Agenda packet — Morgan Hill City Council, August 28, 2024 (part 3 of 3)

May 3, 2024
Comment Letter
SD2024-0005/SR2024-0007/EA2024-0005
Page | 3

2. An acoustical analysis report shall be submitted showing interior and exterior noise mitigations required for compliance with the MHMC, California Building Code and CALGreen code.

3. Channel Permits:
a. Bridge crossing over the channel will required channel permits. b. Obtain the approval from necessary permits from: SWRCB, Army Corp, Fish and Game, and any other appurtenant approvals.
c. Additional conditions may apply following channel permit approval.

4. The project as proposed will generate over 100 trips and therefore will be required to provide a Transportation Impact Analysis Report. This will be conducted as part of any CEQA process for a proposed project. Please note that the project as proposed may have a significant unmitigable impact regarding VMT and potentially GHG in this area of our City.

5. Traffic: Provide Traffic Operations Analysis prepared by Traffic Engineer. Show the project’s proposed engineering strategy, physical improvements and/or operational systems to ensure safe and appropriate transportation operation at the proposed (four way) intersection at West Middle Avenue and Monterey Road intersection. Update plans as needed based on requirements of the traffic analysis.

6. Fire exhibit plan conforming to detail 11-B of the City of Morgan Hill’s Fire Prevention Division Standard Details and Specifications. Plan shall include turning radius, drive aisle widths, fire apparatus staging areas, and drive isle lengths.

7. Provide the fire sprinkler design guidelines for each type of occupancy.

8. Water and Sanitary Capacity Studies/Modeling (Pursuant to Object Standards #61 and #62:
a. The proposed residential project is outside of the City’s Urban Service Area (USA); the project’s water and sewer demands have not been analyzed by the City’s adopted Sewer System Master Plan and the Water Master Plan. The project shall submit its water and sewer demand data to the City’s master plan consultant to model the project’s impacts to the sewer and water system. The project shall be responsible for the cost of master plan modeling and improvements triggered by the model’s findings. b. Note: The project has a concurrent USA application, USA2024-0001 Glenrock, to be annexed into the City’s USA to be allowed to connect to city water and sanitary. Paired with USA application, USA2024-0002 Monterey - Third Millennium, a joint capacity study of Water and Sanitary has been coordinated to determine if existing water and sanitary systems are adequate or if additional improvements will be required of the respective projects. However, the studies have not been completed for submittal.

9. Broadband Connectivity: Pursuant to Objective Standard #66 (Broadband Connectivity), the project shall provide broadband conduit installed in the public right-of-way(s) to service the

Page 328 of 468 ends

May 3, 2024
Comment Letter
SD2024-0005/SR2024-0007/EA2024-0005
Page | 4
project, in accordance with the City’s Broadband Standards. The project will be required to provide broadband conduit from the public right-of-way(s) to each home or building in the project.

10.Undergrounding Utilities: Pursuant to objective standard #49, All existing overhead utilities adjacent to any site boundary, within the project site, or along any street frontage are placed underground in accordance with City standards and affected utility company guidelines. a. Monterey Road frontage: The project is responsible for undergrounding along the project’s frontage.
b. For the overhead utilities on the opposite side of Monterey Road, the project will be required to pay the undergrounding in-lieu.

11.Valley Water
a. Existing well improvements: According to Valley Water’s Well Information GIS Map, there one (1) existing active well on the project site. The existing active well facilities are listed below with their respective Valley Water well permit identification numbers. At Design Review, revise the site development plan, utility plan, and any other pertinent plans to show the existing active well facilities and identify if there are any proposed improvements on the existing well facilities or if the facilities will remain in their existing conditions:
i. Permit # 09S03E34Q003 (groundwater monitoring well)
ii. The project will be required to obtain Valley Water review and approval for the proposed improvements review on and/or around the existing active wells improvements prior to the start of the project’s CEQA review.

12.Sanitary Sewer
a. Private Sanitary Sewer Agreement: The proposed on-site sanitary sewer lines and sewer laterals are required to be private. A Private Sanitary Sewer Maintenance Agreement, which outlines the responsibility for operation and maintenance of the project’s private sanitary sewer lines and private sewer laterals, will also be required. The Private Sanitary Sewer Maintenance Agreement shall be recorded at the County Recorder’s Office concurrently with the Final Map.

13.Water
a. Pursuant to objective standard #61 (Water Infrastructure), the project proposes water infrastructure improvements consistent with the City’s Design Standards and Standard Details, and the City’s Water System Master Plan.
b. According to Water System Master Plan (2021), there is a proposed 10-inch water line improvement number NH-P8 at Nob Hill Pressure Zone. The proposed water line is located along the Monterey Road frontage running from John Wilson Way to East Middle Avenue. c. The project shall extend the existing 10” waterline to northwesterly of John Wilson Way (up to 15145 Monterey Road property)

Page 329 of 468 ends

May 3, 2024
Comment Letter
SD2024-0005/SR2024-0007/EA2024-0005
Page | 5

14.Landscape/Irrigation Plan
a. The scaled Site and Development Plan that incorporates a visual representation of the proposed landscape and hardscape details. Projects are required to comply with the City’s Water Conservation and Landscaping Ordinance Chapter 18.148 of the Morgan Hill Municipal Code and the requirements of Chapter 18.64 (Landscaping) of the Morgan Hill Municipal Code.
b. Public street trees are to be located in the frontage planter strip at 30 feet on center per the standard details.

Should the applicant wish to pursue the project as proposed, please submit the General Plan Amendment and Zoning Amendment with Planned Development applications.

Should the applicant choose to process the General Plan Amendment and Zoning Amendment/Planned Development first, please submit the required applications and indicate whether you want to withdraw the Design Permit and Tentative Map applications. Once the General Plan and Zoning applications are considered and approved by City Council you may then resubmit for the Tentative Map and Design Review applications. If you have any questions, you may call our email me at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Tiffany Brown
Senior Planner
408.310-4655

Page 330 of 468 ends

20836777.3
ATTACHMENT 5
Morgan Hill Application Fee Study

Page 331 of 468 ends

nbsgov.com
Prepared by:

Corporate Headquarters
32605 Temecula Parkway, Suite 100
Temecula, CA 92592
Toll free: 800.676.7516
Report for:

Comprehensive Fee Study of Planning and
Land Development Engineering
December 13, 2021

Page 332 of 468 ends

City of Morgan Hill
Comprehensive Fee Study of Planning and Land Development Engineering 2

TABLE OF CONTENTS
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................3

1.1 Findings .....................................................................................................................3

1.2 Report Format...........................................................................................................2 Introduction and Fundamentals......................................................................................3

2.1 Scope of Study...........................................................................................................3

2.2 Methods of Analysis..................................................................................................3 Planning Division ............................................................................................................8

3.1 Cost of Service Analysis.............................................................................................8

3.2 Fee Establishment .....................................................................................................9

3.3 Cost Recovery Evaluation........................................................................................10

3.4 Comparison Survey..................................................................................................10 Engineering Land Development Division ....................................................................... 11

4.1 Cost of Service Analysis...........................................................................................11

4.2 Fee Establishment ...................................................................................................12

4.3 Cost Recovery Evaluation........................................................................................13

4.4 Comparison Survey..................................................................................................13 Conclusion.................................................................................................................... 14 Appendices
Cost of Service Analysis (Fee Tables)
Planning Division Appendix A.1
Engineering Land Development Division Appendix A.2
Comparative Fee Survey
Planning Division Appendix B.1
Engineering Land Development Division Appendix B.2

Page 333 of 468 ends

City of Morgan Hill
Comprehensive Fee Study of Planning and Land Development Engineering 3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
NBS performed a Comprehensive Fee Study of Planning and Land Development Engineering (Study) for the City of Morgan Hill. The purpose of this report is to present the findings and recommendations of the various fee analyses performed as part of the Study and provide the City with the information needed to update and establish user and regulatory fees for service. Throughout the process, the Study afforded much effort to ensure that not only are the fees and charges reasonable and equitable, but that they also meet industry standards and uphold the statutory requirements of the State of California. California cities, counties, and special districts may impose user and regulatory fees for services and activities they provide through provisions set forth in the State Constitution, Article XIII C § 1. Under this legal framework, a fee may not exceed the reasonable cost of providing the service or performing the activity. For a fee to qualify as such, it must relate to a service or activity performed at the request of an individual or entity upon which the fee is imposed, or their actions specifically cause the local government agency to perform additional activities. In this instance, the service or underlying action causing the local agency to perform the service is either discretionary and/or is subject to regulation. As a discretionary service or regulatory activity, the user fees and regulatory fees considered in this Study fall outside of the definition and statutory requirement to impose general taxes, special taxes, and fees a result of property ownership.

The City’s main reason for conducting this Study was twofold: (1) first, to ensure that existing fees do not exceed the costs of service, and (2) second, to provide an opportunity for City Council to re-align fee amounts with the adopted cost recovery policies.

1.1 Findings
This Study examined user and regulatory fees managed by the City’s Planning and Engineering Land Development divisions. The Study identified an estimated $2.02 million in eligible costs for recovery from fees for service compared to approximately $1.52 million the City is currently collecting each year from fees. The following table provides a summary of the Study’s results:

Table 1. Report Summary
As shown in Table 1 above, the City is recovering approximately 75% of the costs associated with providing user and regulatory fee-related services. Should Council adopt fees at 100% of the full cost recovery amounts determined by this Study, an additional $504,000 in costs could be recovered.

Fee Category
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Current Fee
Annual Estimated
Revenues at Full
Cost Recovery Fee
Annual Cost
Recovery
Surplus/ Deficit
Existing Cost
Recovery
Percentage
Planning $917,815 $1,225,157 ($307,342) 75%
Engineering Land Development $598,115 $795,015 ($196,900) 75% Total $ 1,515,930 $ 2,020,172 $ (504,242) 75%

Page 334 of 468 ends

City of Morgan Hill
Comprehensive Fee Study of Planning and Land Development Engineering 2 However, as Section 2.2.3 later explains, there may be other local policy considerations that support adopting fees at less than the calculated full cost recovery amount. Since this element of the Study is subjective, NBS provided the maximum potential of fee amounts at 100% full cost recovery for the City to consider. Once City Council has reviewed and evaluated the results of the Study, the City can set appropriate cost recovery levels according to local policy goals and considerations. 1.2 Report Format This report documents the analytical methods and data sources used in the Study, presents findings regarding current levels of cost recovery achieved from user and regulatory fees, and provides a comparative survey of fees to neighboring agencies for similar services. The report is organized into the following sections:  Section 2 - Outlines the general framework, approach, and methodology of the Fee Study.  Sections 3 through 4 - Discusses the results of the cost of service analysis performed by department and/or fee program. The analysis applied considers: (1) the fully burdened hourly rate(s); (2) the calculation of the costs of providing service; and, (3) the cost recovery policies of each fee category.  Section 5 - Presents the conclusions of the analysis provided in the preceding sections.  Appendices to this report - Include additional details of the analysis performed and a comparison of the fees imposed by neighboring agencies for similar services.

Page 335 of 468 ends

City of Morgan Hill
Comprehensive Fee Study of Planning and Land Development Engineering 3

INTRODUCTION AND FUNDAMENTALS

2.1 Scope of Study
The following is a summary of the fees evaluated during the Study:
o Planning Division services for zoning, permitted uses, and other processing requests o Engineering Land Development Division, including:  Final map review and approval  Plan Check and Inspection for improvements within the right-of-way  Encroachment permits The fees examined in this report specifically exclude development impact fees, utility rates, and any special tax assessments which fall under a different set of statutory and procedural requirements from the body of user and regulatory fees analyzed in this Study. The Study also excludes facility and equipment rental rates, as well as most fines and penalties imposed by the City for violations of its requirements or codes.1 2.2 Methods of Analysis
Three phases of analysis were completed for each City department, division or section studied:

Primary Components of a Fee Study

2.2.1 COST OF SERVICE ANALYSIS
This cost of service analysis is a quantitative effort that compiles the full cost of providing governmental services and activities. There are two primary types of costs considered: direct and indirect costs. Direct costs are those that specifically relate to an activity or service, including the real-time provision of the service. Indirect costs are those that support the provision of services in general but cannot be directly or easily assigned to a singular activity or service.

Direct Costs:  Direct personnel costs – Salary, wages and benefits expenses for personnel specifically involved in the provision of services and activities to the public. 1 According to the California Constitution Article XII C § 1 (e) (4) and (5), the City is not limited to the costs of service when charging for entrance to or use of government property, or when imposing fines and penalties.

Cost of
Service
Analysis
Fee
Establishment
Cost Recovery
Evaluation

Page 336 of 468 ends

City of Morgan Hill
Comprehensive Fee Study of Planning and Land Development Engineering 4  Direct non-personnel costs – Discrete expenses attributable to a specific service or activity performed, such as contractor costs, third-party charges, and materials used in the service or activity.

Indirect Costs:  Indirect personnel costs – Personnel expenses supporting the provision of services and activities. This can include line supervision and departmental management, administrative support within a department, and staff involved in technical support activities related to the direct services provided to the public.  Indirect non-personnel costs – Expenses other than labor involved in the provision of services. In most cases, these costs are allocated across all services provided by a department, rather than directly assigned to individual fee/rate categories.  Overhead costs – These are expenses, both labor and non-labor, related to agency-wide support services. Support services include general administrative services such as City Manager, Finance, Human Resources, etc. The amount of costs attributable to the departments or divisions included in this Study were sourced from the City’s Operating Budget. All cost components in this Study use annual (or annualized) figures, representing a twelve-month cycle of expenses incurred by the Division in the provision of all services and activities City-wide.

Nearly all the fees reviewed in this Study require specific actions on the part of City staff to provide the service or conduct the activity. Since labor is the primary underlying factor in these activities, the Study expresses the full cost of service as a fully burdened cost per labor hour. NBS calculated a composite, fully burdened, hourly rate for each department, division, program, or activity applicable to the specific organization and needs of each area studied. This rate serves as the basis for further quantifying the average full cost of providing individual services and activities. Determining the fully burdened labor rate for each department, and the various functional divisions within a department, requires two data sets: (1) the full costs of service, and (2) the number of staff hours available to perform those services. NBS derived the hours available based on the complete list of all City employees and/or available service hours of its contracted professionals (where applicable). The City supplied NBS with the total number of paid labor hours for each employee involved in the delivery of services included in this Study. These available hours represent the amount of productive time available to provide both fee-recoverable and non-fee recoverable services and activities. Available labor hours divided into the annual full costs of service equal the composite, fully burdened, labor rate. Some agencies may also use the resulting rates for purposes other than setting fees, such as calculating the full cost of general services or structuring a cost recovery agreement with another agency or third party.

NBS also assisted the City in estimating the staff time for the services and activities listed in the City’s fee schedule. Time tracking records for the fee programs studied as part of this analysis, when available, proved useful in identifying time spent providing general categories of service (e.g., division administration, plan review, inspection, public information assistance, etc.). However, the City does not systematically track the service time of activities for all departments or all individual fee-level services provided. Therefore, NBS also relied on interviews and questionnaires to develop the necessary data sets

Page 337 of 468 ends

City of Morgan Hill
Comprehensive Fee Study of Planning and Land Development Engineering 5 of estimated labor time. In many cases, the City provided estimates of the average amount of time (in minutes and hours) it took to complete a typical service or activity considered on a per-occurrence basis.

It should be noted that the development of these time estimates was not a one-step process but required careful review by both NBS and department managers to assess the reasonableness of such estimates.

Based on the results of this review, the City reconsidered its time estimates until all parties were comfortable that the fee models reasonably reflected the average service level provided by the City. Finally, the fully burdened labor rate(s) calculated in earlier steps were applied at the individual fee level time estimates, yielding an average total cost of providing each fee for service or activity. The graphic below provides a visual representation of the steps discussed in this section.

Available Work
Hours
Total Time on
Task per Fee
Maximum
(100% Cost
Recovery)
Fee
Amount
Labor
Costs
Operating
Costs
Overhead
Costs [ ]
Step 1:

Calculate
Fully
Burdened
Hourly
Rate
Step 2:

Cost of
Service
Analysis

Page 338 of 468 ends

City of Morgan Hill
Comprehensive Fee Study of Planning and Land Development Engineering 6

2.2.2 FEE ESTABLISHMENT
The fee establishment process includes a range of considerations, including the following:  Addition to and deletion of fees – The Study provided each department with the opportunity to propose additions and deletions to their current fee schedules, as well as re-name, re- organize, and clarify which fees were to be imposed. Many of these fee revisions allowed for better adherence to current practices, as well as the improvement in the calculation, application, and collection of the fees owed by an individual. Some additions to the fee schedule were simply the identification of existing services or activities performed by City staff for which no fee is currently charged.  Revision to the structure of fees – In most cases, the focus was to re-align the fee amount to match the costs of service and leave the current structure of fees unchanged. However, in several cases, fee categories and fee names had to be simplified or re-structured to increase the likelihood of full cost recovery or to enhance the fairness of how the fee is applied to the various types of fee payers.  Documentation of the tools used to calculate special cost recovery – The City’s fee schedule should include the list of fully burdened rates developed by the Study. Documenting these rates in the fee schedule provides an opportunity for the City Council to approve rates for cost recovery under a “time and materials” approach. It also provides clear publication of those rates so that all fee payers can readily reference the basis of any fee amounts. The fee schedule should provide language that supports special forms of cost recovery for activities and services not included in the adopted master fee schedule. In these rare instances, published rates are used to estimate a flat fee or bill on an hourly basis, which is at the department director’s discretion. 2.2.3 COST RECOVERY EVALUATION The NBS fee model compares the existing fee for each service or activity to the average total cost of service quantified through this analysis. Here are the possible outcomes of the fee analysis:  Cost recovery rate of 0% - This signifies that there is currently no current recovery of costs from fee revenues (or insufficient information available for evaluation).  Cost recovery rate of 100% - This means that the fee currently recovers the full cost of service.  Cost recovery rate between 0% and 100% - This indicates partial recovery of the full cost of service through fees.  Cost recovery rate greater than 100% - This means that the fee exceeds the full cost of service. User fees and regulatory fees should not exceed the full cost of service.

In all cases, the cost recovery rate achieved by a fee should not be greater than 100%. In most cases, imposing a fee above this threshold could change the definition of the charge from a cost of service based fee to a tax which has other procedural requirements, such as ballot protest or voter approval.

This report provides the City with the 100% full cost recovery fee calculation. The City can use the results to implement each fee at 100% or less based upon its broader local policy goals.

Page 339 of 468 ends

City of Morgan Hill
Comprehensive Fee Study of Planning and Land Development Engineering 7

2.2.4 COMPARATIVE FEE SURVEY
Appendix B presents the results of the Comparative Fee Survey for the City. Policy makers often request a comparison of their jurisdictional fees to those of surrounding or similar communities. The purpose of a comparison is to provide a sense of the local market pricing for services, and to use that information to gauge the impact of recommendations for fee adjustments.

In this effort, NBS worked with the City to choose five comparative agencies – Gilroy, Palo Alto, San Jose, Santa Clara and Sunnyvale. It is important to keep the following in mind when interpreting the general approach to, and use of, comparative survey data:  Comparative surveys do not provide information about cost recovery policies or procedures inherent in each comparison agency.  A “market-based” decision to price services below the full cost of service calculation is the same as deciding to subsidize that service.  Comparative agencies may or may not base their fee amounts on the estimated and reasonable cost of providing services. NBS did not perform the same level of analysis of the comparative agencies’ fees.  The results of comparative fee surveys are often non-conclusive for many fee categories.

Comparison agencies typically use varied terminology for the provision of similar services.

NBS made every reasonable attempt to source each comparison agency’s fee schedule from their respective websites and compile a comparison of fee categories and amounts for the most readily comparable fee items that match the City’s existing fee structure.

2.2.5 DATA SOURCES
The following data sources were used to support the cost of service analysis and fee establishment phases of this Study:  The City’s Adopted Budget for Fiscal Year 2021-22  A complete list of all City personnel, salary/wage rates, regular hours, paid benefits, and paid leave amounts provided by the Finance Department  Prevailing fee schedules  Annual workload data provided by each department and/or fee program evaluated in the Study
The City’s adopted budget serves as an important source of information that affects the cost of service results. NBS did not audit or validate the City’s financial documents and budget practices, nor was the cost information adjusted to reflect different levels of service or any specific, targeted performance benchmarks. This Study accepts the City’s budget as a legislatively adopted directive describing the most appropriate and reasonable level of City spending. NBS consultants accept the City Council’s deliberative process and the City’s budget plan and further assert that through this legislative process, the City has yielded a reasonable and valid expenditure plan to use in setting cost-based fees.

Page 340 of 468 ends

City of Morgan Hill
Comprehensive Fee Study of Planning and Land Development Engineering 8

PLANNING DIVISION
The The Planning Division performs a variety of services intended to protect, maintain, and develop an attractive, safe, and healthy environment. Responsibilities include:  Property development and land use activities occurring in the City  Provide direction and leadership in implementing the goals, objectives, and policies of the General Plan as adopted by the City Council  Orderly development of the City and the administration of various land use regulations, including the zoning code, design review ordinances, sign code, and the cultural resources preservation ordinance.  Technical assistance and staff support to the Planning Commission. 3.1 Cost of Service Analysis The following table shows the Planning Division’s estimated full cost of providing services on an annual basis and the fully burdened cost per hour developed for cost recovery purposes through fees for services. Table 2. Fully Burdened Hourly Rate
As Table2 above shows, the total cost of providing services is approximately $1.85 million per year. However, the results of the cost of service analysis identified $1.19 million in costs for recovery from the City’s fees for service with the remaining $668,000 recommended for recovery through funding sources other than fees. All subsequent cost of service calculations at the individual fee level assume a fully burdened hourly rate of $235 during business hours, and $270 outside of business hours. Based on interviews with Division staff, the analysis segregated the total cost of services into three primary services categories: (1) Public Counter/General Information; (2) Strategic Initiative/Special Projects; and, (3) Current Planning - Direct Permitting Services. In order to clarify the underlying costs and assumptions used to calculate the fully burdened hourly rate, here is a summary of the descriptions for each cost category:

Expenditure Type
Public Counter /
General
Information
Strategic
Initiatives /
Special Projects
Current Planning -
Direct Services
Total
Labor $ 294,568 $ 22,909 $ 511,080 $ 828,557
Recurring Non-Labor 78,726 31,123 136,590 246,438
Citywide Overhead 74,723 5,811 129,645 210,179
Allocated Common Activities 198,579 26,525 344,538 569,642 Division Total $ 646,595 $ 86,368 $ 1,121,852 $ 1,854,816 Cost Recovery Targeted from Fees 10% 0% 100% 64%
Amount Targeted for Consideration in Billings/Fees $ 64,660 $ - $ 1,121,852 $ 1,186,512 Amount Requiring Another Funding Source 581,936 86,368 - $ 668,304 Cost per Direct Hour Recoverable from Fees for Service $ 13 $ 222 $ 235 Overtime Rate $ 270
Reference: Direct Hours Only 5,055
Functional Activities / Cost Pools

Page 341 of 468 ends

City of Morgan Hill
Comprehensive Fee Study of Planning and Land Development Engineering 9  Public Counter/General Information – Activities associated with responding to phone calls and general information requests that support the development review process. Typically, some portion of costs for the provision of general public information and assistance do not apply toward recovery from fees and are considered a basic function of governmental services to the public. Planning staff estimated that approximately 10% of these costs support land use application review activities, while the remaining costs should not be considered in the calculation of fees for services.  Strategic Initiative/Special Projects – Planning Staff participate in a variety of strategic initiative and special programs that do not apply toward recovery from fee revenues. These services are funded through a variety of sources, including the General Fund, penalties, hourly billings, or enterprise fund revenues.  Current Planning - Direct Services – The Division’s responsibilities are comprised mostly of development review and approval; therefore, 100% of these costs are recoverable from its routine fees for service.

The fully burdened hourly rate involves significant analytical and policy-related decisions regarding the inclusion of categorized activity costs. The decision to either include or exclude certain costs toward recovery in fees for service stems from the basic fee setting parameters set forth by industry standard fee calculation methods and the California State Constitution. State statutes require that any new fee that is levied or any existing fee that is increased should not exceed the estimated amount required to provide the service for which the charge is levied. 3.2 Fee Establishment The following is a summary of the overall changes to the Planning Division’s fee schedule:  Deletion of fees that are no longer used or needed, such as Review of Engineering Plans which was moved to the Engineering Land Development fee schedule;  Reorganization of fee categories or clarification of fee names to create a more user-friendly fee structure; and,  Addition of new fee categories, such as Business License Zoning Review.2 In addition to the Planning Division’s costs, this analysis also includes support costs from other departments who directly review and provide comments on planning applications and user fee services.

Engineering, Building, Fire, Housing and Police also participate in the review of Planning’s applications and their costs have been included with the Planning cost to show the full cost of providing Planning applications and fees. A detailed cost analysis for Engineering was performed by NBS and is provided in the next report chapter. Costs for Building, Fire, Housing and Police were provided by the City’s Finance Department.
2 Refer to Section 2.2, Methods of Analysis, for additional discussion on the Study’s approach to adding, deleting, and revising fee categories.

Page 342 of 468 ends

City of Morgan Hill
Comprehensive Fee Study of Planning and Land Development Engineering 10

3.3 Cost Recovery Evaluation
Appendix A.1 presents the results of the detailed cost recovery analysis of fees for the City’s Planning Division. In the Appendix, the “Cost of Service per Activity” column establishes the maximum adoptable fee amount for the corresponding service identified in the “Fee Description” list.

Currently, the Division is recovering approximately 74% of the total cost of providing services from fees.

As Table 3 shows, the City collects approximately $918,000 per year in revenue at the current fee amounts. At full cost recovery and the same demand level for these services, the City would recover approximately $1.2 million. Table 3. Cost Recovery Outcomes NBS provided the full cost of service information and the framework for considering fees, while those closest to the fee-paying population, the Planning Division, considered appropriate cost recovery levels at or below the full cost. Recommended fee amounts, either at or below the full cost recovery fee amount, can be found in the City’s Staff Report to Council.

3.4 Comparison Survey
As discussed in section 2.2.4, Comparative Fee Survey, NBS compared the City’s current list of fees to those of 5 comparison agencies selected by the City. While the results of the comparative fee surveys are often non-conclusive for many fee categories due to comparison agencies typically using varied terminology for the provision of similar services, NBS made every reasonable attempt to source each comparison agencies fee schedule.

Based on this analysis, the City’s current fees are lower than the other agencies surveyed in the area(s) of:

Development Agreements, Environmental Review, Subdivision Maps, and Tree Removal Permits. The fees are in line in the areas of: Design Permits, General Plan Amendments, Signs, Administrative Use Permits, and Zoning Requests. At full cost recovery, the City’s fees for services such as Tree Removal Permits, Administrative and Conditional Use Permits, and Variances would be the highest of all agencies surveyed, with all other fees at full cost recovery being lower or in line with other agency fee schedules.

Page 343 of 468 ends

City of Morgan Hill
Comprehensive Fee Study of Planning and Land Development Engineering 11

ENGINEERING LAND DEVELOPMENT DIVISION
The Engineering Land Development Division provides development review / inspection services. It oversees all construction activities that pertain to the infrastructure constructed by developers within the City. This division checks, approves, and keeps for the public record all improvement plans prepared by developers for their projects. It reviews all private land development activities for conformance with City standards, and checks and approves all maps in compliance with the Subdivision Map Act.

4.1 Cost of Service Analysis
The following table shows the Engineering Land Development Division’s estimated full cost of providing services on an annual basis and the fully burdened cost per hour.

Table 4. Fully Burdened Hourly Rate
As Table above shows, the total cost of providing services is approximately $1.88 million per year. However, the results of the cost of service analysis only identified $1.8 million in cost for recovery from the City’s fees for service with the remaining $85,000 recommended for recovery through funding sources other than fees. All subsequent cost of service calculations at the individual fee level assume a fully burdened hourly rate of $230 during business hours, and $265 outside of business hours. Based on interviews with Division staff, the analysis segregated the total cost of services into seven primary services categories: (1) Planning – Direct Fee Related Services; (2) Building – Direct Fee Related Services; (3) Engineering – Direct Fee Related Services; (4) Flood Program Administration; (5) Public Counter Duty/General Information; (6) Consultant Contract Administration; and, (7) On-going Special Projects/Process Improvements. In order to clarify the underlying costs and assumptions used to calculate the fully burdened hourly rate, here is a summary of the descriptions for each cost category:  Planning – Direct Fee Related Services – Engineering Staff’s review and approval of the Planning Division’s current planning activities and active permits. 100% of these costs are recoverable from Engineering’s routine fees for service.  Building – Direct Fee Related Services – Engineering Staff’s review and approval of the Building Division’s active permits. 100% of these costs are recoverable from Engineering’s routine fees for service.

