HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-07-2014 Supplemental Council Agenda -redactedCapital Improvement Projects
Public Works Department
EI.Camin I o Gran'de Storm Drain"Pumping'System
Pumping sytem
installed - Phase I
Original dry
we" location
% "k,
Foot
CA to 760 37
8
Pumping sytern
proposed - Phase 11
I M
� I
F
Street Project- Item 2
Residential Street Construction
�f
- d -
r
� .r yr. 1r- s �.�
-►�4t� ��`�}� 'i�'�'-
_ r .
-
f •J
'l f,
�•
t% '' "�' ?`ski
`.
' 1 �
v J i e !.
M - ♦
1
=r
Saratoga Hills/Pontiac Avenue Storm Drain Improvements
Al
Drain Inlet
with trash rack
$ara t.
Drain Inlet
Jt
Llk
TA
m
yJ
Qokllm I
*h Mani
rl
I
Jt
Llk
TA
m
yJ
Qokllm I
LEGEND
Main F_ntrancr. and Parking Lot
— Use Areas (limited furnishing and improvements)
Phase 1 Trails (future roads opened as trails in Phase 1)
� Phase 1 "Trails (improved trails) r
— . — Property Line
ISARATOGA QUARRY PARK
PHASE 1 PLAN (DRAFT)
OSO— 25 O ____ 50 Fret I
CAPITAL PROJECT ASSESSMENT REVIEW PROCESS
CIP Process Step -by -Step
1. Review available funding
2. Review existing projects in the current year's CIP
3. Review proposed changes to existing projects
4. Review the current CIP Unfunded List
5. Review Proposed Changes to Projects on the CIP Unfunded List
6. Review New Projects on the CIP Project Candidate List
7. Review Project Proposal Requests in conjunction with funding sources
8. Council to assess projects and either:
• Reject
• Accept with modifications
• Accept as presented
9. Council to assign priority (H /M /L) to Accepted Projects
10. Projects approved by Council will be placed on an Accepted Project List and brought
forward with their priority rating for final funding review at the upcoming Budget Study
Session.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN BUDGET POLICY
This procedural policy defines how a project moves through the CIP Budget Funding process: from the
initial project idea, through project development, nomination, and project approval process, and if
successful, into the Capital Budget as a funded project. This policy has the following three sections:
• Project Development
• Project Nomination and Assessment
• Project Funding
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
1. Project Initiation
As a function of staff's day -to -day work, infrastructure improvements and large -scale repairs and
maintenance are identified as potential capital improvement projects. These are often highly - visible
tangible public assets such as street repaving, or park and trail improvements. However, many CIP
projects are less noticeable, including facility roof repairs, tree planting, or ADA enhancements.
Projects may also be administrative in nature, and hence invisible to the general public, such as
project design work, technology improvement projects, or economic vitality programs.
Council Members are often the recipients of residents' suggestions for capital project work.
Depending on the topic, Council Members can take these opportunities to: 1) educate the residents
on why a project may not be feasible; or 2) provide residents with information on how to contact
City staff with their requests to determine feasibility; or 3) Council may support the project
suggestion and decide to act as a proponent for the project by guiding it through the Capital Project
Nomination process.
The project nomination process for both Council and staff is explained in the following CIP Project
Nomination section, whereas this Project Development section will focus on the recommended
process to prepare capital project ideas for submittal to the nomination process.
2. Project Scope
For Council nominated projects, Council Members should discuss project ideas with the City
Manager or appropriate staff person. Staff can offer feedback and possible refinement of a project's
scope, and suggestions on how to present the proposed project idea in the nomination process, and
a rough idea of project cost and timing.
Ultimately, projects need clearly defined boundaries to identify project requirements, specifications,
and resources. While this is not always feasible in the initial stages of project development, the
understanding that a project will eventually require a clear and specific scope will encourage better
preparation for the nomination process.
The Project's scope may include the description, project size and location parameters, project
purpose, and goals or deliverables, such as products, services or results. Project justifications and
assumptions should support the project's purpose and definition, and may include cost - benefit
analysis, risk assessments, funding availability, or even community desirability factors.
The scope should clearly state if a project is to be funded and /or completed in phases rather than as
a singular body of work. If the project is ongoing infrastructure maintenance or a program project,
this too should also be clearly noted. In some cases, project scope may be defined by exclusions —
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN BUDGET POLICY
statements about what the project will not accomplish or produce. Additionally, constraints or
restrictions may identify project limitations.
Project Scope defines a commitment to produce a body of work or end - product with the resources
provided under the stated assumptions. The written scope helps to manage expectations and
provide clarity to the involved parties, reduce confusion and failure, prevent scope creep, and
provide transparency to the community.
3. Political Considerations
Knowledge of historical information, which attests to the necessity of Council /staff communication
is of vital importance in project development. Has this project come up for consideration before?
Why wasit not completed previously? Are there lessons to be learned from a past project proposal?
Another consideration includes knowing whether a project might be controversial. Is there a
segment of the community strongly opposed to, or strongly supportive of this specific project? Will
this project prompt demand for further funding or resources? Have similar projects been completed
in another part of the city? Why would this project be considered a priority over others, and will the
project's cost or benefits be supported by the community?
4. Priority Factors
Project priority is an important consideration in the CIP approval decision factor. Council's role is to
determine which projects are of higher priority than others since there will never be enough money
or resources to do every project. Decision criteria may include factors such as:
• Health and Safety Issues
• Imminent failure of structure /system
• Short -term cost of repair vs. long -term cost of replacement
• Availability of external or dedicated funding
• Federal or State mandates
• Business or community support
• Impacts if project are not completed
A project's priority is also affected by the severity of the criteria. For instance, a project that falls
under the "Imminent Failure of Structure /System" criteria may be an extremely dangerous situation
in need of immediate repair, or low danger of minor importance and simply remedied by removal.
Another example would occur with Federal or State mandated projects. There may be little impact
as to whether the mandate is met, or there may be severe fines for lack of timely completion. As a
result, project priority is based on the overall assessment of the circumstances; many factors
contribute to priority decisions and Council cannot rely upon a clear hierarchical order upon which
to base their decisions.
S. Project Resources
In the City's project development discussions, resources typically refer to financial funding.
However, resources may also refer to staff time, equipment and materials, community /stakeholder
participation or support, space requirements, information technology services, or some other type
of support or contribution.
J
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN BUDGET POLICY
Funding plays a critical role in project development. In many cases, lower priority projects may be
approved ahead of higher priority projects simply because there is designated funding available for
the lower priority projects. The ability to bring designated funding (such as a grant award) with a
project proposal greatly increases the likelihood that the proposed project is approved. Overall,
projects that request undesignated Capital Project Reserve funding are more competitive due to
funding limitations and the number of projects competing for the same pot of funds.
An additional component of project resource considerations are the unstated resources (identified
above) required in project construction or implementation. For instance, staff time is limited and
time spent working on one project prevents staff time being spent on another project. Project
timing and staff time requirements are therefore an important component of the project that
Council may wish to review.
6. Other Considerations
There are numerous other factors not mentioned above that are also taken into consideration when
assessing a project idea. For example, can the City afford the ongoing operating budget increases to
maintain or implement the project? Does the project contribute toward economic vitality? Are
there environmental concerns? Does it enhance the community's art, education, or cultural
resources? Does the project provide operational efficiencies or cost savings? Are there risk
management or legal liability issues? Does this project require development be staged in phases? Is
there strong community interest in this project? Each project will differ, meaning analysis is specific
to the circumstances, and diligent research and thought should be put into developing project scope
and justification.
In summary, the overall goal of project development is to identify, quantify, and assess the project
comprehensively. This effort is intended to ensure that a proposed project is well- thought -out,
developed, and articulated thereby enabling Council to make educated and rational decisions.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN BUDGET POLICY
This section of the procedural policy defines how a capital project progresses from the Project
Nomination stage into the Capital Project Assessment Review
PROJECT NOMINATION AND ASSESSMENT
1. Capital Project Idea Nomination Process
Discuss project idea with the City Manager or appropriate staff person for feedback and refinement
of the project parameters, and suggestions on how to articulate the scope, benefits, fiscal impacts,
and justification of the proposed project idea.
For Council Members:
• At the end of a City Council Meeting, during Council Items, propose the capital project idea to
your fellow Council Members, and request that it be put on the Capital Project Candidate List for
review during the next upcoming CIP budget cycle.
• A second Council Member must concur with the request to move the project idea onto the
Capital Project Candidate List.
• A nomination to the Capital Project Candidate List is to be recorded in the City Council minutes,
and acted upon as a follow -up item for staff to complete Candidate List step requirements.
For City Staff:
• Staff shall discuss project idea with City Manager. If a project idea is approved, staff will
proceed to the Capital Project Candidate List requirements.
2. Capital Project Candidate List
The Capital Project Candidate List represents capital projects to be considered for addition to the
CIP Project Candidate List.
For Council Members:
• The nominating Council Member is to provide information and direction to staff for the
preparation of a written narrative of the proposed project idea's scope, benefits, fiscal impacts,
and justification for Council's later review.
• Staff shall prepare the narrative based on Council's request, including a rough cost estimate and
possible funding resources for the review process. The narrative is to be reviewed by the City
Manager and submitted to the Finance & Administrative Services Director for addition to the
Candidate List.
For City Staff:
• Staff is to provide a written narrative articulating the project scope, benefits, fiscal impacts, and
justification, along with a cost estimate and available funding resources to the City Manager.
• Prior to the annual Council Retreat, the City Manager and staff will meet to determine staff -
generated CIP project priorities. The City Manager shall have the discretion to reject, modify, or
accept staff CIP requests.
• Once the project idea and narrative information is approved by the City Manager, staff is to
submit the proposed project information to the Finance & Administrative Services Director for
addition to the CIP Project Candidate List.
J
1% CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN BUDGET POLICY
3. Capital Project Assessment Review Process
• A Capital Project Assessment is to be held annually, prior to the start of the budget development
cycle, typically at the Council Retreat Meeting that occurs in late January or early February.
• Finance staff will consolidate the CIP Project Candidates, along with proposed changes to
current CIP projects, and the current year's CIP Unfunded Project List into an assessment
package for Council's review.
• The Capital Project Assessment review provides a forum to assess all projects at one time. This
will include:
❖ Review of available funding
❖ Existing projects in the current year's CIP
❖ Proposed changes to existing projects
❖ The current CIP Unfunded List.
❖ Proposed changes to projects on the CIP Unfunded List
❖ New projects on the CIP Project Candidate List
❖ Review of requests in conjunction with funding sources
• During the assessment review, Council may request revisions to a project's scope, funding, or
other component. However, changes that redefine a proposed project must be included in the
Council's direction.
• As projects are assessed, they are either:
❖ Rejected
❖ Modified and Accepted
❖ Accepted
• Council will prioritize accepted projects by designating the project as: "High," "Medium," or
"Low" Priority.
❖ Priority is assigned based on information provided for the project assessments, funding
and staff resources, and other community needs and benefits as determined by Council.
• At the conclusion of the assessment review, those projects approved by Council will be placed
on an Accepted Project List and brought forward with their priority rating for final funding
review at the upcoming Budget Study Session.
• Projects that do not make it onto the Accepted Project List are eliminated.
• The CIP Unfunded Project List and the CIP Project Candidate List are reset at this time.
