HomeMy WebLinkAbout01-03-1996 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORTSSARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO.
2 -6a
AGENDA ITEM: &A
MEETING DATE: January
3,
1996
ORIGINATING DEPARTMENT:
CITY MANAGER APPROVAL:
SUBJECT:
Community Development fL/
V -95 -012; Butler, 20650 Montalvo Heights Dr.
Applicant is appealing a Planning Commission condition of Variance
approval. The Commission approved the applicant's request to allow
a recently built wall in excess of 6 ft. in height to remain, but
required that the portion of the wall within the front yard be
lowered to 3 ft. - the applicant is appealing this condition.
Recommended Motion:
Staff recommends that the City Council take one of the following
actions:
1. Uphold the Planning Commission's decision to approve the
Variance request in part with the condition that the front
yard portion of the wall be reduced to no more than 3 ft. in
height;
•-
2. Accept staff's recommendation to the Planning Commission and
approve both Variance requests as submitted.
Project Description:
Request for Variance approval to allow a 6 ft. tall wall to be
located within a required front yard setback, and to allow a
portion of the wall to exceed 6 ft.; fences and walls are limited
to 3 ft. in height within front yards and 6 ft. in height maximum
pursuant to Saratoga's Zoning Ordinance. The wall has recently
been built prior to consideration of the Variance request. The
subject property is approximately 1 . 12 acres in size and is located
in an R -1- 40,000 zoning district.
Butler, 20650 Montalvo Heights Dr.
City Council, January 3, 1996
Page 2
Report Summary:
The Planning Commission considered this request for Variance
approval at its November 21, 1995 public hearing. The Commission
agreed with the staff report conclusion that topographical
constraints supported the Variance for the 7 -8 ft. tall portion of
the wall in the interior of the property.
However, the Planning Commission did not agree that the findings of
special circumstance applied to the front yard portion of the wall.
Therefore, by a 5 -1 vote, the Commission required that the wall be
reduced from 6 ft. to no more than 3 ft. in maximum height within
the front yard setback.
Environmental Determination:
The proposed 'property -line wall is categorically exempt from the
requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act.
Fiscal Impacts:
None.
Advertising, Noticing and Public Contact:
A notice of this item was mailed to property owners within a 500
ft. radius of the subject property and published in the Saratoga
News.
Consequences of Not Acting.on the Recommended Motions:
The Planning Commission decision will stand and the appeal will be
denied.
Follow -up Action:
An appropriate resolution will be placed on the next City Council
agenda reflecting Council action on this appeal.
Attachments:
1. Planning Commission Resolution V -95 -012
2. Staff Report dated November 21, 1995 (with attachments)
3. Planning Commission minutes dated November 21, 1995
4. Correspondence Received
james \exesumm \butler
• •
RESOLUTION NO. V -95 -012
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Butler; 20650 Montalvo Heights Dr.
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received
an application for Variance approval to allow a 6 ft. tall wall to
be located within a required front yard setback, and to allow a
portion of the wall to exceed 6 ft.; fences and walls are limited
to 3 ft. in height within front yards and 6 ft. in maximum height
pursuant to Saratoga's Zoning Ordinance.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a duly noticed
public hearing at which time all interested parties were given a
full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to
support said application, in part, and the Planning Commission
makes the following findings;
(a) Special circumstances applicable to the property exist
that warrant the fencing Variance request in that the +/ -7 ft.
portion of the wall is located well away from street or public
view. Because of the grade change between the two parcels, the
west side of this wall is roughly 5 ft. in height. Requiring that
this precast wall be reduced to 6 ft. would reduce its
effectiveness as a privacy barrier for the west property. The
variations in grades between the two parcels establishes the
special circumstance to allow the wall to exceed 6 ft. in height.
(b) That the granting of the Variance will not constitute a
grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on
other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning
district based on the special circumstances identified above.
(c) That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental
to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to
properties or improvements in the vicinity.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of
Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows:
Section 1. After careful consideration of the plans and other
exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, V -95 -012,
application for Variance approval, be and the same is hereby
granted, in part, subject to the following conditions:
1. Within 60 days from the effective date of this Resolution, the
applicant /property owner shall lower the wall within the 30
ft. required front -yard setback to a maximum height of 3 ft.
File No. V -95 -012; 206.50 Montalvo Heights Dr.
2. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and
expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or
held- to be the liability of City in connection with City's
defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State
or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect
to the applicant's project.
3. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall
constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is
impossible to estimate damages the City could incur due to the
violation, liquidated damages of $250.00 shall be payable to
this City per each day 1f the violation.
Section 2. All applicable requirements of the State, County,
City and other Governmental entities must be met.
Section 3. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of
Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga City Code, this Resolution shall
become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga Planning
Commission, State of California, this 21st day of November, 1995,
by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
/#4or&,4-'4 /A... /14
Chairman, Planni g Cam&ssion
ATTEST:
e624 .
Secretary, Planning Commission
REPORT TO THE PLANNING. COMMISSION
-Application No. /Location: V -95 -012; 20650 Montalvo Heights Dr.
Applicant /Owner: BUTLER
Staff Planner: James Walgren
Date: November 21, 1995
APN: 517-18-042 Director Approval:
20650 Montalvo Heights Dr.
•
•
File No. V -95 -012; 20650 Montalvo Heights Dr.
Application filed:
10/19/95
Application complete:
11/01/95
Notice published:
11/08/95
Mailing completed:
11/09/95
Posting completed:
11/02/95
Request for Variance approval to allow a 6 ft. tall wall to be
located within a required front yard setback, and to allow a
portion of the wall to exceed 6 ft.; fences and walls are limited
to 3 ft. in height within front yards and 6 ft. in height maximum
pursuant to Saratoga's Zoning Ordinance. The wall has already been
built. The subject property is approximately 1.12 acres in size
and is located in an R -1- 40,000 zoning district.
Approve the Variance request by adopting the attached Resolution,
1. Staff Analysis
2. Resolution V -95 -012
3. Plans, Exhibit "A"
0 0
File No. V -95 -012; 20650 Montalvo Heights Dr.
STAFF ANALYSIS
ZONING: R- 1- 4.0,000
GENERAL PLAN DESIGNATION: Residential -Very Low Density
PARCEL SIZE: 1.12 acres
WAS-14
Site Characteristics:
The subject property is a 1.12 acre site located at the end of
Montalvo Heights Dr. The fence in question is located between this
property and another >one acre site to the east; both parcels are
owned by the applicant, Mr. Gerald Butler. Mr. Butler lives in the
"east" house and is currently building a new two -story residence on
the "west" parcel.
An existing 4 -5 ft. tall decorative brick and open -bar style fence
wraps around the entire court. According to Mr. Butler, this
decorative fence was built approximately 10 years ago when the
subdivision was constructed. Many other front yard fences in
excess of 3 ft. in height can be seen throughout the development.
There was a window of time when Saratoga's Zoning Ordinance allowed
front yard fences up to 4 -5 ft. in height in the larger lot zoning
districts. This Ordinance was later repealed, but it is probable
that the many 4 -5 ft. tall fences seen in this area were
constructed legally during this time; this is difficult to
determine for certain since fencing, in and of itself, does not
require building permits.
variance Request:
The Variance request is to allow a recently constructed 6 ft. tall
stucco wall to remain within a required front yard setback. The
wall came to staff's attention when visiting the property to
consider the Design Review request for the home under construction.
Portions of the wall, further into the property, also appear to
exceed 6 ft. in height - at one point the wall looks to be in
excess of 7 feet.
Staff feels that the necessary findings can be made to support the
Variance request in this particular case based on the following
special circumstances:
• The 5 -6 ft. portion of the wall located in the required front
yard is behind an existing decorative fence built at a similar
File No. V -95 -012; 20650 Montalvo Heights Dr.
height. Requiring that the new wall be lowered to 3 ft . would `
not be visually noticeable from Montalvo Heights Dr. The
subdivision -built existing wall, therefore, establishes a
special circumstance.
• The +/ -7 ft. portion of the wall is located well away from
street or public view. Because of the grade change between
the two parcels, the west side of this wall is roughly 5 ft.
in height. Requiring that this precast wall be reduced to 6
ft. would reduce its effectiveness as a privacy barrier for
the west property. The variations in grades between the two
parcels establishes a special circumstance for this component
of the Variance request as well.
• ui„ 1 ei.n "
Approve the Variance request by adopting the attached Resolution.
moo
r
• - �,,. ..--- . ; ,, \ , , \ . , 9 �1' �tb}.J mac-{ i
i
rks
101,
,�'` � , ,� �� . • � , � � iii'
I t \
�, _ ' _ .:� :-_.• ,._._. ' .. ice.: �
ct
OL
It
is Cl i
m
r�l
�EIJ�E VA' IANCz
ZdC�S� MoF;7F�LUG
e� Tko AL--
Oki
� yY 1
6 HT�
L- 1)
I?T.'
•� •V �L Cj Cy
f�
Y,
xv
Nw
TA
�r d.cir
i�J".
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES .
NOVEMBER 21, 1995
PAGE - 4 -
PUBLIC HEAR TC
1. DR- 95-041 - FLYNN; 14475 LELAND CIRCLE; Request for Design Review approval
to construct a new 4,973 sq. ft. two-story residence. The application includes a request
for exemption from the height reduction for total allowable floor area. The subject
property is 40,511 sq. ft. in gross site area and is located in an R- 140,000 zone district.
Planner Walgren presented the staff report.
Vice- chairwoman Kaplan opened this item to public hearing at 7:47 p.m.
No comments were offered.
COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED/PATRICK MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING
AT 7 :48 P.M.
COMMISSIONERS SIEGFRIED /PATRICK MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. DR-
95 -041, AMENDING CONDITION 6 AS RECOMMENDED BY STAFF. THE MOTION
CARRIED 6-0 (CHAIRMAN MURAKAMI ABSENT).
