parent were forced to live in segregated living facilities to avoid homelessness. However, since the 1999 Supreme Court decision in Olmstead v LC which states that unjustified segregation of people with disabilities is a violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) as it perpetuates mistreatment and segregation from the community dating back to the eugenics movement, less adults are choosing to live in licensed care homes and other forms of segregated living, instead choosing to remain part of the community. In addition, because most licensed care homes for people with developmental disabilities are large single family homes with multiple bedrooms, soaring home prices in our region have made it more financially beneficial for retiring owners of these small licensed care homes to sell the facilities as a residence rather than a business and more difficult for new homes to be purchased and converted into licensed care facilities to replace those that have gone out of business. Other barriers and trends which affect housing access for people with developmental disabilities that were omitted from the Housing Element include:
● Morgan Hill has fewer options for adults with developmental disabilities to transition out of the family home into their own apartment with supportive services (10%) or licensed care facilities (19%) compared to Santa Clara County (11% and 23% respectively) which has led to increased reliance on parents or family members to provide housing for adults with developmental disabilities (71% in Morgan Hill vs 65% in Santa Clara County). ● Longer life spans as reflected in the 35% increase of adults with developmental disabilities age 62+ in Santa Clara County have contributed to a decline in turnover in the remaining licensed care facilities.
● Displacement from the county is evidenced by a 15% decline in adults with developmental disabilities age 42-51, when aging parents are most likely to be unable to continue providing housing due to death or infirmity.
● Higher rates of physical disabilities than the general population compounds the housing barriers faced by those with both cognitive and physical disabilities who require both supportive services and units that are physically accessible in order to live independently.
● Increase of Autism diagnosis reflected in the 29% increase in adults in their 20s and 30s in Santa Clara County which will continue to drive the need for more housing options outside of the family home for adults with developmental disabilities . ● Most people with developmental disabilities have fixed incomes from disability benefits such as Supplemental Security Income (SSI) which pays less than 15% of Santa Clara County’s Area Median Income for a single person or work part-time in low wage jobs so are unable to meet income requirements for housing priced above Extremely Low Income or 30% AMI.
● Most adults with developmental disabilities do not drive or own a car so depend on public transit as a means to integrate into the community. 4
The Draft Housing Element also failed to discuss best practices for inclusion of people with developmental disabilities in affordable housing plans which were provided by Housing Choices based on over 25 years of experience supporting adults and families with children with developmental disabilities to find and retain affordable housing. The following practices should be considered in creating more targeted programs and policies with specific action steps, a description of the city’s role in implementation, measurable outcomes and a firm commitment to implement the program as required by HCD for a compliant Housing Element:
● Integration in typical affordable housing in order to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing for a group that has historically experienced no alternatives to segregated living. ● Coordination of housing with onsite supportive services funded by the San Andreas Regional Center should be encouraged. These fully funded coordinated services provide a supported pathway for people with developmental disabilities to apply for and retain an affordable apartment in line with HCD guidance on Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing by promoting fair housing choice.
● A mix of unit sizes at inclusive housing properties would address the needs of those who require live-in aides, want to live with roommates or partners, or have children. ● Location near public transit would accommodate the transit-dependency of most adults with developmental disabilities.
● Deeply affordable housing is needed by people with developmental disabilities. The City should plan for at least 131 Extremely Low Income (ELI) units, which would make up half of its total Very Low Income RNHA allocation. ELI units are particularly important to people with developmental disabilities, and some of the City’s planned production of ELI units should be subject to a preference for people with developmental disabilities.
We believe that the inclusion of these missing elements would strengthen the city’s assessment of the housing needs of Morgan Hill residents with developmental disabilities. Furthermore, it would help the city to create more meaningful programs and policies to meet the housing needs of residents with developmental disabilities as required by Housing Element law.
Strengthening Impact of Programs
We want to thank planning staff and the consultant who developed this draft for recommending a suite of new programs, policies and goals that we believe have the potential to create a more inclusive and equitable community. We are especially grateful to see the city committed to working with the San Andreas Regional Center to integrate adults with developmental disabilities into the community as evidenced by Action HE-6.B San Andreas Regional Center Coordination and Action HE-6.A Housing for Developmentally Disabled Adults. Because the city has little control over the price of housing their role in promoting more licensed care facilities is limited, however the city does have the ability to promote more inclusive affordable housing for people with developmental disabilities wanting to live independently with on-site supportive services, a proven solution to Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing for people with developmental disabilities, such as at Jasmine Square, where many of the city’s adults with developmental disabilities who have transitioned to independent living have found a home.
Since 2015, Eden Housing, San Andreas Regional Center and Housing Choices have 5
successfully worked together at Jasmine Square to offer deeply affordable housing paired with on-site supportive services to help residents with developmental disabilities access and retain stable housing thereby promoting integration and fair housing choice, meeting HCD’s requirement to AFFH. Yet, despite this highly successful model, the vast majority of adults with developmental disabilities in Morgan Hill are still living in the family home and, based on historical trends, we can only expect this number to increase over the course of the next Housing Element cycle. We look forward to supporting Morgan Hill’s efforts to encourage more integrated, inclusive and affordable housing such as at Jasmine Square Apartments.
In addition to the two programs mentioned previously we also support the following programs which we believe will promote more deeply affordable and accessible housing development and expand fair housing choices for the most vulnerable Morgan Hill residents, including but not limited to people with developmental disabilities: HE-1.G Promote Extremely Low-Income Housing, HE-3.B Affordable Housing Overlay Districts, HE-6.D Increase Awareness of Universal Design Principles, and HE-6.E Universal Design Ordinance. However, unfortunately we have found that these policies as well as most others provided in the current draft do not meet HCD guidance for program creation including concrete steps, timelines and measurable metrics by which to evaluate success of these programs. Without all of these elements the city is at-risk of implementing ineffective programs with little or no effect on meeting its RHNA or Affirmatively Further Fair Housing for all special needs populations and protected groups. As the city continues to refine the implementation actions and programs we hope to see further detail provided which will clearly demonstrate to HCD how the city plans to AFFH in your future housing plans.
In a review letter sent by HCD to Redwood City planning staff on July 8, 2022 after reviewing the first Draft of their Housing Element it is stated that “To have a beneficial impact on housing outcomes in the planning period, programs must have specific commitment (beyond considering) to housing outcomes, discrete timing (e.g., at least annually) and where appropriate numerical targets.”After reviewing the list of implementation actions and programs included in Morgan Hill’s Draft Housing Element we found that most did not meet this requirement, some examples and suggested revisions include:
● Action HE-1.G Promote Extremely Low-Income Housing: What are the specific steps the city will take to prioritize funding for Extremely Low Income Housing (e.g. modifying funding guidelines)? By when will these changes be made and how often will funds be distributed? What is the measurable outcome (e.g. how many units of ELI housing will be supported annually)?
● Action HE-3.B Affordable Housing Overlay Districts: HCD requires more concrete commitments than to study. Timeframe is over a period of 3 years, what are the specific steps that will be taken during that time? Should describe where overlays would be implemented (e.g. transit-oriented, high resources areas, opportunity sites etc), what incentives/concessions beyond State Density Bonus Law would be included (e.g. upzoning, reduced parking etc) and how it will AFFH.
● Action HE-6.A Housing for Developmentally Disabled Adults: What are the specific steps that will be taken to evaluate the need (eg. study sessions)? Needs a more 6
specific timeline than ongoing (e.g. by when and how often will the city reach out to non-profits)?
● Action HE-6.B San Andreas Regional Center Coordination: What are the specific steps the city will take to coordinate with San Andreas Regional Center and integrate adults with developmental disabilities into community housing (e.g. promote inclusive housing with local incentives such as regulatory concessions or funding priority)? What is the metric by which to measure success of this program (e.g.: __% of adults live independently with supportive services)?
● Action HE-6.D Increase Awareness of Universal Design Principles: What are the specific steps (e.g annual training)?
● Action HE-6.E Universal Design Ordinance: HCD requires more concrete commitments than to study. Timeframe should be more specific than ongoing, by when would the ordinance be adopted?
Incomplete Assessment of Fair Housing
Disability and Access Analysis. In this section of the AFH the city provides a very detailed analysis including an intersectional analysis of the housing resources available to people with disabilities as well as potential barriers to integration into the community for people with disabilities. We were also happy to see an intersectional analysis of the Housing Settings of SARC consumers with developmental disabilities by race and ethnicity as these disparities in housing access for Black, Indigenous and People of Color (BIPOC) as compared to White people with disabilities and BIPOC without disabilities is a significant component of Housing Choices’ recommendations for Affirmatively Furthering Fair Housing. HCD also recommends that jurisdictions in its AFFH guidance that jurisdictions complete this type of intersectional analysis as “there are significant disparities by race within the population with disabilities'.
Despite the many strengths of this section there are a few errors made that we believe should be corrected in order to have a more accurate analysis of the housing needs and barriers of people with disabilities, including developmental disabilities.
On page H-5-109 the analysis includes a thorough description of the changing definition of how we define true integration of people with disabilities into the community with an explanation of the level of integration of different housing settings concluding that “an individual’s own house or apartment in a development where the vast majority of residents are individuals without disabilities is an integrated setting” whereas other settings are less clearly integrated. However, on page H-5-110 the analysis of Table 4: Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, Performance of Tri-Counties Regional Center, December 2018 does not acknowledge the weaknesses in the metrics used by DDS to measure integration as home settings include not only an individual’s own apartment house or apartment but also individuals still living in their family home. When this data is further disaggregated we see that in fact most adults are not living in integrated settings as only 10% of adults are living independently with supportive services in the City of Morgan Hill. The analysis of Table 4 also concludes that “the San Andreas Regional Center simultaneously has lower rates of persons with developmental disabilities living in institutional settings but also lower rates of persons with developmental disabilities living in home or family-based settings than statewide” However, this is a misinterpretation of the data. 7
Table 4 reports only on individuals living in Developmental Centers (Agnews Developmental Center, which was located in Santa Clara closed in 2009) and individuals living in large facilities (defined as 7+ residents). The table does not report on the number of people living in small facilities (6 or fewer residents) and without this data we cannot reasonably determine that SARC has lower rates of consumers living in institutional settings.
On page H-5-110 it is stated that SARC does not disaggregate data by County of City however both City and County level data from SARC and DDS was submitted by Housing Choices to staff on April 15, 2022 (See Attachment A). Inclusion of both city and county level data of adult residence types as submitted by Housing Choices would demonstrate disparities in housing access for Morgan Hill adults with developmental disabilities as more are living in Home settings (71% vs 65%) with aging caregivers or other family members putting them at increased risk of homelessness or displacement when they lose the support of these home providers. In turn Morgan Hill adults are also less likely to transition out of the family home into either a Residential setting (Licensed Facilities) and are less likely to be living independently with supportive services (ILS or SLS) than in the County overall (19% vs 23% and 10% vs 11% respectively). Furthermore by not including the data submitted by Housing Choices from SARC as of November 2021 the analysis instead references outdated data from the previous Housing Element on page H-5-112. The data referenced in the Housing Element also is also for all consumers regardless of age, however as noted above Housing Choices choose to report only on the adult population as their housing needs are most relevant to the Housing Element.
On page H-5-113 (and later in the report on page H-5-135) there is a discussion of the housing options available to people with disabilities who need supportive services; however this analysis incorrectly assumes that the only supportive housing available in Morgan Hill and the County is funded through Measure A. In addition to including housing for people with developmental disabilities as a qualifying for Measure A funding the County also designated $40 million specifically for the development of housing developments which includes some units for people with developmental disabilities who receive supportive services. And even prior to this fund other inclusive properties were already being developed such as Jasmine Square Apartments, which is not mentioned in the analysis of available inclusive housing in Morgan Hill. There is also an inaccurate analysis of Measure A funding limitations on page H-5-113 made in response to the inclusion of projects with units set-aside for persons with developmental disabilities in more recent NOFAs “ One concern is that 50% is a higher concentration of persons with disabilities than is typically considered truly integrated when developing permanent supportive housing. Reducing that target to 25% would foster community integration while still yielding a large number of units.” Whilepast Measure A NOFAs did require that at least 25% of the units must be set-aside for people with developmental disabilities in order for projects to be eligible for funding the most recent NOFA released in November 2021 has lowered the eligibility threshold to a minimum of 10 units and up to 25% of units.
Fair Housing Enforcement, Outreach Capacity and Resources. In response to the passage of AB 686, HCD released the AFFH Data Viewer to support the outreach and engagement jurisdictions are required to complete as part of their Assessment of Fair Housing. HCD explicitly states in their AFFH guidance that the Assessment of Fair Housing (AFH) should include local 8
data and knowledge defined as “any locally gathered and available information”. However, the city’s analysis of Fair Housing Enforcement, Outreach Capacity and Resources does not adequately incorporate local data and knowledge as required. For instance while this section of the AFH describes a number of local fair housing agencies, including: Project Sentinel, Bay Area Legal Aid, Law Foundation of Silicon Valley, etc the only fair housing complaints on page H-5-119 of Appendix H-5: Assessment of Fair Housing are those made to HUD’s Office of Fair Housing and Equal Opportunity (FHEO). Typically, residents will reach out to local fair housing agencies, which complete their own investigation and mediation services to resolve the case, with any complaints and only if these local agencies are unsuccessful in resolving the issue are complaints escalated to FHEO. In addition to local fair housing agencies the data also leaves out reports made to California’s Civil Rights Department (formerly the Department of Fair Employment and Housing), which enforces California’s Fair Employment and Housing Act which includes protected classes beyond the limited scope of the FHEO. By only reporting complaints made to FHEO, the AFH significantly undercounts the number and types of Fair Housing complaints in the city. Without data from these state and local fair housing enforcement organizations for both Santa Clara County and the City of Morgan Hill, the city cannot accurately gauge how well it is doing in addressing Fair Housing issues nor how best to address common complaints.
Contributing Factors Appendix. On page H-5-135 in the analysis of lack of affordable in-home or community-based supportive services it is inaccurately stated that “At the county level, due to the absence of any waiting list for Home and Community-Based Services for persons with developmental disabilities, this issue primarily affects people with psychiatric disabilities.” This assumption appears to be based on the belief that SARC is a provider of Home and Community-Based Services for people with developmental disabilities. However, SARC does not directly provide these services, instead SARC provides funding for the 100s of direct services providers, such as Housing Choices, that provide these services. Unfortunately many of the ILS and SLS service providers funded by SARC to support people with developmental disabilities wanting to live independently do have waiting lists for their services which can be an impediment for adults wanting to transition out of the family home who have not yet developed the skills necessary to live independently.
We urge you to consider our recommendations and make changes to the Morgan Hill Housing Element so that it meaningfully addresses the housing needs of its residents with developmental and other disabilities.
Sincerely,
Kalisha Webster, Senior Housing Advocate
Email [email protected]
Cell
9
1 DEVELOPMENTAL DISABILITIES COMMENTS FOR MORGAN HILL HOUSING ELEMENT Introduction to Developmental Disabilities
People with developmental disabilities have a disability that emerged before age 18, is expected to be lifelong, and is of sufficient severity to require a coordinated program of services and support in order to live successfully in the community. Developmental disabilities include intellectual disability, autism, Down syndrome, epilepsy, cerebral palsy, and other disabling conditions similar in their functional impact to an intellectual disability. Under California’s Developmental Disabilities Services Act and the U.S. Supreme Court’s 1999 decision in Olmstead v. L.C., people with developmental disabilities are entitled to receive community-based services that allow them to live in the least restrictive community setting. This shift to de-institutionalization has led to the closure of the most restrictive segregated settings and to the requirement that local jurisdictions in their Housing Elements assess and plan specifically for the housing needs of people with developmental disabilities who receive services from the Regional Center in order to live in their home community.
Demographic and Other Trends Affecting the Housing Needs of People with Developmental Disabilities
Adults Make Up More than Half of the Morgan Hill Population with Developmental Disabilities.
Morgan Hill is home to 323 people with developmental disabilities of whom 222 (69%) are adults and 101 (31%) are under age 18. Because Morgan Hill’s 2015-2023 Housing Element failed to include the required assessment of the housing needs of people with developmental disabilities (pursuant to Government Code Section 65583(a)(7)), it is not possible to assess changes in this population in Morgan Hill since the 2015-2023 Housing Element. However, the population with developmental disabilities in Santa Clara County grew by 14% since the last Housing Element, much faster than the general population grew. The table below shows that Morgan Hill requires more housing options for adults with developmental disabilities than other parts of Santa Clara County because a greater proportion of Morgan Hill's residents with developmental disabilities are adults (69%) as compared to the County’s total population (63%).
Table ___ Morgan Hill and Santa Clara County Population with Developmental Disabilities Age Morgan
Hill
Morgan Hill
% of total
Santa Clara
County
Santa Clara County
% of total
Under age 18 101 31% 4016 37%
18 and older 222 69% 6737 63%
Total 323 100% 10753 100%
Note: The Morgan Hill population with developmental disabilities was provided by San Andreas Regional Center as of November 2021. The Santa Clara County population with developmental disabilities is based on county-level data published by the Department of Developmental Services as of June 2021.
2 Fewer Opportunities for Morgan Hill Adults with Developmental Disabilities to Live Outside the Family Home. The family home is the most prevalent living arrangement for Morgan Hill’s adults with developmental disabilities, with 71% of adults living in the family home in 2021, higher than the 65% of Santa Clara County adults living in the family home. We also see lower prevalence of Morgan Hill adults with developmental disabilities being able to transition out of the family home into their own apartment with supportive services (10%) or licensed care facilities (19%) than in Santa Clara County (11% and 23% respectively).
Table ___ Living Arrangements of Adults with Developmental Disabilities Adult Living Arrangements
2021
Morgan Hill
2021
Morgan Hill
Percent of
Total
2021
Santa Clara
County
2021
Santa Clara County
Percent of Total
In the family home 158 71% 4,362 65%
Own apartment with
supportive services 21 10% 756 11%
Licensed Facilities 43 19% 1,525 23%
Other (including homeless) 0 - 94 1%
Total Adults 222 6,737
Source: The 2021 data for Morgan Hill was provided by San Andreas Regional Center as of November 2021. The Santa Clara County data is based on county-level data published by the Department of Developmental Services as of June 2021.
