The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About121609 CC Pkt REGULAR MEETING – 7:00 P.M. – CIVIC THEATER/COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE 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 December 10, 2009) 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. Oral Communications -Council Direction to Staff Instruction to Staff regarding actions on current Oral Communications. Communications from Boards and Commissions Council Direction to Staff Instruction to Staff regarding actions on current Communications from Boards & Commissions. ANNOUNCEMENTS CEREMONIAL ITEMS None SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS 1. Video Presentation on “Saratoga Live” Recommended action: Listen to and view a short video presentation from Patrick and Sally O’hearn. AGENDA REGULAR MEETING SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL Wednesday, December 16, 2009 1 CONSENT CALENDAR The Consent Calendar contains routine items of business. Items in this section will be acted in one motion, unless removed by the Mayor or a Council member. Any member of the public may speak to an item on the Consent Calendar at this time, or request the Mayor remove an item from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Public Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes. 2. City Council Reorganization Minutes – December 1, 2009 Recommended action: Approve minutes. 3. Treasurer’s Report for the Month Ended November 30, 2009 Recommended action: Review and accept the Treasurer’s Report for the month ended November 30, 2009. 4. Review of Accounts Payable Check Registers. Recommended action: That the City Council accepts the Check Registers for the following Accounts Payable cycles: November 25, 2009 December 04, 2009 5. Resolution Adopting Council Agency Assignments and AdHoc Committee Appointments Recommended action: Adopt resolution. 6. FY 2008/09 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). Recommended action: Review and accept the FY 2008/09 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) 7. Electrical, Gas and Telephone Service Construction for Friendship Hall, Saratoga Prospect Center – Notice of Completion Recommended action: Move to accept the Electrical, Gas and Telephone Service Construction Project as complete and authorize staff to record the Notice of Completion. 8. Offer to Dedicate Trail Easement Recommended action: 1. Approve Offer to Dedicate Trail Easement on the property located at 22000 Via Regina (APN 503-69-025 old, 503-69-040 new). 2. Adopt Resolution Accepting Offer to Dedicate Trail Easement. 9. Heritage Resource Inventory Update Recommended action: Direct Staff Accordingly 10. 2010 Hazardous Vegetation Program Commencement Resolution Recommended action: 2 Adopt Resolution Declaring Hazardous Vegetation (Weeds) as Public Nuisance and Setting Public Hearing. 11. Historical Park Landscape Project – Donation of Funds from the Saratoga Historical Foundation Recommended action: 1. Accept funds in the amount of $26,000 from the Saratoga Historical Foundation for the Historical Park Landscape Project. 2. Approve Budget Resolution. 12. Development Impact Fee Report Recommended action: Review and accept report on the status of FY 2008/09 Development Impact Fees 13. Highway 9 Safety Improvement Project, Phase II -Cooperative Agreement and Design Contract Approval Recommended action: 1. Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a Cooperative Agreement between the City of Saratoga, the Town of Los Gatos, and the City of Monte Sereno for the Highway 9 Safety Improvement Project Phase II. 2. Approve an Independent Contractor Agreement with BKF Engineers for preparation of construction documents for the Highway 9 Safety Improvement Project Phase II and authorize the CityManager to execute the same. 3. Authorize the CityManager to sign a Letter of Understanding with the County of Santa Clara. 14. 2009 Library Heating Venting, Air Conditioning (HVAC) Renovation Project – Notice of Completion Recommended action: Move to accept the 2009 Library HVAC Renovation Project as complete and authorize staff to record the Notice of Completion for the contract. 15. Rescind Motor Vehicle (MV) Resolution No. MV-190 Prohibiting Parking on a Portion of Scully Avenue Recommended action: Move to rescind the MV Resolution restricting parking on Scully Avenue 16. Motor Vehicle (MV) Resolution Restricting Parking on Old Wood Road Recommended action: Move to adopt MV Resolution restricting parking on Old Wood Road. PUBLIC HEARINGS Items requested for continuance are subject to Council’s approval at the Council meeting. 17. Proposed ordinance establishing the City’s ability to issue administrative citations for violations of the Saratoga City Code. Recommended action: Conduct a public public hearing regarding the attached ordinance establishing an administrative citation procedure, introduce and waive the first reading of the ordinance, and direct staff to place the ordinance on the consent calendar for adoption 3 at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the City Council. 18. Extension of Urgency Ordinance for Medical Marijuana Dispensaries Recommended action: Receive and approve this staff report regarding measures taken thus far to alleviate the condition that led to adoption of the November 18, 2009 urgency ordinance for medical marijuana dispensaries (MMDs) and adopt an ordinance extending for ten months and 15 days the temporary moratorium on the establishment of MMDs. 19. Resolutions to Join CaliforniaFIRST and Authorize Sacramento County to Apply for and Accept State Energy Program Funds on Behalf of the City of Saratoga Recommended action: Accept report and approve resolutions to join CaliforniaFIRST and authorize Sacramento County to apply for and accept State Energy Program (SEP) funds on behalf of the City of Saratoga. OLD BUSINESS 20. Council Member Topics for January 29, 2010 Council Retreat Agenda Recommended action: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. 21. Santa Clara County Cities Association Association Policy Priorities for 2010 Recommended action: Accept report, recommend three to five policy priority proposals for the Santa Clara County Cities Association (SCCCA) 2010 policy priorities, and authorize staff to return suggestions to the SCCCA Board of Directors for their January 14, 2010 meeting. NEW BUSINESS 22. Amendment to Lease Agreement with Hakone Foundation Recommended action: Approve amendment to lease agreement with Hakone Foundation providing for matching funds of $250,000 towards the cost of constructing a visitor and conference center at Hakone Gardens. 23. City Council Mayoral Rotation Policy Recommended action: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. ADHOC & AGENCY ASSIGNMENT REPORTS Mayor Kathleen King Hakone Foundation Board West Valley Flood Control Zone & Watershed Advisory Committee SSC Cities Association Executive Board SCC Cities Association – Joint Economic Development Policy Committee (JEDPC) City School Ad-Hoc 4 Vice Mayor Jill Hunter Historical Foundation Library Joint Powers Association Santa Clara County Valley Water District Commission Village AdHoc Councilmember Howard Miller Chamber of Commerce KSAR Santa Clara County Emergency Council West Valley Solid Waste Joint Powers Association Council Finance Standing Committee Councilmember Susie Nagpal ABAG Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study Policy Advisory Board (PAB) County HCD Policy Committee SASCC Sister City Liaison Village AdHoc Councilmember Chuck Page Hakone Foundation Executive Committee Peninsula Division, League of California Cities SSC Cities Association Board SCC Cities Association Selection Committee Valley Transportation Authority PAC West Valley Sanitation District West Valley Mayors and Managers Association Council Finance Committee City School Ad-Hoc CITY COUNCIL ITEMS CITY MANAGER’S REPORT ADJOURNMENT In accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act, copies of the staff reports and other materials provided to the City Council by City staff in in connection with this agenda are available at the office of the Community Development Department Director at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. Note that copies of materials distributed to the City Council concurrently with the posting of the agenda are also available on the City Website at www.saratoga.ca.us. Any materials distributed by staff after the posting of the agenda are made available for public review at the office of the City Clerk at the time they are distributed to the City Council. 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 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II) 5 Certificate of Posting of Agenda: I, Ann Sullivan, City Clerk for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of the City Council for the City of Saratoga was posted on December 10, 2009, at the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA 95070 and was available for public review at that location. The agenda is also available on the City’s website at www.saratoga.ca.us Signed this 10th day of December 2009 at Saratoga, California. Ann Sullivan, CMC City Clerk NOTE: To view current or previous City Council meetings anytime, go to the City Video Archives at www.saratoga.ca.us 1/6 CANCELLED Regular Meeting 1/20 Regular Meeting 2/3 Regular Meeting 2/17 Regular Meeting CITY OF SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING CALENDAR 2010 6 1 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: December 16, 2009 AGENDA ITEM: DEPARTMENT: CityManager’s Office CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: Ann Sullivan, City Clerk DIRECTOR: Dave Anderson SUBJECT: Video Presentation on “Saratoga Live” RECOMMENDED ACTION: Listen to and view a short video presentation from Patrick and Sally O’hearn. REPORT SUMMARY: Patrick and Sally O’hearn will provide a presentation on a new website that they have created called “Saratoga Live”. This website promotes the many assets in Saratoga including Hakone Gardens, Montalvo, Mountain Winery, restaurants and much more. The website is http://www.saratoga-live.com FISCAL IMPACTS: N/A CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: N/A ALTERNATIVE ACTION: N/A FOLLOW UP ACTION: None ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Posting of the agenda. ATTACHMENTS: None 7 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: December 16, 2009 AGENDA ITEM: DEPARTMENT: CityManager’s Office CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: Ann Sullivan, City Clerk DIRECTOR: Dave Anderson SUBJECT: City Council Reorganization Minutes – December 1, 2009 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve minutes. REPORT SUMMARY: Approve minutes as submitted for December 1, 2009 City Council Reorganization meeting. FISCAL IMPACTS: N/A CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: N/A ALTERNATIVE ACTION: N/A FOLLOW UP ACTION: Retain minutes for legislative history. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: N/A ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A – Minutes from December 1, 2009 City Council Reorganization meeting. 8 MINUTES COUNCIL REORGANIZATION MEETING DECEMBER 1, 2009 Mayor Page called the Council Reorganization meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Susie Nagpal, Howard Miller, Jill Hunter, Vice Mayor Kathleen King, Mayor Chuck Page ABSENT: None ALSO Dave Anderson, City Manager PRESENT: Ann Sullivan, City Clerk Mary Furey, Finance Director John Cherbone, Public Works Director John Livingstone, Community Development Director Claudia Cauthorn, Interim Recreation Director Crystal Morrow, Administrative Analyst II REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA Ann Sullivan, City Clerk, reported that pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, the agenda for the meeting of December 1, 2009, was properly posted on November 25, 2009. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS No one requested to speak at tonight’s meeting. DIRECTION TO STAFF None COMMUNICATIONS FROM BOARDS AND COMMISSIONS None DIRECTION TO STAFF None 1. REMARKS FROM OUTGOING MAYOR PAGE Mayor Page thanked CityManager Dave Anderson for his assistance during his Mayoral term as well as the members of the City Council. He also thanked staff for their hard work and efforts to implement Council’s direction; the many volunteers in the City, and members of the community. Mayor Page expressed his gratitude for the opportunity to serve as Mayor of Saratoga during the past year. 9 2 Mayor Page acknowledged the presence of Assemblymember Jim Beall, Santa Clara County Supervisor Liz Kniss, Santa Clara County Sheriff Laurie Smith, Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office Westside Sub Station Captain Terry Calderone, District Attorney Dolores Carr, and West Valley College Board of Trustees Jack Lucas, Chad Welsch and Buck Polk. 2. CEREMONIAL ITEMS Vice Mayor Kathleen read and presented a commendation to outgoing Mayor Page. Mayor Page’s daughters Lindsey and Megan joined Mayor Page on the Dais. Councilmember Susie Nagpal read a poem she had written in honor of Mayor Page. Administrative Analyst II Crystal Morrow provided a short video presentation of some of the significant City events Mayor Page participated in during the past year. 3. REORGANIZATION OF CITY COUNCIL STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Receive Nominations for Mayor and Vice Mayor. City Clerk Ann Sullivan declared the offices of Mayor and Vice Mayor to be vacant and asked for nominations for the Office of the Mayor. Councilmember Chuck Page Page moved to nominate Councilmember Kathleen King for the Office of the Mayor. Councilmember Hunter seconded the motion to nominate Councilmember King to Office of the Mayor. No other nominations for Office of the Mayor were made. City Clerk Ann Sullivan asked all those in favor of Councilmember Kathleen King for the Office of the Mayor to signify by saying “Aye”. Councilmembers Nagpal, Miller, Hunter, King and Page voted “Aye”. City Clerk Ann Sullivan asked if anyone opposed; no one opposed. MOTION PASSED 5-0-0. Mayor King asked for nominations for the Office of the Vice Mayor. Mayor Kathleen King moved to nominate Councilmember Jill Hunter to the Office of the Vice Mayor. Councilmember Susie Nagpal moved to second the nomination of Councilmember Hunter to the Office of the Vice Mayor. Mayor King asked all those in favor of Councilmember Hunter for Office of the Vice Mayor to signify by saying “Aye”. 10 3 Councilmembers Nagpal, Miller, Hunter, Page and Mayor King all voted “Aye”. Mayor King asked if anyone opposed; no one opposed. MOTION PASSED 5-0-0. County Supervisor Liz Kniss read and presented a commendation from the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors to outgoing Mayor Page in recognition of his outstanding term as Mayor of Saratoga for 2009. 4. OATHS OF OFFICE Supervisor Kniss administered the Oath of Office to Mayor Kathleen King. Supervisor Kniss then administered the Oath of Office to Vice Mayor Jill Hunter, who was joined by members of her family. 5. REMARKS FROM NEWMAYOR, VICEMAYOR AND COUNCILMEMBERS Mayor King thanked Assemblymember Jim Beall and Santa Clara County Supervisor Liz Kniss for their assistance in helping the City receive the Tax Equity Allocation (TEA) funds allocation from the State. In addition, she expressed her thanks and appreciation to City staff and current and former councilmembers for all their efforts in building community, and acknowledged the many family members, community leaders, and friends that were in attendance to show their support. Vice Mayor Hunter thanked outgoing Mayor Page for his outstanding leadership, fellow Councilmembers, City staff, community volunteers, Village Gardeners, Saratoga residents, and her family members for all their support and contributions to helping make Saratoga such a wonderful community. Councilmember Miller thanked his family for their dedicated support, City staff, outgoing Mayor Page for his guidance and leadership, fellow Councilmembers for their leadership, and the citizens of Saratoga for their involvement in the community. Councilmember Nagpal expressed her appreciation to her fellow Councilmembers for their leadership and recited a poem for each of them. In addition, she conveyed her thanks and appreciation to her family members, the community and staff for their support and prayers for her. Councilmember Page thanked the all the commissioners for their dedicated service to the City and ended with a poem of his own as well. ADJOURNMENT TO RECEPTION There being no additional business Mayor King asked for a motion to adjourn the Council Reorganization Meeting. 11 4 HUNTER/PAGE MOVED TO ADJOURN THE COUNCIL REORGANIZATION MEETING AT 8:10PM. MOTION PASSED 5-0-0. Mayor King invited everyone to a reception in the theater lobby immediately following the adjournment. Respectfully submitted, Ann Sullivan, CMC City Clerk 12 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: December 16, 2009 AGENDA ITEM: DEPARTMENT: Finance & Administrative Services CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: Ann Xu, Accountant DEPT HEAD: Mary Furey SUBJECT: Treasurer’s Report for the Month Ended November 30, 2009 RECOMMENDED ACTION Review and accept the Treasurer’s Report for the month ended November 30, 2009. REPORT SUMMARY California government code section 41004 requires that the City Treasurer (the Municipal Code of the City of Saratoga, Article 2-20, Section 2-20.035, designates the City Manager as the City Treasurer) submit to the City Clerk and the legislative body a written report and accounting of all receipts, disbursements, and fund balances. Section 41004. Regularly, at least once each month, the City Treasurer shall submit to the City Clerk a written report and accounting of all receipts, disbursements, and fund balances. He shall file a copy with the legislative body. The following attachments provide various financial transaction data for the City of Saratoga’s Funds collectively as well as specifically for the City’s General (Operating) Fund, including an attachment from the State Treasurer’s Office of Quarterly LAIF rates from the 1st Quarter of 1977 to present. FISCAL IMPACT Cash and Investments Balance by Fund As of November 30, 2009, the City had $131,665 in cash deposit at Comerica bank, and $11,821,017 on deposit with LAIF. Council Policy on operating reserve funds, adopted on April 20, 1994, states that: for cash flow purposes, to avoid occurrence of dry period financing, pooled cash from all funds should not be allowed to fall below $2,000,000. The total pooled cash balance as of November 30, 2009 is $11,952,683 and exceeds the minimum limit required. 13 Unrestricted Cash Comerica Bank $ 131,665 Deposit with LAIF $ 11,821,017 Total Unrestricted Cash $ 11,952,683 Cash Summary The Fund Balance schedule presented on the following page represents actual funding available for all funds at the end of the monthly period. This amount differs from the above Cash Summary schedule as assets and liabilities are components of the fund balance. As illustrated in the summary below, Total Unrestricted Cash is adjusted by the addition of Total Assets less the amount of Total Liabilities to arrive at the Ending Fund Balance – which represents the actual amount of funds available. Total Unrestricted Cash $ 11,952,683 Plus: Assets 170,413 Less: Liabilities (1,196,162) Ending Fund Balance $ 10,926,934 Adjusting Cash to Ending Fund Balance CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION The City would not be in compliance with Government Code Section 41004. ALTERNATIVE ACTION N/A FOLLOW UP ACTION N/A ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT N/A ATTACHMENTS A – Change in Total Fund Balances by Fund B – Change in Total Fund Balances by CIP Project C – Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) Quarterly Apportionment Rates 14 ATTACHMENT A CHANGES IN TOTAL FUND BALANCE Fund Description Fund Balance 7/1/09 Increase/(Decrease) Jul-Oct Current Revenue Current Expenditure Transfers Fund Balance 11/30/09 General Undesignated Unreserved Balance 857,524 (2,271,944) 929,313 9 78,597 -(1,463,703) Reserved Fund Balance: Petty Cash Reserve 1,300 ----1,300 Designated Fund Balances: --Designated for Operations 2,870,140 ----2,870,140 Designated Economic Uncertainty 1,500,000 ----1,500,000 Designated for Development 707,380 ---(75,000) 6 32,380 Designated for Environmental 613,182 ---(50,000) 5 63,182 Designated for Uncollected Deposits 182,159 ----182,159 Designated for Mid Pen Open Space 250,000 ---(250,000) -Designated for Hillside Reserve 300,000 ----300,000 Designated for CIP Matching Grant 600,000 ----600,000 Designated for CIP Transfer 300,000 ---(300,000) -Designated for Economic Stability 25,000 ---(25,000) -Designated for Carryforward 22,000 ---(22,000) -Special Revenue Landscape/Lighting Districts 359,917 (125,778) 11,653 1 4,665 -231,128 CDBG Federal Grants ------SHARP Loan 209,175 284 ---209,460 Capital Project Street Projects 1,926,230 36,921 31,039 1 30,026 -1,864,164 Park and Trail Projects 542,045 101,180 -4,000 -639,225 Facility Improvement Projects 953,833 (337,030) 5,606 2 3,198 -599,211 Administrative Projects 163,910 22,056 -4,776 -181,190 Tree Fine Fund 62,943 (20,031) 1,500 3,545 -4 0,867 CIP Grant Fund (200,477) (247,307) ---(447,784) Gas Tax Fund 62,495 172,129 ---234,625 Debt Service Library Bond 931,361 (663,470) 736 -268,627 Internal Service Fund Liability/Risk Management 202,872 (87,978) -5 52 -114,342 Workers Compensation 123,034 72,319 -1,809 -193,543 Office Stores Fund 39,633 11,347 -3,590 -4 7,390 Information Technology Services 174,838 69,256 -2 2,853 -221,241 Equipment Maintenance 56,654 45,178 -1 2,488 -8 9,344 Building Maintenance 208,842 137,763 4,864 4 9,494 -301,974 Equipment Replacement 153,214 87,655 ---240,869 Technology Replacement 315,290 (21,340) ---293,950 Trust/Agency Library Fund 354,394 (3,181) ----351,213 KSAR -Community Access TV 84,603 (20,110) 2,405 --6 6,897 Total City 14,953,491 (3,042,081) 987,115 1,249,593 (722,000) 10,926,934 15 ATTACHMENT B FUND BALANCES BY CIP PROJECT CIP Funds/Projects Fund Balance 7/1/09 Increase/(Decrease) Jul-Oct Current Revenue Current Expenditure Transfers Fund Balance 11/30/09 Street Projects Traffic Safety 90,472 (2,216) --88,256 Highway 9 Safety Project 45,129 ---45,129 Annual Street Resurfacing Project 233,602 134,356 31,039 18,697 380,300 Sidewalks Annual Project 18,935 (4,904) --14,031 Saratoga Sunnyvale Road Resurfacing 64,972 (1,093) --63,879 Traffic Signal @Verde Vista Lane 90,000 ---90,000 Fourth Street Bridge 100,000 ---100,000 Quito Road Bridge Replacement Design 9,730 ---9,730 Quito Road Bridge Construction 115,726 ---115,726 Village Newsrack Enclosure 23,307 --10,723 12,584 Village Façade Program 18,815 (2,837) --15,978 Solar Power Radar Feedback Signs 24,158 ---24,158 El Quito Area Curb Replacement 37,553 ---37,553 Sobey Road Culvert Repair 150,000 ---150,000 Annual Storm Drain Upgrade 246 (34,724) -2,101 (36,579) Village Trees & Lights at Sidestreets 25,336 ---25,336 Village Pedestrian Enhancement 9,128 (146) --8,982 Prospect Road Median 151,036 (49,896) -43,519 57,621 City Entrance Sign/Monument 23,788 ---23,788 Village-Streetscape Impv 517,188 ---517,188 Saratoga-Sunnyvale/Gateway Sidewalk 4,107 (585) --3,522 Comer Drive Retaining Wall 173,003 (1,034) -54,986 116,983 Total Street Projects 1,926,230 36,921 31,039 130,026 -1,864,164 Parks & Trails Hakone Garden Koi Pond 49,150 ---49,150 EL Quito Park Improvements 43,905 ---43,905 Wildwood Park -Water Feature/Seating 275 ---275 Historical Park Landscape 33,890 (446) --33,444 Hakone Garden Retaining Wall & D/W 142,829 ---142,829 Hakone Garden Upper Moon House 125,000 ---125,000 Kevin Moran Improvements 69,083 (93,379) --(24,296) West Valley Soccer Field (29,176) ---(29,176) Park/Trail Repairs 7,748 (4,288) --3,460 Trail Segment #3 Repair 68,606 (7,912) --60,694 Teerlink Ranch Trail 14,850 (14,850) --(0) Tank Trail Repair -(27,945) -4,000 (31,945) Mid Pen O/S Land Purchase -250,000 --250,000 CIP Allocation Fund 15,885 ---15,885 Total Parks & Trails 542,045 101,180 -4,000 -639,225 Facility Improvements Warner Hutton House Improvements 813 ---813 Facility Projects 108,643 (73,236) --35,407 Civic Center Improvement 4,294 (340) --3,954 Theater Improvement 68,518 (16,393) 5,606 -57,730 Corp Yard -Men's Restroom 1,829 41,201 -2,910 40,121 Fire Alarm at McWilliams & Museum 11,371 ---11,371 North Campus Improvements 43,960 (12,803) -13,909 17,249 North Campus -Bldg Removal 73,250 (59,714) -6,380 7,156 Multi-Purpose Room Fund 250,000 ---250,000 Corp Yard Solar Project 93,250 ---93,250 Library HVAC Upgrade 276,143 (215,745) --60,397 Library -EXT Improvement 10,000 ---10,000 McWilliams House Improvement 10,000 ---10,000 Historical Park Fire Alarm System 1,762 ---1,762 Total Facility Improvements 953,833 (337,030) 5,606 23,198 -599,211 Administrative Projects Financial System Upgrade 3,534 ---3,534 Document Imaging Project 86,780 ---86,780 CDD Document Imaging Project 36,635 (4,549) -97 31,989 Website Development Project 30,959 (23,395) -4,679 2,885 IT Emergency Emergency Power Back -10,000 --10,000 IT Server Room A/C -40,000 --40,000 KSAR Equip Upgrades 6,002 ---6,002 Total Administrative Projects 163,910 22,056 -4,776 -181,190 Tree Fine Fund Tree Fine Fund 62,943 (20,031) 1,500 3,545 40,867 CIP Fund CIP Grant Fund (200,477) (247,307) --(447,784) Gax Fund Gas Tax Fund 62,495 172,129 --234,625 Total CIP Funds 3,510,979 (272,082) 38,145 165,545 -3,111,498 16 • ATTACHMENT C 17 Bill Lockyer, State Treasurer 1977 1978 1979 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Inside the State Treasurer's Office LOCAL AGENCY INVESTMENT FUND QUARTERLY APPORTIONMENT RATES MARCH JUNE SEl'rEMBER I)ECEMBER" 5.68 5.78 5.84 6.45 6.97 7.35 7.86 8.32 8.81 9.10 9.26 10.06 11.11 11.54 10.01 10.47 11.23 11.68 12.40 11.91 11.82 11.99 11.74 10.71 -9.87 9.64 10.04 10.18 -10.32 10.88 11.53 11.41 10.32 9.98 -9.54 9.43 9.09 8.39 7.81 7.48 7.24 7.21 7.54 7.97 t'l.OI 7.87 8.20 8.45 -8.76 9.13 8.87 H.68 8.52 8.50 8.39 8.27 7.97 7.38 7.00 6.52 5.87 5.45 4.97 4.67 4.64 4.51 4.44 4.36 4.25 4.45 --4.96 5.37 5.76 5.98 -5.89 5.76 5.62 5.52 5.57 5.58 5.56 5.63 5.68 5.71 5.70 5.66 5.64 5.46 5.19 5.08 5.21 5.49 5.80 6.18 6.47 6.52 6.16 5.32 4.47 3.52 -2.96 2.75 2.63 2.31 1.98 1.77 1.63 1.56 1.47 1.44 1.67 2.00 2.38 2.85 3.18 3.63 4.03 4.53 4.93 5. t I -5.17 5.23 -5.24 4.96 4.18 3.11 2.77 2.54 1.91 1.51 1.51 0.90 Dave Anderson Melanie Whittaker Mary Furey SUBJECT: Review of Accounts Payable Check Registers RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the City Council review and accept the Check Registers for the following Accounts Payable payment cycles: REPORT SUMMARY: Attached are the Check Registers for: Date Ending Check No. 11/25/09 113820 113873 53 52,236.76 11/25/09 11/19/09 113819 12/04/09 113874 113955 81 165,499.88 12/04/09 11/25/09 113873 AP Date Check No . Issued to Dept. Amount 11/25/09 (None) -12/04/09 113906 Public Works 29,227.70 12/04/09 113948 Finance 28,000.00 The following are Accounts Payable checks that were voided or manually issued: AP Date Check No. Amount 11/25/09 113820 -12/04/09 (None) -Issued to Description Guerra Construction CIP -Street Projects Annual Concrete Repairs and Street ResurfacingPrior Check Register The following is a list of Accounts Payable checks issued for more than $20,000 and a brief description of the expenditure: Fund Purpose Accounts Payable Accounts Payable SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: December 16, 2009 AGENDA ITEM: DEPARTMENT: Finance & Administrative Services CITY MANAGER: PREPARED BY: DEPT. DIRECTOR: Type of Checks Date Starting Check No. Ending Check No. Total Checks Amount Checks Released November 25, 2009 December 04, 2009 Vavrinek, Trine, Day General Annual Audit Services (None) Printer Error 18 The following is a list of cash reduction by fund: Fund # AP 11/25 AP 12/04 Total 111 General 18,133.70 72,084.49 90,218.19 231 Village Lighting 2,825.42 1,127.75 3,953.17 232 Azule Lighting 225.70 225.70 233 Sarahills Lighting 250.56 250.56 247 Kerwin Ranch Landscape 311.00 311.00 251 McCartysville Landscape 16.56 180.00 196.56 252 Prides Crossing Landscape 37.18 37.18 253 Saratoga Legends Landscape 158.00 158.00 254 Sunland Park Landscape 203.00 203.00 255 Tricia Woods Landscape 8.58 8.58 271 Beauchamps Landscape 51.22 51.22 272 Bellgrove Landscape 411.86 1,598.00 2,009.86 273 Gateway Landscape 580.03 203.00 783.03 274 Horseshoe Landscape/Lighting 8.28 320.00 328.28 275 Quito Lighting 1,091.49 1,091.49 277 Village Commercial Landscape 1,701.73 1,701.73 411 CIP Street Projects 2,309.45 41,624.64 43,934.09 412 CIP Parks Projects 4,000.00 589.95 4,589.95 413 CIP Facility Projects 5,778.70 27,480.88 33,259.58 421 Tree Fine Fund 2,025.00 3,215.00 5,240.00 612 Workers' Comp 250.00 250.00 621 Office Stores Fund 1,139.20 1,443.00 2,582.20 622 Information Technology 218.87 7,090.10 7,308.97 623 Vehicle & Equipment Maint 2,416.46 4,937.68 7,354.14 624 Building Maintenance 10,414.50 889.13 11,303.63 632 342.53 342.53 52,192.76 165,499.88 217,692.64 ALTERNATIVE ACTION: N/A FOLLOW UP ACTION: N/A ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: N/A ATTACHMENTS: Check Registers in the 'A/P Checks By Period and Year' report format TOTAL Fund Description IT Equipment Replacement 19 SUNGARD PUBLIC SECTOR PAGE NUMBER: 1 DATE: 12/08/2009 CITY OF SARATOGA ACCTPA21 TIME: 16:01:07 CHECK REGISTER − DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.check_no between ’113820’ and ’113873’ ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 6/10 FUND − 009 − DISBURSEMENT FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT −−−−−−−−−−−−−−VENDOR−−−− −−−−−−−−−BUDGET UNIT −−−−−DESCRIPTION−−−−−− SALES TAX AMOUNT 11111 113821 11/25/09 581 $15 SEWER SERVICE 6246202 SEWER SVC 11/18 0.00 173.00 11111 113822 11/25/09 72 ADVANTAGE JANITORIAL SUP 6246202 SUPPLIES − JANITORIAL 0.00 66.64 11111 113822 11/25/09 72 ADVANTAGE JANITORIAL SUP 6246202 SUPPLIES − JANITORIAL 0.00 134.96 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 201.60 11111 113823 11/25/09 521 ALLIED LOCK & SAFE INC 6246202 SUPPLIES − FACILITIES 0.00 114.93 11111 113824 11/25/09 500 ANGELINA, PATRICIA 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − MOVEMENT 0.00 177.00 11111 113825 11/25/09 197 ARROWHEAD MOUNTAIN SPRIN 6246202 MTHLY SVC 11/09 0.00 131.07 11111 113826 11/25/09 494 COMCAST 6223201 INTERNET 11/20−12/19 0.00 98.95 11111 113827 11/25/09 500 COTE, DEBORAH 1116101 CANCELLED CLASS 0.00 49.00 11111 113828 11/25/09 265 COWLES, PAT 1112301 SUPPLIES−HOLIDAY 09 0.00 117.86 11111 113829 11/25/09 297 CUBE SOLUTIONS 1118101 ERGONOMIC CHAIR 0.00 683.23 11111 113830 11/25/09 616 DAVCO WATERPROOFING SVC, 6246202 ROOF REPAIRS SR CTR 0.00 1,814.74 11111 113831 11/25/09 500 DEAN, SARA 1116101 CANCELLED CLASS 0.00 39.00 11111 113832 11/25/09 500 EARNST, KARLA 1117101 REFUND S114502 0.00 336.00 11111 113833 11/25/09 532 EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT D 1118101 DE 2176 CLOSING 10/23 0.00 140.99 11111 113834 11/25/09 542 FURLO & FURLO 4119141−002 4TH ST STORM DRAIN 0.00 2,101.10 11111 113835 11/25/09 458 GEORGE BIANCHI CONSTRUCT 413 FINAL RETENTION 0.00 5,778.70 11111 113836 11/25/09 500 GILES, RUSSELL 1116101 CANCELLED CLASS 0.00 88.00 11111 113837 11/25/09 742 GIULIANI & KULL, INC 111 APP# SUB09−0001 0.00 120.00 11111 113837 11/25/09 742 GIULIANI & KULL, INC 4129276−002 PARKER RANCH TRAIL 0.00 4,000.00 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 4,120.00 11111 113838 11/25/09 463 GRAINGER 6246202 SUPPLIES − FACILITIES 0.00 35.89 11111 113838 11/25/09 463 GRAINGER 6246202 SUPPLIES − FACILITIES 0.00 57.54 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 93.43 11111 113839 11/25/09 464 GRANICUS 1112201 MTHLY SVC 12/09 0.00 1,600.00 11111 113840 11/25/09 500 HENRY, CAROLINE 1116101 CANCELLED CLASS 0.00 39.00 11111 113841 11/25/09 520 FUN FUN FUNDAMENTALS 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − SPORTS 0.00 121.00 11111 113841 11/25/09 520 FUN FUN FUNDAMENTALS 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − SPORTS 0.00 121.00 11111 113841 11/25/09 520 FUN FUN FUNDAMENTALS 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − SPORTS 0.00 121.00 11111 113841 11/25/09 520 FUN FUN FUNDAMENTALS 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − SPORTS 0.00 316.80 11111 113841 11/25/09 520 FUN FUN FUNDAMENTALS 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − SPORTS 0.00 264.60 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 944.40 20 SUNGARD PUBLIC SECTOR PAGE NUMBER: 2 DATE: 12/08/2009 CITY OF SARATOGA ACCTPA21 TIME: 16:01:07 CHECK REGISTER − DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.check_no between ’113820’ and ’113873’ ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 6/10 FUND − 009 − DISBURSEMENT FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT −−−−−−−−−−−−−−VENDOR−−−− −−−−−−−−−BUDGET UNIT −−−−−DESCRIPTION−−−−−− SALES TAX AMOUNT 11111 113842 11/25/09 24 ICE CENTER OF CUPERTINO 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − SKATING 0.00 144.00 11111 113842 11/25/09 24 ICE CENTER OF CUPERTINO 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − SKATING 0.00 48.00 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 192.00 11111 113843 11/25/09 25 ICLEI 1111101 2010 DUES− POPULATION 0.00 600.00 11111 113844 11/25/09 61 INTERSTATE BATTERY SYSTE 6235202 REPLACEMENT BATTERY 0.00 176.88 11111 113845 11/25/09 123 KELEX SECURITY 6246202 ALARM REPAIR CTY HALL 0.00 320.00 11111 113845 11/25/09 123 KELEX SECURITY 6246202 ALARM REPAIR C CTR 0.00 160.00 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 480.00 11111 113846 11/25/09 127 KELLY MOORE PAINT COMPAN 6246202 SUPPLIES − FACILITIES 0.00 30.57 11111 113847 11/25/09 100 KSAR 1118301 BROADCAST SVC 10/09 0.00 2,400.00 11111 113847 11/25/09 100 KSAR 1118301 BROADCAST SVC 11/09 0.00 1,200.00 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 3,600.00 11111 113848 11/25/09 171 LABOSSIERE, MONICA 1112301 CALPELRA CONF 11/04 0.00 77.60 11111 113849 11/25/09 194 LIEBERT, CASSIDY WHITMOR 1112301 LGL SVC − 10/09 0.00 100.00 11111 113850 11/25/09 340 MEYER, GREG 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − NATURE 0.00 128.00 11111 113851 11/25/09 33 SKYTERRA 1117102 MTHLY SVC 11/09 0.00 73.38 11111 113852 11/25/09 50 MOORE, KAREN 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − COOKING 0.00 66.00 11111 113853 11/25/09 135 NORTH BAY BLDG MAINTENAN 6246202 WEEKLY SVC 10/25−31 0.00 228.00 11111 113853 11/25/09 135 NORTH BAY BLDG MAINTENAN 6246202 WEEKLY SVC 11/08−14 0.00 152.00 11111 113853 11/25/09 135 NORTH BAY BLDG MAINTENAN 6246202 WEEKLY SVC 11/01−07 0.00 228.00 11111 113853 11/25/09 135 NORTH BAY BLDG MAINTENAN 6246202 WEEKLY SVC 10/18−24 0.00 228.00 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 836.00 11111 113854 11/25/09 577 NUTRITIVE FOODS, LLC 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − COOKING 0.00 90.30 11111 113855 11/25/09 145 OFFICE DEPOT INC. 1113101 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 57.82 11111 113855 11/25/09 145 OFFICE DEPOT INC. 1114101 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 81.84 11111 113855 11/25/09 145 OFFICE DEPOT INC. 1114102 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 81.84 11111 113855 11/25/09 145 OFFICE DEPOT INC. 1114102 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 12.56 11111 113855 11/25/09 145 OFFICE DEPOT INC. 6213102 INK CARTRIDGES 0.00 1,139.20 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 1,373.26 11111 113856 11/25/09 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 6246202 NATURAL GAS VEHICLE 0.00 74.56 11111 113856 11/25/09 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 6246202 BUILDINGS 0.00 5,644.25 11111 113856 11/25/09 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 1115301 PARKS /OPEN SPACES 0.00 661.10 11111 113856 11/25/09 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 1115201 TRAFFIC SIGNALS 0.00 1,053.24 11111 113856 11/25/09 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 1115201 CITY WIDE STREETS 0.00 636.99 11111 113856 11/25/09 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 1115201 SEAGULL 0.00 59.82 11111 113856 11/25/09 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 2755302 QUITO LIGHTING 0.00 1,091.49 11111 113856 11/25/09 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 2325302 AZULE LIGHTING 0.00 225.70 21 SUNGARD PUBLIC SECTOR PAGE NUMBER: 3 DATE: 12/08/2009 CITY OF SARATOGA ACCTPA21 TIME: 16:01:07 CHECK REGISTER − DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.check_no between ’113820’ and ’113873’ ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 6/10 FUND − 009 − DISBURSEMENT FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT −−−−−−−−−−−−−−VENDOR−−−− −−−−−−−−−BUDGET UNIT −−−−−DESCRIPTION−−−−−− SALES TAX AMOUNT 11111 113856 11/25/09 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 2335302 SARAHILLS LIGHTING 0.00 250.56 11111 113856 11/25/09 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 2315302 VILLAGE LIGHTING 0.00 2,282.74 11111 113856 11/25/09 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 2315302 5TH ST LIGHTING 0.00 11.63 11111 113856 11/25/09 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 2315302 4TH ST LIGHTING 0.00 531.05 11111 113856 11/25/09 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 2515302 MCCARTYSVILLE 0.00 16.56 11111 113856 11/25/09 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 2555302 TRICIA WOODS 0.00 8.58 11111 113856 11/25/09 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 2715302 BEAUCHAMPS 0.00 51.22 11111 113856 11/25/09 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 2525302 PRIDES CROSSING 0.00 37.18 11111 113856 11/25/09 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 2725302 BELLGROVE 0.00 411.86 11111 113856 11/25/09 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 2745302 HORSESHOE 0.00 8.28 11111 113856 11/25/09 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 2735302 NORTH CAMPUS 0.00 580.03 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 13,636.84 11111 113857 11/25/09 278 PETROTEK 6235202 FUEL TESTING 10/09 0.00 200.00 11111 113858 11/25/09 500 PLOTTIER, CATHERINE 111 FACILITY DEP REFUND 0.00 300.00 11111 113859 11/25/09 554 PREMIERE GLOBAL SERVICES 1112101 CONFERENCE SVC 10/09 0.00 48.14 11111 113860 11/25/09 352 PRO−DOOR AUTOGLASS 6246202 REPAIRS − N CAMPUS 0.00 684.62 11111 113861 11/25/09 375 QUALITY ASSURANCE TRAVEL 1116101 BUS SVC 12/10 0.00 812.00 11111 113861 11/25/09 375 QUALITY ASSURANCE TRAVEL 1116101 BUS SVC 12/16 0.00 812.00 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 1,624.00 11111 113862 11/25/09 393 REED & GRAHAM, INC 4119111−001 ASPHALT 0.00 208.35 11111 113863 11/25/09 87 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1115301 PARKS /OPEN SPACE 0.00 147.36 11111 113864 11/25/09 505 SC FIRE DEPARTMENT 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − CPR 0.00 50.00 11111 113865 11/25/09 617 SCCCMA 1112101 ANNUAL LUNCHEON 12/09 0.00 200.00 11111 113866 11/25/09 136 SCOTTY’S AUTOMOTIVE 6235202 MAINTENANCE VEH 112 0.00 86.08 11111 113866 11/25/09 136 SCOTTY’S AUTOMOTIVE 6235202 MAINTENANCE VEH 113 0.00 86.08 11111 113866 11/25/09 136 SCOTTY’S AUTOMOTIVE 6235202 MAINTENANCE VEH 84 0.00 59.95 11111 113866 11/25/09 136 SCOTTY’S AUTOMOTIVE 6235202 MAINTENANCE VEH 100 0.00 1,509.39 11111 113866 11/25/09 136 SCOTTY’S AUTOMOTIVE 6235202 MAINTENANCE VEH 99 0.00 59.95 11111 113866 11/25/09 136 SCOTTY’S AUTOMOTIVE 6235202 MAINTENANCE VEH 98 0.00 59.95 11111 113866 11/25/09 136 SCOTTY’S AUTOMOTIVE 6235202 MAINTENANCE VEH 115 0.00 94.29 11111 113866 11/25/09 136 SCOTTY’S AUTOMOTIVE 6235202 MAINTENANCE VEH 108 0.00 83.89 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 2,039.58 11111 113867 11/25/09 688 THE CONSULTING TEAM, LLC 6128501 TEAM BUILDING 11/16 0.00 250.00 11111 113868 11/25/09 500 TIRADO, DON 111 PROJ DEPOSIT REFUND 0.00 1,810.00 11111 113869 11/25/09 336 TLC ADMINISTRATORS 1112301 MTHLY SVC FEE − 11/09 0.00 13.50 11111 113870 11/25/09 726 TREES 360 DEGREES 4219211−002 TREE REMOVAL−HAKONE 0.00 2,025.00 11111 113870 11/25/09 726 TREES 360 DEGREES 1115201 TREE REMOVAL WESCOTT 0.00 450.00 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 2,475.00 22 SUNGARD PUBLIC SECTOR PAGE NUMBER: 4 DATE: 12/08/2009 CITY OF SARATOGA ACCTPA21 TIME: 16:01:07 CHECK REGISTER − DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.check_no between ’113820’ and ’113873’ ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 6/10 FUND − 009 − DISBURSEMENT FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT −−−−−−−−−−−−−−VENDOR−−−− −−−−−−−−−BUDGET UNIT −−−−−DESCRIPTION−−−−−− SALES TAX AMOUNT 11111 113871 11/25/09 500 TU, LYNN 1116101 CANCELLED CLASS 0.00 44.00 11111 113872 11/25/09 395 VERIZON WIRELESS 1112101 CTY MGR OFFICE 0.00 66.30 11111 113872 11/25/09 395 VERIZON WIRELESS 1112201 CTY CLRK OFFICE 0.00 74.16 11111 113872 11/25/09 395 VERIZON WIRELESS 1112301 HR OFFICE 0.00 271.15 11111 113872 11/25/09 395 VERIZON WIRELESS 1113101 ADMIN/FINANCE 0.00 309.27 11111 113872 11/25/09 395 VERIZON WIRELESS 6223201 IT SERVICES 0.00 119.92 11111 113872 11/25/09 395 VERIZON WIRELESS 1114201 BUILDING/INSPECTION 0.00 81.86 11111 113872 11/25/09 395 VERIZON WIRELESS 1114101 DEVELOPMENT 0.00 79.57 11111 113872 11/25/09 395 VERIZON WIRELESS 1114103 CODE COMPLIANCE 0.00 41.32 11111 113872 11/25/09 395 VERIZON WIRELESS 1115201 PW − STREETS 0.00 177.42 11111 113872 11/25/09 395 VERIZON WIRELESS 1115301 PW − PARKS 0.00 308.69 11111 113872 11/25/09 395 VERIZON WIRELESS 1115101 PW − GENERAL ENG 0.00 129.09 11111 113872 11/25/09 395 VERIZON WIRELESS 1115102 PW − DEVELOPMNT ENG 0.00 0.90 11111 113872 11/25/09 395 VERIZON WIRELESS 6246202 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 0.00 135.73 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 1,795.38 11111 113873 11/25/09 500 WINQUIST, MARIE 1116101 CANCELLED CLASS 0.00 44.00 TOTAL CASH ACCOUNT 0.00 52,236.76 TOTAL FUND 0.00 52,236.76 TOTAL REPORT 0.00 52,236.76 23 SUNGARD PUBLIC SECTOR PAGE NUMBER: 1 DATE: 12/08/2009 CITY OF SARATOGA ACCTPA21 TIME: 16:03:29 CHECK REGISTER − DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.ck_date=’20091204 00:00:00.000’ ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 6/10 FUND − 009 − DISBURSEMENT FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT −−−−−−−−−−−−−−VENDOR−−−− −−−−−−−−−BUDGET UNIT −−−−−DESCRIPTION−−−−−− SALES TAX AMOUNT 11111 113874 12/04/09 234 A T & T 6246202 XEROX MACHINE 0.00 14.29 11111 113874 12/04/09 234 A T & T 6246202 MEASURED BUS LINE 0.00 38.29 11111 113874 12/04/09 234 A T & T 6246202 SUPERTRUNK 0.00 555.75 11111 113874 12/04/09 234 A T & T 6246202 BOOK GO ROUND 0.00 29.80 11111 113874 12/04/09 234 A T & T 1117102 EMERGENCY LINE 0.00 15.58 11111 113874 12/04/09 234 A T & T 1117102 EMP ER LINE 0.00 14.34 11111 113874 12/04/09 234 A T & T 1117102 EMP ER LINE 0.00 14.29 11111 113874 12/04/09 234 A T & T 1117102 AM 1610 RADIO 0.00 15.63 11111 113874 12/04/09 234 A T & T 1117102 AM 1610 RADIO 0.00 15.58 11111 113874 12/04/09 234 A T & T 1115301 GATEWAY 0.00 15.28 15.28 11111 113874 12/04/09 234 A T & T 1115301 EL QUITO IRRIGATION 0.00 15.57 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 744.40 11111 113875 12/04/09 72 ADVANTAGE JANITORIAL SUP 1115301 SUPPLIES − PARKS 0.00 465.77 11111 113875 12/04/09 72 ADVANTAGE JANITORIAL SUP 6246202 SUPPLIES − JANITORIAL 0.00 135.99 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 601.76 11111 113876 12/04/09 798 ANGELINA, PATRICIA 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − ROSEN 0.00 88.50 11111 113877 12/04/09 287 BAY AREA AIR QUALITY MAN 6235202 OPERATION PERMIT 2010 0.00 135.56 11111 113878 12/04/09 327 BELANGER, CHRISTINE 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − DANCE 0.00 60.00 11111 113879 12/04/09 760 BLOSSOM VALLEY CONSTRUCT 411 RETENTION − MEDIAN 11 0.00 −343.50 11111 113879 12/04/09 760 BLOSSOM VALLEY CONSTRUCT 4119132−002 PROS MEDIAN #11 0.00 3,435.00 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 3,091.50 11111 113880 12/04/09 369 BORTZ, SHERI L 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − YOGA 0.00 149.00 11111 113880 12/04/09 369 BORTZ, SHERI L 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − YOGA 0.00 223.50 11111 113880 12/04/09 369 BORTZ, SHERI L 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − YOGA 0.00 480.13 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 852.63 11111 113881 12/04/09 13 BRYANT, CHRISTOPHER 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − GUITAR 0.00 419.52 11111 113881 12/04/09 13 BRYANT, CHRISTOPHER 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − GUITAR 0.00 419.52 11111 113881 12/04/09 13 BRYANT, CHRISTOPHER 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − GUITAR 0.00 104.88 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 943.92 11111 113882 12/04/09 90 CALSENSE 1115301 REPAIRS − IRRIGATION 0.00 279.84 11111 113883 12/04/09 500 CASTRO, CARLOS & CARMEN 111 PROJECT DEP REFUND 0.00 1,780.00 11111 113884 12/04/09 130 CDWG, INC 6323202 REPLACEMENT BATTERY 0.00 172.10 11111 113884 12/04/09 130 CDWG, INC 6323202 REPLACEMENT BATTERY 0.00 170.43 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 342.53 11111 113885 12/04/09 571 CHANG TAI DO KARATE & FI 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − KARATE 0.00 505.76 11111 113885 12/04/09 571 CHANG TAI DO KARATE & FI 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − KARATE 0.00 189.66 11111 113885 12/04/09 571 CHANG TAI DO KARATE & FI 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − KARATE 0.00 505.76 11111 113885 12/04/09 571 CHANG TAI DO KARATE & FI 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − KARATE 0.00 346.26 11111 113885 12/04/09 571 CHANG TAI DO KARATE & FI 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − KARATE 0.00 63.22 11111 113885 12/04/09 571 CHANG TAI DO KARATE & FI 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − KARATE 0.00 189.66 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 1,800.32 24 SUNGARD PUBLIC SECTOR PAGE NUMBER: 2 DATE: 12/08/2009 CITY OF SARATOGA ACCTPA21 TIME: 16:03:29 CHECK REGISTER − DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.ck_date=’20091204 00:00:00.000’ ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 6/10 FUND − 009 − DISBURSEMENT FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT −−−−−−−−−−−−−−VENDOR−−−− −−−−−−−−−BUDGET UNIT −−−−−DESCRIPTION−−−−−− SALES TAX AMOUNT 11111 113886 12/04/09 176 CIENEGA LANDSCAPING 2745302 HORSESHOE DR 11/09 0.00 320.00 11111 113886 12/04/09 176 CIENEGA LANDSCAPING 1115301 FOOTHILL PARK 11/09 0.00 178.00 11111 113886 12/04/09 176 CIENEGA LANDSCAPING 1115301 VILLAGE GARBAGE 11/09 0.00 220.00 11111 113886 12/04/09 176 CIENEGA LANDSCAPING 1115301 C SPRINGS 11/09 0.00 400.00 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 1,118.00 11111 113887 12/04/09 229 COAST OIL COMPANY LLC 6235202 UNLEADED /DIESEL 0.00 2,237.16 11111 113888 12/04/09 235 COMCAST 6223201 INTERNET SVC 12/09 0.00 104.95 11111 113889 12/04/09 772 COMFORT CONSTRUCTION COM 413 RETENTION − LAVATORY 0.00 −1,226.00 11111 113889 12/04/09 772 COMFORT CONSTRUCTION COM 413 RETENTION − LAVATORY 0.00 −525.00 11111 113889 12/04/09 772 COMFORT CONSTRUCTION COM 4139342−002 CORP YARD LAVATORY 0.00 12,260.00 11111 113889 12/04/09 772 COMFORT CONSTRUCTION COM 4139342−002 CORP YARD LAVATORY 0.00 5,250.00 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 15,759.00 11111 113890 12/04/09 250 COTTON SHIRES AND ASSOCI 111 GEO SVC − APP 07−206 0.00 1,813.25 11111 113890 12/04/09 250 COTTON SHIRES AND ASSOCI 111 GEO SVC APP # 07−299 0.00 990.00 11111 113890 12/04/09 250 COTTON SHIRES AND ASSOCI 111 GEO SVC APP #09−0013 0.00 907.50 11111 113890 12/04/09 250 COTTON SHIRES AND ASSOCI 111 GEO SVC APP #09−0015 0.00 1,727.50 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 5,438.25 11111 113891 12/04/09 262 COVAD COMMUNICATION 6223201 MTHLY SVC 11/16−12/15 0.00 543.90 11111 113892 12/04/09 564 DE LAGE LANDEN PUBLIC FI 6213102 COPIER 11/21−12/20 0.00 1,413.00 11111 113893 12/04/09 552 DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 1114103 FINGERPRINT FEE 0.00 32.00 11111 113894 12/04/09 1 DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE 1117101 CITATION FEES 11/09 0.00 133.00 11111 113895 12/04/09 573 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 1115201 SIGNAL/LIGHTING 10/09 0.00 618.50 11111 113896 12/04/09 547 EBEN L KURTZMAN 1114103 LEGAL SVC 11/09 0.00 45.00 11111 113897 12/04/09 370 ECONOMY LUMBER 1115301 SUPPLIES − PARKS 0.00 24.37 11111 113897 12/04/09 370 ECONOMY LUMBER 4119111−001 RED CHALK 0.00 12.03 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 36.40 11111 113898 12/04/09 390 ELECTRICAL DISTRIBUTORS 1115301 SUPPLIES − PARKS 0.00 183.91 11111 113899 12/04/09 651 ELLA CHEKHANOVSKAYA 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − GYM 0.00 186.42 11111 113899 12/04/09 651 ELLA CHEKHANOVSKAYA 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − GYM 0.00 149.14 11111 113899 12/04/09 651 ELLA CHEKHANOVSKAYA 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − GYM 0.00 335.57 11111 113899 12/04/09 651 ELLA CHEKHANOVSKAYA 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − GYM 0.00 500.42 11111 113899 12/04/09 651 ELLA CHEKHANOVSKAYA 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − GYM 0.00 410.14 11111 113899 12/04/09 651 ELLA CHEKHANOVSKAYA 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − GYM 0.00 181.97 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 1,763.66 11111 113900 12/04/09 796 ERGOWORKS 1112101 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 232.05 11111 113901 12/04/09 416 EVANS WEST VALLEY SPRAY 1115301 TURF SPRAY − C SPRING 0.00 2,300.00 25 SUNGARD PUBLIC SECTOR PAGE NUMBER: 3 DATE: 12/08/2009 CITY OF SARATOGA ACCTPA21 TIME: 16:03:29 CHECK REGISTER − DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.ck_date=’20091204 00:00:00.000’ ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 6/10 FUND − 009 − DISBURSEMENT FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT −−−−−−−−−−−−−−VENDOR−−−− −−−−−−−−−BUDGET UNIT −−−−−DESCRIPTION−−−−−− SALES TAX AMOUNT 11111 113902 12/04/09 423 FEHR & PEERS 111 APP #PWTR 09−0001 0.00 785.00 11111 113902 12/04/09 423 FEHR & PEERS 1115101 PROF SVC − TSC 0.00 1,226.39 11111 113902 12/04/09 423 FEHR & PEERS 1115101 PROF SVC − TSC 0.00 2,785.72 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 4,797.11 11111 113903 12/04/09 542 FURLO & FURLO 4119141−002 REPAIRS − 4TH ST 0.00 3,406.97 11111 113903 12/04/09 542 FURLO & FURLO 4119141−002 REPAIRS−VIA DEL MARCO 0.00 5,180.67 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 8,587.64 11111 113904 12/04/09 454 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGE 1115301 ANNUAL COLOR 0.00 1,702.00 11111 113905 12/04/09 470 GREGORIAN, AGNES 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − DANCE 0.00 128.00 11111 113905 12/04/09 470 GREGORIAN, AGNES 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − DANCE 0.00 128.00 11111 113905 12/04/09 470 GREGORIAN, AGNES 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − DANCE 0.00 96.00 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 352.00 11111 113906 12/04/09 671 GUERRA CONSTRUCTION GROU 411 RETENTION − CONCRETE 0.00 −2,305.81 11111 113906 12/04/09 671 GUERRA CONSTRUCTION GROU 411 RETENTION − CONCRETE 0.00 −228.00 11111 113906 12/04/09 671 GUERRA CONSTRUCTION GROU 4119111−001 ANNUAL CONCRETE RPR 0.00 23,058.10 11111 113906 12/04/09 671 GUERRA CONSTRUCTION GROU 4119141−001 ANNUAL CONCRETE RPR 0.00 2,280.00 11111 113906 12/04/09 671 GUERRA CONSTRUCTION GROU 4119111−001 REPAIR − VIA DE MARCO 0.00 6,423.41 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 29,227.70 11111 113907 12/04/09 488 HOME DEPOT 1115301 PARKS − SUPPLIES 0.00 86.80 11111 113908 12/04/09 489 HORIZON DISTRIBUTORS, IN 1115301 POWER PRUNER 0.00 526.64 11111 113908 12/04/09 489 HORIZON DISTRIBUTORS, IN 1115301 MISC SHOVELS 0.00 366.58 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 893.22 11111 113909 12/04/09 14 HYDROTEC IRRIGATION EQUI 1115301 REPAIRS − EL QUITO 0.00 231.17 11111 113909 12/04/09 14 HYDROTEC IRRIGATION EQUI 1115301 REPAIRS − GATEWAY 0.00 70.73 11111 113909 12/04/09 14 HYDROTEC IRRIGATION EQUI 4139351−001 IRRIGATION − N CAMPUS 0.00 11,721.88 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 12,023.78 11111 113910 12/04/09 19 IAN GEDDES TREE CARE, IN 4219211−002 TREE REMOVAL − HAKONE 0.00 990.00 11111 113910 12/04/09 19 IAN GEDDES TREE CARE, IN 4219211−002 REMOVE OAK − GARROD 0.00 475.00 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 1,465.00 11111 113911 12/04/09 63 INTERSTATE TRAFFIC CONTR 4119121−001 SIGN − TRAFFIC SAFETY 0.00 163.88 11111 113911 12/04/09 63 INTERSTATE TRAFFIC CONTR 4129211−001 HORSE TRAIL SIGNS 0.00 589.95 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 753.83 11111 113912 12/04/09 525 JAMELLO, NANCY 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − YOGA 0.00 288.00 11111 113912 12/04/09 525 JAMELLO, NANCY 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − YOGA 0.00 207.00 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 495.00 11111 113913 12/04/09 132 KEN FUSON PEST MANAGEMEN 1115301 PEST CNTRL− CIVIC CTR 0.00 500.00 11111 113913 12/04/09 132 KEN FUSON PEST MANAGEMEN 1115301 PEST CNTRL − COM CTR 0.00 120.00 11111 113913 12/04/09 132 KEN FUSON PEST MANAGEMEN 1115301 PEST CNTRL − WHH 0.00 90.00 11111 113913 12/04/09 132 KEN FUSON PEST MANAGEMEN 1115301 PEST CNTRL − WILDWOOD 0.00 180.00 11111 113913 12/04/09 132 KEN FUSON PEST MANAGEMEN 1115301 PEST CNTRL − C SPRNGS 0.00 120.00 26 SUNGARD PUBLIC SECTOR PAGE NUMBER: 4 DATE: 12/08/2009 CITY OF SARATOGA ACCTPA21 TIME: 16:03:29 CHECK REGISTER − DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.ck_date=’20091204 00:00:00.000’ ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 6/10 FUND − 009 − DISBURSEMENT FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT −−−−−−−−−−−−−−VENDOR−−−− −−−−−−−−−BUDGET UNIT −−−−−DESCRIPTION−−−−−− SALES TAX AMOUNT 11111 113913 12/04/09 132 KEN FUSON PEST MANAGEMEN 1115301 PEST CNTRL − FOOTHILL 0.00 30.00 11111 113913 12/04/09 132 KEN FUSON PEST MANAGEMEN 1115301 PEST CNTRL − LIBRARY 0.00 30.00 11111 113913 12/04/09 132 KEN FUSON PEST MANAGEMEN 1115301 PEST CNTRL − GARDINER 0.00 150.00 11111 113913 12/04/09 132 KEN FUSON PEST MANAGEMEN 1115301 PEST CNTRL − AZULE 0.00 300.00 11111 113913 12/04/09 132 KEN FUSON PEST MANAGEMEN 1115301 PEST CNTRL − K MORAN 0.00 1,035.00 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 2,555.00 11111 113914 12/04/09 159 KUHN, BRIAN 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − KARATE 0.00 43.20 11111 113914 12/04/09 159 KUHN, BRIAN 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − KARATE 0.00 118.80 11111 113914 12/04/09 09 159 KUHN, BRIAN 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − KARATE 0.00 138.00 11111 113914 12/04/09 159 KUHN, BRIAN 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − KARATE 0.00 193.20 11111 113914 12/04/09 159 KUHN, BRIAN 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − KARATE 0.00 165.60 11111 113914 12/04/09 159 KUHN, BRIAN 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − KARATE 0.00 55.20 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 714.00 11111 113915 12/04/09 171 LABOSSIERE, MONICA 1112301 TRAINING 11/17 0.00 33.00 11111 113915 12/04/09 171 LABOSSIERE, MONICA 1112301 HOLIDAY LUNCH 0.00 28.30 11111 113915 12/04/09 171 LABOSSIERE, MONICA 1112301 EMPLOYEE RECONITION 0.00 57.12 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 118.42 11111 113916 12/04/09 178 LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CIT 1112101 ANNUAL DUES 2009/10 0.00 100.00 11111 113917 12/04/09 500 LEONG, JOSEPHINE AND RAY 111 PROJECT DEP REFUND 0.00 2,490.00 11111 113918 12/04/09 183 LEXISNEXIS 1114103 MTHLY SVC 10/09 0.00 167.00 11111 113919 12/04/09 212 LIVINGSTONE, JOHN 1114101 SCCAPO MTG 11/24 0.00 26.00 11111 113920 12/04/09 673 LOEVERICH, ALEXIS 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − PILATES 0.00 32.00 11111 113920 12/04/09 673 673 LOEVERICH, ALEXIS 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − PILATES 0.00 238.00 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 270.00 11111 113921 12/04/09 221 LORAL LANDSCAPING, INC 1115301 BEAUCHAMPS PARK 11/09 0.00 212.00 11111 113921 12/04/09 221 LORAL LANDSCAPING, INC 1115301 RAVENWOOD PARK 11/09 0.00 110.00 11111 113921 12/04/09 221 LORAL LANDSCAPING, INC 1115301 AZULE PARK 11/09 0.00 565.00 11111 113921 12/04/09 221 LORAL LANDSCAPING, INC 1115301 HISTORICAL PARK 11/09 0.00 170.00 11111 113921 12/04/09 221 LORAL LANDSCAPING, INC 1115301 NORTH CAMPUS 11/09 0.00 450.00 11111 113921 12/04/09 221 LORAL LANDSCAPING, INC 2515302 MCCARTYSVILLE 11/09 0.00 180.00 11111 113921 12/04/09 221 LORAL LANDSCAPING, INC 2545302 SUNLAND 11/09 0.00 203.00 11111 113921 12/04/09 221 LORAL LANDSCAPING, INC 2475302 KERWIN RANCH 11/09 0.00 311.00 11111 113921 12/04/09 221 LORAL LANDSCAPING, INC 2725302 BELLGROVE 11/09 0.00 1,598.00 11111 113921 12/04/09 221 LORAL LANDSCAPING, INC 2535302 LEGENDS 11/09 0.00 158.00 11111 113921 12/04/09 221 LORAL LANDSCAPING, INC 2735302 GATEWAY 11/09 0.00 203.00 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 4,160.00 11111 113922 12/04/09 240 LSA ASSOCIATES 111 PROF SVC 10/09 0.00 726.25 11111 113923 12/04/09 263 MAINTENANCE SUPERINTENDE 1115201 ANNUAL DUES − JESUS V 0.00 60.00 11111 113924 12/04/09 499 MILLMAN & INDUSTRIAL CAR 111 DED:3000 DUES 0.00 320.00 11111 113925 12/04/09 83 MUSICAL ME, INC 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − MUSIC 0.00 218.40 27 SUNGARD PUBLIC SECTOR PAGE NUMBER: 5 DATE: 12/08/2009 CITY OF SARATOGA ACCTPA21 TIME: 16:03:29 CHECK REGISTER − DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.ck_date=’20091204 00:00:00.000’ ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 6/10 FUND − 009 − DISBURSEMENT FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT −−−−−−−−−−−−−−VENDOR−−−− −−−−−−−−−BUDGET UNIT −−−−−DESCRIPTION−−−−−− SALES TAX AMOUNT 11111 113925 12/04/09 83 MUSICAL ME, INC 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − MUSIC 0.00 218.40 11111 113925 12/04/09 83 MUSICAL ME, INC 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − MUSIC 0.00 163.80 11111 113925 12/04/09 83 MUSICAL ME, INC 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − MUSIC 0.00 191.10 11111 113925 12/04/09 83 MUSICAL ME, INC 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − MUSIC 0.00 218.40 11111 113925 12/04/09 83 MUSICAL ME, INC 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − MUSIC 0.00 191.10 11111 113925 12/04/09 83 MUSICAL ME, INC 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − MUSIC 0.00 136.50 11111 113925 12/04/09 83 MUSICAL ME, INC 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − MUSIC 0.00 109.20 11111 113925 12/04/09 83 MUSICAL ME, INC 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − MUSIC 0.00 163.80 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 1,610.70 11111 113926 12/04/09 145 OFFICE DEPOT INC. 1114101 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 140.84 11111 113926 12/04/09 145 OFFICE DEPOT INC. 1114102 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 12.96 11111 113926 12/04/09 145 OFFICE DEPOT INC. 1114102 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 4.68 11111 113926 12/04/09 145 OFFICE DEPOT INC. 1112101 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 104.24 11111 113926 12/04/09 145 OFFICE DEPOT INC. 1115301 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 38.85 11111 113926 12/04/09 145 OFFICE DEPOT INC. 1115201 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 38.86 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 340.43 11111 113927 12/04/09 60 ONTRAC 1115101 SHUTE MIHALY 10/08 0.00 6.00 11111 113928 12/04/09 540 ORCHARD SUPPLY 6246202 SUPPLIES − FACILITIES 0.00 115.01 11111 113929 12/04/09 410 RICH VOSS TRUCKING INC 4119111−001 SAND − STREETS 0.00 346.00 11111 113930 12/04/09 87 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 1115301 PARKS /OPEN SPACE 0.00 69.42 11111 113931 12/04/09 1 SANTA CLARA COUNTY CITIE 1111101 SCCCA − ANNUAL DINNER 0.00 104.00 11111 113932 12/04/09 1 SANTA CLARA COUNTY VECTO 1118101 ASSESSMENT 2009/10 0.00 273.79 11111 113933 12/04/09 136 SCOTTY’S AUTOMOTIVE 6235202 MAINTENANCE VEH #124 0.00 63.89 11111 113933 12/04/09 136 SCOTTY’S AUTOMOTIVE 6235202 MAINTENANCE VEH#125 0.00 63.89 11111 113933 12/04/09 136 SCOTTY’S AUTOMOTIVE 6235202 MAINTENANCE VEH #93 0.00 59.95 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 187.73 11111 113934 12/04/09 147 SHIMODA MICHIKO 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − IKEBANA 0.00 69.00 11111 113934 12/04/09 147 SHIMODA MICHIKO 1116101 INSTRUCTOR − IKEBANA 0.00 103.50 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 172.50 11111 113935 12/04/09 149 SIERRA DISPLAY INC 2315302 TREE LIGHTS − VILLAGE 0.00 327.75 11111 113936 12/04/09 160 SIERRA PACIFIC TURF SUPP 1115301 SUPPLIES − PARKS 0.00 308.98 11111 113936 12/04/09 160 SIERRA PACIFIC TURF SUPP 1115301 SUPPLIES − PARKS 0.00 207.58 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 516.56 11111 113937 12/04/09 236 SOLECTRIC ELECTRIC CONTR 2315302 REPAIRS − LIGHT #44 0.00 380.00 11111 113938 12/04/09 248 STATE OF CA FRANCHISE TA 111 D MCLEAN − 564319239 0.00 489.96 11111 113939 12/04/09 256 STEVENS CREEK QUARRY INC 4119111−001 SAND − STREETS 0.00 198.65 11111 113939 12/04/09 256 STEVENS CREEK QUARRY INC 4119111−001 DISCOUNT 0.00 −2.76 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 195.89 28 SUNGARD PUBLIC SECTOR PAGE NUMBER: 6 DATE: 12/08/2009 CITY OF SARATOGA ACCTPA21 TIME: 16:03:29 CHECK REGISTER − DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.ck_date=’20091204 00:00:00.000’ ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 6/10 FUND − 009 − DISBURSEMENT FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT −−−−−−−−−−−−−−VENDOR−−−− −−−−−−−−−BUDGET UNIT −−−−−DESCRIPTION−−−−−− SALES TAX AMOUNT 11111 113940 12/04/09 266 SUNGARD PUBLIC SECTOR IN 6223201 ASP SVC 12/09 0.00 5,390.00 11111 113940 12/04/09 266 SUNGARD PUBLIC SECTOR IN 6223201 HTE ASP SVC 12/09 0.00 350.00 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 5,740.00 11111 113941 12/04/09 277 TAK’S EQUIPMENT 6235202 REPAIR − CSP MOWER 0.00 479.29 11111 113941 12/04/09 277 TAK’S EQUIPMENT 6235202 REPAIR − MOWER 0.00 892.40 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 1,371.69 11111 113942 12/04/09 797 THE JAMES MADISON GROUP 1112301 CUSTOMER SVC SEMINAR 0.00 195.00 11111 113943 12/04/09 343 TMT ENTERPRISES INC 1115301 SUPPLIES − PARKS 0.00 95.05 11111 113944 12/04/09 354 TONY LEM 2775302 BIG BASIN BANNER 0.00 1,701.73 11111 113945 12/04/09 364 TOWN OF LOS GATOS 6235202 LG CNG GAS 10/08−9/09 0.00 1,005.54 11111 113946 12/04/09 376 TRAFFIC CONTROL SUPERVIS 1115201 DUES − STREETS DEPT 0.00 50.00 11111 113947 12/04/09 726 TREES 360 DEGREES 4219211−002 FALLEN TREE − POLLARD 0.00 1,750.00 11111 113948 12/04/09 557 VAVRINEK, TRINE, DAY & C 1113101 AUDIT SVC 09/09 0.00 10,000.00 11111 113948 12/04/09 557 VAVRINEK, TRINE, DAY & C 1113101 AUDIT SVC 08/09 0.00 18,000.00 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 28,000.00 11111 113949 12/04/09 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTE 1115301 REPAIRS − LIBRARY #2 0.00 480.00 11111 113949 12/04/09 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTE 1115301 CLEANUP − CARNELIAN 0.00 720.00 11111 113949 12/04/09 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTE 1115301 REPAIRS − LIBRARY #1 0.00 480.00 11111 113949 12/04/09 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTE 2315302 TREE LIGHTING PREP 0.00 420.00 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 2,100.00 11111 113950 12/04/09 408 WCBS − WEST COAST BUILDI 1115301 MTLY SVC −LIBRARY 0.00 100.00 11111 113950 12/04/09 408 WCBS − WEST COAST BUILDI 1115301 C SPRINGS 11/09 0.00 175.00 11111 113950 12/04/09 408 WCBS − WEST COAST BUILDI 1115301 EL QUITO 11/09 0.00 175.00 11111 113950 12/04/09 408 WCBS − WEST COAST BUILDI 1115301 WILDWOOD PARK 11/09 0.00 175.00 11111 113950 12/04/09 408 WCBS − WEST COAST BUILDI 1115301 K MORAN PARK 11/09 0.00 175.00 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 800.00 11111 113951 12/04/09 432 WEST VALLEY COLLECTIONS 1115301 BINS −C SPRINGS 11/09 0.00 271.79 11111 113952 12/04/09 500 WINQUIST, MARIE 1116101 CANCELLED CLASS 0.00 20.00 11111 113953 12/04/09 198 WITTWER & PARKIN, LLP 111 LGL − APP #PDR09−0021 0.00 1,761.60 11111 113954 12/04/09 439 XEROX CORPORATION 6213102 MTHLY MAINT 11/09 0.00 17.00 11111 113954 12/04/09 439 XEROX CORPORATION 6213102 CREDIT − COPIER 10/09 0.00 −2.00 11111 113954 12/04/09 439 XEROX CORPORATION 6213102 COPIER MAINT 11/09 0.00 27.00 11111 113954 12/04/09 439 XEROX CORPORATION 6213102 CREDIT − COPIER 10/09 0.00 −12.00 TOTAL CHECK 0.00 30.00 11111 113955 12/04/09 696 ZAG TECHNICAL SERVICES, 6223201 IT SUPPORT 10/09 0.00 701.25 29 SUNGARD PUBLIC SECTOR PAGE NUMBER: 7 DATE: 12/08/2009 CITY OF SARATOGA ACCTPA21 TIME: 16:03:29 CHECK REGISTER − DISBURSEMENT FUND SELECTION CRITERIA: transact.ck_date=’20091204 00:00:00.000’ ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 6/10 FUND − 009 − DISBURSEMENT FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT −−−−−−−−−−−−−−VENDOR−−−− −−−−−−−−−BUDGET UNIT −−−−−DESCRIPTION−−−−−− SALES TAX AMOUNT TOTAL CASH ACCOUNT 0.00 165,499.88 TOTAL FUND 0.00 165,499.88 TOTAL REPORT 0.00 165,499.88 30 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: December 16, 2009 AGENDA ITEM: DEPARTMENT: CityManager’s Office CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: Ann Sullivan, City Clerk DIRECTOR: Dave Anderson SUBJECT: Resolution Adopting Council Agency Assignments and AdHoc Committee Appointments RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt resolution. REPORT SUMMARY: On the December 2, 2008, Council meeting Mayor Kathleen King directed the Council to submit their Council Agency Assignment and Adhoc Committee requests to her by 5 p.m., December 8, 2009. It is now appropriate to adopt the attached resolution with the Council Agency and AdHoc appointments for 2010. FISCAL IMPACTS: N/A CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: Some Council representatives to various agencies and AdHoc Committees will remain the same. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: N/A FOLLOW UP ACTION: Disseminate information to various agencies and City staff. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: N/A ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A – Resolution Appointing Council Representatives to Agencies and Adhoc Committees 31 RESOLUTION NO. 09-RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA APPOINTING COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVES TO AGENCIES AND ADHOC COMMITTEES FOR 2010 WHEREAS, the City Council reorganized on December 1, 2009, for the coming year; and WHEREAS, representatives from the City Council serve on various agencies and adhoc committees; and WHEREAS, the responsibility for representing the City Council should be shared by all its members. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that after due consideration of the interest of the City Council and the needs of the various organizations to which the City Council sends representatives, the following representatives agree hereby to be appointed to the agencies and adhoc committees named, through December 2010, or until replaced: Agency Councilmember Alternate Association of Bay Area Government King Hunter Chamber of Commerce Miller Hunter County HCD Policy Committee King Nagpal Hakone Foundation Board King Hunter Hakone Foundation Executive Committee King N/A Historical Foundation Hunter Nagpal KSAR Community Access TV Board Miller Hunter Library Joint Powers Association Hunter Nagpal Lower Peninsula Valley Flood Control & Watershed Advisory Committee King Hunter Santa Clara Valley Water District Commission Page Hunter Santa Clara County Cities Association Executive Board Miller King SCC Cities Association Selection Committee King Hunter Santa Clara County Cities Association-Joint Economic Development Policy Committee (JEDPC) King Nagpal Santa Clara County Emergency Council King Nagpal Saratoga Ministerial Association Page King SASCC Hunter King 32 Sister City Liaison Hunter Nagpal West Valley Solid Waste Joint Powers Association Miller King Valley Transportation Authority PAC Miller King West Valley Sanitation District Page Nagpal West Valley Mayors and Managers Association King Hunter (Both members are required to attend meetings) City School Ad-Hoc King Page Council Finance Committee Page Miller Highway 9 Adhoc Miller Nagpal Village Ad-Hoc Hunter Nagpal The above and forgoing resolution was passed and adopted by the Saratoga City Council at a regular meeting held on the 16th day of December, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SIGNED: ______________________________ Kathleen King, Mayor ATTEST: ________________________________ Ann Sullivan, City Clerk 33 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: December 16, 2009 AGENDA ITEM: DEPARTMENT: Finance & Administrative Services CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: Mary Furey DIRECTOR: Mary Furey SUBJECT: FY 2008/09 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). RECOMMENDED ACTION: Review and accept the FY 2008/09 Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). REPORT SUMMARY: The City’s external auditor’s Vavrinek, Trine, Day & Co, LLP (VTD) conducted an audit in accordance with generally accepted auditing standards. These standards require that they plan and perform the audits to obtain reasonable assurance as to whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. In conjunction with the audit, the City’s financial data and schedules were compiled as a Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) which presents the City of Saratoga’s financial condition, results of operations and current economic condition, for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2009. The 2008/09 CAFR received an unqualified opinion from the City’s external auditors, VTD. An unqualified opinion indicates the financial data of the City is fairly presented according to general accounting principles. Additionally, VTD reviewed the City’s internal controls, and found no reportable material weaknesses. A material weakness is a significant deficiency which could lead to a material misstatement of the financial statements. The auditors informed staff that in accordance with auditing regulations, they do not issue management letters on Internal Controls unless the City’s internal control structure is found to have reportable material weaknesses. The City has applied for the Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA), Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting for the FY 2008/09 CAFR. Staff will inform Council of the award status once notified. FISCAL IMPACTS: None CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: None FOLLOW UP ACTION: Notify Council of CAFR Award status ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: N/A ATTACHMENTS: 34 Attachment A – CAFR Document 35 CITY OF SARATOGA C A L I F O R N I A Saratoga’s Historic Villa Montalvo COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT FISCAL YEAR 2008/09 36 37 Saratoga, California Comprehensive Annual Financial Report For the Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2009 City Council Chuck Page ............................................................................ ..................................... Mayor Kathleen King .................................................................................................... Vice Mayor Jill Hunter.................. ................................................................................. Council Member Howard Miller ........................................................................................ .... Council Member Susie Nagpal .............................................................................................. Council Member Presented under the direction of: David Anderson, City Manager Finance & Administrative Services Department 38 39 CITY OF SARATOGA COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2009 i TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTORY SECTION Letter of Transmittal ................................................ ......................................................... 1 GFOA Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting ........................... 5 Principal Officers of the City ............................................................................................ 6 Organization Chart ............................................................................ ............................... 7 FINANCIAL SECTION Independent Auditor’s Report ............................................................................................. 9 Management’s Discussion and Analysis (Required Supplementary Information) ............. 11 Basic Financial Statements: Government-Wide Financial Statements Statement of Net Assets ................................ ............................................................ 23 Statement of Activities and Changes in Net Assets ..................................................... 24 Fund Financial Statements Governmental Funds: Balance Sheet ........................................................................................................... 25 Reconciliation of the Government Funds Balance Sheet to the Government-Wide Financial Statement of Net Assets .................................. 26 Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances ................... ...... 27 Reconciliation of the Governmental Funds Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances to the Government-Wide Statement of Activities and Changes in Net Assets ................................................ 28 Proprietary Funds: Statement of Net Assets ............................................................................................ 29 Statement of Revenues, Expenses, and Changes in Fund Net Assets ........................... 30 Statement of Cash Flows ............................................................................. .............. 31 Fiduciary Funds: Statement of Fiduciary Net Assets ............................................................................. 32 Basic Financial Statement Notes: Notes to the Basic Financial Statements ..................................................................... 33 Required Supplementary Information Budgetary Information ............................. ................................................................. 55 Modified Approach for City Streets Infrastructure Capital Assets ............................... 57 40 CITY OF SARATOGA COMPREHENSIVE ANNUAL FINANCIAL REPORT FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2009 ii TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTINUED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Non-Major Governmental Funds Combining Balance Sheets ....................................................................................... 62 Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances ........ 64 Schedule of Revenues, Exp and Changes in Fund Balances – Budget and Actual: Capital Improvements .......................................................................................... 66 Lighting & Landscape Assessment Districts Special Revenue Funds ..................... 67 Community Development Block Grant Special Revenue Fund ............................... 68 Library Bond Debt Service Fund .......................................................................... 69 Library Expansion Capital Project Fund ................................................... ............ 70 Fiduciary Funds Statement of Changes in Assets and Liabilities – Agency Funds ................................. 72 Internal Service Funds Combining Statement of Net Assets ........................................................................... 74 Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenses, and Change in Fund Balance ............... 76 Combining Statement of Cash Flows ......................................................................... 78 Capital Assets Used in the Operation of Governmental Funds Comparative Schedule by Source .................. ............................................................. 83 Schedule by Function and Activity ............................................................................ 84 Schedule of Changes by Function and Activity .......................................................... 86 Statistical Section (Unaudited) Net Assets by Component ............................................. ............................................. 88 Changes in Net Assets ............................................................................................... 89 Fund Balance of Governmental Funds ........................................................................ 90 Governmental Activities Tax Revenues by Source ..................................................... 91 Changes in Fund Balances of Governmental Funds .................................................... 92 Direct and Overlapping Government ........................................................... ............... 93 Assessed Value and Estimated Actual Value of Taxable Property ............................... 94 Principal Property Taxpayers ...................................................... ............................... 96 Property Tax Levies and Collections .......................................................................... 97 Ratios of Outstanding Debt by Type .......................................................................... 98 Ratios of General Bonded Debt Outstanding .............................................................. 99 Direct and Overlapping Governmental Activities Debt ............................................. 100 Legal Debt Margin Information ................................................................ ............... 101 Demographic and Economic Statistics ..................................................................... 102 Principal Employers ................................................. .............................................. 103 Full-Time Equivalent City Government Employees by Function ............................... 104 Operating Indicators by Function .................... ......................................................... 105 Capital Asset Statistics by Function ......................................................................... 106 41 INTRODUCTORY SECTION 42 43 CITY OF SARATOGA CI T Y HA L L 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 868-1200 December 8, 2009 Honorable Mayor and City Council, The Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) of the City of Saratoga for the year ended June 30, 2009 is hereby submitted as mandated by applicable statutes. These statutes require that the City of Saratoga annually issue a report on its financial position and activity, and that an independent firm of certified public accountants audit this report. Responsibilities for both the accuracy of the data and the completeness and fairness of the presentation, including all disclosures, rests with the City's management. The information in this report is intended to present the reader with a comprehensive view of the City’s financial position and the results of its operations for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2009, along with additional disclosures and financial information designed to enable the reader to gain an understanding of the City’s financial activities. This report was prepared as prescribed in Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GAAP) Statement No. 34, Basic Financial Statements and Management’s Discussions and Analysis-for State and Local Governments. This GASB Statement requires that management provide a narrative introduction, overview, and analysis to accompany the basic financial statements in the form of Management’s Discussion and Analysis (MD&A). This letter of transmittal is designed to complement MD&A and should be read in conjunction with it. This Comprehensive Annual Financial Report is organized into three sections: 1. Introductory Section -The introductory section, includes the table of contents, letter of transmittal, a list of the City of Saratoga's elected officials and City administrative personnel, an organization chart and the Government Finance Officers Association’s (GFOA’s) of the United States and Canada Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting to the City of Saratoga for its CAFR for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2008. 2. Financial Section – The financial section includes the independent auditors’ opinion, management’s discussion and analysis, the basic financial statements, notes to the financial statements, combining statements of non-major funds, and required supplemental information. 3. Statistical Section – The statistical section includes both financial and non-financial data about the City. This information has been updated in accordance with the new GASB 44. THE REPORTING ENTITY AND ITS SERVICES The City, incorporated in 1956, is located 40 miles south of San Francisco in the Santa Clara Valley. The City currently covers a land area of approximately 12 square miles and contains a population of 31,679 at January 1, 2009 as reported by the Department of Finance. The City is a general law city of the State of California and operates under a council-manager form of government. Policymaking and legislative authority are vested in the City Council, which consists of a Mayor, Vice Mayor and three additional council 1 44 members. City Council members are elected at-large for staggered four-year terms. The Mayor is selected annually by the City Council. The City Council is responsible for, among other things, passing ordinances, adopting the budget, appointing members to the City’s seven advisory commissions and hiring the City Manager and City Attorney. The City Manager is responsible for implementing the policies and ordinances of the City Council, overseeing the daily operations of the City, and recommending appointments of the City's department directors to the City Council. The City provides a limited range of services including public safety, development regulation, public works, community and recreation activities and events, and general administrative functions. As a minimal service city, activities are supplemented through numerous contracts with others. Contracted services include, but are not limited to, public safety, infrastructure maintenance, engineering services, legal services and recreation activities. The City is also committed to citizen participation in the evaluation, expansion and enhancement of services. Saratoga residents who wish to assist the City Council in forming government policy may do so by serving on an advisory commission. The commissions all act in an advisory capacity to the City Council, and are comprised of the Heritage Preservation Commission, Library Commission, Parks and Recreation Commission, Planning Commission, Public Safety Commission, and Youth Commission. The financial reporting entity (the City) includes all the fund activity of the primary government, as well as all of its component units. Component units are legally separated entities for which the City is fully accountable. The City’s Saratoga Public Financing Authority (PFA) component unit which provided financial oversight of local bond obligations was finalized in FY 2005/06. The Authority’s final financial report was issued for FY 2006/07. Blended component units, although legally separate entities, are in substance, part of the City’s operations and data from these units are combined with data of the City. Accordingly, the operations of the Landscaping and Lighting Assessment Districts are reported in the City’s financial statements. ECONOMIC CONDITIONS AND OUTLOOK The financial structure of Saratoga with its mostly built-out residential neighborhoods and limited commercial development means that the two typically largest sources of revenue for cities—property tax and sales tax—account for a smaller proportion of revenue than in other cities with minimal growth expected in future years. In addition, while proposition 1A protects the city from further ongoing unrestrained state takes of tax revenues, the potential for state takes exists under the state’s current budget crisis. The City may see shortfalls of unprotected State or County based funding or temporary borrowings of property tax revenues permitted under Proposition 1A. With this in mind the City continues to restrict operations to minimal services and prepare for funding impacts. Capital improvements will continue to be funded with development fees, residual funding and grant moneys as funding level allow. On a positive note the City began receiving a significant increase in property tax revenues due to the passage of Assembly Bill 117. This legislation, effective with the 2006/07 fiscal year, increased the property tax percentage allocated to the City as a result of the Tax Equity Allocation (TEA) formula. Assembly Member Cohn sponsored the bill which resulted from a joint effort of the City of Saratoga, Santa Clara County and 3 other affected cities – Cupertino, Monte Sereno and Los Altos Hills. While the TEA legislation restored the cities to the full “low tax” level of 7%, the State required the cities to continue to remit the County’s ERAF rate on these funds so that the bill would have no effect on the State budget. The ERAF rate the County remits is 47.7%, compared to the City of Saratoga’s rate of 17.14%, resulting in a significant impact to the revenues received. 2 45 Financial Information and Major Initiatives Management of the City is responsible for establishing and maintaining an internal control structure designed to ensure that the assets of the City are protected from loss, theft or misuse and to ensure that adequate accounting data is compiled to allow for the preparation of financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles. The internal control structure is designed to provide reasonable, but not absolute, assurance that these objectives are met. The concept of reasonable assurance recognizes that: (1) the cost of a control should not exceed benefits likely to be derived, and (2) the valuation of costs and benefits requires estimates and judgments by management. As a recipient of federal, state and local financial assistance, the City is also responsible for guaranteeing that an adequate internal control structure is in place to ensure and document compliance with applicable laws and regulations related to these programs. This internal control structure is subject to periodic evaluation by the City’s management. The City has practiced a passive approach to investments and maintains flexibility by managing a pooled cash system. Under the pooled cash concept, the City invests the cash of all funds with maturities planned to coincide with cash needs. Idle cash is invested in certain eligible securities as constrained by law and further limited by the City’s investment policy. The goals of the City’s investment policy are safety, liquidity and yield. In addition, the City maintains extensive budgetary controls. The objective of these controls is to ensure compliance with legal provisions embodied in the annual appropriated budget approved by the City Council. Activities of the general fund, special revenue funds, capital projects funds and debt service funds are included in the annual appropriation. The level of budgetary control (i.e., the level at which expenditures cannot exceed the appropriated amount) is at the fund level. The City also maintains an encumbrance accounting system as another method of maintaining budgetary control. Encumbered amounts lapse at year-end with the exception of the Capital Improvements Projects, which are multiple-year projects. However, outstanding encumbrances of a material nature are reviewed by the responsible department and in some cases a recommendation is made to the City Council to take action by Resolution to re-appropriate these funds into the following year’s budget. The FY 2008/09 budget focused on maintaining a minimal service levels in anticipation of continued reductions in the City’s base revenue sources with the weakening economy. Departmental budgets were held or reduced to non-expansive levels. The City also prepared for a significant take by the State due to the publicity of the State’s struggle with their budget. With decreasing resources, the FY 2008/09 budget process continued its focus on operational efficiencies to streamline services, aligning fees with services provided to the public, and strengthening the organization’s tracking and communication of City operations. OTHER INFORMATION Independent Audit – California law requires cities to prepare an annual audit by an independent certified public accountant. In addition to meeting the requirements set forth in statutes, the audit was also designed to meet the requirements of the federal Single Audit Act of 1984, as amended, and the related U.S. Office of Management and Budget’s Circular. Generally accepted auditing standards set forth in the General Accounting Office’s Government Auditing Standards were used by the auditors in conducting the engagement. The auditor’s unqualified report is included in the financial section of this report. Vavrinek, Trine, Day & Co., LLP Certified Public Accountants performed the City’s Fiscal Year 2008/09 financial audit. 3 46 Awards – The Government Finance Officers Association (GFOA) of the United States and Canada awarded a Certificate of Achievement to the City for its Excellence in Financial Reporting on the CAFR for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2008. In order to be awarded a Certificate of Achievement, the City published an easily readable and efficiently organized financial report. This report satisfied both generally accepted accounting principles and applicable legal requirements. The Certificate of Achievement is valid for a period of one year. We believe our current CAFR continues to meet the Certificate of Achievement program’s requirements, and plan on submitting it to the GFOA to determine its eligibility for another certificate. Acknowledgements – This CAFR represents the culmination of numerous hours of hard work expended by many individuals in the Finance & Administrative Services Department. In particular, we would like to express our appreciation to Robert Edris, Sr. Accountant for his exemplary preparation of this annual financial report, and to our supporting staff members: Ann Xu, Accountant; Julie Ingraham, Karen Caselli, and Melanie Whitaker, Accounting Technicians for all their assistance with the audit and throughout the year. Furthermore, we would like to thank Vavrinek, Trine, Day & Co. CPA’s for their helpful assistance in the preparation of this report. Finally, we would like to give credit to the City Council for their ongoing interest and support in planning, conducting and advising on the operations of the City in a responsible and progressive manner. Respectfully submitted, Dave Anderson Mary Furey City Manager Finance and Administrative Services Director 4 47 5 48 Certificate of Achievement for Excellence in Financial Reporting Presented 10 City of Saratoga California For its Comprehensive Annual Fimmci.l Report for the Fiscal Year Ended Ju .... 30, 2008 ~ Cenif",.", of A,rn..<m<'lt for lixe<llmc< in F ...... ioi R<poo1 ... io IK''''*<! by "'" <>0.""",... Fin&n<. Ofl" ..... A"",,"''''' .f!be Ullited S ...... and Canod> to 1"''''',." .... gmt! and pobl ~ =1"10)'« ,dif<""'" ')'>O<In'l ~_ ,_,h<n<ivt • .-.1 (""",at r<pOOs (CAFRs) ac .... ' .. 1he ~" ... ndardo ;" JO~ ""'oontina and r"",,,, "1 «pOO' .... Pre.idcm EX""Ul;"t Dirttlor 6 CITY OF SARATOGA ELECTED OFFICIALS AND ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONNEL As of June 30, 2009 CITY COUNCIL Chuck Page -Mayor Kathleen King – Vice Mayor Jill Hunter Howard Miller Susie V. Nagpal CITY STAFF Dave Anderson – City Manager Barbara Powell – Assistant City Manager Ann Sullivan – City Clerk Mary Furey – Finance & Administrative Services Director John Livingstone – Community Development Director John Cherbone – Public Works Director Michael Taylor – Recreation & Facilities Director CITY ATTORNEY Richard S. Taylor – Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger INDEPENDENT AUDITORS Vavrinek, Trine, Day & Co., LLP, CPA 49 City of Saratoga -Organization Chart City Manager City Attorney Executive Assistant .60 Community Development Department Community Development Director Administrative Analyst II 1 Human Resources Division 1 HR Manager Facilities Division 1 Facility Maint. Supervisor 1 Facility Maint. Leadworker 2 Facility Maint. Workers .60 Facility Coordinator Planning Division 1 Senior Planner 2 Assistant Planners 1 Arborist 1 Office Specialist Engineering Division 1 Sr. Civil Engineer 1 Associate Engineer 1 Administrative Analyst .75 Office Specialist Parks Division 1 Manager -Parks 1 Park Maint. Leadworker 1 Park Maint. Specialist 6 Park Maint. Workers .50 Office Specialist III Finance Division 1 Accountant 3 Accounting Technicians Information Technology Division 1 IT Analyst Office of the City Clerk 1 City Clerk .15 Deputy City Clerk Finance and Administrative Services Department Finance and Administrative Services Director Recreation and Facilities Department Recreation and Facilities Director Public Works Department Public Works Director Recreation Services Division 1 Senior Recreation Supervisor 1 Recreation Supervisor 1 Office Specialist Streets and Fleet Division 1 Manager -Streets and Fleet 1 Street Maint. Leadworker 1 Street Maint. Specialist 4 Street Maint. Workers .50 Office Specialist Building Division 1 Building Official 2 Building Inspectors 1 Code Compliance Specialist 1 Plan Check Engineer 1 Office Specialist Citizen Advisory Commissions and Citizens of Saratoga ElectedCity Council CityManager's Department Assistant City Manager/City Manager's Department Director 7 50 l J ( J I I [ [ 1 l ---i ---{ I ~ --{ J I I r--r--r--r--'--'--'--r--L-- 8 This page is intentionally blank. 51 FINANCIAL SECTION 52 53 INDEPENDENT AUDITORS' REPORT The Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council of the City of Saratoga Saratoga, California We have audited the accompanying financial statements of the governmental activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City of Saratoga (the City) as of and for the year ended June 30, 2009 which collectively comprise the City's basic financial statements as listed in the table of contents. These financial statements are the responsibility of the City's management. Our responsibility is to express opinions on these financial statements based on our audit. We conducted our audit in accordance with auditing standards generally accepted in the United States of America, and the standards applicable to financial audits contained in Governmental Auditing Standards, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material misstatement. An audit includes examining, on a test basis, evidence supporting the amounts and disclosures in the financial statements. An audit also includes assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation. We believe that our audit provides a reasonable basis for our opinions. In our opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in all material respects, the respective financial position of the governmental activities, each major fund, and the aggregate remaining fund information of the City of Saratoga, as of June 30, 2009, and the respective changes in financial position and cash flows, where applicable, thereof for the year then ended in conformity with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. In accordance with Government Auditing Standards, we have also issued our report dated December 8, 2009, on our consideration of the City's City's internal control over financial reporting and on our tests of its compliance with certain provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, and grant agreements and other matters. The purpose of that report is to describe the scope of our testing of internal control over financial reporting and compliance and the results of that testing, and not to provide an opinion on the internal control over financial reporting or on compliance. That report is an integral part of an audit performed in accordance with Government Auditing Standards and should be considered in conjunction with this report in considering the results of our audit. 5000 Hopyard Road, Suite 335 Pleasanton, CA 94588 Tel: 925.734.6600 Fax: 925.734.6611 www.vtdcpa.com FRESNO ● LAGUNA HILLS ● PLEASANTON ● RANCHO CUCAMONGA ● PALO ALTO 9 54 VAVRINEK, TRlNE, DAY & COMPANY, LLP vrlifi~d P" bli~ AUQ."'ttttl" YALUE THE DIFFEREtlCE The required supplementary information, such as management's discussion and analysis, and the required supplementary information as listed on the table of contents, are not a required part of the basic financial statements, but supplementary information required by the accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America. We have applied certain limited procedures, which consisted principally of inquiries of management regarding the methods of measurement and presentation of the required supplementary information. However, we did not audit the information and express no opinion. Our audit was conducted for the purpose of forming opinions on the financial statements that collectively comprise the City's basic financial statements. The introductory section, and combining individual nonmajor fund statements and schedules, and statistical section listed in the table of contents, are presented for purposes of additional analysis and is not a required part of the basic financial statements. The combining, individual non-major fund statements and schedules, have been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the basic financial statements and, in our opinion, is fairly stated in all material respects in relation to the basic financial statements taken as a whole. The introductory and statistical sections have not been subjected to the auditing procedures applied in the audit of the basic financial statements and, accordingly, we express no opinion on it. Pleasanton, California December 8, 2009 10 55 C , L .L-t' . I CITY OF SARATOGA MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2009 11 INTRODUCTION The following provides a narrative overview and analysis of the fiscal operations during the fiscal year ended June 30, 2009 for the City of Saratoga. The Management Discussion and Analysis (MD&A) is to be read in conjunction with the annual Transmittal Letter and the Basic Financial Statements. FISCAL YEAR 2008/09 FINANCIAL HIGHLIGHTS • The City's total net assets were $122,857,588, comprised of $108,817,516 for investment in capital assets, net of depreciation and related debt; $5,280,823 restricted for specific purposes; and $8,759,249 unrestricted net assets (reference pg #23). • Total City revenues were $19,169,849, which consists of program revenue of $6,335,579 and general revenues of $12,834,270 (reference pg #24). • The City’s expenses were $21,780,333 (reference pg #24). • Total Governmental Fund’s fund balances were $13,509,509, consisting of $8,228,686 in the General Fund, $3,510,980 in the Capital Improvement Funds, and $1,769,843 in the Other Governmental Funds (reference pg #25). • General Fund revenues were $15,874,201, while General Fund expenditures were $15,763,360 (reference pg #27). THE BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS The Basic Financial Statements are comprised of 1) Government-wide (City-wide) Financial Statements, and; 2) Fund Financial Statements. These two sets of financial statements provide the reader two different perspectives of the City's financial activities and financial position. Government-Wide Financial Statements provide a longer-term view of the City's activities as a whole, and comprise the Statement of Net Assets and the Statement of Activities. The Statement of Net Assets provides information about the financial position of the City as a whole, including all its capital assets and long-term liabilities on a full accrual basis, similar to that used by corporations. The Statement of Activities provides information about all the City's revenues and all its expenses, also on a full accrual basis, with the emphasis on measuring net revenues and/or expenses for each of the City's programs. The Statement of Activities explains in detail the change in Net Assets for the fiscal year. All of the City's activities are required to be grouped into government activities and business-type activities. The entire amount in the Statement of Net Assets and the Statement of Activities are also required to be separated into governmental activities or business-type activities in order to provide a summary of these two activities of the City as a whole. In the case of the City of Saratoga, there are no business-type activities as of June 30, 2009. Fund Financial Statements report the City's operations in more detail than the government-wide statements and focus primarily on the short-term activities of the City's general fund and other major funds. The Fund Financial Statements measure only current revenues and expenditures and fund balances; they exclude capital assets, long-term debt, and other long-term amounts. 56 CITY OF SARATOGA MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2009 12 Major funds account for the major financial activities of the City and are presented individually, while the activities of non-major funds are presented in summary, with subordinate schedules presenting the detail for each of these other funds. Major funds are explained below. The Government-Wide Financial Statements Government-wide financial statements are prepared on the accrual basis, which means they measure the flow of all economic resources of the City as a whole. The Statement of Net Assets and the Statement of Activities present information about the following: Governmental Activities -All of the City's basic services are considered to be governmental activities, including general government, community development, public safety, transportation, and, culture and leisure. These services are supported by general City revenues such as taxes, and by specific program revenues such as developer and recreation program program fees. Business-Type Activities -This category includes enterprise activities such as water, sewer, and utilities. Unlike governmental services, these services are fully supported by charges paid by users based on the amount of services they use. The City of Saratoga does not have any business-type activities at this time. Fund Financial Statements A fund is a grouping of related accounts that is used to maintain control over resources that have been segregated for specific activities or objectives. The City, like other local governments, uses fund accounting to ensure and demonstrate compliance with finance-related legal requirements. Fund financial statements provide detailed information about each of the City's most significant funds, called major funds. The concept of major funds, and the determination of which are major funds, was established by GASB Statement 34 and replaces the concept of combining like funds and presenting them in total. Instead, each major fund is presented individually, with all non-major funds summarized and presented only in a single column. Subordinate schedules present the detail of these non-major funds. Major funds present the major activities of the City for the fiscal year, and may change from year to year as a result of changes in the pattern of the City's activities. The City's funds are segregated into three categories: governmental funds, proprietary funds, and fiduciary funds. Governmental Funds -The City's basic services are reported in governmental funds, which focus on how money flows into and out of those funds and the balances available at year-end. Financial statements are prepared on the modified accrual basis, which means they measure only current financial resources and uses. Carrying amounts for capital assets and other long-lived assets, along with long-term liabilities are not presented on the balance sheet in the governmental fund financial statements. Unlike the government-wide financial statements, governmental fund financial statements focus on near-term inflows and outflows of spendable resources, as well as on balances of spendable resources available at the end of the fiscal year. Such information may be useful in evaluating the City's near-term financing requirements. Fiduciary Funds – These funds account for assets held by the City in a trustee capacity or as an agent for individuals, private organizations, other governmental units, and/or other funds. Fiduciary funds are not reflected in the government-wide financial statements because these resources are not available to support the City's programs. The City maintains one such fund, the Community Access Television Fund, which acts as trustee for the CATV Foundation Board for investment purposes. 57 CITY OF SARATOGA MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2009 13 NOTES TO THE FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Notes to the Financial Statements provide additional information that is essential to a full understanding of the data provided in the government-wide and fund financial statements. The notes can be found immediately following the fund financial statements. REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Required supplementary information other than through the MD&A follows the Notes and includes a budgetary comparison for the General Fund as presented in the governmental fund financial statements, and information on the modified approach for city streets and infrastruction capital assets. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION Combining and individual fund statements and schedules are included to provide information for non-major governmental funds, special revenue funds, fiduciary funds, and uses of capital assets. An un-audited statistical section provides historical and current data on financial trends, revenue and debt capacity, demographic and economic information, and operating information. GOVERNMENT-WIDE FINANCIAL ANALYSIS Net assets may serve over time as an indicator of the City's financial position. The City's Total Net Assets decreased $2,610,484, from $125,468,072 in FY 2007/08 to $122,857,588 in FY 2008/09. The most significant portion of the City's net assets $108,817,516 or 88.6% accounts for its investment in capital assets, (e.g., land, buildings, general government infrastructure, equipment, etc.;) less any related debt used to acquire those assets that are still outstanding. These capital assets represent infrastructure which provides services to the citizens, consequently, these assets are not available for future spending. $8,759,249 or 7.1% of the City's net assets is unrestricted and may be used to meet the City's ongoing obligations to citizens and creditors. $5,280,823 or 4.3% of the City's net assets are subjected to external restrictions on how they may be used. Of these restricted net net assets, $3,865,374 is restricted for capital projects, $931,361 is for repayment of long-term debt and $484,088 is restricted for housing activities and lighting and landscaping assessment districts. 