The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutPacket.pdfTable of Contents Agenda 3 “Unity in Community” Presentation Staff Report 9 City Council Meeting Minutes – February 17, 2010 Staff Report 11 Minutes 12 City Council Meeting Minutes – March 16, 2005 Staff Report 20 Minutes 21 Treasurer’s Report for the Month Ended January 31, 2010 Treasurers Report for the Month Ended January 31, 2010 34 Review of Accounts Payable Check Registers Staff Report 39 02/11/10 Check Register 41 02/18/10 Check Register 46 Prospect Road Median No. 11 – Notice of Completion Staff Report 51 Notice of Completion 53 Joint Use Agreements with Santa Clara Valley Water District for Joe’s Trail Staff Report 54 1. Joint Use Agreement for Joe’s Trail.56 Landscaping & Lighting Assessment District LLA-1; Resolutions initiating renewal of the District for FY 10-11. Staff Report 61 1. Resolution describing improvements and directing preparation of the Engineer’s Report 64 2. Resolution appointing Attorneys 67 FY 2010/11 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) AND COMMUNITY GRANT FUNDING APPLICATIONS Staff Report 68 Applications - Attachment 1 74 Grant Request Worksheet - Attachment 2 125 County CDBG Administration Recommendations - Attachment 3 126 Google Fiber for Communities Request for Information Staff Report 133 Attachment A: Staff report on Google Fiber for Communities RFI from February 17, 2010 135 Attachment B: Google Fiber for Communities RFI 137 Resolution Authorizing ABAG to accept State Energy Program Funds on Behalf of the City of Saratoga Staff Report 163 1 Attachment A: Resolution authorizing ABAG to accept SEP funds on behalf of the City of Saratoga 165 Attachment B: December 2, 2009 staff report on the ABAG residential energy efficiency audit and retrofit program letter of commitment 169 Process for Allocation of Community Events Fund Staff Report 171 Attachment A: Community Events Fund distribution from fiscal year 2006/07 to the current fiscal year 174 Attachment B: CDBG/Community Grants application 175 Review of site coverage requirements and impervious surface definition Staff Report 178 Correspondence from Ron Hills - Attachment 1 182 2 REGULAR MEETING – 7:00 P.M. – CIVIC THEATER/COUNCIL CHAMBERS AT 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA (Pursuant to Gov’t. Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on February 26, 2010) COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS & PUBLIC Oral Communications on Non-Agendized Items Any member of the public will be allowed to address the City Council for up to three (3) minutes on matters not on this agenda. The law generally prohibits the council from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Council may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Council Direction to Staff. Oral Communications - Council Direction to Staff Instruction to Staff regarding actions on current Oral Communications. Communications from Boards and Commissions Council Direction to Staff Instruction to Staff regarding actions on current Communications from Boards & Commissions. ANNOUNCEMENTS CEREMONIAL ITEMS SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS 1. “Unity in Community” Presentation Recommended action: Listen to short presentation by Kelly Green, Principal of Redwood Middle School. CONSENT CALENDAR The Consent Calendar contains routine items of business. Items in this section will be acted in one motion, unless removed by the Mayor or a Council member. Any member of AGENDA REGULAR MEETING SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL Wednesday, March 3, 2010 3 the public may speak to an item on the Consent Calendar at this time, or request the Mayor remove an item from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Public Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes. 2. City Council Meeting Minutes – February 17, 2010 Recommended action: Approve Minutes. 3. City Council Meeting Minutes – March 16, 2005 Recommended action: Approve minutes. 4. Treasurer’s Report for the Month Ended January 31, 2010 Recommended action: Review and accept the Treasurer’s Report for the month ended January 31, 2010. 5. Review of Accounts Payable Check Registers Recommended action: That the City Council review and accept the Check Registers for the following Accounts Payable payment cycles: February 11, 2010 February 18, 2010 6. Prospect Road Median No. 11 – Notice of Completion Recommended action: Move to accept the Prospect Road Median No. 11 project as complete and authorize the City manager to sign the Notice of Completion for the construction contract. 7. Joint Use Agreements with Santa Clara Valley Water District for Joe’s Trail Recommended action: Authorize the City Manager to execute following agreements with Santa Clara Valley Water District a Joint Use Agreement for Joe’s Trail. 8. Landscaping & Lighting Assessment District LLA-1; Resolutions initiating renewal of the District for FY 10-11 Recommended action: 1. Move to adopt the Resolution describing improvements and directing preparation of the Engineer’s Report. 2. Move to adopt the Resolution appointing the Attorney’s for the District. PUBLIC HEARINGS 9. FY 2010/11 Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Community Grant Funding Applications Recommended action: 1. Conduct the Public Hearing and accept public testimony presentations from applicants. 2. Review recommendations for streamlining the County CDBG program. 3. Continue the Public Hearing to March 17th to finalize grant allocations and approve a transfer of $13,964 in previously allocated CDBG funds. 4 OLD BUSINESS 10. Google Fiber for Communities Request for Information Recommended action: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. 11. Resolution Authorizing ABAG to accept State Energy Program Funds on Behalf of the City of Saratoga Recommended action: Accept report and approve the attached resolution authorizing the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) to accept State Energy Program (SEP) funds on behalf of the City for a residential energy efficiency audit and retrofit program. NEW BUSINESS 12. Process for Allocation of Community Events Fund Recommended action: Accept report and select a process for allocating community event funds. 13. Review of site coverage requirements and impervious surface definition Recommended action: Direct staff regarding the preferred approach to revising site coverage requirements and impervious surface definition among one or more of the following options which are discussed later in more detail: 1. Create an exception process that would allow the Planning Commission to approve variations from the site coverage standards upon making specific findings (similar to the process for grading standards). 2. Change the definition of “impervious surface” to exclude specified types of surfaces such as artificial turf, gravel, or driveways. As a variation on this option the Code could exclude specific types of surfaces in specific zoning districts, such as the current exclusion for driveways in the Agricultural district. 3. Seek to address the goals of the site coverage requirements with a different approach such as a landscape ordinance. ADHOC & AGENCY ASSIGNMENT REPORTS Mayor Kathleen King ABAG County HCD Policy Committee Hakone Foundation Executive Committee West Valley Flood Control Zone & Watershed Advisory Committee SCC Cities Association Selection Committee Santa Clara County Emergency Council West Valley Mayors and Managers Association Vice Mayor Jill Hunter Hakone Foundation Board Historical Foundation Library Joint Powers Association SASCC 5 Sister City Liaison Village AdHoc Councilmember Howard Miller Chamber of Commerce City School Ad-Hoc Council Finance Committee Highway 9 Adhoc KSAR Santa Clara County Cities Association Board West Valley Solid Waste Joint Powers Association West Valley Transportation Authority PAC Councilmember Susie Nagpal Highway 9 Adhoc Village AdHoc Councilmember Chuck Page City School Ad-Hoc Santa Clara Valley Water District Commission Saratoga Ministerial Association West Valley Sanitation District Council Finance Committee CITY COUNCIL ITEMS CITY MANAGER’S REPORT ADJOURNMENT In accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act, copies of the staff reports and other materials provided to the City Council by City staff in connection with this agenda are available at the office of the Community Development Department Director at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. Note that copies of materials distributed to the City Council concurrently with the posting of the agenda are also available on the City Website at www.saratoga.ca.us. Any materials distributed by staff after the posting of the agenda are made available for public review at the office of the City Clerk at the time they are distributed to the City Council. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at (408) 868-1269. Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II) Certificate of Posting of Agenda: I, Ann Sullivan, City Clerk for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of the City Council for the City of Saratoga was posted on February 26, 2010, at the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA 95070 and was available for public review at that location. The agenda is also available on the City’s website at www.saratoga.ca.us 6 Signed this 26th day of February 2010 at Saratoga, California. Ann Sullivan, CMC City Clerk NOTE: To view current or previous City Council meetings anytime, go to the City Video Archives at www.saratoga.ca.us 7 3/3 Regular Meeting –  5:15 Commission Interviews – Planning, HPC & Traffic Safety Commissions  6:30 p.m. Joint Meeting with Parks and Recreation Commission 3/17 Regular Meeting – Joint Meeting with Sheriff’s Office and County Fire 4/7 Joint Meeting with Mt. Winery 4/21 Regular Meeting – Regular Meeting –Joint Meeting with School Districts: Saratoga Union Elementary School District; Los Gatos-Saratoga Union High School District; Cupertino School District; Campbell School District Moreland School District; Fremont High School District; Sacred Heart; St. Andrews, and Campbell Union High School District 5/5 Regular Meeting – Joint Meeting with Youth Commission 5/19 Regular Meeting – Joint Meeting with Montalvo Arts 6/2 Regular Meeting – Interview Youth commissioners for vacancies 6/16 Regular Meeting – Joint Meeting with HOA Presidents 7/7 Regular Meeting – Joint Meeting with Library Commission and Friends of the Saratoga Libraries 7/21 Regular Meeting – Joint Meeting with SASCC 8/4 SUMMER RECESS – NO COUNCIL MEETING (Tentative) 8/18 SUMMER RECESS – NO COUNCIL MEETING 9/1 Regular Meeting – Joint Meeting with West Valley Board of Trustees 9/15 Regular Meeting – Joint meeting with Assemblymember Jim Beall 10/6 Regular Meeting – Joint Meeting with Traffic Safety Commission 10/20 Regular Meeting – Joint Meeting with Historical Foundation & Heritage Preservation Comm. 11/3 Regular Meeting – Joint meeting with Saratoga Ministerial Association 11/17 Regular Meeting - Joint Meeting with Hakone Foundation 11/30 Council Reorganization 12/1 Regular Meeting - 12/15 Regular Meeting - CITY OF SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING CALENDAR 2010 8 1 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 3, 2010 AGENDA ITEM: DEPARTMENT: City Manager’s Office CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: Ann Sullivan, City Clerk DIRECTOR: Dave Anderson SUBJECT: “Unity in Community” Presentation RECOMMENDED ACTION: Listen to short presentation by Kelly Green, Principal of Redwood Middle School. REPORT SUMMARY: “Unity in Community” is a student/parent project involving all the students at Redwood Middle School and many of their parents. Redwood Middle School has 42 homerooms and each one has chosen a non-profit organization and designed a project to support it. Parent volunteers have signed up to assist each homeroom to make Unity in Community a fun, memorable, and exciting learning event for all students. One of the goals of “Unity in Community” is to provide opportunities for students, staff and the parents to come together and engage in activities that will celebrate community spirit and promote community involvement. Already a lot of preparation and activities pertaining to this incredible project have already begun and the completion of the project will be the week of March 8th through the 12th. For more information please visit the Redwood Middle School Website at www.saratogausd.org\redwood FISCAL IMPACTS: N/A CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: N/A ALTERNATIVE ACTION: N/A FOLLOW UP ACTION: 9 2 N/A ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Posting of the agenda. ATTACHMENTS: None 10 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 3, 2010 AGENDA ITEM: DEPARTMENT: City Manager’s Office CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: Ann Sullivan, City Clerk DIRECTOR: Dave Anderson SUBJECT: City Council Meeting Minutes – February 17, 2010 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve minutes. REPORT SUMMARY: Approve minutes as submitted for February 17, 2010 City Council Regular Meeting. FISCAL IMPACTS: N/A CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: N/A ALTERNATIVE ACTION: N/A FOLLOW UP ACTION: Retain minutes for legislative history. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: N/A ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A – Minutes from February 17, 2010 City Council Regular Meeting. 11 MINUTES SARATOGA REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING FEBRUARY 17, 2010 The City Council of the City of Saratoga met in Closed Session in the Administrative Conference Room at 5:30PM. ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION Conference with Legal Counsel – Significant Exposure to Litigation: (Government Code Section 54956.9 (1 case) Initiation of Litigation (Government Code Section 54956.9(c) (1 case) MAYOR’S REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION Mayor King stated there was no reportable information. The City Council of the City of Saratoga held a Special Meeting with Supervisor Liz Kniss in the Administrative Conference Room at 6:00 p.m. Mayor King called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Chuck Page, Howard Miller, Vice Mayor Jill Hunter, Mayor Kathleen King ABSENT: Susie Nagpal (Excused Absence) ALSO Dave Anderson, City Manager PRESENT: Richard Taylor, City Attorney Ann Sullivan, City Clerk Barbara Powell, Assistant City Manager Mary Furey, Administrative Services Director John Livingstone, Community Development Director Crystal Morrow, Administrative Analyst II REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA Ann Sullivan, City Clerk, reported that pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, the agenda for the meeting of February 17, 2010 was properly posted on February 12, 2010. Mayor King suggested County Supervisor Liz Kniss speak before Oral Communications. Council concurred with this suggestion. COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS & PUBLIC Liz Kniss, President of County Board of Supervisors, addressed the Council noting that 12 2 she had met with Council in a Joint Meeting prior to the Regular Meeting. She expressed her appreciation for the opportunity to have an informal discussion with the Council regarding the various interactions that the County has with the City of Saratoga such as Saratoga’s historic buildings, trails and other more in-depth issues. She spoke about the Prescription Drug Card that is available through the County and enabled by NACO, National Association of Counties. Supervisor Kniss noted citizens without medical coverage could receive up to a 20 to 25% discount on their prescription drugs if they used this Prescription Drug Card; which is available online by visiting www.naco.com. In addition, Supervisor Kniss noted that the City of Saratoga was the recipient of two of the County’s largest grants – $225,000 to Hakone Gardens and Montalvo. Supervisor Kniss commented on the tragic plane crash in East Palo Alto earlier in the day and extended her condolences to the family members of the individuals that lost their lives in that plane crash. She concluded her report by extending her very best wishes to Councilmember Susie Nagpal. DIRECTION TO STAFF None ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Lon Saavedra addressed the Council noting Hakone Garden’s second annual Chinese Lunar New Year Festival on Saturday, February 20th from 12 noon to 4p.m. at Hakone Gardens. Kathleen Casey addressed the Council on various issues, including expenses for possible annexation of some hillside properties in Saratoga, Toll Gate, funding for Prospect median improvements, funding for Village sidewalk improvements, and how grant dollars are spent. DIRECTION TO STAFF None ANNOUNCEMENTS Councilmember Page noted the Chamber of Commerce is having their annual Crab Feed on Saturday, February 20th from 6:30 to 830p.m. at Sacred Heart Church. Councilmember Miller noted the AARP (Association of American Retired Persons) is providing Income Tax assistance every Thursday from now until April 15th from 9:30 to 1:30 at the Saratoga Senior Center; adding that the service is available for seniors and low to middle income citizens. In addition, he reminded citizens to check out the Saratoga Recreation Guide and invited people to register for some fun classes. Vice Mayor Hunter noted the City website needs to be updated reflecting the new name for the North Campus property, which is now “Saratoga Prospect Center” and to include Formerly North Campus in parentheses. She also stated the final color selection for the new Village Entrance sign has been made and the sign will be installed in approximately 13 3 three weeks. In addition, she reminded everyone of the upcoming Mustard Faire event on March 7 and the St. Paddy’s Day celebration on March 13. CEREMONIAL ITEMS None SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS None CONSENT CALENDAR 1. CITY COUNCIL RETREAT MINUTES – JANUARY 29, 2010 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve minutes. Councilmember Page removed this item for one minor correction. PAGE/MILLER MOVED TO APPROVE CITY COUNCIL RETREAT MINUTES – JANUARY 29, 2010 AS AMENDED. MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 WITH COUNCILMEMBER NAGPAL ABSENT. 2. CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES – FEBRUARY 3, 2010 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve minutes. PAGE/HUNTER MOVED TO APPROVE CITY COUNCIL MEETING MINUTES – FEBRUARY 3, 2010. MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 WITH COUNCILMEMBER NAGPAL ABSENT. 3. CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION MINUTES – FEBRUARY 8, 2010 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve minutes. PAGE/HUNTER MOVED TO APPROVE CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION MINUTES – FEBRUARY 8, 2010. MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 WITH COUNCILMEMBER NAGPAL ABSENT. 4. REVIEW OF ACCOUNTS PAYABLE CHECK REGISTERS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council review and accept the Check Registers for the following Accounts Payable payment cycles: January 28, 2010 February 04, 2010 14 4 PAGE/HUNTER MOVED TO ACCEPT THE CHECK REGISTERS FOR THE FOLLOWING ACCOUNTS PAYABLE PAYMENT CYCLES: JANUARY 28, 2010 AND FEBRUARY 04, 2010. MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 WITH COUNCILMEMBER NAGPAL ABSENT. 5. APPROVAL OF AGENCY AGREEMENT FOR COUNTYWIDE AB 939 IMPLEMENTATION FEE STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. PAGE/HUNTER MOVED TO APPROVE AGENCY AGREEMENT FOR COUNTYWIDE AB939 IMPLEMENTATION FEE. MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 WITH COUNCILMEMBER NAGPAL ABSENT. 6. APPROVAL OF AGENCY AGREEMENT FOR THE COUNTYWIDE HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE COLLECTION PROGRAM STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. PAGE/HUNTER MOVED TO APPROVE AGENCY AGREEMENT FOR THE COUNTYWIDE HOUSEHOLD HAZARDOUS WASTE COLLECTION PROGRAM. MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 WITH COUNCILMEMBER NAGPAL ABSENT. 7. RESOLUTION AMENDING COUNCIL AGENCY AND ADHOC COMMITTEE LIAISON ASSIGNMENTS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution amending Resolution 09-066 appointing Council representatives to Committees, Agencies and Ad hoc Committees. RESOLUTION NO. 10-008 PAGE/HUNTER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION 09-066 APPOINTING COUNCIL REPRESENTATIVES TO COMMITTEES, AGENCIES AND AD HOC COMMITTEES. MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 WITH COUNCILMEMBER NAGPAL ABSENT. PUBLIC HEARINGS None OLD BUSINESS 8. 2010 SPRING ISSUE OF THE SARATOGAN STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. 15 5 Crystal Morrow, Administrative Analyst II, presented the staff report. Mayor King invited public comment. No one requested to speak on this item. DIRECTION TO STAFF: In addition to the proposed articles for the spring issue of The Saratogan, Council suggested adding the following articles:  Shop local ads;  Reference the Prescription Drug Card in the healthy and active living in Saratoga article;  Include a picture from the February 20, 2010 Hakone Chinese Lunar New Year Festival. In addition, Council recommended staff include the following on the City website:  2010 Census Banner reminding citizens to complete the 2010 Census and include every person living in the household; State loses $3,000 per under- counted person per year; and State of California may lose Congressional representation if number of citizens are under-counted;  Include a “Frequently Asked Questions” link to the 2010 Census Banner addressing most commonly asked questions;  Include a link on City website for residents to respond to regarding their interest in receiving an electronic version of The Saratogan. 9. REQUEST FOR WAIVER OF CITY FEES RELATED TO 2010 MUSTARD FAIRE STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. Assistant City Manager Barbara Powell presented the staff report noting the Mustard Faire Festival planners were asking for additional funding for the 2010 Festival to offset the cost of City-related fees. Mayor King invited public comment. The following person requested to speak on this item: Kathleen Casey commented on several topics: o Some minutes from Heritage Preservation Commission meetings are posted on the City website five months after the meetings; o At the February 3, 2010 Council meeting a SASCC member volunteered to help out with the 2010 Mustard Faire; o Animals weren’t always on the Mustard Faire agenda; and o Mustard Faire was originally called the Saratoga Blossom Festival. Mayor King closed the public comment. Council discussed the following suggestions: 16 6 o Event planners for all City co-sponsored events acquire donations to help off- set costs – matching dollar for dollar; o Mustard Faire Festival event be under the auspices of the Saratoga/Monte Sereno Community Foundation or Saratoga Historical Foundation. COUNCIL DIRECTION: All 2010 City co-sponsored events to be agendized on an upcoming Council meeting agenda for discussion. PAGE/MILLER MOVED TO ALLOCATE AN ADDITIONAL $1,000 FROM THE FOURTH OF JULY EVENT FUND AND ALLOCATE AN ADDITIONAL $217.50 FROM COUNCIL’S CONTINGENCY FUND. MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 WITH COUNCILMEMBER NAGPAL ABSENT. NEW BUSINESS 10. GOOGLE FIBER FOR COMMUNITIES REQUEST FOR INFORMATION STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. Crystal Morrow, Administrative Analyst II, presented the staff report. Mayor King invited public comment and the following person requested to speak on this item: Narasimha Nookala spoke in support of this project and volunteered his assistance. No one else requested to speak on this item. Council discussed the various aspects involved if the Council decided to participate in this program and expressed concerns regarding: o Inadequate information provided by Google o Associated costs o Staff time o Terrain in Saratoga o Three-city approach with Los Gatos and Monte Sereno to share costs Councilmember Page volunteered to contact Town and City officials in Los Gatos and Monte Sereno to see if they would be interested in the Google fiber optic trial and partnering with the City of Saratoga. DIRECTION TO STAFF: Contact Google for additional information regarding the fiber optic project, outreach to partners and residents in the community to see who may be interested in working with the City on its response to Google, and re-agendize this item for Council consideration on the next Council meeting. 11. COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT ADVANCE PLANNING WORK PROGRAM FOR FY 2010/11 17 7 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve the proposed work program. John Livingstone presented the staff report. Mayor King invited public comment and the following person requested to speak on this item: Kathleen Casey voiced her concerns regarding roads and potential mud slides; and costs associated with the proposed work plan, the Housing Element and annexations. No one else requested to speak on this item. Councilmember Page noted the definition of “pervious” in the State’s mandated Water Efficiency Landscape Model Ordinance is different than the City’s definition of pervious and asked if Saratoga’s definition would have to be rectified prior to implementing the State’s mandated model ordinance. Director Livingstone noted that item would be coming back to Council March 3, 2010 for consideration. PAGE/MILLER MOVED TO APPROVE THE PROPOSED WORK PLAN AND ALLOCATE $14,000 FROM COUNCIL’S DISCRETIONARY FUND. MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 WITH COUNCILMEMBER NAGPAL ABSENT. ADHOC & AGENCY ASSIGNMENT REPORTS Mayor Kathleen King – reported: County HCD Policy Committee – meets Thursday evening. West Valley Mayors and Managers Association –meets next week. Vice Mayor Jill Hunter – reported: Chamber of Commerce – she attended the last Chamber of Commerce meeting for Councilmember Miller and the Chamber is moving forward with Taste of Saratoga as a two-day event. Historical Foundation – she attended the last meeting and noted they are installing a modular storage (temporary building) behind the Museum; they are in the process of searching for a new executive director, and they continue to address landscape questions. Councilmember Howard Miller – reported: Santa Clara County Cities Association Board (SCCCA) – he attended the last meeting and spoke about the Census report and emphasized the importance of every person being counted; SCCCA will be receiving website assistance from the City of Saratoga; they discussed the medical marijuana ordinance; discussed new green house gas CEQA requirements in the State and the impact those requirements may have on cities. West Valley Solid Waste Joint Powers Association – noted he was voted to be the Chair Person of the JPA; they are getting a quote on commercial food waste recycling to see what opportunities may be available; approved next year’s budget, noting it will impact the cities. 18 8 West Valley Transportation Authority PAC – discussion took place regarding measurement of road quality and traffic delays in order to acquire real data for Santa Clara County to receive its share of Federal funding; discussed block grants and Saratoga is being considered for $500K for road work; and Highway 9 Safety Improvement is low on the grant list – Saratoga could receive $500K. Councilmember Susie Nagpal – Excused absence. Councilmember Chuck Page – reported: West Valley Sanitation District – met and the new Chairman, Ken Yaeger, asked to create a sub-committee to look into the District’s Charter as a whole and the various funding allocations; rates may increase in 2011. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS None CITY MANAGER’S REPORT None ADJOURNMENT There being no additional business, Mayor King asked for a motion to adjourn. PAGE/HUNTER MOVED TO ADJOURN THE REGULAR MEETING 8:57PM. MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 WITH COUNCILMEMBER NAGPAL ABSENT. Respectfully submitted, Ann Sullivan, CMC City Clerk 19 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 3, 2010 AGENDA ITEM: DEPARTMENT: City Manager’s Office CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: Ann Sullivan, City Clerk DIRECTOR: Dave Anderson SUBJECT: City Council Meeting Minutes – March 16, 2005 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve minutes. REPORT SUMMARY: Approve minutes as submitted for March 16, 2005 City Council Regular Meeting. FISCAL IMPACTS: N/A CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: N/A ALTERNATIVE ACTION: N/A FOLLOW UP ACTION: Retain minutes for legislative history. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: N/A ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A – Minutes from March 16, 2005 City Council Regular Meeting. 20 MINUTES SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MARCH 16, 2005 The City Council of the City of Saratoga held a Study Session to discuss Planning Commission issues in the Administrative Conference Room, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, at 5:30 p.m. Mayor King called the Regular City Council meeting to order at 7:00 p.m. and lead the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Nick Streit, Ann Waltonsmith, Vice Mayor Norman Kline, Mayor Kathleen King ABSENT: Councilmember Aileen Kao ALSO PRESENT: Dave Anderson, City Manager Richard Taylor, City Attorney Lorie Tinfow, Assistant City Manager Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk John Livingstone, Interim Community Development Director John Cherbone, Public Works Director REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA FOR MARCH 16, 2005 Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, reported that pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2, the agenda for the meeting of March 16, 2005 was properly posted on March 10, 2005. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ON NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS None COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS & PUBLIC None COUNCIL DIRECTION TO STAFF None ANNOUNCEMENTS None CEREMONIAL ITEMS 1A. APPOINTMENT OF PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS AND OATH OF OFFICE STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution and administer Oath of Office. 21 2 RESOLUTION: 05-014 WALTONSMITH/KLINE MOVED TO APPOINT MANNY CAPPELLO, JILL HUNTER, AND ROBERT KUNDTZ TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION, EFFECTIVE APRIL 1, 2005. MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 WITH KAO ABSENT. City Clerk Boyer administered the Oath of Office to the new Commissioners. 1B. PROCLAMATION DECLARING MARCH 20, 2005 “ASSYRIAN DAY” STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Acknowledge proclamation. Mayor King acknowledged the proclamation. 1C. PROCLAMATION DECLARING MARCH 26, 2005 “GREEK INDEPENDENCE DAY” STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Acknowledge proclamation. Mayor King acknowledged the proclamation. 1D. PROCLAMATION DECLARING APRIL 5, 2005 “TARTAN DAY” STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Acknowledge proclamation. Mayor King acknowledged the proclamation. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS 2. CARL GUARDINO, PRESIDENT AND CEO/SILICON VALLEY LEADERSHIP GROUP SANTA CLARA COUNTY TRAFFIC RELIEF LEGISLATION – SB 680 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Adopt resolution. Carl Guardino, CEO of the Silicon Valley Leadership Group, (formerly known as the Silicon Valley Manufacturing Group) addressed the Council. Mr. Guardino requested the City’s support of the adoption of SB 680, the Santa Clara County Traffic Relief bill. This proposed bill would apply a $5 vehicle registration surcharge for eight years and would generate $280K in revenue for Saratoga. The generated funds would be applied to three local uses: one third for Saratoga transportation improvements, one third for a competitive pool of funds for multi- city use, and one third for Tier 1A County Expressway improvements. RESOLUTION: 05-017 . 22 3 WALTONSMITH/KLINE MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION TO SUPPORT SB 680. MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 WITH COUNCILMEMBER KAO ABSENT. CONSENT CALENDAR 3A. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MINUTES – JANUARY 19, 2005 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve minutes. STREIT/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO APPROVE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES FROM JANUARY 19, 2005. MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 WITH COUNCILMEMBER KAO ABSENT. 3B. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MINUTES – FEBRUARY 2, 2005 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve minutes. STREIT/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO APPROVE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES FROM FEBRUARY 2, 2005. MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 WITH COUNCILMEMBER KAO ABSENT. 3C. APPROVAL OF CITY COUNCIL MINUTES STUDY SESSION – MARCH 2, 2005 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approve minutes. STREIT/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO APPROVE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES FROM STUDY SESSION-MARCH 2, 2005. MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 WITH COUNCILMEMBER KAO ABSENT. 3D. REVIEW OF CHECK REGISTER STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept check register. STREIT/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO ACCEPT CHECK REGISTER. MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 WITH COUNCILMEMBER KAO ABSENT. 3E. TREASURER’S REPORT FOR THE MONTH ENDED FEBRUARY 2005 STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept and file report. STREIT/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO ACCEPT TREASURER’S REPORT FOR MONTH ENDED FEBRUARY 2005. MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 WITH COUNCILMEMBER KAO ABSENT. 23 4 3F. CIVIC THEATER SOUND SYSTEM PROJECT – AWARD OF CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Award construction contract to Lloyd F. McKinney Associates, Inc. in the amount of $37,936 and authorize City Manager to execute the same. STREIT/WALTONSMITH MOVED TO AWARD CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO LLOYD F. MCKINNEY ASSOCIATES, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $37,936 AND AUTHORIZE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE SAME. MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 WITH COUNCILMEMBER KAO ABSENT. PUBLIC HEARINGS 4. FY 2005/2006 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT FUNDING STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Conduct the public hearing; adopt resolution. John Livingstone, Interim Community Development Director, presented staff report. Interim Director Livingstone explained the distribution of the FY 2005-2006, $156K CDBG funds. Council inquired whether or not the SHARP Program funds could be used for accessibility upgrades to public buildings – such as the McWilliams House. City Manager Anderson clarified that these funds are only available for qualified low income home owners wishing to improve their homes – thereby improving the neighborhood. Mr. Anderson added the hearing process would allow suggestions for public buildings. Mayor King opened the Public Hearing for comment. The following person requested to speak on this item: Genie Dee, Director of the Senior Center, expressed her appreciation for past funds and asked that Council consider sending a letter to Congress requesting the continuation of future funding. No one else requested to speak on this item. Mayor King closed the Public Hearing. Councilmember Waltonsmith commented on the need to develop the McWilliams House; specifically to upgrade the bathrooms and to make the facility more accessible and rentable. She asked that Council consider using the $23,810K from the SHARP Program for providing ADA access to the Historical building. 24 5 Councilmember Streit concurred with Councilmember Waltonsmith, adding that the $23,810K should be moved into the “Historical Park” to include the McWilliams House and/or the Book-Go-Around. He concluded by saying that staff could bring a proposal back to Council regarding ADA access in that area. RESOLUTION: 05-015 WALTONSMITH/STREIT MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING STAFF TO SUBMIT CDBG GRANT FUNDING ALLOCATIONS FOR FY 2005/2006 TOTALING $156,491 AS AMENDED; ALLOCATING $23,810K FROM THE SHARP PROGRAM TO BE USED FOR ADA ACCESS TO THE HISTORICAL PARK AREA. MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 WITH COUNCILMEMBER KAO ABSENT. 5. ORDINANCE AMENDING PROCEDURES FOR HIRING AND REMOVING DEPARTMENT DIRECTORS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Open the public meetting; Introduce and waive first reading of the ordinance; Direct staff to place the second reading and adoption of the ordinance on the consent calendar for the next regular Council meeting. Richard Taylor, City Attorney, presented the staff report. City Attorney Taylor explained that earlier this year Council had approved a Memorandum of Understanding with the Saratoga Manager’s Organization (SMO), noting that there is a contradiction in the existing City Code regarding hiring and removing Department Managers. He noted one area of the Code states that Department Managers serve at the pleasure of the City Manager and another section of the Code states that Department Managers serve at the pleasure of the City Manager subject to Council’s confirmation of all hiring and firing decisions. In order to maintain the Manager’s status of at will employees as noted in the Employment Agreement, the City Code needs to be amended to remove the Council’s authority for the approval of those hiring and firing decisions; adding that this would be consistent with the standard form of City Manager government where Council sets policy and City Manager does hiring and firing and day-to-day administration of the City. Councilmember Waltonsmith expressed concerns as to the procedure in the absence of the City Manager City Attorney Taylor noted the Assistant City Manager serves as the Acting City Manager in the absence of the City Manager. Councilmember Streit inquired about the process and recourse if the Council wasn’t in agreement with the hiring and firing decisions of the City Manager. City Attorney Taylor responded that the Council hires and fires the City Manager and if Council feels the City Manager isn’t making responsible decisions regarding this matter it can be addressed in his/her annual employment review. He added, 25 6 since Council sets policy, Council could provide their input regarding hiring and firing policies. Mayor King asked when this would become effective if Council approved this Ordinance amendment. City Attorney Taylor noted it would become effective 30 days after the second reading, which would be held on the first Council meeting in April. STREIT/KLINE MOVED TO WAIVE THE FIRST READING OF THE ORDINANCE AND DIRECTED STAFF TO PLACE THE SECOND READING AND ADOPTION OF THE ORDINANCE ON THE CONSENT CALENDAR FOR THE NEXT REGULAR COUNCIL MEETING. MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 WITH COUNCILMEMBER KAO ABSENT. OLD BUSINESS 6. SALE OF NORTH CAMPUS - PROCESS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. John Cherbone, Public Works Director, presented the staff report. Director Cherbone stated that at the February 16th City Council meeting, Council approved moving forward with the sale of the North Campus. Staff identified three options for the sale/development of the North Campus: 1. Sell property as is 2. Sell property as is with an approved Tentative Map 3. Sell property via individual lots by subdividing the land and constructing infrastructure improvements. City Council chose option two. Director Cherbone stated that the North Campus was purchased in 2002 at a cost of $4.5 million and at the same time it was appraised at $6.3 million. It can be assumed that the property would sell for more that the purchase price. Staff recommended that the City perform as much work in-house as possible to control costs: • The Public Works Department will act as the lead in the process and will utilize Engineering Staff and the City Surveyor to generate the Tentative Map. • The Planning Department Staff and the City Attorney will work on the General Plan Amendment and Environmental Study. • The City Traffic Engineer and City Geologist will prepare reports in their respective areas. • The City Attorney will act as the selling agent and provide legal expertise regarding the sale. Director Cherbone outlined the process and timeline. He stated the costs will not exceed $100K, adding that most of it would be going towards environmental work. 26 7 Mayor King opened the Public Hearing for comment. The following person requested to speak on this item: Jack Mallory addressed the Council and asked that they delay plans to move ahead with the sale of the North Campus and allow the Citizen’s Committee 90 days to raise funds to purchase the property for community use. No one else requested to speak on this item. Mayor King closed the Public Hearing. Council discussed the costs involved if they delay moving forward with the process and grant the Citizen’s Committee the 90 days to raise funds. Council also asked if staff could continue to move forward with some of the in- house work in order to remain within the proposed timeline. City Attorney Taylor noted staff would want to hold off on the appraisal until after the Tentative Map is prepared so that the appraiser would know exactly what the conditions would be on the development of the property. He added that it would be prudent to continue moving forward with the Environmental Study. Attorney Taylor noted the other option would be that the property be sold as is without the Tentative Map. Mayor King inquired about funding for the various aspects of moving forward with the project. Public Works Director John Cherbone noted that staff would be bringing a budget resolution to the next meeting for Council’s consideration to fund the process. DIRECTION TO STAFF: Council directed Staff to continue moving forward with the process; allow the Citizen’s Committee to continue with their fund raising efforts and the Committee must provide status updates to the Council for the next 30 to 45 days. 7. COMMISSION ADHOC COMMITTEE RECOMMENDATION STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept recommendation from AdHoc and provide direction to staff regarding resources allocated to support Commissions. Lorie Tinfow, Assistant City Manager, presented the staff report. Ms Tinfow noted that while it was understood that it was a large time commitment for staff to be part of the current Commissions, the Commission chairs voiced concerns about abandoning the commission structure due to budget concerns and asked to be allowed to provide input to the process. Ms. Tinfow noted that Mayor King and Vice Mayor Kline offered to serve as an Adhoc Committee to collect input from the Commissions. She added that 27 8 subsequently, the Commission chairs met with staff and provided some plausible suggestions on how to reduce staff resources. Based on those suggestions and additional discussion, the Adhoc Committee came up with the recommendation that in order to maintain status quo for both the Planning Commission and Heritage Preservation Commission (HPC) – including changing the HPC’s focus to “policy” – they recommended: o Changing the Finance Commission to meet on an Adhoc basic as needed and to focus only on policy areas as defined by Council; o Public Safety Commission to be converted to “Traffic Safety Commission” – with a reduced scope; and o Library Commission and the new Traffic Safety Commission to meet only five (5) times per year, i.e., every other month and cancelling the meetings during the summer months; and focusing only on policy issues as defined by Council or other responsibilities that Council would assign; o Fund the Youth Commission as directed by Council at last week’s Study Session; o Suspend for one (1) year, and evaluate resources the following year, the Arts Commission and Parks and Recreation Commission; o Distribute meeting agendas electronically rather than via the U.S. Mail; o Reduce the number of non-regulatory (Finance, Traffic and Library) commissioners by attrition from seven to five; o Fix meeting start and end times; o Assign responsibility for minutes preparation to a commissioner on the Finance, Public Safety and Library Commissions Ms. Tinfow concluded by noting that Council could:  Choose to maintain Commission support at current levels with finance reductions made at other levels next year;  Adopt another configuration of supporting the Commissions; or  Suspend all Commissions Discussion took place regarding the possibility of suspending the Library Commission temporarily and relying on the Friends of the Library to provide recommendations as needed to the Council. Vice Mayor Kline noted the functions of the Library Commission are quite different than the functions of the Friends of the Library, which is a revenue- generating entity, not a policy generating body; and there could be a number of legal issues if the City relied on the Friends of the Library for policy advice. Councilmember Streit inquired about having the Library and Public Safety Commission meet quarterly rather than five (5) times a year in order to reduce staff time. Mayor King responded that the Adhoc Committee felt that since the meetings are cancelled during the summer months it would be reasonable to meet every other month during the rest of the year. Councilmember Streit noted that it seems like staff would be more impacted with meetings every other month versus quarterly. 