Milpitas City Council
February 4, 2025

February 4, 2025 Milpitas City Council Agenda Page 1

REGULAR MEETING OF THE MILPITAS

CITY COUNCIL
AGENDA
TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 4, 2025
CITY COUNCIL CHAMBER, 455 E. CALAVERAS BLVD, MILPITAS, CA 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
* To access written translation during the meeting, scan the QR Code.

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 only be provided live during the City Council meeting in person, unless the City Council approves remote public comment. 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. Members of the public may submit written comments by email to [email protected]
The meeting will be streamed via Zoom for viewing purposes only unless the City Council approves remote public comment. To watch via Zoom, please register at:
https://ci-milpitas-ca-gov.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_bx4s7SGdQJCHHxCRFBVjcw 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.

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.

February 4, 2025 Milpitas City Council Agenda Page 2
CALL MEETING TO ORDER by Mayor and ROLL CALL by City Clerk (7:00 PM)

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
INVOCATION (William Lam)
PRESENTATIONS (7:05 PM)
● Black History Month (Proclamation)
PUBLIC FORUM (7:10 PM)
Members of the public are invited to speak on any item that does not appear on today’s agenda. Comments will be limited to three minutes or less at the Mayor’s discretion. When called to speak, you are encouraged to state your name for the record.

As an item not listed on the agenda, no action can be taken, however the City Council may instruct the City Manager to place the item on a future meeting agenda.

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 February 2025 (Staff Contact: Suzanne Guzzetta, City Clerk, 408-586-3001)
Recommendation: Receive City Council Calendar of Meetings for February 2025.

C2. Approve City Council City Council Meeting Minutes of January 9 and 21, 2025 (Staff Contact:

Suzanne Guzzetta, City Clerk, 408-586-3001)
Recommendation: Approve City Council Meeting minutes of January 9 and 21, 2025.

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: Receive the list of items that have been requested by City Councilmembers and received consensus in previous meetings to date.

C5. Consider Recommendations from Mayor Montano for Appointments to the Senior Advisory Commission (Contact: Mayor Montano, 408-586-3024)
Recommendation: Receive Mayor Montano's recommendation and approve and confirm appointment to the Senior Advisory Commission.

February 4, 2025 Milpitas City Council Agenda Page 3
C6. Set a Public Hearing for March 4, 2025 and Adopt a Resolution Declaring Weeds on Specific Properties to be a Public Nuisance (Staff Contact: Arthur Belton, Deputy Chief/Fire Marshal, 408- 586-3384)
Recommendation: (1) Set a public hearing for March 4, 2025; and (2) Adopt a resolution declaring weeds on specific properties to be a public nuisance.

C7. Adopt a Resolution Expressing Support for the City’s 2016 Measure B Grant Application to the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority to Continue Operating Milpitas SMART (Staff Contact: Jay Lee, Planning Director, 408-586-3077)
Recommendation: Adopt a resolution expressing support for the City’s 2016 Measure B grant application to the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority to continue operating Milpitas SMART.

C8. Accept the Report on the 2025 Solid Waste Rate Adjustment (Staff Contact: Christian Di Renzo, Public Works Director, 408-586-2602; and Elaine Marshall, Deputy Public Works Director, 408- 586-2603)
Recommendation: (1) Accept the report on the Milpitas Sanitation Rate Cost Based Rate Review for Rate Year 8 and; (2) Find that the methodology used conforms with the Solid Waste Franchise Agreement.

C9. Receive an Update on the Security Improvements at the McCarthy Ranch Sewer Lift Station (Main Lift) and Determine that the Condition Continues to Constitute an Emergency (Staff Contact: Christian Di Renzo, Public Works Director, 408-586-2602) Recommendation: (1) Receive an update on the security improvements at the McCarthy Ranch Sewer Lift Station; and (2) Determine by a four-fifths vote that the condition continues to constitute an emergency.

C10. Accept the Workplan for the Street Resurfacing Project 2024, CIP No. 4305 and Street Resurfacing Project 2025, CIP No. 4300 (Staff Contact: Christian Di Renzo, Public Works Director, 408-586-2602; and Michael Silveira, City Engineer, 408-586-3303) Recommendation: Accept the workplan update for the Street Resurfacing Project 2024, CIP No. 4305 and Street Resurfacing Project 2025, CIP No. 4300
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.

11. Adopt a Resolution Approving the FY 2024-25 Development and Storm Impact Fee Schedule for the Transit Area Specific Plan Impact Fee, Calaveras Boulevard Widening Traffic Impact Fee, and Storm Drain Fee (Staff Contact: Luz Cofresí-Howe, Finance Director, 408-586-3111) Recommendation: Adopt a resolution approving the FY 2024-25 Development and Storm Impact Fee Schedule for the Transit Area Specific Plan (TASP) Impact Fee, Calaveras Boulevard Widening Traffic Impact Fee, and Storm Drain Fee.

12. Consider Substantial Amendments to the 2022-2025 Consolidated Plan and 2024-2025 Annual Action Plan, and Review Applications for the 2025-2026 Annual Action Plan and 2025-2030 Consolidated Plan Development Update (Staff Contact: Robert Musallam, Housing Official, 408- 586-3275)

February 4, 2025 Milpitas City Council Agenda Page 4
Recommendation: (1) Conduct the public hearing; (2) Provide direction to staff on CDBG priority areas or specific applications that the City Council seeks to fund; (3) Approve a substantial amendment to the FY 2022-25 Consolidated Plan; (4) Authorize the City Manager, or designee, to make any necessary changes to the approved FY 2022-25 Consolidated Plan; and (5) Authorize the City Manager, or designee, to sunset the Home Rehab Program and to reallocate any future program income earned from the Revolving Loan Fund towards Economic Development activities.

ANNOUNCEMENTS AND FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS (9:00 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. 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 whether to move the item forward. If a majority of the City Council agrees to move the item forward, the City Manager shall place the item on a future agenda.

ADJOURNMENT (9:05 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.

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.

Milpitas City Council Calendar
February 2025
Sunday Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday 1 2 3
7:00 PM-Parks, Recreation & Cultural
Resources Commission (EC)
4 7:00 PM-City Council
5 1:00 PM-Santa Clara VTA Monthly
Briefing - Northeast Group (CM)
(Zoom)
5:30 PM-Veterans Commission (GB)
7:00 PM-Community Housing
Commission (EC)
6 5:30 PM-Milpitas Chamber of
Commerce Board (GB)
5:30 PM-Santa Clara VTA Board of
Directors (CM)
7 8
9 10
4:00 PM-Economic Development and
Trade Commission (WL)
5:30 PM- Special Meeting Library and
Education Advisory Commission (HL)
11 6:00 PM- Special CIP Budget Session
12 4:30 PM-City Council Finance
Subcommittee (CM/EC)
7:00 PM-Silicon Valley Clean Energy
Board of Directors (GB) (Cupertino)
7:00 PM-Planning Commission
13 4:00 PM-Treatment Plant Advisory
Committee (CM) (San Jose)
4:00 PM-Santa Clara VTA Policy
Advisory Committee (EC)
6:00 PM-Youth Advisory Commission
(HL)
7:00 PM-Cities Assoc of SCC (CM)
14 15
16 17
PRESIDENT’S DAY

CITY HALL CLOSED
18 4:00 PM- Special Budget Study
Session
7:00 PM-City Council
19 6:00 PM-Energy and Environmental
Sustainability Commission (EC)
20 21
9:00 AM- Santa Clara VTA Board of
Directors Workshop Meeting (CM)
22 23 24
7:00 PM-Special Meeting Arts
Commission (CM)
7:00 PM- Science, Technology &
Innovation Commission (WL)
25 1:30 PM-Senior Advisory Commission
(HL)
26 5:30 PM-Cities Assoc. of SCC -
Recycling and Waste Reduction
Commission (CM)
7:00 PM-Planning Commission
27 28
9:00 AM- Santa Clara VTA Board of
Directors Workshop Meeting (CM)
January 2025

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
March 2025

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

January 9, 2025 Milpitas Special City Council Minutes Page 1

SPECIAL MEETING OF THE MILPITAS

CITY COUNCIL

MINUTES
TUESDAY, JANUARY 9, 2025
The City Council of the City of Milpitas convened in a Special Meeting of the Milpitas City Council on January 9, 2025, in the Milpitas Community Center, Room 7/8 at 457 East Calaveras Blvd, Milpitas, CA.

WELCOME AND CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Montano called the Special City Council meeting to order at 11:00 AM.

PRESENT: Mayor Montano, Councilmembers Chua, Councilmember Lam, and Councilmember Lien ABSENT: Vice Mayor Barbadillo

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Montano led the Pledge of Allegiance.

PUBLIC FORUM
There were no public speakers.

ANNOUNCEMENT OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Assistant City Attorney Christopher Creech read the announcement of conflict of interest. .

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

APPROVAL OF AGENDA
All members present approved the agenda.

CITY COUNCIL PRIORITY WORKSHOP
Councilmembers met together with the staff and consultant to (1) Ceate opportunities to learn about individual council members; (2) Review and affirm the City’s Strategic Goals; and (3) Discuss priority strategic goals and desired outcomes for 2025.

The Mayor and City Council took a break from 12:15 to 1pm.

ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Montano adjourned the meeting at 2:15pm.

Draft meeting minutes submitted by City Clerk, Suzanne Guzzetta

January 21, 2025 Milpitas City Council Minutes Page 1

JOINT MEETING OF THE MILPITAS

CITY COUNCIL, HOUSING AUTHORITY, AND

MUNICIPAL FINANCING AUTHORITY

MINUTES
TUESDAY, JANUARY 21, 2025
The City Council of the City of Milpitas convened on the regular City Council meeting day in a Joint Meeting of the Milpitas City Council, Housing Authority, and Municipal Financing Authority on January 21, 2025, in the City Council Chamber, 455 E. Calaveras Blvd, Milpitas, CA, and via teleconference/Zoom webinar.

CALL MEETING TO ORDER by Mayor and ROLL CALL by City Clerk Mayor Montano called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 5:31 PM and announcing that Vice Mayor Barbadillo was participating remotely from the Kameha Grand Zurich Business Center in Zurich, Switzerland pursuant to California Government Code Section 54953. Roll Call was taken by City Clerk Guzzetta.

PRESENT: Mayor Montano, Vice Mayor Barbadillo (5:42 PM), Councilmember Chua, Councilmember Lam, Councilmember Lien
ABSENT: None
Acting City Attorney Creech briefed the City Council on the closed session items.

The City Council adjourned to Closed Session at 5:34 PM.

ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION
(a) CONFERENCE WITH REAL ESTATE PROPERTY NEGOTIATOR
Pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.8
Property: 174-176 Main Street
Agency Negotiator: Economic Development and Strategic Initiatives Director Alex Andrade Negotiating Parties: 286 Lynn Avenue, LLC
Under Negotiation: Price and Terms of Payment
(b) CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL
Existing Litigation Pursuant to Government Code § 54956.9(d)(1) and (2):

Chad Pancoe Gurney v. City of Milpitas, WCAB case number(s) ADJ18987292. (c) CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL
Existing Litigation Pursuant to Government Code § 54956.9(d)(2):

Eric Emmanuele v. City of Milpitas, WCAB case numbers ADJ14723641 and ADJ14722396.

CLOSED SESSION ANNOUNCEMENT:

The City Council reconvened at 7:17 PM. Acting City Attorney Creech had no Closed Session report.

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Montano led the pledge of allegiance.

The City Council recessed at 7:21 PM and reconvened at 7:29 PM.

January 21, 2025 Milpitas City Council Minutes Page 2

INVOCATION
Councilmember Chua provided the invocation.

PRESENTATIONS
Mayor Montano, joined by the City Council presented proclamations in recognition of Martin Luther King, Jr.

Day and Lunar New Year. Milpitas Unified School District Board President Chris Norwood and Chief Business Officer Dorothy Reconose accepted the proclamation for Martin Luther King, Jr. Day. Jane Chen from the Mandarin Language and Cultural Center accepted the proclamation for Lunar New Year.

PUBLIC FORUM
There were the following public speakers.

1. Voltaire Montemayor

ANNOUNCEMENT OF CONFLICT OF INTEREST AND CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS Acting City Attorney Creech asked the Mayor and City Councilmembers if they had any personal conflicts of interest. By roll call, there were no conflicts of interest. Acting City Attorney Creech 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 Montano read the City Council Code of Conduct.

APPROVAL OF AGENDA
After discussion, motion: to approve the agenda.

Motion/Second: Mayor Montano / Councilmember Lien
Motion carried by the following:

AYES: Mayor Montano, Vice Mayor Barbadillo, Councilmember Chua, Councilmember Lam, Councilmember Lien
NOES: None

CONSENT CALENDAR
After discussion, motion: approve the Consent Calendar.

Motion/Second: Councilmember Chua / Councilmember Lien Motion carried by the following:

AYES: Mayor Montano, Vice Mayor Barbadillo, Councilmember Chua, Councilmember Lam, Councilmember Lien
NOES: None

1. Receive City Council Calendar of Meetings for January and February 2025 (Staff Contact:

Suzanne Guzzetta, City Clerk, 408-586-3001)
Received City Council Calendar of Meetings for January and February 2025.

2. Approve City Council City Council Meeting Minutes of January 7, 2025 (Staff Contact: Suzanne Guzzetta, City Clerk, 408-586-3001)

January 21, 2025 Milpitas City Council Minutes Page 3
Approved City Council Meeting minutes of January 7, 2025.

3. 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.

4. Adopt Resolutions of the Milpitas City Council and Milpitas Municipal Financing Authority to Approve the Continued Investment of Monies in the Local Agency Investment Fund and Designation of Officers Authorized to Sign on the Account (Staff Contact: Luz Cofresí-Howe, Finance Director, 408-586-3111)
(1) Adopted Resolution No. 9382 of the Milpitas City Council to authorize the continued investment of monies in the Local Agency Investment Fund and designation of officers authorized to sign on the respective accounts; and (2) Adopted Resolution No. MFA 5 of the Board of Directors of the Milpitas Municipal Financing Authority to approve continued investment of monies in the Local Agency Investment Fund and designation of officers authorized to sign on the respective accounts.

5. Approve an Agreement with SHI International Corp. for Office 365 Cloud Services (Staff Contact:

Daniel Nam, Information Technology Director, 408-586-2712) Approved and authorized the City Manager to execute a new 3-year agreement with SHI International Corp. for Office 365 cloud services in the amount of $181,715.05 annually for base services, totaling to $545,145.15; and authorize 10% contingency in the amount of $54,514.52 over the total contract term with not-to-exceed total contract amount of $599,659.67.

6. Receive an Update on the Security Improvements at the McCarthy Ranch Sewer Lift Station (Main Lift) and Determine that the Condition Continues to Constitute an Emergency (Staff Contact: Christian Di Renzo, Public Works Director, 408-586-2602) (1) Received an update on the security improvements at the McCarthy Ranch Sewer Lift Station; and (2) Determined that the condition continues to constitute an emergency.

7. Adopt a Resolution to Update City Event Celebration Flags and/or other Commemorative Flags at Cesar Chavez Plaza (Staff Contact: Renee Lorentzen, Director of Recreation and Community Services Director, 408-586-3409)
Adopted Resolution No. 9383 to supersede Resolution No. 9309 updating City Event Celebration Flags and/or other Commemorative Flags at Cesar Chavez Plaza.

LEADERSHIP AND SUPPORT SERVICES

8. Receive a Report on the 2025 Citywide Community Engagement Survey (Staff Contact: Matt Cano, Assistant City Manager, 408-890-8065; and Charmaine Angelo, Public Information Officer, 408-586-3055)
Received a report on results of the 2025 Citywide Community Engagement Survey.

City Manager Thomas introduced the item. FM3 Consultant Kurt Below presented the report, and joined by Assistant City Manager Can, City Manager Thomas, and Finance Director Cofresí-Howe responded to questions from City Council.

Vice Mayor Barbadillo questioned the purpose of the survey. City Manager Thomas noted that the survey is used in the budgeting process and as a reference for year-round policy discussion. The Vice Mayor cited the increase in resident engagement coinciding with a slight decline in overall satisfaction

January 21, 2025 Milpitas City Council Minutes Page 4
ratings, as a more informed public tends to scrutinize government actions more closely and pointed out that resident feedback on community and cultural programs suggested a need for expanded initiatives.

Vice Mayor Barbadillo stressed that clear outliers, such as dissatisfaction with road conditions and affordable housing policies, warranted greater attention.

Councilmember Chua raised the issue of housing communication, emphasizing the importance of informing residents about ongoing efforts such as Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs) incorporated into new developments.

Councilmembers Lam and Lien questioned the sample size of the survey. Councilmember Lien expressed concerns about its accuracy. FM3 Consultant Below responded to these concerns by explaining the statistical methodology, noting that survey research often uses similar sample sizes for statewide surveys, and that the margin of error remains consistent regardless of total population size.

Councilmember Lien also raised concerns about the usage of Milpitas SMART transit and questioned whether the program should be reevaluated. City Manager Thomas noted that SMART ridership has significantly increased and reported that the service is heavily utilized by seniors and students.

Councilmember Lam, acknowledging the diverse makeup of the City, asked after the languages included in the survey and the distribution of responses in various languages.

Mayor Montano concluded the discussion by summarizing the key takeaways from the survey. She voiced support for efforts to improve public awareness of city programs and ensure that survey results guide future policy decisions.

There were the following public speakers:

1. Voltaire Montemayor

9. Provide Feedback Regarding City of Milpitas Mayor and City Councilmember Salaries (Staff Contact: Matt Cano, Assistant City Manager, 408-586-3012) City Manager Thomas introduced the item. Mayor Montano cited additional areas still requiring additional research and asked the Council if they wished to defer or continue the discussion. After brief deliberation, Councilmembers Lam, Lien, and Chua supported continuing the discussion that evening.

Assistant City Manager Cano presented the report.

Councilmember Chua asked what steps were required to implement salary adjustments. Assistant City Manager Cano explained that the City Council would need to adopt an ordinance to update the Municipal Code.

Vice Mayor Barbadillo questioned the timing for an increase to go into effect. Acting City Attorney Creech confirmed that the requirement for council salary adjustments to take effect post-election is set in the government code.

Councilmember Chua observed that if the Council had taken action prior to the November 2024 election, an increase could have gone into effect sooner, but would now apply only after the 2026 election. She expressed concerns that an immediate increase could be made to the mayor’s salary, questioning the fairness of that structure.

Mayor Montano concurred that any adjustment should be uniform for all Councilmembers including the mayor. She suggested setting the maximum $1,900 per month salary for all Councilmembers, with no immediate increase for the mayor beyond that amount. Vice Mayor Barbadillo and Councilmember Chua supported this approach.

January 21, 2025 Milpitas City Council Minutes Page 5
City Manager Thomas noted that staff would return with a draft ordinance for further discussion and approval.

There were the following public speakers:

1. Voltaire Montemayor
The Council concluded the discussion, directing staff to draft an ordinance reflecting their feedback and bring it back for future consideration.

10. Review the List of Agenda Item Requests From Individual Councilmembers and Provide Direction to Staff Through the Council-Approved Prioritization Process (Staff Contact: Matt Cano, Assistant City Manager, 408-586-3012)
Assistant City Manager Cano presented the report, explaining that this review allows the Council to assess work items proposed over the past few months and determine which should move forward. He provided an overview of tracked work items, including those completed, ongoing, or requiring prioritization. The Council reviewed six new items, provided feedback, and voted to determine which projects staff should pursue.

CC01 - Analysis of the City’s Permit Process
Councilmember Chua emphasized the need for ongoing evaluation to ensure the permitting process remains efficient and aligns with business and resident expectations. Vice Mayor Barbadillo supported the proposal but requested clear benchmarks to measure improvements. Councilmember Lien sought clarification on whether the 2019 study recommendations had been fully implemented. City Manager Thomas recommended an in-house survey and training improvements instead of hiring a consultant due to the recent 2019 permit study.

CC02 - Job Fair for City Careers
Councilmember Chua stressed the need to educate residents about the hiring process, particularly to dispel the misconception that city jobs are only filled internally. Vice Mayor Barbadillo asked for current job vacancy numbers and if a job fair would improve hiring. Human Resources Director Parmley report at any given time there are approximately 30 full-time vacancies, mostly in Public Works. She noted a job fair could help, but impact would be uncertain. Mayor Montano suggested partnering with nonprofits or local businesses to speed up implementation.

CC03 - Impact Fee for Car Transports
Mayor Montano withdrew the request.

CC04 - Explore Modernizing Business License Tax
Councilmember Chua emphasized the importance of updating business tax models, city nearby localities. Mayor Montano voiced concerns about discouraging business growth. Vice Mayor Barbadillo asked if small businesses with fewer than five employees would be impacted. Finance Director Cofresí- Howe confirmed the tax structure could be a tiered system. City staff confirmed a tax change would require voter approval and suggested targeting the November 2026 ballot.

CC05 - Review of Traffic Conditions at Edsel and Roswell Mayor Montano raised concerns about increased traffic and safety risks at this intersection. Vice Mayor Barbadillo and Councilmember Chua agreed that a formal traffic study should be conducted before implementing changes.

CC06 - Pickleball Feasibility Study at Dixon Landing Park Councilmember Chua questioned why a citywide pickleball strategy wasn’t being considered instead of focusing on one park. Recreation and Community Services Director Lorentzen noted that the Parks

January 21, 2025 Milpitas City Council Minutes Page 6
Master Plan includes pickleball, and a broader citywide study may be more cost-effective. The City Council agreed that while pickleball is growing in popularity, a larger strategic approach should be considered before spending $50,000 on a single-location study.

Assistant City Manager Cano detailed the process for prioritizing selections by vote.

The Council voted to prioritize three work items for staff action:

CC01 - Analysis of the City’s Permit Process
The Council agreed on prioritizing internal improvements over commissioning a new study. Staff was directed to enhance training for permit staff, gather stakeholder feedback, and explore customer service improvements to ensure a more efficient permit process.

CC02 - Job Fair for City Careers
The Council suggested moving forward with planning a government-focused job fair, ensuring it includes multiple agencies and provides application guidance. Staff was directed to develop a plan and return with recommendations on logistics and outreach strategies.

CC04 - Explore Modernizing Business License Tax
The City Council provided direction to explore updating the business license tax while ensuring small businesses are minimally impacted. Staff was directed to conduct further research and return with recommendations on a tiered tax structure that balances increased revenue generation with economic competitiveness.

After discussion, motion: to approve the list as prioritized..

Motion/Second: Councilmember Chua / Vice Mayor Barbadillo Motion carried by the following:

AYES: Mayor Montano, Vice Mayor Barbadillo, Councilmember Chua, Councilmember Lam, Councilmember Lien
NOES: None

ANNOUNCEMENTS AND FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
There were the following announcements:
•City Manager Thomas announced the Annual Lunar New Year celebration on Saturday. •Mayor Montano thanked Milpitas firefighters assisting with fires in Los Angeles, expressed sympathy for Los Angeles County, and wished everyone a Happy Lunar New Year. •Councilmember Chua expressed gratitude to Police Chief Hernandez and his team for their dedication in handling recent challenges.
•Mayor Montano thanked Vice Mayor Barbadillo for attending the meeting remotely while on vacation.

ADJOURNMENT
Mayor Montano adjourned the meeting at 10:19 PM.

Draft meeting minutes submitted by City Clerk, Suzanne Guzzetta

TENTATIVE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA ITEM LIST
as of 1/30/2025
February 18, 2025 – Regular Meeting (7:00 PM)
PRELIMINARY OPERATING BUDGET STUDY SESSION (4:00 PM at Milpitas Senior Center) (Tent.)

CLOSED SESSION
INVOCATION (Councilmember Lam)

PRESENTATION
•Rare Disease Day (Proclamation)

CONSENT CALENDAR

1. Receive City Council calendar for February and March 2025 (City Clerk)

2. Approve City Council meeting minutes of February 4, 2025 (City Clerk)

3. Preview list of items for March 4, 2025 (City Clerk)

4. Councilmember Request List (City Clerk)

5. Emergency Declaration Update - Main Sewer Lift Station Security Measures (Public Works)

6. 308 Sango Court – Stormwater O&M Agreement (Public Works / Engineering)

PUBLIC HEARINGS

7. Economic Development Incentive Agreement (Economic Development)

8. Update on Vacancies and Recruitment (Human Resources)

MILPITAS CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM REQUESTS

OPEN ITEMS
Request
No. Topic Submitted by:

Date
Requested
STATUS and/or DATE scheduled on City
Council meeting agenda:

None.

ACTIVE ITEMS
Request
No. Topic Submitted by:

Date
Requested
STATUS and/or DATE scheduled on City
Council meeting agenda:
1 Staff organize a job fair for City job openings Chua 11/19/2024 This item was approved to move forward at
the 1/21/2025 City Council prioritization
2 Bring back a study or analysis of the permit
process Chua 11/19/2024
This item was approved to move forward at
the 1/21/2025 City Council prioritization
3 Invite the HR Director to a future meeting to
present on hiring processes and vacancies Lien 10/1/2024 An update on this item is included in the
quarterly prioritization update.
4 Explore updating the city's business tax rate
schedule Chua 10/1/2024
This item was approved to move forward at
the 1/21/2025 City Council prioritization
5 Explore funding options for new signage following
the decision to rename the Milpitas Library to the
Milpitas Jose Esteves Library Barbadillo 9/3/2024
An update on this item is included in the
quarterly prioritization update.
6 Send a letter to Supervisory Otto Lee regarding the
weeds on Montague Expressway Montano 8/13/2024
An update on this item is included in the
quarterly prioritization update.
7 Update the animal control ordinance to include
other animals such as horses and cats Chua 9/3/2024
An update on this item is included in the
quarterly prioritization update.
8 Look into a property for sale on Main Street to
investigate the cost and feasibility of creating a
museum for downtown or Old Town Main Street as
part of the revitalization efforts. Montano 8/13/2024
An update on this item is included in the
quarterly prioritization update.
9 Look into adopting an ordinance similar to San
Jose allowing ADUs (Accessory Dwelling Units) to
have a separate title and be sold separately.

Chua 8/13/2024
An update on this item is included in the
quarterly prioritization update.
10 Conduct a traffic study on Escuela Parkway to
address circulation concerns Montano 5/7/2024
An update on this item is included in the
quarterly prioritization update.
11 Explore the possibility of augmenting the Planning
Commission stipend Barbadillo 4/16/2024
An update on this item is included in the
quarterly prioritization update.
12 Consideration of the 20% Low Income Below
Market Rate Housing Montano 12/5/2023
An update on this item is included in the
quarterly prioritization update.
13 Bring back Bingo and the Tour at the Senior
Center Chua 11/7/2023
An update on this item is included in the
quarterly prioritization update.
14 Referral for utility infrastructure cost on Main Street from Carlo to Corning Streets Montano 10/17/2023
An update on this item is included in the
quarterly prioritization update.
15 Main Street International Festival Lien 10/3/2023
An update on this item is included in the
quarterly prioritization update.
16 Pickleball Pilot Project Chua 2/28/2023
An update on this item is included in the
quarterly prioritization update.
17 Main Street Infrastructure Projects Montano 2/28/2023 An update on this item is included in the
quarterly prioritization update.
18 Main Street Flooding at Library Chua 2/28/2023
An update on this item is included in the
quarterly prioritization update.
19 Have the City look into the possibility of a Citywide Senior Discount Barbadillo 2/7/2023
An update on this item is included in the
quarterly prioritization update.
20 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
An update on this item is included in the
quarterly prioritization update.
21 City Manager look into implementing a workshop
for small businesses on the bidding process for
projects in the city Chua 8/9/2022
An update on this item is included in the
quarterly prioritization update.

NOTE: Deferred and Completed Items are not listed

MILPITAS CITY COUNCIL

AGENDA ITEM REQUESTS
22 Quarterly or Monthly crime statistics on Homekey
Project Chua 6/7/2022
An update on this item is included in the
quarterly prioritization update.
23 Memorial Plaque in honor of youth skateboarder
that passed away Montano 6/7/2022
An update on this item is included in the
quarterly prioritization update.
24 Evaluate reopening the childcare center with a non-
profit organization running the center Montano 2/1/2022 An update on this item is included in the
quarterly prioritization update.
25 Staff to look into mural Art on Great Mall Parkway
on the VTA owned Light rail pillars Montano 11/16/2021
An update on this item is included in the
quarterly prioritization update.
26 Have a picture of Albert Vogel Sr. put up in the
Senior Center Montano 10/19/2021
An update on this item is included in the
quarterly prioritization update.
27 Include a bust of Maria Lemire on the Mural in front of the Senior Center Montano 8/17/2021
An update on this item is included in the
quarterly prioritization update.
28 Consider Community Museum and Park on Main
St. Phan 8/20/2019
Discussions with the property owner of this
site are ongoing.

