HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-19-2014 City Council agenda PacketTable of Contents
Agenda 3
Commendation for Laura Perusa
Staff Report 9
Commendation 10
Appointment of Commissioners and Oath of Office
Staff Report 11
Attachment A: Resolution of Appointment 13
Attachment B: Oath of Office 14
City Council Meeting Minutes
Staff Report 15
Attachment A: Minutes for Special and Regular City
Council Meeting on March 5, 2014 17
Review of Accounts Payable Check Registers
Staff Report 28
3/4/2014 Check Register 30
3/11/2014 Check Register 33
Award of Contract for Hearing Officer Services
Staff Report 39
Attachment A: Agreement for Hearing Officer Services 42
Attachment B: Hearing Officer Request for Proposals 59
Attachment C: Responses to Hearing Officer Request
for Proposals 81
Joe’s Trail at Saratoga De Anza Project – Notice of Completion
Staff Report - Joe's Trail at Saratoga De Anza Project
Notice of Completion 185
Attachment 1 - Notice of Completion for the Joe?s Trail
at Saratoga De Anza Project 187
Joe’s Trail at Saratoga De Anza – Approval Final Payment and
Budget Resolution
1. Staff Report 188
2. Budget Resolution 190
Noise Ordinance Update
Staff Report 191
Attachment A - Ordinance 193
Attachment B - Construction & Garden Tool Text
without Redline 208
Public Hearing on Resolution Ordering Abatement of a Public
Nuisance by Removal of Hazardous Vegetation (Weeds)
Staff Report 209
Attachment A: Resolution Ordering Abatement of
Hazardous Vegetation 211
Attachment B: 2014 Weed Abatement Program
Commencement Report 213
Attachment C: Resolution 13-083 Declaring Hazardous
Vegetation (Weeds) to be a Public Nuisance 218
1
Attachment D: Resolution 14-002 Declaring Abatement
of a Public Nuisance as to Specified Properties
Containing Hazardous Vegetation 226
Allocation of Annual Saratoga Event Grant Program Funds
Staff Report 233
Attachment A: Summary of Community Event Grant
Applications 236
Attachment B: Community Event Grant Applications 237
Attachment C: History of Community Event Grant
Allocations 269
Destination Saratoga Agreement Review & One Year Extension
Staff report 271
Media Activity 272
Contract Addendum 279
Formation of State Route 85 Committee
Staff Report 282
2
REGULAR MEETING – 7:00 P.M. – CIVIC THEATER/COUNCIL CHAMBERS
AT 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA
(Pursuant to Gov’t. Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on
March 13, 2014)
REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSION
COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS & PUBLIC
Oral Communications on Non-Agendized Items
Any member of the public will be allowed to address the City Council for up to three (3)
minutes on matters not on this agenda. The law generally prohibits the Council from
discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Council may instruct staff
accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Council Direction to Staff.
Oral Communications - Council Direction to Staff
Instruction to Staff regarding actions on current Oral Communications.
Communications from Boards and Commissions
Council Direction to Staff
Instruction to Staff regarding actions on current Communications from Boards &
Commissions.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
CEREMONIAL ITEMS
1. Commendation for Laura Perusa
Recommended action:
Read and present commendation for Laura Perusa.
AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MARCH 19, 2014
3
2. Appointment of Commissioners and Oath of Office
Recommended action:
Adopt the attached resolution appointing Robert Gulino to the Saratoga Library
Commission and direct the City Clerk to administer the Oath of Office.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
None
CONSENT CALENDAR
The Consent Calendar contains routine items of business. Items in this section will be
acted in one motion, unless removed by the Mayor or a Council member. Any member of
the public may speak to an item on the Consent Calendar at this time, or request the
Mayor remove an item from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Public Speakers are
limited to three (3) minutes.
3. City Council Meeting Minutes
Recommended action:
Approve City Council minutes for the Special and Regular City Council Meeting on
March 5, 2014.
4. Review of Accounts Payable Check Registers
Recommended action:
Review and accept check registers for the following accounts payable payment
cycles:
3/4/2014 Period 9
3/11/2014 Period 9
5. Award of Contract for Hearing Officer Services
Recommended action:
Authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with Moscone Emblidge Sater
& Otis LLP for hearing officer services to be performed by Rachel J. Sater.
6. Joe’s Trail at Saratoga De Anza Project – Notice of Completion
Recommended action:
Move to accept Joe’s Trail at Saratoga De Anza Project as complete and authorize
staff to record the Notice of Completion for the construction contract.
7. Joe’s Trail at Saratoga De Anza – Approval Final Payment and Budget Resolution
Recommended action:
1. Approve Budget Resolution in the amount of $33,997
2. Authorize increase in construction contingency to Guerra Construction Group of
Santa Clara in the amount of $58,520.
4
PUBLIC HEARINGS
Applicants/Appellants and their representatives have a total of ten minutes maximum for
opening statements. Members of the public may comment on any item for up to three
minutes. Applicant/Appellants and their representatives have a total of five minutes
maximum for closing statements. Items requested for continuance are subject to
Council’s approval at the Council meeting
8. Noise Ordinance Update
Recommended action:
1.Conduct a public hearing.
2.Introduce and waive the first reading of the attached ordinance to amend various
City Code Articles related to noise control and direct staff to place the ordinance on
the consent calendar for adoption at the next regular meeting of the City Council.
9. Public Hearing on Resolution Ordering Abatement of a Public Nuisance by Removal
of Hazardous Vegetation (Weeds)
Recommended action:
Open the public hearing, listen to public testimony, and close public hearing.
Consider any objections to the proposed Order for Abatement of Hazardous
Vegetation and sustain or overrule any objections as to specific properties. Adopt the
resolution ordering abatement as to specified properties (with modifications if any
objections are sustained).
OLD BUSINESS
None
NEW BUSINESS
10. Allocation of Annual Saratoga Event Grant Program Funds
Recommended action:
Review Saratoga Community Event Grant Program applications and determine grant
allocations.
11. Destination Saratoga Agreement Review & One Year Extension
Recommended action:
Receive report and authorize the City Manager to execute a one-year extension to the
agreement.
12. Formation of State Route 85 Committee
Recommended action:
Accept report and provide direction to staff on the formation of a State Route 85
committee.
