu of foreclosure under a power of sale contained in a mortgage or deed of trust held by an institutional lender, provided that the Authority has received timely notice of such Option Event and has failed to either reinstate said mortgage or deed of trust or exercise its Option, or (ii) the recording of an instrument conveying Owner’s interest in the Property to the Authority, or its assignee, provided the conveyance is in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. 220
Item # C13.
38077.01007\32986635.1

b. HUD Insured Mortgage. If Owner has acquired the Property by a mortgage insured by the Secretary of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, and a notice of default has been recorded pursuant to California Civil Code Section 2924 (or successor provisions), then this Option shall automatically terminate if title to the Property is transferred by foreclosure or deed-in-lieu of foreclosure, or if the insured mortgage is assigned to the Secretary.

8. Voidable Transfers. As long as the Option has not been abandoned pursuant to Paragraph 3.d.v, any actual or attempted sale, conveyance, transfer or other disposition of the Property, or of any estate or interest therein, in violation of the terms and conditions of this Agreement, shall be voidable at the election of the Authority.

9. Permitted Transfers. Provided that the transferee assumes, within 30 days of a written request by the Authority, all of Owner’s duties and obligations under this Agreement pursuant to a written assumption agreement in a form acceptable to Authority, or at Authority’s election, execution of an agreement substantially similar to this Agreement, the following transfers (“Permitted Transfers”) of title to the Property, or of any estate or interest therein, shall not be subject to the Authority’s prior approval, shall not trigger the exercise of the Option, and shall not be considered Option Events: (a) the creation of a lien or other encumbrance subordinate to Lender’s security instrument which does not relate to a transfer of rights of occupancy; (b) the creation of a purchase money security interest for household appliances; (c) a transfer by devise, descent, or operation of law on the death of a joint tenant or tenant by the entirety; (d) a transfer to a relative resulting from the death of a Borrower; (e) a transfer where a spouse or child of a Borrower becomes an owner of the Property; (f) a transfer resulting from a decree of dissolution of marriage, legal separation agreement, or incidental property settlement agreement by which the spouse of a Borrower becomes a sole owner of the Property; and (g) a transfer into an inter vivos trust in which a Borrower is and remains a beneficiary and which does not relate to a transfer of rights of occupancy in the Property, and the Owner continues to occupy the property as his/her primary residence; (h) an acquisition of title, or of any interest therein, in conjunction with marriage; or (i) any good faith transfer to an Eligible Household Notwithstanding any Permitted Transfer, the Option shall remain effective with respect to the Property for the duration of the term hereof.

10. Permitted Encumbrances and Refinancing. This Option shall not become exercisable as the result of Owner’s encumbering the Property for the purpose of securing financing to purchase the Property pursuant to the Program, to refinance indebtedness incurred to purchase the Property pursuant to the Program, provided that the refinance shall not provide Owner with the ability to obtain cash advances or other “cash out” options, unless for the purpose of making necessary repairs to the Property in an amount approved by Authority pursuant to Paragraph 5a (“Permitted Encumbrances”). The maximum aggregate amount of such encumbrances outstanding at any time (the “Permitted Encumbrance Amount”) shall not exceed an amount equal to ninety percent (90%) of the Base Resale Price calculated as provided in Paragraph 4. The Permitted Encumbrance Amount shall be calculated as if the Authority had received notification of an Option Event on the earlier of (a) the date on which the deed of trust or mortgage securing the indebtedness is filed for record in the Office of the Recorder of the 221
Item # C13.
38077.01007\32986635.1

County of Santa Clara, or (b) the date the Authority receives Notice of Intent to Transfer pursuant to Paragraph 3.d.i above. Owner hereby covenants and agrees that he/she/they shall use his/her/their best efforts to ensure that any deed of trust or other agreement encumbering the property shall include provisions providing for notice to be delivered to Authority of any default thereunder and for Authority’s right to cure such default at Authority’s election.

11. Obligation of Owner After Option Abandonment. If the Authority records a notice of abandonment of the Option, then the Property may be sold by Owner to a third party without restriction as to price; however, upon such sale, Owner shall pay to Authority an amount (“Authority’s Share”) equal to eighty-five percent (85%) of the difference between (a) the actual sales price net of reasonable and customary real estate commissions paid (such commissions not to exceed six percent (6%) of the actual sales price), and (b) the Adjusted Resale Price. The Authority’s Share shall be paid to the Authority concurrently with close of escrow on the sale of the Property, or upon receipt by Owner of the sale price for the Property, whichever shall first occur.

12. Limits on Liability. In no event shall the Authority become liable or obligated in any manner to Owner by reason of the assignment of this Agreement or the Option, nor shall Authority be in any way liable or obligated to Owner for any failure of the Authority’s assignee to consummate a purchase of the Property or to comply with the terms of this Agreement or the Option, or any escrow instructions or agreement for the purchase of the Property.

13. Insurance Proceeds and Condemnation Award. In the event the Property is destroyed and insurance proceeds are distributed to Owner instead of being used to rebuild the Property, or, in the event of condemnation, if the proceeds thereof are distributed to Owner, any surplus of proceeds remaining after payment of the senior liens and encumbrances on the Property shall be distributed as follows: that portion of the surplus up to, but not to exceed, the net amount Owner would have received pursuant to Paragraph 3.d.ix had the Authority exercised its Option on the date of the destruction of condemnation valuation date shall be distributed to Owner, and the balance of such surplus, if any, shall be distributed to the Authority.

14. Effective Date. The rights and obligations of the Authority and Owner set forth in this Agreement shall be effective as of the Original Date.

15. Term of Agreement and Option. The restrictions contained herein and the Authority’s option to purchase the Property shall continue until April 4, 2061 which date is forty-five (45) years from the date of the sale of the Property to Owners.

16. Notices. Except as otherwise specified in this Agreement, all notices to be sent pursuant to this Agreement shall be made in writing, and sent to the Parties at their respective addresses specified below or to such other address as a Party may designate by written notice delivered to the other Party in accordance with this Section. All such notices shall be sent by:

(a) Personal delivery, in which case notice shall be deemed delivered upon receipt;

222
Item # C13.
38077.01007\32986635.1

(b) certified or registered mail, return receipt requested, in which case notice shall be deemed delivered two (2) business days after deposit, postage prepaid in the United States mail;

(c) nationally recognized overnight courier, in which case notice shall be deemed delivered one (1) day after deposit with such courier; or

(d) facsimile transmission, in which case notice shall be deemed delivered on transmittal, provided that a transmission report is generated reflecting the accurate transmission thereof.

Agency: City of Milpitas Housing Authority
455 Calaveras Boulevard
Milpitas, CA 95035
Attn: Executive Director

Owner: Marisela Campos
254 Parc Place Drive
Milpitas, CA 95035

17. Remedies Upon Breach.
a. Specific Performance. Owner acknowledges that any breach in the performance of its obligations under this Agreement shall cause irreparable harm to the Authority. Owner agrees that the Authority is entitled to equitable relief in the form of specific performance upon its exercise of the Option, and that an award of damages shall not be adequate to compensate the Authority for Owner’s failure to perform according to the terms of this Agreement.
b. Other Remedies. Authority shall have all of the remedies provided for at law or equity.

18. General Provisions.
a. Attorneys’ Fees. If either party initiates legal proceedings to interpret or enforce its rights under this Agreement, the prevailing party in such action shall be entitled to an award of reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs in additions to any other recovery to which it is entitled under this Agreement.

b. No Joint Venture; No Third-Party Beneficiary. No joint venture or other partnership exists or is created between the Parties by virtue of this Agreement. Except as expressly stated herein, this Agreement does not benefit any third party.

c. Successors; Assignment. This Agreement shall inure to the benefit of and shall be binding upon the Parties to this Agreement and their respective heirs, executors, administrators, successors and assigns. Authority shall have the right to assign all of its rights and obligations under this Agreement without the consent of Owner.

223
Item # C13.
38077.01007\32986635.1

d. Entire Agreement; Amendment. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement of the Parties with respect to the subject matter hereof, and supersedes any and all other prior negotiations, correspondence, understandings and agreements with respect thereto.

There are no representations, promises, agreements or other understandings between the Parties relating to the subject matter of this Agreement that are not expressed herein. This Agreement may be modified only by an instrument in writing executed by the Parties or their respective successors in interest.

e. Survival; No Merger. All of the terms, provisions, representations, warranties and covenants of the Parties under this Agreement shall survive the close of escrow of any sale of the Property and shall not be merged in any deed transferring the Property.

f. Authority And Execution. Each Party represents and warrants that it has full power and authority to enter into this Agreement and to undertake all of its obligations hereunder, that each person executing this Agreement on its behalf is duly and validly authorized to do so.

g. Severability. The invalidity or unenforceability of any term or provision of this Agreement shall not impair or affect the remainder of this Agreement, and the remaining terms and provisions hereof shall not be invalidated but shall remain in full force and effect.

h. Waiver; Modification. No waiver or modification of this Agreement or any covenant, condition, or limitation herein contained shall be valid unless in writing and duly executed by the Party to be charged therewith. No evidence or any waiver or modification shall be offered or received in evidence in any proceeding, arbitration, or litigation between the Parties arising out of or affecting this Agreement or the rights or obligations of any Party hereunder, unless such waiver or modification is in writing and duly executed as aforesaid. The provisions of this section may not be waived except as herein set forth. A waiver or breach of any covenant, condition or provision of this Agreement shall not be deemed a waiver of any other covenant, condition or provision hereof.

i. Construction. The section headings and captions used in this Agreement are for convenience of reference only and shall not modify, define, limit or amplify any of the terms or provisions hereof. This Agreement shall not be construed as if it had been prepared by one of the Parties, but rather as if both Parties have prepared it.

j. Governing Law. This Agreement shall in all respects be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California.

k. Time of the Essence. Time is of the essence in this Agreement as to each provision in which time is an element of performance.

l. Further Assurances. Each Party will, upon reasonable request of the other Party, execute, acknowledge, and deliver, or cause to be executed, acknowledged, and delivered, such further instruments and documents as may be reasonably necessary in order to fulfill the intents and purposes of this Agreement.
224
Item # C13.
38077.01007\32986635.1

m. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts, each of which shall be deemed an original, and all which together shall constitute one and the same instrument.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned have caused this Agreement to be executed as of the date first written above.

OWNER(S):

(Name) Marisela Campos

OWNER(S):

(Name)

OWNER(S):

(Name)

______________________________________

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

______________________________________
Michael Mutalipassi, Housing Authority
Counsel

Date

AUTHORITY:

CITY OF MILPITAS HOUSING

AUTHORITY

________________________________
Steven G. McHarris, Executive Director

225
Item # C13.
38077.01007\32986635.1

EXHIBIT A

LEGAL DESCRIPTION

THE LAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE CITY OF MILPITAS, COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA. STATE OF CALIFORNIA. AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOW:

ASSESSOR’S PARCEL NO. 083-21-107

LEGAL DESCRIPTION
226
Item # C13.
38077.01007\32986635.1

EXHIBIT B
FORM: NOTICE OF INTENT TO TRANSFER

VIA CERTIFIED MAIL - RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

To: CITY OF MILPITAS HOUSING AUTHORITY
455 East Calaveras Boulevard
Milpitas, CA 95035
Attn: Authority Executive Director

Date: ___________________________

Re: Notice of Intent to Transfer

Pursuant to the terms of the Resale Restriction and Option to Purchase Agreement, dated ____, the undersigned Owner(s), _________________________________________, hereby give(s) notice of his/her/their intent to transfer the property located at _________________________________________, Milpitas, California (the “Property”).

Owner may be contacted at the Property or at the following address:

__________________________
__________________________
__________________________

Owner’s daytime telephone number is (___) ________

[If applicable: The proposed transfer of the Property is to the following person(s):

Name: __________________________

Address: __________________________

__________________________

Telephone: (___) _____________________]

The proposed transfer is (check one):

 Sale

 Other Specify: ______________________________

Owner(s) signature(s):
_______________________________

_______________________________
227
Item # C13.
38077.01007\32986635.1

EXHIBIT C
FORM: NOTICE OF EXERCISE

Date: ___________________________

To: ___________________________
Owner or Transferee

___________________________
Address

Re: Notice of Exercise

The City of Milpitas Housing Authority (“Authority”) hereby gives notice that it is exercising its option to purchase the real property located at ________________________________, Milpitas, California. The option has been granted to the Authority pursuant to the Resale Restriction and Option to Purchase Agreement between Owner and the Authority dated ________________ and recorded on ___________________ as Instrument No. ___________________. [The Authority has assigned its option to purchase the real property to _________________.] An escrow for the purchase will be opened with the Chicago Title Company.

City of Milpitas Housing Authority

By:________________________________

Its:_________________________________

228
Item # C13.
38077.01007\32986635.1

EXHIBIT D

BASE RESALE PRICE WORKSHEET

Date: _____________________________
Owner: ____________________________
Address: ___________________________
Purchase Price: _____________________
Date of Purchase: ___________________

Years Owned: _________________ years

METHOD #1: CALCULATION BASED ON INCREASE IN MEDIAN INCOME***

Present Median Income: $___________________
Family of four, County of Santa Clara
(at time of sale of unit)

Original Median Income: $___________________
Family of four, County of Santa Clara
(at time of purchase of unit)

Amount of Increase: ____________________
Family of four, County of Santa Clara
(Present median income minus original median income)

Effective Date: ______________

Increase in Price: ____________________

x ________ x ________ = ________

Method #1 Resale Price: ______________ + = ________

METHOD #2: CALCULATION BASED ON INCREASE IN CONSUMER PRICE INDEX

Present CPI: _____________________

Original CPI: _____________________

Rate of Increase: ____________________per annum

Effective Date: ______________

Increase in Price: ____________________

x ________ x ________ = ________

Method #2 Resale Price: ______________ + = ________

Based on the above, the base resale price as of this date, _____________, is: _________

By: _______________________________
229
Item # C13.
38077.01007\32986635.1

EXHIBIT E

REQUEST FOR NOTICE OF DEFAULT

Order No.

Escrow No.

Loan No.

WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO:

City of Milpitas Housing Authority
455 East Calaveras Boulevard
Milpitas, CA 95035
Attn: Authority Executive Director

(Space Above This Line For Recorder’s Use Only)

REQUEST FOR NOTICE UNDER SECTION 2924b CIVIL CODE

In accordance with Section 2924b, Civil Code, request is hereby made that a copy of any Notice of Default and a copy of any Notice of Sale under the Deed of Trust recorded as Instrument No. __________________ on ____________________, ____, in the Official Records of Santa Clara County, California, and describing land therein as:

________________________________________________________________________

executed by __________________________________________________, as Trustor, in which ________________________________________________________ is named as Bene ficiary, and _______________________________________________, as Trustee, be mailed to the City of Milpitas Housing Authority, 455 Calaveras Boulevard, Milpitas, California ______, Attn: _____________________.

By: ______________________________

NOTICE: A COPY OF ANY NOTICE OF DEFAULT AND OF ANY NOTICE OF SALE WILL BE SENT ONLY TO THE ADDRESS CONTAINED IN THIS RECORDED REQUEST. IF YOUR ADDRESS CHANGES, A NEW REQUEST MUST BE RECORDED.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )
)

COUNTY OF )

On before me, ___________________, a Notary Public in and for said county and state, personally appeared
personally known to me (or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the with in instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in his/her/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by his/her/their signature(s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument.

WITNESS my hand and official seal.

Signature (This area for official notarial seal)
230
Item # C13.
38077.01007\32986635.1

EXHIBIT F

DISCLOSURE STATEMENT

THERE ARE RESTRICTIONS ON THE SALE OF THE PROPERTY YOU ARE BUYING. EXCEPT FOR A TRANSFER TO THE CITY FOLLOWING CITY’S

EXERCISE OF ITS OPTION TO PURCHASE, THIS PROPERTY MAY ONLY BE SOLD TO AN “ELIGIBLE HOUSEHOLD” AT A PRICE NOT TO EXCEED THE ADJUSTED RESALE PRICE WHICH IS CAPPED AT AN “AFFORDABLE HOUSING COST.”

THIS MEANS THAT YOU MAY NOT SELL THE PROPERTY FOR MARKET VALUE TO WHOMEVER YOU LIKE.

THESE RESTRICTIONS WILL BE IN EFFECT UNTIL _______________________.

SALE OF THE PROPERTY IN VIOLATION OF THE RESTRICTIONS SHALL BE VOIDABLE AT THE ELECTION OF THE CITY.

TO DETERMINE WHO AN ELIGIBLE HOUSEHOLD IS, AND WHAT THE

ADJUSTED RESALE PRICE AND AFFORDABLE HOUSING COST ARE, YOU

SHOULD CONTACT THE MILPITAS HOUSING AUTHORITY (FORMER CITY OF MILPITAS REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY).

YOU SHOULD ALSO READ THE RESALE RESTRICTION AND OPTION TO PURCHASE AGREEMENT RECORDED AGAINST THE PROPERTY. YOU MAY

OBTAIN A COPY FROM THE MILPITAS HOUSING AUTHORITY OR FROM THE ESCROW COMPANY.

I HAVE READ THE FOREGOING AND I UNDERSTAND WHAT IT MEANS.

(Owners)

_____________________________Date

231
Item # C13.

City of Milpitas, California

BUDGET CHANGE FORM

From* To*
Type of Change

Account

Amount

Account

Amount
Check one:

Budget Appropriation

Budget Transfer

295-3770

$278,315

295-2909

$278,315

2. Approve related budget amendments due to the sale of the property located at 254 Parc Place Drive in the amount of $278,315.

BACKGROUND:

The Health and Safety Code Section 34176.l(e) requires that all properties acquired by the Redevelopment Agency prior to February 1, 2012, and transferred to the Housing Authority, be developed within certain time frames. According to Health and Safety Code Section 33334.16, within five years, from the date the property is acquired, activities must be initiated consistent with the development of the property for affordable housing purposes, or the property must be sold, and the proceeds deposited into the State Low and Moderate Income 232
Item # C13.

Housing Asset Fund. This Health and Safety Code Section also allows for one additional period not to exceed five years.

Properties located at 1432-1446 S. Main Street, also known as Parcel 1, will be sold in Quarter 1 of 2023 (Properties 5-12 in the chart above).

The purpose of this agenda is to authorize the sale of 254 Parc Place Drive to be in compliance with the California Department of Housing and Community Development.

ANALYSIS:

Tenants of these properties signed a Lease Agreement with an Option to Purchase from the Housing Authority. The Option to Purchase provides these tenants with the option to purchase the units. The leases, which were executed in 2013, expired in 2014. Tenants have been on month-to-month since that time.

The initial five-year period to dispose of the property expired on August 31, 2017. The Housing Authority Commission adopted a resolution approving a one-time expiration date extension to August 31, 2022. Due to delays caused by the buyer’s lender, the City did not meet the deadline to dispose of 254 Parc Place Drive by this date. However, the City is in compliance with the California Department of Housing and Community Development because staff initiated disposition activities such as working in good faith with the buyer’s lender and real estate agent on the sale.

254 Parc Place Drive Unit Purchase

Ms. Marisela Campos has been diligently pursuing the purchase of the unit. Staff certified that she is income- eligible to purchase the unit and is a first-time homebuyer, which are two requirements in the City’s Below Market Rate program.

As part of the sale, the homebuyer, Ms. Campos, will be required to sign the City’s Resale Restriction Agreement, Option to Purchase, and adhere to its owner-occupied requirement. The Resale Restriction will limit the appreciation in the unit and will give the City the purchase option on the unit if the unit falls into default. Staff will monitor the unit to ensure that it will continue to be the primary residence of the occupant through the required Annual Occupancy form.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Proceeds from the sale will be posted into the Housing Authority Fund for future appropriation.

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA):

RECOMMENDATION:
233
Item # C13.

2. Approve related budget amendments due to the sale of the property located at 254 Parc Place Drive in the amount of $278,315.

Attachment(s):

1. Attachment 1- Sale of 254 Parc Place Resolution

2. Attachment 2- 254 Parc Place Budget Change Form

Check if City Council Approval required. Meeting Date: November 01, 2022

Requested by: Department Head: Alex Andrade Date: November 01, 2022 Reviewed by: Finance Director: Lauren Lai Date: November 01, 2022

Date approved by City Council, if required: Confirmed by:

FI/24786/V Form 30-222 (Rev. 1/92)
234
Item # C13.

CITY OF MILPITAS

AGENDA REPORT
(AR)

Item Title: Approve and Authorize the City Manager to Execute Amendment No. 4 with AG Witt, LLC for Disaster and COVID19 Cost Recovery and Consultation Services to extend the term by 18 months and increase the existing contract by $67,975 for a total contract amount of $229,211.25 (Staff Contact: Lauren Lai, Finance Director, 408-586-3111)
Category: Consent Calendar-Leadership and Support Services Meeting Date: 11/1/2022
Recommendation: Approve and Authorize the City Manager to Execute Amendment No. 4 with AG Witt, LLC for Disaster and COVID19 Cost Recovery and Consultation Services to extend the term by 18 months and increase the existing contract by $67,975 for a total contract amount of $229,211.25

BACKGROUND:

On February 22, 2021, the City executed an agreement with AG Witt, LLC (Consultant) for disaster cost recovery advisory and consulting services including cost auditing services for the COVID 19 event for a not to exceed amount of $95,000. Consultant was procured through a competitive process conducted by County of Santa Clara through solicitation ERFSQ-CON-FY20-0361 Disaster Cost Recovery and Financial Advisory Services dated May 1, 2020. Subsequently, the City executed three amendments to include additional funding for Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) reimbursement and especially for COVID 19 advisory and cost accounting services. The amendments are as follows:

 Amendment #1: April 8, 2021 – time only amendment to extend to December 31, 2021

 Amendment #2: November 16, 2021 – increased funding by $45,450 and not-to-exceed of $140,450 and time extended to December 31, 2022.

