AGENDA
City of Monte Sereno
Tuesday, February 15, 2022
City Council
7:00 PM
Monte Sereno City Council Chambers - 18041 Saratoga -
Los Gatos Road, Monte Sereno, Ca 95030
How to Participate
To maximize public safety while still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can access and participate in the meeting as follows: To listen (only) by telephone dial US: +1 253 215 8782 or +1 346 248 7799 or +1 720 707 2699 or +1 301 715 8592 or +1 312 626 6799 or +1 646 558 8656 . When prompted by the system enter participation Webinar ID: 896 4965 2932 and Password: 180173. To attend the meeting webinar with a PC, Mac, iPad, iPhone or Android device: Please click this URL to join https://us06web.zoom.us/j/89649652932?pwd=QU1ueHZrZFFKT0p5TXZYWHQzZXh6UT09 Passcode:
180173 Or iPhone one-tap (telephone connection) : +12532158782,,89649652932#,,,,*180173# US +13462487799,,89649652932#,,,,*180173# Passcode: 180173.
You will be prompted to install the webinar client appropriate for your device. Attendees are encouraged to install the needed software in advance at the following locations depending on the device being used. If you are unable to participate in real-time, you may email to the City Clerk at [email protected] with the subject line "Public Comment Item #__ " (insert the item number relevant to your comment) or "Verbal Communications - Non Agenda Item." Comments received by email will be read into the record, with a maximum allowance of three (3) minutes per individual comment, subject to the Mayor's discretion.
All comments should be a maximum of 350 words, which corresponds to approximately three (3) minutes of speaking time. If a comment is received after the agenda item is heard but before the close of the meeting, the comment will still be included as a part of the record of the meeting but will not be read into the record. Any member of the public who needs accommodations should email or call the City Manager who will use his best efforts to provide reasonable accommodations to provide as much accessibility as possible while also maintaining public safety in accordance with the City procedure for resolving reasonable accommodation requests. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Manager at 408-498-5285 or [email protected]. If requested of the City Manager, agendas and documents in the agenda packet can be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability.
Page
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
ORDERS OF THE DAY
The Mayor, or a majority of the Council by vote, may change the order of business, except for public hearings on the agenda for a set time.
PRESENTATIONS
1. Black History Month Proclamation
Black History Month Proclamation
5
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Persons wishing to address the Council on any matter of City business not listed on the agenda may do so at this time. Each speaker will normally be allotted three minutes, subject to the Mayor or a majority of the Council’s ability to limit the amount of time allocated to speakers based on the number of speakers and the need for expedient administration of City business in light of the number and length of items on the agenda.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Copies of communications have been provided to Council for review prior to this meeting. Council Members desiring to read or discuss any written communication may do so at this time. No action may be taken except to place a particular item on a future agenda for Council consideration.
CONSENT CALENDAR
(It is recommended that all items listed below be acted on simultaneously unless separate discussion and/or action is required by a Councilmember. One public comment period will be provided, although speakers speaking on more than one item may be allocated additional time by the Mayor or a majority of the Council.)
1. Approve the Minutes of the February 1, 2022 Special and Regular City Council Meeting
Staff recommends approval of the minutes of the February 1, 2022 Special and Regular City Council Meeting.
Staff Report - SR-22-022 - Pdf
6 - 12
2. Approve Warrant List Dated February 15, 2022 in the Amount of $148,044.48
Staff recommends the City Council approve the Warrant List.
Staff Report - SR-22-025 - Pdf
13 - 14
3. Accept the Significant Full Year To Date Variances to Budget Narrative for December 2021
Staff recommends the Council accept the Budget Narrative for December 2021.
Staff Report - SR-22-028 - Pdf
15 - 17
4. Accept Revenues and Expenditures Report for the Month of December 2021
Staff recommends the Council accept the Revenues and Expenditures Report for the month of December 2021.
Staff Report - SR-22-026 - Pdf
18 - 29
5. Accept the LAIF Investment Report for December 2021
Staff recommends the Council accept the LAIF Investment Report for December 2021.
Staff Report - SR-22-027 - Pdf
30 - 32
PUBLIC HEARINGS
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
NEW BUSINESS
1. Consideration of Four(4) Applications and Appointment to Fill Three (3) Vacancies on the Monte Sereno Better Streets Commission Staff recommends the City Council appoint three (3) applicants who applied for the
Better Streets Commission to fill three (3) vacancies on the Monte Sereno Better Streets
Commission.
Staff Report - SR-22-020 - Pdf
33 - 42
2. Discussion to Consider Island Annexations in Unincorporated Santa Clara County known as Urban Islands MS01, MS02, MS03 and MS04 Staff recommends the City Council review provide direction regarding the potential annexation of urban unincorporated islands within the City of Monte Sereno Urban Service Area MS01, MS02, MS03, and MS04.
Staff Report - SR-22-029 - Pdf
Presentation
43 - 99
3. Discussion and Consideration of a City of Monte Sereno Community Grants Deadline, Selection Dates, and Budget Amount
Staff recommends the Monte Sereno City Council chose dates for application deadlines, selection, and a budgeted amount for Community Based Organization Grants or CBO Grants.
Staff Report - SR-22-024 - Pdf
100 - 105
4. Discuss Hosting a City Picnic and Consider a Budget for the City Picnic Staff recommends that the City Council whether to host a City Picnic and if so, determine the budget and direct staff to proceed with coordination.
Staff Report - SR-22-021 - Pdf
106 - 107
COMMITTEE/COMMISSION REPORTS
This time is set aside to allow Councilmembers serving on Council committees or appointed by the City to serve on the boards, commissions or committees of other agencies to present a verbal report on the activities of the respective boards, commissions or committees on which they serve. No discussion or action may be taken other than to place the matter on a future agenda.
COUNCIL MEMBER COMMENTS
This time is set aside to allow Councilmembers to make brief announcements or reports on the Councilmember’s own activities. No discussion or action may be taken other than to place the matter on a future agenda.
CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
This time is set aside to allow Councilmembers to make a specific request for an item to be placed on a future agenda. No discussion or other action may be taken.
ADJOURN
* All items on the agenda are subject to action/or change by the City Council In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk (408) 354-7635. If requested of the City Clerk, agendas and documents in the agenda packet can be made available in appropriate alternative formats to persons with a disability.
Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. [28CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II]
Proclamation Of the Mayor
Of the City of Monte Sereno California
WHEREAS, since 1976, U.S. Presidents have officially designated the month of February as BLACK HISTORY MONTH; WHEREAS, BLACK HISTORY MONTH is an annual celebration of the achievements by African-Americans, and a time to recognize their central role in U.S. History;
WHEREAS, the contributions to science, technology, business, arts, and cultural innovation by African-Americans have been essential to the progress of our nation;
WHEREAS, The City of Monte Sereno is proud to honor the history and contributions of African-Americans in our community, state, and nation;
WHEREAS, the observance of BLACK HISTORY MONTH calls our attention to be proactive and strive for an inclusive community in which all citizens are valued, respected, and recognized for their contributions and potential contributions to our community.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that I, Javed I. Ellahie, Mayor of the City of Monte Sereno, and on behalf of the entire Monte Sereno City Council and the people of Monte Sereno, do hereby proclaim the month of February 2022 to be
BLACK HISTORY MONTH
and encourage all residents of the City of Monte Sereno to join in this observance.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of the City of Monte Sereno this 15th day of February 2022.
_____________________________________________________
Javed I. Ellahie, MAYOR
STAFF REPORT
Meeting: City Council - Feb 15 2022
Agenda Heading: CONSENT CALENDAR
Staff Contact: Michelle Radcliffe, City Clerk
Department: City Clerk
Title: Approve the Minutes of the February 1, 2022 Special and Regular City Council Meeting
Recommendation(s):
Staff recommends approval of the minutes of the February 1, 2022 Special and Regular City Council Meeting.
Fiscal Impact:
There are no unbudgeted fiscal impacts with this agenda item.
Public Noticing:
The City Council’s agenda was posted at City Hall and the agenda and this report appear on the City’s website.
Attachments:
2-1-22 Special Meeting Minutes DRAFT
2-1-22 Regular Meeting Minutes DRAFT
MONTE SERENO CITY COUNCIL
MEETING MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING
6:00 p.m.
February 1, 2022
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
At 6:03 p.m., Mayor Ellahie called the meeting to order.
ROLL CALL
Present: Councilmember Lawler, Councilmember Leuthold, Councilmember Turner, Mayor Pro Tempore Mekechuk, and Mayor Ellahie
Absent: None
Staff Present: City Manager Leonardis, City Attorney Rudin, and City Clerk Estabillo
ORDERS OF THE DAY
There were no changes.
ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION
There were no Public Comment. The City Council adjourned to Closed Session at approximately 6:03 p.m.
CLOSED SESSION
1. (Pursuant to Government Code Section 54957)
PUBLIC EMPLOYEE PERFORMANCE EVALUATION
Title: City Manager
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT
Title: City Manager
CONFERENCE WITH LABOR NEGOTIATIORS
(Government Code Section 54957.6)
Agency designated representatives: City Attorney
Unrepresented employee: City Manager
RECONVENE TO OPEN SESSION
The City Council reconvened to Open Session at approximately 7:00 p.m. with Mayor Pro Tempore Mekechuk, Councilmember Turner, Councilmember Leuthold, and Councilmember Lawler present. (Absent: Mayor Ellahie)
REPORT ON ACTION TAKEN DURING CLOSED SESSION
Mayor Pro Tempore Mekechuk stated there are no reportable actions.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at approximately 7:00 p.m.
Javed I. Ellahie, Mayor
ATTEST:
Michelle Estabillo, City Clerk
MONTE SERENO CITY COUNCIL
MEETING MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING
7:00 p.m.
February 1, 2022
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
At approximately 7:00 p.m., Mayor Ellahie called the meeting to order.
ROLL CALL
Present: Councilmember Lawler, Councilmember Turner, Councilmember Leuthold, Mayor Pro Tempore Mekechuk, and Mayor Ellahie
Absent: None
Staff Present: City Manager Leonardis, City Attorney Rudin, City Engineer Kahn, Deputy City Clerk Gonzalez-Langarica, and City Clerk Radcliffe
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Councilmember Lawler conducted the Pledge of the Allegiance.
ORDERS OF THE DAY
There were no changes.
PRESENTATIONS
There were none.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
There were none.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
There were none.
CONSENT CALENDAR (TO BE ACTED UPON BY A SINGLE MOTION)
1. Approve the January 18, 2022, Regular Meeting Minutes
2. Approve the Warrant List Dated February 1, 2022, in the Amount of $159,711.58
3. Consider and Adopt Resolution Extending Teleconferencing of City Council Meetings Pursuant to Government Code Section 54953 (AB 361) RESOLUTION NO. 22-3842
4. Award of Contract and Authorize the City Manager to Enter Into an Agreement with TL Engineering (TLE) to Complete Plans and Specifications for Daves Neighborhood Improvement Project in an Amount of $47,044
MOTION: Motion by Mayor Pro Tempore Mekechuk to approve the Consent Calendar. Seconded by Councilmember Lawler.
VOTE: Motion passed unanimously. (5-0-0)
PUBLIC HEARINGS
There were none.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
There were none.
NEW BUSINESSS
There were none.
ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION
There were no Public Comment. The City Council adjourned to Closed Session at approximately 7:11 p.m.
CLOSED SESSION
1. CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL – EXISTING LITIGATION
(Government Code section 54956.9(d)(1))
Name of case: Padgett v. Wright, N.D. Cal. Case No. 5:20-cv-00802-EJD
RECONVENE TO OPEN SESSION
The City Council reconvened to Open Session at approximately 8:21 p.m. with all Councilmembers present.
REPORT ON ACTION TAKEN DURING CLOSED SESSION
Mayor Ellahie stated there was no reportable action.
COMMITTEE/COMMISSION REPORTS
Councilmember Leuthold reported that he attended the Santa Clara County Library JPA and stated that libraries in the county have opened to full-service hours. He also reported that the Campbell Library is still under construction, but the satellite is open. Councilmember Leuthold also reported that Silicon Valley Reads has started their 2022 programming and that the libraries that offer passport services have re-opened as well.
Councilmember Lawler reported that Valley Water held its meeting and the water savings goal for November was achieved but there is still a need to conserve as there is a still a risk of subsidence in 2022. She stated that most cities in Santa Clara County have taken formal action on water conservation and that Valley Water is leveraging all tools it can from rate impacts.
Councilmember Turner reported that a female was accosted at St. Joseph’s Hill Open Space Reserve and that the suspect is still at large. She also reported that a Neighborhood Watch Group of 90 homes from Twin Creeks to Via Caballero is looking at setting up cameras at each side of the neighborhood and is looking at installing an NICP shed on the Twin Creeks side.
Mayor Pro Tempore Mekechuk provided an update on the San Jose Water Company rate increase.
He also reported that he was appointed to an Ad Hoc Committee on the West Valley Solid Waste JPA with Campbell Mayor Paul Resnikoff regarding the hauling contract.
Mayor Ellahie provided an update on Silicon Valley Clean Energy. Councilmember Leuthold requested that the links promoting Do-It-Yourself Energy Toolkits from Silicon Valley Clean Energy be posted on our website and social media.
Councilmember Turner reported that West Valley Sanitation District’s facility was broken into, and cameras were stolen.
COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS
Councilmember Lawler stated the incident that happened at St. Joseph’s Hill Open Space Preserve occurred in the early evening and it was dark and reminded residents that when out walking/hiking, you should always have a companion with you.
Councilmember Turner reported on a burglary that occurred at Parker Ranch in Saratoga.
CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
City Manager Leonardis reported that a Special Meeting has been scheduled for March 22 for the Annual Strategic Goals Setting. He also reminded the Council that a Joint Special Meeting with the Site and Architectural Commission regarding the Housing Element has been scheduled for February 24.
FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Mayor Ellahie wanted to discuss Youth Commission appointees at a future meeting.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at approximately 8:46 p.m.
__________________________
Javed I. Ellahie, Mayor
ATTEST:
_______________________________
Michelle Estabillo, City Clerk
STAFF REPORT
Meeting: City Council - Feb 15 2022
Agenda Heading: CONSENT CALENDAR
Staff Contact: Reynold Samoranos,
Department: Finance Manager
Title: Approve Warrant List Dated February 15, 2022 in the Amount of $148,044.48
Recommendation(s):
Staff recommends the City Council approve the Warrant List.
Fiscal Impact:
There are no unbudgeted fiscal impacts with this agenda item.
Public Noticing:
The City Council’s agenda was posted at City Hall and the agenda and this report appear on the City’s website.
Attachments:
Warrants List Dated 2-15-22
CITY OF MONTE SERENO
REGISTER OF ACCOUNTS PAYABLE AS OF THESE DATES:
February 15, 2022
CHECK
NO. TO FOR AMOUNT ACCOUNT NO.
19669 Vantagepoint Transfer
Agent-30 Funding 457 Plan for January 2022 2,916.64 01-660 19670 Complete Drywall Services Install new lights and bulbs at City Hall. Power wash all areas exterior at City Hall. 3,210.00 01-860
19671 BMI Imaging Systems Web hosting and scanning of permit materials. 2,207.18 01-715 19672 Burke,Williams &
Sorensen, LLP
City Attorney services ($6.7k), Labor negotiations
($1.4k), Greenwood Ln case ($0.7k), Padget case
($0.3k).
9,107.80 01-425
01-427
19673 COMCAST Internet services for City Hall (2 months) 223.34 01-720 19674 Dicar Networks, Inc. IT Consulting services for 3 months 3,975.00 01-535 19675 First Choice Coffee
Services Coffee and drinking water services 65.86 01-710 19676 Frontier Communications Dedicated landline for alarm system at City Hall 63.34 01-720 19677 Hillview Design Print Media Business cards for City Clerk 67.18 01-710 19678 League of California Cities Membership dues for FY 2022 2,705.00 01-745 19679 McKim Corporation Neighborhood Improvement Project - La Rinconada 120,427.93 05-870 19680 Pacific Gas & Electric Electricity for Rose Andrews Lighting District 86.46 50-945 19681 Santa Clara Valley
Transportatation Authority
City of Monte Sereno's Annual Congestion
Management Program (CMP) member agency fees 2,443.00 01-745 19682 State Compensation Ins
Fund Workers' Compensation premiums 545.75 01-642
Total Warrant List - February 15, 2022 $148,044.48
I, REYNOLD SAMORANOS, FINANCIAL AND ADMINISTRATION OFFICER DO HEREBY CERTIFY THAT THE
PROCEEDING ACCOUNTS HAVE BEEN CHECKED AND FOUND CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE AND BELIEF.
STAFF REPORT
Meeting: City Council - Feb 15 2022
Agenda Heading: CONSENT CALENDAR
Staff Contact: Reynold Samoranos,
Department: Finance Manager
Title: Accept the Significant Full Year To Date Variances to Budget Narrative for December 2021
Recommendation(s):
Staff recommends the Council accept the Budget Narrative for December 2021.
Fiscal Impact:
There are no unbudgeted fiscal impacts with this agenda item.
Public Noticing:
The City Council's agenda was posted at City Hall and the agenda and this report appear on the city's website.
Attachments:
Significant Year To Date Variances to Budget Narrative for December 2021
1 | P a g e
Significant Revenue and Expenditures Narrative
December 2021
50.0% of FY 2021-22 Adopted Budget
Revenues
SIGNIFICANT FULL YEAR VARIANCES TO ADOPTED BUDGET NARRATIVE Revenues $2.2 Million (44.9% of FY 2021-22 Adopted Budget) - Property Tax $766k, 33.7% of FY 2021-22 Adopted Budget: In December received Secured 3rd Advance property tax $347k (01-202) and ($470) 40-366, SB 813 Supplemental revenue ($2k).
- Licenses and Permits $507k, 76.1% of FY 2021-22 Adopted Budget: Licenses and Permits activities continue to be robust this year. In December, led by construction permits submitted by properties on Poppy Ln ($8k), Andrews Ave ($8k), Bancroft Ave ($4k), Saratoga-Los Gatos Rd ($2k), Blanchard Dr. ($2k), Daves Ave ($2k) and Zena Ave ($2k) (01-236). Encroachment permits $3k (01-244). - Franchise Fees $101k, 32.5% of FY 2021-22 Adopted Budget: Received $82k West Valley Collection franchise fees (01-266/01-267) and Comcast franchise fees ($19k) (01-268) - Intergovernmental $110k, 48.4% of FY 2021-22 Adopted Budget: Received $8k COPS ELEAS pass-thru grant revenue (03-318)
- Other Revenues $93k, 24.1% of FY 2021-22 Adopted Budget: In December, received Road Impact Fees from projects on Poppy Ln, Lancaster Rd, Rose Ave, Grosvenor Ct, Chadbourne Ln, Ridgecrest Av and Oak Dr. $5k (01- 246).