ACTIVE ITEMS
Request
No. Topic Submitted by:

Date
Requested
STATUS and/or DATE scheduled on City
Council meeting agenda:

NOTE: Deferred and Completed Items are not listed

CITY OF MILPITAS

AGENDA REPORT
(AR)
Item Title: Consider Recommendations from Mayor Montano for Appointments to the Senior Advisory Commission (Contact: Mayor Montano, 408-586-3024) Category: Consent Calendar-Leadership and Support Services Meeting Date: 2/4/2025
Recommendation: Receive Mayor Montano's recommendation and approve and confirm appointment to the Senior Advisory 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. These Commissions provide guidance to elected officials on various community interests and policy matters.

Commissioner appointments and removals are governed by the California Government Code, the Milpitas Municipal Code, and the Milpitas Commissioner Handbook and By-Laws.

Residents interested in serving on a Commission must complete and submit a Commission Application to the City Clerk. Applications are forwarded to the Mayor for consideration. Under Government Code 40605, in a general law city where the Mayor is elected, the Mayor, with City Council approval, appoints all board, commission, and committee members unless otherwise specified by statute.

Analysis:

Appointments and removals are as follows:

Senior Advisory Commission:

1. Appoint Neelam Wadhwani as a full voting member with an unexpired term ending December 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.

CEQA:

The action is continuing administrative or maintenance activity and is not a project pursuant to Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, § 15378.

Recommendation:

Receive Mayor Montano's recommendation and approve and confirm appointment to the Senior Advisory Commission.

Attachments:

Commission Application

From: [email protected]
To: City Clerk
Subject: Online Form Submittal: Commission Applications Date: Monday, September 4, 2023 10:05:16 PM
CAUTION: EXTERNAL SENDER
This email originated from outside the organization. Do NOT click links or open attachments unless you recognize the sender and know the content is safe. Report suspicious messages to the IT Helpdesk.

Commission Applications
Commission /
Committee Applying
for:

Senior Advisory Commission
First Name Neelam
Last Name Wadhwani
Address Type Residence
Address
City Milpitas
State California
Zip Code 95035
Phone Number
Email Address
Present Employer
Retired
Other Phone None
Business Address
(Optional)
N/A
City Field not completed.

State Field not completed.

Zip Code Field not completed.

Occupation Field not completed.

Education: If Youth Masters in English Literature
Bachelors in psychology and philosophy

Advisory Commission
applicant, indicate your
grade / school:

College, Professional,
Vocational, or other
schools attended
Project Management
Program Development
Major Subject Field not completed.

Degree Field not completed.

List community organizations to which you belong or have belonged (additional information may be attached).

Name of Organization Research and Human Subjects Review Committee for SCCo Valley Medical Center
Member Member -2011 to 2016
Name of Organization Data Evaluation Work Group Member Santa Clara County Member Member -2013 to 2016
Name of Organization Reentry Strategic Planning Workgroup member Santa Clara County
Member Member -2012 to 2016
If application is for Veterans Commission, indicate branch and service in any U.S. military organization (retired or active duty).

Branch of Military N/A
Officer Field not completed.

Briefly describe the
personal qualifications
you possess which you
believe would be an
asset (additional
information may be
attached):

I advocated and worked with vulnerable and at-risk incarcerated populations in the County of Santa Clara for over 25 years. After retiring from the county as the manager of the Sheriffs' Rehabilitation Unit, I continued the advocacy, working with the homeless population for a local non-profit agency. As the director of emergency shelters, I managed and led eight shelters.

Providing services and improving the quality of life of the seniors' facing homelessness was challenging and yet rewarding. I have the experience, education and knowledge of local resources and most importantly the drive to serve the seniors within our community.

Upload a File Field not completed.

Date 9/4/2023

By submitting this form, I confirm I have sufficient time to devote to this responsibility and will attend the required meetings if I am appointed to fill a future vacancy. I hereby certify that all statements contained in this application are true.

Name Neelam Wadhwani
Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.

CITY OF MILPITAS

AGENDA REPORT
(AR)
Item Title: Set a Public Hearing for March 4, 2025 and Adopt a Resolution Declaring Weeds on Specific Properties to be a Public Nuisance (Staff Contact: Arthur Belton, Deputy Chief/Fire Marshal, 408-586-3384)
Category: Consent Calendar- Public Safety
Meeting Date: 2/4/2025
Recommendation: (1) Set a public hearing for March 4, 2025; and (2) Adopt a resolution declaring weeds on specific properties to be a public nuisance.

BACKGROUND:

On February 2, 1976, the County of Santa Clara (County), through its Consumer and Environmental Protection Agency – Weed Abatement Program, entered into an agreement for weed abatement services (Agreement) with the City of Milpitas (City). The purpose of this Agreement is to enhance the efficiency and cost- effectiveness of weed abatement operations and resource usage for both the City and County.

The initial Agreement was amended on the following dates: February 15, 1983; January 14, 1996; August 18, 1998; August 17, 1999; January 12, 2001; and December 21, 2011. The City Council authorized the City Manager to execute the most recent amended and restated Agreement on June 21, 2022.

The Agreement stipulates the major procedural functions to be performed by the County and/or City as follows:

I. County Responsibilities :

A. Prepare and send a list of parcels needing weed abatement to the City for approval B. Draft and distribute abatement notices to respective parcel owners.

C. Perform weed removal on authorized parcels.

D. Provide an itemized cost assessment report for abatement services performed to the City for payment action.

II. City Responsibilities :

A. Conduct public hearings on proposed weed removal resolutions presented by the City Fire Marshal.

B. Declare weeds as a nuisance and authorize abatement on specific parcels via City Council resolution.

C. Submit the finalized cost assessment report to the County Assessor’s Office for inclusion in the subsequent assessment roll, as mandated by California Health and Safety Code 14915, to assess these costs as liens on the properties through special assessments on tax bills.

D. Reimburse the County for costs related to weed abatement services on City-owned parcels within 60 days of receiving the invoice. The charges will include the actual service costs from the weed abatement contractor plus an additional 20% of those costs for County program administrative expense.

ANALYSIS:

The County has notified the City of Milpitas that it is commencing its Hazardous Vegetation Abatement (weed abatement) Program for the 2025 season. The County submitted this list of properties that were previously identified as hazardous based on inspections, complaints confirmed as valid, and/or previous history of hazardous conditions. Property owners have been notified of their placement on the list by the County. For the County to proceed with its annual abatement process on behalf of the City, the City must adopt a resolution declaring weeds to be a public nuisance and to schedule a public hearing to hear objections to the proposed destruction and/or removal of weeds. The Milpitas City Council public hearing is scheduled for March 4, 2025.

POLICY ALTERNATIVE(S):

Alternative: Not pass a resolution
Pros: None
Cons: This would reverse a long-standing agreement with Santa Clara County to provide weed abatement service within the City of Milpitas.

Reason for Not Recommending: Without a resolution, property owners will not be notified and weed abatement will not be conducted. Weeds covered under this program, classified as “light flashy fuels” are prone to easy ignition and contribute significantly to rapid fire growth. Left unmitigated, these weeds pose a significant public safety issue in terms of fire potential.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There are no City-owned parcels listed (Attachment [b]) for weed abatement services. If the money collected from property owners in Santa Clara County for weed abatement services is not enough to cover the County's fixed costs, the County can request the City to pay its fair share of the deficit by September 1. The City deficit share is determined by the percentage of parcels in the City that received weed abatement services compared to the total number of parcels serviced by the County. The County's payment request would include details about the total shortfall, any available program revenues to offset it, and the City's calculated share of the shortfall.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA):

The action being considered has no potential for causing a significant effect on the environment and is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15061(b)(3).

RECOMMENDATION:
(1) Set a public hearing for March 4, 2025.
(2) Adopt a resolution declaring weeds on specific properties to be a public nuisance.

ATTACHMENT(S):
(a) Resolution
(b) 2025 Milpitas Commencement Report (Exhibit A)

RESOLUTION NO. _________

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MILPITAS DECLARING

CERTAIN PROPERTIES TO CONSTITUTE A PUBLIC NUISANCE DUE TO THE OVERGROWTH OF

WEEDS AND/OR ACCUMULATION OF RUBBISH, REFUSE OR DIRT AND FIXING THE TIME AND

PLACE FOR OBJECTIONS TO ABATEMENT
WHEREAS, the County of Santa Clara Consumer and Environmental Protection Agency - Weed Abatement Program has compiled its annual list of properties which constitute a public nuisance due to an overgrowth of weeds and/or the accumulation of rubbish, refuse or dirt; and WHEREAS, it is requested that the County of Santa Clara Consumer and Environmental Protection Agency - Weed Abatement Program will individually notify the owners of those properties of its intent to abate said public nuisance and assess the cost as a special assessment against said properties if the owners do not abate the nuisance themselves; and
WHEREAS, the purpose of this Resolution is to fix a time and place where the said property owners can object to the proposed abatement.

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

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

2. The City Council declares that there is reason to believe the properties listed on the annual list of properties, attached hereto as Exhibit A, constitute a public nuisance due to an overgrowth of weeds and/or the accumulation of rubbish, refuse or dirt.

3. March 4, 2025 at 7:00 p.m., in the Council Chambers at City Hall, Milpitas, California, shall be the time and place set aside for all owners of property listed on Exhibit A or any other person having any objections to the proposed removal of the weeds, rubbish, refuse and dirt to voice any objections they may have to the proposed nuisance abatement by the County of Santa Clara Consumer and Environmental Protection Agency - Weed Abatement Program.

4. The City Clerk is hereby authorized to cause notice of this Resolution be given to the County of Santa Clara Consumer and Environmental Protection Agency - Weed Abatement Program.

5. The City Council requests that the County of Santa Clara Consumer and Environmental Protection Agency - Weed Abatement Program notify the owners of those properties included on Exhibit A in accordance with Milpitas Municipal Code, Title V, Chapter 202, of its intent to abate said nuisance and assess the cost as a special assessment against said properties unless such weeds, rubbish, refuse or dirt are removed by the owner.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 4th day of February 2025, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

ATTEST: APPROVED:
_________________________________ ________________________________ Suzanne Guzzetta, City Clerk Carmen Montano, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_________________________________
Christopher Creech, Acting City Attorney

APN
634 N ABEL ST 022-06-010
7280 MARYLINN DR 022-07-007
99 S MAIN ST 022-24-017
111 S. Main ST 022-24-040
VALLEY WY 022-28-026
1735 CALIFORNIA CR 022-37-002
1301 CALIFORNIA CIR 022-38-002
81 DIXON RD 026-05-021
DIXON RD 026-05-023
1878 N MILPITAS BLVD 026-05-024
51 DIXON RD 026-05-053
DIXON RD 026-06-012
1720 ARIZONA AVE 026-07-016
1840 ARIZONA AVE 026-07-051
1640 ARIZONA AVE 026-11-067
BOTHELO LN 028-23-017
RAILROAD AVE 028-24-006
1390 EL CAMINO HIGURA 029-02-007
1327 CALLE ORIENTE 029-05-010
880 EVANS RD 029-06-003
666 EVANS RD 029-06-008
826 CALAVERAS RIDGE DR 029-06-031
322 N PARK VICTORIA DR 029-16-006
1220 COUNTRY CLUB DR 029-52-014
1039 CAMARILLO CT 029-52-015
673 QUINCE LN 029-59-014
517 VISTA RIDGE DR 042-30-009
519 VISTA RIDGE DR 042-30-010
529 VISTA RIDGE DR 042-30-015
410 VISTA RIDGE DR 042-30-024
350 VISTA RIDGE DR 042-30-025
531 VISTA RIDGE DR 042-30-029
SERRA WY 083-06-006
MAIN ST 083-06-008
S MAIN ST 083-07-015
540 S ABEL ST 083-13-013
91 MONTAGUE EXPY 083-42-002
HAMMOND WAY 086-25-018
S MAIN ST 086-25-028
2025 WEED ABATEMENT PROGRAM

COMMENCEMENT REPORT

CITY OF MILPITAS

EXHIBIT A
Situs

HAMMOND WAY 086-25-030
HAMMOND WY 086-25-032
BOTHELO AVE 086-26-039
HAMMOND WY 086-26-040
HAMMOND WY 086-26-042
MILPITAS BLVD 086-28-006
VISTA WAY 086-29-005
WRIGLEY WAY 086-29-036
YOSEMITE DR 086-29-047
876 YOSEMITE DR 086-30-047
YOSEMITE DR 086-30-048
AMES AVE 086-30-060
SINCLAIR FRONTAGE RD 086-31-003
MILPITAS BLVD 086-32-084
1646 CENTRE POINT DR 086-33-110
COSTA ST 086-41-014
1001 S MILPITAS BLVD 086-42-033
GARDEN ST 086-94-014
375 DEMPSEY RD 088-01-002
S PARK VICTORIA DR 088-04-062
DEMPSEY RD 088-04-076
534 S PARK VICTORIA DR 088-06-039
1459 CANTON DR 088-09-039
1496 JUPITER CT 088-09-089
2013 YOSEMITE DR 088-20-023
575 CARLSBAD ST 088-20-102
632 CARLSBAD ST 088-20-125
1791 ROCKY MOUNTAIN AV 088-23-075
1966 YOSEMITE DR 088-26-149
OLD PIEDMONT RD 092-34-008
1250 PIEDMONT RD 092-34-014
2235 URIDIAS RANCH RD 092-37-050

CITY OF MILPITAS

AGENDA REPORT
(AR)
Item Title: Adopt a Resolution Expressing Support for the City’s 2016 Measure B Grant Application to the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority to Continue Operating Milpitas SMART (Staff Contact: Jay Lee, Planning Director, 408-586- 3077)
Category: Community Development
Meeting Date: 2/4/2025
Recommendation: Adopt a resolution expressing support for the City’s 2016 Measure B grant application to the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority to continue operating Milpitas SMART, including support for a 20% local match to be identified as part of the upcoming Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Operating Budget process.

BACKGROUND:

In November 2016, Santa Clara County voters approved the 2016 Measure B ballot measure, a 30-year half- cent countywide sales tax to enhance transit, highways, expressways and active transportation programs for bicycles and pedestrians. The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) established the 2016 Measure B Innovative Transit Service Models Program to provide funding to eligible cities through a competitive grant application process.

City staff in partnership with RideCo, a transportation consulting firm that provides on-demand transit solutions, submitted a grant application for funding through the Innovative Transit Service Models Program to develop and implement Milpitas SMART, a 12-month pilot program to provide a flexible, convenient first/last-mile transit solution with convenient connections to VTA light rail and the Milpitas Transit Center. On March 4th, the VTA Board of Directors approved the recommended projects, including Milpitas SMART, and authorized the General Manager to execute the necessary agreements. The City of Milpitas was awarded the full amount of the grant request in the amount of $1,084,732. On April 5, 2022, the City Council authorized the City Manager to execute a funding agreement with VTA to receive this funding and a subscription and services agreement with RideCo in a not-to-exceed amount of $1,355,916 for consultant services to operate Milpitas SMART.

Milpitas SMART launched on September 12, 2022 and initially provided first/last-mile connections to or from four key hubs in the City of Milpitas: (1) Milpitas City Hall, (2) Milpitas Transit Center, (3) Great Mall, and (4) VTA Alder Station. Riders could book trips from any one of nearly a hundred virtual stops across the City to any of these four hubs and vice versa. Despite the City’s extensive marketing and outreach efforts, ridership for the service remained low through February at approximately 5 passengers per weekday. Furthermore, staff received significant community feedback requesting direct access to key destinations outside the hubs including the Milpitas Library and Milpitas High School.

To meet this demand and increase ridership, City staff requested and received VTA approval to transition Milpitas SMART from a hub-and-spoke to a point-to-point service model. In February 2023, the City implemented this service change. On August 8, 2023, the City Council approved amendments to the funding agreement with VTA and subscription and services agreement with RideCo and authorized the City Manager to execute the amended agreements to reflect this service change. On September 5, 2023, the City Council accepted an allocation of $1,600,000 in State funding for the SMART Program, approved a budget appropriation of the same amount into Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Project No. 3493 (Milpitas SMART), and provided direction to City staff on proposed program modifications, including expanded service hours, fleet conversion, and fare promotions.

On June 11, 2024, the City amended the subscription and services agreement with RideCo to update the not- to-exceed amount to reflect the $1.6 million in State funding. On September 3, 2024, the City amended the agreement to reflect various program updates related to the service provider, subscription and services fee, vehicle fleet, and driver requirements.

ANALYSIS:

Program and Ridership Update
Since launching Milpitas SMART in September 2022, the City in partnership with RideCo have implemented the following program updates to continuously improve service and meet the needs of the Milpitas community:

1. Transitioned from a hub-and-spoke to a point-to-point service model, which has resulted in exponential increases in ridership;

2. Transitioned to a new service provider, SilverRide to maintain and improve operational efficiency and customer service levels;

3. Expanded the services hours from 7am-7pm to 6am-9pm on weekdays and added Saturday service (7am-7pm); and

4. Converted the vehicle fleet from traditional to hybrid vehicles.

Through these updates, ridership has increased tremendously since the program was launched. SMART achieved its highest monthly ridership of 4,681 in December 2024. The monthly ridership is on pace for over 5,000 rides in January 2024. City staff expects ridership to continue increasing due to the improved efficiency and service resulting from the transition to a new service provider in SilverRide.

Although the 2024 Milpitas Community Survey results show that 75 percent of survey respondents have never used SMART, 14 percent of the respondents indicated that they have used SMART a few or many times, which compares favorably to other transit services. Furthermore, SMART has become an important transportation option for Milpitas’ disadvantaged and transit-dependent populations. In December 2024, of the 4,681 rides completed, 1,480 were by youth, 943 by seniors, 755 by low-income persons, and 14 were by disabled persons. In other words, 3,192 of 4,681 rides (68 percent) were for disadvantaged and transit- dependent populations.

The 2024 Milpitas Community Survey results also indicate that 44 percent of respondents are either not too familiar or not at all familiar with SMART. Therefore, City staff believes that there is still untapped potential for increased ridership as the City continues to market and promote the service in new ways. 2016 Measure B Innovative Transit Service Models Competitive Grant Program Cycle 2 On December 16, 2024, VTA announced the 2016 Measure B Innovative Transit Service Models Competitive Grant Program Cycle 2 call-for-projects. The program is intended to support new innovative transit service models to address first/last-mile connections. The total funding available for this cycle is $6,946,187 and the maximum each applicant can request is 50 percent of this amount. Eligible activities include: 1) purchase of equipment for the deployment, implementation, and use of transit services; and 2) operation and maintenance of first/last-mile connections to public transit services, gap filling services, flexible and innovative services like shuttles and vanpools, marketing efforts, and software integration related to trip planning or fare payment.

However, funds cannot be used for planning/feasibility studies or purchase of vehicles.

While much of the scoring criteria from the previous cycle remains (innovative service/business model, first/last mile connections, equity considerations, community engagement, environmental considerations, and non-2016 Measure B contribution), eligible projects now include the continuation or expansion of existing programs.

Grant applications are due February 24, 2025. Please refer to the attached VTA memorandum and grant criteria for this program for additional details.

Proposed Program Upgrades
Following VTA’s call-for-projects announcement, City staff and RideCo have been preparing an application for the 2016 Measure B Innovative Transit Service Models Competitive Grant Program. As part of the application,

staff is proposing the following changes to SMART to improve service and the competitiveness of the City’s application according to VTA’s scoring criteria.

Integrated Trip Planning
If awarded grant funding, SMART will incorporate multimodal trip planning into the mobile app, which would provide various trip options for users from their origin to destination. The trip options will incorporate not only VTA but also other transit agency services to allow users to see how they can complete their entire trip through a combination of SMART and public transit. Adding this feature to the app will make it easier for SMART users to connect to transit to reach destinations within the City and other jurisdictions and ensure that SMART continues to operate as an innovative, first/last-mile solution that encourages transit ridership.

Autonomous Vehicles
The City is also likely proposing to add multiple autonomous (i.e., self-driving) vehicles (AVs) to the current fleet to increase service capacity and reduce operational costs over time. AVs use artificial intelligence (AI) technology to replace the human driver partially or entirely in navigating a vehicle. AV technology is rapidly improving and increasingly being incorporated in vehicles at varying levels of autonomy. Waymo, a leader in AV technology, currently operates a fully autonomous ride-hailing service in San Francisco, Phoenix, Los Angeles, and Austin. AVs can be incorporated into SMART to either serve a specific geographical area or route. One benefit of incorporating AVs include increased service capacity through additional vehicles to supplement the existing fleet in servicing high-demand pick-up-drop-off spots or areas, thereby lowering wait times. Another benefit includes reduced costs over time as drivers will no longer be needed to operate the vehicles.

Funding Considerations
SMART is currently through August 2025. As part of the grant application, the City is requesting approximately $2,004,605 from VTA to continue operating SMART for an additional 18 months, once current funding is expended. The local match requirement for the 2016 Measure B Innovative Transit Service Models Competitive Grant Program is a minimum of 10 percent of the grant award. However, applications will be awarded 1 point for each 1 percent of local match beyond the minimum 10 percent requirement, up to a maximum of 10 points. Therefore, staff recommends providing a local match of 20 percent ($400,921) to achieve the maximum 10 points in this scoring category. The local match can be achieved through a combination of cash funds and in-kind staff time. The estimated in-kind staff time to operate SMART is approximately $205,526 over 18 months. Therefore, staff requests the Council’s support for setting aside a $195,395 cash contribution to supplement the in-kind staff time and meet the 20 percent local match.

Without this funding, the City’s application would meet the minimum 10 percent local match requirement but miss out on all the points in this scoring category. Without another round of funding from Measure B, the City would have to use general fund money to cover the full cost of operation beyond August 2025 or end the program at that time.

Next Steps
If the Council supports the City’s 2016 Measure B grant application, City staff will partner with RideCo to prepare and submit application by the call for projects deadline of February 24, 2025. If awarded the grant, the City will amend the funding agreement with VTA and professional services agreement with RideCo according to the scope of work in the grant application and subsequently implement the program updates.

POLICY ALTERNATIVE(S):

Alternative 1: Do not support the City’s 2016 Measure B grant application to the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority to continue operating Milpitas SMART.

Pros: The City would not submit a grant application and thereby save the staff resources required to prepare the application and continue operating Milpitas SMART beyond the estimated funding expiration timeframe of August 2025. The City would also not have to commit to the local match amount required to receive 2016 Measure B funds from VTA. These funds could be used for the City’s other services.

Cons: In not submitting a grant application, the City would be unable to continue operating Milpitas SMART beyond August 2025. The City would miss out on the opportunity to secure external funding to continue operating an important transportation service, which many of Milpitas’ disadvantaged and transit-dependent population rely on, at minimal cost to the City.

Reason not recommended: Applying for VTA’s 2016 Measure B grant would provide an opportunity for the City to continue operating Milpitas SMART, which provides a valuable and much-needed service to Milpitas’ residents, employees, and visitors. Furthermore, the General Plan includes several policies to promote alternative modes of transportation, first/last-mile solutions, and public transit improvements to support the City’s circulation goals. The continuation of Milpitas SMART supports these General Plan policies and goals.

FISCAL IMPACT:

As with almost all public transit, Milpitas SMART is heavily subsidized and not dependent on rider fares. The average monthly fare collections since the beginning of FY 2023-2024 is approximately $3,866. If the City is awarded funding from VTA through the 2016 Measure B Innovative Transit Service Models Program, the City would have to commit to a local match of up to 20 percent of the total grant award. The local match requirement can be satisfied through a cash match, in-kind service, or a combination of both. The estimated match is approximately $400,921, to be comprised of $205,526 in-kind staff time and a cash contribution of $195,395. If the VTA funding is granted, the proposed sources for cash contributions to match the funding will be detailed when the grant is presented for acceptance to the City Council.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA):

The proposed activity of applying for a grant is not a project pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines Section 15378(b). The fiscal management of Milpitas SMART is an ongoing administrative fiscal activity and is not subject to CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15060(c)(3).

Appropriate environmental review consistent with the requirements of CEQA will be completed prior to Commitment to a specific project action.

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a resolution expressing support for the City’s 2016 Measure B grant application to the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority to continue operating Milpitas SMART, including support for a 20% local match to be identified as part of the upcoming Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Operating Budget process.

ATTACHMENT(S):
a) Resolution
b) VTA Memorandum
c) Innovative Transit Service Models Competitive Grant Program Criteria

1 Resolution No. ___
RESOLUTION NO. 25-___

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MILPITAS EXPRESSING SUPPORT FOR THE CITY’S 2016 MEASURE B GRANT

APPLICATION TO THE SANTA CLARA VALLEY TRANSPORTATION

AUTHORITY TO CONTINUE OPERATING MILPITAS SMART, INCLUDING SUPPORT FOR A 20% LOCAL MATCH TO BE IDENTIFIED AS PART OF THE UPCOMING FISCAL YEAR 2025-2026 OPERATING BUDGET PROCESS WHEREAS, the City of Milpitas, California (the “City”) is a municipal corporation, duly organized under the constitution and laws of the State of California; and WHEREAS, in November 2016, Santa Clara County voters approved the 2016 Measure B ballot measure, a 30-year half-cent countywide sales tax to enhance transit, highways, expressways and active transportation programs for bicycles and pedestrians; and WHEREAS, the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) established the 2016 Measure B Program and adopted Program categories and guidelines for Innovative Transit Service Models; and WHEREAS, the goal of the Innovative Transit Service Models Program is to support affordable new innovative transit service models to address first/last-mile connections to transit, serving the vulnerable, underserved, and transit-dependent population; and WHEREAS, the Innovative Transit Service Models Program provides funding to eligible cities through a competitive grant application process; and
WHEREAS, City staff focused on partnering with a transportation consulting firm that could deliver a transit service model that meets the grant program guidelines and requirements for an innovative service model; and
WHEREAS, City staff, in partnership with RideCo, Inc. (“RideCo”), a transportation consulting firm that provides on-demand transit solutions, submitted a grant application for funding through the Innovative Transit Service Models Program to develop and implement Milpitas OnDemand, an 18-month pilot program to provide a flexible, convenient first/last-mile transit solution with connections to VTA light rail and the Milpitas Transit Center; and
WHEREAS, on March 4 th, 2021, the VTA Board of Directors approved the recommended projects, including Milpitas OnDemand, and authorized the General Manager to execute the necessary agreements; and
WHEREAS, on April 5, 2022, the City Council authorized the City Manager to execute a funding agreement with VTA for the 2016 Measure B Innovative Transit Service Models Program and a professional services agreement with RideCo for consultant services related to Milpitas SMART; and WHEREAS, Milpitas SMART has been an important service for the Milpitas community, especially for youth, seniors, and low-income persons; and WHEREAS, the ridership for Milpitas SMART has continued to increase since program launch; and

2 Resolution No. ___
WHEREAS, on December 16, 2024, VTA announced the Call-for-Projects for the 2016 Measure B Innovative Transit Service Models Competitive Grant Program for the funding cycle fiscal year 2025; and
WHEREAS, City staff intends on submitting an application to VTA for the 2016 Measure B Innovative Transit Service Models Competitive Grant Program by the February 24, 2025 deadline; and WHEREAS, Milpitas SMART implements the following 2040 General Plan policies and actions:
•Policy CIR 1-4: Coordinate development of safe, inclusive and health-promoting transportation infrastructure with local, county, regional, and state agencies to optimize efficiency of the transportation network for all users, and increase opportunities for physical activity for all types of users.
•Policy CIR 3-2: Coordinate transit planning and provision of transit-supportive infrastructure with Caltrans, VTA, BART, and other service providers to provide seamless service for users across transit modes and to facilitate transfers.
•Action CIR-3c: Coordinate with transit agencies and local stakeholders to pursue development of feeder services and/or a local circulator to carry commuters to transit stations, such as shuttle connections from businesses, residences, attractions, and schools to bus and rail services. •Policy CIR 4-3: Encourage walking, biking and transit use by prioritizing and implementing “first- mile/last mile” improvements, wayfinding and educational efforts in the vicinity of the Great mall transit center, light rail stations, the BART station, and heavily used bus stops. •Policy CIR 5-3: Encourage existing employers to adopt strategies to implement programs to reduce employee vehicle trips, including purchasing passes through VTA’s annual transit pass program; providing facilities such as secure bike parking, lockers, changing rooms, and showers; telework, and flexible work schedules.
•Policy CIR 6-2: Support development of healthier communities through the use of lower- or non- polluting modes of transportation to reduce GHG vehicle emissions and local air pollution levels. •Policy CIR 6-4: Prioritize transportation improvements in part based on consideration of benefits to disadvantaged communities.
•Policy CIR 7-1: Proactively position the City to be competitive in pursuing grant funding for planning, design, and construction of transportation improvements. •Policy CIR 7-3: Seek opportunities to develop public/private partnerships to provide transportation infrastructure services.
•Policy CIR 7-5: Monitor the development of new and emerging transportation technologies – such as autonomous vehicles – to enable the City to prepare for their incorporation into the transportation system if safe and appropriate.
•Action CIR-7f: Actively pursue grant funds for planning, design, and construction of transportation-related capital improvement projects.
•Policy LU 3-1: Support regional efforts that promote higher densities near major transit and travel facilities and reduce regional vehicle miles traveled by supporting active modes of transportation including walking, biking, and public transit. Support local and regional land use decisions that promote safe access to and the use of alternatives to auto transit. •Policy CON 7-12: Encourage and prioritize infrastructure investments and improvements that promote safe walking, bicycling and increased transit ridership. •Policy UCS 8-22: Encourage services and programs that meet the unique needs of seniors within Milpitas, including the establishment of medical facilities, transportation options for seniors and people with mobility disabilities, senior centers, and programs that provide for in-home care and aging-in-place.