Decline in Licensed Care Facilities in Santa Clara County. The Department of Developmental Services reports that between September 2015 and June 2021, 5% fewer people with developmental disabilities were able to be housed in licensed care facilities (including Community Care Facilities, Intermediate Care Facilities, and Skilled Nursing Facilities) in Santa Clara County, even as the adult population in need of residential options outside the family home grew. This trend increases the need for affordable housing options coordinated with supportive services funded by the San Andreas Regional Center. Santa Clara County’s reduced supply of licensed care facilities increases the likelihood that Morgan Hill adults with developmental disabilities will be forced out of the county when their parents are no longer able to house them--unless there is a significant improvement in access to affordable housing.
Increase of Autism Diagnosis Reflected in Increase in Adults in their 20s and 30s. Growth in the Santa Clara County adult population with developmental disabilities correlates with a well-documented annual increase in the diagnosis of autism that began in the mid-1980s and did not level out until after 2015.
The cumulative impact of this trend is already seen in the growth of the Santa Clara County population age 18 to 41 with developmental disabilities and will continue into the future. This trend has significant implications for housing needs among Morgan Hill adults with developmental disabilities during the period of the 2023-2031 Housing Element.
3 Table __ Changes in Age Distribution of Adult Population in Santa Clara County Age 2015 Number 2021 Number % Change
18 to 31 2,767 3,515 27%
32 to 41 891 1,212 36%
42 to 51 833 705 -15%
52 to 61 702 744 6%
62 plus 416 561 35%
Total adults 5,609 6,737 20%
Source: Department of Developmental Services Quarterly Report by County.
Longer Life Spans. Between September 2015 and June 2021, the Department of Developmental Services reports that the number of Santa Clara County residents with developmental disabilities age 62 and older grew by 35% (Table __). This increase is generally attributable to well-documented gains in life span, rather than to migration of seniors with developmental disabilities into Santa Clara County.
Longer life spans mean that more adults with developmental disabilities will outlive their parents and family members who are by far the single largest source of housing for people with developmental disabilities in Morgan Hill. Because older adults currently occupying a licensed facility in Santa Clara County are living longer, this reduced rate of occupant turnover, coupled with closing facilities, will make it more difficult for middle-aged and senior adults who have been living with aging parents in Morgan Hill to transition to licensed care when their parents pass away.
Displacement. Notwithstanding 20% growth in Santa Clara County’s total population of adults with developmental disabilities, the Department of Developmental Services has documented a 15% decline in the age group 42 to 51 in Santa Clara County between September 2015 and June 2021 (Table ___). In light of gains in life expectancy, this loss can reasonably be attributed to displacement from the county because of the lack of residential living options (either licensed facilities or affordable housing) when an elderly family caregiver passes away or becomes unable to house and care for the adult. Displacement takes a particular toll on adults with developmental disabilities who depend on familiarity with transit routes and shopping and services, as well as support from community-based services and informal networks built up over years of living in Morgan Hill.
Higher Rates of Physical Disabilities. People with developmental disabilities are more likely than the general population to have an accompanying physical disability. Almost 20% of Santa Clara County residents with developmental disabilities have limited mobility, and 15% have a vision or hearing impairment. The need for an accessible unit coupled with the need for coordinated supportive services compounds the housing barriers faced by those with both cognitive and physical disabilities.
4 Ineligibility for Many Affordable Rental Units. Some adults with developmental disabilities depend on monthly income of around $1,000 from the Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program, pricing them out of many of the limited number of affordable housing units in Morgan Hill. Those with employment tend to work part-time in the lowest paid jobs and also struggle to income-qualify for many of the affordable housing units now available for rent in Morgan Hill.
Transit-Dependent. Most adults with developmental disabilities do not drive or own a car and many rely on public transit as a means to integration in the larger community.
Best Practices for Inclusion of People with Developmental Disabilities in Typical Affordable Housing
Morgan Hill can meet the housing needs of people with developmental disabilities by adopting policies and programs to promote their inclusion with coordinated services in typical affordable housing. The following considerations should guide Morgan Hill in this pursuit:
● Integration in typical affordable housing is a priority in order to affirmatively further fair housing for a group that has historically experienced no alternatives to segregated living and also to counter the displacement of adults with developmental disabilities out of Morgan Hill. ● Coordination of housing with onsite supportive services funded by the San Andreas Regional Center should be encouraged. These fully funded coordinated services provide a supported pathway for people with developmental disabilities to apply for and retain an affordable apartment and are often as essential to a person with a developmental disability as a physically modified unit is to a person with a mobility, vision, or hearing impairment. ● A mix of unit sizes at inclusive housing properties would address the needs of those who require live-in aides, want to live with roommates or partners, or have children. ● Location near public transit would accommodate the transit-dependency of most adults with developmental disabilities.
● Deeply affordable housing is needed by people with developmental disabilities. The City should plan for at least 131 Extremely Low Income (ELI) units--50% of its Very Low Income RNHA allocation. Some of the ELI units should be subject to a preference for people with developmental disabilities.
Policy and Program Recommendations
Morgan Hill has a responsibility not simply to assess the housing needs of people with developmental disabilities but also to create and implement policy, zoning, program and other changes that make it more feasible for affordable housing developers to include people with developmental disabilities in their housing plans. Opportunities for adults with developmental disabilities to live outside the family are lower than many other jurisdictions in Santa Clara County. Currently the city has one affordable property, Jasmine Square built in 2005, which includes 12 set aside units for people with developmental disabilities who benefit from on-site supportive services funded by the San Andreas Regional Center.
The City’s lack of progress in meeting the housing needs of people with developmental disabilities since
5 the last Housing Element demonstrates the need for policies and programs that explicitly promote inclusion of people with developmental disabilities in affordable housing with coordinated services provided by the San Andreas Regional Center in order to prevent the homelessness or displacement of these vulnerable residents.
● Affirmatively Further Fair Housing by Producing More Extremely Low-Income Housing. Not only is disability the highest-ranked source of Fair Housing complaints in Santa Clara County, a growing body of Santa Clara County data indicates that Black, Indigenous and other People of Color (BIPOC) with disabilities experience higher rates of severe rent burden than either BIPOC without disabilities or whites with disabilities. Such disparities in the experience of severe rent burden, housing instability and displacement from Morgan Hill are attributable to the shortage of housing priced to be affordable to Extremely Low Income (ELI) households with incomes below 30% of Area Median Income. Multiple barriers including high land and construction costs and limited funding make it difficult for developers to produce Extremely Low Income units that would help to reduce such disparities. Local zoning and other policies that lead to increased production of Extremely Low Income units, as well as city staff dedicated to implementing and overseeing those policies, will Affirmatively Further Fair Housing in Morgan Hill and decrease displacement and homelessness for the most at-risk Morgan Hill residents, including people with developmental disabilities.
Sample Language: The City of Morgan Hills's plans to Affirmatively Further Fair Housing for Black, Indigenous and other People of Color, particularly those with disabilities, shall include policies designed to increase the production of Extremely Low Income units, as well as adequate staff capacity to implement and monitor the impact of these policies. ● Establish and monitor a quantitative goal. Tracking the City’s success in housing people with developmental disabilities is essential to determine whether policies and programs are having an effect in overcoming historic patterns of discrimination and exclusion of people with developmental disabilities from affordable housing. A goal of 40 new Extremely Low-Income housing units for Morgan Hill residents with developmental disabilities over the period of the 2023-2031 Housing Element would represent meaningful progress towards the total unmet housing need of this special needs group.
Sample Language: The City of Morgan Hill shall monitor progress towards a quantitative goal of 40 new Extremely Low Income housing units that are subject to a preference for people with developmental disabilities needing the coordinated services provided by San Andreas Regional Center to live inclusively in affordable housing.
● Offer Developers a Range of Affordability Options Under the Inclusionary Ordinance. Many adults with developmental disabilities, including those that find employment, have incomes too low to satisfy minimum income requirements for the Very Low and Low income units currently offered under the city’s inclusionary ordinance and are effectively excluded from this housing option. California law (AB 1505, the “Palmer Fix”) explicitly allows cities to adopt inclusionary
6 housing ordinances that address a range of income levels from moderate-income to extremely low-income. The City should take advantage of this authority to make its ordinance more responsive to local needs by offering developers of market rate housing a menu of options for including affordable units, for example, by setting a higher percentage of units if priced for moderate income and a lower percentage of units if priced for extremely low income. Such a menu would address a broader range of Morgan Hill housing needs, while giving developers more options for meeting the inclusionary requirement.
Sample Language: The City of Morgan Hill shall revise its inclusionary housing ordinance to offer developers a menu of options for achieving affordability, adjusting the percentage of units required to be affordable depending on the degree of affordability achieved (moderate-income, low income, very low income, and extremely low income). ● Target City-Owned Land, Land Dedicated to Affordable Housing under the Inclusionary Ordinance and City Housing Funds to Achieve City-Specific Priorities. City-owned land, land dedicated to affordable housing in lieu of providing affordable units under the inclusionary ordinance, and city housing funds are often essential to the development of affordable housing that is financially feasible in Morgan Hill. In creating guidelines for the scoring of any competitive proposals for these scarce resources, the City should grant additional points to affordable housing projects that address the housing needs of the Morgan Hill residents who are most difficult to house under existing state and federal housing finance programs--for example, by prioritizing proposals with a higher number of extremely low income units or that make a percentage of units subject to a preference for identified categories of special needs people who would benefit from coordinated onsite services, including but not limited to people with developmental disabilities who benefit from services of the San Andreas Regional Center.
Sample Language: In publishing requests for competitive proposals for any city-owned land, land dedicated to affordable housing under the city’s inclusionary ordinance or city housing funds, the City of Morgan Hill shall grant additional points to proposals that address the city’s most difficult to achieve housing priorities, by, for example, providing a greater number of extremely low-income units or committing to make a percentage of the units subject to a preference for people with special needs who will benefit from coordinated onsite services, such as people with developmental disabilities who receive services from the San Andreas Regional Center.
● Local Density Bonus. Like many state and federal housing finance programs, the state density bonus program incentivizes the production of housing at the Low and Very Low Income level.
But in counties like Santa Clara County, with one of the highest Area Median Income’s in the state, these incentives have the effect of making much of the available affordable housing out of reach for residents on fixed incomes (including seniors and persons with disabilities) or who are working in low wage jobs and are thus unable to meet minimum income requirements to afford the rent assigned to the Very Low Income category. Morgan Hill should add additional local
7 incentives to the state density bonus law to make it more responsive to the impact of Santa Clara County’s high median income on the affordability of housing for Morgan Hill residents who are Extremely Low Income, including special needs populations, for example, people with developmental disabilities who will benefit from coordinated onsite services provided by the San Andreas Regional Center.
Sample Language: In addition to implementing the California density bonus statute, the City shall provide an additional local density bonus, incentives, and/or concessions for housing projects that include at least 5% of the units for people at the Extremely Low-Income affordability level, including special needs populations, for example, people with developmental disabilities who will benefit from coordinated onsite services provided by the San Andreas Regional Center
● Extremely Low-Income Accessory Dwelling Units. As part of a larger plan to increase the supply of Accessory Dwelling Units (ADUs), the City should consider creating a financing program for homeowners who build ADUs and rent them for at least 15 years at Extremely Low Income rent levels or that are subject to a preference for identified categories of special needs people who would benefit from coordinated onsite services, including but not limited to people with developmental disabilities who benefit from services of the San Andreas Regional Center.
Sample Language: Subject to funding availability, the City shall devise a program of financing for Accessory Dwelling Units subject to rent restrictions for at least 15 years at Extremely LowIncome rent levels and/or target special needs populations, such as people with disabilities who will benefit from coordinated services provided by the San Andreas Regional Center. ● Reduce Parking Requirements for People with Developmental and Other Disabilities. Because most adults with developmental disabilities do not drive or own a car, the City of Morgan Hill should revise its ordinances to limit parking required for affordable units for people with developmental disabilities to .5 space for each affordable studio or 1 bedroom unit and 1 space for an affordable 2 bedroom unit or larger. A similar reduction is recommended for affordable, physically accessible units.
Sample Language: The City of Morgan Hill shall encourage the inclusion of people with developmental and other disabilities in affordable housing by recognizing their transit dependence and establishing lower parking ratios for units targeted to people with developmental and other disabilities than would otherwise be required for affordable housing. ● Affirmative Marketing of Physically Accessible Units: Developers are allowed to affirmatively market accessible units to disability-serving organizations in Santa Clara County (i.e., San Andreas Regional Center, Housing Choices Coalition for Person with Developmental Disabilities, Silicon Valley Independent Living Center and others) but rarely take this step. Affirmative marketing is particularly needed by people with developmental disabilities who, because of
8 cognitive, communication and social impairment, often rely on housing navigation services funded by the San Andreas Regional Center to learn about and apply for affordable housing.
Sample Language: As a condition of the disposition of any city-owned land, the award of city financing, any density bonus concessions, or land use exceptions or waivers for any affordable housing project, the City of Morgan Hill shall require that the housing developer implement an affirmative marketing plan for state-mandated physically accessible units which, among other measures, provides disability-serving organizations adequate prior notice of the availability of the accessible units and a process for supporting people with qualifying disabilities to apply.
9 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: August 17, 2022
PREPARED BY:
Matthew Mahood, Economic Development Director
APPROVED BY: City Manager
APPROVE UPDATES TO THE HOTEL STRATEGY AND INCENTIVE
POLICY TO SUPPORT NEW HOTEL DEVELOPMENT AND
REHABILITATION OF EXISTING HOTELS
RECOMMENDATION(S)
Approve updates to the Hotel Incentive Policy to support new hotel development and rehabilitation of existing hotels.
Estimated Time: 30 minutes
COUNCIL PRIORITIES, GOALS & STRATEGIES
2022-2023 Strategic Priorities
Fiscal Sustainability
Economic Development
Guiding Documents
Economic Blueprint
Morgan Hill 2035 General Plan
REPORT NARRATIVE:
POLICY CONSIDERATION:
Should the City Council revise the Hotel Incentive Policy (HIP) adopted on June 1, 2022 to encourage new hotel development and encourage reinvestment in existing hotels to improve the quality of hotels and Transient Occupancy Tax generation?
ISSUE AND BACKGROUND
In June 2022, the City Council approved the Hotel Strategy and Incentive Policy and directed City staff to conduct additional outreach to explore improvements to the Policy and provide the City Council with an update.
Over the last two months, the Economic Development team met with nine (9) hotel owners and operators and toured their facilities to better understand the constraints on their operations and gather specific feedback regarding the Hotel Incentive Program (HIP). The feedback on the HIP was varied, with most hotel owners and operators providing feedback that would make the HIP beneficial to their specific property.
9 However, there were four main takeaways that were consistent with all the feedback received.
1. Adjust the baseline so that a singular peak year is not used,
2. Remove the requirement on existing hotels to improve/upgrade chain scale,
3. Increase reimbursement cap for existing hotels, and
4. Focus on attracting a full-service hotel.
Based on this additional feedback received, staff recommends the following revisions to the HIP:
1. Make the program more accessible by lowering the TOT baseline. The original policy uses the calendar year 2019 which was a high TOT producing year. Staff recommends revising the baseline to fiscal year 2019-2020, which combines a high and a low TOT producing year.
2. Remove the requirement to improve chain scale.
3. Increase in the maximum rebate from $100,000 to $250,000.
Lastly, staff recommends extending the term by an additional five years (from 10 years to up to 15 years) at the discretion of the City Manager. The rate of TOT share will decrease from 50% to 33% after year 10.
The HIP is designed to attract a broad range of new hotel investment and reinvestment into existing hotels per the City’s General Plan and Economic Development Blueprint.
The Economic Development team is very interested in pursuing full-service hotels.
However, these types of projects are likely to require a unique incentive program specific to the proposed project above and beyond a standard incentive. City staff will continue to explore opportunities to attract a full-service hotel investment as part of our on-going workplan.
The recommended revisions provide additional support to existing hotel operators and are consistent with the feedback received. The recommended revisions are captured in a red-line version of the Hotel Incentive Policy, Attachment 1.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
Inform/ Involve/ Collaborate
City staff have shared the Hotel Incentive Policy with Visit Morgan Hill and the Chamber of Commerce Board of Directors. City staff have conducted outreach and engagement with existing hotel operators for their feedback and input. City staff visited and met with nine (9) separate hotel owners/operators.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
1. City Council may choose to take no action on the proposed Hotel Incentive Policy revisions, leaving the existing policy, adopted on June 1, 2022, as is.
9 2. City Council may make modifications to the policy, not included in the staff recommendation.
PRIOR CITY COUNCIL AND COMMISSION ACTIONS:
On June 1, 2022, the City Council took action to approve the Hotel Strategy and Incentive Policy to support new hotel development and rehabilitation of existing hotels; and directed staff to return to the Council with a report on refining the policy. The staff report and presentation from the June 1 meeting are included as attachments to this report.
In 2018, the City Council took action to form a Tourism Based Improvement District (TBID), Visit Morgan Hill, to help support and promote the tourism and hospitality industries.
FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT:
If approved, on new participating hotel developments, the City would be sharing a portion of new incremental Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) revenues generated above the baseline equal to no more than 50% of the cost of offsite improvements. For existing hotel projects, the City would be sharing a portion of incremental TOT revenues generated above the baseline amount.
CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act):
Not a Project
The Hotel Incentive Program is exempt from environmental review under Section 15061(b)(3) of the State CEQA Guidelines. The program is covered by the general rule that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential to cause a significant effect on the environment. Where it can be seen with certainty that these is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. The program will not result in any direct impact upon the physical environment. Any development that occurs in the future will be subject to the development standards of the zoning district and will undergo an independent analysis pursuant to the requirements of CEQA.
Hotel Incentive Policy
Adopted June 1, 2022 (revisions added 8/3/2022)
Purpose
The Hotel Incentive Policy (HIP) provides rebate incentives to encourage the construction of new hotel development and the rehabilitation and upgrade of existing hotels to help enhance the tourism and travel experience and hospitality services for businesses and residents in the area. The intent of this program is to promote economic development, support business operations, and provide attractive and desirable visitor serving facilities and experiences to enhance the city’s economic sustainability.
For new hotel development, the HIP provides cost-sharing of up to 50% of City required off-site improvements. The City’s contribution will be deducted from future TOT revenue generation after an established TOT baseline.
For the renovation of existing hotel properties, the HIP provides cost-sharing of up to 50% of costs associated with property improvements needed to obtain a higher quality standard that upgrades the hotel brand*. The City’s contribution will be deducted from future TOT revenue generation after an established TOT baseline.