28 9 Councilmember Waltonsmith noted she did not favor suspending the Arts Commission. Mayor King opened the Public Hearing for comment. The following people requested to speak on this item: Lee Murray spoke in favor of retaining the Arts Commission and voiced his concerns regarding the “art wall” in the Library and who would provide art to the Library if the Arts Commission is no longer responsible for it. Elaine Clabeaux spoke in favor of retaining the Parks and Recreation. Ruth Gipstein spoke in favor of retaining the Library Commission. Mayor King closed the Public Hearing. Council discussed various options regarding the “art wall” in the Library and how it could be continued in the absence of the Arts Commission. Some suggestions were to have the Library Commission be responsible for the art or have members of the Art Commission volunteer to provide art for the “art wall”. Assistant City Manager Lorie Tinfow asked that Council allow staff some time to determine what could be done about the “art wall”. Councilmember Waltonsmith noted that if the Arts Commission is going to be suspended we may have to accept the reality that art may no longer be available for the “art wall”. She also raised the question as to trail management if there is no Trail Sub-committee, which is part of the Parks and Recreation Commission. Public Works Director Cherbone noted that since the trails are pedestrian related, there may be a possibility that the Trails Committee could be a Sub-committee of the new Traffic Commission as a pedestrian oriented body that looks at pedestrian issues. The Trails Committee provides a great service to the City by providing input to City staff and they don’t require a lot of staff time. They are a Sub- committee of the Parks and Recreation Commission and they couldn’t be a stand- alone committee; they would have to be attached to a body that they report to. City Attorney Taylor added that if a group of residents are providing the services that Director Cherbone just noted, it is not considered “policy” advice, it is basically considered as a group of people serving as volunteers, collecting information and providing it to staff. DIRECTION TO STAFF: Council directed Staff to: 1) suspend the Arts and Parks & Recreation Commissions for one year; 2) staff to report back to Council regarding the Art Wall in the Saratoga Library; 3) staff to look into the possibility of the Trails Sub- committee moving to the Public Safety Commission; 4) Public Safety and Library Commissions will meet 4 times a year; 5) Finance Commission will meet as needed; and 6) Planning Commission and Heritage Preservation Commission 29 10 (HPC) will remain status quo with HPC’s focus on “policy”. Mayor King declared a 10 minute break at 10:30pm. Mayor King reconvened the Regular meeting at 10:40pm. 8. DOG OFF- LEASH HOURS STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. John Cherbone, Public Works Director, presented the staff report. Director Cherbone noted that Council could provide direction regarding Option 1 – 3 as listed: Option 1: Off-leash Dog Hours Via Permit whereby any Saratoga resident who wishes to utilize a City Park for off-leash activities would be allowed to do so, but first must obtain a permit from the City. Option 2: Enclosed Off-Leash Area Find an area that is suitable to enclose with a fence system that allows dog owners to freely run their animals. Option 3: Continue Current Ordinance This option would continue the status quo regarding off-leash dogs. Tom Soukup, Chair of the AdHoc Off Leash Task Force, addressed the Council and noted that no single off-leash option was favored unanimously by the Adhoc Task Force. Mayor King invited public comment. Citizen Marjorie spoke in favor of a dog off-leash hour’s Ordinance. Elaine Clabeaux spoke in support of Option 2; however she recommended that Council retain the existing ordinance. Margaret Metcalf spoke in support of having a 3 month trial period to see what the results would be regarding the off-leash fenced-in area. Citizen Stan suggested Council allow the Parks and Recreation Commission and staff to work out a trial basis in order to collect data so that a reasonable decision can be made. Mayor King closed the public comment. COUNCIL CONSENSUS AND DIRECTION: Council determined that the City did not have sufficient funding to consider any 30 11 dog off-leash hour’s option, and directed staff to maintain the current leash ordinance. 9. REDEVELOPMENT FEASIBILITY STUDY DETERMINATION STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept report prepared by Rosenow Spevak Group and the study’s conclusion that a Redevelopment is not a viable option for Saratoga. Lorie Tinfow, Assistant City Manager, presented the staff report. COUNCIL CONSENSUS AND DIRECTION: Consensus by the City Council was to accept report prepared by Rosenow Spevak Group and the study’s conclusion that a Redevelopment is not a viable option for Saratoga and redirect the account balance back into the CIP. NEW BUSINESS 10. REQUEST FROM LIBRARY COMMISSION TO INSTALL A MONUMENT SIGN ON FRUITVALE AVENUE STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Accept recommendation and adopt budget resolution. Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, presented the staff report. City Clerk Boyer explained that a large wooden sign that read “Saratoga Library” was positioned in the orchard near the corner of Saratoga Avenue and Fruitvale Avenue prior to the orchard improvements implemented during the library construction activities. She noted that during a joint meeting with the City Council in 2004, the Friends of the Saratoga Libraries requested that a replacement sign similar to the one placed near the driveway entrance to the Saratoga Library be installed in roughly the same place as the previous one. The City Council directed the Friends of the Saratoga Libraries to take the request to the Library Commission. The Library Commission discussed the request and agreed to explore the options. A Library Signage Subcommittee was formed to work with the contractor who designed the existing sign at the Library. In January 2005, the Subcommittee met with the City’s orchard maintenance contractor, Matt Novakovich, who approved the location of the sign. The Heritage Preservation Commission also approved the location. At the February 23, 2005, Library Commission meeting, staff presented two sign options – one that included the City and County Library’s logos and one without the logos. The Commission unanimously voted to support the sign option that included the logos. The cost of either option is $8,500; this cost does not include installation. Public Works Director John Cherbone indicated that his staff could install the sign. Council discussed this item and concurred that the staff report did not provide sufficient data and financial information for them to make a knowledgeable 31 12 decision. Council also concurred that the Library Commission would need to absorb more of the financial responsibilities. DIRECTION TO STAFF: Council deferred this item to the next scheduled Council meeting and asked that staff provide a detailed financial spread sheet noting fund balance, projected maintenance costs, and where the funds are coming from to cover the cost of the Library sign. ADHOC & AGENCY ASSIGNMENT REPORTS Mayor Kathleen King – reported: Santa Clara County Cities Association – the Association voted on several items: SCVWD legislation SB680 and AB211 legislation. City Manager Dave Anderson explained AB211 – Radio Interoperability Project and noted that this bill would open up the Public Safety Communications market; whereby the vendors would utilize a more open system in order to integrate the different communications systems. Mayor King added that there is an Emergency Preparedness meeting scheduled for April 7th and asked if Vice Mayor Kline could attend in her place. West Valley Mayors and Managers Association – there was discussion on annexation issues at the last meeting and they are hoping to have a LAFCO representative speak at the next scheduled meeting. Vice Mayor Norman Kline – reported: County Cities Association Legislative Task Force – he was unable to attend the meeting. Library Joint Powers Association – the JPA discussed the ballot measure supporting a tax increase to fund additional library hours which would help keep the library open on Mondays. Valley Transportation Authority PAC – there is a workshop April 1st and he will be giving a presentation on “How to Prioritize Measure A Funds”. Village AdHoc – they are looking at Village improvements that would not be costly to the City – such as “parking”. Design Review AdHoc – ongoing efforts to improve efficiency and consistency. Councilmember Nick Streit – reported: West Valley Solid Waste Joint Powers Association – they have a tentative agreement with Waste Management. Councilmember Ann Waltonsmith – reported: KSAR Community Access TV Board – they are experiencing funding issues and they are moving towards a non-profit status. Saratoga Historic Foundation – Calendar items: Membership Meeting and Pot Luck on March 21, 6:30pm; Walking tours begin at Saratoga Museum on April 3; Spring Cleanup Day at the museum April 9; Saratoga Garden tours May 7. Sister City Liaison – Potluck on March 18 at 6p.m. at the Senior Center. 32 13 CITY COUNCIL ITEMS Mayor King noted there is a new shop in the Village – Bella Mia Bridal and a new Italian restaurant opening up and encouraged fellow Council members to visit these establishments and welcome them to the Village. CITY MANAGER’S REPORT None There being no further business, Mayor King announced Council would proceed to the Administrative Conference Room for Closed Session. ANNOUNCEMENT OF CLOSED SESSION ITEMS Conference with Legal Counsel – Threatened Litigation: Significant exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(b): (1 potential case) The Regular meeting adjourned at 11:20p.m. Council proceeded to the Administrative Conference Room for Closed Session. Respectfully submitted for Cathleen Boyer, Ann Sullivan, CMC City Clerk 33 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 3, 2010 AGENDA ITEM: DEPARTMENT: Finance & Administrative Services CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: Ann Xu, Accountant DEPT HEAD: Mary Furey SUBJECT: Treasurer’s Report for the Month Ended January 31, 2010 RECOMMENDED ACTION Review and accept the Treasurer’s Report for the month ended January 31, 2010. REPORT SUMMARY California government code section 41004 requires that the City Treasurer (the Municipal Code of the City of Saratoga, Article 2-20, Section 2-20.035, designates the City Manager as the City Treasurer) submit to the City Clerk and the legislative body a written report and accounting of all receipts, disbursements, and fund balances. Section 41004. Regularly, at least once each month, the City Treasurer shall submit to the City Clerk a written report and accounting of all receipts, disbursements, and fund balances. He shall file a copy with the legislative body. The following attachments provide various financial transaction data for the City of Saratoga’s Funds collectively as well as specifically for the City’s General (Operating) Fund, including an attachment from the State Treasurer’s Office of Quarterly LAIF rates from the 1st Quarter of 1977 to present. FISCAL IMPACT Cash and Investments Balance by Fund As of January 31, 2010, the City had $125,362 in cash deposit at Comerica bank, and $13,544,314 on deposit with LAIF. Council Policy on operating reserve funds, adopted on April 20, 1994, states that: for cash flow purposes, to avoid occurrence of dry period financing, pooled cash from all funds should not be allowed to fall below $2,000,000. The total pooled cash balance as of January 31, 2010 is $13,669,676 and exceeds the minimum limit required. 34 Unrestricted Cash Comerica Bank125,362$ Deposit with LAIF13,544,314$ Total Unrestricted Cash13,669,676$ Cash Summary The Fund Balance schedule presented on the following page represents actual funding available for all funds at the end of the monthly period. This amount differs from the above Cash Summary schedule as assets and liabilities are components of the fund balance. As illustrated in the summary below, Total Unrestricted Cash is adjusted by the addition of Total Assets less the amount of Total Liabilities to arrive at the Ending Fund Balance – which represents the actual amount of funds available. Total Unrestricted Cash13,669,676$ Plus: Assets209,892 Less: Liabilities (1,269,059) Ending Fund Balance12,610,509$ Adjusting Cash to Ending Fund Balance CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION The City would not be in compliance with Government Code Section 41004. ALTERNATIVE ACTION N/A FOLLOW UP ACTION N/A ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT N/A ATTACHMENTS A – Change in Total Fund Balances by Fund B – Change in Total Fund Balances by CIP Project C – Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) Quarterly Apportionment Rates 35 ATTACHMENT A CHANGES IN TOTAL FUND BALANCE Fund Description Fund Balance 7/1/09 Increase/ (Decrease) Jul-Dec Current Revenue Current Expenditure Transfers Fund Balance 1/31/10 General Undesignated Unreserved Balance857,524 (1,322,890) 2,388,620 1,662,158 - 261,097 Reserved Fund Balance: Petty Cash Reserve1,300 - - - - 1,300 Designated Fund Balances:- - Designated for Operations 2,870,140 - - - - 2,870,140 Designated Economic Uncertainty 1,500,000 - - - - 1,500,000 Designated for Development 707,380 - - - (75,000) 632,380 Designated for Environmental 613,182 - - - (50,000) 563,182 Designated for Uncollected Deposits182,159 - - - - 182,159 Designated for Mid Pen Open Space 250,000 - - - (250,000) - Designated for Hillside Reserve300,000 - - - - 300,000 Designated for CIP Matching Grant600,000 - - - - 600,000 Designated for CIP Transfer 300,000 - - - (300,000) - Designated for Economic Stability25,000 - - - (25,000) - Designated for Carryforward22,000 - - - (22,000) - Special Revenue Landscape/Lighting Districts359,917 (97,939) 168,724 57,762 - 372,941 CDBG Federal Grants- (42,859) - - - (42,859) SHARP Loan209,175 479 - - - 209,655 Capital Project Street Projects1,926,230 (124,004) 19,292 86,403 - 1,735,116 Park and Trail Projects542,045 96,567 - 1,120 - 637,492 Facility Improvement Projects953,833 (377,069) 5,660 108,441 - 473,984 Administrative Projects163,910 17,280 - 1,597 - 179,593 Tree Fine Fund62,943 (27,197) - 2,545 - 33,200 CIP Grant Fund(200,477) (108,104) 39,928 258,412 - (527,065) Gas Tax Fund62,495 66,129 - 174,666 - (46,042) Debt Service Library Bond 931,361 (660,026) 511,059 336,828 445,566 Internal Service Fund Liability/Risk Management202,872 (89,216) 64,660 6,522 - 171,793 Workers Compensation123,034 68,634 62,500 2,172 - 251,997 Office Stores Fund39,633 6,137 10,000 3,104 - 52,666 Information Technology Services 174,838 17,736 100,000 35,858 - 256,716 Equipment Maintenance56,654 17,092 56,250 23,944 - 106,052 Building Maintenance208,842 41,043 187,500 61,498 - 375,888 Equipment Replacement 153,214 87,655 50,000 7,824 - 283,044 Technology Replacement 315,290 (21,683) 14,502 318 - 307,791 Trust/Agency Library Fund354,394 (2,556) - - - 351,838 KSAR - Community Access TV84,603 (17,607) 14,559 10,669 - 70,886 Total City14,953,491 (2,472,397) 3,693,254 2,841,841 (722,000) 12,610,509 36 ATTACHMENT B FUND BALANCES BY CIP PROJECT CIP Funds/Projects Fund Balance 7/1/09 Increase/ (Decrease) Jul-Dec Current Revenue Current Expenditure Transfers Fund Balance 1/31/10 Street Projects Traffic Safety90,472 (15,934) - - 74,538 Highway 9 Safety Project45,129 - 8,200 - 53,329 Annual Street Resurfacing Project233,602 112,780 11,092 83,880 273,595 Sidewalks Annual Project18,935 (7,184) - - 11,751 Saratoga Sunnyvale Road Resurfacing64,972 (1,093) - - 63,879 Traffic Signal @ Verde Vista Lane90,000 - - - 90,000 Fourth Street Bridge100,000 - - - 100,000 Quito Road Bridge Replacement Design9,730 - - - 9,730 Quito Road Bridge Construction115,726 - - - 115,726 Village Newsrack Enclosure23,307 (10,723) - - 12,584 Village Façade Program18,815 (2,837) - - 15,978 Solar Power Radar Feedback Signs24,158 - - - 24,158 El Quito Area Curb Replacement37,553 - - - 37,553 Sobey Road Culvert Repair150,000 - - - 150,000 Annual Storm Drain Upgrade246 (45,413) - - (45,167) Village Trees & Lights at Sidestreets25,336 - - - 25,336 Village Pedestrian Enhancement9,128 (146) - - 8,982 Prospect Road Median151,036 (96,850) - 2,523 51,663 City Entrance Sign/Monument23,788 - - - 23,788 Village-Streetscape Impv 517,188 - - - 517,188 Saratoga-Sunnyvale/Gateway Sidewalk4,107 (585) - - 3,522 Comer Drive Retaining Wall173,003 (56,020) - - 116,983 Total Street Projects1,926,230 (124,004) 19,292 86,403 - 1,735,116 Parks & Trails Hakone Garden Koi Pond49,150 (23) - - 49,127 EL Quito Park Improvements43,905 - - - 43,905 Wildwood Park - Water Feature/Seating275 - - - 275 Historical Park Landscape33,890 (446) - 2,488 30,956 Hakone Garden Retaining Wall & D/W142,829 - - - 142,829 Hakone Garden Upper Moon House 125,000 - - - 125,000 Kevin Moran Improvements69,083 (93,380) - (2,488) (21,809) West Valley Soccer Field(29,176) - - - (29,176) Park/Trail Repairs7,748 (4,878) - - 2,870 Trail Segment #3 Repair68,606 (7,912) - - 60,694 Teerlink Ranch Trail14,850 (14,850) - - - Tank Trail Repair60,695 (31,945) - 1,120 27,630 Mid Pen O/S Land Purchase- 250,000 - - 250,000 CIP Allocation Fund15,885 - - - 15,885 Total Parks & Trails602,741 96,567 - 1,120 - 698,188 Facility Improvements Warner Hutton House Improvements813 - - - 813 Facility Projects108,643 (73,236) - - 35,407 Civic Center Improvement4,294 (340) - - 3,954 Theater Improvement68,518 (10,293) 5,660 16,329 47,556 Corp Yard - Men's Restroom1,829 20,781 - 23,075 (464) Fire Alarm at McWilliams & Museum11,371 - - - 11,371 North Campus Improvements43,960 (38,433) - - 5,528 North Campus - Bldg Removal73,250 (72,866) - 171 213 HVAC System Upgrade- 125,000 - - 125,000 Multi-Purpose Room Fund250,000 (250,000) - - - Corp Yard Solar Project93,250 125,000 - - 218,250 Library HVAC Upgrade276,143 (207,681) - 68,867 (405) Library - EXT Improvement10,000 5,000 - - 15,000 McWilliams House Improvement10,000 - - - 10,000 Historical Park Fire Alarm System1,762 - - - 1,762 Total Facility Improvements953,833 (377,069) 5,660 108,441 - 473,984 Administrative Projects Financial System Upgrade3,534 - - - 3,534 Document Imaging Project86,780 - - 1,597 85,183 CDD Document Imaging Project36,635 (4,646) - - 31,989 Website Development Project30,959 (28,074) - - 2,885 IT Emergency Power Back- 10,000 - - 10,000 IT Server Room A/C- 40,000 - - 40,000 KSAR Equip Upgrades6,002 - - - 6,002 Total Administrative Projects163,910 17,280 - 1,597 - 179,593 Tree Fine Fund Tree Fine Fund62,943 (27,197) - 2,545 33,200 CIP Fund CIP Grant Fund(200,477) (108,104) 39,928 258,412 (527,065) Gax Fund Gas Tax Fund62,495 66,129 - 174,666 (46,042) Total CIP Funds3,510,979 (456,398) 64,880 633,184 - 2,546,973 37 ATTACHMENT C 38 Dave Anderson Melanie Whittaker Mary Furey SUBJECT: Review of Accounts Payable Check Registers RECOMMENDED ACTION: That the City Council review and accept the Check Registers for the following Accounts Payable payment cycles: REPORT SUMMARY: Attached are the Check Registers for: Date Ending Check No. 02/11/10 114327 114376 49 90,186.00 02/11/10 02/04/10 114326 02/18/10 114377 114430 53 462,476.68 02/18/10 02/11/10 114376 AP Date Check No. Issued to Dept.Amount 02/11/10 None 02/18/10 114391 Facilities 38,189.00 02/18/10 114399 Public Works 22,094.22 02/18/10 114409 Public Safety 344,573.67 The following are Accounts Payable checks that were voided or manually issued: AP Date Check No.Amount 02/11/10 112483 (300.00) 02/18/10 PREPARED BY:DEPT. DIRECTOR: Type of Checks Date Starting Check No. Ending Check No. Total Checks Amount Checks Released February 11, 2010 February 18, 2010 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:March 3, 2010 AGENDA ITEM: DEPARTMENT:Finance & Administrative Services CITY MANAGER: Prior Check Register The following is a list of Accounts Payable checks issued for more than $20,000 and a brief description of the expenditure: Fund Purpose Accounts Payable Accounts Payable Evans, Mary Void - Stale Dated Issued to Description CRW Industries CIP - Facility Project Corp Yard Lavatory None Hydrotec Irrigation CIP - Parks Project Historical Museum - Irrigation install County of SC - Office of Sheriff General Monthly Service - Law Enforcement 39 The following is a list of cash reduction by fund: Fund #AP 02/11 AP 11/18 Total 111 General 43,889.90 380,132.01 424,021.91 241 Arroyo de Saratoga Landscape 85.00 56.21 141.21 242 Bonnet Way Landscape 135.00 146.44 281.44 243 Carnelian Glen 135.00 135.00 244 Cunningham/Glasgow Landscape 150.00 34.02 184.02 245 Fredericksburg Landscape 132.00 34.02 166.02 246 Greenbriar Landscape 406.00 161.06 567.06 247 Kerwin Ranch Landscape 311.00 311.00 248 Leutar Court Landscape 85.00 56.20 141.20 249 Manor Drive Landscape 160.00 160.00 251 McCartysville Landscape 180.00 223.28 403.28 252 Prides Crossing Landscape 448.00 167.85 615.85 253 Saratoga Legends Landscape 158.00 158.00 254 Sunland Park Landscape 203.00 203.00 255 Tricia Woods Landscape 45.00 167.85 212.85 271 Beauchamps Landscape 85.00 85.00 272 Bellgrove Landscape 1,598.00 347.87 1,945.87 273 Gateway Landscape 203.00 178.13 381.13 274 Horseshoe Landscape/Lighting 320.00 320.00 275 Quito Lighting 165.00 165.00 276 Tollgate LLD 90.00 90.00 411 CIP Street Projects 13,599.54 3,319.58 16,919.12 412 CIP Parks Projects 880.00 26,144.22 27,024.22 413 CIP Facility Projects 17,070.20 39,670.38 56,740.58 431 Grant Fund - CIP Streets 6,106.38 2,181.56 8,287.94 611 Liability/Risk Mgt 423.34 423.34 612 Workers' Comp 496.01 496.01 621 Office Stores Fund 1,443.00 452.95 1,895.95 622 Information Technology 165.00 237.82 402.82 623 Vehicle & Equipment Maint 87.50 3,019.05 3,106.55 624 Building Maintenance 1,680.05 4,826.83 6,506.88 632 170.43 170.43 90,186.00 462,476.68 552,662.68 ALTERNATIVE ACTION: N/A FOLLOW UP ACTION: N/A ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: N/A ATTACHMENTS: Check Registers in the 'A/P Checks By Period and Year' report format TOTAL Fund Description IT Equipment Replacement 40 SU N G A R D P U B L I C S E C T O R P A G E N U M B E R : 1 DA T E : 0 2 / 2 4 / 2 0 1 0 C I T Y O F S A R A T O G A A C C T P A 2 1 TI M E : 1 0 : 3 9 : 0 4 C H E C K R E G I S T E R - D I S B U R S E M E N T F U N D SE L E C T I O N C R I T E R I A : t r a n s a c t . c h e c k _ n o b e t w e e n ’ 1 1 4 3 2 7 ’ a n d ’ 1 1 4 3 7 6 ’ AC C O U N T I N G P E R I O D : 8 / 1 0 F U N D - 0 0 9 - D I S B U R S E M E N T F U N D CA S H A C C T C H E C K N O I S S U E D T - - - - - - - - - - - - - - V E N D O R - - - - - - - - - - - - - B U D G E T U N I T - - - - - D E S C R I P T I O N - - - - - - S A L E S T A X A M O U N T 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 2 7 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 6 2 5 A R E N T A L C E N T E R 1 1 1 5 3 0 1 R E P A I R S - L A N D S C A P E 0 . 0 0 4 1 4 . 9 6 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 2 8 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 7 2 A D V A N T A G E J A N I T O R I A L S U P 6 2 4 6 2 0 2 S U P P L I E S - J A N I T O R I A L 0 . 0 0 3 7 4 . 6 8 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 2 9 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 5 0 0 A L A N I Z , N A N C Y 1 1 1 F A C I L I T Y D E P R E F U N D 0 . 0 0 3 0 0 . 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 3 0 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 5 2 1 A L L I E D L O C K & S A F E I N C 6 2 4 6 2 0 2 S U P P L I E S - F A C I L I T I E S 0 . 0 0 1 2 . 5 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 3 1 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 7 9 8 A N G E L I N A , P A T R I C I A 1 1 1 6 1 0 1 I N S T R U C T O R - E X E R C I S E 0 . 0 0 1 7 7 . 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 3 2 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 2 5 1 A W D I R E C T , I N C 1 1 1 5 2 0 1 R A I N G E A R - S T R E E T S 0 . 0 0 7 3 9 . 8 3 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 3 2 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 2 5 1 A W D I R E C T , I N C 1 1 1 5 2 0 1 R A I N G E A R - S T R E E T S 0 . 0 0 3 7 6 . 8 5 TO T A L C H E C K 0 . 0 0 1 , 1 1 6 . 6 8 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 3 3 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 3 2 7 B E L A N G E R , C H R I S T I N E 1 1 1 6 1 0 1 I N S T R U C T O R - D A N C E 0 . 0 0 1 1 0 . 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 3 4 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 3 6 9 B O R T Z , S H E R I L 1 1 1 6 1 0 1 I N S T R U C T O R - Y O G A 0 . 0 0 1 5 5 . 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 3 4 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 3 6 9 B O R T Z , S H E R I L 1 1 1 6 1 0 1 I N S T R U C T O R - Y O G A 0 . 0 0 2 1 7 . 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 3 4 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 3 6 9 B O R T Z , S H E R I L 1 1 1 6 1 0 1 I N S T R U C T O R - Y O G A 0 . 0 0 4 0 3 . 0 0 TO T A L C H E C K 0 . 0 0 7 7 5 . 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 3 5 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 1 3 0 C D W G , I N C 6 3 2 3 2 0 2 B A T T E R Y R E P L A C E M E N T 0 . 0 0 1 7 0 . 4 3 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 3 6 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 1 7 6 C I E N E G A L A N D S C A P I N G 2 7 4 5 3 0 2 H O R S E S H O E 0 1 / 1 0 0 . 0 0 3 2 0 . 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 3 6 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 1 7 6 C I E N E G A L A N D S C A P I N G 1 1 1 5 3 0 1 F O O T H I L L P A R K 0 1 / 1 0 0 . 0 0 1 7 8 . 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 3 6 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 1 7 6 C I E N E G A L A N D S C A P I N G 2 4 3 5 3 0 2 C A R N E L I A N G L E N 0 1 / 1 0 0 . 0 0 1 3 5 . 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 3 6 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 1 7 6 C I E N E G A L A N D S C A P I N G 1 1 1 5 3 0 1 V I L L A G E G A R B A G E 0 1 / 1 0 0 . 0 0 2 2 0 . 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 3 6 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 1 7 6 C I E N E G A L A N D S C A P I N G 1 1 1 5 3 0 1 C S P R I N G S 0 1 / 1 0 0 . 0 0 4 0 0 . 0 0 TO T A L C H E C K 0 . 0 0 1 , 2 5 3 . 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 3 7 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 1 7 9 C I M A I R , I N C 6 2 4 6 2 0 2 R E P A I R S - H V A C # 5 0 . 0 0 6 4 4 . 5 6 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 3 7 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 1 7 9 C I M A I R , I N C 4 1 3 F I N A L R E T E N T I O N - H V A C 0 . 0 0 6 , 8 8 6 . 7 0 TO T A L C H E C K 0 . 0 0 7 , 5 3 1 . 2 6 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 3 8 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 7 7 2 C O M F O R T C O N S T R U C T I O N C O M 4 1 3 F I N A L R E T E N T I O N 0 . 0 0 6 , 5 4 1 . 5 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 3 9 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 2 5 0 C O T T O N S H I R E S A N D A S S O C I 1 1 1 P R O F S V C G E O 0 9 - 0 0 1 5 0 . 0 0 1 , 0 6 9 . 2 5 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 3 9 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 2 5 0 C O T T O N S H I R E S A N D A S S O C I 1 1 1 P R O F S V C G E O 0 9 - 0 0 0 7 0 . 0 0 4 1 2 . 5 0 TO T A L C H E C K 0 . 0 0 1 , 4 8 1 . 7 5 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 4 0 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 5 6 4 D E L A G E L A N D E N P U B L I C F I 6 2 1 3 1 0 2 C O P I E R 0 / 2 1 - 0 2 / 2 0 / 1 0 0 . 0 0 1 , 4 1 3 . 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 4 1 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 2 1 1 D E E P C L I F F G O L F C O U R S E 1 1 1 6 1 0 1 I N S T R U C T O R - G O L F 0 . 0 0 1 0 8 . 4 2 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 4 1 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 2 1 1 D E E P C L I F F G O L F C O U R S E 1 1 1 6 1 0 1 I N S T R U C T O R - G O L F 0 . 0 0 4 7 7 . 3 6 TO T A L C H E C K 0 . 0 0 5 8 5 . 7 8 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 4 2 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 6 2 0 D R A K E W E L D I N G I N C 1 1 1 5 2 0 1 D R A I N I N L E T H O O K S 0 . 0 0 2 1 6 . 9 9 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 4 3 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 3 9 0 E L E C T R I C A L D I S T R I B U T O R S 1 1 1 5 3 0 1 S U P P L I E S - L A N D S C A P E 0 . 0 0 9 1 . 3 3 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 4 4 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 4 1 9 E V E N T S E R V I C E S 1 1 1 5 3 0 1 P O R T A P O T T Y 0 1 / 1 0 0 . 0 0 3 0 5 . 9 0 41 SU N G A R D P U B L I C S E C T O R P A G E N U M B E R : 2 DA T E : 0 2 / 2 4 / 2 0 1 0 C I T Y O F S A R A T O G A A C C T P A 2 1 TI M E : 1 0 : 3 9 : 0 4 C H E C K R E G I S T E R - D I S B U R S E M E N T F U N D SE L E C T I O N C R I T E R I A : t r a n s a c t . c h e c k _ n o b e t w e e n ’ 1 1 4 3 2 7 ’ a n d ’ 1 1 4 3 7 6 ’ AC C O U N T I N G P E R I O D : 8 / 1 0 F U N D - 0 0 9 - D I S B U R S E M E N T F U N D CA S H A C C T C H E C K N O I S S U E D T - - - - - - - - - - - - - - V E N D O R - - - - - - - - - - - - - B U D G E T U N I T - - - - - D E S C R I P T I O N - - - - - - S A L E S T A X A M O U N T 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 4 5 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 4 2 3 F E H R & P E E R S 1 1 1 5 1 0 1 P R O F S V C 1 1 / 2 8 - 1 2 / 2 5 0 . 0 0 2 , 1 0 0 . 8 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 4 6 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 4 5 4 G A C H I N A L A N D S C A P E M A N A G E 1 1 1 5 2 0 1 A L O H A / H W Y 9 0 2 / 1 0 0 . 0 0 3 9 0 . 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 4 6 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 4 5 4 G A C H I N A L A N D S C A P E M A N A G E 4 1 3 9 3 5 1 - 0 0 1 L N D S C P - N C A M P U S 0 . 0 0 1 , 9 9 2 . 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 4 6 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 4 5 4 G A C H I N A L A N D S C A P E M A N A G E 1 1 1 5 3 0 1 M E D I A N S 0 1 / 1 0 0 . 0 0 4 , 3 2 7 . 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 4 6 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 4 5 4 G A C H I N A L A N D S C A P E M A N A G E 2 4 1 5 3 0 2 A R R O Y O 0 1 / 1 0 0 . 0 0 8 5 . 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 4 6 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 4 5 4 G A C H I N A L A N D S C A P E M A N A G E 2 4 4 5 3 0 2 C U N N I N G H A M 0 1 / 1 0 0 . 0 0 1 5 0 . 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 4 6 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 4 5 4 G A C H I N A L A N D S C A P E M A N A G E 2 4 5 5 3 0 2 F R E D R I C K S B U R G 0 1 / 1 0 0 . 0 0 1 3 2 . 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 4 6 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 4 5 4 G A C H I N A L A N D S C A P E M A N A G E 2 4 6 5 3 0 2 A Z U L E 0 1 / 1 0 0 . 0 0 2 1 9 . 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 4 6 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 4 5 4 G A C H I N A L A N D S C A P E M A N A G E 2 4 6 5 3 0 2 S E A G U L L 0 1 / 1 0 0 . 0 0 1 8 7 . 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 4 6 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 4 5 4 G A C H I N A L A N D S C A P E M A N A G E 2 4 8 5 3 0 2 L E U T A R C T 0 1 / 1 0 0 . 0 0 8 5 . 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 4 6 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 4 5 4 G A C H I N A L A N D S C A P E M A N A G E 2 4 9 5 3 0 2 M A N O R D R 0 1 / 1 0 0 . 0 0 1 6 0 . 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 4 6 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 4 5 4 G A C H I N A L A N D S C A P E M A N A G E 2 7 1 5 3 0 2 B E A U C H A M P S 0 1 / 1 0 0 . 0 0 8 5 . 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 4 6 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 4 5 4 G A C H I N A L A N D S C A P E M A N A G E 2 7 5 5 3 0 2 Q U I T O P A S E O 0 1 / 1 0 0 . 0 0 6 0 . 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 4 6 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 4 5 4 G A C H I N A L A N D S C A P E M A N A G E 2 7 5 5 3 0 2 Q U I T O M A R T H A 0 1 / 1 0 0 . 0 0 1 0 5 . 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 4 6 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 4 5 4 G A C H I N A L A N D S C A P E M A N A G E 2 7 6 5 3 0 2 T O L L G A T E 0 1 / 1 0 0 . 0 0 9 0 . 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 4 6 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 4 5 4 G A C H I N A L A N D S C A P E M A N A G E 2 4 2 5 3 0 2 B O N N E T W A Y 0 1 / 1 0 0 . 0 0 1 3 5 . 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 4 6 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 4 5 4 G A C H I N A L A N D S C A P E M A N A G E 2 5 2 5 3 0 2 P R I D E S C R O S S I N G 0 1 / 1 0 0 . 0 0 4 4 8 . 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 4 6 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 4 5 4 G A C H I N A L A N D S C A P E M A N A G E 2 5 5 5 3 0 2 T R I C I A W O O D S 0 1 / 1 0 0 . 0 0 4 5 . 0 0 TO T A L C H E C K 0 . 0 0 8 , 6 9 5 . 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 4 7 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 4 5 5 G A R D E N L A N D P O W E R E Q U I P M E 1 1 1 5 3 0 1 C H A I N S A W - P A R K S 0 . 0 0 5 5 8 . 3 6 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 4 8 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 7 4 2 G I U L I A N I & K U L L , I N C 1 1 1 A P P # C O C 0 9 - 0 0 0 1 0 . 0 0 3 6 0 . 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 4 8 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 7 4 2 G I U L I A N I & K U L L , I N C 4 1 2 9 2 7 6 - 0 0 2 P R O F S V C 1 2 / 0 1 - 3 1 0 . 0 0 8 8 0 . 0 0 TO T A L C H E C K 0 . 0 0 1 , 2 4 0 . 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 4 9 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 8 1 5 G O L F V E N T U R E S W E S T , L L C 1 1 1 5 3 0 1 S U P P L I E S - L A N D S C A P E 0 . 0 0 8 0 7 . 4 2 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 5 0 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 6 7 1 G U E R R A C O N S T R U C T I O N G R O U 4 1 1 F I N A L R E T E N T I O N 0 . 0 0 1 3 , 5 9 9 . 5 4 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 5 1 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 5 2 0 F U N F U N F U N D A M E N T A L S 1 1 1 6 1 0 1 I N S T R U C T O R - S P O R T S 0 . 0 0 7 2 . 6 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 5 1 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 5 2 0 F U N F U N F U N D A M E N T A L S 1 1 1 6 1 0 1 I N S T R U C T O R - S P O R T S 0 . 0 0 1 4 5 . 2 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 5 1 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 5 2 0 F U N F U N F U N D A M E N T A L S 1 1 1 6 1 0 1 I N S T R U C T O R - S P O R T S 0 . 0 0 9 6 . 8 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 5 1 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 5 2 0 F U N F U N F U N D A M E N T A L S 1 1 1 6 1 0 1 I N S T R U C T O R - S P O R T S 0 . 0 0 1 6 9 . 4 0 TO T A L C H E C K 0 . 0 0 4 8 4 . 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 5 2 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 2 4 I C E C E N T E R O F C U P E R T I N O 1 1 1 6 1 0 1 I N S T R U C T O R - S K A T I N G 0 . 0 0 5 2 8 . 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 5 2 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 2 4 I C E C E N T E R O F C U P E R T I N O 1 1 1 6 1 0 1 I N S T R U C T O R - S K A T I N G 0 . 0 0 9 6 . 0 0 TO T A L C H E C K 0 . 0 0 6 2 4 . 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 5 3 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 1 9 2 L I , C H R I S T I N E K A I S E R 1 1 1 6 1 0 1 I N S T R U C T O R - P I L A T E S 0 . 0 0 1 0 6 . 8 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 5 3 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 1 9 2 L I , C H R I S T I N E K A I S E R 1 1 1 6 1 0 1 I N S T R U C T O R - P I L A T E S 0 . 0 0 3 1 3 . 2 0 TO T A L C H E C K 0 . 0 0 4 2 0 . 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 5 4 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 2 1 2 L I V I N G S T O N E , J O H N 1 1 1 4 1 0 1 S C A A P O M T G 2 / 0 3 0 . 0 0 1 5 . 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 5 4 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 2 1 2 L I V I N G S T O N E , J O H N 1 1 1 4 1 0 1 S C A A P O M T G 2 / 0 3 0 . 0 0 1 5 . 0 0 TO T A L C H E C K 0 . 0 0 3 0 . 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 5 5 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 2 2 1 L O R A L L A N D S C A P I N G , I N C 1 1 1 5 3 0 1 B E A U C H A M P S 0 1 / 1 0 0 . 0 0 2 1 2 . 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 5 5 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 2 2 1 L O R A L L A N D S C A P I N G , I N C 1 1 1 5 3 0 1 R A V E N W O O D 0 1 / 1 0 0 . 0 0 1 1 0 . 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 5 5 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 2 2 1 L O R A L L A N D S C A P I N G , I N C 1 1 1 5 3 0 1 A Z U L E 0 1 / 1 0 0 . 0 0 5 6 5 . 0 0 42 SU N G A R D P U B L I C S E C T O R P A G E N U M B E R : 3 DA T E : 0 2 / 2 4 / 2 0 1 0 C I T Y O F S A R A T O G A A C C T P A 2 1 TI M E : 1 0 : 3 9 : 0 4 C H E C K R E G I S T E R - D I S B U R S E M E N T F U N D SE L E C T I O N C R I T E R I A : t r a n s a c t . c h e c k _ n o b e t w e e n ’ 1 1 4 3 2 7 ’ a n d ’ 1 1 4 3 7 6 ’ AC C O U N T I N G P E R I O D : 8 / 1 0 F U N D - 0 0 9 - D I S B U R S E M E N T F U N D CA S H A C C T C H E C K N O I S S U E D T - - - - - - - - - - - - - - V E N D O R - - - - - - - - - - - - - B U D G E T U N I T - - - - - D E S C R I P T I O N - - - - - - S A L E S T A X A M O U N T 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 5 5 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 2 2 1 L O R A L L A N D S C A P I N G , I N C 1 1 1 5 3 0 1 K E V I N M O R A N 0 1 / 1 0 0 . 0 0 2 0 0 . 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 5 5 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 2 2 1 L O R A L L A N D S C A P I N G , I N C 1 1 1 5 3 0 1 H I S T O R I C A L P A R K 0 1 / 1 0 0 . 0 0 1 7 0 . 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 5 5 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 2 2 1 L O R A L L A N D S C A P I N G , I N C 1 1 1 5 3 0 1 N O R T H C A M P U S 0 1 / 1 0 0 . 0 0 4 5 0 . 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 5 5 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 2 2 1 L O R A L L A N D S C A P I N G , I N C 2 5 1 5 3 0 2 M C C A R T Y S V I L L E 0 1 / 1 0 0 . 0 0 1 8 0 . 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 5 5 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 2 2 1 L O R A L L A N D S C A P I N G , I N C 2 5 4 5 3 0 2 S U N L A N D 0 1 / 1 0 0 . 0 0 2 0 3 . 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 5 5 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 2 2 1 L O R A L L A N D S C A P I N G , I N C 2 4 7 5 3 0 2 K E R W I N R A N C H 0 1 / 1 0 0 . 0 0 3 1 1 . 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 5 5 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 2 2 1 L O R A L L A N D S C A P I N G , I N C 2 7 2 5 3 0 2 B E L L G R O V E 0 1 / 1 0 0 . 0 0 1 , 5 9 8 . 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 5 5 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 2 2 1 L O R A L L A N D S C A P I N G , I N C 2 5 3 5 3 0 2 L E G E N D S 0 1 / 1 0 0 . 0 0 1 5 8 . 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 5 5 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 2 2 1 L O R A L L A N D S C A P I N G , I N C 2 7 3 5 3 0 2 G A T E W A Y 0 1 / 1 0 0 . 0 0 2 0 3 . 0 0 TO T A L C H E C K 0 . 0 0 4 , 3 6 0 . 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 5 6 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 4 9 9 M I L L M A N & I N D U S T R I A L C A R 1 1 1 D E D : 3 0 0 0 D U E S 0 . 0 0 3 0 0 . 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 5 7 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 8 3 M U S I C A L M E , I N C 1 1 1 6 1 0 1 I N S T R U C T O R - M U S I C 0 . 0 0 6 5 7 . 2 8 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 5 7 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 8 3 M U S I C A L M E , I N C 1 1 1 6 1 0 1 I N S T R U C T O R - M U S I C 0 . 0 0 6 5 7 . 2 8 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 5 7 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 8 3 M U S I C A L M E , I N C 1 1 1 6 1 0 1 I N S T R U C T O R - M U S I C 0 . 0 0 4 9 2 . 9 6 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 5 7 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 8 3 M U S I C A L M E , I N C 1 1 1 6 1 0 1 I N S T R U C T O R - M U S I C 0 . 0 0 6 3 7 . 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 5 7 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 8 3 M U S I C A L M E , I N C 1 1 1 6 1 0 1 I N S T R U C T O R - M U S I C 0 . 0 0 7 2 8 . 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 5 7 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 8 3 M U S I C A L M E , I N C 1 1 1 6 1 0 1 I N S T R U C T O R - M U S I C 0 . 0 0 3 6 4 . 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 5 7 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 8 3 M U S I C A L M E , I N C 1 1 1 6 1 0 1 R O S T E R C H A N G E # 5 4 1 4 0 0 . 0 0 - 2 2 . 7 5 TO T A L C H E C K 0 . 0 0 3 , 5 1 3 . 7 7 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 5 8 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 6 5 7 M Y P O N Y P A R T Y & P E T T I N G 1 1 1 8 3 0 2 P E T T I N G Z O O - M F A I R E 0 . 0 0 6 9 9 . 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 5 9 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 1 3 5 N O R T H B A Y B L D G M A I N T E N A N 6 2 4 6 2 0 2 W E E K L Y S V C 0 1 / 1 0 - 1 6 0 . 0 0 4 1 8 . 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 6 0 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 1 4 5 O F F I C E D E P O T I N C . 1 1 1 5 2 0 1 R E P L A C E M E N T F A X 0 . 0 0 6 5 . 5 5 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 6 0 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 1 4 5 O F F I C E D E P O T I N C . 1 1 1 5 3 0 1 R E P L A C E M E N T F A X 0 . 0 0 6 5 . 5 5 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 6 0 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 1 4 5 O F F I C E D E P O T I N C . 6 2 4 6 2 0 2 R E P L A C E M E N T F A X 0 . 0 0 6 5 . 5 4 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 6 0 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 1 4 5 O F F I C E D E P O T I N C . 1 1 1 4 1 0 1 O F F I C E S U P P L I E S 0 . 0 0 8 2 . 5 5 TO T A L C H E C K 0 . 0 0 2 7 9 . 1 9 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 6 1 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 5 4 0 O R C H A R D S U P P L Y 6 2 4 6 2 0 2 S U P P L I E S - F A C I L I T I E S 0 . 0 0 1 4 4 . 3 4 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 6 2 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 1 6 8 O R C H A R D S U P P L Y H A R D W A R E - 1 1 1 5 3 0 1 S U P P L I E S - P A R K S 0 . 0 0 2 2 5 . 4 4 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 6 3 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 1 7 3 P A C I F I C G A S & E L E C T R I C 1 1 1 5 3 0 1 L I B R A R Y O R C H A R D 0 . 0 0 1 , 6 5 4 . 6 6 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 6 3 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 1 7 3 P A C I F I C G A S & E L E C T R I C 6 2 4 6 2 0 2 N A T U R A L G A S V E H 0 . 0 0 2 0 . 4 3 TO T A L C H E C K 0 . 0 0 1 , 6 7 5 . 0 9 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 6 4 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 3 7 5 Q U A L I T Y A S S U R A N C E T R A V E L 1 1 1 6 1 0 1 E X C U R S I O N S V C 2 / 2 5 0 . 0 0 7 8 0 . 7 8 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 6 5 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 8 2 S A N J O S E B L U E P R I N T 1 1 1 5 3 0 1 P L A N C O P I E S - M U S E U M 0 . 0 0 3 7 . 0 8 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 6 5 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 8 2 S A N J O S E B L U E P R I N T 4 3 1 9 2 7 4 - 0 0 1 P R I N T S - D E A N Z A T R A I L 0 . 0 0 2 , 6 4 0 . 7 9 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 6 5 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 8 2 S A N J O S E B L U E P R I N T 4 3 1 9 2 7 4 - 0 0 1 P R I N T S - D E A N Z A T R A I L 0 . 0 0 1 , 3 4 1 . 7 9 TO T A L C H E C K 0 . 0 0 4 , 0 1 9 . 6 6 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 6 6 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 7 2 9 S A R A T O G A S C H O O L O F D A N C E 1 1 1 6 1 0 1 I N S T R U C T O R - B A L L E T 0 . 0 0 1 6 9 . 2 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 6 6 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 7 2 9 S A R A T O G A S C H O O L O F D A N C E 1 1 1 6 1 0 1 I N S T R U C T O R - B A L L E T 0 . 0 0 3 5 5 . 8 0 TO T A L C H E C K 0 . 0 0 5 2 5 . 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 6 7 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 1 3 6 S C O T T Y ’ S A U T O M O T I V E 6 2 3 5 2 0 2 R E P A I R - W O O D C H I P P E R 0 . 0 0 8 7 . 5 0 43 SU N G A R D P U B L I C S E C T O R P A G E N U M B E R : 4 DA T E : 0 2 / 2 4 / 2 0 1 0 C I T Y O F S A R A T O G A A C C T P A 2 1 TI M E : 1 0 : 3 9 : 0 4 C H E C K R E G I S T E R - D I S B U R S E M E N T F U N D SE L E C T I O N C R I T E R I A : t r a n s a c t . c h e c k _ n o b e t w e e n ’ 1 1 4 3 2 7 ’ a n d ’ 1 1 4 3 7 6 ’ AC C O U N T I N G P E R I O D : 8 / 1 0 F U N D - 0 0 9 - D I S B U R S E M E N T F U N D CA S H A C C T C H E C K N O I S S U E D T - - - - - - - - - - - - - - V E N D O R - - - - - - - - - - - - - B U D G E T U N I T - - - - - D E S C R I P T I O N - - - - - - S A L E S T A X A M O U N T 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 6 8 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 1 4 7 S H I M O D A M I C H I K O 1 1 1 6 1 0 1 I N S T R U C T O R - I K E B A N A 0 . 0 0 1 0 3 . 5 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 6 8 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 1 4 7 S H I M O D A M I C H I K O 1 1 1 6 1 0 1 I N S T R U C T O R - I K E B A N A 0 . 0 0 1 7 2 . 5 0 TO T A L C H E C K 0 . 0 0 2 7 6 . 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 6 9 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 1 5 4 S H U T E M I H A L Y & W E I N B E R G E 1 1 1 8 2 0 1 C T Y A T T Y - C D D 0 . 0 0 2 , 3 2 3 . 2 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 6 9 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 1 5 4 S H U T E M I H A L Y & W E I N B E R G E 1 1 1 8 2 0 1 C T Y A T T Y - C O D E E N F 0 . 0 0 8 6 4 . 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 6 9 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 1 5 4 S H U T E M I H A L Y & W E I N B E R G E 1 1 1 8 2 0 1 C T Y A T T Y - L I T I G A T I O N 0 . 0 0 9 6 . 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 6 9 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 1 5 4 S H U T E M I H A L Y & W E I N B E R G E 1 1 1 8 2 0 1 C T Y A T T Y - O F F I C E / M T G 0 . 0 0 2 , 4 7 6 . 8 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 6 9 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 1 5 4 S H U T E M I H A L Y & W E I N B E R G E 1 1 1 8 2 0 1 C T Y A T T Y - P W D E P T 0 . 0 0 2 1 1 . 2 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 6 9 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 1 5 4 S H U T E M I H A L Y & W E I N B E R G E 1 1 1 8 2 0 1 C T Y A T T Y - R E C R E A T I O N 0 . 0 0 4 2 2 . 4 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 6 9 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 1 5 4 S H U T E M I H A L Y & W E I N B E R G E 1 1 1 8 2 0 1 C T Y A T T Y - C T Y C L R K 0 . 0 0 8 8 3 . 2 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 6 9 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 1 5 4 S H U T E M I H A L Y & W E I N B E R G E 1 1 1 8 2 0 1 C T Y A T T Y - T O B A C C O O R D 0 . 0 0 2 1 1 . 2 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 6 9 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 1 5 4 S H U T E M I H A L Y & W E I N B E R G E 1 1 1 8 2 0 1 C T Y A T T Y - A D M I N O R D 0 . 0 0 4 9 9 . 2 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 6 9 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 1 5 4 S H U T E M I H A L Y & W E I N B E R G E 1 1 1 8 2 0 1 C T Y A T T Y - N E W S R A C K 0 . 0 0 4 4 1 . 6 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 6 9 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 1 5 4 S H U T E M I H A L Y & W E I N B E R G E 1 1 1 8 2 0 1 C T Y A T T Y - D U T T A 0 . 0 0 1 7 2 . 8 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 6 9 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 1 5 4 S H U T E M I H A L Y & W E I N B E R G E 1 1 1 8 2 0 1 C T Y A T T Y - P A R L E Y 0 . 