5
ADHOC & AGENCY ASSIGNMENT REPORTS
Mayor Emily Lo
Cities Association of Santa Clara County
Cities Association of Santa Clara County – Selection Committee
Council Finance Committee
Hakone Foundation Board
Hakone Foundation Executive Committee
Santa Clara County Library District Joint Powers Authority
West Valley Mayors and Managers Association
Vice Mayor Howard Miller
City School Ad Hoc
Council Finance Committee
Hakone Foundation Board
Postal Service Liaison
Valley Transportation Authority Policy Advisory Committee (PAC)
West Valley Solid Waste Management Joint Powers Authority
Council Member Manny Cappello
Destination Saratoga
Highway 9 Ad Hoc
Let’s Move City Ad Hoc
Santa Clara County Housing and Community Development (HCD) Council Committee
Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating Council (SASCC)
Saratoga Chamber of Commerce
Saratoga Ministerial Association
TEA Ad Hoc
Village Ad Hoc
Council Member Chuck Page
Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG)
Highway 9 Ad Hoc
Let’s Move City Ad Hoc
Santa Clara County Expressway Plan 2040 Policy Advisory Board
Saratoga Sister City Committee Liaison
TEA Ad Hoc
West Valley Sanitation District
Council Member Jill Hunter
City School Ad Hoc
KSAR Community Access TV Board
Santa Clara Valley Water District Commission
Santa Clara Valley Water District West Valley Flood Control & Watershed Advisory
Committee
Saratoga Historical Foundation
Village Ad Hoc
6
CITY COUNCIL ITEMS
CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
ADJOURNMENT
In accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act, copies of the staff reports and other materials
provided to the City Council by City staff in connection with this agenda are available at the
office of the City Clerk at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. Note that copies of
materials distributed to the City Council concurrently with the posting of the agenda are also
available on the City Website at www.saratoga.ca.us. Any materials distributed by staff after the
posting of the agenda are made available for public review at the office of the City Clerk at the
time they are distributed to the City Council.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special
assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at (408) 868-1269.
Notification 48 hours prior to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable
arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title
II)
Certificate of Posting of Agenda:
I, Crystal Bothelio, City Clerk for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda
for the meeting of the City Council for the City of Saratoga was posted on March 13,
2014, at the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA 95070 and was
available for public review at that location. The agenda is also available on the City’s
website at www.saratoga.ca.us
Signed this 13th day of March 2014 at Saratoga, California.
Crystal Bothelio, City Clerk
NOTE: To view current or previous City Council meetings anytime, go to the City
Video Archives at www.saratoga.ca.us
03/19 Regular Meeting –Joint Meeting with Traffic Safety Commission
04/02 Regular Meeting –Joint Meeting with Sheriff Office
04/16 Regular Meeting –Joint Meeting CIP Budget study session
05/07 Regular Meeting –Joint Meeting with Mountain Winery
05/21 Regular Meeting –Joint Meeting with Santa Clara Valley Water District
06/04 Regular Meeting –Joint Meeting with Montalvo Arts
CITY OF SARATOGA
CITY COUNCIL MEETING CALENDAR 2014
7
06/18 Regular Meeting –5:30 p.m. Community Center -Joint Meeting with
HOA’s
07/02 Regular Meeting – Joint Meeting with Sister City Committee
07/16 Recess
08/06 Recess
08/20 Regular Meeting –Joint Meeting with SASCC
09/03 Regular Meeting--Joint Meeting with Parks & Rec/PEBTAC
09/17 Regular Meeting –Joint Meeting with Youth Commission
10/01 Regular Meeting –5:30 p.m.-Community Center -Joint Meeting with
Saratoga School Districts
10/15 Regular Meeting – Joint Meeting with Saratoga Ministerial Association
11/05 Regular Meeting – Joint Meeting with West Valley Board of Trustees
11/19 Regular Meeting – Joint Meeting with Senator Beall
12/03 Regular Meeting – Joint Meeting with Library Commission and Friends of
the Saratoga Libraries
12/17 Regular Meeting – Joint Meeting Hakone Foundation Board
8
Page 1 of 1
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: March 19, 2014 AGENDA ITEM:
DEPARTMENT: City Manager’s Office CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson
PREPARED BY: Debbie Bretschneider DIRECTOR: Dave Anderson
Deputy City Clerk
SUBJECT: Commendation for Laura Perusa
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Read and present commendation for Laura Perusa.
BACKGROUND:
The attached commendation honors Laura Perusa, a Saratoga volunteer for the last 10 years.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
N/A
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING THE RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:
The proclamation would not be presented.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S):
N/A
FOLLOW UP ACTION(S):
Implement Council direction.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, this item was properly posted as a City Council agenda
item and was included in the packet made available on the City’s web site in advance of the
meeting. A copy of the agenda packet is also made available at the Saratoga Branch Library each
Monday in advance of the Council meeting.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Commendation for Laura Perusa
9
COMMENDATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA HONORING
LAUREL PERUSA
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga appreciates and honors its residents who
do volunteer work for the City; and
WHEREAS, Laura Perusa has been a dedicated volunteer for over 10 years
and has lived in Saratoga for almost 30 years; and
WHEREAS, Laura is most dedicated to the Village and some of her volunteer
projects include: serving as a Village Gardener for 9 years; helping to organize
“Heritage Days” and portraying Olivia de Havilland at this event; helping to organize
the Love Notes project; assisting decorating the Village for July 4 since 2011; and
encouraging the Village businesses to decorate for the Holiday Tree Lighting
ceremony; and
WHEREAS, Laura has been a 10 year volunteer at the Saratoga Historical
Foundation and is a former Board Member; she organized the first silent auction
fundraiser for the Museum and for the last 2 years has organized the historical
figures for the Blossom Festival; and
WHEREAS, Laura Perusa is an enthusiastic and dedicated member of the
Saratoga community, whose volunteer efforts have made Saratoga a more vibrant and
richer place for residents and visitors alike.
NOW, THEREFORE, the City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby
appreciate and recognize the commitment of Laura Perusa as a volunteer in the City of
Saratoga.
WITNESS MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA on this
19th day of March 2014.
_________________________
Emily Lo, Mayor
City of Saratoga
10
Page 1 of 2
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: March 19, 2014 AGENDA ITEM:
DEPARTMENT: City Manager’s Office CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson
PREPARED BY: Crystal Bothelio DIRECTOR: Dave Anderson
City Clerk
SUBJECT: Appointment of Commissioners and Oath of Office
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt the attached resolution appointing Robert Gulino to the Saratoga Library Commission and
direct the City Clerk to administer the Oath of Office.