NOTE
• Rejected project ideas may be nominated for another attempt to become an approved project
in the following year(s), but must again go through the project development and assessment
process.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN BUDGET POLICY
This section of the procedural policy defines how approved capital projects progress through Council's
final review and funding determination stage.
PROJECT FUNDING
1. CIP Project Final Review
• The prioritized CIP Budget Proposed Project List will be reviewed at the Council Budget Study
Session, typically held in April, with the City Manager's recommendations for project funding
based on Council priority ratings, available resources, and other factors as determined.
• Updated CIP funding availability and proposed project schedules will be reviewed a final time
with Council to segment funding decisions by funding source.
• Council shall conduct a final assessment and provide consensus direction to staff for which
projects to include in the Proposed Operating and Capital Budget public hearing to be held in
May.
2. Funding Process Follow -up
• Approved CIP projects that do not receive funding allocations will be assigned to the next
budget year's CIP Unfunded List. The list will be included in the budget document, and assessed
again during the following year's Capital Project Nomination and Assessment Process.
• The new CIP Unfunded List will have a life span of one budget cycle.
A
A
MAJOR REVENUE ASSUMPTIONS
Property Tax - Following several years of flat or decreasing property tax revenues, a turnaround
in the Single Family Home housing market began in Spring 2012, and resulted in a 6.19% growth in
Secured Property Tax Revenue for FY 2012/13 (excluding the one -time PTAF reimbursement.).
This growth has continued into FY 2013/14, with the County projecting approximately 10% growth
for the current year. The companion Property Tax In- Lieu -of -VLF is scheduled to increase
approximately 8 %. In -Lieu payments are estimates based on prior year information rather than
current year growth. If estimates are low, a positive true -up payment is paid with the following
year's revenues. Current year revenue includes last year's underpayment, and this year's
unexpected growth will be included in next year's receipts.
In June 2013, the SCC Assessors Office issued a press release stating that due to the housing market
turnaround, many homeowners who enjoyed assessment tax decreases under Prop 8 would see
steep property tax increases as their property regained its' previously assessed value (as permitted
under section 51 of the Revenue and Taxation code.) While this is most pronounced for South and
East County properties, Saratoga's Property Tax Revenue has also benefited from the return of
property value assessments. The Assessor's Office projected that after the initial Property Tax
valuation assessments return to pre - decline levels, revenue growth would slow considerably. This
is due in part to the end of Prop 8 reductions, but also to an expected slowdown in housing sales as
a result of rising housing prices, and from the Prop 13 assessment increase limitation.
This limitation will figure strongly in FY 2014/15 revenue growth. In January the Assessor's Office
announced the California CPI is to be established at .45% for the 2014 assessment roll; this is the
statutory rate factor under Prop 13 which is applied to a property owner's current valuation to
determine the following year's property tax assessment. In most years, California CPI increases by
the full 2% maximum allowed. This low rate is not reflective of Santa Clara County's strong and
growing economy; but does indicate the State's overall economic condition is not at the same level.
The .45% CPI factor will contribute to lower Property Tax revenue growth in FY 2014/15.
Property Transfer Tax and Supplemental Tax receipts contribute heavily to forecast projections as
turnover signifies increases in Secured Tax growth in the following year, and Supplemental Tax
reflects the increase in the assessment valuations of newly purchased property. However, as the
date of sale timing impacts the amount, it cannot be estimated accurately. The County provides the
City with an updated assessment roll which is used to further refine the estimate.
Both Transfer Tax and Supplemental Tax revenues are consistent with the prior year receipts,
indicating a stable market, and therefore providing sufficient confidence to conservatively project a
Secured Tax Revenue growth of 2.3 %, in consideration of the .45% CPI assessment rate and other
factors. With an expected return to the maximum growth factor coupled with slowed housing sales
in the following two years, forecasted revenues for Secured Property tax and In -Lieu are set at 3%
for years two and three, then back down to 2.5% for years four and five. Remaining cautious, our
assumptions include lower projected Transfer Tax and Supplemental Tax in the out -years as the
housing market loses steam.
Of additional note, Unsecured Property Tax increased 17.08% in FY 2012/13, but is projected to be
almost flat this year. As a result, next year's growth is set at .45% and limited to the standard 2%
increase in future years.
Sales Tax - Sales Tax Revenue decreased 4.5% from the prior year in FY 2012/13 due to the State's
allocation correction and a negative true -up. This year's revenues are expected to remain flat after
corrections for a misallocation. The revenue estimates are obtained from the City's Sales Tax
consultant's projections for the current year and for the five future forecasted years based on
current year's business activity and projected economic conditions.
Transient Occupancy Tax - Saratoga's TOT appears to react quickly to economic changes, which
was illustrated again with last fiscal year's 11.09% growth reflecting the upturn in the economy.
Conservatively, because TOT revenue is unstable, the current year's budget is less the last year's
receipts, and even though mid -year receipts are higher than expected, month -to -month receipts
remain inconsistent, prompting a recommendation to hold the budgeted amount of $210,000. The
forecast holds TOT to a 3% growth rate from this year's conservatively estimated TOT level.
Business License Tax - Revenues to date align with budgeted amounts for both the business
license fee portion of the business license tax and the Supplemental Business License Tax - the tax
based on a percentage of the Building Permit Valuation. Both revenues are expected to finish the
year close to their budgeted amounts. For forecasted years, Business License Tax is expected to
remain flat, with the Supplemental Business License Tax increasing in alignment with the expected
growth in construction activity.
Construction Tax - Represents a tax charged on additional square footage as part of a building
permit fee. Current year revenues receipts are again trending significantly higher than expected
due to the continued robust increase in building activity. Revenue growth increases ranging from
19% - 25% in each of the last three years have brought this revenue activity back to pre- recession
levels. Revenue growth is expected to decrease as amounts increase; however the strength of the
economy is anticipated to maintain activity levels into the forecast years. Conservative projections
reflect a slowly flattening trend, dropping from a 5% increase down to 3% over five years.
Franchise Fees - Franchise Fee Revenues function as a type of Business License Tax for utilities
(PG &E and SJ Water), and for the solid waste and cable providers. In FY 2012/13, the City began
collecting about $160,000 in new Solid Waste Fees earmarked for the City's environmental program
costs such as Saratoga's Solid Waste JPA dues and the Household Hazardous Waste program. This
revenue has limited growth in the forecasted years. On average, most of the other Franchise Fee
revenue growth averages around the 4% range, however receipts have been unpredictable from
year to year, and as a result, are budgeted very conservatively at 2 %, with the exception of SJ Water.
With the possibility for a drought and water conservation measures, revenues are projected to
decrease by 5% for next years, remain flat for years two and three, and then return to an upward
trend in years four and five.
Development Revenues - With Planning & Building revenues strengthening over the last couple of
years, the current year's budgeted revenues were increased in line with the ongoing trend. While
some individual revenue accounts fluctuate over the years, overall Development receipts to date
show the increase was not enough, and revenues will again exceed budget. With low interest rates
and housing turnover, construction activity continues to increase, and is expected to over the
forecasted years. Each of the planning and building revenues are assessed individually, with the
majority of the projections ranging from 0.00% to 2 %,
Recreation Fees - The Recreation revenue stream is driven by seasonal sign -ups and is not linear -
so the year -end results are very difficult to estimate at mid - point. One known change however is
the elimination of $30,000 in Winter Class revenue (in conjunction with $15,000 of expenses). At
this point, the budget estimate will hold, and the out -years are forecasted with minimal (0 -1 %)
change.
Rental Income - With the consolidation of cell phone service providers over the last few years, cell
tower leases are dwindling and lease revenue is expected to lose another lease again next year.
Forecasted years include the remaining lease providers with minimal rate increases, however
future cancellations may change the projections in the out - years.
Interest Income - With the economy showing signs of improvement, it appeared we were at the
bottom of the interest rate slide in FY 2012/13, and had nowhere to go but up. But apparently not;
we continue to sit at the bottom of the slide in FY 2013/14 without significant movement.
Miserably, interest rates have held steady at .26 of 1% for the entire first half of this fiscal year. The
Federal Reserve's promise to keep interest rates low for two years to help grow the economy and
stimulate employment is expected to end in mid -2015. The forecast anticipates increases in the
following forecasted years to bring rates up to at least 1% by the middle of FY 2015/16.
EXPENDITURE ASSUMPTIONS
Salary - Labor costs were calculated under the MOU parameters with current staffing levels as
approved in the FY 2013/14 budget. With a conservative and cautious approach, forecasted
expenditures reflect the maximum MOU increase of 2.5% in the forecasted years with a zero
vacancy factor as open positions are typically backfilled with temporary staff until filled.
Benefits - Ca1PERS pension rates will increase significantly during the forecasted years due to
changes in CalPERS' actuarial methods and assumption factors. This will be explained in more
detail and illustrated with a handout during the meeting. With the exception of health insurance
premiums, the remaining benefits such as disability and life insurance are expected to increase
minimally. Medical insurance premiums however, have increased significantly, averaging 9.3% per
year over the last 10 years. With the reduction in staff benefits for new staff members and
anticipated turnover and retirements, costs are expected to decrease prompting a 7% factor for the
forecasted years.
Operating Expenditures - These expenses includes materials and supplies, fees, contract services
and consultants, and are generally regulated by service level and budget availability. Under the
current structure, expenditures are generally held to minimal increases. With the forecasted
revenue improvement, there will be increased services requirements, which in -turn require
additional operating expenditures. Most operational expenses are held to between 1% and 2.5% in
forecasted years, depending on the account.
Public Safety - Under the current contract, annual increases are established at CPI plus 2 %. This
generally results in an approximately 4% - 5% increase each year. As a result of the County's new
pension reform measures, there was a decrease in the cost of Sheriff Services in FY 2011/12 due to
a reduction in County staffs wages and benefits. Forecasted years utilize a 5% growth factor at
current service levels for the sheriffs contract. With the City's contract set to expire in 2014, the
projected service costs may need to be revised at a later date.
Community Grants - Grants were projected to be consistent with FY 2013/14 year levels, and will
be adjusted per Council's discussion.
Internal Service Funds (ISF)- An annual growth factor of 3.0% was used for the forecasted years
in the Insurance Funds due to the volatility in the rates over the last few years. The Vehicle &
Equipment Replacement fund was increased to its full replacement funding level of $200,000 per
year, and the Technology Replacement Fund was held stable at $35,000 for each of the five years.
The remaining ISFs are forecast with annual increases ranging between 1% and 3 %.