0 0 3 0 7 . 2 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 6 9 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 1 5 4 S H U T E M I H A L Y & W E I N B E R G E 1 1 1 8 2 0 1 C T Y A T T Y - C T Y M G R 0 . 0 0 9 0 2 . 4 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 6 9 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 1 5 4 S H U T E M I H A L Y & W E I N B E R G E 1 1 1 8 2 0 1 C T Y A T T Y - A D M I N S V C 0 . 0 0 9 6 . 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 6 9 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 1 5 4 S H U T E M I H A L Y & W E I N B E R G E 1 1 1 8 2 0 1 C T Y A T T Y - H O U S I N G E L E M 0 . 0 0 3 4 5 . 6 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 6 9 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 1 5 4 S H U T E M I H A L Y & W E I N B E R G E 1 1 1 8 2 0 1 N O N D E P T - L G L R E S E A R C H 0 . 0 0 2 5 . 8 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 6 9 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 1 5 4 S H U T E M I H A L Y & W E I N B E R G E 1 1 1 8 2 0 1 M E D I C A L M A R I J U A N A O R D 0 . 0 0 6 5 2 . 8 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 6 9 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 1 5 4 S H U T E M I H A L Y & W E I N B E R G E 1 1 1 8 2 0 1 N E W A S S E S S M E N T D I S T 0 . 0 0 1 , 3 0 5 . 6 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 6 9 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 1 5 4 S H U T E M I H A L Y & W E I N B E R G E 4 3 1 9 2 7 4 - 0 0 1 C E Q A - D E A N Z A T R A I L 0 . 0 0 2 , 1 2 3 . 8 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 6 9 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 1 5 4 S H U T E M I H A L Y & W E I N B E R G E 1 1 1 8 2 0 1 L G L - Q U A R R Y P R O P E R T Y 0 . 0 0 8 9 2 . 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 6 9 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 1 5 4 S H U T E M I H A L Y & W E I N B E R G E 1 1 1 8 2 0 1 Q U A R R Y C O N S U L T A N T S 0 . 0 0 2 , 4 4 4 . 5 0 TO T A L C H E C K 0 . 0 0 1 7 , 6 9 7 . 3 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 7 0 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 2 5 3 S T E V E B E N Z I N G A R C H I T E C T 4 1 3 9 3 6 3 - 0 0 2 P R O F S V C - M U S E U M 0 . 0 0 1 , 6 5 0 . 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 7 1 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 2 6 6 S U N G A R D P U B L I C S E C T O R I N 1 1 1 3 1 0 1 0 9 W - 2 S E M I N A R - K A R E N 0 . 0 0 7 5 . 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 7 2 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 3 7 7 U N I T E D S I T E S E R V I C E S O F 1 1 1 5 3 0 1 F E N C E R N T L - K M P 0 1 / 1 0 0 . 0 0 4 8 2 . 7 6 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 7 3 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 4 0 8 W C B S - W E S T C O A S T B U I L D I 1 1 1 5 3 0 1 J A N I T O R I A L - L I B R A R Y 0 . 0 0 1 0 0 . 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 7 3 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 4 0 8 W C B S - W E S T C O A S T B U I L D I 1 1 1 5 3 0 1 C S P R I N G S 0 1 / 1 0 0 . 0 0 1 7 5 . 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 7 3 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 4 0 8 W C B S - W E S T C O A S T B U I L D I 1 1 1 5 3 0 1 E L Q U I T O 0 1 / 1 0 0 . 0 0 1 7 5 . 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 7 3 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 4 0 8 W C B S - W E S T C O A S T B U I L D I 1 1 1 5 3 0 1 W I L D W O O D 0 1 / 1 0 0 . 0 0 1 7 5 . 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 7 3 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 4 0 8 W C B S - W E S T C O A S T B U I L D I 1 1 1 5 3 0 1 K E V I N M O R A N 0 1 / 1 0 0 . 0 0 1 7 5 . 0 0 TO T A L C H E C K 0 . 0 0 8 0 0 . 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 7 4 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 4 3 2 W E S T V A L L E Y C O L L E C T I O N S 1 1 1 5 3 0 1 B I N S - C S P R I N G S 0 2 / 1 0 0 . 0 0 5 5 1 . 2 8 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 7 5 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 4 3 9 X E R O X C O R P O R A T I O N 6 2 1 3 1 0 2 C O P I E R 1 5 9 S V C 0 2 / 1 0 0 . 0 0 1 5 . 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 7 5 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 4 3 9 X E R O X C O R P O R A T I O N 6 2 1 3 1 0 2 C O P I E R 9 7 1 S V C 0 2 / 1 0 0 . 0 0 1 5 . 0 0 TO T A L C H E C K 0 . 0 0 3 0 . 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 7 6 0 2 / 1 1 / 1 0 6 9 6 Z A G T E C H N I C A L S E R V I C E S , 6 2 2 3 2 0 1 I T S U P P O R T S V C 0 1 / 1 0 0 . 0 0 1 6 5 . 0 0 TO T A L C A S H A C C O U N T 0 . 0 0 9 0 , 1 8 6 . 0 0 TO T A L F U N D 0 . 0 0 9 0 , 1 8 6 . 0 0 44 SU N G A R D P U B L I C S E C T O R P A G E N U M B E R : 5 DA T E : 0 2 / 2 4 / 2 0 1 0 C I T Y O F S A R A T O G A A C C T P A 2 1 TI M E : 1 0 : 3 9 : 0 4 C H E C K R E G I S T E R - D I S B U R S E M E N T F U N D SE L E C T I O N C R I T E R I A : t r a n s a c t . c h e c k _ n o b e t w e e n ’ 1 1 4 3 2 7 ’ a n d ’ 1 1 4 3 7 6 ’ AC C O U N T I N G P E R I O D : 8 / 1 0 F U N D - 0 0 9 - D I S B U R S E M E N T F U N D CA S H A C C T C H E C K N O I S S U E D T - - - - - - - - - - - - - - V E N D O R - - - - - - - - - - - - - B U D G E T U N I T - - - - - D E S C R I P T I O N - - - - - - S A L E S T A X A M O U N T TO T A L R E P O R T 0 . 0 0 9 0 , 1 8 6 . 0 0 45 SU N G A R D P U B L I C S E C T O R P A G E N U M B E R : 1 DA T E : 0 2 / 2 4 / 2 0 1 0 C I T Y O F S A R A T O G A A C C T P A 2 1 TI M E : 1 0 : 4 0 : 0 6 C H E C K R E G I S T E R - D I S B U R S E M E N T F U N D SE L E C T I O N C R I T E R I A : t r a n s a c t . c h e c k _ n o b e t w e e n ’ 1 1 4 3 7 7 ’ a n d ’ 1 1 4 4 3 0 ’ AC C O U N T I N G P E R I O D : 8 / 1 0 F U N D - 0 0 9 - D I S B U R S E M E N T F U N D CA S H A C C T C H E C K N O I S S U E D T - - - - - - - - - - - - - - V E N D O R - - - - - - - - - - - - - B U D G E T U N I T - - - - - D E S C R I P T I O N - - - - - - S A L E S T A X A M O U N T 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 7 7 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 3 A & M M O T O R S U P P L Y 6 2 3 5 2 0 2 S U P P L I E S - A U T O 0 . 0 0 1 5 6 . 0 5 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 7 8 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 2 3 4 A T & T 6 2 4 6 2 0 2 X E R O X M A C H I N E 0 . 0 0 1 4 . 4 7 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 7 8 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 2 3 4 A T & T 6 2 4 6 2 0 2 M E A S U R E D B U S L I N E 0 . 0 0 3 8 . 4 2 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 7 8 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 2 3 4 A T & T 6 2 4 6 2 0 2 B O O K - G O - R O U N D 0 . 0 0 3 0 . 2 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 7 8 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 2 3 4 A T & T 1 1 1 7 1 0 2 E R L I N E - C M O F F I C E 0 . 0 0 1 5 . 7 6 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 7 8 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 2 3 4 A T & T 1 1 1 7 1 0 2 E M P E R L I N E 0 . 0 0 1 4 . 4 7 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 7 8 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 2 3 4 A T & T 1 1 1 7 1 0 2 A M 1 6 1 0 R A D I O 0 . 0 0 1 5 . 7 6 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 7 8 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 2 3 4 A T & T 1 1 1 5 3 0 1 G A T E W A Y - I R R I G A T I O N 0 . 0 0 1 5 . 4 5 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 7 8 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 2 3 4 A T & T 1 1 1 5 3 0 1 P H O N E L I N E S / P A R K S 0 . 0 0 1 6 . 2 8 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 7 8 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 2 3 4 A T & T 1 1 1 5 3 0 1 C S P R I N G S P A R K 0 . 0 0 3 1 . 2 2 TO T A L C H E C K 0 . 0 0 1 9 2 . 0 4 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 7 9 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 5 4 6 A B A G P O W E R P U R C H A S I N G 6 2 4 6 2 0 2 M T H L Y G A S S V C 0 1 / / 1 0 0 . 0 0 1 , 2 0 0 . 3 5 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 8 0 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 7 2 A D V A N T A G E J A N I T O R I A L S U P 6 2 4 6 2 0 2 S U P P L I E S - J A N I T O R I A L 0 . 0 0 6 4 . 4 4 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 8 0 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 7 2 A D V A N T A G E J A N I T O R I A L S U P 6 2 4 6 2 0 2 S U P P L I E S - J A N I T O R I A L 0 . 0 0 1 9 4 . 1 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 8 0 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 7 2 A D V A N T A G E J A N I T O R I A L S U P 1 1 1 5 3 0 1 S U P P L I E S - P A R K S 0 . 0 0 6 3 8 . 8 0 TO T A L C H E C K 0 . 0 0 8 9 7 . 3 5 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 8 1 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 6 5 6 A M E R I C A N P A Y R O L L A S S O C I A 1 1 1 3 1 0 1 A N N U A L D U E S - C A S E L L I 0 . 0 0 1 9 5 . 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 8 1 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 6 5 6 A M E R I C A N P A Y R O L L A S S O C I A 1 1 1 3 1 0 1 P A Y R O L L M A N U A L S 0 . 0 0 4 5 4 . 7 0 TO T A L C H E C K 0 . 0 0 6 4 9 . 7 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 8 2 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 5 0 0 A R C H E R , R O B E R T & L Y N N E 1 1 1 P R O J D E P O S I T R E F U N D 0 . 0 0 2 , 1 4 0 . 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 8 3 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 6 0 1 B & B L A N D S C A P E C O N T R A C T O R 4 1 2 9 2 3 7 - 0 0 1 K M O R A N I M P R O V E M E N T S 0 . 0 0 4 , 0 5 0 . 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 8 4 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 5 0 0 B A L L , L Y N N 1 1 1 P R O J D E P O S I T R E F U N D 0 . 0 0 2 , 0 8 0 . 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 8 5 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 1 3 B R Y A N T , C H R I S T O P H E R 1 1 1 6 1 0 1 I N S T R U C T O R - G U I T A R 0 . 0 0 3 1 4 . 6 4 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 8 5 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 1 3 B R Y A N T , C H R I S T O P H E R 1 1 1 6 1 0 1 I N S T R U C T O R - G U I T A R 0 . 0 0 4 1 9 . 5 2 TO T A L C H E C K 0 . 0 0 7 3 4 . 1 6 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 8 6 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 9 0 C A L S E N S E 1 1 1 5 3 0 1 I R R I G A T I O N C O N T R ’ L 0 . 0 0 6 1 . 8 3 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 8 7 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 1 7 9 C I M A I R , I N C 6 2 4 6 2 0 2 H V A C - B O O K G O R O U N D 0 . 0 0 1 1 0 . 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 8 7 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 1 7 9 C I M A I R , I N C 6 2 4 6 2 0 2 H V A C - P R O S P C E N T E R 0 . 0 0 1 , 3 0 8 . 1 5 TO T A L C H E C K 0 . 0 0 1 , 4 1 8 . 1 5 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 8 8 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 2 2 9 C O A S T O I L C O M P A N Y L L C 6 2 3 5 2 0 2 U N L E A D E D / D I E S E L 0 . 0 0 1 , 9 1 2 . 1 4 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 8 9 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 2 3 5 C O M C A S T 6 2 2 3 2 0 1 M T H L Y S V C 1 / 2 6 - 2 / 2 5 0 . 0 0 1 0 4 . 9 5 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 9 0 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 4 9 4 C O M C A S T 6 2 2 3 2 0 1 M T H L Y S V C 0 2 / 2 0 - 3 / 1 9 0 . 0 0 9 8 . 9 5 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 9 1 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 5 1 6 C R W I N D U S T R I E S 4 1 3 F I N A L R E T E N T I O N 0 . 0 0 3 8 , 1 8 9 . 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 9 1 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 5 1 6 C R W I N D U S T R I E S 4 1 3 9 3 3 1 - 0 0 5 C O U N T E R - C C E N T E R 0 . 0 0 6 6 9 . 3 8 TO T A L C H E C K 0 . 0 0 3 8 , 8 5 8 . 3 8 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 9 2 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 5 0 0 E S T A H B A N A T Y , M O H A M M A D 1 1 1 P R O J D E P O S I T R E F U N D 0 . 0 0 1 , 1 5 0 . 0 0 46 SU N G A R D P U B L I C S E C T O R P A G E N U M B E R : 2 DA T E : 0 2 / 2 4 / 2 0 1 0 C I T Y O F S A R A T O G A A C C T P A 2 1 TI M E : 1 0 : 4 0 : 0 6 C H E C K R E G I S T E R - D I S B U R S E M E N T F U N D SE L E C T I O N C R I T E R I A : t r a n s a c t . c h e c k _ n o b e t w e e n ’ 1 1 4 3 7 7 ’ a n d ’ 1 1 4 4 3 0 ’ AC C O U N T I N G P E R I O D : 8 / 1 0 F U N D - 0 0 9 - D I S B U R S E M E N T F U N D CA S H A C C T C H E C K N O I S S U E D T - - - - - - - - - - - - - - V E N D O R - - - - - - - - - - - - - B U D G E T U N I T - - - - - D E S C R I P T I O N - - - - - - S A L E S T A X A M O U N T 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 9 3 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 5 0 0 F R A N K O L A , J A M E S & P A M E L A 1 1 1 P R O J D E P O S I T R E F U N D 0 . 0 0 5 8 0 . 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 9 4 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 4 5 5 G A R D E N L A N D P O W E R E Q U I P M E 1 1 1 5 3 0 1 S U P P L I E S - P A R K S 0 . 0 0 6 6 . 3 4 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 9 5 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 4 6 4 G R A N I C U S 1 1 1 2 2 0 1 M T H L Y S V C 0 2 / 1 0 0 . 0 0 1 , 6 0 0 . 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 9 6 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 4 7 0 G R E G O R I A N , A G N E S 1 1 1 6 1 0 1 I N S T R U C T O R - D A N C E 0 . 0 0 1 6 0 . 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 9 7 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 6 4 8 H E A L T H E D U C A T I O N S E R V I C E 6 1 1 8 4 9 9 A E D C A B I N E T 0 . 0 0 2 2 2 . 3 2 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 9 8 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 4 9 1 H U M A N B E H A V I O R A S S O C I A T E 1 1 1 2 3 0 1 E A P S - 0 1 / 1 0 0 . 0 0 2 8 . 5 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 9 9 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 1 4 H Y D R O T E C I R R I G A T I O N E Q U I 4 1 2 9 2 2 4 - 0 0 1 I R R I G A T I O N - H I S T O R I C A L 0 . 0 0 2 2 , 0 9 4 . 2 2 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 3 9 9 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 1 4 H Y D R O T E C I R R I G A T I O N E Q U I 1 1 1 5 3 0 1 R E P A I R S - B A C K F L O W K M P 0 . 0 0 6 8 . 0 0 TO T A L C H E C K 0 . 0 0 2 2 , 1 6 2 . 2 2 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 0 0 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 6 3 I N T E R S T A T E T R A F F I C C O N T R 4 1 1 9 1 2 1 - 0 0 1 S I G N S - T R A F F I C S A F E T Y 0 . 0 0 3 6 9 . 5 8 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 0 0 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 6 3 I N T E R S T A T E T R A F F I C C O N T R 4 1 1 9 1 1 1 - 0 0 1 S I G N S - R E S U R F A C I N G 0 . 0 0 2 7 5 . 0 0 TO T A L C H E C K 0 . 0 0 6 4 4 . 5 8 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 0 1 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 8 1 6 K E V I N M E E K 1 1 1 5 3 0 1 P A P A S E M I N A R 0 2 / 1 1 0 . 0 0 6 2 . 5 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 0 2 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 5 0 0 K R I S H N A M U R T H Y , S U N D A R & 1 1 1 P R O J D E P O S I T R E F U N D 0 . 0 0 1 , 9 6 0 . 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 0 3 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 6 6 5 M A R K T H O M A S & C O M P A N Y 4 1 1 9 1 2 1 - 0 0 3 A D A T R A F F I C S I G N A L 0 . 0 0 2 , 5 0 2 . 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 0 4 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 3 2 8 M E T R O P O L I T A N P L A N N I N G G R 1 1 1 D E V R E V I E W 0 8 - 0 0 0 1 0 . 0 0 3 , 1 7 5 . 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 0 5 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 7 9 M U N I S E R V I C E S L L C 1 1 1 3 1 0 1 S A L E S T A X Q 3 / 0 9 0 . 0 0 5 0 0 . 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 0 6 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 1 3 1 N O R M A N P A U L P R I N T C T R 1 1 1 6 1 0 1 S U M M E R G U I D E S 0 . 0 0 6 1 1 . 5 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 0 7 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 1 3 5 N O R T H B A Y B L D G M A I N T E N A N 6 2 4 6 2 0 2 W K L Y S V C 0 1 / 1 7 - 0 1 / 2 3 0 . 0 0 7 6 . 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 0 8 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 5 6 9 N O R T H E R N C A C I T Y C L E R K S 1 1 1 2 2 0 1 C C A C C E R T T R A I N I N G 0 . 0 0 4 0 . 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 0 9 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 1 O F F O F S H E R I F F - F I S C A L S V 1 1 1 7 1 0 1 L A W E N F O R C E M E N T 2 / 1 0 0 . 0 0 3 4 4 , 5 7 3 . 6 7 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 1 0 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 1 4 5 O F F I C E D E P O T I N C . 1 1 1 4 1 0 1 O F F I C E S U P P L I E S 0 . 0 0 3 1 . 5 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 1 0 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 1 4 5 O F F I C E D E P O T I N C . 1 1 1 4 1 0 2 O F F I C E S U P P L I E S 0 . 0 0 1 4 . 4 5 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 1 0 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 1 4 5 O F F I C E D E P O T I N C . 1 1 1 4 1 0 1 O F F I C E S U P P L I E S 0 . 0 0 5 3 . 0 6 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 1 0 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 1 4 5 O F F I C E D E P O T I N C . 1 1 1 2 1 0 1 O F F I C E S U P P L I E S 0 . 0 0 1 8 9 . 9 8 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 1 0 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 1 4 5 O F F I C E D E P O T I N C . 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 O F F I C E S U P P L I E S 0 . 0 0 2 3 . 1 6 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 1 0 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 1 4 5 O F F I C E D E P O T I N C . 1 1 1 7 1 0 2 E R P R E P S U P P L I E S 0 . 0 0 3 1 . 9 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 1 0 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 1 4 5 O F F I C E D E P O T I N C . 1 1 1 2 3 0 1 O F F I C E S U P P L I E S 0 . 0 0 4 . 1 6 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 1 0 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 1 4 5 O F F I C E D E P O T I N C . 1 1 1 7 1 0 2 E R P R E P S U P P L I E S 0 . 0 0 1 6 . 1 3 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 1 0 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 1 4 5 O F F I C E D E P O T I N C . 1 1 1 2 1 0 1 E R P R E P S U P P L I E S 0 . 0 0 1 0 . 1 9 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 1 0 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 1 4 5 O F F I C E D E P O T I N C . 6 2 1 3 1 0 2 C O P Y P A P E R 0 . 0 0 4 5 2 . 9 5 TO T A L C H E C K 0 . 0 0 8 2 7 . 4 9 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 1 1 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 6 0 O N T R A C 1 1 1 2 1 0 1 S H U T E M I H A L Y 0 1 / 1 1 / 1 0 0 . 0 0 6 . 0 0 47 SU N G A R D P U B L I C S E C T O R P A G E N U M B E R : 3 DA T E : 0 2 / 2 4 / 2 0 1 0 C I T Y O F S A R A T O G A A C C T P A 2 1 TI M E : 1 0 : 4 0 : 0 6 C H E C K R E G I S T E R - D I S B U R S E M E N T F U N D SE L E C T I O N C R I T E R I A : t r a n s a c t . c h e c k _ n o b e t w e e n ’ 1 1 4 3 7 7 ’ a n d ’ 1 1 4 4 3 0 ’ AC C O U N T I N G P E R I O D : 8 / 1 0 F U N D - 0 0 9 - D I S B U R S E M E N T F U N D CA S H A C C T C H E C K N O I S S U E D T - - - - - - - - - - - - - - V E N D O R - - - - - - - - - - - - - B U D G E T U N I T - - - - - D E S C R I P T I O N - - - - - - S A L E S T A X A M O U N T 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 1 2 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 2 1 4 P E T T Y C A S H - R E C R E A T I O N 1 1 1 6 1 0 1 E X C U R S I O N G U I D E M E A L S 0 . 0 0 1 8 . 2 6 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 1 2 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 2 1 4 P E T T Y C A S H - R E C R E A T I O N 1 1 1 6 1 0 1 C A M P S U P P L I E S 0 . 0 0 5 . 2 3 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 1 2 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 2 1 4 P E T T Y C A S H - R E C R E A T I O N 1 1 1 6 1 0 1 O F F I C E S U P P L I E S 0 . 0 0 2 7 . 1 7 TO T A L C H E C K 0 . 0 0 5 0 . 6 6 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 1 3 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 5 0 0 R A S H K I N , M I C H A E L 1 1 1 P R O J D E P O S I T R E F U N D 0 . 0 0 2 , 1 7 0 . 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 1 4 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 4 1 0 R I C H V O S S T R U C K I N G I N C 4 1 1 9 1 1 1 - 0 0 1 R E S U F A C I N G S U P P L I E S 0 . 0 0 1 7 3 . 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 1 5 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 5 0 0 R O T B E R T , F A Y E 1 1 1 6 1 0 1 C A N C E L L E D C L A S S 0 . 0 0 8 9 . 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 1 6 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 8 2 S A N J O S E B L U E P R I N T 4 3 1 9 2 7 4 - 0 0 1 P R I N T S - J O E ’ S T R A I L 0 . 0 0 1 , 2 0 9 . 4 4 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 1 6 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 8 2 S A N J O S E B L U E P R I N T 4 3 1 9 2 7 4 - 0 0 1 P R I N T S - J O E ’ S T R A I L 0 . 0 0 9 7 2 . 1 2 TO T A L C H E C K 0 . 0 0 2 , 1 8 1 . 5 6 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 1 7 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 8 7 S A N J O S E W A T E R C O M P A N Y 6 2 4 6 2 0 2 B U I L D I N G S 0 . 0 0 3 8 6 . 1 6 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 1 7 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 8 7 S A N J O S E W A T E R C O M P A N Y 1 1 1 5 3 0 1 P A R K S / O P E N S P A C E 0 . 0 0 2 , 0 7 3 . 4 6 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 1 7 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 8 7 S A N J O S E W A T E R C O M P A N Y 2 4 5 5 3 0 2 F R E D E R I C K S B U R G 0 . 0 0 3 4 . 0 2 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 1 7 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 8 7 S A N J O S E W A T E R C O M P A N Y 2 4 6 5 3 0 2 G R E E N B R I A R 0 . 0 0 1 6 1 . 0 6 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 1 7 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 8 7 S A N J O S E W A T E R C O M P A N Y 2 5 1 5 3 0 2 M C C A R T Y S V I L L E 0 . 0 0 2 2 3 . 2 8 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 1 7 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 8 7 S A N J O S E W A T E R C O M P A N Y 2 5 5 5 3 0 2 T R I C I A W O O D S 0 . 0 0 1 6 7 . 8 5 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 1 7 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 8 7 S A N J O S E W A T E R C O M P A N Y 2 4 1 5 3 0 2 A R R O Y O D E S A R A T O G A 0 . 0 0 5 6 . 2 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 1 7 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 8 7 S A N J O S E W A T E R C O M P A N Y 2 4 8 5 3 0 2 L E U T A R C O U R T 0 . 0 0 5 6 . 2 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 1 7 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 8 7 S A N J O S E W A T E R C O M P A N Y 2 4 2 5 3 0 2 B O N N E T W A Y 0 . 0 0 1 4 6 . 4 4 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 1 7 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 8 7 S A N J O S E W A T E R C O M P A N Y 2 5 2 5 3 0 2 P R I D E S C R O S S I N G 0 . 0 0 1 6 7 . 8 5 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 1 7 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 8 7 S A N J O S E W A T E R C O M P A N Y 2 7 2 5 3 0 2 B E L L G R O V E 0 . 0 0 3 4 7 . 8 7 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 1 7 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 8 7 S A N J O S E W A T E R C O M P A N Y 2 4 4 5 3 0 2 C U N N I N G H A M / G L A S G O W 0 . 0 0 3 4 . 0 2 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 1 7 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 8 7 S A N J O S E W A T E R C O M P A N Y 2 7 3 5 3 0 2 C A R N E L I A N G L E N 0 . 0 0 1 7 8 . 1 3 TO T A L C H E C K 0 . 0 0 4 , 0 3 2 . 5 5 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 1 8 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 5 0 0 S C H O T T , K E V I N 1 1 1 P R O J D E P O S I T R E F U N D 0 . 0 0 1 , 0 2 0 . 2 3 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 1 9 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 1 6 2 S I L I C O N V A L L E Y C O M M N E W S 1 1 1 2 2 0 1 L G L N O T I C E - H E A R I N G 0 . 0 0 2 6 6 . 9 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 1 9 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 1 6 2 S I L I C O N V A L L E Y C O M M N E W S 1 1 1 4 1 0 1 L G L N O T I C E - P L A N C O M M 0 . 0 0 1 0 2 . 3 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 1 9 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 1 6 2 S I L I C O N V A L L E Y C O M M N E W S 1 1 1 4 1 0 1 L G L N O T I C E - P L A N C O M M 0 . 0 0 1 2 9 . 2 7 TO T A L C H E C K 0 . 0 0 4 9 8 . 4 8 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 2 0 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 5 0 0 S T U D L E Y , J E N N I F E R 1 1 1 6 1 0 1 C A N C E L L E D C L A S S 0 . 0 0 7 9 . 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 2 1 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 2 7 7 T A K ’ S E Q U I P M E N T 6 2 3 5 2 0 2 A N N U A L E Q U I P M A I N T 0 . 0 0 9 2 4 . 2 6 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 2 2 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 3 3 6 T L C A D M I N I S T R A T O R S 1 1 1 2 3 0 1 M T H L Y 1 2 5 F E E 0 2 / 1 0 0 . 0 0 1 7 5 . 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 2 3 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 7 2 6 T R E E S 3 6 0 D E G R E E S 1 1 1 5 3 0 1 T R E E M A I N T - N C A M P U S 0 . 0 0 6 2 0 . 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 2 3 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 7 2 6 T R E E S 3 6 0 D E G R E E S 1 1 1 5 2 0 1 T R E E R E M O V A L - C O M E R 0 . 0 0 8 0 0 . 0 0 TO T A L C H E C K 0 . 0 0 1 , 4 2 0 . 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 2 4 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 3 8 5 U N I V E R S A L S W E E P I N G S E R V I 1 1 1 5 1 0 3 S W E E P I N G S V C 0 1 / 1 0 0 . 0 0 7 , 4 8 9 . 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 2 4 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 3 8 5 U N I V E R S A L S W E E P I N G S E R V I 1 1 1 5 1 0 3 S T R E E T S W E E P S V C 1 / 1 0 0 . 0 0 7 4 2 . 9 2 TO T A L C H E C K 0 . 0 0 8 , 2 3 1 . 9 2 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 2 7 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 3 9 1 U S B A N K P U R C H A S I N G C A R D 6 2 4 6 2 0 2 T O I L E T S E A T / C O V E R 0 . 0 0 2 2 0 . 4 2 48 SU N G A R D P U B L I C S E C T O R P A G E N U M B E R : 4 DA T E : 0 2 / 2 4 / 2 0 1 0 C I T Y O F S A R A T O G A A C C T P A 2 1 TI M E : 1 0 : 4 0 : 0 6 C H E C K R E G I S T E R - D I S B U R S E M E N T F U N D SE L E C T I O N C R I T E R I A : t r a n s a c t . c h e c k _ n o b e t w e e n ’ 1 1 4 3 7 7 ’ a n d ’ 1 1 4 4 3 0 ’ AC C O U N T I N G P E R I O D : 8 / 1 0 F U N D - 0 0 9 - D I S B U R S E M E N T F U N D CA S H A C C T C H E C K N O I S S U E D T - - - - - - - - - - - - - - V E N D O R - - - - - - - - - - - - - B U D G E T U N I T - - - - - D E S C R I P T I O N - - - - - - S A L E S T A X A M O U N T 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 2 7 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 3 9 1 U S B A N K P U R C H A S I N G C A R D 6 2 4 6 2 0 2 W A L L M O U N T E D F A U C E T 0 . 0 0 2 5 0 . 1 5 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 2 7 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 3 9 1 U S B A N K P U R C H A S I N G C A R D 1 1 1 2 1 0 1 S U P P L I E S - M T G 0 1 / 0 4 0 . 0 0 5 3 . 8 2 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 2 7 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 3 9 1 U S B A N K P U R C H A S I N G C A R D 1 1 1 2 2 0 1 C R E D I T 0 . 0 0 - 7 . 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 2 7 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 3 9 1 U S B A N K P U R C H A S I N G C A R D 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 C O U N C I L M T G 0 1 / 2 0 0 . 0 0 8 . 2 8 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 2 7 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 3 9 1 U S B A N K P U R C H A S I N G C A R D 6 1 2 8 5 0 1 W E L L N E S S B O O K P R O G 0 . 0 0 1 7 . 1 6 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 2 7 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 3 9 1 U S B A N K P U R C H A S I N G C A R D 1 1 1 2 3 0 1 O F F I C E S U P P L I E S 0 . 0 0 3 6 . 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 2 7 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 3 9 1 U S B A N K P U R C H A S I N G C A R D 1 1 1 2 1 0 1 O F F I C E S U P P L I E S 0 . 0 0 2 5 . 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 2 7 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 3 9 1 U S B A N K P U R C H A S I N G C A R D 6 1 2 8 5 0 1 W E L L N E S S S N A C K S 0 . 0 0 1 7 4 . 3 2 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 2 7 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 3 9 1 U S B A N K P U R C H A S I N G C A R D 1 1 1 4 1 0 1 O F F I C E S U P P L I E S 0 . 0 0 5 . 4 5 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 2 7 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 3 9 1 U S B A N K P U R C H A S I N G C A R D 1 1 1 6 1 0 1 S U P P L I E S - C A M P 0 . 0 0 5 8 . 4 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 2 7 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 3 9 1 U S B A N K P U R C H A S I N G C A R D 1 1 1 6 1 0 1 C R E D I T - C P R S C O N F 0 . 0 0 - 3 0 4 . 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 2 7 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 3 9 1 U S B A N K P U R C H A S I N G C A R D 1 1 1 6 1 0 1 P O S T A G E - R E C G U I D E S 0 . 0 0 1 0 4 . 5 4 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 2 7 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 3 9 1 U S B A N K P U R C H A S I N G C A R D 1 1 1 6 1 0 1 E X C U R S I O N S U P P L I E S 0 . 0 0 3 5 . 8 3 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 2 7 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 3 9 1 U S B A N K P U R C H A S I N G C A R D 1 1 1 1 2 0 1 T S C M T G 0 1 / 1 4 0 . 0 0 1 4 . 4 7 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 2 7 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 3 9 1 U S B A N K P U R C H A S I N G C A R D 1 1 1 5 2 0 1 O F F I C E S U P P L I E S 0 . 0 0 7 6 . 2 6 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 2 7 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 3 9 1 U S B A N K P U R C H A S I N G C A R D 1 1 1 5 2 0 1 S T O R M D A Y M T G 1 / 2 0 0 . 0 0 1 2 4 . 2 7 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 2 7 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 3 9 1 U S B A N K P U R C H A S I N G C A R D 1 1 1 5 3 0 1 S U P P L I E S - P A R K S 0 . 0 0 7 . 6 5 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 2 7 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 3 9 1 U S B A N K P U R C H A S I N G C A R D 1 1 1 6 1 0 1 T A B L E C O V E R 0 . 0 0 2 8 5 . 0 9 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 2 7 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 3 9 1 U S B A N K P U R C H A S I N G C A R D 1 1 1 6 1 0 1 C R E D I T - C P R S C O N F 0 . 0 0 - 3 0 4 . 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 2 7 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 3 9 1 U S B A N K P U R C H A S I N G C A R D 1 1 1 6 1 0 2 O F F I C E S U P P L I E S 0 . 0 0 1 2 8 . 5 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 2 7 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 3 9 1 U S B A N K P U R C H A S I N G C A R D 1 1 1 6 1 0 1 M T H L Y S V C 0 1 / 1 0 0 . 0 0 7 0 . 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 2 7 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 3 9 1 U S B A N K P U R C H A S I N G C A R D 6 2 3 5 2 0 2 S U P P L I E S - V E H I C L E S 0 . 0 0 2 6 . 6 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 2 7 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 3 9 1 U S B A N K P U R C H A S I N G C A R D 1 1 1 5 2 0 1 M E E T I N G 1 / 1 8 0 . 0 0 5 3 . 8 6 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 2 7 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 3 9 1 U S B A N K P U R C H A S I N G C A R D 1 1 1 4 1 0 1 O F F I C E S U P P L I E S 0 . 0 0 3 6 . 6 3 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 2 7 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 3 9 1 U S B A N K P U R C H A S I N G C A R D 1 1 1 4 2 0 1 O F F I C E S U P P L I E S 0 . 0 0 2 5 . 3 5 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 2 7 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 3 9 1 U S B A N K P U R C H A S I N G C A R D 6 2 4 6 2 0 2 S U P P L I E S - F A C I L I T I E S 0 . 0 0 5 7 . 1 7 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 2 7 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 3 9 1 U S B A N K P U R C H A S I N G C A R D 6 2 4 6 2 0 2 S U P P L I E S - F A C I L I T I E S 0 . 0 0 3 8 . 4 5 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 2 7 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 3 9 1 U S B A N K P U R C H A S I N G C A R D 6 2 4 6 2 0 2 S U P P L I E S - F A C I L I T I E S 0 . 0 0 7 2 . 0 6 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 2 7 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 3 9 1 U S B A N K P U R C H A S I N G C A R D 6 2 4 6 2 0 2 S U P P L I E S - F A C I L I T I E S 0 . 0 0 3 9 7 . 5 4 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 2 7 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 3 9 1 U S B A N K P U R C H A S I N G C A R D 6 2 4 6 2 0 2 S U P P L I E S - F A C I L I T I E S 0 . 0 0 5 9 . 8 2 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 2 7 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 3 9 1 U S B A N K P U R C H A S I N G C A R D 1 1 1 2 3 0 1 O F F I C E S U P P L I E S 0 . 0 0 1 3 5 . 9 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 2 7 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 3 9 1 U S B A N K P U R C H A S I N G C A R D 1 1 1 2 3 0 1 S H R M A N N U A L D U E S 0 . 0 0 1 6 0 . 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 2 7 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 3 9 1 U S B A N K P U R C H A S I N G C A R D 6 1 2 8 5 0 1 W E L L N E S S S E M I N A R 0 . 0 0 2 5 1 . 3 2 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 2 7 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 3 9 1 U S B A N K P U R C H A S I N G C A R D 1 1 1 R C P T 1 4 4 9 2 / S U B 0 9 - 0 0 0 1 0 . 0 0 3 1 . 6 8 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 2 7 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 3 9 1 U S B A N K P U R C H A S I N G C A R D 1 1 1 5 1 0 1 E E C B G A P P L I C A T I O N 0 . 0 0 2 1 . 0 8 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 2 7 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 3 9 1 U S B A N K P U R C H A S I N G C A R D 1 1 1 3 1 0 1 B U D G E T C O V E R P R I N T I N G 0 . 0 0 8 8 . 9 4 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 2 7 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 3 9 1 U S B A N K P U R C H A S I N G C A R D 1 1 1 2 3 0 1 E M P L O Y E E R E C O G N I T I O N 0 . 0 0 2 5 . 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 2 7 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 3 9 1 U S B A N K P U R C H A S I N G C A R D 1 1 1 7 1 0 2 S U P P L I E S - C E R T 0 . 0 0 5 0 8 . 2 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 2 7 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 3 9 1 U S B A N K P U R C H A S I N G C A R D 4 1 3 9 3 2 3 - 0 0 1 F U R N I T U R E - W H H 0 . 0 0 8 1 2 . 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 2 7 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 3 9 1 U S B A N K P U R C H A S I N G C A R D 6 2 4 6 2 0 2 S U P P L I E S - F A C I L I T I E S 0 . 0 0 3 0 8 . 9 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 2 7 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 3 9 1 U S B A N K P U R C H A S I N G C A R D 1 1 1 5 2 0 1 O F F I C E S U P P L I E S 0 . 0 0 2 . 8 2 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 2 7 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 3 9 1 U S B A N K P U R C H A S I N G C A R D 6 1 2 8 5 0 1 W E L L N E S S S N A C K S 0 . 0 0 5 3 . 2 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 2 7 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 3 9 1 U S B A N K P U R C H A S I N G C A R D 1 1 1 5 2 0 1 S T A M P S 0 . 0 0 8 . 8 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 2 7 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 3 9 1 U S B A N K P U R C H A S I N G C A R D 1 1 1 5 2 0 1 F A X M A C H I N E 0 . 0 0 1 0 2 . 8 3 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 2 7 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 3 9 1 U S B A N K P U R C H A S I N G C A R D 1 1 1 8 1 0 1 O N L I N E B / U S E R V E R 0 . 0 0 8 1 . 9 5 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 2 7 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 3 9 1 U S B A N K P U R C H A S I N G C A R D 6 2 2 3 2 0 1 S U P P L I E S - C O M P U T E R S 0 . 0 0 3 3 . 9 2 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 2 7 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 3 9 1 U S B A N K P U R C H A S I N G C A R D 6 1 1 8 4 9 9 A B A G P A R M A C O N F 0 . 0 0 2 0 1 . 0 2 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 2 7 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 3 9 1 U S B A N K P U R C H A S I N G C A R D 1 1 1 6 1 0 1 E M P L O Y E E R E C O G N I T I O N 0 . 0 0 2 5 . 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 2 7 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 3 9 1 U S B A N K P U R C H A S I N G C A R D 1 1 1 6 1 0 1 C R E D I T - C A M P S U P P L I E S 0 . 0 0 - 1 0 3 . 4 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 2 7 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 3 9 1 U S B A N K P U R C H A S I N G C A R D 1 1 1 2 1 0 1 P O S T A G E 0 . 0 0 1 3 . 4 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 2 7 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 3 9 1 U S B A N K P U R C H A S I N G C A R D 1 1 1 2 1 0 1 P O S T A G E 0 . 0 0 1 3 . 0 5 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 2 7 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 3 9 1 U S B A N K P U R C H A S I N G C A R D 1 1 1 2 1 0 1 C R E D I T - L A S E R F I C H E 0 . 0 0 - 5 4 5 . 0 0 49 SU N G A R D P U B L I C S E C T O R P A G E N U M B E R : 5 DA T E : 0 2 / 2 4 / 2 0 1 0 C I T Y O F S A R A T O G A A C C T P A 2 1 TI M E : 1 0 : 4 0 : 0 6 C H E C K R E G I S T E R - D I S B U R S E M E N T F U N D SE L E C T I O N C R I T E R I A : t r a n s a c t . c h e c k _ n o b e t w e e n ’ 1 1 4 3 7 7 ’ a n d ’ 1 1 4 4 3 0 ’ AC C O U N T I N G P E R I O D : 8 / 1 0 F U N D - 0 0 9 - D I S B U R S E M E N T F U N D CA S H A C C T C H E C K N O I S S U E D T - - - - - - - - - - - - - - V E N D O R - - - - - - - - - - - - - B U D G E T U N I T - - - - - D E S C R I P T I O N - - - - - - S A L E S T A X A M O U N T 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 2 7 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 3 9 1 U S B A N K P U R C H A S I N G C A R D 1 1 1 2 1 0 1 S T A F F M T G 0 1 / 0 7 0 . 0 0 6 1 . 6 3 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 2 7 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 3 9 1 U S B A N K P U R C H A S I N G C A R D 1 1 1 7 1 0 2 A N N U A L S C C E R M G R D U E 0 . 0 0 7 7 . 8 7 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 2 7 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 3 9 1 U S B A N K P U R C H A S I N G C A R D 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 A G E N D A M T G 1 / 1 4 0 . 0 0 1 3 . 9 6 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 2 7 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 3 9 1 U S B A N K P U R C H A S I N G C A R D 1 1 1 1 1 0 1 C T Y C O U N C I L M T G 1 / 2 0 0 . 0 0 1 1 1 . 5 9 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 2 7 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 3 9 1 U S B A N K P U R C H A S I N G C A R D 1 1 1 2 3 0 1 C R E D I T - N A P K I N R I N G 0 . 0 0 - 1 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 TO T A L C H E C K 0 . 0 0 3 , 3 4 3 . 7 7 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 2 8 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 5 0 0 V I R G I N I A C B I O N D I T R U S T E 1 1 1 P R O J D E P O S I T R E F U N D 0 . 0 0 2 , 4 1 0 . 0 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 2 9 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 1 9 8 W I T T W E R & P A R K I N , L L P 1 1 1 4 1 0 1 A P P # M O D 0 7 - 0 0 0 2 0 . 0 0 1 5 0 . 6 0 11 1 1 1 1 1 4 4 3 0 0 2 / 1 8 / 1 0 4 4 7 Z E E M E D I C A L S E R V I C E 1 1 1 2 3 0 1 O F F I C E S U P P L I E S 0 . 0 0 2 4 . 4 7 TO T A L C A S H A C C O U N T 0 . 0 0 4 6 2 , 4 7 6 . 6 8 TO T A L F U N D 0 . 0 0 4 6 2 , 4 7 6 . 6 8 TO T A L R E P O R T 0 . 0 0 4 6 2 , 4 7 6 . 6 8 50 Page 1 of 2 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 3, 2010 AGENDA ITEM: DEPARTMENT: Public Works CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: Iveta Harvancik DIRECTOR: John Cherbone Senior Engineer SUBJECT: Prospect Road Median No. 11 – Notice of Completion RECOMMENDED ACTION: Move to accept the Prospect Road Median No. 11 project as complete and authorize the City manager to sign the Notice of Completion for the construction contract. REPORT SUMMARY: All work on the Prospect Road Median No. 11 has been completed by the City’s contractor, Blossom Valley Construction, Inc. of San Jose to the satisfaction of the City inspectors. The scope of work consisted of supplying all labor, equipment and materials to construct a raised landscaped median on Prospect Road between Titus Avenue and Provincetown Drive. Overall, the quality of construction completed through this contract was very favorable and the project was completed on time and within budget. It is therefore recommended that the Council accept the project as complete and authorize the City Manager to sign the Notice of Completion. FISCAL IMPACTS: The project was funded by approved CIP funds. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: The project would not be accepted as complete and staff would notify the contractor of any additional work required by the City Council before the project would be accepted as complete. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: None in addition to the above. 51 Page 2 of 2 FOLLOW UP ACTION: Staff will record the Notice of Completion for the construction contract. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Nothing additional. ATTACHMENTS: Notice of Completion. 52 Recording requested by, And to be returned to: City of Saratoga Attn. City Clerk 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 NOTICE OF COMPLETION NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the work agreed and performed under the contract mentioned below between the City of Saratoga, a municipal corporation, whose address is 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA 95070, as Owner of property or property rights, and the Contractor mentioned below, on property of the Owner, is accepted as complete by the Owner on or around the 22nd day of February, 2010. Contract Number: N/A Contract Date: August 10, 2009 Contractor’s Name: Blossom Valley Construction, Inc. Contractor’s Address: P.O. Box 611537, San Jose, CA 95161 Description of Work: Prospect Road Median No. 11 Notice is given in accordance with the provisions of Section 3093 of the Civil Code of the State of California. The undersigned certifies that he is an officer of the City of Saratoga, that he has read the foregoing Notice of Acceptance of Completion and knows the contents thereof; and that the same is true of his own knowledge, except as to those matters which are therein stated on the information or belief, as to those matters the he believes to be true. I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at the City of Saratoga, County of Santa Clara, State of California on ______________, 2010. CITY OF SARATOGA BY:____________________________ ATTEST:____________________________ Dave Anderson Ann Sullivan, City Clerk City Manager Gov. Code 40814 53 Page 1 of 2 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 3, 2010 AGENDA ITEM: DEPARTMENT: Public Works CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: John Cherbone DIRECTOR: John Cherbone Public Works Director SUBJECT: Joint Use Agreements with Santa Clara Valley Water District for Joe’s Trail RECOMMENDED ACTION: Authorize the City Manager to execute following agreements with Santa Clara Valley Water District a Joint Use Agreement for Joe’s Trail. REPORT SUMMARY: In order to build a portion of Joe’s Trail near Saratoga Avenue it is necessary to obtain permission from the Santa Clara Valley Water District (District) because the trail crosses their fee title property at this location. The attached Joint Use Agreement will give the City the rights to build the trail across District property. FISCAL IMPACTS: None in addition to the adopted budget. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): The Joint Use Agreement would not be executed and the City would not be permitted to build Joes Trail at this location. ALTERNATIVE ACTION (S): N/A FOLLOW UP ACTION(S): City Clerk will forward executed agreements to Santa Clara Valley Water District. 54 Page 2 of 2 ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: N/A ATTACHMENTS: 1. Joint Use Agreement for Joe’s Trail. 