1. home and garden

NOTICE and AGENDA
CITIES ASSOCIATION
BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING AGENDA
Thursday, April 9, 2015, 7:00 p.m.
West Conference Room, Sunnyvale City Hall
456 West Olive Avenue, Sunnyvale, CA
This agenda and packet is available at www.citiesassociation.org.
1. Welcome, Introductions and Roll Call
7:00
2. Oral Communication
7:00 - 7:05
(This time is reserved for public comment and is limited
to topics not on the agenda; comment time not to exceed 3
minutes.)
3. Consent Calendar
a. Approval of Minutes of March 12, 2015 (Leroe-Muñoz)
b. Acceptance of Financial Reports (Leroe-Muñoz)
1. March 2015 Balance Sheet
2. March 2015 Budget Report
3. March 2015 Transactions Report
4. Presentations & Discussions
a. Silicon Valley Community Foundation: SCC Nexus Study on
Housing Impact & Residential Linkage Fees (Vu-Bang
Nguyen, Joshua Abrams)
1. Presentation
b. Raise the Minimum Wage Coalition: Working Regionally to
Raise the Minimum Wage (Margaret Abe-Koga, Alison Hicks,
Meghan Fraley)
1. Presentation
7:05 – 7:10
7:10 – 7:35
7:35 – 7:55
5. New Business
a. Update on South Bay CCE Partnership (Griffith)
b. LAC Report & Recommendations for Approval (Sinks)
1. Atkins’ Affordable Housing Initiative: AB 1056, AB 1335,
AB 35
2. AB 313 (Atkins) Enhanced Infrastructure Finance Districts
3. SB 3 (Leno) Minimum Wage
4. SB 9 (Beall) Transit and Intercity Rail Capital Program
b. CSC Meeting Report (Baker)
c. CSC Appointee Report: BAAQMD (Sinks)
d. City Managers’ Association Report (Mark Linder)
e. Legislation Report (Betsy Shotwell)
8:05 – 8:10
8:10 – 8:25
8:25 – 8:30
8:30 – 8:40
6. Joys & Challenges
8:40 – 8:50
7:55 – 8:00
8:00 – 8:05
7. Announcements
a. General Membership Meeting, May 14, 2015, 6 – 9 pm
8. Adjournment and Next Meeting
Thursday, June 11, 2015 7pm, Sunnyvale City Hall
8:50 – 9:00
9:00
Draft Minutes
BOARD OF DIRECTORS MEETING
Sunnyvale West Conference Room
March 12, 2015
The regular meeting of the Cities Association Board of Directors was called to order at
7:00 p.m. with President Jason Baker presiding.
1. Call to Order/Roll Call
Present:
Jason Baker, Campbell
Rod Sinks, Cupertino
Jan Pepper, Los Altos
Rob Rennie, Los Gatos
Larry Carr, Morgan Hill
John McAlister, Mountain View
Jami Matthews, Santa Clara
Mary-Lynne Bernald, Saratoga
Jim Griffith, Sunnyvale
Also Present:
Betsy Shotwell, San Jose
Matt Huerta, NHSSV
Jim Lawson, VTA
Scott Haywood, VTA
Carl Guardino, SVLG
Raania Mohsen, CASCC
2. Oral Communication: None
3. Consent Calendar
Approval of February Financial Statements and Minutes for February 12, 2015
Board Meeting. Motion (Griffith)/ Second (Matthews). Motion carried unanimously
(9:0).
Ayes: Baker, Bernald, Carr, Griffith, Matthews, McAlister, Pepper, Rennie, Sinks
No:
Absent: Esteves, Huff, Leroe-Muñoz, Jones, Scharff, Waldeck
4. Presentation & Discussion
a. Matt Huerta, Executive Director of Neighborhood Housing Services
Silicon Valley (NHSSV) presented on potential partnerships with cities.
• NHSSV was founded 1995 with the City of San Jose Housing Department
and NeighborWorks America and focuses on home ownership and
foreclosure intervention counseling services.
