AGENDA
City of Monte Sereno
Tuesday, December 6, 2022
City Council
7:00PM
Monte Sereno City Council Chambers -
18041 Saratoga - Los Gatos Road,
Monte Sereno, CA 95030
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC MAY ATTEND IN-PERSON
OR UTILIZE THE VIRTUAL OPTION
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: +1 669 444 9171 or +1 346 248 7799 or +1 719 359 4580 or +1 720 707 2699 or +1 253 205 0468 or +1 253 215 8782 or +1 507 473 4847 or +1 564 217 2000 or +1 646 558 8656 or +1 646 931 3860 or +1 689 278 1000 or +1 301 715 8592 or +1 305 224 1968 or +1 309 205 3325 or +1 312 626 6799 or +1 360 209 5623 or +1 386 347 5053.
When prompted by the system enter participation Webinar ID: 884 7655 8483 and Password: 576000.
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/88476558483?pwd=TUJ0eWkvcnh4eUQ3NWovM3ZmQkhYUT09 Passcode:
576000
Or iPhone one-tap (telephone connection) : US:+16694449171,,88476558483#,,,,*576000# US +13462487799,,88476558483#,,,,*576000# US Passcode: 576000.
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.
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. Consider and Adopt Resolution Extending Teleconferencing of City Council Meetings Pursuant to Government Code Section 54953 (AB 361)
Staff recommends that the City Council consider and adopt a resolution extending teleconferencing of City Council meeting pursuant to AB 361.
Staff Report - SR-22-267 - Pdf
5 - 8
2. Approve the Minutes of the November 15, 2022 Special and Regular City Council Meeting
Staff recommends approve the Minutes of the November 15, 2022 Special and Regular City Council Meeting.
Staff Report -SR-22-148 - Pdf
9 - 17
3. Approve Warrant List Dated December 6, 2022 in the Amount $66,813.00
Staff recommends the City Council approve the Warrant List.
Staff Report - SR-22-274 - Pdf
18 - 20
4. Approve the attached response letter to the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Final Report, "If You Only Read the Ballot, You're Being Duped."
Staff recommends that the City Council consider and approve the attached response letter to the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Final Report, "If You Only Read the Ballot, You're Being Duped." Staff Report - SR-22-272 - Pdf
21 - 50
5. Approve a Three Year Contract for Audit Services with Maze & Associates Accounting Corporation for FY 2021-22 Through 2024-25 In Amount of $93,600
Staff recommends the Monte Sereno City Council engage Maze & Associates for audit services for the next three years.
Staff Report - SR-22-273 - Pdf
51 - 100
PUBLIC HEARINGS
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
NEW BUSINESS
1. Approve Additional Appropriations for 2022 Annual Pavement Improvement Project for $20,529 and Authorize City Manager to Execute Any Required Change Orders
Staff recommends the Monte Sereno City Council authorize additional funding in the amount of $20,529 for unanticipated increased cost in the 2022 Pavement Improvement Project and authorize the City Manager to execute any required change orders to the contract.
Staff Report - SR-22-275 - Pdf
101 - 103
2. Appointment of Gloisy Gonzalez-Langarica to Position of City Clerk
3. Recognition of and Remarks from Outgoing City Councilmembers
4. Administration of Oath of Office and Seating of Newly elected City Councilmembers
5. City Council Reorganization
1. Election of Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore
2. Remarks by Outgoing Mayor
Resolution 1691.7
104 - 118
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.
Cities Association Board of Directors - Ellahie/Mekechuk Cities Association Legislative Action Committee - Ellahie/Mekechuk Cities Association City Selection Committee - Ellahie/Lawler Valley Transportation Authority PAC - Mekechuk/Leuthold Silicon Valley Animal Control Authority - Lawler/Turner Silicon Valley Clean Energy Authority - Ellahie/Mekechuk West Valley Clean Water Board - Mekechuk/Turner
West Valley Mayors and Managers - Ellahie/Mekechuk
West Valley Sanitation District - Turner/Leuthold
West Valley Solid Waste/Recycling JPA - Mekechuk/Turner
Youth Commission - Lawler/Turner
Santa Clara County Library JPA - Leuthold/Lawler
Valley Water Board - Lawler/Turner
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]
STAFF REPORT
Meeting: City Council - Dec 06 2022
Agenda Heading: CONSENT CALENDAR
Staff Contact: Gloisy Gonzalez-Langarica,
Department: City Clerk
Title: Consider and Adopt Resolution Extending Teleconferencing of City Council Meetings Pursuant to Government Code Section 54953 (AB 361) Recommendation(s):
Staff recommends that the City Council consider and adopt a resolution extending teleconferencing of City Council meeting pursuant to AB 361.
Background Information:
AB 361 was signed by the Governor of the State of California and went into effect immediately upon signature by the governor. It amends the Brown Act to allow local legislative bodies to continue having purely virtual meetings using teleconferencing and virtual meeting technology as long as there is a gubernatorial “proclaimed state of emergency,” and either (1) state or local officials imposing or recommending measures that promote social distancing or (2) the legislative body finding that meeting in person would present an imminent safety risk to attendees.
The key differences between existing Executive Order N-08-21, which expires September 30, 2021, and AB 361 is that AB 361 imposes particular requirements with respect to public comment, however, the City of Monte Sereno’s current practices with respect to live public comment via Zoom already satisfy all of the new requirements in AB 361. Additionally, public agencies must either make findings by majority vote that the state of emergency still exists and continues to directly impact the ability of the members to meet safely in person, or that health officials continue to impose or recommend measures to promote social distancing.
Determinations by the local agency that the emergency impacts the ability to meet safely in person must be re-visited every 30 days.
At its September 21, 2021 meeting, the City Council adopted Resolution No. 21-3826 authorizing virtual City Council meetings during declared state of emergency pursuant to Government Code. The City Council determined that the pandemic of COVID-19 creates an imminent safety risk to councilmembers and other potential attendees of City Council meetings. At present, risk of COVID-19 due the delta and omicron variant remains high; the CDC reports that for the period between the period between September 8, 2022 and September 15, 2022 that Santa Clara County had “low” community transmission with 120.5 case rate per 100,000 population, 8.2 new COVID-19 admissions per 100,000 population, and
4.7% staffed inpatient beds in use by patients with confirmed COVID-19. Due to the ongoing state of emergency, staff believes that the City Council can re-adopt its previous findings, and authorize continued virtual meetings for the next 30 days.
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:
Draft Resolution
RESOLUTION NO. 22-XXXX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTE SERENO AUTHORIZING
VIRTUAL CITY COUNCIL MEETINGS DURING DECLARED STATE OF EMERGENCY PURSUANT TO GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54953 (AB 361)
WHEREAS, AB 361 was recently signed by the Governor of the State of California, enacting certain changes to the Brown Act as set forth in Government Code section 54953; and
WHEREAS AB 361 authorizes local legislative bodies to continue having purely virtual meetings using teleconferencing and virtual meeting technology as long as there is a gubernatorial “proclaimed state of emergency,” and either (1) state or local officials imposing or recommending measures that promote social distancing or (2) the legislative body finding that meeting in person would present an imminent safety risk to attendees; and
WHEREAS, the state of emergency proclaimed by the Governor on March 4, 2020 related to the pandemic of coronavirus commonly as COVID-19 has not been rescinded and remains in effect; and
WHEREAS, new variants of COVID-19 have developed, and risks of illness or death due to such variants remains significant to the general public; and WHEREAS, the CDC reports that for the period between September 8, 2022 and September 15, 2022 that Santa Clara County had “low” community transmission with 120.5 case rate per 100,000 population, 8.2 new COVID-19 admissions per 100,000 population, and 4.7% staffed inpatient beds in use by patients with confirmed COVID-19; WHEREAS, the County of Santa Clara Health Officer ordered on August 2, 2021, that face coverings be used in all indoor settings, including all governmental meetings, and recommended that governmental entities move operations and activities outdoors where possible as a result of the continued transmission of the Delta and Omicron Variant of COVID-19;
WHEREAS, the City Council, acting as a legislative body pursuant to Government Code section 54952(a) and for the benefit of the commissions, committees and other bodies that were created by the City Council pursuant to Government Code section
54952(b) (collectively referred to as “Legislative Bodies”), finds that the current conditions meet the circumstances set forth in Government Code section 54953(e)(3) to allow Legislative Bodies to continue to use teleconferencing to hold open and public meetings if the Legislative Bodies comply with the requirements set forth in Government Code section 54953(e)(2) to ensure the public can safely participate in and observe local government meetings.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Monte Sereno that:
1. The City Council determines that the pandemic of COVID-19 creates an imminent safety risk to councilmembers and other potential attendees of City Council meetings.
2. In accordance with AB 361, the City Council shall re-consider the passage of this resolution not less than every 30 days to determine whether state of emergency continues to directly impact the ability of the members to meet safely in person, or whether state or local officials continue to impose or recommend measures to promote social distancing, until this resolution is rescinded.
3. The Legislative Bodies, and City staff, are hereby authorized to take all actions necessary to carry out the intent and purpose of this Resolution, including conducting open and public meetings in accordance with Government Code section 54953(e)(2) and other applicable provisions of the Brown Act.
REGULARLY passed and adopted this 6th day of December, 2022.
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
APPROVED:
Javed I. Ellahie, Mayor
ATTEST: __________
Gloisy Gonzalez-Langarica, Deputy City Clerk
STAFF REPORT
Meeting: City Council - Dec 06 2022
Agenda Heading: CONSENT CALENDAR
Staff Contact: Gloisy Gonzalez-Langarica,
Department: City Clerk
Title: Approve the Minutes of the November 15, 2022 Special and Regular City Council Meeting
Recommendation(s):
Staff recommends approve the Minutes of the November 15, 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:
11-15-22 Special Meeting Minutes DRAFT
11-15-22 Regular Meeting Minutes DRAFT
MONTE SERENO CITY COUNCIL
MEETING MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING
6:00 p.m.
November 15, 2022
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
At approximately 6:00 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, City Planner Perkins, and Deputy City Clerk Gonzalez-Langarica
Absent: None
ADJOURN TO CLOSED SESSION
There were no Public Comment. The City Council adjourned to Closed Session at approximately 6:02 p.m.
CLOSED SESSION
1. (Pursuant to Government Code section 54957)
PUBLIC EMPLOYEE APPOINTMENT
Title: CITY CLERK
PUBLIC EMPLOYMENT
Title: CITY CLERK
RECONVENE TO OPEN SESSION
The City Council reconvened to Open Session at approximately 6:56 p.m. with Councilmember Lawler, Councilmember Leuthold, Councilmember Turner, Mayor Pro Tempore Mekechuk and Mayor Ellahie.
REPORT ON ACTION TAKEN DURING CLOSED SESSION
Mayor Ellahie reported out, the Council unanimously voted to extend an offer of employment to Deputy City Clerk Gonzalez-Langarica from Deputy City Clerk to City Clerk.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at approximately 6:58 p.m.
Javed Ellahie, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Gloisy Gonzalez-Langarica, Deputy City Clerk
MONTE SERENO CITY COUNCIL
MEETING MINUTES
REGULAR MEETING
7:00 p.m.
November 15, 2022
MEETING CALLED TO ORDER
At approximately 7:08 p.m., Mayor Ellahie called the meeting to order.
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Councilmember Lawler conducted the Pledge of the Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
Present: Councilmember Leuthold, Councilmember Turner, Councilmember Lawler Mayor Pro Tempore Mekechuk and Mayor Ellahie
Absent: None
Staff Present: City Manager Leonardis, City Attorney Rudin, Finance Officer Samoranos, City Planner Perkins, Building Consultant Fatapour and City Clerk Langarica-Gonzalez
Absent: None
ORDERS OF THE DAY
There were none.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Tony Jeans suggested to Council that the SB9 be revisited. He would like Council to bring up a discussion with a proposal similar to the original one that staff presented a year ago.
WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS
There were none.
CONSENT CALENDAR (TO BE ACTED UPON BY A SINGLE MOTION)
1. Approve the Minutes of the November 1, 2022 Regular City Council Meeting
2. Adoption of a Resolution Summarily Vacating Right of Way at 15255 and 15297 Karl Avenue
3. Accept the LAIF Report for the Period Ending August 31, 2022
4. Accept the Treasurer's Report for the Period ending August 31, 2022
5. Accept the Significant August 2022 Year To Date Variances to Budget Narrative for the month of August 2022
6. Accept Revenues and Expenditures Report for the Month of August 31, 2022
7. Approve Warrant List Dated November 15, 2022 in the amount $515,393.02 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
1. Public Hearings on Adoption of:
(1) Ordinance No. NS-230, an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Monte Sereno Amending Title 9 of the Monte Sereno Municipal Code to Adopt by Reference Title 24 of the California Code of Regulations, 2022 California Building Standards Code, Including California Residential Code, California Plumbing Code, California Electrical Code, California Mechanical Code, California Green Building Code, California Energy Code, California Fire Code and the California Existing Building Code Subject to the Specified Local Amendments. (2) Ordinance No. NS-231, An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Monte Sereno Amending Title 9, Buildings and Construction, of the Monte Sereno Municipal Code to Add Sections 9.01.040 and 9.01.060 to Enact Specified Local Amendments to the California Energy Code, 2022 Edition, Title 24, Part 6 and the California Green Building Standards Code, 2022 Edition, Title 24, Part 11 of the California Code of Regulations.
City Planner Perkins provided a staff report
Mayor Ellahie opened item for Public Comment. Since there was no one wishing to speak, Public Comment was closed.
MOTION: Motion by Councilmember Turner to waive the second reading of, and adopt Ordinance No. NS-230. Seconded by Mayor Pro Tempore Mekechuk.
VOTE: Motion passed unanimously. (5-0-0)
Mayor Ellahie opened item for Public Comment. Since there was no one wishing to speak, the Public Comment was closed.
Council comments.
MOTION: Motion by Councilmember Leuthold to waive the second reading of and adopt Ordinance No. NS-231. Seconded by Mayor Pro Tempore Mekechuk.
VOTE: Motion passed. (4-1-0)
NEW BUSINESSS
1. Consideration of Appointment of Natalia Nazarova to Fill One of Two Vacancies on the Monte Sereno Better Streets Commission
Deputy City Clerk Gonzalez-Langarica provided a staff report.
Discussion commenced with regards to the report.
Mayor Ellahie opened item for Public Comment. Since there was no one wishing to speak, the Public Comment was closed.
MOTION: Motion by Mayor Pro Tempore Mekechuk to appoint Natalia Nazarova to Fill One of Two Vacancies on the Monte Sereno Better Streets Commission subject to confirmation of her residency. Seconded by Councilmember Lawler.
VOTE: Motion passed unanimously. (5-0-0)
2. Consideration of Appointment of Allison Zeidler, Shalini Srivastava, and Thomas Connelly to Fill Three Vacancies on the Monte Sereno Site and Architectural Commission Applicants addressed Council:
Applicant Zeidler
Applicant Srivastava
Mayor Ellahie opened item for Public Comment. Since there was no one wishing to speak, the Public Comment was closed.
MOTION: Motion by Councilmember Lawler to appoint Allison Zeidler, Shalini Srivastava, and Thomas Connelly to Fill Three Vacancies on the Monte Sereno Site and Architectural Commission. Seconded by Mayor Pro Tempore Mekechuk.
VOTE: Motion passed unanimously. (5-0-0)
Mayor Pro Tempore Mekechuk thanked both the Better Streets Commissioners and Site & Architectural Commissioners for volunteering their time, effort and expertise to the City.
UNFINISHED BUSINESS
1. Introduction and Waiver of First Reading of Ordinance No. NS-232, an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Monte Sereno Amending Section 10.06.140 (Accessory Dwelling Units) and
10.06.150 (Accessory Dwelling Unit Amnesty Program)
City Planner Perkins provided a staff report
Discussion commenced with regards to the report.
Mayor Ellahie opened item for Public Comment. Since there was no one wishing to speak, the Public Comment was closed.
MOTION: Motion by Councilmember Turner to Introduction and Waiver of First Reading of Ordinance No. NS-232, an Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Monte Sereno Amending Section 10.06.140 (Accessory Dwelling Units) and 10.06.150 (Accessory Dwelling Unit Amnesty Program).
Seconded by Councilmember Lawler.
VOTE: Motion passed unanimously. (5-0-0)
2. Discuss and Provide Direction to Staff Regarding Potential Changes to the Municipal Code Section 10.01.020.AU Definition of ‘Structure’
City Planner Perkins provided a staff report
Discussion commenced with regards to the report.
Mayor Ellahie opened item for Public Comment.
Public Comment was received from the following people:
Tony Jeans
Karen Gruo
Stanley Watt
David Pound
Mayor Ellahie closed Public Comment.
Council provided staff with the direction as intended is to improve the language so that it is less ambiguous and its clear what is acceptable and what is not. It is not to change contexts of what is administratively interpreted at this point in time. A non-substantive change.
COMMITTEE/COMMISSION REPORTS
Mayor Pro Tempore Mekechuk shared attending a workshop along with the Mayor and the City
Manager with the Cities Association Board of Directors. Mayor will be reporting on this Board meeting. Reported the VTA meeting was canceled. In terms of Silicon Valley Clean Energy, he shared he would be attending a Ribbon Cutting Ceremony in Southern California on a new solar farm on November 30th. Nothing to report on West Valley Clean Water. West Valley Solid Waste/Recycling JPA has an upcoming meeting on December 5th to go through the contract with the purposed bidder. That will be an important meeting. Lastly, nothing to report on the AdHoc Finance Committee.
Councilmember Lawler shared Silicon Valley Animal Control Authority has a meeting tomorrow.
Youth Commission met for the first time in the Council Chambers since the pandemic. Nothing to report for the Valley Water Board.
Councilmember Leuthold stated no new commissions reports. Next Library meeting will be in January. No new updates on the Housing AdHoc.
Councilmember Turner shared attending a CERT Training. She would like to put in an NICP at the City Hall as this would help the City, especially now. Second report was on West Valley Sanitation District, where she reported getting a vote on the committee to increase the rates about 40%.
Mayor Ellahie reported during his meeting with Silicon Valley Clean Energy Authority AB2449 was spoke about in details. He also shared Silicon Valley Clean Energy has a good program that is a nonprofit, that gives back to the community. He followed up with reporting on Cities Association Board of Directors and the
COUNCILMEMBER COMMENTS
Councilmember Lawler congratulated newly appointed City Clerk Gonzalez-Langarica. Followed up with thanking all Councilmembers for the support she received during her campaign and expressed it’s been an honor for her to server as a Councilmember.
Mayor Pro Tempore Mekechuk acknowledged and welcomed the two incoming Councilmembers sitting in the Chambers at tonight’s meeting.
CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
City Manager Leonardis shared some details on the upcoming 66th Annual Children’s Holiday Parade happening on Saturday, December 3rd. Further details will be emailed to Council as the date gets closer.
FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS
Councilmember Leuthold congratulated City Clerk on the offer of employment assuming the offer of employment is accepted. Councilmember recommends a close session be scheduled with the City Clerk to go over performance goals and metrics for future review, Council expectations, lines of communication, so expectations are set in advance and the lines of communication are opened.
Mayor Ellahie stated he’s like to see an update on the SB9 at a future agenda.
ADJOURN
The meeting adjourned at approximately 8:45 p.m.
Javed I. Ellahie, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________________
Gloisy Gonzalez-Langarica, Deputy City Clerk
STAFF REPORT
Meeting: City Council - Dec 06 2022
Agenda Heading: CONSENT CALENDAR
Staff Contact: Reynold Samoranos,
Department: Finance Manager
Title: Approve Warrant List Dated December 6, 2022 in the Amount $66,813.00 Recommendation(s):
Staff recommends the City Council approve the Warrant List.
Background Information:
Analysis:
California Environmental Quality Act:
Fiscal Impact:
There are no unbudgeted fiscal impact with this agenda item.
Alternatives:
Conclusion:
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:
2022 12 06 Warrants List
CITY OF MONTE SERENO
REGISTER OF ACCOUNTS PAYABLE AS OF THESE DATES:
December 6, 2022
CHECK
NO. TO FOR AMOUNT ACCOUNT NO.
20078 King Creole
Entertainment
Entertainment for Christmas parade
2022 700.00 01-507
20079 Sandra Cranford Annual Santa Clara County City
Manager Luncheon 225.00 01-710
20080 Alana Consulting, LLC
Hourly Services (11/07/2022 to
12/04/2022) $7015 and ePermit
Development ($6842.50)
13,857.50 01-765
20081 All Earth Geotechnical
Engineering, Inc.
Replacement check #20060 - 2022 PIP
Inspection and testing for 2022 Annual
Pavement Improvement Project (PMP
Annual)
3,590.02 01-845
20082 Anago Franchising, Inc December 2022 Janitorial services for City Hall 480.80 01-860
20083 BMI Imaging Systems Web Hosting 225.00 01-715
20084 CIVICPLUS Service charge 5.00 01-480
20085 corodata Shredding,
Inc. Container rental fee 10.00 01-710
20086 CSG Consultants, Inc Code Enforcement Services ($8110) and Building Inspector Services ($4600) 12,710.00 01-545 01-765 20087 Dicar Networks, Inc.
Monthly Managed Care Services for two
months ($2650), various software
license renewal ($2736) and in-house
training on Boxcast and connectivity
computer repair ($938).