Expenditure Type
Planning -
Direct Fee
Related
Services
Building -
Direct Fee
Related
Services
Engineering -
Direct Fee
Related
Services
Flood
Program
Admin
Public
Counter
Duty/Gen
Info
Consultant
Contract
Admin
On-going
Special Projects
/ Process
Improvements
Total
Labor $ 48,860 $ 88,626 $ 761,145 $ 16,973 $ 51,804 $ 13,507 $ 15,185 $ 915,605 Recurring Non-Labor 7,616 13,816 415,051 2,646 8,075 2,106 2,367 439,129 Citywide Overhead 3,378 6,127 52,617 1,173 3,581 934 1,050 63,294 Allocated Common Activities 14,481 26,267 297,292 5,030 15,353 4,003 4,500 343,070 Division Total $ 74,334 $ 134,835 $ 1,526,105 $ 25,823 $ 78,814 $ 20,549 $ 23,102 $ 1,883,564 Cost Recovery Targeted from Fees 100% 100% 100% 0% 30% 90% 90% 95% Amount Targeted for Consideration in Billings/Fees $ 74,334 $ 134,835 $ 1,526,105 $ - $ 23,644 $ 18,494 $ 20,792 $ 1,798,206 Amount Requiring Another Funding Source - - - 25,823 55,170 2,055 2,310 $ 85,358 Cost per Direct Hour Recoverable from Fees for Service $ 10 $ 17 $ 195 $ - $ 3 $ 2 $ 3 $ 230 Overtime Rate $ 265
Reference: Direct Hours Only 7,817

Page 344 of 468 ends

City of Morgan Hill
Comprehensive Fee Study of Planning and Land Development Engineering 12  Engineering – Direct Fee Related Services – Engineering Staff’s review and approval of Land Development permit activities. 100% of these costs are recoverable from Engineering’s routine fees for service.  Flood Program Administration – Engineering Staff’s efforts related to the City’s Floodplain Management Program to ensure private land development activities and capital improvement projects located in 100-year flood hazard areas comply with the City’s Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance which is based on the minimum construction standards of the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)..  Public Counter Duty / General Information — Activities associated with responding to phone calls and general information requests that support the development review process. Typically, some portion of costs for the provision of general public information and assistance do not apply toward recovery from fees and are considered a basic function of governmental services to the public. Engineering staff estimated that approximately 10% of these costs support land use application review activities, while the remaining costs should not be considered in the calculation of fees for services.  Consultant Contract Administration – Engineering staff support, process and administer a number of contracts. These costs have not been included in the recovery from engineering and zoning review fees.  On-going Special Projects/ Process Improvements— Staff participate in a variety of special projects and the ongoing maintenance of the Division’s internal projects and functions. These activities do not apply toward recovery from fee revenues. These services are funded through a variety of sources, including the General Fund, penalties, hourly billings, or enterprise fund revenues. The fully burdened hourly rate involves significant analytical and policy-related decisions regarding the inclusion of categorized activity costs. The decision to either include or exclude certain costs toward recovery in fees for service stems from the basic fee setting parameters set forth by industry standard fee calculation methods and the California State Constitution. State statutes require that any new fee that is levied or any existing fee that is increased should not exceed the estimated amount required to provide the service for which the charge is levied. 4.2 Fee Establishment The following is a summary of the overall changes to the Engineering Land Development Division’s fee schedule:  Deletion of fees that are no longer used or needed;  Reorganization of fee categories or clarification of fee names to create a more user-friendly fee structure, such as Engineering & Inspection was changed into separate Public Improvement Plan Check and Inspection fees; and,  Addition of new fee categories, notated as “New” in the Current Fee column of Appendix A.2.

Page 345 of 468 ends

City of Morgan Hill
Comprehensive Fee Study of Planning and Land Development Engineering 13 In addition to the Engineering Division’s costs, this analysis also includes support costs from other departments who directly review and provide comments on Land Development applications and user fee services. Planning, Building, Environmental Services, Maintenance and Utilities also participate in the review of Engineering’s applications and their costs have been included with the Engineering costs to show the full cost of providing Engineering applications and fees. A detailed cost analysis for Planning is provided in the previous chapter. Costs for Building, Environmental Services, Maintenance and Utilities were provided by the City’s Finance Department.

4.3 Cost Recovery Evaluation
Appendix A.2 presents the results of the detailed cost recovery analysis of fees for the City’s Engineering Division. In the Appendix, the “Cost of Service per Activity” column establishes the maximum adoptable fee amount for the corresponding service identified in the “Fee Description” list.

Currently, the Division is recovering approximately 75% of the total cost of providing services from fees.

As Table 5 shows, the City collects approximately $598,000 per year in revenue at the current fee amounts. At full cost recovery and the same demand level for these services, the City would recover approximately $795,000. Table 5. Cost Recovery Outcomes NBS provided the full cost of service information and the framework for considering fees, while those closest to the fee-paying population, the Engineering Division, considered appropriate cost recovery levels at or below the full cost. Recommended fee amounts, either at or below the full cost recovery fee amount, can be found in the City’s Staff Report to Council.

4.4 Comparison Survey
As discussed in section 2.2.4, Comparative Fee Survey, NBS compared the City’s current list of fees to those of 5 comparison agencies selected by the City. While the results of the comparative fee surveys are often non-conclusive for many fee categories due to comparison agencies typically using varied terminology for the provision of similar services, NBS made every reasonable attempt to source each comparison agencies fee schedule.

Based on this analysis, the City’s current fees are lower than the other agencies surveyed for Public Improvement Plan Check & Inspection for projects $100,000 and under, but are higher than other agencies surveyed for projects $100,000 or higher. At full cost recovery the City’s fees for projects $200,000 or less would be higher than the other agencies surveyed, but projects over $200,000 would be more in line. Map check fees are inline with the other agencies surveyed.

Fee Category
Annual
Estimated
Revenues at
Current Fee
Annual Estimated
Revenues at Full
Cost Recovery Fee
Annual Cost
Recovery
Surplus/ Deficit
Existing Cost
Recovery
Percentage
Engineering Land Development $598,115 $795,015 ($196,900) 75%

Page 346 of 468 ends

City of Morgan Hill
Comprehensive Fee Study of Planning and Land Development Engineering 14

CONCLUSION
Based on the outcomes of the Cost of Service Analysis, Fee Establishment, and Cost Recovery Evaluation presented in this Study, the City has prepared a proposed Master Fee Schedule for implementation and included it in the City’s Staff Report.

As discussed throughout this report, the intent of the proposed fee schedule is to improve the City’s recovery of costs incurred to provide individual services, as well as adjust fees where the fees charged exceed the average costs incurred. Predicting the amount to which any adopted fee increases will affect City revenues is difficult to quantify. For the near-term, the City should not count on increased revenues to meet any specific expenditure plan. Experience with the revised fee amounts should be gained first before revenue projections are revised. However, unless there is some significant, long-term change in activity levels at the City, proposed fee amendments should enhance the City’s cost recovery performance over time, providing it the ability to stretch other resources further for the benefit of the public at-large.

The City’s Master Fee Schedule should become a living document, but handled with care:  A fundamental purpose of the fee schedule is to provide clarity and transparency to the public and to staff regarding fees imposed by the City. Once adopted by the City Council, the fee schedule is the final word on the amount and method in which fees should be charged and supersedes all previous fee schedules. If it is discovered that the master document is missing certain fees, those fees will eventually need to be added to the master fee schedule and should not exist outside the consolidated, master framework.  The City should consider adjusting these user fees and regulatory fees on an annual basis to keep pace with cost inflation. For all fees and charges, for example, the City could use a Consumer Price Index adjustment that is applied to the new fee schedule. Conducting a comprehensive user fee Study is not an annual requirement, and only becomes worthwhile over time as shifts in organization, local practices, legislative values, or legal requirements result in significant change.

As a final note, it is worth mentioning the path that fees, in general, have taken in the State of California. In recent years, there is more public demand for the precise and equitable accounting of the basis for governmental fees and a greater say in when and how they are charged. It is likely that into the future, user and regulatory fees will require an even greater level of analysis and supporting data to meet the public’s growing expectations. An agency’s ability to meet these new pressures will depend on the level of technology they invest in their current systems. Continuous improvement and refinement of time tracking abilities will greatly enhance the City’s ability to set fees for service and identify unfunded activities in years to come.

Disclaimer: In preparing this report and the opinions and recommendations included herein, NBS has relied on a number of principal assumptions and considerations with regard to financial matters, conditions and events that may occur in the future. This information and assumptions, including the City’s budgets, time estimate data, and workload information from City staff, were provided by sources we believe to be reliable; however, NBS has not independently verified such information and assumptions.

While we believe NBS’ use of such information and assumptions is reasonable for the purpose of this report, some assumptions will invariably not materialize as stated herein and may vary significantly due to unanticipated events and circumstances. Therefore, the actual results can be expected to vary from those projected to the extent that actual future conditions differ from those assumed by us or provided to us by others.

Page 347 of 468 ends

Prepared by NBS for the City of Morgan Hill
APPENDIX A.1
Cost of Service Analysis – Planning

Page 348 of 468 ends

City of Morgan Hill
Planning - User Fee Study FY 2021 Appendix A.1
Cost Estimation for Providing Fee Related Activities and Services Plng Eng [25] Bldg [26] Fire [26] Housing [26] Police [26] $ 235 $ 230 $ 204 $ 204 $ 172 $ 164 PLANNING DEPARTMENT [27] 1 ANNEXATION 92.00 8.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 106.00 $ 24,587 $ 12,357 50% 0 $ - $ - 1.2 LAFCO Processing 120.00 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 120.00 $ 28,167 $ 10,696 38% 0 $ - $ - Plus additional fees collected by other agencies
LAFCO fee $1,154 plus SBE fees
2 APPEALS
Commission/Board Decisions 2.1 Applicant Appeal 32.00 3.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 35.50 $ 8,316 $ 6,905 83% 1 $ 6,905 $ 8,316

2.2 Public Appeal 32.00 3.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 35.50 $ 8,316 $ 544 7% 0 $ - $ - Staff Decisions 2.1 Applicant Appeal 28.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 29.00 $ 6,802 $ 5,699 84% 0 $ - $ - 2.2 Public Appeal 28.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 29.00 $ 6,802 $ 544 8% 0 $ - $ - 3 APPROVAL AMENDMENT 3.1 Major Approval Amendment (Non Admin - s/b Major) 30.50 19.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 1.00 55.50 $ 12,682 $ 8,209 65% 3 $ 24,627 $ 38,046

3.2 Minor Approval Amendment (Admin - s/b Minor) [7] 18.00 10.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.50 31.00 $ 7,101 $ 4,505 63% 2 $ 9,010 $ 14,203 4 CC&Rs 4.1 CC&Rs 2.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 $ 1,160 $ 522 45% 0 $ - $ - Plus City Attorney Fees Actual Cost

4.2 Other Agreements / Documents Review 2.00 n/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 $ 469 $ 522 111% 0 $ - $ - Plus City Attorney Fees Actual Cost
5 CONTRACT PLANNING SERVICES [1] Consultant Portion Actual Cost City's Portion 15% GIS/Tech 5%
6 CULTURAL RESOURCES 6.1 Alteration (Major - $10,000+ valuation) (plus Planning Commission costs) [12] 21.50 n/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 21.50 $ 5,047 $ 1,304 26% 0 $ - $ -

6.2 Alteration (Minor - under $10,000 valuation) (plus Planning Commission costs) [11] 1.50 n/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.50 $ 352 $ 391 111% 0 $ - $ -

6.3 Demolition or Relocation (Formerly Alteration) 21.50 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 24.50 $ 5,737 $ 5,719 100% 0 $ - $ - 6.4 Designation 32.00 n/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 32.00 $ 7,511 $ 8,348 111% 0 $ - $ - Activity Service Cost Analysis Cost Recovery Analysis
Existing Cost
Recovery %
Estimated Volume of Activity
Annual Estimated Revenue Analysis
Current Fee
Full Cost Recovery
Annual Estimated Revenues No. Fee Description Notes
Cost of Service Per Activity
Current Fee
Estimated Average Labor Time Per Activity (hours)
Total
NBS Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 Planning COS, 1 of 7

Page 349 of 468 ends

7.3 Non-Residential Design Permit (Minor) 24.00 15.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.50 41.50 $ 9,574 $ 4,917 51% 4 $ 19,668 $ 38,296

7.4 Plan Detail Review (misc. site details, e.g., lighting, trash encl.) 8.42 n/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.42 $ 1,976 $ 2,198 111% 0 $ - $ - 7.5 Residential Design Permit - 6 units or less 32.00 15.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 50.50 $ 11,624 $ 7,446 64% 2 $ 14,892 $ 23,248

7.6 Residential Design Permit - 7 units to 15 units 38.00 21.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 62.50 $ 14,412 $ 9,494 66% 1 $ 9,494 $ 14,412

7.7 Residential Design Permit - 16 or more units each additional 25 units [8] 47.00 25.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 1.00 79.00 $ 18,107 $ 11,803 65% 6 $ 70,818 $ 108,643

7.8 Site Plan Only (no new square footage) 16.00 11.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 27.00 $ 6,286 $ 6,102 97% 0 $ - $ - 8 DESIGN REVIEW (PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW) [21] 8.1 Conceptual Plan Review (Staff) 17.50 6.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 27.50 $ 6,232 $ 4,603 74% 5 $ 23,015 $ 31,160

8.2 Non-Residential (Major) Preliminary Plan Review to PC 30.00 10.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 43.00 $ 9,914 $ 8,490 86% 2 $ 16,980 $ 19,828

8.3 Non-Residential (Minor) Preliminary Plan Review to PC [9] 20.00 7.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 1.00 30.00 $ 6,877 $ 5,438 79% 0 $ - $ - 8.4 Residential SB330 Preliminary Application Review (staff) 42.00 9.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 55.00 $ 12,673 $ 11,437 90% 6 $ 68,622 $ 76,037

8.5 Residential - 6 units or less Preliminary Plan Review to PC 20.00 9.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 33.00 $ 7,509 $ 5,359 71% 0 $ - $ - 8.6 Residential - 7 units or more Preliminary Plan Review to PC [8] 30.00 13.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 47.00 $ 10,776 $ 8,191 76% 1 $ 8,191 $ 10,776 9 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT/RDCS [13] 9.1 Non Residential Development Agreement [14] 52.00 n/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 52.00 $ 12,206 $ 7,043 58% 2 $ 14,086 $ 24,412 Residential Development Agreement 9.2 Filed Concurrent with Other Entitlement Applications [15] 52.00 n/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 52.00 $ 12,206 $ 10,957 90% 0 $ - $ - 9.3 Filed Alone - Non Concurrent with Other Applications (Includes RDCS Compliance Monitoring 0 - 3 Yrs.) [16] 57.00 n/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 57.00 $ 13,379 $ 12,261 92% 0 $ - $ -

9.4 RDCS Compliance Monitoring - each year after 3 years 10.00 n/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 10.00 $ 2,347 $ 2,609 111% 0 $ - $ - 10 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA) 10.1 Environmental Impact Report 92.00 19.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 111.00 $ 25,966 $ 22,120 85% 0 $ - $ - 10.2 Expanded Initial Study 52.00 12.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 64.00 $ 14,966 $ 16,221 108% 19 $ 308,199 $ 284,359

10.3 Historic Assessments - Historical Consultant (Deposit) [17] Actual Cost

10.4 Historic Assessments - Staff-level [17] 10.00 10.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 20.00 $ 4,648 $ 2,609 56% 0 $ - $ - NBS Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 Planning COS, 2 of 7

Page 350 of 468 ends

10.5 Initial Environmental Assessment [2] 8.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.00 $ 2,108 $ 2,308 109% 0 $ - $ - 10.6 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Per Year) [6, 18] 5.00 n/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.00 $ 1,174 $ 1,304 111% 0 $ - $ - 11 EXTENSION OF TIME FOR APPROVALS 11.1 Administrative 8.50 n/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 8.50 $ 1,995 $ 2,217 111% 0 $ - $ - 11.2 Non Administrative 15.25 n/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 15.25 $ 3,580 $ 3,457 97% 1 $ 3,457 $ 3,580 12 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 12.1 Land Use Diagram Amendment 62.50 8.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 70.50 $ 16,511 $ 17,333 105% 0 $ - $ - 12.2 Text Amendment 32.00 8.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 40.00 $ 9,352 $ 7,080 76% 5 $ 35,400 $ 46,758 13 HABITAT PLAN FEES (SC VALLEY) 13.1 Habitat Plan Related Reviews 2.00 n/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 $ 469 $ 522 111% 0 $ - $ - 14 HOUSING IN-LIEU FEE [5] 15 MINOR EXCEPTION 12.25 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 12.75 $ 2,990 $ 3,306 111% 0 $ - $ - 16 OPEN SPACE IN·LlEU FEE (Per 20 Dwellings) [5] 17 OUT OF AGENCY CONTRACT FOR SERVICES 17.1 City staff [3] 41.75 n/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 41.75 $ 9,800 $ 10,892 111% 0 $ - $ - Plus additional fees collected by other agencies Actual Costs 18 PLANNING CONSULTATION - hourly 1.00 n/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 $ 235 $ 261 111% 0 $ - $ - 19 REFUNDABLE DEPOSITS
Determined
by Planning Director - billed at hourly rate
19 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SYSTEM (RDCS) 19.1 Preliminary Measure S Review 28.50 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 29.50 $ 6,920 $ 8,541 123% 0 $ - $ - 19.2 Final Measure S Review (RDCS) 109.00 17.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 126.00 $ 29,496 $ 31,534 107% 0 $ - $ - 19.3 RDCS Extension 13.50 3.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 17.00 $ 3,974 $ 4,296 108% 0 $ - $ - 19.4 RDCS Appeal 31.50 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 34.50 $ 8,084 $ 8,881 110% 0 $ - $ - NBS Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 Planning COS, 3 of 7

Page 351 of 468 ends

22.1 Alteration to existing Sign [19] 0.75 n/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.75 $ 176 $ 391 222% 0 $ - $ - 22.2 Sign Review Over the Counter - Copy Change 1.00 n/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 $ 235 $ 261 111% 0 $ - $ - 22.3 New Sign Permit - First Sign 1.50 n/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.50 $ 352 $ 391 111% 6 $ 2,346 $ 2,113

22.4 Each additional Sign 0.50 n/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.50 $ 117 $ 130 111% 0 $ - $ - 22.5 New Sign within a Master Sign Program 0.75 n/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.75 $ 176 $ 196 111% 10 $ 1,960 $ 1,760

22.6 Subdivision/Real Estate Tract Signs [20] 3.00 n/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.00 $ 704 $ 783 111% 0 $ - $ - 22.7 Temporary/Promotional Signs 0.25 n/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 $ 59 $ 65 111% 1 $ 65 $ 59

22.8 Uniform Sign Program 14.50 n/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 14.50 $ 3,404 $ 3,783 111% 1 $ 3,783 $ 3,404 23 SUBDIVISION

23.1 Tentative Parcel Map Review - 4 lots or less 22.00 7.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 29.00 $ 6,774 $ 4,948 73% 4 $ 19,792 $ 27,097 Tentative Subdivision Map Review

23.2 5 to 15 lots 26.00 13.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 39.00 $ 9,093 $ 6,434 71% 3 $ 19,302 $ 27,280

23.3 16 - 25 lots 34.00 15.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 49.00 $ 11,431 $ 8,072 71% 0 $ - $ - 23.4 26 lots or more - each additional 25 lots 42.00 19.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 61.00 $ 14,229 $ 8,072 57% 1 $ 8,072 $ 14,229 24 TRANSFER DEVELOPMENT CREDIT (TDC) [10] 24.1 Application Fee 35.50 n/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 35.50 $ 8,333 $ 9,261 111% 0 $ - $ - 25 TREE REMOVAL PERMIT 5.75 n/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.75 $ 1,350 $ 109 8% 12 $ 1,308 $ 16,196 26 URBAN SERVICE AREA AMENDMENT 26.1 City Processing 57.00 8.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 65.00 $ 15,220 $ 15,511 102% 0 $ - $ - 26.2 LAFCO Processing 120.00 n/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 120.00 $ 28,167 $ 26,434 94% 0 $ - $ - 26.3 Plus Additional Fees Collected by Other Agencies LAFCO fee $11,574
plus Actual Costs
27 USE PERMIT 27.1 Administrative Use Permit 24.00 4.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.50 31.00 $ 7,130 $ 1,201 17% 1 $ 1,201 $ 7,130 NBS Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 Planning COS, 4 of 7

Page 352 of 468 ends

27.3 No New Construction 40.00 2.00 2.00 2.00 0.50 0.50 47.00 $ 10,833 $ 9,091 84% 0 $ - $ - 27.4 Temporary Use Permit 14.50 8.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.50 25.00 $ 5,734 $ 3,025 53% 1 $ 3,025 $ 5,734

27.5 Temporary Use Permit (Non-Profit) 14.50 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.50 18.00 $ 4,124 $ 100 2% 1 $ 100 $ 4,124

27.6 Temporary Use Permit Amendment 10.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.50 13.50 $ 3,067 $ 1,196 39% 1 $ 1,196 $ 3,067 28 VARIANCE 40.00 0.75 1.00 1.00 0.00 0.50 43.25 $ 10,052 $ 8,514 85% 1 $ 8,514 $ 10,052 29 WILLIAMSON ACT 29.1 Cancelation 48.00 n/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 48.00 $ 11,267 $ 12,522 111% 0 $ - $ - 29.2 New 26.00 n/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 26.00 $ 6,103 $ 3,131 51% 0 $ - $ - 29.3 Non-Renewal 4.00 n/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 $ 939 $ 1,044 111% 0 $ - $ - 30 ZONING REQUESTS [22] 30.1 Planned Development 64.00 5.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 0.50 72.00 $ 16,749 $ 10,629 63% 4 $ 42,516 $ 66,995

30.2 Residential Planned Development Review 64.00 3.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 0.50 70.50 $ 16,375 $ 13,186 81% 0 $ - $ -

30.3 Residential Planned Development (if processed concurrently with subdivision) 41.00 3.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 44.00 $ 10,314 $ 9,142 89% 0 $ - $ -

30.4 Zoning Map Amendment Review 45.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 47.00 $ 11,023 $ 8,557 78% 2 $ 17,114 $ 22,046

30.5 Zoning Map Amendment Review (If processed concurrently with GPA or ANX) 36.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 38.00 $ 8,910 $ 3,241 36% 0 $ - $ -

30.6 Zoning Text Amendment Review 48.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 50.00 $ 11,727 $ 10,980 94% 4 $ 43,920 $ 46,908

30.7 Zoning Confirmation Letter 6.50 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 6.50 $ 1,526 $ 1,696 111% 3 $ 5,088 $ 4,577 31 PUBLIC HEARINGS AND NOTICES 31.1 City Council Meeting [24] 7.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.00 $ 2,103 $ 2,268 108% 0 $ - $ - 31.2 LAFCO Meeting - each additional 7.00 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 7.00 $ 1,643 $ 1,826 111% 0 $ - $ - 31.3 Planning Commission Meeting [23] 7.50 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 9.50 $ 2,221 $ 2,178 98% 0 $ - $ - Public Noticing 31.4 Up to 50 0.25 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.25 $ 59 $ 66 112% 0 $ - $ - 31.5 Over 50 0.25 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.25 $ 59 $ 78 133% 0 $ - $ - 31.6 Envelopes Actual Costs 31.7 Postage
Actual Costs
NBS Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 Planning COS, 5 of 7

Page 353 of 468 ends

31.8 Public Noticing (publication) [23] 7.50 n/a 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 7.50 $ 1,760 $ - 0% 0 $ - $ - 32 OTHER SERVICE CHARGES [1] 32.1 Annual Charge for Entire PC Packet $ 122.00

32.3 Document Printing/Copying (per page) $ 0.10

32.4 Oversized Copy 24X36 (per page) $ 2.26

32.5 Oversized Copy 18X26 (per page) $ 2.01

32.6 Oversized Copy 24X36 (Color) (per page) $ 2.93

32.7 Oversized Copy 11X17 (per page) $ 0.55

32.8 Other Oversized Copies n/a 32.9 Electronic Search of the Public Records see City Clerk 32.1 Record Research Service (Deposit Required) - hourly 1.00 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 1.00 $ 235 $ 251 107% 0 $ - $ - 33 MAPS [1] 33.1 General Plan (Color) $ 13.00

33.2 Zoning and Boundary $ 8.00
34 Business License Zoning Review

34.1 Home Based Business 0.50 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.50 $ 117 $ 130 111% 0 $ - $ - 34.2 All Other Types 0.50 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 0.50 $ 117 $ 130 111% 0 $ - $ - 35 For services requested of City staff which have no fee listed in this fee schedule 35.1 During Business Hours 1.00 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 1.00 $ 235 $ 251 107% 0 $ - $ - 35.2 After Business Hours 1.00 n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a 1.00 $ 270 $ 251 93% 0 $ - $ - TOTAL PLANNING $ 917,815 $ 1,225,157 NBS Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 Planning COS, 6 of 7

Page 354 of 468 ends

City of Morgan Hill
Planning - User Fee Study FY 2021 Appendix A.1
Cost Estimation for Providing Fee Related Activities and Services Plng Eng [25] Bldg [26] Fire [26] Housing [26] Police [26] $ 235 $ 230 $ 204 $ 204 $ 172 $ 164
Activity Service Cost Analysis Cost Recovery Analysis
Existing Cost
Recovery %
Estimated Volume of Activity
Annual Estimated Revenue Analysis
Current Fee
Full Cost Recovery
Annual Estimated Revenues No. Fee Description Notes
Cost of Service Per Activity
Current Fee
Estimated Average Labor Time Per Activity (hours)
Total Notes
[1] Fees set by City policy. NBS did not evaluate.
[2] Plus County and Fish and Game fees
[3] Plus any LAFCO Fees
[4] Maximum fee set by State Law
[5] Impact Fee, Not analyzed as part of the fee study
[6] Mitigation measures implemented prior to or through the Building Permit process should be incorporated into other fees. [7] 17.20.190 – Amendments to Approved Tentative Map. Defines what minor is. Major is other than minor. [8] Up to 4 structures not exceeding 10,000 square feet in floor area (no use of hazardous materials) [9] Projects greater than 10,000 square feet in floor area [10] Required by Hillside Combining District - 18.44 MHMC [11] 18.60.070B2a - Minor is under $10,000 valuation. If public hearing (Planning Commission) required then need to pay separate fees to cover. [12] 18.60.070B2b - Major is over $10,000 valuation. If public hearing (Planning Commission) required then need to pay separate fees to cover. [13] Development Agreements include 1 Planning Commission and 1 City Council Hearing [14] This fee should be for a non-RDCS DA. Does not include Attorney time, which could be significant for one-off DA's. [15] RDCS DA when processed concurrently with other entitlement application(s) w/ monitoring fee built-in. Does not include Attorney time. [16] RDCS DA w/ monitoring fee built-in. Does not include Attorney time. [17] Per Morgan Hill Municipal Code 18.60.060B "Evaluations shall be prepared by a qualified consultant…" [18] Applied to projects with long-term monitoring (i.e., after building permit final). Cost each year of monitoring [19] This covers reviews that are beyond copy change, but not new signs. We may just require a new Sign Permit at this stage if we require anything. [20] This is for tract sales signs that are on and/or off-site [21] Includes a Planning Commission hearing
[22] Requires both Planning Commission and City Council hearings; assumption is one PC one CC. [23] For each Planning Commission Hearing (if not built-into application fees) [24] For each City Council Hearing (if not built-into application fees) [25] Hourly Rate taken from Engineering Hourly Rate Table [26] Hourly Rate provided by City Finance Department
[27] All fees are flat fee unless otherwise noted in the description NBS Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 Planning COS, 7 of 7

Page 355 of 468 ends

Prepared by NBS for the City of Morgan Hill
APPENDIX A.2
Cost of Service Analysis – Engineering

Page 356 of 468 ends

City of Morgan Hill Appendix A.2
Engineering - User Fee Study FY 2021
Cost Estimation for Providing Fee Related Activities and Services Eng Plng Bldg Enviro Svcs Maint Utilities
$ 230 $ 235 $ 204 $ 175 $ 141 $ 171
Land Development Engineering 1 Public Improvement - Plan Check $ 50,000
base fee up to
$50,000 62.75 0.00 0.50 0.00 2.00 2.00 67.25 $ 15,161 $ 6,650 44% 1 $ 6,650 $ 15,161 each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l $1,000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 $ - 133.00 0% 61 $ 8,113 $ - $ 100,000
base fee @
$100,000 62.75 0.00 0.50 0.00 2.00 2.00 67.25 $ 15,161 $ 13,300 88% 1 $ 13,300 $ 15,161 each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l $1,000 0.215 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.020 0.030 0.27 $ 57.41 118.00 206% 0 $ - $ - $ 200,000
base fee @
$200,000 84.25 0.00 0.50 0.00 4.00 5.00 93.75 $ 20,902 $ 23,600 113% 2 $ 47,200 $ 41,804 each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l $1,000 0.070 0.000 0.002 0.000 0.007 0.007 0.09 $ 18.52 103.00 556% 303 $ 31,209 $ 5,612 $ 500,000
base fee @
$500,000 105.25 0.00 1.00 0.00 6.00 7.00 119.25 $ 26,459 $ 51,500 195% 2 $ 103,000 $ 52,918 each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l $1,000 0.039 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.004 0.004 0.05 $ 10.22 88.00 861% 757 $ 66,616 $ 7,736 $ 1,000,000
base fee @
$1,000,000 124.75 0.00 1.00 0.00 8.00 9.00 142.75 $ 31,569 $ 88,000 279% 1 $ 88,000 $ 31,569 each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l $1,000 0.012 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.0003 0.01 $ 2.90 88.00 3030% 1623 $ 142,824 $ 4,713 $ 5,000,000
base fee @
$5,000,000 174.50 0.00 1.00 0.00 8.00 10.00 193.50 $ 43,184 $ 440,000 1019% 0 $ - $ - each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l $1,000 0.03 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.002 0.002 0.04 $ 8.64 88.00 1019% 0 $ - $ - 2 Public Improvement - Inspection
$ 50,000
base fee up to
$50,000 87.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 87.50 $ 20,129 n/a 0% 1 $ - $ 20,129 each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l $1,000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.00 $ - n/a 0% 61 $ - $ - $ 100,000
base fee @
$100,000 87.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 87.50 $ 20,129 n/a 0% 1 $ - $ 20,129 each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l $1,000 0.540 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.54 $ 124.22 n/a 0% 0 $ - $ - $ 200,000
base fee @
$200,000 141.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 141.50 $ 32,551 n/a 0% 2 $ - $ 65,101 each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l $1,000 0.517 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.52 $ 118.85 n/a 0% 303 $ - $ 36,013 $ 500,000
base fee @
$500,000 296.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 296.50 $ 68,207 n/a 0% 2 $ - $ 136,414 each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l $1,000 0.458 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.46 $ 105.36 n/a 0% 757 $ - $ 79,756 $ 1,000,000
base fee @
$1,000,000 525.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 525.50 $ 120,886 n/a 0% 1 $ - $ 120,886 each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l $1,000 0.073 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.07 $ 16.85 n/a 0% 1623 $ - $ 27,348 $ 5,000,000
base fee @
$5,000,000 818.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 818.50 $ 188,288 n/a 0% 0 $ - $ - each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l $1,000 0.16 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.16 $ 37.66 n/a 0% 0 $ - $ - 3 GIS / Technology Fee flat
5% of Public
Improvement Fee
5% of Public
Improvement Fee
Activity Service Cost Analysis
Estimated Average Labor Time Per Activity (hours)
Total
Estimated Volume of Activity [1]
Cost Recovery Analysis Annual Estimated Revenue Analysis Current Fee
Existing Cost
Recovery % Current Fee
Full Cost Recovery
Annual Estimated Revenues No. Fee Description Fee Unit Type Cost of Service Per Activity NBS Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 Engineering COS, 1 of 4