55 File: City of Saratoga X-File: 9436-48 JOINT USE AGREEMENT FOR A PUBLIC TRAIL AT SARATOGA SUNNYVALE ROAD Santa Clara Valley Water District, a California Special District, hereinafter referred to as “District;” and the City of Saratoga, a municipal corporation of the State of California, hereinafter referred to as “City;” agree this ______ day of , 2010 (“Agreement Effective Date,”) as follows: Background. A. Whereas, District is the owner of certain real property (hereinafter the “Premises”), described on “Exhibit A” hereto, so marked and by this reference made a part hereof. The District’s underground treated water pipeline, known as West Pipeline, is located within the Premises; B. Whereas, City desires to provide trail access to the public in a manner that does not interfere with the District’s maintenance and operational activities on the Premises, including maintenance and operation of a water pipeline or any other current or future District improvement; C. Whereas, City has ascertained that adequate funds have been appropriated to construct and operate a public trail (and incidents thereto) on the Premises and that adequate funds have been appropriated to meet all of its obligations contained in this agreement; D. Whereas, the parties find it to be in the public interest to provide for joint use of the Premises by means of this agreement pursuant to the following terms and conditions; and Now, therefore, the Parties agree as follows: 1. District hereby grants permission to City to use the Premises for the following purpose and subject to the following limitations of use: Purpose Operation for public use, of a bicycle and/or pedestrian trail, including installation of trail- related incidents such as signs, fencing, and gates that are first approved by the District as evidenced by issuance of a District permit. Limitations of Use Public access on the trail within the Premises must only be passive in nature. Hence, picnic facilities, barbeques, fires, dogs or other domestic animals (except on leash), equestrian use, and any type of motorized cycles are not permitted on the Premises and City must ensure that such uses do not occur on the Premises. 2. City will provide for trash removal on the Premises that is reasonably likely to have been generated from the public’s use of the Premises, including the trail areas. City will be responsible for maintaining and emptying trash receptacles and rubbish removal as reasonably necessary. City will provide graffiti removal in compliance with City’s graffiti abatement program, including graffiti removal from signs installed in conjunction with and/or accessory to the establishment of a public trail consistent with its implementation of the same program at comparable City facilities. 3. The public trail contained within or adjacent to the Premises must be reasonably patrolled by City personnel and/or ranger services under contract with City and/or volunteers supervised by City. District has no obligation whatsoever to provide or pay for any such patrol services. Page 1 of 5 56 4. If the District reasonably requires that any City improvement on the Premises be removed or relocated, the City must do so at its own expense within 90 days of receiving notice from the District. District will inform City of any impending construction activity within the Premises to enable the City to minimize the impact of such activity on the City’s improvements located on the Premises. Except to the extent replacement would interfere with District improvements, City may, at its own expense, replace City improvements upon District’s completion of the construction activity requiring the initial removal of those improvements. 5. City is responsible for responding to all public complaints and inquiries regarding City’s improvements on the Premises, including the public trail. 6. City understands that District may have a need to engage in maintenance and operational activities on the Premises in support of the West Pipeline and other current or future District improvements. City is responsible for the maintenance and repair of its improvements located on the Premises, including the public trail. In non-emergency situations, City and District staff will meet whenever necessary for the purpose of scheduling routine maintenance, including, but not limited to: • Maintenance issues related to improvements; • Method and timing of issues related to affected wildlife; and • Non-emergency work requiring the use of heavy equipment, barricading, and/or restricting access to the Premises. Notwithstanding the foregoing, in the event of an emergency situation, the District may engage in maintenance and operational activities on the Premises without first meeting or informing the City. 7. Any construction or major maintenance work during nesting season (generally between February 1st and July 15th) will be avoided whenever possible. If any such construction or maintenance work must be done during the nesting season, a pre-construction survey by a qualified biologist must be undertaken to determine the presence of nesting. If nesting is reported, the biologist will be expected to recommend the implementation of adequate mitigation measures. Environmental impacts will be considered prior to all work. Any and all work related to this Section 7 will be completed in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local environmental health and safety regulations including, but not limited to, the federal Migratory Bird Act of 1918, Clean Water Act, Endangered Species Act, the California Fish and Game Code and the Porter-Cologne Act and any amendments thereto. 8. Both parties agree to work together to create and install signage which benefits the programs of each party such as warnings, entrance signage, interpretive signs, and joint uses when applicable. The Deputy Operating Officer for the District and the Director of Public Works for the City or their respective designees will meet and confer on a periodic basis to plan the installation of appropriate signage which serves the needs of both parties. All signs placed on the Premises by City (except existing signs that identify the facility (e.g. park, Trail) by name) must include a District logo in equal size and symmetrical relationship to other logos contained on such signs. In addition, each party is responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of the signage it installed on the Premises. 9. The term of this agreement (including the rights and obligations contained therein) is twenty five (25) years commencing on the Agreement Effective Date. The City, upon providing the District with no less than 90-days written notice, but no more than 180 days notice prior to the expiration of the initial 25-year term, may renew this Agreement for an additional 25-year period. A party may terminate this agreement “for cause” after providing the other party with at least 90 days written notice of such “cause” and its intent to terminate this agreement. For Page 2 of 5 57 10. City will have the full control and authority, for purposes of this agreement, over the public’s use of the Premises, and City may restrict, or control, regulate and supervise the public use of the City’s improvements. City may, in its discretion but consistent with the right of District hereinafter described, and without diminution of the water supply or conservation function or hazard thereto of the Premises as now existing or as may hereafter be altered, take any measures of every kind as may in the opinion of City be necessary for the safe use of the Premises by the public. Further, City is responsible for the maintenance in usable and safe condition of every the trail and every other City improvement located on the Premises. 11. City understands that District must have absolute, free and unimpeded access to the Premises to carry out its maintenance and operational activities, including (without limitation) maintaining, operating, replacing, reconstructing, repairing, accessing, and inspecting the West Pipeline or any future improvement installed by the District. City will bear the cost and expense of any security, police or other expenditures that are necessary to temporarily prohibit or control public access to the Premises that the District would not ordinarily incur to carry out its maintenance and operational activities on the Premises. Damage to any District improvement arising from the City’s or Public’s use of the Premises is the responsibility of the City. 12. The City may construct an improvement on the Premises only if all of the following conditions are satisfied: (i) District determines that such improvement does not unreasonable interfere with the District’s current or future use of the Premises, including the maintenance and operation of the West Pipeline; (ii) such improvement receives prior review by and approval of the District as evidenced by issuance of a District permit, and (iii) such improvement (including the construction thereof) is compliant with all applicable legal and permitting requirements (including California Environmental Quality Act requirements). 13. City agrees to assume the defense of, indemnify and hold harmless, District, its officers, agents, and employees from all claims, liability, loss, damage, and injury of any kind, nature, or description directly or indirectly arising during the initial term of this agreement, or any renewal thereof, that results from the: (i) City’s and/or public’s use of the Premises or property adjacent to the Premises; or (ii) from acts, omissions, or activities of City’s officers, agents, employees, or independent contractors employed by City, excepting claims, liability, loss, damage, or injury arising from the willful or negligent acts, omissions, or activities of an officer, agent, or employee of District. 14. Any and all notices required to be given hereunder will be deemed to have been delivered upon deposit in the United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed to either of the parties at the address hereinafter specified or as later amended by either party in writing: City of Saratoga Santa Clara Valley Water District 13777 Fruitvale Avenue 5750 Almaden Expressway Saratoga CA, 95070 San Jose, CA 95118 Attention: City Clerk Attention: Clerk of the Board Page 3 of 5 58 15. This agreement, and all terms, covenants, and conditions hereof, will apply to and bind the successors and assigns of the respective parties hereto. City will neither assign nor sublet this agreement without the prior written consent of District. 16. This agreement is governed by California law. 17. This agreement may not be modified or amended except in writing signed by both parties. 18. It is expressly understood that this agreement does not in any way whatsoever grant or convey any permanent easement, fee or other interest in a party’s real property to the City. 19. In the event of a dispute between the parties with respect to the terms or conditions of this agreement, the prevailing party is entitled to collect from the other its reasonable attorneys’ fees as established by the judge or arbitrator presiding over such dispute. 20. This agreement, together with all exhibits attached hereto, constitutes the entire agreement between the parties and supersedes all prior written or oral understandings. WITNESS THE EXECUTION HEREOF on the Agreement Effective Date. CITY OF SARATOGA, a municipal SANTA CLARA VALLEY WATER DISTRICT, corporation of the State of California a California Special District By: __________________________ By: _____________________________ Dave Anderson Beau Goldie City Manager Chief Executive Officer ATTEST: ATTEST: ______________________________ _________________________________ Ann Sullivan Michelle King City Clerk Clerk /Board of Directors APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED AS TO FORM: ______________________________ _________________________________ Richard Taylor Anthony Fulcher City Attorney Assistant District Counsel Page 4 of 5 59 60 Page 1 of 3 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 3, 2010 AGENDA ITEM: DEPARTMENT: Public Works CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: John Cherbone DIRECTOR: John Cherbone SUBJECT: Landscaping & Lighting Assessment District LLA-1; Resolutions initiating renewal of the District for FY 10-11. RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Move to adopt the Resolution describing improvements and directing preparation of the Engineer’s Report. 2. Move to adopt the Resolution appointing the Attorney’s for the District. . REPORT SUMMARY: Attached are two Resolutions the City Council must adopt to initiate the annual process of renewing the Landscaping & Lighting Assessment District LLA-1 for the upcoming fiscal year beginning on July 1. A brief summary of each Resolution is as follows: 1. Resolution describing improvements and directing preparation of the Engineer’s Report - This is the Resolution required under Streets & Highways Code Section 22622 to initiate the annual renewal process for the existing assessment district for the ensuing fiscal year. The Resolution references the proposed improvements to be provided by the district (Exhibit A), and directs the preparation of the Engineer’s Report required under S&H Code Section 22565. 2. Resolution appointing Attorneys - This Resolution appoints the City Attorney’s office as the attorneys for the District throughout the renewal process, and limits their fees in connection with this work to $500. The provisions of SB 919 (The Proposition 218 Omnibus Implementation Act) adopted by the State legislature in 1997, (Chapter 38, Stats. 1997), and which became effective on July 1, 1997, will be implemented during the renewal process if necessary. Procedurally this means that assessment ballots will be mailed to those property owners within the District whose initial proposed assessments are either 1) higher than in any previous year and 61 Page 2 of 3 who have not previously voted on their assessments, or 2) higher than what was authorized via balloting conducted in a previous year. As in previous years, ballots will be separately tabulated at the close of the Protest Hearing for each Zone that may be voting. Only those ballots returned by the close of the Protest Hearing will count towards determining whether a majority protest exists. The following sets forth the tentative schedule for renewing the District for FY 10-11: March 3 - Council adopts Resolutions directing preparation of Engineer’s Report and appointing Attorneys. April 21 - Council receives Engineer’s Report. Council adopts Resolution of Intention preliminarily approving Engineer’s Report and assessments and setting date and time for Protest Hearing. April 30 - Notices with Proposition 218 ballots mailed to property owners, if required. May 5 - Notice of Protest Hearing published in Saratoga News. May 19 - Notice of Protest Hearing published in Saratoga News. June 2 - Council conducts Protest Hearing per Gov’t. Code Sec. 53753. Ballots are tabulated at the close of the Hearing. If appropriate, Council adopts Resolution confirming assessments for FY 10-11. June 16 - Backup date if needed. August 10 - Deadline for Engineer to transmit Assessment Roll to County Auditor. FISCAL IMPACTS: The costs associated with administering the Landscaping & Lighting Assessment District are recovered via the assessments levied against the properties, which receive special benefit from the services provided through the District. A detailed analysis of the proposed financing for the District in FY 10-11 will be provided in the Engineer’s Report. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION(S): One or both of the Resolutions would not be adopted. This would delay initiating the process to renew the District for FY 10-11. ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): 62 Page 3 of 3 None in addition to the above. FOLLOW UP ACTION(S): Work on the Engineer’s Report will begin. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Nothing additional at this time. Eventually, notices and ballots will be mailed to certain property owners as required by law. Additionally, notices will be published in the Saratoga News as required. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Resolution describing improvements and directing preparation of the Engineer’s Report. 2. Resolution appointing Attorneys. 63 1 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION DESCRIBING IMPROVEMENTS AND DIRECTING PREPARATION OF ENGINEER'S REPORT FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010-2011 CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT LLA-1 RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Saratoga, California, as follows: 1. The City Council did, pursuant to the provisions of the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972, Part 2, Division 15 of the Streets and Highways Code of the State of California, conduct proceedings for the formation of the City of Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District LLA-1 and for the levy and collection of assessments for fiscal year 1980 - 1981, and did, on June 18, 1980, pursuant to proceedings duly had, adopt its Resolution No. 950- D, a Resolution Overruling Protests and Ordering the Formation of an Assessment District and the Improvements and Confirming the Diagram and Assessments; 2. The public interest, convenience and necessity require, and it is the intention of said Council to undertake proceedings for the levy and collection of assessments upon the several lots or parcels of land in said District, for the construction or installation of improvements, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, for the fiscal year 2010-2011. 3. The improvements to be constructed or installed, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, are more particularly described in Exhibit "A" hereto attached and by reference incorporated herein. 4. The costs and expenses of said improvements, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, are to be made chargeable upon said District, the exterior boundaries of which District are the composite and consolidated area as more particularly shown on a map thereof on file in the office of the Clerk of the City of Saratoga to which reference is hereby made for further particulars. Said map indicates by a boundary line the extent of the territory included in said District and of any zone thereof and shall govern for all details as to the extent of the assessment district. 5. The Engineer of said City be, and is hereby, directed to prepare and file with said Clerk a report, in writing, referring to the assessment district by its distinctive designation, specifying the fiscal year to which the report applies, and, with respect to that year, presenting the following: 64 2 a) plans and specification of the existing improvements and for proposed new improvements, if any, to be made within the assessment district or within any zone thereof; b) an estimate of the costs of said proposed new improvements, if any, to be made, the costs of maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, and of any existing improvements, together with the incidental expenses in connection therewith; c) a diagram showing the exterior boundaries of the assessment district and of any zones within said district and the lines and dimensions of each lot or parcel of land within the district as such lot or parcel of land is shown on the County Assessor's map for the fiscal year to which the report applies, each of which lots or parcels of land shall be identified by a distinctive number or letter on said diagram; and d) a proposed assessment of the total amount of the estimated costs and expenses of the proposed new improvements, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, and of any existing improvements upon the several lots or parcels of land in said district in proportion to the estimated particular and distinct benefits to be received by each of such lots or parcels of land, respectively, from said improvements, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, and of the expenses incidental thereto. 6. The Office of the Public Works Director of said City be, and is hereby, designated as the office to answer inquiries regarding any protest proceedings to be had herein, and may be contacted during regular office hours at the City Hall, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California 95070 or by calling (408) 868-1241. * * * * * * * * The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at an adjourned meeting of the Saratoga City Council held on the __ day of ________, 2010 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ______________________________ Kathleen King, Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________ Ann Sullivan, City Clerk 65 3 Exhibit A DESCRIPTION OF IMPROVEMENTS The design, construction or installation, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof, of landscaping, including trees, shrubs, grass or other ornamental vegetation, statuary, fountains and other ornamental structures and facilities, and public lighting facilities for the lighting of any public places, including traffic signals, ornamental standards, luminaries, poles, supports, tunnels, manholes, vaults, conduits, pipes, wires, conductors, guys, stubs, platforms, braces, transformers, insulators, contacts, switches, capacitors, meters, communication circuits, appliances, attachments and appurtenances, including the cost of repair, removal or replacement of all or any part thereof, providing for the life, growth, health and beauty of landscaping, including cultivation, irrigation, trimming, spraying, fertilizing and treating for disease or injury; the removal of trimmings, rubbish, debris and other solid waste; electric current or energy, gas or other illuminating agent for any public lighting facilities or for the lighting or operation of any other improvements; and the operation of any fountains or the maintenance of any other improvements. 66 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION APPOINTING ATTORNEYS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2010-2011 CITY OF SARATOGA LANDSCAPING AND LIGHTING ASSESSMENT DISTRICT LLA-1 RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Saratoga, California, that WHEREAS, the City Council has determined to undertake proceedings for the levy and collection of assessments upon the parcels of land in the City of Saratoga Landscaping and Lighting Assessment District LLA-1 pursuant to the Landscaping and Lighting Act of 1972 for the construction or installation of improvements, including the maintenance or servicing, or both, thereof for the fiscal year 2010-2011; and WHEREAS, the public interest and general welfare will be served by appointing and employing attorneys for the preparation and conduct of said proceedings; NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS ORDERED, as follows: 1. That the law firm of Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger be, and it is hereby appointed and employed to do and perform all legal services required in the conduct of said proceedings, and that its compensation be, and it hereby is fixed at not to exceed $500.00. * * * * * * * The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at an adjourned meeting of the Saratoga City Council held on the __ day of ________, 2010 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ______________________________ Kathleen King, Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________ Ann Sullivan, City Clerk 67 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 3, 2010 AGENDA ITEM: DEPARTMENT: Community Development CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: Cynthia McCormick, Assistant Planner, AICP DIRECTOR: John Livingstone, AICP SUBJECT: FY 2010/11 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) AND COMMUNITY GRANT FUNDING APPLICATIONS RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Conduct the Public Hearing and accept public testimony presentations from applicants. 2. Review recommendations for streamlining the County CDBG program. 3. Continue the Public Hearing to March 17th to finalize grant allocations and approve a transfer of $13,964 in previously allocated CDBG funds. REPORT SUMMARY: Each year the City allocates Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Community Grant funding to community services and programs. Saratoga’s Community Grant funding helps programs that benefit Saratoga residents whether or not they meet CDBG income requirements. CDBG proposals must comply with federal and county requirements with priority given to projects that provide affordable housing, rehabilitation of affordable housing, and public services which primarily serve lower income clients. CDBG funding has also been available for public improvements to ensure compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The availability of 2010-2011 fiscal year CDBG funds was publicized on the City Website and in the Saratoga News. CDBG ADA and CDBG Administration Staff received one application from the Public Works Department for $79,900 which is the total amount available for ADA projects. As in past years, the CDBG program also includes $15,000 for City administration of the CDBG program and $13,000 for County administration of the SHARP program. CDBG Public Services and Community Services Prior to the writing of this staff report, staff received six (6) applications for community services, three of which are eligible for CDBG Public Service funding. The total amount of funding requested this year for CDBG Public Services and Saratoga Community Services is $74,712. The City expects to receive approximately $26,500 for CDBG public service projects. Council policy is to match CDBG public service funds 1 1 NOTE: The final CDBG funding amount has not been confirmed but is expected to be announced prior to the beginning of FY 10/11 (July 1, 2010). The public service fund cap is formula based and subject to change. for Community Grants. Thus, the total amount available for public service and community service programs would be approximately $53,000 and the total funding shortfall is $21,712. 68 DISCUSSION: CDBG ADA Public Improvement Funding This City expects to receive $79,900 for affordable housing and/or ADA projects. The Public Works Department is requesting the full amount for Phase IV of the Accessible Signal Program. The Public Works Department is also requesting that $13,964 in previously allocated funds be transferred to the Historical Museum ADA ramp project. This includes $4,464 from the City Hall Public Bathroom ADA project which cannot be completed due to the current building configuration. An additional $9,500 would be transferred from the Accessible Signal Program in order to complete the Historical Museum ADA ramp project SHARP Funding At one time, the City managed CDBG funds for low-income housing rehabilitation projects. The SHARP program is now administered by the Santa Clara County Housing and Community Development Department (HCD). HCD charges $13,000 per year to administer the program. The cost covers processing loan applications and paperwork, determining eligibility, and coordinating payments to the contractors doing the repair work. CDBG Administrative Funding CDBG funds may be used to pay reasonable costs related to administration of the CDBG program. Administrative activities include preparing related reports, contracts and correspondence; managing the annual CDBG allocation disbursement process, monitoring the grantees, and acting as a liaison between the City and the Urban County Program. The maximum amount that may be allocated for City administration of the CDBG program is $15,000. CDBG Public Services Three applications are eligible for CDBG Public Service funding: Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating Council (SASCC) requested $37,000; West Valley Community Services (WVCS) requested $20,000; and Catholic Charities requested $5,000. All three agencies applied for and received full funding last year. For simplicity, the Council typically funds one program with CDBG funds while funding the other programs with Saratoga Community Grant funds. The total amount requested for these three applications is $62,000. The total amount estimated for CDBG public service projects is $26,500. The amount remaining to be carried over to the Community Grant funding program is $35,500. Community Services The three applications that are not CDBG eligible include requests for $5,000 from the Mustard Faire, $4,212 from the Wildlife Center of Silicon Valley, and $3,500 from the Shady Shakespeare Theater Company. The total amount requested from these three applications is $12,712. The total amount including the $35,500 carried over from CDBG public services is $48,212. Council policy is to match CDBG public service funds, which is estimated to be approximately $26,500. Thus, the total amount available for community service programs is $53,000 and the total shortfall is $21,712. 69 SUMMARY OF APPLICATIONS Summaries of each application are listed below. Applications are provided in Attachment 1. Additional information (e.g., audit, financial statements) are available upon request. 2011 Mustard Faire Representatives for the Mustard Faire submitted a proposal for its annual event that celebrates the agricultural history of Saratoga with education on what can be done to preserve it. The 2,600 Saratoga residents that attend the Mustard Faire represent an estimated 93% of the approximately 2,800 attendees. The total cost of the program is $6,800. The requested funding is $5,000 which is 73.5% of the total cost of the program. This project is being considered under the Community Grant program. It is not eligible for CDBG funding since it does not primarily serve low-income participants. The program receives in-kind donations and volunteer work as leveraging. Shady Shakespeare Theater Company The Shady Shakespeare Theater Company (SSTC) submitted a proposal to help fund performances held in Sanborn-Skyline County Park. SSTC’s 2009 productions of Richard III and As You Like It were attended by approximately 4,000 people (3,500 unduplicated) including approximately 350 Saratoga residents which represent an estimated 10% of the total guests. The total cost of the program is $85,000. The requested funding is $3,500 which is 4.1% of the total cost of the program. This project is being considered under the Community Grant program. It is not eligible for CDBG funding since it does not primarily serve low-income participants. In addition to receiving $19,557 in grants, the program has requested $20,500 from 6 organizations (including Saratoga). Wildlife Center of Silicon Valley The Wildlife Center of Silicon Valley (WCSV) submitted a proposal for wildlife rehabilitation and release and wildlife education and outreach. Last year, Saratoga residents brought in approximately 100 animals for WCSV services. This represents 2.5% of the approximately 4,000 injured, sick and orphaned local birds and mammals brought in annually. The total cost of the program is $279,216. The requested funding is $4,212 which is 1.5% of the total cost of the program. This does not include the cost associated with phone calls and emails from residents. WCSV historically responds to approximately 175 to 200 telephone and e-mail inquiries from Saratoga residents each year. In addition, WCSV held two education presentations in the City of Saratoga in 2009, which were attended by a total of 65 residents (representing approximately 3.6% of the education/outreach program). This project is being considered under the Community Grant program. It is not eligible for CDBG funding since it does not primarily serve low-income participants. Leveraging for the program includes grants, donations, and investments. 70 CDBG Public Service Eligible Projects Catholic Charities – Long Term Ombudsman Program Catholic Charities submitted a proposal for continued support of the Long Term Ombudsman Program which provides advocacy for the rights of residents in long term care. The program serves 10,293 unduplicated clients annually including a minimum of 288 Saratoga residents which represent 2.8% of the total clients served. The total cost of the program is $293,313. The requested funding is $5,000 which is 1.7% of the total budget to operate the program. Catholic Charities has successfully leveraged funding through donations and funding at the federal and city level. Catholic Charities continues to apply for CDBG funding from several other cities it serves. This program received grant funding from Saratoga for the last 2 years. This program is eligible for both Community Grant and CDBG Public Service funding. SASCC - Adult Day Care Program Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating Council (SASCC) submitted its annual proposal for continued support of the SASCC Adult Day Care Center Program which provides respite care and social activities for frail elders and their caregivers. The program serves 51 unduplicated clients annually including 21 Saratoga residents which represent 41% of the total clients served. The total cost of the program is $275,931. The requested funding is $37,000 which is 13.4% of the total budget to operate the Adult Care Center. SASCC has successfully leveraged funding through donations and annual fundraising efforts in addition to sliding-scale fees. SASCC intends to apply for CDBG funding from the City of Campbell and the City of San Jose. This program has received CDBG funding from Saratoga for the past 9 years. This program is eligible for both Community Grant and CDBG Public Service funding. West Valley Community Services – Food Pantry and Emergency Rental/Utility Assistance West Valley Community Services (WVCS) submitted a proposal for continued support of its Community Assistance Program which provides food pantry and emergency rental/utility services. The program serves 611 unduplicated clients annually including approximately 67 Saratoga residents which represent 11% of the total clients served. The total cost of the program is $237,577. The requested funding is $20,000 which is 8.4% of the total budget to operate the program. WVCS has successfully leveraged funding through donations and funding at the federal, county and city level. WVCS continues to apply for CDBG funding from several other cities it serves. This program has received grant funding from Saratoga for the past 3 years. This program is eligible for both Community Grant and CDBG Public Service funding. 71 FUTURE CDBG ADMINISTRATION Santa Clara County administration of the CDBG program has not been immune to the economic crisis facing cities and counties. Given their budget deficit, Santa Clara County is looking at ways to streamline administration of the Urban County 2 program. The agency estimates that the County General Fund supplemented the HCD 3 budget in the amount of $633,000 this fiscal year. The County has several recommendations, listed below, for FY 11/12 that are estimated to reduce overhead costs by $327,415. These recommendations are discussed in more detail in Attachment 3. 1. Establish a minimum amount of $5,000 for Public Service Grants. 2. Limit the maximum number of Public Service Grants for each city to five and consider shifting smaller city grants to non-CDBG funds. 3. Round all amounts to the nearest $100 at the time that agreements are finalized. 4. Shift all Public Service Contracts to a 2-year concurrent cycle. 5. Change payment requests from monthly to quarterly or semi-annually. 6. Share performance and fiscal monitoring responsibilities among Urban County jurisdictions. 7. Set city expenditure deadlines to two years to minimize roll-overs. 8. Reduce General Fund overhead charges to the HCD Program. 9. Seek proposals for a web-based data management system to unify and simplify administration of CDBG Program. 10. Increase administrative revenue to the County by reducing or eliminating the $15,000 administrative allowance allocated to each City. 11. Consider unifying all grants under County administration for CDBG Program Year 2012/13 if above efficiencies can significantly reduce administrative costs. 12. Consider further increasing the minimum amount and reducing the number of Public Service Grants for CDBG Program Year 2012/13. The City of Saratoga is currently complying with recommendations #1, 2, 3, and 12 by allocating all of its CDBG public service funds to one applicant and funding other applicants through the City’s general fund. Recommendations #4, 5, and 7 could easily be implemented. The attached letter from the County’ Office of Affordable Housing are only recommendations. The recommendations will be forwarded to the County Executive/City Managers Group for approval. Staff will continue to work with the County and report back to the Council as to the outcome of the above recommendations. 2 Cities with populations fewer than 50,000 are not eligible to apply directly for CDBG funds. All such cities in Santa Clara County have combined to form an “Urban County” in order to apply for funding. 3 Santa Clara County Housing and Community Development 72 FISCAL IMPACTS: The CDBG funds for FY 2010/11 are federal Housing and Urban Development funds administered by Santa Clara County and allocated to participating cities. Under the Community Grants program, Council policy is to match CDBG public service funds, which is estimated to be $26,500 this year. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: The City’s FY 2010/11 CDBG allocation will remain with the County. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: NA FOLLOW UP ACTION: 1. Continue the Public Hearing to March 17th to finalize grant allocations and approve a transfer of $13,964 in previously allocated CDBG funds. 2. Following the March 17th meeting, forward Council’s CDBG recommendations to the County of Santa Clara and execute contracts with agencies receiving funding. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: The availability of grant funds was publicized on the City Website and in the Saratoga News in January 2010. Notice of the Public Hearing was properly posted and published in the Saratoga News on February 16, 2010. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment 1 – Applications Attachment 2 – Grant Request Worksheet Attachment 3 - Recommendations for streamlining the Urban County CDBG program 73 FY 2010-2011 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY GRANT & CDBG STANDARD APPLICATION DATE: February 12, 2010 Please refer to the Application Instructions Sheet for details on the following questions. Please limit your answers to one paragraph per question 1) Applicant Organization/Agency Name: Mustard Faire Agency Address: P.O. Box 966, San Jose, CA 95108-0966 Executive Director: Norman Koepernik Phone: (408) 971-9636 Fax: (408) 297-8270 E-Mail: Theresa_mustardfaire@yahoo.com Agency is a Faith Based Organization: ____ Yes X No 2) Program Title: 2011 Mustard Faire Program Address: Historic Orchard (Fruitvale & Saratoga Avenues) Contact Person/Title: Norman Koepernik Phone: (408) 971-9636 Fax: (408) 297-8270 E-Mail: Theresa_mustardfaire@yahoo.com 3) City of Saratoga grant funds requested this year (FY10/11): $5,000 4) City of Saratoga grant funds requested in the past: None from the Community grant program; funding has been provided in the past through the annual budget process. City of Saratoga grant funds received in the past: In fiscal year 2008-09 the City allocated $5,000; in fiscal year 2009-10 the City allocated $3,000. 5) Program description and number of unduplicated clients served: The Mustard Faire is a celebration of Saratoga’s agricultural history, when orchards were plentiful, the valley was covered with blossoms and the grounds were blanketed in a glorious color of yellow mustard. Over time, orchards have given way to housing and other development. However, the City has preserved a piece of the past in the historic orchard. Each year, the Mustard Faire provides a venue in which families and friends can celebrate the agricultural history of Saratoga, and learn about what can be done to preserve it. The Mustard Faire draws between 2,700 and 3,000 attendees. 6) Program purpose and objectives: • Create awareness of local history • Educate the public about the value of the historic orchard and preservation of agricultural heritage • Host a family-friendly event that includes cultural, artistic and environmental awareness 74 FY 2010-2011 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY GRANT & CDBG STANDARD APPLICATION 7) Program management: The program is organized and managed by a group of community volunteers, assisted by City staff. 8) Agency description and experience: A core committee has been organizing and implementing this event for many years, is very familiar with City policies and procedures and has positive working relationships with City staff. 9) Audit information: The Mustard Faire has been a long-standing community event funded by the City of Saratoga. Budgeted expenses are paid via invoices submitted to the City, which keeps an accounting of the costs incurred. 10) Sources of funds anticipated for this project: In addition to the community grant funds requested, organizers annually contribute approximately $1,800 of their own funds to the event. 11) Budget: Please use the attached worksheet. 12) Performance Measurements: Please use the attached worksheet. 13) Outreach: The event is publicized through banners at Blaney Plaza, flyers distributed to schools, local businesses, the Chamber of Commerce and the City, posting on the City website, Artsopolis and the Mustard Faire website. 14) Leveraging: As noted above, event organizers contribute personal funds in order to pay for items not covered by City funds. In additional, numerous volunteers perform tasks to plan, organize and implement the Faire. West Valley Collection & Recycling will be supplying waste and recycling toters free of charge. The Fire District will be supplying an antique Saratoga Ford Model AA fire truck to participate at the Mustard Faire. Other community organizations, such as the Taiko Drummers and the Historical Foundation will also be supporting and participating in the Faire. 15) Cost / Benefit Analysis: Total Event Cost: $6,800 Total Anticipated Attendees 2,800 Total Cost/Attendee: $ 2.50 Total Funding Requested: $5,000 Percentage of Total Cost Requested: 74% 16) Target Beneficiaries: Total Estimated Attendees: 2,800 75 FY 2010-2011 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY GRANT & CDBG STANDARD APPLICATION Total Estimated Saratoga Residents: 2,600 Estimated Percentage of Saratoga Residents: 93% 76 BUDGET AGENCY NAME: Mustard Faire Date Prepared: February 12, 2010 PROGRAM NAME: 2011 Mustard Faire SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES BUDGET AMOUNT Food/Food Ticket Reimbursements $1,200 Decoration & Supplies 600 Marketing Materials (includes banner) 800 Animals and Travel 1,450 Music 600 Sanitary Facilities 350 TOTAL $5,000 77 PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS AGENCY NAME: Mustard Faire Date Prepared: February 12, 2010 PROGRAM NAME: Mustard Faire PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT WORKSHEET GOAL: To continue the tradition of holding an annual Mustard Faire in the City’s historic orchard. OBJECTIVE (1): Begin organizing the Mustard Faire in October/November 2010 so that all facilities, parking, banner reservation and main activities (e.g. historic vehicles, animals, vendors, artisans) are solidified well in advance of the 2011 Faire. OUTCOME (1): Renew participation/partnerships with relevant community organizations (e.g. Historical Foundation, Chamber of Commerce, SASCC, Taiko Drummers, etc.) OBJECTIVE (2): Form a broad-based committee to plan, organize and implement the Mustard Faire so that there is a larger groups of volunteers from which to draw support and to accomplish tasks. OUTCOME (2): A committee representing the above organizations and other community volunteers undertakes the majority of tasks related to planning, organizing and implementing the Faire. 78 FY 2010-2011 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY GRANT & CDBG STANDARD APPLICATION DATE: 2/12/10 Please refer to the Application Instructions Sheet for details on the following questions. Please limit your answers to one paragraph per question 1) Organization/Agency Name: Shady Shakespeare Theatre Company (SSTC) Agency Address: PO BOX 520, Santa Clara, CA 95052-0520 Executive Director: Dinna Myers Phone: 408-569-0360 Fax: None E-Mail: Dinna@shadyshakes.org Agency is a Faith Based Organization: ____ Yes __X__ No 2) Program Title: Free Shakespeare in Sanborn Park, Saratoga Program Address: 16055 Sanborn Road, Saratoga, CA 95070 Contact Person/Title: Dinna Myers / Managing Director Phone: 408-569-0360 Fax: 408-986-9552 E-Mail: Dinna@shadyshakes.org 3) City of Saratoga grant funds requested this year (FY10/11): $3,500.00 4) City of Saratoga grant funds requested in the past: $2,500.00 – 2009 City of Saratoga grant funds received in the past: $2,500.00 - 2009 5) Program description and number of unduplicated clients served: SSTC produces 22 performances of two Shakespearian plays in Sanborn-Skyline County Park in Saratoga each summer. In 2010 we will be producing Much Ado About Nothing and The Merchant of Venice from July 30th – September 5th, Thursday through Sunday evenings at 7pm, free to the public. While our core audience comes primarily from Saratoga, Monte Sereno, Los Gatos, Cupertino, Campbell, Sunnyvale, and San Jose, there are also a number of people who travel in from the East Bay, Peninsula, and San Francisco. Because SSTC strives to make its work attainable to persons of all educational and cultural backgrounds, our audiences mirror the diversity of the Silicon Valley itself. As performances are free to the public, SSTC is able to provide a quality theatrical experience to everyone, regardless of socioeconomic standing. Our services are of special interest to families who would not ordinarily be able to expose their children to the magic of live theatre without our summer program. SSTC’s 2009 productions of Richard III and As You Like It were attended by approximately 4000 people, 17% of who were children under the age of 18. Since many of these people see both productions, we estimate that the unduplicated number is approximately 3,000. 6) Program purpose and objectives: SSTC is a 501(c)3 corporation committed to providing Silicon Valley residents the opportunity to experience the performing arts and to building community through cultural participation. Our particular brand of theatre demystifies the rich and challenging language of Shakespeare without dumbing it down, bringing people from all walks of life together to enjoy one of the most significant playwrights of all-time. Not charging for tickets puts SSTC at a significant disadvantage. We must rely heavily on public 79 FY 2010-2011 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY GRANT & CDBG STANDARD APPLICATION giving and corporate and private foundations to keep the dream of free Shakespeare alive. It is for this reason that we have come to the City of Saratoga to request support for our core program, Free Shakespeare in the Park. In this economy, thousands of families will be counting on programs like ours to keep art and culture affordable in our community. In 2009, the City of Saratoga supported SSTC with a grant for audience development. At each performance we asked people to raise their hands if this was the first time they had attended a free performance at Shady Shakespeare. The number of hands that went up was astounding. As a result, we saw an overall increase in attendance by new patrons. We are asking for assistance again in 2010 to continue our audience development program. The objective remains to increase awareness of our program with Saratoga residents and develop a larger Saratoga audience. Increasing awareness of our programs in the Saratoga community leads to audience development, stronger community investment, and increased volunteerism. Moreover, each person who attends an SSTC performance passes through Saratoga Village, often stopping to shop, dine, and stimulate the city’s economy. 