HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-03-2008 Supplemental Council AgendaAGENDA
SPECIAL MEETING
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
CIP STUDY SESSION
JUNE 3, 2008
SPECIAL MEETING 6:00 P.M.- ADMINISTRATIVE CONFERENCE ROOM,
13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE.
CALL MEETING TO ORDER 6:00 P.M.
REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA
(Pursuant to Gov't. Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on
May 29, 2008.
COMMUNICATIONS FROM PUBLIC
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ON NON AGENDIZED ITEMS
Any member of the public will be allowed to address the City Council 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.
1. CIP Study Session
Recommended Action:
Accept report regarding the CIP and provide direction to staff.
ADJOURNMENT
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate
—in- this meeting; please contact the City Clerk-at-(408) 868 1269 or.ctclerk @saratoga.ca.us. 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).
Certificate of Posing of Agenda:
1, Ann Sullivan, Acting, City Clerk for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the
meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga was posted on May 29, 2008, at the office of 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 29` day of May 2008 at Saratoga, California.
Ann Sullivan, C
Acting City Cle
1
MEETING DATE: June 3, 2008
ORIGINATING DEPT: Public Works
PREPARED BY: John Cherbone
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
SUBJECT: Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) 3` Study Session
AGENDA ITEM:
CITY MANAGER:
DEPT HEAD: John Cherbone
RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
Accept report regarding the CIP and provide direction to staff.
REPORT SUMMARY:
May 7th City Council CIP Study Session:
On May 7th the City Council held a Study Session to review the Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)
for FY 08/09.
At the Study Session the City Council directed the following:
Schedule a second Study Session be held on May 21 to continue the discussion of the
FY 08/09 CIP.
Preliminarily fund two Operational Efficiency Projects: 1) Community Development
Document Imaging Project at $60,000 and 2) City Website Upgrade Project at $50,000.
Gather any additional information available connected to the feasibility of the proposed
City Hall Solar Project (Attachments 8 9).
Develop a list of building efficiency projects to add to the Operational Efficiency Project
List (Attachment 1).
Park and Trail Projects for 08/09 to be prioritized by the Parks and Recreation
Commission and the Pedestrian, Equestrian, Bicycle, and Trails Advisory Committee
(PEBTAC) (Attachment 5).
May 21st City Council CIP Study Session:
On May 21st the City Council held a second Study Session to review the Capital Improvement
Plan (CIP) for FY 08/09.
At the Study Session the City Council directed the following:
Schedule.a third Study Session be held on June 3 to continue the discussion of the FY
08/09 CIP.
Continue funding both General CIP Projects and Operational Efficiency Projects at
$600,000 apiece for a total of $1.2 million.
Submit a list of hillside infrastructure needs (Attachment 10).
CIP Funding:
At the February 1 City Council Retreat, in conjunction with the Mid -Year Budget Report,
Council directed $1.2 million dollars from unallocated end of year savings to be equally allocated
to two types of reserve accounts, namely 1) for Operational Efficiencies and 2) for General
Capital improvements.
Other funding sources include grants, local cost sharing agreements, Park Development Fund,__
and existing funding in the adopted CIP.
Operational Efficiency Funded Projects (See Attachment 1):
These projects aim to increase efficiencies in the operation of City which can include money
savings, power savings, staff time savings, and increased level of service to the public at a lower
cost.
As directed, the Recreation and Facility Department prepared a list of building efficiency projects
which have been added to the list of Operational Efficiency Projects (Attachment 1).
Total_Funding Available for Operational Efficiency Projects: $600,000
Projects Preliminarily Funded at the May 7 Study Session: (1 10,000)
Remaining Funds Available: $490,000
Total Cost of Remaining Operational Efficiency Projects: $1,643,326
General Capital Improvement Funded Projects (See Attachment 2 3):
There are two groups of projects under this category, New CIP Projects and Existing Unfunded
CIP Projects. Unlike Operational Efficiency Projects, the Capital Improvement Project's costs
2 of 4
exceed the $600,000 available funding amount. Therefore, these projects will have to be
prioritized.
Total Funding Available for General CIP Projects: $600,000
Total Cost of Identified New General CIP Projects:
Total Cost of Identified Existing Unfunded Projects:
City Council Direction:
1,454,800
1,078,000
2,532,800
Park Development Funded Projects (See Attachment 4):
These projects are traditionally funded from Park Development Fees as they are collected.
Currently there are no available funds to allocate towards new projects funding, therefore the
projects will be placed on a waiting list until funding is available.
Total Cost of New Park and Trail Projects: $239,000
City Council will be asked to provide direction regarding staff's recommended funding options
for projects, provide project prioritization, and to add projects which are not currently listed in
the CIP.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
Unknown at this time. Depends on the final CIP project list.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
Not Applicable.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S):
None in addition to the above.
FOLLOW UP ACTION(S):
Subsequent Public Hearings will be held with both the Planning Commission and City Council.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Nothing additional.
3 of 4
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Operational Efficiency Funded Projects
2. General Capital Improvement Funded Projects (New)
3. General Capital Improvement Funded Projects (Existing Unfunded)
4. Park Development Funded Projects
5. Park and Trail Projects Priority List
6. Ranking Ballot for Operational Efficiency CIP Projects
7. Ranking Ballot for General CIP Projects
8. Memo from Greg Sellers regarding City Solar Project
9. Report from Energy Solutions regarding Solar Project
10. Hillside Infrastructure Needs.
-F
Attachment 1
OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY PROJECTS
At the May 7 Study Session, Council requested that staff return with
additional alternatives for Operational Efficiencies CIP proposals. The
following list is presented to fulfill the intentions of the operational
efficiencies criteria of the CIP, to "increase efficiencies in the operation of
the City which can include money savings, power savings, staff time
savings, and increased level of service to the public at a lower cost." Some
of these facility projects are currently included in the preventative
maintenance schedule, but the possibility of expediting these projects would
accelerate the cost savings to the City.