Page 357 of 468 ends

City of Morgan Hill Appendix A.2
Engineering - User Fee Study FY 2021
Cost Estimation for Providing Fee Related Activities and Services Eng Plng Bldg Enviro Svcs Maint Utilities
$ 230 $ 235 $ 204 $ 175 $ 141 $ 171
Activity Service Cost Analysis
Estimated Average Labor Time Per Activity (hours)
Total
Estimated Volume of Activity [1]
Cost Recovery Analysis Annual Estimated Revenue Analysis Current Fee
Existing Cost
Recovery % Current Fee
Full Cost Recovery
Annual Estimated Revenues No. Fee Description Fee Unit Type Cost of Service Per Activity 4 Map Check
Parcel Map flat 35.00 2.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 38.00 $ 8,725 $ 6,029 69% 1 $ 6,029 $ 8,725 Tract Map/Subdivision Map (Service No. 149) flat 41.00 2.00 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 45.00 $ 10,309 $ 9,627 93% 0 $ - $ - 5 Certificate of Compliance - Lot Line Adjustment / Lot Merger flat 29.00 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 30.00 $ 6,875 $ 3,914 57% 0 $ - $ - 6 Parcel Map - Lot Line Adjustment / Lot Merger flat 30.50 0.75 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 32.25 $ 7,396 $ 3,151 43% 0 $ - $ - 7 Public Easement Review flat 13.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 13.50 $ 3,106 $ 2,645 85% 3 $ 7,935 $ 9,317 8 Street Vacation flat 39.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 39.00 $ 8,972 $ 203 2% 0 $ - $ - 9 Easement Abandonment flat 39.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 39.00 $ 8,972 $ 4,654 52% 0 $ - $ - 10 Plan Revision (after approval of Public Improvement Plans) T & M (Min 2 hrs) 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.00 $ 230 $ 530 230% 0 $ - $ - 11 Reimbursement Agreement flat 21.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 21.50 $ 4,946 $ 2,292 46% 0 $ - $ - 12 FEMA Compliance Base Fee New Structure flat 3.75 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.25 $ 965 $ 423 44% 1 $ 423 $ 965 New Accessory Structure and New ADU flat 2.75 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.25 $ 735 $ 423 58% 0 $ - $ - Improvement of Existing Structure
Non-Substantial Improvement without Detailed Review per structure 1.50 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.50 $ 549 $ 423 77% 0 $ - $ - Non-Substantial Improvement with Detailed Review per structure 2.50 0.00 1.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.50 $ 779 $ 423 54% 0 $ - $ - Substantial Improvement (other than accessory structure) per structure 5.00 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 5.50 $ 1,252 $ 423 34% 0 $ - $ - Substantial Improvement of Accessory Structure and ADU per structure 3.25 0.00 0.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.75 $ 850 $ 423 50% 0 $ - $ - Additional Review Fees Elevation Certificate Review per structure 2.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.75 $ 633 NEW 0% 0 $ - $ - Flood Field Inspection flat 2.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.50 $ 575 NEW 0% 0 $ - $ - Flood Study Review with Valley Water Coordination flat 6.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.50 $ 1,495 NEW 0% 0 $ - $ - Review of CLOMR/CLOMR-F/LOMR/LOMR-F flat 4.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.00 $ 920 $ 2,328 253% 0 $ - $ - Public Outreach for LOMR/LOMR-F flat 6.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 6.00 $ 1,380 $ 847 61% 0 $ - $ - Review of BFE Determination for Zone A without a BFE or Zone D flat 2.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.00 $ 460 NEW 0% 0 $ - $ - 13 Stormwater Runoff Management Plan Review Tier 1 Project flat 11.50 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 11.50 $ 2,645 NEW 0% 0 $ - $ - Tier 2 Project flat 30.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 30.00 $ 6,901 $ 2,963 43% 5 $ 14,815 $ 34,506 Tier 3 Project flat 43.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 43.00 $ 9,892 NEW 0% 0 $ - $ - Tier 4 Project flat 52.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 52.00 $ 11,962 NEW 0% 0 $ - $ - 14 Erosion & Sediment Control/Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Review & Compliance
Type 1 & Type 2 Projects < 1 Acre in Soil Disturbance flat 2.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 2.25 $ 518 $ 787 152% 3 $ 2,361 $ 1,553 1+ Acre in Soil Disturbance flat 3.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 3.75 $ 863 $ 1,269 147% 5 $ 6,345 $ 4,313 Type 3 Projects flat 1.75 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.75 $ 403 NEW 0% 0 $ - $ - Type 4 Projects flat 1.25 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.25 $ 288 NEW 0% 0 $ - $ - NBS Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 Engineering COS, 2 of 4

Page 358 of 468 ends

Page 359 of 468 ends

NBS Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 Engineering COS, 4 of 4

Page 360 of 468 ends

Prepared by NBS for the City of Morgan Hill
APPENDIX B.1
Comparative Fee Survey – Planning

Page 361 of 468 ends

City of Morgan Hill
Planning - User Fee Study FY 2021 APPENDIX B.1
Fee Comparison
PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1 ANNEXATION $ 12,357 $ 24,531 $15,910 + Attorney Costs no comparison available $37,898 + $4,536 $ 37,950 no comparison available 1.2 LAFCO Processing $ 10,696 $ 28,167 Plus additional fees collected by other agencies
LAFCO fee $1,154 plus SBE fees LAFCO fee $1,154 plus SBE fees 2 APPEALS Commission/Board Decisions 2.1 Applicant Appeal $ 6,905 $ 8,292

2.2 Public Appeal $ 544 $ 8,292
Staff Decisions 2.1 Applicant Appeal $ 5,699 $ 6,795

2.2 Public Appeal $ 544 $ 6,795
3 APPROVAL AMENDMENT 3.1 Major Approval Amendment (Non Admin - s/b Major) $ 8,209 $ 12,548 no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available $ 10,844 no comparison available 3.2 Minor Approval Amendment (Admin - s/b Minor) $ 4,505 $ 7,031 no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available $ 813 no comparison available 4 CC&Rs 4.1 CC&Rs $ 522 $ 1,138 Plus City Attorney Fees Actual Cost Actual Cost 4.2 Other Agreements / Documents Review $ 522 $ 469 Plus City Attorney Fees Actual Cost Actual Cost 5 CONTRACT PLANNING SERVICES Consultant Portion Actual Cost Actual Cost City's Portion 15% 15% GIS/Tech 5% 5%
6 CULTURAL RESOURCES 6.1
Alteration (Major - $10,000+ valuation) (plus Planning
Commission costs) $ 1,304 $ 5,047 no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available

6.2 Alteration (Minor - under $10,000 valuation) (plus Planning Commission costs) $ 391 $ 352 no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available

6.3 Demolition or Relocation (Formerly Alteration) $ 5,719 $ 5,716 no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available 6.4 Designation $ 8,348 $ 7,511 no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available City of Morgan Hill
Fee No. Fee Name
Current Fee /
Deposit
Full Cost Recovery
$600 per application +
publication costs
$2,540 + publishing costs
$ 611
Comparison Agencies
Gilroy Palo Alto San Jose Santa Clara Sunnyvale
no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available Env Det/Protest of Zoning by
Non-Applicant: $250
By Applicant: $12,058
Non-Applicant: $11,808
Hist. Preservation: $100
$ 3,910
Non-Applicant Resident: $477
All Others: $9,543
Non-Public Hearing Decision:
$206
Appeal of Zoning Admin/Plng
Commission Decision: $206
no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available See Environmental Impact
Report
See Environmental Impact
Report
no comparison available no comparison available See Environmental Impact Report
NBS - Local Government Solutions Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 Planning, Page 1 of 7

Page 362 of 468 ends

7.2 Non-Residential Design Permit (Major) $ 7,968 $ 17,200

7.3 Non-Residential Design Permit (Minor) $ 4,917 $ 9,468

7.4 Plan Detail Review (misc. site details, e.g., lighting, trash encl.) $ 2,198 $ 1,976

7.5 Residential Design Permit - 6 units or less $ 7,446 $ 11,518

7.6 Residential Design Permit - 7 units to 15 units $ 9,494 $ 14,265

7.7 Residential Design Permit - 16 or more units each additional 25 units $ 11,803 $ 17,931

7.8 Site Plan Only (no new square footage) $ 6,102 $ 6,209 8 DESIGN REVIEW (PRELIMINARY PLAN REVIEW) 8.1 Conceptual Plan Review (Staff) $ 4,603 $ 6,190

8.2 Non-Residential (Major) Preliminary Plan Review to PC $ 8,490 $ 9,844

8.3 Non-Residential (Minor) Preliminary Plan Review to PC $ 5,438 $ 6,828

8.4 Residential SB330 Preliminary Application Review (staff) $ 11,437 $ 12,610

8.5 Residential - 6 units or less Preliminary Plan Review to PC $ 5,359 $ 7,446

8.6 Residential - 7 units or more Preliminary Plan Review to PC $ 8,191 $ 10,685 9 DEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT/RDCS 9.1 Non Residential Development Agreement $ 7,043 $ 12,206 Residential Development Agreement 9.2 Filed Concurrent with Other Entitlement Applications $ 10,957 $ 12,206

9.3 Filed Alone - Non Concurrent with Other Applications (Includes RDCS Compliance Monitoring 0 - 3 Yrs.) $ 12,261 $ 13,379

9.4 RDCS Compliance Monitoring - each year after 3 years $ 2,609 $ 2,347 no comparison available
Architectural and Site Review
Residential: New - $7,295 - First lot
$540/ea add'l flatland tract
$1,160/ea add'l hillside lot
New Hillside Lot - $4,090
Remodel - $735
Commercial: New - $8,900 - First 5k s.f.
$695/ea add'l 10k s.f.

Remodel: $4,065
Industrial: New - $5,125 - First 10k s.f.
$290/ea add'l 10k s.f.

Remodel: $2,130
$17,250 minimum deposit
Architectural Review: Major Project - $13,380 dep
Minor Project (ARB) - $9,073/ea
Minor Project (Staff Review) -
$3,483/ea
Site and Design Major:
$29,358 per deposit
$7,105.10 each
Development Agreement -
$9,200 per deposit
Development Agreement: Annual
Review - $3,221 per deposit
Architectural Review
Staff Review OTC: no charge
SFD going to DRH: $893
New Dev/Non SFD: $32,529 Consultant Review: Actual Cost + Admin Cost Pre-Application:

SFD - $476
Planning Review - $3,179
Project Clearance Committee
Review - $5,422
$32,529 Amendment or Cancellation: $10,844
Up to 2 units: $7,753 + $928
3-24 Units: $505 + $60 ea
25 units: $19,378 + $2,139
26-99 units: $87 + $10 ea
100 Units: $25,839 + $3,092
101-499 units: $9 + $1 ea
500 units: $30,145 + $3,608
501+ units: $59 + $7 ea
Development Agreement:
$18,301 + $2,190
Agreement Annual
Monitoring:
$12,274 + $1,469
no comparison available
Development Agreement:
$6,664
Minor Mod: $3,332
Annual Review: $1,666
$2,038 - $4,001
$ 1,030
NBS - Local Government Solutions Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 Planning, Page 2 of 7

Page 363 of 468 ends

City of Morgan Hill
Planning - User Fee Study FY 2021 APPENDIX B.1
Fee Comparison
City of Morgan Hill
Fee No. Fee Name
Current Fee /
Deposit
Full Cost Recovery
Comparison Agencies
Gilroy Palo Alto San Jose Santa Clara Sunnyvale
10 ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW (CEQA) 10.1 Environmental Impact Report $ 22,120 $ 25,832 $19,820 minimum (15% of contract price) + publishing costs $ 21,840 $ 32,529
10% min of consulting fee
($1,727 min)

10.2 Expanded Initial Study $ 16,221 $ 14,882 $9,415 min fee + publishing costs no comparison available $ 16,264 $ 917

10.3 Historic Assessments - Historical Consultant (Deposit) Actual Cost Actual Cost no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available

10.4 Historic Assessments - Staff-level $ 2,609 $ 4,577 Neighborhood: $3,560 Site: $3,890
Application: $326.30
Minor: $1,305.10
Major: $1,957.60
$3,500 + $418 SFD - $893
All Others - $10,844 $240 - $586

10.5 Initial Environmental Assessment $ 2,308 $ 2,101 no comparison available Actual Costs + 25% of contract $ 936 no comparison available no comparison available

10.6 Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (Per Year) $ 1,304 $ 1,174 no comparison available EIR - $4,784 per deposit MND - $1,594 per deposit
Plan Prep (10 hrs) - $3,120
Prior to Const - $1,248
Post Const - $312/hr
no comparison available no comparison available
11 EXTENSION OF TIME FOR APPROVALS 11.1 Administrative $ 2,217 $ 1,995 $ 380 Hourly Rate 2,368 + 283 50% of Application Fee $ 917

11.2 Non Administrative $ 3,457 $ 3,580 no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available 50% of Application Fee no comparison available 12 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT 12.1 Land Use Diagram Amendment $ 17,333 $ 16,454 $15,575 - First 10 acres
$100/ea add'l 10 acres +
publishing costs
no comparison available $18,292 + $2,189

12.2 Text Amendment $ 7,080 $ 9,295 $10,710 + publishing costs no comparison available $18,292 + $2,189 13 HABITAT PLAN FEES (SC VALLEY) 13.1 Habitat Plan Related Reviews $ 522 $ 469 $1,150 base fee. $1,350+ for
permits processed by City
consultants no comparison available $ 936 no comparison available no comparison available 14 HOUSING IN-LIEU FEE [1] N/A no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available 15 MINOR EXCEPTION $ 3,306 $ 2,987 $ 1,235 no comparison available $6,673 + $798 no comparison available no comparison available 16 OPEN SPACE IN·LlEU FEE (Per 20 Dwellings) [1] N/A no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available 17 OUT OF AGENCY CONTRACT FOR SERVICES 17.1 City staff $ 10,892 $ 9,800 Plus additional fees collected by other agencies Actual Costs Actual Costs 18 PLANNING CONSULTATION - hourly $ 261 $ 235 no comparison available no comparison available $312/hr no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available
Consultant Prepared - Actual Costs + 25% of contract Staff Prepared - $6,518 per deposit
no comparison available
SFD - $2,710
Up to 1 acre - $21,686
1-5 acres: $32,529
5+ acres: $37,950
no comparison available
$ 6,664
no comparison available no comparison available
NBS - Local Government Solutions Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 Planning, Page 3 of 7

Page 364 of 468 ends

City of Morgan Hill
Planning - User Fee Study FY 2021 APPENDIX B.1
Fee Comparison
City of Morgan Hill
Fee No. Fee Name
Current Fee /
Deposit
Full Cost Recovery
Comparison Agencies
Gilroy Palo Alto San Jose Santa Clara Sunnyvale
19 REFUNDABLE DEPOSITS
Determined
by Planning Director - billed at hourly rate
Determined
by Planning Director - billed at hourly rate
no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available 19 RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT CONTROL SYSTEM (RDCS) 19.1 Preliminary Measure S Review $ 8,541 $ 6,913 no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available 19.2 Final Measure S Review (RDCS) $ 31,534 $ 29,376 no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available 19.3 RDCS Extension $ 4,296 $ 3,949 no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available 19.4 RDCS Appeal $ 8,881 $ 8,063 no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available 20 RESIDENTIAL PRIVATE LIVESTOCK PERMIT $ 761 $ 2,113 no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available 21 REVERSION TO ACREAGE PROCESSING $ 3,261 $ 2,934 no comparison available no comparison available $1,291 + $154 no comparison available no comparison available 22 SIGN REVIEW

22.1 Alteration to existing Sign $ 391 $ 176

22.2 Sign Review Over the Counter - Copy Change $ 261 $ 235

22.3 New Sign Permit - First Sign $ 391 $ 352

22.4 Each additional Sign $ 130 $ 117

22.5 New Sign within a Master Sign Program $ 196 $ 176

22.6 Subdivision/Real Estate Tract Signs $ 783 $ 704

22.7 Temporary/Promotional Signs $ 65 $ 59

22.8 Uniform Sign Program $ 3,783 $ 3,404
$126 - first 25 s.f.
$29/each add'l 25 s.f.

ARB Review - $4,550.30 per app
Exceptions - $4,749.40 per app
Signs, Minor Facade Changes,
Landscaping, Accessory
Structures, or Similar Minor
Changes to a Building Exterior -
$1,088.60 per app
Temporary Sign Permit - $201.10
each
Single Sign: $215 + $25
Multiple Signs: $109 + $13 per
add'l sign
Temp Sign: No Fee
Perm Sign: $171
Master Sign Agreement: $917
Master Sign Minor Mod: $416
Individual - $317
Each add'l - $78
Temp: $78
Temp removal - $135
Master Prog - $4,066
NBS - Local Government Solutions Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 Planning, Page 4 of 7

Page 365 of 468 ends

23.1 Tentative Parcel Map Review - 4 lots or less $ 4,948 $ 6,725 $7,355 - First 4 lots
$145/each add'l lot + publishing
costs $ 16,264 $ 3,059
Tentative Subdivision Map Review

23.2 5 to 15 lots $ 6,434 $ 9,002

23.3 16 - 25 lots $ 8,072 $ 11,326

23.4 26 lots or more - each additional 25 lots $ 8,072 $ 14,095 24 TRANSFER DEVELOPMENT CREDIT (TDC) 24.1 Application Fee $ 9,261 $ 8,333 no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available 25 TREE REMOVAL PERMIT $ 109 $ 1,350 $ 300 no comparison available Dead/Unsuitable Tree: $234 +
$28
($30 + $3 each add'l)
Live Tree: SFD - $2,028 + $242
All Other - $2,340 + $280
Heritage: $10,336 + $1,237
Heritage Tree: $758
Tree Removal: $310
Tree Removal w/Cert Arborist
Report: $171
26 URBAN SERVICE AREA AMENDMENT 26.1 City Processing $ 15,511 $ 15,163 no comparison available $18,292 + $2,189 no comparison available no comparison available 26.2 LAFCO Processing $ 26,434 $ 28,167

26.3 Plus Additional Fees Collected by Other Agencies
LAFCO fee $11,574 plus Actual Costs LAFCO fee $11,574 plus Actual Costs 27 USE PERMIT 27.1 Administrative Use Permit $ 1,201 $ 7,101 Special Use Permit: $1,200 deposit no comparison available $3,138 + $375 Conditional Use Permit 27.2 New Construction $ 9,533 $ 11,265

27.3 No New Construction $ 9,091 $ 10,819

27.4 Temporary Use Permit $ 3,025 $ 5,678

27.5 Temporary Use Permit (Non-Profit) $ 100 $ 4,117

27.6 Temporary Use Permit Amendment $ 1,196 $ 3,060
Flower vendors, model homes,
const. trailers - $350
All others - $925 min
$5,275 + publishing costs
$13,995 - First 12 lots
$115/ea add'l flatland lot
$500/ea add'l hillside lot
+ publishing costs
$27,785 - First 10 Acres
$165/ea add'l 10 acres
+ publishing costs & LAFCO fees
Director Level: $7,499/ea
Additional Upon Hearing:
$12,571.60
no comparison available
Day Care Center: $186
Temp Use (Minor) - $1,489.80/ea
no comparison available
Up to 10 lots: $8,183 + $979
11-49 lots: $21 + $2 ea
50 lots: $9,044 + $1,051
51-249 lots: $6 + $0.72 ea
250 lots: $10,336 + $1,237
251+ lots: $40 + $4 ea
$17,113 + $2048
SUP: Existing SFD - $5,637 + $674
$5,018 + $346 per lot
no comparison available
SFH/DUP: $502
5+ lots: $21,686
Minor Use: $5,725
Standard Use: $13,251
no comparison available
5+ Parcels: Final Map - $6,077/ea
Tentative Map - $11,238/dep Minor: Final Parcel - $5,082.80/ea Prelim Parcel - $6,089.30/ea
Minor w/Exception:

Final Parcel: $3,721.30/ea
Prelim Parcel - $9,630/ea
NBS - Local Government Solutions Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 Planning, Page 5 of 7

Page 366 of 468 ends

City of Morgan Hill
Planning - User Fee Study FY 2021 APPENDIX B.1
Fee Comparison
City of Morgan Hill
Fee No. Fee Name
Current Fee /
Deposit
Full Cost Recovery
Comparison Agencies
Gilroy Palo Alto San Jose Santa Clara Sunnyvale
28 VARIANCE $ 8,514 $ 10,046 $5,185 + publishing costs
Director Level: $4,790.40/ea
Additional Upon Hearing:
$12,571.60/ea
$6,673 + $798 Single Family: $3,187
All Others: $13,251
SFH/DUP: $502
All Others: $1,884
29 WILLIAMSON ACT 29.1 Cancelation $ 12,522 $ 11,267

29.2 New $ 3,131 $ 6,103

29.3 Non-Renewal $ 1,044 $ 939
30 ZONING REQUESTS 30.1 Planned Development $ 10,629 $ 16,714

30.2 Residential Planned Development Review $ 13,186 $ 16,354

30.3 Residential Planned Development (if processed concurrently with subdivision) $ 9,142 $ 10,293

30.4 Zoning Map Amendment Review $ 8,557 $ 11,009

30.5 Zoning Map Amendment Review (If processed concurrently with GPA or ANX) $ 3,241 $ 8,896

30.6 Zoning Text Amendment Review $ 10,980 $ 11,713 $7,085 + publishing costs $ 24,397

30.7 Zoning Confirmation Letter $ 1,696 $ 1,526 Hourly rate + Direct Cost Hourly Rate $430 + $51 to $4,951 + $592 depending on type $ 463 $ 118
31 PUBLIC HEARINGS AND NOTICES 31.1 City Council Meeting $ 2,268 $ 2,089 no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available 31.2 LAFCO Meeting - each additional $ 1,826 $ 1,643 no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available 31.3 Planning Commission Meeting $ 2,178 $ 2,206 no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available $ 4,001 Public Noticing 31.4 Up to 50 $ 66 $ - no comparison available

31.5 Over 50 $ 78 $ - no comparison available 31.6 Envelopes Actual Costs Actual Costs no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available 31.7 Postage Actual Costs Actual Costs no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available $5,520 + $3,000 atty fees deposit
+ publishing costs
$5,060 - First 10 acres
$120/ea add'l 10 acres +
publishing costs
$ 13,875 Planned Community Zone
Change: $9,570 per deposit
Minor Change: $1,956 per
deposit
Zone Change Regular: $7,973 per
deposit
App: $12,164 + $1,456
Cancellation/Mod: $22,070 +
$2641
Renoticing: $171
500 ft radius: $368
1,000 ft rad: $1,157
2,000 ft rad: $2,368
no comparison available
no comparison available
Single Family: $119
Non-Single Fam: $1,084
no comparison available
Single lot to R1: $8,338
Non-PD: $18,930
PD: $54,215
PD-Master Community:
$65,058
Up to 2 units: $11,484 +
$1,374
3-24 Units: $112 + $13 ea
25 units: $14,102 + $1,688
26-99 units: $315 + $37 ea
100 Units: $37,752 + $4,518
101-499 units: $37 + $4 ea
500 units: $52,325 + $6,263
501+ units: $106 + $12 ea
Adjacent (15 notices): $167
300 ft rad (275): $515
500 ft rad (475): $975
1,000 ft rad (1,200): $2,136
Each add'l: $0.74
150 ft Radius - $667.90
600 ft Radius - $1,172.70
Beyond 600 ft Radius - $1,563.60
no comparison available
$ 2,514
NBS - Local Government Solutions Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 Planning, Page 6 of 7

Page 367 of 468 ends

31.8 Public Noticing (publication) $ - $ 1,760
$330 for zoning and General Plan Amendments $220 for all other applications no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available 32 OTHER SERVICE CHARGES 32.1 Annual Charge for Entire PC Packet $ 122.00 $ 122.00

32.3 Document Printing/Copying (per page) $ 0.10 $ 0.10

32.4 Oversized Copy 24X36 (per page) $ 2.26 $ 2.26

32.5 Oversized Copy 18X26 (per page) $ 2.01 $ 2.01

32.6 Oversized Copy 24X36 (Color) (per page) $ 2.93 $ 2.93

32.7 Oversized Copy 11X17 (per page) $ 0.55 $ 0.55

32.8 Other Oversized Copies n/a n/a 32.9 Electronic Search of the Public Records see City Clerk see City Clerk 32.1 Record Research Service (Deposit Required) - hourly $ 251 $ 235 Hourly rate + Direct cost Hourly Rate $ 312 no comparison available no comparison available 33 MAPS 33.1 General Plan (Color) $ 13.00 $ 13.00 no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available 33.2 Zoning and Boundary $ 8.00 $ 8.00 no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available 34 Business License Zoning Review

34.1 Home Based Business $ 130 $ 117 $ 70 no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available 34.2 All Other Types $ 130 $ 117 $30 - $370 no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available 35 For services requested of City staff which have no fee listed in this fee schedule 35.1 During Business Hours $ 251 $ 235 Hourly Rate no comparison available $ 312 no comparison available no comparison available 35.2 After Business Hours $ 251 $ 270 $550 + $175/hr after 3 hours no comparison available $ 312 no comparison available $ 193 Notes: [1] Placeholder for Master Fee Schedule. NBS did not evaluate. no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available NBS - Local Government Solutions Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 Planning, Page 7 of 7

Page 368 of 468 ends

Prepared by NBS for the City of Morgan Hill
APPENDIX B.2
Comparative Fee Survey – Engineering

Page 369 of 468 ends

City of Morgan Hill
Engineering - User Fee Study FY 2021 APPENDIX B.2
Fee Comparison
Land Development Engineering 1 Public Improvement - Plan Check $ 50,000
base fee up to
$50,000 $ 6,650 $ 15,161
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l $1,000 $ 133 $ - $ 100,000 base fee @
$100,000 $ 13,300 $ 15,161
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l $1,000 $ 118 $ 57.41 10.5% of total cost $ 200,000 base fee @
$200,000 $ 23,600 $ 20,902
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l $1,000 $ 103 $ 18.52 $ 500,000
base fee @
$500,000 $ 51,500 $ 26,459
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l $1,000 $ 88 $ 10.22 $ 1,000,000
base fee @
$1,000,000 $ 88,000 $ 31,569
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l $1,000 $ 88 $ 2.90 $ 5,000,000
base fee @
$5,000,000 $ 440,000 $ 43,184
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l $1,000 $ 88 $ 8.64 2 Public Improvement - Inspection
$ 50,000
base fee up to
$50,000 n/a $ 20,129
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l $1,000 n/a $ - $ 100,000 base fee @
$100,000 n/a $ 20,129
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l $1,000 n/a $ 124.22 10.5% of total cost $ 200,000 base fee @
$200,000 n/a $ 32,551
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l $1,000 n/a $ 118.85 $ 500,000
base fee @
$500,000 n/a $ 68,207
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l $1,000 n/a $ 105.36 $ 1,000,000
base fee @
$1,000,000 n/a $ 120,886
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l $1,000 n/a $ 16.85 $ 5,000,000
base fee @
$5,000,000 n/a $ 188,288
each additional $1,000 or fraction thereof each add'l $1,000 n/a $ 37.66 Comparison Agencies
Fee No. Fee Name Fee Unit / Type Current Fee /
Deposit
Full Cost Recovery
Gilroy
City of Morgan Hill
Palo Alto San Jose Santa Clara Sunnyvale

12.6% of total cost

8.4% of total cost

12.6% of total cost

8.4% of total cost
First $24,999 - $9,518
$25k-$49,999 - $9,518 +

14.5% over $25k
$50k-$99,999 - $13,058 +

21.8% over $50k
$100k-$199,999 - $23,958 +

12.38% over $100k
$200k-$499,999 - $36,332 +

7.98% over $200k
$500k-$999,999 - $60,201 +

6.90% over $500k
$1,000,000+ - $94,786 +

5.63% over $1mm
First $24,999 - $9,518
$25k-$49,999 - $9,518 +

14.5% over $25k
$50k-$99,999 - $13,058 +

21.8% over $50k
$100k-$199,999 - $23,958 +

12.38% over $100k
$200k-$499,999 - $36,332 +

7.98% over $200k
$500k-$999,999 - $60,201 +

6.90% over $500k
$1,000,000+ - $94,786 +

5.63% over $1mm
$1 - $5,999: $721
$6,000 - $25,999: $741 + 9.3% of
value greater than $6,000
$26,000 - $100,999: $2,581 + 11.8%
of value greater than $26,000
$101,000+: $11,431 + 9.3% of value
greater than $100,000
$1 - $5,999: $721
$6,000 - $25,999: $741 + 9.3% of
value greater than $6,000
$26,000 - $100,999: $2,581 + 11.8%
of value greater than $26,000
$101,000+: $11,431 + 9.3% of value
greater than $100,000
Street Improvements:

