Morgan Hill City Council
December 7, 2022

13 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: December 7, 2022
PREPARED BY:

Inga Alonzo, Management Analyst
APPROVED BY: City Manager

APPROVE CONSULTANT AGREEMENT WITH AKEL ENGINEERING

FOR SEWER SYSTEM MASTER PLAN UPDATE

RECOMMENDATION(S)

1. Authorize the City Manager to execute a consultant agreement with Akel Engineering Group, Inc. in the amount of $180,827 to update the Wastewater System Master Plan; and

2. Adopt a resolution appropriating $80,827 from Fund 641 amending the Fiscal Year (FY) 2022-23 Capital Improvement Budget.

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
Guiding Documents
Wastewater System Master Plan
REPORT NARRATIVE:

Upon the completion of the 2035 General Plan in 2016, the City’s utilities master plans were updated to reflect the infrastructure needs associated with the growth anticipated in the General Plan. The City’s 2017 Sewer System Master Plan (SSMP) was developed by Akel Engineering and approved by City Council in October 2017. The 2017 SSMP included the development and updating of a hydraulic model, estimation of future demands based on land use and population planning assumptions, capacity evaluations of the sewer system, suggested improvements for mitigating existing deficiencies and servicing future growth, and the development of a five-year capital improvement plan and suggested expenditure budget.

The objective of this project is to update the 2017 SSMP to reflect current conditions and trends and to also include the following tasks:
 Update/Expand the hydraulic model to include significantly more pipes

13  Update the flows
 Complete a Flow Monitoring System
 Recalibrate the hydraulic model
 Evaluate the capacity of the existing system
 Propose improvements to service growth
 Integrate the multiple supporting studies and assessments conducted over the last 5 years
 Develop a Capital Improvement Program, including projects for system expansion and renew/replace projects
 Update the Wastewater Master Plan report.

Staff is proposing the use of Akel Engineering for this update to the Sewer System Master Plan as Akel developed the existing hydraulic model and has extensive experience developing infrastructure plans under the existing general plan. Akel also has extensive knowledge of the City’s infrastructure and is very familiar with the City's anticipated development due to recent past work on the Water System Master Plan update. Bringing on a new consultant for this update is likely to result in slower and more expensive work. City staff believe that the best time to go out for proposals on infrastructure master plans would be following the next update to the General Plan.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:

Inform
This project includes up to two public meetings via zoom to inform the public of the Wastewater System Master Plan updates and to address any questions.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:

Council could decide to direct staff to formally request proposals for this work but that is not recommended because any new consultant coming in without prior background information is likely to require more compensation and will require significantly more City staff support to update the Sewer System Master Plan.

PRIOR CITY COUNCIL AND COMMISSION ACTIONS:

In 2013, Council approved an agreement with Placeworks to work on the City’s General Plan. Akel worked as a subconsultant to develop the Sewer System Master Plan. The 2017 SSMP was adopted by City Council on October 18, 2017.

FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT:

The adopted Capital Improvement Program budget has $100,000 for this in project 110023 for FY 2022-23. Staff is recommending appropriating $80,827 from Fund 641, the Sewer Impact Fund, to fully fund the $180,827 project.

CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act):

Not a Project

13 Continuing administrative activities and feasibility or planning studies for possible future actions that the agency has not approved, adopted, or funded are not considered projects for environmental review under CEQA.

1 Updated July 2022

CONSULTANT AGREEMENT
AKEL ENGINEERING GROUP, INC.

THIS AGREEMENT is entered into and becomes effective on _______________ (Effective Date), by and between the CITY OF MORGAN HILL, a municipal corporation, ("CITY"), and Akel Engineering Group, Inc. a California corporation ("CONSULTANT") hereinafter referred to collectively as “Parties.” In consideration of the promises and the mutual covenants contained in this Agreement, the Parties agree as follows:

1. City Authority. This Agreement is entered into pursuant to the action of the Morgan Hill City Council taken on ___________, ____, 20___.

2. Term of Agreement. This Agreement shall cover services rendered from the Effective Date of this Agreement until December 31, 2023 at which time CONSULTANT’S services shall be completed. The City Manager is authorized to extend the term of this Agreement for a maximum period of one year. Any such extension shall be in writing and signed by both Parties to this Agreement.

3. Scope of Service. The services to be performed by CONSULTANT shall be Sewer System Master Plan Update for 2023 as further described in Exhibit A.

4. Compensation. CONSULTANT shall be compensated as follows:

4.1. Amount. $180,827.00. Total compensation to CONSULTANT under this Agreement during its initial term set forth in Section 2 above shall not exceed One Hundred-Eighty Thousand Eight Hundred Twenty-Seven dollars and shall be billed based on the rate and basis set forth in Exhibit B. If the City Manager extends the term of this Agreement pursuant to the provisions of Section 2 above, the City Manager shall have the authority to increase the maximum compensation allowed to be paid to CONSULTANT, so long as City Council has appropriated sufficient funds therefor, the Parties mutually agree to such amount in a writing signed by both Parties to this Agreement and provided further that in no event shall such maximum compensation allowed for the term exceed the City Manager's authority pursuant to Chapter

3.04 of the Morgan Hill Municipal Code, unless otherwise authorized by City Council.

4.2. Billing. CONSULTANT shall provide CITY with an invoice containing the dated, detailed, and itemized descriptions of all services performed and expenses incurred (if such expenses are reimbursable pursuant to Exhibit B) by CONSULTANT on a monthly basis unless otherwise specified in Exhibit B. All invoices shall be sent to the CITY addressed to the department head or project manager identified below in Section 13 Notices. Any rate charged shall be prorated where services are interrupted or not provided for any rate period (for example, any monthly rate charge should be prorated when services were interrupted or provided for only part of the month). For services billed on an hourly rate, the minimum unit of billed time shall not exceed one tenth of one hour. CITY shall pay for services and expenses (if so provided in Exhibit B) up to the limit of compensation set forth above, that in the CITY’s judgment were necessary and reasonable. Services for work performed and expenses incurred in excess of the total compensation set forth in paragraph 4.1 above shall be at no cost to CITY.

5. Termination. CITY or CONSULTANT shall have the right to terminate this Agreement, without cause, by giving thirty (30) days' written notice or less under urgent circumstances. Upon such termination, CONSULTANT shall submit to CITY an itemized statement of services performed for which compensation has not been paid. CITY may require CONSULTANT to complete certain work product or documents and CONSULTANT shall deliver to CITY all documents in its possession without additional compensation to

2 Updated July 2022
CONSULTANT. The City Manager of CITY is authorized to terminate this Agreement, in whole or in part, on behalf of CITY.

5.1. Non-Appropriations. Notwithstanding anything contained in this Agreement to the contrary, if insufficient funds are appropriated, or funds are otherwise unavailable in the budget for CITY for any reason whatsoever in any fiscal year, for payments due under this Agreement, CITY will immediately notify CONSULTANT of such occurrence, and this Agreement shall terminate after the last day during the fiscal year for which appropriations shall have been budgeted for CITY or are otherwise available for payments.

6. Performance of Work. CONSULTANT represents that it is qualified by virtue of experience, training, education, and expertise to accomplish these services. Services shall be performed by CONSULTANT in accordance with professional practices in a manner consistent with a level of care, competence and skill exercised by qualified members of the CONSULTANT’S profession. By delivery of completed work, CONSULTANT certifies that the work conforms to the requirements of this Agreement and all applicable federal, state and local laws. CONSULTANT shall perform all work and services under this Agreement in conformance with the time schedule set forth on Exhibit C, "Schedule of Performance," attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference. CITY's City Manager is authorized on behalf of CITY to modify the timeframes set forth on the Schedule of Performance within the term of this Agreement. If CONSULTANT desires to leave or store any of CONSULTANT's equipment at a CITY site while CONSULTANT is performing work or service pursuant to this Agreement, CONSULTANT will first obtain the consent of CITY's City Manager, or his/her delegate, to do so, and any such storage shall occur only in the manner and location allowed by such CITY official and entirely at CONSULTANT's sole risk.

7. Insurance Requirements. CONSULTANT shall procure and provide proof of the insurance coverage required by this section in the form of certificates and endorsements. The required insurance must cover the activities of CONSULTANT, including its subcontractors, employees and agents, relating to or arising from the performance of any work or service under this Agreement, and must remain in full force and effect at all times during the period covered by this Agreement. The coverages may be arranged under a single policy for the full limits required or by a combination of underlying policies with the balance provided by excess or “umbrella” policies, provided each such policy complies with the requirements set forth herein. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by City. CONSULTANT further understands that the CITY reserves the right to modify the insurance requirements set forth herein, with thirty (30) days’ notice provided to CONSULTANT, at any time as deemed necessary to protect the interests of the CITY.

7.1. Insurance Types and Amounts.

7.1.1. Commercial General Liability (CGL). CONSULTANT shall maintain CGL against claims and liabilities for personal injury, death, or property damage providing protection in the minimum amount of: (i) one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) combined single limit for any one accident or occurrence, or (ii) the maximum amount of such insurance available to CONSULTANT under CONSULTANT's combined insurance policies (including any excess or “umbrella” policies), whichever is greater.

7.1.2. Automobile Liability. CONSULTANT shall maintain Automobile Liability covering all owned, non-owned and hired automobiles (if CONSULTANT does not own automobiles, then CONSULTANT shall maintain Hired/Non-owned Automobile Liability) against claims and liabilities for personal injury, death, or property damage providing protection in the minimum amount of: (i) one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) combined single limit for any one accident or occurrence, or (ii) the maximum amount

3 Updated July 2022
of such insurance available to CONSULTANT under CONSULTANT's combined insurance policies (including any excess or “umbrella” policies), whichever is greater.

7.1.3. Workers’ Compensation Insurance and Employer’s Liability. CONSULTANT shall maintain Workers Compensation coverage, as required by law, in the minimum amount of: (i) one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) for any one accident or occurrence, or (ii) the maximum amount of such insurance available to CONSULTANT under CONSULTANT's combined insurance policies (including any excess or “umbrella” policies), whichever is greater. If CONSULTANT is self-insured, CONSULTANT shall provide its Certificate of Permission to Self-Insure, duly authorized by the Department of Industrial Relations.

7.1.4. Pollution (Environmental) Liability. If the performance of CONSULTANT’S work or service under this Agreement involves hazardous materials, contaminated soil disposal, and/or a risk of accidental release of fuel oil, chemicals or other toxic gases or hazardous materials, CONSULTANT shall procure and maintain Pollution Liability covering the CONSULTANT’S liability for bodily injury, property damage and environmental damage resulting from pollution and related cleanup costs arising out of the work or services to be performed under this Agreement. Coverage shall be provided for both work performed on site, as well as during the transport of hazardous materials.

Such coverage shall be in the minimum amount of: (i) one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) for any one accident or occurrence, or (ii) the maximum amount of such insurance available to CONSULTANT under CONSULTANT's combined insurance policies (including any excess or “umbrella” policies), whichever is greater.

7.1.5. Professional Liability.

7.1.5.1. If the performance of CONSULTANT’s work or service under this Agreement involves professional and/or technical services (examples include, but are not limited to, architects, engineers, land surveyors, and appraisers), CONSULTANT shall procure and maintain either a claims made or occurrence Errors and Omission liability insurance in the minimum amount of: (i) one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) each claim, or (ii) the maximum amount of such insurance available to CONSULTANT under CONSULTANT's combined insurance policies (including any excess or “umbrella” policies), whichever is greater. Further, if CONSULTANT maintains a claims-made policy, CONSULTANT shall provide written evidence of such insurance to the CITY for at least five (5) years after the completion of work performed under this Agreement.

7.1.5.2. If the performance of CONSULTANT’s work or service under this Agreement relates to Information Technology or related services (examples include, but are not limited to computer programmers, software designers, hardware engineers, or other systems consultants), CONSULTANT shall procure and maintain a claims made Errors and Omission liability insurance, including Cyber Liability and Data Breach, in the minimum amount of: (i) one million dollars ($1,000,000.00) each claim, or (ii) the maximum amount of such insurance available to CONSULTANT under CONSULTANT's combined insurance policies (including any excess or “umbrella” policies), whichever is greater.

7.1.6. Sexual Abuse/Molestation Liability (SML): If the performance of CONSULTANT's work or service under this Agreement involves contact with minors, CONSULTANT shall

4 Updated July 2022
procure and maintain Sexual Abuse and Molestation insurance in the minimum amount of: (i) two hundred thousand dollars ($200,000.00) each claim, or (ii) the maximum amount of such insurance available to CONSULTANT under CONSULTANT's combined insurance policies (including any excess or “umbrella” policies), whichever is greater.

7.1.7. Crime/Fidelity Bond. If the performance of CONSULTANT’S work or service under this Agreement relates to or involves handling of CITY monies, CONSULTANT shall procure and maintain Crime insurance, in the minimum amount of: (i) three hundred thousand dollars ($300,000.00) per occurrence, covering all CONSULTANT’S officers and employees, for loss of CITY monies caused by dishonesty and/or theft.

7.2. Endorsements. CONSULTANT shall provide proof of the following endorsements, listed for each policy for which endorsements are required, as outlined below:

7.2.1. General Liability and pollution liability (when pollution liability applies).

7.2.1.1. “Additionally Insured” - The City of Morgan Hill, its elected or appointed officials, boards, agencies, officers, agents, employees, and volunteers are named as additional insureds on a form at least as broad as ISO Form CG 20 10 for ongoing operations.

7.2.1.2. “Waiver of Rights of Subrogation” - The insurer waives the right of subrogation against the City of Morgan Hill and CITY’S elected or appointed officials, boards, agencies, officers, agents, employees, and volunteers; and

7.2.1.3. “Primary and Non-Contributing” - Insurance shall be endorsed to be primary and non-contributory and will not seek contribution from the City’s insurance or selfinsurance and shall be at least as broad as ISO Form CG 20 01.

7.2.2. Workers Compensation.

If the performance of CONSULTANT’S work or service under this Agreement involves access to or activity on any property or premises owned or occupied by the CITY, including, but not limited to, CONSULTANT’S presence during site visits and meetings, then insurer waives the right of subrogation against the City of Morgan Hill and the CITY’s elected or appointed officials, boards, agencies, officers, agents, employees, and volunteers.

7.3. Qualification of Insurers. All insurance required pursuant to this Agreement must be issued by a company licensed and admitted, or otherwise legally authorized to carry out insurance business in the State of California, and each insurer must have a current A.M. Best's financial strength rating of “A” or better and a financial size rating of “VII” or better.

7.4. Certificates. CONSULTANT shall furnish CITY of Morgan Hill with copies of all certificates as outlined herein, whether new or modified, promptly upon receipt. In the event of a claim or legal action, CONSULTANT shall promptly furnish CITY of Morgan Hill with copies of all policies outlined herein. No policy subject to the CONSULTANT’s agreement with the CITY shall be canceled or materially changed except after thirty (30) days' notice by the insurer to CITY. A "material change" is a change that results in non-compliance with any insurance requirements in this section 7. Certificates, including renewal certificates, may be mailed

5 Updated July 2022
electronically to [email protected] or delivered to the Certificate Holder address provided herein.

Certificate Holder address:

City of Morgan Hill
Attn: Risk Management
17575 Peak Avenue
Morgan Hill, CA 95037

8. Non-Liability of Officials and Employees of the CITY. No official or employee of CITY shall be personally liable for any default or liability under this Agreement.

9. Compliance with Law.

9.1. CONSULTANT and its officers, employees, agents, and subcontractors shall comply with all applicable laws, ordinances, administrative regulations, and permitting requirements in carrying out their obligations under this Agreement. CONSULTANT and its officers, employees, agents, and subcontractors covenant there shall be no discrimination based upon race, color, creed, religion, gender, marital status, age, sexual orientation, national origin, mental disability, physical disability, medical condition, or ancestry, in any activity pursuant to this Agreement.

9.2. Compliance with Wage and Hour Laws: Consultant, and any subcontractor it employs to complete work under this Agreement, shall comply with all applicable federal, state and local wage and hour laws. Applicable laws may include, but are not limited to, the Federal Fair Labor Standards Act and the California Labor Code.

Final Judgments, Decisions, and Orders: For purposes of this Section, a “final judgment, decision, or order” refers to one for which all appeals have been exhausted or the time to appeal has expired. Relevant investigatory government agencies include: the federal Department of Labor, the California Division of Labor Standards Enforcement, or any other governmental entity or division tasked with the investigation and enforcement of wage and hour laws.

Prior Judgments against CONSULTANT and/or its Subcontractors: BY SIGNING THIS

AGREEMENT, CONSULTANT AFFIRMS THAT IT HAS DISCLOSED ANY FINAL

JUDGMENTS, DECISIONS OR ORDERS FROM A COURT OR INVESTIGATORY GOVERNMENT AGENCY FINDING – IN THE FIVE (5) YEARS PRIOR TO EXECUTING THIS AGREEMENT – THAT CONSULTANT OR ITS SUBCONTRACTOR(S) HAS VIOLATED ANY APPLICABLE WAGE AND HOUR LAWS. CONSULTANT FURTHER AFFIRMS THAT IT OR ITS SUBCONTRACTOR(S) HAS SATISFIED AND COMPLIED WITH – OR HAS REACHED AGREEMENT WITH THE CITY REGARDING THE MANNER IN WHICH IT WILL SATISFY – ANY SUCH JUDGMENTS, DECISIONS OR ORDERS.

Judgments or Decisions During Term of Contract: If at any time during the term of this Agreement, a court or investigatory government agency issues a final judgment, decision or order finding that CONSULTANT or an subcontractor it employs to perform work under this Agreement has violated any applicable wage and hour law, or CONSULTANT learns of such a judgment, decision, or order that was not previously disclosed, CONSULTANT shall inform the City Attorney, no more than fifteen (15) days after the judgment, decision or order becomes

6 Updated July 2022
final or of learning of the final judgment, decision or order. CONSULTANT and its subcontractors shall promptly satisfy and comply with any such judgment, decision, or order, and shall provide the City Attorney with documentary evidence of compliance with the final judgment, decision or order within five (5) days of satisfying the final judgment, decision or order. The City reserves the right to require CONSULTANT to enter into an agreement with the City regarding the manner in which any such final judgment, decision, or order will be satisfied.

City’s Right to Withhold Payment: Where CONSULTANT or any subcontractor it employs to perform work under this Agreement has been found in violation of any applicable wage and hour law by a final judgment, decision or order of a court or government agency, the City reserves the right to withhold payment to CONSULTANT until such judgment, decision or order has been satisfied in full.

Material Breach: Failure to comply with any part of this Section constitutes a material breach of this Agreement. Such breach may serve as a basis for immediate termination of this Agreement and/or any other remedies available under this Agreement and/or law.

Notice to City Related to Wage Theft Prevention: Notice provided to the City Attorney as required under this Section shall be addressed to: City Attorney, City of Morgan Hill, 17575 Peak Avenue, Morgan Hill, CA 95037. The Notice provisions of this Section are separate from any other notice provisions in this Agreement and, accordingly, only notice provided to the above address satisfies the notice requirements in this Section.

10. Independent Contractor. CONSULTANT is an independent contractor and not an agent or employee of CITY.

11. Confidentiality. All data, documents, or other information received by CONSULTANT from CITY or prepared in connection with CONSULTANT’S services under this Agreement are deemed confidential and shall not be disclosed to any third party by CONSULTANT without prior written consent by CITY.

12. Conflict of Interest and Reporting. CONSULTANT shall at all times avoid conflict of interest or appearance of conflict of interest in performance of this Agreement.

13. Notices. All notices shall be personally delivered or mailed, via first class mail to the below listed address. These addresses shall be used for delivery of service of process. Notices shall be effective five (5) days after date of mailing, or upon date of personal delivery.

Address of CONSULTANT is as follows:

Akel Engineering Group
7433 North First Street, Suite 103
Fresno, CA 93720
Address of CITY is as follows:

Utilities Division
City of Morgan Hill
17575 Peak Avenue
Morgan Hill, CA 95037
with a copy to:

City Clerk
City of Morgan Hill
17575 Peak Avenue
Morgan Hill, CA 95037

7 Updated July 2022

14. Licenses, Permits and Fees. CONSULTANT shall obtain a City of Morgan Hill Business License, all permits and licenses to the extent required by ordinances, codes and regulations of the federal, state and local government.

15. Consultant's Proposal. If applicable, this Agreement shall include CONSULTANT'S proposal or bid which is incorporated herein. In the event of any inconsistency between the terms of the proposal and this Agreement, this Agreement shall govern.

16. Maintenance of Records.

16.1. Maintenance. CONSULTANT shall prepare, maintain, and preserve all reports and records that may be required by federal, state, and CITY rules and ordinances related to services provided under this Agreement. CONSULTANT shall maintain records for a period of at least 3 years after receipt of final payment under this Agreement. If any litigation, claim, negotiation, audit exception, or other action relating to this Agreement is pending at the end of the 3-year period, then CONSULTANT shall retain said records until such action is resolved.

16.2. Access to and Audit of Records. The CITY shall have the right to examine, monitor and audit all records, documents, conditions, and activities of the CONSULTANT and its subcontractors related to services under this Agreement. Pursuant to Government Code Section 8546.7, if this Agreement involves the expenditure of public funds in excess of $10,000, the Parties to this Agreement may be subject, at the request of the CITY or as part of any audit of the CITY, to the examination and audit of the State Auditor pertaining to matters connected with the performance of this Agreement for a period of three years after final payment under the Agreement.

16.3. Ownership of Work Product. All documents or other information developed or received by CONSULTANT for work performed under this Agreement shall be the property of CITY.

CONSULTANT shall provide CITY with copies of these items upon demand or upon termination of this Agreement.

17. Familiarity with Work. By executing this Agreement, CONSULTANT represents that: (1) it has investigated the work to be performed; (2) it has investigated the site of the work and is aware of all conditions there; and (3) it understands the difficulties and restrictions of the work under this Agreement. Should CONSULTANT discover any conditions materially differing from those inherent in the work or as represented by CITY, it shall immediately inform CITY and shall not proceed, except at CONSULTANT'S risk, until written instructions are received from CITY.

18. Time of Essence. Time is of the essence in the performance of this Agreement.

19. No Assignment. Neither this Agreement nor any portion shall be assigned by CONSULTANT, without prior written consent of CITY. Any attempted assignment not first approved by CITY shall be void and, at CITY's option, shall terminate this Agreement effective as of the date of such attempted assignment.

20. Attorney Fees. In any legal action, dispute or arbitration arising out of or relating to this Agreement, the prevailing party shall be entitled to an award of its reasonable attorney fees, costs and expenses incurred.

21. Defense and Indemnification.

8 Updated July 2022

21.1. Defense and Indemnification. CONSULTANT shall, to the fullest extent permitted by law, indemnify, defend and hold harmless CITY, its elected or appointed officials, boards, agencies, officers, agents, employees, and volunteers (“INDEMNITEES”) from and against any and all claims, liabilities, expenses, liens, or damages of any nature, including liability for bodily injury, property damage or personal injury, and including reasonable attorneys' fees and expenses, that arise out of, pertain to, or relate to the performance of this Agreement or the failure to comply with any obligations contained in this Agreement by CONSULTANT, and/or its agents, officers, employees, subcontractors, or independent contractors (“CLAIM”).

21.2. Exceptions. CONSULTANT is not required to indemnify INDEMNITEES against liability for bodily injury, property damage or personal injury, or any other loss, damage or expense arising from the sole negligence or willful misconduct of the CITY.

21.3. Not limited by insurance. The indemnity, defense and hold harmless provisions of this Agreement apply to all CLAIMs alleged against an INDEMNITEE, regardless of whether any insurance policies are applicable. Policy limits do not act as a limitation upon the amount of indemnification or defense to be provided by CONSULTANT.

21.4. Right to Offset. CITY shall have the right to offset against any compensation due CONSULTANT under this Agreement any amount due CITY from CONSULTANT as a result of CONSULTANT's failure to pay CITY promptly any indemnification arising under this Section (21) and any amount due CITY from CONSULTANT arising from CONSULTANT's failure either to (i) pay taxes on amounts received pursuant to this Agreement or (ii) comply with applicable workers' compensation laws.

21.5. Interpretation. This Section shall constitute an agreement or contract of indemnity, incorporating the interpretations under California Civil Code Section 2778. It is expressly understood and agreed that the obligation of the CONSULTANT to indemnify the INDEMNITEE shall be as broad and inclusive as permitted by the laws of the State of California and shall survive termination of this Agreement.

22. Entire Agreement; Modification; Conflicting Provisions. This Agreement constitutes the entire Agreement between the Parties and supersedes any previous agreements, oral or written. This Agreement may be modified or provisions waived only by a subsequent mutual written agreement executed by CITY and CONSULTANT. If the provisions contained in the main body of this Agreement conflict with any provision contained in an exhibit to this Agreement, the provisions of the main body of this Agreement shall govern and control over any provision contained in an exhibit to this Agreement.

23. Governing Law and Venue. This Agreement shall be construed in accordance with the laws of the State of California. This Agreement was entered into and is to be performed in the County of Santa Clara.

Any action or dispute arising out of this Agreement shall only be brought in Santa Clara County.

24. Interpretation. This Agreement is a negotiated document and shall be deemed to have been drafted jointly by the Parties, and no rule of construction or interpretation shall apply against any particular Party based on a contention that the Agreement was drafted by one of the Parties including, but not limited to, California Civil Code § 1654, the provisions of which are hereby waived. This Agreement shall be construed and interpreted in a neutral manner.

25. Preservation of Agreement. If any term, provision, covenant, or condition of this Agreement is held by a court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid or unenforceable, the rest of the Agreement shall remain in full force and effect and shall in no way be affected or invalidated.

9 Updated July 2022

26. Binding Agreement. Notwithstanding the provisions of Section 19 above, this Agreement shall bind any and all successors in interest, legal representatives and/or other permitted assignees or transferees of CONSULTANT in the same manner as if those successors in interest, legal representatives or other permitted assignees or transferees had entered into this Agreement originally.

27. ☐ Data Sharing. This Agreement requires access by CONSULTANT to CITY’s Geographic Information System (GIS) DATA for CONSULTANT to perform the work. CITY agrees to provide the GIS DATA to CONSULTANT solely for the purpose of performance of contracted work with the CITY upon the terms and conditions specified in Exhibit D, incorporated herein by this reference.

28. Electronic Signatures. Unless otherwise prohibited by law or CITY policy, the Parties agree that an electronic copy of a signed contract, or an electronically signed contract, has the same force and legal effect as a contract executed with an original ink signature. The term “electronic copy of a signed contract” refers to a transmission by facsimile, electronic mail, or other electronic means of a copy of an original signed contract in a portable document format. The term “electronically signed contract” means a contract that is executed by applying an electronic signature using technology approved by the CITY. / / /
/ / /
/ / /
/ //
/ //
/ //
/ //
/ //
/ //
[Signatures on Next Page]

11 Updated July 2022

EXHIBIT A

SCOPE OF SERVICES
Task 1 – Collect and Review New Data
Consultant shall meet with City staff to hold a kickoff meeting/workshop. Consultant will receive copies of recent as-built drawings, City utility map sets from updated geographical information system (GIS) and other records useful to the understanding of the City’s wastewater collection system.
• Submittal Package: Request for Information (RFI) Matrix, Data Gaps Analysis Package Task 2 - Update Design Performance Criteria
Consultant shall update the design and planning criteria used for judging the capacity adequacy of the existing sewer system and for planning future facilities, and future demand analysis based on updates to demand design and planning criteria. This task will incorporate the land use documented in the City’s 2016 General Plan. The sewer flow analysis accounts for recent trends in water conservation. This task shall include updating the City’s existing land use inventory which is important for projecting anticipated future sewer flows. • Submittal Package: Updated Design and Planning Criteria, Existing/Future Land Use and Demand Inventory (Tables and Figures)
Task 3 – Update/Expand Hydraulic Model to include All Pipes Consultant shall uypdate the hydraulic model to reflect recent sewer pipeline construction and expand it to include all gravity mains, and reflecting the latest GIS update. The existing hydraulic model is a skeletonized model that only included major trunk 10-inches in diameter and larger, in addition to some critical smaller gravity mains. This master plan update will include all the sewer collection system pipelines to reflect more accurately the existing system and demands to reflect actual conditions of the sewer system. The invert elevations for the expanded model will be calculated based on minimum slopes, and the purpose is to maintain a more comprehensive model.

The updated sewer flows will be based on the geo-coded distribution of the water billing records and shall include a return-to-sewer ratio to account for landscape irrigation.

Task 4 – Flow Monitoring Program
Consultant shall obtain the services of Villalobos and Associates to install 10 flowmeters measuring wastewater flows for a period of 4 weeks. The analysis shall include an infiltration and inflow study.

Prior to commencing the work, a flow monitoring program shall be prepared and submitted to City staff for approval. The flow monitoring results and infiltration and inflow analysis will be used for calibrating the hydraulic model and will be documented in a separate report, and shall also be included in the master plan report.

Task 5 – Calibrate Hydraulic Model to Flow Monitoring Program Consultant shall calibrate the hydraulic model to the new flow monitoring program, reflecting a new benchmark for future analysis. The hydraulic model shall be calibrated to mimic the system behavior in the flow monitoring program.

Task 6 – Evaluate Existing System and Propose Capacity Improvements Consultant shall use the hydraulic model InfoSWMM (by Innovyze) to evaluate capacity adequacy of the update sewer collection system to meet the service requirements established in the Design and Planning Criteria. Consultant shall identify improvements to mitigate existing deficiencies and document them in tables and exhibits.