Schedule 1
CIP Funding Availability
FY 2014/15
Total CIP Funding Summary
FUND BALANCE FUNDING
FEE GENERATED FUNDING
SUBVENTIONS
GENERAL FUND
ISF
LLD
CAPITAL PROJECT
Capital Project Reserve
1,433,345
Future
40,000
Park -In -Lieu Funds
330,631
Refuse Road Impact Fees
65,000
Refuse
35,000
Gas Tax
807,511
Other
70,100
Capital
Hillside
Facility
8,400
IT
Landscape
Annual
Risk
Road
Theater
Beverage
Grants
Project
Stability
Improvement
Building
Equipment
& Lighting
Facility
Management
Park -In -Lieu
Impact
Ticket
Container
(specific
Reserve
Reserve
Reserve
Maintenance
Replacement
Districts
Improvement
Project
Fees
Fees
Tree Fines
Surcharge
Gas Tax
CDBG
Grant
to projects)
Beginning Balance
418,714
675,000
300,000
184,901
156,318
50,000
82,231
44,000
905,955
71,338
8,400
Year End Receipts
(280,880)
156,884
-
25,000
(6,318)
(100,000)
248,400
(44,000)
(905,955)
(71,338)
(8,400)
Fund Balance Allocation
1,623,000
100,000
300,000
-
-
50,000
-
Funding @ 2013/14YE
1,760,834
931,884
600,000
209,901
150,000
-
-
330,631
Less Reserve Requirements:
(931,884)
(600,000)
(209,901)
(150,000)
ADD:
FY 2014/15 Funding Allocation
-
100,000
50,000
-
65,000
35,000
807,511
70,100
8,400
Total Available Funding
1,760,834
100,000
50,000
330,631
65,000
35,000
807,511
70,100
8,400
LESS:
Dedicated CIP Funding:
(100,000)
(10,000)
(65,000)
(35,000)
(807,511)
(8,400)
Priority CIP Projects:
Street Resurfacing Program
(127,489)
Annual Sidewalk Repairs
(50,000)
Annual Storm Drain
(50,000)
Roadway Safety & TC
(50,000)
Risk Mgmt ADA Mitigation
(50,000)
Available Funding for CIP
1,433,345
40,000
330,631
70,100
Total CIP Funding Summary
Discretionary
Dedicated
General Fund Transfer
100,000
Capital Project Reserve - Priority
327,489
Capital Project Reserve
1,433,345
Risk Management CIP Funds
40,000
Park -In -Lieu Funds
330,631
Refuse Road Impact Fees
65,000
Theater Ticket Surcharge
35,000
Gas Tax
807,511
CDBG
70,100
Beverage Container Grant
8,400
Total CIP Funding:
1,874,076
1,343,400
Current CIP Projects
FY 2013/14
TOTAL
EXPENDED PROJECT
PROJECTS STREETS s DATE BUDGET STATUS
Street Repair & Resurfadng Projects
9111 -001 Annual Street Resurfacing
7,142,338
8,175,812
Annual
9112 -004 Prop 1B Grant Funded Resurfacing
195,789
466,818
Closed
Roadway Safety Improvements
9121 -001 Roadway Safety & Traffic Calming
358,696
441,355
Annual
9121 -003 CDBG - ADA Signal Lights
-
71,337
Open
9122 -001 Highway 9 Safety Improvements - Phase II
1,278,945
1,645,255
Open
9122 -004 Highway 9 Safety Improvements - Phase III
525,297
549,811
Closed
9122 -005 Highway 9 Safety Improvements - Phase IV
-
1,000,000
Open
9122 -006 Prospect /Saratoga OBAG Improvements
22,043
4,750,825
Open
9122 -007 Citywide Signal Upgrade Project Phase II
18,473
500,000
Open
Street Landscape & Beautification Projects
9133 -001 Fruitvale Avenue Median
125,954
143,894
Closed
9138 -001 Village LED Streetlights
404,227
449,263
Open
Sidewalks, Curbs & Gutters
9141 -001 Annual Sidewalk Repairs
351,351
432,686
Annual
9141 -002 Annual Storm Drain Repairs
273,512
323,512
Annual
9142 -001 El Quito Curb & Gutter
194,983
232,535
Open
9142 -004 Village S/W & Pedestrian Enhancemts
1,009,036
1,243,610
Closed
9142 -005 Saratoga Avenue Sidewalk
105,908
179,694
Open
9142 -010 Village SW /C /G - Phase II Design
186,427
199,790
Closed
9142 -011 Village SW /C /G Phase II Construction
37,153
1,032,900
Closed
9142 -012 Arroyo de Arguello Outfall Repair
-
70,000
Open
9142 -013 Quito Road /Paseo Olivos Storm Drain
40,000
Open
9142 -014 OBAG SCG Sidewalk Repair
163,000
Open
Bridges & Retaining Walls
9152 -001 4th Street Bridge
-
587,000
Open
9152 -002 Quito Road Bridges
586,800
716,389
Open
9154 -002 Parking District #3 Storm Damage Repair
42,620
45,000
Closed
Utility Undergrounding Project
9171 -001 Rule 20A Fund Project
-
-
Open
9171 -002 Quito Road Undergrounding Project
98,744
Open
TOTAL
EXPENDED PROJECT
TO DATE BUDGET STATUS
City Wide Projects
9211 -001 Annual Park & Trail Repairs
261,726
268,296
Annual
9211 -002 CityWide Tree Replanting
195,789
218,615
Open
9211 -003 Playground Safety Improvements
29,922
50,000
Open
9211 -004 Park Restroom Improvements
17,660
57,589
Open
9211 -005 Fibar Playground Safety Improvements
-
40,000
Open
9212 -001 Tree Dedication Program
7,500
28,625
Open
9212 -002 SMSCF Tree Donation Fund
-
1,750
Open
9213 -001 AB 8939 Beverage Container Grant
22,043
1 Annual
Park Projects
9221 -001 Blaney Plaza Sound & Lighting Impr
18,473
25,000
Open
9222 -001 Hakone Gardens Match Contribution
-
250,000
Open
9222 -002 Hakone Gardens Driveway & Wall
169,625
480,000
Closed
9222 -004 Hakone Gardens UH Foundation
-
125,000
Open
9225 -003 Wildwood Park Bridge Rehabilitation
-
125,000
Open
Trail Projects
9274 -001 Joe's Trail at Saratoga De Anza
1,796,378
2,179,988
Open
9274 -002 Guava Ct /Fredericksburg Entrance
-
45,880
Open
9277 -001 Village Creek Trail - Design & Environ
5,000
39,000
Open
9277 -002 Village Creek Overlook
480
27,000
Open
9281 -002 Saratoga to Sea Quarry Master Plan
55,132
300,000
Open
Schedule 2
Current CIP Projects
FY 2013/14
EXPENDED pit W
L
TO DATE BUDGET
City Wide Projects
9311 -001 Annual Facility Improcements
403,275
600,000
Annual
9312 -002 Electronic Door Lock System - Phase II
66,027
103,123
Open
9314 -002 Emergency Power Backup
67,984
121,430
Open
9314 -004 ADA Compliant - Public Counter
50,840
72,260
Open
9314 -005 ADA Auto Doors / Ramps / Handrails
-
72,530
Open
Civic Center Improvements
9322 -001 Theater Improvements
189,905
225,002
Open
9322-007 Civic Theater Master Plan
60,000
60,000
Closed
Village Historical Buildings
9364 -001 McWilliams House Improvements 6,297 10,000 Open
Library Buildings
9372 -001 Library Exterior Maintenance Projects
35,000
5,000
Open
TOTAL
EXPENDED PROJECT
ROJECTS TO DATE BUDGET
Information Technology Projects
9411 -001 Financial System Upgrade
67,200
70,734
Open
9412 -001 Document Imaging - Public Works
31,111
98,546
Open
9412 -002 Document Imaging - Development
37,879
60,000
Open
9412 -003 Document Imaging - City Mgr Office
11,359
48,887
Open
Development Projects
9451 -001 General Plan Safety Element
162,683
175,000
Open
9452 -001 Village Fagade Program
17,157
20,978
Open
9452 -002 Business Development Program
3,400
25,000
Open
9491 -001 Risk Management ADA Program
40,000
150,000
Annual
Schedule 2
Schedule 3
Changes to Funded Projects
FY 2014/15
New New
Capital
Amount Budget
Project
Internal
Park in Lieu
Project Title
Project Descriptions
Change Requested
Budget Requested Total
Reserves
Service
LLD
Fees
Other Fee
Gas Tax
CDBG
Other Grant
1 EI Quito Curb and Gutter
Ongoing project for the repair and
Increase funding
232,535 • 382,535
150,000
replacement of curbs and gutters in the El
Quito neighborhood.
•
2 Annual Park and Trail
Reserved funding for unplanned minor
Increase funding
268,297 o f f 293,297
25,000
Repairs
projects and repairs that are above and
beyond regular maintenance to any of the
14 City parks, trails and open space.
3 Hakone Master Plan
Project funding provides a grant match
Change scope to allow use of funds for
250,000 250,000
for the Hakone Gardens Foundation's
design, engineering, and environmental
New Visitor Center project.
review work
�Electronicor
4 & Lock
Final phase of the Stanley wireless
Increase funding
i 45AW
45,000
System
security system will secure the exterior
doors at the Community Center, Sr.
Center, and Warner Hutton House.
aging
These proj ects provide funding to
Combine three separate document
197,433 197;433
rDocument
W, CDD, and
converts paper documents into an
imaging projects into one project to
electronic document archiving system.
utilize current funding and increase
flexibility in completing work.
r o o >
Schedule 4
CIP Unfunded List
FY 2013/14
Capital
Internal
Project
Service
Risk Mgmt
Park in Lieu
Project Title
Project Descriptions
Project Cost
Reserve
Funds
LLD
CIP
Fees
Other Fees
Gas Tax
CDBG
Other Grant
1
Quito Road Sidewalk
The project would fund sidewalk improvements on Quito Road between Highway 85
150,000
Improvements
and Allendale Avenue.
2
Big Basin Way Turn
Design and construction of a turn around at the end of the Village to improve
486;868
Around
circulation through the Village. The budget increased due to the expected cost of a
500,000
Caltrans report and approval process.
TOTAL STREETS UNFUNDED PROJECTS
3
Saratoga Creek Trail
J-58 886
50,000
Construction of a pedestrian trail along Saratoga Creek behind Village businesses. The
200,000
trail would start at SS Rd and continue to Wildwood Park. A potential grant would fund
construction. Design of the trail is currently in process and funded by a SCVWD grant
and City match.
4
Village to Hakone Trail
Design and contruction of a trail along Big Basin Way from Village to Hakone Gardens.
120,000
5
Heritage Orchard
Purchase and installation of Heritage Orchard monument sign at the corner of Fruitvale
35,000
Monument Sign
and Saratoga Avenues.
6
Project is funded in current CIP project.
7
Congress Springs Park
Construct a trail connecting residential neighborhood around Cox Avenue east of
100,000
North Side Entrance
Highway 85 to northside of Congress Springs Park.
8
Via Regina Trail
Construct a Pedestrian - Equestrian trail that would connect Via Regina and Villa Oaks
60,000
Lane.
9
Norton /Villa Montalvo
Construct an emergency access road connecting the parking lot of Montalvo Arts
1,000,000
Emergency Route
Center and Norton Road.
10
Joe's Trail at Saratoga de
Develop a trail from Saratoga - Sunnyvale to Arroyo de Arguello, includes costs for
600,000
Anza
design, environmental, acquiring easements and construction.
TOTAL PARKS AND TRAILS UNFUNDED PROJECTS
11
Cool Roofs
i64,900
90,000
Replace aging roof at the Community Center and Senior Center with sunlight reflecting
1. cooling roof systems."