The Operational Efficiencies Plan beginning on Page 4 of this Attachment
itemizes the projects by building and estimated cost. Council may choose to
approve one or a combination of Operational Efficiency projects for a
specific building, which is why there is a range of costs for Projects 2 thru 7.
For the priority exercise the highest cost is used.
1. City Hall Solar Project:
This project would provide solar power to the Community Center and
Maintenance Building by constructing a solar array atop a new
equipment shelter structure (See Attachment 2) located in the
Corporation Yard.
Project Cost: $532,000 (Solar Panels)
137,674 (Solar Rebate)
50,000 (Electrical Work)
$444,326
Identified Project Funding Source: Operational Efficiency
The project has a potential of an annual electricity cost savings of
$15,800 at the current energy rate. It will take approximately 16
years to recoup the capital expenditure assuming an average annual
energy cost increase of around 7.5
Additional benefits of the project include all of the "green" benefits
of renewable energy such as reduction in green houses gases in the
amount of 161,805 lbs per year, or equal to planting 163 acres of
trees, or removing 116 cars from the road.
Annual maintenance will be approximately $500 to clean the solar
panels. The warranties on the solar equipment range from 10 years
for the electric converter equipment to 25 years for the solar panels.
2. Cool Roofs:
This project would replace aging roofs at the Community Center and
City Hall with sunlight reflecting "cool roof systems" that reduce the
roof surface temperature by up to 100 degrees Fahrenheit, thereby
reducing the heat transferred into the building below. This helps to
reduce energy costs (by keeping attics and ducts cooler), improve
occupant comfort, cut maintenance costs, increase the life cycle of the
roof,, and reduce urban heat islands along with associated smog.-
Project Cost: $19,000 $164,000
Identified Project Funding Source: Operational Efficiency
3. High Efficiency HVAC Systems:
This project would replace aging Heating, Ventilation, and Air
Conditioning (HVAC) systems at the Community Center and City
Hall with high efficiency, Energy Star rated systems. The HVAC
system has a major influence on the comfort and quality of a
building's indoor environment. The HVAC system accounts for 30 to
50 percent of the annual electric bill and high efficiency systems
could reduce energy consumption by up to 40% per year.
Estimated Project Cost: $60,000 $690,000
Identified Project Funding Source: Operational Efficiency
4. Double Pane Windows:
This project would replace the old single -pane windows at the
Community Center and City Hall with new double -pane windows.
Double -pane windows keep heat in during the winter and air
conditioned air in during the summer. Tinting the windows is also an
option as a double pane window with a particular coating called low
emissivity, or low -E, will significantly reduce heat's entrance from
the sun. An additional benefit to double -pane windows is the
increased sound insulation and noise reduction. According to recent
studies, a double pane window in a wood frame had a 16% savings
and a double pane window in a wood frame with the low -e coating
gave a 32% savings in yearly air conditioning bills. Additional
savings could be realized with aluminum framed windows.
Estimated Project Cost: $11,000 $157,000
Identified Project Funding Source: Operational Efficiency
5. Energy Star Compliant Appliances:
This project would replace the old dishwashing machines, clothes
washers and dryers, refrigerators, freezers, etc. with new high
efficiency Energy Star rated models. These qualified appliances
incorporate advanced technologies that use 10 -50% less energy and
water than standard models.
Estimated Project Cost: $2,000 $20,000
Identified Project Funding Source: Operational Efficiency
6. Ceiling Insulation:
This project would increase the R -Value of all ceiling insulation in
City buildings. Using foam or fiberglass batting, savings of up to 40%
are expected with a return on investment in 2 to 7 years.
Estimated Project Cost: $15,000 $160,000
Identified Project Funding Source: Operational Efficiency
7. Motion Control Lighting:
This project would automate the lighting controls in. City buildings.
Programming motion detector light switches would automatically turn
off lights in rooms not being used and result in electricity and light
bulb savings.
-Estimated Project Cost: $1,000 to $8,000
Operational Efficiencies Plan
Pity HalI, ($128,000)
Energy Star HVAC units with economizer 2 35k 70k
Double pane windows 20 1k 20k
Cool Roof (new roof needed in 5 to 8 years) 1 19k 19k
Ceiling insulation 1 15k 15k
Energy Star Water Heater with insulated pipes 1 2k 2k
Window Film on west and south facing windows 1 1k 1k
Motion detectors in restrooms for lighting control 1 1 k 1 k
City Hall, Community Development /.Public Wor
293 000) r-
Energy Star HVAC units with economizer 4 40k 160k
Double pane windows 35 1 k 35k
Cool Roof (new roof needed in 2 to 4 years) 1 55k 55k
Ceiling insulation 1 35k 35k
Energy Star Water Heater with insulated pipes 1 3k 3k
Window Film on west and south facing windows 1 3k 3k
Motion detectors in restrooms for lighting control 1 2k 2k
Community Center, Recreation and Senior Centers
($647,000)
Energy Star HVAC units with economizer 10 40k 400k
Double pane windows 65 1 k 65k
Cool Roof (new roof needed in 2 to 4 years) 1 90k 90k
Ceiling insulation 1 65k 65k
Energy Star Water Heater with insulated pipes 1 4k 4k
Window Film on west and south facing windows 1 10k 10k
Motion detectors in restrooms for lighting control 1 3k 3k
Energy Star Appliances Refrigerators and 1 10k 10k
Freezers
Corporation Yard ($97 00 0)
Energy Star HVAC units with economizer
Double pane windows
Ceiling insulation
Energy Star Appliances Refrigerators and
Freezers
.Other Sites ($50,000)
Warner Hutton House, Ceiling insulation
Warner Hutton House, Double pane windows
Warner Hutton House, Motion detector light
QTY UNIT EXT
2 30k 60k
11 1k 11k
1 25k 25k
1 1k 1k
1 20k 20k
13 1k 13k
1 1k 1k
switches
Civic Theater, Motion detector Tight switches 1 1 k 1 k
North Campus Admin Building, Double pane 15 1k 15k
windows
Attachment 2
General CIP Projects (New):
1. North Campus Building Removal Project:
Per direction received at the April 16 City Council Meeting, this project would
remove the front two buildings at the North Campus, namely the Sanctuary
Building and the Education Building. Once the buildings are removed lawn and
irrigation will be installed as well as benches.