12 Updated July 2022
• Submittal Package: Results of Existing System Analysis and Recommended Improvements to mitigate existing deficiencies (Tables and Figures)
Task 7 – Propose Capacity Improvements for Future Growth The hydraulic model shall also be used for extending the sewer collection system infrastructure to service future growth. This task consists of identifying needed improvements to service growth and document in tables and exhibits.
• Submittal Package: Recommended improvements to mitigate existing deficiencies and serve future growth (Tables and Figures)
Task 8 – Integrate Renewal and Replacement and Asset Management Plan Recommendations Consultant shall incorporate the recommendations and findings of the City’s Sewer System Asset Management Plan completed by B&V and the ongoing condition assessment being completed by Waterworks Engineers. It is understood that the prioritized renewal and replacement projects that shall be included in the Capital Improvement Program will be based on the work completed by waterworks. The updated Wastewater Master Plan report shall include a summary of the background, methodology, findings, and recommendations of the Asset Management Plan, and the Condition Assessment, including the Existing Morgan Hill-Gilroy Joint Trunk condition assessment by Waterworks Engineers.

Task 9 – Integrate Joint Trunk and Relief Trunk Analysis Consultant shall incorporate the recommendations and findings of the City’s Joint Trunk and Relief Trunk Theory of Operations and Capacity Allocation Study. The updated Wastewater System Master Plan report will include a summary of the current and planned joint trunk theory of operations as well as the flow split recommendations and maximum theoretical capacities identified as part of this the ongoing study. This task will also summarize the capacity allocation between the Cities of Morgan Hill and Gilroy.

Task 10 – Develop Phased Capital Improvement Program for Capacity and R&R Projects Consultant shall prepare a Capital Improvement Program (CIP) on the basis of the findings of the previous tasks. The proposed capacity improvements will be prioritized based on their hydraulic capacity deficiency, and the Renewal and Replacement Projects will be based on the priorities assigned by Waterworks Engineers, Inc. The CIP projects will be identified as improvement projects to mitigate existing deficiencies (existing customer) or capacity expansion projects to accommodate growth (future customers). Where a proposed improvement accommodates both existing and future customers, a percent of benefit to existing versus future customers will be provided. This percent benefit will be used for cost sharing purposes. • Submittal Package: Capital Improvement Program (Tables and Figures) Task 11 – Prepare Master Plan Report
Consultant shall prepare a draft master plan report that documents the development of the hydraulic model, the design and performance criteria, the future flow projections, the identified deficiencies, the proposed improvements, the capital improvement programs, and cost sharing suggestions. The master plan will also include associated maps and exhibits. The draft copy of the report shall be submitted in electronic PDF format for City staff review. Following the review period, Akel Engineering Group will incorporate the changes in the final document. The final document shall be produced in PDF and five hardcopies.
• Submittal Package: Draft Master Plan (Electronic PDF Format) and Final Master Plan Report (5 hard copies and Electronic PDF Format)
Task 12 – Public Meetings and Presentations

13 Updated July 2022
Consultant shall participate in up to two public meetings via zoom, and up to two City Council meetings or presentations during the adoption phase.

Task 13 - Project Management and Team Meetings
Consultant shall be in continuous communication between the project team members throughout the duration of the project. Akel Engineering Group will schedule as needed web conference meetings, and ,if needed, face to face meetings with City staff. Key meetings include the kickoff meeting and data collection, performance criteria and demand allocation methodology, capacity analysis results, capital improvements and cost sharing, and master plan report.

Task 14 – Project Contingencies
This task adds project contingencies for tasks and unplanned efforts that may surface during the project completion. The project contingency is to be used only after approval by the City.

City of Morgan Hill
2023 Wastewater System Master Plan Update
Fee Estimate
Hours Costs
New
Task No.

Old
Task No. Task Description
Senior
Principal
Engineer
Senior
Engineer
Associate
Engineer
Assistant
Engineer
GIS
Technician
Secretarial
Total
Labor Costs
Subconsultant
Other
Expenses
Desc.

Tasks Total
$273 $206 $182 $155 $134 $107
Task 1 Task 1 Collect and Review New Data 2 2 8 4 16 $2,950 $0 $2,950 Task 2 Task 2 Update Design Performance Criteria 1 4 8 10 4 27 $4,639 $0 $4,639 Task 3 Task 3 Update/Expand Hydraulic Model to Include all Pipes 1 72 20 93 $16,057 $0 $16,057 Task 4 Task O1 Flow Monitoring Program (10 sites - 4 weeks) 2 4 12 10 28 $4,894 $55,000 V&A $59,894 Task 5 Task O2 Calibrate Hydraulic Model to Flow Monitoring Program 1 10 40 51 $8,293 $8,293 Task 6 Task 4 Evaluate Existing System and Propose Capacity Improvements 2 6 12 24 8 52 $8,758 $0 $8,758 Task 7 Task 5 Propose Capacity Improvements for Future Growth 2 6 8 14 12 42 $7,016 $0 $7,016 Task 8 Task 6 Integrate Renewals and Replacement and Asset Management Plan Recommendations 5 8 28 8 14 63 $11,225 $0 $11,225 Task 9 Task 7 Integrate Joint Trunk and Relief Trunk Analysis 1 2 16 6 $4,401 $0 $4,401 Task 10 Task 8 Develop Phased Capital Improvement Program for Capacity and R&R Projects 2 6 16 24 20 68 $11,094 $0 $11,094 Task 11 Task 9 Prepare Master Plan Report 12 4 52 24 16 10 118 $20,498 $1,500 5 Hard Copies $21,998 Task 12 Task 10 Public Meetings and Presentations 16 6 22 $5,460 $5,460 Task 13 Task 11 Project Management and Team Meetings 18 2 18 4 6 48 $9,780 $9,780 Task 14 Task 12 Project Contingencies 18 18 8 44 $9,262 $9,262 Total - Wastewater System Master Plan Update 83 328 428 144 142 688 672 $124,327 $56,500 $1,500 $180,827 $180,827 Final
11/21/2022

EXHIBIT B

SCHEDULE OF COMPENSATION RATES
14 Updated July 2022

15 Updated July 2022

EXHIBIT C

SCHEDULE OF PERFORMANCE
The City plans to update the Sewer Rates in June 2023, and this project will need to be expedited to target completing the Capital Improvement Program, to be used by the rate consultant, by that date.

RESOLUTION NO. 22-_____

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF MORGAN HILL APPROVING AN AMENDMENT TO
THE CITY’S FISCAL YEAR 2022-2023 BUDGET IN THE
SEWER IMPACT FUND (FUND NO. 641) TO
APPROPRIATE $80,827, THEREFOR
WHEREAS, the City of Morgan Hill, a municipal corporation and general law city duly organized and existing under and pursuant to the Constitution and laws of the State of California (“City”), is authorized to enter into contracts and agreements for the benefit of the City; and WHEREAS, the reasons supporting this Resolution are set forth in detail in that certain City Council Staff Report entitled “Approve Sewer System Master Plan Update Consultant Agreement” submitted for City Council consideration at its meeting of December 7, 2022, submitted to the City Council by the City Manager (the “Staff Report”), the contents of which Staff Report are incorporated herein by this reference; and
WHEREAS, recommended amendments are needed and proposed to the City’s previously adopted Annual Budget for Fiscal Year 2022-2023 as set forth on Exhibit A to this Resolution, to appropriate the requisite funds to implement the actions authorized by this Resolution; 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 public meeting at which the City Council provided members of the 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 WHEREAS, the City Council determines that adoption of this Resolution is in the public interest.

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 2022-2023 Budget, as the same has been amended to date, is hereby further amended in accordance with and as reflected on Exhibit A attached hereto and incorporated herein by this reference; and

City of Morgan Hill
Resolution No. 22-_____

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 2022-2023 Budget of City.

Section 3. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon adoption.

PASSED, APPROVED, AND ADOPTED by the City Council of the City of Morgan Hill at its meeting held on this 7th day of December 2022 by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS: None
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-_____ adopted by the City Council at the meeting held on the 7th day of December 2022.

WITNESS MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF MORGAN HILL.

DATE: _____________________ ___________________________________ MICHELLE BIGELOW, City Clerk

AGENDA BUDGET SCORECARD
FISCAL YEAR 2022‐2023
ADJUSTMENT # 002
FUND: 641 Sewer Impact Fund
DEPARTMENT: 8140 Sewer Impact Expansion
OBJECT: 86360 CONSTRUCTION
AGENDA DATE: 12/07/22
AGENDA ITEM TITLE:
07/01/22 06/30/23

AUDITED PROJECTED

BEGINNING AMENDED ENDING
FUND ESTIMATED APPROPRI‐ FUND

BALANCE REVENUES ATIONS BALANCE
ORIGINAL BUDGET   20,552,531   17,711,893   31,168,760   7,095,664 CUMULATIVE REVISIONS PRIOR ‐ ‐  ‐  ‐

TO RECOMMENDED ACTION
RECOMMENDED ACTION   ‐   80,827   (80,827)
RESULT OF RECOMMENDED ACTION    20,552,531   17,711,893   31,249,587   7,014,837 Approve Sewer System Master Plan Update Consultant Agreement Exhibit A

14 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: December 7, 2022
PREPARED BY:

Michael Horta, Human Resources Director
APPROVED BY: City Manager

APPROVE THE PART-TIME TEMPORARY AND SEASONAL
EMPLOYEES SALARY SCHEDULE EFFECTIVE JANUARY 1, 2023

RECOMMENDATION(S)
Approve the Part-Time Temporary and Seasonal Employees salary schedule effective January 1, 2023.

COUNCIL PRIORITIES, GOALS & STRATEGIES
City Council Ongoing Priorities
Maintaining and Enhancing Infrastructure
Fostering a Positive Organizational Culture
Preserving and Cultivating Public Trust
2022-2023 Strategic Priorities
Fiscal Sustainability
REPORT NARRATIVE:

The Part-Time Temporary and Seasonal Salary Schedule has been updated to align with the increased minimum wage of $15.50 per hour which takes effect January 1, 2023. Some positions show more significant increases in the pay scale than others to account for compaction issues related to the hierarchy of positions in a series (i.e.

Lifeguard, Lifeguard – Lead, Recreation Leader and Swim Instructor, etc). The new salary schedule is designed to support recruitment and retention of part-time teammates in the Recreation Division, within the existing budget. In addition, the Reserve Police Officer Trainee classification has been added to the salary schedule and the Police Cadet classication titles have been updated.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:

Inform
The Human Resources Team will post the approved Part-Time Temporary and Seasonal Employees salary schedule on the Human Resources website page as is the City’s practice for all salary information.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:

14 The City Council could decide to not approve the Part-Time Temporary and Seasonal Employees Salary Schedule and continue operating under the current Salary Schedule or Council could decide to choose select classification salary ranges to increase.

PRIOR CITY COUNCIL AND COMMISSION ACTIONS:

On November 17, 2021, the City Council approved the Part-Time Temporary and Seasonal Employees salary schedule.

FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT:

There is no fiscal impact to increase the minimum part-time temporary and seasonal employees’ salaries from the current California minimum wage rate of $15.00 per hour to the California new minimum wage requirement of $15.50 per hour effective January 1, 2023. The fiscal impact to increase salary ranges was known and included in the adopted biennial budget. Future salary increases would have a fiscal impact as select positions’ salary increases fall within the new ranges.

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.

CITY OF MORGAN HILL

PART-TIME TEMPORARY AND SEASONAL EMPLOYEES SALARY SCHEDULE Salaries effective the pay period including January 1, 20232 CLASSIFICATIONS Bottom Step
Hourly
Top Step
Hourly

INTERNS
High School/College Work Experience Student $15.5000 $25.00

POLICE DEPARTMENT
Graffiti Abatement Worker $15.5000 $17.00
Level I Reserve Police Officer Hourly rate for Step A Police Officer Level II Reserve Police Officer 90% of hourly rate for Step A Police Officer Reserve Officer Trainee $15.50
Per Diem Dispatcher Hourly rate for Public Safety Dispatcher Police Cadet – High School $15.0050 $16.00
Police Cadet – Junior College (Fresh/Soph) $16.00 $18.00 Police Cadet – College (Jr./Senior) $18.00 $21.00
Police Officer Trainee 90% of monthly rate for Step A Police Officer

TEMPORARY AND SEASONAL
Building Coordinator $1820.00 $2527.00
Clerical Assistant $1519.00 $2326.00
Communications Technician $15.5000 $3032.00
Deck Coordinator $2022.00 $3032.00
Government Access Technician $20.00 $30.00
Fire Plans Examiner/Inspector $35.50 $45.00
Lifeguard $15.5016.75 $2125.00
Lifeguard - Lead $1820.00 $2328.00
Maintenance Worker Assistant $1518.00 $2025.00
Recreation Instructor $15.75 $52.50
$52.50 Recreation Leader $15.0016.50 $1725.00
Recreation Specialist $18.00 $35.00
Retired Annuitant $20.00 $100.00
Senior Recreation Leader $1619.00 $2126.00
Special Projects Coordinator $18.00 $50.00
Swim Instructor $15.0016.50 $2126.00
Swim Instructor - Lead $1820.00 $2327.00
Welcome Desk Coordinator $1820.00 $2327.00
Welcome Desk Representative $15.0016.50 $2125.00

City of Morgan Hill
Resolution No.

Other Part-Time Temporary or Seasonal positions may be tied to the Salary Schedule forthe Bargaining Units which are not listed above. The above list only includes those part-time and temporary positions which are frequently used or are not contained on a bargaining unit salary schedule.

15 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: December 7, 2022
PREPARED BY:

Donald Larkin, City Attorney
APPROVED BY: City Manager
APPROVE RESPONSE TO 2022 CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT "IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT TITLE, YOU'RE BEING DUPED"

RECOMMENDATION(S)

1. Approve response to 2022 Civil Grand Jury Report "If You Only Read the Ballot Title, You're Being Duped," and

2. Authorize the Mayor to sign the response.

COUNCIL PRIORITIES, GOALS & STRATEGIES
N/A
REPORT NARRATIVE:

On October 7, 2022 the Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury issued a report titled "If You Only Read the Ballot Title, You're Being Duped." A copy of the report is included in this report as Attachment A. Under Penal Code section 933 and 933.05, the City is required to respond to the following findings and recommendations in the report:

Finding 1
The Civil Grand Jury finds that in the current environment, which is unregulated at the local level, it is easy for the author of a ballot measure question to write the question in a way that is confusing or misleading to voters.

Recommendation 1b
Governing entities within Santa Clara County should voluntarily submit their ballot questions to the County Counsel for review prior to submission to the Registrar of Voters, unless and until Recommendation 1d is implemented.

Recommendation 1c
Governing entities within Santa Clara County should, by March 31, 2023, adopt their own resolution or ordinance to require submission of their ballot questions to the County Counsel for review prior to submission to the Registrar of Voters, unless and until Recommendations 1d and 1e are implemented.

15 Recommendation 1e
Governing entities within Santa Clara County should submit their ballot questions for review by the Good Governance in Ballots Commission pursuant to Recommendation 1d.

Under penal Code section 933,05, the City is required to respond to each finding by stating whether the City agrees with the finding, or whether the City disagrees wholly or partially with the finding. If the City disagrees with the finding, the response must include an explanation of the disagreement. With regard to the recommendations, the City is required to state 1) the recommendation has been implemented, 2) the recommendation will be implemented in the future, 3) the recommendation requires further analysis, or 4) the recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable.

In this case, each of the recommendations would require changes to state and local law that are not within the jurisdiction of the City Council. With regard to recommendations 1b and 1c, staff believes that the recommendations would create additional burdens that are not warranted, but City Council could consider voluntarily consulting with County Counsel when there is a question regarding whether a ballot title is appropriate, and there is no potential conflict. With regard to Recommendation 1e, staff would recommend implementing this recommendation if authorized under state law.

A draft response to the Grand Jury is included as Attachment B.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:

The Grand Jury's report was released for public review on October 7, 2022.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:

Council could modify the draft response.

PRIOR CITY COUNCIL AND COMMISSION ACTIONS:

None
FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT:

The submittal of the Grand Jury response will have no fiscal impact. If the Grand Jury's recommendations are implemented, it would likely result in increased cost for the review of ballot questions by County Counsel.

CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act):

Not a Project. Organizational or administrative activities of government that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment are not projects subject to CEQA review.

Release date here Page 0 of 23

IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT,
YOU’RE BEING DUPED
2022 Santa Clara County
Civil Grand Jury
Release Date: [tentative 10/7/22]

IF YOU ONLY READ THE IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED

TABLE OF CONTENTS
GLOSSARY AND ABBREVIATIONS..........................................................................................2 SUMMARY.....................................................................................................................................4 BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................................5 METHODOLOGY ..........................................................................................................................6 INVESTIGATION...........................................................................................................................6 CONCLUSION..............................................................................................................................16 FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS..................................................................................17 REQUIRED RESPONSES............................................................................................................19 REFERENCES ..............................................................................................................................21

IF YOU ONLY READ THE IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED

GLOSSARY AND ABBREVIATIONS
Attorney General The chief law officer who represents a state in legal proceedings.

Ballot Card The printed ballot, usually on high-grade paper, consisting of the ballot questions and names of individuals running for elected office.

Ballot Measure Ballot measures are proposals, usually at a county or local level, to enact new laws or repeal existing laws, which are placed on the ballot for approval or rejection by the
electorate.

Ballot Proposition
Ballot Question or Ballot
Label
Boards and Commissions
Caselaw

County Counsel or Office of
the County Counsel
Elections Code
Governing Entity
Ballot propositions are proposals, usually at the state level, to enact new laws or constitutional amendments or repeal existing laws or constitutional amendments, which are
placed on the ballot for approval or rejection by the
electorate.

For purposes of this report, Ballot Question or Ballot
Label means the 75-word or less statement of a measure
that precedes “Yes” or “No” on the ballot card.

Boards and Commissions are made up of residents who
volunteer their time and expertise to assist and advise governing bodies in the chosen capacity.

Law or legal precedent established by the outcome of
court cases.

The County Counsel is the chief legal advisor and
representative for the county, including the county board of supervisors and all county agencies and departments.

A collection of California laws related to public elections.

A jurisdiction such as a city, county, school district, special district, or political subdivision.

IF YOU ONLY READ THE IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED Home Rule

Public Opinion Pollsters
Registrar of Voters
Single Subject Rule

Term Limits

Writ of Mandate
The right of self-government that is granted by state
constitution or statute to give autonomy to a local
government. Home Rule implies that each level of
government has a separate realm of authority.

Opinion polls are designed to represent the opinions of a population by conducting a series of questions and then extrapolating generalities in ratio or within confidence intervals. A person who conducts polls is referred to as a pollster.

The department responsible for the operation,
administration, and direction of the elections department, with primary responsibility for the registration of voters, the holding of elections, and all matters pertaining to elections.

Per Article II, Section 8(d) of the California Constitution, “An initiative measure embracing more than one subject
may not be submitted to the electors or have any effect.” Essentially, the rule stands for the notion that where an initiative embraces more than one subject, it can neither be submitted to, nor enacted by, the voters.

A specified number of terms (in years) that a person in office is allowed to serve.

In California, writs of mandate are used by superior courts, courts of appeal, and the Supreme Court to command
lower bodies, including both courts and government
agencies, to do or not to do certain things.

IF YOU ONLY READ THE IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED

SUMMARY
It is not uncommon for the public to be confronted daily with news and information through multiple sources—traditional television programming, 24/7 cable news, satellite radio, social media, and phone alerts. In the context of elections, voters’ busy lives can be overwhelmed with many different voices. County and state voter information guides are required by law to be mailed to every registered voter, but voters today do not have a lot of time to read these resources. As a result, the ballot measure question printed on the ballot itself becomes a key factor in the outcome of an election.

There is an expectation in California law that ballot questions be drafted in a manner that is not false, misleading, or partial to one side.1 But there are ways to work around it. Among the fifty or so jurisdictions in Santa Clara County that are eligible to put forth a ballot measure, the 2022 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury (Civil Grand Jury) has seen ballot question language that is confusing, advocacy-oriented, or simply dishonest. Yes, sometimes voters are being deceived.

Many voters cannot comprehend the complicated language or the implications of that "yes” or "no” vote. In a perfect world, voters would have the luxury of time to research these issues. In reality, however, voters almost always rely on the language of the ballot measure question itself.

What can be done about this? The Civil Grand Jury proposes an oversight person or body, one who has taken an oath to act with integrity, is well versed in the requirements of the law, and is empowered to review and to reject ballot question wording that is false, misleading, or partial to one side. Santa Clara County should have a climate whereby governing entities in Santa Clara County are discouraged from using dishonest or deceitful wording in a ballot question, especially when they know it will be reviewed and could be rejected. In so doing, due process will be strengthened. With clearer writing, ballot measure questions will be more transparent and straightforward, which will lead to a better perception of government by the voters. It is time to remove impediments to good governance.
1 California Elections Code section 10403 requires a ballot question to “conform to this code governing the wording of propositions submitted to the voters at a statewide election.” The California Elections Code contains Section 9051, which provides that in a statewide election the ballot title and summary of an initiative or referendum must be a “true and impartial statement of the purpose of the measure in such language that the ballot title and summary shall neither be an argument, nor be likely to create prejudice, for or against the proposed measure.” (Elec. C. §9051(c); see also, McDonough v. Superior Ct. (2012) 204 Cal. App. 4th 1169, 1172.)

IF YOU ONLY READ THE IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED

BACKGROUND
Ballot measures or ballot propositions are proposals to enact new laws or constitutional amendments or to repeal existing laws or constitutional amendments. They are placed on the ballot for approval or rejection by the voting public. The words “ballot measures” are often used by county, city, and local governing entities, whereas at the state level, the California State Legislature uses the term “ballot propositions” to refer to the same concept. The ballot measure question, which is the subject of this report, refers to the maximum 75-word text that precedes the “Yes” or “No” selection on the ballot card itself. Because most voters never read beyond what is printed on the ballot card, it is of critical importance that ballot measure questions be concise, accurate, and impartial.

Recently, two local newspaper articles highlighted the tactics that governing entities have used to manipulate voters:
• Borenstein, Daniel, Tricks California Local Officials Use To Trick Voters, Bay Area News Group, January 21, 2022.
• Mercury News and East Bay Times Editorial Boards, Stop Deceiving Bay Area Voters on Local Tax Measure Costs, June 26, 2020, updated September 5, 2020.

As part of its charge, the Civil Grand Jury is responsible for identifying areas within local government that lack good governance or practices. This Civil Grand Jury identified as a problem the choice of wording used in local ballot measure questions. Specifically, the Civil Grand Jury discovered that some local governing entities presenting measures for a public vote create ballot questions that are purposefully misleading so they may obtain their desired result. In particular, it was noted that the wording of a ballot question from the June 2022 election, although representing a relatively simple issue, created confusion among the public. When voters found out what the text of the measure actually meant, they felt deceived by the wording of the ballot question. Deception in ballot questions is worth the attention of the Civil Grand Jury. This problem must be remediated to reinstate good governance in the election process.

IF YOU ONLY READ THE IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED

METHODOLOGY
The Civil Grand Jury used the following investigative methods:
• Interviews with ten individuals who are well versed in the intricacies of the election process and experts in political science and local governments
• Three published Civil Grand Jury reports: 2021-22 Alameda County, 2021-22 Santa Cruz County, 2021 Santa Clara County
• Editorials from local and regional newspapers: Mercury News, Los Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle
• Close reviews of ballot measures, past and upcoming, from the counties of San Mateo, Santa Clara, Santa Cruz, and the City and County of San Francisco • Legal research of court challenges involving ballot questions

INVESTIGATION
Throughout this report, the Civil Grand Jury was interested only in the process of ballot measure question drafting, not the substance of the underlying ballot measure itself. In its research and analysis, the Civil Grand Jury does not examine the merits of the measure, but rather whether the question as drafted is truthful, impartial, and fair. Ballot questions must conform to statutory requirements and should provide voters with sufficient information and transparency to make informed decisions.

A straightforward ballot question can be summarized this way: A vote for “Yes” means yes and a vote for “No” means no. Unfortunately, it is common for ballot questions to be presented whereby a vote for “Yes” actually means no, and vice versa. This wording is arguably confusing. Inching farther away from confusing questions, the research performed by the Civil Grand Jury found ballot questions that are even worse—they are misleading.

Santa Clara Valley Water District’s Measure A
During the last election in June 2022, the question for Measure A put forth by the Santa Clara Valley Water District (Water District) employed such a tactic:

Shall the measure amending the Santa Clara Valley Water District Ordinance 11-01 to limit Board members to four successive four-year terms be adopted? The Water District had term limits already in place for board members to serve three four-year terms, or 12 years at most. Measure A sought to increase term limits to four four-year terms, or 16 years at most. However, the ballot question hid the fact that a term limit was already in place; it

IF YOU ONLY READ THE IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED asked voters whether a term limit of four terms should be adopted, thereby couching the question as a measure to adopt term limits generally, which one political science expert described to the Civil Grand Jury as a concept widely favorable to the voting public. The ballot question did not reflect what the Water District wanted to do. The Water District wanted to extend term limits, but it wrote the ballot question without using the words “extend,” “change,” or “increase.” Instead, the Water District characterized the ballot measure as setting term limits, which is a mischaracterization of what Measure A was actually about.

Further, it is notable that in November 1998, the County of Santa Clara placed a substantially similar measure on the ballot using the same tactic. Measure E asked:

Shall the County of Santa Clara amend section 202 to limit the number of terms a member of the Board of Supervisors may serve to three terms, consisting of four years each? Again, the ballot question failed to inform the reader that each member of the County of Santa Clara Board of Supervisors was already limited to two terms and that the ballot measure proposed to extend years served, not “limit” them. By not being transparent, this tactic of ballot question drafting is tantamount to a lie by omission; it borders on deceiving the public. From Measure E in 1998 to Measure A this year, 24 years later, the climate has not changed.

Regulations that Govern Ballot Questions
Sections 9100-9190 of the California Elections Code specifically address county-level elections.

Other sections of the Elections Code, while they do not specifically address county-level elections, have import and therefore apply as well. The County of Santa Clara has not enacted local ordinance code provisions regarding ballot question language.

Under the Elections Code, the wording of a ballot measure must state the ballot question, or what the Elections Code calls the “label,” in 75 words or less (Elec. C. §9051(b), §10403, §13247). The ballot question must state “the nature” of the measure (Elec. C. §13120). The official who drafts the ballot question “shall give a true and impartial statement of the purpose of the measure in such language that the ballot title and summary shall neither be an argument, nor be likely to create prejudice, for or against the proposed measure” (Elec. C. §9051(c)). In other words, ballot measure questions shall not be false, misleading, or partial to one side.

Who is Responsible for Writing Ballot Questions?
Today, ballot questions are rarely written “from scratch.” Residing in the public domain are hundreds, if not thousands, of boilerplate questions spanning the universe of issues typically faced by government and public agencies. Putting a measure on the ballot usually starts with selecting

IF YOU ONLY READ THE IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED an existing template, preferably one that had been used successfully within a reasonable timeframe and geographic proximity to the one at hand. Tweaks are then made to the chosen template to fit the measure being proposed.

Governing entities are ultimately responsible for approving the final text of the ballot question, but the actual selection of words is often the calculated and carefully calibrated work product of hired election experts, consultants, and attorneys. These outside consultants often rely on public opinion pollsters to determine the type of proposal and wording to put before voters that would achieve the desired outcome. Often, this includes using “feel good” wording that is shown to resonate with voters: “reduce crime;” “funds spent locally;” “all money locally controlled;” and “with citizen oversight.” Results from public opinion polls often dictate the structure and selection of words used within the ballot question, which is then voted on and, if successful, adopted by the governing body such as a city council, a county board of supervisors, the board members of a school district, or any governing body of a government entity operating within the county. During the course of this investigation, the Civil Grand Jury learned that local measures on the ballot that governing entities choose wording likely to be most successful at the ballot box over clarity of language to the voter.

For purposes of this investigation, the Civil Grand Jury focused on ballot questions relating to local ballot measures, not state propositions, because according to the California Elections Code, the state attorney general is responsible for providing ballot questions for state propositions. In contrast, there is no similar requirement that a certain officer provide the ballot question for local elections, so it is instead drafted by the proponent of the measure at the local level.

Advocacy and Tactical Wordplay Result in Poorly Drafted Ballot Questions It has been widely observed today that the 75-word ballot questions are being used as advocacy pieces, at the expense of fairness and impartiality. In an aptly titled report published in June of last year, the Alameda County Civil Grand Jury advocated for “The Need for Accuracy and Impartiality of Ballot Measure Questions.” The jury explained how and why the desire to achieve a certain outcome has tainted the process to produce ballot measure questions that are not accurate and impartial:

In general, we found ballot questions suffer from a “proponent’s bias” that is a natural outgrowth of the typical process through which questions are selected, drafted, and proposed. … In general, we found that ballot questions too often fall short of what voters have a right to expect in terms of transparency and impartiality, even when satisfying minimum legal standards.

IF YOU ONLY READ THE IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED The jury in Alameda reviewed and provided an in-depth analysis of six ballot questions to reach their conclusion. In so doing, they exposed the “tricks of the trade”—wording chosen for the sole purpose of increasing the odds of success at the polls. Adopting the same methodology as the Alameda report, the Civil Grand Jury reviewed past and upcoming ballot measure questions from local jurisdictions within Santa Clara County. The Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury observed the same tricks and tactics used by governing bodies to deceive voters:
(1) Using “feel-good" words to garner voter approval. Measure F, November 2020, said “all funds spent locally,” which is meaningless when one pauses to think about it. (2) Adding favorable language even where it plainly does not apply. Measure F, November 2020, said “independent audits, citizens’ oversight” where the underlying ordinance implementing the measure makes no mention whatsoever of audit and oversight requirements.
(3) Adding misleading words to lead voters astray. Measure S, November 2020, said “until ended by voters,” falsely implying that the measure itself provided for repeal or that voters would have an opportunity to repeal the tax when they did not; Measure L, November 2020, conveyed the same with “can be ended by voters.” Measure A, March 2017, said “[funds] cannot be taken away by the State,” falsely implying that the state may access local funds when it may not.
(4) Manipulating words to divert voters from what is actually at issue. Upcoming Measure N, November 2022, which seeks authorization of $572 million in school bonds costing approximately 3 cents per $100 of assessed valuation, states “no increase in tax rates.” (5) Omitting relevant information necessary for voters to make informed decisions. Measure AA, November 2016, and Measure H, November 2014, made no mention of the tax increase that would be required to fund the school bonds that were at issue. (6) Putting multiple issues on a single measure, ostensibly violating the single subject rule.