7) Program management: Shady Shakespeare is run entirely by volunteers. The Artistic Director, Larry Barrott, is responsible for maintaining artistic integrity and the quality of the experience for both the participants and the public. The Artistic Director selects programming, interfaces with other theatre and arts groups, chooses artistic staff, and oversees the artistic ensemble. The Managing Director, Dinna Myers, is responsible for the business aspects of the organization such as marketing and public relations, fundraising, grant writing, volunteer development, organizational development, and production management. Fiscal and program oversight is provided by the Board of Directors. In 2009, we were pleased to engage approximately 50 community volunteers. Their duties included set, prop, and costume construction, technical operation, fundraising, marketing, house management, concession sales, ushering, graphic and website design, and event management. 8) Agency description and experience: Dinna Myers and Sara Betts founded SSTC in 1999. For the first three years, the company performed one play each summer in a variety of locations in the South Bay and Peninsula and we charged for tickets. In 2002, SSTC moved to Sanborn-Skyline County Park in Saratoga and began making performances free to the public. In 2005, SSTC expanded its programming to performing two plays in repertory. In 2010, we are providing 22 free performances over the summer. We do not have something specifically called a Financial Statement. We have attached a Standard Profit Loss Report for 2009. SSTC’s mission is as follows. • Shakespeare: To be a proponent of the works of William Shakespeare and to make these works accessible to people from all walks of life. To be the voice of Shakespeare in a modern society, and to bring the universal messages of his work to the people of the Silicon Valley. • Artistry: To provide an environment that nurtures, fulfills, educates, and excites theatrical artists while allowing them to further their artistic and personal goals. • Excellence: To create experiences that push the envelope of theatrical performance, inspire audiences, incite personal reflection, and challenge paradigms. 80 FY 2010-2011 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY GRANT & CDBG STANDARD APPLICATION • Strength: To maintain an artistic organization that enhances the quality of life in the Bay Area, is an asset to the community it serves, and is valued by that community. To be the kind of organization that compels people to become involved in and contribute to its workings. • Diversity: To encourage and demonstrate cultural diversity by providing opportunities to all artists and volunteers without regard to race, creed, or gender. To support economic diversity by making art available to people of all economic and sociological backgrounds. • Responsibility: To be a responsible member of the artistic, environmental, and economic community. 9) Audit information: Shady Shakespeare Theatre Company is too small to have its financial data professionally audited. Our entire budget for the 2010 fiscal year is only $85,000.00. As stated above, we have provided a Profit and Loss Statement from 2009, generated by Quicken, for your perusal. 10) Sources of funds anticipated for this project: Shady Shakespeare’s fiscal year budget for 2009 is $85,000.00. Since we do not charge our patrons for tickets, we must seek other sources of funding. SSTC holds many fundraising events throughout the year, including a Poker Tournament, direct mail campaign, and Benefit Gala. We sell merchandise and concessions at each performance and the actors pass the hat at performances. Giving by theatergoers is approximately $3.00 per capita. SSTC is funded in part by Arts Council Valley, Target Stores, Applied Materials, and the Kvamme Foundation. In 2010 we are also requesting support several foundations and corporations as detailed in the Leveraging portion of this application. None of these grantors provide multiyear support, so we are never sure from year to year if we will receive funding. Since our performances are free-to-the-public, we rely entirely on the generosity of the business and philanthropic community to keep Shakespeare alive in the Silicon Valley. 11) Budget: Please see attached worksheet. 12) Performance Measurements: Please see attached worksheet. 13) Outreach: SSTC markets its productions to Saratoga residents and to the entire Silicon Valley in a variety of media. • SSTC website at http://www.shadyshakes.org, • Local event websites such as with Artsopolis, Gold Star, Eventbee, and online calendars with the Mercury News, Metro, and Wave Magazines. • Monthly e-mail newsletters using Constant Contact as our e-provider • Print advertisements in Community Newspapers • Postcard mailing to people who have attended previous productions. We also participate in the Bay area Big List with other theatre companies as well to reach new audiences of proven art buyers. • Flyers are distributed by company members, volunteers and various organizations that support the arts. 81 FY 2010-2011 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY GRANT & CDBG STANDARD APPLICATION • Every attempt is made to engage the broadcast and print media where possible through press releases. Although SSTC saw a spike in new audiences as a result of the grant we received for audience development in 2009, there is no way to provide an accurate account of how many were Saratoga residents. We can show an overall 10% growth of our mailing list from 2008 to 2009. 14) Leveraging: • In 2009, only 24% of SSTC’ income was from grants totaling $19,557.00. We received $2,457.00 from the Arts Council Silicon Valley, $5,000.00 from Adobe, $2,600.00 from the Saratoga Rotary Club, $2,000.00 from Target Stores, and $5,000.00 from Applied Materials, in addition to the $2,500 received from the City of Saratoga. • In 2010 we are requesting a total of $20,500.00 from 6 organizations (including this grant request), which is approximately 24% of our budget. We do not anticipate being 100% successful in our grant writing, so we have only budgeted to actually receive $15,500.00. o We will be applying to the Arts Council Silicon Valley on March 1st and expect to receive around $2,500.00 in June. o Each March we request $2,000.00 from Target Stores and that funding arrives in October if it is approved. o We have submitted a request to the Kvamme Foundation for $5,000.00, which has no set deadline for giving. o We have recently submitted to the Bank of America Foundation for $5,000.00 and will know the results in 45 days. o We will be soliciting the Mercury News for a cash Grant in the amount of $2,500.00 in March for receipt in August. • It is important to understand that the arts are funded differently that health and human services. Funding is scarce and highly competitive. Shady Shakespeare designs its budget to be flexible in the event that we are not funded by a particular foundation. SSTC carries no debt of any kind. 15) Cost / Benefit Analysis: • Total Program Cost: $85,000.00 • Total Attendees to Free Shakespeare in Sanborn Park: 4200 total, 3500 Unduplicated estimated. • Total Cost Per Client: Approximately $20.00 per capita • Total Amount of Funding Requested: $3,500.00 • Percentage of Total Cost Requested for Funding: 4% 16) Target Beneficiaries: • Total Estimated Saratoga Residents Served: 350 • Total Estimated Percentage of our Audience that are Saratoga Residents: 10% 82 BUDGET AGENCY NAME: Shady Shakespeare Theatre Company Date Prepared: 2/12/10 PROGRAM NAME: Free Shakespeare in Sanborn Park SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES BUDGET AMOUNT Can be broken down quarterly or annually (please specify) Annually Artist Stipends -$19,500.00 Production Expenses - scenery, costumes, lighting, props, sound, etc. -$14,500.00 Marketing and Publicity -$8,000.00 Rent -$12,000.00 Insurance -$4,600.00 Administrative -$4,100.00 Fundraising -$10,000.00 Special Programs (not related to Free Shakespeare in the Park) -$12,300.00 TOTAL EXPENSES -85,000.00 Grants and Sponsorships +15,500.00 Individual Giving and Corporate Matching +17,500.00 Special Event Fundraising – Gala, Poker Tournament, ArtsWalk +12,000.00 Earned Income – Concession Sales, Merchandising, Advertising Sales, Passing the Hat, +40,000.00 TOTAL INCOME +85,000.00 83 PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS AGENCY NAME: Shady Shakespeare Theatre Company Date Prepared: 2/12/10 PROGRAM NAME: Free Shakespeare in Sanborn Park PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT WORKSHEET GOAL: SSTC’s goal for this request is to enhance the quality of life in Saratoga by providing low cost access to the performing arts to its residents and residents of the Silicon Valley. OBJECTIVE (1): Our objective is to provide 22 performance of two of Shakespeare’s plays free to the public in Sanborn Park from July 30th – September 5th, 2010. One of our primary strategic goals is to make Saratoga residents aware of our free program and engage them as audience members and elevate them to donor/investors or volunteers in the organization. OUTCOME (1): Increase overall attendance at our performances in 2010. We are hoping to double the Saratoga and Monte Sereno segment of our audience to approximately 600 or 20%. Increase community investment by Saratoga residents by informing them of volunteer and donor-investor opportunities. Better community involvement should lead to a stronger organization with better fundraising power to support its programs OBJECTIVE (2): OUTCOME (2): 84 FY 2010-2011 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY GRANT & CDBG STANDARD APPLICATION DATE: February 11, 2010____ Please refer to the Application Instructions Sheet for details on the following questions. Please limit your answers to one paragraph per question 1) Applicant Organization/Agency Name: Wildlife Center of Silicon Valley Agency Address: 3027 Penitencia Creek Road, San Jose, CA 95132 Executive Director: Larry L. Stites, Interim Executive Director Phone: 408-929-9453 Fax: 408-928-5853 E-Mail: info@wcsv.org Agency is a Faith Based Organization: ____ Yes _X No 2) Program Title: Wildlife rehabilitation and release and wildlife education and outreach Program Address: 3027 Penitencia Creek Road, San Jose, CA 95132 Contact Person/Title: Larry L. Stites, Interim Executive Director Phone: 408-929-9453 Fax: 408-928-5853 E-Mail: info@wcsv.org 3) City of Saratoga grant funds requested this year (FY10/11): $4,212.00 4) City of Saratoga grant funds requested in the past: The Wildlife Center of Silicon Valley requested grant funds of $4,000 for each of FY2005/2006 and FY2006/2007 and $4,212 for each of the fiscal years from FY2007/2008 through FY2009/2010. City of Saratoga grant funds received in the past: The Wildlife Center of Silicon Valley (WCSV) received grant funds of $4,000 for each of FY2005/2006 and FY2006/2007 and $4,212 for each of the fiscal years from FY2007/2008 through FY2009/2010. WCSV also received $2,000 for each of the fiscal years from FY2005/2006 through FY2009/2010 as part of the City of Saratoga’s contract with San Jose Animal Care and Services. 5) Program description and number of unduplicated clients served: The Wildlife Center of Silicon Valley (WCSV) provides high quality care and rehabilitation to some 4,000 injured, sick and orphaned local birds and mammals annually representing more than 100 species. The WCSV is the only wildlife rehabilitation facility available to many of the animals in Silicon Valley, and it is one of the most efficient and cost effective wildlife rehabilitation facilities in the entire Bay Area. The primary goal of our care and rehabilitation efforts is to release as many animals as possible back into the wild. In addition, we respond to a wide range of questions about wildlife and through education programs, foster a positive coexistence between the general public and wildlife and encourage an interest in and concern for wildlife conservation issues. The WCSV provides its services to any resident of the City of Saratoga at no charge. We’re not able to estimate the number of Saratoga residents who will be requesting our services since we only respond to requests. Historically, Saratoga residents have brought 85 FY 2010-2011 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY GRANT & CDBG STANDARD APPLICATION us around 100 animals per year, and we’ve responded to some 175 to 200 telephone and e-mail inquiries. 6) Program purpose and objectives: The Wildlife Center of Silicon Valley (WCSV) provides high quality care and rehabilitation to some 4,000 injured, sick and orphaned local birds and mammals annually representing more than 100 species. The primary goal of our care and rehabilitation efforts is to release as many animals as possible back into the wild thereby mitigating to some extent some of the adverse environmental impacts of urbanization. In addition, we respond to a wide range of questions about wildlife and through education programs, foster a positive coexistence between the general public and wildlife and encourage an interest in and concern for wildlife conservation issues. 7) Program management: The Wildlife Center of Silicon Valley (WCSV) currently has three full-time employees. Two of the employees manage the wildlife rehabilitation program and the third employee is responsible for volunteer recruitment, education and coordination; education and outreach; animal intake and responses to public inquiries. An additional animal care staff person will be employed from March through August 2010 when WCSV will be operating 12 hours per day, seven days a week. The WCSV has some 175 volunteers participating in its wildlife rehabilitation and education/outreach programs during its peak and a few other volunteers assisting with administration and maintenance. Animal care volunteers generally commit to one four-hour shift per week and volunteers contribute a total of almost 30,000 hours per year. The Interim Executive Director, a full-time volunteer, along with the Board of Directors are responsible for the overall management of the WCSV. 8) Agency description and experience: Since 1993, the Wildlife Center of Silicon Valley (WCSV) has been providing high quality care and rehabilitation to injured, sick and orphaned wildlife in Silicon Valley. The WCSV is the only wildlife rehabilitation facility available to many of the animals in Silicon Valley, and it is one of the most efficient and cost effective in the entire Bay Area. The primary goal of our care and rehabilitation efforts is to release as many animals as possible back into the wild. In addition, we respond to a wide range of questions about wildlife and through education programs, foster a positive coexistence between the general public and wildlife and encourage an interest in and concern for wildlife conservation issues. This service has been provided to the residents of the City of Saratoga since 1999. The WCSV mission statement is: “To provide high quality care and rehabilitation of injured, sick and orphaned wildlife within the Silicon Valley community. Through educational programs, we foster a positive coexistence between the general public and wildlife and encourage an interest in and concern for wildlife conservation issues.” 86 FY 2010-2011 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY GRANT & CDBG STANDARD APPLICATION The 2008 Federal Form 990-EZ (the most recent available) is included as part of this application along with the preliminary internal calendar year 2009 Financial Statements. 9) Audit information: The Wildlife Center of Silicon Valley does not have an annual financial audit. 10) Sources of funds anticipated for this project: The Wildlife Center of Silicon Valley (WCSV) receives the majority of its operating funds from private donations. It also receives service fees from nine cities whose residents avail themselves of WCSV’s services. A third source of operating funds is from investments and occasional grants. Capital funding is usually received from restricted grants. SOURCE AMOUNT STATUS Private donations $137,400 Uncommitted Service fees $121,711 Uncommitted/pending approval Grants $ 3,000 Uncommitted Investment income $ 2,115 Uncommitted TOTAL $264,226 11) Budget: Please use the attached worksheet. 12) Performance Measurements: Please use the attached worksheet. 13) Outreach: The Wildlife Center of Silicon Valley (WCSV) advises area residents and the general public of its services primarily through newspaper articles and other media. Often the information relates to the care of animals it receives. People who bring animals to the WCSV for care and/or who make contributions receive a newsletter about the activities of the organization twice a year. We also respond to a wide range of questions about wildlife and through education presentations to school, neighborhood and community groups, foster a positive coexistence between the general public and wildlife and encourage an interest in and concern for wildlife conservation issues. Whenever possible, we include one of our two education animals in our wildlife presentations. 14) Leveraging: The following schedule shows the actual Sources of Funding received for each of the last five calendar years (2005 through 2009) and the projected Sources of Funding for the current calendar year, 2010. The percentage of total expenses represented by each source of funding is also shown. 87 FY 2010-2011 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY GRANT & CDBG STANDARD APPLICATION WILDLIFE CENTER OF SILICON VALLEY SOURCES OF FUNDING BY YEAR FOR THE YEARS 2005 THROUGH 2009 CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 CY2009 CY2010 (Projected) SOURCES OF FUNDING Service Fees (Note A) Saratoga 6,000 6,000 6,212 6,212 6,212 6,212 Other cities (8) 93,783 108,549 128,907 122,341 101,605 115,499 Total-Service Fees 99,783 114,549 135,119 128,553 107,817 121,711 Individual Donations 202,772 159,897 173,868 138,662 140,623 137,400 Estates and Bequests 0 24,567 76,056 104,865 3,327 0 Grants 5,730 2,450 2,750 500 500 3,000 Investment and Other Income 1,504 4,172 8,256 10,420 11,097 2,115 Total Income 309,789 305,635 396,049 383,000 263,363 264,227 FUNDING AS % OF TOTAL EXPENSES Service Fees (Note A) Saratoga 2.5% 2.3% 2.7% 3.0% 2.5% 2.2% Other cities (8) 39.2% 41.9% 55.2% 59.8% 41.7% 41.4% Total-Service Fees 41.7% 44.2% 57.9% 62.9% 44.2% 43.6% Individual Donations 84.8% 61.7% 74.5% 67.8% 57.7% 49.2% Estates and Bequests 0.0% 9.5% 32.6% 51.3% 1.4% 0.0% Grants 2.4% 0.9% 1.2% 0.2% 0.2% 1.1% Investment and Other Income 0.6% 1.6% 3.5% 5.1% 4.6% 0.8% NOTE A--Almost all of the variation in the service fees between years is due to the timing of some payments, particularly payments received on a monthly or quarterly basis. Services fees by fiscal year are shown below. FY2005/2006 FY2006/2007 FY2007/2008 FY2008/2009 FY2009/2010 FY2010/2011 SERVICE FEES ON A FISCAL YEAR BASIS (Projected) Saratoga 6,000 6,000 6,212 6,212 6,212 6,212 Other cities (8) 114,476 118,215 118,555 118,850 107,469 107,469 88 FY 2010-2011 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY GRANT & CDBG STANDARD APPLICATION Total-Service Fees 120,476 124,215 124,767 125,062 113,681 113,681 15) Cost / Benefit Analysis: The following schedule shows the actual Cost per Animal for the animals received in each of the last five calendar years (2005 through 2009) and the projected cost for the current calendar year, 2010. It also shows the service fees received in each of the years 2005 through 2009 and requested for the year 2010 from the City of Saratoga and the percentage those fees represent of total expenses. The percentages of total services received by the residents of Saratoga both for animal care and wildlife telephone inquiries are also reported. 16) Target Beneficiaries: The following schedule shows the number of residents who received direct services from the Wildlife Center of Silicon Valley (WCSV) for each of the years 2005 through 2009. In addition, during 2009, the WCSV held two education presentations in the City of Saratoga, which were attended by a total of 65 residents (representing approximately 3.6% of the education/outreach program). WILDLIFE CENTER OF SILICON VALLEY COST PER ANIMAL AND SUMMARY OF SERVICES RECEIVED BY SARATOGA RESIDENTS BY YEAR FOR THE YEARS 2005 THROUGH 2010 CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 CY2009 CY2010 (Projected) Total Expenses 239,096 258,964 233,347 204,527 243,708 279,216 Total Animals Received 4,833 3,862 4,083 4,388 4,136 4,200 Cost per Animal Received 49.47 67.05 57.15 46.61 58.92 66.48 Service Fees Received/Requested from Saratoga 6,000 6,000 6,212 6,212 6,212 6,212 Saratoga Service Fees as % of Total Expenses 2.5% 2.3% 2.7% 3.0% 2.5% 2.2% Services Received by Saratoga Animals as % of Total Animals Received 2.4% 1.7% 1.5% 2.1% 2.4% 2.2% Telephone Inquiries as % of Total Telephone Inquiries not available 2.6% 3.8% 3.4% 3.6% 3.5% 89 FY 2010-2011 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY GRANT & CDBG STANDARD APPLICATION WILDLIFE CENTER OF SILICON VALLEY SARATOGA RESIDENTS SERVED BY YEAR FOR THE YEARS 2005 THROUGH 2009 CY2005 CY2006 CY2007 CY2008 CY2009 Animals Received from Saratoga Residents 117 65 61 94 98 Wildlife Inquiries from Saratoga Residents 93 211 177 184 Following is a listing of the animals received from the residents of Saratoga for the year 2009. Category Species Total Birds American Crow 9 American Goldfinch 1 American Robin 1 Anna's Hummingbird 4 Bewick's Wren 5 Black-headed Grosbeak 1 Brandt's Cormorant 1 Brewer's Blackbird 1 Brown Thrasher 1 Brown-headed Cowbird 2 California Gull 2 California Quail 1 Cooper's Hawk 2 Dark-eyed Junco 2 Domestic Duck 1 European Starling 3 Herring Gull 1 House Finch 5 House Sparrow 1 House Wren 1 Mallard 2 Mourning Dove 6 Red-tailed Hawk 1 Rock Pigeon 1 Vaux's Swift 1 Birds Total 56 Mammals Black-tailed Deer 3 Brush Rabbit 5 California Ground Squirrel 1 Eastern Fox Squirrel 2 Eastern Gray Squirrel 19 90 FY 2010-2011 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY GRANT & CDBG STANDARD APPLICATION Raccoon 5 Roof Rat 1 Striped Skunk 2 Townsend's Mole 1 Virginia Opossum 1 Wood Rat 2 Mammals Total 42 Grand Total 98 91 BUDGET AGENCY NAME: Wildlife Center of Silicon Valley____ Date Prepared: February 11, 2010__ PROGRAM NAME: Wildlife care and rehabilitation and wildlife education and outreach______ SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES BUDGET AMOUNT (CALENDAR YEAR 2010) Animal Care and Rehabilitation Personnel expenses $115,167 Food, medicine and supplies 43,000 Facilities maintenance and security 10,500 Other animal care and rehabilitation expenses 6,500 Education and Outreach (including newsletter) 8,400 Program Support Personnel expenses 54,249 Utilities 24,100 Other program support expenses 17,300 TOTAL PROGRAM EXPENSES $279,216 92 PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS AGENCY NAME: Wildlife Center of Silicon Valley____ Date Prepared: February 11, 2010 ___ PROGRAM NAME: Wildlife care and rehabilitation and wildlife education and outreach________ PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT WORKSHEET GOAL: To provide high quality care and rehabilitation to the injured, sick and orphaned wildlife that are brought to our facility. To conduct education and outreach programs that help area residents develop a better understanding of and respect for local wildlife and avoid and/or resolve potential wildlife/human conflicts. OBJECTIVE (1): To provide the most appropriate and effective care possible to the injured, sick and orphaned wildlife that are brought to our facility. OUTCOME (1): To release back into the environment as many as possible of the injured, sick and orphaned wildlife we receive for care. OBJECTIVE (2): To continue to develop the volunteer resources that will enable us to conduct as many education and outreach programs as possible. OUTCOME (2): To increase the number of wildlife education presentations and the number of local community events in which we participate commensurate with the number of volunteers we can train to lead these events, thereby reaching a greater number of residents. 93 FY 2010-2011 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY GRANT & CDBG STANDARD APPLICATION DATE: January 25, 2010 Please refer to the Application Instructions Sheet for details on the following questions. Please limit your answers to one paragraph per question 1) Applicant Organization/Agency Name: Catholic Charities of Santa Clara County Agency Address: 2625 Zanker Road, Suite 200, San Jose, CA 95134-2107 Executive Director: Gregory Kepferle Phone: (408) 325-5114 Fax: (408) 944-0275 E-Mail: gkepferle@catholiccharitiesscc.org Agency is a Faith Based Organization: __√__ Yes ____ No 2) Program Title: Long Term Care Ombudsman Program Program Address: 2625 Zanker Road, Suite 200, San Jose, CA 95134-2107 Contact Person/Title: Wanda Hale, Program Manager Phone: (408) 325-5269 Fax: (408) 944-0776 E-Mail: whale@catholiccharitiesscc.org 3) City of Saratoga grant funds requested in the past: $5,000 for Fiscal Year 09-10 4) City of Saratoga grant funds received in the past: $5,000 for Fiscal Year 09-10 General Fund 5) Program description and number of unduplicated clients served: The LTC Ombudsman Program and its services are distinctive in purpose and scope and unduplicated in Santa Clara County. The Program specifically serves residents in long term care facilities with unimpeded legal and confidential access to these residents 7 days a week. Ombudsmen partner with residents, their families, long term care facilities, community organizations and other interested parties to improve the quality of life for long term care residents. Living in a long term care facility is often not the first choice for anyone but for residents who have to live in a facility it is important that they know their rights. Each resident has the right to shape their own long term care experience. Often, long term care residents lack the ability to exercise their rights, or voice complaints about their circumstances. 288 The Program will accomplish our goals for fiscal year 10-11, by conducting a minimum of 44 unannounced site visits to licensed Saratoga long term care facilities during which we will make contact with a minimum of 288 unduplicated residents. LTC Ombudsmen will observe the environment and monitor conditions in long term care facilities and work to improve the delivery of long term care services. Issues regarding residents’ rights, unmet needs will be handled and resolved effectively while maintaining resident and complainant confidentiality 6) Program purpose and objectives: ___________________________________________ The Long Term Care Ombudsman Program was developed in response to widely reported concerns that our most frail and vulnerable citizens, those living in long term care facilities, were subject to abuse, neglect, and substandard care. The majority of residents are in long term care facilities because they have physical and/or mental illnesses and chronic conditions. The goal of Ombudsman unannounced regular visits is the improvement of the quality of care and life in the 94 FY 2010-2011 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY GRANT & CDBG STANDARD APPLICATION long term care facility. Residents must rely on the staff to help them meet their physical needs. Quality of care needs are services and activities to attain or maintain the highest practicable physical, mental, and psychosocial well-being of each resident. Quality of life requires a facility to care for its residents in such a manner and in an environment that will promote maintenance or enhancement of the life of each resident. An Ombudsman sees that these “quality of care” and life needs are being met. The LTC Ombudsman Program and its services are distinctive in purpose and scope and unduplicated in Santa Clara County. Ombudsmen protect and help improve the quality of life and care for the frailest of our senior and disabled population. The Long Term Care Ombudsman Program has a unique role. The Program specifically serves residents in long term care facilities with unimpeded legal and confidential access to these residents 7 days a week. As independent advocates, the Long Term Care Ombudsman Program is the only certified, unrestricted organization that can go into long term care facilities on a resident’s behalf. The resident is at the center of the provision of long-term care services as a consumer. The Ombudsman Program reinforces the centrality of the resident. The care setting in which the vulnerable and dependent resident is placed has its own priorities and constraints. The balance of power is tilted towards the provider, and one of the functions of the Long-term care Ombudsman is to correct this tendency. The effect of cumulative visitation, at unannounced times throughout a year, raises the level of staff accountability to care for all of the residents. Ultimately the goal of such visits is the improvement of the quality of care and life in that facility. Ombudsmen have a combination of functions including visitation, complaint and crisis response and advocacy. Ombudsmen, reach out to residents who may be unable to speak for themselves, and are surrounded by real and illusionary barriers between themselves and the community. State-certified Ombudsmen provide a personalized approach to service delivery. One of the results of repeated visiting is the building of trust with residents so they will be willing to confide in the Ombudsman. Regular contact with residents makes residents more likely to express concerns that might not otherwise surface. These visits must be done with confidence, focus, and all senses engaged in order to detect issues that may affect the quality of care and the quality of life of the residents. During grant year 10-11, the Program will accomplish our goals by conducting a minimum of 44 unannounced site visits to licensed Saratoga long term care facilities during which we will make contact with a minimum of 288 unduplicated residents. Through response to all consumer telephone inquiries and 1 Community Education presentation, the Ombudsman Program will partner with residents, their families, long term care facilities, community organization and other interested parties to provide information and referral on issues and concerns impacting long term care residents. 7) Program management: ___________________________________________________ As advocates, LTC Ombudsmen are accountable to the residents served. An advocacy perspective starts with the resident and attempts to examine services through the eyes of the resident. As advocates, Ombudsmen are accountable to the residents served. The effectiveness of the Ombudsman system should be measured by its responsiveness to residents needs. 95 FY 2010-2011 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY GRANT & CDBG STANDARD APPLICATION The Program records are analyzed to measure the strength of our presence at facilities and availability to residents and other concerned parties. The effectiveness of an Ombudsman is largely dependent on his or her ability to make regular visits to their assigned facilities. On a monthly basis Ombudsmen are required to submit a Monthly Activity Summary Report documenting number of facility visits, number of unduplicated resident contacts, and hours. Ideally, the Ombudsman approaches a complaint from the resident’s perspective, with the resident’s satisfaction the foremost goal in resolving the complaint. Ombudsmen submit Case/Complaint Investigation Forms for each complaint opened, investigated, and the disposition/resolution identified. This documentation is reviewed and analyzed in relationship to measurable objectives. The Program Manager will review objectives and activity plan on a quarterly basis in order to assign Ombudsmen and resources to maximize the potential of the Program to individual residents. The Program is monitored by 12 other cities, the Council on Aging (Area Agency of Aging), Catholic Charities and the Office of the State Long Term Care Ombudsman. These measurement tools will determine how well we are meeting our goals and whether we are effective in our advocacy. Catholic Charities of Santa Clara has administered the Long Term Care Ombudsman Program in Santa Clara County since 1981. At the present time, the experience of the Ombudsman assigned to this Saratoga activity ranges from 14 to 2 years. Staff have backgrounds in Health Science, Healthcare Administration, Marriage and Family Therapy, Social Welfare and Public Health. The Program Manager oversees daily operations, including the monitoring of facility coverage and complaint investigation by certified Ombudsmen. Field Ombudsmen (staff and volunteer) receive, identify, investigate, and seek resolution of complaints made by or on behalf of residents in long term care facilities. This Ombudsman’s focus is advocacy for the institutionalized. The Program Assistant’s primary purpose is to provide comprehensive administrative support services to Ombudsmen, and to conduct detailed telephone intake of complaints and reports of elder/dependent adult abuse. The Volunteer Coordinator recruits, trains, and administers the volunteer component of the Program. Currently there are 31 Certified Ombudsman volunteers. Volunteers are a central part of the Long Term Care Ombudsman Program as a corps of specially trained and certified citizen volunteers. Many volunteers are retired professionals from various fields. Ombudsman volunteers are special. They are asked to make a significant commitment to the Program, not only in terms of training, on going in-services but through weekly contact with residents, travel and reporting requirements. Dedicated Ombudsmen volunteers spend an average of four to six hours a week in each of their assigned facilities advocating for residents. During fiscal year 08- 09, Santa Clara County certified Ombudsman volunteers donated more than 4,800 hours to the Program. The heart of the LTCOP is the visible volunteer representative working out in the community. To become a certified LTC Ombudsman requires: successful completion of 36-hour classroom training program, plus a minimum of 10 hours of field internship supervised by an experienced certified Ombudsman, and passing a California Department of Justice and Federal Bureau of Investigation criminal background clearance. 96 FY 2010-2011 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY GRANT & CDBG STANDARD APPLICATION The Program is a professional program with volunteers at the core. The Program recruits Ombudsman volunteers to make site visits to long term care facilities, interview residents, receive, identify, investigate and resolve complaints, and witness Advance Health Care Directives. To maintain certification, Ombudsmen annually complete 12 hours of continuing education provided by the local program and compliance with State and local program protocols. Ombudsmen are supported by a network of fellow Ombudsmen, Program Manager, Volunteer Coordinator and the CA State Office of the Long Term Care Ombudsman (OSLTCO). The adoption of the volunteer service model stems primarily from the belief that a community presence in a long term care facility has a direct, positive correlation with the quality of life in an institutional setting. Each year, the Program conducts a minimum of 2 recruitment campaigns to increase our volunteer base and to combat natural attrition rates. Current Ombudsman volunteers have backgrounds as physicians, nurses, educators, real estate managers, accountants, clergy, and social services. The Long Term Care Ombudsman Program is an extremely professional and highly cost effective with volunteers being the core of the program. The In-Kind value for trained and certified Long Term Care Ombudsman volunteer services in 2008/2009 was over $87,000. One volunteer is a Saratoga resident. Two volunteers are currently assigned to Saratoga facilities. The two volunteers assigned to Saratoga facilities are retired individuals with professional backgrounds as a physician and licensed marriage and family therapist. 8) Agency description and experience: ________________________________________ Catholic Charities serves and advocates for families and individuals in need, especially those living in poverty. Rooted in gospel values, we work to create a more just and compassionate community in which people of all cultures and beliefs can participate. Catholic Charities clientele include frail elderly, youth-at-risk, single parent and kinship care families, individuals with disabilities and mental illness, and those newly settled in this county. Catholic Charities has been serving Santa Clara County for more than 50 years. Catholic Charities offers a wide variety of Programs to help families and individuals. The Long Term Care Ombudsman Program, within the Older Adult Services division, serves individuals who due to frailty or chronic illness, and the need for twenty four hour care and supervision, are unable to live or be cared for in their own homes and reside in licensed long term care facilities. Federal and State laws mandate that Ombudsmen are available to elderly residents of long-term care facilities in order to ensure care provided meets minimum standards required. The Long Term Care Ombudsman Program at Catholic Charities holds the contract to deliver these services in Santa Clara County. Catholic Charities of Santa Clara County has administered the LTC Ombudsman Program in Santa Clara County since 1981. At the present time, the experience of the LTC Ombudsmen assigned to this activity range from 15 to 2 years. The program is established, staffed and ready to provide services on July 1, 2010. 97 FY 2010-2011 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY GRANT & CDBG STANDARD APPLICATION 9) Audit information: _______________________________________________________ The agency audit for Fiscal Year 08-09 was completed on September 30, 2009 by Berger/Lewis Accountancy Corporation, 99 Almaden Blvd., Suite 600, San Jose, CA 95113. The audit and annual report are available as a download on Catholic Charities website, Catholiccharitiesscc.org Agency audit and management letter will be submitted as separate attached file with application. 10) Sources of funds anticipated for this project: _________________________________ For fiscal year 2010-2011, the Program is submitting funding requests to six (6) other cities. Renewal application will be submitted to the Council on Aging Silicon Valley for federal Older Americans Act funds. The Program anticipates renewal of a multiple year contracts with seven (7) other cities/town. The Program anticipates renewal of Governor’s imitative to provide state funding for volunteer recruitment and retention. The Program continues to explore and apply for other private foundation grants that fund programs serving seniors and/or the disabled in long term care facilities. Source of Income Amount City of Saratoga 5,000 12 Other Cities/Towns 106,787 Federal / Old Americans Act 96,533 Governor’s Initiative /State 64,911 Catholic Charities Community Contribution 20,080 Total 293,311 11) Budget: Please use the attached worksheet. Completed 12) Performance Measurements: Please use the attached worksheet. Completed 13) Outreach: ______________________________________________________________ All our clients are residents in licensed long term care facilities. The Program sees clients at their place of residence, i.c. Saratoga’s licensed long term care facilities. Regular visitation and outreach enables clients to be aware of our services. Federal law requires each long term care facility to display information on how to contact the LTC Ombudsmen. Each facility is legally required to place a state approved poster with the LTC Ombudsman Program’s local telephone number and the 24 hour 800 CRISISline number in a conspicuous location, visible to all residents, family members and visitors. Posters are bilingual in English and Spanish. In the Nursing Facilities the law requires 4 such posters in specific locations. In Residential Care Facilities for the Elderly/Assisted Living (RCFEs) the requirement is for only one poster. Our Program brochure is available in English and Spanish. Ombudsmen 98 FY 2010-2011 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY GRANT & CDBG STANDARD APPLICATION are available to make diverse educational presentations to community groups, to resident and family councils, and to conduct in-service training for the staff of facilities. The LTC Ombudsman Program is listed with community agencies that provide information and referral such as 211 of Santa Clara County (County-Wide information system) , Council on Aging Senior Services Directory, Peninsula Stroke Association Resource Guide and the Catholic Charities Program Brochures. All these sources also have web listings for the LTC Ombudsman Program. LTC Ombudsmen are available to make education presentations to community groups, to resident councils and family councils, and to conduct in-services for the staff of facilities. Ombudsman staff members are active in community organizations and network with other senior service providers to increase awareness of the Program. LTC Ombudsmen staff are members of Santa Clara County Elder Death Review Committee, Santa Clara County Elder Abuse Task Force, Gerontology Social Work Team, Senior Care Commission and California Long Term Care Ombudsman Association. The program has Memorandums of Understanding (MOUs) with Senior Adult Legal Assistance (SALA), Retired and Senior Volunteer Program, CA Department of Public Health, Licensing and Certification, and CA Department of Social Services Community Care Licensing. The program’s systemic advocacy is coordinated with other broad based coalitions. These relationships have been ongoing and the MOUs facilitate comprehensive service to our vulnerable clients. Ombudsman volunteer opportunities are listed on a number of websites. Active listings for Ombudsman volunteer position can be found on Volunteer Match, United Way volunteer listings, Disney Parks “Give a Day Get a Day” promotion and the Catholic Charities website. 14) Leveraging: _____________________________________________________________ Source Estimated Dollar Amount Status Term City of Campbell 5,800 Pending RFP 10-11 City of Cupertino 3,200 Pending RFP 10-12 City of Gilroy 5,000 Year 2 of 2 year contract 09-11 City of Los Altos 3,744 Year 2 of 2 year contract 09-11 Town of Los Gatos 7,370 Year 2 of 2 year contract 09-11 City of Milpitas 5,000 Pending RFP 10-11 City of Morgan Hill 4,500 Pending RFP 10-11 City of Mt. View 8,000 Year 2 of 2 year contract 09-11 City of Palo Alto 5,000 Year 2 of 2 year contract 09-11 City of San Jose 41,000 Pending RFP 10-12 City of Santa Clara 8,400 Year 2 of 2 year contract 10-11 City of Saratoga 5,000 Pending RFP 10-11 City of Sunnyvale 9,775 Year 2 of 2 year contract 09-11 Federal OAA 96,533 Projected 09-11 Gov. Initiative 64,911 Projected 09-11 Catholic Charities Community Contribution 20,080 Projected 09-11 Total:293,313 99 FY 2010-2011 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY GRANT & CDBG STANDARD APPLICATION 15) Cost / Benefit Analysis: ___________________________________________________ Total Program Costs Total Clients Served Cost Per Client Saratoga Funding Requested Saratoga %o f Total Costs 293,313 10,293 28.50 5,000 <2% Saratoga cost per client is $17.36 16) Target Beneficiaries: _____________________________________________________ The target population of the program is the “Frail elderly” a High Priority group who are generally low-income seniors and/or disabled individuals who are considered a special needs group. All our clients are residents in licensed long term care facilities. Saratoga Residents to be served % of Total Clients to be served Saratoga Low Income Clients (0-80%) of County Median Income % of Saratoga Clients 288 <3% 164 57% 100 BUDGET AGENCY NAME: Catholic Charities of Santa Clara County Date Prepared: January 22, 2010 PROGRAM NAME: Long Term Care Ombudsman Program Proposed Project Operating Expenses Annual Total Project Cost 2010-11 Personnel Services 174,848 Fringe Benefits 43,718 Indirect Admin Staff Cost 29,067 Office Supplies 2,390 Communication / IT Support 7,547 Printing & Advertising 4,200 Travel 4,800 Occupancy & Utilities 19,474 Postage 1,270 Insurance 1,903 Organization Dues 425 Audit (CDBG Portion only) 1,086 Other (specify) Volunteer training costs 2,585 Total Operating Expenses $293,313 101 PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS AGENCY NAME: Catholic Charities of Santa Clara County Date Prepared: January 22, 2010 PROGRAM NAME: Long Term Care Ombudsman Program PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT WORKSHEET GOAL: The mission of the Long Term Care Ombudsman Program is to seek resolution of problems and advocate for the rights of residents in long term care facilities with the goal of enhancing the quality of life and care for residents in these facilities. The Ombudsman Program promotes the interest, well being and rights of Saratoga’s long term care facility residents. Ombudsmen help residents and their families and friends understand and exercise the rights they are guaranteed by law, both at the federal and state level. OBJECTIVE (1): Ombudsman Presence Ombudsman visitation will promote the interest, well being and rights of Saratoga long term care facility residents. Ombudsman will observe the environment and monitor conditions in long term care facilities and work to improve the delivery of long term care services. OUTCOME (1): The Program will demonstrate and maintain an ongoing visibility through trained, certified Ombudsmen. Regular contact through 44 unannounced site visits and contact with 288 Saratoga unduplicated residents will build trust, visibility and clarity of purpose, making residents more likely to express concerns that might not otherwise surface OBJECTIVE (2): Outreach and Education Ombudsmen are available to make diverse education presentations to community groups, to resident councils and family councils, and to conduct in-services for the staff of long term care facilities. Frequently requested topics include residents’ rights, dignity and respect, elder abuse, Advance Health Care Directive and LTC Ombudsman Program services. OUTCOME (2): The Program is a resource for residents, family members and the community on issues and concerns impacting long term care residents, long term care trends/innovations and/or connected with aging. 102 FY 2010-2011 CITY OF SARATOGA CDBG SUPPLEMENTAL Name of Applicant Organization: Catholic Charities of Santa Clara County Name of Program: Long Term Care Ombudsman Program Please complete the following questions in addition to the Standard Application to determine additional requirements for CDBG eligibility: 1. Please complete the following tables with the number of recipients for each category: See question 2 on next page. 1 The Urban County includes the unincorporated portions of the County of Santa Clara and the cities of Campbell, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, and Saratoga. 