- Gas Tax $84k, 48.0% of FY 2021-22 Adopted Budget: Received $7k Gas Tax (12-328) and $6k from SB-1 Road Maintenance & Rehabilitation revenue (12-333).
- Real Property Tax $97k, 47.1% of FY 2021-22 Adopted Budget: Received $16k in real property transfer tax for the month of December (01-222).
- Sales and Use Tax $417k, 71.8% of FY 2021-22 Adopted Budget: Received $2k in sales and use tax (01-296) and already received Coronavirus Relief Fund of $410k.
- Investment Income/Interest $4k, 14.2% of FY 2021-22 Adopted Budget: 2nd Quarter FY 2021-22 interest from LAIF will be booked in January 2022.
2 | P a g e
Significant Revenue and Expenditures Narrative
December 2021
50.0% of FY 2021-22 Adopted Budget
Expenditures
SIGNIFICANT FULL YEAR VARIANCES TO ADOPTED BUDGET NARRATIVE Expenditures $2.3 Million, 30.9% of FY 2021-22 Adopted Budget - Personnel $605k, 46.4% of FY 2021-22 Adopted Budget: Salaries tracking budget. Unfunded Pension liabilities lower versus the Adopted Budget.
- Law Enforcement $441k, 41.3% of FY 2021-22 Adopted Budget: Paid COPS ELEAS pass-thru Grant $70k to Los Gatos Police Department (03-548) and paid monthly Police services $84k (03-545). - Construction $ zero, 0.0% of FY 2021-22 Adopted Budget: None. - General Government $296k, 59.9% of FY 2021-22 Adopted Budget: Paid EMC Planning Group for Support Project and Housing Element Project $10k and M-Group for consulting work on the Objective Design Standards 10project $7k (01-535). EOS Integration IT/remote host consulting $9k (01-535). Code Enforcement Consultant $9k (01-545). KCAT TV 15 Community Assistance $5k (01-550) and Silicon Valley Animal Control quarterly payment $8k (01-585).
- Maintenance $631k, 23.2% of FY 2021-22 Adopted Budget: Paid $298k for La Rinconada Neighborhood St Improvement Project. Tree maintenance work at 3 Monte Sereno locations $11k (01-845). Asphalt removal and installation at Robin Anne Ln $5k
- Administration $220k, 47.2% of FY 2021-22 Adopted Budget: Paid CSG Consultants, Inc for Building Inspector services $5k and Alana Consulting $53k for plan checks October and December (01-765). Copier rental and BMI Imaging Systems for coping permit plan $7k (01-715). EOS Integration for City Hall office phone System $1k for 2 months (01-720) and Civic Plus for City website portal $3k (01-720). - City Attorney $92k, 53.5% of FY 2021-22 Adopted Budget: City Attorney expenses $7k (01-425) and legal representation for open cases – Shekar, Padget, Greenwood, general litigation and labor negotiations / personnel matters $16k (01-427).
- Building Maintenance $16k, 2.5% of FY 2021-22 Adopted Budget: Janitorial services and supplies $447 (01- 860).
- Equipment / Improvements $20k, 14.8% of FY 2021-22 Adopted Budget: EOS Integration for various software licenses $3k (01-811).
- City Audit $2k, 3.1% of FY 2021-22 Adopted Budget: Minimal expenses paid during December 2021.
STAFF REPORT
Meeting: City Council - Feb 15 2022
Agenda Heading: CONSENT CALENDAR
Staff Contact: Reynold Samoranos,
Department: Finance Manager
Title: Accept Revenues and Expenditures Report for the Month of December 2021
Recommendation(s):
Staff recommends the Council accept the Revenues and Expenditures Report for the month of December 2021.
Fiscal Impact:
There are no unbudgeted fiscal impacts with this agenda item.
Public Noticing:
The City Council's agenda was posted at the City Hall and the agenda this report appear on the City's website.
Attachments:
Revenue and Expenditures Monthly Report Dated 12-31-21
THE CITY OF MONTE SERENO
REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES REPORT
FOR THE MONTH OF
December 2021
50.0% OF FY 2021-22 Adopted Budget
REVENUES
PROPERTY TAX
LICENSE & PERMITS
FRANCHISE TAX
INTERGOVERNMENTAL
OTHER REVENUE
GAS TAX
INTEREST
REAL PROPERTY TAX
SALES TAX
FINES
TOTAL REVENUE
FY 2021-22 Adopted
Budget
CURRENT MONTH
December 2021
FY 2021-22 YTD
ACTUAL
FY 2021-22 YTD
vs. FY 2021-22 Full
Year Budget -
Higher/(Lower)
% OF YTD
ACTUAL VS.
Full Year
ADOPTED
BUDGET
2,274,100 351,002 765,968 (1,508,132) 33.7%
666,525 45,094 507,480 (159,045) 76.1%
310,700 34,951 101,096 (209,604) 32.5%
227,250 8,946 110,059 (117,191) 48.4%
385,600 4,993 92,872 (292,728) 24.1%
176,000 12,680 84,490 (91,510) 48.0%
24,800 0 3,515 (21,285) 14.2%
205,245 16,104 96,622 (108,623) 47.1%
581,325 2,059 417,178 (164,147) 71.8%
3,500 330 1,006 (2,494) 28.8%
4,855,045 476,160 2,180,286 (2,674,759) 44.9%
Page: 1 of 11 File: REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES MONTHLY REPORT 2021 12 31 (Final 02-09-2022).xlsx Page 19 of 107
THE CITY OF MONTE SERENO
REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES REPORT
FOR THE MONTH OF
December 2021
50.0% OF FY 2021-22 Adopted Budget
PROPERTY TAX
01-202 Secured
01-204 Unsecured
01-210 Homeowners Exemption
01-214 SB 813 Supplemental
03-316 Law Enforcement Tax (See Notes
Below)
40-366 Secured
40-368 Unsecured
40-370 Homeowners Exemption
40-378 Homeowner Exempt/SB813
50-402 Assessment
TOTAL PROPERTY TAX
Notes to Law Enforcement Tax - $106,000
03-316
Police Special Tax Assessment
two payments received January &
June - $106,000
SALES TAX
01-296 Sales and UseTax
01-298 Coronavirus Relief Fund (State)
TOTAL SALES TAX
GAS TAX
12-328 Gas Tax
12-333 Gas Tax (SB-1)
TOTAL GAS TAX
FRANCHISE TAX
01-262 Gas
01-263 Electricity
01-264 Water
01-266 Refuse
01-267 Recycle HHW & JPA fees
01-268 Cable TV
TOTAL FRANCHISE TAX
FY 2021-22 Adopted
Budget
CURRENT MONTH
December 2021
FY 2021-22 YTD
ACTUAL
FY 2021-22 YTD
vs. FY 2021-22 Full
Year Budget -
Higher/(Lower)
% OF YTD
ACTUAL VS.
Full Year
ADOPTED
BUDGET
2,039,700 347,652 673,610 (1,366,090) 33.0%
87,000 0 85,304 (1,696) 98.1%
5,000 806 806 (4,194) 16.1%
35,000 2,070 5,211 (29,789) 14.9%
106,000 0 0 (106,000) 0.0%
1,400 470 914 (486) 65.3%
0 0 114 114 N/A
0 1 1 1 N/A
0 3 7 7 N/A
0 0 0 0 N/A
2,274,100 351,002 765,968 (1,508,132) 33.7%
7,825 2,059 7,273 (552) 92.9%
573,500 0 409,905 (163,595) 71.5%
581,325 2,059 417,178 (164,147) 71.8%
176,000 6,919 47,726 (128,275) 27.1%
0 5,762 36,765 36,765 N/A
176,000 12,680 84,490 (91,510) 48.0%
17,600 0 0 (17,600) 0.0%
38,000 0 0 (38,000) 0.0%
29,600 0 0 (29,600) 0.0%
120,100 31,777 65,256 (54,844) 54.3%
31,700 3,174 17,115 (14,585) 54.0%
73,700 0 18,725 (54,975) 25.4%
310,700 34,951 101,096 (209,604) 32.5%
Page: 2 of 11 File: REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES MONTHLY REPORT 2021 12 31 (Final 02-09-2022).xlsx Page 20 of 107
THE CITY OF MONTE SERENO
REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES REPORT
FOR THE MONTH OF
December 2021
50.0% OF FY 2021-22 Adopted Budget
REAL PROPERTY TAX
01-222 Real Prop Transfer Tax
01-225 SB 2 Real Estate Transactions
TOTAL REAL PROP. TAX
LICENSE AND PERMIT FEES
01-231 SB1186 Fees
01-232 Business License
01-234 ConstructionTax
01-235 SMIP
01-236 Construction Permits
01-237 Grading Permits
01-238 SB1473 (BSASRF)
01-240 Subdivision Fee
01-241 Site Development\Use\Variance\
01-242 Zoning Fees
01-244 Encroachments
01-245 Community Planning Fee
. TOTAL LICENSE & PERMITS
FINES
01-293 Alarm Soundings
05-322 Traffic Safety (Bails & Fines)
TOTAL FINES
INVESTMENT INCOME
01-282 Interest - General (See Notes
Below)
12-332 Gas Tax Interest
. TOTAL INTEREST
.
Notes to Interest - General - $24,150
01-282
LAIF interest payment received in
arrears - 1st Qtr in October
($3,515 Actual), 2nd Qtr in
January, 3rd Qtr in April and 4th
Qtr in July.
FY 2021-22 Adopted
Budget
CURRENT MONTH
December 2021
FY 2021-22 YTD
ACTUAL
FY 2021-22 YTD
vs. FY 2021-22 Full
Year Budget -
Higher/(Lower)
% OF YTD
ACTUAL VS.
Full Year
ADOPTED
BUDGET
95,000 16,104 96,622 1,622 101.7%
110,245 0 0 (110,245) 0.0%
205,245 16,104 96,622 (108,623) 47.1%
1,175 28 540 (635) 46.0%
21,000 721 10,566 (10,434) 50.3%
12,200 0 18,868 6,668 154.7%
1,700 124 2,103 403 123.7%
500,000 39,515 386,323 (113,677) 77.3%
32,000 0 25,572 (6,428) 79.9%
700 39 682 (18) 97.4%
0 0 186 186 N/A
0 0 1,888 1,888 N/A
3,350 0 0 (3,350) 0.0%
53,000 2,736 28,585 (24,415) 53.9%
41,400 1,931 32,166 (9,234) 77.7%
666,525 45,094 507,480 (159,045) 76.1%
0 0 0 0 N/A
3,500 330 1,006 (2,494) 28.8%
3,500 330 1,006 (2,494) 28.8%
24,150 0 3,140 (21,010) 13.0%
650 0 375 (275) 57.7%
24,800 0 3,515 (21,285) 14.2%
Page: 3 of 11 File: REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES MONTHLY REPORT 2021 12 31 (Final 02-09-2022).xlsx Page 21 of 107
THE CITY OF MONTE SERENO
REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES REPORT
FOR THE MONTH OF
December 2021
50.0% OF FY 2021-22 Adopted Budget
INTERGOVERNMENTAL
01-287 AB939 (recycle incentive)
01-288 Abandoned Vehicle Abatement
01-300 Motor vehicle (state)
01-305 Miscellaneous
03-318 COPS grant revenue
05-323 Miscellaneous (Measure B &VRF)
See Notes Below
TOTAL INTERGOVERNMENTAL
Notes to Miscellaneous (05-323) - $120,000
05-323
Measure B - $70,000 for
Winchester Blvd Class IV
Proteced Bike Lanes (received
$22,031 October 2021)
05-323
VRF - $23,500 for Winchester
Blvd Class IV Proteced Bike
Lanes
05-323 Highway 9 Safety Improvements
Gap Closure - $26,500
. OTHER REVENUE
01-246 Road Impact fees
01-290 BCJPIA/State fund Ins. rebate
01-291 Microfilm Fee
01-292 Miscellaneous (See Notes Below)
01-294 Reimb. Publication
01-295 Code Enforcement Collections
25-352 Storm drain dev fees
25-354 Storm Drain maintenance/Administration
General Fund Transfer for CIP
Beginning Equity Balance
TOTAL OTHER REVENUE
Notes to Miscellaneous (01-292) $283,600
01-292 Secured Grant for Annex Building
Project $198,600
01-292 Housing Element - Leap Grant
$65,000
01-292 Housing Element - Reap Grant
$20,000
TOTAL REVENUE
FY 2021-22 Adopted
Budget
CURRENT MONTH
December 2021
FY 2021-22 YTD
ACTUAL
FY 2021-22 YTD
vs. FY 2021-22 Full
Year Budget -
Higher/(Lower)
% OF YTD
ACTUAL VS.
Full Year
ADOPTED
BUDGET
2,500 0 495 (2,005) 19.8%
1,750 613 1,247 (503) 71.3%
3,000 0 0 (3,000) 0.0%
0 0 0 0 N/A
100,000 8,333 86,285 (13,715) 86.3%
120,000 0 22,031 (97,969) 18.4%
227,250 8,946 110,059 (117,191) 48.4%
90,000 4,658 82,095 (7,905) 91.2%
0 0 140 140 N/A
6,000 320 3,933 (2,067) 65.6%
283,600 15 35 (283,565) 0.0%
0 0 0 0 N/A
0 0 0 0 N/A
6,000 0 6,669 669 111.1%
0 0 0 0 N/A
0 0 0 0 N/A
0 0 0 0 N/A
385,600 4,993 92,872 (292,728) 24.1%
4,855,045 476,160 2,180,286 (2,674,759) 44.9%
Page: 4 of 11 File: REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES MONTHLY REPORT 2021 12 31 (Final 02-09-2022).xlsx Page 22 of 107
THE CITY OF MONTE SERENO
REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES REPORT
FOR THE MONTH OF
December 2021
50.0% OF FY 2021-22 Adopted Budget
EXPENDITURES
PERSONNEL
LAW ENFORCEMENT
CONSTRUCTION
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
MAINTENANCE
ADMINISTRATION
CITY ATTORNEY
BUILDING MAINTENANCE
EQUIPMENT / IMPROVEMENT
CITY AUDIT
ENGINEERING
SPECIAL DISTRICTS
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
NET SURPLUS / (DEFICIT)
FY 2021-22 Adopted
Budget
CURRENT MONTH
December 2021
FY 2021-22 YTD
ACTUAL
FY 2021-22 YTD
vs. FY 2021-22 Full
Year Budget -
Higher/(Lower)
% OF YTD
ACTUAL VS.
Full Year
ADOPTED
BUDGET
1,302,975 100,731 605,145 (697,830) 46.4%
1,067,085 153,430 440,779 (626,306) 41.3%
405,406 0 0 (405,406) 0.0%
495,588 48,575 296,713 (198,875) 59.9%
2,723,100 316,139 630,687 (2,092,413) 23.2%
465,880 74,943 219,678 (246,202) 47.2%
171,200 22,828 91,671 (79,529) 53.5%
645,000 447 16,055 (628,945) 2.5%
132,800 3,843 19,679 (113,121) 14.8%
58,600 160 1,833 (56,767) 3.1%
50,000 0 0 (50,000) 0.0%
0 207 502 502 N/A
7,517,634 721,303 2,322,742 (5,194,892) 30.9%
(2,662,589) (245,143) (142,457) 2,520,132 5.4%
Page: 5 of 11 File: REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES MONTHLY REPORT 2021 12 31 (Final 02-09-2022).xlsx Page 23 of 107
THE CITY OF MONTE SERENO
REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES REPORT
FOR THE MONTH OF
December 2021
50.0% OF FY 2021-22 Adopted Budget
EXPENDITURES
GENERAL GOVERNMENT
01-505 Council Trvl, Mtgs,Protocol
01-506 Youth Commission Programs
01-507 Community Interface
01-515 Council Memberships
01-520 Elections
01-521 Municipal Code Revision
01-522 Environmental Services
01-531 Disbursement SMIP
01-532 SB1473 (BSASRF)
01-533 Disbruse SB1186 Fees
01-535 Professional Services
01-540 Insurance & Bonding
01-545 Code Enforcement
01-550 Community Based Organizations
01-555 Emergency Services
01-560 Annexation
01-565 Legal Ads/Notices/Recording fees
01-570 General Plan Revise
01-575 Misc/Refunds
01-576 Sales Tax
01-585 Animal Control
TOTAL GENERAL GOVERNMENT
FY 2021-22 Adopted
Budget
CURRENT MONTH
December 2021
FY 2021-22 YTD
ACTUAL
FY 2021-22 YTD
vs. FY 2021-22 Full
Year Budget -
Higher/(Lower)
% OF YTD
ACTUAL VS.
Full Year
ADOPTED
BUDGET
15,000 108 1,914 (13,086) 12.8%
3,000 0 0 (3,000) 0.0%
11,000 0 3,200 (7,800) 29.1%
12,000 0 1,572 (10,428) 13.1%
0 0 0 N/A
2,678 900 2,875 197 107.4%
22,035 0 3,007 (19,028) 13.6%
11,460 0 0 (11,460) 0.0%
500 0 0 (500) 0.0%
200 0 0 (200) 0.0%
232,000 25,665 125,606 (106,394) 54.1%
87,215 0 86,391 (824) 99.1%
30,000 8,683 15,899 (14,101) 53.0%
20,000 5,000 25,000 5,000 125.0%
12,000 0 0 (12,000) 0.0%
0 0 0 0 N/A
2,500 520 8,003 5,503 320.1%
0 0 0 0 N/A
1,000 0 150 (850) 15.0%
0 0 0 0 N/A
33,000 7,699 23,096 (9,905) 70.0%
495,588 48,575 296,713 (198,875) 59.9%
Page: 6 of 11 File: REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES MONTHLY REPORT 2021 12 31 (Final 02-09-2022).xlsx Page 24 of 107
THE CITY OF MONTE SERENO
REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES REPORT
FOR THE MONTH OF
December 2021
50.0% OF FY 2021-22 Adopted Budget
PERSONNEL
01-605 Regular Full Time
01-615 Part Time
01-620 Long Term Disablity Ins
01-625 Retirement Employer
01-627 Retirement Employee
01-630 Health Insurance
01-635 Dental Insurance
01-642 Workers Comp. Insurance
01-645 Social Security
01-647 Medicare
01-650 Unemployment
01-660 Deferred Compensation
01-665 Benefits Allowance
TOTAL PERSONNEL
ADMINISTRATION
01-705 Office Utilities
01-710 Office Supplies
01-711 Postage
01-715 Office Equip Maintenance
01-718 Bank Fee Finance Charge
01-720 Communications
01-725 Reproduction/Printing
01-740 Mtgs/Trvl/Mileage reimb.