BACKGROUND:
Saratoga Library Commissioner Steven Schlosser resigned his term in December 2013.
Consequently, the City opened recruitment to fill the vacant position in December. The City
Council conducted applicant interviews on March 5, 2014 and selected Robert Gulino to serve
remainder of Steven Schlosser’s term, which ends September 30, 2016.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
N/A
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING THE RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:
The appointment to the Library Commission would not be made and the recruitment process
would be reopened.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S):
N/A
FOLLOW UP ACTION(S):
Update the City’s Commission roster.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, this item was properly posted as a City Council agenda
11
Page 2 of 2
item and was included in the packet made available on the City’s web site in advance of the
meeting. A copy of the agenda packet is also made available at the Saratoga Branch Library each
Monday in advance of the Council meeting.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Resolution of Appointment
Attachment B: Oath of Office
12
RESOLUTION 14-___
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
APPOINTING MEMBERS TO THE TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION
AND HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION
WHEREAS, a vacancy on the Library Commission was created when Library Commissioner
Steven Schlosser resigned his position in December 2013; and
WHEREAS, the City conducted a recruitment to fill one (1) partial term on the Library
Commission ending September 30, 2016; and
WHEREAS, the City Council interviewed applicants for both Commissions on March 5, 2014.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby
make the following appointment:
NAME COMMISSION TERM
Robert Gulino Library March 19, 2014 – September 30, 2016
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Saratoga City
Council held on the 19th day of March 2014 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Emily Lo, Mayor
ATTEST:
DATE:
Crystal Bothelio, City Clerk
13
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA
I, Robert Gulino, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the
Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of California
against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance
to the Constitution of the United States and the Constitution of the State of
California; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservation or
purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties upon
which I am about to enter.
Robert Gulino, Member
Library Commission
Subscribed and sworn to before me on
this 19th day of March 2014.
Crystal Bothelio
City Clerk
14
Page 1 of 2
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: March 19, 2014 AGENDA ITEM:
DEPARTMENT: City Manager’s Office CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson
PREPARED BY: Crystal Bothelio DIRECTOR: Dave Anderson
City Clerk
SUBJECT: City Council Meeting Minutes
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Approve City Council minutes for the Special and Regular City Council Meeting on March 5,
2014.
BACKGROUND:
The draft minutes for the Special and Regular City Council Meeting on March 5, 2014 are
attached to this report for Council review and approval.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
N/A
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING THE RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:
N/A
ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S):
N/A
FOLLOW UP ACTION(S):
Retain minutes for legislative history.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, this item was properly posted as a City Council agenda
item and was included in the packet made available on the City’s web site in advance of the
meeting. A copy of the agenda packet is also made available at the Saratoga Branch Library each
15
Page 2 of 2
Monday in advance of the Council meeting.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Minutes for Special and Regular City Council Meeting on March 5, 2014
16
1
MINUTES
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 5, 2014
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING
At 4:45 p.m., the City Council held a Closed Session in the Administrative Conference Room at
City Hall at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue. At 5:05 p.m., the City Council conducted interviews for the
Library Commission. At 5:30 p.m., the City Council held a Joint Meeting with Destination
Saratoga and the Saratoga Chamber of Commerce.
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
Mayor Lo called the meeting to order at 7:04 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT Mayor Emily Lo, Vice Mayor Howard Miller, Council Members
Manny Cappello, Chuck Page, Jill Hunter
ABSENT: None
ALSO PRESENT: Dave Anderson, City Manager
Richard Taylor, City Attorney
Crystal Bothelio, City Clerk
John Cherbone, Public Works Director
Mary Furey, Finance and Administrative Services Director
James Lindsay, Community Development Director
Michael Taylor, Recreation and Facilities Director
Christopher Riordan, Senior Planner
Cynthia McCormick, Planner
Michael Fossati, Planner
Adam Henig, Recreation Supervisor
Brian Babcock, Administrative Analyst I
REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA
City Clerk Crystal Bothelio reported that pursuant to Gov’t. Code 54954.2, the agenda for this
meeting was properly posted on February 27, 2014)
REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSION
Mayor Lo stated that there was nothing to report from Closed Session.
17
2
COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS & PUBLIC
Oral Communications on Non-Agendized Items
Jeff Barco spoke about his concerns regarding public outreach and engagement for the State
Route 85 Express Lanes project.
Cheriel Jensen spoke about the City of Saratoga comment letter on the State Route 85 Express
Lanes Draft Initial Study/Environmental Assessment and voiced support for extending light rail
along the State Route 85 corridor.
Mary Robertson spoke about the State Route 85 Express Lanes project, light rail on the 85
corridor, and noise generated by the state route.
Marcia Fariss spoke in opposition to the State Route 85 Express Lanes project and encouraged
the City Council to oppose it as well.
Trish Cypher spoke in opposition to the State Route 85 Express Lanes project and raised
concerns about the impact of Assembly Bill 32 and Senate Bill 375.
Cupertino City Council Member Barry Chang, representing himself, stated objections to the
State Route 85 Express Lanes project and advocated for extending light rail along the 85
corridor. He also encouraged the Council to agendize discussion on State Constitution
Amendment #5.
Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office Captain Ken Binder introduced new West Valley Division
Lieutenant Jim Cannan.
Mary-Lynne Bernald made an announcement regarding the Blossom Festival on March 22, 2014
from 10:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m.
Marilyn White invited the City Council and members of the public to the Saratoga Sister City
30th Anniversary Open House on March 29, 2014 from 1:00 p.m. to 4:00 p.m. at Saratoga
Prospect Center.
Jeff Schwartz spoke about public outreach conducted on the State Route 85 Express Lanes
project, discrepancies in Council attitude towards the project, Saratoga City Council behavior
towards elected officials from other jurisdictions, and stated he felt Vice Mayor Miller had a
conflict of interest due to his employment with Apple.
City Attorney Richard Taylor stated that the conflict of interest rules are not triggered by Vice
Mayor Miller’s position with Apple.
Vice Mayor Miller expressed his opinion on the State Route 85 Express Lanes project.
Council Member Page stated his thoughts on the project.
18
3
Jeff Schwartz questioned whether the Council could make statements of opinion during oral
communications on non-agendized items under the Brown Act.