58 CITY OF SARATOGA MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2009 Governmental Activities 2009 2008 Assets Current assets $ 18,182,606 $ 18,463,116 Non-current assets 71,670 85,003 Capital assets 122,102,516 123,413,151 Total Assets 140,356,792 141,961,270 Liabilities Current liabilities 4,317,341 2,859,025 Long-term debt 13,181,863 13,634,173 Total Liabilities 17,499,204 16,493,198 Net Assets Investment in capital assets, net of related debt 108,817,516 109,818,151 Restricted for Capital Project 3,865,374 4,768,478 Restricted for Debt Service 931,361 853,619 Restricted for Special Projects 484,088 318,143 Unrestricted 8,759,249 9,709,681 Total Net Assets $ 122,857,588 $ 125,468,072 Net Assets14 59 CITY OF SARATOGA MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2009 Governmental Activities Increase Functions/Programs 2009 2008 (Decrease) Program Revenues Charges for services $ 5,768,277 $ 6,924,234 $ (1,155,957) Operating grants and contributions 228,534 150,564 77,970 Capital grants and contributions 338,768 1,714,758 (1,375,990) Total Program Revenues 6,335,579 8,789,556 (2,453,977) General Revenues Property taxes 8,335,805 8,099,071 236,734 Sales taxes 1,043,034 1,057,977 (14,943) Local taxes 663,053 693,950 (30,897) Franchise taxes 1,656,716 1,625,414 31,302 Motor vehicle in-lieu 116,273 148,865 (32,592) Intergovernmental revenues 473,989 840,557 (366,568) Investment earnings 397,116 1,056,891 (659,775) Other revenues 148,284 348,258 (199,974) Total General Revenues 12,834,270 13,870,983 (1,036,713) Expenses General and intergovernmental services 5,595,474 6,292,527 (697,053) Public safety 4,210,763 4,165,945 44,818 Public works 7,643,545 5,325,784 2,317,761 Community services 1,633,997 1,285,739 348,258 Community development services 1,999,754 2,032,217 (32,463) Interest on long-term debt (unallocated) 696,800 713,566 (16,766) Total Expenses 21,780,333 19,815,778 $ 1,964,555 Increase /(Decrease) in Net Assets (2,610,484) 2,844,761 Net Assets, Beginning of Year 125,468,072 122,623,311 Net Assets, End of Year $ 122,857,588 $ 125,468,072 Statement of Changes in Net Assets As shown in the above Statement of Changes in Net Assets schedule, the net change in revenues from the prior fiscal year for governmental activities from program revenues was a decrease of $2,453,977. The net change in general revenues from the prior year was a decrease of $1,036,713 for a total decrease in revenues of $3,490,690. The net change in expenses from the prior year was an increase of $1,964,554, resulting in a decrease in Net Assets of $2,610,484. 15 60 CITY OF SARATOGA MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2009 An analysis and graphical representation of the changes in revenues and expenditures by type of significant events follows: CHART OF REVENUE INCREASE OR (DECREASE) $-$1,000,000 $2,000,000 $3,000,000 $4,000,000 $5,000,000 $6,000,000 $7,000,000 $8,000,000 $9,000,000 FY 2007/08 FY 2008/09 Total Revenues by Category Increases in Revenues • A $236,734 increase in property tax revenue stems from the rise in property tax assessment values resulting from real estate turnover. The 2.9% increase is lower than in recent previous years due to a decrease in housing prices during FY 2008/09. Decreases in Revenues • A decrease of $1,375,990 in capital grants & contributions reflects a reduction in capital program grants and reimbursements as less street work was completed in FY 2008/09 than in the prior year. • A $366,568 decrease in Intergovernmental Revenues is the result of revenue classification changes from the prior year. • Investment Earnings show a decrease of $659,775. Interest income decreased approximately $257,000 (almost 40%) due to significant drops in the interest rates over the fiscal year, with the remainder of the decrease attributed to revenue categorization changes from the prior year. • Other Revenues represents miscellaneous refunds and reimbursements, proceeds from sales, and minor oddities. Revenues will fluctuate from year to year as these types of receipts are typically 16 61 • • CITY OF SARATOGA MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2009 unplanned and one-time occurrences. A continued emphasis on categorizing revenues into proper programs and categories has also contributed to the $199,974 decrease in receipts; however a majority of the decrease is attributed to a one time donation of $149,000 in the prior year. • A decrease of $1,155,957 in Charge for Services is a result of the severe downturn in development fees due to the struggling economy and credit crunch (about $800,000), and the similar impact on the use in recreation services for classes, camps, and excursions (about $300,000). CHART OF EXPENSE INCREASE OR (DECREASE) $-$1,000,000 $2,000,000 $3,000,000 $4,000,000 $5,000,000 $6,000,000 $7,000,000 $8,000,000 Gen'l & Intergov'l Public Safety Public Works Community Services Community Development Interest on LT Debt FY 2007/08 FY 2008/09 Total Expenses by Category The net change in expenses for Governmental Activities was an increase of $1,964,554. Expenditures with significant events include: Increases in Expenses • A $2,317,761 increase in Public Works expenses is a result of a change in the street capitalization policy which increases the non-capital maintenance cost rather than capitalizing its cost, and from the allocation of internal service charges to Public Works functions. • The $348,258 increase in Community Services expenses is also a reflection of the CIP Policy change to expense non-capital maintenance project costs in the capital program rather than capitalize them. Decreases in Expenses • A $697,053 decrease in expenses in the General and Intergovernmental Services category from the prior year resulted from a reduction in depreciation expense and a change in the distribution of internal service charges to properly reflect this expense by category. 17 62 • • CITY OF SARATOGA MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2009 MAJOR AND OTHER GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS: CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE A summary of the changes in fund balance of the major and other government funds are presented below: Other Capital Governmental General Improvement Funds Total Revenues $ 15,874,201 $ 1,692,920 $ 1,651,737 Total Expenditures 15,763,360 4,021,626 1,400,443 Revenues Over (Under) Expenditures 110,841 ( 2,328,706) 251,294 Transfers in 153,732 1,871,137 18,560 Transfers out ( 1,571,727) ( 106,000) ( 365,702) Net change in fund balances (1,307,154) ( 563,569) ( 95,848) Beginning of year (as restated) 9,535,840 4,074,549 1,865,691 End of year $ 8,228,686 $ 3,510,980 $ 1,769,843 Major Funds Included in the Major Funds are the General Fund and the Capital Improvement Fund. The Other Governmental funds include twenty-four Lighting and Landscape Assessment Districts, accounted for as one fund in financials, the Community Development Block Grant Fund, the Library Bond Debt Service Fund, and the Library Expansion Capital Project Fund. The net change of the Major and Other Governmental Funds fiscal year transactions is decrease of $1,966,571. General Fund -As shown in the preceding Major Funds table, the net change in the General Fund's Fund Balance was a decrease of $1,307,154. A net loss resulted from the net of operating revenues coming in just slightly over operating expenditures, and the transfer out of $1.57 million, primarily to the Capital Improvement Program. Revenues are budgeted conservatively based upon prior year experience and specific information, while expenditures are limited to anticipated program needs at not-to-exceed projected funding levels. A large factor which contributed to the net loss was the more than $700,000 decrease in General Fund revenues from the prior year due to significant drops in development and recreation permits, fees, and service charges. Capital Improvement Project Fund -As shown in the table above, the net change in the Capital Improvement Fund has a decrease of $563,569 which is due to a significant drop from the prior year’s grant revenue stream, whereas expenditures remained relatively consistent. A net $1.8 million of transfers in to the capital program offset the operational shortfall. Other Governmental Funds -As shown in the table, there was a net decrease of $95,848 in the Other Governmental Funds. A $310,000 transfer from the Library Building Capital Improvement Fund to the capital program for an HVAC upgrade project accounted for the bulk of the decrease in fund balance. 18 63 CITY OF SARATOGA MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2009 GENERAL FUND – BUDGETARY HIGHLIGHTS Changes from the City's General Fund original budget to the final budget are detailed in the Required Supplementary Information Section along with a comparison to actual activity for the year ended. Changes to the City's budget that increase or decrease appropriations in a fund must be approved by a resolution of the City Council. Modifications to the budget that are a realignment of fiscal activities with no impact to the fund's bottom line may be approved by the City Manager. Adopted to Final Budget Fiscal Year Ended June 30, 2009 + = + = Adopted Capital Beginning Budget Final Budget Project Balance Adjustments Budget Expenditures $ 1 6,809,264 -1 6,809,264 1 6,735 $ 16,825,999 Transfers out $ 2 53,500 1 ,090,000 1 ,343,500 2 00,000 $ 1,543,500 The General Fund adopted expenditure budget was $16,809,264 and increased by $16,735 to fund the West Valley Clean Water Program budget. General Fund transfers out were increased by $1,090,000 as part of the capital budget, which was adopted at a later date than the operating budget but, in fact, are beginning adopted amounts. During the year, transfers out were increased by $200,000 to fund the Comer Road Retaining Wall project. CAPITAL ASSETS The City of Saratoga elected to use the "Modified Approach" as defined by GASB Statement No. 34 for infrastructure reporting in which eligible infrastructure capital assets are not required to be depreciated if the following requirements are met: • The City manages the assets using an asset management system which requires that the City (1) perform an up-to-date inventory; (2) perform condition assessments and summarize the results using a measurement scale; and (3) estimate the annual amount to preserve the assets at the established condition assessment level. • The City documents that the eligible infrastructure capital assets are being preserved approximately at or above the established and disclosed condition assessment level. The City policy is to achieve an average Pavement Condition Index (PCI) rating of 70 for all streets. The City achieved the 70 rating with 86% of streets rated as Excellent to Good, 13% of streets are rated as "Poor", and 1% of streets are rated as "Very Poor". The City spent $1,574,485 to maintain and preserve eligible infrastructure assets. For more detailed information on Capital Assets activity, please refer to Note 2 in the section entitled "Notes to the Basic Financial Statements" and "Required Supplementary Section". As of June 30, 2009, the City had $122,102,516 invested in a variety of capital assets, as reflected in the following schedule, which represents a decrease of $1,310,635 or slightly more than a 1% decrease from the prior year. 19 64 CITY OF SARATOGA MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2009 Governmental Activities 2009 2008 Land $ 10,585,106 $ 9,887,095 Building and structures 18,261,779 18,739,078 Machinery and equipment 470,646 470,217 Infrastructure 86,189,639 86,571,890 Construction in progress 6,595,346 7,744,871 Total Capital Assets, Net of Depreciation $ 122,102,516 $ 123,413,151 Capital Assets at Year End Net of Depreciation The following reconciliation summarizes the changes in Capital Assets. Balance Balance July 1, 2008 Additions Retirements June 30, 2009 Land $ 9,887,095 $ 698,011 $ -$ 10,585,106 Building and structures 23,066,577 90,181 -23,156,758 Machinery and equipment 1,960,115 152,862 (86,837) 2,026,140 Infrastructure 102,756,597 792,632 103,549,229 Construction in progress 7,744,871 2,454,921 (3,604,446) 6,595,346 Depreciation (22,002,104) (1,894,788) 86,829 ( 23,810,063) Total Capital Assets, Net of Depreciation $ 123,413,151 $ 2,293,819 $ (3,604,454) $ 122,102,516 Changes in Capital Assets Major capital projects in progress during the fiscal year include the following: • Kevin Moran Park Improvements -$1,318,297 • North Campus /Prospect -$471,635 • El Quito Park Improvements -$74,305 • UPPR /DeAnza Trail -$67,918 • Prospect Road Medians -$50,520 Additional information on Capital Assets is included in Note 5 to the financial statements. DEBT ADMINISTRATION The net change in outstanding debt for the City of Saratoga is a decrease of $214,184. During the fiscal year, the City did not enter into any new debt structures. 20 65 CITY OF SARATOGA MANAGEMENT’S DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2009 Governmental Activities 2009 2008 2001 General Obligation Bond $ 13,285,000 $ 13,595,000 Compensated absences 584,415 488,599 Total Outstanding Debt $ 13,869,415 $ 14,083,599 Outstanding Long-Term Obligation at Year End The current portions of long-term debt ($330,000 and $310,000 for 2009 and 2008, respectively), are classified as current liabilities in the City's Statement of Net Assets. 2001 General Obligation Bond -During the fiscal year, the City made debt service payments that include a principal reduction of $310,000 on the City's 2001 General Obligation $15,000,000 bond issue. Compensated absences are accrued liabilities for vested and unpaid vacation and sick pay. The compensated absences balance increased during the fiscal year by $95,816 due to an increase in unused compensated time off. Additional information on outstanding obligations can be found in Note 6 to the financial statements. ECONOMIC FACTORS In September 2006, the City received a significant increase in new property tax revenues on an annual basis due to the passage of Assembly Bill 117. This legislation effective with FY 2006/07 increases the amount of property taxes allocated to the City as a result of the TEA (Tax Equity Allocation) formula. Assembly Member Cohn sponsored the bill which resulted from a joint effort of the City of Saratoga, Santa Clara County and the three other affected cities -Cupertino, Monte Sereno and Los Altos Hills. These cities are referred to as "no/low tax cities" and will have restored a proportionate share of the property taxes which they lost to special legislation in 1989. This resulted in a permanent increase in general fund property taxes to approximately 5.45% of the 1% ad valorem tax property owners pay. The economy of the City and its major initiatives for the fiscal year are discussed in the accompanying Transmittal Letter. REQUEST FOR FINANCIAL INFORMATION This financial report is designed to provide a general overview of the City of Saratoga's finances for all of Saratoga's residents, taxpayers, customers, investors, and creditors. This financial report seeks to demonstrate the City's accountability for the money it receives. Questions concerning any of the information provided in this report or requests for additional information should be addressed to the Administrative Services Department, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California 95070. 21 66 This page is intentionally blank.. . 22 67 BASIC FINANCIAL STATEMENTS 68 69 CITY OF SARATOGA STATEMENT OF NET ASSETS JUNE 30, 2009 23 Primary Government Governmental Activities ASSETS Current Assets: Cash and investments $ 17,168,131 Receivables: Accounts 940,479 Interest 60,663 Loans 13,333 Total Current Assets 18,182,606 Noncurrent Assets: Loans receivable 71,670 Capital Assets: Non-depreciable 65,750,910 Depreciable, net 56,351,606 Total Capital Assets 122,102,516 Total Noncurrent Assets 122,174,186 Total Assets 140,356,792 LIABILITIES Current Liabilities: Accounts payable 2,031,299 Accrued payroll 313,239 Other payable 58,129 Interest payable 288,940 Deposits payable 854,966 Claims payable 83,216 Long-term debt -due within one year 687,552 Total Current Liabilities 4,317,341 Noncurrent Liabilities: Long-term debt -due in more than one year 13,181,863 Total liabilities 17,499,204 Net Assets Investment in capital assets, net of related debt 108,817,516 Restricted for: Capital projects funds 3,865,374 Debt service 931,361 Special projects 484,088 Total Restricted 5,280,823 Unrestricted 8,759,249 Total Net Assets $ 122,857,588 The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements 70 CITY OF SARATOGA STATEMENT OF ACTIVITIES AND CHANGES IN NET ASSETS JUNE 30, 2009 24 Net (Expense) Revenue and Changes in Program Revenues Net Assets Primary Operating Capital Government Charges for Grants and Grants and Governmental Functions/Programs Expenses Services Contributions Contributions Total Activities Primary Government: Governmental Activities: General and intergovernmental services $ 5,595,474 $ 133,054 $ -$ -$ 133,054 $ (5,462,420) Public safety 4,210,763 520,174 55,825 -575,999 (3,634,764) Public works 7,643,545 2,378,472 172,709 338,768 2,889,949 (4,753,596) Community services 1,633,997 934,288 --934,288 (699,709) Community development services 1,999,754 1,802,289 --1,802,289 (197,465) Interest on long-term debt (unallocated) 696,800 ----(696,800) Total $ 21,780,333 $ 5,768,277 $ 228,534 $ 338,768 $ 6,335,579 $ (15,444,754) General Revenues: Taxes Property taxes 8,335,805 Sales taxes 1,043,034 Local taxes 663,053 Franchise taxes 1,656,716 Motor vehicle-in-lieu 116,273 Total taxes 11,814,881 11,814,881 Intergovernmental 473,989 Investment earnings 397,116 Other revenues 148,284 Total General Revenues 12,834,270 Change in Net Assets (2,610,484) Net Assets -Beginning of Year 125,468,072 Net Assets -End of Year $ 122,857,588 The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements71 CITY OF SARATOGA GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS -BALANCE SHEET JUNE 30, 2009 25 Other Total Capital Governmental Governmental General Improvement Funds Funds ASSETS Cash and investments $ 9,186,264 $ 4,741,918 $ 1,786,109 $ 15,714,291 Receivables: Accounts 486,409 426,056 18,076 930,541 Interest 55,201 -5,462 60,663 Loans --85,003 85,003 Total assets $ 9,727,874 $ 5,167,974 $ 1,894,650 $ 16,790,498 LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCES Liabilities: Accounts payable $ 399,754 $ 1,513,030 $ 39,804 $ 1,952,588 Accrued payroll 285,067 699 -2 85,766 Deposits payable 756,222 98,744 -8 54,966 Other payable 58,129 --58,129 Deferred revenue 16 44,521 85,003 129,540 Total liabilities 1,499,188 1,656,994 124,807 3,280,989 Fund Balances: Reserved for: Petty cash 1,300 --1,300 Debt service --9 31,361 931,361 Unreserved, designated for: Operations 2,870,140 --2 ,870,140 Economic uncertainty 1,300,000 --1 ,300,000 Construction in progress 1,200,000 --1 ,200,000 Community development services 782,380 --7 82,380 Environmental services 663,182 ---6 63,182 Unreserved, undesignated, reported in: General fund 1,411,684 --1 ,411,684 Special revenue funds --4 84,088 484,088 Capital projects funds -3 ,510,980 354,394 3,865,374 Total fund balances 8,228,686 3,510,980 1,769,843 13,509,509 Total liabilities and fund balances $ 9,727,874 $ 5,167,974 $ 1,894,650 $ 16,790,498 The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements Major Funds 72 CITY OF SARATOGA RECONCILIATION OF THE GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS BALANCE SHEET TO THE STATEMENT OF NET ASSETS JUNE 30, 2009 26 Total Fund Balances -Total Governmental Funds $ 13,509,509 Amounts reported for governmental activities in the statement of net assets were different because: Capital assets used in governmental activities were not current financial resources. Therefore, they were not reported in the Governmental Funds Balance Sheet. The capital assets were adjusted as follows: Non-depreciable capital assets 65,750,910 Depreciable capital assets, net 55,930,835 Total Capital Assets 121,681,745 Interest payable on long-term debt did not require current financial resources. Therefore, interest payable was not reported as a liability in Governmental Funds Balance Sheet. (288,940) Internal service funds are used by management to charge the costs of office stores, vehicle and equipment maintenance and replacement, information services and replacement, building maintenance, risk management, and workers compensation. The assets and liabilities of the internal service funds are included in the governmental activities in the statement of net assets 1,695,149 Long-term receivables were not current available resources and therefore, were offset by a deferred revenue amount equal to the net receivable in the governmental funds. 129,540 Long-term liabilities were not due and payable in the current period. Therefore, they were not reported in the Governmental Funds Balance Sheet. The long-term liabilities were adjusted as follows: General obligation bonds (13,285,000) Compensated absences (584,415) Total Long-Term Liabilities (13,869,415) Net Assets of Governmental Activities $ 122,857,588 The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements 73 CITY OF SARATOGA STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGE IN FUND BALANCE FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2009 27 Other Total Capital Governmental Governmental General Improvement Funds Funds REVENUES: Property taxes $ 8,147,478 $ -$ 1 88,078 $ 8,335,556 Special assessments 7,884 1,360,096 1,367,980 Sales taxes 1,043,034 --1 ,043,034 Other local taxes 663,053 --6 63,053 Licenses & permits 1,119,888 340,246 -1 ,460,134 Fines & forfeiture 353,801 6,092 -3 59,893 Intergovernmental -State 264,755 1,017,766 -1 ,282,521 Intergovernmental -Other 38,457 195,936 55,702 290,095 Franchise fees 1,656,716 --1 ,656,716 Use of money and property 729,207 30,071 34,526 793,804 Other revenue 1,849,928 102,809 13,335 1,966,072 Total revenues 15,874,201 1,692,920 1,651,737 19,218,858 EXPENDITURES: Current: General and intergovernmental services 3,330,074 --3 ,330,074 Public safety 4,205,672 --4 ,205,672 Public works 4,352,644 -3 47,000 4,699,644 Community services 1,424,421 --1 ,424,421 Community development services 2,450,549 --2 ,450,549 Capital outlay -4 ,021,626 38,893 4,060,519 Debt service: Principal --3 10,000 310,000 Interest and fiscal charges --7 04,550 704,550 Total expenditures 15,763,360 4,021,626 1,400,443 21,185,429 REVENUES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES 110,841 (2,328,706) 251,294 (1,966,571) OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES): Transfers in 153,732 1,871,137 18,560 2,043,429 Transfers out (1,571,727) (106,000) (365,702) (2,043,429) Total other financing sources (uses) (1,417,995) 1,765,137 (347,142) -Net change in fund balances (1,307,154) (563,569) (95,848) (1,966,571) FUND BALANCES: Beginning of year (as restated) 9,535,840 1 4,074,549 1,865,691 15,476,080 End of year $ 8,228,686 $ 3,510,980 $ 1,769,843 $ 13,509,509 1General Fund beginning fund balance has been restated to remove the Internal Service Fund net assets. (see Note #9) The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. Major Funds 74 CITY OF SARATOGA RECONCILIATION OF THE GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE TO THE GOVERNMENT-WIDE STATEMENT OF ACTIVITIES AND CHANGES IN NET ASSETS FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2009 28 Net Change in Fund Balances -Total Governmental Funds $ (1,966,571) Amounts reported for governmental activities in the Statement of Activities and Changes in Net Assets were different because: Governmental Funds report capital outlay as expenditures. However, in the Government-Wide Statement of Activities and Changes in Net Assets, the cost of those assets was allocated over their estimated useful lives as depreciation expense. This is the amount of capital assets recorded in the current period. 442,316 Depreciation expense on capital assets was reported in the Government-Wide Statement of Activities and Changes in Net Assets, but it did not require the use of current financial resources. Therefore, depreciation expense was not reported as expenditures in the Governmental Funds. ((1,768,632) Internal service funds are used by management to charge the costs of office stores, vehicle and equipment maintenance and replacement, information services and replacement, building maintenance, risk management, and workers' compensation. The net revenue of the internal service funds is reported with government activities. 429,280 Certain revenues were recorded as deferred revenue in the governmental funds because they did not meet the revenue recognition criteria of availability. However, they were included as revenue in the Government-Wide Statement of Activities and Changes in Net Assets under the full accrual basis. 31,186 Long-term compensated absences and claims payables were reported in the Government-Wide Statement of Activities and Changes in Net Assets, but they did not require the use of current financial resources. Therefore, long-term compensated absences and claims payable were not reported as expenditures in governmental funds. Compensated absences (95,816) Repayment of bond principal was an expenditure in governmental funds, but the repayment reduced long-term liabilities in the Government-Wide Statement of Net Assets. Long-term debt repayments 310,000 Interest expense on long-term debt was reported in the Government-Wide Statement of Activities and Changes in Net Assets, but it did not require the use of current financial resources. Therefore, interest expense was not reported as expenditures in governmental funds. The following amount represented the change in accrued interest from prior year. 7,753 Change in Net Assets of Governmental Activities $ (2,610,484) The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements 75 CITY OF SARATOGA STATEMENT OF NET ASSETS PROPRIETARY FUNDS JUNE 30, 2009 29 Governmental Activities -Internal Service Funds ASSETS Current assets: Cash and investments $ 1,453,840 Accounts receivable 9,938 Total current assets 1,463,778 Noncurrent assets: Capital assets: Machinery and equipment 701,714 Less: accumulated depreciation (280,943) Total capital assets (net of accumulated depreciation) 420,771 Total assets 1,884,549 LIABILITIES Liabilities: Current assets: Accounts payable 78,711 Accrued payroll 27,473 Other payables 83,216 Total current liabilities 189,400 NET ASSETS Investment in capital assets 420,771 Unrestricted 1,274,378 Total net assets $ 1,695,149 The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements 76 CITY OF SARATOGA STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES, AND CHANGES IN FUND NET ASSETS PROPRIETARY FUNDS FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2009 30 Governmental Activities -Internal Service Funds Operating revenues: Charges for services $ 2,319,522 Other operating revenues 49,539 Total operating revenues 2,369,061 Operating expenses: Cost of services 977,896 Administration 835,726 Depreciation 126,159 Total operating expenses 1,939,781 Operating income 429,280 Change in net assets 429,280 Total net assets -beginning (as restated) 1,265,869 1 Total net assets -ending $ 1,695,149 1The Internal Service Funds beginning net assets have been removed from the General Fund beginning fund balance. (See Note #9) The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements 77 CITY OF SARATOGA STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS PROPRIETARY FUNDS FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2009 31 Governmental Activities -Internal Service Funds Cash flows from operating activities: Receipts from customers and users $ 2,371,709 Payments to suppliers (1,080,850) Payments to employees (638,106) Net cash provided (used) by operating activities 652,753 Cash flows from capital activities: Acquisition of capital assets (141,837) Net cash provided for the acquisition of capital assets (141,837) Net increase in cash and cash equivalents 510,916 Cash and cash equivalents, beginning of year 942,924 Cash and cash equivalents, ending of year $ 1,453,840 Reconciliation of operating income to net cash provided by operating activities: Operating income (loss) $ 429,280 Adjustments to reconcile operating income (loss) to net cash provided (used) by operating activities: Depreciation 126,159 Change in operating assets and liabilities: Decrease in accounts receivables 2,648 Increase in accounts payable 14,727 Decrease in deposits payable (5,000) Increase in claims payable 83,216 Increase in accured payroll 1,723 Net cash provided (used) by operating activities $ 652,753 The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements 78 CITY OF SARATOGA STATEMENT OF FIDUCIARY NET ASSETS FIDUCIARY FUNDS JUNE 30, 2009 32 Agency Funds ASSETS Cash and investments $ 6 9,769 Receivables: Accounts 1 4,573 Interest 2 61 Total assets $ 8 4,603 LIABILITIES Deposits payable $ 8 4,603 The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements. 79 CITY OF SARATOGA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS -CONTINUED JUNE 30, 2009 33 NOTE 1 -SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES The basic financial statements of the City of Saratoga, California, (the City) have been prepared in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) as applied to governmental agencies. The Governmental Accounting Standards Boards (GASB) is the accepted standard setting body for establishing governmental accounting and financial reporting principles. The more significant of the City's accounting policies are described below. A. Financial Reporting Entity The City was incorporated as a municipal corporation in 1956 under the general laws of the State of California, and had a population of 31,679 at June 30, 2009. The City is a largely residential community located in the foothills of the Santa Cruz Mountains. The City operated under the Council-Manager form of government, with five-elected Council members served by a full-time City Manager and staff. At June 30, 2009, the City's staff comprised 55 full-time and two part-time employees, and numerous recreation seasonal employees who were responsible for the following City provided services: • Public Safety -The City provides round-the-clock police services under a contract with the County Sheriff's offices. Emergency management and Fire services are provided by special district. Code enforcement and inspection services are provided by one City employee. • Public Works/Maintenance -The City builds and maintains its parks, streets, curbs, gutters, and related public property with a force of 22 employees. Major projects may be contracted out to reduce costs. • Community Development -Zoning administration, plan checking and advance planning services are provided by 12 employees. • Culture, Recreation and Community Support services are provided by a total of six employees. • General Government services are provided by a total of ten employees. As required by GAAP, these basic financial statements present the City and its component units, entities for which the City is considered to be financially accountable. The City Council acts as the governing board. In addition, the City staff performs all administrative and accounting functions for these entities and these entities provide their services entirely to the City. Blended component units, although legally separate entities are, in substance, part of the City's operations and data from these units are combined with data of the City. Discretely presented component units, on the other hand, are reported in a separate column in the government-wide financial statements to emphasize their legal separateness from the City. Each blended component unit has a June 30 year-end. The City had no discretely presented component units. 80 CITY OF SARATOGA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS -CONTINUED JUNE 30, 2009 34 The following entity is reported as blended component unit: Lighting and Landscaping Assessment District -The Lighting and Landscaping Assessment District (the District) was established in 1980, for the levy and the collection of assessments upon the several lots or parcels of land in the District, and for the construction or installation of improvements, including maintenance. The District is reported as a blended component unit of the City because it has the same Governing Board as the City. The activity for the District has been included in the accompanying basic financial statements and no separate financial statements are issued. B. Basis of Accounting and Measurement Focus The accounts of the City are organized on the basis of funds, each of which is considered a separate accounting entity. The operations of each fund are accounted for with a separate set of self-balancing accounts that comprise its assets, liabilities, fund equity, revenues, and expenditures or expenses, as appropriate. Governmental resources are allocated to and accounted for in individual funds based upon the purposes for which they are to be spent and the means by which spending activities are controlled. Government-Wide Financial Statements The City's government-wide financial statements include a Statement of Net Assets and a Statement of Activities and Changes in Net Assets. These statements present summaries of governmental activities for the City. Fiduciary activities of the City are not included in these statements. These statements are presented on an "economic resources" measurement focus and the accrual basis of accounting. Accordingly, all of the City's assets and liabilities, including capital assets, as well as infrastructure assets, and long-term liabilities, are included in the accompanying Statement of Net Assets. The Statement of Activities presents changes in net assets. Under the accrual basis of accounting, revenues are recognized in the period in which they are earned while expenses are recognized in the period in which the liability is incurred. Certain types of transactions are reported as program revenues for the City in three categories: • Charges for services • Operating grants and contributions • Capital grants and contributions Certain eliminations have been made as prescribed by GASB Statement No. 34 in regards to interfund activities, payables, and receivables. All internal balances in the Statement of Net Assets have been eliminated. The following interfund activities have been eliminated: • Transfers in/Transfers out General Fund The General Fund is used to account for all of the general resources of the City not specifically levied or collected for other City funds and the related expenditures. The General Fund accounts for all financial resources of the City which are not accounted for in another fund. 81 CITY OF SARATOGA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS -CONTINUED JUNE 30, 2009 35 Capital Improvement Capital Projects Fund This fund accounts for resources used for the major capital acquisition and construction activities. All governmental funds are accounted for on a spending or "current financial resources" measurement focus and the modified accrual basis of accounting. Accordingly, only current assets and current liabilities are included on the balance sheets. The Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances present increases (revenues and other financing sources) and decreases (expenditures and other financing uses) in net current assets. Under the modified accrual basis of accounting, revenues are recognized in the accounting period in which they become both measurable and available to finance expenditures of the current period. Accordingly, revenues are recorded when received in cash, except that revenues subject to accrual (up to 60 days after year-end) are recognized when due. The primary revenue sources, which have been treated as susceptible to accrual by the City, are property tax, sales tax, special assessments, intergovernmental revenues, other taxes, interest revenue, rental revenue and certain charges for services. Fines, forfeitures, licenses and permits and parking meter revenues are not susceptible to accrual because they are usually not measurable until received in cash. Expenditures are recorded in the accounting period in which the related fund liability is incurred. Deferred revenues arise when potential revenues do not meet both the "measurable" and "available" criteria for recognition in the current period. Deferred revenues also arise when the government receives resources before it has a legal claim to them, as when grant monies are received prior to incurring qualifying expenditures. In subsequent periods when both revenue recognition criteria are met or when the government has a legal claim to the resources, the deferred revenue is removed from the combined balance sheet and revenue is recognized. Reconciliation of the Fund Financial Statements to the Government-Wide Financial Statements is provided to explain the differences created by the integrated approach of GASB Statement No. 34. Governmental Fund Financial Statements Governmental fund financial statements include a Balance Sheet and a Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balances for all major governmental funds and non-major funds aggregated. An accompanying schedule is presented to reconcile and explain the differences in net assets as presented in these statements to the net assets presented in the government-wide financial statements. The City has presented all major funds that met the applicable criteria. The following funds are major funds: Proprietary Funds The City’s internal service funds are proprietary funds. In the fund financial statements, proprietary funds are presented using the accrual basis of accounting. Revenues are recognized when they are earned and expenses are recognized when the related goods or services are delivered. In the fund financial statements, proprietary funds are presented using the “economic resources measurement focus”. This means all assets and liabilities (whether current or noncurrent) associated with their activities are included on their balance sheets. Proprietary fund type operating statements present increases (revenues) and decreases (expenses) in total net assets. 82 CITY OF SARATOGA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS -CONTINUED JUNE 30, 2009 36 Proprietary fund operating revenues, such as charges for services, result from exchange transactions associated with principal activity of the fund. Exchange transactions are those in which each party receives and gives up essentially equal value. Non-operating revenues, such as subsidies, taxes, and investment earnings result from nonexchange transactions or ancillary activities. Amounts paid to acquire capital assets are capitalized as assets in the internal service funds financial statements. Fiduciary Fund Financial Statements Fiduciary fund financial statements include a Statement of Net Assets. The City's fiduciary funds represent agency funds. Agency funds do not have a measurement focus, although they do have a basis of accounting. An accrual basis of accounting is used to record the financial transactions. Agency funds are custodial in nature (assets equal liabilities) and do not involve measurement of results of operations. operations. C. Cash, Cash Equivalents and Investments The City pools its available cash for investment purposes. The City's cash and cash equivalents are considered to be cash on hand, demand deposits, and short-term investments with original maturity of three months or less from the date of acquisition. Cash and cash equivalents are combined with investments and displayed as Cash and Investments. Deposit and Investment Risk Disclosures -In accordance with GASB Statement No. 40, Deposit and Investment Disclosures (Amendment of GASB Statement No. 3), certain disclosure requirements, if applicable, for Deposits and Investment Risks in the following areas: • Interest Rate Risk • Credit Risk o Overall o Custodial Credit Risk o Concentrations of Credit Risk • Foreign Currency Risk Other disclosures are specified including use of certain methods to present deposits and investments, highly sensitive investments, credit quality at year-end and other disclosures. The City participates in an investment pool managed by the State of California titled Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF), which has invested a portion of the pool funds in Structured Notes and Asset Backed Securities. LAIF's investments are subject to credit risk with the full faith and credit of the State of California collateralizing these investments. In addition, these Structured Notes and Asset-Backed Securities are subject to market risk as to change in interest rates. 83 CITY OF SARATOGA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS -CONTINUED JUNE 30, 2009 37 D. Interfund Transactions Interfund services provided and used are accounted for as revenue, expenditures or expenses, as appropriate. Transactions that constitute reimbursements to a fund for expenditures/expenses initially made from it that are properly applicable to another fund are recorded as expenditures/expenses in the reimbursed fund. All other interfund transactions, except for interfund services provided and used and reimbursements, are reported as transfers. Nonrecurring or nonroutine permanent transfers of equity are reported as residual equity transfers. All other interfund transfers are reported as transfers. E. Capital Assets Capital assets, which include land, buildings, improvements, furniture, equipment and infrastructure assets (e.g., roads, bridges, sidewalks, and similar items), were reported in the applicable governmental activities in the government-wide financial statements. Capital assets were recorded at historical cost or estimated historical cost if actual cost was not available. Donated assets were valued at their fair market value on the date of donation. City policy has set the capitalization threshold for reporting capital assets at $10,000. The City has chosen the Modified Approach for reporting the streets subsystem of infrastructure capital assets. Depreciation is recorded on a straight-line basis over the useful lives of the assets as follows: Buildings and structures 40 Years Machinery and equipment 5 to 10 Years Infrastructure 15 to 50 Years In June 1999, GASB issued Statement No. 34 Basic Financial Statements – and Management’s Discussion and Analysis – for State and Local Governments which requires the inclusion of infrastructure capital assets in local governments' basic financial statements. In accordance with Statement No. 34, the City has included the value of all infrastructure in its basic financial statements. The City defines infrastructure as the basic physical assets that allow the City to function, which includes the street system, park and recreation lands and improvements system; storm water conveyance and drainage system, buildings combined with site amenities such as parking and landscaping areas used by the City in the conduct of its business. Each major infrastructure system can be divided into subsystems. For example the street system can be subdivided into pavement, curb and gutters, sidewalks, medians, streetlights, traffic control devices (signs, signals and pavement markings), landscaping and land. These subsystems were not delineated in the basic financial statements. The appropriate operating department maintains information regarding the subsystems. The City elected to use the Modified Approach as defined by GASB Statement No. 34 for infrastructure reporting of its streets, concrete and asphalt pavements. The City commissioned a physical assessment of the streets condition as of June 30, 2007. This condition assessment will be performed every 2 years. The next condition assessment is scheduled for March 2010. A Pavement Condition Index (PCI) was assigned to each street segment. The index is expressed in a continuous scale from 0 to 100, where 0 is assigned to the least acceptable physical condition and 100 is assigned to segments of street that have the physical characteristics of a new street. 84 CITY OF SARATOGA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS -CONTINUED JUNE 30, 2009 38 The following conditions were defined: Condition Rating Excellent 80 -100 Very Good 70 -79 Good 50 -69 Poor 25 -49 Very Poor 0 -24 The City's policy relative to maintaining the street assets is to achieve an average rating of 70 for all street segments. This acceptable rating allows minor cracking and raveling of the pavement along with minor roughness that could be noticeable to drivers traveling at the posted speeds. For all other infrastructure systems, the City elected to use the Basic Approach as defined by GASB Statement No. 34 for infrastructure reporting. The City commissioned an appraisal of City owned infrastructure and property as of June 30, 2001, and has completed an internal update for June 30, 2007. This appraisal determined the original cost, which is defined as the actual cost to acquire new property in accordance with market prices at the time of first construction/acquisition. Original costs were developed in one of three ways: 1) historical records; 2) standard unit costs appropriate for the construction/acquisi tion date; or 3) present cost indexed by a reciprocal factor of the price increase from the construction/acquisition date to the current date. The accumulated depreciation, defined as the total depreciation from the date of construction/acquisition to the current date on a straight line, unrecovered cost method was computed using industry accepted life expectancies for each infrastructure subsystem. The book value was then computed by deducting the accumulated depreciation from the original cost. F. Interest Payable In the government-wide financial statements, interest payable of long-term debt is recognized as an incurred liability for governmental fund types. The City has not allocated the interest on long-term debt to departments. In the fund financial statements, governmental fund types do not recognize the interest payable when the liability is incurred. Interest on long-term debt is recorded in the fund statements when payment is made. G. Claims Payable The City records a liability to reflect an actuarial estimate of ultimate uninsured losses for both general liability claims (including property damage claims) and workers' compensation claims. The estimated liability for workers' compensation claims and general liability claims includes "incurred but not reported" (IBNR) claims. There is no fixed payment schedule to pay these liabilities. H. Compensated Absences In the government-wide financial statements, compensated absences are recorded as incurred and the related expenses and liabilities are reported. 85 CITY OF SARATOGA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS -CONTINUED JUNE 30, 2009 39 In the fund financial statements, compensated absences are recorded as expenditures in the years paid, as it is the City's policy to liquidate any unpaid compensated absences at June 30 from future resources, rather than currently available financial resources. Only the amounts which become due at June 30 are reported in the fund financials statements as a liability. I. Long-Term Obligations In the government-wide financial statements, long-term debt and other long-term obligations are reported as liabilities in the applicable governmental activities. Bond premiums and discounts, as well as issuance costs, are deferred and amortized over the life of the bonds using the effective interest method. Bonds payable are reported net of the applicable bond premium or discount. Bond issuance costs are reported as deferred charges and amortized over the term of the related debt. In the fund financial statements, governmental fund types recognize bond premiums and discounts, as well as bond issuance costs, during the current period. The face amount of debt issued is reported as other financial sources. Premiums received on debt issuance are reported as other financing sources while discounts on debt issuance reported as other financing uses. Issuance costs, whether or not withheld from the actual debt proceeds received, are reported as debt service expenditures. J. Fund Balances In the fund financial statements, governmental funds report reservations of fund balances for amounts that are not available for appropriation or are legally restricted by outside parties for use for a specific purpose. Designations of fund balances represent tentative management plans that are subject to change. City Council has designated an amount for operations, which it has defined as being equal to the greater of one-quarter of the total budgeted General Fund appropriations for the current budget year or $2,870,140. The designation is increased annually by an amount equal to the interest the City earned on an equivalent amount of cash and investments. City Council has designated $1,300,000 for economic uncertainty. CIP designation is for future Capital Improvement Projects. Community development services designation is for development services that includes zoning administration, inspection services, and development regulation programs. Environmental services is designated for the environmental fees collected from surcharges on garbage bills and tipping fees at the landfills and associated grants related to integrated waste management and storm water management. Equipment Replacement is designated for the maintenance and replacement of the City's tools, equipments, and vehicles. Information technology is designated for the support, maintenance, replacement and upgrade of existing computer network. Facility Improvement is designated for the maintenance and improvement of City's facilities. 86 CITY OF SARATOGA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS -CONTINUED JUNE 30, 2009 40 K. Net Assets In the government-wide financial statements, net assets are classified in the following categories: • Invested in Capital Assets, Net of Related Debt -This amount consists of capital assets net of accumulated depreciation and reduced by outstanding debt that attributed to the acquisition, construction, or improvement of the assets. • Restricted Net Assets -This amount is restricted by external creditors, grantors, contributors, or laws or regulations of other governments. • Unrestricted Net Assets -This amount is all net assets that do not meet the definition of "invested in capital assets, net of related debt" or "restricted net assets." L. Use of Restricted/Unrestri cted Net Assets When an expense is incurred for purposes for which both restricted and unrestricted net assets are available, the City's policy is to apply restricted net assets first. M. Property Tax and Special Assessments County tax assessments included secured and unsecured property taxes, and special assessments. "Unsecured" refers to taxes on personal property. These tax assessments are secured by liens on the property being taxed. Revenue is recognized in the period for which the tax and assessment is levied. The County of Santa Clara levies, bills and collects property taxes for the City, the County remits the entire amount levied and handles all delinquencies, retaining interest and penalties. Secured and unsecured property taxes are levied on January 1. Secured property tax is due in two installments on November 1 and February 1, and becomes a lien on those dates. It becomes delinquent on December 10 and April 10, respectively. Unsecured property tax is due on July 1 and becomes delinquent on August 31. N. Use of Estimates The preparation of basic financial statements in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles requires management to make estimates and assumptions that affect certain reported amounts and disclosures. Accordingly, actual results could differ from those estimates. O. New GASB Pronouncements GASB Statement No. 45 -In June 2004, GASB issued Statement No. 45, Accounting and Financial Reporting by Employers for Postemployment Benefits Other Than Pensions. This Statement establishes standards for the measurement, recognition, and display of other post employment benefits expense/expenditures and related liabilities (assets), note disclosures, and, if applicable, required supplementary information (RSI) in the financial reports of State and local governmental employers. This Statement is effective for the City June 30, 2009. The City has determined it does not have any 87 CITY OF SARATOGA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS -CONTINUED JUNE 30, 2009 41 postemployment benefits other than pension and Statement No. 45 will not affect on the financial statements. GASB Statement No. 50 -In May 2008, GASB issued Statement No. 50, Pension Disclosures-an amendment of GASB Statements No. 25 and No. 27. This Statement more closely aligns the financial reporting requirements for pensions with those for other postemployment benefits (OPEB) and, in doing so, enhances information disclosed in notes to financial statements or presented as required supplementary information (RSI) by pension plans and by employers that provide pension benefits. The City has implemented with no significant effect on the financial statements. GASB Statement No. 51 -In June 2008, GASB issued Statement No. 51, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Intangible Assets. This Statement establishes accounting and financial reporting standards for many different types of assets that may be considered intangible assets, including easements, water rights, timber rights, patents, trademarks, and computer software. This Statement is not effective until June 30, 2010. The City has not determined its effect on the financial statements. GASB Statement No. 52 -In November 2007, GASB issued Statement No. 52, Land and Other Real Estate Held as Investments by Endowments. This Statement establishes consistent standards for the reporting of land and other real estate held as investments by essentially similar entities. This Statement is effective June 30, 2009. The City has not determined its effect on the financial statements. GASB Statement No. 53 -In June 2008, GASB issued Statement No. 53, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Derivative Instruments. This Statement addresses the recognition, measurement, and disclosure of information regarding derivative instruments entered into by State and local governments. This Statement is not effective until June 30, 2010. The City has not determined its effect on the financial statements. GASB Statement No. 54 -In March, 2009, GASB issued Statement No. 54, Fund Balance Reporting and Governmental Fund Type Definition. The objective of this Statement is to enhance the usefulness of fund balance information by providing clearer fund balance classifications that can be more consistently applied and by clarifying the existing governmental fund type definitions. This Statement is not effective until June 30, 2011. The City has determined this Statement change will have no effect on the financial statements. GASB Statement No. 55 -In March, 2009, GASB issued Statement No. 55, The Hierarchy of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles for State and Local Governments. The objective of this Statement is to incorporate the hierarchy of generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP) for state and local governments into the Governmental Accounting Standard Board’s (GASB) authoritative literature. The City has determined this Statement change did not have an effect on the financial statements. GASB Statement No. No. 56 -In March, 2009, GASB issued Statement No. 56, Codification of Accounting and Financial Reporting Guidance Contained in the AICPA Statement of Auditing Standards. The object of this Statement is to incorporate into the Governmental Accounting Standard Board’s (GASB) authoritative literature certain accounting and financial reporting guidance presented in the American Institute of Certified Public Accounts’ Statement of Auditing Statements. The City has determined this Statement change did not have an effect on the financial statements. 88 CITY OF SARATOGA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS -CONTINUED JUNE 30, 2009 42 NOTE 2 -CASH AND INVESTMENTS The City maintains a cash and investment pool, which includes cash balances and authorized investments of all funds, which the City Treasurer invests to enhance interest earnings. The pooled interest earned is allocated to the funds based on average month-end cash and investment balances in these funds. The City has the following cash and investments at June 30, 2009: Statement of Net Assets Governmental Fiduciary Activities Fund Total Cash and investments $ 17,168,131 $ 69,769 $ 17,237,900 The City's Cash and Investments at June 30, 2009, in more detail: Cash and cash equivalents: Petty cash $ 1,300 Demand deposits 312,374 Total Cash and Cash Equivalents 313,674 Investments: Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) 16,924,226 Total Cash and Investments $ 17,237,900 A. Cash Deposits The carrying amounts of the City's cash deposits were $312,374 at June 30, 2009. Bank balances before reconciling items were $277,249 at that date due to deposits in transit and outstanding checks. The total amount was collateralized or insured with securities held by the pledging financial institutions. The California Government Code requires California banks and savings and loan associations to secure the City's cash deposits by pledging securities as collateral. This Code states that collateral pledged in this manner shall have the effect of perfecting a security interest, and places the City ahead of general creditors of the institution. The market value of pledged securities must equal at least 110 percent of the City's cash deposits. California law also allows institutions to secure City deposits by pledging first trust deed mortgage notes that have a value of 150 percent of the City's total cash deposits. The City has waived the collateral requirements for cash deposits which are fully insured to $100,000 by the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC). The City follows the practice of pooling cash and investments of all funds, except for funds required to be held by fiscal agents under the provisions of bond indentures. Interest income from cash and investments with fiscal agents is credited directly to the related fund. 89 CITY OF SARATOGA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS -CONTINUED JUNE 30, 2009 43 B. Investments Under the provisions of the City's investment policy, and in accordance with California Government Code, the following investments are authorized: • Securities of the U.S. Government or its agencies. • Certificates of Deposit (or Time Deposits) placed with commercial banks and/or savings and loan companies. • Negotiable Certificates of Deposit. • California Local Agency Investment Fund. • Investment-grade obligations of State, local governments or public authorities. • Money market mutual funds. • Passbook savings account and demand deposits. The City is in compliance with GASB Statement No. 31, Accounting and Financial Reporting for Certain Investments and for External Investments Pools which requires the City's investments be recorded at fair value instead of cost. Under GASB 31, the carrying value of investments are adjusted to reflect their fair value at each fiscal year-end, with the effects of these adjustments included in the carrying value of the investments. C. External Investment Pool The City's investments with LAIF at June 30, 2009, include a portion of the pool funds invested in Structured Notes and Asset-Backed Securities. These investments include the following: • Structured Notes -debt securities (other than asset-backed securities) whose cash flow characteristics (coupon rate, redemption amount, or stated maturity) depend upon one or more indices and/or that have embedded forwards or options. • Asset-Backed Securities -the bulk of which are mortgage-backed securities, entitle their purchasers to receive a share of the cash flows from a pool of assets such as principal and interest repayments from a pool of mortgages (such as CMO's) or credit card receivables. LAIF is overseen by the Local Agency Investment Advisory Board, which consists of five members, in accordance with State statute. As of June 30, 2009, the City had $16,902,173 invested in LAIF which had invested 14.71 percent of the pool investment funds in Structured Notes and Asset-Backed Securities. The LAIF fair value factor of 1.001304743 was used to calculate the fair value of the investments in LAIF. 90 CITY OF SARATOGA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS -CONTINUED JUNE 30, 2009 44 D. Risk Disclosures Interest Rate Risk Interest rate risk is the risk that changes in market interest rates will adversely affect the fair value of an investment. Generally, the longer the term of an investment’s maturity, the greater the sensitivity to changes in market interest rates. Although the City’s investment policy allows for a broad range of investment instruments with varying terms of maturity, investments are limited to the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) which is managed by the State Treasurer Office and overseen by the Pooled Money Investment Board, the State Treasurer investment committee, and a Local Agency Advisory Board. Included in LAIF’s investment portfolio are U.S. Treasuries, Federal Agency obligations, time deposits, negotiable certificates of deposits, commercial paper, corporate bonds, and security loans. Funds are available for withdrawal on demand, and are recorded on an amortized cost basis. At June 30, 2009, these investments had a weighted average maturity of 235 days. The City had the following invested in LAIF: Investment Maturities in Years Fair Less Than Value One Year State of California -Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) $ 16,924,226 $ 16,924,226 Credit Risk As of June 30, 2009, the City's investments in external investment pools are unrated. Custodial Credit Risk For an investment, custodial credit risk is the risk that, in the event of the failure of the counterparty, the City will not be able to recover the value of its investments or collateral securities that are in the possession of an outside party. The City did not hold any securities held by an investment counterparty at the year ended June 30, 2009. NOTE 3 -LOANS RECEIVABLE The City had the following loans receivable as of June 30, 2009: Due Due Balance Balance Within More Tha July 1, 2008 Additions Deletions June 30, 2009 One Year One Year Housing Rehabilitation Loan Program $ 98,336 $ -$ (13,333) $ 85,003 $ 13,333 $ 71,670 91 CITY OF SARATOGA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS -CONTINUED JUNE 30, 2009 45 The City administers a housing rehabilitation program called the Saratoga Housing Assistance and Rehabilitation Program (SHARP) using Housing and Community Development Act funds. Under the SHARP, individuals with incomes below a certain level and corporations building rental housing for low and-moderate income tenants are eligible to receive low interest loans, secured by deeds of trust, for construction work on their properties. Federal funds received by the City are deposited with a commercial bank. Upon approval of loans, the bank disburses the funds, arranges for and collects repayments. In the Governmental Fund Financial Statements, these loans have been offset by deferred revenue as they are not expected to be repaid immediately. In the Government-Wide Financial Statements, the amount of deferred revenue was recognized as revenues. NOTE 4 -FUND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS INTERFUND TRANSACTIONS Transfers In/Out Transfers for the year ended June 30, 2009 were as follows: Transfer in Transfer out Amount General Fund Community Development Block Grant $ 47,732 Capital Improvement Fund 106,000 153,732 Lighting & Landscaping Assessment District General Fund 18,560 Capital Improvement Fund General Fund 1,553,167 Community Development Block Grant 7,970 Library Expansion 310,000 1,871,137 Total $ 2,043,429 Of the transfers, $1.4 million was transferred from the General Fund to fund the projects of the Capital Improvement Plan, $310,000 from the Capital Projects Fund for the replacement of Saratoga Library HVAC system, $106,000 to the General Fund to administer the gas tax program, $100,000 from the General Fund to the Facility Project Fund, and the balance of $127,429 were various minor transfers resulted from the normal course of the City’s operations. 92 CITY OF SARATOGA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS -CONTINUED JUNE 30, 2009 46 NOTE 5 -CAPITAL ASSETS Capital assets activity for the year ended June 30, 2009, consisted of the following: Primary Government Balance Balance July 1, 2008 Additions Retirements Reclassifications June 30, 2009 Governmental activities: Capital assets, not being depreciated: Land and land improvements $ 9,887,095 $ -$ -$ 698,011 $ 10,585,106 Construction in progress 7,744,871 2,454,921 (2,012,597) (1,591,849) 6,595,346 Infrastructure: Street pavement system 48,326,039 --244,419 48,570,458 Total capital assets, not being depreciated 65,958,005 2,454,921 (2,012,597) (649,419) 65,750,910 Capital assets, being depreciated: Buildings and structures 23,066,577 --90,181 23,156,758 Machinery and equipment Governmental funds 1,400,238 -(86,837) 11,025 1,324,426 Internal service funds 559,877 141,837 --701,714 Infrastructure: Bridges 1,563,654 ---1,563,654 Signs and lights 1,331,389 --489,196 1,820,585 Drainage system 39,870,593 --42,228 39,912,821 Sidewalks 11,664,922 --16,789 11,681,711 Total capital assets, being depreciated 79,457,250 141,837 (86,837) 649,419 80,161,669 Accumulated depreciation: Buildings and structures (4,327,499) (567,480) --( 4,894,979) Machinery and equipment Governmental funds (1,335,108) (26,272) 86,829 -( 1,274,551) Internal service funds (154,787) (126,156) --( 280,943) Infrastructure: Bridges (916,412) (28,756) --( 945,168) Signs and lights (667,205) (56,335) --( 723,540) Drainage system (10,733,213) (797,834) --( 11,531,047) Sidewalks ( 3,867,880) (291,955) --( 4,159,835) Total accumulated depreciation (22,002,104) ( 1,894,788) 86,829 -( 23,810,063) Total capital assets, being depreciated, net 57,455,146 ( 1,752,951) ( 8) 649,419 56,351,606 Governmental activities capital assets, net $ 123,413,151 $ 701,970 $ (2,012,605) $ -$ 122,102,516 Depreciation expense, including the amount related to the internal service funds, was charged in the following functions in the Statement of Activities: General Government $ 1,177,463 Public Works 574,472 Community Services 15,603 Community Development 1,094 Internal Service Funds 126,156 Total Depreciation Expense $ 1,894,788 93 CITY OF SARATOGA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS -CONTINUED JUNE 30, 2009 47 In accordance with GASB Statement No. 34, the City has reported all capital assets including infrastructure in the Government-Wide Statement of Net Assets. The City elected to use the "Modified Approach" as defined by GASB Statement No. 34 for infrastructure reporting for its pavement system. As a result, no accumulated depreciation or depreciation expense has been recorded for this system. A more detailed discussion of the "Modified Approach" is presented in the Required Supplementary Information section of this report. All other capital assets including other infrastructure systems were reported using the Basic Approach whereby accumulated depreciation and depreciation expense have been recorded. NOTE 6 – LONG-TERM OBLIGATIONS A summary of the City's long-term obligations transactions for the year ended June 30, 2009, is presented below: Classification Balance Balance Due Within Due In More Description July 1, 2008 Additions Retirements June 30, 2009 One Year Than One Year General Obligation Bonds: 2001 Library Bonds $ 13,595,000 $ -$ (310,000) $ 13,285,000 $ 330,000 $ 12,955,000 Compensated absences 488,599 441,457 (345,641) 584,415 357,552 226,863 Total $ 14,083,599 $ 441,457 $ (655,641) $ 13,869,415 $ 687,552 $ 13,181,863 General Obligation 2001 Library Bonds -Original Issue $15,000,000 On May 1, 2001, the City issued General Obligation Bonds Series 2001 in the amount of $15,000,000. The proceeds of the bonds were used to improve, renovate, and expand the Saratoga Community Library. The bonds are payable from and secured by certain property taxes within the City. Interest on the bonds ranges from 5 percent to 6 percent and is payable on February 1 and August 1 of each year, commencing February 1, 2002. Principal is due annually beginning on August 1, 2002, in amounts ranging from $60,000 to $940,000. The bonds mature on August 1, 2031, and are subject to redemption prior to maturity at redemption prices ranging from 100 percent to 101 percent of par. The bonds may be called for redemption beginning on or after August 1, 2011, at the option of the City. At June 30, 2009, the outstanding balance of the bonds was $13,285,000. 94 CITY OF SARATOGA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS -CONTINUED JUNE 30, 2009 48 The annual debt service requirements on these bonds are as follows: Year Ended Principal Interest Total 2010 $ 330,000 $ 683,556 $ 1,013,556 2011 350,000 663,156 1,013,156 2012 370,000 641,556 1,011,556 2013 395,000 620,581 1,015,581 2012 415,000 600,331 1,015,331 2015-2019 2,275,000 2,670,656 4,945,656 2020-2024 2,825,000 2,036,553 4,861,553 2025-2029 3,645,000 1,201,594 4,846,594 2030-2033 2,680,000 215,775 2,895,775 Total $ 13,285,000 $ 9,333,760 $ 22,618,760 Compensated Absences The City's liability for vested and unpaid compensated absences (accrued vacation and sick pay) has been accrued and amounts to $584,415 at June 30, 2009. The compensated absences liability will generally be liquidated through the General Fund. NOTE 7 -RISK MANAGEMENT The City participates in the following public entity risk pools: ABAG Plan Corporation (ABAG PLAN) covers general liability claims in an amount up to $5,000,000, and provides an additional $10 million of coverage through an excess insurance policy. The City has a deductible or uninsured liability of up to $25,000 per claim. Once the City's deductible is met, ABAG PLAN becomes responsible for payment of all claims up to the limit. During the fiscal year ended June 30, 2009, the City contributed $161,550 for current year coverage and received no refund of prior year excess contributions. The ABAG Workers' Compensation Pool Insurance Authority (ABAG POOL) covers workers' compensation coverage up to $150,000 and excess coverage provides an employer liability limit of $5,000,000 per occurrence, and workers’ compensation per occurrence limit to $100,000,000. The City has no deductible for these claims. During the fiscal year ended June 30, 2009, the City contributed $175,745 for current year coverage. The City's contributions to each risk pool equal the ratio of the City's payroll to the total payrolls of all entities participating in the same layer of each program, in each program year. Actual surpluses or losses are shared according to a formula developed from overall loss costs and spread to member entities on a percentage basis after a retrospective rating. 95 CITY OF SARATOGA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS -CONTINUED JUNE 30, 2009 49 There have been no significant reductions of insurance settlements that exceeded insurance coverage for the past three years. The workers’ compensation and general liability claims payable of $83,216 reported at June 30, 2009, are based on the requirements of GASB Statement No. 10, which requires that a liability for claims be reported if information prior to the issuance of the basic financial statements indicates that it is probable that a liability has been incurred at the date of the basic financial statements and the amount of the loss can be reasonably estimated. Changes in the claims payable amounts were as follows: Year Ended Year Ended June 30, 2009 June 30, 2008 Claims payable, beginning of year $ 59,908 $ 38,695 Fiscal year claims and changes in estimates 54,366 21,213 Claims payments (31,058) -Claims payable, end of year $ 83,216 $ 59,908 The General Fund has been used in the prior years to liquidate the liability for claims and judgments. Each risk pool is governed by a board consisting of representatives from member municipalities. The board controls the operations of each risk pool, including selection of management and approval of operating budgets, independent of any influence by member municipalities beyond their representation on the Board. The following represents summary audited financial information of ABAG Plan Corporation and the ABAG Workers’ Compensation Pool Insurance Authority for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2008 (most recent available): Plan Comp Shared Corporation Risk Pool Total Assets $ 44,979,622 $ 3,120,977 Total Liabilities 17,617,173 455,765 Net Assets $ 27,362,449 $ 2,665,212 Total Revenues $ 12,259,320 $ 726,118 Total Expenses 14,980,964 221,211 Net Increase in Net Assets $ (2,721,644) $ 504,907 Audited financial information for each risk pool may be obtained from ABAG at P.O. Box 2089, Oakland, California 94604-2089. 96 CITY OF SARATOGA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS -CONTINUED JUNE 30, 2009 50 NOTE 8 -RETIREMENT PLANS Pension Plan Plan Description -The City contributes to the California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS), a cost-sharing multiple-employer defined benefit plan. CalPERS provide retirement and disability benefits, annual cost-of-living adjustments, and death benefits to plan members and beneficiaries. CalPERS act as a common investment and administrative agent for participating public entities within the State of California. Benefit provisions and all other requirements are established by State statute and City ordinance. Copies of CalPERS' annual financial report may be obtained from their Executive Office located at 400 P Street, Sacramento, California 95811. Funding Policy -Active plan members are required by State statute to contribute for miscellaneous employees 7 percent (7%) of their annual covered salary. The City employer makes the contributions required of City employees on their behalf and for their account, which amounted to $333,401 for the year ended June 30, 2009. The City employer is required to contribute for fiscal year 2008-2009 at an actuarially determined rate of 11.757 percent of annual covered payroll for miscellaneous employees. Annual Pension Cost -For fiscal year 2008-2009, the City's annual pension cost was $559,971. The required contribution was determined as part of the June 30, 2005, actuarial valuation using the entry age normal actuarial cost method. The actuarial assumptions included (a) 7.75 percent (7.75%) investment rate of return (net of administrative expenses), (b) projected annual salary increases ranging from 3.25 percent to 14.45 percent for miscellaneous employees depending on age, service, and type of employment, and (c) 3.25 percent per year payroll growth adjustments. Both (a) and (b) included an inflation component of 3.00 percent. The actuarial value of CalPERS assets was determined using techniques that smooth the effects of short-term volatility in the market value of investments over a threeyear period. CalPERS unfunded actuarial accrued liability (or surplus) is amortized as a level percentage of projected payroll on a closed basis. The amortization period at June 30, 2005, was 20 years for miscellaneous employees for prior and current service unfunded liability. THREE-YEAR ANNUAL PENSION COSTS TREND INFORMATION FOR CALPERS Annual Net Fiscal Pension Cost APC Pension Year (APC) Contributed Obligation 2007 $ 4 65,232 100% $ -2008 538,526 100% -2009 559,971 100% -Required Supplementary Information In 2004, CalPERS established a risk pool for cities and other government entities that have less than 100 active members. Actuarial valuations are performed with other participants within the same risk pool. Standalone information of the Schedule of the Funding Progress for the City is no longer available; therefore, the following information is the CalPERS Risk Pool Information for all entities within the pool: 97 CITY OF SARATOGA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS -CONTINUED JUNE 30, 2009 51 Entry Age Unfunded UAAL Normal Actuarial Liability (UAAL) Annual as a Valuation Accrued Value (Excess Funded Covered Percentage Date Liability of Assets Assets) Status Payroll of Payroll 6/30/2006 $ 2,754,396,608 $2 ,492,226,176 $ 262,170,432 90.5% $ 699,897,835 37.5% 6/30/2007 2,611,746,790 2,391,434,447 220,312,343 91.6% 6 55,522,859 33.6% 6/30/2008 2,780,280,768 2,547,323,278 232,957,490 91.6% 6 88,606,681 33.8% NOTE 9 -NET ASSETS /FUND BALANCES A. Restatement of Beginning Fund Balance In prior years the Internal Service Funds’ net assets were combined with the General Fund for reporting purposes in the annual report. With the expansion of additional internal service funds and to better administer the funds, the city decided to separate and display the funds individually in the annual report. As of July 1, 2008, the beginning fund balance of the General Fund was divided as follows: Fund Balance/Fund Balance Fund Balance/Net Assets Assets as Reported Net Assets as Restated June 30, 2008 Reclassification July 1, 2008 General Fund $ 10,396,616 $ (860,776) $ 9 ,535,840 Internal Service Funds: Liability/Risk Management -128,690 128,690 Workers Compensation -4 7,736 4 7,736 Office Stores -3 2,616 3 2,616 Information Technology Services -122,541 122,541 Vehicle & Equipment Maintenance -1 3,412 1 3,412 Building Maintenance -101,361 101,361 Vehicle & Equipment Replacement -9 8,110 9 8,110 Information Technology Equipment Replacement -316,310 316,310 Total $ 10,396,616 $ -$ 10,396,616 In the prior year, the Internal Service Funds’ net assets included in the General Fund did not include capital assets in its fund balance. In the current year, the capital assets of the Vehicle & Equipment Replacement and Information & Technology Equipment Replacement Funds are included in their nets assets. For the Vehicle & Equipment Replacement Fund, $341,925 of capital assets and for the Information Technology Equipment Replacement Fund, $63,168 of capital assets have been included in the Internal Service Funds Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenses, and Change in Fund Net Assets. 98 CITY OF SARATOGA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS -CONTINUED JUNE 30, 2009 52 B. Investment in Capital Assets, Net of Related Debt As of June 30, 2009, the investment in capital assets, net of related debt consisted of the following: Capital Assets, Net $ 122,102,516 2001 General Obligation Library Bonds (13,285,000) Investment in Capital Assets, Net of Related Debt $ 108,817,516 C. Restricted Net Assets As of June 30, 2009, the restricted net assets consisted of the following: Capital Debt Special Projects Service Projects Total Restricted Net Assets $ 3,865,374 $ 931,361 $ 4 84,088 $ 5,280,823 Restricted For NOTE 10 -JOINT POWERS AGREEMENTS The City is a member of the Santa Clara County Traffic Authority (Traffic Authority), which consists of various cities in the San Francisco Bay area. The Traffic Authority was formed in 1985, by a joint exercise of powers agreement between the County of Santa Clara and the cities of Santa Clara County for the purpose of financing highway capital improvements within the County to serve transportation needs. Financial statements may be obtained from the Traffic Authority at 1754 Technology Drive, Suite 224, San Jose, California 95110. The City is also a member of other Joint Powers Authorities (JPA) but has had no material transactions with them. These JPA's are governed by boards consisting of representatives from their members. The boards control the operations of each JPA, including selection of management and approval of operating budgets, independent of any influence by its members beyond their representation on the board. NOTE 11 -EXCESS EXPENDITURES OVER APPROPRIATIONS There were no excess of expenditures over appropriations in individual funds during the fiscal year 2008-2009. 99 CITY OF SARATOGA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS -CONTINUED JUNE 30, 2009 53 NOTE 12 -COMMITMENTS AND CONTINGENCIES A. Lawsuits The City is presently involved in certain matters of litigation that have arisen in the normal course of conducting City business. City management believes, based upon consultation with the City Attorney, that these cases, in the aggregate, are not expected to result in a material adverse financial impact on the City. Additionally, City management believes that the City's insurance programs are sufficient to cover any potential losses should an unfavorable outcome materialize. B. Federal and State Grant Programs The City participates in Federal and State grant programs. These programs are audited by the City's independent accountants in accordance with the provisions of the Federal Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996 and applicable State requirements. For Federal programs, the City did not reach the level of qualifying cost during the current fiscal year so no single audit is required; however, these programs are subject to further examination by the grantors. Expenditures which may be disallowed, if any, by the granting agencies, cannot be determined at this time. The City expects such amounts, if any, to be immaterial. 100 CITY OF SARATOGA NOTES TO FINANCIAL STATEMENTS -CONTINUED JUNE 30, 2009 54 C. Commitments The City had several outstanding contracts or planned construction projects as of June 30, 2009. These projects are evidenced by contractual commitments with contractors and include: Original Commitment Vendor commitment Remaining G Bortolotto & Company $ 33,534 $ 4 ,033 B&B Landscapers 1,030,279 102,114 Biggs Cardosa Association 6,000 600 Callander Associates 22,118 1,672 CF Archibald Paving 494,936 205,189 Civica Software 46,790 28,074 Cotton Shires & Associates 38,000 4,014 CRW Industries 838,080 1,954 David Gates & Associates 99,612 14,092 Delta MicroImaging, Inc 120,594 107,752 Fehr & Peers 18,000 193 Field Paoli Architects 6,500 6,500 G Bortolotto & Company 55,355 1,580 Guerra Construction 237,465 70,653 List Engineering 39,000 7,301 Mark Thomas & Company 12,000 1,370 Pantechnicon, Inc 24,878 22,416 Roming Engineers 4,250 4,250 Schaaf & Wheeler 8,019 4,038 Weber Tractor Service 51,424 9,431 $ 3,186,834 $ 597,224 As of June 30, 2009, in the opinion of City management, there were no additional outstanding matters that would have a significant effect on the financial position of the funds of the City. 101 REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION 102 103 CITY OF SARATOGA REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2009 55 NOTE 1 -BUDGETARY INFORMATION Through the budget, the City Council sets the direction of the City, allocates its resources and establishes its priorities. The Annual Budget assures the efficient and effective uses of the City's economic resources, as well as establishing that the highest priority objectives are accomplished. The Annual Budget serves from July 1 to June 30, and is a vehicle that accurately and openly communicates these priorities to the community, businesses, vendors, employees, and other public agencies. Additionally, it establishes the foundation of effective financial planning by providing resource planning, performance measures and controls that permit the evaluation and adjustment of the City's performance. The City does not adopt an annual budget for the Capital Improvement Capital Projects Fund. The Capital Improvement Capital Projects Fund is budgeted on the project length basis. The City adopts an annual budget for Park Development and Library Expansion Capital Projects funds. The City follows these procedures in establishing the budgetary data reflected in the basic financial statements: a. The City Manager submits to the City Council a proposed operating budget for the fiscal year commencing the following July 1. The operating budget includes proposed expenditures and the means of financing them. b. Public hearings are conducted to obtain taxpayer comments. c. The budget is legally enacted through passage of a resolution. d. The City Manager may authorize transfers of budget amounts within a fund. However, any revisions that increase the total budgeted expenditures of any fund must be approved by the City Council. Expenditures may not legally exceed budgeted appropriations at the fund level without City Council approval. e. Formal budgetary integration in the form of legally adopted budgets is employed as a management control device for all funds except the agency funds. Budgets are adopted on a basis consistent with generally accepted accounting principles. Budgeted expenditures reported are as amended by supplemental appropriations of the City Council. Encumbrance accounting, under which purchase orders, contracts, and other commitments for the expenditure of monies are recorded in order to reserve that portion of the applicable appropriation, is employed as an extension of formal budgetary integration in the General, special revenue and capital projects funds. Unexpended and unencumbered appropriations of these governmental funds automatically lapse at the end of the fiscal year. 104 CITY OF SARATOGA REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2009 The following is the budget comparison schedules for General Fund. Combining Statement of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes in Fund Balance -Budget and Actual General Fund For The Year Ended June 30, 2009 Variance with Final Budget Budgeted Amounts Actual Positive Original Final Amounts (Negative) REVENUES: Property taxes $ 8,122,000 $ 8 ,122,000 $ 8 ,147,478 $ 25,478 Special assessments --7,884 7,884 Sales taxes 986,000 986,000 1,043,034 57,034 Other local taxes 665,000 665,000 663,053 (1,947) Licenses & permits 1,771,715 1,771,715 1,119,888 (651,827) Fines & forfeitures 275,000 275,000 353,801 78,801 Intergovermental -state 433,200 433,200 264,755 (168,445) Intergovermental -other 47,500 47,500 38,457 (9,043) Franchise fees 1,611,000 1,611,000 1,656,716 45,716 Use of money & property 778,755 778,755 729,207 (49,548) Other revenue 2,240,694 2,240,694 1,849,928 (390,766) Total revenues 16,930,864 16,930,864 15,874,201 (1,056,663) EXPENDITURES: Current: General and intergovernmental services 3,853,489 3,853,489 3,330,074 523,415 Public safety 4,168,826 4,168,826 4,205,672 (36,846) Public works 4,530,443 4,547,178 4,352,644 194,534 Community services 1,544,926 1,544,926 1,424,421 120,505 Community development services 2,711,580 2,711,580 2,450,549 261,031 Total expenditures 16,809,264 16,825,999 15,763,360 1,062,639 REVENUES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES 121,600 104,865 110,841 (5,976) OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES): Transfers in 153,732 153,732 153,732 -Transfers out (253,500) (1,543,500) (1,571,727) (28,227) Total other financing sources (uses) (99,768) (1,389,768) (1,417,995) (28,227) Net change in fund balances $ 21,832 $ (1,284,903) (1,307,154) $ (22,251) FUND BALANCES: Beginning of year (as restated) 9,535,840 1 End of year $ 8 ,228,686 1General Fund beginning fund balance has been restated to remove the Internal Service Fund net assets. 56 105 CITY OF SARATOGA REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2009 57 NOTE 2 -MODIFIED APPROACH FOR CITY STREETS INFRASTRUCTURE CAPITAL ASSETS In accordance with GASB Statement No. 34, the City is required to account for and report infrastructure capital assets. The City defines infrastructure as the basic physical assets that allow the City to function and those resources utilized primarily by the public and provides future economic benefits for a minimum of two years. Infrastructure can be defined as assets that are immovable and of value only to the government. Major infrastructure system includes the street system, park and recreation lands and improvements system; storm water conveyance and drainage system, buildings combined with site amenities such as parking and landscaping areas used by the City in the conduct of its business. Each major infrastructure system can be divided into subsystems. For example, the street system can be divided into concrete and asphalt pavements, concrete concrete curb and gutters, sidewalks, medians, streetlights, traffic control devices (signs, signals and pavement markings), landscaping and land. Subsystem detail is not presented in these basic financial statements; however, the City maintains detailed information on these subsystems. The City has elected to use the "Modified Approach" as defined by GASB Statement No. 34 for infrastructure reporting for its Streets Pavement System. Under GASB Statement No. 34, eligible infrastructure capital assets are not required to be depreciated under the following requirements: • The City manages the eligible infrastructure capital assets using an asset management system with characteristics of (1) an up-to-date inventory; (2) perform condition assessments and summarize the results using a measurement scale; and (3) estimate annual amount to maintain and preserve at the established condition assessment level. • The City documents that the eligible infrastructure capital assets are being preserved approximately at or above the established and disclosed condition assessment level. The City commissioned a physical assessment of the streets conditions as of June 30, 2007. The study assists the City by providing current inspection data used to evaluate current pavement condition. This helps to maintain a City-defined desirable level of pavement performance while optimizing the expenditure of limited fiscal resources. The entire pavement network within the City is composed of approximately 140 centerline miles of paved surfaces. The City’s road system can be grouped by function class and includes 23.4 centerline miles of arterial, 23.3 centerline miles of collector, and 93.3 miles as residential. A visual survey of all pavement segments was conducted to assess the existing surface condition of each of the individual pavement segments. Upon completion of the study, a Pavement Condition Index (PCI) was calculated for each segment in the City's pavement network to reflect the overall pavement condition. Rating between 0 and 100, 100, a PCI of 0 would correspond to a badly deteriorated pavement with virtually no remaining life. A PCI of 100 would correspond to a pavement with proper engineering design and construction at the beginning of its life cycle. 106 CITY OF SARATOGA REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2009 The following conditions were defined: Condition Rating Excellent 80 -100 Very Good 70 -79 Good 50 -69 Poor 25 -49 Very Poor 0 -24 The City's policy is to achieve an average rating of 70 for all streets, which is a very good rating. This rating allows minor cracking and raveling of the pavement along with minor roughness that could be noticeable to drivers traveling at the posted speeds. As of June 30, 2009, the City's street system was rated at a PCI index of 70 on the average with the detail condition as follows: Percent of Condition Streets Excellent to Good 86% Poor 13% Very Poor 1% The City expended $1,574,485 on street maintenance for the year ended June 30, 2009. These routine maintenance expenditures delayed deterioration. The budget required to maintain and improve the current level of overall condition through the year 2011 is a minimum of $6,000,000. (Approxmiately $2,000,000 projected budget each year for the years ending June 30, 2009, 2010 and 2011.) A schedule of estimated annual amount calculated to maintain and preserve its streets at the current level compared to actual expenditures for street maintenance for the last nine years is presented below: Funded By Fiscal Actual Other Gas Tax Total PCI Year Budget Expenditures Sources Fund Funded Index 2000-01 $ 2,520,255 $ 801,160 $ 205,309 $ 595,851 $ 8 01,160 -2001-02 3,529,420 2,214,717 1,631,855 582,862 2,214,717 -2002-03 2,207,922 1,553,674 974,514 579,160 1,553,674 -2003-04 1,961,844 1,489,667 907,327 582,340 1,489,667 70 2004-05 1,800,000 2,609,648 1,478,216 1,131,432 2,609,648 70 2005-06 1,156,547 1,030,382 353,652 676,730 1,030,382 70 2006-07 2,026,404 1,156,889 19,899 970,818 990,717 70 2007-08 2,246,152 1,691,466 1,252,709 438,757 1,691,466 70 2008-09 2,680,504 1,574,485 1,148,650 425,835 1,574,485 70 58 107 CITY OF SARATOGA REQUIRED SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2009 59 As of June 2009, approximately 40 percent of the City's streets were rated below the average standard of 70. The City will continue to rehabilitate these segments of the streets. Total deficiencies (deferred maintenance) identified in the Pavement Management System Report at the end of a five-year period (2007-2011) amounted to approximately $11,600,000 for all streets and are expected to be rehabilitated with a minimum annual budget of $1,000,000. 108 This page is intentionally blank. 60 109 SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION 110 111 NONMAJOR GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS Special Revenue Funds Lighting and Landscaping Assessment District -This fund accounts for revenues and expenditures associated with development of the City. Community Development Block Grant -This fund accounts for grant funds received from the Federal Government for the purpose of developing viable urban communities and for the City's rehabilitation loan program. Debt Service Fund Library Bond -Santa Clara County lease revenues are accumulated in this fund to pay annual principal and interest payments on the 2001 Library Bond. Capital Projects Funds Library Expansion -This fund accounts for resources used for the construction of the City's library. 61 112 CITY OF SARATOGA COMBINING BALANCE SHEETS NONMAJOR GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS JUNE 30, 2009 62 Debt Service Lighting and Community Landscaping Development Assessment Block Library District Grant Bond ASSETS Cash and investments $ 373,762 $ 1 09,251 $ 9 26,294 Receivables: Accounts 8 06 1 4,458 2 ,812 Interest 1,212 4 63 2 ,255 Loans -8 5,003 -Total assets $ 3 75,780 $ 2 09,175 $ 9 31,361 LIABILITIES AND FUND BALANCES Liabilities: Accounts payable $ 15,864 $ -$ -Deferred revenue -8 5,003 -Total liabilities 1 5,864 8 5,003 -Fund Balances: Reserved for: Debt service --931,361 Unreserved, undesignated, reported in: Special revenue funds 359,916 1 24,172 -Capital projects funds ---Total fund balances 3 59,916 1 24,172 9 31,361 Total liabilities and fund balances $ 3 75,780 $ 2 09,175 $ 9 31,361 Special Revenue 113 63 Capital Projects Total Other Library Governmental Expansion Funds $ 376,802 $ 1 ,786,109 -18,076 1,532 5,462 -85,003 $ 378,334 $ 1 ,894,650 $ 23,940 $ 39,804 -85,003 23,940 124,807 -9 31,361 -4 84,088 354,394 354,394 354,394 1,769,843 $ 378,334 $ 1 ,894,650 114 CITY OF SARATOGA COMBINING STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE NONMAJOR GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2009 64 Lighting and Community Landscaping Development Assessment Block District Grant REVENUES: Property taxes $ 188,078 $ -Special assessment 283,003 -Intergovernmental -Other -55,702 Use of money and property 7,453 2,517 Other revenue -13,334 Total revenues 478,534 71,553 EXPENDITURES: Current: Public works 347,000 -Capital outlay --Debt service: Principal --Interest and fiscal charges --Total expenditures 347,000 -REVENUES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES 131,534 71,553 OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES): Transfers in 18,560 -Transfers out -(55,702) Total other financing sources (uses) 18,560 (55,702) Net change in fund balances 150,094 15,851 FUND BALANCES: Beginning of year 209,822 108,321 End of year $ 359,916 $ 124,172 Special Revenue 115 65 Capital Debt Service Projects Total Other Library Library Governmental Bond Expansion Funds $ -$ -$ 188,078 1,077,093 -1,360,096 --55,702 15,198 9,358 34,526 1 -13,335 1,092,292 9,358 1,651,737 --347,000 -38,893 38,893 310,000 -310,000 704,550 -704,550 1,014,550 38,893 1,400,443 77,742 (29,535) 251,294 --18,560 -(310,000) (365,702) -(310,000) (347,142) 77,742 (339,535) (95,848) 853,619 693,929 1,865,691 $ 931,361 $ 354,394 $ 1,769,843 116 CITY OF SARATOGA COMBINING STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE -BUDGET AND ACTUAL CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2009 66 Variance with Final Budget Budgeted Amounts Actual Positive Original Final Amounts (Negative) REVENUES: Licenses & permits $ -$ -$ 340,246 $ 340,246 Fines & forfeitures --6,092 6,092 Intergovermental -state 1,354,629 1,771,791 1,017,766 (754,025) Intergovermental -other -6,014,192 195,936 (5,818,256) Use of money and property --30,071 30,071 Other revenue 539,000 1,521,358 102,809 (1,418,549) Total revenues 1,893,629 9,307,341 1,692,920 (7,614,421) EXPENDITURES: Current: Capital outlay 2,120,600 15,250,282 4,021,626 11,228,656 Total expenditures 2,120,600 15,250,282 4,021,626 11,228,656 REVENUES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES (226,971) (5,942,941) (2,328,706) 3,614,235 OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES): Transfers in 332,971 1,990,280 1,871,137 (119,143) Transfers out (106,000) (106,000) (106,000) -Total other financing sources (uses) 2 26,971 1,884,280 1,884,280 1,765,137 (119,143) Net change in fund balances $ -$ (4,058,661) (563,569) $ 3 ,495,092 FUND BALANCES: Beginning of year 4,074,549 End of year $ 3 ,510,980 117 CITY OF SARATOGA COMBINING STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE -BUDGET AND ACTUAL LIGHTING & LANDSCAPING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT SPECIAL REVENUE FUND FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2009 67 Variance with Final Budget Budgeted Amounts Actual Positive Original Final Amounts (Negative) REVENUES: Property taxes $ 447,150 $ 160,596 $ 188,078 $ 27,482 Special assessments -286,554 283,003 (3,551) Use of money and property --7,453 7,453 Total revenues 447,150 447,150 478,534 31,384 EXPENDITURES: Current: Public works 442,895 442,895 347,000 95,895 Total expenditures 442,895 442,895 347,000 95,895 REVENUES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES 4,255 4,255 131,534 127,279 OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES): Transfers in --46,740 46,740 Transfers out --(28,180) (28,180) Total other financing sources (uses) --18,560 18,560 Net change in fund balances $ 4,255 $ 4,255 150,094 $ 145,839 FUND BALANCES: Beginning of year 209,822 End of year $ 359,916 118 CITY OF SARATOGA COMBINING STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE -BUDGET AND ACTUAL COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT SPECIAL REVENUE FUND FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2009 68 Variance with Final Budget Budgeted Amounts Actual Positive Original Final Amounts (Negative) REVENUES: Intergovernmental -Other $ 140,203 $ 140,203 $ 5 5,702 $ (84,501) Use of money and property --2,517 2,517 Other revenue --13,334 13,334 Total revenues 140,203 140,203 71,553 (68,650) EXPENDITURES: Current: Community development services 406,520 13,000 -13,000 Total expenditures 406,520 13,000 -13,000 REVENUES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES (266,317) 127,203 71,553 (55,650) OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES): Transfers in 13,000 13,000 7,970 (5,030) Transfers out (140,203) (197,512) (63,672) 133,840 Total other financing sources (uses) (127,203) (184,512) (55,702) 128,810 Net change in fund balances $ (393,520) $ (57,309) 15,851 $ 73,160 FUND BALANCES: Beginning of year 108,321 End of year $ 124,172 119 CITY OF SARATOGA COMBINING STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE -BUDGET AND ACTUAL LIBRARY BOND DEBT SERVICE FUND FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2009 69 Variance with Final Budget Budgeted Amounts Actual Positive Original Final Amounts (Negative) REVENUES: Special assessments $ 1,010,000 $ 1,010,000 $ 1,077,093 $ 67,093 Use of money and property -5,000 15,199 10,199 Total revenues 1,010,000 1,015,000 1,092,292 77,292 EXPENDITURES: Debt service: Principal 310,000 310,000 310,000 -Interest and fiscal charges 707,956 707,956 704,550 3,406 Total expenditures 1,017,956 1,017,956 1,014,550 3,406 REVENUES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES (7,956) (2,956) 77,742 80,698 Net change in fund balances $ (7,956) $ (2,956) 77,742 $ 80,698 FUND BALANCES: Beginning of year 853,619 End of year $ 931,361 120 CITY OF SARATOGA COMBINING STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE -BUDGET AND ACTUAL LIBRARY EXPANSION CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2009 70 Variance with Final Budget Budgeted Amounts Actual Positive Original Final Amounts (Negative) REVENUES: Use of money and property $ 19,500 $ 19,500 $ 9 ,358 $ (10,142) Total revenues 19,500 19,500 9,358 (10,142) EXPENDITURES: Current: Capital outlay 70,000 70,000 38,893 31,107 Total expenditures 70,000 70,000 38,893 31,107 REVENUES OVER (UNDER) EXPENDITURES (50,500) (50,500) (29,535) 20,965 OTHER FINANCING SOURCES (USES): Transfers out -(310,000) (310,000) -Total other financing sources (uses) -(310,000) (310,000) -Net change in fund balances $ (50,500) $ (360,500) (339,535) $ 20,965 FUND BALANCES: Beginning of year 693,929 End of year $ 354,394 121 FIDUCIARY FUND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS Agency Funds Cable T. V. Trust -This fund accounts for funds of the Saratoga Community Access T.V. Foundation. 71 122 CITY OF SARATOGA STATEMENT OF CHANGES IN ASSETS AND LIABILITIES AGENCY FUND FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2009 72 Balance Balance Cable T.V. Trust July 1, 2008 Additions Deductions June 30, 2009 ASSETS Cash and investments $ 38,365 $ 31,404 $ -$ 69,769 Receivables: Accounts -14,573 -14,573 Interest 296 261 (296) 261 Total assets $ 38,661 $ 46,238 $ (296) $ 84,603 LIABILITIES Deposits payable $ 38,661 $ 46,238 $ (296) $ 84,603 123 INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS Liability/Risk Management Insurance Fund – Accounts for insurance premiums, self-insurance portion of claims, and administrative cost associated with settling claims. Charges made to operating departments are based on liability risk and claim occurrence history. Worker’s Compensation Self-insurance Fund – Accounts for insurance premiums, self insured portion of claims, and administrative costs associated with settling claims. Charges are made to operating departments are based on liability risk and claim occurrence history. Office Stores Fund -Photocopy equipment, postage and balk mail meter expenses are controlled at one source point and expended to the departments as goods or services are utilized. Information Technology Services Fund – Supports the delivery of technology based services and infrastructure, including desktop support, network systems, technology upgrades and initiatives, community systems, and associated information technology equipment. Vehicle & Equipment Maintenance Fund – Accounts for the cost of operating and maintaining automotive equipment used for service operations in various City departments. Building Maintenance Fund – Accounts for operating costs associated with building maintenance. Includes custodial supplies and services, maintenance, and repair, utilities, and staffing costs. Vehicle & Equipment Replacement Fund – Established to accumulate funding for the replacement of vehicles and equipment. Replacement costs are charged to departments over the asset’s life span reflective of usage. Information Technology Equipment Replacement Fund – Established to accumulate funding for the replacement of information technology equipment. Replacement costs are charged to departments over the asset’s lifespan reflective of usage. 73 124 CITY OF SARATOGA INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS COMBINING STATEMENT OF NET ASSETS JUNE 30, 2009 74 Liability /Risk Workers' Office Management Compensation Stores ASSETS Current assets: Cash and investments $ 304,180 $ 1 20,654 $ 4 2,593 Accounts receivable 4,343 3 ,065 -Total current assets 308,523 1 23,719 4 2,593 Noncurrent assets: Capital assets: Machinery and equipment ---Less: accumulated depreciation ---Total capital assets (net of accumulated depreciation) ---Total assets 308,523 1 23,719 4 2,593 LIABILITIES Liabilities: Current assets: Accounts payable 22,435 3 03 2 ,960 Accrued payroll -3 81 -Claims payable 83,216 --Total current liabilities 105,651 6 84 2 ,960 NET ASSETS Investment in capital assets ---Unrestricted 202,872 1 23,035 3 9,633 Total net assets $ 202,872 $ 1 23,035 $ 3 9,633 125 75 Information Information Vehicle Vehicle Technology Technology and Equipment Building and Equipment Equipment Services Maintenance Maintenance Replacement Replacement Total $ 185,879 $ 62,524 $ 270,842 $ 150,685 $ 316,483 $ 1,453,840 ---2,530 -9,938 185,879 62,524 270,842 153,215 316,483 1,463,778 ---6 11,474 90,240 701,714 ---(235,823) (45,120) (280,943) ---3 75,651 45,120 420,771 185,879 62,524 270,842 528,866 361,603 1,884,549 4,525 3,191 44,104 -1,193 78,711 6,517 2,678 17,897 --27,473 -----83,216 11,042 5,869 62,001 -1,193 189,400 ---3 75,651 45,120 420,771 174,837 56,655 208,841 153,215 315,290 1,274,378 $ 174,837 $ 56,655 $ 208,841 $ 528,866 $ 360,410 $ 1,695,149 126 CITY OF SARATOGA INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS COMBINING STATEMENT OF REVENUES, EXPENSES AND CHANGES IN FUND NET ASSETS FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2009 76 Liability /Risk Workers' Office Management Compensation Stores Operating revenues: Charges for services $ 286,268 $ 2 60,920 $ 6 0,000 Other operating revenues 17,964 1 0,001 5 ,391 Total operating revenues 304,232 2 70,921 6 5,391 Operating expenses: Cost of services ---Administration 230,050 1 95,622 5 8,374 Depreciation ---Total operating expenses 230,050 1 95,622 5 8,374 Operating income 74,182 7 5,299 7 ,017 Change in net assets 74,182 7 5,299 7 ,017 Total net assets -beginning (as restated)1 1 28,690 4 7,736 3 2,616 Total net assets -ending $ 202,872 $ 1 23,035 $ 3 9,633 1The Internal Service Funds beginning net assets have been removed from the General Fund beginning fund balance. (See Note #9) The accompanying notes are an integral part of these financial statements 127 77 Information Information Vehicle Vehicle Technology Technology and Equipment Building and Equipment Equipment Services Maintenance Maintenance Replacement Replacement Total $ 403,946 $ 250,000 $ 807,083 $ 200,001 $ 51,304 $ 2 ,319,522 30 1 604 13,569 1,979 49,539 403,976 250,001 807,687 213,570 53,283 2,369,061 -2 06,758 700,207 16,628 54,303 977,896 351,680 ----8 35,726 ---1 08,111 18,048 126,159 351,680 206,758 700,207 124,739 72,351 1,939,781 52,296 43,243 107,480 88,831 (19,068) 429,280 52,296 43,243 107,480 88,831 (19,068) 429,280 122,541 13,412 101,361 440,035 379,478 1,265,869 $ 174,837 $ 56,655 $ 208,841 $ 528,866 $ 360,410 $ 1 ,695,149 128 CITY OF SARATOGA INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS COMBINING STATEMENT OF CASH FLOWS FOR THE YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2009 78 Liability /Risk Workers' Office Management Compensation Stores Cash flows from operating activities: Receipts from customers and users $ 299,889 $ 267,856 $ 65,391 Payments to suppliers (116,138) (187,219) (55,851) Payments to employees (9,969) (8,043) -Net cash provided by operating activities 173,782 72,594 9,540 Cash flows from capital activities: Acquisition of capital assets ---Net cash used for acquisition of capital assets ---Net increase (decrease) in cash and cash equivalents 173,782 72,594 9,540 Cash and cash equivalents, beginning of year 130,398 48,060 33,053 Cash and cash equivalents, ending of year $ 304,180 $ 120,654 $ 42,593 Reconciliation of operating income to net cash provided by operating activities: Operating income (loss) $ 74,182 $ 75,299 $ 7,017 Adjustments to reconcile operating income (loss) to net cash provided (used) by operating activities: Depreciation ---Change in operating assets and liabilities: Decrease (increase) in accounts receivables (4,343) (3,065) -(Decrease) increase in accounts payable 21,898 (21) 2,523 (Decrease) in deposits payable ---Increase in claims payable 83,216 --(Decrease) increase in accured payroll (1,171) 381 -Net cash provided (used) by operating activities $ 173,782 $ 72,594 $ 9,540 129 79 Information Information Vehicle Vehicle Technology Technology and Equipment Building and Equipment Equipment Services Maintenance Maintenance Replacement Replacement Total $ 403,976 $ 262,475 $ 807,799 $ 211,040 $ 53,283 $ 2,371,709 (167,726) (155,095) (303,883) (41,828) (53,110) (1,080,850) (185,410) (61,407) (373,277) --(638,106) 50,840 45,973 130,639 169,212 173 652,753 ---(141,837) -(141,837) ---(141,837) -(141,837) 50,840 45,973 130,639 27,375 173 510,916 135,039 16,551 140,203 123,310 316,310 942,924 $ 185,879 $ 62,524 $ 270,842 $ 150,685 $ 316,483 $ 1,453,840 $ 52,296 $ 43,243 $ 107,480 $ 88,831 $ (19,068) $ 429,280 ---108,111 18,048 126,159 -12,474 112 (2,530) -2,648 (550) (9,804) 24,688 (25,200) 1,193 14,727 --(5,000) --(5,000) -----83,216 (906) 60 3,359 --1,723 $ 50,840 $ 45,973 $ 130,639 $ 169,212 $ 173 $ 652,753 130 This page is intentionally blank. 