01-745 Publications/Memberships
01-755 Professional Services
01-765 Contract Services
01-770 Training
01-775 Miscellaneous
01-885 Horticultural/Arborist Services
01-999 City Mangers Revolving Account
TOTAL ADMINISTRATION
FY 2021-22 Adopted
Budget
CURRENT MONTH
December 2021
FY 2021-22 YTD
ACTUAL
FY 2021-22 YTD
vs. FY 2021-22 Full
Year Budget -
Higher/(Lower)
% OF YTD
ACTUAL VS.
Full Year
ADOPTED
BUDGET
893,194 78,561 452,442 (440,752) 50.7%
0 0 0 0 N/A
0 0 0 0 N/A
136,947 6,143 38,818 (98,129) 28.3%
32,775 2,049 11,828 (20,947) 36.1%
101,807 6,686 42,139 (59,668) 41.4%
7,267 969 4,239 (3,028) 58.3%
11,165 785 3,706 (7,459) 33.2%
53,592 2,743 24,871 (28,721) 46.4%
13,398 1,174 6,776 (6,622) 50.6%
294 0 42 (252) 14.3%
24,693 0 10,547 (14,146) 42.7%
27,843 1,620 9,738 (18,105) 35.0%
1,302,975 100,731 605,145 (697,830) 46.4%
11,500 847 4,315 (7,185) 37.5%
15,000 2,141 5,299 (9,701) 35.3%
5,000 1,384 1,399 (3,601) 28.0%
14,280 7,488 18,638 4,358 130.5%
0 70 70 N/A
32,500 3,875 21,326 (11,174) 65.6%
8,500 0 3,012 (5,488) 35.4%
5,600 800 6,519 919 116.4%
22,000 930 9,670 (12,330) 44.0%
0 0 0 0 N/A
335,000 57,478 148,931 (186,069) 44.5%
7,000 0 500 (6,500) 7.1%
0 0 0 N/A
7,000 0 0 (7,000) 0.0%
2,500 0 0 (2,500) 0.0%
465,880 74,943 219,678 (246,202) 47.2%
Page: 7 of 11 File: REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES MONTHLY REPORT 2021 12 31 (Final 02-09-2022).xlsx Page 25 of 107
THE CITY OF MONTE SERENO
REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES REPORT
FOR THE MONTH OF
December 2021
50.0% OF FY 2021-22 Adopted Budget
EQUIPMENT/IMPROVEMENTS
01-805 Office
01-810 Field
01-811 Computer, Hard/Software
01-815 Building Improvements
TOTAL EQUIPMENT / IMPROVEMENTS
LAW ENFORCEMENT
03-545 Police Services
01-546 Booking & CAL-ID
03-548 Disburse COPS grant funds
TOTAL LAW ENFORCEMENT
BUILDING MAINTENANCE
01-860 Building & Ground Maint
01-920 Building & Ground Const
TOTAL BUILDING MAINTENANCE
MAINTENANCE
01-845 Pavement Management Program
12-845 Pavement Management Program
05-850 Storm Drain Maintenance
05-870 Traffic Safety (signs & markings)
05-880 Traffic Safety (emergency calls&repairs)
05-890 Traffic Safety ( street lighting)
12-865 Street Sweeping
25-850 Storm Drain Maintenance
TOTAL MAINTENANCE
FY 2021-22 Adopted
Budget
CURRENT MONTH
December 2021
FY 2021-22 YTD
ACTUAL
FY 2021-22 YTD
vs. FY 2021-22 Full
Year Budget -
Higher/(Lower)
% OF YTD
ACTUAL VS.
Full Year
ADOPTED
BUDGET
15,000 0 0 (15,000) 0.0%
0 0 0 0 N/A
117,800 3,843 19,679 (98,121) 16.7%
0 0 0 0 N/A
132,800 3,843 19,679 (113,121) 14.8%
967,085 83,812 329,494 (637,591) 34.1%
0 0 0 0 N/A
100,000 69,618 111,285 11,285 111.3%
1,067,085 153,430 440,779 (626,306) 41.3%
45,000 447 14,560 (30,440) 32.4%
600,000 0 1,495 (598,505) 0.2%
645,000 447 16,055 (628,945) 2.5%
2,500 10,800 11,605 9,105 464.2%
0 0 0 0 N/A
0 0 0 N/A
2,685,000 297,599 598,744 (2,086,256) 22.3%
10,000 5,170 5,170 (4,830) 51.7%
4,200 0 2,765 (1,435) 65.8%
11,400 0 1,833 (9,567) 16.1%
10,000 2,570 10,570 570 105.7%
2,723,100 316,139 630,687 (2,092,413) 23.2%
Page: 8 of 11 File: REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES MONTHLY REPORT 2021 12 31 (Final 02-09-2022).xlsx Page 26 of 107
THE CITY OF MONTE SERENO
REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES REPORT
FOR THE MONTH OF
December 2021
50.0% OF FY 2021-22 Adopted Budget
CONSTRUCTION
01-905 Gen Fund Road Proj.(FY2018/19)
01-915 Neighborhood St. Improve Project
05-905 Traffic Safety Project
05-925 Traffic Safety Misc Bike/Ped Improv
12-915 Gas Tax Road Project
25-910 Storm Drain Project
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION
ENGINEERING
Mapping and Records System
12-875 Congestion Management
25-805 WV Clean Water Administration
TOTAL ENGINEERING
SPECIAL DISTRICTS
40-935 Loma Serena Lighting
50-945 Rose/Andrews Lighting
TOTAL SPECIAL DISTRICTS
FY 2021-22 Adopted
Budget
CURRENT MONTH
December 2021
FY 2021-22 YTD
ACTUAL
FY 2021-22 YTD
vs. FY 2021-22 Full
Year Budget -
Higher/(Lower)
% OF YTD
ACTUAL VS.
Full Year
ADOPTED
BUDGET
60,000 0 0 (60,000) 0.0%
0 0 0 0 N/A
0 0 0 0 N/A
340,000 0 0 (340,000) 0.0%
0 0 0 0 N/A
5,406 0 0 (5,406) 0.0%
405,406 0 0 (405,406) 0.0%
0 0 0 N/A
18,000 0 0 (18,000) 0.0%
32,000 0 0 (32,000) 0.0%
50,000 0 0 (50,000) 0.0%
164 287 287 N/A
43 215 215 N/A
0 207 502 502 N/A
Page: 9 of 11 File: REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES MONTHLY REPORT 2021 12 31 (Final 02-09-2022).xlsx Page 27 of 107
THE CITY OF MONTE SERENO
REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES REPORT
FOR THE MONTH OF
December 2021
50.0% OF FY 2021-22 Adopted Budget
CITY ATTORNEY
01-425 Retainer
01-427 Litigation
01-430 City Attorney litigation
01-435 Mtg, Trv, Prot.
TOTAL CITY ATTORNEY
CITY AUDIT
01-470 Audit
12-472 Gas Tax Audit
01-480 Misc/Bank charges
TOTAL CITY AUDIT
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
NET SURPLUS / (DEFICIT)
FY 2021-22 Adopted
Budget
CURRENT MONTH
December 2021
FY 2021-22 YTD
ACTUAL
FY 2021-22 YTD
vs. FY 2021-22 Full
Year Budget -
Higher/(Lower)
% OF YTD
ACTUAL VS.
Full Year
ADOPTED
BUDGET
111,200 7,199 43,412 (67,788) 39.0%
60,000 15,629 48,260 (11,740) 80.4%
0 0 0 0 N/A
0 0 0 0 N/A
171,200 22,828 91,671 (79,529) 53.5%
50,100 0 0 (50,100) 0.0%
3,500 0 0 (3,500) 0.0%
5,000 160 1,833 (3,167) 36.7%
58,600 160 1,833 (56,767) 3.1%
7,517,634 721,303 2,322,742 (5,194,892) 30.9%
(2,662,589) (245,143) (142,457) 2,520,132 5.4%
Page: 10 of 11 File: REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES MONTHLY REPORT 2021 12 31 (Final 02-09-2022).xlsx Page 28 of 107
THE CITY OF MONTE SERENO
REVENUES AND EXPENDITURES REPORT
FOR THE MONTH OF
December 2021
50.0% OF FY 2021-22 Adopted Budget
TOTAL FUND RESERVES
WARRANT CHECKING ACCOUNT
01-010 TOTAL WARRANT CHECKING
SAVINGS ACCOUNT
01-015 General
03-015 Law Enforecment
05-015 Traffic Safety
12-015 Gas Tax (2107)
25-015 Storm Drain
30-015 Surety Trust
40-015 Loma Serena Ltg.
50-015 Rose/Andrews Ltg
TOTAL SAVINGS
TOTAL DEMAND ACCOUNTS
LAIF GENERAL FUND ACCOUNT
Undesignated Reserve
Economic Fluctuation Reserve
Capital Improvement Program Reserve
Property Improvement Reserve
Other Post Emplpoyment Benefits (OPEB)
01-025 Subtotal Unrestricted Reserve
05-025 Trafffic Safety
12-025 2107 GAS TAX
25-025 Storm Drain
30-025 Surety Trust
40-024 Loma Serena Lighting District
Subtotal Restricted Reserve
TOTAL GENERAL FUND RESERVE
TOTAL ALL FUNDS
FY 2021-22 Adopted
Budget
CURRENT MONTH
December 2021
FY 2021-22 YTD
ACTUAL
FY 2021-22 YTD
vs. FY 2021-22 Full
Year Budget -
Higher/(Lower)
% OF YTD
ACTUAL VS.
Full Year
ADOPTED
BUDGET
13,695 (10,421) 45,573 31,878 332.8%
1,796,361 47,375 (450,347) (2,246,708) -25.1%
(811,083) (33,333) 36,287 847,370 -4.5%
(2,570,127) 152 119,234 2,689,361 -4.6%
214,966 20,395 167,342 (47,624) 77.8%
30,369 0 488,349 457,980 1608.1%
73 0 73 (0) 99.7%
2,888 420 2,357 (531) 81.6%
39 0 39 (0) 99.8%
(1,336,514) 35,008 363,334 1,699,848 -27.2%
(1,322,819) 24,587 408,907 1,731,726 -30.9%
533,850 0 1,091,002 557,152 204.4%
3,500,000 0 3,500,000 0 100.0%
500,000 0 500,000 0 100.0%
200,000 0 200,000 0 100.0%
0 0 0 0 N/A
4,733,850 0 5,291,002 557,152 111.8%
100,000 0 300,000 200,000 300.0%
129,793 0 130,400 607 100.5%
21,000 0 21,000 0 100.0%
27,043 0 27,043 0 100.0%
6,751 0 6,751 0 100.0%
284,587 0 485,194 200,607 170.5%
5,018,437 0 5,776,196 757,759 115.1%
3,695,618 24,587 6,185,103 2,489,485 167.4%
Page: 11 of 11 File: REVENUE AND EXPENDITURES MONTHLY REPORT 2021 12 31 (Final 02-09-2022).xlsx Page 29 of 107
STAFF REPORT
Meeting: City Council - Feb 15 2022
Agenda Heading: CONSENT CALENDAR
Staff Contact: Reynold Samoranos,
Department: Finance Manager
Title: Accept the LAIF Investment Report for December 2021 Recommendation(s):
Staff recommends the Council accept the LAIF Investment Report for December 2021.
Fiscal Impact:
There are no unbudgeted fiscal impacts with this agenda item.
Public Noticing:
The City Council's agenda was posted at City Hall and the agenda and this report appear on the City's website.
Attachments:
LAIF Investment Report 2021 Dated 12-31-21
City of Monte Sereno
Investment Accounts
Local Agency Investment Fund Wells Fargo Accounts Custodian For the period ending
December 31, 2021
ALL FUNDS REPORT
LAIF GENERAL FUND RESERVE ACCOUNT
Undesignated Reserve
Economic Fluctuation Reserve
Capital Improvement Program Reserve
Property Improvement Reserve
Other Post Emplpoyment Benefits (OPEB)
01-025 Subtotal Unrestricted Reserves
05-025 Trafffic Safety
12-025 2107 GAS TAX
25-025 Storm Drain
30-025 Surety Trust
Building Fund
40-024 Loma Serena Ltg.
Subtotal Restricted Reserve
Total General Fund Reserve - LAIF
11/30/2021 Revenue Interest and
(Disbursements )
Transfers within WFB between
5508 and 2153
Transfer in/(Out) (From WFB
5508 to LAIF) 12/31/2021 Comments
`
1,091,001.94 1,091,001.94
3,500,000.00 3,500,000.00
500,000.00 500,000.00 No Activity
200,000.00 200,000.00
0.00 0.00
5,291,001.94 0.00 0.00 0.00 5,291,001.94
300,000.00 300,000.00
130,400.17 130,400.17
21,000.00 21,000.00
27,042.53 27,042.53 No Activity
0.00 0.00
6,751.00 6,751.00
485,193.70 0.00 0.00 0.00 485,193.70
5,776,195.64 0.00 0.00 0.00 5,776,195.64
NOTES:
Interest is deposited directly to LAIF account. This monthly report is in compliance with the City's investment policy and demonstrates the City's ability to meet its expenditure requirements for the next six months.
City of Monte Sereno
Investment Accounts
Local Agency Investment Fund Wells Fargo Accounts Custodian For the period ending
December 31, 2021
ALL FUNDS REPORT
SAVINGS ACCOUNT #5508
01-015 General
03-015 Law Enforecment
05-015 Traffic Safety
12-015 Gas Tax (2107)
25-015 Storm Drain
30-015 Surety Trust
40-015 Loma Serena Ltg.
50-015 Rose/Andrews Ltg
Total
WARRANT CHECKING ACCOUNT #2153
01-010 Total
Total All Funds
11/30/2021 Revenue Interest and
(Disbursements )
Transfers within WFB between
5508 and 2153
Transfer in/(Out) (From WFB
5508 to LAIF) 12/31/2021 Comments
(450,346.90) 453,340.19 (663,376.15) (660,382.86)
In December 2021, received Secured Property Tax 3rd
Advance ($348k), West Valley Collection Franchise Fee
($34k), Transfer tax November ($16k), Building permits
on Poppy Ln ($13k) and Building permit on Andrews Ave
($8k).
36,286.58 8,333.33 (69,618.18) (24,998.27) Received COPS ELEAS Grant pass-thru ($8k) 119,234.34 330.16 119,564.50 Received Bails and Fines - October 2021 167,342.49 12,680.46 180,022.95 Received Gas Tax Revenue ($13k) 488,348.86 0.00 488,348.86
72.75 0.00 72.75
2,356.77 473.71 2,830.48 Received Secured Property Taxes 3rd Advancement ($2k).
38.94 0.00 38.94
363,333.83 475,157.85 (732,994.33) 0.00 105,497.35
45,573.14 (720,178.76) 732,994.33 58,388.71
In December 2021, paid Gradetech Inc for La Rinconada
Neighborhood St Improvement Project ($280k), Employee
Net pay plus 457 Plan Funding ($58k), Police Services
($84k), COPS ELEAS Grant pass-thru to Los Gatos Police
services ($70k), Plan Check Consultant ($53k), Staff
benefits & payroll taxes ($42k) and Burke, Williams &
Sorensen for legal services ($20k),
6,185,102.61 (245,020.91) 0.00 0.00 5,940,081.70
NOTES:
Interest is deposited directly to LAIF account. This monthly report is in compliance with the City's investment policy and demonstrates the City's ability to meet its expenditure requirements for the next six months.
STAFF REPORT
Meeting: City Council - Feb 15 2022
Agenda Heading: NEW BUSINESS
Staff Contact: Michelle Radcliffe, City Clerk
Department: City Clerk
Title: Consideration of Four(4) Applications and Appointment to Fill Three (3) Vacancies on the Monte Sereno Better Streets Commission Recommendation(s):
Staff recommends the City Council appoint three (3) applicants who applied for the Better Streets Commission to fill three (3) vacancies on the Monte Sereno Better Streets Commission.
Background Information:
On October 17, 2017, the City Council took action to form the Better Streets Commission for the purpose of advising the City Manager on design, operations, and maintenance of the City’s street system and identifying and advising on integrated, coordinated, environmentally sustainable and economically efficient street rehabilitation solutions that address the multiple street system demands such as underground utilities, street trees, stormwater management and contamination runoff issues.
The Ordinance establishing the Commission specified that the Commission consist of five (5) members of the public selected by a majority of the City Council and one (1) member of the Youth Commission to serve on the Commission as an Ex Officio member. The term for three (3) seats on the Commission will expire on December 31, 2023.
As a result of the City's recruitment to fill the seats, applications were received from four (4) qualified residents:
• Barry Chaffin (incumbent)
• Shalini Saxena (incumbent)
• Kim Hanrahan
• Bob Lapcevic
Fiscal Impact:
There are no unbudgeted fiscal impacts with this staff report.
Public Noticing:
The City Council’s agenda was posted at City Hall and the agenda and this report appear on the City’s website. In addition, recruitment notices were posted on the City website, sent to our e-mail distribution list, and posted on the Nextdoor social media website.
Attachments:
Better Streets Commission Applications
CITY OF MONTE SERENO
BETTER STREETS COMMISSION APPLICATION
Submit to: Office of the City Clerk
18041 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road
Telephone: (408) 354-7635 Fax: (408) 395-7653 Email: [email protected] Submittal Deadline – 5:00 p.m. January 31, 2022
Please type or print legibly
Previously Held Elected or Appointed
Governmental Positions Position/Office Held Dates
Civic or Charitable Organizations
You Have Belonged To Position/Office Held Dates
Education Degree Dates
Signature: Date:
First Name:
City: Zip:
Work Phone:
Fax:
Job Title:
Last Name:
Address:
Home Phone:
Email:
Present Employer:
Length of Residency in Monte Sereno:
Chaffin Barry
18471 Via Bonita Monte Sereno 95030
408-395-0670 408-592-0431 (mobile)
[email protected] NA
Self
25 1/2 years
Committee Member 8/14 to present
Mid Pennisula Open Space District Trail Patrol 2013-present San Francisco Water District Protected land hike & ride leader 2015-present Boy Scouts of America
Saratoga Music Boosters
Assistant Scoutmaster
Managed Equipment Logistics
2004-2016
2010-2016
Santa Clara University MSEE 1989
Harvard Business School MBA 1994
Monte Sereno Rep to the VTA and County BPACs
1/27/2022
1. Why do you want to be on the Better Streets Commission?
2. Tell us about your background, experience and/or interest in traffic, bicycle, and pedestrian safety, street standards, storm water management, or sustainable infrastructure that you feel would assist us in considering your application.