Goals
1. The City supports hotel investment to support sports, recreation and wine tourism and support business development.
2. The City supports the development of unique and specialty lodging facilities such as full-service hotels with conference and restaurant facilities; boutique hotels, Bed and Breakfasts, Airbnb, VRBOs and other short-term lodging rental platforms to increase lodging diversity and promote the area as a tourism destination.
3. The City supports reinvestment into existing hotel properties that support the improvements required to upgrade the quality of hotel rooms and enhance hotel brand inventory.
The City’s General Plan Update 2035 and the 2017 Economic Development Blueprint provides direction that support the Hotel Incentive Policy.
2035 General Plan. Policy ED 4-9
Overnight Accommodations. Support the construction of a full range of new lodging facilities to build the local tourism industry, enhancing the City’s position as a hub for wine tourism and for visitors attracted to the City’s sports facilities.
2035 General Plan. Policy ED 4-11
Tourism Support Services. Actively promote development of tourist-oriented commercial, industrial, and recreational uses and facilities, including such uses as lodging, meeting and conference centers, outdoor restaurants, wine and beer tasting, and farmers’ markets. 2035 General Plan. Policy ED 4--A
Bed and Breakfast Establishments. Adopt zoning for bed and breakfast establishments where compatible with existing and planned land uses.
2017 Economic Development Blueprint. Tourism Strategy: Support Lodging.
Ensure General Plan and Zoning Code Address Bed & Breakfasts, Airbnb and Hotel Development (Action #25) to provide clear guidance regarding the rules that apply to short-term room or home rentals through Airbnb or other platforms.
2017 Economic Development Blueprint. Tourism Strategy: Support Lodging.
Develop Plan to Help Upgrade or Transition Aging Hotel Facilities (Action #26) to address safety, State Building Code compliance, and local General Plan and Zoning conformance issues. 2017 Economic Development Blueprint. Tourism Strategy: Support Lodging.
Identify Pre-Zoned Lodging Sites (Action #27) to support the vision of making Morgan Hill and South Silicon Valley a tourism destination and offering diversity among lodging amenities.
HIP Program Parameters & Eligibility
New Hotels
1. Location of new hotel development shall be in conformance with the City’s General Plan and Existing Zoning.
2. The City’s contribution shall be up to 50% of the costs associated with off-site/public improvements such as: roadways, sidewalks, utility undergrounding and other offsite improvements required of a new hotel construction in a greenfield development.
3. The City’s contribution will be in the form of a rebate deducted from future TOT revenue generation after an established TOT baseline and shall be paid within 10 years.
4. The rebate ends after the 50% contribution has been financed or after 10 years, whichever is first. If the Subsidy Cap has not been received by the end of ten (10) years, the incentive program may be extended at the discretion of the City Manager for an additional five (5) years.
During the five (5) year extension, the City shall pay to the operator thirty-three percent (33%) of the transient occupancy tax generated above the established TOT baseline until the Subsidy Cap is reached.
5. The baseline will be equal to the corresponding chain scale hotel annual average revenue per guest room in Morgan Hill during the year 2019 the Fiscal Year 2019/2020. Baseline to be updated every five years.
6. Only up to 50% of TOT generated above the baseline will be applied to the rebate.
7. The City Council shall approve Hotel Incentive agreements over $100,000.
8. The HIP does not limit hotel developments from accessing other local or regional incentive programs.
Existing Hotels
1. Existing hotels must be an established hotel located in Morgan Hill city limits.
2. Participating hotels that are currently branded as a chain may either (a) increase in chain scale or (b) apply for a maximum rebate of $250,000.
2.3.must achieve an upgrade of at least one chain scale after renovations are completed.
Participating hotels that are currently Independent may either (a) obtain a chain brand or (b) apply for a maximum rebate of $100,000 $250,000.
3.4.The City’s contribution shall be up to 50% of the costs required to achieve the chain scale upgrade, as supported by the brand’s Property Improvement Plan (PIP) document and receipts of completed items listed on the PIP.
4.5.Hotel upgrades must meet the California Building Code and must obtain required City permits.
The City’s contribution will be calculated based on the cost estimate submitted to the City for building permits.
5.6.The City’s contribution will be in the form of a rebate deducted from future TOT revenue generation after an established TOT baseline and shall be paid within 10 years.
6.7.The rebate ends after the 50% contribution has been financed or after 10 years, whichever is first. If the Subsidy Cap has not been received by the end of ten (10) years, the incentive program may be extended at the discretion of the City Manager for an additional five (5) years.
During the five (5) year extension, the City shall pay to the operator thirty-three percent (33%) of the transient occupancy tax generated above the established TOT baseline until the Subsidy Cap is reached.
7.8.The baseline for established hotels will be based on the hotel’s average TOT revenue generated in 2019 in the Fiscal Year 2019/2020.
8.9.Only up to 50% of TOT generated above the baseline will be applied to the rebate.
9.10. The City Council shall approve Hotel Incentive agreements over $100,000. * Minimum Quality Standards
Hotel facilities are evaluated based on STR’s published industry U.S. Chain Scales. Chain Scales are determined by each brand’s national, systemwide room rates. An independent hotel, regardless of average room rate, is included as a separate “Independent” category. The Chain Scales are: Luxury, Upper Upscale, Upscale, Upper Midscale, Midscale, Economy and Independent.
10 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: August 17, 2022
PREPARED BY:
Dat Nguyen, Finance Director
APPROVED BY: City Manager
RECEIVE MONTHLY BUDGET UPDATE; PRELIMINARY FY 21-22
FINANCIAL AND INVESTMENT REPORTS; CITY MANAGER
AUTHORITY REPORT; AND ADOPT BUDGET AMENDMENTS
RECOMMENDATION(S)
1. Accept and file Preliminary Fiscal Year (FY) 2021-2022 Financial and Investment Report and City Manager Authority Report; and
2. Adopt resolution authorizing changes to the adopted Fiscal Year (FY) 2021-2022 City of Morgan Hill Operating Budget.
Estimated Time: 10 minutes
COUNCIL PRIORITIES, GOALS & STRATEGIES
City Council Ongoing Priorities
Preserving and Cultivating Public Trust
2022-2023 Strategic Priorities
Fiscal Sustainability
Community Outreach, Engagement, and Messaging
REPORT NARRATIVE:
As part of the City Council’s expectation to maintain a high level of transparency and to be responsible stewards of public funds, staff is providing the monthly budget update, preliminary Fiscal Year (FY) ending June 30, 2022 financial and investment reports, along with the recommended changes to the adopted FY 2021-22 City of Morgan Hill Operating Budget.
Preliminary Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2022
General Fund: Revenues totaled $52.8 million, compared to amended budget of $50.8 million. This is mainly due to higher tax collections. Expenditures, including encumbrances, totaled $48.4 million, compared to amended budget of $51.0 million. FY 2021-22 general fund expenditures came in better than anticipated partially due cost containment strategies implemented due to the reduction in operating hours at the
10 Centennial Recreation Center (CRC) and Aquatics Center (AC), conservative spending, higher vacancy savings, and better performance in Development Services Fund 206, which expects a loan from the General Fund of only about $0.3 million for FY 2021-22 versus $1.0 million as budgeted.
Development Services: Revenues, excluding the $0.3 million loan from the General Fund, totaled $5.7 million, compared to adopted budget of $5.3 million. This is partially due to a result of the fee increases approved by the City Council on January 19, 2022 and increased construction activity. Expenditures, including encumbrances, totaled $5.4 million, resulting in a net excess of approximately $0.3 million. As a result of better performance of the Development Services Fund, it is anticipated the fund will only require a loan from the General Fund of $0.3 million versus $1.0 million as budgeted.
Enterprise Funds: Water and Sewer revenues totaled $49.2 million. The Sewer Operating Fund’s preliminary total revenue amounted to $14.8 million, better than budget by approximately $0.7 million or about 5%. The Water Operating Fund’s preliminary total revenue amounted to $15.9 million, approximately $0.4 million or about 3% less than budgeted. This is primarily due to lower water consumption as a result of the on-going drought. Preliminary FY 2021-22 expenditures, including encumbrances for the Enterprise Funds totaled $54.7 million. Per City Council reserve policy, any excess funds after appropriate reserves have been set aside for the Operating and Rate Stabilization Reserve Funds, shall be transferred to capital projects for the ongoing maintenance and improvement of the City’s utilities systems. For FY 2021-22, Wastewater Operating Funds will transfer approximately $3.5 million and Water Operating Funds will transfer approximately $3.4 million to capital projects funds.
Additional Appropriations in FY 2021-22
Additional appropriations are required in several funds with some being mentioned at the June 15, 2022 meeting, due to unforeseen expenditures as described below:
Fund 306 Open Space and Agricultural Preservation - $100,000: Late billing by the County for prior year weed abatement services inflated this year's expenditures.
Fund 315 Public Safety Facilities Impact Fee - $700,000: The design portion of the New Fire Department Project was moved up from year 3 to year 2 of the adopted Capital Improvement Program Budget. Additional appropriation is required.
Fund 348 Library Impact Fee - $2,000: Exit signage plan for expansion took place after the close of the project.
Fund 355 Pedestrian and Traffic Safety - $120,000: The RDCS School Safety Project for FY 2022 focused on the safety enhancements related to Britton Middle School. The project was slightly over budget, due to project administration costs as well as contractual costs for labor consultants related to prevailing wage assessments.
Fund 770 Worker's Compensation Fund - $20,000: Higher than anticipated claims.
Fund 791 Employee Benefits Fund - $100,000: Higher than anticipated leave payouts.
City Manager’s Authority Report
Pursuant to the City Council Policy 18-05 – Report on delegation of authority to City Manager, Page 20 of Attachment 1 lists the contracts and or agreements between $25,000 to $60,000, or the limit of the California Uniform Public Construction Cost
10 Accounting Act (CUPCCAA), entered into by the City Manager since the last report from April 6, 2022 through August 8, 2022.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
Inform
Finance staff prepares these financial reports to inform City officials, the Council, the community, and various lenders and stakeholders about the financial health of the organization, which assists each one of the interested parties in making sound financial and investment decisions.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Not Applicable
PRIOR CITY COUNCIL AND COMMISSION ACTIONS:
The City Council receives and files the financial and investment report for each month.
At the September 16, 2015 meeting, City Council recommended monthly financial and investment reports be agendized under the Consent Agenda, and quarterly financial and investment reports be presented to City Council as an “Other Business” item.
Beginning in FY 2020-21, budget reports are presented to the City Council monthly.
FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT:
The preparation of the report is a part of the Finance workplan.
CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act):
Not a Project
Organizational or administrative activities of governments that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment.
FINANCE DIVISION
CITY OF MORGAN HILL
June 30, 2022 - 100% of Year Complete
Prepared by:
Monthly Financial and Investment Reports
CITY OF MORGAN HILL, CALIFORNIA
FINANCIAL STATEMENT ANALYSIS - FISCAL YEAR 2021-22
FOR THE MONTH ENDED JUNE 2022 – 100% OF YEAR COMPLETE
General Fund – Preliminary revenues for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2022 totaled $52.8 million.
This is mainly due to higher tax collections. TOT and recreation services revenues continued to be negatively impacted from the pandemic. However, TOT came in 10% higher or approximately $0.2 million more than the reduced budget. In addition, recreation services performed better than budget on a net basis.
The chart below shows historical General Fund revenues by major revenue category from FY17-18 through FY20-21 Actual, FY21-22 Budget, and Preliminary FY21-22.
Expenditures, including encumbrances, totaled $48.4 million, compared to amended budget of $51.0 million. FY 2021-22 general fund expenditures came in better than anticipated partially due to cost containment strategies implemented due to the reduction in operating hours at the Centennial Recreation Center (CRC) and Aquatics Center (AC), conservative spending, higher vacancy savings, and better performance in Development Services Fund 206, which expects a loan from the General Fund of only $0.3 million for FY 2021-22 versus $1.0 million as budgeted. Community Services – The Community Services Department’s recreation operations, as reflected in the schedule presented on page 7 of the Monthly Financial and Investments Reports, shows a negative impact to the General Fund of approximately $1.8 million for FY 21-22. However, this is better than the budgeted net impact to the General Fund of $2.2 million. The large operating loss for recreation operations reflects the restrictions and limited opening of recreation facilities since March 2020 due to the shelter-in-place order as a result of the coronavirus pandemic resulting in lower than anticipated membership number as well as facilities rental.
$11.4 $12.8 $14.5 $16.0 $15.8 $16.7
$10.7 $10.7 $9.7 $11.0 $11.1 $12.6 $4.9 $5.1 $4.6 $4.4 $4.6 $9.3 $5.0 $9.9 $8.3 $5.7 $8.2 $7.5 $5.4 $4.9 $3.6 $9.7
$11.2 $11.1
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 FY17‐18 FY18‐19 FY19‐20 FY20‐21 Budget
FY21‐22
Preliminary
FY21‐22
Millions ($)
Historical GF Revenues
Property Tax Sales Tax Franchise and Hotel Taxes Service Charges Other
CITY OF MORGAN HILL, CALIFORNIA
FINANCIAL STATEMENT ANALYSIS - FISCAL YEAR 2021-22
FOR THE MONTH ENDED JUNE 2022 – 100% OF YEAR COMPLETE
Due to longstanding governmental accounting and budgeting convention, the City’s recreation operations are not charged for indirect costs (known in Morgan Hill as “General Fund Administration”) from the central services departments of City Attorney, City Manager, and Administrative Services.
The City’s other governmental funds, such as Development Services, and the proprietary funds, such as Water and Wastewater, and the Information Services Fund, are assessed such charges through the City’s indirect cost allocation plan, prepared in compliance with the guidelines set forth in the Code of Federal Regulations Title 2, Chapter II, Part 200 (formerly OMB Circular No. A-87), which mandates certain calculation and cost allocation practices that must be followed in order to qualify for Federal grant funding, but which also represent best practice for non-grant funded City operations like utilities and information services.
Development Services Fund – Preliminary revenues, excluding the $0.3 million loan from the General Fund, for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2022 totaled $5.7 million. This is partially due to a result of the fees increase approved by the City Council on January 19, 2022 and increased construction activity.
Expenditures, including encumbrances, totaled $5.4 million, resulting in a net excess of approximately $0.3 million. As a result of better performance of the Development Services Fund, it is anticipated the fund will only require a loan from the General Fund of $0.3 million versus $1.0 million as budgeted. Debt Service Funds – Expenditures for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2022 totaled $0.7 million. The debt service for the first half of the year includes both interest and principal, while the second half of the year will include interest only. Debt service payments were all scheduled when the bonds were issued, and are budgeted for in the months delineated in the underlying bond documents. The General Fund’s portion of the annual debt service payments is approximately $200,000, less than one percent of the General Fund’s budgeted revenues.
Wastewater Operations – Preliminary revenues from Sewer Operations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2022 totaled $14.8 million. Expenditures and outstanding encumbrances totaled $14.0 million.
The table below shows historical Sewer Operations revenues and expenditures from FY17-18 through FY20-21 Actual, FY21-22 Budget, and Preliminary FY21-22. ($2.5)
($2.0)
($1.5)
($1.0)
($0.5)
$0.0
$0.5
FY12‐13 FY13‐14 FY14‐15 FY15‐16 FY16‐17 FY17‐18 FY18‐19 FY19‐20 FY20‐21 FY21‐22 Preliminary
Millions (S)
Historical Net GF Impact
CITY OF MORGAN HILL, CALIFORNIA
FINANCIAL STATEMENT ANALYSIS - FISCAL YEAR 2021-22
FOR THE MONTH ENDED JUNE 2022 – 100% OF YEAR COMPLETE
(amount in millions) FY17‐18 FY18‐19 FY19‐20 FY20‐21
Budget
FY21‐22
Preliminary
FY21‐22
Revenues 10.3 11.4 11.9 13.3 14.1 14.8 Expenditures 10.8 11.4 12.3 13.3 14.1 14.0 Operating Margin (0.5) ‐ (0.4) ‐ ‐ 0.8 Operating Margin
without Encumbrances (0.3) (0.1) 0.4 ‐ ‐ 0.9 Water Operations – Water Operations includes Utility Billing, Water Conservation, and Water Operations. Preliminary revenues from Water Operations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2022 totaled $15.9 million. Water Operations expenditures, including outstanding encumbrances, totaled $15.9 million. The table below shows Water Operations revenues and expenditures from FY17-18 through FY20-21 Actual, FY21-22 Budget, and Preliminary FY21-22 (amount in millions) FY17‐18 FY18‐19 FY19‐20 FY20‐21
Budget
FY21‐22
Preliminary
FY21‐22
Revenues 13.0 14.2 15.3 16.5 16.3 15.9 Expenditures 12.1 14.3 16.4 16.5 16.4 15.9 Operating Margin (0.1) 0.9 (1.1) ‐ (0.1) ‐ Operating Margin
without Encumbrances 1.4 (0.1) 0.8 ‐ (0.1) 0.6 Investments – Two securities were purchased. Total interest earnings received on investments were $71,000 during the month.
% OF ACTUAL PLUS % OF
FUND NAME ACTUAL BUDGET ENCUMBRANCES BUDGET
General 52,811,036 $ 104% $ 48,376,661 95%
Development Services 5,963,871 113% 5,437,443 98%
RDA Successor Agency 6,254,848 88% 972,935 14%
Housing Successor Agency 346,319 161% 991,745 99%
Sewer Operations 14,821,986 105% 13,995,323 99%
Sewer Other 12,807,876 107% 21,615,774 48%
Water Operations 15,866,318 97% 15,851,370 96%
Water Other 5,709,485 81% 3,249,345 33%
Other Special Revenues * 4,202,933 75% 4,089,560 83%
Capital Projects & Streets 29,481,442 128% 32,145,506 48% Debt Service 690,197 100% 687,301 99%
Internal Service 10,170,675 78% 10,182,131 91%
TOTAL FOR ALL FUNDS 159,126,985 $ 103% $ 157,595,093 67% * Includes all Special Revenue Funds except Development Services Fund, Street Funds, and RDA and Housing Successor Agencies.