• It is the only non-profit organization that is certified to directly sell loans
with Fanny Mae, a member of the NeighborWorks America network, a
HUD approved counseling agency, and certified by the US Department of
Treasury as a Community Development Financial Institution (CDFI).
• Target market is Santa Clara County; current contracts with San Jose,
Santa Clara, Morgan Hill, Los Gatos, and Los Altos.
• NHSSV leverages its full set of resources for resales and new construction
homes.
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
NHSSV develops underwriting criteria for each program to ensure
consistency and compliance.
NHSSV is a first mortgage lender; can prequalify applicants for City
Programs and other available programs (Housing Trust, CalHome, etc.)
The Bay Area leads the country in working with builders to create
affordable homeownership opportunities.
The Redevelopment Agencies created the infrastructure for this and now
that infrastructure needs to be preserved and expanded.
NHSSV proposed services to cities includes:
o Management of intake process
o Sales & Marketing
o Creation and Maintenance of Underwriting Guidelines and Buyer
Selection Standards
o Default Intervention and Dispute Resolution
o Recordkeeping, compliance, and monitoring
NHSSV also works with builders directly, e.g. KB Homes.
NHSSV provides the service of working with cities to ensure that the
Below Market Rate (BMR) homes meet their affordable housing
requirements, e.g. monitor BMR housing to ensure it does not fall out of a
city’s affordable housing stock.
NHSSV can react and intervene a lot quicker than cities to prevent
foreclosures.
b. Scott Haywood and Jim Lawson of Santa Clara Valley Transportation
Authority presented on the organization’s purpose and priorities for 2015.
• VTA is responsible for the construction, planning & funding of transit projects
across Santa Clara County.
• VTA is a 1/3 partner of Cal Train.
• VTA’s transit operations include Bus and Light Rail, safety and security for
transit system and facilities, management of shuttle services, establishment of
goals for service, reliability and safety, and management of repair programs.
• VTA has the best safety and on-time record in the state.
• Regarding land use & planning, transportation is part of Plan Bay Area; it is
known as Valley Transportation Plan 2040.
• Current projects include Bart Silicon Valley, BRT, service to Levi’s Stadium,
growing ridership, Express Lanes.
o Bart Silicon Valley - halfway completed ahead of schedule and under
budget.
o Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) – enhanced level of service, rail-like vehicles
with unique branding, dedicated lanes and improved waiting areas,
faster trip times, transit signal prioritization, and lower construction cost
and rapid build-out; the tree BRT corridors include El Camino Real,
Santa Clara/Alum Rock, and Stevens Creek.
o Service to Levi’s Stadium - increased rail connections to stadium, the
process has been a challenging learning experience for all parties.
2
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
o Silicon Valley Express Lanes – provides congestion relief and more
reliable travel times through dynamic pricing.
o Growing Ridership – offerings of commuter benefits program
Recent major real estate development in Santa Clara County has been within
close proximity of transit station areas.
Transportation Opportunities include the new Apple Campus and the North
Central County Bus Improvement Plan.
VTA has received funding from ballot measures:
o 1984 Measure A – 10 years, ½ cent = $1.8 billion – funded SR 85,
widening of US 101, and upgrade to SR 237.
o 1996 Measure A/B – 9 years, ½ cent = $1.6 billion – funded a number of
rail, highway, and ancillary projects.
o 2000 Measure A Project – funded a number of projects including
extending BART from Fremont through Milpitas to Downtown San Jose
and the Santa Clara Caltrain Station; improving Bus Service in Major
Corridors, Caltrain service upgrades, purchasing low-floor Light Rail
vehicles, improving Caltrain: double track to Gilroy and Electrification
from Palo Alto to Gilroy.
2015 strategic priorities include:
o Deliver BART Silicon Valley,
o Build BRT
o Plan and deliver for Super Bowl 50
o Serve Avaya Stadium
o Envision Silicon Valley (potential 2016 ballot measure to fund rails,
roadway, and transit projects)
VTA presentation concluded with a discussion with Carl Guardino of Silicon
Valley Leadership Group (SVLG).
Discussion topics included the widening of SR 85, express lanes, BRT, light rail
from Cupertino to Palo Alto.