3. Please list your current commitments.
4. How many weekday hours per month would you be able to commit to the Better Streets Commission? Please circle one or fill in “other.”
1-3 hours
4-6 hours
7-9 hours
10+ hours
Other
5. What do you see as important streets or traffic-related issues in Monte Sereno?
6. What strengths do you possess that you believe will make you a successful commissioner? I'd like to give back to the community
where I live and raised my children. I'm passionate about bicycling and walking, and want to make these activities safer and more enjoyable for all. I also feel this role would allow me to better represent Monte Sereno's interests with the VTA & county as well as bring information back to the commission. tenure I've learned a great deal about solving bicycle & pedrestrian issues. Because of the synergies, it's standard practice for the VTA rep to also be a member of a local bicycle-related commission.
I belong to several local bike clubs where I am a regular ride leader and I am a frequent pedestrian throughout Monte Sereno.
I represent Monte Sereno on the VTA and county BPACs. During my Monthly VTA BPAC meeting first or second Wednesday of
the month. Frequent travel.
Obtaining our fair share of
Measure B money to make improvements. Cut-through traffic including additional impact by Los Gatos traffic diversions. Pedestrian and bicycle safety on highway 9. Improved safe routes to school.
Encouraging walking and cycling for better community health and the environment.
I was selected
by my fellow commisisoners to be chair. Current involvement and working relations with the VTA, county, and nearby city representatives in this area. I frequently attend the Los Gatos streets commission meeting.
Work experience in management, marketing and engineering.
STAFF REPORT
Meeting: City Council - Feb 15 2022
Agenda Heading: NEW BUSINESS
Staff Contact: Jessica Kahn,
Department: City Engineer
Title: Discussion to Consider Island Annexations in Unincorporated Santa Clara County known as Urban Islands MS01, MS02, MS03 and MS04 Recommendation(s):
Staff recommends the City Council review provide direction regarding the potential annexation of urban unincorporated islands within the City of Monte Sereno Urban Service Area MS01, MS02, MS03, and MS04.
Attachments:
Staff Report
Attachment 1_ LAFCO_Making_Your_City_Whole
Attachment 2_LAFCO_StreamlinedIslandAnnexationProcess
Attachment 3_ Minutes 10-19-06
Attachment 4_ Minutes 09-15-09
Attachment 5_Monte Sereno Islands
Attachment 6_ Estimated Road Costs
C I T Y
C O U N C I L
S t a f f
R e p o r t
18041 Saratoga – Los Gatos Road, Monte Sereno, CA 95030 Tel: 408.354.7635 Fax: 408.395.7635 E-mail: [email protected]
NEW BUSINESS
February 15, 2022
JESSICA KAHN, CITY ENGINEER
[email protected]
Discussion to Consider Island
Annexations in Unincorporated Santa
Clara County known as Urban Islands
MS01, MS02, MS03 and MS04
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the City Council review provide direction regarding the potential annexation of urban unincorporated islands within the City of Monte Sereno Urban Service Area MS01, MS02, MS03, and MS04.
BACKGROUND
Annexation of Urban Unincorporated Islands
An urban unincorporated island (or pocket) is unincorporated land that is located within a city/town Urban Service Area (USA). The island may be either completely or substantially surrounded by incorporated lands. Even though these islands are completely or substantially surrounded by a city/town, they remain under the land use authority of the County, which is responsible for providing basic urban services.
Annexation of territory into a city normally requires a multistep process, first involving the adoption of a resolution to initiate annexation proceedings, or the filing of a petition of the landowners or registered voters. Then, the affected city and county will begin negotiating a determination of property tax exchange between the two jurisdictions.
Thereafter, application may be filed with the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), to begin annexation proceedings, which involve a public hearing and a protest hearing to submit objections. At the conclusion of the process, LAFCO may approve the annexation, order the annexation subject to election, or terminate the proceedings.
DISCUSSION TO CONSIDER ISLAND ANNEXATIONS CITY COUNCIL
PAGE 2 OF 10 FEBRUARY 15, 2022
18041 Saratoga – Los Gatos Road, Monte Sereno, CA 95030 Tel: 408.354.7635 Fax: 408.395.7635 E-mail: [email protected]
In 2001, the California Legislature enacted legislation (Government Code Section 56375.3) to make it easier for cities to annex certain types of unincorporated islands through a streamlined process that does not require protest proceedings or elections, provided the island meets certain criteria. In 2005, the Santa Clara County (County) Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) published a guide for local agencies to take advantage of this new legislation titled Making Your City Whole: Taking Advantage of the Current Opportunity to Annex Unincorporated Pockets (Attachment 1). 1 To further
support the annexation of islands, Santa Clara County LAFCO has waived its filing fees for island annexations and the County agreed to cover annexation mapping costs, Surveyor's review costs, Assessor's review costs, pay State Board of Equalization filing costs, and budget for limited road improvements in unincorporated islands approved for annexation.
Annexation Process
Per Government Code Section 56375.3, “island” annexations that meet certain criteria may be approved without protest hearings or elections. These criteria are:
1. The island is 150 acres or less in size and is totally surrounded or substantially surrounded by the annexing city, or by the annexing city and adjacent cities.
2. The island is not a gated community where services are provided by a Community Services District.
3. The island is substantially developed or developing, as determined based on the availability of public utility services, public improvements, and physical improvements.
4. The island is not considered prime agricultural land as defined by LAFCO statutes.
5. The island is receiving benefits from the annexing city or will receive benefits from the annexing city after annexation, such as utility service.
6. The annexation is proposed on or after January 1, 2000 and by resolution of the affected city.
7. The territory to be annexed did not become surrounded or substantially surrounded after January 1, 2014, with some exceptions.
8. The annexation is consistent with the City’s sphere of influence.
The following is the outline of the streamlined island annexation process per State Government Code Section 56375.3:
• Discuss annexation with the County, and determine whether to enter into a property tax transfer agreement.
• Obtain surveyor’s report and annexation mapping from County surveyor 1 The guide has been included in this agenda packet for general reference, but certain details are out of date due to subsequent amendments of the LAFCO statute.
DISCUSSION TO CONSIDER ISLAND ANNEXATIONS CITY COUNCIL
PAGE 3 OF 10 FEBRUARY 15, 2022
18041 Saratoga – Los Gatos Road, Monte Sereno, CA 95030 Tel: 408.354.7635 Fax: 408.395.7635 E-mail: [email protected]
• Determine and apply pre-zoning to the proposed area, and prepare related CEQA analysis.
• Conduct community outreach;
• Work with LAFCO and the County to initiate island annexation; • Conduct public hearing by the City Council to initiate annexation; • Conduct public hearing by the City Council to approve annexation by resolution; and
This process may take up to a year or more to complete. A flowchart of the streamlined annexation process is included as Attachment 2.
Previous Annexation Efforts
In 2005, Monte Sereno was one of the first cities in the County to consider initiating island annexations under the streamlined island annexation provisions. At the City’s request, the County and LAFCO, under their Island Annexation Program, provided assistance to the City and prepared annexation maps and reports for three islands, at no cost to the City. The City conducted a public hearing on the island annexations but due to opposition expressed by some of the island residents, the City Council did not continue with the annexation process. Another effort to annex the islands in 2009 also failed for the same reason. The City has since indicated to LAFCO that the City will require the support of a majority of affected landowners before annexing these islands (even though under state law, these islands are eligible for annexation without landowner protest and elections). Minutes of the 2006 and 2009 City Council meetings are included as Attachments 3 and 4.
DISCUSSION
Monte Sereno’s Urban Unincorporated Islands
In 2020, LAFCO updated its Urban Islands Atlas for all jurisdictions in Santa Clara County, identifying four islands for the City of Monte Sereno (Attachment 5). The four urban islands consist of approximately 200 acres of which the largest island is 115 acres and the smallest island is 7.4 acres. The urban islands are comprised of approximately 155 single-family residential parcels. Assuming a household population of 2.2 persons per household, the total additional population is estimated to be 341. The islands meet all the criteria to qualify for the streamlined annexation process outlined under Government Code Section 56375.3. Individual island maps and details are below.
DISCUSSION TO CONSIDER ISLAND ANNEXATIONS CITY COUNCIL
PAGE 4 OF 10 FEBRUARY 15, 2022
18041 Saratoga – Los Gatos Road, Monte Sereno, CA 95030 Tel: 408.354.7635 Fax: 408.395.7635 E-mail: [email protected]
MS01- Karl Avenue
Urban Island MS01 is a 9.3-acre unincorporated area located at the north end of Karl Avenue adjacent to the City’s northern boundary and the La Rinconada Country Club.
Karl Avenue is a public road in the City limits that becomes a private road north of Fairway Circle ending in a cul-de-sac within the Island. The island includes seven parcels designated for single-family residential uses (R1E-One Family Residence).
Figure 1. MS01- Karl Avenue
DISCUSSION TO CONSIDER ISLAND ANNEXATIONS CITY COUNCIL
PAGE 5 OF 10 FEBRUARY 15, 2022
18041 Saratoga – Los Gatos Road, Monte Sereno, CA 95030 Tel: 408.354.7635 Fax: 408.395.7635 E-mail: [email protected]
MS02 - Blythswood-Hillview
Urban Island MS02 is a 114.6-acre unincorporated area straddling Saratoga-Los Gatos Road adjacent to the City's western boundary. This area contains 12 generally rural residential streets, 10 of which are public streets currently maintained by the County of Santa Clara. The portion of Daves Avenue between Saratoga-Los Gatos Road and the City limits is also in this island and is maintained by the County of Santa Clara. The island includes 91 parcels designated for single-family residential uses (R1E-One Family Residence). Portions of MS02 have previously been annexed individually as part of the Montalvo Oaks development.
Figure 2. MS02 - Blythswood-Hillview
DISCUSSION TO CONSIDER ISLAND ANNEXATIONS CITY COUNCIL
PAGE 6 OF 10 FEBRUARY 15, 2022
18041 Saratoga – Los Gatos Road, Monte Sereno, CA 95030 Tel: 408.354.7635 Fax: 408.395.7635 E-mail: [email protected]
MS03 - Lancaster-Matilija
Urban Island MS02 is a 69-acre unincorporated area southwest Saratoga-Los Gatos Road adjacent to the City's western boundary. This area contains five generally rural residential streets, four of which are public streets currently maintained by the County of Santa Clara. The island includes 53 parcels designated for single-family residential uses (RHS-Urban Hillside Residential).
Figure 3. MS03 - Lancaster-Matilija
DISCUSSION TO CONSIDER ISLAND ANNEXATIONS CITY COUNCIL
PAGE 7 OF 10 FEBRUARY 15, 2022
18041 Saratoga – Los Gatos Road, Monte Sereno, CA 95030 Tel: 408.354.7635 Fax: 408.395.7635 E-mail: [email protected]
MS04 – Lucky Road
Urban Island MS02 is a 7.4-acre unincorporated area southwest Saratoga-Los Gatos Road adjacent to the City's western boundary. This area contains a portion of Lucky Road, which is not a publicly maintained street. The island includes 4 parcels and one partial parcel designated for single-family residential uses (HS- Hillside).
LAFCO approved the expansion of the Urban Service Area (USA) boundary and Sphere of Influence (SOI) boundary of the City of Monte Sereno to include this island in February 2018. There is currently one parcel within this island that has applied for annexation into the City.
Figure 3. MS04 – Lucky Road
FISCAL IMPACT
In summary, the City would increase its annual property tax revenue by approximately $233,000 if all urban islands were annexed. Annual roadway maintenance and repair costs due to the annexation of public roadways would increase by approximately $133,000. Other annual expenses, such as polices services, may also increase with annexation of urban islands.
DISCUSSION TO CONSIDER ISLAND ANNEXATIONS CITY COUNCIL
PAGE 8 OF 10 FEBRUARY 15, 2022
18041 Saratoga – Los Gatos Road, Monte Sereno, CA 95030 Tel: 408.354.7635 Fax: 408.395.7635 E-mail: [email protected]
The fiscal impacts associated with the potential annexation is described in greater detail below.
Costs of Undertaking Annexation
Annexation typically requires pre-zoning and preparation of CEQA documents, unless the project is exempt under CEQA Guidelines 15319. Per Gov. Code 65584.07(d), annexation of territory may result ABAG ordering a transfer of a proportional share of RHNA allocation to the City to reflect the loss of territory by the County. Annexation may involve the need to hire planning consultants to provide expertise to assist with such matters.
Impacts on City Revenues
With exception of voter approved taxes, Mello-Roos districts, and property assessments, property taxes are generally limited by Proposition 13 to 1% of the assessed value, commonly referred as the countywide rate or general tax rate. Such taxes are distributed between the county, city, school districts, and special districts providing services, based on formulas developed by the CA Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA), using information filed by LAFCO, schools, and other jurisdictions. Of the general property taxes collected from each parcel in the County, approximately 6.3% comes to the City of Monte Sereno. This would not change upon annexation. However, Revenue and Taxation Code section 99 provides that where a city takes over service responsibilities, it may negotiate a transfer of tax revenues to account for the transfer of responsibilities from the county to offset costs. The approximate property tax revenues (based on assessed information as of 6/30/2021) of each urban island is detailed below, although the City may not receive all of these revenues.
Property Tax
Revenues
MS01
Karl Avenue
MS02
BlythswoodHillview
MS03
LancasterMatilija
MS04
Lucky Road All Islands
Net Assessed Value $16,820,000 $216,580,000 $130,570,000 $5,290,000 $369,260,000 1% general tax rate $168,200 $2,166,000 $1,305,700 $52,900 $3,692,600
6.3% of the 1%
general tax rate $10,600 $136,400 $82,300 $3,300 $232,600 Impacts on City Services
Ongoing Citywide Costs
Depending upon which islands are annexed, the City would increase its population by up to 340 residents (9.8%). It can be expected that demand for services will increase by a similar amount, thereby increasing City costs. Ongoing impacts may be expected with regard to municipal services including Finance, City Clerk, Building, Planning, Engineering, and Code Enforcement Services. Some of these costs are fee based, but subsidized to varying degrees by the General Fund, which could result in a net cost to the City.
DISCUSSION TO CONSIDER ISLAND ANNEXATIONS CITY COUNCIL
PAGE 9 OF 10 FEBRUARY 15, 2022
18041 Saratoga – Los Gatos Road, Monte Sereno, CA 95030 Tel: 408.354.7635 Fax: 408.395.7635 E-mail: [email protected]
Police Services
Law enforcement and public safety services are provided to City residents under contract with the Town of Los Gatos. With annexation may be an increased cost that would negotiated with the Town.
Streets
There are 14 public roads within the urban island areas which the City would maintain if annexed into the City. During previous annexation efforts the County had committed to repair all streets to a “good” condition if the City completed the island annexations.
Since that street evaluation completed in 2009 the overall condition of all of the public streets in the annexation areas has significantly decreased from an average pavement condition index (PCI) of 82 to 53. To meet the City’s PCI goal of 75, fair condition, all of the streets in the annexation area would require maintenance at an initial estimated expense of approximately $900,000. It is unclear to what the County would commit to under Island Annexation Program at this time. Post-annexation the City would be responsible for street sweeping and ongoing maintenance on any annexed public street, approximated to be $133,000 annually. A summary of initial estimated expense and ongoing maintenance costs of roads is included as Attachment 6.
The City would not be required to accept any private streets into the City system due to annexation, though annexed residents may petition it. The acceptance of these streets and improvements would not be subsidized by the County in the annexation process.
Additionally, several private streets would require dedications to the City from multiple individual properties as they were never offered for dedication to the public.
CONCLUSION AND NEXT STEPS
The City Council should provide direction regarding the initiation of the annexation of certain urban unincorporated islands utilizing the streamlined process. If Council determines annexation is an endeavor it would like staff to pursue, staff will begin all of the preliminary tasks and then community outreach efforts. Based to previous annexation efforts, the Council may want to consider a community meeting prior to engaging the County and LAFCO in the streamlined annexation process.
PUBLIC NOTICING
The City Council’s agenda was posted at City Hall and the agenda and this report appear on the City’s website.
Attachments:
1. Making Your City Whole: Taking Advantage of the Current Opportunity to Annex Unincorporated Pockets (LAFCO, 2005)
2. Streamlined Annexation Process Flow Chart
DISCUSSION TO CONSIDER ISLAND ANNEXATIONS CITY COUNCIL
PAGE 10 OF 10 FEBRUARY 15, 2022
18041 Saratoga – Los Gatos Road, Monte Sereno, CA 95030 Tel: 408.354.7635 Fax: 408.395.7635 E-mail: [email protected]
3. Monte Sereno City Council Minutes – October 19, 2006
4. Monte Sereno City Council Minutes - September 15, 2009
5. Monte Sereno Urban Island Map (2020)
6. Annexation Road Evaluation
MAKING YOUR CITY WHOLE:
Taking Advantage of the Current Opportunity to AnnexUrban Unincorporated Pockets Local Agency Formation Commission of Santa Clara County • September 2005
A SPECIAL OPPORTUNITY FOR CITIES
Part 1: IntroductionPart 2: How Were Urban Unincorporated Islands (i.e. Pockets) Created?Part 3: Streamlined Process for Annexing Pockets Streamlined Annexation Process Flow Chart
Part 4: Reasons for Cities to Annex PocketsPart 5: Benefits of Annexation to Pockets Residents and Property OwnersHOW TO CAPITALIZE ON THIS OPPORTUNITYPart 6: Five Elements of Successful Pocket Annexation EffortsPart 7: Dispelling Myths About Urban Unincorporated Island AnnexationsUSEFUL BACKGROUND INFORMATIONPart 8: Changing Conditions for Urban PocketsPart 9: Why the County Supports Annexing PocketsPart 10: Why LAFCO Supports Annexing Pockets Contents
0 13
578
10 0
1215
0 171819
○○○○○○○○○ ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○
○○○○○○○○ ○○○○○○○○○
○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ ○○○○○○○○○○
○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○
○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○
○○○○○○○○ ○○○○○○○○○
○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○
○○○○○○○○ ○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○
○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○○ ○○○○
We would like to thank Don Weden, Former Principal Planner, Santa Clara County, for his assistance indeveloping this report which contains excerpts from various documents prepared by him on the topic ofPocket Annexations. The excerpts have been updated to reflect current laws and policies on annexations.