REVENUES EXPENSES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140% 160% 180%
General
Development Services
RDA Successor Agency
Housing Successor Agency
Sewer Operations
Sewer Other
Water Operations
Water Other
Other Special Revenues *
Capital Projects & Streets
Debt Service
Internal Service
Morgan Hill YTD Revenue & Expense Summary
June 30, 2022 - 100% of Year Complete
Revenues to Budget Expenses to Budget
100%
% OF PRIOR YEAR % CHANGE FROM
REVENUE CATEGORY BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET TO DATE PRIOR YEAR Property Tax 15,771,000 $ 16,662,896 $ 106% 15,549,159 $ 7% Sales Tax 11,098,601 12,588,779 113% 10,345,833 22%
Franchise Tax 2,375,000 2,500,244 105% 2,384,106 5%
Hotel Tax 2,235,300 2,473,941 111% 1,290,059 92%
Licenses 198,825 296,029 149% 141,280 110%
Other Agencies 653,658 596,719 91% 513,710 16%
Service Charges 8,164,851 7,470,155 92% 5,660,095 32%
Interest/Other 7,230,495 7,453,458 103% 1,816,366 310%
Transfers In 3,093,579 2,768,816 90% 2,492,675 11%
TOTAL REVENUES 50,821,309 $ 52,811,036 $ 104% 40,193,283 $ 31% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140% 160%
Property Tax
Sales Tax
Franchise Tax
Hotel Tax
Licenses
Other Agencies
Service Charges
Interest/Other
Transfers In
Total Revenues
Percent of Actual to Budget
Morgan Hill YTD General Fund Revenues
June 30, 2022 - 100% of Year Complete
100%
ACTUAL PLUS PRIOR YTD PLUS % CHANGE FROM
EXPENDITURE CATEGORY BUDGET ENCUMBRANCES % OF BUDGET ENCUMBRANCES PRIOR YEAR Administration $ 5,793,826 $ 5,509,640 95% 4, $ 418,900 25% Community Services 13,947,066 12,438,824 89% 9, 652,752 29% Police 19,133,242 18,761,776 98% 17, 253,544 9%
Fire 7,788,401 7,767,501 100% 6,313,455 23%
Transfers Out 4,294,211 3,898,920 91% 1, 845,164 111%
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 50,956,746 $ 48,376,661 95% 39, $ 483,815 23% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 110%
Administration
Community
Services
Police
Fire
Transfers Out
Total Expenditures
Percent of Actual to Budget
Morgan Hill YTD General Fund Expenditures
June 30, 2022 - 100% of Year Complete
100%
City of Morgan Hill
Recreation Report - Fiscal Year 2021-22
For the Month and Twelve Months Ended June 30, 2022
100% of Year Complete
% of
Budget June 2022 YTD Budget
Revenues
Membership Services & Rec Programs 4,713,801 $ 465,377 $ 4,375,261 $ Facility Rentals 506,683 50,934 629,511
Community Services 79,000 6,781 114,707
Transfers in 75,000 6,250 75,000
Total Revenues 5,374,484 $ 529,342 $ 5,194,479 $ 97%
Less: Expenditures
Membership & Program Services 6,240,277 $ 757,260 $ 5,556,955 $ Facility Rentals 716,081 56,086 552,642
Community Services 641,554 61,202 520,429
Total Expenditures 7,597,913 $ 874,547 $ 6,630,025 $ 87% Net Impact without encumbrances (2,223,429) $ (345,206) $ (1,435,547) $ Encumbrances - - 336,725
Net Impact with encumbrances (2,223,429) $ (345,206) $ (1,772,272) $
The chart below shows cash balances by fund type reconciled to the City's financial system:
City of Morgan Hill
Monthly Investment Report ‐ June 30, 2022
The following are the snapshots of City's investment portfolio as of June 30, 2022. The first chart shows the portfolio composition by investment type:
General Fund,
$26.5M Community
Development, $1.8M
RDA Successor
Agency (except
Housing), $5.8M
Housing Successor
Agency/CDBG, $4.7M
Water ‐ Operations,
$3.1M
Water Other, $18.2M
Sewer ‐ Operations,
$2.8M
Sewer Other, $49.3M
Other Special
Revenue, $8.6M
Streets and Capital
Projects (except RDA),
$38.7M
Debt Service ,
$0.3M
Internal Service,
$21.0M
Agency Funds,
(assessment
dists./refundable
deposits), $3.2M
Cash Balances by Fund Type
$184.0 Million
LAIF ‐ $54.0M
29%
Treasury Notes ‐ $6.5M
4%
Money Market ‐
>$0.1M
>1%
Federal Agency Issues
‐ $108.9M
59%
Bond Reserves/Trust ‐
$12.2M
7%
Cash & Other
Deposits ‐ $2.5M
1%
Investment Portfolio Composition ‐ $184.0 Million
The following chart illustrates a yield comparison by month among the City's portfolio, LAIF and 2-Year US Treasury:
The chart below illustrates monthly average days to maturity of the City's portfolio along with the weighted average yield for the past two years:
0.00%
0.50%
1.00%
1.50%
2.00%
2.50%
3.00%
3.50%
Jun-20
Jul-20
Aug-20
Sep-20
Oct-20
Nov-20
Dec-20
Jan-21
Feb-21
Mar-21
Apr-21
May-21
Jun-21
Jul-21
Aug-21
Sep-21
Oct-21
Nov-21
Dec-21
Jan-22
Feb-22
Mar-22
Apr-22
May-22
Jun-22
Yield Portfolio vs. Benchmarks
LAIF City 2 Yr US-Treasury
0.00%
0.20%
0.40%
0.60%
0.80%
1.00%
1.20%
1.40%
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
Jun-20
Jul-20
Aug-20
Sep-20
Oct-20
Nov-20
Dec-20
Jan-21
Feb-21
Mar-21
Apr-21
May-21
Jun-21
Jul-21
Aug-21
Sep-21
Oct-21
Nov-21
Dec-21
Jan-22
Feb-22
Mar-22
Apr-22
May-22
Jun-22
Days Yield
Portfolio Yield and Maturity Trends
Avg Days to Maturity Yield
City of Morgan Hill
Investment Portfolio Detail
As of June 30, 2022
Investment Settlement Book % of Market YTM Next Call Date of Type Date Value Portfolio Value at Cost Date Maturity
L A I F $ 53,958,339 29.32% $ 53,351,499 0.86%
Federal Agency Issues
and Treasury Notes
Treasury Note 4/30/2018 4,461,383 2.42% 4,457,295 2.73% 3/31/2023 3/31/2023 Treasury Note 10/8/2021 1,989,456 1.08% 1,826,560 0.88% 9/30/2026 9/30/2026 Treasury Note 1/4/2022 1,999,350 1.09% 1,934,840 0.77% 12/31/2023 12/31/2023 Treasury Note 1/19/2022 1,992,037 1.08% 1,934,840 1.02% 12/31/2023 12/31/2023 Treasury Note 2/11/2022 1,982,228 1.08% 1,935,320 1.44% 1/31/2024 1/31/2024 Treasury Note 3/28/2022 1,996,773 1.08% 1,973,900 2.34% 4/30/2024 4/30/2024 Treasury Note 4/12/2022 1,988,247 1.08% 1,969,380 1.79% 06/30/2023 6/30/2023 Treasury Note 6/13/2022 1,905,690 1.04% 1,912,180 3.16% 11/15/2026 11/15/2026 FFCB Bond 4/8/2020 2,000,000 1.09% 1,926,340 0.88% 10/8/2022 4/8/2024 FFCB Bond 5/27/2020 2,000,000 1.09% 1,863,120 0.73% 11/27/2022 5/27/2025 FHLMC Bond 6/3/2020 2,000,000 1.09% 1,886,220 0.60% 12/3/2022 12/3/2024 FHLMC Bond 10/20/2020 2,000,000 1.09% 1,834,220 0.60% 10/20/2022 10/20/2025 FHLMC Bond 10/27/2020 2,000,000 1.09% 1,838,860 0.63% 10/27/2022 10/27/2025 FHLMC Bond 11/2/2020 2,000,000 1.09% 1,931,620 0.32% 11/2/2022 11/2/2023 FFCB Bond 11/3/2020 2,000,000 1.09% 1,824,200 0.54% 11/3/2022 11/3/2025 FNMA Bond 11/18/2020 2,000,000 1.09% 1,845,020 0.65% 11/18/2022 11/18/2025 FHLMC Bond 11/24/2020 2,000,000 1.09% 1,841,780 0.64% 11/24/2022 11/24/2025 FFCB Bond 11/24/2020 1,000,000 0.54% 918,690 0.60% 11/24/2022 11/24/2025 FHLMC Bond 11/25/2020 3,000,000 1.63% 2,749,740 0.63% 11/25/2022 11/25/2025 FHLMC Bond 11/30/2020 2,000,000 1.09% 1,837,720 0.65% 11/26/2022 11/26/2025 FFCB Bond 12/22/2020 2,000,000 1.09% 1,837,820 0.47% 12/22/2022 12/22/2025 FHLB Bond 1/22/2021 2,000,000 1.09% 1,827,160 0.63% 7/22/2022 1/22/2026 FNMA Bond 1/28/2021 2,000,000 1.09% 1,829,740 0.55% 7/28/2022 1/28/2026 FHLB Bond 1/28/2021 2,000,000 1.09% 1,846,600 0.65% 7/28/2022 1/28/2026 FHLB Bond 2/24/2021 2,000,000 1.09% 1,824,500 0.75% 8/24/2022 2/24/2026 FHLB Bond 2/25/2021 2,000,000 1.09% 1,843,940 0.66% 8/25/2022 2/25/2026 FHLB Bond 2/26/2021 2,000,000 1.09% 1,823,260 0.65% 8/26/2022 2/26/2026 FHLB Bond 3/10/2021 2,000,000 1.09% 1,851,720 0.85% 9/10/2022 3/10/2026 FHLB Bond 3/16/2021 2,000,000 1.09% 1,844,440 0.70% 9/16/2022 3/16/2026 FHLB Bond 3/16/2021 2,000,000 1.09% 1,847,680 0.80% 9/16/2022 3/16/2026 FHLB Bond 6/9/2021 2,000,000 1.09% 1,863,240 1.08% 12/9/2022 6/9/2026 FHLB Bond 6/30/2021 2,000,000 1.09% 1,853,260 1.00% 12/30/2022 6/30/2026 FHLB Bond 7/15/2021 3,000,000 1.63% 2,790,600 1.13% 7/15/2022 7/15/2026 FHLB Bond 7/15/2021 2,000,000 1.09% 1,881,160 0.85% 7/15/2022 7/15/2025 FHLB Bond 8/26/2021 2,000,000 1.09% 1,840,140 0.80% 8/26/2022 8/26/2026 FHLB Bond 8/26/2021 3,000,000 1.63% 2,779,410 1.00% 8/26/2022 8/26/2026 FHLB Bond 8/26/2021 2,000,000 1.09% 1,839,560 0.90% 8/26/2022 8/26/2026 FHLB Bond 9/13/2021 2,086,845 1.13% 1,894,000 0.82% 9/11/2022 9/11/2026 FFCB Bond 9/28/2021 1,985,561 1.08% 1,820,040 0.98% 9/10/2022 9/10/2026 FHLB Bond 9/29/2021 3,000,000 1.63% 2,742,780 1.13% 9/29/2022 9/29/2026 FHLB Bond 9/30/2021 2,000,000 1.09% 1,832,060 0.88% 9/30/2022 9/30/2026 FHLB Bond 9/30/2021 3,000,000 1.63% 2,770,920 1.05% 9/30/2022 9/30/2026 FHLB Bond 9/30/2021 3,000,000 1.63% 2,767,650 1.02% 9/30/2022 9/30/2026 FHLB Bond 10/19/2021 2,000,000 1.09% 1,836,360 1.00% 10/19/2022 10/19/2026 FHLB Bond 11/18/2021 2,000,000 1.09% 1,867,240 1.30% 11/18/2022 11/18/2026 FHLB Bond 12/29/2021 2,000,000 1.09% 1,938,060 0.75% 12/29/2022 12/29/2023 FHLB Bond 1/19/2022 2,000,000 1.09% 1,891,100 1.74% 7/19/2022 1/19/2027 FHLB Bond 1/25/2022 2,000,000 1.09% 1,926,580 1.51% 7/25/2022 7/25/2025 FHLB Bond 3/10/2022 2,000,000 1.09% 1,957,360 3.48% 9/10/2022 3/10/2027 FHLB Bond 3/30/2022 3,000,000 1.63% 2,981,220 1.62% 9/30/2022 3/30/2023 FHLMC Bond 5/3/2022 1,961,090 1.07% 1,946,560 2.25% 12/26/2022 6/26/2023 FHLB Bond 5/27/2022 3,000,000 1.63% 2,984,250 1.88% 11/23/2022 2/23/2023 FHLMC Bond 6/15/2022 2,000,000 1.09% 1,992,120 3.28% 12/15/2022 12/15/2025 Sub Total/Average $ 115,348,659 62.68% $ 108,614,375 1.17% Money Market $ 53,539 0.03% $ 53,539 1.34%
Total City Managed/Average $ 169,360,537 92.03% $ 162,019,413 1.07% Bond Reserve Accounts - Held By Trustees $ 6,994,305 3.80% $ 6,994,305 Cash/Deposits $ 2,493,277 1.35% $ 2,493,277
PARS and CALPERS CERBT Trust $ 5,187,404 2.82% $ 5,518,547 GRAND TOTAL/AVERAGE $ 184,035,523 100% $ 177,025,541
CITY OF MORGAN HILL CASH AND INVESTMENT REPORT
FOR THE MONTH OF JUNE 30, 2022
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR OF 2021-22
Invested Book Value % of Market
in Fund Yield End of Month Total Value
Investments
State Treasurer LAIF - City All Funds Pooled 0.86% $ 38,695,924 21.03% $ 38,260,732 2015 Wastewater Rev Bonds - CIP Wastewater Fund 0.86% 15,262,415 8.29% 15,090,767 Federal Issues All Funds Pooled 1.02% 97,033,496 52.73% 90,670,060 US Treasury Notes All Funds Pooled 1.91% 18,315,164 9.95% 17,944,315 Dreyfus Treas Cash Management Acct All Funds Pooled 1.34% 53,539 0.03% 53,539 SUBTOTAL $ 169,360,537 92.03% $ 162,019,413
Bond Reserve Accounts - held by trustees
Zions Bank - Civic Center/Library Facility
Blackrock Liq Fund Debt Service 0.41% 1 0.00% 1
Zions Bank - MH Police Facility Lease Revenue Bonds
Blackrock Liq Fund Debt Service 0.41% 2 0.00% 2
BNY - RDA Bonds
Dreyfus Cash Mgmt 521 Successor Fund 0.00% 5,783,086 3.14% 5,783,086 Zions Bank - MH Ranch 2015
Blackrock Liq Funds Fed Fund -DI -2015 Agency Fund 0.41% 614,537 0.33% 614,537 Zions Bank - Madrone Bus Park Taxable/ Tax Exempt 2015
Blackrock Liquidity Temp Fund-2015 Agency Fund 0.41% 596,678 0.32% 596,678 SUBTOTAL 6,994,305 3.80% 6,994,305
Other Cash/Deposits
General Checking All Funds 2,456,165 1.33% 2,456,165
Workers' Comp Administrators Workers' Comp 30,000 0.02% 30,000 Petty Cash & Emergency Cash General Fund 7,112 0.00% 7,112 CALPERS CERBT - OPEB Trust 3,487,404 1.89% 3,711,959
PARS - PENSION Trust 1,700,000 0.92% 1,806,588
SUBTOTAL 7,680,681 4.17% 8,011,823
Total Cash and Investments $ 184,035,523 100.00% $ 177,025,541
CASH ACTIVITY SUMMARY
FY 2021-22
07/1/21 Change in 6/30/2022
Fund Type Balance Cash Balance Balance
General Fund $ 19,007,873 $ 7,522,925 $ 26,530,799
Community Development 1,077,499 721,439 1,798,938
RDA Successor Agency (except Housing) 508,427 5,281,915 5,790,342 Housing Successor Agency/ CDBG 4,307,419 359,608 4,667,028 Water - Operations 2,573,349 563,817 3,137,166
Water Other 15,405,786 2,815,255 18,221,042
Sewer - Operations 1,593,140 1,202,800 2,795,940
Sewer Other 57,221,072 (7,912,805) 49,308,266
Other Special Revenue 7,425,644 1,171,868 8,597,513
Streets and Capital Projects (except RDA) 37,931,830 720,213 38,652,043 Debt Service 337,123 3,062 340,186
Internal Service 19,378,242 1,601,282 20,979,524
Agency Funds (assessment dists./refundable deposits) 3,356,940 (140,203) 3,216,737 Total $ 170,124,346 $ 13,911,177 $ 184,035,523
Note: See Investment Portfolio Detail for maturities of "Investments." Market values are obtained from the City's investment brokers' monthly reports.
I certify the information in the investment reports has been reconciled to the general ledger and bank statements and that there are sufficient funds to meet the expenditure requirements of the City for the next six months. The portfolio is in compliance with the City of Morgan Hill investment policy and all State laws and regulations.