80 131 CAPITAL ASSETS USED IN THE OPERATION OF GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS 81 132 82 133 CITY OF SARATOGA CAPITAL ASSETS USED IN THE OPERATION OF GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS COMPARATIVE SCHEDULE BY SOURCE JUNE 30, 2009 AND 2008 83 2009 2008 Governmental Funds Capital Assets: Land and land improvements $ 10,585,106 $ 9 ,887,095 Buildings and structures 2 3,156,758 2 3,066,577 Machinery and equipment 1 ,324,426 1 ,400,237 Infrastructure 1 03,549,229 1 02,756,597 Construction in progress 6 ,595,346 7 ,744,871 Total Governmental Funds Capital Assets 1 45,210,865 1 44,855,377 Accumulated depreciation (23,529,120) (21,847,317) Total Governmental Funds Capital Assets, Net $ 1 21,681,745 $ 1 23,008,060 Investments in Governmental Funds Capital Assets by Source: General Fund $ 1 15,642,022 $ 1 15,713,856 Special revenue funds 1 ,008,688 1 ,023,688 Capital projects funds 2 8,462,807 2 8,020,483 Donations 9 7,348 9 7,348 Accumulated depreciation (23,529,120) (21,847,315) Total Governmental Funds Capital Assets $ 1 21,681,745 $ 1 23,008,060 1 This schedule presents only the capital asset balances related to governmental funds. Accordingly the capital assets reported in internal service funds are excluded from the above amounts. Generally, the capital assets of internal service funds are included as governmental activities in the statement of net assets. 134 CITY OF SARATOGA CAPITAL ASSETS USED IN THE OPERATION OF GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS SCHEDULE BY FUNCTION AND ACTIVITY1 JUNE 30, 2009 84 Land Buildings and Land and Improvements Structures Function and Activity General and intergovernmental services: Management services $ -$ 271,631 Administrative services -167,585 Intergovernmental services 118,184 3,138,641 Total General and Intergovernmental Services: 118,184 3,577,857 Public safety: Police services --Code enforcement --Total Public Safety: --Public works: Streets and sidewalks 725,174 30,628 Parks/open space 2,637,061 2,656,850 Total Public Works: 3,362,235 2,687,478 Community services 5,362,223 2,576,524 Community development services 1,742,464 14,314,899 Total Governmental Funds Capital Assets 10,585,106 23,156,758 Accumulated depreciation -(4,894,979) Total Governmental Funds Capital Assets, Net $ 10,585,106 $ 18,261,779 1 This schedule presents only the capital asset balances related to governmental funds. Accordingly the capital assets reported in internal service funds are excluded form the above amounts. Generally, the capital assets of internal service funds are included as governmental activities in the statement of net assets. 135 85 Machinery Construction and in Equipment Infrastructure Progress Total $ 47,838 $ -$ 155,215 $ 474,684 84,864 --252,449 47,560 --3,304,385 180,262 -155,215 4,031,518 27,813 --27,813 7,548 --7,548 35,361 --35,361 524,793 103,549,229 2,170,277 107,000,101 312,538 --5,606,449 837,331 103,549,229 2,170,277 112,606,550 227,810 -4,246,489 12,413,046 43,662 -23,365 16,124,390 1,324,426 103,549,229 6,595,346 145,210,865 (1,274,551) (17,359,590) -( 23,529,120) $ 49,875 $ 86,189,639 $ 6,595,346 $ 121,681,745 136 CITY OF SARATOGA SCHEDULE OF CHANGES BY FUNCTION AND ACTIVITY SCHEDULE BY FUNCTION AND ACTIVITY JUNE 30, 2009 86 Governmental Governmental Funds Capital Funds Capital Assets Assets July 1, 2008 Additions Deletions June 30, 2009 Function and Activity General and intergovernmental services: Management services $ 435,145 $ 39,539 $ -$ 474,684 Administrative services 252,449 --252,449 Intergovernmental services 3,282,576 52,881 (31,072) 3,304,385 Total General and Intergovernmental Services: 3,970,170 92,420 (31,072) 4,031,518 Public safety: Police services 27,813 --27,813 Code enforcement 22,548 -(15,000) 7,548 Total Public Safety: 50,361 -(15,000) 35,361 Public works: Streets and sidewalks 108,209,639 434,626 (1,644,164) 107,000,101 Parks/open space 5,525,292 107,532 (26,375) 5,606,449 Total Public Works: 113,734,931 542,158 (1,670,539) 112,606,550 Community services 11,013,890 1,777,478 (378,322) 12,413,046 Community development services 16,086,025 42,866 (4,501) 16,124,390 Total Governmental Funds Capital Assets 144,855,377 2,454,922 (2,099,434) 145,210,865 Accumulated depreciation (21,847,317) (1,768,632) 86,829 (23,529,120) Total Governmental Funds Capital Assets, Net $ 123,008,060 $ 686,290 $ (2,012,605) $ 121,681,745 1 This schedule presents only the capital asset balances related to governmental funds. Accordingly the capital assets reported in internal service funds are excluded form the above amounts. Generally, the capital assets of internal service funds are included as governmental activities in the statement of net assets. 137 STATISTICAL SECTION 138 139 This part of the City of Saratoga's comprehensive annual financial report presents detailed information as a context for understanding what the information in the financial statements, note disclosures and required supplementary information says about the government' overall financial health. Contents Page Financial Trends These schedules contain trend information to help the reader understand how the government's financial performance and well being have changed over time. 88-92 Revenue Capacity These schedules contain information to help the reader assess the governments most significant local revenue source, the property tax. 93-97 Debt Capacity These schedules present information to help the reader assess the afford ability of the government's current levels of outstanding debt and the government's ability to issue additional debt in the future. 98-101 Demographic and Economic Information These schedules offer demographic and economic indicators to help the reader understand the environment within which which the government's financial activities take place. 102-103 Operating Information These schedules contain service and infrastructure data to help the reader understand how the information in the government's financial report relates to the services the government provides and the activities it performs. 104-106 The City of Saratoga implemented GASB Statement No. 34 in fiscal year 2001/02; schedules presenting government-wide information include information beginning in that year. The City of Saratoga implemented GASB Statement No. 44 in fiscal year 2007/08; newly required schedules presenting information in the Statistical Section include the earliest available information. 87 140 CITY OF SARATOGA NET ASSETS BY COMPONENT LAST FIVE YEARS (ACCRUAL BASIS OF ACCOUNTING) (amounts expressed in thousands) 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Primary government Governmental activities Investment in capital assets, net of related debt $ 105,784 $ 1 07,100 $ 1 08,102 $ 1 09,818 $ 108,818 Restricted 6,328 5,370 5,928 5,940 5,281 Unrestricted 6,789 9,955 8,593 9,710 8,759 Total primary government $ 118,901 $ 1 22,425 $ 1 22,623 $ 1 25,468 $ 122,858 Source: CAFR Fiscal Year $95,000 $100,000 $105,000 $110,000 $115,000 $120,000 $125,000 $130,000 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Net Assets by Component Investment in capital assets, net of related debt Restricted Unrestricted 88 141 • • • CITY OF SARATOGA CHANGES IN NET ASSETS LAST FIVE YEARS (ACCRUAL BASIS OF ACCOUNTING) (amounts expressed in thousands) 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Expenses: Governmental activities: General and intergovernmental services $ 4,160 $ 3,473 $ 4,532 $ 6,293 $ 5,595 Public safety 3,736 3,427 3,844 4,166 4,211 Public works 3,829 4,752 6,425 5,325 7,643 Community services 1,929 1,395 1,437 1,286 1,634 Community development services 2,349 2,226 1,993 2,032 2,000 Interest on long-term debt (unallocated) 760 754 768 714 697 Total governmental activities expenses 16,763 16,027 18,999 19,816 21,780 Program revenues: Charges for services: General and intergovernmental services -31 452 1,787 133 Public safety 141 122 -411 520 Public works 1,988 1,890 528 1,705 2,379 Community services 757 1,008 604 911 935 Community development services 1,890 2,665 1,328 2,110 1,802 Operating grants and contributions 1,218 1,549 2,155 151 228 Capital grants and contributions 865 1,568 1,282 1,715 339 Total governmental activates program revenues 6,859 8,833 6,349 8,790 6,336 Net (expense) revenue and change in net assets ( 9,904) ( 7,194) (12,650) (11,026) (15,444) General revenue and other changes in net assets Taxes: Property taxes 4,841 5,652 5,772 8,099 8,336 Sales taxes 1,011 988 995 1,058 1,043 Local taxes 1,143 1,288 1,099 694 663 Franchise taxes 995 1,040 1,187 1,625 1,657 Motor vehicle in-lieu 420 718 177 149 116 Total Taxes 8,410 9,686 9,230 11,625 11,815 Intergovernmental --673 841 474 Investment earnings 283 709 2,813 1,057 397 Other revenues 193 323 132 348 148 Total general revenues 8,886 10,718 12,848 13,871 12,834 Change in net assets (1,018) 3,524 198 2,845 ( 2,610) Net assets -beginning of year 119,919 118,901 122,425 122,623 125,468 Net assets -end of year $ 118,901 $ 1 22,425 $ 1 22,623 $ 1 25,468 $ 1 22,858 Source: CAFR Fiscal Year 89 142 CITY OF SARATOGA FUND BALANCE OF GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS LAST FIVE YEARS (ACCRUAL BASIS OF ACCOUNTING) (amounts expressed in thousands) 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 General fund: Reserved $ -$ 1 $ 64 $ 1 $ 1 Unreserved 6,979 10,378 9,097 10,396 8,228 Total general fund $ 6,979 $ 10,379 $ 9,161 $ 10,397 $ 8,229 All other governmental funds: Reserved Debt service funds $ 8 55 $ 8 65 $ 7 46 $ 8 54 $ 9 31 Unreserved, reported in: Special revenue funds 201 919 844 318 484 Capital project funds 5,322 3,586 4,338 4,768 3,865 Total all other governmental funds $ 6,378 $ 5,370 $ 5,928 $ 5,940 $ 5,280 Source: CAFR Fiscal Year $‐$2,000 $4,000 $6,000 $8,000 $10,000 $12,000 General ‐Reserved General ‐Unreserved Debt Service Special Revenue Capital Projects Fund Balances of Governmental Funds 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 90 143 • • • • • CITY OF SARATOGA GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES TAX REVENUES BY SOURCE LAST FIVE YEARS (ACCRUAL BASIS OF ACCOUNTING) (amounts expressed in thousands) 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Tax revenues: Property taxes $ 4,841 $ 5,652 $ 5,772 $ 8,099 $ 8,336 Special assessments 1,476 1,369 271 1,392 1,368 Sales taxes 1,011 988 995 1,058 1,043 Local taxes 1,143 1,288 1,099 694 663 Motor vehicle in-lieu 995 1,040 1,187 1,625 1,657 Franchise taxes 420 718 177 149 116 Total tax revenues $ 9,886 $ 11,055 $ 9,501 $ 13,017 $ 13,183 Source: CAFR Fiscal Year $‐$1,000 $2,000 $3,000 $4,000 $5,000 $6,000 $7,000 $8,000 $9,000 Property taxes Special assessments Sales taxes Local taxes Motor vehicle inlieu Franchise taxes Tax Revenues by Source 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 91 144 • • • • • CITY OF SARATOGA CHANGES IN FUND BALANCES OF GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS LAST FIVE YEARS (ACCRUAL BASIS OF ACCOUNTING) (amounts expressed in thousands) 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Revenues: Property taxes $ 4,893 $ 5,652 $ 4,758 $ 7,877 $ 8,335 Special assessments 1,411 1,370 1,285 1,566 1,368 Sales taxes 1,011 987 995 1,058 1,043 Other local taxes 851 1,288 1,126 773 663 Licensed and permits 100 79 1,340 1,671 1,460 Fines and forfeitures 162 259 396 344 360 Intergovernmental -state 1,375 2,660 3,631 1,641 1,283 Intergovernmental -other 671 976 629 777 290 Franchise fees 1,294 1,041 1,187 1,622 1,657 Use of money any property 664 752 2,813 924 794 Other revenues 153 1,719 151 326 1,966 Current services charges 3,093 2,715 900 4,184 -Total tax revenues 15,768 19,498 19,211 22,763 19,219 Expenditures: Current: General and intergovernmental services 3,238 3,346 3,806 4,083 3,330 Public safety 3,731 3,423 3,824 4,166 4,206 Public works 2,599 3,501 5,714 4,717 4,700 Community services 1,875 1,210 1,381 1,262 1,424 Community Community development services 1,990 1,847 1,962 2,026 2,450 Capital outlay 1,777 2,908 2,130 4,246 4,060 Debt service: Principal 255 270 280 295 310 Interest and fiscal charges 766 760 774 721 705 Total expenditures 16,231 17,265 19,871 21,515 21,185 Excess of revenues over (under) expenditures (463) 2,233 (660) 1,247 ( 1,966) Other financing sources (uses): Transfers in 2,492 499 3,422 2,241 2,043 Transfers out (2,492) (499) ( 3,422) ( 2,241) ( 2,043) Total other financing sources (uses) -----Net change in fund balances $ (463) $ 2,233 $ (660) $ 1,247 $ (1,966) Debt as a percentage of noncapital expenditures 7.06% 7.17% 5.94% 5.62% 4.87% Source: CAFR Fiscal Year 92 145 CITY OF SARATOGA PROPERTY TAX RATES – DIRECT AND OVERLAPPING GOVERNMENTS LAST FIVE YEARS (ACCRUAL BASIS OF ACCOUNTING) (Property Tax Rates per $100 of Assessed Value) 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 General 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 1.00000 County Retirement Levy 0.03880 0.03880 0.03880 0.03880 0.03880 County Library 0.00240 0.00240 0.00240 0.00240 0.00240 City of Saratoga 0.01484 0.01170 0.00955 0.01130 0.01040 Campbell School District 0.05290 0.05120 0.05080 0.04750 0.05240 Cupertino Elementary School District 0.03600 0.03500 0.02890 0.03370 0.03060 Moreland Elementary School District 0.06120 0.05610 0.05560 0.05690 0.05650 Saratoga School District 0.03610 0.03560 0.03510 0.03630 0.03630 Campbell Union High School District 0.01970 0.02240 0.01980 0.02850 0.02990 Fremont Union High School District 0.02680 0.02600 0.02430 0.02410 0.03390 Los Gatos-Saratoga Joint Union High School District 0.04090 0.03710 0.06510 0.03450 0.03300 Foothill-DeAnza Community College District 0.01290 0.01190 0.03460 0.01130 0.01230 West Valley-Mission Community College District -0.01400 0.01260 0.01180 0.00320 Saratoga Fire District 0.00170 0.00520 0.00490 0.00530 0.00530 Santa Clara Valley Water District -State Water Project 0.00860 0.00690 0.00700 0.00670 0.00590 Santa Clara Valley Water District -Zone W-1 0.00060 0.00090 0.00020 0.00400 0.00020 Source: California Municipal Statistics, Inc. Fiscal Year 93 146 CITY OF SARATOGA ASSESSED VALUE OF TAXABLE PROPERTY LAST FIVE YEARS (amounts expressed in thousands) Fiscal Year Ended Residential Commercial Industrial Vacant Other June 30 Property Property Property Institutional Property Property 2005 $ 7,114,095 $ 1 66,071 $ 8,746 $ 33,509 $ 70,276 $ 35,127 2006 7,883,965 177,149 8,921 38,027 90,611 32,858 2007 8,467,894 187,142 9,099 45,706 107,228 39,536 2008 9,025,628 208,369 9,281 50,590 110,656 49,023 2009 9,605,309 213,951 9,467 51,052 128,898 43,240 Source: 1 HdL Coren & Cone, Santa Clara County Assessor 2007/08 Combined Tax Rolls Other property includes: Irrigated, Dry Farm, Recreational Government, and Miscellaneous 2 California Municipal Statistics, Inc. $‐$2,000,000 $4,000,000 $6,000,000 $8,000,000 $10,000,000 $12,000,000 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Total Assessed Property Unsecured Other Vacant Institutional Industrial Commercial Residential 94 147 • • • • • • • Total2 Total Less: Total Taxable1 Direct Unsecured Assessed Tax Exempt Assessed Tax Property Property Real Property Value Rate $ 42,965 $ 7,470,789 $ (76,932) $ 7,393,857 1.0560 46,874 8,278,405 (133,951) 8,144,454 1.0529 39,764 8,896,369 (140,859) 8,755,510 1.0508 35,775 9,489,322 (159,369) 9,329,953 1.0525 43,933 10,095,850 (161,488) 9,934,362 1.0516 95 148 CITY OF SARATOGA PRINCIPAL PROPERTY TAXPAYERS CURRENT YEAR AND FOUR YEARS AGO JUNE 30, 2009 (amounts expressed in thousands) % of Total % of Total Taxable Taxable Taxable Taxable Assessed Assessed Assessed Assessed Taxpayer Value Rank Value Value Rank Value Cupertino Village Associates, LLC $ 34,205 1 0.34% $ 16,640 2 0.23% Quito Village Group, LLC 18,012 2 0.18% John M. & Abby J. Sobrato 17,297 3 0.17% Gregpenn Properties, LLC 16,970 4 0.17% David L. House 15,802 5 0.16% 8,872 9 0.12% San Jose Water Works 13,190 6 0.13% 9,904 4 0.13% Stephen L. Luczo 10,608 7 0.11% David J. & Terri E. Morrison 10,395 8 0.10% 9,606 5 0.13% Argonaut Associates, LLV 10,304 9 0.10% 11,427 3 0.15% Ashok Krishnamurthi 10,234 10 0.10% David C. & Roxanne N. Petterschmidt 9,173 7 0.12% Saratoga Office Center Partners, LLC 19,300 1 0.26% Deloise A. Jordan 9,020 8 0.12% Public Storage Props IX Inc 8,530 10 0.12% Assessed Value $9 ,934,362 $7 ,393,858 1 Earliest information available Source: California Municipal Statistics, Inc. 2009 20051 96 149 CITY OF SARATOGA PROPERTY TAX LEVIES AND COLLECTIONS LAST FIVE YEARS Fiscal Year Total Tax Collections in Ended Levy for Subsequent June 30 Fiscal Year Amount Percentage Years Amount Percentage 2005 $ 4 ,972,875 $ 4,839,668 97.3% $ 133,207 $ 4,972,875 100.0% 2006 5,243,038 5,112,766 97.5% 130,272 5,243,038 100.0% 2007 6,032,558 6,040,230 100.1% (7,672) 6,032,558 100.0% 2008 8,108,364 8,106,743 100.0% 3,621 8,110,364 100.0% 2009 8,332,184 8,335,805 100.0% -8,335,805 100.0% Source: City of Saratoga Note: Information on this schedule is not provided from the County of Santa Clara. An estimate has been used for the total tax levy for the fiscal year based upon collections of prior year property taxes in the next fiscal year. Collected within the Fiscal Year of the Levy Total Collections to Date 97 150 CITY OF SARATOGA RATIOS OF OUTSTANDING DEBT BY TYPE LAST FIVE YEARS (amounts expressed in thousands, except per capita amounts) 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Governmental activities General obligation bonds $ 14,440 $ 14,170 $ 13,890 $ 13,595 $ 13,285 Total primary government $ 14,440 $ 14,170 $ 13,890 $ 13,595 $ 13,285 Percentage of Personal Income1 0.00% 0.00% 0.00% n/a n/a Per capita2 468 460 443 430 419 Source: CAFR 1Bureau of Economic Analysis -personal income information only available through 2007 San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara region 2Population information from California State Controller's Office Fiscal Year 98 151 CITY OF SARATOGA RATIOS OF GENERAL BONDED DEBT OUTSTANDING LAST FIVE YEARS (amounts expressed in thousands, except per capita amounts) 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 General obligation bonds $ 14,440 $ 14,170 $ 13,890 $ 13,595 $ 13,285 Less: Amount available in debt service fund (855) (865) (747) (854) (926) Total primary government $ 13,585 $ 13,305 $ 13,143 $ 12,741 $ 12,359 Percentage of actual taxable value of property 0.18% 0.16% 0.15% 0.14% 0.12% Per capita1 440 431 419 403 390 Source: CAFR 1Population information from California State Controller's Office Fiscal Year 99 152 CITY OF SARATOGA DIRECT AND OVERLAPPING GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES DEBT (amounts expressed in thousands) Estimated Estimated Share of Debt Percentage Overlapping Outstanding Applicable1 Debt Direct and Overlapping Tax and Assessment Debt: Santa Clara County $ 350,000 3.667% $ 12,835 Santa Clara Valley Water District, Zone W-1 1,390 3.920% 54 Foothill-De Anza Community College District 482,349 1.767% 8,523 West Valley Community College District 215,335 11.619% 25,020 Campbell Union High School District 139,915 5.514% 7,715 Fremont Union High School District 208,080 3.781% 7,868 Los Gatos-Saratoga Joint Union High School District 62,200 41.093% 25,560 Campbell Union School District 101,400 6.861% 6,957 Cupertino Union School District 124,159 6.306% 7,829 Moreland School District 71,029 12.788% 9,083 Saratoga Union School District 51,088 86.363% 44,121 Saratoga Fire Protection District 5,249 97.631% 5,125 City of Saratoga 13,285 100.000% 13,285 Santa Clara Valley Water District Benefit Assessment 161,485 3.667% 5,922 Total Direct and Overlapping Tax and Assessment Debt 179,897 Overlapping General Fund Debt: Santa Clara County General Fund Obligations 862,655 3.667% $ 31,634 Santa Clara County Pension Obligations 389,175 3.667% 14,271 Santa Clara County Board of Education Certificates of Participation 14,530 3.667% 533 Santa Clara County Vector Control District Certificates of Participation 4,125 3.667% 151 Foothill-De Anza Community College District Certificates of Participation 25,605 1.767% 452 Los Gatos-Saratoga Joint Union High School District Certificates of Participation 10,665 41.093% 4,383 Cupertino Union School District Certificates of Participation 1,215 6.306% 77 Saratoga Union School District Certificates of Participation 6,640 86.363% 5,735 Midpeninsula Open Space Park District General Fund Obligations 116,673 6.382% 7,446 Total Overlapping General Fund Debt 64,682 Combined Total Debt2 $ 2 44,579 1Percentage of overlapping agency's assessed valuation located within boundaries of the city. 2Excludes tax and revenue anticipation notes, enterprise revenue, mortgage revenue and tax allocation bonds and non-bonded capital lease obligations. Source: California Municipal Statistics, Inc. 100 153 CITY OF SARATOGA LEGAL DEBT MARGIN INFORMATION LAST FIVE YEARS (amounts expressed in thousands) 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Debt Limit $ 1,120,618 $ 1,241,761 $ 1,334,455 $ 1,423,398 $ 1,514,378 Total net debt applicable to limit 13,585 13,305 13,143 12,741 12,359 Legal debt margin $ 1,107,033 $ 1,228,456 $ 1,321,312 $ 1,410,657 $ 1,502,019 Total net debt applicable to the limit as a percentage of debt limit 1.21% 1.07% 0.98% 0.90% 0.82% Legal debt margin calculation Assessed value $ 7,393,857 $ 8,144,454 $ 8,755,510 $ 9,329,953 $ 9,934,362 Add back: exempt real property 76,932 133,951 140,859 159,369 161,488 Total assessed value $ 7,470,789 $ 8,278,405 $ 8,896,369 $ 9,489,322 $ 10,095,850 Debt limit (15% of total assessed value) $ 1,120,618 $ 1,241,761 $ 1,334,455 $ 1,423,398 $ 1,514,378 Debt applicable to limit: General obligation bonds $ 14,440 $ 14,170 $ 13,890 $ 13,595 $ 13,285 Less: Amount available in debt service fund (855) (865) (747) (854) (926) Total net debt applicable to limit $ 13,585 $ 13,305 $ 13,143 $ 12,741 $ 12,359 Legal debt margin $ 1,107,033 $ 1,228,456 $ 1,321,312 $ 1,410,657 $ 1,502,019 Source: CAFR Fiscal Year 101 154 CITY OF SARATOGA DEMOGRAPHIC AND ECONOMIC STATISTICS LAST FIVE YEARS Personal Per Capita Fiscal City Income Personal Labor Unemployment Year Population1 (in millions)2 Income2 Force3 Rate3 2005 30,850 8 9,615 5 1,418 1 2,600 2.5% 2006 30,835 9 8,252 5 5,754 1 2,700 2.1% 2007 31,352 105,999 5 9,338 1 2,900 2.3% 2008 31,592 n/a n/a 13,100 3.2% 2009 31,679 n/a n/a 13,300 6.0% Source: 1Popluaton information from California State Controller's Office 2Bureau of Economic Analysis -San Jose-Sunnyvale-Santa Clara region 3State of California -Employment Development Department 10,000 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 35,000 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Labor Force vs. Population Population Labor Force 102 155 • • • • • CITY OF SARATOGA PRINCIPAL EMPLOYERS CURRENT YEAR AND FOUR YEARS AGO AT JUNE 30, 2009 Percentage Percentage of Total City of Total City Employer Employees Rank Employment Employees Rank Employment Gene's Fine Foods 8 5 1 0.68% 8 5 1 1.39% Safeway 6 5 2 0.52% 6 5 2 1.06% Saratoga Country Club 65 3 0.52% 6 5 3 1.06% Windermere SVP 27 4 0.22% 2 7 5 0.44% Longs Drug 2 0 5 0.16% 2 0 6 0.33% Classic Car Wash 20 6 0.16% 2 0 7 0.33% Harmonie European Day Spa 20 7 0.16% 2 0 8 0.33% Hinshaw, Draa & Marsh 2 0 8 0.16% 2 0 9 0.33% Jakes of Saratoga 20 9 0.16% Bella Saratoga 18 10 0.14% 2 0 10 0.33% 24 Hour Fitness 1 7 0.14% 3 0 4 0.49% Total City Employment2 1 2,500 6,129 1 Earliest information available 2State of California -Employment Development Department Source: City of Saratoga 2009 20051 103 156 CITY OF SARATOGA FULL-TIME EQUIVALENT CITY GOVERNMENT EMPLOYEES BY FUNCTION LAST FIVE FISCAL YEARS 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Function General government 12.65 10.75 11.00 13.00 12.00 Public works 20.75 20.75 21.75 22.75 21.75 Community development 14.00 13.00 14.00 14.00 14.00 Parks and recreation 10.35 10.35 10.60 10.60 10.60 Total 57.75 54.85 57.35 60.35 58.35 Source: City of Saratoga Budget Document Fiscal Year ‐10.00 20.00 30.00 40.00 50.00 60.00 70.00 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Full‐Time Equivalents Parks & Rec Comm Development Public works General gov't 104 157 • • • • CITY OF SARATOGA OPERATING INDICATORS BY FUNCTION LAST FIVE FISCAL YEARS 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Function Public safety Part 1 crimes1 463 426 425 381 282 Total incidents 42,011 40,567 39,663 41,243 41,384 Police reports 1,767 1,659 1,767 1,941 1,949 Public Works Street resurfacing (miles) N/A 5 14 N/A 6 Street lights repaired 2 3 3 12 25 Potholes filled (sq. ft.) N/A 5,000 5,000 7,000 10,000 Community Development Total permit valuation ($000) 74,668 94,485 69,935 7 0,442 6 1,117 Parks and Recreation Classes, trips (enrollment) community events 5 ,604 5,712 4,817 4,782 4,698 Adult Exercise (e.g. basketball, softball) 272 312 285 362 515 Sports programs (e.g. basketball, softball) 470 473 515 591 459 Child care programs (enrollment) 200 163 159 225 171 Day/summer camps (enrollment) 301 287 205 242 225 Teen/youth council (enrollment) 2,506 3,798 2,221 94 419 Senior center (enrollment/attendance days) 22,312 22,591 18,515 17,826 16,325 1Part 1 Crimes are the following as reported to DOJ: homicide, rape, robbery, burglary, assault, theft, auto theft, and arson. Source: City of Saratoga various records Fiscal Year 105 158 CITY OF SARATOGA CAPITAL ASSET STATISTICS BY FUNCTION LAST FIVE FISCAL YEARS 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 Function Public safety Police Station 1 1 ---Fire Station Saratoga Fire District 1 1 1 1 1 Central Fire District 1 1 1 1 1 Public Works Street Miles -Private 13 13 13 13 13 Street Miles -Public 137 137 137 137 140 West Valley Sanitation District Number of Connections 8,601 8,621 8,651 8,651 8,683 Length of Sewer Lines 1 20 120 127 127 127 Cupertino Valley Sanitation District Number of Connections 2,118 2,118 2,915 2,927 2,938 Length of Sewer Lines 3 6 36 36 36 36.5 Parks and Recreation Parks Acreage 81 81 81 81 84 Parks 15 15 15 15 15 Source: City of Saratoga various records Fiscal Year 106 159 Page 1 of 2 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: December 16, 2009 AGENDA ITEM: DEPARTMENT: Public Works CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: John Cherbone DIRECTOR: John Cherbone Public Works Director SUBJECT: Electrical, Gas and Telephone Service Construction for Friendship Hall, Saratoga Prospect Center – Notice of Completion RECOMMENDED ACTION: Move to accept the Electrical, Gas and Telephone Service Construction Project as complete and authorize staff to record the Notice of Completion. REPORT SUMMARY: All work on the electrical, gas and telephone service construction has been completed by the City’s contractor, Weber Tractor Service of Redwood City. The work has been inspected and approved by City inspectors and the utility companies. The scope of work consisted of supplying all labor, equipment and materials to install required utility connections for the Friendship Hall at the Saratoga Prospect Center located at 19848 Prospect Road. It is therefore recommended that the Council accept the project as complete. Further, it is recommended that the Council authorize staff to record the attached Notice of Completion for the construction contract. FISCAL IMPACTS: The adopted budget contains sufficient funds to cover the entire cost of the construction contract in the amount of $71,249. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: The project would not be accepted as complete and staff would notify the contractor of any additional work required by the City Council before the project would be accepted as complete. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: 160 Page 2 of 2 None in addition to the above. FOLLOW UP ACTION: Staff will record the Notice of Completion for the construction contract. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Nothing additional. ATTACHMENTS: Notice of Completion. 161 Recording requested by, And to be returned to: City of Saratoga City Clerk 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 NOTICE OF COMPLETION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the work agreed and performed under the contract mentioned below between the City of Saratoga, a municipal corporation, whose address is 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA 95070, as Owner of property or property rights, and the Contractor mentioned below, on property of the Owner, was accepted as complete by the Owner on or around the 10th day of November, 2009. Contract Number: N/A Contract Date: January 15, 2009 Contractor’s Name: Weber Tractor Service Contractor’s Address: 867 2nd Avenue, Redwood City, CA 94063 Description ofWork: Electrical, Gas and Telephone Service for Fellowship (Friendship) Hall, 19848 Prospect Road Notice is given in accordance with the provisions of Section 3093 of the Civil Code of the State of California. The undersigned certifies that he is an officer of the City of Saratoga, that he has read the foregoing Notice of Acceptance of Completion and knows the contents thereof; and that the same is true of his own knowledge, except as to those matters which are therein stated on the information or belief, as to those matters the he believes to be true. I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at the City of Saratoga, County of Santa Clara, State of California on___________________, 20 . CITY OF SARATOGA BY:____________________________ ATTEST:____________________________ Dave Anderson Ann Sullivan, City Clerk CityManager Gov. Code 40814 162 Page 1 of 2 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: December 16, 2009 AGENDA ITEM: DEPARTMENT: Public Works CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: Iveta Harvancik DIRECTOR: John Cherbone Senior Engineer SUBJECT: Offer to Dedicate Trail Easement RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Approve Offer to Dedicate Trail Easement on the property located at 22000 Via Regina (APN 503-69-025 old, 503-69-040 new). 2. Adopt Resolution Accepting Offer to Dedicate Trail Easement. REPORT SUMMARY: In July 2008 the Planning Commission approved a Design Review Application No. PDR 07-0020 to construct a new two-story home on a property located at 22000 Via Regina owned by Mairose Family Trust. One of the conditions of approval required the owner to dedicate a pedestrian and equestrian trail easement along the southern property line and along the driveway. The Pedestrian, Equestrian, and Bicycle Trails Advisory Committee (PEBTAC) fully supports the easement dedication and acceptance. In addition, the trail is shown as a Proposed City Trail in the Open Space and Conservation Element of the City of Saratoga General Plan. It is therefore recommended that the Council approves the attached Offer to Dedicate Trail Easement and adopts the Resolution Accepting Offer to Dedicate Trail Easement. FISCAL IMPACTS: There is no cost associated with accepting the attached Offer to Dedicate Trail Easement. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: The Offer to Dedicate Trail Easement will not be accepted at this time. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: 163 Page 2 of 2 None in addition to the above. FOLLOW UP ACTION: The Offer to Dedicate Trail Easement will be recorded by the City Clerk. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Nothing additional. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Offer to dedicate trail easement with exhibits. 2. Resolution accepting offer to dedicate trail easement. 3. Vicinity Map. 164 165 RECORDING REQUESTED BY: City of Saratoga WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: City Clerk City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 OFFER TO DEDICATE TRAIL EASEMENT For valuable consideration, the undersigned owner of the hereinafter described real property ("Owner"), hereby warranting that it constitutes the sole owner thereof, for itself, its heirs, successors and assigns, hereby offers to dedicate to the City of Saratoga, a Municipal Corporation ("City") consistent with the conditions, rights, and obligations set forth below, (1) a non-exclusive, public, pedestrian and equestrian trail easement upon, under, over, and across that certain real property situated in the County of Santa Clara, State of California more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto ("Trail Easement") the purpose of which is to assist in the connection of the City's public trail system and (2) the right of entry described below over the real property situated in the County of Santa Clara, State of California more particularly described in Exhibit "B" attached hereto ("Property") . 1. OFFER BINDING ON SUCCESSORS IN INTEREST. This Agreement affects the title or possession of the properties described in Exhibits A and B. All the terms, covenants and conditions of this Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the property described in Exhibits A and B and shall continue as a servitude running in perpetuity. The terms "Owner" and "City," wherever used herein, and any pronouns used in place thereof, shall include, respectively, the above-named Owner and City's successors and assigns. Without limiting the generality ofthe foregoing, the terms of this offer of dedication shall apply separately to each parcel and the owner of each parcel shall succeed to the obligations imposed on Owner by this Agreement with respect to each such parcel. 2. RIGHT OF ENTRY ON OWNER'S PROPERTY. Owner shall permit City reasonable right of entry over Owner's property to the easement area to address health and safety issues and maintenance of the trail. 3. CITY OBLIGATIONS. The trail shall be maintained and appropriate signage installed to discourage public access to Owner's remaining lands. City shall have the right to temporarily close Trail Easement Offer of Dedication I. 166 the trail at any time that City detennines that the closure is warranted in order to protect health or safety of the public or residents or animals on the Property including, but not limited to, at times of high fire danger, closures of connecting County trails, or risk of landslide. 4. CONDITION OF EASEMENT AREA. The Trail Easement is to be kept open and free from any modifications or improvements or uses that would interfere with the uses contemplated by this Easement. Improvements built by Grantee pursuant to this agreement shall be maintained by Grantee. Any improvements built by Grantor shall be maintained by Grantor. 5. CONTROLLING LAW. The interpretation of this Easement shall be governed by the laws of the State of California. 6. NOTICES. Any notices required by this Agreement or correspondence between the parties shall be addressed as follows, unless the parties shall provide written notice of a change: Owner:Roger and Wendy Mairose 22000 Via Regina Saratoga, CA 95070 City: John Cherbone, Public Works Director City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 (408) 868-1200 With a copy to (which copy shall not constitute notice): City Clerk City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 The undersigned understands that the within offer can only be accepted by resolution of the City Coun,cil of the City of Saratoga and recordation of this instrument shall not and will not constitute acceptance of the within offer to dedicate. Trail Easement Offer of Dedication 2. 167 OWNER The Mairose Family Trust Agreement Dated February 27, 1989, as amended B~,it~ By: -Ldl,,,dftj'-ldLtY24Iw,'-aJ Wendy . Mairose, Trustee (All signatures must be acknowledged before a Notary Public -attach either corporate, individual or partnership notary form.) 3 168 STATE OF CALIFORNIA } COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA } s.s. On 1.-(701, before me" D,qv.~ L. J",-s , a Notary Public, personally appearU ROGER F. MAIROSE and WENDY W. MAIROSE, who proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence to be the person(s) whose name(s) is/are subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that he/she/they executed the same in hislher/their authorized capacity(ies), and that by hislher/their signature( s) on the instrument the person(s), or the entity(ies) upon behalf of which the person(s) acted, executed the instrument. I certifY under PENALTY OF PERJURY under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing paragraph is true and correct. WITNESS my hand (Seal): 169 Exhibit "A" Legal Description and Plat Plan of the Pedestrian Equestrian Trail Easement 170 EXHIBIT A ROGER F. MAIROSE & WENDY W. MAIROSE FAMILY TRUST (NAME OF GRANTOR) grants to the City of Saratoga, a political subdivision of the State of California, for a Equestrian Path purpcses a Right-of-way and Easement in, over, under, upon and across all that real property situated in the County of Santa Clara, State of California, described as follows: Being a portion of that certain parcel ofland described in a Grant Deed from the rIled for record on October 10, 2008 in Document No. 20032996, Santa Clara County Records, being a portion of the Sections 2, Township 8 South, Range 2 West and & Sections 35, Township 7 South, Range 2, Mount Diablo Base & Meridian, and more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING atthe southwestern most comer ofthe Lands of Roger F. Mairose & Wendy W. Mairose Family Trust, described in a Grant Deed from the rIled for record on October 10,2008 in Document No. 20032996, Santa Clara County Records, thence along the sontherly lines of said lands of Mairose Family Trust tlte following 2 courses and distances: 1. N 39°40'30" E, a distance of326.48'; thence 2. N 76°15'30" E, a distance of 262.99'; thence along the easterly line of said lands ofMairose Family Trust, N 36°00'10" W, a distance of21.62'; thence thronglt said lands of Mairose Family Trust the following 4 courses and distances: 1. S 76°15'30" W, a distance of 254.80' to the point of curvature of a tangent curve, 2. Concave to the Sontheast, having a radius of 20.00' and a central angle of36°36'15"; tltence southwesterly along said curve, a distance of 12.78'; thence 3. S 39°40'30" W, a distance of 262.52'; thence 4. N 82°18'31" W, a distance of 99.54', thence along the southwestern most line of said lands of Mairose Family Trust, S 44°10'51" E, a distance of 105.03' to the POINT OF BEGINNING. Containing 0.33 acres or 14,424 square feet ofland more or less. This description was prepared from record information only and does not reflect data based on a field survey. Attached hereto is a plat labeled Exhibit "B" and by by tltis reference made a part thereof. Description prepared on November 30th, 2009. END OF DESCRIPTION CHECKED FOR ACCURACY MUN KYU LEE AME OF CIVIL ENGINEER OR LAND SURVEYOR C-25881 (EXP 12-31-09) 11-30-09 Date IN WITNESS WHEREOF, tile said Owner(s) lias executed tllis Deed on {dr:t~~-~~~- 171 " "'q,< t-'«,>, -;,. ..,:>~ <>' .J>~ .I ,;f l ~ , "'9' '" '.\ '\. '\. .\. .> ,/. /' W& <'b "'" ~". 1:0}::j I ,\f1\ 1\0 SIl~·9.\\Ml .!!,/.if: ,f<? ~ -.!6 .,<;;,.~~ ~S<;;,.~· -<o':,.'P'~: s '?Iu" e. \'i 16°~'5 ~6~,99' ,\f1\ 1\0 503.69.\\1;1 '.\ '. <P "~''~\'." ~~ ~+ <'f;>~~ 10", 'X" '&.: "'"'"i b ·-.........."'If.j "~ 'J .//~<;;,.S ,,, 'IJ'IJ 'l>-v~e \\ )<: A ,<;;,.0 \)', I>.~b. ",0-'\"" ./v s;) ~Oj .. o~ -$> ~ • r§!>~' r:r ~":> .$' :,,;0 ~:"; ~" " E X H I BIT "B" PLAT TO ACCOMPANY LEGAL DESCRIPTION FOR AN AREA TO BE DEDICATED FORAN EQUESTRIAN EASEMENT IN THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA DATE: 11-30-09 STATE OF CALIFORNIA SCALE: 1" = 60' ILK ASSOCIATES SURVEYORS/ENGINEERS 13 CEDAR LmIE WIOSE CA, 95121 (408) 129·3134 172 Exhibit "B" Legal Description of Owner's Property 173 E'C~~';;., !,!o.: OB-98204317-SL --' Locate No.: CAm7743-7743-29B2-009B204317 'Title No.: OB-98204317-LD EXHIBIT" n If THELAND REFERRED TO HEREIN BELOW IS SITUATED IN THE CITY OF SARATOGA, COUN1Y OF SANTA CLARA STATE OF CALIFORNIA, AND IS DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: ' PARCEL ONE: Beginning at the Southwesterly corner of land as shown on the Record of Survey map recorded in Book 740 of Maps at page 38 Santa CJara County Records, said point is on the Northwesterly boundary line of Via Regina' thence South 82° 18' 30" East a length of 67.77 feet; thence North 39° 42' 30" East a length of 293.44 feet; thence N~rth 34° 03' West a length of 395.33 feet to the section line between Section 35, Township 7 South, Range 2 West and Section 2, Township 8 South, Range 2 West, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian; thence along ,said Section North 89° 32' 20" East a length of 414.26 feet; thence South 03° 28' 26" East a length of 203.17 feet; thence South 36° 00' 10" East a length of 131.43 feet; thence South 76° 15' 30" West a length of 262.99 feet; thence South 39° 40' 30" West a length of 326.48 feet to said Northwesterly limit of Via Regina; thence along Via Regina North 44° 10' 51" West a length of 105.03 feet to the point of beginning. Said land was created by and shqwn as Adjusted Parcel 503-69-25, in that certain Certificate of City Surveyor for Lot Line Adjustment, which recorded June 27, 2007 as Instrument No. 19484442 of Official Records, Santa Clara County Records. PARCEL TWO: A non-exclusive easements for the purpose of ingress and egress and for the installation and maintenance of public utilities and for the purpose of installation and maintenance of power lines, telephone line, water pipe line, gas pipe lines and sewer lines, over those strips of land described as follows: A) Beginning at an iron pipe at the Easternmost corner of the 12.369 acre tract of land described in the deed to M.G. Milsted, et ux, dated July 22, 1947 and recorded in Book 1489 of Official Records, page 135, and running thence Northwesterly along along the Northeasterly lines of said 12.369 acre tract of land the following courses and distances: N. 19° 50' 32" W. 174.29 feet to an iron pipe; N. 49° 56' 40"'W. 147.83 feet to an iron pipe; N. 50° OS' 19" W. 281.07 feet to an iron pipe; N. 47° 26' 48" W. 310.55 feet to an iron pipe; and N. 44°, 17' 36" W. 213.65 feet to an iron pipe; thence leaving the Northeasterly'boundary of said 12.369 acre tract of land and running S. 82° 18' 30" E. 117.30 feet; thence S. 36° 11' 30" E. 259.23 feet to an iron pipe; thence S. 50° 29' 30" E. 109.12 feet to an iron pipe thence S. 68° 08' 30" E. 180.54 feet to an iron pipe; thence S. 31 ° 23' 45" E. 101.84 feet to an iron pipe; thence S. 51° 35' 45" E. 236.08 feet to an iron pipe; thence S. 10° 06' 30" E. 129.89, feet to an iron pipe; thence S. 28° 59' 30" E. 90.76 feet to an iron pipe; thence West 60.00 feet to the point of beginning. B) A strip of land 60 feet in Width, the center line of which is described as follows: Beginning at an iron pipe in the center line of of Pierce Road, at the Southernmost corner of that certain 62.663 acre tract of land described as Parcell in the deed from George G. Loyst, et ai, to Alfred S. Evans, dated July 17, 1944 and recorded August 8, 1944 in Book 1217 of Official Records, page 110, Santa Clara County Records; running thence along said center line of Pierce Road the following courses and distances: N. 36° 35' E. 35.94 feet to an iron pipe; thence N. 51 0 35' E. 203.94 feet to an iron pipe; N. 32° OS' E. 315.48 feet to an iron pipe; and N. 59° 15' E. 118.75 feet to an iron pipe set at the true point of beginning of this description; thence leaving said center line of Pierce Road and running the following courses and distances: N. 80° 57' W. 75.98 feet, S. 59° 15' W. 114.44 feet; S. 32° OS' W. 86.28 feet; S. 32° 46' 15" W. 157.48 feet; S. 5]0 42' 45" W. 68.89 feet; thence on a curve to the right having a radius of 108.12 feet, through an angle of 119° 09' 45" for a distance of 224.86 feet; thence N. 3°07' 30" W. 259.07 feet; N. 18°,36' 30" E. 195.67 feet,and North 158.47 feetto a point which bears East 30.00 feet from an iron pipe set at the Northernmost corner of that certain 2.993 acre tract of land described in the deed from Alfred S. Evans, et UX, to 174 ·i· Meredith Roseborough, et ux, dated January 13, 1948 and recorded January 15, 1948 in Book 1553 of Official Records, page 91. PARCEL THREE: An easement for storm drainage, including the right to convey rain or surface water, subsurface water, condensate, cooling water or other similar discharges, but not sewage, over and across that certain parcel of land described as follows: Being a portion of Parcel Two as described in the deed to Jianguo Jiang and Qing Wen, Trustees of the Jiang Wen living Trust, filed May 2, 2004, recorded as Document Number 18823913, Official Records of Santa Clara County, situated in the City of Saratoga, state of California, and being more particularly described as follows: BEGINNING at a point on the Southwesterly corner of said Parcel; thence traverse along the Westerly line of said Parcel N 36° 00' 10" W, 30.67 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING; thence traverse along the following four. (4) courses: along the Northeasterly line ofsaid Parcel N 88° 18' 24" W, 50.27 feet; N 01° 41' 36" EI'ro.OO feet; 588° 18' 24" E, 58.00 feet; and Along the Westerly line of said Parcel S 36° 00' 10" E, 12.64 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. Said easement is appurtenant to, and for the benefit of, PARCEL ONE above and was created by that certain Storm Drainage Easement Agreement recorded October 5, 2007 as Instrument No. 19606408, Official Records of Santa Clara County, California. APN: 503-69-040 175 CERTIFICATE OF ACCEPTANCE (GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 27281) This is to certify that the interest in real property conveyed by the deed or grant dated February 17, 2009 from the Mairose Family Trust to the City of Saratoga, a municipality, has been accepted by the Saratoga City Council Resolution No. passed and adopted on the 16th day of December, 2009, and the grantee consents to recordation thereofby the City of Saratoga. Dated ______________ _ By __ ~--~~-------------------Ann Sullivan City Clerk, City of Saratoga RECORDING REQUESTED BY: City of Saratoga WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO: City Clerk City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 RESOLUTION NO. ______ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA ACCEPTING OFFER TO DEDICATE TRAIL EASEMENT WHEREAS, the City Planning Commission adopted Resolution No. 08-032 approving Design Review Application No. PDR 07-0020 for a property located at 22000 Via Regina (APN 503-69-025 old; 503-69-040 new) owned by the Mairose Family Trust; and WHEREAS, one of the conditions of the Resolution No. 08-032 requires the owner to dedicate to the City of Saratoga a pedestrian equestrian trail easement along the southern property line and along the flag portion of the parcel; and WHEREAS, the Offer to Dedicate Trail Easement on the property located at 22000 Via Regina was prepared in acceptable form and content; and WHEREAS, the City Council has determined that the acceptance of the Offer to Dedicate Trail Easement would be in the public interest. NOW, THEREFORE, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA hereby: 1. Accepts the Offer to Dedicate Trail Easement as described hereinabove and attached hereto; and 2. Authorizes and directs City Clerk to record the Offer to Dedicate Trail Easement. Passed and adopted on the 16th day of December, 2009 by the CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA by the following vote of the members thereof: 176 AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ______________________ Kathleen King, Mayor City of Saratoga Attest: _______________________ Ann Sullivan, City Clerk 177 Cocci ard Ct . Quarry Road Vaquero Vi a Ct Regi na Vi sta Rd. Regi na Trail Easement Dedication 22000 Via Regina Legend Potential Trails as Shown in General Plan 22000 Via Regina TRAIL EASEMENT TO BE DEDICATED Trail Easement to be Dedicated Existing City Trails 0 125 250 500 750 1,000 Feet N 178D IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIL 1 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: December 16, 2009 AGENDA ITEM: DEPARTMENT: Community Development CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: Michael Fossati DIRECTOR: John F. Livingstone, AICP SUBJECT: Heritage Resources Inventory Update RECOMMENDED ACTION: Direct staff accordingly REPORT SUMMARY: In January 2009, City Council directed the Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) to prepare an update to the City’s Historic Resources Inventory (the Inventory). The primary purpose of the update was to: • Visit each property on the Inventory to confirm the existence of the resource; • Update the historic documentation for each resource to be compliant with current California historic preservation planning standards. BACKGROUND: Originally created in 1988, the Inventory is an official listing of properties identified by the HPC as having heritage value and character. Historic resources of the City provide special character and cultural depth while providing tangible links to Saratoga’s rich historic and cultural heritage. Each historic structure or property represents an investment that must be preserved. Maintaining and rehabilitating older buildings can result in savings of energy, time, money and resources. There is a growing recognition by community groups and citizens of Saratoga that the City’s historic resources have multiple values and should be retained as a functional part of modern life. This is the reason that the Inventory has increased in number throughout the years. As of 2009, the Inventory included 110 individual properties with 20 of those properties being designated as Saratoga Landmarks. DISCUSSION: As directed by City Council in early 2009, the Inventory (Attachment A) was to be updated by an Architectural Historian (Consultant) with guidance by the HPC. The existing Inventory was out-of-date with properties that could have been demolished or modified in a manner that could potentially affect their historic integrity. The goal was to identify and record the present status of properties on the the Inventory. Through the use of best practices, the Consultant worked with HPC, local historic professionals, and community members to determine the present status of properties on the Inventory. The update was not intended to add any new properties, but rather record the 111 resources currently on file. Along with updating the Inventory, a report 179 2 documenting the history of Saratoga was completed. This report can be used by the existing (and future) HPC and community members as a guide on preserving historical resources within the City. The new inventory records 98 existing properties with 20 designated as Landmark Structures. Thirteen of the previous inventory resources have been demolished and no longer exist. The majority of these projects were approved by the HPC in the mid to late 90’s. A summary of these properties is included as Attachment B. FISCAL IMPACTS: A budget of $25,000 was funded to complete the Heritage Inventory project. The project remained on budget. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: None ALTERNATIVE ACTION: None FOLLOW UP ACTION: None ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Notice of this meeting was properly posted. ATTACHMENTS: A. Heritage Resource Inventory, dated December 2009. B. Summary of properties removed off the list, dated December 2009. C. Resolution of the Heritage Preservation Commission adoption adoption of the Heritage Resource Inventory. 180 Heritage Resources Inventory City of Saratoga, Santa Clara County, California Prepared for Planning Department City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Attn: John Livingstone, Community Development Director Prepared by A R C H I V E S & A R C H I T E C T U R E HERITAGE RESOURCE PARTNERS, LLC PO Box 1332 San José, CA 95109 408.297.2684 www.archivesandarchitecture.com Adopted Dec. 2009 Reso. #HP-09-01 181 Heritage Resources Inventory 2 City of Saratoga Prepared by ARCHIVES & ARCHITECTURE, LLC PUBLICATION CREDITS PRESERVATION PLANNING GUIDELINES AND PUBLICATIONS This report was prepared using the following guidelines and publications: • Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation • Guidelines for Local Surveys: A Basis for Preservation Planning (National Register of Historic Places Bulletin #24) • Saratoga’s Heritage: a Survey of Historic Resources, 1993 ( Saratoga Heritage Preservation Commission) REPORT PREPARATION ARCHIVES & ARCHITECTURE, LLC: Franklin Maggi, Architectural Historian Leslie Dill, Historic Architect and Architectural Historian Charlene Duval, Public Historian Jessica Kusz, Public Historian With contributions to the narrative history by Historian April Halberstadt Photo previous page – 1872 photo of Bank Mills (City of Saratoga Community Development Department) 182 Heritage Resources Inventory 3 City of Saratoga Prepared by ARCHIVES & ARCHITECTURE, LLC TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ............................................................................... ............................................................. 4 Area map .............................................................................................................................. ................. 5 Boundaries of the survey area ............................................................................................................. 6 PLANNING BACKGROUND ....................................................................................................................... 7 Use of the Saratoga Historic Context Statement .............................. ............................................... 8 Methodologies for Surveys and the Development of Context Statements ................................. 8 Past Registration and Survey Efforts ................................................................................................. 9 Preparation of the Context Statement and Inventory Update.................................. ................... 11 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS .......................................................................................................................... 13 HISTORICAL OVERVIEW .......................................................................................................................... 14 Prehistoric Period ...................................................... .............................................................................. 15 Spanish/Mexican (1769-1846) ......................................................................................... .................... 16 Early American 24(1847-1875)............................................................................................................ 19 Horticultural Expansion (1876-1903)................................................................................................... 24 City of Homes (1904-1941) ........................................................... ........................................................ 26 Encroaching Suburbanization (1942-1955) ............................................................................................ 28 Urbanization of the New Municipality (1956 – 1975)........................................................................... 30 HISTORIC THEMES AND ASSOCIATED PROPERTY TYPES ..................... ................................. 34 Commerce ........................................................................................................................................... 34 Transportation and Public Infrastructure ....................................................................................... 36 Religion ....................................................... ......................................................................................... 37 Architecture and Neighborhoods ........................................................................... .......................... 39 PLANNING AND REGULATIONS .......................................................................................................... 54 Determining Architectural Significance .......................................................................................... 54 Saratoga Heritage Landmarks ................................................................ ........................................... 55 California Register of Historical Resources .................................................................................... 56 National Register of Historic Places ................................................................................................ 57 Historic Integrity .................................................... ............................................................................ 59 SOURCES OF INFORMATION ................................................................................................ ................. 60 APPENDIX Saratoga Heritage Resources Inventory 183 Heritage Resources Inventory 4 City of Saratoga Prepared by ARCHIVES & ARCHITECTURE, LLC INTRODUCTION Cultural resource surveys and historic context statements are technical documents developed by communities throughout the United States. These documents provide a comprehensive planning tool for the identification, evaluation, registration, and treatment of historic properties. By developing and maintaining historic resource surveys and historic context studies, local governments are able to implement planning practices addressing historical and cultural resources, practices that have century-old roots in the United States. Preservation of the nation’s heritage has long been part of the national purpose. Since 1966, when Congress called upon the Secretary of the Interior to give maximum encouragement to state governments to the development of statewide historic preservation activities, the National Park Service (NPS) has developed methodologies for survey planning and preservation programs that are outlined outlined in a number of published guidelines, primarily within the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Archeology and Historic Preservation. Cities such as Saratoga rely on these federal standards for preservation planning. Surveys, and their resulting resource inventories, provide a basis for sensitive and effective planning decisions. Saratoga’s surveys and inventories provide documentation that allows informed assessments of its built environment within the development review processes. With the information provided in these documents, Saratoga planners and policy makers can understand the history of the city in a variety of ways, and Saratoga’s citizens can preserve and celebrate significant buildings that convey the past. The current Saratoga Heritage Resources Inventory and its 1993 Survey of Historic Resources compile a variety of types of research, including historical patterns of development, identification of diverse community values associated with the built environment, and comprehensive evaluations of individual resources. The community now known as Saratoga originated in California’s Early American period just after the beginning of the war between the United States and Mexico. In 1847, William Campbell founded a mill and established a lumbering community called Campbell’s Gap just below what is now known as Long Bridge located above Saratoga Village along Highway 9. Following California’s admittance as a state in September of 1850, Martin and Hannah McCarty first platted a town where Saratoga Village sits today. A third community was started later, midway between the two, when Charles Maclay founded Maclaytown, or Bank Mills, near the entrance to today’s Hakone Gardens on Highway 9. McCartysville would endure the longest, and become the framework for Saratoga, so named in the 1860s. Saratoga is one of the earliest non-indigenous communities established in the Santa Clara Valley. It was a hub of California’s early booming lumbering industry, became a focus of the local emerging horticultural development of the twentieth century, and then grew into a suburban community -incorporating in 1956. This historic context statement places the physical development of Saratoga within the larger framework of Saratoga’s history. By investigating the significant aspects and broad patterns of historical development, it is then possible to identify the types of historic properties that represent important historic trends. With a better understanding of the roots of community development, planning for future change can occur that will facilitate Saratoga’s the long-term vitality and sustainability. 184 Heritage Resources Inventory 5 City of Saratoga Prepared by ARCHIVES & ARCHITECTURE, LLC Area Map USGS San José West, Cupertino, Castle Rock, and Los Gatos composite, 1980 (not to scale) 185 i.; 100l," M.p created with TOIDl tl ~2003 National Geographi; (www.nationa!geographi; .comitopo) Heritage Resources Inventory 6 City of Saratoga Prepared by ARCHIVES & ARCHITECTURE, LLC Boundaries of the Survey Area The survey area consists of the land within the jurisdictional boundaries of the City of Saratoga, Santa Clara County, California, established formally by incorporation in 1956, and as subsequently expanded. The city consists of 12.11 square miles, at an average level of sea level of 410 feet (125 meters). Coordinates are: WGS84 37degrees 16’ 21”N, 122 degrees 1’10”W 37.2725, -122.019444 UTM 10S 586935 4125553 186 _ .. _ .. _ .. , \1 !1c · . P-r""" 'lood . ..1:-' --t--\~'--...J...-y;::r,( .. . _ •. J ...... . I .. .-.. J \ , ! ... I I ! ! \ , !, < • , ~ \ .. ---.. -.. -.-.. ~~ .. -.·-.·-·L-·:1/~>0 Heritage Resources Inventory 7 City of Saratoga Prepared by ARCHIVES & ARCHITECTURE, LLC PLANNING BACKGROUND Use of the Saratoga Historic Context Statement It is the intention that this citywide historic context statement be used by the City of Saratoga and its citizens as a part of the planning program when considering future projects and entitlements involving historic properties. The study will serve a foundation for future reconnaissance-level surveys, intensive-level studies, Inventory listings, Landmark Designations, and Historic Property Contracts, coordinated within the City of Saratoga historic preservation program. Methodologies for Surveys and the Development of Historic Context Statements The methods for conducting surveys and the development of historic context statements are specified in National Register Bulletin 24, Guidelines for Local Surveys: a Basis for Preservation Planning. The Secretary of the Interior, through the National Park Service, has developed the National Register program and and prepared a number of associated bulletins that address the survey and registration of the full range of cultural resources that community planners may encounter. Surveys should be prepared to be consistent with the Secretary of Interiors Standards for Identification. The standards provide a procedural baseline as follows: • Standard I. Identification of historic properties is undertaken to the degree required to make decisions. • Standard II. Results of identification activities are integrated into the preservation planning process. • Standard III. Identification activities include explicit procedures for record-keeping and information distribution. Historic resource surveys link resources to their associated historic contexts. To evaluate buildings, structures, objects, sites and districts for historical significance, a statement of context must first be defined. An historic context statement establishes the background chronology and themes of a specified area. In doing so, it describes the significant significant characteristics and patterns of that area’s history and cultural development. This Statement of Historic Context briefly summarizes the history of Saratoga within specific historic periods and themes that are relevant to understanding the geographical area and the goals of the survey. A preliminary mapping of the area based on recorded and unrecorded surveys, tracts, and subdivisions was done to better understand the larger patterns of development. The historic period of the context statement begins in 1769, when Euro-Americans first entered the region with the intent of establishing permanent settlement. Occupation of central California by indigenous peoples is believed to have begun over 10,000 years ago, with permanent settlements known to have occurred over 187 Heritage Resources Inventory 8 City of Saratoga Prepared by ARCHIVES & ARCHITECTURE, LLC 5,000 years ago, but this historic context statement does not contain an overview of the prehistoric past. Development planning that involves archaeological resources must conform to a separate set of methodologies for investigation, identification, recordation and treatment. The methodology for creating a historic context statement consists of five steps: • Identify the concept, relevant time period and geographical limits of the survey area. • Review available contemporary information such as past surveys and other formally recorded information on file within local, state and national inventories of historic properties. • Perform original research using available primary and secondary sources of information. • Synthesize the historical information gathered into a written narrative. • Define existing property types within the survey area and group them based on shared physical and/or associative characteristics. These property types should be understood by character-defining features associated with extant resources, patterns of development, and a statement of current conditions and the levels of integrity necessary for a resource to be a contributor to a significant historic pattern of development. Historic context surveys are not intended to result in static planning documents, but should evolve as additional information is acquired by planning agencies that might affect future historical evaluations of properties within their jurisdiction. The development of a historic context statement must therefore include a description of adopted community preservation goals and strategies, as well as defining what individual property research might be necessary in the future to better evaluate specific development proposals. The historic context statement is the foundation for decision-making regarding the planning, identification, evaluation, registration and treatment of historic properties. The criteria for historical significance are the criteria of the National Register of Historic Places, the California Register of Historical Resources, and the City of Saratoga Criteria for historic landmark, lane, and district designation. The California State Historical Resources Commission has identified nine general themes covering the entire range of California's diverse cultural heritage. These themes are: Aboriginal, Architecture, Arts/Leisure, Economic/Industrial, Exploration/Settlement, Government, Military, Religion, and Social/Education. In 2006 a Comprehensive Statewide Historic Preservation Plan for California, 2006-2010 (Plan) was adopted that describes the vision for California for historic preservation. The Plan identifies new preservation partners, considers all cultural resources, and provides goals and objectives for future preservation planning. Within this Plan, goals were adopted to understand better the historic and cultural property types that had been little recognized in the past. These included post-World War II architecture and suburban development, Cold War era structures, cultural landscapes and traditional cultural properties, and the inclusion of cultural properties associated with the diverse communities that are found throughout the state. The Comprehensive Statewide Historic Preservation Plan for California, 2006-2010, can be viewed at: http://www.ohp.parks.ca.gov/pages/1069/files/State%20Plan-fd.pdf 188 Heritage Resources Inventory 9 City of Saratoga Prepared by ARCHIVES & ARCHITECTURE, LLC Using these broad California themes as a guide, this historic context statement proposes significance and interpretive themes for the City of Saratoga. Six distinct themes are identified. These themes are discussed in a subsequent section, but for the purposes of this statement, the focus has been on Architecture and Neighborhoods. Past Registration and Survey Efforts Saratoga was designated as California Historical Landmark #435 on April 11, 1949. Its designation came as one of the last of 474 historical landmarks registered by the California State Chamber of Commerce as a part of a program that was enabled by state legislation in 1931. That legislation gave California’s Department of Natural Resources the task “to register and mark buildings of historical interest or landmarks.” The department director assigned that duty to the California Chamber of Commerce. Saratoga’s effort to become a state landmark was spearheaded by two citizens. The two local historians were Florence Cunningham and Fr. William Abeloe, a Jesuit priest at Santa Clara University who had grown up in Saratoga. The landmark application and a petition were displayed at a local drug store. The petition was signed by several dozen local citizens, and was then forwarded to the California Chamber of Commerce office in San Francisco. A packet of information accompanied the petition and the application; the documentation consisted primarily of weekly columns on local history written by Florence Cunningham taken from the local newspaper. The designation of Saratoga as a State Historic Landmark differed from current designations in two important ways. First, the Saratoga application designated the entire town, problematic even in those days, because Saratoga was unincorporated and had no specific boundaries. Other California landmark nominations were limited to the actual site or specific structure. And second, nearly all of the other resources designated were limited to a single site; Saratoga included multiple structures on many properties. The formal designation of Saratoga came following the centennial of the discovery of gold in California. Shortly after Saratoga’s designation, in May of 1949, Governor Earl Warren created the California Historical Landmarks Advisory Commission which took over the statewide registration program. Formal registration criteria were adopted thirteen years later, and by 1974 the Commission had evolved into the present-day California State Historical Resources Commission. By the early 1960s, there was a growing awareness of the importance of America’s historical and cultural landscape and the wanton destruction of beloved buildings, many by urban redevelopment projects. Many citizens were outraged at the destruction of the Pennsylvania Station in New York and Jacqueline Kennedy, wife of the President, walked a picket line to protest demolition. A new age of awareness of our collective historic past was dawning throughout the nation. In Saratoga, local citizens formed the Saratoga Historical Foundation in 1964. For years, promotion of Saratoga’s cultural heritage had been an activity engaged in by members of the Foothill Club. The club had a History Study Group, headed by member Florence Cunningham. With the creation of the Foundation, the 189 Heritage Resources Inventory 10 City of Saratoga Prepared by ARCHIVES & ARCHITECTURE, LLC group expanded into the community, with plans to collect local history information and memorabilia, and to establish a museum. Also in the early 1960s Santa Clara County was preparing the first historic inventory of cultural resources. Their report appeared in April of 1962 as “Preliminary Inventory of Historical Landmarks in Santa Clara County”. This report was the first of its kind in the region and identified 123 buildings and sites throughout the county of significance. The report presented a case for historic presentation consistent with the County goals of preserving community identity and conserving historic resources. The County’s plan proposed a planning program and the creation of a Landmarks Commission, a process of identification and evaluation of potential landmarks, and the addition of a “Specific Plan,” known as the Plan for Historical Landmarks within the County General Plan. The County’s efforts created a general awareness of the historic landmarks within the jurisdiction, and local communities began to develop their own local inventories of potential landmark properties. The American Bicentennial celebration of 1976 brought increased awareness and interest in historic preservation. The Saratoga Historical Foundation was moving ahead by then to create a museum, and, after several efforts, a suitable building was found, relocated and restored. The estate of Florence Cunningham had left money for a museum structure, and the historic Swanee Dress Shop, in its new location within Saratoga Historical Park, was restored and dedicated as a history museum. During the 1970s, many local communities began to identify cultural resources, with financial assistance and support from the new California State Office of Historic Preservation (OHP). Community survey efforts were largely the work of enthusiastic volunteers with an interest in local history. Saratoga initiated an effort to identify their community resources in the early 1980s, and in 1982, the Saratoga City Council created the Heritage Preservation Commission, in concert with similar actions taken by communities throughout California. The Commission then began a ten-year effort to survey the historic sites of their community, presenting Saratoga’s first Heritage Resources Inventory in 1988, and expanding it three years later. The Saratoga Commission gathered information from a number of sources using local interviews, newspaper articles and memoirs. The data was compiled by the Saratoga Heritage Commission assisted by other community volunteers. An updated Inventory was published as a booklet in January 1993, prepared by Elizabeth Ansnes, with a list of about 90 structures and other cultural sites. Over the next decade and a half, an additional 20 properties were added to the Inventory by the Saratoga City Council while at that same time about twelve properties that had been listed were lost through demolition. One of the Commission’s first efforts involved the preservation of the Warner Hutton House. Built in the late-1880s, this Victorian-era cottage located on Sousa Lane off Quito Road was determined by OHP as one of three historically significant structures within the proposed right-of-way of State Route 85, identified during the preparation of the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the Caltrans project. Many Saratoga residents regarded this building as an irreplaceable treasure, as one of Saratoga’s last nineteenth-century farmhouses. Seven public agencies were involved in finding an alternative to demolition, and the Saratoga Preservation Commission convinced the City Council to accept the gift of the house from Caltrans and the County Traffic Authority, who funded the relocation and stabilization. Later incorporated into the 190 Heritage Resources Inventory 11 City of Saratoga Prepared by ARCHIVES & ARCHITECTURE, LLC community center on Fruitvale Avenue near City Hall, well-known local preservationist Marti Bennett cited this effort in a 1986 polemic article in the San Jose Mercury News, ‘Public outcry can save local historic structures,’ declaring that collaborative local efforts such as those spearheaded by local Saratoga residents could preserve important aspects of a community’s past, while helping facilitate growth. In 1992, the Legislature amended Public Resources Code with Assembly Bill 2881, creating a formal statewide register called the California Register of Historical Resources. Regulations for nominating resources to the California Register were formally adopted in 1997, and took effect January 1, 1998. Later that year, Guidelines for the California Environmental Quality Act were adopted, which incorporated the criteria for the California Register into the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review process. These regulations mirror the federal requirements for registering historic resources that were passed by Congress in earlier years. Since 1998, survey and evaluation of possible historical resources that are identified as a part of development review has been a part of public agency planning processes throughout California. Cities such as Saratoga, when presented with projects that might impact historic resources (or potential historic resources) are required to evaluate the eligibility of those properties for the California Register. If a property is eligible, the impacts of related projects must be considered as a part of development review. Designated properties, such as Saratoga’s Historical Landmarks, are considered automatically eligible for the California Register. Listing on inventories of historical resources, such as Saratoga’s Heritage Resources Inventory, however, does not necessarily imply eligibility for the California Register. These listings are intended to provide important information to property owners, prospective developers, and local citizens of potential historical qualities associated with buildings, sites and structures. Preparation of the Statement of Historic Context and Inventory Update An historic context statement identifies resource types to be investigated further in reconnaissance and intensive surveys: • A reconnaissance survey identifies resources that may have significance for their architecture, and will generally include the preparation of DPR523a Primary Record survey forms or equivalent information. If a potential district or districts are identified during this process, DPR523d District Record forms are also prepared that summarizes the historic context and articulate contributing properties to that context. • Intensive level surveys record information about properties that includes information about historic context, personages, and events in addition to architectural information, and includes technical evaluations for historical significance according to national, state, and local criteria. This form of recordation includes DPR523b forms in addition to the DPR523a forms. DPR523 forms are a state-developed format for recording historic information. These forms comprise a single system for documenting the full range of values present in a given location. The kinds of resources that 191 Heritage Resources Inventory 12 City of Saratoga Prepared by ARCHIVES & ARCHITECTURE, LLC merit recordation and the different levels of information that may be appropriate to gather about them are established within a set of guidelines that have been prepared by the State and are available from the Office of Historic Preservation, called Instructions for Recording Historical Resources. The preparation of Saratoga’s Statement of Historic Context is an important step as a part of the update of the Historic Resources Inventory. A brief history of community development has been presented in this report, and the archetypal aspects of the built environment have been noted. It is the intent that this report becomes a tool for future updates of the Inventory, and as a reference for local citizens as well as historical resource professionals doing property-specific research and evaluations related to future projects, registration activities, or other entitlements within the city. Identifying dates of construction for historic resources within Saratoga as a part of future reconnaissance and intensive level studies are problematic, as building permits are available for only some later time periods, beginning in 1947. Early maps and aerials can be used to place building construction dates within narrow frames of time that can then be confirmed by on-site evaluations. This report includes an extensive bibliography of reference sources that are useful in researching the history of properties located within Saratoga’s jurisdictional boundaries. At the end of the bibliography are excerpts from some relevant primary documents that are usual for those research properties in Saratoga. Research into the associations that historic personages bring to extant properties is also problematic. In general, identification of persons important to a community’s past can only be done in a preliminary way when conducting reconnaissance surveys and preparing historic context statements. This type of information requires detailed research, and and is best developed as a part of property-specific intensive-level investigations. Within the methodologies of the conduction of both reconnaissance and intensive level surveys are other types of studies that can be useful for the development of planning data. These hybrid studies, which identify construction dates, architectural typology, and obtain photographs of buildings and other graphic information, can be useful when merged with existing land use data to provide additional planning tools for the management of historic resources within the city. Research for this historic context statement was undertaken at a number of local archives. These include the Saratoga Public Library, Saratoga Historical Museum, the California Room at the Martin Luther King Jr. Library in Downtown San José, and the San José archives at History San José and the County Archives, both on Senter Road in San José. Additional resource material was reviewed at the Surveyor’s Office at the County Administration Building in San José, as well as emerging information sources online. Four members of the firm of Archives & Architecture, LLC participated in various aspects of preparing this context statement as well as conducting field work and preparing updated DPR523 forms for properties presently listed on the Saratoga Heritage Resources Inventory. All four historians meet the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards to perform identification, evaluation, registration, and treatment activities within their respective fields in compliance with state and federal environmental laws as outlined in 36 CFR Part 61. Additionally, Historian April Halberstadt contributed historical narratives on certain thematic aspects of Saratoga’s past that she had developed as a part of her work on Images of America: Saratoga, and other related research projects she had undertaken while consulting to the Saratoga History Museum. 192 Heritage Resources Inventory 13 City of Saratoga Prepared by ARCHIVES & ARCHITECTURE, LLC SUMMARY OF FINDINGS The City of Saratoga, incorporated in 1956, is one of fifteen municipalities in Santa Clara County. The community was formed over a century prior to incorporation however, when three small settlements along Saratoga Creek were established. During the first century of existence, this community was a part of the development of an important agricultural region, known as the “Valley of Heart’s Delight.” During the first part of the twentieth century, Saratoga also became a preferred residential community serving both as a “trolley car suburb” of San José, and as a resort area of second homes for many prominent families from San Francisco and elsewhere. As Saratoga entered its second century, it, as with many communities throughout the West and along with other communities throughout Santa Clara Valley, became a preferred destination of American westward migration. This explosive urban growth brought an end to the pastoral setting of the Valley of Heart’s Delight. This new growth, fueled by new industrial development, helped to create the new “Silicon Valley” as we know it today. The present urban and rural fabric of Santa Clara County, including cities such as Saratoga, is diverse. It consists of complex social and economic settings that overlay a rich historic, multi-cultural and natural environment. Within the environs of the cities such as Saratoga, much of the rural character that was once the Valley of Heart’s Delight continues to exist today. Contemporary development pressures continue to bring the agricultural economy to conclusion, and soon many of the physical remnants and reminders of this historic era of the past will be gone. The city of Saratoga consists of about twelve square miles, and is home to a population of about 30,000 persons. Much of the built environment of Saratoga was constructed in the last 50 years. Identification of historic resources in Saratoga was a community-based volunteer volunteer effort in the 1980s and early 1990s. During that time, Saratoga’s most significant historic properties were identified and first recorded for use by the City’s planning programs. Little subsequent work has taken place since that initial effort, although now the evaluation of historic properties has been folded into the planning process due to the evolution of the California Environmental Quality Act. Because of CEQA, potential undocumented historic resources are now evaluated for their historic significance as a part of the development review process. Although many of Saratoga’s earliest historic resources have been lost over time, the city today retains a fairly intact representation of the community’s historic growth for a century and a half, beginning with the Early American Period and continuing into contemporary times as represented by post World War II suburban growth. It embodies, within its boundaries, a multitude of architectural styles, including some vernacular building types as well as as creative works of skilled designers. This community architecture represents the breadth of design that can be found throughout California during its period of development as the Golden State. 193 Heritage Resources Inventory 14 City of Saratoga Prepared by ARCHIVES & ARCHITECTURE, LLC HISTORICAL OVERVIEW Within the boundaries of the city of Saratoga are a full range of cultural and historic resources, with human settlement and occupation activities beginning in prehistoric times and continuing into the present as the area continues to be a destination for immigrants from throughout the world. The inventory of prehistoric and historic archaeological deposits, extant buildings and structures, sites, historic landscapes, and traditional culture properties located within Saratoga is extensive, much of it documented in various cultural resource studies, surveys, and local history books and publications. This rich and diverse history reveals information on important people, events, and historical themes of national, state, and local interest. Many personages associated with the Early American period of development (1847-1875) were key players in the last western expansion of the United States. The following section divides the historical development of the Saratoga into six periods. This temporal model is commonly used in researching historic properties, and was initially developed during the early years of the State Office of Historic Preservation. Establishing the sequential events that signify a property’s history provides an understandable basis for later associating themes and personages to its historic context. The primary eras that help define the historic periods do not necessarily conform to the cut-off years used in this system, but merely help to define a general period in which a dominant type of culture is associated with the land, or when economic activities or world events helped shape our view of the past. Within the discussion of a historic era, recurring themes are identified and characterized by landscape features or resources that were introduced in, or were unique to, that particular era. Geographical patterns of land use also emerge throughout the historical narrative. These periods, defined for this historic context statement, are as follows: • Spanish/Mexican (1769 – 1846) • Early American (1847 – 1875) • Horticultural Development (1876 – 1902) • City of Homes (1903 – 1941) • Encroaching Suburbanization (1942 – 1956) • Urbanization of the New Municipality (1956 – 1975) As discussed above, it is recognized that a multitude of ethnic groups made major contributions to the development of Saratoga and the greater Santa Clara Valley. It is not possible within this context statement to identify the extensive range and diversity of the ethnic groups that have made Saratoga their home. The era prior to 1847 when Americanization began to occur, however, is ethnically and cultural distinct from the American period, even though the Hispanic and Native American cultures continue to exist into the present. 194 Heritage Resources Inventory 15 City of Saratoga Prepared by ARCHIVES & ARCHITECTURE, LLC Prehistoric Period The first inhabitants of greater Santa Clara Valley and the surrounding hills were members of the Ohlone or Costanoan cultural group. Although the Ohlone people shared cultural and linguistic similarities, the tribe consisted of eight politically autonomous subgroups that populated the coastal area from the San Francisco peninsula and the Carquinez Strait south to northern Monterey County. A number of Ohlone tribes occupied the southern portions of the San Francisco Bay Area. These early people typically established their settlements near a dependable water source and other easily available natural resources that served their subsistence needs. Early inhabitants of Santa Clara Valley were able to exploit the creeks, grasslands, and oak woodlands for fish, game, and vegetable materials. Temporary camps were established in scattered locations in order to collect seasonal foodstuffs or materials that were not locally available. Women harvested plant foods, involving a large variety of seeds, nuts, fruits, and bulbs. Women also spent much of their time preparing food and weaving baskets, which were necessary for gathering, storing, and preparing food. Men augmented the food supply by fishing and hunting for large and small game. They also made tools and weapons. A few important resources were obtained from greater distances through an extensive trade network. Trade items included obsidian from the Napa region, shells from the coast, sinewbacked bows from the inland areas, and tobacco, basketry materials, and ornamental pigments from various locations. Houses were small, hemispherical huts with grass-bundle thatching that sheltered anywhere from four to twenty-four nuclear or extended family members. Villages were presided over by a male leader, who was later identified by the Spanish settlers as capitán. Foreign relations between tribes in the greater region took the form of trade, warfare, and intermarriage. Little above-ground physical evidence remains of this extended period of prehistoric human habitation, although features in the landscape, as well as subsurface deposits found as a part of archaeological investigations, are evidence that significant settlements existed in the area for over 10,000 years. The archaeological record is vulnerable to adverse impact by contemporary activities such as land development. Its treatment is of concern to contemporary descendants of these early peoples. Survey, evaluation, and treatment recommendations for properties with resources that are associated with the prehistoric period is not a part of this historic context statement. Protection and preservation of prehistoric resources are managed through a set of regulatory processes separate from requirements for resources extant from historic times. What is defined as “historic times” begins in 1769 with the first known presence of Euro-Americans in the region. 195 Heritage Resources Inventory 16 City of Saratoga Prepared by ARCHIVES & ARCHITECTURE, LLC Spanish /Mexican (1769-1846) Early Founding In 1769, Spaniard Gaspar de Portolá and a company of sixty-four men were the first Euro-Americans known to visit the place that would become known as the Santa Clara Valley. This expedition was intended by the Spanish government to expand the frontier territory of Virreinato de Nueva España, their new world colony and viceroyalty in North America. The Portolá Expedition first approached the south reaches of the valley near the Pajaro River, but then continued up the coast around the Monterey Bay to an encampment place north of present-day Santa Cruz. A small contingent of seven men, led by Sergeant José Francisco Ortega, crossed the coastal range in early November 1769 and unexpectedly came across the bay and valley. These Spanish soldiers worked their way across the southern edge of the bay and explored the shore up to about present-day Hayward. The following year and again in 1772, Spaniard Pedro Fages led small expeditions from the new Royal Presidio of Monterey across the San Felipe plain within today’s South County, and journeyed up through the valley. These expeditions were soon followed by several other Spanish visitations, including that of explorer Juan Bautista de Anza in 1774. It was Anza who identified the valley as an ideal candidate for permanent settlement for the Spanish government. In 1776, Juan Bautista de Anza returned leading a large group of settlers (pobladores) across the valley on the way to establishing the Presidio of San Francisco. The Anza-led group passed along the western rim of the valley along its southwesterly edge, likely passing through what is now Saratoga before setting up an encampment in Cupertino. Spanish Jurisdiction (1777-1822) In 1777, Spanish Lt. José Joaquín Moraga and Fray Tomás de la Peña of the Franciscans established Mission Santa Clara de Asís named after the sister saint of Assisi, Clara. The original location of the mission was was on the west bank of the river that had been named by Anza, the Rio de Nuestra Señora de Guadalupe. Later that year under orders of Viceroy Antonio María Bucareli, a site was selected for a civilian settlement by Governor Felipe de Neve, who visited the valley in June 1777. This settlement, named El Pueblo de San José de Guadalupe was located on the Guadalupe River’s east bank approximately 1.5 miles to the southeast of the mission, near what is now Hobson and San Pedro Streets in San José. The Guadalupe River became the boundary between the valley lands controlled by the Franciscans at the mission, and the pobladores at the pueblo. The Spanish colonization strategy utilized three institutions—military, civil, and religious. The military government, installed in Alta California shortly after the Portolá Expedition, was intended to protect the Spanish frontier from encroachment by other countries of Europe, and more specifically was directed against Russian global advancement into North America during this historical period. The first presidios at San Francisco and Monterey were established to address this threat. The Franciscans, acting in behalf of the Roman Catholic Church, established missions to convert and proselytize the native population, a partnership with government authorities that had existed for centuries during Spain’s colonial period. The missions were the dominant colonizing influence in Alta California during the Spanish period from 1769 to 1821. Each mission’s sphere of influence radiated from its center (with buildings for worship, housing, and industries) outward to surrounding grain fields and livestock grazing lands. 196 Heritage Resources Inventory 17 City of Saratoga Prepared by ARCHIVES & ARCHITECTURE, LLC Mission Santa Clara was at the northeastern edge of Tamien tribal territory, a subgroup of the Ohlone. The missionaries arrived with cattle, mules, horses, sheep goats, pigs, and chickens. Livestock were let to graze on the fields that had originally supplied the local Ohlone tribes with plants and seed harvests. In November 1777, Lt. Moraga set out from San Francisco to the Santa Clara Valley with fourteen families, totaling sixty-six people. Retired soldiers with some farming experience headed nine of the families, and others were colonists who had arrived with the Anza Expedition. The settlers were generally of mixed Hispanic, Native American, and African ethnicities. These pobladores had originated from the northern region of present Mexico. They arrived on two colonizing treks: the 1774 expedition led by José Francisco Ortega up the coast of the Baja Peninsula from Loreto, and the 1775/1776 second expedition of Juan Bautista de Anza that had crossed the Sonora desert to Alta California from Túbac (in present-day Arizona). The pueblo at San José was the first civil settlement established by the Spanish Crown in Alta California. The period of Spain’s governance in the region lasted from 1770 to 1821. Little physical remains exist within Santa Clara County that is extant from this early development period. Sites in the outer edges of the valley are associated with early agricultural or industrial development. The land within what is now the city limits of Saratoga was part of Mission Santa Clara’s lands when Spain had jurisdiction in the area. The cultural landscape that existed during this period is mainly remembered by the alignment of many contemporary transportation routes with routes that originated during the Spanish Period. The many Hispanic place names throughout the county remind us of Spain’s involvement in the origins of the modern day settlement and transformation of the region. Mexican State of Alta California (1822–1846) With Mexico’s new independence and the formal change of governmental control from Spain to Mexico in 1822 came changes in government organization, land utilization, and local ownership patterns. By the 1820s, the lagging economy of the area under Spanish rule began to turn around due to attempts to change territorial administrative policies by the newly formed Mexican government. Two of these policies had important local ramifications. The first was the legalization of trade with foreign ships in the ports of San Francisco and Monterey. The new non-Hispanic traders exchanged tea, coffee, spices, clothing, leather goods, etc., for tallow and hides. Under the stimulus of this commerce, the settlements around the San Francisco Bay became lively trade centers. The second change in policy to have far-reaching effects in Alta California was the secularization of the Franciscan missions and the establishment of large private land grants. In 1824, Mexico passed a law for the settlement of vacant lands to try to stimulate additional colonization of the territory. Any citizen, whether foreign or native, could select a tract of unoccupied land so long as it was a specific distance away from the lands held by the missions, pueblos and Native Americans. The grantee petitioned the territorial governor for a specific tract, and if there were no objections, title of the land was transferred from the public realm. Until the Mexican period, the Santa Clara Valley outside of the settlements at the mission and the pueblo was largely undeveloped, and was utilized primarily for the grazing of livestock. It is believed that the first documented reference to settlement in the Saratoga area during the historical period occurred in the 1820s or 197 Heritage Resources Inventory 18 City of Saratoga Prepared by ARCHIVES & ARCHITECTURE, LLC 1830s when Indian neophyte Titus (known as “Tito”) of Mission Santa Clara established a “dairy ranch” at a Rancheria along the creek that was later named Campbell Creek (now Saratoga Creek). An oral tradition indicates that this ranch, which included a vegetable garden and likely an adobe house, was located on the east side of the creek about where Herriman Avenue intersects today. A biography of John Ellsworth published in the 1888 Pen Pictures of the History of the World, authored by historian Horace Foote, mentions that when Ellsworth purchased his 50-acre property in the 1870s, there had been about one acre planted in Mission grapes that was pre-existing. Ellsworth’s property was located northwest of Saratoga Avenue across and west of Saratoga’s Heritage Orchard. This early ranch appears to coincide with the location of this early Rancheria. During the 1820s through early 1840s, large tracts of land were granted by by the Mexican government to local residents. When a citizen was granted land for a rancho, the recipient was required to occupy the property and to build a dwelling within a certain time period. Each rancho had a hacienda which was in many cases a self-supporting village, composed of the main rancho house, laborers’ housing, corrals, grist mill, tannery, and other ancillary buildings surrounded by vineyards and cultivated fields. Thirty-eight land grants were issued between 1833 and 1845 in the Santa Clara Valley and environs. Quito rancho, encompassing much of present-day Saratoga, was granted by Mexican Governor Juan Bautista Alvarado to José Zenón Fernandez and José Noriega on March 12, 1841. It consisted of three square leagues (about 13,316 acres). Today, Saratoga Village is located within what was then the southwest corner of this large ranch property. José Zenón Fernandez was born in Spain, naturalized in Mexico, and came to Alta California with his wife Petra Enrriques from Mexico City as a part of of the Hijar-Pilar colonization expedition in 1834. He worked as a teacher in the Pueblo de San José, but died in 1843 shortly after receiving the Quito grant. His daughter, Manuela, also a teacher, married José Noriega in 1838. José Noriega was from the Province of Asturias, Spain, who also came to California in 1834. He was originally the grantee of the rancho Meganos in the Central Valley, but sold it in 1837 to pioneer John Marsh. He was then grantee in 1839 of the rancho Positas in Contra Costa County. It is not known for certain if Fernandez or his son-in-law Noriega ever lived on the rancho Quito, although Noriega testified in later court proceedings that they had built two houses, one of wood (wattle), and the other of poles and dirt (palizada). In 1844 Noriega transferred his ownership to Juan Ignacio Alviso. Juan Ignacio Alviso had arrived in Alta California at age three on the 1776 De Anza Expedition, having been born in San Miguel de Horcasitas, Mexico. He was administrator of Mission Santa Clara properties from 1840–1843, and grantee of the rancho Rincón de los Esteros. The town of Alviso is named after him, site of his rancho. Manual Alviso was claimant for the rancho Quito with Petra Enrriques Fernandez in 1852 (patented on May 14, 1866). Some histories identify Manual as a son of Juan Ignacio Alviso, but the relationship is not known for certain. The Manuel Alviso rancho headquarters appears to have been located southeast of present-day Saratoga Road east of the junction of Quito Road, in the vicinity of present-day Westgate Mall, or perhaps what was once El Paseo de Saratoga shopping center in San José. In the late 1850s, Manual Alviso sold this area to José Ramon Argüello, who developed what was known as the Quito Farm. 198 Heritage Resources Inventory 19 City of Saratoga Prepared by ARCHIVES & ARCHITECTURE, LLC With the relaxation of immigration regulations by the Mexican government in 1828, more foreigners began to settle in California. Of the approximately 700 people who lived in the San José pueblo in 1835, forty were foreigners, mostly American and Englishmen. The first overland migration arrived in Alta California in 1841, and by 1845, the American immigrants had increased the population of the pueblo to 900. The presence of the growing American population prepared the way for relatively easy occupation of Alta California by American forces in 1846. By the time of America’s military excursion into Alta California, the establishment of the Anglo-American’s commercial presence was well underway. The Mexican population observed the influx of European and American settlers with a sense of helplessness. Mexican Governor Pio Pico articulately expressed his concern for California’s future in 1846: We find ourselves threatened by hordes of Yankee immigrants who have already begun to flock into our country, and whose progress we cannot arrest. Already have the wagons of that perfidious people scaled the almost inaccessible summits of the Sierra Nevada, crossed the entire continent and penetrated the fruitful valley of the Sacramento. What that astonishing people will next undertake, I cannot say; but in whatever enterprise they embark they will sure to be successful. Already these adventurous voyagers, spreading themselves far and wide over a country which seems to suit their tastes, are cultivating farms, establishing vineyards, erecting mills, sawing up lumber, and doing a thousand other things which seem natural to them. In the earlier Spanish period, Santa Clara Valley was characterized as an agrarian landscape with a pueblo, mission village, and a few outreaching ranch settlements with little or no commercial activity. With the change to Mexican governance, the area of present-day Saratoga had its first agricultural settlement along the creek, where vegetable gardening and management of a dairy herd was instituted by Indians associated with the Santa Clara Mission. Late in this period, the area was planned for larger agrarian development with the creation of the rancho Quito, but the conversion did not begin to fully occur until the Americanization of the territory at mid-century. Early American (1847-1875) In May 1846, the United States declared war on Mexico; and shortly thereafter, the American flag was raised in Monterey and San José. The hostilities finally ended with the Battle of Santa Clara in January 1847. The hostilities between the United States and Mexico resulted in the creation of the American territory of California following the concession of Alta California by Mexico to the United States in 1848 in the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. Soon after was California’s admittance to the Union in 1850. Subsequent American westward migration by wagon and boat set the stage for the rapid development and economic growth to follow in the ensuing decades. The frontier period was dominated by the superimposition of American culture on the Hispanic way of life. 199 Heritage Resources Inventory 20 City of Saratoga Prepared by ARCHIVES & ARCHITECTURE, LLC In 1847, William Campbell founded a mill, later to be called Haun’s Mill, and established a lumbering community called Campbell’s Gap on what would become Highway 9, just below what is known as Long Bridge. Campbell had journeyed with his family overland to California in 1846 as a part of the Russell/Boggs Party, a large group of settlers that included the ill-fated Donner Party, a subgroup of the larger expedition. First staying at Mission Santa Clara, Campbell established his mill on land that he thought at that time was just beyond the western boundary of the rancho Quito. Campbell’s Mill is considered to be the first non-indigenous settlement in the area now known as Saratoga. His partners in the enterprise were William Haun and Haun’s father-in-law, John Whisman, who also arrived in California in 1846. Campbell operated the sawmill, and Haun acquired a pair of mill-stones and set up a flour mill, using the water-power source that Campbell and his sons had created. On the heels of this first American settlement in future Saratoga and acquisition of California by the United States, was the discovery in 1848 of gold in the Sierra foothills, which precipitated a sudden influx of population to the state from continental United States, Europe, Mexico, South America, and Asia. Following the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo, it soon became apparent to the rapidly growing, land-hungry population, that the pre-existing system of land ownership would no longer be sufficient. New American settlers did not understand or accept the Mexican concept of land tenure such as existed on the rancho Quito, and they were frustrated since much of the best land in California was taken up by the large Mexican land grants; the Quito was the largest in the flatlands of Santa Clara Valley. Boundary map of the rancho Quito In many cases, the boundaries of the ranchos, such as Quito, were only roughly identified. Throughout California, many of the new settlers believed that the territory ceded by Mexico in the Treaty was now the public domain of the United States, and in many locations they tried to make claim to lands outside the pueblos. They immediately came into conflict with landowners who had acquired title under Spain or Mexico. In September of 1850, Martin and Hannah McCarty first platted a town downstream from Haun’s Mill where Saratoga Village sits today. A third community was started later, midway between the two, when Charles Maclay founded Maclaytown, or Bank Mills, near the entrance to today’s Hakone Gardens. McCartysville would endure the longest, and become the framework for the town of Saratoga, named so in the mid-1860s about the time that the patent was granted for Quito on which much of Saratoga lies. 200 I " " --~ OUiTO Rancho Heritage Resources Inventory 21 City of Saratoga Prepared by ARCHIVES & ARCHITECTURE, LLC Under the Treaty, the pre-existing property rights were to be preserved. To bring order out of chaos, the United States government created the California Land Claims Commission in 1851, to provide a process to validate the Mexican titles by determining legal ownership, and by establishing fixed boundaries for property granted under Spanish and Mexican authority. Intended to protect the pre-existing landowner, this process in many cases worked to their detriment. The process of title confirmation was long, cumbersome, and expensive, and many ethnic Mexican rancheros found the economic and legal difficulties insurmountable. The claimants for the Quito, Manual Alviso and Petra Enrriques Fernandez filed their claim in 1852, shortly after the creation of the Land Claims Commission. During the 1850s and 1860s, although title to the land was not clear due to the patent claim, McCartysville established itself as an active lumber town, located at the base of the Santa Cruz Mountains, where harvesting of the redwood forests on the eastern slope of the mountain range took place over the next half century. Neighboring Bank Mills was also growing at this time, but was destroyed by fire in 1863. In April 1861, the dispute over land ownership erupted into Santa Clara County’s Settlers War. Initially this dispute was over lands in the Yerba Buena Rancho in San Jose’s Evergreen area, but then spread to other parts of Santa Clara Valley such as McCartysville. The residents of McCartysville staged a combination May Day Festival and Settlers’ Picnic in 1861 soon after problems erupted in Evergreen, attended by from three to five thousand people. They gathered at the Toll Gate campground above McCartysville, and sang patriotic songs while firing cannons. The friction that intensified on the Quito ended in 1865 when Federal Judge Ogden Hoffman rendered his opinion approving the boundaries proposed by the rancho owners. The settlers living on the rancho had to move off or purchase the land again. The rancho was patented on May 4, 1866. The town of McCartysville, that Martin McCarty had thought was outside the boundaries of the rancho, was determined to be within Quito’s southwestern boundary when the patent claim was settled. Martin McCarty had died in an accident in 1864, and his widow, Hannah, settled with the rancho owners by purchasing 128 acres, part of it remaining in her possession until her death in 1893. As the productivity of the gold mines fell off and the enthusiasm of the Gold Rush began to wane, many American pioneers of this period began to look to the cities and fertile rangelands as sources of income. At the time of the Gold Rush, beef was the only commodity that could be supplied in large quantities by the Californians; however, it was necessary to import other foodstuffs plus additional supplies of beef and mutton. Until a drought in 1864, cattle ranching continued to be the primary economic activity in the region, including the the lands of western Santa Clara Valley. During the Mexican period, open range methods were followed since 201 P LAT o r SARATOGA A • .... ,,,./"' .. '''' ~IJ'" r, _" ~,',. '."" -4.'t" .,',I ,"./'.,,, . ,..