3 Resolution No. ___
WHEREAS, on February 4, 2023, the City Council held a duly noticed public hearing on the City’s 2016 Measure B grant application, at which time all those in attendance were given the opportunity to speak on the grant applications; and
WHEREAS, the City Council has considered all the written and oral testimony presented at the public hearing 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 recitals set forth above are found to be true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference.

SECTION 2. City Council Approval
The City Council of the City of Milpitas hereby adopts Resolution No. 25-___ expressing support for the City’s 2016 Measure B grant application to the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority to continue operating Milpitas SMART, including support for a 20% local match to be identified as part of the upcoming Fiscal Year 2025-2026 Operating Budget process.

PASSED AND ADOPTED this 4th day of February 2025, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

ATTEST: APPROVED:

Suzanne Guzzetta, City Clerk Carmen Montano Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:

Cristopher Creech, Acting City Attorney

MEMORANDUM

TO: Planning Directors
Public Works Directors
Technical Advisory Committee Members
Policy Advisory Committee Members
Capital Improvement Program Working Group Members

FROM: Jane Shinn, 2016 Measure B Program Manager

DATE: December 16, 2024

SUBJECT: 2016 Measure B Innovative Transit Service Models Competitive Grant Program Call-for-Projects FY25 Cycle

This memorandum serves as the Call-for-Projects for the 2016 Measure B Innovative Transit Service Models Competitive Grant Program for the funding cycle FY25. The available award for this Call-for- Proiects includes allocations from the 2020 through 2025 fiscal years.

As part of the 2016 Measure B Transit Operations program, the Innovative Transit Service Models program supports affordable new innovative transit service models to address first/last mile connections to transit, serving vulnerable, underserved and transit dependent populations.

PROJECT APPLICATIONS DUE:

Date:

Time:

Email only:

Monday, February 24th, 2025
4:00 PM
[email protected]

Funds Available
Total: $6,946,187
• FY20-FY21 remaining balance: $186,187
• FY22-FY23 allocation: $3,190,000
• FY24-FY25 allocation: $3,570,000
• Maximum request: 50% of the total available funds for this call for projects’ cycle.

• Minimum request: $250,000 per call for projects cycle.

The maximum grant award per sponsoring agency can be no more than 50% of the total available funds per call for projects per cycle, unless the cycle is undersubscribed. Any project cost estimate should be in 2025 dollars.

Criteria
Project applications will be scored on the criteria adopted by the VTA Board of Directors on December 5, 2024:
• N
ew Project
• Innovative Service/Business Model
• First/Last Mile Connections
• Equity Considerations
• Community Engagement
• Environmental Considerations
• Non-2016 Measure B Contribution
P
lease refer to the adopted program criteria for descriptions and specific point values: Innovative Transit Service Models Competitive Grant Program Criteria. The 2016 Measure B Program Office will answer clarification questions regarding the application until Friday, January 17, 2025.

Application
Please follow these steps:
• St
ep 1: Read through the program criteria and program process. • Step 2: Complete the online application form b y 4:00PM on Monday , February 24th, 2025. • Step 3: Email [email protected] t o confirm receipt of the online form.

Program Schedule
Call for Projects Released December 16, 2024
Application Deadline February 24, 2025
Scoring Committee Reviews Proposals March/April 2025
Advisory & Standing Committee Approval – Projects May 2025 VTA Board Approval – Project Lists June 2025

Links

1. 2016 Measure B Transit Operations Program Guideline

2. 2016 Measure B Innovative Transit Service Models Competitive Grant Program Documents:
a. Competitive Grant Program Criteria
b. Application (Jotform)
c. Application Guideline

2016 Measure B Rev.10.10.24

Innovative Transit Service Models Competitive Grant Program Criteria FY24-FY25 Cycle Update

Purpose of the Program and Structure:
• To deliver projects as intended by the language of the 2016 Measure B Ballot, to support new innovative transit service models to address first/last mile connections. • The program serves as (1) seed money for member agencies to launch a new/pilot transportation service or service model OR (2) continuation or expansion of an existing innovative transportation project/emerging mobility solution. o "N ew” means the proposed project does not currently exist or has not existed within the last three years within the jurisdiction, including service pilots.  If the proposed new project duplicates the service of a discontinued prior service pilot (VTA funded or not), Project Sponsor must explain why the prior service was discontinued and how the new service differs. o “Existing” refers to a currently operating service for which funds are being sought to continue operations. This includes any expansion efforts, such as expanding/adding service area(s) or expanding service hours within the jurisdiction.  If a project does not meet the definition of “new”, it is considered “existing”.  Expansion(s) of current projects, such as expanded service area or hours, is considered “existing”.
• Projects must meet screening criteria to be considered.

Funds Available for the FY24-FY25 Cycle:

Total: $6,946,187
• FY20-FY21 remaining balance: $186,187
• FY22-FY23 allocation: $3,190,000
• FY24-FY25 allocation: $3,570,000
• Maximum request: 50% of the total available funds for this call for projects cycle. • Minimum request: $250,000 per call for projects cycle. • Funds are for operations and implementation only, as described below.

Program Eligibility:
• Recipients: Public Agencies
• Eligible Activities:
o Capital
 Equipment for the deployment, implementation, and use of transit services – e.g. obtaining/acquiring software and hardware, communication equipment, fare collection equipment, etc.
o Operations and Maintenance
 First/last mile connections to public transit services;  Gap Filling services, including low-density service and off-peak service;  Community shuttles, on-demand services, deviated fixed route, subscription shuttles, vanpools, dynamic carpool, partnerships with on-demand service providers, or other forms of flexible and innovative transit services;  Marketing and promotion efforts related to service schedules, marketing materials such as flyers and brochures, and community outreach; and

2016 Measure B Rev.10.10.24

 Software integration of trip planning and payment systems.

• Ineligible Activities:
o Planning, feasibility, or service continuation studies; and o Purchase of vehicles.

Project Screening Criteria:
• Eligible projects are transportation services and/or models that provide first/last-mile connections to public transit or improve existing connections/increase users through innovative technologies and/or models;
• Project must be deployed within Santa Clara County. In the case of a cross/muti-county project, 2016 Measure B will only fund the delivery of the project within Santa Clara County; • Project delivery schedule must be included;
• Projects must begin service within one year of execution of funding agreement; • The project does not duplicate existing services provided by VTA, jurisdictions within Santa Clara County, or any other transit provider1;
• The project is open to all members of the public;
o Project Sponsor must detail how accessibility for users will be addressed and list specific examples; and
o The project service may be targeted and limited to specific demographics (e.g. school children, seniors, people with disabilities, etc.) to the extent not prohibited by applicable law.
• If a new transit service, the following must be included:
o Pricing structure;
o Ridership projections with a quantifiable and defensible methodology; and o The application includes a service continuation plan that does not include 2016 Measure B or VTA Transit funds. VTA will provide a template of the service continuation plan to be included in the application.
• If an existing transit service, the following must be included:
o Cumulative data from previous year(s) of service, such as the average cost per trip, average cost per ride, etc.;
o Demonstrated need to continue the service; and
o The application includes a service continuation plan that does not include 2016 Measure B or VTA Transit funds. VTA will provide a template of the service continuation plan to be included in the application.

Projects that are unable to meet the screening criteria above are ineligible to apply for this grant.

Contact the 2016 Measure B Program Office if needed.

Scoring Matrix:

Project must achieve at least 70 points to be considered for funding. Criteria will require both quantitative and narrative answers.

I
f two or more projects receive the same final score:

1 Expansion to an existing service is not considered duplication.

2016 Measure B Rev.10.10.24

• Project selection will be determined by:
o Highest score received on Criterion #4, Equity Considerations. o If this results in another tie:
 Project selection will be determined by:
• Highest score on Criterion #2, Innovative Service/Business Model.

Criteria Max Points

1. New Project 5

2. Innovative Service/Business Model 25

3. First/last mile connections 20

4. Equity Considerations 25

5. Community Engagement 10

6. Environmental Considerations 5

7. Non-2016 Measure B contribution 10
TOTAL 100

Criterion #1 – New Project (5 points)
A project that meets the definition of “new” will receive 3 points. "New” means the proposed project does not currently exist or has not existed within the last three years within the jurisdiction, including service pilots.
• A full 5 points will be awarded to projects that are considered “first of its kind” or where no comparable solution exists.
• Three points will be awarded to projects who meet the definition of “new”.

Points Project’s “New” Designation per Definition
5 points Project is the “first of its kind” and no comparable solution currently exists within Santa Clara County.
3 points Project does not currently exist or has not existed within the last three years within the jurisdiction.
0 points Similar projects currently or have recently existed within the last three years within the jurisdiction.

Criterion #2 - Innovative Service/Business Model (Max. 25 points) Does the project present an innovative aspect in its delivery? • Points awarded if the project provides qualitative and quantitative description about any innovation. Recommended innovations include:
o Unique partnership and funding arrangements:
 Trip planning partnership
 Fare Integration partnership
 Data sharing partnership – such as data sharing with navigation

2016 Measure B Rev.10.10.24

o Alternative service models:
 Flexible transit service models
 Community ride services
o Technical capabilities:
 integrated payment systems
 incentives for traveler choices
 mobile applications
 on-demand software
 real-time transit data
o Innovative data sharing arrangements and/or data collection methods:
 open data platform
 crowdsourcing information
 incentive-based participation in data collection
• Point Distribution:
o A project can achieve a maximum of 25 points. The Project Sponsor will be required to identify at least one innovative aspect of the project and describe how it is innovative.

Project Sponsors who can effectively demonstrate more aspects of innovation will be awarded points accordingly.
• Questions recommended for consideration:
o What are the unique partnerships?
o Does the project creatively address mobility challenge(s)? o How does it differ from existing fixed-route or micro-transit services? Does it introduce new technologies and/or strategies to address first/last mile connectivity? o If an existing project/service, how has it effectively demonstrated innovative aspects in its performance?

To receive full points, a project must demonstrate the four mentioned innovative aspects (Unique partnership and funding arrangements; Alternative service models; Technical capabilities; Innovative data sharing arrangements and/or data collection methods) and additional innovative aspects; OR at least five innovative aspects of the project.

For points within the 1 to 20 range, projects may demonstrate other innovative aspects in lieu of any the four recommended aspects for points. For example, if the project addresses 3 of the listed innovative aspects, they may present a different innovative aspect and still receive up to 20 points.

Points Applicant’s Ability to Demonstrate Project’s Innovative Aspects 21-25
points
The applicant clearly and convincingly demonstrates the innovative aspects of the project, supported by data and/or statistics directly from the project or similar projects deployed in other areas. Project sponsors are able to clearly and convincingly demonstrate how the project presents innovative solutions to an existing issue and addresses all of the aforementioned innovative aspects and additional aspects, or five other unique innovative aspects.
16-20 The applicant clearly demonstrates the innovative aspects of the project, supported by data and/or statistics directly from the project or similar projects deployed in other areas. Project sponsors are able to demonstrate how the project presents innovative solutions to an existing issue and addresses all of the aforementioned innovative aspects, or other innovative aspects.

2016 Measure B Rev.10.10.24

11-15
points
The applicant demonstrates the innovative aspects of the project, supported by data and/or statistics directly from the project or similar projects deployed in other areas.

Project sponsors are able to demonstrate how the project presents innovative solutions to an existing issue and addresses at least three of the aforementioned innovative aspects, or other innovative aspects.
6-10 points The applicant somewhat demonstrates the innovative aspects of the project, supported by data and/or statistics directly from the project or similar projects deployed in other areas. Project sponsors are able to demonstrate how the project presents innovative solutions to an existing issue and addresses at least two of the aforementioned innovative aspects, or other innovative aspects.
1-5 points The applicant minimally demonstrates the innovative aspects of the project, but without support by data and/or statistics directly from the project or similar projects deployed in other areas. Project sponsors are able to demonstrate how the project presents innovative solutions to an existing issue and addresses only one of the aforementioned innovative aspects, or other innovative aspect. 0 The applicant does not demonstrate any innovative aspects of the project.

Criterion #3 - First/Last Mile Connections (Max. 20 points)

Does the project provide first/last mile connections to transit routes? • Points awarded if the project provides a more direct multi-modal connection, increases the average travel speed, and/or improves an existing first/last mile connection between frequent transit stations/stops, major residential areas, employment areas, or major activity centers. • Point Distribution:
o Points awarded if the project provides qualitative and quantitative descriptions addressing barriers to first/last mile connections, including but not limited to:
 Connectivity
• How seamlessly does the project/service connect to mass transit? • What major transit hubs, frequent transit routes, employment centers, community resources, etc. will the project/service improve connectivity to?
 Safety
• How does the project/service address potential safety concerns and encourage mode-shift?
 Time and Distance of Access/Trip
• How does the project reduce wait time and travel time for users? The project should identify:
• Any marketing effort/surveys to date on targeting users, especially transit users. The project should reflect demand.
• How does it integrate with existing transit/bike/pedestrian networks? o If the service is going to connect to an existing transit service, what is the current travel mode to that transit stop/station or the project proximity? • How does the project improve first/last mile connections? o Project Sponsor is encouraged to provide existing data/survey data that shows potential behavior change.

2016 Measure B Rev.10.10.24

• How does the project reduce wait time and travel time for users? • How many trips are connected to transit services? Before project launch, explain how the project specifically improves first/last mile connections.

Any other project attributes that improve first/last mile connections not mentioned above can be considered and awarded points at the Scoring Committee’s discretion, however, the points are capped at a maximum of 20 points.

Aspects of First/Last Mile Connections Points
Connectivity 10 pts
Safety 5 pts
Time and Distance of Access/Trip 5 pts

Notes:
• First/last mile definition: An individual may use different modes of transport to complete a trip; they may walk, drive, ride a bicycle, take a train, or in many cases, they combine a number of modes. “Public transportation agencies typically provide bus and rail services that may frame the core of such trips, but users must complete the first and last portion on their own; they must first walk, drive or roll themselves to the nearest station. This is referred to as the first and last mile of the user’s trip, or first/last mile for short, even though actual distances vary by users.” o Refer to LA Metro’s First/Last Mile Strategic Plan:
https://media.metro.net/docs/First_Last_Mile_Strategic_Plan.pdf

• Transit is defined as: ‘Transportation by a conveyance that provides regular and continuing general or special transportation to the public, but does not include school bus, charter, or sightseeing transportation.’
o FTA: https://www.transit.dot.gov/faq/region-9/there-fta-dictionary • Frequent transit route as defined by VTA:
o 15 minute or better frequency from 6:30a to 6:30p, M through F

2016 Measure B Rev.10.10.24

Criterion #4 – Equity Considerations (Max. 25 points)
Does the project ensure equal access for individuals with disabilities, low incomes, and/or dependent on transit?
• Points awarded if the project provides safe and fair access to individuals who are dependent on transit, have disabilities, low incomes, or other barriers in its geographic area. • Points distribution:
o The Project Sponsor must identify and quantify the groups of vulnerable/transit- dependent populations within the catchment area of the project service, articulate the benefits to these populations and provide descriptive justification to serve their needs. o Does the new project fill any transit service gap or serve any underserved market? o Does the project target new markets currently not served, such as specific commute patterns and/or early morning/late night service?
o Does the project provide affordable service to vulnerable/transit-dependent customers?

Any other equity considerations that are not mentioned above can be considered and awarded points at the Scoring Committee’s discretion, however, the points are capped at a maximum of 25 points.

Points Project’s Equity Considerations Demonstration
20–25 points The application clearly and convincingly:
• Explains how the project addresses an important need specific to the intended communities, AND
• Illustrates how the project was requested or supported by the intended communities, AND
• Explains how the intended community will be included throughout the project duration
15–19 points The application generally:
• Explains how the project addresses an important need specific to the intended communities, AND
• Illustrates how the project was requested or supported by the intended communities, AND
• Explains how the intended community will be included throughout the project duration
10-14 points The application somewhat:
• Explains how the project addresses an important need specific to the intended communities, AND/OR
• Illustrates how the project was requested or supported by the intended communities, AND/OR
• Explains how the intended community will be included throughout the project duration
5-9 points The application minimally:
• Explains how the project addresses an important need specific to the intended communities, AND/OR
• Illustrates how the project was requested or supported by the intended communities, AND/OR
• Explains how the intended community will be included throughout the project duration

2016 Measure B Rev.10.10.24

1-4 points The application minimally does only one of the following:
• Explains how the project addresses an important need specific to the intended communities, OR
• Illustrates how the project was requested or supported by the intended communities, OR
• Explains how the intended community will be included throughout the project duration

Notes:
• Vulnerable/transit-dependent population includes:
o Individuals with disabilities;
o Individuals with low-income;
o Individuals with no personal vehicles; and
o Youth as defined for VTA’s fare structure.
• An underserved market is a geographic area that currently has infrequent or no frequent transit service.
• The project must include ridership projections for transit services.

Criterion #5 – Community Engagement (Max. 10 points)
What community engagement efforts has/will the project perform, specifically to the groups identified in Criterion #4?
• Project Sponsor must identify the intended communities for project outreach. • Project Sponsor must submit a community engagement plan, detail marketing efforts, or provide data.
• Points awarded if the project demonstrates meaningful community engagement. This may include, but is not limited to:
o Variety of community engagement/marketing efforts used (mailers, community workshops, online ads, promotional videos, etc.)
o Level of detail and effort in the provided community engagement plan, such as type, location, and date of outreach efforts. For existing projects, past and current efforts will be evaluated.
o Questions recommended for consideration are:
 Was this project identified as a need by the community? If so, please provide documentation such as a demand assessment survey from potential users.  How was/is the outreach planned within the communities intended?  How feedback was/will be incorporated? How will opportunities for continued feedback be offered through the life of the project?
 What does each effort achieve: informing, consulting, involving, collaborating, and/or empowering the community intended?
 How do the community engagement/marketing efforts help to address the identified need(s) described in Criterion #4?
 For existing projects: For previous outreach efforts, please describe in detail the process underwent and the results achieved.
 For expansion efforts: What communities/new user groups did you reach out to for this expansion?

2016 Measure B Rev.10.10.24

• If community engagement has not yet occurred, Project Sponsor must include a community engagement plan or, at minimum, a communications plan.

• Points distribution:
o The Scoring Committee will be provided with the IAP2’s “Spectrum of Public Participation” as an evaluation guide for this criteria.

Any other community engagement activities that are not mentioned above can be considered and awarded points at the Scoring Committee’s discretion, however, the points are capped at a maximum of 10 points.

Points Project’s Community Engagement Demonstration
8 – 10 points The applicant provides a thorough and inclusive description of the community that will be/has been engaged for this project, and provides a clear explanation as to why engaging the identified communities is key.

The applicant clearly and convincingly demonstrates an
outreach/communication process with specific details such as the ones listed and recommended above.
4-7 points The applicant provides a general description of the community that will be/has been engaged for this project, and provides a clear explanation as to why engaging the identified communities is key.

The applicant generally demonstrates an outreach/communication process with specific details such as the ones listed and recommended above.
1-3 points The applicant provides vague description of the community that will be/has been engaged for this project, and provides a clear explanation as to why engaging the identified communities is key.

The applicant somewhat demonstrates an outreach/communication process with specific details such as the ones listed and recommended above.

Criterion #6- Environmental Considerations (Max. 5 points) Does the project/service reduce GHG emissions or other potential climate and environmental impacts?
• Points awarded if:
o Project demonstrates alignment with a climate action plan (or similar plan) that has been adopted by the agency.
 Questions for consideration:
• How does the project encourage a mode shift away from single- occupancy vehicle trips?
• How does the project reduce GHG emissions?

2016 Measure B Rev.10.10.24

• How does the project address climate change impacts, such as extreme heat or rainfall, or other major environmental concerns as identified in adopted plans?
• Does your project encourage transit-oriented development? • Does your project utilize ZEV/clean energy technology?  For agencies without an adopted climate action plan, or similar plan, they may use VTA’s Climate Action and Adaption Plan (https://www.vta.org/climateplan )
to demonstrate the project’s environmental considerations. • Point Distribution:
o The project can receive a maximum of 5 points.
 Up to 4 points awarded for demonstrated alignment with an adopted climate action plan, or similar plan.
 1 point awarded if the project utilizes ZEV/Clean Energy Technology.

Criterion #7 - Non-2016 Measure B Contribution (Max. 10 points) How much non-2016 Measure B contribution is the Project Sponsor providing? • Points awarded if:
o The Project Sponsor pledges/provides more than the required 10% non-2016 Measure B contribution.
o Project Sponsors identifies what activities will be paid by each fund source, as applicable.
• Point Distribution:
o The project can receive a maximum of 10 points.
 10 points: Provides ≥ 20% non-2016 Measure B contribution;  1 point for every additional 1% non-2016 Measure B contribution beyond the minimum 10% requirement);
 0 point: Provides the minimum 10% non-2016 Measure B contribution.

Points Non-2016 Measure B Contribution
10 points 20% or more of match provided.
9 points 19% match provided.
8 points 18% match provided.
7 points 17% match provided.
6 points 16% match provided.
5 points 15% match provided.
4 points 14% match provided.
3 points 13% match provided.
2 points 12% match provided.
1 point 11% match provided.
0 points 10% match provided.

Notes:
• Only the whole number of the match provided will be used for point distribution (a 12.99% match will be considered a 12% match).
• If the Project Sponsor states that they will provide a higher percentage of matching funds, they will be required to provide the matching percentage.

2016 Measure B Rev.10.10.24

• If project costs increase and are anticipated to be over budget, 2016 Measure B funds will not be increased. The Project Sponsor is responsible for cost overruns. • If the project is anticipated to be delivered under budget, 2016 Measure B funds will be reduced in proportion to the Project Sponsor’s contribution.

CITY OF MILPITAS

AGENDA REPORT
(AR)
Item Title: Accept the Report on the 2025 Solid Waste Rate Adjustment (Staff Contact:

Christian Di Renzo, Public Works Director, 408-586-2602; and Elaine Marshall, Deputy Public Works Director, 408-586-2603)
Category: Consent Calendar-Community Services and Sustainable Infrastructure Meeting Date: 2/4/2025
Recommendation: (1) Accept the report on the Milpitas Sanitation Rate Cost Based Rate Review for Rate Year 8 and; (2) Find that the methodology used conforms with the Solid Waste Franchise Agreement.

BACKGROUND:

Milpitas Sanitation Inc. (MSI) holds the exclusive Franchise Agreement (Agreement) for collection of Solid Waste and collection and processing of recyclable materials and organic materials (Franchise) for the City of Milpitas. The term of the Agreement is from September 2017 through August 31, 2032, with options for extension. MSI was purchased by Waste Connections Inc. and, as provided under the Agreement, City Council approved the assignment of the Franchise to Waste Connections on June 21, 2022, along with a 4th Amendment to the Agreement that included negotiated service enhancements.

Under the Agreement, MSI provides for solid waste, recyclables and organics collection, and processing and disposal for all service sectors in Milpitas, as well as handling all billing and revenue collection. The Agreement includes provisions allowing for annual rate reviews and adjustments and contains a detailed methodology by which these rate reviews are to be calculated. Most years the rate adjustment is “Index-Based” and the methodology specifies which indices are considered and applied to MSI operating costs. For the fourth, eighth, and twelfth rate years, the rate adjustment is “Cost-Based.” The methodology for the Cost-Based adjustment involves a review of MSI’s actual costs and projection of costs for the coming year including a review of MSI’s actual cost of operations and operational statistics (staffing levels, routes, route hours, customers and service levels) to determine the Actual Allowable Total Costs of Operations and to forecast Total Contractor’s Compensation for the coming Rate Period. The difference between these is the Rate Adjustment Factor.

ANALYSIS:

MSI submitted a rate adjustment application including supporting cost-based information to the City for review that showed an initial rate adjustment calculation of 12.24%. The City’s rate review consultant (R3 Consulting Group) completed a thorough review of the rate application including MSI’s operating costs, operational statistics, and service levels. All unallowable costs were removed and some costs were adjusted based on most recent full year actuals instead of forecast costs. Some of the key calculation revisions included:

•Correlating labor-related costs to Rate Year 6 actual costs rather than Rate Year 7 forecasted costs •Tying vehicle and container costs to the supporting documentation •Capping corporate overhead expenses at a figure agreed upon prior to Waste Connections acquisition of MSI
•Amending the performance bond figure
•Tying “Other Costs” cost category to the supporting documentation and capped travel costs •Correcting the calculation of Franchise Fees (City Fees) and the Solid Waste Compliance Fee •Adjusting solid waste tipping fees to align with approved Waste Management application •Correcting Direct Depreciation and Allocated Costs figures to match approved Rate Year 7 application figures

The review and revisions identified by R3, resulted in a revised Rate Adjustment calculation of 9.19%.

The rate adjustment would apply to all service categories (residential, multi-family, commercial, and debris box services provided by MSI). The calculated adjustment will impact on residential rates is shown below:

Curbside
Quarterly
Curbside
Monthly
Curbside
Monthly
Rate
+9.19%
Monthly
Increase
(Dollars)
Quarterly
Increase
(Dollars)
19-gal SW/19-gal FS $114.84 $38.28 $41.80 $3.52 $10.55
26-gal SW/19-gal FS $124.81 $41.60 $45.43 $3.82 $11.47
45-gal SW/19-gal FS $146.81 $48.94 $53.43 $4.50 $13.49
67-gal SW/19-gal FS $168.64 $56.21 $61.38 $5.17 $15.50
Senior Rates*
19-gal SW/19-gal FS $57.42 $19.14 $20.90 $1.76 $5.28
26-gal SW/19-gal FS $62.41 $20.80 $22.72 $1.91 $5.74
*Senior rate is available to account holders aged 62 or older that reside at the premises. Applications are accepted throughout the year and eligibility may be reviewed every three years.

Solid Waste Rates Comparison Table
City Hauler Effective
Date 20 Gallon 30-35
Gallon
60-64
Gallon
90-96
Gallon
Milpitas $ difference
compared to Average $4.04 -$3.14 -$25.54 -$52.04
Milpitas % difference
compared to Average 10.69% -6.46% -32.34% -45.89%
Sunnyvale Specialty 7/1/2022 Not Offered $40.00 $46.43 $54.56 Milpitas Current MSI 1/1/2024 $38.28 $41.60 $48.94 $56.21 Fremont Republic 1/1/2024 $45.93 $46.84 $51.02 $73.42
Milpitas Proposed 2025 $41.80
$20.90 (Sr)
$45.42
$22.72 (Sr) $53.44 $61.38
Redwood City Recology 2/1/2024 $30.87 $45.86 $74.20 $102.31 Santa Clara** MTWS/Recology 7/1/2024 $43.61 $51.51 $75.83 $100.05 Newark Republic 1/1/2024 $38.75 $43.05 $76.25 $109.44
Hayward WM 3/1/2024 $30.26 $44.22 $78.87 $113.47
RESIDENTIAL AVERAGE $37.76 $48.56 $78.97 $113.42
San Ramon ACI 1/1/2024 $41.55 $50.77 $83.61 $133.17
Castro Valley Sanitary District ACI 7/1/2024 $35.80 $55.49 $96.38 $137.24 Palo Alto Green Waste 7/1/2017 $27.81 $50.07 $100.15 $150.22 San José Multiple* 7/1/2024 Not Offered $53.45 $106.90 $160.35 The Franchise Agreement sets forth the methodology for calculating the rate that can be charged each year of the contract. If that methodology results in an increase less than or equal to 5% from the previous year's rate, the calculation is approved by the City Contract Manager. If the increase is over 5%, the calculation is submitted to the City Council for approval."

While the Agreement includes a provision that allows the franchise owner to “roll-over” dollars exceeding the 5% rate to apply to a future increase, MSI has stated a desire that the full adjustment be presented to City Council.