2. V -95 -012 - BUTLER; 20650 MONTALVO HEIGHTS DR.; Request for Variance
approval to allow a 6 ft. tall wall to be located within a required front yard setback, and
to allow a portion of the wall to exceed 6 ft.; fences and walls are limited to 3 ft. in
height within front yards and 6 ft. in height maximum pursuant to Saratoga's Zoning
Ordinance. The wall has already been built. The subject property is approximately 1. 12
acres in size and is located in an R- 1- 40,000 zoning district.
--------------------------
r
Planner Walgren presented the staff report.
---------------------------------------- - - - - --
Vice - chairwoman Kaplan inquired about the existing five foot brick wall. Planner Walgren
responded that the five foot brick wall was a portion of the fence and that it continues around
the entire court and that a similar brick and wrought iron wall up to five foot in height can be
style of wall.
seen throughout the development. Commissioner Kaplan noted that each property had a different
Vice - chairwoman Kaplan opened this item to public hearing at 7:52 p.m.
Jerry Butler, applicant, informed the Commission that the existing wall was approximately 6 feet
in height in some areas and that the wall changes throughout the subdivision to give each
residence a different identity (i.e., changes from brick to stucco). He did not believe that the
wall would hinder the existing residents and that his neighbors have stated their support to the
proposal. It was his belief that once the landscaping is installed, the wall would not be seen by
the adjacent properties and that the landscaping would soften the. appearan
indicated the importance of the wall as follows: the privacy that it woul c a; the wall would
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
NOVEMBER 21, 1995
PAGE - 5 -
keep deer and animals out of his property and yard; it would provide safety in keeping his
grandchildren off street; and it would keep others off of his property. He noted that every lot
within the subdivision had a six foot side yard fence. He acknowledged that the new ordinance
prohibits three foot tall fence within the front yard setback. He stated that currently has a six
foot high gate at his residence supported by brick pillars and that to go around the comer with
a three foot fence would not be consistent with the existing six foot gate.
Vice - chairwoman Kaplan indicated that she came to the meeting with some reservation about the
visibility of the fence from the street. She noted that there appears to be a number of different
textures, sizes and shapes of fences in the area.
COMMISSIONERS PATRICK/ASFOUR MOVED TO CLOSE THE PUBLIC HEARING AT
7 :58 P.M.
Commissioner Abshire noted that this was a first class neighborhood and that the wall would look
better if the front wall was lowered to three feet. However, he understood the arguments that
have been made by the applicant. However, he was not sure if the wall would be a barrier to
deer or other animals.
Commissioner Patrick stated that she opposed the six foot wall within the front yard setback. She
did not believe that the proposal was consistent with that of the neighborhood. She felt that the
way the two fences meet were not compatible and should not be continued. She did not believe
that the wall was necessary for safety and indicated that she would not support the request.
Commissioner Siegfried indicated that he would support the request as the applicant has done an
incredible job to enhance and balance the subdivision. He felt that special circumstances existed
to warrant the request especially in the area where the wall exceeds six feet. He felt that staffs
comments were applicable.
Commissioner Asfour indicated that he came to the meeting with reservations regarding the
Proposal. However, he indicated that he could be persuaded to go along with staffs
recommendation.
Commissioner Caldwell stated that she could not find a hardship in this case. She did not see
that the existing subdivision created a hardship. She did not believe that the quality of the
neighborhood had anything to do with the Commission's decision on the variance request.
Vice - chairwoman Kaplan stated that she concurred with Commissioners Asfour and Caldwell's
comments. She asked if the issue of the front yard setback area could be considered separately
from the interior part of the wall?
Commissioner Asfour indicated that he could support retaining the front wall at three feet
PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES
NOVEMBER 21, 1995
PAGE - 6 -
Vice - chairwoman Kaplan noted that at the site visit, there was a tall column in the first section
and that the third portion contained a lower wall. She asked what was the height of the lower
wall. Planner Walgren responded that the panels are fairly uniformed and that they go up and
down as they follow the contours and that the second panel was approximately 5 to 6 foot panel
and that the third panel might be a foot lower.
Vice - chairwoman Kaplan indicated that the third column did not look offensive from the street.
She felt that the first two columns looked extremely large when you sit in the cul-de-sac and look
into the driveway.
Commissioner Patrick indicated that the 40 foot setback area was her main concern.
COMMISSIONR.RS PATRICK/ASFOUR MOVED TO APPROVE RESOLUTION NO. V -95-
012 WITH A ADDED CONDITION THAT WOULD REQUIRE THAT THE FENCE BE NO
HIGHER THAN THREE FEET TO CONFORM WITH THE EXISTING CODES BASED ON
THE FINDINGS AS LISTED IN THE STAFF REPORT. THE MOTION CARRIED 5 -1 WITH
COMMISSIONER SIEGFRIED VOTING NO AND CHAIRMAN MURAKAMI ABSENT.
BY CONSENSUS, THE COMMISSION AGREED TO HEAR COMMISSION ITEMS AT THIS
TIME.
1. Tony Marsh - 13676 Ronnie Way (Lot #1, Kerwin Ranch Subdivision); Request for
amendment to Kerwin Ranch Subdivision tree planting plan.
- Planner Walgren presented the report on this item, Staff informed the Commission that Mr.
Marsh opposes locating a tree within the front yard and is requesting that the Planning
Commission vary from the standard. Staff recommended that the tree be required but based on
the reasons stated in the applicant's letter, that the tree be located in the rear yard adjacent to the
existing live oaks along the creek instead of the front yard.
Commissioner Asfour stated that he had no objection with the applicant's request so long as it
is stipulated that the tree is to be maintained for two years.
Vice - chairwoman Kaplan stated that it was her belief that the purpose for requiring trees on the
street frontage was to create a continuation of the oak canopy that exists along Saratoga Avenue.
She felt that there was a tree gap on the street and that she was not sure that one tree in the back
of the property would make a difference. She indicated that she was not inclined to approve the
modification as she felt that there was space in the front of the subdivision to accommodate a
tree.
Commissioner Caldwell stated that it troubled her that conditions are placed on subdivisions and
homeowners are not made aware of the conditions. Planner Walgren informed the Commission
Q 'a
a
ar
+r. 9
ol
/�
i
led
r. iv ter._.
7 ,
AWL L-im
1
Aw
` oo
\ 1
a
�a .
i
S
F4
3
ORIGIMAk RESOLJATION AS l2CPARED _t�y �THFF
RESOLUTION NO. V -95 -012.
CITY OF SARATOGA PLANNING COMMISSION
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
Butler; 20659 Montalvo Heights Dr.
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga Planning Commission has received
an application for Variance approval to allow a 6 ft. tall wall to
be located within a required front yard setback, and to allow a
portion of the wall to exceed 6 ft.; fences and walls are limited
to 3 ft. in height within front yards and 6 ft. in height maximum
pursuant to Saratoga's Zoning Ordinance.
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission has conducted a duly noticed
public hearing at which time all interested parties were given a
full opportunity to be heard and to present evidence; and
WHEREAS, the applicant has met the burden of proof required to
support his said application, and the Planning Commission makes the
following findings;
(a) Special circumstances applicable to the property exist
that warrant the fencing Variance request in that the 5 -6 ft.
portion of the wall located in the required front yard is behind an
existing decorative fence built at a similar height. Requiring
that the new wall be lowered to 3 ft. would not be visually
noticeable from Montalvo Heights Dr. The subdivision -built
existing wall, therefore, establishes the special circumstance.
Further, the +/ -7 ft. portion of the wall is located well away
from street or public view. Because of the grade change between
the two parcels, the west side of this wall is roughly 5 ft. in
height. Requiring that this precast wall be reduced to 6-ft. would
reduce its effectiveness as a privacy barrier for the west
property. The variations in grades between the two parcels
establishes the special circumstance to allow the wall to exceed 6
ft. in height.
(b) That the granting of the Variance will not constitute a
grant of special privilege inconsistent with the limitations on
other properties in the vicinity and classified in the same zoning
district based on the special circumstances identified above.
(c) That the granting of the variance will not be detrimental
to the public health, safety or welfare, or materially injurious to
properties or improvements in the vicinity.
NOW, THEREFORE, the Planning Commission of the City of
Saratoga does hereby resolve as follows:
Section 1. After careful consideration of the plans and other
exhibits submitted in connection with this matter, V -95 -012,
File No. V -95 -012; 20650 Montalvo Heights Dr.
application for Variance approval, be and the same is hereby
granted subject to the following conditions:
1. Applicant agrees to hold City harmless from all costs and
expenses, including attorney's fees, incurred by the City or
held to be the liability of City in connection with City's
defense of its actions in any proceeding brought in any State
or Federal Court, challenging the City's action with respect
to the applicant's project.
2. Noncompliance with any of the conditions of this permit shall
constitute a violation of the permit. Because it is
impossible to estimate damages the City could incur due to the
violation, liquidated damages of $250.00 shall be payable to
this City per each day of the violation.
Section 2. All applicable requirements of the State, County,
City and other Governmental entities must be met.
Section 3. Unless appealed pursuant to the requirements of
Article 15 -90 of the Saratoga city Code, this Resolution shall
become effective fifteen (15) days from the date of adoption.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by
Commission, State of California,
by the following vote:
AYES:
NOBS:
ABSENT:
the City of Saratoga Planning
this 21st day of November, 1995,
Chairman, Planning Commission
ATTEST:
Secretary, Planning Commission
T
November 28, 1995
City Council
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Councilmembers:
RE: V -96 -012
I understand that Mr. and Mrs. Butler are appealing the
decision of the Planning Commission which would require
them to remove part of the wall between their home and
the new home at 20650 Montalvo Heights Drive because it
does not meet the ordinance. I also understand that if
Mr. Butler had built the wall when he built his home,
this problem would not exist.
It would seem that a wall which continues at the height
of the existing fence causes no impact on anyone. It's
purpose is to separate the properties and to provide
continuous security around the homes. Certainly a 3'
wall will not do that, especially with the difference in
elevation between the properties.
I have heard of no one in the neighborhood who objects
to the wall. Located as it is at the end of the cul -de-
sac, it will only affect the two parcels which share the
wall and they will benefit from its being retained at 6'
in height.