Peggy Lynne raised questions about how Hakone Gardens is regulated within the City Code.
Mary Robertson requested to speak again on the behavior of Saratoga City Council Members
towards elected officials from other jurisdictions.
Oral Communications - Council Direction to Staff
None
Communications from Boards and Commissions
Gary Smith, President of the Saratoga Chamber of Commerce, provided an overview of the City
Council Joint Meeting with the Chamber.
Joshua Weeks with Destination Saratoga also commented upon the Joint Meeting, provided the
public with information about Destination Saratoga, and spoke about the Village Dinner
scheduled for June 1, 2014 on Big Basin Way.
Council Direction to Staff
Council Member Page requested that staff speak with Peggy Lynne about her questions
regarding Hakone Gardens.
City Manager Dave Anderson responded that staff would speak with Peggy Lynne.
Vice Mayor Miller requested that discussion on formation of a committee to deal with issues
related to State Route 85 be scheduled for a future City Council Meeting.
Council Member Cappello supported the request.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Council Member Hunter announced the St. Paddy’s Day Party in the Village on March 15 from
3:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. The event is free and open to the public. She also shared that a heritage
tree on the corner of Fruitvale and Farwell is diseased and will be lost soon. She encouraged the
public to view the oak before it is gone.
Council Member Page encouraged the public to attend the Saratoga Sister City Open House on
March 29, 2014. He noted the event will include light refreshments, a performance by the
Saratoga Taiko drummers, and many other interesting activities.
19
4
Vice Mayor Miller shared that the Saratoga Library will have tax professionals at the Library on
March 7 from 12:00 p.m. to 5:00 p.m. to answer questions about taxes. The event is free. On
March 29, the Saratoga Recreation and Facilities Department is having an open house from
11:00 a.m. to 2:00 pm. The event will include demonstrations, a raffle, and information about
programs.
Mayor Lo shared that the City is currently accepting applications for two City Commissions –
the Planning Commission and the Parks and Recreation Commission. Information is available on
the City website at www.saratoga.ca.us/comvac.
SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS
1. Special Presentation -Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
Recommended action:
Receive presentation from Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District Board of Directors on
their June 3, 2014 bond measure to enable the district to fulfill major regional open space
projects within its tri-county boundaries.
Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District General Manager Steve Abbors and Board Vice
President Pete Siemens made a presentation on a bond measure the District will be placing
on the June 3, 2014 ballot.
Mayor Lo invited public comment on the item.
The following person requested to speak:
Trish Cypher
No one else requested to speak.
Council Member Page requested that a resolution of support for the bond measure be placed
on a future Council agenda.
Council Member Cappello supported the request.
2. Special Presentation – New West Valley Collection & Recycling Agreement
Recommended action:
Receive presentation from West Valley Collection & Recycling (WVC&R) on the new
agreement between the West Valley Solid Waste Management Authority contract and
WVC&R.
Weslie McConkey, WVC&R Outreach Manager, gave a presentation on the new agreement
between WVC&R and the West Valley Solid Waste Management Authority.
Mayor Lo invited public comment on the item.
20
5
The following person requested to speak:
Janice Gamper
No one else requested to speak.
CONSENT CALENDAR
3. City Council Meeting Minutes
Recommended action:
Approve City Council minutes for the Special and Regular City Council Meeting on
February 19, 2014.
HUNTER/PAGE MOVED TO APPROVE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES FOR THE
SPECIAL AND REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING ON FEBRUARY 19, 2014.
MOTION PASSED. AYES: LO, MILLER, CAPPELLO, PAGE, HUNTER. NOES: NONE.
ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE.
4. Review of Accounts Payable Check Registers
Recommended action:
Review and accept check registers for the following accounts payable payment cycles:
2/18/2014 Period 8
2/25/2014 Period 8
HUNTER/PAGE MOVED TO ACCEPT CHECK REGISTERS FOR THE
FOLLOWING ACCOUNTS PAYABLE PAYMENT CYCLES: 2/18/2014 PERIOD 8
AND 2/25/2014 PERIOD 8. MOTION PASSED. AYES: LO, MILLER, CAPPELLO,
PAGE, HUNTER. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE.
5. Treasurer’s Report for the Month Ended January 31, 2014
Recommended action:
Review and accept the Treasurer’s Report for the month ended January 31, 2014.
HUNTER/PAGE MOVED TO ACCEPT THE TREASURER’S REPORT FOR THE
MONTH ENDED JANUARY 31, 2014. MOTION PASSED. AYES: LO, MILLER,
CAPPELLO, PAGE, HUNTER. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE.
6. Amendments to Chapter 15 of the City Code Related to Design Review
Recommended action:
Waive the second reading and adopt the proposed ordinance.
Council Member Page removed this item from the Consent Calendar to comment upon it.
21
6
ORDINANCE NO. 314
PAGE/MILLER MOVED TO ADOPT THE PROPOSED ORDINANCE AND
DIRECTED STAFF TO AMEND THE NEW ILLUSTRATION ON THE PRIVACY
PAGE (PAGE 11) TO DEMONSTRATE THE DIFFERENCE IN FINISH FLOOR
HEIGHT OF HOMES THAT ARE ON THE SAME GROUND LEVEL. MOTION
PASSED. AYES: LO, MILLER, CAPPELLO, PAGE, HUNTER. NOES: NONE.
ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE.
7. Amended Annexation Resolutions for the Congress Spring Quarry Property and Certain
Unincorporated Islands
Recommended action:
Adopt the attached amended resolutions reaffirming and restating the prior approval of the
annexation of certain properties located within the City’s Urban Service Area.
Vice Mayor Miller removed this item from the Consent Calendar to comment upon it.
RESOLUTIONS NO. 14-006, 14-007, 14-008
MILLER/PAGE MOVED TO ADOPT THE ATTACHED AMENDED RESOLUTIONS
REAFFIRMING AND RESTATING THE PRIOR APPROVAL OF THE
ANNEXATION OF CERTAIN PROPERTIES LOCATED WITHIN THE CITY’S
URBAN SERVICE AREA. MOTION PASSED. AYES: LO, MILLER, CAPPELLO,
PAGE, HUNTER. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE.
8. Quito Road Bridges Project – Budget resolution to appropriate additional $170,000 in grant
funds received from Caltrans
Recommended action:
Authorize the City Manager to execute a Budget Resolution to appropriate the additional
$170,000 in grant funding received from Caltrans for the Quito Road Bridges Project.