Project Cost: $50,000 (Building Demolition)
25,000 (Sod, Irrigation, and Benches)
$75,000
Yearly operational costs will be approximately $5,000 for landscape maintenance
and watering of the new sod area.
2. Corporation Yard Equipment Shelter Structure:
This project is connected to the solar project listed under Operational Efficiencies
and would provide the structure to which the solar panels will be mounted.
Additionally, this project would increase the life expectancy of City equipment,
maintenance vehicles, and rolling stock by better protecting them from adverse
environmental conditions.
Project Cost: $100,000
Identified Project Funding Source: Capital Improvement Fund
3. Highway 9 Safety Improvements Phase 3:
This project would improve the Austin Way intersection, install bicycle detection
loops at all intersections, and perform spot shoulder widening along the Highway
9 corridor. The funding source requires a 20% local match.
Project Costr$615;000
492,000 (Prop 116 Grant Pending Approval)
53,200 (Local Match_-_ Los Gatos ($3,200) County ($50,000))
$69,800
Identified Project Funding Sources: Capital Improvement Fund
4. North Campus Improvements Fund:
The purpose of this fund is to set aside funding each year for capital
improvements at the North Campus such as new public facilities.
Project Cost: Dependent on Council Direction. $50,000 has been used as a
placeholder for budgeting purposes.
Identified Project Funding Source: Capital Improvement Fund
5. Multi- purpose Room Improvements Fund:
The purpose of this fund would be to set aside funding each year for capital
improvements for the purpose of building a City multi purpose room.
Project Cost: Dependent on Council Direction. $50,000 has been used as a
placeholder for budgeting purposes.
Identified Project Funding Source: Capital Improvement Fund
6. City Hall Parking Improvements:
This project would create additional parking at City Hall by removing
landscaping near the corner of Fruitvale and Allendale.
Project Cost: $100,000
Identified Project Funding Source: Capital Improvement Fund
7. Bus Stop Shelter Concrete Pads
This project would fund the concrete pads necessary to install VTA funded bus
stop shelters at 4 select locations along bus routes in the City.
Project Cost: $40,000
Identified Project Funding Source: Capital Improvement Fund
8. Hakone Gardens Upper Moon House Foundation Repair:
This project would repair the foundation of the Upper Moon House at Hakone
Gardens.
Project Cost: $125,000
Identified Project Funding Source: Capital Improvement Fund
9. Hakone Gardens Visitor Center Design:
This project would fund the design work for the Hakone Gardens Visitor Center.
Project Cost: $100,000
Identified Project Funding Source: Capital Improvement Fund
10. Aspesi Drive Traffic Calming:
This project would provide traffic calming by constructing a raised median on
Aspesi Drive. The project was recommended by the TSC at their 4/12/07 meeting.
Project Cost: $12,000
Identified Project Funding Source: Capital Improvement Fund
11. Brookglen Drive Traffic Calming:
This project would provide traffic calming by constructing a raised median on
Brookglen Drive. The project was recommended by the TSC at their 10/11/07
meeting.
Project Cost: $25,000
Identified Project Funding Source: Capital Improvement Fund
12. Cox Avenue Traffic Calming:
This project would provide traffic calming by constructing a speed bump on Cox
Avenue between Paseo Presada and Quito Road. The project was recommended
by the TSC at their 03/11/08 meeting.
Project Cost: $8,000
Identified Project Funding Source: Capital Improvement Fund
13. Cox Avenue Traffic and Pedestrian Safety Improvements:
This project would restripe Cox Avenue between Saratoga Avenue and Paseo
Presada to a single lane in each direction with a center turn lane and in pavement
lighting for the mid -block crosswalk. This project was recommended by the TSC
at their 03/03/08 meeting.
Project Cost: $75,000
Identified Project Funding Source: Capital Improvement Fund
14. Montalvo Road Traffic Calming:
This project would provide traffic calming by constructing a raised median on
Montalvo Road. The project was recommended by the TSC at their 05/08/08
meeting.
Project Cost: $15,000
Identified Project Funding Source: Capital Improvement Fund
15. Prospect Road Median Project Construction Phase:
This project would implement the Prospect Road Median Master Plan (scheduled
for approval at the June 4th City Council Meeting). The project can be phased if
desired.
Project Cost: $2,340,000 (Total Project Cost)
1,170,000 (City of San Jose 50% share)
$1,170,000
For budget purposes assume splitting the project into phases. Assume first phase
at $150,000 with Saratoga's portion being $75,000. A phase can range in cost
from $75,000 to $450,000.
Identified Project Funding Source: Capital Improvement Fund
16. Annual Sidewalk Repair Project:
This project would fund annual sidewalk repairs for FY08 /09.
Project Cost: $50,000
Identified Project Funding Source: Capital Improvement Fund
17. Annual Storm Drain Repair Project:
This project would fund annual storm drain repairs for FY08 /09.