 Amendment #3: July 22, 2022 – increased funding by $20,786.25 and not-to-exceed of $161,236.25.

The above amendments were executed in accordance with the August 9, 2021 Council delegation of authority to the City Manager including appropriation and contract approval for American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funds.

ANALYSIS:

Recognizing that some of the scope of work relates to FEMA reimbursements and COVID 19 advisory and assistance, Staff is requesting Council consideration and approval of amendment # 4 to extend the term by 18 months (through December 31, 2024) and increase the existing contract amount of $161,236.25 by $67,975 for a total contract amount of $229,211.25.

To date, AG Witt assisted the City with filing approximately $1.2 million to FEMA for reimbursement. They also assisted the City with the Treasury legislations, policy development and program development for the City ARPA efforts.

This amendment will support Staff in maximizing FEMA reimbursement and assisting the City with ARPA programs.
235
Item # C14.

POLICY ALTERNATIVE(S):

Alternative 1: Not approve Amendment #4
Pros: The City will not incur $67,975 in costs.

Cons: It will adversely impact the City’s FEMA reimbursement and ARPA program compliance

Reason for Not Recommending: It is in the best interest of the City to maximize FEMA reimbursement for cost recovery and ensure ARPA program compliance to avoid potential Treasury claw back of ARPA funds.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Amendment #4 of $67,975 would be funded via ARPA appropriation of $50,000 for administration and General Fund Unanticipated Expenditure appropriation of $17.975. No budget amendment is required for this action.

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA):

By the definition provided in the CEQA Guidelines Section 15378, this action does not qualify as a “project” for the purpose of CEQA as this action has no potential to result in either a direct physical change in the environment, or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment.

RECOMMENDATION:

Approve and Authorize the City Manager to Execute Amendment No. 4 with AG Witt, LLC for Disaster and COVID19 Cost Recovery and Consultation Services to extend the term by 18 months and increase the existing contract amount by $67,975 for a total contract amount of $229,211.25

Attachment(s):

AG Witt Contract - Amendment #4

236
Item # C14.

Amendment No. 4: AG Witt, LLC 1 of 3

AMENDMENT NO . 4

TO THE PROFESIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT

BETWEEN THE CITY OF MILPITAS AND AG WITT, LLC
FOR

DISASTER COST RECOVERY ADVISORY AND CONSULTING SERVICES AS WELL AS COST AUDITING SERVICES FOR THE COVID 19 EVENT

This Amendment No. 4 is entered into on ______________ __ , by and between the City of Milpitas, a municipal corporation of the State of California (hereaf ter referred to as "C ity ") , and AG Witt, LLC , a Delaware corporation (hereafter referred to as " Consultant "). City and Consultant are sometimes individually referred to as “Party” and collectively as “Parties” in this Amendment No 4.

RECITALS

WHEREAS, on February 22, 2021 , the Parti es entered into a Professional Services Agreement for Disaster Cost Recovery Advisory and Consulting Services as Well as Cost Accounting Services for the COVID 19 Event for the City’s Finance Department (the “Agreement”) for the maximum amount of $95,000 .00 , and with a term period of February 22, 2021 , throug h Ju ly 8, 2021 ; and

WHEREAS, on April 8, 2021, the Parties entered into Amendment No. 1 to the Agreement to extend the term period expiration date to December 31, 202 1; and

WHEREAS, on November 16, 2021, the Parties entered into Amendment No. 2 to extend the term period expiration date to December 31, 2022 and increase the agreement maximum amount by $45,450.00 for a new not -to -exceed amount of $140,450.00 .

WHEREAS, on July 22, 2022, the Parties entered into Agreement No. 3 to increase the agreement maximum amount by $20,786.25 for a new not -to -exceed amount of $161,236.25; and

WHEREAS, the Parties now desire to further amend the Agreement to increase the agreement maximum amount by $67,975.00 and to extend the term period expiration date to December 31, 2024.

NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and conditions herein contained, the Parties agree to amend the Agreement as follows:

1. Section 2 Compensation section (b) is hereby amended to read as follows:

“In no event shall the total amount paid for services rendered by Consultant under this Agreement exceed the sum of Two Hundred Twenty -Nine Thousand Two Hundred Eleven Dollars and Twenty -Five Cents ($ 229,211.25 ). This amount is to cover all printing and related

237
Item # C14.

Amendment No. 4: AG Witt, LLC 2 of 3
costs, and the City will not pay any additional fees for printing expenses.

Periodic payments shall be made within thirty (30) days of receipt of an invoice which includes a detailed description of the work performed.

Payments to Consultant for work performed will be made on a monthly billing basis.”

2. The first sentence of Section 5. Term is hereby amended to read as follows:

“The term of this Agreement shall be from February 22, 2021 to December 31, 20 24 , unless earlier terminated as provided herein.”

All other provisions of the Agreement not amended by this Amendment No. 4 shall remain in full force and effect.

[SIGNATURES ON THE FOLLOWING PAGE]

238
Item # C14.

Amendment No. 4: AG Witt, LLC 3 of 3
SIGNATURE PAGE OF AMENDMENT NO. 4

TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICE S AGREEMENT BETWEEN

THE CITY OF MILPITAS AND
AG WITT, LLC .

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have executed this Amendment No. 4 as of the date written on page one .

CITY OF MILPITAS
Approved By:

Steven G. McHarris, City Manager

Date

Approved As To Form:

Michael Mutalipassi , City Attorney

Approved:

Lauren Lai, CPA, MPA
Finance Director/Risk Manager

AG WITT, LLC

Signature

Name

Title

Date

239
Item # C14.

CITY OF MILPITAS

AGENDA REPORT
(AR)

Item Title: Adopt a Resolution Authorizing the Funding Application to the PLHA Program, Approving a Five-Year Plan for the PLHA Program Formula Allocation of an Estimated $1,431,570.00 for the City of Milpitas, Authorizing the Receipt of the PLHA Grant, and Certifying to the California Department of Housing and Community Development Compliance with the PLHA Program Requirements (Staff Contact: Alex Andrade, Economic Development Director, 408-586-3046; and Sarah Balcha, Senior Administrative Analyst, 408-586-3268) Category: Community Development
Meeting Date: 11/1/2022
Recommendation: Adopt a Resolution authorizing the funding application to the PLHA program, approving a five-year Plan for the PLHA program formula allocation of an estimated $1,431,570 for the City of Milpitas, authorizing the receipt of the PLHA grant, and certifying to the California Department of Housing and Community Development compliance with the PLHA program requirements.

BACKGROUND:

In 2017, Governor Brown signed a 15-bill housing package aimed at addressing the state’s housing shortage and high housing costs. This included Senate Bill 2 Building Homes and Jobs Act (SB-2), which created a recording fee on real estate documents to increase the supply of affordable homes in California. As the number of real estate transactions recorded in each county will vary from year to year, the revenues will fluctuate. SB-2 established that 70% of the revenue collected, beginning in calendar year 2019, will go to locally administered affordable housing, otherwise known as the Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA). The funding will help cities and counties increase the supply of housing for households at or below 60% of the Area Median Income (AMI); increase assistance to affordable owner-occupied workforce housing; assist persons experiencing or at risk of homelessness; facilitate housing affordability, particularly for lower-and moderate-income households; promote projects and programs to meet the local government’s unmet share of regional housing needs allocation; and ensure geographic equity in the distribution of the funds.

The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) released the 2022 Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) on August 17, 2022. The deadline to apply was initially October 31, 2022 but has subsequently been changed by HCD to November 30, 2022. The City of Milpitas must apply this year to be eligible for the City’s 2019 calendar year allocation. Applicants cannot apply for more than three years of allocation in one year. The City is eligible to apply for its 2019, 2020, and 2021 PLHA entitlement of $1,017,554. However, HCD requirements state the Plan must be for the five-year period of 2019-2023 (Attachment 2). The City published public notice of the Plan in accordance with HCD requirements.

ANALYSIS:

The PLHA program has allocated money to the City of Milpitas. To be eligible for its entitlement, the City must engage in activities covered by the guidelines. The five-year Plan must detail how the allocated funds will be used for eligible activities. No more than 5% of the funding may be used towards administrative costs. If City Council adopts the resolution to authorize the 2019, 2020, and 2021 funding application (Attachment 1) and adopts the PLHA five-year plan, HCD is expected to approve the application and send the City a five-year Standard Agreement to be executed and signed within 90 days. Each year, HCD will publish the amount of funds the City will receive for the following year. To receive the funds, the City must submit a streamlined application requesting a PLHA allocation and to certify the City is continuing to comply with the threshold 240 Item # 16.

requirements of the program, including having a certified Housing Element, submission of Housing Element annual performance reports, and submission of its annual PLHA report that details uses and expenditures of all awarded PLHA allocations and outcomes achieved.

During the five-year Plan period, up to 10% of the planned expenditure may be reallocated to another activity.

If the City would like to reallocate more than 10% of its funding, then the City will need to submit a plan amendment and get HCD approval.

Of the eligible activities, only a few, such as assisting persons who are experiencing or at risk of homelessness, could be implemented under the short time frame allotted the City. Certain activities such as pre-development, City-owned rental housing, and purchasing foreclosed or vacant homes are not established programs and thus would require more staff time than is currently available to meet the PLHA funding deadline. Additionally, staff does not recommend City Council pursue homeownership opportunities as they are not commonly used by Milpitas residents and other funding sources are available. A full list of eligible activities can be seen in Attachment 3. Given the program deadline’s time constraint, staff recommends both the five- year Plan and the 2019, 2020, and 2021 PLHA entitlement be approved for a combination of a Workforce Housing Rental Assistance Program (WHRAP) and to continue funding the Homeless Engagement and Access Team (HEAT).

Should the funds be allocated towards any type of rental assistance under PLHA, the PLHA guidelines require the individual receiving assistance be funded for a minimum of six months. In essence, WHRAP would function similarly to a voucher system in that these funds would be used to offset a specific amount of rent paid by the tenant but not the entire rent. Staff recommends utilizing PLHA funding to provide rental assistance for individuals who work in the city of Milpitas. Per PLHA guidelines, rental assistance must help individuals who are at or below 30% of the AMI. The table below provides the income limits by household size.

2022 HCD Income Limits

Person(s) in
Household
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
30% AMI $35,400 $40,450 $45,500 $50,550 $54,600 $58,650 $62,700

Staff recommends utilizing a lottery system for transparency, equity and to randomly select eligible individuals for the WHRAP. Staff suggests including preferences to individuals, such as individuals who are  Employed by the Milpitas Unified School District,
 Employed by the City of Milpitas,
 Employed by the Hospitality Industry,
 Currently live in Milpitas
 And any other areas of City Council interest
This approach would grant a higher amount of lottery tickets to those individuals in identified preference categories and thus increase their chances of being randomly selected. Staff does not recommend current Milpitas residency be required as the intention of the program is to offset the high cost of living that may have forced or prevented the Milpitas workforce from living in Milpitas.

The City of Milpitas’ five-year estimated allotment is $1,431,570. Staff recommends the approval of a five-year Plan which includes 5% ($71,578.50) for program administration and the remaining balance of $1,359,991.50 to be split between 20% ($271,998.30) for HEAT team funding (for unhoused outreach and assessment) and 80% ($1,087,993.20) for WHRAP.

As the City can only apply for three years of allocation at one time, staff recommends City Council adopt the resolution authorizing the PLHA funding application for the City of Milpitas’ combined 2019, 2020, and 2021 entitlement of $1,017,554. Staff recommends the designation of 5% ($50,877.70) to program administration.

The remaining balance of $966,676.30 will be split between 20% ($193,335.26) HEAT team funding, and 80% ($773,341.04) WHRAP. As the current fiscal year of funding for the HEAT team has already been budgeted, staff recommends utilizing $100,000 in PLHA funding for fiscal year 2023-24 and the remaining balance for 241
Item # 16.

fiscal year 2024-25. This will allow the HEAT team to continue providing their assessment services for approximately the next three fiscal years.

PLHA rental assistance requires providing rent relief for a minimum period of six months. Staff recommends assisting individuals for 24 months. Thus, if the City was able to assist 20-50 households at or below 30% AMI, that would result in a benefit per month ranging from $644.45 to $1611.13. The benefit amount and individuals assisted will be dependent on the level of interest and eligible households. Please see Attachment 4 for a table breakdown.

Should Council direct staff to move forward, staff recommends the Council designate FORWARD, formerly known as LiveStories as the program administrator for WHRAP. FORWARD was recently authorized to administer the current Rent and Mortgage Relief Program funded by the American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) and staff already has a baseline understanding of their administrative costs. Should the City need to fund any additional administrative fees to administer the program, it would do so from the Affordable Housing and Community Benefit Fund.

The estimated five-year funding (2019-2023) for the City of Milpitas is $1,431,570. Given the program deadline’s time constraint of November 30, 2022, staff recommends using the 2019, 2020, and 2021 PLHA entitlement of $1,017,554 for a combination of a WHRAP and to continue funding the HEAT program for two additional years. Staff will return to City Council Fall 2022 or later to determine the 2022 and 2023 allocations, estimated at $414,125, as the allocations are announced by HCD.

FISCAL IMPACT:

The City's application and receipt of the PLHA grant would be in an amount not to exceed the five-year estimate of the PLHA formula allocations of $1,431,570, in accordance with all applicable rules and laws. The immediate entitlement to the City is $1,017,554 for allocation and administration of its PLHA 2019, 2020, and 2021. The budget change for $1,017,554 will be incorporated into the FY2022-23 mid-year budget. Any subsequent HCD entitled allocations will be incorporated into the annual budget development or separately for Council consideration.

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA):

RECOMMENDATION:

1. Adopt Resolution authorizing the funding application to the PLHA program, approving a five-year Plan for the PLHA program formula allocation of an estimated $1,431,570 for the City of Milpitas, authorizing the receipt of the PLHA grant, and certifying to the California Department of Housing and Community Development compliance with the PLHA program requirements.

Attachment(s):

1. Permanent Local Housing Allocation Resolution

2. Exhibit A of Resolution, Five-Year Plan

3. Permanent Local Housing Allocation Eligible Activities

4. Permanent Local Housing Allocation Projected Assistance Breakdown 242
Item # 16.

Resolution No. ____
ATTACHMENT 1 RESOLUTION NO. ______

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF MILPITAS AUTHORIZING THE APPLICATION AND ADOPTING THE

PERMANENT LOCAL HOUSING ALLOCATION (PLHA) PROGRAM

WHEREAS, the State of California, Department of Housing and Community Development (Department) is authorized to provide up to $195 million to Cities and Counties for assistance under the Senate Bill (SB) 2 Permanent Local Housing Allocation (PLHA) Program Entitlement Jurisdiction Component from the Building Homes and Jobs Trust Fund (as described in Health and Safety Code section 50470 et seq. (Chapter 364, Statutes of 2017 (SB 2));

WHEREAS, the Department issued Permanent Local Housing Allocation Final Guidelines (PLHA Program Guidelines) in October 2019; and WHEREAS, the State of California, Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) issued a Notice of Funding Availability (NOFA) dated August 17, 2022, under the Permanent Local Housing Allocation Program;

WHEREAS, the City of Milpitas is an eligible Local government to receive allocations of PLHA funds and may apply for program funds to administer one or more eligible activities, or a Local and Regional Housing Trust Fund to whom an eligible Local government delegated its PLHA formula allocation;

WHEREAS, the Department may approve funding allocations for the PLHA Program, subject to the terms and conditions of the PLHA Program Guidelines, NOFA, Program requirements, the Standard Agreement, and other contracts between the Department and PLHA grant recipients;

WHEREAS, the City of Milpitas has complied with all application requirements, including but not limited to, public notice, public comment, and public hearing requirements.

NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY OF MILPITAS AS FOLLOWS:

1. If the City of Milpitas receives a grant of PLHA funds from the Department pursuant to the above referenced PLHA NOFA, it represents and certifies that it will use all such funds in a manner consistent and in compliance with all applicable state and federal statutes, rules, regulations, and laws, including without limitation all rules and laws regarding the PLHA Program, as well as any and all contracts the City of Milpitas may have with the Department.

2. The City of Milpitas is hereby authorized and directed to receive a PLHA grant, in an amount not to exceed the five-year estimate of the PLHA formula allocations, as stated in Appendix C of the current NOFA , $1,431,570, in accordance with all applicable rules and laws.

3. The City of Milpitas hereby agrees to use the PLHA funds for eligible activities as approved by the Department and in accordance with all Program requirements, Guidelines, other rules and laws, as well as in a manner consistent and in compliance with the Standard Agreement and other contracts between the City of Milpitas and the Department.

4. Pursuant to Section 302(c)(4) of the Guidelines, City of Milpitas’ PLHA five-year Plan for the 2019 -2023 Allocations is attached as Exhibit A to this resolution, and the City of Milpitas hereby adopts this PLHA five-year Plan and certifies compliance with all public notice, public comment, and public hearing requirements in accordance with the Guidelines.

5. The City of Milpitas agrees to inform the Department of changes made to the five-year Plan in each succeeding year of the term of the Plan.

6. Pursuant to the City of Milpitas ’ certification in this resolution, the PLHA funds will be expended only for eligible activities and consistent with all program requirements.

243
Item # 16.

Resolution No. ____

7. The City of Milpi tas shall be subject to the terms and conditions as specified in the Standard Agreement, the PLHA Program Guidelines and any other applicable SB 2 Guidelines published by the Department.

8. City Manager and/or designee is/are authorized to execute the PLHA Program Application, the PLHA Standard Agreement and any subsequent amendments or modifications thereto, as well as any other documents which are related to the Program or the PLHA grant awarded to the City of Milpitas, as the Department may deem appropriate.

9. 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.

10. The City of Milpitas hereby adopts the PLHA five-year Plan for the not to exceed five-year (2019-2023) estimate of the PLHA formula allocations as attached to this resolution (Exhibit A).

11. The City of Milpitas is authorized to submit an allocation and administer its PLHA 2019, 2020, and 2021 entitlement of $1,017,554.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 1 day of November 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

ATTEST: APPROVED:

Suzanne Guzzetta, City Clerk Rich Tran, Mayor

APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Michael Mutalipassi, City Attorney
244
Item # 16.

Attachment 2, Exhibit A of Resolution Five-Year Plan
§302(c)(4)(C) Provide a description of how the Plan is consistent with the programs set forth in the Local Government’s Housing Element.

The Housing Element must plan for housing needs among certain groups that tend to have particular challenges with respect to securing appropriate affordable housing. These groups are defined as groups with special housing needs and includes extremely- low income households, and individuals and families experiencing homelessness. One of the City of Milpitas' Housing Element 2015-2023 goals is supporting housing diversity and affordability. Under that goal, the Housing Element specifies "the City will continue to support emergency services and housing resources consistent with the City's ongoing commitment to and participation in the Santa Clara County Continuum of Care Plan." The Continuum of Care is a group of stakeholders dedicated to ending and preventing homelessness in Santa Clara County. Both the Homeless Engagement and Access Team and the Workforce Housing Rental Assistance Program support the City of Milpitas' Housing Element 2015-2023 goal of supporting housing diversity and affordability.

Activities Detail (Activities Detail (Must Make a Selection on Formula Allocation Application worksheet under Eligible Activities, §301)) §302(c)(4) Plan Rev. 2/16/22
§302(c)(4)(A) Describe the manner in which allocated funds will be used for eligible activities.

The City of Milpitas will use the PLHA funds for the elgible activity identified below. The City of Milpitas currently has a contract with the County of Santa Clara, Office of Supportive Housing, to provide homeless outreach, assessment, and street-based case management services through the County's Homeless Engagement and Access Team. City staff are recommending using a portion of its entitlement to extend its contract with the County of Santa Clara Office of Supportive Housing's Homeless Engagement and Access Team (HEAT) and the remainder of its funding to go to the creation of a Workforce Housing Rental Assistance Program.
§302(c)(4)(B) Provide a description of the way the Local government will prioritize investments that increase the supply of housing for households with incomes at or below 60 percent of Area Median Income (AMI).

We are allocating 100% of our funding to eligible activity 6, assisting persons who are experiencing or at risk of homelessness. Therefore, our PLHA funds will not be used for increasing the supply of housing for households.
§301(a)(6) Assisting persons who are experiencing or At risk of homelessness, including, but not limited to, providing rapid rehousing, rental assistance, supportive/case management services that allow people to obtain and retain housing, operating and capital costs for navigation centers and emergency shelters, and the new construction, rehabilitation, and preservation of permanent and transitional housing.
§302(c)(4)(E)(i) Provide a detailed and complete description of how allocated funds will be used for the proposed Activity.

