Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
04-07-1998 City Council packet
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: Tuesday, April 7, 1998 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Adult Care Center, 19655 Allendale Avenue TYPE: Adjourned Regular Meeting /Meeting with Finance Commission, Chamber of Commerce, Saratoga Business Development Council /TEAM Saratoga fC) 1. Roll Call 7:00 p.m. 1 3 2. Report of City Clerk on Posting of Agenda Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on April 3. The notice of adjournment from the April 1 Council meeting was properly posted on April 2. 3. Oral Communications from the Public on Non Agendized Items AGENDA 7:00 -8:00 4. Joint Meeting with Finance Commission A. Presentation on Indirect Cost Allocation Methodology B. Presentation of Recreation Employee Salary Survey Results C. Continuing Discussion of Recreation Program Cost Recovery Options 8:00 -9:00 5. Joint Meeting with Saratoga Chamber of Commerce, SBDC, TEAM Saratoga A. Annual Report from Chamber of Commerce on Activities, Accomplishments, Goals B. Request for Continued City Support for Celebrate Saratoga C. Request by Saratoga Market Days Committee to Readopt Res. No. 96 -19 D. Report from TEAM Saratoga E. Welcome village Committee 9:00 -10:00 6. Budget Issues A. Revenue Forecasts for FY 97 -98, 98 -99, 99 -00 B. Major Budget Adjustments for FY 97 -98 C. Major Budget Adjustments for FY 98 -99 City Council Agenda 8. Confirmat' ancellation May 2 To all eating 9. Self -Ev luation 9f Previou ing April 1 10. Agency A =signment Reports Assoc. of Bay Area Governments Moran Chamber of Commerce Board Wolfe County Cities Assn. Leg. Task Force Bogosian County HCD Policy Committee Jacobs Emergency Planning Council Moran Hakone Foundation Liaison Shaw Joint Venture Silicon Valley Wolfe KSAR Community Access TV Board Shaw Library Joint Powers Agency Bogosian N. Cent. Flood Cont. Zone Adv. Bd. Bogosian Penin. Div., League of Cal. Cities Wolfe Santa Clara Valley Water Commission Jacobs Santa Clara County Cities Assn./ Wolfe /Moran City Selection Committee SASCC Liaison Shaw Saratoga Business Dev. Council Wolfe School Liaison Jacobs Sister City Liaison Shaw Solid Waste JPA Moran Valley Transportation Authority Wolfe Valley Transportation Authority PAC Shaw West Valley Sanitation District Moran 2 7. Scheduling of Discussion of Possible Changes to Measure G Implementation Policy 7 /7 /9Y 11. Other 12. Adjournment 104 April 7, 1998 In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact Peter Gonda at 408/868 -1221. 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] CITY OF SARATOGA FINANCE DEPARTMENT TO: Finance Committee FROM: 011ie Wright, Interim Finance Director SUBJECT: Indirect cost allocation based on total program costs, less capital expenditures DATE: March 30, 1998 Attached is the indirect cost allocation requested in your March 9, 1998 meeting. In addition to recomputing the indirect cost allocation, I increased the amount allocated by $423,358 (from $1,626,468 to $2,049,827). This additional amount represents costs that do not appear to me to have been allocated in the budget. Even more important, allocating indirect costs based on gross program costs could cause the City to not claim third party reimbursements, such as FEMA claims, that might be otherwise allowable. In Finance, for instance, one person handles payroll /personnel, another disbursements /purchasing, and a third does business licenses and cash receipts. Allocating these costs based on checks issued or purchase orders, full time employee equivalents, and some sort of cash receipts activity could increase recoveries from third parties using public works, planning, inspection and recreation services or programs. 4,4 While this method is simple, it does not conform to Federal OMB regulations or the State Controller's guidelines for allocating indirect costs. Thus, overhead allocated using this method would not be allowed in Federal and State grants and in FEMA claims. The method of allocating costs used in the budget is closer to what might be approved by these agencies. I don't know how the City handles depreciation, but capital costs are not generally deductible in the year spent. Also, some indirect costs are not allowable in Federal grants or claims. The main category that the effects the City are what is referred to as "General Governmental Operations This is usually City Council related expenditures My recommendation would be to allocated costs as they were done in the budget unless there are some obvious things that need to be changed. One of these would be to make sure all appropriate indirect costs are included in the allocation formula. COPY: Larry Perlin Deborah Larson !w CITY OF SARATOGA COMPARISON OF ALLOCATING INDIRECT COSTS BASED ON PROGRAM COSTS TO PUBLISHED 9798 BUDGET OPERATING PROGRAMS 1011 POLICE SERVICES 2,450,183 74,803 2,375,380 2,375,380 482,973 408,170 1013 CODE ENFORCEMENT 137,321 56,204 81,117 30,784 111,901 22,752 (2,668) 1014 CROSSING GUARDS 22,803 1,153 21,650 21,650 4,402 3,249 1015 EMERGENCY PREPAREDNESS 27,949 7,523 20,426 20,426 4,153 (3,370) 1016 ANIMAL CONTROL 20,049 1,328 18,721 250 18,971 3,857 2,779 1017 SUPPL LAW ENFORCEMENT 68,830 68,830 68,830 13,995 13,995 2022 ADVANCED PLANNING 67 ,174 33,386 33,788 3,840 37,628 7,651 (21,895) 2023 ZONING ADMINISTRATIN 469,562 172, 060 297 ,502 46,451 343,953 69,934 (55,675) 2025 INSPECTION SERVICES 480,698 129,062 351,636 31,401 383,037 77,881 (19,780) 2026 INTEGRATED WASTE MANAGEMENT 165,162 11,500 153,662 500 154,162 31,345 20,345 2027 CONGESTION MANAGEMENT 169,379 8,269 161,110 161,110 32,758 24,489 2028 STORM WATER MANAGEMENT 385 ,817 46,161 339,656 2,500 342,156 69,569 25,908 2029 DEVELOPMENT REGULATION 172,682 26,279 146,403 6,000 152,403 30,987 10,708 3031 STREET MAINTENANCE 976,726 297,466 679,260 167,781 847,041 172,224 42,539 3032 SIDEWALKS AND TRAILS 73,712 11,649 62,063 62,063 12,619 970 3033 TRAFFIC CONTROL 230,343 34,389 195,954 195,954 39,842 5,453 3034 FLOOD CONTROL/STORM DRAIN 79,233 14,213 65,020 65,020 13,220 (993) 3035 MEDIANS/PARKWAYS 112,568 9,475 103,093 103,093 20,961 11,486 3036 PARKS /OPEN SPACE 611,538 40,000 169,500 402,038 50,393 452,431 91,990 (27,117) 3038 GENERAL ENGINEERING 164,819 53,080 111,739 21,683 133,422 27,128 (4,269) 3039 LANDS/LGHT. DISTRICT 168,727 15,622 153,105 500 153,605 31,232 16,110 4041 RECREATION SERVICES 691,268 172,389 518,879 38,934 557,813 113,417 (20,038) 4043 CIVIC THEATRE IMPROVEMENT 69,215 60,000 3,315 5,900 5,900 1,200 (2,115) 4044 TEEN SERVICES 129,215 54,529 74,686 12,515 87,201 17,730 (24,284) 4045 SENIOR SERVICES 4047 FACILITY OPERATIONS SERVICES 226 ,157 148,718 77,439 94,124 171,563 34,883 (19,711) 6061 SENIOR SERVICES 97,749 62,124 35,625 48,946 84,571 17,195 4,017 6066 HCDA ADMINISTRATION 210,355 65,000 8,811 136,544 200 136,744 27,803 19,192 6067 COMM. ACCESS 1V 98,493 3,460 95,033 95,033 19,323 15,863 8,577,727 165,000 1,626,468 6,786,259 556,802 7,343,061 1,493,024 423,358 INDIRECT COSTS 7071 CITY COUNCIL 57,774 N/A 57,774 24,000 81,774 (81,774) 7072 CITY COMMISSIONS 4,840 WA 4,840 4,840 (4,840) 7073 CITY MANAGER 177,312 N/A 177,312 20,620 197,932 (197,932) 7074 FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT 345,412 WA 345,412 22,044 367,456 (367,456) 7075 LITIGATION SERVICES 151,950 WA- 151,950 (76,950) 75,000 (75,000) 7076 CITY CLERK 89,424 WA 89,424 6,708 96,132 (96,132) 7077 HUMAN RESOURCES 152,481 NIA 152,481 1,700 154,181 (154,181) 7079 GENERAL SERVICES 174,875 WA 174,875 174,875 (174,875) 8082 EQUIPMENT OPERATIONS 242,888 WA 242,888 (239,021) 3,867 (3.867) 8083 FIXED ASSET MAINT. 70,965 NIA 70,965 70,965 (70,965) 8084 FACILITIES MAINT. 316,054 WA- 316,054 (315,903) 151 (151) 8085 MANAGEMENT INFO. SYS. 265,852 WA 265,852 265,852 (265,852) 2,049,827 2,049,827 (556,802) 1,493,025 (1,493,025) SUBTOTAL FOR INDIRECT ALLOCATION 10,627,554 165,000 1,626,468 8,836,086 8,836,086 (1) NON- ALLOCATED COSTS 7070 CONTINGENCY 8086 PAYROLL AGENCY 5052 PARKING DISTRICT 82 5053 PARKING DISTRICT 13 5055 LIBRARY BONDS 5057 LEONARD ROAD BONDS 5058 CIVIC CENTER BONDS TOTAL EXPENDITURES 13,204,841 C D E F G H I J c-d a- Rg !