The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About02-07-2001 City Council Agenda Packet AGENDA REGULAR MEETING SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL CALL MEETING TO ORDER - 5:30 P.M. ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ITEMS ..February 7, 2001 , THEATER ADJOURNED TO CLOSED SESSION - 5:35 P.M. .Public Employee Performance Evaluation (Gov't Code 54957) Title: City Attorney Conference With Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation: (Government Code section 54956.9(a)) Name of case: City of Saratoga v. Hinz (Santa Clara County Superior Court No. CV-784560) Conference With Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation: Significant exposure to litigation (Gov't Code section 54956.9(b): (1 potential case). Initiation of litigation (Gov't Code section 54956.9(c): (1 potential case). Conference with Real Property Negotiator Property: 18870 Allendale Avenue Negotiating Parties: City of Saratoga/Serbian Eastern Orthodox Church Under Negotiation: Instructions to negotiator regarding price and terms and payment for real property lease. REGULAR MEETING - 7:00 P.M. - CIVIC THEATER/COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE. MAYOR'S REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA (Pursuant to Gov't. Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on February 2, 2001) COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS & PUBLIC Oral Communications on Non-Agendized Items Any member of the public will be allowed to address the City Council for up to three (3~ minutes on matters not on this agenda. The law generally prohibits the council from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Council may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Council Direction to Staff. Communications from Boards and Commissions None written Communications None Oral Communications - Council Direction to Staff Instruction to Staff regarding actions on current Oral Communications. CEREMONIAL ITEMS None CONSENT CALENDAR The Consent Calendar contains routine items of business. Items on this section will be acted in one motion unless they are removed from the Consent Calendar. lA. Approve Council Meeting Minutes Regular Meeting - January 17, 2001 Recommended action: Approve minutes. Review of Check Register Recommended action: Note and file. lC. Review Planning Commission Action Minutes - January 24, 2001 Recommended action: Note and file. PUBLIC HEARINGS (Applicants/Appellants and their representatives have a total of ten minutes maximum for opening statements. Members of the public may comment on .any item for up to three minutes. Applicant/Appellants and their representatives have a total of five minutes .maximum for closing statements. Items requested for continuance are subject to Council,'s approval at the Council meeting) None OLD BUSINESS Competitive Salary Survey Results Recommended action: Accept results of survey; approve resolution; approve changes to MOU's. o Proposed Organizational and Staffing Changes Recommended action: Accept report; approve resolution; approve changes to MOU' s. Azule ~Crossing Development Status Report Recommended action: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. NEW BUSINESS Mid Year Financial Results for FY 2000/2001 Recommended action: Accept Financial Reports; adopt resolution. o Sale of General Obligation Bonds for the Saratoga Community Library Recommended action: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. o Authorization to City Manager to execute Professional Services Agreements for temporary services in Community Development D_epartment: A. Agreement with Irwin Kaplan, Interim Community Development Director B. Agreement with Willdan and Associates C. Amended agreement with Robert Schubert, AICP. Recommended action: Authorize City Manager to execute agreements. ° Report on ABAG Housing Needs Appeal Committee action on the City's appeal of the ABAG Regional Housing Needs Determination for the City of Saratoga Recommended action: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. ° Orchard Restoration Project - Phase I and Phase II Recommended action: Approve proposal for transplanting trees and authorize City Manager to execute agreement to prepare an "Orchard Master Plan". CITY COUNCIL ITEMS OTHER CITY MANAGER'S REPORT ADJOURNMENT In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at (408) 868-1269. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting (28 CFR 35. ! 02-35.104 ADA Title II) February 13, 2001 February 21, 2001 March 7, 2001 March 21, 2001 SCHEDULED CITY COUNCIL MEETiNGS Adjourned Meeting - Joint Session Finance Commission, Library Commission Study Session Adult Care Center 19655 Allendale avenue Saratoga, California Regular Meeting/Council Chambers 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California Regular Meeting/Council Chambers 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California Regular Meeting/Council Chambers 13777 FrUitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 7:00 p.m. 7:00 p.m. 7:00 p.m. 7:00 p.m. SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 7, 2001 AGENDA ITEM: ORIGINATING DEPT: Administrative Services CITY MANAGER: [ SUBJECT: Organizational Changes RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Approve the organizational changes; adopt resolution-making adjustments to Fiscal Year 2000/01 Budget; adopt resolution amending the Memorandums of Understanding between the City and the Saratoga Employees Association and the Saratoga Management Organization. REPORT SUMMARY: This report reflects a combination of organizational changes requested by the Mayor, City Manager and the Director of Community Development to reflect current organizational requirements. Community Development Department The follov,'ing organizational changes are recommended to reduce workloads in the Planning and Building Divisions, to enhance supervision and accountability in the Building Division and to provide for an advanced planning capability in the Planning Division. · Reclassi~' the Senior Inspector to Building Official, who will continue to supervise the Building Inspectors, but will also assume responsibility for supervising the Plans Examiner'Plan Check Engineer who was previously supervised bv the Director. By this re- classification, the Building Official would recognize no immediate salaD' increase, but the new classification would allow room for future raises. · Add a third Building Inspector to allow the Building Official to focus on overseeing the Building Division and supervising the Plans Examiner;Plan Check Engineer. · Add an Associate Planner performing advanced planning projects and to reduce the workload of the other planners. · Broadband the existing Plan Check Engineer position to allow the position to be filled at a lower level Plans Examiner if a qualified applicant cannot be found at the Engineer level. The position is vacant, and recruitment will begin for either level. The Plan Check Engineer salary range is equivalent to the Associate Engineer, and the Plans Examiner salary range is equivalent to the lower Assistant Engineer. Funding for these positions is available from building permit revenues, which are higher than budgeted so far this year, as has been the case in the past several years. City Manager's Office The following organizational changes are intended to provide the City Manager's office with a level of support appropriate for coordinating numerous policy-level issues and special pr~ec[s. Therefore, a position of Assistant City Manager is proposed to provide policy-level support to the City Manager. As a consequence, two .Analyst positions will be eliminated, and a third transferred to Public Works to support the Parks and Recreation Commission and CiP development. One .Analyst will remain in the City Manager's office to support the Public Safety Commission and the CDBG program, among others. · Create an Assistant City Manager position with a salaD' range equivalent to the range for the Administrative Sen'ices Director, Public Works Director and the Community Development Director. · Eliminate the Senior :Analyst position and one of the two Analyst positions in the City Manager's Office. · Transfer an Analyst from the City Manager's Office to the Public Works Department. The savings from eliminating the two positions offsets the cost of the Assistant City Manager position. Additionally, the possible replacement of the Administrative Sen:ices Director at a lower step will realize additional savings. FISCAL IMPACTS: Following is a summary of the anticipated annual cost: Community Development Reclassi~' Senior Inspector to Building Official Add Building Inspector Add Associate Planner Broadband Plans Examiner'Plan Check Engineer ¥otal Community Development Department Salary Salary and Benefits 0 0 51,131 65.448 56,004 71,688 0 0 107.135 137.136 City Manager's Office Add Assistant City Manager Eliminate Senior .Analyst (3/4 time) Eliminate .,Mnalyst Transfer .Analyst to Public Works Total City Manager's Office 94,044 120.376 (46,401) (59,393) (50,616) (64.789) 0 0 (_.9/.~) (.~.836) Total Estimated )mnual Cost 5104.162 5133.330 The cost of implementing this plan during Fiscal Year 2000/01 for the period of February 3 to June 30, 2001 would be approximately S55,553 city-wide. S57,140 from special revenue funds and (S1,587) from the general fund. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): .&LTERxNATIVE ACTION(S): City Manager to return to the City Council with further analysis. FOLLOW UP ACTION(S): Direct staff to implement the organizational changes and begin the recruitments. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Nothing additional. ATTACHMENT: Organizational Charts Resolution Making Adjustments to Fiscal Year 2000 01 Budget Resolution Adopting .Amendments to Memorandums of Understanding between the Citv and the Saratoga Employees Association and the Saratoga Management Organization RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SAle, TOGA MAKING APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENTS TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2000/01 BUDGET WHEREAS. the City Council adopted Resolution No 00-38 adopting the budget for Fiscal Years 2000-01 and 2001-02 on June 21. 2000; and WHEREAS, subsequent to the adoption of said Resolution, the City Manager has recommended further changes to the City's budget; and WHEREAS. the City wishes to implement a reorganization in the Community' Development Department and the City Manager's Office, and WHEREAS, the City has estimated the cost of the reorganization to be approximately $104,162 annually, plus benefits for a total of approximately $133.330. or approximately' $55,5531¥r the period t¥om February 3, 2001 to June 30. 2001. WHEREAS. there are sufficient excess Building Permit revenues to fund the increased costs in the Community Development Department. and the organizational changes in the City Manager's Office represent a small salaD' savings. WHEREAS. the City- Council has considered the recommendations of the City Manager and believes that implementing these further changes will be in the best interests of the City. NOW. THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves to increase the appropriations for salaD' and benefits, using General Fund unreserved fund balance. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the above adjustments to the City of Saratoga's Fiscal Year 2000-01 budget will be made using the following entries: 250-4010-542-10.01 250-4015-542-10.01 250-1040-421-03.00 250-4015-422-01.00 Zoning Administration-Salaries Inspection Services-Salaries Operating Transfer Out Building Permit Revenues Expenditures Revenues (Debit) (Credit) ~.402 ~7.~70 7.468 57.140 001-4005-542-10.01 001-3035-532-10.01 001-1020-511-10.01 001-2005-521-10.01 001-1040-421-03.00 001-0000-330-01.00 Advance Planning-Salaries General Engineering-Salaries City Manager-Salaries Emergency Preparedness Operating Transfer In General Fund Balance 7.468 12,549- (8,544) (5,592) 7.468 (1,587) The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Saratoga City Council held on the 7th dav of February, 2001. bv the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: John Mehaffev. Max'or Cathleen Bover. Citv Clerk RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE SARATOGA EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, FURTHER AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 85-9 AS AMENDED, ADJUSTING SALARIES AND BENEFITS FOR NON-MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES WHEREAS, the City, of Saratoga, through its designated representatives and pursuant to state law. has met and conferred with the organized employee representative association, the Saratoga Employees Organization (SEA), through its designated representatives, concerning proposals for modifications and changes to salaries, benefits and other matters; and WHEREAS, the representatives of the City and SEA have reached an understanding regarding changes in salaries, benefits and other matters for the period July 1, 1999 through June 30, 2001, for employees represented by the SEA, all of which are specified in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated July 1, 1999, to which reference is made for further particulars; and WHEREAS, the City and SEA have agreed to certain amendments to said MOU as set for the in Exhibit "A"; and NOW, THEREFORE, BET IT RESOLVED that the terms and conditions of the Letter of Understanding between the City and SEA, dated July 1, 1999, are hereby amended by incorporating therein Exhibit "A" attached hereto. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Saratoga City Council held on the 7th DAY OF FEBRUARY. 2001, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: John Mehaffey, Mayor Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk ~J __1 0 o 0 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING A LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE SARATOGA MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION, FURTHER AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 85-9 AS AMENDED, ADJUSTING SALAR]. ES AND BENEFITS FOR MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES WHEREAS. the Ci~' of Saratoga, through its designated representatives and pursuant to state law, has met and conferred with the representative organization, the Saratoga Management Organization (SMO), concerning proposals for modifications and changes to salaries, benefits and other matters; and WHEREAS, the representatives of the CiD' and SMO have reached an understanding regarding changes in salaries, benefits and other matters for the period July 1, 1999 through June 30. 2001. for employees represented by the SMO, all of which are specified in a Letter of Underst~tndin~ (LOU) dated July 1, 1999, to which reference is made for further particulars; and WHEREAS. the City and SMO have agreed to certain amendments to said LOU as set for the in Exhibit "A": and NOW, THEREFORE, BET IT RESOLVED that the terms and conditions of the Letter of Understanding between the CiB' and SMO, dated July 1, 1999, are hereby amended by incorporating therein Exhibit "A" attached hereto. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Saratoga Citv Council held on the 7th DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2001, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN': ATTEST: John Mehaffey, Mayor Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk ~azMENDMENT TO LETTER OF uNDERST.~'DING BETWEEN THE CITY AND S:~LRATOGA ~-L&NAGEMENT ORG.CNIZATION Salad' Ranges. The Ciw Council and SMO a~ee with the recommendation of consultant Geoffrey Rothman to survey a universe of comparable cities based on population, proximity to Saratoga (both in terms of distance and commute time) and size anct/or form of government, and concluded that that following eight cities represent the best universe to survey to attain statistically meaningful data: Los Altos Los Gatos Menlo Park Morgan Hill San Carlos Campbell Cupertino Newark Through analysis of survey results and internal parity issues, the top of each classification salary range was set. The bottom was set 25% 28% below the top of each range. Not withstanding the above, it is a~eed that effective February 3, 2001, the salary range for each position shall be as follows: Assistant City Manager Public Works Director Community Development Director Administrative Services Director Recreation Director C~. Qt~ CT 0'2? $7,555 - S9,671 per month $7,555 - S9,671 per month $7,555 - S9,671 per month $7,555 - 59,671 per month S6,955 - S8,902 per month EXHIBIT A SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 7, 2001 AGENDA ITEM: ORIGINATING D. EPT: Cit~ager PREPARED BY:~~../.;- CITY MANAGER: DEPT HE:kD: lA SUBJECT: City Council Minutes RECOMMENDED ACIION: Approve minutes as submitted for the following City Council Meeting: Regular Meeting - JanuaD~ 17, 2001 REPORT SUMMARY: N/A FISCAL IMPACTS: NA CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOXVING RECOMMENDED ACTION: NA ALTE1LNATIVE ACTION: N-A FOLLOV~- UP ACTION: Retain minutes for legislative histors.'. ADVERTISING, NOIICING AND PUBLIC CONIACI: NA ATIACHMENIS: Attachment A - Minutes/JanuaD- 17. 2001 City Council Minutes '~ 0 January 17. ~0~ 1 MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL January 17, 2001 The City Council of the City of Saratoga met in Closed Session, Administrative Conference Room. 13777 Fruitvale Avenue at 6:00 p.m. Conference With Legal Counsel - Existing Litigation (Government Code section 54956.9(a)): Name of case: City of Saratoga v. Hinz (Santa Clara County Superior Court Doc. No. CV-784560) Conference with Real Property Negotiator Property: 18870 Allendale Avenue Negotiating Parties: City of Saratoga Serbian Eastern Orthodox Church Under Negotiation: Instructions to negotiator regarding price and terms and payment for real property lease. Conference With Labor Negotiator: Agency designated representative: Dave )mderson, City Manager Employee organization: Saratoga Employees Association Conference With Labor Negotiator: Agency.' designated representative: Dave Anderson, City Manager Employee organization: Saratoga Management Association MAYOR'S REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION - 7:05 p.m. Mayor Mehaffey reported there was Council discussion but no action was taken. Mayor Mehaffey, called the Re_oular City Council meeting to order at 7:06 p.m. and requested Marcia Manzo to lead the Pledge of Allegiance. Mayor Mehaffev noted that the meeting tonight would be dedicated to Jeff Swanberg. Mayor Mehaffey reported that Jeff passed away on Sunday, January 14, 2001. Jeffwas a senior at Saratoga High School. Mayor Mehaffey requested a moment of silence in memoD' of Jeff Swanberg. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Evan Baker, Stan Bogosian, Nick Streit, _Ann Waltonsmith, Mayor John Mehaffey .'ABSENT: None ALSO PRESENT: Dave Anderson, City Manager 1 City Council Minutes January 17.2001 Richard Taylor, City Attorney Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk Mar).' Jo Walker, Director of Administrative Se~'ices John Cherbone, Director of Public Works Paula Reeve, Administrative Analyst REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA FOR JANUARY 3. 2001. Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, reported that pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2. the agenda for the meeting of January 17, 2001 was properly pOsted on January 12, 2001. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS & PUBLIC None COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS None WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None O1L-kL COMMUNICATIONS No one requested to speak at tonight's meeting. Councilmember Baker reported that he received.a call today from a person who claimed to be a representative of CALT1L~NS conducting a random survey. Councihnember Baker noted he was asked several questions regarding his personal data. his home and his assets. The caller alleged to not -knox',' the name and address of the person they were contacting but later on in the conversation they knew Councilmember Baker's identity and address. Councilmember Baker noted he contacted the Deputy Director of CALTtL&NS to inquire the validity of the survey and was told by the Deputy Director that he could not confirm that CALTtL~NS was conducting the survey. Councilmember Baker publicly warned the viewers to be cautious when asked to participate in any type of survey; he noted you are not obligated to answer any of the proposed questions. Councilmember Baker noted he would report back when he hears from CALT1L~XNS. If in fact the survey is being conducted by CALTtC-~NS, he will request the purpose ibr the survey and the questions asked in the survey'. COUNCIL DIRECTION TO STAFF None City Council Minutes CEREMONIAL ITEMS January 17.2001 COMMENDATION FOR NANCY ANDERSON, HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION STAFF RECOMMENT)ATION. Present commendation. Mayor Mehaffey read the commendation and reported that Nancy Anderson was unable to attend tonight's meeting and directed the Citv Clerk to mail the commendation. CONSENT CALENDAR The Consent Calendar contains routine items of business. Items on this section will be acted in one motion unless they are removed fi'om the Consent Calendar. 2A. APPROVA.L OF COUNCIL MINUTES OF: J.a~NUARY 3, 2001 - REGUL)dl MEETING STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve submitted minutes. Councilmember Baker pulled Item 2A from the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Bogosian pulled Item 2A from the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Bogosian noted on page 7.6':~' paragraph, "Waltonsmith" should replace "Bogosian". Councilmember Bogosain requested the folloxving insertions to the minutes of JanuaD' 3, 2001: · Page 7, 7:h paragraph, "and concurred with Councilmember Baker regarding additional information on the 10 properties that abut the creek." · Page 7, 10:h paragraph, "and report back on the 10 properties that abut the creek." Councilmember Waltonsmith requested the following insertions to the minutes of January 3.2001: · Page 9, 6th para~aph. "she requests that the Sheriff's Department work with the City to confirm that the definitions or content of each cell in the matrix are appropriate for the City's overall information needs." · Page 12, 2~'e paragraph, "as a City function overseen by the City Council." Councilmember Mehaffey noted a few typographical errors and would submit the corrections to the City Clerk and requested that on page 13, 2nd paragraph, delete the following words "lower rates are expected" and insert "it had entered into an 18-month contract to purchase power at reasonable rates." City Council Minutes JanuaD: 17, 2001 BOGOSIAN/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO APPROVE MINUTES OF JANU.~RN 3, 2001 CITY COUNCIL MINUTES AS AMENDED. 2B. 2C. MOTION PASSED 5-0. REVIEW OF CHECK REGISTER STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Note and file. Councilmember Baker pulled Item 2B from the Consent Calendar. Councilmember Baker questioned the following ledger entries: · Common Wealth Credit Union - page 2 · Redwood Athletic Uniforms - page 9 Mary Jo Walker, Director of Administrative Serx'ices, responded that some employees belong to the credit union and have direct deposit. Director Walker explained that Redwood Athletic Uniforms are for uniforms for the Youth Basketball Program through the Recreation Department. The invoice has been paid out of the Department of Recreation's budget and uniforms expenses are included in the registration fee. Mayor Mehaffey questioned page 6, regarding PacBell. Mayor Mehaffev questioned why a phone line is connected to the Xerox machine. Director Walker indicated that service to the machine is Occasionally done through a modem, which requires a phone line. Mayor Mehaffey questioned the amount for the City's insurance company. .&BAG. Mayor Mehaffey questioned if the amount was for one (1) or two (2) quarters. Director Walker noted it was for two (2) quarters because the first payment did not get paid. BOGOSIAN/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO NOTE AND FILE CHECK REGISTER. MOIION PASSED 5-0. DECEMBER FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND MID YEAR BUDGET ADJUSTMENI ' STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Note and file. BOGOSI.,MN/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO NOTE AND FILE DECEMBER FINANCIAL STATEMENTS AND MID YEAR BUDGET ADJUSTMENT. MOTION PASSED 5-0. City Council Minutes : January 17, 2001 2D. REVIEW OF PL.~..NNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES SIAFF RECOMMENDAIION: Note and file. WALTONSMITH-"STREIT MOVED TO NOTE AND FILE PLANNING ACTION MINUTES. MOTION PASSED 5-0. PUBLIC HEARINGS None OLD BUSINESS AUTHORIZATION TO CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT WITH SUTRO AND COMPANY FOR FINANCIAL ADVISORY SERVICES IN REGARDS TO THE SALE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS FOR THE SARATOGA COMMUNITY LIB1L~Y EXPANSION AND RENOVATION PROJECT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize City Manager to execute agreement. Mar3.: Jo Walker, Director of Administrative Services, presented staff report. Director Walker explained that on November 3, 1999, the City signed an a~eement with Evensen Dodge to provide financial advisoD- services related to the sale of General Obligation Bonds for the Saratoga Communitv Library Expansion and Renovation Project. Director Walker noted that Evensen Dodze was selected, from the four firms. which were interviewed, primarily because of the quality of the indMduals who were assigned to this project, Mr. Rich Morales and Ms. Katrina Johantgen. Director Walker noted that Rich Morales informed the City of Saratoga on JanuaW 4, 2001, that he was leaving Evensen Dodge and unfortunately Katrina Johantgen left the firm several months ago. With the departure of Mr. Morales and Ms. Johantgen the City no longer has continuity with the individuals who were originally hired and had built a relationship with. Director Walker noted that staff recommends the City exercise its option to terminate the agreement with Evensen Dodge and execute an agreement with Sutro and Company. Councilmember Streit asked if Sutro and Company have the same capabilities of issuing bonds as Evensen Dodge. City Council Minutes Januarg' 17. 2001 Rich Morales, Vice President/Sutro, responded that not only is Sutro a qualified firm in the municipal bond business but feels Sutro is a better firm because they have more local resources. Mr. Morales noted that his finn is not proposing any changes to the contract. Councilmember Baker questioned the out of pocket'expenses that have been expended to date at Evensen Dodge. Councilmember Baker questioned if a reduction in the term ofpayznent to Sutro would take place.. Mr. Morales responded yes. Mayor Mehaffey asked Mr. Morales if Evensen Dodge is amicable with the termination of the agreement. Mr. Morales responded yes. STREIT/W.~U._TONSMITH MOVED TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT WITH SUTRO AND COMPANY. MOTION PASSED 5-0. PESTICIDE USE - POLICY DISCUSSION STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. John Cherbone, Director of Public Works, presented staff report. Director Cherbone explained that at the October 18 and November 15 Citx' Council meetings, staff presented information regarding the types of pesticides that are applied in and around City owned facilities, parks, open spaces, medians, right-of-ways, and landscape assessment zones. Council subsequently directed staff to explore implementation of a Pest Management Policy in the City. Director Cherbone reported that the Citv and County of San Francisco have a successful Pest Management Policy. The San Francisco Policy is comprehensive and aggressive; a policy that one would expect to see in a large bureaucracy with its own Department of Environment. However. Director Cherbone noted there are good policies and procedures in the San Francisco Policy, which staffbelieves can be adopted and implemented in Saratoga without requiring extensive staff resources, while preserving the integrity of the policy. Director Cherbone explained the highlights of the draft Integrated *-Ianagement Policy for the City of Saratoga based on San Francisco's Policy. Councilmember Waltonsmith asked Director Cherbone if contractors were included in this policy and will the policy change with the State regulations. 