Vice Mayor Miller removed this item for comment and to request additional information.
Public Works Director John Cherbone addressed Council questions.
RESOLUTION NO. 14-009
MILLER/CAPPELLO MOVED TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO
EXECUTE A BUDGET RESOLUTION TO APPROPRIATE THE ADDITIONAL
$170,000 IN GRANT FUNDING RECEIVED FROM CALTRANS FOR THE QUITO
ROAD BRIDGES PROJECT. MOTION PASSED. AYES: LO, MILLER, CAPPELLO,
PAGE, HUNTER. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE.
22
7
9. Motor Vehicle (MV) Resolution Restricting Parking on Saratoga Avenue
Recommended action:
Adopt Motor Vehicle Resolution restricting parking on a section of Saratoga Avenue from
the northern entrance of Westhope Church traveling 75 feet toward Cox Avenue.
RESOLUTION MV-304
HUNTER/PAGE MOVED TO ADOPT MOTOR VEHICLE RESOLUTION
RESTRICTING PARKING ON A SECTION OF SARATOGA AVENUE FROM THE
NORTHERN ENTRANCE OF WESTHOPE CHURCH TRAVELING 75 FEET
TOWARD COX AVENUE. MOTION PASSED. AYES: LO, MILLER, CAPPELLO,
PAGE, HUNTER. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE.
10. Landscaping & Lighting Assessment District LLA-1; Resolutions initiating renewal of the
District for FY 14-15.
Recommended action:
1. Move to adopt the Resolution describing improvements and directing preparation of the
Engineer’s Report.
2. Move to adopt the Resolution appointing the Attorney’s for the District.
RESOLUTION NO. 14-010 & 14-011
HUNTER/PAGE MOVED TO ADOPT: THE RESOLUTION DESCRIBING
IMPROVEMENTS AND DIRECTING PREPARATION OF THE ENGINEER’S
REPORT; AND THE RESOLUTION APPOINTING THE ATTORNEY’S FOR THE
DISTRICT. MOTION PASSED. AYES: LO, MILLER, CAPPELLO, PAGE, HUNTER.
NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE.
At this 9:03 p.m., Mayor Lo took a short recess in the meeting. The City Council returned to
the meeting at 9:11 p.m.
PUBLIC HEARINGS
11. Appeal of the Planning Commission’s Approval of a Proposed Mixed-Use Project at 12250
Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road (APPC14-0002) – Continued from 2/05/14 City Council Meeting
Recommended action:
Adopt a resolution denying the appeal and approving the project with the modifications to the
project shown on the plans dated February 18, 2014.
Mayor Lo announced that due to changes to the project plans, she would allow the project
appellants and applicant to make opening and closing statements so that both parties would
have time to present their views on the changes.
Michael Fossati, Planner in the Community Development Department, presented the staff
report.
23
8
Mayor Lo invited the appellants to give opening remarks.
Jack Mallory and Charles Ye, the appellants, addressed the City Council.
Mayor Lo then asked the applicant to give opening remarks.
Bart Hechtman spoke on behalf of the applicant, Yorke Lee.
Mayor Lo invited public comment on the item.
The following people requested to speak:
Sue Mallory spoke in support of the appeal.
Cheriel Jensen spoke in support of the appeal.
Trish Cypher spoke without expressing a position on the appeal.
No one else requested to speak.
Mayor Lo invited the applicant to give closing remarks.
The applicant, Yorke Lee, and Bart Hechtman, the applicant’s representative, spoke.
Mayor Lo asked the appellants to give closing remarks.
The appellants Jack Mallory and Charles Ye spoke.
Mayor Lo then closed the public hearing and opened Council discussion.
Vice Mayor Miller requested that the record reflect his dislike of converting the existing
commercial space at 12250 Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road to residential, but will support the
project because it meets all the findings.
RESOLUTION NO. 14-012
HUNTER/PAGE MOVED TO ADOPT A RESOLUTION DENYING THE APPEAL
AND APPROVING THE PROJECT WITH THE MODIFICATIONS TO THE
PROJECT SHOWN ON THE PLANS DATED FEBRUARY 18, 2014. MOTION
PASSED. AYES: LO, MILLER, CAPPELLO, PAGE, HUNTER. NOES: NONE.
ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE.
24
9
12. General Plan Noise Element / Noise Ordinance Update
Recommended action:
1.Conduct a public hearing.
2.Adopt a resolution thereby adopting a Negative Declaration and the General Plan Noise
Element.
3.Introduce and waive the first reading of the attached ordinance to amend various City Code
Articles related to noise control and direct staff to place the ordinance on the consent
calendar for adoption at the next regular meeting of the City Council.
Senior Planner Christopher Riordan presented the staff report.
Mayor Lo invited public comment on the item.
The following people requested to speak:
Cheriel Jensen spoke about roadway noise and measurement of noise.
Peggy Lynne inquired about how new regulations would affect Hakone Gardens.
Paul Hernandez requested changes to outdoor music permitting in the Village.
Keith Miller supported the amendments to the Noise Element and ordinance.
RESOLUTION NO. 14-013
PAGE/CAPPELLO MOVED TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION THEREBY ADOPTING
A NEGATIVE DECLARATION AND THE GENERAL PLAN NOISE ELEMENT.
MOTION PASSED. AYES: LO, MILLER, CAPPELLO, PAGE, HUNTER. NOES: NONE.
ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE.
PAGE/HUNTER MOVED TO CONTINUE THE ORDINANCE TO AMEND VARIOUS
CITY CODE ARTICLES RELATED TO NOISE CONTROL TO THE NEXT
REGULAR MEETING; DIRECTED STAFF TO REMOVE REQUIREMENTS TO
RESTRICT OUTDOOR MUSIC BY BLOCKS IN 7-30.090(B)(1); AND DIRECTED
STAFF TO PROVIDE OPTIONS IN THE ORDINANCE FOR REDUCING USE OF
CHIPPERS ON SUNDAYS WITH AN EXCEPTION FOR EMERGENCIES. MOTION
PASSED. AYES: LO, MILLER, CAPPELLO, PAGE, HUNTER. NOES: NONE.
ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE.
OLD BUSINESS
None
25
10
NEW BUSINESS
13. City Council Retreat Meeting Minutes
Recommended action:
Provide guidance on wording on City Council Retreat Agenda Item 5: Capital Improvement
Projects candidates and approve City Council minutes for the City Council Retreat on
February 7, 2014.