Carl answered questions about potential ballot measure. The likelihood of the
ballot measure depends on the economy, package of transportation
improvements, and collaboration across the region.
SVLG will be conducting initial polls in mid-April and can provide summary of
results mid-year.
In addition, SVLG’s legislative trip to Washington D.C. includes meetings with
100 House and Senate Representatives and request for transportation funding
for the electrification of Caltrain and BART’s phase 2.
5. New Business
a. Request to Co-Host ($1,000) with SVLG on Regional Economic Summit,
Friday, May 29 - Carl Guardino of SVLG reviewed the upcoming Regional
Economic Summit and invitation to the Cities Association to participate as
a co-partner.
3
• The Silicon Valley Regional Economic Forum is one of many summits happening
around the state in the spring, leading up to an annual statewide economic
summit later this year to advance our area's triple bottom line: promoting
economic, social and environmental progress.
• The summit will take place on May 29th at the Computer History Museum in
Mountain View.
• Four sets of panels to address solutions to the issues of transportation, housing,
economy, and economic equality in the region.
• Participation in the summit incudes an integral part in determining the agenda for
the summit through three planning meetings, and an on-stage speaking role
during the event. • The cost of a co-host sponsorship is $1,000 and provides the organization with 10
complimentary tickets for guests at a sponsored table. • The Cities Association Board endorsed participation in the summit. Motion (Sinks)/ Second (Bernald). Motion carried unanimously (9:0).
Ayes: Baker, Bernald, Carr, Griffith, Matthews, McAlister, Pepper, Rennie, Sinks
No:
Absent: Esteves, Huff, Leroe-Muñoz, Jones, Scharff, Waldeck
b. Request to Appoint Cities Association Representative to SCC BOS
Housing Task Force - The task force will be chaired by Matt Mahood of SJ/SV
Chamber of Commerce and Ben Field of Working Partnerships USA and will
meet for 10 months to focus on identifying the area’s most critical needs and
feasible solutions that can be launched in the short term, with particular attention
to homeless military veterans, children, and foster youth.
Cities Association Board appointed President Jason Baker, member of the
Subcommittee on Homelessness. Motion (Bernald)/ Second (Pepper). Motion
carried unanimously (9:0).
Ayes: Baker, Bernald, Carr, Griffith, Matthews, McAlister, Pepper, Rennie,
Sinks
No:
Absent: Esteves, Huff, Leroe-Muñoz, Jones, Scharff, Waldeck
c. Request to approve transition of Citis Association audit from annual to 2year schedule beginning September 2015 – Board supported request.
Motion (Sinks)/ Second (McAllister). Motion carried unanimously (8:0).
Ayes: Baker, Bernald, Carr, Griffith, McAlister, Pepper, Rennie, Sinks
No:
Absent: Esteves, Huff, Leroe-Muñoz, Matthews, Jones, Scharff, Waldeck
d. Discussion on May 14th General Membership Meeting - Campbell City
Manager provided update on meeting with City of Santa Clara regarding Super
4
Bowl 50, and its impact and opportunity for the region as the topic of the
meeting. There was a consensus from Board Members to move forward with
the topic and planning of the event.
e. City Managers’ Association Report: City Manager Mark Linder’s report
included an update from the county on ambulatory services and a new RFP to
be released in summer for a new contract beginning July 2016, a briefing on the
drought from the SCVWD, and the MOU’s for the final design and funding of the
regional communication system is moving forward.
6. Joys and Challenges
•
•
•
•
San Jose proposed extensions of library hours from four days to six days.
Cupertino to review and approve a general plan amendment April 1st.
The North 40 project in Los Gatos is moving forward.
Mountain View Council Members attended the NLC trip to D.C. and has proven to be
successful due to subsequent meetings with NASA, Department of Defense, and
HUD.
Adjournment, 8:45 pm
Next Meeting: Thursday, April 9, 7 pm, Sunnyvale City Hall.