6 City Council Minutes Januar,~ 17. 2001 Director Cherbone responded 3'es, contractors will be given a cop3' of the policy and changes recommended by the State are currently done on a regular basis. Councilmember Bogosian noted that in section IV, it mentions that pesticides leave residue after the date posted. Councilmember Bogosian suggested placing permanent signs or warning signs indicating that chemicals are used in that area. Director Cherbone noted if the Council desires placing permanent signs in high use places, he could change the policy. Councilmember Streit asked how the policy would affect the upkeep of the Heritage Orchard. 'Director Cherbone noted that Mr. Novakovich would have to substitute a couple of the pesticides he currently uses. .. Councilmember Waltonsmith suggested an article in the Saratogan explaining the new pesticide policy. Mayor Mehaffey thanked Director Cherbone for the report. PRIDES CROSSING TIL4~FFIC CALMING STUDY STAFF RECOMMENT)ATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 01-007 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF sAIL, kTOGA MAKING APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENTS TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2000/01 BUDGET Paula Reeve, Administrative Ymalyst, presented staff report. Analyst Reeve explained that the opening of Highway 85 resulted in shifting traffic patterns causing residents to complain of unacceptable high volumes and travel speeds throughout the Prides Crossing area. Analyst Reeve reported that at its April 7, 1999 meeting, the City Council selected CCS Planning and Engineering to perform a Traffic Calming Study of Prides Crossing residential area which is bordered by Highway 85 on the west, Saratoga Creek on the east, Prospect on the north, and Cox Avenue on the south. CCS subsequently collected supporting data, held four.(4) neighborhood meetings to obtain residents' input, and develop a report recommending traffic calming solutions. .Analyst Reeve explained that at the last meeting the majority of the 7 City Council Minutes January 17. 2001 participants supported the three paths of traffic calming activity: 1'. Items receiving area-wide support will be implemented by the City' as part of a Consensus Plan. 2. Traffic calming needs that can be addressed by increased law enforcement will be referred to the SheriWs Department through the Public Safety Commission. 3. At locations where traffic calming devices are still desired, but not included in the Consensus Plan and which cannot be resolved by increased traffic controls, will be referred to the City's Neighborhood Traffic Management Plan (Tool Kit). The Neighborhood Traffic Management plan is being developed separately by CCS and will be reviewed by the Public Safety Commission in February. .Analyst Reeve requested that tonight Council approve eight (8) speed limit or stop ahead signs, and two (2) enhanced cross walks for a total cost estimate of S5,200.00. ,Analyst Reeve noted CCS Engineering has not finished the ?'Tool Kit". Councilmember Bogosian asked if the total cost, S 17,000.00, included the "Tool Kit" or is there an additional charge for the "Tool Kit". Analyst Reeve responded that an additional S5,000.00 has been paid to CCS Engineering. Councilmember Bogosian noted the cost for a minimum program in this area was S22,000.00. Councilmember Bogosian requested a breakdown on what amount of the 5330,000.00 the City appropriated for additional Sheriff Deputies is going towards the implementation of the Prides Crossing program. Councitmember Bogosian asked if once the "Tool Kit" is complete could it be implemented into other neighborhoods. .4malyst Reeve responded 3'es. Mayor Mehaffey asked if the neighborhoods were behind this program. Analyst Reeve noted that most of the neighbors are pleased with the program. Councilmember Baker noted that hopefully a vear from now Saratoga would have gained a reputation as a tougher city in enforcing traffic regulations. Mayor Mehaffev asked if there was anyone in the audience who would like to speak on this subject. Sam Furiosi, Miller. Cox Avenue, noted he has lived there for 20+ years and has seen 40+ accidents and a few fatalities on that particular comer. Mr. Furriosi noted nothing has ever been done about the ongoing problem at that comer. Mr. Furiosi suggested the City install a streetlight. 8 City' Council Minutes January 17. 2001 Councilmember Bogosian requested a statistical report on the traffic issues on the comer of MilleffCox Avenue and supports the possibility of installing a streetlight. .,Mm Gadd, 12164 Brook Glen Drive, noted she has lived there offand on 43 years. Mrs. Gadd noted that cars speed down Brook Glen. Mrs. Gadd noted that prior to this meeting she took a petition around to her neighbors on Brook Glen Drive and of the people contacted she received 21 signatures supporting the installation of a stop sign on their street. Elmer Szanto, 12612 Miller Avenue, noted he has lived there for 27 vears and represents 26 residents who first started this calming program in June 1994. Mr. Szanto noted that over the years the traffic has increased significantly on Miller Avenue, and most of the increase is due to cut through traffic. Mr. Szanto noted that he feels the data included in the report is inaccurate. Councilmember Waltonsmith asked Mr. Szanto if he supports continued traffic studies. Mr. Szanto responded yes. George Gadd, 12164 Brook Glen Drive, noted he has lived there offand on for about 20 years and over time he has seen a significant increase of traffic on that street. Mr. Gadd suggested installing signs prohibiting outside traffic into the neighborhood during peek traffic time as an additional tool for law enforcement. Mr. Gadd requested an additional stop sign be installed on Brook Glen Drive. Councilmember Baker stated he reviewed the Prides Crossing Traffic Study in detail and is bothered by the Consensus Chart in the back of the study it shows all of the new recommendations for traffic calming signs, however none of the current signs are listed. Councilmember Baker stated he is dissatisfied with the final report and feels several areas have not been addressed. Councilmember Streit concurred with Councitmember Baker but suggested that the Council approve the proposed ten (1 O) traffic-calming devices recommended by stafftonight and continue to studv the other areas. Mayor Mehaffey directed staff to: 1. Proceed with the additional ten (10) traffic-calming devices recommended by staff. 2..~malyst Reeve should work with Director Cherbone to look at installing a streetlight at the comer of Cox/Miller Avenue. 3. Continue traffic studies in the surrounding, neighborhoods. 4. Investigate an additional stop sign at Brook Glen Drive. B.a3CER/STREIT MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION TO APPROPRIATE FUNDS TO IMPLEMENT THE STUDY RECOMMENDATIONS. MOTION PASSED 5-0. City Council Minutes Januaw 17. 2001 Mayor Mehaffey introduced and welcomed Mr. Im4n KaPlan. Mayor Mehaffey stated Mr. Kaplan recently joined the :Community Development Department as the Interim Director. Mayor Mehaffey noted that Mr. Kaplan brings to the City of Saratoga over 40 years of experience. NEW BUSINESS PRESENTATION OF DESIGN SCHEMATICS OF LIBIL-kRY STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize City Manager to execute contract. MaD~ Jo Walker, Director of Administrative Sen-ices, presented staff report. Director Walker reported that for the last six months, the Library Expansion Committee and staff members have been working with the Library Architects and various other consultants to develop the schematic design for the Saratoga Community Library. The process consisted of meetings between the Architect and the LibraD' Expansion Committee ever3.' two weeks to develop the concept of the building, and three public meetings to receive public input. The result is the design that Mark Schatz, of Field Paoli, will present tonight. Director Walker noted that the Landscape Architect has been working with the Heritage Preservation Commission and Matt Novakovich to minimize the Library expansion project's impact on the Heritage Orchard. The main landscaping theme is orchard related. Director Walker briefly explained the estimated costs to construct the Library as designed. The estimate is the first of two very detailed estimates that will be prepared by the .Architects at crucial stages in the design process. The .Architects' estimated a total of S13,520,597.00, plus S1,988,171.00 in design and construction contingencies, for a total of S15,508,768. This includes all costs associated with the completion of the project including renovation and construction costs, moving costs, and temporary quarters for the libraxT during the eighteen months of construction. Director Walker noted that this estimate exceeds the S15 million available for the project, so the process of value engineering has begun to reduce to no more than S 15 million, including adequate contingencies. Director Walker noted that on JanuaO' 25 the ~Architect and Construction Manager will meet with the Library Expansion Committee to review a list of options for reducing the cost estimate. Director Walker noted that the Citizen Oversight Committee was concerned about the construction being divided into two phases; phase one is the site preparation and construction of the foundation and parking lot, and phase two is the rest of the library construction. Ihe COC felt that the phased approach 10 City Council Minutes JanuaI3' 17,2001 could pose a cost risk because it limits the .ArChitect's options in phase two to reduce costs, should the need arise. Director Walker reported that the .Architect recommended this approach in order to meet the November 2001 deadline of the target opening of the new library. Councilmember Baker stated he strongly °pposes any estimate exceeding the S 15 million that is available. Director Walker reassured Councilmember Baker that the project group has already started value engineering to reduce the costs. Mark Shatz, Field Paoli Architects/Proj ect ,Architect, introduced the project team. Mr. Shatz reassured the Council that staying within the budget is a priority and has begun to prepare a preliminary list on value engineering options and a meeting has been scheduled for tomorrow m°rning with Gilbane. the cost estimators, and all the sub consultants on the team so they wilt have a plan in place on how they will achieve the budget goals. Mr. Shatz provided a brief summary of the process to date. highlighting the number of meetings involving the Library Expansion Committee. City Council, community workshops, and various city departments. Mr. Shatz introduced Steve Lovell, Field Paoli Architects/Project Architect, who would be giving the design presentation. Mr. Lovell briefly demonstrated how the existing libraD.' would be expanding and how it would eventually co-exist with the Heritage Orchard. Mr. kovell explained that two independent parking studies were prepared, one by Jim Jeffrey, the city's parking consultant, and one' by' Jane Bierstedt at Fehr and Peers. The conclusion was that the new library should provide !60 parking spaces, including designated accessible and van stalls. Mr. Lovell described in length the new interior;exterior of the library and the new design for the front entry. Mr. Schatz explained to the Council that one way to stay within the budget is to perform frequent the frequent and repetitive cost estimates throughoUt the project. Mr. Shatz noted that two estimates have been done, the first by Oppenheim Lewis, the second by Gilbane. Mr. Shatz noted that the current estimate for renovation, new construction and site work, temporal3.' quarters, contingencies, permits, fees, and equipment exceeds budget by $500,000.00. 11 City Council Minutes January 17, 2001 Mr. Shatz asked the Council to approve the schematic design and schematic construction cost estimate with the contingency of value engineering. Mr. Shatz gave the Council examples of how the cost could go down with minor changes to the interior and exterior of the library. Mr. Shatz noted that construction should start in August 2001. YAr. Shatz suggested temporarily closing the libraD' until the project is complete. Mr. Shatz noted this would save a lot of money. Councilmember Streit questioned if relocating the library to another location is more economical rather than keeping it on the construction site. Mr. Schatz responded that it would be more efficient and more economical to relocate the LibraD' offsite. Councilmember Streit also suggested that more private study rooms be added and suggested contacting the principal at the high school to discuss future curriculum patterns. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted she does not support closing the library and supports relocating the Library off site. Councilmember Waltonsmith also expressed concern in regards to the transplanting of the existing trees. A discussion took place of the importance of staying within the budget. Mavor Mehaffev suggested putting a cap on the budget of S14.5 million. Councilmember Bogosian noted he would prefer S14.25 million and opposed closing the libraiw down until the project is complete. Councilmember Bogosian supported the new design lbr the front entry noting it retains the feeing of the existing building. Councilmember Bogosian noted that the new design was more in conformity with the existing site. WALTONSMITH/BOGOSIAN MOVED TO APPROVE THE SAIL-kTOGA COMMUNITY LIBRARY DESIGN AND COST ESTIMAIES WITH THE PROVISION OF VALUE ENGINEERING AND THE NEX¥ DESIGN FOR THE FRONT ENTRY. MOTION PASSED 5-0. Councilmember Baker requested that a maximum dollar amount for the project be added to the motion so it does not exceed the budget. Motion amended to include the specific dollar amount of $14.5 million, total cost of final project. Motion passed as amended 5-0. 12 City Council Minutes ~ Mayor Mehaffey declared a fifteen (15) minute recess at 9:27 p.m. Mayor Mehaffey reconvened the meeting at 9:42 p.m. Janual3' 17, 2001 AUTHORIZATION TO CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT WITH .ALT1L.-kNS FOR FY 00-01. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. Paula Reeve, Administrative A_nalyst, presented staff report. :&nalvst Reeve reported since February' of 1997, the City, in cooperation with ALT1LhNS (Alternative Transportation Solutions), has applied for and received funding from the Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VIA) from the Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA) Program. Recently the City has been awarded S322,000.00 from The VIA. .analyst Reeve reported that ALTIL~NS has been providing trip reduction and fideshafing sen, ices for 7,500 students of Santa Clara County Community Colleges and Universities since 1993 and K- 12 since 1996. Analyst Reeve noted Steve Blaylock;ALT1L~,NS was present to answer any questions. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted she had heard that the VTA was not going to fund ALTtL~..NS this year because of documentation issues. .Analyst Reeve responded that the documentation issues have already been handled. Councilmember Waltonsmith asked Mr. Blaylock if he has had any success with covering the bus stops in front of various schools. Mr. Blaylock responded that he is still working on that issue. Councilmember Baker asked ifALTtL;XNS plan includes all the schools that sei~-e Saratoga. Mr. Blaylock responded that most of the schools that serve Saratoga are . included except Marshall Lane, Westmont High School, Prospect High School. and Rolling Hills Middle School. Councilmember Baker expressed dissatisfaction that all the schools that serve Saratoga residents were not included in .M_.ItCANS service plan. Councilmember Baker noted that this was the third time he has requested all schools be included. 13 City Council Minutes January 17, 2001' Mr. Blaylock noted that some of the schools that are not included are very resistant to the program and have no desire to come aboard. Councilmember Streit asked why Marshall Lane was not included. Mr. Blaylock states that Marshall lane was accidentally let out. Councilmember Waltonsmith concurred with Councilmember Bake:' that all the schools that sen'e Saratoga should be included in the service plan. Councilmember Bogosian concurred with his fellow colleagues regarding the sen'ice plan including all the schools. BAKER.'STREIT MOVE TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT WITH ALTIL.~NS FOR FY 00/01. MOTION PASSED 5-0. POLICY FOR ACQUISITION OF CITY OWNED PARKING RIGHTS IN PARKING DISTRICT #3 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Authorize City Manager to execute contract. Richard Taylor, City Attorney, presented staff report. Mr. Taylor explained that the City' established Parking District --3 in 1988. Mr. Tavlor explained that parking requirements applicable to proposed developments, including expansions, in the Village depend on the parking district in which the development is proposed. The requirements for Parking District #3 is one parking space be provided for each 350 square feet of gross floor area developed. Mr. Taylor noted that in 1988 when the City' Council created the assessment district, 31.2 "extra" parking spaces were identified. Mr. Taylor explained that Mr. Jin Lee, owner of the Saratoga Cleaners at 14495 Big Basin Way, has requested that the City sell him the development rights associated with some of the 31.2 parking spaces in Parking District #3. Mr. Taylor noted that based on the City's current policy, Mr. Lee would pay S19,546.00 per parking space. Mr. Taylor explained that although Mr. Lee is considering an expansion at the Saratoga Cleaners he has not yet submitted a development application to the City because the feasibility of the project depends, in part, on the City's willingness to sell the development rights of the parking spaces. 14 City Council Minutes January 17, 2001 Mr. Taylor briefed the City Council on some policy issues :concerning the proposed purchasing agreement. The approval of the transfer of development rights not be construed as approval of development application. · The adequacy of current parking in the Village. · The appropriate price to charge for each parking space. Councilmember Bogosian noted that no studies have been done on the current parking situation, nor has the Village Specific Plan been considered. Councilmember Baker stated he does not supPort this item in any way and recommended it go back to staff with no action taken tonight. Councilmember Waltonsmith commented that the 1988 study migN not be accurate today and recommend a new parking study be done to determine if adequate parking exists in the Village. Councilmember Streit commented that the price of parking spaces listed in Mr. Taylor's report of S19,546.00 is too low and supports further parking studies. Mayor Mehaffey feels the cost of parking spaces should be determined on how much it would be to replace them in today's market. Mayor Mehaffey noted he does not want to prevent Mr. Lee from expanding because the City Council lacks adequate information on the Village parking situation. May'or Mehaffey directed staffto bring more data back to Council, includin~ a cost analysis of the current cost of parking spaces in the Village. ANNUAL REVIEVf OF THE CITY OF SA1L-kTOGA INVESTMENT POLICY STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Investment Policy. Mar).' Jo Walker, Director of Administrative Sen'ices, presented staff report. Director Walker explained that the California Government Code and City of Saratoga Municipal Code require the City Council to annually review and approve the City's Investment Policy. Director Walker noted that the Investment Policy lays the foundation for the City's investment management functions. Last year, at the January 19, 2000 City Council meeting, staffrecommended minor changes to the Investment Policy from the previous year, and the Council approved the Investment Policy in its current version. This year the Finance Commission reviewed the Policy at their JanuaO' 8, 2001-meeting, and recommended forxvarding the Policv to the Council after some minor changes. 15 City Council Minutes January 17.2001 Director Walker summarized the changes recommend by the Finance Commission. Councilmember Baker noted that the changes were not included in the report. Director Walker noted that the changes were accidentally left out of the report but reassured Council that they were not extremely significant. BOGOSIAN/STREIT MOVED TO APPROVE THE CITY OF SA1L-kTOGA INVESTMENT POLICY. MOTION PASSED 5-0. 10. REPORT FROM CITY ATTOR~.NEY - PROCEDURE FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF A CITY COMMUNITY FOUNDATION STAFF RECOMMENT)ATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. Richard Taylor, City Attorney, presented staff report. Mr. Taylor explained that the City Council expressed interest in forming a Community Foundation supporting various actMties in Saratoga. Mr. Taylor noted that community foundations established by local governments are subject to the Brown Act, Political Reform Act. and other agency restrictions applicable to all actions by the City. Independent foundations are not subject to these restrictions. Mr. Taylor stated that the manner in which the City proceeds in supporting the formation of a community foundation depends on whether the foundation will be independent of the City or will be a City-sponsored foundation, if the City wishes to support formation of an independent foundation, the City Council could direct staff to take steps to inform the community of the Council's interest and to encourage interested members of the community to step forward. Mr. Taylor noted that most community foundations are established as non- profit organizations that are exempt from federal taxation under section 501 (1)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code. Mr. Taylor explained that if the City wishes to support a City-sponsored foundation, the City Council could direct staff to solicit applications for a special committee to investigate and create a City of Saratoga Community Foundation. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that she supports the City' helping create a community foundation and once it is established allow the foundation to run independently fi.om the City. Mr. Taylor explained that the Council would need to detennine the degree of 16 City Council Minutes JanuaiT 17.2001 control the City would exercise over a communitv foundation. In a private foundation, a board would decide how to spend donated money and City Council approval would not be necessary. Mr. Taylor suggested the City form a task force to develop a "Mission Statement" for a community foundation. Councilmember Streit concurred with Counciimember Waltonsmith and noted that most people are generally more inclined to donate money to a nonprofit organization rather a government agency sponsored group. Mayor Mehaffey concurred with Councilmember Waltonsmith and Councilmember Streit that the City should start the process of the formation of a community foundation. Dave .Anderson, City Manager, reiterated what he felt was the direction fi-om Council. Mr..Anderson stated that a model of "Articles of Incorporation" for a Saratoga Community Foundation could be drafted and placed on the next City Council agenda. Mr. Taylor asked the Council how large of a board thev would like. Mayor Mehaffey commented that the Foundation could have an executive board of no more than 7 members and a general membership. Mr. Taylor suggested a governing board up to 15 members and other advisoD~ boards for arts, sports, etc. Mr. Taylor commented that the proposed ".Articles of Incorporation" could be left open, leaving it up to the Bbard to decide on what the advisor)..' boards are going to represent. 11. APPROVAL OF CITY ENERGY CONSERVATION POLICY ST:&FF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. TITLE OF RESOLUTION: 01-006 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SA1L,-~TOGA DECLARING THE CITY OF SARATOGA'S PARTICIPATION IN THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES EFFORTS TO CONSERVE ENERGY John Cherbone, Director of Public Works, presented staff rkport. Director Cherbone explained that since December, California has been under Stage 1, 2,and 3 energy alerts. On January 12, 2001, a stage 3 energy alert was issued and rolling blackouts took place. Director Cherbone reported that this Stage 3 energy alert prompted the League 17 City Council Minutes January 17, 2001 of California Cities to issue a memorandum asking all cities to certit3, that thev will reduce energy usage bv 5% by January 16, 2001. Director Cherbone briefly presented several energy conservation methods tine City would be implementing at city Hall and the Village until the power shortages are over. Councilmember Baker reported that he recently attended a Cities Association meeting and there was an unanimous decision to write a letter to PG & E demanding that they noti~' all law enforcement agencies at least one I 1 ~ lnour prior to rolling blackouts. Councilmember Bogosian supported the energy' conservation methods tlnat Director Cherbone presented and suggested removing the Village lights completely. Mayor Mehaffey noted he supported the lights being on in the Village only during the holiday season. Mr. Taylor commented that the Council could agree, as an energy conservation measure, to shut the Village lights off during the State's energy shortage. Mayor Mehaffey noted that at the next Downtmvn Beautification Committee meeting a policy could be developed in regards to the Christmas lights. BAKER~ST~IT MOVED TO .~d:~PROVE RESOLUTION DECLARING THE CITY OF SAR_-~TOGA'S PARTICIPATION IN THE LEAGUE OF CALIFO1LNIA CITIES EFFORTS TO CONSERVE ENERGY. MOTION PASSED 5-0. AGENCY ASSIGNMENT REPORTS Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that SASCC is excited about the temporary buildings and that in regards to the VTA PAC voted to support natural gas for the new buses. lnowever the Board of Directors went the other direction and decided that the new buses would use clean diesel instead of natural gas. Councilmember Bogosian reported that the Silicon Valley Joint Animal Control is seeking to hire an Executive Director and thev are still looking for property to house the shelter. Councilmember Baker reported that the HCD, KSAR, and the Emergency Preparedness Council have not met yet, but noted that he recently attended the Cities Association on behalf of Mavor Mehaffey. Councilmember Baker reported that the City's Association set a few priorities for the year; housing and transportation were at the top. Councilmember Baker had nothing to report regarding the West Valle_',' Sanitation District Board. 18 City Council Minutes Councilmember Streit had no reportable actions Or information. JanuaD'17,2001 Mayor Mehaffey had no reportable actions or information. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS Councilmember Bogosian expressed dissatisfaction with the report given to the Council by Rebecca Spoulos, Code Enforcement Officer, of complaints being lodged against residents in Saratoga. Councilmember Bogosian requested that a policy be developed not to include residents that have not violated any codes in the report. If a complaint is lodged and there is no violation, the person should not be listed on the report. Dave Anderson, City Manager, suggested that in the future the statistical information of code complaints and violations be presented to the City Council. Councilmember Waltonsmith applauded Saratoga schools that received top marks in the school evaluation report prepared by San Jose Mercury News. Councilmember Waltonsmith questioned the status on the progress of getting all bus stops covered in Saratoga. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that she does not like to see people sitting in the elements. Mayor Mehaffey directed staffto place the issue of bus Stops on a future agenda. Councilmember Streit requested more information on Rule 20 money from P G & E in regards to under grounding. . Mayor Mehaffey noted that he recently attended the Mayor:Council Conference in Sacramento and during a conversation amongst other Mayors, the issue of a "Cosecant Calendar" policy was brought up. Mayor Mehaffey directed staff to draft a policy concerning the "Consent Calendar". : OTHER Richard Taylor, City Attorney, strongly encouraged the Councilmenibers to attend the ABAG hearing on JanuaD-' 25, 2001, in regards to the "Regional Housing Needs Determination". CITY MANAGER'S REPORT Mr. ,Anderson had nothing to report. 