• .• H ' I:d,... .. r~ .... u f •• ,.~.n , ... ~ I Heritage Resources Inventory 22 City of Saratoga Prepared by ARCHIVES & ARCHITECTURE, LLC grazing lands were ample. As smaller grain farms began to spread throughout the valley, pasture land was reduced, and cattle ranching became concentrated in the foothills. More intensive stock farming began in the 1860s when cattle were moved from the foothill pastures to valley feed yards until they were ready for marketing. By the late-1860s, much of the valley floor had been developed with grain farming. The easy cultivation and high fertility of the soil of the Santa Clara Valley facilitated wheat production with little capital investment. In 1854, Santa Clara County was producing 30 percent of California’s total wheat crop. In the summer of 1868, an observer noted that the Santa Clara Valley was almost an unbroken wheat field. Other grain crops, primarily barley and oats, followed wheat in productivity. The agricultural potential of the Santa Clara Valley had been recognized by the mission fathers who had established small orchards and vineyards. Cuttings from these trees and vines provided the basis for the establishment of small orchards and vineyards in the Early American period. By 1851-1852, the first pioneer nurserymen were importing and experimenting with various types of fruit trees; in McCartysville, James Peter Springer was the first to experiment on his property adjacent to the creek. His 1851 house still remains extant on what is now Wildwood Way, across Saratoga Creek just north of Saratoga Village. The American frontier period in California that had began with a military excursion into Alta California in 1846, came to a close in the years following the completion of the Transcontinental Railroad in 1869. In Santa Clara Valley, a number of key events signaled the end of this era. The frustration and homesteader’s revolt that came to a head in the 1860s was dispelled by the patent of key valley ranchos like the Quito. 1866 was also the year of a devastating earthquake on the Hayward Fault. While not specifically having any known impacts on early settlements in the western portions of the valley, the earthquake, like the later 1906 San Francisco Earthquake and the 1989 Loma Prieta, served as a turning point to the development of modern settlements in the region. Within ten years, farmers in Saratoga were planting out new orchards which would ultimately change the character of Santa Clara Valley. The 1876 from Thompson and West’s Historical Atlas of Santa Clara County, California lists 35 residents (households) in Saratoga. 202 REDWOOD .~-.;;.; ..''"u.., ,'". , . .•. ••,••. ,.." .. '..".., , .. ,,'"... ... .n. •. Heritage Resources Inventory 23 City of Saratoga Prepared by ARCHIVES & ARCHITECTURE, LLC Saratoga Land Ownership in 1876 Composite of area maps from the 1876 Thompson and West Historical Atlas of Santa Clara County, California. 203 Heritage Resources Inventory 24 City of Saratoga Prepared by ARCHIVES & ARCHITECTURE, LLC Horticultural Expansion (1876 – 1903) Saratoga served as one of the centers of Santa Clara Valley’s booming horticultural industry until the second half of the twentieth century, when industrialization and suburbanization of the valley brought the “Valley of Heart’s Delight” to a close. With train service first arriving in Santa Clara County from San Francisco in 1864, and the Western Pacific Railroad connecting San José to Niles and northward in 1869, the stage was set for the rapid development of the agricultural potential of Santa Clara Valley. The Niles connection linked the valley to the transcontinental railroad. This event precipitated many changes in the region as a whole, as it spurred the development of towns along the railroad lines, and catalyzed changes in land use due to the accessibility of new markets outside the region. By 1870, nearly all acreage in the rural areas of the county was devoted to wheat and barley production, peaking in the mid-1870s. Like the drought of 1864, in 1879-1880 the area again experienced poor yields. Coupled this time with increased wheat production in the Central Valley, farmers responded by initiating a diversified farming approach, increasing numbers of cows for milk and butter, sheep for wool, poultry for eggs, swine for meat, hay, grapes, and fruit trees in an attempt to protect themselves during bad crop years. By the late 1880s however, orchard products dominated agricultural production. The most popular of the orchard products was the prune, with acreage expanding rapidly during the 1890s. In 1876, Saratoga had about 200 residents, most of them associated with the lumber industry and the rural grain farms located throughout the western portions of Santa Clara Valley. Saratoga’s period of Horticultural Development started in 1876 when the Reverend William Pollard and William Rice set out the first commercial orchards. Although Ames Peter Springer had experimented with fruit trees over twenty years earlier, and on the Quito Farm, José Ramon Argüello had developed the first olive orchard in the 1860s; it was Pollard and Rice that began the transformation of land use that would continue for almost a century. Pollard, who came from Indiana in 1876, bought 40 acres of land and planted pears, peaches, apricots, and prunes. Rice planted his 30 acres along Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road with 17 acres in prunes and the rest in apples, apricots, peaches and pears. In 1883, Dr. George Handy, an eye doctor from New York, bought a grain ranch of 450 acres, located between Saratoga and Los Gatos. He named the canyon, and the ranch, Glen Una. Handy planted 125 acres of prunes, considered to be the largest set-out in Santa Clara Valley at that time. Later taken over by his sonin-law Frank H. Hume, this ranch became the largest prune orchard in the world, with 350 acres planted. Much of this early planting of orchards was spurred by Joseph Cox’s introduction of a variety of the French prune that he named Double X. Cox established a nursery near Saratoga where he propagated this popular prune variety that soon was in demand through the prune-growing regions of the West. By 1890, orchards were spreading to the edges of the valley floor, completely dominating agriculture in Santa Clara County by 204 Heritage Resources Inventory 25 City of Saratoga Prepared by ARCHIVES & ARCHITECTURE, LLC the end of the decade. The 1896 San Jose Mercury Souvenir; Sunshine, Fruit, and Flowers prominently catalogues the expansive horticultural district surrounding Saratoga. Olives were also a significant part of Saratoga’s growth in horticulture. In the late 1850s, Manual Alviso had sold land within the Quito to José Ramón Argüello. In the 1860s, the so-named El Quito Farm was planted with Mission olive trees by Argüello. The olive trees were later grafted with scions from varieties from Italy that were found to be more productive. By the 1890s, this farm, subsequently acquired by Edward E. Goodrich in 1882, contained 81 acres in orchards that contained 3,800 olive trees, 1,600 peach trees, and 50,000 grape vines. Both Argüello and Goodrich are noted for being members of distinguished families. Argüello’s father Luis Antonio was Alta California’s first governor of the Mexican period, and was known for his innovations in the development of the region during that early period. Goodrich was the grandson of Noah Webster, the iconic lexicographer considered the “Father of American Scholarship and Education,” and publisher of The American Spelling Book, and An American Dictionary of the English Language. Tragically, the Goodrich House on the Quito Farm, then owned by his son Chauncy, burned in 1919, losing a large private library of these descendants of Noah Webster. Along with prunes and other fruits, the Saratoga area was also home to an extensive vineyard district. Mission grapes were likely first planted in the Mexican period, and during the late 1860s and 1870s, vineyards were planted on the valley floor during the early years of the horticultural period. By the 1880s, immigrants of the Haute-Alpes area of France began planted wine grapes in Saratoga’s foothills in concert with fellow immigrants in the South Valley areas west of Gilroy. The region they came from is known as Provence, and these early immigrants planted the types of vines that now characterize the Saratoga’s contemporary winegrowing district. The five local wineries currently in operation in the Saratoga foothills now represent greater Saratoga’s only industry. In recognition of the unique products produced in the hills above Saratoga, the area was awarded the first appellation in America, the Santa Cruz Mountain wine. This period of Horticultural Development, following the Americanization of California at mid-century, saw the transformation of a frontier settlement consisting primarily of American pioneers and a small population of Hispanic and Native Americans, to an emerging agricultural region inter-connected to the national economy. This new economic vitality based on expanding agriculture began to draw new immigrants to the area from around the world. The rapid spread of agriculture and ensuing population increase provided impetus for the establishment of many of the government, economic, and cultural institutions that remain evident in Santa Clara County in in the twenty-first century. Communities such as Saratoga began to evolve in response to the needs of the surrounding growth. By the end of the nineteenth century, the topology as we know it today was established. In 1887 the residents of unincorporated Saratoga formed the Saratoga Village Improvement Association to promote a balanced total growth for the community. This move towards self-management signaled the concern that Saratogans had for the future of their community, although it would be another 69 years before actual incorporation would occur. Ultimately, over the next century, Saratoga would evolve with twelve other cities to create a continuous metropolitan region within the Santa Clara Valley. 205 Heritage Resources Inventory 26 City of Saratoga Prepared by ARCHIVES & ARCHITECTURE, LLC City of Homes (1904-1941) The business of fruit production -the combination of growing, packing and canning -continued to be the focus of Santa Clara County agriculture during the first half of the twentieth century. Fruit production peaked in the 1920s, and with the increased ratio of crop value to land unit, large farms that had evolved in the nineteenth century out of the ranchos became unnecessary. The increased land prices, cultivation costs, and growing population of ready buyers led to the subdivision of large farmlands into highly specialized “fruit ranches” that were 3 to 50 acres in size. Parallel to the maturation of the horticultural industry surrounding Saratoga Village, in the first years of the twentieth century a number of events signified a change in the community’s future. With the development of the San Jose-Los Gatos Interurban Railroad (later the Peninsular Railway Co.) which began service to Saratoga in 1904, much residential growth began to occur in Saratoga that was suburban in character. Many of these new homes were built for families with commuters who rode the Interurban into San José to work. The Interurban ran along the current route of Saratoga-Los Gatos Road until 1933 when the rail route was replaced by buses. The introduction of the automobile in the early part of the twentieth century eventually contributed to this new suburbanization of Saratoga. Until about 1910, local residents relied on horse-drawn vehicles for local transport. The automobile greatly extended the distance an individual could travel to acquire goods and services and commute to distant jobs. The 1906 Earthquake was a pivotal event that affected the use of land throughout the Bay Area including Saratoga. Following the disaster, many communities throughout Central California rapidly set aside residential development areas, hoping to draw the hordes of San Franciscans who had lost their homes to the ensuing firestorm. Ultimately, the East Bay Area was where most of this population transfer occurred, but communities like Saratoga saw an increased interest by San Francisco’s more affluent residents, who were looking for more rural locations to build second homes for use during the summer months, and then retire to in later years. Saratoga provided an ideal environment for this type of development. With the lumbering industry now removed to the west side of the Coastal Range, the surrounding horticultural lands providing an idyllic “Valley of Heart’s Delight,” ready urban services within Saratoga Village and in nearby San José, and easy access via rail and improved roads, Saratoga was destined to become a City of Homes, as proclaimed in San Jose Mercury news articles in the years following the earthquake. During the first decade of the twentieth century, large new homes sprung up along the key routes into Saratoga Village, and prestigious residential districts evolved nearby to the west and east of Saratoga-Los Gatos Road -within walking distance to the Interurban. Four subdivisions were developed between 1908 and 1920 to the southeast of the Village, including Saratoga Park (1908) offered by developer David Bell; Orchard Place, which was sold by the Woods family; La Paloma Terrace (1915), developed by San José 206 -- Heritage Resources Inventory 27 City of Saratoga Prepared by ARCHIVES & ARCHITECTURE, LLC developer T. S. Montgomery; and Lutheria Way, offered by Luther Cunningham in the 1920s. These four subdivisions are some of the very few housing clusters in Santa Clara Valley that can be characterized as a “streetcar suburb”. Although there are many examples of this type of development in eastern America, few developments of this type appear in this area. To the east, where Austin Corners would eventually be established, a health resort called Nippon Mura was started by Theodore and Lucy Morris, with work beginning as early as 1901, but greatly expanded after 1906. During this time period, Paul Masson also turned his Mountain Winery into a destination for San Francisco and California’s elite with his Chateau at the top of the hill to the west of Saratoga Village. Then in 1911, San Francisco Mayor (and later Senator) James Duval Phelan acquired property that would become Villa Montalvo in a few years. By 1917, other similar grand retreats were evolving, such as Oliver and Isabel Stine’s Hakone, to the west of the Village. 1915 postcard of Nippon Mura, courtesy of Bill Wulf. Saratoga had been a tourist destination as early as 1866 when Congress Springs was first established to the west of McCartysville. Ironically, the destruction by fire in 1903 of that large complex coincided with the beginnings of Saratoga as a new type of destination. The mobility of the population enabled by new transportation options that became available during the early years of the twentieth century brought many visitors and new residents to Saratoga. Saratoga’s annual Blossom Festival, which originated in 1900, brought hundreds and then thousands of visitors to the community each year. Many admired the quality of life of the area as they spent time at the Blossom Festival, or passed through on the way to California’s first state park, established in 1902 at Big Basin. Lumber Street was soon renamed to Big Basin Way to commemorate and market Saratoga’s close proximity to, and association with, this popular vacation spot. Following World War I, the era of big new estates subsided, but the environs of Saratoga Village continued to evolve with more modest, yet distinguished residential neighborhoods. Although growth slowed during the interwar period, the now predominantly suburban community sought to improve public services. The Saratoga Foothill Club, designed by Julia Morgan was the first of these quasi-public buildings to appear just before the war, and soon after other local efforts to build a community library and a new modern school on Oak Street were successful. By 1941 when the United States entered the Second World War, Saratoga Village was a stable suburban town on the fringes of San José, serving both as a rural agricultural center, and as home to commuters who worked in San Jose’s commercial and industrial districts. During the war, Santa Clara County began considering its future in the post-war period. During the first decade after the war, Saratoga would face challenges to its seclusion. 207 Heritage Resources Inventory 28 City of Saratoga Prepared by ARCHIVES & ARCHITECTURE, LLC Encroaching Suburbanization (1942 – 1956) World War II, like the Gold Rush a century before, had a major effect on the changing complexion of Central California. The San Francisco Bay Area was the gateway to the Pacific Theater from 1941 to 1945. The large naval air station at Moffett Field became a center of much activity. Thousands of military personnel were brought to the area for training and processing, and many of them would return later to seek work and raise families. Events at Stanford University were also setting the stage for significant developments in the post-war period. Frederick Terman became an engineering professor at Stanford in 1930. Under his guidance the university became a leader in the field of electronics. Many of the university’s pre-war graduates played important roles in the post-war development of the local electronics industry. William Hewlett and David Packard, two of Professor Terman’s students at Stanford, developed electronic test equipment in a Palo Alto garage in 1939. During World War II, this small company obtained government contracts and continued to grow during the post-war period. In 1954, the Stanford Industrial Park was established attracting the companies of Hewlett-Packard and the Varian brothers, also students of Terman, as well as Sylvania, Philco-Ford, General Electric, and Lockheed’s research laboratory. These companies formed the nucleus of what became known as Silicon Valley. Soon after World War II, the Santa Clara County business community launched an active campaign to attract new non-agricultural related industries to the area. Early industries that established plants in the county included the Chicago’s International Mineral and Chemical Corporation’s Accent plant in 1946, the General Electric plant in the early 1950s, and International Business Machines (IBM) in 1953. Attracted by the increasing job market, the population of the valley experienced phenomenal growth growth after 1950. Between 1950 and 1975 the population increased from 95,000 to over 500,000. The urbanized areas of the county grew correspondingly, replacing orchards with subdivisions and shopping centers. In nearby San José, this growth can be directly related to the appointment of City Manager Dutch Hamann in 1950 by the pro-growth city council. Under Hamann’s pro-annexation policy, San José had annexed 1,419 outlying areas by the end of 1969 when Hamann left the position. During this period, residential subdivisions replaced orchards at amazing speed. Rural roads widened into freeways, and expressways and boulevards were lined with restaurants and automobile salesrooms. In the early 1950s, Saratoga Village had begun to experience a new demand for conversion of nearby orchard land to residential subdivisions. Being unincorporated, the County of Santa Clara oversaw the approval of new subdivisions and issuance of building permits. While some new subdivisions occurred close to Saratoga Village, such as James A. Clayton’s Horseshoe Drive, leapfrogging development was more common, such as Allendale, which California Pacific Land Title Company began construction on in 1954, and the Peremont Tract near Quito Road, beginning that same year. Peremont had 79 houses in this early subdivision, and like Allendale, was targeted for engineers and factory workers at nearby industrial plants such as Lockheed. But sporadic leapfrog development wasn’t what alarmed local Saratoga residents. By early 1956, some farmers near Saratoga saw a quickening of the pace of San Jose’s annexation program under Dutch Hamann. Ranchers had been petitioning the County Board of Supervisors about their concerns by the mid-1950s, and 208 Heritage Resources Inventory 29 City of Saratoga Prepared by ARCHIVES & ARCHITECTURE, LLC on February 25, 1956 nine more farmers petitioned the Board for a protective “greenbelt” zoning of 210 acres of land to protect Saratoga from San Jose’s encroachment. These farmers feared that San José would extend its boundaries to the foot of the Santa Cruz Mountains. Their petition followed another from a group of orchardists who had won an emergency and temporary “greenbelt” status for 200 acres of land San José and sought to annex because it was uninhabited. Under the rules in effect at the time, a city could annex uninhabited lands if the area in question had fewer than 12 registered voters living within its boundaries, but could not annex land zoned exclusively for “greenbelt” use. Later that year, a campaign by residents of Saratoga to incorporate was moving forward in earnest. Two factions evolved, one the Citizens Committee for Incorporation, headed by Dr. Robert J. O’Neill, the other the anti-city Saratoga Protective Committee, with Fred W. Buechner as chairman. The incorporationists claimed that incorporation was necessary to protect the area from annexation, and to maintain the status quo. The Protective Committee maintained that Saratoga could preserve its rural atmosphere without incorporation. It accused the incorporationists of overstating the annexation issue, pointing out that no inhabited area could be annexed without a vote of residents. In October of 1956, Saratoga residents voted to incorporate. Dr. Burton R. Brazil, a San Jose State College political science professor who had polled the most votes in a companion City Council election, was selected by his four colleagues as Mayor. At the first meeting of the new City Council, the newly elected members agreed that the status quo would be maintained in Saratoga, and a series of ordinances were passed in conformity with county regulations. 1956 was the year that Saratoga became a municipality, and it was also the year that Valley Fair opened on the edge of San José, signaling that city’s movement westward across the valley. The valley annexation wars would continue until the County of Santa Clara established growth boundaries and the Local Agency Formation Commission, but not before San Jose’s Westgate Mall opened in 1960 over the eastern portion of the rancho Quito and site of the rancho headquarters of Manual Alviso. 209 COUNCil. quo will be , five council· i ordinances in .~,~~r~~;;;t1:~";i~th present county rcgu· Heritage Resources Inventory 30 City of Saratoga Prepared by ARCHIVES & ARCHITECTURE, LLC Urbanization of the Emerging Municipality (1956 – 1975) The County of Santa Clara continued to provide government services to the newly incorporated City of Saratoga while the municipality established itself as a self-sufficient public agency. A structure was relocated from Saratoga-Los Gatos Road to the planned civic center on Fruitvale Avenue, and served as a temporary first City Hall until the current building was constructed. The Saratoga City Council met for the first time on October 22, 1956, and began to address the long-range planning issues facing the community. The County Planning Commission meanwhile was preparing a draft of what could be Saratoga’s first General Plan. The planning area for this study was bounded by Prospect Road on the north, Quito Road on the east, and on the west and south by the foothills of the Santa Cruz Mountains, encompassed 13.5 square miles, and including the newly incorporated city limits as well as what the County Planning Department defined as the ultimate build-out boundaries. This area included the mostly flat land surrounding the Village, but the larger planning boundaries also included about one-quarter mountainous areas and about one-third foothills. The County indicated a concern with flood protection, considering the impacts of severe flooding from storms of 1951-1952 and 1955 from the San Tomas Aquino, Saratoga, and Calabazas Creeks, amplified by the railroad line that impeded the natural flow of storm runoff. The County also noted that while eighty percent of the area’s soils were cultivable, Saratoga did not rank high as other portions of the valley in terms of land capability, with only twelve percent of the land rated as Class 1. Saratoga’s population at incorporation was reported in the plan to be about 11,000 residents, a reported increase of 7,500 people in the six years following the 1950 census. The official 1950 census appears to have used different boundaries and and even fewer residents were listed in Saratoga in 1950: 1,329. By 1970 the official population had expanded to 26,810; the city increased only about another 3,000 residents over the next thirty years. The population was concentrated in the mid-1950s in Saratoga Village and the newly developing Quito Road area. There were still about 4,300 acres of agricultural land and 2,600 acres of undeveloped hill land in Saratoga. In the plan, the County proposed that approximately eighty-six percent of the area be planned for housing, (mostly estates and single-family), five percent be set aside for continued agriculture, and the 210 Heritage Resources Inventory 31 City of Saratoga Prepared by ARCHIVES & ARCHITECTURE, LLC remaining nine percent be utilized for commercial centers, schools and recreation areas, and institutional uses. The plan proposed a number of small local shopping center as well as nine elementary schools The underlying theme of this early study was based on what the County saw as community expectations -that the citizens of Saratoga wanted to preserve their way of life. The plan recognized that unincorporated Saratoga had been able to maintain its rural residential character in the face of urbanizing pressures which had engulfed other valley communities. They attributed this to the effectiveness of zoning regulations placed on the greater portion of the area by the County Board of Supervisors in 1942. The County planners recognized that Saratoga had a beautiful setting and had become the home of large estates and summer residences, but they also recognized that recent trends in industrial growth in the county and the the companion vehicular improvement to the transportation system had opened valley orchard lands to subdivision in order to provide year-round residences for families of more moderate means. Five issues of concern were identified: (1) maintenance of a stable and well-coordinated land use pattern based upon the lot-size policies established by the County; (2) reduction of traffic congestion on the state highways traversing the town center; (3) reservation of sites for community facilities, including schools, parks and recreation areas; (4) preservation of the mountain area for recreation and residential estate purposes and prevention of activities tending to despoil this area; and (5) prevention of flooding. Transportation improvements had already begun to occur with the straightening of Saratoga-Los Gatos Road at Austin Corners in 1940, and again near Mendelsohn Lane in 1950, with other improvements occurring in 1960. The suggestive scheme for the Village “town center” would ultimately be this plan’s failing. In concert with other center-city revitalization projects in the region, planners envisioned a park-like setting filled with large apartment buildings surrounding a new Village of commercial blocks and parking lots. A pedestrian mall shopping district would be created by rerouting traffic on new peripheral one-way roads framing generous parking areas. This form of redevelopment would ultimately occur in other local cities such as San José, Santa Clara, and Sunnyvale. From Santa Clara County Planning Commission’s 1956 General Plan for Saratoga. 211 ~.-.~-~' .---...-. '-----",.'. . --.-."--~~.'.. --. .... -. .-~ -.--~--.~--.::r: e-::!:'. ::;.. ---~--. "--'--~ -.~- Heritage Resources Inventory 32 City of Saratoga Prepared by ARCHIVES & ARCHITECTURE, LLC In Saratoga, however, the rate of change over the next half a century was moderated, and the local citizenry choose to maintain the small-scale character of the Village while at the same time allowing for regeneration and growth. Two years later, Saratoga’s planning consultant Lawrence Livingston Jr. prophesized that in thirty years Saratoga could still be a rural residential area, but laced with four-lane arterials to serve 30,000 residents. He spoke with urgency to the council and new planning commission that policy action was needed to deal with rapid subdivision within the city limits until Saratoga’s own long-range general plan could be prepared and adopted, and speculated that the city would be almost completely built-out in the next 20 to 30 years. Livingston suggested that “Saratoga retain her character as a ‘low density’ residential community, that commercial development be confined to existing commercial areas plus one new neighborhood shopping center, and that major streets be widened to handle anticipated traffic volumes without congestion, instead of building new thoroughfares (as was happening in adjacent cities)….quality, not quantity, should be your goal in shopping centers.” From the San Jose Mercury News in the mid-1960s Livingston‘s predictions were on target. The pace of conversion of agricultural land in Saratoga was fast and furious following incorporation. Planning began in the 1960s for Highway 85 which would bisect the city, creating a distinct eastern district of the city. The area northeast of Saratoga Village rapidly developed during this time, and was soon named Saratoga’s Golden Triangle. This mile-square area south of Cox Avenue and to the east of Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road earned its gilded adjective from the high resale values associated with the new housing built there. The name was allegedly used by builder George Day when he first marketed subdivisions north of Cox Avenue, but the market soon linked this name to the more southern subdivisions such as Argonaut Place. Home buyers who sought ranch-style properties in the new Saratoga subdivisions were looking for a pleasant lifestyle, an easy commute to work, a good educational system, and a Saratoga address associated with the million-dollar estates in the hillsides. They also sought out this area for its lack of convenience stores, fast-food establishments, and apartment buildings. Houses in Saratoga subdivisions also escaped the uniformity of most of the county’s large subdivisions aimed at World War II veterans who were first-time buyers. Some of the tracts were single-builder projects, and others were developed as semi-custom homes constructed by several builders speculating on individual lots. The Argonaut Company sold lots to prospective home owners or builders, and the company did no actual construction, although it did establish residential restrictions and reserved the right to review and approve all plans. 212 wJnt •• 0 presen t . .... , .. Oa'or .,tII CUfJOll.l and quaint . tOfU to. d,"'t I. now on 10 or .... "_ ""':;;";:;";""'U;.:!~ ;;';";'::ii._L~.~'~.c'i-:r',, ;.;, ••••; ;; .11"0< _:1 . b10e0h Imnda ny"' ~~ ...'.' "'','. '.'.' Heritage Resources Inventory 33 City of Saratoga Prepared by ARCHIVES & ARCHITECTURE, LLC In companion to this residential growth, commercial property owners in Saratoga Village responded with modernization projects, and built new small contemporary shopping complexes. Saratoga Village Shopping Center was the most noteworthy of this new genre, and featured a grocery store along with other small shops. It had an onsite parking lot designed to serve the new shoppers from the subdivisions. In addition to the Saratoga Village shopping center, other new business structures were added along Big Basin Way replacing older wood-frame buildings from Saratoga’s earlier eras. In one unique situation, an old structure was demolished and recycled into a new building and the Plumed Horse Restaurant was created. This establishment became a local landmark and helped build Saratoga’s reputation for fine dining. Mindful of its early history and its noted status, Saratoga civic leaders struggled with the modernization of Saratoga Village as commercial property owners sought to serve better their rapidly growing community while attempting to maintain the historic character and scale of the early town. Architect Warren Heid can be identified as one of the leading figures in this phase of development. From his office in one of Saratoga’s oldest remaining structures on Big Basin Way (the John Henry House), Warren Heid was involved in either building or remodeling nearly every building in historic Saratoga Village. Today’s Village is large a reflection of Heid’s involvement as steward in preserving Saratoga Village’s past while creating the new vibrant town center that exists today. 213 Heritage Resources Inventory 34 City of Saratoga Prepared by ARCHIVES & ARCHITECTURE, LLC HISTORIC THEMES AND ASSOCIATED PROPERTY TYPES This Statement of Historic Context includes interpretive themes to help understand Saratoga’s historic development in relationship to property types. The themes have been extracted from a larger set of general themes that have been outlined by the State Office of Historic Preservation, and are as follow: • Commerce • Transportation and Public Infrastructure • Religion • Architecture and Neighborhoods Saratoga has a rich and diverse history, although most of the present built environment is associated primarily with residential development, discrete commercial areas, and civic and quasi-public buildings. Few property types other than those for residential uses exist within Saratoga’s neighborhoods. Manufacturing and industry no longer exists in the city, agricultural is limited to a small number of orchards or vineyards, and resource extraction and/or management occurs outside the city limits. Detailed research into the historical context of thematic property types should accompany any future intensive-level survey or property evaluations, as few of these historic properties, other than a small group in Saratoga Village, have been recorded or listed within local and state historic resource inventories. Saratoga has been, and continues to be, home to a number of important personages that lend significance to individual properties. Early local residents such as James Springer, Hannah McCarty, Charles Maclay, Mary Brown, and Charles Blaney, were followed by later residents such as actresses Joan Fontaine and Olivia de Havilland, Paul Masson, James Duval Phelan, and author Kathleen Norris. Many others provide insight to the evolution of a community and its accomplishments. The significance that individuals bring to historic properties is a consideration in establishing historical significance. The following sections address this thematic context, followed by a more detailed overview of the theme of Architecture and Neighborhoods. These sections establish a framework for planning of future survey work, intensive-level investigations, and historic district considerations. Commerce Resource types associated with commerce include retail shops, restaurants, drinking establishments, Inns and motels, financial institutions, livery stables, groceries, offices, shopping malls, and advertising structures. Saratoga Village, platted and developed by the McCarty’s, had two main streets; a business street, known originally as Lumber Street, and Oak Street, which runs parallel to the main thoroughfare. Hannah McCarthy donated a portion of her land on Oak Street to create the local school and another plot to the Congregational Church to establish their church. At the time of her death, her real estate holdings in Saratoga were substantial. 214 Heritage Resources Inventory 35 City of Saratoga Prepared by ARCHIVES & ARCHITECTURE, LLC With one of her sons as a business partner, Hannah sold lots to new settlers and built business buildings and homes to rent. At the time of Hannah McCarty’s death, the center of Saratoga Village was the intersection of Third Street and Lumber Street (Big Basin Way). The village was cut into a steep hillside, and only Third Street was actually cut through to Oak Street and improved for vehicular traffic. In Hannah McCarty’s time, the business buildings along Lumber Street were interspersed with modest residences and boarding houses. From the 1896 Sunshine, Fruit, and Flowers, Santa Clara County, California. The second phase of development for Saratoga Village came in the early-twentieth century. A second cluster of business buildings were built on the renamed Big Basin Way below the earlier intersection. The development potential of the Saratoga area had come to the attention of two significant San José developers, T. S. Montgomery and Charles Blaney, and one local resident with interest in development, Dr. Robert L. Hogg. The three men, working together and independently helped shape the development of the community during the years between 1890 and World War II. Dr. Robert Hogg is responsible for the construction of several business buildings and for joining with Charles Blaney and others to organize the Saratoga State Bank, the first bank in the area. Dr. Hogg remained active in local real estate investment until well after World War II, and many local residents still recall that Dr. Hogg loaned them money for their first homes in Saratoga. Saratoga Village would remain the area’s only commercial district until after World War II. With new residential subdivisions under construction in the mid-to-late 1950s, the Village underwent a cycle of regeneration that continues today, with both new construction, and renovation of older commercial buildings. Small satellite neighborhood shopping centers also sprang up along Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road at this time, providing commercial services to the growing population, with the Argonaut the first at Blauer Drive. Following later were Saratoga Center and Azule Crossing Shopping Centers, located near the northerly edge of the city. Shopping center development in the eastern portions of the city was limited to the later Quito Village Shopping Center at Cox and Saratoga Avenues. San Jose’s Westgate Mall and related shopping centers at Westgate West and the later El Paseo de Saratoga likely competed with market demand in that portion of the city, and no commercial development occurred in the south parts of the city which had been (and continues to be) developed with larger estate homes. The architecture of some of these commercial centers has remained true to their development periods, with little overlay of contemporary post-Neoclassical forms common to other shopping centers throughout Santa Clara Valley. The Argonaut, now Longs Drugs/Safeway, is the exception -a recent renovation is typical of the architectural makeovers now taking place at sites of this scale throughout America. 215 Heritage Resources Inventory 36 City of Saratoga Prepared by ARCHIVES & ARCHITECTURE, LLC Transportation and Public Infrastructure Changes in transportation during the Horticultural Development period were a major influence on local developmental patterns during the later part of the nineteenth century. In 1877, the narrow gauge South Pacific Coast Railroad was completed from Niles. The alignment came through Alviso, along the eastern edge of the Town of Santa Clara, (intersecting with the Southern Pacific tracks, formerly the San Francisco & San Jose Railroad), through the College Park area of San José to its station just south of The Alameda at Cahill Street. The construction of the South Pacific Coast Railroad through nearby Los Gatos just four miles away opened the West Valley to large scale fruit production. Farmers now had an alternative to hauling their fruit to the Southern Pacific Railroad in Santa Clara. Access to transportation played a key role in the development of the Saratoga area. Samuel Bishop built the first electrical streetcar line in America when he electrified the line between San José and Santa Clara in 1887/1888. The streetcars were converted to overhead electrical trolley lines in 1891, and the Interurban Railroad had lines to Saratoga, Campbell, and Los Gatos by 1905. The Interurban paved the way for suburban development in Saratoga during the early parts of the twentieth century. No structures remain in Saratoga associated with these early transportation eras other than the Southern Pacific Right-of-way that exists near or adjacent to Route 85. By the early twentieth century, roadways widened for automobile traffic became the primary route for local and intercity transportation. During the World War II era, State Route 9 was realigned and widened as a part of the improvement of statewide through-routes related to national security. Those improvements did not substantial affect patterns of development in Saratoga, and the small-scale character of the Village remained intact in spite of demands for improvements to facilitate through-traffic. Planning of Highway 85 affected the development of the northeast portion of the city by establishing a barrier and creating a distinctive edge to the main part of the city. Today Triangle North and South, and the Quito areas remained separated, with roadway improvements to its main thoroughfares more substantial than within many areas closer in to the Village. The widened Saratoga Avenue extends from San Jose’s Stevens Creek Blvd to Fruitvale, where traffic is directed to West Valley College. Further widening as Saratoga Avenue approaches the Village have been minimized. This area was designated as Heritage Lane in 1991. Heritage Lane at its northeastern entry 216 Heritage Resources Inventory 37 City of Saratoga Prepared by ARCHIVES & ARCHITECTURE, LLC Religion Resource types associated with religion include churches, parochial schools, and cemeteries. From its earliest beginnings, the Saratoga community was shaped by the religious beliefs of its early settlers. The town of Saratoga is an excellent example of the ongoing tensions between the Roman Catholics and the Methodist-Episcopal churches, as both groups of early arrivals in Santa Clara Valley established their colleges and spread their gospels. The early village and its economy were shaped by two religious groups, the Roman Catholics and the Methodist-Episcopal churches. There would be an underlying tension in the community for decades, created by difference in philosophy between those groups that supported Temperance and the sizeable population of Swiss-Italian immigrants who settled in the Santa Cruz Mountains, who were winegrowers and wine sellers. The first Methodist in California was pathfinder Jedediah Smith, pioneer of the Overland Trail and the first to cross the Sierras. Smith carried his hymnal as well as his Bible. He was followed by the Rev. Adna Hecox who came West with the Cunningham family and James Frazier Reed of the Donner party. Early Saratoga was established and maintained by several Methodists including William Campbell, William Haun, Charles Maclay and in later years Frank Farwell. There were also a handful of early Congregationalists in Saratoga and their numbers would become increasingly significant. The Methodists did not establish a church in the early years. It would be several decades, during the later part of the Early American period, before the community was apparently large enough to build a church. The Congregational Church was built in 1872, the Christian Church was erected in 1880, and the Methodists had their own house of worship in 1896. Construction of church buildings is relatively late in the development of the Saratoga community. For years, some Protestant congregations met met in Los Gatos while others met in local homes, and were served by institution known as the circuit preacher. The earliest Roman Catholic presence on Saratoga was probably Martin McCarthy, a Gold Rush pioneer of Irish descent. During the late 1850s and early 1860s the Santa Cruz Mountains above Saratoga began to fill with Catholic immigrants from the Haute-Alpes area. Today their homeland area is considered part of Provence in southern France. These early immigrants were wine-growers, and they established some of the earliest vineyards in the Saratoga area. The French, Swiss and Italian Catholics built their own church, a small chapel in the hills. The Church of St. John the Evangelist was dedicated in 1890. The Methodist pioneers who established the mills in Saratoga did not build a church in that area, but in 1853 they did choose a site for a regular camp meeting. The site was noted as a wooded area on Campbell Creek one-half mile below the tollgate. Members of the Tollgate Camp meeting built a Temperance Hall in Saratoga, which was later used as Saratoga’s first schoolhouse. 217 Heritage Resources Inventory 38 City of Saratoga Prepared by ARCHIVES & ARCHITECTURE, LLC Today, Saratoga is home to about seventeen church groups. Most of these have houses of worship constructed in the last half a century during the Saratoga’s expansion years following incorporation. The California law, known as AB133, allows any "religiously-affiliated" organization to exempt "noncommercial" historic property from local landmarks laws, regardless of the purposes for which the property is used. This state statute includes residential and other properties owned by religious institutions. In order to invoke the exemption, the religiously affiliated organization must formally object to the application of the law, and determine in a public forum that application of the law will result in a substantial hardship, which is likely to deny the organization either an economic return on its property, the "reasonable use" of its property, or the appropriate use of its property in the furtherance of its religious mission. 218 Heritage Resources Inventory 39 City of Saratoga Prepared by ARCHIVES & ARCHITECTURE, LLC Architecture and Neighborhoods In Saratoga, buildings significant for their architectural character can be identified using the architectural typology provided in the following pages. Because of the diversity of architectural styles in the city, a wide variety of buildings may be determined to be historic resources, and these may be broadly spaced throughout the city limits. Although there is a notable concentration of mid-to-late nineteenth-century buildings in Saratoga Village, buildings from the Early American period are generally somewhat rare. Because of their relative scarcity, they are usually considered to have some level of architectural significance even if their historical integrity may be comparatively compromised. The architectural history of Saratoga of the rough-and-tumble Early American years saw primarily the construction of practical, vernacular structures, built of local materials along the major transportation routes. Redwood cottages and redwood or masonry commercial buildings are the predominant visual reminders of the nineteenth century in Saratoga. Some early buildings featured stylistic architectural details, such as Queen Anne or Stick-style Victorian designs, but many buildings were spare National-style designs, known sometimes in Saratoga as “Pioneer” designs. Current history seems to show a lag time between the popularity of the earlier styles in the more urban surrounding areas, such as San José, and their use and appearance in Saratoga. Assuming the Saratoga building dates are close to correct, v-groove siding and Queen-Anne asymmetry, for example, appear as much as five years after their primary appearance in more metropolitan cities. After the turn of the twentieth century, as Saratoga became more accessible and was seen as a preferred residential area, the types of houses and buildings changed to reflect more variety of materials and scale, more richness in design and detailing, and a reflection of popular styles. In the City of Homes period, many significant architects and builders collaborated with the owners to create masterpieces, but even very modest vernacular buildings from this era include character-defining forms and detailing. This period includes an array of houses and buildings designed by significant architects from around the Bay Area. Such nationally known architects as Julia Morgan, Willis Polk, and William Weeks, as well as regionally prominent architects as Wolfe & McKenzie, Birge Clark, and Hill & Higbie, provided architectural services to local property owners; short biographies of these contributors can be found at the end of this section. Saratoga also has a wide representation of architecture from after World War II, but the historical significance of most of this late-twentieth-century building stock is only starting to be understood. Many mid-century buildings recently have reached fifty years old, the commonly accepted age for buildings to be evaluated for historical significance, but most of the city’s post-World-War-II housing is more recent than that. The very nature of construction after 1945 has been fast and extensive, so much of what was built is not individually representative of the era. Some individual buildings and tracts are already identified with significant local architects and trends in design. Although there are other significant modern-era architects whose work influenced Saratoga in the latter half of the twentieth century, such as Anshen & Allen, Warren Heid holds a particularly prominent position in the design of Saratoga’s built environment during this era. His local office was instrumental in the design of many significant institutional and commercial structures, as well as many residences in the area. In addition to his strong modern designs, he was also instrumental in the preservation movement in Saratoga. 219 Heritage Resources Inventory 40 City of Saratoga Prepared by ARCHIVES & ARCHITECTURE, LLC Within the residential, commercial, and institutional building types most common in the city are representative examples of many of the major architectural styles popular between the 1850s and the present day. The residences include styles as diverse as early-American farmhouses, Victorian-era single-family residences, later Neoclassical and Craftsman bungalows and cottages, Eclectic Revival designs, Ranch-style houses and apartments, as well as stripped-down-Modern designs. Regardless of style, the vast majority of the residences are of conventional wood-frame construction; however, there are also a few early board-wall houses and a few hollow-core masonry buildings such as the Village Library, and modern masonry structures. Other structural systems include stone and brick, as well as twentieth-century adobe, steel stud, post-andbeam, and alternative materials. The dates that are included in the following analysis are are not firm; the popularity of specific styles tends to cross timelines. Pre-American-era Structures (Prior to 1850) There are no known extant resources associated with the Spanish /Mexican Period (1769-1846) in the city. Saratoga’s current city limits overlap one early rancho, Quito, but the areas of these vast agricultural holdings are not known to have contained structures within the city’s boundaries. National style cottages and other early pre-railroad vernacular forms (1850s to early 1870s) Of the earliest American-era buildings in Saratoga, only a few are still extant. Of the earliest American-era buildings, the most common are vernacular National style designs, known sometimes in the city as “Pioneer” cottages, but one, the Springer House, is identified as a prefabricated structure. All these buildings are modest in size and plain in appearance, so they may not always be recognized as potentially significant. A number of these National style houses can be found in the Village, some now used as commercial structures. The buildings of this era often exhibit the distinctive proportions of a balloon-frame building, primarily visible in the raised eaves of the cross-gabled roof, the narrow roof span and relatively steep roof pitch, as well as the raised floor. Many of these mid-nineteenthcentury vernacular houses are of board-wall construction. They have simple, steeply gabled roofs, a narrow roof span, rectangular footprints, and their board-and-batten siding is integral with their structure although they may be clad with lap or channel rustic siding. The houses are referred to as National style, representing the simplicity and universality of their forms. National-style houses can have added detailing that shows some stylistic influences, such as turned porch posts, Tudor headers, or Gothic Revival eave trim, but most in Saratoga are very plain. Early vernacular wood-frame residences—usually balloon frame—also most often took a National-style form; these simple houses also had moderately to steeply pitched, gabled roofs covering simple rectangular floor plans or “L”-shaped plans; however, changes in construction techniques and the availability of locally milled materials allowed somewhat larger footprints and provided a more polished 220 Heritage Resources Inventory 41 City of Saratoga Prepared by ARCHIVES & ARCHITECTURE, LLC exterior siding material. In addition to a widespread use of channel-rustic siding, the houses had the boxed eaves, simple projecting porches, and plain, flat-board trim characteristic of this era. Windows, if they haven’t been replaced, usually consist of relatively narrow 2/2 or 6/6 double-hung wood sash; they are placed individually around the house. Still standing in Saratoga are a number of vernacular mid-nineteenth-century commercial and agricultural structures. Again, these are utilitarian and practical designs, built of local materials. In Saratoga Village are a few stone buildings or buildings with extensive stone foundations; these appear to be associated with a single individual who owned a limestone quarry nearby. The agricultural structures have forms and materials similar to their residential counterparts; they are wood structures—some balloon framed and some board-wall—they generally have steeply pitched pitched gable roofs, and original fenestration consists of 2/2 double-hung windows with flat-board trim. Italianate and Western False-front houses and commercial buildings (1870s) As American influence increased after California statehood, construction of woodframe houses increased throughout the Bay Area. Much of the materials and detailing were similar to those of the earlier National-style houses, such as channel-rustic siding and boxed eaves; however, fashionable buildings became Italianate in style, and vernacular buildings started to incorporate Italianate elements. The construction methods often were sturdier, utilizing redwood lumber for balloon framing. The largest houses in the South Bay took on a distinctive Italianate form: two stories on a raised pony wall, with a concealed low-slope roof, often hipped. These featured wooden quoins outlining their vertical front façades and rows of Italianate corbels accenting their high, square cornices. Some of these houses have symmetrical façades; however, even the later asymmetrical versions have a strong, centralized focus rather than an impression of complexity and multiple parts. National-style houses of the time took their cues from these designs, primarily incorporating symmetrical central gables, vernacular window hood trim and occasionally Italianate corbels. Although rare, there are examples of this design in Saratoga. One vernacular form from this period is the Western Falsefront. The intent was to create a strong rectangular front façade while the house or commercial building behind it is a smaller, and more traditional gabled-or hipped-roof structure. Victorian-era Designs: Queen Anne, Eastlake, Shingle-style, and Victorian Farmhouses (1880s to late 1890s) Victorian architecture refers to designs roughly associated with the period of the reign of Queen Victoria of Great Britain—approximately the last quarter of the nineteenth century. Within this catchphrase are a number of specific styles that have some commonality and some differences. Generally, Generally, the common traits 221 Heritage Resources Inventory 42 City of Saratoga Prepared by ARCHIVES & ARCHITECTURE, LLC include a sense of verticality expressed in the proportions of the massing, trim, and windows and doors. Asymmetry is also an attribute of Victorian architecture; in particular, most houses from this era have asymmetrical towers, bay windows, gables, porches, cantilevers and other projecting objects that interrupt the basic, underlying house form. Much of this era of design focuses on elaborate decorative elements such as brackets, spindlework, Eastlake carved trim, complex shingled window surrounds, etc. The various styles are built of frame construction, often platform-framed for differentiation between the first and second floor plans. This lightweight or “western” construction method slowly replaced the earlier “balloon framed” houses of the National and Italianate styles. Stick-style designs in the South Bay area, particularly the more vernacular forms, represent a transition from the more upright and blocky Italianate designs of the 1880s to the more highly decorated and asymmetrical Queen Anne designs of the 1890s. Classic Stick-style details commonly include balloonframed forms with one-and-one-half-story forms, patterned shingle work in the front gable end, elongated corbels and other Eastlake-style ornament at the gable and porch, and sometimes bay windows or angled corners. These early Victorian designs can have channelrustic siding, and the bay window are commonly less integrated into the overall form, such as small, separate bays with no front focal window. Later Stick-style designs have cross-gabled roofs and asymmetrical forms that begin to be representative of Queen Anne styles, but these retain the carved Eastlake corbels, frame-like flat board trim, and diagonal paneling of the earlier Victorian—or even earlier—era. Queen Anne houses and cottages are present in both stylistically clear and vernacular forms in Saratoga; however, the high-style designs are relatively rare in comparison with other South Bay Bay communities such as nearby Los Gatos. Queen Anne houses are typified by asymmetrical façades with a combination of hipped roofs and decorative gables, as well as angled bay windows and turrets. The style is well known for ornate trim, including scroll-cut brackets and decorative window surrounds. Porches on Queen Anne houses usually are inset into the complex footprint, but their roofs project from the building mass. The porches feature turned columns, low balustrades, and additional ornate trim. Vernacular Queen Anne cottages traditionally are hipped main blocks with a single, projecting gable, often featuring angled bay windows; they have less ornate trim work, but still include some porch brackets and other refined features. Shingle-style houses are recognized by their broad, gabled forms—often multiple stories or half-stories are protected by the same gabled roof. Shingle-style wall walls have cantilevers, bays, and eyebrow forms that are frequently shingled to smooth and integrate these complex articulations into the larger design. Shingle-style houses often include Neoclassical-style porch columns, window casings with pilaster trim, and heavy brackets and dentils. These motifs and materials were utilized in Saratoga and other Bay Area communities over a long 222 Heritage Resources Inventory 43 City of Saratoga Prepared by ARCHIVES & ARCHITECTURE, LLC period of time. Shingle-style influences are found on many Craftsman and Neoclassical designs of the earlytwentieth century. Victorian Farmhouses are the later versions of National-style forms with vernacular “Victorian” elements utilized within the porches and eaves. The roof pitches, siding type, window proportions and sash types are subtly different from the earlier National-style buildings, although many of these utilize balloon framing like their predecessors. Turn-of-the-Century: Prairie-style and Foursquare houses (Late 1890s to mid-1920s) Traditional Prairie-style proportions include blocky massing with a horizontal emphasis, and the buildings are strongly grounded visually. The strength and solidity of these houses is most often expressed with a tall first floor— often created by a trim band or change of materials at the apron level of the second floor windows; not only does this create a substantial base, it also accentuates the horizontality of the upper portion of the elevations. Deeply cantilevered, boxed eaves and ribbons of windows convey additional horizontality. Additional strength is conveyed by wide doorways and heavy posts. Smaller details that express the Prairie style include geometric art-glass windows, windows with Prairie-style lite patterns (compositions of rectangles and squares), and stripes of trim. Foursquare houses are a practical, vernacular expression of this transitional time between Victorian-era verticality and Craftsman horizontality. Their exteriors are relatively unornamented, and their name refers to their room configuration. Some four-squares have recessed porches, but usually they have applied front stoops with simple porch roofs. Craftsman and Neoclassical Bungalows (1905 to 1925) Saratoga’s growing reputation as a resort and retreat produced a rich variety of earlytwentieth-century residences, both architectdesigned and vernacular. The city encompasses a collection of original Craftsman-style and Neoclassical bungalows. Most are modest representations of the popular styles, but, nevertheless, embody the design aesthetics presented in such magazines as Craftsman. 223 Heritage Resources Inventory 44 City of Saratoga Prepared by ARCHIVES & ARCHITECTURE, LLC Craftsman bungalows built during the early-twentieth century have a heavy, horizontal orientation that is often highlighted by long porch beams, broad eaves, and ribbons of windows. A majority of the vernacular versions are one story or one-and-a-half stories. Craftsman-style houses include a variety of features that set them off from other buildings: knee braces at their gable ends, outlookers, massive porch posts and/or truncated posts that rest on solid, sided porch railings, exposed rafter tails and other expressions of joinery, and wide front doors, as well as double-hung and casement windows with horizontal or square, rather than vertical, proportions. Often Craftsman bungalows feature cantilevered, square-bay windows, including corner bays. Few commercial structures are Craftsman in design, as it represented a residential movement. Popular at the same time as Craftsman designs, Neoclassical houses represent twentieth-century development of the Queen Anne style. Occasionally in Saratoga and other locations, these designs have been referred to as “Princess Annes.” Neoclassical houses have compact horizontal or cubical proportions similar to Craftsman houses, and use similar materials; however, the distinctive features include the small hipped or gabled dormers at their usually hipped roofs that also sometimes have forwardfacing gabled pediments. The vernacular versions have modest turned columns and solid porch railing, and a great many have recessed porches and shallow angled bay windows tucked under boxed eaves. The more heavily designed Neoclassical residences have more complete classical detailing, classical columns, and more complex forms. There are some examples of shingled Craftsman-era or Neoclassical houses, but the common siding choices from this timeframe include tri-bevel siding, simple lap and stucco. Neoclassical design did translate to commercial structures at this time. The designs of stores, banks, and churches incorporated Neoclassical compact forms, square window proportions, recessed entries, and classical trim, such as dentils and egg-and-dart cornices. Renaissance Revival, Italian Villa, and Mediterranean Revival (Mid-1910s through 1920s) These styles are related to Classical Revival or Neoclassical designs, as they include classical detailing; however, these styles are considerably more suggestive of their roots and more 224 Heritage Resources Inventory 45 City of Saratoga Prepared by ARCHIVES & ARCHITECTURE, LLC expressive of their reproduction of stone walls and classical designs from antiquity. Such identifying detailing includes applied swags, Palladian windows, and more ornate columns, cornices and porch trim. Eclectic Revival Styles: Spanish Eclectic, Mission Revival, Tudor Revival, and Colonial Revival (1912s and 1930s) Over time, Craftsman-style houses began to take on new exterior detailing reminiscent of historic and international examples, such as halftimbered gable ends, and after the First World War, the Eclectic Revival or Period Revival styles grew in prominence to become characteristic of both residential and nonresidential construction. Such styles as Spanish Eclectic, Mission Revival, Mediterranean, French Eclectic, and others became popular. Even very modest buildings of all types included Eclectic Revival detailing, such as Spanish tile roofs, raised and inset plaster ornament, arched porches and arched picture windows, shaped buttresses, and the occasional ornamental column. In addition to including woodframed houses, commercial buildings, and churches, this period also included the occasional use of hollowcore masonry block. This building material is somewhat rare and representative of an era, beginning about 1922. Following World War II, hollow-core concrete masonry block came into common use, but primarily for commercial and industrial buildings. Growing out of a similar desire for traditional and historical forms, some houses from this era were Colonial Revival and Dutch Colonial designs. Looking to colonial New England and the Middle-Atlantic states for design features, designers included gambrel roofs, cantilevered upper stories, blocky proportions, shuttered windows, and classical pediments over symmetrical front entries. One of the new building types that emerged in this period is the automobile garage. Although early garages were sometimes based on carriage-house prototypes, and so were detached, had board walls and board-andbatten doors, garages soon were being built along with the primary residences, and so matched the materials and forms of the house. 225 Heritage Resources Inventory 46 City of Saratoga Prepared by ARCHIVES & ARCHITECTURE, LLC Art Deco and Art Moderne (Mid-1930s to early 1950s) While Modern architecture began to appear in Santa Clara Valley in the mid-1930s, there are few notable examples of buildings with these early stylistic characteristics in Saratoga. There is also little evidence of the influence of the early Modern Movement in the residential areas. Minimal Traditional (Late 1930s through 1950s) Some vernacular houses, particularly in the 1930s and early 1940s, were built very simply in what is referred to as “Minimal Traditional” style. Minimal Traditional buildings are a transition between the revival styles of the 1920s into post-War Ranch-style houses. These modest houses were necessitated by the Great Depression and World War II when Modernism was thriving in the more urban areas but materials and capital were scarce. In Saratoga, as in other South Bay communities, the Minimal Traditional style is most often displayed with one-story, unadorned, stucco houses with gabled roofs, shallow eaves and simplified porch designs. The houses are often accompanied by red-stained walkways and stoops. Some Minimal-Traditional designs continued to include Spanish Eclectic influences, with tile roofs or arched porch openings. Within the Minimal Traditional style evolved a distinctive 1940s residence that features simplified roofs, often hipped, and horizontal window lites, often steel casements but also sometimes double-hung wood sash. Detailing in these later buildings is somewhat less traditional and more typically geometric, particularly accentuating horizontal lines, such as a pattern of horizontal rails between the porch posts. Interesting versions of houses from this era have corner windows with thin corner posts. Ranch Style (Late 1940s and 1950s) The thirties and early forties were a lean time for construction; the financial atmosphere and the need to use materials for the war effort diminished the ability of people to erect new buildings, but after World War II, the boom years began. Although a large proportion of Ranch-style houses in California are traditionally found in groupings of similar houses within large subdivisions, vernacular and custom Ranch-style residences—both large and small— were also built throughout Saratoga, interspersed with earlier parcels. The Ranch style, 226 Heritage Resources Inventory 47 City of Saratoga Prepared by ARCHIVES & ARCHITECTURE, LLC championed by Sunset Magazine in the late 1940s, included mostly single-story construction under hipped roofs, rooms that opened into the landscape, and attached carports or garages. Typical features of Ranch-style houses include simple posts at the recessed porches, horizontal ribbons of window sash, often steel casements, and geometric fascia gutters. A decorative feature that often was used to create a more horizontal line was brick wainscoting. Some have corner steel windows; some have details that refer back to the surrounding Eclectic Revival houses, including some with Spanish Eclectic tiles and forms. Some houses of this genre in Saratoga have an Asian treatment, with especially broad or bell-cast eaves, gabled hips, and special front door designs. In Saratoga, Ranch-style design is represented as single-family residences, multifamily residences, and offices, as well as institutions such as churches. Modernism and the Bay Regional Style (Late 1940s to about 1980) Mid-century Modernism began to reach widespread popularity, as its simplicity was both practical and aesthetically pleasing for commercial and industrial construction in the post-war economy. The character of this style comes from wide wall planes under flat roofs with little or no trim around large windows and simple doors. Ribbon windows and some angular trim or elements often accentuated the horizontality, but the primary focus was the overall rectilinear massing. Single-family residences can be found in Saratoga in both custom-built houses and in tract design, and multi-family residences were most often Modernist in style, as were commercial structures. Bay Regional style is a regional variation of Modernism, focused on the use of local materials for the exterior finishes; specifically, the forms of such buildings are geometric and Modernist in their simplicity, but the siding and trim might be wood, such as v-groove siding. In Saratoga architect-designed Bay Regional residences were sometimes built into the foothills, and many multi-family residences began to take this form. Envelope Replacement Projects (1950s to present) Since the mid-twentieth century, many residential and commercial buildings have become the subject of envelope replacement projects. Remodeling the exterior of buildings is not a new phenomenon although historically most renovation work has tended to focus primarily on re-roofing or replacement of deteriorated materials. Buildings that were relocated during the early twentieth century often had their porches replaced, new foundations built, and additions added to expand the useable floor area. Starting about the mid-1930s, house renovators began to cover wood siding with asbestos shingles. Stucco re-cladding became more popular after World War II, and decorative elements were stripped from building to create a streamlined 227 III ,•.•. m. .•" •" •' t' l'"'' __ .",,,• . c ..... , _ ........ ,ruo,~~ Heritage Resources Inventory 48 City of Saratoga Prepared by ARCHIVES & ARCHITECTURE, LLC appearance. Later, large retailers such as Sears promoted aluminum siding to cover wood siding while aluminum windows, particularly aluminum sliders, were touted to replace original wood windows. Vinyl siding was also used after the late 1950s. In recent times, envelope replacement projects continue in the West. The most common cladding types used today for envelope replacement projects are stucco, stucco with foam trim, and textured plywood. While simple over-cladding with a modern material is often reversible, many remodeled structures lose their historic character permanently when new siding is combined with either window frame replacements or the removal of trim features from the design. Mid-century Modern shopping centers are altered to become Neo-Tuscan designs by the removal of slim awnings and the addition of Classical stucco forms. The changes in vinyl window technology in the last 10 years, along with intensive marketing of inserts to the general public, has resulted in a subtle but sweeping transformation of much of the historic residential resources in the region. Architects in Saratoga Birge Clark (1893-1989) A Palo Alto native, Birge Clark attended Stanford where his father, Arthur B. Clark, headed the Art Department. After acquiring an architecture degree from Columbia University, Clark entered World War I, in which he was awarded a Silver Star. Returning from the war, Clark opened an office in Palo Alto where he was the only architect in the city between 1922 and 1930. He designed a large number of projects in the greater Palo Alto area (with a number of them in Saratoga) including 98 private residences and over 200 total buildings over the five decades of his professional career. Clark is regarded as having designed virtually all of Palo Alto’s commercial and civic buildings during the 1920’s and the 1930’s, and the overwhelming majority of those were within the “Spanish Eclectic” or “Early California” style, with which his name is synonymous in the area. Some of the most notable projects include the University houses on the Stanford campus (39 in all) and the President Hotel on University Avenue. The 1929 Wright House on Peach Hill Road, listed on the City’s Inventory, is a recognizable example of one of Clark’s designs in Saratoga. Ralph Warren Hart (1869-1915) The 1912 Odd Fellows Home was designed by San Francisco architect Ralph Warren Hart. Born in Illinois, Hart did not have a lengthy career in California, having died of cancer in 1915 three years after his work on the Odd Fellows Home in Saratoga. At the time of his death, the Odd Fellows project was mentioned as one of his "best efforts." 228 Heritage Resources Inventory 49 City of Saratoga Prepared by ARCHIVES & ARCHITECTURE, LLC Warren Heid (1924 -) Warren Heid was born in Alameda County and has continued a long career as an architect in Saratoga to the present day. He received his architectural degree from the University of California, Berkeley in 1950. From 1950 to 1957 he worked for the San José firm of Binder and Curtis, and in early 1958, opened his own practice in Saratoga. His work has included residential, school, churches, industrial, and commercial projects. Major commissions in Saratoga include St. Andrew’s Episcopal Church and administration buildings, Congress Springs Elementary School, Saratoga City Hall and Council Chamber, Saratoga Community Center, the Inn at Saratoga, Plaza del Robles Shopping Center, Saratoga Fire Station, Redwood School Gymnasium and Science Buildings, Chapel of Lady of Fatima Rest Home, Bitter Dental Center, Azule Shopping and Office Center, Saratoga/Cupertino Chapel and Mortuary, Saratoga Country Club, O’Neil Medical Building, Saratoga Office Complex, as well as a number of other offices, condominiums, and residences in the city. His work also includes an extensive list of projects in nearby Los Gatos, Cupertino, and San José. Warren Heid has served as Chair of the Saratoga Heritage Preservation Commission, and in 1983, Saratoga’s Chamber of Commerce honored him as “Citizen of the Year.” Andrew Putnam Hill, Jr. (1886 – 1973) and Howard Higbie (1879 – 1958) Andrew P. Hill, Jr., was the son of Andrew P. Hill, the renowned photographer and California landscape painter. Andrew P. Hill, Jr. was an architect with a substantial career in California prior to embarking on a career in education. He was trained in industrial arts education at San Jose State University and in architecture at Stanford University. After teaching at San Jose State College from 1910 to 1917, he continued teaching while establishing a part-time architectural practice. During this time he was commissioned to do a small number of residential projects that are now considered distinguished works in the early interwar years following World War I. During this time he partnered on some projects with architect Howard Higbie, who had recently moved into the area. Although rare, architectural works by this partnership can be found throughout the South Bay area, including the 1924 Fontaine House in Saratoga located on La Paloma Avenue. By 1923, Hill was appointed Assistant Superintendent of the San José city schools, and over the next 27 years worked at various school superintendent jobs in California. Howard Wetmore Higbie was born in New York. He was educated at Columbia College and practiced as an architect in New York before moving to San José with his wife Jane in 1912. Howard Higbie collaborated with his wife on many local projects during his career. Jane Higbie was a distinguished interior designer who specialized in house furnishings. Howard Higbie was the architect for a number of apartment buildings in 1920-1930s that were created in the Spanish-Spanish-Eclectic style, and other design work of his included residences and public buildings. He also designed a wing of the County Hospital. Julia Morgan (1872-1957) Julia Morgan is California’s most famous woman architect, with over 700 building to her credit. She is best known for her elegant work on Hearst Castle in San Simeon, California. Born in San Francisco, she graduated from the University of California, Berkeley in 1894 with a degree in civil engineering. She also attended the Ecole des Beaux Arts in Paris, being the first woman to graduate in architecture from that acclaimed school. Returning to San Francisco, she first worked for Galen Howard who was designing the Berkeley campus at 229 Heritage Resources Inventory 50 City of Saratoga Prepared by ARCHIVES & ARCHITECTURE, LLC that time, and then opened her own office in 1904 in San Francisco. Her best known works (not commissioned by William Randolph Hearst) include a number of YWCAs, the Mills College Bell Tower, Asilomar Conference Grounds, and Berkeley City Club. She was inducted into the California Hall of Fame in 2008. In Saratoga, she was the designer of the 1915 Foothill Club, the 1923 Saratoga Federated Church, and a number of large residences including the 1907 B. Grant Taylor House and the 1920 Hayfield (Goodrich residence). She also designed Montezuma Boys School in the nearby Los Gatos foothills. Willis Polk (1867-1924) Willis Polk was a prolific San Francisco architect who began his career as a draftsman for his father's construction firm in Kansas City. He later worked for the Boston firm Van Brunt and Howe and then A. Page Brown in New York City. He took a position with Chicago architect Daniel Burnham in 1902, but returned to San Francisco a year later and again partnered with Burnham in 1906 following the earthquake. Polk was a versatile architect, with particular skill in combining classical styles. He was regarded for his elegant residential work, mainly in mansions and estates in the Georgian Revival style for wealthy and prominent Bay Area residents. In Saratoga, the 1917 Blaney House remains today as one of his more significant residential works. Henry Clay Smith (1874-1945) Henry Clay Smith was born in Santa Clara and studied at the University of Pennsylvania. After working for James Hamilton Windrim, he returned to the San Francisco Bay Area where he went into partnership with Louis S. Stone in 1900 until 1909. Smith's later signature buildings involved the sitting of houses on hilly terrain, and he became known as "The Hillside Architect." Smith was adept at many architectural styles; with many Spanish, Mission and Tudor Revival, Italian Renaissance and Neo-Classicism buildings to his credit. He was awarded the Jury Prize "for schoolhouse architecture" at the 1915 Panama-Pacific International Exposition. In Saratoga, he is known as the designer of the 1936 Paul Masson Lodge on Pierce Road. Eldredge Theodore Spencer (1892-1972) Eldredge Spencer was an influential California architect who got his start in Santa Clara County. He graduated from the University of California, Berkeley and, following his service in the Army Signal Corps during World War I, went on to study architecture at the Ecole des Beaux Arts in Paris. In Saratoga he was commissioned for the Village Library building, an innovative early 1920s design utilizing the then evolving technology of hollow-care masonry blocks. He later became Chief Architect for the California's National Parks and was responsible for designing Yosemite Lodge, and a number of buildings at Grand Teton National Park. He returned to the Bay Area to head the first planning office at Stanford University and instituted a more modern influence on campus design. The Spencer firm was commissioned to design Saratoga's replacement library building on Saratoga Avenue. Hans Sumpf (1914-1985) Hans Sumpf was founder of Hans Sumpf Company, Inc, of Madera, manufacturer of made-to-order Missionclay roofing tiles. The company had a 70-year history, closing in late 2005. They perfected a durable, 230 Heritage Resources Inventory 51 City of Saratoga Prepared by ARCHIVES & ARCHITECTURE, LLC waterproof adobe brick, and created a unique ceramic milieu of sculptured wall surfaces in clay. Hans Sumpf was born in Coalinga, California in 1914, the son of a German immigrant. He studied engineering at Stanford. He partnered with George MacFadden and established his business in the 1930s, making bricks with an asphalt emulsion. He executed the restoration of Mission San Juan Bautista, the Mission San José reconstruction, and the 1935 Casa de Tesoro (Dr. Clemmer Peck Residence) in Saratoga. William H. Weeks (1864-1936) Williams Weeks was born in Charlottetown on Canada's Prince Edward Island and acquired his initial training with his father, a professional builder. Whether or not Weeks had any academic or professional architectural training is unknown. Weeks was married in Wichita, Kansas and moved to Watsonville in 1894. The majority of his designs were commissioned for projects in Santa Cruz, Salinas, and Monterey. By 1930, Weeks had over eighty school projects on his record, ranging in location from Santa Barbara to Red Bluff, with most exhibiting the Spanish Colonial Revival style prevalent at the time. He further is credited with the designs of numerous hotels in the Art Moderne and Spanish Colonial styles, most notably among them the Palomar Hotel in Santa Cruz (1929), the De Anza Hotel in San José (1931), the Monterey Hotel in (1922), the Durant in Berkeley (1928), and the Oxford in San Francisco. In Saratoga, he designed the 1911 George Wood House, known as Woodleigh) House as well as others. His catalog of work compiled by the late historian Betty Lewis also includes a 1913 commission for the Laveaga residence. Emily Williams (1869 – 1942) Emily Williams was San Jose’s first woman architect. She was the daughter of San Jose Water Works president Edward Williams, starting her career as a teacher, but soon partnering with artist Lillian Palmer and embarking on their mutual professional ambitions. Williams briefly studied at the California School of Mechanical Arts in San Francisco and built her first house in Pacific Grove in 1904. She soon built a number of houses in Pacific Grove and Carmel, mostly for women clients. In San José she designed what is now known as the Arthur Free house (built for Palmer’s parents) on South Fourteenth Street that is now listed on the National Register. In 1908, she studied classic architecture in Europe, and returning to California, she designed an exhibition booth for the Alaska Garnet Mining and Manufacturing Company at the 1915 Panama-Pacific International Exposition. Her career continued into the mid-1920, as she designed houses in San José and San Francisco. She also designed two houses on Farwell Avenue near Saratoga-Los Gatos Road during this period for Jennie Farwell and Mrs. May. The Farwell Avenue houses are not listed on the Saratoga Heritage Resources Inventory. Frank Delos Wolfe (1863 – 1926) and Charles McKenzie (1874-1957) The architectural firm of Wolfe & McKenzie practiced in San José from the late 1890s until about 1911. Frank Delos Wolfe was born in Green Springs, Ohio, and came to San José with his father, builder Jeremiah Wolfe, and family, in 1888 after working briefly for architect W. L. Ross in Newton, Kansas. First working as a builder, he established his own architectural office in 1892. Soon working with veteran architect J.O. McKee, he took over his office when McKee retired in 1894. Early designs by Wolfe include San Jose's Grace Lutheran Church and the King Conservatory of Music. Charles McKenzie, who had been working for McKee as a draftsman, became Wolfe's partner in the late 1890s, and together they are responsible for many 231 Heritage Resources Inventory 52 City of Saratoga Prepared by ARCHIVES & ARCHITECTURE, LLC significant commercial and residential buildings in Santa Clara County and elsewhere. Wolfe & McKenzie designed a large portion of the prestigious houses in the Naglee Park, Palm Haven, and Shasta-Hanchett residential neighborhoods in San José. In 1907, they published their 102 Designs from Wolfe & McKenzie, a pattern book that defined local residential architecture during the early years of the twentieth century. By 1911 the firm had split, Wolfe later partnering with his son Carl Wolfe, and then later Ernest Higgins. McKenzie continued to practice architecture until the beginning of World War II. Saratoga has a number of buildings listed on their Heritage Resources Inventory designed by Wolfe and/or Higgins during the early part of the twentieth century. They include the 1905 Fair Oaks, the 1906 Hanchett House, the 1907 Lundblad’s Lodge, built for a Mrs. Tabor, 1909 Kerr House, the 1909 Miller House, the 1913 Saratoga Bank Building, and the 1914 Carmichael House. In 1911, Frank Wolfe also designed the nearby Fremont Older House located within Mid-Peninsula’s Fremont Older Open Space Preserve. Ralph Wyckoff (1884-1956) Ralph Wyckoff was a native of Watsonville and practiced architecture in San Francisco, Berkeley, Salinas and Watsonville before moving to San José in 1922. He originally had trained under notable California architect William H. Weeks and received his certificate in architecture in 1914 after studying at the Ecole des Beaux Arts in Paris, where he attended on scholarship. Taking over the practice of H. B. Douglas in Watsonville, he then joined with Hugh White in Salinas from 1919 to 1921. During this period he designed the Tudor styled Watsonville Woman’s Club of 1917, the Salinas High School in 1920, and a number of buildings at Hartnell Junior College. Moving to San José, he continued his association with White until 1925. The most significant design in San José remains the North First Street Post Office building, a 1933 Spanish Eclectic design for WPA, currently listed on the National Register. During this period he designed the San Jose State Science Building (currently Washington Square Hall), Willow Glen Grammar School, and later the Anne Darling School in San José, and the Washington School in Santa Clara. He was an early modernist, designing the late Art Deco San Jose National Bank on West Santa Clara Street in the early 1940s. In the 1950s, his designs included modern structures such the Levi Straus plant on Terraine Street and buildings at San José State College such Wahlquist Library and the Speech and Drama Building. In Saratoga, he designed the Saratoga Grammar School in the early 1920s. Other local and South Bay area architects Since the beginnings of the Early American period, Santa Clara Valley has been the home to a number of prominent architects. Levi Goodrich, the architect of the 1866 Santa Clara County Courthouse is the earliest to design distinguished buildings in the area, his career starting in the early 1850s and extending into the 1880s. In Saratoga, few nineteenth century architects have been identified. The area remained largely rural during the nineteenth century, and architect-designed buildings remaining from this period are rare. A number of substantial buildings were constructed in Saratoga Village for churches and schools, but most of these buildings have long been gone. At the beginning of the twentieth century, as Saratoga became known as a City of Homes, the many architects previously mentioned executed substantial works in Saratoga and vicinity. Others not mentioned, who were practicing in Santa Clara Valley, and who may have designed buildings in Saratoga during the first half of the 232 Heritage Resources Inventory 53 City of Saratoga Prepared by ARCHIVES & ARCHITECTURE, LLC twentieth century, include William Binder (also known as Binder & Curtis), T. H. Krause, William Higgins (of Wolfe & Higgins), William Klinkert, Edward W. Kress, Chester Root (of Higgins & Root), C.J. Ryland, and Warren P. Skillings. Following World War II, the explosive growth in Santa Clara County brought many new architects into business in the area. Many regionally important architects such as William Wurster designed houses in the Saratoga area. Within the emerging subdivision, many custom-designed buildings were constructed lot-by-lot as developers provided build-to-suite parcels, and other “modern” subdivisions came from the studios of such firms as Ashen and Allen. In the foothills, many large homes were architect-designed, following the tradition initiated by James Duval Phelan, Paul Masson, and others. Architect Warren Heid remains the most prolific of this period, with a large catalog of buildings within the the full range of commercial, institutional and residential building types. 233 Heritage Resources Inventory 54 City of Saratoga Prepared by ARCHIVES & ARCHITECTURE, LLC PLANNING AND REGULATIONS Determining Historical and Architectural Significance Historical research is conducted by investigating primary and secondary sources of information. Just as a diary or a historic map can serve as a primary source to understand a more specific instance of history and a history book serves as a secondary source for analysis of a larger area, theme, or an era, buildings can also be studied to provide primary historical information. They can illustrate the lifestyle, tools, materials, priorities, economic situations, and values of people from the past. Historical significance is identified when a building illustrates a story of the events or patterns important to a community. Buildings, structures and site can be significant for their rarity, utility, beauty, associations, or an ability to convey other important associations as historic resources. Although significance can relate to larger community themes, architectural significance is identified when a building distinctly represents a particular style, building type or historic material, and, therefore, illustrates through its appearance alone the artistic and practical values of the community. Architecturally significant buildings and structures represent excellent composition, proportions, detailing, and materials, and often are a reflection of their original designers’ body of work. Vernacular buildings, meanwhile, can be found important for their representation of commonly accepted approaches to design and shelter, even without ornate detailing. Although some vernacular buildings aspire to a specific style by including limited characteristic design elements, such as scroll-cut corbels on an otherwise stylistically simple wood porch, other vernacular buildings can be associated with specific periods solely from their materials and forms. The architectural significance of most buildings is thus related to individual examples and overall patterns of urban design. Key architectural features that affect the overall urban design of a neighborhood include front yard setbacks, continuity of materials, and building massing, scale, and size. In some neighborhoods, certain building styles or types predominate, and the structures that demonstrate those patterns are significant for their contributions to the overall character of their surroundings. Saratoga maintains a wide representation of architecture from the period after World War II, but the significance of most of this late twentieth-century building stock has yet to be established. The mid-century buildings have only recently reached fifty years old, the commonly accepted age for buildings to be evaluated for historical significance, and many of the city’s post-World-War-II housing and commercial buildings are more recent than that. The very nature of construction after 1945 has been fast and extensive, so much of what was built is not individually distinctive within the modern era. More time must pass pass before the community can ascertain the significant character-defining resources from the recent past, and how groupings of buildings that came together over short periods of time within subdivisions have inherent positive interrelationships between properties that are affected by radical alterations to the characteristics associated with the early periods. Historic resources may be designated or listed at the federal, state or local level. As a part of the planning process of agencies such as Saratoga, properties are also determined eligible for listing (or not) for any or all of the above noted registers. A resource must meet the established criteria for significance of the specific 234 Heritage Resources Inventory 55 City of Saratoga Prepared by ARCHIVES & ARCHITECTURE, LLC register being considered, and retain enough historic integrity to convey that significance. Following are the criteria for listing as a Saratoga Heritage Landmark, for the California Register of Historical Resources, and for the National Register of Historic Places. Saratoga Heritage Landmarks It is the public policy of the City of Saratoga that “recognition, preservation, enhancement and use of heritage resources is required in the interest of the health, economic prosperity, cultural enrichment and general welfare of the people.” This policy is enacted within Chapter 13 of the Municipal Code. The purpose of the Heritage Preservation ordinance is to: a) Safeguard the heritage of the City by providing for the protection of irreplaceable heritage resources representing significant elements of its history; b) Enhance the visual character of the City by encouraging and regulating the compatibility of architectural styles styles within historic areas which reflect established architectural traditions; c) Encourage public knowledge, understanding and appreciation of the City's past, and foster civic and neighborhood pride and sense of identity based upon the recognition and use of the City's heritage resources; d) Stabilize and improve property values within the City and increase the economic and financial benefits to the City and its inhabitants derived from the preservation, rehabilitation, and use of heritage resources; and e) Integrate the conservation of heritage resources into the public and private development process and identify as early as possible and resolve conflicts between the preservation of such resources and alternative land uses. Heritage Resources are designated in Saratoga by the City Council following recommendation from the Heritage Preservation Commission. The designation may be for a historic landmark, heritage lane or historic district if it satisfies any two or more of the adopted criteria, and also also retains a substantial degree of architectural and structural integrity with respect to the original design, as determined by the Heritage Preservation Commission: a) The property exemplifies or reflects special elements of the cultural, social, economic, political, aesthetic, engineering or architectural history of the City, the County, the State or the nation; or b) The property is identified with persons or events significant in local, county, state or national history; or c) The property embodies distinctive characteristics of a style, type, period or method of construction, or is a valuable example of the use of indigenous materials or craftsmanship; or d) The property is representative of the notable design or craft of a builder, designer, or architect; or 235 Heritage Resources Inventory 56 City of Saratoga Prepared by ARCHIVES & ARCHITECTURE, LLC e) The property embodies or contributes to unique physical characteristics representing an established and familiar visual feature of a neighborhood or district within the City; or f) The property represents a significant concentration or continuity of site, buildings, structures or objects, unified by past events or aesthetically by plan or physical or natural development; or g) The property embodies or contributes to a unique natural setting or environment constituting a distinct area or district within the City having special character or special historical, architectural or aesthetic interest or value. Applications for designations may be initiated by related property owners, the Heritage Preservation Commission as well as the Planning Commission and City Council, or for heritage lanes or districts, at least sixty percent of the street frontage or area. Designations are not permitted if the property owner(s) of the the affected property (or in the case of lanes or districts at least 41%), object to the designation. Once designated, the owners may request termination of the designation, but the City Council must make findings that the designation is no longer consistent with the purposes and objectives of the Heritage Preservation Ordinance, and no longer satisfies any of the adopted criteria. Owners of properties designated have a duty to keep the heritage landmark in good repair to prevent deterioration and decay of any exterior architectural or natural feature. California Register of Historical Resources The significance criteria for the California Register of Historical Resources are similar to those used for determining eligibility for the National Register of Historic Places (see Section 4.3), but oriented to document the unique history of California. The California Register includes properties listed in or formally declared eligible for the National Register, California State Landmarks above #770, certain Points Points of Historical Interest, and properties listed by application and acceptance by the California Historical Resources Commission. The California Register is a guide used by state and local agencies, private groups and citizens to identify historical resources throughout the state. The types of historical resources eligible for listing in the California Register include buildings, sites, structures, objects and historical districts. [California Code of Regulations Section 4852(a)] Under California Code of Regulation Section 4852(b) and Public Resources Code Section 5024.1, an historical resource generally must be greater than 50 years old and must be significant at the local, state, or national level under one or more of the following four criteria: 1. It is associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of local or regional history, or the cultural heritage of California or the United States. 2. It is associated with the lives of persons important to local, California, or national history. 3. It embodies the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, region, or method of construction, or represents the work of a master or important creative individual, or possesses high artistic values. 4. It has yielded, or has the potential to yield, information important to the prehistory or history of the local area, California, or the nation. 236 Heritage Resources Inventory 57 City of Saratoga Prepared by ARCHIVES & ARCHITECTURE, LLC If nominated for listing in accordance with the procedures outlined in Public Resources Code Section 5024.1(f), the California Register may include: (1) Individual historical resources. (2) Historical resources contributing to the significance of an historic district under criteria adopted by the Commission. (3) Historical resources identified as significant in historical resources surveys, if the survey meets the criteria in Public Resources Code Section 5024.1(g). (4) Historical resources and historic districts designated or listed as city or county landmarks or historic properties or districts pursuant to any city or county ordinance, if the criteria for designation or listing under the ordinance have been determined by the State Historic Resources Officer to be consistent with California Register criteria adopted by the Commission. (5) Local landmarks or historic properties designated under any municipal or county ordinance. California Code of Regulations Section 4852(c) addresses the issue of “integrity” which is necessary for eligibility for the California Register. Integrity is defined as “the authenticity of an historical resource’s physical identity evidenced by the survival of characteristics that existed during the resource’s period of significance.” Section 4852(c) provides that historical resources eligible for listing in the California Register must meet one of the criteria for significance defined by 4852(b)(1 through 4), and retain enough of their historic character of appearance to be recognizable as historical resources and to convey the reasons for their significance. Integrity is evaluated with regard to the retention of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association. It must also be judged with reference to the particular criteria under which a resource is proposed for eligibility. Alterations over time to a resource or historic changes in its use may themselves have historical, cultural, or architectural significance. It is possible that historical resources may not retain sufficient integrity to meet the criteria for listing in the National Register, but they may still be eligible for listing in the California Register. A resource that has lost its historic character or appearance may still have sufficient integrity for the California Register if it maintains the potential to yield significant scientific or historical information or specific data. National Register of Historic Places The National Park Service considers the quality of significance in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture that is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association, and are evaluated for the National Register according to the following criteria: Criterion A that are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns patterns of our history; or Criterion B that are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or 237 Heritage Resources Inventory 58 City of Saratoga Prepared by ARCHIVES & ARCHITECTURE, LLC Criterion C that embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that represents the work of a master, or that possesses high artistic values, or that represents a significant and distinguishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or Criterion D that have yielded, or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Properties that are listed on or formally determined eligible for the National Register are automatically listed on the California Register. Eligible resources must also retain sufficient integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association to convey the relevant historic significance. In general, cemeteries, birthplaces, or graves of historical figures; properties owned by religious institutions or used for religious purposes; structures that were moved from their original locations; reconstructed historic buildings; properties primarily commemorative in nature; and properties that have achieved significance within the past fifty years are considered ineligible for listing in the National Register. However, such properties will qualify if they are integral parts of districts that do meet the criteria of if they fall within the following categories: (a) A religious property deriving primary significance from architectural or artistic distinction or historical importance; or (b) A building or structure removed from its original location but which is significant primarily for architectural value, or which is the surviving structure most importantly associated with a historic person or event; or (c) A birthplace or grave of a historical figure of outstanding importance if there is no appropriate site or building directly associated with that person’s productive life; or (d) A cemetery which derives its primary significance from graves of persons of transcendent importance, from age, from distinctive design features, or from association with historic events; or (e) A reconstructed building when accurately executed in a suitable environment and presented in a dignified manner as part of a restoration master plan, and when no other building or structure with the same association has survived; or (f) A property primarily commemorative in intent if design, age, tradition, or symbolic value has invested it with its own exceptional significance; or (g) A property achieving significance within the past 50 years if it is of exceptional importance. 238 Heritage Resources Inventory 59 City of Saratoga Prepared by ARCHIVES & ARCHITECTURE, LLC Historic Integrity The seven aspects of historic integrity are defined in National Register Bulletin 15: How to Apply the National Register Criteria for Evaluation. Historic integrity is “the ability of a property to convey its significance,” and historic properties either retain their integrity or they do not. To retain integrity, a resource must retain several and usually most of the seven aspects of integrity: 1. Location: the place where the historic property was constructed or the place where the historic event occurred. 