City staff are recommending using the PLHA entitlement for supportive case management and workforce housing rental assistance. City staff are recommending the designation of 20% of its entitlement to extending its contract with the County of Santa Clara Office of Supportive Housing's Homeless Engagement and Access Team (HEAT). The HEAT team conducts homeless outreach, assessment, and street-based case management services. City staff recommend the remaining 80% of its funding to go to the creation of a Workforce Housing Rental Assistance Program (WHRAP) for individuals at or below 30% of the Area Median Income. WHRAP would function similar to a voucher system in that these funds would be used to offset a specific amount of rent paid by the tenant for 24 months. Staff would utilize a lottery system with preferences for individuals who work in the Milpitas Unified School District, the City of Milpitas, and the Hospitality Industry.

Complete the table below for each proposed Activity to be funded with 2019-2023 PLHA allocations. If a single Activity will be assisting households at more than one level of Area Median Income, please list the Activity as many times as needed to capture all of the AMI levels that will be assisted, but only show the percentage of annual funding allocated to the Activity one time (to avoid double counting).

Funding Allocation Year 2019 2019 2020 2020 2021 2021 2022 2022 2023 2023 Type of Activity for Persons
Experiencing or At Risk of
Homelessness
Supportive/
Case
Manageme
nt Services
Rental
Assistance
(term of
six
months)
Supportive
/Case
Managem
ent
Services
Rental
Assistance
(term of
six
months)
Supportive
/Case
Managem
ent
Services
Rental
Assistance
(term of
six
months)
Supportive
/Case
Managem
ent
Services
Rental
Assistance
(term of
six
months)
TOTAL30%
§302(c)(4)(E)(i) Percentage of
Funds Allocated for the
Proposed Activity

20.00% 80.00% 20.00% 80.00% 20.00% 80.00% 20.00% 80.00% Supportive
/Case
Managem
ent
Services
Rental
Assistance
(term of
six
months)

20.00% 80.00%
0 0 0 0 0 0
30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30% 30%§302(c)(4)(E)(ii) Area Median Income Level Served
§302(c)(4)(E)(ii) Projected
Number of Households Served50 20 50 20 50 20 50 20
30%
0 §302(c)(4)(E)(ii) Unmet share of
the RHNA at AMI Level
Note: complete for years 2019,
2020, 2021 only
§302(c)(4)(E)(iii) A description of major steps/actions and a proposed schedule for the implementation and completion of the Activity.

If approved by MIlpitas City Council, the City will consider amending its contract end date or entering into a new contract with the County of Santa Clara Office of Supportive Housing to continue funding the Homeless Engagement and Access Team (HEAT). The City is currently drafting a contract with the County of Santa Clara with an expected termination date of September 30, 2023. The City anticipates to get formal approval from City Council for HEAT funding in mid-2023. City staff will need to establish the program parmeters of the Workforce Housing Rental Assistance Program and go through the City's process to fund a program administrator to issue rental assistance. This may include a Request for Proposals (RFP) or Milpitas City Council may choose to designate the service provider who is currently administering the City of Milpitas' Rent and Mortgage Relief Program. City staff anticipates releasing the RFP or designating the service provider in early 2023 and issuing funding by mid-2023.

N/A N/A
350
§302(c)(4)(E)(iv) Period of
Affordability for the Proposed
Activity (55 years required for
rental housing projects)

N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
50 20
245
Item # 16.

Attachment 3 Eligible Activities

A full list and explanation of each of the eligible activities is provided below:

1. The predevelopment, development, acquisition, rehabilitation, and preservation of multifamily, residential live-work, rental housing that is affordable to extremely low-, very low-, low-, or moderate-income households, including necessary operating subsidies.

2. The predevelopment, development, acquisition, rehabilitation, and preservation of affordable rental and ownership housing, including Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), that meets the needs of a growing workforce earning up to 120% of AMI, or 150% of AMI in high-cost areas. ADUs shall be available for occupancy for a term of no less than 30 days.

3. Matching portions of funds placed into Local or Regional Housing Trust Funds.

4. Matching portions of funds available through the Low- and Moderate-Income Housing Asset Fund pursuant to subdivision (d) of Health and Safety Code (HSC) Section 34176.

5. Capitalized reserves for services connected to the preservation and creation of new permanent supportive housing.

6. Assisting persons who are experiencing or at risk of homelessness, including, but not limited to, providing rapid rehousing, rental assistance, supportive/case management services that allow people to obtain and retain housing, operating and capital costs for navigation centers and emergency shelters, and the new construction, rehabilitation, and preservation of permanent and transitional housing.

A. This activity may include subawards to administrative entities as defined in HSC Section 50490(a)(1-3) that were awarded California Emergency Solutions and Housing (CESH) program or California Homeless Emergency Aid Program (HEAP) funds for rental assistance to continue assistance to these households.

B. Applicants must provide rapid rehousing, rental assistance, navigation centers, emergency shelter, and transitional housing activities in a manner consistent with the Housing First practices described in 25 CCR, Section 8409, subdivision (b)(1)-(6) and in compliance with Welfare and Institutions Code (WIC) Section 8225(b)(8). An applicant allocated funds for the new construction, rehabilitation, and preservation of permanent supportive housing shall incorporate the core components of Housing First, as provided in WIC Section 8255, subdivision (b).

7. Accessibility modifications in lower-income owner-occupied housing.

8. Efforts to acquire and rehabilitate foreclosed or vacant homes and apartments.

9. Homeownership opportunities, including, but not limited to, down payment assistance.

10. Fiscal incentives made by a county to a city within the county to incentivize approval of one or more affordable housing projects, or matching funds invested by a county in an affordable housing development project in a city within the county, provided that the city has made an equal or greater investment in the project. The county fiscal incentives shall be in the form of a grant or low-interest loan to an affordable housing project. Matching funds investments by 246
Item # 16.
both the county and the city also shall be a grant or low interest deferred loan to the affordable housing project.
247
Item # 16.

Attachment 4 Projected Assistance Breakdown
2019, 2020, and 2021 Combined Entitlement
PLHA Allocation Individuals
Assisted
Months
Assisted
Benefit Per
Mo
773,341.04 20 24 $1,611.13
773,341.04 30 24 $1,074.08
773,341.04 40 24 $805.56
773,341.04 50 24 $644.45

Total Allocation $1,017,554.00
Total Admin Fee (5%) $50,877.70
Subtotal $966,676.30

HEAT Allocation (20%) $193,335.26
WHRAP Allocation
(80%) $773,341.04
248
Item # 16.

CITY OF MILPITAS

AGENDA REPORT
(AR)

Item Title: Adopt a Resolution to Approve the Milpitas Residential and Mixed-Use Objective Design Standards (Staff Contact: Ned Thomas, Planning Director, 408-586-3273; and Jay Lee, AICP, Principal Planner, 408-586-3077)
Category: Public Hearings-Community Development
Meeting Date: 11/1/2022
Recommendation: (1) Conduct a public hearing and move to close the hearing following comments; and (2) Adopt a Resolution to approve the Milpitas Residential and Mixed- Use Objective Design Standards.

Background:

Recent state legislation (e.g., SB 330 and SB 35) requires that the design standards imposed on residential projects and mixed-use projects with at least two-thirds of the square footage designated for residential use must be objective. An “objective standard” means that the standard is uniformly measurable and verifiable and involves no personal or subjective judgment by a public official. Although the City’s two specific plan areas have design guidelines for new development, broader citywide design standards do not currently exist.

Therefore, the Planning Department has prepared a set of draft Residential and Mixed-Use Objective Design Standards (“Objective Design Standards”) to streamline housing approvals and accelerate housing production by providing clarity and certainty in design decisions and to simplify the development review process.

The proposed Objective Design Standards will provide clear and measurable design criteria for all new multi- family residential and mixed-use developments (with a residential component) throughout the City. The new Objective Design Standards will comply with State requirements, including compliance with Senate Bill 35, which stipulates that qualifying multi-family residential projects meeting certain criteria may request a streamlined ministerial review process.

On June 16, 2020, the City Council authorized acceptance of a $310,000 grant from the California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) through the State’s Planning Grant Program, which is funded by Senate Bill 2 (SB 2), also known as the Building Homes and Jobs Act. City Planning staff is using the grant funding to create land use and zoning tools to streamline housing approvals, comply with State legislation, and support the state’s goal of addressing critical housing needs. Developing the Objective Design Standards is one of three key tasks being funded as part of this effort.

In October 2020, following a competitive Request for Qualifications (RFQ) process, the City selected Raimi and Associates to complete the Objective Design Standards. The work completed thus far is summarized below.

1. Existing Conditions and Best Practices Memo: The consultant reviewed existing multifamily and mixed-use zoning regulations, researched best practices, and provided recommendations based on this research and analysis.

2. Community Outreach: The consultant prepared a public-facing fact sheet that describes State regulations, the need for objective design standards, and project goals. The consultant and City staff also hosted a series of working sessions with City staff from various departments involved in the development review process to ensure that the Objective Design Standards support the City’s fire, building, land development, and transportation requirements. The project team also conducted a series of stakeholder meetings with key developers who have built housing projects in Milpitas, the Community Development Roundtable, and the Milpitas Involved Citizens to receive preliminary feedback on the Objective Design Standards.
249
Item # 17.

3. Framework Plan and Site Tests: The consultant developed a Framework Plan that identifies the topics and organization of the Objective Design Standards. The consultant then “tested” the draft design standards and concepts in the Framework Plan by applying them to several sites throughout the City and creating 3D models to show what new developments would look like under the proposed standards. These site tests ensured that the Objective Design Standards would be feasible and effective in actual development scenarios.

4. Draft Objective Design Standards: Based on public input received and results of the site tests, the consultant prepared an Administrative Draft of the Objective Design Standard for internal review.

Following staff review of the Administrative Draft, the consultant revised the Administrative Draft and published a Public Draft in a web-friendly format for review by the general public. The Public Draft was posted on the Planning Department webpage on July 19th and will be available for public comment through August 20th. The public comment period was announced through an email blast, an online public forum, the City’s social media platforms, and electronic signs at City Hall.

5. Final Objective Design Standards: The City did not receive any public comments during the public comment period. However, the Planning Department continued to coordinate with development review staff and incorporated minor revisions to ensure consistency with the City’s building code, land development, fire, and solid waste requirements.

Analysis:

A brief overview of the Existing Conditions and Best Practices Memo, public input received, and Public Draft Objective Design Standards is provided below.

Existing Conditions and Best Practices Memo
The key findings of the Existing Conditions and Best Practices Memo are outlined below:
 Existing Regulations: The City of Milpitas does not have consistent objective design standards across its various regulatory documents. The City’s two specific plans provide design guidelines for the areas within the plan boundaries, but the design guidelines are subjective and found in multiple locations. The General Plan also provides various policies that provide general design guidance for multifamily and mixed-use residential projects.
 Organization and Structure: Objective design standards are typically organized by: (1) topic, (2) land use and building typology, (3) design principle/goal, or (4) area (i.e., neighborhood). Each approach has its strengths and weaknesses, but the most common practice is to combine two or more of these approaches.
 Flexibility in Design: A good set of objective design standards should strive to balance flexibility and prescriptiveness. A variety of strategies can be used to achieve this balance including: (1) menu of options to choose from to meet the intent of the standard, (2) point-based system requiring projects to attain a minimum score, (3) organization into building typologies allowing applicants to determine which classification is most appropriate for their projects, and (4) location-specific standards that consider the unique characteristics of each area.

Community Feedback
The feedback received through the staff working sessions and stakeholder meetings is summarized below:
 Existing design guidelines are largely outdated, featuring design practices that are no longer relevant or contemporary, and subjective, resulting in confusion on the part of both applicants and staff.  Requiring ground floor retail for mixed-use projects in areas where it may not be financially feasible constitutes a hurdle for applicants. Emphasize building form over use.  Maximum buildings heights and allowed density are in conflict. The maximum building height is often too low relative to the allowed density.
 Satisfying fire and public safety standards sometimes has been cumbersome, especially when attempting to satisfy stairwell, utility, and emergency vehicle access requirements. 250
Item # 17.

 Regulate buildings based on typologies that can be reasonably expected to appear in Milpitas and implement design standards that are consistent with the building code.  The biggest benefit of objective design standards is a streamlined review process and the elimination of negotiating between the applicant and staff regarding subjective design guidelines.  While clear standards are desired, maintaining some level of flexibility to encourage variations in design is needed for significant façade breaks, upper floor step backs, and façade treatments.

Refer to the Existing Conditions and Best Practices Memo for a detailed overview of the feedback received.

Public Draft Objective Design Standards
The background research and analysis and feedback received from staff, developers, and community members have informed the organization and content of the Public Draft Objective Design Standards. Below is an overview of the Public Draft Objective Design Standards and a description of the key design standards.

GP Implementation
The Objective Design Standards support and implement many General Plan policies in the Land Use, Circulation, and Community Design Elements. A few of the policies are below:
 LU-5: Ensure that new development is compatible with existing development in order to maintain a high quality of life for residents, while supporting successful business operations.  CD-1: Strengthen Milpitas’ identity and sense of place by reinforcing the community’s distinctive, high- quality community form, natural landscape, and character.  CD-2: Ensure project designs reinforce a sense of place, display design excellence, and are cohesive and sensitive to the surrounding built environment and natural landscape.  CD-10: Design buildings, sites, and streets to enhance pedestrian and bicycle mobility.  CD-11: Enhance Milpitas’ commitment to sustainable design by minimizing negative environmental impacts and utilizing resources efficiently.

Relationship to the Zoning Ordinance
The Objective Design Standards complement the City’s Zoning Ordinance (Milpitas Municipal Code, Title XI, Chapter 10) by providing detailed architectural and urban design standards that supplement the City’s zoning and general development standards to facilitate high-quality, attractive developments. While the Zoning Ordinance provides basic development standards that determine the overall scale of development (e.g., uses permitted, lot size, density, setbacks, and building height), the Objective Design Standards provide detailed requirements for how buildings should be designed (e.g., massing breaks, façade composition, and building materials).

Organization and Overall Strategy
The primary goals of the Objective Design Standards are to preserve the character of existing neighborhoods, encourage human-scaled buildings, promote high quality site and building design, and emphasize a pedestrian-oriented environment.

To accomplish these goals, the Objective Design Standards utilize a holistic approach that works across scales from urban scale strategies to fine grained architectural strategies. The Objective Design Standards first address site planning and site design, covering topics like block structure, building orientation, open space and landscaping, and access/parking. The next set of standards address building massing and form, covering topics like building lengths and upper floor mass reductions. Then the standards address façade modulation, providing requirements for major and minor breaks in the building façade. Finally, the standards conclude by addressing façade articulation and open space design, covering topics like establishing a base/middle/top, awnings and canopies, window design and pattern, building materials, and open space dimensions. 251
Item # 17.

The Objective Design Standards also strive to balance objectivity with flexibility by establishing unique requirements for each building type, addressing special circumstances, and providing multiple options for compliance. Furthermore, the Objective Design Standards establish a clear process for requesting and approving minor exceptions and exemptions. Applicants may request up to three exceptions/exemptions but must demonstrate that the project meets the purpose and intent statement of each topic where the exception/exemption is requested and that there are valid constraints to meeting the standard. Otherwise, the applicant may choose to go through the typical discretionary approval process.

Key Design Standards
The key design standards are summarized below:

Site Planning
 The maximum block length is 400 feet and the maximum block perimeter length is 1,400 feet. Blocks exceeding these thresholds require a midblock connection with public access that meets minimum standards. Types of allowed midblock connections include a public street, private street, shared street (between pedestrians and vehicles), and paseo/pedestrian path. (pg. 9-14)  Accessible open spaces must be equal to or greater than 5 or 10 percent of the lot area depending on the average building height. (pg. 15-16)

Site Design
 Sidewalks must meet the prescribed minimum dimensions. (pg. 18)  Primary building frontages must face a public sidewalk or publicly accessible pathway. (pg. 19)  Off-street parking is prohibited between the building and street. (pg. 25)  A minimum of 15 percent of the total off-street open parking area must be landscaped with a mixture of trees, shrubs, ground cover, and other plant material. (pg. 28)  For buildings greater than 2 stories in height in lower density residential areas, no portion of the building can be within a 45-degree daylight plan measured perpendicularly from the shared rear property line from a height of 10 feet for the full length of the property line. (pg. 33)

Building Design
 Buildings cannot exceed 380 feet in length or width and buildings with 6 or more stories must reduce the upper floor mass through one of the two options provided. (pg. 44-45)  Buildings must provide a major façade break at least every 150 feet of building length and a minor façade break at least every 100 feet of building length. Each façade break must meet the prescribed minimum dimensions. (pg. 45-48)
 Buildings must use a different façade composition every 100 feet in length. Each façade composition must include a variation in at least two of the following: building modulation, façade articulation, fenestration, and materiality. (pg. 49-50)
 Buildings 3 stories or taller and a building length greater than 50 feet must be designed to provide a distinct base, middle, and top on all exterior facing facades. (pg. 51-52)

Policy Alternative:

Alternative: Do not adopt the Milpitas Residential and Mixed-Use Objective Design Standards.

Pros: None.

252
Item # 17.

Cons: Without the Milpitas Residential and Mixed-Use Objective Design Standards, the City would not have objective and quantifiable design standards that meet the new state requirements. Furthermore, the City would not have established and consistent criteria for residential and mixed-use building and site design, which would limit its ability to require high-quality, context-sensitive design for projects that qualify for ministerial review.

Development review staff would continue evaluating site and architectural design on a largely subjective and ad-hoc basis, resulting in an unnecessarily burdensome permitting process for both staff and applicants.

Reasons not recommended: Development review staff and applicants would not have clear and implementable criteria for designing residential and mixed-use projects. The City would miss out on the opportunity to establish objective design standards for projects that qualify for ministerial review to ensure that new developments complement and improve the existing neighborhood character. The City would also fail to support the state’s efforts to streamline housing approvals and accelerate housing production by providing clarity and certainty in design decisions.

Fiscal Impact:

Adoption of the Milpitas Residential and Mixed-Use Objective Design Standards will result in no fiscal impact to the City.

California Environmental Quality Act:

The Mixed-Use Objective Design Standards is exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) and as a separate and independent basis Section 15183 (Projects Consistent with a Community Plan, General Plan, or Zoning).

Recommendation:

1. Conduct a public hearing and move to close the hearing following comments; and

2. Adopt a Resolution to approve the Milpitas Residential and Mixed-Use Objective Design Standards.

Attachments:

1. Draft City Council Resolution

2. Existing Standards and Best Practices Memo

3. Public Draft Milpitas Residential and Mixed-Use Objective Design Standards

4. Final Milpitas Residential and Mixed-Use Objective Design Standards

5. Planning Commission Resolution No. 22-024
253
Item # 17.

1 Resolution No. ___

RESOLUTION NO. 22-___

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MILPITAS ADOPTING

THE MILPITAS RESIDENTIAL AND MIXED-USE OBJECTIVE DESIGN

STANDARDS

WHEREAS, in 2017, the State of California Legislature passed, and Governor Newsom signed Senate Bill 35 (Wiener). Senate Bill 35 authorizes a development proponent to submit a planning application for a multifamily housing development, which satisfies specified planning objective des ign standards, that is subject to a streamlined, ministerial approval process. The bill declares that access to affordable housing is a matter of statewide concern and aims to address California’s housing shortage by streamlining and increasing affordable housing development; and

WHEREAS, under Senate Bill 35, jurisdictions that have insufficient progress toward their very low- and low -income Regional Housing Needs Allocation are subject to the streamlined ministerial approval process for proposed developments with at least 50 percent affordability; and

WHEREAS, the City has made insufficient progress towards its very low - and low -income Regional Housing Needs allocation and is subject to the Senate Bill streamlined ministerial approval process for proposed developments with at least 50 percent affordability; and

WHEREAS, in 2019, the State of California Legislature passed, and Governor Newsom signed Senate Bill 330 (Skinner). Senate Bill 330 makes numerous changes to the Permit Streamlining Act and the Housing Accountability Act (Senate Bill 35) to create a new preliminary application process, streamline the permit review process, and limit the standards and policies that a local jurisdiction can apply to housing developments; and

WHEREAS, Senate Bill 330 prohibits local jurisdictions from conducting more than five hearings on a housing development project that complies with objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria; and

WHEREAS, Senate Bill 330 prohibits local jurisdictions from requiring a housing development project to rezone the property if it is consistent with objective general plan and zoning standards and criteria; and

WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65589.5 defines “housing development project” as “a use consisting of any of the following: (A) Residential units only. (B) Mixed -use developments consisting of residential and nonresidential uses with at least two-thirds of the square footage designated for residential use. (C) “Traditional housing or supportive housing”; and

WHEREAS, Government Code Section 65589.5 defines “objective” as “involving no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and being uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the dev elopment applicant or proponent and the public official”; and

WHEREAS, the Milpitas General Plan provides the following goals and policies:

 Policy LU-5: Ensure that new development is compatible with existing development in order to maintain a high quality of life for residents, while supporting successful business operations. 254
Item # 17.
2 Resolution No. ___
 Policy CD-1: Strengthen Milpitas’ identity and sense of place by reinforcing the community’s distinctive, high-quality community form, natural landscape, and character.