+y-e i COSTS BASIS FOR 1,493,026 INCREASE APPROVED CAPITAL INDIRECT TOTAL DIRECTLY COST INDIR COST FROM BUDGET EQUIP. COST. DIRECT ALLOC. ALLOC. ALLOC. BUDGET 200,000 87,935 12,263 170,344 122,130 12,638 1,971,977 2,577,287 165,000 CITY OF SARATOGA FINANCE COMMISSION To: City Council Members From: Finance Commission Date: March 9,1998 Subject: Review of Indirect Costs and Indirect Cost Allocations to Recreation Department BACKGROUND At the request of the City Council, the Finance Commission undertook the task of reviewing the indirect cost structure and the methodology used to allocate such costs to the City's operating segments for fiscal year 1997 -1998 and in particular to the Recreation Department. The review was conducted during February and March 1998. The Finance Commission's worked with Mr. Larry Perlin and Ms. Deborah Larson in its efforts to understand the basis and methodologies used for indirect cost allocations. FINDINGS Direct Costs: Prior to the analysis of indirect costs it was necessary to evaluate whether those costs (personnel and other non -labor costs) directly allocable to supporting the functions of the Recreation Department were classified and properly accounted for as a direct expense. A review of the operating budget by program under the purview of the Recreation Department reveals the following accounts falling under the responsibility of the Department: Account No. Description 4041 Recreation Services 4043 Civic Theater Surcharge Improvements 4044 Teen Services 4047 Facility Operations Services The total number of Full Time Equivalent (FTE) personnel assigned to recreation department totaled 5.25 during the period under review. The salaries for these personnel were assigned to the four accounts as follows: Account No. Description kith's 4041 Recreation Services 3.46 4043 Civic Theatre Surcharge Improvements .09 4044 Teen Services .57 4047 Facility Operations Services 1.13 Total 5.25 We can therefore conclude that all personnel assigned to the Recreation Department were properly classified as a direct expense. The approved direct personnel expense including labor and fringe for the four accounts totals $398,434. In addition to direct 1~ "l ti's, who are City employees, the Recreation Department utilitizes the services of "contract labor services" to assist from time -to -time with the various program offered. Taking these individuals into account the total for "All FTE's" is as follows: Account No. Description r i h's All N 1 E's 4041 Recreation Services 3.46 6.92 4043 Civic Theatre Surcharge Improve .09 .09 4044 Teen Services .57 2.00 4047 Facility Operations Services 1.13 2.03 Totals 5.25 11.04 We then examined the other non -labor costs identified as a direct expense to the Recreation Department. The largest of these expenses being, General Contract Services, Special Event Expense, Printing and Postage and Supplies. The total non -labor cost for the four accounts totals $278,470. An additional $60,000 for capital improvements (Civic Theatre) is excluded from the above figure but included below. It appears that these costs are properly included as a direct expense. A cursory review of other costs (both direct and indirect) incurred by the City of Saratoga does not reveal cost that should be charged direct to the Recreation Department. The total direct budget for the Recreation Department is as follows: Account No. Description Dollars 4041 Recreation Services $518,879 4043 Civic Theatre Surcharge Improvements 65,900 4044 Teen Services 74,686 4047 Facility Operations Services 77,439 Total $736,904 It is important to understand the make -up of direct expenses because direct expenses and headcount, both FTE's and "All FTE's" form the basis for which indirect costs are allocated. Indirect Costs: The formulas and methodologies used for the allocation of indirect cost to various operating programs is understood however unduly complex for the task at hand. The Commission recommends the City review the formulas and methodology used and greatly simplify this process. The City currently allocates direct costs of the following General Government and Intergovernmental Programs "intergovernmental programs City Council, City Commission, City Manager, City Clerk, Human Resources, General Services, Fixed Assets and Management Information Systems to program accounts as established by the City. The direct costs of these functions is allocated as an indirect cost to both operating and intergovernmental accounts based upon a formula determined by the City. This formula attempts allocate direct costs budgets for the above intergovernmental accounts based upon their perceived contributions to the various operating programs and intergovernmental programs using a combination of the program's direct budget, permanent H b's and all FTE's as the basis for allocations. The City's Indirect Cost Allocation Schedule identifies Financial Management as a function that should be allocated to the various programs, however the allocation of this function appears to be excluded in the initial calculation. Only the indirect allocation to Financial Management is later re- allocated to operating programs. Failure to allocate the direct cost of Financial Management to operating programs results in an under allocation of costs and non recovery of cost for those programs in which the City wishes to realize "full cost recovery The methodology used by the City is further complicated by the fact that certain functions and costs such as those associated with the City Attorney, Equipment Operations and Facilities Maintenance is allocated by the City to both operating programs and intergovernmental programs based upon an allocation associated with perceived or actual use. Finally, indirect costs assigned to intergovernmental programs determined by the formula plus the allocated costs for the City Attorney, Equipment Operations and Facilities Maintenance needs to be re- allocated to operating programs to determine the final indirect cost allocation for the operating programs. Despite the complex allocation method utilized by the City it is possible to compare the allocation dollars assigned to the various operating programs to gain a sense of reasonableness. The attached Table 1 identifies the allocation of intergovernmental programs and other assigned indirect costs to the various operating programs. The data reveals that for the average program, intergovernmental costs represents an additional 11% on top of their direct budgets. This compares to an intergovernmental allocation equal to 21 for those programs under the Recreation Department. When accounting for other assigned indirect and the re- allocation of intergovernmental programs, the City's direct operating programs are burdened with an average 19% on top of their direct budgets compared to an average burden of 52% on top of the direct budgets for the programs under the Recreation Department. Table 2 compares the relative size and allocations to the Recreation Department relative to other operating programs. It shows that the Recreation Department's direct cost budget represents 11% of the total budgets for all operating programs, and represents 27% of "all FTE's" for operating programs. The Recreation Department is absorbing 23% of all costs allocated to the City's operating programs. CONCLUSION There is no established "best way" to allocate indirect costs to operating organizations. The method employed by the City, although complex and probably in need of revision, does attempt to fairly allocate indirect costs to its operating programs. It appears that the Recreation Department is being allocated a reasonable level of indirect costs. 1011 Police Services 2,375,380 59,887 1013 Code Enforcement 91,687 14,213 1014 Crossing Guards 21,650 923 1015 Emergency Prep_ 20,426 6,023 1016 Animal Control 18,721 813 2022 Advance Planning 33,788 22,889 2023 Zoning Admin. 297,502 91,300 202 Inspection Services 351,488 71,926 2026 Integrated Waste Mgt. 153 662 8,707 2027 Congestion Mgt. 161,110 6,620 2028 Storm Water Mgt. 339,656 34,456 2029 Developmental Regul_ 146,403 15,039 3031 Street Maintenance 452,100 70,369 3032 Sidewalks and Trails 62,063 9,326 3033 Traffic Control 195,954 27,532 2Q34 Flood Control 8 65,020 11,379 3035 Medians/Park/Jays 103,093 7586 3036 Parks/Open Space 441,788 85,308 3038 General Engr. 111,739 20,813 3039 Lands/Llght District 153,411 12,007 404.1' Recreation S *141;67A;118 99,080 4043 CMc •Theater Improve 5900„ 2,654 4044':'1'een t ykes .::72.300.4 31.141 4045 Senior Services 1 35,625 I 790 I 4047?Fac181y.Reatal 17.439 24,939 6066 HCDAAdmin. 206,507 6.854 6067 Comm. Access TV 100,460 2,770 4041 Recreation Se+Weea 4043 CMc Theater improve 4044 Teen Services 4°47, F acity Rental Ser 518,819 00;080":' 19% 38.934 34.378 72 886 31,141 43 t 12,515 10.873 54,529 75°.6;; J 7 439 24.939 32% 94.124 29,655 148 718 57774 4e40 178,382 345,414 S 151 9 50 E 89,424 152 4,481 Interpov. Allocation Allocated to Direct Other Assigned Indirect 3% 8 14,916 8 74,803 3% 16% 30,784 11,207 56,204 61% 4% 230 1,153 5% 29% 1,500 7,523 37% 4% E 250 265 1,328 7% 6896 3,840 6,657 33,386 99% 31% 46,451 34,309 172,060 58% 20% 31,401 25,735 129,062 37% 696 500 2,293 11,500 7% 4% 1,649 8,269 5% 10% 2,500 9,205 46,161 14% 10% 6,000 5,240 26,279 189 16% 167,781 59,316 297,466 66% 15% 2,323 11,649 19% 14% 6,857 34,389 18% 18% 2,834 14,213 22% 7% 8 1,889 19% 8 50,393 33,799 19% 21,683 10,584 8% 500 3,115 19% 38,934 34,378 4% 861 43% 12,515 10 ;879„ 2 %I 48,938 I 12,398 I 32% $,;5 ,;94,124 1(.,- ...29,655 3% 200 1 3% 890 .21%.:: 146$573 Re- Allocation of Inter. Gov't Total Allocated Total Costs Allocated to Direct 9,475 9% 169,500 38% 53,080 48% 15,622 10% 1 73.389 33% 3315 54;529 75% 82,124,I 174%I 1 48.718,: .1924: 8,811 4% 3 460 3% DRAFT Sheetl Page 1 Total Recreation Department 739.9 11% 11.04 27% 145.3 46% 0.2 233.4 23% 378.9 23% DRAFT City of Saratoga Recreation Department `irect Indirect Allocation 1998 Budget Uate: March 6, 1998 Direct Cost of total program Headcount of total program hdct Allocated indirect Cost: Facilities Maintenance *1) Equipment Operation Attorney Inter government Total Allocation *2) *3) (*4) 4041 4043 Recreation Civic Theater 4044 4047 Teen Facilities Service Oper. Svc 74.7 77.4 1% 1% Service Sur. Improv.. 518. 65.9 8% 1% 38.7 6.92 0.09 17% 0% 0.2 133.5 2 2.03 5% 5% 12.5 94.1 42.0 54.6 t$ 172.4 3.3 54.5 148.7 11% 4% 3% 9% (*1) Facilities maintenance allocation bask' on equarofootegeof each organization *2) Equipment operation slfocation based on each indhriduai equipmentcostluseful life *3) Attorney charges based on prior year actual experience *4) Inter government allocation based on (a) direct budget, and (b) total headcount. Items included are: City Council, City Comm., City Mgr, City Clerk, Human Resources, General Service, Fixed Assets, and MIS. Somehow Financial Mgmt was excluded in computation. a.....