During a review of the Agreement in 2022, the City and Waste Connections/MSI negotiated service enhancements which were to be provided at no cost to the rate payers until the Rate Year 8 Cost Based rate adjustment occurred. These service enhancements included:
•Six neighborhood cleanup events per year (up to 12 if participation warrants) •Increase in number of items per Bulky Item Collection (from 1 to 3 per appointment) and ability to set out in garbage bags
•Voucher program for disposal self-haul
•Collection of flattened cardboard set aside recycling cart •Dedicated garbage cart service option
•Realignment of street sweeping mileage
•Additional compost giveaways (i.e., up to 100 bags of additional compost monthly) Had these service enhancements not been requested of the hauler, the rate adjustment would likely have been below the 5% rate increase cap. The rate adjustment process is late this year due to discrepancies with MSI’s revenue estimates that required more time for the consultant to verify as well as a change in MSI’s accounting system. The table below shows the historic rate adjustments under the Agreement:

Rate Year Effective Date
MSI Application (Rate
Adjustment %)
City Approved
(Rate Adjustment %)
2 1/1/2019 5.53 4.26
3 1/1/2020 3.27 / 6.07 1.442
4 1/1/2021 3.13 -1.22
5 1/1/2022 0.71 -
(5.5) 8/1/2022 - 2
6 1/1/2023 4.02 4.9
7 1/1/2024 5.28 4.98
8 12.24 9.19
FISCAL IMPACT:

The action has no fiscal or budget impact on the City.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA):

The action has no potential for resulting in either a direct physical change in the environment or a reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment and is not a project pursuant to Pub. Resources Code, §21065 and Cal. Code Regs., tit. 14, §15378. This action is organizational, administrative, or fiscal activity of the City government that does not require commitment to any specific project that may result in a potentially significant impact on the environment and therefore is not a project pursuant to Cal. Code of Regs., tit. 14, § 15378.

RECOMMENDATION:
(1) Accept the report on the Milpitas Sanitation Rate Cost Based Rate Review for Rate Year 8 and; (2) find that the methodology used conforms with the Solid Waste Franchise Agreement.

ATTACHMENT(S):
(a) R3 Consulting Group Cost Based Rate Review for Rate Year 8 Final Report

FINAL REPORT
City of Milpitas

Submitted electronically: January 16, 2025

Cost-Based Rate Review
for Rate Year 8

405 14th Street, Suite 350, Oakland, CA 94612 | p 916.782.7821 | f 916.782.7824 | www.r3cgi.com January 16, 2024
Elaine Marshall, Deputy Public Works Director
Myvan Khuu-Seeman, Sr. Administrative Analyst
City of Milpitas
455 E Calaveras Blvd
Milpitas, CA 95035
submitted via email
SUBJECT: Final Report – Cost-Based Rate Review for Rate Year 8 Dear Ms. Marshall and Ms. Khuu-Seeman,

R3 Consulting Group (R3) is pleased to submit this Draft Report to the City of Milpitas (City) detailing our findings from the review of Milpitas Sanitation, Inc.’s (MSI) Cost-Based Rate Application for Rate Year 8 for the City of Milpitas (City).

The objectives of the project were to:

Verify the calculations in MSI’s rate application are complete, correct and aligned with the methodology outlined in Exhibit D-2 of the Agreement, and relevant amendments.

Make adjustments and recommendations as ne cessary to ensure that the rates presented in the final application are comparable in compensating the services MSI provides to the City.

MSI’s original application was for a rate adjustment of 12.24%. After our review and adjustments, the rate adjustment is 9.19%. A summary of our findings and recommendations are provided in the following pages.
* * * * * We appreciate the opportunity to continue to be of service to the City. Should you have any questions on our Draft Report, please don’t hesitate to reach out directly.

Sincerely,

Rose Radford | Director
R3 Consulting Group, Inc.
415.347.9536 | [email protected]

Libby Costello | Associate Consultant
R3 Consulting Group, Inc.
917.557.9293 | [email protected]

TABLE OF CONTENTS
City of Milpitas | Cost-Based Rate Application for RY 8 – Final Report TOC

1. Executive Summary
page 1

2. Rate Review Approach
page 2

3. Adjustments to Rate Application
page 4

1. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
City of Milpitas | Cost-Based Rate Application for RY 8 – Final Report 1 o f 8 R3 Consulting Group, Inc. (R3) is pleased to submit this report detailing the results of our review of Milpitas Sanitation, Inc.’s (MSI) Cost-Based Rate Application for Rate Year 8 for the City of Milpitas (City).

MSI’s application was submitted according to Exhibit D-2 of the Agreement between the City of Milpitas and Milpitas Sanitation, Inc. for Collection of Solid Waste and Collection and Processing of Source- Separated Recyclable Materials and Organic Materials (Agreement). MSI submitted a cost-based rate application this year, the second such review that has been completed under this contract. This rate- setting process is for Rate Year (RY) 8. This review is the first cost-based review to occur since Waste Connections purchased MSI in 2022.

Background
MSI submitted a rate adjustment application for a 12.24% rate increase to its solid waste rates, effective January 1, 2025. R3 was engaged by the City to conduct a detailed review of the application, which included a thorough assessment of relevant documents for completeness and compliance with the procedures agreed upon by MSI and the City in the Agreement, and verification of the mathematical accuracy and logical consistency of the supporting documents.

Findings
Based on our initial review of MSI’s application, R3 has found that the magnitude of MSI’s rate increase request was primarily driven by the following factors:

 Prior to the acquisition of MSI to Waste Connections, MSI was operating with rates that did not generate enough revenue to cover the service demands. MSI has since increased the breadth of their services enough to justify the significant rate increase that exceeds the CPI.  MSI’s accounting infrastructure has significantly changed since the RY4 cost-based review, in part due to its being acquired by Waste Connections. This impacted cost category allocations and therefore, R3 relied heavily on GL records rather than escalated RY 7 figures for most line items.

We have reviewed our findings with MSI and the City. MSI provided several additional adjustments, which were incorporated in our final analysis. Both parties agree with the adjustments proposed by R3 in the review process.

R3 has made the following adjustments to MSI’s initial rate application in accordance with Exhibit D-2 of the Agreement, described in more detail in Section 3 of the report below:

1. Correlate labor-related costs to Rate Year 6 act ual costs rather than Rate Year 7 forecasted costs

2. Tie vehicle and container cost s to the supporting documentation

3. Cap corporate overhead expenses at a figur e agreed upon prior to the Waste Connections acquisition of MSI

4. Amend the performance bond figure

5. Tie “Other Costs” cost category to the su pporting documentation and capped travel costs

6. Correct the calculation of Franchise Fe es (City Fees) and Solid Waste Compliance Fee

7. Adjust solid waste tipping fee to ali gn with approved Waste Management application

8. Escalate CPI indices

9. Correct Direct Depreciation and Allocated Costs figures to match approved Rate Year 7 application figures

10. MSI Draft Review Adjustments provided after R3’s initial findings The adjustments result in a calculated rate increase of 9.19%, which is 3.05% lower than the proposed

12.24% rate increase.

Exhibit D-2 allows MSI to “roll over” a rate increase that exceeds 5% to future years. R3 recommends that the company consider doing so.

2. RATE REVIEW APPROACH

City of Milpitas | Cost-Based Rate Application for RY 8 – Final Report 2 o f 8 RY 8 Application
MSI submitted a rate adjustment application for a 12.24% rate increase to its solid waste rates, to be effective January 1, 2025. The application is for a cost-based adjustment, which involves review of MSI’s actual cost of operations and operational statistics (staffing levels, routes, route hours, customers and their service levels, etc.). Per the Agreement, the intent of performing the cost-based adjustment is to examine the actual impact of changes in inflation or deflation, the number of customers, and the service level of customers.

In projecting 2025 costs, MSI included the direct costs for the City’s garbage, organics and recycling collection, costs for transfer, processing and disposal of garbage, organics and recycling; as well as the direct costs for labor- and vehicle-related costs. MSI’s costs do include some allocations for costs shared with Garden City Sanitation (serving San Jose). These costs are limited to facility/shop maintenance and other related activities, and the costs are allocated proportionately to the number of routes served by each company.

Scope of Review
The City engaged R3 to perform a review of the application in accordance with Exhibit D-2 to the Agreement. These procedures included the following activities:
 Reviewing the rate application to determine its compliance with the terms and conditions of the Agreement, mathematical accuracy and logical consistency.  Comparing MSI’s reported expenses to MSI’s General Ledger (GL) of actual expenses based on its 2023 Audited Financials.
 Reviewing the appropriateness of MSI’s classification of expenses into the various expense categories, and analyzing costs for reasonableness and alignment with industry standards.  Verifying accuracy of calculated pass-throughs against base documentation, including a detailed review of tonnage reporting.
 Reviewing MSI’s projection of 2025 expenses and performing a historical review comparing calculated expenses from 2024 and reported actuals for 2023.  Reviewing MSI’s rate components for compliance with Exhibit D-2, Cost-Based Rate Setting Methodology, including but not limited to:
o Total Annual Cost of Operations
o Labor-related costs
o Vehicle-related costs (exc luding fuel and depreciation) o Fuel costs
o Recyclable Materials Processing Revenues
o Yard Trimmings Materials Processing Costs
o Food Scraps Materials Processing Costs
o C&D Materials Processing Costs
o On-Call Materials Processing Costs
o Other costs
o Direct depreciation costs
o Actual allocated costs (labor, vehicle, general and administrative, and other costs) o Actual allocated costs ( depreciation and start-up)
o Profit
o Pass-Through Costs
o Disposal Cost
o Interest Expense
o Direct Lease Costs
o Allocated Lease Costs
o Cost of Rate Adjustment Process

City of Milpitas | Cost-Based Rate Application for RY 8 – Final Report 3 of 8  City Fees
 “Roll-Over” of Dollars Exceeding Rate Cap
 Reviewing MSI’s projection of rate revenue based upon billed revenues for 2024 year-to-date and actual revenues for on-call services such as debris box service for the most recently completed 12-month period, ending June 2024
 Verifying the rate adjustment factor using the total required revenue and actual revenue to determine the appropriate 2025 rate adjustment; and
 Preparing this report that documents findings and recommendations.

Limitations
Our conclusions are based in part on the review of MSI’s projections of its financial results of operations, and our reading and interpretation of Exhibit D-2 and relevant amendments. Actual results of operations will usually differ as projections are forward estimates and subject to unforeseeable events, and the difference may be significant.

Findings below are based upon the procedures described above. Procedures are intended to meet the City’s objectives at a minimum cost. However, they do not constitute an audit in accordance with auditing standards. If additional procedures were performed, other matters may have altered our findings, and those changes may have been material.

This report is intended solely for the use of the City of Milpitas and should not be used by those who have not agreed to the procedures and taken responsibility for the sufficiency of the procedures for their purposes.

3. ADJUSTMENTS
City of Milpitas | Cost-Based Rate Application for RY 8 – Final Report 4 o f 8 Summary of Adjustments
The adjustments identified by R3 are outlined in the table below. Each adjustment is numbered. A description of the associated adjustments is provided on the following pages.

Table 1: Summary of Adjustments
Adjustment
Number Cost Categories) MSI Rate
Application
Adjustment
$) % Change
Original Application $26,371,481 12.24%
Tonnage Adjustment $26,269,846 $(101,635) -0.03%
1 Labor-Related Costs $24,971,427 $(1,298,419) -5.55% 2 Reconciliation of Allocated Actuals $24,977,075 $5,649 0.02% 3 Corporate Overhead Cap $24,069,059 $(908,016) -3.88% 4 Performance Bond $23,897,619 $(171,440) -0.73%
5 Other Costs $23,892,038 $(5,581) -0.02%
6 Solid Waste Compliance Fee $24,546,356 $654,318 2.79% 7 Solid Waste Tipping Fee $24,568,920 $22,564 0.10% 8 Indices Escalation $25,502,395 $933,475 3.99%
9 Direct Depreciation, Start-Up Costs, Interest $25,501,228 $(1,167) 0.00% 10 MSI Adjustments $25,560,862 $59,634 0.25%
Total Impact of Adjustments $(810,619) 9.19%

Adjustment #1: Labor-Related Costs
In MSI’s original application, all Labor-Related Costs (Regular Wages, Overtime Wages, Holiday Wages, Vacation Wages, Sick Leave Wages, Workers Compensation Insurance Premiums, Workers Compensation Claims, Health & Welfare, Pension/Retirement Benefits, Payroll Taxes, Other), were tied to Rate Year (RY) 7 projected figures. MSI projected RY7 totals by applying the respective CPI index to RY6 forecast numbers. However, as stated in Exhibit D-2 of the Agreement, the cost-based adjustment involves review of the Contractor’s actual cost of operations and operational statistics (staffing levels, routes, route hours, Customers and their service levels, etc.) to determine the Total Annual Cost of Operations for the most-recently completed Rate Period and to forecast the Total Contractor’s Compensation for the coming Rate Period. In accordance with the Agreement, R3 tied all Labor-Related Costs to RY6 Actuals rather than RY7 Totals. RY6 is the most recent, complete rate year with audited financials. The effect of this adjustment was a decrease of $1,298,420, or -5.55%, from the original application.

Adjustment #2: Reconciliation of Allocated Actuals
In MSI’s rate application, expenses were allocated according to the allocation basis provided in the RY4 application. Due to changes in MSI’s finance and accounting structure since RY4 application period, allocation methodologies differed from prior practices requiring R3 to adjust all Labor-Related Costs that did not match to historical practice, including the addition of missing or incorrectly reported financial information. We also corrected the fuel index value used to project future fuel costing. The effect of these adjustments was a net increase of $5,649, or 0.02%.

Adjustment #3: Corporate Overhead Cap
MSI' allocated $667,014 to Corporate Overhead. R3 capped Corporate Overhead at RY6 forecasted rather than the reported MSI actuals, adjusting it from $667,014 to $103,481. During the assignment of

Adjustments

City of Milpitas | Cost-Based Rate Application for RY 8 – Final Report 5 of 8 the Agreement to Waste Connections, the City did not agree to passing on materially higher corporate overhead costs. The effect of this adjustment was a decrease of $908,016, or 3.88%.

Adjustment #4: Performance Bond
R3 disallowed the performance bond expense, which was not included as a line-item in prior years’ rate applications. In MSI’s original rate application, the Performance Bond line item of $50,112.72 is listed as a sum in the General and Administrative portion, as well as piecewise through respective sub-portions of the application, effectively double counting the figure. Ultimately, a Performance Bond line item was added back in (see Adjustment #10) in the amount of $22,823.76 because Exhibit N contains it as an allowable.

Adjustment #5: Other Costs
MSI’s original application recorded General and Administrative “Other Costs” at $539,638.89, allowing $451,043.12 based on the RY7 forecasted total. This figure did not tie to the general ledger, which totaled the cost category to $463,071.15. However, travel costs, which are included in the “Other Costs” category, summed to $21,155.74. Exhibit D-2 Section 2c. of the Agreement states, “Travel expenses and entertainment (above five thousand dollars ($5,000) annually in total) expenses, unless authorized in advance by the City” are considered non-allowable costs and shall be deducted from the Contractor’s actual costs when determining the Actual Allowable Total Annual Cost of Operations. Therefore, R3 capped travel expenses at $5,000, deducted the disallowed $16,155 figure from the “Other Costs” total in the general ledger, and also adjusted the original $539,638 figure with the corrected amount of $446,915.41. The effect of this adjustment was a decrease of $5,581, or 0.02%.

Adjustment #6: Solid Waste Compliance Fee
MSI’s application contained a calculation of the Franchise Fee that was added to Total Expenses before City Fees. However, as stated in Exhibit D-2 Section 2.E.1 of the Agreement, the Franchise Fees for the coming Rate Period shall equal fourteen and one-seventeenths (14.17%) of Contractor’s Total Calculated Costs, including City Fees. R3 adjusted the calculation. Additionally, R3 separated the RY7 Solid Waste Compliance Fee apart from the City Fee calculation, and escalated the Compliance Fee appropriately via a one-time CPI index application. The effect of this adjustment was an increase of $654,318, or 2.79%.

Adjustment #7: Solid Waste Tipping Fee
MSI had estimated the solid waste tipping fee to be $47.54. R3 corrected this figure with the approved tipping fee of $47.98, in accordance with the Waste Management application which was also reviewed for accuracy. The effect of this adjustment was an increase of $22,564, or 0.10%.

Adjustment #8: Indices Escalation
R3 escalated all indices for labor-related, vehicle-related, and fuel cost figures tied to RY6 Actuals in accordance with the methodology outlined in Exhibit D-2 for Forecasted cost categories.

MSI’s rate adjustment request included the CPI increase (calculated correctly), applied one time to actual costs in 2023 (RY6). According to Exhibit D-2, the 2023 actual costs (adjusted for non-allowables) are to be increased twice, once to project into 2024 costs, and the second time to project into 2025 costs (for rates effective January 1, 2025). R3 has added the additional CPI increase adjustment into the calculation, resulting in an increase of $933,475, or 3.99%, in the RY8 forecasted costs.

Adjustment #9: Direct Depreciation, Start-Up Costs, and Interest Expense Reconciliation
R3 corrected the Direct Depreciation and Allocated Costs (Depreciation and Start-Up Costs) from a base of RY7 Actuals to the figures in the RY7 approved rate application.

These changes align with Exhibit D-2, as follows:

2.A.3.g. Direct depreciation expense is a fi xed cost and is not subject to inflation.

Adjustments

City of Milpitas | Cost-Based Rate Application for RY 8 – Final Report 6 of 8

2.A.9. The Allocated Depreciation and Start-Up Costs shall be $77,731 per year for Rate Period Two through Ten, and are not annually adjusted. These costs shall be zero for all subsequent Rate Periods unless Parties mutually agree to a different amount.

Exhibit D-1.C.2 of the Agreement sets a flat Interest Expense of $603,927 for Rate Period Two through Ten. Consistent with Exhibit N, in the RY 4 application, MSI proposed a flat figure of $565,591, which is not subject to annual adjustment. MSI had explained that this discrepancy is due to the switch to delivering disposal tonnage to Kirby Canyon. R3 implemented this change in the RY 8 application.

The combined effect of these adjustments was a decrease of $1,167, or 0.00%.

Adjustment #10: MSI Draft Review Adjustment
After completing the analysis process, R3 shared a draft report of findings with MSI, and the two parties collaborated on final adjustment figures. A Performance Bond line item was added at the current rate of $22,823.76 because it is listed in Exhibit N.

A number of the Vehicle-Related Costs reflected negative figures that were inaccurately summed in the RY8 Forecasted figures. These costs were adjusted to reflect amount captured in the General Ledger, and the RY8 Forecasted increased. The Direct Depreciation was adjusted to $1,178,985 in accordance with Section 3. A. of the Third Amendment to the Agreement.

MSI requested to change the rates for the tonnage pass-throughs to current rates; however, Exhibit D-2 states that the per-ton rates should be the prior year’s rate increased by CPI, and that change was rolled out through each of the rates.

The combined effect of these edits resulted in a final increase of $61,607, or 0.26%. Therefore, the final rate increase rate is 9.19%.

Other Findings Not Resulting in Adjustments
R3 completed analysis on payments to related party entities, other expense increases, interest expense, allocated costs (depreciation and start-up), labor costs, and escalation factors that did not result in adjustments to MSI’s initial rate adjustment request. More detail is provided in the dedicated sections below.

Revenue
MSI provided an initial estimate of 2024 revenues based upon their billed revenues year-to-date, and annualized for the remaining months of the year. This estimate was further supported by an export of customer subscription and a reconciliation accounting for on-call debris box revenue. R3 further investigated the billed revenue projection by taking the following actions:
 Compared the billed revenue to receipts for 2024 and 2023. Receipts were approximately $2M higher than billings in 2023; the gap has since shrunk.  Conducted an analysis of Accounts Receivable aging compared to cash receipts from April 2023 to October 2024. The analysis noted a material improvement in delinquent cash collections and similar fashion a reduction in time between billed revenue and cash collections.

There is a timing difference between cash receipts and revenue recognition. MSI stated that in early 2023 there were difficulties in collecting outstanding invoices due to poor collection practices in the past. MSI has steadily improved collection practices as noted in the chart on the next page (Chart 1 MSI Accounts Receivable Analysis).

The 30-, 60-, and 90-day outstanding balances in 2023 noticeably began in August 2023 and continued through October 2024. Current balances also trended downward as the overall outstanding balance of $3.1 million in April 2023 declined to $2.2 million in October 2024 for an overall reduction of 28.5%.

Adjustments

City of Milpitas | Cost-Based Rate Application for RY 8 – Final Report 7 of 8

Chart 1 MSI Accounts Receivable Analysis

Single family/residential customers are billed on a quarterly basis. This results in customers paying for services not yet received for the second and third month of each quarterly billing cycle. Generally Accepted Accounting Principles (GAAP) require MSI to recognize revenue in the month earned: one-third of the total bill is recognized as revenue in each of the three months. Once the next quarter billing cycle occurs, the process repeats.

Since Franchise Fees are paid on cash receipts and not revenue, on average, there will be a timing difference of approximately $500K between when cash is received and when revenue is recognized. The City is incurring no losses based on this timing difference.

No adjustment was made.

Related Party Entities
Since the change in ownership from MSI to Waste Connections, related-party entity transactions were limited to the allocated expenses for maintenance between Garden City Sanitation and MSI.

Tonnages
Minor discrepancies between the reported tonnages and the back-up tonnages were discovered early in our review process. MSI corrected these discrepancies and re-submitted its application, reducing the total rate increase request by $101,635, or 0.3%.

Total Allocated Costs - Depreciation and Start-Up Costs The Third Amendment to the Agreement sets a flat Allocated Depreciation and Start-Up Costs expense of $77,151.

Indices
R3 found that MSI correctly calculated and applied the appropriate escalation factors. Details on each indexed rate adjustment basis is provided below:

Other Costs - CPI-U (Consumer Price Index – All Urban Consumers): The Agreement specifies use of Series ID: CUURA422SA0 from the US Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) to determine CPI-U. Since the establishment of this requirement, BLS has changed the Series ID and re-named the area of reference. In keeping with the intention of the Agreement, MSI has $-
$500,000
$1,000,000
$1,500,000
$2,000,000
$2,500,000
$3,000,000
$3,500,000
Unbilled Current 30 - Day 60 - Day
90 - Day Finance Total Balance

Adjustments

City of Milpitas | Cost-Based Rate Application for RY 8 – Final Report 8 of 8 appropriately used the updated index Series ID: CUURS49BSA0 with the updated area of reference re-named “San Francisco - Oakland - Hayward, CA”. This index can be located at the following web address: https://data.bls.gov/cgi-bin/srgate Labor-Related Costs - ECI (Employment Cost Index): The Agreement specifies use of Series ID: CIU201S000300000I from the BLS to determine ECI.

Vehicle-Related Costs - CPI-Motor Vehicle Maintenance and Repair: The Agreement specifies the use of the Consumer Price Index, All Urban Consumers, Motor Vehicle Maintenance and Repair, not seasonally adjusted U.S. city average, compiled and published by the U.S.

Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics.

CITY OF MILPITAS

AGENDA REPORT
(AR)
Item Title: Receive an Update on the Security Improvements at the McCarthy Ranch Sewer Lift Station (Main Lift) and Determine that the Condition Continues to Constitute an Emergency (Staff Contact: Christian Di Renzo, Public Works Director, 408-586-2602)
Category: Consent Calendar-Community Services and Sustainable Infrastructure Meeting Date: 2/4/2025
Recommendation: (1) Receive an update on the security improvements at the McCarthy Ranch Sewer Lift Station; and (2) Determine by a four-fifths vote that the condition continues to constitute an emergency.

BACKGROUND:

Pursuant to Public Contract Code section 22050 and the attached Council Resolution No. 9134, the Director of Public Works, in the case of emergency, may authorize a repair of a public facility and procure the work without giving notice for bids. An emergency is defined as “a sudden, unexpected occurrence that poses a clear and imminent danger, requiring immediate action to prevent or mitigate the loss or impairment of life, health, property, or essential public services.” Additionally, State law requires the Public Works Director, as the City official with delegated authority to take emergency action, to report any emergency authorization and the reason(s) for the authorization to the City Council not later than seven days after the action, or at its next regularly scheduled meeting if that meeting will occur not later than 14 days after the action. Further, the Public Works Director is required to report why the emergency would not permit a delay resulting from a competitive solicitation for bids and the City Council is required to review the emergency action at every regularly scheduled meeting thereafter until the emergency repair is completed. The City Council shall continue to review the emergency action at every regularly scheduled meeting thereafter until the action is terminated. At each review, the City Council shall determine, by a four-fifths vote, whether there is a need to continue the action.

Consistent with applicable State law and Council Resolution, on July 30, 2024, the Public Works Director declared an emergency and authorized the City to contract with Trofholz Technologies and Diamond Fencing to implement various security and access control improvements to the McCarthy Ranch Sewer Lift Station (Main Lift). Further, within the required timeframe the Public Works Director informed the City Council via Information Memorandum on July 31, 2024, regarding the emergency authorization, the reasons for the authorization, and the cost for repair in a not to exceed amount of $700,000.

PROJECT/STATUS UPDATE:

On January 25, 2025, the Main Lift station experienced another burglary resulting in additional property damage and theft of City vehicles. Three Ford-F250 heavy-duty pickup trucks were stolen and at least one of them was used to forcibly drive through the wrought-iron gate. The vehicles have since been recovered, although staff is assessing the full extent of the damage. Property damage to Main Lift was limited to the two wrought-iron gates. The affected gates are located at the main entry gate into the Main Lift station, and between the Main Lift station and Corporation Yard. The newly installed fence was not affected by this incident.

Staff is working with Diamond Fence to determine if they can replace the two gates damaged in this incident, which were not part of the original project scope. This change order will extend the project completion for the fence installation by 4-6 weeks. The budgeted project contingency should be sufficient to cover the replacement of the damaged gates, but has not yet been confirmed given the recency of the incident.

The installation of security enhancements by Trofholz Technologies, Inc. were also not compromised.

Information Technology staff is working on establishing the network connectivity to operate the security cameras, card readers, and motion sensors at the Main Lift facility.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Funding for these repairs is available in the City’s Capital Improvement Program (CIP) budget. CIP Project 6124 – Sewer Pump Station Rehabilitation Project will fund the installation of security cameras, card readers, and motion sensors. The funding source of this CIP project is Sewer Infrastructure Fund. The available balance as of 01/27/2025 is $1,277,987.

CIP 6130 – Main Lift Odor Emission Control Project will fund the removal and replacement of the perimeter fencing. The funding source of this CIP Project are Sewer Infrastructure Fund, and Sewer Treatment Fund.

The available balance as of 01/27/2025 is $9,487.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA):

The emergency repair work is exempt from CEQA, per CEQA Guidelines Section 15301, Existing Facilities and 15302, Replacement or Reconstruction.

RECOMMENDATION:
1) Receive an update on the security improvements at the McCarthy Ranch Sewer Lift Station. 2) Determine by a four-fifths vote that the condition continues to constitute an emergency.

ATTACHMENT(S):

None.

CITY OF MILPITAS

AGENDA REPORT
(AR)
Item Title: Accept the Workplan for the Street Resurfacing Project 2024, CIP No. 4305 and Street Resurfacing Project 2025, CIP No. 4300 (Staff Contact: Christian Di Renzo, Public Works Director, 408-586-2602; and Michael Silveira, City Engineer, 408- 586-3303)
Category: Consent Calendar-Community Services and Sustainable Infrastructure Meeting Date: 2/4/2025
Recommendation: Accept the workplan update for the Street Resurfacing Project 2024, CIP No. 4305 and Street Resurfacing Project 2025, CIP No. 4300.

BACKGROUND:

The Traffic and Transportation section of the Public Works Department is responsible for planning and managing the Citywide Street Resurfacing Program. The streets identified annually for the repair, rehabilitation, and/or reconstruction are based on the Pavement Technical Assessment Program (P-TAP) report developed by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission (MTC) which provides agencies recommendations to optimize the pavement condition rating and use of funding. According to the 2024 P-TAP report, the City Pavement Condition Index (PCI) stands at 71, classified as "Good Condition" and above the Bay Area’s average of 67.

The City goal is to maintain a minimum of a PCI rating of 70.

City Council approved the improvement of streets along Great Mall Parkway from I-880 to McCandless Drive and Thompson Street and Court through the Street Resurfacing Project 2024, CIP No. 4305 (GMP Phase 1) and Great Mall Parkway from McCandless Drive to Montague Expressway; Adler Dr. from Tasman Dr. to Barber Ln.; and Tasman Dr. from Alder Dr. to I-880 through the Street Resurfacing Project 2025, CIP No. 4300 (GMP Phase 2) as part of the adopted 2024-2028 and 2025-2029 Capital Improvement Programs, respectively. GMP Phase 1 was successfully completed under budget this past fall and GMP Phase 2 was scheduled to be constructed in 2025.