Prepared by: ____________________________________ Approved by:
Gina Nazareno, Senior Accountant
Reviewed by: ____________________________________
Dat Nguyen, Finance Director Caitlin Jachimowicz, Treasurer
City of Morgan Hill
Year to Date Revenues - Fiscal Year 2021-22
For The Twelve Months Ended June 30, 2022
100% of Year Complete
CURRENT INCR (DECR)
ADOPTED AMENDED YTD % PRIOR FROM PRIOR %
BUDGET BUDGET ACTUAL OF BUDGET YTD YTD CHANGE
010 GENERAL FUND
TAXES
Property Tax - Secured/Unsecured $ 13,485,000 13,485,000 $ 14,076,650 104% 12,548,327 $ $ 1,528,323 12% Property Tax - RPTTF Residual Distribution 2,144,000 2,144,000 2,286,330 107% 2,594,999 (308,670) -12% Property Tax - Supplemental Roll 142,000 142,000 299,916 211% 405,833 (105,916) -26% Sales Tax 10,699,601 10,699,601 12,116,272 113% 9,940,321 2,175,951 22% Public Safety Sales Tax 399,000 399,000 472,506 118% 405,511 66,995 17% Transient Occupancy Taxes 2,235,300 2,235,300 2,473,941 111% 1,290,059 1,183,881 92% Franchise (Refuse ,Cable ,PG&E) 2,375,000 2,375,000 2,500,244 105% 2,384,106 116,138 5% Property Transfer Tax 541,000 541,000 843,893 156% 646,892 197,001 30% TOTAL TAXES 32,020,901 32,020,901 35,069,752 110% 30,216,048 4,853,704 16%
LICENSES/PERMITS
Business License 159,135 159,135 188,254 118% 136,791 51,463 38% Other Permits 39,690 39,690 272% 4,489 107,776 103,287 2301% TOTAL LICENSES/PERMITS 198,825 198,825 296,029 149% 141,280 154,749 110%
FINES AND PENALTIES
Parking Enforcement 8,240 8,240 4,729 57% 3,809 920 24% Bails & Fines 75,854 75,854 50,864 67% 45,832 5,032 11% Administrative Citations 10,331 10,331 - n/a 16,043 (16,043) -100% TOTAL FINES AND PENALTIES 94,425 94,425 55,593 59% 65,684 (10,091) -15%
OTHER AGENCIES
Motor Vehicle in-Lieu 26,026 26,026 54,729 210% 40,357 14,372 36% Other Revenue - Other Agencies 437,794 653,658 596,719 91% 513,710 83,009 16% TOTAL OTHER AGENCIES 463,820 679,684 651,449 96% 554,067 97,381 18%
CHARGES CURRENT SERVICES
Police False Alarm Charge 31,340 31,340 30,794 98% 50,190 (19,396) -39% Business License Application Review 38,007 38,007 47,828 126% 54,432 (6,603) -12% Membership Services & Rec Programs 4,238,989 4,713,801 4,375,261 93% 2,994,955 1,380,306 46% Facility Rentals 945,931 506,683 629,511 124% 122,222 507,289 415% Community Services 126,449 79,000 114,707 145% 41,188 73,519 178% General Administration Overhead 1,825,440 1,825,440 1,532,304 84% 1,787,564 (255,260) -14% Other Charges Current Services 970,580 970,580 76% 609,545 739,750 130,205 21% TOTAL CURRENT SERVICES 8,176,736 8,164,851 7,470,155 91% 5,660,095 1,810,059 32%
OTHER REVENUE
Use of money/property 823,436 823,436 666,298 81% 650,728 15,570 2% Other Revenues 5,961,472 5,745,608 102% 412,706 5,832,945 5,420,239 1313% TOTAL OTHER REVENUE 6,784,908 6,569,044 6,499,242 99% 1,063,434 5,435,809 511%
TRANSFERS IN
One Time Transfer 180,000 180,000 180,000 100% 179,984 0% 16 Public Safety Facilities Fund 25,000 25,000 25,000 100% 25,000 0% - Supplemental Law Enforcement Fund 100,000 100,000 100,000 100% 100,000 n/a - Countywide Solid Waste 324,763 649,526 324,763 50% 54,127 270,636 500% Streets 699,735 699,735 699,735 100% 699,696 0% 39
Park Maintenance 650,000 650,000 650,000 100% 650,004 0% (4) Sewer Operations 357,159 357,159 357,159 100% 354,432 2,727 1% Water Operations 357,159 357,159 357,159 100% 354,432 2,727 1% Park Development 75,000 75,000 75,000 100% 75,000 n/a - TOTAL TRANSFERS IN 2,768,816 3,093,579 2,768,816 90% 2,492,675 276,141 11% TOTAL GENERAL FUND 50,508,431 50,821,309 52,811,036 104% 40,193,283 12,617,753 31%
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
202 STREET MAINTENANCE
Gas Tax 2105 - 2107.5 699,735 699,735 697,199 100% 705,863 (8,664) -1% Interest / Other Revenue/Other Charges - - 848 n/a 881 (33) -4% 202 STREET MAINTENANCE 699,735 699,735 698,046 100% 706,744 (8,697) -1% FUND
REVENUE
SOURCE
City of Morgan Hill
Year to Date Revenues - Fiscal Year 2021-22
For The Twelve Months Ended June 30, 2022
100% of Year Complete
CURRENT INCR (DECR)
ADOPTED AMENDED YTD % PRIOR FROM PRIOR %
BUDGET BUDGET ACTUAL OF BUDGET YTD YTD CHANGE
FUND
REVENUE
SOURCE
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
205 SUPPLEMENTAL LAW ENFORCEMENT FUND
Interest Income 858 858 1,192 139% 1,089 103 9%
Police Grant/SLEF/JAG 100,000 100,000 161,285 161% 156,727 4,558 3% 205 SUPPLEMENTAL LAW ENFORCEMENT FUND 100,858 100,858 162,477 161% 157,816 4,662 3% 206 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
Building Fees 3,195,787 3,195,787 3,465,220 108% 2,739,017 726,203 27% Planning Fees 766,776 766,776 724,891 95% 984,893 (260,002) -26% Engineering Fees 999,810 999,810 1,172,819 117% 708,938 463,881 65% Other Revenue/Current Charges 330,747 330,747 182% 146,556 600,941 454,385 310% 206 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 5,293,120 5,293,120 5,963,871 113% 4,579,404 1,384,467 30% 207 LONG RANGE PLANNING 869,266 869,266 850,165 98% 710,721 139,444 20% 215 and 216 HCD BLOCK GRANT
Interest Income/Other Revenue 3,173 3,173 352 11% 434 (82) -19% 215 and 216 HCD BLOCK GRANT 3,173 3,173 352 11% 434 (82) -19% 225 ASSET SEIZURE 1,931 1,931 726 38% 932 (206) -22%
229 LIGHTING AND LANDSCAPE 2,573 2,573 187,615 7292% 187,823 (208) 0% 230 COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT 1,240 1,240 21,304 1718% 37,094 (15,790) -43% 232 ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS 481,008 481,008 473,038 98% 473,146 (108) 0% 234 MOBILE HOME PARK RENT STAB. 757 757 8,179 1080% 3,829 4,349 114% 235 SENIOR HOUSING 3,869 3,869 1,263 33% 1,525 (262) -17% 236 HOUSING MITIGATION 2,446,028 2,596,028 966,636 37% 2,168,772 (1,202,136) -55% 237 BEGIN - - 247,939 n/a 1,207 246,732 20437%
238 CAL HOMES - - 437 n/a 81,151 (80,713) -99%
240 EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE 29,089 29,089 10,359 36% 16,741 (6,382) -38% 246 COUNTYWIDE SOLID WASTE 1,481,421 1,268,286 86% 54,127 1,214,159 2243% 247 ENVIRONMENT REMEDIATION 2,448 2,448 3,057 125% 1,740 1,317 76% 250 COMH-SUCCESSOR AGENCY-MHRDA 7,100,496 7,100,496 6,254,848 88% 896,941 5,357,907 597% 255 HOUSING SUCCESSOR AGENCY 215,318 215,318 346,319 161% 754,760 (408,442) -54% 260 PUBLIC ART - - 1,100 n/a 69,000 (67,900) -98%
TOTAL SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS 17,250,910 18,882,331 17,466,016 92% 10,903,906 6,562,110 60%
CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS
301 PARK DEVELOPMENT 1,748,480 7,131,498 6,217,429 87% 2,993,314 3,224,115 108% 302 PARK MAINTENANCE 360,613 360,613 539,847 150% 60,521 479,327 792% 303 LOCAL DRAINAGE 1,675,036 1,675,036 1,365,844 82% 2,421,399 (1,055,556) -44% 304 LOCAL DRAINAGE/NON AB1600 80,692 80,692 179,662 223% 28,337 151,325 534% 306 AGRICULTURE & OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION 180,385 180,385 154,307 86% 257,230 (102,922) -40% 308 STREET CIP 4,050,523 4,050,523 5,451,284 135% 2,411,807 3,039,477 126% 309 TRAFFIC IMPACT 1,468,388 1,468,388 8,996,809 613% 5,254,630 3,742,179 71% 315 PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITIES IMPACT 864,417 864,417 238,539 28% 430,209 (191,670) -45% 346 PUBLIC FACILITIES NON-AB1600 611,488 1,122,018 2,484,256 221% 886,892 1,597,365 180% 347 PUBLIC FACILITIES IMPACT 265,536 265,536 55,096 21% 249,545 (194,449) -78% 348 LIBRARY 1,077,617 1,077,617 244,475 23% 518,956 (274,481) -53% 350 UNDERGROUNDING 86,073 86,073 636,255 739% 108,159 528,096 488% 355 SCHOOL PEDESTRIAN/TRAFFIC SAFETY 591,967 591,967 1,025,669 173% 300,383 725,286 241% 360 COMMUNITY/REC IMPACT FUND 1,730,018 1,730,018 284,969 16% 1,042,497 (757,528) -73% 375 QUIMBY FEE 1,623,552 1,623,552 908,954 56% - 908,954 n/a TOTAL CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS 16,414,785 22,308,333 28,783,396 129% 16,963,878 11,819,518 70%
DEBT SERVICE FUNDS
420 CIVIC CENTER DEBT 307,385 307,385 305,829 99% 310,477 (4,647) -1% 441 POLICE FACILITY BOND 385,639 385,639 384,368 100% 484,035 (99,668) -21% TOTAL DEBT SERVICE FUNDS 693,024 693,024 690,197 100% 794,512 (104,315) -13%
City of Morgan Hill
Year to Date Revenues - Fiscal Year 2021-22
For The Twelve Months Ended June 30, 2022
100% of Year Complete
CURRENT INCR (DECR)
ADOPTED AMENDED YTD % PRIOR FROM PRIOR %
BUDGET BUDGET ACTUAL OF BUDGET YTD YTD CHANGE
FUND
REVENUE
SOURCE
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
640 SEWER OPERATION
Sewer Service Fees 13,812,501 13,812,501 14,275,253 103% 13,048,252 1,227,000 9% Interest Income/Transfers 37,425 37,425 14,913 40% 20,536 (5,623) -27% Other Revenue/Current Charges 268,241 268,241 531,821 198% 274,828 256,993 94% 640 SEWER OPERATION 14,118,167 14,118,167 14,821,986 105% 13,343,615 1,478,371 11% 641 SEWER EXPANSION
Interest Income 220,194 220,194 121,374 55% 149,198 (27,824) -19% Development Impact Fee 6,845,919 6,845,919 7,788,625 114% 2,699,288 5,089,337 189% 641 SEWER EXPANSION 7,066,113 7,066,113 7,909,999 112% 2,848,486 5,061,513 178% 642 SEWER RATE STABILIZATION 195,311 195,311 164,906 84% 17,512 147,394 842% 643 SEWER-CAPITAL PROJECT 4,707,648 4,707,648 4,732,971 101% 5,492,143 (759,172) -14% TOTAL SEWER FUNDS 26,087,239 26,087,239 27,629,862 106% 21,701,756 5,928,106 27% 650 WATER OPERATION
Water Sales 15,179,148 15,179,148 14,080,307 93% 14,975,143 (894,836) -6% Meter Install & Service 25,215 25,215 137,455 545% 105,826 31,629 30% Transfers-In / Interest Income 546,952 546,952 505,479 92% 463,728 41,751 9% Other Revenue/Current Charges 585,381 585,381 1,143,077 195% 997,092 145,985 15% 650 WATER OPERATION 16,336,696 16,336,696 15,866,318 97% 16,541,789 (675,471) -4% 651 WATER EXPANSION
Interest Income/Other Revenue/Transfer 64,003 64,003 17,838 28% 21,610 (3,771) -17% Development Impact Fee 1,782,143 1,782,143 460,913 26% 1,177,287 (716,374) -61% 651 WATER EXPANSION 1 1,846,146 ,846,146 478,751 26% 1,198,897 (720,145) -60% 652 Water Rate Stabilization 141,222 141,222 142,376 101% 66,024 76,352 116% 653 Water Capital Project 5,047,350 5,047,350 5,088,357 101% 5,684,415 (596,058) -10% TOTAL WATER FUNDS 23,371,414 23,371,414 21,575,803 92% 23,491,124 (1,915,322) -8% TOTAL ENTERPRISE FUNDS 49,458,653 49,458,653 49,205,665 99% 45,192,881 4,012,784 9%
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS
730 INFORMATION SYSTEMS 1,952,577 2,247,577 2,253,358 100% 1,882,014 371,344 20% 740 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 3,409,334 3,409,334 1,130,729 33% 2,668,920 (1,538,191) -58% 741 BUILDING REPLACEMENT 745,508 755,508 717,030 95% 679,786 37,245 5% 745 CIP ADMINISTRATION 1,798,889 1,798,889 1,759,344 98% 969,055 790,289 82% 760 UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE 2,513 2,513 1,743 69% 300,738 (298,995) -99% 770 WORKERS COMPENSATION 913,504 913,504 779,525 85% 749,194 30,331 4% 790 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT 1,086,223 1,086,223 1,197,962 110% 1,592,681 (394,719) -25% 791EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 1,043,858 1,043,858 608,985 58% 598,122 10,863 2% 795 GENERAL LIABILITY INSURANCE 1,504,188 1,737,188 1,721,999 99% 1,463,586 258,414 18% TOTAL INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS 12,456,594 12,994,594 10,170,675 78% 10,904,095 (733,420) -7% TOTAL FOR ALL FUNDS 146,782,397 $ 155,158,244 $ 159,126,985 $ 103% 124,952,554 $ 34,174,430 $ 27%
City of Morgan Hill
Year to Date Expenses - Fiscal Year 2021-22
For the Month and Twelve Months Ended Jun 30, 2022
100% of Year Complete
CURRENT
FUND MONTH PERCENT OF
NO. FUND/ACTIVITY ACTUAL AMENDED YTD OUTSTANDING TOTAL TOTAL TO PRIOR
EXPENSES BUDGET EXPENSES ENCUMBRANCE ALLOCATED BUDGET YTD 010 GENERAL FUND
I. ADMINISTRATION
CITY COUNCIL 51,847 $ 348,850 $ 343,348 $ 27,107 $ 370,455 $ 106% 263,939 $ CITY ATTORNEY 80,365 802,889 719,485 119,225 838,710 104% 685,200 CITY MANAGER 37,453 638,262 594,620 5,000 599,620 94% 495,878 HUMAN RESOURCES 67,051 830,904 706,948 - 706,948 85% 642,201
COUNCIL SVCS & RECORDS MGMT
Council Svcs & Records Mgmt 46,490 672,320 567,825 - 567,825 84% 632,336 Elections 3,460 28,180 27,295 - 27,295 97% 232,006
COUNCIL SVCS & RECORDS MGMT 49,950 700,500 595,120 595,120 - 85% 864,342 FINANCE 299,853 2,472,421 1,722,371 676,417 2,398,788 97% 1,467,341 TOTAL ADMINISTRATION 586,519 5,793,826 4,681,891 827,749 5,509,640 95% 4,418,900 II. COMMUNITY SERVICES
Membership Services & Rec. Programs 757,260 6,240,277 5,556,955 305,188 5,862,143 94% 3,957,280 Recreation Facility Rentals 56,086 716,081 552,642 5,938 558,579 78% 769,150 Community Services 61,202 641,554 520,429 25,599 546,028 85% 484,977 Park Maintenance 125,520 1,179,250 1,058,038 10,729 1,068,768 91% 1,057,814 Environmental Services 16,574 349,129 207,919 207,919 - 60% 210,964 Countywide Solid Waste Program 26,857 303,550 224,726 224,726 - 74% 13,896 Street Maintenance 312,558 2,662,248 2,408,760 7,133 2,415,892 91% 2,382,741 Downtown Maintenance 27,170 318,869 262,398 3,176 265,574 83% 224,928 Cable Television 1,833 34,272 41,359 - 41,359 121% 22,577 COMMUNITY SERVICES 1,385,060 12,445,230 10,833,226 357,763 11,190,988 90% 9,124,327 CODE COMPLIANCE 16,850 174,873 177,673 177,673 - 102% 164,777 INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING & CONGESTION MGMT 356,583 25,313 321,499 - 321,499 90% 338,605 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS 76,238 970,380 699,076 49,588 748,663 77% 528,285 TOTAL COMMUNITY SERVICES 1,503,461 13,947,066 12,031,473 407,351 12,438,824 89% 10,155,995 III. PUBLIC SAFETY
POLICE
PD Administration 176,104 1,421,383 1,695,024 - 1,695,024 119% 1,450,348 Field Operations 961,444 9,314,988 9,211,477 6,994 9,218,471 99% 8,486,704 Support Services 223,493 2,596,110 2,536,476 - 2,536,476 98% 2,285,475 Emergency Services/Haz Mat 41,306 202,072 217,754 - 217,754 108% 189,532 Special Operations 283,866 3,700,816 3,266,132 - 3,266,132 88% 3,099,510 Dispatch Services 192,914 1,897,873 1,827,919 - 1,827,919 96% 1,741,976 POLICE 1,879,127 19,133,242 18,754,781 18,761,776 6,994 98% 17,253,544 FIRE 620,935 7,788,401 7,397,932 369,569 7,767,501 100% 6,313,455 TOTAL PUBLIC SAFETY 2,500,062 26,921,643 26,152,713 376,563 26,529,276 99% 23,566,999 IV. TRANSFERS
Other 110,559 4,294,211 3,898,920 - 3,898,920 91% 1,845,164 TOTAL TRANSFERS 110,559 4,294,211 3,898,920 3,898,920 - 91% 1,845,164 TOTAL GENERAL FUND 4,700,601 50,956,746 46,764,998 1,611,663 48,376,661 95% 39,987,058
City of Morgan Hill
Year to Date Expenses - Fiscal Year 2021-22
For the Month and Twelve Months Ended Jun 30, 2022
100% of Year Complete
CURRENT
FUND MONTH PERCENT OF
NO. FUND/ACTIVITY ACTUAL AMENDED YTD OUTSTANDING TOTAL TOTAL TO PRIOR
EXPENSES BUDGET EXPENSES ENCUMBRANCE ALLOCATED BUDGET YTD
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
202 STREET MAINTENANCE 361 704,068 704,068 - 100% 703,920 704,068 205 PUBLIC SAFETY/SUPP.LAW 604 107,245 107,248 - 100% 107,068 107,248 206 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES FUND