-.. file: "sa- allo2" Total Program recd ailoc. 6,674.0 100% 40.24 100% 315.9 100% 239.0 77.0 994.6 100% 1,626.5 100% Recommend keep keep direct billing simplify Presented at the request of the Saratoga City Council by the Finance Commission April 1998 OVERHE ALLOCATION DISCUSSION OVERHEAD USSION DIRECT C TION: PURPOSE, METHODOLOGIES AND PRACTICE UNDERSTANDING HOW SARATOGA ALLOCATES OVERHEAD ANALYSIS OF OVERHEAD ALLOCATION TO RECREATION PROGRAMS COMPARISON OF CURRENT ALLOCATION METHODOLOGY TO RECREATION PROGRAM AND ALTERNATIVES CONCLUSION Attachment: Memo "Review of Indirect Costs and Indirect Cost Allocations to Recreation Department", dated March 9, 1998 OVER r (JSSION ethod of distrib ct costs associated with supporting operating programs based on a rational methodology Purpose of Indirect Cost Allocation to fully reflect the total costs required to run operating programs Allocation Methodologies vary based on the nature of the indirect costs to be allocated There is no single "best way" to allocate indirect cost erhead v�'��&a,Z,�sw� ma s adopted by s�for better financial management. However, costs which maybe eventually included in the allocation pool can vary between different organizations dependent upon the desires of management derstand ho a Current Allocates Overhead to Operating Programs Step 1: Set Operating Budgets for all Programs Identify Labor Budgets Determine number of Full Time Equivalent (FTE) employees Determine number of "All FTE's" (includes contract service employees Identify Supplies and Services Budgets OVERHEAD tep 2: USSION Allocate c r General Government and Intergovernmental Program$ to all City Wide Programs ?'s{ Government and Intergovernmental Programs include: City Council, City Commission, City Manager, Financial Management, City Clerk, Human Resources, General Services, Fixed Assets, and Management Information Systems Allocate direct cost based upon allocation formula determined by City Manager (formula takes into account direct budgets, FTE's and Full FTE's). P .Allocate City Attorney, Equipment Operations and Facilities Maintenance based upon prior year actual experience, individual program's utilitization and square footage use, respectively. Step 4 Re- allocate Government and Intergovernmental Program cost associated with allocations assigned to Government Programs per Step 2 and 3 above to Operational Programs. City of Saratoga Indirect Cost Allocation Review March 30, 1998 ($000's) (DRAFT) 1997/98 Budgeted operating programs direct cost 1997/98 Budgeted Indirect Costs Allocated Amount= 6,674.0 1 100 %I I 1,626.5 1 24 %1 (1) Facilities Maintenance total cost 315.9 19% About 50% costs are labor related 50% supplies /repair /maint. Allocated based on square footage total sq ft Average maintenance cost per square foot (3) City Attorney Based on prior year experiences 47,051 6.71 (2) Equipment Operation total cost 239.0 15% Costs include $110K capital, $100K fuel /insur. /supplies Allocated based on rolling stock total cost 77.0 (4) General Intergovernmental Service total cost 994.6 Allocated primarily based on (A) direct budget, (B) Regular FTE Headcount (C) All FTE Headcount, (D) City Council and (E) City Commission Note: Financial Mgmt ($345K) was omitted. Correct General InterGovernmental Services Total cost should be 1,340.0 100% 5% 61% City of Saratoga Indirect Cost Allocation Review March 30, 1998 ($000's) (DRAFT) General Intergovernmental Service Costs include: City Council City Commissions City Manager City Clerk Human Resources General Services Fixed Assets MIS S -Total Inter Gov'tal Other allocations for Inter- Gov'tal S -Total Revised Inter -G I Financial Mgmt I$ 57.7 4.8 178.4 89.4 152.5 174.8 71.0 266.0 994.6 75.1 1,069.7 345.4 Total Inter- Gov'tal f 1,415.1 Allocation based on (A) (B) (C) Dir Cost Reg FTE 50% 50% direct support 25% 25% 50% 10% 10% 25% 25% 75% based on City Mgr 100% 65% 65% 75% (D) (E) All FTE Council Comm. 75% 25% 35% 35% EXISTING INDIRECT COST METHODOLOGY FOR SARATOGA OPERATING PROGRAMS TOTAL COST RECREATION 737 ALL OTHERS 5,937 TOTAL COST 6,674 INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION RECREATION 379 ALL OTHERS 1,248 TOTAL COST 1,627 RECREATION Regular FTE Headcount of total program hdct All FTE Headcount 6.92 of total program hdct Total Direct Cost 518.9 of total program Allocated Indirect Cost: Facilities Maintenance (8804) 38.7 Equipment Operation (8802) Attorney (7075) 0.2 Inter government (various) 133.5 Total Allocated Indirect Cost 172.4 of total allocated costs Total Direct Ind. Expenditure Ind. Cost Allo. as of Direct Cost City of Saratoga Recreation Department Direct Cost Indirect Cost Allocation FY 1997/1998 Budget ($000's) 691.3 69.2 129.2 226.1 Total Recreation Department 5.25 16% 11.04 27% 736.9 11% 145.3 46% 0.2 233.4 23% 378.9 23% 1,115.8 8,300.5 4041 Recreation Service 3.46 33% 4043 Civic Theater Sur. Improv. 0.09 0.09 65.9 3.3 5% 4044 Teen Service 0.57 2 74.7 12.5 54.5 73% 4047 Facilities Oper. Svc 1.13 2.03 77.4 94.1 54.6 148.7 192% 51% file: "sa- allo2" Total Program rec'd alloc. 33.07 100% 40.24 100% 6,674.0 100% 315.9 100% 239.0 77.0 994.6 100% 1,626.5 100% 24% TOTAL COST RECREATION 737 ALL OTHERS 5,937 TOTAL COST 6,674 RECREATION 179 ALL OTHERS 1,448 TOTAL COST 1,627 ALTERNATIVE 1 INDIRECT COST METHODOLOGY ALLOCATE IN DIRECT PROPORTION TO TOTAL COST FOR SARATOGA OPERATING PROGRAMS INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION RECREATION NOTE EXISTING: 379 1,248 $1,627 ALTERNATIVE 2 INDIRECT COST METHODOLOGY ALLOCATE IN PROPORTION TO REGULAR FTE'S FOR SARATOGA OPERATING PROGRAMS RECREATION ALL OTHERS TOTAL FTE'S FTE'S 5.25 (16 27.82 (84%) 33.07 (100 RECREATION (5.25 FTE'S) INDIRECT COST ALLOCATION NOTE EXISTING: RECREATION 260 379 ALL OTHERS 1,367 1,248 TOTAL COST 1,627 $1,627 HODOLO ARA TOGA IS GENERALLY ACC ABLE PROVIDES A "FAIR "ALLOCATION OF OVERHEAD TO OPERATING PROGRAMS SARA TOGA SHOULD SIMPLIFY FORMULAS USED TO ALLOCATE COST AND REVIEW COSTS INCLUDED IN ALLOCATION POOL SARA TOGA SHOULD ASSURE THAT ALL GOVERNMENT AND INTERGOVERNMENTAL SERVICES THAT SHOULD BE INCLUDED IN ALLOCATION POOL ARE IN FACT INCLUDED Printed on recycled paper. April 3, 1998 �6 CM17 ©2 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 868 -1200 To: Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council From: Peter Gonda, Administrative Services Department Re: Salary Surveys Recreation Directors, Supervisors and Coordinators In response to inquiries by the Finance Commission regarding salaries of Bay area Recreation Directors, Supervisors and Coordinators, please see attached salary surveys. The methodology used in the Recreation Directors survey (exhibit A) is similar to the methodology used in the Management Salary survey (pursuant to the LOU; excerpt shown in exhibit B). The major difference is that the Management Salary survey draws from Alameda, Contra Costa, San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties and the Recreation Directors survey draws from only San Mateo and Santa Clara Counties. Pursuant to the LOU, respondent Cities were chosen for their proximity to Saratoga in terms of either revenue and/or population. The last attachment (exhibit C) shows the positions of Recreation Supervisor and Recreation Coordinator. A "Comments" section has been added to show how each position may or may not be similar to the corresponding position in Saratoga. Analysis of exhibits A and C reveals that Saratoga's salaries fall well within (or below) the established rate of pay for each position. In exhibit B, Saratoga's salary is slightly higher than the comparable position average (due to the addition of Cities located in Alameda and Contra Costa Counties). The Finance Commission reviewed exhibits A and C as requested at their last scheduled meeting and offered no comments at that time. Cc: Larry I. Perlin, City Manager Attachments: 1. Exhibit "A Salary Survey Recreation Directors 2. Exhibit `B Excerpt From Management Salary Survey 3. Exhibit "C Salary Survey Recreation Supervisors and Coordinators COUNCIL MEMBERS: Stan Bogosian Paul E. Jacobs Gillian Moran Jim Shaw Donald L. Wolfe City of Saratoga Salary Survey Recreation Directors Agency Burlingame* Campbell* Cupertino Foster City* Gilroy Los Altos* Los Gatos- Saratoga Rec. District Menlo Park* YMCA Branches Total Saratoga Exhibit "A" Population 28,550 39,300 43,500 29,750 33,600 28,000 n/a 30,550 n/a 233,250 30,600 Revenue 33,782,510 24,219,832 29,561,732 19,164,431 38,460,660 18,174,149 3,010,000 28,432,790 $3,500,000 $198,306,104 $10,859,709 Position Parks and Recreation Director Recreation and Community Services Director Director of Parks Recreation Parks Recreation Director Community Services Director Recreation Director Department Director Director of Community Resources Executive Director Recreation Director Notes: 1. All salaries at top of range, except Los Gatos Saratoga Rec. District and Los Altos, which are actual 2. Staffing includes only permanent FTE positions 3. Saratoga salary not included in calculation of average 4. Cities marked with an asterisk are included in the management salary survey Brisbane: Recreation svcs. only Burlingame: Parks and Rec. now consolidated subsequent to reorganization Campbell: Functions include nutrition transpo. programs for seniors, operation of historical museum and building maint.; excludes park maint. Cupertino: Functions exclude park maint.; includes golf course and sports center Foster City: Functions include equip. bldg. maint.; Director also administers custodial services