TOTAL FACILITY UNFUNDED PROJECTS
i -
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1
1 ___j
Schedule 5
CIP Candidates
FY 2014/15
Capital
Internal
Project
Service
Risk Mgmt
Park in Lieu
I
Project Title
Project Descriptions Project Cost Reserve
Funds
LLD
CIP
Fees
Other Fees
Gas Tax
CDBG
Other Grant
1
Quarry Park ROW/
Acquire additional properties for trail easements to complete the Saratoga to the Sea Plan. I of 250,000
Property Acquisition for
Saratoga -to Sea Trail
2
Theater Improvements
Theater improvements include: design and construction of: ticket /concession area in lobby; B i t of 929,900
70,100
backstage dressing room; restroom annex; relocation of control booths; and replacement of
boiler and plumbing.
•
1
El Camino Grande Storm
This is the second phase of the Monte Vista Drive/El Camino Grande area storm drain 150,000
Drain Pump
improvements. A portion of El Camino Grande is lower than all surrounding public streets
and lacks a gravity storm drain system. A pumping system will be required to convey storm
water up to storm drains on Highway 9. A similar pumping system was installed on Monte
Vista Drive in 2011. Caltrans encroachment permit will be required.
2
Residential Street
Provides funding to repair a number of residental streets that have been damaged over the 300,000
Construction
years and cannot be repaired simply by resurfacing. Repairs require removing and replacing
curbs and gutters, and constructing a new crown to create proper drainage. Streets
requiring repair include Harper Ave, Palmtag, Brookview, McFarland, Devon, and possibly
others.
3
Saratoga Hills Storm Drain
This project will improve the existing storm drain system at the corner of Saratoga Hills 50,000
Improvement
Road and Pontiac Drive. This area receives a large amount of storm water from Saratoga
Hills Road. The existing system is not adequate during intense storm events.
4
Long Term Trash Plan
Install 15 storm drain full capture devices in areas that have highest density of trash to • 30,000
Storm Drain Full Capture
comply with State Regional Board Zero Trash policy. The Zero Trash policy requires cities to
Devices
have zero visible trash that eventually reaches the local creeks and eventually the San
Francisco Bay by 2022. Identified locations include Propect Road, sections of Saratoga -
Sunnyvale near Saratoga High School and in between Sea Gull and Prospect Road, areas
near Congress Springs Park and the Saratoga Village.
•
Pre - school Playground
Upgrade the City's last wooden playgrounds to powder coated steel structures. A new I o i l
40,000
1
powder coated steel structure has durability of 15 -20 years and complies with modern
playground standards. There would be no impact to the operating budget.
2
Quarry Park Master Plan
Project funding will allow for minimum improvements to the Quarry, to include developing 500,000
280,631
Implementation- Phase I
the gravel parking lots, especially in the upper section, clearing trail paths to connect with
mid -level picnic areas, and restricting access to the loading structure.
Schedule 5
CIP Candidates
FY 2014/15
Capital
Internal
Project
Service
Risk Mgmt
Park in Lieu
Project Title
Project Descriptions Project Cost Reserve
Funds
LLD
CIP
Fees
Other Fees
Gas Tax
CDBG
Other Grant
3 Parking Improvements at
This project will provide 5 additional parking spaces for patrons who visit the Historical Park. o i l 65,000
Historical Park
There is currently lack of sufficient parking for patrons of the Museum and the Book -Go-
Round. Includes drainage improvements to address flooding issues.
4 Landscape & Lighting
Over the years, private development has neglected public areas resulting in blight along 50,000
District initial funding
some of the city's main roadways. This project would provide funding for the City to
program
provide initial improvements as part of a community's agreement to form an LLAD. The
LLAD would fund ongoing maintenance costs.
5 Turf Reduction
Turf reduction at Beauchamps Park to save water and maintenance costs. Savings include 25,000
Renovation Program.
water and maintenance. Staff anticipates water savings will be approximately $5,500, and
closer to $8,000 per year in total cost savings with a 5 -6 year pay -off.
1 Master Swith Gear-
Install a new code compliant main electrical panel with transfer switches to service all City 140,000
Electrical Board
Hall building. Would provide code compliant electrical power to City Hall and Theater
complex. The current switchboard indicates the panel and busing are rated for a 500 Amp
breaker while there is currently a 1,000 Amp breaker installed, indicating a saftey issue.
2 Solar Panels at City Hall
Install Solar Panels on City Hall Admin Bldg to provide increased efficiency and energy 4 o i l 120,000
savings. Quarterly preventative maintenance will be included as part of regular staff duties.
Pay back on this installation will be possibly 20 years.
3 Windows at Public Works
Install double pane windows in the west facing windows in Public Works offices. This project I o f f 40,000
will improve temperature efficiencies, reduce sound, and increase energy savings. Current
windows are recycled single pane windows which were installed when the building was
originally built, and are no longer operable.
4 Renovate Existing Stage at
This project would provide ADA accessibility and improve storage and safety at the 70,000
Alternate
10,000
Community Center
Community Center Multi- Purpose Room Stage. There are no ongoing costs for this project.
CDBG
Rotary may provide $10k grant.
project
5 Community Development
A lobby redesign to allow customers to remain at a single location while appropriate staff 100,000
Lobby Remodel
members respond to the customer's location during the planning and building customer
process, resulting in improved efficiencies and customer service.
6 Corporation Yard Gate
Replace existing front gate with security gate system and access controls for the gate and 60,000
doors at the Corporation Yard. Improvements would increase the security and
accountability of the Corporation Yard.
I off
CIP Funding Summary
FY 2014/15
Schedule o
1,874,076
6,495,631
FUND BALANCE
FUNDING
FEE GENERATED
FUNDING
SUBVENTIONS
GENERAL FUND
ISF
LLD
CAPITAL
PROJECT
Future
Refuse
Other
Capital
Hillside
Facility
IT
Landscape
Annual
Risk
Road
Theater
Beverage
Grants
Project
Stability
Improvement
Building
Equipment
& Lighting
Facility
Management
Park -In -Lieu
Impact
Ticket
Container
(specific
Reserve
Reserve
Reserve
Maintenance
Replacement
Districts
Improvement
Project
Fees
Fees
Tree Fines
Surcharge
Gas Tax
CDBG
Grant
to projects)
Total Available Funding
1,760,834
100,000
50,000
330,631
65,000
35,000
807,511
70,100
8,400
LESS:
Dedicated CIP Funding:
(100,000)
(10,000)
(65,000)
(35,000)
(807,511)
-
(8,400)
Priority CIP Projects:
Street Resurfacing Program
(127,489)
Annual Sidewalk Repairs
(50,000)
Annual Storm Drain
(50,000)
Roadway Safety & TC
(50,000)
Risk Mgmt ADA Mitigation
(50,000)
Available Funding for CIP
1,433,345
40,000
330,631
70,100
FUNDING REQUESTS:
Changes to Funded Projects
220,000
Unfunded Projects
1,755,000
50,000
1,200,000
CIP Candidate Requests
2,879,900
40,000
280,631
70,100
Total Requests
4,854,900
40,000
330,631
70,100
1,200,000
Funding vs. Requests
_
_
_
Schedule o
1,874,076
6,495,631
0
Payroll Calculations
CURRENT FTEs by Tier Group
at 2/7/2014
Tier I
Tier II
Tier III
Total
47.15 84.35%
4.75 8.50%
4.00 7.16%
55.90 100%
Assumptions: One Tier I turnover per year and 2S% � total GF salary increase
25.000%
20.000%
15.0000/0
10.000%
Qolo
5.000% ��55 Q3ob O°lo O�o OolO
A 00 00 00 OC
O• O• O• O• O•
0.000% -
1�g8�9919g9�� "do -LO ,LCp3�0
MO
q
Weighted
Rate
PERS -able
Employer
Increase
Cummulative
1
11
111
Rate
Average
Salary
Contribution
from PY
Increase
2013/14
11.603%
8.768%
6.700%
11.011%
11.011%
5,405,600
595,225
2014/15
12.330%
8.715%
6.700%
11.406%
11.406%
5,540,740
631,949
36,724
2015/16
13.160%
9.390%
6.970%
12.089%
11089%
5,679,259
686,543
54,594
91,318
2016/17
14.740%
10.565%
7.290%
13.345%
13.345%
5,821,240
776,844
90,302
181,620
2017/18
16.320%
11.740%
7.860%
14.664%
14.664%
5,966,771
874,943
98,099
279,719
2018/19
17.900%
12.915%
8.180%
15.841%
15.841%
6,115,940
968,844
93,901
373,620
2019/20
18.680%
13.440%
8.500%
16.318%
16.318%
6,268,839
1,022,924
54,080
427,699
2020/21
19.460%
13.965%
8.570%
16.838%
16.838%
6,425,560
1,081,961
59,037
486,737
2021/22
19.490%
13.990%
8.590%
16.648%
16.648%
6,586,199
1,096,470
14,509
501,246
2022/23
19.520%
14.015%
8.610%
16.565%
16.565%
6,750,854
1,118,299
21,829
523,074
2023/24
19.550%
14.040%
8.630%
16.374%
16.374%
6,919,625
1,133,033
14,734
537,809
2024/25
19.580%
14.065%
8.650%
16.291%
16.291%
7,092,616
1,155,458
22,425
560,233
Assumptions: One Tier I turnover per year and 2S% � total GF salary increase
25.000%
20.000%
15.0000/0
10.000%
Qolo
5.000% ��55 Q3ob O°lo O�o OolO
A 00 00 00 OC
O• O• O• O• O•
0.000% -
1�g8�9919g9�� "do -LO ,LCp3�0
CalPERS Total Employer Contribution Rates for Tier I
ale �O°I° p�0olo do hti0olo h�Oolo o'o
° QO°I° ti`O3�oOl01��00
CIO °l° °I° °l° °I° h�°I° 010 0010 1�0°l 1
3001 �3ti X03 y�� �o °l° X03
1.y. .y1 ,1• 11• 1ti• ,,y0 1ti• 1
zeal° -Ldl;5 lep61�1
Z�1I0?�81091 9I1 Z�10I1 t01x1 L011�1 Z013�1 101A�1�,LOLS�1 2016�1�10" Ala �1a�1019��OZ0L0�2�2 21�2�2� 2�Z0�0 311: 16,11V
1 1 1 2 2 L
Z:.Finance Directory'.Council - Misc Council Retreat52014 - Feb'-,Backup Documentation \Annual PERS rate,
MO
q
Oolo
Q•
Jolo
CalPERS Total Employer Contribution Rates for Tier I
ale �O°I° p�0olo do hti0olo h�Oolo o'o
° QO°I° ti`O3�oOl01��00
CIO °l° °I° °l° °I° h�°I° 010 0010 1�0°l 1
3001 �3ti X03 y�� �o °l° X03
1.y. .y1 ,1• 11• 1ti• ,,y0 1ti• 1
zeal° -Ldl;5 lep61�1
Z�1I0?�81091 9I1 Z�10I1 t01x1 L011�1 Z013�1 101A�1�,LOLS�1 2016�1�10" Ala �1a�1019��OZ0L0�2�2 21�2�2� 2�Z0�0 311: 16,11V
1 1 1 2 2 L
Z:.Finance Directory'.Council - Misc Council Retreat52014 - Feb'-,Backup Documentation \Annual PERS rate,
1
TIER E• 2% at 55
Employee Employer
Fiscal Year Rate Rate
Increas
Total (Decrea
Rate from P
1998/99
7.000%
2.984%
9.984%
7.445%
7.000%
7.000%
7.000%
7.000%
11.350''
17.990%
-
- 2.539°
-0.445
0.000
0.000
_ 0. .