 Policy CD-2: Ensure project designs reinforce a sense of place, display design excellence, and are cohesive and sensitive to the surrounding built environment and natural landscape.

 Policy CD-10: Design buildings, sites, and streets to enhance pedestrian and bicycle mobility.

 Policy CD-11: Enhance Milpitas’ commitment to sustainable design by minimizing negative environmental impacts and utilizing resources efficiently.

WHEREAS, the City currently does not have objective and quantifiable design standards for new housing development projects; and

WHEREAS, the City wishes to adopt the Milpitas Residential and Mixed -Use Objective Design Standards to streamline housing approvals and accelerate housing production by providing clarity and certainty in design decisions and to eliminate unnecessarily burdensome review in the permitting process in line with State and City goals pursuant to Senate Bill 35, Senate Bill 330, and the Milpitas General Plan; and

WHEREAS, on May 26, 2020, the California Department of Housing a nd Community Development (HCD) notified staff that the City would receive $310,000 in grant funding through the State’s Planning Grant Program, which is funded by the Building Homes and Jobs Act (Senate Bill 2); and

WHEREAS, the Planning Grant Program is a one-time component of Senate Bill 2 that, among other provisions, provides financial and technical assistance to local governments to prepare, adopt, and implement plans and process improvements that streamline housing approvals and accelerate housing production; and

WHEREAS, the City is using the grant funding to create land use and zoning tools to streamline housing approvals, comply with State legislation, and support the State’s goal of addressing critical housing needs. Developing the Milpitas Residential and Mixed-Use Objective Design standards is one of the three key tasks being funded as part of this effort; and

WHEREAS, the Milpitas Residential and Mixed-Use Objective Design Standards complement the City’s Zoning Ordinance (Milpitas Municipal Co de, Title XI, Chapter 10) by providing detailed architectural and urban design standards that supplement the City’s zoning and general development standards to facilitate high-quality, attractive developments and protect existing neighborhoods; and

WHEREAS, the Milpitas Residential and Mixed-Use Objective Design Standards utilize a holistic approach and cover topics including block structure, building orientation, open space and landscaping, access and parking, building lengths, upper floor mass reductions, major and minor breaks in the building façade, awnings and canopies, window design and pattern, and building materials; and

WHEREAS, the Milpitas Residential and Mixed -Use Objective Design Standards balance objectivity with flexibility by establishing u nique requirements for each building type, addressing special circumstances, providing multiple options for compliance, and establishing a clear process for requesting and approving minor exceptions and exemptions; and

WHEREAS, the Planning Department solicited public input in developing the Milpitas Residential 255
Item # 17.
3 Resolution No. ___
and Mixed -Use Objective Design Standard using a public -facing fact sheet posted on the Planning Department webpage, working sessions with City staff, and stakeholder meetings with developers and community members including formal presentations at two Community Development Roundtable meetings hosted by the City and an online meeting with members of the Milpitas Involved Citizens group. The Milpitas Residential and Mixed-Use Objective Design Standards were also available for public comment from July 19th to August 20th; and

WHEREAS, the Milpitas Residential and Mixed-Use Objective Design Standards is exempt from environmental review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CE QA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3) (Common Sense Exemption) and as a separate and independent basis Section 15183 (Projects Consistent with a Community Plan, General Plan, or Zoning); and

WHEREAS, on October 12, 2022, the Planning Commission held a duly noticed public hearing on the Milpitas Residential and Mixed -Use Objective Design Standards, at which all those in attendance were given the opportunity to speak on the item; and

WHEREAS, on November 1, 2021, the City Council received a presentation from staff on the Milpitas Residential and Mixed -Use Objective Design Standards and provided an opportunity for public comment; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered all the written and oral testimony presented in making its decision.

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

SECTION 1. Recitals.

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

SECTION 2: The City Council of the City of Milpitas hereby adopts the Milpitas Residential and Mixed-Use Objective Design Standards, which is attached hereto as Exhibit A.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 1st day of November 2022, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

ATTEST: APPROVED:

Suzanne Guzzetta, City Clerk Rich Tran, Mayor

256
Item # 17.
4 Resolution No. ___
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Michael Mutalipassi, City Attorney
257
Item # 17.

Milpitas Objective Design Standards: Technical Memo – Existing Standards & Best Practices raimi + associates | 1

Milpitas Objective Design
Standards: Technical Memo
Existing Standards &
Best Practices
April 16, 2021
258
Item # 17.

Milpitas Objective Design Standards: Technical Memo – Existing Standards & Best Practices raimi + associates | 2
Technical Memo – Existing Standards & Best Practices

Table of Contents
I. Introduction + Purpose 3
Key Takeaways ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ................ 3 II. Documents Overview + Applicability 3 A. General Plan 2040 (August 2020 Draft) ................................ ................................ ................................ . 4 B. Zoning Ordinance ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 5 C. Specific Plans ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 5 D. Other Documents ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ..... 6 III. Existing Regulations: Strengths & Weaknesses 6 A. Zoning Ordinance ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ .... 6 B. Transit Area Specific Plan (2011) ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 8 C. Midtown Specific Plan (2010) ................................ ................................ ................................ .................. 9 D. Streetscape Master Plan (2000) ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 10 E. Fire Code Interpretation ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 11 IV. Staff & Community Feedback 11
A. Staff Feedback ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ....... 11 B. Community Feedback ................................ ................................ ................................ .......................... 12 V. Best Practices 14
A. Organization & Structure ................................ ................................ ................................ ...................... 14 B. Flexibility in Design ................................ ................................ ................................ ............................... 20 VI. Appendix 27
A. General Plan 2040: Goals & Policies ................................ ................................ ................................ ... 27 B. Best Practices Research ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................ 35 C. Staff Feedback: Notes ................................ ................................ ................................ ........................... 36

259
Item # 17.

Milpitas Objective Design Standards: Technical Memo – Existing Standards & Best Practices raimi + associates | 3
I. Introduction + Purpose
Development of residential multi-family projects and mixed-use projects in the City of Milpitas is currently regulated by a number of documents and policies. These regulatory documents include the City’s General Plan (ongoing update in draft form), Zoning Ordinance, two specific plans, and other key ordinances and documents.

As an introductory exercise for the Objective Design Standards (ODS) effort, this memo is divided into two parts. First is a high-level summary of the city’s current regulatory language as it applies to design regulations for multi-family and mixed-use projects, and feedback from practitioners and city staff utilizing these documents. Second is a compilation of precedents and best practices of objective design standards, organized under several key topics that may later serve as a basis for the framework plan or specific objective standards.

Key Takeaways
• Existing Regulatory Documents: The City of Milpitas does not contain consistent objective design standards across its various regulatory documents. Design standards and guidelines appear in the zoning code, two specific plans, the recent draft general plan, and additional documents such the Streetscape Master Plan. The content, structure, and level of clarity vary significantly, presenting both reviewers and applicants with a challenging range of design considerations that will need to be addressed.
• Staff and Community Feedback: Conversations with city staff and local developers and designers have revealed several weaknesses in the existing regulations as they apply to the design of individual projects, and their subsequent review. Topics such as vehicular circulation, waste removal, utilities, and building massing emerged as areas where the regulations are in need of improvement. The preparation of objective design standards was universally supported.
• Best Practices Research: Objective design standards appear in a broad range of documents and contexts. Dozens of examples were reviewed and analyzed to identify successful precedents for organization, content, diagrams, and structure. These best practices will inform the direction of the subsequent Framework Plan.
• Next Steps: Several ongoing efforts including the general plan update, and updates to both specific plans represent immediate opportunities to introduce objective design standards to crucial regulatory documents. The ODS team will engage directly with these other projects in the coming months.

II. Documents Overview + Applicability
Objective design standards will be applied throughout the City of Milpitas’ regulatory documents wherever matters of building form and site design are concerned for multifamily and mixed-use residential projects. Objective design standards are mandated by state laws (California State Senate Bills 35 and 330 in particular), which require individual jurisdictions to revise any instances of subjective language in favor of objective language that:
“[Involves] no personal or subjective judgement by a public official and is uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official before submittal of an application.” California State Senate Bill 330 (Section 66300.7)

260
Item # 17.

Milpitas Objective Design Standards: Technical Memo – Existing Standards & Best Practices raimi + associates | 4
At present, development standards and design guidance appear in the zoning ordinance, specific plans, and other guiding documents like the General Plan, Streetscape Master Plan, Housing Element, and Climate Action Plan. Although the degree of detail, specificity, and subjectivity varies considerably across these policies, the City is responsible for developing a new and consistent set of objective standards that are uniformly understood and accessible to both project applicants and internal reviewers. These policies include the following:

A. General Plan 2040 (August 2020 Draft)
The City is currently undergoing an update to the General Plan. The Draft General Plan will be used to guide the development of the objective design standards. The General Plan includes the following sections that provide design guidance for development of multifamily and mixed -use residential projects:
• LU-2: Promote land use objectives and development patterns in special planning areas consistent with adopted specific plans, overlay districts, and density bonus provisions. • LU-5: Ensure that new development is compatible with existing development in order to maintain a high quality of life for residents, while supporting successful business operations. • LU-6: Support commercial centers that serve residential neighborhoods and provide for a variety of convenient, successful and attractive commercial uses throug hout the city.

• CIR-1: Provide a transportation system that efficiently, Equitably and effectively supports the City’s land use vision, minimizes vehicle miles traveled (VMT), enhances connectivity of the existing network, and supports the use of all modes of transportation • CIR-2: Provide safe, healthy, comfortable, equitable and efficient transportation choices for all modes of transportation that enable people of all races, cultures, ethnicities, religions, sexual orientation, genders, income levels, ages and abilities, especially people of color and those disproportionately affected by access to a personal vehicle, systemic transportation inequities, racism, oppression, and poverty to increase safe physical activity, reduce usage of personal vehicles, access goods and services, employment opportunities, and for personal travel; to provide for efficient goods movement.
• CIR-4: Promote, provide, and maintain an expanded, safe, convenient and comprehensive network of facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists of all ages and abilities to support walking and bicycling as viable modes of transportation, for recreational use, and to promote public health

• CD-1: Strengthen Milpitas’ identity and sense of place by reinforcing the community’s distinctive, high-quality community form, natural landscape, and character • CD-2: Ensure project designs reinforce a sense of place, display design excellence, and are cohesive and sensitive to the surrounding build environment and natural landscape • CD-3: Maintain and enhance the character and distinct identities of Milpitas’ residential neighborhoods and commercial, mixed-use, and employment districts. • CD-4: Enhance the existing character and strengthen the identity and unique qualities of Milpitas’ districts.
• CD-5: Provide appropriate transitions between land uses to avoid conflicts and perpetuate the community’s harmonious character
• CD-6: Enhance the corridors, pathways, and edges that form physical boundaries and provide transitions and connections throughout the community.
• CD-9: Enhance the quality and character of Milpitas’ Public Spaces to provide safe, comfortable, and enjoyable passive and active recreation opportunities for all users. • CD-10: Design buildings, sites, and streets to enhance pedestrian and bicyc le mobility. • CD-11: Enhance Milpitas’ commitment to sustainable design by minimizing negative environmental impacts and utilizing resources efficiently. 261
Item # 17.

Milpitas Objective Design Standards: Technical Memo – Existing Standards & Best Practices raimi + associates | 5

The draft General Plan includes dozens of additional policies relating to building design. The goals and policies essentially function as a complete set of design guidelines for future development. The policies cover a range of topics from streetscape character, site design, circulation, building form, transitions, pedestrian entries, open space and other architectural details. The policies are a mix of general and very specific design guidance.

A complete list of applicable policies can be found in VII. Appendix.

B. Zoning Ordinance
The current zoning ordinance does not include a dedicated chapter to design standards. Rather, design standards appear in several different sections, each with varying levels of specificity and subjectivity. These sections include:
• Section 4. Residential Zones and Standards
• Section 6. Mixed Use Zones and Standards
• Section 8. Planned Development Zones and Standards
• Section 11. Specific Plan Areas
• Section 12. Overlay Districts and Standards
• Section 13. Special Use
Please note that single-family residential projects will not be addressed under the scope of this objective design standards project. Consequently, Single Family Residential (R1) Zone regulations will not be addressed. In addition, this memo does not address with the following topics:
• Accessory uses, buildings, and structures (XI-10-13.05) • Manufactured Homes (XI-10-13.07)
• Temporary Uses and Structures (XI-10-13.11)
• Single Room Occupancy Residences (XI-10-13.13)
C. Specific Plans
There are two specific plans that uniquely regulate portions of the city:
• Midtown Specific Plan (2010) (update pending)
*Also referred to in other maps and documents as the Gateway-Main Street Specific Plan • Milpitas Metro Specific Plan (2011) (update pending)
*Also referred in other maps and documents as the Transit Area Specific Plan and Milpitas Commercial Specific Plan
Additional regulations including base zones associated with these specific plans also appear in the zoning ordinance:
• Section 11. Specific Plan Areas
These specific plans represent unique areas of influence within the City of Milpitas and feature un ique and individual sets of development requirements and criteria. As the Metro Specific Plan is currently undergoing an update and the Midtown Specific Plan expected to begin its own update in the coming months, the work of this objective design standards project will be complimentary yet independent.

The expectation is that each specific plan update will be individually responsible for updating its design guidelines and regulations to feature clear and objective design standards . The special design standards may be additive to Objective Design Standards as needed or may be stand-alone in each document. Opportunities for integration will be part of the ODS Framework Plan. 262
Item # 17.

Milpitas Objective Design Standards: Technical Memo – Existing Standards & Best Practices raimi + associates | 6
With whole-scale changes expected in each plan update, this memo does not analyze the two existing documents in detail.

D. Other Documents
While state law is explicit in its direction that objective design standards must be integrated wherever multi-family development is regulated, there are several ancillary documents that should also be considered:
• Streetscape Master Plan (2000)
• Climate Action Plan (2013)
• Housing Element (2015)
These documents do not engage directly with the form, orientation, or placement of individual buildings and are therefore less immediately applicable to an objective design standards effort.

However, they do contain relevant language particularly as it relates to site design and context. It is essential that all objective design standards align with the stated goals of overarching regulatory documents, in particular the city’s general plan.

In addition to these documents there are other departmental reviews that should be coordinated with the future Objective Design Standards. Public Works, Building, and Fire each review project application based on design standards and guidelines specific to their topic of review, some that involve a great deal of subjectivity and interpretation of code elements.

III. Existing Regulations: Strengths &
Weaknesses
Design guidelines, in some form, are currently scattered throughout the many regulatory documents.

For the purposes of this memo, the guidelines have been condensed into broader topics and key categories that are shared across both multi-family and commercial/mixed-use development. These topics are further categorized into areas of strength that would require more minimal improvements to obtain objectivity, and areas of weaknesses which lack objective language and would require significant alterations and revisions.

A. Zoning Ordinance
Strengths
• Fences and Walls: Currently regulated in under the zoning ordinance’s General Provisions, the language currently features a number of specific, objective standards related to material, height, and placement. It is helpful that these regulations also distinguish residential versus non-residential contexts and applications.
o Example Language: XI-10-54.10.C.1 Height Limitations. Fences and walls shall not exceed six (6) feet in height at the rear and side yards, and forty -two (42) inches in height at the front yard.
• Ground Floor Commercial Design: Design standards specific to ground floor spaces appear only once, under the Transit Oriented Development Overlay District section (XI -10-

12.06.E.6.c). Much of the existing content represents a good starting point, as it already features some clear and objective language. These standards should be expanded upon, as they are currently limited strictly to parcels zoned R-5, within the TOD Overlay area. 263
Item # 17.

Milpitas Objective Design Standards: Technical Memo – Existing Standards & Best Practices raimi + associates | 7
o Example Language: XI-10-12.06.E.6.c Windows. At least sixty (60) percent of the ground floor wall area between three (3) and eight (8) feet above the sidewalk shall be glass or other transparent material
• Planned Development: As the code features quite stringent definitions for developments that are eligible for Planned Development designation, it is unlikely that the language requires significant revisions to be made objective. However, as the development standards default to the requirements of the zone that is “most similar in nature,” this section will naturally benefit from revisions to the Mixed-Use regulations. As individual applicants voluntarily submit proposals under Planned Development designation, this section will need to provide objective findings of consistency for evaluation of projects. In addition, the applicable standards and relevant criteria that exist in other sections of the code will need to be made objective. • Usable Open Space: Usable open space requirements are regulated uniquely for each residential zone, with the language typically including both landscape/planted areas as well as built spaces such as patios. Some excerpts already provide minimum objective dimensions, although these most often simply specify minimum areas rather than appropriate linear dimensions that would ensure usable configurations.
o Example Language: XI-10.4.05.C.1.b (R3 Zones) An average of two hundred square feet of usable open space shall be provided for each dwelling unit. "Usable open space" shall mean any open space, the smallest dimension of which is at least 4 ½ feet and which is not used as storage or for movement of motor vehicles Weaknesses
• Landscaping: Language regulating usable open space is much closer to objectivity, while instances regarding landscaping are often almost entirely subjective. In some instances, language regulating the design of landscape is more of an aspirational goal or guideline rather than objective statement that applicants and designers can apply practically. o Example Language: XI-10-11.07.2.d Landscaping is to be designated to highlight positive visual features, to screen negative ones, and to provide a cool, pleasant outdoor environment.
• Utilities: Design guidelines regarding utilities are not extensive, but currently contain a variety of subjective and ambiguous directions that refer generically to “well landscaped” areas, and screening requirements that lack dimensions.
o Example Language: XI-10-6.06.A Rooftop mechanical equipment shall be concealed from street level views through roof designs that area architecturally integrated with the building, such as equipment wells and parapets
• Waste Disposal: Areas for depositing and collecting waste are currently regulated in two sections of the code’s general provisions (XI-10-54.12 Areas for Collecting and Loading Recyclable Materials + XI-10-54.16 Trash Enclosures, Equipment, and their screening).

Language regarding recyclable materials lack any objectivity or quantifiable requirements, beyond the basic requirement that all projects with 5 or more living units must provide a collecting and loading area. Trash enclosures also lack specific requirements for screening, and feature vague setback requirements and dimensions.
o Example Language: XI-10-54.12.D. Design Guidelines. The design and construction of recycling areas shall be reviewed in accordance with the guidelines adopted by Council Resolution for recycling areas.
o Example Language: XI-10-54.16.B.1 When located on the street side of corner lots, the enclosure must be set back at least as far as the main building 264
Item # 17.

Milpitas Objective Design Standards: Technical Memo – Existing Standards & Best Practices raimi + associates | 8
B. Transit Area Specific Plan (2011)
(Update pending as Milpitas Metro Specific Plan)
Development standards and design guidelines are featured in two sections of the 2011 report:

Chapter 5, and Appendix. Any revisions to these standards since the 2011 adoption have been adopted in the Zoning Ordinance.

Strengths
• Building Design: Building massing, articulation, and features including windows, materials, and colors are regulated in the Appendix. Similar to the existing language regulating site planning, the content is adequate in its range of topics but consistently relies on subjective and ambiguous requirements (“special architectural treatment,” “buildings should be well articulated,” “multi-paned windows are strongly encouraged”). This subjective language needs to be eliminated, and more quantitative and explicit direction provided through revisions that include dimensions and clearer diagrams.
• Ground Floor Design: The standards regulating ground floor design are similar to those found in the zoning ordinance, but include a few additional requirements that need reinforcement, such as greater clarity regarding treatment of blank facades; entryways; recesses and projections. Other topics need improvement, such as materials (still described as “best” and “quality”).
• Mixed Use Design: The sections in the Appendix regulating mixed-use buildings design are much more robust than the zoning ordinance, and could serve as a reference point for areas of improvement. It features the same shortcomings found throughout the specific plan, where greater specificity, dimensions, and clearer diagrams are needed. • Site Planning: Standards regulating sites, block patterns, and building placement are regulated in the Appendix. A commendable range of topics are already featured, including block size, building and façade orientation, screening residential from industrial uses, mitigating surface parking, and vehicular circulation/access. Work is needed to eliminate subjective language, and provide more quantitative and explicit direction through revisions including dimensions and clearer diagrams.
• ROW/Streetscape Design: The current specific plan features a clear organization of street typologies with accompanying visuals that illustrate the exact dimensional requirements for the ROWs, including streets, planted or landscaped medians, planting strips, and sidewalks. These include planted areas within front setback areas.

Weaknesses
• Organization of Policies and Standards: The chapter concludes with a set of additional construction standards pertaining to specific topics, such as green building standards (including solar), noise considerations, railroad corridors, and hazardous materials. Some of these are more appropriately addressed as a component of the Metro Specific Plan update process, but others such as the regulation of parcels adjacent to railroads s hould more appropriate be nested in the overall zoning code. The topic of solar installation also warrants its own section in the zoning code, especially in response to recent legislation including AB 178 which requires all single-family residences and multi-family residences up to three stories across the entire state to satisfy minimum solar panel requirements. • Fence, Walls, and Vegetation Buffers for noise and vibrations: Only applicable to parcels in close proximity to BART, UPRR train tracks, Great Mall Parkway, and industrial uses residential applicants are required to construct masonry walls and sound walls to address issues of noise and vibration. No objective standards are currently provided. 265
Item # 17.