Respectfully submitted,
Raania Mohsen
Executive Director, Cities Association of Santa Clara County
5
&,7,(6$662&,$7,212)6$17$&/$5$&2817<
%DODQFH6KHHW
$VRI0DUFK
0DU
$66(76
&XUUHQW$VVHWV
&KHFNLQJ6DYLQJV
&KHFNLQJ8QLRQ%DQN
7RWDO&KHFNLQJ6DYLQJV
2WKHU&XUUHQW$VVHWV
$FFUXHG,QWHUHVW
/$,))XQGV
7RWDO2WKHU&XUUHQW$VVHWV
7RWDO&XUUHQW$VVHWV
)L[HG$VVHWV
$FFXPXODWHG'HSUHFLDWLRQ
0DFKLQHU\DQG(TXLSPHQW
7RWDO)L[HG$VVHWV
727$/$66(76
/,$%,/,7,(6(48,7<
(TXLW\
5HVHUYHV
5HVHUYHIRU1HZ(TXLS
5HVHUYHIRU2SHUDWLRQV
7RWDO5HVHUYHV
8QUHVWULFWHG)XQG%DODQFH
1HW,QFRPH
7RWDO(TXLW\
727$//,$%,/,7,(6(48,7<
3DJH
&,7,(6$662&,$7,212)6$17$&/$5$&2817<
5HSRUWRQ%XGJHWYV$FWXDO
-XO\WKURXJK0DUFK
-XO
0DU
2UGLQDU\,QFRPH([SHQVH
,QFRPH
'LUHFWRU\,QFRPH
'XHV,QFRPH
,QWHUHVW
7RWDO,QFRPH
*URVV3URILW
([SHQVH
2IILFH
&RQIHUHQFHV'LUHFWRU
V([SHQVHV
'LUHFWRU\3URGXFWLRQ
'XHVDQG6XEVFULSWLRQV
+RVSLWDOLW\
,QWHUQHW:HE+RVWLQJ6HUYLFHV
0LVFHOODQHRXV
0RYLQJ([SHQVHV
3RVW2IILFH%R[
3RVWDJHDQG'HOLYHU\
3ULQWLQJDQG&RS\LQJ
5HFRJQLWLRQ
5HQW
6XSSOLHVDQG(TXLSPHQW
7HOHSKRQH
:HEVLWH8SGDWH
7RWDO2IILFH
3URIHVVLRQDO6HUYLFHV
(PSOR\HH([SHQVHV
3D\UROO6HUYLFH)HHV
3D\UROO7D[HV
3D\UROO:DJHV6DODU\
7RWDO(PSOR\HH([SHQVHV
%XGJHW
RI%XGJHW
7RWDO([SHQVH
1HW2UGLQDU\,QFRPH
2WKHU,QFRPH([SHQVH
2WKHU,QFRPH
0HPEHUVKLS'LQQHUV3URFHHGV
7RWDO2WKHU,QFRPH
2WKHU([SHQVH
0HPEHUVKLS'LQQHUV&RVW
7RWDO2WKHU([SHQVH
7RWDO3URIHVVLRQDO6HUYLFHV
3URJUDPVDQG,QLWLDWLYHV
1HW2WKHU,QFRPH
1HW,QFRPH
3DJH
&,7,(6$662&,$7,212)6$17$&/$5$&2817<
7UDQVDFWLRQ'HWDLOE\$FFRXQW
0DUFK
'DWH
1XP
&KHFNLQJ8QLRQ%DQN
1DPH
3UR&RORU
)LUVW1DWLRQDO%DQN
8QLRQ%DQN
7LPH3OXV3D\UROO6
7LPH3OXV3D\UROO6
7LPH3OXV3D\UROO6
0HPR
6SOLW
GLUHFWRULHVRU 'LUHFWRU\3URG
63/,7
+ROLGD\3DUW\
63/,7
FRQI
/$,))XQGV
63/,7
3D\UROO:DJHV
3D\UROO6HUYLF
7RWDO&KHFNLQJ8QLRQ%DQN
/$,))XQGV
ZLWKGUDZOIURP/$,)
&KHFNLQJ8QL
8QLRQ%DQN
'LUHFWRU\,QFRPH
&KHFNLQJ8QL
GLUHFWRULHVRU &KHFNLQJ8QL
7RWDO'LUHFWRU\3URGXFWLRQ