6,323.50 01-535
01-811
20088 EnviroScience, Inc. Mold air sampling, analysis and report at City Hall 2,815.00 01-860
20089 First Choice Coffee
Services
Coffee and drinking water service at City
Hall 44.50 01-710
20090 James R. Allkins ADU 50% discount fee returned to permit #2022-0168 on One Oak Lane. 2,415.00 01-236
20091 KTUA Monte Sereno Bicycle Pedestrian Master
Plan project (CIP-2022-F) 6,640.30 05-925
20092 Pacific Gas & Electric
Electricity Services for City Hall ($425),
City Lights ($189), Loma Sereno Ltg
District ($177)
791.15 40-935
01-705
20093 Prime Tree Care, Inc. Remove dead tree at Robin Ann Ln., Trim trees at City Hall 4,550.00 01-860
CITY OF MONTE SERENO
REGISTER OF ACCOUNTS PAYABLE AS OF THESE DATES:
December 6, 2022
20094 The A.I.M.S.
Corporation
Don Wimberly, Consulting Engineer
(10/31/2022 to 11/28/2022) 10,950.00 01-765
20095 RICOH USA, INC. Copier rental at City Hall 480.23 01-715 $66,813.00
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 - Dec 06 2022
Agenda Heading: CONSENT CALENDAR
Staff Contact: Steve Leonardis,
Department: City Manager
Title: Approve the attached response letter to the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Final Report, "If You Only Read the Ballot, You're Being Duped."
Recommendation(s):
Staff recommends that the City Council consider and approve the attached response letter to the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Final Report, "If You Only Read the Ballot, You're Being Duped."
Background Information:
On October 7, 2022, the 2021-2022 Civil Grand Jury of Santa Clara County released a report on the clarity of ballot measure questions. The Grand Jury Report proposes that an oversight person or body be empowered to review and reject the wording of ballot questions if deemed to be false, misleading, or partial to one side. Pursuant to Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, the Grand Jury requested a response from the City of Monte Sereno and other jurisdictions that may place measures on the ballot. Specifically, the City of Monte Sereno and 22 other governing bodies were asked to respond to finding #1 of the report and report recommendations 1b, 1c, and 1e. Penal Code section 933(c) requires the City Council to provide a response within 90 days, by no later than January 5, 2023.
Analysis:
On October 7, 2022, the 2021-2022 Civil Grand Jury of Santa Clara County released a report on the clarity of ballot measure questions. The Grand Jury Report proposes that an oversight person or body be empowered to review and reject the wording of ballot questions if deemed to be false, misleading, or partial to one side.
Pursuant to Penal Code sections 933 and 933.05, the Grand Jury requires a response from the City of Monte Sereno and other jurisdictions that may place measures on the ballot. Specifically, the City of Monte Sereno and 22 other governing bodies were asked to respond to finding #1 of the report and report recommendations 1b, 1c, and 1e. Penal Code section 933(c) requires the City Council to provide a response within 90 days, by no later than January 5, 2023.
The City must respond to the following findings and recommendations:
Finding 1
The Civil Grand Jury finds that in the current environment, which is unregulated at the local level, it is easy for the author of a ballot measure question to write the question in a way that is confusing or misleading to voters.
Recommendation 1b
Governing entitieswithin Santa Clara County should voluntarily submit their ballot questions to the County Counsel for review prior to submission to the Registrar of Voters, unless and until Recommendation 1d is implemented
Recommendation 1c
Governing entitieswithin Santa Clara County should, by March 31, 2023, adopt their own resolution or ordinance to require submission of their ballot questions to the County Counsel for review prior to submission to the Registrar of Voters, unless and until Recommendations 1d and 1e are implemented.
Recommendation 1e
Governing entitieswithin Santa Clara County should submit their ballot questions for review by the Good Governance in Ballots Commission pursuant to Recommendation 1d.
California Penal Code Section 933.05 mandates specific requirements for responding to grand jury reports. The governing body of a public agency must respond within 90 days from the release of the report to the public. Penal Code section 933(c). State law prescribes the format of the response, and requires that for responses to findings, the City Council must select one of three options:
1. Respondent agrees with finding,
2. Respondent disagrees wholly with finding or
3. Respondent disagrees partially with finding.
If respondent uses option 2 or 3 then the response must specify the portion of the disputed finding along with a clear explanation.
For responding to recommendations, the format for responding and response options are:
1. Recommendation has been implemented
2. Recommendation has not been implemented but will be implementing noting a timeframe
3. Recommendation requires further analysis or study noting a timeframe not to exceed six months from date Grand Jury Report was issued
4. Recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or reasonable, with an explanation.
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:
Letter Received from the Grand Jury - Date October 7, 2022 "If You Only Read the Ballot, You're Being Duped" Final Report Draft Letter
SUPERIOR COURT BUILDING • 191 NORTH FIRST STREET, SAN JOSE, CALIFORNIA 95113 • (408) 882-2721 • FAX (408) 882-2795
G R A N D J U R Y S A N T A C L A R A C O U N T Y
October 4, 2022
City of Monte Sereno
c/o Ms. Michelle Estabillo, City Clerk
18041 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road
Monte Sereno, CA 95030
Sent via email: [email protected]
Dear Ms. Estabillo:
Pursuant to Penal Code § 933.05(f), the 2022 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury is transmitting to you its Final Report, If You Only Read the Ballot, You’re Being Duped.
Penal Code § 933.05(f) states the following:
A grand jury shall provide to the affected agency a copy of the portion of the grand jury report relating to that person or entity two working days prior to its public release and after the approval of the presiding judge. No officer, agency, department or governing body of a public agency shall disclose any contents of the report prior to the public release of the final report. Leg. H. 1996 ch. 1170, 1997 ch. 443.
This report will be made public and released to the media on Friday, October 7, 2022, at 10 am. If you have any questions please contact Britney Huelbig, Deputy Manager for the Civil Grand Jury, at (408) 882-2721 or [email protected].
Sincerely,
James Renalds
Foreperson
2022 Civil Grand Jury
Enclosures
Release date here Page 0 of 23
IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT,
YOU’RE BEING DUPED
2022 Santa Clara County
Civil Grand Jury
Release Date: [tentative 10/7/22]
IF YOU ONLY READ THE IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED
TABLE OF CONTENTS
GLOSSARY AND ABBREVIATIONS..........................................................................................2 SUMMARY.....................................................................................................................................4 BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................................5 METHODOLOGY ..........................................................................................................................6 INVESTIGATION...........................................................................................................................6 CONCLUSION..............................................................................................................................16 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS..................................................................................17 REQUIRED RESPONSES............................................................................................................19 REFERENCES ..............................................................................................................................21
IF YOU ONLY READ THE IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED
GLOSSARY AND ABBREVIATIONS
Attorney General The chief law officer who represents a state in legal proceedings.
Ballot Card The printed ballot, usually on high-grade paper, consisting of the ballot questions and names of individuals running for elected office.
Ballot Measure Ballot measures are proposals, usually at a county or local level, to enact new laws or repeal existing laws, which are placed on the ballot for approval or rejection by the
electorate.
Ballot Proposition
Ballot Question or Ballot
Label
Boards and Commissions
Caselaw
County Counsel or Office of
the County Counsel
Elections Code
Governing Entity
Ballot propositions are proposals, usually at the state level, to enact new laws or constitutional amendments or repeal existing laws or constitutional amendments, which are
placed on the ballot for approval or rejection by the
electorate.
For purposes of this report, Ballot Question or Ballot
Label means the 75-word or less statement of a measure
that precedes “Yes” or “No” on the ballot card.
Boards and Commissions are made up of residents who
volunteer their time and expertise to assist and advise governing bodies in the chosen capacity.
Law or legal precedent established by the outcome of
court cases.
The County Counsel is the chief legal advisor and
representative for the county, including the county board of supervisors and all county agencies and departments.
A collection of California laws related to public elections.
A jurisdiction such as a city, county, school district, special district, or political subdivision.
IF YOU ONLY READ THE IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED Home Rule
Public Opinion Pollsters
Registrar of Voters
Single Subject Rule
Term Limits
Writ of Mandate
The right of self-government that is granted by state
constitution or statute to give autonomy to a local
government. Home Rule implies that each level of
government has a separate realm of authority.
Opinion polls are designed to represent the opinions of a population by conducting a series of questions and then extrapolating generalities in ratio or within confidence intervals. A person who conducts polls is referred to as a pollster.
The department responsible for the operation,
administration, and direction of the elections department, with primary responsibility for the registration of voters, the holding of elections, and all matters pertaining to elections.
Per Article II, Section 8(d) of the California Constitution, “An initiative measure embracing more than one subject
may not be submitted to the electors or have any effect.” Essentially, the rule stands for the notion that where an initiative embraces more than one subject, it can neither be submitted to, nor enacted by, the voters.
A specified number of terms (in years) that a person in office is allowed to serve.
In California, writs of mandate are used by superior courts, courts of appeal, and the Supreme Court to command
lower bodies, including both courts and government
agencies, to do or not to do certain things.
IF YOU ONLY READ THE IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED
SUMMARY
It is not uncommon for the public to be confronted daily with news and information through multiple sources—traditional television programming, 24/7 cable news, satellite radio, social media, and phone alerts. In the context of elections, voters’ busy lives can be overwhelmed with many different voices. County and state voter information guides are required by law to be mailed to every registered voter, but voters today do not have a lot of time to read these resources. As a result, the ballot measure question printed on the ballot itself becomes a key factor in the outcome of an election.
There is an expectation in California law that ballot questions be drafted in a manner that is not false, misleading, or partial to one side.1 But there are ways to work around it. Among the fifty or so jurisdictions in Santa Clara County that are eligible to put forth a ballot measure, the 2022 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury (Civil Grand Jury) has seen ballot question language that is confusing, advocacy-oriented, or simply dishonest. Yes, sometimes voters are being deceived.
Many voters cannot comprehend the complicated language or the implications of that "yes” or "no” vote. In a perfect world, voters would have the luxury of time to research these issues. In reality, however, voters almost always rely on the language of the ballot measure question itself.
What can be done about this? The Civil Grand Jury proposes an oversight person or body, one who has taken an oath to act with integrity, is well versed in the requirements of the law, and is empowered to review and to reject ballot question wording that is false, misleading, or partial to one side. Santa Clara County should have a climate whereby governing entities in Santa Clara County are discouraged from using dishonest or deceitful wording in a ballot question, especially when they know it will be reviewed and could be rejected. In so doing, due process will be strengthened. With clearer writing, ballot measure questions will be more transparent and straightforward, which will lead to a better perception of government by the voters. It is time to remove impediments to good governance.
1 California Elections Code section 10403 requires a ballot question to “conform to this code governing the wording of propositions submitted to the voters at a statewide election.” The California Elections Code contains Section 9051, which provides that in a statewide election the ballot title and summary of an initiative or referendum must be a “true and impartial statement of the purpose of the measure in such language that the ballot title and summary shall neither be an argument, nor be likely to create prejudice, for or against the proposed measure.” (Elec. C. §9051(c); see also, McDonough v. Superior Ct. (2012) 204 Cal. App. 4th 1169, 1172.)
IF YOU ONLY READ THE IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED
BACKGROUND
Ballot measures or ballot propositions are proposals to enact new laws or constitutional amendments or to repeal existing laws or constitutional amendments. They are placed on the ballot for approval or rejection by the voting public. The words “ballot measures” are often used by county, city, and local governing entities, whereas at the state level, the California State Legislature uses the term “ballot propositions” to refer to the same concept. The ballot measure question, which is the subject of this report, refers to the maximum 75-word text that precedes the “Yes” or “No” selection on the ballot card itself. Because most voters never read beyond what is printed on the ballot card, it is of critical importance that ballot measure questions be concise, accurate, and impartial.
Recently, two local newspaper articles highlighted the tactics that governing entities have used to manipulate voters:
• Borenstein, Daniel, Tricks California Local Officials Use To Trick Voters, Bay Area News Group, January 21, 2022.
• Mercury News and East Bay Times Editorial Boards, Stop Deceiving Bay Area Voters on Local Tax Measure Costs, June 26, 2020, updated September 5, 2020.
As part of its charge, the Civil Grand Jury is responsible for identifying areas within local government that lack good governance or practices. This Civil Grand Jury identified as a problem the choice of wording used in local ballot measure questions. Specifically, the Civil Grand Jury discovered that some local governing entities presenting measures for a public vote create ballot questions that are purposefully misleading so they may obtain their desired result. In particular, it was noted that the wording of a ballot question from the June 2022 election, although representing a relatively simple issue, created confusion among the public. When voters found out what the text of the measure actually meant, they felt deceived by the wording of the ballot question. Deception in ballot questions is worth the attention of the Civil Grand Jury. This problem must be remediated to reinstate good governance in the election process.
IF YOU ONLY READ THE IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED
METHODOLOGY
The Civil Grand Jury used the following investigative methods:
• Interviews with ten individuals who are well versed in the intricacies of the election process and experts in political science and local governments
• Three published Civil Grand Jury reports: 2021-22 Alameda County, 2021-22 Santa Cruz County, 2021 Santa Clara County
• Editorials from local and regional newspapers: Mercury News, Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle
• Close reviews of ballot measures, past and upcoming, from the counties of San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, and the City and County of San Francisco • Legal research of court challenges involving ballot questions
INVESTIGATION
Throughout this report, the Civil Grand Jury was interested only in the process of ballot measure question drafting, not the substance of the underlying ballot measure itself. In its research and analysis, the Civil Grand Jury does not examine the merits of the measure, but rather whether the question as drafted is truthful, impartial, and fair. Ballot questions must conform to statutory requirements and should provide voters with sufficient information and transparency to make informed decisions.
A straightforward ballot question can be summarized this way: A vote for “Yes” means yes and a vote for “No” means no. Unfortunately, it is common for ballot questions to be presented whereby a vote for “Yes” actually means no, and vice versa. This wording is arguably confusing. Inching farther away from confusing questions, the research performed by the Civil Grand Jury found ballot questions that are even worse—they are misleading.
Santa Clara Valley Water District’s Measure A
During the last election in June 2022, the question for Measure A put forth by the Santa Clara Valley Water District (Water District) employed such a tactic:
Shall the measure amending the Santa Clara Valley Water District Ordinance 11-01 to limit Board members to four successive four-year terms be adopted? The Water District had term limits already in place for board members to serve three four-year terms, or 12 years at most. Measure A sought to increase term limits to four four-year terms, or 16 years at most. However, the ballot question hid the fact that a term limit was already in place; it
IF YOU ONLY READ THE IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED asked voters whether a term limit of four terms should be adopted, thereby couching the question as a measure to adopt term limits generally, which one political science expert described to the Civil Grand Jury as a concept widely favorable to the voting public. The ballot question did not reflect what the Water District wanted to do. The Water District wanted to extend term limits, but it wrote the ballot question without using the words “extend,” “change,” or “increase.” Instead, the Water District characterized the ballot measure as setting term limits, which is a mischaracterization of what Measure A was actually about.
Further, it is notable that in November 1998, the County of Santa Clara placed a substantially similar measure on the ballot using the same tactic. Measure E asked:
Shall the County of Santa Clara amend section 202 to limit the number of terms a member of the Board of Supervisors may serve to three terms, consisting of four years each? Again, the ballot question failed to inform the reader that each member of the County of Santa Clara Board of Supervisors was already limited to two terms and that the ballot measure proposed to extend years served, not “limit” them. By not being transparent, this tactic of ballot question drafting is tantamount to a lie by omission; it borders on deceiving the public. From Measure E in 1998 to Measure A this year, 24 years later, the climate has not changed.
Regulations that Govern Ballot Questions
Sections 9100-9190 of the California Elections Code specifically address county-level elections.
Other sections of the Elections Code, while they do not specifically address county-level elections, have import and therefore apply as well. The County of Santa Clara has not enacted local ordinance code provisions regarding ballot question language.
Under the Elections Code, the wording of a ballot measure must state the ballot question, or what the Elections Code calls the “label,” in 75 words or less (Elec. C. §9051(b), §10403, §13247). The ballot question must state “the nature” of the measure (Elec. C. §13120). The official who drafts the ballot question “shall give a true and impartial statement of the purpose of the measure in such language that the ballot title and summary shall neither be an argument, nor be likely to create prejudice, for or against the proposed measure” (Elec. C. §9051(c)). In other words, ballot measure questions shall not be false, misleading, or partial to one side.
Who is Responsible for Writing Ballot Questions?
Today, ballot questions are rarely written “from scratch.” Residing in the public domain are hundreds, if not thousands, of boilerplate questions spanning the universe of issues typically faced by government and public agencies. Putting a measure on the ballot usually starts with selecting
IF YOU ONLY READ THE IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED an existing template, preferably one that had been used successfully within a reasonable timeframe and geographic proximity to the one at hand. Tweaks are then made to the chosen template to fit the measure being proposed.
Governing entities are ultimately responsible for approving the final text of the ballot question, but the actual selection of words is often the calculated and carefully calibrated work product of hired election experts, consultants, and attorneys. These outside consultants often rely on public opinion pollsters to determine the type of proposal and wording to put before voters that would achieve the desired outcome. Often, this includes using “feel good” wording that is shown to resonate with voters: “reduce crime;” “funds spent locally;” “all money locally controlled;” and “with citizen oversight.” Results from public opinion polls often dictate the structure and selection of words used within the ballot question, which is then voted on and, if successful, adopted by the governing body such as a city council, a county board of supervisors, the board members of a school district, or any governing body of a government entity operating within the county. During the course of this investigation, the Civil Grand Jury learned that local measures on the ballot that governing entities choose wording likely to be most successful at the ballot box over clarity of language to the voter.
For purposes of this investigation, the Civil Grand Jury focused on ballot questions relating to local ballot measures, not state propositions, because according to the California Elections Code, the state attorney general is responsible for providing ballot questions for state propositions. In contrast, there is no similar requirement that a certain officer provide the ballot question for local elections, so it is instead drafted by the proponent of the measure at the local level.
Advocacy and Tactical Wordplay Result in Poorly Drafted Ballot Questions It has been widely observed today that the 75-word ballot questions are being used as advocacy pieces, at the expense of fairness and impartiality. In an aptly titled report published in June of last year, the Alameda County Civil Grand Jury advocated for “The Need for Accuracy and Impartiality of Ballot Measure Questions.” The jury explained how and why the desire to achieve a certain outcome has tainted the process to produce ballot measure questions that are not accurate and impartial:
In general, we found ballot questions suffer from a “proponent’s bias” that is a natural outgrowth of the typical process through which questions are selected, drafted, and proposed. … In general, we found that ballot questions too often fall short of what voters have a right to expect in terms of transparency and impartiality, even when satisfying minimum legal standards.
IF YOU ONLY READ THE IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED The jury in Alameda reviewed and provided an in-depth analysis of six ballot questions to reach their conclusion. In so doing, they exposed the “tricks of the trade”—wording chosen for the sole purpose of increasing the odds of success at the polls. Adopting the same methodology as the Alameda report, the Civil Grand Jury reviewed past and upcoming ballot measure questions from local jurisdictions within Santa Clara County. The Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury observed the same tricks and tactics used by governing bodies to deceive voters:
(1) Using “feel-good" words to garner voter approval. Measure F, November 2020, said “all funds spent locally,” which is meaningless when one pauses to think about it. (2) Adding favorable language even where it plainly does not apply. Measure F, November 2020, said “independent audits, citizens’ oversight” where the underlying ordinance implementing the measure makes no mention whatsoever of audit and oversight requirements.
(3) Adding misleading words to lead voters astray. Measure S, November 2020, said “until ended by voters,” falsely implying that the measure itself provided for repeal or that voters would have an opportunity to repeal the tax when they did not; Measure L, November 2020, conveyed the same with “can be ended by voters.” Measure A, March 2017, said “[funds] cannot be taken away by the State,” falsely implying that the state may access local funds when it may not.
(4) Manipulating words to divert voters from what is actually at issue. Upcoming Measure N, November 2022, which seeks authorization of $572 million in school bonds costing approximately 3 cents per $100 of assessed valuation, states “no increase in tax rates.” (5) Omitting relevant information necessary for voters to make informed decisions. Measure AA, November 2016, and Measure H, November 2014, made no mention of the tax increase that would be required to fund the school bonds that were at issue. (6) Putting multiple issues on a single measure, ostensibly violating the single subject rule.
Measure H, November 2020, sought to increase card room tax and the number of card tables allowed in gambling facilities.
At the writing of this report, the following measures slated for the upcoming November 2022 election also rely on at least one of the tactics described:
E “all funds spent locally with no money taken by the State and spent elsewhere” - see (1) and (3) above.
G, H, J, L “until ended by voters” - see (3) above.
I “Shall the City Charter be amended to add the City's ethics and elections commission (Board of Fair Campaign and Political Practices) to the Charter; remove requirements that members of the Planning, Civil Service, and Salary Setting Commissions be electors and/or citizens; remove gender-specific language; and require the City Council to adopt equity values, standards, and assessments in making certain decisions?” - see (6) above.
IF YOU ONLY READ THE IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED O “all money staying local” - see (1) above.
Along the same lines, it is worth noting that in June 2022, the Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury released its report, “Words Matter: Did Measure G Deceive Voters?” The question confronting the jury was whether the County of Santa Cruz was honoring the provisions in the ballot measure following its passage. The jury concluded that the ballot question behind the November 2018 Measure G was misleading after its investigation and research revealed no basis whatsoever for including the words “annual audits and independent citizens oversight” within the ballot question.
Arguably, these words were used for no purpose other than to elicit good feelings in the voter.
The Elephant in the Room: Big Money
Elections cost money—lots of money. In an article published June 30, 2002, updated June 22, 2022, CalMatters put it succinctly: “Ballot measures are big business.” The Civil Grand Jury learned that cost is a major factor in the decision to get to the ballot. San Jose’s Mercury News reported that the Water District’s Measure A from the June 2022 election cost taxpayers $3.2 million.