Please approve the appeal of Mr. and Mrs. Butler.
Thank you,
November 28, 1995
Mayor Jacobs and City Council
City of Saratoga
1X777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Mayor Jacobs and Council:
As a resident of the Montalvo Heights subdivision, I would like to go on record
as supporting the Variance request by Mr. and Mrs. Butler for the wall at 20650
Montalvo Heights Road. I feel that this wall is designed in keeping with the
surrounding homes. Since the existing gate post is the same height as the wall, the
wall is not visible from the street.
ask that you grant the appeal and allow the Butler's to retain the wall as built.
Sincerely,
i
2� .A 0/ 6 /� J-�
November 28, 1995
Mayor Jacobs and City Council
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Mayor Jacobs and Council:
We are the property owners adjacent to 20650 Montalvo Heights
Drive. We are in support of Mr. Butler's request for a variance for the
wall between his property and the newly constructed home.
All of the homes in this area have fencing surrounding the
property. Most of the fences and gates are 4' to 6' in height to provide
privacy and security. Removal of the wall is costly and will reduce its
effectiveness.
We find the new wall attractively designed with no negative
impact on us or other properties in the area. We ask that you approve
Mr. Butler's appeal.
Very truly yours,
la
November 28, 1995
City Council
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Council members:
We are writing to request your approval of the appeal by Mr. and Mrs.
Butler for their properties at 20622 and 20650 Montalvo Heights Drive.
We understand the difficulty in obtaining a Variance as we were in similar
circumstances when we planned to build our swimming pool and pool house.
Because of the size of our home and the slope of our lot, we needed a Variance for
both square footage and the height of the retaining wall. Fortunately, the Council
approved our request based on the special circumstances of the area and of our lot.
There have been a number of Variances granted in this area. In looking at
the wall in question, we feel it is architecturally appealing as well as being practical.
A wall of 3' in height does not make sense especially when looked at from the
elevation of the newly constructed house at 20650. The special circumstances of
the difference in elevation make it important to allow the wall to remain as built.
We thank you for your consideration of our letter.
Sincerely,
David and Ann Noller
AkLR-J<���
November 28, 1995
City Council
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Councilmembers:
We are writing to request your approval of the appeal by Mr. and Mrs.
Butler for their properties at 20622 and 20650 Montalvo Heights Drive.
We understand the difficulty in obtaining a Variance as we were in similar
circumstances when we planned to build our swimming pool and pool house.
Because of the size of our home and the slope of our lot, we needed a Variance for
both square footage and the height of the retaining wall. Fortunately, the Council
approved our request based on the special circumstances of the area and of our lot.
There have been a number of Variances granted in this area. in looking at
the wall in question, we feel it is architecturally appealing as well as being practical.
A wall of 3' in height does not make sense especially when looked at from the
elevation of the newly constructed house at 20650. The special circumstances of
the difference in elevation make it important to allow the wall to remain as built.
We thank you for your consideration of our letter.
LC —)
David and Ann Noller
aW,-- ���2
November 28, 1995
City Council
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Councilmembers:
We are Butler for their propergties at 20622 and 20650 Monttalvo Heights appeal
Drive.
d Mrs.
We understand the difficulty in obtaining a Variance as we were in similar
circumstances when we planned to build our swimming pool and pool house.
Because of the size of our home and the slope of our lot, we needed a Variance for
both square footage and the height of the retaining wall. Fortunately, the Council
approved our request based on the special circumstances of the area and of our lot.
There have been a number of Variances granted in this area In looking at
the wall in question, we feel it is architecturally appealing as well as being practical.
A wall of 3' in height does not make sense especially when looked at from the
elevation of the newly constructed house at 20650. The special circumstances of
the difference in elevation make it important to allow the wall to remain as built.
We thank you for your consideration of our letter.
Sincerely,
November 28, 1995
Mayor Jacobs and City Council
City of Saratoga
1 X777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Mayor Jacobs and Council:
As a resident of the Montalvo Heights subdivision, I would like to go on record
as supporting the Variance request by Mr. and Mrs. Butler for the wall at 20650
Montalvo Heights Road. I feel that this wall is designed in keeping with the
surrounding homes. Since the existing gate post is the same height as the wall, the
wall is not visible from the street.
I ask that you grant the appeal and allow the Butler's to retain the wall as built.
Sincerel
L
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY NO. I AGENDA ITEM
MEETING DATE: January 3, 1996 CITY MGR.
ORIGINATING DEPT. FINANCE
SUBJECT: SELECTION OF TECHNOLOGY MASTER PLAN CONSULTANT AND
AUTHORIZATION TO EXECUTE AGREEMENT
Recommended Motion(s): Approve the selection of Wise Consulting
Services (WISE) to prepare a Technology Master Plan and authorize
the City Manager to execute the agreement.
Report Summary:
Background- As has been reported to Council in previous quarterly
review sessions, the Finance Department has been working towards
implementing a comprehensive Technology Master Plan (Plan) which
addresses the first phase of City's computer and telecommunications
needs for the next five years ( subsequent phases will be to finance
and implement the Plan). To that end, staff prepared a request for
proposal (RFP) for a Plan which was distributed to numerous firms.
Amongst other things, the RFP asked the consultants to perform the
following functions: review the City's existing equipment and
software for maximum utility; perform a needs assessment and make
recommendations on selection of financial and other departmental
software; determine and recommend an appropriate processing
platform, i.e. main processing computer, based on the software
recommendation; establish standards for desk top equipment and
software; integrate telecommunications and computer capabilities to
take advantage of emerging technologies, the Internet and the
Information Superhighway; develop disaster recovery requirements;
identify on -going equipment and software maintenance needs; design
a technology training program; recommend prioritization of
technology expenditures; and establish cost and life cycle
estimates for budgeting. A copy of the Plan RFP is attached as
Exhibit 1.
The RFP was widely distributed to nearly fifty firms. The City
received thirteen responses back, eight of which indicated interest
in performing the work. Using a point system, the field was
ultimately narrowed to two firms. Both firms have the requisite
experience, skills and abilities to assist the City in performing
this function. Those firms were WISE and Cayuga Information
Services (Cayuga).
Discussion- Following the analysis and review of proposals provided
by WISE and Cayuga, staff concluded that both firms were well
qualified to perform the requested work and could meet the Budget
Calendar deadline of February 3, 1996. However, WISE excelled in
two important technical areas, namely clarity /comprehensiveness of
the work plan and preparation of similar Plans for other
municipalities. Moreover, the "not to exceed" cost estimates from
both firms were very competitive at $11,500 for WISE and $9,900 for
Cayuga.
The schedule below highlights the evaluation made of the firms
proposals using a point system *:
Proposal meets mandatory
Technical points awarded
Points awarded for cost
Interview and reference
awarded (0 -25):
Total points
WISE Cayuga
criteria: Yes Yes
(0 -60): 56 46
of Plan (0 -40): 30 34
check points
25 25
111 105
* Point system was prepared in accordance with standards
established by the Western Intergovernmental Audit Forum.
Based on staff's review of the proposals, it is recommended that
Council select WISE for preparation of the City's Plan. A copy of
the Plan's Proposal Evaluation Worksheet is attached as Exhibit 2.
As part of Council's implementing action, Council should also
authorize the City Manager to execute the agreement with WISE. The
City Attorney's Standard Agreement Form, with abstracts from WISE's
proposal, is attached as Exhibit 3. Copies of all proposals are
available for review in the Finance Director's office.
Fiscal Impacts: The cost of executing the agreement with WISE is
$11,500. Sufficient funds are available within the existing
Management Information Systems budget (Program 8085) to cover the
expenditure. No additional appropriation is required at this time.
Staff will be coming back to Council with specific recommendations
for financing the implementation of the Plan at a later date.
Follow Up Actions: Execute agreement with WISE.
Consequences of Not Acting on the Recommended Motions: The City
would not retain the services of a specialized consultant and the
City's effort to plan and implement a data processing and
telecommunications plan for the next five years would be severely
hindered.
Attachments
1. Plan Request for Proposal
2. Plan Proposal Evaluation Worksheet
3. Standard Contractual Services Agreement and WISE Proposal
c: \execsumm \exsml227.95
REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL
December 11, 1995
PART 1 - INFORMATION CONSULTANTS
1.1 INVITATION TO RESPOND
The City of Saratoga, California (City) is requesting
proposals for consultant services to prepare a comprehensive
Technology Master Plan, The purpose of this plan is to evaluate
the effectiveness of the current information and telecommunications
systems and to identify future equipment, software and information
needs of the City over the next five years.
Consultants, who are experienced in working with
municipal governments, fund accounting, project management, open
system architecture, Unix, Dos, Windows, Novell or Microsoft's
Local Network, are encouraged to respond.
The final product to be delivered to the City are a
detailed Technology Master Plan on paper and 3.5" floppy formats.
1.2 SCHEDULE OF ACTIVITIES
The proposed time schedule for submission of the
Proposal, selection of a Consultant, and a tentative project
schedule is as follows:
Issue RFP
Proposal Submission Deadline
Interview with Finalists
Tentative Consultant Selection
Council Approval of Consultant
Kick -Off Meeting
Final Report and Study Completed
Presentation to Council
* These dates are firm.
1.3 GENERAL INFORMATION ABOUT THE CITY
1.3.1 Organization Structure
December 12, 1995
December 21, 1995
December 27, 1996
December 28, 1995*
January 3, 1.996*
January 4, 1996
January 31, 1996*
February 3, 1996*
The City of Saratoga is a General Law city operating
under a Council- Manager form of government. The City of Saratoga
operates as a basic services city, to its 30,000 resident
0
s
CITY OF SARATOGA PAGE 2
population.
The City of Saratoga has five departments located in four
different buildings which are closely grouped. The City employs in
excess of 100 people.
The Administration Building is located at 13777 Fruitvale
Avenue and-houses the following operations: Mayor, Council, City
Manager, City Clerk, City Attorney, Finance, and Code Enforcement.