Measure H, November 2020, sought to increase card room tax and the number of card tables allowed in gambling facilities.

At the writing of this report, the following measures slated for the upcoming November 2022 election also rely on at least one of the tactics described:

E “all funds spent locally with no money taken by the State and spent elsewhere” - see (1) and (3) above.

G, H, J, L “until ended by voters” - see (3) above.

I “Shall the City Charter be amended to add the City's ethics and elections commission (Board of Fair Campaign and Political Practices) to the Charter; remove requirements that members of the Planning, Civil Service, and Salary Setting Commissions be electors and/or citizens; remove gender-specific language; and require the City Council to adopt equity values, standards, and assessments in making certain decisions?” - see (6) above.

IF YOU ONLY READ THE IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED O “all money staying local” - see (1) above.

Along the same lines, it is worth noting that in June 2022, the Santa Cruz County Civil Grand Jury released its report, “Words Matter: Did Measure G Deceive Voters?” The question confronting the jury was whether the County of Santa Cruz was honoring the provisions in the ballot measure following its passage. The jury concluded that the ballot question behind the November 2018 Measure G was misleading after its investigation and research revealed no basis whatsoever for including the words “annual audits and independent citizens oversight” within the ballot question.

Arguably, these words were used for no purpose other than to elicit good feelings in the voter.

The Elephant in the Room: Big Money
Elections cost money—lots of money. In an article published June 30, 2002, updated June 22, 2022, CalMatters put it succinctly: “Ballot measures are big business.” The Civil Grand Jury learned that cost is a major factor in the decision to get to the ballot. San Jose’s Mercury News reported that the Water District’s Measure A from the June 2022 election cost taxpayers $3.2 million.

Once the decision is made by the government entity to spend the money to go to ballot, a lot of pressure is put on the entity to do whatever it takes to secure a win. For this reason, proponents of ballot measures stay focused on the result, hiring high-priced election consultants, attorneys, and opinion pollsters to carefully frame the ballot question to achieve the desired outcome. Successful elections will reward those that are behind them. It does not take much imagination to understand how this practice has evolved to become “high stakes.” For example, a school district superintendent who has successfully secured funding through school bond measures may parlay these wins to rally support for a more prestigious role or a position at a larger public institution.

On the other hand, if a measure fails, individuals’ livelihoods are at stake because someone will likely have to take the blame for it—usually either someone on staff or the board proponents of the governing body. This is why proponents advocate so strongly, often—as exemplified above— sacrificing context, clarity, truthfulness, and transparency in ballot question wording in favor of pure advocacy. The Civil Grand Jury learned from those in the ballot question business that it is understood that the drafter will make sure the statement is “lawful,” but it is also understood that it will not necessarily provide full disclosure.

Eroding the Public’s Trust
Many voters in Santa Clara County felt that they were tricked by the Water District based on how Measure A was worded. The Civil Grand Jury compiled the following descriptors of Measure A from local news sources and through its interviews: “deceitful,” “deceptive ballot language,” “designed to confuse voters,” “dishonest,” “false,” “hiding the ball,” “lacks integrity,” “lie by

IF YOU ONLY READ THE IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED omission,” “misleading,” “not ethical,” “not transparent,” “not clear,” “violates the norm,” “violates standards of good governance,” “board must be held accountable,” “board should resign,” “board violated its fiduciary duty,” “board violated the trust of the people,” “board wasting money,” “failure of character,” “failure to represent its constituents,” “fraudulent misappropriation of public funds,” “misled the public for political gain,” “self-serving hoodwinking of the electorate,” “self-serving dishonesty,” “unacceptable in a democracy.” Public opinion made it clear that where a ballot question fails to provide voters with sufficient information to make an informed decision, it does so at the expense of public trust. Forming distrust between government and its citizenry hurts. What the Water District did through Measure A has severe ramifications because it creates distrust between the government agency and the people the agency is supposed to serve and protect. Going forward, Santa Clara County residents will likely question the integrity and ethical behavior of the Water District. Once the bonds of trust have been weakened, citizens are less inclined to trust the actions and decisions of this agency and more inclined to ask, “If the Water District cannot be trusted to be truthful on the ballot, how can we know them to be truthful in other matters?”
With the passage of Measure A, many residents lost confidence in the Water District. It may take a long time to regain trust from the community. While the Civil Grand Jury appreciates the desire of a government entity to advocate for itself when putting ballot measures up for a public vote, ballot questions cannot be false, misleading, or partial to one side. Based on Civil Grand Jury research and reports, too many local measures fail to meet this standard in favor of advocacy and “proponent’s bias.”
Lack of Oversight Results in Poorly Drafted Ballot Questions Despite the number of hands that touch a proposal from inception to ballot card, the Civil Grand Jury was surprised to discover that there is no filter or oversight by an appropriate official prior to the adoption of ballot question wording. At the state level, the “Attorney General gives a true and impartial statement of the purpose of the measure in such language that the ballot title [e.g., the ballot question] and summary shall neither be an argument, nor likely to create prejudice, for or against the proposed measure” (Elec. C. §9051(c)). But the Attorney General does not have jurisdiction over local measures and thus does not provide the ballot question. When it comes to local measures, the Civil Grand Jury learned that there is not a similar role performed by an official, like the Attorney General, that can provide the wording for ballot questions. Rather, when the ballot question is submitted to the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters, their review is narrowly limited to enforcement of the 75-word limit. Staff at the County Registrar of Voters manually count the number of words to ensure that the word cap has not been stretched. They do not monitor the content of the ballot question.

IF YOU ONLY READ THE IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED At the local level, the County of Santa Clara Office of the County Counsel performs legal services that are most analogous to the Attorney General’s role at the state level with respect to elections.

Further, County Counsel has expertise in election law and advises the County of Santa Clara Registrar of Voters. The County Counsel does not, however, have authority over cities and political subdivisions within the boundaries of the county. Therefore, when a city, school district, or special district places a local measure on the ballot, they are permitted under current law to draft the language themselves. They have every incentive to adopt wording proposed by their polling consultants, who will give weight to “feel good” words over simplicity, transparency, and impartiality. Fundamentally, the government entity’s self-interest dictates the ballot question wording.

The Current Sole Remedy—Initiating a Court Challenge—Falls Short Under current legislation, there is no realistically expedient method to challenge problematic ballot questions. When a measure is to be placed on the ballot for an upcoming election, it is subject to a 10-day public examination period during which any voter in the jurisdiction may file a lawsuit to amend the language of the measure. California Elections Code section 9295 sets forth the procedure:

During the 10-calendar-day public examination period provided by this section, any voter of the jurisdiction in which the election is being held, or the elections official, himself or herself, may seek a writ of mandate or an injunction requiring any or all of the materials to be amended or deleted. The writ of mandate or injunction request shall be filed no later than the end of the 10-calendar-day public examination period.

A peremptory writ of mandate or an injunction shall be issued only upon clear and convincing proof that the material in question is false, misleading, or inconsistent with the requirements of this chapter, and that issuance of the writ or injunction will not substantially interfere with the printing or distribution of official election materials as provided by law.

There are several reasons why the 10-calendar-day public examination period to object in a formal court setting does not work well:
(1) The public tends not to hear about ballot measures until it is too late. This is due in part to a dearth of media coverage of local news, a result of the consolidation of local news outlets by media conglomerates. It is no secret that in today’s news environment, local news coverage has been reduced significantly. Furthermore, ten days is a very short window to react, let alone mount a court challenge to remediate.

IF YOU ONLY READ THE IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED (2) Ten days is much too short a time to locate an attorney well versed in the laws and processes of elections to file a lawsuit in this specialized field. (3) Even if an attorney can be available within the 10-day window, it is not within the means of the average person to afford the attorney fees necessary to pursue a remedy. (4) Voters challenging the wording in a ballot question face an uphill battle because the courts give deference and considerable latitude to the original author. Further, courts uphold the ballot measure question if it substantially complies with the requirement not to be “false, misleading, or partial to one side.” (See Bibliography, Amador and McDonough decisions.) (5) There is practically no recourse to fix non-conforming ballot questions after the 10- calendar day public examination period has passed. (See Bibliography, Denny decision.) (6) Even the single subject rule—a state constitutional doctrine—has been watered down by case law; hence it is no longer vigorously enforced. (See Bibliography, Amador and Harbor decisions.)
When confronted with challenges to ballot measures, the courts have stated:
• Relief under a writ of mandate may be granted "only upon clear and convincing evidence" that the challenged election material is "false or misleading or otherwise inconsistent with the provisions." (See Bibliography, McDonough decision.) • The test is not whether the ballot question could be more complete. (See Bibliography, Martinez decision.)
• The ballot title need not be the “most accurate,” “most comprehensive,” or “fairest” that a skilled wordsmith might imagine. (See Bibliography, Yes on 25, Citizens for an On-Time Budget decision.)
• The courts are not free to change an accurate statement to reflect their interpretation of the common sense understanding of the language. (See Bibliography, Yes on 25, Citizens for an On-Time Budget decision.)
• The courts are not free to wordsmith the ballot question and change it just because they believe it could be better. (See Bibliography, Martinez decision.) • The courts must give deference to the official who drafts the ballot question; “all legitimate presumptions should be indulged in favor of the propriety” of the drafter’s actions. (See Bibliography, Becerra decision.)
Solutions

The Civil Grand Jury has learned that the sole legal remedy currently available to right a wrong when it comes to ballot measure questions is insurmountable for the average citizen. Nonetheless, the Civil Grand Jury notes that there could be two potential mechanisms to improve the current process.

IF YOU ONLY READ THE IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED

1. Task an appropriate official to review ballot measure questions Current law requires that the individual who drafts the ballot question do so in a way that is not false, misleading, or partial to one side. In order to meet this requirement, an objective, neutral third party is needed to speak on behalf of the voting public, ideally someone who is well versed in the law, has a fiduciary duty to uphold the law, and has taken an oath to act with integrity. The Civil Grand Jury recommends that County Counsel perform this task. Further, the Civil Grand Jury recommends that the County of Santa Clara Board of Supervisors should endorse the County Counsel to act in a role, like that of the Attorney General, to provide for ballot question wording for all local measures.

What this might look like: After the governing entity ratifies the concept behind the proposed measure, as is the practice today, the entity’s lawyer, whether a city attorney, school district attorney, or special district attorney, would draft a ballot question that is impartial, unbiased, and non-argumentative. The proposed ballot question would then be submitted to the County Counsel, who would be charged with overseeing the narrow task of ensuring that the wording of the question is not false, misleading, or biased in favor of one view. Most importantly, County Counsel would also be authorized to reject non-conforming or deficient wording and to compel revisions. Only when the ballot question at issue conforms to statutory requirements would County Counsel approve it for use.

2. Create an independent oversight commission to review ballot questions It is not unusual for jurisdictions to convene independent advisory commissions to assist in county governance. The County of Santa Clara alone boasts over 75 boards and commissions, ranging from an Advisory Commission on Consumer Affairs to a Youth Task Force.

For purposes of overseeing conformity of ballot measure questions, the Civil Grand Jury recommends that the County form a Good Governance in Ballots Commission (Good Governance Commission). This advisory commission should act quickly to review and comment on ballot questions or provide recommendations to remediate questions that that are false, misleading, or partial to one side. The composition of the Good Governance Commission should, at a minimum, include an attorney member of the California State Bar, either to participate as a full member or act as an ex officio member without voting privileges. Because County Counsel is the attorney to most Santa Clara County advisory boards and commissions, it could therefore be tasked to help members of this commission navigate the intricacies of California’s statutory requirements.

Apart from the obvious benefits—non-partisanship and public representation—another advantage of having a single commission perform the task of reviewing ballot questions would be to maintain

IF YOU ONLY READ THE IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED consistency across all governing entities. Regardless of whether a city, county, school district, or other jurisdiction puts forth the measure, the output from a neutral, uninterested third party would probably help eliminate the rhetoric and advocacy inherent in the current practice.

To be successful, the Good Governance Commission should ideally have the ability to review and to reject language that is biased and partial. The power of rejection is crucial because it would also likely have the effect of encouraging the governing entity to self-police. It must not be merely optional for governing entities to submit their ballot questions for review. If the commission were granted mere advisory powers, then it would have very limited impact; it is reasonable to surmise that most, if not all, governing entities would choose to decline to submit their ballot questions for consideration in the interest of the time required to add a layer of review.

Unfortunately, adoption of a Good Governance Commission that has the power to reject language would require passage of a state law that would enable the County of Santa Clara to have an express grant of power to impose a requirement on other entities. This is because “[t]he board of supervisors has no inherent powers; the counties are legal subdivisions of the state, and the county board of supervisors can exercise only those powers expressly granted it by Constitution or statutes and those necessarily implied therefrom” (Hicks v. Board of Supervisors (1977) 69 Cal. App. 3d 228, 242). In general, absent other express authorization, one governmental entity cannot regulate another.

Put another way, charter cities operate under home rule, which means that they do not answer to the county the city is located in. For example, the County of Santa Clara Board of Supervisors does not have jurisdiction to compel the City of Gilroy, a charter city, to abide by a county ordinance. Absent some legislative authorization, the County of Santa Clara cannot impose a mandatory review process for ballot questions on other entities. For this reason, the Civil Grand Jury urges the County to pursue legislative solutions to facilitate a process by which the County Counsel would be required to review and approve local measure ballot questions before they are voted on.

Formation of a Good Governance in Ballots Commission
The Civil Grand Jury believes that having an independent oversight commission with advisory powers will improve the local electoral process. It puts pressure on governing bodies, sending the message that their ballot questions are being monitored for clarity, truthfulness, fairness, and impartiality.

The Alameda Civil Grand Jury report provides detailed instructions around the formation, structure, and operation of an oversight committee. This can be found in Appendix B of their June 2021 report. Last, but not least, another possibility is to lean on an existing Santa Clara County

IF YOU ONLY READ THE IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED advisory body, the Citizens’ Advisory Commission on Elections, to create a subcommittee focused on ballot question integrity and good governance. Because time is of the essence when it comes to the elections process, the subcommittee must act within the short turnaround timeframe established by state statutes and county ordinances.

There do not appear to be any advocates for transparent and neutral language. Action must be taken. Having the Office of the County Counsel review and approve ballot questions to ensure conformity to statutory requirements would be a good start. Convening a citizen-led, independent oversight Good Governance Commission is another solution.

CONCLUSION
Civil Grand Juries are charged to help government develop practical solutions to improve government operations. Poorly worded ballot questions may not be illegal, but if they withhold information to shield what is really at issue, they are unethical. There are insufficient workable checks and balances to prevent this ongoing issue from being curtailed. Not doing anything about this only adds to the distrust of government. The Civil Grand Jury recommends that elected officials be held accountable—ballot questions must be transparent and clear in order to enable today’s voters to make informed decisions. The Civil Grand Jury wants governing entities to know that the public is paying attention and will not tolerate questions that are anything less than truthful, impartial, and fair. Further, ballot measure questions need to be straightforward, understandable, transparent, and honest.

IF YOU ONLY READ THE IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED

FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Finding 1
The Civil Grand Jury finds that in the current environment, which is unregulated at the local level, it is easy for the author of a ballot measure question to write the question in a way that is confusing or misleading to voters.

Recommendation 1a
The Board of Supervisors should ask the County Counsel to review all ballot questions submitted to it pursuant to Recommendation 1b.

Recommendation 1b

Governing entities2 within Santa Clara County should voluntarily submit their ballot questions to the County Counsel for review prior to submission to the Registrar of Voters, unless and until Recommendation 1d is implemented.

Recommendation 1c
Governing entities 3 within Santa Clara County should, by March 31, 2023, adopt their own resolution or ordinance to require submission of their ballot questions to the County Counsel for review prior to submission to the Registrar of Voters, unless and until Recommendations 1d and 1e are implemented.

Recommendation 1d
The County should create an independent, citizen-led oversight commission like the recommended Good Governance in Ballots Commission as described in the “Solutions” section of this report.

The Commission should be implemented by August 1, 2024. 2 There are approximately 50 governing entities within Santa Clara County. The Civil Grand Jury has elected to address these recommendations to the County, cities, and a select number of special districts and school districts that have historically the most measures on the ballot for response. The Civil Grand Jury encourages all governing entities to adopt these recommendations. 3 Id.

IF YOU ONLY READ THE IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED Recommendation 1e
Governing entities4 within Santa Clara County should submit their ballot questions for review by the Good Governance in Ballots Commission pursuant to Recommendation 1d.

Recommendation 1f

The County should, by March 31, 2023, take appropriate action to request that the state legislature consider amending current law to require the County Counsel to review and approve local ballot measure questions before they are voted on.
4 Id.

IF YOU ONLY READ THE IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED

REQUIRED RESPONSES
Pursuant to California Penal Code § 933(b) et seq. and California Penal Code § 933.05, the County of Santa Clara 2022 Civil Grand Jury requests responses from the following governing bodies:

Responding Agency Findings Recommendations
County of Santa Clara Board of Supervisors 1 1a, 1b, 1d, 1f City of Campbell 1 1b, 1c, 1e
City of Cupertino 1 1b, 1c, 1e
City of Gilroy 1 1b, 1c, 1e
City of Los Altos 1 1b, 1c, 1e
Town of Los Altos Hills 1 1b, 1c, 1e
Town of Los Gatos 1 1b, 1c, 1e
City of Milpitas 1 1b, 1c, 1e
City of Monte Sereno 1 1b, 1c, 1e
City of Morgan Hill 1 1b, 1c, 1e
City of Mountain View 1 1b, 1c, 1e
City of Palo Alto 1 1b, 1c, 1e

IF YOU ONLY READ THE IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED Responding Agency Findings Recommendations
City of San Jose 1 1b, 1c, 1e
City of Santa Clara 1 1b, 1c, 1e
City of Saratoga 1 1b, 1c, 1e
City Sunnyvale 1 1b, 1c, 1e
Santa Clara Valley Water District 1 1b, 1c, 1e
Valley Transportation Authority 1 1b, 1c, 1e
El Camino Healthcare 1 1b, 1c, 1e
Foothill-DeAnza Community College District 1 1b, 1c, 1e San Jose Unified School District 1 1b, 1c, 1e
East Side Union High School District 1 1b, 1c, 1e
Cupertino Union School District 1 1b, 1c, 1e

IF YOU ONLY READ THE IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED

REFERENCES
Bibliography:

Alameda County 2020-2021 Grand Jury, Final Report, “The Need for Accuracy and Impartiality of Ballot Measure Questions,” June 2022.

Ballotpedia.org, https://ballotpedia.org/Santa_Clara_County,_California, Measure A (June 2022); Measures F, G, H, L, and S (November 2020); Measure AA (November 2016); Measure H (November 2014); Measure E (November 1998) (accessed September 22, 2022).

Borenstein, Daniel, “Tricks California Local Officials Use To Trick Voters,” The Bay Area News Group, https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/01/21/borenstein-tricks-california-local-officialsuse-to-deceive-voters/ January 21, 2022 (accessed August 23, 2022).

California Elections Code sections 303, 9051, 9100-9190, 9295, 13120, and 133247.

Christopher, Ben; Kamal, Sameea, “California Ballot Measures: What You Need to Know,” https://calmatters.org/explainers/california-ballot-measures-2022/ June 30, 2022, updated July 1, 2022 (accessed August 23, 2022).

City and County of San Francisco Department of Elections, https://sfelections.sfgov.org/measures (accessed August 2, 2022).

County of Santa Clara 2020-21 Grand Jury, Final Report, “Gavilan College Measure X Bond Program: Oversight Shortchanged.” June 2022.

County of Santa Clara, Office of the Clerk of the Board of Supervisors, List of Boards and Commissions, https://stenttssaim2publicportal.blob.core.windows.net/bcentcabodocs/MaddyReport.pdf (accessed August 24, 2022).

County of Santa Clara Registrar of Voters, Ballot Measures proposed for the upcoming November 2022 election, https://sccvote.sccgov.org/candidates-measures/november-8-2022- general-election-list-local-measures (accessed Aug 20, 2022).

Editorial, Mercury News and East Bay Times, “Stop Deceiving Bay Area Voters On Local Tax Measure Costs,” MercuryNews.com, https://www.mercurynews.com/2020/06/26/editorial-stopdeceiving-voters-on-local-tax-measure-costs/ June 26, 2020 (accessed August 23, 2022).

Kumar, Rishi, “Opinion: Why 4 Valley Water board members should resign,” MercuryNews.com, https://www.mercurynews.com/2022/05/11/opinion-why-4-valley-waterboard-members-should-resign/ May 11, 2022 (accessed August 23, 2022).

IF YOU ONLY READ THE IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED Rogers, Paul, “Self-Serving Dishonesty: Liccardo Blasts Santa Clara Valley Water District Measure To Extend Term Limits, Even After Polling Shows Voters Oppose,” Mercury News, March 30, 2022 (accessed August 23, 2022).

Santa Cruz County 2020-2021 Grand Jury, Final Report, “Words Matter: Did Measure G Deceive Voters?” June 2022.

Caselaw:

Amador Valley Joint Union High School District v. State Board of Equalization, 22 Cal.3d. 208 (1978).

Becerra v. Superior Court, 19 Cal.App.5th 967 (2017).

Denny v. Arntz, 55 Cal.App.5th 914 (2020).

Harbor v. Deukmejian, 43 Cal.3d 1078 (1987).

Hicks v. Bd. of Supervisors, 69 Cal. App. 3d 228 (1977).

Home Gardens Sanitary Dist. v. City of Corona, 96 Cal. App. 4th 87 (2002).

Martinez v. Superior Court, 142 Cal.App.4th 1245 (2006).

McDonough v. Superior Court of Santa Clara, 204 Cal.App.4th 1169 (2012).

People v. Langdon, 54 Cal. App.3d 384 (1976).

Rodeo Sanitary Dist. v. Bd. of Supervisors, 71 Cal. App.4th 1443 (1999).

Yes on 25, Citizens for an On-Time Budget v. Superior Court, 189 Cal.App.4th 1445 (2010).

Interviews:

The Civil Grand Jury conducted interviews with ten individuals between June 28, 2022, and August 22, 2022.

IF YOU ONLY READ THE IF YOU ONLY READ THE BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED BALLOT, YOU’RE BEING DUPED This report was ADOPTED by the Santa Clara County 2022 Civil Grand Jury on this __________ day of _______________, 2022.
______________________________
Mr. James Renalds
Foreperson

DRAFT
December 7, 2022
Honorable Beth McGowen
Presiding Judge
Office of the Civil Grand Jury
Superior Court of Santa Clara County
191 N. First Street
San Jose, CA 95113
Re: City of Morgan Hill’s Response to the 2022 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report “If You Only Read the Ballot Title, You’re Being Duped” Dear Judge McGowen,
Thank you for the opportunity to review and respond to the 2022 Grand Jury Report, “If You Only Read the Ballot Title, You’re Being Duped.” We appreciate the Grand Jury’s thoughtful work on this issue. Our responses to the specific findings and recommendations, which were approved by the City Council at its December 7, 2022 meeting are below:

FINDING 1:

The Civil Grand Jury finds that in the current environment, which is unregulated at the local level, it is easy for the author of a ballot measure question to write the question in a way that is confusing or misleading to voters.

CITY RESPONSE TO FINDING 1: Partially Agree
Elections Code section 13119 provides the form of question for a local ballot measure: “Shall the measure (stating the nature thereof) be adopted?” The code further provides that the “statement of the measure shall be a true and impartial synopsis of the purpose of the proposed measure, and shall be in language that is neither argumentative nor likely to create prejudice for or against the measure.” Where a measure is placed on the ballot by a city council, the council has some discretion in preparing the synopsis of the measure and the statement of purpose. But the ballot language must be true and impartial, and must use neutral language that is unlikely to create prejudice for or against the measure.1 In Morgan Hill, while the ballot question is ultimately the responsibility of the City Council, under Municipal Code section 2.09.020(F) the City Attorney is responsible for drafting the resolution placing the measure on the ballot, and for advising the City Council on the law regarding ballot language. 1 Where the author of a ballot measure in a city election places the measure on the ballot through a citizens’ initiative, the city attorney is required to prepare a ballot title that includes the purpose of the measure prior to circulation of the measure. While the ballot question is still subject to approval by the city council, the council has less ability to define the purpose of the measure.

RECOMMENDATION 1B:

Governing entitieswithin Santa Clara County should voluntarily submit their ballot questions to the County Counsel for review prior to submission to the Registrar of Voters, unless and until Recommendation 1d is implemented.

CITY RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATION 1B:

The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or reasonable, and would require a change to California law. The Elections Code currently provides a process to challenge a ballot question when a legislative body abuses its discretion by adopting a question that is misleading or is likely to create prejudice for or against the measure. The Grand Jury has identified significant impediments to utilizing that process, which is set forth in Elections Code section 9295. Those impediments should be addressed by the legislature.

Until the legislature enacts Election Code reforms, the City of Morgan Hill will consider consulting with County Counsel’s office when there is a question regarding whether a ballot title is appropriate, and there is no potential conflict. However, because state law vests authority for the ballot question in the local legislative body, the opinion of the County Counsel would be advisory only.

RECOMMENDATION 1C:

Governing entities within Santa Clara County should, by March 31, 2023, adopt their own resolution or ordinance to require submission of their ballot questions to the County Counsel for review prior to submission to the Registrar of Voters, unless and until Recommendations 1d and 1e are implemented.

CITY RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATION 1C:

The recommendation will not be implemented because it is not warranted or is not reasonable. Placing a measure on the ballot is already costly and complicated. Adding an additional step to the already cumbersome process is not warranted. However, the City of Morgan Hill will consider consulting with County Counsel’s office when there is a question regarding whether a ballot title is appropriate, and there is no potential conflict. Further, the City of Morgan Hill would support a legislative solution to prevent the rare circumstances in which an agency abuses its discretion in adopting ballot language.

RECOMMENDATION 1E:

Governing entitieswithin Santa Clara County should submit their ballot questions for review by the Good Governance in Ballots Commission pursuant to Recommendation 1d.

CITY RESPONSE TO RECOMMENDATION 1E:

The recommendation has not been implemented, but will be implemented if state law is amended to allow the creation of a commission as described in the Grand Jury report, and 1) cities are required to submit ballot language to such a commission, or 2) a commission is formed that both protects the ability of the City to fairly define the purpose of any ballot measures it submits to the voters and is required to solicit input from and be responsive to the Morgan Hill community.

Sincerely,
Rich Constantine
Mayor

16 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: December 7, 2022
PREPARED BY:

David Gittleson, Associate Engineer
APPROVED BY: City Manager

APPROVE PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY AGREEMENT

FOR UNDERGROUNDING OVERHEAD UTILITIES AS PART OF THE

HALE AVENUE EXTENSION PROJECT

RECOMMENDATION(S)
Approve and authorize the City Manager to execute and administer a Pacific Gas and Electric Company Agreement for undergrounding overhead utilities as part of the Hale Avenue Extension Project for a not to exceed amount of $63,876.72

COUNCIL PRIORITIES, GOALS & STRATEGIES
City Council Ongoing Priorities
Enhancing Public Safety
Maintaining and Enhancing Infrastructure
2022-2023 Strategic Priorities
Transportation
Guiding Documents
Bikeways, Trails, and Recreation Master Plan
Morgan Hill 2035 General Plan
REPORT NARRATIVE:

As part of the Hale Extension project, undergrounding the overhead utilities has been a part of the project from the start for safety purposes. Overhead utilities on the north end of the project at the Main Avenue and Hale Avenue intersection are currently being undergrounded with Valley Water's West Llagas Creek Flood Control project and undergrounding of overhead utilities on the south end of the project at Dewitt and Spring Avenues was completed in June 2022. There is one remaining overhead power line between Dunne and Spring Avenues which runs parallel with the new sound wall/property line for 175 feet, and then crosses the Hale Extension roadway for a total distance of 300 feet (Attachment 1). The design for this particular undergrounding work took longer than anticipated and, therefore became a separate contract with PG&E in order to avoid delaying the other undergrounding work on the project.

Attached is an agreement with Pacific Gas and Electric Company for $63,876.72

16 (Attachment 2), to underground the overhead utilities that parallel and cross Hale Avenue between West Dunne Avenue and Spring Avenue. This work includes installing new cables, connections, de-energizing/energizing the lines and removal of old overhead lines and wood poles. Thus, staff requests the City Council approve the PG&E contract for the undergrounding work for the benefit of public safety.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:

Numerous community engagement and design meetings were held throughout the early planning and design phases. In addition, the environmental studies process also solicited input from the community regarding environmental impacts from the project.

Staff has been providing project updates on the City’s website and will continue posting updates throughout construction.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:

The City Council could decide not to execute the Pacific Gas and Electric Company agreement at this time. This is not recommended as undergrounding overhead utilities is a safety concern. In addition, this could prevent PG&E from performing their betterment work.

PRIOR CITY COUNCIL AND COMMISSION ACTIONS:
 On February 19, 2020, the City Council approved an agreement with Pacific Gas and Electric Company for the undergrounding work associated with the project at the Spring/DeWitt Avenue Intersection.
 On November 4, 2020, the City Council approved an agreement with Pacific Gas and Electric Company to underground dry utilities near Hale Avenue and Main Avenue.
 On August 17, 2022, the City Council approved an agreement with Pacific Gas and Electric Company to underground dry utilities for the Upper Llagas Creek Flood Control and Hale Extension Phase 2B project.

FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT:

Fiscal:

Sufficient funds and budgetary appropriations are available in the approved Hale Avenue Extension Project. The VTA’s Measure B Grant is contributing $16.5 million towards the project.

CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act):

Project
A Final Environmental Impact Report was prepared by David J. Powers & Associates for the Hale Avenue Extension and Hale Avenue Plan Line Projects. City Council certified the Final Environmental Impact Report (FEIR) and adopted a Mitigation and Monitoring Program (MMRP) for construction of the Hale Avenue Extension Project

16 (“Project”) by Resolution No. 17-070, adopted on August 23, 2017.

12/07/22

120935016
October 21, 2022
Customer Payment
Coupon
References
Notification # 120935016
Contract # 50065706 V2
E20C-PM # 35354566
Customer # 2965007
City of Morgan Hill
17575 Peak Ave.

MORGAN HILL, CA 95037
Customer Cost Summary

HALE ROAD EAST OF DEWITT AVE, MORGAN HILL
Amounts Due Total Due
Rule 20C Non-Refundable Payment $63,876.72
Minus the following credit
Advance Credit ($2,500.00)
$61,376.72
Important Payment Information
To complete your contract ONLINE
Follow the instructions provided with your electronic contract Submit payment at pge.com/contractpayments
To complete your contract BY MAIL
Please make check payable to: PG&E or Pacific Gas and Electric Complete, sign and return the enclosed agreement(s), the SACAC form and the customer payment coupon with your payment
Remit payment and SACAC form to:

PG&E CFM/PPC Department
PO BOX 997340
Sacramento, CA 95899-7340

IMPORTANT MESSAGE
Please review the enclosed information
and total due. This document needs
to be returned with the enclosed
agreements.

If you complete your contract ONLINE,
a copy will be saved to your Customer
Connections Online (CCO) account at
pge.com/cco.

To learn more about PG&E's gas and
electric safety initiatives and resources
please visit pge.com/safety.

Have Questions?
Please Call 1-800-422-0436

* Automated document, Preliminary Statement, Part A
120935016
62-4527 (Rev 1/91)
Service Planning
Advice No. 1633-G/1342-E
Effective 4/02/91
Pacific Gas and Electric Company
Agreement to Perform
Tariff Schedule Related Work
DISTRIBUTION:

Applicant (Original)
Division (Original)
ACCTG. SVCS.

REFERENCES:

Notification # 120935016
R20-PM # 35354566
Contract # 50065706 V2
October 21, 2022
City of Morgan Hill, A GOVERNMENT AGENCY (Applicant) has requested PACIFIC GAS AND ELECTRIC COMPANY, a California corporation (PG&E), to perform the tariff schedule related work as located and described in paragragh 3 herein. PG&E agrees to perform the requested work and furnish all necessary labor, equipment, materials and related facilities required therefore, subject to the following conditions:

1. Whenever part or all of the requested work is to be furnished or performed upon property other than that of Applicant, Applicant shall first procure from such owners all necessary rights-of-way and/or permits in a form satisfactory to PG&E and without cost to it.

2. Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless PG&E, its officers, agents and employees, against all loss, damage, expense and liability resulting from injury to or death of any person, including but not limited to, employees of PG&E, Applicant or any third party, or for the loss, destruction or damage to property, including, but not limited to property of PG&E, Applicant or any third party, arising out of or in any way connected with the performance of this agreement, however caused, except to the extent caused by the active negligence or willful misconduct of PG&E, its officers, agents and employees. Applicant will, on PG&E's request, defend any suit asserting a claim covered by this indemnity. Applicant will pay all costs that may be incurred by PG&E in enforcing this indemnity, including reasonable attorneys' fees.

3. The location and requested work are described as follows: (Describe in detail the materials and facilities to be furnished and/or work to be performed by PG&E. If more space is required, use other side and attach any necessary drawings as Exhibits A, B, C, etc):

LOCATION: HALE ROAD EAST OF DEWITT AVE, MORGAN HILL
DESCRIPTION OF WORK: Rule 20C - Underground existing overhead electric facilities Engineering & Administrative Costs $27,748.88
Including Applicant Design Value of $0.00
Cost of Additional Applicant Design Plan Checks (+) $0.00 Value of 20C Underground System (+) $4,236.26
Tie-In of 20C by PG&E (+) $10,841.73
PG&E Land Rights Costs (+) $0.00
Inspection Fees (+) $1,070.43
Value of 20C Trench & Excavation (+) $0.00
Value of 20C Conduits & Substructures (+) $13,131.01
Rule 20C Trench Permits Obtained by PG&E (+) $0.00
less Salvage & Depreciation for Overhead Facilities (-) $0.00 SUB TOTAL (=) $57,028.31
Including Net Joint Pole Credit Value of $0.00
plus ITCC @ 24% (+) $13,686.79
plus Cost to Remove Overhead Line by PG&E $5,891.24
Value of 20C Trench, Excavation & Conduit for Others (no ITCC) (+) $0.00 SUB TOTAL (=) $76,606.34
less 20C Underground System Installed by Applicant (-) $0.00 less 20C Trench & Excavation Provided by Applicant (-) $0.00 less 20C Conduits & Substructures Installed by Applicant (-) $12,729.62 less Value of Applicant Design Work (-) $0.00
Electric Rule 20C Cash Payment (=) $63,876.72
#Form 62-4527#

* Automated document, Preliminary Statement, Part A
120935016
62-4527 (Rev 1/91)
Service Planning
Advice No. 1633-G/1342-E
Effective 4/02/91

4. Applicant shall pay to PG&E, promptly upon demand by PG&E, as the complete contract price hereunder, the sum of Sixty-three thousand eight hundred seventy-six dollars and seventy-two cents $63,876.72 Upon completion of requested work, ownership shall vest in: PG&E Applicant Executed this #signDayWPA# day of #signMonWPA# #signYrWPA# City of Morgan Hill, A

GOVERNMENT AGENCY
Applicant

PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC COMPANY
By: #sigWPA# By: David Conoscenti
Christina Turner
Print/Type/Name
Title: City Manager Title: Service Planning Supervisor
#titleWPA#
Mailing Address: 17575 Peak Ave.

MORGAN HILL, CA 95037

City Council
Meeting Minutes
Rich Constantine - Mayor
Gino Borgioli - Mayor Pro Tem
John McKay - Council Member
Yvonne Martinez Beltran - Council Member
Rene Spring - Council Member
Wednesday, November 16, 2022 7:00 PM
Hybrid Meeting
17555 Peak Avenue, Morgan Hill, CA 95037 and Virtual (Link to join the meeting can be found below)

CALL TO ORDER
Mayor Pro Tem Borgioli called the City Council meeting to order at 7:02 p.m.

ROLL CALL ATTENDANCE
City Clerk Michelle Bigelow called the roll.

PRESENT Rich Constantine, Rene Spring, Gino Borgioli, John McKay, Yvonne Martinez Beltran

TELECONFERENCE
Mayor Rich Constantine participated in the City Council meeting via teleconference as follows:

The Westin
3838 Wyllie Road
Princeville, HI 96722

DECLARATION OF POSTING AGENDA
City Clerk Michelle Bigelow declared the posting of the agenda.

November 16, 2022
2 SILENT INVOCATION

PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE

PRESENTATIONS
YAC Presentation- Asset #34- Cultural Competence

RECOGNITIONS
Recognizing the Edward Boss Prado Foundation for their support of the Magical Bridge Playground and Aquatics Center Summer Access Passes for low-income youth

PROCLAMATIONS
Proclaiming the month of November as Native American Heritage Month

CITY COUNCIL REPORTS
Council Member John McKay spoke regarding the South County Youth Task Force, sharing their mission and the work they do. He spoke regarding his work on the City/School Liaison Committee. Recently, the committee discussed active shooter situations and how we can ensure that our police response would be swift.

CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
City Manager Christina Turner shared that on November 23, 2022, the City's Housing team will be hosting an in-person Community Meeting which is a free orientation for the Affordable Housing Below Market Rate Program and will be presented in English and Spanish.

She shared some information on upcoming events. On December 17, 2022 from 3 p.m. - 6 p.m.the Magical Bridge Playground will host a Winter Wonderland. Saturday, December 3, 2022, is the annual Kiwanis Holiday Lights Parade through Downtown beginning at 5:30 p.m. Come out and join your friends, neighbors, and Santa! She also wanted to remind everyone that the Senior Center Café is now open for in-person dining Monday - Friday. Registration and Café open at 10:30 a.m. and lunch is served at 11:30 a.m.

The last item she mentioned was that as of November 14, 2022 our Santa Clara CalFire Unit’s new Hawk, helicopter 106, is officially in service This new generation helicopter will bring enhanced capabilities including flight safety, higher payloads, increased power margins, and future night flying capabilities. The helicopter will be able to respond to initial attack wildfires and rescue missions. She thanked CalFire for their collaboration and partnership.

CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
No report.

OTHER REPORTS
Council Member Spring spoke about a few events that he had attended in Morgan Hill. The first was the Morgan Hill Open Studios event, led by the Library, Culture, and Arts Commission, which highlighted many wonderful artists. Next, he spoke about the Morgan Hill United Against Hate event which took place on Sunday, November 13, 2022. Finally, he mentioned the Diwali event, organized by the Indian Association of South County.

Council Member Martinez Beltran thanked the team that put together the United Against Hate event. She also provided information about the last Board meeting for the Silicon Valley Clean Energy Authority.

PUBLIC COMMENT
Public comment opened at 7:21 p.m. The following people were called to speak:

Michael Burchfield
Joe Baranowski
There being no further requests to speak, public comment closed.

ADOPTION OF AGENDA
November 16, 2022
3

November 16, 2022
4 MOTION:

Adopting the agenda as posted.

RESULT: Passed
MOVER: Council Member Spring
SECONDER: Council Member McKay
AYES: Mayor Constantine, Council Member Spring, Mayor Pro Tem Borgioli, Council Member McKay, Council Member Martinez Beltran
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None

CONSENT CALENDAR
Items appearing on the Consent Calendar are considered routine and may be approved by one motion. Pursuant to City Council Policies and Procedures (CP 97- 01), any member of the Council or public may request to have an item removed from the Consent Calendar for comment and action.

Time Estimate for Consent Calendar: 1 - 10 Minutes
MOTION:

Approving consent calendar items 1 through 11.

RESULT: Passed
MOVER: Council Member McKay
SECONDER: Council Member Spring
AYES: Mayor Constantine, Council Member Spring, Mayor Pro Tem Borgioli, Council Member McKay, Council Member Martinez Beltran
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None

1. ACCEPT THE MORGAN HILL INCLUSIVE PLAYGROUND/MAGICAL

BRIDGE PROJECT
Recommendation:

1. Accept as complete the Morgan Hill Inclusive Playground/Magical Bridge Project;

2. Authorize the City Engineer to sign the Notice of Completion; and

3. Direct the City Clerk to file said Notice of Completion with the County

November 16, 2022
5 Recorder's Office.

2. ADOPT ORDINANCE 2338, NEW SERIES, APPROVING A ZONING MAP

AMENDMENT FOR EXPANSION OF A MIXED-USE FLEX ZONE AND

PLANNED DEVELOPMENT COMBINING DISTRICT AND MASTER PLAN
FOR A 66.49-ACRE AREA LOCATED AT THE NORTHEAST QUADRANT OF COCHRANE ROAD AND HIGHWAY 101 (APNs 728-37- 001, -002, -004, - 005 & -007)
Recommendation:

Waive the reading, adopt Ordinance No. 2338, New Series, and declare that said title, which appears on the agenda, shall be determined to have been read by title and further reading waived.

3. AMEND CONFLICT OF INTEREST CODE REPORTING CATEGORIES Recommendation:

Adopt resolution amending the list of positions subject to the City’s Conflict of Interest Code.

4. APPROVE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE BATTALION ONE FIRE

PROTECTION MAINTENANCE SERVICE AGREEMENT
Recommendation:

1. Approve the first amendment to the maintenance service agreement with Battalion One Fire Protection, Inc. for an additional year of services for $17,969, for a total contract amount of $60,179; and

2. Authorize the City Manager to execute and administer two additional one-year extensions of the maintenance service agreement.

5. APPROVE ACQUISITION OF SEWER EASEMENT (PATEL) APN 841-03-063

FOR THE SEWER RELIEF TRUNK LINE PROJECT
Recommendation:

1. Adopt resolution approving the purchase of a sewer easement (1,984 square feet), APN 841-03-063 for $27,000 plus escrow and closing costs from Jitendra and Nayana Patel for the Sewer Relief Trunk Line Project; and

2. Authorize the City Manager to execute all documents and make minor modifications as necessary in order to consummate the transaction.

November 16, 2022
6 6. APPROVE SECOND AMENDMENT TO THE JOINT VENTURE SILICON

VALLEY CONSULTANT AGREEMENT FOR THE COUNTYWIDE SOLID

WASTE SERVICES PROGRAM
Recommendation:

1. Approve the Second Amendment to the Consultant Agreement with Joint Venture Silicon Valley to add Special Projects for $49,324 for a revised total contract amount of $399,324; and

2. Authorize the City Manager to execute and administer the Second Amendment to the Consultant Agreement with Joint Venture Silicon Valley.

7. APPROVE AMENDMENT TO PROFESSIONAL SERVICES AGREEMENT WITH CSG CONSULTANTS, INC. TO PROVIDE PLAN CHECK/REVIEW

ASSISTANCE
Recommendation:

Approve the First Amendment to the professional services agreement with CSG Consultants, Inc. for Building Department review services for a total not-toexceed amount of $260,000.

8. APPROVE FRANCHISE AGREEMENT WITH RECOLOGY SOUTH VALLEY

FOR SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT SERVICES
Recommendation:

Approve franchise agreement with Recology South Valley and authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement subject to the review and approval of the City Attorney.

9. APPROVE THE NOVEMBER 2, 2022 CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES Recommendation:

Approve minutes.

10. AWARD LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE SERVICE AGREEMENT FOR CITY

PARKS, MEDIANS, AND DOWNTOWN
Recommendation:

1. Award a Maintenance Service Agreement to Brightview Landscape Services, Inc. in the amount of $274,608 for a two-year period ($137,304 annually) to service Group 1: Park Mowing at City Parks; Group 3: Street Medians, Streetscapes, and Parking Lots; and Group 6: Downtown Area and extra services, with three consecutive one-year extensions, subject to future annual budget appropriations by the City Council; and

November 16, 2022
7 2. Authorize the City Manager to execute and administer said Agreement.

11. RECEIVE REPORT REGARDING UPCOMING 2023 COMMISSION

VACANCIES PER MADDY ACT
Recommendation:

Receive report.

PUBLIC HEARINGS

12. ADOPT RESOLUTION OF FORMATION TO FORM THE MORGAN HILL

PROPERTY AND BUSINESS IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT (MHPBID)
Recommendation:

1. Open/close public hearing;

2. At the close of the public hearing, order the tabulation of ballots; and

3. If ballots in support of MHPBID formation exceed ballots in opposition to MHPBID formation, adopt resolution forming the MHPBID.

Economic Development Director Matt Mahood provided the report.

The public hearing opened at 7:49 p.m. The following people were called to speak:

Nick Gaich
Rosy Bergin
Joe Baranowski
Michael Van Every
There being no further requests to speak, the public hearing closed.

While the ballots were being tabulated, the meeting moved to item 13. Item 12 will reconvene after item 13 is complete.

Item 12 resumed at 9:11 p.m.

City Clerk Michelle Bigelow announced the results of the ballot. 36 ballots received. Two ballots were not counted due to a lack of signatures or votes.

Of the 34 ballots counted, 18 ballots were yes votes, and 16 ballots were no votes.

The weighted results are as follows:
88% yes votes and 12% no votes.

If the City's vote were removed, the weighted results would be as follows:
66% yes votes and 34% no votes.

November 16, 2022
8 MOTION:

Approving the recommended action.

RESULT: Passed
MOVER: Council Member McKay
SECONDER: Mayor Pro Tem Borgioli
AYES: Mayor Constantine, Mayor Pro Tem Borgioli, Council Member McKay, Council Member Martinez Beltran
NAYS: Council Member Spring
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None

13. APPEAL (AAE2022-0007) OF PLANNING COMMISSION APPROVAL OF VESTING TENTATIVE MAP (SD2021-0004), DESIGN PERMIT (SR2021- 0014), AND A DETERMINATION THAT THE PROJECT IS EXEMPT FROM CEQA, FOR A 93-UNIT RESIDENTIAL CONDOMINIUM DEVELOPMENT PROPOSED BY DENOVA HOMES. THE PROPERTY, IDENTIFIED BY
ASSESSOR PARCEL NUMBERS 726-42-001 AND -002 ARE LOCATED

WEST OF THE MONTEREY ROAD/BURNETT AVENUE INTERSECTION
(FAMILY RV SITE)
Recommendation:

1. Grant a hearing de novo;

2. Open/close public hearing; and

3. Adopt resolution denying the appeal and reaffirming the decision of the Planning Commission to approve the project subject to Conditions of Approval.

Senior Planner Gina Paolini provided the report and presentation.

The public hearing opened at 8:23 p.m. The following people were called to speak:

Trent and Kerri with DeNova Homes, Applicant - zoom
Bob Long
Weng Tam - zoom
Joe Baranowski
Trent and Kerri with DeNova Homes, Applicant - zoom
There being no further requests to speak, the public hearing closed.

The public hearing reopened at 8:45 p.m. The following people were called to speak:

Bob Long
Trent with DeNova Homes, Applicant - zoom

November 16, 2022
9 Kevin Rock - zoom
There being no further requests to speak, the public hearing closed.

MOTION:

Approving the recommended action.

RESULT: Passed
MOVER: Council Member McKay
SECONDER: Council Member Martinez Beltran
AYES: Mayor Constantine, Council Member Spring, Mayor Pro Tem Borgioli, Council Member McKay, Council Member Martinez Beltran
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
The meeting recessed at 9:02 p.m. and reconvened at 9:10 p.m.

14. APPROVE A ZONING AMENDMENT TO ADD THE PLANNED

DEVELOPMENT COMBINING DISTRICT AND APPROVE A DESIGN PERMIT AMENDMENT TO ALLOW FOR AN ADDITIONAL LEVEL (5TH FLOOR) FOR THE APPROVED GRANADA HOTEL ON A 1.09-ACRE SITE (APN726-14- 047)(ZA2022- 0004/AAE2022-0004/EA2022-0010 MONTEREY - GRANADA HOTEL)
Recommendation:

1. Open/Close Public Hearing;

2. Waive the first and second reading of the proposed ordinance;

3. Introduce a Zoning Amendment Ordinance approving a Planned Development Combining District; and

4. Adopt resolution approving a Design Permit Amendment for the addition of a 5th floor with minor facade modifications.

Council Member McKay, Mayor Pro Tem Borgioli, and Mayor Constantine announced their ex-parte contacts.

Senior Planner Tiffany Brown and Development Services Director Jennifer Carman provided the report and presentation.

The public hearing opened at 10:12 p.m. The following people were called to speak:

Frank Leal, Applicant
Nick Gaich
Anthony Villafranca
Rick Kent

November 16, 2022
10 Joe Baranowski
Michael Van Every
Armando Benavides
Kevin Rock
Michael Meredith
Frank Leal, Applicant
There being no further requests to speak, the public hearing closed.

MOTION:

Extending the meeting to 11:30 p.m.

RESULT: Passed
MOVER: Council Member Martinez Beltran
SECONDER: Council Member Spring
AYES: Mayor Constantine, Council Member Spring, Mayor Pro Tem Borgioli, Council Member McKay, Council Member Martinez Beltran
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION:

Waiving the first and second reading of the ordinance.

RESULT: Passed
MOVER: Council Member Martinez Beltran
SECONDER: Mayor Constantine
AYES: Mayor Constantine, Council Member Spring, Mayor Pro Tem Borgioli, Council Member McKay, Council Member Martinez Beltran
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION:

Introduce the ordinance.

RESULT: Passed
MOVER: Council Member McKay

November 16, 2022
11 SECONDER: Mayor Constantine
AYES: Mayor Constantine, Mayor Pro Tem Borgioli, Council Member McKay NAYS: Council Member Spring, Council Member Martinez Beltran ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION:

Adopting the resolution.

RESULT: Passed
MOVER: Council Member Martinez Beltran
SECONDER: Mayor Constantine
AYES: Mayor Constantine, Council Member Spring, Mayor Pro Tem Borgioli, Council Member McKay, Council Member Martinez Beltran
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None

OTHER BUSINESS

15. INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE REQUIRING ELECTRIC VEHICLE CHARGING

INFRASTRUCTURE IN NEW CONSTRUCTION
Recommendation:

1. Waive the first and second reading of the ordinance; and

2. Introduce the ordinance.

Environmental Program Administrator Tanya Carothers provided the report and presentation.

MOTION:

Extending the meeting to 11:40 p.m.

RESULT: Passed
MOVER: Mayor Pro Tem Borgioli
SECONDER: Council Member McKay
AYES: Mayor Constantine, Council Member Spring, Mayor Pro Tem

November 16, 2022
12 Borgioli, Council Member McKay, Council Member Martinez Beltran NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
Public comment opened at 11:34p.m. There being no requests to speak, public comment closed.

MOTION:

Waiving the first and second reading of the ordinance.

RESULT: Passed
MOVER: Council Member Spring
SECONDER: Council Member Martinez Beltran
AYES: Mayor Constantine, Council Member Spring, Mayor Pro Tem Borgioli, Council Member McKay, Council Member Martinez Beltran
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None
MOTION:

Introduce the ordinance.

RESULT: Passed
MOVER: Council Member Martinez Beltran
SECONDER: Council Member Spring
AYES: Mayor Constantine, Council Member Spring, Mayor Pro Tem Borgioli, Council Member McKay, Council Member Martinez Beltran
NAYS: None
ABSTAIN: None
ABSENT: None

November 16, 2022
13 FUTURE COUNCIL INITIATED AGENDA ITEMS
Council Member Spring requested Leal MOU.

Council Member Martinez-Beltran requested discussion on Local Workforce PLA's.

Council Member McKay wanted to encourage the City to have a holiday celebration of some sort.

Mayor Pro Tem Borgioli requested a SB330 committee and to collaborate with other cities.

ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business, Mayor Constantine adjourned the meeting at 11:38 p.m.

Minutes Prepared by:

Michelle Bigelow, City Clerk

18 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: December 7, 2022
PREPARED BY:

Dat Nguyen, Finance Director
APPROVED BY: City Manager

DELEGATE THE AUTHORITY TO CITY MANAGER TO ACCEPT

DONATIONS FROM SHOE PALACE

RECOMMENDATION(S)
Delegate the authority to City Manager to accept donations from Shoe Palace.

COUNCIL PRIORITIES, GOALS & STRATEGIES
City Council Ongoing Priorities
Enhancing Public Safety
Supporting our Youth, Seniors, and Entire Community
2022-2023 Strategic Priorities
Fiscal Sustainability
REPORT NARRATIVE:

Shoe Palace has approached the City and offered to make various donations now and in the future that would benefit the City of Morgan Hill residents. Shoe Palace is a Morgan Hill business with headquarters in the City. Shoe Palace has expressed its desire to enhance its relationship with the City as well as with its customers. Current policy requires all donations with estimated values exceeding $5,000 be formally accepted by the City Council. Shoe Palace has indicated their donations will be yearround and that they would work with the City on the needs and timing. Some of the items that Shoe Palace has mentioned that they would buy or reimburse the City are certain public safety equipment that Morgan Hill Police Department and Fire would need, as well as funding or sponsoring certain programs for Morgan Hill residents. To save staff time and to speed up the process, staff recommends the City Council delegate the authority to the City Manager to accept all future donations from Shoe Palace and direct the City Manager to report any donations from Shoe Palace over $5,000 in the quarterly financial reporting, similar to the City Manager's report on delegation of authority for contracts and or agreements between $25,000 to $60,000.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:

Inform
This staff report serves to inform the Community of the proposed delegation of authority to City Manager to accept donations from Shoe Palace.

18 ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:

The City Council could elect not to delegate this authority.

PRIOR CITY COUNCIL AND COMMISSION ACTIONS:

None.

FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT:

Approval of this delegation of authority is expected to save staff time on preparing staff reports on future donations from Shoe Palace.

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.

19 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: December 7, 2022
PREPARED BY:

Adam Paszkowski, Principal Planner
APPROVED BY: City Manager

INTRODUCE ORDINANCE AMENDING THE ZONING CODE TO

UPDATE ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT PROVISIONS TO COMPLY

WITH STATE LAW AND MAKING MINOR CORRECTIONS TO VARIOUS
PROVISIONS, EXEMPT FROM CEQA UNDER SECTION 15061(B)(3)

RECOMMENDATION(S)

1. Open/close the public hearing;

2. Waive first and second reading of the Ordinance Amendment; and

3. Introduce Ordinance Amendment.

COUNCIL PRIORITIES, GOALS & STRATEGIES
City Council Ongoing Priorities
Advancing Regional Initiatives
2022-2023 Strategic Priorities
Affordable Housing and Homelessness
Community Outreach, Engagement, and Messaging
Guiding Documents
Morgan Hill 2035 General Plan
REPORT NARRATIVE:

As part of the implementation of the Zoning Ordinance and yearly update, staff has found several clerical errors, inconsistencies between sections, and the need to update certain portions of the Municipal Code as well as provide further clarification or to expand on certain topics within the Code. In addition, Senate Bill 897 and Assembly Bill 2221 were signed by the Governor on September 28, 2022, requiring several changes to Accessory Dwelling Unit law. The purpose of the proposed Ordinance is to correct these issues. Staff regularly brings forward bundles of minor amendments as necessary to enhance, correct, and/or refine the Code.

The Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding the proposed draft Ordinance on November 8, 2022 and recommended the following amendments to the Municipal

19 Code:

A. Amend Table 18.44-2 (Minimum Accessory Structure Setbacks) and Subsection A of Section 18.44.030 (Accessory Structures in Residential Zoning Districts) of Chapter 18.44 (Accessory Structures and Uses) to remove “covered patios” (patios are defined as not having walls or a roof within Chapter 18.128 (General Terms) of the Zoning Code), clarify setbacks for decks, and to allow roofed structures (such as sheds) with a height of eight feet or less to have a side and rear setback of three feet.

B. Amend Subsection C of Section 18.52.030 (Measurement of Fence and Wall Height) of Chapter 18.52 (Fences and Walls) to clarify that the section only applies to fences or walls that are not located on a retaining wall.

C. Amend Chapter 18.56 (Height, Setback, and Lot Coverage Exceptions) and Chapter 18.84 (Accessory Dwelling Units) updating Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) provisions to comply with State law, including amending Section

18.56.040 (Lot Coverage Exceptions) to clarify that ADUs, up to 850 square feet, are exempt from lot coverage requirements and amending Section 18.84.050 (Site and Design Standards) to clarify that the conversion of an existing accessory structure is not subject to the maximum floor area identified in Table

18.84.-1 (Maximum Accessory Dwelling Unit Floor Area), that an existing accessory structure may be expanded by up to 150 square feet to accommodate ingress and egress only, and to reflect changes to State law regarding setbacks and heights of accessory dwelling units including the allowance of up to a 25-foot tall attached ADU setback four-feet from the side and rear property lines.

D. Amend Subsection A of Section 18.64.060 (General Landscape Requirement) of Chapter 18.64 (Landscaping) to allow turf areas for active recreation if the turf areas are consistent with Chapter 18.148 (Water Conservation).

E. Amend Section 18.72.020 (Applicability) of Chapter 18.72 (Parking and Loading) to require the continued use and availability of parking and loading areas.

F. Add Subsection B of Section 18.72.040 (General Requirements) of Chapter

18.72 to reintroduce the prohibition of parking automobiles in the front yard landscaping of a property.

G. Update Subsection J of Section 18.72.060 (Parking Design and Development Standards) of Chapter 18.72 to correct a clerical error in which the location to measure from an intersection in feet was not identified.

H. Update Figure 18.88-4 (Maximum Aggregate Sign Area – Single Frontage Outside Downtown Specific Plan Overlay Zone) of Section 18.88.080 (Sign Standards for Non-Residential Zones) of Chapter 18.88 (Signs) to correct a clerical error in which the title of the figure misidentifies the figure as a “Single Frontage” instead of a “Double Frontage”.

I. Update Figure 18.90-2 (Residential Transitions – Daylight Plane) of Section

18.92.130 (Residential Transition Standards) of Chapter 18.92 (Supplemental Standards) to correct a clerical error in the numbering of the Figure from “18.90- 2” to “18.92-2”.

J. Update Subsection F of Section 18.96.050 (Application Submittal and Review; Post-Approval Permit Requirements) of Chapter 18.96 (Wireless Communications Facilities) to correct a clerical error in properly identifying that

19 an appeal of a Planning Commission decision on a conditional use permit may be appealed to the City Council.

K. Amend Subsection C of Section 18.96.060 (Section 6409(a) Modifications) of Chapter 18.96 to correct a clerical error which the proposed collocation or modification that involves the installation of more than the standard number of new equipment cabinets applies to all cell towers and base stations, not just cell towers located outside the public right-of-way.

L. Update Subsection B of Section 18.104.160 (Effective Date of Decision) of Chapter 18.104 (Common Permit Requirements) to correct the reference to Chapter 18.112 (Appeals) instead of Chapter 18.122, which does not exist in the Code.

M. Update Subsection F of Section 18.108.090 (Temporary Use Permits) of Chapter

18.108 (Specific Permit Requirements) to correct a clerical error in which a Temporary Use Permit finding ends midsentence due to omitted language.

N. Amend Subsection I of Section 18.108.090 (Temporary Use Permits) of Chapter

18.108 (Specific Permit Requirements) to clarify that the director shall approve a cash deposit in an adequate amount for temporary uses that require a temporary use permit to cover the cost of cleaning the site if the applicant fails to leave the property in a presentable and satisfactory condition after the temporary use ceases to exist.

O. Update Section 18.140.010 (Purpose and Intent) of Chapter 18.140 (Post Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention) to correct a clerical error in which the word “minimize” was omitted from one of the objectives of the purpose to establish minimum stormwater management requirements and controls.