Once the decision is made by the government entity to spend the money to go to ballot, a lot of pressure is put on the entity to do whatever it takes to secure a win. For this reason, proponents of ballot measures stay focused on the result, hiring high-priced election consultants, attorneys, and opinion pollsters to carefully frame the ballot question to achieve the desired outcome. Successful elections will reward those that are behind them. It does not take much imagination to understand how this practice has evolved to become “high stakes.” For example, a school district superintendent who has successfully secured funding through school bond measures may parlay these wins to rally support for a more prestigious role or a position at a larger public institution.
On the other hand, if a measure fails, individuals’ livelihoods are at stake because someone will likely have to take the blame for it—usually either someone on staff or the board proponents of the governing body. This is why proponents advocate so strongly, often—as exemplified above— sacrificing context, clarity, truthfulness, and transparency in ballot question wording in favor of pure advocacy. The Civil Grand Jury learned from those in the ballot question business that it is understood that the drafter will make sure the statement is “lawful,” but it is also understood that it will not necessarily provide full disclosure.
Eroding the Public’s Trust
Many voters in Santa Clara County felt that they were tricked by the Water District based on how Measure A was worded. The Civil Grand Jury compiled the following descriptors of Measure A from local news sources and through its interviews: “deceitful,” “deceptive ballot language,” “designed to confuse voters,” “dishonest,” “false,” “hiding the ball,” “lacks integrity,” “lie by
IF YOU ONLY READ THE IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED omission,” “misleading,” “not ethical,” “not transparent,” “not clear,” “violates the norm,” “violates standards of good governance,” “board must be held accountable,” “board should resign,” “board violated its fiduciary duty,” “board violated the trust of the people,” “board wasting money,” “failure of character,” “failure to represent its constituents,” “fraudulent misappropriation of public funds,” “misled the public for political gain,” “self-serving hoodwinking of the electorate,” “self-serving dishonesty,” “unacceptable in a democracy.” Public opinion made it clear that where a ballot question fails to provide voters with sufficient information to make an informed decision, it does so at the expense of public trust. Forming distrust between government and its citizenry hurts. What the Water District did through Measure A has severe ramifications because it creates distrust between the government agency and the people the agency is supposed to serve and protect. Going forward, Santa Clara County residents will likely question the integrity and ethical behavior of the Water District. Once the bonds of trust have been weakened, citizens are less inclined to trust the actions and decisions of this agency and more inclined to ask, “If the Water District cannot be trusted to be truthful on the ballot, how can we know them to be truthful in other matters?”
With the passage of Measure A, many residents lost confidence in the Water District. It may take a long time to regain trust from the community. While the Civil Grand Jury appreciates the desire of a government entity to advocate for itself when putting ballot measures up for a public vote, ballot questions cannot be false, misleading, or partial to one side. Based on Civil Grand Jury research and reports, too many local measures fail to meet this standard in favor of advocacy and “proponent’s bias.”
Lack of Oversight Results in Poorly Drafted Ballot Questions Despite the number of hands that touch a proposal from inception to ballot card, the Civil Grand Jury was surprised to discover that there is no filter or oversight by an appropriate official prior to the adoption of ballot question wording. At the state level, the “Attorney General gives a true and impartial statement of the purpose of the measure in such language that the ballot title [e.g., the ballot question] and summary shall neither be an argument, nor likely to create prejudice, for or against the proposed measure” (Elec. C. §9051(c)). But the Attorney General does not have jurisdiction over local measures and thus does not provide the ballot question. When it comes to local measures, the Civil Grand Jury learned that there is not a similar role performed by an official, like the Attorney General, that can provide the wording for ballot questions. Rather, when the ballot question is submitted to the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters, their review is narrowly limited to enforcement of the 75-word limit. Staff at the County Registrar of Voters manually count the number of words to ensure that the word cap has not been stretched. They do not monitor the content of the ballot question.
IF YOU ONLY READ THE IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED At the local level, the County of Santa Clara Office of the County Counsel performs legal services that are most analogous to the Attorney General’s role at the state level with respect to elections.
Further, County Counsel has expertise in election law and advises the County of Santa Clara Registrar of Voters. The County Counsel does not, however, have authority over cities and political subdivisions within the boundaries of the county. Therefore, when a city, school district, or special district places a local measure on the ballot, they are permitted under current law to draft the language themselves. They have every incentive to adopt wording proposed by their polling consultants, who will give weight to “feel good” words over simplicity, transparency, and impartiality. Fundamentally, the government entity’s self-interest dictates the ballot question wording.
The Current Sole Remedy—Initiating a Court Challenge—Falls Short Under current legislation, there is no realistically expedient method to challenge problematic ballot questions. When a measure is to be placed on the ballot for an upcoming election, it is subject to a 10-day public examination period during which any voter in the jurisdiction may file a lawsuit to amend the language of the measure. California Elections Code section 9295 sets forth the procedure:
During the 10-calendar-day public examination period provided by this section, any voter of the jurisdiction in which the election is being held, or the elections official, himself or herself, may seek a writ of mandate or an injunction requiring any or all of the materials to be amended or deleted. The writ of mandate or injunction request shall be filed no later than the end of the 10-calendar-day public examination period.
A peremptory writ of mandate or an injunction shall be issued only upon clear and convincing proof that the material in question is false, misleading, or inconsistent with the requirements of this chapter, and that issuance of the writ or injunction will not substantially interfere with the printing or distribution of official election materials as provided by law.
There are several reasons why the 10-calendar-day public examination period to object in a formal court setting does not work well:
(1) The public tends not to hear about ballot measures until it is too late. This is due in part to a dearth of media coverage of local news, a result of the consolidation of local news outlets by media conglomerates. It is no secret that in today’s news environment, local news coverage has been reduced significantly. Furthermore, ten days is a very short window to react, let alone mount a court challenge to remediate.
IF YOU ONLY READ THE IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED (2) Ten days is much too short a time to locate an attorney well versed in the laws and processes of elections to file a lawsuit in this specialized field. (3) Even if an attorney can be available within the 10-day window, it is not within the means of the average person to afford the attorney fees necessary to pursue a remedy. (4) Voters challenging the wording in a ballot question face an uphill battle because the courts give deference and considerable latitude to the original author. Further, courts uphold the ballot measure question if it substantially complies with the requirement not to be “false, misleading, or partial to one side.” (See Bibliography, Amador and McDonough decisions.) (5) There is practically no recourse to fix non-conforming ballot questions after the 10- calendar day public examination period has passed. (See Bibliography, Denny decision.) (6) Even the single subject rule—a state constitutional doctrine—has been watered down by case law; hence it is no longer vigorously enforced. (See Bibliography, Amador and Harbor decisions.)
When confronted with challenges to ballot measures, the courts have stated:
• Relief under a writ of mandate may be granted "only upon clear and convincing evidence" that the challenged election material is "false or misleading or otherwise inconsistent with the provisions." (See Bibliography, McDonough decision.) • The test is not whether the ballot question could be more complete. (See Bibliography, Martinez decision.)
• The ballot title need not be the “most accurate,” “most comprehensive,” or “fairest” that a skilled wordsmith might imagine. (See Bibliography, Yes on 25, Citizens for an On-Time Budget decision.)
• The courts are not free to change an accurate statement to reflect their interpretation of the common sense understanding of the language. (See Bibliography, Yes on 25, Citizens for an On-Time Budget decision.)
• The courts are not free to wordsmith the ballot question and change it just because they believe it could be better. (See Bibliography, Martinez decision.) • The courts must give deference to the official who drafts the ballot question; “all legitimate presumptions should be indulged in favor of the propriety” of the drafter’s actions. (See Bibliography, Becerra decision.)
Solutions
The Civil Grand Jury has learned that the sole legal remedy currently available to right a wrong when it comes to ballot measure questions is insurmountable for the average citizen. Nonetheless, the Civil Grand Jury notes that there could be two potential mechanisms to improve the current process.
IF YOU ONLY READ THE IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED
1. Task an appropriate official to review ballot measure questions Current law requires that the individual who drafts the ballot question do so in a way that is not false, misleading, or partial to one side. In order to meet this requirement, an objective, neutral third party is needed to speak on behalf of the voting public, ideally someone who is well versed in the law, has a fiduciary duty to uphold the law, and has taken an oath to act with integrity. The Civil Grand Jury recommends that County Counsel perform this task. Further, the Civil Grand Jury recommends that the County of Santa Clara Board of Supervisors should endorse the County Counsel to act in a role, like that of the Attorney General, to provide for ballot question wording for all local measures.
What this might look like: After the governing entity ratifies the concept behind the proposed measure, as is the practice today, the entity’s lawyer, whether a city attorney, school district attorney, or special district attorney, would draft a ballot question that is impartial, unbiased, and non-argumentative. The proposed ballot question would then be submitted to the County Counsel, who would be charged with overseeing the narrow task of ensuring that the wording of the question is not false, misleading, or biased in favor of one view. Most importantly, County Counsel would also be authorized to reject non-conforming or deficient wording and to compel revisions. Only when the ballot question at issue conforms to statutory requirements would County Counsel approve it for use.
2. Create an independent oversight commission to review ballot questions It is not unusual for jurisdictions to convene independent advisory commissions to assist in county governance. The County of Santa Clara alone boasts over 75 boards and commissions, ranging from an Advisory Commission on Consumer Affairs to a Youth Task Force.
For purposes of overseeing conformity of ballot measure questions, the Civil Grand Jury recommends that the County form a Good Governance in Ballots Commission (Good Governance Commission). This advisory commission should act quickly to review and comment on ballot questions or provide recommendations to remediate questions that that are false, misleading, or partial to one side. The composition of the Good Governance Commission should, at a minimum, include an attorney member of the California State Bar, either to participate as a full member or act as an ex officio member without voting privileges. Because County Counsel is the attorney to most Santa Clara County advisory boards and commissions, it could therefore be tasked to help members of this commission navigate the intricacies of California’s statutory requirements.
Apart from the obvious benefits—non-partisanship and public representation—another advantage of having a single commission perform the task of reviewing ballot questions would be to maintain
IF YOU ONLY READ THE IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED consistency across all governing entities. Regardless of whether a city, county, school district, or other jurisdiction puts forth the measure, the output from a neutral, uninterested third party would probably help eliminate the rhetoric and advocacy inherent in the current practice.
To be successful, the Good Governance Commission should ideally have the ability to review and to reject language that is biased and partial. The power of rejection is crucial because it would also likely have the effect of encouraging the governing entity to self-police. It must not be merely optional for governing entities to submit their ballot questions for review. If the commission were granted mere advisory powers, then it would have very limited impact; it is reasonable to surmise that most, if not all, governing entities would choose to decline to submit their ballot questions for consideration in the interest of the time required to add a layer of review.
Unfortunately, adoption of a Good Governance Commission that has the power to reject language would require passage of a state law that would enable the County of Santa Clara to have an express grant of power to impose a requirement on other entities. This is because “[t]he board of supervisors has no inherent powers; the counties are legal subdivisions of the state, and the county board of supervisors can exercise only those powers expressly granted it by Constitution or statutes and those necessarily implied therefrom” (Hicks v. Board of Supervisors (1977) 69 Cal. App. 3d 228, 242). In general, absent other express authorization, one governmental entity cannot regulate another.
Put another way, charter cities operate under home rule, which means that they do not answer to the county the city is located in. For example, the County of Santa Clara Board of Supervisors does not have jurisdiction to compel the City of Gilroy, a charter city, to abide by a county ordinance. Absent some legislative authorization, the County of Santa Clara cannot impose a mandatory review process for ballot questions on other entities. For this reason, the Civil Grand Jury urges the County to pursue legislative solutions to facilitate a process by which the County Counsel would be required to review and approve local measure ballot questions before they are voted on.
Formation of a Good Governance in Ballots Commission
The Civil Grand Jury believes that having an independent oversight commission with advisory powers will improve the local electoral process. It puts pressure on governing bodies, sending the message that their ballot questions are being monitored for clarity, truthfulness, fairness, and impartiality.
The Alameda Civil Grand Jury report provides detailed instructions around the formation, structure, and operation of an oversight committee. This can be found in Appendix B of their June 2021 report. Last, but not least, another possibility is to lean on an existing Santa Clara County
IF YOU ONLY READ THE IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED advisory body, the Citizens’ Advisory Commission on Elections, to create a subcommittee focused on ballot question integrity and good governance. Because time is of the essence when it comes to the elections process, the subcommittee must act within the short turnaround timeframe established by state statutes and county ordinances.
There do not appear to be any advocates for transparent and neutral language. Action must be taken. Having the Office of the County Counsel review and approve ballot questions to ensure conformity to statutory requirements would be a good start. Convening a citizen-led, independent oversight Good Governance Commission is another solution.
CONCLUSION
Civil Grand Juries are charged to help government develop practical solutions to improve government operations. Poorly worded ballot questions may not be illegal, but if they withhold information to shield what is really at issue, they are unethical. There are insufficient workable checks and balances to prevent this ongoing issue from being curtailed. Not doing anything about this only adds to the distrust of government. The Civil Grand Jury recommends that elected officials be held accountable—ballot questions must be transparent and clear in order to enable today’s voters to make informed decisions. The Civil Grand Jury wants governing entities to know that the public is paying attention and will not tolerate questions that are anything less than truthful, impartial, and fair. Further, ballot measure questions need to be straightforward, understandable, transparent, and honest.
IF YOU ONLY READ THE IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED
FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Finding 1
The Civil Grand Jury finds that in the current environment, which is unregulated at the local level, it is easy for the author of a ballot measure question to write the question in a way that is confusing or misleading to voters.
Recommendation 1a
The Board of Supervisors should ask the County Counsel to review all ballot questions submitted to it pursuant to Recommendation 1b.
Recommendation 1b
Governing entities2 within Santa Clara County should voluntarily submit their ballot questions to the County Counsel for review prior to submission to the Registrar of Voters, unless and until Recommendation 1d is implemented.
Recommendation 1c
Governing entities 3 within Santa Clara County should, by March 31, 2023, adopt their own resolution or ordinance to require submission of their ballot questions to the County Counsel for review prior to submission to the Registrar of Voters, unless and until Recommendations 1d and 1e are implemented.
Recommendation 1d
The County should create an independent, citizen-led oversight commission like the recommended Good Governance in Ballots Commission as described in the “Solutions” section of this report.
The Commission should be implemented by August 1, 2024. 2 There are approximately 50 governing entities within Santa Clara County. The Civil Grand Jury has elected to address these recommendations to the County, cities, and a select number of special districts and school districts that have historically the most measures on the ballot for response. The Civil Grand Jury encourages all governing entities to adopt these recommendations. 3 Id.
IF YOU ONLY READ THE IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED Recommendation 1e
Governing entities4 within Santa Clara County should submit their ballot questions for review by the Good Governance in Ballots Commission pursuant to Recommendation 1d.
Recommendation 1f
The County should, by March 31, 2023, take appropriate action to request that the state legislature consider amending current law to require the County Counsel to review and approve local ballot measure questions before they are voted on.
4 Id.
IF YOU ONLY READ THE IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED
REQUIRED RESPONSES
Pursuant to California Penal Code § 933(b) et seq. and California Penal Code § 933.05, the County of Santa Clara 2022 Civil Grand Jury requests responses from the following governing bodies:
Responding Agency Findings Recommendations
County of Santa Clara Board of Supervisors 1 1a, 1b, 1d, 1f City of Campbell 1 1b, 1c, 1e
City of Cupertino 1 1b, 1c, 1e
City of Gilroy 1 1b, 1c, 1e
City of Los Altos 1 1b, 1c, 1e
Town of Los Altos Hills 1 1b, 1c, 1e
Town of Los Gatos 1 1b, 1c, 1e
City of Milpitas 1 1b, 1c, 1e
City of Monte Sereno 1 1b, 1c, 1e
City of Morgan Hill 1 1b, 1c, 1e
City of Mountain View 1 1b, 1c, 1e
City of Palo Alto 1 1b, 1c, 1e
IF YOU ONLY READ THE IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED Responding Agency Findings Recommendations
City of San Jose 1 1b, 1c, 1e
City of Santa Clara 1 1b, 1c, 1e
City of Saratoga 1 1b, 1c, 1e
City Sunnyvale 1 1b, 1c, 1e
Santa Clara Valley Water District 1 1b, 1c, 1e
Valley Transportation Authority 1 1b, 1c, 1e
El Camino Healthcare 1 1b, 1c, 1e
Foothill-DeAnza Community College District 1 1b, 1c, 1e San Jose Unified School District 1 1b, 1c, 1e
East Side Union High School District 1 1b, 1c, 1e
Cupertino Union School District 1 1b, 1c, 1e
IF YOU ONLY READ THE IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED
REFERENCES
Bibliography:
Alameda County 2020-2021 Grand Jury, Final Report, “The Need for Accuracy and Impartiality of Ballot Measure Questions,” June 2022.
Ballotpedia.org, https://ballotpedia.org/Santa_Clara_County,_California, Measure A (June 2022); Measures F, G, H, L, and S (November 2020); Measure AA (November 2016); Measure H (November 2014); Measure E (November 1998) (accessed September 22, 2022).
Borenstein, Daniel, “Tricks California Local Officials Use To Trick Voters,” The Bay Area News Group, https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/01/21/borenstein-tricks-california-local-officialsuse-to-deceive-voters/ January 21, 2022 (accessed August 23, 2022).
California Elections Code sections 303, 9051, 9100-9190, 9295, 13120, and 133247.
Christopher, Ben; Kamal, Sameea, “California Ballot Measures: What You Need to Know,” https://calmatters.org/explainers/california-ballot-measures-2022/ June 30, 2022, updated July 1, 2022 (accessed August 23, 2022).
City and County of San Francisco Department of Elections, https://sfelections.sfgov.org/measures (accessed August 2, 2022).
County of Santa Clara 2020-21 Grand Jury, Final Report, “Gavilan College Measure X Bond Program: Oversight Shortchanged.” June 2022.
County of Santa Clara, Office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, List of Boards and Commissions, https://stenttssaim2publicportal.blob.core.windows.net/bcentcabodocs/MaddyReport.pdf (accessed August 24, 2022).
County of Santa Clara Registrar of Voters, Ballot Measures proposed for the upcoming November 2022 election, https://sccvote.sccgov.org/candidates-measures/november-8-2022- general-election-list-local-measures (accessed Aug 20, 2022).
Editorial, Mercury News and East Bay Times, “Stop Deceiving Bay Area Voters On Local Tax Measure Costs,” MercuryNews.com, https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/06/26/editorial-stopdeceiving-voters-on-local-tax-measure-costs/ June 26, 2020 (accessed August 23, 2022).
Kumar, Rishi, “Opinion: Why 4 Valley Water board members should resign,” MercuryNews.com, https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/05/11/opinion-why-4-valley-waterboard-members-should-resign/ May 11, 2022 (accessed August 23, 2022).
IF YOU ONLY READ THE IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED Rogers, Paul, “Self-Serving Dishonesty: Liccardo Blasts Santa Clara Valley Water District Measure To Extend Term Limits, Even After Polling Shows Voters Oppose,” Mercury News, March 30, 2022 (accessed August 23, 2022).
Santa Cruz County 2020-2021 Grand Jury, Final Report, “Words Matter: Did Measure G Deceive Voters?” June 2022.
Caselaw:
Amador Valley Joint Union High School District v. State Board of Equalization, 22 Cal.3d. 208 (1978).
Becerra v. Superior Court, 19 Cal.App.5th 967 (2017).
Denny v. Arntz, 55 Cal.App.5th 914 (2020).
Harbor v. Deukmejian, 43 Cal.3d 1078 (1987).
Hicks v. Bd. of Supervisors, 69 Cal. App. 3d 228 (1977).
Home Gardens Sanitary Dist. v. City of Corona, 96 Cal. App. 4th 87 (2002).
Martinez v. Superior Court, 142 Cal.App.4th 1245 (2006).
McDonough v. Superior Court of Santa Clara, 204 Cal.App.4th 1169 (2012).
People v. Langdon, 54 Cal. App.3d 384 (1976).
Rodeo Sanitary Dist. v. Bd. of Supervisors, 71 Cal. App.4th 1443 (1999).
Yes on 25, Citizens for an On-Time Budget v. Superior Court, 189 Cal.App.4th 1445 (2010).
Interviews:
The Civil Grand Jury conducted interviews with ten individuals between June 28, 2022, and August 22, 2022.
IF YOU ONLY READ THE IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED This report was ADOPTED by the Santa Clara County 2022 Civil Grand Jury on this __________ day of _______________, 2022.
______________________________
Mr. James Renalds
Foreperson
December 6, 2022
Via E-mail [email protected] and First-Class Mail
Honorable Beth McGowen
Presiding Judge, Santa Clara County Superior Court
191 North First Street
San Jose, CA 95113
RE: Response to the 2022 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Final Report titled, “If You Only Read the Ballot, You’re Being Duped”
Dear Judge McGowen:
The City of Monte Sereno is providing its response to the to Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Final Report titled, “If You Only Read the Ballot, You’re Being Duped”. Based on the City’s review of the report, and in accordance with Penal Code section 933 et seq., the City Council of the City of Monte Sereno is required to respond to Findings 1 and to Recommendations 1b, 1c, and 1e.
As directed by the Civil Grand Jury, responses are being provided in accordance with Section 933.05(a) and (b) of the California Penal Code. The responses are as follows:
Finding 1 – The Civil Grand Jury finds that in the current environment, which is unregulated at the local level, it is easy for the author of a ballot measure question to write the question in a way that is confusing or misleading to voters.
Response: The City of Monte Sereno disagrees partially with the finding. Ballot questions are subject to requirements in the Elections Code sections 13119 and 13120, which regulate the form of ballot question and require that the ballot questions be a true and impartial synopsis of the measure to be voted on. Ballot questions have often been subject to pre-election litigation to in the event that they are misleading or inaccurate, which serves as a potential check on abuse.