The Public - Works /Planning Building is located at 13777
Fruitvale Avenue and houses the following operations: Engineering,
Building and Public Works Administration and Community Development.
The Community Center is located at 19655 Allendale Avenue
and houses the Recreation Department.
The maintenance yard is located at 19700 Allendale Avenue
and houses the following operations: Streets, Parks, and Building.
1.3.3. City Hardware
The City currently utilizes the following hardware:
1.3.3.2 The City has a Local Area Network (LAN) with one file
server located in the basement -of the Public Works /Building
Inspection wing. The LAN consists of an Everex Tempo 486 PC, 16MB
Ram and 2.1GB hard drive running on Novell Netware v3.12 100 users.
The LAN's topology utilizes ARCnet architecture, connecting to less
than 50 end users via flat telephone cabling. Work stations are
286 to Pentium based PCs. There are a total of four hubs; one in
each building. Access to the system is available from any work
station setup for the network. The network supports multiple
network printers, including dot matrix, ink jet and laser models.
The primary use of the network system is to support Email, word
processing, spreadsheets and other applications for the City.
1.3..4 City Software
1.3.4.1 The City currently has no required standardization of
software to be used on its PCs. This results in incompatibility
and inefficiencies between departments. The following is a partial
list of the various software packages being utilized throughout the
City.
Word processing:
WordPerfect V 5.1
WordPerfect V 6.0
DECEMBER 11, 1995
Database:
Paradox V 4.0
dBase III
Spreadsheet:
Lotus V 2.4
Lotus V 2.3
Quattro Pro
DOS:
various
* Indicates networked software
dBase IV
Condor V 2.2
Network:
Novell Netware V 3.12*
WP Office V 3.1*
Other:
MS Works
MS Windows V 3.11
MS Windows 95
Lotus AmiPro V 3.1
Expense Mgr V 1.2
1.3.4.2 The City also has numerous customized software
applications that were developed over the years by outside
consultants. The support for these applications is limited and, in
some cases, non - existent.
PART 2 - OBJECTIVE AND SCOPE OF SERVICES
2.1 OBJECTIVE
The overall objective is to develop a plan that will
guide the City in the development of its data processing and
telecommunications system needs over the next five years.
The City is interested in utilizing currently owned
systems to the extent practical; selecting an appropriate
processing platform; establishing standardization of equipment and
software, including identification of a comprehensive municipal
and /or specialized software for operating departments; integrating
telecommunication systems with data processing hardware /software
for optimum connectivity and for access to Information
Superhighway; establishing storage, dual processing and disaster
recovery capabilities; implementing equipment and software
maintenance /support contract(s); developing a technology training
program; determining conversion requirements; creating reasonable
system security and controls; and establishing a "Technology
Replacement Pool Fund" for financing the plan and ongoing
technology requirements, including determination of the life cycles
for equipment and software replacement.
DECEMBER 11. 1995
a
CITY OF SARATOGA PAGE 4
The Consultant will also prioritize and establish
implementation schedules for the Technology Master Plan.
The Consultant will also identify the estimated funding
requirements, with appropriate funding options, to implement the
recommendations in the Technology Master Plan. Cost estimates
shall be by application or other reasonable basis to facilitate
City's decision making process.
2.2 SCOPE OF SERVICES
The Consultant and City Staff shall work very closely at
the onset to clearly define the scope of this project to clarify
the process to be utilized and the end products to be delivered.
The Finance Director, relevant staff and the Consultant will be
required to work interactively throughout the process.
Additionally, the Consultant will be expected to make
presentations, as needed, to the City Council, Finance Advisory
Committee, City Manager, and Department Heads.
The Consultant will perform a review of the current
system and a comprehensive needs analysis for the City (Note: The
current system is unsatisfactory, accordingly, problems and
weaknesses should be adequately explored). The Consultant is
expected to document the current system and hold personal
interviews with all Department Heads and Mid - Managers. In
addition, the Consultant may interview, or at a minimum solicit
input from, Finance Advisory Committee Members and a short list of
key personnel identified by the City. The purpose of the
interviews is to quantify and document the department's technology
and information processing needs over the next five years. The
Consultant should also explore the plans and expectations of
management. Changes in system requirements and expected growth
must be identified so that the system is not outgrown or outdated.
Once the Consultant has finished this portion of the study, he /she
will then prioritized any recommended upgrades /improvements,
estimate the associated costs to implement them, categorize' them
into one time expenditures and /or annual expenditures, recognize
various funding and procurement options and establish a schedule
for implementing these upgrades.
2.2.1 Software
2.2.1.1 The Consultant shall work with staff to
establish City -wide standards for software packages. At a minimum,
the City desires a Windows based operating system at the work
station level. Additionally, the City also desires to
strategically align itself with mainstream software providers in
order to take advantage of continuous upgrades. Furthermore, it is
DECEMBER 11, 1995
CITY OF SARATOGA PAGE 5
anticipated that every work station would have a standard suite of
products available. Those products are likely to include word
processing, spreadsheet, E -mail, scheduler, database,
presentation /graphics, fax, multi - media, Internet and other
productivity tools.
2.2.1.2 The following is a list of unique
applications /modules for each department. Most of these are
currently owned, however, items marked with a " *" are proposed. At
a minimum, the Consultant shall evaluate all the items on this list
in considering their software recommendations. Where possible, the
City desires Consultant to recommend prewritten software packages
from a vertical market provider. Furthermore, Consultant shall
prescreen software. Final recommendation will list no more than
three software packages, ranked in order, for any particular need.
Along with the department's particular needs, Consultant will
consider integration, support, maintenance, update /enhancements and
price to be key factors in rating software.
A. City Manager:
City Link
Virtual Valley
Code Master
Personnel*
Clerk's Office*
Storage /Imaging*
B. Public Works:
PMI (Pavement Management)
GTS (Land Management)
Project Management*
Work Orders*
Facilities Management*
Fleet Management*
C. Community Development:
Inspection Scheduling
Complaint Manager
Engineering Analysis
Energy Calculations
GTS (Permit /Planning Processing)
Geographic Information System and Mapping*
Parking Enforcement*
Parcel Management*
Economic Development*
D. Recreation:
Variety of Apple Based Products
Recreation Management Software
DECEMBER 11. 1995
CITY OF SARATOGA PAGE 6
Recreation Software*
E. Finance:
Fund Accounting System
Accounts Receivable System
Accounts Payable /Encumbrance System
Payroll System
Fixed Assets
Banking /Treasury Management
Direct Deposit System
Business License
Pension Reporting
Comprehensive Municipal Finance Package (see
2.2.4 for further discussion)*
2.2.2 Equipment
An analysis of the currently owned equipment is to
be performed. This includes, but is not limited to the file
server, network, storage, backup, cabling, telephone, fax, modem,
work stations, printers, etc.
Consultant will identify equipment deficiencies and
make recommendations for equipment specifications after software
has been selected. Consultant shall take a conservative approach
to equipment selection. Recommendations will include proven
technologies provided by major manufacturers. All equipment is to
be fully supported. Amongst other things, Consultant shall
consider manufacturers years in business, local area support,
ongoing maintenance, warranty, integration, updates /enhancements
and price in their recommendation.
The Consultants recommendations for equipment should
extend, but not be limited to, the following components:
Central Processing Platform (Type -PC, Micro or Mini;
Processing -Dual, Multi or Sequential; Storage- Optical
Disk, Tape, CD Rom and Disk Drive; etc.)
Work' Station, Lap Top and Hand Held PCs (CPU, Memory,
Hard Drive, CD Rom, Multi- Media, Modem, Monitor,
Keyboard, Mouse, etc.)
LAN (Type, Hubs, Boards & Cabling)
Peripherals (Printers, Plotters, Tape Storage, Imaging
Equipment, Bar Coding /Scanning Equipment, etc.)
Telecommunications (Telephone, Fax, Voice Answering,
etc.)
2.2.3 System Sizing
DECEMBER 11. 1995
CITY OF SARATOGA PAGE 7
Consultant shall perform an in -depth analysis of
current and projected future needs with respect to the number of
users on the system, information storage requirements, hard disk
drive and backup requirements, Internet access, and other relevant
factors when sizing the system.
2.2.4 Accounting Applications
Working in cooperation with the Finance Director,
the Consultant is expected to give particular attention to
recommending a comprehensive solution to the City's accounting and
budgeting needs. The current PC based system performs General
Ledger, Payroll, Accounts Receivable, Accounts Payable, and Budget
functions. The system has exceeded its useful life and does not
meet the expectations of management, the Finance Advisory Committee
or City Council. The Consultant shall also recommend at least
three software firms, ranked in order, that provide a comprehensive
financial solution which includes, at least, the following
functions:
General Ledger
Accounts Payable
Accounts Receivable /Cash Receipts
Payroll
Budget
Purchasing
Project Accounting
The Finance Director desires a system which is
windows or graphically based.
A comprenhensive list of accounting requirements
will be provided to the Consultant by the Finance Director.
PART 3 - REQUIREMENTS AND SPECIFICATIONS
3.1 CONSULTANT QUALIFICATIONS
The Consultant is expected to posses qualifications as
defined below. The Consultant is invited to submit materials that
will demonstrate these qualifications:
3.1.1 The consultant is qualified and knowledgeable in the
following areas: open systems design; data and telecommunications;
local area networking; Unix, Dos, Windows, Novell, Microsoft NT,
IBM AIX or other mainstream operating system; specific software
applications for fund accounting enterprises.
3.1.2 The Consultant shall not be in the primary business
DECEIVER 11. 1995
CITY OF SARATOGA PAGE 8
of selling hardware or software products; unless steps are taken,
to the satisfaction of the City, that objectivity is maintained.
3.1.3 The Consultant has written a Technology Master Plan
for another city, municipal jurisdiction, or equivalent.
3.1.4 Performance on other technology master plan studies,
particularly quality and completeness of work, budget control,
cooperativeness and responsiveness.
3.1.5 Ability of the consultant to make impartial
decisions as to the best solutions for City.