Res - $105.51/front ft
Comm - $223.78/front ft
Industrial - $161.08/front ft
Street Curbing: $38.49/ front
ft Sidewalk: $15.35/sf
Sanitary Sewers: $38.37/front
ft Storm Drains: $38.37/front ft
Up to $10k - $5,586
$10,001-$50k - $5,586 + 35%
of cost > $10k
$50,001-$1 mil - $19,586 + 5%
of cost > $50k
$1 mil+ - $57,586 + 2% of cost
> $1 mil
Up to $10k - $5,586
$10,001-$50k - $5,586 + 35%
of cost > $10k
$50,001-$1 mil - $19,586 + 5%
of cost > $50k
$1 mil+ - $57,586 + 2% of cost
> $1 mil
NBS - Local Government Solutions Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 Engineering, Page 1 of 4

Page 370 of 468 ends

Street - $4,008
Easement - $2,976
With Sale: $7,917
Summary Vacation: $2,296
Standard Vacation: $3,584
Summary Vacation of Public
Service Easement: $1,101
NBS - Local Government Solutions Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 Engineering, Page 2 of 4

Page 371 of 468 ends

City of Morgan Hill
Engineering - User Fee Study FY 2021 APPENDIX B.2
Fee Comparison
Comparison Agencies
Fee No. Fee Name Fee Unit / Type Current Fee /
Deposit
Full Cost Recovery
Gilroy
City of Morgan Hill
Palo Alto San Jose Santa Clara Sunnyvale
12 FEMA Compliance Base Fee New Structure flat $ 423 $ 965 no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available New Accessory Structure and New ADU flat $ 423 $ 735 no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available Improvement of Existing Structure
Non-Substantial Improvement without Detailed Review
per structure $ 423 $ 549
Non-Substantial Improvement with Detailed Review per structure $ 423 $ 779 Substantial Improvement (other than accessory
structure) per structure $ 423 $ 1,252
Substantial Improvement of Accessory Structure
and ADU per structure $ 423 $ 850 Additional Review Fees Elevation Certificate Review per structure NEW $ 633 Flood Field Inspection flat NEW $ 575
Flood Study Review with Valley Water Coordination flat NEW $ 1,495 Review of CLOMR/CLOMR-F/LOMR/LOMR-F flat $ 2,328 $ 920
Public Outreach for LOMR/LOMR-F flat $ 847 $ 1,380
Review of BFE Determination for Zone A without a BFE or Zone D flat NEW $ 460
13 Stormwater Runoff Management Plan Review
Tier 1 Project flat NEW $ 2,645
Tier 2 Project flat $ 2,963 $ 6,901
Tier 3 Project flat NEW $ 9,892
Tier 4 Project flat NEW $ 11,962
14 Erosion & Sediment Control/Stormwater Pollution
Prevention Plan (SWPPP) Review & Compliance
Type 1 & Type 2 Projects < 1 Acre in Soil Disturbance flat $ 787 $ 518 1+ Acre in Soil Disturbance flat $ 1,269 $ 863
Type 3 Projects flat NEW $ 403
Type 4 Projects flat NEW $ 288
15 Stormwater Construction Inspections
Type 1 & Type 2 Projects < 1 Acre in Soil Disturbance flat $ 12,695 $ 9,179 1+ Acre in Soil Disturbance flat $ 12,695 $ 16,367
Type 3 Projects flat $ 68 $ 93
Type 4 Projects flat $ 68 $ 93
16 Stormwater BMP Operations & Maintenance Agreement flat NEW $ 2,070 no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available 17 Private Sanitary Sewer Agreement flat NEW $ 2,645 no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available $ 8,844 no comparison available no comparison available
no comparison available
no comparison available
no comparison available
no comparison available
no comparison available
no comparison available
no comparison available
no comparison available
no comparison available
no comparison available
no comparison available
no comparison available
no comparison available
no comparison available
no comparison available
no comparison available
no comparison available
no comparison available
no comparison available
no comparison available
no comparison available
no comparison available
no comparison available
no comparison available
NBS - Local Government Solutions Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 Engineering, Page 3 of 4

Page 372 of 468 ends

City of Morgan Hill
Engineering - User Fee Study FY 2021 APPENDIX B.2
Fee Comparison
Comparison Agencies
Fee No. Fee Name Fee Unit / Type Current Fee /
Deposit
Full Cost Recovery
Gilroy
City of Morgan Hill
Palo Alto San Jose Santa Clara Sunnyvale
18 Assessment District Reapportionment
City Staff flat NEW $ 2,760 no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available $ 8,640 Actual Cost Contractor Costs actual costs $ 5,000 Actual Costs no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available 19 Preliminary Review on Projects / Engineering Services flat $ 2,030 $ 2,300 no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available 20 Additional Plan Review (after 3rd submittal) hourly
(min 2 hrs) $ 203 $ 230 $185/hr (2 hr min) no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available 21 Re-Inspection Fee hourly
(min 4 hrs) $ 203 $ 230 $ 125 no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available $ 212 22 Complexity Fee flat $ 2,436 $ 2,760 no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available 23 FEMA Community Rating System (CRS) Annual Reporting flat NEW $ 12,422 no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available 24 Agreement Extensions / Improvement Agreement Amendments With City Manager Approval flat NEW $ 2,876 no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available With City Council Approval flat NEW $ 4,371 no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available 25 Citywide Inspection for Construction or Stormwater
Improvements
flat
See
Stormwater Construction
Inspection
See
Stormwater Construction
Inspection
no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available 26 Building Grading Support flat
Included in
Public
Improvement Plan Check
Included in
Public
Improvement Plan Check no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available 27 NPDES - above and below 1 acre. Put in tier. flat
See
Stormwater Construction
Inspection
See
Stormwater Construction
Inspection
no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available 28 Private Street Review flat
Included in
Public
Improvement Plan Check
Included in
Public
Improvement Plan Check no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available 29 Preliminary Fee Estimate flat $ 305 $ 345 no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available no comparison available 30 For services requested of City staff which have no fee listed in this fee schedule During Business Hours per hour $ 255 $ 230 $ 185 no comparison available $ 167 no comparison available no comparison available After Business Hours per hour $ 255 $ 265 $475 + $160/hr after 3 hours $ 278 $ 167 no comparison available Actual Cost NBS - Local Government Solutions Web: www.nbsgov.com Toll-Free:800.676.7516 Engineering, Page 4 of 4

Page 373 of 468 ends

20836777.3
ATTACHMENT 6
Renaissance Application Fee Calculations and City Comparisons

Page 374 of 468 ends

YIELD 251 YIELD 251 YIELD 251
LOTS 166 LOTS 166 LOTS 166
MODEL PLANS 16
DESIGN PERMIT ARCH/SITE SITE/DESIGN
BASE 22,510.50         22,510.80         FIRST 16 UNITS BASE 8,642.00         8,642.00         DEPOSIT 33,671.00         33,671.00        PER DEPOSIT ADD'L UNITS 211,601.52       22,510.80         EVERY 25 UNITS MORE ADD'L MODELS 9,255.00         617.00             EACH ADD'L MODEL ADD'L DEPOSITS 67,342.00         ASSUME 2 ADD'L TENTATIVE MAP TENTATIVE MAP TENTATIVE MAP
BASE 17,689.20         17,689.20         BASE 19,836.00       19,836.00       (5‐12 LOTS) DEPOSIT 12,889.30         12,889.30 ADD'L LOTS 99,767.09         17,689.20         EVERY 25 LOTS MORE ADD'L LOTS 48,510.00       315.00             EACH LOT <12 (FLAT) ADD'L DEPOSITS 25,778.60         ASSUME 2 ADD'L $  351,568.31 $    86,243.00 $  139,680.90
hours 345 1,406                  hours 559                    hours YIELD 251 YIELD 251 YIELD 251
LOTS 166 LOTS 166 LOTS 166
SITE DEV PERMIT ARCH/SITE MAJOR DEV
BASE 31,144.00         31,144.00         100 UNITS BASE 35,400.00       35,400.00       BASE 8,602.00           8,602.00 ADD'L UNITS 1,661.00           11.00                 PER UNIT 100+ ADDL' UNITS ‐                   ADD'L UNITS ‐ TENTATIVE MAP TENTATIVE MAP TENTATIVE MAP
BASE 10,938.00         10,938.00         50 LOTS BASE 23,600.00       23,600.00       BASE 6,087.90           6,087.90 ADD'L LOTS 779.52               6.72                   PER LOT 50+ ADD'L LOTS ‐                   ADD'L LOTS 66,400.00         400.00              PER LOT $     44,522.52 $    59,000.00 $     81,089.90
hours 236 178                  hours 324 hours
avg hourly rate 250.00 $
MORGAN HILL GILROY PALO ALTO
SAN JOSE SANTA CLARA Sunnyvale

Page 375 of 468 ends

Page 376 of 468 ends

20766925.1
Hanson Bridgett LLP
425 Market Street, 26th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94105
ROBIN R. BARAL

SENIOR COUNSEL
DIRECT DIAL (916) 491-3052
E-MAIL [email protected]
April 25, 2024

VIA E-MAIL
Development Services, Planning Division
City of Morgan Hill
17575 Peak Avenue
Morgan Hill, CA 95037
Attn: Jennifer Carman, Development Services
Re: Monterey Renaissance Builder’s Remedy Project (PRE2023-0008) Dear Ms. Carman:

This letter is in follow up to the above-referenced application submitted on behalf of Glenrock Builders, Inc. (“Applicant”) on March 11, 2024. The application is deemed complete by operation of law under the Permit Streamlining Act (Gov. Code § 65943), as the City has not provided a completeness determination within 30 days after receiving the application.

The Permit Streamlining Act (PSA) expressly requires cities to respond no later than 30 calendar days after an application for a development project is received. (Gov. Code § 65943(a).) Courts have strictly interpreted this 30-day deadline in furtherance to the underlying policies of the PSA. (Orsi v. City Council (1990) 219 Cal.App.3d 1576 [application deemed complete by operation of law; notice of incompleteness was issued 11 days after 30-day PSA deadline].) In addition, amendments to the PSA made by SB 330 in 2019 established closer controls over items that a city may review in determining application completeness: "If the application is determined to be incomplete, [the city] shall provide the applicant with an exhaustive list of items that were not complete. That list shall be limited to those items actually required on the lead agency's submittal requirement checklist. In any subsequent review of the application determined to be incomplete, the local agency shall not request the applicant to provide any new information that was not stated in the initial list of items that were not complete." (Id.) More recently, the Department of Housing and Community Development ("HCD") has advised cities to comply with the 30-day response deadline so that applications for housing development projects can be processed in a more timely manner. A copy of HCD's December 7, 2023 Technical Assistance letter was attached to our previous correspondence and is attached again for reference. (Attachment 1) As HCD notes, there is no support under the PSA to delay the commencement of the City's 30-day period to respond on the payment of application fees.

Page 377 of 468 ends

Jennifer Carman, Development Services Director
April 25, 2024

Page 2 ends

20766925.1
Here, the application consists of a tentative subdivision map application and clearly falls within the purview of the PSA. The City's Application Submittal Checklist, however, does not include payment of application fees as a checklist item. (Attachment 2) To the contrary, the Checklist states "Once received Staff will respond with the associated fees and payment options." As the City's Checklist does not expressly condition receipt of an application based on the payment of fees, the 30-day PSA deadline to respond for this project began, as a matter of law, on the date that all of the items on the application checklist were submitted and received by the City. Note, however, that even for cities that expressly condition the payment of fees as an application checklist item, HCD has opined that the PSA does not authorize cities to indefinitely delay a 30- day completeness determination on the payment of those fees.

For this project, the Applicant also requested, at the time that the application was submitted, that the City transfer previously deposited funds for an Urban Service Area (USA) amendment, for the purpose of initiating the City's processing of this application. The Applicant therefore initiated payment of the City's application fees at the time that the application was submitted and received by the City. The Applicant's payment of fees on April 5, 2024, however, indicates that no funds were transferred. If a balance remains in any other accounts on file on behalf of Glenrock Builders, we ask that those funds be reimbursed directly to Glenrock, along with an accounting of all expenses incurred in connection with that deposit account.

Lastly, we note that the City's method for calculating the application fee for this project remains under dispute given that the application fees for this project in the amount of $364,770.04 are disproportionate to the City's actual, reasonable costs in processing a subdivision application.

The Applicant made its payment under protest at the time that the application fees were paid to the City. Since then, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its ruling in Sheetz v. County of El Dorado, California (2024) 144 S. Ct. 893, holding that there is no legislative exemption for fees and exactions imposed pursuant to the Mitigation Fee Act ("MFA"). That ruling directly applies here, as application fees are governed by the MFA. (Gov. Code § 66000(b).) Other provisions of the MFA remain in place, such as the accrual of 8% interest pending the outcome of any challenge. (Gov. Code § 66020.)
As the application is deemed complete by operation of law, the Applicant requests that the City initiate review of this project under CEQA, given that the PSA and other deadlines for completing such review are now in effect.

Sincerely,
Robin R. Baral
Attachments
cc: Don Larkin, City Attorney
Client

Page 378 of 468 ends

20766925.1
ATTACHMENT 1

Page 379 of 468 ends

STATE OF CALIFORNIA - BUSINESS, CONSUMER SERVICES AND HOUSING AGENCY GAVIN NEWSOM, Governor

DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT

DIVISION OF HOUSING POLICY DEVELOPMENT
2020 W. El Camino Avenue, Suite 500
Sacramento, CA 95833
(916) 263-2911 / FAX (916) 263-7453
www.hcd.ca.gov
December 7, 2023
Jordan Klein, Director of Planning and Development
City of Berkeley
1947 Center Street, 3rd Floor
Berkeley, CA 94704
Dear Jordan Klein:

RE: City’s Application Intake and Processing – Letter of Technical Assistance The California Department of Housing and Community Development (HCD) received multiple requests for technical assistance requesting HCD to review the City of Berkeley’s (City) housing application intake procedures and application processing for compliance with the Permit Streamlining Act (PSA) (Gov. Code, § 65943.5). The purpose of this letter is to provide technical assistance on this matter.

Housing Element Program Commitments
As the City is aware, the City Council adopted Berkeley’s 6th Cycle Housing Element (2023 – 2031) on January 18, 2023, and HCD found the housing element in substantial compliance with State Housing Element Law on February 28, 2023. The City is obligated to implement the programs in the housing element to facilitate the City’s housing needs. The following two programs are responsive to this topic.:
• Program 33 (Zoning Code Amendment: Residential). This program requires amendments to the zoning code to reduce entitlement and permit processing time. It is intended to reduce administrative costs for the City and streamline housing projects.
• Program 34 (Permit Processing). This program addresses permit processing and acknowledges delays in processing development applications. Program 34 is intended to improve the streamlining of permit processing through updates to permitting software which would allow applications to be submitted online and provide on-demand reporting of project statuses.

Permit Streamlining Act – Completeness Review
The Legislature found and declared with the passing of the PSA that “there is a statewide need to ensure clear understanding of the specific requirements which must be met in connection with the approval of development projects and to expedite

Page 380 of 468 ends

Jordan Klein, Director of Community Development

Page 2 ends

decisions on such projects” (Gov. Code § 65921). The intent of the PSA is to ensure that applicants are provided clear instructions and that local jurisdictions are processing projects in accordance with the specific timelines outlined in the statute to streamline development. Notably, the PSA requires that local jurisdictions determine in writing whether an application is complete within 30 days of application submittal. Considering the current housing crisis in California, delays in permitting processes and approval times add constraints to the cost of residential construction. Therefore, compliance with the PSA is even more pertinent today to meet the urgent housing needs across California.

It is HCD’s understanding that prior to a project’s full application submittal, the City conducts a unique local application intake review process. This process (which should not be confused with a typical pre-application process where a prospective applicant submits a conceptual plan for informal review and discussion) concludes in an application being found by staff to be “ready for review.” To achieve “ready to review” status, the applicant must submit all forms and materials required per the City’s development application checklist for review by the Planning Department. Once staff is satisfied that all forms and materials have been submitted as required, the applicant is invoiced and is authorized to officially submit the application. The City considers the 30-day PSA completeness clock to begin at the time when an applicant is issued an invoice and payment is made – and not at the time the application is originally submitted. Therefore, the time it takes for a project to achieve “ready to review” status is indefinite and may exceed 30 calendar days.

The PSA requires local jurisdictions determine in writing whether an application is complete within 30 calendar days after the application is received (Gov. Code § 65943, subd. (a), emphasis added). If the application is incomplete, the local jurisdiction must provide the applicant with a list of items that were not included in the application. That list must be limited to only those items contained within the local jurisdiction’s development application submittal checklist. The City’s application intake review process appears to be a completeness review consistent and subject to the PSA because the City requires all the application checklist items be provided in this process.

However, the City is not complying with the provisions of the PSA in that the City is not providing clear and transparent guidelines for what satisfies the application intake process and may take over 30 calendar days to complete the intake review.

Additionally, when the City ultimately accepts an application for review, HCD understands the City adheres to its own timing provisions contained in the City’s municipal code which states, “…when business days are referenced, they include only days when City Hall is open. The end of a time period is computed by excluding the first day and including the last day. If the last day is a holiday observed by the City or a City Hall non-business day, that day is excluded” (BMC § 23.104.030(F)). Based on this municipal code provision, it appears that the City excludes the day the application was submitted and excludes weekends, holidays, and days that City Hall is closed to the public. The practice of reviewing housing applications based on business days adds to

Page 381 of 468 ends

Jordan Klein, Director of Community Development

Page 2 ends

constraints contributing to the housing crisis and is inconsistent with the provisions and intent of the PSA. The PSA explicitly states that local jurisdictions are required to determine whether an application is complete within 30 calendar days, and not business days.

Recommendations
As supported by the content of this letter, HCD makes the following recommendations to the City to best implement state law and housing element program commitments to streamline permit processing:

1. Completeness review begins at application submittal. When an application is submitted to the City for review, the City has 30 calendar days from the submittal date to determine completeness in writing per the PSA. Therefore, the City’s intake review process is a completeness review and is subject to the PSA and must be completed within 30 calendar days. The City should make it possible for an applicant to pay the application review fee at the time the application is submitted (e.g., via a written check, online payment portal, etc.)

2. Calendar days. The PSA requires the City to provide written comments to the applicant for a completeness review within 30 calendar days. This includes weekends, holidays, and any City Hall closures. The City’s Zoning Code provision and HCD’s procedures are not compliant with the PSA. Amendments to the City’s Zoning Code and internal procedures should be implemented consistent with the PSA.

Conclusion
HCD is aware that the City applied for the Prohousing Designation Program on August 17, 2023, to qualify for funding benefits. To qualify for the Prohousing Designation, the City must meet threshold requirements, including but not limited to, a compliant housing element and compliance with applicable state housing laws such as the PSA at the time of application. HCD recommends the City make the necessary streamlining improvements referenced above to fully comply with the PSA and to qualify for the Prohousing Designation Program.

HCD requests the City provide a written response by January 7, 2023. The Housing Accountability Unit will review the City’s response in coordination with the Prohousing Designation Division to ensure the City meets all requirements to obtain the Prohousing Designation. The written response should include details such as, but not limited to, a timeline of actions that the City will undertake to address the recommendations listed above.

Page 382 of 468 ends

Jordan Klein, Director of Community Development

Page 2 ends

HCD acknowledges the challenges with reduced staffing coupled with a high volume of development applications and applauds the City in its efforts to implement the City’s 6th Cycle Housing Element programs. HCD advises that the contents of this letter not be used to delay or otherwise unnecessarily complicate the intake and processing of entitlements. HCD reminds that the State of California is in a housing crisis, and the provision of housing is a priority of the highest order. If you have any questions regarding the content of this letter or would like additional technical assistance, please contact Jessica Evans at [email protected].

Sincerely,
Shannan West
Housing Accountability Unit Chief

Page 383 of 468 ends

20766925.1
ATTACHMENT 2

Page 384 of 468 ends

1 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CENTER – PLANNING DIVISION
Application Submittal Checklist
This planning document describes all the materials required to submit a complete application to the Planning Division for the most commonly received permit types. Section 1 is a checklist of materials required for all projects. Sections 2-5 are a continuation of the checklist requirements based on the type of permit being submitted. Each submittal requirement within the checklists is defined and provides what needs to be included within that document/plan. If you do not see the type of permit you need for your application within this document, please refer to the main Planning Division Applications/Permits/Fees webpage.

This checklist must be completed and submitted with the Application Submittal.

My project is a: (select all that apply)
☐ Preliminary Application:
☐ SB9 Residential Project
☐ SB330 Residential Project
☐ Design permit for:
☐ SB9 Residential Project
☐ SB35 Residential Project
☐ SB330 Residential Project
☐ Non-Residential Project
☐ Conditional Use Permit
☐ Tentative Map / Parcel Map
☐General Plan Amendment / Zoning Amendment / Planned Development Application Submittals can be sent to [email protected]. Once received Staff will respond with the associated fees and payment options. The application submittal date is identified as the day fees are paid. Incomplete submittals that are missing materials from this checklist will not be accepted.

Based on the project type and proposal, Planning Division staff has the right to waive filing requirement items listed below if not needed.
17575 Peak Avenue
Morgan Hill, CA
95037-4128
TEL: (408) 778-6480
FAX: (408) 779-7236
www.morganhill.ca.gov

Page 385 of 468 ends

2 SECTION 1 – ALL PROJECTS
☐ Uniform Application: This application provides the necessary information to log a project into the permit system. If a representative is filing on behalf of the property owner, the “Letter of Agency” section within this application will also need to be filled out. If the property owner is available to sign, you do not need to fill out this portion of the application. Everyone must sign the Indemnification Agreement portion of the application to be considered complete. Note: include name, telephone number, and e-mail of the contact person for architectural, engineering, landscape, and signage if different from the applicant. ☐ Planning Entitlement Project Information Sheet: (Environmental Assessment) Form: This form will provide important project information that will help expedite the environmental review process. Provide as much detail as possible regarding the scope of the project proposal. If a section of the application is not applicable to your project, please write “not applicable” or “N/A”. ☐ Project Narrative/Letter of request: Written description of the project being proposed for development. The description should outline the details of the specific project in a structured format that covers the intended use, details of that use, proposed units/ square footage of structures, and permits being requested. If it is a housing project, itshould include any concessions or exceptions that are being asked for.
☐ Coverage Screening Form: Santa Clara Valley Habitat Plan: All projects that have grading, new foundation component, or are creating new impervious services are required to fill out this application. Please visit the Santa Clara Valley Habitat Agency website to review the associated fees that will need to be paid to the Habitat Agency for your project prior to issuance of a City Building Permit.
☐ Recology South Valley New Development Guidelines & Questionnaire: This questionnaire assists in assuring new refuse and recycling enclosures will be large enough and meet Recology requirements.
☐ I understand that if I am submitting for an SB330 residential project(s), that the project(s) issubject to compliance with the Objective Criteria and Residential Development Design and Development Standards.
☐ I understand that resubmittals require a written response letter addressing each comment and where the new information can be found along with updated plans reflecting changes with cloud, delta, and date revisions.________(initials)

Page 386 of 468 ends

3 SECTION 2 – SB9 PRESCREEN APPLICATIONS
☐ SB9 Eligibility Checklist: This checklist provides information to be assessed by Planning Division staff to ensure the proposed project can meet the eligibility criteria outlined in the Senate Bill. ☐ Site and Development Plans: A plan that shows the proposed land development including the site layout, positioning of buildings and structures, property access, etc. The following must be included within the Site and Development Plans.
 A Vicinity Map, north arrow, scale ratio and bar scale, the site area in square feet, date(s) of plans and revisions, labeled dimensions, all existing items labeled (E) and new labeled (N), or relocated etc. Engineering or Architectural scale required, not less than 1/16. A larger scale may be needed to provide clear understanding of the project.  The entire property under consideration, including property lines, a portion of the adjacent properties, and adjoining public rights-of-way. For large acreage properties, staff recommendsthat two (2)site plans be submitted. The firstsite plan would show the entire property with detail indicating the area proposed for development; the second site plan would focus on the specific areas of the proposed development.  The adjacent properties should include enough of the site to enable the evaluation of adjacent impacts. Show location and distance from closest adjacent structures on neighboring properties.
 Dimensions of the parcel(s), existing and proposed buildings, numbered parking spaces, and other features, as well as the width of walkways, driveways, private drives, planters, etc. Dimensioning isimportant in that any errors on the plans may be detected more easily and earlier in the City’s review process.
 Footprints of all existing and proposed buildings, structures, or signs, drawn to scale showing the proposed location of structures to be constructed, modified, relocated or demolished. Indicate the type of use and include all dimensions.  Square footage for all existing and proposed buildings and proposed additions.  The location of streets, street widths, with street names (indicate whether a public or private street), width of proposed right-of-way dedications, and location and dimensions of lot lines. Plans shall include adjacent property driveways on the opposite side of the street and a radius of curb returns. If adjacent to the railroad, include location of right-ofway widths.  Typical cross-section of street improvements for both public and private streets.  A graphical description of proposed onsite circulation patterns for both vehicles and pedestrians, and accessible paths of travel, where required. Include vehicle turning templates for fire apparatus, refuse trucks and delivery trucks in parking areas, and loading areas.
 Location of any existing or proposed transit/bus stops within 100 feet of the project boundaries and across the street from the site. Information about existing and proposed bus stops can be found on the VTA website.

Page 387 of 468 ends

4  Location of existing and proposed driveways, off-street parking and loading facilities. Show parking spaces with dimensions for each type of parking space (e.g. compact, full, ADA, EVA, etc.) and a tabulation of the required and proposed parking based on the proposed use and the municipal code stall requirements and standards.  The location, dimension and nature/purpose of all easements color coded.  Setbacks of buildings from property lines, other onsite buildings and structures, septic systems, water wells, etc. (dimensioned).
 Location of existing and proposed walls/fences, height, and materials of construction.  Location and identification of drainage courses, creaks, etc. and direction of flow.  Location of onsite water source(s), supply and storage facilities.  Location of all existing facilities (sewer, water, storm drain, water wells, fire hydrants, transformers and overhead utility lines located on-stie, directly adjacent to the site or within the adjacent right-of-way). Label facilities that are to be removed.  Location of proposed electrical vaults/transformers and backflow preventors, if required.  Location of proposed trash, recycling, and/or refuse enclosure(s) specs.

SECTION 3 – SB330 RESIDENTIAL PRELIMINARY REVIEW APPLICATIONS ☐ Preliminary Plan Review Checklist: This checklist will assist in the understanding of the project coming forward and is consistent with Government Code Section 65941.1 ☐ Current Title Report: A Title Report is a document that lists who owns the property and outlines the legal description of the property and identifiesif there are any easements and/or agreements on the property. To be considered current, the report shall not be older than 90-days. ☐ Metes and Bounds Legal Description: Legal description of boundaries of a parcel that identifies its precise location and is kept with the deed of the land.  Include bearing and dimensions (metes and bounds) of the proposed area, streets and other rights-of-way, and acreage of total area.
☐ Site and Development Plans: A plan that shows the proposed land development including the site layout, positioning of buildings and structures, property access, etc. The following must be included within the Site and Development Plans.
 A Vicinity Map, north arrow, scale ratio and bar scale, the site area in square feet, date(s) of plans and revisions, labeled dimensions, all existing items labeled (E) and new labeled (N), or relocated etc. Engineering or Architectural scale required, not less than 1/16. A larger scale may be needed to provide a clear understanding of the project.  The entire property under consideration, including property lines, a portion of the adjacent properties, and adjoining public rights-of-way. For large acreage properties, staff recommends that two (2) site plans be submitted. The first site plan would show the entire property with detail indicating the area proposed for development; the second site plan would focus on the specific areas of the proposed development.

Page 388 of 468 ends

5  The adjacent properties should include enough of the site to enable the evaluation of adjacent impacts. Show location and distance from closest adjacent structures on neighboring properties.
 Dimensions of the parcel(s), existing and proposed buildings, numbered parking spaces, and other features, as well as the width of walkways, driveways, private drives, planters, etc. Dimensioning is important in that any errors on the plans may be detected more easily and earlier in the City’s review process.
 Footprints of all existing and proposed buildings, structures, or signs, drawn to scale showing the proposed location of structures to be constructed, modified, relocated or demolished. Indicate the type of use and include all dimensions.  Square footage for all existing and proposed buildings and proposed additions.  The location of streets, street widths, with street names (indicate whether a public or private street), width of proposed right-of-way dedications, and location and dimensions of lot lines. Plans shall include adjacent property driveways on the opposite side of the street and a radius of curb returns. If adjacent to the railroad, include location of rightof-way widths.  Typical cross-section of street improvements for both public and private streets.  A graphical description of proposed onsite circulation patterns for both vehicles and pedestrians, and accessible paths of travel, where required. Include vehicle turning templates for fire apparatus, refuse trucks and delivery trucks in parking areas, and loading areas.
 Location of any existing or proposed transit/bus stops within 100 feet of the project boundaries and across the street from the site. Information about existing and proposed bus stops can be found on the VTA website.
 Location of existing and proposed driveways, off-street parking and loading facilities.