Recommendation 1b – Governing entities within Santa Clara County should voluntarily submit their ballot questions to the County Counsel for review prior to submission to the Registrar of Voters, unless and until Recommendation 1d is implemented.
Response: Recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or reasonable, with an explanation.
The County Counsel does not have jurisdiction to review ballot measures for incorporated cities, and also does not serve as legal counsel to incorporated cities. This recommendation contravenes applicable law regarding the placement of election materials on the ballots, including the state Elections Code, and would require City local ballot measures to be submitted to an officer of another political subdivision for prior review and approval, would potentially require the County Counsel to provide legal advice to an entity that is not the County Counsel’s client, and would contravene constitutional principles set forth in Article XI of the California Constitution allowing local cities to exercise general police powers within their own territorial jurisdictions subject to the provisions of state general law, including the Elections Code.
18041 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road
Monte Sereno, California 95030-4299
Telephone: 408.354.7635
Fax: 408.395.7653
www.cityofmontesereno.org
Recommendation 1c – Governing entities within Santa Clara County should, by March 31, 2023, adopt their own resolution or ordinance to require submission of their ballot questions to the County Counsel for review prior to submission to the Registrar of Voters, unless and until Recommendations 1d and 1e are implemented.
Response: This recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or reasonable, with an explanation.
The County Counsel does not have jurisdiction to review ballot measures for incorporated cities, and also does not serve as legal counsel to incorporated cities. This recommendation contravenes applicable law regarding the placement of election materials on the ballots, including the state Elections Code, and would require City local ballot measures to be submitted to an officer of another political subdivision for prior review and approval, would potentially require the County Counsel to provide legal advice to an entity that is not the County Counsel’s client, and would contravene constitutional principles set forth in Article XI of the California Constitution allowing local cities to exercise general police powers within their own territorial jurisdictions subject to the provisions of state general law, including the Elections Code.
Recommendation 1e – Governing entities within Santa Clara County should submit their ballot questions for review by the Good Governance in Ballots Commission pursuant to Recommendation 1d.
Response: This recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or reasonable, with an explanation.
The County does not have jurisdiction to review ballot measures for incorporated cities, and thus an oversight commission created by the County would not be an appropriate location to submit ballot questions. This recommendation contravenes applicable law, including the state Elections Code, regarding the placement of election materials on the ballots, and would require City local ballot measures to be submitted to another political subdivision for prior review and approval, contravening constitutional principles set forth in Article XI of the California Constitution allowing local cities to exercise general police powers within their own territorial jurisdictions, subject to the provisions of state general law, including the Elections Code.
This concludes the City’s responses to the findings and recommendations in the Final Report.
Please contact me at (408) 498-5285 if you have any questions or need any additional information related to this response.
Sincerely,
Javed I. Ellahie
Mayor
STAFF REPORT
Meeting: City Council - Dec 06 2022
Agenda Heading: CONSENT CALENDAR
Staff Contact: Reynold Samoranos,
Department: Finance Manager
Title: Approve a Three Year Contract for Audit Services with Maze & Associates Accounting Corporation for FY 2021-22 Through 2024-25 In Amount of $93,600
Recommendation(s):
Staff recommends the Monte Sereno City Council engage Maze & Associates for audit services for the next three years.
Background Information:
In 2020, The City of Monte Sereno City Council adopted a new Fiscal Policy including specific provisions for Fiscal Management and Internal Controls. • The City of Monte Sereno’s independent auditor will perform an annual financial and compliance audit according to General Accepted Auditing Standards (GAAS) federal and state laws, and City of Monte Sereno rules and regulations. • A system of effective internal controls will be maintained which assure only properly authorized expenditures, recordings of financial transactions, and accounting entries are executed and provide for the physical security of City of Monte Sereno funds and assets.
• The City of Monte Sereno’s cash handling practices are also reviewed in conjunction with the independent audit.
• A competitive request for proposal, or RFP will be issued every five years to evaluate and select and external auditing firm.
The City of Monte Sereno engaged the audited services of Eide Bailly LLP, Certified Public Accountants from FY 2019 through FY 2021. Prior to Eide Bailly, Vavrinek, Trine, Day & Co., LLP, Certified Public Accounts performed the audits.
Analysis:
Staff submitted a competitive request for proposal from a list of Certified Public Accounting firms currently and/or previously used by other municipalities in Santa Clara County. The List included the following:
Recommendation:
Staff recommends Maze & Associates to perform the City of Monte Sereno’s FY 2021-22 Audit for $30,100 and the next three to five years.
Services Requested Eide Bailly (FY 2020-21) Budget (FY 2021-22) Maze & Associates Proposal)
Audit Services –
Prepare Financial
Statements &
Management Letter
$28,866 $29,620 $28,100
Prepare and submit
SCO Reports $2,040 $2,050 $2,000
Total $30,906 $31,670 $30,100
Fiscal Impact:
Fiscal Impact – $30,100 (FY 2022-23); $31,200 (FY 2023-24) and $32,300 (FY 2024-25) Conclusion:
In a Peer Review Report by Coughlan Napa CPA Company on Maze & Associates Accountancy Corporation, dated February 9, 2021, the firm received a “pass” rating for the year ended May 31, 2020 for the system of quality control for the accounting and auditing practice.
Based on Maze & Associates’ qualifications, experiences, reputation and list of local municipality client list, Staff believes choosing the Maze & Associates for the City of Monte Sereno’s FY 2021-22 audit services is prudent.
Public Noticing:
The City of Monte Serena'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:
Exhibit A - Monte Sereno Proposal 2022 - Maze & Associates Maze & Associates Agreement
November 10, 2022
City of Monte Sereno
Attn: Reynold Samoranos, Finance Officer
18041 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road
Monte Sereno, CA 95030
[email protected]
Dear Mr. Samoranos:
We are pleased to enclose an electronic copy of our Proposal to provide Auditing Services for the City of Monte Sereno for the four fiscal years beginning with June 30, 2022.
Yours very truly,
David M. Alvey, CPA
Audit Partner/Shareholder
DMA:saa
Enclosures
City of Monte Sereno
Attn: Reynold Samoranos, Finance Officer
18041 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road
Monte Sereno, CA 95030
[email protected]
David M. Alvey, CPA
3478 Buskirk Ave, Ste 215
Pleasant Hill, CA 94523
(925) 930-0902
[email protected]
PREPARED FOR
This Page Left Intentionally Blank
CITY OF MONTE SERENO
AUDITING SERVICES PROPOSAL
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................................ 1 INDEPENDENCE ................................................................................................................................................ 3 LICENSE TO PRACTICE IN CALIFORNIA ............................................................................................................ 3 BUSINESS LICENSE ........................................................................................................................................... 3 INSURANCE ...................................................................................................................................................... 3
FIRM QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE
Overview ................................................................................................................................................... 4 Reputation ................................................................................................................................................. 5 Capacity and Resources ............................................................................................................................ 5 Audit Quality ............................................................................................................................................. 6 Experience ................................................................................................................................................. 6 Public Financing Authorities and Mello-Roos Experience ......................................................................... 6 Assistive Resources ................................................................................................................................... 6 Client Training and Professional Development ......................................................................................... 7 Professional Activities ............................................................................................................................... 7 Qualifications and Continuity .................................................................................................................... 8 External Quality Control Review/Peer Review .......................................................................................... 8 Federal or State Desk or Field Reviews ..................................................................................................... 8 Litigation .................................................................................................................................................... 8 Peer Review Letter .................................................................................................................................... 9
PARTNER, SUPERVISORY, AND STAFF QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE Audit Team .............................................................................................................................................. 11 Resumes of Staff Assigned to Your Audit ................................................................................................ 11 Continuity of Staffing .............................................................................................................................. 15 Staff Training ........................................................................................................................................... 15
SIMILAR ENGAGEMENTS WITH OTHER ENTITIES AND REFERENCES
City and Town Clients .............................................................................................................................. 17 Significant Special District Audit Engagements ....................................................................................... 20 REFERENCES ................................................................................................................................................... 22
SPECIFIC AUDIT APPROACH
Scope of Work ......................................................................................................................................... 23 Audit Plan ................................................................................................................................................ 23 Specific Audit Strategy – Interim ............................................................................................................. 23 Laws, Regulations and Compliance ......................................................................................................... 24
CITY OF MONTE SERENO
AUDITING SERVICES PROPOSAL
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
Specific Audit Strategy – Analytical Procedures and Year End ............................................................... 24 Local Expertise and Resources ................................................................................................................ 25 Information System Review .................................................................................................................... 25 System Controls, Transaction Cycle Processing Verification and Sample Sizes ...................................... 25 Profiles, Access and Setup Controls ........................................................................................................ 26 Data Extraction ........................................................................................................................................ 26 Assessing Risks – Interim Phase .............................................................................................................. 27 Fraud Considerations .............................................................................................................................. 27 Client Tailored Risk Assessment .............................................................................................................. 28 Client Participation in the Risks Assessment Process ............................................................................. 29 Assessing Risks -Final Phase .................................................................................................................... 29 Communication and Coordination .......................................................................................................... 29 Prompt Service and Delivery of Reports ................................................................................................. 30 Internal Quality Assurance System ......................................................................................................... 30 Use of Electronic Resources .................................................................................................................... 30 Confirmations .......................................................................................................................................... 31 Discussion of Relevant Accounting Issues ............................................................................................... 31 Resolving Potential Audit Problems ........................................................................................................ 31
COST PROPOSAL
Maze & Associates Certification.............................................................................................................. 31 What Our Price Includes ......................................................................................................................... 32 Total All Inclusive Maximum Price .......................................................................................................... 32 Fees and Billings ...................................................................................................................................... 33
November 10, 2022
City of Monte Sereno
Attn: Reynold Samoranos, Finance Officer
18041 Saratoga-Los Gatos Road
Monte Sereno, CA 95030
[email protected]
Dear Mr. Samoranos:
We appreciate this opportunity to submit our proposal to provide audit services for the City of Monte Sereno (City). We understand we will audit the City’s Basic Financial Statements and assist in preparing the Basic Financial Statements Report for the three fiscal years beginning June 30, 2022. We will also perform additional procedures and complete the other assurance services as specified in the City’s Request for Proposal, within the time periods established by the City.
We are quite certain we are the most qualified firm to be your independent accountants. As our founder, Scott Maze, first coined over forty years ago, “We are in Business to Help Our Clients Succeed!” Since that time, we have rigorously employed this philosophy along with our commitment to continual improvement. Our clients know from experience we employ a variety of techniques, technologies and strategies to maximize effective and efficient audits without shifting our work onto our client’s staff.
We’ve summarized these techniques, technologies and strategies below and explained them in more depth in our proposal.
• We are the best-known regional municipal audit firm in Northern California. Our firm has been in business over 40 years, and over that time, we have achieved national recognition with the consistently high quality of our work and with our leadership on issues such as GASB Statements 34, 68 and 75, and internal control enhancements. We frequently speak at CSMFO and CSDA events and webinars.
Municipal industry is our main business. We believe we have the necessary qualifications to perform your audit.
• Annually, we serve over 200 municipalities including special districts, joint powers authorities, successor agencies, housing authorities and financing authorities in the San Francisco Bay Area.
• We currently have over forty City or Town clients ranging in size from small towns to large complex cities. We are proud to say that over forty of our clients publish award-winning Annual Comprehensive Financial Reports, the majority of which we have provided assistance in compiling reports.
• We conduct over three dozen Single Audits annually.
1
• Our Partners are actively involved in planning, conducting and completing the audit in our client’s offices, and our Partners are available when you need them. We resolve issues on the spot while the audit is going on.
• We have a long-term track record of client retention beyond our client’s original contract terms because of the quality of our service.
• We are properly licensed to practice in California. All key staff assigned to this audit possess California CPA licenses.
• Everyone on our audit staff averages approximately 80 hours of training in municipal auditing and accounting and 1500 hours of municipal audit experience each year. This means you do not train our staff!
• Our fee includes one free day of training. Starting in 2016, we implemented the annual Maze Live training. This will provide you with knowledge of upcoming GASB pronouncements and changes in the municipal field. Past classes included topics such as year two of GASB Statement 68, GASB Update, Implementation of GASB Statements 74 and 75, Fraud Environment, Cybersecurity and Single Audit under Uniform Guidance. Future Classes will focus on similar topics as well as the information to prepare for the implementation of GASB Statement 84 and GASB Statement 87. • Our Closing Checklists help you prepare in advance for both our interim and year-end audits. These Checklists do away with last-minute requests for schedules and analyses at year-end and help identify potential problems early in the process. We will coordinate them with the work papers you are already preparing, so you don’t have to prepare workpapers only for the auditors.
As with all our audits, we are committed to providing timely, quality audit services to the City of Monte Sereno. We have no doubt that we are the firm best qualified to perform the services described in the request for proposal. After you have analyzed our proposal and - most important - talked with our references, we are quite confident you will agree.
David Alvey, Vice President ([email protected]), and Vikki Rodriguez, Vice President ([email protected]) are authorized to represent, sign for and contractually obligate Maze & Associates, a Professional Corporation, located at 3478 Buskirk Avenue, Suite 215, Pleasant Hill, CA, 94523, P(925) 930-0902, F(925) 930-0135. The proposal is a firm and irrevocable offer for 90 days.
We look forward to the opportunity to provide audit services for the City of Monte Sereno! Yours very truly,
David M. Alvey, CPA
Audit Partner
DMA:saa
2
INDEPENDENCE
As independent auditors, our most valuable asset is our independence. Unlike many firms, we have never allowed our independent audit function to be used to promote consulting or other work. In fact, consulting and related work have never amounted to more than a few percent of our total revenues, while our independent audit work has amounted to over eighty percent of our revenues.
Our firm and all our partners and employees are independent of the City of Monte Sereno as that term is defined by the General Accountability Office’s Government Auditing Standards, the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, the California Society of Certified Public Accountants and the California State Board of Accountancy. We have no present or past professional relationships with the City or any of its Council members or employees that would compromise our independence.
We will discuss in advance with the City any professional relationships being contemplated during the period of engagement that may present a potential conflict of interest. If the City and we believe any such relationship presents a conflict of interest, we will not enter into it.
LICENSE TO PRACTICE IN CALIFORNIA
We are properly licensed California Certified Public Accountants. We are members of the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) and the California Society of Municipal Finance Officers (CSMFO) as well as the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and the California Society of Certified Public Accountants.
All assigned key professional staff are properly licensed to practice in California. Those staff that are certified public accountants have current California CPA licenses in the attest function, and have received more than twice the required level of continuing education. Even though not required, all non-certified audit staff receive the same level of training. We believe the level of training we provide is unmatched by any other accounting firm. Our audit staff receives an average of 80 hours of continuing education annually, including an average of over 48 hours of municipal audit and accounting training. This is twice the amount required by professional standards.
Even though not required, all non-certified audit staff receives the same level of training.
BUSINESS LICENSE
We will obtain a business license from the City of Monte Sereno when we have been awarded the contract for annual auditing services.
INSURANCE
We maintain adequate errors and omissions insurance. We will maintain the minimum insurance as required by the City.
3
FIRM QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE
Overview
We are a professional services corporation located in Pleasant Hill, California. We presently have a total of fifty-five people including the following:
• Seven Shareholders, including five Audit Partners
• One Directors
• Four Managers
• Numerous supervisors and senior auditors
Sixteen of our professional staff are California Certified Public Accountants, and various additional staff members are in the process of completing their applications for licensure.
Thirty-six of our professional staff members comprise our governmental audit staff, as our firm’s emphasis is on governmental auditing and accounting. Several of our professional staff have national accounting firm experience, which we have blended with the more personal approach of a smaller firm.
All staff assigned to this engagement are full-time staff of our firm. We anticipate assigning two partners, one director, one supervisor, two audit associates and administrative support staff to this engagement.
Please see Proposed Segments of the Engagement in the Specific Audit Approach Section for details of assignment for each staff.
The location of the office from which work on this engagement will be performed is Pleasant Hill, California.
The majority of our clients are cities, special districts, or other municipal entities and we do this work twelve months of the year. We limit our practice in other areas and focus on being the best municipal audit firm in Northern California. Our clients include several cities similar to the City of San Bruno in size.
Our audit strategy is tailored to municipalities and is quite different from the traditional approach adapted from commercial clients by general practice accounting firms.
We have focused on municipalities since 1986. We are active in GFOA, CSMFO, CSDA and CMTA, and our Partners have been speakers at GFOA, CSMFO, CSDA and CMTA functions.
We are in business to help our clients succeed. We help you use the ever-growing tangle of accounting rules properly, but to your best advantage, by helping you keep out of trouble and helping you do the right thing. We stay in touch throughout the year to keep you abreast of municipal accounting developments and to help you avoid problems, instead of coming in afterwards to assess the damage. We rotate our audit emphasis based on our planning meetings with you so areas that concern you can be addressed as a normal part of the audit at no extra cost.
4
FIRM QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE (Continued)
Reputation
We believe quality and an emphasis on doing our job right is far more important than being cheaper than our competitors. Despite the economic pressures faced by municipalities and the need to save money, there are other, more serious concerns to be weighed. For instance, the perceived or actual audit failures in the municipal audit sector. The City of Bell news, especially the State Controller’s Office Report on that City’s audit firm, raised serious questions about municipal audit quality. Whether this is justified or not isn’t really the issue. What is at issue is the perception of poor quality in municipal audits. We received a number of inquiries and requests for proposal from that firm’s clients who desired a change in auditors.
A former client of ours, which rotated to them several years ago, called us and asked if we would propose on the City’s work. They said that the council simply did not want to expend the energy to defend whether that firm was providing quality work.
These trends indicate that it would be unwise to reduce audit effort for any municipal audit. Our commitment to quality and preserving our firm’s reputation remains our top priority and serves our clients best.
Capacity and Resources
We have consistently demonstrated the ability of our capacity and resources to meet the demands of our clients. We have never missed a reporting deadline for any of our clients.
Over the years we have made substantial additional investments in our people and our systems. We have continued our policy of at least doubling the required amount of Continuing Education we provide our people. We routinely provide an average of one hundred hours of Continuing Education each year— the State requirement is forty hours. We routinely ensure that at least eighty of those hours are specific to municipal audit and accounting—the State and government auditing standard requirements are twenty-four hours.
Hand-in-hand with our continuing investment in our people has been our increased investment in systems and hardware support. Eight years ago, our systems work was handled by an outside consultant. Today, we have a full-time staff of two people who maintain our state-of-the-art systems capabilities and provide increasing levels of such service to our clients. Every person on our staff is now armed with a late model PC that communicates with all our other PCs, printers, servers, etc., via our own wireless network establish in each client’s office at the start of each audit. Most of our work-papers are now prepared on these PCs as we continue to move toward paperless audit and paperless files.
We have moved most of our clients from a manual input of their general ledger data to a fully mechanized computer dump of that data direct to our Excel-based financial statement formats. At the same time, we have added significant numbers of internal data controls to financial statement formats. This strategy has virtually eliminated input errors, increased efficiency, and allowed our clients to spend less time reviewing and approving the financial statements. Not only does our new direct dump produce fund-basis financial statements, it produces the Entity-wide financial statements. And these improvements have been made without a hiccup - we consistently deliver final draft financial statements and reports to our clients the last day of our fieldwork in our client’s offices.
5
FIRM QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE (Continued)
We are not relying on the capabilities or resources of any other firms in our proposal.
Audit Quality
Never has audit quality been the focus of more attention than now. With names like Orange County, San Diego and Bell in the news, municipal audits can no longer be relegated to a consent item. Ensuring quality audits is a necessity. Our commitment to quality remains our top priority.
Experience
Seventy-five percent of our practice is municipal auditing, accounting and consulting, continuing throughout the entire year. Our practice includes over forty city and town clients and more than fifty special districts, including over forty city and special district Comprehensive Annual Financial Report award winners—more award winners than any other Northern California accounting firm or international firm branch office. Every one of the above Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports won awards from GFOA and/or CSMFO.
As you can see from the client list in the Similar Engagements with Other Government Entities – City and Town Clients Section below we have a winning combination that has resulted in strong client loyalty and retention. Several clients who left have returned after seeing the difference between our firm and our competitors. Others have remained our clients after completing a full-blown proposal process, most recently Cities of Santa Clara, Belmont, Pittsburg, Richmond and South San Francisco.
Public Financing Authorities and Mello-Roos Experience
We have performed audits of public facilities financing authorities and Mello-Roos districts and designed financial statements that went beyond required disclosures to include Inception-to-Date information about capital projects. These disclosures can allow the reader to see and understand the entire scope and cost of capital projects, even though they may not remain on the authorities’ books after completion.
We are familiar with public financing authorities and the accounting and auditing problems that can arise with their use. We have many clients that use financing authorities in issuing debt. We have considerable experience with the “blending” of financing authority funds with other funds.
Assistive Resources
Our client support is unmatched by any other firm. As a San Francisco Bay Area municipal audit niche firm with five audit partners, we are positioned perfectly to provide staff and Board with a wide variety of resources. Support ranges from turnkey financial statement drafts with linked footnotes and direct download-based financial statements to professional continuing education sessions. We are active in professional organizations affecting local government and have a strong presence in neighboring local governments which keeps our knowledge current that we readily share with our clients. And we do not charge extra for the five-minute phone calls throughout the year. 6
FIRM QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE (Continued)
Client Training and Professional Development
We can provide you with varying levels of training and professional development resources. We provide our semi-annual continuing education to our staff and have on occasion opened it up to our clients who wish to keep their licensees current. Our audit fee includes providing training and assistance with the implementation of applicable new GASB statements, at no additional charge. Depending upon the complexity of the GASB Statement requiring implementation, the assistance could take the form of free access to web-based training, one-on-one or group training, suggested footnote disclosure templates and/or Excel spreadsheet templates.