)LUVW1DWLRQDO%DQN
)HEUXDU\%RDUG0HHWLQ
&KHFNLQJ8QL
7RWDO+RVSLWDOLW\
,QWHUQHW:HE+RVWLQJ6HUYLFHV
)LUVW1DWLRQDO%DQN
)LUVW1DWLRQDO%DQN
$GREH3')VXEVFULSWLRQ
ZHEKRVWIHH
&KHFNLQJ8QL
&KHFNLQJ8QL
7RWDO,QWHUQHW:HE+RVWLQJ6HUYLFHV
6XSSOLHVDQG(TXLSPHQW
)LUVW1DWLRQDO%DQN
)LUVW1DWLRQDO%DQN
DQQXDOSDSHUVXSSO\LQ &KHFNLQJ8QL
7RWDO6XSSOLHVDQG(TXLSPHQW
PRQWKO\SKRQHELOO
&KHFNLQJ8QL
7RWDO7HOHSKRQH
7RWDO2IILFH
3URIHVVLRQDO6HUYLFHV
(PSOR\HH([SHQVHV
3D\UROO6HUYLFH)HHV
7LPH3OXV3D\UROO6
&KHFNLQJ8QL
7RWDO3D\UROO6HUYLFH)HHV
3D\UROO7D[HV
2IILFH
'LUHFWRU\3URGXFWLRQ
3UR&RORU
7HOHSKRQH
7RWDO'LUHFWRU\,QFRPH
+RVSLWDOLW\
7RWDO/$,))XQGV
'LUHFWRU\,QFRPH
$PRXQW
7LPH3OXV3D\UROO6
&KHFNLQJ8QL
7RWDO3D\UROO7D[HV
3D\UROO:DJHV6DODU\
7LPH3OXV3D\UROO6
7LPH3OXV3D\UROO6
(PSOR\HH
VWD[SD\PHQW
&KHFNLQJ8QL
&KHFNLQJ8QL
7RWDO3D\UROO:DJHV6DODU\
7RWDO(PSOR\HH([SHQVHV
7RWDO3URIHVVLRQDO6HUYLFHV
0HPEHUVKLS'LQQHUV3URFHHGV
8QLRQ%DQN
7RWDO0HPEHUVKLS'LQQHUV3URFHHGV
727$/
'HFHPEHU+ROLGD &KHFNLQJ8QL
3DJH
3/26/2015
Grand Nexus Study 2.0
Agenda
1. The world we live in and the need for affordable housing
2. Impact fee basics
3. Grand Nexus study model
Loss of Middle Income Jobs
Job Growth in the Bay Area
150,000
109,970
100,000
50,000
34,000
11,020
88,970
39,170
15,170
0
‐50,000
‐45,600
‐100,000
‐75,850
‐150,000
‐150,860
‐200,000
2001‐07
High Wage
2007‐10
Middle Wage
2010‐13
Low Wage
1
3/26/2015
Loss of Affordability
Santa Clara Home Sales History
(2014 dollars)
Year
1992 1995 2006 2009 2009 2015 Sales Price
$410,700 $365,800 $631,800 $602,800 $665,500 $955,000
Potential Buyer
$94,500
$81,600
$153,700
$138,700
$153,100
$219,700
Funding Needed
Housing Trust of Silicon Valley
Impact Fees Basics
Impact fee ‐ Charge imposed by a local government on a new development project that is used to reduce the impacts of that development or provide infrastructure associated with the new development.