3.1.6 Financial stability and strength.
3.2 SPECIFICATIONS
3.2.1 The Consultant or Consultant's team shall meet with
City staff at the onset to negotiate a contract, thereby clarifying
the project phasing and related payment process, i.e. retainer; the
detailed project scope; process to be used; work assignments by
person; project time line; milestones; deliverables; and cost
components.
3.2.2 Several interim or preliminary versions of the study
will be provided to the City at various stages of the study's
development. The City may request alternatives be added and
commented on by Consultant.
3.2.3 - The consultant will be expected to develop a
reasonable schedule for implementation of the recommendations and
the costs associated with them in accordance with the Schedule of '
Activities.
3.2.4 The plan shall be generated on an IBM or compatible
computer and in a format that the City can use in the future.
3.2.5 The plan and any supporting materials shall be
delivered to City on 1.44 MB,-. 3.5" floppy diskettes upon completion
of the study.
3.2.6 The Consultant may identify by brand equipment or
software. However, the Consultant is also expected to provide
specifications so that alternative manufacturers may be located and
utilized.
3.2.7 The City, at the recommendation of the Consultant,
may determine the need to narrow the alternatives to those for
substantive further analysis. Based upon direction from City
DECEMBER 11, 1995
CITY OF SARATOGA PAGE 9
staff, the Technology Master Plan recommendations and the report
may require refinement. Refinements shall be presented to the
appropriate parties for discussion and evaluation.
PART 4 - PROPOSAL FORMAT AND SUBMISSION
4.1 PROPOSAL FORMAT AND CONTENT
The City does not intend to direct the exact contents of
topics to be incorporated within the proposal. Even though
necessary information should be provided to facilitate ease in
evaluating the proposal according to the criteria outlined in the
Selection Process and Criteria section. Each proposal needs to
include the following:
4.1.1 Letter of transmittal
4.1.2 Summary
4.1.3 Description of firm
4.1.4 Assigned personnel, resume and relevant experience
4.1.5 List of references and work performed of a similar
nature
4.1.6 Technical proposal
A. Overall approach
B. Scope of work
C. Description of deliverables
E. Project management and time table
4.1.7 Cost proposal and desired payment process
The City prefers a "Time and Materials - Not to exceed
$X,XXX" type of arrangement with the Consultant, as the City's
budget for this Technology Master Plan is limited.
s
Proposals submitted shall be binding upon the proposer
for a period of 30 days or execution of contract, if earlier.
The City of Saratoga reserves the right to reject any and
all responses it deems necessary.
This RFP is neither a contract nor a commitment of any
kind by the City of Saratoga. Additionally, it does not commit the
City to negotiate an agreement or to pay any cost incurred in
submitting the proposal.
4.2 WHERE AND WHEN TO SUBMIT
One original and two copies of the proposal should be
submitted to:
Thomas Fil
DECEMBER 11, 1995
CITY OF SARATOGA PAGE 10
Finance Director
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070
The deadline for submission is 12/21/95.
Proposals submitted after the deadline will not be
considered.
All proposals will become property of the City of
Saratoga.
4.3 QUESTIONS
All questions should be directed to:
Thomas Fil
Finance Director
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, Ca 95070
(408) 867 -3438 X236
(408) 741 -1132 fax
PART 5 - SELECTION PROCESS AND CRITERIA TO BE USED
The Finance Director will evaluate the proposal and
select the most qualified firms for invitation to an interview.
The Finance Director will then make his recommendation of the most
qualified firm and an agreement will be negotiated. The following
criteria will be used in evaluating proposals. The criteria listed `
below are in no order of priority:
5.1 The overall quality of the proposal will be evaluated
upon its clarity related to the scope of services requested by the
City; the relevant qualifications and experience of the Consultant
firm; the description of how the work will be managed to assure
timely completion, the schedule or time line, and cost.
5.2 Consultant must have the ability to provide the services
outlined within the Scope of Services.
5.3 Consultant must demonstrate firm's ability to deliver the
desired product within the desired time line.
5.4 Three, preferably municipal government, references should
be provided with name, titles, addresses and phone numbers. The
relevant work performed for each reference must be described.
DECEMBER 11, 1995
CITY OF SARATOGA PAGE 11
PART 6 - ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A - Equipment Inventory
Attachment B - Facilities Map
C: \WPFILES \TECH
DECEMBER 11. 1995
SARATnGA OU
S®'IEN331t 1995
aDMPlJ1�t,S
pR�
DOT
286
386
486 6 ATRB
11IATRUt Rl�
PENANCE
1
2
1
1 2
OOMMDEV.
4
2
1
2
BIDG
2 1
CSO
2
1
1
1 1
PW /MT
2
1
1
1
PW/MAU?r.
1
2
1
MY MGR.
S
2
4
REC
3
4
2
SEMORS
1
2
1
TO TATS 11 24 S 2 4 3 13
d
1
1
1
2
1
2
s
u
s
s
ADMIN. NEW ENG. & RAMING BLDG.
1 MMLJNITY -CENTER BLDG.
BLDG. MA INTENANCE .- us
•
CITY OF SARATOGA
TECHNOLOGY MASTER PUN (TMP)
Proposal Evaluation Workaheat
I. MANDATORY CRITERIA
s. Possesses qualifying experience and knowledge
b. Not In primary business of product resell
c. Has previously published TMP or equivalent
d. Financially stable
e. All elements requested we Included In proposal
11. TECHNICAL CRITERIA
a. Rssponstveneu of tiro proposal In clearly stating
and understanding the work to be performed
1. Clarity and comprehensiveness of the work plan
2. Realistic time estimates for each area or segment of the wax
b. Technical experience of the proposer
1. Preparation of TMPs sindlar to the type under consideration
2. TMPs fur aimllar entitles
c. OualMCation of personnel assigned to engagement
1. Oualifatione of supervisory personnel
2. General direction and supervision to be exercised over pars
d. Size, structrae, and stability of proposer
TOTAL TECHNICAL POINTS
111. COST CRITERIA
Cost of the TMP
TOTAL TECHNICAL AND COST POINTS
N. ORAL INTERVIEWS A REFERENCE CHECKS
e. Reference check points awarded
b. Interview points awarded
TOTAL POINTS
cltechplanktnapevsi
Cayuga
IS.
I d2m
I Interactive
I Enterprise
I Sol. Pinng.
I Erin
( Hartwell
Errol
I 8 Voung
I Mertam
I Comp. Sa.
I Mleslon
I Merogemnt
Orympd
Sotlwers
Oatxh
Comp. Srv.
PC Service
Carrier
shilling a
Kenyon
Sollwwe
Bpaeivm
I Wlse I
I Coroulting
YesI
I Yes
I Ves
� Ye s
Yea
Ye s
Yes
I
I
I
I
I
I Yes
Yes
I
I Yss
I
I Ves
I Yes
Yss
Yes
Yss
I You
Yes
I No Bid
I Yes
I No Bid
No Bid
I Yes
I Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
I No Bid
I No Bid
Yes
Yss
I
I Yes
I
I Yes
I Yes
Yes
yes
yes
I
I
'
Yss
Yes
I
I Yes
1
I
I No
i Yes
Yes
Yes
yes
-
I
1 Yes
Pant
I
I
I
Range
I
I
0 -21)
I
I
I
I
I
I
0 -15 11
j 01
5
0
0I
s!
13
7
s
12
o�
of
t5�
0 -5 51
OI
PI
O
01
2
I
5
2
2
2
0
0�
5
0-20.
1
0 -15 11
0
5
0
01
11j
fa
5
e
10
0I
0
0 -5 41
0
1
0
0
a1
a
a
a
a
OII
01
5
o -1s
0 -10 71
01
e
0
0
B
B
7
7
7
OI
of
ej
0 -5 6i
01
5
0
0
a�
6
a
a
5�
OI
01
51
a —s aj
I
o,
51
0
01
aj
4
a
a
1
1
0'
01
i a1 1
I I
------- ---
D —e0 401
�
-- - -- ---
0
- --- ----
al
---- ----
0
-- -- ----
0
-- ------
35
-- ------
61
--- -- ---
50
--------
a•
--------
41
--- ----
- -- ----I
— 0�--
- - - -SO
$9.900
t2sAOO
63,125 I
iza,aoo
8e,0.77
17,500
ilo,000
$1 1.500
0 -10 34I
------ I
0
---------
i
0
0
0
101
a
a0
54
0
0--
D -100 00
----- -,� i
------ G
-------- G
----_-73 i
- -----57
—
- -----70
--------
73
--------
76
--------
0
- - - - --
01
- - - -a0
as
0 -25
!
I
I
I
i
0 -15 15
0 -10 10 1
- -------- I--
Not i
Interviewed
- - - -
Not I
Interviewed I
Not
Interviewed
Not i
InteMewsd II
I--------
Not
Interviewed I
Not
Interviewed I
Not
InlervI!rd
Not
I Interviewed
Not
Irlfsrviewd I
via: i
Irrierviswetl I
Not
IrrteMawa01
1s
f0
125 105 1
--
0 1
- -- ---- I--
31 1
-- - - --
0
--------
O 1
I--
751
----- I-----
57 I
---
70 I
I-- - - - - --
7a I
- --- -- --I---
75 I
- - - --
0
-- ---- --
O I
- ------
111
0
0
STANDARD
CONTRACTUAL SERVICES PiGREE!ffi�iT
THIS AGREEMENT is made at Saratoga, California, as of
DECEMBER27 , 1995 , by and between the CITY OF SARATOGA, a
municipal corporation ("City"), and WISE CONSULTING SERVIPES
( "Contractor "), who agree as follows:
1. SCOPE OF SERVICES. Subject to the terms and
conditions set forth in this Agreement, Contractor shall provide
to City the services described in Exhibit A. Contractor shall
provide said services at the time, place and in the manner .
specified in Exhibit A.
2. PAYLUM SCHEDULE. City shall pay Contractor for
services rendered pursuant to this Agreement at the time and in
the manner set forth in Exhibit B. The payments specified in
Exhibit B shall be the only payments to be made to Contractor for
services rendered pursuant to this Agreement. Contractor shall
submit all billings for said services to City in the manner
specified in Exhibit B; or, if no manner be specified in Exhibit
B, then according to the usual and customary procedures and
practices which Contractor uses for billing clients similar to
City.