Show parking spaces with dimensions for each type of parking space (e.g. compact, full, ADA, EVA, etc.) and a tabulation of the required and proposed parking based on the proposed use and the municipal code stall requirements and standards.  The location, dimension and nature/purpose of all easements color coded.  Setbacks of buildings from property lines, other onsite buildings and structures, septic systems, water wells, etc. (dimensioned).
 Location of existing and proposed walls/fences, height, and materials of construction.  Location and identification of drainage courses, creaks, etc. and direction of flow.  Location of onsite water source(s), supply and storage facilities.  Location of all existing facilities (sewer, water, storm drain, water wells, fire hydrants, transformers and overhead utility lines located on-stie, directly adjacent to the site or within the adjacent right-of-way). Label facilities that are to be removed.  Location of proposed electrical vaults/transformers and backflow preventors, if required.  Location of proposed trash, recycling, and/or refuse enclosure(s) specs. ☐ Building Elevations: Referred to the visible vertical plane of the side of a building from ground level to the peak of the roof. Note: renderings do not replace the requirement for building elevations.

Page 389 of 468 ends

6  Must show the exterior appearance of all sides of project structures, building modifications, and additions proposed for construction.  Drawn to scale with an indication of height, construction materials, and colors to be used.
 Provide building elevations for all affected views, and identify them as North, South, East, and West.
 Identify exterior building features doors, window2s, siding, etc.) as existing (E), new (N), or proposed to be repaired and/or replaced.
 Identify all areas of walls and roof that are proposed to be demolished. Indicate with dashed lines any window or door openings, or any other features that are proposed to be eliminated or modified.
 Indicate the height from grade to the top of plate line, and to the top of the roof, and also depict and/or reference any anticipated from mounted equipment and equipment screening.
 Roof plans are required. Roof plans should indicate all roof slopes, gutters, and downspout locations. Indicate equipment and other features as well as slope. Identify all areas of the roof proposed for demolition. Where the project proposes additions to existing structures, clearly identify the portions of roof that are existing (E) and proposed to be changed/new (N).
 For buildings over one (1) story in height or buildings over 50,000 square feet in gross area, provide a visual representation of the nighttime lighting proposed on all building elevations to give an indication of the effect of security and decorative lighting.

SECTION 4 – CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT AND DESIGN PERMIT FOR RESIDENTIAL (FINAL SB9/SB35/SB330) AND NON-RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS

INVOLVING NEW STRUCTURES, ADDITIONS, DEMOLITIONS, OR EXTERIOR

ALTERATION
☐ Current Title Report: A Title Report is a document that lists who owns the property and outlines the legal description of the property and identifies if there are any easements and/or agreements on the property. To be considered current, the report shall not be older than 90-days. ☐ Site and Development Plans: A plan that shows the proposed land development including the site layout, positioning of buildings and structures, property access, etc. The following must be included within the Site and Development Plans.
 A Vicinity Map, north arrow, scale ratio and bar scale, the site area in square feet, date(s) of plans and revisions, labeled dimensions, all existing items labeled (E) and new labeled (N), or relocated etc. Engineering or Architectural scale required, not less than 1/16. A larger scale may be needed to provide clear understanding of the project.  The entire property under consideration, including property lines, a portion of the adjacent properties, and adjoining public rights-of-way. For large acreage properties,staff recommends that two (2) site plans be submitted. The first site plan would show the

Page 390 of 468 ends

7 entire property with detail indicating the area proposed for development; the second site plan would focus on the specific areas of the proposed development.  The adjacent properties should include enough of the site to enable the evaluation of adjacent impacts. Show location and distance from closest adjacent structures on neighboring properties.
 Dimensions of the parcel(s), existing and proposed buildings, numbered parking spaces, and other features, as well as the width of walkways, driveways, private drives, planters, etc. Dimensioning is important in that any errors on the plans may be detected more easily and earlier in the City’s review process.
 Footprints of all existing and proposed buildings, structures, or signs, drawn to scale showing the proposed location of structures to be constructed, modified, relocated or demolished. Indicate the type of use and include all dimensions.  Square footage for all existing and proposed buildings and proposed additions.  The location of streets, street widths, with street names (indicate whether a public or private street), width of proposed right-of-way dedications, and location and dimensions of lot lines. Plans shall include adjacent property driveways on the opposite side of the street and a radius of curb returns. If adjacent to the railroad, include location of rightof-way widths.  Typical cross-section of street improvements for both public and private streets.  A graphical description of proposed onsite circulation patterns for both vehicles and pedestrians, and accessible paths of travel, where required. Include vehicle turning templatesforfire apparatus,refuse trucks and delivery trucksin parking areas, and loading areas.
 Location of any existing or proposed transit/bus stops within 100 feet of the project boundaries and across the street from the site. Information about existing and proposed bus stops can be found on the VTA website.
 Location of existing and proposed driveways, off-street parking and loading facilities.

Show parking spaces with dimensions for each type of parking space (e.g. compact, full, ADA, EVA, etc.) and a tabulation of the required and proposed parking based on the proposed use and the municipal code stall requirements and standards.  The location, dimension and nature/purpose of all easements color coded.  Setbacks of buildings from property lines, other onsite buildings and structures, septic systems, water wells, etc. (dimensioned).
 Location of existing and proposed walls/fences, height, and materials of construction.  Location and identification of drainage courses, creaks, etc. and direction of flow.  Location of onsite water source(s), supply and storage facilities.  Location of all existing facilities (sewer, water, storm drain, water wells, fire hydrants, transformers and overhead utility lines located on-stie, directly adjacent to the site or within the adjacent right-of-way). Label facilities that are to be removed.  Location of proposed electrical vaults/transformers and backflow preventors, if required.  Location of proposed trash, recycling, and/or refuse enclosure(s) specs. ☐ Streetscape Plans: A plan illustrating how the new project will appear in the context of existing surrounding buildings, structures, streetscapes, and other relevant parts of the setting.

Page 391 of 468 ends

8 Streetscape plans are required for all Commission level applications and may be required for administrative permits depending on the proposal.
☐ Inclusionary Housing Ordinance Checklist for Affordable Housing (if project includes residential units)
☐ Development Design and Development Standards Checklist for Housing Development Projects ☐ Building Elevations: Referred to the visible vertical plane of the side of a building from ground level to the peak of the roof. Note: renderings do not replace the requirement for building elevations.
 Must show the exterior appearance of all sides of project structures, building modifications, and additions proposed for construction.  Drawn to scale with an indication of height, construction materials, and colors to be used.
 Provide building elevations for all affected views, and identify them as North, South, East, and West.
 Identify exterior building features doors, window2s, siding, etc.) as existing (E), new (N), or proposed to be repaired and/or replaced.
 Identify all areas of walls and roof that are proposed to be demolished. Indicate with dashed lines any window or door openings, or any other features that are proposed to be eliminated or modified.
 Indicate the height from grade to the top of plate line, and to the top of the roof, and also depict and/or reference any anticipated from mounted equipment and equipment screening.
 Roof plans are required. Roof plans should indicate all roof slopes, gutters, and downspout locations. Indicate equipment and other features as well as slope. Identify all areas of the roof proposed for demolition. Where the project proposes additions to existing structures, clearly identify the portions of roof that are existing (E) and proposed to be changed/new (N).
 For buildings over one (1) story in height or buildings over 50,000 square feet in gross area, provide a visual representation of the nighttime lighting proposed on all building elevations to give an indication of the effect of security and decorative lighting. ☐ Floor Plans: A scaled drawing that shows the relationship between rooms, spaces and physical features withing the building footprint as viewed from above. Floor plans are necessary to provide a full understanding of the project and functioning of the interior spaces. Floor plans much show:
 All buildings under consideration.
 Each level of the structure(s) should be included with identification of all exterior features such as doors, windows, etc. and if they are new (N), existing (E), removed, and if they are existing but being replaced.
 Label each room with the proposed use.
 Identify all exterior landings at doors.

Page 392 of 468 ends

9 ☐ Landscape/Irrigation Plan: The scaled Site and Development Plan that incorporates a visual representation of the proposed landscape and hardscape details. Projects are required to comply with the City’s Water Conservation and Landscaping Ordinance Chapter 18.148 of the Morgan Hill Municipal Code and the requirements of Chapter 18.64 (Landscaping) of the Morgan Hill Municipal Code. The more restrictive shall control. Plans shall include:
 Site Boundaries: Locate and identify the boundaries of the site.  Existing Conditions: Locate and identify all underground utilities, property lines, and easements; size and species of existing trees; natural and manmade features; drainage courses and creeks; and whether proposed for removal, relocation or preservation.  Existing Structures: Identify structures immediately adjacent to the property  New Structures: identify new structures and improvements proposed as part of the project.
 Irrigation Plan: Provide conceptional irrigation plan specifying the location, type, and size of all components of the irrigation system. A detailed irrigation plan will be required with the Building plan check.
 Existing and proposed above-ground utilities and structures relative to the existing and proposed trees/landscaping.
 Height of bermed landscaping
 Identification of all proposed Low Impact Development (LID) features/post-construction stormwater facilities consistent with project’s Civil Plans.  Total landscape square footage of project.
 Proposed plan selection.
 Hydrozone map (color coded).
☐ Environmental Services Division Checklist for Design Permits ☐ Conceptual Grading Plan: A drawing on a plan, prepared by a licensed civil engineer, that illustratesthe topographical layout of a construction site and how the site will be excavated, filled, and graded to prepare it for necessary work to be done. Plans must show:
 Benchmark used.
 Limits of grading.
 Earthwork quantities.
 Structures, footprints, pad and finish floor elevations for all proposed buildings.  Existing contours or spot elevations, drainage arrows and grade breaks to indicate drainage patterns.
☐ Storm Water Post-Construction Development Standards Conformance: This is applicable to projects with new and/or include replacement impervious surface ≥2,500 square feet. More information can be found in the Stormwater Management Guidance Manual For Low Impact Development & Post-Construction Requirements. Before checking this box, you will need to confirm the amount of impervious surface being constructed or replaced and include:
 Completed Stormwater Control Plan Checklist (Appendix B of the Guidance Manual)  Completed certification worksheet(s) documenting applicable Performance Requirements (see Guidance Manual)

Page 393 of 468 ends

10  For projects proposing infiltration-based stormwater facilities, a copy of the project’s Geotechnical Report, if available, that includes soil borings, depth to groundwater, and site-specific infiltration tests.
 For projects that are subject to Performance Requirement Numbers 2, 3 and 4 as described in the Guidance Manual, a Preliminary Stormwater Control Plan Exhibit that contains the following is required:
a. Items 1 through 4 of the Stormwater Control Plan Checklists form the Guidance Manual.
b. Preliminary supporting calculations used to comply with the applicable Performance Requirements.
c. Location and identification of existing and proposed stormwater facilities. d. Storm drain locations, rims, and inverts.
e. Preliminary operation and maintenance information.
f. If known, the name of the owner of the stormwater facilities and name of responsible party that will conduct operation and maintenance g. Brief explanation on how the project is meeting the applicable performance requirements.
☐ Preliminary Drainage Report: A written report that includes, at a minimum, the following:
 Narrative describing pre and post project drainage patterns and conveyance paths.

Narrative must describe the existing storm drain system in surrounding public or private streets and proposed project use of, and impact on, those systems.  Preliminary hydrology and hydraulic calculations using City standard method. Also include calculations for detention/retention facility sizing.
 Discussion of project-specific drainage requirements and associated calculations demonstrating project implementation.
 If the projectsite islocated within a 100-yearfloodplain, add a discussion of project’sfinish floor elevations and potential for flooding during significant storm events. In addition, indicate flood zone assigned to project area as shown on the effective FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM).
☐ Color and Materials Samples: Information on proposed colors and materials is required for all projects unless the requirement is waived by staff. If actual material samples are provided or requested, those samples will remain with the file as part of the public record. The proposed colors and materials must be specified, rather than simply referenced by “See color/Material Board.” Samples must be no larger than 8 ½” by 11” in size. Provide brochure or cut sheets for any proposed new doors, windows, hardware, or fixtures. ☐ Photographs: Provide color photographs of the site (including all sides of existing buildings) and surrounding properties (including properties next door and across the street). Minimum photo size is 3” x 5” and they should all be incorporated on one or two plan set size sheet(s).

Page 394 of 468 ends

11 ☐ Photometric Plan: A grided layout that shows the locations of all new lighting fixtures on a site plan with measurement of illustrated light foot candles throughout the project site and adjacent properties.
 Luminosity calculations including all proposed exterior lighting including but not limited to fixtures mounted on the exterior of buildings, elements planned on walkways, in vehicular parking and access areas on the site.
 Specific Lumens (foot candle level) calculated at property lines should be clearly noted.  Depiction of the anticipated light levels generated by all exterior lights shall be provided across the subject stie and at least ten (10) feet beyond the property lines.  Specifications or cut sheets for each proposed light fixture detailing the fixture design, level of illumination, and hours of illumination shall be provided, if not directly on the plan, as a separate report.
☐ Phasing Plan (if applicable): A phasing plan illustrates on a site plan the timing of each stage of the proposed development that will be completed.
 On a site plan, color code each phase of the project and identify what phase is first, second, and so on.
 Provide a description of each phase to include the timing, types of land uses (with area size), list of buildings (With square footages), and any other amenities or site information.
 Identify any triggers for development of subsequent phases. Each phase will be considered for functionality in advance of subsequent phasing. ☐
SECTION 5 – PARCEL AND TENTATIVE MAPS
☐ Tentative Subdivision Map/Parcel Map (if applicable): a map that illustrates the division of a tract of land into smaller parcels/lots. Things to be included on the plans are as follows:
 Name and address of legal owner, subdivider and the person preparing the map (including registration number)
 Assessor's parcel number
 Date prepared, north arrow, scale and contour interval  Existing and proposed land use
 Title
 A vicinity map showing roads, adjoining subdivisions, creeks, railroads and other data sufficient to locate the proposed subdivision and show its relation to the community.  Existing topography of the site and at least one hundred feet from its boundary, including but not limited to:
o Existing contours at two-foot intervals, if the existing ground slope is less than ten percent and not less than five-foot intervals for existing ground slopes greater than or equal to ten percent. Existing contours shall be represented by screened or dashed lines.

Page 395 of 468 ends

12 o Type, circumference and dripline of existing trees as defined by Chapter 12.32 of the Morgan Hill Municipal Code on removal of significant trees on public and private property. Any trees proposed to be removed shall be so indicated. o The approximate location and outline of existing structures identified by type.

Structures to be removed shall be so marked.
o The location, width and direction of flow of each watercourse. o The location, pavement and right-of-way width and grade and name of existing streets or highways.
o Location and type of street improvements.
o The location, size and slope of existing storm drains. The location of existing overhead utility lines on peripheral streets.
o The location, width and identity of existing easements. o The location and size of existing sanitary sewers, water mains and storm drains.

The approximate slope of existing sewers and storm drains shall be indicated.

The location of existing overhead utility lines on peripheral streets o The approximate location of the sixty, sixty-five, and seventy CNEL (community noise equivalent level) contours, if any.
 Proposed improvements to be shown shall include but not be limited to:
o The location, grade, centerline radius and arc length of curves, pavement and right-of-way width and name of all streets. Typical sections of all streets shall be shown.
o The location and radius of all curb returns and cul-de-sacs, The location, width and purpose of all easements.
o The angle of intersecting streets if such angle deviates from a right angle by more than four degrees.
o The approximate lot layout and the approximate dimensions of each lot and of each building site. Engineering data shall show the approximate finished grading on each lot, the preliminary design of all grading, the elevation of proposed building pads, the top and toe of cut and fill slopes to scale and the number of each lot.
o Proposed contours at two-foot intervals shall be shown if the existing ground slope is less than ten percent and not at less than five-foot intervals for existing ground slopes greater than or equal to ten percent. A separate grading plan may be submitted.
o Proposed recreation sites, trails and parks for private or public use. o Proposed common areas and areas to be dedicated to public open space. o The location and size of sanitary sewers, water mains and storm drains.

Proposed slopes and approximate elevations of sanitary sewers and storm drains shall be indicated.
 If the site is to be graded, proposed contours shall be shown or an approved grading plan shall be submitted
 The proposed lot layout and lot areas
 Proposed easements or rights-of-way
 The source and date of existing contours

Page 396 of 468 ends

13  A preliminary report of title showing the current vested owner  A soils and/or geotechnical/geology report may be required pursuant to Chapter 18.70 of the Morgan Hill Municipal Code
 A statement by the engineer or surveyor responsible for the preparation of the map shall state that all monuments are of the character and occupy the positions indicated, or that they will be set in those positions on or before a specified date and that the monuments are, or will be, sufficient to enable the survey to be retraced  The location of each parcel and its relation to surrounding surveys  If the map includes a "designated remainder" parcel and the gross area of the "designated remainder" parcel is five acres or more, that remainder parcel need not be shown on the map and its location need not be indicated as a matter of survey, but only by deed reference to the existing boundaries of the remainder parcel. A parcel designated as "not a part" shall be deemed to be a "designated remainder".  The name or names of any geologist or soils engineer whose services were required in the preparation of the design of the map.
 The source and date of existing contours.
 All lettering size shall be one-eighth-inch minimum.
 If the subdivider plans to develop the site as shown on the tentative map in units, then the proposed units shall be shown on the map including the proposed sequence of construction.

SECTION 6 – GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT, ZONING AMENDMENT, AND PLANNED

DEVELOPMENTS
☐ Current Title Report: A Title Report is a document that lists who owns the property and outlines the legal description of the property and identifies if there are any easements and/or agreements on the property. To be considered current, the report shall not be older than 90- days.
☐ Metes and Bounds Legal Description: Legal description of boundaries of a parcel that identifies its precise location, and is kept with the deed of the land.  Include bearing and dimensions (metes and bounds) of the proposed area, streets and other rights-of-way, and acreage of total area.
☐ General Plan/Zoning Land use Map Exhibit:
 Map that identifies the existing lands use designation, assessor’s parcel number identified, and site acreage identified
 Map with the area to be changed highlighted, acreage of proposed changed area, and the proposed zoning change clearly labeled.
☐ General Plan / Zoning Text Amendment Exhibit:
 Provide a detailed exhibit with the existing General Plan / Municipal Code Section(s) with words to be deleted shown as lined out, and words to be added underlined.

Page 397 of 468 ends

14 DEVELOPMENT ACKNOWLEDGEMENT
I ______________________ hereby certify that the statementsfurnished in this application checklist are true and correct. I have read the Application Filing and Plan Specifications Requirements document and understand the information needed for the proposed project submittal in the City of Morgan Hill and therefore completed this form honestly and to the best of my knowledge of the project.

Applicant Signature Date

Page 398 of 468 ends

Page 399 of 468 ends

Page 400 of 468 ends

Page 401 of 468 ends

Page 402 of 468 ends

Page 403 of 468 ends

Page 404 of 468 ends

Page 405 of 468 ends

Page 406 of 468 ends

Page 407 of 468 ends

Page 408 of 468 ends

Page 409 of 468 ends

Page 410 of 468 ends

Page 411 of 468 ends

Page 412 of 468 ends

Page 413 of 468 ends

Page 414 of 468 ends

Page 415 of 468 ends

Page 416 of 468 ends

Page 417 of 468 ends

Page 418 of 468 ends

Page 419 of 468 ends

Page 420 of 468 ends

Page 421 of 468 ends

Page 422 of 468 ends

Page 423 of 468 ends

Page 424 of 468 ends

Page 425 of 468 ends

Page 426 of 468 ends

Page 427 of 468 ends

Page 428 of 468 ends

13 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: August 28, 2024
PREPARED BY:

Dat Nguyen, Finance Director
APPROVED BY: City Manager

HOLD PUBLIC HEARING REGARDING ADJUSTMENTS TO

WASTEWATER RATES

RECOMMENDATION(S)

1. Receive and adopt final 2024 Wastewater Rate Study Report prepared by NBS;

2. Open public hearing and receive public comment;

3. Request submission or withdrawal of proposition 218 protest letters from the public/audience;

4. Suspend public hearing and allow City Clerk, or designee, to tabulate the final Proposition 218 protest letter count;

5. Reconvene meeting and reopen public hearing;

6. Receive and accept verbal report from City Clerk, or designee, on ballot tabulation results;

7. Close public hearing; and

8. Adopt resolution approving wastewater rate adjustments.

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
2024-2025 Strategic Priorities
Fiscal Sustainability
Community Engagement
Guiding Documents
Wastewater System Master Plan
REPORT NARRATIVE:

BACKGROUND:

The City owns and operates the Wastewater Collection System within the Engineering and Utilities Department. The system collects wastewater from residences and businesses throughout the City and delivers the wastewater for treatment to the South

Page 429 of 468 ends

13 County Regional Wastewater Facility.

Day-to-day operations of the system are managed by City staff while relying on consultants and contractors to provide expertise in the areas of planning, detailed engineering, and capital projects. Additionally, the City of Morgan Hill jointly owns and operates the Treatment Plant with the City of Gilroy through a joint power authority.

Funding for the Wastewater System and Treatment Plant comes from two primary sources: rates charged to users of the system and developer impact fees. Rates are used to fund the ongoing operations of the Wastewater System and the Treatment Plant. Rates also fund capital projects which repair or replace existing components of the system. Impact fees are used for capital projects that increase capacity, expand the system, and/or construct new system components. Impact fees are charged to developers to ensure that ratepayers are not paying for costs associated with new development.

Residential customers pay a monthly sewer service charge consisting of a base fee associated with the meter size and a usage fee. The residential sewer usage fee is based on the average measured volume of water usage for the three lowest consecutive months between November and April of each year. The sewer charge for commercial and other nonresidential customers consists of a base rate plus a usage fee based on the measured volume of water usage. Currently, the sewer revenues from monthly customer bill payments are comprised of about 40% fixed and 60% variable, while the costs to provide the services are mainly fixed. It is recommended that in the proposed rate structures, the rates for residential to be made up of 50% fixed charges and 50% variable (consumption) charges, similar to water.

Unlike private utility companies that benefit financially from increased rates associated with increased costs, the City strives to maintain low rates to support its residents and businesses. However, significant improvements to the City's aging wastewater infrastructure will be necessary in the near future. The City's system includes some pipe sections that are over 90 years old. As the system ages or is damaged by natural changes in the environment (such as tree roots), the sewer pipes begin allowing rainwater and groundwater to enter the wastewater system. During extremely wet conditions, this infiltration can cause the wastewater system to be overwhelmed and spill. To ensure the safety of residents and to meet the requirements established by the State of California and regulatory agencies, the City must continue to repair these issues.

On May 15, 2024, the City Council approved a Wastewater System Master Plan for future repairs and improvements to the City's wastewater system. The Master Plan identified $57.9 million in expansion and capacity-related improvement projects (impact fee funded) and $80.2 million in improvements necessary to repair the City's existing system (ratepayer-funded). City staff have determined the impact fee funded projects can likely be funded through the projected impact fees and/or financed through bonding against future impact fees and user fees. However, staff still identified a significant shortage in funding to make the legally required repairs and improvements to the existing system. This, along with the ratepayers' share of the new trunk line, the end of

Page 430 of 468 ends

13 the current 5-year rate adjustment approved in 2019, and the new debt service payments for potential new debt issuance, were the primary factors in moving forward with a rate study and proposed adjustments to the current rates.

Updated Lift Station Charge
The lift station charges are part of the current rate structure and this Rate Study would continue to assess the Lift Station Charge to benefit customers, as established during the 2015 rate study, and with an annual adjustment rate similar to the overall rate adjustments.

Updated Rates
On June 14, 2024, the 2024 Wastewater Rate Study (link to the 2024 Wastewater Rate Study), prepared by NBS Government Finance Group, was released to the community via eblast along with the posting on City’s website.

The proposed adjustment to the wastewater system annual revenue increases and lift station charges are as follows:

Current 10/1/2024 7/1/2025 7/1/2026 7/1/2027 7/1/2028
Wastewater annual
revenue increase N/A 9% 9% 8% 8% 8%
Lift station
surcharge
$11.23 $12.24 $13.34 $14.41 $15.56 $16.81
Low-Income Subsidy Recommendation
To help alleviate the financial impact of the proposed rate increase, and to assist Morgan Hill low-income and low-income senior residents, Council approved the wastewater subsidy with the approval of the 2019 rate study. The proposed low income subsidy is to extend the subsidy throughout the financial plan with an annual increase similar to the overall rate adjustments of the system.

Current 10/1/2024 7/1/2025 7/1/2026 7/1/2027 7/1/2028
Subsidy amount $14.17 $15.45 $16.84 $18.18 $19.64 $21.21 Percentage N/A 9% 9% 8% 8% 8%
Additional Meter Account Wastewater Charges for Detached ADUs There are currently about 50 detached ADUs in the City and the numbers are expected to increase as the State continues to pass new ADU laws lifting restrictions and making it easier and more affordable to build Accessory Dwelling Units. In order to equitably share the cost of providing the wastewater service, staff is recommending the City Council implement additional meter account charges for those residential customers with a detached ADU. Additional meter account wastewater charges of a fixed monthly charge of $38.90 per detached ADU would generate additional revenue of approximately $23,000/year.

Public Hearing

Page 431 of 468 ends

13 This Public Hearing regarding wastewater rate adjustments is a requirement of the Proposition 218 process. It is being held after a minimum of 45 days have passed since the mailing of the official notification of the proposed rate adjustments to all affected property owners and account holders. The Proposition 218 official notice (Link to the Proposition 218 Notice) includes a description of proposed rates and information detailing the protest process requirements. To meet legal requirements, protests submitted by email or other electronic means cannot be accepted. Per statute, only one written protest will be counted per identified parcel. However, the City had, in the past, counted all written protests received whether they came from the property owners or account holders and will continue to do so with tonight's count. All written protests must be received (not postmarked) before the close of the Public Hearing. The Council shall accept all protest votes received up to and including the time of the public hearing. If a majority (50% plus one) of customers oppose the proposed rate adjustments, City Council cannot implement the proposed adjustment. If a majority protest is not received and the City Council elects to approve the recommended wastewater rate adjustments by adopting the resolution, the first of the approved increases would commence with the service period which contains October 1, 2024.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:

All rate payers in Morgan Hill were mailed a Proposition 218 notice detailing the proposed rate adjustments. Those wishing to protest the proposed adjustments have provided written communication stating their opposition. The City has maintained a voting box in the City Hall lobby to accommodate anyone wishing to drop off a protest.

The public hearing was noticed in the local newspaper 10 days prior to today's public hearing.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:

City Council could approve a lower rate adjustment than presented.

PRIOR CITY COUNCIL AND COMMISSION ACTIONS:

On May 15, 2024, the City Council adopted the 2024 Wastewater Collection System Master Plan Update.

On June 26, 2024, the wastewater rate study was introduced to the City Council and the Community and the City Council adopted a resolution of intent to adjust wastewater rates, authorized commencement of proposition 218 noticing, and set the date of public hearing and adoption of new water rates.

FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT:

The fiscal impact of preparing this report is included in the staff’s annual workplan. The cost for the wastewater rate study was budgeted in the Wastewater Operations Fund (640).

If the Proposition 218 majority protest process is concluded without majority protest, and the wastewater rate adjustments are adopted as presented, the new rate increases

Page 432 of 468 ends

13 could generate an average of $4.7 million annually, for the next five years, to assist in recovery of costs to provide and maintain infrastructure and services.

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.

Page 433 of 468 ends

RESOLUTION NO. 24-xxx

A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY

OF MORGAN HILL ADJUSTING WASTEWATER SYSTEM

SERVICE FEES
WHEREAS, Chapter 13.16 of the Municipal Code of the City of Morgan Hill (“Municipal Code”) established Wastewater Service Fees;
WHEREAS, Pursuant to Municipal Code section 13.16.085, the City Council of the City of Morgan Hill (“City Council”) has the authority to set, adjust and collect fees for wastewater system service by resolution;
WHEREAS, the City Council has received and duly considered the report entitled “City of Morgan Hill Final Draft Report for Wastewater Rate Study” dated June 2024, authored by NBS; WHEREAS, the fees calculated by the NBS report do not exceed the cost of providing wastewater system services and proportionally distribute these costs to different geographic zone’s users;
WHEREAS, the NBS report, as well as all material supplementary thereto, and all background data referenced in the report, was available for public inspection and review at the Finance Department of the City of Morgan Hill;
WHEREAS, the California Constitution article XIII D (Proposition 218) specifically authorizes a wastewater system service provider to adopt wastewater system service fees for its customers that do not exceed the cost of providing the service and are proportionate to the cost of service for all customers;
WHEREAS, pursuant to Article XIIID of the California Constitution, the City has properly notified all owners of record about proposed wastewater system service fee adjustments, and about their right to protest the proposed adjustments, at least 45 days prior to the public hearing held on August 28, 2024 (“Hearing”), for this purpose;
WHEREAS, such mailing was completed on July 13, 2024;
WHEREAS, instructions on the proper method for submitting a protest were included in the notice;
WHEREAS, the City Council has previously set August 28, 2024 as the date for the Hearing for consideration of an adjusted schedule of wastewater system service fees (including automatic adjustments to become effective each year through fiscal year 2028-29) for the City wastewater service;
WHEREAS, the City Council has received and duly considered all written and verbal comments provided to it by staff and the public, which comments are hereby incorporated into the record on this matter;

Page 434 of 468 ends

City of Morgan Hill
Resolution No. ______

Page 2 of 4 ends

WHEREAS, the NBS report recommends that the wastewater service system reserve funds maintain the target level of reserves designated therein as the Reserve Funds 640 (Operating Reserve Fund), 642 (Rate Stabilization Fund), and 643 (Capital System Replacement Reserve Fund). These reserve funds are necessary for the financial stability of the wastewater system service as well as for emergency operation and capital needs; WHEREAS, the City Council finds that revenues derived from the proposed fees, (a) do not exceed the cost of wastewater system service including basic costs, incremental costs and allocated costs and, (b) do not exceed the proportional cost of service attributable to the customer's parcel, as determined by giving considerations to the factors set forth in the NBS report; WHEREAS, the Hearing on adoption of this resolution and the fees outlined in Exhibit “A” attached hereto was noticed pursuant to and in compliance with Government Code section 6062a, and set as part of a regular City Council meeting and Hearing held on August 28, 2024, in the Council Chambers located at City Hall, 17555 Peak Avenue; and WHEREAS, the number of protests compared to the number of parcels currently receiving wastewater system service from the City is less than 50%.

NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council, based upon all documents, statements and facts known to the City, does hereby resolve:

SECTION 1. Findings: The City Council hereby finds as follows:

A. All provisions set forth above are true and correct, and are hereby incorporated herein as findings of this City Council by reference.

B. The purposes of the fees and reserves set forth herein are to finance the wastewater system service costs.

C. There is a need for wastewater system services to protect the public’s health, safety, and welfare.

D. The facts and evidence presented to the City Council establish that the cost determinations set forth are reasonable and proportional, and the fees expected to be generated will not exceed those reasonable and proportional costs.

SECTION 2. Adoption of Fees, Reserves and the NBS report. Therefore, the City Council hereby adopts the adjusted wastewater system service fees, the reserve fund targets, and the NBS report. The fees are shown in Exhibit “A”, which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference.

SECTION 3. Implementation Dates. The City Council hereby orders that the adjustments to wastewater system service rates be effective for each monthly billing cycle beginning on or after October 1, 2024, July 1, 2025, July 1, 2026, July 1, 2027, and July 1, 2028, as described in Exhibit “A”.

Page 435 of 468 ends

City of Morgan Hill
Resolution No. ______

Page 3 of 4 ends

SECTION 4. Challenges to Resolution. Any judicial action or proceeding to attack, review, set aside or annul this resolution or any provision thereof shall be brought within the time periods prescribed in Government Code section 66022 and Municipal Code section 3.08, et seq.

SECTION 5. Exemption from CEQA. The City Council finds that this resolution is for the establishment, modification, structuring, restructuring, or approval of fees for the purpose of: (1) meeting operating expenses, including employee wages and fringe benefits, (2) purchasing or leasing supplies, equipment, or materials, (3) meeting financial reserve needs and requirements, (4) obtaining funds for capital projects, necessary to maintain wastewater system service within existing service areas, and therefore is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act Pursuant to Title 14, California Code of regulations, Sections 15061(b) and 15273(a).

SECTION 6. Severability. If any portion of this resolution is declared invalid by a court of competent jurisdiction, then it is the intent of the City Council that all other provisions of the resolution shall be severed and remain in full force and effect.

PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City Council of Morgan Hill at a Regular Meeting held on the 28th day of August 2024 by the following vote:

AYES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

NOES: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSTAIN: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

ABSENT: COUNCIL MEMBERS:

APPROVED: ATTEST:
___________________________________ _______________________________ MARK TURNER, 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. _____, adopted by the City Council at the meeting held on August 28, 2024.

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

DATE: ________________ ________________________________ MICHELLE BIGELOW, City Clerk

Page 436 of 468 ends

City of Morgan Hill
Resolution No. ______

Page 4 of 4 ends

Exhibit “A”
Wastewater Rate Adjustment Schedule 2024-25 through 2028-2029 Lift Station Service Charge
Detached Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Meter Charge
Sewer Rate Schedule CurrentRates Proposed Rates 10/1/2024 7/1/2025 7/1/2026 7/1/2027 7/1/2028 Monthly Fixed Charges: Residential (5/8-1 inch meters) $27.05 $38.90 $42.40 $45.79 $49.46 $53.41 All Other Customers: 5/8 inch $27.05 $38.89 $42.39 $45.78 $49.45 $53.40 3/4 inch $27.05 $38.89 $42.39 $45.78 $49.45 $53.40
1 inch $27.05 $38.89 $42.39 $45.78 $49.45 $53.40

1.5 inch $101.27 $139.52 $152.08 $164.24 $177.38 $191.57 2 inch $161.24 $218.98 $238.68 $257.78 $278.40 $300.67
3 inch $351.26 $470.73 $513.10 $554.15 $598.48 $646.36
4 inch $630.93 $841.27 $916.98 $990.34 $1,069.57 $1,155.13 6 inch $1,400.38 $1,860.72 $2,028.18 $2,190.43 $2,365.67 $2,554.92 8 inch $2,163.33 $2,871.55 $3,129.99 $3,380.39 $3,650.82 $3,942.89 10 inch $2,704.16 $3,589.02 $3,912.04 $4,225.00 $4,563.00 $4,928.04 Monthly Volumetric Charges: Single-Family
(Applied to Avg. Winter Water Use)
Multi-Family
(Applied to Avg. Winter Water Use)
Commercial Charge
(Applied to Monthly Water Use): Commercial 1
Commercial 2
Commercial 3
Commercial 4
Commercial 5
Commercial 6
$5.74 $5.18 $5.64 $6.10 $6.58 $7.11
$5.74 $5.18 $5.64 $6.10 $6.58 $7.11
$5.49 $7.51 $8.18 $8.84 $9.54 $10.31
$6.42 $8.32 $9.06 $9.79 $10.57 $11.42
$7.81 $9.68 $10.55 $11.39 $12.30 $13.29
$8.86 $12.03 $13.12 $14.17 $15.30 $16.52
$10.52 $19.44 $21.19 $22.88 $24.71 $26.69
$17.56 $32.26 $35.17 $37.98 $41.02 $44.30
Lift Station Service Charge (As Applicable)
Current 10/1/2024 7/1/2025 7/1/2026 7/1/2027 7/1/2028
Amount $11.23 $12.24 $13.34 $14.41 $15.56 $16.81
Per Detached ADU Meter Charge (As Applicable)
Current 10/1/2024 7/1/2025 7/1/2026 7/1/2027 7/1/2028
Amount N/A $38.90 $42.40 $45.79 $49.46 $53.41

Page 437 of 468 ends

14 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: August 28, 2024
PREPARED BY:

Kim Mancera, Deputy City Clerk
APPROVED BY: City Manager
APPOINT VOTING DELEGATES FOR THE 2024 CALCITIES (LEAGUE)

ANNUAL CONFERENCE

RECOMMENDATION(S)

1. Appoint a voting delegate and up to two (2) alternate voting delegates to the CalCities Annual Conference; and

2. Direct staff to complete and forward the voting delegate form to CalCities.

COUNCIL PRIORITIES, GOALS & STRATEGIES
City Council Ongoing Priorities
Enhancing Public Safety
Protecting the Environment and Preserving Open Space and Agricultural Land Maintaining and Enhancing Infrastructure
Supporting our Youth, Seniors, and Entire Community
Fostering a Positive Organizational Culture
Preserving and Cultivating Public Trust
Preserving our Community History
Enhancing Diversity and Inclusiveness
Advocating for Local, Regional, and State Legislative Initiatives 2024-2025 Strategic Priorities
Fiscal Sustainability
Affordable Housing and Homelessness
Community Engagement
Economic Development and Tourism
Healthy Community
REPORT NARRATIVE:

The League of California Cities is holding its Annual Conference from October 16-18, 2024, at which it will conduct its General Assembly Meeting, where members can directly participate in developing League policy. The League’s bylaws provide that each city is entitled to one vote on matters affecting municipal or League policy. The voting delegate and/or alternate(s) must be registered for the conference and present to vote.

The memorandum from the League requesting the designation of a voting delegate for

Page 438 of 468 ends

14 the League’s Annual Conference is attached (attachment 1).

The City Council has traditionally appointed the mayor as the primary voting delegate and the mayor pro tem as the alternate voting delegate. Staff requests that the Council appoint a primary voting delegate and up to two alternate voting delegates. In 2006, the League authorized the appointment of up to two alternates to plan for unforeseen situations (bylaw amendment).

The General Assembly Meeting will convene on Friday, October 18th, at 8:30 a.m.

By approving the recommendation, our League representatives are authorized to vote on amendments in the manner they deem to be in the best interest of the City.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:

Inform
This report serves to inform the community of the voting delegates to be appointed for the 2024 League of California Cities Annual Conference.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:

Council could decide to not support the recommended actions.

PRIOR CITY COUNCIL AND COMMISSION ACTIONS:

Each year, the City Council appoints voting delegates to attend and vote at the League of California Cities Annual Conference.

FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT:

The cost of the conference registration is included in the adopted FY 2024-25 City Council budget.

CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act):

Not a project.

The appointment of voting delegates is not a project, as defined in Section 15378 of the State CEQA guidelines.

Page 439 of 468 ends

1400 K Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95814 • 916.658.8200 • calcities.org

DATE: Wednesday, July 10, 2024
TO: Mayors, Council Members, City Clerks, and City Managers RE: DESIGNATION OF VOTING DELEGATES AND ALTERNATES
League of California Cities Annual Conference and Expo, Oct. 16-18, 2024 Long Beach Convention Center
Every year, the League of California Cities convenes a member-driven General Assembly at the Cal Cities Annual Conference and Expo. The General Assembly is an important opportunity where city officials can directly participate in the development of Cal Cities policy.

Taking place on Oct. 18, the General Assembly is comprised of voting delegates appointed by each member city; every city has one voting delegate. Your appointed voting delegate plays an important role during the General Assembly by representing your city and voting on resolutions.

To cast a vote during the General Assembly, your city must designate a voting delegate and up to two alternate voting delegates, one of whom may vote if the designated voting delegate is unable to serve in that capacity. Voting delegates may either be an elected or appointed official.

Action by Council Required. Consistent with Cal Cities bylaws, a city’s voting delegate and up to two alternates must be designated by the city council. Please note that designating the voting delegate and alternates must be done by city council action and cannot be accomplished by individual action of the mayor or city manager alone.

Following council action, please submit your city’s delegates through the online submission portal by Wed., Sept. 25. When completing the Voting Delegate submission form, you will be asked to attest that council action was taken. You will need to be signed in to your My Cal Cities account when submitting the form.

Submitting your voting delegate form by the deadline will allow us time to establish voting delegate/alternate records prior to the conference and provide pre-conference communications with voting delegates.

Conference Registration Required. The voting delegate and alternates must be registered to attend the conference. They need not register for the entire conference; they may register for Friday only. Conference registration is open on the Cal Cities website.

Council Action Advised by September 25, 2024

Page 440 of 468 ends

For a city to cast a vote, one voter must be present at the General Assembly and in possession of the voting delegate card and voting tool. Voting delegates and alternates need to pick up their conference badges before signing in and picking up the voting delegate card at the voting delegate desk. This will enable them to receive the special sticker on their name badges that will admit the voting delegate into the voting area during the General Assembly.

Please view Cal Cities’ event and meeting policy in advance of the conference.

Transferring Voting Card to Non-Designated Individuals Not Allowed. The voting delegate card may be transferred freely between the voting delegate and alternates, but only between the voting delegate and alternates. If the voting delegate and alternates find themselves unable to attend the General Assembly, they may not transfer the voting card to another city official.

Seating Protocol during General Assembly. At the General Assembly, individuals with a voting card will sit in a designated area. Admission to the voting area will be limited to the individual in possession of the voting card and with a special sticker on their name badge identifying them as a voting delegate.

The voting delegate desk, located in the conference registration area of the Long Beach Convention Center in Long Beach, will be open at the following times: Wednesday, Oct. 16, 8:00 a.m.-6:00 p.m. and Thursday, Oct. 17, 7:30 a.m.-4:00 p.m. On Friday, Oct. 18, the voting delegate desk will be open at the General Assembly, starting at 7:30 a.m., but will be closed during roll calls and voting.

The voting procedures that will be used at the conference are attached to this memo.

Please share these procedures and this memo with your council and especially with the individuals that your council designates as your city’s voting delegate and alternates.

Once again, thank you for submitting your voting delegate and alternates by Wednesday, Sept. 25. If you have questions, please contact Zach Seals at [email protected].

Attachments:
• General Assembly Voting Guidelines
• Information Sheet: Cal Cities Resolutions and the General Assembly

Page 441 of 468 ends

1400 K Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95814 • 916.658.8200 • calcities.org General Assembly Voting Guidelines

1. One City One Vote. Each member city has a right to cast one vote on matters pertaining to Cal Cities policy.

2. Designating a City Voting Representative. Prior to the Cal Cities Annual Conference and Expo, each city council may designate a voting delegate and up to two alternates; these individuals are identified on the voting delegate form provided to the Cal Cities Credentials Committee.

3. Registering with the Credentials Committee. The voting delegate, or alternates, may pick up the city's voting card at the voting delegate desk in the conference registration area. Voting delegates and alternates must sign in at the voting delegate desk. Here they will receive a special sticker on their name badge and thus be admitted to the voting area at the General Assembly.

4. Signing Initiated Resolution Petitions. Only those individuals who are voting delegates (or alternates), and who have picked up their city’s voting card by providing a signature to the credentials committee at the voting delegate desk, may sign petitions to initiate a resolution.

5. Voting. To cast the city's vote, a city official must have in their possession the city's voting card and voting tool; and be registered with the credentials committee. The voting card may be transferred freely between the voting delegate and alternates but may not be transferred to another city official who is neither a voting delegate nor alternate.

6. Voting Area at General Assembly. At the General Assembly, individuals with a voting card will sit in a designated area. Admission to the voting area will be limited to the individual in possession of the voting card and with a special sticker on their name badge identifying them as a voting delegate.

7. Resolving Disputes. In case of dispute, the credentials committee will determine the validity of signatures on petitioned resolutions and the right of a city official to vote at the General Assembly.

Page 442 of 468 ends

Sixty days before the
Annual Conference
and Expo, Cal Cities
members may submit
policy proposals on
issues of importance
to cities. The resolution must
have the concurrence of at least
five additional member cities or
individual members.

How it works: Cal Cities
Resolutions and the General Assembly
General Assembly
General Resolutions Policy Committees
Developing League of California Cities policy is a dynamic process that engages a wide range of members to ensure Cal Cities represents cities with one voice. These policies directly guide Cal Cities’ advocacy to promote local decision-making, and lobby against statewide policies that erode local control.

The resolutions process and General Assembly is one way that city officials can directly participate in the development of Cal Cities policy. If a resolution is approved at the General Assembly, it becomes official Cal Cities policy. Here’s how resolutions and the General Assembly work.

The petitioned
resolution is an
alternate method
to introduce policy
proposals during
the annual conference. The
petition must be signed by
voting delegates from 10% of
member cities, and submitted to
the Cal Cities President at least
24 hours before the beginning
of the General Assembly.

Petitioned Resolutions
The Cal Cities
President assigns
general resolutions
to policy committees
where members
review, debate, and recommend
positions for each policy proposal.

Recommendations are forwarded
to the Resolutions Committee.

Who’s who
The Resolutions Committee
includes representatives
from each Cal Cities
diversity caucus, regional
division, municipal
department, and policy
committee, as well as
individuals appointed by
the Cal Cities president.

Voting delegates
are appointed by each
member city; every city
has one voting delegate.

The General Assembly is a
meeting of the collective
body of all voting
delegates —one from
every member city.

Seven policy committees
meet throughout the year
to review and recommend
positions to take on bills
and regulatory proposals.

Policy committees include
members from each Cal
Cities diversity caucus,
regional division, and
municipal department,
as well as individuals
appointed by the Cal
Cities president.

During the General Assembly, voting delegates
debate and consider general and petitioned
resolutions forwarded by the Resolutions
Committee. Potential Cal Cities bylaws
amendments are also considered at this meeting.

Cal Cities policy
development is a memberinformed process,
grounded in the voices and
experiences of city officials
throughout the state.

For more information visit www.calcities.org/general-assembly Prior to the Annual Conference and Expo
Resolutions Committee
The Resolutions
Committee considers
all resolutions. General
Resolutions approved1 by
either a policy committee
or the Resolutions Committee are next
considered by the General Assembly.

General resolutions not approved, or
referred for further study by both a
policy committee and the Resolutions
Committee do not go to the General
Assembly. All Petitioned Resolutions
are considered by the General
Assembly, unless disqualified.2
During the Annual Conference and Expo
1 The Resolution Committee can amend a general resolution prior to sending it to the General Assembly. 2 Petitioned Resolutions may be disqualified by the Resolutions Committee according to Cal Cities Bylaws Article VI. Sec. 5(f).

Page 443 of 468 ends

15 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
MEETING DATE: August 28, 2024
PREPARED BY:

Dat Nguyen, Finance Director
APPROVED BY: City Manager
RECEIVE MONTHLY BUDGET UPDATE; PRELIMINARY FY 2023-24
FINANCIAL AND INVESTMENT REPORTS; AND CITY MANAGER

AUTHORITY REPORT

RECOMMENDATION(S)
Accept and file report.

COUNCIL PRIORITIES, GOALS & STRATEGIES
City Council Ongoing Priorities
Preserving and Cultivating Public Trust
2024-2025 Strategic Priorities
Fiscal Sustainability
Community Engagement
REPORT NARRATIVE:

As part of the City Council’s expectation to maintain a high level of transparency and to be responsible stewards of public funds, staff is providing the monthly budget update, and the preliminary Fiscal Year (FY) ending June 30, 2024 financial and investment reports.

Preliminary Fiscal Year Ending June 30, 2024
General Fund:

Revenues totaled $55.5 million, slightly more than the forecast provided during the biennial budget workshop in May 2024 of $54.9 million. This is primarily due to higher interest and recreation services revenues, partially offset by a lower Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) revenue. Preliminary General Fund expenditures and encumbrances for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2024 totaled $59.6 million, of which approximately $2.0 million is attributable to outstanding encumbrances, compared to prior year expenditures, including encumbrances, of $56.1 million. This represents an increase of $3.5 million, including encumbrances, compared to the prior year. Excluding the encumbrances, expenditures increased by about $4.2 million mainly due to new programs such as Innovative Transit, continued recovery in Recreation Services, as well as overall cost increases.

Development Services:

Page 444 of 468 ends

15 Excluding the temporary General Fund loan of $1.0 million, the preliminary revenues for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2024 totaled $5.0 million, slightly better than the forecast provided in May 2024 of $4.7 million. Preliminary FY 2023-24 expenditures, including encumbrances, totaled $5.8 million.

Enterprise Funds:

Water and Wastewater total revenues were $57.8 million. The Wastewater Operating Fund’s preliminary total revenue amounted to $15.2 million, slightly lower than budget by approximately $0.4 million or about 2%. The Water Operating Fund’s preliminary total revenue amounted to $18.7 million, approximately $0.7 million or about 4% more than the prior year but lower than budget by $1.0 million or about 5%. Preliminary FY 2023-24 expenditures, including encumbrances for the Enterprise Funds totaled $59.2 million. Per the City Council reserve policy, any excess funds after appropriate reserves have been set aside for the Operating and Rate Stabilization Reserve Funds, shall be transferred to capital projects for the ongoing maintenance and improvement of the City’s utilities systems. For FY 2023-24, Wastewater Operating Funds will transfer approximately $4.8 million and Water Operating Funds will transfer approximately $3.8 million to capital projects funds.

City Manager’s Authority Report
Pursuant to the City Council Policy 18-05 - Report on delegation of authority to City Manager, Page 21 of Attachment 1 lists the contracts and or agreements between $25,000 to $60,000, or the limit of the California Uniform Public Construction Cost Accounting Act (CUPCCAA), entered into by the City Manager since the last report from April 16, 2024, through August 20, 2024.

On December 7, 2022, the City Council delegated the authority to the City Manager to accept all future donations from Shoe Palace and directed the City Manager to report any donations from Shoe Palace over $5,000 in the quarterly financial reporting. The Morgan Hill Fire Department received a $9,399 donation for equipment from Shoe Palace on June 17, 2024.

COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT:

Inform
Finance staff prepares these financial reports to inform City officials, the Council, the community, and various lenders and stakeholders about the financial health of the organization, which assists each one of the interested parties in making sound financial and investment decisions.

ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:

Not Applicable
PRIOR CITY COUNCIL AND COMMISSION ACTIONS:

The City Council receives and files the financial and investment report for each month.

At the September 16, 2015 meeting, City Council recommended monthly financial and

Page 445 of 468 ends

15 investment reports be agendized under the Consent Agenda, and quarterly financial and investment reports be presented to City Council as an “Other Business” item.

FISCAL AND RESOURCE IMPACT:

The preparation of the report is a part of the Finance workplan.

CEQA (California Environmental Quality Act):

Not a Project
Organizational or administrative activities of governments that will not result in direct or indirect physical changes in the environment.

Page 446 of 468 ends

FINANCE DEPARTMENT

CITY OF MORGAN HILL
June 30, 2024 - 100% of Year Complete
Prepared by:

Monthly Financial and Investment Reports

Page 447 of 468 ends

CITY OF MORGAN HILL, CALIFORNIA
FINANCIAL STATEMENT ANALYSIS - FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
FOR THE MONTH ENDED JUNE 2024 – 100% OF YEAR COMPLETE
 General Fund – Preliminary revenues for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2024 totaled $55.5 million, slightly more than forecast provided during the biennial budget workshop in May 2024 of $54.9 million. This is mainly due to higher interest and recreation services revenues, partially offset by a lower Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) revenue.

The chart below shows historical General Fund revenues by major revenue category from FY19-20 through FY22-23 Actual, FY23-24 Budget, and Preliminary FY23-24.

Preliminary General Fund expenditures and encumbrances for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2024 totaled $59.6 million, of which approximately $2.0 million is attributable to outstanding encumbrances, compared to prior year expenditures, including encumbrances, of $56.1 million. This represents an increase of $3.5 million, including encumbrances, compared to the prior year. Excluding the encumbrances, expenditures increased by about $4.2 million mainly due to new programs such as Innovative Transit, continued recovery in Recreation Services, as well as overall cost increases.  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 $0.9 million for FY23-24. However, this is better than the budgeted net impact to the General Fund of $1.4 million mainly attributable to Recreation Services revenues continuing to recover from the pandemic, higher rental income in addition to conservative spending.
$14.5 $16.0 $16.7 $18.1 $18.5 $19.1
$9.7 $11.0 $12.9 $12.7 $12.7 $12.2 $4.6
$4.4
$5.9 $5.7 $5.8 $5.5 $8.3 $5.7
$7.5 $9.3 $10.0 $10.4
$3.6
$9.7
$9.1 $6.6 $6.5 $8.3
$40.6
$46.8
$52.1 $52.4 $53.5
$55.5
0 10
20 30
40 50
60 FY19-20 FY20-21 FY21-22 FY22-23 Budget
FY23-24
Preliminary
FY23-24
Millions ($)
Historical GF Revenues
Property Tax Sales Tax Franchise and Hotel Taxes Service Charges Other

Page 1 of 21 ends

Page 448 of 468 ends

CITY OF MORGAN HILL, CALIFORNIA
FINANCIAL STATEMENT ANALYSIS - FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
FOR THE MONTH ENDED JUNE 2024 – 100% OF YEAR COMPLETE
The chart below shows the historical net impact of Recreation Operations to the general fund.

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 represents best practice for non-grant funded City operations like utilities and information services.
 Development Services Fund – Excluding the temporary General Fund loan of $1.0 million, the preliminary revenues for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2024 totaled $5.0 million, slightly better than the forecast provided in May 2024 of $4.7 million. Preliminary FY23-24 expenditures, including encumbrances, totaled $5.8 million.
 Debt Service Funds – Expenditures for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2024 totaled $0.7 million. The debt service for the first half of the year includes both interest and principal, while the second half of the year will include interest only. Debt service payments were all scheduled when the bonds were issued and are budgeted for in the months delineated in the underlying bond documents. The General Fund’s portion of the annual debt service payments is approximately $200,000, less than one percent of the General Fund’s budgeted revenues.
($2.0)
($1.5)
($1.0)
($0.5)
$0.0
$0.5
FY14-15 FY15-16 FY16-17 FY17-18 FY18-19 FY19-20 FY20-21 FY21-22 FY22-23 FY23-24 Preliminary
Millions (S)
Historical Net GF Impact

Page 2 of 21 ends

Page 449 of 468 ends

CITY OF MORGAN HILL, CALIFORNIA
FINANCIAL STATEMENT ANALYSIS - FISCAL YEAR 2023-24
FOR THE MONTH ENDED JUNE 2024 – 100% OF YEAR COMPLETE
 Wastewater Operations – Preliminary revenues for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2024 totaled $15.2 million. Expenditures and outstanding encumbrances totaled $14.9 million. The table below shows historical Wastewater Operations revenues and expenditures from FY19-20 through FY22-23 Actual, FY23-24 Budget, and Preliminary FY23-24.
(amount in millions) FY19‐20 FY20‐21 FY21‐22 FY22‐23
Budget
FY23‐24
Preliminary
FY23‐24
Revenues              11.9        13.3              14.9     15.3            15.6               15.2 Expenditures              12.3        13.3              14.8     16.0            15.6               14.9 Operating Margin   (0.4) ‐                         0.1      (0.7) ‐                 0.3 Operating Margin
without Encumbrances   (0.1) ‐                         0.1      (0.7) ‐                 0.3 Water Operations – Water Operations includes Utility Billing, Water Conservation, and Water Operations. Preliminary revenues for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2024 totaled $18.7 million. Water Operations expenditures, including outstanding encumbrances, totaled $19.2 million. Morgan Hill residents consumed about 2% less water through June compared to the prior three-year average. As such, no revenue stabilization water rate was implemented. The table below shows Water Operations revenues and expenditures from FY19-20 through FY22-23 Actual, FY23-24 Budget, and Preliminary FY23-24.
(amount in millions) FY19‐20 FY20‐21 FY21‐22 FY22‐23
Budget
FY23‐24
Preliminary
FY23‐24
Revenues   15.3   16.5    16.0       18.1   19.8    18.7 Expenditures   16.4   16.5    15.2       18.0   20.3    19.2 Operating Margin    (1.1) ‐           0.8    0.1    (0.5)     (0.5) Operating Margin
without Encumbrances    (0.1) ‐           0.8    0.1    (0.5)     (0.4)  Investments – One security was purchased. Total interest earnings received on investments were $343,000 during the month.

Page 3 of 21 ends

Page 450 of 468 ends

% OF ACTUAL PLUS % OF

FUND NAME ACTUAL BUDGET ENCUMBRANCES BUDGET
General $ 55,491,089 104% $ 59,597,103 98%
Development Services 6,018,183 95% 5,786,375 91%
Wastewater Operations 15,223,221 98% 14,875,584 96%
Wastewater Other 15,665,096 159% 20,486,551 47%
Water Operations 18,730,734 95% 19,177,116 94%
Water Other 8,143,813 94% 4,647,914 25%
Other Special Revenues * 8,110,836 93% 6,185,941 72%
Capital Projects & Streets 17,041,524 118% 32,351,652 71% Debt Service 683,245 101% 678,643 100%
Internal Service 12,208,135 96% 12,167,354 89%
TOTAL FOR ALL FUNDS $ 157,315,877 105% $ 175,954,233 76% * Includes all Special Revenue Funds except Development Services Fund and Street Funds.