4
6.64
/00 7.000%
0.445%
O1 7.000%
V2O02JO3
0.000%
02 7.000%
0.000%
7.000%
0.000%
2003/04 7.000%
0.000%
2004/05 7.000%
4.350%
2005/06 7.000%
10.990%
2006/07
_
7.000%
11.300%
18.300%
18.731%
18.757%
18.652%
18.863%
19.856 %
20.031%
18.040%
18.603%
19.330%
0.3 i 0°
0.431$90
0.'
-0.1
0.211 % .
0.993°
0.175°x,
- -1.99•
0.
0.72
2007/08 7.000%
11.731%
11.757%
2008/09 7.000%
2009/10 7.000%
11.652%
2010/11 7.000%
11.863%
2011/12 7.000%
12.856%
_
2012/13 7.000%
13.031%
2012/13 7.000%
11.040%
2013/14 7.000%
11.603%
2014/15 7.000%
12.330%
2015/16 '
7.000%
13.160%
20.160%
21.740%
'. 0.830
`.' 1.580 _
2016/17_- 7.000%
14.740%
2017/18.11
7.000%
16.320%
23.320%
1.1.580
2018/19
7.000%
17.900%
24.900%
1.580
2019/2020
2020/2021
7.000%
7.000%
18.680%
19.4600/a
25.680%
26.460%
s_ 0.78
0.
2021/2022
7.000%
19.490%
26.490%
0.03
2022/2023
7.000%
19.5200/a
26.520%
0.03
2023/2024
7.0000/9
19.5500/a
26.550%
0.
2024/2025
7.000%
19.5800/9
26.580%
0.06
Effective
Projected Rate Increase Assumptions:
Ongoing
Normal Increase: 0.030%
2014/15
Investment Factors: 0.800%
2016/17
Actuarial Factors: 0.750%
0
Ca1PERS Rates
Historical and Projected
TIER 11: 2% at 60 (eff 5,12 2012) TIER 111: 2% at 62 (ztr 1 1 2013)
Increase Increase, .
Fmnlnvee Fmnlnver Total (DecreaseV 1 1, Emnlovee Emolover Total (Decreas
Fiscal Year Rate Rate Rate from PY,
Projected Rate Increase Assumptions:
Ongoing
Normal Increase: 0.025%
2014 /15
Investment Factors: 0.650%
2016/17
Actuarial Factors: 0.500%
2011/12 7.000%
8.438%
15.438%
-
12/13 7.000%
8.552%
15.552%
0.114 %,
12/13 7.000%
13/14 7.000%
14/15 7.000%
15/16 7.000%
8.552%
15.552%
8.768%
15.768%
0.21.
8.715%
15.715%
- 0.053
9.390%
16.390% 0.675%
17.565% ! 1.175%
16/17 ' 7.000%
10.565%
17118 7.0000%
11.740%
18.740% 1.175%
18/19 ' 7.0000/a
12.915%
19.915% 1.175% ;
9/2020 7.000%
13.440%
_~
20.440% 0.525%
2020/2021' 7.000%
13.965%
_
20.965% 0.525%
2021/2022, 7.000%
13.990%
20.990% 0.025%
2022/2023 s 7.000%
1 14.015%
21.015% 0.025%,
7.000%
14.040%
21.040% 0.0500
21.065% 0.0509
_2023/2024°
2024/2025 -: 7.000%
14.065%
Effective
Projected Rate Increase Assumptions:
Ongoing
Normal Increase: 0.025%
2014 /15
Investment Factors: 0.650%
2016/17
Actuarial Factors: 0.500%
iscal Year Rate Rate
Rate from IM
Ongoing
Normal Increase: 0.020%
2015 /16
Investment Factors: 0.500%
2016!17
Actuarial Factors: 0.300%
2013/14 6.5000/.
6.700%
13.200%
13.200.
2014/15 6.500%0
2015/16, 6.750%
6.700%
6.970%
13.200%
13.720%
0.000
li 0.520x.
2016/11M 7.250%
7.2908/o
14.540%
0.820
2017/10 7.500%
7.860%
15.360%
0.820
2018/10 8.000%
8.180%
16.180%
0.820
19/200 8.000%
020/200 8.250%
8.500%
8.570%
16.500%
16.820%
0.320°
1 0.320°
2021/20M 8.250%
8.590%
16.840%
0.020,,
2022/20" 8.250%
8.610%
16.860%
! 0.020
023/20. 8.250%
2024 8.2500/a
8.630%
8.650%
16.880% ! 0.040:
16.900% ? 0.040:
Effective
Projected Rate Increase Assumptions:
Ongoing
Normal Increase: 0.020%
2015 /16
Investment Factors: 0.500%
2016!17
Actuarial Factors: 0.300%
Notes
1. * 1.991 % Side Fund eliminated from Employer Rate in FY 2012/13
2. Employee rate paid by employees beginning in FY 2011/12.
CM/SMO/Unrepresented as of 7/1/2011
SEA as of 9/1/2011
Union as of 11/14/2011
3. CaIPERS Board Policy states that the impacts of changes in actuarial assumptions be amortized over 20 years with a 5 year phase -in at the beginning, and a 5 year ramp down at the end of the 20 year amortization period.
Z :.Finance DirecTor), Council - Mise,Counci( Retreats 2014 - Feb Backup Documentation Annual PFRS rates
Rate
Status
2 c),10W
GENERAL FUND
Five Year History - FY 2013/14 Budget - Five -Year Forecast
J:1,2014 Council RetreatV013 -14 MidYear Budget and 5 Year Forecast SS - FINAL at 2 -7 -2014 - _ ; . 1, e } 11\1
2013/14
2013/14
2013/14
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
Adopted
Adjusted
Estimated
2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2016/17
REVENUE CATEGORY
Actuals
Actuals
Actuals
Actuals
Actuals
Budget
Budget
Actuals
Forecast
Forecast
Forecast
Forecast
Forecast
Property Tax
' 8,155,363
8,194,364
8,026,659
8,279,947
8,966,396
8,965,400
8,965,400
9,478,189
9,712,300 9,987,500 10,270,700 10,512,000 10,759,200
Sales & Use Tax
1,043,034
954,574
990,579
1,100,489
1,051,121
1,050,000
1,050,000
1,051,157
1,135,894 1,153,671 1,249,292 1,249,643 1,300,068
Franchise Fees
1,656,716
1,663,657
1,821,131
1,852,390
2,083,704
2,059,954
2,059,954
2,065,508
2,097,674 2,140,400 2,184,100 2,238,000 2,293,400
Transient Occupancy Tax
151,378
144,151
184,362
205,421
228,199
210,000
210,000
210,000
216,300 222,800 229,500 236,400 243,500
Other Taxes
190,328
111,899
137,865
163,979
204,859
215,000
215,000
230,000
241,500 252,400 262,500 271,700 279,900
Business License Tax
321,347
303,990
310,273
313,984
336,298
320,000
320,000
335,000
344,000 352,600 360,700 368,300 375,300
SUB -TOTAL Tax Revenues 11,518,166
11,372,636 11,470,869
11,916,209
12,870,578
12,820,354 ! 12,820,354 13,369,854
13,747,668 14,109,371 14,556,792 14,876,043 15,251,368
Intergovernmental
303,212
357,887
384,746
274,848
416,486
392,216
392,216
437,321
417,761 424,200 430,800 437,500 444,400
Fees, Licenses & Permits
1,186,319
1,111,879
1,156,486
1,236,460
1,591,517
1,392,065
1,437,065
1,515,595
1,547,200 1,573,500 1,605,800 1,597,900 1,586,700
Charge for Services
1,670,175
1,503,408
1,741,291
1,732,889
1,744,112
1,855,115
1,855,115
1,919,565
1,908,100 1,942,000 1,963,300 1,976,100 1,989,100
Fines & Forfeitures
353,801
350,751
284,109
233,708
180,557
220,025
220,025
220,725
220,450 222,700 224,900 227,200 229,500
Interest Income
362,588
97,044
63,883
44,731
28,670
46,000
46,000
40,000
41,000 43,100 47,400 54,500 65,400
Rental Income
366,713
444,262
438,458
507,941
463,696
419,175
419,175
447,506
440,400 444,200 448,100 452,000 456,000
Other Sources
113,227
7,184
202,276
283,845
340,371
48,133
48,133
91,917
51,767 51,800 51,800 51,800 51,800
TOTAL REVENUES
15,874,201 15,245,050 15,742,118 16,230,633 17,635,987 17,193,083 17,238,083 18,042,483
18,374,345 18,810,871 19,328,892 19,673,043 20,074,268
Fund Transfers In
153,732
325,842
224,550
205,222
106,000
106,000
106,000
106,000
- - - - -
TOTAL REVENUES & TRANSFERS
16,027,933
15,570,892
15,966,668
16,435,855
17,741,987
17,299,083
17,344,083
18,148,483
1 18,374,345 18,810,871 19,328,892 19,673,043 20,074,268
J:1,2014 Council RetreatV013 -14 MidYear Budget and 5 Year Forecast SS - FINAL at 2 -7 -2014 - _ ; . 1, e } 11\1
2013/14
2013/14
2013/14
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
Adopted
Adjusted
Estimated
2014/15
2015/16
2016/17
2017/18
2018/19
EXPENDITURE CATEGORY
Actuals
Actuals
Actuals
Actuals
Actuals
Budget
Budget
Actuals
Forecast
Forecast
Forecast
Forecast
Forecast
Salary
4,384,091
4,318,458
4,626,977
4,339,686
4,517,031
5,002,693
4,985,313
4,750,000
4,850,000 4,976,100 5,105,479 5,238,221 5,374,415
Elected Officials
27,234
25,150
25,763
24,600
24,600
27,600
27,900
29,100
27,600 27,600 27,600 27,600 27,600
Temporary Employees
396,011
257,272
289,095
219,123
131,397
129,491
129,491
135,000
104,000 106,704 109,000 112,000 115,000
Overtime
85,296
79,759
95,142
22,982
34,214
35,593
35,593
35,000
35,000 35,875 36,800 37,700 38,600
Taxes
79,614
71,025
86,430
72,539
70,872
78,769
78,769
75,000
81,500 83,619 85,793 88,024 90,312
Benefits
1,513,204
1,552,264
1,587,006
1,395,431
1,630,992
1,593,745
1,593,745
1,505,000
1,630,000 1,813,100 2,075,252 2,365,512 2,659,258
SUBTOTAL Salary & Benefits
1 6,485,451
6,303,927
6,710,412 6,074,360 6,409,105
6,867,891 6,850,811 6,529,100
6,728,100 7,042,998 7,439,924 7,869,056 8,305,186
Materials & Supplies
216,308
154,010
151,410
163,990
187,300
228,507
241,419
240,669
228,670 230,750 233,759 236,829 239,990
Fees & Charges
619,648
671,493
733,705
708,175
738,596
741,931
791,931
790,252
798,511 759,166 801,183 788,303 856,055
Contract & Consultant Services
2,017,937
1,749,442
1,739,829
1 1,638,896
1,887,847
2,152,344
2,186,424
2,142,924
2,103,074 2,162,712 2,166,051 2,159,022 2,193,195
Sheriff Services
3,967,940
4,134,884
4,253,148
4,060,306
4,148,892
4,225,024
4,225,024
4,225,024
4,436,275 4,658,090 4,890,990 5,135,540 5,392,320
Meetings, Events, Training
74,204
47,808
63,668
37,783
40,611
70,745
70,745
70,745
74,140 78,626 77,077 81,660 82,765
Grants & Awards
162,669
203,758
165,915
116,203
122,006
157,112
160,301
160,301
161,329 162,800 164,300 163,700 165,200
Fixed Assets
30,105
-
-
11,336
-
-
-
-
- - - - -
Internal Service Charges
2,189,343
1,873,576
1,798,212
1,899,748
1 2,033,577
1 2,202,853
1 2,202,853
1 2,202,853 1
2,268,300 2,322,900 2,374,900 2,428,400 2,483,300
TOTAL EXPENDITURES
15,763,604
1 15,138,898
1 15,616,298 14,710,797
15,567,934
1 16,646,407 16,729,508 16,361,868
16,798,398 17,418,042 18,148,184 18,862,510 19,718,011
Fund Transfers Out
1,571,727
650,000
876,983
280,000
1,184,500
380,880
380,880
380,880
100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000
TOTAL EXPENDITURES & TRANSFERS
17,335,331
15,788,898
16,493,281
14,990,797
16,752,434
17,027,287
17,110,388
16,742,748
16,898,398 17,518,042 18,248,184 18,962,510 19,818,011
NET OPERATIONS
(1,307,398)
(218,006)
(526,614)
1,445,057
989,553
271,796
233,695
1,405,735
1,475,947
1,292,829
1,080,708
710,533
256,257
J:1,2014 Council RetreatV013 -14 MidYear Budget and 5 Year Forecast SS - FINAL at 2 -7 -2014 - _ ; . 1, e } 11\1
GENERAL FUND
Five Year History - FY 2013/14 Budget - Five -Year Forecast