3. FACILITIES AND EQUIPMENT. Except as set forth in
Exhibit C, Contractor shall, at its sole cost and expense,
furnish all facilities and equipment which may be required for
furnishing services pursuant to this Agreement. City shall
furnish to Contractor only the facilities and equipment listed in
Exhibit C according to the terms and conditions set forth in
Exhibit C.
4. GENERAL PROVISIONS. The general provisions set
forth in Exhibit D are part of this Agreement. In the event of
any inconsistency between said general provisions and any other
terms or conditions of this Agreement, the other term or
condition shall control insofar as it is inconsistent with the
general provisions.
5. MMIBITS. All exhibits referred to herein are
attached hereto and are by this reference incorporated herein.
6. CONTRACT ADMINISTRATION. This Agreement shall be
administered by THOMAS FIL, FINALE DIRECTOR
( "Administrator "). All correspondence shall be directed to or
through the Administrator or his or her designee.
7. NOTICES. Any written notice to Contractor shall
be sent to:
'1116 FOX CREEK DRIVE
DANVILLE, CA 94506
Any written notice to City shall be sent to:-
THOMAS PTT,, (-TTY OF SARAT(rA
1 *1777 FRUITVALF AVE.
SARATOGA- CA 95070
Executed as of the day first above stated:
Standard Contractual Services Agreement
A:\CONTRACT.STD
Page 2 of 20
CITY OF SARATOGA, a municipal corporation
By
"City"
Attest:
City Clerk
Approved as to form:
By
"Contractor"
, City Attorney
Approved as to budget authority:
, Finance Director
EXHIBIT A
Standard Contractual Services Agreement
A:\CONTRACT.STD
M
Page 3 of 20
EXHIBIT A
LISTING OF SCOPE OF SERVICES.
Standard Contractual Services Agreement
A: \CONTRACT.STD
00
Page 4 of 20
EXHIBIT B
City shall pay Contractor an amount not to exceed the total
sum of ELEVEN THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED DOLLARS ( $ 11, 500.00 * * * * * * ** ) for
services to be performed and reimbursable costs incurred pursuant
to this Agreement. Contractor shall submit invoices, not more
often than once a month during the term of this Agreement, based
on the cost for services performed and reimbursable costs
incurred prior to the invoice date. Invoices shall contain the
following information.
1. Serial identifications of progress bills, i.e.,
Progress Bill No. 1.
2. The beginning and ending dates of the billing period. 00
3. A Task Summary containing the original contract amount,
the amount of prior billings, the total due this
period, the balance available and the percentage of
completion.
4. For each work item in each task, a copy of the
applicable time sheets shall be submitted showing the
name of the person doing the work, the hours spent by
each person, a brief description of the work, and each
Standard Contractual Services Agreement
A: \CONTRACT.STD
Page 5 of 20
reimbursable expense.
City shall make monthly payments, based on such invoices,
for services satisfactorily performed, and for authorized
reimbursable costs incurred.
City shall pay the last 10$ of the total sum due pursuant to
this Agreement within forty -five (45) days after completion of
the services and submittal to City, if all services due pursuant
to this Agreement have been satisfactorily performed.
The total sum stated above shall be the total which City
shall pay for the services to be rendered by Contractor pursuant
to this Agreement. City shall not pay any additional sum for any
expense or cost whatsoever incurred by Contractor in rendering
services pursuant to this Agreement.
City shall make no payment for any extra, further or
additional service pursuant to this Agreement unless such extra
service and the price therefor is agreed to in writing executed
by the City Manager or other designated official of City
authorized to obligate City thereto prior to the time such extra
service is rendered and in no event shall such change order
exceed twenty -five (25 %) of the initial contract price.
Fees for work performed by Contractor on an hourly basis
shall not exceed the amounts shown on the fee schedule of hourly
billing included as Attachment B -1. SEE PROPOSAL FOR DETAIL:
Standard Contractual Services Agreement
A: \CONTRACT.SM
Page 6 of 20
SEE PROPOSAL
Reimbursable expenses are specified on Attachment B -2, and
shall not exceed EIGHT HUNDRED DOLLARS ( $800.00 * * * * * * * * *) .
Expenses not listed on Attachment B -2 are not chargeable to City.
The services to be provided under this Agreement may be
terminated without cause at any point in time in the sole and
exclusive discretion of City. In this event, City shall
compensate the Contractor for all outstanding costs incurred for
work satisfactorily completed as of the date of written notice
thereof. Contractor shall maintain adequate logs and time sheets
in order to verify costs incurred to date.
The Contractor is not authorized to perform any services or
incur any costs whatsoever under the terms of this Agreement
until receipt of a fully executed Purchase Order from the Finance
Department of the City of SARATOGA
Standard Contractual Services Agreement
A: \CONTRACT.STD
..
Page 7 of 20
EXH IBIT C
City shall furnish physical facilities such as desks,
filing cabinets, and conference space, as may be reasonably
necessary for Contractor's use while consulting with City
employees and reviewing records and the information in possession
of City. The location, quantity, and time of furnishing said
physical facilities shall be in the sole discretion of City. In
no event shall City be obligated to furnish any facility which
may involve incurring any direct expense, including, but not
limiting the generality of this exclusion, long - distance
telephone or other communication charges, vehicles, and
reproduction facilities.
Standard Contractual Services Agreement
A:\CONTRACT.STD
Page 8 of 20
ffiIBIT D
1. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. At all times during the term of
this Agreement., Contractor shall be an independent contractor and
shall not be an employee of City. City -shall have the right to
control Contractor only insofar as the results of Contractor's
services rendered pursuant to this Agreement; however, City shall
not have the right to control the means by-which Contractor,
accomplishes services rendered pursuant to this Agreement.
2. LICENSES: PERMITS: ETC. Contractor represents and.warrants M
to City that it has all licenses, permits, qualifications and
approvals of whatsoever nature which are legally required for
Contractor to practice its profession. Contractor represents and
warrants to City that Contractor shall, at its sole cost and
expense, keep in effect at all times during the term of this
Agreement any licenses, permits, and approvals which are legally
required for Contractor to practice its profession. In addition
to the foregoing, Contractor shall obtain and maintain during the.
term hereof a valid City of SARATOGA Business
Standard Contractual Services Agreement
A:\CONTRACT.STD
Page 9 of 20
License.
3. TIME. Contractor shall devote such time to the performance
of services pursuant to this Agreement as may be reasonably
necessary for satisfactory performance of Contractor's
obligations pursuant to this Agreement.
4. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS. Contractor shall procure and
maintain for the duration of the contract "occurrence coverage"
insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damages to
property which may arise from or in connection with the
performance of the work hereunder by the Contractor, its agents,
representatives, employees or subcontractors. The cost of such
insurance shall be included in the Contractor's bid.
A. Minimum Scope of Insurance. Coverage shall be at least .,
as broad as:
(1) Insurance Services Office form number GL 0002 (Ed.
1/73) covering comprehensive General Liability and
Insurance Services Office form number GL 0404
covering Broad Form Comprehensive General
Liability; or.Insurance Services Office Commercial
General Liability coverage ( "occurrence" form CG
0001.)
Standard Contractual Services Agreement Page 10 of 20
A:\CONTRACT.STD
(2) Insurance Services Office form number CA 0001 (Ed.
1/78) covering Automobile Liability, code 1 "any
auto" and endorsement CA 0025.
(3) Workers' Compensation Insurance as required by the
Labor Code of the State of California and
.Employers Liability Insurance.
B. Minimum Limits of Insurance. Contractor shall maintain
limits no less than:
(1) General Liability: $1,000,000 combined single
limit per occurrence for bodily injury, personal
injury and property damage. If commercial General
Liability Insurance or other form with a general
aggregate limit is used, either the general
aggregate limit shall apply separately to this
project /location or the general aggregate limit
shall be twice the required occurrence limit.
(2) Automobile Liability: $1,000,000 combined single
limit per accident for bodily injury and property
damage.
(3) Workers' Compensation and Employers Liability:
Standard Contractual Services Agreement Page 11 of 20
A: \CONTRACT.STD
Workers' Compensation limits as required by the
Labor Code of the State of California and
Employers Liability limits of $1,000,000 per
accident.
C. Deductibles and Self- Insured Retention. Any
deductibles or self- insured retention must be declared
to and approved by the City. At the option of the
City, either the insurer shall reduce or eliminate such-
deductibles or self- insured retention as respects.the
City, its officers, officials and employees; or the .
Contractor shall procure a bond guaranteeing payment of
losses and related investigations, claim administration
and defense expenses.
D. Other Insurance Provisions. The policies are to 00
contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following
provisions:
(1) General Liability and Automobile Liability
Coverage.
a. The City, its officers, officials, employees
and volunteers are to be covered as' insureds
as respects: liability arising out of.
Standard Contractual Services Agreement Page 12 of 20
A: \CONTRACT.STD
activities performed by or on behalf of the
Contractor; products and completed operations
of the Contractor, premises owned, occupied
or used by the Contractor, or automobiles
owned, leased, hired or borrowed by the
Contractor. The coverage shall contain no
special limitations on the scope of the
protection afforded to the City, its
officers, officials, employees or volunteers:
b. The Contractor's insurance coverage shall be
primary insurance as respects the City, its
officers, officials, employees and
volunteers. Any insurance or self- insurance
maintained by the City, its officers,
officials, employees or volunteers shall be M
excess of the Contractor's insurance and
shall not contribute with it.
C. Any failure to comply with reporting
provisions of the policies shall not affect
coverage provided to the City, its officers,
officials, employees or volunteers.
d. The Contractor's insurance shall apply
Standard Contractual Services Agreement
A: \CONTRACT.STD
Page 13 of 20
separately to each insured against whom claim
is made or suit is brought, except with
respect to the limits of the insurer's
liability.
(2) Workers' Compensation and Employers Liability
Coverage.