contract Gilroy: Functions include rec. svcs. plus street, sewer water utility maint.; excludes structural /bldg. custodial maint. Los Altos: Functions exclude park maint. Los Gatos Saratoga Rec. District: Menlo Park: Includes childcare senior svcs.; excludes park maint. YMCA Branches: Recreation svcs. only Saratoga: Excludes park maint.; Position is .9 FTE (actual salary $64,357) Salary Staff (FTE) 95,729 29 94,872 14 89,916 21 88,392 45 97,080 41 82 8 93,000 14.38 92,916 36 75000 25 $809,813 233.38 AAver Comparable. Positions e Average Non Comparable Positions Survey Average 25,917 $19,830,610 $83;636 $93,151 $80,981 1278 31.00 23.34 $71,508 6 Pleasant Hill 31,450 $66,396 Yes No Menlo Park 30,550<`92 °,9y1;6 Yes Yes Foster City 29,750 .88`,392 Yes -9% Yes Saratoga 30,600 Yes No Los Gatos* 29,700 Yes Yes Morgan Hill 29,250 60,348 Yes No Burlingame 28,550 _$95`,729 No Yes Mandatory Cities* Campbell* 39,300 94,872 No Yes Los Altos* 28,000 $82,908 Yes Yes Albany $12,254,488 $66,396 No No Pinole 10,999,261 Yes No Piedmont 10,311,936 66,751 Yes -9% Yes Saratoga 10,859,709 Yes No Hercules 9,867,585 Yes Yes San Pablo 9,323,615 60,348 Yes Yes East Palo Alto $9,170,703 $47,236 No No arato Revenue Cities Total 'Average Revenue $10,398,185 Avg. of Comparable Positions Avg. of N Compar ble'Position Total Survey Average $69,101 $76,383 Saratoga Salary $71,508 Population Cities o t a Average Population 30,794 4/3/98 Survey Ci ty Survey Ci ty Total Revenue 72,787,297 Total Population anagement Sala Recreation Director $240,731 Recreation Director 454,817 City Pays 7% PERS City Pays 7 PERS 2% 55 2 Exhibit "6" Burlingame* 4/3/98 Agency Recreation Coordinator Recreation Supervisor I Recreation Supervisor II Recreation Superintendent Campbell* Recreation Program Coordinator Recreation Supervisor Cupertino Recreation Coordinator Recreation Supervisor Foster City* Recreation Coordinator Recreation Supervisor Parks Recreation Superintendent Gilroy Recreation Supervisor Recreation Services Manager Los Altos* Recreation Coordinator Recreation Supervisor Senior Recreation Supervisor Los Gatos Saratgoa Rec. Dist. Recreation Coordinator Recreation Supervisor Menlo Park* Recreation Program Coordinator Recreation Supervisor Senior Recreation Supervisor City of ..Saratoga Salary Survey Recreation Supervisors and Coordina Position Salary Positions Comments 37,080 1 Entry level; Bachelor's degree 1 year exp. 42,852 57,144 68,016 43,152 54,732 41,076 57,096 39,516 52,008 64,152 32,796 46,860 37,704 49,644 52,236 37,956 54,924 43,836 53,544 60,264 Exhibit "C" Currently inactive. Each position responsible of 1 or more City-wide programs. Senior's program; supervises clerical -bldg. maint. staff; reports to Director. Degree only. Assigned to a single program area. Handles multiple City-wide programs; reports to Dept. head. Entry-level professional (1 year exp. degree); May supervise clerical staff or P/T employees. B.A. 3 year's exp., multiple program responsibilities; reports to Dept. head. Entry- level, 1 year exp.; responsible for mult. programs. 2 year's exp.; supervises day -to -day operations for rec. programs. Division head. Single program area; Bachelor's degree prior exp.; Reports to Rec. Svcs. Mgr. Multiple program responsibility all facilities; reports to Director. Bachelor's degree 1 year exp.; Responsible for all City-wide youth programs. 2 year's exp.; responsible for child care services. 5 year's exp.; senior's program; supervisory duties in absence of Director. Position similar to Saratoga's in functional responsibilities. Position similar to Saratoga's in functional responsibilities. Bachelor's degree, no prior exp. req'd.; currently inactive. Multiple city-wide programs; reports to Director. Administers all gym programs; supervises Gym Program Directors. YMCA Branches Program Directors /Supervisors Associate Executive Director Recreation Program Coordinator Recreation Supervisor Notes: 1. All salaries at top of range 2. Cities marked with an asterisk are included in the management salary survey Saratoga 4/3/98 City of Saratoga Salary Survey Recreation Supervisors and Coordinators Exhibit "C" 35,000 9 Resonsible for single program areas. 60,000 1 Supervises Program Directors /Supervisors. 38,616 0 Bachelor's degree, no prior exp.; currently inactive. $48,060 2 2 -3 year's exp.; multi program responsibilities; reports to Director. City of Saratoga Saratoga City Council Adjourned Meeting February 24, 1998 Recreation Cost Recovery Task Force City of Saratoga Saratoga City Council Adjourned Meeting February 24, 1998 Recreation Cost Recovery Task Force Table of Contents Exhibits A Objectives and Approach B Recreation Services Program Budget and Teen Services Program Budget Spreadsheet C Graphs -1997 to 1998 Projected Revenue Excess Revenue Over Direct Program Costs D Graphs Revenue Over (Under) Direct Cost Revenue Over (Under) All Cost E Recreation Department Services Program Registration Participants F Recreation Department Cost Per Participant, Per Cost Center G Recreation Department School Facility Usage Detail H Cost Recovery Options I Other Local Cities Recreation Department Programs Objectives Approach City of Saratoga Saratoga City Council Adjourned Meeting February 24, 1998 Recreation Cost Recovery Task Force Exhibit A The Saratoga City Council charged the Finance Commission, in their Dec. 09, 1997 meeting, to prepare a report on the Recreation Departments Cost Recovery Plan. James Ousley, Chairmen of the Finance Commission created a joint task force with two Commissioners from the Parks Recreation Commission, Sheila Ioannou and Barbara Olsen, two Commissioners from the Finance Commission, Allen Roten and Nick Streit, and Joan Pisani, Recreation Director. The joint task force concluded that before they could attempt to even consider cost recovery, we needed to know the components of the Recreation Dept. With the help of Joan Pisani and the Finance Department we broke the Recreation Dept. into seven (7) cost centers; Classes /Theater Trips -Youth Sports Adult Sports Camps- Contract (Sports) Camps -All Others (Nature) Redwood School Sports With the components now determined, we developed Exhibit B to determine which cost centers were profitable and which were unprofitable. We determined it was imperative to know the profitability of each cost center in the following categories; Excess Revenues over Direct Program Costs Direct Program Costs includes All Program Costs except City Permanent Staff and Indirect Costs Revenues Over (Under) Direct,Costs Direct Costs includes All Program Costs except Indirect Costs Revenues Over (Under) All Costs All Costs include All Costs As Requested by The City Council we also included Teen Services in Exhibit B, as a separate cost center using the same criteria. Clues Theater 2f1Z Actual &mmat 5250,000 4234 Froleded @srsfloi 1281,614 42:24 proleded awns .27ar°! 41 1q..._._.__.._...._._.... 52% Pad-tlme Palane§ Ban)))e 115,000 Suoolks 31150 Cm t sk 385,000 Oj■derlr of Meet Emma _._._.__,5,411.. 1119,350 gums Revenue guess Revenge Ond bun .7- 4 V 4.41 prohnlonal BM= E ,tval3.RT 1.281.65 B .05 Bra= Q t (Under) Mout Over (Under) In Iito1 CC,el A loc I8 n 172,403 0.1.121 set Promm Promo &4£.hutt 318,100 Sat 8162,264 c_9!I 73% Direct Cost 229% 867 868 Trips 376,000 177,000 14% 81,500 3750 157,000 32,000 361,250 115,750 7% 820,652 J.06K.18 (34912) -17% *27,582 Dlrcd Youth Sports 318,000 125,000 5% 33,500 33,700 36,600 81,000 114,800 310 200 5% 115,678 1.06 B .14 (15 478) -18% 110,343 _prow= Cos(,_ 139,976 Adult Sports $28,900 328,000 5% 33,500 33,250 810,700 11,000 518,450 39 550 4% 820,986 1.06 B. 24 (511,436) -39% 113,792 Comer Contract (Sports) 142,000 354,000 10% 31,000 344,000 1750 145,750 18,250 4% 311,976 1.03 K.12 (33,776) -13% 119,826 Comps -All Others (Nature) 335,000 346,200 9% 826,000 18,900 $0 3750 535,650 110,550 5% 321,922 1.06B.27 (511.372) -38% 319,824 Redwood School Sports 326,600 328,000 5% 30 30 320,500 30 320,500 84500 2% 35,786 1.05 (31,236) -4% 38,619 Total 1476,500 3536,814 100% 350,500 117,850 3223,800 923,600 1315,750 3221,064 100• 9191,396 1.60 K .95 B .70 129,668 100% 1172,389 Cr CITY OF SARATOGA RECREATION SERVICES PROGRAM BUDGET 1997 -1998 TEENS SERVICES PROGRAM BUDGET 1997 -1998 (I) Includes salaries end benefits for professional and clerical staff FTR Professional: 125 FIE Clerical: 1.28 (2) Professional staff 1 Joan; K Kim; B Beverly (3) Indirect Cost Allocation baud an pro -rata of Total Direct Cost and Solaria end Benefits proem Revenue 2E21 p)fl Par4tlms hid Ilm Full -Mme Frofesdonal Revenue Indlred Aelual Prolated Salado 64 AyeIIllg QypSpsle Ihedtdx Dlrcd gJ(ei Sahries+ Fall-Mme Over (Under) CAI 2 Teens Jaws. 324,374 311,000 _.iIG3iA.._...._.___..___ 127,106 83,470 39,400 Slbyf3.., _prow= Cos(,_ 139,976 �c t 428,976 ..201112.01._ 332,228 12021suLGLI_ 1. 