Project Cost: $50,000
Identified Project Funding Source: Capital Improvement Fund
18. City Hall Emergency Generator Project:
This project would fund the purchase and installation of an emergency generator
which would power both the Administration Building and Community
Development/Engineering Building with power in the case of an extended power
outage or disaster.
Project Cost: $50,000
Identified Project Funding Source: Capital Improvement Fund
19. 3 Street Parking Lot Improvements:
This project would fund minor improvements to two small contiguous private
parking lots located off of 3rd Street in order to gain public parking access. The
idea would be similar in nature to the City's parking lease agreement with West
Hope Church. The estimated cost of the minor improvements is $25,000, which
does not include probable lease payments to the property owners.
Project Cost: $25,000
Identified Project Funding Source: Capital Improvement Fund
20. Big Basin Way Turn Around:
This project would construct a turn around at the end of the Village that would
provide drivers an additional option for circulation through Village. The options
currently available to drivers are private or business driveways, side streets, and
parking lots.
The project would need approval from Caltrans.
Project Cost: $100,000
Identified Project Funding Source: Capital Improvement Fund
21. City Compost Bins:
This project would construct one or more large compost bins to be located on City
owned property such as a park. The compost generated by City operations would
be available to the public. It is assumed a minimum of two would be constructed
at an estimated cost of $5,000 per bin. There would be some staff time involved in
the compost operation.
Project Cost: $10,000
Identified Project Funding Source: Capital Improvement Fund
22. Comer Drive Retaining Wall Replacement:
Comer Drive retaining wall is significantly deflected from the vertical. Existing
wood elements (both vertical and horizontal) are failing. The City geotechnical
consultant expressed his concern that near term failure of the wall is very
probable. The wall is approximately 260 feet long and 6 feet high.
Proposed replacement wall will be most likely designed with vertical steel beams
encased in concrete for the pier portions and pressure- treated wood lagging. Other
materials are also possible but may be less cost effective.
Project Cost: $200,000
Identified Project Funding Source: Capital Improvement Fund
23. Hakone Gardens Well and Koi Pond Repairs:
This project would repair the existing well at Hakone Gardens which provides
natural ground water for the Koi Pond absent of the harmful chemicals to Koi fish
found in potable water.
The existing well has failed and requires drilling to establish a reliable flow of
water. Additionally, the pond mechanics (pump, filters, etc) are aged and may
need to be replaced. This work along with regular pond maintenance performed
by a professional will ensure that the Koi Pond does not fail.
Project Cost: $50,000
Identified Project Funding Source: Capital Improvement Fund
Attachment 3
Existing Unfunded CIP Projects:
1. Herriman Avenue Crosswalk Improvements: $75,000
2. Herriman Avenue Sidewalk Improvements Option 1*: $50,000
3. Herriman Avenue Sidewalk Improvements Option 2 $150,000
4. Pedestrian Refuge Area at Quito/McCoy Intersection: $15,000
5. Glen Brae Avenue Median Choker: $15,000
6. Komina Walking Path: $75,000
7. Saratoga Elementary School Driveway and Sidewalk Modification: $70,000
8. El Camino Grande/Monte Vista Storm Drain improvements: $300,000
9. Chester Avenue Storm Drain Improvements: $178,000
10. Quito Road Sidewalk Improvements: $150,000
*Brings the pathway up to grade by filling in the void, between the concrete curb
and new berm, with asphalt.
*Constructs new sidewalk/pathway outside of the street travel way.
Attachment 4
Park Development Projects:
1. De Anza Trail Phase II:
This project would extend the De Anza Trail from Saratoga Sunnyvale Road to
Arroyo De Arguello.
Project Cost: $75,000
Identified Project Funding Source: Probable savings from the current approved
segment of the De Anza Trail Project or Park
Development Fund.
2. Lower Tank Trail (Parker Ranch) Repair Project:
This project would repair erosion and minor slides on the trail link which
connects Parker Ranch Road to Picea Court in the Parker Ranch Subdivision.
Project Cost: $20,000
Identified Project Funding Source: Park Development Fund
3. Park Restroom Improvement Work:
This project would provide funding for various improvements and upgrades at
City Park Restrooms.
Project Cost: $20,000 (CSP: New Roof and Waterless Urinals)
5,000 (Wildwood: Exterior Paint and Waterless Urinals)
9,500 (El Quito: New Roof and Waterless Urinals)
$34,000
Identified Project Funding Source: Park Development Fund
4. Heritage Orchard Monument Sign:
This project would fund the construction of a Heritage Orchard monument sign to
be located at the corner of Fruitvale and Saratoga Avenues. Plans have been
developed by the Heritage Commission.
Project Cost: $35,000
Identified Project Funding Source: Park Development Fund
5. Village Creek Trail:
This project would fund the construction of a trail along Saratoga. Creek running
the length of the Village. The City has acquired pedestrian trail easements along
certain portions of the creek, connected to conditions of approval, with the idea of
creating such a trail in the future. The project is estimated to cost in the range of
$75,000- $150,000. $75,000 has been used as an initial budget figure, which can
also act as a local match for grant opportunities. Design work will cost
approximately $10,000.