On October 24, 2024, staff provided a workplan update on the City’s Street Resurfacing Program to the Transportation Subcommittee and recommended that GMP Phase 2 be postponed until 2026 to allow staff to pursue grant opportunities while conducting a preventive maintenance street sealing project in 2025 with the available funding. The Subcommittee expressed support of staff’s efforts and the workplan update.

ANALYSIS:

After a deliberate review of the P-TAP report and weighing the revenue for the Program, staff recommended to postpone the GMP Phase 2 project until 2026 as it is an ideal candidate for grant opportunities. Staff submitted a grant application in the amount of $3.4 million through the California Transportation Commission 2024 Local Partnership Competitive Program (CTC grant) on November 20, 2024. GMP Phase 2 meets the core requirements of this grant which are a street resurfacing initiative; located within a development area where the City assesses impact fees; construction documents have been prepared; and the street is designated as an arterial (high-capacity urban road). Grant awards are anticipated to be announced in June 2025. The other potential grant opportunity is Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s One Bay Area Program Cycle 4 (OBAG 4). GMP Phase 2 is anticipated to be an ideal candidate based on the requirements of the OBAG 3 grant in 2023 which funded street resurfacing projects focused on complete streets components. The guidelines for OBAG 4 are anticipated to be released in February 2025; staff will confirm the alignment of this grant with the GMP Phase 2 project upon its release.

Should the GMP Phase 2 not receive any grant funding, then staff will likely recommend proceeding with construction in 2026, as the project is fully funded through the adopted 2025-2029 Capital Improvement Program.

In addition, thanks to a $1.5 million OBAG 2 grant award in 2021, coupled with lower-than-expected bid prices for the past few street resurfacing project cycles, the Street Resurfacing Program has a balance of approximately $2.2 million. This funding is sufficient to perform a much-needed preventive maintenance street sealing project in 2025. Staff is recommending using this funding to improve the pavement condition of the following streets (blue area of the map below):
•E. Calaveras Boulevard from I-680 to Evans Road, excluding the portion of the road that was improved by the MUSD Innovation Campus project;
•North Park Victoria from Jacklin Road to East Calaveras Blvd.; •North and South neighborhoods of Mt. Shasta Avenue including Courtland Court and Avenue, Jungfrau Court, Bee Court, Matterhorn Court, Big Bear Court, and Chewpon Avenue.; •Temple Avenue from East Calaveras Blvd. to Wylie Drive Staff will also be soliciting bid alternates to include Lawton Drive, Beacon Drive, Canton Drive (from Roswell Drive and Bixby Drive), Bixby Drive (from Burley Drive to Wylie Drive), Burley Drive (from Lawton Drive to Bixby Drive), Wylie Drive (from S. Temple Drive to Bixby Drive), and Sepulveda Court, (yellow area of the map below). Based on bid prices, staff will assess whether sufficient funding is available to award one or multiple alternate bids with the base scope.

The work to be performed this summer will primarily involve asphalt improvement consisting of cape, crack and slurry seal and spot repairs; minor concrete repairs to curb and sidewalk and curb ramp upgrades per ADA; signage and striping; and pedestrian push button improvements on the adjacent traffic signals. The selected street segments have low PCI ratings between the 40s and 50s which are anticipated to rise to the 80s and 90s while helping to extend the pavement life by up to ten years.

POLICY ALTERNATIVE(S):

Alternative 1: Not Accepting the Workplan Update for the Street Resurfacing Project 2024, CIP No. 4305 and Street Resurfacing Project 2025, CIP No. 4300.

Pros: Staff will proceed with Street Resurfacing Project 2025, CIP No. 4305 as scheduled on Great Mall Parkway to start construction in the summer 2025 as approved in the adopted 2025-2029 Capital Improvement Program.

Cons: As the Project is an ideal candidate for CTC and OBAG 4 grants, the City would miss an opportunity and forfeit any grant funding if the construction started prior to executing a funding agreement which would be anticipated to be completed by spring of 2026, if selected. In addition, the preventive maintenance street sealing project will be postponed to either 2026 or 2027, pending available resources, which may impact the City goal to maintain a minimum PCI rating of 70.

Reason for Not Recommending: If the City is selected to receive grant funding, portion of the approved funding of the Street Resurfacing Project 2025, CIP No. 4300 as approved in the adopted 2025-2029 Capital Improvement Program will be reallocated to expedite planned resurfacing projects in the coming years which will help the City meet its goal of maintaining a minimum PCI rating of 70.

FISCAL IMPACT:

There is sufficient available budget of $4,597,000 to proceed with Street Resurfacing Project 2025, CIP No. 4300 without receiving grant funding which estimated at $4.5 million. There is sufficient available budget of $3,622,000 in Street Resurfacing Project 2024, CIP No. 4305 to perform a preventive maintenance street sealing project with a project budget of approximately $2.2 million. Approximately $1.0 to 1.4 million in funding from this project is designated for the street resurfacing of Dempsey Road after the Waterline Replacement Project, CIP No. 7118 is completed.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA):

Both projects are exempt under Section 15301 (Existing Facilities) of the CEQA guidelines. A Notice of Exemption (NOE) will be filed with the County of Santa Clara upon the City Council acceptance of the workplan update.

RECOMMENDATION:

Accept the workplan update for the Street Resurfacing Project 2024, CIP No. 4305 and Street Resurfacing Project 2025, CIP No. 4300.

ATTACHMENT(S):

None.

CITY OF MILPITAS

AGENDA REPORT
(AR)
Item Title: Adopt a Resolution Approving the FY 2024-25 Development and Storm Impact Fee Schedule for the Transit Area Specific Plan (TASP) Impact Fee, Calaveras Boulevard Widening Traffic Impact Fee, and Storm Drain Fee (Staff Contact: Luz Cofresí-Howe, Finance Director, 408-586-3111)
Category: Leadership and Support Services
Meeting Date: 2/4/2025
Recommendation: Adopt a resolution approving the FY 2024-25 Development and Storm Impact Fee Schedule for the Transit Area Specific Plan (TASP) Impact Fee, Calaveras Boulevard Widening Traffic Impact Fee, and Storm Drain Fee.

BACKGROUND:

Consistent with the State of California Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code §§66000 et seq.) and City of Milpitas (City) Municipal Code, the City is authorized to impose, collect, and expend mitigation fees to offset the impacts of development within the City. Pursuant to these granted authorities, the City Council established, adopted, and imposed a Transit Area Specific Plan (TASP) Impact Fee, a Calaveras Boulevard Traffic Impact Fee, and a Storm Drain Fee (collectively, the “Fees”).

ANALYSIS:

Per City of Milpitas Municipal Code Chapter 4 – Fees for New Development, Section VIII-4-2.02 - Fee Adjustment by the City, the City reserves the right to update and adjust each development impact fee from time to time in accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act, with those adjustments in the amount of the estimated construction costs of providing the specified public facilities based upon adjustments in accordance with the inflation index. As such, staff recommends the Fees be increased by the most recent annual change available at the time of review for the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index (CCI) for San Francisco. That respective CCI change is 3.59%, as demonstrated below.

Escalation Factor Year to Year Construction Cost
Index Variance # Variance %
Engineering News
Record December 2022 14,977.94
City Cost Index
San Francisco December 2023 15,515.00 537.06 3.59%
The discrete adjustments for each of the Fees are exhibited in Attachment A - FY 2024-25 Development Impact Fee Schedule.

POLICY ALTERNATIVE(S):

As the Fees adjustments proposed are consistent with the State of California Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code §§66000 et seq.) and City of Milpitas Municipal Code regarding development impact fees and the manner of adjusting those fees, no policy alternatives are recommended.

FISCAL IMPACT:

Collection of the Fees relies entirely on development activity, which varies and is outside of City control. Staff cannot accurately predict any additional revenues or related expenditures resulting from the proposed increase in Fees. Consequently, no fiscal impact has been anticipated.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA):

The Fees authorized by this resolution are not a project under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and are therefore statutorily exempt from environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 (b)(4).

RECOMMENDATION:

Adopt a resolution approving the FY 2024-25 Development and Storm Impact Fee Schedule for the Transit Area Specific Plan (TASP) Impact Fee, Calaveras Boulevard Widening Traffic Impact Fee, and Storm Drain Fee.

ATTACHMENT(S):
(a) FY 2024-25 Development and Storm Impact Fee Schedule (b) Resolution

TRANSIT AREA SPECIFIC PLAN (TASP) DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEEa FY 23/24 Fee FY 24/25 Fee Unit
1 Residential 50, 056.00$ 51,850.84$ per unit 2 Commercial 32.75$ 33.92$ per square foot
3 Office 56.28$ 58.30$ per square foot
4 Hotel -$ -$ per room
5 Other Uses To Be Determined To Be Determined
a

CALAVERAS BOULEVARD WIDENING TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE
FY 23/24 Fee FY 24/25 Fee Unit
1 Residential 5 or More Units 278. 00$ 287.97$ per unit 2 Retail Development of 1,000 or more Square Feet 1,184.00$ 1,226.45$ per square foot 3 Office Development of 1,000 or more Square Feet 588.00$ 609.08$ per square foot 4 Other Uses To Be Determined To Be Determined

STORM DRAIN IMPACT FEE
Parcel Size FY 23/24 Fee FY 24/25 Fee Unit
1 Single-Family Medium Density E qual or Smaller than 8,710 square feet 1,100.00$ 1,139.44$ per parcel 2 Single-Family Low Density Between 8,711 and 43,560 square feet 1,916.00$ 1,984.70$ per parcel 3 Single-Family Between 1 acre and 4 acres 3,594.00$ 3,722.87$ per parcel 4 Single-Family Between 4 acres and 9 acres 4,792.00$ 4,963.83$ per parcel 5 Single-Family Greater than 9 acres 6,469.00$ 6,700.96$ per parcel 6 Multiple Family 16,771.00$ 17,372.35$ per acre 7 Commercial, Industrial, Institutional, or Mixed-Use Sites 21,562.00$ 22,335.14$ per acre 8 Schools with Athletic Fields 7,187.00$ 7,444.70$ per acre 9 Parks 4,792.00$ 4,963.83$ per park Escalation Factor Year to Year
Construction
Cost Index Variance # Variance %
Engineering News Record Dec-22 14,977.94
City Cost Index Dec-23 15,515.00 537.06 3.59% San Francisco
December to December
PUB20250204
Activity Description
Activity Description
Activity Description
FY 2024-25 Development Impact Fee Schedule
Fee applies Citywide except TASP Fees for Calaveras Boulevard Widening

RESOLUTION NO. _______

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MILPITAS APPROVING

THE DEVELOPMENT AND STORM IMPACT FEE SCHEDULE FOR THE TRANSIT

AREA SPECIFIC PLAN (TASP) IMPACT FEE, THE CALAVERAS BOULEVARD

WIDENING TRAFFIC IMPACT FEE, AND THE STORM DRAIN FEE FOR FISCAL YEAR 2024-25
WHEREAS, the Mitigation Fee Act, Government Code Section 66000 et seq., authorizes the City of Milpitas (“City”) to impose, collect, and expend mitigation fees to offset the impacts of development within the City; and
WHEREAS, pursuant to its authority under the Mitigation Fee Act (Government Code §§ 66000 et seq.) the City Council established, adopted, and imposed a Calaveras Boulevard Traffic Impact Fee, a Transit Area Specific Plan (“TASP”) Impact Fee and a Storm Drain Fee (collectively, the “Fees”); and WHEREAS, per City of Milpitas Municipal Code Chapter 4 – Fees for New Development, Section VIII-4-2.02 – Fee Adjustment by the City, the City reserves the right to update and adjust each development impact fee from time to time in accordance with the Mitigation Fee Act; and WHEREAS, per City of Milpitas Municipal Code Chapter 4 – Fees for New Development, Section VIII-4-2.02 – Fee Adjustment by the City, those adjustments are calculated in the amount of the estimated construction costs of providing the specified public facilities based upon adjustments in accordance with an inflation index; and
WHEREAS, inflationary adjustments will be based the most recent annual change available at the time of review for the Engineering News Record Construction Cost Index for San Francisco; and WHEREAS, the Fees as amended are supported by a previously adopted Nexus Studies and Capital Improvement Plans, which are incorporated by this reference and which the City Council finds and determines remain sufficient and justified with the currently contemplated amendment to these Fees; and WHEREAS, the Nexus Studies continue to substantiate a methodology that will charge each new development project only for the costs necessary to mitigate the impacts expected to be caused by that development project; and
WHEREAS, the Fees will not be levied, collected or imposed for general revenue purposes, but are levied specifically to fund facilities of the types set forth in the Nexus Studies; and WHEREAS, the Nexus Studies establish proposed amounts and provide an evaluation of the need for Fees and establishes the nexus between the imposition of the Fees, as amended, and the estimated reasonable costs of providing the services for which the Fees are charged; and
WHEREAS, the Nexus Studies includes information that supports the City’s actions, as required by subdivision (a) of Section 66001 of the Government Code; and
WHEREAS, there is a reasonable relationship between the Fees as amended and the development projects on which the Fees will be imposed because the Fees will only fund costs necessitated by each new development; and
WHEREAS, the Fees as amended will not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the land and facilities for which the Fees are imposed; and

2 Resolution No. xxxx
WHEREAS, the City desires to update the Fees to ensure that new development contributes its fair share to public facilities in the City consistent with the City’s standards, including by continuing to ensure those Fees continue to track the increasing costs for the construction of public facilities; and WHEREAS, the City Council now wishes to approve the FY 2024-25 Development and Storm Impact Fee Schedule set forth in Exhibit 1 hereto; and
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Milpitas hereby finds, determines, and resolves as follows:

1.The Recitals set forth above are found to be true and correct and are incorporated herein by reference.

2.The Fees authorized by this Resolution are not a project under California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and are therefore statutorily exempt from environmental review pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15378 (b)(4).

3.The City Council finds that all prerequisites for the adoption of the Fees as amended have been met, including publication and notice of all information required by the Mitigation Fee Act, state, and local law.

4.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. Based upon such consideration, the City Council finds and determines that:
(a)The Fees established by this Resolution:
(1)are imposed for a specific government service provided directly to the payor, or for reasonable regulatory costs of the City for issuing licenses and permits, performing investigations, inspections, and administrative enforcements of the City’s Municipal Code or other rules or ordinances;
(2)are no more than necessary to cover the reasonable costs of the governmental activity for which the Fees are imposed; and
(3)the manner in which those Fees are allocated to a payor bear a fair or reasonable relationship to the payor’s burdens on, or benefits received from, the governmental activity for which the Fees are imposed.
(b)The Fees are not “special” taxes within the meaning of California Constitution Article XIII C, Section 1(e).

5.The City Council hereby approves the FY 2024-25 Development and Storm Impact Fee Schedule included herewith as Exhibit 1. The fees adopted pursuant to this Resolution shall supersede any prior fees, charges or other exactions imposed by resolution or otherwise by the City Council, to the extent such prior fees, charges, or other exactions conflict with the Fees set forth in Exhibit 1 hereto.

6.The FY 2024-25 Development and Storm Impact Fee Schedule will become effective sixty (60) days after adoption.

3 Resolution No. xxxx
PASSED AND ADOPTED this __ day of ____, 2024, by the following vote:

AYES:

NOES:

ABSENT:

ABSTAIN:

ATTEST: APPROVED:
_____________________________ _____________________________ Suzanne Guzzetta, City Clerk Carmen Montano, Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
_____________________________
Christopher Creech, Acting City Attorney

4 Resolution No. xxxx
Exhibit 1

Notice of Public Hearing for the
Proposed 2024-25 Development Impact Fee Schedule
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the Milpitas City Council will hold a public hearing at its regular City Council meeting in person at Milpitas City Hall, 455 E. Calaveras Blvd. and via Zoom webinar scheduled on Tuesday, February 4, 2025, starting at 7:00 p.m. to review, revise and/or adopt the proposed Fiscal Year (FY) 2024-25 Development Impact Fee Schedule for the City of Milpitas. The proposed FY 2024-25 Development Impact Fee Schedule will be available at least ten (10) days prior to the required public hearing, as provided for in City of Milpitas Municipal Code IV3-6.00, no later than January 24, 2025 for public inspection on the City website www.milpitas.gov.

INTERESTED PERSONS MAY provide public comments during the public hearing in- person by following the instructions listed on the City Council meeting agenda or submit written comments prior to the hearing by emailing the City Clerk at [email protected]. Please be advised that written comments will not be read during the meeting. Written comments will be digitally distributed to the City Council if received on the public hearing date by 5:00 p.m. and will be part of this meeting’s public record.

Suzanne Guzzetta
City Clerk
Publication Date: January 24, 2025

CITY OF MILPITAS

AGENDA REPORT
(AR)
Item Title: Consider Substantial Amendments to the 2022-2025 Consolidated Plan and 2024-2025 Annual Action Plan, and Review Applications for the 2025-2026 Annual Action Plan and 2025-2030 Consolidated Plan Development Update (Staff Contact: Robert Musallam, Housing Official, 408-586-3275) Category: Public Hearings-Community Development
Meeting Date: 2/4/2025
Recommendation: (1) Conduct the public hearing; (2) Provide direction to staff on CDBG priority areas or specific applications to the City Council seeks to fund, (3) Approve a substantial amendment to the FY 2022-25 Consolidated Plan and FY 2024-2025 Annual Action Plan; (4) Authorize the City Manager, or designee, to make any necessary changes to the approved FY 2022-25 Consolidated Plan and FY 2024-2025 Annual Action Plan; and (5) Authorize the City Manager, or designee, to sunset the Home Rehab Program and to reallocate any future program income earned from the Revolving Loan Fund towards Economic Development activities.

BACKGROUND:

The U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) provides annual grants through the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program to local entitlement cities and counties. The CDBG program provides resources to the most vulnerable low- and moderate-income communities to address community development needs through investment in capital projects and public services.

In accordance with the federal regulations outlined in 24 CFR Part 91, the City of Milpitas is required to prepare and submit its Consolidated Plan or its Housing and Community Development Entitlement Program to HUD. The Consolidated Plan serves as a strategic document that outlines the City housing and non- housing community development needs and priorities for the next five years.

The City estimates it will receive $3,000,000 in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds over the next five years. The Consolidated Plan demonstrates to HUD how Milpitas intends to allocate the estimated $3,000,000 in CDBG funding over those five years. The last section of the Consolidated Plan is the first year FY 2025-26 Annual Action Plan. For FY 2025-26, the City expects to receive approximately $600,000 in CDBG funds. The specific amount of funds Milpitas receives each fiscal year is determined by a formula based on population and other factors and will be finalized once the budget process concludes at the federal level. As of this writing, the City has not received its entitlement amount for FY 2025-26.

On October 18, 2024, the City announced the opening of the FY 2025-26 CDBG application period. The application period opened on November 1, 2024, and remained available through December 6, 2024. The announcement was made via a Notice for Availability of Funding. The public notice was distributed to current CDBG subgrantees, the CDBG interest email list, and other community members. Additionally, the public notice was physically available at the City Hall Permit Center and the Milpitas Library for the public. Lastly, the public notice was published in the Milpitas Post on October 18, 2024. The application guidelines were accessible via our Federal Program webpage.

Applications were submitted via the City Data Services online portal. A total of nineteen (19) applications were received during the application period. The total dollar amount of grant requests received during the application period totaled $1,137,456. A full breakdown of these applications is provided in the Analysis section below.

Per the City’s Citizen Participation Plan, the City must hold two public hearings to allow the community to participate in an advisory role in the planning, implementation, and assessment of the programs and

projects. The City Council’s role during the first public hearing is to provide staff with direction on CDBG priority areas the City Council seeks to fund. Specific funding amounts, services, or projects to be funded will not be determined until the second public hearing.

Eligible and Ineligible Uses
HUD sets restrictions on how CDBG can be used. CDBG activities must be on HUD’s list of eligible uses. A summary of eligible and ineligible activities is included in Attachment 1.

Meeting National Objectives
CDBG activities must meet one of the following National Objectives:

1. Provides a benefit to low- and moderate-income persons;

2. Eliminates or prevents slum or blight; or

3. Meets other community development needs having an urgency because existing conditions pose a serious and immediate threat to the health or welfare of the community, and other financial resources are not available to meet such needs, often referred to as “urgent need.” The City of Milpitas has historically used its CDBG allocation to benefit low- and moderate-income persons. To meet the slum or blight National Objective, the City would have to identify areas that meet the definition of a slum, blighted, deteriorated, or deteriorating area under state or local law. Milpitas has not identified significantly blighted conditions within its boundaries. As such, CDBG formula funds must benefit low- and moderate-income persons.

The table below displays the FY 2024 income limits determined by HUD to be low- and moderate-income for Santa Clara County. FY 2025 income limits have not been released but will be used to determine eligibility once available.

Person(s) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
(50% AMI)* $64,550 $73,750 $82,950 $92,150 $99,550 $106,900 $114,300 $121,650 (80% AMI)* $102,300 $116,900 $131,500 $146,100 $157,800 $169,500 $181,200 $192,900 *HUD Definition of low income is 50% Area Medium Income (AMI); moderate income is 80% AMI Substantial Amendment to the Consolidated Plan and Annual Action Plan Substantial amendments to the Consolidated Plan include: 1) changes in the allocation priorities or the method of distribution of funds, 2) changes that carry out an activity, using funds from any program covered by the Consolidated Plan (including program income) not previously described in the Action Plan, and 3) changes to the purpose, scope, location, or beneficiaries of any activity. Any amendment listed above shall be determined to be substantial if a change totals 25% or more of the city grant allocation.

The City will be requesting to convert its entire revolving loan fund balance to program income. This will allow the City to distribute the remaining revolving loan funds as a grant to specific activities. Since the requested modification will revise more than 25% of the City’s grant allocation, the modification is considered substantial and requires an enhanced public process as well as City Council approval. These proposed changes in the Consolidated Plan would then be incorporated in changes to the City’s Annual Action Plans.

ANALYSIS:

The purpose of the Public Hearing is to obtain City Council direction on priorities and activities desired to fund in the upcoming Consolidated Plan and Annual Action Plan as well as to request approval to substantially amend the existing Consolidated Plan and Annual Action Plan. Each purpose will be described in more details below.

Consolidated Plan
The Consolidated Plan is a three to five-year document that demonstrates a jurisdiction plan to allocate CDBG funding to benefit low- and moderate-income individuals over that period. Each year, the City submits an Annual Action Plan to HUD which represents the City’s one-year plan of action within the five-year Consolidated Plan. As a part of the proposed FY 2025-30 Consolidated Plan is the FY 2025-26 Annual Action Plan. The City will pursue a five-year Consolidated Plan to align with the County’s timeline.

The Consolidated Plan requires maximum citizen participation through public outreach meetings, community engagement, and surveys. The Consolidated Plan process serves as the framework for a community-wide dialogue to identify housing and community development priority needs. The Consolidated Plan requires a summary of citizen participation, housing, and non-housing community development needs assessment. The Consolidated Plan outlines the community’s priority needs, goals that address the priority needs, and strategies for CDBG funding and activity allocations that best meet those community needs and serve the City’s low- and moderate-income residents.

The City is developing the Fiscal Year (FY) 2025-30 Consolidated Plan in collaboration with Root Policy Research, the Consolidated Plan consultants selected by the County of Santa Clara through Request for Proposal (RFP) processes. Root Policy Research is also working as the Consolidated Plan consultants for other entities, including the Cities of Cupertino, Gilroy, Mountain View, Palo Alto, Santa Clara, Sunnyvale, and the Urban County. This regional approach allows all participating entities to share costs and resources effectively.

Root Policy Research will be providing an update on the Consolidated Plan’s development and community outreach efforts and findings. A summary of Root Policy Research’s outreach efforts and findings is included in Attachment 2.

Available Funds
The City projects the FY 2025-26 formula grant from HUD to be approximately $600,000. The calculations below are based on this projected amount and are subject to change upon receipt of entitlement allocation from HUD. The final allocation amount will become public shortly after the federal budget is approved. The timing of the approval varies each year; however, we expect to know our funding allocation by the Consolidated Plan’s June 2025 deadline.

HUD allows a maximum of:
•15% of total funds for public services
•20% of total funds for planning and administration
•Capital and economic development activities do not apply to any of the program caps Additionally, entitlement grantees may also obligate 15% of the program income received during the prior year for public services. Similarly, entitlement grantees may obligate 20% of the program income received in the current program year.

Based on the projected allocation of $600,000, the maximum funding allowed in each category is as follows:

Allocation Public Services (15%)
Capital
Projects/Economic
Development (65%)
Program Administration (20%)
$600,000.00 $90,000.00 $390,000.00 $120,000.00
Nineteen (19) applications were received during the application period. Two (2) of the applicants are new organizations that have not been funded by the City in recent years. The combined total of all requests is $1,137,456, with the breakdown of the applications as follows:

•Public Service Requests = $320,456.00
•Capital Improvement Requests = $466,000.00
•Economic Development Requests = $330,000.00
•Program Administration Request = $21,000.00
Approximate
Total Allocation Public Services
Capital
Projects/Economic
Development
Program Administration
CDBG Funds
Available $600,000.00 $90,000.00 $390,000.00 $120,000.00 Total Application
Requests* $1,137,456.00 $320,456.00 $796,000.00 $21,000.00 *Capital and economic development activities do not apply to any of the program caps.

As noted in the table above, there are more applicant requests for funding in certain categories than funding available. As such, some applicants will not receive an allocation in the amount requested or any funding at all.

A total of $81,085.24 in program income was earned in FY 2024-25 for a home rehabilitation loan repayment.

HUD permits, 20% of program income received could be used for program administration in the current year and 15% of program income received could be used for public services in the subsequent year. These funds will be added to the available funds for FY 2025-2026. Please refer to the Substantial Amendment to the Annual Action Plan section below for more details.

Applications
A full list of the applicants, their proposed activity, requested amount, and proposed residents served is displayed below.

Organization Name Project Description CDBG Fund
Request
Proposed
Residents
Served
Catholic Charities of
Santa Clara County
The mission of the Long-Term Care Ombudsman
Program is to seek the resolution of problems and
advocate for the rights and well-being of senior
residents of long-term care facilities.
$11,000 8
Child Advocates of
Silicon Valley
Child Advocates’ mission is to be there for every
foster child in Santa Clara County who has
experienced abuse, neglect and/or abandonment.

They accomplish this by operating the Court
Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) program in
Santa Clara County. CASAs are trained
community volunteers who are appointed by a
judge’s order to advocate for the best interests of
foster children.
$15,000 4
Hope for the
Unhoused
Hope for the Unhoused aims to provide unhoused
populations in Milpitas with necessities such as
food, water, hygiene kits, etc.
$10,000 80
*Hope for the
Unhoused
Hope for the Unhoused aims to create and
distribute a survey to identify households at risk
of homelessness among targeted Milpitas
residents. The goal is to provide resources to
these families before they become unhoused.
$5,000 5,000
Public Services
LifeMoves
The LifeMoves Emergency Assistance Network
(EAN) program provides a variety of services to
prevent homelessness, utility, disconnections, and
hunger. Services include one-time rent and
mortgage payments assistance, move-in costs for
$125,000 100

rental deposits, one-time utility assistance, on-site
information and referrals for services such as
Medi-Cal and CalFresh. The program goal is to
stabilize individuals and families during times of
trouble and help them to return to self-sufficiency.