15 B .25 D1red Cos (S61.2)4) _bIloadon (31..._ 854,529 Cr CITY OF SARATOGA RECREATION SERVICES PROGRAM BUDGET 1997 -1998 TEENS SERVICES PROGRAM BUDGET 1997 -1998 (I) Includes salaries end benefits for professional and clerical staff FTR Professional: 125 FIE Clerical: 1.28 (2) Professional staff 1 Joan; K Kim; B Beverly (3) Indirect Cost Allocation baud an pro -rata of Total Direct Cost and Solaria end Benefits Classes Theater 52% 14% City of Saratoga 1997 -1998 Projected Revenue Trips Youth Sports Adult Sports Camps Contract (Sports) City of Saratoga Excess Revenue Over Direct Program Costs Youth Sports Adult Sports 1O% Camps All Redwood Others (Nature) School Sports Camps Contract Others (Nature) School Sports (Spy) Camps All Redwood Exhibit C Exhibit D 250% 200% 150% 100% 50% -50% Classes Theater City of Saratoga Revenue Over (Under) Direct Cost Trips Youth Adult Sports Camps Camps All Redwood Sports Contract Others School (Sports) (Nature) Sports 0% 5% -10% -15% -20% -25% Classes Theater Trips City of Saratoga Revenue Over (Under) All Cost Youth Sports Adult Sports Camps Camps All Redwood Contract Others School Sports (Sports) (Nature) Classes/Theater 720 classes 6460 participants Adult Sports Basketball 42 teams 342 participants Drop -in Basketball Program 15 participants Softball 16 teams 260 participants Youth Basketball 30 teams 263 participant 39 volunteers Coaches Trips 27 trips I200 participants Contract Sports Camps (Soccer, Basketball, Hockey, Baseball, etc.) 10 camps 561 participants Nature and Holiday Camps (Camp Caterpillar, Backyard Scientist, Beach Adventure etc.) 33 camps 565 participants 12 -14 part-time recreation leaders Redwood Sports Prgram 22 teams 350 participants 1997 -98 Total Registered Participants: 10,016 Warner Hutton House 65 average daily attendance Middle School Dances S held 300 average attendance Other Activities 300 participants Youth Commissioners: 13 RECREATION SERVICES PROGRAM REGISTRATION 1997 -1998 (8 months actual, 4 months estimated) TEEN SERVICES Exhibit E ?120/98 City of Saratoga Cost per Participant, Per Cost Center 1997 -1998 Exhibit F Number of Revenue Revenue Revenue Over Revenue Over Over Over (Under) All (Under) (Under) Per (Under) All Cost I er Partici s ants Direct Cost Partici I ant Cost Partici ant Classes Theater 6,460.00 67,868.00 10.51 (4,535.00) (32,484.00) (0.70) (27.07) Trips 1,200.00 (4,902.00) (4.09) Youth Sports 263.00 (5,478.00) (20.83) (15,821.00) (60.16) Adult Sports 617.00 (11,436.00) (18.53) (25,228.00) (40.89) (41.98) Camps Contract (Sports) 561.00 (3,726.00) (6.64) (23,552.00) Camps All Others (Nature) 565.00 (11,372.00) (20.13) (31,196.00) (55.21) Redwood School Sports 350.00 (1,266.00) (3.62) (9,905.00) (28.30) Total 10,016.00 29,688.00 (142,721.00) City of Saratoga Cost per Participant, Per Cost Center 1997 -1998 Exhibit F TO: Recreation Services Cost Recovery Task Force FROM: Joan Pisani SUBJECT: Recreation Department School Facility Usage DATE: January 21, 1998 The Saratoga Recreation Department uses space at three schools in Saratoga for programs such as adult and youth basketball leagues, tennis classes and golf lessons. Listed below is the information you requested in regards to the current usage_ Saratoga High School 1997 -98 usage: 53700 Balance in account: 56300 Redwood 11Edd1e School 1997 -98 usage: 54000 Balance in account: 516,600 West Valley College 1997 -98 usage: 52000 Balance in account: 56000 Exhibit G Cost Recovery Options City of Saratoga Saratoga City Council Adjourned Meeting February 24, 1998 Recreation Cost Recovery Task Force Estimated Options Description Anticipated Revenue A Retain Recreation Dept. as is B Increase Recreation Fees 10% over 97 -98 53,681 (Market resistance may drop overall revenue) C Increase Recreation Fees 15% over 97 98 80,522 (Market resistance may drop overall revenue) D Eliminate Unprofitable Programs (Savings depends on program and other City staff cuts) E Eliminate Recreation Dept. completely (If no other City staff are eliminated then the $172,389 in indirect cost allocated to the Rec. Dept would be re- allocated to other City depts. Could decrease burden on City Manager and City Council) F Consider transferring some or all Programs to the Saratoga/ Los Gatos Recreation District (Sar/Lg fees are less, cost savings will depend on other City staff cuts and indirect costs would be re- allocated to other depts.) G Consider establishing Saratoga Recreation District as a separate Entity. (Again savings depends on other City staff cuts, indirect costs would be re- allocated to other depts.) Exhibit H 2/23/98 LOCAL CITIES RECREATION DEPARTMENT PROGRAMS NOTE: The City of Saratoga's definition of direct and Indirect costs are different from Cities surveyed above. These Cities consider direct costs to be expenses actually incurred for programs Re: for classes, the instructor's salary materials would be a direct expense indirect costs would be all other Recreation Department expenses such as staff salaries, brochure costs, clerical support, etc. CITY OF CITY OF CITY OF CITY OF QUESTIONS CAMPBELL CUPERTINO FOSTER CITY LOS ALTOS 1. DO THEY HAVE RECREATION DEPARTMENTS OR DIVISIONS Recreation Department Recreation Department uses Enterprise Funds Rec. one of funds Recreation Department has four divisions Recreation Department 2. HOW ARE THEY FUNDED Direct Cost +26% and ueneral fund Fee based recovery +32% indirect Fees and Enterprise Fund Fees and General Fund 3. DO THEIR PROGRAMS COST RECOVER Cost recovery 82% No offer free programs in summer, youth etc 60% to 70% recovery the rest covered by enterprise fund 85% to 90% 4. 130 THEY COVER INDIRECT COSTS AND IF SO HOW Expected to be cost recov.in future do It gradually No, charge 32% but General fund suports the rest Fees and general fund 19% overhead rest General Fund 6. DOES CITY GENERAL FUND SUBSIDIZE PARKS AND REC Yes Yes Yes Yes 6. HOW LONG HAS CITY HAS A PARKS AND REC PROGRAM 1952 Since becoming a City 1973 1962 2/23/98 LOCAL CITIES RECREATION DEPARTMENT PROGRAMS NOTE: The City of Saratoga's definition of direct and Indirect costs are different from Cities surveyed above. These Cities consider direct costs to be expenses actually incurred for programs Re: for classes, the instructor's salary materials would be a direct expense indirect costs would be all other Recreation Department expenses such as staff salaries, brochure costs, clerical support, etc. 1. Roll Call KINUTEa SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TINS: Tuesday, February 24, 1998 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Adult Care Center, 19655 Allendale Avenue TYPE: Adjourned Regular Meeting /Joint Meeting with Planning Commission and Heritage Preservation Commission Mayor Wolfe called the meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. Councilmembers Bogosian, Jacobs, Shaw, Moran, and Mayor Wolfe were present. Staff members present were City Manager Perlin, Interim Assistant City Manager Larson, Recreation Director Pisani, Community Development Manager Walgren, Associate Planner Bradley, and Deputy City Clerk Cory. Assistant City Attorney Kit Faubion was also present. 2. Report of City Clerk on Posting of Agenda Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on February 20. The notice of adjournment from the February 18 Council meeting was properly posted on February 19. 3. Oral Communications from the Public on Non Agendized Items Mark Pickens, representing the Festival Theater Ensemble, spoke as a Saratoga resident. He expressed support for the Recreation Department, particularly in their role in assisting the Ensemble in presenting Shakespeare in Wildwood Park. He also stated that the Ensemble was interested in establishing a base in Saratoga as an integral part of the community. 4. Agenda Items for March 14 Council Retreat, Judy Sweet City Manager Perlin introduced consultant Judy Sweet, who reviewed her credentials and discussed the retreat. The Council agreed that the proposed agenda items were satisfactory. The City Manager was directed to provide Ms. Sweet with Councilmembers' phone numbers so that she could contact them for any additional information. The Council also approved the proposed location for the retreat at Savannah Chanel Vineyards on Congress Springs Road, after noting that the City Attorney had approved the location even though it is outside of the City limits. 5. Presentation by Recreation Cost Recovery Task Force, Nick Streit, Finance Commissioner Finance Commissioner Streit submitted a packet of information prepared by the Task Force, explaining that it had been a collaborative effort. He reviewed the information and answered Councilmembers' questions. Concerning Exhibit I, Parks and Recreation Commissioner Olsen commented that Saratoga's Recreation Department recovered more indirect costs than other cities she surveyed. Other cities fund recreation through their General Fund because they consider parks and recreation a necessary service, she said. She answered further questions from Councilmembers. Vic Monia, Granite Way, asked how the decision was made to raise fees last year. Recreatiort Director Pisani explained the process, noting that fee raises in adult sports had resulted in complaints, even though they were being subsidized at the rate of $40 per participant. Councilmembers, the public, and staff discussed issues in the report further, including significance of indirect cost allocations, how they had been calculated, and why comparisons had been made in the way they were. City Manager noted that the Finance Commission is in the process of examining the indirect cost schedule. After further discussion, he also noted that at some point the Council will need to make a policy decision as to whether any subsidy the City contributed to the program was a good investment. City Council Minutes 2 February 24, 1998 Councilmember Shaw requested that the Task Force include a survey of recreation department salary structures in surrounding communities in the final report. Jeff Schwartz, San Marcos Drive, asked if the audience was counted as participants in the theater and classes program, and Recreation Director Pisani replied they were not. Kay Whitney, Parks and Recreation Commission Chair, described methods used by the City of Sunnyvale to increase revenue. She also noted that recreation is a service that people miss if it is gone, and it produces a sense of community. Larry Fine, representing AYSO Soccer, stated that their fees for the use of congress Springs Park were increasing, and he objected to paying increased fees that would be used to subsidize another part of the recreation program. City Manager Perlin replied that the fees charged to sports leagues for use of City parks do not subsidize recreation, but go into the General Fund. After further discussion it was noted that no action was required, as this item was a progress report. There was consensus to postpone any decisions until the indirect cost report is submitted. Finance Commission Chair Ousley reviewed the meeting schedule and stated that the report on indirect costs could be ready for the joint meeting with the Council on April 7. 