19 City Council Minutes ADJOUIL, NMENT Mayor Mehaffey adjourned the meeting at 11:20 p.m. Respectfully submitted, JanuaD: 17.2001 Cathleen Boyer, CMC City Clerk 20 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 7, 2001 AGENDA ITEM: ORIGINATING DEPT: Administrative Services CITY MANAGER: PREPARED BY://~~9//'"L/'t,.~,f//.J~_..~'''' DEPT HEAD:/'~-'v"x..~,.~- / - SUBJECT: Check Register RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Note and file. REPORT SUMMARY: Attached is the check register. FISCAL IMPACTS: None CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): None ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): None FOLLOW UP ACTION(S): None ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: None ATTACHMENTS: Check Register Certification. IFund# Fund Name AP CHECKS A84043-84177 Date Manual Void 1125101 Checks Checks 1 GENERAL 49,408.97 100 COPS-SLESF 148.83 110 Traffic Safety 3,669.17 150 Streets & Roads 102,549.24 160 Transit Dev 170 Hillside Repair 180 LLA Districts 849.29 250 Dev Services 20,347.72 260 Environmental 14,784.36 270 Housing & Comm 89,594.04 290 Recreation 9,371.12 292 Facility Ops 564.50 293 Theatre Surcharge 300 State Park 310 Park Develpmt 28,047.32 320 Library Expansion 131,318.64 400 Library Debt 410 Civic Cntr COP 420 Leonard Creek 700 Quarry Creek 710 Heritage Prsvn 720 Cable TV 730 PD #2 740 PD #3 800 Deposit Agency 5,696.00 810 Deferred Comp 830 Payroll Agency 990 SPFA ISubtotal 456,349.20 PAYROLL CHECKS: B26271-26320 TOTAL 90.00 600.00 690.00 Total ,. / :-~ ::{-:.::;.:: :: .- . . !~ ¢ ~?:.-.: '~:3;669.17:~ ..: ~-::.:~ :'103;:149:24 :~ i:: ~::-!:i: ~: :28~047;321': i :~i:: :::::::::::::::::::::: ~{'.- : -. : : - .-~ -:: :: ::::-' ¢ :-::i~: :~:-:: :: 106;202.27:!;! :~::~::::.::!::?_~i~:~:~..:::::~i::~3,7.~:~; ! ':: : :~::::.: ~::: -::.::~::: :;::::::~t Prepared by: Date: f Approved by: do ~o o o~ §o~ o~ § § ooo ~g § o tn. o & o ~ o o ~ o ~ o ~ ~ o ~ o o ~ o ~ ~ o ~0 0 o~ o~ 4'' § §ooo~"~ § ~ § ~ o oooo o o o oooo o o ~o moooo ~o ~o ~o oo o o o o o 0 0 0 0 o oo o o 0 g~o g~ o~ oooo o o o oooo o 0 ~ ~ g~ ~oo~ o~ o § § o E-, (~0 o o o o 0 ~0 o o o o o o ooo o g o g o § § o o '~0 O~ o,~ ;> ..... ~. ........... ~.~. . . oo oooo oo o o oo o ~oo § § § o § o § § .... o ~o (o o ~0 .Z :~o ::> o ~° ~ ~ 0 U *-4 ~ 60 oo o o ~ ........ o oooo o o o ~o coo ~o ~o ~g§gg § =o § § o ~m O~ O0 ~ ~o ~o o ~o o z o ~0 z o z ~ z ~ z ~ ~ ~ ~ - ~ oooo ~ = ~ = ~ ~ o o ~ .... g o oo 0 --. C~O o~ oo ~- ~ ~o ~o Oo o § SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 7, 2001 DEPT: CommuniD? Development PREP.MRED BY: Kristin Borei ~ AGENDA ITEM: CITY MANAGER: DEPT HEAD: SUBJECT: Planning Commission Actions, Januar3' 24, 2001 RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Note and file. REPORT SUMMARY: Attached are the Planning Commission action minutes of January 24, 2001. FISC.,kL IMPACTS: N/A CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): N/A ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): N/A FOLLOW UP ACTION(S): N/A .M)VERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: N/A ATTACHMENTS: Action Minutes - Saratoga Planning Commission CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION ACTION MINUTES DATE: PLACE: TYPE: \¥ednesday, JanuaD' 24, 2001 - 7:130 p.m. Council Chambers/Civic Theater, 13/-77 Fruit~'ale Avenue, Saratoga, CA Re~lar Meeting ROLL CALL: Chairman Page, Commissioners BanT, Kurash, Patrick, and Roupe ABSENT: Commissioners Jackman and Bernald ST,~F: Interim Director Kaplan, Planner Connolly, and Minutes Clerk Shinn PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE MINUTES - Study Session minutes from Januan~' 10, 2001 and Regular Meeting minutes from Januau' 10. 2001. OtLAL COMMUNICATIONS REPORT OF POSTING AGENDA Pursuant to Govermment Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted onJanua~' 19, 2001. TECHNICAL CORRECTIONS TO PACKET CONSENT CALENDAR PUBLIC HEARINGS All interested persons may appear and be heard at the above time and place. If you challenge a decision of the Planning Commission pursuant to a public hearing in court, you may be limited to raising only those issues you or someone else raised at the public hearing(s) described in this agenda, or in x~itten correspondence delivered to the Saratoga Planning Commission at, or prior to, the public hearing. In order to be included in the Planning Commission's information packets, written communication should be filed on or before the Thursday before the meeting. DR-00-036 & UP-00-018 (397-05-091) - SAN FILIPPO, Sobey Road; - Request for Design Review approval to construct a new 5,312 square foot two- story residence xvith a 608 square foot basement and 529 square foot cabana on a vacant lot. The Use Permit approval is necessa~, to allow the cabana to be located within the rear yard setback. The maximum height of the residence ,,xSll be 26 feet. The site is 43,042 square feet and is located within a R-i-40,000 zoning district. (CONTINUED 5-0 TO 3/14/01) PL&N%'ING COMMISSION AGENDA JANUARY 24, 2001 PAGE* DR-00-052 (397-07-018) - MAESUMI, 15171 Maude Avenue; - Request for Desi~cm Review approval to demolish an existing single story residence and m'o accessory structures totaling 3.100 square feet, and construct a new 5,235 square foot smgle-stoD' residence with 2,486 square foot basement. Maximum height of the structure is 24 feet tall. located on a 33,105 square foot parcel within a R-i-40,000 zoning district. (APPROVED 3-2, KURASH AND BARRY OPPOSED) DR-O0-047 (503-23-041) - SHAH-BAZI, 14231 Bums V~/ay; - Request for Design Review approval for a 1,325 square foot single story addition, and Variance approval to allow the enclosure of an existing porch located in the rear yard setback. The 10290 square foot parcel is located within a R-1-12,500 zoning district. Mammum height of the structure will be 17 feet tall. (APPROVED 5-0) SD-00-001, DR-O0-011, BSE-00-012 & V-O0-018 (517-08-008 & 016) - TRAFALGAR, 14612 Big Basin V~Tay & 20717 St. Charles Street; Request for Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map approval for the subdivision of a 22,582 net square foot site into slx lots ranging in size from 1,756 square feet to 2,489 square feet and m-o additional common area lots. The proposal calls for demolishing four existing residences' with garages totaling 4,595 square feet and 1,000 square feet of retail space that includes a second story flat. Five new 2,686 to 3,030 square foot tov~mhouses, including garages and basements would be constructed. Additionally, 1,316 square feet of retail space with a second sto~- condominium would face Big Basin YVay. The front portion of the project would have access from Big Basin \Vay and the rear toxxmhouses from St. Charles Street. The Big Basin \Vay half is zoned CH-2 and the St. Charles Street half is zoned R-M- 3000. The Planning Commission xx.4_ll take testimony, discuss the proposed project and continue the item for a Public Hearing and final action at a later date. (CONTIN'~FED 5-0 TO 2/14/01) DIRECTOR ITEMS COMMISSION ITEMS Oak Street Demolition COMMUNICATIONS YVritten - Saratoga Cit3.- Council Minutes from December 12, 2000 andJanuao' 3, 2001. ADJOURNMENT AT 11:17 TO NEXT MEETING - \Vednesday, FebruaU' 14. 2001 Council Chambers/Civic Theater 13/W7 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga. CA SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 7, 2001 AGENDA ITEM: ORIGINATING DEPT: Administrative Serwices CITY MANAGER: PREPARED BY:~'/f/~-~, ~ ~.~//~'/~L/~'fDEPT HEAD:/~.//~%~/~//~/~-~. ~."~~ SUBJECT: Results of Competitive SalaO- Survey RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Direct staff to implement the revised salary ranges, approve the attached resolution making adjustments to the fiscal year 2000/01 budget to reflect increased costs due to implementation of the new salary ranges, and approTce revisions to the Memorandum and Letter of Understanding between the City and the Saratoga Employees Association and the Saratoga Management Organization. REPORT SUMMARY: Last fall. the City Council directed staffto begin a salaD.- survey comparing the City of Saratoga's salaries to neighboring cities. The concem for competitive salaries stemmed from an upswing in resignations from the City and difficult3.' in filling vacant positions. During the last six months. fourteen regular employees left Saratoga, representing 25% of the worktbrce within six months. We currently have five positions vacant, and are using four contract employees to fill the void. The City Council authorized Geoffrey L. Rothman and Associates (Rothman) to perform a competitive salary survey using eight comparable cities. Based on population, proximity to Saratoga (both in terms of distance and commute time) and size and/or form of government, the following eight cities were selected to survey Los Altos Los Gatos Menlo Park Morgan Hill San Carlos Campbell Cupertino Newark The survey process began immediately, and consisted of contacting each of the eight cities to receive their salaD' ranges for each of the positions which that City uses. The top of the range was used for comparison purposes. Usually, matching the job titles and salary ranges from the survey cities with the job titles which Saratoga uses was relatively easy. In those cases in which it was unclear, follow-up phone calls were made to clarify that the positions perform essentially the same functions. After the raw data was collected and compiled, the salary ranges for six of the eight cities were reduced by 7% to be comparable to Saratoga because salaries in those cities are higher because the employees pay their ovum contribution to PERS. whereas in Saratoga, the City makes the employees' 7% PERS contribution. The results of the survey were then reviewed for discrepancies between positions that traditionally have been in parity with one another, and for relationships between supervisor/subordinate positions and for internal relationships between positions in broad classes that offer promotional opportunities such as the Maintenance Worker and Office Specialist classes. The survey indicates that Saratoga pays at or above the survev average for only' five of the forty positions surveyed. From a different perspective, Saratoga's average monthly salary was lower than each of the other eight cities surveyed. Following is the table of the average monthly salaries. Newark San Carlos Cupertino Menlo Park Morgan Hill Los Gatos Campbell Los Altos Saratoga $6,613 $6,012 $5.969 $5.595 $5.580 $5.448 $~.~0 $5.066 $4.897 Staff recommends that the new salary ranges become effective February 3, 2001. which is the first dav of the current pay period. A number of employees had employment anniversary dates that occurred since the City began the salaD' survey in November. but most of these employees have already had their annual evaluations completed. For those employees near or at the top of the range, potential raises may have been capped at the top step of the old salary range. Staff recommends that these employees also be allowed to participate in the new salaD' ranges. Therefore, it is recommended that employees with anniversal? date after November 1, 2000. whose potential raises were capped, be eligible to have their salaries adjusted in accordance with the new salary ranges beginning on FebruaI3' 3. FISCAL IMPACTS: With the implementation of the proposed salaD' ranges, the current salaD.' for twelve employees would be below the bottom of the new ranges. These employees would have to be brought up to at least the bottom of the new range. The cost of doing this is approximately S4,019 in salad~ per month, plus related benefits. Some of the required increases are in the Public Works Department, so salaD.' savings from the vacancy of the Assistant Engineer could be used to fund those increases. Increased development-related revenues can be used to fund the required salan.' increases for Community Development staff. Therefore, the impact to the General Fund is only 2 $11.357 ~br the remainder :of the fiscal year, and this ~afi be funded by using sales tax revenues which are higher than originally budgeted. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Implementation of amendments to the City's salaD' ranges would be delayed, possibly exacerbating employee turnover that the City is experiencing, and making it more difficult to fill crucial positions. ALTEI~NATIVE ACTION(S): Ci~' Manager to return to the City Council with further analysis of the salary survey. FOLLOw UP ACTION(S): Direct staff to implement the salau' adjustments pursuant to the salaD.' survey. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Nothing additional. ATTACHMENT: Resolution.Adopting Amendments to Memorandum of Understanding between the City and the Saratoga Employ'ees Association (SEA) Resolution Adopting Amendments to Letter of Understanding between the City and the Saratoga Management Organization (SMO) Resolution Making Adjustments to Fiscal Year 2000'01 Budget RESOLUTION NOi A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SA1L4,TOGA AMENDING A MEMOIL~,NDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE SA1L4,TOGA EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, FURTHER AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 85-9 AS AMENDED, ADJUSTING SALARIES AND BENEFITS FOR NON-MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES WHEREAS. the CiD, of Saratoga, through its designatad representatives and pursuant to state law. has met and conferred with the organized employee representative association, the Saratoga Employees Organization (SEA), through its designated representatives, concerning proposals for modifications and changes to salaries, benefits and other matters; and WHEREAS, the representatives of the City and SEA have-reached an:understanding regarding changes in salaries, benefits and other matters for the period July 1. 1999 through June 30. 2001. for employees represented by the SEA, all of which are specified in a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) dated July 1, 1999, to which reference is made for further particulars; and WHEREAS. the City and SEA have agreed to certain amendments to said MOU as set for the in Exhibit "A": and NOW. THEREFORE. BET IT RESOLVED that the terms and conditions of the Letter of Understanding between the City and SEA, dated July. 1, 1999. are hereby amended bv incorporating therein Exhibit "A" attached hereto. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Saratoga Cit(- Council held on the 7th DAY OF FEBRUARY. 2001. by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: John Mehaffey, Mayor Cathleen BOyer, City Clerk RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING A LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY AND THE SARa, TOGA MANAGEMENT ASSOCIATION, FURTHER AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 85-9 AS AMENDED, ADJUSTING SALARIES AND BENEFITS FOR MANAGEMENT EMPLOYEES WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga, through its designated representatives and pursuant to state law. has met and conferred with the representative organization, the Saratoga Management Organization (SMO), concerning proposals for modifications and changes to salaries, benefits and other matters: and WHEREAS, the representatives of the City and SMO have reached an understanding regarding changes in salaries, benefits and other matters for the period July 1. 1999 through June 30, 2001. for employees represented bv the SMO. all of which are specified in a Letter of Understanding (LOU) dated July 1.1999. to which reference is made for further particulars: and WHEREAS. the City and SMO have agreed to certain amendments to said LOU as set for the in Exhibit "A": and NOW. THEREFORE.-BET IT RESOLVED that the terms and conditions of the Letter of Understanding between the City and SMO. dated July 1. 1999. are hereby amended bv incorporating therein Exhibit "A" attached hereto. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Saratoga City Council held on the 7th DAY OF FEBRUARY. 2001. bx' the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN': ATTEST: John Mehaffey, Mavor Cathleen Borer. City Clerk AdHENDMENT TO LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE CITY .~ND SARATOGA MANAGEMENT ORG.~NIZATION Salad, Ranges. Ihe Ci~, Co~cil ~d SMO a~ee with the reco~endation of consult~t Geoffiey Rot~ to sun, ey a universe of comp~able cities b~ed on population, proximiD,~to S~atoga ¢oth in te~s of dist~ce and co--ute time) ~d size ~&/or fo~ of gove~ent, ~d concluded that that following ei~t cities represent the best universe to sum~ey to a~ain statistically me~ing~l data: Los Altos Los Gatos Menlo Park Morgan Hill San Carlos Campbell Cupertino Newark Through analysis of survey results and internal pafiW issues, the top of each classification salary range was set. The bottom was set 35% 28% below the top of each range. Not withstanding the above, it is a~eed that effective Februal3, 3, 2001, the salaD, range for each position shall be as follows: Public Works Director Community Development Director Administrative Sen'ices Director Recreation Director $7,555 - $9,671 per month $7,555 - 59,671 per month S7,555 - $9,671 per month $6,955 - S8,902 Per month EXHIBIT A - RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY' COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARa, TOGA MAKING APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENTS TO THE. FISCAL YEAR 2000/01 BUDGET WHEREAS. the City CoUncil adopted'Resolution No 00L38 adopting the budget for Fiscal Years 2000-01 and 2001-02 on June 21, 2000; and WHEREAS, subsequent to the adoption of said Resolution, the City Manager has recommended further changes to the Civ,."s budget; and WHEREAS. the City wishes to adopt a new salary range schedule, pursuant to the results of the salaD' survey performed in early 2001 :and WHEREAS. the Ciw has estimated the immediate cost of implementing the new salary ranges is approximately S3,863 monthly ($4,268 including benefits) for a total cost for the period from Februal?- 3. 2001 to June 30. 200-1-of approximately $15,967, of vchich 11.357 is frOm the General Fund: and WHEREAS, sufficient funds are available by using higher than anticipated development revenues and sales tax revenues: and WHEREAS. the City Council has considered the recommendations of the Ciw Manager and believes that implementing these further changes will be in the best interests of the City. NOW. THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby adopts the new salaD' range schedule, pursuant to the results of the salarx: survey performed in early 2001. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the new salary ranges become effective February 3, 2001. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED. that employees with anniversan' date afte3 November 1. 2000. whose potential raises were capped, be eligible to have their salaries adjusted in accordance with the new salaD' ranges beginning on February 3. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED. the City Council of the Cit.',' of Saratoga hereby resolves to increase the appropriations for salar,' and benefits. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the above adjustments to the CiB' of Saratoga's Fiscal Year 2000-01 budget will be made using the following entries: ~>0-4010-~4_--10.01 _->0-401 ~-_4~.-10.01 250-401 ~-4~:-01.00 Zoning Administration-Salaries Inspection Services-Salaries Building Permit Revenues Expenditures (Debit) 2.825 522 Revenues (CrediO 260-5015-552-10.01 Storm Water-Salaries 260-5005-444-03.00 Environmental Fees Revenues 423 423 001-4005-542-10.01 Advance planning-Salaries 001-3035-422-03.00 Encroachment Permit Revenues 840 840 001-1015-511-10.01 001-1040-513-10.01 001-1030-511-10.01 001-1045-513-10.01 001-1060-513-10.01 001-2010-522-10.01 001-a0a0->a,-10.01 001-1040-412-01.00 City Commissions-Salaries Financial Management-Salaries City Clerk-Salaries Human Resources-Salaries Facilities Maintenance-Salaries Code Enforcement-Salaries Parks/Open Spaces-Salaries Sales Tax Revenues 1.194 3.816 3,581 674 815 522 755 11.357 The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adoPtedi at a regular meeting of the Saratoga City Council held on the 7th day of FebruaD', 2001. by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: John Mehaffey, May'or Cathleen Borer. City Clerk SA1LATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: FebruaD' 7, 2001 ORIGINATING DEPT: Community Development PREPARED BY: /~-~ ~ ~ AGENDA ITEM: CITY MANAGER: // DEFT. HE D [ SUBJECT: Azule Crossing RECOMMENDED ACTION: Review pro~ess to date to determine if further action is necessaD, at this time. STATUS: The issues raised in Jeffrey J. Walker's January 23rd e-mail to the City fall into two categories. 1. Lack of compliance with conditions of approval. Conditions were imposed that are yet to be completed. Based upon discussions with Mr. Walker and the property owners' representatives for Azule Crossing and Saratoga Square, there seems to be agreement as to what these conditions are. The problem is that frustration over the lack of follow through and timely compliance has resulted in loss of credibility and mistrust. These conditions include: a. Replacement of parking spaces adjacent to the residential development that were displaced due to the residential construction. b. Reduction in the intensity of the si~ illumim/tion. c. Completion of the landscape strip along the west and north side parking. d. Installation of security lighting along the rear of the east parking area, so that the illumination provided by the signage are not used in lieu of security lighting. e. Re-installation of the privacy louvers removed from the second stoD' of Saratoga Square. 2. Improvements that have been installed in accordance with approved plans that are a source of continuing concern to Mr. Walker. Mr. Walker was apparently unaware that a permit had been issued on October 6, 2000, (Attachment A) for the signs that currently exist on the property and was deeply disturbed that this had occurred, as he had expected an opportunity to make his concerns known at a public forum before the permit was issued. He felt that such signage was in excess of that which the Code permits and was not in keeping with the image Saratoga should project. Although compliance with the conditions of approval will make the signs less obtrusive, to the extent that the applicant is in compliance with the approved plans, the City is not in a position to require changes. REPORT SUMMARY: Status: The following conditions have been or are in the process of being implemented. Saratoga Square Installation of the privacy louvers is to be completed by the tenant of Saratoga Square by Saturday, FebruaD' 3rd. If it is not installed according to this schedule, I will send a letter to the Board of Directors of the Saratoga Square Condominium Association, who will install the louvers on the tenant's behalf. In this case, it will take 2 to 3 weeks to order and install the louvers. If such a letter is necessaD,, copies will be distributed to the City Council on FebruaD' 7th. Azule Crossing In a letter dated January 26~h, (Attachment B) the owner's representative, Dennis Griffin, stated that the wattage has been reduced from 200 watts per sign to 40 watts per bulb, for a total of 80 watts per sign. Contrary to the information in Mr. Griffin's letter, the individual responsible for maintenance for the Griffin Company advised us on Februa~' 1s:, that there were two bulbs of 95 watts each in the sign boxes, for a total of 190 watts (Attachment C). ' In a subsequent conversation with the Griffin Company they confirmed that this information is correct. In addition, City staff conducted a spot check and verified that 95 watt bulbs are currently installed. In a later conversation with Dennis Griffin (while he was still out of State), he indicated that he had been misinformed, but would see to it upon his return (Saturday, February 3rd) that the intensity of the illumination is reduced. I will have an update for the February 7th Council meeting. 3. Mr. Griffin advised that the lighted signs are tumed off at 9 pm, now that security lights are in place. The following interim solutions have been implemented. Azule Crossing 4. The temporaD, chain link fence separating the commercial project from the residential project has been moved back toward the property line and most of the parking spaces that were displaced by construction are available and in use. (/he excavation for the trench for the retaining wall is done and permits were issued for construction of the wall.) 5. Freestanding temporaD, security lighting has been installed and chained to the fence. I will work with Dennis Griffin upon his return for the purpose of preparing a specific program for permanent solutions to the outstanding issues and will provide Council with an update at the February Th Council meeting. BACKGROUND: In an email dated Januaw 2yd,(Attachment D) Jeffrey Walker raised the following issues: Azule illuminated sign boxes. The signs facing his property are annoying and do not represent the desirable image for Saratoga. The condition requiring a reduction in the intensity of the illumination is yet to be implemented, which would make the signs less obtrusive. Mr. Griffin has indicated that the signs are now turned off at 9 pm. Wth respect to the image the signs represent, if the Council feels that they do not project the desired image for Saratoga, then the matter should be forwarded to the Planning Commission to explore and recommend changes to the City's sign code. Saratoga Square privacy louvers removed. If the tenant has not installed the signs by Saturday, FebruaD, 3rd, I will write a letter to the President of the Saratoga Square Condominium Association advising him of the situation. He has assured me that upon receipt of such a letter, the Association will order the material and install it at the tenant's expense. His property manager estimated that if new louvers must be ordered, it will take about two weeks, plus a few days for the installation. Parking spaces at Azule Crossing is now down to 17. Mr. Walker estimates that the existing project requires 50.5 parking spaces, pointing out that only 17 spaces were available (which has created problems of access to his driveway because of on street parking) and that "currently, there is no handicapped parking." A field check indicates that with the temporaD, fence moved back, there are 27 spaces available on site and in use. James Walgren advised me in a phone conversation that a certain amount of disruption was anticipated during construction and in separate conversation, Mr. Walker said that some disruption was understandable, but it should be for a finite period. Mr. Walker also indicated that the project was approved at 80 spaces. A review of the plans on file show a total of 90 spaces to be provided on site and along the railroad easement, 23 of which are to be compact spaces and two of vchich will comply with .ADA requirements. The remainder of Mr. Walker's letter recounts the histoD' of the events, where assurances were given, but where there was little or no follow-through. Rather than to try. to unravel past events or pinpoint blame, staff is focusing on what must be done to restore credibility by demonstrating tangible progress and specific timelines to implement the outstanding conditions. FISC.M_. IMPACT: None CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: None ALTERNATIXT ACTION: None proposed at this time FOLLOW-UP ACTION: Overseeing implementation of remaining conditions. ADVERTISING~ NOIICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Communication with complainant and parties responsible for performance. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Sign Permit Attachment B: Attachment C: Attachment D: Letter from Dennis Griffin Letter from Planner Mark Connolly Letter from J.J. Walker Incorporated October 22, 1956 October 6, 2000 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE · SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 · (408) 865-1200 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Even Ba.~e- Stan Bcgcs~a~ .'on~ Menaffey .%:c.< S:re:: Dennis E. Griffin 12362 Saratoga- Sunnyvale Road Saratoga, California 95070 RE: Azule Crossing Sign Permit Dear Mr. Griffin: Your sign permit is hereby approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. Signs shall be constructed per exhibit "A". 