Lighthouse of Hope Provide counseling, psychological support, and education to the Milpitas community. $5,000 20
Next Door Solutions
to Domestic Violence
(NDS)
Next Door Solutions provides Milpitas residents
who self-identify as victims of domestic violence
with comprehensive, Survivor-Defined services.
$25,000 48
Project Sentinel
Project Sentinel will assist Milpitas Residents with
tenant/landlord disputes through counseling
sessions and comprehensive education.
$42,000 125
Sleeping Bags for the
Homeless (SB4TH)**
SB4TH aims to provide immediate relief to
unhoused populations in Milpitas by offering
essentials such as food, water, tents, etc.
$15,000 250
Senior Adults Legal
Assistance (SALA)
SALA will provide free Legal Services to Milpitas
seniors 62 or older with appointments at Barbara
Lee Senior Center, at other SALA intake sites, and
by phone, targeting clients that are low-income
and at-risk.
$12,500 20
Silicon Valley
Independent Living
Center (SVILC)
SVILC will provide education, resources, and
advocacy about affordable, accessible housing to
Milpitas residents with disabilities, older adults
with chronic health conditions, and local landlords.
$16,048 48
Sourcewise
Sourcewise will serve 60 unduplicated Milpitas
seniors aged 60 and older, who qualify for
nutritious home-delivered meals. Clients receive
14 meals delivered once a week to their homes at
no cost to the seniors.
$25,000 60
YWCA Golden Gate
Silicon Valley
YWCA Golden Gate Silicon Valley will provide 30
Milpitas residents with a multiservice continuum of
crisis response and prevention services for
survivors of domestic violence.
$13,908 30
Subtotal $320,456 5,793
* Ineligible activity **Subgrantee withdrew application

Organization Name Project Description CDBG Fund
Request
Proposed
Residents
Served
Rebuilding Together
Silicon Valley (RTSV)
Rebuilding Together Silicon Valley’s mission is
repairing homes, revitalizing communities,
rebuilding lives, and our vision is safe homes and
communities for every person. RTSV preserves
affordable housing by providing critical home
repairs and accessibility modifications for low-
income residents, at no cost to the recipient.
$216,000 30
Terrace Gardens
Senior Housing
The roofs of the "A", “B”, “C”, and "D” Buildings
need repair. Terrace Gardens is requesting funds
to replace the roofs.
$250,000 184
City of Milpitas
The City requests funding to assist local
microenterprises, specifically those on Main
Street. A grant program designed to assist Main
Street microenterprise will help economic vitality
and keep businesses thriving in the downtown.
$120,000 50
Capital Projects
CityTeam
Elevate the Neighborhood is City Team's
microenterprise and career development arm in
the communities it serves. In the City of Milpitas,
we aim to launch a pilot program to help low-
income Spanish speaking women gain
microenterprise knowledge and experience
through language development, technology skills,
financial literacy, and business development
classes.
$50,000 21
Economic
Development
Upwards
Upwards' BOOST Program provides specialized
business support and technical assistance to in-
home childcare providers serving children ages 0-
5, as well as before- and after-school care for
children up to age 13
$160,000 20
Subtotal $796,000 305

Home Rehab Loan Program
For over 20 years, the City has offered a Home Rehab Loan program to its residents. The program provides low-interest rate loans to very low and low-income property owners. To secure the City's loans, a lien is placed on the property where the rehabilitation occurs. This ensures that if the property is sold, the City's loan will be repaid.

The City has an established revolving loan fund with HUD that is separate from the CDBG formula funding it receives on an annual basis. The revolving loan fund has an authorized specific use for these rehab loans which can only be changed with City Council approval. Payments made to repay a loan must be deposited into the revolving loan fund and, per HUD guidelines, must be reallocated as soon as possible. These payments are known as program income. If the program income is not expended in a timely manner the City risks receiving a reduction in funding.

Most of the City's current loans do not require any ongoing loan payments from the loan recipient. As such, payments are generally made in full when a property is sold. Recently, repayments have generated program income of $594,882.86. The program income generated affects the City’s ability for timely expenditure of federal funds. These funds must be expended to comply with HUD’s performance requirements or risk corrective actions.

On May 2, 2023, the City Council approved the relaunch of the Home Rehab Loan Program. A substantial amendment was made to the FY 2022-25 Consolidated to include verbiage that reflects the additional $594,882.86 for the Home Rehab Loan Program.

On August 28, 2024, the City released a Home Rehab Loan Program flyer with information on how to get on an interest list. Staff promoted the launch of the program on the Office of Housing’s webpage, on the City’s social media pages, physically at the Permit Center front desk at City Hall and emailed to CDBG subrecipients and community members. The interest list remained open to the public until November 30, 2024. Despite staff’s effort to promote the program, only three residents expressed interest in the program.

During this time, one additional Home Rehab Loan was repaid in full in the amount of $81,085.24, increasing the balance available to $675,968.10. Due to limited interest in the Home Rehab Loan Program and the need for timely expenditure of funds, staff proposes to amend the Consolidated Plan to add economic development Organization Name Project Description CDBG Fund
Request
Proposed
Residents
Served
Project Sentinel
Milpitas residents and prospective residents will
receive robust protection of their civil rights
through a comprehensive suite of fair housing
services.
$21,000 20
Program
Administration
Staff time in administering the program, including
all public noticing, and publishing. TBD N/A
Subtotal $21,000 20
Program
Administration
Total of proposed funded applications $1,137,456 6,118

activities as a part of the allowable uses of revolving loan funds. Staff is further requesting Council amend the existing Annual Action Plan to reappropriate $148,000 to each Rebuilding Together Silicon Valley (RTSV) and the City’s Microenterprise Assistance Program (MEAP) from the revolving loan fund.

Lastly, staff are proposing to permanently sunset the Home Rehab Loan Program due to inactivity and lack of interest and reallocate all remaining revolving loan funds after the reallocation listed above and any future Home Rehab Loan repayments to support Economic Development activities. If Council elects to keep the revolving loan funding allocated towards the Home Rehab Program, staff believes the City would be at continual risk of not meeting timeliness. By reallocating the funds towards Economic Development activities, staff believe the City will be in a better position to spend revolving loan funds in a timely manner in accordance with HUD guidelines.

CONSIDERATIONS:

Staff have identified the following potential considerations for the City Council to assist in choosing areas to fund.

Strategic Plan
In the Consolidated Plan, grantees must establish priorities among different activities and needs. The City of Milpitas is tasked with identifying which priority needs will be addressed in the FY 2025-30 Consolidated Plan.

Staff is seeking feedback from the City Council and the public on the following areas:
•Affordable Housing
oRental assistance
oProduction of new units
oRehabilitation of existing units
oAcquisition of existing units
•Homelessness
oOutreach
oEmergency shelter and transitional housing
oRapid rehousing
oPrevention
•Non-housing Community Development
oPublic facilities
oPublic improvements
oPublic services
oEconomic development
The following priority areas are addressed in the current Consolidated Plan:
•Affordable Housing
oRehabilitation of existing units
oProduction of new units
•Non-housing Community Development
oPublic facilities
oPublic improvements
oPublic services
oEconomic development
Staff recommends adding homelessness as a priority area in the FY 2025-30 Consolidated Plan.

Applicant Grant Experience, Eligibility, and Funds Requested There are four applicants with limited or no prior history with the City of Milpitas’ CDBG program: CityTeam, Hope for the Unhoused, Sleeping Bags for the Homeless and Upwards. Both Sleeping Bags for the Homeless and Upwards are new applicants this year. To be eligible, an applicant must demonstrate they have the

systems in place to capture the HUD-required data to prove their activity meets a national objective as well as meeting the minimum insurance requirements to enter into a professional services agreement with the City.

Upon further discussion, Sleeping Bags for the Homeless chose to withdraw its application.

Activity Eligibility
To determine eligibility for activities, the City must verify that a national objective is being met. All proposed activities in these applications but one are eligible and meet a national objective, with the exception of the "at- risk survey assessment" activity by Hope for the Unhoused. An activity must comply with the regulations outlined in 24 CFR 570.201-570.207. In this case, the at-risk survey does not meet any national objective, nor does it serve any low-income individuals. While the survey may help identify community needs, CDBG funds cannot be utilized since no services are being provided with those funds.

Funds Requested
All applications are subject to the HUD-imposed cap guidelines. Typically, most of the applications received are for Public Services. Given this year’s projected public service cap is 15% or $90,000, a single CDBG applicant could exhaust the available funding. The City must be judicious in selecting applicants that request a fair amount for the services rendered, while not reducing the funding request significantly resulting in the applicant rejecting the allocation. Due to HUD’s stringent reporting requirements, it may not be worth the agency’s resources to accept a lower amount of funding. City staff’s objective is to select a wide range of service providers who offer residents the most beneficial services per the Consolidated Plan and City Council goals.

Next Steps
Council is not required to decide on allocation amounts at this meeting. Council may provide feedback and guidance on Consolidated Plan Strategic Plan goals and other areas where Council feels CDBG funding should be allocated.

Staff will invite the applicants to the Community Housing Commission meeting on April 2, 2025, to provide public comment on their application as well as to solicit the Commission’s feedback as the advisory body to the City Council. The Commission’s feedback will be summarized and presented as part of the final presentation to Council during the second public hearing.

The date of the second public hearing is tentatively scheduled for May 2025, with the final date to be confirmed once the final allocation amounts are made public.

Substantial Amendment to the Annual Action Plan
Staff proposes reappropriating $148,000 in current Home Rehab Loan Program revolving loan monies to each Rebuilding Together Silicon Valley (RTSV) and the City’s Microenterprise Assistance Program (MEAP), and sunsetting the Home Rehab Loan Program.

If this proposal is approved, RTSV will undertake critical home repairs for an additional 10 households in FY 2024-25, in addition to the 15 households already planned. The three residents who expressed interest in the Home Rehab Loan Program will receive consultations from RTSV to determine their eligibility and the scope of necessary work. If they are deemed eligible, RTSV will carry out the critical home repairs at no cost to the residents.

If approved, eligible microenterprises located on Main Street will receive $12,500 grant awards (up to 14 grant awards total). Microenterprises located outside of Main Street will receive grant award amounts of at least $7,500. The final award amounts will depend on the number of eligible applicants. FORWARD will continue to serve as the grant administrator on behalf of the Office of Economic Development.

Since these additional funds exceed the 25% threshold, a substantial amendment is required.

Additionally, staff proposes allocating 20% of the program income received in the current year ($16,217.05) for FY 2024-25 CDBG program administration and 15% of the program income received ($12,162.79) to be allocated to public services for FY 2025-26.

Lastly, if this proposal is approved, the Home Rehab Loan Program will be permanently sunset and all the remaining revolving loan funds after the reallocation listed above, and any future Home Rehab Loan repayments will be used to support Economic Development activities.

Draft reports of the FY 2022-25 Consolidated Plan and FY 2024-25 Annual Action Plan are in Attachment 3 and Attachment 4.

FISCAL IMPACT:

At this time, there is no fiscal impact associated with this item to conduct a public hearing to discuss and provide input beyond staff time.

CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA):

The actions being considered 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). Further, this action does not meet the definition of a project under CEQA Guideline 15378 as it is a government fiscal activity which does not commit to any project that would result in a potentially significant impact on the environment.

RECOMMENDATION:
(1) Conduct the public hearing.
(2) Provide direction to staff on CDBG priority areas or specific applications the City Council seeks to fund. (3) Approve a substantial amendment to the FY 2022-25 Consolidated Plan and FY 2024-2025 Annual Action Plan.
(4) Authorize the City Manager, or designee, to make any necessary changes to the approved FY 2022-25 Consolidated Plan and FY 2024-2025 Annual Action Plan.
(5) Authorize the City Manager, or designee, to sunset the Home Rehab Program and to reallocate any future program income earned from the Revolving Loan Fund towards Economic Development activities.

ATTACHMENT(S):
(a) Eligible and Ineligible CDBG Activities
(b) Root Policy Research Outreach Efforts Summary
(c) FY 2022-25 Consolidated Plan Amendments
(d) FY 2024-25 Annual Action Plan Amendments

Eligible and Ineligible CDBG Activities

Eligible CDBG Activities

1. Acquisition of Real Property

2. Disposition

3. Public Facilities and Improvements

4. Clearance and Remediation

5. Public Services

6. Interim Assistance

7. Relocation

8. Loss of Rental Income

9. Housing Services

10. Privately-Owned Utilities

11. Rehabilitation and preservation

12. Construction of Housing

13. Code Enforcement

14. Special Economic Development Activities

15. Microenterprise Assistance

16. Special Activities by Community-Based Development Organizations

17. Homeownership Assistance

18. Planning and Capacity Building

19. Program Administration Costs

20. Miscellaneous Other Activities

Ineligible CDBG Activities

1. Buildings or portions thereof, used for the general conduct of government may not be assisted with CDBG funds. This does not include, however, the removal of architectural barriers involving any such building, which may be assisted under the category of Public Facilities and Improvements.

2. General government expenses. Expenses required to carry out the regular responsibilities of the unit of general local government are not eligible for assistance under this part.

3. Political activities. CDBG funds may not be used to finance the use of facilities or equipment for political purposes or to engage in other partisan political activities, such as candidate forums, voter transportation, or voter registration.

4. Purchase of equipment. The purchase of equipment with CDBG funds is generally ineligible – construction equipment, fire protection equipment, furnishings and personal property.

5. Operating and maintenance expenses. The general rule is that any expense associated with repairing, operating, or maintaining public facilities, improvements, and services is ineligible.

6. New housing construction.

7. Income payments. The general rule is that CDBG funds may not be used for income payments.

Adapted from HUD booklet, Community Development Block Grant Program; A guide to National Objectives & Eligible Activities for Entitlement Communities.

Root Policy Research Community Outreach Findings
The process of updating Milpitas’ 2025-2030 Consolidated Plan is underway and is being coordinated with jurisdictional partners in Santa Clara County. The City anticipates its five-year plan will be available for draft review in March 2025, around the time when the amount of funding for the 2025 program year (PY25) will be known.

Priority needs ar e based o n the research that has been conducted through year-end 2024:
1) Thr
ee countywide workshops with stakeholders working in the areas of housing and community and economic development.
2) Two public virtual open houses with opportunities for residents and stakeholders to complete activities and engage in discussions on priority needs. 3) A housing market analysis.
4) Preliminary results from a community survey.

Primary
findings from that research includes:
• Mil
pitas households have some of the highest incomes in the county. The median household income is $179,727, compared with $154,954 for the county overall and $95,521 for California. Both owners (median $240,892) and renters (median $145,437) have median incomes higher than the county overall.
• 54% of Milpitas households have 2 or more workers, with 12% having 3+ workers.

Milpitas has the highest share of households with 2+ workers of all jurisdictions in Santa Clara County. Milpitas also has a high share of residents who commute outside of the city or county for work: 67% work outside of the city and 16% work outside of the county.
• Milpitas has been a leader in housing production compared to other jurisdictions in the county: housing units grew by 22% between 2013 and 2023 compared to just 10% for the county overall. Milpitas also has greater diversity of housing stock compared to other jurisdictions with just 44% of housing stock comprised of single family detached homes.
• The median rent in Milpitas was $3,000 per month in 2023, higher than the county overall ($2,781) but lower than Cupertino, Mountain View, Palo Alto. Half of the city’s renters cannot afford the median rent.
• Milpitas’ median home value is $1.4 million—unaffordable to the majority of renters. • In sum, Milpitas’ market caters to very high income households rather than essential workforce. The city’s focus on housing production and diversity in housing stock helps to temper the effects of high price and rent growth. The city should continue to prioritize production of affordable housing to respond to the shortage of workforce housing and unmet demand.
• Stakeholders who engaged through workshops and interviews identified priority needs in Milpitas as:

o Support for home-based, microenterprise childcare, which is a huge need in the city and significantly underfunded.
o Supportive services in general; most services are concentrated in San Jose and there is no easy way to access, no reliable transportation, for Milpitas residents. o Rental and utility assistance and housing navigation services, especially for seniors who have limited skills to search online.
o Supportive services and transitional/safehouse beds for residents fleeing domestic violence.

R
ecommended priority activities to respond to needs include:
1) Assisting very low income households with supportive services, including childcare and rental assistance to help maintain housing stability.
2) Supporting the creation of new affordable rental housing, including transitional housing for residents experiencing or at-risk of homelessness and those fleeing domestic violence.
3) Supporting the preservation of affordable rental housing.

H
elping renters achieve homeownership is a lower priority due to the very high cost of ownership housing relative to the incomes of low and moderate income renters.

City of Milpitas

DRAFT CONSOLIDATED PLAN
2022-2025

Draft for February 4, 2025

Consolidated Plan MILPITAS 1
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
FY2022-25 Consolidated Plan
Executive Summary
ES-05 Executive Summary - 24 CFR 91.200(c), 91.220(b)

1. Introduction
The City of Milpitas is located in Santa Clara County and is the fifth largest city within the County with a population of 71,533. Milpitas encompasses an area of approximately 18 square miles and is the home to numerous high-tech companies located in the heart of Silicon Valley.

As of 2022, Santa Clara County has one of the highest median incomes in the nation at $151,300 for a family of four. However, many low- and moderate-income residents within the County and City of Milpitas cannot afford the high cost of living required within San Francisco Bay Area.

Every three to five years as required by Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), the City of Milpitas must prepare a Consolidated Plan outlining the strategies used to meet a variety of housing and non-housing community needs. The preparation of Milpitas three-Year Consolidated Plan provides the analysis and financial resources to address the housing and non- housing community services of those residents that require assistance in housing and a variety of public services to fit their specific needs.

The Consolidated Plan covers a three-year period, which included maximum citizen participation through public consultation meetings, request for statistical data, research and information to be incorporated into the plan. Notices were provided in the local Milpitas Post and City’s Website. Presently, City of Milpitas only receives Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funds from the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The Consolidated Plan links identified needs in the community to the federal and local resources available to address those needs.

The City of Milpitas’ Building Safety and Housing department is the lead agency responsible for the preparation of the Consolidated Plan. The Consolidated Plan was prepared with the cooperation and consultation from numerous agencies, organizations, social service providers, housing providers, non-profit groups and members of the general public.

2. Summary of the objectives and outcomes identified in the Plan Needs Assessment Overview
The objectives and outcomes identified in this Consolidated Plan address the housing and community development needs in Milpitas. The objectives address these priority needs:

Consolidated Plan MILPITAS 2
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
o Need: Affordable Housing Development and Preservation  Maintain and Preserve Existing Housing
 New Affordable Housing
 Affordable Housing Rental Rehabilitation
o Need: Community Services
 Community funding/public services
 Public services for special needs populations
 Public services for low- and moderate-income residents at risk of eviction.  Fair Housing
 Public services for Children and Youth
 Public services for Seniors
 Public service for Domestic Violence Support
o Need: Community, Public, and Neighborhood Sustainability  Public improvements including accessibility and improving public facilities. o Need: Economic Development
 Assist Microenterprises and Small Businesses
 Explore the use of HUD Section 108 Loan Guarantee Program

3. Evaluation of past performance
The City is responsible for ensuring compliance with all rules and regulations associated with the CDBG entitlement grant program. The City’s Annual Action Plans and Consolidated Annual Performance and Evaluation Reports (CAPER) have provided many details about the goals, projects and programs completed by the City over the past five years. A review of past consolidated annual performance and evaluation reports reveals a strong record of performance in the use of CDBG funds.

The City will meet or exceed the quantitative goals and objectives of its previous Consolidated Plan. The process implemented by the City has been effective with an annual evaluation of funding allocation and a bi-annual review of funding priorities. The City recognizes that the evaluation of past performance is important to ensure the City is implementing activities effectively.

4. Summary of citizen participation process and consultation process The City initiated the citizen participation process in November 2021 by distributing a Consolidated Plan Community Survey to residents in Milpitas . In December, at the Community Advisory Commission (CAC) meeting, the City invited residents and potential CDBG stakeholders to attend and provide public comment on how they feel CDBG funds should be prioritized in the upcoming FY 22-25 Consolidated Plan.

Consolidated Plan MILPITAS 3
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
Over 80 different agencies, organizations, social service providers, housing providers, non-profits groups, and members of the general public were contacted to participate in the public meetings to receive input and feedback on the preparation of the three-Year Consolidated Plan. The city held public meetings on December 1, 2021, and March 3, 2022, and public hearings on April 5 and June 14, 2022.

The City held a public meeting with the Community Advisory Commission (CAC) on March 2, 2022 to review applications and hear applicant presentations. The CAC made their recommendations for funding to the City Council. Nineteen (19) public comments were heard from prospective applicants summarizing their proposed activities and how their activities would benefit Milpitas residents.

On March 4, 2022, the City placed an advertisement in the Milpitas post for the April 5 and May 3, 2022 City Council meetings. The notice of public hearing is to review funding applications for the FY22-25 Consolidated Plan and FY22-23 CDBG funding year.

On April 1, 2022, the City posted the draft FY22-25 Consolidated Plan and draft FY22-23 Annual Action Plan on its website to provide opportunities for public comment. The documents were posted at this url:
http://www.ci.milpitas.ca.gov/milpitas/departments/federalprogram-community-development-block- grant-cdbg/.

On April 5, 2022, the City Council conducted a Public Hearing to Discuss the FY2022-25 Consolidated Plan goals and funding allocations for FY2022-23 Community Development Block Grant and corresponding Annual Action Plan. Twelve (12) public comments were heard from prospective applicants summarizing their proposed activities and how their activities would benefit Milpitas residents.

The CDBG allocations were published on May 13, 2022. After the CDBG allocations were published, the City notified its residents and active CDBG community that the second public hearing to discuss the FY2022-25 Consolidated Plan goals and funding allocations for FY2022-23 Community Development Block Grant and corresponding Annual Action Plan would be held on June 14, 2022.

On June 14, 2022, the City held the second public hearing. Nine (9) public comments were heard from prospective applicants summarizing their proposed activities and how their activities would benefit Milpitas residents.

5. Summary of public comments
At the December 1, 2021, Community Advisory Commission meeting, staff provided a brief presentation on the fiscal year 2022-2024 CDBG Consolidated Plan process, including an overview of the results of the Consolidated Plan Community Survey, and a timeline of events for the upcoming fiscal year. Seven consultants from various public and private agencies that provide housing, health services, and other social services provided comments to the Commission. One member of the community provided public comment to the Commission in support of the services discussed during the meeting.

Consolidated Plan MILPITAS 4
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
On March 2, 2022, the CAC received a staff presentation on, as well an overview of, the 23 simplified applications received for CDBG funding. The Commission heard 19 comments from the applicants. Each Commissioner then provided their feedback on priorities and goals the Council should consider funding with CDBG funds.

On April 5, 2022, the City Council conducted a Public Hearing to Discuss the FY2022-25 Consolidated Plan goals and funding allocations for FY2022-23 Community Development Block Grant and corresponding Annual Action Plan. Twelve (12) public comments were heard from prospective applicants summarizing their proposed activities and how their activities would benefit Milpitas residents.

On June 14, 2022, the City held the second public hearing. Nine (9) public comments were heard from prospective applicants summarizing their proposed activities and how their activities would benefit Milpitas residents.

Summary of comments or views not accepted and the reasons for not accepting them All comments were accepted. Please see Exhibit C for comments.

7. Summary
It is the City’s intent that the FY22-25 Consolidated Plan will help improve the quality of life for the residents in the City of Milpitas. By providing residents and stakeholders with the ability to communicate how the CDBG funds should be allocated and prioritized, we believe the CDBG funds will be allocated in the best interest of the City’s low- and moderate-income residents.

Consolidated Plan MILPITAS 5
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
The Process
PR-05 Lead & Responsible Agencies 24 CFR 91.200(b)

1. Describe agency/entity responsible for preparing the Consolidated Plan and those responsible for administration of each grant program and funding source The following are the agencies/entities responsible for preparing the Consolidated Plan and those responsible for administration of each grant program and funding source.

Agency Role Name Department/Agency
CDBG Administrator MILPITAS Building Safety & Housing
Table 1 – Responsible Agencies

Narrative
The Building Safety and Housing Department serves as the lead agency in the preparation of the Consolidated Plan as well as the administration of the CDBG program. Per federal law, the preparation of the Consolidated Plan and Annual Action Plan is required by the Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD). Both the Consolidate Plan and the first-year annual action plan must delineate the priorities and strategies for the use of federal funds.

Every three to five years, as required by HUD, the City of Milpitas must prepare a Consolidated Plan outlining the strategies used to meet a variety of housing and non -housing community needs. It has come to the City’s attention that every other jurisdiction in the region is on the same Consolidated Plan timeline, except Milpitas. Therefore, Milpitas will be submitting a three -year Consolidated Plan in order to align our Consolidated Plan timeline with the rest of region. The preparation of Milpitas three-year Consolidated Plan provides the analysis and financial resources to address the housing and non -housing community services of those residents that require assistance in housing and a variety of public services to fit their specific needs.

Consolidated Plan Public Contact Information
Robert Musallam
Housing and Neighborhood Services Administrator
City of Milpitas
455 E. Calaveras Blvd.

Milpitas, CA 95035

Consolidated Plan MILPITAS 6
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
PR-10 Consultation – 91.100, 91.110, 91.200(b), 91.300(b), 91.215(I) and

91.315(I)

1. Introduction
The City of Milpitas requested a number of consultations with a multitude of local non -profit organizations, various jurisdictions, and other stakeholders in the development of the Consolidated Plan.

Milpitas conducted four (4) separate p ublic meetings to obtain public input and comments on the preparation of the Consolidated Plan. meetings were conducted in different areas of the City in different times of the day. The City of Milpitas has reached out to the Santa Clara County Housing Authority and the Office of Supportive Housing, as well as surrounding jurisdictions for their input to the City’s CDBG program. Milpitas also consulted with a wide variety of social service agencies that provide housing and support services to special needs groups in an effort to update data and information for the needs section of the Consolidated Plan. Finally, Milpitas along with the County of Santa Clara and other local jurisdictions held weekly meetings during the past three years to work together on sections of the Consolidated Plan which deal with regional issues such as fair housing and homelessness.

Provide a concise summary of the jurisdiction’s activities to enhance coordination between public and assisted housing providers and private and governmental health, mental health and service agencies (91.215(I)).

As mentioned, the City participates in a weekly meeting with all local jurisdictions to discuss general housing, homelessness, and CDBG related issues. These issues are core to the consultation required by the Consolidated Plan.

City staff continues to maintain dialogue with all service providers, public and private, to ascertain if there are any areas in which the City can partner with the organization to enhance services or if the City can connect service providers for better coordination of service deliveries.

Describe coordination with the Continuum of Care and efforts to address the needs of homeless persons (particularly chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans, and unaccompanied youth) and persons at risk of homelessness The Santa Clara County Continuum of Care (CoC) is a multi- sector group of stakeholders guiding the implementation of the County’s housing and service system to meet the need and prevent homelessness in the county with the ultimate goal to end homelessness.

Consolidated Plan MILPITAS 7
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 09/30/2021)
The Continuum of Care strategy includes permanent housing, emergency shelter with outreach and assessment services, transitional housing with support services, and p revention services.

These services exist in Santa Clara County, but not in sufficient numbers to address the need. The County of Santa Clara, in collaboration with the entitlement jurisdictions, believe that strengthening the Continuum of Care on a regiona l basis will effectively address the needs of homeless people in individual cities and avoi ding duplication of services, and increase the cost effectiveness.

In October 2020, the City of Milpitas participated in the preparation of the Community Plan to End Homelessness in Santa Clara County. The Plan identifies strategies to address the needs of homeless persons in the county, including chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans, and unaccompanied youth. Additionally, it also intended to address the needs of person at risk of homelessness.

In December 2020, the City Council directed staff to proceed with a pilot program to provide weekly hot shower and laundry services to the unhoused residents of Milpitas. The City will be using a nonprofit service provider, WeHOPE, to operate the Dignity on Wheels program, which includes mobile shower, mobile laundry, and connecting unhoused residents with resources.

In November 2020, the City Council authorized a r evenue agreement with the County of Santa Clara in the amount of $200,000 per year for the County to provide street outreach, assessment, and case management services for unhoused residents in Milpitas via their Homeless Engagement and Assessment Team (HEAT). The HEAT team focuses first on connecting clients with mental health service providers to stabilize them before assisting with a housing plan In December 2020, the City Council directed staff to proceed with a pilot program to provide weekly hot shower and laundry services to the unhoused residents of Milpitas. The City will be using a nonprofit service provider, WeHOPE, to operate the Dignity on Wheels program, which includes mobile shower, mobile laundry, and connecting unhoused residents with resources.

Describe consultation with the Continuum(s) of Care that serves the jurisdiction's area in determining how to allocate ESG funds, develop performance standards and evaluate outcomes, and develop funding, policies and procedures for the administration of HMIS The City of Milpitas does not receive Emergency Shelter Grant (ESG) funding however the City participates with the CoC to address homeless issues.

2. Describe Agencies, groups, organizations and others who participated in the process and describe the jurisdictions consultations with housing, social service agencies and other entities

Consolidated Plan MILPITAS 8
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Table 2 – Agencies, groups, organizations who participated

Consolidated Plan MILPITAS 9
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Agency/Group/Organization Rebuilding Together Silicon Valley Agency/Group/Organization Type Services-Persons with disabilities Services-Elderly Persons
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation
Housing needs Assessment
Non-Homeless Special Needs
How was the
Agency/Group/Organization consulted
and what are the anticipated outcomes
of the consultation or areas for
improved coordination?
Agency attended Community Forum where staff solicited
input for community needs and priorities.

Agency/Group/Organization Project Sentinel
Agency/Group/Organization Type Services-Fair Housing
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation
Non-Homeless Special Needs
Homeless Needs-Families with Children
How was the
Agency/Group/Organization consulted
and what are the anticipated outcomes
of the consultation or areas for
improved coordination?
Agency attended Community Forum where staff solicited
input for community needs and priorities.

Agency attended Community Advisory Commission meeting
for community input for the Consolidated Plan Update and CDBG input. The organization provided input and
prioritizing needs within the community.