2 Based on the attached FY 2008 HUD Income Limits for Santa Clara County 3 The 2005-2010 Urban County Consolidated Plan is available online at http://www.saratoga.ca.us/ by clicking on the CDBG grant link under In The Spotlight on the right hand side of the webpage Number of Unduplicated Beneficiaries City No. Campbell 301 Los Altos 468 Los Altos Hills 0 Los Gatos 957 Monte Sereno 0 Morgan Hill 285 Saratoga 388 Unincorporated Santa Clara County 33 Outside the Urban County 1 7,861 Total unduplicated beneficiaries 10,293 Number of Urban County unduplicated beneficiaries at or below current county-wide median income 2 Income Category No. 0-30% (Extremely low) 1,080 31-50% (Very Low) 96 51-80% (Low) 576 103 FY 2010-2011 CITY OF SARATOGA CDBG SUPPLEMENTAL 2. How does the purpose and objectives of the proposed program meet the Urban County’s CDBG funding objectives with regard to either the Urban County Priority Needs or the Urban County Non- Housing Community Development Needs as described in the Consolidated Plan 3 ? The target population of the Program is the “frail elderly” who are generally low- income seniors and/or disabled individuals who are considered a special needs group. Page 56 of the consolidated plan states “a significant segment of the senior population has one or more conditions that affect major life functions, their ability to care for themselves.” Our clients are all residents in Saratoga licensed long term care facilities who are often the frail, chronically ill, primarily elderly individuals with physical and/or mental impairments that prevent them from living independently referenced in the Consolidated Plan as the “frail elderly”. These individuals often face special challenges due to their physical and/or mental health issues. This segment of the population is no longer able to live independently or care for themselves. These residents may be unable to advocate for their own needs and rights due to their out of home placement. Elderly, Frail Elderly and Persons with Disabilities are all listed as “High Priority” on page 76 of the Consolidated Plan HUD table 1. California has a growing aging population. It is projected that as the population ages the demand for long term care will increase. According to the California HealthCare Foundation’s report California’s Fragile Nursing Home Industry 2005, “ the number of California residents age 65 and over is projected to nearly double by 2025 a larger growth rate than any other state or the United States overall (75 percent). Americans are living longer. In 2001, the life expectancy was 77.2 years, compared to 75.5 just ten years earlier. The number of California residents age 85 and older those who are most likely to need extended care at home or in nursing homes is likely to more than double by the year 2030, when the bulk of the baby boomers will come of advance age.” The consolidated plan also references that the senior population will grow as individuals live longer. The Program conducted surveys of 493 Saratoga long term care residents at the start of this fiscal year. The survey responses reveal that the average age of the long term care resident is increasing. Saratoga long term care residents (elderly, frail elderly and persons with disabilities) who can no longer live interpedently were reported as 98 individuals who are 70-79, 297 who are 80-89 and 87 who are 90+. Over 97% of the respondents are over 70. This is an increase over last year. Program services are consistent with the Consolidated Plan. The care setting/ housing environment in which the vulnerable and dependent resident is placed has its own priorities and constraints. The Ombudsman Program reinforces the centrality of the resident. The balance of power is tilted towards the provider, and one of the functions of the Long-term care Ombudsman is to correct this tendency. The Program will demonstrate and maintain an ongoing visibility to residents through regular visitation to Saratoga’s long term care facilities. The effect of cumulative visitation, at unannounced times throughout a year, raises the level of staff accountability to care for all of the residents. Ultimately the goal of such visits is the improvement of the quality of care and life in that facility Certified LTC Ombudsmen provide services with respect for human dignity and the individuality of the resident unrestricted by considerations of age, social or economic status, personal characteristic or lifestyle to residents of licensed long term care facilities. Ombudsman services are free and confidential. 104 FY 2010-2011 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY GRANT & CDBG STANDARD APPLICATION DATE: February 12, 2010__________________ Please refer to the Application Instructions Sheet for details on the following questions. Please limit your answers to one paragraph per question 1) Applicant Name: Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating Council (SASCC) Agency Address: P.O. Box 3033, 19655 Allendale Avenue, Saratoga, CA, 95070 Executive Director: Susan Huff________________ ________________________ Phone: 408-868-1255 Fax: 408-868-9546 E-Mail: shuff@sascc.org Agency is a Faith Based Organization: ____ Yes __X__ No 2) Program Title: Saratoga Adult Care Center (ACC) Program Address: 19655 Allendale Avenue, Saratoga, CA, 95070 Contact Person/Title: Susan Huff , Managing Director Phone: 408-868-1255 Fax: 408-868-9546 E-Mail: shuff@sascc.org 3) City of Saratoga grant funds requested this year (FY10/11): $37,000 4) City of Saratoga/CDBG funds requested in the past: $35,000 in 09/10; $34,000 in 08/09; $33,000 in 07/08; $37,284 in 06/07; $36,288 in 05/06; $36,288 in 04/05; 36,737 in 03/04; $35,667 in 02/03; $35,500 in 01/02 City of Saratoga/CDBG funds received in the past: $ 36,203 in 09/10; $32,000 in 08/09; $32,000 in 07/08; $33,000 in 06/07; $36,681 in 05/06; $36,288 in 04/05; $35,366 in 03/04; $35,667 in 02/03; $34,500 in 01/02 5) Program description and number of unduplicated clients served: Saratoga Adult Care Center is a Social Adult Day Program, which seeks to enhance the quality of life for area seniors via specific, ongoing supportive services, made available to lower-income participants. The program serves residents of Saratoga and the surrounding communities of Campbell, West San Jose and Santa Clara. Program participants require assistance to complete ADLs and IADLs (activities of daily living and instrumental activities of daily living) in addition to supervision and care management to promote safety, well-being, and longevity in their home environment. Participation in our program promotes expanded opportunity for individualized socialization, structured activities, physical activity and adaptive exercise, and care management and resources in regards to difficult behaviors, nutrition, and personal care. Individual care plans are created for each participant to optimize their benefits from participating in our program. In addition to these core services, we provide support, respite, and resources to families and caregivers. The program is open Monday through Friday from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. to meet the needs of caregivers who work outside the home or need respite for other reasons. Requests to help fund this program are made because it serves mostly very low to moderate-income seniors. Fees are determined by an individual’s ability to pay, (i.e. a sliding scale), requiring supplemental funds from outside sources. Adult Day Care 105 FY 2010-2011 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY GRANT & CDBG STANDARD APPLICATION Services are an ideal way to care for the needs of frail seniors, often eliminating the need for institutionalized care, which can substantially reduce the cost for families and the community as a whole. On an average year the Saratoga ACC will serve a minimum of 50 unduplicated clients. At the halfway mark of the current fiscal year (09-10), already 21 of those clients reside in Saratoga. 6) Program purpose and objectives: The purpose of the Saratoga Adult Care Center is to enhance the quality of life for Saratoga and surrounding area seniors via specific, ongoing supportive services, made available to lower-income participants. The overall goal is to prevent or delay the institutionalization of severely disabled adults & seniors, enable them to remain in their homes for as long as possible, improve the quality of life for the participants; and to improve the quality of life for caregivers via support and respite. These services incorporate the following objectives: (1) Provide daily respite care to up to 24 frail and less independent participants from the West Valley Area of Santa Clara County. (2) Prevent or delay institutionalization of individuals who require considerable personal assistance. (3) Provide socialization, instruction and structured activities such as exercise, crafts, skill development and nutritious meals daily for the less independent elderly in a licensed care facility. (4) Continue to facilitate caregiver support groups twice monthly in cooperation with the Alzheimer’s Association and provide similar support services to local churches and civic organizations of the West Valley area. (5) Provide respite and improve quality of life for caregivers and eliminate or delay the high emotional and financial cost of custodial care. (6) Continue utilizing volunteer services to help contain Center costs. (7) Maintain minimum enrollment of approximately 380 participants each month. (8) Increase funding base through local resources, participant fees and fund raising events in an effort to reduce dependence on City and county funding. Due to the low-income status of the population served and the service-intensive nature of the program, becoming self-supporting is not feasible at this time. As stated above, the overall goal is to prevent or delay the institutionalization of the frail elderly, enable them to remain in their homes for as long as possible and improve the quality of life for the participants and their caregivers. This has remained our goal throughout our programs history and previous Saratoga CBDG funds have helped us achieve and maintain that goal along with the high quality of service that we provide to our clients. Our utilization demonstrates and validates the need and demand for our unique services. Our accomplishments over the past year, reached with the help of Saratoga CBDG funds are: 106 FY 2010-2011 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY GRANT & CDBG STANDARD APPLICATION • Supported all of the Adult Care’s ongoing efforts mentioned above to support families and participants • Allowed for the continuous operation of all of our programs, including our exercise and music programs, during the summer months when they are not subsidized by West Valley College. • Helped us to avoid further draws from our investment account which suffered tremendous loss this past year. This will enable our funds to further grow to help sustain SASCC for the future. • Helped us to maintain our social worker and support groups to further assist families of Adult Care. • Prevented any reduction of staff or staff hours, so we could continue all of the programs and services for our clients. • Allowed us to host more social events for our members. 7) Program management: Both divisions, the Saratoga Adult Care Center and The Saratoga Senior Center are governed by the SASCC Board of Directors. Additionally, the Executive Director is responsible for and works closely with both division managers and staff. A Program Manager and Assistant Program Manager/Social Worker are responsible for the day-to-day operations of the Adult Care Center and report directly to the Executive Director. The Center employs two full-time and five part-time employees, (Program Manager, Program Assistants, Assistant Program Manager/Social Worker) providing services of approximately 8,000 hours per year. The Program Management team oversees activities; the intake, care-planning, and evaluation components, entertainment and projects. They are responsible for scheduling all activities, special events and classes for the participants. They direct the center, lead many of the activities and oversee the Administrative Assistant, Social Worker, and the Program Assistants who also run activities and assist participants with projects, meals, toileting and any other special needs that may arise. Along with the Executive Director and the Social Worker, the Program Manager evaluates the needs of new potential clients, develops care plans, maintains ongoing progress reports, and works with families. The program provides exercise routines, memory training and stimulation through travelogues, crafts, music, a variety of entertainment, current events, discussions and directed conversation. Special adaptive exercises and physical skill training are focused on participants who need help with any disabilities (e.g. stroke, aphasia, Parkinson’s). Healthy snacks are provided and full nutritious meals are served daily prepared by the Saratoga-Los Gatos Assistance League. Volunteers and instructors assigned by West Valley College augment the activities and help keep expenses at a minimum. All of the staff at the Saratoga Adult Care Center are highly trained, each with many years of experience working with frail elders. Twenty volunteers supplement the seven paid 107 FY 2010-2011 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY GRANT & CDBG STANDARD APPLICATION staff and provide between 575 to 700 hours of service annually. The Executive Director, Program Manager, and Social Worker also maintain strong public relations with local, county and state senior organizations and participate in required trainings. They are involved with public speaking engagements, organizational networking and other important community events. These efforts have resulted in a highly visible program where there is frequently a waiting list for prospective participants. 8) Agency description and experience: The Saratoga Adult Care Center (ACC) is a major program component of the Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating Council (SASCC) incorporated as a non-profit organization in 1979. SASCC also operates the Saratoga Senior Center for more active, independent older adults. Recognizing the needs of the aging population, supported by a community assessment, SASCC opened the Saratoga Adult Care Center in January of 1988 as the first facility in Santa Clara County designed and built specifically as an adult care center. It provides much needed respite for caregivers and promotes a higher quality of life for the participants at much less cost to both family members and public agencies. The Saratoga Adult Care Center has steadily increased in number of days open from two at the onset to five full days weekly by February 1994. During this time, the average number of families served monthly increased from 9 to 42 at any one time, with well over 350 visits by participants each month. This increased utilization validates the need and demand for the service. The center serves approximately 18-22 participants per day. This assures each participant ample one-on-one time with our assistants and volunteers. Participants come from the surrounding areas of the West Valley Corridor, including Saratoga, Los Gatos, Santa Clara, Campbell, San Jose, Mt. View, Sunnyvale and Cupertino. The Adult Care Center provides licensed, direct care and social adult daycare activities for severely disabled adults and less independent seniors as well as resources, support and referrals to their caregivers. • The daily program offers individualized and structured activities, adaptive exercise and movement taught by West Valley College instructors and a retired physical therapist, entertainment and education opportunities, basic health monitoring, assistance with daily tasks, and assistance with personal care and hygiene. The nutrition program includes a lunch meal and two snacks. Meals are prepared on-site with fresh, seasonal ingredients. We are able to provide low-sugar, low-fat, and portion-controlled meals as necessary. Providing a nutrition program supports health maintenance and a participant’s ability to “age in place”; providing one meal during the day can reduce the burden caregivers may feel in planning and preparing meals. • Individual care planning, family support and collaboration with healthcare professionals and/or social service professionals is provided for participants and family caregivers (“caretakers”). Additional services include family counseling through care plan meetings, community resource referrals, and a monthly caregiver meeting to discuss care strategies, 108 FY 2010-2011 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY GRANT & CDBG STANDARD APPLICATION provide a forum for discussion about care-giving issues, and support caregivers in being informed about care options. Collaboration with other community-based organizations and transportation services, through Outreach para-transit maximize the benefit to our clients, family caregivers, and community members. The SASCC Mission Statement is included in this document. 9) Audit information: The firm of LMGW, Certified Public Accountants, performs annual audits and reviews (every other year) at a cost to our organization. Please find attached a copy of our last Audited Financial Statements for the year ending June 30, 2009. 10) Sources of funds anticipated for this project: _________________________________ SOURCE ESTIMATE STATUS Saratoga CDBG Grant $37,000 Submitted and Pending Campbell CDBG Grant $ 5,000 Submitted January 29, 2010 San Jose CDBG Grant $25,000 First time submission Jan. 2010 Fees $165,000 Ongoing St. Andrews $ 4,200 Receiving monthly checks Donations, restricted $ 9,000 Ongoing Fundraising Events & Appeals $ 14,000 Ongoing Total: $258,400 11) Budget: Please use the attached worksheet. 12) Performance Measurements: Please use the attached worksheet. 13) Outreach: a) How SASCC informs Saratoga residents about its ACC program: To fulfill SASCC’s Community Outreach Initiative the agency informs Saratoga residents about its programs through several different outreach methods. Approximately 750 copies of the agency’s newsletter that details all of the activities and programs at SASCC is sent out 12 times (monthly) per year to each member household and an additional resource list of 100, including churches, other senior centers, the local Chamber of Commerce, retirement communities and assisted living centers, libraries, local businesses, and other nonprofits supporting seniors. The agency also promotes its activities, programs and events through articles in the City 109 FY 2010-2011 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY GRANT & CDBG STANDARD APPLICATION Newsletter, the Saratogan, the Community newspaper, Saratoga Village Community network, the Saratoga News and SASCC’s updated website at www.sascc.org. SASCC has also developed a brochure for the public that describes its programs and outlines its history, mission and volunteer opportunities. The brochure is given out in response to all new inquiries. The Executive Director and members of our Board of Directors and Advisory Committee also advocate and conduct outreach through networking to a broad range of community organizations including Asian-American groups, Indian-American groups, the Rotary Club, Kiwanis, Lions, Healthcare libraries, area recreation centers In addition, our Director is aligning with several peer organizations with the intention of collaborating for the benefit of seniors. She is also reaching out to local schools in hopes of establishing and growing inter-generational relationships. The target groups for outreach include: • Asian-American and Indian-American families which constitute approximately 30% of the population of Saratoga and have recently begun to participate in the Senior Center; • Other elders in Saratoga that are not SASCC members; • Seniors that have joined SASCC but seldom participate in activities • Family members of participants or potential participants. • Other senior oriented organizations • Schools • Our staff works closely with other like agencies for referrals which is mutually beneficial. Another important method of outreach is the many health screenings, free workshops and seminars that we host on a range of issues including legal matters, nutrition, flu shots, Eastern Medicine, vision and hearing screenings, insurance matters, etc. In addition the agency hosts many social activities to appeal to a broad range of interests. b) Additional outreach efforts SASCC will use to attract new Saratoga residents and sources drawn on to implement this outreach: • SASCC will continue to focus on reaching out to all prevalent ethnicities in the community. We have built a good relationship with Indian- American community leaders and are working to turn ideas into plans for reaching their constituent elders. Several suggestions which we plan to explore in order to better market our programs more broadly in the Saratoga community are: create ethnic-familiar programs where a pre-set group is already present so that new invitees will be more comfortable. For example: an intergenerational Indian-themed potluck where this community will talk about what programs they would like to see; distribute brochures and event material at the local Farmers Market, develop more 110 FY 2010-2011 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY GRANT & CDBG STANDARD APPLICATION targeted sections in our Newsletter; and place articles in various ethnic community newspapers. In addition, further range SASCC plans to have a broader distribution of its brochures through household mailings to every household in Saratoga. To achieve the above, SASCC plans to redesign its brochure in line with its website, producing a very professional and cohesive marketing message. • The agency has implemented and will be updating a new Member Resource Services program that will provide a broader range of assistances to seniors and their caregivers. • Last year we launched and now regularly meet with out Blue Ribbon Task Force (BRTF) committee members. This is a group of 15 highly proven, talented community leaders from a variety of backgrounds who have committed to help us move SASCC to the next step. These volunteers are now equipped with a background of information. We have produced on online survey to assess from area seniors their needs and wants in programs. The first results were very helpful and we intend to re-launch the survey to a larger audience. • In March, we will be launching our next big project: the Business Alliance Program (BAP). This is something that we intended to launch last fiscal year but determined that it did not make sense with the market conditions at that time. With this project will are seeking to identify and align with local area businesses who are interested in the welfare of the area seniors. The program is multi-leveled where a business owner may choose to sponsor SASCC, offer discounts to its members, or both. We anticipate that the efforts put into this program will grow over time into something of tremendous mutual benefit to SASCC members and our business community. The added benefit will of course be a growth in membership which will provide additional fees. • We will continue to focus on fewer but larger and more efficient fund-raising events in 2010. c) The number of additional Saratoga residents ACC has served since SASCC applied for previous funding in 2008-2009: Ten new families of the have been served since the application for previous funding, along with the 11 that we continue to serve for a total of 21. 14) Leveraging: a) Total Amount of Funding Requested from All Organizations This Year: Organization Date Funds Requested Amount Requested Percentage of Total Cost Saratoga CDBG February 12, 2010 $36,200 13% Campbell CDBG January 29, 2010 $5,000 2% San Jose CDBG January 5, 2010 $25,000 9% St. Andrews July 2009 $4,200 1.5% Dorothy Fund TBA $3,000 1% 111 FY 2010-2011 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY GRANT & CDBG STANDARD APPLICATION Rotary & Kiwanis TBA $6,000 2% I am researching more opportunities. b) Total Amount of Funding Received from All Organizations Last Year: Organization Type of Funding Amount Received Percentage of Total Cost Saratoga CDBG Federal Grant $36,200 15% Campbell CDBG Federal Grant $4,000 2% Saratoga Rotary Grant $3,700 1.5% St Andrews Donation $4,200 2% Health Trust Grant $500 Dorothy Fund Private donors $6,500 3% 15) Cost / Benefit Analysis: We are requesting $37,000 to support a portion of the total operating costs of the Saratoga Adult Care Center program. Per the attached budget, operating costs include salaries, benefits, member programs and classes, food, supplies, training, audits, insurance, and necessary licenses and memberships. With intensive volunteer and fundraising efforts, this program creatively stretches its revenues. The budget is tightly controlled and the Finance Committee, the Board of Directors and the Executive Director review expenses monthly. Rent, utilities, and janitorial services are provided in-kind by the City of Saratoga. The City’s support remains as a significant factor in our organization’s success. Currently, 66% of the participants in the Adult Care Center have low or very-low incomes. On average, their daily payments are subsidized by $30.00. With the efficient use of limited resources, the cost of the program is factored at $11 per hour per participant. This is considerably less than in-home or nursing care for an individual who might otherwise require public support. Funds are requested from the City of Saratoga to partially underwrite the programs ad services to our participants. Total Program Cost Total Clients Served Cost Per Client Funding Requested Percentage of Total Cost $275,931 (51 families unduplicated per year) $5,410.00 $37,000 14% 112 FY 2010-2011 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY GRANT & CDBG STANDARD APPLICATION 16) Target Beneficiaries: Saratoga Residents Served* Percentage of Total Clientele Low-Income Clients Served Percentage of Total Clientele 21 41% Saratoga: 13 Total : 34 Sarat: 38 % of 34 low income total Sarat: 27% of Total clients * 2008-2009 • The number of Saratoga residents served is 21 out of a total of 51 clients or 41% of our total number of clients. • The total number of Low Income clients that we serve from all locations is 34 out of 51 or 66%. • The total number of Low Income clients from Saratoga is 13 or 62% of our Saratoga resident clientele, and 27% of our total number of clients. SARATOGA AREA SENIOR COORDINATING COUNCIL MISSION STATEMENT The purpose of the Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating Council is to provide quality services to local seniors of all ages, abilities, religions, social and economic backgrounds. Our primary objective is to involve community groups and individuals in senior related issues, to develop community responsibility, advocacy for problems facing our aging population, to assure that the needs of older adults are met and to improve the overall quality of their lives. 113 BUDGET AGENCY NAME: Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating Council Date Prepared: February 12, 2010 PROGRAM NAME: Saratoga Adult Care Center SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES BUDGET AMOUNT PROPOSED PROJECT ANNUAL OPERATING EXPENSES Personnel Services $198,248. Fringe Benefits $22,221. Fundraising ($4K of this was expensing 09-10 grant) $3,000. Office Supplies $2,000. Communication/Marketing $5,200. Printing & Advertising $2,400. Program Supplies $1,549. Program Food $23,720. Administrative Costs $3,775. Insurance $6,768. Audit $5,000. Equipment Rental/Maintenance $2,050. Total Operating Expenses $275,931 PROPOSED PROJECT ANNUAL OPERATING REVENUES CDBG Funds (Saratoga, Campbell, San Jose) $66,200 Other Funds $13,200 Fees $165,000 Fundraising revenues- to be further developed $14,000 Draw from investment fund $17,531. Total Operating Revenue $275,931 114 PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS AGENCY NAME: Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating Council Date Prepared: February 12, 2010 PROGRAM NAME: Saratoga Adult Care Center PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT WORKSHEET GOAL: The Adult Care Center seeks to enhance the quality of life for Saratoga Area Seniors via specific, ongoing supportive services, made available to lower-income participants, to help keep the frail adult in his/her home & community and to provide respite to caregivers, regardless of income. OBJECTIVE (1): For FY 2010-2011 the Adult Care Center will provide over 8,000 hours of paid services to a minimum of 51 participants (clients) over a one year period. OUTCOME (1): To serve and improve the quality of life on a day to day basis for 51 unduplicated clients and their families. OBJECTIVE (2): For FY 2010-2011 the Adult Care Center will maintain a realistic balance of client days in each quarter to support programs. OUTCOME (2): Maintain client days at a minimum of 380 in each quarter. 115 FY 2009-2010 CITY OF SARATOGA CDBG SUPPLEMENTAL Name of Applicant Organization: _Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating Council ________ Name of Program: __Saratoga Adult Care Center_____________ Please complete the following questions in addition to the Standard Application to determine additional requirements for CDBG eligibility: 1. Please complete the following tables with the number of recipients for each category: 2. How does the purpose and objectives of the proposed program meet the Urban County’s CDBG funding objectives with regard to either the Urban County Priority Needs or the Urban County Non- Housing Community Development Needs as described in the Consolidated Plan 3 ? The purposes and objectives of SASCC’s Adult Care Program are directly related to the Urban County Non-Housing Community Development Needs which specify that there are needs for supporting the operating expenses of organizations which provide supportive services “which address the needs of the frail elderly or persons with disabilities.” The critical need for these aging focused services is discussed in the “Community for a Lifetime” Executive Summary of the strategic plan co-sponsored by the City of San Jose and the County of Santa Clara in February 2005: “In 2005, there were more than 200,000 older adults living in Santa 1 The Urban County includes the unincorporated portions of the County of Santa Clara and the cities of Campbell, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, and Saratoga. 2 Based on the attached FY 2008 HUD Income Limits for Santa Clara County 3 The 2005-2010 Urban County Consolidated Plan is available online at http://www.saratoga.ca.us/ by clicking on the CDBG grant link under In The Spotlight on the right hand side of the webpage Number of Unduplicated Beneficiaries City No. Campbell 5 Other 2 Santa Clara 2 Los Gatos 3 San Jose 12 Cupertino 1 Sunnyvale 2 Saratoga 21 Unincorporated Santa Clara County Outside the Urban County 1 3 Total unduplicated beneficiaries 51 Number of Urban County unduplicated beneficiaries at or below current county-wide median income 2 Income Category No. 0-30% (Extremely low) 17 31-50% (Very Low) 8 51-80% (Low) 9 116 FY 2009-2010 CITY OF SARATOGA CDBG SUPPLEMENTAL Clara County. By 2020, this number will double and older adults will represent more than 1 out of every 5 individuals in SCC. By 2050 the average life expectancy is projected to be 87 years for women (currently 80) and 81 for men (currently 74). SCC Supervisor Don Gage, in a 2007 community assessment, stated that “By 2020, the number of people…who are 60 and older will have almost doubled….a growth rate 3 to 4 times faster than the county’s overall population. It’s important to determine the needs…now so we can ensure effective aging services are in place in the future.” Through our program we work to prevent or delay institutionalization of the frail elderly, to enable them to remain in their homes for as long as possible and to improve the quality of life for the participants and their caregivers. The purpose of the Center is to meet the growing need for this service which will only accelerate as the population ages. Independent studies show that by the year 2010, Santa Clara County’s population of individuals 85 years of age and over is expected to double resulting in an increased need for services such as ours. Our services apply to the HUD Development Community Needs categories of Public Facility Senior Centers as our program is open to all and housed in a public Saratoga City public building and also to Public Senior Services which is ranked as a “High” priority need. 117 FY 2010-2011 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY GRANT & CDBG STANDARD APPLICATION DATE: February 9th, 2010 Please refer to the Application Instructions Sheet for details on the following questions. Please limit your answers to one paragraph per question 1) Applicant Organization/Agency Name: West Valley Community Services (WVCS) Agency Address: 10104 Vista Drive Cupertino 95014 Executive Director: Naomi Nakano-Matsumoto Phone: 408-255-8033 x 301Fax: 408-366-6090 E-Mail: naomin@wvcommunityservices.org Agency is a Faith Based Organization: ____ Yes _X__ No 2) Program Title: Comprehensive Emergency Assistance Program (CEAP) Program Address: 10104 Vista Drive Cupertino 95014_ Contact Person/Title: Sujatha Venkatraman Phone: 408-255-8033 x 103 Fax: 408-366-6090 E-Mail: sujathav@wvcommunityservices.org 3) City of Saratoga grant funds requested in the past: $15,164 4) City of Saratoga grant funds received in the past: $15,164 5) Program description and number of unduplicated clients served : WVCS is the only known community-based organization providing safety net and comprehensive wrap- around family support services in the West Valley area . WVCS serves Saratoga, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Cupertino, and west San Jose . The activities of the Comprehensive Emergency Assistance Program are: Case management – Case Managers provide intake and assessment of household needs, refer clients to appropriate services to meet such needs if not available in -house, and recertify clients as necessary (minimum one recertification per year). As the case manager conducts the intake, additional programs such as food stamps, discount utilities and child care are discussed. If a client does not qualify for cash assistance, the case manager makes referrals and helps the client consider other opti ons as solutions. Food pantry – All qualified clients will have access to the food pantry in order to supplement and stabilize grocery expenses. Every visit to the food pantry includes fresh fruit and vegetables, fresh bread, eggs, tortillas, a source of protein, and milk, when milk is available, sourced from Second Harvest Food Bank and generous donations from local grocery stores such as Safeway and Whole Foods. Cash assistance: Rent and utility assistance is provided 24 to 48 hours after approval, paya ble directly to vendor. Checks are never made payable to a client. Emergency cash assistance qualification includes: proof of residency, income, ID, children’s birth certificates, rental agreement and proof of emergency EITC and VITA assistance – The EITC/VITA Case manager coordinates certified volunteers and onsite facilities to assist clients prepare and file their taxes in the hopes that a larger refund will help meet everyday needs and build a savings account. Financial Management – workshops to increase financial literacy skills and individual financial management counseling. 118 FY 2010-2011 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY GRANT & CDBG STANDARD APPLICATION Raising-A-Healthy Eater: The goal of Raising-A-Healthy Eater is to introduce clients to new foods creative and nutritious solutions for their families and the dinner table. Th is new program promotes a holistic integrated approach to nutrition and quality of life . 6) Program purpose and objectives: The Comprehensive Emergency Assistance Program (CEAP) will continue to provide basic human needs and emergency services to low -income families, seniors, and single adults in Saratoga by preventing hunger, eviction, and utility shut-offs. Qualified Saratoga clients receive services as-needed, resulting in more stable monthly situations and more stable lives. Wrap around services av ailable to all them includes financial management, mental health services, nutrition classes, and special seasonal programs. CEAP goal is to ensure that low-income seniors, single adults, and families in Saratoga have continued access to basic human needs services, including access to an adequate quantity of quality food and assistance with rent, deposit, or utility payment, and intends to improve the overall community condition by providing outreach, direct services and case management through a planned c ourse of action. 7) Program management: To ensure thorough and comprehensive services to extremely -low to low-income residents, the intake process includes client’s proof of income, residency, ID for all adults, rental agreement, and birth certificates for any children. Recertification is conducted annually. The management of the CEAP is integrated and each staff member is cross -trained to ensure consistent and quality services. Employees and volunteers are representative of the clientele served and speak many of the client languages. Three positions staff this project, Case Manager, Operations Manager, Program Director. In -kind positions include San Jose State University, College of Social Work Interns and community volunteers. 8) Agency description and experience: WVCS is a private non-profit, community based agency that has been providing direct assistance and referral services to the co mmunity for more than 36 years. WVCS provides a continuum of basic needs, family services and housing services including: information and referrals, food, clothing, shelter, affordable housing, financial as sistance, and case management. WVCS serves the West Valley communities of Saratoga, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Cupertino, and West San Jose. In the past few y ears WVCS has added other supportive services such as financial education, nutrition program, mental health counseling and the EITC/VITA (Earned Income Tax Credit / Voluntary Income Tax Assistance) programs. 9) Audit information: The date of our most recent audit is October 18th, 2009 for Fiscal Year 2008-2009. There are no findings. 119 FY 2010-2011 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY GRANT & CDBG STANDARD APPLICATION 10) Sources of funds anticipated for this project: SOURCE ESTIMATED AMOUNT STATUS2 Saratoga $ 20,000 Application Pending Other Cities $ 97,827 Application Pending Foundations $ 78,750 Committed Donations $ 38,000 Secured Federal (pending) $ 3,000 Application Pending ESTIMATED TOTAL PROJECT COST: $ 237,577 11) Budget: Please use the attached worksheet. 12) Performance Measurements: Please use the attached worksheet. 13) Outreach: WVCS conducts outreach in numerous ways. WVCS produces a bi-annual newsletter called West Valley Community Action Newsletter (CAN) for all of our clients, donors, funders, volunteers, vendors, and partners. We distribute our newsletter at health/community fairs and tabling events throughout the community as well as at the collaboration meetings in which WVCS participates. WVCS plans to publish West Valley CAN quarterly this year. All WVCS pub lications are available online. Staff and volunteers walked the local neighborhood, going door -to-door to inform the community regarding the types of services being offered, how they can enroll for services, or what they can do to help. WVCS works closely with CBOs serving Saratoga resident s. WVCS has long-standing relationships with the United Way Silicon Valley, Second Harvest Food Bank, local Rotaries, Kiwanis, Lions clubs and other services groups . WVCS also plans to outreach with the Faith in Action (FIA) Network, a group of synagogues and churches in the community to their congregations. 14) Leveraging: 2009-10 TOTAL status Foundations United Way 64,000 2010 Salvation Army 50,000 Annually FIRST 5 129,525 Housing Trust 12,500 annually Other Foundations 30,000 annually Government Federal FEMA/EFSP 16,000 annually Federal HUD 82,533 annually City of Cupertino CDBG 101,844 annually 120 FY 2010-2011 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY GRANT & CDBG STANDARD APPLICATION City of Cupertino General Funds 15,900 annually City of San Jose HTF 74,100 annually City of San Jose CDBG 42,807 annually City of San Jose ESG 18,581 annually City of Saratoga General Fund 20,000 annually Town of Los Gatos Housing Trust 13,000 annually City of Sunnyvale CDBG 10,774 annually Cost / Benefit Analysis: ___________________________________________________ Total Program Cost Total Clients Served Cost Per Client Funding Requested % Total Cost $237,577 611 $389 $20,000 8% 16) Target Beneficiaries: _____________________________________________________ Saratoga Residents served % Total Clientele Low-Income Clients Served % Total Clientele 67 11% 611 100% 121 BUDGET AGENCY NAME: _West Valley Community Services_ Date Prepared: February 9th 2010 PROGRAM NAME: _Comprehensive Emergency Assistance Program (CEAP) BUDGET WORKSHEET SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES Jul - Sep Oct - Dec Jan - Mar Apr - Jun SALARIES Personnel Benefits $2849.00 $ 684.00 $2849.00 $ 684.00 $2849.00 $ 684.00 $2849.00 $ 684.00 OFFICE EXPENSES Phone/Fax Travel utilities $ 372.00 $ 180.00 $ 615.00 $ 372.00 $ 180.00 $ 615.00 $ 372.00 $ 180.00 $ 615.00 $ 380.00 $ 180.00 $ 615.00 PROJECT EXPENSES Accounting $ $300.00 $ $300.00 $ $300.00 $ $300.00 TOTAL $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 122 PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS AGENCY NAME: West Valley Community Services Date Prepared: February 9th 2010 PROGRAM NAME: Comprehensive Emergency Assistance Program (CEAP) PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT WORKSHEET GOAL: To increase the quality of life for lower income Saratoga residents by creating and/or maintaining household sustainabilit y: prevent hunger, evictions, utility shut -offs and homelessness. OBJECTIVE (1): Provide food on a weekly basis. OUTCOME (1): By June 30, 2011, 100% of qualified Saratoga residents receiving food assistance will have food stability. 40 individuals to be served. OBJECTIVE (2): Provide rental and/or utility assistance on a one- time only basis. OUTCOME (2): By June 30, 2011, 80% of recipients will state that the assistance provided prevented eviction and/or utility shut-off. 10 individuals to be served. 123 FY 2010-2011 CITY OF SARATOGA CDBG SUPPLEMENTAL Name of Applicant Organization: __West Valley Community Services (WVCS) Name of Program: __Comprehensive Emergency Assistance Program (CEAP)_____________________ Please complete the following questions in addition to the Standard Application to determine additional requirements for CDBG eligibility: 1. Please complete the following tables with the number of recipients for each category: During the last fiscal year two grants from FIRST 5 Santa Clara County concluded. Those were not zip code restricted and we were serving all of Santa Clara County. That is the reason our numbers for other cities and communities are not included. 2. How does the purpose and objectives of the proposed program meet the Urban County’s CDBG funding objectives with regard to either the Urban County Priority Needs or the Urban County Non- Housing Community Development Needs as described in the Consolidated Plan3?  Increase the available supply of housing affordable to lower income households.  Increase housing opportunities for special needs households and the un-housed.  Homeless Services 1 The Urban County includes the unincorporated portions of the County of Santa Clara and the cities of Campbell, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, and Saratoga. 