We have also developed and conducted training specifically for our clients. Training can be general theory in nature, semi-customized or fully customized training that fits your operations. Theory intensity can be at the beginning, intermediate and advanced levels. On occasion, we have provided our clients with shorter presentations of new pronouncements and other requirements. At the City of Richmond, for example, we developed and taught monthly training sessions on virtually every major finance area to its staff over a twelve-month period. Much of their staff had assumed new functions in the aftermath of serious staffing cuts several years ago and their Finance Director was seeking an economical method of enhancing their knowledge base and skill sets. At the Cities of Richmond, Livermore, El Cerrito and Belmont we provided grants management training to several departments as a means of solving coordination weaknesses.
In 2016, we launched Maze Live – this is a full day of training which is free to our clients and qualifies for continuing education credit. Past classes included topics such as year two of GASB 68, GASB update, Implementation of GASB Statements 74 and 75, Fraud Environment, Cybersecurity and Single Audit under Uniform Guidance. Future classes will focus on similar topics.
Professional Activities
We are active members of the Government Finance Officers Association and the California Society of Municipal Finance Officers as well as the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and the California Society of Certified Public Accountants. We are also a member of the Association of California Water Agencies (ACWA). We are frequent speakers at various organizations.
We attend CSMFO Northern California chapter meetings on a regular basis, and we have served as speakers on various occasions. We also attend the CSMFO Annual Conference, at which our Partners and IT Director have been speakers. We have also attended the League of California Cities’ annual Financial Management Seminars.
Amy Meyer, Partner, and Katherine Yuen, Partner, serve on the Governmental Accounting and Auditing Committee of the California Society of CPAs. David Alvey, Partner, serves on the Accounting Procedures and Assurance Services Committee of CalCPA and the Professional Standards Committee of CSMFO. Amy Meyer and David Alvey are Comprehensive Annual Financial Report reviewers for the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report Award Program of the Government Finance Officers Association. 7
FIRM QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE (Continued)
Qualifications and Continuity
Our people accumulate over 1,500 hours of purely municipal audit and accounting experience annually, far more than in any general service accounting firm.
We provide our clients continuity while introducing enough new people to keep our perspective fresh and provide you with the benefits of rotation. We intend to retain all the people assigned to your audit throughout this year’s entire engagement. In future years we plan to rotate no more than one person on each segment whom we will replace with someone of equal experience. Changes to the engagement partner, manager, or supervisory staff will be made only after written permission from the City.
We do everything we can to ensure continuity because it helps you, it helps our staff and it helps us. We schedule the entire year in advance to avoid conflicts, and we give priority to clients who are able to accurately predict the date their books will be closed, so that the staff on their audit will not be affected if another client’s closing or audit is delayed. We attempt to match personalities as well as skills and abilities so that our staff and yours will get along well.
External Quality Control Review/Peer Review
We are members of the Quality Review Program of the AICPA, which means we subject ourselves to a peer review of our workpapers and quality control procedures every three years by independent accountants specializing in such work. Our most recent peer review was completed in 2021; we again received a rating of pass, the highest level of assurance possible. This peer review included a review of several governmental and non-profit audit engagements, including three Special Districts. A copy of our most recent peer review opinion is located at the end of this section.
Our municipal audit reports are subject to annual reviews by various branches of the Office of the State Controller. City/Town audit reports and Single Audit Act reports receive scrutiny. During the past five years every one of these reports has been accepted as submitted. Of course, all of our clients’ Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports are also reviewed by GFOA for award consideration; every report submitted has won an award from GFOA.
Federal or State Desk or Field Reviews
We have not been subject to any State Desk or Field Reviews of our audits during the past three years.
Litigation
We have not been sued over poor work quality, nor have we paid any such claims out of court in the past five years, and there are no current and we are not aware of any potential lawsuits. In addition, we have not received any disciplinary action taken or pending action against us during the past three years with state regulatory bodies or professional organizations.
8
FIRM QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE (Continued)
Peer Review Letter
9
FIRM QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE (Continued)
Peer Review Letter (Continued)
10
PARTNER, SUPERVISORY, AND STAFF QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE Audit Team
We are proposing to assign David Alvey, CPA as Engagement Partner, Vikki Rodriguez, CPA as Alternate/Technical Review Partner, and Alexander Campos as Supervisor. We have selected this team based on their extensive municipal experience.
We understand that engagement partners and other supervisory staff may be changed only with the express written permission of the City.
We will balance out our resources with our Senior Associates and Associates to form fully leveraged teams. All of our audit staff are experienced with audits of Basic Financial Statements, enterprise operations, retirement plans, capital assets and infrastructure, long term debt, including swaps and related compliance and continuing disclosures, and all other aspects of municipal accounting and financial reporting.
No sub-proposers will be utilized.
Resumes of Staff Assigned to Your Audit
DAVID ALVEY, CPA, Engagement Partner – graduated from St Mary’s College, Moraga with a Bachelor of Science Degree in Accounting and a Minor in Business Administration. David has received 500 hours of continuing education in the past five years. David has experience as an internal auditor at California Savings Bank in Oakland, CA. He is a Certified Public Accountant in the State of California. He is a member of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants and the California Society of Certified Public Accountants. David is also a member of the Association of Certified Fraud Examiners. He is also a member of the CalCPA Accounting Procedures and Assurance Services Committee and the CSMFO Professional Standards Committee. He is a frequent speaker at our annual training and recently taught a class of over 100 attendees on Fraud and GASB updates at the annual MazeLive client training event. He has published articles with California Special District Association’s newspaper. His relevant experience includes:
Alameda County Mosquito Abatement District Marin Municipal Water District Alameda County Transportation Authority City of Martinez Alameda County Transportation Improvement Authority Middle Fork Project Finance Authority Alameda-Contra Costa Transit District Novato Fire Protection District Alameda Municipal Power Novato Sanitary District
American River Authority City of Orinda
Association of Bay Area Governments Pajaro Valley Fire Protection District Bay Area Clean Water Agencies City of Petaluma
City of Benicia City of Pittsburg
City of American Canyon Placer County Water Authority
Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District Regional Parks Foundation 11
PARTNER, SUPERVISORY, AND STAFF QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE (Continued) David Alvey, CPA (Continued)
Castle Rock County Water District City of Rio Vista
Central California Irrigation District City of Roseville Central Contra Costa Sanitary District Sacramento Suburban Water District Citrus Heights Water District City of San Bruno
Contra Costa County Mosquito Abatement District San Francisco Water Emergency Contra Costa Water Financing Authority Transportation Authority Contra Costa Water District City of San Leandro
Contra Costa Water District Retirement Plan San Mateo Harbor District City of Cupertino San Mateo Community College Foundation Delta Diablo San Mateo County Transportation Authority
Diablo Water District Peninsula County Joint Powers Authority East Bay Dischargers Authority San Mateo County Transit District East Contra Costa County Transit Authority Santa Clara County Central Fire East Contra Costa Habitat Conservancy Protection District DSRSD/EBMUD Recycled Water Authority Santa Clara Valley Water District Dublin San Ramon Services District Solano County Mosquito Abatement District East Bay Municipal Utilities District (EBMUD) Solano Irrigation District EBMUD Employee Retirement System Solano Transportation Authority East Palo Alto Sanitary District Sonoma County Agricultural Preservation & El Dorado County Open Space District
El Dorado Irrigation District Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit Fairfield-Suisun Sewer District South San Joaquin Irrigation District Freeport Regional Water Authority Stinson Beach County Water District City of Hayward Stopwaste
Livermore Amador Valley Transbay JPA
Transportation Authority Upper Mokelumne River Watershed Authority City of Livermore Yolo Habitat Conservancy
City of Los Altos West Bay Sanitary District
Town of Los Altos Hills
12
PARTNER, SUPERVISORY, AND STAFF QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE (Continued) VIKKI C. RODRIGUEZ, CPA, Technical Review Partner – Vikki graduated from San Diego State University where she received her Bachelor of Science Degree in Accounting with a Minor in English, and received her Master’s in Taxation at Golden Gate University in 2006. She is a Certified Public Accountant in the State of California. She is a member of the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants. Vikki spent a year and a half working as an accountant at the City of Daly City and her college years working part time for both municipal government and nonprofit organizations prior to joining the firm in 1998. Vikki has accumulated over 360 hours of continuing education in the past three years as an instructor, participant and student. She has attended many of the annual Nonprofit Organization Conferences held by the California CPA Foundation, as well as CSMFO conferences.
Vikki has served as a member on several non-profit Boards and Audit Committees and is currently the Board President of the Center for Human Development. Her audit experience includes the following:
Cities and Towns City of Martinez
City of Alameda City of Milpitas
City of American Canyon Town of Moraga
City of Belmont City of Newark
City of Belvedere City of Palo Alto
City of Benicia City of Petaluma
City of Cupertino City of Pittsburg
City of Daly City City of Pleasant Hill
City of El Cerrito City of Pleasanton
City of Emeryville City of Rio Vista
Town of Fairfax City of San Carlos
City of Half Moon Bay City of San Pablo
City of Hayward City of San Rafael
City of Larkspur City of San Mateo
City of Livermore City of South Lake Tahoe
City of Los Banos City of Suisun City
Town of Los Altos Hills City of Sutter Creek
Town of Los Gatos City of Tracy
City of Manteca City of Visalia
13
PARTNER, SUPERVISORY, AND STAFF QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE (Continued) ALEXANDER CAMPOS, Supervisor – graduated from San Francisco State, in May 2018, with a Bachelor’s Degree in Accounting. Alex’s audit experience includes the following:
1155 Market Street QALICB City of Livermore
Alameda County Fairgrounds Novato Fire Protection District Alameda County Mayors Conference City of Manteca
Alameda County Transportation Commission Mid Market Community Benefit District BALANCE Mountain View Transportation
Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District Management Agency Boys & Girls Club of the Coastside City of Pittsburg
Breakthrough Collaborative City of Portola Valley
CACASA Regional Parks Foundation
Central California Irrigation District The Rose Foundation Center for Excellence in Nonprofits Samoan Community Development District Center for Independent Living San Mateo County Community Central Contra Costa Sanitary District
Civic Center Community Benefit District Colleges Foundation Charitable Federated Group City of San Pablo
(11 Federations) City of Santa Clara
Children’s AIDS Fund International Silicon Valley Education Foundation City of Concord SMART
Clausen House SupplyBank.org
Contra Costa Water District Sutter Creek
Computer-Using Educators, Inc The Arc-Solano
Delta Diablo Town of Fairfax
Daly City Peninsula Partnership Collaborative Town of Moraga Diversity in Health Training Institute Tri-Delta
El Dorado County City of Turlock
Emeryville Transportation City of Vallejo
Management Agency Vallejo Sanitation District
Food Bank of Contra Costa & Solano City of Visalia
Jamestown Walnut Creek Chamber of Commerce
Kids for the Kingdom Woodbridge Children’s Center
Lighthouse for the Blind and Zone 7 Water Agency
Visually Impaired
14
PARTNER, SUPERVISORY, AND STAFF QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE (Continued) Continuity of Staffing
We do everything we can to ensure continuity because it helps you, it helps our staff and it helps us. We schedule the entire year in advance to avoid conflicts, and we give priority to clients who are able to accurately predict the date their books will be closed, so that the staff on their audit will not be affected if another client’s closing or audit is delayed. We attempt to match personalities as well as skills and abilities so that our staff and yours will get along well.
Staff Training
We believe the level of training we provide is unmatched by any other accounting firm. Our audit staff receives an average of 80 hours of continuing education annually, including an average of over 48 hours of municipal audit and accounting training. These are twice the amount required by professional standards.
Our program places heavy emphasis on governmental accounting and auditing classes conducted by our own staff, supplemented by courses offered by the California Society of Certified Public Accountants, the American Institute of Certified Public Accountants, the Government Finance Officers Association, the California State Municipal Finance Officers Organization and the Association of California Water Agencies.
We accomplish this task by reserving a solid week in January or February and another week in July solely for staff training. Our training is very specific and very participatory; lectures are almost non-existent as people are involved in a continual give-and-take format designed to educate while it helps us improve our services. We deal with specific clients and situations, we solve problems and do case studies, and we train people for real-life situations through role-play exercises. Everyone is equal in these exercises and everyone contributes their own experience in the field and the ideas they have formulated from that experience. Suggestions coming out of staff training sessions are the source of most of the service improvements and refinements we make each year.
15
PARTNER, SUPERVISORY, AND STAFF QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE (Continued) A listing of our continuing education courses provided to all our staff, both certified and non-certified, over the past three years is as follows:
Spring Summer Spring Summer Spring Summer
Area/Course 40 Hrs. 40 Hrs. 40 Hrs. 40 Hrs. 40 Hrs. 40 Hrs.
Auditing and Accounting Management
Municipal Audit - Practice Analysis and Review
Managing Municipal Audits - Audit Supervisors
Control Testing
Quality Control
GAAP Updates
Cash, Debt, and Capital Asset Auditing Updates
GASB/FASB Update
GASB 74/75
GASB 68
Journal Entry Testing
Compliance Audits
Transportation Audits - TDA, STIP and Measures A, B, C RDA Compliance/Successor Agency Audit
Single Audit Compliance
Auditing Standards
Audit Standards Update
New SASs, Risk Assessment and Impacts on Approach
Assessing Internal Control Risks/ Sample Sizes
Updating our Audit Approach
Yellow Book Update
IT/Paperless/Other
Team Building: Building and Maintaining Effective and Successful Teams CCH Paperless Audit Software/ Trial Balance Function IT Information Systems Review Updates
Professional Writing
2020 2021 2022
16
SIMILAR ENGAGEMENTS WITH OTHER GOVERNMENT ENTITIES AND REFERENCES City and Town Clients
The table below summarizes our most recent experience with audits of cities and towns. We are responsible for all phases of the work on these clients. All of this work represents recurring annual audit and related work; all this work and that presented in the table was completed on or before the deadline from the first year listed for each client. Please also see the References Section for names and current phone numbers for contacts on work quality and performance.
Client Name Scope of Work
Client Start
Date
Annual
Comprehensive
Financial Report
Submission GFOA Award Single Audit
Concord
Audits of City financial statements,
Successor Agency, Healthcare
District, Financing Authority, Single
Audit
2019 - Present ✓
Yes
✓
Yes
✓
Yes
Daly City
Audit of City financial statements,
Successor Agency, Single Audit,
Transportation Development Act
Audit, Transportation Measure, JPAs
audits
1992 - Present ✓
Yes
✓
Yes
✓
Yes
Hayward
Audit of City financial statements,
Successor Agency, Single Audit,
Transportation Development Act
Audit, Transportation Measure,
Financing Corporation Audit
2011 - Present ✓
Yes
✓
Yes
✓
Yes
Santa Clara
Audit of City financial statements,
Successor Agency, Single Audit,
Transportation Development Act
Audit, Silicon Valley Power Audit
2012 - Present ✓
Yes
✓
Yes
✓
Yes
Alameda
Audit of City financial statements,
Successor Agency, Single Audit,
Transportation Development Act
Audit, Transportation Measures
2018 - Present ✓
Yes
✓
Yes
✓
Yes
Atherton Audit of Basic Financial Statements,
Single Audit 2009 - Present * * ✓
Yes
Belmont
Audit of City financial statements,
Successor Agency, Single Audit,
Transportation Measure
1998 - Present ✓
Yes
✓
Yes
✓
Yes
Belvedere Audit of Ciy financial statements 2018 - Present ✓ Yes
✓
Yes *
Benicia
Audit of City financial statements,
Single Audit, Transportation
Development Act Audit
2011 - Present ✓
Yes
✓
Yes
✓
Yes
Brentwood
Audit of City financial statements,
Successor Agency, Single Audit,
Transportation Development Act
Audit
2007 - Present ✓
Yes
✓
Yes
✓
Yes
Brisbane Audit of City financial statements,
Successor Agency 2011 - Present * * *
Burlingame
Audit of City financial statements,
Single Audit, Transportation
Development Act Audit,
2016 - Present ✓
Yes
✓
Yes
✓
Yes
Davis Audit of City financial statements,
Single Audit 2015 - Present ✓
Yes
✓
Yes
✓
Yes
Elk Grove Audit of City financial statements
and Single Audit 2017 - Present ✓
Yes
✓
Yes
✓
Yes
Fairfax Audit of Basic Financial Statements 2009 - Present * * * Half Moon Bay
Audit of City financial statements,
Single Audit, Transportation
Development Act Audit
2014 - Present ✓
Yes
✓
Yes
✓
Yes
Population > 100,000
Population < 100,000
CITY AND TOWN EXPERIENCE
17
SIMILAR ENGAGEMENTS WITH OTHER GOVERNMENT ENTITIES AND REFERENCES (Continued) City and Town Clients (Continued)
Client Name Scope of Work
Client Start
Date
Annual
Comprehensive
Financial Report
Submission GFOA Award Single Audit
Lathrop Audit of City financial statements,
Single Audit 2011 - 2020 ✓
Yes
✓
Yes
✓
Yes
Los Altos
Audit of City financial statements,
Single Audit, Transportation
Measure
2014 - Present ✓
Yes
✓
Yes
✓
Yes
Los Altos Hills
Audit of City financial statements
and North County Library Authority,
Single Audit, Transportation
Development Audit
2016 - Present ✓
Yes
✓
Yes
✓
Yes
Manteca
Audit of City financial statements,
Successor Agency, Single Audit,
Financing Authority Audit
1986 - Present ✓
Yes
✓
Yes
✓
Yes
Martinez
Audit of City financial statements,
Single Audit, Transportation
Development Act Audit
2001 - Present ✓
Yes
✓
Yes
✓
Yes
Milpitas
Audit of City financial statements,
Successor Agency, Single Audit,
Transportation Development Act
Audit, Financing Corporation Audit
1995 - Present ✓
Yes
✓
Yes
✓
Yes
Moraga
Audit of City financial statements,
Successor Agency, Single Audit,
Transportation Development Act
Audit
2012 - Present ✓
Yes
✓
Yes
✓
Yes
Mill Valley
Audits of City Basic Financial
Statements and Sewerage Agency of
Southern Marin
2020 - Present * * *
Morgan Hill
Audit of City financial statements,
Single Audit, Transportation
Development Act Audit
2015 - Present ✓
Yes
✓
Yes
✓
Yes
Oakley Audit of City financial statements,
Successor Agency, Single Audit 2000 - Present ✓
Yes
✓
Yes
✓
Yes
Orinda
Audit of City financial statements,
Single Audit, Transportation
Development Act Audit
2015 - Present ✓
Yes
✓
Yes
✓
Yes
Pacifica
Audit of City financial statements,
Single Audit, Transportation
Development Act Audit,
Transportation Measure
2015 - Present ✓
Yes
✓
Yes
✓
Yes
Pleasanton
Audit of City financial statements,
Single Audit, Transportation
Development Act Audit
2016 - 2020 ✓
Yes
✓
Yes
✓
Yes
Pittsburg
Audit of City financial statements,
Successor Agency, Single Audit,
Transportation Development Act
Audit, Retirement Plan Audit
2011 - Present ✓
Yes
✓
Yes
✓
Yes
Portola Valley Audit of Basic Financial Statements
and Transportation Measure 2005 - Present * * *
Redwood City
Audit of City financial statements,
Successor Agency, Single Audit,
Transportation Development Act
Audit, Audit of Port of Redwood City,
Audits of Joint Power Authorities
2019 - Present ✓
Yes
✓
Yes
✓
Yes
18
SIMILAR ENGAGEMENTS WITH OTHER GOVERNMENT ENTITIES AND REFERENCES (Continued) City and Town Clients (Continued)
Client Name Scope of Work
Client Start
Date
Annual
Comprehensive
Financial Report
Submission GFOA Award Single Audit
San Bruno
Audit of City financial statements,
Single Audit, Transportation
Development Act Audit
2016 - Present ✓
Yes
✓
Yes
✓
Yes
San Carlos
Audit of City financial statements,
Successor Agency, Single Audit,
Transportation Development Act
2016 - Present ✓
Yes
✓
Yes
✓
Yes
San Leandro
Audit of City financial statements,
Successor Agency, Single Audit,
Transportation Development Act
Audit, Transportation Measures
2011 - Present ✓
Yes
✓
Yes
✓
Yes
San Pablo
Audit of City financial statements,
Successor Agency, Single Audit,
Transportation Development Act
Audit
1995 - Present ✓
Yes
✓
Yes
✓
Yes
San Rafael Audit of City financial statements,
Successor Agency, Single Audit 2007 - Present ✓
Yes
✓
Yes
✓
Yes
South San Francisco
Audit of City financial statements,
Successor Agency, Single Audit,
Transportation Development Act
Audit, Transportation Measure
2004 - Present ✓
Yes
✓
Yes
✓
Yes
Sutter Creek Audit of Basic Financial Statements,
Single Audit 2015 - Present * * ✓
Yes
Tracy Audit of City financial statements,
Successor Agency, Single Audit 2015 - 2020 ✓
Yes
✓
Yes
✓
Yes
Turlock
Audit of Basic Financial Statements,
Successor Agency, Single Audit,
Transportation Development Act
Audit, Financing Authority Audit,
Abandoned Vehicle Abatement
Program
2013 - Present * * ✓
Yes
Visalia
Audit of City financial statements,
Successor Agency, Single Audit,
Transit Fund Audit, Transportation
Measure
2015 - 2020 ✓
Yes
✓
Yes
✓
Yes
Watsonville Audit of the City financial
statements, Single Audit 2017 - Present ✓
Yes
✓
Yes
✓
Yes
19
SIMILAR ENGAGEMENTS WITH OTHER GOVERNMENT ENTITIES AND REFERENCES (Continued) Significant Special District Audit Engagements
The chart below shows our most recent experience with District and Authority audits. We are or were responsible for all phases of work for these entities.