Milpitas Objective Design Standards: Technical Memo – Existing Standards & Best Practices raimi + associates | 9
• Landscaping: This specific plan is an improvement upon the regulation and definition of landscaping compared to the zoning ordinance, but still remains highly subjective. Although objective/quantitative requirements are scattered throughout, generic mandates such as “ The develops of multifamily and mixed-use building should provide full landscaping” is meaningless when approaching a given project from a design or approval perspective. • Multifamily Residential: These standards are too brief, and new objective standards should be developed in tandem with zoning ordinance revisions. • Services: Standards regarding utilities, service and loading areas, waste removal, and public safety issues are general and vague. The current plan references the Midtown Specific Plan, but both plans require significant revisions.
• Vehicular Access: Garage entrances, curb cuts, and wrapped parking are all featured, with scarce details regarding acceptable dimensions or design. Precedent images offer some needed context and reference, but the language needs additional objective directions and specificity.

C. Midtown Specific Plan (2010)
Development standards and guidelines are featured in Chapter 8 of the 2010 report. It prefaces the standards with this excerpt, which will need to be revised but also represents the typical approach to regulating design guidelines prior to the adoptions of SB 35 and 330 and serves as a useful precedent:
“The words “shall” and “will” indicate a mandatory requirement. The word “should” means that an action is required unless a determination is made that the intent of the guideline is satisfi ed by other means. Words such as “encouraged” or “may” are advisory and are provided as guidelines for development. In general, the word “shall” is used in the Development Standards.

The Design Guidelines include the word “should” indicating a mandatory guideline.” Strengths
• Building Design: Much of this language correlates with the Metro Specific Plan. Revisions to make standards objective are likely to be universally adapted in both pl ans. • Mixed-Use and Multifamily Design: Much of this language correlates with the Metro Specific Plan. Revisions to make standards objective are likely to be universally adapted in both plans. • Parking Areas: The plan separates off-street parking standards for residential and mixed-use projects, each featuring its own set of ratios based on unit type and building use. Although the existing language is brief, it offers a degree of specificity and objective dimensions with regards to the design of carports. Other areas will require revisions, such as driveway design and placement (site access), associating landscaping, and clearer standards regarding nearby existing on-street parking.

Weaknesses
• Building Heights: Instances of subjective design considerations such as “special architectural elements such as towers and spires [or] corner elements” will need to be removed, or fleshed out individually and made objective. This is especially important as it relates to maximum allowed building height.
• Interaction with the Zoning Ordinance: The Specific Plan area features nearly a dozen different zoning designations, including multifamily (R4, R4-TOD) and mixed-use (MXD, MXD- TOD). However, there are design guidelines featured in the specific plan that are not reflected in the zoning code, and regulations in the zoning code that are not explicitly contained within the specific plan document. Applicants and reviewers are thus required to consult two separate regulatory documents and resolve any discrepancies between the relevant and applicable standards, resulting in a confusing and complicated approval process. 266
Item # 17.

Milpitas Objective Design Standards: Technical Memo – Existing Standards & Best Practices raimi + associates | 10
o Example: XI-10.6.04.G Park and Open Space Requirements for Residential Use. This section contains additional design guidelines with regards to open space calculations and design of usable open space such as balconies and patios. • Interaction with Metro Specific Plan: According to the zoning ordinance (XI-10-11.06.A.1), “exterior building or site improvements” must meet the design guidelines and standards of the Transit Area Specific Plan (aka Metro Specific Plan). This arrangement is confusing for both applicants and project reviewers, as it is not best practice for one specific plan be called on to regulate another.
• Landscaping: The shortcomings of this language are similar to those of the Metro Specific Plan, although this plan offers even fewer standards.
• Parks and Open Space: Three types of open space are required within the plan area, yet none are distinguishable from one another from a design perspective based on the highly vague and subjective language, and offer no clear direction with regards to design, location, or accessibility.
o “Private park space should be configured to be usable for recreational purposes by residents of the housing development.”
• Service Areas: The plan features three brief, subjective guidelines regulating service areas in non-residential projects, but offers no direction on mixed-use featuring residential, or multi- family projects.
• Street Trees: Street trees located on sidewalks are a requirement, but the current language offers no direction on how they must interact with either existing or “assumed” 10 -foot sidewalks.
• Utilities + Waste Removal: Weaknesses are nearly identical to those found in the zoning ordinance.

D. Streetscape Master Plan (2000)
This master plan functions as an all-purpose document that governs the regulation and design of the ROW, including sidewalks, landscaping, street trees, utilities, and vehicular circulation. As a master plan, it outlines a comprehensive set of goals and standards for streetscape design and maintenance, in addition to relevant city-wide polices and funding sources for implementation.

Although matters of streetscape, landscaping, ROW design, and utilities can be i ncluded within the scope of objective design standards, the City will need to make a determination regarding this master plan document and its relationship to any new design standards. Especially as the document is more than twenty years old, it is likely that an independent update of the plan may also be needed to be aligned with more urban development forms and meet the City’s goals for pedestrian safety, walkability, and active modes of transportation.

267
Item # 17.

Milpitas Objective Design Standards: Technical Memo – Existing Standards & Best Practices raimi + associates | 11
E. Fire Code Interpretation
Each city’s interpretation of the California Fire Code can have a great impact on site and building design. Many city codes have been written to complement small scale suburban development, as more urban, high density building forms enter a community, these codes are often in conflict with contemporary building methods. The stakeholders R+A spoke with to gather feedback on development in Milpitas outlined number of subjective interpretations of the fire code that have hindered meeting the design goals and policies of the City. Some instances required redesign, resulted in a loss of units, and were considered to be requests that went beyond requirements of the California Fire Code. These instances included requiring the following:
• A Fire Command Center for buildings where the highest occupiable floor is below 75 feet in height
• More than one stairwell to provide roof access
• Additional fire apparatus access than the California Fire Code for sprinklered buildings • Second fire apparatus access to be full length of second frontage IV. Staff & Community Feedback
A. Staff Feedback
The project team has thus far completed two meetings with city staff to gather feedback and insight regarding project review, engagement with objective design standards, and best practices.

March 1, 2021. Planning Staff
Midtown Specific Plan: Development review process
• Current specific plan features a number of design guidelines that are scattered throughout the document. Staff must also reference excerpts within the zoning code, resulting in a complicated review process.
• Existing guidelines are largely outdated and feature design practices that are no longer relevant or appropriate to contemporary Milpitas: building articulation, detailing, and massing are particularly problematic as developers/applicants have exhibited difficulties submitting ‘appropriate’ designs based on the existing language.
• Prescribed land uses constitute a hurdle for applicants who are required to provide elements such as ground-floor retail (even where it may not be financially feasible): staff suggestion that prioritizing language that emphasizes building form over building use may be a more successful application of design standards.

Zoning Code: Existing design-related standards
• Existing regulations are largely subjective, resulting in confusion on the part of both designers/developers and planning staff: this typically manifests in a bespoke and iterative review process that may be incongruous to another staff member’s interpretation. • Modular buildings and construction practices are a developing concern, especially as they pertain to satisfying building code, and best practices related to building articulation, massing, and step backs.
• Conflicts arise regarding inter- and intra-departmental review: planning staff, building, public works and other external parties such as PG&E can disagree on building and site configuration (streetscape is especially difficult to regulate consistently and efficiently). 268
Item # 17.

Milpitas Objective Design Standards: Technical Memo – Existing Standards & Best Practices raimi + associates | 12
o Topics of conflict: private open space (including balconies); entryways (including patios); HVAC and utilities; mail and package delivery.

Best Practices & Suggestions
• Recognizing the need to develop design standards that can withstand aesthetic/design cycles, perhaps a degree of discretionary review can still be baked into the language (Ex. Developers satisfy all objective standards within certain topics, but some portion/percentage of the process involves negotiation and collaboration with staff). • Flexibility regarding ground-floor uses: not limiting applicants to strictly ground-floor retail, but offering other options (ex. public-facing open space, street-facing community spaces for building tenants, public art).
• Flexibility regarding façade treatment and finishes: building facades facing major roads/arterials might be subjected to a different set of criteria than facades facing l ocal streets. • Introduction of standard typologies that allow consistent but context-specific regulations:
streetscapes/ROW design, planting/landscape.

March 4, 2021. Development Review Committee
General Feedback
• Mailbox and delivery access is especially important: especially in multi-family developments (such as townhouse developments), mailboxes are often clustered in a single area that is difficult to access. Standards need to foster a safe environment for pedes trians and people in vehicles alike.
• Solid waste removal: standardization of waste removal facilities could be regulated based on building type (ex. townhouse, condo, apartment, mixed-use commercial) • Vehicular circulation: designated space for alternative mobility options (rideshare, scooters) is needed, including associating standards related to signage, site access, and parking (temporary). Transit areas should also be considered and designed in a way that prevents local congestion.
• Parking + Loading/Unloading:
o Residential: residential tenants lack adequate spaces for loading/unloading (ex. moving vans), particularly at the front of buildings (issues of double-parking) o Mixed-Use/Commercial: parking ratio for retail parking conflict with residential ratios ; emergency vehicle access is especially confusing.

B. Community Feedback
Recognizing that design standards will impact the work of both city staff as well as individual applicants, four one-on-one meetings have been facilitated where developers and designers have been invited to share insights, with particular emphasis on past or ongoing projects located in Milpitas. Contact information was facilitated directly by City Staff, and meetings were conducted on a voluntary basis.

Altogether, four meetings were conducted.

Experience in Milpitas
• Parcel sizes make non-structured parking difficult, especially when attempting to meet necessary density requirements. The issue is exacerbated by the costs and building-height limitations attributed to structured parking.
• Building heights and required density is sometimes inconsistent: building height maximums are often too low, especially regarding highest habitable floor . 269
Item # 17.

Milpitas Objective Design Standards: Technical Memo – Existing Standards & Best Practices raimi + associates | 13
• Satisfying fire/public safety standards has been cumbersome, especially when attempting to design stairwells, setbacks, utilities, egress requirements. o In some cases, public safety standards utilize a much larger building typology (hi -rise) to establish standards, which are not appropriate for lower-density buildings (3-5 stories).

General Feedback
• Significant opposition regarding a prescriptive approach to regulating building materials, especially as they pertain to façade treatments
• Finished-floor heights are problematic with regards to construction practices, privacy, marketability, and security. Regulations could necessitate multiple unit entrances, inconsistent finish heights along a single building façade, need for additional screening/planting criteria. o City of San Francisco’s approach: for each additional foot above grade, applicants are allowed one additional foot of total building height, up to a specific maximum. • Suggestion to regulate residential density based on unit count rather than FAR. • Land prices demand good professionals in the Bay Area, too many design standards make development harder.
• Most common practice for developers is to use different architects for any given project.

Consequently, any design standards ought to be less prescriptive and more flexible. • Small block walkability standards should be specific. • Strongest appeal of objective design standards is the expedited review process, and eliminating the potential for case-by-case deviations/exactions • Utilize standard unit sizes/dimensions when development building standards, especially as they relate to desired façade breaks/articulation
• Look at the building code, build design standards back from that. • Recommend regulating buildings based on typologies that can be reasonably expected to appear in Milpitas, ex. townhomes, condos, row-houses (thereby eliminating building typologies that would not be approved)
• Task Fee + Affordable Housing Fee + Building Fees = 45 -50K per unit, eliminates certain densities
• Challenges were not around design guidelines, Fire Department in Milpitas were too onerous, same with Public Works. Projects require up to 5 rounds of comments, comments go beyond code and are sometimes in conflict with Building Department. o building must be within 20' of back of walk, but the mandatory fire lane requirements are inconsistent with them
o stairwells must include fire service rooms(?) and must connect to the roof o Issues of hi-rise development standards being applied in-situ to smaller buildings, without considerations of practicality or applicability Modular Construction
• Additional building height is needed as a practical result of modular construction: stacking individual modules/units can typically require an additional 8 to 12 inches of vertical clearance per floor, which may exceed local building height maximums. • Upper-floor step backs are problematic and highly discouraged: although feasible from a construction perspective, they constitute significant hurdles both financially and practically .

Allowing for ways to reduce floor area on upper floors without specific faça de step backs are more feasible.
270
Item # 17.

Milpitas Objective Design Standards: Technical Memo – Existing Standards & Best Practices raimi + associates | 14
• Issues of variance approvals has deterred some developers from investing more heavily into modular design: although they might manage to satisfy zoning requirements, local building code regulations may not agree.
• Construction techniques discourages deviations in floor height: taller ground -floors for example are more difficult to negotiation, as the standard modular unit is 11’ floor -to-floor o Stacked parking is typically incongruous with modular construction, unless modula r units are place atop a separately-constructed podium featuring taller floor-to-floor heights.
• Significant breaks/façade breaks are difficult to negotiate: a more feasible strategy would be to provide other design standards that can break up a façade without require a large break (ex. extruded or intruded balconies or windows) + prescribing a specific number of required breaks rather than a specific building/facade length.

V. Best Practices
Objective design standards have been implemented in a variety of ways, as each city takes an approach that works for their timeline and specific context. These standards commonly appear in specific and area plans, where sites are typically smaller in scale, and design considerations can be specifically tailored to the unique urban context and anticipated development. Additionally, objective design standards have been introduced into zoning codes where they can be regulated more holistically across an entire district or use type.

In order to analyze best practices when developing objective design standards, we reviewed a variety of example codes, area plans, and development standards to identify successful approaches to organization, structure, flexibility in design, and language. The analysis also helped establish precedents for specific topics and unique approaches to quantifying design criteria. This section includes a discussion of overall organization and structure (A), strategies for balancing flexible design with objective language and regulations (B), and a case study (C).

A complete list of the documents reviewed in our research can be found in VII. Appendix.

A. Organization & Structure
Given that objective design standards appear in a variety of contexts, their organization and structure are typically consistent with the document in which they are featured. As the state has not issued a universal format for regulating objective standards, standards can be organized in several approaches, including:
• Topics: where standards are organized into distinct and typically ind ependent subjects and topics that may include building design, frontages and facades, landscaped areas, circulation, access, and streetscape.
• Land Uses + Building Typologies: where standards align with land uses such as housing, mixed-use, industrial, office, and open space. An alternative technique utilizes building typologies associated with common uses, such as residential (townhouses, mid -rise, mixed- use, high-rise) or parking (surface parking; sub-grade; podium). • Design Principles: where standards adhere to several key, usually qualitative, principles or goals.

271
Item # 17.

Milpitas Objective Design Standards: Technical Memo – Existing Standards & Best Practices raimi + associates | 15
• Areas: where sites are portioned off into smaller units of planning, each containing a unique set of development and design standards that are context appropriate. This approach is synonymous with specific and master plans, planned development areas, and development agreements where the geographic area is scaled down, and contained within a specific geographic area or subset of parcels.
• Form-based Codes: where standards use individual building design and form as the primary means of regulating design, irrespective of land use or geographic area.

It is common for these approaches to be combined and re-organized, as each is not necessarily mutually exclusive. A Mixed Approach represents an alternative that combines components of several organizational approaches, and is oftentimes the most common approach to objective design standards. Topics are very often nested and duplicated under multiple land use categories, and design principles can be attached to any given topic and written as an associating design guideline to accompany an objective standard. Form-based codes are typically the exception, as their organization and underlying strategy for regulating design standards at the building level requires a comprehensive design for the area it is regulating.

Each approach has its merits, some of which are described in further detail h ere.

Topical Approach
Advantages
• Provides project applicants and reviewers a consistent structure, where all standards related to a single topic can be found in one section.
• Shares similar organization structure with zoning language, and can be integrat ed or appended without requiring significant changes to the code as a whole. • Scales successfully with a geographic-based approach, should the code require a unique set of standards for a specific neighborhood, overlay zone, or PD area.

Disadvantages
• Standards that fall under multiple categories can be difficult to place, or result in redundancies. For example, landscaping can appropriately categorized under open space, ROW/streetscape design, setback design, transitions between buildings and land uses, and surface parking.
• Individual standards can be difficult to craft to ensure their flexibility and adaptability to unique circumstances. Consequently, this approach typically requires additional language that accommodates variance requests or exemptions.

Example: Peery Park Specific Plan
Peery Park Specific Plan features two chapters related to objective design standards: the Development Code which
uniformly regulates building height, setbacks, and parking; and Design Guidelines which provide more specific details and standards in a similar organizational structure. The two sections work in tandem to provide applicants an organized and comprehensive inventory of requirements that they must satisfy.

272
Item # 17.

Milpitas Objective Design Standards: Technical Memo – Existing Standards & Best Practices raimi + associates | 16
Land Use + Building Typologies Approach
Advantages
• Accommodates a piece-meal approach to making existing subjective language objective, as authors can afford to focus exclusively on a select number of land use types while leaving others unchanged. For example, objective standards can be limited exclusively to regulating multi-family and mixed-use developments, while other uses such as industrial or single-family residential need not be engaged.
• Shares similar organization structure with zoning language, and can be integrated or appended without requiring significant changes to the code as a whole. • Gives project applicants and developers a clearly defined set of self-contained design standards that are based primarily on their location and underlying land use, eliminating the need to cross-examine other documents or standards.

Disadvantages
• Lacks opportunity to accommodate objective design crieria for unique conditions or circumstances, such as parcels abutting natural areas or a railroad corridor. Standards are forced to be written as universal requirements that must cover all building types within the land use designation.
• Can result in repetitive and redundant language, where design standards are repeated across several similar but distinct variations of the same land use or building type. Multi-family residential for example may have three classifications/designations based on density or location, and each may require a near-identical set of regulatory standards that might differ in subtle ways.

Example: Lawrence Station Area Plan, Sunnyvale
Oriented around a major transit hub, the Lawrence Station Area Plan for Sunnyvale features a number of land uses that the plan uses to organize its associating guidelines and standards. These land uses differ from the current underlying zoning, as the specific plan allows the city to regulate these parcels at a finer grain of detail. Three distinct mixed-used designations, two commercial, an overlay zone, and one residential use each feature an individual set of objective standards.

273
Item # 17.

Milpitas Objective Design Standards: Technical Memo – Existing Standards & Best Practices raimi + associates | 17
Design Principles Approach
Advantages
• Allows for a cohesive and goal-driven organizational structure, where individual standards are universally oriented around a consistent set of principles. • Principles provide insight to applicants regarding the underlying purpos e and intention of a given standard, while the associating objective standards give clear direction to guide design. • Accommodates a semi-qualitative approach to design regulation that may be more accessible to a general audience who often have difficulty understanding the merits of individual, quantitative objective standards.

Disadvantages
• Requires that individual standards fit into higher-level categories or classifications that do not always scale or line up successfully.
• Requires significant thought and time to craft underlying design principles that fully encapsulate the broad range of topics that design standards entail. • Diverges significantly from the tone of most existing zoning language, making new objective standards revisions difficult to integrate.

Example: Lawrence Station Area Plan, Santa Clara
Santa Clara’s Lawrence Station Area Plan features many design principles oriented around key themes, such as architecture, streetscape, and public art. Each principle features a bro ad thesis that establishes a set of goals, and individual policies and design standards result from these goals.

274
Item # 17.

Milpitas Objective Design Standards: Technical Memo – Existing Standards & Best Practices raimi + associates | 18
Example: David Baker Architects’ 9 Ways
Initially developed as an internal set of guiding principles, David Baker Architects have since repositioned their 9 Ways approach as a universal methodology for encouraging people-centric design. Coming from an architectural foundation, these principles are more specific to building and site design rather than area-wide goals and are intended to be applied comprehensively. Individual buildings should aspire to satisfy all 9 principles.

1. Reweave the Urban Fabric: Create, repair, and enhance connections within existing neighborhoods.

2. Make Big Moves: Design a bold and interesting building form.

3. A Little Goes a Long Way: Concentrate premium materials at points of shared enjoyment. Keep it simple everywhere else.

4. Activate the Edges: Energize the streetscape with a generous, mixed-use ground floor.

5. Be Welcoming: Set a positive Tone with a bright and engaging entryway.

6. Cultivate Connection: Place compatible uses together to add convenience and support social encounters.

7. Enlighten Circulation: Bring light and fresh air into hallways and stairs to connect with natur e and encourage walking.

8. Get Personal: Reflect the character of the community and offer opportunities for expression.

9. Art for All: Use artwork to invigorate common spaces, help with wayfinding, and create a strong visual identity.

Area-based Approach
Advantages
• Allows for context-based design standards applied at a smaller scale, as individual areas can be regulated independently rather than relying on uniform and universal design standards across a larger geographic area.
• Accommodates unique circumstances such as creeks, railways, abutting open spaces, or adjacent industrial use by approaching these conditions as individual areas. • Accommodates a phased approach for development, particularly in a specific plan or master plan area.
• Compliments other organizational structures without significant revisions, where a topic - or land use-based structure can be developed for each individual area.

Disadvantages
• Potentially requires an entirely separate layer of land use organization and regulations, distinct from underling zoning designations.
• Requires additional consideration and expertise to accommodate unique contextual circumstances regarding how areas align with one another and their abutting areas. For example, regulations and standards regarding setbacks and transitions between land uses for example require greater attention and effort given the complexity of relationships. • Results in a non-uniform review of individual projects that may share similar underlying uses, but are regulated differently based on their assigned area.