Purpose of This Report
The California Legislature has enacted a speciallaw that greatly simplifies the task for cities seekingto annex certain, inefficient, unincorporated urbanisland within them. Some of the provisions of thislaw will be “sunsetting” out of existence soon. Thisreport is intended to help your city and communitytake advantage of this special legislation, beforesome of its provisions expire.This report provides background information andadvice to community and local government leadersand local agency staff who may become involvedin issues and projects involving annexation of theremaining urban unincorporated islands in SantaClara County.Urban Pockets: An Ongoing ProblemLeft Over from the 1960sUnincorporated urban pockets completely or substantially surrounded by cities are a byproduct ofthe annexation and land use policies that existedin Santa Clara County back in the 1960s.Ever since the early 1970s, it has been city, County,and Local Agency Formation (LAFCO) policy thaturban development should occur only within citiesand that these islands of unincorporated lands shouldbe annexed into cities. And, over the past 35 years,the vast majority of the land within pockets thatexisted in 1970 has, in fact, been annexed into cities.
Nonetheless, there still remain today more than180 unincorporated urban pockets in Santa ClaraCounty, 89% of which are smaller than 150 acres.They are scattered all the way from Gilroy toMountain View and from Los Gatos to Milpitas.They remain, in large part, due to inertia and thesomewhat cumbersome annexation proceduresthat existed until recently.The continued existence of these unincorporatedpockets creates problems for cities, the County,pockets residents, adjacent city residents, andvarious agencies and special districts responsiblefor providing them with urban services and facilities.Annexation of these remaining pockets would resultin more efficient and responsive local government,greater consistency of planning and developmentwithin urban areas, and increased ability of localresidents to participate in and affect the decisionsthat most impact their neighborhoods.Amended State Law Makes Annexationof Urban Islands EasierIn recognition of the greater problems caused byurban pockets, the California Legislature enactedspecial legislation in 2001 that made it easier forlocal governments to annex small urban pocketsthat are 75 acres or less. This legislation wasamended in 2005 to apply to urban pockets thatare 150 acres or less.
PART 1: INTRODUCTIONA SPECIAL OPPORTUNITY FOR CITIES
1
The law allows cities to annex urban pockets
through a streamlined process that does not requireprotest proceedings or elections, provided the islandmeets special criteria and is 150 acres or less.To encourage local governments to accelerate theirefforts to annex small urban pockets, the Legislatureincluded provisions that portions of the law would“sunset” (i.e. go out of existence) after January 1,2007. In particular, the provision that eliminatedformal protest would cease to be in effect.By moving forward and annexing these pockets now,cities can take advantage of these streamlinedprovisions of state law, before some ofthem go out of existence.LAFCO and County Provide New Incentivesto Cities for Annexing PocketsAs an incentive for cities to actively pursue theannexation of entire pockets, LAFCO is waiving itsfiling fees for pockets annexations and the Countyhas committed to:• Covering annexation mapping costs, Surveyor’s review costs, Assessor’s review costs,• Paying State Board of Equalization filing costs, and• Budgeting for needed road improvements in unincorporated islands approved for annexation.In addition, LAFCO has committed to collaboratingwith the cities and the County in facilitating annexation of pockets. LAFCO’s fiscal year 2005-2006Budget includes some funds for LAFCO to provideassistance to cities in developing annexation plans,gathering technical information, developing or participating in community outreach programs, andassisting in annexation process/project management.
However, all of these incentives are only availablefor the next 18 months (i.e. until January 1, 2007).Therefore, now is the best time for cities to annexthe pockets. 2
What Is an “Urban Unincorporated Island”?
For purposes of this report, an “urban unincorporatedisland” is defined as unincorporated land that islocated within a city’s urban service area (USA). Itmay be either completely or substantially surroundedby incorporated lands, i.e. lands already annexed to acity. Despite the fact that they are completely orsubstantially surrounded by a city, they remain underthe land use authority of the County, which is responsible for providing them with basic urban services.In Santa Clara County “unincorporated islands” aresometimes also referred to as unincorporated “pockets.” However, state law refers to these areas as“islands.” The terms “pockets” and “islands” are usedinterchangeably in this report.How Were Pockets Created?Most of the unincorporated pockets in Santa ClaraCounty are a product of urban development policiesand practices that existed in the county back in the1950s and 1960s.At that time, before the urban areas of our citieshad grown together as they are today, there werestill substantial areas of unincorporated agriculturalland separating them. During the 50s and 60s, mostof our cities competed actively with one another toannex and develop as much land as they could,based on the assumption that the larger the city, the larger its tax base, and the more prosperous itwould be.As the cities competed to annex lands, most of thecurrent state laws governing annexations did notexist. As a result, the patterns of annexation wereoften based more on opportunity than on rationalplanning and orderly urban development andprovision of urban services.If, for example, a property owner a mile or so outof town wanted to be annexed and the interveningproperty owners did not, the city would sometimesannex the road leading out to the willing propertyowner, and bypass the closer in lands throughwhich the road passed. As a result, by the late1960s, the incorporated areas map of Santa ClaraCounty looked like a piece of Swiss cheese, withunincorporated urban pockets scattered throughoutthe northern Santa Clara Valley from San Jose toPalo Alto. (It existed to a lesser extent in the SouthCounty around Morgan Hill and Gilroy where rapidurban development was just beginning).Some of these annexations passed over unincorporated lands that were developed “in the county”,i.e. under the County’s zoning and developmentregulations.Until the late 1960s, the County functioned muchlike a city in approving urban development. Sanitation districts provided sewer service to urban PART 2: HOW URBAN ISLANDS (i.e. POCKETS) WERE CREATED
3
development approved in unincorporated areas.
Consequently, there was little incentive for urbansubdivisions approved by the County to annex to theadjacent or surrounding city.Why Do Pockets Still Exist?A few of the pockets in Santa Clara County remainunincorporated because they have not been developed for urban purposes and thus have not neededdevelopment approvals nor urban services thatwould have required them to annex to cities.Most of the remaining pockets, however, weredeveloped back in the 1950s and 1960s and remainunincorporated for a variety or reasons. Theseinclude: opposition to annexation by some pocketresidents and/or property owners, cumbersomeannexation procedures, and limited effort by citiesin recent years to annex them.Most cities have actively pursued annexation ofsmaller pockets on a parcel-by-parcel basis as theyhave been developed or redeveloped. Statelawshave, until recently, made it difficult for them toannex parcels that aren’t located around the immediate periphery of the pocket, which is another one ofthe reasons why most of the larger pockets stillremain unincorporated. 4
Amended Law Makes Annexation of
Certain Pockets EasierIn recognition of the greater problems caused byurban pockets, the California Legislature enactedspecial legislation in 2001 that made it easier forlocal governments to annex small urban pocketsthat are 75 acres or less. This legislation wasamended in 2005 to apply to urban pockets thatare 150 acres or less.No Protest Hearings or Elections Required forAnnexation of Certain PocketsThe normal procedure required under state law forthe annexation of pockets includes provisions thatmay require elections if there is sufficient formalprotest with the area proposed for annexation.The new streamlined island annexation processeliminates these provisions for protest and electionfor pockets that are 150 acres or less.“Pockets” Referred to as “Islands” in State LawGovernment Code 56375.3 refers to urban pocketsas “islands.” Its basic provisions with regard to islandannexations are summarized in the following section.
Basic Provisions of Government Code 56375.3An island annexation may be approved withoutprotest and election if all of the following requirements are met:• Annexation is proposed by resolution of the annexing city.• The islands is 150 acres or less.• The island is surrounded or substantially surrounded by the annexing city or by the annexing city and adjacent cities.• The island is not a gated community where services are currently provided by a community services district.• The island is substantially developed or developing based on the availability of public utility services, presence of public improvements or the presence of physical improvements on the parcels within the area.• The island is not prime agricultural land as defined in Government Code Section 56064.• The island is receiving benefits from the annexing city or will benefit from the city.• The island was not created after January 1, 2000.
PART 3: STREAMLINED PROCESS FOR ANNEXING POCKETS
5
City Councils Hear Island Annexations
In Santa Clara County, city councils, not LAFCO,hold the public hearings for island annexations.Sunset Provisions inGovernment Code Section 56375.3To encourage local governments to acceleratetheir efforts to annex small urban pockets, theLegislature included provisions that portions ofthe law would “sunset” (i.e. go out of existence)after January 1, 2007.After January 1, 2007, protest proceedings willbe required for island annexations initiated underGovernment Code Section 56375.3.However, if a majority protest is not received todefeat the annexation proposal, the annexation isordered without an election.Why State Law Allows Annexation of CertainUnincorporated Islands to Occur WithoutProtest and ElectionsAs mentioned earlier, the California Legislatureenacted special legislation that made it possiblefor certain unincorporated islands to be annexedwithout a protest hearing or an election. In approvingthis legislation, the Legislature recognized that:• Urban unincorporated islands continue to represent a serious and unnecessary statewide governmental inefficiency and that this inefficiency would be resolved if these islands were annexed into the appropriate surrounding city,• Property owners’ ability to vote on boundary changes is a statutory privilege and not a constitutional right, and• Urban unincorporated islands are inherently inefficient and that these inefficiencies affect not just pocket residents, but also those residing in the city and the entire County.In theory, if all residents affected by the urban islandissue were to vote, then that vote would need to beheld countywide. Furthermore, the County Board ofSupervisors represents pocket residents and theBoard demonstrated its support for island annexations by recently providing new incentives for citiesto annex urban unincorporated islands.If cities annex the pockets, County resources thatare currently directed toward serving pocket residents could be directed towards addressingcountywide service needs (e.g. health care, socialservices, and courts and criminal justice). 6
FLOW CHART: Streamlined Annexation Process
Recommended ISLAND ANNEXATION PROCESS (Section 56375.3) For Islands 150 acres or less, that meet certain criteria (See Page 5) Without Protest Proceedings or Elections
PREPARE TO INITIATE ISLAND ANNEXATIONS
1. Contact LAFCO staff to discuss process, timeline and mapping requirements.
Then, obtain Surveyor’s Report & any required annexation mapping from County Surveyor
2. Apply pre-zoning designation to proposal area, determine if proposal includes Williamson Act lands, prepare CEQA Analysis
3. Obtain County Assessor’s Report and determine which special districts to detach
COMMUNITY OUTREACH
Optional but Recommended when Appropriate
FIRST PUBLIC HEARING WITH 21-DAY NOTICE
City Council Adopts Resolution to INITIATE Annexation pursuant to Government Code Section 56375.3 Set date for Second Public Hearing
SECOND PUBLIC HEARING WITH 21-DAY NOTICE
City Council Adopts Resolution to APPROVE Annexation
FINALIZATION OF ANNEXATION BY LAFCO STAFF
Forward Certified Resolution and other required information to LAFCO Annexation becomes effective on the date that LAFCO records the Certificate of Completion (Generally, within 7-10 days of LAFCO receiving the complete application from city) 7
Cities have a variety of reasons for annexing
unincorporated urban pockets within their urbanservice areas. These range from the philosophicalto the practical.It’s the “Right Thing to Do”At the philosophical end of the spectrum, mostcity officials simply feel that annexing pockets andbringing their residents into the social fabric andpolitical life of the city that surrounds them is “theright thing to do.” It is consistent with their basicdesire to meet the needs of their communitiesand improve their cities.Urban Development ResponsibilitiesThey also realize that annexing pockets is one of theirresponsibilities under the basic urban deve-lopmentpolicies the cities and the County agreed to and havebeen implementing for many years.By performing complementary roles with regard tourban development, our cities and the County haveavoided the kinds of city-county competition andconflict that exist in many other counties in California.Inherent Inefficiencies of PocketsFrom a practical perspective, they are aware thatthe existence of scattered, unincorporated pocketsin the midst of cities is inherently inefficient both tothe city and to the County.
Some of these inefficiencies arise in conjunctionwith the delivery of basic urban services, wherethere often are two different departments – one city,one County – providing the same kinds of servicesto different portions of the same neighborhood, andcrisscrossing each other’s territory on their way toprovide them.Other inefficiencies result from the substantialcumulative daily effort required just to determinewhether customers calling in to a city or Countydepartment seeking assistance in an area wherepockets exist actually lives in the city or the county.The existence of pockets in the cities also meansthat city and County staffs need to spend considerable time in coordination activities that would beunnecessary if the pockets were annexed to thecity. These include the staff effort that goes intoadministering inter-jurisdictional referral processesrelated to land development proposals within urbanpockets. (These inter-jurisdictional referral processes can also be inefficient and time-consumingfor the applicants who find their developmentapplications caught up in these processes.)Impacts of Pockets onSurrounding NeighborhoodsCities also recognize the impacts that unincorporated pockets can sometimes have on surroundingcity neighborhoods.
PART 4: REASONS FOR CITIES TO ANNEX POCKETS
8
Some of the remaining urban pockets in Santa Clara
County are older, primarily residential neighborhoodsthat have aging infrastructure, housing stock in needof rehabilitation, and various other problems.Since the County does not provide the same leveland array of services to urban pockets that the citiesprovide to incorporated areas, problems that arise inpockets may not receive the same degree of attentionby the County that they would if they were in the city.These problems have the potential to become worseand to spread to surrounding city neighborhoods.The cities generally recognize that the most costeffective way for them to minimize these negativeimpacts on city neighborhoods is by annexing themand addressing their problems and needs throughexisting city programs.Consistency of Developmentwith City Plans and PoliciesAnother reason cities annex pockets is to be ableto regulate development and land uses in a mannerconsistent with their plans, policies, and standards.Since County development standards and otherregulations are often less rigorous than those of thecities, annexation is the best way for cities to assurethat development within the pockets in the midst oftheir neighborhoods is consistent with basic citypolicies and standards.Pockets Residents Use City FacilitiesBut Don’t Pay City TaxesAnother reason is that pockets residents oftenuse city facilities including streets and parks, butpay no taxes to the city to help support the upkeep of these city facilities. Similarly, cities do not receivethe benefit of additional state and federal funds thatare allocated on a per capita basis based on thecity’s incorporated area population. 9
Why Should Pockets Annex:
From a Resident’s PerspectivePockets residents sometimes ask, Why should weannex? What will we gain by annexing that we don’tcurrently have? The simplest answers to thesequestions are:1. Improved services and programs to benefit your neighborhood,2. Greater ability to influence the decisions that are most likely to affect the quality of life in your neighborhood, and3. Increased governmental accountability for the provision of servicesAnnexation Benefit #1:Better Neighborhood ServicesWith regard to services and programs to neighborhoods, it should be noted that one of the primaryreasons that cities exist is to provide neighborhoodservices and programs to residents of urban areas.That, in fact, is what the vast majority of their budgets go toward providing.By comparison, the primary reason that Santa ClaraCounty government exists is to provide and administer services relating to health and human servicesand law and justice. This is what the overwhelmingmajority of the County’s budget goes to.
Although the County does provide some urbanservices to unincorporated pockets, it does notprovide the same level or array of neighborhoodservices that cities provide. And given how relativelyfew pockets remain and the recent increase in cityinterest in annexing them, it would seem extremelyunlikely that the County will ever significantly increase its services and programs to urban pockets.Annexation Benefit #2: Political EmpowermentAnother major advantage to residents and propertyowners in pockets that annex is that they will gaingreater influence over the decisions that mostdirectly impact the quality of life in their communities, i.e. the decisions of the city council of the citythat surrounds them. So long as they remain unincorporated, they remain largely disenfranchisedfrom those decisions.Residents of unincorporated areas do not havethe ability to vote in city council elections and othercity elections. Consequently, when they go to citycouncil hearings on matters that will affect theircommunities, their voices and opinions do notalways carry the same weight as they would ifthey were residents of the city.Similarly, when they call city agencies to seekassistance concerning issues within the city that areaffecting their neighborhood, they may not receivethe same level of attention that they would if theywere city residents.
PART 5: BENEFITS OF ANNEXATION TOPOCKETS RESIDENTS AND PROPERTY OWNERS 10
On a purely statistical basis, it is more likely that a concerned resident will be able to get the attentionof a city councilperson than a County Supervisor,no matter how committed that Supervisor may beto serving her or his constituents. Each CountySupervisor represents approximately 360,000people in his/her district. By comparison, even inSan Jose, our county’s largest city, each citycouncilperson represents about 90,000 people –or about 1/4 the number of constituents of a CountySupervisor. In smaller cities, the ratio of constituentsto elected city officials is even smaller.Annexation Benefit #3:Increased Governmental AccountabilityThe third major advantage to residents and property owners in pockets that annex is the potentialfor greater governmental accountability for providing services and meeting the needs of theirneighborhoods.Many residents of urban pockets live in areaswhere incorporated and unincorporated parcelsare intermixed – like a checkerboard. Because ofthese complicated jurisdictional boundaries, residents often experience problems of decreasedgovernmental responsiveness and accountabilitywhen they seek to have their neighborhood’s needsaddressed.If they call a County department, they may be toldthat it is a city problem. If they call a city department,they may be told that it is a County problem.When these pockets are annexed this problem ofjurisdictional uncertainty is resolved, since there isno question about whether it is the city or the Countythat is responsible for the provision of services. 11
Five Basic Elements for Success
Each project to seek to annex larger, developedurban pockets will have its own issues and its ownindividual stakeholders and participants that make itdifferent from all others. Nonetheless, there appearto be several key factors that can greatly increasethe potential for success.These are:• City, County, and LAFCO cooperation• Extensive outreach and public information• Sensitivity to community concerns• Supportive leadership within the community• Active support on the city councilCity, County, and LAFCO CooperationUnder the streamlined island annexation process,the power to annex certain developed pockets insidecity urban service areas (USAs) rests with the citycouncil. Although resident and property ownersupport is not required, it is helpful if residents andproperty owners support the annexation.Under California state law, the County of SantaClara Board of Supervisors and Santa Clara LAFCOhave no official vote in the annexation process withincity urban service areas. Nonetheless, close city,County, and LAFCO cooperation is an essentialingredient of any successful annexation effort.