City Clerk Crystal Bothelio presented the staff report.
Mayor Lo invited public comment on the item.
No one requested to speak.
PAGE/MILLER MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FOR THE FEBRUARY 7,
2014 CITY COUNCIL RETREAT AS PREPARED BY THE CITY CLERK. MOTION
PASSED. AYES: LO, MILLER, CAPPELLO, PAGE, HUNTER. NOES: NONE.
ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE.
14. FY 2013/14 Mid-Year Budget Status Report and Budget Adjustment Resolution
Recommended action:
Review the FY 2013/14 budget status report and proposed budget adjustments, and adopt
resolution approving the City’s FY 2013/14 mid-year budget amendments.
City Manager Dave Anderson presented the staff report on behalf of Finance and
Administrative Services Director Mary Furey.
Mayor Lo invited public comment on the item.
No one requested to speak.
RESOLUTION NO. 14-014
MILLER/CAPPELLO MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION APPROVING THE
CITY’S FY 2013/14 MID-YEAR BUDGET AMENDMENTS. MOTION PASSED.
AYES: LO, MILLER, CAPPELLO, PAGE, HUNTER. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE.
ABSENT: NONE.
ADHOC & AGENCY ASSIGNMENT REPORTS
Mayor Emily Lo
No report
Vice Mayor Howard Miller
No report
26
11
Council Member Manny Cappello
No report
Council Member Chuck Page
No report
Council Member Jill Hunter
Council Member Hunter shared that she and Council Member Page interviewed hearing officer
candidates on March 4, 2014.
CITY COUNCIL ITEMS
None
CITY MANAGER’S REPORT
None
ADJOURNMENT
MILLER/PAGE MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 11:59 P.M. MOTION
PASSED. AYES: LO, MILLER, CAPPELLO, PAGE, HUNTER. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN:
NONE. ABSENT: NONE.
Minutes respectfully submitted:
Crystal Bothelio, City Clerk
27
Dave Anderson
Gina Scott Mary Furey
Accounting Technician
SUBJECT: Review of Accounts Payable Check Registers
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Review and accept check registers for the following accounts payable payment cycles:
3/4/2014 Period 9
3/11/2014 Period 9
REPORT SUMMARY:
Attached are Check Registers for:
Date
Ending
Check #
3/4/14 124931 124959 29 29,314.82 03/04/14 2/25/14 124930
3/11/14 124960 125016 57 173,563.89 03/11/14 3/4/14 124959
Date Check # Issued to Dept.Amount
03/11/14 124971 General 20,000.00
03/11/14 124975 PW Highway 9 Improv 42,681.54
03/11/14 125001 Legal 45,757.25
AP Date Check #Amount
Shute Mihaly & Weinberger
CIP Street Repair Project
N/A
Issued to Reason
Accounts Payable checks voided during this time period:
DEPT. DIRECTOR:
Accounts Payable checks issued for $20,000 or greater:
Fund Purpose
PREPARED BY:
Ending Check #Type of Checks Date Starting Check #
Accounts Payable
Accounts Payable
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE:March 19, 2014 AGENDA ITEM:
DEPARTMENT:Finance & Administrative Services CITY MANAGER:
Status
Destination City of Saratoga CIP Admin & Technical Marketing & Promo
GradeTech, Inc.
Attorney ServicesGeneral
Prior Check Register
Checks
ReleasedTotal Checks Amount
28
Period 9 Period 9
Fund #03/04/14 03/11/14 Total
111 General Fund 22,027.87 94,036.10 116,063.97
231 Village Lighting 17.19 2,267.05 2,284.24
232 Azule Lighting 247.47 247.47
233 Sarahills Lighting 258.93 258.93
241 Arroyo de Saratoga Landscape -
242 Bonnet Way Landscape 85.00 85.00
243 Carnelian Glen -
244 Cunningham/Glasgow Landscape -
245 Fredericksburg Landscape -
246 Greenbriar Landscape -
247 Kerwin Ranch Landscape -
248 Leutar Court Landscape -
249 Manor Drive Landscape -
251 McCartysville Landscape 19.70 19.70
252 Prides Crossing Landscape 24.07 24.07
253 Saratoga Legends Landscape 165.00 165.00
254 Sunland Park Landscape -
255 Tricia Woods Landscape 9.85 9.85
271 Beauchamps Landscape 46.94 46.94
272 Bellgrove Landscape 409.00 409.00
273 Gateway Landscape 48.03 48.03
274 Horseshoe Landscape/Lighting 9.85 9.85
275 Quito Lighting 90.00 1,430.63 1,520.63
276 Tollgate LLD -
277 Village Commercial Landscape -
278 Brookglen L&L -
311 Library GO Bond Debt Service -
411 CIP Street Projects 515.35 4,358.53 4,873.88
412 CIP Park & Trail Projects 67.89 67.89
413 CIP Facility Projects 204.45 204.45
414 CIP Admin Projects 20,000.00 20,000.00
421 Tree Fund -
431 Grant Fund - CIP Streets 3,977.68 38,774.88 42,752.56
432 Grant Fund - Parks & Trails -
433 Grant Fund - Facilities -
434 Grant Fund - Admin Projects -
481 Gas Tax Fund 225.98 188.51 414.49
611 Liability/Risk Mgt 148.47 148.47
612 Workers' Comp 15.00 15.00
621 Office Support 1,816.52 1,816.52
622 IT Services 125.76 1,260.67 1,386.43
623 Vehicle & Equipment Maint 13.24 1,493.04 1,506.28
624 Building Maintenance 457.20 7,430.78 7,887.98
631 612.08 612.08
632 -
29,314.82 173,563.89 - 202,878.71
FOLLOW UP ACTION: N/A
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
ATTACHMENTS:
Check Registers in the 'A/P Checks By Period and Year' report format
IT Equipment Replacement
Cash reductions by fund:
Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, this item was properly posted as a City Council agenda item and included in the packet made available on
the City’s website in advance of the meeting. A copy of the agenda packet is also made available at the Saratoga Branch Library each Monday in
advance of the Council meeting.