Project Cost: $75,000
Identified Project Funding Source: Park Development Fund
Attachment 5
PRIORITY EXERCISE PARK TRAIL PROJECTS
Project
IProposed Projects Attachment 4
2
3
4
5
6
Project
De Anza Trail Phase II
Lower Tank Trail (Parker Ranch) Repair Project
Park Restroom Improvement Work
Heritage Orchard Monument Sign
Petanque Court at Azul Park
Village Creek Trail
Ratings:
1 6 POINTS
2 5 POINTS
3 4 POINTS
4 3 POINTS
5 2 POINTS
6 1 POINT
Bruno
3
5
1
6
4
2
Forte
4
2
3
6
5
1
Goldberg
3
2
1
5
6
4
Soukup
5
2
l
6
3
4
Wilson
1
3
2
6
5
4
Brooks
Budget
2
4
1
5
6
3
1
75,000
3 20,000
5
34,000
4
35,000
6
25,000
75,000
Priority Exercise Rules
1. Rate the 6 Projects 1 6 with 1 the Highest Priority and 6 the Lowest Priority.
264,000
Score
21.00
18.00
15.00
38.00
35.00
20.00
ATTACHMENT 6
PRIORITY EXERCISE
OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY CIP PROJECTS
Ratings:
1 -7 7 Highest
1 Lowest
Total Funds Available:
$490,000
Project
Proposed Projects Attachment 1
Project
Waltonsmith
page
King
Hunter
Kao
Budget
OPERATIONAL EFFICIENCY PROJECTS
1
City Hall Solar Project
444,326
2
Cool Roofs
164,000
3
High Efficiency HVAC Systems
690,000
4
Double Pane Windows
157,000
5
Energy Star Compliant Appliances
20,000
6
Ceiling Insulation
160,000
7
Motion Control Lighting
8,000
(Priority Exercise Rules
1,643,326
ATTACHMENT 7
PRIORITY EXERCISE GENERAL CIP PROJECTS
Ratings:
1 -10 10 Highest
1 Lowest
Total Funds Available:
5600,000
Project
Eil
Proposed Projects Attachment 2
Existing Unfunded Projects Attachment 3
Project
Waltonsmith
Page
King
Ilunter
Kao
Budget 5
ROADWAY SAFETY PROJECTS
3
Highway 9 Safety Improvements Phase 3
69,800
io
Aspesi Drive Traffic Calming
12,000
II
Brookglen Drive Traffic Calming
25,000
12
Cox Avenue Traffic Calming
8,000
13
Cox Avenue Traffic and Pedestrian Safety Improvements
75,000
14
1
6
7
Montalvo Road Traffic Calming
15,000
Herriman Avenue Crosswalk Improvements
75,000
Herriman Avenue Sidewalk Improvements Option 1
50,000
Herriman Avenue Sidewalk Improvements Option 2
150,000
Pedestrian Refuge Area at Quito/McCoy Intersection
15,000
Glen Brae Avenue Traffic Calming
15,000
Komina Walking Path
75,000
Saratoga Elementary School Driveway and Sidewalk Modification
70,000
STREET LANDSCAPE BEAUTIFICATION PROJECTS
15
Prospect Road Median Project Construction Phase
75,000
SIDEWALKS, CURBS STORM DRAINS
7
Bus Stop Shelter Concrete Pads
40,000
16
Annual Sidewalk Repair Project
50,000
17
Annual Storm Drain Repair Project
50,000
20
8
9
Big Basin Way Turn Around
100,000
El Camino Grande/Monte Vista Storm Drain Improvements
300,000
Chester Avenue Storm Drain Improvements
178,000
Quito Road Sidewalk Improvements
150,000
FACILITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
1
North Campus Building Removal Project
75,000
2
Corporation Yard Equipment Shelter Structure
100,000
4
North Campus Improvements Fund
50,000
5
Multi- Purpose Room Improvements Fund
50,000
6
City Hall Parking Improvements
100,000
8
Hakone Gardens Upper Moon House Foundation Repair
125,000
9
Hakone Gardens Visitor Center Design
100,000
18
City Hall Emergency Generator Project
50,000
19
3 Street Parking Lot Improvements
25,000
21
City Compost Bins
10,000
23
Hakone Gardens Well and Koi Pond Repairs
50,000
BRIDGE RETAINING WALLS
22
Comer Drive Retaining Wall Replacement
200,000
Prior'ty Exercise Rules
2,532,800
May 20, 2008
TO: Dave Anderson, Saratoga City Manager
John Cherbone, Saratoga Public Works Director
FR: Greg Sellers, StablSolar, LLC
ATTACHMENT 8
RE: Options for solar project development
Thanks for making the time to meet on Monday to discuss solar options for Saratoga. It
was obvious from our discussion that you have a good team with a strong general
knowledge of the opportunities and challenges facing cities that are considering the
installation of solar energy systems.
After considering your situation, I have two primary suggestions:
If the City decides to install the smaller system at the Recreation /Center and
Corporation Yard, then they should purchase and consider it a long -term
investment. There are leasing and other financing opportunities for smaller
systems, but given the availability of capital resources, the City would be better
off installing this smaller system with available dollars rather than incurring the
added debt burden.
If the City is prepared to install the entire 227 kW system (Theater,
Recreation /Senior Center, City Hall Administration building and Maintenance
building), then you should consider a Power Purchase Agreement. As we
discussed, under a Power Purchase Agreement the City will incur no installation
or maintenance costs and the majority of your electricity costs will be fixed for
the term of the contract.
In addition, if the city sets aside currently available capital in a "solar fund they
should- be- able_to_buy_. out the system after_the main benefit of The PPA benefit has
accrued, which would minimize capital investment, maximize value and provide a
long -term, low cost electricity source for a generation or more.
If you are interested in pursuing the PPA option, I can bring in a PPA provider that has
worked with all the firms that have provided you with proposals. This will expedite the
process and ensure you have your preferred team in place to make this happen.
As we discussed, the uncertain state of the Solar Investment Tax Credit gives added
reason to move quickly if you would like to pursue a PPA option. But the good work
you have done to date will help expedite the implementation of a Power Purchase
Agreement if you are prepared to move forward now.