2. The illumination of the rear-elevation and the one Seagull Avenue side rear side-elevation sigmas shall be turned off evew evening by no later than 9:00 pm. 3. Within 30 days of receiving this permit, the illumination intensi~' of all of the building's signs shall be reduced by one-half. Please call me at 868-1232 if you have questions. Sincerely. ~2~maes Wa _I~-ren, A_ICP Communi~' Development Director -- ATTACHMENT A 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE · SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 · (408) 868-1200 Incorporated October 22, 1956 October 6, 2000 Scott Ward Classic Communities 1068 East Meadow Circle Palo Alto, California 94303 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Evan Baker Stan Bogos~an doh,'~ Mehafley N,c~( Strett Ann Waltonsm..~!h RE: Azule Crossing Project Dear Scott: As you know from your attendance at the October 4 City Council meeting, the Council was xx411ing to rdax the Azule Crossing phasing schedule that I had proposed. Phasing x`,511 now be required to be completed as follows: · The commercial building must be permitted before the CitT' v¥511 release the residential permits. · The last one of the twentT homes to be completed xxdll be not be finaled for occupancy until the commercial project is completed. · No project improvement bonds `,`,-421 be released until the commercial project is completed. Staff ,,,,,ill also monitor the project to make sure that reasonable progress is being made on the commercial project to ensure its completion coincides with the completion of the homes. Please call me at (408) 868-1232 if you have questions. Sincerelv,, ~fi~n, A~71CP Communit7 Development Director C: Dennis E. Griffin 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE · SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 · (408) 868-1200 Incorporated October 2':), 1956 PLAN.,m,'ING SERVICE REQUEST FEE: COUNCIL MEMBERS: Eva'~ BaKe' Start Bogosla~ .~c~ Menaffey &':=k. Sire;: A~ Wagons.~:t.'. DATE SUBMITTED: RECEIPT NO. L?-L: : ~/ ( ) DESIGN REVIEW ( ) TENTATIVE 1VL~tP APPROVAL ( ) ADMINISTRATIVE DESIGN REVIEW ( ) BUILDING SITE EXEMPTION ( ) VARIANCE .APPROVAL ( ) LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT ( ) USE PEILMIT .~PROVAL ( ) SITE MODIFICATION ( ) TEMPORARY USE PEmMIT ( ) GENEKAL PLAN AMENDMENT ( ) SECOND UNIT PERMIT ?~' ( tdGN PER.MIT ( ) ZONING ORDINANCE AMENDMENT ( ) EN%qRON~{ENTAL ASSESSMENT ( ) FENCE/SOU.%T)WALL PERMIT ( ) GEOLOGIC REVIEW ALWHORIZATION ( ) ADMINISTILATIVE STRUCTURE PERMIT ( ) HORTICL-LTL~P~AL REVIEW ALTHORIZATION ) MODIFICATION OF APPROVED PROJECT ) EXTENSION OF APPRO%,~ED PROJECT ( ) HERITAGE PRESERVATION RE\qEW ( ) SANTA CLARA COU.'NTY FIRE DEPARTMENT* ( ) SARATOGA FIRE DISTRICT* RECEI~'ED BY: ~_ ~ .ADDRESS OF PROJECT: l..a ~ t % ¢" ..~, ,c _ --,: ,. ,_3: ii-:. _ :c~ .;-,-~t. }t- ii,i ~, ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO. ~.C'~:'--"~5-OC'i NAME OF LEGAL PROPERTY OWqNER: O~A,'NER'S MAILING ADDRESS: AGENT'S NAME: i' , PHONE: *Must provide separate c_heck payable to the applicable Fire District. P',nleO On rec,,,c~ed DaDer List the names, addresses (including zip code) and phone numbers of persons to receive copies of staff report and'or agenda, i.e.. applicant, architect, engineer, contractor: Provide a structures): brief description of the prOject (including square footage, existing and proposed uses and Is the residence hooked up to sewer, or proposed for hookup?. A;/A /? IMPORT.~NT PLEASE DO NOT SIGN THE FOLLOWING Ui~NTIL APPLICATION IS PRESENTED AT THE CITY OFFICES. . being duly sworn, deposes and says: That the facts, maps and documents submitted herewith are true, correct and accurate to the best of his:her knowledge and behef. If applicanon is gamed, the undersigned agees that the provisions of law. City and State. will be complied with and the con&nons, if an3'. upon which the application is ~anted. will be carefully observed. IN WITNESS WHEREOF. I hereunto set mv hand this day of .20 (Property owner or authorized agent*) Agent' s Name: Signature: Address: (Number & Street) Telephone No. Home: (City, State & Zip) Work: DONE BEFORE ME. Planning Commission. this day of for the Secretary of the City of Saratoga ,20 * Submit letter of authorization. PLANNER, CITY OF SARATOGA AGREEMENT FOR PA~,'MENT OF FEES FOR .~PPLICATION PROCESSING FOR CITY USE ONLY: Applicant Name Address of Project Copies to: Cia: Attorney Finance Issue Date File No. Applicant To BE COMPLETED BY _;M:~PLICANT: TO: City of Saratooa 13777 Fruit-vale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Project Description Phone: (408) 868-1200 I. (insert name of applicant) agee to ~av all personnel and related &rect and in&rect costs (including 100% of direct personnel costs for empio3Jee benefits and overhead) for review and processing necessary for the subject project, even if the application is withdrawn, noi approved, approved subject to conditions or modified upon approval. Applicant a=oTees to make a deposit(s) to be applied toward the above costs, in an amount and at such time as requested by the Commumtv Development Director or the CiD' Engineer. Applicant further a~ees that no Certificate of Occupancy will be issued for the pr~ect until all costs are paid. Payments are due and payable within 30 davs. Interest will accrue at the maximum legal rate on all costs unpaid 30 davs after billing, and the City is entitled to recover its costs, including attorney's fees. in coliecting unvaid accounts. Applicant a~ees to hold Ciw harmless from all 'costs and expenses, including attorney's fees. incurred by City or held to be the liabihtT of CiD' in connection with CiD,'s defense of its actions in anv proceeding brought in any State or Federal court challenging the CiD"s actions with respect to th~ apphcant's project. If applicant is not the properD' owner, applicant a~ees to pay such costs unless the prope,."tSC oxvner also signs this a~eement, in which case both the applicant and propenT owner shall be jointly liable for such costs. Name: Telephone: Address: (Number & Street) Signature of Applicant or Authorized Agent: Print Name: (Cit'3', State & Zip) CITY OF SARATOGA SIGN PERMIT FACT SHEET STAFF REVIEW p T - LAN~ING COMMISSION REVIEW PEtLMIT APPLICATION NO. Project Address: Legal Property Owner: .~'7-.4 ~1~ ~-I'T'c'5-~; 'aL'5, ~ -1 t.. Owner's Address: [O Telephone Number: ('home) %,5'....~ -~ 10t( (business) Zip .Agent's Name: Agent's Address: I;~ _9:6- ~ -%~",: '~z'._ ~'~,-~ (4 Telephone Number: t.{-C_.'~- ,_.6%~ - ~O:~D.'-/ Zip. ~ '~c.'-/o Current Zonin_o: C .[~ Site istreet)Frontage: 5~ £,i - ,~'~-m£c Existing Sign(s) for Subject Business: Locationi s ~: Size of Parcel : [ ,~ Building Depth: Sizel s) - Length: Height: Total Square Footage: ~"---' Materials: Illumination: Previous Design Review. Variance or Sign Program Files: Signage to be removed, if any: l'~ [-}'xX.._ J: lnformatiomSIGN Fact Sheet 1/99 Proposed Sign: Sizelsi - Length: ~t_ (/, (',-F-~' t~'}'-~: '~'~ Total Square Footage: Height: ~ Size of Letter:Logo: Background Color: Letter/Logo Colon s): Materials: Sign Support (Materials and Height): Proposed Sign Location: Type of Illumination: Existing Sign Program: Yes File No. J InformatiomSIGN Fact Sheet 1/99 REQUIREMENTS FOR SUBMITTED APPLICATIONS 7. 8. 9. The location and size of any existing or proposed buildings and structures on the site. Outlines of the structures and signs on adjacent properties. The location of off-street parking and loading spaces, including major points of entr, and exit for motor vehicles, where directional signs are proposed. The location of the proposed sign and its relationship to existing or proposed adjacent buildings and structures on the site. A scale drawing showing the size. height, dimensions and content of the proposed sign or sign structure and also indicating the colors and materials thereof. The location and size of all other existing signs on the site. If the sign is to be illuminated, the method, source and intensity of illumination. .Material and color samples to be used for the proposed signs. Such other information as the Conm~unitx- Development Director or the Plmming Commission max' require in order to determine whether the proposed sign will comply with the regulations and standards contained in this .Article. J ~Information~SIGN Requirements 1 ~99 October 2, 2000 imm HERELD AYRES Mr. James Wahlgren City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 RE: Signage Analysis at Azule Crossing Dear James, Attached is an analysis of the signage allowed and proposed for the Azuie Crossing Center, as requested. I evaluated each tenant and their respective store frontage and then calculated the allowable signage area based on .5 square feet of signage per linear foot of store frontage. The West Elevation consists of 3 signs. There are 2 - 8' x 18" self illuminated "can" signs and an externally illuminated 16' x 2' "AZULE CROSSING" sign. The proposed area for Tenant 1 exceeds the allowable but the total between Tenants 1 and 9 meet the requirement. The North and East Elevations consist of a total of 6 - 8' x 18" self illuminated signs with proposed areas not exceeding the allowable. Call if there are any questions. ,qcerely, CC: Dennis Griffin, The Griffin Company ............... .,,.~ .~ .~ 1i7. :remcr:. Ca iforn:a-gz539 10~2~00 SIGN AREA ANALYSIS AZULE CROSSING SARATOGA, CA I. WEST ELEVATION TENANT I FACING SARATOGA-SUNNYVALE TENANT 9 TOTAL II.NORTH ELEVATION TENANT I FACING SEAGULL TENANT 2 FACING SEAGULL TOTAL III. EAST ELEVATION TENANT 2 TENANT 3 TENANT 4 TENANT 5 FACING PARKING TOTAL STORE FRONTAGE 80 LF 32 LF 47 LF 34 LF 32 LF 20 LF 20 LF 32 LF ALLOWABLE SIGN AREA PROVIDED SIGN AREA 4O SF 16 SF 44 SF 12 SF 56 SF 56 SF 23.5 SF 17 SF 12 SF 12 SF 40.5 SF 24 SF 16 SF 10 SF 10 SF 16 SF 12 SF 12 SF 12 SF 12 SF 52 SF or- I'1 ~ ~ ! , I Sent By: The Griffin Co; 14082527465; Jan-26-01 14:28; Page 1/3 COMPANY: THE 12302 SARATOGA- SUNNYVALE ROAD SARATOGA, CA 9S070 www.thegriffincomoany.com (408) 252-8124 PAX (408) 2S2-7465 FACSIMIL£ TRANSMITTAL SHEET GRIF1;IN COMPANY DAT~: PHONE NUMB;R; TOTAl. NO. O1; ?AGE~ INCLUDING COVER; URGENT [] FOR REVIEW NOTE~/COMM~NTS: [] PLEASE COMMENT [~] PLF. ASE REPLY PLEASE RECYCLE ATTACHMENT B Sent By: The GPiffin Co] 14082527465; Jan-26-01 14:28; Tm GRIFFIN COMP~ 12302 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road Saratoga, CA 95070 wv*~'.theuriffincompanv.com (408) 252-8124 Fax(408) 252-7a65 January 26, 2001 City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Arm: Mr. Irwin Kaptan Interim Planning Director RE: Azule Crossing Center Mr. Kaplan, This is m response to a letter that the City of Saratoga received from Mr. Walker on January 22, 2001 regarding the Azule Crossing Center. Signage Illumination The signage was completed as per the signage permit that I received from thc City of Saratoga signed by Mr. James Walgren. In that permit, I agreed to turn offthe signs by 9:00 PM each night and reduce the wattage fi-om 200 watts per sign box to 100 watts per sign box. This was accomphshed as agreed. The sign box wattage was reduced to 40 watts per bulb for a total of 80 watts per sign, which is 20 watts less than what was requested. It was agreed between the City of Saratoga and myself, that for security purposes we would leave the signs on until 10:00 PM each night until I was able to install s_ecurity / parking lighting. In regards to extra lighting that Mr. Walker indicates that we just installed on the west sign of the building. This lighting was approved as indicated on the final plans approved by thc City of Saratoga. They light up the letters "Azul¢ Crossing". They axe low wattage, florescent bulbs, and arc only three as indicated on the construction drawing plans, again approved by the City of Saratoga. Security / Parking Lighting Thc security / parking lighting was installed on two different occasions. Both times they had to be taken down due to construction work of the adjacent property.. The parking has been in disarray because we are attempting to coordinate our construction at the same time of the housing project being constructed as per mandated by the City of Saratoga. If we were allowed to finish at a little later date than the housing project the parking situation would not be m disarray. I propose that I be allowed to wait until thc wall between thc properties is completed before installing the temporaxy power poles. Devcon~ the housing.contractor, has indicated to me that this should be completed sometime in February. At that time the temporary lighting poles can be installed without any further problems, subject to weather of course. Page 2/3 Sent BY: The Gr-iffi n Co; Two Azulc Cro~smg Center 14082527465; Jan-26-01 14:28; Page 313 Parking The t~mporary fence between thc t~vo properties has been moved from time to time by heavy construction and ditches being dug. This climirmtcs the extra parkiog while this is being completed. ' Now that this phase of construction has been completed, the tcmpor~ fence will bc moved closer to the property line and thc extra parking spaces will be in place. This would have b~n accomplished sooner but thc weather has delayed that portion of thc con$ffucton. For some mason thc City has it in their mind that we don't intent to conform or complete this project. Let me assure you again we have every intention to complete this project and abide with the building and planning depaxtme~ts of the City of Saratoga. Mx. Walker presented this letter as if we were thumbing our nose at the City of Saratoga~ This could not be further fi.om the tntth. My company has been associated with the City. of Saratoga for the last 25 years. I take pride when dealing with other communities around this State and respect their issues. I also take pride that I have integrity as a developer/Realtor in my working with various agencies. ' I knox,,, that issues have been stained between th~ City Council and the business community and particularly with this project. I think it is time to communicate the issues so we can move forward. I told Mr. Walker on many many occasions that my office is 60 feet t~om his house that he can stop in and talk with me any time. Any communications that you would like to have with me, or need further information, please cai1 me at 408/252-8027 or fax me at 408/252-7465 or e-mail me at denn/s~ffi~. Thank you very. much, CC: John Mehaffcy, Mayor Nick Streit, Vice Mayor Dave Anderson, City Manager Incorporated October 22. 1956 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE · SARATOGA. CALIFORNIA 95070 · (40S'! S6S-1200 COUNCIL MEMBERS: Febm~, 1, 2001 Azule Crossing RE: Commercial Building IAghting Situation I was asked by Irx~4n Kaplan to inspect the lighting wattages for the rear of the commercial building. I was able to get in touch xvith Bob Levis the maintenance superx4sor for The Griffin Company who is the property management company for the project. Mr. Levis informed me that they had the bulbs sx~4tched to a lower wattage than originally installed. The current bulbs are 95 watts each (190 total) per sign, which is the lowest bulb available in eight-foot len~hs per the manufacturer in Santa Clara, according to Mr. £ex4s. Building inspector Jim Suthefland and I did a site inspection on 2/1/01 at l:00pm in an attempt to have Staff veri~, this information. Unfortunately due to lack of equipment and ability to shut off the power to the lights, we were unable to verify lamp wattages. Mr. Lex4s later verified that there have been no light bulb changes since they reduced the bulbs from the original installation. MarkJ. Con.nolly City Pla~ner 408-868-1230 -- ATTACHMENT C Dave Anderson To: Cc: Subject: Walker JJ [jwalker@fjicl.com] Tuesday, January 23, 2001 3:03 PM 'cityman@saratoga.ca.us' 'sbogosian@aol.com'; 'mehaf@gedanken.com'; 'nstreit@cpa-online.com'; 'evansbaker@aol.corn'; 'Waltonsmith@home.com' A couple of outstanding Gateway Azule issues Dave Anderson, i would like to seek your assistance in following up with a number of ccncerns I have been working with the City on. Witk ~he departure of Mr. James Walgren, I fee! chat they may not be on anyone's list to monitor and progress. Here they are: !. Azule ZlluminaTed sign boxes. When the building remodel was compieced, new illuminated signs were installed all around ~he Azule Crossing building. Aisc, very recensiy, additional illuminated signs were installed on ~he West side of The building. Many of the signs facing ~he Eas~ and North illuminate my property and are very annoying. They do not represent the image of ~aratoga I believe we al! desire. 2. Saratoga Square upstairs window with privacy louvers removed. One second ssory w±ndow directly behind my properzy has its privacy louvers removed. Afser 5 months of asking, half of the louvers were re-installed. 2 still am requesting cha~ the re~a±nder be replaced. Without all the louvers being presenT, it offers no privacy ~hat was required as part of The original building permit. 3. Parking spaces aT Azule Crossing is now down to 17. ! am finding myself now having ~o enter my driveway and avoid parked vehicles along 5he sTreeT that belong ~o some of zhe Azule Crossing Tenants. On some occasions, i find the vehicles blocking my driveway by a number of feet. Since tkey currently have 10,112 square feet of retail space, believe chat requires 50.5 parking spaces. Also, currently, they have no handicapped parking. History of each issue: 1. Azule illuminated signage. ATTACHMENT D I have been working with James Walgren since June i, 2000 regarding the negative impact of the illuminated signage all around the Azule Crossing building. I identified serious impact it was having on my immediate property and its impact on all nearby residents. This included the noting of violation of over 7 different municipal code violations. This is all not To mention the upscale image that Saratoga would like to present. James Walgren did identify that a sign permit was required and none has been issued. On August 7tk, I sent a more detailed e-mail tc Mr. Bill Norton soliciting his help. On August 26th, ~ spoke with Mayor Stan Bogosian and he indicated there was no problem issuing a warning (followed by a citation) if i5 has been determined that the sign is in violation of the ordinance. I met with James Walgren and the property owner on the site September !st an~ clearly discussed my concerns with them. No outcome was reached a5 ~ha5 time. On OcTober 3rd, the City Council invited Mr. Dennis Griffin to the Council meeting and hammered out a deal where: 1) Within 30 days of 10/03, they will be installing security lights for the parking lots (facing away from the neighborhood. 2) Until ~ken, ~he lights will be off by 9:00 PM each night. ~ Dennis agreed ~o immediase!¥ reduce the wattage from 20O watts per sign box ~o i00 wa~s. Right now, nhe lights are all 200~ watts per sign box, they are still illuminated, more iiluminaned signage has been installed, they are flaunting the SaraToga Municipal Code in at least 7 areas, and they are very negatively impacning my property. 2. Privacy blinds / exterior louvers on 2nd ssory w±ndows of Saratoga Square. I also nosifie~ Mr. James Walgren regarding this violation on June 1st, 2000. ~ wanted ~he city to take action against a 5enann of the Saratoga Square commercial building because one of their windows is missing the privacy blinds. On August 7Tk, 2000, i queried Mr. James Wa!gren again. I met wish James Walgren Sepnember 1st and showed him the missing louvers. He agreed to resolve this problem for me. 2 On September 5th, Christina Ratc!iffe replied to me that the owners ,were unaware they were removed and w±22 resolve it immediately. ~ina asked to be notified if they are back up within the week. Razc~z~=e e-mailed me indicating On September 12zh, Christina ~ '~ that the property o%~ers are not being cooperazive. On October 16th, James Walgreen updated me that the office owners association was not aware of the problem. They assured James that they would have now ones fabricated and installed. On October 16th, James indicated that 5he unit o%~er has been directed to have them back up by the end of November or else the association will pay to have it done and bill the owner/tenans. On December 1st, i e-mailed James tc let him know that no action has been taken on the louvers. On December 12th, the tenant says he has the blinds in storage and will have them up by next Monday. the On December 17th, I e-mailed James ±ndfcating that only half of slats were re-insta!led...not acceptable. On December 12th, the office tenant association e-mailed James letting him know that the remainder of the louvers will take until sometime after the 1st of the year. 3. Parking spaces present at Azule Crossing I just recently mensioned tkis to Counci!person Ann Waltonsmith. She requested that I bring this up to the City Manager. The only reason for bringing this up is that I beieive this project is moving very slowly and the impact to the neighborhood is constansly growing. This might be one issue that can be used to encourage quicker remedy of their parking lot installation, parking lot lighting, etc. Thank you, Jeffrey J. Walker 20451 Seagull Way Saratoga (408) 517-8723 (408) 807-4240 (cell) 3 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 7, 2001 AGENDA ITEM: ORIGINATING DEPT: Administrative Services CITY MANAGER: / SUBJECT: Financial Reports for the Six Months Ended December 2000 RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Accept the mid-year financial report, adopt the attached Resolution making adjustments to the Fiscal Year 2000/01 budget, and accept the December Treasurer's report for the six months ended December 31, 2000. REPORT SUMMARY: The accompanying financial reports represent the revenues, expenditures and fund balances in all Citv funds for the six months ended December 31, 2000. The financial reports include actual revenues and expenditures at the mid-year point, as well as staff's mid-year projections. This report also makes recommendations for adjustments to the Fiscal Year 2000/01 budget to fund changes in programs and activities which were not appropriated in the original budget adopted bv the City Council in June 2000. FINANCIAL SUMMARY: Overall, revenues are higher than expected at this point in the annual cycle, and expenditures are slightly lower than budgeted. For the six months ended December 31. the Cit.-,' is in a positive financial condition when compared to the annual budgeted revenues and expenditures. Revenues General Fund revenues are about $700,000 higher than expected as of December 31. This is due to higher sales tax, transfer tax, construction tax. interest income, and motor vehicle license fees. as well as an unbudgeted one-time grant from the California Law Enforcement Equipment Program (CLEEP) that was approved in the Governor's budget. In other funds, development revenues continue to be higher than budgeted so far this fiscal year due to the continued active building environment. Revenues in all other funds remain approximately as anticipated. Expenditures General Fund expenditures are about S150,000 lower than anticipated as of December 31. with savings in manv of the program budgets. Other funds are very close to where the3: are expected to be. Fund Balance The General Fund balance is S10,673,291 as of December 31. 2000, and $17.748.555 for all funds combined. At this point, it is anticipated that the General fund balance will be approximately $3 million lower by June 30. 2001, assuming that the pavement management program will be completed by year end for nearly $2 million and capital projects funded by the General Fund will also be completed bv then. The fund balance for all funds combined will be about $5.5 million lower, again assuming that the pavement management expenditures and capital project funds that were budgeted for the year but not vet spent, will be spent by June 30. MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS Election Costs - The cost of the November election was higher than originally budgeted due to Measure G. The original budget for election costs was $9,500, but the actual costs totaled S 16.908. An additional $7,408 is requested. Contingency could be used to fund this amount. Green Valley Spring Clean-up Event - Last year, participation in the annual spring clean- up event was strong and it is expected to continue this year. $35,000 was originally budgeted, but the most recent estimates from Green Valley indicate a cost of $37.772. Since these are estimates, and the City is encouraging participation in the program, an additional $5.000 is requested. Environmental fee revenues are higher than budgeted, so thev more than offset this additional amount. o California Law Enforcement Equipment Program - The state of California distributed to each city in California a minimum of $100.000 for high tech safety equipment. The City received $110.820 in September. The City and the SherifFs Office have jointly developed a list of equipment that they would like to purchase with these funds. The list of equipment which the City would like to purchase for its Code Enforcement function includes new code enforcement software, a server upgrade to support the powerful new software, two computers for the Code Enforcement and Public Safety Officers, a scanner and color printer, and two digital cameras. The equipment that the SherifFs Office would like to purchase includes replacement of eight handheld radar units, two laser radar guns, a speed monitoring awareness trailer, four desktop computer svstems for the West Valley email project, a laser measuring survey tool, an accelerometer, an LCD projector and laptop computer for presentations, portable digital scales, a crash data retrieval kit. and two laptop computers for use by the Traffic Accident Investigation unit. If approved, the City and the SherifFs Office will commence purchasing the equipment. Monthly_DecO0 2 Cit?,.' Council Meetings and Conferences - Several Council members have attended the League of California Cities conferences this year, which they have not done in the recent past. Only $500 was budgeted for conferences for the fiscal vear. based on historical activities, but approximately $2.400 has been spent so far this year. An additional $2,400 is recommended so as to remain within budget. Contingency could be used to fund this amount. Legal Services - An additional appropriation of $27,000 is requested in the Legal Services budget for fiscal year 200/01. $15,000 applies to routine legal services, and $12.000 applies to litigation services, primarily due to the West Valley College issues. Legal fees for the Vessing Road issue are charged directly to that project and are not reflected in these costs. Contingency could be used to fund this amount. Hakone Gardens Agreement - Pursuant to the agreement with Hakone Foundation, the follovdng changes need to be made to the Fiscal Year 2000/01 budget: a. City to pay the Foundation $100,000 to accomplish needed repairs in the first vear of the contract. b. City to pay 100% of Japanese Gardener's salary from October 18, 2000. estimated at 551,566 for the remainder ofthe fiscal year. c. City to repay $140,894 HUD loan, including interest, related to upgrading the Caretakers cottage in 1999 to low/moderate income housing. ($121.460 loan plus S19.434 interest). The cottage is no,,',' being converted into a visitor centeffgift shop/tea house, so the City must repay the HUD loan. Hakone ','`-ill repay the loan to the Ci~' over 20 years, at $12,284 per year. d. City to pay to relocate the tenants of the Caretaker's Cottage as required by HUD. For Fiscal Year 2000/01, the cost is estimated at approximately S18.500. which includes the monthly rent differential between market rate rent and current rent. relocation costs and a relocation consultant. e. CiLv to pay for inspection of the park building for 53.565. Staff recommends that the funding source for the Hakone costs is the General Fund balance. This is essentially a capital project funded by the General Fund. Salao- SurYey - $5,000 for Rothman and Associates. Contingency could be used to fund this amount Improvements to Computer Room - The computer room was built about five years ago in the basement of City Hall in the records storage room. Improvements are needed to the computer room to better regulate temperature, improve ventilation and expand its size to move computer equipment out of crowded staff offices and into the computer room. The City has received a quote for the work from a local contractor for $3,500. Contingencies could be used to fund this work. Vessing Road - An appropriation for Vessing Road must be established for this year. Due to the uncertainty of how the project would progress, a budget was not developed for the Monthly_DecO0 3 original budget last spring. Staff estimates that the project could cost up to $620,000. including street and water system improvements, legal fees. land costs, and miscellaneous engineering and inspection costs. 