275
Item # 17.

Milpitas Objective Design Standards: Technical Memo – Existing Standards & Best Practices raimi + associates | 19
Example: Warm Springs Community Plan
Oriented around the Warm Springs BART Station, the Warm Springs Community Plan divides the plan area into 10 different components. Each area features a different set of development standards that regulates building intensity, allowable uses, and bulk requirements. Although some design standards are applied uniformly, they are inherently regulated by the limits defined for each area: high-rise buildings for example are not acceptable in the areas abutting low-density housing, limiting any proposed buildings to a reduced number of objective standards.

Form-based Codes
Advantages
• Allows jurisdictions a high degree of control when designing the initial set of building standards, as the nature of form-based codes necessitates a substantial level architectural details and design considerations.
• Results in a built landscape that is mostly harmonious and consistent in scale, façade treatment, architectural style, and character.
• Results in a very succinct review process, where reviewers and applicants alike have every building detail prescribed, and design review can utilize a simple checklist.

Disadvantages
• Lacks the features of conventional zoning practices such as district-wide setbacks, parking ratios, or FAR, typically resulting in complex standards. • Requires more specialized knowledge of design and architectural pract ices for applicants to successfully navigate the standards.
• Requires intensive details that may not scale successfully to city -wide contexts that feature numerous land uses, building types, and geographic conditions.

276
Item # 17.

Milpitas Objective Design Standards: Technical Memo – Existing Standards & Best Practices raimi + associates | 20
Example: Pleasant Hill BART Station Property Code
The Pleasant Hill BART Station Property Code is designed to complement a corresponding master plan, and limits its content to strictly architectural standards and building envelope standards. The code identifies four building types, each based on a single land use (ex. commercial office, retail, townhouses). The code then prescribes exact height, bulk, and density standards, and prohibits any deviation from the prescribed requirements.

Mixed Approach
This method of organization aligns several previous strategies within a single document. It is most commonly applied to specific or master plans, but can certainly be incorporated into more traditional zoning formats. The advantages and disadvantages of a synthesized organizational struc ture are similar to those previously discussed, with the added flexibility that individual aspects can be adapted in a condensed or reduced format. For example, design principles can be introduced at the start of the document, but integrated into a topical approach where principles are referenced in individual categories of standards.

B. Flexibility in Design
A good set of objective design standards should strive to achieve a balance between flexibility and prescriptiveness. Knowing that applicants are likely to submit a broad range of proposals for both multi-family and mixed-use developments, standards must be written broadly enough to ensure a consistent review process, while also leaving room for individual aesthetic and architectural designs.

As with their overarching structure, objective standards can be organized using several broader strategies:
• Uniform: where a standard must be applied universally across the entire sphere of influence without deviation.
• Menu of Options: where the code features a selection of elements and standards that individual applicants must then select from.
• Point-based: where projects are required to attain a minimum score, based on an objective set of criteria that assign points to specific interventions and design strategies. 277
Item # 17.

Milpitas Objective Design Standards: Technical Memo – Existing Standards & Best Practices raimi + associates | 21
• Typologies: where topics are categorized into a set number of classifications such as building type or streetscape, and applicants have the agency to determine which classifications are most appropriate for their projects.
• Location-specific: where standards are attributed to specific geographic areas, and confined in their range of applicability.

As with organization and structure, most of these strategies are not mutually exclusive, and most are inherently intertwined. It is common for objective design standards to utilize a combination of strategies to facilitate flexibility, as some techniques are more suited to regulating specific topics.

Uniform Approach
Advantages
• Offers a clear and consistent review process for both applicants and reviewers, as standards do not feature variations or deviations for the original language. • Lends itself to a table-based approach to objective standards that is clear and accessible to readers.

Disadvantages
• Lacks flexibility in its prescriptiveness, which may result in reduced individual creativity or architectural expression.
• Requires a one-size fits all standard that applies successfully in every scenario, despite unique cases such as irregularly shaped parcels or public easements. • Necessitates variance or exemption requests to accommodate unique circumstances, inviting the risk of a subjective review process.

Example: City of Buffalo
While there are a number of context-specific standards that allow greater flexibility, certain topics within the City of Buffalo’s Green Code Unified Development Ordinance features a single, uniform standard for topics such as aisle widths. Dependent on the angle of individual parking spaces, the aisle width is required to satisfy a minimum width that does not deviate regardless of the associating building use: aisle widths in surface lots for multi-family develops share the exact same standards as a commercial building, an institutional building, or a mixed-use building.

278
Item # 17.

Milpitas Objective Design Standards: Technical Memo – Existing Standards & Best Practices raimi + associates | 22
Menu of Options
Advantages
• Offers a degree of flexibility in design and application, as individual projects can apply unique combinations of the available options to their designs. • Accommodates a broader range of choices and design considerations within the ‘menu.’ • Scales successfully across different topics, as ‘menus’ can be developed for many standards including landscaping, façade design, and entryways.

Disadvantages
• Requires compatibility across all available options and potential combinations, as applicants will select the combination that best fits their project. • Invites potentially contentious and subjective review when determining an ‘appropriate’ number of minimum options that applicants must satisfy. • Potentially results in combinations that are incompatible in execution or aesthetics, resulting in inconsistent building design and project approvals.

Example: Beaverton Downtown Design
Guidelines
Active ground-floors can be achieved through a variety
of entry types. The City of Beaverton identifies five
different residential entry types: patios, stoops, terraces, frontage courts, and at-grade entries. Each features
distinct design criteria and requirements, but all serve to create a degree of separation and privacy between the
doorways and the sidewalk. Project applicants are given the flexibility to choose which configurations work best for their respective development.

Point-based System
Advantages
• Features an objective and entirely non-subjective methodology for applicants and reviewers alike: if the minimum score is attained, the project can and must be approved. • Offers a degree of flexibility in design and application, as individual projects can apply unique combinations of the available options to their designs in order to satisfy the minimum score. • Helps to quantify and make objective topics that are difficult to characterize, such as street connectivity and site access.
• Scales effectively across diverse locations or underlying land uses, as minimum scores and methods for calculation can vary
Disadvantages
• Requires a complex process to develop formulas and methods that result in an objective and consistent score.
• Potentially results in confusing standards that are difficult for applicants to understand, or reviewers to interpret.
• Potentially results in incompatible design that nonetheless satisfies the minimum score.

279
Item # 17.

Milpitas Objective Design Standards: Technical Memo – Existing Standards & Best Practices raimi + associates | 23
Example: City of Henderson
In an effort to facilitate more prolific street connections on new developments, the City of Henderson uses a “connectivity index” that requires multiple connection points between the project and the city’s existing street grid. Individual projects are tasked with submitting a circulation plan that satisfies a minimum score, based either on zoning district or building type (ex. multifamily residential, mixed -use commercial)

Example: Pier 70 SUD Design For Development
The Pier 70 SUD Design for Development utilizes a credit system to regulate building design. A few different categories are identified, including façade and roof modulation, and overall building massing (setbacks, building breaks, courtyards). Applicants are free to design buildings using the established parameters, and must earn a minimum number of credits associated with each standard in order to attain approval.

280
Item # 17.

Milpitas Objective Design Standards: Technical Memo – Existing Standards & Best Practices raimi + associates | 24
Typologies
Advantages
• Allows individual applications flexibility to select the appropriate typology relative to their intent and design parameters.
• Allows zoning designations to have unique standards aligned with specific building, street, or open space typologies.
• Lends itself to a table-based approach to objective standards that is clear and accessible to both readers and reviewers.

Disadvantages
• Requires that typologies be intentionally written in general or generic terms to allow scaling across diverse contexts, resulting in less comprehensive standards.

Example: Vallco Specific Plan
The specific plan identifies several open
space typologies as an alternative to the
generic ‘landscaping’ or ‘planting’ that is
typically found in the existing code. These
open space types vary in size, dimensions,
and required amenities (ex. benches, play
structures). Applicants have the opportunity
to select the appropriate typology as it
relates to their particular project, and must
satisfy that specific set of requirements.

Example: Marin County Objective
Design and Development Standards
Toolkit
The county of Marin uses a typological
approach to several of their design
standards, including materials, window
design, and building types. The code begins
with two building types: house-scale, and
block-scale. From there, eight residential
typologies are featured under the house-
scale, and four residential/mixed-use
typologies under the block-scale. Each
typology is intended for a different level of
density and features its own set of design
standards. These building types are further
delineated into specific zoning districts
where they may be applied.

281
Item # 17.

Milpitas Objective Design Standards: Technical Memo – Existing Standards & Best Practices raimi + associates | 25
Location-Based
Advantages
• Accommodates existing designations including zoning, area plans, or other formal spheres of influence as a unique ‘location.’
• Lends itself to a table-based approach to objective standards that is clear and accessible to both readers and reviewers.
• Scales well to standards related to streetscape and landscaping, as elements like street lighting, fire hydrants, and street trees may not always scale uniformly across an entire city.

Disadvantages
• Limits project applicants to a pre-determined set of standards that may lack flexibility, and may cause conflict in instances where exceptions are desired (ex. street trees are desired by the city to improve the public realm along a street lacking vegetation, but applicants are not required to provide street trees according to the standards). • Requires an organizational structure oriented around zones, typologies, streets, or other locations types, which may be complicated to develop.

Example: City of Beaufort
Recognizing that multi-family and mixed-used developments require different demands from an infrastructure and streetscape perspective than compared to lower-density development, one potential option to implement objective design standards is to introduce a grid of mandatory streetscape elements that are attributed to specific zoning districts. These elements may include utility infrastructure, street lighting, fire hydrants, and telecom infrastructure. Individual elements can be further detailed in a separate set of standards.

282
Item # 17.

Milpitas Objective Design Standards: Technical Memo – Existing Standards & Best Practices raimi + associates | 26
Example: San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan
The San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan is a form-based code that regulates design along a primary vehicular corridor. The Plan identifies several street types located perpendicular or in near proximity to the central corridor, and uses these types as the foundation of their development standards. Building massing, setbacks, sidewalk requirements, and frontages are all contingent upon what street type a parcel abuts.

283
Item # 17.

Milpitas Objective Design Standards: Technical Memo – Existing Standards & Best Practices raimi + associates | 27
VI. Appendix
A. General Plan 2040: Goals & Policies
LU-2: Promote land use objectives and development patterns in special planning areas consistent with adopted specific plans, overlay districts, and density bonus provisions.

LU-5: Ensure that new development is compatible with existing development in order to maintain a high quality of life for residents, while supporting successful business operations. • LU 5-1 Require new development and redevelopment to be compatible, complementary and, where appropriate, well integrated with existing residential areas. Integrate new largescale development projects into the fabric of the existing community rather than allowing projects to be insular and self contained, walled off, or physically divided from surrounding uses. Improve connectivity between neighborhoods and services with new development. Tie circulation systems and open spaces into existing streets and open spaces. Reduce unnecessary barriers and improve connections between neighborhoods and services by retrofitting existing development over time as area improvements or redevelopment occurs. • LU 5-2 Prohibit incompatible uses and inappropriate development in and near residential neighborhoods. As feasible, promote gradual transitions from high density development to surrounding low density neighborhoods in both building forms and land use. • LU 5-3 Ensure new development is consistent with specific height limits established within the City’s Zoning Ordinance as applied through the zoning district for all properties within the City.
• LU 5-5 Require that new residential development be designed to protect residents from potential conflicts with adjacent land uses, and other features including rail corridors, high-voltage power lines and high-volume roadways.

LU-6: Support commercial centers that serve residential neighborhoods and provide for a variety of convenient, successful and attractive commercial uses throughout the city. • LU 6-2 As commercial centers are proposed for redevelopment, create a vibrant public realm though placemaking techniques like public gathering places, features and focal elements including outdoor cafes and other outdoor uses and amenities. • LU 6-3 Minimize the visual impact of large parking lots by locating them away from public streets, and reclaim unneeded and underutilized paved areas that could be converted to neighborhood-enhancing features such as, gathering areas, pocket parks, or other community focused amenities.
• LU 6-6 Encourage redevelopment and intensification of mixed-use areas by allowing stand- alone vertical mixed-use, or integrated horizontal mixed-use projects in mixed use areas, consistent with the Land Use Map and policies and actions included in this element.

CIR-1: Provide a transportation system that efficiently, Equitably and effectively supports the City’s land use vision, minimizes vehicle miles traveled (VMT), enhances connectivity of the existing network, and supports the use of all modes of transportation
• Cir 1-3: Promote interconnectivity of the transportation network in existing and new developments and actively measure the quality of conditions in neighborhoods to better understand what barriers exist in order to support use of and access to the network. • CIR 1-5: Encourage reduced block size in new developments to develop a grid or modified grid network to enhance walkability.
• CIR 1-8: Prioritize multi-modal infrastructure improvements that improve pedestrian, bicyclist and transit user safety and equity for inclusion in the CIP.

284
Item # 17.

Milpitas Objective Design Standards: Technical Memo – Existing Standards & Best Practices raimi + associates | 28
CIR-2: Provide safe, healthy, c omfortable, equitable and efficient transportation choices for all modes of transportation that enable people of all races, cultures, ethnicities, religions, sexual orientation, genders, income levels, ages and abilities, especially people of color and tho se disproportionately affected by access to a personal vehicle, systemic transportation inequities, racism, oppression, and poverty to increase safe physical activity, reduce usage of personal vehicles, access goods and services, employment opportunities, and for personal travel; to provide for efficient goods movement.

CIR-4: Promote, provide, and maintain an expanded, safe, convenient and comprehensive network of facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists of all ages and abilities to support walking and bicycling as viable modes of transportation, for recreational use, and to promote public health

CIR-6: Support and expand the City’s efforts to promote economic, environmental and social sustainability through initiatives to reduce greenhouse gas emi ssions and other air pollutants, reduce runoff, promote public health, equity and engage the community in an inclusive planning process.

CD-1: Strengthen Milpitas’ identity and sense of place by reinforcing the community’s distinctive, high - quality community form, natural landscape, and character • CD 1-1: Require development projects to: A. Preserve positive characteristics and unique features of the site; and B. Incorporate a context-sensitive design approach that considers the scale and existing and desired character of adjacent uses and the surrounding neighborhood or district.
• CD 1-2: Encourage infill development projects to accommodate contemporary uses and design and planning approaches and requirements in manner that minimizes conflicts with the • surrounding existing development.
• CD 1-3: Emphasize, enhance, and expand the compact, cohesive, and walkable portions of the city.
• CD 1-4: Recognize, enhance, celebrate and preserve, where possible, natural features and ecosystems, and protect cultural and historic resources. • CD 1-5: Maintain and enhance pedestrian and bicycle access and views to and from all local creek corridors
• CD 1-6: Emphasize landscaping as a fundamental design component, retaining mature landscaping when appropriate, to reinforce a sense of the natural environment and to maintain an established appearance.
• CD 1-8: Support art installations in public and private development projects that support and enhance Milpitas’ image.
• CD 1-10: Minimize the visual impacts of public and private communication, service, and utility facilities by requiring the provider to incorporate sensitive site design techniques, including, but not limited to the placement of facilities in less conspicuous locations, the undergrounding of facilities wherever possible, and the screening of facilities.

CD-2: Ensure project designs reinforce a sense of place, display design excellence, and are cohesive and sensitive to the surrounding build environment and natural landscape • CD 2-1: Use the project review process to encourage creative, high quality, innovative, and distinctive architectural and site designs that help create unique, vibrant places. • CD 2-2 Continue to develop and implement design standards and guidelines for residential, non-residential, and infrastructure development, both in the private and public realms, consistent with state law, to provide design and site planning approaches, landscaping, site grading and similar architectural and site planning criteria that will add design excellence, visual quality and interest to the community.

285
Item # 17.

Milpitas Objective Design Standards: Technical Memo – Existing Standards & Best Practices raimi + associates | 29
• CD 2-3 Recognize that finite land area exists for development and that density supports retail vitality and transit ridership. Use land use regulations to require compact, low-impact development that efficiently uses land planned for growth, especially for residential development which tends to have a long life-span.
• CD 2-4 Locate site entries, parking areas, storage bays, and service areas of buildings to minimize conflicts with adjacent properties, especially residential neighborhoods. Also, parking, storage, and service areas should be sited to minimize their appearance from public right-of-ways.
• CD 2-5 Minimize the footprint of parking areas, encourage shared and alternative parking arrangements, and allow parking reductions when warranted by parking demand and/or updated parking data that demonstrate less required parking. • CD 2-6 Promote crime prevention through site and building designs that facilitate surveillance of communities by putting “eyes on the street,” And take care to avoid poor design that emphasizes security over essential design features. Design sites and buildings to promote visual and physical access to parks and open space areas . Support safe, accessible, and well-used public open spaces by orienting active use areas and building facades towards them.
• CD 2-7 Include design elements during the development review process that address security, aesthetics and safety. Safety issues include, but are not limited to, minimum clearances around buildings, fire protection measures such as peak load water requirements, construction techniques, and minimum standards for vehicular, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities and other standards set forth in local, state, and federal regulations. • CD 2-8 Minimize the visual impact of wireless telecommunication facilities by designing them as an integral architectural feature to a site or structure.

CD-3: Maintain and enhance the character and distinct identities of Milpitas’ residential neighborhoods and commercial, mixed-use, and employment districts.
• CD 3-1 Strengthen the positive qualities of the City’s neighborhoods, districts, and centers. • CD 3-2 Support the development and preservation of unique neighborhoods, districts, and centers that exhibit a special sense of place and quality of design. • CD 3-3 Ensure that new development and redevelopment reinforces desirable elements of its neighborhood, district, or center, including architectural style, scale, and setback patterns. • CD 3-4 Strengthen the identity of individual neighborhoods, districts, and centers through the use of entry monuments, flags, street signs, themed streets, natural features, landscaping , and lighting.
• CD 3-5 Ensure that new residential development and substantial additions are designed to maintain and support the existing character and development pattern of the surrounding neighborhood, especially in historic neighborhoods and neighborhoods with consistent design characteristics.
• CD 3-6 Encourage the rehabilitation of older residential neighborhoods, districts, and centers to prevent blight and maintain the city’s character.
• CD 3-7 Create, regulate, and enforce attractive front yards in residential neighborhoods that are open to the street.
• CD 3-8 Ensure that new residential developments in and adjacent to the city’s districts are designed to blend with existing building forms. Considerations for residential developments should include the following:
o A. Ensure that development projects with more than 2 units consist of detached units with one and two-story building elements, when located in a predominantly single- family residential neighborhood.
o B. Ensure residential unit entries face the public street.

286
Item # 17.

Milpitas Objective Design Standards: Technical Memo – Existing Standards & Best Practices raimi + associates | 30
o C. Ensure that new development is designed to blend in with the existing building patterns of the neighborhood. For example, if the majority of the garages on the street are at the rear of the site, the new building should be designed to accommodate a rear garage.
o D. Ensure that properties designated for non-residential uses within residential areas retain the residential character and scale of development characteristic of the surrounding residential neighborhood. The development is to provide sufficient, safe pedestrian and bicycle access into and throughout the site, on-site parking, human- scaled lighting and landscape screening to minimize the commercial appearance of the use.
• CD 3-9 For commercial, multi-family, mixed-use, and employment generating projects, encourage site designs and development patterns that connect adjoining sites and function as a single center.
• CD 3-10 Design multi-family residential, mixed use, commercial, and employment-generating development in neighborhoods, districts, and centers to:
o A. Include open space and/or recreational amenities to provide visual relief from development, form pedestrian and bicyclist linkages to adjacent uses and other portions of the neighborhood, district, or center, and serve as buffers between uses, where necessary;
o B. Locate building access points along sidewalks, pedestrian areas, and bicycle routes, and include amenities that encourage pedestrian activity; o C. Create a human-scale ground-floor environment that includes public open areas that separate pedestrian space from auto traffic, or where these intersect, give special regard to pedestrian safety; and
o D. Provide comfortable pedestrian amenities, such as quality seating areas, lighting, and wide, shaded paths, along with specialized and engaging design f eatures, such as interesting fountains or public art to draw and maintain people's attention. • CD 3-11 Size and configure mixed-use development to accommodate viable commercial spaces with appropriate floor-to-floor heights, tenant space configurations, window glazing, and other infrastructure for restaurants and retail uses to ensure appropriate flexibility for accommodating a variety of commercial tenants over time. Retail commercial buildings should have primary entrances at the street at sidewalk grade, particularly in pedestrian- oriented areas.
• CD 3-12 Where a vertical mix of uses occurs, retail, restaurants, and other active uses should be located on the ground floor, with residential and/or office uses above. Also, encourage complementary architectural detailing that differentiates each use. • CD 3-13 Encourage the transition of outdated, auto-oriented suburban commercial centers into vibrant, pedestrian-oriented, commercial and mixed-use neighborhood centers

CD-4: Enhance the existing character and stre ngthen the identity and unique qualities of Milpitas’ districts.
• CD 4-1 Provide special attention to development within or adjacent to Specific Plan areas or special districts.
• CD 4-2 Incorporate identifiable and consistent design themes through architecture, landscaping, public realm improvements, historic references and signage within special districts.
• CD 4-3 Support and seek surrounding land uses and development that correspond to or enrich special districts and Specific Plan areas.
• CD 4-4 Strengthen the aesthetic, environmental and functional links between the city’s Specific Plan areas and other surrounding neighborhoods and districts

287
Item # 17.

Milpitas Objective Design Standards: Technical Memo – Existing Standards & Best Practices raimi + associates | 31
CD-5: Provide appropriate transitions between land uses to avoid conflicts and perpetuate the community’s harmonious character
• CD 5-1 Design new development to reflect the character of the predominant existing development of the same type in the surrounding area through the regulation of lot size, street frontage, height, building scale, siting/setbacks, and building orientation. • CD 5-2 Encourage new development to connect with the surrounding community and, where possible, extend the existing street grid to integrate with adjacent neighborhoods. • CD 5-3 For new development in transition areas, use a combination of building setbacks, building step-backs, daylight planes, materials, glazing, building orientation, landscaping, and other design techniques to provide a consistent streetscape that buffers lower-intensity areas from higher intensity areas and reduces potential shade, shadow, massing, viewshed, safety or other land use compatibility concerns. • CD 5-4 Encourage context-sensitive transitions in architectural scale and character between new and existing residential development.
• CD 5-5 For infill development, incorporate context sensitive design elements that maintain compatibility and raise the quality of the area’s architectural character. • CD 5-6 Encourage the mixing of land uses, where appropriate, but provide physical separation, adequate pedestrian and bicycle infrastructure and/or buffers between incompatible land uses.
• CD 5-7 Encourage the use of creative landscape design to create visual interest and reduce conflicts between different land uses.
• CD 5-8 Require setbacks and other design elements to buffer residential units to the extent possible from the impacts of abutting roadway, commercial, and industrial uses. • CD 5-9 Avoid the blocking of public views and access by solid walls. Where solid walls are necessary, require that they be articulated through the use of color, material, and/or surface depth changes and/or screened by landscaping to avoid appearing blank. • CD 5-10 Use natural features as buffers between incompatible land uses.