I would be more than happy to meet with anyone from the city to further discuss your
options and help you make a decision. I thank you again for your consideration, and
hope to be able to help you turn Saratoga into a solar city!
ATTACHMENT 8
May 20, 2008
TO: Dave Anderson, Saratoga City Manager
John Cherbone, Saratoga Public Works Director
FR: Greg Sellers, StabiSolar, LLC
RE: Options for solar project development
Thanks for making the time to meet on Monday to discuss solar options for Saratoga. It
was obvious from our discussion that you have a good team with a strong general
knowledge of the opportunities and challenges facing cities that are considering the
installation of solar energy systems.
After considering your situation, I have two primary suggestions:
If the City decides to install the smaller system at the Recreation /Center and
Corporation Yard, then they should purchase and consider it a long -term
investment. There are leasing and other financing opportunities for smaller
systems, but given the availability of capital resources, the City would be better
off installing this smaller system with available dollars rather than incurring the
added debt burden.
If the City is prepared to install the entire 227 kW system (Theater,
Recreation /Senior Center, City Hall Administration building and Maintenance
building), then you should consider a Power Purchase Agreement. As we
discussed, under a Power Purchase Agreement the City will incur no installation
or maintenance costs and the majority of your electricity costs will be fixed for
the term of the contract.
In addition, if the city sets aside currently available capital in a "solar fund they
should be able to buyout the system after the_main benefit of the PPA has
accrued, which would minimize capital investment, maximize value and provide a
long -term, low cost electricity source for a generation or more.
If you are interested in pursuing the PPA option, I can bring in a PPA provider that has
worked with all the firms that have provided you with proposals. This will expedite the
process and ensure you have your preferred team in place to make this happen.
As we discussed, the uncertain state of the Solar Investment Tax Credit gives added
reason to move quickly if you would like to pursue a PPA option. But the good work
you have done to date will help expedite the implementation of a Power Purchase
Agreement if you are prepared to move forward now.
I would be more than happy to meet with anyone from the city to further discuss your
options and help you make a decision. I thank you again for your consideration, and
hope to be able to help you turn Saratoga into a solar city!
Memo
E N E R G Y
To: Shawn Gardner
City of Saratoga
From: Ryan Ramos
Energy Solutions
Re: Solar PV Proposal Review
Date: 5/20/2008
Attachment 9
O L U T I O N S
Introduction
Energy Solutions has been contracted by the City of Saratoga to complete a review of two
proposals for solar photovoltaic (PV) systems at the City's Campus. The two proposals from
Akeena Solar and REgrid Power describe installing one or more PV arrays on roof tops and /or
carport structures. The carport structure construction is not part of the PV proposals and is
,therefore not in the scope of this evaluation. After a preliminary discussion with Shawn Gardner
from the City, Mr. Garner and Energy Solutions agreed that a campus -wide project featuring roof
top PV systems was likely unfeasible due-to-the-condition-and-age-of—the-roofs,--It-was-decided
that the proposal evaluation would focus on the proposed installation of a PV system on a carport
structure that would provide power to the Maintenance Building and the Senior Center.
System Specification
The system specifications proposed by the two installers are fundamentally similar but the
equipment selection differs. The Akeena designed system is sized at approximately 70 kW using
410 Andalay ST -170 -1 modules paired with seven SMA SB7000US inverters (for the Senior Center)
and three SMA SB5000US inverters (for the Maintenance Building). The modules in the Akeena
design are tilted at 18 degrees and five degrees for the Senior Center and Maintenance Building
respectively. The REgrid designed system is sized at approximately 75 kW using a mix of 280
Sharp ND -216 U2 (Senior Center) and 88 NE -170 U1 (Maintenance Building) modules paired with
one SatCon AE -50 inverter (for the Senior Center) and two SMA SB6000 inverters (for the
Maintenance Building). The modules in the REgrid design are tilted at zero degrees.
The REgrid design uses more advanced Sharp PV modules that have a higher power density
(watts /sq ft) then the Andalay modules specified by Akeena which allows the REgrid design to
produce more energy while using fewer modules. It is not clear why the REgrid proposal involves
two different module models from Sharp instead of one model. It is recommended that the
installer provide the same module for both systems. As for aesthetics, the Sharp PV modules have
distinctive silver gridlines over dark blue cells, whereas the Andalay modules have a cleaner, mono-
chromatic appearance with no grid lines. The appearance of the PV modules is often a
consideration of agencies concerned with aesthetics.
E N E R G Y .0 L U T I 0 N S
Both designs use relatively efficient inverters, but the Akeena design relies on multiple, highly
efficient (96 small inverters for the Senior Center whereas the REgrid design specifies one large
inverter that is 93% efficient. Both strategies have their merit and excel in different situations.
Multiple small inverters allow for more efficient operation if the PV array has differential shading
(i.e. different portions of the array my be shaded at different times of the year and day) and
provides a level of redundancy if an inverter fails. The large single inverter is typically less costly
than multiple small inverters and simplifies installation. The REgrid design utilizes the inverter
capacity more fully than the Akeena design, allowing the system to perform closer to its maximum
efficiency.
The specified tilt angle of the PV array differs in each proposal. It is recommended that the tilt
angle of the PV array be designed at one to two degrees from horizontal (toward the southern sky)
to minimize carport construction costs and to allow water and debris to run -off the array surface.
Higher tilt angles will add cost to carport structure while a flat array will not allow debris and water
to run -off the modules leading to degraded performance.
Performance Estimates
Based on the module and inverter combinations and array tilt angles outlined in the proposals,
Energy Solutions modeled the systems to estimate the power production. According to the
modeling run, the Akeena 70 kW system is estimated to produce approximately 87,000 kWh in the
first year while the REgrid system is estimated to produce 95,000 kWh. These production
estimates are based on a completely unshaded PV array. The production estimates modeled by
Energy Solutions are lower than the estimates described in the Akeena proposal (91,700 kWh) and
the REgrid proposal (100,900 kWh).