Close cooperation is necessary; first of all, in orderto provide the community with accurate informationto enable it to make comparisons between theservices and programs it is currently receiving fromthe County and those it can expect to receive fromthe city, if the city decides to annex the island.City and County cooperation is also important as areminder to pocket residents that it is longstandingpolicy of the fifteen cities and the County that unincorporated urban pockets should eventually beannexed into the city – and that the County isnot in competition with the city to retain controlover urban pockets.Outreach and Public Information ProgramRecommendedThe two fundamental questions that residents andproperty owners have when they learn that a city isconsidering whether to annex their area are:1.“Will I and my family be better off if the city annexes my area or if my area remains in the county?” and2. “Will my neighborhood be better served by the city or the county?”Given the likelihood that the community may nothave another opportunity to annex for twenty yearsor more if it wholly objects to being annexed, it iscritical that those residents’ viewpoints are based onaccurate information and a realistic view toward theircommunity’s future.
PART 6: FIVE ELEMENTS OF SUCCESSFUL POCKET
ANNEXATION EFFORTS
HOW TO CAPITALIZE ON THIS OPPORTUNITY
12
An effective community outreach program is key
to aiding residents and property owners in makinginformed judgments that will have long term consequences for them and their neighborhood.This effort should provide accurate informationconcerning the potential impacts of annexation ontaxes, public services and facilities, developmentwithin the community, and a variety of other topicslikely to be of concern.The outreach effort can and should include community meetings (with staff of both the city and theCounty present to answer questions), newsletter,fact sheet(s), telephone numbers to call for information, e-mail addresses to send inquiries to, etc.It may also be helpful to include surveys aboutissues of concern to the community. However,given the widespread misinformation and mythologythat commonly exists concerning annexation, it isvery important not to force residents and propertyowners to make premature, uninformed decisionsconcerning annexation before they have the factsand have had an opportunity to get answers totheir questions.Consequently, surveys asking residents and propertyowners whether they support or oppose annexationshould be circulated only after extensive communityoutreach, not at the beginning of the process.Sensitivity to Community ConcernsResidents of unincorporated pockets commonlyapproach the prospect of annexing into the citywith reservations and concerns. Since they haveprobably never gone through an annexation processbefore, they are not quite certain what to expect.
In such situations, their basic instincts are probablyto hang on to what they are familiar with – andremain unincorporated.To overcome this natural reaction, cities need tobe particularly sensitive and, whenever possible,responsive to those concerns. While there maybe some city policies that are not negotiable withregard to annexation (e.g. payment of special feesor taxes that all other residents of the city mustpay), there are some aspects of annexation wherepockets residents’ concerns can be addressedand accommodated.One issue that is commonly of concern to pocketsresidents is the city’s zoning and related development standards that will be applied to their propertyif they annex. This is normally addressed throughthe pre-zoning process.Most of the remaining unincorporated pockets inSanta Clara County were developed many yearsago under County zoning and development standards that were different from those of the surrounding city development.In some instances, for example, the Countyapproved development may have created largerparcels than those of the city. As a result, thestandard city zoning currently applied to the surrounding city neighborhoods may have unintended,undesirable consequences if applied unmodified toparcels in the pocket.It may, for example, allow for re-subdivision ofexisting, developed lots – and thus pose a potentialthreat to the preservation of existing communitycharacter. This possibility can become a majorconcern to pocket residents and property owners. 13
Providing flexibility to accommodate unique conditions within the pocket, possibly through special “overlay” zoning districts, may be a reasonableaccommodation to legitimate community concernsand increase the potential for a successful outcome.Leadership and Organized SupportWithin the CommunityAlthough annexation of developed residentialpockets has impacts on city and County governments, ultimately it is the impacts that annexationshave on the people in the community that matterthe most. For this reason, active leadership andorganized support within the community can be acritical element in a successful annexation effort.Campaigns to annex developed residential pocketsare most often led by individuals or groups of individuals who have a strong commitment to theircommunity and its future. These are people whocan listen to all viewpoints and assist their community in taking an objective look at the alternatives.Some of these people may already be leaders withinthe community, active in neighborhood associations,local school groups, or youth organizations.Others may not previously have been so active incommunity affairs but may decide to get involvedbecause they feel it is important for their communityto consider annexation as a means of meeting itscurrent and future needs.Active Support on the City CouncilA fifth element that is critical to pocket annexationefforts is having active support among the membersof the city or town council that ultimately mustconduct the public hearing and make the decision to annex the pocket. The city or town council maywant to form an annexation subcommittee (consisting of 2 or 3 Council Members) to work closely withCity, County and LAFCO staff, as well as withneighborhood groups. 14
Because annexation of existing, developed neighborhoods is a relatively infrequent phenomenon, most people know very little about how it occurs andwhat its impacts are on properties that are annexed.As a consequence, there is substantial opportunityfor misinformation and mythology when it comes tothe topic annexation.A number of myths have evolved around annexationthat cause some people to automatically oppose it.These myths are obstacles to successful annexationefforts. Listed below are some of the more commonmyths that exist with regard to annexation – andfactual information that refutes them.Myth #1: Annexation Triggers Reassessmentof Property (FALSE)Some people believe that if their property is annexedfrom the county into a city that Assessor will automatically reassess its value for property tax purposes and that, as a result, their property taxes mayincrease dramatically. This is not true.Proposition 13 determines the conditions underwhich a property may be reassessed for property taxpurposes, and annexation is not one of them. Theassessed value of property remains the samefollowing annexation.(The only exception is when a property is developedor substantially redeveloped, which can trigger arequirement that a property must be annexed into acity. In such cases, the property is likely to be reassessed. But the reassessment is triggeredby the development, not the annexation. Theproperty would have been reassessed when itwas developed, even if it had not annexed.)Myth #2: City Taxes Are Much HigherThan County Taxes (FALSE)Another common annexation myth is that taxes in acity are much higher than taxes in the unincorporated area. This is not true.The total taxes that a residential property ownerwould pay if their property were annexed are generally very similar to those they are already paying inthe county.The most common difference between city andCounty taxes is that most cities have a utility tax,and the County does not. However, this tax is offsetto a large extent by the fact that residents in countypockets are likely to pay for a lighting assessmentdistrict for streetlights, which they would no longerhave to pay if they annexed into the surrounding city.The other relatively common difference between cityand County taxes is that some cities may have parksand/or library bonds that annexed properties wouldhave to pay. Again, the amount of these additionaltaxes is generally quite small, especially when compared to the value of the improved services and programs that the pocket residents would receive fromthe city.
PART 7: DISPELLING MYTHS ABOUT POCKET ANNEXATIONS
15
In some cities or towns, which do not have utility
taxes or assessments for bonds, residents’ overalltaxes would actually decrease if they were annexed.Myth #3: Annexation Triggers Requirement toInstall Sidewalks, Curbs, and Gutters (FALSE)Some pockets property owners believe thatthey will have to install sidewalks, curbs,and/or gutters if they annex. This is not true.Most cities require that such facilities be installedonly when there is substantial redevelopment ofthe property, and even then it may not be requiredif the property is not along a designated safe routeto school or if it is in a neighborhood that generallydoes not have such facilities. (Some cities havelarge, annexed neighborhoods that do not havethese facilities and where the city does notrequire them.)Myth #4: Annexation Affects SchoolDistrict Boundaries (FALSE)Some people believe that if they are annexed intoa city that may change the school district they arein and the schools their children attend.This is not true.Annexation of property from the county into a cityhas no impact on school district boundaries or theschools that children in the annexed area attend. 16
Never Before So Few Pockets
The number of unincorporated pockets in SantaClara County has decreased substantially over thelast several decades as pockets have been annexedinto cities. Never before have there been so fewremaining urban pockets in Santa Clara County, norhas the pockets population been such a smallpercentage of the countywide and unincorporatedarea populations. Most of the remaining urbanpockets in Santa Clara County now contain fewerthan 20 parcels.Remaining Pockets Widely ScatteredThe remaining pockets are not concentrated in anyone location, where it might be possible for theCounty to serve them efficiently. Instead, they arescattered widely around the county from Los Altos toLos Gatos, and from all parts of San Jose to Gilroy.Pockets Population is Small Part ofCountywide PopulationSeveral decades ago, the population living withinunincorporated urban pockets constituted a significant portion of Santa Clara County’s population.Today it accounts for less that 3% of the totalcountywide population. The total population of allunincorporated urban pockets throughout SantaClara County is currently less than 49,000 (which issmaller than the population of Cupertino).Aside from the declining percentage of the unincorporated area population, the remaining urban pockets have little in common with one another. Not only are they not in close geographic proximity to one another but they also vary widely in their demographic and socio-economic characteristics. Some have large single-family homes are very affluent, while others contain overcrowded, higher density housing and have substantial numbers of persons living below or near poverty level. Because of their lack of geographic proximity and their diverse socio-economic characteristics, the pockets have little in common with one another. In fact, they generally have far more in common with their nearby city neighbors that they do with one another. Pockets Conditions Unlikely to Improve Residents of unincorporated urban pockets should understand that there is little likelihood that urban services and infrastructure serving their neighbor- hoods will ever improve significantly, so long as they remain unincorporated. As the pockets continue to decline as a percentage of the county population and it becomes increasing more inefficient for the County to serve the remain- ing pockets, it becomes less likely that County will allocate substantially increased resources to provide improved services and facilities to the pockets – especially since they can be provided more effi- ciently by the cities and County has many other competing funding priorities.
PART 8: CHANGING CONDITIONS FOR URBAN POCKETSUSEFUL BACKGROUND INFORMATION 17
PART 9: WHY THE COUNTY SUPPORTS ANNEXATION OF POCKETS
The County supports annexation of urban pocketsbecause it provides a number of benefits to residents in unincorporated pockets and nearby cityneighborhoods, to County and city governmentsand other local service providers, and to residentsthroughout Santa Clara County – including thosewho live in cities where there are few or no remaining urban pockets.Annexation of unincorporated urban pockets intotheir surrounding cities:• Eliminates existing inefficiencies and unnecessary expenses in the delivery of urban services to developed areas throughout Santa Clara County• Makes city and County governments more accountable to local neighborhoods by eliminating mixed jurisdictional situations in which problem solving responsibilities are ambiguous.• Enables pockets residents to receive more and generally higher quality services and programs to benefit their neighborhoods than the County is able (or will ever be able) to provide.• Allows County staff and decision makers to focus their efforts and County resources on addressing the countywide issues and services for which County government is primarily responsible, including health care, social services, courts and criminal justice functions.• Empowers pockets residents to have more influ- ence over the decisions that most directly impact the quality of life in their neighborhoods, by enabling them to participate in the decision-making processes of the cities that surround them.• Contributes to greater sense of community by eliminating the psychological “distance” between pockets residents and residents of surrounding city neighborhoods. 18
PART 10: WHY LAFCO SUPPORTS ANNEXATION OF POCKETS
The Local Agency Formation Commission of SantaClara County (LAFCO) is encouraging cities toannex the remaining unincorporated pockets inorder to:• Fulfill the intent of the State Legislature,• Implement the Joint Urban Development Policies of the Cities, County and LAFCO that were adopted in early 1970’s, and• Encourage the efficient provision of services and orderly growth and development.Fulfill the Intent of the State LegislatureIn 2004, the State Legislature, in recognition of theinherent inefficiencies of unincorporated islands,passed legislation aimed at assisting cities in theirefforts to annex unincorporated islands throughoutthe state. The legislation provides a two-yearwindow (January 1, 2005 through December 31,2006) of opportunity for cities to annex urbanunincorporated pockets through a streamlinedprocess that does not require protest proceedings orelections, provided the island (“pocket”) meetsspecific criteria and is 150 acres or less.Implement the Joint Urban Development Policiesof the Cities, County and LAFCO That WereAdopted in the Early 1970’sThis legislation provides a unique opportunity forcities, the County and LAFCO to work together tofulfill the joint urban growth management policies that form the foundation of land use planning in thisCounty. The policies include the following fundamental policy agreements and obligations:• Cities, not the County, are responsible for managing and accommodating urban population growth and development;• Urban forms and densities of development may occur only within cities’ Urban Service Areas (USAs);• Outside USAs, the County will prohibit urban forms, densities, and intensities of development;• Inside USAs, development occurring on unin- corporated lands will be according to city’s general plan, regarding type of use and density of development allowed;• Inside USAs, islands or pockets of unincorporated lands should be annexed to the applicable city.Encourage the Efficient Provision of Servicesand Orderly Growth and DevelopmentFrom a practical perspective, the existence of scattered unincorporated pockets in the midst of cities isinherently inefficient for both the city and the County.Some of the inefficiencies arise in conjunction withthe delivery of basic urban services, where there areoften two different departments – on city, oneCounty – providing the same kinds of services todifferent portions of the same neighborhood, andcrisscrossing each other’s territory on their way toprovide the services. 19
Other inefficiencies result from the cumulative daily
effort required just to determine whether customerscalling in to a city or County department seekingassistance in an area where urban pockets existsactually live in the city or the County. These inefficiencies can sometimes have potentially life threatening consequences particularly when they involveconfusion over the provision of emergency services.The existence of pockets in cities also means thatcity and County staffs need to spend considerabletime in coordination activities (e.g. administeringinter-jurisdictional referral processes related to landdevelopment proposals within urban pockets) thatwould be unnecessary if the pockets were annexedto the city.Lastly, annexation of unincorporated islands wouldalso result in a more efficient and effective provisionof land use planning and development serviceswithin a community. County development standardsand other regulations are often less rigorous thanthose of the cities. These differences result in localland use conflicts. Annexation is the best way forcities to assure that development within the unincorporated islands, which are in the midst of cityneighborhoods, is consistent with basic city policiesand standards. 20
STREAMLINED ISLAND ANNEXATION PROCESS
[§56375.3]
April 2014
LAFCO of Santa Clara County
COMMUNITY OUTREACH
City conducts community outreach to evaluate neighborhood issues & interest FINAL CERTIFICATION · City forwards resolution and other documents to LAFCO · LAFCO records Certificate of Completion · Annexation becomes effective on date of recordation PREPARE TO INITIATE ISLAND ANNEXATION · Consult LAFCO staff regarding process, timeline and mapping requirements · Submit a Mapping Request Form to LAFCO for required annexation mapping, Surveyor’s Report and Assessor’s Report · Apply appropriate pre-zoning designation · Determine if Williamson Act contract lands are included · Conduct CEQA analysis PUBLIC HEARING TO INITIATE ANNEXATION · City provides 21-day public hearing notice · City Council holds first public hearing to initiate annexation by resolution and set date for second public hearing
PUBLIC HEARING TO APPROVE ANNEXATION · City provides public hearing notice · City Council holds second public hearing to approve annexation and adopts resolution making findings pursuant to §56757 & §56375.3, and waiving protest proceeding (Sample Resolution C)
•
MONTE SERENO CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES
October 19, 2006
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
At 7:30 p.m., Mayor Brodsky called the meeting to order.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE TO THE FLAG
ROLL CALL
-
Present: Councilmembers Baxter, Gamer, Nesbet, Wright and Mayor Brodsky
Absent: None
Staff Present: City Manager Loventhal, City Attorney Powell, and City Clerk Chelemengos
ORDERS OF THE DAY
No changes were made.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
Mayor Brodsky noted receipt of communications from Tom and Clara DeStefano
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
Discuss Modifications to the City's Non-Conforming Use and Structure Provisions City Manager presented information with regard to considering changes to the regulations pertaining to reconstruction of damaged or destroyed non-conforming structures.
Discussion commenced. There was consensus of the Council to bring the matter, with additional information, back before the Council for further consideration at a later date.
Discussion then commenced with regard to use permits and the transition of authority over permits should the annexation take place.
Bill Shoe, County Planner, spoke with regard to the transition of permit authority and different ways in which on going applications and projects could be processed. Mr. Shoe answered questions from the Council and
Minutes
City of Monte Sereno
October 19, 2006
- -
spoke with regard to pending applications and how other jurisdictions have dealt with the issue of transfer of jurisdiction. He also spoke with regard to the County's position on aligning its development standards with the City's standards. ·
Pete Palmer, County resident, spoke with regard to annexation and his pending application with the county. Mr.
Palmer spoke in opposition of the proposed annexation.
Anastasia Palmer spoke with regard to the potential impact annexation would have on her property.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Consider Initiating Annexation of Monte Sereno Urban Pockets #1, #2, and #3 pursuant to Government Code Section 56375.3 See Attachment A for list of all properties located in Monte Sereno Urban Pockets #1, #2, and #3.
City Manager Loventhal presented a staff report on the potential annexation and answered questions from the Council.
Discussion commenced with regard to annexation, county road conditions, repairs and the estimated on-going expense to maintain and repair the roads as well as any associated liability costs.
Mayor Brodsky stated that he could support the City proceeding with the annexation because annexation would result in contiguous City boundaries, improvement of the county roads, consistency in development standards and annexation would economically benefit the City.
Councilmember Wright pointed out that at this time the cost to repair the county roads has been budgeted.
However, should the annexation be delayed, the county's offer to repair the roads may be lost. Councilmember Wright reminded the Council of the County's assistance in recovering the TEA funds and stated that he felt that there was a political commitment to pursue annexation.
Councilmember Gamer acknowledged the County's support in returning the TEA funds. He pointed out that there was no action taken by the Council that would tie the County's support of returning the TEA funds to annexation of the County properties. Councilmember Garner stated that he is not in favor of annexation at this time.
Councilmember Nesbet stated that she sees annexation with numerous costs and risks and very little benefit to the City or its current residents. She pointed out the overwhelming opposition voiced by the County residents previously and stated that she could not support the proposed annexation.
Councilmember Baxter spoke with regard to the cost of road maintenance and spoke of the pros and cons of annexation. He stated that the County's motion to support the return of the TEA money to the City did not include any conditions relative to the City's action on annexation. He stated that annexation may be inevitable, but that he did not feel that now was the right time. Page 78 of 107 Minutes
City of Monte Sereno
October 19, 2006
Mayor Brodsky opened the Public Hearing at 9:00 p.m.
-
Ms. Spiesman, Farragut Lane, spoke in opposition to the proposed annexation and expressed concern with the storm drains and erosion.
Barbara White, Farragut Lane, stated that the property owners of the subject parcels should be allowed to vote on the matter.
Anastasia Palmer, spoke in opposition to the proposed annexation.
Tom Lofgren, West Road, spoke in opposition to annexation.
Mr. Reed spoke in opposition to the proposed annexation.
Tom DeStefano spoke in opposition to the annexation. He pointed out that the deadline for annexation has been extended and there is no longer a need for immediate action on the issue.
Pete Palmer spoke in opposition to annexation. He stated that in light of the time extension, work between the City and the affected property owners can continue in pursuit of acceptable terms for annexation.