Special Districts and Authority Clients
1st
Year
Compliance
Requirements
Single Audit/
Special Report
FINANCING
Association of Bay Area Governments FAN 1997 X
City of Rancho Cordova Financing Authority 2009 X
Concord Joint Powers Financing Authority 1992 X
Governments of Livermore Financing Authority 1991 X
Hayward Public Financing Authority 1996 X
Manteca Financing Authority 1991 X
Milpitas Public Financing Authority 1995 X
Palo Alto Public Financing Corporation 1998 X
Richmond Joint Powers Financing Authority 2005 X
HOUSING
Napa Valley Housing Authority 2000 X X
Napa Housing Authority 2000 X X
Richmond Housing Authority 2005 X X
Suisun Housing Authority 2007 X X
Vallejo Housing Authority 2004 X X
PUBLIC SAFETY
Belmont Fire Protection District 1998 X
East Contra Costa Fire Protection District 2011
Menlo Park Fire Protection District 2009 X
Net Six Joint Powers Authority (Dispatch services) 1998 X Novato Fire Protection District 2013
Rodeo-Hercules Fire Protection District 2009 X
Ross Valley Fire Department 2013
Ross Valley Paramedic Authority 1991 X
San Mateo Pre-Hospital Emergency Svcs. Providers Group 2000 X X San Ramon Valley Fire Protection District 2000 X X
South County Fire Authority 1998 X X
South San Mateo Police Joint Powers Authority 2000 X
Twin Cities Police Authority 1991 X
RECREATION AND OTHER
Association of Bay Area Governments 1997 X X
Contra Costa Mosquito and Vector Control District 2008
East Bay Regional Park District 1987 X X
Livermore Area Recreation and Park District 1989 X X
Manteca Recreational Facilities Authority 1986 X
Marin-Sonoma Mosquito and Vector Control District 2013
Silicon Valley Animal Control Authority 2001
West Contra Costa Integrated Waste Management Authority 2019
RISK MANAGEMENT
Association of California Water Agencies JPIA 2009
Association of Bay Area Governments PLAN 1997
Association of Bay Area Governments SHARP 1997
California Joint Powers Risk Management Authority 1993
Redwood Empire Municipal Insurance Fund 2013
Small Cities Organized Risk Effort 2009
20
SIMILAR ENGAGEMENTS WITH OTHER GOVERNMENT ENTITIES AND REFERENCES (Continued) Significant Special District Audit Engagements (Continued)
TRANSPORTATION
Alameda Contra Costa County Transit Authority 2010 X X
Alameda County Transportation Improvement Authority 2010 X X City/County Association of Governments 2005 X X
Contra Costa Transportation Authority 2003 X X
Eastern Contra Costa Transit Authority 2012 X X
Livermore/Amador Valley Transportation Authority 1994 X X Measure J Traffic Congestion Relief Agency (TRAFFIX) 2012 Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board 2010 X X
Peninsula Traffic Congestion Relief Alliance 2001 X X
Ralston/Holly /Harbor Grade Separation Projects 1998 X X San Francisco Bay Area Water Emergency Transit Auth. 1997 X X San Mateo County Transit District 2010 X X
San Mateo County Transportation Authority 2010 X
Solano Transportation Authority 2004 X X
Sonoma-Marin Area Rail Transit District (SMART) 2017 X X West Contra Costa Transportation Authority Commission 1995 X
UTILITY
Alameda Municipal Power 1990 X
Bay Area Clean Water Agencies 2005
Bethel Island Municipal Improvement District 2007
Calaveras County Water District 2004 X
California Association of Sanitation Agencies (Non-profit) 2005 Central Contra Costa Sanitary District 2013
Coastside County Water District 1993 X X
Contra Costa Water District 2002 X
Contra Costa Solid Waste Authority 1993 X X
Diablo Water District 2014
Dublin San Ramon Services District 1999 X X
DSRSD/EBMUD Recycled Water Authority 2005
East Bay Dischargers Authority 2015
East Bay Municipal Utility District 2005 X X
East Palo Alto Sanitary District 2013 X
El Dorado Irrigation District 2007 X X
Fairfield Suisun Sewer District 2000
Freeport Regional Water Authority 2005
Livermore-Amador Valley Water Management Agency 1987 X
Mid-Peninsula Water District 2006
Novato Sanitary District 2013 X
Palo Alto Regional Water Quality Control Plant 1998 X X Placer County Water Authority 2005 X
Sacramento Suburban Water District 2020
Santa Clara Valley Water District 2004
Sausalito-Marin City Sanitary District 2011
Silicon Valley Power 2012
Skyline County Water District 1992
Solano Irrigation District 2006
South Bay System Authority 1998 X
South Bay Transfer Station Authority 1997 X
South San Joaquin Irrigation District 2004
South Placer Wastewater Authority 2001 X
Stanislaus Waste-to-Energy 2005
Stinson Beach County Water District 2011 X
Tri-Valley Wastewater Authority 1990
Union Sanitary District 2000
Upper Mokelumne River Watershed Authority 2005
Vallejo Sanitation and Flood Control District 2016
West Valley Sanitation District 2004
Zone 7 Water Agency 2010 X X
21
SIMILAR ENGAGEMENTS WITH OTHER GOVERNMENT ENTITIES AND REFERENCES (Continued) As you can see from the client lists above, we have a winning combination that has resulted in strong client loyalty and retention. Several clients who left have returned after seeing the difference between our firm and our competitors, most recently Dublin-San Ramon Services District, Livermore-Amador Valley Water Management Authority, and Contra Costa Water District. Others have gone through a full proposal process and retained us, such as cities of Brentwood, Hayward, Benicia, and Milpitas.
REFERENCES
City of Hayward – A client from 1996 to 2007, rotated back to Maze & Associates in 2011 Engagement Partner – Vikki Rodriguez
Principal Contact – Dustin Clausen, Finance Director, (510) 583-4000, [email protected] Work Scope and Reports:
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (GFOA Award Winner) Memorandum on Internal Control and Required Communications Single Audit Act Report
Proposition 111 Agreed Upon Procedures Report
Measure B, BB and F Reports
Transportation Development Act Report
Hayward Public Financing Authority Audit
Town of Los Altos Hills – A client since 2016
Engagement Partner – David Alvey and Vikki Rodriguez
Principal Contact – Sarina Revillar, Administrative Services Director, 650-947-2512, [email protected]
Work Scope and Reports:
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (GFOA Award Winner) Memorandum on Internal Control and Required Communications State Controllers Reports
Town of Atherton – A client since 2009
Engagement Partner – Grace Zhang
Principal Contact – Robert Baron III, Finance Director, 650-752-0552 [email protected] Work Scope and Reports:
Basic Financial Statements
Proposition 111 Agreed Upon Procedures Report
Memorandum on Internal Control and Required Communications Measure A
Annual Report of Financial Transactions for the Town and District 22
SPECIFIC AUDIT APPROACH
Scope of Work
We will complete the fiscal year ending June 30, 2022 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report. We will issue our memorandum on internals, also known as a management letter, and the required communications. We will inform the City immediately if we uncover any irregularities or illegal acts.
Audit Plan
Our audit strategy is designed specifically for municipalities. We perform half our audit well before yearend so we can identify problems early. Our strategy maximizes our efficiency and lessens the load on our clients. When engaged to prepare the financial statements, we prepare proformas of them for your review, well before year-end and we give you detailed interim and final-phase checklists of all the items we will need from you months in advance.
We will plan the audit in detail and prepare an Audit Plan which details the information we will need from you to complete our interim and year-end audits, along with the person responsible for preparing it and the date they will have it ready. We tailor it to refer directly to the schedules you already prepare.
We do not require special reports or reconciliations just for our audit. We have found that coordinating our team and our client’s staff works very well because it helps minimize the impact on your staff at year end. This way the Audit Plan includes most data we need from you so you and your staff can plan and schedule your work accordingly. Our clients know from prior experience with our firm, that we excel at minimizing our impact on your staff.
Specific Audit Strategy — Interim
Unlike older-style firms, we perform most of our important work at interim, well before the end of the fiscal year. We use our interim work to identify and solve problems and plan the year-end closing and audit in detail. Well before we begin our interim work we will send you a list of the items we need, so you will have time to prepare.
We forecast many year-end amounts at interim, so that we can limit the amount of work required at yearend and concentrate instead on areas of concern. For example, we normally perform all our cash and investment testing at interim, including sending confirmation letters to depositories and determining financial statement categorizations. Performing these last two steps at interim allows plenty of time to follow up on confirmations or resolve questions about the proper categorization of an investment without delaying the audit. As another example, we test long-term debt at interim and forecast year-end balances and transactions for each debt issue.
We use remote inquiry as much as possible at interim, in order to increase our efficiency and reduce our impact on your staff. We can download Board minutes and other documents from your website for review. Combining these abilities with our checklists has allowed us to perform larger portions of the audit in our own offices and reduce our questions to writing so that you have more time to deal with them.
23
SPECIFIC AUDIT APPROACH (Continued)
Laws, Regulations and Compliance
Our audits are designed to ensure that we test transactions for compliance with the Single Audit Act and other applicable laws and regulations, including the California Government Code, provisions of applicable grant guidelines, etc. We identify applicable laws and regulations as part of our audit planning each year.
The California Government Code has many provisions and underlying regulations relating to investments and the investment policy, all of which are tested as part of our audit of cash and investments.
Specific Audit Strategy – Analytical Procedures and Year End At year-end we do not repeat any of the work we performed at interim. Instead, we focus on the items in your Audit Plan and on the Basic Financial Statements. Our year-end audit field-work actually starts in our office, so that when we do arrive in your offices we are fully prepared and we minimize our impact on your operations.
In our offices, we cross-reference or reconcile your Audit Plan information, reports and schedules. The Engagement Partner performs our detailed Analytical Procedures review of balances and emails our questions to you in advance of our arrival in your offices. Our experience is that this Analytical Procedure review identifies any issues remaining after our interim work, as well as most potential audit adjustments.
This gives all of us time to address these items in person while the audit field-work is proceeding, instead of by telephone and e-mail afterward.
As part of the analytical procedures, when we start work in your offices, we will need you to complete your responses to the Analytical Review, but we will not need much of your time and we will not ask for more schedules or reports. Our Engagement Partner, Manager and Supervisor will meet with you on the first day of the year-end audit to discuss any remaining unanswered Analytical Review questions, review the status of the year-end closing and to determine if modifications to our year-end approach are needed.
This meeting sets the stage for the year-end audit; by this time the format and content of the financial statements is pretty well set and most audit adjustments have been identified. If we find any material adjustments, we will discuss them with you immediately and provide you with the journal entries required; we do not propose adjustments that are not material.
At the conclusion of our year-end work, our Engagement Partner and Supervisor, will review the final financial statement drafts with you and your staff. The following week, a second partner not involved with the audit will perform a “quality assurance review” of the financial statements and workpapers so that we will be ready to sign the financial statement opinions as soon as the City approves them.
You will find our strategy allows you to control the audit process, enables you to spread the work over the year as you wish and greatly reduces the pressure at year end.
24
SPECIFIC AUDIT APPROACH (Continued)
Local Expertise and Resources
Our expertise and resources are local which provides our clients with timely on-the-spot responses to issues and questions as they arise. Our Audit Supervisors are on site daily while the audit team is in the field. Our Engagement Partner and Manager are on site at least weekly checking on progress, discussing and resolving issues with the Audit Team, as well as meeting with our client as needed. In cases of highly complex operations or unusual issues, our Technical Review Partner is brought out to meet with the audit team and provide technical support, consultation and participate in meetings with our clients as needed.
With all our resources available locally, our clients are assured of in depth, timely audits and expedient resolutions to questions and issues as they arise.
Information System Review
Information System Security became an important part of financial statement audits and we have performed an Information Systems Review (ISR) with every audit since 2001. Unlike our competitors, we extend our review to not only encompass the financial system, but also the network environment that houses that system. From our perspective, the internal controls that are present in the overall network environment are critical to understanding the internal controls over the financial system.
Unlike financial statements, there are currently no authoritative standards that local governments must employ to ensure that adequate and appropriate IT controls are designed and implemented. We extensively researched this area and concluded it was most appropriate to base our ISR on the certification and accreditation framework developed by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) for the Federal Information Security Management Act (FISMA) which is the minimum security required for federal government agencies information systems. NIST recommends states, local governments and Indian tribes comply with these standards as well. Our reviews include procedures to determine that your systems are adequately protected from unauthorized internal access, provide for reasonable measures to ensure continuation of service, provide for security of data from physical or network access and have internet access defenses including hacker prevention, detection and deterrent systems.
Our information systems reviews are performed by qualified information security professionals who hold at least the Information Systems Audit and Control Association’s (ISACA) Certified Information Systems Auditor (CISA) or the (ISC)2
’s Certified Information Systems Security Professional (CISSP). Both certifications require continuing professional education. As a value added service we will provide the City with a matrix of the maturity as compared with NIST’s certification and accreditation framework.
System Controls, Transaction Cycle Processing Verification and Sample Sizes With any data processing system upon which we intend to rely as a means of reducing substantive testing, we perform a variety of tests to verify the accuracy of transaction processing, the reliability of system control points and authorization controls, appropriateness of profile structures including Super-user rights access, and automated functionality such as sub-ledger integration and auto-journal entry validity and set up controls.
25
SPECIFIC AUDIT APPROACH (Continued)
Gaining an understanding of the design of relevant procedures, controls and authorization levels is integrated with our risk assessment procedures discussed under the Client Tailored Risk Assessmentsection below. As part of our risk assessment process we identify those transaction cycles we intend to rely on.
Both processing procedures and controls that are to be relied on are tested with our audits.
Transaction cycle processing and control tests typically involve sampling techniques. Most of our transaction samples are selected and tested during the interim portion of our work. Each sample will run from twentyfive to sixty transactions in size. We use interval and judgment sampling techniques with a high degree of stratification. Transaction cycles we sample are dependent on materiality to each client’s financial statements but typically include, payroll, disbursements, receipts, loans receivable, investments and budget transactions and in accordance with the requirements of Statement of Auditing Standards #99 we also sample journal entries. Samples from each grant audit or major federal award program are also made.
Samples are triple purpose samples and we test for correct recording, compliance with applicable policy or regulation and key control attributes – both manual and automated. This includes verification of sub-ledger integration and auto-journal entry validity, if needed.
Profiles, Access and Setup Controls
Despite advances in information technology automation and system control features, classic segregation of duties concepts remain a mainstay for providing adequate internal controls. What has changed however, is the necessity to determine system profile structures and actual system access. We inquire how our clients establish and maintain system profiles for relevant staff with the objective of determining whether controls are in place to provide for adequate segregation of duties and to determine if system profiles are appropriate based on the individual’s duties. We also determine how our clients monitor access and we test access through reviews of access logs, observation and in some extreme cases, with fully observed access attempts.
We will also inquire about procedures and controls used to ensure only those system functions and controls assigned to an employee are in fact setup in system profiles. Considerations include Super User Rights, system profile set up, and system authorization functionality such as transaction initiation, review and approval, automated entry setup and posting. Work typically involves inquiry of staff with Super-User Rights and determining how the organization provides a check and balance against the possibility that one person with Super-User Rights can intentionally or inadvertently assign unauthorized access. We often review access logs and examine approvals of profile changes and review authorization levels.
Data Extraction
We employ rather simple data extraction techniques these days since most modern systems provide easy download capabilities to text or Excel files. We have been utilizing data extraction for over fifteen years.
We first began data extraction as a means of downloading data from our client’s financial systems for upload directly into the financial statements. Then we expanded this to include transaction details, account information and other data contained in our clients systems that we need for audit. Our Chief Operations Officer, Chris Hunt, oversees our data extraction needs and has successfully worked with all of our clients and their systems to achieve data extractions for our use. We are extremely adept at converting from text, delimited and fixed width files, and with every system used by clients.
26
SPECIFIC AUDIT APPROACH (Continued)
Assessing Risks – Interim Phase
Beginning with fiscal year 2007-2008 audits, a new set of Statements of Auditing Standards became effective and required that most auditors change the way they audit. Much of this new guidance came out of the aftermath of highly publicized audit failures such as Enron, Global Crossings and the like. The Statements make it clear that a generalized one-size-fits all audit approach will not be permitted. An audit must be based on a unique audit strategy customized to fit each client and its industry.
The primary objective of these Standards is to require the auditor’s application of an audit risk model.
The concept is that a set of financial statements should be evaluated for the underlying risks of material misstatement. Then, a customized audit should be tailored to test for misstatements and verify that controls are designed and in place to prevent and detect misstatements.
We have consistently employed a risk based concept from our firm’s inception. Our audit checklists and programs were originated by reference to Audits of Local Governments published by the Practioners’ Publishing Company (PPC), a third party vendor specializing in producing audit guides for unique industries. But, we have not simply used their guide as our approach. We have customized it further for the simple reason that California municipalities have many unique risks not faced by municipalities in other states. As you know, California state law and applicable regulations cover a wide variety of areas such as cash and investment management, redevelopment compliance, transportation development act programs, and child development programs.
Our primary objective in an audit of each client’s financial statements is to opine on whether the financial statements, including disclosures, are free of material misstatement. Our opinion must be based on sufficient, appropriate audit evidence that we obtain and this evidence must be documented. To achieve this objective, we further refine our approach to be responsive to each individual audit. We may reduce the scope of our substantive audit tests provided we conclude there are effective specific controls in place which would detect and correct misstatements due to errors or fraud.
Fraud Considerations
Beginning with our 2004 audits, we employed additional audit steps required by Statement of Auditing Standards #99, Consideration of Fraud in a Financial Statement Audit. SAS #99 requires auditors to consider risk areas that may be susceptible to fraud and to then modify their audit strategy. We have been employing a variation of the SAS #99 concept since the early 1990’s. For example, for many of our recurring clients, we visited all of their cash collection sites. We performed cash counts and reviewed cash handling practices and procedures, including security measures employed to limit access to cash.
This and our planning meetings with our clients’ staff have resulted in the inclusion of a variety of special emphasis areas in our audits. We combine our fraud consideration brain storming sessions with our overall risk assessment process discussed below.
27
SPECIFIC AUDIT APPROACH (Continued)
Client Tailored Risk Assessment
Our strategy to assessing risk begins with a brainstorming session of our audit team where they review your prior year financial statements and operations to identify areas of major audit risk. We also incorporate our consideration of other factors such as the risk of fraud, the economy, regulatory complexities or changes, credit market conditions and others into our initial assessment. We may also compare unusual transactions and estimates to those used by other municipalities or to current trends and issues. Since we are a niche firm specializing in California municipalities this is relatively easy. For example, certain development agreements are unique to municipalities. These agreements usually contain complex financial transactions and legal restrictions. With so much experience in this area we can quickly design an efficient response to these risks.
Major audit risks are further evaluated through consideration of relevant assertions to determine inherent risk due to error or fraud. For example, cash on hand has a relative higher inherent risk of loss due to theft than an infrastructure asset. High and medium inherent risk audit areas are further evaluated to determine relevant internal controls needed to prevent, detect and correct errors or fraud.
We start our evaluation of your internal controls by interviewing staff and meeting with Department heads as needed. We review policies and procedure manuals and other documentation to determine the design of procedures and controls. As part of our evaluations we document narrative memoranda outlining the duties of each pertinent person as well as our GRID evaluation of the important nexus control points. The GRID is our own design; it is a two-axis chart we use to identify potential conflicts of duties in your controls. We enhance our evaluation by reviewing system profile reports, paying special attention to super-user rights. This data is then used to determine the presence or absence of compensating controls designed to mitigate conflicts of duties vested in a single individual.
We then test to verify that procedures and controls are operating effectively such that they reduce the risk that errors or fraud could occur and go undetected and uncorrected. We use a variety of techniques to verify controls are effective including: sampling, observation, documentation of reviews, examining system access reports and comparisons with other data.
After this has been completed, we assess the risk of material misstatement which is determined by the relative inherent risk of an area and the associated control risk to plan our substantive tests. That is, the risk that controls are not in place or are not operating effectively. Areas with a low risk of material misstatement assessment may receive limited substantive procedures while those with a high risk of material misstatement will receive significant substantive procedures.
We then design our final phase audit plan to ensure we obtain sufficient appropriate evidence about the financial statements and disclosures. Specific audit procedures are developed and documented in our audit programs and we develop potential internal control points for further evaluation as to significance and communicate those to staff.
28
SPECIFIC AUDIT APPROACH (Continued)
Client Participation in the Risk Assessment Process
Of course, any risk assessment process is incomplete without our clients’ active participation. We hold meetings with senior finance staff and others within the organization to discuss their views and assessments of risks affecting the financial statements. Our inquiries are backed up by reviews of the annual budget, mid-year budget revisions, internal audit reports, grantor performance and monitoring correspondence and any other pertinent data we deem relevant.
We must also establish two-way communication with the Board and Finance Committee which we typically accomplish by meeting to discuss the audit process and timing, management representations and fraud considerations.
Assessing Risks – Final Phase
Although the majority of our evaluations and testing of internal controls is completed with our interim testing, it is during the final phase that actual year end balances, transactions and disclosures are known and our substantive procedures are employed. These procedures and data often reveal unusual or unexpected results that must be considered in the risk assessment process. Risk assessment processes are iterative and cumulative. That is, we must continually re-evaluate our assessments based on information and procedures gathered. It is not uncommon for an initial assessment and the corresponding substantive audit work to be restructured as a result of new data. Indeed, it is the intent of current audit standards that the audit be responsive to risks.
Our substantive procedures are selected to be responsive to the assessed risk and relevant assertion and typically involve analytical procedures, third-party confirmation, estimation techniques, mini-max tests, trend analyses, recomputations, corroboration with other tests, tests in total, sampling and comparisons to data gathered in other municipal audits.