Based on aerial photographs and digital mapping programs, Energy Solutions has identified
potential shading from trees located to the west of the proposed PV array. This shading may
impact the array in the late evenings which may slightly reduce the projected output of the system.
However, the extent of the shading impact cannot be quantified without a site visit and shading
evaluation.
Installer Services
The proposal provided by the solar installers outlines the responsibilities relative to the other rebate
and utility requirements. The proposal states that both installers will file for the California Solar
Initiative (CSI) rebate. However, the City of Saratoga should insist that the installers include the
following services as part of their cost proposal: filling out and completing (with the City's
assistance) the interconnection agreement with PG &E and filing for a building permit.
Another key consideration is the electrical service upgrades that may be required as part of the PV
system installation. This includes the trenching of electrical conduit from the carport structure to
the Senior Center and Maintenance Building. REgrid's proposal explicitly states that it will include
trenching and repaving of the parking lot whereas the Akeena proposal makes no mention of this
service. The Akeena's price proposal includes upgrading the service panel as well as coordinating
and attending building department inspection of the electrical work. The REgrid proposal does
not include these services. However, REgrid's proposal does include a provision for training of the
operations and maintenance staff on the PV system operation.
2
System Size
(DC kW)
Senior
Center
56.1
Akeena
Maintenance
Building
13.6
Senior Center
60.5
ReGrid
Total
69.7
Maintenance
Building
15
Total
75.5
Estimated
Annual
Production
(kWh)
71,230
15,909
87,139
76,325
18,880
95,205
System Cost
$387,090
$94,928
$482,018
$439,771
$102,651
$542,422
System Cost
kW
$6,900
$6,980
$6,916
$7,271
$6,862
$7,190
Net cost (after
rebate)
$284,820
$70,264
$355,084
$334,597
$76,223
$410,820
Net cost kW
(after rebate)
$5,077
$5,166
$5,094
$5,532
$5,095
$5,446
Net cost first
year kWh (after
rebate)
$4.00
$4.42
$4.07
$4.38
$4.04
$4.32
Table 1: System Costs
E N E R G Y r0 L U T I 0 N S
Miscellaneous
The warranty on the components offered by the installers is for the most part similar. Both Akeena
and REgrid offer components with manufacturer warranties ten year parts warranty on the
inverter and a 25 year warranty on the PV module performance. In addition, Akeena offers a five
year warranty on the balance of the system (wiring, junction boxes, combiner panels, etc), and a ten
year warranty on PV module and inverters. REgrid offers a ten year warranty on the balance of
system as well as a ten year warranty on the construction of the system.
System Cost
The proposed system costs are shown m the table below. The Akeena proposal has the lower cost
per installed kW and the lower cost per first year kWh compared to the REgrid proposal.
Recommendations
Energy Solutions has determined that both the Akeena and REgrid PV designs are feasible and
would provide a significant energy offset for the City of Saratoga (approximately 70 to 75 percent
of annual electricity demand). Given the City's A6 PG &E rate schedule on the Senior Center and
Maintenance Facility, solar PV generation will offset the most expensive electricity (peak summer,
noon to 6 pm, May through October)) which is presently $0.366 /kWh. Based on the proposed
cost per installed kW, both the Akeena and REgrid proposal costs are cost competitive with the PV
project data found in the CSI database. The CSI database range of costs for PV projects between
65 kW and 80 kW is between $6,180 /kW to $12,730/kW.
3
Installer Warranty
Akeena
10 years inverter,
modules; 5 years balance of
system
REgrid
10 years inverter, modules,
balance of system and
construction
Manufacturers
Warranty
25 years PV modules; 10
years inverters
25 years PV modules; 10
years inverters
Monitoring
Additional cost $4,900
Additional cost unspecified
Trenching /Repaving
Not stated in proposal
YES
Electrical service panel
upgrade
YES
Not stated in proposal
Construction Debris
Removal
Not stated in proposal
YES
Building Permit
Application Filing
YES but does not include
fees
YES but does not include
fees
Interconnection
Agreement
Not stated in proposal
Not stated in proposal
CSI Rebate Filing
YES
YES
Attend Bldg Dept
inspection
YES
Not stated in proposal
Attend Final Utility
Inspection
NO
Not stated in proposal
Training of City staff
Not stated in proposal
YES
Installer qualifications
Not stated in proposal
C46 and C10 Contractor
certification; NABCEP
certified
Although the Akeena proposal cost is lower, there are a few uncertainties regarding the services
provided under the Akeena proposal that are explicitly stated in the REgrid proposal. See table
below.
Table 2: Proposal Terms
EN ER G Y O L U T I O N S
Most importantly, the trenching for the conduit run from the carport to the Senior Center and
Maintenance Building and the repaving of the parking lot /driveway is included in the REgrid
proposal, but is not explicitly mentioned in the Akeena proposal. Energy Solutions recommends
that the City of Saratoga clarify with Akeena whether or not the trenching and repaving is included
in the cost proposal. If the trenching and repaving is included in the Akeena proposal, Energy
Solutions would recommend selecting Akeena to install the PV system. If it is not included, the
City should obtain an estimate from Akeena for completing the work and evaluate that versus the
REgrid proposal.
4
Ll�cl_ 1\ iit
0. -`\'idiiiliiill
Ann Sullivan
From: John Cherbone
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 12:24 PM
To: Waltonsmith
Cc: Kristin Borel; Ann Sullivan
Subject: RE: CIP Allocations
Thanks Ann.