CD-6: Enhance the corridors, pathways, and edges that form physical boundaries and provide transitions and connections throughout the community.
• CD 6-1 Support a complete streets approach to designing new streets and retrofitting existing streets by encouraging streets to provide stimulating settings; improve safe walkability, bicycling, and transit integration; strengthen connectivity; and enhance community identity through improvements to the public right-of-way such as sidewalks, street trees, parkways, curbs, human-scaled street lighting, and street furniture. • CD 6-2 Design private streets to appear and function like public streets. Include street trees and sidewalks and connect sidewalks to those located within the adjacent public rights-of- way.
• CD 6-3 Consider the street type of all adjacent streets in the development review process to ensure that the design of the site, buildings, and public way respond to the multi -modal priorities for the area.
• CD 6-4 Consider the relationship between street design, use of the public right-of-way, and the form and uses of adjoining development.
• CD 6-5 Promote consistent development patterns along streets, particularly by how buildings relate to the street, to promote a sense of visual order, and provide attractive streetscapes.
• CD 6-6 Require major arterial streets to feature a consistent landscape theme that includes primary street trees, groundcover, sidewalks, bike lanes, bus shelters whe re required, and lighting.
• CD 6-7 Require the planting of street trees throughout the city to define and enhance walkability and the character of the street and adjacent development. 288
Item # 17.

Milpitas Objective Design Standards: Technical Memo – Existing Standards & Best Practices raimi + associates | 32
• CD 6-8 Apply special paving at major intersections and crosswalks along enhanced corridors to create a visual focal point, improve the pedestrian setting, and slow traffic speeds. • CD 6-9 Allow recreation uses adjacent to the highways, where practical, that are attractive, provide a high level of day and evening activity, and are well connected to the community. • CD 6-11 Require the pedestrian and bicycle system within a neighborhood, district, center, or project to provide efficient access to neighborhood and/or district centers and other key locations, and to connect with other pedestrian and bikeways in adjacent neighborhoods, and ultimately, to the Citywide pedestrian and bikeway trail system. • CD 6-13 Increase neighborhood connectivity in new development by requiring access for pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles across natural barriers (e.g., creeks) and man -made barriers (e.g., cul-de-sacs, freeways, and railroad tracks). • CD 6-14 Discourage gated subdivisions because they isolate parts of the community from others, create an unfriendly appearance, and do not support social equity or connectivity. • CD 6-15 Accomplish sound attenuation for development along City streets through the use of building placement and design rather than sound attenuation walls. When sound attenuation walls are located adjacent to expressways or freeways, or railroad lines, landscaping, public art, and/or an aesthetically pleasing and visually interesting design should be used to minimize visual impacts.
• CD 6-16 Discourage the uses of gates and fences at the frontage of commercial properties, unless required for legitimate safety or security reasons.

CD-9: Enhance the quality and character of Milpitas’ Public Spaces to provide safe , comfortable, and enjoyable passive and active recreation opportunities for all users. • CD 9-1 Promote vibrant, publicly accessible spaces that encourage gathering and other active uses. Provide adequate shading through shade structures or trees and incorporate formal and informal seating to encourage both short-term and long-term use of public spaces.

Place a variety of uses adjacent to public spaces at sufficient concentrations to encourage the use of the spaces throughout the day and night.
• CD 9-3 Encourage the incorporation of publicly accessible spaces, such as plazas and pocket parks, into new and existing commercial, multi-family, and mixed-use developments to encourage social interaction. The spaces should be appropriately scaled and programmed and compliment the characteristics of the district and/or neighborhood and the surrounding development.
• CD 9-4 Incorporate outdoor plazas or other common areas that provide space for special landscaping, public art, food service, outdoor retail sales, or seating areas for patrons in retail settings appropriate to such pedestrian activity. The plaza or other common area should be appropriately scaled to the retail use and shall be directly connected to the primary walkway. • CD 9-5 Configure buildings to provide “outdoor rooms,” including, but not limited to courtyards, paseos, and promenades.
• CD 9-6 When development is proposed adjacent to existing or planned parks or along park chains, include frontage roads along the public park in that development in order to maximize access to park lands, to provide separation between urban land uses and park lands without the use of “back-up” design, and to maximize public exposure and view of park lands for scenic and security purposes. Also, encourage development to provide common open space contiguous to such areas.
• CD 9-7 Where practical, and in compliance with ADA standards, separate common areas that provide seating from the primary walkways by informal barriers, such as planters, bollards, fountains, low fences, and/or changes in elevation.
• CD 9-8 Ensure that projects adjacent to local creeks participate in developing those portions of the creek that are not designated for conservation as a landscaped parkway and extend the landscape theme into creekside developments to enhance exposure to the creeks, provide passive recreation (seating areas) and integrate the creeks with new development. 289
Item # 17.

Milpitas Objective Design Standards: Technical Memo – Existing Standards & Best Practices raimi + associates | 33
• CD 9-9 Create a high-quality, safe pedestrian experience in commercial and mixed use areas through the use of street trees, public art, street furniture, and public gathering spaces .

Using signage, art, and unique uses, entice and encourage people to walk and explore the commercial cores of Milpitas.
• CD 9-10 Support the conversion of on street parking spaces, located within and adjacent to commercial and mixed-use districts and activity centers, into parklets for outdoor and café seating, bicycle parking, and transit and rideshare stops. • CD 9-11 Reinforce the distinctive public spaces with design elements reflected in the streetscape, landmarks, public art, and natural amenities. • CD 9-12 Continue to require the inclusion of art in public projects and encourage its placement in private development projects to improve the quality of life in the city. Emphasize art that draws upon the local history and is placed at locations accessible to the public.

CD-10: Design buildings, sites, and streets to enhance pedestrian and bicycle mobility. • CD 10-1 Prioritize pedestrian and bicycle connections to transit, community facilities (including schools), commercial areas, and other areas serving daily needs. Ensure that the design of new facilities can accommodate significant anticipated fu ture increases in bicycle and pedestrian activity.
• CD 10-2 Integrate comfortable and convenient pedestrian elements into building design, including, but not limited to walkways, plazas, and terraces and protect pedestrians from extreme climatic conditions.
• CD 10-3 Encourage a street grid with lengths of 600 feet or less to facilitate walking and biking. Use design techniques such as multiple building entrances and pedestrian paseos to improve safe, clearly designated pedestrian and bicycle connections withi n blocks and projects.
• CD 10-4 Design sidewalks to create a safe, comfortable pedestrian experience by making sidewalks sufficiently wide to support circulation and outdoor activities related to adjacent land uses, planting a continuous trees canopy, and placing sidewalk furniture on regular, frequent intervals that do not impede travel or accessibility.
• CD 10-5 Install pedestrian and bicycle path connections between residential neighborhoods, commercial centers, schools, parks and other key community activ ity nodes, where feasible. Require these improvements to be made as part of new development projects. • CD 10-6 Require developers to provide pedestrian amenities, such as trees, lighting, sidewalk furniture, awnings, and art in pedestrian areas along projec t frontages. • CD 10-7 Require pedestrian-scale improvements for new residential developments and large additions, such as front porches and placement or orientation of the garage away from the street, or recessed from the frontage of the homes’ living space. • CD 10-8 Encourage mobility in urban, pedestrian-oriented districts and centers by placing building frontages at or near street facing property lines, orienting entrances onto the adjoining sidewalks, providing landscaping and high-quality pedestrian and bicycle facilities, and discouraging parking areas located between the front of buildings and the street. • CD 10-9 Within new development, create and maintain a pedestrian and bicyclist-friendly environment by connecting the internal components with safe, convenient, accessible, and pleasant pedestrian and bicycle facilities and require pedestrian and bicycle connections between building entrances, other site features, and adjacent public streets. • CD 10-10 Within private developments that include multiple streets, encourage the construction of multi-use paths to provide direct pedestrian and bicycle linkages between streets and beyond the project.

290
Item # 17.

Milpitas Objective Design Standards: Technical Memo – Existing Standards & Best Practices raimi + associates | 34
• CD 10-11 Encourage pedestrian cross-access connections between adjacent properties and require pedestrian and bicycle connections to streets and other public spaces, with particular attention and priority given to providing convenient access to transit facilities. Provide pedestrian and vehicular connections with cross-access easements within and between new and existing developments to encourage walking and minimize interruptions by parking areas and curb cuts.
• CD 10-12 Ensure that new development provides visual and pedestrian and bicycle linkages with local creeks.

CD-11: Enhance Milpitas’ commitment to sustainable design by minimizing negative environmental impacts and utilizing resources efficiently.
• CD 11-1 Design buildings to allow the sun to reach adjoining and nearby sidewalks and plazas in the winter and protect pedestrians from the sun and rain. • CD 11-2 Encourage passive solar design and energy-efficient concepts, including, but not limited to natural heating and/or cooling, sun and wind exposure and orientation, and other solar energy opportunities.
• CD 11-3 Encourage the orientation of solar collectors away from public view and/or the design the features as an integral element of the roof structure. • CD 11-4 Encourage architectural elements that contribute to a building’s character, aid in climate control, and enhance pedestrian scale. The elements include, but are not limited to canopies, roof overhangs, projections or recessions of stories, balconies, reveals, and awnings. • CD 11-5 Encourage the use of building materials that conserve energy and material resources.
• CD 11-6 Encourage the expansion of the city’s urban forest canopy, comprised of street trees and trees located on private property and in open spaces. Emphasize the importance of placing trees in locations with significant hardscaping, such as parking areas. • CD 11-7 Reduce the use of highly-reflective and/or transparent building materials in order to reduce the potential for bird strikes and other harm to wildlife. • CD 11-8 Encourage low-impact development, including but not limited to, bioretention cells/rain gardens, cisterns and rain barrels, green roofs, pervious concrete/porous pavement, bioswales, and media filters.
• CD 11-9 Encourage the use of green roofs, which help reduce the heat island effect. • CD 11-10 Consider expanding the City’s Green Building Program to include additional incentives, above and beyond expedited building permit processing, for projects that incorporate sustainable design approaches and/or elements that exceed local, regional, and state requirements.
• CD 11-11 Continue to apply and expand the Climate Action Plan to increase the energy efficiency of development.

291
Item # 17.

Milpitas Objective Design Standards: Technical Memo – Existing Standards & Best Practices raimi + associates | 35
B. Best Practices Research
The following documents were reviewed and considered.
• Tasman East Specific Plan (Santa Clara)(2020)
• Patrick Henry Specific Plan (Santa Clara)(2021)
• Pier 70 Design for Development (San Francisco, CA)(2018) • El Camino Specific Plan (Redwood City, CA)(2017)
• Peery Park Specific Plan (Sunnyvale, CA)(2016)
• Lawrence Station Area Plan (Sunnyvale, CA)(2015)
• Lawrence Station Area Plan (Santa Clara)(2016)
• Vallco Specific Plan (Cupertino, CA)(2018)
• Warms Springs Community Plan (Fremont, CA)(2020)
• Redwood City Downtown Precise Plan (Redwood City, CA)(2018) • City of Burlingame Downtown Specific Plan (Burlingame, CA)(2018) • Pleasant Hill BART Station Property Code (Walnut Creek, CA)(2002) • Beaverton Downtown Design District Development Code (Beaverton, OR)(2020) • Balboa Reservoir Design Standards and Guidelines (San Francisco, CA) • Morgan Hill Objective Design Standards (Morgan Hill, CA) • City of Henderson Development Design Standards (Henderson, NV) • City of Beaufort Building Design & Infill Standards (Beaufort, SC) • Buffalo Green Unified Development Ordinance (Buffalo, NY) • City of Portland Multi-Dwelling Zoning Zones (Portland, OR) • San Pablo Avenue Specific Plan (El Cerrito, CA)(2014) • Tigard Downtown Plan District (Tigard, OR)
• LEED Neighborhood Development (2018)
• SmartCode Version 9.2 (2009)
• Marin County Objective Design and Development Standards (2020) • City of San Jose Downtown Development Guidelines (San Jose, CA)(2019) 292
Item # 17.

C. Staff Feedback: Notes
Planning Staff Check-in. March 1, 2021

Participants: Jessica Garner, Jay Lee, Krishna Kumar, Lillian VanHua, Adrienne Smith, Ro salynne Thompson, Michael Fossati, Avery Stark

1) Development Review
Specific Plans: experiences with enforcement + regulation + update process • Midtown: it does include design guidelines but it needs to be resolved with the limited design guidelines that exist in code + the design guidelines are scattered throughout the document o Developers have difficulty providing building articulation and detailing based on the current guidelines: they are submitting basic massing forms that lack definition o Midtown SP's current design guidelines are considered outdated and no longer relevant/appropriate
• Midtown: the plan has built-in land uses which serve as constraints (ex. mandatory ground- floor retail: difficult attracting developers who are willing to develop mixed-use and have it pencil out)
o Is it possible to encourage greater emphasis of building form rather than specific and prescriptive building use in order to provide greater flexibility: ex. the goal should be to prioritize and encourage an attractive ground-floor environment for pedestrians:
this does not need to be accomplished exclusively through mandating ground-floor retail establishments
Staff Changes
• Issues of subjectivity in the existing code: leads to confusion on the part of designers and developers, leading planning staff to identify and share precedent images as good examples (not sustainable)
o Developers are typically flexible, but this bespoke/subjective process has resulted past conflicts: the iterative re-submittal process hasn't always netted constructive results from a building form perspective
▪ This lack of response to staff suggestions is moreso a developer-driven incentive, not architect/designer (not that the architects aren't susceptive to combative review processes)
• Concerns regarding building heights: developers wish to encourage greater density, but the code lacks language that helps break down building form to a pedestrian-friendly scale • Modular buildings is a developing concern, especially on larger sites where developers are keen on the convenience and efficiency of modular design o A designated set of regulations that suite a modular project would be helpful:
especially some mechanism for attaining building modulation and articulation (when you know the individual inputs are standardized)
o Who are the modular developers and designers active in the Bay Area: Factory OS, Architects Orange (City will try to pass on a list of developers that the City has engaged with)(R+A will engage directly with them)
• Trees and landscaped medians + colors: development review is conflicting with inter- and intra-departmental review (ex. building/public works + PG&E will disagree with tree placement)
293
Item # 17.

Milpitas Objective Design Standards: Technical Memo – Existing Standards & Best Practices

raimi + associates 37

o Current streetscape regulation is also outdated, but an update process would require an engagement with other city departments (particularly public works) • Possible to identify different street typologies (ex. major thoroughfares and arterials vs. local streets)(Montague Ave) with regards to how they interact with building form, ROW design, landscaping, etc: implementing a consistent but context-specific scale o Uncertain how R+A might address this: our project is a city-wide effort that may not manage to address specific locations
• Balcony space, especially with regards to use and application: is it possible to build-in better/more successful screening (because in practice, individuals are using their balcony space as storage which is highly unattractive
• Patios w/scuppers (?): current application has been shoddy, can we require higher-quality materials/standards
• HVAC (esp. AC units in townhome contexts): need for better concealment and placement within the development; keeping these units away from private open spaces • Mailbox placement: Postmaster desires (key stakeholder), Building, Planning, individual service providers (FedEx, Amazon, grocery delivery, etc.) - especially difficult in approaching town house developments
2) Objective Standards
Best Practices
• The wrapped/hidden garages has been successful from the perspective of staff (1380 Main...?) • Standards that don't become immediately outdated within the next design aesthetic cycle is difficult: the response by some cities has been to be incredibly prescriptive/strict vs. incredibly flexible (borderline-subjective)
o R+A has proposed in previous projects a menu of options to provide some built-in flexibility, but perhaps the most significant alterations can be done to massing and articulation
• Could we bake-in a degree of discretionary review? (developer satisfies nearly all of the standards, but needs to collaborate and negotiate with staff to conclude the final _%) Examples
• Main Street Milpitas: city managed to negotiate a street-facing plaza/OS that doesn't rely on ground-floor retail (rather, community space on the ground-floor: hides garage, makes the area more lively; ride-share pick-up/drop-off point; transit stop) + public art contribution built into the structure (decorative building elements) as well as site-level (water feature located within public ROW (easement): controversial for public works, but attractive to planning - reiterating the need for standards that are agreeable between planning and other city departments)
o Ground-floor has a higher floor-to-ceiling height (irrespective of the use) o underground utilities must be harmonious with street trees (planter boxes perhaps) • Sunnyvale development (along Mathilda): successful transition between townhouse design/facade on the local street-facing edge of the development + a different finish along the major arterial
o townhouse patios/balconies however are problematic
• Montague Site (bad): color palette leaves a bit to be desired (too dark and saturated: higher maintenance and upkeep costs, even though the public is typically attra cted to these types of colors)
294
Item # 17.

Milpitas Objective Design Standards: Technical Memo – Existing Standards & Best Practices

raimi + associates 38

Development Review Committee. March 4, 2021

Participants: Jessica Garner, Jay Lee, Rosalynne Thompson, Albert Azamora, A. Prince, Roberto Alonzo, Avery Stark, Jaime Garcia, Jeremy Wu, Krishna Kumar, Tegan McLane, Betty Chan, Steve Chan, Alex Andrade

1) General design guidance: what needs to be addressed in policy • Easily accessible mail boxes: we end up with a cluster of mailboxes typically located on a public street where residents are effectively having to double-park in order to access their mail • Solid waste handling: standardization detailing what all residential (especially condo + apartments) are required to meet; especially space for loading and offloading (might be separate from solid waste?)
• Accommodating new methods of transportation (especially rideshare + delivery): these vehicles lack designated parking areas; lack of signage; lack of loading areas or what areas exists are too small for standard delivery vehicles
o related: parking or designated transit areas/stops that prevent traffic congestion further down the street
• From a public safety perspective: adequate move-in and move-out areas for residents o EVA access especially in mixed-use contexts: negotiating commercial parking + residential parking with emergency access (it's not often clear where EVA access is located)
o Location and placement of public parking
• Standards for retail parking that differs from residential parking: there needs to be more generous allocation for vehicular access
2) Secondary requests that may not be within our scope of work • Greater objectivity regarding public art (what constitutes or satisfies public art) - Tegan McLane says that the Public Art Ordinance is clear, but perhaps the commission could do a better job of enforcement and communication/outreach of expectations • Design of second story additions: ADUs that are two-stories or located on a second story (moreso a single-family issue which is not included in the current scope of work) • other related issues: line of sight; privacy; massing 295
Item # 17.

Milpitas Residential
and Mixed-Use
Objective Design
Standards
Public Draft
June 2022
296
Item # 17.