10. Continuing Education for CiD' Clerk - $1,200 in training for the City Clerk to receive the Certified Municipal Clerk certification. Contingency could be used to fund this amount. 11. Furniture - To address concerns as a result of an ergonomic study, the Administrative Services Department required approximately $2.500 in ergonomically correct equipment. primarily chairs and computer kevboard trays. Contingency could be used to fund this amount. 12. Altrans Agreement - The CiD' Council recently signed an agreement with Altrans. which calls for payments to Altrans which are higher than originally budgeted. The payments to Altrans are fully funded by grant revenues from a Clean Air grant, and the City receives 5% of the grant revenues to cover administrative costs. Budgeted Revenues from Clean Air Grant 324.294 5% Administrative costs to the City (16.215) Net Appropriation to Altrans 308.079 A~reement Ad}ustment 338,947 14.653 (16.947) {'732) 322.000 13.921 13. Altrans Invoices - The Ci~' received two invoices from Altrans in August and JanuaD~ for a survey project ($9,499) and the Bicycle Safety Education program ($7,397). These invoices were paid to Altrans since the Ci~' received Clean Air grant reimbursements in the same amounts. 14. Web Site Improvements - The City developed a web site a little more than a vear ago, and would now like to design some further improvements to make it more current, user-friendly and interactive. Before improvements are made. staff will perform a needs assessment, and will hire a contractor to make the modifications. The improvements are estimated to cost no more than $25,000. Contingency could be used to fund this amount. 15. Debt Service Administrative Costs - In August, the City changed trustees who administer several debt service funds because the former trustee neglecting to inform the City of two separate debt service payments. (Fortunately. staff did not miss the payments.) The initial set-up fees for the new trustee were not budgeted. An additional $700 is requested for trustee fees in the existing Library Debt Service fund. There is sufficient fund balance in this debt sen, ice funds. FISCAL IMPACTS: These changes to the Fiscal Year 2000/01 budget would have the following fiscal impacts: Monthly_DecO0 4 Uses of Funds Increase in General Fund Appropriations Increase in Capital Project Appropriations (Vessing Road) Increase in Other (Non-General) Fund Appropriations Total Uses of Funds $499,353 620.000 36.517 $1.155.870 Sources of Funds Increase in General Fund Revenues (CLEEP) Use of General Fund Contingency Use of General Fund Balance (Hakone) Increase of Capital Project Assessment Revenues (Vessing Road) Increase of Other ~on-General) Fund Revenues Use of Other (Non-General) Fund Balance (Debt Service Funds) $110.820 74.008 314.525 620.000 35.817 70O Total Sources of Funds $1,155,870 The net impact to the General Fund balance this fiscal year is the $314.525 for the estimated Hakone expenditures. However. it is estimated that General Fund revenues will continue to be higher than budgeted by more than this amount for the current year. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT ACTING ON RECOMMENDED MOTION(S): The expenditures for Fiscal Year 2000/01 would exceed budgeted appropriations by year end. ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): Instruct staff to return to the Cit.',' Council with revised recommendations, or wait until the books are closed after June 30 to make the budget increases as necessary. FOLLOW UP ACTION(S): Record budget adjustments into the City's Fiscal Year 200/01 budget. Accept and file the reports. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Nothing additional. ATTACHMENTS: Resolution Making Adjustments to the Fiscal Year 200/01 Budget Mid-Year Financial reports for December 2000. Treasurer's Report for December 2000. Monthly_DecO0 5 i RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SA1L~TOGA MAKING APPROPRIATION ADJUSTMENTS TO THE FISCAL YEAR 2000/01 BUDGET WHEREAS. the City Council adopted Resolution No 00-38 adopting the budget for Fiscal Years 2000-01 and 2001-02 on June 21, 2000; and WHEREAS, subsequent to the adoption of said Resolution. the City Manager has recommended further changes to the City's budget; and WHEREAS. the City Council has considered the recommendations of the City Manager and believes that implementing these further changes will be in the best interests of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, the Ciw Council of the Ci~' of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the above adjustments to the City of Saratoga's Fiscal Year 2000-01 budget will be made using the following entries: 001-1030-511-40.10 001-1010-511-50.02 260-5005-552-40.10 260-5005-444-03.00 001-2010-622-60.04 001-2015-623-60.04 001-1040-413-06.00 001-1005-511-40.04 001-1010-511-50.02 001-1025-511-40.11 001-1025-511-40.12 001-0000-330-01.00 001-3030-532-40.71 O01-aOaO-~a_-lO.O1 001-3030-532-40.71 001-3030-532-40.10 O01-~OaO-_~-40.10 001-0000-330-01.00 001-1045-513-40.10 001-1010-511-50.02 001-106_-61~-60.02 001-1010-511-50.02 Expenditures (Debit) City Clerk-Contract Sen'ices 7.408 Contingency Integrated Waste Mgmt-Contract Services 5,000 Solid Waste Surcharge Code Enforcement-Equipment 35.000 Police Services-Equipment 75,820 Other Revenues-CLEEP City Council-Meetings and Conferences 2.400 Contingency Legal Services-Legal Service 15.000 Legal Services-Litigation 12.000 General Fund Balance Parks/Open Space-Interagency (Hakone) 100,000 Parks/Open Space-Salaries (Gardener) 51.566 Parks/Open Space-Interagency (CDBG) 140.894 Parks/Open Space-Contract (Hakone) 18.500 Parks/Open Space-Contract (Hakone) 3,565 General Fund Balance Human Resources-Contract Services 5,000 Contingency Mgmt Info Systems-Bldg Improvements 3.500 Contingency Revenues (Credit) 7.408 5,000 110.820 2,400 27.000 314,525 5,000 3,500 001-9010-622-40.10-9901 001-9010-622-40.11-9901 001-9010-622-40.13-9901 001-9010-622-40.16-9901 001-9010-622-40.75-9901 001-9010-622-60.01-9901 001-1040-453-01.00 001-1030-511-40.01 001-1010-511-50.02 001-1040-613-60.06 001-1010-511-50.02 150-5010-552-40.70 150-3005-431-03.00 150-5010-552-40.70 150-3005-431-03.00 001-1065-513-40.10 001-1010-511-50.02 400-8015-733-70.03 400-0000-330-01.00 Capital Prqiects-Vessing Rd-Contract 260.000 Capital Projects-Vessing Rd-Legal 120.000 Capital Projects-Vessing Rd-Engineering 13.000 Capital Projects-Vessirig Rd-Inspection 12.000 Capital Projects-Vessing Rd-Bond Issue 165.000 Capital Projects-Vessing Rd-Land 50.000 Special Assessment Revenues 620.000 City Clerk-Training 1.200 Contingency 1.200 Financial Management-Office Fum-'Eqpt 2.500 Contingency 2.500 Congestion Mgmt-Grants to Others 13.921 Street Maint-Clean Air Grant Revenues 13.921 Congestion Mgmt-Grants to Others 16.896 Street Maint-Clean Air Grant Revenues 16.896 Mgmt Info Svstems-Contract Services 25.000 Contingency 25.000 Library Debt Service-Admin Costs 700 Library Debt Service-Fund Balance 700 The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at an adjourned meeting of the Saratoga City Council held on the 7th da.-,' of Februa~', 2001, bv the following vote: AYES: NOES' ABSENT: ABSTAIN: John Mehaffey. Mayor ATTEST: Cathleen Boyer. City Clerk CITY OF SARATOGA SIX MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2000 PERCENT OF YEAR ELAPSED = 50.0% FUND BALANCE I .FL.'ND Fi3,1} DESCRIPTION l C.7:: GENERAL F L'N1) i';,3=:IlS REPLACEMENT FU\'D PERS RETiP, ENLENT FUND TOTAL GENERAL FUND i SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS: ~,=-0COPS SUP L.-X~.~ E\]ZORCEMENT ! !: 2TR_AFF~C S ~ETY SRF i~: STREETS&ROADS SIC= TRANS DEV ACT SRF-CAP PROI ! 170 HILLSIDE REPAIR SRF : 8'; LA_\nDSCAPE;LGTNG SRF EN%~RON~:IENTAL PRG SRE ] 2:.7. HOUSING & COS&M DEV SRF F&CILiTY OPS SRE THEAIER ICK SRCHG SP, F TOIAL SPECIAL REx,'. FUNDS ! CAPITAL PROJECT FL.~DS: ]3 :';P.-M,'R~. DE\'ELOPMENT !_:2,;LmP~&RY EX~.&N S ION TOTAL SPECLAL REX. Ft~,'DS DEBT SERVICE FUN]}: LIBR-~RY BON'DS DEBT S\ C AGENCI~ F[~,'DS: a23 LEONARD ROAD DEBT S'-. C '-2-- C & T\ TRUSTFL'ND -3': P&RKING D!ST =2 DEBT S\ C 7.:':3PARKING DiST =3 DEBT SVC i S)C DEPOSIT AGENCY FUND 99.5' SARATOGA PUBL FIN AG'qCY TOTAL AGENCY FUNDS i TOTAL ALL FL:N~)S AL'DUi'ED L-.~AL'DITED BALA-NCE YEAR TO DATE ADJUSTS & BALANCE JULY I. 200O REVEN'L'E EXPEN]MTL~IE TRANSFERS DEC.31.20O0 9.055.620 4.043.~29 2.'~4.230 298.6~3 10.6z3292 i¢7.9z0 68,783 ;.358 905 :20.ASS 559.602 AUDITED PROJECFED PROJECTED PROJECTED BALANCE YEAR TO DATE ADJUSTS & BALANCE JI_'L5 1. 2000 ~EVENL'~E [XPENDIT['R~E ~RANSFER_ ~ ~['NE 30. 200~1 _ .. 3a 9!7 162.37~ 2.143.964 30,684 349.411 162374 1.987,611 93.60~ 92.188 1.450 9.085.620 ?.531.184 5.721.649 13.181.889i 7.el3.266 ....... ] ~ i.O£:O 007 I 0~0.0O0 i I 363 4.2C£: 932.923 207,631 183.431 957.123 $ 14.Z32.834 S 16.z78.148 $ 19.241205 $ S 12.269.w7 · ~'01329 ~ 33i 3! ! i !.~cs : 5us i i 932.923 2.372 162.923 772.372 $ 14.'~32.834 $ 8.863.6Z$$ ~.847.9S~ 10i $ 17.S48.555~ TITLE REVENUE RECAP BY FUND 001 GENERAL FUND SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS: 100 COPS-SLESF FUND 110 TRAFFIC SAFETY F-D'ND 150 STREETS & ROADS SRF 160 T1L~NSPORT DEVELOP ACT SRF 170 HILLSIDE REPAIR FUND 180 LANDSCAPE & LIGHTING FUND 250 DEVELOPMENT FUND 260 ENVIRONMENTAL PROGRAM FL.~D 270 HOUSING 8: COMMU'NITY DEV FL~ND 290 RECREATION FL~'D 292 FACILITY OPERATIONS FUND 293 THEATER TCK SRCHG SRF TOTAL SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS 310 400 CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS: PARK DVLPMNT CAP PR3 FND DEBT SERVICE FUND: LIBRARY BOND DEBT SRV FND TOTAL AGENCY FUNDS 420 LEONARD RD DEBT SER IUND 720 CA TV TRUST FL~ND 730 PRK DST#2 DBT SR/AGNCY FD 740 PRK DST#3 DBT SK;AGNCY FD 800 DEPOSITS AGENCY FUND 990 SAIL~TOGA PFA AGENCY FUND TOTAL AGENCY FUNDS TOTAL ALLFUNDS CITY OF SARATOGA SIX MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2000 PERCENT OF YEAR ELAPSED = 50.0% REv Nv£s FISCAL YEAR 2000-01 REVISED ESTLNLATED ORIGINAL BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET (if different) (if different) $ 7,531,184 70.128 153.500 5,096.627 97.234 6.088 177.954 1,508.200 547.546 262.928 782.300 125.000 25.000 5.096,627 5,096,627 YEAR-TO-DATE 12/31/00 12/31/00 ESTIMATE ACTUAL S 3340,598 S 4,043,229 100,000 100.000 37,500 40.497 2,751.941 2.768.384 2,644 2,517 36,875 46,214 754,000 !.076,428 275,240 284,404 1,500 254 306.250 305,819 62,500 58,380 12.500 10.890 (YTD) ACTUAL/ 12/~1 ESTIMATE 21.0% 0.0% 8.0% 0.6% -4.8% 25.3% 42.8% 3.3% -83.0% -0.1% -6.6% -12.9% 8,852,505 8,852,505 8,852,505 4,340,949 4.693,786 8.1% 93,150 38,813 30,684 -20.9% 93,678 93,677 93,607 -0.1% 11,700 4.200 171,731 20.000 2.100 2,372 13.0% 207,631 2,100 2,372 13.0% 16,778,148 16,778,148 16,778,148 $ 7,816,137 $ 8.863,678 13.4% DECEMBER2000\REVENUE Page 2 2/1/01 CITY OF SARATOGA SIX MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2000 PERCENT OF YEAR ELAPSED = 50.0% REVENUES TITLE GENERAL FUND 001 PROP TAX SECURED/LLNSECURED TEA ALLOCATION SALES TAX 1% SALES TAX PROP 172 TRANSFER TAX CONSTRUCTION TAX TRANS OCCUP TAX FRANCHISE FEES - PG&E FRANCHISE FEES - TCI FRANCHISE FEES - SJ WATER FRANCHISE FEES - GREEN VALLEY BUSINESS LICENSES CLEEP MOTOR VEHICLE LICENSE FEE OFF HIGI-D,VAY MV FEE HOPTR DISASTER RECOVERY OTHER REFUNDS & REIMBURSE FINES-FALSE ALARM FORFEITURES INTEREST RENTALS-CELL PHONE HAKONE RENT PASS THROUGH SALE OF ASSETS MISC. VEHICLE ABATEMENT ANLMAL LICENSES FUEL SALES GROL~'D MAINT PERMIT-ENC~MT. TOTAL GENE~ALFUND FISCAL YEAR2000~I ORIGINAL BUDGET REVISED BUDGET (if different) ESTINLATED ACTUAL (if different) 1,230,000 547,705 1,777,705 980,000 80.000 1,060,000 288,800 400,000 275.000 963,800 235,000 178.500 92,000 282,296 787,796 282,333 1,406,300 56O 15,700 YEAR-TO-DATE 12/31/00 12/31/00 ESTI.~LATE ACTUAL 678.500 $ 737.601 678,500 737.601 490,000 641.192 40.000 39,806 530.000 680,998 144,400 228,238 200,000 297,523 137.500 130,880 481.900 656,641 89,250 89,075 141.148 136,023 230,398 225,099 141,167 137,880 110,820 703,150 844,718 7.850 2.347 1.422.560 711,000 957.885 610.338 15,000 45,000 400,000 55.800 9,852 10,000 14,000 8,000 10,000 5,000 54,000 254.308 266,682 7.500 12,325 22,500 13,497 200,000 243,480 27.900 33.876 4.926 5,747 5,000 7,062 7,000 9,003 4,000 7,013 5,000 2,965 2,500 3,736 27,000 41,740 1,236,990 567,634 647,126 $ 7,531,184 $ 3340,598 $ 4,043,229 (YTD) ACTUAL/ 12/31 ESTIMATE 8.7% 8.7% 30.9% -0.5% 28.5% 58.1% 48.8% -4.8% 36.3% -0.2% -3.6% -2.3% -2.3% -70.1% 34.7% 4.9% 64.3% -40.0% 21.7% 21.4% 16.7% 41.2% 28.6% 75.3% -40.7% 49.4% 54.6% 14.0% 21.0% (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (5) (8) (4) DECEMBER2000\REVENUE Page 3 2/1/01 CITY OF SARATOGA SlX MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2000 PERCENT OF YEAR ELAPSED = 50.0% TITLE SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS: COPS-SLESF SP REV FD 100 SUPPL LAW ENFORCE TRAFFIC SAFETY SRY 110 REFU.~qDS & REIMB. CROSSING GUARD MATCH FINES-VEHICLE CODE TOTAL TRAFFIC SAFETY SRF STREETS & ROADS SRF 150 REFLLNDS & REIMB. ST HIGHWAY USER 2107.5 ST HIGHWAY USER 2106 ST HIGHWAY USER 2107 ST FHWA REIMB. ST 2105 S&H CODE TEA-21 CALTIL~NS-SARATOGA/SV RD. AB 434 CLEAN AIR GRANT MEASURE B TOTAL ST&RDS SRF TRANSPORT DEVELOP ACT SRF-CAP PROJ 160 TOTAL 'FDA HILLSIDE REPAIR SRF 170 INTEREST HILLSIDE STREET REPAIR TOTAL HILLSIDE REPAIR SRF LANDSCAPE/LGTNG SRF 180 PROP. TAX SPECIAL ASSESSMENT INTEREST TOTAL LANDSCAPE/LGTNG SRE DEVELOPMENT SRF 250 GEOLOGY REVIEW FEES ENGINEERING FEES PLAN~'NING FEES ARBORIST FEE MAP/PUB/OTHER SALES DOCUMENT STRG FEES PERMITS-BUILDING PE1LMITS-GRADING TOTAL DEVELOPMENT SRF FISCAL YEAR 2000-01 ORIGINAL BUDGET REVISED ESTIMATED BUDGET ACTUAL (if different) (if different) 70,128 3,500 150.000 153,500 140,835 6,000 150,744 270,325 1,404,000 193,095 224,082 2,006.000 324,294 377.252 364,835 364,835 1,180,000 1,180,000 5,096,627 5,096,627 5,096,627 97,234 800 5,288 6,088 73,750 102,204 2.000 177,954 65,000 60,000 350.000 60,000 2OO 13,000 900,000 60,000 1,508,200 YEAR-TO-DATE 12/31/00 12/31/00 ESTI.NLATE ACTUAL 100,000 100,000 37.500 40.497 37,500 40,497 294.039 319.321 6,000 6.000 62,810 61.375 112,635 107.942 80,456 81,614 2,006,000 2,006,000 190,000 186,131 2,751,941 2,768384 2.644 2.517 2,644 2,517 36.875 46.214 36,875 46,214 32,500 47,784 30,000 62,766 175.000 237,188 30.000 51,046 6,500 7,256 450,000 629,037 30.000 41,350 754,000 1,076,428 (YTD) ACTUAL/ 12/31 ESTI.NLATE 0.0% (9) 8.0% 8.0% 8.6% (10) 0.0% -2.3% -4.2% 1.4% 0.0% (11) -2.0% 0.6% -4.8% -4.8% 25.3% (1) (12) 25.3% 47.0% (4) 109.2% 35.5% 70.2% 11.6% 39.8% 37.8% 42.8% DECEMBER2000\REVENUE Page 4 2/1/01 CITY OF SARATOGA SlX MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2000 PERCENT OF ~'EAR ELAPSED = 50.0% REVENUES TITLE ENVIRNMNTAL PRG SRF ST REFUSE SURCHG AB939 ENVIRONMENTAL FEES TOTAL EN'VIRON PRG SRF HOUSING&COMM DEV SRF 270 HCD/CDBG/SHARP GRANTS INTEREST SHARP LOAN REPAYMENT TOTAL HOUSING/COMM DEV SRF RECREATION SKI: 290 FRIENDS OF WARN'ER HU'I-FON HOUS SPORTS LEAGUE FEES CAMP FEES EXCURSION FEES CLASS/SPECIAL EVENT COMM. CTR. SNACK BAR SALES REDWOOD SPORTS PRGM. TEEN SERVICES TEEN SNACK BAR SALES WAP~NER HU-FFON CONTRIBUTIONS TOTAL RECREATION SRE FACILITY OPS SRF 292 BUILDING RENT TOTAL FACILITY OPS SRE THEATER TCK SRCHG SRF 293 THEATER TCK SRCHG TOTAL SPECIAL REVENUE FL'NDS CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS PARK DVLPMNT CAP PRJ FND 310 PARK DEVELOPMENT FISCAL YEAR 2000-01 REVISED ESTI~LATED ORIGINAL BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET (if different) (if different) 30,479 517.067 YEAR-TO-DATE 12/31/00 12/31/00 ESTIMATE ACTUAL 15.240 14,803 260.000 269.600 547,546 275,240 284,404 259.928 3,000 1,500 254 262,928 1,500 254 10.000 32.000 131.300 100.000 425.000 1.500 30.000 51.000 1.500 782,300 125,000 125,000 5,000 5,000 20,000 28,962 25,000 34,691 50,000 45.828 174,250 164,944 15,000 12,995 17,000 13,400 306,250 305,819 ~2.500 58.380 62,500 58,380 (¥FD) ACTUAL/ 12/31 ESTI.~LATE -2.9% 3.7% 3.3% -83.0% .-83.0% 0.0% 44.8% 38.8% -8.3% -5.3% -0.1% -6.6% -6.6% 25,000 12.500 10.890 -12.9% 8,852,505 4,340,949 4,693,786 8.1% 93,150 38,813 30,684 -20.9% DECEMBER2000\REVENUE Page 5 2/1/01 CITY OF SARATOGA SlX MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2000 PERCENT OF YEAR ELAPSED = 50.0% TITLE DEBT SERVICE FUND: LIBRARY BOND DEBT SRV FND 400 PRINCIPAL INTEREST OTHER TOTAL LIBRARY BOND DEBT AGENCY FUNDS: LEONARD RD DEBT SER FUND 420 SERVICES (ASSESS DISTRICTS) CA TV TRUST FL.~D 720 INTEREST INCOME PRK DST#2 DBT SR/AGNCY FD 730 SERVICES (ASSESS DISTRICTS) PRK DST#3 DBT SR/AGNCY FD 740 SERVICES (ASSESS DISTRICTS) DEPOSITS AGENCY FUND 800 DEPOSITS SARATOGA PFA AGENCY FL.~D 990 INTEREST INCOME TOTAL AGENCY FUNDS G~ANDTOTAL FISCAL YEAR 2000-01 REVISED ESTINLATED ORIGINAL BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET (if different) (if different) 85,000 8,408 270 YEAR-TO-DATE 12/31/00 12/31/00 ESTI~LATE ACTUAL 85,000 85.000 8,407 8.407 270 200 (YTD) ACTUAL/ 12/31 ESTIMATE 0.0% 0.0% -25.9% 93,678 93,677 93.607 -0.1% 11,700 4,200 2.100 2,372 13.0% 171.731 20,000 207.631 2,100 2372 13.0% $ 16,778,148 16,778,148 16,778,148 $ 7,816,137 $ 8,863,678 13.4% REVENUE NOTES: (1) Property Taxes-Secured property tax paid in Deccmber/JanuaD' and April~tay. {2) Sales tax revenues are higher than originally budgeted. {3) Property lransfer taxes are higher than orginally budgeted due to the increase in real estate transactions. (4) Development Fees-Development activity remains higher than orginally budgeted. (5) Franchise Fees from PG&E and SJ Water received in April and February respectively. (6) State monies for California Law Enforcement Equipment Pro,am (CLEEP) (7) Motor Vehicle License fees are higher than orginally budgeted. {8) Interest income revenues are higher than originally budgeted. (9) State monies for COP pro,am received in October. (10) Streets&Roads Refunds&Reimb.-Iraffic Congestion Relief monies ($223,242) and Quito Road reimbursement ($95,234) received in October. (11) State of CA CALTRANS monies ($2,006.000) received in December 2000. (12) Assessment Revenues-Paid in December/January and ApriVMay. DECEMBER2000'-,REVENU E Page 6 2/1/01 CITY OF SARATOGA SIX MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2000 ' PERCENT OF YEAR ELAPSED = 50.0% EXPENDITURES 001 100 110 150 160 180 250 260 270 290 292 293 310 320 400 420 700 720 730 740 800 990 ORIGINAL TITLE BUDGET FISCAL YEAR 2000-01 REVISED BUDGET (if different) ESTI~LATED ACTUAL (if different) EXPENDITURE RECAP BY FUND YE.AR-TO-DATE 12/31100 12/31/00 ESTINLATE ACTUAL GENERAL FUND S 5,523,254 $ SPECLAL REVENUE FUNDS COPS SUP. LAW ENFORCEMENT 86,806 TRAFFIC SAFETY SRF 26,090 STREETS&ROADS SRF 5,654,413 TRANS DEV ACT SRF-CAP PROJ 169,200 LANDSCAPE.'LGTNG SRF 177,740 DEVELOPMENT SRF 1,646,522 ENVIRONMENTAL PRG SRF 621,380 HOUSING & COMM DEV SRF 191,806 RECREATION SRF 1,045,808 FACILITY OPS SRF 224,128 THEATER TCK SRCHG SRF 41,516 TOTAL SPECLAL REVENUE FL'-N CAPITAL PROJECTS FL'NDS: PARK DEVELOPMENT LIBRARY EXPANSION TOTAL SPECL~L REVENUE FL;N DEBT SERVICE FUND: LIBRARY BONDS DEBT SVC TOTAL AGENCY FLZNDS LEONARD ROAD DEBT SVC QUARRY CREEK PROJ ADM C.A. TV TRUST FUND PARKING DIST ~2 DEBT SVC PARKING DIST e3 DEBT SVC DEPOSIT AGENCY FUND SARATOGA PUBL FIN AGNCY TOTAL .AGENCY FUNDS TOTAL ALL FUNDS 5,721,649 5,878,258 S5,721,649 5,878,258 287,821 287,821 $ 2,899,452 $ 2,754,230 28,991 21,674 676,130 658,628 169,200 170,055 88,870 85,371 691,247 691,163 131,851 135,259 125,459 113,509 506,828 493,621 112,064 115,088 5,797 4,866 9,885,409 1,769,661 1,000.000 2,769,661 93,829 ' 11,700 171,731 10,205,269 2,037,027 3,037,027 10,205,269 2,037,027 3,037,027 2,536,438 2,489.235 190,000 187,037 165,000 162,374 355,000 349,411! 93,829 92,158 8,500 8,331 149,000 154,592 O'TD) ACTUAL/ 12/31 ESTI~LAIE -5.0% -25.2% -2.6°,o 0.5% -3.9% 0.0% 2.6% -9.5% -2.6% 2.7% -16.1% -1.9% -1.6% -1.6% -1.6% -f.s% -2.0% 3.8% 183,431 157,500 162,923 3.4% S 18,455,584 $ 19,241,205 $19,241,205 $ 6,042,219 $ 5,847,957 -3.2% DECEMBER2000'EXPEND. Page 7 2/1:01 CITY OF SARATOGA SIX MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2000 PERCENT OF YEAR ELAPSED -- 50.0% EXPENDITURES 001 GENERAL FLrND TITLE 1005 CITY COUNCIL 1010 1015 1020 1025 1030 1035 1040 1045 1050 1060 1065 1070 2005 2010 2015 2025 3030 3035 4005 7005 7010 7020 9010 SUBTOTAL LESS OVERHEAD TOTAL GENERAL FUND CONTINGENCY CITY COMMISSIONS CITY MANAGER'S OFFICE CITY ATTORNEY CITY CLERK EQUIPMENT OPERATIONS FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT HUMAN RESOURCES GENERAL SERVICES FACILITIES MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT INFORMATION SYS. PUBLIC INFORMATION EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS CODE ENFORCEMENT POLICE SERVICES ANIIvLa, L CONTROL PARKSOPEN SPACE GENERAL ENGINEERING ADVANCED PLANNING SENIOR SERVICES COMMUNITY SUPPORT ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CAPITAL PROJECTS FISCAL YEAR 2000-01 ORIGINAL BUDGET REVISED ESTL~£ATED BUDGET ACTUAL (if different) (if differenO $46,500 200,000 84,935 324,667 363,900 85,470 356,5O7 380,726 162,782 127,430 344,233 216,589 22,696 40,876 47,416 332.252 332,252 406,701 406,701 418,142 418,142 243,946 243,946 YEAR-TO-DATE 2,526,488 173,825 668,333 195,432 108,663 34,853 71,400 100,000 454,410 715,368 715,368 205,362 205,362 155,472 155,472 7,138,131 7,364,457 7,364,457 (1,614,877) (1,642,808) (1.642,808 5,523,254 5,721,649 S 5,721,649 12/31/00 ESTI.~L~TE 12/31/00 ACTUAL S23,250 S32,386 35,390 30,744 165.342 147.106 236.826 271.808 42.735 49.561 79.042 80.121 209.071 181.574 81.391 71.861 63.715 56.284 143.430 141.908 101.644 107,376 11,348 5,921 20,438 11.284 23,708 17.531 1,251.262 62.315 310.542 83.665 64.919 15.076 42.508 24.650 218.755 3,279,156! (524,926)i $ 2,754,230i 1,261,244 86,912 357,684 102,681 77,736 17,427 35,700 25,000 227,205 3,428,919 (529,467) 2,899,452 O-rD) ACTUAL/ 12/31 ESTIMATE 39.3% (13) -13.1% -11.0% (14) 14.8% (15) 16.0% 1.4% -13.2% (16) -11.7% - 11.7% -1.1% 5.6% -47.8% -44.8°.-0 -26.1% -0.8go -28.3% (17) -13.2% (18) -18.5% (19) -16.5% (20) -13.5% 19.1% - 1.4% -3.7% -4.4% -0.9% -5.0% DECEMBER2000:.EXPEND. Page 8 2/1/01 CITY OF SARATOGA SIX MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2000 PERCENT OF YEAR ELAPSED = 50.0% EXPENDITURES TITLE SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS: 100 2030 COPS SUP. LAW ENFORCEMEN~r PLUS OVERHEAD TOTAL COPS SRF 110 2020 TRAFFIC SAFETY SRF PLUS OVERHEAD TOTAL TI~AFFIC SAFETY SRF 150 HSCAL YEAR 2000-01 ORIGINAL BUDGET REVISED BUDGET (if differenO ESTI~LATED ACTUAL (if different) 75.465 11,341 86,806 25.100 990 26,090 STREETS&ROADS SRF 3005 STREET k£MNTENANCE 1,753,975 1,915,836 1,915,836 3010 SIDEWALKS AND TRAILS 91,404 3015 TRAFFIC CONTROL 193,244 194,312 194,312 3020 FLOOD AND STOP, M DRAIN CONTR 126,067 3025 MEDIANS AND PARKWAYS 135,128 5010 CONGESTION MANAGEMENT 324,770 328,851 328,851 9000 CAPITAL PROJECTS 2,493,000 2.528,583 2,528,583 SUBTOTAL 5,117,588 5,320,181 5,320,181 PLUS OVERHEAD 536,825 558,077 558,077 TOTAL STREETS&ROADS SRF 5,654,413 5,878,258 5,878,258 160 9010 180 3040 250 4010 4015 4020 TRANS DEV ACT SRF-C.ada PROJ LANDSCAPE/LGTNG SRF PLUS OVERHEAD TOTAL L.-~NDSCAPE/LGTNG SRF DEVELOPMENT SRE ZONING ADMINSTRATION INSPECTION SERVICES DEVELOPMENT REGULATION SUBTOTAL PLUS OVERHEAD TOTAL DEVELOPMENT SRF 260 5005 5015 9000 ENVIRONMENTAL PRG SRE INTEGRATED WASTE MGMT STORM WATER MANAGEMENT CAP PROJ(STREET STORM DR) SUBTOTAL PLUS OVERHEAD TOTAL ENVIPdNMCNTAL PRG SR 169,200 153,626 24,114 177,740 481,675 440,005 178,583 1,100,263 546,259 1,646,522 197,880 307,258 34,500 539,638 81,742 621,380 YE.AR-TO-DATE 12/31/00 12/31/00 ESTLXLATE ACTUAL 25,204 18,843 3.788 2.832 O'TD) ACTUAL/ 12131 ESTIMATE -25.2% -25.2% 28,991 21,674 -25.2% 227,252 219.210 45,702 40,353 52,431 46,009 48,034 38,728 56,303 53,041 164,426 186,541 17,792 12,217 611,939 596~ 64,191 62,530 -3.5% -11.7% - 12.2 % -19.4% -5.8% 13.5% -2.6% -2.6% 676,130 658,628 -2.6% 169,200 170,055 76,813 73,789 12,057 11,582 88,870 85,371 240,838 242,317 146,668 153,894 74,410 65,648 0.5% -3.9% -3.9% -3.9% 0.6% 4.9% -l 1.8% 461,915 461,859 0.0% 229,332 229,304 0.0% 691,247 691,163 0.0% 49,470 51,962 65,036 65,504 5.0% 0.7% 114,506 117,466 2.6% 17,345 17,793 2.6% 131,851 135,259 2.6% (22) DECEMBER2000 EXPEND. Page 9 2/1/01 CITY OF SARATOGA SIX MON~I-IS ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2000 PERCENT OF YEAR ELAPSED -- 50.0% EXPENDITURES TITLE 27O 7015 9000 HOUSING&COMM DEV SRF HCDA ADMINISTRATION CAP PROJECTS (SR CTR & ADA) SUBTOTAL PLUS OVERHEAD TOTAL HOUSING&COMM DEV SRF 290 6OO5 6010 RECREATION SRF RECREATION TEEN SERVICES SUBTOTAL PLUS OVERHEAD TOTAL RECREATION SERVICES 292 6020 FACILITY OPS SRF PLUS OVERHEAD TOTAL FACILITY SRF 293 6015 THEATER TCK SRCHG SRF PLUS OVERHEAD TOTAL THEATER TCK SRCHG SRF TOTAL SPECL~L REVENUE FUNDS CAPITAL PROJECTS FUNDS 310 9010 PARK DEVELOPMENT 320 9010 LIBRARY EXPANSION TOTAL SPECL~,L REVENUE FUNDS DEBT SERVICE FUND: 400 8015 LIBRARY BONDS DEBT SVC FISCAL YE.&R 2000-01 REVISED ESTIMATED ORIGINAL BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET (if different) (if differen0 153,463 25,000 YEAR-TO-DATE 12/31/00 12/31/00 ESTIMATE ACTUAL 76,732 67,896 40,000 37,717 (YTD) ACTUAL/ 12/31 ESTI~La, TE -11.5% -5.7% 114,336 114,336 178,463 267,799 267,799 116,732 105,613 -9.5% 13,343 20,022 20,022 8,728 7,896 -9.5% 191,806 287,821 287,821 125,459 113,509 -9.5% 659,566 329,783 321,482 -2.5% 149,180 62,158 60,246 -3.1% 808,746 391,941 381,728 -2.6% 237,062 114,887 111,893 -2.6% 1,045,808 506,828 493,621 -2.6% 67,756 33,878 34,792 2.7% 156,372 78,186 80,296 2.7% 224,128 112,064 115,088 2.7% 34,687 6,829 4,844 4,066 954 800 -16.1% -16.1Oo 41,516 5,797 4,866 -16.1% 9,885,409 10,205,269 10,205,269 2,536,438 2,489,235 -1.9% 1,769,661 1,000,000 2,037,027 2,037,027 190,000 187,037 165.000 162.374 -1.6% - 1.6% 2,769,661 3,037,027 3,037,027 355,000 349,411 -1.6% 93,829 93,829 92,158 -1.8% (23) DECEMBER2000'.EXPEND. Page 10 2/1;01 CITY OF SARATOGA SIX MONTHS ENDED DECEMBER 31,'2000 PERCENT OF YEAR ELAPSED = 50.0% EXPENDITURES TITLE AGENCY FUNDS: 420 8020 LEONARD RO.M) DEBT SVC 720 1040 C..4, TV TRUST FUND 730 8005 PARI~NG DIST #2 DEBT SVC 740 8010 PARK2NG DIST #3 DEBT SVC 990 1040 S.M~,TOGA PUBL FIN AGNCY TOTAL AGENCY FUNDS TOTAL EXPENDITURES FISCAL YEAR 2000-01 REVISED ESTI_~L~.TED ORIGINAL BUDGET ACTUAL BUDGET (if different) (if differen0 11,700 171,731 YE_AR-TO-DATE 12/31/00 ACTUAL 8,500 8.331 12/31/00 ESTI_~LATE 149,000 154,592 O~TD) ACTUAId 12/31 ESTIMATE 183,431 157,500 162,923 3.4% $ 18,455,584 S 19,241~05 S 19,241,205 $ 6,042,219 $ 5,847,957 -3.2% -2.0% (24) 3.8% (24) EXPENDITURE NOTES: (13) Recognition event paid in Nov.'00. Mid-year budget adj.proposed for conference costs. (14) Salary savings. Unfilled positions in Ci~' Manager's Office. (15) Saratoga Creek litigation settlement costs and ABAG insurance premium. Mid-year bud.adj.proposed (16) Audit fees and Infrasctructure inventor' costs not paid until later in the fiscal year. (17) Joint Powers Anthofib' forming for Animal Control.-Ci~' dues. (18) General contracts for playground safe~' consultant & Trail maintenance b-ill be entered & paid later in the year. (19) SalaD' savings. Unfilled positions in Engineering Dept. (20) Consultant sen, ices for Housing Element update will not be paid until work is completed. (21) Altrans supplemental invoices. Mid-year budget adjustment proposed. (22) Street Storm Drain repairs to be completed later in the fiscal year. (23) Debt service payments made in December and June. (24) Debt service payments made in September and March. DECEMBER2000'-.EXPEND. Page 11 2/I/01 CITY OF SARATOGA Cash and Investment Report Balance as of December 31, 2000 Anticipated Acquisition FDR* Book Market Par Maturi~' Monthly Institution Date Rating Value Value** Value Yeild Date Term Earnings Cash & Investments: Cash: DD ComericaBank- Savings N/A .4.-kA $110,939 $110,939 $110,939 2.000% Revolving I $185 CK Comerica Bank - SWEEP Account N/A AA.-k 384,345 384,345 384,345 0.000% Revolving I 0 CK Comerica Bank - Pa)xoll Checking N:A .~-k.