The insurer shall agree to waive all rights of
subrogation against the City, its officers,
officials, employees and volunteers for losses
arising from work performed by the Contractor for
the City.
(3) Professional Liability.
Contractor shall carry professional liability
insurance in an amount deemed by the City to
adequately protect the Contractor against
liability caused by negligent acts, errors or
omissions on the part of the Contractor in the
course of performance of the services specified in
this Agreement.
(4) All Coverage.
Standard Contractual Services Agreement
A: \CONTRACT.STD
00
Page 14 of 20
Each insurance policy required by this clause
shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not
be suspended, voided, canceled by either party,
reduced in coverage or in limits except after
thirty.(30) days' prior written notice by
certified mail, return receipt requested,.has been
given to the City.
E. Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed
with insurers with a Bests' rating of no less than
A:VII.
F. Verification of Coverage. Contractor shall furnish
City with certificates of insurance and with original
endorsements effecting coverage required by this
clause. The certificates and endorsements for each ,r
insurance policy are to be signed by a person
authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its
behalf. The certificates and endorsements are to be
received and approved by the City before work
commences. The City reserves the right to require
complete, certified copies of all required insurance
policies, at any time.
G. Subcontractors. Contractor shall include all
Standard Contractual Services Agreement
A:\ CONTRACT. STD
Page 15 of 20
subcontractors as insureds under its policies or shall
furnish separate certificates and endorsements for each
subcontractor. All coverage for subcontractors shall
be subject to all of the requirements stated herein.
H. The Risk Manager of City may approve a variation in,
those insurance requirements upon a determination that
the coverage, scope, limits and forms of such insurance
are either not commercially available or that the
City's interests are otherwise fully protected.
5. CONTRACTOR NO AGENT. Except as City may specify in writing,
Contractor shall have no authority, express or implied, to act on
behalf of City in any capacity whatsoever as an agent.
Contractor shall have no authority, express or implied, pursuant
to this Agreement to bind City to any obligation whatsoever.
6. ASSIGNMENT PROHIBITED. No party to this Agreement may
assign any right or obligation pursuant to this Agreement. Any
attempted or purported assignment of any right or obligation
pursuant to this Agreement shall be void and of no effect.
7. PERSONNEL. Contractor shall assign only competent personnel
to perform services pursuant to this Agreement. In the event that
City, in its sole discretion, at any time during the term of this
Standard Contractual Services Agreement
A: \CONTRACT.STD
Op
Page 16 of 20
Agreement, desires the removal of any such persons, Contractor
shall, immediately upon receiving notice from city of such desire
of City, cause the removal of such person or persons.
8. STANDARD OF PERFORMAN
services required pursuant
according to the standards
of the profession in which
geographical area in which
All instruments of service
delivers to City pursuant
a substantial, first class
Contractor shall perform all
to this Agreement in the manner and
observed by a competent practitioner
Contractor is engaged in the
Contractor practices its profession.
of whatsoever nature which Contractor
to this Agreement shall be prepared in
and workmanlike manner and conform to
the standards of quality normally observed by a person practicing
in Contractor's profession.
9. HOLD HARMLESS AND RESPONSIBILITY OF CONTRACTORS. Contractor
shall take all responsibility for the work, shall bear all losses
and damages directly or indirectly resulting to him, to*any
subcontractor, to the City, to City officers and employees, or to
parties designated by the City, on account of the performance or
character of the work, unforeseen difficulties, accidents,
occurrences or other causes predicated on active or passive
negligence of the Contractor or of any subcontractor. Contractor
shall indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City, its officers,.
officials, directors, employees and agents from and against any
Standard Contractual Services Agreement
A: \CONTRACT.STD
Page 17 of 20
or all loss, liability, expense, claim, costs (including costs of
defense), suits, and damages of every kind, nature and
description directly or indirectly arising from the performance
of the work. This paragraph shall not be construed to exempt the
City, its employees and officers from its own fraud, willful
injury or violation of law whether willful or negligent. For
purposes of Section 2782 of the Civil Code the parties hereto
recognize and agree that this agreement is not a construction
contract. By execution of this Agreement, Contractor
acknowledges and agrees that it has read and understands the
provisions hereof and that this paragraph is a material element.
of consideration.
Approval of the insurance contracts does not relieve the
Contractor or subcontractors from liability under this paragraph.
10. GOVERNMENTAL REGULATIONS. To the extent that this Agreement
may be funded by fiscal assistance from another governmental
entity, Contractor shall comply with all applicable rules and
regulations to which City is bound by the terms of such fiscal
assistance program.
11. DOCUMENTS. All reports, data, maps, models, charts,
studies, surveys, photographs, memoranda or other written
documents or materials prepared by Contractor pursuant to this
Standard Contractual Services Agreement
A:\CONTRACT.STD
op
Page 18 of 20
Agreement shall become the property of City upon completion of
the work to be performed hereunder or upon termination of the
Agreement.
12. COMPLIANCE WITH APPLICABLE LAWS. Contractor shall comply
with all laws applicable to the performance of the work
hereunder, including, but not limited to, laws prohibiting
discrimination based on race, religious creed, color, national
origin, ancestry, physical handicap, medical condition, marital
status or sex.
13. USE OF RECYCLED PRODUCTS. Contractors shall prepare and
submit all reports, written studies and other printed material on
recycled paper to the extent it is available at equal or less
cost than virgin paper.
14. PROFESSIONAL SEAL. Where applicable in the determination of
the contract administrator, the first page of a technical report,
first page of design specifications, and each page of
construction drawings shall be stamped /sealed and signed by the
licensed professional responsible for the report /design
preparation. The stamp /seal shall be in a block entitled "Seal
and Signature of Registered Professional with report /design
responsibility" as per sample below.
Standard Contractual Services Agreement
A:\CONTRACT.STD
00
Page 19 of 20
Seal and Signature of Registered
Professional with report /design
responsibility.
Standard Contractual Services Agreement
A: \CONTRACT.STD
M
Page 20 of 20
CITY OF SARATOGA
PROPOSAL TO DEVELOP A
TECHNOLOGY MASTER PLAN
DECEMBER 21, 1995
c2&ied
DEC 2 11995
r47.. tw
WISE CONSULTING SERVICES
3B
VV I S E CONSULTING SERVICES
December 21, 1995
Mr. Thomas Fil
Finance Director
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Dear Mr. Fil:
J. Edward Reed
3116 Fox Creek Drive
Danville,- CA 94506
Phone/Fax (510) 736 -8534
WISE Consulting Services is pleased to respond to your Request for Proposals (RFP) for
developing a Technology Master Plan for the City of Saratoga. As our firm has worked with
a number of other local government entities in planning for, procuring, and implementing their
required information and communication systems; we believe we are well qualified to assist
your City in this effort.
In the last five years alone, WISE Consulting Services has worked with the following cities,
counties, utilities, and state agencies in the development of their Information Systems Master
Plans:
• City of Azusa
• City of Belmont
• City of Chico
• City of Folsom
• City of Foster City
• City of Klamath Falls
• City of Modesto
• City of Petaluma
• City of San Mateo
• City of San.Rafael
• City of Sonoma
• Calaveras County
• Coconino Co., AZ
• Pinal County, AZ
• Las Virgenes MAID
• Westlands Water
• Windsor Water Dist
• CSU, Fresno
• CSU, Fresno Assoc.
• CA Consumer Affr.
• CA Secty. of State
In addition to helping with procurements for the previously mentioned organizations, we have
also helped procure software and/or hardware for the following agencies:
• City of Atherton
• City of Half Moon
Bay
• City of Manteca
• City of Millbrae
• City of Newman
• City of Novato
• Contra Costa Water
• Alameda Co. Fair
• Mariposa County
• Commuter Transp.
Services.
Finally, we have provided implementation assistance to a number of our clients, including the
Cities of Stockton, Encinitas and Foster City. As a result of this experience, we are already
familiar with most of the City's information systems as well as most of the hardware and
software alternatives for cities.
In the first two sections of this proposal, we summarize our understanding of your current
situation and then present our proven approach to information technology planning projects of
this nature. In the remainder of the proposal, we introduce our proposed project team
organization structure and team members; discuss the City's expected level of participation;
summarize our firm's credentials; and present our project schedule, resources and costs.
0
I
I
c
r
Mr. Thomas Fil - 2 - December 21, 1995
WISE Consulting Services was formed to fill a market niche which has been virtually
abandoned by the larger management consulting firms -- namely the medium- sized, not - for - profit
client. We have further focused our practice in three areas:
• Systems Planning
• Systems Procurement
• Systems Implementation.
Each of our principal consultants has more than thirty years of experience in government and
information technology. Our proposed Project Manager, Mr. Edward Reed, has worked with
more than a dozen local government entities in the development of their information systems
plans. In addition, he has participated in twelve hardware /software procurements in just the
last four years. Mr. Reed was a Partner with two of the "Big 6" Public Accounting and
Management Consulting firms for more than ten years before he elected to found WISE
Consulting Services.
Our other principal consultant, Mr. Dennis Doane, has likewise spent virtually his entire career
working with and for various governmental agencies in a variety of capacities. As a result, he
is able to bring a number of perspectives to every project on which he serves, including: City
Data Processing Manager, Computer Hardware Vendor, Government Software Vendor, and
Management and Information Systems Consultant.
We are prepared to dedicate our resources to ensure the timely completion of your project. We
encourage you to contact any or all of our clients. A complete list is included in Section IV
of this proposal. We are confident they will attest to the high quality of our work as well as
to our track record of service and responsiveness.
On the following page, we have provided a list of specific reasons why the City of Saratoga
should consider engaging our firm. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to contact
us at (510) 736 -8534. We sincerely hope you will give us the opportunity to work with you
to address your technological needs. We know we can serve you well, and we pledge our best
efforts to that end.
Very truly yours,
.�. Edward Reed����
Managing Partner
WORTH
INTEGRITY
SERVICE
EXCELLENCE
r
WISE CONSULTING SERVICES
PROPOSAL SUMMARY AND BENEFITS OFFERED
• Understanding of your needs and environment as a result of providing
planning and procurement support to numerous cities and other local
governments.