Agency/Group/Organization Housing Authority of County of Santa Clara Agency/Group/Organization Type Housing
PHA
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation
Housing Needs Assessment
Public Housing Needs
How was the
Agency/Group/Organization consulted
and what are the anticipated outcomes
of the consultation or areas for
improved coordination?
Staff consulted with a representative of the Housing
Authority to discuss Housing Authority challenges, trends in housing concerns from the Housing Authority’s perspective and determine potential areas where the City can partner with the Housing Authority.

Agency/Group/Organization Catholic Charities
Agency/Group/Organization Type Services-Elderly persons Services-Housing
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation
Non-Homeless Special Needs
How was the
Agency/Group/Organization consulted
and what are the anticipated outcomes
of the consultation or areas for
improved coordination?
Agency attended Community Advisory Commission meeting
for community input for the Consolidated Plan Update and CDBG input. The organization provided input and
prioritizing needs within the community.

Agency/Group/Organization Child Advocates of Silicon Valley Agency/Group/Organization Type Services-Victims
Services-Health
Services- Children
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation
Non-Homeless Special needs

Consolidated Plan MILPITAS 10
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
How was the
Agency/Group/Organization consulted
and what are the anticipated outcomes
of the consultation or areas for
improved coordination?
Agency attended Community Advisory Commission meeting
for community input for the Consolidated Plan Update and CDBG input. The organization provided input and
prioritizing needs within the community.

Agency/Group/Organization City of Milpitas Recreation and Community Services Agency/Group/Organization Type Services-children
Services-Elderly Persons
Services-Narrowing the Digital Divide
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation
Non-Homeless Special Needs
How was the
Agency/Group/Organization consulted
and what are the anticipated outcomes
of the consultation or areas for
improved coordination?
Agency attended Community Advisory Commission meeting
for community input for the Consolidated Plan Update and CDBG input. The organization provided input and
prioritizing needs within the community.

Agency/Group/Organization LifeMoves
Agency/Group/Organization Type Services-Homeless
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation
Homeless Needs-Chronically homeless
Homeless Needs-Families with Children
Homelessness-Veterans
Homelessness-Unaccompanied Youth
Homelessness Strategy
How was the
Agency/Group/Organization consulted
and what are the anticipated outcomes
of the consultation or areas for
improved coordination?
Agency attended Community Advisory Commission meeting
for community input for the Consolidated Plan Update and CDBG input. The organization provided input and
prioritizing needs within the community.

Agency/Group/Organization Pragnya
Agency/Group/Organization Type Services-Children
Services-Elderly Person
Services-Persons with Disabilities
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation
Non-Homeless Special Needs
How was the
Agency/Group/Organization consulted
and what are the anticipated outcomes
of the consultation or areas for
improved coordination?
Agency attended Community Advisory Commission meeting
for community input for the Consolidated Plan Update and CDBG input. The organization provided input and
prioritizing needs within the community.

Agency/Group/Organization Milpitas Unified School District Agency/Group/Organization Type Services-Children
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation
Non-Homeless Special Needs

Consolidated Plan MILPITAS 11
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
How was the
Agency/Group/Organization consulted
and what are the anticipated outcomes
of the consultation or areas for
improved coordination?
Agency attended Community Advisory Commission meeting
for community input for the Consolidated Plan Update and CDBG input. The organization provided input and
prioritizing needs within the community.

Agency/Group/Organization Next Door Solutions to Domestic Violence Agency/Group/Organization Type Service-Victims of Domestic Violence What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation
Non-Homeless Special Needs
How was the
Agency/Group/Organization consulted
and what are the anticipated outcomes
of the consultation or areas for
improved coordination?
Agency attended Community Advisory Commission meeting
for community input for the Consolidated Plan Update and CDBG input. The organization provided input and
prioritizing needs within the community.

Agency/Group/Organization Senior Adults Legal Assistance (SALA) Agency/Group/Organization Type Service-Elderly Person
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation
Non-Homeless Special Needs
How was the
Agency/Group/Organization consulted
and what are the anticipated outcomes
of the consultation or areas for
improved coordination?
Agency attended Community Advisory Commission meeting
for community input for the Consolidated Plan Update and CDBG input. The organization provided input and
prioritizing needs within the community.

Agency/Group/Organization Silicon Valley Independent Living Center Agency/Group/Organization Type Service-Elderly Person
Service-Persons with disabilities
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation
Non-homeless Special Needs
How was the
Agency/Group/Organization consulted
and what are the anticipated outcomes
of the consultation or areas for
improved coordination?
Agency attended Community Advisory Commission meeting
for community input for the Consolidated Plan Update and CDBG input. The organization provided input and
prioritizing needs within the community.

Agency/Group/Organization The Health Trust
Agency/Group/Organization Type Service-Elderly Persons
Service-Persons with Disabilities
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation
Non-Homeless Special needs
How was the
Agency/Group/Organization consulted
and what are the anticipated outcomes
of the consultation or areas for
improved coordination?
Agency attended Community Advisory Commission meeting
for community input for the Consolidated Plan Update and CDBG input. The organization provided input and
prioritizing needs within the community.

Agency/Group/Organization YWCA Silicon Valley

Consolidated Plan MILPITAS 12
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Agency/Group/Organization Type Housing
Services-Children
Services-Victims of Domestic Violence
Services-Health
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation
Homeless Needs – Families with Children
Non-Homeless Special Needs
How was the
Agency/Group/Organization consulted
and what are the anticipated outcomes
of the consultation or areas for
improved coordination?
Agency attended Community Advisory Commission meeting
for community input for the Consolidated Plan Update and CDBG input. The organization provided input and
prioritizing needs within the community.

Agency/Group/Organization Terrace Gardens
Agency/Group/Organization Type Emergency Management
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation
Non-homeless Special Needs
How was the
Agency/Group/Organization consulted
and what are the anticipated outcomes
of the consultation or areas for
improved coordination?
Housing staff conducted a one-on-one meeting with the
City's Emergency Management Coordinator. The
coordinator expressed a desire to more regularly attend community meetings to provide guidance on various issues regarding community emergency response.

Agency/Group/Organization City of Milpitas – Emergency Management Coordinator Agency/Group/Organization Type Housing
Services-Elderly Persons
What section of the Plan was
addressed by Consultation
Housing Needs Assessment
Non-homeless Special Needs
How was the
Agency/Group/Organization consulted
and what are the anticipated outcomes
of the consultation or areas for
improved coordination?
Agency attended Community Advisory Commission meeting
for community input for the Consolidated Plan Update and CDBG input. The organization provided input and
prioritizing needs within the community.

Identify any Agency Types not consulted and provide rationale for not consulting The City did not speak with the County of Santa Clara Office of Emergency Management and Santa Clara Valley Water District. The primary rationale was the lack of staff resources. The City of Milpitas had only one full time employee in the entire housing division from October 2021 – April 2022. The City’s primary reason for producing a three-year Consolidated Plan was to align our Consolidated Plan start and end dates with the other cities in our region. Further, we’d ensure that any future Consolidated Plan would be created in collaboration with those regional partners and as those partners allocate resources to hire consultants that produce a Consolidated Plan, Milpitas would similarly contribute.

Consolidated Plan MILPITAS 13
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Other local/regional/state/federal planning efforts considered when preparing the Plan Name of Plan Lead Organization How do the goals of your Strategic Plan overlap with the
goals of each plan?
Continuum of Care Regional Continuum of Care
Council
The CoC works to alleviate the
impact of homelessness in the
community through the
cooperation and collaboration
of social service providers. This
effort aligns with the Strategic
Plan’s goal to support activities
to end homelessness.

City of Milpitas Housing
Element
City of Milpitas Housing Element serves as a
policy guide to help the City
meet its existing and future
housing needs. This effort
aligns with the Strategic Plan’s
goal to assist in the creation
and preservation of affordable
housing.

Table 3 – Other local / regional / federal planning efforts

Describe cooperation and coordination with other public entities, including the State and any adjacent units of general local government, in the implementation of the Consolidated Plan (91.215(l))
The City meets weekly with our regional partners on a Housing CDBG Coordinator's meeting.

The purpose of these meetings is to receive updates on local initiatives and to receive timely guidance on any CDBG/Housing related issues we're experiencing.

Narrative (optional):

Santa Clara County Association of Planning Officials (SCAPPO) is a regional meeting for local planning officials to attend, cooperate, and coordinate with one another on regional issues.

Items related to the consolidated plan are commonly discussed.

Consolidated Plan MILPITAS 14
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
PR-15 Citizen Participation – 91.105, 91.115, 91.200(c) and 91.300(c)

1. Summary of citizen participation process/Efforts made to broaden citizen participation Summarize citizen participation process and how it impacted goal setting

The City initiated the citizen participation process in November 2021 by distributing a Consolidated Plan Community Survey to residents in Milpitas . In December, at the Community Advisory Commission (CAC) meeting, the City invited residents and potential CDBG stakeholders to attend and provide public comment on how they feel CDBG funds should be prioritized in the upcoming FY 22-25 Consolidated Plan.

Over 80 different agencies, organizations, social service providers, housing providers, non-profits groups, and members of the general public were contacted to participate in the public meetings to receive input and feedback on the preparation of the three -Year Consolidated Plan. The City held public meetings on December 1, 2021 and March 3, 2022 and public hearings on April 5 and June 14, 2022.

The CAC is a publicly noticed meeting that the community can attend. Seven organizations and one resident attended and provided input.

The City did not publish the notices of public hearings in any alternate languages to accommodate residents with limited English proficiency. The City is planning to begin publishing the notices in alternate languages during the program year.

The City published notifications of upcoming public meetings for the amended FY22-25 Consolidated Plan and the draft FY22-23 Annual Action Plan on March 31, 2023 to reprogram two activities from PY 20 to PY 22.

Per the City’s adopted Citizen Participation Plan, the City is to allow a 30-day public review and comment period for the Annual Action Plan. The City has published notifications of upcoming public hearings and the 30-day public review comment period in the local newspaper, on its CDBG webpage, and via email blasts to stakeholders. The City held two advertised public hearings on April 18, 2023, and May 2, 2023. The Action Plan 30-day public review comment period occurred from March 31, 2023, through May 2, 2023.

On April 18, 2023, the City Council conducted a Public Hearing to Discuss the substantial amendment to the FY2022-25 Consolidated Plan goals and funding allocations for FY2023-24 Community Development Block Grant and corresponding Annual Action Plan. Six (6) public comments were heard from prospective applicants summarizing their proposed activities and how their activities would benefit Milpitas residents.

Consolidated Plan MILPITAS 15
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
A schedule of meetings for the development, input review and recommendations that created the Consolidated Plan are as follows:

The City published notifications of the upcoming public hearing meeting to discuss a substantial amendment to the FY22-25 Consolidated Plan goals and funding allocations for the FY24-25 Annual Action Plan on December 6, 2024. The public comment period is from December 6, 2024- February 3, 2025, abiding by our Citizen’s Participation Plan. The public hearing will take place February 4, 2025 to consider a substantial amendment.

Date Organization Action
December 1, 2021 Community Advisory
Commission
Public Meeting/Presentation
March 3, 2022 Community Advisory
Commission
Public Meeting/Presentation
April 5, 2022 Milpitas City Council Public Hearing/Presentation June 14, 2022 Milpitas City Council Public Hearing/Presentation

Citizen Participation Outreach
Sort O
rder
Mode of
Outreach
Target of
Outreach
Summary of
response/
attendance
Summary of
comments
received
Summary of
comments
not
accepted
and reasons
URL (If applicable)
1 News-paper ad
Non-
targeted/broad
community
Opening the
application
period
No comments were received n/a
2 Internet/Social
Media Outreach
Broad community 32 responses The City created a
Consolidated Plan
community survey to obtain
citizen and stakeholder input
and comments for the
development of the
Consolidated Plan. A total of
32 responses were received.
n/a https://www.ci.milpitas
.ca.gov/wp-
content/uploads/2021/
12/2022-2024-
community-
development-block-
grant_results.pdf

Consolidated Plan MILPITAS 16
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Sort O
rder
Mode of
Outreach
Target of
Outreach
Summary of
response/
attendance
Summary of
comments
received
Summary of
comments
not
accepted
and reasons
URL (If applicable)
3 Public Meeting
(CAC)
Non-
targeted/broad
community
20 Attendees
Seven consultants from
various public and private
agencies that provide
housing, health services, and
other social services
provided comments to the
Commission. One member of
the community provided
public comment to the
Commission in support of the
services discussed during the
meeting.
n/a

https://www.milpitas.g
ov/_pdfs/Commissions/
cac/2021/120121/minu
tes.pdf
4 Public Meeting
(CAC)
Non-
targeted/broad
community
10 Attendees No comments were received n/a
https://www.milpitas.g
ov/_pdfs/Commissions/
cac/2022/020222/minu
tes.pdf
5 Public Meeting
(CAC)
Non-
targeted/broad
community
30 Attendees
The Commission heard 19
comments from the
applicants. Each
Commissioner then provided
their feedback on priorities
and goals the Council should
consider funding with CDBG
funds. One public comment
requested consideration for
disabled individuals when
considering upgrades to the
City’s parks.
n/a
https://www.milpitas.g
ov/_pdfs/Commissions/
cac/2022/030222/minu
tes.pdf
6 News-paper
ad/website
Non-
targeted/broad
community
Public Hearing
Notice for City
Council Meetings
No comments were received n/a https://www.milpitas.g
ov/milpitas/departmen
ts/federal-program-
community-
development-block-
grant-cdbg/
7 City Council
Meeting
Public Hearing
Non-
targeted/broad
community
50 attendees
The Commission heard 12
comments from the
applicants. Each
Commissioner then provided
their feedback on priorities
and goals the Council should
consider funding with CDBG
funds.
n/a

https://www.milpitas.g
ov/_pdfs/council/2022/
040522/Minutes.pdf

Consolidated Plan MILPITAS 17
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Sort O
rder
Mode of
Outreach
Target of
Outreach
Summary of
response/
attendance
Summary of
comments
received
Summary of
comments
not
accepted
and reasons
URL (If applicable)
8 Website
Non-
targeted/Broad
community
Draft AAP No comments were received n/a
https://www.milpitas.g
ov/milpitas/departmen
ts/federal-program-
community-
development-block-
grant-cdbg/
9 City Council
Meeting
Public Hearing
Non-
targeted/broad
community
50 attendees
The Commission heard 9
comments from the
applicants. Each
Commissioner then provided
their feedback on priorities
and goals the Council should
consider funding with CDBG
funds.
n/a
Table 4 – Citizen Participation Outreach

Will update after February 4, 2025 Public Hearing

Consolidated Plan MILPITAS 18
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Needs Assessment
NA-05 Overview
Needs Assessment Overview
Located at the southern end of the San Francisco Bay, the City of Milpitas has become an integral part of high-tech Silicon Valley since becoming incorporated in 1954. Per available 2020 census data, Milpitas has an estimated population of 80,273 1. The City is a strong employment center with a diverse population, quality schools, conveniently located neighborhood parks, and a variety of retail options. Milpitas is often called the “Crossroads of Silicon Valley” with most of its

13.6 square miles of land situated between two major freeways (I -880 and I -680), state route 237, and a c ounty expressway. The City is served by Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) light rail and a BART extension that opened in 2020.

With the resurgence of the Silicon Valley economy, real estate has experienced dramatic price increase, with Milpitas being no exception. Milpitas has experienced a massive surge in residential building activity in recent years, with a considerable increase in residential permit applications, development entitlements, and new construction. In large part, these changes have been brought on by the adoption of two Specific Plans for areas adjacent to an existing VTA station and the City’s BART station. The increased development potential that was made possible by these Specific Plans has prompted the conversion of areas once dominated by vacant and underutilized land and aging and obsolete industrial space into high- density transit -oriented development to meet the heightened demand for housing.

Methodology
The majority of data utilized is provided by HUD for the purpose of preparing the Consolidated Plan. HUD periodically receives custom tabulations of data from the U.S. Census Bureau that are largely not available through standard Census products. Known as the Comprehensive Housing Affordability Strategy (CHAS) data, it demonstrates the extent of housing problems and housing needs, particularly for low income households. The CHAS data is used by local governments to plan how to spend HUD funds, and may also be used by HUD to distribute grant funds.

When CHAS data is not available or appropriate, other data is utilized, including 20 10 and 2020 U.S. Census data and American Community Survey (ACS) 20 13-2017 five-year estimates. While

1 https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/milpitascitycalifornia/POP010210#POP010210

Consolidated Plan MILPITAS 19
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
ACS one-year estimates provide the most current data, this report utilizes five-year estimates as they reflect a larger sample size and are considered more reliable and precise.

Federal funds provided under the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) entitlement program are primarily concerned with activities that benefit low -and moderate -income (LMI) households whose incomes do not exceed 80 percent of the area median family inc ome (AMI), as established by HUD, with adjustments for smaller or larger families. HUD utilizes three income levels to define LMI households:
• Extremely low income: Households earning 30 percent or less than the AMI (subject to specified adjustments for areas with unusually high or low incomes) • Very low income: Households earning 50 percent or less than the AMI (subject to specified adjustments for areas with unusually high or low incomes) • Low and moderate income: Households earning 80 percent or less than the AMI (subject to adjustments for areas with unusually high or low incomes or housing costs) NA-10 Housing Needs Assessment
Of the total 21,919 households in Milpitas , approximately 35 percent of City’s households are LMI, with incomes ranging from 0-80% AMI:
• Thirteen percent of households (2,940) have incomes between 0-30% AMI • Ten percent of households (2,175) have incomes between 30-50% AMI • Twelve percent of households (2,550) have incomes between 50-80% AMI NA-15 Disproportionately Greater Need: Housing Problems NA-20 Disproportionately Greater Need: Severe Housing Problems NA-25 Disproportionately Greater Need: Housing Cost Burden NA-35 Public Housing
NA-40 Homeless Needs Assessment
NA-45 Non-Homeless Special Needs Assessment
NA-50 Non-Housing Community Development Needs

Consolidated Plan MILPITAS 20
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
NA-10 Housing Needs Assessment - 24 CFR 91.205 (a,b,c)
Summary of Housing Needs
Demographics Base Year: 2009 Most Recent Year: 2017 % Change Population 65,371 75,500 15%
Households 18,379 21,920 19%
Median Income $92,205.00 $110,752.00 20%
Table 5 - Housing Needs Assessment Demographics

Data Source: 2000 Census (Base Year), 2013-2017 ACS (Most Recent Year)

Number of Households Table
0-30%
HAMFI
>30-50%
HAMFI
>50-80%
HAMFI
>80-100%
HAMFI
>100%
HAMFI
Total Households 2,940 2,175 2,550 2,314 11,940
Small Family Households 960 1,075 1,395 1,319 7,785
Large Family Households 250 290 530 490 1,525
Household contains at least one
person 62-74 years of age 684 635 570 555 2,050
Household contains at least one-
person age 75 or older 700 360 430 260 535
Households with one or more
children 6 years old or younger 385 365 524 434 2,174
Table 6 - Total Households Table
Data
Source:
2013-2017 CHAS

Consolidated Plan MILPITAS 21
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Housing Needs Summary Tables

1. Housing Problems (Households with one of the listed needs) Renter Owner
0-30%
AMI
>30-
50%
AMI
>50-
80%
AMI
>80-
100%
AMI
Total 0-30%
AMI
>30-
50%
AMI
>50-
80%
AMI
>80-
100%
AMI
Total

NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS
Substandard
Housing -
Lacking
complete
plumbing or
kitchen
facilities 20 10 15 10 55 10 10 0 0 20
Severely
Overcrowded -
With >1.51
people per
room (and
complete
kitchen and
plumbing)
30 35 100 30 195 0 20 10 10 40
Overcrowded -
With 1.01-1.5
people per
room (and
none of the
above
problems)
265 170 295 180 910 20 50 90 210 370
Housing cost
burden greater
than 50% of
income (and
none of the
above
problems)
825 400 45 0 1,270 720 295 215 65 1,295

Consolidated Plan MILPITAS 22
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Renter Owner
0-30%
AMI
>30-
50%
AMI
>50-
80%
AMI
>80-
100%
AMI
Total 0-30%
AMI
>30-
50%
AMI
>50-
80%
AMI
>80-
100%
AMI
Total
Housing cost
burden greater
than 30% of
income (and
none of the
above
problems) 120 320 570 265 1,275 180 245 360 470 1,255
Zero/negative
Income (and
none of the
above
problems) 210 0 0 0 210 94 0 0 0 94
Table 7 – Housing Problems Table
Data
Source:
2013-2017 CHAS

2. Housing Problems 2 (Households with one or more Severe Housing Problems: Lacks kitchen or complete plumbing, severe overcrowding, severe cost burden) Renter Owner
0-30%
AMI
>30-
50%
AMI
>50-
80%
AMI
>80-
100%
AMI
Total 0-
30%
AMI
>30-
50%
AMI
>50-
80%
AMI
>80-
100%
AMI
Total

NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS
Having 1 or more of
four housing
problems 1,135 615 450 220 2,420 750 375 315 285 1,725
Having none of four
housing problems 265 460 875 650 2,250 475 730 910 1,159 3,274 Household has
negative income, but
none of the other
housing problems 210 0 0 0 210 94 0 0 0 94
Table 8 – Housing Problems 2
Data
Source:
2013-2017 CHAS

Consolidated Plan MILPITAS 23
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)

3. Cost Burden > 30%
Renter Owner
0-30%
AMI
>30-
50%
AMI
>50-
80%
AMI
Total 0-30%
AMI
>30-
50%
AMI
>50-
80%
AMI
Total

NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS
Small Related 470 600 490 1,560 275 265 270 810
Large Related 175 195 155 525 70 65 115 250
Elderly 390 59 25 474 410 215 150 775
Other 160 75 145 380 165 35 95 295
Total need by
income
1,195 929 815 2,939 920 580 630 2,130
Table 9 – Cost Burden > 30%
Data
Source:
2013-2017 CHAS

4. Cost Burden > 50%
Renter Owner
0-30%
AMI
>30-
50%
AMI
>50-
80%
AMI
Total 0-30%
AMI
>30-
50%
AMI
>50-
80%
AMI
Total

NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS
Small Related 420 305 40 765 245 125 60 430
Large Related 120 85 10 215 60 15 10 85
Elderly 300 30 0 330 280 150 115 545
Other 150 35 10 195 150 15 45 210
Total need by
income
990 455 60 1,505 735 305 230 1,270
Table 10 – Cost Burden > 50%
Data
Source:
2013-2017 CHAS

5. Crowding (More than one person per room)
Renter Owner
0-
30%
AMI
>30-
50%
AMI
>50-
80%
AMI
>80-
100%
AMI
Total 0-
30%
AMI
>30-
50%
AMI
>50-
80%
AMI
>80-
100%
AMI
Total

NUMBER OF HOUSEHOLDS
Single family
households 219 125 320 170 834 20 50 45 115 230

Consolidated Plan MILPITAS 24
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Renter Owner
0-
30%
AMI
>30-
50%
AMI
>50-
80%
AMI
>80-
100%
AMI
Total 0-
30%
AMI
>30-
50%
AMI
>50-
80%
AMI
>80-
100%
AMI
Total
Multiple,
unrelated family
households 25 80 75 25 205 0 20 55 105 180
Other, non-family
households 50 0 10 15 75 0 0 0 0 0
Total need by
income
294 205 405 210 1,114 20 70 100 220 410
Table 11 – Crowding Information – 1/2
Data
Source:
2013-2017 CHAS

Renter Owner
0-30%
AMI
>30-
50%
AMI
>50-
80%
AMI
Total 0-30%
AMI
>30-
50%
AMI
>50-
80%
AMI
Total
Households
with Children
Present

Table 12 – Crowding Information – 2/2

Describe the number and type of single person households in need of housing assistance.

Elderly and/or disabled populations tend to experience greater hardships with regard to housing. Per the provided data, 1,889 households between 0-80% AMI contain at least one person years 62-74 years of age. This represents 8.6% of the total households in Milpitas. Of the

8.6%, 36.2% (684 households) have incomes between 0-30% AMI, 33.6% (635 households) have incomes between 30-50% AMI, and 30.1% (570 households) have incomes between 50-80% AMI.

Elderly populations are often on fixed incomes, such as social security, that are (a) generally provide an insufficient amount of income to adequately cover both housing and general life expenses and (b) do not increase proportionately to the rise in the cost of living to keep up with inflation. This creates a desperate need for affordable housing. The lack of affordable housing in general, but specifically for seniors, will continue to be the greatest barrier to assisting this population.

The disabled population draws parallels to the senior community. While employment opportunities may be available to some, in some cases, there may no ability to secure employment. As such, this community is reliant on social security and/or disability in order to

Consolidated Plan MILPITAS 25
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
cover their living expenses. And similar to senior community, the income provided is not sufficient to adequately cover their expenses. The lack of available housing resources for the disabled community also represents one of the greatest challenges for this population.

The data above does not distinguish between whether the household is a renter or owner.

Additional considerations should be made for elderly/disabled homeowners. As the cost of goods and services increase, these individuals may be homeowners whose properties have appreciated significantly, but they lack the resources to secure loan products that would grant them access to their equity. These individuals are considered house rich and cash poor. These homes, without proper maintenance and repair, often fall into disrepair and sometimes into uninhabitable situations. More resources should be available to these homeowners to ensure they age gracefully in a safe and habitable living environment.

Estimate the number and type of families in need of housing assistance who are disabled or victims of domestic violence, dating violence, sexual assault and stalking.

The data does not provide a true number and types of families in need of housing assistance for those who are disabled or victims of domestic violence. From FY18-22, the period of time covering the last consolidated plan, he City Council has allocated $199,666 towards activities that directly benefit the victims of domestic violence. With these resources, various non-profit organizations such as YWCA Silicon Valley and Next Door Solutions to Domestic Violence have assisted over 1000 residents in Milpitas. Many of these individuals do not have access to the safe, affordable housing that is needed to more permanently remove themselves from domestic violence situations.

What are the most common housing problems?
Housing cost burden greater than 50% of income represents the greatest of housing problems.

Of the eligible households, 825 renter occupied households who have incomes between 0-30% AMI experience a housing cost burden greater than 50% of their current income. A further 400 households who have incomes between 30-50% AMI also experience a housing cost burden greater than 50% of their current income. These number will only grow as affordability wanes.

Are any populations/household types more affected than others by these problems? Low- to moderate-income renter households are more likely to experience at least one housing problem. Of the renters surveyed who had at least one housing problem, ninety-one percent (2,200) of them were LMI. LMI renter households are also severely cost burdened while extremely low and low income owner households are severely cost burdened.

Consolidated Plan MILPITAS 26
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
LMI renter households are also more likely to be overcrowded. Households receiving incomes between 0-30% AMI are more heavily affected.

Describe the characteristics and needs of Low-income individuals and families with children (especially extremely low-income) who are currently housed but are at imminent risk of either residing in shelters or becoming unsheltered 91.205(c)/91.305(c)). Also discuss the needs of formerly homeless families and individuals who are receiving rapid re-housing assistance and are nearing the termination of that assistance The main characteristics are these families tend to be on the lower end of the income spectrum and are living in overcrowded households. In order to afford the high rent Milpitas commands, families must either live in a smaller (more affordable) unit or share space in a larger unit with another family.

As of this writing, we are approaching the end of year 2 of the COVID-19 pandemic. The City Council has allocated over $800,000 in rent relief funds to assist families that are at imminent risk of eviction. The state of California has allocated over $2B in rental assistance to prevent a mass wave of evictions. The economy continues to recover and these individuals, who predominantly work service level jobs, are now starting to go back to work. However, the costs of goods and services has increased tremendously with inflation reaching its highest year over year mark in decades (projected to be 7.5% in 2022)

2. Wages has not kept pace with inflation
and as a result, these household’s live paycheck to paycheck often teetering on the line between housed and unhoused.

If a jurisdiction provides estimates of the at-risk population(s), it should also include a description of the operational definition of the at-risk group and the methodology used to generate the estimates:

We don’t have an estimate. To date our rent relief program has provided assistance to over 120 households and 300 Milpitas residents. Our best attempt to collect this data relies on the data collected when a household applies for rental assistance through our program. For an operational definition of at risk, we believe that any household that is unable to pay or is struggling to afford their monthly rental obligation in our jurisdiction, they are considered an at-risk population.

Specify particular housing characteristics that have been linked with instability and an increased risk of homelessness

2 https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/inflation- cpi#:~:text=US%20Inflation%20Rate%20Accelerates%20to,coupled%20with%20strong%20demand%20weigh.

Consolidated Plan MILPITAS 27
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Severe cost burden is the greatest link between instability and an increased risk of homelessness. More affordable housing or better public/private options are needed to ensure at risk individuals do not experience homelessness.

Discussion
See above.