2 Based on the attached FY 2008 HUD Income Limits for Santa Clara County 3 The 2005-2010 Urban County Consolidated Plan is available online at http://www.saratoga.ca.us/ by clicking on the CDBG grant link under In The Spotlight on the right hand side of the webpage Number of Unduplicated Beneficiaries City No. Campbell 6 Los Altos Los Altos Hills Los Gatos 245 Monte Sereno 10 Morgan Hill Saratoga 127 Unincorporated Santa Clara County Outside the Urban County1 11 Total unduplicated beneficiaries 399 Number of Urban County unduplicated beneficiaries at or below current county-wide median income2 Income Category No. 0-30% (Extremely low) 48 31-50% (Very Low) 7 51-80% (Low) 2 124 CDBG Administration Mustard Faire $5,000 $5,000 Shady Shakespeare $3,500 $3,500 Wildlife Center $4,212 $4,212 $0 Catholic Charities $5,000 $5,000 Adult Daycare $37,000 $37,000 WVCS $20,000 $20,000 $0 Public Works $79,500 $79,500 $0 Community Development $15,000 $15,000 Santa Clara County $13,000 $13,000 Total Remaining / (Shortfall) $0 $0 $0 $13,788 ($35,500)($21,712) Attachment 2 $182,612 Total Available $26,500 $26,500 $79,900 $13,000 $160,900 Total Requested $12,712 $62,000 $79,900 $13,000 $15,000 $15,000 GRANT REQUEST WORKSHEET Community Grant CDBG Public Improvements SHARP Administration Total Requested CDBG Public Service Total Recommended Agency Requests 125 February 17, 2010 TO: Emily Harrison Deputy County Executive FROM: Marjorie Matthews, Director (Original signed) Office of Affordable Housing SUBJECT: REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS FOR STREAMLINING THE URBAN COUNTY CDBG PROGRAM IN 2010 INTRODUCTION The following report and recommendations are the result of a combination of efforts by the Office of Affordable Housing (OAH) and a CDBG Working Group in response to the County Executive’s direction to reduce the cost to the General Fund of administering the Urban County CDBG Program. The goal was to identify actions to reduce administrative costs to the County General Fund by streamlining the program or increasing revenues from non-General Fund sources. The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program is part of the larger Housing and Community Development (HCD) Program that also includes Home Investment Partnership Act (HOME) Funds and ARRA Recovery Funds (CDBG-R and HPRP). The Urban County operates under a Joint Powers Agreement (JPA) whereby the County acts as the HCD Program Grantee on behalf of Campbell, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills*, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno*, Morgan Hill, Saratoga, and the Unincorporated Area. [* contributes population but does not receive funding.] Over the 31 years of the HCD Program, the total annual grant received by the Urban County has decreased as administrative costs have increased. The County’s cost to County of Santa Clara Office of the County Executive Office of Affordable Housing 2310 North First Street, Suite 100 San Jose, California 95131 (408) 441-4254 FAX (408) 441-4332 Board of Supervisors: Donald F. Gage, George Shirakawa, Dave Cortese, Ken Yeager, Liz Kniss C ounty Executive: Jeffrey V. Smith 126 February 23, 2010 – 2 – Page 2 of 7 administer HCD has long exceeded the administrative allowance allowed by HUD. This fiscal year, the County General Fund supplemented the HCD budget in the amount of $633,000. Given the continuing budget deficits projected for the County’s General Fund, this level of subsidy can no longer be provided. The Office of Affordable Housing has taken several steps to reduce costs, including: • Consolidation of two HCD Advisory Committees into one • A shift to a two-year funding cycle for CDBG Public Service contracts • Collaboration with 14 cities on a single draft 5-Year Consolidated Plan • Preparation of single application and monitoring forms • Reduction in HCD staffing by from 10 FTEs in 2003 to 7.7 in 2010 In the fall of 2009, an Urban County CDBG Working Group was formed by the County Executive/City Managers Group composed of representatives from the participating jurisdictions, the HCD Advisory Committee, and the non-profit community. The Working Group met three times to discuss cost saving measures in the CDBG Allocation Process and in the administrative procedures of both HUD and the County. During this time, the County Executive’s Office commissioned a program assessment of the Urban County HCD Program by an outside consultant. The Working Group discussed the current tasks and costs of administering the CDBG Program, considered the program assessment by Realize Consulting Group, LLP, listened to the concerns of the CEO of Silicon Valley Council of Non-Profits, and received a presentation by City Data Services on web-based management of CDBG Grants. The full program assessment by Realize Consulting Group, LLC is Attachment A. The topic of the Housing Rehab Program was deferred to a later time. RECOMMENDATIONS The following recommendations to reduce the administrative burden of the CDBG Program to the County General Fund are proposed for approval by the County Executive/City Managers Group: 1. Establish a minimum amount of $5,000 for Public Service Grants. (Working Group) 2. Limit the maximum number of Public Service Grants for each city to five and consider shifting smaller city grants to non-CDBG funds. (Working Group) 3. Round all amounts to the nearest $100 at the time that agreements are finalized. (Working Group) 127 February 23, 2010 – 3 – Page 3 of 7 4. Shift all Public Service Contracts to a 2-year concurrent cycle. (Working Group) 5. Change payment requests from monthly to quarterly or semi-annually. (OAH) 6. Share performance and fiscal monitoring responsibilities among Urban County jurisdictions. (OAH) 7. Set city expenditure deadlines to two years to minimize roll-overs. (OAH) 8. Reduce General Fund overhead charges to the HCD Program. (County Executive) 9. Seek proposals for a web-based data management system to unify and simplify administration of CDBG Program. (Working Group/OAH) 10. Increase administrative revenue to the County by reducing or eliminating the $15,000 administrative allowance allocated to each City. (County Executive) 11. Consider unifying all grants under County administration for CDBG Program Year 2012/13 if above efficiencies can significantly reduce administrative costs. (Working Group) 12. Consider further increasing the minimum amount and reducing the number of Public Service Grants for CDBG Program Year 2012/13. (OAH) Attachment B shows a proposed implementation timeline for CDBG recommendations. BACKGROUND Overview of Urban County HCD Program The Urban County was formed in 1976 in order to attain sufficient population to become an Entitlement Jurisdiction and receive federal Community Development Block Grants (CDBG), HOME, American Dream Down Payment Assistance (ADDI) Program and Emergency Shelter Grants (ESG, now discontinued). In 2009, the Urban County also became eligible for ARRA Recovery (CDBG-R) and Homeless Prevention and Rapid Re-housing (HPRP) funds. The Urban County operates under a three- year renewable Joint Powers Agreement (JPA). The current JPA is scheduled to expire on September 30, 2011. An analysis of the last eight years shows that the Urban County has received a total of $24,506,387 from these federal sources. The amount of CDBG, HOME, and ESG grants has been diminishing gradually over the years as shown in the following table: 128 February 23, 2010 – 4 – Page 4 of 7 Funding Year CDBG HOME ESG ARRA Total 2010 1,742,531 873,036 1,213,740 $3,829,307 2009 1,727,563 785,706 $2,513,269 2008 1,788,630 820,072 $2,608,702 2007 1,800,875 827,249 $2,628,124 2006 2,018,640 898,758 $2,917,398 2005 2,143,000 1,003,378 89,000 $3,235,378 2004 2,065,527 911,659 81,023 $3,058,209 2003 2,584,000 1,043,000 89,000 $3,716,000 Tot al $24,506,387 Administration of All HCD Programs The County acts as the Grantee of all HCD Programs on behalf of the participating jurisdictions and is therefore accountable to HUD for all fiscal and performance measurements. There are several distinct programs funded by the HCD Program, including New Housing Development, Down Payment Assistance, County and City capital projects, Single Family Housing Rehabilitation, Rental Housing Rehabilitation, Homeless Prevention, Rapid Re-housing, and Public Service Grants. Each program requires a level of expertise within the County so that the eligibility of the projects, and of the Urban County itself, is not jeopardized. As HUD and County regulations have multiplied over the last 31 years, so too have the number and complexity of administrative tasks. CDBG Public Service Grants HUD allows no more than 15% of the total annual CDBG grant to be used for Public Service. While the Urban County has stayed within the annual 15% expenditure cap, the actual number of Public Service grants – 30 for the current year -- is 43% of the total of 69 grants being managed. Public Service grants are not only the most numerous compared to other categories of funding, but they are also the smallest in individual amounts. The following table shows the total number of HCD projects administered during the last three fiscal years, including the number of Public Service projects per city. 129 February 23, 2010 – 5 – Page 5 of 7 FISCAL YEAR/SOURCE ROLLOVER PROJECTS NEW PROJECTS Pubic Service Total New TOTAL ALL PROJECTS FY 2007/2008: Campbell 2 6 10 12 Los Altos 2 5 9 11 Los Gatos 6 4 8 14 Morgan Hill 5 4 6 11 Saratoga 7 2 5 12 Pool - CDBG 1 14 21 22 Pool - HOME 3 n/a 3 6 TOTAL 26 35 62 88 FY 2008/2009: Campbell 0 6 10 10 Los Altos 3 6 8 11 Los Gatos 7 4 7 14 Morgan Hill 3 3 5 8 Saratoga 6 1 5 11 Pool - CDBG 1 13 20 21 Pool - HOME 5 n/a 2 7 TOTAL 25 33 57 82 FY 2009/2010: Campbell 0 5 9 9 Los Altos 1 7 9 10 Los Gatos 6 4 7 13 Morgan Hill 2 3 5 8 Saratoga 7 1 7 14 Pool- CDBG 1 10 16 17 Pool - HOME 3 n/a 4 7 TOTAL 20 30 57 78 The next table indicates that, this year, seven subrecipients are receiving multiple grants within the Urban County CDBG Program. Subrecipient Pool Campbell Los Altos Los Gatos Morgan Hill Saratoga Totals EHC LifeBuilders $11,868 $8,661 $20,529 InnVision 17,451 5,161 $22,612 Next Door 9,100 4,537 3,483 $17,120 Support Network 4,537 4,208 $8,745 Catholic Charities $3,744 7,370 15,500 $26,614 Live Oak 2,000 12,470 $14,470 Second Harvest $4,800 6,000 $10,800 Totals $38,419 $26,640 $9,691 $24,640 $21,500 $120,890 130 February 23, 2010 – 6 – Page 6 of 7 Administrative Responsibilities Further complicating the administration of the HCD Program is the multi-year nature of federal grants administration. Each year, OAH is administering three Program Years at one time: Past year: Fiscal roll-overs and close out, data collection and evaluation, submittal of CAPER report to HUD by September 30. Current year: Preparation and execution of contracts, requests for reimbursement, fiscal and performance, and insurance monitoring, housing inspections, and trouble-shooting. Upcoming year: Preparation and release of RFP, evaluations of applications, preparation of recommendations to Board of Supervisors, and submittal of Annual Action Plan to HUD by May 15. Other periodic responsibilities include preparation of the 5-year Consolidated Plan, updating the Analysis of Impediments to Housing, renewal of the JPA, and County and federal audits. FY2009/10 presented additional administrative challenges as the Urban County became eligible and applied for federal ARRA Recovery Funds and received just a 5% administrative allowance. Finally, it should be noted that the responsibilities of the County HCD staff have increased with the continuing high turnover and reduced staffing of CDBG subrecipients. The Office of Affordable Housing has found that fewer and fewer cities and non-profits have the time and ability to understand the complexities of CDBG regulations in order to meet the eligibility and reporting requirements of HUD. This has necessitated significant amounts of County staff time in training and problem solving throughout the year. CDBG Administrative Allowance This year, the County General Fund supplemented the CDBG budget by $289,500 to cover the gap between the administrative cap allowed by HUD and the actual cost of managing the Program. Analysis of the CDBG Program during the last eight years indicates that the annual CDBG grant, the administrative allowance, and the number of grants have all decreased at about the same rate -- 30-36%. However, the cost of administering the Program has increased by 19%. 131 February 23, 2010 – 7 – Page 7 of 7 2003 2010 Percent change Amount of grant $2,584,000 $1,742,531 -33% Number of Projects 108 71 -34% Size of awards $2,000 - $480,000 $2,000 - $542,575 No change - +13% CDBG Admin Allowance $426,800 $273,500 -36% CDBG Admin Costs $475,000 $563,000 +19% CONCLUSION The Working Group agreed that reducing the administrative burden of managing a large number of small grants was advisable and recommends raising minimum amounts and reducing the number of Public Service grants in the future. Participants were also in favor of 2-year contracts, contingent on performance and availability of funds, and moving to a web-based grants management system. Realize Consulting did not recommend further reductions in staffing as a way to reduce costs, rather it was suggested that the County consider the Contra Costa consolidated model of CDBG administration for future years. The County Executive’s Office recommends retaining the $75,000 in administrative funds that is currently dispersed to the cities. Members of the Working Group felt strongly that the value of CDBG/HOME/ARRA grants should not be lost in our efforts to decrease the administrative burden. They expressed a desire to continue seeking ways to maximize the amount of direct funding to non-profit organizations that provide much needed services to the community. Areas recommended for further study are: an examination of County processes to eliminate redundancies; the appropriate staffing levels needed to administer the HCD Program; and an evaluation of the Housing Rehab Program. Attachments: A. Urban County HCD Program Assessment by Realize Consulting Group, LLC B. Proposed Implementation Timeline for CDBG Recommendations cc: CDBG Working Group 132 Page 1 of 2 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 3, 2010 AGENDA ITEM: DEPARTMENT: City Manager’s Office CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: Crystal Morrow DIRECTOR: Barbara Powell Administrative Analyst II Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: Google Fiber for Communities Request for Information RECOMMENDED ACTION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. BACKGROUND: At the February 17, 2010 City Council Meeting, staff presented the Google Fiber for Communities Request for Information (RFI) and sought direction on whether or not to prepare a response from the City (see Attachment A to view the staff report from February 17, 2010). During the discussion, Council asked that additional information about the RFI be brought to the March 3, 2010 meeting, including opportunities to work with the community and neighboring cities to prepare a response to Google’s RFI. City staff has contacted local school districts and West Valley College to determine their interest in working with the City to prepare a response to the Google RFI. West Valley College indicated an interest in supporting efforts to respond to the RFI. Additionally, the Google RFI was discussed at the West Valley Mayors and Managers Meeting on February 24, 2010. During the meeting, Los Gatos Town Manager Greg Larsen shared that Los Gatos is actively looking for a consultant to lead preparation of a response to Google’s RFI. Larsen offered to have the Los Gatos consultant prepare a joint response that includes neighboring cities. FISCAL IMPACTS: Fiscal impacts, including staff time, are expected to be minimal if Saratoga works with Los Gatos and the Town’s consultant to prepare a response to the Google RFI. However, if the Council decides that the City should independently prepare a response it will require a significant amount of staff time to answer the detailed RFI questions and conduct the necessary community outreach to determine community support for Google Fiber for Communities testing. 133 Page 2 of 2 CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING THE RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: A response to Google Fiber for Communities RFI will not be prepared or submitted by the City. ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): N/A FOLLOW UP ACTION(S): Implement Council direction. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Nothing additional. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Staff report on Google Fiber for Communities RFI from February 17, 2010 Attachment B: Google Fiber for Communities RFI 134 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 17, 2010 AGENDA ITEM: DEPARTMENT: City Manager’s Office CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: Crystal Morrow DIRECTOR: Barbara Powell Administrative Analyst II Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: Google Fiber for Communities Request for Information RECOMMENDED ACTION: Accept report and direct staff accordingly. BACKGROUND: On February 10, 2010, Google released a RFI to identify communities interested in participating in Google Fiber for Communities. Through this program Google will build and then test ultra- high speed broadband networks in several trial locations throughout the United States. This will in turn provide Google with information about developing and deploying ultra-high speed broadband networks elsewhere. Google’s ultra-high speed broadband network will be 100 times faster than the Internet connection used by most Americans and will provide residential connections of 1 gigabit per second. Google has named several factors that will influence selection of Google Fiber for Communities locations. Fist, Google has said locations that allow for quick and efficient deployment of its fiber optic network are preferred. Second, Google has indicated that priority will be given to communities that will see significant benefits as a result of the Google fiber optic network. To estimate speed and efficiency of deployment within a given community, Google will consider: - Terrain - Climate - Local regulation - Community support for the project - City resources that can assist in deployment - Accepted construction methods for residential fiber optic networks - Local regulatory issues Community support for the project appears to be of particular importance in the selection of locations. Google’s RFI questions suggest that responding municipalities should reach out to their communities and gauge interest through surveys, public hearings, or meetings with community groups. Should Council direct staff to respond to Google’s RFI, staff can reach out to Page 1 of 2 135 Page 2 of 2 partners and residents in the community who may be interested in working with the City on its response. Although Google has not yet decided on the size of the trial locations, it has indicated that it anticipates providing service to a minimum of 50,000 people and a maximum of 500,000 in selected locations. The cost of service for fiber optic network customers has not been determined, but Google says it will offer competitive prices. The deadline to respond to the Google Fiber for Communities RFI is March 26, 2010. Requested Direction: Due to the nature of Google’s RFI, submitting a response will require a significant amount of staff time. Consequently, Council direction on whether or not to proceed with the proposal is requested. FISCAL IMPACTS: There are no direct financial impacts to the City of Saratoga for submitting a response to the Google RFI. However, staff time will be necessary to prepare the response. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING THE RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: A response to Google Fiber for Communities RFI will not be prepared or submitted by the City. ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): N/A FOLLOW UP ACTION(S): Implement Council direction. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Nothing additional. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Google Fiber for Communities Request for Information 136 1600 Amphitheatre Parkway Mountain View, CA 94043 Google Inc. Request for Information Google Fiber for Communities February 10th 2010 137   2  Google Fiber for Communities Google is planning to launch an experiment that we hope will make Internet access better and faster for everyone. We plan to test ultra-high speed broadband networks in one or more trial locations across the country. Our networks will deliver Internet speeds more than 100 times faster than what most Americans have access to today over 1 gigabit per second, fiber-to-the-home connections. We'll offer service at a competitive price to at least 50,000 and potentially up to 500,000 people. From now until March 26th, we're asking interested municipalities to provide us with information about their communities through a Request for Information (RFI), which we'll use to determine where to build our network. Request for information Google is asking local governments and residents to express their interest in our fiber optic trial and to provide information about their respective communities by completing our request for information. For local government (Exhibit A) Tell us how much your community would like to join the trial and about existing facilities and resources in the community. For residents and community groups (Exhibit B) If you'd like a Google fiber optic trial in your community, complete this section of the request for information. 138   3  Contents    Google Fiber for Communities ......................................................................................................................2 1. Introduction ..............................................................................................................................................4 2. Legal Statements ......................................................................................................................................5 3. Instructions to Respondents .....................................................................................................................6 4. FAQ .........................................................................................................................................................7 For local government (Exhibit A)..................................................................................................................9 1. General information ...................................................................................................................................9 2. Background information about your community .....................................................................................10 3. Collaborating on a Google fiber trial .......................................................................................................13 4. Your community's support .......................................................................................................................14 5. Facilities and resources ............................................................................................................................15 6. Construction methods ..............................................................................................................................20 7. Regulatory issues .....................................................................................................................................21 For residents and community groups (Exhibit B)........................................................................................22 Additional Information ................................................................................................................................22   139   4  1. Introduction What is Google doing, and what does it seek to achieve? Imagine sitting in a rural health clinic, streaming three-dimensional medical imaging over the web and discussing a unique condition with a specialist in New York. Or downloading a high-definition, full- length feature film in less than five minutes. Or collaborating with classmates around the world while watching live 3-D video of a university lecture. Universal, ultra high-speed Internet access will make all this and more possible. We've urged the FCC to look at new and creative ways to get there in its National Broadband Plan – and now we're announcing an experiment of our own. Google is planning to build and test ultra-high speed broadband networks in a small number of trial locations across the country. We'll deliver Internet speeds more than 100 times faster than what most Americans have access to today with 1 gigabit per second, fiber-to-the-home connections. We'll offer service at a competitive price to at least 50,000 and potentially up to 500,000 people. As a first step, we're putting out a request for information (RFI) to help identify interested communities. We welcome responses from local government, as well as members of the public. Our goal is to experiment with new ways to help make Internet access better and faster for everyone. Here are some specific things that we have in mind: Next generation apps: We want to see what developers and users can do with ultra high-speeds, whether it's creating new bandwidth-intensive "killer apps" and services, or other uses we can't yet imagine. New deployment techniques: We'll test new ways to build fiber networks, and to help inform and support deployments elsewhere, we'll share key lessons learned with the world. Openness and choice: We'll operate an "open access" network, giving users the choice of multiple service providers. And consistent with our past advocacy, we'll manage our network in an open, non-discriminatory, and transparent way. Like our WiFi network in Mountain View, the purpose of this project is to experiment and learn. Network providers are making real progress to expand and improve high-speed Internet access, but there's still more to be done. We don't think we have all the answers – but through our trial, we hope to make a meaningful contribution to the shared goal of delivering faster and better Internet for everyone. Key Events & Projected Dates: • Issuance of request for information: February 10, 2010 • Response Deadline: March 26, 2010 Google reserves the right to modify any of these dates. Any changes will be published on this website. 140   5  2. Legal Statements Confidential Information Notice Google does not seek any proprietary or confidential information as part of your response. Accordingly, please do not submit any information that you do not want to become publicly available. Google will not be under any obligation to treat submissions as confidential and Google may disclose submissions to third parties as part of the evaluation process. All information and data contained in your response should be submitted on an unrestricted basis. Disclaimers Legal Status This RFI does not constitute, and should not be interpreted as, a contract between Google and any entity or person for the performance of any obligation. Instead, the RFI seeks to identify required information from communities and to establish a common framework within which an agreement for a fiber trial may be reached. The submission of a response to the RFI, and subsequent evaluation of that response by Google, also does not constitute a contract or any type of agreement between Google and any respondent for the performance of any obligation. Only the execution by Google of a written contract will obligate Google in accordance with the terms and conditions contained in any such contract. All responses to this RFI become the property of Google. Responses to this RFI may not be made by employees of, consultants to or other persons connected with Google. By submitting a response to either portion of this RFI, each respondent certifies that no employee of, consultant to, or other person connected to Google who has been or is associated with the respondent has participated in preparation of the response. Any personal information Google receives as part of the RFI will be used by Google only for purposes of planning and running the services. Google will only share this information with third parties where necessary for planning and running the services. Cost of RFI This RFI does not commit Google to pay any expense incurred by you in the preparation of your response. 141   6  3. Instructions to Respondents   All responses to this RFI should be submitted through the interactive response forms found on the website: http://www.google.com/appserve/fiberrfi. In order to respond to this RFI, you will have one of two options: • Full community response by a local government interested in having its community serve as a trial location • Other interested parties and non-governmental respondents, explaining why the trial should be held in the respondent's community. If any item in the Local Government RFI is unclear, a written request for clarification may be sent to Google. Such requests must be sent only through the website by selecting the contact link in your response. An FAQ can be found here: http://www.google.com/appserve/fiberrfi/public/faq The completed response to the RFI (local government or by other interested parties) must be submitted through the website. The interactive response forms are designed to allow you to begin your response, and then save it and come back to it for further work. The response will only be finally complete when you have clicked the "Save and continue" button for the response. Once you have submitted your response, it can no longer be edited. All responses must be submitted no later than 5:00 pm (PT) on the Response Deadline date. Any submission submitted after the deadline will not be accepted; however, Google may make exceptions at its sole discretion. Responses will be evaluated and ranked by a selection team designated by Google for that purpose. Google may make a decision on how to proceed with respect to responses at any time without further notice. Upon completion of Google's evaluation, Google will provide information about the responses and next steps. As one possible outcome of the RFI, a short list of responding communities may be asked to provide further information, though this will only occur at Google's discretion. All communications to Google regarding the Local Government RFI must be made solely through the website, please use the contact link in your response.   142   7  4. FAQ  What is Google planning to build? Google is planning to build and test ultra-high speed broadband networks in one or more trial locations across the country. We'll deliver Internet speeds more than 100 times faster than what most Americans have access to today over 1 gigabit per second, fiber-to-the-home connections. We'll offer service at a competitive price to at least 50,000 and potentially up to 500,000 people. Why is Google doing this? Our goal is to experiment with new ways to help make Internet access better and faster for everyone. What criteria will Google use to select the communities for this project? Above all, we're interested in deploying our network efficiently and quickly, and are hoping to identify interested communities that will work with us to achieve this goal. We also want to want to work with a community where we can bring significant benefits to residents and develop useful proofs-of-concept that can have a broader impact. For example, we're looking for opportunities to experiment with deployment techniques that can inform and accelerate broadband deployment elsewhere as well. To that end, we'll use our RFI to identify interested communities and to assess local factors that will impact the efficiency and speed of our deployment, such as the level of community support, local resources, weather conditions, approved construction methods and local regulatory issues. We will also take into account broadband availability and speeds that are already offered to users within a community. The RFI is a first step – we plan to consult with local government organizations, as well as conduct site visits and meet with local officials, before announcing our final decisions. When does Google expect to announce a target community? We plan to announce a target community or target communities this year. How much will the services cost? The final price has not yet been determined, but we intend to offer service at a competitive price. Why would consumers need 1 Gbps connections? In the same way that the transition from dial-up to broadband made possible the emergence of online video and countless other applications, ultra high-speed bandwidth will drive more innovation – in high- 143   8  definition video, remote data storage, real-time multimedia collaboration, and others that we cannot yet imagine. It will enable new consumer applications, as well as medical, educational, and other services that can benefit communities. If the Internet has taught us anything, it's that the most important innovations are often those we least expect. When does Google expect to have a 1 Gbps network up and running? Today's announcement is the first of many steps along the way. It's too early to announce a definite launch date, but our hope is to have a network up and running as soon as possible. Right now our focus is on finding the right communities for our trial. What do you mean by "at least 50,000 and potentially up to 500,000 people?" We have not yet determined the size of the trial, which will be based in large part on the availability of appropriate locations. We expect that we will provide this service to a minimum of 50,000 people and up to as many as 500,000 people, most likely in multiple communities. Can I submit on behalf of a non-city municipality? Yes, we will accept responses from any type of municipality including counties, military bases, reservations, etc. Please use the "local governments" link if you are a government or municipal official; otherwise please use the "residents and community groups" link. Who is allowed to submit a response on behalf of a municipality? Respondents should clearly state the position in which they represent their city. We encourage responses from city managers, elected officials, and mayors. If you do not represent your city, please submit a statement of interest for residents and community groups. What if I don't have all the information needed to complete the RFI? We are asking municipalities to provide as much information as possible about their location, but all submissions are welcome. Please fill in as many of the fields as you can and let us know of any special circumstances that might be affecting your submission. 144   9  For local government (Exhibit A) 1. General information * Required fields Name of governing body: * ____________________________________________________ You can create a name for each response. Name of this response: ____________________________________________________ List communities included in your response: ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ These may be autonomous units of government contained within the boundaries of the responding entity (such as towns within a county), districts or neighborhoods within a town, or adjacent units of government responding together (such as a joint response of multiple counties or towns). Contact person: Name: * ____________________________________________________ Title: ____________________________________________________ Address: * ____________________________________________________ State: * ____________________________________________________ ZIP (5 Digit): * ____________________________________________________ Phone number: ____________________________________________________ Email: * ____________________________________________________ Contact person has authority to provide these answers as the official position of the responding local government? ____________________________________________________ If not, please provide contact information for the local government official who does have such authority: ____________________________________________________ 145   10  2. Background information about your community     Population (2008): * ____________________________________________________ Populated area in square miles: * ____________________________________________________ Please describe how the population is distributed ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ Median household income ($ per annum)" * ____________________________________________________ Number of housing units: * ____________________________________________________ Number of single family homes: ____________________________________________________ Number of multi-family homes: ____________________________________________________ Number of apartment complexes: ____________________________________________________ Average number of units per apartment complex: ____________________________________________________ Number of gated communities: ____________________________________________________ Average number of housing units per gated community: ____________________________________________________ Approximate percentage of households in entire community with access to broadband Internet service (%): ____________________________________________________ Approximate percentage of the households in entire community that are currently subscribing to broadband Internet service (%): ____________________________________________________ 146   11  Terrain: Overall description of terrain: ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ Percentage of plains (%):_____________ Percentage of rolling hills (%):_____________ Percentage of mountains (%):_____________ Percentage other terrain (%):_____________ Climate: Average annual highest temperature (°F): _____________ Average annual temperature (°F): _____________ Average annual lowest temperature (°F): _____________ Average amount of snowfall per year (inches): _____________ Average amount of rainfall per year (inches): _____________ Average amount of hurricane or tornado activity in a year (days): ____________________________________________________ Local government: Form of local government (city, town, county, etc.): * ____________________________________________________ Local government rule: Home Rule - Limited Rule - Other ____________________________________________________ Source of government decision making (city manager, city council, mayor, etc.): ____________________________________________________ 147   12  Utilities: Please list largest utilities and the approximate percentage of the community covered by each provider: Provider Name Coverage (%) Electric _____________ _____________ Gas _____________ _____________ Water _____________ _____________ Sewer _____________ _____________ Cable _____________ _____________ Phone _____________ _____________ Local economy mix (if available): Number of high tech jobs: _____________ Number of manufacturing jobs: _____________ Number of education services jobs: _____________ Number of other service sector jobs: _____________ Colleges and universities (List names and average number of students enrolled at each, if available): ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ Major hospitals/health care facilities (List names): ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ 148   13  Current providers of high speed Internet service (Company; DSL, Cable modem, wireless, fiber, etc.): ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ Other significant features of your community that could be relevant for this project: ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ 3. Collaborating on a Google fiber trial   In this section, we ask you to share how your community would work with Google to enable us to proceed quickly and effectively. Are you, the local government, willing to appoint an individual to serve as a single point of contact (1)? * Yes/No _____________ (1) A single point of contact to coordinate the local government and community's interactions with Google, to obtain as promptly as possible whatever information Google may require, and to resolve any problems that may arise as quickly and effectively as possible. If so, please describe the responsibilities and authority that this individual will have: ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ Describe any current or planned programs in your community to accelerate and expand adoption and use of broadband Internet access: ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ 149   14  Additional reasons you believe that Google should select your community for this project: ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ Please provide a web link to any additional information you wish us to consider. Submissions using Google Maps or YouTube are encouraged: ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ Google is interested in working with communities in which it can rapidly install fiber-optic facilities and offer ultra- high speed Internet access services. Google respects the legitimate responsibility of local governments to preserve and protect community assets, minimize disruption, ensure the safety of the public, address aesthetic concerns and property values, and obtain reasonable compensation for the use of public assets. 4. Your community's support    Have you performed any outreach, study or analysis regarding support in your community for this type of trial? * Yes/No _____________ Describe how you ascertained or plan to ascertain the level of community support for this project (e.g., surveys, public hearings, meetings with community groups, etc.): ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ If possible, describe your community's level of support for this project: ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ 150   15  Please briefly summarize any additional comments or suggestions you would like to make to Google on behalf of your community: ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ 5. Facilities and resources   Deployment of a community-wide fiber network will require Google to work closely with local government entities and other organizations. Google seeks to identify resources owned by the community that may assist in the rapid, smooth deployment of a residential fiber optic network. In this section, we ask you to share information about particular facilities and assets within the community that may be used or affected as part of such a facilities deployment, particularly those owned by the local government. Please respond as completely and accurately as possible. Pole Attachments: Please identify the entities, including units of the local government, that own or control utility poles in your community: Entity Name: ____________________________________________________ Number of poles owned or controlled: _____________ Annual rate per pole for pole attachment: - by telecommunications carriers ($):_____________ - by cable system operators ($)_____________ - Internet access providers ($):_____________ Entity Name: ____________________________________________________ Number of poles owned or controlled: _____________ Annual rate per pole for pole attachment: - by telecommunications carriers ($):_____________ - by cable system operators ($)_____________ - Internet access providers ($):_____________ 151   16  Entity Name: ____________________________________________________ Number of poles owned or controlled: _____________ Annual rate per pole for pole attachment: - by telecommunications carriers ($):_____________ - by cable system operators ($)_____________ - Internet access providers ($):_____________ If the local government will make its own poles available for attachments by Google, please estimate the number of days to complete the following steps, assuming full cooperation from Google: Negotiation of a master pole attachment agreement: _____________ Issuance of permits for individual attachments: _____________ Developing specifications for make-ready work: _____________ Completing make ready work: _____________ If a unit of your local government has access to poles owned or controlled by third parties that it could make available to Google, please provide the following information: Number of poles: _____________ Entity or entities that own or control the poles: ____________________________________________________ Rate that you would charge Google ($) per pole per year: _____________ Describe any restrictions on your right to make such poles available to Google: ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ Please identify any state or local laws, ordinances, rules or other legal measures that govern access and rates for attachment: ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ 152   17  Please provide contact information for any entities named above: ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ Conduits: Please identify the entities, including units of local government, that own or control utility conduits in your community: Entity Name: ____________________________________________________ Linear feet of conduit owned or controlled: _____________ Annual rate per foot for conduit use ($): - by telecommunications carriers ($):_____________ - by cable system operators ($)_____________ - Internet access providers ($):_____________ Entity Name: ____________________________________________________ Linear feet of conduit owned or controlled: _____________ Annual rate per foot for conduit use ($): - by telecommunications carriers ($):_____________ - by cable system operators ($)_____________ - Internet access providers ($):_____________ Entity Name: ____________________________________________________ Linear feet of conduit owned or controlled: _____________ Annual rate per foot for conduit use ($): - by telecommunications carriers ($):_____________ - by cable system operators ($)_____________ - Internet access providers ($):_____________ 153   18  If the local government will make its own conduits available for use by Google, please estimate the number of days to complete the following steps, assuming full cooperation from Google: Negotiation of a master conduit agreement: _____________ Issuance of permits: _____________ If a unit of your local government has access to conduit owned or controlled by third parties that it could make available to Google, please provide the following information: Linear feet: _____________ Entity or entities that own or control the conduit: ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ Rate that you would charge Google ($) per linear foot per year: _____________ Describe any restrictions on your right to make such conduit available to Google: ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ Please identify local laws, ordinances, rules or other legal measures that govern access rights and rates for conduit use: ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ Please provide contact information for any entity named above: ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ Public Rights of Way: Does your local government directly control and administer the use of all public rights of way within its jurisdiction? ____________________________________________________ Describe any other entities that control and administer the use of the public rights of way in your community: ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ 154   19  With respect to your process for managing access to public rights-of-way, please estimate the number of days to complete the following steps, assuming full cooperation from Google: Negotiation, approval, and issuance of a master right-of-way agreement: _____________ Issuance of construction permits: _____________ Post-construction inspections and approvals: _____________ Please indicate the amount or method of calculating all fees and charges for use of the public rights- of-way, including the following (if applicable): Application fees: _____________ Linear foot (or other) usage fees: _____________ Inspection fees: _____________ Other fees or charges: _____________ Community sensitivities and policies: Please describe any historical districts or other culturally or environmentally sensitive areas: * ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ Please describe your under-grounding plans and policies, if any: * ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ Please identify unique ordinances, rules, policy statements, and other legal measures specific to your community that Google would have to comply in developing a fiber project: ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ 155   20  6. Construction methods   Has your community worked with, studied or evaluated the following types of construction methods for fiber to the home networks: Aerial _____________ Trenching _____________ Boring _____________ Micro-trenching _____________ Plow _____________ Rock Saw _____________ Check approved methods of construction for your community: * Aerial _____________ Trenching _____________ Boring _____________ Micro-trenching _____________ Plow _____________ Rock Saw _____________ None/Other _____________ Are there other construction methods that are approved for use in construction of fiber to the home or other telecommunications networks in your community? If so, please list them below: ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ 156   21  7. Regulatory issues   Please describe the local regulatory obligations, if any, that would apply to Google if this project went forward in your community:* ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ Please describe local business obligations and taxes/fees, if any, that would apply to Google if this project went forward in your community: ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ 157   22  For residents and community groups (Exhibit B) * Required fields Your name: * ____________________________________________________ Your organization or community group: ___________________________________________________ If you are responding on behalf of an organization or community group, please describe it: ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ City: * ____________________________________________________ State: * ___________________________________________________ Why should Google build a fiber to the home network where you live? * ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ Web link to supporting material (YouTube videos and other creative submissions are encouraged!): ____________________________________________________ Additional Information    Check any/all that apply. What kind of Internet services are available where you live? Dial-up _____________ DSL _____________ Cable modem _____________ Fiber to the home _____________ Wireless _____________ 158   23  Other _____________ None _____________ Don't know _____________ What kind of Internet service do you primarily use at home? None _____________ Dial-up _____________ DSL _____________ Cable modem _____________ Fiber to the home _____________ Wireless _____________ Other_____________ Don't know_____________ What company provides your home Internet service? - AT&T, SBC _____________ - Verizon _____________ - Qwest _____________ - Comcast _____________ - Road Runner, Time Warner _____________ - Charter _____________ - Cox _____________ - Cablevision _____________ - AOL _____________ - EarthLink _____________ - NetZero, Juno, BlueLight _____________ - CenturyLink, CenturyTel, Embarq _____________ - Other ____________________________________________________ 159   24  What is the advertised speed of your home Internet service? Please round to the nearest megabit per second (Mbps). " Less then 1 Mbps" _____________ "1-5 Mbps" _____________ "5-10 Mbps" _____________ "10 Mbps or faster" _____________ "Don't know" _____________ What is your actual download speed during the evening? You can use a third-party website like Speedtest.net or Bandwidthplace.com, or other tools at Measurement Lab, to measure your actual download and upload speeds. "Less then 1 Mbps" _____________ "1-5 Mbps" _____________ "5-10 Mbps" _____________ "10 Mbps or faster" _____________ "Don't know" _____________ What is your actual upload speed during the evening? You can use a third-party website like Speedtest.net or Bandwidthplace.com, or other tools at Measurement Lab, to measure your actual download and upload speeds." "Less then 1 Mbps" _____________ "1-5 Mbps" _____________ "5-10 Mbps" _____________ "10 Mbps or faster" _____________ "Don't know" _____________ 160   25  How much does your Internet service cost per month? "Free" _____________ " Less then $10" _____________ "$10-20" _____________ "$20-40" _____________ "$40-60" _____________ "$60-$80" _____________ "$80-$100" _____________ "$100 or more" _____________ Is your Internet service "bundled" with other services like TV and phone? - Yes _____________ - No _____________ How many times in the last month did your high-speed Internet service not work correctly, slow down or frustrate you? "Never it’s great!" _____________ "1 to 5 times" _____________ "6 to 10 times" _____________ "More than 10. Boo!" _____________ Describe the quality of your home Internet service customer support: ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ ____________________________________________________ 161   26  What would you like to see improved about your current service? Check all that apply. Lower price _____________ Faster speed _____________ Higher reliability _____________ Better customer support _____________ 162 Page 1 of 2 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 3, 2010 AGENDA ITEM: DEPARTMENT: City Manager’s Office CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: Crystal Morrow DIRECTOR: Barbara Powell Administrative Analyst II Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: Resolution Authorizing ABAG to accept State Energy Program Funds on Behalf of the City of Saratoga RECOMMENDED ACTION: Accept report and approve the attached resolution authorizing the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) to accept State Energy Program (SEP) funds on behalf of the City for a residential energy efficiency audit and retrofit program. BACKGROUND: At the December 2, 2009 City Council Meeting, the Council authorized the City Manager to sign a letter of commitment to participate in a residential energy efficiency audit and retrofit program being developed by ABAG. At that time Council was informed that the City would need to pass a resolution authorizing ABAG to receive SEP funds on behalf of the City. Earlier this month, the State announced that ABAG had been awarded SEP funds to develop a residential energy efficiency audit and retrofit program. Consequently, ABAG has asked all participating municipalities to pass resolutions authorizing ABAG to accept SEP monies. FISCAL IMPACTS: Staff time may be needed to support the development and implementation of the ABAG home energy efficiency audit and retrofit program CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING THE RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: The resolution will not be passed and the City of Saratoga may be excluded from participating in the residential home energy efficiency audit and retrofit program that will be developed and funded with SEP monies. ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): N/A 163 Page 2 of 2 FOLLOW UP ACTION(S): Implement Council direction. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Nothing additional. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Resolution authorizing ABAG to accept SEP funds on behalf of the City of Saratoga Attachment B: December 2, 2009 staff report on the ABAG residential energy efficiency audit and retrofit program letter of commitment 164 RESOLUTION NO. ________ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AUTHORIZING THE ASSOCIATION OF BAY AREA GOVERNMENTS TO ACCEPT STATE ENERGY PROGRAM FUNDS ON BEHALF OF THE CITY WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga recognizes that it is in the interest of local, regional, state, and federal agencies to stimulate the economy; create and retain jobs; reduce fossil fuel emissions; and reduce total energy usage and improve energy efficiency; and WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga has committed to an ongoing, coordinated effort to reduce the emissions that cause global warming, improve air quality, reduce waste, cut energy use and save money; and WHEREAS, State Energy Program (SEP) funds are available through the California Energy Commissions’ SEP Funding Opportunities for grants to eligible local governments for cost-effective energy efficiency projects; and WHEREAS, the SEP allows for public agencies or non-profit entities to apply for funds on behalf of eligible local governments; and WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga is eligible for SEP funding under the California Energy Commissions’ SEP Program; and WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga has collaborated with the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) to submit a regional application to implement the energy efficiency project described in Exhibit A for the purpose of qualifying for SEP funds from the California Energy Commission; and WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga has considered the application of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) to the approval of the energy efficiency project described in Exhibit A. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of Saratoga that in compliance with CEQA, the City finds that the approval of the energy efficiency project described in Exhibit A is a “project” under CEQA that is categorically exempt under California Code of Regulations, Title 14, section 15301 (repairs and minor alterations to existing structures and facilities), because the project would develop standards for resource conservation and energy saving retrofits of existing structures involving negligible or no expansion of existing uses; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that if recommended for funding by the California Energy Commission the City of Saratoga authorizes ABAG to accept a grant award on its behalf and to enter into all necessary contracts and agreements, and amendments thereto, on its behalf to implement and carry out the project described in Exhibit A; and BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the City of Saratoga recognizes the County of Santa Clara as the lead local implementer for project described in Exhibit A for all the local governments in Santa Clara County, and that ABAG as the fiscal agent, will disburse the funds to Santa Clara County to implement and carry out the project described in Exhibit A. 165 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Saratoga City Council at a regular meeting held on the 3rd day of March 2010 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: _______________________________ Kathleen M. King, Mayor ATTEST: ___________________________________ Ann Sullivan, City Clerk 166 Attachment A: Retrofit Bay Area Comprehensive Residential Building Retrofit Program Summary of grant proposal submitted by ABAG to the California Energy Commission on December 21, 2009 Description of Proposed Program The Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) is collaborating with eight Bay Area counties to establish a comprehensive residential single-family and multifamily building retrofit program that leverages regional cooperation and funding while enabling autonomy at the local level. The proposed ABAG program aligns with local, regional and national goals of promoting economic vitality through an increase in green jobs, reducing U.S. oil dependency through increases in energy efficiency and deployment of renewable energy technologies, and reducing greenhouse gas emissions. On behalf of Alameda, Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara, Solano and Sonoma Counties, ABAG submitted a proposal to the California Energy Commission’s State Energy Program (SEP) to receive $10.8 million in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) grant funds administered by the U.S. Department of Energy. This grant program, known informally as SEP 2 to distinguish it from three other elements of California’s SEP program, runs from February 11, 2010 to March 31, 2012. The ARRA/SEP 2 grant funds would be used by ABAG program participants to carry out local and Bay Area-wide consumer outreach and education campaigns and workforce development activities that will accelerate demand for home energy retrofits and expand the regional building industry’s capacity to delivery high-quality, cost-effective retrofit services. To achieve these goals, Retrofit Bay Area has identified a set of three core program objectives: 1. Provide Property Assessed Clean Energy (PACE) financing to address the high upfront cost of retrofits, which enables homeowners to finance energy efficiency retrofits and renewable energy improvements through assessments paid via their property taxes. 2. Demonstrate more effective marketing and outreach methods to inform and motivate property owner participation. 3. Streamline participant, contractor, and administration processes to reduce the high transaction costs and build a quality "green" workforce. The ABAG program thereby will complement existing and planned local retrofit activities. Program Participants and Roles Participant Role Association of Bay Area Governments Fiscal agent and contract administrator Alameda County (StopWaste.Org) and Sonoma County (Sonoma County Transportation Authority) Regional tasks and local retrofit program implementation Contra Costa, Marin, San Francisco, San Mateo, Santa Clara and Solano Counties Local retrofit program implementation Bevilacqua Knight, Inc., Build It Green and California Building Performance Contractors Association Regional and local implementation assistance, quality assurance and reporting The County of Santa Clara’s Role The County of Santa Clara has represented the interests of the County and its cities in working with ABAG to develop a regional energy program and is working with the cities to develop a countywide 167 element that will become the Santa Clara County Residential Retrofit Program (SCCRRP). If grant funding is awarded to ABAG, Santa Clara County will receive more than $1,950,000 for the SCCRRP to implement local efforts to promote energy audits and retrofits for the residential sector in all the cities and unincorporated areas of the County. The County is providing a grant process for nonprofits, businesses, housing agencies, utilities and consulting firms to provide energy audits to the residential community. The SCCRRP will consist of a suite of environmental programs and information, including PACE financing options, that will be uniformly packaged, marketed and presented to County constituents. The energy audits are expected to stimulate interest in comprehensive home retrofits such as added insulation, weatherization, heating, ventilation and air conditioning upgrades, new windows and energy efficient appliances, resulting in significant reductions in energy and water consumption. The nearly $2 million that will be available for the SCCRRP will fund two County staff positions and various programs. ABAG is seeking to facilitate 17,000 retrofits in the Bay Area during the grant cycle, with an average of 20% energy reduction. Based on the County having 26% of the population of the eight participating counties, the SCCRRP will aim for 4,359 retrofits. It is projected that this work will result in 446 new jobs, $1.7 million saved in energy costs for homeowners, 100 billion reduction of BTU, and $43.8 million spent in the County. The SCCRRP will not change the permitting or building inspection processes within the County, and will seek to inform and educate residents on steps that they can take to reduce their energy consumption and water usage. Residents who participate in the program and have energy audits performed on their homes will be encouraged to implement the steps recommended by the energy audit and upgrade their home to be more energy efficient and to consume less water. 168 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: December 2, 2009 AGENDA ITEM: DEPARTMENT: City Manager’s Office CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: Crystal Morrow DIRECTOR: Barbara Powell Administrative Analyst II Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: Letter of Commitment for Association of Bay Area Governments Residential Energy Efficiency Audit and Retrofit Program RECOMMENDED ACTION: Accept report and authorize the City Manager to sign the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) residential energy efficiency audit and retrofit program letter of commitment. BACKGROUND: State Energy Program – Residential Building Energy Audit and Retrofit Programs As part of the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act, the State of California has received $226 million for the State Energy Program (SEP). Of this money, $95 million will be used to fund an Energy Efficiency Program that will provide grants to qualified organizations for municipal financing programs (SEP1) like CaliforniaFIRST, residential building energy audit and retrofit programs (SEP2), and municipal and commercial energy retrofit programs (SEP3). The State’s SEP funds are being administered by the California Energy Commission. SEP applications are due to the State by December 21, 2009. SEP2 – ABAG Home Energy Efficiency Audit and Retrofit Program ABAG is leading a regional effort to apply for $10-$12 million in SEP2 funds to create a regional home energy audit and retrofit program that will benefit all of the Bay Area counties. Although the exact programs and functions of the ABAG program have not been defined at this time, the program will be focused on establishing home energy audit and retrofit standards in the Bay Area, workforce development, marketing and outreach, and quality assurance. Ultimately, the program is intended to create green jobs, increase use and development of clean energy technologies, promote the local economy, and reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Letter of Commitment The California Energy Commission is requiring that all of the cities that intend to participate in the ABAG program submit a letter of commitment. The letter of commitment is due to ABAG in December 2009, so that it may be included in ABAG’s application for SEP funds. The letter of commitment: - Indicates that the City is in support of ABAG’s application for SEP2 funds - Authorizes ABAG as the lead agency in submitting the application Page 1 of 2 169 Page 2 of 2 - Supports the County of Santa Clara as the lead agency in implementing ABAG’s home energy efficiency audit and retrofit program in Santa Clara County - States the City will participate in program development and implementation in Saratoga and throughout the region - Indicates the City will provide a resolution authorizing ABAG to act as the lead agency in applying for and receiving SEP2 funds on behalf of Saratoga, contingent upon the selection of ABAG’s proposal for funding FISCAL IMPACTS: There are no fiscal impacts associated with approving the letter of commitment. However, staff time may need to be dedicated to the development and implementation of the ABAG home energy efficiency audit and retrofit program if SEP2 money is awarded to the program. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING THE RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: The City will not submit a letter of commitment for the ABAG home energy audit and retrofit program and may not be eligible for services proved through the program if it receives SEP2 funds. ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): N/A FOLLOW UP ACTION(S): Implement Council direction. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Nothing additional. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Letter of Commitment to the ABAG home energy efficiency audit and retrofit program Attachment B: State Energy Program Chart 170 Page 1 of 3 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 3, 2010 AGENDA ITEM: DEPARTMENT: City Manager’s Office CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: Crystal Morrow DIRECTOR: Barbara Powell Administrative Analyst II Assistant City Manager SUBJECT: Process for Allocation of Community Events Fund RECOMMENDED ACTION: Accept report and select a process for allocating community event funds. BACKGROUND: At the February 17, 2010 City Council Meeting, direction was given to staff to bring back options for formalizing allocation of the City’s Community Events Fund. The distribution of the Community Events Fund from fiscal year 2005/06 to the current fiscal year is included in Attachment A. The fund has been used for a variety of events in past years, including: - City events, such as park openings, Arbor Day, and the Community Garage Sale - Special events coordinated by members of the community, such as Taste of Saratoga, the Mustard Faire, the Memorial Day event, and the Fourth of July celebration Staff has prepared several options to formalize allocation of Community Events Fund. These options are listed below for Council consideration. Option 1: Status Quo Formally adopt the current practice of allocating money in the Community Event Fund through the budget process. Option 2: Traditional Event Application Continue to provide City support and sponsorship for established community events that have received City funding or assistance in the past. Require event organizers for these events to submit an application. The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Community Grant application could be used as a template for the Community Event Fund application (see Attachment B). Council would review applications to determine which events to support and funding amounts for selected events. 171 Page 2 of 3 Option 3: Open Application Process Hold an open application process in which traditional and new community event organizers could seek City sponsorship and monies from the Community Events Fund. The CDBG and Community Grant application could be used as an application for the Community Event Fund application. Council would review applications to determine which events to support and funding amounts for selected events. Option 4: Prioritize Traditional Events Solicit applications from traditional event organizers. Council would then review applications to determine which events to support and the funding amount for selected events. If there is remaining money after funds have been allocated to established events, applications for new events would be considered. The CDBG and Community Grant application could be used as an application for the Community Event Fund application. FISCAL IMPACTS: Should the Council select option 2, 3, or 4, staff time will be required to formalize the application process, solicit applications, and prepare applications for Council to review. However, establishing a process for allocation of Community Event Funds that coincides with the budget process will provide for a better understanding of the needs of community event organizers that may consequently reduce the number of budget requests related to events that go before the City Council. Additionally, Council may want to consider providing direction to staff on the total funding amount for community events in the proposed budget for the next fiscal year. The amount of money set aside in the Community Event Fund has varied, but since fiscal year 2006/07 it has typically ranged from approximately $12,000 to $15,000. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING THE RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: There will be no formalized process for determining Community Event Fund allocations. ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): N/A FOLLOW UP ACTION(S): Implement Council direction. 172 Page 3 of 3 ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Nothing additional. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: Community Events Fund distribution from fiscal year 2006/07 to the current fiscal year Attachment B: CDBG/Community Grants application 173 Community Event Fund From Fiscal Year 2006/07 to 2009/10 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2009/10 Actual Actual Actual Budgeted Estimated Chamber of Commerce Events Celebrate Saratoga - Teen Scene 7,527 10,000 - - - Celebrate Saratoga - Fun Zone 4,900 4,900 - - - Celebrate Saratoga - Event Support - 4,996 - - - Celebrate Saratoga Banner - - - - - Taste of Saratoga - - 3,299 - - Saratoga Art & Wine Festival - - - 5,000 4,258 Annual Tree Lighting - - - - 1,037 General Community Events Unspecified Event Funding - - - 5,000 - Neighborhood Block Party Supp - - - - - Month of the Child Celebration - - - - - Mustard Faire 1,418 2,000 3,649 - 4,000 Sister City 25th Anniversary - - - 1,200 - Arbor Day Celebration - - 78 100 100 Memorial Day Event (Banner)- 300 - - - Fourth of July Event - - 1,547 4,000 - Cancer Society - Relay - 200 - - - Citywide Garage Sale - - 4,270 5,000 5,000 Facility Opening Events Fellowship Hall Opening - - - - 104 de Anza Trail Opening - - 23 - - KMP Groundbreaking / Opening - - - 250 138 Total Community Events 13,845 22,396 12,866 20,550 14,637 174 FY 2010-2011 CITY OF SARATOGA COMMUNITY GRANT & CDBG STANDARD APPLICATION DATE: __________________ Please refer to the Application Instructions Sheet for details on the following questions. Please limit your answers to one paragraph per question 1) Applicant Organization/Agency Name: _____________________________________ Agency Address: _________________________________________________________ Executive Director: _______________________________________________________ Phone: ________________ Fax: _________________ E-Mail: _____________________ Agency is a Faith Based Organization: ____ Yes ____ No 2) Program Title: __________________________________________________________ Program Address: _________________________________________________________ Contact Person/Title: ______________________________________________________ Phone: ________________ Fax: _________________ E-Mail: _____________________ 3) City of Saratoga grant funds requested in the past: ____________________________ 4) City of Saratoga grant funds received in the past: _____________________________ 5) Program description and number of unduplicated clients served: ________________ 6) Program purpose and objectives: ___________________________________________ 7) Program management: ___________________________________________________ 8) Agency description and experience: ________________________________________ 9) Audit information: _______________________________________________________ 10) Sources of funds anticipated for this project: _________________________________ 11) Budget: Please use the attached worksheet. 12) Performance Measurements: Please use the attached worksheet. 13) Outreach: ______________________________________________________________ 14) Leveraging: _____________________________________________________________ 15) Cost / Benefit Analysis: ___________________________________________________ 16) Target Beneficiaries: _____________________________________________________ 175 BUDGET AGENCY NAME: ___________________________ Date Prepared: _________________ PROGRAM NAME: ____________________________________________________________ SPECIFIC ACTIVITIES BUDGET AMOUNT Can be broken down quarterly or annually (please specify) 176 PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENTS AGENCY NAME: ___________________________ Date Prepared: ________________ PROGRAM NAME: ___________________________________________________________ PERFORMANCE MEASUREMENT WORKSHEET GOAL: OBJECTIVE (1): OUTCOME (1): OBJECTIVE (2): OUTCOME (2): 177 Page 1 of 4 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: March 3, 2010 AGENDA ITEM: DEPARTMENT: Community Development CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: Cynthia McCormick, AICP DIRECTOR: John F. Livingstone, AICP SUBJECT: Review of site coverage requirements and impervious surface definition RECOMMENDED ACTION: Direct staff regarding the preferred approach to revising site coverage requirements and impervious surface definition among one or more of the following options which are discussed later in more detail: 1. Create an exception process that would allow the Planning Commission to approve variations from the site coverage standards upon making specific findings (similar to the process for grading standards). 2. Change the definition of “impervious surface” to exclude specified types of surfaces such as artificial turf, gravel, or driveways. As a variation on this option the Code could exclude specific types of surfaces in specific zoning districts, such as the current exclusion for driveways in the Agricultural district. 3. Seek to address the goals of the site coverage requirements with a different approach such as a landscape ordinance. REPORT SUMMARY: In January 2010 the City Council held their annual retreat and discussed a work program for the Community Development Department. At that time, the Council discussed considering ordinance amendments affecting the City’s site coverage/impervious surface requirements. Council noted that there have been considerable advances in technology concerning products that allow water to penetrate through them such as pavers and pervious concretes and that the city’s current definition may need updating to address the new materials. At the retreat the Council also separately discussed an update to the City’s Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance as required by the recent state legislation being administered by the California Department of Water Resources (DWR). This update is scheduled for review by the Planning Commission on March 24th. Once recommended by the Planning Commission, the proposed ordinance will be brought to the Council for consideration. One of the options discussed below relates to the Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance update. 178 Page 2 of 4 BACKGROUND: The General Plan sets site coverage limits for all residential and commercial/office areas in the City. The Plan describes impervious coverage as being “any structure or constructed surface that disrupts the aesthetics of the landscape.” (General Plan Land Use Element, p.11.) The Zoning Code implements the General Plan with a more specific definition for “impervious surface”: “any structure or constructed surface that disrupts the natural aesthetic of the landscape, including, but not limited to, solid surface decks and patios, accessory structures, swimming pools, recreational courts, paved driveways and parking areas, and surfaces composed of gravel, decomposed granite, clay, and bricks with sand or concrete.” (Saratoga City Code section 15-06.370.) The Code then uses the term “impervious surface” in setting standards for determining site coverage. Site coverage is defined as: “the percentage of net site area covered by impervious surfaces including all structures, open or enclosed, or projections of structures.” (Saratoga City Code section 15- 06.620(f).) These standards are implemented through the design review process, conditions of approval, and plan check prior to issuance of building permits. Since the General Plan’s impervious coverage limits were first adopted, state and federal regulations have been adopted that impose strict limits on local development to protect water quality and to promote water conservation. These include the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit requirements imposed by the federal Clean Water Act administered by the Regional Water Quality Control Board and the more recent requirements by the State of California for an updated Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance. These rules set a minimum standard with which all local governments must comply. Cities and counties are permitted to adopt more restrictive standards that provide greater protection. While state and federal rules address water quality and conservation objectives of the site coverage policies, those rules do not address the aesthetics of the landscape. As a result, some projects, especially in the hillsides, have found that while it is possible to satisfy applicable water quality and other environmental protection goals, it is not possible to satisfy the City Code’s site coverage requirements with a home of the size and amenities often found in the area. This has led to requests to modify the site coverage requirements in the City Code (see attachment 1). DISCUSSION: Staff has identified three general approaches to addressing the issues related to lot coverage. Council may direct staff and Planning Commission to pursue one of these approaches or a combination. Regardless of the option selected all projects in the City would continue to be required to comply with the minimum standards set by federal and state water quality and conservation rules. 1. Create an exception process that would allow the Planning Commission to approve variations from the site coverage standards upon making specific findings. 179 Page 3 of 4 The first approach would amend the City Code to establish an exception process. The process would allow the Planning Commission to approve variations from site coverage standards if the Commission could make specified findings. This approach is currently used with respect to grading standards. The City’s standard is that combined cut and fill grading shall not exceed 1,000 cubic yards but a larger amount may be approved by the Planning Commission upon making certain findings. If Council elects to proceed with this approach staff would work with the Planning Commission to determine appropriate criteria to be used in evaluating requests for a variation form standards (e.g., effect on natural landscape, visibility, additional environmental protection benefit, etc.). 2. Change the definition of “impervious surface” to exclude specified types of surfaces such as artificial turf, gravel, or driveways. As a variation on this option the Code could exclude specific types of surfaces in specific zoning districts, as provided for driveways in the Agricultural district. This approach would consider revising the definition of impervious surface in the City Code. For example, the existing definition (quoted above) includes gravel and decomposed granite as being an impervious surface. The new State of California Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance, in contrast, considers these materials to be “mulch”. Furthermore, it has been suggested that gravel, sand, and/or decomposed granite should not be considered “impervious” because these materials allow some percolation of water into the ground. The State of California Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance defines “pervious” as any surface or material that allows the passage of water through the material and into the underlying soil. This suggests that the City could redefine impervious surface “as any surface or material that does not allow the passage of water through the material and into the underlying soil”. Although this is not required by the state law, a revision along these lines would reduce confusion on the part of applicants and would make it more likely that any project in compliance with the state law would also be in compliance with the City’s site coverage requirements. As a variation on this approach, the City could consider revising the site coverage requirements in some zoning districts to exclude specific types of surfaces such as artificial turf, gravel, clay, sand, decomposed granite, and/or driveways. Currently, the Agricultural District excludes access driveways and necessary turnaround areas from determining site coverage. This approach recognizes that various surfaces may be more or less appropriate in different zoning districts depending on aesthetics, functionality, water usage, etc. 3. Seek to address the goals of the site coverage requirements with a different approach such as a landscape ordinance. This approach would involve replacing the current site coverage requirements with a landscaping ordinance focused on protecting natural aesthetics. The current definition for “impervious surfaces” appears to have been intended to protect water quality and to also preserve the aesthetic quality of a property (by not allowing gravel to cover an entire front yard, for example). However, the current definition may encourage an applicant to install more plants and grass. This type of landscaping requires more water use which is counterintuitive to California’s Water Conservation in Landscaping Act which requires a reduction in water usage through the new Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. 180 Page 4 of 4 The water allowance in the Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance considers the total “landscaped area” as well as other factors such as a region’s typical rainfall. The ordinance defines “landscaped area” as including “all the planting areas, turf areas, and water features in a landscape design plan . . . . The landscape area does not include footprints of buildings or structures, sidewalks, driveways, parking lots, decks, patios, gravel or stone walks, other pervious or non-pervious hardscapes, and other non-irrigated areas designated for non- development (e.g., open spaces and existing native vegetation).” (emphasis added.) A landscape ordinance would define what landscaping is and could regulate where and how much should be allowed. For example, the ordinance could require that a certain percentage of all front yards be landscaped. Site coverage by buildings and other structures would be regulated by existing standards in the Code for building size, setbacks, etc. FISCAL IMPACTS: Any amendments to the ordinance that may potentially increase the amount and type of impervious surface in the City will require environmental review in addition to public hearings with the Planning Commission and City Council. Any amendment that is more restrictive would typically have no environmental impact. Option one, creating an exception process, would not require environmental review upfront as any environmental effects would be considered on a case-by-case basis in relation to the proposed project. This option would cost approximately $5,000 in City Attorney time. Staff time would be addressed through the advance planning maintenance fund. The other options may require environmental review ranging from $20,000 to $30,000 and approximately $10,000 in City Attorney time. ALTERNATIVE ACTION: The City Council could direct the Planning Commission to consider all three options, allowing an exception process, and creating a landscape ordinance that would also address the current definition of impervious surface. FOLLOW UP ACTION: Staff will conduct a study session with the Planning Commission based on City Council direction. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Notice of this meeting was properly posted. ATTACHMENTS: 1. Correspondence from Ron Hills 181 (Page # in upper left corner) Attachment 1 Letter from Ronald and Suzanna Hills dated January 20, 2010 (pages 1-14) Notes from Ronald Hills dated February 23, 2010 (pages 15-18) Codes from other Cities (pages 19-20) Live Lawns (pages 21-22) Pavers (pages 23-27) 182 1 183 2 184 3 185 4 186 5 187 6 188 7 189 8 190 9 191 19 2 11 19 3 12 194 13 19 5 14 19 6 Impervious Coverage Issue 1 2/23/10 COMMENTS ON IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE DEFINITION: The city needs to update its code to correct the definition of Impervious Coverage and allow for new technologies to be used for landscaping. Saratoga’s verbal interpretation of the code counts Artificial Turf, gravel and tree Bark as Impervious Coverage and makes no sense to the 3 lawyers and a former district attorney I spoke to, nor to any of the 20 cities, 5 water districts, the EPA, and Green Organizations I surveyed. I also checked this out with: EPA, State code, Webster's, Google, and Wikipedia. The common and legal interpretation of “impervious” centers around liquid percolation, not that it is a “constructed surface that disrupts the natural aesthetics of the landscape”. Everyone, except Saratoga, defines it as: “does not allow rain water to be directly absorbed by the ground”, “infiltration of water into the underlying soil is prevented”, “not allowing anything to pass through it”, “incapable of being penetrated”, “seals soil surface, eliminating underground natural water recharge”, etc. To make matters worse, “Natural aesthetics of the landscape” is also not defined in the code and can be very subjective (from dirt/weeds to grass/trees) and could vary from property to property. The present code interpretation allows the city to effectively impact/control the appearance of enclosed non-visible rear yard landscaping, even though this desire to control is not mentioned anywhere in the code. The present interpretation has another negative impact on homeowners because many use tree bark or gravel in planter areas to retain water in summers, or Artificial Turf in place of live lawns where real grass doesn’t grow well (such as shaded areas or high traffic areas) or just to save water. I assume that people who have applied, or will apply, for a building permit have been, or will be, required to count these materials against their Impervious Coverage limit no matter where it is on their property. This does not allow homeowner to freely select their own landscaping or encourage homeowners to use modern products that save water while giving a aesthetically pleasing landscaped appearance. 15 197 Impervious Coverage Issue 2 2/23/10 There are modern products that help save water while providing aesthetically pleasing landscaping. Examples are: Artificial Turf (AT), tree bark, gravel, deck like surfaces that let water percolate into the ground, and manufactured materials such as porous cement and Hydro-Flo technology pavers (see attachment-A) that allow water to percolate through them. QUESTIONS THE CITY NEEDS TO DECIDE: 1- Does Saratoga want to be the only city interpreting "Impervious Coverage" as a "aesthetics" question (defined as “not representing a natural landscape” look) or as a percolation question? It’s unfair (I also think illegal) to subjectively define a Impervious Coverage code with no definition of what’s acceptable “natural landscaping”. How does the city justify its interpretation of Impervious Coverage that does not conform to anyone else’s legal definition? It is also very subjective to say Artificial Turf doesn’t look like grass! The Turf’s look and feel is what makes it a booming business. 2- Does the city want to continue penalizing homeowners who use these products to save water while improving the aesthetics of their property and the city? 3- Does the city want to define/control enclosed rear yard landscaping? If so, why? How would the city accomplish this or monitor this, and where do we get the extra money to do code enforcement? Does the city want to be know as a big government (big brother) type of city? This will discourage people from moving to Saratoga and consequently lower property values and taxes (income to the city). Neighboring cities don’t do this. 4- How does the city plan to support and encourage homeowners to conserve landscaping water? Will the city continue to penalizing homeowners for using water saving landscaping materials? Why are we worrying about shower flow restrictors when live lawns are the biggest water users (>50%)? 5- How does the city & the homeowner comply with the Water District restrictions and fines on water usage, as well as the new Cal. State Landscaping law? Water districts are 16 198 Impervious Coverage Issue 3 2/23/10 willing to pay Saratoga homeowners to replace real turf with Artificial Turf. But city penalizes us if we do what the Water District is trying to promote. The cost of water is projected to increase 36% over the next 3 years? Water Districts are being threatened by the State that if they don’t reduce water consumption by 20% they could loose State aid. Homeowners will stop planting live green lawns or start turning off their landscape irrigation just to comply with the Water restrictions and save money. Saratoga will have more homes with dirt & weeds in their front yards. The Planning Dept. has a concern about AT becoming clogged over time (to 15% percolation rate) and causing water runoff. The least percolating Turf I found can clog down to <1% percolation rate and still handle >99% of Saratoga’s worse case rain storms over the last 7 years. Real lawns and dirt cause runoff problems faster than AT with its base rock that acts like a detention pond. No other city or water management group worries about it. Saratoga High, Prospect High and many other schools have very large flat football fields of AT. SUGGESTIONS FOR UPDATING CODE: Re-write article 15-06.370 and “Req’s for design review applications, pg-2, item-m” to: A- Define Impervious Coverage as a water percolation issue. Define Landscape Aesthetics as a separate issue. B- For IMPERVIOUS COVERAGE issues: do NOT count any material that can percolate water ≥1” per day*, such as: Artificial turf, Tree Bark, gravel, deck surfaces that let water percolate into the ground, and manufactured materials such as porous cement and Hydro-Flo technology pavers that allow water to percolate through them. Allow consideration for underground percolation tanks/systems that accumulate water runoff from hard surfaces and slowly allow the water to percolate into the ground (as in Cupertino code). There is no need to worry about setbacks from property lines for these products since they control runoff better than dirt or grass. C- For LANDSCAPE AESTHETICS: divide “visible” vs. “non- visible” yard areas by what can be seen from the street. If it can be seen by the public at a distance (such as a 17 199 Impervious Coverage Issue 4 2/23/10 second story neighbor window or from a hill side) it should NOT be counted as visible. For visible areas have homeowners show samples of the proposed Turf/gravel/bark/pavers/etc (plus the proposed location for each) to Planning for approval, similar to what’s presently required for colors, roof materials, etc. Do not allow old Astro Turf or Indoor/Outdoor carpeting in visible areas. Require that ≥50% be landscaped with live landscaping, etc and ≤50% be hardscape, etc (these can be more defined as to what’s allowed/disallowed- there are numerous options). For non-visible areas don’t control the landscaping design or materials except for water runoff to neighbors or in hillside slopes over ~XX% slope. Remember – these products actually reduce water runoff and the potential for mudslides by allowing more time for the dirt to absorb rainwater. * Based on Saratoga rainfall over last 7 years. All Artificial turf’s can handle >168”/day (7”/hr). Hydro-Flo Pavers can handle ≥24”/day (1”/hr). In the worse case (24”/day), if these products accumulate dust/dirt over the years, they can become ~96% clogged and still handle ~99% of Saratoga’s worse case rain storms, which is still much better than dirt or grass can handle. SUMMARY: • Present to City Council: - Impervious Coverage code is miss-leading and out of date. - Recommend change in code to clearly define: 1- “Impervious Coverage” as a water percolation issue. 2- Separate code for Landscaping Aesthetics - Allow for new technology to be used to help solve State Landscaping Law requirements and meet need of local Water Districts. - Recommend City still has oversight into landscaping appearance for “visible” lawn areas. • Question to City Council: - Does the city want to control the appearance or use of any materials used in non-visible lawn areas, such as enclosed rear yards, other than for water percolation needs? 18 200 PA Code 18.04.030 Definitions (74) "Impervious area" means the portion of land on a lot that is covered by structures, paved surfaces, uncovered porches or similar cover and is incapable of being penetrated by water under normal circumstances. Artificial Turf – not covered Gravel, tree bark – not counted as Impervious Coverage LA Code Title 11 MISCELLANEOUS PROPERTY REGULATIONS Los Altos, California - Code of Ordinances ...or part thereof. "Animated sign" means any sign that uses movement or change of lighting, either natural or artificial, to depict action or create a special effect or scene. "Arcade" means a private or public passageway either...and poison ivy when the conditions of growth are such as to constitute a menace to the public health; 5. Dry grass, stubble, brush litter or other flammable material which endangers the public safety by creating a fire hazard. ... Cupertino Code Glossary of terms 19 201 Code 18.04.030, Definitions: section (74) "Impervious area" means the portion of land on a lot that is covered by structures, paved surfaces, uncovered porches or similar cover and is incapable of being penetrated by water under normal circumstances Code 18.12.060, Parking (b) Parking and Driveway Surface Parking and driveway surfaces may have either permeable or impermeable paving. Materials shall be those acceptable to public works department standards. Gravel and similar loose materials shall not be used for driveway or parking surfaces within 10 feet of the public right of way. 20 202 Interesting article in Geophysical Research Letters about live lawns By Townsend-Small, A., and C. I. Czimczik Carbon sequestration and greenhouse gas emissions in urban turf Geophys. Res. Lett., 37, L02707, doi:10.1029/2009GL041675 22 January 2010 www.agu.org/journals/gl/ Basically- any Carbon foot print advantage of having a live lawn vs no lawn or Artificial Turf is lost due to CO2 gases from equipment maintaining the lawn. We still need parks but why not encourage use of Artificial Turf for home owners!! ---------------------------- City Parks May Be Bad for the Environment Inside Science Green parks in dry climates may actually increase the amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere, according to new research. • WASHINGTON -- Plants are usually our allies when it comes to reducing the atmosphere's greenhouse gases, converting carbon dioxide into food and storing the gas' carbon in the soil below. But according to new research, green parks in dry climates -- which bring thick carbon-capturing grass to regions normally populated by sparse native vegetation -- may actually increase the amount of CO2 released into the atmosphere. "The greenhouse gases produced by maintaining the park are the problem," reports Amy Townsend-Small, an earth scientist at the University of California, Irvine. Her research suggests that parks in arid cities, as they are currently managed and landscaped, are not as 21 203 "green" as they look. Her measurements of soil carbon and the air above the park's turf in Irvine showed that grass itself captures a fair amount of CO2 and emits only a tiny amount of nitrous oxide, a greenhouse gas that soil bacteria create while digesting fertilizer. But when Townsend-Small included estimates about how much energy and fuel was required to manage the land -- and the pollution produced by equipment such as lawn mowers and leaf blowers -- she calculated the resulting carbon footprint created from landscaping maintenance to be 10 times the amount of carbon that the park's green area could absorb. Just watering the grass alone produced enough carbon to override any potential reduction in the gas that the lawn might produce. The numbers were even worse for the park's athletic fields, where turf is continually torn up and replanted before it can store significant amounts of carbon. Published in the Jan. 22 issue of the journal Geophysical Research Letters, the research suggests that parks in arid cities, as currently managed, should not count as carbon credits. 22 204 23 205 24 206 25 207 26 208 27 209