From: Waltonsmith mailto:waltonsmith @comcast.net]
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 12:10 PM
To: John Cherbone
Subject: FW: CIP Allocations
Email for CIP session
Ann
Page 1 of 1
Original Message
From: Mark S. Linsky [mailto:mark_linsky @sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Monday, June 02, 2008 9:26 AM
To: 'Aileen Kao (E- mail)'; 'Ann Waltonsmith (E- mail)'; Chuck Page; jhunter95070 @yahoo.com; 'Kathleen King (E-
mail)'
Subject: CIP Allocations
I appreciate that there are many worthy ideas for use of these funds. However, given the percentage of families
with children in Saratoga, I would like to see more funds allocated to improvements that are most likely to be used
by a large group of residents, especially families and children. Therefore, I believe that $750K -800K should be
allocated for a multi purpose room.
Too often, the City spends money in ways that impact very few of its citizens. We need to ensure a much
higher "return on our investments which I measure in terms of number of resident interactions or uses per year.
Families with children, as well as the young adults in our city, question our support for them. We need to show
them that the city cares.
I also realize that we have to be careful that our capital improvements do not significantly burden the city's
operating budget. I believe a multi purpose room would not only serve a significant number of residents but also
be able to generate revenue to cover operating costs.
Thanks for your consideration of these thoughts. See you on Tuesday.
Regards,
Mark S. Linsky
American Youth Soccer Organization, National Board of Directors
Junior Achievement of Silicon Valley and Monterey Bay, Vice Chairman
CELL: 408 568 -2880
hfax: 408 741 -3492
home: 408 741 -1949
email: mark linsky@alum.mitedu
"Feedback is a gift; smile, say thanks, and use it to grow."
6/3/2008
Local Governments With Solar
Santa Cruz 14 kW at City Hall
Santa Cruz 50.4 kW Water Treatment Plant
San Jose 200 kW at Santa Clara Valley Water District
San Carlos 60 kW (total) at Corporation Yard
Pacifica 2 Projects at Water Treatment Plant and Plans for City Hall
Livermore 75 kW on Roof of City Hall in 2004
San Carlos 56 kW at Corporation Yard
Vallejo 363 kW (total) City Hall, Library, Police Station
Town of Los Altos Hills 37 kW at Town Hall in 2005
Redding 113 kW Solar Carport at Utilities Operations Center/ Fire Station
Manteca 6.6 kW at Corporation Yard
Roseville 18.2 kW at Fire Station No.6
San Mateo 243 kW at Forensics Lab
Ukiah 5.5 kW at Civic Center
Fresno 665 kW (total) Muni Services Bldg., Bus Admin. Bldg.
Oroville 168.8 kW (total) City Hall, Police Fire, Corp. Yard, Museum
Alameda County 1.18 MW at Santa Rita Jail
Martinez 250 kW (total) at Jail and Office Building
Berkeley 19 kW at Corporation Yard
San Francisco 675 kW at Moscone Center
Fairfield 3.9 kW at Parking Structure
Sebastopol 20 kW (total) Public Works and Fire Station
San Luis Obispo 22.3 kW Air Pollution Facility
Chico 92.5 kW at Parking Structure Transit Center
Marin County 89.1 kW General Services Building
ATTACHMENT 7
PRIORITY EXERCISE GENERAL CIP PROJECTS
Ratings:
1 10 Highest
1 Lowest
Total Funds Available:
$600,000
Project
Proposed Projects Attachment 2
Existing Unfunded Projects Attachment 3
Project
Waltonsmith
Page
King
Hunter
Kao
Budget
ROADWAY SAFETY PROJECTS
3
Highway 9 Safety Improvements Phase 3
69,800
to
Aspesi Drive Traffic Calming
12,000
11
Brookglen Drive Traffic Calming
25,000
12
Cox Avenue Traffic Calming
8
13
Cox Avenue Traffic and Pedestrian Safety Improvements
75,000
is
Montalvo Road Traffic Calming
Herriman Avenue Crosswalk Improvements
15,000
75,000
1
4
Herriman Avenue Sidewalk Improvements Option 1
50,E
Herriman Avenue Sidewalk Improvements Option 2
150,000
Pedestrian Refuge Area at Quito/McCoy intersection
15,000
Glen Brae Avenue Traffic Calming
15,000
Komina Walking Path
75,000
Saratoga Elementary School Driveway and Sidewalk Modification
70,000
STREET LANDSCAPE BEAUTIFICATION PROJECTS
15
Prospect Road Median Project Construction Phase
75,000
SIDEWALKS, CURBS STORM DRAINS
7
Bus Stop Shelter Concrete Pads
40,000
16
Annual Sidewalk Repair Project
50,000
17
Annual Storm Drain Repair Project
50,000
20
x
9
10
Big Basin Way Turn Around
100,000
El Camino Grande/Monte Vista Storm Drain Improvements
300,000
Chester Avenue Storm Drain Improvements
178,000
Quito Road Sidewalk Improvements
150,000
FACILITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
1
North Campus Building Removal Project
75,000
2
Corporation Yard Equipment Shelter Structure
100,000
4
North Campus Improvements Fund
50,000
5
Multi- Purpose Room Improvements Fund
50,000
6
City Hall Parking Improvements
100,000
x
Hakone Gardens Upper Moon House Foundation Repair
125,000
9
Hakone Gardens Visitor Center Design
100,000
is
City Hall Emergency Generator Project
50,000
19
3 Street Parking Lot Improvements
25,000
21
City Compost Bins
10,000
23
Hakone Gardens Well and Koi Pond Repairs
50,000
BRIDGE RETAINING WALLS
22
Comer Drive Retaining Wall Replacement
200,000
(Priority Exercise Rules
2,532,800