• Detailed Work Plan for completing required activities and achieving your
project goals and objectives.
• Consultants with over thirty years experience each in local government:
Information systems planning and needs analysis
- Evaluation of information technology systems alternatives
Information technology procurements
- Implementation planning and assistance.
• In -depth knowledge of municipal government application requirements,
including: fund accounting, project accounting, payroll/human resources,
utility billing, business license, planning, building permits, code enforcement,
maintenance management, records management, police /fire records /reporting,
computer -aided dispatch, library systems, recreation systems, etc.
• Extensive knowledge of applicable hardware /software systems, including:
Mid -Range Computers, LANs (Novell, Windows NT, OS /2, Windows for
Workgroups), Open Systems/IJNIX, DOS /Windows, etc.
• Total independence from all hardware and software vendors.
• Excellent interviewing, writing, and presentation skills.
• Focus on serving local government clients.
• Flexibility to adapt to your environment and management style.
• Personal commitment to quality work and client service.
• Highly competitive rate structure.
• Commitment to work within your budget and time constraints.
• Outstanding local government client references.
i
RECENT CLIENT REFERENCES FOR
r
WISE CONSULTING SERVICES
CITY OF FOSTER CITY
CITY OF MODESTO
PLANNING/PROCUREMENT STUDIES
PLANNING/PROCUREMENT STUDIES
(IBM AS /400/LANs)
(IBM 4381 - IBM RS 6000)
Ms. Elaine La Fleur
Mr. Paul Baxter
City Manager's Office
Deputy City Manager
(415) 349 -1200
(209) 577 -5404
CITY OF BELMONT
CITY OF AZUSA
PLANNING/PROCUREMENT STUDIES
PLANNING/PROCUREMENT STUDIES
(IBM S/36 - IBM RS 6000)
(Three HP 3000's)
Mr. Steve Loukopoulos
Mr. Geoff Craig
Assistant Finance Director
Finance Director
(415) 595 -7435
(818) 334 -5125
COUNTY OF PINAL
CITY OF SONOMA
PLANNING/PROCUREMENT STUDIES
PLANNING/PROCUREMENT STUDIES
(IBM AS /400)
(UNIX & LAN Systems)
Mr. Douglas Cervantes
Mr. Wayne Wirick
Project Manager
Building Official
(602) 868 -6650
(707) 938 -3743
COUNTY OF CALAVERAS
CITY OF MANTECA
PLANNING/PROCUREMENT STUDIES
PLANNING/PROCUREMENT STUDIES
(UNIX)
(IBM AS /400)
Mr. Brent Harrington
Ms. Lettie Espinoza
County Administrative Officer
Finance Director
(209) 754 -6303
(209) 239 -8493
CITY OF ENCINITAS
CITY OF STOCKTON
IMPLEMENTATION ASSISTANCE
IMPLEMENTATION ASSISTANCE
(IBM AS /400)
(IBM AS /400)
Mr. Jim Benson
Mr. Patrick Samsell
Assistant City Manager
Finance Director
(619) 633 -2660
(209) 944 -8460
i
II Identify each department's critical functions and the information systems and II
communications capabilities needed to support them.
• Analyze and evaluate each computerized area of the City as to its effectiveness
and the computer systems ability to meet the current needs of the operation.
• Identify and evaluate opportunities to improve or expand the level of utilization
and effectiveness of the City's present systems. Identify the additional resources
required.
• Identify and evaluate existing and future needs for computerization. Analyze
present computer systems regarding the need for upgrade and/or replacement.
• Identify and evaluate alternatives for enhancing the computer capabilities to meet
operational needs.
• Identify and evaluate existing and future needs for .public access to information
and services as well as alternative access methods.
• Identify capabilities and needs for internal and external communications.
• Identify and evaluate alternative network and communication technologies.
• Make specific recommendations as to the City's approach to meeting those
identified needs.
• Identify and evaluate alternative solutions for software and hardware. Provide
references to other City installations.
WISE Consulting Services Introduction Page I - 4
• Prepare a Technology Master Plan which includes:
City Technology Mission, Vision, Goals and Objectives
Software, hardware, and communications standards and requirements
- Advantages /disadvantages of various hardware /communications
architectures
Prioritized list of technology projects and tentative schedules for the
procurement, installation, testing, training, conversion, and implementation
of needed hardware, software and communications
Estimated project costs and benefits based on a five year phased
implementation program and considering: purchase, installation, contract
services, training, testing, conversion, and maintenance costs
Potential funding sources for acquisition and replacement of equipment
• Present the Technology Master Plan to the City Council.
to
• Provide monthly progress /status reporting to the City as required.
To contribute maximally in this project, the selected consultant will be expected to utilize their
governmental information technology experience and expertise to:
• Ensure that all significant systems functions have been identified in the assessment of
City needs.
• Set forth the pros and cons of various projects for consideration by the City.
• Define the cost/benefits of those identified projects.
WISE Consulting Services Introduction Page I - 5
r
V. PROJECT SCHEDULE AND RESOURCES
_ In accordance with your request, we have addressed the following items in this section:
• A list of assumptions we made in developing our proposed project schedule and
resource estimates.
• A project schedule for task completion, and delivery of key work products.
• A outline of project resources including the approximate number of hours required for
each task by person.
1. PROJECT ASSUMPTIONS
In arriving at our proposed project schedule and resources, we have made a number of
assumptions regarding the City's desired scope of work, including:
• Interviews will be conducted with approximately five department heads and three
division heads.
• A Project Coordinator will be assigned to assist in arranging interviews to identify
technology requirements and to assist in preliminary analysis efforts.
• A Project Steering Committee will be formed to:
help plan the project
take part in interviews in their respective departments
serve as a sounding board for initial review and critique of Consultant findings
and recommendations
- take part in the Planning/Prioritization Session/Retreat
review interim and final project deliverables.
WISE Consulting Services . Project Schedule and Resources Page V - 1
2. PROJECT SCHEDULE AND DELIVERABLES
Based on the experience of other cities in similar planning efforts, projects of this nature
normally require between one and three months depending on the City's degree of urgency.
Exhibit V.1, following this page, presents our preliminary schedule for completion of our
technical approach within the month required by the City.
3. PROJECT RESOURCES
We have included a breakdown of=staff hours by task in Exhibit V.2 on page V - 4. We
believe it is essential to assign senior level personnel who have the necessary training and
experience to expedite project completion while maintaining the high quality standards of our
firm.
While other firms may propose more junior personnel with lower billing rates, our experience
shows these individuals are frequently less productive, require significantly more hours to
complete even routine assignments, often require on-the-job-training at the client's expense,
and do not comprehend various technical, economic and political factors which must be
considered in the development of required information system recommendations. It is our belief
that the City could not tolerate the delays, errors or omissions which might result from the use
of such junior staff personnel.
4. PROJECT COSTS
In Exhibit V.3, on page V - 5, we have broken our proposed costs into professional fees and
expenses by task. We have discounted our hourly billing rates to $100 for all work to be
performed. Should the City elect to expand the scope of our efforts related to this project, we
will commit to perform any additional work at this same rate of $100 per hour plus no more
than a five (5) percent annual increase.
Our billings for all services will be rendered monthly and are payable within fifteen days of
receipt. In addition to our fees, our billings will include any out -of- pocket expenses (such as
travel, telephone, photocopying, and typing expenses) incurred on your behalf.
It is understood by and between us that our engagement for your City is as a management
consultant only and covers only those services specifically described in this proposal. While
our fees for the proposed scope of work are fixed, circumstances can arise which suggest that
the project scope be expanded. Should this occur, we will review any proposed changes and
costs with you before proceeding.
WISE Consulting Services Project Schedule and Resources Page V - 2
EXHIBIT V.2
CITY OF SARATOGA
ECHNOLOGY MASTER PLAN
P
OPOSED PROJECT STAFFING
mow+..• �� 4..•w+.we,�.�y� �. ^.w..
.tl.d� µ..r�� �` .J. .a�..�S,..�.J�
�N,��` *`i.•.i.�.•°'�•`�r ���.�y�...+..w".r.�.� ��
ii� y � ^...�R ��rc�Ka.• ,� �+�` �-.+w+
� ���
� V
��� � N
�(�• ,Ww..
a � \.``n ..�L�+f �i�
N+.w".ww,a �rtwrti.Vi+w�'•�"^�^^ r v�.w.•K
:i\
N�, s.'..
��
1. INITIATE AND N
ANAGE PROJECT
4
4
2. CONDUCT ASSE
SMENT OF CURRENT
8
8""
SYSTEMS
3. CONDUCT ASSESSMENT
OF CITY
8
8
TECllNOLOGY NEEDS
4. IDENTIFY/EVALI
ATE. ALTERNATIVES &
8
8
DEVELOP PROM
CT RECOMMENDATIONS
�Ni1kC�..Y ..�
5. PREPARE TECH
OLOGY MASTER PLAN
20
32
WISE Consulting Servi4
es Project Schedule and Resources
Page V - 4
EXHIBIT V.3.
ITY OF SARATOGA
CHNOLOGY MASTER PL
OPOSED PROJECT COSTS
�,
r .Y.M..w�n..n
` v
y Mb•.r�a�
iwMwv��Al.n•.�wr
w.
.. >���-
.y.Y S.
r"'�Y^• 1nYiiNl\
� -.. �r+. �•4fS.ww.rw��� r �._�� ~�
„?Ytv
1. INITIATE AND
MANAGE PROJECT
$800
5100
'5
2. CONDUCT ASSIESSMENT
OF CURRENT
1,600
200
SYSTEMS.
3. CONDUCT ASSFjSSMENT
OF CITY
1,600
200
m
TECHNOLOGY
�EEDS
4. IDENTIFY/EVAL
JATE ALTERNATIVES &
1,600
100
�-
DEVELOP PRO.
CT RECOMMENDATIONS
5. PREPARE TECH
OLOGY MASTER PLAN
5,200
100Q,