6. Joint Meeting with Heritage Commission Heritage Preservation Commissioners Fine, King, Koepernik, Peck, and Peepari were present. status of Heritage Preservation Ordinance revisions (applying same permit review criteria to inventory structures as already applies to designated landmark structures) Associate Planner Bradley stated she expected the ordinances to be ready for review by the Heritage Preservation Commission in March. Commissioner Fine remarked that Saratoga was losing its heritage, but the Commission is attempting to keep some historic structures from being demolished. Update on Community Context video and Expansion of Heritage Resources Inventory Commissioner Fine noted that late Commissioner Frank Dutro had prepared the video, and more homes needed to be photographed. Commissioner Peck felt that the impetus for preservation should come from the property owners' desire to preserve the property, rather than from the City's imposing regulations upon the property owners. Councilmember Bogosian agreed, stating that educating the property owners helps. Councilmember Jacobs pointed out that there is no simple answer to balancing the rights of property owners and the desire for preservation, and there may not be much the City can do. Community Development Manager Walgren reported that Palo Alto has a preservation ordinance in effect that resembles the design review process. Councilmembers and Commissioners continued to discuss means of encouraging preservation such as waiving fees, promoting historic consciousness, a facade easement, bicycle tours, and historic homes tours. City Manager Perlin stated that the City's insurance coverage would now City Council Minutes 3 February 24, 1998 apply to City- sponsored events such as historic home tours. 7. Joint Meeting with Planning Commission Planning Commissioners Kaplan, Martlage, Murakami, Pierce and Chair Patrick were present. Upcoming Measure 0 Election (Barry Swenson Project) City Manager Perlin explained the request for election which had been submitted, noting that the developer had exercised his option of requesting an election before going through City approval processes. Jeff Schwartz, San Marcos Drive, urged the City Council to change its procedures so that such a project would go through normal design review first, then go to a vote. In this way the voters would know specifically what they were voting on. Assistant City Attorney Faubion stated that the Council could amend the resolution setting up Measure G procedures if they wished to do-so. She also noted that even if the Swenson General Plan redesignation were approved by the voters first, the City would retain the power to disapprove the project itself. However, there is no legal impediment to the City's changing procedures and requiring the applicant to go through normal processes first. In this case, however, there might be a consideration of fairness to the applicant, who has done what the City required him to do to have an election under the procedures in effect. Councilmembers discussed the consequences of having an election first: the possibility that voters might approve a measure based on brochures showing a particular project which might not be approved by the City; the possibility that an entirely different project might be developed by Swenson or a future property owner; the possibility that having the election first would make no difference; the possibility that having the City approval process first would result in the applicant's providing the voters with stronger documentation about his intentions. In response to Vic Monia, Community Development Manager Walgren stated that other uses allowed in the quasi public facilities designation were such things as schools, senior care facilities, and community centers. Mr. Monia then suggested that the applicant's project be regulated by a conditional use permit rather than by a General Plan amendment. Mr. Walgren replied that the underlying zoning of the property does not allow the density of the proposed project, necessitating an election under Measure G. Cheriel Jensen, Quito Road, opposed the project because of flooding, lack of space, lack of an Environmental Impact Report, and lack of definition of project. She favored changing the resolution on Measure G implementation so projects would go through City processes before any election. In answer to Councilmember Moran, Community Development Manager Walgren stated that the project would be subject to the California Environmental Quality Act. Assistant City Attorney Faubion stated that initiatives are exempt from CEQA, but she would need to determine whether it would apply at the General Plan amendment stage. She also stated that if the resolution were to be amended, criteria would need to be•developed in order to apply the procedures fairly. In answer to Vic Monia, Community Development Manager Walgren stated that there is no zoning designation for quasi public facilities. Instead, projects are reviewed according to the underlying residential zoning criteria. In answer to Councilmember Moran, City Manager Perlin stated that a resolution calling the election would be presented at the March 4 meeting. If the Council declines to pass the resolution and forward it to the County by March 6, there will be no election June 2. The Council would then presumably direct the staff to amend the Measure G implementation resolution to reflect new procedures. City Council Minutes -Adult Entertainment Business Regulations City Manager explained the options available to the Council, which were explained further by Assistant City Attorney Faubion. She displayed a map showing the areas where adult entertainment businesses would be allowed if they were prohibited within a 1000 -foot radius of schools and parks. She said there was no given distance which would be the greatest distance allowable by law because the individual circumstances involved would need to be considered. She explained that such businesses could be regulated either through zoning methods, permit methods, or a combination thereof. To make regulations as restrictive as possible, they could cover several different items, such as hours and visibility. City Manager Perlin reported that a bill is going through the State Legislature which would help the City to regulate certain types of adult business as theaters. There was consensus to pursue regulation through the conditional use permit process rather than Zoning Ordinance amendments. -Long Range Planning Community Development Manager Walgren explained that in spite of the loss of the long -range planning position, the City is still performing long -range planning, but more slowly. Projects such as the General Plan, Circulation Element, and the Housing Element are being carried forward. Orchids and Onions Tour 4 February 24,1998 Community Development Manager Walgren noted that the tour would be coordinated with the Planning Commission retreat, which was planned for the last week in March or the first week in april. Televising Planning Commission Meetings Planning Commission Chair Patrick said that the Commission would like to defer televising of Planning Commission meetings because the necessary lights were uncomfortably bright. Commissioner Kaplan stated that it would not be possible for her to remain on the Commission if the lights were not changed because they caused her to suffer migraine headaches. Mayor Wolfe replied that it might be possible for her either to sit at the staff table or to miss a couple of meetings until the problem was resolved. City Manager Perlin reported that he had had a meeting with KSAR about the lighting, and it appeared that the best solution would be to work with the theater groups to use their lights. He said he should be able to have a report soon. There was consensus to direct staff to bring the Council a report in three weeks concerning feasibility of improving the lighting in the Civic Theater. Planning Commission Chair Patrick asked about attaining a quorum if a commissioner must abstain. Assistant. City Attorney Faubion said that the presence of a quorum is established for each item rather than for the meeting as a whole. If a quorum is lacking for one item due to a conflict of interest, the item would be continued to the next meeting. Concerning videotapes of the Planning Commission meetings, City Manager Perlin explained that KSAR produces three tapes at the time of the broadcast. It is difficult for them to produce more because of the staff time involved and the need to tie up studio equipment. Councilmembers discussed the need for Councilmembers to have access to videotapes, since the brief Planning Commission minutes do not sufficiently describe Commission deliberations on items that are appealed to the Council. Various means of providing more tapes were suggested. City Council Minutes 5 February 24, 1998 8. Self Evaluation of Previous Meeting, February 18 There was consensus that the meeting had proceeded well. 9. Agency Assignment Reports In connection with the Solid Waste Joint Powers Authority, Councilmember Moran reported that an "assignment" of a contract to the JPA would be appearing on the agenda soon. She urged its approval. Councilmember Bogosian recommended that a letter be written for the Mayor's signature urging the Library Joint Powers Authority to continue to investigate solutions to the problem of Internet access for minors. There was consensus to direct staff to do so. Concerning the Saratoga Business Development Council, Mayor Wolfe reported that the Farmers Market at the high school wished to have a $500 temporary use permit fee waived. City Manager Perlin responded that whoever wished the waiver needed to make the request to the Council in writing. 