Bill Shoe, County Planner, thanked the Council for continuing consideration of annexation. He spoke with regard to a discussion between the County and the City 30 years ago with regard to pursuit of annexation. He urged the Council to keep in mind that the City is a part of a larger regional district and that annexation will ultimately be in the best interest of the residents, the City and the County. Mr. Shoe also answered questions from the Council.
Since there was no one else wishing to speak, the Public Hearing was closed at 9:30 p.m.
Councilmember Gamer stated that he found the current process for this annexation to be fundamentally wrong.
He pointed out that the County residents do not want to be a part of Monte Sereno at this time and that the City should wait until the residents are receptive to being a part of Monte Sereno. He spoke in opposition to annexation at this time.
Councilmember Wright spoke with regard to the lack of outreach. He appealed to the county residents and discussed such things as consistent development regulations, road improvements, and other City services that would be extended to in-coming properties.
Minutes
City of Monte Sereno
October 19, 2006
-
Councilmember Baxter spoke with regard to the efforts to obtain TEA funds. With regard to annexation, he stated that now may not be the time since the residents are opposed and because of other concerns such as financial exposure.
Councilmember Nesbet spoke in opposition to the annexation at this time. · She thanked the public for participation and discussed the process. Councilmember Nesbet suggested that a regional effort be made to convince the County residents to annex into Monte Sereno.
Mayor Brodsky stated that he felt annexation is inevitable and discussed various reasons annexation at this time would make sense to both the City and the County residents.
Mayor Brodsky moved that the Council proceed with annexation of all three county pockets. Councilmember Wright seconded the motion. The motion failed with a 2-3 vote. Councilmembers Baxter, Nesbet and Gamer voted No.
ADJOURNMENT
At 10:10 p.m., Mayor Brodsky adjourned the meeting to 7:30 p.m. Tuesday, November 21, 2006 to be held in the City Council Chamber located at 18041 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, Monte Sereno, and California. . i ! ' '•'
MONTE SERENO CITY COUNCIL
MINUTES
September 15, 2009
REGULAR MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
At 7:34 p.m., Mayor Wright called the meeting to order.
PLEDGE OF ALLIEGIENCE
ROLL CALL
Present: Council Members Anstandig, Garner, Malloy, Perry, and Mayor Wright
Absent: None
Staff Present: City Manager Loventhal, City Attorney Powell, Associate Planner McGranahan and City Clerk Chelemengos
ORDERS OF THE DAY
City Manager Loventhal provided information on the matter of the recently considered legal non-conforming ordinance and stated that the matter would be placed on a future agenda.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Kathleen King, Mike Mielke, and Gary Effren spoke with regard to the Turkey Trot and encouraged participation of the Council Members and Monte Sereno residents and staff.
Ray Davis, Los Gatos, spoke with regard to the cement plant in Cupertino and the plant’s upcoming application before the Bay Area Air Quality Management District.
Mark Brodsky, resident, spoke with regard to the recent recall effort.
Len Perham, resident, spoke with regard to on-going litigation, potential conflicts of interest and inquired about information available to the public.
City Attorney Powell clarified that she does not have a conflict of interest with regard to the law firm hired to represent the City since she does not work for nor is she affiliated with the law firm hired to represent the City in the ongoing litigation.
Suzanne Jackson, Cultural Commission, spoke with regard to the Monte Sereno picnic at Daves Ave School and other events planned for the remainder of the year.
Minutes
City of Monte Sereno
September 15, 2009
Council Member Garner announced that Danville Town Council Member Mike Shimansky had passed away.
She also spoke of his community service.
Mayor Wright offered to adjourn the meeting in honor of the late Danville Council Member Shimansky.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
None
Council Member Anstandig pulled warrant #11687 from the Consent Calendar and stated that he would not be able to vote on the matter due to a potential conflict of interest relative to his employment affiliation with the San Jose Mercury News.
CONSENT CALENDAR
1. Approve Minutes of September 1, 2009 City Council Meeting
2. Approve Warrant List in the amount of $152,980.66 ($153,044.29 - $63.63 (Warrant #11687))
3. Approve Monthly Treasurer’s Report of Month of August, 2009
4. Approve Monthly Financial Report for Month of August, 2009
5. Resolution Authorizing Acterra To Apply For The EECBG Funding Allocated To The City Of Monte Sereno
Council Member Perry moved to approve the Consent Calendar with the exception of Warrant #11687. The motion was seconded by Council Member Garner and the motion passed with a 5-0 vote.
Council Member Perry moved to approve Warrant #11687 in the amount of $63.63. The motion was seconded by Council Member Garner and the motion passed with a 4-0-1 vote. Council Member Anstandig abstained.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
6. SS-09-22 & U-09-05 - 18232 Daves Avenue - Property Owner: Boyle The applicant requests approval for a Site Development Permit to construct a new accessory structure of 437 sq. ft. The applicant also requests a Use Permit to allow more than one accessory structure. The applications were previously reviewed and recommended for approval by the Site and Architecture Commission.
Associate Planner McGranahan provided a staff report on the application and answered questions from the Council.
Dan Boyle, resident, offered to answer questions from the Council.
At 8:05 p.m. the Public Hearing was opened. Since there was no one wishing to speak, the Public Hearing was closed.
Council Member Garner commented on the lack of vegetation on the lot.
Minutes
City of Monte Sereno
September 15, 2009
Mr. Boyle, applicant, explained that when he bought the lot there was no vegetation on it and that he is in the process of trying to landscape the property.
Council Member Garner made the findings and moved that the City Council approve the Use Permit. The motion was seconded by Council Member Anstandig and the motion passed with a 5-0 vote.
Council Member Garner made the findings and moved to approve the Site Development Permit. The motion was seconded by Council Member Perry and the motion passed with a 5-0 vote.
7. TR-09-05 - 17990 Daves Avenue - Property Owner: Daves Avenue Renovations LLC Applicant is requesting a Tree Removal Permit to remove one (1) tree. The tree requested to be removed is a Blue Oak.
Associate Planner McGranahan introduced the application and answered questions from the Council.
Ken Linstead, architect, spoke in favor of the tree removal request and stated that one of the residents has an allergy to the tree. Mr. Linstead also answered questions from the Council and stated that he thought the tree had to be replaced with the same type removed. He stated that the applicant would like to replace the tree with some other type of tree.
At 8:13 p.m., the Public Hearing was opened. Since there was no one wishing to speak, the Public Hearing was closed.
Council Member Malloy stated that she had been on the Site and Architecture Commission when the house was originally reviewed and that her recollection of the denial of the tree removal had to do with the subject tree not impeding the building footprint and that the tree provided screening. She inquired why the applicant was requesting removal of this tree only when there are other oak trees on the property.
Council Member Anstandig inquired about treatment of the reported allergy.
The property owner explained that her son is allergic to this type of tree as well as other types, but that she is requesting removal of this tree because it is located within the child’s play area and close to a future pool site.
Council Member Garner stated that in her experience allergens are airborne and removal of the tree may not solve the issue of the allergy. She also inquired if the City can request a second arborist opinion with regard to the health of the tree.
Council Member Malloy inquired about the property owner’s mention of a pool.
The Property owner explained that they have plans to build a pool in the future.
Council Member Malloy expressed her concern with the tree removal request being based on allergies when the same type of tree exists on other portions of the lot, yet the applicant requests the removal of one tree only. She stated that the trees around the property are used to mitigate visual impact and preserve privacy.
Minutes
City of Monte Sereno
September 15, 2009
Following discussion, Council Member Anstandig moved to approve the tree removal request with the condition that the applicant replaces the tree with four (4) native trees.
Council Member Perry stated that he usually is not inclined to grant removal of a tree that was originally denied by the Site and Architecture Commission. However, he stated, that he thinks that the removal can be mitigated and feels that he is not in the position to disagree with applicant’s claim that her child is allergic to the tree.
Council Member Perry asked Council Member Anstandig if he would consider and amendment to the motion requiring a replacement plan consisting of two native trees instead of four.
Council Member Anstandig agreed to the modification and amended his motion to grant the tree removal request with the condition that the applicant plant two (2) trees native to California and in a location approved by the Planning Department. The motion was seconded by Council Member Perry and the motion passed with a 3-2 vote. Council Members Malloy and Garner voted No.
8. Consider Initiating Annexation of Monte Sereno Urban Pockets #1, #2, and #3 pursuant to Government Code Section 56375.3 See Attachment A for list of all properties located in Monte Sereno Urban Pockets #1, #2, and #3
Mayor Wright provided background information on the matter.
City Manager Loventhal presented the staff report and answered questions from the Council. He spoke with regard to the expenses and revenues the City could expect should the annexation pass.
At 8:45 p.m., Mayor Wright called for a brief recess to allow time for the Council Members to read the written correspondence received pertaining to this matter. At 8:55 p.m., the meeting was reconvened.
Council Member Perry inquired about the area between Monte Sereno and Saratoga.
Staff explained that the area Council Member Perry inquired about was not being considered for annexation.
At 8:58 p.m. the Public Hearing was opened.
Michael Kolitz, county resident, inquired about the annexation process and urged the Council to wait until there is more county resident support.
Mayor Wright asked the City Attorney to explain how the “pockets” are determined. City Attorney Powell explained that LAFCO (Local Agency Formation Commission) determines the pockets.
Wanda Alexander, county resident, spoke with regard to past development in the County and stated that the City’s development review process may assist neighbors when faced with development impacts. Ms. Alexander spoke in support of annexation.
Minutes
City of Monte Sereno
September 15, 2009
City Manager Loventhal discussed the differences between the urban service area and sphere of influence.
Chuck Nunnally, county resident, spoke in opposition to annexation and referred to a past survey that indicated that the residents support annexation only if the annexation is supported by the property owners of the properties to be annexed. He urged the Council to hear the position of the people if they are not allowed to vote on the matter. Mr. Nunnally stated that the process is unfair and that it feels as if the rights of the property owners are being taken away.
Tom Lofgren, county resident, pointed out that the state law does not require a vote on the annexation issue, but that the City Council could allow for a vote of the affected property owners. Mr. Lofgren stated that three years ago when the matter was last considered 70% of the county pocket residents were opposed to annexation. He stated that the matter should be the choice of the property owners.
Thomas DeStefano, county resident, expressed opposition to the annexation and the process.
Deborah Rice, county resident, spoke in support of the annexation for the protection that would be provided by the application of the city development standards and review process.
Barry Blalick, county resident, spoke in opposition to the annexation.
Carl Ferreira, county resident, inquired about the corridor of land between County pockets 1 and 2 and if it were to be a part of the proposed annexation. He inquired about the tax revenue that would be generated should the properties be annexed. Mr. Ferreira spoke of the last repair estimates for Blytheswood Drive and asked about the maintenance of Blytheswood Drive should the annexation pass. He stated that he did not understand why the City Council would want to bring into the City a new block of antagonistic voters.
Chuck Kappen, county resident, spoke in opposition to the annexation.
Mary Speisman, questioned the reason for the City’s pursuit of annexation and stated that the division of the subject properties and pockets appears as a manipulation. She stated that she sees no compelling rationale for annexation and urged the Council to discontinue the annexation process.
Jason Farwell, county resident, stated that he does not understand the motivation for the City to annex the properties and he spoke in opposition to the matter. He urged the members of the Council to listen to the property owners’ opposition.
Ray Davis, Los Gatos, spoke in favor of annexation for the protection it might bring to residents, especially with regard to development standards and maintaining neighborhood compatibility.
Len Perham, resident, spoke in opposition to the annexation.
Srini Madala, resident, thanked the City for putting together information on the annexation. He stated that he does not feel the City is ready for annexation and needs to work on improving services and relationships and
Minutes
City of Monte Sereno
September 15, 2009
communications with current residents. He stated that the matter should be voted on by the residents and county property owners.
Barry Ford, resident, expressed opposition to the proposed to annexation based on costs and potential assessed value reduction. He expressed skepticism with regard to the estimated costs of maintaining (county) roads and retaining walls.
Mark Brodsky, resident, urged the county residents, should they be annexed into the City, to register to vote and run for City Council to make the changes that they would like to see.
Lon Allan, resident, spoke in opposition to annexation and stated that both the residents of the City and the residents of the targeted county pockets should be allowed to vote on the matter.
Suzanne Jackson, resident spoke in favor of the annexation and stated that the City would better serve the area and provided local emergency responders as well as other essential services. Ms Jackson also answered questions from the Mayor with regard to emergency response times.
Patricia Ladd noted that she had submitted a letter in opposition to the annexation.
Since there was no one else wishing to speak, the Public Hearing was closed at 9:53 p.m.
Council Member Perry expressed appreciation to those who commented. He stated that he does not agree with the opposition, but that he would respect the opinions of the county property owners and will not support continuation of the annexation process. He stated that he hoped that in the future the County residents would want to be come a part of Monte Sereno.
Council Member Garner stated that her vote on the matter would be no. She stated that she does not see a clear benefit to the residents of Monte Sereno and that there is currently no support or very little support from the residents and property owners for annexation.
Council Member Malloy stated that she thinks annexation would be good for the residents of the county and good for the residents of the City, but based on the public opposition she would vote against further pursuit of annexation.
Council Member Anstandig stated that it was reassuring to see such a large turn out. He stated that he thinks it is in the best interest for all to be governed by the same rules and that Mr. Davis made a good point about the City being able to assist property owners through the development review process. Council Member Anstandig stated that he would not support further pursuit of annexation based on the public opposition.
Mayor Wright spoke with regard to benefits annexation would bring to the County residents. He then stated that four Council Members had indicated that they would not support annexation at this time. Mayor Wright stated that the Council would now move on to the next matter on the agenda.
Minutes
City of Monte Sereno
September 15, 2009
UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None
NEW BUSINESS
9. ABAG Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Slide Show
City Manager Loventhal directed the Council’s attention to the ABAG Local Hazard Mitigation Plan provided in the Council packet and stated that any comments should be submitted to Associate Planner McGranahan
10. Discuss Committee/Commission Appointments
Mayor Wright brought up the issue of appointment because he would like Council Member Malloy to switch position on two Commission appointments. Therefore Council Member Malloy would become the City’s representative on the League Of California Cities Peninsula Division (LCC) and the Santa Clara Valley Water District Commission and he (Mayor Wright) would serve as the alternate.
Council Member Perry moved that the Council accept the modification to the Commission appointments as described by Mayor Wright. The motion was seconded by Council Member Anstandig and the motion passed with a 5-0 vote.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS - None
COMMITTEE/COMMISSION REPORTS
At 10:20 p.m., Mayor Wright called for a brief recess. At 10:21 p.m., the meeting was reconvened.
The Council Members reported on their various committees/commissions as assigned.
CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
City Manager reported on various administrative matters.
ADJOURNMENT
At 10:45 p.m., Mayor Wright adjourned the meeting in memory of late Danville Council Member Mike Shimansky to 7:30 p.m., Tuesday, October 6, 2009 to be held in the City Council Chambers located at 18041 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road, Monte Sereno, and California.
______________________________
A. Curtis Wright, Mayor
ATTEST:
______________________________
Andrea M. Chelemengos, City Clerk
Monte
Sereno
Los Gatos
9.3 Acres
MS01
CHIPPENDALE CT
KARL AV E
BICKNELL RD
MONTCLAIR RD
ASH CT
SMITH CREEK DR
Monte Sereno : Page 1 of 2
This map created by the Santa Clara County Planning Office. The GIS data was compiled from various sources. While deemed reliable, the Planning Office assumes no liability. 4/30/2020 7:37:16 AM Y:\Projects\Urban Islands\Urban Islands 2020\UrbanIslands2020_enhanced.mxd 0 90 180 360 Unincorporated Islands 2020 Feet Z
S A N TA C L A R A C O U N T Y
M a ps d e p i c t i n g un i n c or p or a t e d la n d s lo c a t e d wi t h i n t h e c i t i e s ' Ur b a n Se r v i c e Ar e a s ( U SA s) Incorporated Areas Urban Island ≤ 150 Acres
Urban Service Area Urban Island > 150 Acres
Monte Sereno
Saratoga
Los
Gatos
114.6 Acres
MS02
69 Acres
MS03
7.4 Acres
MS04
BACHMAN AVE
REDBERRY DR
MON T E VISTA DR
VIEWFIELD
RD
DEC AT U R RD
OAK D R
BLYTHS WOOD
DR
FAR RAGUT LN
BAINTER AVE
RAVI NE RD
RIDGE CREST AVE
THORPE PL
QUITO RD
WI THEY RD
SERRAMONTE DR
SARATOGA LOS GATOS RD
DAVES AVE
LEXINGTON
DR
FAR-VUE LN
EUC ALYPTUS DR
LAN
CASTER
RD
WOO D AC RES RD
BECK AVE
GRANDVIEW AVE
GREEN W OOD
LN
HIDDEN HILL RD
OJ AI DR
T OYON D R
SUNNYSIDE DR
H ILLVIE W D R
L O M AS L N
CONSTITUTION AVE
GL E N ECHO AVE
WE ST
RD
CITRUS LN
OAK HURST DR
AUSTIN WAY
MATILIJA DR
BANC ROFT AVE
GREE NWOOD AVE
L AUREL DR
GREE NWOOD RD
HILLVALE AVE SCOTT DR
UL
CKY R D
MOUNTA IN WAY
Monte Sereno : Page 2 of 2
This map created by the Santa Clara County Planning Office. The GIS data was compiled from various sources. While deemed reliable, the Planning Office assumes no liability. 4/30/2020 7:37:16 AM Y:\Projects\Urban Islands\Urban Islands 2020\UrbanIslands2020_enhanced.mxd 0 250 500 1,000 Unincorporated Islands 2020 Feet Z
S A N TA C L A R A C O U N T Y
M a ps d e p i c t i n g un i n c or p or a t e d la n d s lo c a t e d wi t h i n t h e c i t i e s ' Ur b a n Se r v i c e Ar e a s ( U SA s) Incorporated Areas Urban Island ≤ 150 Acres
Urban Service Area Urban Island > 150 Acres
1 Inter-office Memorandum
To: Steven Leonardis, City Manager
From: Jessica Kahn, City Engineer
Date: February 2022
Subject: Pocket Annexation Evaluation Report – 2021 Update This report provides updated information to the Pocket Annexation Evaluation Report dated July 29, 2009
There are four “Urban Islands” in the City of Monte Sereno’s Urban Service Area, as defined by the County of Santa Clara (MS01-MS04). The Urban Islands MS01-Karl Avenue and MS04- Lucky Road contains no public roads1 and will likely not require any City improvement or maintenance if annexed.