Milpitas Residential and Mixed-Use Objective Design Standards | 2

Table of Contents

1 Purpose and Applicability ............................................................................................................................................ 3

1.1 Purpose ............................................................................................................................................................... 3

1.2 Organization of Object Design Standards ............................................................................................................. 4

1.3 Applicability......................................................................................................................................................... 4

1.4 Definitions ........................................................................................................................................................... 6 2 Site Planning ............................................................................................................................................................... 9

2.1 Block Structure .................................................................................................................................................... 9

2.2 Mid-Block Connections ...................................................................................................................................... 10

2.3 Shared/Publicly Accessible Open Space (Large Sites/Master Planned Only) ........................................................ 15

2.4 Services and Utilities (Large Sites/Master Planned Only) .................................................................................... 17 3 Site Design ................................................................................................................................................................ 18

3.1 Sidewalk Design ................................................................................................................................................. 18

3.2 Building Orientation .......................................................................................................................................... 19

3.3 Building Setback Character ................................................................................................................................ 20

3.4 Ground Floor Uses ............................................................................................................................................. 22

3.5 Access and Parking ............................................................................................................................................ 25

3.6 Landscaping....................................................................................................................................................... 27

3.7 Utilities, Service Areas, and Building Equipment ................................................................................................. 29

3.8 Site Lighting ....................................................................................................................................................... 31

3.9 Standards for Special Conditions and Adjacencies .............................................................................................. 32 4 Building Design.......................................................................................................................................................... 37

4.1 Small and Medium Building Types...................................................................................................................... 37

4.2 Large and Extra-Large Building Types ................................................................................................................. 43

4.3 Façade Design (L)(XL) ......................................................................................................................................... 49 5 Building Elements...................................................................................................................................................... 59

5.1 Ground Floor Design .......................................................................................................................................... 59

5.2 Residential Unit Entry Types .............................................................................................................................. 61

5.3 Fenestration Design ........................................................................................................................................... 65

5.4 Green/Productive Roofscapes ............................................................................................................................ 66

5.5 Building Materials .............................................................................................................................................. 68 6 Usable Open Space.................................................................................................................................................... 69

6.1 Rules for Distribution of Open Space .................................................................................................................. 69

6.2 Open Space Types ............................................................................................................................................. 69 297
Item # 17.

Milpitas Residential and Mixed-Use Objective Design Standards | 3

1 Purpose and Applicability

1.1 Purpose

1.1.1 Overview
The development of residential multi-family projects and mixed-use projects in the City of Milpitas is regulated by a variety of documents including the General Plan, Zoning Ordinance, Specific Plans, and other topic specific ordinances. Following the passage of California State Senate Bill 330 (SB 330), the City of Milpitas is required to adopt objective design standards and streamline its housing development and review process to ensure high quality design and facilitate the efficient delivery of new residential units.

Senate Bill 330 (SB 330) defines objective design standards as any standard that: “[Involves] no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and that is uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official before submittal of an application.” (SB 330, Section 66300.7) These standards contain concise and quantifiable language that are designed for consistent interpretation by applicants, reviewers, and approval bodies alike.

1.1.2 Goals
The purpose of these objective design standards is to provide city-wide regulations that allow flexibility in design but require applicants of multi-family or mixed-use projects featuring residential use to adhere to a clear set of rules that facilitate an efficient review process and result in buildings that are appropriate for their context and environment.

In application, these objective design standards are intended to accomplish several key goals:
• Preserve the character of Milpitas’ neighborhoods by balancing the form and design of existing development with new construction techniques.
• Encourage human-scaled buildings that adhere to existing zoning regulations and promote high quality site and building design.
• Emphasize a pedestrian-oriented environment where buildings and public realm design are cohesive and complementary of a diverse range of uses.

1.1.3 Additional Documents
Development across Milpitas may be subject to additional regulations other than the standards detailed in this document. Because development projects throughout the City are unique by use, character, needs and geographic location, no single document or process can address all aspects of project design. Please refer to these documents for additional information and standards that may apply to specific or unique development contexts.

This list is not exhaustive, and applicants may be required to satisfy other standards during the time of development review. Where a conflict exists between the standards in this document and the Zoning Ordinance, this document shall prevail. Where a conflict exists between the standards in this document and Specific Plans, those Specific Plan regulations shall prevail.

298
Item # 17.

Milpitas Residential and Mixed-Use Objective Design Standards | 4

• General Plan 2040
• Milpitas Zoning Ordinance
• Midtown Specific Plan (update pending)
• Metro Specific Plan (update pending)
• Bicycle/Pedestrian & Trails Plan
(update pending)
• Climate Action Plan (2013, update pending)
• Housing Element (2015, update pending)
• Parks & Recreation Master Plan (2021)
• Streetscape Master Plan (2000)
• Utilities Master Plan (update pending)

1.2 Organization of Object Design Standards
The Objective Design Standards are organized into a preamble, Purpose and Applicability and four sections: Site Planning, Site Design, Building Design, and Usable Open Space. The purpose outlines the high-level goals of the section and draws from Goals and Policies of the Milpitas General Plan 2040. Within each section, subsections organize one or more design standards that will regulate specific design guidance. The design guidance is provided for each subsection with an intent statement that outlines General Plan 2040 and other planning policies and specific intent of the standards that follow.

1.3 Applicability

1.3.1 Applicable Project Types
These Objective Design Standards apply to all new construction projects that meet the following criteria:

1. Multi-family projects. Defined as a project consisting of multifamily residential uses only with 2 or more Dwelling Units

2. Mixed-use projects, featuring a combination of residential and other uses. Defined as a project consistent of a mix of multifamily residential and nonresidential uses, where at least two-thirds of the square footage of the development is designated for residential use All other project types, including single-family homes, commercial-only projects, and interior renovations less than 30% of floor area are not subject to these objective design standards but must satisfy existing development standards in the Zoning Ordinance, and Specific Plan Guidelines (if applicable).

1.3.2 Design Standards by Building Type and Project Size The Objective Design Standards provide design standards based on the size of a project and building size. For “Large/Master Planned” projects (see definition below), unique Site Planning standards apply to ensure new large-scale development projects integrate within the fabric of the existing community, are designed to accommodate pedestrian access and activity, and encourage walkability. Specific Building Design standards are provided by the type and size of buildings. The applicability of the size-based standards is indicated in parentheses following the Design Standard’s title. The name and definition of project size and building types are as follows:

Large Sites/Master Planned Projects
• Sites greater than 5 acres, and
a. Any one of the following:
• Sites requiring subdivision (but not including subdivisions internal to buildings for condominium division):
a. Sites with a horizontal mix of uses; or
b. Development project including new public or private streets 299
Item # 17.

Milpitas Residential and Mixed-Use Objective Design Standards | 5

Building Types
• (S) Small - House-like/Multiplex Buildings
a. Up to 3 stories
b. Maximum height of 35 feet
c. Building types include cottage clusters, duplexes, triplexes, fourplexes, or combinations of these types.
• (M) Medium – Middle Housing
a. Up to 4 stories
b. Maximum height of 45 feet
c. Building types include rowhouses, walk-up multi-plex buildings, garden style apartments • (L) Large – Mid-rise Buildings
a. Greater than 4 stories
b. Up to 90 feet in height
c. Occupied finished floor less than height of 75 feet
d. Building types include mid-rises, podium buildings, wrapped structures • (XL) Extra Large – High-rise Buildings
a. Any building greater than 90 feet in height.
b. Any building with an occupied finished-floor greater than 75 feet in height.

1.3.3 Special Conditions in Site Design
Section 3.9 provides specific Site Design standards for special conditions depending on adjacent conditions.

These design standards supersede other design standards for the applicable condition listed. Special conditions consider adjacency to the following:
• Lower Density Development
• Major Roadways
• Freeways
• Railroads
• Natural Areas/Creeks/Channels

1.3.4 Exceptions and Exemptions
All applicable projects are required to comply with Objective Design Standards. Should a project not be able to or choose not to adhere to the Objective Design Standards, a project may seek approvals through the following paths:

1. Minor Exceptions and Exemptions. If an applicant is unable to meet certain Objective Design Standards, applicant may request up to three (3) exceptions/exemptions. This allows for limited discretionary review and flexibility for projects that may have a physical constraint or alternative architectural solution to specific standards. Direct of Planning will have full right to deny a project requesting these exceptions/exemptions.
a. Requests shall be made by the applicant in writing to the Director of Planning. 300
Item # 17.

Milpitas Residential and Mixed-Use Objective Design Standards | 6

b. Applicants requesting an exception/exemption shall provide findings on how their project meets the Purpose and Intent statement for each topic where the exception/exemption is requested. c. Applicant shall document constraints to meeting the standard. d. Exceptions/exemptions from quantitative standards shall not deviant more than 10% plus or minus from the standard.

2. Discretionary Review Path. Applicant may choose the Discretionary Review Path if they choose not to meet the Objective Design Standards. The Discretionary Review Path voluntarily takes a project outside of requirements including time of review and limit on number of public meetings for projects seeking non-discretionary approvals based on SB330.
a. Applicant shall provide findings on how their project meets the Purpose and Intent statement for each Topic in ODS
b. Applicants may be subject review by the Planning Commission c. Applicants may be subject to community meetings

1.4 Definitions
Active Frontage: Active frontages are building frontages with active uses where there is a visual engagement between those in the street and those on the ground floor. Active uses are uses that generate many visits, in particular pedestrian visits, over an extended period of the day. Active uses may be shops, cafes, other social uses, and shared assessor spaces. Higher density residential and office uses also can be active uses for particular periods of the day by providing additional entries to individual units or ground floor office spaces Block Length: The length of parcel or series of parcel measuring from the edge of one public right-of-way or public access easement to another.

Building Façade Length: The overall length of a façade without a full break in the building.

Build-To-Zone: The area between the minimum and maximum setback lines within which a building’s front façade is to be located.

Chicane: A traffic calming measure that includes horizontal shift in the drive lane(s) that is meant to slow vehicle speeds.

Development Parcel: Any tract of land on which development can occur. This includes platted lots and un- platted parcels but excludes any public right-of-way.

Façade Plane: Any stretch of a building façade existing along the same axis line, regardless of pattern differentiation or change in rhythm.

Façade Composition: The expression of a façade through a variety of techniques such as forms, patterns, fenestration, elements, details, materials, texture, finishes, etc. Façade Composition is used to create the architectural character and design theme of a building.

Façade Modulation: A change in building plane though the recess or projection of sections of a façade with a minimum depth of 2 feet. Façade Modulation is used to shape a building’s exterior massing.

Foot-candle: A foot-candle is a non-SI unit of illuminance or light intensity. The foot-candle is defined as one lumen per square foot.
301
Item # 17.

Milpitas Residential and Mixed-Use Objective Design Standards | 7

Human-Scaled Architecture: Building and urban design elements designed to meet the proportional, physical, and psychological needs of the human body. This could include creating a walkable block structure, architectural elements and details that are visible and perceivable to pedestrians, and building massing the reflects the rhythm, pattern, and size of interior spaces.

Landscaped Area: Surface area dedicated for planting of trees, shrubs, flowers, grass, ground cover, or other horticultural elements.

Mid-Block Connection: A public right-of-way or private land area with a public access easement that connects from one public right-of-way to another public right-of-way.

Pedestrian Pathway: A walkway or sidewalk that connects into or through a development.

Planter: An above grade container for planting.

Podium: The lower floors of a building that form the “base” of a building typically including a courtyard level above. Podiums typically include structured parking, a courtyard level above, a different and larger floorplate than floors above, and may be a different construction type than the rest of the building.

Podium Level: The level directly above the Podium. The Podium Level typically includes a courtyard, a smaller building area than the levels below, and a change in construction type.

Primary Building Frontage: The building frontage that abuts the most primary of streets, Pedestrian Pathway, or Mid-Block Connection surrounding the building. In the case of a through-lot, the primary building frontage could be on either public right-of-way.

Primary Building Entry: The entrance to a building typically leading to a lobby, courtyard or other large, shared space that is accessed from the primary building frontage.

Primary Façade Plane: Majority area of the façade that is in the same plane.

Private Street: Any street that is not owned by the City. Private streets often have public access easements to allow passage into or through a private development.

Publicly Accessible Open Space: Public Open Spaces that are provided on private property with a public access easement and most often built and maintained by a private entity.

Shared Street/Woonerf: A type of street that includes shared spaces between pedestrian and vehicles. These streets are meant for very low speeds and may not include curbs.

Sidewalk and Sidewalk Design Terms: Sidewalks are divided into three zones from the curb to the building face:

1. Landscape/Furniture Zone,

2. Pedestrian Clear Zone, and

3. Frontage/Setback Zone.

The Landscape/Furniture Zone is where street trees, traffic control devices, and lighting are located, and provides a buffer between where people walk and the street. The Pedestrian Clear Zone is where movement of people is the priority. Sidewalks or other hardscape surfaces meant for foot traffic are its defining component.

Last is the Frontage/Setback Zone, which is on private property and provides a transition or buffer between buildings and the public realm and allows people to access buildings without interfering with pedestrian 302
Item # 17.

Milpitas Residential and Mixed-Use Objective Design Standards | 8

movement. Sidewalks in public and private streets shall be designed in accordance with the zones illustrated in Figure 1 (Description of Zones) and Figure 2 (Illustrative Sidewalk Sections).

Figure 1. Description of Zones
Frontage Sidewalk Street
Building
Setback Frontage Area Pedestrian
Clear Zone Landscape/Furniture Zone Vehicles/Bike Lanes Mixed-Use
• Sidewalk Dining
• Outdoor Displays
• Public Art
• Seating
• Trees/Planting

Residential
• Stoops
• Porches
• Front Yards
• Trees/Planting
• Sidewalk

• Street Trees/Planting
• Street Lighting
• Seating
• Bike Parking
• Public Art
• Outdoor Dining
• Bus Shelters
• Utilities (e.g., hydrants)
• Street Parking
• Bike Lanes
• Drop-off Zones
• Parklets
• Bus Stops
• Railroad tracks

Figure 2. Illustrative Sidewalk Sections
Mixed-Use Frontage
Residential Frontage
303
Item # 17.

Milpitas Residential and Mixed-Use Objective Design Standards | 9

2 Site Planning
Purpose
• To provide standards for the public realm including sidewalks, streets, and publicly accessible open spaces. These spaces may be public or privately owned.
• To set building standards and define building envelope • To provide standards to divide up large blocks and/or create planned communities with multiple buildings or parcels.

Intent
• To ensure walkability, connectivity, and appropriately scaled buildings by creating pedestrian-scaled blocks with streets, paths, and open spaces for people to gather and connect throughout the city.

2.1 Block Structure
Intent
• Integrate new large-scale development projects into the fabric of the existing community (LU 5-1) • Reduced block size in new developments to develop a grid or modified grid network to enhance walkability (CIR 1-5)
• Provide pedestrian and vehicular connections with cross-access easements within and between the existing developments to encourage walking. (CD 10-11)

2.1.1 Maximum Block Length

1. All projects shall have maximum Block Length of 400 feet and a maximum perimeter length of 1,400 feet.

2. Existing, new, or assembled parcels or blocks with a Block Length greater than 400 feet shall provide at least one Mid-Block Connection that connects from one public right-of-way to another public right-of- way or public access easement.

3. Mid-Block Connections may be one of the following:
a. Public Street
b. Paseo/Pedestrian Path
c. Shared-Street/Woonerf
d. Private Street
304
Item # 17.

Milpitas Residential and Mixed-Use Objective Design Standards | 10

4. Mid-block Connections shall include Public Access Easements for all pedestrian pathways and vehicle lanes (if provided).

2.2 Mid-Block Connections
Intent
• Support a complete streets approach to designing new streets and retrofitting existing streets by encouraging streets to provide stimulating settings; improve safe walkability, bicycling, and transit integration; strengthen connectivity; and enhance community identity through improvements to the public right-of-way such as sidewalks, street trees, parkways, curbs, human-scaled street lighting, and street furniture. (CD 6-1)
• Design private streets to appear and function like public streets. Include street trees and sidewalks and connect sidewalks to those located within the adjacent public rights-of-way. (CD 6-2) • Within private developments that include multiple streets, encourage the construction of multi-use paths to provide direct pedestrian and bicycle linkages between streets and beyond the project. (CD 10-10)

2.2.1 Minimum Building Setbacks for private streets and publicly accessible pedestrian pathways

1. Primary building frontages for residential buildings shall be set back a minimum of 5 feet from a public access easement or back of pedestrian pathway, whichever is closer to the building frontage.

2. No building setbacks are required along alleys.

2.2.2 Public Streets

1. Public Streets shall meet public right-of-way street standards as described by the Milpitas Engineering Department (https://www.ci.milpitas.ca.gov/milpitas/departments/engineering/standard-details-and- specifications)

2. Where provided, curbs shall be a minimum 6" in height. Rolled curbs are prohibited.

305
Item # 17.

Milpitas Residential and Mixed-Use Objective Design Standards | 11

2.2.3 Paseo/Pedestrian Path

1. Minimum width (building-to-building):
a. Minimum width of 20 feet for all conditions.
b. For any segment of a paseo/pedestrian paths with adjacent buildings greater than 35 feet in height, the building-to-building dimension shall exceed a minimum building height to width ratio of 1.5 to 1. (example 35’ building height:23.3’ path width; 65’ building height:43.3’ path width).

Minimum required building-to-building width shall not exceed 50 feet regardless of adjacent building heights.

2. Minimum Pedestrian Pathway width: 8 feet

3. Minimum public access easement width: 8 feet or 1/3rd of overall width, whichever is greater.

4. Diagrammatic sections showing options for compliance:

306
Item # 17.

Milpitas Residential and Mixed-Use Objective Design Standards | 12

2.2.4 Shared Street/Woonerf

1. Minimum width (building-to-building):
a. Minimum width of 54 feet for all conditions.
b. For any segment of a shared street/woonerf with adjacent buildings greater than 35 feet in height, the building-to-building dimension shall exceed a minimum building height to width ration of 1.2 to 1. Minimum required building-to-building width shall not exceed 75 feet regardless of adjacent building heights.

2. Sidewalks:
a. Shall be located on at least one side of the street
b. Minimum 6 feet pedestrian clear zone sidewalk width on one side of the street c. Minimum width of 12 feet including landscape/furniture zone area; minimum 5-foot-wide landscape/furniture zone area

3. Vehicle Access:
a. Vehicle throughway shall include two through lanes with a minimum width of 18 feet* (*Fire Department requirements supersede minimum width standards) b. Vehicle access shall chicane (horizontal shift in throughway) at least once per every 150 feet of street length
c. If provided, parking/loading/flex lanes shall have a minimum width of 7 feet d. If no sidewalk is provided adjacent to the through lane, a minimum 5-foot-wide planting area shall be provided between throughway and edge of easement.

4. Minimum public access easement width (if required):
a. 42 feet

5. Diagrammatic sections showing options for compliance:

307
Item # 17.

Milpitas Residential and Mixed-Use Objective Design Standards | 13

2.2.5 Private Street

1. Minimum width (building-to-building), whichever is greater:
a. Minimum width of 54 feet for all conditions.
b. For any segment of a shared street/woonerf with adjacent buildings greater than 35 feet in height, the building-to-building dimension shall exceed a minimum building height to width ration of 1.2 to 1. Minimum required building-to-building width shall not exceed 75 feet regardless of adjacent building heights.

2. Sidewalks:
a. Shall be located on both sides of the street
b. Minimum 6 feet pedestrian clear zone sidewalk width

3. Landscape/furniture zone:
a. Shall be located on both sides of the street.
b. Minimum width of 6 feet
c. Shall be located in one of the following locations:
i.) Between the Pedestrian Clear Zone and curb; or
ii.) Within parking/loading/flex area if the planting areas are a minimum length of 6 feet and occur at a minimum of one per every 40 linear feet.

4. Vehicle Access:
a. Through lanes shall have minimum width of 9 feet*
(*Fire Department requirements supersede minimum width standards) b. If provided, parking/loading/flex lanes shall have a minimum width of 7 feet. c. Where provided, curbs shall be a minimum 6" in height. Rolled curbs are prohibited.

5. Minimum public access easement width (if required):
a. 44 feet
308
Item # 17.

Milpitas Residential and Mixed-Use Objective Design Standards | 14

6. Diagrammatic sections showing options for compliance:

309
Item # 17.

Milpitas Residential and Mixed-Use Objective Design Standards | 15

2.3 Shared/Publicly Accessible Open Space (Large Sites/Master Planned Only) Intent
• Promote vibrant, publicly accessible spaces that encourage gathering and other active uses. Place a variety of uses adjacent to public spaces at sufficient concentrations to encourage the use of the spaces throughout the day and night. (CD 9-1)
• Encourage the incorporation of publicly accessible spaces, such as plazas and pocket parks, into new and existing commercial, multi-family, and mixed-use developments to encourage social interaction. The spaces should be appropriately scaled and programmed and compliment the characteristics of the district and/or neighborhood and the surrounding development. (CD 9-3) • Configure buildings to provide “outdoor rooms,” including, but not limited to courtyards, paseos, and promenades. (CD 9-5)
• Maximize public exposure and view of park lands for scenic and security purposes. (CD 9-6)

2.3.1 Required Publicly Accessible Open Spaces

1. Shared Publicly Accessible Open Space shall be required for all Large Site/Master Planned Site projects.

These requirements are in addition to minimum Usable Open Space requirements provided in Section

5.2 or provided for in the Zoning Code. Publicly Accessible Open Space provided to meet the requirement below may be counted towards the Park and Open Space Requirements in Section XI-1-9 (Park Dedication) of the Milpitas Subdivision Ordinance (Title XI, Chapter 1) a. For projects with an average building height less than 45 feet, Publicly Accessible Open Spaces shall be equal to or greater than 5% of lot area.

310
Item # 17.

Milpitas Residential and Mixed-Use Objective Design Standards | 16

b. For projects with an average height greater than 45 feet, Publicly Accessible Open Spaces shall be equal to or greater than 10% of lot area.

2.3.2 Minimum Design Requirements

1. Publicly Accessible Open Space shall include one contiguous open space that is equal to or greater than 1/3 of the required Publicly Accessible Open Space area.

Milpitas City CouncilNovember 1, 2022

Milpitas City Council
November 1, 2022