Complete details of the proposed amendments are provided in the draft Ordinance (Attachment 1) and in the Planning Commission staff report. If the proposed Ordinance is approved, the Code Amendment becomes effective 30 days following the adoption of the Ordinance by the City Council.

Pursuant to Section 18.114.060 (Findings for Approval), the City Council may approve a zoning code amendment only if all of the following findings are made:

1. The proposed amendment is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan as provided by Government Code Section 65860.

2. The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City.

3. The proposed amendment is internally consistent with other applicable provisions of the zoning code.

The proposed amendments are consistent with the above findings as they correct clerical errors and inconsistencies in the Municipal Code as well as comply with State law regarding updates to Accessory Dwelling Unit provisions.

PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION:

19 The Planning Commission reviewed the proposed amendments on November 8, 2022.

Following discussion, the Planning Commission unanimously approved Resolution No. 22-22 recommending the City Council approve the proposed Amendments as presented by Staff with the exception of allowing an attached ADU to be setback four-feet from the side and rear property lines as required by Government Code Section 65852.2.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:

Inform
A 10-day public hearing notice was published in the Friday, November 25, 2022 edition of the Morgan Hill Times pursuant to Government Code Sections 65090-65096. Notice was also provided on the website and social media. On November 8, 2022, the Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding the proposed ordinance amendments in which a 10-day public hearing notice was published in the Friday, October 28, 2022 edition of the Morgan Hill Times.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:

If the City Council does not take action on the proposed ordinance amendments, the Municipal Code will remain as-is, and the clerical errors and inconsistencies within the Code and with State Accessory Dwelling Unit laws will remain. The Council may also make modifications to the proposed amendments, or not approve certain sections that the Council deems appropriate.

PRIOR CITY COUNCIL AND COMMISSION ACTIONS:

On June 6, 2018, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2277 N.S., a comprehensive update of Title 18 – Zoning of the City of Morgan Hill Municipal Code. The update included an amendment to the City’s official zoning map consistent with the Morgan Hill 2035 General Plan.

On December 18, 2019, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2313 N.S. to update Chapter 18.84 (Accessory Dwelling Units) of Title 18 (Zoning) to implement changes to accessory dwelling units (ADUs) pursuant to Assembly Bill 68, Assembly Bill 881, and Senate Bill 13.

On January 20, 2021, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2319 N.S. and on December 1, 2021, the City Council adopted Ordinance No. 2327 N.S. amending various code provisions within Title 18 (Zoning) implementing minor amendments due to clerical errors and inconsistencies.

On November 8, 2022, the Planning Commission considered and recommended, unanimously, the City Council approve the proposed draft Ordinance (Attachment 1).

FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT:

Staff regularly brings forward bundles of minor amendments as necessary to enhance, correct, and/or refine the Code; and therefore, the cost is borne, and work is accommodated, within the respective division's annual workplan and budget.

19 CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act):

This Ordinance is exempt from environmental review pursuant to Section 15061(b)(3) of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Guidelines. The proposed text amendments are covered by the common-sense exemption that CEQA applies only to projects which have the potential for causing a significant effect on the environment.

Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. The proposed amendments consist of miscellaneous minor amendments to correct clerical errors and inconsistencies within the Municipal Code as well as updates to Accessory Dwelling Unit provisions to comply with State law.

ORDINANCE NO. , NEW SERIES

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF MORGAN HILL AMENDING VARIOUS CODE
PROVISIONS WITHIN TITLE 18 (ZONING) OF THE

MUNICIPAL CODE OF THE CITY OF MORGAN HILL

IMPLEMENTING MINOR AMENDMENTS DUE TO

CLERICAL ERRORS, INCONSISTENCIES, AND

UPDATES TO ACCESSORY DWELLING UNIT

PROVISIONS TO COMPLY WITH STATE LAW

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MORGAN HILL DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Subsection A of Section 18.44.030 (Accessory Structures in Residential Zoning Districts) of Chapter 18.44 (Accessory Structures and Uses) of Title 18 (Zoning) is hereby amended to read as follows:

A. Applicability. This section applies to the following types of accessory structures in residential zoning districts.

1. Roofed structures, including but not limited to detached garages, carports, sheds, shade structures, play structures, covered dog enclosures, and gazebos, over seven feet in height and/or one hundred twenty square feet in size.

2. Attached and detached open, unroofed, and roofed structures such as decks.

3. Trellises and other similar structures over seven feet in height.

3. Mechanical equipment and mechanical equipment enclosures such as solar panels and water storage tanks, heating, and air conditioning equipment, and other similar mechanical equipment detached from the main building on the site.

4. Pools, spas and hot tubs.

5. Ponds eighteen inches or more in depth.

6. Fireplaces, barbeque structures, statuary, fountains, and other similar ornamental features.

Section 2. Table 18.44-2 (Minimum Accessory Structure Setbacks) within Section 18.44.030 (Accessory Structures in Residential Zoning Districts) of Chapter 18.44 (Accessory Structures and Uses) of Title 18 (Zoning) is hereby amended to read as follows:

Table 18.44-2: Minimum Accessory Structure Setbacks

City of Morgan Hill
Ordinance No. 2338, New Series

Accessory Structure Minimum Setbacks from Property Lines Front Side and Rear
Roofed structures, such as detached
garages and sheds, and other
structures such as trellises
Height 8 ft. or less 3 ft.

Height greater than 8 ft. to 12 ft. 5 ft.

Height greater than 12 ft. Same as minimum primary
structure setback
Mechanical equipment and
mechanical equipment enclosures
Same as minimum primary
structure setback
50 percent of minimum
primary structure setback
Decks, attached and detached,
roofed or unroofed [2]
Height 18 in. or less (unroofed
only)
5 ft. 1 ft.

Height 6 ft. or less 15 ft. 5 ft.

Height greater than 6 ft. 20 ft. or same as minimum
primary structure setback,
whichever is less

12.5 ft. or same as
minimum primary structure
setback, whichever is less
In ground pools, spas and hot tubs Same as minimum primary structure setback
4 ft.

Above ground pools, spas, hot tubs
and related equipment, accessories,
and improvements
Same as minimum primary
structure setback
5 ft.

Ponds less than 18 in. in depth 10 ft. 1 ft.

Fireplaces, barbeque structures,
statuary and fountains [1]
Height 8 ft. or less 3 ft. 3 ft.

City of Morgan Hill
Ordinance No. 2338, New Series

Height greater than 8 ft. to 12 ft. 5 ft. 5 ft.

Notes:
[1] All openings for freestanding fireplaces and built-in barbeques shall meet all Uniform Building Code and Uniform Fire Code requirements.
[2] Height measured from ground to walking surface.

Section 3. Subsection C of Section 18.52.030 (Measurement of Fence and Wall Height) of Chapter 18.52 (Fences and Walls) of Title 18 (Zoning) is hereby amended to read as follows:

C. Fences not located on a Retaining Wall. If the adjacent finished grade is different on opposite sides of a fence or wall, and the fence or wall is not located on top of a retaining wall, the height is measured from the side with the lowest finished grade to the highest point on the fence or wall.

Section 4. Section 18.56.040 (Lot Coverage Exceptions) of Chapter 18.56 (Height, Setback and Lot Coverage Exceptions) of Title 18 (Zoning) is hereby amended to read as follows:

A. The community development director may increase the maximum lot coverage requirement by up to ten percent with the approval of a minor exception. See Section 18.108.070 (Minor Exception);
B. Accessory Dwelling Units up to 850 square feet in size, permitted pursuant to Chapter

18.84 (Accessory Dwelling Units), are exempt from lot coverage requirements.

Section 5. Subsection A of Section 18.64.060 (General Landscape Requirement) of Chapter

18.64 (Landscaping) of Title 18 (Zoning) is hereby amended to read as follows:

A. General Standards.

1. Plant Selection. All plants and trees shall be categorized as low or very low water use in the Central Coast as defined by the water use classification of landscape species (WUCOLS) database.

2. Turf Lawns. Turf areas shall be limited to flat areas designed exclusively for active recreation and shall be consistent with Chapter 18.148 (Water Conservation) of this code.

3. Plant Groupings. Where irrigation is proposed, plants shall be grouped in separate hydrozones (i.e., plants within each irrigation valve area shall have the same watering requirements).

4. Water Features. Decorative water features (e.g., fountains, ponds, waterfalls) must be approved by the planning commission and shall have recirculating water systems.

5. Watering Times. Watering shall start after seven p.m. and end before nine a.m.

6. Public Safety. Plant species shall be selected and located so that at maturity they do not interfere with pedestrian, bicycle, or vehicular circulation and do not conflict with overhead lights or utility lines.

Section 6. Section 18.72.020 (Applicability) of Chapter 18.72 (Parking and Loading) of Title

City of Morgan Hill
Ordinance No. 2338, New Series

18 (Zoning) is hereby amended to read as follows:

A. New Buildings and Uses. On-site parking and loading as required by this chapter shall be provided anytime a new building is constructed or a land use is established where no land use previously existed.

B. Change of Use. Where an existing use is changed to a new use, parking shall be provided for the incremental intensification of the new use. For example, if a new use requiring five on-site parking spaces replaces an existing use requiring four on-site parking spaces, the new use must provide one additional parking space regardless of the number of on-site parking spaces provided by the existing use.

C. Expansions and Enlargements. Where an existing structure is expanded or enlarged, additional parking is required to serve only the expanded or enlarged area. Additional parking is not required to remedy parking deficiencies existing prior to the expansion or enlargement.

D. Continued Use of Parking for Existing Parcels, Buildings, and Land Uses. On-site parking and loading as required by this chapter shall be continually available and located to provide parking for the use they were intended to serve.

Section 7. Subsection B of Section 18.72.040 (General Requirements) of Chapter 18.72 (Parking and Loading) of Title 18 (Zoning) is hereby amended to read as follows:

B. Location of Parking.

1. Residential Uses. Required minimum on-site parking to serve all residential uses shall be located on the same parcel or site as the use which it serves.

2. Non-Residential Uses. Required minimum on-site parking to serve all non-residential residential uses shall be located on the same parcel or site as the use which it serves except as allowed by Section 18.72.050.D (Off-Site Parking).

3. Parking on Landscape Violation. No person shall park or store any automobile or other vehicle, including but not limited to motorcycles, campers, boats, trailers, or other similar vehicles, in any front yard in any residential district. Parking shall be permitted for automobiles only in and upon an improved paved driveway in said front yard area if each vehicle is currently licensed and operative. Parking for camper, boat, trailer, and other similar vehicles shall comply with Section 18.72.040.F.

Section 8. Subsection J of Section 18.72.060 (Parking Design and Development Standards) of Chapter 18.72 (Parking and Loading) of Title 18 (Zoning) is hereby amended to read as follows:

J. Driveway Spacing.

1. Driveways shall be setback from street intersections as shown in Table 18.72-5:

City of Morgan Hill
Ordinance No. 2338, New Series

Table 18.72-5: Driveway Setbacks from Intersections
Use Served by Driveway Minimum Distance from Intersection Residential 10 ft.

Commercial 25 ft.

Industrial 30 ft.

Other Uses As required by the City Engineer

2. Setbacks shall be measured from corner radius or thirty feet, whichever is greater.

The corner radius shall be the arc length measured between the linear distance of the adjoining street.

Section 9. Section 18.84.020 (Permits Required) of Chapter 18.84 (Accessory Dwelling Units) of Title 18 (Zoning) is hereby amended to read as follows:

A. Accessory units consistent with the requirements of this chapter are allowed by-right with the issuance of a building permit.

B. Time Limit to Act. The city shall complete its review of an accessory unit application requiring a building permit and approve or deny the application within sixty days after receiving an application if there is an existing single-family or multifamily dwelling on the lot. If the permit application to create an accessory unit is submitted with a permit application to create a new single-family dwelling on the lot, the city may delay acting on the permit application for the accessory until the city acts on the permit application to create the new single-family dwelling. The application to create the accessory unit shall be considered without discretionary review or hearing.

C. A demolition permit for a detached garage that is to be replaced with an accessory dwelling unit shall be reviewed with the application for the accessory dwelling unit and issued at the same time.

Section 10. Section 18.84.050 (Site and Design Standards) of Chapter 18.84 (Accessory Dwelling Units) of Title 18 (Zoning) is hereby amended to read as follows:

A. General. Accessory units are subject to the same requirements that apply to primary dwellings on the same lot in the applicable zoning district except as specified in this section.

B. Number of Accessory Units. No more than one accessory dwelling unit and no more than one junior accessory dwelling unit is permitted on a single lot with a single-family dwelling. Multifamily dwelling structures may have no more than one accessory dwelling unit or up to twenty-five percent of the existing multi-family dwelling units, whichever is larger.

City of Morgan Hill
Ordinance No. 2338, New Series

C. Relationship to Primary Dwelling.

1. An accessory dwelling unit may be within, attached to, or detached from the primary dwelling. Attachment to the primary dwelling shall be by sharing a common interior wall or common roof. No passageway (as defined in Government Code Section 65852.2) is required in conjunction with the construction of an accessory dwelling unit.

2. An accessory dwelling unit shall have its own kitchen, bathroom facilities, and entrance separate from the primary dwelling.

3. The city shall allow junior accessory dwelling units as defined in Government Code Section 65852.22 to be constructed within the walls of the proposed or existing single-family residence with a separate entrance from the main entrance to the primary dwelling, an efficiency kitchen (consisting of a cooking facility with appliances, a food preparation counter and storage cabinets) and shared or independent bathroom facilities

4. The accessory unit shall be clearly subordinate to the primary dwelling by size, appearance, and location on the parcel and shall comply with all applicable building and safety codes.

D. Maximum Unit Size.

1. Table 18.84-1 identifies the maximum floor area for detached and attached accessory dwelling units.

Table 18.84-1: Maximum Accessory Dwelling Unit Floor Area Zoning District Maximum Floor Area 2, 3
RE 10 1,200 sq. ft. 1
RE 2.5 1,000 sq. ft. 1
RE 1 900 sq. ft. (1 bedroom)
1,000 sq. ft. (2 or more bedrooms) 1
All other zoning districts 850 sq. ft. (1 bedroom)
1,000 sq. ft. (2 or more bedrooms) 1
1 An attached accessory dwelling unit shall not exceed 50 percent of the existing primary dwelling. 2 The conversion of an existing accessory structure or a portion of the existing primary residence to an accessory dwelling unit is not subject to unit size requirements. 3 An attached accessory dwelling unit permitted within the front yard setback pursuant to Subsection E of this Section shall be limited to 800 square feet.

2. The maximum floor area of junior accessory dwelling units shall be five hundred square feet.

3. An accessory dwelling unit created within an existing accessory structure may be expanded up to 150 square feet beyond the same physical dimensions as the existing

City of Morgan Hill
Ordinance No. 2338, New Series

accessory structure. An expansion beyond the physical dimensions of the existing accessory structure shall be limited to accommodating ingress and egress only.

E. Property Line Setbacks.

1. No setback is required for an existing accessory structure or living area as defined by Government Code Section 65852.2 that is converted to an accessory dwelling unit.

2. No setback is required for an accessory dwelling unit constructed in the same location and the same footprint as an existing accessory structure.

3. A minimum setback of four feet from the side and rear property lines is required for an accessory dwelling unit.

4. An attached or detached accessory dwelling unit shall comply with the front setback requirements of the applicable zoning district. If an attached or detached accessory dwelling unit of at least 800 square feet in size is not permitted due to front, side, and rear setback requirements, then an attached accessory dwelling unit may be permitted within the front setback that complies with Section 18.92.080 (Intersection Sight Distance).

F. Height.

1. An attached accessory dwelling unit shall be limited to 25 feet in height or the height limitation of the applicable zoning district, whichever is less.

2. A detached accessory dwelling unit that does not comply with the side and rear setbacks of the applicable zoning district shall be limited to sixteen feet in height, unless any of the following applies:
a. On a lot within one-half mile walking distance of a major transit stop or a highquality transit corridor, as defined in Section 21155 of the Public Resources Code, a detached accessory dwelling unit up to eighteen feet in height, and an additional two feet in height to accommodate a roof pitch, is permitted. b. On a lot with an existing or proposed multi-family, multi-story dwelling, a detached accessory dwelling unit up to eighteen feet in height is permitted.

G. Parking.

1. On-site parking spaces is not required for junior accessory dwelling units.

2. Except as specified in this subsection, on-site parking for accessory dwelling units shall comply with all parking requirements in chapter 18.72 (parking and loading).

3. On-site parking spaces for accessory dwelling units may be covered or uncovered and may be located within the front, side or rear setback areas (may be tandem).

4. No off-street parking is required for an accessory dwelling unit in the following cases:
a. The accessory dwelling unit is located within one-half mile walking distance of public transit.

City of Morgan Hill
Ordinance No. 2338, New Series

b. The accessory dwelling unit is located within a National Register Historic District or other historic district officially designated by the city council. c. When an accessory dwelling unit is constructed within the primary residence or an accessory structure.
d. When on-street parking permits are required but not offered to the occupant of the accessory dwelling unit.
e. When there is a car share vehicle pick-up/drop-off location within one block of the accessory dwelling unit.

5. When an existing garage, carport, or covered parking structure is demolished in conjunction with the construction of an accessory dwelling unit, or converted to an accessory dwelling unit, the on-site parking spaces are not required to be replaced.

H. Design. The design of accessory units shall be compatible with the design and scale of the primary dwelling (using substantially the same landscaping, color, materials and design on the exterior) and the general character of the neighboring residential properties.

I. Doors and Windows. Openings (e.g., doors and windows) on exterior walls that are closest to and face adjacent residentially-zoned properties shall be designed to minimize privacy impacts and maintain access to light and ventilation on adjacent properties.

J. Utility Connections.

1. General. An accessory unit shall not be considered a new residential use for the purposes of calculating local agency connection fees or capacity charges for utilities, including water and sewer service unless constructed in conjunction with a new single-family residence.

2. Accessory Units in Existing Space. For accessory units within an existing primary dwelling, garage, or other accessory structure, the city shall not require an applicant to install a new or separate utility connection directly between the accessory unit and the utility or impose a related connection fee or capacity charge.

3. Attached and Detached Accessory Dwelling Units. Consistent with Government Code Section 66013, the connection may be subject to a connection fee or capacity charge that shall be proportionate to the burden of the proposed accessory dwelling unit, based upon either its size or the number of its plumbing fixtures, upon the water or sewer system. This fee or charge shall not exceed the reasonable cost of providing this service.

4. Fire Sprinklers. The installation of fire sprinklers shall not be required in an accessory unit if sprinklers are not required for the primary residence.

K. Septic Tank Disposal System.

1. In areas where septic tank disposal systems are allowed due to lack of sanitary sewer lines, detached accessory dwelling units shall be served by separate and independent septic tank sewage disposal systems. All leach lines shall be designed and installed in accordance with current septic system requirements of the Santa Clara County Environmental Health Services.

City of Morgan Hill
Ordinance No. 2338, New Series

2. In other areas of the city, accessory dwelling units shall be connected to the sanitary sewer system through the existing lateral line serving the primary dwelling unit.

Section 11. Figure 18.88-4 of Section 18.88.080 (Sign Standards for Non-Residential Zones) of Chapter 18.88 (Signs) of Title 18 (Zoning) is hereby amended to read as follows:

Figure 18.88-4: Maximum Aggregate Sign Area - Double Frontage Outside Downtown Specific Plan Overlay Zone
Section 12. Figure 18.90-2 of Section 18.92.130 (Residential Transition Standards) of Chapter

18.92 (Supplemental Standards) of Title 18 (Zoning) is hereby amended to read as follows:

Figure 18.92-2: Residential Transitions — Daylight Plane Section 13. Subsection F of Section 18.96.050 (Application Submittal and Review; PostApproval Permit Requirements) of Chapter 18.96 (Wireless Communications Facilities) of Title 18 (Zoning) is hereby amended to read as follows:

City of Morgan Hill
Ordinance No. 2338, New Series

F. Appeals

1. Community development director decisions on an administrative use permit may be appealed to the planning commission in accordance with Section 18.112 (Appeals).

2. Planning commission decisions on a conditional use permit may be appealed to the city council in accordance with Section 18.112 (Appeals).

Section 14. Subsection C of Section 18.96.060 (Section 6409(a) Modifications) of Chapter

18.96 (Wireless Communications Facilities) of Title 18 (Zoning) is hereby amended to read as follows:

C. Substantial Change Defined. "Substantial change" means the same as defined by the FCC in 47 C.F.R. Section 1.40001(b)(7), as may be amended, defined according to the facility type and location as follows:

1. Towers Outside the Public Right-of-Way. For towers outside the public right-of-way, a substantial change occurs when:
a. The proposed collocation or modification increases the overall height more than ten percent or the height of one additional antenna array not to exceed twenty feet (whichever is greater); or
b. The proposed collocation or modification increases the width more than twenty feet from the edge of the wireless tower or the width of the wireless tower at the level of the appurtenance (whichever is greater); or
c. The proposed collocation or modification involves excavation outside the current boundaries of the leased or owned property surrounding the wireless tower, including any access or utility easements currently related to the site.

2. Monopoles in the Public Right-of-Way. For monopoles in the public rights-of-way, a substantial change occurs when:
a. The proposed collocation or modification increases the overall height more than ten percent or ten feet (whichever is greater); or
b. The proposed collocation or modification increases the width more than six feet from the edge of the wireless monopoles; or
c. The proposed collocation or modification involves the installation of any new equipment cabinets on the ground when there are no existing ground-mounted equipment cabinets; or
d. The proposed collocation or modification involves the installation of any new ground-mounted equipment cabinets that are ten percent (ten percent) larger in height or volume than any existing ground-mounted equipment cabinets; or e. The proposed collocation or modification involves excavation outside the area in proximity to the structure and other transmission equipment already deployed on the ground.

3. All Towers and Base Stations. In addition, for all towers and base stations wherever located, a substantial change occurs when:

City of Morgan Hill
Ordinance No. 2338, New Series

a. The proposed collocation or modification would defeat the existing concealment elements of the support structure as determined by the community development director; or
b. The proposed collocation or modification violates a prior condition of approval, provided however that the collocation need not comply with any prior condition of approval related to height, width, equipment cabinets or excavation that is inconsistent with the thresholds for a substantial change described in this section;
c. The proposed collocation or modification involves the installation of more than the standard number of new equipment cabinets for the technology involved, not to exceed four.

4. Interpretation of Thresholds.
a. The thresholds for a substantial change described above are disjunctive. The failure to meet any one or more of the applicable thresholds means that a substantial change would occur.
b. The thresholds for height increases are cumulative limits. For sites with horizontally separated deployments, the cumulative limit is measured from the originally-permitted support structure without regard to any increases in size due to wireless equipment not included in the original design. For sites with vertically separated deployments, the cumulative limit is measured from the permitted site dimensions as they existed on February 22, 2012—the date that Congress passed Section 6409(a).

Section 15. Subsection B of Section 18.104.160 (Effective Date of Decision) of Chapter

18.104 (Common Permit Requirements) of Title 18 (Zoning) is hereby amended to read as follows:

B. Other Decisions. The decision of the community development director or planning commission is final and effective after five p.m. on the tenth day following the date the decision is rendered, when no appeal to the decision has been filed in compliance with Chapter 18.112 (Appeals).

Section 16. Subsection F of Section 18.108.090 (Temporary Use Permits) of Chapter 18.108 (Specific Permit Requirements) of Title 18 (Zoning) is hereby amended to read as follows:

F. Findings for Approval. To approve a temporary use permit, the community development director shall make all of the following findings:

1. The proposed temporary use is consistent with the general plan, zoning code, and any applicable specific plan or area plan adopted by the city council.

2. The location, size, design, and operating characteristics of the proposed temporary use will be compatible with the land uses in the vicinity of the property.

3. The proposed temporary use will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, and welfare.

City of Morgan Hill
Ordinance No. 2338, New Series

4. The site for the proposed temporary use is adequate in size and shape to accommodate the temporary use without negatively impacting properties adjacent and near to the site.

5. The site for the proposed temporary use is adequately served by streets and parking areas to accommodate the proposed temporary use.

Section 17. Subsection I of Section 18.108.090 (Temporary Use Permits) of Chapter 18.108 (Specific Permit Requirements) of Title 18 (Zoning) is hereby amended to read as follows:

I. Cash Deposit.

1. For temporary uses that physically changes, alters and/or improves a site, the applicant shall submit to the city a cash deposit prior to the issuance of the temporary use permit. The cash deposit shall be an adequate amount, as approved by the community development director, to defray the cost of cleaning the site if the applicant fails to leave the property in a presentable and satisfactory condition and to guarantee removal of any temporary uses or structures. The cash deposit shall be a minimum of five hundred dollars.

2. After completion of the temporary use, the city shall inspect the site and determine if it has been returned to a presentable and satisfactory condition. The city shall return the cash deposit to the applicant upon finding that the deposit is not needed to clean the site or remove any temporary use of structures.

3. If an applicant does not return the site to a presentable and satisfactory condition, the city may use all or some of the cash deposit to clean the site or remove any temporary use of structures.

4. The community development director may waive this cash deposit requirement upon finding that the requirement would be an unnecessary hardship for the applicant.

Section 18. Section 18.140.010 (Purpose and Intent) of Chapter 18.140 (Post Construction Stormwater Pollution Prevention) of Title 18 (Zoning) is hereby amended to read as follows:

The purpose of this chapter is to establish minimum stormwater management requirements and controls to protect and safeguard the general health, safety, and welfare of the public residing in watersheds in compliance with applicable provisions of the Federal Clean Water Act and any National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) storm water discharge permits issued to the city of Morgan Hill, through the following objectives:

A. Minimize increases in stormwater runoff from any development in order to reduce flooding, siltation and streambank erosion and maintain the integrity of stream channels.

B. Minimize increases in nonpoint source pollution caused by stormwater runoff from development which would otherwise degrade local water quality.

C. Minimize the total annual volume of surface water runoff which flows from any specific site during and following development to not exceed the pre-development hydrologic regime to the maximum extent practicable.

City of Morgan Hill
Ordinance No. 2338, New Series

D. Reduce stormwater runoff rates and volumes, soil erosion and nonpoint source pollution, wherever possible, through stormwater management controls and to ensure that these management controls are properly maintained and pose no threat to public safety.

The above objectives shall be met through adoption and implementation of best management practices (BMPs) in design, construction and maintenance. These BMPs shall be incorporated into permanent site design features, which shall remain functioning throughout the life of the development.

Section 19. Severability. Should any provision of this ordinance be deemed unconstitutional or unenforceable by a court of competent jurisdiction, such provision shall be severed from the ordinance, and such severance shall not affect the remainder of the ordinance.

Section 20. Effective Date; Posting. This Ordinance shall take effect on ____ ______, 20__.

The City Clerk is hereby directed to publish this Ordinance or a summary thereof pursuant to Government Code Section 36933.

THE FOREGOING ORDINANCE WAS INTRODUCED AT A MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL HELD ON THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022, AND WAS FINALLY ADOPTED AT A MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL HELD ON THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022, AND SAID ORDINANCE WAS DULY PASSED AND ADOPTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

APPROVED: ATTEST:

RICH CONSTANTINE, Mayor MICHELLE BIGELOW, City Clerk

City of Morgan Hill
Ordinance No. 2338, New Series

 CERTIFICATE OF THE CITY CLERK 

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 Ordinance No.

XXXX, New Series, adopted by the City Council of the City of Morgan Hill, California at their regular meeting held on the 1st day of February 2022.

WITNESS MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF MORGAN HILL.

DATE:

MICHELLE BIGELOW, City Clerk

ZA2022-0005
Miscellaneous Code Amendments
December 7,

2022
Project:

Zoning Amendment Amending
• Various sections of Title 18 (Zoning)
• Update Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Provisions to
comply with State Law (SB 897 & AB 2221)
Request:

Adopt Ordinance approving the amendments as
recommended by Planning Commission on November 8, 2022
Miscellaneous Code Amendments
1

Minor Clerical Errors:
• 18.72.060.J (Parking Design & Development Standards)
• Figure 18.88-4 (Maximum Aggregate Sign Area – Single
Frontage Outside Downtown Specific Plan Overlay Zone)
• Figure 18.90-2 (Residential Transitions – Daylight Plane) • 18.96.050.F (Application Submittal & Review; PostApproval Permit Requirements) • 18.96.060.C (Section 6409(a) Modifications)
• 18.104.160.B (Effective Date of Decision)
• 18.108.090.F (Temporary Use Permits)
• 18.140.010 (Purpose & Intent)
Miscellaneous Code Amendments
2

Table 18.44-2 (Minimum Accessory Structure
Setbacks)
Miscellaneous Code Amendments
3 Accessory Structure Minimum Setbacks from Property
Lines
Front Side and Rear
Roofed structures, such as
detached garages and sheds, and
open, unroofed other structures
such as decks and trellises
Height 8 ft. or less Same as minimum
primary structure
setback
3 ft.

Height greater than 8 ft. to 12 ft. or
less
5 ft.

Patios and Decks, attached and
detached, roofed or unroofed
Height less than 6ft. or less 15 ft. 5 ft.

Section 18.52.030.C (Measurement of Fence and
Wall Height)
• Clarify that the section only applies to fences or walls that are not located on a retaining wall
Section 18.64.060.A (General Landscape
Requirement)
• Allow turf for active recreation be consistent with Chapter

18.148 (Water Conservation)
Miscellaneous Code Amendments
4

Section 18.56.040.B (Lot Coverage Exceptions)
• Clarify ADUs up to 850 square feet in size are exempt from lot coverage requirements.