2. Design: the combination of elements that create the form, plan, space, structure, and style of a property. 3. Setting: the physical environment of a historic property. 4. Materials: the physical elements that were combined or deposited during a particular period of time and in a particular pattern or configuration to form a historic property. 5. Workmanship: the physical evidence of the crafts of a particular culture or people during any given period in history or prehistory. 6. Feeling: a property’s expression of the aesthetic or historic sense of a particular period of time. 7. Association: the direct link between an important historic event or person and a historic property. The evaluation of historic properties must be grounded in an understanding of the physical features of the resource, and how they relate to historical significance. National Register Bulletin 15 notes that the evaluation for integrity can begin only after the evaluator understands the property’s significance: why the resource is significant, when the resource is significant, and where it is important. A resource need not be “frozen in time” to retain its historic integrity. Properties evolve over time, and those changes themselves may have acquired historic significance. But the resource must still have the essential physical attributes that identify it as the historic property. 239 Heritage Resources Inventory 60 City of Saratoga Prepared by ARCHIVES & ARCHITECTURE, LLC SOURCES OF INFORMATION Maps and Aerials Brainard, H.A., Maps of Santa Clara County, 1886-1888. (online at www.sjlibrary.org) Herrmann Bros. Official Map of the County of Santa Clara, 1890. (County Administration Building wallmap) McMillan, J. G. Official Map of Santa Clara County, 1903. (California Room /SJPL) McMillan, J. G. Official Map of Santa Clara County, 1914. (California Room-SJPL, & County Survey’s Office) McMillan and McMillan. Official Map of Santa Clara County, 1929. (California Room-SJPL) Quito Rancho, filed in the County Recorder’s Office Book A of Patents: Page 112. Sanborn Fire Insurance Maps, Saratoga 1918, 1930, and 1945. (microfilm reel #66 at the Cupertino County Library, partial 1930 at History San José) Santa Clara County; County Archives, 1939, 1940, 1950, 1956, 1960, 1961, 1963, and 1965 aerials (various original sources) Office of the Recorder, recorded maps (microfiche also at County Planning Office) County Transportation Department, 1955-1958 aerials (originals at County Archives) Santa Clara County School District Maps, c1940s and c1950s. (Santa Clara County Archives and the Santa Clara County Surveyor. United States Geological Survey, Menlo Park. Ben Lomond 15-minute Quadrangle. 1942, 1943, 1947, 1948. Castle Rock Ridge 7.5 minute Quadrangle. 1955, 1968, 1991, 1997. Cupertino 7.5 minute Quadrangle, 1953, 1961, 1968, 1973, 1980, 1991. Los Gatos 7.5 minute Quadrangle, 1953, 1955, 1968, 1973, 1980. Los Gatos 15 minute Quadrangle, 1919, 1943, 1947. Palo Alto 15 minute Quadrangle, 1899, 1940, 1943, 1947, 1948, 1961. 240 Heritage Resources Inventory 61 City of Saratoga Prepared by ARCHIVES & ARCHITECTURE, LLC Other Primary Records Polk, R.L. and Co. Directories for the City of San José [and other Santa Clara County towns], 1870–1979. Santa Clara County, Great register of Voters, 1867–1904. Santa Clara County Planning Office, building permits, 1947 – 1956. Santa Clara County, Great Register of Voters, 1890. Santa Clara County, Office of the Recorder; deeds, maps, and official records. United States Population Census for Santa Clara County, 1852–1930. Published and Secondary Sources Ansnes, Elizabeth, Saratoga’s Heritage: a Survey of Historic Resources. Saratoga: Saratoga Heritage Preservation Commission, 1993. Arbuckle, Clyde, Santa Clara County Ranchos. San José: Rosicrucian Press, 1968. Balzer, Robert L., This Uncommon Heritage: The Paul Masson Story. Los Angeles: Ward Ritchie Press, 1970. Bennett, Marti, ed., Images of Long Ago: a Century of People, Places and progress in the town of Los Gatos and the Cities of Saratoga and Monte Sereno. Los Gatos: self published by Marben Associates, 1987. Bennett, Marti, ed., Scouting in the Santa Clara Valley, the Seventy Year Adventure, 1920 – 1990. San José: Santa Clara County Council, 1990. Board of Trade, Santa Clara County, California. San Francisco: W. B. Bancroft & Company, 1887 [republished in 1980 by San José Historical Museum Association]. Boutelle, Sarah, Julia Morgan, Architect. New York: Abbeville Press, 1995. Broek, Dr. J. O. M., The Santa Clara Valley, California: A Study in Landscape Changes. Utrecht: N. V. A. Oosthoek's Uitgevers-Mij, 1932. Brown, Kendall, Japanese-style gardens of the Pacific West Coast. New York: Rizzoli, 1999. Butler, Phylis F., The Valley of Santa Clara, Historic Buildings, 1792-1920. San José: Junior League of San Jose, Inc., 1975. California History Center, Historias: The Spanish Heritage of Santa Clara Valley. Cupertino: California History Center, 1976. 241 Heritage Resources Inventory 62 City of Saratoga Prepared by ARCHIVES & ARCHITECTURE, LLC Carroll, Mary Bowden, Ten Years in Paradise. San José: Press of Popp & Hogan, 1903. Cerny, Susan D., An Architectural Guidebook to San Francisco and the Bay Area. Layton, UT: Gibbs Smith Publisher, 2007. Clarke, Henry, Saratoga Village. Unpublished manuscript in the files of the Saratoga Museum. 2002? Cowen, Robert G., Ranchos of California, a list of Spanish Concessions 1775-1822 and Mexican Grants 1822-1846. Fresno: Academy Library Guild, 1956. Cunningham, Charles, The History of the Saratoga Federated Church. Saratoga: Saratoga Federated Church, 1963. Cunningham, Florence, Saratoga's First Hundred Years. Fresno, Cal.: Panorama West Publishing, 1967. Damskey, C., comp., History of Saratoga. A Local History Study, including Readings, Field Trip, Historical Walking Tour. Saratoga: Saratoga Union School District, 1973. Douglas, Jack, Historical Footnotes of Santa Clara Valley. San José: San José Historical Museum Association, 1993. Douglas, Jack, Historical Highlights of Santa Clara Valley. San José: History San José, 2005. Foote, Horace S., Pen Pictures from the “Garden of the World.” Chicago: Lewis Publishing Company. 1888. Fox, Francis, Hakone Gardens: a Charming Bit of Nippon is authentically portrayed in quaint Saratoga City Park. San José: Harlan-Young Press, 1968. Fox, Theron, Ed., After Harper’s Ferry: John Brown’s Widow – Her Family and the Saratoga Years. Saratoga: Saratoga Historical Foundation, 1964. Garrod, Emma S., One Life, Mine. Saratoga: self published, n.d. Garrod, R.V., Saratoga Story. Saratoga, Cal.; Self published, 1962. Guinn, G. M., History of the State of California and Biographical Record of the Coast Counties. Chicago: The Chapman Publishing Company, 1904. Halberstadt, April, Saratoga Fire; A Century of Volunteer Fire Fighting in Saratoga, California. Saratoga: Saratoga Historical Foundation, 2008. Halberstadt, April and Katie Alexander, Saratoga. Charleston: Arcadia Publisher, 2009. Holmes, N. W., Prune County Railroading: Steel Trails to San José. Huntington Beach: Shade Tree Books, 1985. Hoover, Rensch, and Rensch, Historic Spots in California. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1937. Hruby, D., Mines to Medicine. San José: O’Connor Hospital, 1965. 242 Heritage Resources Inventory 63 City of Saratoga Prepared by ARCHIVES & ARCHITECTURE, LLC Hunt, Rockwell D., History of the College of the Pacific. Stockton: The College of the Pacific, 1951. Ishihara, Tanso and Gloria Wickham, Hakone Garden. Koto: Kawara Shoten, 1974. Jackson, David W., Direct Your Letters to San Jose: The gold Rush Letters and Diary of James and David Lee Campbell, 1849-1852. Kansas City MO: The Orderly Pack Rat, 2000. Jacobson, Yvonne, Passing Farms: Enduring Values. Los Altos: William Kaufmann, Inc. 1984. Jenkins, Bradley C. Madronia Cemetery Tombstone Inscriptions, Saratoga, Santa Clara County, California. Monte Sereno, 1982. Kaucher, Dorothy, James Duval Phelan, A Portrait 1861 – 1930. Saratoga: The Montalvo Association, 1965. Kirker, Harold, California’s Architectural Frontier: Style and Tradition in the Nineteenth Century. Layton, UT: Gibbs M. Smith, 1986. Laffey, Glory Anne & Robert Detlefs, County Leadership: Santa Clara County Government History. The Santa Clara County Historic Heritage Commission, 1995. Levy, Robert J., Windmills – Water Towers & Tank Houses of Santa Clara County. Cupertino: Bob and Louise Levy, 1996. Libby, Jean et al, John Brown’s family in California: a Journey by Funeral Train, covered wagon, through archives, to the Valley of Heart’s Delight…Palo Alto: Allies for Freedom, 2006. Loofbourow, Leon L., In Search of God’s Gold: A Stor of Continued Christian Pioneering in California. Stockton, Historical Society of the California-Nevada Annual Conference of the Methodist Church, 1950. Loomis, Patricia, Signposts. San José: San José Historical Museum Association, 1982. Loomis, Patricia, Signposts II. San José: San José Historical Museum Association, 1985. Lukes, T., and G. Okihiro, Japanese Legacy: Farming and Community Life in California’s Santa Clara Valley. Cupertino: California History Center, 1985. MacGregor, B. A., South Pacific Coast: An illustrated History of the Narrow Gauge South Pacific Coast Railroad. Berkeley: Howell-North Books, 1968. Mars, A., Reminiscences of Santa Clara Valley and San José. San Francisco: Mysell-Rollins, 1901 [San José: Smith and McKay Print Company Co., reprinted 1976]. McAlester, V., and L. McAlester, A Field Guide to American Houses. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1986. McArthur, Seonaid (ed.), Water in the Santa Clara Valley: A History. Cupertino: California History Center, 1981. McCaleb, Charles S., Tracks, Tires and Wires: Public Transportation in California’s Santa Clara Valley. Glendale, CA: Interurban Press, 1981. 243 Heritage Resources Inventory 64 City of Saratoga Prepared by ARCHIVES & ARCHITECTURE, LLC McGinnis, Maxine, The Story of Wonderful Women and Their Redwood Meeting House 1907-2007. Saratoga: The Saratoga Foothill Club, 2006. Mikesell, S. D., Historic Highway Bridges of California. Sacramento: California Department of Transportation, c1990. Millar, Sara Powell., History of St. Luke’s of Los Gatos 1882-1982. Los Gatos: St. Luke’s Episcopal Church, 1982. Munro-Fraser, J. P., History of Santa Clara County, California. San Francisco: Alley, Bowen and Co., 1881. Muth, Ione, Birth of the City of Saratoga 1955-1857. Unpublished manuscript in the collection of the Saratoga Historical Foundation. Nalty, Damon G., The Browns Of Madronia. Saratoga, Cal.: Saratoga Historical Foundation, 1996. Paul Masson Vineyards, The Story of Wine as depicted on José Moya del Pino’s mosaic at the Paul Masson Champagne Cellers Saratoga, California, Saratoga CA, no date. Paulson, L. L., Handbook and Directory of Santa Clara, San Benito, Santa Cruz, Monterey and San Mateo Counties. San Francisco: L. L. Paulson, 1875. Payne, Steven M., Santa Clara County, Harvest of Change. Northridge: Windsor Publications, Inc. 1987, [updated 2008]. Peck, Willys I., A History of Saratoga’s Libraries. Saratoga: Friends of the Saratoga Libraries, 2001. Peck, Willys I., Saratoga Stereopticon, A Magic Lantern of Memory. Cupertino: California History Center Foundation, 1998. Peck, Willy I., The How and the “Y” of it: 125 years of the YMCA in Santa Clara Valley. San José, YMCA, 1992. Perez, C. N., Land Grants in Alta California. Rancho Cordova: Landmark Enterprises, 1996. Quackenbush, Margery, Ed., County Chronicles. Cupertino: California History Center, 1972? [see Saratoga History essay by Mary Jane Hoffecker]. Rambo, Ralph, Pioneer Bluebook of the Old Santa Clara Valley. San José: Rosicrucian Press, 1973. Regnery, Dorothy F., An Enduring Heritage: History Buildings of the San Francisco Peninsula. Stanford: Stanford University Press, 1976. Rice, Bertha M., Builders of Our Valley, A City of Small Farms, Volume I. San José: Bertha Marguerite Rice, 1957. San José Mercury. Santa Clara County and Its Resources, Historical, Descriptive, Statistical [Sunshine, Fruit and Flowers]. San José: The San José Mercury Publishing and Printing Co., 1896 [San José: San José Historical Museum Association, reprinted 1986]. 244 Heritage Resources Inventory 65 City of Saratoga Prepared by ARCHIVES & ARCHITECTURE, LLC Salameda, Joe, Italiana of Silicon Valley. Los Altos: self published, 1984. Saratoga Foothill Club, A History. Prepared by the History and Landmarks Committee, Saratoga, 198? Saratoga Heritage Preservation Commission, Saratoga Heritage Home Tour, 1986. Saratoga Planning Commission, General Plan: City of Saratoga, 1956. Saratoga Rotary Club, Rotary Club, Saratoga, California, 1955-1980. Historical Comments Written by Warren B. Heid, 1980. Sawyer, Eugene, History of Santa Clara County, California. Los Angeles: Historic Record Co., 1922. Snyder, John W., Index of San Francisco Building, 1879-1900. Unpublished thesis, California State University, Dominguez Hills, 1973. Sullivan, C. L., Like Modern Edens: Winegrowing in Santa Clara Valley and Santa Cruz Mountains 1798-1981. Cupertino: California History Center, 1982. Thompson and West. Historical Atlas of Santa Clara County. San Francisco: Thompson and West, 1876 [San José: José: Smith and McKay Printing Co., reprinted 1973]. Walsh, James P. and Timothy J. O’Keefe, Legacy of a Native Son, James Duval Phelan & Villa Montalvo. The Montalvo Association, 1993. Wessling, Cheryl, ed., Water in the Santa Clara Valley, a History. Cupertino: California History Center Foundation, 2005 [Second Edition]. Williams, James C., The Rise of Silicon Valley. Cupertino: California History Center Foundation, 1995. Woodbridge, S. B. California Architecture, Historic American Buildings Survey. San Francisco: Chronicle Books, 1988. Wortel, Betty, Status of Preservation in Saratoga, 1974. (Cal Room) 352.9459 Wulf, William A., A History of the Santa Cruz Mountains. Unpublished manuscript, 1984. Wyatt, R. D., & C. Arbuckle, Historic Names, Persons and Places in Santa Clara County. San José: Roscoe D. Wyatt, 1948. Wyman, Beth, Saratoga Village Library National Register of Historic Places registration form, 2007. Young, J. V. Ghost Towns of the Santa Cruz Mountains. Santa Cruz: Western Tanager Press, 1979. 245 Heritage Resources Inventory 66 City of Saratoga Prepared by ARCHIVES & ARCHITECTURE, LLC Governmental Guidelines and Standards California Department of Parks and Recreation, Office of Historic Preservation. Instructions for Recording Historic Resources, 1995. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Office of Historic Preservation. Title 14 Chapter 11.5. Regulations for California Register of Historical Resources, 1997. United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Architectural and Engineering Documentation. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, 1983 [Available online at http://www.cr.nps.gov/local-law/arch_stnds_0.htm] United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, HABS/HAER. HABS/HAER Guidelines: HABS Historical Reports. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, 2000 [Available online at http://www.cr.nps.gov/habshaer/habs/guidelines/histguide.htm]. United States Department of the Interior, Office of the Secretary. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties and Guidelines for Preservation, Rehabilitation, Restoration, and Reconstruction. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, 1995. [Available online at http://www2.cr.nps .gov/tps/secstan1.htm]. Governmental Surveys and Inventories California Department of Parks and Recreation ,Office of Historic Preservation California Points of Historical Interest. Sacramento: California Department of Parks and Recreation, 1992. California Department of Parks and Recreation, Office of Historic Preservation. Historic Properties Directory. July 31, 1998. Copy provided by the Northwest Information Rohnert Park: Center of the California Historical Resources File System, Sonoma State University, 1998. Santa Clara County Historical Heritage Commission. Santa Clara County Heritage Resource Inventory. San José: Santa Clara County Historical Heritage Commission, 1975. Santa Clara County Historical Heritage Commission. Santa Clara County Heritage Resource Inventory. San José: Santa Clara County Historical Heritage Commission, 1979. Santa Clara County Historical Heritage Commission. Santa Clara County Heritage Resource Inventory. San José: Santa Clara County Historical Heritage Commission, 1999. Santa Clara County Planning Department. Preliminary Inventory of Historical Landmarks in Santa Clara County. San José: Santa Clara County Planning Department, 1962. Saratoga, City of, Heritage Preservation Commission, Saratoga’s Heritage: A Survey of Historic Resources, 1993. 246 Heritage Resources Inventory 67 City of Saratoga Prepared by ARCHIVES & ARCHITECTURE, LLC APPENDIX 247 City of Saratoga HERITAGE RESOURCES INVENTORY (Updated: 6/88, 11/90, 7/91, 4/93, 4/98, 5/99, 3/00, 12/09) Original # HPC Resolution/CC Ordinance Address Historic or Common Name Architectural Style Criteria 1 1 HP‐88‐01 13361 Argonne Dr. Johnson‐Kerr House (c. 1900) Craftsman a,c 2 2 HP‐88‐01 20021 Bella Vista Rancho Bella Vista ( 1917) Italian Villa a,b,c,d 3 3 HP‐88‐01 14413‐14415 Big Basin Way Kerr Building/Hogg Building (1910) False‐front a,b,e 4* 4 HP‐88‐01 HP‐18 14421 Big Basin Wy. Saratoga Bank Building (1913) Classic Revival a,c,e 5 5 HP‐88‐01 14495 Big Basin Wy. Hutchinson Building (1884) Pioneer a,e 6 6 HP‐88‐01 14501‐14503 Big Basin Way Cloud‐Smith Building (1884, 1896) Decorative Pioneer/Neo Classical a,b,e 7 7 HP‐88‐01 14510‐14540 Big Basin Way J.E. Foster House (c. 1882) Pioneer Cottage a,e 8 8 HP‐88‐01 14519 Big Basin Wy. Green Store Building (c. 1890) False‐front Pioneer a,e 9 9 HP‐88‐01 14521 Big Basin Wy. Grover House (c. 1895) Pioneer Cottage a,e 10 10 HP‐88‐01 14605 Big Basin Wy. Pettis Livery (c. 1898) Pioneer a,c,e 11 11 HP‐88‐01 14605 Big Basin Wy. Erwin T. King House (c. 1875) Colonial/Salt Box a,b,c,e 12 12 HP‐88‐01 14630 Big Basin Wy. John Henry House (1869) Pioneer Cottage a,b,e 13 13 HP‐88‐01 14669 Big Basin Wy. Fabretti House (1881) Pioneer Cottage a,e 14 14 HP‐88‐01 20900 Big Basin Wy. Maclay Cottage (c. 1890) Queen Anne a,c 15 15 HP‐88‐01 21000 Big Basin Wy. Hakone Gardens (1917‐1918) Japanese a,c,d,e,g 16 16 HP‐88‐01 20150 Bonnie Brae James Richards House (c. 1910) Craftsman Bungalow a,b,c 17 17 HP‐88‐01 20601 Brookwood Lane F.B. Willard House (1916) California Craftsman a,c 18 18 HP‐88‐01 20611 Brookwood Lane Henry Jarboe House (1858) Pioneer a 19 HP‐99‐01 19050 Camino Barco Colonel Barco Residence (1925) Pioneer Farmhouse c, e 20* HP‐98‐01 14288 Chester Avenue (formerly 19101 Via Tesoro Court) El Tesoro ‐Dr. Clemmer Peck Residence (1935 & 1967) Adobe b,c,e 21 20 HP‐88‐01 19161 Cox Avenue Joseph Cox House (1915) Craftsman a,b,c 22 21 HP‐88‐01 14445 Donna Lane Webster‐Sutro House House (1916) Dutch Colonial a,c 23* 24 HP‐88‐01 HP‐3 Fruitvale/Saratoga Ave. Central Park Orchard n/a a,g 24 26 HP‐88‐01 14251 Fruitvale Ave. Novakovich Ranch (c. 1890) Queen Anne a,c,g 25 27 HP‐88‐01 14500 Fruitvale Ave. Odd Fellows Home (1912) Mission Revival a,b,c,d 26 28 HP‐88‐01 14711 Fruitvale Ave. Ellis House (1885) Folk Victorian a,e 27 HP‐91‐01 14901 Fruitvale Ave. Sunshine Williams (pre 1900) Pioneer Cottage a,b 28 29 HP‐88‐01 15095 Fruitvale Ave. Fair Oaks (1905) Prairie/Classic Revival a,b,c 29 30 HP‐88‐01 19490 Glen Una Dr. Carter House (1925) Spanish Colonial a,c 248 Original # HPC Resolution/CC Ordinance Address Historic or Common Name Architectural Style Criteria 30 HP‐99‐02 20201 Hill Avenue Frederick Wessels Residence (1926) 1920’s Eclectic c,e 31 31 HP‐88‐01 20252 Hill Avenue La Mirada ‐Hale Estate (1930) Mediterranean a,b 32 32 HP‐88‐01 18888 Hayfield Ct. Hayfield House & Caretaker Cottage (1920‐1921) English Country a,c,d 33 HP‐91‐01 20250 La Paloma Av. Fontaine or Heid Residence (1924) Tudor/Normandy b,e 34 HP‐97‐02 20271 La Paloma Av. Un‐named (1916) Craftsman c,d 35 33 HP‐88‐01 HP‐16 20600 Lomita Avenue Hannah McCarty House (c. 1890) Pioneer/Greek Revival a,b,c 36 HP‐91‐01 Madrone Hill Road Madrone Hill ‐Scannavino Residence Mediterranean Gardens c,g 37 HP‐91‐01 20570 Marion Road Stamper House (1892) Pioneer Cottage a,c 38 34 HP‐88‐01 20731 Marion Road Pollard House (c. 1892) Queen Anne a,b 39 HP‐91‐01 18500 Marshall Lane Bellicitti Ranch (c. 1870) Pioneer a,c,e,f,g 40 35 HP‐88‐01 20271 Merrick Drive Rev. Pollard Ranch House (c. 1880) Pioneer a,b 41* 36 HP‐88‐01 HP‐2 15400 Montalvo Road Villa Montalvo (1912) Italian Villa a,b,c,d 42* 37 HP‐88‐01 HP‐23 14475 Oak Place Almond Hill (1910‐1912) Shingle Craftsman a,b 43* 38 HP‐88‐01 HP‐9 14410 Oak Street Village Library (1927) Mission Revival a,b,c 44* 39 HP‐88‐01 HP‐12 14488 Oak Street Saratoga Volunteer Fire Bell (1903) n/a a,b 45 HP‐91‐01 14524 Oak Street Hanchett House (c. 1886) Pioneer Cottage c,e 46 40 HP‐88‐01 14534 Oak Street Lundblad’s Lodge (1905) Craftsman Shingle a,c,e 47 41 HP‐88‐01 14592 Oak Street Saratoga Grammar School (1923‐1924) Spanish Colonial Revivial a,e,f 48 42 HP‐88‐01 14666 Oak Street Congregational Church Parsonage (c. 1886) Pioneer/Greek Revival a,b 49* 43 HP‐88‐01 HP‐5 14672 Oak Street William King House (c. 1877) Pioneer/Colonial Revival a,b 50* 44 HP‐88‐01 HP‐13 14683 Oak Street Missionary Settlement House (c.1897) Queen Anne a,b,c,e 51 45 HP‐88‐01 14690 Oak Street Van Arsdale House (c. 1900) Queen Anne a,c 52 HP‐91‐01 14701 Oak Street Hainich Residence (c. 1900) Pioneer Cottage e,g 53 HP‐91‐01 14739 Oak Street Hayes House (c. 1906) Pioneer Cottage e,g 54 46 HP‐88‐01 14766 Oak Street Madronia Cemetery (c. 1850) n/a a,b,g 55 47 HP‐88‐01 20390 Park Place Saratoga Federated Church (1923 w/add) Mission Revival a,b,c,d,e 56* 48 HP‐88‐01 HP‐1 20399 Park Place Saratoga Foothill Club (1915‐1916) Bay Region/Craftsman a,b,c,d,e 249 Original # HPC Resolution/CC Ordinance Address Historic or Common Name Architectural Style Criteria 57 49 HP‐88‐01 15320 Peach Hill Road Carey House (1929) Monterey Colonial a,c,d 58 50 HP‐88‐01 14754 Pierce Road Paul Masson Lodge (1936) French Chateau a,b,c 59 HP‐91‐01 13089 Quito Road Mitchell Residence (1909) Craftsman a,c,f,g 60 HP‐91‐01 13939 Quito Road Brandenburg House (1890) Colonial Revival a,c 61* 51 HP‐88‐01 HP‐14 15231 Quito Road Casa Tierra (1941‐1943) Southwest a,b,c 62* 53 HP‐88‐01 HP‐15 18490 Ravenwood Dr. Brandenburg House (1888) Decorative Pioneer a,c 63 HP‐19 Saratoga Avenue (Fruitvale to Hwy. 9) Heritage Lane n/a a,e,f,g 64 54 HP‐88‐01 13631 Saratoga Ave. Rawdon Dell Ranch (1916) California Bungalow a,c 65 HP‐91‐01 13741 Saratoga Ave. Rowen House (c. 1903) Craftsman c,e,f 66 HP‐91‐01 13855 Saratoga Ave. Lanphear House (c. 1910) Craftsman c,e 67 55 HP‐88‐01 13915 Saratoga Ave. McGrew‐Atkinson House (1880) Pioneer a,c 68 HP‐91‐01 13935 Saratoga Ave. Great Lakes Nursery (c. 1904) Bungalow a,a,e 69 56 HP‐88‐01 13991 Saratoga Ave. Meason House (c. 1880’s) Pioneer a,c 70* HP‐91‐01 HP‐20 14065 Saratoga Ave. Florence Cunningham Residence (c.1930) Craftsman Bungalow b,c,e 71 57 HP‐88‐01 14075 Saratoga Ave. E.M. Cunningham House (1882) Decorative Pioneer a,b,c,e 72 59 HP‐88‐01 14189 Saratoga Ave. Thomy House (c. 1870) Pioneer a,c 73 HP‐91‐01 14199 Saratoga Ave. Four Pines (c. 1890) Pioneer Bungalow c,e 74 60 HP‐88‐01 14275 Saratoga Ave. Higinbotham House (1920) California Craftsman a,c 75 61 HP‐88‐01 14280 Saratoga Ave. Luther Cunningham Stone House (1924‐1926) Period Revival a,b,c,e 76 62 HP‐88‐01 14300 Saratoga Ave. Francis Dresser House (1870) Neoclassic a,c 77 HP‐91‐01 21060 Saratoga Hills Bonney‐Abernathy House (c. 1913‐1920) Craftsman a,c 78 63 HP‐88‐01 Saratoga‐Los Gatos Rd./Saratoga Ave. Memorial Arch and Landmark Plaque (1919) Spanish Colonial Revival a,b,c,d,e 79 HP‐91‐01 19220 Saratoga‐Los Gatos Road Spinaza Ranch (c. 1890) Craftsman Shingle c,f 80 64 HP‐88‐01 19221 Saratoga‐Los Gatos Road Road Tibbett House (1910) Craftsman Bungalow a,c 81 HP‐91‐01 20280 Saratoga‐Los Gatos Road Seven Oaks (c. 1920) Mediterranean w/Craftsman details c,e 82* 65 HP‐88‐01 HP‐17 20330 Saratoga‐Los Gatos Road The Deodars (1912) Mediterranean Villa a,c 83 66 HP‐88‐01 20360 Saratoga‐Los Gatos Road Bellgrove (1904) Spanish Colonial a,c 84 67 HP‐88‐01 20375 Saratoga‐Los Gatos Road Woodleigh (1911) Greek Revival a,c,e 250 Original # HPC Resolution/CC Ordinance Address Historic or Common Name Architectural Style Criteria 85 68 HP‐88‐01 20400 Saratoga‐Los Gatos Road T.S. Montgomery Stone Wall (c. 1913) n/a a,b,d 86* 69 HP‐88‐01 HP‐7 20450 Saratoga‐Los Gatos Road Saratoga Historical Museum (c. 1904‐1905) False‐front Pioneer a,c,e 87* 70 HP‐88‐01 HP‐10 20460 Saratoga‐Los Gatos Road McWlliams House (1850’s) Pioneer Cottage a,c,e 88 71 HP‐88‐01 20490 Saratoga‐Los Gatos Road Methodist‐Episcopal Church (1896) Pioneer a,b,e 89 HP‐92‐01 12795 Saratoga‐Sunnyvale Road Miller House (1909‐1911) Craftsman a,c,f 90* 72 HP‐88‐01 HP‐22 14051 Saratoga‐Sunnyvale Road Neil Carmichael House (1914) Neoclassic a,b 91 73 HP‐88‐01 14421 Saratoga‐Sunnyvale Road B. Grant Taylor House (c. 1906‐ 1907) California Craftsman a.b,c,d 92* 74 HP‐88‐01 HP‐11 14650 Sixth Street Nardie House (c. 1895) Queen Anne a,c 93* 76 HP‐88‐01 HP‐21 13495 Sousa Lane Moved to: 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Warner Hutton House (c. 1896) Queen Anne a,c 94 77 HP‐88‐01 20640 Third Street Sam Cloud Hay & Feed Warehouse (c.1890) Pioneer a,b,c,e 95 78 HP‐88‐01 12239 Titus Avenue Andersen House (c. late 1880’s) Pioneer a,c 96 79 HP‐88‐01 HP‐24 11995 Walbrook Dr. Hyde House (1895) Craftsman Bungalow a,c 97 HP‐91‐01 21120 Wardell Road Anna Bee House (c. 1902) Traditional “Pyramid” or Princess Anne c,e 98 80 HP‐88‐01 20770 Wildwood Wy. Springer House (c. 1851) Pioneer a,b * Properties marked with an asterisk are also Designated Heritage Landmarks. 251 During this Inventory Update it was determined that thirteen historic resources (including two Historic Sites) no longer exist. Resources were demolished for various reasons. They have been removed from the Inventory. Below is a list of those resources. Documentation of these sites historical background is kept in the City’s files. 1. Cherrymount 19474 Burgundy Way HP-88-01 2. Crowell House 19855 Douglass Lane HP-88-01 3. Reynolds Ranch 13616 Fruitvale Ave. HP-88-01 4. Saso Herb Gardens 14625 Fruitvale Ave. HP-91-01 5. Winslow House 20391 Park Place HP-97-01 6. Sterne-Andres House 20105 Rancho Bella Vista HP-88-01 7. José Moya Del Pino Mosaic 13150 Saratoga Ave. HP-91-01 8. Dr. Hogg Residence 14024 Saratoga Ave. HP-91-01 9. Professor Smith Residence 13850 Saratoga Ave. HP-91-01 10. J.C. Cunningham House 14120 Saratoga Ave. HP-88-01 11. Nelson Gardens 20851 Saratoga Hills HP-91-01 12. St. John’s Episcopal Church 14700 Sixth St. HP-88-01 13. Hayfield Garage 14315 Douglass Lane HP-88-01 These resources were allowed to be demolished for a number of reasons. The following list gives some history on the removed resources and reason they no longer exist. 252 Saratoga Heritage Resources Demolished Resources December 2009 Original # HPC Resolution Name Address History 19 HP‐88‐01 Cherrymount 19474 Burgundy Way Farm and residence of Archibald Beatty Brolly and later his son, Archibald Hard Brolly. Buildings were demolished and land was subdivided in 1990’s into four large residences. Approved to be demolished by HPC in February 1992. 24 HP‐88‐01 Crowell House 19855 Douglass Lane An 1880’s era 10‐acre farm owned by the Crowell family with a two‐story residence in a park‐like setting. One of Saratoga’s earliest fruit ranches. By the 1980’s it was owned by the Sister’s of Mercy. Approved to be demolished by HPC in February 1997 for subdivision. 26 HP‐88‐01 Reynolds Ranch 13616 Fruitvale Ave. The 11‐acre property was continually owned by the descendants of the Reynolds and Kerwin families. Sometime after 1988, the house was demolished and property subdivided with numerous new residences built on a newly named street, Kerwin Ranch Court. No data found on demolish date. date. 29 HP‐97‐01 Saso Herb Gardens 14625 Fruitvale Ave. The 4‐acre property was originally owned by Rev. Merriam B. Davenport, who built a residence in 1914. Approved to be demolished by HPC in December 2001 since resource was proven not to be historically significant. 60 HP‐97‐01 Winslow House 20391 Park Pl. 1920’s Winslow House. Approved for demolition by HPC in September 1997 for subdivision. 67 HP‐88‐01 Sterne‐Andres House 20105 Rancho Bella Vista By 1988, the farmhouse and outbuildings were completely surrounded by new construction on ½ acre lots. Approved for demolition by HPC in September 1994 due to deteriorating condition. 70 HP‐91‐01 Jose Moya Del Pino Mosaic 13150 Saratoga Ave. Created in 1959 by artist Jose Moya Del Pino, the tile mosaic was installed in the John Bolles designed Paul Masson Champagne Cellars that year. Approved for demolition by HPC in January 1989 for Highway 85. 73 HP‐91‐01 Prof. Fred Smith Residence 13850 Saratoga Ave. The residence on this property was constructed about 1910; by the 1920s it was owned by Fred Smith, a professor at San Jose State College. Approved for demolition by HPC in August 1993 for new construction. 78 HP‐91‐01 Dr. Hogg Residence 14024 Saratoga Ave. The house was constructed in 1904 by local physician, Dr Robert Hogg, who purchased the land in 1900 from John Hourecan. Approved for demolition by HPC in February 1994 for construction of new construction. 81 HP‐88‐01 J.C. Cunningham House 14120 Saratoga Ave. Constructed in 1889 by Joseph Carson Cunningham, a member of the local Cunningham family, the house remained in the Cunningham family until at least 1988. Approved for demolition by the HPC in February 1995 for new construction. 87 HP‐91‐01 Nelson Gardens /Shumer Ranch 20851 Saratoga Hills Originally part of Shumer Ranch, this 5.1 acres parcel was purchase in 1930s by Frank and Florence Nelson. The original Shumer farmhouse was demolished prior to 1988 for subdivision. No data found on demolish date. 104 HP‐88‐01 St. John’s Episcopal Church 14700 Sixth Street In 1896, the Episcopal congregation purchased the property and built a simple board and batten church on the site. The first services were held that year and the building functioned as a church until it was sold and converted to residential use in 1919. Approved for demolition by the HPC in April 2000 due to lost of historic integrity. 23 HP‐88‐01 Hayfield Garage Buildings 14315 Douglass Lane The Spaich Subdivision /Hayfield Estates were approved in March 1998. The original Hayfield garage had been demolished prior to the subdivision, but no exact date can be found. 253 City of Saratoga – DESIGNATED LANDMARK STRUCTURES Original # Resolution Address Historic or Common Name Architectural Style Criteria 1 4 HP‐88‐01 HP‐18 14421 Big Basin Wy. Saratoga Bank Building (1913) Classic Revival a,c,e 2 24 HP‐88‐01 HP‐3 Fruitvale/Saratoga Ave. Central Park Orchard n/a a,g 3 36 HP‐88‐01 HP‐02 15400 Montalvo Road Villa Montalvo Italian Villa a,b,c,d 4 37 HP‐88‐01 HP‐23 14475 Oak Place Almond Hill (1910‐1912) Shingle Craftsman a,b 5 38 HP‐88‐01 HP‐9 14410 Oak Street Village Library (1927) Mission Revival a,b,c 6 39 HP‐88‐01 HP‐12 14488 Oak Street Saratoga Volunteer Fire Bell (1903) n/a a,b 7 43 HP‐88‐01 HP‐5 14672 Oak Street William King House (c. 1877) Pioneer/Colonial Revival a,b 8 44 HP‐88‐01 HP‐13 14683 Oak Street Missionary Settlement House (c.1897) Queen Anne a,b,c,e 9 48 HP‐88‐01 HP‐1 20399 Park Place Saratoga Foothill Club (1915‐1916) Bay Region/Craftsman a,b,c,d,e 10 51 HP‐88‐01 HP‐14 15231 Quito Road Casa Tierra (1941‐1943) Southwest a,b,c 11 53 HP‐88‐01 HP‐15 18490 Ravenwood Dr. Brandenburg House (1888) Decorative Pioneer a,c 12 HP‐91‐01 HP‐20 14065 Saratoga Ave. Florence Cunningham Residence (c.1930) Craftsman Bungalow b,c,e 13 65 HP‐88‐01 HP‐17 20330 Saratoga‐Los Gatos Road The Deodars (1912) Mediterranean Villa a,c 14 69 HP‐88‐01 HP‐7 20450 Saratoga‐Los Gatos Road Saratoga Historical Museum (c. 1904‐1905) False‐front Pioneer a,c,e 15 70 HP‐88‐01 HP‐10 20460 Saratoga‐Los Gatos Road McWlliams House (1850’s) Pioneer Cottage a,c,e 16 74 HP‐88‐01 HP‐11 14650 Sixth Street Nardie House (c. 1895) Queen Anne a,c 17 76 HP‐88‐01 HP‐21 13495 Sousa Lane Moved to: 13777 Fruitvale Ave. Warner Hutton House (c. 1896) Queen Anne a,c 18 72 HP‐88‐01 HP‐22 14051 Saratoga‐Sunnyvale Road Neil Carmichael House (1914) Neoclassic a,b 19 79 HP‐88‐01 HP‐24 11995 Walbrook Dr. Hyde House (1895) Craftsman Bungalow a,c 20 108 HP‐98‐01 14288 Chester Avenue (formerly 19101 Via Tesoro Court) El Tesoro ‐Dr. Clemmer Peck Residence (1935 & 1967) Adobe b, c, e 254 255 .,:::..Q.e.. S",,,,t"3C\.. 1,<'I"o"'Y E':'~M~O~O~S~::P::'_O~P~L~'~~O~'~~S::'~'"'~TLJOLJ'cJ1' 1 Highway Commissioner. of Harper ' s Ferry . Lived in Saratoga from Madronia Cemetery. first water-powered saw-mill along the creek This marked the opening of the Saratoga area !~~~~~~~;~;~:;"c;;alaveras Big Trees Grove. Buried in Madronla Gemets) ~ and dedicated community leader. and Academy Award Winner . and Academy Award Winner. agriculturist who pioneered cooperative the betterment of the fruit industry. leader and physician who practised medicine from 1895 communi ty by McCartysville. as "Mr. of the Theatre of the Glade. real estate developer both in the 1860 ' s and 1870's . surveying the area and laid it out Paul Masson Vineyards. violinist and physician of years with the "Mendelsohn Quartet" and banker . Our Lady of Fatima [: t~~~P;,l;:~:~j:!~:Fohoetrhoielsl wChol ubre) s. cued the surviving members j"rs . Non-is p,mned 88 novels . mag~:;:i:'\e between 1911 and 1959. many of them residence . Senator, philanthropist . financier, liberal his Villa Montalvo estate to the San Estate and Le Peti t Trianon). organi~ed Boys' Outing Farm Association on developer of Congress Springs , fashionable mineral spa. painter. overland in 1841 with the Bidwell-Bartleson party . i"""igrant!< to make the overland Journey to Callrornla. State in 1858 until his untimely death 1861-"Hakone" estate high in the hills above in 1932. Now a city park for Saratoga . poet and writer of prose of San Francisco ' s Hakone Gardens from 1932-1950. in the Oakland-Berkeley Hills. poet. Judge . Large estate on Sanborn Rd famous Blossom Festival and one Club. in permanent collection 1n the Clara. Moved to Saratoga in 1927· Brainard Map #12 -Quito, February 1886 256 '" t;;:;' ' ,~ Brainard Map #24 – Saratoga Park, May 1888 257 <;" "" . " , , " M ... ~ · .tf.o!,,! '1-SnI,INf'; £ F( «• '" ,• t\ • , • ,• •• " ,,-.' '" v. DT """'" ., USGS Palo Alto 7.5 minute quadrangle – surveyed in 1895 and printed in 1899. 258 Saratoga property map from 1903, prepared by surveyor J. G. McMillan for the County of Santa Clara. 259 Saratoga Heritage Resources Demolished Resources December 2009 Original # HPC Resolution Name Address History 19 HP‐88‐01 Cherrymount 19474 Burgundy Way Farm and residence of Archibald Beatty Brolly and later his son, Archibald Hard Brolly. Buildings were demolished and land was subdivided in 1990’s into four large residences. Approved to be demolished by HPC in February 1992. 24 HP‐88‐01 Crowell House 19855 Douglass Lane An 1880’s era 10‐acre farm owned by the Crowell family with a two‐story residence in a park‐like setting. One of Saratoga’s earliest fruit ranches. By the 1980’s it was owned by the Sister’s of Mercy. Approved to be demolished by HPC in February 1997 for subdivision. 26 HP‐88‐01 Reynolds Ranch 13616 Fruitvale Ave. The 11‐acre property was continually owned by the descendants of the Reynolds and Kerwin families. Sometime after 1988, the house was demolished and property subdivided with numerous new residences built on a newly named street, Kerwin Ranch Court. No data found on demolish date. date. 29 HP‐97‐01 Saso Herb Gardens 14625 Fruitvale Ave. The 4‐acre property was originally owned by Rev. Merriam B. Davenport, who built a residence in 1914. Approved to be demolished by HPC in December 2001 since resource was proven not to be historically significant. 60 HP‐97‐01 Winslow House 20391 Park Pl. 1920’s Winslow House. Approved for demolition by HPC in September 1997 for subdivision. 67 HP‐88‐01 Sterne‐Andres House 20105 Rancho Bella Vista By 1988, the farmhouse and outbuildings were completely surrounded by new construction on ½ acre lots. Approved for demolition by HPC in September 1994 due to deteriorating condition. 70 HP‐91‐01 Jose Moya Del Pino Mosaic 13150 Saratoga Ave. Created in 1959 by artist Jose Moya Del Pino, the tile mosaic was installed in the John Bolles designed Paul Masson Champagne Cellars that year. Approved for demolition by HPC in January 1989 for Highway 85. 73 HP‐91‐01 Prof. Fred Smith Residence 13850 Saratoga Ave. The residence on this property was constructed about 1910; by the 1920s it was owned by Fred Smith, a professor at San Jose State College. Approved for demolition by HPC in August 1993 for new construction. 78 HP‐91‐01 Dr. Hogg Residence 14024 Saratoga Ave. The house was constructed in 1904 by local physician, Dr Robert Hogg, who purchased the land in 1900 from John Hourecan. Approved for demolition by HPC in February 1994 for construction of new construction. 81 HP‐88‐01 J.C. Cunningham House 14120 Saratoga Ave. Constructed in 1889 by Joseph Carson Cunningham, a member of the local Cunningham family, the house remained in the Cunningham family until at least 1988. Approved for demolition by the HPC in February 1995 for new construction. 87 HP‐91‐01 Nelson Gardens /Shumer Ranch 20851 Saratoga Hills Originally part of Shumer Ranch, this 5.1 acres parcel was purchase in 1930s by Frank and Florence Nelson. The original Shumer farmhouse was demolished prior to 1988 for subdivision. No data found on demolish date. 104 HP‐88‐01 St. John’s Episcopal Church 14700 Sixth Street In 1896, the Episcopal congregation purchased the property and built a simple board and batten church on the site. The first services were held that year and the building functioned as a church until it was sold and converted to residential use in 1919. Approved for demolition by the HPC in April 2000 due to lost of historic integrity. 23 HP‐88‐01 Hayfield Garage Buildings 14315 Douglass Lane The Spaich Subdivision /Hayfield Estates were approved in March 1998. The original Hayfield garage had been demolished prior to the subdivision, but no exact date can be found. 260 APPROVAL OF RESOLUTION NO. HP-09-01 CITY OF SARATOGA HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION STATE OF CALIFORNIA A RESOLUTION OF THE HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA ADOPTING THE HERITAGE RESOURCE INVENTORY WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Heritage Preservation Commission was established by the City Council in 1982 to assist with and encourage the preservation of Saratoga heritage resources; and WHEREAS, one of the Commission’s primary duties, as states in Section 13-10.050(a) of the City Code, is to conduct, or cause to be conducted, a comprehensive survey of properties within the boundaries of the City for the purpose of establishing the Heritage Resource Inventory; and WHEREAS, the Commission has cause to conduct the survey in accordance with guidelines established by the State Office of Historic Preservation; and WHEREAS, the Commission has determined that each of the ninety-eight (98) properties listed in the Inventory meets at least one or more of the criteria for designation of a heritage resource, as outlined in Section 13-15.010 (a through g) of the City Code; and WHEREAS, the Inventory will be periodically updated in the future, by resolution of the Heritage Preservation Commission, as additional heritage resources become known and documented; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the Heritage Preservation Commission of the City of Saratoga hereby adopts the Heritage Resource Inventory, set forth as Exhibit “A” and incorporated herein by reference, as the official inventory of heritage resources in the City of Saratoga PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning Commission, State of California, the 8th day of December 2009 by the following roll call vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: Peter Marra Chair, Heritage Preservation Commission 261 ATTEST: John F. Livingstone, AICP Secretary, Heritage Preservation Commission 262 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: December 16, 2009 AGENDA ITEM: DEPARTMENT: CityManager’s Office CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: Ann Sullivan, City Clerk DIRECTOR: Dave Anderson SUBJECT: 2010 Hazardous Vegetation Program Commencement Resolution RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution Declaring Hazardous Vegetation (Weeds) as Public Nuisance and Setting Public Hearing. REPORT SUMMARY: The attached resolution represents the first step in Saratoga’s Hazardous Vegetation Abatement Program administered by the Office of the Agricultural Commissioner. The Commissioner has determined that there are parcels that have excessive weed growth in Saratoga. The purpose of the Weed Abatement Program is to prevent fire hazards posed by vegetative growth and the accumulation of combustible materials. It would be appropriate at this time for the City Council to adopt the resolution setting a public hearing on January 20, 2010 for consideration of a Declaration of Nuisance as to specific properties containing hazardous vegetation. The Santa Clara County Department of Agriculture and Environmental Management Weed Abatement Division mailed a letter to specific property owners on December 7, 2009 notifying them that their property was identified to be containing potential fire hazards from weeds or other debris. A copy of that letter is attached. FISCAL IMPACTS: No fiscal impact to the City of Saratoga if the resolution is adopted. The County of Santa Clara recovers its costs from the administrative portion of the fee charged to property owners. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: N/A ALTERNATIVE ACTION: N/A FOLLOW UP ACTION: 263 Prior to actual abatement The property owners of the parcels containing weeds needing abatement are sent three notices informing them that the hazardous vegetation must be abated, either by the owners or by the County. The notices inform the property owner that the County abatement will commence if work is not performed by the property owner; and the first two notices inform the property owner how to present any objections to being in the Abatement Program at two public hearings. The public hearings are noticed in the Saratoga News as well. After the public hearing and Declaration of Nuisance as to specific properties on January 20, 2010, the Council will give notice and consider adopting another resolution, this time ordering the actual abatement on properties whose owners did not object or whose objections the Council overruled. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Posting of the agenda. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A – Resolution Declaring Hazardous Vegetation (Weeds) as Public Nuisance and Setting Public Hearing Attachment B – December 7, 2009 Letter from Santa Clara County Department of Agriculture and Environmental Management with Notice to DestroyWeeds 264 RESOLUTION NO. 09-RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA DECLARING HAZARDOUS VEGETATION (WEEDS) TO BE A PUBLIC NUISANCE AND SETTING A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER DECLARATION AS TO SPECIFIC PROPERTIES ON JANUARY 20, 2010 WHEREAS, hazardous vegetation is growing in the City of Saratoga upon certain streets, sidewalks, highway, roads and private property; and WHEREAS, said vegetation attains such growth as to become a fire menace or are otherwise noxious or dangerous; and WHEREAS, said vegetation constitutes a public nuisance. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Saratoga, as follows: 1. That whenever weeds are growing upon or along any street, sidewalk, highway, road and private property, such weeds constitute a public nuisance and the City Council may declare the same a public nuisance; 2. That said nuisance exists upon certain streets, sidewalks, highways, roads and private property, within the City of Saratoga and is hereby declared to be a public nuisance; 3. That notice of the Public Hearing described in paragraph 4 below at which the City Council will consider declaring a public nuisance as to specific properties is hereby ordered to be given to the owners of those specific properties identified as containing hazardous vegetation (weeds) by the City’s Enforcement Officer and more particularly described by common name or by reference to the tract, block, lot, code area and parcel number on the report prepared by and on file in the office of the County Fire Marshal and/or the County Agricultural Commissioner; 4. That it is ordered that on Wednesday, the 20th day of January, 2010 a Public Hearing will be held during a regular meeting of the Saratoga City Council which will begin at 7:00 p.m. in the Saratoga Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, hereby fixed as the time and place where objections to the proposed Declaration of Nuisance as to Specific Properties requiring destruction and removal of hazardous vegetation (weeds) shall be heard and given due consideration; 5. That the County Fire Marshal and/or the County Agricultural Commissioner is hereby designated as the person to cause notice to be given in the manner and form provided in Article 15, Chapter 7 of the Saratoga City Code, and as the person to hereafter cause abatement of the seasonal and recurring hazardous vegetation (weed) nuisance described above. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the Saratoga City Council at a regular meeting held on the 16th day of December 2009, by the following vote: 265 AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: SIGNED: Kathleen King, Mayor ATTEST: Ann Sullivan, City Clerk 266 267 County of Santa Clara Department of Agriculture and Environmental Management Weed Abatement Division 1553 Berger Drive Building 1 San Jose, CA: 95112 (408) 282-3145 Fax (408) 286-2460 December 7,2009 Dear Property Owner: IMPOHTANT NOTICE TO ABATE WEEDS To protect your property and the area surrounding it from possible fire, your jurisdiction, contracts with the County of Santa Clara to operate a Weed Abatement Program. The County is providing this notice and information packet to you as part of the Program. We encourage you to read the information carefully, and do not hesitate to call us for clarification or other information. Your jurisdiction has or will adopt a resolution declaring your property as one that may contain potential fire hazards from weeds or other debris. In addition, your jurisdiction will be conducting a public hearing tel consider an abatement order to require you to remove any hazardous vegetation or combustible debris. The public hearing will be held on the date and at the place stated in the attachl~d notice to destroy weeds. The public hearing provides an opportunity for you to raise any objections and/or concerns to the requirement that you remove fire-hazardous vegetation and/c.r debris from your property prior to the deadline provided in the attached abatement schedule. The Weed Abatement Program works in coordination with parcel owners if their property is habitat to protected species of plants and/or animals. If you believe your parcel includes an environmentally sensitive habitat, please check the box and explain this on the reply form to assist us in determining the best approach to weed abatement at your property. If after the public hearing the Weed Abatement Program is approved for your property the County is authorized by its contract with the cities, and by state law, to perform an inspection of your property to determine whether the property has been cleared of hazards accorcjing to Minimum Fire Safety Standards (see enclosed brochure). Inspections will begin after the the abatement deadline for your jurisdiction. This notice does not relieve you of your responsibility to complete the necessary work prior to the deadline for your jurisdiction. If you fail to complete the abatl~ment work prior to the County inspection of your property, you will be responsible for the cost of the inspection and your property will be scheduled for abatement by the County contractor. If you complete the abatement work before the County contractor, you will not be char~led by the County. Should the abatement work be completed by a County contractor, you will be assessed the contractor's charges plus a County administrative fee. The County will use thE~ least costly method of abatement considering the physical characteristics of your property and environmental concerns. Fees are detailed in the attached price list. The total amount will be included as a special assessment on your property tax bill following confirmation of the ch:arges by your jurisdiction. Notice of the date of that meeting will be posted at a location prescribed by your jurisdiction (typically at the Civic Center) at least three days prior to the meeting. BOllrd ofSuperyisors: Donald P. Gage, George Shirakaw;:l, Dave Cortese, Ken Yeager, Liz Kniss County Executive: Jeffrey V, Smilh 268 You can avoid all costs by completing the abatement work yourself according to Minimum Fire Safety Standiuds (see enclosed brochure) prior to the abatement deadline for your jurisdiction and m~lintalnlng the Minimum Fire Safety Standards for the duration of fire season, which typiC'illy runs through October. Parcels will be removed from the program after three (3) cOnllecutlve years of voluntary compliance (work completed prior to the deadline). In preparation for this program, please take the time to complete and return the enclosed Reply Form so that you inform us of your intentions regarding maintenance of your property. If you designate In your replly that you intend to abate the weeds yourself, you are expected to complete the abatement before the deadline listed on the abatement schedule and maintain fire ~;afe conditions for the duration of the fire season. Responding that you intend to provide maintenance yourself does not release you from this responsibility to have the maintenance completed before your deadline and repeated as necessary to maintain Minimum Fire Safe Standards. County contractors will proceed to abate hazardous vegetatioon as necessary after the deadline for your jurisdiction. Enclosed you will find the following information: ,f' A Reply Form specific to your property. Please complete and return promptly . ./A Notice to Destroy Weeds informing you of an upcoming public meeting that you must attend if you have any objections to the proposed removal of hazardous vegetation or debris from your property . ./A Weed Abatement Program Schedule for your city and a current County price list. ./A Brochure about the, Santa Clara County Weed Abatement Program. Please be aware that any abatement performed by the County contractor must be in compliance with all applicable environmel1tal protection regulations. If your property falls within an area deSignated as possible habit!!t for burrowing owls or any other protected species of bird or animal, the methods of vegetation clearing may be regulated by specific laws or local ordinances. If you are no longer the owner of the property identified by this mailing, please notify the County immediately. If you sell your property after the date of this letter, it is your responsibility to notify the new owner and to include the obligation to pay any abatement costs in your agreement of sale. Without taking this action, you will be responsible for all hazard abatement charges assessed to the property. Our goal is voluntary compliance with the Minimum Fire Safety Standards, and it is our objective to ensure that all properties are safe from fire at all times during the year. If you have any questions about your property or need on-site advice to help you achieve compliance with the Minimum Fire Standards, please call the Santa Clara County Weed Abatement Program at (408) 282-3145. 269 TRA 15 • o Ice 0 es ro ee 5 NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on December 16,2009, pursuant to Article II of Chapter 6 of the Saratoga City Code, the City Council passed a resolution declaring that weeds, rubbish, refuse, obstructions or other dangerous materials as hereafter described, existing upon your property, or upon the adjacent street, constitutes a public nuisance, which must be abated by the removal and destruction thereof. NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that property owners shall, without delay, remove and destroy all such weeds or brush or rubbish Of other materials from their property and the abutting one-half of the street in front and alleys, if any, behind such property and between the lot lines thereof as extended, or in front of which, said weeds are removed and such cost will constitute a lien upon such lots or lands until paid and will be col1c:cted upon the next tax roll upon which general municipal taxes are collected. All property owners having any objection to the proposed nuisance abatement are hereby notified to attend a meeting of the City Council, Council Chambers of City Hall at 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, California, to be held on Wednesday, January 20, 2010, at 7:00 p.m., or as soon thereafter as the matter can be heard, when their objections will be heard and given due consideration. The language and format for this notice is required by California Health and Safety Code Sections 14891 Et. Seq. (over) 270 SARATOGA WEED ABATEMENT PROGRAM SCHEDULE January 20. 2010 April 15, 2010 July/August 2010 Commencement hearing to consider objection to abatement list. PARCEL ABATEMENT DEADLINE Parcel must be free from hazardous vegetation by this date or Inspector will order abatement. Assessment Hearing to protest abatement charges. 2010 COUNTY WEED ABATEMENT FEES Please be advised that the property owner of any parcel Co'und to be non-compliant on or after the April 15th deadline will b€: charged an inspection fee of $298.00 and the property will be scheduled for abatement by tille County contractor. If you complete the abatement work before the County contractor performs the abatement, you will not incur further charges. Should the abatement work be performed by a County contractor, you will be assessed the contractor's charges plus a County administrative fee oC 150%. 2010 COUNTY CONTRACTOR'S WEED ABATEMENT PRICE LIST Prices INCLUDE a 150% County Administrative Fee A) Disc Work·* PARCEL SIZE: 0-12,500 sq.ft. 12,50 12,50 lsq.ft.-43,560sq.ft. Larger than 1 Acre 1'1 Disc + ~03.43 $803.43 $5,35.63 2nd Disc $80.33 $107.13 $107.13 = Total Discs $883.76 $910.56 $642.76 (pER ACRE) ** It is required that parcels be disced twice a year. The cost for the first discing is higher due to additional work normally required during the first discing. B) HANDWORK $113.83 PER PERSON. PER HOUR C) FLAIL 6 Foot Mower $192.80 PER HOUR MOWING 12 Foot Mower $38565 PER HOUR D) LOADER WORK $334.711 PER HOUR E) DUMP TRUCK $334.7~1 PER HOUR F) BRUSH WORK $113.8:' PER HOUR G) BOOM MOWING $441.811 PER HOUR G) DUMP FEE 100% Added to orders with debris removal at 100% of the dump site charge. *Please note-this program does not offer herbicide application as a method of abatement (over) Page 1 of 2 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: December 16, 2009 AGENDA ITEM: DEPARTMENT: Public Works CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: John Cherbone DIRECTOR: John Cherbone Public Works Director Public Works Director SUBJECT: Historical Park Landscape Project – Donation of Funds from the Saratoga Historical Foundation RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: 1. Accept funds in the amount of $26,000 fromthe Saratoga Historical Foundation for the Historical Park Landscape Project. 2. Approve Budget Resolution. REPORT SUMMARY: Background The City and the Historical Foundation have worked together over the last few years to develop landscape improvement plans to renovate the landscaping at Historical Park. To help fund the landscape renovations the City funded $37,200 through the Capital Improvement Plan. Discussion In order to fully complete the landscape renovations as envisioned by the Landscape Master Plan, additional funding is needed. The City has sufficient funds to install irrigation and other minor improvements, improvements, but is short on funds to purchase and install plantings. The Saratoga Historical Foundation has offered to donate $26,000 towards the landscape renovations which will allow the majority of improvements to be completed (see attached letter). Approval of the attached Budget Resolution will increase the project budget and allow the additional expenditures. FISCAL IMPACTS: Funding in the amount $26,000 will be transferred from the Saratoga Historical Foundation to the City. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: 271 Page 2 of 2 The funding would not be accepted and the landscape improvements would not be completed. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: None in addition to the above. FOLLOW UP ACTION: If the funding is accepted the landscape work will commence over the winter and completed in the spring. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Nothing additional. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Letter from Saratoga Historical Museum dated November 24th, 2009. 2. Budget Resolution. 272 273 November 24th, 2009 Mr. John Cherbone City of Saratoga, Parks and Recreation 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 Dear Mr. Cherbone: We are pleased to inform you of our commitment to provide funds in the amount of up to $26,000.00 as a donation towards the landscaping project of the Saratoga Historical Park. These funds are to be used specifically for the purchase of plants in the landscaping of the Saratoga History Museum and the McWilliams House. In addition, whenever possible, the plants purchased and used in the project should have been developed by The Saratoga Horticultural Society and each plant should be marked with a small sign with the name of the historical plant. The Saratoga Historical Foundation is very happy to participate with The City in this important and significant upgrade to our City Park System. If you have any questions about this donation, please contact me. Sincerely, Robert C. Himel, President Saratoga Historical Foundation 408-867-9727 roberthimel@att.net 20450 SARATOGA-LOS GATOS ROAD. SARATOGA, CA • 95070 PHONE: 408-867-4311 • WWW.SARATOGAHISTORY.COM RESOLUTION NO.__________ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING THE ANNUAL BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2009/10 TO PROVIDE ADDITIONAL FUNDING FOR THE HISTORICAL PARK LANDSCAPE IMROVEMENT PROJECT WHEREAS, the City Council desires to fund landscape improvements at Historical Park; and WHEREAS, additional financing in the amount of $26,000 is needed to complete the landscape improvement project; and WHEREAS, the Saratoga Historical Foundation is donating $26,000 toward the landscape improvements; and WHEREAS, it is necessary to make adjustments to the Fiscal Year 2009/10 budget as follows: Account Description Account# Amount To appropriate additional expenditures for the Historical Park Landscape Improvement Project: Revenue (Donation): 412.9224-001.46523 $26,000 Expenditure Appropriation: 412.9224-001.81161 $26,000 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby approves the above adjustments to the Fiscal Year 2009/10 Capital Improvement Budget. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Saratoga City Council held on 16th day of December 2009 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ______________________ Kathleen King, Mayor City of Saratoga Attest: _______________________ Ann Sullivan, City Clerk 274 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: December 16, 2009 AGENDA ITEM: DEPARTMENT: Finance & Administrative Services CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: Bob Edris & Mary Furey DIRECTOR: Mary Furey SUBJECT: Development Impact Fee Report RECOMMENDED ACTION: Review and accept report on the status of FY 2008/09 Development Impact Fees, commonly referred to as AB1600 requirements. BACKGROUND: As set forth in California Government Code Section 66000-66025, known as the Mitigation Fee Act, agencies which impose a fee as a condition of approval for a development project are required to account for and report on the use of the fees within 180 days of fiscal year-end. Development impact fees are defined as a fee charged to compensate for new demands on public resources resulting from the development of land and property and imposed as a condition of development approval. REPORT SUMMARY Saratoga has established two of these fees: the Park Development Fee and the Road Impact Fee. As required, this report provides: 1. A brief description of the type of fee 2. The amount of the fee 3. Beginning and ending balance of the fees 4. Fees collected and the interest earned if applicable 5. Identification of the public improvement the fees are used for, or planned to be used for 6. Fees expended during the year The legislature finds and declares that the timely and proper allocation of development fees promotes economic growth and is, therefore, a matter of statewide interest and concern. Park Development Fees The City of Saratoga collects a fee for park development for increased usage and additional park requirements brought on by increased development within the City. The City requires the dedication of land, or imposes a requirement for the payment of fees, as a condition of subdivision approvals. Five acres of parkland per 1,000 residents is the standard promulgated by the National Recreation and Parks Association and is a common metric utilized by other communities in California to measure adequacy of parkland. The 2007 Update to the Open Space and Conservation Element of the City’s General Plan recognized that additional parkland must be protected and established a goal of five acres of parkland per 275 1,000 acres. This amount of parkland would allow the City to maintain its existing character as a small town community surrounded by rural and open space. The Park Development Fee of $20,700 per subdivided parcel is calculated based upon the formula: (2.76 people per household) X (5 acres per 1,000 residences) X ($1.5 million per acre) The following table summarizes the activity for the Park Development Fees collected for FY 2008/09: Fiscal Year Fiscal Year Fiscal Year 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 Beginning balance $ -$ 155,868 $ (58,508) Revenues: Park Development Fees 41,400 General Fund Transfer 250,000 Expenditures & Other Uses: Capital Projects 94,132 214,376 Total available for future projects $ 155,868 $ (58,508) $ (17,108) For FY 2008/09, the Park Development Fee was applied to the West Valley College Soccer Field capital project, which built one new soccer fields on West Valley College land. This new park project was approved in FY 2006/07 to be funded in part with Park Development Fees. The project expenditures exceeded available fees and is shown above carrying forward with a negative balance. Future Park Development Fees are reimbursing the capital project as received. Road Impact Fees The Road Impact Fee became effective July 1, 2008, to compensate for the impacts of construction and refuse vehicles on public roads resulting from new development and use of community resources. This fee is based on a 2006 study by CSG consultants, commissioned by the cities of Saratoga, Monte Sereno, Campbell, and Los Gatos, to determine the impact of construction vehicles and refuse vehicles on streets and roads, and to determine a fee to mitigate the costs of damage or deterioration in pavement. CSG Consultants determined the fee of $0.77 per $100 of building valuation was a fair assessment of the impact of construction related vehicles on Saratoga’s streets. Fees are payable at the time building permits are issued for development. Refuse vehicle impact fees are established at the same rate and became effective with the new refuse contract beginning with July 1, 2009 collections. The following table summaries the activity for the Road Impact Fee collected for FY 2008/09: 276 Fiscal Year 2008/09 Beginning balance $ -Revenues: Road Impact Fees 298,846 Expenditures & Other Uses: Capital Projects 298,846 Total available for future proejcts $ -Fiscal Year 2008/09 Road Impact Fees were applied and expended toward the Street Resurfacing Capital Project which resurfaces various streets and roadways throughout Saratoga. Road Impact Fees will continue to be applied for this Capital Improvement Project purpose in the future. FISCAL IMPACTS: Development Impact Fees must be used or appropriated to a specific project within 5 years for a specified purpose, or returned to the developer/payee. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: The City would not be in compliance with California requirements. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: N/A FOLLOW UP ACTION: N/A ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: N/A ATTACHMENTS: N/A 277 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: December 16, 2009 AGENDA ITEM: DEPARTMENT: Public Works CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: Iveta Harvancik DIRECTOR: John Cherbone Senior Engineer Public Works Director SUBJECT: Highway 9 Safety Improvement Project, Phase II -Cooperative Agreement and Design Contract Approval RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Adopt a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute a Cooperative Agreement between the City of Saratoga, the Town of Los Gatos, and the City of Monte Sereno for the Highway 9 Safety Improvement Project Phase II. 2. Approve an Independent Contractor Agreement with BKF Engineers for preparation of construction documents for the Highway 9 Safety Improvement Project Phase II and authorize the City Manager to execute the same. 3. Authorize the City Manager to sign a Letter of Understanding with the County of Santa Clara. REPORT SUMMARY: Background The Highway 9 Safety Improvements Project is a multi-jurisdiction effort to improve bicycle/pedestrian safety along this route. The project area consists of an approximately 4.4-mile long stretch of Highway 9 from Saratoga Avenue in Saratoga, through Monte Sereno to Los Gatos Boulevard in Los Gatos. An ad hoc committee comprised of two Council Members from each jurisdiction was formed to receive input from the public during three public meetings. Based on the public and ad hoc committee input during these meetings staff from the three municipalities and engineering consultants from BKF Engineers collaborated to develop a safety Master Plan. The Master Plan includes bicycle facilities on both sides of Highway 9 and a continuous pedestrian access through the corridor with safe pedestrian crossings where needed. The cost to install all the improvements as shown on the Master Plan is between 4 and 5 million dollars. Therefore outside funding sources as well as project phasing were necessary. The first successful grant application received by the City of Monte Sereno was funded by the federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (CMAQ) grant. The three cities executed a Cooperative Agreement and developed Phase I of the Highway 9 Safety Improvement Project. Phase I was administered by Los 278 Gatos and included bicycle lanes on both sides of Highway 9, spot widening and two pedestrian-activated lighted crosswalks. The improvements were completed last fall with $462,000 remaining in the project budget. Discussion Cooperative Agreement Last year, the City of Saratoga applied for and received a Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) grant in the amount of $900,000. This grant, in combination with the unused CMAQ funds transferred from Phase I and the required local match, provided a funding basis for development of Phase II of the Highway 9 Safety Improvement Project. CMAQ funds are available for the design component of Phase II; HSIP funds will be used for construction component. Phase II improvements consist of pedestrian improvements along Highway 9 extending from approximately Oak Street in Saratoga to the Monte Sereno-Los Gatos City limits including asphalt walkways, curbs, retaining walls, driveway modifications, crosswalks, signing and striping. Similar to Phase I, a Cooperative Agreement Agreement among the three municipalities is needed to delineate their respective rights and obligations concerning the administration, financing and construction of Phase II. All comments fromMonte Sereno and Los Gatos were incorporated in the agreement. All of the improvements included in Phase II are located within the territorial jurisdictions of Monte Sereno and Saratoga, with a section located in unincorporated Santa Clara County. Representatives of the County agreed to participate in the Project and executed a separate letter of understanding for cost sharing purposes based on the jurisdictional location of the improvements (Attachment 4). None of the improvements included in Phase II is located in Los Gatos. Los Gatos is a party to this Agreement, however, because of its participation in earlier Highway 9 improvements, the possibility that features located in Los Gatos may be added to Phase II, and the desire of the parties to ensure clear and open lines of communication concerning improvements to Highway 9. Design Contract After receiving the grant funding confirmation, staff followed the guidelines related to federally funded projects and prepared and distributed a Request for Qualifications. The consulting firms Higgins Associates and BKF Engineers submitted qualification statements. Staff carefully reviewed both statements and determined BKF Engineers to be the most qualified firm for this project. BKF Engineers is an experienced consultant team partnering with qualified subconsultants who will provide environmental services, geotechnical investigation and structural design. Additionally, BKF Engineers provided excellent services during Phase I of the Project and prepared the Master Plan. Attached is the Independent Contractor Agreement with BKF Engineers that includes a cost proposal negotiated with BKF Engineers and their consultants to provide environmental, structural, surveying, geotechnical, and civil engineering services. In addition, the scope of work includes services connected with obtaining a Caltrans Encroachment Permit, and assistance during bidding and construction phases of the Project. CMAQ funds are authorized for payment of eighty-eight and one half percent (88.5%) of the design services. Saratoga, Monte Sereno and Santa Clara County have agreed to share the remaining portion of the final design cost as set forth in the Cooperative Agreement. The estimated cost of the design component 279 is $522,000 of which $462,000 is available from CMAQ grant funds and the remaining $60,000 represents the estimated local share to be allocated between the three agencies. The estimated share for Saratoga is $26,419 while Monte Sereno’s share is $22,104 and the County’s share is $11,506. BKF’s proposal for the design work is in the amount of $498,237. The remaining $23,763 of available CMAQ funds will be used for administration and design contract change orders. It is recommended that the City Council approve the Cooperative Agreement with Los Gatos and Monte Sereno, the Independent Contractor Agreement with BKF Engineers, the Letter of Understanding with the County of Santa Clara, and authorize the City Manager to execute the same. FISCAL IMPACTS: Saratoga’s share of the design component of the Highway 9 Safety Improvement Project Phase II in the amount of $26,419 is available in the adopted budget in the Highway 9 Safety Improvements Project Phase II. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: One or both Agreements will not be executed and the design work on the Highway 9 Safety improvement Project Phase II will not start. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: None in addition to the above. FOLLOW UP ACTION: BKF Engineers will start the design work. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Nothing additional. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution approving Cooperative Agreement for Highway 9 Safety Improvements Phase II 2. Cooperative Agreement for Highway 9 Safety Improvements Phase II 3. Independent Contractor Agreement with BKF Engineers 4. County of Santa Clara Letter of Understanding 280 281 RESOLUTION NO. _____ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY SARATOGA APPROVING A COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT AMONG THE CITY OF SARATOGA, THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS AND THE CITY OF MONTE SERENO FOR HIGHWAY 9 SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS PHASE II WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga, the Town of Los Gatos and the City of Monte Sereno desire to enter into a Cooperative Agreement for Highway 9 Safety Improvements Phase II; and WHEREAS, it is in the public interest for all agencies work together as a reliable, timely, and cost effective means of completing this project. NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: Cooperative Agreement for Highway 9 Safety Improvements Phase II is hereby approved subject to all of the terms and conditions thereof. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City Manager is authorized to execute the Agreement on behalf of the City. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Saratoga City Council held on the 16th day of December, 2009 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ______________________________ Kathleen King, Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________ Ann Sullivan, City Clerk 282 Highway 9 Phase II Cooperative Agreement Page 1 of 9 COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT FOR HIGHWAY 9 SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS – PHASE II THIS AGREEMENT, by and among the CITY OF SARATOGA, a municipal corporation (“Saratoga”), the TOWN OF LOS GATOS, a municipal corporation (“Los Gatos”), and the CITY OF MONTE SERENO, a municipal corporation (“Monte Sereno”) (collectively referenced herein as “parties” and individually referenced as a “party”) sets forth the terms of cooperation among the parties in proceeding with Phase II of the Highway 9 Safety Improvements.. RECITALS A. Phase II of the Highway 9 Safety Improvements (“Phase II” or “Project”) involves a Design Component and a Construction Component. The Design Component consists of design and engineering of the following features: pedestrian improvements along Highway 9 extending approximately from Oak Street in Saratoga to the Monte Sereno/Los Gatos City limits. The improvements include, but are not limited to, asphalt walkways, curbs, concrete sidewalks, retaining walls, roadway modifications, driveway modifications, and striping. The Project does not include the San Tomas Aquino Creek crossing. The Construction Component consists of constructing some or all of these features depending on fund availability. The features to be included in the Construction Component will be determined mutually by the parties to this agreement following completion of the Design Component in accordance with this Agreement. B. Except for connection with existing features and traffic lane closures in the Town of Los Gatos, the features included in Phase II are located within the territorial jurisdictions of the City of Saratoga, the County of Santa Clara and the City of Monte Sereno. During the project construction phase, certain features located in Los Gatos may be added to Phase II. The County of Santa Clara is not a party of this Agreement. A separate Agreement will be developed between the City of Saratoga and the County of Santa Clara for cost sharing purposes based on the jurisdictional location of the improvements. For the purpose of allocating design costs between the City of Saratoga and the City of Monte Sereno in this Agreement, costs attributable to the County of Santa Clara will be allocated to the City of Saratoga. C. Pursuant to Metropolitan Transportation Commission’s (“MTC”) Regional Bicycle and Pedestrian Program, Monte Sereno applied for and received approval for a federal Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality (“CMAQ”) grant for safety improvements to Highway 9 Phase I. Not all CMAQ grant funds were expended during Phase I. Unused 283 Highway 9 Phase II Cooperative Agreement Page 2 of 9 CMAQ funds were transferred to Phase II and are available for the Design Component of Phase II. CMAQ funds are authorized for payment of eighty-eight and one half percent (88.5%) of the Final Design Cost as defined below. Saratoga and Monte Sereno agree to share the remaining portion of the Final Design Cost (the “Design Cost Local Share”) as set forth in this Agreement. The estimated cost of the Design Component is $522,000 of which $462,000 is available from CMAQ grant funds and the remaining $60,030 represents the estimated local share to be allocated between Monte Sereno and Saratoga pursuant to this Agreement. D. Pursuant to Safe, Accountable, Flexible, Efficient Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users (SAFETY-LU), Saratoga has applied for and received approval for a Highway Safety Improvement Program (HSIP) grant for the Construction Component of Phase II. HSIP funds are authorized for payment of ninety percent (90%) of the Final Construction Cost as defined below. Saratoga and Monte Sereno agree to share the remaining portion of the Final Construction Cost (the “Construction Cost Local Share”) for the construction features located in each jurisdiction as set forth in this Agreement. The estimated cost of the Construction Component is $1,000,000 of which $900,000 is available from HSIP grant funds and the remaining $100,000 represents the estimated local share to be allocated between Monte Sereno and Saratoga pursuant to this Agreement. E. The California Department of Transportation (“Caltrans”) has authorized the parties to proceed with the Design Component using the CMAQ funds. The parties will seek Caltrans authorization to proceed with the Construction Component prior to undertaking work on that part of the Project. F. The Parties desire to execute this Agreement in order to delineate their respective rights and obligations concerning the administration, design, financing and construction of Phase II. 284 Highway 9 Phase II Cooperative Agreement Page 3 of 9 AGREEMENT NOW, THEREFORE, the parties agree as follows: 1. Scope of Project. The Project includes the design, engineering, and construction of the highway improvements described in the recitals. All work shall be performed in accordance with plans and specifications approved by Saratoga, Monte Sereno, and all local, state and federal agencies having jurisdiction over the Project or whose approval is otherwise required for receipt of CMAQ funds (with respect to Design Component approvals) and HSIP funds (with respect to Construction Component approvals). 2. Allocation of Design Component Costs. (a) The term “Final Design Cost,” as used herein means the total of all expenditures relating to the Design Component, including, but not limited to, engineering, surveys, testing, inspections, topographic maps, geotechnical, soils and environmental surveys and reports, preparation, submitting and revision of all required permit applications, preparation of plans and specifications and other bid documents, publication, printing and advertising of the Project, and the personnel costs of Monte Sereno and Saratoga pursuant to section 4 of this Agreement based upon actual time expended in connection with the Design Component plus all applicable overhead expenses. The Final Design Cost shall be determined upon completion of the Design Component but in no event shall exceed $522,000 without the prior written consent of Monte Sereno and Saratoga. (b) The Design Cost Local Share shall be apportioned between Monte Sereno and Saratoga based on the cost of designing the improvements that will be located within each jurisdiction stated as a percentage of the Final Design Cost as shown on the attached Exhibit A to this agreement. The Design Cost Local Share attributable to the County of Santa Clara will be allocated to the City of Saratoga. The parties estimate that Monte Sereno will pay 37% (thirty seven percent) or $22,104 of the local share and Saratoga will pay 63% (sixty three three percent) or $37,926 of the local share, however this is an estimate only and the final allocation shall be based on the local share of the actual design costs. Payment of the Design Cost Local Share shall be made in accordance with section 4 of this Agreement. (c) Each party is permitted to approve additional improvements within their own jurisdiction beyond the scope of the work approved for the CMAQ and HSIP grants provided that it pays the additional design costs associated with those improvements and any resulting additional costs of administration. 285 Highway 9 Phase II Cooperative Agreement Page 4 of 9 3. Scope of Construction Component. (a) It is expected that the total cost of constructing features included in the Design Component will exceed the funds available for the Construction Component. Following completion of the Design Component the parties will agree upon the features to include in the Construction Component and determine the Estimated Construction Cost. If no such agreement is reached by the ninetieth (90th) day after completion of the Design Component, this Agreement shall automatically terminate pursuant to section 11 of this Agreement. The “Estimated Construction Cost” is the estimate of the construction costs determined prior to the opening of bids for the award of the construction contract, plus an agreed additional amount based on an estimation of project administrative costs pursuant to section 4 of this Agreement. (b) If, upon the opening of bids for the award of a construction contract, there is a cost overrun of no more than ten percent (10%) of the Estimated Construction Cost, the parties shall proceed with the Construction Component in accordance with this Agreement. However, if such bids indicate a cost overrun exceeding ten percent (10%) of the Estimated Construction Cost, Saratoga will reject all bids and then the parties will work to obtain an agreement with the parties to this agreement and Caltrans regarding an alternative project design. If no such agreement is reached by the sixtieth (60th) day after the opening of bids, this Agreement shall automatically terminate pursuant to section 11 of this Agreement. 4. Allocation of Construction Component Costs. (a) The term “Final Construction Cost,” as used herein means the total of all expenditures relating to the Construction Component, including, but not limited to, construction contract administration, notifications, construction staking, demolition, clearing, grubbing, grading, construction of pedestrian walkway, bridges, driveway approaches, crossings, and other structures as as needed, testing, inspections, preparation of as-built plans, and the personnel costs of Monte Sereno and Saratoga based upon actual time expended in connection with the Construction Component plus all applicable overhead expenses. The Final Construction Cost shall be determined upon completion of the Construction Component but in no event shall exceed $1,000,000 without the prior written consent of Monte Sereno and Saratoga. (b) The Construction Cost Local Share shall be apportioned between Monte Sereno and Saratoga based on the cost of constructing the improvements that will be located within each jurisdiction stated as a percentage of the Final Construction Cost. The funds available for construction are not expected to be sufficient to construct all features designed in the design phase of the project. The parties will decide which features are going to be constructed in construction phase of the project when detailed construction cost estimate is available for the project. Final 286 Highway 9 Phase II Cooperative Agreement Page 5 of 9 allocation of the construction cost shall be based on actual costs and the location of the construction. Payment of the Construction Cost Local Share shall be made in accordance with section 5 of this Agreement. (c) Each party is permitted to approve additional improvements within their own jurisdiction beyond the scope of the work approved for the CMAQ and HSIP grants provided that it pays the additional construction costs associated with those improvements and any resulting additional costs of administration. 5. Payment of Project Costs. (a) In addition to its own share of the Final Design Cost and Final Construction Cost, and in anticipation of reimbursement by Caltrans through the release of the HSIP and CMAQ Grants, Saratoga shall periodically advance funds necessary to make payments that are intended hereunder to be paid with the HSIP and CMAQ Grants, provided, however, that in the event that Saratoga has not received full reimbursement from Caltrans for any prior advance made, Saratoga may, at its option, withhold any payment requiring that it advance funds if said payment is not legally required to be made at that time. (b) Monte Sereno shall deposit with Saratoga $5,000 (five thousand dollars) of its Design Cost Local Share within thirty (30) days of execution of this agreement. The remainder of the Design Cost Local Share shall be deposited by Monte Sereno within 30 days after receipt of an invoice from Saratoga. Monte Sereno shall deposit half of its estimated Construction Cost Local Share with Saratoga within ten (10) days after receipt of an invoice from Saratoga following the award of a construction contract unless the bids will be rejected pursuant to this Agreement. (c) Upon completion of the Design Component and the Construction Component, respectively, Saratoga shall furnish to Monte Sereno a detailed accounting of the Final Design Cost and Final Construction Cost, as applicable. In the event the accounting shows that the amount deposited by Monte Sereno exceeded its share of the applicable final cost, the excess shall be reimbursed within thirty (30) days after the accounting is completed and approved by Saratoga and Monte Sereno. In the event the accounting shows that the amount deposited by Monte Sereno is less than its share of the applicable cost, Monte Sereno shall pay the deficiency to Saratoga within thirty (30) days after the date the accounting is sent. Monte Sereno is obligated to pay any deficiency resulting from Project Changes it approved pursuant to this Agreement or any deficiency resulting from reasonable additional or unanticipated costs of administration incurred by Saratoga . 6. Project Administration. The parties agree that the Project will be managed cooperatively by the parties. Representatives of the parties shall work together to accomplish the 287 Highway 9 Phase II Cooperative Agreement Page 6 of 9 Project. However, certain parties shall be responsible for administering certain portions of the Project as set forth below. (a) Saratoga shall be the lead agency for the Project for purposes of administering the HSIP and CMAQ Grants, preliminary engineering of the Project, which shall include, but not be limited to, the Preliminary Study Report, the Project Report, and compliance with CEQA and NEPA. Saratoga shall oversee the design and bidding of the Project, shall award the contract for the Project and shall obtain all permits necessary for the Project. Saratoga shall enter into all contracts necessary to implement the Project provided the contract is approved by the parties. (b) Saratoga shall be responsible for overseeing construction of the Project. Saratoga shall provide oversight and inspection services for the Project. (c) The parties must each approve the plans and specifications for the Project. Saratoga shall not enter into any contract in excess of $25,000 or increase any contract by more than $25,000, for the performance of professional, consulting or construction services without the prior written consent of Monte Sereno. (d) The Parties shall promptly review and respond to all materials submitted by one to the other for review and approval in connection with the Project. No approval in connection with the Project shall be unreasonably withheld. (e) For public meetings held in connection with the Project, each party is responsible for providing the notification of its residents that it determines is appropriate. 7. Right-of-way Acquisitions. No right of way acquisitions are expected to be a part of the Project. If it is determined that the acquisition of any right-of-way is required for the Project, the party having territorial jurisdiction over the property to be acquired shall be responsible for obtaining such right-of-way and conducting any proceedings that may be necessary in connection therewith; provided, however, no contract for legal services shall be awarded and no eminent domain action shall be commenced without the prior approval of the other parties and Caltrans. In the event acquisition of right-of way is necessary to the base project, the City in which the right-of way is located shall pay for the acquisition of the right-of-way. Any delay costs caused by the acquisition shall be shared by the parties in proportion to their portion of the Design Cost Local Share. In the event a party desires to acquire right-of-way which is not necessary for the base project, that party shall bear both acquisition and delay costs. 8. Insurance Requirements. All contracts awarded for design or construction of the Project shall include a requirement that the consultant and/or contractor, at all times during design and construction and until final acceptance of the work, maintain in full force and effect the following insurance policies: (a) Broad form comprehensive liability insurance having a combined single limit of not less than $ 2,000,000 per occurrence, naming Saratoga, Los Gatos, Monte 288 Highway 9 Phase II Cooperative Agreement Page 7 of 9 Sereno, and their respective officers, officials, boards, commissions, employees and volunteers as additional insured thereunder. (b) For construction contracts, builder’s risk insurance covering the replacement cost of the improvements, with a loss payable clause naming Saratoga, Los Gatos and Monte Sereno, as their respective interests may appear. (c) Worker’s Compensation insurance as required by state law, together with employer’s liability insurance having a coverage limit of not less than $1,000,000 per accident. (d) For design consultants, professional liability insurance having a limit of not less than $1,000,000. (e) Liability insurance as required by the permitting agencies. 9. Bonding Requirements. The contractor who is awarded the contract for construction of the Project shall be required to provide performance and payment bonds in the amount of one hundred percent (100%) of the contract price. 10. Project Records. The parties shall keep and maintain a complete copy of all costs and expenditures relating to the Project, together with a complete copy of all plans, specifications, reports, contracts and other documents relating to the Project, and the same shall be available for inspection by the parties at any time during usual business hours. Saratoga, as the project lead, shall provide other parties to this agreement, electronic and durable reproducible copies of the Design and As Built Construction documents related to project features located within their jurisdictions. 11. Termination of Agreement. (a) This Agreement is executed by the parties in reliance on the HSIP and CMAQ Grants. In the event a grant agreement is not executed between Saratoga and Caltrans, this Agreement shall automatically terminate and each of the parties shall be released from any further obligation or liability hereunder. (b) In the event a contract for construction of the Project is not awarded pursuant to section 2 of this Agreement or for any reason prior to December 30, 2010, this Agreement shall terminate unless extended by mutual consent of all parties hereto. (c) Upon termination in accordance with the terms of this section, Saratoga shall refund to Monte Sereno any balance of its contributions remaining after deduction of the costs incurred by Saratoga up to the date of termination and payable by each party under the terms of this Agreement 289 Highway 9 Phase II Cooperative Agreement Page 8 of 9 12. Limitation of Liability. No party to this Agreement shall be responsible or liable to any other party or parties for any act or omission made in good faith in connection with the performance of its duties hereunder, nor shall any party be responsible or liable for any act or omission by any consultant or contractor retained for the performance of any services related to the Project. Saratoga and Monte Sereno shall contribute equally towards any loss, liability, expense, claim, costs (including costs of defense), suits, and damages of every kind, nature and description directly or indirectly arising from the performance of the Project. This paragraph shall not be construed to exempt any party, including its employees and officers, from its own fraud, willful injury or violation of law whether willful or negligent. 13. 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, they shall submit them to non-binding mediation in the County of Santa Clara, California, or by mutual agreement in any other location. 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 of these dispute resolution processes are involved, each party shall bear its own costs and attorneys fees. 14. 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 the Superior Court of the County of Santa Clara. 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. 15. Assignment. Except as provided in section 6 of this Agreement, no party may 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. Monte Sereno and Los Gatos acknowledge and accept that a portion of the project management duties of Saratoga stated in section 6 of this Agreement will be provided by contractors whose services will be engaged by Saratoga pursuant to this Agreement. 16. 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. 17. Waiver. No failure on the part of any party to exercise any right or remedy hereunder shall operate as a waiver of any other right or remedy that party may have hereunder, nor does waiver of a breach or default under this Agreement constitute a continuing waiver of a subsequent breach of the same or any other provision of this Agreement. 18. Amendment. No modification, waiver, termination, or amendment of this Agreement is effective unless made in writing and signed by all parties. 19. Entire Agreement. This Agreement supersedes any and all agreements, either oral or written, between the parties hereto with respect to the Project and contains all of the 290 Highway 9 Phase II Cooperative Agreement Page 9 of 9 covenants and agreements between the parties with respect to the rendering of such services 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 is not embodied herein, and that no other agreement, statement or promise not contained in this Agreement shall be valid or binding. No alteration or variation of the terms of this Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing and signed by the parties hereto. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement the day and year last written below. City of Saratoga City of Monte Sereno Town of Los Gatos By: ______________________ Dave Anderson, City Manager Date: ________________ By: _________________________ Brian Loventhal, City Manager Date: ___________________ By: _____________________ Greg Larson, Town Manager Date:________________ Attest: ______________________ Ann Sullivan, City Clerk Date: ______________ Attest: __________________________ Andrea Chelemengos, City Clerk Date: _____________________ Attest: _____________________ Jackie Rose, Clerk Administrator Date:________________ Approved as to Form: _____________________ Richard Taylor, City Attorney Date:__________________ Approved as to Form: __________________________ Kirstin Powell, City Attorney Date: _____________________ Approved as to Form: _____________________ Orry Korb, Town Attorney Date:________________ P:\SARATOGA\Contracts\Hwy 9 Phase II coop agreement 11-11-09 (RST Comments 11-17-09).doc 291 292 EXHIBIT A r 9· Phase II I Cost Enviro 1 i rto 3,000 t 2 Three Oaks Way to I 3,000 3 , taVia Colina 3.000 I 4 Via Colina to EI ,(. 3,000 I 5 Austin to Quito 3,000 I 6 Quito to Daves 3,000 17 Daves to I 3.000 18 L I to Gral i 3,000 19 ; from Oak Place inc!. r-o-w survey 3,000 10 Aloha to 3,000 11 EI Camino . to Austin 3,000 12 (. , to I 3,000 ! 13 I to Rose 3,000 : 14 Rose to I r._M!'; City Limits 3,000 I Total $ 42,000 City's Costs (bid , etc,) IGrand Total I I For the Cooperative Agreement DeSign Cost Share Purpose. Sarataga + County: $26,419 + $11,506 = $37,925 63% City of Monte Sereno: $22,104 37% Bridge over San Tomas Aquino Creek is not included No improvements in Los Gatos in this phase Updated 12-09-09 Geo Struct Total ncdn~ Cost Total sur~n~o""+o BKF (inciudelR9l ~ $ . . 3,000 $ 11,822 --3.000 JA-~a" --3,000 M'IR? 3,720 9,840 16,560 15.779 5.580 24,720 .,., .,nn 23.155 3,720 8,400 15,120 13,870 5.580 19.800 28.380 26: 165 3,720 4.200 10,920 13,962 1,860 2,400 7.260 ::In nQ"-1,900 2.400 7,300 15,799 7,440 '17 Rn? 43,042 23,997 3,720 9,000 15,720 3f076 1,860 7,200 12,060 16,487 -2,400 5,400 23.291 $ 39,100 $122,962 $ 7n,,-nR? $ 294.175 $ $ $ I I Cost Citvof County of San a Clara Citv of Man :e ~cost 1,5% local match I Ic~in~ cost 11.5% local matc~ I design cost 11,5% local match 14,822 100% 14~ 1.705 0% . . 0% -$ -27.296 100% 27,296 3,139 0% --0% --$ -27.382 100% 27,382 3.149 0% --O~ -$ -.,~ .,.,c 100% 32,339 3,719 0% --O~ $ --~ 0% $' --100% "R "-"" 6,492 O~ $ --?R aan 0% $ --100% ?R,QQO 3.334 0% --54.545 0% --O~ --100% 54,545 6.273 24.882 0% -$ -O~ $ --100% ?"-""? 2,861 37.354 1 00"1< 37,354 $ 4,296 O~ $ --0% --~ ~ ?'I noo 2,656 0% --0% --67,039 85"1< iifl.QR::I 6,553 15% 10,056 $ 1.156 0% --46,796 0% --0% -$ -100% 46,796 5,382 28,547 0% -$ -0% $ -$ -100% 28,547 3,283 28.691 0% -$ -0% $ -$ -100% $ 3,299 $ 219 .275 $ 25,217 $ 95,501 10.983 $ 183,461 $ 21,098 23.763 $ 1C 1,458 $ 1,203 $ 4,555 523.81 $ 8.750 $ 1.006 ~ $' 229 ,733 $ 26,419 $ 1/ln MR 11,506 $ 192,211 $ 22,104 CITY OF SARATOGA STANDARD INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made at Saratoga, California by and between the CITY OF SARATOGA, a municipal corporation ("City"), and BKF ENGINEERS, ("Contractor"), who agree as follows: RECITALS 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 WHEREAS, Contractor is agreeable 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 ACHIEVED Subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, Contractor shall provide to City the work product described in Exhibit A ("Scope of Work"). Contractor is not authorized to undertake any efforts or incur any costs whatsoever under the terms of this Agreement until receipt of a fully executed Purchase Order from the Finance Department of the City of Saratoga. 2. TERM The term of this Agreement commences on December 1st, 2009 and extends through November 30, 2010 or the completion of the project, whichever occurs first, unless it is extended by written mutual agreement 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 ("Payment"). 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 City of Saratoga:Independent Contractor Agreement Highway 9 Phase II Page 1 of 84 293 procedures and practices which Contractor uses for billing clients similar to City. 4. FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT Except as set forth in Exhibit C ("Facilities and Equipment"), Contractor shall, at its sole cost and expense, furnish all facilities and equipment, which may be required for completing the Scope of Work pursuant to this Agreement. 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 agree 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 Agreement are attached hereto and are by this reference incorporated herein and made a part of this Agreement. 7. CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION This Agreement shall be administered on behalf of City by Dave Anderson ("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 Agreement. 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 Agreement shall be in writing and may be given either personally, by certified mail, return receipt requested, or by overnight express carrier. 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 carrier 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 satisfy the notice requirements set forth above; 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: City of Saratoga:Independent Contractor Agreement Highway 9 Phase II Page 2 of 84 294 Notices to Contractor shall be sent to: Natalina Bernardi BKF Engineers 4670 Willow Road, Suite 250 Pleasanton, CA 94588 Notices to City shall be sent to: Public Works Director 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 Agreement 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 between the parties with respect to the rendering of such services 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 WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement. CONTRACTOR: By: ________________________________ Date: _________________ Print Name: Position: City of Saratoga: Independent Contractor Agreement Highway 9 Phase II Page 3 of 84 295 CITY OF SARATOGA, a municipal corporation By: __________________________________ Date: __________________ Name: Dave Anderson Title: City Manager APPROVED AS TO FORM: By: ____________________________ ___ Date: ___________________ City Attorney Attachments Exhibit A --Scope of Work Exhibit B --Contract Payment and Reporting Schedule Exhibit C --Facilities and Equipment Exhibit D --General Provisions Exhibit E --Insurance Requirements Exhibit F – Caltrans Forms City of Saratoga:Independent Contractor Agreement Highway 9 Phase II Page 4 of 84 296 EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF WORK See attached detail Scope of Services. City of Saratoga:Independent Contractor Agreement Highway 9 Phase II Exhibit A Page 5 of 84 297 Hwy 9 Safety Improvements Phase 2 -Scope of Services BKF Job No. 20076049 October 19, 2009 Page 1 of 6 P:\Eng07\076049\Fee Proposal\Scope\Scope 10-15-09.doc EXHIBIT A SCOPE OF SERVICES Prepared for: Hwy 9 Safety Improvements – Phase 2 City of Saratoga Los Gatos, and Monte Sereno TASK 1 -PROJECT MANAGEMENT/TEAM LEADERSHIP 1.1 PROJECT KICK-OFF MEETING: Notify affected agencies and administer a project “kick-off” meeting. This meeting to gain initial input about project goals, timetable, contacts, responsibilities, and schedules. BKF will document the meeting and distribute a meeting summary and participant list to attendees for review and comments. 1.2 PUBLIC MEETINGS: Two public meetings are anticipated during the project, one in Saratoga and one in Monte Sereno. It is anticipated the City will secure a location and time for the meetings as well as provide the necessary public notification. BKF will attend and lead the public forum. BKF will document the public comments and prepare a meeting summary for distribution to the design team and public agencies. 1.3 COORDINATE DESIGN WITH TEAM MEMBERS AND CONSULTANTS: Meet with the design team and Client representatives to refine the project scope and establish the design schedule including milestones. Convey specific design demands to team members and consultants so as to achieve the desired product of the client. Manage the design team relating to the scope, schedule and design fee of the project. TASK 2 -PRELIMINARY INVESTIGATIONS, DATA COLLECTIONS, AND CONCEPTUAL DESIGN ALTERNATIVES 2.1 TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEYING: Topographic features will be defined by spot elevations on sections at approx. 50’ intervals and conform locations. Planimetric features such as curbs, walks, driveways, buildings, fences, walls, signs, trees and utility structures will be measured. Utility lines will be plotted from record information provided and surface evidence. The limits of the topographic survey will be from the shoulder of Hwy 9 to the approximate Caltrans Right of Way adjacent to the the 14 proposed design segments. Aerial surveys provided by the City will be incorporated in the background of the topographic base maps. Project base sheets will be prepared using the existing available information from agencies and the topographic surveys. No boundary survey is included in this Scope of Work. City of Saratoga:Independent Contractor Agreement Highway 9 Phase II Exhibit A Page 6 of 84 298 Hwy 9 Safety Improvements Phase 2 -Scope of Services BKF Job No. 20076049 October 19, 2009 Page 2 of 6 P:\Eng07\076049\Fee Proposal\Scope\Scope 10-15-09.doc 2.2 CONDUCT GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS TO SUPPORT RETAINING WALLS: 2.2.1. Research and Data Collection: Review of additional available geologic and soil literature in the vicinity of the site including review of any as-built drawings and existing LOTB. Permits/USA Clearances: We will comply with local permit requirements. We assume that a Caltrans and any private encroachment permit will be provided by the Agency. We will field locate the borings and call for USA clearance. 2.2.2. Field Exploration: The boring program is provided in the table below. Project Element Number of Borings Approximate Depths Segment 1, 2 & 3 -Primarily roadway work. 5 3’ Segments 4-14, retaining walls (6400 feet) 21 15’ These explorations will provide an evaluation of subsurface conditions for the proposed roadway portion and the retaining wall foundations of the project. The The boring locations will depend upon the available access and any boring data from previous studies. We anticipate using a truck mounted drill rig for our work. Some traffic control is assumed at this time in areas where necessary. Classify and continuously log subsurface soil conditions encountered in each test boring at the time of drilling. Obtain "relatively undisturbed" and bulk samples of substrata from test borings. The borings will be drilled and capped in accordance with the permit requirements. Generally the borings are required to be backfilled with cement grout. 2.2.3. Laboratory Testing: Perform laboratory tests on representative soil samples such as moisture density, unconfined compression, gradation analyses, R-value tests, corrosion tests and Plasticity Index test, as necessary. 2.2.4. Soils Analysis/Evaluation: Perform engineering analyses and develop design recommendations for the proposed retaining walls and new pavement design. There may be a need to review with Caltrans (Type selection) of any non-standard walls that may be proposed for the project. 2.2.5. Prepare Draft Geotechnical Design and Materials Report: Prepare preliminary recommendations for retaining walls and for pavement sections as per Caltrans guidelines. City of Saratoga:Independent Contractor Agreement Highway 9 Phase II Exhibit A Page 7 of 84 299 Hwy 9 Safety Improvements Phase 2 -Scope of Services BKF Job No. 20076049 October 19, 2009 Page 3 of 6 P:\Eng07\076049\Fee Proposal\Scope\Scope 10-15-09.doc 2.2.6. Prepare Final Geotechnical Design and Materials Report: Prepare detail report including design recommendations for embankment foundation, parking facility, and pavement sections. Also specified in the report will be information on recommended slopes, groundwater conditions, corrosion evaluations, etc. 2.2.7. Using the project plans as a base map, we will provide boring logs, unless otherwise specified standard LOTB will be provided. 2.2.8. Design Review Consultation through final design. Assist design team during design review process and attend meetings(if necessary) 2.3 GATHER SITE INFORMATION. Retrieve existing site improvement plans, CAD files, and relative information regarding existing site conditions. Using record plans, maps and studies (provided by agencies) update and supplement the project base sheets. 2.4 UTILITY COORDINATION: Request Request information from dry utilities (electric, gas, telephone, cable) on existing facilities, maps and discuss any possible capital improvements within the project limits. Coordinate with wet utilities (water, sewer, and storm drain) to gather existing facility maps and discuss any possible capital improvements or replacement of existing facilities in the project limits. 