REVENUES EXPENSES
0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140% 160% 180%
General
Development Services
Wastewater Operations
Wastewater Other
Water Operations
Water Other
Other Special Revenues *
Capital Projects & Streets
Debt Service
Internal Service
Morgan Hill YTD Revenue & Expense Summary
June 30, 2024 - 100% of Year Complete
Revenues to Budget Expenses to Budget
Percentage of Actual to Budget
100%

Page 4 of 21 ends

Page 451 of 468 ends

% OF PRIOR YEAR % CHANGE FROM

REVENUE CATEGORY BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET TO DATE PRIOR YEAR Property Tax 18,472,000 $ 19,075,049 $ 103% 18,143,284 $ 5% Sales Tax 12,673,967 12,244,030 97% 12,882,810 -5%
Franchise Tax 3,005,800 2,993,670 100% 2,687,510 11%
Hotel Tax 2,800,000 2,472,771 88% 2,528,517 -2%
Other Agencies 1,001,233 1,328,502 133% 1,170,298 14%
Service Charges 10,036,079 10,368,418 103% 9,227,495 12% Interest/Other 2,174,032 3,580,298 165% 2,311,007 55%
Transfers In 3,342,540 3,428,351 103% 3,036,113 13%
TOTAL REVENUES 53,505,651 $ 55,491,089 $ 104% 51,987,034 $ 7% 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120% 140% 160% 180%
Property Tax
Sales Tax
Franchise Tax
Hotel Tax
Other Agencies
Service Charges
Interest/Other
Transfers In
Total Revenues
Percent of Actual to Budget
Morgan Hill YTD General Fund Revenues
June 30, 2024 - 100% of Year Complete
100%

Page 5 of 21 ends

Page 452 of 468 ends

ACTUAL PLUS PRIOR YTD PLUS % CHANGE FROM
EXPENDITURE CATEGORY BUDGET ENCUMBRANCES % OF BUDGET ENCUMBRANCES PRIOR YEAR Administration $ 6,769,162 $ 6,443,807 95% 6,125,449 $ 5% Community Services 17,780,940 17,111,720 96% 15,132,055 13% Police 23,056,204 22,993,255 100% 21,697,091 6%
Fire 9,139,905 9,064,553 99% 8,518,823 6%
Transfers Out 3,983,767 3,983,767 100% 4,647,315 -14%
TOTAL EXPENDITURES $ 60,729,978 $ 59,597,103 98% 56,120,733 $ 6% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 110%
Administration
Community
Services
Police
Fire
Transfers Out
Total Expenditures
Percent of Actual to Budget
Morgan Hill YTD General Fund Expenditures
June 30, 2024 - 100% of Year Complete
100%

Page 6 of 21 ends

Page 453 of 468 ends

City of Morgan Hill
Recreation Report - Fiscal Year 2023-24
For the Month Ended June 30, 2024
100% of Year Complete
% of
Budget June 2024 YTD Budget
Revenues
Membership Services & Rec Programs 5,656,265 $ 593,521 $ 6,029,079 $ Facility Rentals 1,203,269 143,887 1,564,874
Community Services 152,498 29,999 93,675
Transfers in 75,000 6,250 75,000
Total Revenues $ 7,087,032 $ 773,657 $ 7,762,628 110%
Less: Expenditures
Membership & Program Services $ 7,268,962 $ 966,381 $ 7,398,284 Facility Rentals 573,524 62,323 608,510
Community Services 672,192 80,485 654,219
Total Expenditures $ 8,514,679 $ 1,109,187 $ 8,661,013 102% Net Impact without encumbrances $ (1,427,647) $ (335,531) $ (898,385) Encumbrances - - 43,192
Net Impact with encumbrances $ (1,427,647) $ (335,531) $ (941,577)

Page 7 of 21 ends

Page 454 of 468 ends

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

City of Morgan Hill
Monthly Investment Report ‐ June 30, 2024
The following are the snapshots of City's investment portfolio as of June 30, 2024. The first chart shows the portfolio composition by investment type:

LAIF ‐ $0.1M
<1% CA Class ‐ $24.3M
12%
Treasury ‐ $3.9M
2%
Money Market ‐
$3.2M
2%
Federal Agency Issues ‐
$150.6M
76%
Certificate of Deposits ‐
$1.3M
1%
Bond Reserves/Trust ‐
$14.5M
7%
Cash & Other Deposits ‐ $0.1M
<1%
Investment Portfolio Composition ‐ $198.0 Million
LAIF ‐ $0.1M
CA Class ‐ $24.3M
Treasury ‐ $3.9M
Money Market ‐ $3.2M
Federal Agency Issues ‐
$150.6M
Certificate of Deposits ‐
$1.3M
Bond Reserves/Trust ‐
$14.5M
Cash & Other Deposits ‐
$0.1M
General Fund, $31.0M Community
Development, $0.8M
Water ‐ Operations,
$1.4M
Water Other, $28.9M
Sewer ‐ Operations,
$2.2M
Other Special Sewer Other, $41.3M
Revenue, $17.4M
Streets and Capital
Projects, $40.3M
Debt Service , $0.3M
Internal Service,
$27.1M
Agency Funds
(assessment
dists./refundable
deposits),
$7.3M
Cash Balances by Fund Type ‐ $198.0 Million

Page 8 of 21 ends

Page 455 of 468 ends

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%

1.00%

2.00%

3.00%

4.00%

5.00%

6.00%
Jun‐22
Jul‐22
Aug‐22
Sep‐22
Oct‐22
Nov‐22
Dec‐22
Jan‐23
Feb‐23
Mar‐23
Apr‐23
May‐23
Jun‐23
Jul‐23
Aug‐23
Sep‐23
Oct‐23
Nov‐23
Dec‐23
Jan‐24
Feb‐24
Mar‐24
Apr‐24
May‐24
Jun‐24
Yield Portfolio vs. Benchmarks
LAIF Yield 2 Yr US‐Treasury

0.00%

0.50%

1.00%

1.50%

2.00%

2.50%

3.00%

3.50%

4.00%
0 100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
Jun‐22
Jul‐22
Aug‐22
Sep‐22
Oct‐22
Nov‐22
Dec‐22
Jan‐23
Feb‐23
Mar‐23
Apr‐23
May‐23
Jun‐23
Jul‐23
Aug‐23
Sep‐23
Oct‐23
Nov‐23
Dec‐23
Jan‐24
Feb‐24
Mar‐24
Apr‐24
May‐24
Jun‐24
Days Yield
Portfolio Yield and Maturity Trends
Avg Days to Maturity Yield

Page 9 of 21 ends

Page 456 of 468 ends

City of Morgan Hill
Investment Portfolio Detail
As of June 30, 2024
Investment Settlement Cost Book % of Market YTM Next Call Date of Type CUSIP Date Value Value Portfolio Value at Cost Date Maturity L A I F $ 60,411 $ 60,411 0.0% $ 60,188 4.48% California C L A S S 24,315,459 24,315,459 12.3% 24,315,459 5.40% US Bank ‐ Portfolio of Securities
Dreyfus Treasury Agency MM 261908107 58,742 58,742 0.0% 58,742 5.19% Treasury Note 91282CCZ2 10/8/2021 1,987,656 1,994,419 1.0% 1,840,700 1.00% 9/30/2026 9/30/2026 Treasury Note 912828U24 6/13/2022 1,904,688 1,948,805 1.0% 1,882,040 3.16% 11/15/2026 11/15/2026 FFCB Bond 3133ELC28 5/27/2020 2,000,000 2,000,000 1.0% 1,919,500 0.73% 7/27/2024 5/27/2025 FHLMC Bond 3134GVYN2 6/3/2020 2,000,000 2,000,000 1.0% 1,960,700 0.60% 12/3/2024 12/3/2024 FHLMC Bond 3134GWZG4 10/20/2020 2,000,000 2,000,000 1.0% 1,887,460 0.60% 7/20/2024 10/20/2025 FHLMC Bond 3134GW3X2 10/27/2020 2,000,000 2,000,000 1.0% 1,888,580 0.63% 7/27/2024 10/27/2025 FFCB Bond 3133EMFR8 11/3/2020 2,000,000 2,000,000 1.0% 1,883,320 0.54% 7/3/2024 11/3/2025 FNMA Bond 3135GA4P3 11/18/2020 2,000,000 2,000,000 1.0% 1,884,080 0.65% 11/18/2024 11/18/2025 FHLMC Bond 3134GXEJ9 11/24/2020 2,000,000 2,000,000 1.0% 1,882,460 0.64% 8/24/2024 11/24/2025 FFCB Bond 3133EMHF2 11/24/2020 1,000,000 1,000,000 0.5% 940,700 0.60% 7/24/2024 11/24/2025 FHLMC Bond 3134GXCS1 11/25/2020 3,000,000 3,000,000 1.5% 2,822,760 0.63% 11/25/2024 11/25/2025 FHLMC Bond 3134GXFA7 11/30/2020 2,000,000 2,000,000 1.0% 1,882,280 0.65% 8/26/2024 11/26/2025 FFCB Bond 3133EMLC4 12/22/2020 2,000,000 2,000,000 1.0% 1,871,420 0.47% 7/22/2024 12/22/2025 FHLB Bond 3130AKQ74 1/22/2021 2,000,000 2,000,000 1.0% 1,868,500 0.63% 7/22/2024 1/22/2026 FNMA Bond 3135G06R9 1/28/2021 2,000,000 2,000,000 1.0% 1,871,380 0.55% 7/28/2024 1/28/2026 FHLB Bond 3130AKRN8 1/28/2021 2,000,000 2,000,000 1.0% 1,865,500 0.65% 7/28/2024 1/28/2026 FHLB Bond 3130ALCV4 2/24/2021 2,000,000 2,000,000 1.0% 1,866,820 0.75% 8/24/2024 2/24/2026 FHLB Bond 3130ALDB7 2/25/2021 2,000,000 2,000,000 1.0% 1,862,380 0.66% 8/25/2024 2/25/2026 FHLB Bond 3130AKZ25 2/26/2021 2,000,000 2,000,000 1.0% 1,863,780 0.65% 8/26/2024 2/26/2026 FHLB Bond 3130ALGS7 3/10/2021 2,000,000 2,000,000 1.0% 1,868,760 0.85% 9/10/2024 3/10/2026 FHLB Bond 3130ALEP5 3/16/2021 2,000,000 2,000,000 1.0% 1,862,580 0.70% 9/16/2024 3/16/2026 FHLB Bond 3130ALDN1 3/16/2021 2,000,000 2,000,000 1.0% 1,865,840 0.80% 9/16/2024 3/16/2026 FHLB Bond 3130AMNH1 6/9/2021 2,000,000 2,000,000 1.0% 1,860,940 1.08% 7/9/2024 6/9/2026 FHLB Bond 3130AMYJ5 6/30/2021 2,000,000 2,000,000 1.0% 1,854,140 1.00% 9/30/2024 6/30/2026 FHLB Bond 3130AMYP1 7/15/2021 3,000,000 3,000,000 1.5% 2,783,430 1.13% 7/15/2024 7/15/2026 FHLB Bond 3130AMYS5 7/15/2021 2,000,000 2,000,000 1.0% 1,913,240 0.85% 7/15/2024 7/15/2025 FHLB Bond 3130ANJC5 8/26/2021 2,000,000 2,000,000 1.0% 1,836,180 0.80% 8/26/2024 8/26/2026 FHLB Bond 3130ANLW8 8/26/2021 3,000,000 3,000,000 1.5% 2,766,450 1.00% 8/26/2024 8/26/2026 FHLB Bond 3130ANLZ1 8/26/2021 2,000,000 2,000,000 1.0% 1,840,240 0.90% 8/26/2024 8/26/2026 FHLB Bond 3130A8XY4 9/13/2021 2,103,340 2,045,463 1.0% 1,882,580 0.82% 9/11/2026 9/11/2026 FFCB Bond 3133EM4X7 9/28/2021 1,982,960 1,992,446 1.0% 1,838,440 0.98% 9/10/2026 9/10/2026 FHLB Bond 3130APCH6 9/29/2021 3,000,000 3,000,000 1.5% 2,764,650 1.13% 9/29/2024 9/29/2026 FHLB Bond 3130ANZE3 9/30/2021 2,000,000 2,000,000 1.0% 1,833,380 0.88% 9/30/2026 9/30/2026 FHLB Bond 3130AP6N0 9/30/2021 3,000,000 3,000,000 1.5% 2,759,430 1.05% 9/30/2024 9/30/2026 FHLB Bond 3130AP6M2 9/30/2021 3,000,000 3,000,000 1.5% 2,757,510 1.02% 9/30/2024 9/30/2026 FHLB Bond 3130APCG8 10/19/2021 2,000,000 2,000,000 1.0% 1,832,600 1.00% 7/19/2024 10/19/2026 FHLB Bond 3130APNX9 11/18/2021 2,000,000 2,000,000 1.0% 1,840,120 1.30% 11/18/2024 11/18/2026 FHLB Bond 3130AQHU0 1/19/2022 2,000,000 2,000,000 1.0% 1,886,320 1.74% 7/19/2024 1/19/2027 FHLB Bond 3130AQKT9 1/25/2022 2,000,000 2,000,000 1.0% 1,936,520 1.51% 7/25/2024 7/25/2025 FHLB Bond 3130AR4F5 3/10/2022 2,000,000 2,000,000 1.0% 1,978,620 3.48% 9/10/2024 3/10/2027 FHLMC Bond 3134GXUZ5 6/15/2022 2,000,000 2,000,000 1.0% 1,958,320 3.28% 12/15/2025 12/15/2025 FHLB Bond 3130ASPE3 7/28/2022 2,000,000 2,000,000 1.0% 1,970,820 4.30% 7/28/2024 7/28/2027 FNMA Bond 3135GACZ2 11/25/2022 2,000,000 2,000,000 1.0% 2,001,640 5.40% 8/25/2024 11/25/2024 FHLMC Bond 3134GY4B5 11/28/2022 2,000,000 2,000,000 1.0% 1,997,940 5.00% 8/15/2024 8/26/2024 FHLB Bond 3130AUP32 1/27/2023 2,250,000 2,250,000 1.1% 2,247,503 5.98% 7/27/2024 1/27/2028 FHLMCMTN Bond 3134GYGB2 1/30/2023 2,000,000 2,000,000 1.0% 1,986,820 5.20% 7/26/2024 1/26/2028 FHLMCMTN Bond 3134GYG22 2/16/2023 3,000,000 3,000,000 1.5% 2,977,350 5.13% 8/16/2024 11/16/2026 FHLB Bond 3130AVL83 4/6/2023 2,000,000 2,000,000 1.0% 1,997,280 5.20% 7/7/2024 10/7/2024 FHLB Bond 3130AXY36 12/18/2023 2,000,000 2,000,000 1.0% 1,999,860 5.88% 4/18/2024 12/18/2028 FHLMCMTN Bond 3134H1MK6 12/21/2023 2,000,000 2,000,000 1.0% 1,997,560 5.40% 9/21/2024 12/21/2026 FHLB Bond 3130AYAG1 12/28/2023 2,000,000 2,000,000 1.0% 1,993,460 5.50% 9/28/2024 12/28/2028 FHLB Bond 3130AYBT2 1/2/2024 2,000,000 2,000,000 1.0% 2,001,180 5.40% 7/2/2024 1/2/2029 FHLMCTN Bond 3134H1NA7 1/5/2024 2,000,000 2,000,000 1.0% 1,995,340 5.63% 7/5/2024 1/5/2029 FHLB Bond 3130AYGX8 1/11/2024 2,000,000 2,000,000 1.0% 1,997,280 5.63% 7/11/2024 1/11/2029

Page 10 of 21 ends

Page 457 of 468 ends

Investment Settlement Cost Book % of Market YTM Next Call Date of Type CUSIP Date Value Value Portfolio Value at Cost Date Maturity FHLB Bond 3130AYF35 1/12/2024 2,000,000 2,000,000 1.0% 1,997,160 5.60% 7/12/2024 1/12/2029 FHLMCTN Bond 3134H1PC1 1/12/2024 2,000,000 2,000,000 1.0% 1,997,960 6.02% 7/12/2024 1/12/2029 FHLMCTN Bond 3134H1QG1 1/26/2024 3,000,000 3,000,000 1.5% 3,001,860 4.66% 7/26/2024 1/26/2029 FHLMCTN Bond 3134H1QMB 1/26/2024 2,000,000 2,000,000 1.0% 1,996,140 5.70% 7/26/2024 1/26/2029 FHLB Bond 3130AYLR5 2/2/2024 2,148,128 2,145,000 1.1% 2,150,620 5.25% 10/22/2024 1/22/2029 FHLMCTN Bond 3134HRW5 2/7/2024 2,000,000 2,000,000 1.0% 1,996,700 5.70% 7/7/2024 2/7/2029 FHLB Bond 3130AYXA9 2/12/2024 2,000,000 2,000,000 1.0% 1,990,420 5.50% 8/12/2024 2/12/2029 FHLMCTN Bond 3134H1SW4 2/15/2024 2,000,000 2,000,000 1.0% 1,994,220 5.63% 8/15/2024 2/15/2029 FHLMCTN Bond 3134H1TC7 2/15/2024 2,000,000 2,000,000 1.0% 1,994,700 5.65% 7/15/2024 2/15/2028 FHLMCTN Bond 3134H1TQ6 2/22/2024 2,000,000 2,000,000 1.0% 1,997,880 5.63% 8/22/2024 2/22/2027 FHLMCTN Bond 3134H1UN1 2/26/2024 1,200,000 1,200,000 0.6% 1,197,780 5.50% 2/26/2025 2/26/2029 FHLMCTN Bond 3134H1UN1 2/26/2024 2,000,000 2,000,000 1.0% 1,996,300 5.50% 2/26/2025 2/26/2029 FHLMCTN Bond 3134H1VC4 2/28/2024 2,000,000 2,000,000 1.0% 1,993,580 6.13% 8/28/2024 2/28/2029 FHLMCTN Bond 3134H1VR1 3/6/2024 2,000,000 2,000,000 1.0% 1,994,000 5.75% 9/6/2024 3/26/2029 FHLB Bond 3130B07A1 3/21/2024 4,000,000 4,000,000 2.0% 3,987,440 6.00% 9/21/2024 3/21/2029 FHLMCTN Bond 3134H1XV0 3/26/2024 2,000,000 2,000,000 1.0% 1,995,080 6.17% 9/26/2024 3/26/2029 FHLMCTN Bond 3134H1G31 4/17/2024 2,000,000 2,000,000 1.0% 2,000,180 6.05% 7/17/2024 4/17/2029 FHLMCMTN Bond 3134H1P56 5/28/2024 2,000,000 2,000,000 1.0% 1,995,940 6.00% 11/25/2024 5/25/2029 FHLB Bond 3130B1PD3 6/27/2024 2,000,000 2,000,000 1.0% 1,997,540 5.80% 9/27/2024 6/27/2029 CD ‐ Zions Bancorp 98970LC43 3/31/2023 250,000 250,000 0.1% 249,978 5.40% 9/27/2024 9/27/2024 CD ‐ Morgan Stanley Bank 61690DGT9 11/8/2023 250,000 250,000 0.1% 254,243 5.05% 11/8/2028 11/8/2028 CD ‐ Morgan Stanley Private Bank 61768EE82 11/8/2023 250,000 250,000 0.1% 254,243 5.05% 11/8/2028 11/8/2028 CD ‐ American Express 02589AF98 11/8/2023 250,000 250,000 0.1% 253,755 5.00% 11/8/2028 11/8/2028 CD ‐ State Bank India 8562834U7 11/24/2023 250,000 250,000 0.1% 256,898 5.00% 11/24/2028 11/24/2028 Sub Total/Average $ 155,885,514 $ 155,884,875 78.7% 150,232,040 $ 3.02% WFB Money Market $ 3,096,214 $ 3,096,214 1.6% $ 3,096,214 5.21% Total City Managed/Average $ 183,357,598 $ 183,356,959 92.6% 177,703,901 $ 3.38% Bond Reserve Accounts ‐ Held By Trustees $ 6,637,003 $ 6,637,003 3.4% $ 6,637,003 Cash/Deposits $ 128,647 $ 128,647 0.1% $ 128,647 PARS and CALPERS CERBT Trust $ 7,887,404 $ 7,887,404 4.0% $ 9,179,767 GRAND TOTAL/AVERAGE $ 198,010,653 $ 198,010,013 100.0% 193,649,319 $

Page 11 of 21 ends

Page 458 of 468 ends

Invested Book Value % of Market
in Fund Yield End of Month Total Value
Investments
State Treasurer LAIF - City All Funds Pooled 4.48% $ 60,411 0.0% $ 60,188 California CLASS All Funds Pooled 5.40% 24,315,459 12.3% 24,315,459 US Bank - Portfolio of Securities All Funds Pooled 3.02% 155,884,875 78.7% 150,232,040 WFB MMA All Funds Pooled 5.21% 3,096,214 1.6% 3,096,214 SUBTOTAL $ 183,356,959 92.6% 177,703,901 $
Bond Reserve Accounts - held by trustees
Zions Bank - Civic Center/Library Facility
Blackrock Liq Fund Debt Service 4.95% 130 0.0% 130
Zions Bank - MH Police Facility Lease Revenue Bonds
Blackrock Liq Fund Debt Service 4.95% 165 0.0% 165
BNY - RDA Bonds
Dreyfus Cash Mgmt 521 Agency Fund 4.90% 6,013,347 3.0% 6,013,347 Zions Bank - Madrone Bus Park Taxable/ Tax Exempt 2015
Blackrock Liquidity Temp Fund-2015 Agency Fund 4.95% 0.3% 623,362 623,362 SUBTOTAL 6,637,003 3.4% 6,637,003
Other Cash/Deposits
General Checking All Funds 82,797 0.0% 82,797
Workers' Comp Administrators Workers' Comp 30,000 0.0% 30,000 Petty Cash & Emergency Cash General Fund 15,850 0.0% 15,850 CALPERS CERBT - OPEB Trust 5,237,404 2.6% 6,106,085
PARS - PENSION Trust 2,650,000 1.3% 3,073,682
SUBTOTAL 8,016,051 4.0% 9,308,414
Total Cash and Investments $ 198,010,013 100.0% $ 193,649,319

CASH ACTIVITY SUMMARY
FY 2023-24
07/01/2023 Change in
Preliminary
6/30/2024
Fund Type Balance Cash Balance Balance
General Fund $ 32,352,753 $ (1,354,267) $ 30,998,486
Development Services 1,831,559 (1,051,443) 780,117
Water - Operations 2,585,170 (1,194,988) 1,390,182
Water Other 23,673,105 5,276,051 28,949,155
Sewer - Operations 907,428 1,272,811 2,180,239
Sewer Other 44,135,046 (2,838,328) 41,296,719
Other Special Revenue 13,030,597 4,328,927 17,359,524
Streets and Capital Projects 40,486,238 (184,090) 40,302,149 Debt Service 342,534 4,656 347,190
Internal Service 25,139,787 1,954,590 27,094,377
Agency Funds (assessment dists./refundable deposits) 8,515,969 (1,204,094) 7,311,875 Total $ 193,000,187 $ 5,009,827 $ 198,010,013
Note: See Investment Porfolio Detail for maturities of "Investments." Market values are obtained from the City's investment brokers' monthly reports.

I certify that information on the investment report 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 CASH AND INVESTMENT REPORT
FOR THE MONTH OF JUNE 30, 2024
FOR THE FISCAL YEAR OF 2023-24

Page 12 of 21 ends

Page 459 of 468 ends

City of Morgan Hill
Year to Date Revenues - Fiscal Year 2023-24
For the Month Ended June 30, 2024
100% of Year Complete

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

BUDGET BUDGET ACTUAL OF BUDGET YTD YTD CHANGE
010 GENERAL FUND
TAXES
Property Tax - Secured/Unsecured $ 15,245,000 15,745,000 $ 16,054,020 102% 14,992,079 $ $ 1,061,940 7% Property Tax - RPTTF Residual Distribution 2,527,000 2,527,000 2,720,750 108% 2,673,478 47,272 2% Property Tax - Supplemental Roll 200,000 200,000 300,279 150% 477,727 (177,448) -37% Sales Tax 12,218,967 12,218,967 11,792,859 97% 12,459,722 (666,863) -5% Public Safety Sales Tax 455,000 455,000 451,171 99% 423,088 28,084 7% Transient Occupancy Taxes 2,800,000 2,800,000 2,472,771 88% 2,528,517 (55,746) -2% Franchise (Refuse ,Cable ,PG&E) 2,873,800 3,005,800 2,993,670 100% 2,687,510 306,160 11% Property Transfer Tax 510,000 510,000 467,322 92% 89,025 378,297 24% TOTAL TAXES 36,829,767 37,461,767 37,252,842 99% 36,620,418 632,424 2%

LICENSES/PERMITS
Business License 170,000 170,000 200,860 118% 147,660 53,200 36% Other Permits 83,975 53,975 207,424 247% 642,874 -68% (435,451) TOTAL LICENSES/PERMITS 223,975 253,975 408,283 161% 790,534 (382,251) -48%

FINES AND PENALTIES
Parking Enforcement 3,019 3,019 9,988 331% 7,518 2,471 33% Bails & Fines 47,875 47,875 60,081 125% 54,912 5,169 9% Administrative Citations 20,000 20,000 35,339 177% - 35,339 0% TOTAL FINES AND PENALTIES 70,894 70,894 105,409 149% 62,430 42,979 69%

OTHER AGENCIES
Motor Vehicle in-Lieu 40,800 40,800 56,686 139% 47,613 9,073 19% Other Revenue - Other Agencies 1,001,233 971,089 1,328,502 133% 1,170,298 158,204 14% TOTAL OTHER AGENCIES 1,011,889 1,042,033 1,385,188 133% 1,217,911 167,277 14%

CHARGES CURRENT SERVICES
Police False Alarm Charge 33,248 33,248 37,564 113% 42,941 (5,377) -13% Business License Application Review 53,000 83,000 90,099 109% 56,084 34,015 61% Membership Services & Rec Programs 5,656,265 5,656,265 6,029,079 107% 5,286,941 742,138 14% Facility Rentals 1,203,269 1,203,269 1,564,874 130% 1,162,939 401,936 35% Community Services 152,498 152,498 93,675 61% 108,483 (14,809) -14% General Administration Overhead 1,822,869 1,822,869 1,621,869 89% 1,765,976 (144,107) -8% Other Charges Current Services 1,084,930 1,084,930 931,258 86% 804,131 127,127 16% TOTAL CURRENT SERVICES 10,006,079 10,036,079 10,368,418 103% 9,227,495 1,140,923 12%

OTHER REVENUE
Use of money/property 583,850 683,850 1,352,984 198% 835,188 517,796 62% Other Revenues 614,513 234,513 1,189,614 194% 196,945 992,669 504% TOTAL OTHER REVENUE 818,363 1,298,363 2,542,598 196% 1,032,133 1,510,465 146%

TRANSFERS IN
One Time Transfer 180,000 180,000 180,000 100% 180,000 0% 0 Public Safety Facilities Fund 50,000 50,000 100,000 200% 50,000 50,000 100% Supplemental Law Enforcement Fund 100,000 100,000 100,000 100% 100,000 n/a - Countywide Solid Waste 373,000 468,680 468,680 100% 355,000 113,680 32% Streets 949,760 949,760 827,676 87% 795,009 32,667 4%
Park Maintenance 650,000 650,000 650,000 100% 650,004 0% (4) Sewer Operations 394,000 394,000 469,732 119% 375,000 94,732 25% Water Operations 394,000 394,000 476,163 121% 375,000 101,163 27% Open Space 81,100 81,100 81,100 100% 81,100 n/a -
Park Development 75,000 75,000 75,000 100% - 75,000 n/a TOTAL TRANSFERS IN 3,246,860 3,342,540 3,428,351 103% 3,036,113 392,239 13% TOTAL GENERAL FUND 52,207,827 53,505,651 55,491,089 104% 51,987,034 3,504,055 7%

SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
202 STREET MAINTENANCE
Gas Tax 2105 - 2107.5 954,952 954,952 829,905 87% 790,721 39,185 5% Interest / Other Revenue/Other Charges 78 78 6,770 8679% 2,481 4,288 58% 202 STREET MAINTENANCE 955,030 955,030 836,675 88% 795,009 41,666 5%

Page 13 of 21 ends

Page 460 of 468 ends

City of Morgan Hill
Year to Date Revenues - Fiscal Year 2023-24
For the Month Ended June 30, 2024
100% 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 1,905 1,905 10,437 548% 4,490 5,947 132% Police Grant/SLEF/JAG 100,000 100,000 186,159 186% 20,888 165,271 13% 205 SUPPLEMENTAL LAW ENFORCEMENT FUND 101,905 101,905 196,596 193% 169,762 26,835 16% 206 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
Building Fees 3,455,600 3,495,600 3,076,924 88% 3,716,735 (639,811) -17% Planning Fees 1,645,444 1,645,444 1,105,075 67% 715,227 389,848 55% Engineering Fees 1,190,852 1,190,852 509,507 43% 1,101,011 (591,503) -54% Other Revenue/Current Charges - - 1,326,678 n/a 371,109 955,569 257% 206 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES 6,291,896 6,331,896 6,018,183 95% 5,904,081 114,103 2% 207 LONG RANGE PLANNING 1,013,392 1,013,392 895,689 88% 1,045,425 (149,736) -14% 215 and 216 HCD BLOCK GRANT
Interest Income/Other Revenue 325 325 1,817 559% 1,021 796 78% 215 and 216 HCD BLOCK GRANT 325 325 1,817 559% 1,021 78% 796 225 ASSET SEIZURE 1,298 1,298 2,781 214% 1,588 1,192 75% 229 LIGHTING AND LANDSCAPE 200,028 200,028 205,040 103% 199,320 5,721 3% 230 COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT 37,914 37,914 55,015 145% 51,629 3,386 7% 232 ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS 590,223 590,223 601,755 102% 563,537 38,218 7% 234 MOBILE HOME PARK RENT STAB. 584 584 5,639 966% 6,736 (1,097) -16% 236 HOUSING MITIGATION 4,456,924 4,456,924 3,724,761 84% 1,229,070 2,495,691 203% 240 EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE 20,889 20,889 8,397 40% 8,974 (577) -6% 246 COUNTYWIDE SOLID WASTE 1,645,138 1,944,000 2,111,570 109% 1,665,193 446,378 27% 247 ENVIRONMENT REMEDIATION 1,358 1,358 3,822 281% 2,156 1,666 77% 255 HOUSING SUCCESSOR AGENCY 239,202 239,202 297,953 125% 104,274 193,679 186% TOTAL SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS 15,556,107 15,894,969 14,965,694 94% 11,747,773 3,217,921 27%

CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS
301 PARK DEVELOPMENT 1,673,505 2,008,505 1,211,433 60% 3,744,621 (2,533,187) -68% 302 PARK MAINTENANCE 363,038 363,038 376,023 104% 589,257 (213,234) -36% 303 LOCAL DRAINAGE 447,897 447,897 579,487 129% 1,222,059 (642,572) -53% 304 LOCAL DRAINAGE/NON AB1600 30,901 30,901 38,374 124% 112,876 (74,502) -66% 306 AGRICULTURE & OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION 4,036 4,036 228,682 5666% 77,991 150,691 193% 308 STREET CIP 4,486,656 4,486,656 4,939,901 110% 5,374,705 (434,803) -8% 309 TRAFFIC IMPACT 1,276,925 1,276,925 1,397,896 109% 8,539,955 (7,142,059) -84% 315 PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITIES IMPACT 801,703 801,703 941,529 117% 667,333 274,196 41% 346 PUBLIC FACILITIES NON-AB1600 822,102 966,667 306,204 32% 410,669 (104,465) -25% 347 PUBLIC FACILITIES IMPACT 176,602 176,602 344,472 195% 122,501 221,971 181% 348 LIBRARY 657,457 657,457 1,065,706 162% 193,209 872,497 452% 350 UNDERGROUNDING 22,520 22,520 264,304 1174% 26,265 238,039 906% 355 SCHOOL PEDESTRIAN/TRAFFIC SAFETY 492,717 492,717 32,303 7% 214,920 (182,617) -85% 360 COMMUNITY/REC IMPACT FUND 1,142,697 1,142,697 1,566,161 137% 542,707 1,023,455 189% 375 QUIMBY FEE 610,860 610,860 2,912,373 477% 1,563,760 1,348,613 86% TOTAL CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS 13,009,616 13,489,181 16,204,849 120% 23,402,826 (7,197,977) -31%

DEBT SERVICE FUNDS
420 CIVIC CENTER DEBT 290,850 290,850 295,196 101% 294,554 642 0% 441 POLICE FACILITY BOND 387,792 387,792 388,049 100% 387,708 341 0% TOTAL DEBT SERVICE FUNDS 678,642 678,642 683,245 101% 682,262 983 0%