Risk assessment procedures would be incomplete without an evaluation of the adequacy of our evidence obtained including internal control tests, any significant deficiencies or material weaknesses and substantive test results. These factors are considered prior to the release of our opinion in a final reassessment process that includes our quality assurance review.
Communication and Coordination
We will meet with you at the start of each phase of work and conduct an exit conference at the end of each phase of work. This will ensure you know everything we do, with plenty of time to address any issues.
Two key objectives for a well-run audit are to ensure timely communication of the audit results and to provide for seamless coordination of the external auditors with staff. The concept is virtually identical to our Accounting Issues Memorandum and detailed Interim and Closing Checklists that we typically prepare for our clients.
29
SPECIFIC AUDIT APPROACH (Continued)
The Accounting Issues Memorandum concept was originated by one of our staff over two decades ago to function as a partner’s brief of an engagement’s status. It worked so well we expanded it to all our audits and share it with our clients. It has proven to be an indispensable communication and coordination tool ever since. This informal memo condenses and summarizes the audit status and issues as of the end of our interim work. It includes housekeeping matters, major and minor potential findings, scheduled audit fieldwork start and finish dates, etc. We produce this memo right in your office before the conclusion of our interim work, so you have an idea of what we’ve found so far and whether there are areas that need work.
Our Memorandum on Internal Control is drafted at year-end and may include significant issues raised with our interim phase Accounting Issues Memorandum as well as issues arising from our year-end work. We review a draft with you, so that you will have plenty of time to consider the facts and discuss our findings before the audit results are presented to the Board.
Prompt Service and Delivery of Reports
We have always focused on reducing financial statement turn-around time and we have never missed a deadline. We normally complete the review of the final draft of the financial statements on the last day of our field-work in our clients’ offices or within two weeks thereafter.
Our audit strategy emphasizes detail planning and coordination of our staff and client staff to complete the audit as efficiently as possible. We have found that completing all our work and our reports as part of our field-work dramatically reduces the time required to issue final reports to our clients.
Our strategy allows our clients ample time to review all report drafts before issuance, while ensuring that all reports are issued timely. Many clients have been able to advance the date on which their reports are presented to the Finance Committee and Board.
Internal Quality Assurance System
Every one of our audit and assurance engagements has an Engagement Partner responsible for the successful completion of the work as well as ensuring we maintain quality levels that satisfy professional standards. Our very high Partner to staff ratio of one to six is double that of traditional firms. We specifically structure our work for on-site Engagement Partner participation while the audit is being conducted. This structure is by design to ensure we have active on the job oversight of staff and timely completion of the work.
We have always subjected our audit and assurance engagements to a second Quality Assurance Review.
This is performed by a second partner that is not involved with the audit.
Use of Electronic Resources
As much as possible, we like to use electronic versions of documents. We find that this makes the audit not only efficient, but ecofriendly. We also set up OneDrive accounts in which files can be transferred regardless of their size.
30
SPECIFIC AUDIT APPROACH (Continued)
Confirmations
As requested in the RFP, we confirm that we typically use bank confirmations to vouch cash and investments. From time to time, these confirmations can be difficult to obtain and we can use alternative procedures such as review of the monthly bank statements.
Discussion of Relevant Accounting Issues
We will provide the City with whatever support it needs with regard to gaining an understanding of new pronouncements affecting the financial statements and our audits. Our consistent approach is to provide our clients with advance identification of new GASBs as they are issued. With every audit, we provide overviews of new pronouncements including effective dates and we review these with City staff.
In the year of implementation, we proforma new disclosures and add on additional data requests to our interim and closing checklists. For complex rules, we prepare course materials and conduct training and education sessions during interim for finance and other affected City staff to ensure they understand the requirements. We include the new GASB provisions as well as any additional resources such as implementation guides, practical application examples and additional technical resources and contacts. After City staff has had a chance to think about the City’s operations, we conduct a follow-up conference to determine the potential impact to the financial statements and audit. In unusual cases we will schedule additional field work before year end to ensure the new rules do not affect year end timing.
Resolving Potential Audit Problems
With every audit, we provide overviews of new pronouncements including effective dates and we review these with City staff and, in the year of implementation, we proforma new disclosures and add on additional data requests to our interim and closing checklists. However, for the upcoming implementation of GASB Pronouncement 87, Leases, in fiscal year 2022, we anticipate there will be an increase in the audit scope. We will not know the extent of the potential increase in audit scope, if any, until we have additional conversations with City staff, and that change in scope could increase (or even decrease) between now and fiscal year 2022 if the City enters into new lease agreements or terminates existing agreements. Therefore, once that information is known for fiscal year 2022, we will provide a cost estimate and addendum to the engagement letter that will be based upon our standard hourly rates.
COST PROPOSAL
Maze & Associates Certification
David Alvey and Vikki Rodriguez are authorized to submit this proposal and negotiate and sign a contract with the City). Our offer is firm and irrevocable for a period of 90 days from the date of this proposal.
31
COST PROPOSAL (Continued)
What Our Price Includes
Our price includes all the basic audit work and reports, statements and other deliverables specified in your request for proposal. Our price also includes the items below at no additional cost:
1) Year-round support and telephone consultation on pertinent issues affecting the Authority, 2) Copies of our journal entries and our leadsheets used to support the amounts in your financial statements,
3) Free full day of training at our annual MazeLive event, 4) Active Partner involvement in your work every year,
5) Our typed interim Accounting Issues Memorandum,
6) Overviews and summaries of upcoming pronouncements and regulation affecting the audited financial statements.
7) Direct dump of general ledger data into our ProSystems trial balance software which is fully linked to financial statement formats.
Total All Inclusive Maximum Price
CT PROPOSAL (Continued)
It is our understanding that the City does not currently anticipate the need for a Single Audit. If the City requires a Single Audit, our fee for auditing one major program would be $4,000 for the first major program and $2,000 for each additional major program.
Hourly Totals
Hours (2) Rates (3) 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026
Basic Financial Statements
& Management Letter:
Partner 16 $300 $4,800 $5,000 $5,200 $5,400 $5,600
Supervisor 88 135 11,900 12,300 12,700 13,100 13,500
Associates 120 90 10,800 11,200 11,600 12,000 12,400
Office 8 70 600 600 600 600 600
ACFR & Management Letter: 232 28,100 29,100 30,100 31,100 32,100 SCO Reports 2,000 2,100 2,200 2,300 2,400
Out-of-pocket expenses (1) 0 0 0 0 0
Total all-inclusive maximum price: 232 $30,100 $31,200 $32,300 $33,400 $34,500 NOTES:
(1) Out-of-pocket expenses are included in our standard hourly rate. (2) Estimated hours are expected to remain constant.
Optional Extensions
(3) The hourly rates can be used for any additional work the District may request that would be outside the scope of the audit engagement.
32
COST PROPOSAL (Continued)
Fees and Billings
Progress billings will be made on the pro-rated audit work completed during the course of the engagement.
Our fees are firm fixed prices. In determining our fees, we understand that the Authority’s records will be in condition to be audited; that is, transactions will be properly recorded in the general ledger and subsidiary records, these accounting records and the original source documents will be readily available to use, we will be furnished with copies of bank reconciliations and other reconciliations and analyses prepared by the Authority and Authority personnel will be reasonably available to explain procedures, prepare audit correspondence and obtain files and records.
We do not post separate rate structures for municipal audit work. We view this work as being every bit as important and valuable as the work we perform for other clients and we put our best people on it. Any consulting work you request will be performed at the same rates as our audit work. 33
OAK #4882-3203-1297 v2
07902-0001
DRAFT
1 AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES
This Agreement for Professional Services (“Agreement”) is made and entered into as of 6 th day of December, 2022, by and between the City of Monte Sereno, a California municipal corporation, hereinafter referred to as “City”, and Maze & Associates Accounting Corporation, a California corporation, hereinafter referred to as “Consultant”.
RECITALS
A. City desires to retain Consultant for certain professional services as set forth in this Agreement.
B. Consultant is specially trained, experienced and competent to perform the special services which will be required by this Agreement.
C. Consultant possesses the skill, ability, background, certification and knowledge to provide the services described in this Agreement on the terms and conditions described herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the recitals and the mutual promises contained herein, City and Consultant agree as follows:
AGREEMENT
1. Scope. City agrees to, and hereby does, retain Consultant to perform the professional services as outlined in the Scope of Work attached hereto and incorporated herein as Exhibit A.
Consultant’s work product shall be performed pursuant to generally accepted standards of practice in effect at the time of performance.
2. Responsible Personnel: City has relied upon the professional training and ability of Consultant to perform the services hereunder as a material inducement to enter into this Agreement. Primary personnel responsible for Consultant’s completion of the work described in this Agreement shall be David M. Alvey, CPA.
3. Scope of Work: Consultant shall perform the services as specified in Exhibit A in a professional manner. Consultant will not undertake any work that will incur costs in excess of the amount set forth in this paragraph without prior written amendment to this Agreement.
4. Time of Performance and Term: The services of Consultant are to commence upon execution of this Agreement and shall continue until all authorized work is approved by the City.
The term of this Agreement shall be until April 30, 2025. All such work shall be completed no
OAK #4882-3203-1297 v2
07902-0001
DRAFT
2 later than January 31, 2023 (for 2022 Audit), January 31, 2024 (for 2023 Audit) and January 31, 2025) (for 2024 Audit). Time is of the essence in the performance of this Agreement. No waiver by either party hereto of the nonperformance or any breach of any term, provision, or condition of this Agreement, or any default hereunder shall be considered to be or operate as a waiver of any subsequent nonperformance, breach or default.
5. Compensation: Compensation for services performed as set forth in Section 3 shall be at a fixed lump sum, as set forth in Exhibit B, and in no event shall compensation exceed the amounts of $30,100 (for 2022 audit work), $31,200 (for 2023 audit work) and $32,300 (for 2024 audit work) and any additional work performed shall be at Consultant’s sole risk. Periodic payments to Consultant shall be made upon submittal of invoices by Consultant to City for review and approval by the City Manager. Invoices will be paid by City within a reasonable time after the invoices are received and approved. For purposes of this Agreement, a 30 day period shall be deemed a reasonable period.
6. Insurance: Consultant agrees to have and maintain, for the duration of the Agreement, the following minimum insurance requirements. Prior to the execution of the Agreement, Consultant shall provide proof of insurance required. Insurance is to be placed with insurers authorized to conduct business in the state with a current A.M. Best’s rating of no less than A:VII, unless otherwise acceptable to the City.
Consultant shall furnish the City with original certificates and amendatory endorsements or copies of the applicable policy language effecting coverage required by this clause. All certificates and endorsements are to be received and approved by the City before work commences. However, failure to obtain the required documents prior to the work beginning shall not waive Consultant’s obligation to provide them. The City reserves the right to require complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements required by these specifications, at any time.
Coverage shall be at least as broad as:
1. Commercial General Liability (CGL): Insurance Services Office Form CG 00 01 covering CGL on an “occurrence” basis, including products and completed operations, property damage, bodily injury and personal & advertising injury with limits no less than $2,000,000 per occurrence. If a general aggregate limit applies, either the general aggregate limit shall apply separately to this project/location (ISO CG 25 03 05 09 or 25 04 05 09) or the general aggregate limit shall be twice the required occurrence limit.
2. Automobile Liability: ISO Form Number CA 00 01 covering any auto (Code 1), or if Contractor has no owned autos, covering hired, (Code 8) and non-owned autos (Code 9), with limit no less than $1,000,000 per accident for bodily injury and property damage.
OAK #4882-3203-1297 v2
07902-0001
DRAFT
3 3. Workers’ Compensation: as required by the State of California, with Statutory Limits.
4. Professional Liability (Errors & Omissions): As appropriate to Consultant’s services, and not less than $2,000,000 per occurrence.
The insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions:
The City of Monte Sereno, its Council Members, elected and appointed officers, agents and employees shall be named as additional insureds on the CGL policy with respect to liability arising out of work or operations performed by or on behalf of Independent Contractor including materials, parts or equipment furnished in connection with such work or operations. General liability coverage can be provided in the form of an endorsement to the Independent Contractor’s insurance (at least as broad as ISO Form CG 20 10 11 85 or both CG 20 10, CG 20 26, CG 20 33, or CG 20 38; and CG 20 37 forms if later revisions used).
For any claims related to this Agreement, Consultant’s insurance coverage shall be primary insurance coverage (at least as broad as ISO CG 20 01 04 13) with respect to the City, its officers, officials, employees, and volunteers. Any insurance or self-insurance maintained by the City, its officers, officials, employees, or volunteers shall be excess of the Consultant’s insurance and shall not contribute with it.
Consultant hereby grants to City a waiver of any right to subrogation which any insurer of said Consultant may acquire against the City by virtue of the payment of any loss under such insurance. Consultant agrees to obtain any endorsement that may be necessary to affect this waiver of subrogation, but this provision applies regardless of whether or not the City has received a waiver of subrogation endorsement from the insurer.
Consultant shall require the insurer to provide City with 30-day prior notice of termination or material change in coverage and ten (10) days prior notice of cancellation for non-payment.
7. Indemnity: To the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant shall hold harmless, indemnify and defend City, its elective and appointive boards, commissions, officers, agents, servants, volunteers, and employees (the “Indemnified Parties”) from and against any and all claims, costs, damages, liability, losses, or suits (including court costs and attorney fees) for personal injury (including death), property damage and any other damages of any sort whatsoever, arising out of, or alleged to have arisen out of, the willful or negligent acts, errors, or omissions of Consultant or Consultant's contractors, subcontractors, agents, or employees in the performance of this Agreement.
For design professionals (as that term is defined by statute) acting within the scope of their professional capacity, to the fullest extent permitted by law, Consultant shall, at its own expense, indemnify, protect, defend (by counsel reasonably satisfactory to the City) and hold
OAK #4882-3203-1297 v2
07902-0001
DRAFT
4 harmless any Indemnified Parties from and against any and all Liability, whether actual, alleged or threatened, which arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct of the Consultant, or as may be provided by statute in Civil Code § 2782.8, as may be amended from time to time.
Consultant’s duty to indemnify, protect, defend and hold harmless as set forth in this section shall include the duty to defend (by counsel reasonably satisfactory to the City) as set forth in California Civil Code § 2778. The Consultant’s responsibility to indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the Indemnified Parties under this section shall not extend to the active negligence or willful misconduct of the Indemnified Parties. This section shall survive the termination of this Agreement.
8. Termination: This Agreement may be terminated by the City immediately for cause or by either party without cause upon fifteen days’ written notice of termination. Upon termination, Consultant shall be entitled to compensation for services performed up to the effective date of termination.
If Consultant fails to perform any of its obligations under this Agreement within the time and in the manner herein provided or otherwise violate any of the terms of this Agreement, in addition to all other remedies provided by law, City may terminate this Agreement immediately upon written notice. In such event, Consultant shall be entitled to receive as full payment for all services satisfactorily rendered and expenses incurred hereunder, an amount which bears the same ratio to the total fees specified in the Agreement as the services satisfactorily rendered hereunder by Consultant bear to the total services otherwise required to be performed for such total fee; provided, however, that the City shall deduct from such amount the amount of damages, if any, sustained by City by virtue of the breach of the Agreement by consultant.
In the event of termination, Consultant shall deliver as a condition to the payment of the compensation provided for above, or otherwise make available to City, all research data, reports, estimates, summaries, and other such information and materials as may have been accumulated by Consultant in performing this Agreement, whether completed or in process in accordance with Section 9 of this Agreement.
9. Documents: Notes, studies, chain, computations, electronic files, and other data and information obtained by Consultant for this project shall, upon receipt of payment for services rendered, be made available to City by Consultant at City's request and shall become the property of City. In the event City alters the document, City agrees Consultant shall have no responsibility whatsoever for any claim arising out of, or alleged to have risen out of, use of the altered document,
All plans, studies, documents, charts, computations, and electronic files prepared by and for Consultant, its officers, employees and agents and subcontractors in the course of
OAK #4882-3203-1297 v2
07902-0001
DRAFT
5 implementing this Agreement, except working notes and internal documents, shall become the property of the City upon payment to Consultant for such work, and the City shall have the sole right to use such materials in its discretion without further compensation to Consultant or to any other party. Consultant shall, at Consultant’s expense, provide such reports, plans, studies, documents and other writings to City upon written request.
10. Independent Contractor: Consultant is an independent contractor retained by City to perform the work described herein. All personnel employed by Consultant are not and shall not be deemed to be employees of City. Consultant shall obtain no rights to retirement benefits or other benefits that accrue to City’s employees, and Consultant hereby expressly waives any claim it may have to such rights. Consultant shall comply with all state and federal laws pertaining to employment and compensation of its employees and its agents, including the provision of Workers’ Compensation.
11. Licenses and Standard of Care: Consultant represents and warrants to City that, for itself and any subcontractors, all applicable licenses, permits, qualifications, insurance and approvals of any nature which are legally required of Consultant to practice its profession have been obtained any will be maintained during the performance of the Agreement. Consultant shall procure and maintain a City of Monte Sereno business license. Consultant shall use the standard of care in its profession to comply with all applicable federal, state, and local laws, codes, ordinances, and regulations.
12. Assignment: The parties recognize that a substantial inducement to City for entering into this Agreement is the professional reputation, experience and competence of Consultant.
Assignments of any or all rights, duties or obligations of the Consultant under this Agreement will be permitted only with the express consent of the City. Consultant shall not subcontract any portion of the work to be performed under this Agreement without the written authorization of the City. If the City consents to such subcontract, Consultant shall be fully responsible to City for all acts or omissions of the subcontractor. Nothing in this Agreement shall create any contractual relationship between City and subcontractor nor shall it create any obligation on the part of the City to pay or to see to the payment of any monies due to any such contractor other than as otherwise required by law.
13. Binding on Successors: This Agreement is binding on the heirs, successors and assigns of the parties hereto.
14. Amendment: This Agreement may be amended, modified or changed by the parties, provided that said Agreement, modification or change is in writing and approved by the authorized representative of the parties.
15. Applicable Law and Attorney's Fees: This Agreement shall be construed and enforced in accordance with the laws of the State of California, and any action brought relating to this
OAK #4882-3203-1297 v2
07902-0001
DRAFT
6 Agreement shall be held exclusively in a state court in the County of Santa Clara. Should any legal action be brought by a party for breach of this Agreement or to enforce any provision of the Agreement, the prevailing party of such action shall be entitled to recover its reasonable litigation expenses, including attorney fees.
16. Entire Agreement: This Agreement constitutes the complete and exclusive statement of the agreement between the City and Consultant and shall supersede all prior negotiations, representations, or agreements, either written or oral. All provisions of this Agreement are expressly made conditions. For all purposes this Agreement shall be deemed to have been drafted jointly by all parties.
17. Waiver: Waiver of a breach or default under this Agreement shall not constitute a continuing waiver of a subsequent breach of the same or any other provision under this agreement.
18. Severability: If any term or portion of this Agreement shall be held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid, illegal, or otherwise unenforceable, the remaining provisions of this Agreement shall continue in full force and effect.
19. Equal Employment Opportunity. Consultant is, and warrants to the City that they shall be during the term of the Agreement, an equal opportunity employer and agrees to comply with all applicable state and federal regulations governing equal employment opportunity. Consultant will not discriminate against any employee or applicant for employment because of race, age, sex, creed, color, sexual orientation, marital status or national origin. Consultant will take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are treated during such employment without regard to race, age, sex, creed, color, sexual orientation, marital status, or national origin. Such action shall include, but shall not be limited to, the following: employment, upgrading, demotion, or transfer; recruitment or recruitment advertising; lay-offs or termination; rates of pay or other forms of compensation; and selection for training, including apprenticeship. Consultant further agrees to post in conspicuous places, available to employees and applicants for employment, notices setting forth the provisions of this nondiscrimination clause.
20. City Not Obligated to Third Parties; Subcontractors; Oversight. The City shall not be obligated or liable for payment hereunder to any party other than the Consultant. Consultant shall ensure the following requirements are satisfied in the performance of the Agreement with respect to its own employees:
A. Workers’ Compensation. Consultant certifies that it is aware of the provisions of the California Labor Code which require every employee to be insured against liability for workers’ compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that Code, and Consultant certifies that it will comply with such provisions before commencing performance of the Agreement and at all times in the performance of the Agreement.
OAK #4882-3203-1297 v2
07902-0001
DRAFT
7 B. Prevailing Wage. Consultant and Consultant’s subconsultants (if any) shall, to the extent required by the California Labor Code, pay not less than the latest prevailing wage rates to workers and professionals as determined by the Director of Industrial Relations of the State of California pursuant to California Labor Code, Part 7, Chapter 1, Article 2. Copies of the applicable wage determination shall be available on file at the City’s office of the City Clerk.
C. Injury and Illness Prevention Program. Consultant certifies that it is aware of and has complied with the provisions of California Labor Code § 6401.7, which requires every employer to adopt a written injury and illness prevention program.
D. Consultant shall pay all taxes, assessments and premiums under the federal Social Security Act, any applicable unemployment insurance contributions, Workers Compensation insurance premiums, sales taxes, use taxes, personal property taxes, or other taxes or assessments now or hereafter in effect and payable by reason of or in connection with the services to be performed by Consultant.
The City is not responsible or liable for Consultant’s failure to comply with any and all of its requirements under this section and Agreement.