This report provides estimates for maintenance and repairs of public streets in the two pocket annexation areas. MS02-Blythswood-Hillview straddles on both sides of Highway 9 and contains approximately 114.6 acres. MS03-Lancaster-Matilija is west of MS02 and is approximately 69.0 acres in size. These areas contain 17 generally rural residential streets, 14 of which are public streets currently maintained by the County of Santa Clara. All public streets in these areas, except West Road in Area MS03, were constructed in the same manner as those in the City limits with asphaltic paving, stable slopes and minimal striping, curb, gutter or sidewalk.
All except Daves Avenue are two lane residential streets. West Road has several unstable slopes with segments of guard rails and retaining walls. The intersection of Decatur/Farragut/Highway 9 floods frequently.
Since the street evaluation completed in 2009 the overall condition of all of the public streets in the annexation areas, less Greenwood Lane, has significantly decreased from an average pavement condition index (PCI) of 82 to 53. To meet the City’s PCI goal of 75, fair condition, all of the streets in the annexation area would require maintenance at an initial estimated expense of approximately $900,000.
No significant maintenance or repair has seemed to have occurred since 2009 on West Rd nor at the Decatur/Farragut/Highway 9 intersection.
Staff has updated annual cost estimates, based on US Bureau of Labor Statistics inflation rate, for typical street maintenance activities and typical repair activities anticipated on twenty-year intervals for culverts, guard rails and retaining walls. Pavement maintenance and resurfacing estimates have been updated based on current PCIs of individual streets. 1 Note that MS01 does include a private extension of the public portion of Karl Avenue in the City of Monte Sereno.
If the City were to annex this island and wished to make this the private extension a public road, 14 parcels (the 7 annexed and 7 additional parcels in the City limits) would have to dedicate a portion of the parcels to the City as a public road, an approximate cost of $9,500. Estimated initial road improvements to bring this portion of roadway to City standard is $80,000.
2 The estimated annualized cost of maintenance and anticipated repairs is summarized as follows, and included in detail below:
Annual Maintenance Cost Estimates
Items MS02 114.6 Acres MS03, 69.0 Acres
Sweeping $ 250.00 $ 125.00
Vegetation Removal $ 1,260.00 $ 630.00
Storm Drain Cleaning $ 1,260.00 $ 630.00
Pavement Markings $ 630.00 $ 380.00
Street Name Signs $ 1,260.00 $ 630.00
Traffic Sign Maintenance $ 1,260.00 $ 630.00
Sub-total $ 5,920.00 $ 3,025.00
Annualized Repair Cost Estimates
Items MS02, 114.6 Acres MS03, 69.0 Acres
Street Resurfacing $ 42,698.00 $36,541.00
Guard Rail / Retaining
Wall - $32,673.00
Culvert $ 2,500.00 $ 630.00
Sub-total $ 45,198.00 $69,844.00
Total $ 51,118.00 $72,869.00
A proposed annexation would also place additional demand on the City’s staff time for coordinating public works maintenance activities and respond to typical requests for traffic calming, drainage and slope stability related concerns. The additional staff time is approximated at $15,000 per year.
Monte Sereno Pocket Annexation Street Repair Estimates
Street Name Length Width Area Costs Costs 2008 2021 Uphill Downhill Slope (miles) 2021 (Sq Yds) 10Yr Total Annualized PCI PCI Slope Slope Stability (10Yr)
Daves Ave. 0.3 40 7040 56,320 $ 5,632 $ 96 63 Mild Mild stableDecatur Rd. 0.28 24 3942 $ 92,962 $ 54 41 Mild Mild stable 9,296 Eucalyptus Dr. 0.28 18 2957 23,654 $ 2,365 $ 96 54 Mild Mild stableLaurel Dr. 0.25 18 2640 21,120 $ 2,112 $ 93 56 Mild Steep stableHillview Dr. 0.49 18 5174 41,395 $ 4,140 $ 93 53 Mild Steep stableOak Dr. 0.22 17 2194 $ 17,553 $ 97 53 Steep Steep stable 1,755 Quito Rd. 0.18 28 2957 $ 69,721 $ 100 46 Mild Mild stable 6,972 Toyon Dr. 0.34 18 3590 28,723 $ 2,872 $ 95 53 Mild Mild stableFarragut Ln. 0.18 24 2534 $ 59,761 $ 53 41 Mild Mild stable 5,976 Serramonte Dr. 0.14 24 1971 15,770 $ 1,577 $ 84 73 Mild Mild stableTotal 2.66 35001 426,980 $ 42,698 $ Greenwood Ln 0.17 28 2793 22,340 $ 2,234 $ 46 85 Mild Mild stableLancaster Rd. 0.27 17 2693 21,542 $ 2,154 $ 87 55 Mild Mild/Steep stableMatilija Dr. 0.55 32 10325 243,471 $ 24,347 $ 73 44 Mild Mild stableOjai Dr. 0.1 32 1877 44,268 $ 4,427 $ 58 32 Mild Mild stableWest Rd. 0.4 18 4224 33,792 $ 3,379 $ 88 59 Steep Steep UnstableTotal 4.47 21912 365,414 $ 36,541 $ Location Linear ft 20 Yr Total $ Annualized $
A 75 25,200 $ 1,260 $
B 100 25,200 $ 1,260 $
C 215 54,250 $ 2,713 $
D 125 31,500 $ 1,575 $
E 85 214,500 $ 10,725 $
F 120 302,800 $ 15,140 $
Total 653,450 $ 32,673 $
MS02 (114.6 acres)
MS03 (69.0 acres)
Retaining wallGuard Rail
West Street Guard Rail / Retaining Wall Repair Estimate Description
5' high w/ concrete postI-beam w/ guard railGuard RailUpper guard rail
2/14/2022
1 Discussion to Consider Island
Annexations of MS01, MS02,
MS03, and MS04
FEBRUARY 15, 2022
JESSICA KAHN, CITY ENGINEER
Urban
Unincorporated
Island
Is located within a city/town Urban
Service Area (USA)
May be either completely or
substantially surrounded by
incorporated lands
Remains under the land use authority
of the County, which is responsible for
providing basic urban services
1 2
2/14/2022
2 Streamlined
Island
Annexation
In 2001, the California Legislature
enacted legislation (Government
Code Section 56375.3) to make it
easierfor citiesto annex certain types
of unincorporated islandsthrough a
streamlined processthat does not
require protest proceedings or
elections, provided the island meets
certain criteria.
1. The island is 150 acres or less in size and is totally surrounded or substantially surrounded by the annexing city, or by the annexing city and adjacent cities.
2. The island is not a gated community where services are provided by a Community Services District.
3. The island is substantially developed or developing, as determined based on the availability of public utility services, public improvements, and physical improvements.
4. The island is not considered prime agricultural land as defined by LAFCO statutes.
5. The island is receiving benefits from the annexing city or will receive benefits from the annexing city after annexation, such as utility service.
6. The annexation is proposed on or after January 1, 2000 and by resolution of the affected city.
7. The territory to be annexed did not become surrounded or substantially surrounded after January 1, 2014, with some exceptions.
8. The annexation is consistent with the City’s sphere of influence.
Annexation Process
• Discuss annexation with the County and determine whether to enter into a property tax transfer agreement • Obtain surveyor’s report and annexation mapping from County surveyor • Determine and apply pre‐zoning to the proposed area and prepare related CEQA analysis • Conduct community outreach
• Work with LAFCO and the County to initiate island annexation • Conduct public hearing by the City Council to initiate annexation • Conduct public hearing by the City Council to approve annexation by resolution 3 4
2/14/2022
3 Island Annexation Program
In 2005, the Santa Clara County (County) Local Agency
Formation Commission (LAFCO), established its Island
Annexation Program that covers filing fees, annexation mapping costs, Surveyor's review costs, Assessor's review costs, State Board of Equalization filing costs, and budget for limited road improvements in unincorporated islands approved for
annexation.
MS01‐ Karl
Avenue
• North end of Karl Avenue adjacent
to the City’s northern boundary
• 9.3‐acres
• 7 parcels designated for single‐
family residential uses
• Private road
5 6
2/14/2022
4 MS02 ‐
Blythswood‐
Hillview
• Straddles Saratoga‐Los Gatos Road
adjacent to the City's western
boundary
• 114.6‐acres
• 91 parcels designated for single‐
family residential uses
• 10 public roads, 2 private roads
• Portions previously been annexed
as part of the Montalvo Oaks
development
MS03 ‐
Lancaster‐
Matilija
• Southwest of Saratoga‐Los Gatos
Road adjacent to the City's western
boundary
• 69‐acres
• 53 parcels designated for single‐
family residential uses
• 4 public roads, 1 private road
7 8
2/14/2022
5 MS04 – Lucky
Road
• Southwest Saratoga‐Los Gatos Road
adjacent to the City's western
boundary
• 7.4‐acres
• 4 parcels designated for single‐
family residential uses
• One parcel has applied for
annexation into the City
• Private road
Fiscal Impact
• Annexation typically requires pre‐zoning and preparation of CEQA documents • Annexation may result in a transfer of a proportional share of RHNA allocation • May require planning consultants to provide expertise Costs of Undertaking Annexation
• Annual roadway maintenance and repair costs would increase by approximately $133,000
• Other annual expenses, such as polices services, may also increase Impacts on City Services
9 10
2/14/2022
6 Impacts on City
Revenues
The City currently receives 6.3% of the
general tax rate (1% of the assessed
value)
Approximate property tax revenues are
based on assessed information as of
6/30/2021
The City may not receive all these
revenues
Approximate
Property Tax
Revenues
MS01
Karl Avenue
MS02
BlythswoodHillview
MS03
LancasterMatilija
MS04
Lucky Road All Islands
Net Assessed
Value $16,820,000 $216,580,000 $130,570,000 $5,290,000 $369,260,000 1% general tax
rate $168,200 $2,166,000 $1,305,700 $52,900 $3,692,600
6.3% of the 1%
general tax rate $10,600 $136,400 $82,300 $3,300 $232,600 Previous Annexation Efforts
In 2005 Monte Sereno was one of the first cities in the County to consider initiating island annexations under the streamlined island annexation provisions. • The County and LAFCO, under their Island Annexation Program at no cost, aided the City and prepared annexation maps and reports for three islands
• Due to opposition expressed by some of the island residents during the public hearing, the City Council did not continue with the annexation process.
Another effort to annex the islands in 2009 also failed at the public hearing stage The City has indicated to LAFCO that the support of a majority of affected landowners is required prior to annexation of Urban Islands
11 12
2/14/2022
7 NEXT STEPS
If Council determines annexation is an endeavor
it will pursue, staff will begin preliminary tasks
and community outreach efforts
Based to previous efforts, the Council may want
to consider a community meeting prior to
engaging the County and LAFCO
Council may want to consider engaging a
planning consultant to provide expertise in
completing the annexation process
Questions
13 14
STAFF REPORT
Meeting: City Council - Feb 15 2022
Agenda Heading: NEW BUSINESS
Staff Contact: Steve Leonardis,
Department: City Manager
Title: Discussion and Consideration of a City of Monte Sereno Community Grants Deadline, Selection Dates, and Budget Amount
Recommendation(s):
Staff recommends the Monte Sereno City Council chose dates for application deadlines, selection, and a budgeted amount for Community Based Organization Grants or CBO Grants.
Background Information:
In 2020, the City of Monte Sereno City Council adopted a new Community Based Organizations, or CBOs Grants policy. In addition, Monte Sereno City staff created and posted on the Monte Sereno City website, a new CBO application. The intention of adopting policy language and the application was to establish fair guidelines and direction for requesters so Councilmembers could better accommodate the public with grant requests.
Analysis:
Staff recommends a set amount of available funds to aid in the budget process. For instance, in FY 2021-2022, $20,000.00 has been awarded collectively by the City of Monte Sereno for all CBO Grants. In 2020, Monte Sereno City Council awarded $17,000 in CBO Grants. Staff recommends $20,000.00 for the 2022-2023 budget which may be increased in the future by majority vote of council during future budget cycles.
In addition, a deadline to complete the application process must be established. For instance, if grants are to be distributed in June upon adoption of the annual budget, the application process should begin March 1, 2022 and conclude May 3, 2022. Applications are submitted online or to the City Clerk. Council will select CBO grant recipients at the May 17, 2022 City Council meeting.
Fiscal Impact:
If approved, the Council will allocate $20,000.00 in the City's 2022-2023 budget.
Alternatives:
1. Adopt no formal dates or amounts for CBO applications and deadlines
2. Choose alternative dates and limits for CBO applicants Conclusion:
A fair and equitable grant process application and deadline period will better serve the community and aid the Monte Sereno City Council in making CBO grant decisions. Staff believes choosing the set amount of $20K in grant money will make the process easier to plan for the annual FY 2022-2023 budget.
Public Noticing:
The City of Monte Sereno's council meeting agenda was posted on the bulletin board outside of Monte Sereno City Hall and the agenda with this staff report can be accessed on The City of Monte Serena's website located at www.montesereno.org.
Attachments:
Community Grants Letter
Community Grants Application Sample
Community Grants Policy
The City of Monte Sereno recognizes the value of Community Based Organizations and their contribution to residents of Monte Sereno. Historically, Community Based Organizations (CBOs) have enhanced the quality of life and provided enjoyment for residents. Most CBOs are comprised of volunteers from Monte Sereno and surrounding communities.
Examples of CBO’s include but are not limited to service clubs, art, music, or education programs, senior services, and organizations hosting local public events. The City of Monte Sereno has established guidelines for CBOs which allow a fair and equitable opportunity to seek funding grants from the City of Monte Sereno.
Community Based Organization Grants Evaluation Criteria 1) The organization or entity must be a local entity, serve Monte Sereno Residents, or have a nexus to the Monte Sereno Community.
2) The organization or entity must provide their services or event free to the public. 3) The organization or entity must be a non-profit (Internal Revenue Code Section 501(c)(3) or similar non-profit organization.
4) The organization or entity must comply with all local, state, and federal laws including but not limited to nondiscrimination requirements. 5) The organization or entity must be volunteer led.
Application Process
Applications for fiscal year 2022-2023 must be filed by May 3, 2022. The City Council will consider applications at the City Council meeting May 17, 2022, at 7:00 p.m. at Monte Sereno City Hall.
Insurance Coverage
All CBOs who receive funding grants through the City of Monte Sereno must maintain their own insurance policies for their entities and events. In addition, grantees shall agree to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the City of Monte Sereno, and its elected and appointed officers, employees, agents, and volunteers, of all liability and claims which could arise from their organizations or events.
Contact information
Applicants may submit their questions or follow up on the grants process through the City of Monte Sereno Clerk’s Office. Contact information is provided below:
Attn: City Clerk
City of Monte Sereno
18041 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road
Monte Sereno, CA 95030
(408) 354-7635
18041 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road
Monte Sereno, California 95030-4299
Telephone: 408.354.7635
Fax: 408.395.7653
www.cityofmontesereno.org
Fo Mcenter
By signing in or creating an account, some fields will
auto—populate with your information and your
submitted forms will be saved and accessible to you.
Community Grant Application
Entity Name*
I
EntityIEvent Location
J
is event open is event free is this a
to the public? for volunteer-led _Select CV
attendees? event?
~— Select CV —~ Select CV
Grant Request
* 1
Maximum $5,000
Has- your
Contact Name* Title
l
Organization Name is this a non—profit
]
’ 7
»
7 V’ l N -' organization?
~~ Select One ~- V
Organization Address
Phone*
l
Building Community
How will your event build a sense of community?
Electronic Signature Agreement*
Applicant hereby agrees, on behalf of itself and its
successors and assigns, to indemnify, defend and hold the City of Monte Sereno, its officers, officia s, agents,
employees, boards, commissions, and volunteers free and harmless from and against any and all c aims, demands,
causes of action, damages, liabilities, cost of expenses (including attorney's fees), arising out of or in any manner relating to the community grant funding provided by the City of Monte Sereno, including without imitation any
claims, damages, losses, or liabilities arising out of
Applicant's events or operations making use of such
community grant funding. Applicant furtner agrees that as a condition of receiving funding from the City of Monte
Sereno, Applicant will obtain general liability insurance, covering Applicant's operations (including completed
operations) and any events organized or hosted by
Applicant, with policy limits in the amount of at least $1 million per claim. The policy or policies shall be endorsed to name the City of Monte Sereno, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers as additional insured
parties. Applicant agrees to provide a certificate of
insurance and endorsement(s) to the policies to the City of
Email address
This field is not part of the
form submission.
CD Governmeht Websites by CivicPlus®
STAFF REPORT
Meeting: City Council - Feb 15 2022
Agenda Heading: NEW BUSINESS
Staff Contact: Michelle Radcliffe, City Clerk
Department: City Clerk
Title: Discuss Hosting a City Picnic and Consider a Budget for the City Picnic Recommendation(s):
Staff recommends that the City Council whether to host a City Picnic and if so, determine the budget and direct staff to proceed with coordination.
Background Information:
For the past several years, the City has hosted a Citywide picnic for its residents on a Saturday afternoon in late summer/early fall at Vasona County Park. Each year the number of residents attending the event has grown. Approximately, 250 people attended the picnic held in August 2021.
The City Picnic originated with the City’s 50th anniversary celebration and was coordinated by members of the community and Councilmembers. Staff assisted with logistics and the Councilmembers cooked with community member assisting with various details. As the event attendance grew, the Council decided to hire a professional caterer. Since then, staff has taken lead on coordinating all aspects of the picnic including catering, community outreach, equipment rental and other various tasks. In the past, the Youth Commission assisted with hosting an ice cream sundae bar as well as assisting with various aspects of the event.
In FY2020-2021, the City Council allocated a budget of $15,000 for the event. This amount was allocated in the budget to include catering, dessert, beverages, supplies, and other miscellaneous expenses. The final cost of the 2021 picnic was $6,592.45. The amount spent was lower than expected due to using food trucks to cater the picnic food because the previous vendor used in the past went out of business. There were less activities for attendees at last year's event because of Santa Clara County's COVID protocols.
If the City Council decides to proceed with hosting a City Picnic, staff recommends that $15,000 be budgeted in FY2022-23 for the 2022 picnic. City staff anticipates easing of the County's COVID protocols and mandates due to the number of residents vaccinated in Santa Clara County allowing for more resident attendance and activities. If for some reason the 2022 Citywide picnic cannot happen due to shelter-in-place or for other reasons, staff can bring back the concept of an alternative annual gathering and or an event at future City Council meeting.
Fiscal Impact:
If the City Council decides to host an event, the City Council would determine the budget for the event and the amount will be included in the FY2022-23 Budget.
Public Noticing:
The City Council’s agenda was posted at City Hall and the agenda and this report appear on the City’s website.