Page 14 of 21 ends

Page 461 of 468 ends

City of Morgan Hill
Year to Date Revenues - Fiscal Year 2023-24
For the Month Ended June 30, 2024
100% of Year Complete

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

BUDGET BUDGET ACTUAL OF BUDGET YTD YTD CHANGE

ENTERPRISE FUNDS
640 WASTEWATER OPERATION
Sewer Service Fees 15,200,000 15,200,000 14,809,502 97% 14,884,418 (74,916) -1% Interest Income/Transfers 39,704 39,704 56,839 143% 35,988 20,851 58% Other Revenue/Current Charges 329,403 329,403 356,880 108% (51,312) 408,192 -13% 640 WASTEWATER OPERATION 15,569,107 15,569,107 15,223,221 98% 15,328,598 (105,377) -1% 641 WASTEWATER EXPANSION
Interest Income 40,173 40,173 567,290 1412% 360,277 207,013 57% Development Impact Fee 4,388,986 4,388,986 8,258,944 188% 2,952,545 5,306,399 180% Transfer From-643 (Sewer Replacement) - - - n/a (10,230,667) 10,230,667 -100% 641 WASTEWATER EXPANSION 4,429,159 4,429,159 8,826,234 199% 13,543,489 (4,717,255) -35% 642 WASTEWATER RATE STABILIZATION 192,000 192,000 274,724 143% 94,809 179,915 190% 643 WASTEWATER CAPITAL PROJECT 5,204,512 5,204,512 6,564,138 126% 6,816,156 (252,018) -4% TOTAL SEWER FUNDS 25,394,778 25,394,778 30,888,317 122% 35,783,052 (4,894,734) -14% 650 WATER OPERATION
Water Sales 18,500,000 18,500,000 17,125,882 93% 16,099,719 1,026,163 6% Meter Install & Service 50,000 50,000 78,059 156% 100,836 (22,777) -23% Transfers-In / Interest Income 606,318 606,318 611,121 101% 836,134 (225,014) -27% Other Revenue/Current Charges 630,464 630,464 915,673 145% (98,865) 1,014,538 -10% 650 WATER OPERATION 19,786,782 19,786,782 18,730,734 95% 18,051,227 679,508 4% 651 WATER EXPANSION
Interest Income/Other Revenue/Transfer 28,855 28,855 91,962 319% 47,232 44,729 95% Development Impact Fee 1,720,216 1,720,216 1,597,798 93% 868,951 728,847 119% 651 WATER EXPANSION 1 1,749,071 ,749,071 1,689,759 97% 776,079 913,680 118% 652 WATER RATE STABILIZATION - - 91,405 n/a 51,364 40,042 78% 653 WATER CAPITAL PROJECT 6,948,348 6,948,348 6,362,648 92% 5,260,646 1,102,002 21% TOTAL WATER FUNDS 28,484,201 28,484,201 26,874,547 94% 24,139,315 2,735,232 11% TOTAL ENTERPRISE FUNDS 53,878,979 53,878,979 57,762,865 107% 59,922,367 (2,159,502) -4%

INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS
730 INFORMATION SYSTEMS 2,493,922 2,493,922 2,496,073 100% 2,240,479 255,594 11% 740 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 1,675,215 1,675,215 1,677,525 100% 1,655,767 21,759 1% 741 BUILDING REPLACEMENT 859,973 859,973 956,766 111% 875,311 81,455 9% 745 CIP ADMINISTRATION 2,059,092 2,059,092 1,152,211 56% 1,856,939 (704,728) -38% 760 UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE 2,940 2,940 7,735 263% 4,649 3,086 66% 770 WORKERS COMPENSATION 997,442 997,442 1,013,688 102% 926,684 87,004 9% 790 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT 1,725,990 1,725,990 1,938,196 112% 2,277,079 (338,883) -15% 791EMPLOYEE BENEFITS 849,796 849,796 854,995 101% 812,360 42,636 5% 795 GENERAL LIABILITY INSURANCE 2,103,483 2,103,483 2,110,944 100% 1,993,947 116,997 6% TOTAL INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS 12,767,853 12,767,853 12,208,135 96% 12,643,214 (435,079) -3% TOTAL FOR ALL FUNDS $ 148,099,024 $ 150,215,275 $ 157,315,877 105% 160,385,476 $ $ (3,069,599) -2%

Page 15 of 21 ends

Page 462 of 468 ends

City of Morgan Hill
Year to Date Expenses - Fiscal Year 2023-24
For the Month Ended June 30, 2024
100% of Year Complete

CURRENT

FUND MONTH PERCENT OF
NO. FUND/ACTIVITY ACTUAL AMENDED YTD OUTSTANDING TOTAL TOTAL TO PRIOR

EXPENSES BUDGET EXPENSES ENCUMBRANCE ALLOCATED BUDGET YTD 010 GENERAL FUND
I. ADMINISTRATION
CITY COUNCIL 22,740 $ 435,652 $ 437,028 $ - $ 437,028 $ 100% 410,227 $ .

CITY ATTORNEY 95,378 1,081,241 907,303 110,243 1,017,546 94% 823,148 CITY MANAGER 60,114 886,041 701,321 20,034 721,355 81% 649,151 HUMAN RESOURCES 88,395 898,203 884,999 - 884,999 99% 824,618

COUNCIL SVCS & RECORDS MGMT
Council Svcs & Records Mgmt 72,255 628,281 551,408 - 551,408 88% 515,095 Elections 3,168 37,728 32,227 - 32,227 85% 220,600
COUNCIL SVCS & RECORDS MGMT 75,423 666,009 583,634 - 583,634 88% 735,695 FINANCE 212,564 2,802,016 2,277,655 521,591 2,799,246 100% 1,950,773 TOTAL ADMINISTRATION 554,614 6,769,162 5,791,939 651,868 6,443,807 95% 5,393,611 II. COMMUNITY SERVICES
Membership Services & Rec. Programs 966,381 7,268,962 7,398,284 39,947 7,438,231 102% 6,460,507 Recreation Facility Rentals 62,323 573,524 608,510 - 608,510 106% 513,021 Innovative Transit 129,133 850,612 681,314 153,886 835,200 98% 562,148 Community Services 80,485 672,192 654,219 3,245 657,464 98% 566,041 Park Maintenance 270,469 1,567,049 1,310,006 1,220 1,311,227 84% 1,172,132 Environmental Services 124,553 907,406 545,297 9,255 554,553 61% 243,919 Countywide Solid Waste Program 72,441 472,354 445,731 - 445,731 94% 375,622 Street Maintenance 553,823 3,025,578 2,890,673 795 2,891,468 96% 2,465,564 Downtown Maintenance 61,135 345,237 299,234 971 300,205 87% 205,817 Cable Television 7,031 74,940 87,760 - 87,760 117% 59,092 COMMUNITY SERVICES 2,327,774 15,757,854 14,921,028 209,320 15,130,349 96% 12,623,861 CODE COMPLIANCE 34,876 340,153 303,011 - 303,011 89% 200,669 INFRASTRUCTURE PLANNING & CONGESTION MGMT 415,141 40,868 421,425 - 421,425 102% 403,782 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT PROGRAMS 273,115 1,267,792 1,159,367 97,569 1,256,936 99% 781,588 TOTAL COMMUNITY SERVICES 2,676,633 17,780,940 16,804,831 306,890 17,111,720 96% 14,009,900 III. PUBLIC SAFETY
POLICE
PD Administration 152,767 1,735,700 1,630,709 1,630,709 - 94% 1,601,575 Field Operations 1,310,248 11,210,613 11,597,317 428,348 12,025,665 107% 10,312,068 Support Services 255,749 3,586,324 2,794,605 593,800 3,388,405 94% 2,763,535 Emergency Services/Haz Mat 26,213 222,865 251,800 - 251,800 113% 234,847 Special Operations 312,685 4,098,765 3,574,490 3,574,490 - 87% 3,993,423 Dispatch Services 2,201,937 246,183 2,122,186 - 2,122,186 96% 2,140,588 POLICE 2,303,845 23,056,204 21,971,107 1,022,148 22,993,255 100% 21,046,037 FIRE 774,028 9,139,905 9,064,553 - 9,064,553 99% 8,274,754 TOTAL PUBLIC SAFETY 3,077,873 32,196,109 31,035,660 1,022,148 32,057,808 100% 29,320,791 IV. TRANSFERS
Other 1,508,647 3,983,767 3,983,767 3,983,767 - 100% 4,647,315 TOTAL TRANSFERS 1,508,647 3,983,767 3,983,767 3,983,767 - 100% 4,647,315 TOTAL GENERAL FUND 7,817,768 60,729,978 57,616,197 1,980,906 59,597,103 98% 53,371,616

Page 16 of 21 ends

Page 463 of 468 ends

City of Morgan Hill
Year to Date Expenses - Fiscal Year 2023-24
For the Month Ended June 30, 2024
100% of Year Complete

CURRENT

FUND MONTH PERCENT OF
NO. FUND/ACTIVITY ACTUAL AMENDED YTD OUTSTANDING TOTAL TOTAL TO PRIOR

EXPENSES BUDGET EXPENSES ENCUMBRANCE ALLOCATED BUDGET YTD

SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
202 STREET MAINTENANCE 335,427 954,952 832,868 - 832,868 87% 795,009 205 PUBLIC SAFETY/SUPP.LAW 107 101,289 101,289 - 101,289 100% 101,252 206 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES FUND
Planning 153,991 1,847,544 1,641,803 - 1,641,803 89% 1,633,968 Building 188,741 2,563,441 2,416,359 - 2,416,359 94% 2,271,558 Engineering 119,945 1,974,680 1,689,839 38,375 1,728,214 88% 1,888,487 206 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES FUND 462,676 6,385,665 5,748,000 38,375 5,786,375 91% 5,794,013 207 LONG RANGE PLANNING 86,078 1,581,133 851,453 - 851,453 54% 863,145 215/216 CDBG 7 83 83 - 83 100% 81
225 ASSET SEIZURE 65 782 782 - 782 100% 759
229 LIGHTING AND LANDSCAPE 39,618 234,554 180,984 - 180,984 77% 192,937 230 COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT 3,050 41,249 43,146 - 43,146 105% 33,375 232 ENVIRONMENT PROGRAMS 194,152 561,335 585,661 749 586,409 104% 471,708 234 MOBILE HOME PARK 76 907 907 - 907 100% 881
236 HOUSING MITIGATION 224,669 1,541,126 1,059,802 121,693 1,181,495 77% 838,929 240 EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE 79 20,946 4,446 - 4,446 21% 10,113 246 COUNTYWIDE SOLID WASTE PROGRAM 371,405 2,078,493 1,936,502 130,818 2,067,321 99% 1,518,080 255 HOUSING SUCCESSOR AGENCY 54,785 1,172,110 1,167,626 - 1,167,626 100% 1,159,781 TOTAL SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS 1,772,194 14,674,624 12,513,549 291,635 12,805,185 87% 11,798,720

CAPITAL PROJECT FUNDS
301 PARK DEVELOPMENT 31,461 2,475,298 560,745 591,713 1,152,458 47% 1,398,501 302 PARK MAINTENANCE 54,167 660,850 650,217 - 650,217 98% 656,345 303 LOCAL DRAINAGE 42,338 7,119,361 3,066,416 1,266,068 4,332,483 61% 919,801 304 LOCAL DRAIN. NON-AB1600 15,096 410,006 194,061 - 194,061 47% 136,624 306 AGRICULTURE & OPEN SPACE PRESERVATIO 8,133 247,600 97,600 - 97,600 39% 125,854 308 STREET CIP 23,335 5,499,004 4,753,766 386,092 5,139,858 93% 7,041,634 309 TRAFFIC IMPACT 193,295 6,133,049 1,320,832 2,791,992 4,112,823 67% 6,113,598 315 PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITIES IMPACT 1,577,232 11,717,604 5,544,146 6,126,879 11,671,025 100% 880,168 346 PUBLIC FAC.NON AB1600 77,837 3,408,156 1,161,417 826,251 1,987,668 58% 319,392 347 PUBLIC FACILITIES IMPACT 2,440 279,278 131,878 - 131,878 47% 29,154 348 LIBRARY IMPACT 18,529 222,349 222,349 - 222,349 100% 222,919 350 UNDERGROUNDING 98 1,194,738 139,438 138,263 277,701 23% 1,141 355 SCHOOL PEDESTRIAN & TRAFFIC SAFETY 94,665 916,562 124,380 - 124,380 14% 76,806 360 COMM/REC CENTER IMPACT 1,331 2,794,248 239,174 523,062 762,236 27% 851,988 375 QUIMBY FEE 113,253 1,403,605 470,781 191,265 662,046 47% 689,870 TOTAL CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS 2,253,210 44,481,708 18,677,199 12,841,585 31,518,784 71% 19,463,796

DEBT SERVICE FUNDS
420 CIVIC CENTER DEBT 270 290,852 288,021 - 288,021 99% 292,166 441 POLICE FACILITY BOND DEBT 358 387,792 390,622 - 390,622 101% 387,509 TOTAL DEBT SERVICE FUNDS 628 678,644 678,643 678,643 - 100% 679,674

Page 17 of 21 ends

Page 464 of 468 ends

City of Morgan Hill
Year to Date Expenses - Fiscal Year 2023-24
For the Month Ended June 30, 2024
100% of Year Complete

CURRENT

FUND MONTH PERCENT OF
NO. FUND/ACTIVITY ACTUAL AMENDED YTD OUTSTANDING TOTAL TOTAL TO PRIOR

EXPENSES BUDGET EXPENSES ENCUMBRANCE ALLOCATED BUDGET YTD

ENTERPRISE FUNDS
SEWER
640 WASTEWATER OPERATIONS 2,427,697 15,555,361 14,851,367 24,217 14,875,584 96% 15,968,899 641 WASTEWATER CAPITAL EXPANSION 1,619,780 26,223,607 11,997,334 2,714,905 14,712,239 56% 10,605,746 642 WASTEWATER RATE STABILIZATION 156 1,872 1,872 - 1,872 100% 1,818 643 WASTEWATER CAPITAL PROJECTS 1,325,908 17,522,286 4,915,223 857,218 5,772,441 33% 14,153,602 TOTAL SEWER FUND(S) 5,373,541 59,303,126 31,765,796 3,596,340 35,362,135 60% 40,730,064 WATER
Water Operations 1,631,733 18,480,381 17,249,374 17,253,228 3,854 93% 14,665,171 Utility Billing 142,189 1,192,638 1,248,992 49,232 1,298,224 109% 1,013,592 Water Conservation 644,730 247,615 576,484 49,180 625,664 97% 283,819 650 WATER OPERATIONS 2,021,537 20,317,749 19,074,850 102,266 19,177,116 94% 15,962,583 651 WATER CAPITAL EXPANSION 60,917 2,479,364 795,497 62,239 857,736 35% 710,293 652 WATER RATE STABILIZATION 117 1,403 1,403 - 100% 1,403 1,362 653 WATER-CAPITAL PROJECTS 16,010,730 261,584 3,314,825 473,949 3,788,774 24% 1,779,667 TOTAL WATER FUND(S) 2,344,155 38,809,246 23,186,575 638,454 23,825,030 61% 18,453,904 TOTAL ENTERPRISE FUNDS 7,717,696 98,112,372 54,952,371 4,234,794 59,187,165 60% 59,183,968

INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS
730 INFORMATION SYSTEMS 313,357 2,683,931 2,632,807 26,094 2,658,901 99% 2,254,678 740 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 205,250 1,781,790 1,590,162 10,165 1,600,327 90% 1,477,630 741 BUILDING REPLACEMENT 31,678 1,501,100 252,461 242,848 495,309 33% 228,189 745 CIP ADMINISTRATION 204,210 2,061,046 1,991,818 1,991,818 - 97% 1,857,954 760 UNEMPLOYMENT - 15,000 26,644 - 26,644 178% 18,358
770 WORKERS COMPENSATION 14,663 1,048,265 826,915 - 826,915 79% 695,816 790 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT 281,157 1,245,240 998,754 179,921 1,178,674 95% 600,443 791 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS FUND 51,583 750,000 695,892 - 695,892 93% 734,156 795 GEN. LIABILITY INSURANCE 67,583 2,551,193 2,692,873 2,692,873 - 106% 1,876,203 TOTAL INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS 1,169,481 13,637,565 11,708,326 459,028 12,167,354 89% 9,743,427 REPORT TOTAL $ 20,730,978 $ 232,314,891 $ 156,146,285 $ 19,807,948 $ 175,954,233 76% 154,241,202 $

Page 18 of 21 ends

Page 465 of 468 ends

City of Morgan Hill
Fund Activity Summary - Fiscal Year 2023-24
For the Month Ended June 30, 2024
100% of Year Complete
Beginning Year to-Date
Fund Fund Balance YTD % of YTD % of Deficit or
No. Fund Description 07-01-23 Actual Budget Actual Budget Carryover Reserved1 Unreserved 010 GENERAL FUND 33,224,036 $ 55,491,089 $ 104% 57,616,197 $ 95% (2,125,108) $ 1,980,906 $ 29,118,023 $ TOTAL GENERAL FUND 33,224,036 $ $ 55,491,089 104% $ 57,616,197 95% $ (2,125,108) $ 1,980,906 $ 29,118,023 202 STREET MAINTENANCE 68,927 $ 836,675 88% 832,868 $ 94% $ 3,807 $ - $ 72,734 205 PUBLIC SAFETY/SUPPL. LAW 319,867 196,596 193% 101,289 86% 95,307 415,174 - 206 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES (426,677) 6,018,183 95% 5,748,000 90% 270,183 38,375 (194,869) 207 LONG RANGE PLANNING 1,276,770 895,689 88% 851,453 54% 44,236 1,321,006 - 215 / 216 CDBG 30,767 559% 1,817 100% 83 1,734 - 32,501 225 ASSET SEIZURE 102,496 214% 2,781 100% 782 1,999 104,495 - 229 LIGHTING AND LANDSCAPE 191,949 205,040 103% 180,984 77% 24,056 216,005 - 230 COMMUNITY FACILITIES DISTRICT 150,651 55,015 145% 43,146 105% 11,869 162,520 - 232 ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAMS 328,270 601,755 102% 585,661 104% 16,094 749 343,615 234 MOBILE HOME PK RENT STAB. 76,297 966% 5,639 100% 907 4,732 - 81,029 235 SENIOR HOUSING 239,361 n/a - n/a - - 239,361 -
236 HOUSING MITIGATION 5,698,654 3,724,761 84% 1,059,802 69% 2,664,959 121,693 8,241,920 240 EMPLOYEE ASSISTANCE 61,893 8,397 40% 4,446 21% 3,951 - 65,844 246 COUNTYWIDE SOLID WASTE 239,294 2,111,570 281% 1,936,502 93% 175,068 130,818 283,544 247 ENVIRONMENT REMEDIATION 140,690 281% 3,822 n/a - 3,822 144,512 - 255 HOUSING SUCCESSOR AGENCY 4,001,427 297,953 125% 1,167,626 100% (869,673) 3,131,754 - TOTAL SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS $ 12,500,636 $ 14,965,694 94% $ 12,513,549 85% $ 2,452,145 $ 291,635 $ 14,661,146 301 PARK DEV. IMPACT FUND $ 1,426,990 $ 1,211,433 60% 560,745 $ 23% 650,689 $ $ 591,713 $ 1,485,965 302 PARK MAINTENANCE 2,489,205 376,023 104% 650,217 98% (274,193) 2,215,012 - 303 LOCAL DRAINAGE 11,817,863 579,487 129% 3,066,416 43% (2,486,929) 1,266,068 8,064,867 304 LOCAL DRAINAGE/NON-AB1600 1,343,736 38,374 124% 194,061 47% (155,687) 1,188,049 - 306 AG. AND OPEN SPACE PRESERVATION 541,496 228,682 5666% 97,600 39% 131,082 672,578 - 308 STREET CIP 4,078,203 4,939,901 110% 4,753,766 86% 186,136 386,092 3,878,246 309 TRAFFIC IMPACT FUND 3,727,580 1,397,896 109% 1,320,832 22% 77,064 2,791,992 1,012,653 315 PUBLIC SAFETY FACILITIES IMPACT 3,050,728 941,529 117% 5,544,146 47% (4,602,617) 6,126,879 (7,678,768) 346 PUBLIC FACILITIES NON-AB1600 2,943,797 306,204 32% 1,161,417 34% (855,213) 826,251 1,262,333 347 PUBLIC FACILITIES IMPACT FUND 1,099,809 344,472 195% 131,878 47% 212,594 1,312,403 - 348 LIBRARY IMPACT FUND 1,408,238 1,065,706 162% 222,349 100% 843,357 2,251,595 - 350 UNDERGROUNDING 1,626,301 264,304 1174% 139,438 12% 124,866 138,263 1,612,904 355 SCHOOL PEDESTRIAN/TRAFFIC SFTY 92,077 32,303 7% 124,380 14% (92,077) - 0 360 COMM/REC CTR IMPACT FUND 992,228 1,566,161 137% 239,174 9% 1,326,987 523,062 1,796,154 375 QUIMBY FEE 1,621,885 2,912,373 477% 470,781 34% 2,441,591 191,265 3,872,212 TOTAL CAPITAL PROJECT FUNDS $ 38,260,136 $ 16,204,849 120% $ 18,677,199 42% $ (2,472,350) $ 12,841,585 $ 22,946,202 420 CIVIC CENTER DEBT $ 175,864 $ 295,196 101% 288,021 $ 99% $ 7,175 $ 130 $ 182,909 441 POLICE FACILITY BOND DEBT 166,725 388,049 100% 390,622 101% (2,573) 165 163,987 TOTAL DEBT SERVICE FUNDS $ 342,589 $ 683,245 101% $ 678,643 100% $ 4,602 $ 295 $ 346,896 640 WASTEWATER OPERATIONS $ 4,670,817 $ 15,223,221 98% 14,851,367 $ 95% 371,854 $ 24,217 5,018,454 641 WASTEWATER IMPACT FUND* 21,350,081 8,826,234 199% 11,997,334 46% (3,171,100) 2,714,905 15,464,076 642 WASTEWATER RATE STABILIZATION 2,799,081 274,724 143% 100% 272,852 1,872 3,071,933 - 643 WASTEWATER CAPITAL PROJECTS 15,601,623 6,564,138 126% 4,915,223 28% 1,648,915 857,218 16,393,320 650 WATER OPERATIONS 4,444,824 18,730,734 95% 19,074,850 94% (344,115) 102,266 3,998,443 651 WATER IMPACT FUND* 2,969,960 1,689,759 97% 795,497 32% 894,262 62,239 3,801,983 652 WATER RATE STABILIZATION 3,183,868 91,405 n/a 100% 1,403 90,002 3,273,870 - 653 WATER -CAPITAL PROJECT 15,548,298 6,362,648 92% 3,314,825 21% 3,047,823 473,949 18,122,172 TOTAL ENTERPRISE FUNDS $ 70,568,552 $ 57,762,865 107% $ 54,952,371 56% $ 2,810,494 $ 4,234,794 $ 69,144,252 730 INFORMATION SERVICES $ 793,101 $ 2,496,073 100% 2,632,807 $ 98% (136,734) $ $ 26,094 $ 630,273 740 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 7,256 1,677,525 100% 1,590,162 89% 87,364 10,165 84,455 741 BUILDING REPLACEMENT 4,309,501 956,766 111% 252,461 17% 704,306 242,848 4,770,958 745 CIP ENGINEERING 9,209 1,152,211 56% 1,991,818 97% (839,607) (830,398) - 760 UNEMPLOYMENT 303,137 263% 7,735 26,644 178% (18,909) 284,228 - 770 WORKERS COMPENSATION 2,152,498 1,013,688 102% 826,915 79% 186,773 30,000 2,309,271 790 EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT 7,665,968 1,938,196 112% 998,754 80% 939,443 179,921 8,425,490 791 EMPLOYEE BENEFITS FUNDS (124,893) 854,995 101% 695,892 93% 159,103 - 34,210 795 GEN. LIABILITY INSURANCE 932,477 2,110,944 100% 2,692,873 106% (581,929) 350,548 - TOTAL INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS $ 16,048,254 $ 12,208,135 96% $ 11,708,326 86% $ 499,809 $ 489,028 $ 16,059,035 Revenues Expenses Preliminary Ending Fund Balance

Page 19 of 21 ends

Page 466 of 468 ends

SUMMARY BY FUND TYPE
GENERAL FUND GROUP 33,224,036 $ 55,491,089 $ 104% 57,616,197 $ 95% (2,125,108) $ 1,980,906 $ 29,118,023 $ SPECIAL REVENUE GROUP 12,500,636 14,965,694 94% 12,513,549 85% 2,452,145 291,635 14,661,146 DEBT SERVICE GROUP 342,589 683,245 101% 678,643 100% 4,602 295 346,896 CAPITAL PROJECTS GROUP 38,260,136 16,204,849 120% 18,677,199 42% (2,472,350) 12,841,585 22,946,202 ENTERPRISE GROUP 70,568,552 57,762,865 107% 54,952,371 56% 2,810,494 4,234,794 69,144,252 INTERNAL SERVICE GROUP 16,048,254 12,208,135 96% 11,708,326 86% 499,809 489,028 16,059,035 TOTAL ALL GROUPS 170,944,203 $ 157,315,877 $ 105% 156,146,285 $ 67% 1,169,592 $ 19,838,242 $ 152,275,553 $ For Enterprise Funds: Unrestricted fund balance = Fund balance net of fixed assets and long-term liabilities. *Unreserved fund balance includes bond proceeds reserved for projects listed in bond documents. 1 Amount restricted for encumbrances, fixed asset replacement, long-term receivables, and bond reserves.

Page 20 of 21 ends

Page 467 of 468 ends

City Manager's Signature Authority
Contracts and Agreements Between $25,000 to $60,000 Entered From 4/16/2024 to 8/20/2024 Vendor Name Description of Service Begin Date End Date Department Amount Placer Labs, Inc Subscription for location analytics 4/17/2024 4/17/2026 ED $25,000 Bay Print Solutions
Service Agreement- lease of
equipment, software, services and
supplies 5/5/2024 6/30/2028 E&U $55,000
Greenesport Association Sports Officiating 5/5/2024 6/30/2025 PS $59,000 Boys and Girls Club of
Silicon Valley
Afterschool and summer programs at
Park Place 5/5/2024 6/30/2025 PS $46,350
Burke, Williams & Sorensen,
LLP
Consultant Agreement for Legal
Services 5/6/2024 6/30/2025 Housing $60,000
United Security Specialist,
Inc
On-call security services at
Community Christian Church
inclement weather shelter 5/16/2024 6/30/2026 Housing $50,000 Keyser Marston Associates,
Inc
Provide affordable housing and
economic analysis assistance 6/5/2024 6/30/2026 Housing $50,000 Gaylord Dance Instruction Youth dance classes and/or camps 6/10/2024 6/30/2026 Rec $25,000 South Bay Youth Sports
DBA Skyhawks Sports
Academy Youth sports classes and camps 6/10/2024 6/30/2025 Rec $60,000 Island Kids LLC. Youth science camps and/or classes 6/10/2024 6/30/2026 Rec $40,000 Al Ganir Tennis
Youth and adult tennis classes and/or
camps 6/10/2024 6/30/2026 Rec $30,000
Nanogen Science &
Services, LLC dba Mad
Science of the Bay Area Youth science camps and/or classes 6/10/2024 6/30/2026 Rec $40,000 American Self Defense
Academy
Youth and Adult Self Defense, Karate
and Kempo Classes 6/10/2024 6/30/2026 Rec $50,000
AllCode Academy, LLC DBA
AllCode Academy Youth coding classes and camps 6/10/2024 6/30/2026 Rec $30,000 Wanda S. Marshall Youth and adult tap classes 6/13/2024 6/30/2026 Rec $30,000 Tessa's Blissful Ballroom
Studio
Youth and adult dance classes and/or
camp 6/13/2024 6/30/2026 Rec $40,000
Andrew Merovich DBA Brick
Tech Youth LEGO Camps and Classes 6/13/2024 6/30/2026 Rec $40,000 Articulate Solutions, Inc. Graphic Design Services 6/15/2024 6/30/2026 ED $30,000 MNS Engineers, Inc
On-Call Map Review and City Surveyor
Services 6/25/2024 6/30/2027 E&U $39,000
Ruggeri-Jensen-Azar
On-Call Map Review and City Surveyor
Services 6/25/2024 6/30/2027 E&U $39,000
South County Compassion
Center
Case management services for MH
Safe "Focus" program 6/25/2024 6/30/2025 Housing $60,000 Maker Nexus
Organize and implement countywide
repair events 6/25/2024 6/30/2025 E&U $43,750
Cotton, Shires and
Associates Inc
Provide Geologic and geotechnical
peer review 6/25/2024 6/30/2026 DS $60,000
Artic Wolf/ Savant Cybersecurity 6/28/2024 6/30/2025 PD $58,307 VertexOne Software, LLC.

Dba WaterSmart Software,
Inc
Provide a comprehensive suite of water
conservation reports 7/9/2024 6/30/2025 PS $58,000
AlterTech Solutions, LLC
Technical Support for Cityworks work
order software 7/11/2024 6/30/2025 PS $25,000
GVP Ventures, Inc. dba Bob
Murray & Associates
Recruitment services for Morgan Hill's
Housing Director Position 7/22/2024 6/30/2025 Admin $25,500 Renne Public Law Group
Providing grant review and writing
services 8/7/2024 6/30/2025 PS $60,000
Knorr Systems Intl, LLC AC Competition Pool LED Lights 8/9/2024 11/15/2024 PS $31,479

Page 21 of 21 ends

Page 468 of 468 ends

Morgan Hill City CouncilAugust 28, 2024

Morgan Hill City Council
August 28, 2024