Consolidated Plan MILPITAS 28
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
NA-15 Disproportionately Greater Need: Housing Problems – 91.205 (b)(2) Assess the need of any racial or ethnic group that has disproportionately greater need in comparison to the needs of that category of need as a whole.

Introduction
Per HUD definition, disproportionate housing needs is defined as “significant disparities in the proportion of members of a protected class experiencing a category of housing need when compared to the proportion of members of any other relevant groups or the total population experiencing that category of housing need in the applicable geographic area” (24 CFR § 5.152).

Specifically, a disproportionately greater need exists when the members of a racial/ethnic group at a given income level experience housing problems at a greater rate (10 percentage points or more) than the jurisdiction as a whole at that income level. 0%-30% of Area Median Income
Housing Problems Has one or more
of four housing
problems
Has none of the
four housing
problems
Household has
no/negative
income, but none
of the other
housing problems
Jurisdiction as a whole 2,195 440 304
White 410 135 40
Black / African American 94 0 15
Asian 1,095 250 179
American Indian, Alaska Native 0 0 0
Pacific Islander 25 0 0
Hispanic 540 40 60
Table 13 - Disproportionally Greater Need 0 - 30% AMI
Data
Source:
2013-2017 CHAS

*The four housing problems are:

1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3. More than one person per room, 4.Cost Burden greater than 30%

30%-50% of Area Median Income
Housing Problems Has one or more
of four housing
problems
Has none of the
four housing
problems
Household has
no/negative
income, but none
of the other
housing problems
Jurisdiction as a whole 1,555 625 0
White 224 180 0

Consolidated Plan MILPITAS 29
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Housing Problems Has one or more
of four housing
problems
Has none of the
four housing
problems
Household has
no/negative
income, but none
of the other
housing problems
Black / African American 90 25 0
Asian 939 290 0
American Indian, Alaska Native 0 10 0
Pacific Islander 0 0 0
Hispanic 260 120 0
Table 14 - Disproportionally Greater Need 30 - 50% AMI
Data
Source:
2013-2017 CHAS

*The four housing problems are:

1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3. More than one person per room, 4.Cost Burden greater than 30%

50%-80% of Area Median Income
Housing Problems Has one or more
of four housing
problems
Has none of the
four housing
problems
Household has
no/negative
income, but none
of the other
housing problems
Jurisdiction as a whole 1,695 855 0
White 115 180 0
Black / African American 10 34 0
Asian 1,195 425 0
American Indian, Alaska Native 0 0 0
Pacific Islander 40 0 0
Hispanic 310 190 0
Table 15 - Disproportionally Greater Need 50 - 80% AMI
Data
Source:
2013-2017 CHAS

*The four housing problems are:

1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3. More than one person per room, 4. Cost Burden greater than 30%

Consolidated Plan MILPITAS 30
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
80%-100% of Area Median Income
Housing Problems Has one or more
of four housing
problems
Has none of the
four housing
problems
Household has
no/negative
income, but none
of the other
housing problems
Jurisdiction as a whole 1,240 1,074 0
White 145 84 0
Black / African American 25 50 0
Asian 900 684 0
American Indian, Alaska Native 0 0 0
Pacific Islander 0 0 0
Hispanic 100 215 0
Table 16 - Disproportionally Greater Need 80 - 100% AMI Data
Source:
2013-2017 CHAS

*The four housing problems are:

1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3. More than one person per room, 4. Cost Burden greater than 30%
Discussion
Seventy-five percent of households with 0%-30% AMI experience at least one housing problem. • 86% of Black households with 0%-30% AMI experience at least one housing problem. • 70% of White households with 0%-30% AMI experience at least one housing problem. • 72% of Asian households with 0%-30% AMI experience at least one housing problem. • 84% of Hispanic households with 0%-30% AMI experience at least one housing problem.

Seventy-one percent of households with 30%-50% AMI experience at least one housing problem.
• 93% of Black households with 30%-50% AMI experience at least one housing problem. • 55% of White households with 30%-50% AMI experience at least one housing problem. • 76% of Asian households with 30%-50% AMI experience at least one housing problem. • 68% of Hispanic households with 30%-50% AMI experience at least one housing problem.

Sixty-six percent of households with 50%-80% AMI experience at least one housing problem. • 23% of Black households with 50%-80% AMI experience at least one housing problem. • 39% of White households with 50%-80% AMI experience at least one housing problem. • 74% of Asian households with 50%-80% AMI experience at least one housing problem. • 62% of Hispanic households with 50%-80% AMI experience at least one housing problem.

Consolidated Plan MILPITAS 31
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)

Fifty-four percent of households with 80%-100% AMI experience at least one housing problem. • 33% of Black households with 80%-100% AMI experience at least one housing problem. • 63% of White households with 80%-100% AMI experience at least one housing problem. • 57% of Asian households with 80%-100% AMI experience at least one housing problem. • 32% of Hispanic households with 80%-100% AMI experience at least one housing problem.

The groups disproportionately affected by housing problems include:
• Black households in 0-30% AMI and 30-50% AMI; and
• White households in 80-100% AMI; and
• Asian households in 50%-80% AMI; and
In summary, lower income Black and Asian households are disproportionately affected by housing problems within the city. White moderate households are affected by housing problems.

Consolidated Plan MILPITAS 32
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
NA-20 Disproportionately Greater Need: Severe Housing Problems – 91.205 (b)(2)
Assess the need of any racial or ethnic group that has disproportionately greater need in comparison to the needs of that category of need as a whole.

Introduction
Per HUD definition, disproportionate housing needs is defined as “significant disparities in the proportion of members of a protected class experiencing a category of housing need when compared to the proportion of members of any other relevant groups or the total population experiencing that category of housing need in the applicable geographic area” (24 CFR § 5.152).

A household is considered severely overcrowded when there are more than 1.5 persons per room and severely cost burdened when paying more than 50 percent of household income toward housing costs. For renters, housing costs include rent paid by the tenant plus utilities.

For owners, housing costs include mortgage payment, taxes, insurance, and utilities. 0%-30% of Area Median Income
Severe Housing Problems* Has one or more
of four housing
problems
Has none of the
four housing
problems
Household has
no/negative
income, but none
of the other
housing problems
Jurisdiction as a whole 1,885 740 304
White 330 215 40
Black / African American 94 0 15
Asian 910 435 179
American Indian, Alaska Native 0 0 0
Pacific Islander 25 0 0
Hispanic 505 75 60
Table 17 – Severe Housing Problems 0 - 30% AMI
Data
Source:
2013-2017 CHAS

*The four severe housing problems are:

1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3. More than 1.5 persons per room, 4. Cost Burden over 50%

Consolidated Plan MILPITAS 33
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
30%-50% of Area Median Income
Severe Housing Problems* Has one or more
of four housing
problems
Has none of the
four housing
problems
Household has
no/negative
income, but none
of the other
housing problems
Jurisdiction as a whole 990 1,190 0
White 149 255 0
Black / African American 25 90 0
Asian 624 605 0
American Indian, Alaska Native 0 10 0
Pacific Islander 0 0 0
Hispanic 155 220 0
Table 18 – Severe Housing Problems 30 - 50% AMI
Data
Source:
2013-2017 CHAS

*The four severe housing problems are:

1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3. More than 1.5 persons per room, 4. Cost Burden over 50%

50%-80% of Area Median Income
Severe Housing Problems* Has one or more
of four housing
problems
Has none of the
four housing
problems
Household has
no/negative
income, but none
of the other
housing problems
Jurisdiction as a whole 765 1,785 0
White 70 225 0
Black / African American 10 34 0
Asian 540 1,075 0
American Indian, Alaska Native 0 0 0
Pacific Islander 40 0 0
Hispanic 80 420 0
Table 19 – Severe Housing Problems 50 - 80% AMI
Data
Source:
2013-2017 CHAS

*The four severe housing problems are:

1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3. More than 1.5 persons per room, 4. Cost Burden over 50%

Consolidated Plan MILPITAS 34
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
80%-100% of Area Median Income
Severe Housing Problems* Has one or more
of four housing
problems
Has none of the
four housing
problems
Household has
no/negative
income, but none
of the other
housing problems
Jurisdiction as a whole 505 1,809 0
White 10 225 0
Black / African American 10 65 0
Asian 395 1,189 0
American Indian, Alaska Native 0 0 0
Pacific Islander 0 0 0
Hispanic 80 235 0
Table 20 – Severe Housing Problems 80 - 100% AMI
Data
Source:
2013-2017 CHAS

*The four severe housing problems are:

1. Lacks complete kitchen facilities, 2. Lacks complete plumbing facilities, 3. More than 1.5 persons per room, 4. Cost Burden over 50%

Discussion
Sixty-four percent of households with 0%-30% AMI experience at least one severe housing problem.
• 86% of Black households with 0%-30% AMI experience at least one severe housing problem.
• 56% of White households with 0%-30% AMI experience at least one severe housing problem.
• 60% of Asian households with 0%-30% AMI experience at least one severe housing problem.
• 79% of Hispanic households with 0%-30% AMI experience at least one severe housing problem.
• 100% of Pacific Islander households with 0%-30% AMI experience at least one severe housing problem.

Forty-five percent of households with 30%-50% AMI experience at least one severe housing problem.
• 22% of Black households with 30%-50% AMI experience at least one severe housing problem.
• 37% of White households with 30%-50% AMI experience at least one severe housing problem.
• 51% of Asian households with 30%-50% AMI experience at one severe housing problem.

Consolidated Plan MILPITAS 35
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
• 41% of Hispanic households with 30%-50% AMI experience at least one severe housing problem.

Thirty percent of households with 50%-80% AMI experience at least one severe housing problem.
• 23% of Black households with 50%-80% AMI experience at least one severe housing problem.
• 24% of White households with 50%-80% AMI experience at least one severe housing problem.
• 33% of Asian households with 50%-80% AMI experience at least one severe housing problem.
• 16% of Hispanic households with 50%-80% AMI experience at least one severe housing problem.
• 100% of Pacific Islander households with 0%-30% AMI experience at least one severe housing problem.

Twenty-two percent of households with 80%-100% AMI experience at least one severe housing problem
• 13% of Black households with 80%-100% AMI experience at one severe housing problem.
• 4% of White households with 80%-100% AMI experience at least one severe housing problem.
• 25% of Asian households with 80%-100% AMI experience at least one severe housing problem.
• 25% of Hispanic households with 80%-100% AMI experience at least one severe housing problem.

The groups disproportionately affected by severe housing problems include:
• Black households between 0-30% AMI; and
• Hispanic households between 0-30% AMI; and
• Pacific Islander households with 0-30% AMI and 50-80% AMI In summary, extremely low-income households are disproportionately affected by severe housing problems.

Consolidated Plan MILPITAS 36
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
NA-25 Disproportionately Greater Need: Housing Cost Burdens – 91.205 (b)(2) Assess the need of any racial or ethnic group that has disproportionately greater need in comparison to the needs of that category of need as a whole.

Introduction:

Per HUD definition, disproportionate housing needs is defined as “significant disparities in the proportion of members of a protected class experiencing a category of housing need when compared to the proportion of members of any other relevant groups or the total population experiencing that category of housing need in the applicable geographic area” (24 CFR § 5.152).

A household is considered cost burdened if they pay more than 30 percent of their household income toward housing costs.

Housing Cost Burden
Housing Cost Burden <=30% 30-50% >50% No / negative
income (not
computed)
Jurisdiction as a whole 14,474 4,170 2,925 359
White 2,374 555 564 40
Black / African
American 330 110 140 15
Asian 10,115 2,769 1,524 229
American Indian,
Alaska Native 40 0 0 0
Pacific Islander 75 69 0 0
Hispanic 1,285 545 610 60
Table 21 – Greater Need: Housing Cost Burdens AMI
Data
Source:
2013-2017 CHAS

Discussion:

Consolidated Plan MILPITAS 37
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
As a whole, 32 percent of households are cost burdened and, of that percentage, 13 percent are severely cost burdened. Approximately 32% of White, 42% of Black, 29% of Asian, 48% of Pacific Islander, and 46 percent of Hispanic households are cost burdened. Of these percentages, both Black and Hispanic households contain more severe housing burdened households than not. Based on the data, we can conclude that Black, Pacific Islander, and Hispanic households are disproportionately severely cost burdened.

Consolidated Plan MILPITAS 38
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
NA-30 Disproportionately Greater Need: Discussion – 91.205(b)(2) Are there any Income categories in which a racial or ethnic group has disproportionately greater need than the needs of that income category as a whole? Among the lowest income categories, we see disparities in Black households experiencing a greater percentage of housing problems compared to other race/ethnicities. From the sections NA-15 and NA-20 above, we see only one commonality amongst the racial and ethnic groups.

The groups disproportionately affected by housing problems include:
• Black households in 0-30% AMI and 30-50% AMI; and
• White households in 80-100% AMI; and
• Asian households in 50%-80% AMI; and
The groups disproportionately affected by severe housing problems include:
• Black households between 0-30% AMI; and
• Hispanic households between 0-30% AMI; and
• Pacific Islander households with 0-30% AMI and 50-80% AMI Lower income Black households are disproportionately affected by severe housing problems.

This data is also striking because of the relative lack of Black households in Milpitas. Per the latest census data, a mere 2% of the population in Milpitas identifies as Black.

If they have needs not identified above, what are those needs? Any discussion on the experience of Black households experiencing a disproportionately greater housing need would be incomplete without at least an acknowledgement of systemic racism and housing discrimination. This is a topic that will not be covered in great detail here, but it bares noting that Black households have historically experienced the housing market very poorly. Discriminatory practices such as segregation and redlining have created generational inequities that cannot be undone easily.

The needs for this community are expressed in a more equitable way to navigate the housing market. Providing affordable housing, providing access to housing opportunities that can create wealth, such as homeownership. But most importantly, establishing that fair housing is truly fair to all and not just those who have the resources.

Generally speaking, more housing assistance resources are needed. Whether that comes as an increase in Section 8 funding or an increase in rental assistance funding to help tenants secure units and/or pay for some of the costs to move in. These resources are needed to help cure the imbalance felt by lower income tenants who spend 50% or more of their income on rent.

Consolidated Plan MILPITAS 39
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Further resources are needed to help manage the Landlord-Tenant power imbalance.

Oftentimes, tenants will be threatened with eviction if they communicate any issues with their unit. Resources to create a safe space for these conversations to take place will go a long way to promoting equity and decreasing the housing cost burden on tenants.

Are any of those racial or ethnic groups located in specific areas or neighborhoods in your community?

Consolidated Plan MILPITAS 40
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
No

Consolidated Plan MILPITAS 41
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
NA-35 Public Housing – 91.205(b)
Introduction
Totals in Use
Program Type
Certificate Mod-
Rehab
Public
Housing
Vouchers
Total Project
-based
Tenant
-based
Special Purpose Voucher
Veterans
Affairs
Supportive
Housing
Family
Unification
Program
Disabled
*
# of
units
vouchers
in use 0 48 20 10,212 692 9,267 212 0 36
Table 22 - Public Housing by Program Type
*includes Non-Elderly Disabled, Mainstream One-Year, Mainstream Five-year, and Nursing Home Transition

Data
Source:

PIC (PIH Information Center)

Characteristics of Residents

Program Type
Certificate Mod-
Rehab
Public
Housing
Vouchers
Total Project
-based
Tenant
-based
Special Purpose Voucher
Veterans
Affairs
Supportive
Housing
Family
Unification
Program
Average
Annual
Income
0 20,067 16,342 15,882 13,333 16,112 14,199 0
Average
length of stay 0 7 5 8 1 9 0 0
Average
Household
size
0 2 2 2 1 2 1 0
# Homeless at
admission 0 0 1 15 4 4 0 0

Consolidated Plan MILPITAS 42
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Program Type
Certificate Mod-
Rehab
Public
Housing
Vouchers
Total Project
-based
Tenant
-based
Special Purpose Voucher
Veterans
Affairs
Supportive
Housing
Family
Unification
Program
# of Elderly
Program
Participants
(>62) 0 10 4 3,859 502 3,315 24 0
# of Disabled
Families 0 10 6 1,784 69 1,610 85 0
# of Families
requesting
accessibility
features 0 48 20 10,212 692 9,267 212 0
# of HIV/AIDS
program
participants 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
# of DV
victims 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Table 23 – Characteristics of Public Housing Residents by Program Type

Data Source: PIC (PIH Information Center)

Race of Residents
Program Type
Race Certificate Mod-
Rehab
Public
Housing
Vouchers
Total Project
-based
Tenant
-based
Special Purpose Voucher
Veterans
Affairs
Supportive
Housing
Family
Unification
Program
Disabled
*
White 0 33 11 4,885 332 4,420 117 0 14
Black/African
American 0 3 3 1,358 46 1,223 80 0 7
Asian 0 11 5 3,698 303 3,375 5 0 14
American
Indian/Alaska
Native
0 1 1 145 7 134 3 0 1

Consolidated Plan MILPITAS 43
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Program Type
Race Certificate Mod-
Rehab
Public
Housing
Vouchers
Total Project
-based
Tenant
-based
Special Purpose Voucher
Veterans
Affairs
Supportive
Housing
Family
Unification
Program
Disabled
*
Pacific
Islander 0 0 0 95 4 84 7 0 0
Other 0 0 0 31 0 31 0 0 0
*includes Non-Elderly Disabled, Mainstream One-Year, Mainstream Five-year, and Nursing Home Transition Table 24 – Race of Public Housing Residents by Program Type Data
Source:

PIC (PIH Information Center)

Ethnicity of Residents
Program Type
Ethnicity Certificate Mod-
Rehab
Public
Housing
Vouchers
Total Project
-based
Tenant
-based
Special Purpose Voucher
Veterans
Affairs
Supportive
Housing
Family
Unification
Program
Disabled
*
Hispanic 0 20 8 3,217 133 3,038 38 0 7
Not
Hispanic 0 28 12 6,964 559 6,198 174 0 29
*includes Non-Elderly Disabled, Mainstream One-Year, Mainstream Five-year, and Nursing Home Transition Table 25 – Ethnicity of Public Housing Residents by Program Type Data Source: PIC (PIH Information Center)

Section 504 Needs Assessment: Describe the needs of public housing tenants and applicants on the waiting list for accessible units:

This data is not available for Milpitas.

Most immediate needs of residents of Public Housing and Housing Choice voucher holders Finding landlords that will accept a voucher.

How do these needs compare to the housing needs of the population at large This data is not available for Milpitas.

Discussion

Consolidated Plan MILPITAS 44
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)

See above

Consolidated Plan MILPITAS 45
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
NA-40 Homeless Needs Assessment – 91.205(c)
Introduction:

The tables below provide demographic data on homelessness in Milpitas.

If data is not available for the categories "number of persons becoming and exiting homelessness each year," and "number of days that persons experience homelessness," describe these categories for each homeless population type (including chronically homeless individuals and families, families with children, veterans and their families, and unaccompanied youth):

In December 2021, the City Council authorized staff to enter into a revenue agreement with the County of Santa Clara Office of Supportive Housing to employ the Homeless Engagement and Assessment Team (HEAT) throughout Milpitas. A review of the data from HEAT shows that of the 100+ requests sent to HEAT, 99% were for chronically homeless single adults. Twenty-six percent of those individuals were residing in a vehicle while the others were predominantly living outdoors.

For families with children, the City has been actively using rent relief funding for temporary motel stays.

The City has assisted in over 15 such cases since 2019.

Nature and Extent of Homelessness: (Optional)
Data Source: County of Santa Clara Continuum of Care
Jurisdiction Unsheltered Sheltered Total 2017-2019 %
Change 2017 2019 2017 2019 2017 2019
Total Incorporated 5,259 7,652 1,775 1,594 7,034 9,246 31% City of Campbell 94 74 0 0 94 74 -21%
City of Cupertino 127 159 0 0 127 159 25%
City of Gilroy 295 345 427 359 722 704 -2%
City of Los Altos 6 76 0 0 6 76 *
City of Los Altos Hills 0 2 0 0 0 2 *
Town of Los Gatos 52 16 0 0 52 16 *
City of Milpitas 66 125 0 0 66 125 89%
City of Monte Sereno 0 0 0 0 0 0 *
City of Morgan Hill 388 114 0 0 388 114 -71%
City of Mountain View 411 574 5 32 416 606 46%
City of Palo Alto 256 299 20 14 276 313 13%
City of San Jose 3,231 5,117 1,119 980 4,350 6,097 41%
City of Santa Clara 199 264 73 62 272 326 20%
City of Saratoga 12 10 0 0 12 10 *
City of Sunnyvale 122 477 131 147 253 624 147%
Total Unincorporated 189 270 113 89 302 359 19%
Confidential Locations NA NA 58 101 58 101 74%
Total 5,448 7,922 1,946 1,784 7,394 9,706 31%

Consolidated Plan MILPITAS 46
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Estimate the number and type of families in need of housing assistance for families with children and the families of veterans.

The City of Milpitas’ Rent Relief Program provides various forms of financial assistance to Milpitas residents and families that have emergency housing needs. The funds are used to pay for rent and/or deposit assistance, emergency hardship relief, eviction protection, domestic violence relocation, and section 8 good faith deposits. These funds assist at-risk Milpitas residents from experiencing homelessness. To date, the program has assisted over 120 families and over 300 Milpitas residents, many of them families with children. It’s likely that without these funds, many of these families would now be experiencing homelessness.

Describe the Nature and Extent of Homelessness by Racial and Ethnic Group.

Data Source: County of Santa Clara Continuum of Care
Race: Percent of respondents
White 40%
Black or African
American 18%
Asian 3%
Pacific Islander 1%
Multiple Races 29%
Ethnicity:

Hispanic 41%
Not
Hispanic 59%

These figures are provided by the 2019 Santa Clara County Homeless Census & Survey. They provide a regional view of the race and ethnicity data, as the City does not have local data to provide.

Describe the Nature and Extent of Unsheltered and Sheltered Homelessness.

Data Source: County of Santa Clara Continuum of Care
Current Living
Arrangement Percent of respondents
Outdoors 34%
Emergency/Transitional
Shelter 22%

Consolidated Plan MILPITAS 47
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Vehicle 18%
Structure not meant
for permanent
habitation
14%
Motel/Hotel 9%
Other 3%

These figures are provided by the 2019 Santa Clara County Homeless Census & Survey. They provide a regional view of the unsheltered and sheltered data, as the City does not have local data to provide.

As noted above, the City’s HEAT program has assessed over 100 homeless individuals in Milpitas. Of those assessed, approximately 26% were living in a vehicle with most of the remaining individuals living outdoors.

Discussion:

See above

Consolidated Plan MILPITAS 48
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
NA-45 Non-Homeless Special Needs Assessment - 91.205 (b,d) Introduction:

The following section describes the needs of the following non-homeless populations:

Elderly households (defined as 60 years or older)
Persons with developmental, physical, and/or mental disabilities Large households
Female-headed households
Persons living with HIV/AIDS and their families
Describe the characteristics of special needs populations in your community:

Elderly households account for over 11% of the Milpitas population. Many seniors live on fixed incomes, making affordability an issue. Some elderly residents own homes but are unable to afford the maintenance on them due to rising costs. These residents are considered house rich and cash poor where most of their retirement income and/or asset value is tied into the home itself, with few options to safely extract the value.

Persons with developmental, physical, and/or mental disabilities require affordable housing as well as special accommodations in terms of accessibility to ensure maximal independence. These individuals may also live on fixed incomes or with family who provide for them. Over 6% of the population in Milpitas identifies as disabled.

Large households may live in overcrowded environments. As affordability wanes in the region, many low-income families are choosing to live together in order to make rents more affordable.

Female headed households disproportionately pay a higher ratio of gross income as expenses. Rent and childcare costs create challenges for female headed households. Additionally, these households are more likely to overcrowd to share space, rent, and childcare to blunt costs. Affordable housing, childcare subsidy, and/or other financial assistance could benefit female headed households.

Milpitas does not currently have data and/or programs geared toward persons living with HIV/AIDS and their families.

What are the housing and supportive service needs of these populations and how are these needs determined?
The Consolidated Plan Community Survey respondents noted that creation of affordable housing is a significant need for this population. As generally the highest expense incurred, quality of life could be improved by reducing housing costs. Further assistance in terms of childcare, food/nutrition subsidy, and job improvement training could benefit these groups as well.

Discuss the size and characteristics of the population with HIV/AIDS and their families within the Eligible Metropolitan Statistical Area:

Consolidated Plan MILPITAS 49
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
n/a
Discussion:

See above

Consolidated Plan MILPITAS 50
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
NA-50 Non-Housing Community Development Needs – 91.215 (f) Describe the jurisdiction’s need for Public Facilities:

The City of Milpitas Recreation and Community Services Department manages the City’s public facilities. Of the facilities discussed in the Consolidated Plan Community Survey, the two most widely discussed as needing additional funding were: (1) the Barbara Lee Senior Center and (2) the City’s Parks.

How were these needs determined?
Milpitas’ needs were consulted through extensive community engagement. Seventy-one percent of respondents stated that improving city facilities that provide public services was a high priority.

Additionally, the Recreation and Community Services department submitted their budget for the upcoming fiscal year, an approximate $4M in funding for upgrading the City parks was included.

Fifty-six percent of respondents indicated that more funding should go to improving city facilities that provide social services, such as the Barbara Lee Senior Center and the Milpitas Library.

Describe the jurisdiction’s need for Public Improvements:

Milpitas’ needs were consulted through extensive community engagement. Water, street, stormwater, accessibility, sidewalks and trails were among the areas of need for the City.

How were these needs determined?
Milpitas’ needs were consulted through extensive community engagement. Fifty-six percent of respondents to the Consolidated Plan Community Survey noted the need for trail improvements, 53% requested accessibility improvements for people with disabilities, 69% requested water/sewer improvements, and 47% requested improvements to the sidewalks.

Describe the jurisdiction’s need for Public Services:

Currently, the City contracts all of its public services to local or regional non-profits. Milpitas has a need to assist its growing homeless population, elderly households, victims of domestic violence, children and youth, and residents at-risk of eviction.

How were these needs determined?
Milpitas’ needs were consulted through extensive community engagement. Fifty-six percent of respondents to the Consolidated Plan Community Survey responded they’d like to see improvements to non-profit community services, 59% responded that homeless services are very important and should receive more consideration for funding.

Consolidated Plan MILPITAS 51
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
Housing Market Analysis
MA-05 Overview
Housing Market Analysis Overview:

Consolidated Plan MILPITAS 52
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
MA-10 Number of Housing Units – 91.210(a)&(b)(2)
Introduction
Milpitas is predominantly a single-family based community with 75% of the housing stock being single-family attached and detached homes. The remaining housing stock are multi-family units with 14 of the remaining 25% of those units being a property type of 20 or more units.

All residential properties by number of units
Property Type Number %
1-unit detached structure 12,200 54%
1-unit, attached structure 4,814 21%
2-4 units 1,210 5%
5-19 units 1,035 5%
20 or more units 3,075 14%
Mobile Home, boat, RV, van, etc 440 2%
Total 22,774 100%
Table 26 – Residential Properties by Unit Number
Data Source: 2013-2017 ACS

Unit Size by Tenure
Owners Renters
Number % Number %
No bedroom 75 1% 250 3%
1 bedroom 90 1% 1,425 18%
2 bedrooms 1,814 13% 3,075 39%
3 or more bedrooms 12,145 86% 3,045 39%
Total 14,124 101% 7,795 99%
Table 27 – Unit Size by Tenure
Data Source: 2013-2017 ACS

Describe the number and targeting (income level/type of family served) of units assisted with federal, state, and local programs.
• Sunnyhills Apartments, a 171-unit apartment complex with 149 project based rental assistance units
• Terrace Gardens, a 149-unit apartment complex for seniors under 50% AMI Provide an assessment of units expected to be lost from the affordable housing inventory for any reason, such as expiration of Section 8 contracts.

Consolidated Plan MILPITAS 53
OMB Control No: 2506-0117 (exp. 07/31/2015)
The Sunnyhills apartments project based rental assistance contract is set to expire in 2023. At this time the owner has not expressed an interest in renewing their contract with HUD. The Santa Clara County Housing Authority and the City have been in communication with the tenants to provide resources and information to the group to ensure they are aware of their rights and protections should the contract not be renewed.

City and Housing Authority staff has also been in communication with the ownership group to ensure they follow all applicable state and federal laws pertaining to the termination of an affordable unit or development to a market rate one.

Does the availability of housing units meet the needs of the population? As noted during the citizen participation process, there is a significant lack of housing available to lower income populations. At this time, the demand for affordable housing is greater than the availability of the units.

Describe the need for specific types of housing:

Affordable rental housing is needed for all income levels but mostly for below 50% AMI.

Additionally, housing units specifically geared toward seniors, people with disabilities, homeless individuals, and people at-risk of homelessness will assist in providing the most vulnerable with housing opportunities currently unafforded to them.

Discussion
See above