USE OF or (ADDITION TO) FUND BALANCE
2008/09
Actuals
2009/10
Actuals
2010/11
Actuals
2011/12
Actuals
2012/13
Actuals
2013/14
Adopted
Budget
2013/14
Adjusted
Budget
2013/14
Estimated
Actuals
2014/15
Forecast
2015/16
Forecast
2016/17
Forecast
2017/18
Forecast
2018/19
Forecast
Petty Cash
1,300
1,300
1,300
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Working Capital Reserve
2,870,139
2,889,077
2,903,522
2,914,426
2,923,096
2,923,096
2,923,096
2,923,096
2,923,096
2,923,096
2,923,096
2,923,096
2,923,096
Fiscal Stabilization Reserve
200,000
(200,000)
1,500,000
1,500,000
1,500,000
1,500,000
1,500,000
1,500,000
1,500,000
1,500,000
1,500,000
1,500,000
1,500,000
Compensated Absences
-
-
-
-
(207,268)
-
-
207,268
207,268
207,268
207,268
207,268
207,268
Environmental Program Reserve
66,735
50,000
50,000
513,182
50,000
50,000
50,000
50,000
50,000
50,000
50,000
50,000
50,000
Developmental Services Reserve
75,000
75,000
-
667,233
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Development Deposits
107,295
137,368
-
-
44,791
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Carryforward Reserves
58,386
22,000
68,600
166,900
174,100
73,101
73,101
73,101
-
-
-
-
-
Capital & Efficiency Project Reserves
900,000
173,017
-
160,000
1,504,944
280,880
280,880
280,880
1,760,834
1,760,834
1,760,834
1,760,834
1,760,834
Facility Reserve
-
-
-
-
(300,000)
(300,000)
(300,000)
(300,000)
(300,000)
(300,000)
(300,000)
(300,000)
(300,000)
Grant Matching Reserve
600,000
600,000
600,000
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Hillside Stability
300,000
-
-
600,000
(75,000)
(100,000)
(100,000)
(256,884)
(68,116)
1,000,000
1,000,000
1,000,000
1,000,000
Open Space Acquistion Reserve
250,000
250,000
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Other Unassigned Fund Balance
-
-
721,989
-
-
1,343,860
1,343,860
2,596,692
3,754,523
4,797,352
5,628,060
6,088,592
6,094,850
TOTAL BUDGETED USE OF FUND BALANCE
1,407,417
507,385
718,600
326,900
1,191,567
3,981
3,981
(152,903)
(318,116)
(250,000)
(250,000)
(250,000)
(250,000)
NET SOURCES and USES
100,019
289,379
191,986
1,771,957
2,181,120
275,777
237,676
1,252,832
1,157,831
1,042,829
830,708
460,533
6,257
GENERAL FUND BALANCES
2008/09
Actuals
2009/10
Actuals
2010/11
Actuals
2011/12
Actuals
2012/13
Actuals
2013/14
Adopted
Budget
2013/14
Adjusted
Budget
2013/14
Estimated
Actuals
2014/15
Forecast
2015/16
Forecast
2016/17
Forecast
2017/18
Forecast
2018/19
Forecast
Petty Cash Reserve
1,300
1,300
1,300
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Working Capital Reserve
2,870,139
2,889,077
2,903,522
2,914,426
2,923,096
2,923,096
2,923,096
2,923,096
2,923,096
2,923,096
2,923,096
2,923,096
2,923,096
Fiscal Stabilization Reserve
1,300,000
1,500,000
1,500,000
1,500,000
1,500,000
1,500,000
1,500,000
1,500,000
1,500,000
1,500,000
1,500,000
1,500,000
1,500,000
Compensated Absences
-
-
-
-
207,268
207,268
207,268
207,268
207,268
207,268
207,268
207,268
207,268
Environmental Services Reserve
613,182
563,182
513,182
513,182
463,182
413,182
413,182
413,182
363,182
313,182
263,182
213,182
163,182
Development Services Reserve
707,380
632,380
632,380
667,233
667,233
667,233
667,233
667,233
667,233
667,233
667,233
667,233
667,233
Development Deposits Reserve
182,159
44,791
44,791
44,791
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Carryforward Reserve
22,000
68,600
166,900
247,201
73,101
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Capital & Efficiency Project Reserve
300,000
126,983
500,000
1,923,658
418,714
1,760,834
1,760,834
1,760,834
1,760,834
1,760,834
1,760,834
1,760,834
1,760,834
Facility Reserve
-
-
-
-
300,000
600,000
600,000
600,000
900,000
1,200,000
1,500,000
1,800,000
2,100,000
Grant Matching Reserve
600,000
600,000
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Hillside Stability
300,000
300,000
500,000
600,000
675,000
775,000
775,000
931,884
1,000,000
1,000,000
1,000,000
1,000,000
1,000,000
Open Space Purchase Reserve
250,000
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Other Unassigned Fund Balance
1,082,282
1,284,122
721,989
518,631
2,691,081
1,343,860
1,343,860
2,596,692
3,754,523
4,797,352
5,628,060
6,088,592
6,094,850
TOTAL FUND BALANCE
8,228,442
8,010,435
1 7,484,064
1 8,929,122
1 9,918,675
1 10,190,473
1 10,190,473
1 11,600,189
1 13,076,136
1 14,368,965
1 15,449,673
1 16,160,205
16,416,463
J :,2014 Council Retreat222013 -14 WdYear Budget and 5 Year Forecast SS - FINAL at 2 -7 -2014 1612014 6:33 PM
MAJOR REVENUE ASSUMPTIONS
Property Tax - Following several years of flat or decreasing property tax revenues, a turnaround
in the Single Family Home housing market began in Spring 2012, and resulted in a 6.19% growth in
Secured Property Tax Revenue for FY 2012/13 (excluding the one -time PTAF reimbursement.).
This growth has continued into FY 2013/14, with the County projecting approximately 10% growth
for the current year. The companion Property Tax In- Lieu -of -VLF is scheduled to increase
approximately 8 %. In -Lieu payments are estimates based on prior year information rather than
current year growth. If estimates are low, a positive true -up payment is paid with the following
year's revenues. Current year revenue includes last year's underpayment, and this year's
unexpected growth will be included in next year's receipts.
In June 2013, the SCC Assessors Office issued a press release stating that due to the housing market
turnaround, many homeowners who enjoyed assessment tax decreases under Prop 8 would see
steep property tax increases as their property regained its' previously assessed value (as permitted
under section 51 of the Revenue and Taxation code.) While this is most pronounced for South and
East County properties, Saratoga's Property Tax Revenue has also benefited from the return of
property value assessments. The Assessor's Office projected that after the initial Property Tax
valuation assessments return to pre - decline levels, revenue growth would slow considerably. This
is due in part to the end of Prop 8 reductions, but also to an expected slowdown in housing sales as
a result of rising housing prices, and from the Prop 13 assessment increase limitation.
This limitation will figure strongly in FY 2014/15 revenue growth. In January the Assessor's Office
announced the California CPI is to be established at .45% for the 2014 assessment roll; this is the
statutory rate factor under Prop 13 which is applied to a property owner's current valuation to
determine the following year's property tax assessment. In most years, California CPI increases by
the full 2% maximum allowed. This low rate is not reflective of Santa Clara County's strong and
growing economy; but does indicate the State's overall economic condition is not at the same level.
The .45% CPI factor will contribute to lower Property Tax revenue growth in FY 2014/15.
Property Transfer Tax and Supplemental Tax receipts contribute heavily to forecast projections as
turnover signifies increases in Secured Tax growth in the following year, and Supplemental Tax
reflects the increase in the assessment valuations of newly purchased property. However, as the
date of sale timing impacts the amount, it cannot be estimated accurately. The County provides the
City with an updated assessment roll which is used to further refine the estimate.
Both Transfer Tax and Supplemental Tax revenues are consistent with the prior year receipts,
indicating a stable market, and therefore providing sufficient confidence to conservatively project a
Secured Tax Revenue growth of 2.3 %, in consideration of the .45% CPI assessment rate and other
factors. With an expected return to the maximum growth factor coupled with slowed housing sales
in the following two years, forecasted revenues for Secured Property tax and In -Lieu are set at 3%
for years two and three, then back down to 2.5% for years four and five. Remaining cautious, our
assumptions include lower projected Transfer Tax and Supplemental Tax in the out -years as the
housing market loses steam.
Of additional note, Unsecured Property Tax increased 17.08% in FY 2012/13, but is projected to be
almost flat this year. As a result, next year's growth is set at .45% and limited to the standard 2%
increase in future years.
tA
Sales Tax - Sales Tax Revenue decreased 4.5% from the prior year in FY 2012/13 due to the State's
allocation correction and a negative true -up. This year's revenues are expected to remain flat after
corrections for a misallocation. The revenue estimates are obtained from the City's Sales Tax
consultant's projections for the current year and for the five future forecasted years based on
current year's business activity and projected economic conditions.
Transient Occupancy Tax - Saratoga's TOT appears to react quickly to economic changes, which
was illustrated again with last fiscal year's 11.09% growth reflecting the upturn in the economy.
Conservatively, because TOT revenue is unstable, the current year's budget is less the last year's
receipts, and even though mid -year receipts are higher than expected, month -to -month receipts
remain inconsistent, prompting a recommendation to hold the budgeted amount of $210,000. The
forecast holds TOT to a 3% growth rate from this year's conservatively estimated TOT level.