2.5 DEVELOP CONCEPTS: Using the project base sheets, the design team will begin preparation of conceptual design alternatives for each segment for the project showing: 2.5.1. Approximate location of improvements and impacts to existing facilities, properties, and vegetation 2.5.2. Cross Sections and details at critical locations showing both the vertical and horizontal opportunities and constraints 2.5.3. Use of non-standard retaining walls will require coordination and approval from Caltrans, including preparation of a Retaining Wall Type Selection Memorandum and attendance of a Type Selection Meeting. 2.6 CONCEPTUAL SITE WALK: BKF will will conduct a site walk with the City to evaluate the viability of the design concepts generated in Task 2.5. 2.7 REFINE CONCEPTS: The design team will refine the conceptual alternatives based on the results from the site walk. 2.8 PUBLIC MEETING PREPARATION: BKF will prepare exhibits of the project alternatives for presentation at two public meetings. The exhibits will show information about potential impacts to properties adjacent to the project. Conceptual construction City of Saratoga:Independent Contractor Agreement Highway 9 Phase II Exhibit A Page 8 of 84 300 Hwy 9 Safety Improvements Phase 2 -Scope of Services BKF Job No. 20076049 October 19, 2009 Page 4 of 6 P:\Eng07\076049\Fee Proposal\Scope\Scope 10-15-09.doc costs associated with each alternative will be available at the meetings so the public can understand the financial constraints. TASK 3 -60 % CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENT PLAN PACKAGE 3.1 CONCEPT REFINEMENT: Design team will summarize the input generated from the Public Meetings in Task II. Using this input, new conceptual designs will be prepared and evaluated. 3.2 CONCEPTUAL PLAN SUBMITTAL: The design team will submit to the City a revised conceptual plan package for review and comment. 3.3 CITY MEETING: BKF will meet with the City and the agencies to discuss, modify and agree to the preferred alternative for each segment. These concepts will be used for the basis of design for the remainder of the project. 3.4 CEQA DOCUMENTS: Environmental consultant will conduct a site walk with design team and city. Environmental consultant will attend field review meeting with Caltrans. 3.5 60% PLAN, SPECIFICATIONS, AND ESTIMATES: Using the concepts agreed upon in Task 3.3, the design team will prepare a 60% Construction Document Plan Package which will include: 3.5.1. Cover Sheet, General Notes, and Key Maps 3.5.2. Prepare 1” = 20’ scale plan view design sheets showing: 3.5.2.1. Demolition identifying specific items that are to be removed, relocated, or salvaged by the contractor showing type and limits to be removed 3.5.2.2. Layout showing horizontal alignments 3.5.2.3. Grading for vertical control of improvements 3.5.3. Retaining wall plan and profile sheets showing location and heights of walls 3.5.4. Details and Sections showing cross sections and details at key locations to clearly indicate the intent of the design 3.5.5. Traffic Handling Plan showing the phasing and type of traffic handling to be used during construction for segments adjacent to the roadway or pedestrian traveled way. City of Saratoga:Independent Contractor Agreement Highway 9 Phase II Exhibit A Page Page 9 of 84 301 Hwy 9 Safety Improvements Phase 2 -Scope of Services BKF Job No. 20076049 October 19, 2009 Page 5 of 6 P:\Eng07\076049\Fee Proposal\Scope\Scope 10-15-09.doc 3.5.6. Outline of Technical Specifications for the project 3.5.7. Prepare Construction Cost Estimate using the 60% Plans and Specifications 3.6 60% PS&E SUBMITTAL: The Design team will assemble and coordinate an in-house Quality Control review of the 60% PS&E package. The team will refine the package and submit to the City for review and comment 3.7 60% PS&E REVIEW MEETING: The design team will meet with the City to discuss their internal review and comments. Items needing additional clarification will be identified and addressed by the team. 3.8 SITE VISITS: BKF in coordination with City Staff will meet with the property owners adjacent to the project limits on-site to discuss and identify concerns. BKF will summarize the property owners concerns and submit to the City for direction on whether or not to incorporate into the 60% PS&E design. TASK 4 -90 % CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENT PLAN PACKAGE 4.1 CITY MEETING: BKF will meet with the City to discuss the findings of the meetings conducted with the individual property owners. Items discussed in the field will be evaluated and the possibility of incorporation into the construction documents determined. 4.2 90% PS&E PACKAGE: Revise 60% PS&E Plan Package incorporating written comments provided by City and prepare 90% PS&E Package which will include: 4.2.1. Cover Sheet, General Notes, and Key Maps 4.2.2. Prepare 20 scale Plan view design sheets showing: 4.2.2.1. Demolition 4.2.2.2. Layout 4.2.2.3. Grading 4.2.3. Retaining wall plan and profile sheets 4.2.4. Details and Sections sheets necessary to show intent of design 4.2.5. Traffic Handling Plans 4.2.6. Specifications City of Saratoga:Independent Contractor Agreement Highway 9 Phase II Exhibit A Page 10 of 84 302 Hwy 9 Safety Improvements Phase 2 -Scope of Services BKF Job No. 20076049 October 19, 2009 Page 6 of 6 P:\Eng07\076049\Fee Proposal\Scope\Scope 10-15-09.doc 4.2.7. Construction Cost Estimate based on 90% Plans and Specifications 4.3 90% PS&E SUBMITTAL: The design team will assemble and coordinate an in-house quality control review of the 90% PS&E package. The team will update the package and submit to the City for review and comment. 4.4 REVIEW MEETING: BKF will meet with the City to discuss 90% PS&E review comments. TASK 5 -100 % CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENT PLAN PACKAGE 5.1 100% PS&E PLAN PACKAGE: Modify the 90% PS&E Plan Package incorporating written comments on the provided by City and prepare 100% PS&E Package for bidding. 5.2 100% PS&E SUBMITTAL: The design team will assemble the final PS&E Bid Ready documents and provide the City the package in both hard copy and electronic form (PDF, MS Word, MS Excel, and AutoCAD). TASK 6 -BIDDING PHASE 6.1 PRE-BID MEETING. Administer and record pre-bid Meeting. 6.2 DESIGN CLARIFICATIONS. During the bidding phase, provide office consultation to bidding contractors. Provide formal clarifications issued in writing to all bidding contractors. TASK 7 -CONSTRUCTION SERVICES 7.1 PRE-CONSTRUCTION MEETING. Attend and document Pre-construction meeting with agencies, contractor and utility companies. 7.2 SITE MEETINGS: Attend site meetings as coordinated by the City for individual property owners adjacent to the project. Meeting will be to discuss the construction efforts and identify any concerns. 7.3 RFI and CHANGE ORDERS: The design team will review and respond promptly to contractor RFI submitted via the City’s Construction Manager. Change Orders submitted to the City will be evaluated by the design team. 7.4 RECORD DRAWINGS: Prepare record drawings based on the City supplied Contractor’s red lined drawings for each segment. Record Drawings will be provided to the City on Mylar as well as an electronic copy in AutoCAD format. City of Saratoga:Independent Contractor Agreement Highway 9 Phase II Exhibit A Page 11 of 84 303 BKF Engineers 1650 Technology Drive, Suite 200 San Jose, CA 95110 Tel 408.467.9100, Fax 408.467.9199 Revised: 11/2/09 Hwy 9 Safety Improvements Project Phase 2 Task 1 Project Management/Team Leadership Task 2 Preliminary Investigations, Data Collection, and Conceptual Design Alternatives Task 3 60% Construction Documents Package Preparation Task 4 90% Construction Documents Package Preparation Task 5 100% Construction Documents Package Preparation Task 6 Bidding Services Task 7 Construction Services TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Total Cost Rate/hr $ 188 $ 158 $ 132 $ 116 $ 101 $ -$ -$ 227 Hours Task 1 0 86 0 0 0 0 0 0 86 $ 13,588 Task 2 14 84.5 27 36 267 0 0 118 546.5 $ 77,476 Task 3 14 121 26 32 411 0 0 12 616 $ 73,129 Task 4 15 65 6 54 392 0 0 8 540 $ 61,554 Task 5 14 35 0 8 190 0 0 0 247 $ 28,280 Task 6 0 21 14 0 14 0 0 0 49 $ 6,580 Task 7 0 36 14 0 42 0 0 0 92 $ 11,778 BKF 57 448.5 87 130 1316 0 0 138 2,176.5 Subtotal $10,716 $70,863 $11,484 $15,080 $132,916 $0 $0 $31,326 $ 272,385 Reimbursable Expenses: Printing 4.0% of professional fees $ 10,895 Delivery/Mileage 4.0% of professional fees $ 10,895 Total Reimbursable Budget $ 21,791 Subconsultants: 1 David Powers and Associates -Environmental Engineering $ 42,000 2 Biggs Cardosa Associates -Structural Engineering -Retaining Walls Only $ 122,962 3 Parikh Consultants Inc -Geotechnical Engineering (Retaining Walls) $ 39,100 Total Subconsultant Budget $ 204,062 Total Budget $ 498,238 Legend PIC Principal in Charge Eng III Engineer III Eng I Engineer I PM Project Manager Eng II Engineer II Surv Survey Field Crew See Page 2 for Project Assumptions and Exclusions. (All Segments without San Tomas Aquino Creek Bridge) Highway 9 Safety Improvements Project Phase 2 City of Saratoga, Town of Los Gatos, and City of Monte Sereno Scope of Fee and Services SUMMARY OF FEES & HOURS P:\Eng07\076049\Fee Proposal\Final Fee\11-2\All Segments without Bridge Hwy 9 Safety Improvement Project Phase 2 -11-2-09.XLS] Page1 of 45 Printed 11/2/2009 City of Saratoga:Independent Contractor Agreement Highway 9 Phase II Exhibit A Page 12 of 84 304 Project Assumptions and Exclusions: 1. It is assumed that the design work will be completed in one phase. 2. It is assumed that the retaining walls will be located within Caltrans ROW and are subject to Caltrans review and approval. 3. Retaining walls are assumed to incorporate baseline aesthetic treatments in the form of colored concrete and/or standard retaining walls. Enhanced aesthetic treatments beyond baseline concepts for retaining walls is outside the scope and shall be considered extra work. 4. The geotechnical program will be in accordance with Caltrans standards and borings are generally required at about 300' spacing. Considering the uniform cuts and relatively short heights the boring are proposed to be spaced at about 400 feet. The borings are estimated to be 3 times the height and therefore the maximum depth is about 15 feet. 5. Project will not include work within creeks, drainages or wetlands. It is anticipated the San Tomas Aquino Creek crossing will not be included in this phase of work. 6. Project qualifies for a Categorical Exemption under CEQA. It is anticipated that a new Field Review will be necessary. 7. Assume the project NEPA is complete. Scope of work assumes no studies or tasks for NEPA since Caltrans has completed NEPA process (Categorical Exclusion dated 2/8/08). 8. Surveys for threatened /endangered/special status species will not be needed 9. Surface archeological testing will not be required. 10. Historic evaluations of structures and/or buildings will not be required. 11. No cultural resources will be impacted by the project 12. This proposal does not anticipate any acquisition needs and does not include any fees associated with fee acquisition, legal descriptions, boundary or right or way surveys. 13. The need of this project is based on safety; operational analysis, including traffic counts, modeling, and forecasting is excluded. 14. Any design for 3rd party utility relocation (telephone, communications, PG&E, etc.) shall be considered extra work. 15. It is anticipated that that pedestrian access for segment 9 will be provided by an ADA accessible walkway. Any additional structural requirements for ramps, retaining walls, or miscellaneous access structures shall be considered extra work. 16. It is assumed that the Project will not require preparation of a DIB 78. 17. It is assumed that the Project will not require preparation of a Longitudinal or Transversal Utility Exception Report 18. It is assumed that the project will not require modifications to signalized intersections. 19. It is assumed that the Project will not require preparation of a Traffic Management Plan 20. It is assumed that the Project will not require preparation of a Hydraulic/Floodplain Study Report 21. It is assumed that the City of Saratoga will be CEQA Lead Agency 22. Project design units will be imperial (feet). 23. It is assumed that the Project will not require Caltrans' ABC Mapping. 24. Potholing has been excluded from this scope of fee and services. 25. This proposal does not include any intersection intersection modifications at Hwy 9 and Austin or Hwy 9 and Quito including any modifications to the existing traffic signals. 26. It is assumed that no utility relocation plans or coordination will be necessary. 27. Project will not impact parks P:\Eng07\076049\Fee Proposal\Final Fee\11-2\All Segments without Bridge Hwy 9 Safety Improvement Project Phase 2 -11-2-09.XLS] Page2 of 45 Printed 11/2/2009 City of Saratoga:Independent Contractor Agreement Highway 9 Phase II Exhibit A Page 13 of 84 305 SUMMARY OF FEES & HOURS BKF Engineers Scope of Fee and Services 1650 Technology Drive, Suite 200 San Jose, CA 95110 City of Saratoga, Town of Los Gatos, and City of Monte Sereno Tel 408.467.9100, Fax 408.467.9199 Highway 9 Safety Improvements Project Phase 2 Hwy 9 Safety Improvements Project Phase 2 -Segment 1: Vickery to Mendelsohn Task 1 Project Management/Team Leadership Task 2 Preliminary Investigations, Data Collection, and Conceptual Design Alternatives Task 3 60 % Construction Documents Package Preparation Task 4 90% Construction Documents Package Preparation Task 5 100% Construction Documents Package Preparation Task 6 Bidding Services Task 7 Construction Services TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Total Cost Rate/hr $ 188 $ 158 $ 132 $ 116 $ 101 $ -$ -$ 227 Hours Task 1 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 $ 948 Task 2 1 5 1 0 11 0 0 4 22 $ 3,129 Task 3 1 4 1 0 15 0 0 0 21 $ 2,467 Task 4 1 3 0 2 12 0 0 0 18 $ 2,106 Task 5 1 1 0 0 8 0 0 0 10 $ 1,154 Task 6 0 1.5 1 0 1 0 0 0 4 $ 470 Task 7 0 1.5 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 6 $ 672 BKF 4 22 4 2 50 0 0 4 86 Subtotal $752 $3,476 $528 $232 $5,050 $0 $0 $908 $ 10,946 Reimbursable Expenses: Printing 4.0% of professional fees $ 438 Delivery/Mileage 4.0% of professional fees $ 438 Total Reimbursable Budget $ 876 Subconsultants: 1 David Powers and Associates -Environmental Engineering $ 3,000 2 Biggs Cardosa Associates -Structural Engineering $ -3 Parikh Consultants Inc -Geotechnical Engineering -See Option Services on Summary Page $ -Total Subconsultant Budget $ 3,000 Total Budget $ 14,822 Legend PIC Principal in Charge Eng I Engineer I PM Project Manager Surv Survey Field Crew Eng III Engineer III Eng II Engineer II P:\Eng07\076049\Fee Proposal\Final Fee\11-2\All Segments without Bridge Hwy 9 Safety Improvement Project Phase 2 -11-2-09.XLS] Segment 1 Page3 of 45 Printed 11/2/2009 City of Saratoga:Independent Contractor Agreement Highway 9 Phase II Exhibit A Page 14 of 84 306 Task 1 Project Management/Team Leadership Task 1.1 Kick-Off Meeting Task 1.2 Public Meetings (2 Total) Task 1.3 Coordinate Design with Team Members and Consultants TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Tot Hrs Cost Task 1.1 1 1 $ 158 Task 1.2 1 1 $ 158 Task 1.3 4 4 $ 632 Subtotal 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 $ 948 Task 2 Preliminary Investigations, Data Collection, and Conceptual Design Alternatives Task 2.1 Conduct Topographic Survey to supplement Planimetric Mapping (NAD 1983 & NAVD 1988) Task 2.2 Conduct Geotechnical Investigations to support Retaining Walls Task 2.3 Request/Collect/Review available CT and City As-Builts, R/W Record Maps, and other Project Improvements Plans Task 2.4 Request/Collect/Review Available Utility Record Information (as needed) Task 2.5 Develop Conceptual Design Alternatives Task 2.6 Perform Site Visit with City to Verify Conceptual Design Alternatives Task 2.7 Refine Conceptual Design Alternatives Task 2.8 Prepare Exhibits for Public Meeting TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Tot Hrs Cost Task 2.1 1 1 4 6 $ 1,167 Task 2.2 Parikh Consultants, Inc.(see fee under optional services in summary) 0 $ -Task 2.3 1 1 $ 101 Task 2.4 1 1 2 $ 233 Task 2.5 1 1 2 4 $ 548 Task 2.6 1 1 $ 158 Task 2.7 1 4 5 $ 562 Task 2.8 1 2 3 $ 360 Subtotal 1 5 1 0 11 0 0 4 22 $ 3,129 Task 3 60 % Construction Documents Package Preparation Task 3.1 Refine Conceptual Design Alternatives to incorporate Public Input Task 3.2 Submit Refined Concept Design to City for Review Task 3.3 Meet with City to confirm final Conceptual Design Task 3.4 Prepare CEQA Categorical Exemption Task 3.5 Prepare 60% PS&E Documents Task 3.5.1 Prepare Cover Sheet, General Notes and Key Maps Task 3.5.2 Prepare Plan View Design Drawings Task 3.5.3 Prepare Retaining Wall Plans including profiles Task 3.5.4 Prepare Detail Sheets and Sections Task 3.5.5 Prepare Traffic Handling Plan Task 3.5.6 Prepare Outline of Specifications Task 3.5.7 Prepare Construction Cost Estimate Task 3.6 Submit 60 % PS&E Package to City for Review Task 3.7 Meet with City to discuss 60% Review Comments Task 3.8 Site Visits with Property Owners On-Site (1 Individual Owner anticipated) TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Tot Hrs Cost Task 3.1 1 2 3 $ 334 Task 3.2 1 1 $ 101 Task 3.3 0.5 0.5 $ 79 Task 3.4 David Powers and Associates(see fee in summary) $ -Task 3.5 1 1 10 12 $ 1,356 Task 3.6 1 2 3 $ 360 Task 3.7 0.5 0.5 $ 79 Task 3.8 1 1 $ 158 Subtotal 1 4 1 0 15 0 0 0 21 $ 2,467 P:\Eng07\076049\Fee Proposal\Final Fee\11-2\All Segments without Bridge Hwy 9 Safety Improvement Project Phase 2 -11-2-09.XLS] Segment 1 Page4 of 45 Printed 11/2/2009 City of Saratoga:Independent Contractor Agreement Highway 9 Phase II Exhibit A Page 15 of 84 307 L Task 4 90% Construction Documents Package Preparation Task 4.1 Meet with City to discuss Site Visit comments determine viability Task 4.2 Incorporate 60% Review comments and Prepare 90% PS&E Package Task 4.3 Submit 90 % PS&E Package to City for Review Task 4.4 Meet with City to discuss 90% Review Comments TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Tot Hrs Cost Task 4.1 0.5 0.5 $ 79 Task 4.2 1 1 2 10 14 $ 1,588 Task 4.3 1 2 3 $ 360 Task 4.4 0.5 0.5 Subtotal 1 3 0 2 12 0 0 0 18 $ 2,106 Task 5 100% Construction Documents Package Preparation Task 5.1 Incorporate 90% Review comments and Prepare 100% PS&E Package for Bidding Task 5.2 Submit 100 % PS&E to City for Bidding TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Tot Hrs Cost Task 5.1 1 1 6 8 $ 952 Task 5.2 2 2 $ 202 Subtotal 1 1 0 0 8 0 0 0 10 $ 1,154 Task 6 Bidding Services Task 6.1 Assist City in Bidding period and attend Pre-Bid Meeting Task 6.2 Provide Clarifications to Bidding Documents per Contractor Inquires TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Tot Hrs Cost Task 6.1 0.5 0.5 $ 79 Task 6.2 1 1 1 3 $ 391 Subtotal 0 1.5 1 0 1 0 0 0 3.5 $ 470 Task 7 Construction Services Task 7.1 Attend Pre-Construction Meeting Task 7.2 Site Visits with Property Owners On-Site (1 Individual Owner anticipated) Task 7.3 Respond to RFIs and evaluate Change Orders Task 7.4 Prepare Record Drawings based on red lines provided by City TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Tot Hrs Cost Task 7.1 0.5 0.5 $ 79 Task 7.2 0.5 0.5 $ 79 Task 7.3 0.5 1 1 2.5 $ 312 Task 7.4 2 2 $ 202 Subtotal 0 1.5 1 0 3 0 0 0 5.5 $ 672 P:\Eng07\076049\Fee Proposal\Final Fee\11-2\All Segments without Bridge Hwy 9 Safety Improvement Project Phase 2 -11-2-09.XLS] Segment 1 Page5 of 45 Printed 11/2/2009 City of Saratoga:Independent Contractor Agreement Highway 9 Phase II Exhibit A Page 16 of 84 308 L SUMMARY OF FEES & HOURS BKF Engineers Scope of Fee and Services 1650 Technology Drive, Suite 200 San Jose, CA 95110 City of Saratoga, Town of Los Gatos, and City of Monte Sereno Tel 408.467.9100, Fax 408.467.9199 Highway 9 Safety Improvements Project Phase 2 Hwy 9 Safety Improvements Project Phase 2 -Segment 2: Three Oaks -Fruitvale Task 1 Project Management/Team Leadership Task 2 Preliminary Investigations, Data Collection, and Conceptual Design Alternatives Task 3 60 % Construction Documents Package Preparation Task 4 90% Construction Documents Package Preparation Task 5 100% Construction Documents Package Preparation Task 6 Bidding Services Task 7 Construction Services TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Total Cost Rate/hr $ 188 $ 158 $ 132 $ 116 $ 101 $ -$ -$ 227 Hours Task 1 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 $ 948 Task 2 1 6.5 1 8 23 0 0 8 48 $ 6,414 Task 3 1 15 1 2 29 0 0 0 48 $ 5,851 Task 4 1 4 0 6 34 0 0 0 45 $ 4,950 Task 5 1 2 0 0 18 0 0 0 21 $ 2,322 Task 6 0 1.5 1 0 1 0 0 0 4 $ 470 Task 7 0 7 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 11 $ 1,541 BKF 4 42 4 16 108 0 0 8 182 Subtotal $752 $6,636 $528 $1,856 $10,908 $0 $0 $1,816 $ 22,496 Reimbursable Expenses: Printing 4.0% of professional fees $ 900 Delivery/Mileage 4.0% of professional fees $ 900 Total Reimbursable Budget $ 1,800 Subconsultants: 1 David Powers and Associates -Environmental Engineering $ 3,000 2 Biggs Cardosa Associates -Structural Engineering $ -3 Parikh Consultants Inc -Geotechnical Engineering -See Option Services on Summary Page $ -Total Subconsultant Budget $ 3,000 Total Budget $ 27,296 Legend PIC Principal in Charge Eng I Engineer I PM Project Manager Surv Survey Field Crew Eng III Engineer III Eng II Engineer II P:\Eng07\076049\Fee Proposal\Final Fee\11-2\All Segments without Bridge Hwy 9 Safety Improvement Project Phase 2 -11-2-09.XLS] Segment 2 Page6 of 45 Printed 11/2/2009 City of Saratoga:Independent Contractor Agreement Highway 9 Phase II Exhibit A Page 17 of 84 309 Task 1 Project Management/Team Leadership Task 1.1 Kick-Off Meeting Task 1.2 Public Meetings (2 Total) Task 1.3 Coordinate Design with Team Members and Consultants TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Tot Hrs Cost Task 1.1 1 1 $ 158 Task 1.2 1 1 $ 158 Task 1.3 4 4 $ 632 Subtotal 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 $ 948 Task 2 Preliminary Investigations, Data Collection, and Conceptual Design Alternatives Task 2.1 Conduct Topographic Survey to supplement Planimetric Mapping (NAD 1983 & NAVD 1988) Task 2.2 Conduct Geotechnical Investigations to support Retaining Walls Task 2.3 Request/Collect/Review available CT and City As-Builts, R/W Record Maps, and other Project Improvements Plans Task 2.4 Request/Collect/Review Available Utility Record Information (as needed) Task 2.5 Develop Conceptual Design Alternatives Task 2.6 Perform Site Visit with City to Verify Conceptual Design Alternatives Task 2.7 Refine Conceptual Design Alternatives Task 2.8 Prepare Exhibits for Public Meeting TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Tot Hrs Cost Task 2.1 1.5 1 8 10.5 $ 2,154 Task 2.2 Parikh Consultants, Inc.(see fee under optional services in summary) 0 Task 2.3 1 1 $ 101 Task 2.4 1 1 2 $ 233 Task 2.5 1 2 4 12 19 $ 2,180 Task 2.6 1 1 $ 158 Task 2.7 1 2 4 7 $ 794 Task 2.8 1 2 4 7 $ 794 Subtotal 1 6.5 1 8 23 0 0 8 47.5 $ 6,414 Task 3 60 % Construction Documents Package Preparation Task 3.1 Refine Conceptual Design Alternatives to incorporate Public Input Task 3.2 Submit Refined Concept Design to City for Review Task 3.3 Meet with City to confirm final Conceptual Design Task 3.4 Prepare CEQA Categorical Exemption Task 3.5 Prepare 60% PS&E Documents Task 3.5.1 Prepare Cover Sheet, General Notes and Key Maps Task 3.5.2 Prepare Plan View Design Drawings Task 3.5.3 Prepare Retaining Wall Plans including profiles Task 3.5.4 Prepare Detail Sheets and Sections Task 3.5.5 Prepare Traffic Handling Plan Task 3.5.6 Prepare Outline of Specifications Task 3.5.7 Prepare Construction Cost Estimate Task 3.6 Submit 60 % PS&E Package to City for Review Task 3.7 Meet with City to discuss 60% Review Comments Task 3.8 Site Visits with Property Owners On-Site (11 Individual Owners anticipated) TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Tot Hrs Cost Task 3.1 1 2 3 $ 334 Task 3.2 1 1 $ 101 Task 3.3 0.5 0.5 $ 79 Task 3.4 David Powers and Associates(see fee in summary) 0 Task 3.5 1 2 2 24 29 $ 3,160 Task 3.6 1 2 3 $ 360 Task 3.7 0.5 0.5 $ 79 Task 3.8 11 11 $ 1,738 Subtotal 1 15 1 2 29 0 0 0 48 $ 5,851 P:\Eng07\076049\Fee Proposal\Final Fee\11-2\All Segments without Bridge Hwy 9 Safety Improvement Project Phase 2 -11-2-09.XLS] Segment 2 Page7 of 45 Printed 11/2/2009 City of Saratoga:Independent Contractor Agreement Highway 9 Phase II Exhibit A Page 18 of 84 310 Task 4 90% Construction Documents Package Preparation Task 4.1 Meet with City to discuss Site Visit comments determine viability Task 4.2 Incorporate 60% Review comments and Prepare 90% PS&E Package Task 4.3 Submit 90 % PS&E Package to City for Review Task 4.4 Meet with City to discuss 90% Review Comments TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Tot Hrs Cost Task 4.1 0.5 0.5 $ 79 Task 4.2 1 2 6 32 41 $ 4,432 Task 4.3 1 2 3 $ 360 Task 4.4 0.5 0.5 $ 79 Subtotal 1 4 0 6 34 0 0 0 45 $ 4,950 Task 5 100% Construction Documents Package Preparation Task 5.1 Incorporate 90% Review comments and Prepare 100% PS&E Package for Bidding Task 5.2 Submit 100 % PS&E to City for Bidding TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Tot Hrs Cost Task 5.1 1 1 16 18 $ 1,962 Task 5.2 1 2 3 $ 360 Subtotal 1 2 0 0 18 0 0 0 21 $ 2,322 Task 6 Bidding Services Task 6.1 Assist City in Bidding period and attend Pre-Bid Meeting Task 6.2 Provide Clarifications to Bidding Documents per Contractor Inquires TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Tot Hrs Cost Task 6.1 0.5 0.5 $ 79 Task 6.2 1 1 1 3 $ 391 Subtotal 0 1.5 1 0 1 0 0 0 3.5 $ 470 Task 7 Construction Services Task 7.1 Attend Pre-Construction Meeting Task 7.2 Site Visits with Property Owners On-Site (11 Individual Owners anticipated) Task 7.3 Respond to RFIs and evaluate Change Orders Task 7.4 Prepare Record Drawings based on red lines provided by City TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Tot Hrs Cost Task 7.1 0.5 0.5 $ 79 Task 7.2 6 6 $ 948 Task 7.3 0.5 1 1 2.5 $ 312 Task 7.4 2 2 $ 202 Subtotal 0 7 1 0 3 0 0 0 11 $ 1,541 P:\Eng07\076049\Fee Proposal\Final Fee\11-2\All Segments without Bridge Hwy 9 Safety Improvement Project Phase 2 -11-2-09.XLS] Segment 2 Page8 of 45 Printed 11/2/2009 City of Saratoga:Independent Contractor Agreement Highway 9 Phase II Exhibit A Page 19 of 84 311 L SUMMARY OF FEES & HOURS BKF Engineers Scope of Fee and Services 1650 Technology Drive, Suite 200 San Jose, CA 95110 City of Saratoga, Town of Los Gatos, and City of Monte Sereno Tel 408.467.9100, Fax 408.467.9199 Highway 9 Safety Improvements Project Phase 2 Hwy 9 Safety Improvements Project Phase 2 -Segment 3: Fruitvale -Via Colina Task 1 Project Management/Team Leadership Task 2 Preliminary Investigations, Data Collection, and Conceptual Design Alternatives Task 3 60 % Construction Documents Package Preparation Task 4 90% Construction Documents Package Preparation Task 5 100% Construction Documents Package Preparation Task 6 Bidding Services Task 7 Construction Services TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Total Cost Rate/hr $ 188 $ 158 $ 132 $ 116 $ 101 $ -$ -$ 227 Hours Task 1 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.0 $ 948 Task 2 1 6 2 2 21 0 0 16 48.0 $ 7,385 Task 3 1 12 1 2 28 0 0 0 44.0 $ 5,276 Task 4 1 4 0 4 34 0 0 0 43.0 $ 4,718 Task 5 1 2 0 2 18 0 0 0 23.0 $ 2,554 Task 6 0 1.5 1 0 1 0 0 0 3.5 $ 470 Task 7 0 5 1 0 3 0 0 0 9.0 $ 1,225 BKF 4 36.5 5 10 105 0 0 16 176.5 Subtotal $752 $5,767 $660 $1,160 $10,605 $0 $0 $3,632 $ 22,576 Reimbursable Expenses: Printing 4.0% of professional fees $ 903 Delivery/Mileage 4.0% of professional fees $ 903 Total Reimbursable Budget $ 1,806 Subconsultants: 1 David Powers and Associates -Environmental Engineering $ 3,000 2 Biggs Cardosa Associates -Structural Engineering $ -3 Parikh Consultants Inc -Geotechnical Engineering -See Option Services on Summary Page $ -Total Subconsultant Budget $ 3,000 Total Budget $ 27,382 Legend PIC Principal in Charge Eng I Engineer I PM Project Manager Surv Survey Field Crew Eng III Engineer III Eng II Engineer II P:\Eng07\076049\Fee Proposal\Final Fee\11-2\All Segments without Bridge Hwy 9 Safety Improvement Project Phase 2 -11-2-09.XLS] Page9 of 45 Printed 11/2/2009 City of Saratoga:Independent Contractor Agreement Highway 9 Phase II Exhibit A Page 20 of 84 312 Task 1 Project Management/Team Leadership Task 1.1 Kick-Off Meeting Task 1.2 Public Meetings (2 Total) Task 1.3 Coordinate Design with Team Members and Consultants TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Tot Hrs Cost Task 1.1 0 1 1 $ 158 Task 1.2 1 1 $ 158 Task 1.3 0 4 4 $ 632 Subtotal 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 $ 948 Task 2 Preliminary Investigations, Data Collection, and Conceptual Design Alternatives Task 2.1 Conduct Topographic Survey to supplement Planimetric Mapping (NAD 1983 & NAVD 1988) Task 2.2 Conduct Geotechnical Investigations to support Retaining Walls Task 2.3 Request/Collect/Review available CT and City As-Builts, R/W Record Maps, and other Project Improvements Plans Task 2.4 Request/Collect/Review Available Utility Record Information (as needed) Task 2.5 Develop Conceptual Design Alternatives Task 2.6 Perform Site Visit with City to Verify Conceptual Design Alternatives Task 2.7 Refine Conceptual Design Alternatives Task 2.8 Prepare Exhibits for Public Meeting TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Tot Hrs Cost Task 2.1 1 1 16 18 $ 3,891 Task 2.2 Parikh Consultants, Inc.(see fee under optional services in summary) Task 2.3 1 1 $ 101 Task 2.4 1 1 2 $ 233 Task 2.5 1 2 12 15 $ 1,716 Task 2.6 1 1 2 $ 290 Task 2.7 1 2 4 7 $ 794 Task 2.8 1 2 3 $ 360 Subtotal 1 6 2 2 21 0 0 16 48 $ 7,385 Task 3 60 % Construction Documents Package Preparation Task 3.1 Refine Conceptual Design Alternatives to incorporate Public Input Task 3.2 Submit Refined Concept Design to City for Review Task 3.3 Meet with City to confirm final Conceptual Design Task 3.4 Prepare CEQA Categorical Exemption Task 3.5 Prepare 60% PS&E Documents Task 3.5.1 Prepare Cover Sheet, General Notes and Key Maps Task 3.5.2 Prepare Plan View Design Drawings Task 3.5.3 Prepare Retaining Wall Plans including profiles Task 3.5.4 Prepare Detail Sheets and Sections Task 3.5.5 Prepare Traffic Handling Plan Task 3.5.6 Prepare Outline of Specifications Task 3.5.7 Prepare Construction Cost Estimate Task 3.6 Submit 60 % PS&E Package to City for Review Task 3.7 Meet with City to discuss 60% Review Comments Task 3.8 Site Visits with Property Owners On-Site (8 Individual Owners anticipated) TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Tot Hrs Cost Task 3.1 1 2 3 $ 334 Task 3.2 0 $ -Task 3.3 0.5 0.5 $ 79 Task 3.4 David Powers and Associates(see fee in summary) Task 3.5 1 2 2 24 29 $ 3,160 Task 3.6 1 2 3 $ 360 Task 3.7 0.5 0.5 $ 79 Task 3.8 8 8 $ 1,264 Subtotal 1 12 1 2 28 0 0 0 44 $ 5,276 P:\Eng07\076049\Fee Proposal\Final Fee\11-2\All Segments without Bridge Hwy 9 Safety Improvement Project Phase 2 -11-2-09.XLS] Page10 of 45 Printed 11/2/2009 City of Saratoga:Independent Contractor Agreement Highway 9 Phase II Exhibit A Page 21 of 84 313 L Task 4 90% Construction Documents Package Preparation Task 4.1 Meet with City to discuss Site Visit comments determine viability Task 4.2 Incorporate 60% Review comments and Prepare 90% PS&E Package Task 4.3 Submit 90 % PS&E Package to City for Review Task 4.4 Meet with City to discuss 90% Review Comments TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Tot Hrs Cost Task 4.1 0.5 0.5 $ 79 Task 4.2 1 2 4 32 39 $ 4,200 Task 4.3 1 2 3 $ 360 Task 4.4 0.5 0.5 $ 79 Subtotal 1 4 0 4 34 0 0 0 43 $ 4,718 Task 5 100% Construction Documents Package Preparation Task 5.1 Incorporate 90% Review comments and Prepare 100% PS&E Package for Bidding Task 5.2 Submit 100 % PS&E to City for Bidding TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Tot Hrs Cost Task 5.1 1 1 2 16 20 $ 2,194 Task 5.2 1 2 3 $ 360 Subtotal 1 2 0 2 18 0 0 0 23 $ 2,554 Task 6 Bidding Services Task 6.1 Assist City in Bidding period and attend Pre-Bid Meeting Task 6.2 Provide Clarifications to Bidding Documents per Contractor Inquires TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Tot Hrs Cost Task 6.1 0.5 0.5 $ 79 Task 6.2 1 1 1 3 $ 391 Subtotal 0 1.5 1 0 1 0 0 0 3.5 $ 470 Task 7 Construction Services Task 7.1 Attend Pre-Construction Meeting Task 7.2 Site Visits with Property Owners On-Site (8 Individual Owners anticipated) Task 7.3 Respond to RFIs and evaluate Change Orders Task 7.4 Prepare Record Drawings based on red lines provided by City TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Tot Hrs Cost Task 7.1 0.5 0.5 $ 79 Task 7.2 4 4 $ 632 Task 7.3 0.5 1 1 2.5 $ 312 Task 7.4 2 2 $ 202 Subtotal 0 5 1 0 3 0 0 0 9 $ 1,225 P:\Eng07\076049\Fee Proposal\Final Fee\11-2\All Segments without Bridge Hwy 9 Safety Improvement Project Phase 2 -11-2-09.XLS] Page11 of 45 Printed 11/2/2009 City of Saratoga:Independent Contractor Agreement Highway 9 Phase II Exhibit A Page 22 of 84 314 L SUMMARY OF FEES & HOURS BKF Engineers Scope of Fee and Services 1650 Technology Drive, Suite 200 San Jose, CA 95110 City of Saratoga, Town of Los Gatos, and City of Monte Sereno Tel 408.467.9100, Fax 408.467.9199 Highway 9 Safety Improvements Project Phase 2 Hwy 9 Safety Improvements Project Phase 2 -Segment 4: Via Colina -El Camino Real Task 1 Project Management/Team Leadership Task 2 Preliminary Investigations, Data Collection, and Conceptual Design Alternatives Task 3 60 % Construction Documents Package Preparation Task 4 90% Construction Documents Package Preparation Task 5 100% Construction Documents Package Preparation Task 6 Bidding Services Task 7 Construction Services TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Total Cost Rate/hr $ 188 $ 158 $ 132 $ 116 $ 101 $ -$ -$ 227 Hours Task 1 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 $ 948 Task 2 1 6 2 2 13 0 0 8 32 $ 4,761 Task 3 1 7 1 2 17 0 0 0 28 $ 3,375 Task 4 1 3 0 2 18 0 0 0 24 $ 2,712 Task 5 1 2 0 0 10 0 0 0 13 $ 1,514 Task 6 0 1.5 1 0 1 0 0 0 4 $ 470 Task 7 0 2.5 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 7 $ 830 BKF 4 28 5 6 62 0 0 8 113 Subtotal $752 $4,424 $660 $696 $6,262 $0 $0 $1,816 $ 14,610 Reimbursable Expenses: Printing 4.0% of professional fees $ 584 Delivery/Mileage 4.0% of professional fees $ 584 Total Reimbursable Budget $ 1,169 Subconsultants: 1 David Powers and Associates -Environmental Engineering $ 3,000 2 Biggs Cardosa Associates -Structural Engineering $ 9,840 3 Parikh Consultants Inc -Geotechnical Engineering -See Option Services on Summary Page $ 3,720 Total Subconsultant Budget $ 16,560 Total Budget $ 32,339 Legend PIC Principal in Charge Eng I Engineer I PM Project Manager Surv Survey Field Crew Eng III Engineer III Eng II Engineer II P:\Eng07\076049\Fee Proposal\Final Fee\11-2\All Segments without Bridge Hwy 9 Safety Improvement Project Phase 2 -11-2-09.XLS] Page12 of 45 Printed 11/2/2009 City of Saratoga:Independent Contractor Agreement Highway 9 Phase II Exhibit A Page 23 of 84 315 Task 1 Project Management/Team Leadership Task 1.1 Kick-Off Meeting Task 1.2 Public Meetings (2 Total) Task 1.3 Coordinate Design with Team Members and Consultants TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Tot Hrs Cost Task 1.1 1 1 $ 158 Task 1.2 1 1 $ 158 Task 1.3 4 4 $ 632 Subtotal 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 $ 948 Task 2 Preliminary Investigations, Data Collection, and Conceptual Design Alternatives Task 2.1 Conduct Topographic Survey to supplement Planimetric Mapping (NAD 1983 & NAVD 1988) Task 2.2 Conduct Geotechnical Investigations to support Retaining Walls Task 2.3 Request/Collect/Review available CT and City As-Builts, R/W Record Maps, and other Project Improvements Plans Task 2.4 Request/Collect/Review Available Utility Record Information (as needed) Task 2.5 Develop Conceptual Design Alternatives Task 2.6 Perform Site Visit with City to Verify Conceptual Design Alternatives Task 2.7 Refine Conceptual Design Alternatives Task 2.8 Prepare Exhibits for Public Meeting TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Tot Hrs Cost Task 2.1 1 1 8 10 $ 2,075 Task 2.2 Parikh Consultants, Inc.(see fee under optional services in summary) 0 Task 2.3 1 1 $ 101 Task 2.4 1 1 2 $ 233 Task 2.5 1 2 4 7 $ 908 Task 2.6 1 1 2 $ 290 Task 2.7 1 2 4 7 $ 794 Task 2.8 1 2 3 $ 360 Subtotal 1 6 2 2 13 0 0 8 32 $ 4,761 Task 3 60 % Construction Documents Package Preparation Task 3.1 Refine Conceptual Design Alternatives to incorporate Public Input Task 3.2 Submit Refined Concept Design to City for Review Task 3.3 Meet with City to confirm final Conceptual Design Task 3.4 Prepare CEQA Categorical Exemption Task 3.5 Prepare 60% PS&E Documents Task 3.5.1 Prepare Cover Sheet, General Notes and Key Maps Task 3.5.2 Prepare Plan View Design Drawings Task 3.5.3 Prepare Retaining Wall Plans including profiles Task 3.5.4 Prepare Detail Sheets and Sections Task 3.5.5 Prepare Traffic Handling Plan Task 3.5.6 Prepare Outline of Specifications Task 3.5.7 Prepare Construction Cost Estimate Task 3.6 Submit 60 % PS&E Package to City for Review Task Task 3.7 Meet with City to discuss 60% Review Comments Task 3.8 Site Visits with Property Owners On-Site (3 Individual Owners anticipated) TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Tot Hrs Cost Task 3.1 1 2 3 $ 334 Task 3.2 1 1 $ 101 Task 3.3 0.5 0.5 $ 79 Task 3.4 David Powers and Associates(see fee in summary) 0 Task 3.5 1 2 2 12 17 $ 1,948 Task 3.6 1 2 3 $ 360 Task 3.7 0.5 0.5 $ 79 Task 3.8 3 3 $ 474 Subtotal 1 7 1 2 17 0 0 0 28 $ 3,375 P:\Eng07\076049\Fee Proposal\Final Fee\11-2\All Segments without Bridge Hwy 9 Safety Improvement Project Phase 2 -11-2-09.XLS] Page13 of 45 Printed 11/2/2009 City of Saratoga:Independent Contractor Agreement Highway 9 Phase II Exhibit A Page 24 of 84 316 L Task 4 90% Construction Documents Package Preparation Task 4.1 Meet with City to discuss Site Visit comments determine viability Task 4.2 Incorporate 60% Review comments and Prepare 90% PS&E Package Task 4.3 Submit 90 % PS&E Package to City for Review Task 4.4 Meet with City to discuss 90% Review Comments TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Tot Hrs Cost Task 4.1 0.5 0.5 $ 79 Task 4.2 1 1 2 16 20 $ 2,194 Task 4.3 1 2 3 $ 360 Task 4.4 0.5 0.5 $ 79 Subtotal 1 3 0 2 18 0 0 0 24 $ 2,712 Task 5 100% Construction Documents Package Preparation Task 5.1 Incorporate 90% Review comments and Prepare 100% PS&E Package for Bidding Task 5.2 Submit 100 % PS&E to City for Bidding TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Tot Hrs Cost Task 5.1 1 1 8 10 $ 1,154 Task 5.2 1 2 3 $ 360 Subtotal 1 2 0 0 10 0 0 0 13 $ 1,514 Task 6 Bidding Services Task 6.1 Assist City in Bidding period and attend Pre-Bid Meeting Task 6.2 Provide Clarifications to Bidding Documents per Contractor Inquires TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Tot Hrs Cost Task 6.1 0.5 0.5 $ 79 Task 6.2 1 1 1 3 $ 391 Subtotal 0 1.5 1 0 1 0 0 0 3.5 $ 470 Task 7 Construction Services Task 7.1 Attend Pre-Construction Meeting Task 7.2 Site Visits with Property Owners On-Site (3 Individual Owners anticipated) Task 7.3 Respond to RFIs and evaluate Change Orders Task 7.4 Prepare Record Drawings based on red lines provided by City TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Tot Hrs Cost Task 7.1 0.5 0.5 $ 79 Task 7.2 1.5 1.5 $ 237 Task 7.3 0.5 1 1 2.5 $ 312 Task 7.4 2 2 $ 202 Subtotal 0 2.5 1 0 3 0 0 0 6.5 $ 830 P:\Eng07\076049\Fee Proposal\Final Fee\11-2\All Segments without Bridge Hwy 9 Safety Improvement Project Phase 2 -11-2-09.XLS] Page14 of 45 Printed 11/2/2009 City of Saratoga:Independent Contractor Agreement Highway 9 Phase II Exhibit A Page 25 of 84 317 L SUMMARY OF FEES & HOURS BKF Engineers Scope of Fee and Services 1650 Technology Drive, Suite 200 San Jose, CA 95110 City of Saratoga, Town of Los Gatos, and City of Monte Sereno Tel 408.467.9100, Fax 408.467.9199 Highway 9 Safety Improvements Project Phase 2 Hwy 9 Safety Improvements Project Phase 2 -Segment 5: Austin -Quito Task 1 Project Management/Team Leadership Task 2 Preliminary Investigations, Data Collection, and Conceptual Design Alternatives Task 3 60 % Construction Documents Package Preparation Task 4 90% Construction Documents Package Preparation Task 5 100% Construction Documents Package Preparation Task 6 Bidding Services Task 7 Construction Services TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Total Cost Rate/hr $ 188 $ 158 $ 132 $ 116 $ 101 $ -$ -$ 227 Hours Task 1 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.0 $ 948 Task 2 1 6 2 4 21 0 0 8 42.0 $ 5,801 Task 3 1 5 1 6 45 0 0 0 58.0 $ 6,351 Task 4 1 4 0 4 34 0 0 0 43.0 $ 4,718 Task 5 1 3 0 0 18 0 0 0 22.0 $ 2,480 Task 6 0 1.5 1 0 1 0 0 0 3.5 $ 470 Task 7 0 1.5 1 0 3 0 0 0 5.5 $ 672 BKF 4 27 5 14 122 0 0 8 180 Subtotal $752 $4,266 $660 $1,624 $12,322 $0 $0 $1,816 $ 21,440 Reimbursable Expenses: Printing 4.0% of professional fees $ 858 Delivery/Mileage 4.0% of professional fees $ 858 Total Reimbursable Budget $ 1,715 Subconsultants: 1 David Powers and Associates -Environmental Engineering $ 3,000 2 Biggs Cardosa Associates -Structural Engineering $ 24,720 3 Parikh Consultants Inc -Geotechnical Engineering -See Option Services on Summary Page $ 5,580 Total Subconsultant Budget $ 33,300 Total Budget $ 56,455 Legend PIC Principal in Charge Eng I Engineer I PM Project Manager Surv Survey Field Crew Eng III Engineer III Eng II Engineer II P:\Eng07\076049\Fee Proposal\Final Fee\11-2\All Segments without Bridge Hwy 9 Safety Improvement Project Phase 2 -11-2-09.XLS] Page15 of 45 Printed 11/2/2009 City of Saratoga:Independent Contractor Agreement Highway 9 Phase II Exhibit A Page 26 of 84 318 Task 1 Project Management/Team Leadership Task 1.1 Kick-Off Meeting Task 1.2 Public Meetings (2 Total) Task 1.3 Coordinate Design with Team Members and Consultants TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Tot Hrs Cost Task 1.1 1 1 $ 158 Task 1.2 1 1 $ 158 Task 1.3 4 4 $ 632 Subtotal 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 $ 948 Task 2 Preliminary Investigations, Data Collection, and Conceptual Design Alternatives Task 2.1 Conduct Topographic Survey to supplement Planimetric Mapping (NAD 1983 & NAVD 1988) Task 2.2 Conduct Geotechnical Investigations to support Retaining Walls Task 2.3 Request/Collect/Review available CT and City As-Builts, R/W Record Maps, and other Project Improvements Plans Task 2.4 Request/Collect/Review Available Utility Record Information (as needed) Task 2.5 Develop Conceptual Design Alternatives Task 2.6 Perform Site Visit with City to Verify Conceptual Design Alternatives Task 2.7 Refine Conceptual Design Alternatives Task 2.8 Prepare Exhibits for Public Meeting TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Tot Hrs Cost Task 2.1 1 1 8 10 $ 2,075 Task 2.2 Parikh Consultants, Inc.(see fee under optional services in summary) 0 Task 2.3 1 1 $ 101 Task 2.4 1 1 2 $ 233 Task 2.5 1 2 12 15 $ 1,716 Task 2.6 1 1 2 $ 290 Task 2.7 1 2 4 7 $ 794 Task 2.8 1 2 2 5 $ 592 Subtotal 1 6 2 4 21 0 0 8 42 $ 5,801 Task 3 60 % Construction Documents Package Preparation Task 3.1 Refine Conceptual Design Alternatives to incorporate Public Input Task 3.2 Submit Refined Concept Design to City for Review Task 3.3 Meet with City to confirm final Conceptual Design Task 3.4 Prepare CEQA Categorical Exemption Task 3.5 Prepare 60% PS&E Documents Task 3.5.1 Prepare Cover Sheet, General Notes and Key Maps Task 3.5.2 Prepare Plan View Design Drawings Task 3.5.3 Prepare Retaining Wall Plans including profiles Task 3.5.4 Prepare Detail Sheets and Sections Task 3.5.5 Prepare Traffic Handling Plan Task 3.5.6 Prepare Outline of Specifications Task 3.5.7 Prepare Construction Cost Estimate Task 3.6 Submit 60 % PS&E Package to City for Review Task 3.7 Meet with City to discuss 60% Review Comments Task 3.8 Site Visits with Property Owners On-Site (1 Individual Owner anticipated) TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Tot Hrs Cost Task 3.1 1 2 3 $ 334 Task 3.2 1 1 $ 101 Task 3.3 0.5 0.5 $ 79 Task 3.4 David Powers and Associates(see fee in summary) 0 Task 3.5 1 2 6 40 49 $ 5,240 Task 3.6 1 2 3 $ 360 Task 3.7 0.5 0.5 $ 79 Task 3.8 1 1 $ 158 Subtotal 1 5 1 6 45 0 0 0 58 $ 6,351 P:\Eng07\076049\Fee Proposal\Final Fee\11-2\All Segments without Bridge Hwy 9 Safety Improvement Project Phase 2 -11-2-09.XLS] Page16 of 45 Printed 11/2/2009 City of Saratoga:Independent Contractor Agreement Highway 9 Phase II Exhibit A Page 27 of 84 319 L Task 4 90% Construction Documents Package Preparation Task 4.1 Meet with City to discuss Site Visit comments determine viability Task 4.2 Incorporate 60% Review comments and Prepare 90% PS&E Package Task 4.3 Submit 90 % PS&E Package to City for Review Task 4.4 Meet with City to discuss 90% Review Comments TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Tot Hrs Cost Task 4.1 0.5 0.5 $ 79 Task 4.2 1 2 4 32 39 $ 4,200 Task 4.3 1 2 3 $ 360 Task 4.4 0.5 0.5 $ 79 Subtotal 1 4 0 4 34 0 0 0 43 $ 4,718 Task 5 100% Construction Documents Package Preparation Task 5.1 Incorporate 90% Review comments and Prepare 100% PS&E Package for Bidding Task 5.2 Submit 100 % PS&E to City for Bidding TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Tot Hrs Cost Task 5.1 1 2 16 19 $ 2,120 Task 5.2 1 2 3 $ 360 Subtotal 1 3 0 0 18 0 0 0 22 $ 2,480 Task 6 Bidding Services Task 6.1 Assist City in Bidding period and attend Pre-Bid Meeting Task 6.2 Provide Clarifications to Bidding Documents per Contractor Inquires TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Tot Hrs Cost Task 6.1 0.5 0.5 $ 79 Task 6.2 1 1 1 3 $ 391 Subtotal 0 1.5 1 0 1 0 0 0 3.5 $ 470 Task 7 Construction Services Task 7.1 Attend Pre-Construction Meeting Task 7.2 Site Visits with Property Owners On-Site (1 Individual Owner anticipated) Task 7.3 Respond to RFIs and evaluate Change Orders Task 7.4 Prepare Record Drawings based on red lines provided by City TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Tot Hrs Cost Task 7.1 0.5 0.5 $ 79 Task 7.2 0.5 0.5 $ 79 Task 7.3 0.5 1 1 2.5 $ 312 Task 7.4 2 2 $ 202 Subtotal 0 1.5 1 0 3 0 0 0 5.5 $ 672 P:\Eng07\076049\Fee Proposal\Final Fee\11-2\All Segments without Bridge Hwy 9 Safety Improvement Project Phase 2 -11-2-09.XLS] Page17 of 45 Printed 11/2/2009 City of Saratoga:Independent Contractor Agreement Highway 9 Phase II Exhibit A Page 28 of 84 320 L SUMMARY OF FEES & HOURS BKF Engineers Scope of Fee and Services 1650 Technology Drive, Suite 200 San Jose, CA 95110 City of Saratoga, Town of Los Gatos, and City of Monte Sereno Tel 408.467.9100, Fax 408.467.9199 Highway 9 Safety Improvements Project Phase 2 Hwy 9 Safety Improvements Project Phase 2 -Segment 6: Quito-Daves Task 1 Project Management/Team Leadership Task 2 Preliminary Investigations, Data Collection, and Conceptual Design Alternatives Task 3 60 % Construction Documents Package Preparation Task 4 90% Construction Documents Package Preparation Task 5 100% Construction Documents Package Preparation Task 6 Bidding Services Task 7 Construction Services TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Total Cost Rate/hr $ 188 $ 158 $ 132 $ 116 $ 101 $ -$ -$ 227 Hours Task 1 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.0 $ 948 Task 2 1 6 2 2 13 0 0 4 28.0 $ 3,853 Task 3 1 4 1 0 17 0 0 0 23.0 $ 2,669 Task 4 1 4 0 0 18 0 0 0 23.0 $ 2,638 Task 5 1 3 0 0 10 0 0 0 14.0 $ 1,672 Task 6 0 1.5 1 0 1 0 0 0 3.5 $ 470 Task 7 0 1 1 0 3 0 0 0 5.0 $ 593 BKF 4 25.5 5 2 62 0 0 4 102.5 Subtotal $752 $4,029 $660 $232 $6,262 $0 $0 $908 $ 12,843 Reimbursable Expenses: Printing 4.0% of professional fees $ 514 Delivery/Mileage 4.0% of professional fees $ 514 Total Reimbursable Budget $ 1,027 Subconsultants: 1 David Powers and Associates -Environmental Engineering $ 3,000 2 Biggs Cardosa Associates -Structural Engineering $ 8,400 3 Parikh Consultants Inc -Geotechnical Engineering -See Option Services on Summary Page $ 3,720 Total Subconsultant Budget $ 15,120 Total Budget $ 28,990 Legend PIC Principal in Charge Eng I Engineer I PM Project Manager Surv Survey Field Crew Eng III Engineer III Eng II Engineer II P:\Eng07\076049\Fee Proposal\Final Fee\11-2\All Segments without Bridge Hwy 9 Safety Improvement Project Phase 2 -11-2-09.XLS] Page18 of 45 Printed 11/2/2009 City of Saratoga:Independent Contractor Agreement Highway 9 Phase II Exhibit A Page 29 of 84 321 Task 1 Project Management/Team Leadership Task 1.1 Kick-Off Meeting Task 1.2 Public Meetings (2 Total) Task 1.3 Coordinate Design with Team Members and Consultants TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Tot Hrs Cost Task 1.1 1 1 $ 158 Task 1.2 1 1 $ 158 Task 1.3 4 4 $ 632 Subtotal 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 $ 948 Task 2 Preliminary Investigations, Data Collection, and Conceptual Design Alternatives Task 2.1 Conduct Topographic Survey to supplement Planimetric Mapping (NAD 1983 & NAVD 1988) Task 2.2 Conduct Geotechnical Investigations to support Retaining Walls Task 2.3 Request/Collect/Review available CT and City As-Builts, R/W Record Maps, and other Project Improvements Plans Task 2.4 Request/Collect/Review Available Utility Record Information (as needed) Task 2.5 Develop Conceptual Design Alternatives Task 2.6 Perform Site Visit with City to Verify Conceptual Design Alternatives Task 2.7 Refine Conceptual Design Alternatives Task 2.8 Prepare Exhibits for Public Meeting TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Tot Hrs Cost Task 2.1 1 1 4 6 $ 1,167 Task 2.2 Parikh Consultants, Inc.(see fee under optional services in summary) 0 Task 2.3 1 1 $ 101 Task 2.4 1 1 2 $ 233 Task 2.5 1 2 4 7 $ 908 Task 2.6 1 1 2 $ 290 Task 2.7 1 2 4 7 $ 794 Task 2.8 1 2 3 $ 360 Subtotal 1 6 2 2 13 0 0 4 28 $ 3,853 Task 3 60 % Construction Documents Package Preparation Task 3.1 Refine Conceptual Design Alternatives to incorporate Public Input Task 3.2 Submit Refined Concept Design to City for Review Task 3.3 Meet with City to confirm final Conceptual Design Task 3.4 Prepare CEQA Categorical Exemption Task 3.5 Prepare 60% PS&E Documents Task 3.5.1 Prepare Cover Sheet, General Notes and Key Maps Task 3.5.2 Prepare Plan View Design Drawings Task 3.5.3 Prepare Retaining Wall Plans including profiles Task 3.5.4 Prepare Detail Sheets and Sections Task 3.5.5 Prepare Traffic Handling Plan Task 3.5.6 Prepare Outline of Specifications Task 3.5.7 Prepare Construction Cost Estimate Task 3.6 Submit 60 % PS&E Package to City for Review Task 3.7 Meet with City to discuss 60% Review Comments Task 3.8 Site Visits with Property Owners On-Site( None anticipated) TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Tot Hrs Cost Task 3.1 1 2 3 $ 334 Task 3.2 1 1 $ 101 Task 3.3 0.5 0.5 $ 79 Task 3.4 David Powers and Associates(see fee in summary) 0 Task 3.5 1 2 12 15 $ 1,716 Task 3.6 1 2 3 $ 360 Task 3.7 0.5 0.5 $ 79 Task 3.8 0 0 $ -Subtotal 1 4 1 0 17 0 0 0 23 $ 2,669 P:\Eng07\076049\Fee Proposal\Final Fee\11-2\All Segments without Bridge Hwy 9 Safety Improvement Project Phase 2 -11-2-09.XLS] Page19 of 45 Printed 11/2/2009 City of Saratoga:Independent Contractor Agreement Highway 9 Phase II Exhibit A Page 30 of 84 322 L Task 4 90% Construction Documents Package Preparation Task 4.1 Meet with City to discuss Site Visit comments determine viability Task 4.2 Incorporate 60% Review comments and Prepare 90% PS&E Package Task 4.3 Submit 90 % PS&E Package to City for Review Task 4.4 Meet with City to discuss 90% Review Comments TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Tot Hrs Cost Task 4.1 0.5 0.5 $ 79 Task 4.2 1 2 16 19 $ 2,120 Task 4.3 1 2 3 $ 360 Task 4.4 0.5 0.5 $ 79 Subtotal 1 4 0 0 18 0 0 0 23 $ 2,638 Task 5 100% Construction Documents Package Preparation Task 5.1 Incorporate 90% Review comments and Prepare 100% PS&E Package for Bidding Task 5.2 Submit 100 % PS&E to City for Bidding TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Tot Hrs Cost Task 5.1 1 2 8 11 $ 1,312 Task 5.2 1 2 3 $ 360 Subtotal 1 3 0 0 10 0 0 0 14 $ 1,672 Task 6 Bidding Services Task 6.1 Assist City in Bidding period and attend Pre-Bid Meeting Task 6.2 Provide Clarifications to Bidding Documents per Contractor Inquires TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Tot Hrs Cost Task 6.1 0.5 0.5 $ 79 Task 6.2 1 1 1 3 $ 391 Subtotal 0 1.5 1 0 1 0 0 0 3.5 $ 470 Task 7 Construction Services Task 7.1 Attend Pre-Construction Meeting Task 7.2 Site Visits with Property Owners On-Site (None anticipated) Task 7.3 Respond to RFIs and evaluate Change Orders Task 7.4 Prepare Record Drawings based on red lines provided by City TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Tot Hrs Cost Task 7.1 0.5 0.5 $ 79 Task 7.2 0 0 $ -Task 7.3 0.5 1 1 2.5 $ 312 Task 7.4 2 2 $ 202 Subtotal 0 1 1 0 3 0 0 0 5 $ 593 P:\Eng07\076049\Fee Proposal\Final Fee\11-2\All Segments without Bridge Hwy 9 Safety Improvement Project Phase 2 -11-2-09.XLS] Page20 of 45 Printed 11/2/2009 City of Saratoga:Independent Contractor Agreement Highway 9 Phase II Exhibit A Page 31 of 84 323 L SUMMARY OF FEES & HOURS BKF Engineers Scope of Fee and Services 1650 Technology Drive, Suite 200 San Jose, CA 95110 City of Saratoga, Town of Los Gatos, and City of Monte Sereno Tel 408.467.9100, Fax 408.467.9199 Highway 9 Safety Improvements Project Phase 2 Hwy 9 Safety Improvements Project Phase 2 -Segment 7: Daves-Lexington Task 1 Project Management/Team Leadership Task 2 Preliminary Investigations, Data Collection, and Conceptual Design Alternatives Task 3 60 % Construction Documents Package Preparation Task 4 90% Construction Documents Package Preparation Task 5 100% Construction Documents Package Preparation Task 6 Bidding Services Task 7 Construction Services TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Total Cost Rate/hr $ 188 $ 158 $ 132 $ 116 $ 101 $ -$ -$ 227 Hours Task 1 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 6.0 $ 948 Task 2 1 6 2 4 21 0 0 8 42.0 $ 5,801 Task 3 1 10 1 4 45 0 0 0 61.0 $ 6,909 Task 4 1 6 0 6 46 0 0 0 59.0 $ 6,478 Task 5 1 3 0 2 18 0 0 0 24.0 $ 2,712 Task 6 0 1.5 1 0 1 0 0 0 3.5 $ 470 Task 7 0 3 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 7.0 $ 909 BKF 4 35.5 5 16 134 0 0 8 202.5 Subtotal $752 $5,609 $660 $1,856 $13,534 $0 $0 $1,816 $ 24,227 Reimbursable Expenses: Printing 4.0% of professional fees $ 969 Delivery/Mileage 4.0% of professional fees $ 969 Total Reimbursable Budget $ 1,938 Subconsultants: 1 David Powers and Associates -Environmental Engineering $ 3,000 2 Biggs Cardosa Associates -Structural Engineering $ 19,800 3 Parikh Consultants Inc -Geotechnical Engineering -See Option Services on Summary Page $ 5,580 Total Subconsultant Budget $ 28,380 Total Budget $ 54,545 Legend PIC Principal in Charge Eng I Engineer I PM Project Manager Surv Survey Field Crew Eng III Engineer III Eng II Engineer II P:\Eng07\076049\Fee Proposal\Final Fee\11-2\All Segments without Bridge Hwy 9 Safety Improvement Project Phase 2 -11-2-09.XLS] Page21 of 45 Printed 11/2/2009 City of Saratoga:Independent Contractor Agreement Highway 9 Phase II Exhibit A Page 32 of 84 324 Task 1 Project Management/Team Leadership Task 1.1 Kick-Off Meeting Task 1.2 Public Meetings (2 Total) Task 1.3 Coordinate Design with Team Members and Consultants TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Tot Hrs Cost Task 1.1 1 1 $ 158 Task 1.2 1 1 $ 158 Task 1.3 4 4 $ 632 Subtotal 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 $ 948 Task 2 Preliminary Investigations, Data Collection, and Conceptual Design Alternatives Task 2.1 Conduct Topographic Survey to supplement Planimetric Mapping (NAD 1983 & NAVD 1988) Task 2.2 Conduct Geotechnical Investigations to support Retaining Walls Task 2.3 Request/Collect/Review available CT and City As-Builts, R/W Record Maps, and other Project Improvements Plans Task 2.4 Request/Collect/Review Available Utility Record Information (as needed) Task 2.5 Develop Conceptual Design Alternatives Task 2.6 Perform Site Visit with City to Verify Conceptual Design Alternatives Task 2.7 Refine Conceptual Design Alternatives Task 2.8 Prepare Exhibits for Public Meeting TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Tot Hrs Cost Task 2.1 1 1 8 10 $ 2,075 Task 2.2 Parikh Consultants, Inc.(see fee under optional services in summary) 0 Task 2.3 1 1 $ 101 Task 2.4 1 1 2 $ 233 Task 2.5 1 2 12 15 $ 1,716 Task 2.6 1 1 2 $ 290 Task 2.7 1 2 4 7 $ 794 Task 2.8 1 2 2 5 $ 592 Subtotal 1 6 2 4 21 0 0 8 42 $ 5,801 Task 3 60 % Construction Documents Package Preparation Task 3.1 Refine Conceptual Design Alternatives to incorporate Public Input Task 3.2 Submit Refined Concept Design to City for Review Task 3.3 Meet with City to confirm final Conceptual Design Task 3.4 Prepare CEQA Categorical Exemption Task 3.5 Prepare 60% PS&E Documents Task 3.5.1 Prepare Cover Sheet, General Notes and Key Maps Task 3.5.2 Prepare Plan View Design Drawings Task 3.5.3 Prepare Retaining Wall Plans including profiles Task 3.5.4 Prepare Detail Sheets and Sections Task 3.5.5 Prepare Traffic Handling Plan Task 3.5.6 Prepare Outline of Specifications Task 3.5.7 Prepare Construction Cost Estimate Task 3.6 Submit 60 % PS&E Package to City for Review Task 3.7 Meet with City to discuss 60% Review Comments Task 3.8 Site Visits with Property Owners On-Site (4 Individual Owners anticipated) TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Tot Hrs Cost Task 3.1 1 2 3 $ 334 Task 3.2 1 1 $ 101 Task 3.3 0.5 0.5 $ 79 Task 3.4 David Powers and Associates(see fee in summary) 0 Task 3.5 1 4 4 40 49 $ 5,324 Task 3.6 1 2 3 $ 360 Task 3.7 0.5 0.5 $ 79 Task 3.8 4 4 $ 632 Subtotal 1 10 1 4 45 0 0 0 61 $ 6,909 P:\Eng07\076049\Fee Proposal\Final Fee\11-2\All Segments without Bridge Hwy 9 Safety Improvement Project Phase 2 -11-2-09.XLS] Page22 of 45 Printed 11/2/2009 City of Saratoga:Independent Contractor Agreement Highway 9 Phase II Exhibit A Page 33 of 84 325 Task 4 90% Construction Documents Package Preparation Task 4.1 Meet with City to discuss Site Visit comments determine viability Task 4.2 Incorporate 60% Review comments and Prepare 90% PS&E Package Task 4.3 Submit 90 % PS&E Package to City for Review Task 4.4 Meet with City to discuss 90% Review Comments TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Tot Hrs Cost Task 4.1 0.5 0.5 $ 79 Task 4.2 1 4 6 44 55 $ 5,960 Task 4.3 1 2 3 $ 360 Task 4.4 0.5 0.5 $ 79 Subtotal 1 6 0 6 46 0 0 0 59 $ 6,478 Task 5 100% Construction Documents Package Preparation Task 5.1 Incorporate 90% Review comments and Prepare 100% PS&E Package for Bidding Task 5.2 Submit 100 % PS&E to City for Bidding TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Tot Hrs Cost Task 5.1 1 2 2 16 21 $ 2,352 Task 5.2 1 2 3 $ 360 Subtotal 1 3 0 2 18 0 0 0 24 $ 2,712 Task 6 Bidding Services Task 6.1 Assist City in Bidding period and attend Pre-Bid Meeting Task 6.2 Provide Clarifications to Bidding Documents per Contractor Inquires TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Tot Hrs Cost Task 6.1 0.5 0.5 $ 79 Task 6.2 1 1 1 3 $ 391 Subtotal 0 1.5 1 0 1 0 0 0 3.5 $ 470 Task 7 Construction Services Task 7.1 Attend Pre-Construction Meeting Task 7.2 Site Visits with Property Owners On-Site (4 Individual Owners anticipated) Task 7.3 Respond to RFIs and evaluate Change Orders Task 7.4 Prepare Record Drawings based on red lines provided by City TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Tot Hrs Cost Task 7.1 0.5 0.5 $ 79 Task 7.2 2 2 $ 316 Task 7.3 0.5 1 1 2.5 $ 312 Task 7.4 2 2 $ 202 Subtotal 0 3 1 0 3 0 0 0 7 $ 909 P:\Eng07\076049\Fee Proposal\Final Fee\11-2\All Segments without Bridge Hwy 9 Safety Improvement Project Phase 2 -11-2-09.XLS] Page23 of 45 Printed 11/2/2009 City of Saratoga:Independent Contractor Agreement Highway 9 Phase II Exhibit A Page 34 of 84 326 L SUMMARY OF FEES & HOURS BKF Engineers Scope of Fee and Services 1650 Technology Drive, Suite 200 San Jose, CA 95110 City of Saratoga, Town of Los Gatos, and City of Monte Sereno Tel 408.467.9100, Fax 408.467.9199 Highway 9 Safety Improvements Project Phase 2 Hwy 9 Safety Improvements Project Phase 2 -Segment 8: Lexington-GrandView Task 1 Project Management/Team Leadership Task 2 Preliminary Investigations, Data Collection, and Conceptual Design Alternatives Task 3 60 % Construction Documents Package Preparation Task 4 90% Construction Documents Package Preparation Task 5 100% Construction Documents Package Preparation Task 6 Bidding Services Task 7 Construction Services TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Total Cost Rate/hr $ 188 $ 158 $ 132 $ 116 $ 101 $ -$ -$ 227 Hours Task 1 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 $ 948 Task 2 1 5 2 2 13 0 0 4 27 $ 3,695 Task 3 1 5 1 2 17 0 0 0 26 $ 3,059 Task 4 1 3 0 6 14 0 0 0 24 $ 2,772 Task 5 1 2 0 0 8 0 0 0 11 $ 1,312 Task 6 0 1.5 1 0 1 0 0 0 3.5 $ 470 Task 7 0 1.5 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 5.5 $ 672 BKF 4 24 5 10 56 0 0 4 103.0 Subtotal $752 $3,792 $660 $1,160 $5,656 $0 $0 $908 $ 12,928 Reimbursable Expenses: Printing 4.0% of professional fees $ 517 Delivery/Mileage 4.0% of professional fees $ 517 Total Reimbursable Budget $ 1,034 Subconsultants: 1 David Powers and Associates -Environmental Engineering $ 3,000 2 Biggs Cardosa Associates -Structural Engineering $ 4,200 3 Parikh Consultants Inc -Geotechnical Engineering -See Option Services on Summary Page $ 3,720 Total Subconsultant Budget $ 10,920 Total Budget $ 24,882 Legend PIC Principal in Charge Eng I Engineer I PM Project Manager Surv Survey Field Crew Eng III Engineer III Eng II Engineer II P:\Eng07\076049\Fee Proposal\Final Fee\11-2\All Segments without Bridge Hwy 9 Safety Improvement Project Phase 2 -11-2-09.XLS] Page24 of 45 Printed 11/2/2009 City of Saratoga:Independent Contractor Agreement Highway 9 Phase II Exhibit A Page 35 of 84 327 Task 1 Project Management/Team Leadership Task 1.1 Kick-Off Meeting Task 1.2 Public Meetings (2 Total) Task 1.3 Coordinate Design with Team Members and Consultants TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Tot Hrs Cost Task 1.1 1 1 $ 158 Task 1.2 1 1 $ 158 Task 1.3 4 4 $ 632 Subtotal 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 $ 948 Task 2 Preliminary Investigations, Data Collection, and Conceptual Design Alternatives Task 2.1 Conduct Topographic Survey to supplement Planimetric Mapping (NAD 1983 & NAVD 1988) Task 2.2 Conduct Geotechnical Investigations to support Retaining Walls Task 2.3 Request/Collect/Review available CT and City As-Builts, R/W Record Maps, and other Project Improvements Plans Task 2.4 Request/Collect/Review Available Utility Record Information (as needed) Task 2.5 Develop Conceptual Design Alternatives Task 2.6 Perform Site Visit with City to Verify Conceptual Design Alternatives Task 2.7 Refine Conceptual Design Alternatives Task 2.8 Prepare Exhibits for Public Meeting TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Tot Hrs Cost Task 2.1 1 1 4 6 $ 1,167 Task 2.2 Parikh Consultants, Inc.(see fee under optional services in summary) 0 Task 2.3 1 1 $ 101 Task 2.4 1 1 2 $ 233 Task 2.5 1 1 4 6 $ 750 Task 2.6 1 1 2 $ 290 Task 2.7 1 2 4 7 $ 794 Task 2.8 1 2 3 $ 360 Subtotal 1 5 2 2 13 0 0 4 27 $ 3,695 Task 3 60 % Construction Documents Package Preparation Task 3.1 Refine Conceptual Design Alternatives to incorporate Public Input Task 3.2 Submit Refined Concept Design to City for Review Task 3.3 Meet with City to confirm final Conceptual Design Task 3.4 Prepare CEQA Categorical Exemption Task 3.5 Prepare 60% PS&E Documents Task 3.5.1 Prepare Cover Sheet, General Notes and Key Maps Task 3.5.2 Prepare Plan View Design Drawings Task 3.5.3 Prepare Retaining Wall Plans including profiles Task 3.5.4 Prepare Detail Sheets and Sections Task 3.5.5 Prepare Traffic Handling Plan Task 3.5.6 Prepare Outline of Specifications Task 3.5.7 Prepare Construction Cost Estimate Task 3.6 Submit 60 % PS&E Package to City for Review Task 3.7 Meet with City to discuss 60% Review Comments Task 3.8 Site Visits with Property Owners On-Site (1 Individual Owner anticipated) TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Tot Hrs Cost Task 3.1 1 2 3 $ 334 Task 3.2 1 1 $ 101 Task 3.3 0.5 0.5 $ 79 Task 3.4 David Powers and Associates(see fee in summary) 0 Task 3.5 1 2 2 12 17 $ 1,948 Task 3.6 1 2 3 $ 360 Task 3.7 0.5 0.5 $ 79 Task 3.8 1 1 $ 158 Subtotal 1 5 1 2 17 0 0 0 26 $ 3,059 P:\Eng07\076049\Fee Proposal\Final Fee\11-2\All Segments without Bridge Hwy 9 Safety Improvement Project Phase 2 -11-2-09.XLS] Page25 of 45 Printed 11/2/2009 City of Saratoga:Independent Contractor Agreement Highway 9 Phase II Exhibit A Page 36 of 84 328 Task 4 90% Construction Documents Package Preparation Task 4.1 Meet with City to discuss Site Visit comments determine viability Task 4.2 Incorporate 60% Review comments and Prepare 90% PS&E Package Task 4.3 Submit 90 % PS&E Package to City for Review Task 4.4 Meet with City to discuss 90% Review Comments TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Tot Hrs Cost Task 4.1 0.5 0.5 $ 79 Task 4.2 1 1 6 12 20 $ 2,254 Task 4.3 1 2 3 $ 360 Task 4.4 0.5 0.5 $ 79 Subtotal 1 3 0 6 14 0 0 0 24 $ 2,772 Task 5 100% Construction Documents Package Preparation Task 5.1 Incorporate 90% Review comments and Prepare 100% PS&E Package for Bidding Task 5.2 Submit 100 % PS&E to City for Bidding TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Tot Hrs Cost Task 5.1 1 1 6 8 $ 952 Task 5.2 1 2 3 $ 360 Subtotal 1 2 0 0 8 0 0 0 11 $ 1,312 Task 6 Bidding Services Task 6.1 Assist City in Bidding period and attend Pre-Bid Meeting Task 6.2 Provide Clarifications to Bidding Documents per Contractor Inquires TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Tot Hrs Cost Task 6.1 0.5 0.5 $ 79 Task 6.2 1 1 1 3 $ 391 Subtotal 0 1.5 1 0 1 0 0 0 3.5 $ 470 Task 7 Construction Services Task 7.1 Attend Pre-Construction Meeting Task 7.2 Site Visits with Property Owners On-Site (1 Individual Owner anticipated) Task 7.3 Respond to RFIs and evaluate Change Orders Task 7.4 Prepare Record Drawings based on red lines provided by City TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Tot Hrs Cost Task 7.1 0.5 0.5 $ 79 Task 7.2 0.5 0.5 $ 79 Task 7.3 0.5 1 1 2.5 $ 312 Task 7.4 2 2 $ 202 Subtotal 0 1.5 1 0 3 0 0 0 5.5 $ 672 P:\Eng07\076049\Fee Proposal\Final Fee\11-2\All Segments without Bridge Hwy 9 Safety Improvement Project Phase 2 -11-2-09.XLS] Page26 of 45 Printed 11/2/2009 City of Saratoga:Independent Contractor Agreement Highway 9 Phase II Exhibit A Page 37 of 84 329 L SUMMARY OF FEES & HOURS BKF Engineers Scope of Fee and Services 1650 Technology Drive, Suite 200 San Jose, CA 95110 City of Saratoga, Town of Los Gatos, and City of Monte Sereno Tel 408.467.9100, Fax 408.467.9199 Highway 9 Safety Improvements Project Phase 2 Hwy 9 Safety Improvements Project Phase 2 -Segment 9: Across from Oak Place Task 1 Project Management/Team Leadership Task 2 Preliminary Investigations, Data Collection, and Conceptual Design Alternatives Task 3 60 % Construction Documents Package Preparation Task 4 90% Construction Documents Package Preparation Task 5 100% Construction Documents Package Preparation Task 6 Bidding Services Task 7 Construction Services TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Total Cost Rate/hr $ 188 $ 158 $ 132 $ 116 $ 101 $ -$ -$ 227 Hours Task 1 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 8 $ 1,264 Task 2 1 8 2 2 27 0 0 6 46 $ 6,037 Task 3 1 16 13 4 23 0 0 12 69 $ 9,943 Task 4 2 10 6 4 26 0 0 8 56 $ 7,654 Task 5 1 2 0 2 10 0 0 0 15 $ 1,746 Task 6 0 1.5 1 0 1 0 0 0 3.5 $ 470 Task 7 0 2 1 0 3 0 0 0 6 $ 751 BKF 5 47.5 23 12 90 0 0 26 204 Subtotal $940 $7,505 $3,036 $1,392 $9,090 $0 $0 $5,902 $ 27,865 Reimbursable Expenses: Printing 4.0% of professional fees $ 1,115 Delivery/Mileage 4.0% of professional fees $ 1,115 Total Reimbursable Budget $ 2,229 Subconsultants: 1 David Powers and Associates -Environmental Engineering $ 3,000 2 Biggs Cardosa Associates -Structural Engineering $ 2,400 3 Parikh Consultants Inc -Geotechnical Engineering -See Option Services on Summary Page $ 1,860 Total Subconsultant Budget $ 7,260 Total Budget $ 37,354 Legend PIC Principal in Charge Eng I Engineer I PM Project Manager Surv Survey Field Crew Eng III Engineer III Eng II Engineer II P:\Eng07\076049\Fee Proposal\Final Fee\11-2\All Segments without Bridge Hwy 9 Safety Improvement Project Phase 2 -11-2-09.XLS] Page27 of 45 Printed 11/2/2009 City of Saratoga:Independent Contractor Agreement Highway 9 Phase II Exhibit A Page 38 of 84 330 Task 1 Project Management/Team Leadership Task 1.1 Kick-Off Meeting Task 1.2 Public Meetings (2 Total) Task 1.3 Coordinate Design with Team Members and Consultants TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Tot Hrs Cost Task 1.1 2 2 $ 316 Task 1.2 2 $ 316 Task 1.3 4 4 $ 632 Subtotal 0 8 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 $ 1,264 Task 2 Preliminary Investigations, Data Collection, and Conceptual Design Alternatives Task 2.1 Conduct Topographic Survey to supplement Planimetric Mapping (NAD 1983 & NAVD 1988) Task 2.2 Conduct Geotechnical Investigations to support Retaining Walls Task 2.3 Request/Collect/Review available CT and City As-Builts, R/W Record Maps, and other Project Improvements Plans Task 2.4 Request/Collect/Review Available Utility Record Information (as needed) Task 2.5 Develop Conceptual Design Alternatives Task 2.6 Perform Site Visit with City to Verify Conceptual Design Alternatives Task 2.7 Refine Conceptual Design Alternatives Task 2.8 Prepare Exhibits for Public Meeting Task 2.9 Conduct Right of Way Survey to establish property lines. TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Tot Hrs Cost Task 2.1 1 2 6 9 $ 1,722 Task 2.2 Parikh Consultants, Inc.(see fee under optional services in summary) 0 Task 2.3 1 1 $ 101 Task 2.4 1 2 3 $ 334 Task 2.5 1 3 12 16 $ 1,874 Task 2.6 1 1 2 $ 290 Task 2.7 2 2 8 12 $ 1,356 Task 2.8 1 2 3 $ 360 Subtotal 1 8 2 2 27 0 0 6 46 $ 6,037 P:\Eng07\076049\Fee Proposal\Final Fee\11-2\All Segments without Bridge Hwy 9 Safety Improvement Project Phase 2 -11-2-09.XLS] Page28 of 45 Printed 11/2/2009 City of Saratoga:Independent Contractor Agreement Highway 9 Phase II Exhibit A Page 39 of 84 331 L L Task 3 60 % Construction Documents Package Preparation Task 3.1 Refine Conceptual Design Alternatives to incorporate Public Input Task 3.2 Submit Refined Concept Design to City for Review Task 3.3 Meet with City to confirm final Conceptual Design Task 3.4 Prepare CEQA Categorical Exemption Task 3.5 Conduct Right of Way Analysis Task 3.6 Prepare 60% PS&E Documents Task 3.6.1 Prepare Cover Sheet, General Notes and Key Maps Task 3.6.2 Prepare Plan View Design Drawings Task 3.6.3 Prepare Retaining Wall Plans including profiles Task 3.6.4 Prepare Detail Sheets and Sections Task 3.6.5 Prepare Traffic Handling Plan Task 3.6.6 Prepare Outline of Specifications Task 3.6.7 Prepare Construction Cost Estimate Task 3.7 Submit 60 % PS&E Package to City for Review Task 3.8 Meet with City to discuss 60% Review Comments Task 3.9 Site Visits with Property Owners On-Site (2 Individual Owners anticipated) TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Tot Hrs Cost Task 3.1 1 4 5 $ 536 Task 3.2 1 1 $ 101 Task 3.3 0.5 0.5 $ 79 79 Task 3.4 David Powers and Associates(see fee in summary) 0 Task 3.5 8 12 12 32 $ 5,572 Task 3.6 1 4 4 16 25 $ 2,900 Task 3.7 1 2 3 $ 360 Task 3.8 0.5 0.5 $ 79 Task 3.9 2 2 $ 316 Subtotal 1 16 13 4 23 0 0 12 69 $ 9,943 Task 4 90% Construction Documents Package Preparation Task 4.1 Meet with City to discuss Site Visit comments determine viability Task 4.2 Finalize Right of Way Analysis Task 4.3 Incorporate 60% Review comments and Prepare 90% PS&E Package Task 4.4 Submit 90 % PS&E Package to City for Review Task 4.5 Meet with City to discuss 90% Review Comments TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Tot Hrs Cost Task 4.1 0.5 0.5 $ 79 Task 4.2 1 4 6 8 19 $ 3,428 Task 4.3 1 4 4 24 33 $ 3,708 Task 4.4 1 2 3 $ 360 Task 4.5 0.5 0.5 $ 79 Subtotal 2 10 6 4 26 0 0 8 56 $ 7,654 P:\Eng07\076049\Fee Proposal\Final Fee\11-2\All Segments without Bridge Hwy 9 Safety Improvement Project Phase 2 -11-2-09.XLS] Page29 of 45 Printed 11/2/2009 City of Saratoga:Independent Contractor Agreement Highway 9 Phase II Exhibit A Page 40 of 84 332 L Task 5 100% Construction Documents Package Preparation Task 5.1 Incorporate 90% Review comments and Prepare 100% PS&E Package for Bidding Task 5.2 Submit 100 % PS&E to City for Bidding TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Tot Hrs Cost Task 5.1 1 1 2 8 12 $ 1,386 Task 5.2 1 2 3 $ 360 Subtotal 1 2 0 2 10 0 0 0 15 $ 1,746 Task 6 Bidding Services Task 6.1 Assist City in Bidding period and attend Pre-Bid Meeting Task 6.2 Provide Clarifications to Bidding Documents per Contractor Inquires TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Tot Hrs Cost Task 6.1 0.5 0.5 $ 79 Task 6.2 1 1 1 3 $ 391 Subtotal 0 1.5 1 0 1 0 0 0 3.5 $ 470 Task 7 Construction Services Task 7.1 Attend Pre-Construction Meeting Task 7.2 Site Visits with Property Owners On-Site (2 Individual Owners anticipated) Task 7.3 Respond to RFIs and evaluate Change Orders Task 7.4 Prepare Record Drawings based on red lines provided by City TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Tot Hrs Cost Task 7.1 0.5 0.5 $ 79 Task 7.2 1 1 $ 158 Task 7.3 0.5 1 1 2.5 $ 312 Task 7.4 2 2 $ 202 Subtotal 0 2 1 0 3 0 0 0 6 $ 751 P:\Eng07\076049\Fee Proposal\Final Fee\11-2\All Segments without Bridge Hwy 9 Safety Improvement Project Phase 2 -11-2-09.XLS] Page30 of 45 Printed 11/2/2009 City of Saratoga:Independent Contractor Agreement Highway 9 Phase II Exhibit A Page 41 of 84 333 L L SUMMARY OF FEES & HOURS BKF Engineers Scope of Fee and Services 1650 Technology Drive, Suite 200 San Jose, CA 95110 City of Saratoga, Town of Los Gatos, and City of Monte Sereno Tel 408.467.9100, Fax 408.467.9199 Highway 9 Safety Improvements Project Phase 2 Hwy 9 Safety Improvements Project Phase 2 -Segment 10: Aloha to Vickery Task 1 Project Management/Team Leadership Task 2 Preliminary Investigations, Data Collection, and Conceptual Design Alternatives Task 3 60 % Construction Documents Package Preparation Task 4 90% Construction Documents Package Preparation Task 5 100% Construction Documents Package Preparation Task 6 Bidding Services Task 7 Construction Services TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Total Cost Rate/hr $ 188 $ 158 $ 132 $ 116 $ 101 $ -$ -$ 227 Hours Task 1 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 $ 948 Task 2 1 6 2 2 15 0 0 8 34 $ 4,963 Task 3 1 5 1 0 21 0 0 0 28 $ 3,231 Task 4 1 4 0 0 14 0 0 0 19 $ 2,234 Task 5 1 3 0 0 12 0 0 0 16 $ 1,874 Task 6 0 1.5 1 0 1 0 0 0 3.5 $ 470 Task 7 0 3 1 0 3 0 0 0 7 $ 909 BKF 4 28.5 5 2 66 0 0 8 113.5 Subtotal $752 $4,503 $660 $232 $6,666 $0 $0 $1,816 $ 14,629 Reimbursable Expenses: Printing 4.0% of professional fees $ 585 Delivery/Mileage 4.0% of professional fees $ 585 Total Reimbursable Budget $ 1,170 Subconsultants: 1 David Powers and Associates -Environmental Engineering $ 3,000 2 Biggs Cardosa Associates -Structural Engineering $ 2,400 3 Parikh Consultants Inc -Geotechnical Engineering -See Option Services on Summary Page $ 1,900 Total Subconsultant Budget $ 7,300 Total Budget $ 23,099 Legend PIC Principal in Charge Eng I Engineer I PM Project Manager Surv Survey Field Crew Eng III Engineer III Eng II Engineer II P:\Eng07\076049\Fee Proposal\Final Fee\11-2\All Segments without Bridge Hwy 9 Safety Improvement Project Phase 2 -11-2-09.XLS] Page31 of 45 Printed 11/2/2009 City of Saratoga:Independent Contractor Agreement Highway 9 Phase II Exhibit A Page 42 of 84 334 Task 1 Project Management/Team Leadership Task 1.1 Kick-Off Meeting Task 1.2 Public Meetings (2 Total) Task 1.3 Coordinate Design with Team Members and Consultants TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Tot Hrs Cost Task 1.1 1 1 $ 158 Task 1.2 1 1 $ 158 Task 1.3 4 4 $ 632 Subtotal 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 $ 948 Task 2 Preliminary Investigations, Data Collection, and Conceptual Design Alternatives Task 2.1 Conduct Topographic Survey to supplement Planimetric Mapping (NAD 1983 & NAVD 1988) Task 2.2 Conduct Geotechnical Investigations to support Retaining Walls Task 2.3 Request/Collect/Review available CT and City As-Builts, R/W Record Maps, and other Project Improvements Plans Task 2.4 Request/Collect/Review Available Utility Record Information (as needed) Task 2.5 Develop Conceptual Design Alternatives Task 2.6 Perform Site Visit with City to Verify Conceptual Design Alternatives Task 2.7 Refine Conceptual Design Alternatives Task 2.8 Prepare Exhibits for Public Meeting TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Tot Hrs Cost Task 2.1 1 1 8 10 $ 2,075 Task 2.2 Parikh Consultants, Inc.(see fee under optional services in summary) 0 Task 2.3 1 1 $ 101 Task 2.4 1 1 2 $ 233 Task 2.5 1 2 6 9 $ 1,110 Task 2.6 1 1 2 $ 290 Task 2.7 1 2 4 7 $ 794 Task 2.8 1 2 3 $ 360 Subtotal 1 6 2 2 15 0 0 8 34 $ 4,963 Task 3 60 % Construction Documents Package Preparation Task 3.1 Refine Conceptual Design Alternatives to incorporate Public Input Task 3.2 Submit Refined Concept Design to City for Review Task 3.3 Meet with City to confirm final Conceptual Design Task 3.4 Prepare CEQA Categorical Exemption Task 3.5 Prepare 60% PS&E Documents Task 3.5.1 Prepare Cover Sheet, General Notes and Key Maps Task 3.5.2 Prepare Plan View Design Drawings Task 3.5.3 Prepare Retaining Wall Plans including profiles Task 3.5.4 Prepare Detail Sheets and Sections Task 3.5.5 Prepare Traffic Handling Plan Task 3.5.6 Prepare Outline of Specifications Task 3.5.7 Prepare Construction Cost Estimate Task 3.6 Submit 60 % PS&E Package to City for Review Task 3.7 Meet with City to discuss 60% Review Comments Task 3.8 Site Visits with Property Owners On-Site (4 Individual Owners anticipated) TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Tot Hrs Cost Task 3.1 1 2 3 $ 334 Task 3.2 1 1 $ 101 Task 3.3 0.5 0.5 $ 79 Task 3.4 David Powers and Associates(see fee in summary) 0 Task 3.5 1 2 12 15 $ 1,716 Task 3.6 1 2 3 $ 360 Task 3.7 0.5 0.5 $ 79 Task 3.8 1 4 5 $ 562 Subtotal 1 5 1 0 21 0 0 0 28 $ 3,231 P:\Eng07\076049\Fee Proposal\Final Fee\11-2\All Segments without Bridge Hwy 9 Safety Improvement Project Phase 2 -11-2-09.XLS] Page32 of 45 Printed 11/2/2009 City of Saratoga:Independent Contractor Agreement Highway 9 Phase II Exhibit A Page 43 of 84 335 Task 4 90% Construction Documents Package Preparation Task 4.1 Meet with City to discuss Site Visit comments determine viability Task 4.2 Incorporate 60% Review comments and Prepare 90% PS&E Package Task 4.3 Submit 90 % PS&E Package to City for Review Task 4.4 Meet with City to discuss 90% Review Comments TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Tot Hrs Cost Task 4.1 0.5 0.5 $ 79 Task 4.2 1 2 12 15 $ 1,716 Task 4.3 1 2 3 $ 360 Task 4.4 0.5 0.5 $ 79 Subtotal 1 4 0 0 14 0 0 0 19 $ 2,234 Task 5 100% Construction Documents Package Preparation Task 5.1 Incorporate 90% Review comments and Prepare 100% PS&E Package for Bidding Task 5.2 Submit 100 % PS&E to City for Bidding TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Tot Hrs Cost Task 5.1 1 2 10 13 $ 1,514 Task 5.2 1 2 3 $ 360 Subtotal 1 3 0 0 12 0 0 0 16 $ 1,874 Task 6 Bidding Services Task 6.1 Assist City in Bidding period and attend Pre-Bid Meeting Task 6.2 Provide Clarifications to Bidding Documents per Contractor Inquires TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Tot Hrs Cost Task 6.1 0.5 0.5 $ 79 Task 6.2 1 1 1 3 $ 391 Subtotal 0 1.5 1 0 1 0 0 0 3.5 $ 470 Task 7 Construction Services Task 7.1 Attend Pre-Construction Meeting Task 7.2 Site Visits with Property Owners On-Site (4 Individual Owners anticipated) Task 7.3 Respond to RFIs and evaluate Change Orders Task 7.4 Prepare Record Drawings based on red lines provided by City TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Tot Hrs Cost Task 7.1 0.5 0.5 $ 79 Task 7.2 2 2 $ 316 Task 7.3 0.5 1 1 2.5 $ 312 Task 7.4 2 2 $ 202 Subtotal 0 3 1 0 3 0 0 0 7 $ 909 P:\Eng07\076049\Fee Proposal\Final Fee\11-2\All Segments without Bridge Hwy 9 Safety Improvement Project Phase 2 -11-2-09.XLS] Page33 of 45 Printed 11/2/2009 City of Saratoga:Independent Contractor Agreement Highway 9 Phase II Exhibit A Page 44 of 84 336 L SUMMARY OF FEES & HOURS BKF Engineers Scope of Fee and Services 1650 Technology Drive, Suite 200 San Jose, CA 95110 City of Saratoga, Town of Los Gatos, and City of Monte Sereno Tel 408.467.9100, Fax 408.467.9199 Highway 9 Safety Improvements Project Phase 2 Hwy 9 Safety Improvements Project Phase 2 -Segment 11: El Camino-Austin Task 1 Project Management/Team Leadership Task 2 Preliminary Investigations, Data Collection, and Conceptual Design Alternatives Task 3 60 % Construction Documents Package Preparation Task 4 90% Construction Documents Package Preparation Task 5 100% Construction Documents Package Preparation Task 6 Bidding Services Task 7 Construction Services TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Total Cost Rate/hr $ 188 $ 158 $ 132 $ 116 $ 101 $ -$ -$ 227 Hours Task 1 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 $ 948 Task 2 1 6 3 0 25 0 0 8 43 $ 5,873 Task 3 1 10 1 4 45 0 0 0 61 $ 6,909 Task 4 1 6 0 4 34 0 0 0 45 $ 5,034 Task 5 1 3 0 0 14 0 0 0 18 $ 2,076 Task 6 0 1.5 1 0 1 0 0 0 3.5 $ 470 Task 7 0 3 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 7 $ 909 BKF 4 35.5 6 8 122 0 0 8 183.5 Subtotal $752 $5,609 $792 $928 $12,322 $0 $0 $1,816 $ 22,219 Reimbursable Expenses: Printing 4.0% of professional fees $ 889 Delivery/Mileage 4.0% of professional fees $ 889 Total Reimbursable Budget $ 1,778 Subconsultants: 1 David Powers and Associates -Environmental Engineering $ 3,000 2 Biggs Cardosa Associates -Structural Engineering $ 32,602 3 Parikh Consultants Inc -Geotechnical Engineering -See Option Services on Summary Page $ 7,440 Total Subconsultant Budget $ 43,042 Total Budget $ 67,039 Legend PIC Principal in Charge Eng I Engineer I PM Project Manager Surv Survey Field Crew Eng III Engineer III Eng II Engineer II P:\Eng07\076049\Fee Proposal\Final Fee\11-2\All Segments without Bridge Hwy 9 Safety Improvement Project Phase 2 -11-2-09.XLS] Page34 of 45 Printed 11/2/2009 City of Saratoga:Independent Contractor Agreement Highway 9 Phase II Exhibit A Page 45 of 84 337 Task 1 Project Management/Team Leadership Task 1.1 Kick-Off Meeting Task 1.2 Public Meetings (2 Total) Task 1.3 Coordinate Design with Team Members and Consultants TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Tot Hrs Cost Task 1.1 1 1 $ 158 Task 1.2 1 1 $ 158 Task 1.3 4 4 $ 632 Subtotal 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 $ 948 Task 2 Preliminary Investigations, Data Collection, and Conceptual Design Alternatives Task 2.1 Conduct Topographic Survey to supplement Planimetric Mapping (NAD 1983 & NAVD 1988) Task 2.2 Conduct Geotechnical Investigations to support Retaining Walls Task 2.3 Request/Collect/Review available CT and City As-Builts, R/W Record Maps, and other Project Improvements Plans Task 2.4 Request/Collect/Review Available Utility Record Information (as needed) Task 2.5 Develop Conceptual Design Alternatives Task 2.6 Perform Site Visit with City to Verify Conceptual Design Alternatives Task 2.7 Refine Conceptual Design Alternatives Task 2.8 Prepare Exhibits for Public Meeting TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Tot Hrs Cost Task 2.1 1 1 8 10 $ 2,075 Task 2.2 Parikh Consultants, Inc.(see fee under optional services in summary) 0 Task 2.3 1 1 $ 101 Task 2.4 1 1 2 $ 233 Task 2.5 1 2 16 19 $ 2,120 Task 2.6 1 1 2 $ 290 Task 2.7 1 1 4 6 $ 694 Task 2.8 1 2 3 $ 360 Subtotal 1 6 3 0 25 0 0 8 43 $ 5,873 Task 3 60 % Construction Documents Package Preparation Task 3.1 Refine Conceptual Design Alternatives to incorporate Public Input Task 3.2 Submit Refined Concept Design to City for Review Task 3.3 Meet with City to confirm final Conceptual Design Task 3.4 Prepare CEQA Categorical Exemption Task 3.5 Prepare 60% PS&E Documents Task 3.5.1 Prepare Cover Sheet, General Notes and Key Maps Task 3.5.2 Prepare Plan View Design Drawings Task 3.5.3 Prepare Retaining Wall Plans including profiles Task 3.5.4 Prepare Detail Sheets and Sections Task 3.5.5 Prepare Traffic Handling Plan Task 3.5.6 Prepare Outline of Specifications Task 3.5.7 Prepare Construction Cost Estimate Task 3.6 Submit 60 % PS&E Package to City for Review Task 3.7 Meet with City to discuss 60% Review Comments Task 3.8 Site Visits with Property Owners On-Site (4 Individual Owners anticipated) TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Tot Hrs Cost Task 3.1 1 2 3 $ 334 Task 3.2 1 1 $ 101 Task 3.3 0.5 0.5 $ 79 Task 3.4 David Powers and Associates(see fee in summary) 0 Task 3.5 1 4 4 40 49 $ 5,324 Task 3.6 1 2 3 $ 360 Task 3.7 0.5 0.5 $ 79 Task 3.8 4 4 $ 632 Subtotal 1 10 1 4 45 0 0 0 61 $ 6,909 P:\Eng07\076049\Fee Proposal\Final Fee\11-2\All Segments without Bridge Hwy 9 Safety Improvement Project Phase 2 -11-2-09.XLS] Page35 of 45 Printed 11/2/2009 City of Saratoga:Independent Contractor Agreement Highway 9 Phase II Exhibit A Page 46 of 84 338 L Task 4 90% Construction Documents Package Preparation Task 4.1 Meet with City to discuss Site Visit comments determine viability Task 4.2 Incorporate 60% Review comments and Prepare 90% PS&E Package Task 4.3 Submit 90 % PS&E Package to City for Review Task 4.4 Meet with City to discuss 90% Review Comments TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Tot Hrs Cost Task 4.1 0.5 0.5 $ 79 Task 4.2 1 4 4 32 41 $ 4,516 Task 4.3 1 2 3 $ 360 Task 4.4 0.5 0.5 $ 79 Subtotal 1 6 0 4 34 0 0 0 45 $ 5,034 Task 5 100% Construction Documents Package Preparation Task 5.1 Incorporate 90% Review comments and Prepare 100% PS&E Package for Bidding Task 5.2 Submit 100 % PS&E to City for Bidding TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Tot Hrs Cost Task 5.1 1 2 12 15 $ 1,716 Task 5.2 1 2 3 $ 360 Subtotal 1 3 0 0 14 0 0 0 18 $ 2,076 Task 6 Bidding Services Task 6.1 Assist City in Bidding period and attend Pre-Bid Meeting Task 6.2 Provide Clarifications to Bidding Documents per Contractor Inquires TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Tot Hrs Cost Task 6.1 0.5 0.5 $ 79 Task 6.2 1 1 1 3 $ 391 Subtotal 0 1.5 1 0 1 0 0 0 3.5 $ 470 Task 7 Construction Services Task 7.1 Attend Pre-Construction Meeting Task 7.2 Site Visits with Property Owners On-Site (4 Individual Owners anticipated) Task 7.3 Respond to RFIs and evaluate Change Orders Task 7.4 Prepare Record Drawings based on red lines provided by City TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Tot Hrs Cost Task 7.1 0.5 0.5 $ 79 Task 7.2 2 2 $ 316 Task 7.3 0.5 1 1 2.5 $ 312 Task 7.4 2 2 $ 202 Subtotal 0 3 1 0 3 0 0 0 7 $ 909 P:\Eng07\076049\Fee Proposal\Final Fee\11-2\All Segments without Bridge Hwy 9 Safety Improvement Project Phase 2 -11-2-09.XLS] Page36 of 45 Printed 11/2/2009 City of Saratoga:Independent Contractor Agreement Highway 9 Phase II Exhibit A Page 47 of 84 339 L SUMMARY OF FEES & HOURS BKF Engineers Scope of Fee and Services 1650 Technology Drive, Suite 200 San Jose, CA 95110 City of Saratoga, Town of Los Gatos, and City of Monte Sereno Tel 408.467.9100, Fax 408.467.9199 Highway 9 Safety Improvements Project Phase 2 Hwy 9 Safety Improvements Project Phase 2 -Segment 12: Grandview to Viewfield Task 1 Project Management/Team Leadership Task 2 Preliminary Investigations, Data Collection, and Conceptual Design Alternatives Task 3 60 % Construction Documents Package Preparation Task 4 90% Construction Documents Package Preparation Task 5 100% Construction Documents Package Preparation Task 6 Bidding Services Task 7 Construction Services TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Total Cost Rate/hr $ 188 $ 158 $ 132 $ 116 $ 101 $ -$ -$ 227 Hours Task 1 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 $ 948 Task 2 1 6 2 4 28 0 0 16 57 $ 8,324 Task 3 1 14 1 6 45 0 0 0 67 $ 7,773 Task 4 1 6 0 16 46 0 0 0 69 $ 7,638 Task 5 1 3 0 2 18 0 0 0 24 $ 2,712 Task 6 0 1.5 1 0 1 0 0 0 3.5 $ 470 Task 7 0 3 1 0 0 3 0 0 0 7 $ 909 BKF 4 39.5 5 28 141 0 0 16 233.5 Subtotal $752 $6,241 $660 $3,248 $14,241 $0 $0 $3,632 $ 28,774 Reimbursable Expenses: Printing 4.0% of professional fees $ 1,151 Delivery/Mileage 4.0% of professional fees $ 1,151 Total Reimbursable Budget $ 2,302 Subconsultants: 1 David Powers and Associates -Environmental Engineering $ 3,000 2 Biggs Cardosa Associates -Structural Engineering $ 9,000 3 Parikh Consultants Inc -Geotechnical Engineering -See Option Services on Summary Page $ 3,720 Total Subconsultant Budget $ 15,720 Total Budget $ 46,796 Legend PIC Principal in Charge Eng I Engineer I PM Project Manager Surv Survey Field Crew Eng III Engineer III Eng II Engineer II P:\Eng07\076049\Fee Proposal\Final Fee\11-2\All Segments without Bridge Hwy 9 Safety Improvement Project Phase 2 -11-2-09.XLS] Page37 of 45 Printed 11/2/2009 City of Saratoga:Independent Contractor Agreement Highway 9 Phase II Exhibit A Page 48 of 84 340 Task 1 Project Management/Team Leadership Task 1.1 Kick-Off Meeting Task 1.2 Public Meetings (2 Total) Task 1.3 Coordinate Design with Team Members and Consultants TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Tot Hrs Cost Task 1.1 1 1 $ 158 Task 1.2 1 1 $ 158 Task 1.3 4 4 $ 632 Subtotal 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 $ 948 Task 2 Preliminary Investigations, Data Collection, and Conceptual Design Alternatives Task 2.1 Conduct Topographic Survey to supplement Planimetric Mapping (NAD 1983 & NAVD 1988) Task 2.2 Conduct Geotechnical Investigations to support Retaining Walls Task 2.3 Request/Collect/Review available CT and City As-Builts, R/W Record Maps, and other Project Improvements Plans Task 2.4 Request/Collect/Review Available Utility Record Information (as needed) Task 2.5 Develop Conceptual Design Alternatives Task 2.6 Perform Site Visit with City to Verify Conceptual Design Alternatives Task 2.7 Refine Conceptual Design Alternatives Task 2.8 Prepare Exhibits for Public Meeting TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Tot Hrs Cost Task 2.1 1 8 16 25 $ 4,598 Task 2.2 Parikh Consultants, Inc.(see fee under optional services in summary) 0 Task 2.3 1 1 $ 101 Task 2.4 1 1 2 $ 233 Task 2.5 1 2 12 15 $ 1,716 Task 2.6 1 1 2 $ 290 Task 2.7 1 2 4 7 $ 794 Task 2.8 1 2 2 5 $ 592 Subtotal 1 6 2 4 28 0 0 16 57 $ 8,324 Task 3 60 % Construction Documents Package Preparation Task 3.1 Refine Conceptual Design Alternatives to incorporate Public Input Task 3.2 Submit Refined Concept Design to City for Review Task 3.3 Meet with City to confirm final Conceptual Design Task 3.4 Prepare CEQA Categorical Exemption Task 3.5 Prepare 60% PS&E Documents Task 3.5.1 Prepare Cover Sheet, General Notes and Key Maps Task 3.5.2 Prepare Plan View Design Drawings Task 3.5.3 Prepare Retaining Wall Plans including profiles Task 3.5.4 Prepare Detail Sheets and Sections Task 3.5.5 Prepare Traffic Handling Plan Task 3.5.6 Prepare Outline of Specifications Task 3.5.7 Prepare Construction Cost Estimate Task 3.6 Submit 60 % PS&E Package to City for Review Task 3.7 Meet with City to discuss 60% Review Comments Task 3.8 Site Visits with Property Owners On-Site (4 Individual Owners anticipated) TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Tot Hrs Cost Task 3.1 1 2 3 $ 334 Task 3.2 1 1 $ 101 Task 3.3 0.5 0.5 $ 79 Task 3.4 David Powers and Associates(see fee in summary) 0 Task 3.5 1 8 6 40 55 $ 6,188 Task 3.6 1 2 3 $ 360 Task 3.7 0.5 0.5 $ 79 Task 3.8 4 4 $ 632 Subtotal 1 14 1 6 45 0 0 0 67 $ 7,773 P:\Eng07\076049\Fee Proposal\Final Fee\11-2\All Segments without Bridge Hwy 9 Safety Improvement Project Phase 2 -11-2-09.XLS] Page38 of 45 Printed 11/2/2009 City of Saratoga:Independent Contractor Agreement Highway 9 Phase II Exhibit A Page 49 of 84 341 Task 4 90% Construction Documents Package Preparation Task 4.1 Meet with City to discuss Site Visit comments determine viability Task 4.2 Incorporate 60% Review comments and Prepare 90% PS&E Package Task 4.3 Submit 90 % PS&E Package to City for Review Task 4.4 Meet with City to discuss 90% Review Comments TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Tot Hrs Cost Task 4.1 0.5 0.5 $ 79 Task 4.2 1 4 16 44 65 $ 7,120 Task 4.3 1 2 3 $ 360 Task 4.4 0.5 0.5 $ 79 Subtotal 1 6 0 16 46 0 0 0 69 $ 7,638 Task 5 100% Construction Documents Package Preparation Task 5.1 Incorporate 90% Review comments and Prepare 100% PS&E Package for Bidding Task 5.2 Submit 100 % PS&E to City for Bidding TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Tot Hrs Cost Task 5.1 1 2 2 16 21 $ 2,352 Task 5.2 1 2 3 $ 360 Subtotal 1 3 0 2 18 0 0 0 24 $ 2,712 Task 6 Bidding Services Task 6.1 Assist City in Bidding period and attend Pre-Bid Meeting Task 6.2 Provide Clarifications to Bidding Documents per Contractor Inquires TASK PIC PM Eng III III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Tot Hrs Cost Task 6.1 0.5 0.5 $ 79 Task 6.2 1 1 1 3 $ 391 Subtotal 0 1.5 1 0 1 0 0 0 3.5 $ 470 Task 7 Construction Services Task 7.1 Attend Pre-Construction Meeting Task 7.2 Site Visits with Property Owners On-Site (4 Individual Owners anticipated) Task 7.3 Respond to RFIs and evaluate Change Orders Task 7.4 Prepare Record Drawings based on red lines provided by City TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Tot Hrs Cost Task 7.1 0.5 0.5 $ 79 Task 7.2 2 2 $ 316 Task 7.3 0.5 1 1 2.5 $ 312 Task 7.4 2 2 $ 202 Subtotal 0 3 1 0 3 0 0 0 7 $ 909 P:\Eng07\076049\Fee Proposal\Final Fee\11-2\All Segments without Bridge Hwy 9 Safety Improvement Project Phase 2 -11-2-09.XLS] Page39 of 45 Printed 11/2/2009 City of Saratoga:Independent Contractor Agreement Highway 9 Phase II Exhibit A Page 50 of 84 342 L SUMMARY OF FEES & HOURS BKF Engineers Scope of Fee and Services 1650 Technology Drive, Suite 200 San Jose, CA 95110 City of Saratoga, Town of Los Gatos, and City of Monte Sereno Tel 408.467.9100, Fax 408.467.9199 Highway 9 Safety Improvements Project Phase 2 Hwy 9 Safety Improvements Project Phase 2 -Segment 13: Viewfield to Rose Task 1 Project Management/Team Leadership Task 2 Preliminary Investigations, Data Collection, and Conceptual Design Alternatives Task 3 60 % Construction Documents Package Preparation Task 4 90% Construction Documents Package Preparation Task 5 100% Construction Documents Package Preparation Task 6 Bidding Services Task 7 Construction Services TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Total Cost Rate/hr $ 188 $ 158 $ 132 $ 116 $ 101 $ -$ -$ 227 Hours Task 1 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 $ 948 Task 2 1 6 2 2 16 0 0 8 35 $ 5,064 Task 3 1 4 1 0 21 0 0 0 27 $ 3,073 Task 4 1 4 0 0 26 0 0 0 31 $ 3,446 Task 5 1 3 0 0 10 0 0 0 14 $ 1,672 Task 6 0 1.5 1 0 1 0 0 0 3.5 $ 470 Task 7 0 1 1 0 3 0 0 0 0 5 $ 593 BKF 4 25.5 5 2 77 0 0 8 121.5 Subtotal $752 $4,029 $660 $232 $7,777 $0 $0 $1,816 $ 15,266 Reimbursable Expenses: Printing 4.0% of professional fees $ 611 Delivery/Mileage 4.0% of professional fees $ 611 Total Reimbursable Budget $ 1,221 Subconsultants: 1 David Powers and Associates -Environmental Engineering $ 3,000 2 Biggs Cardosa Associates -Structural Engineering $ 7,200 3 Parikh Consultants Inc -Geotechnical Engineering -See Option Services on Summary Page $ 1,860 Total Subconsultant Budget $ 12,060 Total Budget $ 28,547 Legend PIC Principal in Charge Eng I Engineer I PM Project Manager Surv Survey Field Crew Eng III Engineer III Eng II Engineer II P:\Eng07\076049\Fee Proposal\Final Fee\11-2\All Segments without Bridge Hwy 9 Safety Improvement Project Phase 2 -11-2-09.XLS] Page40 of 45 Printed 11/2/2009 City of Saratoga:Independent Contractor Agreement Highway 9 Phase II Exhibit A Page 51 of 84 343 Task 1 Project Management/Team Leadership Task 1.1 Kick-Off Meeting Task 1.2 Public Meetings (2 Total) Task 1.3 Coordinate Design with Team Members and Consultants TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Tot Hrs Cost Task 1.1 1 1 $ 158 Task 1.2 1 1 $ 158 Task 1.3 4 4 $ 632 Subtotal 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 $ 948 Task 2 Preliminary Investigations, Data Collection, and Conceptual Design Alternatives Task 2.1 Conduct Topographic Survey to supplement Planimetric Mapping (NAD 1983 & NAVD 1988) Task 2.2 Conduct Geotechnical Investigations to support Retaining Walls Task 2.3 Request/Collect/Review available CT and City As-Builts, R/W Record Maps, and other Project Improvements Plans Task 2.4 Request/Collect/Review Available Utility Record Information (as needed) Task 2.5 Develop Conceptual Design Alternatives Task 2.6 Perform Site Visit with City to Verify Conceptual Design Alternatives Task 2.7 Refine Conceptual Design Alternatives Task 2.8 Prepare Exhibits for Public Meeting TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Tot Hrs Cost Task 2.1 1 4 8 13 $ 2,378 Task 2.2 Parikh Consultants, Inc.(see fee under optional services in summary) 0 Task 2.3 1 1 $ 101 Task 2.4 1 1 2 $ 233 Task 2.5 1 2 4 7 $ 908 Task 2.6 1 1 2 $ 290 Task 2.7 1 2 4 7 $ 794 Task 2.8 1 2 3 $ 360 Subtotal 1 6 2 2 16 0 0 8 35 $ 5,064 Task 3 60 % Construction Documents Package Preparation Task 3.1 Refine Conceptual Design Alternatives to incorporate Public Input Task 3.2 Submit Refined Concept Design to City for Review Task 3.3 Meet with City to confirm final Conceptual Design Task 3.4 Prepare CEQA Categorical Exemption Task 3.5 Prepare 60% PS&E Documents Task 3.5.1 Prepare Cover Sheet, General Notes and Key Maps Task 3.5.2 Prepare Plan View Design Drawings Task 3.5.3 Prepare Retaining Wall Plans including profiles Task 3.5.4 Prepare Detail Sheets and Sections Task 3.5.5 Prepare Traffic Handling Plan Task 3.5.6 Prepare Outline of Specifications Task 3.5.7 Prepare Construction Cost Estimate Task 3.6 Submit 60 % PS&E Package to City for Review Task Task 3.7 Meet with City to discuss 60% Review Comments Task 3.8 Site Visits with Property Owners On-Site( None anticipated) TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Tot Hrs Cost Task 3.1 1 2 3 $ 334 Task 3.2 1 1 $ 101 Task 3.3 0.5 0.5 $ 79 Task 3.4 David Powers and Associates(see fee in summary) 0 Task 3.5 1 2 16 19 $ 2,120 Task 3.6 1 2 3 $ 360 Task 3.7 0.5 0.5 $ 79 Task 3.8 0 0 $ -Subtotal 1 4 1 0 21 0 0 0 27 $ 3,073 P:\Eng07\076049\Fee Proposal\Final Fee\11-2\All Segments without Bridge Hwy 9 Safety Improvement Project Phase 2 -11-2-09.XLS] Page41 of 45 Printed 11/2/2009 City of Saratoga:Independent Contractor Agreement Highway 9 Phase II Exhibit A Page 52 of 84 344 L Task 4 90% Construction Documents Package Preparation Task 4.1 Meet with City to discuss Site Visit comments determine viability Task 4.2 Incorporate 60% Review comments and Prepare 90% PS&E Package Task 4.3 Submit 90 % PS&E Package to City for Review Task 4.4 Meet with City to discuss 90% Review Comments TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Tot Hrs Cost Task 4.1 0.5 0.5 $ 79 Task 4.2 1 2 24 27 $ 2,928 Task 4.3 1 2 3 $ 360 Task 4.4 0.5 0.5 $ 79 Subtotal 1 4 0 0 26 0 0 0 31 $ 3,446 Task 5 100% Construction Documents Package Preparation Task 5.1 Incorporate 90% Review comments and Prepare 100% PS&E Package for Bidding Task 5.2 Submit 100 % PS&E to City for Bidding TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Tot Hrs Cost Task 5.1 1 2 8 11 $ 1,312 Task 5.2 1 2 3 $ 360 Subtotal 1 3 0 0 10 0 0 0 14 $ 1,672 Task 6 Bidding Services Task 6.1 Assist City in Bidding period and attend Pre-Bid Meeting Task 6.2 Provide Clarifications to Bidding Documents per Contractor Inquires TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Tot Hrs Cost Task 6.1 0.5 0.5 $ 79 Task 6.2 1 1 1 3 $ 391 Subtotal 0 1.5 1 0 1 0 0 0 3.5 $ 470 Task 7 Construction Services Task 7.1 Attend Pre-Construction Meeting Task 7.2 Site Visits with Property Owners On-Site (None anticipated) Task 7.3 Respond to RFIs and evaluate Change Orders Task 7.4 Prepare Record Drawings based on red lines provided by City TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Tot Hrs Cost Task 7.1 0.5 0.5 $ 79 Task 7.2 0 0 $ -Task 7.3 0.5 1 1 2.5 $ 312 Task 7.4 2 2 $ 202 Subtotal 0 1 1 0 3 0 0 0 5 $ 593 P:\Eng07\076049\Fee Proposal\Final Fee\11-2\All Segments without Bridge Hwy 9 Safety Improvement Project Phase 2 -11-2-09.XLS] Page42 of 45 Printed 11/2/2009 City of Saratoga:Independent Contractor Agreement Highway 9 Phase II Exhibit A Page 53 of 84 345 L SUMMARY OF FEES & HOURS BKF Engineers Scope of Fee and Services 1650 Technology Drive, Suite 200 San Jose, CA 95110 City of Saratoga, Town of Los Gatos, and City of Monte Sereno Tel 408.467.9100, Fax 408.467.9199 Highway 9 Safety Improvements Project Phase 2 Hwy 9 Safety Improvements Project Phase 2 -Segment 14: Rose to LG/MS Limits Task 1 Project Management/Team Leadership Task 2 Preliminary Investigations, Data Collection, and Conceptual Design Alternatives Task 3 60 % Construction Documents Package Preparation Task 4 90% Construction Documents Package Preparation Task 5 100% Construction Documents Package Preparation Task 6 Bidding Services Task 7 Construction Services TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Total Cost Rate/hr $ 188 $ 158 $ 132 $ 116 $ 101 $ -$ -$ 227 Hours Task 1 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 $ 948 Task 2 1 6 2 2 20 0 0 12 43 $ 6,376 Task 3 1 10 1 0 43 0 0 0 55 $ 6,243 Task 4 1 4 0 0 36 0 0 0 41 $ 4,456 Task 5 1 3 0 0 18 0 0 0 22 $ 2,480 Task 6 0 1.5 1 0 1 0 0 0 3.5 $ 470 Task 7 0 1 1 0 3 0 0 0 5 $ 593 BKF 4 31.5 5 2 121 0 0 12 175.5 Subtotal $752 $4,977 $660 $232 $12,221 $0 $0 $2,724 $ 21,566 Reimbursable Expenses: Printing 4.0% of professional fees $ 863 Delivery/Mileage 4.0% of professional fees $ 863 Total Reimbursable Budget $ 1,725 Subconsultants: 1 David Powers and Associates -Environmental Engineering $ 3,000 2 Biggs Cardosa Associates -Structural Engineering $ 2,400 3 Parikh Consultants Inc -Geotechnical Engineering -See Option Services on Summary Page $ -Total Subconsultant Budget $ 5,400 Total Budget $ 28,691 Legend PIC Principal in Charge Eng I Engineer I PM Project Manager Surv Survey Field Crew Eng III Engineer III Eng II Engineer II P:\Eng07\076049\Fee Proposal\Final Fee\11-2\All Segments without Bridge Hwy 9 Safety Improvement Project Phase 2 -11-2-09.XLS] Page43 of 45 Printed 11/2/2009 City of Saratoga:Independent Contractor Agreement Highway 9 Phase II Exhibit A Page 54 of 84 346 Task 1 Project Management/Team Leadership Task 1.1 Kick-Off Meeting Task 1.2 Public Meetings (2 Total) Task 1.3 Coordinate Design with Team Members and Consultants TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Tot Hrs Cost Task 1.1 1 1 $ 158 Task 1.2 1 1 $ 158 Task 1.3 4 4 $ 632 Subtotal 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 6 $ 948 Task 2 Preliminary Investigations, Data Collection, and Conceptual Design Alternatives Task 2.1 Conduct Topographic Survey to supplement Planimetric Mapping (NAD 1983 & NAVD 1988) Task 2.2 Conduct Geotechnical Investigations to support Retaining Walls Task 2.3 Request/Collect/Review available CT and City As-Builts, R/W Record Maps, and other Project Improvements Plans Task 2.4 Request/Collect/Review Available Utility Record Information (as needed) Task 2.5 Develop Conceptual Design Alternatives Task 2.6 Perform Site Visit with City to Verify Conceptual Design Alternatives Task 2.7 Refine Conceptual Design Alternatives Task 2.8 Prepare Exhibits for Public Meeting TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Tot Hrs Cost Task 2.1 1 8 12 21 $ 3,690 Task 2.2 Parikh Consultants, Inc.(see fee under optional services in summary) 0 Task 2.3 1 1 $ 101 Task 2.4 1 1 2 $ 233 Task 2.5 1 2 4 7 $ 908 Task 2.6 1 1 2 $ 290 Task 2.7 1 2 4 7 $ 794 Task 2.8 1 2 3 $ 360 Subtotal 1 6 2 2 20 0 0 12 43 $ 6,376 Task 3 60 % Construction Documents Package Preparation Task 3.1 Refine Conceptual Design Alternatives to incorporate Public Input Task 3.2 Submit Refined Concept Design to City for Review Task 3.3 Meet with City to confirm final Conceptual Design Task 3.4 Prepare CEQA Categorical Exemption Task 3.5 Prepare 60% PS&E Documents Task 3.5.1 Prepare Cover Sheet, General Notes and Key Maps Task 3.5.2 Prepare Plan View Design Drawings Task 3.5.3 Prepare Retaining Wall Plans including profiles Task 3.5.4 Prepare Detail Sheets and Sections Task 3.5.5 Prepare Traffic Handling Plan Task 3.5.6 Prepare Outline of Specifications Task 3.5.7 Prepare Construction Cost Estimate Task 3.6 Submit 60 % PS&E Package to City for Review Task 3.7 Meet with City to discuss 60% Review Comments Task 3.8 Site Visits with Property Owners On-Site( None anticipated) TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Tot Hrs Cost Task 3.1 1 2 3 $ 334 Task 3.2 1 1 $ 101 Task 3.3 0.5 0.5 $ 79 Task 3.4 David Powers and Associates(see fee in summary) 0 Task 3.5 1 8 36 45 $ 5,088 Task 3.6 1 4 5 $ 562 Task 3.7 0.5 0.5 $ 79 Task 3.8 0 0 $ -Subtotal 1 10 1 0 43 0 0 0 55 $ 6,243 P:\Eng07\076049\Fee Proposal\Final Fee\11-2\All Segments without Bridge Hwy 9 Safety Improvement Project Phase 2 -11-2-09.XLS] Page44 of 45 Printed 11/2/2009 City of Saratoga:Independent Contractor Agreement Highway 9 Phase II Exhibit A Page 55 of 84 347 L Task 4 90% Construction Documents Package Preparation Task 4.1 Meet with City to discuss Site Visit comments determine viability Task 4.2 Incorporate 60% Review comments and Prepare 90% PS&E Package Task 4.3 Submit 90 % PS&E Package to City for Review Task 4.4 Meet with City to discuss 90% Review Comments TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Tot Hrs Cost Task 4.1 0.5 0.5 $ 79 Task 4.2 1 2 32 35 $ 3,736 Task 4.3 1 4 5 $ 562 Task 4.4 0.5 0.5 $ 79 Subtotal 1 4 0 0 36 0 0 0 41 $ 4,456 Task 5 100% Construction Documents Package Preparation Task 5.1 Incorporate 90% Review comments and Prepare 100% PS&E Package for Bidding Task 5.2 Submit 100 % PS&E to City for Bidding TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Tot Hrs Cost Task 5.1 1 2 16 19 $ 2,120 Task 5.2 1 2 3 $ 360 Subtotal 1 3 0 0 18 0 0 0 22 $ 2,480 Task 6 Bidding Services Task 6.1 Assist City in Bidding period and attend Pre-Bid Meeting Task 6.2 Provide Clarifications to Bidding Documents per Contractor Inquires TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Tot Hrs Cost Task 6.1 0.5 0.5 $ 79 Task 6.2 1 1 1 3 $ 391 Subtotal 0 1.5 1 0 1 0 0 0 3.5 $ 470 Task 7 Construction Services Task 7.1 Attend Pre-Construction Meeting Task 7.2 Site Visits with Property Owners On-Site (None anticipated) Task 7.3 Respond to RFIs and evaluate Change Orders Task 7.4 Prepare Record Drawings based on red lines provided by City TASK PIC PM Eng III Eng II Eng I Tech Draft Surv Tot Hrs Cost Task 7.1 0.5 0.5 $ 79 Task 7.2 0 0 $ -Task 7.3 0.5 1 1 2.5 $ 312 Task 7.4 2 2 $ 202 Subtotal 0 1 1 0 3 0 0 0 5 $ 593 P:\Eng07\076049\Fee Proposal\Final Fee\11-2\All Segments without Bridge Hwy 9 Safety Improvement Project Phase 2 -11-2-09.XLS] Page45 of 45 Printed 11/2/2009 City of Saratoga:Independent Contractor Agreement Highway 9 Phase II Exhibit A Page 56 of 84 348 L EXHIBIT B PAYMENT 1. TOTAL COMPENSATION City shall pay Contractor an amount not to exceed the total sum of $ 498,238 (Four hundred ninety eight thousand two hundred thirty eight Dollars) for work to be performed and reimbursable costs incurred pursuant to this Agreement. 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 Agreement. 2. 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: a. Serial identifications of bills, i.e., Bill No. 1; b. The beginning and ending dates of the billing period; c. A summary 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. 3. MONTHLY PAYMENTS City shall make monthly payments, based on such invoices, for satisfactory progress in completion of the Scope of Work, and for authorized reimbursable expenses incurred. 4. REIMBURSABLE EXPENSES There shall be no right to reimbursement of expenses incurred by Contractor except as specified in Exhibit A to this Agreement. City of Saratoga:Independent Contractor Agreement Highway 9 Phase II Exhibit B Page 57 of 84 349 EXHIBIT C FACILITIES AND 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 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. City of Saratoga:Independent Contractor Agreement Highway 9 Phase II Exhibit C Page 58 of 84 350 EXHIBIT D GENERAL PROVISIONS 1. 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 by 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 Contractor of the obligations set forth in this Agreement. Interference or conflict will be determined at the sole discretion of the City. 2. 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 substantial, first class and workmanlike manner and conform to the standards of quality normally observed by a person practicing in Contractor's profession. 3. 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. After this Agreement has been in effect for at least one full calendar year, the unit prices paid as indicated in Exhibit B may be adjusted each fiscal year based on the San Francisco Bay Area Consumer Price Index (CPI) for urban wage earners and clerical workers for the year ending with November; provided, however, any such adjustment to the unit prices shall not increase the maximum contract City of Saratoga:Independent Contractor Agreement Highway 9 Phase II Exhibit D Page 59 of 84 351 amount set forth in this Agreement. The Contractor request adjustments in writing prior to March 1 for the following fiscal year. 4. CONTRACTOR NO AGENT Except as City may specify in writing, Contractor shall have no authority, express or implied, to act on behalf of City in any capacity whatsoever as an agent. Contractor shall have no authority, express or implied, pursuant to this Agreement to bind City to any obligation whatsoever. 