21. Political Reform Act Economic Interests. If City determines Consultant comes within the definition of Consultant under the Political Reform Act (Government Code §87100), Consultant shall complete and file and shall require any other person doing work under this Agreement to complete and file a “Statement of Economic Interest” with the Clerk of the City disclosing Consultant and/or such other person’s financial interests.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF this Agreement is executed by City and by Consultant CONSULTANT: CITY OF MONTE SERENO:
______________________________ ____________________________________ By: Steve Leonardis, City Manager
APPROVED AS TO FORM: ATTEST:
______________________________ ____________________________________ Sergio Rudin, City Attorney Gloisy Gonzalez-Langarica, City Clerk
OAK #4882-3203-1297 v2
07902-0001
DRAFT
8 EXHIBIT “A”
SCOPE OF WORK
Maze & Associates (“Consultant”) will complete the fiscal year ending June 30, 2022 Annual Comprehensive Financial Report. We will issue our memorandum on internals, also known as a management letter, and the required communications. We will inform the City immediately if we uncover any irregularities or illegal acts.
Please refer to Exhibit “A” pages 23 through 31 for specific details behind the scope of work from Maze & Associates.
OAK #4882-3203-1297 v2
07902-0001
DRAFT
9 EXHIBIT “B”
COMPENSATION
STAFF REPORT
Meeting: City Council - Dec 06 2022
Agenda Heading: NEW BUSINESS
Staff Contact: Steve Leonardis,
Department: City Manager
Title: Approve Additional Appropriations for 2022 Annual Pavement Improvement Project for $20,529 and Authorize City Manager to Execute Any Required Change Orders
Recommendation(s):
Staff recommends the Monte Sereno City Council authorize additional funding in the amount of $20,529 for unanticipated increased cost in the 2022 Pavement Improvement Project and authorize the City Manager to execute any required change orders to the contract.
Background Information:
At its August 02, 2022 meeting, the City Council approved award of a contract to McKim Corporation for work included in the City’s 2022 Pavement Improvement Project. This project continues the City’s annual investment in maintenance of the City’s streets. The base bid submitted by McKim Corporation included grinding and overlay of Greenwood Road, Quito Road and La Rinconada Drive. Bids were also received for an option of additional work on Austin Way, Alexander Avenue and West Ellenwood Avenue. Based on Staff recommendation, City Council approved a contract for the base bid and the addition of Austin Way and Alexander Avenue. The total funding authorization for this work, including a 10% contingency was $376,828.
Analysis:
McKim Corporation began construction work on October 17, 2022. Grinding that took place on the contract streets revealed two unforeseen conditions:
1. Pavement irregularities on Austin Way including Portland Cement concrete in some areas and the presence of old fabric underlayment. The concrete was a remnant from the Interurban Railroad operated in the early 20th Century. The fabric was placed under a previous overlay due to the irregular roadbed conditions of the abandoned Interurban track bed.
Both conditions required modification to the specification and scope of work. This additional work included special hand work and grinding to remove the old fabric and the addition of new fabric prior to placement of the overlay. A Change Order in the amount of $13,792.70 was negotiated for this work.
2. The actual area of grinding and overlay on Greenwood Road and La Rinconada Avenue exceeded original estimates and contract amounts. Based on final billings from McKim Corporation and field verification by City Staff, the cost of this additional work is $6,737.00.
These two cost changes results in a total Contract expenditure of $397,357, exceeding the previously approved funding of $376,828 by $20,529.
Fiscal Impact:
The additional funding authorization proposed by this report will be from the General Fund as the available annual Gas Tax funds were fully expended on the initial contract approval.
Alternatives:
No alternatives are available as there was no option but to repave the streets where the existing pavement had been removed, generally to a depth of 2”. The placement of 2” of new pavement and restoration of pavement markings had to be accomplished and the McKim contract work completed.
Conclusion:
Staff requests the City Council authorize the additional $20,529 of funding for the annual pavement improvement project.
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:
Photographs of Austin Way Following Initial Grinding
Condition of Austin Way following initial grinding
Rail from Interurban Railroad embedded in street roadbed
RESOLUTION NO. 1691.7
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTE
SERENO AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 1691 TO ADD A PROCESS
REGARDING CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEEAND COMMISSION
ASSIGNMENTS AND AMEND THE SECTION REGARDING THE PLACEMENT
OF ITEMS ON THE AGENDA
WHEREAS, the City Council of the City of Monte Sereno has adopted regulations and guidelines for the conduct of public meetings in Resolution No.1691; and
WHEREAS, the guidelines for the conduct of public meetings were amended in October 2008 by Resolution No. 1691.1, in September 2010 by Resolution No 1691.2, in July 2012 by Resolution 1691.3, in March 2014 by Resolution No. 1691.4, in February 2019 by Resolution No. 1691.5, and on August 6, 2019 by Resolution No. 1691.6; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to further amend the guidelines to add a process regarding City Council committee and commission assignments and amend the section regarding the placement of items on the agenda.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MONTE SERENO that the revised document entitled "Regulations and Guidelines for the Conduct of Public Meetings" attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference is hereby approved.
This resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Monte Sereno at a regularly scheduled meeting held on the 4”‘day of February 2020 by the following vote:
AYES: Council Members Ellahie, LaBouve, Turner Mayour Pro Tempore Leuthold and Mayor Lawler
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
Aproved:
REGULATIONS AND GUIDELINES
FOR
THE CONDUCT OF PUBLIC MEETINGS
A.
MEETINGS
1. Regular Meetings
The Council of the City Of Monte Sereno shall hold regular meetings in the Council Chambers at 18041 Saratoga—Los Gatos Road in said city on the first and third Tuesdays of each month at 7:00 p.m.
2. Special Meetings
Special meetings may be called at any time by the Mayor or a majority of the Council members by delivering personally, or by mail, written notice to each Council member, by posting the written notice personally or by mail to each local newspaper of general circulation, radio station and television station which has made written request for such notice. Such notice must be delivered and posted at least twenty—fourhours before the time of such meeting as specified in the notice. The notice shall specify the time and place of the special meeting and the business to be transacted. No other business shall be considered at such meetings. Such written notice may be dispensed with, as to any Council Member who, at or prior to the time the meeting convenes, files with the City Clerk a written waiver of notice. Such waiver may also be given by telegram.
3. Place
All regular and special meetings of the Council shall be held in the Council Chambers, except that any such meetings may be adjourned to such other location as the Council may from time to time determine.
4. Meetings to be Public
All regular, adjourned, and special meetings of the Council shall be open and public; provided, however, the Council may hold closed session from which the public may be excluded for the consideration of those matters
censure, or (ii) removal from any one or more of the offices which he or she holds by reason of election or appointment by the City Council, such as Mayor, Mayor Pro Tempore, representative of the Council on an outside board or commission, or membership on a Council committee.
5. Chamber Preparation
The City Manager shall cause the Chamber doors to be unlocked at 6:45 p.m. on regular meeting nights. In addition, he or she shall cause all preparations of the Chambers and of all available public facilities for the general comfort of the audience and efficiency of the meetings.
6. Quorum
Three members of the Council shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business. Motions may be passed by a majority if only three attend, but ordinances, resolutions granting franchises and payment of money require at least three affirmative votes. Where there is no quorum, the Mayor, Mayor Pro Tempore, or any Council Member shall adjourn such meeting, or, if no Council member is present, the City Clerk shall adjourn the meeting.
7. Agenda
An agenda shall be prepared for each regular meeting containing the specific items of business to be transacted and the order thereof. Items of business may be placed on the agenda by any Council Member, the City Manager, or the City Attorney. The City Manager may advise, but cannot override, on the placement of items for consideration. In addition, a City Council Member may request that an item be placed on a future agenda during the future agenda portion of a City Council Meeting as outlined in Section 9 below. A complete copy of the agenda shall be addressed to each Council Member and delivered to each Council Member at City Hall and each department head so as to reach the recipient not later than 5:00 p.m. on the Wednesday preceding each regular Council meeting. All reports, ordinances, resolutions, contract documents, or other matters to be submitted to the Council at their regular meeting shall be delivered to the City Clerk no later than 5:00 p.m., on the Monday preceding the Wednesday on which the agenda is delivered to the City Council. The City Clerk shall prepare the agenda of all such matters according to the order of business, numbering each item consecutively. The agenda shall be
City Manager may exclude any materials that would not be a public record under applicable law, including but not limited to closed session materials.
8. Additions to Agenda
No matters shall be finally acted upon by the City Council other than those on the adopted agenda; provided, however, items of business not appearing on the posted agenda may be considered in accordance with Government Code section 54954.2 and as it may be amended from time to time.
9. Order of Business
At the hour set by law on the day of each regular meeting, the Council Members, City Manager, City Attorney, City Clerk and such department heads as have been requested to be present, shall take their regular stations in the Council Chambers, and the business of the Council shall be taken up for consideration and disposition in the following order:
a. Call to Order
b. Pledge of Allegiance
c. Roll Call
d. Orders of the Day
e. Presentations
f. Oral Communications from the Public
g. Written Communications
h. Consent Calendar
i. Public Hearings
j. New Business
k. Unfinished Business
o. City Manager Report
p. Future Agenda Items
q. Adjournment
The Mayor or a majority of the Council may change the order of business under Orders of the Day. The Council may set hearings for a specific time and, in that event, such hearings shall begin at the stated time, regardless of the order of business; otherwise, business shall be considered in the order shown above.
10.Council Member Absences
In the event a Council Member is unable to attend a City Council meeting, such Council Member shall so inform the City Manager no later than 12:00 p.m. on the Friday before the City Council meeting, unless such absence is due to an unforeseen circumstance beyond the Council Member's control.
1.1. Remote Participation of Council Member
in the event a Council Member desires to participate in a Council Meeting from a remote location, such Council Member shall endeavor to inform the City Clerk no later than 12:00 p.m. two Fridays prior to the City Council meeting but in no event later than 12:00 p.m. the Tuesday before the City Council meeting. In addition the Council Member shall provide the City Clerk with the exact address, telephone number of the location from which the Council Member shall be participating in the meeting, an email address and, if requested, assist in meeting the state mandated agenda posting requirement at the location.
B.
ADDRESSING THE COUNCIL
1. Right to Address Council
Every agenda for regular meetings shall provide an opportunity for members of the public to address the Council on any item of interest to the public that is within the jurisdiction of the Council. An opportunity shall be provided for
granting or denial of such a request may be appealed to the Council by a member of the Council. In the event that more than one person makes such a request on any one item of business, the Mayor may forthwith designate and declare a period of time for such addresses and set a reasonable time limitation for it.
3. Manner of Addressing Council
Any person wishing to address the Council shall stand or raise the hand and wait to be recognized by the chair, he/she shall stand at the podium, if able, state his/her name for the record and proceed to address the Council. All remarks and questions shall be addressed to the Council through the chair and not to any member thereof or the public. No question shall be asked of a Council member or a member of the City staff without first obtaining permission of the Mayor.
4. Time Limitation
The Mayor or a majority of the Council may limitthe time speakers may have to make oral presentations to the Council. When any group of persons wishes to address the Council on the same subject matter, it shall be proper for the Mayor or Council to inquire whether or not the group has a spokesperson, and if so, that the spokesperson be heard, with following speakers in the group limited to facts not already presented by spokesperson.
5. Inclusion of Public Correspondence and Presentations in Agenda Materials
Any person wishing to make an audio/visual presentation on any agenda item must submit the presentation electronically, either in person or via email, to the City Clerk’s office no later than 2:00 p.m. on the day of the Council meeting.
Persons wishing to submit written comments to be included in the agenda materials provided to City Council must provide the comments as follows:
- For inclusion in the regular packet: by 11:00 a.m. the Wednesday prior to the City Council Meeting
- For inclusion in additional post packet correspondence addendum: by
such materials shall be made available after the meeting for public inspection by the City Clerk in accordance with applicable law.
C.
MAYOR AND MAYOR PRO TEMPORE
1. Appointment of Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore
On non—election years, the City Council shall conduct a yearly reorganization at its first regular meeting of December, unless otherwise designated by the City Council. On election years, the reorganization of the City Council shall occur at the same meeting that the Council certifies the election results and the newly seated City Council shall select the Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore. At the time of the yearly reorganization of the City Council, the City Council shall elect one of its members to serve one year as Mayor and one of its members to serve one year as Mayor Pro Tempore. In making the selections, the City Council will consider the principle of rotation to allow each of its members an opportunity to serve as Mayor. The election of Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore shall be placed at the end of the Agenda. The Mayor will ask the Council for nominations for Mayor. Any Council Member wishing to make a nomination may do so. A Council Member may nominate himself or herself. Nominations do not require a second. The Council will vote on the nominations in reverse order that the nominations were made, with the last nomination made voted on first. The Mayor shall be appointed by the affirmative vote of three or more members. If no Mayor is chosen through the first nomination and voting process, the process shall be repeated. After the Mayor is appointed, the nomination process will be repeated for the selection of a Council Member to serve as Mayor Pro Tempore.
2. Term of Office
The Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore shall each hold office until his/her successor is elected and qualifies.
3. Qualifications
Any member of the Council is eligible to serve as Mayor or Mayor Pro Tempore who has not served in that position the previous year. In casting their votes for Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore, members of the Council may consider the candidate's leadership qualities, his/her ability to conduct meetings of the
The Mayor, or in his/her absence the Mayor Pro Tempore, shall be the presiding officer of the Council and shall assume his/her place and duties as such immediately following his/her election. If the Mayor is absent or unable to act, the Mayor Pro Tempore shall serve until the Mayor returns or is able to act.
During such periods, the Mayor Pro Tempore has all of the powers and duties of the Mayor. in the event the Mayor Pro Tempore is absent, the Mayor shall have the right to name any member of the Council to perform the duties of the Mayor, but such substitution shall not extend beyond adjournment.
5. Authority
The Mayor shall preserve strict order and decorum at all meetings of the Council and announce its decisions on all subjects, and decide all questions of order, subject, however, to an appeal as herein as described. The Mayor shall sign all ordinances and resolutions adopted and contracts approved by the Council at meetings at which he/she is in attendance. In the event of his/her absence, the Mayor Pro Tempore shall sign such documents as have been adopted during the meeting at which he/she presided.
6. Council Committee and Commission Assignments
The Mayor recommends various standing committee [and commission] appointments to the Council for approval. This will be done at a scheduled Council meeting in December of each year. When making committee and commission assignments, the Mayor should attempt to balance shared responsibilities and opportunities among Council Members.
D.
RULES OF PROCEDURE AND DEBATE
1. Call to Order
The Mayor, or in his/her absence, the Mayor Pro Tempore, shall take the chair at the appointed hour for the meeting, and shall call the Council to order. In the absence of the Mayor and the Mayor Pro Tempore, and the failure of the Mayor to appoint a temporary chairman, the City Clerk shall call the Council to order, whereupon a— temporary chairman will be elected by the members present. if the Mayor or Mayor Pro Tempore should arrive after the meeting is called to order, the temporary chairman shall serve until the disposal of the item during consideration of which the Mayor or Mayor Pro Tempore arrived. In no event shall the temporary chairman serve beyond adjournment.
2. Roll Call
Before proceeding with the business of the Council, the City Clerk shall call the roll of the Council Members, and the names of those present shall be entered in the minutes. Subsequent roll calls throughout the meeting shall be made in the same order except that the Mayor shall always be called last.
3. Reading of Minutes
Unless the reading of the minutes of a Council meeting is requested by a majority of the Council, such minutes may be approved without reading if the Clerk has previously furnished each Council Member with a copy.
4. Mayor May Debate and Vote
The Mayor may move, second and debate from the Chair, subject only to such limitations of debate as are by these rules imposed on all Council Members and shall not be deprived of any of the rights and privileges of Council Members by reason of his/her acting as Mayor.
5. Getting the Floor
conversation or otherwise, delay or interrupt the proceedings or the peace of the Council, nor disturb any Council Member while speaking, or refuse to obey the orders of the Council or of the Mayor, except as othenNise herein provided.
Equitable access to the democratic process is essential. To ensure all members of the public feel free to participate, disruptive conduct is prohibited and may be grounds for removal from a meeting if it directly interferes with the conduct of proceedings. Disruptive conduct includes any conduct that directly interferes with the ability of the City Council to deliberate and take action on agenda items, which may include addressing the council without first being recognized, interrupting recognized public speakers, councilmembers, or city staff, continuing to speak after the allotted time has expired and being requested to stop or failing to relinquish the podium when directed, and continuing to cheer, boo, jeer, clap, or repetitiously address the same subject in a manner that significantly interrupts or interferes with the City Council’s ability to deliberate or act on an agenda item after being asked to stop. When necessary to enforce decorum, the Mayor, subject to Council appeal, or the Council itself may order a person removed from the public meeting, or the public meeting may be closed pursuant to state law.
7. interruptions
A Council Member, once recognized, shall not be interrupted when speaking unless called to order by the Mayor, unless a point of order or personal privilege is raised by another Council Member, or unless the speaker chooses to yield to a question by another Council Member. If a Council Member, while speaking, is called to order, he/she shall cease speaking until the question or order is determined and, ifdetermined to be in order, he/she may proceed.
8. Points of Order
Only a Council Member may raise a point of order. Points of order shall be limited to cases where the discussion or debate on the floor does not pertain to the item of business before the Council at the time or is in violation of any of the provisions of this resolution.
9. Personal Privilege
The right of a Council Member to address the Council on a question of personal privilege shall be limited to cases in which his/her integrity, character or motives are questioned or where the comfort or welfare of the Council, staff and
A call for the question is a motion to halt debate on a motion before the Council. A Council Member calling for the question must receive a second to his/her motion. A properly moved and seconded call for the question must be voted on immediately and is not debatable. Ifthe motion calling for the question passes, then the motion before the Council on which the question was called must be voted on immediately without further debate.
11.Recognition of City Staff
Members of the City staff, after recognition by the Mayor, shall hold the floor until completion of their remarks or until recognition is withdrawn by the Mayor.
12.Conflict of Interest
Any Council Member who has a direct personal financial interest in any matter coming before the Council shall disclose said interest and shall disqualify him/herself from discussing or voting on such matter. Where it is not clear whether such interest is of a disqualifying nature, the affected Council Member may request the opinion of the City Attorney. A Council Member who is disqualified by reason of a conflict of interest in any matter shall step down from the Dias during the debate and may not participate or vote on the matter.
13. Failure to Vote
A Council Member who fails to vote without stating his/her abstention or without being disqualified shall be deemed to have cast a "yes" vote.
14.Change of Vote
A Council Member may change his/her vote only if he/she makes a timely request during the council meeting providing said change does not affect the outcome of the vote.
15. Reconsideration of Prior Action
A motion to reconsider a vote on a prior action shall be in order at the same meeting or the next following meeting. Any final action taken on a quasi judicial matter shall not be subject to a motion for reconsideration. Such motion
that no provision of Robert's Rules of Order shall be construed to supersede any provision herein or in any other ordinance of this City, ifthe two provisions are in conflict. Ifthe council so decides, the Mayor shall designate a specific edition of Robert's Rules of Order to be used throughout his/her term, provided, however, that said edition is economical and readily available.
17. Failure to Observe Rules of Order
Rules adopted to expedite the transaction of the business of the council in an orderly fashion are deemed to be procedural only, and the failure to strictly observe such rules shall not affect the jurisdiction of the council or invalidate any action taken at a meeting that is othenNise held in conformity with law.
E.
MINUTES
1. Preparation of Minutes
The minutes of the council shall be kept by the City Clerk, and shall be neatly typewritten in a book kept for that purpose, with a record of each particular type of business transacted, with proper sub-heads; provided that the City Clerk shall be required to make a record only of such business as was actually passed upon a vote of the council, and shall not be required to make a verbatim transcript of the proceedings, provided further that a record shall be made of the names of persons addressing the council, the title and the subject matter to which their remarks related and whether they spoke in support of or in opposition to such matter.
2. Remarks of Council Members
A Council Member may request, through the Mayor, the privilege of having an abstract of his/her statement of any subject under consideration by the Council entered into the minutes. Ifthe council consents thereto, such statement shall be entered into the minutes.
3. Protest Against Council Action
Any Council Member shall have the right to have the reasons of his/her
The Clerk may be directed by the Mayor, with the consent of the Council, to enter in the minutes a synopsis of the discussion on any question coming regularly before the Council.
5. Delivery of Minutes
As soon as possible after each Council meeting, but no later than three (3) weeks after each Council meeting, barring any emergency situation, the City Clerk shall cause a copy of the minutes thereof to be forwarded to the Council Members, the City Manager, City Attorney, and such other city agencies or persons as may be designated.
6. MeetingRecordings
The City Clerk shall electronically record all Council meetings, when possible, except executive sessions, to assist the City Clerk in preparation of minutes, and will retain recordings at least five (5) years. The Council may order full recordings or portions thereof retained for longer periods. Said recordings shall not be an official city record but shall be available to the public.
7. Public Access to Minutes and Recordings
At least one copy of the minutes of each Council meeting, and at least one copy of the recordings of each council meeting, for said five—yearperiod, shall be maintained by the City Clerk in such a manner as to be readily available for inspection by the citizens and taxpayers of the City of Monte Sereno or their authorized representative, subject only to whatever reasonable conditions the City Clerk may require to avoid excessive interference with city business or misuse and destruction of city property.
F.
DISCIPLINARYPROCEDURES
1. Considerations in Determining Disciplinary Action
Disciplinary action may be imposed by Council upon Council Members who have violated the Code of Ethics. Disciplinary action or sanctions are considered when a serious violation of City policy has occurred by a Council Member. in determining the type of sanction imposed, the following factors may be considered:
a. Nature of the violation
b. Prior violations by the same individual
c. Other factors which bear upon the seriousness of the violation.
2. Type of Sanctions
At the discretion of the City Council, sanctions may be imposed for violating the Code of Ethics or engaging in other misconduct. These actions may
ad hoc committees, regional boards and commissions, community generated board/committee appointments. Other revocations may include temporary suspension of official travel, conference participation, and ceremonial titles.
0. Censure — A formal statement or resolution by the council officially reprimanding a Council Member.