TOTAL
Fund Description
Vehicle & Equipment Replacement
29
SUNGARD PUBLIC SECTOR PAGE NUMBER: 1DATE: 03/04/2014 CITY OF SARATOGA ACCTPA21TIME: 11:05:17 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUNDSELECTION CRITERIA: transact.ck_date=’20140304 00:00:00.000’ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 9/14 FUND - 009 - DISBURSEMENT FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT --------------VENDOR---- ---------BUDGET UNIT -----DESCRIPTION------ SALES TAX AMOUNT11111 124931 03/04/14 152 AMERICAN PLANNING ASSOCI 1114101 ANNUAL DUES-MCCORMICK 0.00 510.0011111 124932 03/04/14 500 BARBARA EVANS 1116101 CLASS REFUND 0.00 15.0011111 124933 03/04/14 641 BKF ENGINEERS 4119122-001 PROF SRVCS THRU 1/19 0.00 515.3511111 124933 03/04/14 641 BKF ENGINEERS 4319122-001 PROF SRVCS THRU 1/19 0.00 3,977.68TOTAL CHECK 0.00 4,493.0311111 124934 03/04/14 1013 CAL SPORTS CLUB 1116101 INSTRUCTOR-ARCHERY 0.00 138.6011111 124935 03/04/14 1193 CALIFORNIA CHAMBER OF CO 1113301 PROFESSIONAL DUES 0.00 799.0011111 124936 03/04/14 235 COMCAST 6223201 MNTHLY SVC 2/26-3/25 0.00 125.7611111 124937 03/04/14 250 COTTON SHIRES AND ASSOCI 111 GEO13-0006 (S5202) 0.00 1,062.5011111 124937 03/04/14 250 COTTON SHIRES AND ASSOCI 111 GEO013-0012 (S5043) 0.00 1,147.5011111 124937 03/04/14 250 COTTON SHIRES AND ASSOCI 111 GEO13-0007 (S5033) 0.00 728.1011111 124937 03/04/14 250 COTTON SHIRES AND ASSOCI 111 GE013-0010 (S5133) 0.00 892.5011111 124937 03/04/14 250 COTTON SHIRES AND ASSOCI 111 GEO13-0015 (S5024) 0.00 1,667.41TOTAL CHECK 0.00 5,498.0111111 124938 03/04/14 589 CPO LTD 6213102 MNTHLY SRVC 1/22-2/21 0.00 1,222.9011111 124939 03/04/14 14 HYDROTEC IRRIGATION EQUI 2755302 BACKFLOW ARBOR REPAIR 0.00 90.0011111 124940 03/04/14 24 ICE CENTER OF CUPERTINO 1116101 INSTRUCTOR-ICE SKATE 0.00 216.0011111 124941 03/04/14 956 INDEPENDENT STATIONERS 1116101 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 224.5011111 124942 03/04/14 63 INTERSTATE TRAFFIC CONTR 4819111-001 STREETS SUPPLIES 0.00 225.9811111 124943 03/04/14 100 KSAR 1118301 3 BROADCASTS 0.00 1,950.0011111 124944 03/04/14 327 MCMINN, CHRISTINE 1116101 INSTRUCTOR-DANCE 0.00 94.5011111 124944 03/04/14 327 MCMINN, CHRISTINE 1116101 INSTRUCTOR-DANCE 0.00 157.5011111 124944 03/04/14 327 MCMINN, CHRISTINE 1116101 INSTRUCTOR-DANCE 0.00 126.00TOTAL CHECK 0.00 378.0011111 124945 03/04/14 499 CARPENTERS LOCAL 2236 (M 111 DED:3000 DUES 0.00 330.0011111 124946 03/04/14 135 NORTH BAY BLDG MAINTENAN 6246202 JANITORIAL SERVICES 0.00 304.0011111 124947 03/04/14 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 6235202 NATURAL GAS VEHICLE 0.00 13.2411111 124947 03/04/14 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 6246202 BUILDINGS 0.00 153.2011111 124947 03/04/14 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 2315302 VILLAGE LIGHTING 0.00 17.1911111 124947 03/04/14 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 1115201 MONTE VISTA DRIVE 0.00 9.8711111 124947 03/04/14 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 1115301 PARKS/OPEN SPACE 0.00 9.8611111 124947 03/04/14 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 2735302 GATEWAY SERVICE 0.00 48.03TOTAL CHECK 0.00 251.3911111 124948 03/04/14 1092 PALACE ART & OFFICE SUPP 6213102 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 593.6230
SUNGARD PUBLIC SECTOR PAGE NUMBER: 2DATE: 03/04/2014 CITY OF SARATOGA ACCTPA21TIME: 11:05:17 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUNDSELECTION CRITERIA: transact.ck_date=’20140304 00:00:00.000’ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 9/14 FUND - 009 - DISBURSEMENT FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT --------------VENDOR---- ---------BUDGET UNIT -----DESCRIPTION------ SALES TAX AMOUNT11111 124949 03/04/14 1 SANTA CLARA DEPT OF CORR 1117101 MUNI CODE VIOLATION 0.00 112.0211111 124950 03/04/14 109 SARATOGA FOOTHILL CLUB 1111201 COM RECOGNITION DIN 0.00 1,250.0011111 124951 03/04/14 729 TERESA PHILLIPS 1116101 INSTRUCTOR-DANCE 0.00 400.5511111 124951 03/04/14 729 TERESA PHILLIPS 1116101 INSTRUCTOR-DANCE 0.00 191.8211111 124951 03/04/14 729 TERESA PHILLIPS 1116101 INSTRUCTOR-DANCE 0.00 95.9111111 124951 03/04/14 729 TERESA PHILLIPS 1116101 INSTRUCTOR-DANCE 0.00 479.5511111 124951 03/04/14 729 TERESA PHILLIPS 1116101 INSTRUCTOR-DANCE 0.00 671.3711111 124951 03/04/14 729 TERESA PHILLIPS 1116101 INSTRUCTOR-DANCE 0.00 190.4411111 124951 03/04/14 729 TERESA PHILLIPS 1116101 INSTRUCTOR-DANCE 0.00 671.3711111 124951 03/04/14 729 TERESA PHILLIPS 1116101 