Business License Tax - Revenues to date align with budgeted amounts for both the business
license fee portion of the business license tax and the Supplemental Business License Tax - the tax
based on a percentage of the Building Permit Valuation. Both revenues are expected to finish the
year close to their budgeted amounts. For forecasted years, Business License Tax is expected to
remain flat, with the Supplemental Business License Tax increasing in alignment with the expected
growth in construction activity.
Construction Tax - Represents a tax charged on additional square footage as part of a building
permit fee. Current year revenues receipts are again trending significantly higher than expected
due to the continued robust increase in building activity. Revenue growth increases ranging from
19% - 25% in each of the last three years have brought this revenue activity back to pre- recession
levels. Revenue growth is expected to decrease as amounts increase; however the strength of the
economy is anticipated to maintain activity levels into the forecast years. Conservative projections
reflect a slowly flattening trend, dropping from a 5% increase down to 3% over five years.
Franchise Fees - Franchise Fee Revenues function as a type of Business License Tax for utilities
(PG &E and SJ Water), and for the solid waste and cable providers. In FY 2012/13, the City began
collecting about $160,000 in new Solid Waste Fees earmarked for the City's environmental program
costs such as Saratoga's Solid Waste JPA dues and the Household Hazardous Waste program. This
revenue has limited growth in the forecasted years. On average, most of the other Franchise Fee
revenue growth averages around the 4% range, however receipts have been unpredictable from
year to year, and as a result, are budgeted very conservatively at 2 %, with the exception of SJ Water.
With the possibility for a drought and water conservation measures, revenues are projected to
decrease by 5% for next years, remain flat for years two and three, and then return to an upward
trend in years four and five.
Development Revenues - With Planning & Building revenues strengthening over the last couple of
years, the current year's budgeted revenues were increased in line with the ongoing trend. While
some individual revenue accounts fluctuate over the years, overall Development receipts to date
show the increase was not enough, and revenues will again exceed budget. With low interest rates
and housing turnover, construction activity is expected to continue increasing for the next couple of
years, and then flatten and eventually fall off some in year five. Each of the planning and building
revenues are assessed individually, with the majority of the projections ranging from 0.00% to 2 %,
Recreation Fees - The Recreation revenue stream is driven by seasonal sign -ups and is not linear -
so the year -end results are very difficult to estimate at mid - point. One known change however is
the elimination of $30,000 in Winter Class revenue (in conjunction with $15,000 of expenses). At
this point, the budget estimate will hold, and the out -years are forecasted with minimal (0 -1 %)
change.
A
N
Rental Income - With the consolidation of cell phone service providers over the last few years, cell
tower leases are dwindling and lease revenue is expected to lose another lease again next year.
Forecasted years include the remaining lease providers with minimal rate increases, however
future cancellations may change the projections in the out - years.
Interest Income - With the economy showing signs of improvement, it appeared we were at the
bottom of the interest rate slide in FY 2012/13, and had nowhere to go but up. But apparently not;
we continue to sit at the bottom of the slide in FY 2013/14 without significant movement.
Miserably, interest rates have held steady at .26 of 1% for the entire first half of this fiscal year. The
Federal Reserve's promise to keep interest rates low for two years to help grow the economy and
stimulate employment is expected to end in mid -2015. The forecast anticipates increases in the
following forecasted years to bring rates up to at least 1% by the middle of FY 2015/16.
EXPENDITURE ASSUMPTIONS
Salary - Labor costs were calculated under the MOU parameters with current staffing levels as
approved in the FY 2013/14 budget. With a conservative and cautious approach, forecasted
expenditures reflect the maximum MOU increase of 2.5% in the forecasted years with a zero
vacancy factor as open positions are typically backfilled with temporary staff until filled.
Benefits - CAPERS pension rates will increase significantly during the forecasted years due to
changes in Ca1PERS' actuarial methods and assumption factors. This will be explained in more
detail and illustrated with a handout during the meeting. With the exception of health insurance
premiums, the remaining benefits such as disability and life insurance are expected to increase
minimally. Medical insurance premiums however, have increased significantly, averaging 9.3% per
year over the last 10 years. With the reduction in staff benefits for new staff members and
anticipated turnover and retirements, costs are expected to decrease prompting a 7% factor for the
forecasted years.
Operating Expenditures - These expenses includes materials and supplies, fees, contract services
and consultants, and are generally regulated by service level and budget availability. Under the
current structure, expenditures are generally held to minimal increases. With the forecasted
revenue improvement, there will be increased services requirements, which in -turn require
additional operating expenditures. Most operational expenses are held to between 1% and 2.5% in
forecasted years, depending on the account.
Public Safety - Under the current contract, annual increases are established at CPI plus 2 %. This
generally results in an approximately 4% - 5% increase each year. As a result of the County's new
pension reform measures, there was a decrease in the cost of Sheriff Services in FY 2011/12 due to
a reduction in County staffs wages and benefits. Forecasted years utilize a 5% growth factor at
current service levels for the sheriffs contract. With the City's contract set to expire in 2014, the
projected service costs may need to be revised at a later date.
Community Grants - Grants were projected to be consistent with FY 2013/14 year levels, and will
be adjusted per Council's discussion.
Internal Service Funds (ISF)- An annual growth factor of 3.0% was used for the forecasted years
in the Insurance Funds due to the volatility in the rates over the last few years. The Vehicle &
Equipment Replacement fund was increased to its full replacement funding level of $200,000 per
year, and the Technology Replacement Fund was held stable at $35,000 for each of the five years.
The remaining ISFs are forecast with annual increases ranging between 1% and 3 %.
Table 1: Targeted Speed Reduction Action Plan
Posted
Observed Speed
Speed over Posted
Ultimate
2 Year 85th
Street Segments
Speed
(85th %ile)
(85th %ile)
85th % -ile
% -ile
* *Cost Option 1
Cost Option 2
Cost Option 3
Cost Option 4
Cost Option 5
NB /EB
SB /WB
NB /EB
SB/WB
Limit
Target*
Target*
Tier 1 Roadways (near schools and parks)
Beaumont: Herriman to Glasgow
25
33.3
35.6
8. '
10.6
30
32
Cumberland: Cox to Scotland
25
34.2
34.4
9.2
14
30
32
Glen Brae: Scotland to Cox
25
34.0
33.1
9.0
8.1
30
32
.30 FTE
provides 628
50 FTE
provides 1,040
.75 FTE
1.0 FTE
1.5 FTE's
Herriman: Saratoga-Sunnyvale to Sarato a
g
25
33.0
32.0
8.0
7.0
30
30
Saratoga Schools & Library- Increase frequency during drop off /pick up times to promote proper circulation and driver behavior
hours of Traffic
Enforcement at
hours of
Traffic
provides 1560
hours of
provides 2080
hours of
provides 3120
hours of Traffic
Tier 2 Roadways
Enforcement
Traffic
Traffic
Allendale: Chester to Quito
25
38.0
37.0
13.0
12.0
32
35
a cost of $100,
084.
at a cost of
Enforcement
Enforcement
Enforcement at
a cost of
Bohlman: Southerly limits to 6th
25
35.1
34.2
10.1
9.2
32
32
$165,744
at a cost of
$248,617
at a cost of
$331,489
$497,234
Chester: Allendale to Ten Acre
25
35.3
35.3
10.3
10.3
32
33
- 1 full day on
y
- 1 full day on
each street every
- 1 full day on
Farwell: Fruitvale to SR9
25
34.4
32.2
9.4
7.2
32
32
12 weeks (3
each street
- 1 full day
- 1 full day on
each street every
months)
- Or Vz day on
every 8 weeks
(2 months)
t
each street
every 5 weeks
each street
every 4 weeks
3 weeks
- Or 1/z day on
Mt. Eden: Pierce to City imits
y
25
39.6
39.1
14.6
14.1
32
37
Pierce: SR9 to Mt. Eden
25
36.5
37.4
11.5
12.4
32
35
each street every
- Or 1/2 day on
- Or 1/z day on
- Or 1/z day on
each street every
Pierce: Mt. Eden to Surrey
25
32.9
32.9
7.9
7.9
32
32
6 weeks (1.5
each street
each street
each street
1.5 weeks
months)
every 4 weeks
every 2.5 weeks
every 2 weeks
Quito Rd: Bicknell to Pollard
25
34.0
34.0
9.0
10
32
32
(1 month)
- 98 hours per
- 130 hours per
- 195 hours per
Sobey: North to south
25
38.0
37.6
13.0
12.6
32
35
- 40 hours per
street per year
- 65 hours per
street per year
street per year
street per year
Tier 3 Roadways (< 1,000 vehicles per day)
per street ear
Mendelsoh: SR9 east to SR9 west
25
33.1
35.8
8.1
10.8
32
32
Toll Gate: SR9 to Saratoga Heights
25
37.8
34.7
12.8
?.7
32
34
Collision Focus
Saratoga Avenue
Reduce frequency of collisions on Saratoga Avenue between Cox Avenue & Highway 9
* Target in relation to direction of travel with the lower observed 85th %ile speed; ** All costs based on FY 2013/14
From:is [mailto:dorhotmail.com]
Sent: Wednesday, January 29, 2014 9:15 AM
To: Debbie Bretschneider; hmckay @st- andrews.org
Subject: Pedestrian safety and St Andrews School traffic
Every school day morning I have been walking with my son down Crestbrook, passing St
Andrews to the traffic signal where he crosses Saratoga Avenue to get to Redwood Middle
School. I feel the need to accompany him because of the diregard that many (not all) St
Andrew's parents have for pedestrians when exiting their school. There are two major concerns
I have: 1) many drivers exiting the school lot do not stop for pedestrians crossing the driveway
on the sidewalk (yes, there is a parking lot stop sign there - but many drivers ignore this, as can
be attested to by the St. Andrews staff who can see but ignore this), and some drivers do not
even look for pedestrians but instead focus only on the oncoming traffic ; 2) some drivers
exiting St Andrews circle around the back of the school on residential streets passing through
the Crestbrook - Braemar intersection without stopping (yes, there is a stop sign there too). I
know these drivers feel caught up in the morning rush, and that the school traffic on Saratoga
Avenue is horrible. So I always caution my son to wait at the driveway and on Crestbrook until
either drivers have stopped or have gone through - making eye contact with the drivers.
However today I had an especially bad experience at the St Andrews driveway. A courteous St -
Andrews parent did stop in the left lane and my son starting crossing, but then another driver
behind this vehicle who clearly saw us there, drove into the right lane around the stopped
vehicle, and without stopping whizzed out the exit missing my son by about two feet. This was
an eye- opener for me.
Saint Andrews is a very busy place (my wife is a member of their church), so I understand how
worked -up drivers can get going into and out of their parking lot. This is compounded by the
traffic going to and from Sacred Heart as well as to and from Redwood and maybe even
Saratoga High School. Yet , as a long time Saratoga resident, with four kids who all have
attended the public schools here, I have seen very little traffic safety enforcement on the routes
to and from these schools, and the safety problems have clearly worse than ever.'When the city
approves school improvements and special events they should also expect to have more traffic
safety enforcement, or to install a stop signal or flashing lights on Saratoga Avenue near the
schools. It would also be nice if the schools administrations would be pro- active in helping with
these issues - maybe putting -in speed bumps /ramps at strategic places, or having staff present
to caution drivers (a very visible stop sign is clearly not enough).
Thanks for reading this.