New Affordable Housing
Fees paid
Market rate development
Affordable Housing
Trust Fund
2
3/26/2015
Growth of Impact Fees
• Challenges with Rental Inclusionary
–
Palmer/Fifth St. Properties v. City of Los Angeles
• Concerns about Inclusionary and Courts
–
–
CBIA v. City of San Jose
Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Management District
• Loss of Funding / Redevelopment
–
Funding for stewardship
• Prop 13 Limits on Taxes
Nexus and Feasibility Study
• Nexus – Legally required
– Maximum permitted fees
• Feasibility
– Suggested levels
– Community goals
Residential / Affordable
Housing Nexus
3
3/26/2015
Commercial / Affordable
Housing Nexus
Nexus Study
• Expected development
• Disposal income or residents or employees
• Affordability gap (cost to build new housing) Data:
Incomes,
spending
patterns
cost to build
affordable
homes
Feasibility
• Feasibility Studies – Appropriate fee levels
– Goal is not to adversely impact development
– Should be lower than the legal maximum
– Not required, but recommended
4
3/26/2015
21 Elements
San Mateo County
Best Practices
Countywide Data and Coordination
HCD Coordination
Housing Element Material
Public Outreach
Grand Nexus Study Details
Cost is approx. $15,000 per jurisdiction
14 jurisdictions participating plus Palo Alto
Residential and commercial studies
Nexus and feasibility
Strategic Economics/Vernazza Wolfe selected through RFP
• 21 Elements coordinating
• Funding from HUD/MTC and Enterprise Community Partners
• Final reports this summer
•
•
•
•
•
Lots of Cities
Gilroy
Cupertino
How do you get them all
lined up? Santa Clara
Sunnyvale
San Jose
5
3/26/2015
Encouraging Coordination
• Give them a deal they can’t refuse
• Make it as apolitical as possible
• Provide lots of time
Many Similarities
Many similarities and some differences
•
Land costs
•
Strength of market
Any time there is jurisdiction specific data, we use it. Spending patterns
sf per worker
Construct costs
Nexus Study
Advantages of Coordination
• Less expensive
• More funding for affordable housing
• Better policy
• Predictability and • Stronger legal consistency make for grounds
a better development • Level playing field
climate
• Safety in numbers
6
3/26/2015
Big Questions
• If there are multiple jurisdictions participating, is it accurate?
• Is it legally sound? Yes
Yes
small print small print small print small print small print small print small print small print small print small print Big Questions
• If there are multiple jurisdictions participating, is it accurate?
– Any time there is local data, we use it
– More robust outreach to developers
– More data points
– Every city gets their own study
Big Questions
• Is it legally sound?
– Every city gets their own study with local data
– Follow standard methodology
– Barbara Kautz from Goldfarb and Lipman recommends a multicity approach and informally advised the process and hosted a conference call to answer questions
– For cities – there are always legal risks
7
3/26/2015
Santa Clara County Housing Impact and Commercial Linkage Fees
Jurisdiction
Campbell
Cupertino
Gilroy
Los Altos
Los Altos Hills
Los Gatos
Milpitas
Monte Sereno
Morgan Hill
Mountain View
Palo Alto
San Jose
Santa Clara
Saratoga
Sunnyvale
Unincorporated SCC
Housing Impact Fee
N
Y
Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
Y
N
N
N
N
Commercial Linkage Fee
N
Y Y
N
N
N
N
N
N
Y
N
N
N
N
Y
N
Impact Fee Nexus Study (C‐ Commercial, R‐Residential, B‐Both, N‐None)
N
B
N N
N
N
N
N
N
B
B (In progress) R N
N
B N
Conclusions
• Tremendous need for affordable housing
• Impact fees are an important strategy
• Many advantages of collaboration (Safety in numbers; Cheaper to participate; Better policy)
• Goal is to make it work for Santa Clara County
Questions?