5. 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, unemployment, workers compensation or employee benefits of any kind. 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. 6. ASSIGNMENT PROHIBITED No party to this Agreement may 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 by City. 7. PERSONNEL a. Qualifications. Contractor shall assign only competent personnel to complete the Scope of Work pursuant to this Agreement. In the event that City, in its sole discretion, at any time during the term of this Agreement, desires the removal of any such persons, Contractor shall, immediately upon receiving notice from city of such desire of City, cause the removal of such person or persons. b. Employment Eligibility. Contractor shall ensure that all employees of Contractor and any subcontractor retained by Contractor in connection with this Agreement have provided the necessary documentation to City of Saratoga:Independent Contractor Agreement Highway 9 Phase II Exhibit D Page 60 of 84 352 establish identity and employment eligibility as required by the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. Failure to provide the necessary documentation will result in the termination of the Agreement as required by the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986. c. Prevailing Wages. This is a public works contract within the meaning of Part 7 of Division 2 of the California Labor Code (Sections 1720 et seq.). In accordance with California Labor Code Section 1771, all contractors and subcontractors on this public work project shall pay not less than current prevailing wage rates as determined by the California Department of Industrial Relations (“DIR”). Pursuant to Section 1773 of the California Labor Code, the City has obtained the general prevailing rate of wages and employer payments for health and welfare, vacation, pension and similar purposes in the City of Saratoga, a copy of which is on file at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California at the office of the Public Works Director, and shall be made available for viewing to any interested party upon request. 8. CONFLICT OF INTEREST a. 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 already disclosed all such relevant information. b. 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 City. 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. c. Interests of City Officers and Staff. No officer, member or employee of City and no member of the City Council shall have 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. City of Saratoga:Independent Contractor Agreement Highway 9 Phase II Exhibit D Page 61 of 84 353 9. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS a. In General. Contractor shall observe and comply with all laws, policies, general rules and regulations established by 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, and Section 1771 of the California Labor Code. b. 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. In addition to the foregoing, Contractor shall obtain and maintain during the term hereof a valid City of Saratoga Business. c. 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. d. 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 to a criminal drug statute violation occurring at such a facility, premises, or worksite, the Contractor, within five days thereafter, shall notify the City. e. 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 of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under this Agreement. City of Saratoga:Independent Contractor Agreement Highway 9 Phase II Exhibit D Page 62 of 84 354 10. 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. City agrees that Contractor shall bear no responsibility for any modifications by others made to the documents prepared by the Contractor. City also agrees that Contractor shall bear no responsibility for any re-use by third parties of the documents prepared by Contractor. 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 City or any party designated by 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. Professional Seal. Where applicable in the determination of the contract administrator, the first page of a technical report, first page of design specifications, and each page of construction drawings shall be stamped/sealed and signed by the licensed professional responsible for the report/design preparation. The stamp/seal shall be in a block entitled "Seal and Signature of Registered Professional with report/design responsibility" as per the sample below. ______________________________ Seal and Signature of Registered Professional with report/design responsibility. 11. 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 any time thereafter. Upon expiration of this Agreement, or termination as provided herein, Contractor shall return materials which contain any confidential information to City. Contractor may 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 City of Saratoga:Independent Contractor Agreement Highway 9 Phase II Exhibit D Page 63 of 84 355 past, present, and future activities, as well as activities under this Agreement, which information is not otherwise of public record under California law. 12. RESPONSIBILITY OF CONTRACTOR Contractor shall take all responsibility for the work, shall bear all losses and damages directly 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 Contractor’s negligence, recklessness, or willful misconduct. Contractor is required to pay prevailing wages, in accordance with Section 1771 of the California Labor Code; Contractor must also ensure that prevailing wages are paid by any subcontractor. 13. INDEMNIFICATION Contractor and City agree that City, its employees, agents and officials shall, be protected from any loss, injury, damage, claim, lawsuit, cost, expense, attorneys fees, litigation costs, defense costs, court costs or any other cost as set forth below. Contractor acknowledges that City would not enter into this agreement in the absence of the commitment of Contractor to indemnify and protect City as set forth below. a. Indemnity. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Contractor shall defend, indemnify and hold harmless City, its employees, agents and officials, from any liability, claims, suits, actions, arbitration proceedings, administrative proceedings, regulatory proceedings, losses, expenses or costs (including reasonable costs and fees of litigation) of any kind whatsoever without restriction or limitation, incurred in relation to, as a consequence of or arising out of or in any way attributable actually, allegedly or impliedly, in whole or in part, to the performance of this Agreement in a manner that is negligent, reckless or in willful misconduct. All obligations under this provision are to be paid by Contractor as they are incurred by the City. b. Limitation on Indemnity. Without affecting the rights of City under any provision of this agreement or this section, Contractor shall not be required to defend, indemnify and hold harmless City as set forth above for liability attributable to the active negligence, sole negligence, or willful misconduct of City, provided such active negligence, sole negligence, or willful misconduct is determined by agreement between the parties or the findings of a court of competent jurisdiction. City of Saratoga: Independent Contractor Agreement Highway 9 Phase II Exhibit D Page 64 of 84 356 c. Scope of Contractor Obligation. The obligations of Contractor under this or any other provision of this Agreement will not be limited by the provisions of any workers' compensation act or similar act. Contractor expressly waives its statutory immunity under such statutes or laws as to City, its employees and officials. d. Subcontractors. Contractor agrees to obtain executed indemnity agreements with provisions identical to those set forth here in this section from each and every subcontractor, sub tier contractor or any other person or entity involved by, for, with or on behalf of Contractor in the performance or subject matter of this Agreement. In the event Contractor fails to obtain such indemnity obligations from others as required here, Contractor agrees to be fully responsible according to the terms of this section. e. In General. Failure of City to monitor compliance with these requirements imposes no additional obligations on City and will in no way act as a waiver of any rights hereunder. This obligation to indemnify and defend City as set forth herein is binding on the successors, assigns, or heirs of Contractor and shall survive the termination of this agreement or this section. City approval of the insurance contracts required by this Agreement does not relieve the Contractor or subcontractors from liability under this paragraph. 14. 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. 15. DEFAULT AND REMEDIES a. Events of default. Each of the following shall constitute an event of default hereunder: 1. 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 2. 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 City determines it will reasonably require more than fifteen (15) days to cure, Contractor shall not be in City of Saratoga:Independent Contractor Agreement Highway 9 Phase II Exhibit D Page 65 of 84 357 default if Contractor promptly commences the cure and diligently proceeds to completion of the cure. b. Remedies upon default. Upon any 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 by law. c. 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. 16. TERMINATION Either party may terminate this Agreement with or without cause by providing 10 days notice in writing to the other party. The City may terminate this Agreement at any 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 affect whatsoever and each of the the parties hereto shall be relieved and discharged here-from, 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. 17. 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, they shall submit them to non-binding 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. 18.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. 19.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 and venue shall be in Santa Clara County, California. If any part of this City of Saratoga:Independent Contractor Agreement Highway 9 Phase II Exhibit D Page 66 of 84 358 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. 20.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 by City to continue to request or retain all or any portion of the work product from Contractor following the expiration or termination of this Agreement. 21.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. 22.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. 23. Covenant Against Contingent Fees The Contractor warrants that he/she has not employed or retained any company or person, other than a bona fide employee working for the Contractor; to solicit or secure this agreement; and that he/she has not paid or agreed to pay any company or person other than a bona fide employee, any fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift, or any other consideration, contingent upon or resulting from the award, or formation of this agreement. For breach or violation of this warranty, the local agency shall have the right to annul this agreement without liability, or at its discretion; to deduct from the agreement price or consideration, or otherwise recover the full amount of such fee, commission, percentage, brokerage fee, gift, or contingent fee. 24. Patent Rights Contractor agrees to applicable patent rights provisions described in 41 CFR 1-9.1 regarding rights to inventions. 25. Subcontractors, Assignment and Transfer All subcontracts exceeding $25,000 in cost shall contain all required provisions of the prime contract. City of Saratoga:Independent Contractor Agreement Highway 9 Phase II Exhibit D Page 67 of 84 359 26. Contractor’s Endorsement on PS&E/Other Data The responsible Contractor/Consultant/Engineer shall sign all plans, specifications, estimates (PS&E) and engineering data furnished by him/her, and where appropriate, indicate his/her California registration number. 27. DBE and UDBE Considerations In conformance with Title 49 Code of the Code of Federal Regulations Part 26 Caltrans Local Assistance Procedures Manual and Caltrans Local Programs Procedures The City of Saratoga has established an Annual Anticipated Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) Participation Level and Underutilized DBE (UDBE) goal for federal fiscal year 2009/2010 beginning on October 1st and ending on September 30th. Contractors must give consideration to DBE firms as specified in 23 CFR 172.5(b), 49 CFR Part 26, and in Exhibit 10-I “Notice to Bidders/Proposers Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Information.” (Exhibit F) The contract has an under-utilized DBE (UDBE) goal, the Contractor must meet the UDBE goal by using UDBEs as subcontractors/subconsultants or document a good faith effort to meet the goal. If a UDBE subcontractor/subconsultant is unable to perform, the Contractor must make a good faith effort to replace him/her with another UDBE subcontractor/subconsultant if the goal is not otherwise met. The Annual Anticipated DBE participation level (AADPL) has been established at 3.88% (1.12% Race Neutral and 2.76% Race Conscious). The Underutilized DBE (UDBE) has been established at 2.76% The Contractor agrees to comply with DBE and UDBE requirements. See attached Local Assistance Procedures Manual Exhibits 10-O1 and 10-O2 (Exhibit F). 28. Nonlobbying Certification For Federal-Aid Contracts The Contractor agrees to comply with items 1 and 2 of the attached Local Assistance Procedures Manual Exhibit 10-P (Exhibit F). Furthermore, the Contractor agrees to require that the language of this Certification be included in all lower-tier subcontracts which exceed $100,000 and that all such sub-recipients shall certify and disclose accordingly. City of Saratoga:Independent Contractor Agreement Highway 9 Phase II Exhibit D Page 68 of 84 360 EXHIBIT E INSURANCE Please refer to the insurance requirements listed below. Those that have an “X” indicated in the space before the requirement apply to Contractor's Agreement (ignore any not checked). Contractor shall provide its insurance broker(s)/agent(s) with a copy of these requirements and request that they provide Certificates of Insurance complete with copies of all required endorsements to: Administrative Services Officer, City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. Contractor shall furnish City with copies of original endorsements affecting coverage required by this Exhibit E. The endorsements are to be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its behalf. All endorsements and certificates are to be received and approved by City before work commences. City has the right to require Contractor's insurer to provide complete, certified copies of all required insurance policies, including endorsements affecting the coverage required by these specifications. X Commercial General/Business Liability Insurance with coverage as indicated: X $2,000,000 per occurrence for bodily injury and property damage ___ $ ____________ per occurrence bodily injury/$ ___________ per occurrence property damage ___ Coverage for X, C, U hazards MUST be evidenced on the Certificate of Insurance ___ If the standard ISO Form wording for "OTHER INSURANCE", or other comparable wording, is not contained in Contractor's liability insurance policy, an endorsement must be provided that said insurance will be primary insurance and any insurance or self-insurance maintained by City, its officers, employees, agents or volunteers shall be in excess of Contractor's insurance and shall not contribute to it. X Auto Liability Insurance with coverage as indicated: X $1,000,000 combined single limit for bodily injury and property damage City of Saratoga: Independent Contractor Agreement Highway 9 Phase II Exhibit E Page 69 of 84 361 ___ $ ____________ per person/$__________ per accident for bodily injury ___ $ ____________ 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. X Professional/Errors and Omissions Liability with coverage as indicated: X $1,000,000 per loss/$2,000,000 aggregate ___ $5,000,000 per loss/$5,000,000 aggregate Contractor must maintain Professional/Errors & Omissions Liability coverage for a period of three years after the expiration of this Agreement. Contractor may satisfy this requirement by renewal of existing coverage or purchase of either prior acts or tail coverage applicable to said three year period. X Workers' Compensation Insurance X Including minimum $1,000,000 Employer's Liability The Employer's Liability policy shall be endorsed to waive any right of subrogation as respects the City, its employees or agents. The Contractor makes the following certification, required by section 1861 of the California Labor Code: I am aware of the provisions of Section 3700 of the Labor Code which require every employer to be insured against liability for workers' compensation or to undertake self-insurance in accordance with the provisions of that code, and I will comply with such provisions before commencing the performance of the work of this contract X Additional Insured Endorsement(s) for Commercial General/Business Liability coverage naming the City of Saratoga, Town of Los Gatos and City of Monte Sereno and their officers, officials, boards, commissions, employees, volunteers and agents as additional insured. (NOTE: additional insured language on the Certificate of Insurance is NOT acceptable without a separate endorsement such as Form CG 20 10) X The Certificate of Insurance MUST provide 30 days notice of cancellation, (10 days notice for non-payment of premium). NOTE: the City of Saratoga: Independent Contractor Agreement Highway 9 Phase II Exhibit E Page 70 of 84 362 mail such notice shall impose no obligation or liability of any kind upon the company, its agents or representatives." X All subcontractors used must comply with the above requirements except as noted below: As to all of the checked insurance requirements above, the following shall apply: a. Deductibles and Self-Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self-insured retentions must be declared to and approved by the City. At the option of the City, either (1) the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self-insured retentions as respects the City, its officers, officials and employees; or (2) the Contractor shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration and defense expenses. b. City as Additional Insured. The City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers are to be covered as insureds as respects: liability arising out of activities performed by or on behalf of the Contractor; products and completed operations of the Contractor, premises owned, occupied or used by the Contractor, or automobiles owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the Contractor. The coverage shall contain no special limitations on the scope of the protection afforded to the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers. c. Other Insurance Provisions. The policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions: 1. Any failure to comply with reporting provisions of the policies shall not affect coverage provided to the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers. 2. The Contractor's insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability. City of Saratoga:Independent Contractor Agreement Highway 9 Phase II Exhibit E Page 71 of 84 363 3. Coverage shall not be suspended, voided, canceled by either party, reduced in coverage or in limits except after thirty (30) days' prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the City. d. Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a Bests' rating of no less than A: VII City of Saratoga:Independent Contractor Agreement Highway 9 Phase II Exhibit E Page 72 of 84 364 City of Saratoga:Independent Contractor Agreement Highway 9 Phase II Exhibit F Page 73 of 84 365 Local Assistance Procedures Manual EXHIBIT 10-01 Local Agency Proposer UDBE Commitment (Consultant Contracts) EXHIBIT 10-01 Local Agency Proposer UDBE Commitment (Consultant Contracts) NOTE: PLEASE REFER TO INSTRUCTIONS ON THE REVERSE SIDE OF TillS FORM LOCAL AGENCY: LOCATION: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: PROPOSAL DATE: PROPOSER'S NAME: CONTRACTUDBE GOAL (%): WORK DESCRIPT[ON OR SERVICES TO BE UDBE CERT NO. rTEMNO. SUBCONTRACfED (or contracted if AND EXPrRATiON the proposer is a UDBE) DATE For Local Agency to Complete: Local Agency Proposal Number; Federal-Aid Project Number: Federal Share: Proposal Date: Local Agency certifies that the UDBE certifications have been verified and all information is complete and accurate/unless noted otherwise. Print Name Signature Date Local Agenc Representative (Area Code) Telephone Number: Distribution: (1) Original-Local agency files LPP 09-02 NAME OF EACH UDBE PERCENT (Must be certified at the tinie PARTIC[PATION proposals are due -include UDBE OF EACH UDBE address and phone number) Total Claimed UDBE Commitment % Signature of Proposer Date (Area Code) Tel. No. Person to Contact (Please Type or Print) Local AgmlCY Proposer VOllE Commitment (Consultant Contracts) (Rev 6127/09) Page10-73 July 31, 2009 City of Saratoga:Independent Contractor Agreement Highway 9 Phase II Exhibit F Page 74 of 84 366 EXHIBIT 10-01 Local Assistance Procedures Manual Local Agency Proposer UDBE Commitment (Consultant Contracts) INSTRUCTIONS -LOCAL AGENCY PROPOSER UDBE COMMITMENT (CONSULTANT CONTRACTS) I ALL PROPOSERS: PLEASE NOTE: It is the proposer's responsibility to verify that the UDBE(s) falls into one of the following groups in order to count towards the UDBE contract goal: 1) African Americans; 2) AsianPacific Americans; 3) Native Americans; 4) Women. This information must be submitted with your proposal. Failure to submit the required UDBE commitment will be grounds for rmding the proposal nonresponsive. I A "UDBE" is a finn meetiog the defmition of a DBE as specified in 49 CFR and is one of the followiog groups: African Americans, Native Americans, Asian-Pacific Americans, or Women. I The fonn requires specific infonnation regarding the consultant contract: Local Agency, Location, Project Description, Proposal Date, Proposer's Name, and Contract UDBE Goal. The form has a column for the Work Item Number and Description or Services to.be subcontracted to UDBEs (or perfonned if the proposer is a UDBE). The UDBE prime contractors shall iodicate all work to be perfonned by UDBEs iocludiog work to be perfonned by its own forces, if a UDBE. The UDBE shall provide a certification number to the Consultant and notify the Consultant io writing with the date of decertification if their status should change duriog the course of the contract. Enter UDBE prime consultant and subconsultant certification numbers. The form has a column for the Names of certified UDBEs to perform the work (must be certified on the date proposals are due and include UDBE address and phone number). There is a column for the percent participation of each UDBE. Enter the Total Claimed UDBE Participation percentage of items of work suhmitted with proposal pursuant to the Special Provisions. (If 100% of item is not to be performed or furnished by the UDBE, describe exact portion of time to be performed or furnished by the UDBE.) See "Notice to Proposers Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Information," (Exhibit IO-I) to detennine how to count the participation ofUDBE finns. Note: If the proposer has not met the contract goal, the local agency must evaluate the proposer's good faith efforts to meet the goal in order to be considered for award of the contract. I Exhibit 10-01 must be signed and dated by the consultant submittiog the proposal. Also list a phone number io the space provided and print the name of the person to contact. For the Successful Proposer only, local agencies should complete the Proposal Number, Federalaid Project Number, Federal Share, and Proposal Date fields and verify that all information is complete and accurate before filing. Page 10-74 July 31, 2009 LPP 09-02 City of Saratoga:Independent Contractor Agreement Highway 9 Phase II Exhibit F Page 75 of 84 367 Local Assistance Procedures Manual EXHIBIT 10-02 Local Agency Proposer DBE Information (Consultant Contracts) EXHIBIT 10-02 Local Agency Proposer DBE Information (Consultant Contracts) NOTE: PLEASE REFER TO INSTRUCTIONS ON THE REVERSE SIDE OF TillS FORM LOCAL AGENCY: LOCATION: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: TOTAL CONTRACT AMOUNT ($): PROPOSER'S NAME: WORK DESCRIPTION OR SERVICES TO BE DBECERTNO. NAME OF EACH DBE DOLLAR AMOUN T OF ITEM NO. SUBCONTRACfED (or contracted if AND EXPIRATION (Must be certified at the time ACH DBE the proposer is a DBE) DATE proposals are due -include DBE address and phone number) For Local Agency to Complete: Total Claimed DBE $ Local Agency Contract Number: PaIlit;ipaliuIl Federal-Aid Project Number: % Federal Share: COlltarct Award: Local Agency certifies that the DBE certifications have been verified and al1 informations is complete and accurate. Signature of Proposer Print Name Signature Date Date (Area Code) Tel. No. Local Agency Representative (Area Code) Teleohone Number: For Caltrans Review: Person to Contact (Please Type or Print) Print Name Signature Date Local Agency Proposer DEE Infonnation (Consultant Conttarcts) Caltrans District Local Assistance Engineer (Rev 6/27/09) Distribution: (1) Copy -Fax or scan a copy to the Caltrans District Local Assistance Engineer (DLAE) within 15 days after contract execution. Failure to send a copy to the DLAE within 15 days after contract execution may result in deobligation of funds for this project. (2) Original -Local agency files Page 10-74a LPP 09-02 July 31,2009 City of Saratoga:Independent Contractor Agreement Highway 9 Phase II Exhibit F Page 76 of 84 368 EXHIBIT 10-02 Local Assistance Procedures Manual Local Agency Proposer DBE Information (Consultant Contracts) INSTRUCTIONS -LOCAL AGENCY PROPOSER DBE INFORMATION (CONSULTANT CONTRACTS) I SUCCESSFUL PROPOSER: I The fonn requires specific infonnation regarding the consultant or other contract: Local Agency, Location, Project Description, Total Contract Amount, Proposal Date, and successful Proposer's Name. The fonn has a column for the Work nem Number and Description or Services to be Subcontracted to DBEs. The prime consultant shall indicate all work to be perfonned by DBEs including, if the prime consultant is a DBE, work perfonned by its own forces, if a DBE. The DBE shall provide a certification number to the prime consultant. Enter DBE prime consultant's and subconsultant's certification number. The fonn has a column for the Names ofDBE certified contractors to perfonn the work (must be certified on or before before the proposals are due and include DBE address and phone number). Enter the Total Claimed DBE Pruiicipation dollar amount of items of work in the total DBE Dollar Amount column. (If 100% of item is not to be perfonned by the DBE, describe exact portion of time to be perfonned by the DBE.) See "Notice to Proposers Disadvantaged Business Enterprise Infonnation," (Exhibit 10-1) to detennine how to count the participation ofDBE finns. I Exhibit 10-02 must be signed and dated by the successful proposer at contract execution. Also list a phone number in the space provided and print the name of the person to contact. Local agencies should complete the Contract Number, Federal-aid Project Number, Federal Share, and Contarct Award fields and verify that all infonnation is complete and accurate before signing and sending a copy of the fonn to the District Local Assistance Engineer within IS days of contract execution. Failure to submit a completed and accurate fonn within the IS-day time period may result in the deobligation of funds on this project. I District DBE Coordinator should verify that all infonnation is complete and accurate. Once the infonnation has been verified, the District Local Assistance Engineer signs and dates the fonn. Page 10-74b July 31, 2009 LPP09-02 City of Saratoga:Independent Contractor Agreement Highway 9 Phase II Exhibit F Page 77 of 84 369 Local Assistance Procedures Manual EXHIBIT 10-P Nonlobbying Certification for Federal-aid Contracts Exhibit 10-P Nonlobbying Certification For Federal-Aid Contracts The prospective participant certifies by signing and submitting this proposallbid to the best of his or her knowledge and belief that: (I) No federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid, by or on behalf of the undersigned, to any person for influencing or attempting to influence au officer or employee of any federal agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with the awardiog of any federal contract, the making of any federal grant, the making of any federal loan, the entering into of any cooperative agreement, and the extension, continuation, renewal, amendment, or modification of any federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement. (2) If any funds other than federal appropriated funds have been paid or will be paid to any person for influencing or attempting to influence an officer or employee of any federal agency, a Member of Congress, an officer or employee of Congress, or an employee of a Member of Congress in connection with this federal contract, grant, loan, or cooperative agreement, the undersigned shall complete and submit Standard Form-LLL, "Disclosure of Lobbying Activities," in accordance with its instructions. This certification is a material representation of fact upon which reliance was placed when this transaction was made or entered into. Submission of this certification is a prerequisite for making or entering into this transaction imposed by Section 1352, Title 31, U.S. Code. Any person who fails to file the required certification shall be subject to a civil penalty of not less than $10,000 and not more than $100,000 for each such failure. The prospective participant also agrees by submitting hislber proposallhid that helshe shall require that the language of this certification be included in all lower-tier subcontracts which exceed $100,000 and that all such sub-recipients shall certify and disclose accordingly. LPP09-02 Page 10-75 July 31, 2009 City of Saratoga:Independent Contractor Agreement Highway 9 Phase II Exhibit F Page 78 of 84 370 Local Assistance Procedures Manual EXHBIT 10-1 Notice to Proposers DBE Information Exhibit to-I Notice to Proposers DBE Information LOCAL AGENCY LETTERHEAD (DATE) NOTICE TO PROPOSERS DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS ENTERPRISE INFORMATION 5ee. GC-/1erzt! "fro "i>;o~ The Agency has established an Underutilized DBE goal for this Agreement of % it=-2.7 I OR The Agency has not etablished an Underutilized goal for this Agreement. However, proposers are encouraged to I obtain DEE participation for this Agreement. 1. TERMS AS USED IN THIS DOCUMENT • The term "Disadvantaged Business Enterprise" or "DBE" means a for-profit small business concern owned and controlled by a socially and economically disadvantaged person(s) as defmed in Title 49, Part 26.5, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). • The term "Underutilized Disadvantaged Business Enterprise" or "UDBE." DBE classes that have been determined in the 2007 Caltrans Disparity Study to have a statistically significant disparity in their utilization in previously awarded transportation contracts. UDBEs include: African Americans, Native Americans, Asian-Pacific Americans, and Women. • The term ~~Agreement" also means "Contract." • Agency also means the local entity entering into this contract with the Contractor or Consultant. • The teml "Small Business" or "SB" is as defined in 49 CFR 26.65. 2. AUTHORITY AND RESPONSIBILITY A. DBEs and other small businesses are strongly encouraged to participate in the perfOlmance of Agreements financed in whole or in part with federal funds (See 49 CFR 26, "Participation by Disadvantaged Business Enterprises in Departroent of Transportation Financial Assistance Programs"). The Contractor should ensure that DBEs and other small businesses have the opportnnity to pal1icipate in the performance of the work that is the subject of this solicitation and should take all necessary and reasonable steps for this assurance. The proposer shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, or sex in the award and perfOlmance of subcontracts. B. Proposers are encouraged to use services offered by financial institutions owned and controlled by DBEs. LPP09-02 Page 10-49 July 31, 2009 City of Saratoga:Independent Contractor Agreement Highway 9 Phase II Exhibit F Page 79 of 84 371 EXBBITlO-I Local Assistance Procedures Manual Notice to Proposers DBE Information 3. SUBMISSION OF UDBE AND DBE INFORMATION If there is a UDBE goal on the contract, a "Local Agency Proposer UDBE Commitment (Consultant Contract)" (Exhibit 10-01) form shall be included in the Request for Proposal. In order for a proposer to be considered responsible and responsive, the proposer must make good faith efforts to meet the goal established for the contract. If the goal is not met, the proposer must document adequate good faith efforts. Only UDBE participation will be counted towards the contract goal; however, all DBE participation shall be collected and reported. A "Local Agency Proposer DBE Information (Consultant Contract)" (Exhibit 10-02) form shall be included with the Request for Proposal. The purpose of the form is to collect data required under 49 CFR 26. For contracts with UDBE goals, this form collects DBE participation by DBEs owned by Hispanic American and Subcontinent Asian Americans males (persons whose origin are from India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Bhutan, Maldives Islands, Nepal or Sri Lanka). For contracts with no goals, this form collects information on all DBEs, including UDBEs. Even if no DBE participation will be reported, the successful proposer must execute and return the form. 4. DBE PARTICIPATION GENERAL INFORMATION It is the proposer's responsibility to be fully informed regarding the requirements of 49 CFR, Part 26, and the Department's DBE program developed pursuant to the regulations. Particular attention is directed to the following: A. A DBE must be a small business firm defmed pursuant to 13 CFR 121 and be certified through the California Unified Certification Program (CUCP). B. A certified DBE may participate as a prime contractor, subcontractor, joint venture partner, as a vendor of material or supplies, or as a trucking company. C. A UDBE proposer not proposing as a joint venture with a non-DBE, will be reqnired to document one or a combination of the following: I. The proposer is a UDBE and will meet the goal by performing work with its own forces. 2. The proposer will meet the goal through work performed by UDBE subcontractors, suppliers or Ducking companies. 3. The proposer, prior to proposing, made adequate good faith efforts to meet the goal. D. A DBE joint venture partner must be responsible for specific contract items of work or clearly defined portions thereof. Responsibility means actually performing, managing, and supervising the work with its own forces. The DBE joint venture partner must share in the capital contribution, control, management, risks and profits of the joint venture commensurate with its ownership interest. E. A DBE must perform a commercially useful function pursuant to 49 CFR 26.55, that is, a DBE finn must be responsible for the execution of a distinct element of the work and must carry out its responsibility by actually performing, managing and supervising the work. F. The proposer shall list only one subcontractor for each portion of work as defmed in their proposal and all DBE subcontractors should be listed in the bid/cost proposal list of subcontractors. G. A prime contractor who is a certified DBE is eligible to claim all of the work in the Agreement toward the DBE paliicipation except that portion of the work to be perfOimed by non-DBE subcontractors. Page 10-50 July 31, 2009 LPP 09-02 City of Saratoga:Independent Contractor Agreement Highway 9 Phase II Exhibit F Page 80 of 84 372 Local Assistance Procedures Manual 5. RESOURCES EXHBIT 10-1 Notice to Proposers DBE Information A. The CUCP database includes the certified DBEs from all cel1ifyiug ageucies participating in the CUCP. If you believe a finn is certified that cannot be located on the database, please contact the Callrans Office of Certification toll free number 1-866-810-6346 for assistance. Proposer may call (916) 440-0539 for web or download assistance. B. Access the CUCP database from the Department of Transportation, Civil Rights, Business Enterprise Program web site at: http://www.dot.ca.gov/hq/bep/. • Click on the link in the left menu titled Disadvantaged Business Enterprise • Click on Search for a DBE Firm link • Click on Access to the DBE Query Form located on the first line in the center of the page • Searches can be performed by one or more criteria • Follow instructions on the screen C. How to Obtain a List of Certified DBEs without Internet Access D. DBE Directory: If you do not have Internet access, Caltrans also publishes a directory of certified DBE finns extracted from the online database. A copy of the directory of certified DBEs may be ordered at: http://caltrans-opac.ca.gov/publicat.htm 6. MATERIALS OR SUPPLIES PURCHASED FROM DBES COUNT TOWARDS DBE CREDIT, AND IF A DBE IS ALSO A UDBE, PURCHASES WILL COUNT TOWARDS THE UDBE GOAL UNDER THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: A. If the materials or supplies are obtained from a DBE manufacturer, count 100 percent of the cost of the materials or supplies. A DBE manufacturer is a finn that operates or maintains a factory, or establishment that produces on the premises the materials, supplies, articles, or equipment required under the Agreement and of the general character described by the specifications. B. If the materials or supplies purchased from a DBE regular dealer, count 60 percent of the cost ofthe materials or supplies. A DBE regular dealer is a finn that owns, operates or maintains a store, warehouse, or other establishment in which the materials, supplies, articles or equipment of the general character described by the specifications and required under the Agreement are bought, kept in stock, and regularly sold or leased to the public in the usual course of business. To be a DBE regular dealer, the finn must be an established, regular business that engages, as its principal business and under its own name, in the purchase and sale or lease of the products in question. A person may be a DBE regular dealer in such bulk items as petroleum products, steel, cement, gravel, stone or asphalt without owning, operating or maintaining a place of business provided in this section. LPP 09-02 Page 10-51 July 31, 2009 City of Saratoga:Independent Contractor Agreement Highway 9 Phase II Exhibit F Page 81 of 84 373 EXHBITlO-I Local Assistance Procedures Manual Notice to Proposers DBE Information C. If the person both owns and operates distribution equipment for the products, any supplementing of regular dealers' own distribution equipment shall be, by a long-term lease agreement and not an ad hoc or Agreement-by-Agreement basis. Packagers, brokers, manufacturers' representatives, or other persons who arrange or expedite transactions are not UDBE regular dealers within the meaning of this section. D. Materials or supplies purchased from a DBE, which is neither a manufacturer nor a regular dealer, will be limited to the entire amount of fees or commissions charged for assistance in the procurement of the materials and supplies, or fees or transportation charges for the delivery of materials or supplies required on the job site, provided the fees are reasonable and not excessive as compared with fees charged for similar services. 7. FOR DBE TRUCKING COMPANIES: CREDIT FOR DBEs WILL COUNT TOWARDS DBE CREDIT, AND IF A DBE IS A UDBE, CREDIT WILL COUNT TOWARDS TIlE UDBE GOAL UNDER TIlE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS: Page 10-52 July 31, 2009 A. The DBE must be responsible for the management and supervision of the entire trucking operation for which it is responsible on a particular Agreement, and there cannot be a contrived arrangement for the purpose of meeting the UDBE goal. B. The DBE must itself own and operate at least one fully licensed, insured, and operational truck used on the Agreement. C. The DBE receives credit for the total value of the transportation services it provides on the Agreement using trucks it owns, insures, and operates using drivers it employs. D. The DBE may lease trucks from another DBE fIrm including an owner-operator who is celtifIed as a DBE. A DBE who leases trucks from another DBE receives credit for the total value of the transportation services the lessee DBE provides on the Agreement. E. The DBE may also lease trucks from a non-DBE fIrm, including an owner-operator. A DBE who leases trucks from a non-DBE is entitled to credit only for the fee or commission it receives as a result of the lease arrangement. A DBE does not receive credit for the total value of the transportation services provided by the lessee, since these services are not provided by the DBE. F. For the purposes of this Section D, a lease must indicate that the DBE has exclusive use and control over the trnck. This does not preclude the leased trnck from working for others during the term of the lease with the consent of the DBE, as long as the lease gives the DBE absolute priority for use of the leased truck. Leased trucks must display the name and identifIcation nnmber of the DBE. LPP 09-02 City of Saratoga:Independent Contractor Agreement Highway 9 Phase II Exhibit F Page 82 of 84 374 Local Assistance Procedures Manual EXHIBIT 10-F Certification of Consultant, Commissions & Fees Exhibit 10-F Certification of Consnltant, Commissions & Fees CERTIFICATION OF CONSULTANT I HEREBY CERTIFY that I am the __________________ , and duly authorized representative of the ftnn of _____________________ ~, whose address is ___________________________ , and that, except as hereby expressly stated, neither I nor the above ftrm that I represent have: (a) employed or retained for a commission, percentage, brokerage, contingent fee, or other consideration, any ftnn or person (other than a bona ftde employee working solely for me or the above consultant) to solicit or secure this agreement; nor (b) agreed, as an express or implied condition for obtaining this contract, to employ or retain the services of any ftnn or person in connection with carrying out the agreement; nor (c) paid, or agreed to pay, to any ftnn, organization or person (other than a bona ftde employee working solely for me or the above consultant) any fee, contribution, donation, or consideration of any kind, foror in connection with, procuring or carrying out this agreement. I ackoowledge that this Certiftcate is to be made available to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in connection with this agreement involving participation of Federal-aid Highway funds, and is subject to applicable state and federal laws, both criminal and civil. (Date) LPP 06-02 (Signature) Page 10-43 May 1, 2006 City of Saratoga:Independent Contractor Agreement Highway 9 Phase II Exhibit F Page 83 of 84 375 Local Assistance Procedures Manual EXHffiITI0-G Certification of Local Agency Exhibit lO-G Certification of Local Agency CERTIFICATION OF LOCAL AGENCY I HEREBY CERTIFY that I am the ______ -'=c""it"'y-"M"'a"'n"'a"'g"'er'----_________ of the _____ ~C,,',,·ty~oChf_"S"'a!lrallto'"g!>!a"_ _____ ~, and that the consulting fIml of ____~ B=KF"--E-n"gm,,·" e"er",s~ __~ ,or its representative has not been required (except as herein expressly stated), directly or indirectly, as an express or inIplied condition in connection with obtaining or carrying out this Agreement to: (a) employ, retain, agree to employ or retain, any fIml or person, or (b) payor agree to pay, to any fIml, person or organization, any fee, contribution, donation, or consideration of any kind. I acknowledge that this Certificate is to be made available to the California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) in connection with this Agreement involving involving participation offederal-aid highway funds, and is subject to applicable state and federal laws, both criminal and civil. (Date) LPP 06-02 (Signature) Page 10-45 May 1, 2006 City of Saratoga:Independent Contractor Agreement Highway 9 Phase II Exhibit F Page 84 of 84 376 Local Assistance Procedures Manual PS&E Checklist Instructions DEBARMENT AND SUSPENSION CERTIFICATION TITLE 49, CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS, PART 29 EXHIBIT 12-E Attachment E The bidder, under penalty of perjury, celiifies that, except as noted below, helshe or any other person associated therewith in the capacity of owner, partner, director, officer, and manager: • Is not currently under suspension, debarment, voluntary exclusion, or determination of ineligibility by any federal agency; • Has not been suspended, debarred, voluntarily excluded or determined ineligible by any federal agency within the past 3 years; • Does not have a proposed debarment pending; and • Has not been indicted, convicted, or had a civil judgment rendered against it by a court of competent jurisdiction in any matter involving fraud or official misconduct within the past 3 years. If there are any exceptions to this certification, insert the exceptions in the following space. Exceptions will not necessarily result in denial of award, but will be considered in determining bidder responsibility. For any exception noted above, indicate below to whom it applies, initiating agency, and dates of action. Notes: Providing false information may result in criminal prosecution or administrative sanctions. The above certification is part of the Proposal. Signing this Proposal on the signature portion thereof shall also constitute signature of this Certification. LPP 01-04 Page 12-83 March 15, 2001 377 county of Santa Clara Roads ancl Airports Department 101 Skypon Drive San Jose. Ca[ifornia 951 10-1302 (408) 573-2400 November 10, 2009 Mr. John Cherbone Director of Public Works City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Ave Saratoga, CA 95070 SUBJECT: County Grant to Highway 9 Safety Improvements Dear Mr. Cherbone: Santa Clara County has agreed to support the Highway 9 Safety Improvements Project ("Project") by providing a one-time lump sum grant in the amount of $20,000 subject to the following terms: 1. Use of Funds. The City of Saratoga ("Saratoga") will use the County funding solely for needs relating to safety improvements for pedestrians and bicycles along Highway 9 and within the Project limits. Saratoga shall return any unused funds back to the County no later than sixty days after the completion date of the Project. 2. Records: Saratoga shall maintain accurate records of all expenditures related to the County grant and provide a detailed report to the County accounting for the use of the County funds within 60 days of completion of activities on which the grant is spent, but no later than two years from the date of this letter, unless mutually agreed by the signing parties in writing. County shall have the right to inspect Saratoga records related to the County grant upon request. 3. Indemnification. Saratoga shall assume the defense of, indemnify and hold harmless, County, its officers, agents, and employees from all claims, liability, loss, damage, and injury of any kind, nature, or description directly. or indirectly arising from the County grant. This agreement to defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the County shall operate irrespective of the basis of the claim, liability, loss, damage, or injury. The indemnity and other rights afforded to the County by this section shall survive the grant. Board or Supervisors: Donald F. Gage. George Silirakawa, Dave Cortese. Ken Yeager. Liz Kniss county Executive: Jeffrey V. Smirh 378 County Grant to Saratoga -District 5 November 10, 2009 Page 2 of 2 Please indicate Saratoga acceptance of the above conditions by having the appropriately authorized individual sign below in the space indicated and returning this letter to me. Please keep a copy for your records. You may expect a warrant for $20,000 within 14 days after I receive the signed letter. Please call me at (408) 573-2438 if you have any questions. Sincerely, jVJJft1~ Michael J. Murdter Director' cc: Elizabeth Pianca, Deputy County Counsel TA,ImB Accepted: Signature Printed name Title Date Page 1 of 3 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: December 16, 2009 AGENDA ITEM: DEPARTMENT: City Manager’s Office CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: Barbara Powell DIRECTOR: Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: 2009 Library Heating Venting, Air Conditioning (HVAC) Renovation Project – Notice of Completion RECOMMENDED ACTION: Move to accept the 2009 Library HVAC Renovation Project as complete and authorize staff to record the Notice of Completion for the contract. REPORT SUMMARY: All work on the 2009 Library HVAC Renovation Project has been completed by the City’s contractor, CIM Air, Inc. of Watsonville and has been inspected by City inspectors. The scope of work consisted of supplying all labor, equipment and materials to remove and replace existing boilers and related appurtenances, installing ceiling fans with controls, installing smoke detectors and removing and replacing variable air valves. Overall, the quality of construction completed through this contract was excellent and feedback received from the Library indicates temperatures throughout the Library are now consistent and comfortable. It is therefore recommended that the Council accept the project as complete. Further, it is recommended that the Council authorize staff to record the attached Notice of Completion for the construction contract. FISCAL IMPACTS: The total cost for this project was $263,517, including $194,650 for the boilers, ceiling fans and smoke detectors, and an additional $68,867 for the controls system. Retention funds will be released 30 days after the Notice of Completion has been recorded. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: The project would not be accepted as complete and staff would notify the contractor of any additional work required by the City Council before the project would be accepted as complete. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: None in addition to the above. 379 Page 2 of 3 FOLLOW UP ACTION: Staff will record the Notice of Completion for the construction contract. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Nothing additional. ATTACHMENTS: Notice of Completion. 380 Page 3 of 3 Recording requested by, And to be returned to: City of Saratoga CityManager’s Office 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 NOTICE OF COMPLETION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the work agreed and performed under the contract mentioned below between the City of Saratoga, a municipal corporation, whose address is 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA 95070, as Owner of property or property rights, and the Contractor mentioned below, on property of the Owner, was accepted as complete by the Owner on or around the 16th day of December 2009. Contract Number: N/A Contract Date: June 17, 2009 Contractor’s Name: CIM Air, Inc. Contractor’s Address: 50 Aviation Way #2, Watsonville, CA 95076 Description ofWork: 2009 Library HVAC Renovation Project Notice is given in accordance with the provisions of Section 3093 of the Civil Code of the State of California. The undersigned certifies that he is an officer of the City of Saratoga, that he has read the foregoing Notice of Acceptance of Completion and knows the contents thereof; and that the same is true of his own knowledge, except as to those matters which are therein stated on the information or belief, as to those matters he believes to be true. I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at the City of Saratoga, County of Santa Clara, State of California on December 16, 2009. CITY OF SARATOGA BY:____________________________ ATTEST:____________________________ Dave Anderson Ann Sullivan, City Clerk CityManager Gov. Code 40814 381 Page 1 of 2 + SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: December 16, 2009 AGENDA ITEM: DEPARTMENT: Public Works CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: Kristin Borel DIRECTOR: John Cherbone Public Works Analyst SUBJECT: Rescind Motor Vehicle (MV) Resolution No. MV-190 Prohibiting Parking on a Portion of Scully Avenue RECOMMENDED ACTION: Move to rescind the MV Resolution restricting parking on Scully Avenue. REPORT SUMMARY: The City was contacted by residents on Scully about the removal of the existing parking restriction on Scully Avenue. The original resolution only restricts parking for twenty feet or one car length. According to the neighbors, the homeowners who requested the original parking restriction have moved and the new owners and neighbors no longer want parking restricted in that area. In order to remove the No Parking restriction, it is necessary that the original Motor Vehicle Resolution be rescinded and the new MV Resolution approved by City Council. FISCAL IMPACTS: Approximately $250 in labor and and materials is required for the City to paint over the red curb. These improvements are paid through the CIP which has a fund devoted to Traffic Safety. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): The MV Resolution would not be adopted and conditions would continue as is. ALTERNATIVE ACTION (S): None in addition to the above. FOLLOW UP ACTION(S): If the resolution is rescinded, the Public Works staff will paint the curb grey and remove the No Parking sign. 382 Page 2 of 2 ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: None. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Map 2. Resolution MV-190 3. New resolution 383 0 30 60 120 180 240Feet Scully Avenue Parking Restriction ± Parking restriction to be removed Prospect Road Scully Avenue Colby Avenue Viewridge Drive 384 -- 3851. RESOLUTION NO. MV-190 RESOLUTION PROHIBITING PARKING ON A PORTION OF SCULLY AVENUE The City Council of the city of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: SECTION I: Based upon an engineering and traffic study, the following designated portion of street in the City of Saratoga is hereby declared to be a congested area, and the following limit for parking of motor vehicles is hereby established for said portion of said street: Name of Street Scully Avenue Description on the westerly side from a point lOSt southerly from the southerly curb line of Colby ct. to 12S± southerly thereof parking Limit NO PARKING ANYTIME This section shall become effective at such time as the proper signs and/or markings are installed. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the city Council of the City of Saratoga at a regular meeting held on the 21st day of March, 1990, by the following vote: AYES: Counci1nenbers Anders::m,Moyles, Peterson, Stut2Jl'6ll and ~r Clevenger NOES: None ABSENT: None MAYOR(j ATTEST : RESOLUTION NO. MV-______ RESOLUTION RESCINDING MV-190 PROHIBITING PARKING ON SCULLY AVENUE WHEREAS, new information related to the parking prohibition on Scully Avenue came to light; WHEREAS, staff notified the residents who would be most affected; WHEREAS, in accordance with the City Code, the reconsideration of the issues addressed in Resolution No. MV-190 has been agendized for a review before the City Council on December 16, 2009 and noticed accordingly. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Saratoga has reconsidered and hereby rescinds Resolution No. MV-190. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Saratoga at a regular meeting held on the 16th day of December, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ______________________________ Kathleen King, Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________ Ann Sullivan, City Clerk 386 Page 1 of 2 + SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: December 16, 2009 AGENDA ITEM: DEPARTMENT: Public Works CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: Kristin Borel DIRECTOR: John Cherbone Public Works Analyst SUBJECT: Motor Vehicle (MV) Resolution Restricting Parking on Old Wood Road RECOMMENDED ACTION: Move to adopt MV Resolution restricting parking on Old Wood Road. REPORT SUMMARY: The City was contacted by residents on Old Wood Road concerned with pedestrian safety on their street. Old Wood Road currently has No Parking restrictions on both sides of the street for the first 325 feet. Past this restriction cars are allowed to park on both sides of the street and during the pick up and drop off times the roadway becomes dangerous for pedestrians and too narrow for two way traffic. The Traffic Safety Commission and Traffic Engineer reviewed this request at their November 12, 2009 meeting and determined that extending the No Parking restriction for another 300 feet on the east side of the street would enhance pedestrian safety along this corridor. In order to enforce the new No Parking restriction, it is necessary that the attached Motor Vehicle Resolution be adopted by City Council. FISCAL IMPACTS: Approximately $250 in labor and materials is required for the City to post the sign. These improvements are paid through the CIP which has a fund devoted to Traffic Safety. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): The MV Resolution would not be adopted and traffic conditions would continue as is. ALTERNATIVE ACTION (S): None in addition to the above. 387 Page 2 of 2 FOLLOW UP ACTION(S): The sign will be installed and the Sheriff’s Department will be notified of the new restriction. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: None. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Memo from Fehr & Peers 2. Map 3. MV Resolution 388 ! ! ! "#$ % & "' ( MEMORANDUM Date: December 7, 2009 To: John Cherbone, Public Works Director, City of Saratoga From: Franziska Church/Sohrab Rashid Subject: Review of On-Street Parking on Old Wood Road, Saratoga, California 1025-446-1 Fehr & Peers has completed an evaluation of traffic concerns on Old Wood Road near Marshall Lane Elementary School in Saratoga, California. Specifically, this memorandum addresses traffic and parking concerns on Old Wood Road during the school’s peak pick-up and drop-off periods. A resident brought this item to the attention of the Saratoga Traffic Safety Commission (TSC) at the November 12, 2009, meeting. After review of the item and input from Fehr & Peers, the TSC recommended extending parking restrictions on the east side of Old Wood Road for an additional 250 feet south (towards Cordwood Court). This memorandum addresses traffic and parking concerns on Old Wood Road during the school’s peak periods and our recommendation for additional parking restrictions on Old Wood Road. Old Wood Road is two-lane local roadway looping between Sobey Road on the south side of Marshall Lane School to Sobey Road south of the 10 Acres Road intersection. Parking is currently restricted Monday through Friday from 8:00 am to 4:00 pm (school hours) on Old Wood Road for approximately 325 feet on both the east and west side of the roadway south of Sobey Road at Marshall Lane School. During the school’s peak drop-off and pick-up periods Old Wood Road is used by some parents to park and walk their students to school. As is typical for residential neighborhoods in Saratoga, no sidewalks are provided on Old Wood Road. The roadway is approximately 27 feet wide, and with vehicles parked on the both sides of the road (in the area south of the parking restrictions), only about 16 feet of pavement is available for two-way vehicle and pedestrian travel. As shown in Figure 1 on the following page, the remaining 16 feet width on Old Wood Road is not sufficient to accommodate two-way travel, and vehicles and pedestrians traveling on Old Wood Road need to weave in and out of the parked vehicles. To allow for adequate travel lane width, improved visibility, and added width for pedestrian travel the TSC recommends that current parking restrictions on the east side of Old Wood Road be extended for an additional 250 feet south towards Cordwood Court. The parking restrictions should be the same as existing and be prohibited during school hours (8:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.) on weekdays that school is in session. Outside of the school’s peak periods, vehicular travel on Old Wood Road is minimal and can be accommodated by the existing roadway width. At non-peak times, adequate gaps in traffic flow are available to allow vehicles to pull to the side and let another pass even with vehicles parked on the west side of the road. 389 tp F E H It & P EE ItS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS John Cherbone December 7, 2009 Page 2 of 2 ) ! ! ! "#$ % & "' ( Figure 1: Parked Vehicles on Old Wood Road (South of Marshall Lane School looking southbound) 390 fP FEHR & PEERS TRANSPOR TATION CONSULTANTS Sobey Road Old Wood Rd. Old Wood Road Parking Restrictions 0 25 50 100 150 200 N Feet Requested No Parking Area Existing No Parking Area 391 RESOLUTION NO. MV-______ RESOLUTION PARKING RESTRICTION ON OLD WOOD ROAD The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: I. Based upon an engineering and traffic study, the following parking restrictions shall be designated on Old Wood Road in the location specified below: NAME OF STREET LOCATION RESTRICTION Old Wood Road Starting three hundred and thirty five (335) feet from the southeast corner of Old Wood Road where it intersects with Sobey Road and continuing south for three hundred (300) feet No Parking or Stopping, 8:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m., Monday – Friday, While school is in session II. All prior resolutions and other enactments imposing a parking restriction at the location specified above are hereby repealed to the extent of their inconsistency with the restriction specified above. III. This resolution shall become effective at such time as the signs and/or markings are installed. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Saratoga Saratoga at a regular meeting held on the 16th day of December, 2009, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ______________________________ Kathleen King, Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________ Ann Sullivan, City Clerk 392 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: December 16, 2009 AGENDA ITEM: DEPARTMENT: Community Development CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: Jana Rinaldi DIRECTOR: John Livingstone, AICP SUBJECT: Proposed ordinance establishing the City’s ability to issue administrative citations for violations of the Saratoga City Code. RECOMMENDED ACTION: Conduct a public hearing regarding the attached ordinance establishing an administrative citation procedure, introduce and waive the first reading of the ordinance, and direct staff to place the ordinance on the consent calendar for adoption at the next regularly scheduled meeting of the City Council. BACKGROUND: At its September 16, 2009 meeting the City Council considered a draft ordinance establishing an administrative citation procedure for violations of the City Code and directed staff to prepare an ordinance and bring it back to the Council at a public hearing. DISCUSSION The City establishes rules and regulations for living and doing business within city limits. Currently, the City’s only ability to enforce its ordinances is through voluntary compliance, recordation of a code violation against the title of the property, and public nuisance abatement or criminal prosecution through the court system. The proposed administrative citation ordinance would allow staff to issue administrative citations for violations of the City Code. Typically, enforcement of violations of City Code results in a “Notice of Violation”, which consists of education, specific remedies and a time frame for compliance. In most cases this type of corrective notice is sufficient; however, there are situations where stronger enforcement actions are necessary. Under the existing City Code, code violations may be criminally charged as infractions or misdemeanors. Prosecution through the Court system is costly and requires significant staff resources as well as City Attorney time. For example: the City Code regulates storage of personal property on residential property (recreational vehicles, boats and trailers are the most complained about); staff efforts to enforce this ordinance are often ignored by residents because they understand that court prosecution is time consuming and costly for the City. In addition, if the matter actually gets to court, the offender may simply be required to remove the 393 personal property or materials. Similar circumstances arise in connection with enforcement of other requirements of the City Code. The proposed ordinance would provide an alternative to criminal prosecution of code violations and other existing tools. Staff believes that is some circumstances this could be a more effective tool to promote compliance with the City Code. The attached ordinance is based on the ordinance in effect in San Juan Capistrano and reviewed by the City Council in September. It would allow the City to impose administrative fines of not more than $100.00 for a first violation, $200.00 for a second violation, and a fine not exceeding $500.00 for each additional violation. Each day that a violation continues would be considered a separate violation of the Code. Costly court action would be avoided except in instances where an individual or entity refuses to respond to a citation or appeals a hearing officer’s finding that a violation has occurred. Unpaid administrative fines would go into a state-established collection process in which delinquent fines are collected via the Franchise Tax Board. The ordinance would require that residents be given the opportunity to correct code violations before any penalty is issued except in cases of immediate danger to health or safety. The ordinance includes procedures for appeals of citations to an impartial hearing officer. Such hearings would provide persons who believe the citation is not warranted to present their case to the hearing officer. Hearing officer decisions may also be appealed to the Santa Clara County Superior Court. Most cities with administrative citation programs require enforcement officers to participate in a certification training course: PC832 without firearms. The certification course is a 40 hours and is certified by the State Board of Corrections. The Course is available through the Santa Clara County Probation Department and is currently scheduled to take place in February 2010. Staff recommends that no administrative citations citations be issued before July. This will allow time for staff training, public education, including administrative penalties in the fee schedule and setting up the other aspects of the program. FISCAL IMPACTS: Staff estimates that the collection of fines and penalties should result in a revenue-expense neutral code compliance program. Administrative citations will range from $100 up to $500 per occurrence. The minimum cost for the management and processing through the City’s existing vendor for parking ticket fines is $100.00 per month, or $1,200.00 per year. It is expected that the cost of this service will be offset in part by the revenue intake of the civil fines. Staff is seeking that the management processing service not be activated until the following fiscal year. This will provide staff with time to acclimate City residents to the Administrative Citation Ordinance/Program Enforcement without the added expense to this year’s budget. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: The City would continue to use its existing enforcement tools as described above. 394 ALTERNATIVE ACTION: Provide staff with alternative direction. FOLLOW UP ACTION: Place the ordinance on the consent calendar for adoption at the January 20, 2010 meeting of the City Council. Recommend the Administrative Services Director incorporate the new policy and associated fees into the budget and fees schedule for the next fiscal year. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Notice of this meeting was properly posted and published in the Saratoga News. ATTACHMENTS: A. Proposed Ordinance 395 1 ORDINANCE NO. __________ AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE SARATOGA CITY CODE TO AUTHORIZE ISSUANCE OF ADMINISTRATIVE CITATIONS FOR VIOLATIONS OF THE SARATOGA CITY CODE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA DOES ORDAIN AS FOLLOWS: SECTION 1. Findings A. The California Constitution, Article XI, section 7, provides cities and counties with the authority to enact ordinances to protect the health, safety, welfare, and morals of their citizens. The City of Saratoga has a substantial interest in enforcing compliance with its Code in a manner that is efficient, fair, and consistent with applicable state laws. B. The City of Saratoga has a substantial interest in enforcing compliance with its Code in a manner that is efficient, fair, and consistent with applicable state laws. Administrative citations provide an additional tool to help enhance compliance with the Code and lower enforcement costs borne by City taxpayers. C. After conducting a noticed public hearing on December 16, 2009, the Saratoga City Council and considering all evidence and testimony presented at that hearing has determined that it is in the public interest to amend the City of Saratoga Code to authorize the issuance of administrative citations for violations of the City Code. SECTION 2. Adoption. Article 3-30 is hereby added to the Saratoga City Code as shown in Attachment A. SECTION 3. California Environmental Quality Act. Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”), this action is exempt under 14 California Code of Regulations (“CEQA Guidelines”) section 15061(b)(3) (the amendments are exempt because it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have a significant effect on the environment). SECTION 4. Severance Clause. The City Council declares that each section, subsection, paragraph, sub-paragraph, sentence, clause and phrase of this ordinance is severable and independent of every other section, subsection, sentence, clause and phrase of this ordinance. If any section, sub-section, paragraph, sub-paragraph, sentence, clause and phrase are held invalid, the City Council declares that it would have adopted the remaining provisions of this ordinance irrespective of the portion held invalid, and further declares its express intent that the remaining portions of this ordinance should remain in effect after the invalid portion has been eliminated. 396 2 SECTION 5. Publication. This ordinance or a comprehensive summary thereof shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation of the City of Saratoga within fifteen days after its adoption. The foregoing ordinance was introduced and read at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the 16th day of December, 2009, and was adopted by the following vote following a second reading on the 20th day of January, 2010: COUNCIL MEMBERS: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SIGNED: __________________________________ KATHLEEN KING MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA Saratoga, California ATTEST: __________________________________ ANN SULLIVAN CLERK OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA Saratoga, California APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________ ________________________ RICHARD TAYLOR, CITY ATTORNEY 397 1 Attachment A to Ordinance No. __ City of Saratoga Administrative Citations Ordinance Article 3-30. Administrative Citations 3-30.010. -Applicability. (a) Use of this article shall be at the sole discretion of the City and is one remedy that the City has to address violations of the Code, as defined in this article. By adopting this article, the City does not intend to limit its discretion or ability to utilize any criminal, civil or other remedies, or any combination thereof allowed by law, to address any violations of the City's laws and regulations. (b) This article makes any violation of the provisions of the Saratoga City Code and other regulations subject to civil fines. (c) This article establishes the administrative procedures for the imposition, enforcement, collection and administrative review of civil fines pursuant to California Government Code Section 53069.4. (d) An administrative fine shall be imposed by means of an administrative citation issued by an Enforcement Officer and shall be paid directly to the City of Saratoga. Payment of a fine shall not excuse a failure to correct a violation nor shall it bar further enforcement action by the City. 3-30.020. -Definitions. As used in this article, the following words are defined as follows: "Citation" means an administrative citation that is issued to a responsible person pursuant to this article. "Citee" means a responsible person to whom a citation is issued. "City" means the City of Saratoga, California. "Civil fine" is the monetary sanction established by resolution of the City Council that is imposed by a citation. "Code" means and includes: (1) The entire Saratoga City Code and all Santa Clara County and State codes incorporated therein by adoption or reference; (2) Any condition imposed upon any entitlement, permit, approval or license; (3) Any uncodified ordinance adopted by the Saratoga City Council; and (4) All other State laws applicable to conduct or land use in the City of Saratoga. "Director" means the Community Development Director of the City of Saratoga or that person’s designee. "Enforcement Officer" and “Officer” mean any officer, agent or employee of the City designated by the CityManager to have the authority and responsibility to enforce this Code. 398 2 "Hearing Officer" means a person, agency or body designated by the City Council to consider all timely requests for an administrative hearing upon issuance of a citation. "Notice of violation" means a written notice to a responsible person that a violation of this Code has occurred. This notice may include a warning that an administrative citation assessing fines may be issued unless the violation is terminated or abated. "Owner" means and includes any person having legal title to, or who leases, rents, occupies or has charge, control or possession of, or responsibility for, any real property in the City, including all persons identified as owners on the last equalized assessment roll of the Santa Clara County assessor's office. An owner of personal property or animals shall be any person who has legal title, charge, control or possession of, or responsibility for, property. An owner may include an agent, manager or representative thereof. "Person" means and includes any individual, partnership of any kind, a corporation of any kind, limited liability company, association, joint venture or other organization or entity, however formed, as well as fiduciaries, trustees, heirs, executors, administrators, or assigns, or any combination of such persons. "Person" also includes any public entity or agency that acts as an owner in the City. "Property" or "premises" means any real property, or improvements thereon, or portions thereof, as the case may be. "Property" includes any parkway or unimproved public easement abutting such real property. "Property" shall also include all forms of personal property or animals, where applicable. "Responsible person" means any person, whether as an owner, lessee, licensee, or otherwise, that allows, causes, creates, maintains, or permits a violation of the Code to exist or continue, by any act or the omission of any act or duty. "Violation" means an act or omission of any act, or use or condition that constitutes an offense of the Code, as well as a breach or violation of any condition of a permit, approval or license issued pursuant to the Code. A "transient" violation is one that is brief or spontaneous in its commission, or that is not typically confined to a fixed location. A "nontransient" violation is continuing in nature and generally present at one location and is also described as a “continuing” violation. 3-30.030. -Scope. This article provides for imposition of a civil fine pursuant to a citation for any violation of the Code, as well as for a breach or violation of any condition of a permit, approval or license issued pursuant to the Code. This remedy may be utilized in place of, or in addition to, any other remedy allowed by the Code or State law. The Enforcement Officer shall have sole discretion to utilize any remedy or remedies as authorized by law. 399 3 3-30.040. -Issuance of notice of violation. (a) No administrative citation may be issued unless a notice of violation has first been issued in accordance with this section unless the violation creates an immediate danger to health or safety. When an Enforcement Officer determines that a responsible person has committed a violation of the Code, the Officer shall issue a notice of violation to the responsible person. Such notice shall serve as a written warning of responsibility and require immediate action by the responsible person to abate the violation. The notice of violation shall specify a date within a period of at least five days of the issuance or such longer period as the Officer determines, by which the violation can reasonably be abated. If, after said correction period, the violation is not abated, the Enforcement Officer may issue an administrative citation assessing fines in accordance with this article. (b) The notice of violation shall specify: (1) Name and mailing address of the responsible person; (2) The address or description of the location of the violation; (3) The date of commission of the violation(s) or detection thereof by an Enforcement Officer; (4) The Code provision(s) violated; (5) A description of the violation(s); (6) The action(s) required to correct the violation(s) and any deadlines or time limitations for commencing and completing such action(s); (7) Possible amount of the fine for each violation, and the procedure and place to pay the fine(s), and any late charge(s), if not timely paid; (8) The name and signature of the Enforcement Officer issuing the notice of violation; and (9) Any other information deemed necessary by the Officer. (c) On such form as may be provided for by the Director, any responsible person cited for a violation that does not cause immediate danger to health or safety may petition the Officer for an extension of time to correct the violation so long as the petition is received before the end of the period allowed for correction, as stated in the notice of violation. The Officer may, in the Officer’s sole discretion, grant an extension of time to correct the violation if the Officer determines that the responsible person has supplied sufficient evidence showing that the correction cannot reasonably be made within the stated period. The Officer’s decision shall be final and, notwithstanding any other provision of this Code, not subject to appeal except in an appeal challenging the issuance of an administrative citation. 3-30.050. -Issuance of administrative citation. (a) Whenever an Enforcement Officer determines that a violation of the Code has occurred, the Officer may issue a citation on a form approved by the City Attorney imposing a civil fine or fines to the responsible person(s) in accordance with the provision of this Article. The citation shall be issued following the correction period specified in the notice of violation or, if the violation creates an immediate danger to health or safety, concurrently with the notice of violation. 400 4 (b) An Enforcement Officer may issue a notice of violation and/or a citation for a violation not committed in the Officer's presence if the Officer has determined, through investigation, that the Citee did commit, or is otherwise responsible for, the violation. (c) Each day on which a transient violation occurs and each day upon which a nontransient violation continues, shall be a separate violation for which a citation may be issued. A citation may charge several violations of the Code. (d) Each citation shall contain the following information: (1) Name and mailing address of the responsible person; (2) The address or description of the location of the violation; (3) The date of commission of the violation(s) or detection thereof by an Enforcement Officer; (4) The date the notice of violation was issued and the date that notice set for correction of the violation; (5) The Code provision(s) violated; (6) A description of the violation(s); (7) Amount of the fine for each violation, and the procedure and place to pay the fine(s), and any late charge(s), if not timely paid; (8) When appropriate, the action(s) required to correct the violation(s), and, if applicable, any deadlines or time limitations for commencing and completing such action(s); (9) A description of the citation review process and the manner by which a hearing on a citation may be obtained (including the form to be used and the period in which a request must be made in order to be timely); (10) The name and signature of the Officer; and (11) Any other information deemed necessary by the Officer. 3-30.060. -Service. The Enforcement Officer may issue a notice of violation, administrative citation, or any other notice, order, or other document required to be given by this Article by personal service, mail, or posting as specified below. (1) For personal service the Enforcement Officer shall attempt to locate and personally serve the responsible person and obtain the signature of the responsible person on the administrative citation. If the responsible person served refuses or fails to sign the document(s) served, the failure or refusal to sign shall not affect the validity of the citation or of subsequent proceedings. If an agent, manager or representative of a responsible person is personally served a copy of the document(s) served shall also be served by first class mail to the responsible person at his/her last-known business or residence address as the same appears in the records of the City, or, if the city lacks such records, the County. In such instances, the date a copy of the document(s) served is deposited with the U.S. Postal Service shall constitute the issuance date. 401 5 (2) For service by mail the Enforcement Officer shall mail the document(s) being served by certified mail, postage prepaid with a requested return receipt at the recipient’s lastknown business or residence address as the same appears in public records of the City, or, if the City lacks such records, the County. Simultaneously, the citation may be sent by first class mail. If the document(s) is sent by certified mail and the certification is returned unsigned, then service shall be deemed effective pursuant to first class mail, provided the document(s) sent by first class mail is not returned. (3) For violations involving real property, if the Enforcement Officer is not able to serve the responsible party in person or by mail, the Enforcement Officer shall post the document(s) to be served on any real property within the City in which the City has knowledge that the responsible person has a legal interest or possession, dominion and control of, such property, or a portion thereof. Such posting shall be deemed effective service, and the date of posting shall constitute the date of service. 3-30.070. -Civil fines, late charges—Collection of fees and costs. (a) The amount of the fines for violating particular provisions of this Code shall be set in a schedule of fines adopted from time to time by resolution by the City Council in accordance with state law. The schedule may include escalating fine amounts for repeat violations occurring within specified periods of time. (b) The schedule of fines shall specify the amount of late payment penalty owed for any fine not paid when due. (c) Where no amount is specified by resolution of the City Council, the following fines shall apply: (1) A fine not exceeding $100.00 per day for a first violation; (2) A fine not exceeding $200.00 per day for a second violation of the same ordinance or permit within one year from the date of the first violation; and (3) A fine not exceeding $500.00 per day for each additional violation of the same ordinance or permit within one year from the date of the first violation. Separate fines shall apply for each separate violation, however, in the event that multiple violations are found to occur as a result of an investigation, each such violation listed in the first citation following the investigation shall be considered a “first violation”. (d) Civil fines and any late charges due shall be paid to the City at such location or address as stated in the citation, or as may otherwise be designated by the Director. (e) The due date for the City's receipt of a civil fine shall be thirty (30) calendar days from the issuance date of a citation. Thereafter, a late charge shall be due and owing. (f) Payment of a civil fine shall not excuse or discharge a Citee from the duty to immediately abate a violation of the Code, nor from any other responsibility or legal consequences for a continuation or repeated occurrence(s) of a violation of the Code. 402 6 (g) Abatement of a violation shall not excuse the obligation of a Citee to pay a civil fine, or any late charge. (h) Unpaid civil fines and/or late charges shall constitute a debt that may be collected in any manner allowed by law. Where authorized by law the City shall be entitled to recover its attorney fees and costs arising from an action to collect a civil fine and/or late charge if it is the prevailing person 3-30.080. -Right to an administrative hearing. (a) Any Citee may contest the issuance of a citation by filing a request for an administrative hearing with the Office of the City Clerk. The request for an administrative hearing shall be made on a City-approved form and filed within fifteen (15)calendar days from the issuance date of a citation. If the Office of the City Clerk does not receive the request in the required period, the Citee shall have waived the right to a hearing and the citation and fine shall be deemed final. (b) No fee shall be charged for the filing of a request for a hearing. hearing. (c) Requests for a hearing shall be accompanied by the entire amount of the fine stated in the citation. Failure to deposit a fine, or the tender of a nonnegotiable check in the required period, shall render a request for an administrative hearing incomplete and untimely. Fines that are deposited with the City shall not accrue interest. Fines deposited shall be returned to the person tendering the fines within thirty (30) days in the event a citation is overturned. The City Manager, upon concurrence of the Director of Public Works, may waive the requirement for advance deposit of the fee for hardship in accordance with hardship standards and procedures to be adopted by the City Manager and Director of Public Works from time to time. 3-30.090. -Administrative Hearing. (a) The City Council shall designate or appoint, in accordance with applicable law, a Hearing Officer. The employment, performance evaluation, compensation, and benefits of the Hearing Officer, if any, shall not be directly or indirectly conditioned upon the amount of administrative citation fines upheld by the Hearing Officer. (b) The hearings shall be attended by the Enforcement Officer and the Citee (or authorized representative of Citee) and conducted pursuant to reasonable procedures to be established by the Hearing Officer. (c) After considering all of the testimony and evidence submitted at a hearing, the Hearing Officer shall issue an administrative order at the conclusion of the hearing or within fifteen (15) days to uphold or overturn the citation and shall state the reasons thereof. If the citation is upheld and the violation has not been fully corrected as of the date of the hearing, the Hearing Officer shall order correction thereof in the decision and state deadline(s) to complete such action(s). The decision of the Hearing Officer shall be final. All fines shall become immediately due and owing to the City in the full amount and if not paid may be collected as provided in this Code. (d) The Superior Court is the sole reviewing authority and an appeal from a Hearing Officer's decision is not appealable to the City Council. If a responsible person prevails on appeal, the City 403 7 shall reimburse that person’s fine deposit in accordance with the court judgment. These monies shall be mailed to the responsible person within thirty (30) calendar days of the City's receipt of a notice of judgment or ruling from the Superior Court Clerk. 3-30.100. -Collection of delinquent fines. (a) The City may use all available legal means to collect past due fines and other related costs. (b) Any person who fails to pay any fine shall be liable in any action or collection procedure brought by the City for all costs incurred to obtain payment of the delinquent amount, including, but not limited to, administrative costs, collection costs, and attorneys' fees. (c) Collection costs shall be in addition to any penalties, interest and late charges imposed upon the delinquent obligation. (d) Commencement of an action to collect a delinquent fine shall not preclude issuance of one or more additional citations to the legally responsible person if the violation or violations persist after the date for correcting them as stated in the administrative order. 3-30.110. -Collection by lien. (a) If the fine owed by a Citee is for one or more violations on the Citee’s property, and the citation was issued to abate a nuisance, and the amount has been delinquent ninety (90) days or more, the delinquent amount shall become a lien on the property on which the violations occurred. (b) The City shall give written notice to the Citee of a hearing before the City Council regarding the delinquent fine amount and related costs. The notice shall be mailed by first class mail at least fourteen (14) days before the hearing. The notice shall state: (1) The citation or citations resulting in the delinquent fine amount; (2) The total of the delinquent fine amount and related costs; (3) The date the delinquent fine amount was due; (4) The street address, assessor's parcel number and legal description of the property upon which the violations occurred; (5) The date, hour and place of the hearing; (6) A statement that the cited person or or other legally responsible person may appear and be heard; (7) A statement that unless the fine amount is paid by the date specified in a resolution by the City Council, the total amount due will become a lien and special assessment on the property. (c) At the lien hearing, the City Council shall hear and consider all competent evidence about the delinquent fine amount. If it finds the amount is delinquent, it shall make a finding of fact confirming that the delinquent fine amount and related costs are due the City as costs of nuisance abatement. If the delinquent amount are affirmed, the total amount due is to be paid to the City within five (5) days, after which the amount due will become a lien on the property. 404 8 (d) If the amount due is not paid within five (5) days after the City Council confirms it and orders it paid, the amount due shall constitute a lien upon the real property upon which the nuisance violations existed and shall be a special assessment against the property. The lien shall continue until the amount due and interest, computed at six (6) percent per annum from the date of the City Council's confirmation, is paid or until it is discharged of record. If the amount due is not paid as required by the City Council's order, a notice of lien shall be recorded in the Office of the County Recorder and delivered to the County Tax Collector. The notice of lien shall be in substantially the following form: NOTICE OF LIEN CLAIM OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA By the authority of Chapter 3 the Saratoga City Code, an administrative citation or citations were issued regarding nuisance abatement at the real property described below. Fines were assessed for the nuisance. By action of the City of Saratoga City Council, recorded in its official minutes, the fines and related costs were confirmed as delinquent and assessed against the property as costs of nuisance abatement. The delinquent amount was not paid, therefore the City of Saratoga claims a lien on the real property for the costs of abatement in the amount of $ ____________/____________/____________, which shall be a lien on the real property until it is paid, with interest at the rate of 6% per annum from the ____________day of ____________, 2 ____________[insert the date the City Council confirmed the delinquent fines and related costs]. The lien shall continue until paid in full and discharged of record. It shall also be a personal obligation against [insert name of property owner]. The real property upon which a lien is claimed is that certain parcel of land in the City of Saratoga, County of Santa Clara, State of California, described as follows: [Insert legal description.] Dated this ____________day of ____________, 2 ____________ . City of Saratoga By: ____________ Mayor, City of Saratoga (e) After the lien is confirmed and recorded, a certified copy of it shall be filed with the County Auditor. The description of the parcel reported to the Auditor shall be the one used by the County Assessor's map book for the current year. The County Auditor shall enter each assessment on the County tax roll for the reported parcel of land. The amount of the assessment shall be collected at the time and in the manner of ordinary municipal taxes. 405 9 (f) If delinquent, the lien amount is subject to the same penalties and procedure of foreclosure provided for ordinary municipal taxes. As an alternative method of collection, the County Tax Collector, in his/her discretion, may collect the assessment without reference to the general taxes, by issuing separate bills and receipts for the assessment. laws relating to the levy, collection and enforcement of County taxes shall apply to such special assessment. (g) The City may receive the amount due on the abatement costs and issue receipts at any time after the confirmation of the statement, before August 1st of that current year. The City Council may order a refund of any lien or assessment paid under this section if it finds that all or part of the assessment has been erroneously levied. An assessment or part thereof shall not be refunded unless a claim is filed with the City Clerk on or before March 1st after taxes become due and payable. The claim shall be verified by the person who pays the tax, or his/her guardian, executor, or administrator. 3-30.120. -Responsibility of parent(s) and/or legal guardians. Whenever the responsible person is a person under the age of eighteen (18), the Enforcement Officer shall provide copies of all notices, citations, and other documents specified in this article to the parent(s) and/or legal guardian(s) of the responsible person. Any fine levied pursuant to this article many be levied jointly and severally against the juvenile and the parent(s) and/or legal guardian(s) of the juvenile. The parent(s) and/or legal guardian(s) shall have the right to a hearing and judicial review as set forth in this article. 3-30.130. -Miscellaneous provisions. (a) Failure of a Citee to comply with a corrective action stated in any uncontested citation, or with regard to a correction order in any Hearing Officer decision that is deemed confirmed, shall constitute a misdemeanor. (b) Any person having a record of noncompliance with corrective action or nonpayment of fine(s) may be required to post security in the form acceptable to the City Attorney to ensure compliance with the Code as a condition to the issuance of any entitlement, permit, approval or license. (c) The Officer may dismiss a citation at any time if a determination is made that it was issued in error, in which event any deposit of a fine shall be refunded. Notice of such action shall be given to the Citee in writing. (d) The CityManager is authorized to promulgate procedural rules and regulations governing the civil administrative citation process consistent with this Article and applicable law. P:\SARATOGA\RESOLUTI\Draft Administrative Citation Ordinance 12-07-09.doc 406 Page 1 of 4 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: December 16, 2009 AGENDA ITEM: DEPARTMENT: Community Development CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: John F. Livingstone, AICP DIRECTOR: John F. Livingstone, AICP SUBJECT: Extension of Urgency Ordinance forMedical Marijuana Dispensaries RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive and approve this staff report regarding measures taken thus far to alleviate the condition that led to adoption of the November 18, 2009 urgency ordinance for medical marijuana dispensaries (MMDs) and adopt an ordinance extending for ten months and 15 days the temporary moratorium on the establishment of MMDs. BACKGROUND: As reported in the November 18, 2009 Staff Report, the City of Saratoga has received several inquiries from prospective MMD operators. The City of Saratoga’s Code does not specifically address the regulation or location of medical marijuana dispensaries or list MMDs as a permitted use or conditionally permitted use in any zoning district. At the public hearing on November 18, 2009, the City Council heard testimony from the Community Development Director and Captain Calderone of the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office regarding adverse impacts associated with MMDs experienced by some local jurisdictions, including increases in loitering, burglaries and robberies, and attendant increases in service calls to law enforcement. The City Council also heard testimony from interested citizens in favor and opposed to the establishment of MMDs in the City. After the public hearing, the Council approved an urgency ordinance adopting a 45-day moratorium on the establishment of MMDs, in order to protect the public health, safety and welfare and to provide the City time to determine whether to adopt an ordinance regulating the location or operation of MMDs. The November 18, 2009 City Council Staff Report is attached as Attachment 1, and the ordinance is attached as Attachment 2. DISCUSSION: The City may extend the interim moratorium on MMDs for ten months and 15 days, and subsequently for an additional year, if the City follows the procedures of Government Code § 65858(a) and (c), which require: 407 Page 2 of 4 · Notice pursuant to Government Code § 65090. · A public hearing to address the proposed extension. · Approval of the extension by a four-fifths vote. · Findings “that there is a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety, or welfare, and that the approval of additional subdivision, use permits, variances, building permits, or any other applicable entitlement for use which is required in order to comply with the zoning ordinance would result in that threat to public health, safety, or welfare.” In accordance with Government Code § 65090 notice of the public hearing to consider the extension of the moratorium was published in the Saratoga News on December 1, 2009. Since adoption of the urgency ordinance, staff has begun evaluating the City’s options for regulating MMDs, as directed by the Council. Specifically, staff has commenced the following measures to alleviate the conditions that led to the adoption of the interim ordinance: · Consulting with the City Attorney regarding relevant state and federal case law on medical marijuana dispensaries and legally appropriate rules and regulations addressing medical marijuana dispensaries in the City; · Reviewing secondary sources on medical marijuana dispensaries, including, but not limited to, the California Attorney General’s August 2008 “Guidelines for the Security and Non-Diversion of Marijuana Grown for Medical Use;” and · Collecting and reviewing medical marijuana dispensary ordinances from other California municipalities. City staff anticipates adding the following measures during the remaining period of the moratorium: · Research laws and enactments in other states regarding medical marijuana; · Research operation of existing medical marijuana dispensaries in other municipalities and counties; · Research options of adopting a regulatory ordinance permitting the operation of medical marijuana dispensaries or prohibiting the use; and · Prepare recommendations and related ordinances, staff reports and other documentation, as necessary, for consideration by the City Council. The City Attorney is still in the process of evaluating the relevant legal issues and developing guidance for legally appropriate regulation. The federal Department of Justice recently issued a memorandum encouraging U.S. attorneys in California not to spend resources enforcing the federal Controlled Substances Act against individuals who are in compliance with state medical marijuana laws; however, there is currently considerable uncertainty regarding the legal status of dispensaries and the scope of federal and state preemption with respect to local regulation of medical marijuana. A case currently pending before the Court of Appeal for the Fourth District, Qualified Patients Ass’n v. City of Anaheim, Case No. G040077, may resolve at least some of the legal issues. Qualified Patients involves a challenge by a medical marijuana dispensary to a ban enacted by the City of Anaheim. A decision in that case is expected in December 2009. In addition, the California Supreme Court recently heard oral argument in a case that invalidated 408 Page 3 of 4 portions of the Medical Marijuana Program Act (MMPA) dealing with amount limits on possession of marijuana on the grounds that it unconstitutionally amends the Compassionate Use Act, and several cases relevant to the issue of the scope of cities’ authority to regulate MMDs are making their way through the state courts. Accordingly, some of the legal uncertainty regarding local regulation of medical marijuana may be resolved during the extension of the City’s moratorium. In staff’s view, the current and immediate threat to the public health, safety and welfare described in the November 18, 2009 staff report and by the Community Development Director and Captain Calderone at the November 18, 2009 public hearing continue to exist. The City’s zoning code does not contain regulations specifically addressed to MMDs, and without such regulations, any approval of an MMD could conflict with the requirements of the General Plan, zoning ordinance, forthcoming City regulations or state law, and result in irreversible land use incompatibility and adverse impacts to City residents, patients and businesses. The 45-day moratorium will expire on January 2, 2010, unless the City Council adopts the proposed ordinance extending the moratorium (Attachment 3). Based upon the ongoing uncertainty regarding the legal status of MMDs and their regulation by local governments, as well as evidence of the continued threat to the public health, safety and welfare of unregulated establishment of MMDs in the City, staff recommends that the City extend the temporary moratorium as authorized by Government Code 65858. Staff estimates that it will take 12 to 18 months to study issues related to MMDs; therefore, it is likely that staff will return to the City Council with a request for another moratorium extension. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: The proposed moratorium ordinance is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2), 15060(c)(3), and 15601(b)(3), because the proposal will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and only directs that a planning study be undertaken. FISCAL IMPACT: Instituting a study of medical marijuana dispensaries will require a significant commitment of staff time. While funding this staff time will not require an additional appropriation, it will require staff to adjust its priorities in working on other issues. The City Attorney has estimated legal fees to advise staff during the study at approximately $7,000.00. Failure to adopt a moratorium could require the commitment of additional police resources to deal with any criminal issues associated with MMDs. Subsequent adoption of a licensing requirement could increase staffing costs which could be offset by license fees. FOLLOW UP ACTION: As directed. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: 409 Page 4 of 4 Notice of the public hearing was published in the Saratoga News on December 1, 2009 and notice of this meeting was properly posted. ATTACHMENTS: 1. November 18, 2009 Staff Report re: Adoption of Urgency Ordinance for Medical Marijuana Dispensaries 2. Urgency Ordinance Adopted November 18, 2009 3. Proposed Urgency Ordinance Extension 410 Page 1 of 4 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: November 18, 2009 AGENDA ITEM: DEPARTMENT: Community Development CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: John F. Livingstone, AICP DIRECTOR: John F. Livingstone, AICP SUBJECT: Urgency Ordinance forMedical Marijuana Dispensaries RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt the proposed interim urgency ordinance placing a 45 day moratorium on the establishment of medical marijuana dispensaries in order to provide the City of Saratoga with time to determine whether to adopt an ordinance regulating the location or operation of medical marijuana dispensaries. BACKGROUND: The City of Saratoga has received several inquiries from prospective medical marijuana dispensary operators. The City of Saratoga’s Code does not specifically address the regulation or location of medical marijuana dispensaries or list medical marijuana dispensaries as a permitted use or conditionally permitted use in any zoning district. In California, some cities that have permitted the establishment of medical marijuana dispensaries have reported adverse impacts on public health, safety, and welfare, including an increase in crimes such as loitering, illegal drug activity, burglaries, robberies and other criminal activity within and around dispensaries, as well as increased pedestrian and vehicular traffic, noise and parking violations. Some local jurisdictions also report that medical marijuana dispensaries increase demands for police response, as well as maintenance of public streets and sidewalks. Therefore, staff is proposing the adoption of an interim urgency ordinance imposing a moratorium on the approval, commencement, establishment of medical marijuana dispensaries until such time staff is able to study the issue and present recommendations to the City Council. DISCUSSION: In November 1996, California voters enacted “The Compassionate Use Act of 1996,” also known as Proposition 215, codified at Health and Safety Code Section 11362.5 et seq. Proposition 215 allows a person to cultivate and possess marijuana for medical purposes with a doctor’s recommendation without violating certain state criminal laws regarding possession or cultivation of marijuana. 