Planning 197,407 1,956,314 1,695,674 1,695,674 - 87% 1,536,940 Building 232,461 2,233,914 2,172,294 69,331 2,241,626 100% 2,035,941 Engineering 154,082 1,366,129 1,500,142 - 1,500,142 110% 1,405,585 206 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES FUND 583,949 5,556,356 5,368,111 69,331 5,437,443 98% 4,978,466 207 LONG RANGE PLANNING 82,728 861,202 686,822 8,408 695,230 81% 826,266 215/216 CDBG 458 5,499 5,496 - 100% 5,496 5,364
225 ASSET SEIZURE - 54,232 14,232 14,232 - 26% -
229 LIGHTING AND LANDSCAPE 28,720 168,130 160,110 1,551 161,661 96% 168,766 230 COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT 6,287 42,093 26,503 26,503 - 63% 25,637 232 ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMS 59,325 508,715 429,871 429,871 - 85% 420,877 234 MOBILE HOME PARK 37 449 444 - 99% 444 444
236 HOUSING MITIGATION 497,537 1,495,875 1,175,375 80,427 1,255,802 84% 778,259 237 BEGIN - 110,000 - 110,000 - n/a -
240 EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE 86 28,531 10,043 10,043 - 35% 10,910 246 COUNTYWIDE SOLID WASTE PROGRAM 442,345 1,481,421 1,268,287 1,268,287 - 86% 54,127 250 COMH-SUCCESSOR AGENCY-MHRDA 581 6,939,408 972,935 972,935 - 14% 5,021,940 255 HOUSING SUCCESSOR AGENCY 88,010 1,003,785 991,745 991,745 - 99% 987,036 260 PUBLIC ART - 23,500 4,743 - 4,743 20% -
TOTAL SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS 1,791,028 18,980,509 12,036,032 159,718 12,195,750 64% 14,091,761
CAPITAL PROJECT FUNDS
301 PARK DEVELOPMENT 941,770 9,738,856 7,294,436 7,294,436 - 75% 6,032,594 302 PARK MAINTENANCE 54,297 745,776 665,130 665,130 - 89% 696,849 303 LOCAL DRAINAGE 32,342 6,997,265 154,604 154,604 - 2% 2,505,837 304 LOCAL DRAIN. NON-AB1600 26,602 833,046 35,375 35,375 - 4% 199,075 306 AGRICULTURE & OPEN SPACE PRESERVATIO 5,480,009 86,526 5,574,807 - 5,574,807 102% 109,766 308 STREET CIP (62,051) 6,587,142 3,040,040 28,233 3,068,273 47% 2,842,191 309 TRAFFIC IMPACT 1,085,241 30,480,782 10,191,198 17,360 10,208,558 33% 3,484,855 315 PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITIES IMPACT 119,104 565,180 510,499 728,200 1,238,699 219% 234,329 346 PUBLIC FAC.NON AB1600 170,589 1,351,905 315,040 119,045 434,085 32% 174,051 347 PUBLIC FACILITIES IMPACT 2,277 27,331 27,324 - 27,324 100% 45,713 348 LIBRARY IMPACT 18,154 216,704 218,430 - 218,430 101% 705,298 350 UNDERGROUNDING 256,532 139,398 22,618 - 22,618 16% 1,104 355 SCHOOL PEDESTRIAN & TRAFFIC SAFETY 26,250 1,160,466 1,253,652 21,253 1,274,905 110% 1,172,873 360 COMM/REC CENTER IMPACT 17,990 1,454,834 281,141 775,504 1,056,645 73% 1,715,282 375 QUIMBY FEE 70,248 600,000 70,379 97,169 167,548 28% - TOTAL CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS 2,845,870 66,378,693 29,654,674 1,786,764 31,441,438 47% 19,919,816
DEBT SERVICE FUNDS
420 CIVIC CENTER DEBT 886 304,947 298,079 - 98% 299,642 298,079 441 POLICE FACILITY BOND DEBT 338 389,497 389,222 - 389,222 100% 386,549 TOTAL DEBT SERVICE FUNDS 1,224 694,444 687,301 687,301 - 99% 686,191
City of Morgan Hill
Year to Date Expenses - Fiscal Year 2021-22
For the Month and Twelve Months Ended Jun 30, 2022
100% of Year Complete
CURRENT
FUND MONTH PERCENT OF
NO. FUND/ACTIVITY ACTUAL AMENDED YTD OUTSTANDING TOTAL TOTAL TO PRIOR
EXPENSES BUDGET EXPENSES ENCUMBRANCE ALLOCATED BUDGET YTD
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
SEWER
640 SEWER OPERATIONS 1,656,677 14,126,884 13,865,415 129,908 13,995,323 99% 13,245,059 641 SEWER CAPITAL EXPANSION 737,455 22,987,165 7,492,893 1,015,597 8,508,490 37% 863,140 642 SEWER RATE STABILIZATION 95 1,138 1,140 - 1,140 100% 1,116 643 SEWER-CAPITAL PROJECTS 4,700,976 22,004,075 12,338,781 767,363 13,106,144 60% 3,252,007 TOTAL SEWER FUND(S) 7,095,203 59,119,262 33,698,230 1,912,868 35,611,097 60% 17,361,322 WATER
Water Operations 1,934,517 15,292,037 14,239,200 552,233 14,791,433 97% 15,490,263 Utility Billing 85,971 985,735 910,660 17,016 927,676 94% 874,824 Water Conservation 20,926 157,768 132,262 - 132,262 84% 86,502 650 WATER OPERATIONS 2,041,414 16,435,540 15,282,121 569,249 15,851,370 96% 16,451,589 651 WATER CAPITAL EXPANSION 113,128 2,281,063 840,363 - 840,363 37% 595,697 652 WATER RATE STABILIZATION 31 371 372 - 100% 372 360
653 WATER-CAPITAL PROJECTS 182,620 7,534,033 2,199,097 209,513 2,408,610 32% 1,447,741 TOTAL WATER FUND(S) 2,337,193 26,251,006 18,321,953 778,762 19,100,715 73% 18,495,386 TOTAL ENTERPRISE FUNDS 9,432,395 85,370,268 52,020,183 2,691,630 54,711,812 64% 35,856,709
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS
730 INFORMATION SYSTEMS 589,040 2,732,628 2,205,668 136,953 2,342,621 86% 1,729,439 740 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 187,939 1,287,566 1,252,181 35,129 1,287,310 100% 2,817,614 741 BUILDING REPLACEMENT 28,759 610,000 381,413 21,320 402,733 66% 142,375 745 CIP ADMINISTRATION 207,134 1,735,361 1,733,849 1,733,849 - 100% 1,648,872 760 UNEMPLOYMENT 7,856 20,000 14,220 14,220 - 71% 30,327 770 WORKERS COMPENSATION 56,737 876,877 890,850 890,850 - 102% 670,563 790 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT 59,138 1,546,014 786,914 323,248 1,110,162 72% 1,436,153 791 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS FUND 28,219 625,000 679,967 679,967 - 109% 650,446 795 GEN. LIABILITY INSURANCE - 1,724,061 1,715,769 4,650 1,720,419 100% 1,382,699 TOTAL INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS 1,164,823 11,157,508 9,660,832 521,300 10,182,131 91% 10,508,491 REPORT TOTAL $ 19,935,942 $ 233,538,168 $ 150,824,018 $ 6,771,074 $ 157,595,093 67% 121,050,024 $
City of Morgan Hill
Fund Activity Summary - Fiscal Year 2021-22
For The Twelve Months Ended June 30, 2022100% of Year Complete Year to-Date
Fund Fund Balance YTD % of YTD % of Deficit or
No. Fund 06-30-21 Actual Budget Actual Budget Carryover Reserved1 Unreserved 010 GENERAL FUND 24,896,179 $ 52, $ 811,036 104% 46,764,998 $ 92% 6, $ 046,038 $ 1,611,663 $ 29,330,554TOTAL GENERAL FUND 24,896,179 $ $ 52,811,036 104% $ 46,764,998 92% $ 6,046,038 $ 1,611,663 $ 29,330,554 202 STREET MAINTENANCE 6,241 $ 698,046 100% 704,068 $ 97% $ (6,022) $ - $ 219 205 PUBLIC SAFETY/SUPPL. LAW 195,819 162,477 161% 107,248 110% 55,229 - 251,048 206 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES (484,553) 5,963,871 113% 5,368,111 97% 595,760 69,331 41,875 207 LONG RANGE PLANNING 1,250,193 850,165 98% 686,822 80% 163,343 8,408 1,405,128 215 / 216 CDBG 34,893 352 11% 5,496 100% (5,144) - 29,749 225 ASSET SEIZURE 143,259 726 38% 14,232 n/a (13,507) - 129,752 229 LIGHTING AND LANDSCAPE 172,706 187,615 7292% 160,110 95% 27,505 1,551 198,660 230 COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT 137,840 21,304 1718% 26,503 63% (5,199) - 132,641 232 ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS 213,442 473,038 98% 429,871 85% 43,167 - 256,609 234 MOBILE HOME PK RENT STAB. 58,766 8,179 1080% 99% 444 7,735 - 66,501 235 SENIOR HOUSING 234,588 1,263 33% n/a - 1,263 - 235,851 236 HOUSING MITIGATION 5,407,291 966,636 37% 1,175,375 79% (208,739) 80,427 5,118,125 237 BEGIN 320,727 247,939 n/a 110,000 n/a 137,939 - 458,666 238 CAL HOMES 276 437 n/a n/a - 437 713240 EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE 62,190 10,359 36% 10,043 35% 316 - 62,506 246 COUNTYWIDE SOLID WASTE 1,268,286 125% 1,268,287 86% (0) - (0)247 ENVIRONMENT REMEDIATION 135,927 3,057 125% n/a - 3,057 - 138,984 250 COMH-SUCCESSOR AGENCY-MHRDA (493,066) 6,254,848 88% 972,935 14% 5,281,913 5,783,086 (994,239) 255 HOUSING SUCCESSOR AGENCY 4,287,939 346,319 161% 991,745 99% (645,426) - 3,642,513 260 PUBLIC ART 70,772 1,100 n/a 4,743 (3,643) - 67,129
TOTAL SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS $ 11,755,250 $ 17,466,016 92% $ 12,036,032 63% $ 5,429,984 $ 5,942,804 $ 11,242,430301 PARK DEV. IMPACT FUND $ 270,918 $ 6,217,429 87% 7, $ 294,436 75% (1, $ 077,007) $ - $ (806,089) 302 PARK MAINTENANCE 2,815,081 539,847 150% 665,130 89% (125,283) - 2,689,798 303 LOCAL DRAINAGE 10,947,520 1,365,844 82% 154,604 2% 1,211,240 - 12,158,760 304 LOCAL DRAINAGE/NON-AB1600 1,268,597 179,662 223% 35,375 4% 144,287 - 1,412,884 306 AGRICULTURE AND OPEN SPACE PRESERVA 6,011,689 86% 5, 154,307 574,807 102% (5,420,499) - 591,190 308 STREET CIP 3,538,596 5,451,284 135% 3,040,040 46% 2,411,245 28,233 5,921,608 309 TRAFFIC IMPACT FUND 2,217,293 8,996,809 613% 10,191,198 33% (1,194,390) 17,360 1,005,543 315 PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITIES IMPACT 3,650,943 28% 238,539 90% ( 510,499 271,959) 728,200 2,650,784 346 PUBLIC FACILITIES NON-AB1600 1,100,016 2,484,256 221% 315,040 23% 2,169,216 119,045 3,150,187 347 PUBLIC FACILITIES IMPACT FUND 1,034,272 55,096 21% 27,324 100% 27,772 - 1,062,044 348 LIBRARY IMPACT FUND 1,487,275 23% 244,475 218,430 101% 26,045 - 1,513,320 350 UNDERGROUNDING 1,073,838 636,255 739% 22,618 16% 613,637 - 1,687,475 355 SCHOOL PEDESTRIAN/TRAFFIC SFTY 181,922 1,025,669 173% 1,253,652 108% (227,984) 21,253 (67,315) 360 COMM/REC CTR IMPACT FUND 1,353,501 284,969 16% 281,141 19% 3,829 775,504 581,826 375 QUIMBY FEE - 908,954 56% 70,379 12% 838,575 97,169 741,406 TOTAL CAPITAL PROJECT FUNDS $ 36,951,461 $ 28,783,396 129% $ 29,654,674 45% $ (871,278) $ 1,786,764 $ 34,293,419 420 CIVIC CENTER DEBT $ 165,528 $ 305,829 99% $ 298,079 98% $ 7,750 $ 1 $ 173,277 441 POLICE FACILITY BOND DEBT 171,762 384,368 100% 389,222 100% (4,854) 2 166,906 TOTAL DEBT SERVICE FUNDS $ 337,290 $ 690,197 100% $ 687,301 99% $ 2,896 $ 3 $ 340,183 Revenues Expenses Ending Fund Balance
City of Morgan Hill
Fund Activity Summary - Fiscal Year 2021-22
For The Twelve Months Ended June 30, 2022100% of Year Complete Year to-Date
Fund Fund Balance YTD % of YTD % of Deficit or
No. Fund 06-30-21 Actual Budget Actual Budget Carryover Reserved1 Unreserved Revenues Expenses Ending Fund Balance
640 SEWER OPERATIONS $ 3,602,581 $ 14,821,986 105% 13,865,415 $ 98% $ 956,571 129,908 4,429,244 641 SEWER IMPACT FUND* 22,121,700 7,909,999 112% 7,492,893 33% 417,106 1,015,597 21,523,209 642 SEWER RATE STABILIZATION 2,692,314 164,906 84% 1,140 100% 163,766 - 2,856,080643 SEWER-CAPITAL PROJECTS 29,354,687 4,732,971 101% 12,338,781 56% (7,605,810) 767,363 20,981,513 650 WATER OPERATIONS 3,580,575 15,866,318 97% 15,282,121 93% 584,197 569,249 3,595,523 651 WATER IMPACT FUND* 2,979,950 478,751 26% 840,363 37% (361,611) - 2,618,339 652 WATER RATE STABILIZATION 3,162,416 142,376 101% 372 100% 142,004 - 3,304,420 653 WATER -CAPITAL PROJECT 8,134,534 5,088,357 101% 2,199,097 29% 2,889,260 209,513 10,814,281 TOTAL ENTERPRISE FUNDS $ 75,628,757 $ 49,205,665 99% $ 52,020,183 61% $ (2,814,517) $ 2,691,630 $ 70,122,610 730 INFORMATION SERVICES $ 849,651 $ 2,253,358 100% 2,205,668 $ 81% 47,690 $ $ 136,953 $ 760,388 740 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 6,945 1,130,729 33% 1,252,181 97% (121,452) 35,129 (149,636) 741 BUILDING REPLACEMENT 3,561,339 717,030 95% 381,413 63% 335,617 21,320 3,875,636 745 CIP ENGINEERING 55,476 1,759,344 98% 1,733,849 100% 25,495 - 80,971 760 UNEMPLOYMENT 328,958 1,743 69% 14,220 71% (12,478) - 316,480 770 WORKERS COMPENSATION 2,115,661 779,525 85% 890,850 102% (111,325) 30,000 1,974,336 790 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT 5,996,455 1,197,962 110% 786,914 51% 411,048 323,248 6,084,255 791 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS FUNDS (28,785) 608,985 58% 679,967 109% (70,982) - (99,767)795 GEN. LIABILITY INSURANCE 1,236,516 1,721,999 99% 1,715,769 100% 6,230 4,650 1,238,096 TOTAL INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS $ 14,122,216 $ 10,170,675 78% $ 9,660,832 87% $ 509,844 $ 551,300 $ 14,080,760
SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE
GENERAL FUND GROUP 24,896,179 $ $ 52,811,036 104% 46,764,998 $ 92% 6, $ 046,038 $ 1,611,663 $ 29,330,554 SPECIAL REVENUE GROUP 11,755,250 17,466,016 92% 12,036,032 63% 5,429,984 5,942,804 11,242,430 DEBT SERVICE GROUP 337,290 690,197 100% 687,301 99% 2,896 3 340,183 CAPITAL PROJECTS GROUP 36,951,461 28,783,396 129% 29,654,674 45% (871,278) 1,786,764 34,293,419 ENTERPRISE GROUP 75,628,757 49,205,665 99% 52,020,183 61% (2,814,517) 2,691,630 70,122,610 INTERNAL SERVICE GROUP 14,122,216 10,170,675 78% 9,660,832 87% 509,844 551,300 14,080,760 TOTAL ALL GROUPS $ 163,691,153 $ 159,126,985 103% 150,824,018 $ 65% 8, $ 302,967 $ 12,584,163 $ 159,409,956 For Enterprise Funds: Unrestricted fund balance = Fund balance net of fixed assets and long-term liabilities. *Unreserved fund balance includes bond proceeds reserved for projects listed in bond documents. 1 Amount restricted for encumbrances, fixed asset replacement, long-term receivables, and bond reserves.
City Manager's Signature Authority
Contracts and Agreements Between $25,000 to $60,000 Entered Since 4/6/2022 to 8/8/2022 Vendor Name Desription of Service Begin Date End Date Department Amount Gaylord Dance Instruction Youth dance classes and/or camps 6/16/2022 6/30/2024 CSD $25,000 Kone Inc.
Elevator Service and Repair- Parking
Garage and CCC 4/27/2022 9/30/2024 CSD $27,680
Precision Emprise dba
Precision Concrete Cutting
On-call Sidewalk Assessment and
Sidewalk Repairs 6/3/2022 6/30/2023 CSD $30,000
The Law Offices of Armando
Benavides Represent the Council in legal action 4/22/2022 8/15/2022 CAO $30,000 Andrew Merovich DBA Brick
Tech LEGO camps and classes 6/16/2022 6/30/2024 CSD $30,000 Al Ganir Tennis
Youth and adult tennis classes and/or
camps 6/16/2022 6/30/2024 CSD $30,000
AllCode Academy, LLC DBA
AllCode Academy Youth coding classes and camps 7/12/2022 6/30/2024 CSD $30,000 ASG Builders, Inc. Community Park Picnic Area Project 5/31/2022 6/30/2022 CSD $31,086 Keyser Marston Associates,
Inc Housing Services Analysis 7/12/2022 6/30/2024 DS $40,000 Services, LLC dba Mad
Science of the Bay Area Youth science camps and/or classes 6/16/2022 6/30/2024 CSD $40,000 Service, Inc. dba Pacific
Coast Trane
Automation System Controller and
Cloud Estimate 8/2/2022 10/2/2022 CSD $44,356
American Self Defense
Academy
Youth adult self defense, karate and
kempo classes 6/16/2022 6/30/2024 CSD $45,000
H.T. Harvey & Associates
Ecological Consultant for Maintenance
and Public Works 7/12/2022 6/30/2023 CSD $45,000
Engeo, Inc. Fisher Basin project soil report 7/20/2022 12/31/2022 E&U $45,000 NBS Government Finance
Group
Consultant agreement water capacity
fees and public safety impact fees 5/26/2022 12/31/2023 Admin $47,060 Prudential Overall Supply Uniform Rental and Cleaning Service 7/12/2022 6/30/2024 CSD $49,000 Articulate Solutions, Inc. Innovative Transit - Design Services 6/20/2022 6/30/2024 CSD $50,000 Union Pacific Railroad
Company
Reimbursement Agreement Preliminary
Engineering Services 6/23/2022 8/25/2022 E&U $50,000
United Security Specialist
Security for Inclement Cold Weather
Shelter, etc. 6/22/2022 6/30/2024 DS $50,000
South County Compassion
Center Case Management for Safe Park 7/3/2022 6/30/2023 DS $52,000 Ross Recreation Equiptment
Company, Inc.