Josh Abrams, AICP
Baird + Driskell Community Planning
[email protected]
Vu‐Bang Nguyen, AICP
Silicon Valley Community Foundation
[email protected]
8
Request to Make a presentation to the cities association board of directors Name of organization: Silicon Valley Community Foundation Background information: Since the elimination of redevelopment agencies and the state prohibition of rental inclusionary zoning, cities have increasingly looked to impact fees to support affordable housing. Impact fees work by requiring new construction to pay money into a fund, in this case to support affordable housing. To enact an affordable housing impact fee, cities must first conduct a Nexus Study to demonstrate the relationship between new housing or jobs and the need for the affordable housing they create. Cities with inclusionary zoning have several important reasons to participate. Most cities have had to eliminate their rental inclusionary requirements after the Palmer v. Los Angeles court case in 2009, which found that rental inclusionary zoning requirements violated California’s prohibition on rent control. Impact fees are the most common method of reinstating an affordable housing requirement for rental developments. A nexus study can also help bolster cities with inclusionary zoning against potential lawsuits. This is especially true if the courts decide that inclusionary zoning is an exaction, because cities will then need to conduct a nexus study in order to have a legal basis for their program. While a number of years ago this seemed unlikely, in light of recent court decisions and pending court cases, this is a real possibility. Request (what will be presented?): An opportunity to coordinate on a County-­‐
wide nexus study. To conduct a nexus study a city would typically hire a consultant on its own, with the timing of the study based on the degree of local support and financial resources. A better alternative is to collaborate with other jurisdictions to save time and money, as well as providing a stronger basis to support the likely policies that will need to be adopted. Relevance to the cities association: Several jurisdictions in Santa Clara are interested in coordinating their efforts. Specifically, the study will document the permissible and recommended fee levels for each jurisdiction for both residential and commercial developments. Although it is a cooperative effort, each city will receive a unique report based on local conditions. The recommended fee levels will be set so as to not discourage development. After receiving the report, cities would be free to adopt or not adopt fees as they see fit. The estimated cost of such a nexus study per city is $15,000-­‐ $23,000, which is a substantial savings over what it would cost a jurisdiction to undertake such a study alone. The project is modeled after an ongoing multicity nexus study in San Mateo County, where all cities have agreed to participate (except those that have already completed their own nexus study and the small towns). The City of Palo Alto is also participating in the San Mateo County study. There are a number of significant advantages of doing a combined nexus study, not least of which is saving money. It would cost each city a minimum of $30,000-­‐
$60,000 to engage a consultant to conduct an independent nexus study, while it will cost half that amount to join the collaborative study. Additionally, the nexus study offers a regional approach to the Silicon Valley-­‐wide challenge of finding realistic ways to fund affordable housing. Further, with multiple cities moving forward together there will be less competition for development between jurisdictions. While jurisdictions will be free to tailor the fees and programs as much as they want, any amount of standardization will make it easier for developers to comply. What action is requested of the cities ASSOCIATION? We would love to partner with the Cities Association. If the project matches the Associations’ goals, it could potentially endorse or cosponsor the effort. Allowing time for cities to consider the effort and offer feedback will help us better meet cities’ needs. The nexus study will include the following components: • Maximum fees permitted on new residential development (nexus study) • Recommended fees for new residential development (feasibility study) • Inclusionary zoning levels permitted (nexus study) • Maximum fees permitted on new commercial development (nexus study) • Recommended fees for new commercial development (feasibility study) • Supporting material such as fee levels in other cities and the potential benefits of the fees. • Summary of Silicon Valley-­‐wide material looking at trends, fees in different cities, and more. Materials to be sent to support presentation: Powerpoint presentation and 2-­‐
page description REQUEST TO MAKE A PRESENTATION TO THE CITIES ASSOCIATION BOARD OF DIRECTORS NAME OF ORGANIZATION: Raise the Minimum Wage Coalition of the South Bay and the Peninsula
BACKGROUND INFORMATION: We are a coalition group of neighborhood activists, faith community members, students and labor leaders who are working together regional wide to encourage cities to raise the minimum wage. REQUEST (WHAT WILL BE PRESENTED?): We would like to share why we are doing this, our accomplishments so far and our future goals and encourage all cities in the County to raise the wageas San Jose, Mtn View and Sunnyvale did. We are also working on a goal to raise the wage to $15 by 2018 which both Mtn View and Sunnyvale passed as a goal. RELEVANCE TO THE CITIES ASSOCIATION: We understand that the Cities Association made exploring a regional effort to raise the minimum wage a priority for 2015. We would like to explore with the board, ways to work together to reach this goal. WHAT ACTION IS REQUESTED OF THE CITIES ASSOCIATION? A lead person for each of the city councils. MATERIALS TO BE SENT TO SUPPORT PRESENTATION Will follow.