-k 14.665 14,665 14.665 0.000% Revolving I 0 Subtotal Cash 509,948 a 509,948 509,948 0.435% 1 185 L.A.I.F. & Investments: MF L.A.I.F. N/A N/A 15,900,418 b 16,104,519 15,900,418 6.538% Revolving I 86.631 CD San Jose National Bank 07;03;99 .42kA 500,000 500,000 500,000 5.900% 07;03/01 365 2.458 CD Heritage Bank of Commerce 10/14/98 .4_4.-k 595,948 595.948 595,948 5.650% 10 14:01 365 2.806 Subtotal CDs Subtotal L.A.I.F. & Investments Subtotal Unrestricted Cash & Investments 1,095,948 1,095.948 1.095,948 5.764% 365 5.264 16.996.366 17,200,467 16.996.366 6.488% 183 91.895 17,506,315 17,710.415 17,506,315 6.312% 92 92.080 Restricted Cash & Investments: SV San Jose National Bank - CDBG N/A .4~kA 62,537 62,537 62,537 2.530°.-0 Revolving I 132 ES US Bank-Library Debt Service N.A AAA 2,950 2,950 5,458 0.000% Revolving 1 0 CK Wells Fargo Bank - CDBG N:A .4_-kA 26,236 26,236 26,236 0.000% Revolving 1 0 CK Wells Fargo Bank - CDBG N-A .~-L-k 6,507 6,507 6,507 0.000% Revolving I 0 Subtotal Restricted Cash & Investments Total Cash and Investments 98,230 98,230 100.738 1.611% I 132 I z I $17,604745 $17;808,646 $17,607,053 6.t86¥, Avg Yield 47 $92.212 Benchmark Yield Comparison 3 _Month Treasury 5.97% [ 1 Year Treasur? 5.47% I Schedule of Maturifies: Immedi~e S16,508,59~ FY 1999-2000 1,095,948 Total $17.604,54~ Reserve Analysis: General Fund Reserve requirement adopted 4/5/00: General Fund Balance as of 12/31;00. Available Funds: Unrestricted Pooled Cash & Invcsmaents available for current year expenses in al._!! funds: Includes unrestri~ed funds maturing within the current fiscal year) S2,114,497 S10.835.665 $16,410.366 General Fund Loans Receivable: Hakone Foundation Maturit,' Principal Rate Date Term $148,835 6.500% 03~01;2004 3.650 NOTES: DD - Direct Deposits CK - Checking Account MF - Mutual Fund SV - Savings Account ES - Escrow Account * FDR = The Financial Director3.' rating is based on computer analysis of prime t~mancials reported quarterly by the institutions to the Federal Reserve Board and the Federal Home Loan Bank Board. Ratings based on information released July' 1998. **Market values for U.S. Treasury Notes provided by State Street Bank and Trust Company. # This loan is noted for memorandum purposes only. The loan is amortized per the agreement with the Hakone Foundation. No pa~nents are received. This report reflects Pooled Cash. Investments and Restricted Cash which are available resources to fund operations, debt service and capital improvements. Other interest bearing assets (notes receivable) are listed above. Debt service reserve funds held by trustees are restricted pursuant to indenture covenants and have been excluded from this report. Pursuant to Government Code Section 53646, the City's investment portfolio is in compliance with the adopted investment policy and there are adequate resources to meet pool expenditure requirements for the next six months. ~;ut~mihed by: / 12-OOREPO. xls Approved by: 1/31/01 (L'naudited Results) I '-' i SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 7, 2001 AGENDA ITEM: ORIGINATING DEPT: Administrative Sen'ices CITY MANAGER: PREPARED BY: SUBJECT: Sale of General Obligation Bonds for the Saratoga Communi~- Librm3' RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Accept report and direct staff to initiate the process of selling $15 million general obligation bonds for the Saratoga Community Library renovation and expansion project. REPORT SUMMARY: The citizens of Saratoga voted to approve the sale of $15 million general obligation bonds on March 7. 2000. to fund the Libran' renovation and expansion project. The City needs to have the bond proceeds no later than this coming June. before the City starts spending large amounts of money on the Libra~' construction. The sale of the bonds takes about three months, so we should begin the process as soon as possible. As soon as the bond proceeds are received, the funds will be deposited with a Trustee and will begin earning interest immediately. Interest income earned before and during the construction period can be used on Library construction costs. It is recommended that the full $15 million be sold in one sale. The consequence of selling too few bonds is serious because the shortfall would have to come from other sources. It is not economically feasible to sell the bonds in two sales since the administrative costs of selling the bonds would be essentially doubled. If the Library is built for less than $15 million and funds remain after all costs are paid, the excess proceeds can be used in a subsequent year for the annual debt sen-ice payment, thereby reducing the amount that would need to be collected from property tax payers in that vear. This has been discussed with the Finance Commission, LibraD' Expansion Committee and the Citizen's Oversight Committee. and all three agree that the City should promptly begin the sale of the bonds for $1_'3 million. FISCAL IMPACTS: None. There will be sufficient funds to complete the Saratoga Community Library project, after the value engineering proposals are incorporated into the design. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): If the sale of the bonds are initiated any later than March 1, proceeds may not be available by June to fund the large construction costs which will begin at that time. ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): Direct staff to return on Februan.? 21 to initiate the sale of the bonds. FOLLOW UP ACTION(S): Staff, Financial Advisors and Bond Counsel will initiate the sale of the general obligation bonds. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Nothing additional. ATTACHMENTS: None 2 of 2 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: FebruaD' 7, 2001 AGENDA ITEM: '~ ORIGINATING DEPT: Administrative Services CITY MANAGER: / / SUBJECT: Communi~' Development Department Employment Contracts RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): Approve the following: 1. Agreement with Irwin Kaplan as Interim Community Development Director 2. Amendment to Agreement with Robert Schubert, Senior Planner 3. Amendment to Agreement with Wildan for Philip Block. Senior Planner REPORT SUMMARY: Irwin Kaplan~ Interim Community Development Director Irwin Kaplan has agreed to act as the Interim Community Development Director until a permanent Director can be appointed. The agreement with Mr. Kaplan is for $110 per hour. for not more than 30 hours per week. Robert Schubert, Senior Planner The City Council approved an agreement with Mr. Robert Schubert on August 2. 2000, as a contract Planner. Mr. Schubert has recently agreed to assume responsibility for daily operational actMties in the Department. Consequently, in the attached contract amendment, staff is recommending an hourly rate increase from $65 to 5;80 per hour. consistent with Mr. Schubert's increased responsibilities. Additionally. the insurance requirements in the original contract with Mr. Schubert exceeded what is typically requested from an independent contractor, so the amendment reduces the insurance requirements to the more typical amounts. The changes to the contract are highlighted in the bold/~4&eth~mgg~ type font. Philip Block~ Senior Planner The City Council approved an agreement with Philip block on December 12. 2000. An amendment is also needed to this contract. The agreement was written between the City and Philip Block. However, Mr. Block is an employee of Wildan, so the contract should have been with Wildan and not Mr. Block. Attached is an amendment to this contract correcting this. Additionally, the attorneys for Wildan did not have an opportunity to review the contract before the City Council approved it. and they require some modifications to the indemnification section of Exhibit D to the contract before Wildan will execute the agreement. These modifications have been reviewed and approved by the City Attorney. The changes to the contract are highlighted in the bold, .... a ...... v.- t?pe font. FISCAL IMPACTS: There are sufficient funds in the Community Development Department budget to fund these contracts, using appropriations from both salaD.; savings and contract sen, ices. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): If these contracts are not approved, the Community Development Department will be insufficiently staffed. ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): Direct the City Manager to return with more information on February 21. FOLLOW UP ACTION(S): Execute contracts and distribute. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Nothing additional. ATTACHMENT(S}: Agreement with Irwin Kaplan as Interim Community Development Director Amendment to Agreement with Robert Schubert. Senior Planner Amendment to Agreement with Wildan for Philip Block. Senior Planner CITY OF SARATOGA STANDARD INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made at Saratoga, Califomia by and between the CITY OF SARATOGA, a municipal corporation ("City"), and Irwin Kaplan ("Contractor"), who agree as follows: RECIT;4J_.S WHEREAS, City requires the services of a qualified contractor to provide the work product described in Exhibit A of this Agreement; and WHEREAS, City lacks the qualified personnel to provide the specified work product; and WHEREAS, Contractor is duly qualified to provide the required work product; and x3,q-IEREAS, Contractor is a~eeable to providing such work product on the terms and conditions hereinafter set forth. NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows: 1. RESULTS TO BE ACHEIVED. Subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this A~eement, Contractor shall provide to City the work product described in Exhibit A ("Scope of Work"). 2. TERM. The term of this Agreement extends through June 30, 2001 or the retention by the City of a permanent Director of Community Development, whichever occurs first, unless it is extended by written mutual affeement between the parties, provided that the parties retain the right to terminate this Agreement as provided in Exhibit D at all times. 3. PAYMENT. City shall pay Contractor for work product produced pursuant to this Agreement at the time and in the manner set forth in Exhibit B ("Payrnent"). The payments specified in Exhibit B shall be the only payments to be made to Contractor in connection with Contractor's completion of the Scope of Work pursuant to this Agreement. Contractor shall submit all billings to City in the manner specified in Exhibit B; or, if no manner is specified in Exhibit B, then according to the usual and customary procedures and practices which Contractor uses for billing clients similar to City. 4. FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENI. Except as set forth in Exhibit C ("Facilities and Equipment"), Contractor shall, at its sole cost and expense, furnish all facilities and Standard Independent Contractor Agreement Page I of 15 equipment which may be required for completing the Scope of Work pursuant to this A~eement. City shall furnish to Contractor only the facilities and equipment listed in Exhibit C according to the terms and conditions set forth in Exhibit C. 5. GENERAL PROVISIONS. City and Contractor a~ee to and shall abide by the general provisions set forth in Exhibit D ("General Provisions"). In the event of any inconsistency between said general provisions and any other terms or conditions of this Agreement, the other term or condition shall control insofar as it is inconsistent with the General Provisions. 6. EXHIBITS. All exhibits referred to in this A~eement are attached hereto and are by this reference incorporated herein and made a part of this Agreement. 7. CONTIL4.CT AI)MINISTI~,kTION. This Agreement shall be administered on behalf of City by the City Manager ("Administrator"). The Administrator has complete authority to receive information, interpret and define City's policies consistent with this Agreement, and communicate with Contractor concerning this A~eement. All correspondence and other communications shall be directed to or through the Administrator or his or her designee. 8. NOTICES. All notices or communication concerning a party's compliance with .the terms of this A~eement shall be in writing and may be given either personally, by certified mail, return receipt requested, or by overnight express cartier. The notice shall be deemed to have been given and received on the date delivered in person or the date upon which the postal authority or overnight express cartier indicates that the mailing was delivered to the address of the receiving Party. The Parties shall make good faith efforts to provide advance courtesy notice of any notices or communications hereunder via telefacsimile. However, under no circumstances shall such courtesy notice satis~, the notice requirements set forthabove; nor shall lack of such courtesy notice affect the validity of service pursuant to the notice requirement set forth above. Any Party hereto, by giving ten (10) days written notice to the other, may designate any other address as substitution of the address to which the notice or communication shall be given. Notices or communications shall be given to the Parties at the addresses set forth below until specified otherwise in writing: Notices to Contractor shall be sent to: Irwin Kaplan 2852 Alida Street Oakland, CA Standard Independent Contractor Agreement Page 2 of 15 Notices to City shall be sent to: City Manager City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 With a copy (which copy shall not constitute notice) to: City Clerk City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 9. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This A~eement supersedes any and all agreements, either oral or written, between the parties hereto with respect to Contractor's completion of the Scope of Work on behalf of City and contains all of the covenants and agreements be~veen the parties with respect to the rendering of such sen'ices in any manner whatsoever. Each party to this Agreement acknowledges that no representations, inducements, promises or agreements, orally or otherwise, have been made by any party, or anyone acting on behalf of any party, which are not embodied herein, and that no other agreement, statement or promise not contained in this Agreement shall be valid or binding. No amendment, alteration, or variation of the terms of this Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing and signed by the parties hereto. iN ~¥t'TNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Ao. reement. ~ (-'! ,1 .......-4 Date: Standard Independent Contractor Ag-reement Page 3 of 15 / / CITY OF SARATOGA, a municipal corporation By: Date: Name: Title: ?d'PROVED AS TO FORM: By: Date: City Attorney .APPROVED AS TO BUT)GET .AUTHORITY AnND INSURAaNCE: By: Date: Administrative Sen'ices Director Attachments Exhibit A -- Scope of Work Exhibit B -- Contract Payrnent and Reporting Schedule Exhibit C -- Facilities and Equipment Exhibit D -- General Provisions Exhibit- E -- Insurance Requirements Standard Independent Contractor Agreement Page 4 of 15 EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF WORK Contractor shall act as the Interim Director of the City of Saratoga Community Development Department and shall provide all sen'ices reasonably necessal3.' to plan, organize, direct and coordinate administrative, financial, and operational activities pertaining to planning, zoning, community development, building inspection, and code enforcement programs and personnel. Yhese sen'ices are expected to include, but not be limited to, the tbllowing: a. Administer the General Plan and municipal subdivision, and zoning codes and ordinances. Plan, direct, and monitor the City's development sen'ices programs including review of major development projects, processing and issuing zoning approvals and building permits. c. Administer California Environmental Quality Act, Subdivision Map Act, and .related state and federal laws and regulations. d. Recommend, develop, and implement new programs and ordinances. e. Coordinate interagency programs and enforcement projects. f. Manage the review of development applications, including conditional use permits, variances, and subdivision. Manage the environmental review of all developmental applications, including the selection and oversight of expert consultants retained to prepare environmental impact reports. h. Coordinate project and cross functional reviews with other departments and agencies. i. Coordinate public meetings regarding development projects. Standard Independent Contractor Agreement Page 5 of 15 EXHIBIT B PAYMENT HOURLY COMPENSATION. City shall pay Contractor $110 per hour for work to be performed pursuant to this A~eement, provided, however, that Contractor shall not perform more than 30 hours of work in any calendar week without prior approval from the Contract Administrator. The total sum stated above shall be the total which City shall pay for the work product to be provided by Contractor pursuant to this A~eement. INVOICES. Contractor shall submit invoices, not more often than once a month during the term of this Agreement, based on the cost for work performed and reimbursable expenses incurred prior to the invoice date. Invoices shall contain the following information: Serial identifications of bills, i.e., Bill No. 1; The beginning and ending dates of the billing period; Reasonable reimbursable expenses incurred during the billing period together with receipts for all such expenses; and a summaD' containing the total contract amount, the amount of prior billings, the total due this period, and the remaining balance available for all remaining billing periods. MONTHLY PAYMENTS. City shall make monthly payments, based on such invoices, for satisfactoD' progress in completion of the Scope of Work, and for authorized reimbursable expenses incurred. REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES. City shall reimburse Contractor for reasonable expenses incurred in the course of performing sen'ices for City including travel from the City Offices on City business and other normal and customaD' expenses consistent with the City's expense reimbursement policies. Standard Independent Contractor A~eement Page 6 of 15 EXHIBIT C FACILITIES .~ND EQUIPMENT City shall furnish physical facilities such as desks, filing cabinets, and conference space, as may be reasonably necessary for Contractor's use while consulting with City employees and reviewing records and the information in possession of City. The location, quantity, and time of furnishing said physical facilities shall be in the sole discretion of City. In no event shall City be obligated to furnish any facility not furnished to staff of the Community Development Department which may involve incurring any direct expense, including, but not limiting the generality of this exclusion, long-distance telephone or other communication charges, vehicles, and reproduction facilities. Contractor shall not use such services, premises, facilities, supplies or equipment for any purpose other than in the performance of Contractor's obligations under this Agreement. Standard Independent Contractor Agreement Page 7 of 15 EXHIBIT D GENERAL PROVISIONS a. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. At all times during the term of this Agreement, Contractor shall be an independent contractor and shall not be an employee of City. Contractor shall complete the Scope of Work hereunder in accordance with currently approved methods and practices in Contractor's field. City shall have the right to control Contractor only with respect to specifying the results to be obtained from Contractor pursuant to this Agreement. City shall not have the right to control the means by which Contractor accomplishes services rendered pursuant to this Agreement. Likewise, no relationship of emPloyer and employee is created bv this Agreement between the City and Contractor or any subcontractor Or employee of Contractor. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be construed as limiting the right of Contractor to engage in Contractor's profession separate and apart from this Agreement so long as such activities do not interfere or conflict with the performance by Contractor of the obligations set forth in this Agreement. Interference or conflict will be determined at the sole discretion of the City. b. STANDARD OF PERFORMANCE. Contractor shall complete the Scope of Work required pursuant to this Agreement in the manner and according to the standards observed by a competent practitioner of the profession in which Contractor is engaged in the geographical area in which Contractor practices its profession. All work product of whatsoever nature which Contractor delivers to City pursuant to this Agreement shall be prepared in a substantiai, first class and workmanlike manner and conform t° the standards of quality nOrmally observed by a person practicing in Contractor's profession. c. TIME. Contractor shall devote such time to the Scope of Work pursuant to this Agreement as may be reasonably necessary for satisfactory performance of' Contractor's obligations pursuant to this Agreement. d. CONTRACTOR NO AGENT. Except as Ci~ may specify in writing, Contractor shall have no authority, express Or implied, to act on behalf of City in any capacity whatsoex, er as an agent. Contractor shall have no authority, express or implied, pursuant to this Agreement to bind City to any obligation whatsoex~er. e. BENEFITS AND TAXES. Contractor shall not have any claim under this Agreement or otherwise against City for seniority, vacation time, vacation pay, sick leave, personal time off, overtime, health insurance, medical care, hospital care, insurance benefits, social' security, disability, Standard Independent Contractor Agreement Page 8 of 15 unemployment, workers compensation or employee benefits of anv kind other than as explicitly set forth in this Agreement. Contractor shall be solely liable for and obligated to pay directly all applicable taxes, including, but not limited to, federal and state income taxes, and in connection therewith Contractor shall indemnify and hold City harmless from any and all liability that City may incur because of Contractor's failure to pay such taxes. City shall have no obligation whatsoever to pay or withhold any taxes on behalf of Contractor. ASSIGNMENT PROHIBITED. No party to this Agreement mav assign any right or obligation pursuant to this Agreement. Any attempted or purported assignment of any right Or obligation pursuant to this Agreement shall be void and of no effect. However, with the consent of the City given in writing, Contractor is entitled to subcontract such portions of the work to be performed under this Agreement as may be specified bv City. EMPLOYMENT ELIGIBILITY. Contractor represents and warrants that he can provide the necessary documentation to establish identity and employment eligibility as required by the Irmmigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. Failure to provide the necessary documentation upon request will result in the termination of the Agreement as required bv the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. h. CONFLICT OF INTEREST. In General. Contractor represents and warrants that, to the best of the Contractor's knowledge and belief, there are no relevant facts or circumstances which could give rise to a conflict of interest on the part of Contractor, or that the Contractor has alreadv disclosed all such relevant information. o Subsequent Conflict of Interest. Contractor agrees that if an actual or potential conflict of interest on the part of Contractor is discovered after award, the Contractor will make a full disclosure in writing to the CitT,. This disclosure shall include a description of actions which the Contractor has taken or proposes to take, after consultation with the City to avoid, mitigate, or neutralize the actual or potential conflict. Within 45 days, the Contractor shall have taken all necessary steps to avoid, mitigate, or neutralize the conflict of interest to the satisfaction of the City. Interests of City Officers and staff. No officer, member or employee of City and no member of the City Council shall have Standard Independent Contractor Agreement Page 9 of 15 any pecuniary interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement or the proceeds thereof. Neither Contractor nor any member of any Contractor's family shall serve on any City board or committee or hold any such position which either by rule, practice or action nominates, recommends, or supervises Contractor's operations or authorizes funding to Contractor. i. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS. 1. In General. Contractor shall observe and comply with all laws, . policies, general rules and regulations established bv City and shall comply with the common law and all laws, ordinances, codes and regulations of governmental agencies, (including federal, state, municipal and local governing bodies) applicable to the performance of the Scope of Work hereunder, including, but not limited to, all provisions of the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1979 as amended. o Licenses and Permits. Contractor represents and warrants to City that it has all licenses, permits, qualifications and approvals of whatsoever nature which are legally required for Contractor to practice its profession. Contractor represents and warrants to City that Contractor shall, at its sole cost and expense, keep in effect at all times during the term of this Agreement any licenses, permits, and approvals which are legally required for Contractor to practice its'profession. Funding Agency Requirements. To the extent that this Agreement may be funded by fiscal assistance from another entity, Contractor shall comply with all applicable rules and regulations to which City is bound by the terms of such fiscal assistance program. Drug-free Workplace. Contractor and Contractor's employees and subcontractors shall comply with the City's policy of maintaining a drug-free workplace. Neither Contractor nor Contractor's employees and subcontractors shall unlawfully manufacture, distribute, dispense, pOssess or use controlled substances, as defined in 21 U.S. Code Section 812, including marijuana, heroin, cocaine, and amphetamines, at any facility, premises or worksite used in any manner in connection with performing services pursuant .to this Agreement. If Contractor or any employee or subcontractor of Contractor is convicted or pleads nolo contendere - Standard Independent Contractor Agreement Page 10 of 15 to a criminal drug statute violation occurring at such a facility, premises, or worksite, the Contractor, within five days thereafter, shall notify the City. Discrimination Prohibited. Contractor assures and agrees that Contractor will comply with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and other laws prohibiting discrimination and that no person shall, on the grounds of race, creed, color, disability, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, age, religion, Vietnam era veteran's status, political affiliation, or any other non-merit factors be excluded from participating in, be denied the benefits o£ or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under this Agreement. j. DOCUMENTS AND RECORDS. Property of City. All reports, data, maps, models, charts, studies, surveys, photographs, memoranda or other written documents or materials prepared by Contractor pursuant to this Agreement shall become the property of City upon completion of the work to be performed hereunder or upon termination of this Agreement. Retention of Records. Until the expiration of five years after the furnishing of any services pursuant to this Agreement, Contractor shall retain and make available to the Ciw or any party designated bv the City, upon written request by City, this Agreement, and such books, documents and records of Contractor (and any books, documents, and records of any subcontractor(s)) that are necessary or convenient for audit purposes to certify the nature and extent of the reasonable cost of services to City. Use Of Recycled Products. Contractor shall prepare and submit all reports, written studies and other printed material on recycled paper to the extent it is available at equal or less cost than virgin paper. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION. Contractor shall hold any confidential information received from City in the course of performing this Agreement in trust and confidence and will not reveal such confidential information to any person or entity, either during the term of the Agreement or at an~, time thereafter. Upon expiration of this Agreement, or termination as provided herein, Contractor shall return materials which contain anv confidential information to City. Contractor Standard Independent Contractor Agreement Page 11 of 15 mav keep one copy for its confidential file. For purposes of this paragraph, confidential information is defined as all information disclosed to Contractor which relates to City's past, present, and future activities, as well as activities under this Agreement, which information is not otherwise of public record under California law. RESPONSIBILITY OF CONTRACTOR. Contractor shall take all responsibility for the work, shall bear all losses and damages directlv or indirectly resulting to Contractor, to any subcontractor, to the City, to City officers and employees, or to parties designated by the City, on account of the performance or character of the work, unforeseen difficulties, accidents, occurrences or other causes predicated on active or passive negligence of the Contractor or of any subcontractor. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS. Contractor shall procure and maintain for the duration of the contract insurance as set forth in Exhibit E. The cost of such-insurance shall be included in the Contractor's bid. City and Contractor have agreed that insurance for liability to the City arising from Contractor's actions on behalf of the Cit?? during term of this agreement shall be provided bv Ci~,. n. DEFAULT AND REMEDIES. 1. Events of default. Each of the following shall constitute an event of default hereunder: (a) (b) Failure to perform any obligation under this Agreement and failure to cure such breach immediately upon receiving notice of such breach, if the breach is such that the City determines the health, welfare, or safety of the public is immediately endangered; or Failure to perform any obligation under this Agreement and failure to cure such breach within fifteen (15) days of receiving notice of such breach, if the breach is such that the City determines that the health, welfare, or safety of the public is not immediately endangered, provided that if the nature of the breach is such that'the Citv determines it will reasonably require more than fifteen (15) days to cure, Contractor shall not be in default if Contractor promptly commences the cure and diligently proceeds to completion of the cure. Standard Independent Contractor Ageement Page 12 of 15 Remedies upon default. Upon anv Contractor default, City shall have the right to immediately suspend or terminate the Agreement, seek specific performance, contract with another party to perform this Agreement and/or seek damages including incidental, consequential and/or special damages to the full extent allowed bv law. to No Waiver. Failure by City to seek any remedy for any default hereunder shall not constitute a waiver of any other rights hereunder or any right to seek any remedy for any subsequent default. TERMINATION. Either party mav terminate this Agreement with or without causeby providing 10 days notice in writing to the other party. The City may terminate this Agreement at anv time without prior notice in the event that Contractor commits a material breach of the terms of this Agreement. Upon termination, this Agreement shall become of no further force or effect whatsoever and each of the parties hereto shall be relieved and discharged herefrom, subject to payment for acceptable services rendered prior to the expiration of the notice of termination. Notwithstanding the foregoing, the provisions of this Agreement concerning retention of records, City's rights to material produced, confidential information, contractor's responsibility, indemnification, insurance, dispute resolution, litigation, and jurisdiction and severability shall survive termination of this Agreement. _ DISPUTE RESOLUTION. The parties shall make a good faith effort to settle any dispute or claim arising under this Agreement. If the parties fail to resolve such disputes or claims, thev shall submit them to nonbinding mediation in California at shared expense of the parties for at least 8 hours of mediation. If mediation does not arrive at a satisfactory result, arbitration, if agreed to by all parties, or litigation may be pursued. In the event any dispute resolution processes are involved, each party shall bear its own costs and attorneys fees. LITIGATION. If any litigation is commenced between parties to this Agreement concerning any provision hereof or the rights and duties of any person in relation thereto, each party shall bear its own attorneys' fees and costs. JURISDICTION AND SEVERABILITY. This Agreement shall be administered and interpreted under the laws of the State of California. Jurisdiction of litigation arising from this Agreement shall be in that state Standard Independent Contractor Ageement Page 13 of 15 to and venue shall be in Santa Clara Count', California. If any part of this Agreement is found to conflict with applicable laws, such part shall be inoperative, null and void insofar as it conflicts with said laws, but the remainder of this Agreement shall be in full force and effect. NOTICE OF NON-RENEWAL. Contractor understands and agrees that there is no representation, implication, or understanding that the City will request that work product provided by Contractor under this Agreement be supplemented or continued by Contractor under a new agreement following expiration or termination of this Agreement. Contractor waives all rights or claims to notice or hearing respecting any failure bv City to continue to request or retain all or any portion of the wor.k product from Contractor following the expiration or termination of this Agreement. PARTIES IN INTEREST. This Agreement is entered only for the benefit of the parties executing this Agreement and not for the benefit of any other individual, entity or person. WAIVER. Neither the acceptance of work or payment for work pursuant to this Agreement shall constitute a waiver of any rights or obligations arising under this Agreement. The failure by the City to enforce any of Contractor's obligations or to exercise City's rights shall in no event be deemed a waiver of the right to do so thereafter. Standard Independent Contractor Agreement Page 14 of 15 EXHIBIT E INSURANCE Contractor shall maintain during the term of this agreement insurance policies satisfy:ing the following requirements: X Auto Liability Insurance with coverage as indicated: X X SI,000,000 combined single limit for bodily injury and property damage S 250,000 per person.-"SS00,000 per accident for bodily injuD, S 100,000 per occurrence for property damage $ 500,000 combined single limit for bodily injury and property damage Garage keepers extra liability endorsement to extend coverage to all vehicles in the care, custody and control of the contractor, regardless of where the vehicles are kept or driven. City has the fight to require Contractor's insurer to provide complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements affecting the coverage required by these specifications. Standard Independent Contractor Agreement Page 15 of 15 COMPANY NAME: FARHERS iNSURANCE EXCIiANG~, LOB ANGEL~B, CALIFORNIA AN INTE~' INSURANCE EXCHANGE, HEREIN CALLED T~IE COMPANY DECLARATIONS -I i I TRANSACTION TYPE: C~/~GE- NA~E/ADDI~ESB, RATE CLASS TheEffecfiveDatei~trom TIME APPLIED FOR. * * * * The petioy may be renewed for an add~on*l po~y term ot lb m~ntha each ~me Re Company oflem to renew by aer~ing a b~l for ~e required renewal premium, told lhe ~sured pay~ I~dd premium m a~vanc, e of the respeoflverenew&ldate. The Polly is ilauedin mlmnoe upon the atatemefltibl the Dee~raflonL _ INSURED'S NAME & ADDRESS: POLICY NO: 29 13213 - 75- 58 IRWIN M KAPL,~ POLICY ~DITION: 03 2852 ALIDA ST EFFEGTIVEDATE: 0'/-10-2000 OAKLAND CA EXPIRATION DATE: 12- 20 - 2000 EXPIRATION TIME: 12:01 A.M. Bt~an~a~d Time 94602-3451 ISSUING OFFICE: P.O BOX 9070 AGENT: Nor~&n F Re~tck VAN NUY~, CA 91409 AGENT NO: 29 21 337 AGENTPHONE: (562) 868-0537 DESCRIPTION OF VEHICLE COVERAGES * ENTRIES IN THOUSANDSOF DOLLARS. 1 3 . o12o 25521 o o o I (SEE REVERSE aIDE ~R ~E DESlG~T~S) ENDORSEMENT NUMBERS E1401 E1003 " MESSAGES/RATING INFORMATION ENCLOBED ENDORSEMENTS ADDED ON EFFECTIVE DATE. CAR SYMBOL(3). ANNUA~ KILEAGE IS LEG~ THAN 15,001. PLEASURE USE UNMARRIED, HALE, 49-53 YEARS DRIVING EXPERIF. NCE DISCOUNTS/RA~NQPLAN MULTIPLE CA~ HOMEOWNE£ GOOD DRIVER PREMIER' UENHOLDER OR OTHER INTEREST: POLICY ACTIVITY (Submit amount due with eeelo~l Involoe) $ 368.20 Previou8 BaJan~ DUE 36,40 Premium Fees AN~ 'TOTAL' BN.ANC~ OR Payment~ or 0red~, C~0~T $?.00 OR LE~ WICL --" NEXT BILLING, iIALANC~S 404.60 Torn DUE PIECEIPT. Oountem~na~re 06 ~ - 2000 AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN ROBERT SCHUBERT AND THE CITY OF SARATOGA The agreement between the Robert Schubert and the Ci~' of Saratoga, dated August 3. 2000. is hereby amended as follows: EXHIBIT B - PAYMENT 1. TOTAL COMPENSATION. City shall pay contractor at a rate of $65.00/hour through January 18, 2001 and S80.00/hour after January 19, 2001, fbr v,-ork to be per/brmed... EXHIBIT E - INSURANCE Auto Liability Insurance with coverage as indicated: X $100,000 per person/S300.000 per accident for bodih? iniurv X $50,000 per occurrence for property damage Professional/Errors and Omissions Liabilitv with coverage as indicated: IN- \VITNESS \VHEREOF. the parties hereto have executed this Agreement. CONTRACTOR: Bv: (~c~SZ~ .~__~!.~.L~ Date: Print Name: ~..c: ~_:,~ ~ 5~ l,~k~__r~ Position: ~,-q,ar ¢i~..xtx~o CITY OF S.MLATOGA, a municipal corporation By: Name: Title: Date: APPROVED AS TO FOP~M: By: Date: City Attorney APPROVED AS TO BUDGET AUTHORITY AND INSURANCE: By: Date: Administrative Sen'ices Director var ~¥ess Ace~ue PLEASE KEEP WITH YOUR POLICY. SEE IMPORTANT NOTICE ON REVERSE· SCHUBERT ROBERT J 213 EDINBURGH ST SAN FRANCISCO CA 94112 FOR QUESTIONS OR CHANGES CALL: 1-800-922-8228 'Deciaret ~ons Type Page Renewal Certificate 1 o' I RESIDENCE i CONSULTANT/HW Member 02-22-2000 7C-87-23-7 1984 YOUR JFrom Tc POLICY J 04-01-2000 04-01-2001 PERIOD i 12:O1 A.M., S{'a,~.oa~'c T~me a*, the address 586-2266 : 58'~-3824 ~ J Izem ~la~e Mooe~ 'fr. Boo',, Type Vehicle Icle.ntiflcation Number Name Driver L-,cense No. el 02 TOYOT 1994 4D SED 1NXAEODB6RZ164882 ~ ROBERT N9546010 ~j : ~ DIANE N7579442 ~) J : · J ./ .... . LIABiLITv LIMITS ~ Item 02 J Item i I!e? ~ter~ I COv_'~A~- :' Eec? Persom Eec~. 0 ..... ence i Deduct.' Pre .... I DeGuct. Pre .... I Dee-JCt. ! Pre .... Dec]uct ~-e .... I 7oo,ooo 300,000 I :$423::i . I,n jury i T : I Uninsured . :: : j - ~'~J..Motor sts 700,000 300,000 J . : $184 :. : 50 , ooo J $244 - ~ I Collision ............................................. ~ 250 $~20 .... Actua, Cash 'va ue Less Decuctible I ~J TO-AL PREM'.UM ~ER VEHICLE ~ ; $2090 Automobile Death BeneTits A sl OhO fr~ nam~ ns~r~ 1 J B-S'5 gO0 eac~ firm named msur~ a~ epouse eur~ sh~n on e~orse~em ~329 o Premium Summary Th/~ /S no; a ~///. CA Surcharge: Savings Dividend: $0.00 $184.00 Annual Premium: $2,098.00 Discounts: Coll. Avoidance Light Item(s), 02. Mat. Driver, None. Multi Policy Discount: Item(s), 02. I tern 002 ~ 1/31/01 4:52 PM 1-510-452=2193 14088678555 Client~: 30~3 RQ~ERSC~U oRn_. CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE DATE IMM'DD:YYi 01/31/2001 PRODUCER Dealey, Renton & Associates P. ©. Box 12675 Oakland, CA 94604-2675 510 465-3090 INSU~D Robert Schubert 213 Edinburgh Avenue San Francisco, CA 94112 COVER.AGES THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A 5LATTER OF INFOR_X£ATION ONLY ..MN-D CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AMEND. EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE .AFFORDED BY TIlE POLICIES BELOW, INSURERS AFFORDING COVERAGE :N~zR~R^:Hartford Insurance Group iNSURER :NS-JR. EF, ZNSUR_E.~ THE POLICIES OF LNSL"IL&NCE LISTED BELO'~X HAXT BEEN ISSUED TO TH~ INSURED NAMED ABOXT FOR THE POLICY PERIOD INDICA'rED. NO'D3.TYHSTANDLN( A_NY REQUIREMEN-r. TEICM OR CONDrlION OF .~_N~' CO.N-rt~&CT OR OTHER DOCL~tE.N-Y %%/TH RESPECT TO %%}IICH THIS CERqlFICATE NLAY BE ISSUED el .%LAY PERTAIN. THE INSUK~NCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN' IS SLqlJECT TO .ALL THE TEILbfS. EXCLUSIONS .4_N-D CONDITIONS OF SL'C} POLICIES. AGGREGATE LIMITS SHOX%%' MAY I{AXt BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CL.MA~S. [NSRI! TYPE OF I.NSUI~A.' NCE I POLICY NUMBER POLICY EFFECTIVE POLICY EXPliCATION I.TR I I [~ATE iMM DD:yY} DATE MM~pD=Y%"~ I LIMITS Ii r=RS_--x.¥*^cv:x::~v ~-2,000,000 3ZN'LADG~EGAUE L:Sd?TAF?L:ES PER: J .~F--?2U.~'. S _CGM.-- c~ .... ~,:: 000,000 ANY^U?-% ' . ALL --WNEZ A'_'? L SCHEZULZ2 AL~3S L~- -~.Z-- ;LY iNJURY AL'7CS X [ N .~.N-CWNEZ AL'? ZS :me- _-.~c.!&-~: 7~.C ?ER7% 2AMA,gE [ EXCE~ LIAB:LITY ' '- 2TCL'K 7] 2k.-X.::,:S Ni.-XZE , A~URED^.-5 I OTHER I The certificate holder is named as an additional insured as respects general liability for claims arising from the operations of the named insured. City of Saratoga Attn: Kristin Betel 13777 Fruitvale Saratoga, CA 95070 I CERTIFICATE HOLDER J J ADDIF~O~AL[~SURED:INSURERLETTEF~ C;~NCELLATION T~B Dav Not ~ c~ for SH~ XN%'~E~O%~ D~C~BED ~S BE C~NCE~.ED BEFORE E~I~T~ DATETME~. THE 1SSUING IN~R WILLENDEAV~ TOMAIL~ DAYSW~N N~CE TOTHE CE~FICA~ H ~DER N~MED TO~ E ~. BLT F~ TO DOS O S H~L LMPOSE NO OBLIGATION OR L~B IL~YOF ANY ~ND UPON ~E INSU~ AGENTS OR ACO~25-Si7!9% ! of I ~S39241/M4430 ~~/g · 1131/01 4:52 PM 1-510-452-2193 140886V8555 003 POLICY NUMBER: 57SBMKW3126 COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY THIS ENDORSEMENT CHANGES THE POLICY. PLEASE READ IT CAREFULLY. ADDITIONAL INSURED - MANAGERS OR LESSORS OF PREMISES This endorsement modifies insurance provided under the following: COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY COVERAGE PART SCHEDULE 1. Designaticn of Premises (Pa~ Leased to You): See below NameofPersonorOrganiz~ion: City of Saratoga Attn: Kristin Botei 13777 Fruitvale Saratoga, CA 95070 3. Additional Premium: (If no entry appears above, information required to complete this endorsement will be shown in the Declara- tions as aoplicable to this endorsement.) WHO IS iNSURED (Section II) is amended to include This insurance ooes not apply to: as an insured the person or organization shown in the 1. Any ':occurrence" which takes place after you Schedule but only with respect to liability arising o',,~ of cease to be a Tenant in that premises. the ownership, maintenance or use of that part, of the 2. Structual a!terations~-new construction or oremises leased to you and shown in the Schedule and demohtion operabons De. formed Dy or on behalf suoject to the following additional exclusions: of the person or organization shown in the Schedule. The certificate holder is named as an additional insured as respects general liability for claims arising frcm the operations of the named insured. CG2011 !185 AMENDMENT TO AGREEMENT BETWEEN PHILIP W. BLOCK AND THE CITY OF SAIRATOGA The agreement between Philip W. Block and the City of Saratoga, dated December 12, 2000, is hereby amended as follows: STANDARD INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR AGREEMENT, PAGE 1 THIS AGREEMENT is made at Saratoga, California by and between the CITY OF S.~TOGA, a municipal corporation ("City"), and Wildan for the services of Philip W. Block, Consulting SeniOr Planner tex. Vi!do~ Associates ("Contractor") .... NOTICES (Section 8 of the Independent Contractor Agreement) ... Notices shall be sent to: Ph'~!i? xxr m,,,.v AICP ! 72d Wi!dweed Cou~ Jameg Walgreen AICP Community Development Director City of Saratoga 13777 Fmitvale Ave Saratoga, CA 95070 Albert V. Warot Wildan 131'91 CrossrOads Parkway North, Suite 405 Industry, CA 91746~3497 .EXHIBIT B - PAYMENT 1. TOTAL COMPENSATION. City shall pay Contractor an amount not to exceed the total sum of S85 per hour for not more than ~!0 1280 hours (November 2000 through Marc~ 200! June 30, 2001) ... 02-02~0i 10:11 FAX 6952120 %%ILLDAA ASSOC ~u03 EXHIBIT D - GENERAL PROVISIONS 12. INDENINIFICATION. Contractor ~nd City auee that City, its employees, agents and officiEs shall, to the fullest extent permitted by law, be fully protected l/rom any loss, injuQ,, damage, claim, lawsuit, cost, cxpcrmc, atto.meys fees, litigation costs, defense costs, court costs or any other cost arising out of or in any way relat~ to the performance of this Agreement. Accordingly, the provisions of this indemnity provision are negl!~ent acts, errors or omission~ el th e Contractor in its intended by ti~e parries to be int=rpr~:t~d ~md t;Ol~Stfucd to provide thc fullest protection possible under the lag' to the City. Contractor acknowledges that City would not enter into thi~ a~t'~=mcm in th= aba:hoc of thc cormmitmcnt of' Coau'actor to indcrrmify and protect Cit7 as set forth below. Indemnity. To the fulle-~t cxtem permitted by la',', Contractor shall defend, ind~m.nify, and hold b,'~rmla.q~ City, it.q employees, ag:.nts and officials, from any liability, claire, s, suits, zction% arbitration proceedings, administrative proceedings, regulatou proceedings, losses, exl~enses or costs of any kind whatsoever without restriction or limitation, incurred in relation to, as a conse, qaence of or arising om of or in any way attributable actually, allegedly or impliedly, in ,,,,'hole or in part, to the negligent acts, errors or omissions of the Contractor in its performance of this Agreement. All obligations under this provision are to be paid by Contractor as they are incurred by the City. Limitation on Indenmity. Without affecting th~ righ~ of City m~der mD' provision of this agreement or this section, Contractor shall not be required to inderrmi£y and hold hm'ml=~= City' a~ set £mlh above for liability attributable to the ~ fault of City, provided such ~ fault is determined by agreement between the parties or the findings of a court of competent juriadiction. Thin exception will apply only in instances where the City is shown to have been ~e!ely at fault ~-,~ ',,-, In instances where Contractor is partially at fault or in instances who. re C. ity'.~ fauk accomms for only a percentage of the liability involvcd~ '~.,. those in:tahoe, z, '*'~...~ ~---_----~--"~'~;'"*;"" ~."r Ccn?_x~,er ::'il! ~"~ a!! ~,-~ .City will be indemnified for -'~ '{i~ilits'; ...... .~ ..... tLac-'.'.gh" p:r:¢ntzg~ef ....... h~ City. percentage of fault attributable to ~:-_~i~;,,, ii ~,._-..4;,,,,~.:~ -~n~u:. ~' ir, a Contractor. IN' WITN ESS W HI:;F,~O:', the pm-'~iel hereto have executed this Agreemcm. Date: CITY OF SARATOGA, a municipal corporation By: Name: Title: Date: :APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: Date: City Attorney .APPROVED AS TO BLT)GET AUTHORITY .~aNT) INSURANCE: By: Date: Administrative Sen'ices Director SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. ~ MEETING DATE: February 7, 2001 ORIGINATING DEPT: City Clerk AGENDA ITEM CITY. MANAGER: PREPARED BY: City Attorney SUBJECT: Citv appeal of ABAG Regional Housing Needs Determination RECOMMENDED ACTION: Accept Staff Report and provide further direction to staff. STAFF REPORT: As you know, the State housing laws require the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) to allocate to each jurisdiction within ABAG a "fair share" of the region's housing needs for the period 1999 -2006. ABAG's fair share determination -- also known as the Regional Housing Needs Determination ("RHND") -- effectively becomes the housing goal that the City must seek to attain through policies in its Housing Element and elsewhere in the General Plan. Citv Staff have been corresponding with ABAG for the past year concerning ABAG's RH'ND for Saratoga. Late last year, ABAG staff informed the City that the final allocation for the City of Saratoga would be 539 units. By way of comparison, the allocation for the Town of Los Gatos was 385 units and the allocation for the City of Los Altos was 256 units. The City appealed the ABAG determination to the ABAG Housing Need Appeals Commiitee. The City based its appeal on two primaD' factors. First, the City pointed out that ABAG's projections of anticipated job growth in Saratoga could not be correct. The City's housing allocation is based on the assumption that there will be 1,200 new jobs in Saratoga between 1995 and 2000. Given that the City's employment level is only 8.500, there is no basis for this level of job growth. The second basis for the City's appeal pointed to inaccuracies in ABAG's projections regarding household growth in Saratoga. ABAG relied on growth during the 1995-2000 period as the basis for projecting furore growth in the CiW. However, developments during that period included two unique projects which provided 245 units collectively. Because there is insufficient undeveloped land in the City to accommodate these types of developments in the future, the City asked that ABAG reduce its projections of future household growth in the Citv. The City pointed out that ifABAG used Saratoga's historic job growth rate and ~istoric hot~sehold growth rates the fair share allocation for the City would be 223 units. The ABAG Housing Need Appeals Committee met to consider the City's appeal on JanuaO' 25, 2001. Councilmembers Bogosian and Waltonsmith attended the hearino_. together with the City Manager and the City Attorney. The Appeals Committee rejJcted the City's appeal. The Committee apparently accepted staff recommendation that the appeal be denied because the City should have filed its complaint regarding the inaccurate job and household growth projections in response to an administrative report issued by ABAG staff in 1999. The City received no notice with this report that the report would be used to develop the housing needs determinations or that there would be no further opportunities to appeal the data in that report. (The correspondence between the City and ABAG concerning these issues has previously been distributed to the Council. The City's final appeal letter is attached to this Staff Report for your information.) The ABAG Executive Board will meet on March 1 *, 2001 to make a final decision on the RHND for each jurisdiction within ABAG. City staff plans to request that the Executive Board reduce the City's RHND at that time. If the Executive Board does not agree, the City's only remaining option to challenge the determination would be through legal action. FISCAL IMPACTS: None ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Notice for this meeting. FOLLOW UP ACTIONS: Staff will take steps to persuade the ABAG Executive Committee to reduce the Ci~"s RHND at the march 15, 2001 hearing. ATTACHMENTS: January~_,gs 2001 Letter of Appeal to ABAG Housing Needs Appeal Committee. 2 SHUTE,)IIHALY ~ WEINBERGER .~.TTORNEYS AT L:xw 396 HAYES STREET SAN FRANC:$CO, CAL!-='ORN;A T--~z-P~ONE ~4 I ~.~ % WW. ~_.MW_AW .CO'-1 January 25. 2001 LLP Via Hand Delivery Housing Needs Appeal Committee 101 - 8*' Street Oakland, CA 94607 Dear Members of the Appeals Committee: This letter responds to the memorandum ofJanuarv 17,2001 from ABAG staff to the Housing Needs Appeal Committee, recommending that the Appeal Committee deny the City of Saratoga's ("City") proposed RHND revision. The City's appeal of December 19. 2000 argued that Projections 2000 contained incorrect job and housing data. and proposed a revision to the RHND using corrected data. As discussed below, the recommendation against a revision is based on incorrect legal and technical argmnents. The City argued that ABAG could not use the unreliable data contained in the Projections 2000 report. Specifically, the City showed that the 1995-2000 job data showing a quadrupling in job growth had no basis in commercial development, and was therefore unreliable. The City also showed that two unique housing project developments in the 1995-2000 period could not be considered reliable data for estimating future housing growth. In response, ABAG stafffirst asserted that Projections 2000 is used by the Metropolitan Transportation Commission. However, the question is not whether Projections 2000 as a whole is unreliable, just whether certain 1995-2000 data for the City of Saratoga is accurate. ABAG staff do not assert that the Commission independently verified the data or even used the specific data that the City questions. The Commission also did not have the proof of unreliabilib' before it that the City has repeatedly provided to ABAG staff. Previous use of data by an unwitting agency does not validate its use when the data is later shown to be unreliable. Nothing in the Janualy 17 memorandum or any previous response from ABAG staff disputes the City's central Housing Needs Appeal Committee Januarv 25, 2001 Pa~e '~ assertion that Projections 2000 is incorrect_ and therefore unreliable.: The ABAG staff memorandum also denied that ABAG had any obligation to consider the City's corrected data. In the City's appeal of August 30, 2000, the Citv used corrected data to develop an accurate revision of the City's RHND. ABAG staffs November 17, 2000 memorandum refused to consider the corrected data, arguing not that the corrections were wrong but that the City could have provided corrections to the draft Projections 2000 planning document at an earlier point, and that ABAG does not have to consider data that conflicts with Projections 2000. The City's letter of December 19. 2000 responded by pointing out that Government Code section 65584(c)(2)(D) clearly requires consideration of "available data." ABAG staffs January 17, 2001 memorandum asserts for the first time in this review process that the City's data is not "accurate, readily available, reproducible, and up to date." Staff make this conclusion without providing any reasoning or evidence to support the conclusion. An unsupported conclusion such as this gives the City no chance to make a meaningful response, and gives the Appeals Committee no opportunity' for meaningful review of the staff decision. Ihe Appeals Committee should reject this conclusion.: ABAG's November 17 Memorandum stated that the Appeals Committee would follow the appeal criteria established in state law. but then added a criteria not found in the law, requiring the Appeals Committee to reject an otherwise valid revision of ~ The rest of ABAG staffs response to this issue does not address the-question of whether the 1995-2000 jobs and housing data in Projections 2000 is unreliable. Staff assert that in the absence of comments from local jurisdictions, it can presume the information about those jurisdictions is accurate. However. the City has provided comments and proof for the last five months that the data is incorrect, so :M3AG can no longer presume it is accurate. Staff comments about methodolo~' am'not relevant: the Ci~~ questions the data, not the methodolo~'. : The staff response then goes on to point out an Attorney General Opinion stating that the RHND process is not limited by current zoning ordinances. However, the City is simply providing corrected housing and job projection data which does not rely on zoning restrictions. The Attorney General Opinion is not relevant to the issue of whether the City?s inforn~ation constitutes "available data." We would note, however, that the Attorn~ Generars opinion did not limit ABAG's ability to consider physical constraints such as those present on many of the undeveloped parcels in Saratoga. Housing Needs Appeal Committee January 25. 2001 Page 3 the RHND unless the appealing citv identifies another jurisdiction that agrees to incorporate the housing numbers that were incorrectly designated for the city. The City's December 19. 2000 appeal showed the Government Code clearly establishes the sole criteria for use in accepting or rejecting proposed revisions, and none of the criteria allow ABAG to transfer to the jurisdiction that seeks a correct and appropriate RHND the burden of reallocating incorrect RHND numbers. ABAG staffs January 17. 2001 memorandum asserts that California lave does not prohibit imposing additional criteria, and this criterion simply recognizes that RHND is a "zero-sum game." If the State Legislature had intended to allow additional criteria to be used. the Legislature would have either listed the additional criteria or stated the list it provided was not exclusive. ABAG's additional criterion amounts to a requirement that best described as "burden the jurisdiction that received an inaccurate RHND with the task of finding other jurisdictions to take on the excess allocation." This requirement is being used to overrule the statutory requirement to use "available data" and revise the RHND accordingly. This action violates legislative intent and violates the statute. While the task of reassigning the RH ND from a jurisdiction that deserv es a revision may be difficuh, it is within the authority and obligation of ABAG to do so, and the obligation cannot be transferred to an individual jurisdiction.