Section 18.84.020.C (Required Permits)
• Require demolition permits for a detached garage that is to be replaced with an ADU be reviewed and issued concurrently Miscellaneous Code Amendments
(Accessory Dwelling Units)
5

Section 18.84.050.D, E, & F (Site and Design
Standards)
• ADU created within an existing accessory structure may be expanded up to 150 square feet for ingress and egress only; • Side and rear setbacks for an attached ADU may be 4-feet; • If an ADU can not meet required setbacks, an attached ADU up to 800 square feet may be permitted within the front setback;
• An attached ADU shall be limited to 25 feet in height; • A detached ADU within ½ mile of major transit stop/highquality transit corridor shall be limited to 18 feet in height and an additional two feet to accommodate a roof pitch; and • A detached ADU on a lot with a multi-family, multi-story dwelling shall be limited to 18 feet in height.

Miscellaneous Code Amendments
(Accessory Dwelling Units)
6

Section 18.72.020 (Applicability)
• Require the continued use and availability of parking and loading areas to provide parking for the use they were
intended to serve
Section 18.72.040.B (General Requirements)
• Reintroduce the prohibition of parking automobiles in the front yard landscaping of a property
Miscellaneous Code Amendments
(Code Compliance)
7

Section 18.108.090.I (Temporary Use Permits)
• Clarify that the director shall approve a cash deposit for temporary uses to cover the cost of cleaning the site after the temporary use ceases to exist
Miscellaneous Code Amendments
8

Recommendation

1. Open/close public hearing

2. Waive reading of the Ordinance Amendment

3. Introduce the Ordinance Amendment
Findings

1. The proposed amendment is consistent with the General Plan and any applicable specific plan as provided by GC Section 65860

2. The proposed amendment will not be detrimental to the public interest, health, safety, convenience, or welfare of the City

3. The proposed amendment is internally consistent with other provisions of the zoning code
Miscellaneous Code Amendments
9

Questions?
10

20 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: December 7, 2022
PREPARED BY:

Chris Ghione, Public Services Director
APPROVED BY: City Manager

AUTHORIZE INITIATION OF NEGOTIATIONS WITH DUB BASEBALL

AND USA BMX FOR DEVELOPMENT AT BUTTERFIELD PARK SITE

RECOMMENDATION(S)
Authorize staff to pursue lease/partnership agreements with Dub Baseball and USA BMX for development of portions of the Butterfield Park site.

COUNCIL PRIORITIES, GOALS & STRATEGIES
City Council Ongoing Priorities
Supporting our Youth, Seniors, and Entire Community
2022-2023 Strategic Priorities
Fiscal Sustainability
Economic Development
Guiding Documents
Bikeways, Trails, and Recreation Master Plan
REPORT NARRATIVE:

On August 3, 2022 the City Council received a report on partnership opportunities on the City-owned parkland near the intersection of Butterfield Boulevard and Monterey Road. The City property at Butterfield Boulevard and Monterey Road has been identified as a potential new park space containing both ball fields, a BMX pump track and other amenities. The property is approximately 8 acres and has been designated for future park use. This property has been environmentally cleared for park development with the designated amenities through a CEQA process. Additionally, the City has recently purchased approximately 20 additional acres of adjacent property.

However, this recently purchased property is outside the City limits and within the County, and development of this property is planned for further down the road.

The initial development process for this park site was completed for an application to the State of California Department of Park and Recreation for its Statewide Parks Program. Unfortunately, due to the competitive nature of the grant program and the City's demographic makeup, the City's grant applications for the program were not successful. However, during the grant application process, the City engaged potential partners who were willing to take on significant portions of the park maintenance, as the

20 City does not have the funding available to increase park maintenance services on a Citywide basis. Over the past two years, the City has continued to see interest from prospective partners in the development of this property for both the benefit of the community and the partner organizations. Based on this interest, the City released an "Invitation to Partner" to allow the City to more formally explore potential partners in the development and operation of the park and recreation space. Without partners, the full development of even the first 8 acres will be at least a decade into the future. In submitting proposals, potential partners were asked to use the criteria outlined in developing their letters of interest. The required criteria in the RFP included:
 Provides a direct benefit to the public and an opportunity for direct use by the public.
 Aligns with the environmental documents prepared for the site.  Safe use of the site from a public safety perspective.  Compatible with the future development of park space on the site and adjacent site.

Additionally, desired criteria were also included in the RFP:
 Contribution of capital funding for the development of park amenities.  Contribution of operational funding to support overall site maintenance beyond maintenance of the direct amenities used by the partner organization.

Following the update on August 3, City staff began moving forward with a design consultant and the two organizations to space plan for a build out with both organizations and City park facilities on the 8 acres. Additionally, the City would work to develop a general partnership framework with both partners on site development.

Following this work, the next step was to return to the Council with a site development plan, which is the purpose of this item. An initial site development/space planning plan has been created and is included as Attachment 1. As can be viewed in the site plan, the site can be segmented into three areas. The first on the west side of the site includes the BMX area. The second, on the east side of the site, includes the baseball field area. The third in the center would include public park space and shared parking space. The additional undeveloped 20 acres is planned for use for overflow parking and also could include walking trails in the near term, until it is formally developed down the road.

The existing site plan demonstrates that there will be adequate space for both partners on the site. If approved by the Council, the next step would be to develop agreements with both organizations for the operation of the site. It is envisioned that land lease agreements would be developed with each organization and ultimately the site would be developed with three components.

1. City non-leased property for public park space and shared amenities. City to lead operations and maintenance, with identified payment from groups for shared

20 costs.

2. Baseball leased property to be developed privately for the organization's use and required public access use of the facilities.

3. BMX leased property to be developed privately for the organization's use and required public access use for the facilities.

The public access and use of the areas provided by the two partner organizations is still to be determined through the agreement development process, but may be achieved through a number of means. For the baseball facility, there could be public open hours for the general public and/or low cost field rentals for local youth sports groups. For BMX, it could mean local track practice days for the community. While much planning still needs to be done, it is important to note that the development of the 8 acres with both partners does limit the amount of space available for general park elements. While this may be viewed negatively, it should be noted that more public facilities could be pushed to the neighboring site in the future and that the City has very limited funds for development at this time. It also should be noted that both partner uses will bring facilities to the community that will be used by the community and provide recreational benefits.

One additional benefit from a development perspective of the current design concept is that development of the site can occur in numerous phases as funding for specific elements becomes available. This could come from both the City and the partners.

On November 15, 2022, the Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed the site plan and has recommended to the City Council that the City move forward in negotiating partner agreements with both organizations. In addition to recommending approval, the Commission recommended that City staff work through negotiations to plan for as much public access as possible. Should the Council approve negotiations with the two organizations, City staff would begin those immediately and plan to return to the City Council in early 2023 for review of those proposed agreements.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:

Involve/Collaborate
Through the prior grant process, significant outreach to the community was performed on the design of the site. It is the intent of staff to utilize the existing design as the basis for any future partnership development. The proposed collaboration with the community partners is critical for the financial feasibility of the project. The invitation for letters of interest was posted on the City website and sent directly to local sports organizations.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:

The City Council could provide alternate direction to City staff.

PRIOR CITY COUNCIL AND COMMISSION ACTIONS:

Developing new park and recreation facilities is a central tenet of the Bikeways, Trails, Parks and Recreation Master Plan that the Council adopted in July 2017. The City

20 Council authorized a grant application for development of this park site in July 2019 and again in October 2020. The City Council received an update on the partnership opportunities on August 3, 2022. The Parks and Recreation Commission reviewed this item and recommended moving forward with partnership agreement negotiation on November 15, 2022.

FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT:

Moving forward with negotiating the partnership agreements would not create significant fiscal impact, but will take significant staff resources within the Public Services Department. Park planning efforts are an anticipated function within the Department.

CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act):

Mitigated Negative Declaration
An environmental assessment, including an Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration, has been prepared for the project by David J. Powers & Associates, Inc. in conformance with CEQA for the initial site plan and uses.

USA BMX
The Foundation for a Better Ride
Proposal for Development and Operations
Butterfield Park
City of Morgan Hill

Table of Contents
A. cover Letter signed by an individual authorized to make commitments on behalf of the organization.

B. Description of the organization’s proposed goals and interests for use of the site.

C. Detail of the organization’s proposed operations on the site.

D. A description of the organization’s past experience managing the type of operation proposed.

E. An outline of how the proposed operation and development on the property will meet the criteria outlined in this ROI.
a. Required Criteria:
i. Provides a direct benefit to the public and an opportunity for direct use by the public. ii. Aligns with the environmental documents prepared for the site. iii. Safe use of the site from a public safety perspective. iv. Compatible with the future development of park space on the site and adjacent site. b. Desired Criteria
i. Contribution of capital funding for the development of park amenities. ii. Contribution of operational funding to support overall site maintenance beyond maintenance of the direct amenities used by the partner organization.

F. Other details of the organization’s operations intended for the property that are pertinent to the initial discussion.

G. Desired financial arrangement and terms with the City of Morgan Hill.

H. If non-profit, please include proof of organization’s standing as a non-profit.

I. Proposed Concept Plan Attached

A. Cover Letter
To: Date: May 31, 2022
City of Morgan Hill, CA
From:

Justin Travis, Director of New Track Development

USA BMX
RE: USA BMX Cover Letter of Project Support
USA BMX and the USA BMX Foundation fully support the construction of a USA BMX Sanctioned Track at the future location of Butterfield Park. Upon the completion of the BMX track, USA BMX will support the project with full sanction status, local program creation and event scheduling. The USA BMX Foundation will work closely with the city and recreation department in an effort to implement after school and recreational educational programs.

Further, USA BMX recognizes the local non-profit organization, The Foundation for a Better Ride, as a highly capable and high performing organization in good standing. The Foundation for a Better Ride has grown and operated the largest youth racing program in the United States and is capable of providing top level event programming and coaching to the City of Morgan Hill and its residents.

In an effort to enrich the collaboration between the City of Morgan Hill, and any additional stakeholders and USA BMX, USA BMX will guarantee at least one sport tourism economic impact event each year through our State Championship Series (SCR). In addition to the State Championship Series event, USA BMX will give priority consideration for both Regional Events (Gold Cup Qualifiers) through the Gold Cup Application process and National Events through the National RFP process; based on the following criteria. ● Completion of the National Level USA BMX Racing facility per the scope of work and master plan developed by Action Sports Design and built by ABA Ethos. ○ Alternatively, if a National Level Racing Facility is not initially built, once the track has grown to National Capable, it may submit for a National through the National RFP Process ● The first State Championship series event will take place during the second season of operations. ○ If the facility is completed and local events are held in 2022, then the first SCR will be awarded in 2023
● Morgan Hill BMX track must host at least 20 local BMX races for each full season it is open prior to a USA BMX National or Gold Cup Championship Event.

The 2023 National RFP is attached as reference.
__________________________ ___05/31/2022____
Justin Travis Date:

USA BMX
B. Proposed Goals
Our goal is to utilize the site of the future Butterfield park to develop and operate a Sanctioned USA BMX local racing program.

USA BMX programs are beginner and family inclusive programs, allowing racers of all ages to compete together and share experiences through thoughtfully designed weekly coaching, practice and competitive cycling events.

C. Proposed Operations
● Operations will include weekly racing, coached practices, and concession sales. ● These will happen five days per week for 11 months.
● The initial BMX Track will be an all dirt facility that will require daily maintenance. ○ Due to this situation, the track should be operated in a similar manner to a swimming pool; it is open to the public, but only during supervised, sanctioned activities. ○ If a point is reached where the track surface is able to be upgraded to a surface that does not require maintenance, and the city is willing to insure the facility during non-sanctioned times (similar to a skatepark) the facility will have the ability to be open daily during hours without supervision.
● A sample/proposed schedule is below.

BMX Racing League: Sessions are 6 weeks each. Offered in Spring, Summer and Fall BMX Summer Camps and Special Events will be submitted via a separate schedule Monday Tuesday Wednesday Thursday Friday Saturday Sunday Key 11:00 AM Sanctioned Racing
12:00 PM Sanctioned Racing
1:00 PM Sanctioned Racing
2:00 PM Sanctioned Racing
6:00 PM Coached Lessons Sanctioned Racing Coached Lessons Sanctioned Racing 7:00 PM BMX Racing League Coached Lessons Sanctioned Racing Coached Lessons BMX Racing League 8:00 PM BMX Racing League Sanctioned Racing Coached Lessons D. Past Experience
The Foundation for a Better Rider parents group has operated the USA BMX facility located in Santa Clara for six years.

During this time, the yearly membership was increased from 515 members to 1333 members. In this same period racing was increased from twice a week to three times per week and average racer attendance was increased from 54 participants per event to 165 participants per event.

The above numbers reflect competition days and do not take into account the additional two days per week of coached practice sessions or summer camps.

This level of participation is higher than most other recreational sports and happens 11 months a year, so facility use is not limited to traditional sport seasons.

The Foundation for a Better Ride is currently the number one USA BMX parents organization in the United States.

E. Criteria
Required Criteria:
● Provides a direct benefit to the public and an opportunity for direct use by the public. ○ The residents of Morgan Hill do not currently have access to recreational cycling programs in any form. This directly benefits all families that are looking for alternative, programmed and coached activities outside of traditional team sports.
○ The data from Santa Clara shows that there are more residents not participating in traditional sports than are participating in them.
○ The conclusion is that further investments in traditional sporting activities does not benefit the majority of the community.
● Aligns with the environmental documents prepared for the site. ○ BMX racing is non-motorized and when the surface of the track is prepared properly uses very little natural resources for maintenance.
● Safe use of the site from a public safety perspective. ○ During all programmed activities, organization staff is present. ● Compatible with the future development of park space on the site and adjacent site. ○ BMX racing is complimentary of future park space as many participants and their families enjoy playgrounds, sheltered picnic areas and multi-use spaces.

Desired Criteria
● Contribution of capital funding for the development of park amenities. ○ Unlike many capital projects of this nature, USA BMX owns the events that are used to drive tourism and economic development.
○ USA BMX is able to guarantee State and Regional level events that will drive as much as $500,000/year in Economic Impact to your city.
○ If a National Event is awarded the Economic Impact averages $2.1 Million. ● Contribution of operational funding to support overall site maintenance beyond maintenance of the direct amenities used by the partner organization.
○ The majority of BMX Racing is based on the pay-play model allowing for BMX facilities to be completely self-funding on the operational and maintenance levels. ○ BMX facilities are not only operationally sustainable but are able to operate with a positive revenue balance allowing them to re-invest in their programs and facilities.

F. Further Details
A proposed site layout is attached that would allow for the use of a projected 100 participants and 250 total people on site each race day.

The USA BMX Track will serve between 15,000 and 20,000 athletes annually and between 30,000 and 50,000 total visitors annually.

G. Desired Financial Arrangement
Depending on the available infrastructure and experience of the local organization a typical USA BMX track can cost up to $2,000,000 at full value.
● The Foundation for a Better Ride is able to work with the city of Morgan Hill to develop a USA BMX track at a fraction of the cost to the city.
● As the Foundation for a Better Ride will be funding the majority of the project in return we ask to operate for 5 years with no lease payments.
● After 5 years the Foundation for a Better Ride is prepared to pay a fee of $2 per participant (not spectator) for every event that happens at the facility. ○ This will allow the program a fair chance for growth without paying more than it is able as the program starts. This also allows the city to receive increased revenue as the program continues to grow.
● Once the program is operating at capacity, the city is projected to receive between $15,000 - $20,000 per year in ongoing use fees.

STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FRANCHISE TAX BOARD
PO BOX 942857
SACRAMENTO CA 94257-0540
Entity Status Letter
Date:

ESL ID:

Why You Received This Letter
According to our records, the following entity information is true and accurate as of the date of this letter.

Entity ID:

Entity Name:

1. The entity is in good standing with the Franchise Tax Board.

2. The entity is not in good standing with the Franchise Tax Board.

3. The entity is currently exempt from tax under Revenue and Taxation Code (R&TC) Section 23701

4. We do not have current information about the entity.

5. The entity was administratively dissolved/cancelled on through the Franchise Tax Board Administrative Dissolution process.

Important Information
• This information does not necessarily reflect the entity's current legal or administrative status with any other agency of the state of California or other governmental agency or body. • If the entity's powers, rights, and privileges were suspended or forfeited at any time in the past, or if the entity did business in California at a time when it was not qualified or not registered to do business in California, this information does not reflect the status or voidability of contracts made by the entity in California during the period the entity was suspended or forfeited (R&TC Sections 23304.1, 23304.5, 23305a, 23305.1).
• The entity certificate of revivor may have a time limitation or may limit the functions the revived entity can perform, or both (R&TC Section 23305b).

Connect With Us
Web: ftb.ca.gov
Phone: 800.852.5711 from 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. weekdays, except state holidays 916.845.6500 from outside the United States
TTY/TDD: 800.822.6268 for persons with hearing or speech impairments FTB 4263A WEB (REV 12-2019)

The Standard
of Baseball Development
To City of Morgan Hill Staff and Planning Commission,
This letter is in response to the Request for Partnership posted on the City of Morgan Hill website on April 28, 2022. This letter is concerning the potential park complex on the city-owned 8-acre parcel on the corner of Monterey Road and Butterfield Boulevard.

The Dub Baseball/Softball Foundation, Dub Baseball/Softball, LLC, and KPI – Kinetic Performance Institute are eager and willing to partner with the City of Morgan Hill on a ballfield complex at the proposed site. Our vision for the 8-acre site to is to build a full baseball field with artificial turf and lighting, along with a 10,000 square foot indoor athlete training facility that can support the operations on the site. We are also interested in adding a smaller softball field on the site, depending on the initial cost of the first phase of the buildout. We have considerable funds and resources to dedicate to the building of this ballfield and training complex and we are ready to partner with the city on the completion of this project. We also have the ability to provide full operational capacity for the site and complex.

There would be numerous benefits to partnering with our brand portfolio on this project.

First, the Dub program and accompanying non-profit and Fictitious Business Name, are a home-grown business that will be celebrating its 10th year in August of 2022. We have nurtured thousands of local athletes during the decade we have been in business and we have grown considerably as a business in the last few years. This ballfield complex will be a signature offering for Morgan Hill that will have a lasting impact on local youth for decades to come. Local youth will no longer need to drive to neighboring cities to enjoy a world-class ballfield, hundreds of youth each week will be able to use and develop on a state of the art turf field right here in Morgan Hill. The site also represents a significant economic growth opportunity for local businesses. Currently, we have hundreds of athletes that live outside of Morgan Hill that drive to our facility weekly to enjoy our services and that would increase exponentially with the larger footprint of a ballfield complex, along with the ability to host lucrative tournaments on the weekends. Along with serving local athletes, this complex would bring hundreds and thousands of out of town visitors to Morgan Hill every week to support our thriving businesses and community. A complex of this nature will also continue to separate Morgan Hill from other, completing suburban destinations in the Bay Area.

We have reviewed the environmental documents that have been designed for this site and we believe our proposal fits in well with the vision and design for the site. We are willing to work with the City of Morgan Hill and appropriate designers to ensure our vision is aligned with the appropriate reviews already performed on the site. We are also willing to lead the charge if certain amendments need to be made to accommodate

The New Brand of Baseball & Softball Development
our vision for the site. We believe our vision will have the highest positive impact on the local community and we are prepared to dedicate resources towards that vision.

We currently have a unique capacity to step in and immediately operate this site safely and efficiently. We have a staff of 20 coaches that is well versed in safely operating youth trainings and practices. We have existing systems and staff in place to ensure all operations at the site are effectively managed with a safety first mentality. Our entire staff is CPR/AED certified, have gone through concussion training, have had background checks, and we plan on dedicating a portion of our staff to this project. We will have our entire staff on site with dedicated members to ensure the site is always maintained and safely operated to a high standard.

We are well positioned to be able to operate this site properly and be a partner with the City on the adjacent site in the future. We have been operating club baseball teams for 10 years and have hosted dozens of teams on local fields for tournaments. We have a strong partnership with Northern California Travel Baseball, one of the premier tournament providers in the entire nation. With our existing infrastructure and experience, we can seamlessly operate the day to day operations of a large ballfield complex, as well as handle the huge operation of running tournaments on the weekends. Both local practices and events during the week, as well as tournaments on the weekend, will be huge benefits to the local youth and economy.

We have significant capital to contribute to this project to ensure it comes to fruition in our vision. We have up to $2.4 million dollars earmarked for this project, with the ability to potentially raise more, but the level of our contribution would be contingent on reaching an amicable agreement with the City of Morgan Hill. With the construction of a turf field(s) on the site and potential adjacent property, on-going and operational maintenance would be minimal. We currently have the staffing in place to handle the day to day operational aspects of running a site with ballfields, and are willing to contribute more staffing and resources to the project if deemed necessary.

We have very serious interest in developing this site and continuing Morgan Hill’s desire to be a sport and recreation destination. We have unique capacities to assist in the development and operation of this site that will be a great benefit to the Morgan Hill community. Please feel free to reach out to me with any questions or further details at 408-623-2520 or [email protected].

With Honesty and Respect
Erik Wagle
President
Dub Baseball/Softball, LLC & KPI-Kinetic Performance Institute Executive Director
Dub Baseball/Softball Foundation (non-profit)

21 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: December 7, 2022
PREPARED BY:

Tanya Carothers, Environmental Services Administrator
APPROVED BY: City Manager

INTRODUCE AN ORDINANCE UPDATING THE CITY WATER WASTE

PROVISIONS CATEGORICALLY EXEMPT FROM CEQA UNDER
SECTION 15307

RECOMMENDATION(S)

1. Waive the first and second reading of the ordinance; and

2. Introduce the ordinance updating the City's water waste provisions.

COUNCIL PRIORITIES, GOALS & STRATEGIES
City Council Ongoing Priorities
Enhancing Public Safety
Protecting the Environment
Advancing Regional Initiatives
REPORT NARRATIVE:

The purpose of this agenda item is to introduce updates to the City's Water Waste Ordinance to include the following two items: 1) prohibit new private water wells; and 2) adopt the State ban on watering of non-functional turf into local regulations (Attachment 1). Climate change requires Californians to use water more wisely and to prepare for more frequent and persistent periods of limited water supply. Therefore, the proposed ban on new private water wells and on watering of non-functional turf will be written into the City's permanent water use restrictions which is in alignment with State goals and consistent with prior decisions by the City to make water conservation the way of life.

Prohibition of New Private Water Wells
Previously, some single family home developments would look to utilize private wells for the provision of landscape areas within the development. While these installations might reduce costs for development in the short term, the wells utilize the same groundwater supply as the municipal water system. Considering the ongoing drought conditions, the updated ordinance proposes a ban on new private water wells to provide the following benefits:

21 1) eliminate the risks of cross connections to the City's water lines which can occur when private water wells are installed;
2) eliminate new sources of untracked water use; and
3) ensure the use of the City's Advanced Metering Infrastructure (AMI) System to inform residents of leaks and provide automated reporting of water waste to the City.

Ban on Watering of Non-Functional Turf
On May 24, 2022, the State Water Board adopted a statewide emergency water conservation regulation that bans using potable (drinkable) water on decorative or nonfunctional grass at commercial, industrial, and institutional properties (CII Properties) – including areas of non-functional turf under homeowners’ association control. On September 13, 2022, the Santa Clara Valley Water District (Valley Water) amended its water waste enforcement ordinance to allow Valley Water to enforce the State’s ban on watering of non-functional turf on CII Properties. Valley Water asked that local agencies also update their ordinances to create regional consistency and easier local enforcement where violations could be cited under local codes.

Consistent with the State and Valley Water's ban on watering of non-functional turf, the City Water Waste Ordinance update will ban using potable water on non-functional turf at CII Properties – including areas of non-functional turf under homeowners’ association control. Additionally, the City ban will also include a ban on watering of non-functional turf at common areas of mobile home parks, apartments, condominiums, and townhome complexes in order to apply the ban equitably across all property types within the City.

To help with landscape conversion, the City will continue to direct the community to the Valley Water Landscape Rebate Program which is available to Santa Clara County homeowners, apartments, and commercial sites. The program offers rebates to properties wanting to make water-efficient upgrades to their high water-use landscape (e.g., pools and turf), through conversion to low water-use landscape. The program also supports retrofit of existing irrigation equipment with approved high-efficiency irrigation equipment.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:

Inform
The City advertised the Water Waste Ordinance Update twice in the Weekly 4-1-1, and in a post on social media. The 50 top landscape irrigators in the City were sent letters informing them of the ordinance update and inviting them to attend a Community Meeting to ask questions and to provide comments. The Community Meeting was held on November 14, 2022.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:

The Council could decline to adopt one or both of the Water Waste Ordinance updates.

Should new private water wells continue to be allowed in the City, then challenges related to new private water wells will persist including the potential for polluted potable water due to cross connections, and water waste with no metered accountability.

21 Should the City choose to not adopt the ban on watering of non-functional turf, then the City would have to defer to Valley Water for enforcement. Additionally, once the current drought is declared to be over, properties would have the option to re-establish their decorative non-functional turf which is not consistent with City goals to further the conservation of water and to prevent the waste of water.

PRIOR CITY COUNCIL AND COMMISSION ACTIONS:

The City's water waste ordinance was amended by the Council in 2017, and again in April 2022.

FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT:

There are no direct fiscal impacts associated with adopting the updated ordinance as it does not change the fiscal impacts (namely reduced water sales revenues and increased conservation program costs) associated with droughts and other water shortages that already exist under the current ordinance. Administering the City's water waste and drought response programs are activities included in the work program of the Public Services Department.

CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act):

Categorical Exemption
This Ordinance and actions taken hereafter pursuant to this Ordinance are exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act as actions intended to preserve and protect natural resources (CEQA Guidelines section 15307).

1 ORDINANCE NO. XXXX, NEW SERIES

AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF MORGAN HILL
AMENDING SECTION 13.04.010 (DEFINITIONS) AND
SECTION 13.04.330 (WASTING OF WATER AND
DROUGHT EMERGENCIES) OF CHAPTER 13.04 (WATER
SYSTEM) OF TITLE 13 (PUBLIC SERVICES), TO ADD

REGULATIONS PROHIBITING THE USE OF POTABLE

WATER ON NON-FUNCTIONAL TURF AND

PROHIBITING NEW PRIVATE WATER WELLS

THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF MORGAN HILL DOES HEREBY ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS:

Section 1. Section 13.04.010 (Definitions) of Chapter 13.04 (Water System) of Title 13 (Public Services) is hereby amended to read as follows (additions in underline, deletions in strikeout):

13.04.010 – Definitions.

For the purposes of this chapter, unless otherwise apparent from the context, certain words and phrases used in this chapter are defined as follows:

A. “CII Property” means commercial, industrial, and institutional properties. For the purpose of this chapter, CII Properties include: a) Homeowners’ Associations-owned property; b) common areas of mobile home parks, and apartment, condominium, and townhome complexes; c) manufacturing plants and facilities; d) industrial and commercial construction sites; e) retail and shopping malls; f) hospitals; g) religious institutions; h) government facilities (including parks); i) restaurants; j) grocery stores; k) educational institutions; l) sporting arenas; m) office buildings; and n) other properties that provide commercial, industrial, and institutional services.

B. "Functional Turf” means turf that is needed to serve a human function including: a) turf used for recreational purposes and civic or community events; b) turf located on the property of a single-family home; c) turf located on the property of a park used for sport, gathering, or recreation; d) turf on a golf course used directly for sport (driving ranges, chipping, and putting greens, tee boxes, greens, fairways and rough); e) turf located on a school field used for sport, gathering, or recreation; f) turf on a sports field; g) turf needed for pet relief at veterinarians’ offices, boarding facilities, and animal shelters; h) turf within areas of cemeteries used for visitation and gathering; i) species of turf that have a plant factor ≤ 0.3 per the California Code of Regulations Section 491 Title 23; and j) turf in areas that are watered directly beneath tree canopies and shrubs.

A.C. "Person" means any natural person or persons, corporation, public or private entity, governmental agency or institution, or any other user of water provided by the city.

B.D. "Landscape irrigation system" means an irrigation system with pipes, hoses, spray heads, or sprinkling devices that are operated by hand or through an automated system.

E. “Non-Functional Turf” means irrigated lawn grass area not meeting the definition of Functional Turf. Non-functional Turf includes but is not limited to: a) streetscape turf which is located along private or public streets (e.g., mow strips on either side of street), along streetscape sidewalks (narrow spaces of turf that line the sidewalk on private or public property), along driveways and parking lots within the community, business streetscape

2 frontage areas, and within medians within roundabouts; b) turf that is solely ornamental, and c) other turf that is not Functional Turf.

C.F. "Single pass cooling systems" means equipment where water is circulated only once to cool equipment before being disposed.

D.G. "Potable water" means water which is suitable for drinking.

E.H. "Recycled water" means the reclamation and reuse of non-potable water for beneficial use as defined in Title 22 of the California Code of Regulations.

F.I. "Station" means an area of irrigated landscape controlled by a single irrigation valve.

G.J. "Superintendent" means the superintendent of water of the city, and any act in this chapter required or authorized to be done by the superintendent, may be done on behalf of the superintendent by an authorized officer or employee of the water department. (Ord. 30 N.S. §§ 2.01, 2.02, 1948)
(Ord. No. 1932 N.S., § 4, 5-27-2009)
Section 2. Section 13.04.330 (Wasting of Water and Drought Emergencies) of Chapter 13.04 (Water System) of Title 13 (Public Services) is hereby amended to read as follows (additions in underline, deletions in strikeout):

13.04.330 Wasting of water and drought emergencies
A. Applicability

1. The provisions of this chapter apply to any person in the use of any potable water in the city.

2. The provisions of this chapter do not apply to uses of water necessary to protect public health and safety or for essential government services, such as police, fire and other similar emergency services.

3. The provisions of this chapter do not apply to the use of recycled water, with the exception of subsection B (1) of this section.

4. The provisions of this chapter do not apply to the use of water by commercial nurseries and commercial growers to sustain plants, trees, shrubs, crops or other vegetation intended for commercial sale, to the use of water in a community garden providing garden plots to the public, or to home fruit and vegetable gardens less than 200 square feet.

5. This chapter is intended solely to further the conservation of water. It is not intended to implement nor supersede any provision of federal, State, or local statutes, ordinances, or regulations relating to protection of water quality or control of drainage or runoff.