411 Page 2 of 4 In October 2003, the State Legislature adopted Senate Bill 420, the Medical Marijuana Program Act, which, among other things, exempts from certain state criminal sanctions individuals engaged in collective and cooperative cultivation of medical marijuana. The Medical Marijuana Program Act went into effect on January 1, 2004. In 2008, the California Attorney General issued guidelines regarding lawful operation of cooperatives and collectives, including organizing under appropriate business forms, generating no profits and complying with state tax law and local business license requirements. The Attorney General advised that only dispensaries that comply with the recommendations in its guidelines would be protected from criminal liability under existing state law. The manufacture, distribution, or possession of marijuana is a federal criminal offense pursuant to the federal Controlled Substances Act, 21 U.S.C. § 801 et seq. The Controlled Substances Act may be enforced by federal authorities against persons possessing or using marijuana, regardless of the protections offered by the Compassionate Use Act and Medical Marijuana Program Act. However, earlier this year, the United States Attorney General announced his intention to ease enforcement of the Controlled Substances Act against medical marijuana dispensaries, and the United States Department of Justice recently issued a memorandum stating that federal resources should not be focused on prosecution of individuals whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws providing for medical use of marijuana. The Compassionate Use Act, the Medical Marijuana Program Act and the recent pronouncements from federal prosecutors, have fostered interest in the establishment of medical marijuana dispensaries, including within the City of Saratoga and surrounding cities. Medical marijuana dispensaries have been established throughout California and the Bay Area, including in San Francisco, Oakland, and Santa Cruz. As a result of the presence of medical marijuana dispensaries, some local agencies have reported increases in illegal drug activity, illegal drug sales, robberies of persons leaving the dispensaries, loitering around dispensaries, falsely obtained identification cards, and other criminal activity. Some local agencies also report increased demands for police response, as well as maintenance of public streets and sidewalks, in areas surrounding medical marijuana dispensaries. The City of Saratoga currently does not have regulations regarding licensing for persons seeking to establish a medical marijuana dispensary. Further, the City of Saratoga Municipal Code does not specifically address the regulation or location of medical marijuana dispensaries, and a medical marijuana dispensary is not a type of use which is specifically defined in the City of Saratoga’s zoning code regulations. Based upon the experiences of other local jurisdictions and the rapidly evolving law governing medical marijuana, staff recommends that the City adopt a moratorium on medical marijuana dispensaries until staff has the opportunity to further study the issue and advise the City Council regarding options for legally appropriate and effective regulation. The scope of the study resulting from the moratorium may include, but not limited to, the following: 1. Review processes used by other cities and counties when considering applications from persons seeking to open and operate a medical marijuana dispensary; 2. Determine whether to establish licensing and criminal background check processes for proposed operators and employees of a medical marijuana dispensary; 412 Page 3 of 4 3. Decide if licensing needs to be regularly renewed; 4. Determine in which zoning districts, if any, medical marijuana dispensaries might be allowed to operate; 5. Decide whether to prohibit medical marijuana dispensaries from locating near schools or other sensitive uses; 6. Decide whether medical marijuana dispensaries should be located a minimum distance from other medical marijuana dispensaries; 7. Potential regulations regarding the operation, hours, security features, and other conditions for the operation of medical marijuana dispensaries; and 9. Other related issues. The adoption of a moratorium will give staff sufficient time to study this issue and prevent medical marijuana dispensaries from locating in the City of Saratoga until proper procedures and regulations are established. Government Code Section 65858 allows a jurisdiction to adopt a zoning ordinance that prohibits any uses that conflict with a contemplated zoning proposal that the City Council, Planning Commission, or Planning Division is considering or studying or intends to study within a reasonable time to protect the public safety, health, and welfare. The urgency ordinance requires a four-fifths vote of the City Council for adoption and shall be effective for no more than 45 days. The City Council may further extend the urgency ordinance for 10 months and 15 days after a noticed public hearing, and may subsequently extend the urgency ordinance for one additional year. Ten days prior to the expiration of the ordinance, the City must issue a written report describing the measures taken to alleviate the conditions which led to the adoption of the ordinance. Staff estimates that it will take 12 to 18 months to study issues related to medical marijuana dispensaries; therefore, it is likely that staff will return to the City Council with a request for a extension of the ordinance. ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT: The proposed moratorium ordinance is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), pursuant to Sections 15060(c)(2), 15060(c)(3), and 15601(b)(3), because the proposal will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment, and only directs that a planning study be undertaken. FISCAL IMPACT: Instituting a study of medical marijuana dispensaries will require a significant commitment of staff time. While funding this staff time will not require an additional appropriation, it will require staff to adjust its priorities in working on other issues. Failure to adopt a moratorium could require the 413 Page 4 of 4 commitment of additional staff and police resources to deal with any criminal issues associated with medical marijuana dispensaries. Subsequent adoption of a licensing requirement could increase staffing costs which could be offset by license fees. FOLLOW UP ACTION: As directed. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Notice of this meeting was properly posted. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Proposed Urgency Ordinance 414 1 AN INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE CREATING A TEMPORY MORATORIUM RESTRICTING MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES FROM BEING LOCATED IN THE CITY OF SARATOGA, TO TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA FINDS AND DECLARES AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, in 1996 the voters of the State of California approved Proposition 215 which was codified as Health and Safety Code Section 11362.5, et seq., and entitled “The Compassionate Use Act of 1996” (“the Act”); and WHEREAS, the intent of the Act was to enable seriously ill persons to obtain, use and cultivate marijuana for medical use under limited, specified circumstances; and WHEREAS, on January 1, 2004, Senate Bill 420, the Medical Marijuana Program Act (“MMPA”), became effective to clarify the scope of the Act and to allow cities and counties to adopt and enforce rules and regulations consistent with the MMPA and the Act; and WHEREAS, as a result of the Act and the MMPA, individuals have established medical marijuana dispensaries in various cities in California, and WHEREAS, on June 6, 2005, the United States Supreme Court found in Gonzales v. Raich, 125 S. Ct. 2195 (2005) there to be no legally recognizable medical necessity exception under the Federal Controlled Substances Act to the prohibition of possession, use, manufacture, or distribution of marijuana under federal law, and WHEREAS, in February 2009 the U.S. Attorney General stated that federal law enforcement official would ease enforcement at medical marijuana dispensaries, and in October 2009, the U.S. Department of Justice issued a memorandum stating that federal resources should not be focused on prosecution of individuals whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws providing for medical use of marijuana, and WHEREAS, while the experiences in the regulation and policing of medical marijuana dispensaries have varied from city to city, several California cities have reported an increase in crime, such as burglary, robbery, odor, loitering around the dispensaries, an increase in vehicular traffic and noise in the vicinity of dispensaries, and the sale of illegal drugs, including the illegal resale of marijuana from dispensaries, in the areas immediately surrounding such medical marijuana dispensaries, and WHEREAS, The City of Saratoga has not adopted rules and regulations specifically applicable to the establishment and operation of medical marijuana dispensaries and the 415 2 lack of such controls may lead to an establishment of dispensaries and the inability for the City to regulate these establishments in a manner that will protect the general public, homes and businesses adjacent and near such businesses, and the patients or clients of such establishments, and WHEREAS, based on the lack of any consistent experience of cities statewide and in the absence of any regulatory program in the City regarding the review of the establishment and operation of medical dispensaries, the City should consider whether negative effects on the public health, safety, and welfare may occur in the City of Saratoga as a result of the operation of medical marijuana dispensaries and the lack of appropriate regulations governing the establishment and operation of such facilities, and WHEREAS, City staff requires time to evaluate the relevant issues and develop guidance for legally appropriate regulation, and WHEREAS, the establishment of, or the issuance or approval of any permit, certificate of occupancy, or other entitlement for the legal establishment of a medical marijuana dispensary in the City of Saratoga will result in a current and immediate threat to public health, safety and welfare in that the Saratoga Municipal Code does not currently regulate the location and operation of medical marijuana dispensaries and does not have a regulatory program in effect that will appropriately regulate the location, establishment, and operation of medical dispensaries in the City, and WHEREAS, there is no feasible alternative to satisfactorily study the potential impact identified above as well or better than the adoption of this interim urgency moratorium ordinance. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Saratoga as follows: SECTION 1. For purposes of this ordinance, “medical marijuana dispensary” means any for profit or not-for-profit facility or location, whether permanent or temporary, where the owner(s) or operator(s) intends to or does possess and distribute marijuana for any purpose. SECTION 2. For the period of this ordinance, or any extension thereof, a medical marijuana dispensary shall be considered a prohibited use in any zoning district of the City, even if located within an otherwise permitted use. No permits or authorizations for a medical marijuana dispensary shall issue while this ordinance is in effect. SECTION 3. The City Manager or his designees shall: (1) review and consider options for the regulation of medical marijuana dispensaries in the City, including, but not limited to, the development of appropriate rules and regulations governing the location and operation of such establishments in the City; (2) meet with medical patients, advocates, law enforcement representatives, and other interested parties; 416 3 and (3) provide to the City Council a written report describing the measures which the City has taken to address the conditions which led to the adoption of this ordinance. SECTION 4. The City Council finds that this ordinance is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) (Title 14, of the California Code of Regulations) because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly; it prevents changes in the environment pending the completion of the contemplated Municipal Code review. SECTION 5. This interim urgency ordinance is adopted pursuant to Section 65858 of the California Government Code. SECTION 6. This interim urgency ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by a four-fifths (4/5) vote of the City Council. This interim urgency ordinance shall continue in effect for forty-five (45) days from the date of its adoption and shall thereafter be of no further force and effect unless, after notice pursuant to California Government Code Section 65090 and a public hearing, the City Council extends this interim urgency ordinance for an additional period of time pursuant to California Government Code Section 65858. SECTION 7. If any section, subsection, subdivision, paragraph, sentence, clause, phrase or word in this Ordinance or any part hereof is for any reason, held to be unconstitutional or invalid, or ineffective by any court of competent jurisdiction such decision shall not affect the validity of effectiveness of the remaining portions of the Ordinance or any part hereof. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each section, subsection, subdivision, sentence, clause and phrase thereof, irrespective of the fact that any one or more sections, subsections, subsections, subdivisions, sentences, clauses, phrases or words be declared unconstitutional. SECTION 8. This ordinance or a comprehensive summary thereof shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation of the City of Saratoga within fifteen days after its adoption. [Continued next page.] 417 4 The foregoing ordinance was introduced and read at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the 18th day of November, 2009, and was adopted by at least a four-fifths (4/5) vote of the City Council as follows: COUNCIL MEMBERS: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SIGNED: __________________________________ CHUCK PAGE MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA Saratoga, California ATTEST: __________________________________ ANN SULLIVAN CLERK OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA Saratoga, California APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________________________________ RICHARD TAYLOR, CITY ATTORNEY 418 1 CITY OF SARATOGA ORDINANCE NO ___ AN INTERIM URGENCY ORDINANCE EXTENDING THE TEMPORARY MORATORIUM RESTRICTING MEDICAL MARIJUANA DISPENSARIES FROM BEING LOCATED IN THE CITY OF SARATOGA, TO TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA FINDS AND DECLARES AS FOLLOWS: WHEREAS, the possession, cultivation, possession for sale, transportation, distribution, furnishing, and giving away of marijuana is generally unlawful under California law; and WHEREAS, in 1996 the voters of the State of California approved Proposition 215 which was codified as Health and Safety Code Section 11362.5 et seq., and entitled “The Compassionate Use Act of 1996” (“the Act”); and WHEREAS, the intent of the Act was to enable seriously ill persons to obtain, use and cultivate marijuana for medical use under limited, specified circumstances; and WHEREAS, on January 1, 2004, Senate Bill 420, the Medical Marijuana Program Act (“MMPA”), codified at Health and Safety Code Section 11362.7 et seq., became effective to clarify the scope of the Act and to allow cities and counties to adopt and enforce rules and regulations consistent with the MMPA and the Act; and WHEREAS, the MMPA establishes a limited defense to criminal prosecution for qualified patients, persons with valid identification cards and primary caregivers as those terms are defined in the statute who collectively or cooperatively cultivate medical marijuana; and WHEREAS, as a result of the Act and the MMPA, individuals have established medical marijuana dispensaries in various cities in California; and WHEREAS, the federal Controlled Substances Act, codified as 21 USC section 801 et seq. (“CSA”), makes it unlawful under federal law to manufacture, distribute, or possess any controlled substances, including marijuana, except in accordance with the CSA; and WHEREAS, the United States Supreme Court found in United States v. Oakland Cannabis Buyers’ Cooperative, 532 U.S. 483 (2001) there to be no legally cognizable medical necessity exception under the Federal Controlled Substances Act to the prohibition of possession, use, manufacture, or distribution of marijuana under federal law; and 419 2 WHEREAS, in October 2009, the U.S. Department of Justice issued a memorandum to federal prosecutors in California and in other states that provide for medical use of marijuana stating that federal resources should not be focused on prosecution of individuals whose actions are in clear and unambiguous compliance with existing state laws; and WHEREAS, there is considerable uncertainty regarding the legal status of medical marijuana dispensaries under existing state law; and WHEREAS, the decision in a case currently pending before the Court of Appeal for the Fourth District, Qualified Patients Ass’n v. City of Anaheim, Case No. G040077, as well as decisions in other cases currently pending in the California courts, may resolve or clarify some of the legal issues regarding regulation of medical marijuana dispensaries; and WHEREAS, while the experiences in the regulation and policing of medical marijuana dispensaries have varied from city to city, several California cities have reported an increase in crime, such as burglary, robbery, odor, loitering around the dispensaries, an increase in vehicular traffic and noise in the vicinity of dispensaries, and the sale of illegal drugs, including the illegal resale of marijuana from dispensaries, in the areas immediately surrounding such medical marijuana dispensaries; and WHEREAS, there are no medical marijuana dispensaries currently operating in the City, but City staff has received inquiries from several persons regarding whether such a use is permitted by the City; WHEREAS, a current and immediate threat to the public health, safety and welfare exists because the City has not adopted rules and regulations specifically applicable to the establishment and operation of MMDs and the lack of such controls may lead to the establishment of MMDs and the inability for the City to regulate these establishments in a manner that will protect the general public, homes and businesses adjacent and near such businesses, and the patients or clients of such establishments; and WHEREAS, based on the lack of any consistent experience of cities statewide and in the absence of any regulatory program in the City regarding the review of the establishment and operation of medical dispensaries, the City should consider options for regulating MMDs; and WHEREAS, on November 18, 2009, the City Council adopted by a unanimous vote an interim ordinance imposing as an urgency measure a moratorium on granting approvals and entitlements for use for medical marijuana dispensaries; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code section 65858, the interim ordinance will expire on January 2, 2010, unless extended by the Council for an additional period of up to 10 months and 15 days; and 420 3 WHEREAS, City staff requires additional time to evaluate the relevant issues and develop guidance for legally appropriate regulation, and WHEREAS, the establishment of, or the issuance or approval of any permit, certificate of occupancy, or other entitlement for the legal establishment of a medical marijuana dispensary in the City of Saratoga would result in a current and immediate threat to public health, safety and welfare in that the Saratoga City Code does not currently regulate the location and operation of medical marijuana dispensaries and does not have a regulatory program in effect that will appropriately regulate the location, establishment, and operation of medical dispensaries in the City, and WHEREAS, this ordinance is not subject to the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Sections 15060(c)(2) (the activity will not result in a direct or reasonably foreseeable indirect physical change in the environment) and 15060(c)(3) (the activity is not a project as defined in Section 15378) (Title 14, of the California Code of Regulations) because it has no potential for resulting in physical change to the environment, directly or indirectly; it prevents changes in the environment pending the completion of the contemplated City Code review; and WHEREAS, there is no feasible alternative to satisfactorily study the potential impact identified above as well or better than the adoption of this interim urgency moratorium ordinance, in accordance with Government Code section 65858, extending the ordinance adopted November 18, 2009 until November 17, 2010, or such additional period as may subsequently be authorized by the City Council in accordance with applicable laws. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of the City of Saratoga as follows: SECTION 1. Section 6 of the interim urgency ordinance adopted by the Saratoga City Council on November 18, 2009 is hereby amended to state the following: SECTION 6. This interim urgency ordinance shall continue in effect until until November 17, 2010 and shall thereafter be of no further force and effect unless, after notice pursuant to California Government Code Section 65090 and a public hearing, the City Council extends this interim urgency ordinance for an additional period of time pursuant to California Government Code Section 65858. SECTION 2. This interim urgency ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its adoption by a four-fifths (4/5) vote of the City Council. SECTION 3. This ordinance or a comprehensive summary thereof shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation of the City of Saratoga within fifteen days after its adoption. 421 4 The foregoing ordinance was introduced and read at the regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the 16th day of December, 2009, and was adopted by at least a four-fifths (4/5) vote of the City Council as follows: COUNCIL MEMBERS: AYES: NAYS: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: SIGNED: __________________________________ KATHLEEN KING MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA Saratoga, California ATTEST: __________________________________ ANN SULLIVAN CLERK OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA Saratoga, California APPROVED AS TO FORM: ____________________________________________ RICHARD TAYLOR, CITY ATTORNEY 422 Page 1 of 3 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: December 16, 2009 AGENDA ITEM: DEPARTMENT: City Manager’s Office CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: Crystal Morrow DIRECTOR: Barbara Powell Administrative Analyst II Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: Resolutions to Join CaliforniaFIRST and Authorize Sacramento County to Apply for and Accept State Energy Program Funds on Behalf of the City of Saratoga RECOMMENDED ACTION: Accept report and approve resolutions to join CaliforniaFIRST and authorize Sacramento County to apply for and accept State Energy Program (SEP) funds on behalf of the City of Saratoga. BACKGROUND: At the November 18, 2009 meeting, Council approved a letter of commitment to participate in the CaliforniaFIRST pilot program that will begin between spring and early summer 2010. CaliforniaFIRST is a turnkey property assessed clean energy (PACE) or municipal financing program that was developed by the California Statewide Communities Development Authority (“California Communities”) and will be administered by Renewable Funding. Additional information about California First is provided the November 18 staff report on CaliforniaFIRST (Attachment A). To join the pilot program, the Council needs to approve the attached resolution to join CaliforniaFIRST (Attachment B). This resolution makes certain findings and determinations required by law and will authorize California Communities to accept applications from Saratoga property owners, conduct assessments, and levy assessments against the property of participating owners. Additionally, the resolution provides authorization for the payment of a set-up fee to cover legal, procedural, and technology costs associated with joining the CaliforniaFIRST program. The set-up fee for Saratoga is $12,500. Secondly, Renewable Funding and California Communities have been working with Sacramento County to prepare a SEP municipal financing program grant application to cover the costs of program financing, local coordination, and marketing for all municipalities participating in the pilot CaliforniaFIRST program. This would include Saratoga’s set-up fees. By approving the attached resolution authorizing Sacramento County to apply for and accept SEP monies on behalf of Saratoga (Attachment C), the City’s set-up fees for the CaliforniaFIRST 423 Page 2 of 3 program will be covered by SEP funds, if the requested SEP monies are awarded to Sacramento County. STAFFING REQUIREMENTS: California Communities and Renewable Funding will handle most major functions of the CaliforniaFIRST financing program. This includes reports on local participation data that will be provided to all cities and counties enrolled in CaliforniaFIRST. However, if the City chooses to participate in CaliforniaFIRST then some City staff time would be required to: -Support the CaliforniaFIRST program during implementation by helping to brand the CaliforniaFIRST web portal, attending training provided by CaliforniaFIRST on program requirements, participating in update meetings, coordinating with other local cities, and providing feedback on design and branding during the pilot stage. -Respond to questions and direct residents to CaliforniaFIRST when property owners request information from the City, rather than using the CaliforniaFIRST website, email address, or toll-free phone line. -Optionally, the City may also decide to support CaliforniaFIRST by developing or taking part in supplementary programs, such as marketing and outreach, energy audit, or participant education programs. CaliforniaFIRST does not require this additional support. FISCAL IMPACTS: If the City should decide to approve the resolution to join the CaliforniaFIRST pilot program then the cost of participation for Saratoga will be $12,500. However, this cost may be covered by Sacramento County’s SEP grant for municipal financing. If the SEP funds for the CaliforniaFIRST program are not awarded, the City has two options: 1. The City may choose not to pay the set-up fees and withdraw from the CaliforniaFIRST program. 2. Alternatively, the Council may decide to use Council Contingency Funds to pay for the set-up costs. The Council may authorize this use of Council Contingency Funds now or after SEP awards have been announced. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING THE RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: The City will not approve resolutions to join CaliforniaFIRST or authorize Sacramento County to apply for SEP funds on behalf of Saratoga and will consequently not participate in the CaliforniaFIRST pilot program. ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): N/A FOLLOW UP ACTION(S): Implement Council direction. 424 Page 3 of 3 ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Nothing additional. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: November 18, 2009 staff report on the CaliforniaFIRST letter of commitment Attachment B: Resolution to join the CaliforniaFIRST program Attachment C: Resolution authorizing the County of Sacramento to apply for and accept SEP funds on behalf of the City of Saratoga 425 Page 1 of 3 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: November 18, 2009 AGENDA ITEM: DEPARTMENT: City Manager’s Office CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: Crystal Morrow DIRECTOR: Barbara Powell Administrative Analyst II Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: CaliforniaFIRST Letter of Commitment RECOMMENDED ACTION: Accept report and approve CaliforniaFIRST letter of commitment. BACKGROUND: CaliforniaFIRST: CaliforniaFIRST is a turnkey property assessed clean energy (PACE) program that was developed by the California Statewide Communities Development Authority (California Communities), a joint powers authority. The program will be administered by Renewable Funding LLC, which has also managed PACE programs for the City of Berkeley and Boulder County in Colorado. Additionally, Renewable Funding will soon be launching a new PACE program in San Francisco. Municipalities can “opt in” to the CaliforniaFIRST program to allow property owners to finance clean energy projects through bonds that are issued by California Communities. Bonds are then repaid through the property taxes of participating property owners over a 10-20 year period. CaliforniaFIRST is a voluntary program and only affects property owners that choose to participate in the program. To participate in CaliforniaFIRST, municipalities pay a onetime start up fee. In turn, California Communities handles all administration of CaliforniaFIRST. The cost for Saratoga to opt in to the CaliforniaFIRST program is $12,500. CaliforniaFIRST Pilot Program: Before CaliforniaFIRST is rolled out on a statewide basis, it will first be tested in pilot counties and cities throughout the State. The pilot program will be launched sometime between spring and early summer 2010. The statewide program would then become active late summer 2010. The pilot program will allow CaliforniaFIRST to be implemented in phases and also improve the program’s bond rating before being introduced statewide. If Santa Clara County participates in the CaliforniaFIRST pilot program, Saratoga will also be eligible to be part of the pilot program. 422660 Page 2 of 3 State Energy Program – Municipal Financing Program Grant: As part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the State of California has received $226 million for the State Energy Program (SEP). Of this money, $95 million will be used to fund an Energy Efficiency Program that will provide grants to qualified organizations for residential building retrofit, municipal and commercial retrofit, and municipal financing programs. The State’s SEP funds are being administered by the California Energy Commission. Renewable Funding and California Communities have been working with Sacramento County to prepare an SEP municipal financing program grant application to cover the costs of program financing, local coordination, and marketing for all municipalities participating in the pilot CaliforniaFIRST program. If the grant is awarded to Sacramento County it would cover the City of Saratoga’s start up costs to participate in the CaliforniaFIRST program. Next Steps: The California Energy Commission is requiring that all of the cities that intend to participate in the CaliforniaFIRST pilot program submit a letter of commitment. The letter of commitment fulfills two purposes. First, it authorizes Sacramento County to act as the lead agency in submitting the SEP grant application for CaliforniaFIRST pilot program participants. Second, it will verify the amount of SEP funds needed for the CaliforniaFIRST pilot program. Renewable Funding has indicated that the letter of commitment is non-binding. Following submission of the letter of commitment, pilot counties and cities will need to adopt a resolution to join the CaliforniaFIRST program by January 18, 2010. This resolution will authorize CaliforniaFIRST to accept applications from property owners, conduct contractual assessment proceedings, and levy contractual assessments within the jurisdiction. Pilot municipalities can note in the resolution that participation in the CaliforniaFIRST pilot program is contingent upon SEP funds being awarded to cover the start up costs of CaliforniaFIRST pilot jurisdictions. FISCAL IMPACTS: There are no fiscal impacts associated with authorizing signature of the letter of commitment. If the City should decide to move forward in the CaliforniaFIRST pilot program then the cost of participation for Saratoga will be $12,500. However, this cost may be covered by Sacramento County’s SEP grant for municipal financing and the City can decide to make participation in the CaliforniaFIRST pilot program dependent upon the award of SEP municipal financing funds for the CaliforniaFIRST pilot program. Alternatively, the Council may decide to use Council Contingency Funds to cover the cost of opting in to the CaliforniaFIRST pilot program if SEP monies are not awarded to the program. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING THE RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: The City will not submit a letter of commitment to CaliforniaFIRST and will not be included in the pilot program. ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): 422671 Page 3 of 3 N/A FOLLOW UP ACTION(S): Implement Council direction. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Nothing additional. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Letter of Commitment for CaliforniaFIRST program 422682 Incorporated October22,1956 CITY OF SARATOGA 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 • www.saratoga.ca.us COUNCIL MEMBERS: Jill Hunter Kathleen King Howard Miller Susie Nagpal Chuck Page November 18, 2009 Elizabeth Stone, Contracts Officer California Energy Commission 1516 Ninth Street, MS-18 Sacramento, California 95814 RE: PON #400-09-401 Municipal Financing Program Application: CaliforniaFIRST Program Dear Ms. Stone: The City of Saratoga is pleased to offer this letter of commitment to the State Energy Program application of Sacramento County regarding the CaliforniaFIRST Program, a property assessed clean energy program, sponsored by the California Statewide Communities Development Authority (“California Communities”). I am authorized to sign this letter of commitment on behalf of the City of Saratoga pending final approval of City Council. Through participation in this municipal financing program, the City of Saratoga strives to create lasting market and behavioral changes resulting in the increased adoption of distributed generation renewable energy sources and energy efficiency improvements for the property owners in the our jurisdiction. The City of Saratoga authorizes Sacramento County as the lead agency in submitting this application on behalf of our jurisdiction to provide funding in two program areas to ensure the long-term success of this innovative municipal financing program: Program Financing Costs—to buy-down the interest rate on the initial round(s) of projects financed by the CaliforniaFIRST Program; cover fixed costs associated with bond counsel, bond disclosure, and bond rating; and fund set-up fees for counties and cities which cover legal and validation costs, as well as the deployment of technology to support local programs. Local Coordination and Marketing Costs—to provide for grant administration; technical assistance; agency coordination; steering committee participation; education, outreach, incentives, and marketing; and community coordination for property owners participating in the program. 422693 Aligned with the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE) and California Energy Commission (CEC) State Energy Program strategies, our proposed program will increase green jobs, increase energy efficiency and deployment of renewable energy technologies, promote economic activity, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. The City of Saratoga will help to guide program development and implementation in our jurisdiction and throughout the region by serving on the appropriate steering committee, and coordinating with state level CaliforniaFIRST partners, local government coordination program partners, and relevant internal departments. We will work collaboratively to ensure the success of the pilot and the long-term success of the program. The City of Saratoga intends to seek City Council approval and provide the CEC with the necessary governing board resolutions contingent upon finalization of the resolutions, proposal selection for funding, and inclusion in the Notice of Proposed Awards. The resolutions are: 1. Authorization for the collaborative lead agency bidder Sacramento County to apply for and receive funding on behalf of the City of Saratoga, and 2. Authorization for City of Saratoga to join the California Communities CaliforniaFIRST Program. City of Saratoga is grateful for your consideration of this proposal. If you have any questions regarding this request, please feel free to contact: Barbara Powell, Assistant City Manager (408) 868-1215 bpowell@saratoga.ca.us Crystal Morrow, Administrative Analyst II (408) 868-1275 cmorrow@saratoga.ca.us Sincerely, Chuck Page, Mayor City of Saratoga 423604 RESOLUTION NO. ________ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AUTHORIZING THE CITY TO JOIN THE CALIFORNIAFIRST PROGRAM; AUTHORIZING THE CALIFORNIA STATEWIDE COMMUNITIES DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY TO ACCEPT APPLICATIONS FROM PROPERTY OWNERS, CONDUCT CONTRACTUAL ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND LEVY CONTRACTUAL ASSESSMENTS WITHIN THE TERRITORY OF THE CITY; AND AUTHORIZING RELATED ACTIONS WHEREAS, the California Statewide Communities Development Authority (“California Communities”) is a joint exercise of powers authority the members of which include numerous cities and counties in the State of California, including the City of Saratoga; and WHEREAS, California Communities has established the CaliforniaFIRST program (the “CaliforniaFIRST Program”) to allow the financing of certain renewable energy, energy efficiency and water efficiency improvements (the “Improvements”) through the levy of contractual assessments pursuant to Chapter 29 of Division 7 of the Streets & Highways Code (“Chapter 29”) and the issuance of improvement bonds (the “Bonds”) under the Improvement Bond Act of 1915 (Streets and Highways Code Sections 8500 and following) (the “1915 Act”) upon the security of the unpaid contractual assessments; and WHEREAS, Chapter 29 provides that assessments may be levied under its provisions only with the free and willing consent of the owner of each lot or parcel on which an assessment is levied at the time the assessment is levied; and WHEREAS, the City desires to allow the owners of property within its jurisdiction (“Participating Property Owners”) to participate in the CaliforniaFIRST Program and to allow California Communities to conduct assessment proceedings under Chapter 29 and to issue Bonds under the 1915 Act to finance the Improvements; and WHEREAS, California Communities will conduct assessment proceedings under Chapter 29 and issue Bonds under the 1915 Act to finance Improvements; WHEREAS, there has been presented to this meeting a proposed form of Resolution of Intention to be adopted by California Communities in connection with such assessment proceedings (the “ROI”), a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit A, and the territory within which assessments may be levied for the CaliforniaFIRST Program shall include all of the territory within the City’s official boundaries of record (the “Proposed Boundaries”); and WHEREAS, the City will not be responsible for the conduct of any assessment proceedings; the levy or collection of assessments or any required remedial action in the case of delinquencies in such assessment payments; or the issuance, sale or administration of the Bonds or any other bonds issued in connection with the CaliforniaFIRST Program; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Government Code Section 6586.5, a notice of public hearing has been published once at least five days prior to the date hereof in a newspaper of general circulation in the City and a public hearing has been duly conducted by this City Council concerning the significant public benefits of the CaliforniaFIRST Program and the financing of the Improvements; 431 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Saratoga as follows: Section 1. On the date hereof, the City Council held a public hearing and the City Council hereby finds and declares that the issuance of bonds by California Communities in connection with the CaliforniaFIRST Program will provide significant public benefits, including without limitation, savings in effective interest rate, bond preparation, bond underwriting and bond issuance costs and reductions in effective user charges levied by water and electricity providers within the boundaries of the City. Section 2. In connection with the CaliforniaFIRST Program, the City hereby consents to the conduct of special assessment proceedings by California Communities pursuant to Chapter 29 on any property within the Proposed Boundaries and the issuance of Bonds under the 1915 Act; provided, that (1) Such proceedings are conducted pursuant to one or more Resolutions of Intention in substantially the form of the ROI; (2) The Participating Property Owners, who shall be the legal owners of such property, execute a contract pursuant to Chapter 29 and comply with other applicable provisions of California law in order to accomplish the valid levy of assessments; and (3) The City will not be responsible for the conduct of any assessment proceedings; the levy or collection of assessments or any required remedial action in the case of delinquencies in such assessment payments; or the issuance, sale or administration of the Bonds or any other bonds issued in connection with the CaliforniaFIRST Program. (4) The issuance of Bonds will occur following receipt of a final judgment in a validation action filed by California Communities pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 860 that the Bonds are legal obligations of California Communities. Section 3. Pursuant to the requirements of Chapter 29, California Communities has prepared and will update from time to time the “Program Report” for the CaliforniaFIRST Program (the “Program Report”), and California Communities will undertake assessment proceedings and the financing of Improvements as set forth in the Program Report. Section 4. The appropriate officials and staff of the City are hereby authorized and directed to make applications for the CaliforniaFIRST program available to all property owners who wish to finance Improvements; provided, that California Communities shall be responsible for providing such applications and related materials at its own expense. The following staff persons, together with any other staff persons chosen by the CityManager from time to time, are hereby designated as the contact persons for California Communities in connection with the CaliforniaFIRST Program: Saratoga City Manager’s Office. Section 5. The appropriate officials and staff of the City are hereby authorized and directed to execute and deliver such closing certificates, requisitions, agreements and related documents as are reasonably required by California Communities in accordance with the Program Report to implement the CaliforniaFIRST Program for Participating Property Owners. Section 6. The appropriate officials and staff of the City are hereby authorized to pay California Communities a fee in an amount not to exceed $12,500, which California Communities will use to pay for the costs of implementing the CaliforniaFIRST Program in the City, including the payment of legal costs incurred in connection with judicial validation of the CaliforniaFIRST Program. Section 7. The City Council hereby finds that adoption of this Resolution is not a “project” under the California Environmental Quality Act, because the Resolution does not involve any 432 commitment to a specific project which may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment, as contemplated by Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Section 15378(b)(4)). Section 8. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. The City Clerk is hereby authorized and directed to transmit a certified copy of this resolution to the Secretary of California Communities. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Saratoga City Council at a regular meeting held on the 16th day of December 2009 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: _______________________________ Kathleen King, Mayor ATTEST: ___________________________________ Ann Sullivan, City Clerk 433 Exhibit A RESOLUTION NO. ____ RESOLUTION DECLARING INTENTION TO FINANCE INSTALLATION OF DISTRIBUTED GENERATION RENEWABLE ENERGY SOURCES, ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND WATER EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENTS COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA WHEREAS, the California Statewide Communities Development Authority ("California Communities") is authorized under the authority granted California Communities pursuant to Chapter 5 of Division 7 of Title 1 of the Government Code of the State of California in accordance with Chapter 29 of Part 3 of Division 7 of the Streets & Highways Code of the State of California (”Chapter 29”) to authorize assessments to finance the installation of distributed generation renewable energy sources, energy efficiency and water efficiency improvements that are permanently fixed to real property (“Authorized Improvements”); and WHEREAS, Chapter 29 authorizes California Communities to enter into contractual assessments to finance the installation of Authorized Improvements in the County of Santa Clara (the “County”); and WHEREAS, California Communities wishes to declare its intention to establish a CaliforniaFIRST program (the “CaliforniaFIRST Program”) in the County, pursuant to which California Communities, subject to certain conditions set forth below, would enter into contractual assessments to finance the installation of Authorized Improvements in the County; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the California Statewide Communities Development Authority, as follows: Section 1. Findings. California Communities hereby finds and declares the following: (a) The above recitals are true and correct. (b) Energy conservation efforts, including the promotion of energy-related Authorized Improvements to residential, commercial, industrial, or other real property, are necessary to address the issue of global climate change and the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in the County. (c) Water conservation efforts, including the promotion of water-related Authorized Improvements to residential, commercial, industrial, or other real real property, are necessary to address the issue of chronic water shortages in California. (d) The upfront cost of making residential, commercial, industrial, or other real property more energy and water efficient, along with the fact that most commercial loans for that purpose are due on the sale of the property, prevents many property owners from installing Authorized Improvements. (e) A public purpose will be served by establishing a contractual assessment program, to be known as the CaliforniaFIRST Program, pursuant to which California Communities will finance the installation of Authorized Improvements to residential, commercial, industrial, or other real property in the County. Section 2. Determination of Public Interest. California Communities hereby determines that (a) it would be convenient, advantageous, and in the public interest to designate an area, which shall encompass the entire geographic territory within the boundaries of the County, within which California 434 Communities and property owners within the County may enter into contractual assessments to finance the installation of Authorized Improvements pursuant to Chapter 29 and (b) it is in the public interest for California Communities to finance the installation of Authorized Improvements in the County pursuant to Chapter 29. Section 3. Identification of Authorized Improvements. California Communities hereby declares that it proposes to make contractual assessment financing available to property owners to finance installation of Authorized Improvements, including but not limited to those improvements detailed in the Report described in Section 8 below, as that Report may be amended from time to time. Section 4. Identification of Boundaries. Contractual assessments may be entered into by property owners located within the entire geographic territory of the County; provided, however, that California Communities shall not enter into contractual assessments to finance the installation of Authorized Improvements with the owner of any property in the County unless requested to do so first by the County if the property is located in unincorporated territory or a city if the property is located in incorporated territory and after such city or the County, as applicable, has held a public hearing pursuant to Section 6586.5 of the Government Code of the State of California. The form of resolution pursuant to which cities may request California Communities to enter into contractual assessments to finance the installation of Authorized Improvements is attached as Exhibit A. Section 5. Proposed Financing Arrangements. Under Chapter 29, California Communities may issue bonds pursuant to Chapter 29 that are payable by contractual assessments and California Communities may advance its own funds to finance work to be repaid through contractual assessments, and may from time to time sell bonds to reimburse itself for such advances. Division 10 (commencing with Section 8500) of the Streets & Highways Code of the State (the “Improvement Bond Act of 1915”) shall apply to any bonds issued pursuant to Chapter 29, insofar as the Improvement Bond Act of 1915 is not in conflict with Chapter 29. California Communities shall determine the creditworthiness of a property owner to participate in the financing of Authorized Improvements based on the criteria developed by the Program Manager in consultation with the CaliforniaFIRST Program financing team and on file with the Secretary. In connection with bonds issued under the Improvement Bond Act of 1915 that are payable from contractual assessments, serial and/or term improvement bonds shall be issued in such series and shall mature in such principal amounts and at such times (not to exceed 20 years from the second day of September next following their date) and at such rate or rates of interest (not to exceed the maximum rate permitted by applicable law) as shall be determined by California Communities at the time of the issuance and sale of the bonds. The provisions of Part 11.1 of the Improvement Bond Act of 1915 shall apply to the calling of the bonds. It is the intention of California Communities to create a special reserve fund for the bonds under Part 16 of the Improvement Bond Act of 1915. California Communities will not advance available surplus funds from its treasury to cure any deficiency in the redemption fund to be created with respect to the bonds; provided, however, that this determination shall not prevent California Communities from, in its sole discretion, so advancing funds. The bonds may be refunded under Division 11.5 of the California Streets and Highways Code or other applicable laws permitting refunding of the bonds, upon the conditions specified by and at the determination of California Communities. California Communities hereby authorizes the Program Manager, upon consultation with bond counsel and the CaliforniaFIRST Program underwriter, to provide for the issuance of bonds payable from contractual assessments. In connection with the issuance of bonds payable from contractual assessments, California Communities expects to obligate itself, through a covenant with the owners of the bonds, to exercise 435 its foreclosure rights with respect to delinquent contractual assessment installments under specified circumstances. Section 6. Public Hearing. Pursuant to the Act, California Communities hereby orders that a public hearing be held before this Commission, at __________, on ______, _______, 2010 at _____ a.m., for the purposes of allowing interested persons to object to or inquire about the proposed program or any of its particulars. The public hearing may be continued from time to time as determined by the Commission for a time not exceeding a total of 180 days. At the time of the hearing, the Report described in Section 8 below shall be summarized and the Commission shall afford all persons who are present an opportunity to comment upon, object to, or present evidence with regard to the proposed contractual assessment program, the extent of the area proposed to be included within the program, the terms and conditions of the draft Contract described in Section 8 below, or the proposed financing provisions. Following the public hearing, California Communities may adopt a resolution confirming the Report (the “Resolution Confirming Report”) or may direct the Report’s modification in any respect, or may abandon the proceedings. The Commission hereby orders the Secretary to publish a notice of public hearing once a week for two successive weeks. Two publications in a newspaper published once a week or more often, with at least five days intervening between the respective publication dates not counting such publication dates, are sufficient. The period of notice will commence upon the first day of publication and terminate at the end of the fourteenth day. The first publication shall occur not later than 20 days before the date of the public hearing. Section 7. Notice to Water and Electric Providers. Pursuant to Section 5898.24 of the Streets& Highways Code, the Commission hereby orders the Secretary to provide written notice of the proposed contractual assessment program within the County to all water and electric electric providers within the boundaries of the County not less than 60 days prior to adoption of the Resolution Confirming Report. Section 8. Report. The Commission hereby directs the Program Manager for the CaliforniaFIRST Program to prepare and file with the Commission a report (the “Report”) at or before the time of the public hearing described in Section 6 above containing all of the following: (a) A map showing the boundaries of the territory within which contractual assessments are proposed to be offered, as set forth in Section 4 above. (b) A draft contract (the “Contract”) specifying the terms and conditions that would be agreed to by California Communities and a property owner within the County. The Contract may allow property owners to purchase directly the related equipment and materials for the installation of the Authorized Improvements and to contract directly for the installation of such Authorized Improvements. (c) A statement of California Communities’ policies concerning contractual assessments including all of the following: (1) Identification of types of Authorized Improvements that may be financed through the use of contractual assessments. (2) Identification of California Communities official authorized to enter into contractual assessments on behalf of California Communities. (3) A maximum aggregate dollar amount of contractual assessments in the County. 436 (4) A method for setting requests from property owners for financing through contractual assessments in priority order in the event that requests appear likely to exceed the authorization amount. (d) A plan for raising a capital amount required to pay for work performed pursuant to contractual assessments. The plan may include amounts to be advanced by California Communities through funds available to it from any source. The plan may include the sale of a bond or bonds or other financing relationship pursuant to Section 5898.28 of Chapter 29. The plan shall include a statement of or method for determining the interest rate and time period during which contracting property owners would pay any assessment. The plan shall provide for any reserve fund or funds. The plan shall provide for the apportionment of all or any portion of the costs incidental to financing, administration, and collection of the contractual assessment program among the consenting property owners and California Communities. (e) A report on on the results of the consultations with the County Auditor-Controller described in Section 10 below concerning the additional fees, if any, that will be charged to California Communities for incorporating the proposed contractual assessments into the assessments of the general taxes of the County on real property, and a plan for financing the payment of those fees. Section 9. Nature of Assessments. Assessments levied pursuant to Chapter 29, and the interest and any penalties thereon, will constitute a lien against the lots and parcels of land on which they are made, until they are paid. Unless otherwise directed by California Communities, the assessments shall be collected in the same manner and at the same time as the general taxes of the County on real property are payable, and subject to the same penalties and remedies and lien priorities in the event of delinquency and default. Section 10. Consultations with County Auditor-Controller. California Communities hereby directs the Program Manager to enter into consultations with the County Auditor-Controller in order to reach agreement on what additional fees, if any, will be charged to California Communities for incorporating the proposed contractual assessments into the assessments of the general taxes of the County on real property. Section 11. Preparation of Current Roll of Assessment. Pursuant to Section 5898.24(c), California Communities hereby designates the Program Manager (or his/her designee) as the responsible official for annually preparing the current roll of assessment obligations by assessor’s parcel number on property subject to a voluntary contractual assessment. Section 12. Procedures for Responding to Inquiries. The Program Manager shall establish procedures to promptly respond to inquiries concerning current and future estimated liability for a voluntary contractual assessment. Section 13. Professionals Appointed. California Communities hereby appoints Jones Hall, A Professional Law Corporation, San Francisco, California, as bond counsel to to California Communities in connection with the CaliforniaFIRST Program. The Commission hereby authorizes and directs an Authorized Signatory of California Communities (as determined from time to time by the Commission by separate resolution) to enter into appropriate agreements with such firm for its services to California Communities in connection with the matters addressed in this Resolution. Section 14. Set-Up Fees. The County and various cities within the County have advanced fees to California Communities to pay for certain costs of establishing the CaliforniaFIRST Program, some or all of which represent State Energy Program (SEP) funds. The Program Manager is hereby authorized and directed to return to the County and cities, as applicable, any fees paid to California Communities by the County and cities, as applicable, that do not represent SEP funds and that California Communities does not use to pay for the costs of establishing the CaliforniaFIRST Program. 437 Section 15. Effective Date. This resolution shall take effect immediately upon its adoption. * * * * * * * * * * * * PASSED AND ADOPTED by the California Statewide Communities Development Authority this _____, 2010. I, the undersigned, the duly appointed, and qualified member of the Commission of the California Statewide Communities Development Authority, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing resolution was duly adopted by the Commission of said Authority at a duly called meeting of the Commission of said Authority held in accordance with law on _______, 2010. By: Member 438 RESOLUTION NO. ________ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AUTHORIZING THE COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO AS THE LEAD COLLABORATIVE ENTITY TO APPLY FOR STATE ENERGY PROGRAM FUNDS ON BEHALF OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga recognizes that it is in the interest of the regional, state, and national economy to stimulate the economy; create and retain jobs; reduce fossil fuel emissions; and reduce total energy usage and improve energy efficiency within our jurisdiction; and WHEREAS, State Energy Program (SEP) funds are available through the California Energy Commission’s SEP for grants to eligible local governments for energy efficiency, energy conservation, renewable energy, and other energy related projects and activities authorized by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (“ARRA”); and WHEREAS, SEP allows for cities, counties, or groups of cities and counties in California to apply for SEP funds on behalf of eligible local governments; and WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga is eligible for SEP funding under the California Energy Commission’s SEP; and WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga is proposing to collaborate with Sacramento County to implement a program for financing the energy efficiency, energy conservation, renewable energy, and other energy related projects and activities authorized by ARRA, which program is described in Exhibit A for the purpose of qualifying for SEP funds from the California Energy Commission; and WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga has considered the application of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to the approval of the program for financing energy efficiency, energy conservation, renewable energy, and other energy related projects and activities authorized by ARRA described in Exhibit A; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that in compliance with the CEQA, the City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby find that the approval of the program for financing energy efficiency, energy conservation, renewable energy, and other energy related projects and activities authorized by ARRA described in Exhibit A is not a “project” under CEQA, because the program does not involve any commitment to a specific project which may result in a potentially significant physical impact on the environment, as contemplated by Title 14, California Code of Regulations, Section 15378(b)(4)). BE IT ALSO RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Saratoga authorizes Sacramento County to submit a collaborative application on its behalf to the California Energy Commission for up to $16.5 million in SEP funds for the program for financing energy efficiency, energy conservation, renewable energy, and other energy related projects and activities authorized by ARRA described in Exhibit A. BE IT ALSO RESOLVED, if recommended for funding by the California Energy Commission, the City of Saratoga authorizes Sacramento County to accept a grant award on its behalf and to enter into all necessary contracts and agreements, and amendments thereto, on its behalf to implement and carry out the program for financing the project/s described in Exhibit A. 439 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Saratoga City Council at a regular meeting held on the 16th day of December 2009 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: _______________________________ Kathleen King, Mayor ATTEST: ___________________________________ Ann Sullivan, City Clerk 440 Exhibit A California Energy Commission State Energy Program CaliforniaFIRST Collaborative Proposal Summary of Proposal Scope & Budget Framework Description of Program Proposal Under the lead applicant, Sacramento County, the 14 counties eligible to participate in the pilot stage of the CaliforniaFIRST Program are collaborating on a proposal to the California Energy Commission State Energy Program for a grant of up to $16.5 million. The grant funds will be used to offset initial fees associated with bond issuance, start-up costs for the 14 counties and all incorporated cities, an interest rate buy-down, local marketing/education/training/outreach, local coordination, and grant administration to support the launch of the CaliforniaFIRST municipal financing program. CaliforniaFIRST Program County Participants and Proposal Collaborators ü Alameda ü Sacramento ü San Mateo ü Ventura ü Fresno ü San Benito ü Santa Clara ü Yolo ü Kern ü San Diego ü Santa Cruz ü Monterey ü San Luis Obispo ü Solano Budget Basics 1. CaliforniaFIRST financing costs and fees (~$6M) Guided by California Communities and the CaliforniaFIRST Program Administrator Renewable Funding, this program element will: · buy-down the interest rate on the initial round(s) of projects financed by the CaliforniaFIRST Program, · cover fixed costs associated with initial bond counsel, bond disclosure, fiscal agent and bond rating, · cover legal and validation costs, and · cover the deployment of technology (web portal) to support local programs. 2. Grant/Contract Administration & Steering Committee Liaison: (~$2.0M) On behalf of the applicant agency, grant/contractor administration duties include gathering relevant reporting information from all partner jurisdictions and CaliforniaFIRST, financial oversight and invoicing, contract administration, tracking, monitoring, and oversight of deliverables. In addition, the grant administrator will serve as the partner liaison between all participating steering committees to maintain coordination and consistency on the the local marketing efforts between parties as well as provide marketing and contract technical assistance, training, and advice to participating agencies. The Grant Administrator will also coordinate local efforts with those programs funded under the California Comprehensive Residential Building Retrofit Program. 3. Regional Program Coordination &Marketing: (~$8.5M) In line with the overall project goals, funding has been budgeted on a regional basis to each of the six primary program regions in the following amounts, based on total number of Counties: · Capitol Region (Sacramento/Yolo): $1,800,000 · Central Valley Region (Fresno/Kern): $1,150,000 · Bay Area Region: (Alameda/San Mateo/Santa Clara/Solano): $2,300,000 · North Central Coast Region: (Monterey/Santa Cruz/San Benito): $1,725,000 441 · South Central Coast Region: (Ventura/San Luis Obispo): $1,150,000 · Southern California Region: (San Diego): $575,000 This final program element serves to provide each region with the resources necessary to help facilitate the rapid adoption of energy efficiency and renewable energy generation system installations throughout the target area by connecting property owners to any and all available on-the-ground or proposed resources, and services, providing a streamlined framework for easy navigation, reduced out-of-pocket expenses, and overall increased cost effectiveness for both participants and the program overall. The focus of the program will be to create region-wide (or county-wide, where appropriate) cooperative project design, implementation, marketing, and coordination to maximize economies of scale, take advantage of overlapping markets, and ultimately allow each dollar to go further to benefit all parties. Financing Costs and Fees A. Financing Costs As Program Administrator of the California Communities CaliforniaFIRST Program, Renewable Funding will coordinate and provide program administration, financing, and legal services to support a robust statewide municipal financing program. Specific financing costs are concentrated at the start of the program and result in increased fees to a program participant, and therefore a higher effective interest rate. In order to lower the interest rate, the SEP funds will be used to cover bond disclosure counsel, bond rating fees, and a bond fiscal agent. In addition, a direct interest rate buy-down will be employed to achieve a bond rate that is equivalent to an A-rated bond, which is likely to be the bond rating later in the program. B. Set-up Fees A funding request equivalent to the city and county set-up fees will be included in the proposal. The costs for initial legal work and validation proceedings will be covered by this request. Additionally, the costs of establishing county web portals, importing local assessor’s data, and maintaining the website will be part of this funding request. Suggested MajorMarketing Program Coordination & Marketing Program Elements A. Agency Coordination /Steering Committee Participation In recognition of the additional coordination time required to get new programs off the ground, individual counties may elect to include a modest amount of staff time for agency representatives to participate in the program steering committee and other activities to drive marketing program design, educational/marketing material development, form and protocol development, etc. By investing this time at the onset, we are able to develop a self-sustaining program for the long term. County agencies (that is, auditor/tax collector/controller) will receive a small percentage, incorporated into each loan, to cover regular ongoing program administration costs associated with maintaining the tax roll and collecting annual assessments in years beyond the grant term. Some jurisdictions may instead wish to contribute this time as project leveraged funds/resources to increase overall program cost effectiveness based on their individual needs and resources. Regional partnership may also elect to use a portion of the resources from this program element toward informal or formalized staff/personnel training within their jurisdictions. B. Education /Outreach/Marketing Successful program adoption requires thoughtful design, convenient procedures, and a robust program education component to encourage and energize program participation. Achieving this goal, the project team will create clear, consistent, and thematic program branding imagery, educational and recruitment tools such as program brochures. The program will be supported by the CaliforniaFIRST web portal and links to new and existing partner and complementary websites, frequently asked questions, applications, and/or other program materials. In addition, the project will engage a wide-stretching 442 network of partners to promote, recruit, and disseminate program information utilizing existing mechanisms of door-to-door outreach, community event tabling, workshops and presentations, or other appropriate energy efficiency and complementary program participation activities. Major elements might include: ü Outreach Promotional Materials: Brochures, Door-hangers, Postcard Mailers, Bill Inserts, etc. ü Program Marketing Advertisements: Print Ads, Radio/TV Ads, PSA Production ü Promotional Outreach Events, Trade Shows or Community Workshops ü Homeowner/Business/Contract or/Staff Training Seminars ü Sustainability Site Signage ü Green Building and/or LEED Certification Technical Assistance C. Community Coordinator /Partner Liaison /Supplies The community coordinator is envisioned to serve as the single point regional program coordinator to unify, inform, collaborate, and engage all program parties in relation to local coordination and marketing efforts; respond to public inquiries; facilitate the education, outreach, marketing, recruitment; and promote program adoption by the target community. In addition the coordinator is responsible for coordinating with the grant administrator, tracking/reporting necessary progress and metrics, meeting/exceeding grant milestones and targets, incorporating required complementary program components, and working with CaliforniaFIRST to assure QA/QC measures are applied to all participating properties. Specific tasks will be driven by the overall project goals as well as the specific needs of each region and may include: ü Coordination with Grant Administrator/Steering Committee Liaison ü Marketing Coordination with CaliforniaFIRST Municipal Finance District ü Facilitation of local Regional Steering Committee Members and Partners ü Assist with Implementation Strategy, Documents, Procedures & Protocols Development ü Guide Promotion, Marketing, Education, Recruitment & Program Information Dissemination ü Link Program Participants to Regional Energy Efficiency & Complementary Programs ü Connect to Concurrent Complementary Workforce Development Training/Graduates ü Administer Regional Program Budget, Competitive Bidding, Other Program Transparency Reqs ü Track and/or compile, Monitor & Evaluate Program Progress, Energy Savings, GHG Reductions Achieved, Partner Leveraged Funds and Ancillary Environmental Benefits Sample County Budget A sample budget based on the above framework is provided below. Please note that these amounts are subject to change based on the actual needs of each participating jurisdiction as well as feedback obtained regarding funder and partner thresholds for competitiveness. Component % Overall Gross Benefit Per County Net Benefit Per County 1.CaliforniaFIRST Costs & Fees 39% $ 428,571.43 -2. Grant Administration & Technical Assistance 10% $ 107,142.86 -3A.Steering Advisory Committee 10% $ 115,000.00 $ 115,000.00 3B. Education, Outreach, Incentives, Marketing 23% $ 258,750.00 $ 258,750.00 3C. Community Coordination 18% $ 201,250.00 $ 201,250.00 Total 100% $ 1,110,714.29 $ 575,000.00 Grant Development Team: 443 · County of Sacramento—Lead Agency (Applicant), will oversee grant writing, provide final edits and required signatures, and submit finalized proposal on behalf of entire collaborative team based on the approved proposed program scope and budget framework · Ecology Action—Partner Grant Writer (Lead on Marketing), will develop narrative based on proposed program scope and budget framework, especially as it pertains to local coordination and marketing project administration, marketing/contract technical assistance, regional coordination, and marketing, to meet all grant requirements and maximize proposal competiveness. · Renewable Funding—Partner Grant Writer (Lead on Finance), will develop narrative based on proposed program scope and budget framework, especially for CaliforniaFIRST Program financerelated program elements, to meet all grant requirements and maximize proposal competiveness. 444 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: December 16, 2009 AGENDA ITEM: DEPARTMENT: CityManager’s Office CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: Ann Sullivan, City Clerk DIRECTOR: Dave Anderson SUBJECT: Agenda Topics for January 29, 2010 Council Retreat RECOMMENDED ACTION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. REPORT SUMMARY: At the December 2, 2009, Council meeting, Council was asked to provide staff with ideas of topics that they would like to discuss at the January 29th Council Retreat. Council suggested the following topics: 1. Budget 2. Community Development Department a. Help build community development outreach 3. Promote Recreation Department Programs 4. Community-building Projects/Community Service Appreciation Day 5. Community Health/Wellness a. Sponsoring Health Fairs b. Non-smoking areas of City and parks Other topics subsequently suggested by Council include: 1. Review of Saratoga’s Vision Statement 2. Ceremonial items on Council agendas 3. Team building FISCAL IMPACTS: N/A CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: Council members may suggest additional topics of interest to be agendized on the Council Retreat Agenda. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: N/A 445 FOLLOW UP ACTION: Staff will prepare reports on the topics that Council decides to agendize for discussion at the January 29th Council Retreat. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Posting of the agenda. ATTACHMENTS: N/A 446 447 Page 1 of 3 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: December 16, 2009 AGENDA ITEM: DEPARTMENT: City Manager’s Office CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: Barbara Powell DIRECTOR: Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: Santa Clara County Cities Association Policy Priorities for 2010 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Accept report, recommend three to five policy priority proposals for the Santa Clara County Cities Association (SCCCA) 2010 policy priorities, and authorize staff to return suggestions to the SCCCA Board of Directors for their January 14, 2010 meeting. BACKGROUND: The SCCCA was developed in 1990 to provide local leaders with a connection to one another and to provide municipalities in Santa Clara County with a unified voice when dealing with other levels of government and other agencies. Each of the fifteen cities in Santa Clara County has a councilmember appointed to serve on the Board of Directors; in 2009, Councilmember Chuck Page was the City of Saratoga representative on the SCCCA Board of Directors. The Board meets monthly to provide support to Santa Clara County cities and to monitor state and federal legislation that will have an impact on Santa Clara County municipalities. Each year, the SCCCA selects policy priorities that shape the work plan of the Board of Directors. Two years ago, at the January 2008 SCCCA Board of Directors meeting, the policy issues listed below were proposed by board members, with the exception of one additional policy issue --State Budget Reform --that was added in 2009. In order to focus the SCCCA’s work, each City Council has been asked to: 1. Discuss the proposed policy issues below; 2. Suggest additional policy issues, if desired; and 3. Select three to five policy priorities. The policy issues selected by each city will help determine SCCCA’s 2010 priorities. 448 Page 2 of 3 Prior Year Priority No. Policy Issue Community Development 2008, 2009 1. Countywide Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) Housing Allocations vs. Allocations by City: Review benefits of pooling housing resources and working as an entire county to meet overall ABAG housing requirements, similar to the approach used by the County of San Mateo. 2. Review of State Law Governing ABAG Housing Allocations: Study benefits and drawbacks of potential amendments to or repeal of the state law that governs housing allocations. 3. Streamlined Planning and Permitting Process: Examine feasibility of expedited planning and permitting process (additional fees and/or tools) for residents and businesses facing development timelines. Emergency Preparedness 4. Countywide Coordination of Super-Urban Area Security Initiative (SUASI) Grants: Explore possibility of working as a county to collectively leverage investments in disaster and terrorism preparedness when applying for Bay Area Department of Homeland Security SUASI grants. 5. Emergency Communications Best Practices: Determine best practices for emergency communications, in order to provide the public with accurate and consistent information. Employee Benefits 6. Prepayment of PERS premiums and Realized Savings: Evaluate benefits of prepaying Public Employee Retirement System (PERS) premiums 7. Medical Benefits and Retirement at 55: Study benefit packages that may be cost prohibitive in the years ahead and Environmental Sustainability 2008, 2009 8. Countywide Green Building Standards: Create green building standards for all new private construction that can be used in each of the 15 jurisdictions in Santa Clara County, making it easier for builders to adopt green building practices. 9. Countywide Solar Assessment Districts: Explore opportunities to promote installation of solar panels through solar assessment districts and assess the success of solar assessment districts in the City of Berkeley. (NOTE: Already underway through CaliforniaFIRST Program) 2008, 2009 2009 10. Countywide Streamlined Solar Policy and Solar Permitting Process: Establish countywide policy on residential and commercial solar panel installation to make it easier and less expensive. 11. Green Power Challenge: Coordinate a contest between Santa Clara County cities and residents to reduce energy use. 12. Water Conservation Best Practices: Identify most effective ways to conserve water. 13. Encouraging Use of Reclaimed Water: Promote the use of reclaimed or recycled water. 449 Page 3 of 3 Prior Year Priority No. Policy Issue Public Records Requests 14. Email Policy & Public Records Requests: Review email policies of other cities, particularly in relation to public records requests. 15. Public Records Requests: Review how other cities handle public records requests. Public Safety 2009 16. Gang Intervention, Suppression, and Prevention: Develop regional solutions to gang problems throughout Santa Clara County. Public Safety 17. Speed Limit Policy: Review the State of California’s method for determining street speed limits and identify opportunities to work with state legislators to improve this methodology. Purchasing Practices 18. Vendor Clearing House/Purchasing Pool: Review purchasing methods, such as a vendor clearing house or purchasing pool, which would allow smaller cities to collaborate with larger municipalities to receive better, more competitive rates for goods and services. State Budget 2009 State Budget Reform FISCAL IMPACTS: N/A CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING THE RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: The City of Saratoga will not provide input on suggested SCCCA 2010 Policy Priorities. ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): N/A FOLLOW UP ACTION(S): Implement Council direction. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Nothing additional. ATTACHMENTS: Nothing additional. 450 1 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: December 16, 2009 AGENDA ITEM: DEPARTMENT: CityManager CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: Richard Taylor, City Attorney SUBJECT: Amendment to Lease Agreement with Hakone Foundation RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve amendment to lease agreement with Hakone Foundation providing for matching funds of $250,000 towards the cost of constructing a visitor and conference center at Hakone Gardens. REPORT SUMMARY: In 2006 the City Council agreed to amend the lease agreement with the Hakone Foundation to provide for City financial support for construction of a visitor and conference center. The amendment provided for $250,000 in matching support subject to various conditions, The amendment expires December 31 of this year. The Hakone Foundation has requested that the City Council consider the attached amendment providing a renewed pledge of support. BACKGROUND: The Foundation is seeking private support for development of a visitor and conference center at Hakone Gardens. The Foundation believes that City support, in the form of a pledge of matching funds, will help support fundraising. The attached amendment would pledge $250,000 in matching funds. The funds would be contingent upon the Foundation’s completion and the City’s approval of the Hakone Gardens Master Plan and the visitor and conference center design and the Foundation’s success in raising at least $750,000 in private contributions for the visitor and conference center. The pledge would expire December 31, 2013. FISCAL IMPACTS: No immediate expenditure of funds would be required. Upon the Foundation’s successful fundraising and completion of the required plans, the City would be obligated to contribute $250,000 towards construction of the visitor and conference center. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: 451 2 The Foundation would not be able to inform prospective donors of the City’s financial support for the visitor and conference center. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: Give direction to staff for changes. FOLLOW UP ACTION: Execute lease amendment. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Notice for this meeting. ATTACHMENTS: Proposed Lease Amendment. 452 1 SECOND AMENDMENT TO LEASE BETWEEN THE CITY OF SARATOGA AND THE HAKONE FOUNDATION This agreement amends the lease agreement (hereinafter “Lease”), effective as of May 1, 2005 (and amended effective November 14, 2006), by and between the City of Saratoga, a Municipal Corporation (hereinafter "Landlord"), located in the County of Santa Clara, State of California and the Hakone Foundation, a not for profit corporation organized under the laws of the State of California (hereafter "Tenant"), pertaining to the City owned property located at 21000 Big Basin Way, Saratoga, California. This agreement become effective on the date last signed below. 1. Landlord and Tenant hereby agree that section 9.3 of the Lease is hereby replaced in its entirety with the following: 9.3 Master Plan. Landlord acknowledges that Tenant is intending to develop a Master Plan for the premises, which plan shall tentatively include the construction of a visitor and conference center, facility for the serving of tea and light snacks, gift shop, and other facilities on the premises including a schedule for plan implementation. Tenant believes it is necessary to increase the revenue generating capability of the premises in order to fully utilize its value and usefulness as a cultural and artistic center, and to this end considers it imperative that it be more fully developed with buildings serving those ends. Tenant shall provide a copy to Landlord of the Master Plan for Hakone Gardens as soon as it is prepared and Landlord shall have the opportunity to review and approve, which approval shall not be unreasonably withheld, such Master Plan prior to Tenant’s undertaking any major capital improvements to the premises. Landlord shall contribute up to $250,000 to the cost of constructing the visitor and conference center following (1) approval of the Master Plan, (2) approval of the visitor and conference center design, and (3) evidence that Tenant has received private contributions dedicated to the visitor and conference center of at least $750,000; provided, however that no contribution shall be required unless each of these conditions has been satisfied prior to December 31, 2013. Tenant shall make reasonable efforts to implement the Master Plan. Tenant shall have the right to amend such Master Plan from time to time, subject to Landlord’s approval, which shall not be unreasonably withheld. Until such time as a visitor and conference center have been completed Tenant shall file a report with Landlord not later than December 31 of each year describing Tenant’s progress with regard to (1) 453 2 development and implementation of the Master Plan, (2) design and construction of the visitor and conference center, and (3) receipt of private contributions dedicated to the visitor and conference center. 2. The Lease shall remain unchanged in all respects other than the replacement of Section 9.3 as described above. Landlord Tenant By: _________________________ Kathleen King, Mayor Date: ________________________ By: _________________________ Lon Saavedra Execcutive Director, Hakone Foundation Date: ________________________ Attest: __________________________ Ann Sullivan, City Clerk Date: ________________________ Attest: __________________________ Secretary of the Board, Hakone Foundation Date: ________________________ Approved as to Form: __________________________ Richard Taylor, City Attorney Date: ________________________ Approved as to Form: __________________________ General Counsel, Hakone Foundation Date: ______________________ __ 454 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: December16, 2009 AGENDA ITEM: DEPARTMENT: CityManager’s Office CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: Ann Sullivan, City Clerk DIRECTOR: Dave Anderson SUBJECT: City Council Mayoral Rotation Policy RECOMMENDED ACTION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. REPORT SUMMARY: Prior Mayor Chuck Page requested that the City Clerk conduct a survey to determine which cities practice rotation of Council leadership, and that a formal policy of rotation be agendized and considered by the City Council. The reorganization of the Council occurs at a special meeting held on the first Tuesday of the month of December. I polled other cities in California inquiring if their council had a policy regarding mayoral rotation. Many cities practice a rotation in which the Mayor and Vice Mayor are chosen annually by the City Council from among its members by the affirmative vote of three or more of the Council Members at a Special Meeting on the first Tuesday in the month of December. The Mayor and Vice Mayor serve terms of one year. The criteria for choosing Council leadership is generally based upon seniority or highest vote total in any given election. The City’s current practice is outlined below: The Mayor and Vice Mayor are chosen annually by the City Council from among its members by the affirmative vote of three or more of the Council Members at a Special Meeting on the first Tuesday in the month of December. Tradition of the Saratoga Council is to place the candidates with the highest votes in any one election into a queue to rotate into the position of Mayor and Vice Mayor. In each City Council election, the candidate with the most votes is placed first in the rotation of that group, the candidate with the second highest votes is placed second, and in the years when there is a third seat contest, the candidate with the third highest votes is placed third in that rotation. 455 Additional considerations: o As can be seen in the attached chart, the Council seat with the third highest vote total becomes Vice Mayor in the fourth year of their term without being able to attain the office of Mayor (without being re-elected and placing first or second). Consequently, the next Mayor will not have the benefit of having been Vice Mayor in the prior year. o In the case of mid-term Council appointments, rotation may be interrupted because the appointed Council member is placed last in seniority. Some City Council rotation policies do not allow the appointed member to serve as Mayor. o Right to Decline Office – Council members may decline to stand for the office of Mayor or Vice Mayor, which results in each subsequent Council member moving up in sequence. Language in the attached survey for the City of Del Mar resolves each of the above issues in our current (unwritten) rotation policy. I have attached the survey results from the cities that responded for your review. FISCAL IMPACTS: N/A CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: The Council reorganization will continue as current practice with no Council Policy implemented. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: N/A FOLLOW UP ACTION: Implement Council’s direction. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Notice for this meeting. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A – Rotation Chart Attachment B – Survey results 456 Year 1 -Election -3 Councilmembers Elected Mayor Incumbent Member Vice Mayor Incumbent Member Councilmember Highest Votes Election Year 1 Councilmember 2nd Highest Votes Election Year 1 Councilmember 3rd Highest Votes Election Year 1 Year 3 -Election -2 Councilmembers Elected Mayor Highest Votes Election Year 1 Vice Mayor 2nd Highest Votes Election Year 1 Councilmember 3rd Highest Votes Election Year 1 Councilmember Highest Votes Election Year 3 Councilmember 3rd Highest Votes Election Year 3 Year 2 Councilmember Incumbent Member Mayor Incumbent Member Vice Mayor Highest Votes Election Year 1 Councilmember 2nd Highest Votes Election Year 1 Councilmember 3rd Highest Votes Election Year 1 Term as Councilmember Ends Term as Councilmember Ends Year 4 Councilmember Highest Votes Election Year 1 Mayor 2nd Highest Votes Election Year 1 Vice Mayor 3rd Highest Votes Election Year 1 Councilmember Highest Votes Election Year 3 Councilmember 3rd Highest Votes Election Year 3 Term as Councilmember Ends Term as Councilmember Ends Term as Councilmember Ends 457 Council Policy Survey Results Cupertino Does not have an official written policy; however, “Council members choose the mayor and vice mayor”. The person with the most votes in an election becomes the vice mayor two years later, and mayor in the third year. The person with the second most votes in an election becomes the vice-mayor three years later and mayor in the fourth year. The person with the third most votes in an election doesn’t become vice-mayor or mayor (unless they run for office again and come in first or second). Del Mar Tradition of the Council is to place the top two vote getters in any one election into a queue to rotate into the position of Mayor and DeputyMayor. In each City Council election, the person with the most votes shall be placed first in the rotation of that group, the second highest vote getter will be placed second, and in the years when there is a third seat contest, the third highest vote getter will be placed third in that rotation. However, the Council member who received the third most votes in an election year filling three seats will not be in the queue for either Deputy Mayor or Mayor but would be in rotation should the Council member traditionally rotating into the Deputy Mayor or Mayor position be unavailable to serve in that role. In case of appointment to the City Council to fill a vacancy, that person will occupy the last position in the current rotation. Each new election will determine the rotation only for the group in that election. Should any City Council member not be available to take their regular place in the established rotation, the next person in the rotation will be elevated to the Deputy Mayor’s position and the rotation will continue as previously set. Huntington Beach (This is the policy our Council follows. However, I would note that Section (d) 3 requires four years between terms as Mayor Pro Tem. This has resulted in some Council Members getting a second turn as Mayor before others have had their first turn. The Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore shall serve terms of one year. The member of the City Council serving as Mayor Pro Tempore shall become the Mayor on the expiration of the Mayor’s term. The member of the City Council having the longest consecutive City Council service shall become the Mayor Pro Tempore. In the event that two City Council members have the same length of service, then the member who received the greatest number of votes in the last Council election in which such member was elected shall become Mayor Pro Tempore. If any member declines his/her term as it arises in rotation, that member shall remain in the same place in the rotation cycle as if he/she had served. Any City Council member who has served as Mayor within the last four years will not e eligible for election as Mayor Pro Tempore. Los Altos MAYOR AND MAYOR PRO TEM SELECTION PROCESS 2.1 Reorganization. The reorganization of the Council shall occur at the second regular meeting of November. During an election year, the seating of new Councilmembers shall occur at the same meeting that the Council reorganizes. Seating preferences on the dais shall be made by the Mayor, Mayor Pro Tem and then by seniority of the rest of the members, in that order. 458 A community reception honoring the incoming and outgoing Mayor and Councilmembers will be held immediately following the reorganization meeting. 2.2 Election of Mayor. Only Councilmembers elected by the voters may serve as Mayor. The term of office shall be one year. The City Councilmember must have served at least 23 months to be eligible for Mayor. A majority vote of the Council is necessary to designate the Mayor. If there is at least one elected Councilmember with a minimum of 23 months of service who has not served as Mayor, he or she shall be designated Mayor before those who have already served as Mayor. In the event there are two or more members, who have never served as Mayor, who have a minimum of 23 months of service and have served the same length of time, the one who received the greatest number of votes at his or her election to the Council shall become Mayor. If there are two or more such members who have served more than 23 months and have never served as Mayor, the one having served the longest time on the Council shall be designated as Mayor. The requirement for time in office shall be effective in December 2008 after the Council reorganization meeting. Should any member not wish to serve when it is his or her turn, the designation shall go to the next member in line. This shall in no way jeopardize his or her priority the following year. In the event there are two or more members who have never served as Mayor and have served the same length of time, the one who received the greatest number of votes at his or her election to the Council shall become Mayor. In the event there are two or more members, both of whom served as Mayor, have served the same length of time, and have been re-elected to the Council, the one who received the greatest number of votes at his or her re-election to the Council shall become Mayor. An exception to the 23 month requirement is in the event there are three Councilmembers, all of whom are elected for the first time in the same election. In this event, the 23 month requirement is replace with an 11 month requirement. The Mayor may be removed from office, for cause, by a 4/5ths affirmative vote of the members. The person is to be advised of the proposed cause for removal at least 72 hours before the action is taken. 2.3 Election of Mayor Pro Tem. Only Councilmembers elected by the voters may serve as Mayor Pro Tem. The term of office shall be one year. The role of Mayor Pro Tem shall be to act for the Mayor whenever the Mayor is unavailable to perform his or 459 her duties. The City Councilmember must have served at least 11 months to be eligible for Mayor Pro Tem. A majority vote of the Council is required to designate the Mayor Pro Tem. The requirement for time in office shall be effective in December 2008 after the Council reorganization meeting. If there is at least one elected Councilmember who has not served as Mayor Pro Tem, he or she shall be designated Mayor Pro Tem before those who have already served as Mayor Pro Tem. If there are two or more such members, the one having served the longest time on the Council shall be designated as Mayor Pro Tem. In the event there are two or more members, who have never served as Mayor Pro Tem and have served the same length of time, the one who received the greatest number of votes at his or her election to the Council shall become Mayor Pro Tem. If all elected Councilmembers have served as Mayor Pro Tem, then the Councilmember who has served the longest continuously since last being Mayor Pro Tem shall be designated as Mayor Pro Tem. Should any member not wish to serve when it is his or her turn, the designation shall go to the next member in line. This shall in no way jeopardize his or her priority the following year. An exception to the 11 month requirement is in the event there are three Councilmembers, all of whom are elected for the first time in the same election. In this event, the 11 month requirement is waived. The Mayor Pro Tem may be removed from office, for cause, by a 4/5 affirmative vote of the members. The person is to be advised of the proposed cause for removal at least 72 hours before the action is taken. Monte Sereno The Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore shall be chosen annually by the City Council from among its members by the affirmative vote of three or more of the Council Members at the first regular Council meeting in December of each year. In the event that newly elected Council Members are seated at the first meeting in December due to the certification of the election results, the Mayor and Mayor Pro Pro Tempore shall be chosen prior to those newly elected Council Members being seated. 1. Term of Office The Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore shall each hold office until his/her successor is elected and qualifies. 2. Qualifications Any member of the Council is eligible to serve as Mayor or Mayor Pro Tempore who has not served in that position the previous year. In casting their votes for Mayor and Mayor Pro Tempore, members of the Council may consider the candidate's leadership qualities, his/her ability to conduct meetings 460 of the Council expeditiously and fairly, and his/her willingness to represent and implement positions adopted by the Council when such positions are at variance with his/her personal views, as well as other factors as they deem pertinent, including seniority, rotation, or prior service as Mayor or Mayor Pro Tempore. Novato The top vote getters rotate among four of the five councilmembers. In the election where three are running, the person who comes in third does not get to be Mayor. Palmdale The Councilmember with the longest continuous service on the City Council, among those councilmembers who have not served as Mayor Pro Tern, shall be appointed as Mayor Pro Tern. In the event two or more councilmembers have an equal length of such continuous service, then the order of appointment shall be based on the number of votes received by each at the election at which they were elected to the City Council, with the Councilmember who received the highest number of votes being appointed first to serve as Mayor Pro Pro Tem. In the event that all councilmembers have already had the opportunity to serve as Mayor Pro Tem, the councilmember whose former service as Mayor Pro Tem was earliest in time shall be selected. Any councilmember may elect not to serve as Mayor Pro Tem; however, for purposes of determining eligibility to serve as Mayor Pro Tem, such councilmember shall be deemed to have served as Mayor Pro Tem during such year. Pittsburg Rotation of Mayor The position of Mayor shall be for a one-year term and will be rotated among all the City Council members. The sitting Vice-Mayor will automatically become Mayor upon the City Council annual reorganization meeting which will be the first meeting in December of each year. Should any Vice-Mayor not be available to take their regular term as Mayor (due to failure to be re-elected, work conflict, etc.), the next person in rotation for Vice-Mayor will be elected to the position of Mayor and the rotation will continue as previously set. Rotation of Vice-Mayor The position position of Vice Mayor shall be for a one-year term and will be rotated among all the City Council members based on seniority. Seniority shall be determined by placing in the most recent election. In each City Council election the person with the most votes shall be placed first in the rotation of that group, the second highest vote total will be placed second and if a third seat is contested, the third highest vote total will be placed third in that rotation. In case of appointment to the City Council to fill a vacancy, that person will determine the rotation only for the group in that election. Should any City Council member not be available to take their regular place in the established rotation (i.e., failure to be re-elected, work conflict, etc.) the next person in the rotation will be elevated to the Vice Mayor’s position and the rotation will continue as previously set. Port Hueneme At the first meeting in December of each year, the Council’s reorganization will 461 be placed on the City Council Agenda. At this time the Council may reorganize and select one of its members as Mayor, and one of its members as Mayor Pro Tempore. Signal Hills Any member of the City Council may nominate any member for the position of Mayor. No second is required for the nomination. The City Clerk then declares the result of the selection. The nominee receiving a majority vote of the City Council shall be declared the new Mayor. Solano Beach The deputy mayor shall have first priority to serve as mayor to the extent possible, each member shall be given the opportunity to serve as deputy mayor and then mayor. The position of finish for each member at their last election will be an important factor in choosing between members who each have served as mayor or between members who have not previously served as mayor. The first place finisher in each election shall have the opportunity to serve a full year term as mayor. Any member may share their term as mayor with any other member. Priority would would be given to those who have not served, or if all have served, priority would be given to the member with the least total terms as mayor. If a member accepts a shared term of at least six months as mayor, that shall be deemed a full term as mayor. However, if due to an incapacity a mayor is not able to fulfill a term, a member who is called upon to fill less than six months of the remainder of another member's term as mayor shall not be considered to have served a full term as mayor. The member called upon under such a situation shall be allowed to continue serving as mayor the next full term. A person may decline an appointment, but shall lose eligibility unless the person subsequently regains eligibility as a result of reelection. A person who declines to accept a shared term as mayor shall not lose any eligibility. The Council may choose to appoint a person to the position of mayor or deputy mayor based on factors other than those set forth in this resolution. Sunnyvale Terms of Office: The Mayor shall have a two year term of office, with the term of office beginning with the meeting at which a general municipal election is certified (typically in January of even numbered years) and shall serve until a successor is selected. The Vice Mayor shall serve a one year term with the term beginning concurrently with the Mayor and shall serve until a successor is selected. Should the Mayor and/or Vice Mayor’s office become vacant during a term for whatever 462 reason (i.e. resignation, death, disability, Council vote), the Councilmember selected to fill the vacancy shall serve the remainder of the unexpired term. Agenda for Selection of Mayor and Vice Mayor: The individual functioning as presiding officer for the selection of Mayor shall be in the following order: (I) The incumbent Mayor if still on the Council. (II) The incumbent Vice Mayor if still on the Council. (III) The Councilmember with the longest period of continuous service. Should there be two members of equal length of service, a drawing conducted by the City Clerk prior to the meeting shall be used to determine the presiding officer. The newly selected Mayor shall preside over the selection of the Vice Mayor. Nomination and Selection Process for Mayor: Councilmembers shall select a Mayor who best exhibits the following criteria: (I) Leadership. The candidate has a vision for the City and clearly defined goals that other Councilmembers support. The candidate recognizes Sunnyvale’s role in regional issues as well. (II) Executive skills. The candidate can run public hearings efficiently so that as many members of the public as possible are able to provide input on Council decisions. The candidate delegates tasks appropriately to the Vice Mayor, to subcommittees, and to Councilmembers. The candidate works well with city staff but does not take direction from staff. (III) Integrity. The candidate maintains the highest possible ethical standards, works well with all Councilmembers, has the courage to take an unpopular position if it is best for the City, rises above petty disputes, remains calm in a crisis, and seeks recognition for the City more than personal acclaim. (IV) Commitment. The candidate is willing and able to devote sufficient time to the role of Mayor in order to perform it properly, is supportive of the community and is supported by the community. The candidate’s past actions have been for the City’s benefit rather than being self-serving. Nominations: The Mayor Pro Tempore shall ask the Council for nominations for the position of the new Mayor. Any of the other Councilmembers may nominate someone other than himself or herself (including the incumbent or the Mayor Pro Tempore) for the position. The Mayor Pro Tempore shall ask each nominated Councilmember if he or she is willing to serve before declaring that person nominated. If there are no nominations, the Mayor Pro Tempore may make a nomination. When it appears that no further nominations will be made, the Mayor Pro Tempore shall announce that the nominations are closed. Nomination and selection process for Vice Mayor shall be carried out in the same manner as the election of the Mayor, with two exceptions: A new vice mayor shall e elected every year, and the incumbent Mayor, whether newly seated or halfway through a two-year term, is ineligible to be nominated 463 as Vice Mayor. Whittier While the Mayor and the Mayor Pro Tempore are selected by a vote of the City Council, the City Council declares its intent to generally follow a custom of rotation that is based on seniority when selecting the Mayor and the Mayor Pro Tempore. The custom of rotation in office proceeds as follows: When a new member joins the City Council, that person shall enter the rotation sequence in last place as the member with the least seniority. Seniority begins when a member first joins the City Council. Members who are reelected are deemed to be ongoing members, not new members. If two or more new members are elected to the City Council on the same date, precedence in seniority shall be given to the new member who received the greatest number of votes in the city election. A new mayor must be selected after each election, however, it does not require the term of the mayor to be two years, or preclude selection of a mayor at other times. 464