-"' Conclusion California law requires that RHND be based on available data. The jobs and housing data in Projections 2000 are unreliable to the extent indicated bv the Citv's August 30 letter and there]tore cannot be used as available data. ABAG staff have provided no evidence to contradict the City's assertion that certain data is unreliable. The -' The ABAG staff report also both misquotes and takes out of context Government Code section 65584(c)(5)(A). Ihe full citation is the following: 65584(c)(5). The council of governments or the department shall reduce the share of regional housi~ needs of a count3.' if all of the following conditions am met: (A) One or more cities within the county agree to increase its share or their shares in an amount which will make up for the reduction. Because this citation refers only to counties, it is not relevant to a city that seeks a revision of its RHND. Housing Needs Appeal Committee January 25,2001 Page 4 City's August 30 letter provides available data to substitute for the unreliable information in the Projections document. The City is aware of no other data that contradicts its corrections; in fact, geological and topographic restraints in the City further reinforce the need to revise the RHND. The conclusory statement dismissing the City's data as invalid must be rejected because the conclusion is made without any evidence or reasoning to support it. Given the absence of contradictory data, therefore, ABAG must use the Citv's data and would therefore arrive at the same RHND as proposed by the City in its letter. For the above reasons, we appeal the rejection of the Cit?s proposed revision to its RHND. Very truly yours, SHUTE, MIHALY & WEINBERGER LLP RICHARD S. TAYLOR City Attomey City of Saratoga Attachment: January, 2001 Memorandum from Alex Amoroso to Housing Need Appeals Committee M embers P:~SAR_-XTOGA .MATIn. BAS0234 WPD S:~TOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 7. 2001 ORIGINATING DEPT: Administrative Services AGENDA ITEM: CITY M.~NAGE R: DEPT HEAD: SUBJECT: Orchard Restoration Project - Phase I and Phase II RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: 1. Authorize City Manager to sign contract with Gates and Associates. Landscape .~chitects in the amount of $9,050 for design development and construction management. 2. Amend the amount of the existing contract with Matt Novakovich, Orchardist, in the amount of $33,587.28 for excavating and transplanting fruit trees in conjunction with Phase I of the Orchard Restoration Project. 1. Authorize City Manager to sign contract with Gates and Associates, Landscape .~chitects - for Phase II Orchard Restoration Project - Orchard Master Plan in the amount of S 19,120. 2. Appropriate funds in the amount of $19,120 from the General Fund balance to be applied to Phase II - Orchard Restoration Project - Orchard Master Plan. REPORT SUMMARY: A. Tree Transplanting and Removal for Orchard Restoration Project - Phase I At it's January 17th meeting, the City Council had the opportunity to review the schematic design plan for the Saratoga LibraD' Expansion project. During the presentation, it was noted that the expansion of the librar)' building and parking lot would necessitate the removal of approximately 110 orchard trees. It was also noted that it was the intention to transplant, to the extent feasible, a portion of these trees, slated for removal, into the existing orchard. Matt Novakovich, the City orchardist, and Linda Gates, the landscape architect, have walked the site to evaluate the existing trees proposed for removal and have identified 48 trees as potential candidates for transplanting. The candidates for transplant are a mixture of prune and apricot trees ofvaD'ing sizes, but generally less than 7 years old. In further conversations, Mr. Novakovich also recommended replanting the orchard trees on the Fruitvale/Sunn3~'ale comer and along Sunnyvale Avenue. He indicated the few existing trees in these areas were either omamental or "bird-planted" trees which are ' inconsistent with orchard or are veD' old and beyond their productive life. Mr. Novakovich's preference is to replant this whole area. The replanting of the comer and street frontage orchard would require the removal of 110 existing trees and replanting of approximately 116 trees. The current orchard is divided into three species of trees with the prunes generally located along Fruitvale edge, the apricots along Sunny-wale/Saratoga edge and the cherries along the creek/City Hall edge. To maintain consistency with the existing orchard pattern, the comer would be planted with prunes and the frontage along Sunnyvale/Saratoga with apricots. It is recommended that the transplanted trees (approximately 21 prunes and 27 apricots) ' be utilized to start this replanting. The remainder of the orchard trees required for replanting the comers would then be planted as a part of the library landscaping. Both the transplanting and comer replanting would be funded through the libra~' expansion project as part of the mitigation/Ur tree removal and landscaping associated with the proposed library project. These recommendations were reviewed by the Heritage Commission, which has endorsed the plan to remove the existing trees at the comer and along Saratoga/Sunnyvale to enable to orchard to be replanted. The Heritage Commission also a~ees that the trees identified for transplanting should be relocated to these areas to provide a strong initial visual impact. The libra~, is not slated fOr construction until September. However, the optimum time to transplant the trees is during the dormant winter season and not the summer season, the least optimum time. Therefore, City Staff directed Linda Gates, the landscape architect, and Matt Novakovich to review the feasibility of transplanting the trees this FebruaD', prior to any construction activities on the site. Bids have been obtained from two transplanting specialists. They will contract with the City through Mr. Nova!~ovi~h, City Orchardist. He will be responsible for any tree removal associated with the transplanting operation and directly oversee the work of the transplanting contractor. Linda Gates, through her contract with the City would provide project coordination and oversight on transplanting for the project. ActMties to be undertaken ~his February: · The trees to be transplanted would be clearly indicated in the field by the orchardist and the landscape architect (Exhibit A). · Approximately 21 trees at the comer and alone Saratoga would be removed to provide an area for the initial transplanting (Exhibit B). · The trees would be transplanted to new locations shown, followed by the final replanting of the comer with the library expansion. (Exhibit C). B. Orchard Master Plan (Phase II) The City has been planning to develop a master plan to look at renovation of the orchard for a number of years. The library expansion project will only address a small comer of the existing orchard. The City Staffhas requested and the Heritage Committee recommends that Linda Gates with the support of Matt Novakovich be retained to work with the Heritage Committee to develop a master plan for the orchard. The master plan would: · Inventor3..- the existing trees (health, size, etc.) · Identify.' a tree replacement plan · Evaluate alternatives for irrigating orchard including a well · Develop policies on other orchard issues - existing oak trees, maintenance barn. paths · Provide an implementation strategy (phasing, associated costs} funding options tadopt a tree). FISCAL IMPACTS: The cost of the Phase I project is as follows: · Design Development and Construction Management (Gates and Associates) - $9,050 · Fruit Tree Excavation and Transplantation - S33,587.28 (Matt Novakovich) Funding for this work is available in CIP 0102 - Park upgrades {001-522-4014-0102). If the final Library project is approved by the City Council these expenses would be considered a part of the LibraD"s Landscaping Progam and be reimbursed to the City from project funds. The estimated cost of the Orchard Master Plan (Phase II) including project management, irrigation design and orchardist time is S 19,120. This project requires an appropriation of funds to proceed. Staff recommends that the funding source for the Orchard Master Plan is the General Fund balance, as this is a capital project item. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: A. If trees are not transplanted in February during their dormant period, the probably of success is si~ificantly reduced. B. The Orchard Master Plan is critical in guiding the replanting and restoration of the orchard. Without it, this work would be delayed. : 1 ALTEI~NATIVE ACTIONS: Alternatively, the City could choose not to transplant trees in February, in which case only new trees would be planted at the time of the expansion project. This would involve the loss of the more mature, transplantable trees. Rather than have an Orchard Master Plan developed;. City Staff could be directed to care for and plant trees on an as-needed basis, without embarking on a restoration project. FOLLOW UP ACTION: A.. 1. Authorize City Manager to sign contract with Gates and Associates, Landscape Axchitects and amend the amount of the existing contract with Matt Novakovich. Orchardist, for excavating and transplanting trees in conjunction with Phase I of the Orchard Restoration Project. 2. Direct City Manager to execute agreement. B. 1. AuthofizO City Manager to sign contract with Gates and Associates. kandscape .,M'chitects - for Phase II Orchard Restoration Project - Orchard Master Plan. 2. Direct City Manager to execute agreement. AI)VERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: A. It is recommended that signage be posted informin~ the public that work being done is part of the Library Expansion and/or Heritage Orchard RestOration Project. B. It is recommended that information be posted on the City's web site describing work to be done under Phase II, Orchard Master Plan. EXHIBITS: Exhibit A - Trees to be Planted Exhibit B - Trees to be Removed Exhibit C - Final Replanting Plan ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A - Gates & Asso. Contract - Phase I Attachment B - Cost Quotation from Matt Novakovich Attachment C - Gates & Asso. Contract - Phase II Attachment D - Resolution Appropriating Funds for Phase II (CoUncil will receive on 2/7/01 ) 01/31/2001 19:29 FA~ 1 925 ?36 $184 GATES Exhibit A QO_O / i O{ 0 0 o:OOO ~ .0- o_O. G~ES & ASSOCIAZ~$ ~006 01/31/2001 19.'29 F,~:~ 1 925 736 8184 Exhibit B m x -0 CT o o.. o..0 ~ .0 01/51/2001 19:50 FA~ 1 925 735 8184 GATES & ASSOCIATES ~007 Exhibit C m I ! AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SER¥2CES This agreement is made as of by and between David L. Gates & Associates, Inc., (DGA), a California corporation, and ("Client"). As provided in this Agreement, DGA will provide landscape architectural sen'ices for the foliowino proiect (the "Project"): Description of project sCOPE OF sERVICES tas~as fce Design Development:. · Meeting with orchardist to review status of orchard trees impacted by pr~ect. · Prepare graphic illustrating trees tobe removed, saved or transplanted. · Meet with Heritage Tree Comrnittee (2 meetings). · Prepare graphic invemoD, of toal orchard using data supplies by orchardist. · Coordination with Ci~' and orchardist on tree transplant work and issues. · Prepare staff report. · Assist with obtaining bids. S4,200 Construction Documents: · Prepare demo. litioh transplant plan for relocation of 50 trees. $1,850 Contruction Administration: · Assist in marking all trees to be relocated and removed. · ' Participation in pre-construction meeting. · Review pa}Tnent requests during construction · Review constrUction progress. (1 visit) · Final walk at completion of project. S3,000 Total Fees S9,050 Accepted by: Client Signature Client Name: Dated: David L. Gates & Associates By: Dated: - Attachment A Phase I ATTACI-EMENT 1 TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN CLIENT .~ND DAVID GATES AND ASSOCIATES, INCORPOI~,TED The following additional terms and condi:ions are appended to. and part or'. tee A~eement for professional services bet;neon Da'. id k Ga:es & Associates, Inc., (DGA), a California corporation, and ("Ciient"). da:ed __ David Gates & Associates. Inc. (DGA) will provide :he Scope of Services as described. DGA agrees :o ?er:-orn2 tee set: ices se; fort!; :n agreement, and C:.iem agrees to pay for said sen-ices on .'.he corms set forte in this ageemen:. 2. Addi:ional Services no: set for:h in the Scope of Services include, bur are no: hm~ted to. changes ~:: :2c scope c:- dc:a:i c: :2.: ;,or :, made ..: reques: of Client: sen-ices made necessary by ,.mforeseen conditions no: disclosed to DGA a: :he time o:'emen::g into :h!s agreemc:-:: and o:her serv:ce performed by DGA not reasonabl3 w::hm tee scope of the services en: ;stoned at the tw. ae of en:c.qng :n:o tn:s ag~ccme7.:. Ail additions to the scope of work sha'.l be in wnung, and executed by tee Client. DGA's Fees ~h~,,- ~" be as described in tee Scope of Sen-tees. plus Expenses. Expenses ofconsuka:tts and o~?.er d:rect expenses s~a~ be n:.:.d, br. Client in tiqe amount invmced to DGA plus ten nercent ~: 0%) for kandl!ng and redirect cos:s. T~ese ma> ~:-c~.a:. a~: arc no: ;;m!:ec: t,- 'rrig;; consultants, printing and reproduction costs, mileage and travel costs, and other miscellaneous expenses. Additional Services. req-'-,ested and au:horized by tko Cliem. shall be paid on an ~ourl? basSs a: the carrent s:anda:-2 sc~ed~:~ed ;-:::es bela,,:. D©A's houri?' rare sck. edule ma5 be adjusted on Januar.'. ' and July i of each, .,.ear and seal: apply ;'or an.'. set; ;cos render-rd a:~e: ct:a: da~c Sen'ices of: Rate Per Hour President S ! 55.00 Pnncipai $:00 00 - S125 00 Senior Associate 585.00 - S i 00.00 lrrigauon Designer 585.00 Associate 575.00 - 585.00 Draftspersons. Landscape Designer 560.00 - 57,5.00 Clerical Staff 550.00 - S60.00 5 Invoices ."or Sen'ices and Reimbursables shall be provided by DGA each month and are payable upon rote:p:. Yon agree :o re', ;ow tko inn o:ce ask an.'.' ques:ions of DGA within ten/10) da.'-s of receipt, lfx~e do not hear :'rom ;on. :he mvo:ce shall be deemed proper and ::ceca:able baiance IS not pazd with, in tx~en:y {20! days ti'om receipl, the unpaid balance x:iii accrue '.n:eres: at :tn per-con:; I u:;c} pc: an:ruin co;ti:_,.co;;,:ca ca:.. az>il paid in 6. DGA rosen'es the ri,zht~ to suspend work in :he event invoices are past &re. DGA ma5' recommence x~ork ',~ Eon :'.~.' pa': .men> :s :-:cc~', ed. i:;ciud:ng collection costs, attorne.'. Fees and other costs, or other sa:ist'ac:ory arrangements are made ',~i:h tY:.e C:ien: If a dei:nq..:nc.', b'- C'.ie::: occu:-s and DGA chooses not :o suspend v. ork, no waiver or estoppel sE. ali be ~mpi~ed or infer'red Client agrees and understands ti:at if DGA dcei.!es :a suspend its v. ork.. DGA. s~.ali no~ be liable for any. costs or damao_es.~ . inck:d:n~'~ bat not l:m~tec' ' :o de!ay and consec, aer:'.mi u_,n.:-=c_.a-~, g'" '--': "-nc- Owner. Client. or all.', other third part>'. :hat ma> arise from or be reiaied to such a ;:ark suspeas:o:; CEe::; ag:rcs t,~ he'd DG:\ i;a:-:::l.:s~- :':,,~:2 completely indern::it'y DGA from and against an}' and ail damages, costs, attome.,.'s l~es. and or other expenses ::rich DGA n;;:3 :hour as a of any c!aim by an>: person or enti~ arising out of such a suspension of work. 7 lfanv iln,,auon, arbitration, or other le,,~ acr!on aris:ne out of this contract ensues, lb.e are:a:i:ng pari', si:a5 ",-- o---.->:: :o ,: 5:ho_: reasonable attorney's fees. collection expenses, expert fees. and costs. S This Agreement ma.'.' be terminated by either Client or DGA by o-ivine writ-ten no:ice a: least thirty (30'~ days prior to :he dare of term:nar:on ihe even: of such :e,,'vnination. Ci:ent shall pa.~ DGA for Services and Reimb.;rsabie Expenses performed or incurred prior- to t!;e :ernamat~o:: dare. pta> al. ~.t >t~ and exoenses directly attributable :o such term, ma:ion for which DGA ~s not otherx~ise compensate:: 9 , :,,,,. dra,', .,,__, and specifications or ot?:.er v. Titinas or documents prepared or provided bx DGA i~ereu.';.der are prepared lyf socc;:ic use b: Ci:er.t az :hls Pro.'.ec: ann C~ient a_orees not to use the v. hole or ~art of said oians, dra',;:no_s. ~- ~ ~p ....... :~- or .... ,: :u =~:~.,,1~.,.,,..,_, o:her xtrin:;gs or do:un'ems prepared or prov:ded by-DGA for other grote:ts or extensions to the Pro:ecl or an>' other purpose ',ri:kan: tile express x:rit:en consent 05 DGA DGA shall prov:de Client xtith a reproducible set ot drawings and snecifica:ions -tbr :ts records. Ci:ent :'ar:kef a~rees :o hold DGA karm!css :iota and indemnff;~ DGA from and against any and ai! damages, losses, costs, and or expenses, mck:di'-g at:~.rv, e; < :::es. ~:5'c:~ DC;~. n'w. ::~c:.'- as 2 result ora clmm by an> part3: or entity, arising out or'an unautkorized use of sa ,.5 a~ans dray. tags. spoor:Scat;oat, and ct' I0 Client agrees that DGA's liability for negligence to Client shali be !!mired to the amount paid by C;icnt hereunder ."or DGA's tkes fo:- Basic Sen-ices and Addltiona[ Sen'ices. 11. This Agreement represents the entire A~eement be:ween Client and DGA. Th~s Agreement may be amended on?: b? a x:nt:ng signed by bo:;: Client and DGA. Thcs contract s;':ali be ~ovemed bt' tee laws oCri'e State o_:Ca!i£omia and s?aE be deemed to hate bee:: ente"ed it:::' in Dan:':i~e. Cai::bmia. regardless of where i: is phys?cally executed. If suit or arbi:rauon is filed ~o enforce :h!s contract. :he aarties consent :o persona! .!urisd~ction in tire coups of Contra Cos.m Count3.', State of Ca!ifomia. and waive tee ,qght to have the suit brought in. tried in. or removed to any other judic:al ,}urlsalcBon. 2 01/31/2001 19:30 FAX I 925 735 $154 GA~ES & ASSOCIATES .01/31/2091 15:43 FI;:O]I Noueko~;I,;,h Or'ohards CARBONLESS FORM 3748 '," NO CARBON REQUIREO P.OI ? QUOTATION TI~IPLiCATE Quantity o 1-A L QUOTATION Matt. Novakovich 1~251 Fz~Aitvale Ave. Saratoga,Cm. 95070 Phone/Fax 408 741-0527 For N. ir~,%a. Gates Phone 925-736-8176 Fax 925-736-8184 City of Smral;oga 13777 Frui~vale Ave. Sa~amoga. Ca. 95070 We are pleased to quote ~s follows: Description N~. Dam Your No. Your Due O~e Terms Prices cluot~d are F.O.B. Excavmte trees e~'ou.~A Library: includes chainsaw, remove brush & woo~, stm~ps, large rocks, backfill, gra~e, survey, stak, Pruni~, labor, Tractor work, removing tree trimmings . Pruning tra~$~l~nte~ tre~ Watering- First watering Aerie by tree mov~ 2nd watering for ~8 trans planteA trees. for every two weeks. Until irraga~ion in~talle4. Gra~i~ after frans planting ~one- Obser~ation for one wemk for mrans plant ,rs em305- no ork. Tr~ns plantin~ ~8 fruit trees ~ 500. P3~,000. ~ 750- 36.000. 600. Suggest cost average I~ will take 1 week for ~rans pla~ting can S~a,rt week ef 12th, Feb. wheather permitting. Cost for ~ster pl~.' ~'"$3600- '~ C~ ge~ 2~ bid for tr~s pl~t wor~ will .~._ · ~e ~ few Attachment B NAL 592.28 300. 320. 2OO0. ~'ocks recks 28,800. AGREEMENT FOR PROFESSIONAL SERXqCES This agreement is made as of by and between David L. Gates & Associates. Inc., (DGA). a California corporation, and ("Client"). As provided in this Agreement, DGA will provide landscape architectural services for the following prqlect !the "Project"): SCOPE OF SERVICES tasks .Fee SubTask 1. l - D-ee Inventory & Replacement Plan Inventor}', with orchardist, all existing trees in orchard to determine health, size, and need for replacement. Prepare a summar:,.' diagram. Prepare tree replacement plan indicating reconmrended replacement species, and potent:al pkasmg. Identify cost issues associated with replanting. Sub Task 1.2 - h'rigation Assessment Preliminary Well Feasibility - Contact well drillers to collect general information on installatxon costs, likely water volumes, maintenance costs, potentxa! savings on water bill and develop recommendation on "how to p roceed" Irrigation Alternatives - Work with orchardist to review various approaches to irrigating orchard. Idennfv issues associated with each approach: · Visual implication · Installation costs · Maintenance implications Sub Task !. 3- Committee Meeting =I Meet with Committee to present prelimxnary findings and collect input regarding orchard replanting, phasing, and irriganon approach. Facilitate Discussion w~th contrniuees on other master plan issues. · Path System - materials, location and use. · Site amenities - maintenance barn. benches. interpretive s~gnage. · Status of non-orchard tree - Oaks and Pines. Sub Task 1.4 - Draft Master Plan Recommendations Summarize Committee input into draft preferred Master Plan. Prepare a summary report including: · Overall Master Plan Vision - goals, long-term use · Recommended Tree Replacement Plan w~th Phasing · Irrigation System Master Plan - mainlines. irrigation standards · Proposed site amenities · Implementation Strategy - construction costs, funding sources {.adopt a tree program). Attachment C Phase Sub Task 1.5 - Committee Meeting Meet with ComrnittCe to review draft report and discuss strategy for presenting to Council. Sub Task 1.6 - Final Master Plan Recommendations Total Fees Accepted by: Client Signature Client Name: Dated: 1. Revise Master Plan report based on community input. 2. Prepare exhibits for public hearing. 3. Present Committee recommendations at CitT Council meeting: Meetin_os: 2 Heritage Committee Meetings 1 CiD' Council Meeting Products: Tree inventow diagram Tree replacement diagram Well feasibility preliminary assessment Irrigation Diagram Plaza Plan Cost Estimate Annotated Orchard Master Plan Draft & Final Master Plan Report Presentation Exhibit $19,120.00 (Please see attached fee proposal for breakdown) David L. Gates dc Associates By: Dated: 2 ! Task David Gates 8: Associates Todd Young. Project Manager Associate Irrigation I Orchardis I Clerical & ~ Graphic '. Designer S55/hr S125/hr S75/hr S85/hr Phase I - Data Collection SubTask i. 1 - D'ee bn,entorv & Replacement Plan 18 8 ! 2 Sub Task I. 2 - Irrigation Assessment 4 8 8 SubTask I. 3 - Committee Meeting gl 4 ISub Task 1.4 - Draft Master Plan Recommendations 8 40 2 16 I Sub Task ]. 5 - Committee Meeting=_- ~ 4 rub Task/. 6 - Final Master Plan I 8 24 16 [ I SUBTOTAL M.43; HOURS 46 80 10 44 I SUBTOTAL FEE · 55.750.00 S6,000.00 S$50.00 S2.420.00 $3.600.C)¢: REIMBURS.4BLES I ' ' 5500.00 TOTAL S19.120.0~ ATTACHMENT 1 TE1LMS :-kND CONDITIONS OF AGREEMENT BETWEEN CLIENT .~N'D DAVID GATES .~\'D ASSOCIATES, INCORPOIL~.TED T~".e following additional terms and conditions are appended to, and part o5. the A~eemen: for professional set,, ices be:wee:: Da`. ~d L Gates & Associates. Inc.. (DGA). a California corporation, and CCilen:"). dated __ David Gates & Associates. lnc (DGA) will provide the Scope of Se,'-,.ices as described. DGA agrees to per:b.wn., ti~e scr'~ ~ces set tbrt5 in this agreement, and Ciien: agrees to pa.,.' for sa!d services on :he terms set forth in this agreement. " Additional Ser'~ices not set fortl~. in the Scope of Services include, but are not l~mited to. c?:.anges ir tfe scone or dc:a:i o" ih...~ t,r:: ::adc a: recues: of Ci:ent: services made necessar?' by unforeseen conditions not disclosed to DGA a: tlc time ofen:er:ng into ~his agreeme:7: and an'~ other sen-ice performed by DGA not reasonably ,.,,i:hin the scope of the services envisioned at the time of entenng ~nto th!s agreement. A'I! additions to the scope of work shaP, be in v,.'riting, and executed by :he Ciien:. 3 DGA's Fees skall be as described in the Scope of Services. plus Expenses Expenses of consultants and other direct expenses shall be pa'~d b'. :he Client in the amount invoiced to DGA plus ten percent (10:~) for handling and indirect cos;& These ma.', inciude, but are not i:nmed to imgatio:: consultants, pr,ming and reproduction costs, mileage and =a,.-el costs, and other miscellaneous expenses Additional Services. requested and authorized by the Client. shall be paid on an hourly basis at the current standard schedxlcd rates beiow DGA's Louri.,. raie sckedz, le ma.'.' be adjusted on January i and J;:i.,, i of each 5ear and shall apply for an.'.' services rendered after teat date. Services oJ5 Rate Per Hour President S 155.00 Principal Si00 00 - 5125.00 Senior Associate 585 00 - St, 00.00 Irrigation Designer S85.00 Associate $75.00 - 585.00 Draftspersons ~Landscape Designer S60.00 - 570.00 Clerical Staff 550.00 - 560.00 5. invoices -'.'or Services and Reimbursables shali be provided by DGA each month and are payable upon receipt. You agree to review the mx once and ask an,.' caesnons of DGA within ten ,,i0~ da.,,s of receipt. ~t-`.~,e do ,.:or hear fi'om .'.o~. the m`. oice skai! be deen:cd proper and accco:.ablc, lf.`.,;_:- baiance ns not paid v~ith~n t`.*.enLv (20) days from receipt, tlz. e unpaid balance ,.,.-ill accrue interest at ten percent ,.'.! 0S-3) per annum co?..poandcd dad.'. until paid in fu!i 6. DGA resen'es the rmh: to suspend work in the event invoices are past due. DGA may recommence ',*.ork when full pa:. merit :s received, including collection costs, attorney fees. and oti:.er costs, or other satisfacto,'5.' an-angements are made with the Client. Ifa delinquency bt' Ciier..t occurs a::d DGA chooses no: to suspend v, ork. no waiver or estoppel sharl be implied or inlkp',ed Client agrees and understands that ii' DGA decides to so suspend ~ts work. DGA shaii not be liable for an.'.' costs or damages, including but not limited to delay and consequential damages· to tb.e C!ient. or an.'. other third par:.'.:, that ma.'. arise from or be related to si. ch a work s~spension. Client agrees ro hold DGA i:armicss flora and completely inden-.ni~ DGA from and agmnst an_'.' and all damages, costs, attorney's fees. an&or otker expenses ,.~.inch DGA may incur as a result of any claim bi. an.'.' person or entity arising out of such a susoension of work. 7. If an.~ imga:io::, arbnration, or other legal action arising out of t'::.~s contract ensues, the 15revail!ng par::.' skali be enntled to. v.'nl~o:;t lim~tano::, reasonable attorney's fees. col!ecnon expenses, expert fees. and costs. $ Tkis Agreement ma.'.: be term,nated by either Client or DGA by o. mvin,2 :vr~tten notice at leas: tkm:.' (30) days prior to :he date of terminat:on. In .'.he event of such term:nation. CLem shali pay DGA :bt Services and Rmmbursabie Expenses per!brined or incurred prior to -'.he termmat:on date. plus ali costs and expenses directly atmbutabie to such terrmnation for which DGA is not o:herw:se compensated. 9 Pians. drag. ings and specifications or other v. Titings or documents prepared or provided by DGA hereunder are prepared for specific use by the Client on th~s Proiect only. Client agrees not to use the `.','hole or part of said plans, drawings, and specifications or other writings or documents prepared or provided b3 DGA for other projects or extensions to :he Project or any otk. er pure. ose without tb.e express written consent of DG.-\. DGA s~a;I prox ide Client ~ ith a reproducible set o!' draw!ngs and specifications for its records. C!ient further agrees to !told DGA harmless fi-om and indemniO' DGA from and against any and all damages, losses, costs, and;or expenses, including auomey's fees. which DGA may incur as a rest. i: ora claim b3 any par:.,.' or entity, arising o~:~ of an unauthorized ase of said pians, drawings, specnlcanons, and:or documents. :0 Client agrees :ha: DGA's liability fo: negligence to Client seal! be i:.w.~tcd :o tfe amoxn: paid b'.. Client hereander :bt DGA's :~es for Basic Services and Add!:iona! Services. 11. This Agreement represents the entire Agreement between Client and DGA This Agreement ma.'.' be amended on!.,.: by a writing s:gned b'.. both Client and DGA 12. This contract shali be governed by the iaws of the State of Calitbmia and shall be deemed to have been entered into ir. Danville, Ca!ilbmia. regardless ot ,,,,'here it is phvsicaliv executed. If_uit or arbitration is filed to enforce th~s contract, the ~arties consent to personai jurisdiction m the courts of Conwa Costa Count2,.', State of California. and waive the right to have the suit brought in. tried in. or removed to any other judiciai jUFISOICIiOn. RESOLUTION FOR APPROPRIATION OF FUNDS WILL BE E-MAILED ON MONDAY. FEBRUARY 5, 2001. HARD COPY TO BE DELIVERED BEFORE COU:~CIL MEETING ON WEDNESDAY. FEBRU.~RY 7, 2001. ~ttachment D