B. Prohibition Against Waste: The following water conservation requirements are effective at all times and are permanent. Violations of this section will be considered waste and an unreasonable use of water.

1. Limits on Watering Hours: Watering or irrigating of lawn, landscape or other vegetated area with potable water is prohibited between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m.

Pacific Standard/Daylight Savings Time on any day, except by use of a hand-held bucket or similar container, a hand-held hose equipped with a positive self-closing water shut-off nozzle or device, or for very short periods of time for the express purpose of adjusting or repairing an irrigation system. Watering or irrigating within 48 hours

3 after ¼ inch or more of precipitation is received is prohibited.

2. Limit on Watering Duration: Watering or irrigating of lawn, landscape or other vegetated area with potable water using a landscape irrigation system or a watering device that is not continuously attended is limited to no more than fifteen (15) minutes watering per day per station/valve/zone. This subsection does not apply to landscape irrigation stations/valves/zones that exclusively use drip type irrigation systems, soaker hoses, bubblers, or high efficiency sprinkler nozzles that have a precipitation rate of less than two (2) gallons per hour; to systems controlled by weather-based irrigation controllers; and systems having stream rotor sprinklers with a 70% or greater efficiency standard.

3. Limit on Watering Days: During the months of March through October, watering or irrigating of lawn, landscape or other vegetated area with potable water is limited to three days per week on a schedule established and posted by the city. During the months of November through February, watering or irrigating of lawn, landscape or other vegetated area with potable water is limited to no more than one day per week on a schedule established and posted by the city. This provision does not apply to the following uses of water:
a. To landscape irrigation zones that exclusively use very low flow drip type irrigation systems when no emitter produces more than two (2) gallons of water per hour;
b. To watering or irrigating by use of a hand-held bucket or similar container, a handheld hose equipped with a positive self-closing water shut-off nozzle or device, or for very short periods of time for the express purpose of adjusting or repairing an irrigation system;
c. To landscape irrigation zones that are controlled by an activated weather-based irrigation controller;
d. To watering or irrigating a newly installed or significantly rehabilitated landscape for the first sixty days after the first plant is placed in the ground. For the purposes of this section, a significantly rehabilitated landscape is a landscape in which 25% or more of a property’s landscape is replaced.

4. Watering of Turf: Potable water shall not be applied to Non-Functional Turf at commercial, industrial or institutional sites (CII Properties), including Homeowner’s Association-owned property and common areas of mobile home parks, and apartment, condominium, and townhome complexes. The use of potable water on turf is not prohibited to the extent necessary to ensure the health of trees and other perennial nonturf plantings or to the extent necessary to address immediate health and safety, sanitation, or fire protection needs as determined by the fire marshal. Unless otherwise permitted by the fire marshal, all watering permitted must be completed in a manner that prevents runoff.

4.5.No Excessive Water Flow or Runoff: Watering or irrigating of any lawn, landscape or other vegetated area in a manner that causes or allows excessive water flow or runoff onto an adjoining sidewalk, driveway, street, alley, gutter or ditch is prohibited.

5.6.No Washing Down Hard or Paved Surfaces: Washing down hard or paved surfaces, including but not limited to sidewalks, walkways, driveways, parking areas, tennis courts, patios or alleys, is prohibited except when necessary to alleviate safety or sanitary hazards, and then only by use of a hand-held bucket or similar container, a hand-held hose equipped with a positive self-closing water shut-off device, a lowPage 320 of 348 4 volume, high-pressure cleaning machine equipped to recycle any water used, or a lowvolume high-pressure water broom. Washing down structures, fences, and hard surfaces expressly for the purposes of preparing a surface for the application of a surface coating is not prohibited provided it does not occur more than one time in any twelve (12) month period.

6.7.Obligation to Fix Leaks, Breaks or Malfunctions: Excessive use, loss or escape of water through breaks, leaks or other malfunctions in the water user’s plumbing or distribution system for any period of time after such escape of water should have reasonably been discovered and corrected and in no event more than ten (10) days of receiving written notice from the city, is prohibited.

7.8.Recirculating Water Required for Water Fountains and Decorative Water Features:

Operating a water fountain or other decorative water feature that does not use recirculated water is prohibited.

8.9.Limits on Washing Vehicles: Using water to wash or clean a vehicle, including but not limited to any automobile, truck, van, bus, motorcycle, boat or trailer, whether motorized or not is prohibited, except by use of a hand-held bucket or similar container or a hand-held hose equipped with a positive self-closing water shut-off nozzle or device. This subsection does not apply to any commercial car washing facility that incorporates a recycled or recirculating water system in its operation.

9.10. Drinking Water Served Upon Request Only: Eating or drinking establishments, including but not limited to a restaurant, hotel, cafe, cafeteria, bar, or other public place where food or drinks are sold, served, or offered for sale, are prohibited from providing drinking water to any person unless expressly requested.

10.11. Commercial Lodging Establishments Must Provide Guests Option to Decline Daily Linen Services: Hotels, motels and other commercial lodging establishments must provide customers the option of not having towels and linen laundered daily.

Commercial lodging establishments must prominently display notice of this option in each bathroom using clear and easily understood language.

11.12. No Installation of Single Pass Cooling Systems: Installation of single pass cooling systems is prohibited in buildings requesting new water service.

12.13. No Installation of Nonrecirculating in Commercial Car Wash and Laundry Systems: Installation of nonrecirculating water systems is prohibited in new commercial conveyor car wash and new commercial laundry systems.

13.14. Restaurants Required to Use Water Conserving Dish Wash Spray Valves: Food preparation establishments, such as restaurants or cafes, are prohibited from using nonwater conserving dish wash spray valves.

14.15. Commercial Car Wash Systems: All commercial conveyor car wash systems must have installed operational recirculating water systems or must have a waiver of this requirement from the city.

15.16. Construction Activities: Use of potable water for construction site dust control, compaction, and other site activities suitable for nonpotable water is prohibited if recycled water is available within five miles of the construction site.

16.17. Plumbing System Testing: Use of potable water for plumbing system testing is prohibited unless required by law or alternative testing procedures are determined to be unsuitable by City inspection staff.

18. Pool Covers: Constructing a pool without the inclusion of a pool cover is prohibited.

All contracts for the construction of a new pool entered into after September 2, 2015 shall include the provision of a pool cover.

5 17.19. Wells: New private water wells are prohibited.

C. Level 1 Water Supply Shortage (1% - 10% reduction): A Level 1 Water Supply Shortage (“Alert” stage) exists when the city council determines, in its sole discretion, that due to drought, other water supply conditions, or as mandated by the State of California, a water supply shortage or threatened shortage exists and a 1% - 10% consumer demand reduction is necessary to make more efficient use of water and appropriately respond to existing water conditions. Upon the declaration by the city of a Level 1 Water Supply Shortage condition, the City will implement an active communication campaign asking the community to conserve water in compliance with the City’s permanent water use restrictions.

D. Level 2 Water Supply Shortage (11% - 20% reduction): A Level 2 Water Supply Shortage (“Severe” stage) exists when the city council determines, in its sole discretion, that due to drought, other water supply conditions, or as mandated by the State of California, a water supply shortage or threatened shortage exists and a 11% - 20% consumer demand reduction is necessary to make more efficient use of water and appropriately respond to existing water conditions. Upon the declaration by the city of a Level 2 Water Supply Shortage condition, the City will:

1. Evaluate the water use of individual water utility customers and distribute targeted communications to those water utility customers that are high users or appear to be violating the City’s water use rules; and

2. Continue implementing all Level 1 response activities.

E. Level 3 Water Supply Shortage (21% - 30% reduction): A Level 3 Water Supply Shortage (“Critical 1” stage) exists when the city council determines, in its sole discretion, that due to drought, other water supply conditions, or as mandated by the State of California, a water supply shortage or threatened shortage exists and a 21% - 30% consumer demand reduction is necessary to make more efficient use of water and appropriately respond to existing water conditions. Upon the declaration by the city of a Level 3 Water Supply Shortage condition, the City will:

1. Actively enforce the City’s current restrictions regarding the limits on watering days contained in Section 13.04.330 B (3);

2. Suspend exemptions 13.04.330 B (3)(c) and 13.04.330 B (3)(d) to Section 13.04.330 B (3);

3. Prohibit the use of potable water to wash or clean a vehicle, including but not limited to, any automobile, truck, van, bus, boat or trailer, whether motorized or not, except at a commercial car washing facility that utilizes a recirculating water system to capture or reuse water. This provision does not apply to bicycles and motorcycles. The use of potable water to clean the windshield, windows, or mirrors of a vehicle by use of a hand-held bucket or similar container is not prohibited;

4. Impose an alternative rate schedule designed for water supply shortage events if such a rate schedule has been adopted by the City Council; and

5. Continue implementing all other Level 2 response activities.

F. Level 4 Water Supply Shortage (31% - 40% reduction): A Level 4 Water Supply Shortage (“Critical 2” stage) exists when the city council determines, in its sole discretion, that due to drought, other water supply conditions, or as mandated by the State of California, a water supply shortage or threatened shortage exists and a 31% - 40% consumer demand reduction is

6 necessary to make more efficient use of water and appropriately respond to existing water conditions. Upon the declaration by the city of a Level 4 Water Supply Shortage condition, the City will:

1. Actively enforce the following limited irrigation schedule: During the months of March through October, watering or irrigating of lawn, landscape or other vegetated area with potable water is limited to two days per week on a schedule established and posted by the city. During the months of November through February, watering or irrigating of lawn, landscape or other vegetated area with potable water is limited to no more than one day per week on a schedule established and posted by the city. This provision does not apply to landscape irrigation zones that exclusively use very low flow drip type irrigation systems when no emitter produces more than two (2) gallons of water per hour. This provision also does not apply to watering or irrigating by use of a hand-held bucket or similar container, a hand-held hose equipped with a positive self-closing water shut-off nozzle or device, or for very short periods of time for the express purpose of adjusting or repairing an irrigation system; and

2. Continue implementing all other Level 3 response activities.

G. Level 5 Water Supply Shortage (41% - 50% reduction): A Level 5 Water Supply Shortage (“Emergency 1” stage) exists when the city council determines, in its sole discretion, that due to drought, other water supply conditions, or as mandated by the State of California, a water supply shortage or threatened shortage exists and a 41% - 50% consumer demand reduction is necessary to make more efficient use of water and appropriately respond to existing water conditions. Upon the declaration by the city of a Level 5 Water Supply Shortage condition, the City will:

1. Actively enforce the following limited irrigation schedule:
a. The watering or irrigating of lawns and turf is prohibited except for turf utilized for active recreation at a school, park, or public facility. Turf used for active recreation at a school, park, or public facility may be irrigated in accordance with all other irrigation restrictions up to two times per week from March – October and one time per week from November – February;
b. Trees, shrubs, and dedicated landscapes that do not contain turf may be watered one time per week in accordance with all other irrigation restrictions; and

2. Consider limits on the issuance of building permits, new potable water services, temporary meters and/or statements of immediate ability to serve or provide potable water service (such as, will-serve letters, certificates, or letters of availability). The City may consider exemptions to the limitation that include, but are not limited to the following circumstances:
a. A valid, unexpired building permit has been issued for the project; b. The project is necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare; or c. The applicant provides substantial evidence of an enforceable commitment that water demands for the project will be offset prior to the provision of a new water meter(s) to the satisfaction of the city.

This provision does not preclude the resetting or turn-on of meters to provide continuation of water service or the restoration of service that has been

7 interrupted for a period of one year or less; and

3. Continue implementing all other Level 4 response activities.

H. Level 6 Water Supply Shortage (greater than 50% reduction): A Level 6 Water Supply Shortage (“Emergency 2” stage) exists when the city council determines, in its sole discretion, that due to drought, other water supply conditions, or as mandated by the State of California, a water supply shortage or threatened shortage exists and a greater than 50% consumer demand reduction is necessary to make more efficient use of water and appropriately respond to existing water conditions. Upon the declaration by the city of a Level 6 Water Supply Shortage condition, the City will:

1. Prohibit all irrigation; and

2. Continue implementing all other Level 5 response activities.

I. Procedures for Determination/Notification of Water Supply Shortage The existence of Water Supply Shortage conditions may be declared by resolution of the city council adopted at a regular or special public meeting held in accordance with state law. The mandatory conservation requirements relating to each level of Water Supply Shortage conditions will take effect on the tenth day after the date the shortage level is declared. Within five (5) days following the declaration of the shortage level, the city must publish a copy of the resolution in a newspaper used for publication of official notices.

J. Hardship Waiver. If, due to unique circumstances, a specific requirement of this chapter would result in undue hardship to a person using water or to property upon which water is used, that is disproportionate to the impacts to water users generally or to similar property or classes of water users, then the person may apply for a waiver to the requirement as provided in this Section.

1. Application: Application for a waiver must be on a form prescribed by the City Manager and accompanied by a nonrefundable processing fee in an amount set by city council resolution.

2. Supporting Documentation: The application must be accompanied by photographs, maps, drawings, and other information, including a written statement of the applicant.

3. Required Findings for Waiver: The waiver may be granted or conditionally granted only upon a written finding of the existence of facts demonstrating an undue hardship to a person using water or to property upon which water is used, that is disproportionate to the impacts to water users generally or to similar property or classes of water use due to specific and unique circumstances of the user or the user’s property. An application for a waiver will be denied unless the City Manager finds, based on the information provided in the application, supporting documents, or such additional information as may be requested, and on water use information for the property as shown by the records of the city or its agent, all of the following:
a. That the waiver does not constitute a grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations upon other residents and businesses;
b. That because of special circumstances applicable to the property or its use, the strict application of this chapter would have a disproportionate impact on the property or use that exceeds the impacts to residents and businesses generally;

8 c. That the authorizing of such waiver will not be of substantial detriment to adjacent properties, and will not materially affect the ability of the city to effectuate the purpose of this chapter and will not be detrimental to the public interest; and
d. That the condition or situation of the subject property or the intended use of the property for which the waiver is sought is not common, recurrent or general in nature.

4. Approval Authority: The City Manager must act upon any completed application no later than ten (10) days after submittal and may approve, conditionally approve, or deny the waiver. The applicant requesting the waiver must be promptly notified in writing of any action taken. Unless specified otherwise at the time a waiver is approved, the waiver will apply to the subject property during the period of the mandatory water supply shortage condition. The decision of the City Manager shall be final.”
Section 3. Severability
If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase in this Ordinance is for any reason held invalid, the validity of the remainder of the Ordinance will not be affected. The city council hereby declares it would have passed this Ordinance and each section, subsection, sentence, clause or phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that one or more sections, subsections, sentences, clauses, or phrases or is declared invalid.

Section 4. Effective Date; Posting.

Pursuant to California Water Code Section 376, this Ordinance shall constitute a water conservation program and shall be effective upon adoption. Within ten (10) days of its adoption, this ordinance shall be published in full once in a newspaper of general circulation which is printed, published, and circulated in the City of Morgan Hill.

11 THE FOREGOING ORDINANCE WAS INTRODUCED AT A MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL HELD ON THE 7TH DAY OF DECEMBER 2022, AND WAS FINALLY ADOPTED AT A MEETING OF THE CITY COUNCIL HELD ON THE 1ST DAY OF FEBRUARY 2022, AND SAID ORDINANCE WAS DULY PASSED AND ADOPTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

APPROVED:ATTEST:

RICH CONSTANTINE, Mayor MICHELLE BIGELOW, City Clerk
 CERTIFICATE OF THE CITY CLERK 

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 Ordinance No.

XXXX, New Series, adopted by the City Council of the City of Morgan Hill, California at their regular meeting held on the 1st day of February 2022.

WITNESS MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF MORGAN HILL.

DATE:

MICHELLE BIGELOW, City Clerk

22 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: December 7, 2022
PREPARED BY:

Dat Nguyen, Finance Director
APPROVED BY: City Manager
RECEIVE MONTHLY BUDGET UPDATE AND OCTOBER 2022

FINANCIAL AND INVESTMENT REPORTS

RECOMMENDATION(S)
Accept and file report.

COUNCIL PRIORITIES, GOALS & STRATEGIES
City Council Ongoing Priorities
Preserving our Community History
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 this monthly budget update, along with the October 2022 financial and investment reports.

October 2022 Financial Report
The Revenue and Expense Summary through October 2022 is included on the first page of the monthly financial report. Overall, General Fund revenues total $8.4 million or about 17% of the budget as some of the major revenue categories are received later in the fiscal year. Expenditures, including encumbrances, amounted to $19.2 million or 35% of the budget.

Budget Update
There has been no material change to the City’s revenue since the last budget update to the Council on October 19, 2022. Recreation Services revenues continue to recover from the pandemic and are on target with budget. For water revenue, Morgan Hill residents consumed about 16% less water through October compared to the prior threeyear average. As such, the 15% revenue stabilization water rate has been implemented.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:

Inform

22 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:

No alternative action is recommended, as this is a monthly financial report on City transactions which have already occurred.

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 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.

This report is not a project, as defined in Section 15378 of the State CEQA Guidelines.

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
October 31, 2022 - 33% of Year Complete
Prepared by:

Monthly Financial and Investment Reports

CITY OF MORGAN HILL, CALIFORNIA
FINANCIAL STATEMENT ANALYSIS - FISCAL YEAR 2022-23
FOR THE MONTH ENDED OCTOBER 2022 – 33% OF YEAR COMPLETE  General Fund Revenues through October totaled $8.4 million, or about 17% of the budgeted revenues as some of the major revenue categories such as property tax are received later in the fiscal year. With respect to the property tax revenue forecast, the County estimates the City will receive approximately $17.5 million in property tax revenue for the current fiscal year, slightly more than budget of $17.4 million.

The chart below shows historical General Fund revenues by major revenue category from FY18-19 through FY21-22 Actual, FY22-23 Budget, and YTD as of October 31, 2022.

General Fund expenditures and encumbrances as of October 31, 2022 totaled $19.2 million, of which approximately $3.7 million is attributable to outstanding encumbrances.  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 $1.5 million as of October 31, 2022. Recreation Services revenues continue to recover from the pandemic and on target with budget. $12.8 $14.5 $16.0 $16.7 $17.4
$8.4
$10.7 $9.7 $11.0 $12.9 $12.4 $5.1 $4.6 $4.4
$5.9 $5.4 $9.9 $8.3 $5.7
$7.5 $8.9 $4.9 $3.6
$9.7
$9.1 $6.4
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 FY18‐19 FY19‐20 FY20‐21 FY21‐22 Budget
FY22‐23
YTD
FY22‐23
Millions ($)
Historical GF Revenues
Property Tax Sales Tax Franchise and Hotel Taxes Service Charges Other

CITY OF MORGAN HILL, CALIFORNIA
FINANCIAL STATEMENT ANALYSIS - FISCAL YEAR 2022-23
FOR THE MONTH ENDED OCTOBER 2022 – 33% 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 – Revenues through October totaled $2.5 million compared to prior year to date amount of approximately $1.5 million, partially due to a result of the fees increase approved by the City Council on January 19, 2022. Expenditures, including encumbrances, totaled $2.0 million.  Debt Service Funds – Expenditures through October totaled $0.6 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.
($2.5)
($2.0)
($1.5)
($1.0)
($0.5)
$0.0
$0.5
FY13‐14 FY14‐15 FY15‐16 FY16‐17 FY17‐18 FY18‐19 FY19‐20 FY20‐21 FY21‐22 FY22‐23 Budget
Millions (S)
Historical Net GF Impact

CITY OF MORGAN HILL, CALIFORNIA
FINANCIAL STATEMENT ANALYSIS - FISCAL YEAR 2022-23
FOR THE MONTH ENDED OCTOBER 2022 – 33% OF YEAR COMPLETE  Wastewater Operations – Revenues from Sewer Operations through October totaled $3.9 million.

Expenditures and outstanding encumbrances totaled $4.7 million or 29% of the budget. The table below shows historical Sewer Operations revenues and expenditures from FY18-19 through FY21-22 Actual, FY22-23 Budget, and YTD as of October 31, 2022.
(amount in millions) FY18‐19 FY19‐20 FY20‐21 FY21‐22
Budget
FY22‐23
YTD
FY22‐23
Revenues 11.4               11.9             13.3             14.9               14.8               3.9 Expenditures 11.4               12.3             13.3             14.8               16.3               4.7 Operating Margin ‐                 (0.4)              ‐                             0.1               (1.5)              (0.8) Operating Margin
without Encumbrances                 (0.1) 0.4                ‐                                 0.1               (1.5)                (0.6) Water Operations – Water Operations includes Utility Billing, Water Conservation, and Water Operations. Revenues from Water Operations through October totaled $5.4 million. Water Operations expenditures, including outstanding encumbrances, totaled $5.7 million. The table below shows Water Operations revenues and expenditures from FY18-19 through FY21-22 Actual, FY22-23 Budget, and YTD as of October 31, 2022.
(amount in millions) FY18‐19 FY19‐20 FY20‐21 FY21‐22
Budget
FY22‐23
YTD
FY22‐23
Revenues 14.2               15.3             16.5             16.0             17.6                               5.4 Expenditures              14.3            16.4            16.5 15.2             17.6                               5.7 Operating Margin               (0.1)             (1.1)              ‐                0.8                 ‐                (0.3) Operating Margin
without Encumbrances                 (0.1) 0.8                               ‐                  0.8                 ‐                   0.5  Investments – Total interest earnings received on investments were $54,000 during the month.

% OF ACTUAL PLUS % OF

FUND NAME ACTUAL BUDGET ENCUMBRANCES BUDGET
General 8,437,904 $ 17% $ 19,190,245 35%
Development Services 2,465,884 40% 2,008,342 33%
Housing Successor Agency 184,795 79% 725,824 63%
Sewer Operations 3,927,734 27% 4,687,961 29%
Sewer Other 8,993,319 37% 10,983,898 23%
Water Operations 5,378,517 30% 5,688,064 32%
Water Other 1,800,210 30% 602,501 9%
Other Special Revenues * 1,261,700 25% 2,384,206 26%
Capital Projects & Streets 5,624,834 24% 18,405,705 39% Debt Service 227,406 33% 550,431 81%
Internal Service 3,692,152 32% 4,747,267 38%
TOTAL FOR ALL FUNDS 41,994,455 $ 26% $ 69,974,445 33%
* Includes all Special Revenue Funds except Development Services Fund, Street Funds, and RDA and Housing Successor Agencies.

REVENUES EXPENSES
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%
General
Development
Services
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
October 31, 2022 - 33% of Year Complete
Revenues to Budget Expenses to Budget
33%

% OF PRIOR YEAR % CHANGE FROM

REVENUE CATEGORY BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET TO DATE PRIOR YEAR Property Tax 17,383,705 $ 655,923 $ 4% 589,705 $ 11%
Sales Tax 12,395,413 1,972,719 16% 1,960,858 1%
Franchise Tax 2,760,000 438,964 16% 437,999 0%
Hotel Tax 2,600,000 762,662 29% 616,612 24%
Licenses 223,975 141,485 63% 147,217 -4%
Other Agencies 1,304,130 262,974 20% 189,351 39%
Service Charges 8,942,658 3,047,214 34% 2,399,595 27%
Interest/Other 1,756,151 442,261 25% 463,272 -5%
Transfers In 3,145,538 713,701 23% 718,186 -1%
TOTAL REVENUES 50,511,570 $ 8,437,904 $ 17% 7,522,795 $ 12% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%
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
October 31, 2022 - 33% of Year Complete
33%

ACTUAL PLUS PRIOR YTD PLUS % CHANGE FROM
EXPENDITURE CATEGORY BUDGET ENCUMBRANCES % OF BUDGET ENCUMBRANCES PRIOR YEAR Administration $ 6,720,240 $ 2,475,307 37% 1, $ 698,038 46% Community Services 15,909,129 6,472,464 41% 4, 811,046 35% Police 21,324,684 6,602,095 31% 5, 924,225 11%
Fire 8,653,847 3,211,274 37% 2, 419,929 33%
Transfers Out 1,599,715 429,105 27% 442,236 -3%
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 54,207,614 $ 19,190,245 35% 15, $ 295,473 25% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50%
Administration
Community
Services
Police
Fire
Transfers Out
Total Expenditures
Percent of Actual to Budget
Morgan Hill YTD General Fund Expenditures
October 31, 2022 - 33% of Year Complete
33%

City of Morgan Hill
Recreation Report - Fiscal Year 2022-23
For the Month Ended October 31, 2022
33% of Year Complete
% of
Budget October 2022 YTD Budget
Revenues
Membership Services & Rec Programs 5,136,869 $ 346,191 $ 1,778,099 $ Facility Rentals 819,459 63,072 305,185
Community Services 127,498 2,014 8,637
Transfers in 75,000 6,250 25,000
Total Revenues 6,158,826 $ 417,527 $ 2,116,922 $ 34%
Less: Expenditures
Membership & Program Services 6,772,195 $ 430,900 $ 1,993,600 $ Facility Rentals 546,870 40,785 157,785
Community Services 644,107 50,742 173,260
Total Expenditures 7,963,173 $ 522,426 $ 2,324,645 $ 29% Net Impact without encumbrances (1,804,347) $ (104,899) $ (207,724) $ Encumbrances - - 1,268,285
Net Impact with encumbrances (1,804,347) $ (104,899) $ (1,476,009) $

The chart below shows cash balances by fund type reconciled to City's financial system:

City of Morgan Hill
Monthly Investment Report - October 31, 2022
The following are the snapshots of City's investment portfolio as of October 31, 2022. The first chart shows the portfolio composition by investment type:

LAIF - $27.7M
16% CA Class - $4.0M
2%
CA Class - $4.0M
Treasury Notes -
$20.8M
12%
Money Market-
$0.3M
<0%
Treasury Bill - $12.4M
7%
Federal Agency
Issues- $99.0M
58%
Bond Reserves/Trust-
$6.7M
4%
Cash & Other
Deposits - $0.6M
<1%
Investment Portfolio Composition - $171.5 Million
LAIF - $27.7M
Treasury Notes - $20.8M
Money Market- $0.3M
Treasury Bill - $12.4M
Federal Agency Issues-
$99.0M
Bond Reserves/Trust-
$6.7M
Cash & Other Deposits -
$0.6M
General Fund,
$25.4M Community
Development, $1.9M
Housing Successor
Agency/CDBG, $4.6M
Water - Operations,
$3.9M
Water Other, $19.6M
Sewer - Operations,
$3.2M
Sewer Other, $47.7M
Other Special
Revenue, $8.7M
Streets and Capital
Projects (except RDA),
$33.4M
Debt Service ,
$0.6M
Internal Service,
$20.6M
Agency Funds
(assessment
dists./refundable
deposits), $1.9M
Cash Balances by Fund Type
$171.5 Million
RDA Successor
Agency (except
Housing), <$0.1M

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%

4.00%

4.50%

5.00%
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
Jul‐22
Aug‐22
Sep‐22
Oct‐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%

1.60%
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
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
Jul‐22
Aug‐22
Sep‐22
Oct‐22
Days Yield
Portfolio Yield and Maturity Trends
Avg Days to Maturity Yield