4mrive
Saratoga
A2 2003 2004 2005 2006 2001 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013
Number of Traffic 4 3 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 1 1
Citations 2812 2664 2421 2050 2791 2932 3955 3604 3409 1611 1369 1235
Accidents Traffic W 251 142 138 151 153 113 135 110 117 69 67
Total Accidents 385 333 266 297 321 315 277 275 248 265 208 224
450 4 5 00
400
350
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 20112012 2013
4000
3500
3000
2500 Total Accidents
2000 —'� Citations
1500
1000
500
0
5,000
4,500
4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
0
TRAFFIC VOLUME
Tier 1
�°
x >
'a
R O
'a
R
>. >.
>
>
>
o c
V
_
Q
�-Q�
L�
U''
..Q
_
w
c N
>>
��'
0�
>0
>
�
`n
(n
c N
U
cc
o
=
fu U'
m
Q
0
E
fC
O> w
Q
O
a
O
N
>
N
E �
co
=
° N
0
7
U >
Q
a�
a o d
cu
cu
r
U c
O
N
10,000
%000
8,000
7,000
6,000
5,000
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
2006
■ 2013
Tier 2
R O
R
>. >.
y
L
C
O R
a
w
°
o
a
Q
C� J
o
O> w
Q
O
a
O
N
>
N
O
0 O 7
d
M
a
e
7
w
m
o
a o d
Q y
r
U c
O
d -.
r
L
>
CO 3 7
N
U
o
m
m<
2/5/2014
Annexation Timeline for STG05
March April May June July Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov.
IService Plan
JCOUnty Surveyor and Assessor review of boundaries
CEQA Documentation
21 clay notice to property owners & registered voters
Outreach Meeting(s)
Roadway Evaluation I I I I I 11
21 day notice to property owners & registered voters
City initiates annexation
Date set for protest hearing if necessary
21 day notice to property owners registered voters.
Protest Hearing:
Written protests are accepted
If no written protest, annexation can be approved
Protest Evalr.iation & Final Action
Submit to LAFCO for certification
County of Santa Clara Office of the Sheriff
Average Costs Per Resident for Police Services
and
Percent of City Budget Allocated to Law Enforcement Services
Fiscal Year 2013
City
Population (1)
Police Budget
Average Cost
per Citizen
Total City Budget
Percent of City
Budget
Los Altos Hills 2
7,922
$ 1,097,853
$ 138.58
$ 5,323,725
20.6%
Saratoga 2
29,926
$ 4,400,463
$ 147.04
$ 15,821,815
27.8%
Monte Sereno_@)___
3,341
$ 514,384
$ 153.96
$ ^_ 2,492,985
20.6%
Cupertino (2), 5
58,302
$ 9,097,344
$ 156.04
$ 65,414,000
13.9%
Los Altos
28,976
$ 8,864,785
$ 305.94
$ 29,415,629
30.1%
San Jose
945,942
$ 294,752,941
$ 311.60
$ 966,690,580
30.5%
Morgan Hill
37,882
$ 11 961,290
$ 315.75
$ 29,087,119
41.1%
Milpitas
66,790
$ 21,627,278
$ 323.81
$ 60,608,103
35.7%
Campbell
39,349
$ 12,786,713
$
$ 37,554,571
34.0%
Giles__
_ 48,821
_
$ 18,200,459
$ 372.80...$
37,622,773_
48.4%
Santa Clara
116,468
$ 44,432,000
$ 381.50
$ 145,443,000
30.5%
Mountain View
74,066
$ 30,467,120
$ 411.35
$ 95,538,733
31.9%
Los Gatos
29,413
$ 13,388,959
$ 455.21
$ 35,179,291
38.1%
Palo Alto
64,403
1 $ 32,332,000
$ 502.03
$ 138,026,000
23.4%
Sunnyvale ( 44)
140,081
_
$ 74752,138
$ 533.64
$ 218,911,118
34.1%
Incorporated Cities Total 1,691,682
Unincorporated County 89,960
Idounty Total 1,781,642
Notes
1 Based on Santa Clara County 2010 census information.
2 Law Enforcement Services in the cities of Cupertino, Los Altos Hills, and Saratoga are provided under contract by the
County of Santa Clara Office of the Sheriff.
3 Monte Sereno's contract with Los Gatos Police Department for police services is for 80 hours per week only. The police
budget noted above is the flat rate for 80 hours.
4 The City of Sunnyvale includes both police and fire protection costs in the Sunnyvale Pulic Safety Department budget.
5 A significant, one time property sale occurred in the City of Cupertino during fiscal year 2010111 (HP - Apple). Specific
(sales tax) revenues therefore increased by approximately $22.7M, supporting a similar one -time increase to the FY
2013 General Fund expenditure budget. The majority of one time funds were budgeted for FY 2013 retiree medical and
capital improvement reserves. The remainder is represented as small budget increases or flat year over year changes
in the remaining GF categories. Allowing for the anomoly, the Cupertino Law Enforcement Budget is approximately 21 %
of the adjusted GF budget.
All budget numbers were obtained from city websites.
The above information may not reflect full law enforcement costs, since expenditures related to law enforcement may
be budgeted under a separate funding source. For example, vehicle costs may be budgeted under Fleet Operations
rather than Police Services.
The Sheriffs Office budget incorporates full costs associated with law enforcement services.
Sheriff Contract Hour History
rUDL,1%- 3Arr i Y icavr.AUE5
LUU4 /U5
1 ZUU5 /U6
2006107
2007/08
2008/09
2009110
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
2013/14
Parking Citations
24,632.00
32,101
32,462
33,788
18,361
14,567
21,007
10,676
7,278
-
Vehicle Code Bails & Fines
124,789.00
202,112
353,935
291,946
277,301
295,895
243,214
210,464
160,230
Total Sheriff Revenue
149,421.00
234,213.00
386,397.00
325,734.00
295,662.00
310,462.00
264,221.00
221,140.00
167,508.00
Increase (Decrease) from PY
$84,792
$152,184
($60,663)
($30,072)
$14,800
($46,241
($43,081)
($53,632)
+,hd
Net Percentage Increase (Deer)
56.75%
64.98%
(15.70 %)
(9.23 %)
5.01%
°
(14.89/ °)
°
(16.30 %)
°
(24.25/ °)
the
PUBLIC SAFETY EXPENSE
2004/05
2011/12
2012/13 �W
2013/14
Law Enforcement Contract I
3,382,441
3,239,538
$ 3,330,042
$ 3,693,515
$ 3,967,940
$ 4,179,769
$ 4,297,148
$ 4,060,306
$ 4,153,654 $
4,352,869
Less: Contract Reimbursement
61171
49,342
70,625
24,696
89,350
173,120
242,252
303,294
41,533
Net Cost
3,321,270
3,190,196
3,259,417
3,668,819
3,878,5901,
4,006,649
4,054,896
3,757,012
4,112,121
4,352,869
i
Increase (Decrease) from PY
($131,074)
$69,221
$409,402
$209,771
$128,059
$48,247
($297,884)
$355,109
tbd
Net Percentage Increase (Decr)
(3.95 %)
2.17%
12.56%
5.72%
3.30%
1.20%
(7.35 %)
9.45%
tbd
HOURS
2004/05
1 2005106 1
2006/07
2007/08
2008109
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
20U
Reserves Activity Hours
340.00
340.00
340.00
340.00
340.00
340.00
340.00
340.00
340.00
340.00
General Law Enforcement
19,014.00
19,014.00
19,014.00
19,014.00
20,060.00
20,060.00
20,060.00
20,060.00
20,060.00
20,060.00
Traffic Enforcement
5,831.90
3,888.90
3,888.90
3,888.90
3,888.90
3,888.90
3,888.90
2,396.50
2,396.50
2,396.50
Investigative
2,200.00
2,200.00
2,200.00
2,200.00
2,200.00
2,400.00
2,400.00
2,400.00
2,400.00
2,400.00
Total Officer Hours
27,385.90
25,442.90
25,442.90
25,442.90
26,488.90
26,688.90
26,688.90
25,196.50
25,196.50
25,196.50
School or Neighborhood Officer
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Night Traffic
EEL]2,000 hours
" ' "
_
-
Increased
General Law
Increased
Investigative
-
Reduced
Traffic
Enforcement
Enforcement
Hours
Enforcement
Z: \Finance Directory\Council - Misc \Council Retreats\2014 - Feb \Backup Documentation\Contract Hour History 2 /6/2014
City of Saratoga - Speaker Card
Please Note: City Council meetings are both live and delayed broadcast.
This card will help the meeting run smoothly, but you are not required to
Provide any information you do not wish to provide.
Please see reverse side of this card for Speaker Guidelines.
I would like to speak about:
Agenda Item? Yes No Agenda Item number
Support Oppose Neutral
Date
Name;
Group /Organization:
Address: (optional)
Telephone: (optional)
Email: (optional)
—,/&k S �-k
J 2 3�
Speaker Guidelines
• If you are attending a meeting of the City Council or other City Committee, Commission, or Board
( "Legislative Body ") and would like to address the officials, please complete the information on
the reverse side of this card and give it to the City Clerk in advance of the meeting.
• Speakers are customarily allotted up to three (3) minutes; however, the Legislative Body may limit
the number of speakers and length of time allowed to each speaker to ensure adequate time for all
items on the Agenda.
• Speakers are asked to address specific Agenda items when those items are before the Legislative
Body rather than during the Oral Communications portion of the meeting.
• Completion of this form is voluntary. You may attend and participate in the meeting regardless of
whether or not you complete this document. Its purpose is to aid staff in compiling complete and
accurate records; however, this card will become part of the Public Record, In accordance with
the Public Records Act, any information Vou provide on this form is available to the public. You
may elect not to include your address and telephone number.
• Groups /Organizations that are supporting or opposing issues are urged to select one
spokesperson.
• City Council meetings are both live and delayed broadcast.
Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation.
City of Saratoga - Speaker Card
Please Note: City Council meetings are both live and delayed broadcast.
This card will help the meetinq run smoothly, but you are not required to
Provide any information you do not wish to provide.
Please see reverse side of this card for Speaker Guidelines.
I would like to speak about:
Agenda Item? Yes
Support _
Date
Name:
Group /Organization:
Address: (optional)
Telephone:(optional)
Email: (optional)
No Agenda Item number
Oppose Neutral
Speaker Guidelines
• If you are attending a meeting of the City Council or other City Committee, Commission, or Board
(" Legislative Body ") and would like to address the officials, please complete the information on
the reverse side of this card and give it to the City Clerk in advance of the meeting.
• Speakers are customarily allotted up to three (3) minutes; however, the Legislative Body may limit
the number of speakers and length of time allowed to each speaker to ensure adequate time for all
items on the Agenda.
• Speakers are asked to address specific Agenda items when those items are before the Legislative
Body rather than during the Oral Communications portion of the meeting.
• Completion of this form is voluntary. You may attend and participate in the meeting regardless of
whether or not you complete this document. Its purpose is to aid staff in compiling complete and
accurate records; however, this card will become part of the Public Record. In accordance with
the Public Records Act any information you provide on this form is available to the public. You
may elect not to include your address and telephone number.
• Groups /Organizations that are supporting or opposing issues are urged to select one
spokesperson.
• City Council meetings are both live and delayed broadcast.
Thank you for your courtesy and cooperation.