Community Park Shade Canopy
Project 6/3/2022 12/31/2022 CSD $52,345
Renne Public Law Group Grant Writing Support 7/28/2022 7/31/2023 CSD $54,000 Circle Up Education DEI in Morgan Hill 6/28/2022 7/1/2023 DS $57,855 Golden Bay Construction,
Inc. Hale Extension Project 7/26/2022 8/31/2022 E&U $59,850 Cupertino Electric, Inc.
On-call CRC Solar Electrical
Maintenance Agreement 6/3/2022 6/30/2024 CSD $60,000
Cotton, Shires and
Associates Inc Geological/Geotechnical Peer Review 4/24/2022 5/1/2024 DS $60,000 Planet Futsal, Inc. DBA
Futsal Kingz
Youth futsal and soccer camps and/or
classes 6/16/2022 6/30/2023 CSD $60,000
Burke, Williams & Sorensen,
LLP General Housing Legal Assistance 7/1/2022 6/30/2023 DS $60,000 DBA Skyhawks Sports
Academy Youth sports classes and camps 7/12/2022 6/30/2023 CSD $60,000 Coleman Security &
Investigations, Inc Security Services 7/21/2022 6/30/2023 PD $60,000
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF MORGAN HILL AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR
2021-22 AMENDED BUDGET
WHEREAS, the City of Morgan Hill Fiscal Year 2020-21 and 2021-22 Operating Budget was adopted on June 17, 2020; and
WHEREAS, modifications and amendments to the Adopted FY 2020-21 and 2021-22 City of Morgan Hill Budget can only be made in accordance with Fiscal Policy 4.D in the Adopted Budget document; and
WHEREAS, recommended amendments are needed and proposed to the City’s previously adopted Budget for Fiscal Year 2021-22 to appropriate the requisite funds to implement the actions authorized by this Resolution; and WHEREAS, the activities allowed under this Resolution do not constitute a project under the provisions of California Environmental Quality Act of 1970; and WHEREAS, the consideration by City Council of the adoption of this Resolution has been duly noticed pursuant to applicable laws and has been placed upon the City Council Meeting Agenda on the date set forth in the Staff Report, or to such date that the City Council may have continued or deferred consideration of this Resolution, and on such date the City Council conducted a duly noticed publicmeeting at which theCityCouncil providedmembers ofthe public an opportunity to comment and be heard and considered any and all testimony and other evidence provided in connection with the adoption of this Resolution; and
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MORGAN HILL DOES HEREBY FIND, DETERMINE, RESOLVE AND ORDER AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. Recitals. The City Council does hereby find, determine, and resolve that all of the foregoing recitals are true and correct.
Section 2. Approval and Authorization. The City Council does further resolve, order and/or direct as follows:
a. That the City’s previously adopted Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget, as the same has been amended to date, is hereby further amended totaling $1,042,000 in FY 2021-22; and
b. That the City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to forward a copy of this Resolution to the City’s Finance Director, who is hereby authorized and directed to take all actions necessary to implement the terms of this Resolution pertaining to the Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget of the City.
Section 3. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption.
City of Morgan Hill
Resolution No.
PASSED, APPROVED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Morgan Hill at a regular meeting held on the August 17, 2022.
AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:
APPROVED: ATTEST:
_____________________________ ________________________________ RICH CONSTANTINE, Mayor MICHELLE BIGELOW, City Clerk
CERTIFICATION
I, Michelle Bigelow, City Clerk of the City of Morgan Hill, California, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and correct copy of Resolution No. 22-XXX, adopted by the City Council at a regular meeting held on August 17, 2022.
WITNESS MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF MORGAN HILL.
DATE: _____________________ ___________________________________ MICHELLE BIGELOW, City Clerk
11 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: August 17, 2022
PREPARED BY:
Angie Gonzalez, Deputy City Clerk
APPROVED BY: City Manager
APPOINT VOTING DELEGATES FOR THE 2022 CALCITIES (LEAGUE)
ANNUAL CONFERENCE AND APPROVE CITY SUPPORT OF THE
RESOLUTION TO BE CONSIDERED
RECOMMENDATION(S)
1. Appoint a voting delegate and up to two (2) alternate voting delegates to the CalCities Annual Conference;
2. Direct the Clerk team to complete and forward the voting delegate form to CalCities;
3. Confirm "support" for the resolution to be considered on bylaws; and
4. Authorize the City’s voting delegate(s) to vote on the resolution to be considered at the CalCities annual conference.
Estimated Time:
COUNCIL PRIORITIES, GOALS & STRATEGIES
City Council Ongoing Priorities
Enhancing Public Safety
Protecting the Environment and Preserving Open Space and Agricultural Land Maintaining and Enhancing Infrastructure
Supporting our Youth, Seniors, and Entire Community
Fostering a Positive Organizational Culture
Preserving and Cultivating Public Trust
Preserving our Community History
Enhancing Diversity and Inclusiveness
Advancing Regional Initiatives
2022-2023 Strategic Priorities
Fiscal Sustainability
Affordable Housing and Homelessness
Community Outreach, Engagement, and Messaging
Economic Development
Transportation
11 REPORT NARRATIVE:
CalCities (formerly known as the League of California Cities or League) is holding its Annual Conference September 7-9, 2022. At the Annual Conference, CalCities will conduct its General Assembly Meeting, at which members vote on resolutions from member cities and elected officials. These resolutions help guide cities and CalCities in their efforts to improve the quality, responsiveness, and vitality of local government in California. This year, one resolution has been introduced for consideration at the conference (attachment 1). The League’s bylaws provide that each city is entitled to one vote on matters affecting municipal or League policy. The voting delegate and/or alternate(s) must be registered for the conference and present to vote. The memorandum from the League requesting the designation of a voting delegate for the League’s Annual Conference is attached (attachment 2).
It has been the City Council’s past practice to appoint the Mayor as the primary voting delegate and the Mayor Pro Tem as the alternate voting delegate. Staff requests the Council appoint a primary voting delegate and up to two alternate voting delegates. In 2006, the League authorized the appointment of up to two alternates to plan for unforeseen situations (bylaw amendment).
The General Assembly Meeting will convene on Friday, September 9th at 11:30 a.m. to consider the resolution that has been brought forward:
RESOLUTION RELATING TO AMENDMENTS TO THE CAL CITIES BYLAWS By approving the recommendation, our League representatives will have the Council’s general guidance for the vote to be taken on the resolution and are authorized to vote on amendments in the manner they deem to be in the best interest of the City.
COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:
Inform
This report serves to inform the community of the CalCities business items for consideration.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
Council could decide to not support the recommended actions.
PRIOR CITY COUNCIL AND COMMISSION ACTIONS:
Each year the City Council appoints voting delegates to attend and vote at CalCities Annual Conference.
FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT:
The cost of the conference registration is included in the adopted FY 2022-23 City Council budget.
CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act):
11 Not a project.
The appointment of voting delegates is not a project, as defined in Section 15378 of the State CEQA guidelines.
2022 Annual Conference and Expo
PROPOSED BYLAWS AMENDMENTS
General Assembly
September 9, 2022
2021-2022
CAL CITIES OFFICERS
President
Cindy Silva
Mayor Pro Tem,
Walnut Creek
First Vice President
Ali Taj
Council Member,
Artesia
Second Vice President
Daniel Parra
Council Member,
Fowler
Immediate Past President
Cheryl Viegas Walker
Council Member,
El Centro
Executive Director
and CEO
Carolyn M. Coleman
1400 K Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95814 • 916.658.8200 • calcities.org August 2022
To: Cal Cities General Assembly
From: Cindy Silva, President
Carolyn Coleman, Executive Director and CEO
Re: Proposed Cal Cities Bylaws Amendments
On July 15, 2022, the League of California Cities (Cal Cities) Board of Directors (Board) voted to present proposed bylaws amendments to the General Assembly at the 2022 Cal Cities Annual Conference and Expo. This memorandum outlines the history of the proposed amendments, summarizes the amendments, and provides an explanation of the process for adopting amendments to the bylaws.
Background
Beginning in 2017, the Board directed Cal Cities to undertake a strategic planning process that resulted in the adoption of the “Powering Up for California Cities Strategic Grown Plan 2018-2021” (Strategic Growth Plan). The Strategic Growth Plan set forth goals to enhance Cal Cities’ governance to: (a) achieve even higher levels of engagement and effectiveness; (b) ensure optimal engagement by members and effectiveness in supporting fulfillment of the Cal Cities’ mission; and (c) ensure the pathway to leadership is transparent and inclusive.
In furtherance of its governance goals, the Board engaged an association governance consultant (Consultant) to evaluate the Cal Cities governance system and make recommendations for enhancing Cal Cities’ governance. The Consultant gathered and considered input from more than 350 Cal Cities members through advisory groups, roundtable discussions, interviews, and surveys. On July 8, 2021, the Consultant produced a report (Governance Report) detailing 49 recommendations to the Board to deepen the engagement of Cal Cities Member Cities and ensure Cal Cities’ governance is operating at peak performance.
The Governance Report included findings indicating that Cal Cities is a strong organization, with a high level of member engagement, but also highlighted opportunities for Cal Cities to enhance its governance. The opportunities for enhancement included: (a) improving the clarity, ease, and consistency in how the governance system works; (b) clarifying the guidelines for position qualifications and performance expectations; (c) identifying ways to deepen member engagement and enhance the quality of the experience of involvement; and (d) ensuring Cal Cities has an intentional, consistent organizational culture at all levels of the governance system.
1
The findings and recommendations from the Governance Report were presented to the Board during the July 2021 Board meeting. Following a robust exchange of ideas and input, the Board decided to move forward with many of the recommendations, referred other recommendations to a “to be established” board subcommittee for further study, and deferred consideration of the remaining recommendations.
Following Board approval, in September 2021 during the Cal Cities Annual Conference and Expo, the General Assembly voted to approve the following bylaws amendments:
1. Adjust the composition of the Board to achieve a higher impact and be more representative by adding Director seats to the Board for each of the five Diversity Caucuses, and transitioning members of the National League of Cities Board from Cal Cities Directors to one non-voting advisor to the Cal Cities Board.
2. Recognize the Cal Cities Diversity Caucuses in the Cal Cities bylaws to reflect the full contribution the caucuses make to Cal Cities’ mission and vision.
Those amendments became effective on Nov. 24, 2021.
Among the recommendations the Board decided was a priority to move forward was the establishment of a standing Governance Committee to assist the Board in fulfilling its governance function.
At its February 2022 meeting, the Board voted to approve Board policy establishing the Governance Committee with the task of regularly reviewing the governance structures, policies, and practices of Cal Cities and reporting its findings and recommendations to the Board. The Board also approved a one-year work plan for the Governance Committee that established priority governance issues to focus on in its first year.
Following the Board meeting, President Cindy Silva appointed the following Board members to serve on the Governance Committee:
• Cheryl Viegas Walker, Immediate Past President and Council Member, El Centro, Chair • Walt Allen, Council Member, Covina
• Jan Arbuckle, Vice Mayor, Grass Valley
• LaTanya Bellow, Deputy City Manager, Berkeley
• Pippin Dew, Council Member, Vallejo
• Lynne Kennedy, Mayor Pro Tem, Rancho Cucamonga
• Karen Goh, Mayor, Bakersfield
• Jim Lewis, City Manager, Pismo Beach
• Lisa Middleton, Mayor, Palm Springs
• John Minto, Mayor, Santee
• David Pollock, Council Member, Moorpark
2
The Governance Committee met in April 2022, and following engaging and productive discussions, brought forward to the Board at its May 2022 meeting several recommendations to further enhance Cal Cities’ governance. Among the recommendations approved by the Board during that meeting are two that require bylaws amendments:
1. Formalize oversight of the Resolutions Committee by establishing the Second Vice President as the chair of the committee, while retaining the President’s authority to appoint the vice chair of the committee.
2. To ensure a more inclusive Nominating Committee, add one committee member appointed from among the Caucus Directors and one additional committee member appointed from among the At-Large Directors for a total of 13 committee members.1 In addition to those recommendations identified by the Governance Committee and approved by the Board, Cal Cities staff identified various non-substantive revisions to the Cal Cities bylaws:
1. Clarify that, unless the Board establishes otherwise, the Cal Cities President appoints the chair of Board-established committees.
2. To avoid confusion and clarify organizational responsibilities, remove “Treasurer” from the title of the Second Vice President.
2 3. To promote consistency, replace the term “Board member(s)” with “Director(s).”3 On July 15, 2022, the Board voted to present these proposed bylaws amendments to the General Assembly at the 2022 Cal Cities Annual Conference and Expo.
While the work to enhance Cal Cities’ governance is a process being implemented in phases over several years, the Board believes these proposed amendments constitute important next steps toward ensuring Cal Cities’ governance is operating at peak performance. 1 Under the current bylaws, the Nominating Committee is comprised of 11 Directors. Two committee members are appointed from among At-Large Directors and one from a Department. Divisions participate on a rotation, with Directors residing within eight of the Divisions appointed in even-numbered years and Directors from the other eight appointed in odd-numbered years. 2 Under the current bylaws, the Second Vice President is referred to as “Second Vice President/Treasurer.” However, in practice the Second Vice President does not serve as treasurer of Cal Cities. Rather, that function is performed by the Chief Financial Officer designated in Article VIII, section 5, subdivision b(2), of the Cal Cities bylaws.
3 The current bylaws primarily refer to members of the Cal Cities Board of Directors as “Directors.” However, there are instances in which they are referred to as “Board members.” 3
Procedure for Amending the Cal Cities Bylaws
Amendments to the Cal Cities bylaws may be proposed by the Cal Cities Board and may be adopted: (a) by vote of the Cal Cities General Assembly, or (b) by mail ballot to Member Cities.4 In this case, the amendments will be considered by the General Assembly. Bylaws amendments need to be approved by 2/3 of those voting,5
and the number that constitutes 2/3 of those voting
(a) cannot be less than a majority of the voting delegates present if there is a quorum at the time the vote is taken;6 or (b) cannot be less than a majority of a quorum if the meeting started with a quorum but a quorum is not present when the vote is taken.7 If approved by the General Assembly, the amendments to the bylaws will go into effect after the expiration of a 60-day protest period.8 If, within 60 days after the adoption of the amendments, one-third or more of Member Cities submit a written protest against such amendments, the amendments are automatically suspended until the next Annual Conference and Expo, when they may be taken up again for reconsideration and vote.9 If the amendments are approved by the General Assembly and no protest is lodged, the effective date of the bylaws amendments will be Nov. 9, 2022.
4 Article XVII, Section 1.
5 Article XVII, Section 2.
6 Cal. Corp. Code 7512, subd. (a).
7 Cal. Corp. Code 7512, subd. (d). 8 Article XVII, section 6. 9 Article XVII, section 7.
4
RESOLUTION RELATING TO AMENDMENTS TO THE CAL CITIES BYLAWS (2/3 vote at General Assembly required to approve)
Source: League of California Cities Board of Directors
WHEREAS, the League of California Cities (Cal Cities) is a nonprofit mutual benefit corporation under California law and, as such, is governed by corporate bylaws; and WHEREAS, the Cal Cities Board of Directors (Board) periodically reviews the Cal Cities bylaws for issues of clarity, practicality, compliance with current laws, and responsiveness to membership needs and interests; and
WHEREAS, beginning in 2017, the Board directed Cal Cities to undertake a strategic planning process that resulted in the adoption of the “Powering Up for California Cities Strategic Growth Plan 2018-2021” (Strategic Growth Plan); and
WHEREAS, the Strategic Growth Plan set forth goals to enhance Cal Cities’ governance to: (a) achieve even higher levels of engagement and effectiveness; (b) ensure optimal engagement by members and effectiveness in supporting fulfillment of the Cal Cities’ mission; and (c) ensure the pathway to leadership is transparent and inclusive; and WHEREAS, in furtherance of its governance goals, the Board engaged an expert in association governance who gathered and considered input from more than 350 Cal Cities members through advisory groups, roundtable discussions, interviews, and surveys to evaluate the Cal Cities governance system and make recommendations for enhancing Cal Cities’ governance; and
WHEREAS, in July 2021 the Board decided to move forward with certain recommendations made as a result of that governance evaluation, including a recommendation to establish a standing Governance Committee of the Board to assist the Board in fulfilling its governance function; and
WHEREAS, in February 2022 the Board approved Board policy establishing the Governance Committee and charging it with regularly reviewing the governance structures, policies, and practices of Cal Cities, and reporting its findings and making recommendations to the Board; and
WHEREAS, in 2022 the Governance Committee recommended, and the Board, approved certain changes to the bylaws that: (1) formalize the oversight of the Resolutions Committee; (2) ensure a more inclusive Nominating Committee by adding one committee member appointed from among Caucus Directors and one additional committee member appointed from among AtLarge Directors; (3) clarify that, unless the board establishes otherwise, the Cal Cities President appoints the chair of board-established committees; and (4) make various non-substantive revisions; and
5
WHEREAS, the Cal Cities Board offers the following proposed amendments and additions to the bylaws, as set forth in the attached redlined version of the bylaws specified below, which is hereby incorporated by reference:
1. Amend Article VI, section 3(c) to designate the Second Vice-President as the Resolutions Committee chair, while retaining the President’s authority to appoint the vice chair of the Resolutions Committee;
2. Amend Article VII, section 5(b) to adjust the composition of the Nominating Committee by adding one At-Large Director and one Caucus Director for a total of 13 Nominating Committee members;
3. Amend Article VII, Section 10(d) to provide that, unless the Board establishes otherwise, the Cal Cities President appoints the chair of board-established committees;
4. Replace the title “Second Vice-President/Treasurer” with “Second Vice President” in Article VII, sections 2(a), 5(e), and 10(b); and Article VIII, sections 1, 2(c), and 4;
5. Replace the term “board member(s)” with “Director(s)” in Article VII, sections 5(b), 5(e), and 8; Article XII, section 5(c); and Article XV, section 4; and now therefore, be it
RESOLVED, by the General Assembly of the League of California Cities assembled during the Annual Conference in Long Beach on September 9, 2022, that the proposed bylaws amendments are hereby approved and Cal Cities shall make the specified amendments to the Cal Cities bylaws set forth in the attached redlined version of the bylaws.