City of Morgan Hill
Investment Portfolio Detail
As of October 31, 2022
Investment Settlement Book % of Market YTM Next Call Date of Type Date Value Portfolio Value at Cost Date Maturity
L A I F $        27,669,365 16.14% $           27,313,133 1.77% California C L A S S             4,005,931 2.34% $              4,005,931 3.09% City Managed
Treasury Bill 8/17/2022 4,994,074               2.91%                4,993,700 2.56% 11/17/2022 11/17/2022 Treasury Bill 8/17/2022 2,439,469               1.42%                2,416,375 3.22% 8/10/2023 8/10/2023 Treasury Bill 8/18/2022 4,955,675               2.89%                4,939,600 3.04% 2/16/2023 2/16/2023 Treasury Note 4/30/2018 4,478,718               2.61%                4,449,015 2.73% 3/31/2023 3/31/2023 Treasury Note 10/8/2021 1,990,291               1.16%                1,751,100 1.00% 9/30/2026 9/30/2026 Treasury Note 1/4/2022              1,999,496 1.17%                1,911,800 0.77% 12/31/2023 12/31/2023 Treasury Note 1/19/2022 1,993,821               1.16%                1,911,800 1.02% 12/31/2023 12/31/2023 Treasury Note 2/11/2022 1,985,997               1.16%                1,908,200 1.44% 1/31/2024 1/31/2024 Treasury Note 3/28/2022 1,997,365               1.16%                1,930,700 2.34% 4/30/2024 4/30/2024 Treasury Note 4/12/2022 1,992,208               1.16%                1,958,440 1.97% 06/30/2023 6/30/2023 Treasury Note 6/13/2022 1,912,945               1.12%                1,826,560 3.16% 11/15/2026 11/15/2026 Treasury Note 8/17/2022 2,461,436               1.44%                2,441,700 3.04% 5/15/2023 5/15/2023 FFCB Bond 4/8/2020             2,000,000 1.17%                1,889,100 0.88% 4/8/2023 4/8/2024 FFCB Bond 5/27/2020 2,000,000              1.17%                1,805,120 0.73% 11/27/2022 5/27/2025 FHLMC Bond 6/3/2020             2,000,000 1.17%                1,842,720 0.60% 12/3/2022 12/3/2024 FHLMC Bond 10/20/2020 2,000,000              1.17%                1,774,040 0.60% 4/20/2023 10/20/2025 FHLMC Bond 10/27/2020 2,000,000              1.17%                1,775,980 0.63% 4/27/2023 10/27/2025 FHLMC Bond 11/2/2020 2,000,000              1.17%                1,912,660 0.32% 11/2/2022 11/2/2023 FFCB Bond 11/3/2020 2,000,000              1.17%                1,767,060 0.54% 11/3/2022 11/3/2025 FNMA Bond 11/18/2020 2,000,000              1.17%                1,770,500 0.65% 11/18/2022 11/18/2025 FHLMC Bond 11/24/2020 2,000,000              1.17%                1,768,820 0.64% 11/24/2022 11/24/2025 FFCB Bond 11/24/2020 1,000,000              0.58%                   884,420 0.60% 11/24/2022 11/24/2025 FHLMC Bond 11/25/2020 3,000,000              1.75%                2,647,620 0.63% 11/25/2022 11/25/2025 FHLMC Bond 11/30/2020 2,000,000              1.17%                1,769,020 0.65% 11/26/2022 11/26/2025 FFCB Bond 12/22/2020 2,000,000              1.17%                1,754,100 0.47% 12/22/2022 12/22/2025 FHLB Bond 1/22/2021 2,000,000              1.17%                1,754,760 0.63% 1/22/2023 1/22/2026 FNMA Bond 1/28/2021 2,000,000              1.17%                1,752,120 0.55% 1/28/2023 1/28/2026 FHLB Bond 1/28/2021 2,000,000              1.17%                1,757,980 0.65% 1/28/2023 1/28/2026 FHLB Bond 2/24/2021 2,000,000              1.17%                1,756,400 0.75% 2/24/2023 2/24/2026 FHLB Bond 2/25/2021 2,000,000              1.17%                1,750,780 0.66% 2/25/2023 2/25/2026 FHLB Bond 2/26/2021 2,000,000              1.17%                1,750,000 0.65% 2/26/2023 2/26/2026 FHLB Bond 3/10/2021 2,000,000              1.17% 1,760,220                0.85% 3/10/2023 3/10/2026 FHLB Bond 3/16/2021 2,000,000              1.17% 1,750,100                0.70% 3/16/2023 3/16/2026 FHLB Bond 3/16/2021 2,000,000              1.17% 1,756,220                0.80% 3/16/2023 3/16/2026 FHLB Bond 6/9/2021 2,000,000              1.17% 1,759,180                1.08% 12/9/2022 6/9/2026 FHLB Bond 6/30/2021 2,000,000              1.17% 1,757,520                1.00% 12/30/2022 6/30/2026 FHLB Bond 7/15/2021 3,000,000              1.75% 2,636,610                1.13% 1/15/2023 7/15/2026 FHLB Bond 7/15/2021 2,000,000              1.17% 1,800,960                0.85% 1/15/2023 7/15/2025 FHLB Bond 8/26/2021 2,000,000              1.17% 1,729,380                0.80% 2/26/2023 8/26/2026 FHLB Bond 8/26/2021 3,000,000              1.75% 2,614,470                1.00% 2/26/2023 8/26/2026 FHLB Bond 8/26/2021 2,000,000              1.17% 1,736,240                0.90% 2/26/2023 8/26/2026 FHLB Bond 9/13/2021 2,079,890              1.21% 1,813,420                0.82% 3/11/2023 9/11/2026 FFCB Bond 9/28/2021 1,986,718              1.16% 1,739,740                0.98% 3/10/2023 9/10/2026 FHLB Bond 9/29/2021 3,000,000              1.75% 2,619,840                1.13% 3/29/2023 9/29/2026 FHLB Bond 9/30/2021 2,000,000              1.17% 1,729,920                0.88% 3/30/2023 9/30/2026 FHLB Bond 9/30/2021 3,000,000              1.75% 2,611,950                1.05% 3/30/2023 9/30/2026 FHLB Bond 9/30/2021 3,000,000              1.75% 2,608,800                1.02% 3/30/2023 9/30/2026 FHLB Bond 10/19/2021 2,000,000              1.17% 1,734,860                1.00% 4/19/2023 10/19/2026 FHLB Bond 11/18/2021 2,000,000              1.17% 1,751,920                1.30% 11/18/2022 11/18/2026 FHLB Bond 12/29/2021 2,000,000              1.17% 1,904,960                0.75% 12/29/2022 12/29/2023 FHLB Bond 1/19/2022 2,000,000              1.17% 1,785,200                1.74% 1/19/2023 1/19/2027 FHLB Bond 1/25/2022 2,000,000              1.17% 1,842,660                1.51% 1/25/2023 7/25/2025 FHLB Bond 3/10/2022 2,000,000              1.17% 1,875,860                3.48% 3/10/2023 3/10/2027 FHLB Bond 3/30/2022 3,000,000              1.75% 2,967,480                1.62% 3/30/2023 3/30/2023 FHLMC Bond 5/3/2022 1,974,315              1.15% 1,943,120                2.25% 12/26/2022 6/26/2023 FHLB Bond 5/27/2022 3,000,000              1.75% 2,974,080                1.88% 11/23/2022 2/23/2023 FHLMC Bond 6/15/2022 2,000,000              1.17% 1,960,160                3.28% 12/15/2022 12/15/2025 FHLB Bond 7/28/2022 2,000,000              1.17% 1,922,680                4.30% 1/28/2023 7/28/2027 Sub Total/Average 132,242,418 $       77.12% 121,409,740 $          1.42% Money Market 288,505 $                0.17% 288,505 $                 3.00% Total City Managed/Average 164,206,218 $       93.42% 153,017,309 $          1.52% Bond Reserve Accounts ‐ Held By Trustees 1,092,822 $           0.64% 1,092,822 $ Cash/Deposits 595,403 $                0.35% 595,403 $
PARS and CALPERS CERBT Trust 5,587,404 $           3.26% 5,627,960 $ GRAND TOTAL/AVERAGE 171,481,846 $       100% $         160,333,493

CITY OF MORGAN HILL CASH AND INVESTMENT REPORT
FOR THE MONTH OF OCTOBER 31, 2022
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR OF 2022-23
Invested Book Value % of Market
in Fund Yield End of Month Total Value
Investments
State Treasurer LAIF - City All Funds Pooled 1.77% 19,068,482 $ 11.12% 18, $ 822,984 2015 Wastewater Rev Bonds - CIP Wastewater Fund 1.77% 8,600,882 5.02% 8,490,149 California CLASS All Funds Pooled 3.09% 4,005,931 2.34% 4,005,931 Federal Issues All Funds Pooled 1.33% 99,040,923 57.76% 88, 970,750 US Treasury Notes All Funds Pooled 2.05% 20,812,277 12.14% 20, 089,315 US Treasury Bills All Funds Pooled 2.88% 12,389,218 7.22% 12, 349,675 Dreyfus Treas Cash Management Acct All Funds Pooled 3.00% 288,505 0.17% 288,505 SUBTOTAL $ 164,206,218 95.76% $ 153,017,309
Bond Reserve Accounts - held by trustees
Zions Bank - Civic Center/Library Facility
Blackrock Liq Fund Debt Service 0.41% 241,117 0.14% 241,117 Zions Bank - MH Police Facility Lease Revenue Bonds
Blackrock Liq Fund Debt Service 0.41% 306,877 0.18% 306,877 BNY - RDA Bonds
Dreyfus Cash Mgmt 521 Successor Fund 0.00% 23,240 0.01% 23,240 Zions Bank - MH Ranch 2015
Blackrock Liq Funds Fed Fund -DI -2015 Agency Fund 0.41% 257,174 0.15% 257,174 Zions Bank - Madrone Bus Park Taxable/ Tax Exempt 2015
Blackrock Liquidity Temp Fund-2015 Agency Fund 0.41% 264,414 0.15% 264,414 SUBTOTAL 1,092,822 0.64% 1,092,822
Other Cash/Deposits
General Checking All Funds 549,103 0.32% 549,103
Workers' Comp Administrators Workers' Comp 30,000 0.02% 30,000 Petty Cash & Emergency Cash General Fund 16,300 0.01% 16,300 CALPERS CERBT - OPEB Trust 3,887,404 2.27% 3,878,630
PARS - PENSION Trust 1,700,000 0.99% 1,749,330
SUBTOTAL 6,182,807 3.61% 6,223,363
Total Cash and Investments $ 171,481,846 100.00% $ 160,333,493

CASH ACTIVITY SUMMARY
FY 2022-23
Un-audited 07/1/22 Change in 10/31/2022
Fund Type Balance Cash Balance Balance
General Fund $ 28,354,149 $ (2,925,255) $ 25,428,894
Community Development 1,919,696 (25,783) 1,893,914
RDA Successor Agency (except Housing) 5,790,342 (5,761,616) 28,726 Housing Successor Agency/ CDBG 4,647,231 (6,602) 4,640,628 Water - Operations 2,980,708 899,449 3,880,157
Water Other 18,208,344 1,359,200 19,567,544
Sewer - Operations 1,663,439 1,489,109 3,152,548
Sewer Other 50,357,493 (2,649,471) 47,708,022
Other Special Revenue 8,482,063 207,480 8,689,543
Streets and Capital Projects (except RDA) 38,094,946 (4,690,969) 33,403,978 Debt Service 339,861 225,296 565,158
Internal Service 21,156,407 (543,525) 20,612,882
Agency Funds (assessment dists./refundable deposits) 3,282,559 (1,372,706) 1,909,852 Total $ 185,277,238 $ (13,795,391) $ 171,481,846
Note: See Investment Porfolio Detail for maturities of "Investments." Market values are obtained from the City's investment brokers' monthly reports.

I certify the information on the investment reports on pages 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 2022-23
For The Month Ended October 31, 2022
33% 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 $ 14,753,873 14,753,873 $ 594,999 4% $ 568,779 $ 26,220 5% Property Tax - RPTTF Residual Distribution 2,429,832 2,429,832 n/a - - n/a - Property Tax - Supplemental Roll 200,000 200,000 60,924 30% 20,925 39,998 191% Sales Tax 11,950,308 11,950,308 1,937,351 16% 1,886,155 51,196 3% Public Safety Sales Tax 445,105 445,105 35,368 8% 74,703 (39,335) -53% Transient Occupancy Taxes 2,600,000 2,600,000 762,662 29% 616,612 146,050 24% Franchise (Refuse ,Cable ,PG&E) 2,760,000 2,760,000 438,964 16% 437,999 965 0% Property Transfer Tax 500,000 500,000 124,553 25% 192,075 (67,522) -35% TOTAL TAXES 35,639,118 35,639,118 3,954,820 11% 3,797,248 157,572 4%

LICENSES/PERMITS
Business License 170,000 170,000 120,567 71% 143,587 (23,020) -16% Other Permits 53,975 53,975 39% 3,630 20,918 17,288 476% TOTAL LICENSES/PERMITS 223,975 223,975 141,485 63% 147,217 (5,732) -4%

FINES AND PENALTIES
Parking Enforcement 2,932 2,932 1,845 63% 536 1,309 244% Bails & Fines 46,480 46,480 7,565 16% 5,401 2,164 40%
Administrative Citations 20,000 20,000 1,285 6% - 1,285 0% TOTAL FINES AND PENALTIES 69,412 69,412 10,695 15% 5,937 4,759 80%

OTHER AGENCIES
Motor Vehicle in-Lieu 40,000 40,000 n/a - - n/a -
Other Revenue - Other Agencies 1,304,130 1,304,130 20% 189,351 262,974 73,623 39% TOTAL OTHER AGENCIES 1,344,130 1,344,130 262,974 20% 189,351 73,623 39%

CHARGES CURRENT SERVICES
Police False Alarm Charge 32,280 32,280 8,072 25% 7,983 1% 89 Business License Application Review 53,000 53,000 13,643 26% 14,188 (545) -4% Membership Services & Rec Programs 5,136,869 5,136,869 1,778,099 35% 1,454,769 323,331 22% Facility Rentals 819,459 819,459 305,185 37% 150,994 154,191 102% Community Services 127,498 127,498 8,637 7% 42,717 (34,080) -80% General Administration Overhead 1,775,408 1,775,408 591,803 33% 610,768 (18,965) -3% Other Charges Current Services 998,144 998,144 34% 118,175 341,776 223,600 189% TOTAL CURRENT SERVICES 8,942,658 8,942,658 3,047,214 34% 2,399,595 647,619 27%

OTHER REVENUE
Use of money/property 774,829 774,829 253,592 33% 157,827 95,765 61% Other Revenues 371,910 371,910 14% 107,434 53,421 (54,013) -50% TOTAL OTHER REVENUE 1,146,739 1,146,739 307,013 27% 265,261 41,752 16%

TRANSFERS IN
One Time Transfer 180,000 180,000 60,000 33% 60,000 0% (0) Public Safety Facilities Fund 50,000 50,000 16,667 33% 8,333 8,333 100% Supplemental Law Enforcement Fund 100,000 100,000 n/a - 33,333 (33,333) -100% Countywide Solid Waste 355,000 355,000 118,333 33% 118,333 - n/a Streets 904,438 904,438 n/a - 136,747 (136,747) -100%
Park Maintenance 650,000 650,000 216,668 33% 216,668 n/a - Sewer Operations 375,000 375,000 125,000 33% 119,052 5,948 5% Water Operations 375,000 375,000 125,000 33% 119,052 5,948 5% Open Space 81,100 81,100 27,033 33% - 27,033 n/a
Park Development 75,000 75,000 25,000 33% 25,000 n/a -
TOTAL TRANSFERS IN 3,145,538 3,145,538 713,701 23% 718,186 (4,484) -1% TOTAL GENERAL FUND 50,511,570 50,511,570 8,437,904 17% 7,522,795 915,109 12%

SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
202 STREET MAINTENANCE
Gas Tax 2105 - 2107.5 909,478 909,478 202,993 22% 136,630 66,363 49% Interest / Other Revenue/Other Charges 5 58 8 744 1283% 117 627 536% 202 STREET MAINTENANCE 909,536 909,536 203,737 22% 136,747 66,990 49%

City of Morgan Hill
Year to Date Revenues - Fiscal Year 2022-23
For The Month Ended October 31, 2022
33% of Year Complete

CURRENT INCR (DECR)
ADOPTED AMENDED YTD % PRIOR FROM PRIOR %

BUDGET BUDGET ACTUAL OF BUDGET YTD YTD CHANGE

SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
205 SUPPLEMENTAL LAW ENFORCEMENT FUND
Interest Income 1,438 1,438 871 61% 281 210% 590
Police Grant/SLEF/JAG 100,000 100,000 73,605 74% 69,618 3,986 6% 205 SUPPLEMENTAL LAW ENFORCEMENT FUND 101,438 101,438 74,476 73% 69,900 4,576 7% 206 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
Building Fees 3,433,600 3,433,600 1,380,843 40% 968,002 412,842 43% Planning Fees 1,259,167 1,259,167 179,086 14% 292,801 (113,715) -39% Engineering Fees 1,142,289 1,142,289 758,138 66% 166,145 591,993 356% Other Revenue/Current Charges 346,181 346,181 43% 69,699 147,817 78,119 112% 206 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 6,181,237 6,181,237 2,465,884 40% 1,496,647 969,238 65% 207 LONG RANGE PLANNING 995,882 995,882 383,055 38% 227,405 155,649 68% 215 and 216 HCD BLOCK GRANT
Interest Income/Other Revenue 244 244 223 91% 92 131 141% 215 and 216 HCD BLOCK GRANT 244 244 223 91% 92 131 141% 225 ASSET SEIZURE 979 979 360 37% 203 158 78%
229 LIGHTING AND LANDSCAPE 199,916 199,916 579 0% 353 226 64% 230 COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT 37,591 37,591 341 1% 175 166 95% 232 ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS 553,277 553,277 180,279 33% 163,708 16,571 10% 234 MOBILE HOME PARK RENT STAB. 441 441 790 179% 88 702 797% 236 HOUSING MITIGATION 1,575,835 1,575,835 216,700 14% 373,765 (157,065) -42% 240 EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE 20,673 20,673 2,524 12% 4,151 (1,626) -39% 246 COUNTYWIDE SOLID WASTE 1,628,603 1,628,603 401,901 25% 349,556 52,345 15% 247 ENVIRONMENT REMEDIATION 1,023 1,023 472 46% 193 280 145% 255 HOUSING SUCCESSOR AGENCY 233,641 233,641 184,795 79% 142,847 41,948 29% 260 PUBLIC ART 501 501 n/a - - n/a -
TOTAL SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS 12,440,818 12,440,818 4,116,116 33% 2,965,828 1,150,288 39%

CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS
301 PARK DEVELOPMENT 1,369,271 1,369,271 1,337,102 98% 5,578,397 (4,241,294) -76% 302 PARK MAINTENANCE 60,773 60,773 10,153 17% 5,983 4,170 70% 303 LOCAL DRAINAGE 374,484 374,484 682,759 182% 326,141 356,618 109% 304 LOCAL DRAINAGE/NON AB1600 29,166 29,166 68,841 236% 51,090 17,751 35% 306 AGRICULTURE & OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION 5,058 5,058 26,326 520% 49,970 (23,644) -47% 308 STREET CIP 4,702,650 4,702,650 988,911 21% 702,354 286,556 41% 309 TRAFFIC IMPACT 5,019,799 5,019,799 54,044 1% 2,390,769 (2,336,725) -98% 315 PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITIES IMPACT 6,221,575 6,221,575 36,674 1% 110,743 (74,069) -67% 346 PUBLIC FACILITIES NON-AB1600 1,165,537 1,165,537 370,020 32% 34,550 335,469 971% 347 PUBLIC FACILITIES IMPACT 138,168 138,168 10,279 7% 25,056 (14,776) -59% 348 LIBRARY 480,582 480,582 30,752 6% 101,730 (70,978) -70% 350 UNDERGROUNDING 29,592 29,592 5,764 19% 364,084 (358,320) -98% 355 SCHOOL PEDESTRIAN/TRAFFIC SAFETY 482,291 482,291 208,410 43% 29,720 178,690 601% 360 COMMUNITY/REC IMPACT FUND 1,335,488 1,335,488 52,149 4% 133,052 (80,902) -61% 375 QUIMBY FEE 653,451 653,451 1,538,915 236% - 1,538,915 n/a TOTAL CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS 22,067,885 22,067,885 5,421,098 25% 9,903,637 (4,482,540) -45%

DEBT SERVICE FUNDS
420 CIVIC CENTER DEBT 292,184 292,184 98,046 34% 101,945 (3,899) -4% 441 POLICE FACILITY BOND 387,490 387,490 129,359 33% 128,387 972 1% TOTAL DEBT SERVICE FUNDS 679,674 679,674 227,406 33% 230,332 (2,926) -1%

City of Morgan Hill
Year to Date Revenues - Fiscal Year 2022-23
For The Month Ended October 31, 2022
33% of Year Complete

CURRENT INCR (DECR)
ADOPTED AMENDED YTD % PRIOR FROM PRIOR %

BUDGET BUDGET ACTUAL OF BUDGET YTD YTD CHANGE

ENTERPRISE FUNDS
640 SEWER OPERATION
Sewer Service Fees 14,400,000 14,400,000 3,766,985 26% 3,601,150 165,834 5% Interest Income/Transfers 38,548 38,548 10,469 27% 3,053 7,416 243% Other Revenue/Current Charges 319,809 319,809 150,280 47% 105,431 44,848 43% 640 SEWER OPERATION 14,758,357 14,758,357 3,927,734 27% 3,709,635 218,099 6% 641 SEWER EXPANSION
Interest Income 64,455 64,455 75,187 117% 33,557 41,630 124% Development Impact Fee 4,336,657 4,336,657 216,973 5% 1,581,839 (1,364,866) -86% Transfer From-643 (Sewer Replacement) 13,310,782 13,310,782 6,429,447 48% - 6,429,447 n/a 641 SEWER EXPANSION 17,711,894 17,711,894 6,721,607 38% 1,615,396 5,106,211 316% 642 SEWER RATE STABILIZATION 50,000 50,000 26,400 53% 53,842 (27,442) -51% 643 SEWER-CAPITAL PROJECT 6,710,456 6,710,456 2,245,311 33% 1,573,247 672,064 43% TOTAL SEWER FUNDS 39,230,707 39,230,707 12,921,052 33% 6,952,120 5,968,933 86% 650 WATER OPERATION
Water Sales 16,400,000 16,400,000 4,829,137 29% 4,244,767 584,371 14% Meter Install & Service 50,000 50,000 57,837 116% 12,306 45,531 370% Transfers-In / Interest Income 580,372 580,372 196,783 34% 4,034 192,749 4778% Other Revenue/Current Charges 614,770 614,770 294,760 48% 461,289 (166,529) -36% 650 WATER OPERATION 17,645,142 17,645,142 5,378,517 30% 4,722,396 656,122 14% 651 WATER EXPANSION
Interest Income/Other Revenue/Transfer 21,044 21,044 10,235 49% 4,893 5,342 109% Development Impact Fee 918,214 918,214 55,519 6% 164,150 (108,631) -66% 651 WATER EXPANSION 939,258 939,258 65,754 7% 169,043 (103,289) -61% 652 Water Rate Stabilization - - 11,232 n/a 46,171 (34,939) -76% 653 Water Capital Project 5,128,809 5,128,809 1,723,225 34% 1,690,095 33,130 2% TOTAL WATER FUNDS 23,713,209 23,713,209 7,178,728 30% 6,627,705 551,023 8% TOTAL ENTERPRISE FUNDS 62,943,916 62,943,916 20,099,780 32% 13,579,824 6,519,956 48%

INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS
730 INFORMATION SYSTEMS 2,233,768 2,233,768 747,284 33% 750,642 (3,358) 0% 740 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 1,655,704 1,655,704 551,915 33% 376,933 174,983 46% 741 BUILDING REPLACEMENT 836,114 836,114 283,106 34% 234,074 49,032 21% 745 CIP ADMINISTRATION 1,977,307 1,977,307 536,618 27% 562,718 (26,100) -5% 760 UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE 2,317 2,317 1,051 45% 468 583 125% 770 WORKERS COMPENSATION 719,150 719,150 267,436 37% 232,793 34,643 15% 790 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT 1,259,595 1,259,595 373,777 30% 394,555 (20,778) -5% 791EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 813,718 813,718 269,998 33% 202,969 67,029 33% 795 GENERAL LIABILITY INSURANCE 1,981,019 1,981,019 660,966 33% 573,122 87,845 15% TOTAL INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS 11,478,692 11,478,692 3,692,152 32% 3,328,273 363,879 11% TOTAL FOR ALL FUNDS 160,122,555 $ 160,122,555 $ 41,994,455 $ 26% 37,530,689 $ 4,463,766 $ 12%

City of Morgan Hill
Year to Date Expenses - Fiscal Year 2022-23
For the Month Ended Oct 31, 2022
33% 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 41,779 $ 430,915 $ 162,480 $ - $ 162,480 $ 38% 135,912 $ CITY ATTORNEY 52,659 1,081,769 251,093 163,979 415,072 38% 206,538 CITY MANAGER 52,065 854,800 185,832 35,040 220,872 26% 194,538 HUMAN RESOURCES 65,360 847,361 259,759 - 259,759 31% 197,975

COUNCIL SVCS & RECORDS MGMT
Council Svcs & Records Mgmt 43,379 595,414 175,089 4,800 179,889 30% 184,857 Elections 2,262 357,836 3,528 - 1 3,528 % 7,424
COUNCIL SVCS & RECORDS MGMT 45,641 953,250 178,617 4,800 183,417 19% 192,282 FINANCE 142,561 2,552,145 562,691 671,017 1,233,708 48% 490,024 TOTAL ADMINISTRATION 400,066 6,720,240 1,600,472 874,836 2,475,307 37% 1,417,268 II. COMMUNITY SERVICES
Membership Services & Rec. Programs 430,900 6,772,195 1,993,600 1,151,870 3,145,470 46% 1,637,707 Recreation Facility Rentals 40,785 546,870 157,785 46,465 204,250 37% 164,223 Innovative Transit 36,929 887,471 87,133 749,761 836,894 94% - Community Services 50,742 644,107 173,260 69,950 243,210 38% 150,113 Park Maintenance 130,913 1,495,918 369,952 47,043 416,995 28% 296,856 Environmental Services 16,838 390,733 71,786 - 71,786 18% 60,635 Countywide Solid Waste Program 28,859 354,416 109,500 - 109,500 31% 41,340 Street Maintenance 227,494 2,710,389 683,361 181,723 865,084 32% 624,693 Downtown Maintenance 16,736 325,886 59,019 15,162 74,181 23% 96,772 Cable Television 1,455 74,758 5,872 - 8 5,872 % 10,468
COMMUNITY SERVICES 981,651 14,202,742 3,711,269 2,261,974 5,973,243 42% 3,082,805 CODE COMPLIANCE 13,797 319,550 55,717 - 55,717 17% 53,333 INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING & CONGESTION MGMT 491,888 26,032 97,796 10,031 107,827 22% 90,358 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS 80,758 894,948 282,113 53,564 335,677 38% 170,020 TOTAL COMMUNITY SERVICES 1,102,238 15,909,129 4,146,895 2,325,569 6,472,464 41% 3,396,516 III. PUBLIC SAFETY
POLICE
PD Administration 113,034 1,676,697 546,229 38,311 584,541 35% 539,572 Field Operations 934,750 10,591,376 3,116,535 41,897 3,158,431 30% 2,839,776 Support Services 219,405 2,805,374 903,277 - 903,277 32% 845,146 Emergency Services/Haz Mat 17,470 234,368 63,599 - 63,599 27% 60,770 Special Operations 303,972 3,900,732 1,261,750 - 1,261,750 32% 896,897 Dispatch Services 165,734 2,116,137 630,497 - 630,497 30% 552,940 POLICE 1,754,365 21,324,684 6,521,887 80,208 6,602,095 31% 5,735,100 FIRE 673,112 8,653,847 2,841,750 369,524 3,211,274 37% 2,418,089 TOTAL PUBLIC SAFETY 2,427,477 29,978,531 9,363,637 449,732 9,813,369 33% 8,153,189 IV. TRANSFERS
Other 107,276 1,599,715 429,105 - 429,105 27% 442,236
TOTAL TRANSFERS 107,276 1,599,715 429,105 429,105 - 27% 442,236 TOTAL GENERAL FUND 4,037,057 54,207,614 15,540,108 3,650,137 19,190,245 35% 13,409,209

City of Morgan Hill
Year to Date Expenses - Fiscal Year 2022-23
For the Month Ended Oct 31, 2022
33% 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 420 909,478 1,680 - 1,680 0% 138,191 205 PUBLIC SAFETY/SUPP.LAW 104 101,252 417 - 417 0% 35,749 206 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES FUND
Planning 134,587 1,772,972 501,212 1,059 502,271 28% 621,908 Building 165,836 2,452,139 653,598 68,895 722,493 29% 651,943 Engineering 133,532 1,907,855 491,196 292,382 783,578 41% 509,134 206 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES FUND 433,956 6,132,966 1,646,005 362,337 2,008,342 33% 1,782,984 207 LONG RANGE PLANNING 77,291 936,040 270,043 29,345 299,388 32% 199,161 215/216 CDBG 7 81 27 - 33% 27 1,832
225 ASSET SEIZURE 63 759 253 - 33% 253 -
229 LIGHTING AND LANDSCAPE 14,601 224,538 48,140 5,423 53,563 24% 37,361 230 COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT 4,764 39,852 11,828 - 11,828 30% 7,285 232 ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMS 35,653 525,533 140,151 8,762 148,913 28% 103,751 234 MOBILE HOME PARK 73 881 294 - 33% 294 148
236 HOUSING MITIGATION 60,684 1,900,261 265,784 184,267 450,051 24% 215,408 240 EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE 77 20,919 4,237 - 4,237 20% 5,844 246 COUNTYWIDE SOLID WASTE PROGRAM 98,138 1,842,223 310,563 1,086,679 1,397,242 76% 142,178 255 HOUSING SUCCESSOR AGENCY 90,524 1,143,490 404,991 320,833 725,824 63% 374,786 260 PUBLIC ART 17,459 18,750 17,993 - 17,993 96% 3,799
TOTAL SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS 833,814 13,797,023 3,122,406 1,997,646 5,120,052 37% 3,049,355

CAPITAL PROJECT FUNDS
301 PARK DEVELOPMENT 87,787 2,610,959 619,015 168,828 787,843 30% 3,697,356 302 PARK MAINTENANCE 54,318 650,000 217,868 - 217,868 34% 218,092 303 LOCAL DRAINAGE 66,393 8,221,231 687,010 290,248 977,258 12% 14,867 304 LOCAL DRAIN. NON-AB1600 5,325 181,113 13,563 7,940 21,504 12% 960 306 AGRICULTURE & OPEN SPACE PRESERVATIO 275,854 10,488 41,951 - 41,951 15% 5,393,514 308 STREET CIP 2,165,477 8,318,556 5,411,041 2,220,875 7,631,916 92% 2,790,683 309 TRAFFIC IMPACT 524,049 9,301,872 1,956,082 4,259,952 6,216,034 67% 5,436,735 315 PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITIES IMPACT 30,038 9,856,026 194,684 653,897 848,581 9% 86,725 346 PUBLIC FAC.NON AB1600 6,020 2,404,515 16,531 6,066 22,597 1% 66,860 347 PUBLIC FACILITIES IMPACT 2,429 279,154 9,718 - 9,718 3% 9,108 348 LIBRARY IMPACT 18,576 222,916 74,305 - 74,305 33% 73,736 350 UNDERGROUNDING 95 1,056,441 380 - 380 0% 380
355 SCHOOL PEDESTRIAN & TRAFFIC SAFETY 1,697 443,838 6,789 1,350 8,139 2% 788,224 360 COMM/REC CENTER IMPACT 539,366 1,466,276 544,239 883,062 1,427,301 97% 42,825 375 QUIMBY FEE 5,643 1,434,865 72,025 46,604 118,629 8% 105 TOTAL CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS 3,517,699 46,723,617 9,865,203 8,538,822 18,404,025 39% 18,620,170

DEBT SERVICE FUNDS
420 CIVIC CENTER DEBT 233,762 292,184 234,549 - 234,549 80% 3,544 441 POLICE FACILITY BOND DEBT 314,841 387,490 315,882 - 315,882 82% 1,352 TOTAL DEBT SERVICE FUNDS 548,603 679,674 550,431 550,431 - 81% 4,896