10. Other Wolfe Reported that he had received a request for nominations for a Salute to Youth program. There was consensus for the matter to be referred to the Youth Commission. Moran Requested that commissions agendize items for discussion with the Council before the joint meetings. Perlin Announced that Oliver Wright had agreed to serve as interim Finance Director. Perlin Distributed a memo on a closed session to be held March 4 on TEA issues. Discussion followed concerning Councilmembers' recollections on the proposal for a TEA phase -out that had been offered by the County. Perlin reported that he was reviewing several options to rectify the situation. Councilmember Moran reported that the Monte Sereno City Manager had expressed a desire to be actively involved in TEA efforts. Perlin Report that he expected resolutions implementing the reorganization to be on the March 4 agenda. With the consent of the Council, he also expected to appoint James Walgren as Community Development Director at that meeting. Moran Brought up date for City Manager evaluation and recalled that March 24 had been agreed upon. Perlin Reported that five proposals had been received in response to the Request for Proposals for the Prides Crossing traffic calming project. 11. Citizen Recognition Not discussed. 12. Adjournment The meeting was adjourned at 10:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Grace E. Cory Deputy City Clerk March 31, 1998 SARATOGA CHAMBER OF COMMERCE 20460 Saratoga Los Gatos Road Saratoga, California 95070 (408) 867 -0753 Fax (408) 867 -5213 http: /www.saratoga- ca.com Larry Perlin, City Manager City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Larry, In preparation for the Chamber of Commerce annual joint meeting with the City Council on Tuesday, April 7, 1998. I have prepared a report covering Saratoga community and business activities handled by the Chamber. Included with this report is a package of materials that the Chamber distributes to its members and the public. Chamber President, Kristin Davis, owner of The Front Window, will be addressing the City Council that evening and will be prepared to discuss the Chamber goals and action plans for 1998. She will also request the continued generous support of in -kind services from the City for the Celebrate Saratoga! '98 Street Dance. This year marks the tenth anniversary of Celebrate Saratoga! Pat and Fran Andreson, General Chairs of Celebrate, owners of the Backyard Pool Center, are planning an anniversary celebration with activities that will include the whole community. I would like to take this opportunity to thank you and the City Council for its strong support of the Saratoga Chamber of Commerce and its efforts to invigorate the business environment and enhance the quality of life in our community. Sincerely, CIDS k\ I Sheila Arthur Executive Director March 27, 1998 Mayor Don Wolfe and :Members of the City Council Saratoga City Hall 13777 Fruitvale Ave Saratoga, CA 95070 Dear Mayor Wolfe The Saratoga Market Days Committee, along with the SBDC, would like to formally ask that Resolution No. 96 -19 be permanently adopted as many of our merchants have asked us to renew this program. We would like to continue our efforts to promote business in Saratoga on a year round basis. Resolution No. 96 -19 has made it possible to accomplish many of our goals that were not possible in the past. We have hosted the Farmers' Market and other special events throughout the City, organized a promotional table for local businesses at our sponsored events, held a monthly "Business Showcase" in Blaney Plaza, published a monthly newsletter, organized a newspaper advertising campaign, created food tasting events, entertainment events and children's events. We are currently working on new marketing broschure to promote Saratoga locally and nationally and even internationally. If not for the privileges granted in the resolution, we would not have been able to accomplish any of these goals. We would like to keep the momentum going into the future. We are not asking for any money, just the privileges granted in the resolution. Thank you for your past support. Please do not hesitate to contact us if we can answer any questions. Sincerely Saratoga 1VJarket Days Committee Members: Bill Cooper, Chairman Bella Saratoga Jean Funari Saratoga Travel cc: Larry Perlin James Walgren Saratoga Market Days 14503 Big Basin Way Saratoga, CA 95070 408 741 -5115 Pat Andreson The Backyard Center Kristen Davis The Front Window Charles Gascoigne Clare McBride Odd Fellows Resident CITY Jaqueline Nagy Global Mktg Events Corbet Merchant One of A Kind a 1.1‘"/CE RESOLUTION NO. RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA WAIVING ZONING ORDINANCE STANDARDS IN CONJUNCTION WITH THE CONDUCT OF SARATOGA MARKET DAYS" WHEREAS, the City has established the Saratoga Business Development Council whose primary objective is to assist and enhance business and economic development opportunities in the City; and WHEREAS, as part of business enhancement activities, "Saratoga Market Days" is proposed to emphasize shopping opportunities in all commercial areas in the City; and WHEREAS, as part of "Saratoga Market Days it is proposed to display merchandise for outdoor sales and to use banners, balloons and other attention attracting devices to draw attention to commercial areas; and WHEREAS, the Zoning Ordinance of the City of Saratoga only permits special event signs on a limited use basis and prohibits all other types of proposed displays; and WHEREAS, the City Council has endorsed the concept of "Saratoga Market Days" and the use of temporary signing programs necessary to the success of this activity; and WHEREAS, on April 23, 1996, the Saratoga City Council adopted Resolution No. 96 -19 which waived certain requirements regarding the use of special event signing and the outdoor display of merchandise on Saturdays only for the period of May 4 October 26, 1996; and WHEREAS, Saratoga Market Days and its promotional efforts have been successful in attracting customers to Saratoga businesses and in an effort to continue the on -going program of improving the economic vitality of the City: NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Saratoga as follows: 1. That the strict requirements of the Zoning Ordinance regarding signing and outdoor display and sales of merchandise is hereby waived on Saturdays only for the period of November 2, 1996 through April 26, 1997, for the express purpose of supporting "Saratoga Market Days." 2. That Special Event banners currently permitted by the Zoning Ordinance are allowed to be displayed on Saturdays only between the hours of 8:00 AM 5:00 PM; and further, it shall not be necessary to obtain an administrative sign permit for these banners displayed in conjunction with "Saratoga Market Days" nor will the display be counted as part of the days currently permitted for temporary Special Event signs. 3. Other "attention- attracting" devices to include the following: Individual Banners The banners will be uniform in design of 1 color lettering on a choice of 3 banner colors with the same logo and slogan as on the Area Banners. Each individual banner will not exceed 6 sq.ft. (approximately 2'X3') and will be located on existing light poles in the Village and on appropriate structures and buildings in other commercial areas. These banners will be purchased by individual merchants whose names will appear on the banner and will be displayed throughout the Saratoga Market Days season. Special Events Signage and Display of Merchandise The use of balloons, flowers, plants and similar displays will be permitted on Saturday only between the hours of 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM. Outdoor merchandise displays shall be limited to an area not to exceed 30 inches wide, 8 ft. long and 8 ft. high and shall be located so as not to restrict safe pedestrian movement. Display Restrictions No sign, banner, balloons or other attention attracting device" shall be displayed, located or allowed to project above the roof line of a building. Enforcement Each Saratoga Market Day participant will sign an agreement that they will abide by the above stated regulations which will be enforced by the corresponding Area Representatives of the Saratoga Market Days Committee. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Community Development Director shall provide a monthly report to the City Council for informational purposes evaluating the impact of the use of said banners and other "attention- attracting" devices. Should the City Council determine that the continued use of this program is contrary to the City's overall aesthetic and residential character, the City Council may amend or rescind this resolution. Printed on recycled paps. h Background: Recommendation: M E M O R A N D U M OK= a 0 TO: Saratoga City Council i i.1 FROM: Paul L. Curtis, Community Development Director DATE: September 18, 1996 SUBJECT: Waiver of Certain Sign /Merchandise Regulations On April 23, 1996, the City Council adopted a resolution waiving special event signing and outdoor display regulations on Saturdays only. The purpose of the Council's action was to encourage and implement programs in the on -going effort to improve economic vitality of Saratoga businesses. The program is being conducted by a committed group of Saratoga business owners, the Saratoga Market Days committee. Special events located throughout the shopping areas of the City have proved successful in improving the business climate, in no small part due to the diligent efforts of the Committee and the use of balloons, signing, etc. provided for by the Council's action. The City Council resolution contained a "sunset clause" which approved the waived regulations until October 26, 1996, which was to coincide with the ending of the Farmers Market season. However, the Saratoga Market Days Committee has recognized the value of the program and has requested that the City Council extend the waiving of the regulations through April 1997, Staff has continually monitored the City's business areas and shopping centers nearly every Saturday. No violations have been noted nor have any complaints been received by Community Development Department staff. Therefore, staff supports the Saratoga Market Days Committ request for extension of the resolution. Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the attached resolution extending the Saratoga Market Days promotional efforts until April 26, 1997. 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070 (408) 867-343S COUNCIL. AIEMI3ERS: Ann Mane Burge; P3(d E J3COL' Gillian Moran srer! 1uChe' OL >n,rld L kVo /,'r' T.E.A.M. SARATOGA TOGETHER EVERYONE ACHIEVES MORE TEAM SARATOGA 'MEETING NOTES FROM 3/3/98 I. Present: Fran Andreson (Bkyrd Pool Center), Bill Cooper (Bella Saratoga), Kristin Davis (The Front Window), Jennie Loft (City Staff), James Walgren (City Staff), and Dick Wood (Wood Associates). II. TEAM'S TASK: We discussed, at length, the Team's mission and to what -extent have we accomplished it. Briefly, the Mission is to increase business and business success in Saratoga" by focusing on C. Signage Next on the list are hillside businesses, specifically. the wineries. D. Business Awareness /Education The Chamber of Commerce established a Business Education Committee last year whose purpose is to schedule programs to help businesses be more successful in their marketing efforts. III. BUSINESS CENTERS A. Argonaut Owners plan improvements and two additional buildings, beginning this spring. B. Gateway City officials indicate the possibility of receiving State funds in approximately two years to upgrade this area. Presently. no vacancies exist. C. Quito Improvements have been made in the past two years with all space rented. D. Village New lights were added to tree -lined Big Basin Way, and the owner of Saratoga Village Center plans improvements, including a new roof, to begin this spring. In the offing, attractive news stands and possibly bicycle racks. A. A good business mix With little success, property owners have been invited to Team meetings. It was suggested another letter be sent informing them that the Saratoga Business Development Council (SBDC) and Team Saratoga would be willing to assist in filling vacancies when they occur. B. Attracting shoppers The Saratoga Market Days Committee is responsible for the various promotional activities (flyers, balloons, special events, etc.), in Saratoga's main Business Centers. The committee is currently working on a tri -fold brochure for distribution to the public. IV. TEAM SARATOGA: Have we accomplished our mission? Although difficult to measure quantitatively, we believe other committees (e.g. Market Days Business Education), have "picked up the ball." Established as an ad hoc committee by the Saratoga Business Development Council (SBDC). Team members believe we have, for the most part, accomplished our mission. Chairman's Note: This is not to say that the work is completely finished, nor will it ever be Fortunately, Saratoga has the SBDC, a forum where people meet the fourth Tuesday of every month to discuss common interests, concerns, and ways to enhance our community through a collaborative approach. Business persons, residents and city officials comprise this monthly meeting. Issues are raised, discussed, and action may be taken. At times a committee is formed; e.g. Market Days, Farmer's Market, Team Saratoga, to mention a few. As chairman of Team Saratoga, I want to thank the following members who have served on the Team: Pat and Fran Andreson, Sheila Arthur, Bill Cooper I, Bill Cooper 11, Kristin Davis, Cookie Fitzsimmons, Judy Gathard, Andrea Liddie, Clare McBride, Carl Orr Glynis Wineinger. Appreciation is also extended to City staff: Jennie Loft, Larry Perlin, and James Walgren. Life is a continuing adaptation to change. May the Saratoga Business Development council continue to guide and shape our future through a collaborative approach. Respectfully submitted, Dick Wood, C airman Team Saratoga q, Public hearings will start promptly at 8:00, when the Council will move from whatever item it is considering at that time to public hearings. Note: Devices to assist the hearing impaired are now available in the lobby. AGENDA SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL TIME: Wednesday, April 1, 1998 7:00 p.m. PLACE: Civic Theater, 13777 Fruitvale Ave. TYPE: Regular Meeting Special Meeting 7:00 p.m. in Administration Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Closed Session pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(a): CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL- EXISTING LITIGATION Name of Case: San Francisco Baykeepers v. Saratoga Mayor's Report on Closed Session. 7:30 Pledge of Allegiance 1. ROLL CALL 2. CEREMONIAL ITEMS A. Proclamation for Asian Americans for Community Involvement 3. REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on March 27. 4. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS AND THE PUBLIC A. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS B. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS None. C. WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS None. 5. CONSENT CALENDAR These items will be acted upon in one motion for each section unless they are removed from the Consent Calendar for discussion by Councilmembers or any interested party. However, items in Section A have already been considered by the Council at a previous meeting where the public was invited to comment, after which the hearing was closed. Those items are not subject to public discussion at this meeting because the vote taken at the previous meeting was final. Resolutions concerning decisions made at previous meetings are for the purpose of memorializing the decision to assure the accuracy of the findings, the prior vote, and any conditions imposed. A. Previously Discussed Items City Council Agenda 2 April 1 1998 1) Resolution denying Request for Waiver of Annexation (Osinski) B. New Items 1) Planning Commission Actions, 3/25 Note and file. 2) Memo Authorizing Publicity for Upcoming Hearings Weisner Appeal 3) Final Acceptance and Notice of Completion for villa Oaks Lane Landslide Repair, CIP 9703 (Stevens Creek Quarry) 4) City Financial Reports for February: a) Treasurer's Report Receive and file. b) Investment Report Receive and file. c) Financial Report Receive and file. 5) Approval of First Amendment to Agreement between City of San Jose and City of Saratoga for Maintenance of Traffic Signals under Joint Jurisdiction and Authorization for Mayor to Execute 6) Approval of Check Register 7) Authorization of Purchase of New City Vehicle and Surplus of Currently -Owned City Vehicle Report to be delivered next week. C. CLAIMS AGAINST THE CITY 1) Claim of Sera concerning automobile accident Recommended Motion: Reject claim. 6. PUBLIC HEARINGS None. 4. A. Oral Communications (continued) and instructions to staff regarding actions on current oral communications 7. OLD BUSINESS A. Request for Fee .Waiver. for. San Jose Symphony Showcase (continued from 3/18) 8. NEW BUSINESS None. 9. ROUTINE MATTERS (Note: City Attorney will be excused at this point if no longer needed.) A. Approval of Minutes 3/14; 3/18; 3/20; 3/24; 3/27 City Council Agenda 10. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS A. Agenda items for adjourned regular meeting April 7 Joint Meeting with Finance Commission, Chamber of Commerce, SBDC, TEAM Saratoga B. Other 11. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT 3 April 1, 1998 Recreation Department Indirect Cost Report Measure G Budget 12. ADJOURNMENT to next meeting at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, April 7, at Adult Care Center, 19655 Allendale Avenue. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact Peter Gonda at 408/868 -1221. 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]