See ATTACHMENT 1 for redline of proposed changes to the bylaws. 6
ATTACHMENT 1
Redline of Proposed Changes to Bylaws
7
Bylaws for the
League of California Cities
…
Article VI. Resolutions
…
Section 3: Resolutions Committee for Annual Conference Resolutions. (a) Resolutions Committee Composition. The Cal Cities President establishes a Resolutions Committee sixty days prior to each Annual Conference, which committee shall consist of:
(i) One elected official from each regional division, appointed by the regional division;
(ii) One elected official from each policy committee, appointed by the policy committee;
(iii) One member from each functional department, appointed by the department;
(iv) One elected official from each caucus, appointed by the caucus; and (v) Up to ten additional members (at least five of whom are elected officials) as the Cal Cities President deems necessary to achieve geographic and population balance, as well as recognize the multiplicity of city functions not represented by the other appointments, including, but not limited to, the perspectives of board and commission members as well as professional staff.
(b) Presidential Appointments. In the event a regional division, policy committee, functional department, or caucus does not make its appointment to the Resolutions Committee, the Cal Cities President may make the appointment on the regional division’s, policy committee’s, functional department’s, or caucus’s behalf.
(c) Chair. The Cal Cities President shall also appoint to the Resolutions Committee a committee chair and vice chairSecond Vice-President shall serve as committee chair. The Cal Cities President shall also appoint to the Resolutions Committee a vice chair.
(d) Minimum Committee Size and Composition. In the event the full committee is not in attendance at the Annual Conference, the Cal Cities President shall appoint a sufficient number of city officials in attendance to achieve a total of thirty. No less than two-thirds of the members of the Resolutions Committee shall be elected officials.
8
(e) Committee Consideration of Proposed Resolutions. Except for resolutions of courtesy, commendation, appreciation or condolence, no resolution expressing the opinion or policy of Cal Cities on any question may be considered or discussed by Cal Cities’ General Assembly, unless it has been first submitted to, and reported on, by the Resolutions Committee. …
Article VII: Board of Directors
…
Section 2: Composition.
The Cal Cities Board is composed of the following:
(a) A President, First Vice-President and Second Vice-President/Treasurer, who each serve a term of one year;
(b) The Immediate Past President who serves for a term of one year, immediately succeeding his or her term as President;
(c) Twelve Directors-at-Large,
(i) Who serve staggered two-year terms, and
(ii) At least one of whom is a representative of a small city with a population of 10,000 or less;
(d) One Director to be elected from each of the regional divisions, functional departments, and caucuses of Cal Cities, each of whom serves for a term of two years; and
(e) Ten Directors that may be designated by the mayors of each of the ten largest cities in California to serve two-year terms.
(f) For purposes of this section, the population of each city is the most current population as determined by the California Department of Finance, Demographic Research Unit, or its successor agency or unit. If no successor agency or unit is named, the most current population used to determine these dues shall be used to determine future dues until such time as these bylaws are amended to designate a new source for determining city population. (g) Directors hold office until their successors are elected and qualified. …
9
Section 5: Nomination Process.
(a) Timing. The Cal Cities President, with the concurrence of the Cal Cities Board, shall establish a nominating committee at the first Board meeting of the calendar year in which the election is to occur.
(b) Composition. The nominating committee shall be comprised of eleven thirteen Board membersDirectors. ThreeTwo nominating committee members shall be At-Large Directors, and one shall represent a functional department, and one shall represent a caucus. Regional divisions shall be represented on the nominating committee on the following rotating basis:
(i) Even-Numbered Years: In even-numbered years, the Central Valley, Imperial County, Monterey Bay, North Bay, Orange County, Redwood Empire, Sacramento Valley and San Diego County
Regional Divisions shall be represented on the nominating committee. (ii) Odd-Numbered Years: In odd-numbered years, the Channel Counties, Inland Empire, Desert-Mountain, East Bay, Los Angeles County, Peninsula, Riverside County, and South San Joaquin Regional Divisions shall be represented on the nominating committee. (c) Nominating Committee Chair. The Cal Cities President shall appoint the chair of the nominating committee.
(d) Candidates for Positions Ineligible. Candidates for officer and at-large positions on the Cal Cities Board are not eligible to serve on the nominating committee. In the event a regional division representative on the nominating committee wishes to be a candidate for an officer or at-large position, the Cal Cities President will appoint a substitute nominating committee member from the same regional division, if available. If one is not available, the President shall appoint a substitute from a nearby regional division. (e) Duties. The duties of the nominating committee are to:
(i) Member Outreach. Publicize the qualifications for the offices of Second Vice Vice-President/Treasurer and the at-large members of the Cal Cities Board to Cal Cities’ Member Cities;
(ii) At-Large and Second Vice-President Recommendations. Make recommendations to the Cal Cities Board on the following year’s Cal Cities officers and at-large board membersDirectors; and (iii) President and First Vice President Recommendation.
Recommend whether the previous year’s First Vice President 10
becomes President and the previous year’s Second VicePresident/Treasurer becomes First Vice President. (f) Notice to Members. An explanation of the nomination process and relevant deadlines for submitting nominations to the nominating committee shall be publicized in Cal Cities publications and communications throughout the year, along with the identity of nominating committee members once such members are appointed. In addition, the nominating committee shall inform the membership of the opening of the nominations for the following year when it makes its report to the general membership as provided in Article VI, Section 5(g) below.
(g) Decision and Report. The nominating committee’s recommendations shall be communicated to the Cal Cities Board not later than 30 days prior to the date of Cal Cities’ Annual Conference and again at the Annual Conference.
In addition, the nominating committee shall make its report to the membership at the opening general session of the Annual Conference. (h) Election. The election of Cal Cities Board officers and Directors-at-Large shall occur at a Cal Cities Board meeting at the Annual Conference as provided in Article VII, Section 4(c) and Article VII, section 3. …
Section 8: Meetings and Meeting Notice.
(a) Regularly Scheduled Board Meetings. The Cal Cities Board shall meet no fewer than four times a year. Notice of regularly scheduled Board meetings shall be mailed to each Director at least 14 days before any such meeting. (b) Emergency Board Meetings. A good faith effort shall be made to provide notice of any emergency board meetings (for example, by first-class mail, personal or telephone notification, including a voice messaging system or other system or technology designed to record and communicate messages, telegraph, facsimile, electronic mail, or other electronic means). (c) Telephonic or Electronic Participation. Members of the Cal Cities Board may participate in any meeting through the use of conference telephone or similar communications equipment, so long as all members participating in such meeting can hear one another. Participation in a meeting by this means constitutes presence in person at such meeting.
(d) Notice Content. All meeting notices shall include the meeting date, place, time, and, as applicable, the means by which a Cal Cities Board memberDirector may participate electronically.
…
11
Section 10: Committees.
(a) General. The Cal Cities Board may establish committees to study city problems, advise on Cal Cities educational efforts, make recommendations with respect to Cal Cities advocacy efforts, or to engage in other appropriate Cal Cities service.
(b) Executive Committee.
(i) Composition. The Executive Committee of the Cal Cities Board consists of the following: the Cal Cities President, First VicePresident, Second Vice-President/Treasurer, Immediate Past President and Executive Director.
(ii) Authority. The Executive Committee has authority to act for the Cal Cities Board between Board meetings, provided that no action of the Executive Committee is binding on the Cal Cities Board unless authorized or approved by the Board.
(c) Standing Policy Committees.
(i) Charge. Cal Cities shall have a series of standing policy committees, whose charge shall be to make recommendations to the Cal Cities Board on matters within the committees’ jurisdiction, as well as fulfill other duties specified in these bylaws (see, for example, Article VI, section 4(b)).
(ii) Membership. Each Cal Cities Policy Committee shall be comprised of the following:
• Two members appointed by each regional division president; • One member appointed by each functional department president; • One member appointed by each caucus president;
• No more than 16 members appointed by the Cal Cities President, to provide population and geographic balance, as well as expertise; and
• Such representatives of affiliate organizations in the capacity authorized by the Cal Cities Board.
(iii) Feedback. Policy committees shall receive information on actions taken on committee recommendations and the reasons for those actions.
12
(d) Committee Chairs and Vice Chairs. Unless the Cal Cities Board establishes otherwise, Tthe Cal Cities President appoints the chair of all CalCities-wide committees. The term of such appointments coincides with the Cal Cities President’s term. The Cal Cities President may appoint vice chairs for such committees, as the Cal Cities President deems necessary. …
Article VIII: Officers
Section 1: Identity.
The officers of Cal Cities are a President, a First Vice-President, a Second VicePresident/Treasurer, an Immediate Past President, and an Executive Director.
Section 2: Duties of Cal Cities Officers.
(a) President. The President presides at all Cal Cities Board meetings and all General Assemblies. The President has such other powers and duties as may be prescribed by these bylaws or the Cal Cities Board. (b) First Vice-President. The First Vice-President carries on the duties of the President in the President’s temporary absence or incapacity. The First VicePresident has such other powers and duties as may be prescribed by these bylaws or the Cal Cities Board.
(c) Second Vice-President/Treasurer. The Second Vice-President/Treasurer carries on the duties of the President in the President’s and First VicePresident’s temporary absence or incapacity. The Second VicePresident/Treasurer has such other powers and duties as may be prescribed by these bylaws or the Cal Cities Board.
…
Section 4: Vacancies.
A vacancy in the office of President is filled by the Immediate Past President who shall serve for the unexpired term of office and, upon election of a new President at the next Annual Conference, shall subsequently serve a full term as Immediate Past President.
In the event the Immediate Past President is not available to fill the vacancy in the office of the President, or declines in writing, it shall be filled by the succession of the First Vice-President to that office. A vacancy in the office of First Vice-President, or Second Vice-President/Treasurer, is filled for the un-expired term by appointment by the Cal Cities Board of a member of the Cal Cities Board. A vacancy in the office of the Immediate Past President is filled for the un-expired term by the last Past President continuing to hold a city office.
…
13
Article XII: Voting
…
Section 5: Mail Balloting.
In addition to voting at Cal Cities meetings, Cal Cities may solicit member input by mail ballot.
(a) Mailing.10 The question(s) to be voted upon, along with explanatory materials and a ballot, shall be mailed by first class mail to each Member City for consideration and action.
(b) Time Frame for Action. Member Cities shall have at least 45 days to cast their vote. Ballots shall be cast by returning the Member City’s ballot to Cal Cities’ principal office in Sacramento.
(c) Ballot Tabulation and Results Announcement. The Cal Cities President will appoint a counting committee of three board membersDirectors to count the votes cast by mail ballot. The counting committee will submit its count to the Cal Cities Board, which shall canvass the vote and announce the results. (d) Functional Departments, Regional Divisions, and Caucuses.
Departments, divisions, and caucuses may also use mail balloting under procedures specified in their respective bylaws.
…
Article XV: Prohibited Transactions
…
Section 4: Ethical Considerations.
These restrictions, of course, represent the floor, not the ceiling, for ethical conduct as a Cal Cities board memberDirector or policy committee member. If a board memberDirector or policy committee member believes that there are circumstances under which Cal Cities’ members might reasonably question the board member’sDirector’s or policy committee member’s ability to act solely in the best interests of Cal Cities and its member cities, the prudent course is to abstain. As an example, typically Cal Cities board membersDirectors have abstained from participating in decisions on legislation that would affect organizations for which they work. Another example is legislation that would uniquely benefit a board member’sDirector’s city.
Policy committee members should also consider abstaining in similar circumstances. 10 The Administrative Services Committee recommends Cal Cities also include notice of the upcoming ballot in a variety of Cal Cities communications to alert Member Cities to make inquiry in the event a city’s ballot is lost in the mail. 14
1400 K Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95814 • 916.658.8200 • calcities.org DATE: June 1, 2022
TO: City Managers and City Clerks
RE: DESIGNATION OF VOTING DELEGATES AND ALTERNATES
League of California Cities Annual Conference & Expo – September 7-9, 2022 Cal Cities 2022 Annual Conference & Expo is scheduled for September 7-9, 2022 in Long Beach. An important part of the Annual Conference is the Annual Business Meeting (during General Assembly) on Friday, September 9. At this meeting, Cal Cities membership considers and acts on resolutions that establish Cal Cities policy.
In order to vote at the Annual Business Meeting, your city council must designate a voting delegate. Your city may also appoint up to two alternate voting delegates, one of whom may vote if the designated voting delegate is unable to serve in that capacity.
Please complete the attached Voting Delegate form and return it to Cal Cities office no later than Friday, September 2. This will allow us time to establish voting delegate/alternate records prior to the conference.
Please view Cal Cities’ event and meeting policy in advance of the conference. • Action by Council Required. Consistent with Cal Cities bylaws, a city’s voting delegate and up to two alternates must be designated by the city council.
When completing the attached Voting Delegate form, please attach either a copy of the council resolution that reflects the council action taken, or have your city clerk or mayor sign the form affirming that the names provided are those selected by the city council. Please note that designating the voting delegate and alternates must be done by city council action and cannot be accomplished by individual action of the mayor or city manager alone. • Conference Registration Required. The voting delegate and alternates must be registered to attend the conference. They need not register for the entire conference; they may register for Friday only. Conference registration will open by June 1 on the Cal Cities website. In order to cast a vote, at least one voter must be present at the Business Meeting and in possession of the voting delegate card. Voting delegates and alternates need to pick up their conference badges before signing in and picking up the voting delegate card at the Voting Delegate Desk. This will enable them to receive the special sticker on their name badges that will admit them into the voting area during the Business Meeting.
Council Action Advised by August 31, 2022
• Transferring Voting Card to Non-Designated Individuals Not Allowed. The voting delegate card may be transferred freely between the voting delegate and alternates, but only between the voting delegate and alternates. If the voting delegate and alternates find themselves unable to attend the Business Meeting, they may not transfer the voting card to another city official. • Seating Protocol during General Assembly. At the Business Meeting, individuals with the voting card will sit in a separate area. Admission to this area will be limited to those individuals with a special sticker on their name badge identifying them as a voting delegate or alternate. If the voting delegate and alternates wish to sit together, they must sign in at the Voting Delegate Desk and obtain the special sticker on their badges.
The Voting Delegate Desk, located in the conference registration area of the Long Beach Convention Center, will be open at the following times: Wednesday, September 7, 8:00 a.m. – 6:00 p.m.; Thursday, September 8, 7:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m.; and Friday, September 9, 7:30 a.m.–12:30 p.m. The Voting Delegate Desk will also be open at the Business Meeting on Friday, but will be closed during roll calls and voting.
The voting procedures that will be used at the conference are attached to this memo.
Please share these procedures and this memo with your council and especially with the individuals that your council designates as your city’s voting delegate and alternates.
Once again, thank you for completing the voting delegate and alternate form and returning it to Cal Cities office by Friday, September 2. If you have questions, please call Darla Yacub at (916) 658-8254.
Attachments:
• Annual Conference Voting Procedures
• Voting Delegate/Alternate Form
1400 K Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95814 • 916.658.8200 • calcities.org Annual Conference Voting Procedures
1. One City One Vote. Each member city has a right to cast one vote on matters pertaining to Cal Cities policy.
2. Designating a City Voting Representative. Prior to the Annual Conference, each city council may designate a voting delegate and up to two alternates; these individuals are identified on the Voting Delegate Form provided to the Cal Cities Credentials Committee.
3. Registering with the Credentials Committee. The voting delegate, or alternates, may pick up the city's voting card at the Voting Delegate Desk in the conference registration area. Voting delegates and alternates must sign in at the Voting Delegate Desk. Here they will receive a special sticker on their name badge and thus be admitted to the voting area at the Business Meeting.
4. Signing Initiated Resolution Petitions. Only those individuals who are voting delegates (or alternates), and who have picked up their city’s voting card by providing a signature to the Credentials Committee at the Voting Delegate Desk, may sign petitions to initiate a resolution.
5. Voting. To cast the city's vote, a city official must have in their possession the city's voting card and be registered with the Credentials Committee. The voting card may be transferred freely between the voting delegate and alternates, but may not be transferred to another city official who is neither a voting delegate or alternate.
6. Voting Area at Business Meeting. At the Business Meeting, individuals with a voting card will sit in a designated area. Admission will be limited to those individuals with a special sticker on their name badge identifying them as a voting delegate or alternate.
7. Resolving Disputes. In case of dispute, the Credentials Committee will determine the validity of signatures on petitioned resolutions and the right of a city official to vote at the Business Meeting.
CITY:________________________________________
2022 ANNUAL CONFERENCE
VOTING DELEGATE/ALTERNATE FORM
Please complete this form and return it to Cal Cities office by Friday, September 2, 2022. Forms not sent by this deadline may be submitted to the Voting Delegate Desk located in the Annual Conference Registration Area. Your city council may designate one voting delegate and up to two alternates.
To vote at the Annual Business Meeting (General Assembly), voting delegates and alternates must be designated by your city council. Please attach the council resolution as proof of designation. As an alternative, the Mayor or City Clerk may sign this form, affirming that the designation reflects the action taken by the council.
Please note: Voting delegates and alternates will be seated in a separate area at the Annual Business Meeting. Admission to this designated area will be limited to individuals (voting delegates and alternates) who are identified with a special sticker on their conference badge. This sticker can be obtained only at the Voting Delegate Desk.
1. VOTING DELEGATE
Name:
Title:
2. VOTING DELEGATE - ALTERNATE 3. VOTING DELEGATE - ALTERNATE Name: Name:
Title: Title:
ATTACH COUNCIL RESOLUTION DESIGNATING VOTING DELEGATE AND ALTERNATES OR ATTEST: I affirm that the information provided reflects action by the city council to designate the voting delegate and alternate(s).
Name: ____________________________________ Email_________________________________ Mayor or City Clerk_________________________ Date____________ Phone________________ (circle one) (signature) Please complete and return by Friday, September 2, 2022 to:
Darla Yacub, Assistant to the Administrative Services Director E-mail: [email protected]; Phone: (916) 658-8254