INSTRUCTOR-DANCE 0.00 95.9111111 124951 03/04/14 729 TERESA PHILLIPS 1116101 INSTRUCTOR-DANCE 0.00 222.5311111 124951 03/04/14 729 TERESA PHILLIPS 1116101 INSTRUCTOR-DANCE 0.00 191.8211111 124951 03/04/14 729 TERESA PHILLIPS 1116101 INSTRUCTOR-DANCE 0.00 383.6411111 124951 03/04/14 729 TERESA PHILLIPS 1116101 INSTRUCTOR-DANCE 0.00 239.7811111 124951 03/04/14 729 TERESA PHILLIPS 1116101 INSTRUCTOR-DANCE 0.00 95.91TOTAL CHECK 0.00 3,930.6011111 124952 03/04/14 160 SIERRA PACIFIC TURF SUPP 1115301 PARKS SUPPLIES 0.00 407.8211111 124952 03/04/14 160 SIERRA PACIFIC TURF SUPP 1115301 PARKS SUPPLIES 0.00 215.95TOTAL CHECK 0.00 623.7711111 124953 03/04/14 162 SILICON VALLEY COMM NEWS 1112201 LL 0005060190 0.00 47.1011111 124953 03/04/14 162 SILICON VALLEY COMM NEWS 1112201 LL 0005074142 0.00 129.0411111 124953 03/04/14 162 SILICON VALLEY COMM NEWS 1112201 LL 0005076534 0.00 59.2911111 124953 03/04/14 162 SILICON VALLEY COMM NEWS 1114102 LL 0005067037 0.00 127.0811111 124953 03/04/14 162 SILICON VALLEY COMM NEWS 1114101 LL 0005082743 0.00 100.1111111 124953 03/04/14 162 SILICON VALLEY COMM NEWS 1112201 CR FOR LL 0005076534 0.00 -55.4711111 124953 03/04/14 162 SILICON VALLEY COMM NEWS 1112201 LL 0005076534 0.00 55.47TOTAL CHECK 0.00 462.6211111 124954 03/04/14 236 SOLECTRIC ELECTRICAL 1115301 RPLC LIGHT FIXTURES 0.00 932.7011111 124954 03/04/14 236 SOLECTRIC ELECTRICAL 1115301 ADD CIRCUIT BREAKER 0.00 197.00TOTAL CHECK 0.00 1,129.7011111 124955 03/04/14 396 US POSTMASTERS 1116101 POSTAGE PERMIT#136 0.00 220.0011111 124956 03/04/14 500 VICTOR KASIK 111 ARB13-0003 0.00 1,990.0011111 124957 03/04/14 1129 WEST VALLEY GYMNASTICS S 1116101 INSTRUCTOR-GYMNASTICS 0.00 159.2011111 124958 03/04/14 430 WEST VALLEY MISSION COLL 1113301 LIVE SCAN ANNUAL FEE 0.00 40.0011111 124959 03/04/14 441 WHITLINGER, JOHN 1116101 INSTRUCTOR-TENNIS 0.00 241.8011111 124959 03/04/14 441 WHITLINGER, JOHN 1116101 INSTRUCTOR-TENNIS 0.00 290.1611111 124959 03/04/14 441 WHITLINGER, JOHN 1116101 INSTRUCTOR-TENNIS 0.00 386.8811111 124959 03/04/14 441 WHITLINGER, JOHN 1116101 INSTRUCTOR-TENNIS 0.00 193.4411111 124959 03/04/14 441 WHITLINGER, JOHN 1116101 INSTRUCTOR-TENNIS 0.00 338.5211111 124959 03/04/14 441 WHITLINGER, JOHN 1116101 INSTRUCTOR-TENNIS 0.00 290.1611111 124959 03/04/14 441 WHITLINGER, JOHN 1116101 INSTRUCTOR-TENNIS 0.00 290.16TOTAL CHECK 0.00 2,031.1231
SUNGARD PUBLIC SECTOR PAGE NUMBER: 3DATE: 03/04/2014 CITY OF SARATOGA ACCTPA21TIME: 11:05:17 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUNDSELECTION CRITERIA: transact.ck_date=’20140304 00:00:00.000’ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 9/14 FUND - 009 - DISBURSEMENT FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT --------------VENDOR---- ---------BUDGET UNIT -----DESCRIPTION------ SALES TAX AMOUNTTOTAL CASH ACCOUNT 0.00 29,314.82TOTAL FUND 0.00 29,314.82TOTAL REPORT 0.00 29,314.8232
SUNGARD PUBLIC SECTOR PAGE NUMBER: 1DATE: 03/11/2014 CITY OF SARATOGA ACCTPA21TIME: 15:26:47 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUNDSELECTION CRITERIA: transact.ck_date=’20140311 00:00:00.000’ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 9/14 FUND - 009 - DISBURSEMENT FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT --------------VENDOR---- ---------BUDGET UNIT -----DESCRIPTION------ SALES TAX AMOUNT11111 124960 03/11/14 234 A T & T 6246202 MONTHLY CHARGES 0.00 178.4611111 124960 03/11/14 234 A T & T 6246202 ALARM SYSTEM PHONES 0.00 89.8411111 124960 03/11/14 234 A T & T 6246202 SR CENTER ALARMS 0.00 31.9711111 124960 03/11/14 234 A T & T 1117102 EMERGENCY RESPONSE 0.00 193.0011111 124960 03/11/14 234 A T & T 6246202 PROSPECT CENTER 0.00 76.2811111 124960 03/11/14 234 A T & T 6223201 PROSPECT CTR INTERNET 0.00 82.0011111 124960 03/11/14 234 A T & T 1115301 CORP YARD EMERG LN 0.00 56.9511111 124960 03/11/14 234 A T & T 1115301 BLANEY PHONE MODEM 0.00 16.30TOTAL CHECK 0.00 724.8011111 124961 03/11/14 1171 ALLY 6315203 CHEVY VOLT END 7944 0.00 306.0411111 124961 03/11/14 1171 ALLY 6315203 CHEVY VOLT END 7314 0.00 306.04TOTAL CHECK 0.00 612.0811111 124962 03/11/14 1187 ASSOCIATED SERVICES COMP 1118101 COFFEE SERVICE 0.00 65.8011111 124963 03/11/14 730 AYENDE, ABBY 6128501 WELLNESS GRANT REIMB 0.00 15.0011111 124964 03/11/14 552 CA DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE 1113301 FEB FINGERPRINT APPS 0.00 32.0011111 124965 03/11/14 975 CITY OF SARATOGA-PETTY C 1112201 COUNTY RECORDER 0.00 5.0011111 124965 03/11/14 975 CITY OF SARATOGA-PETTY C 1114101 SCAPPO MEETING 0.00 15.0011111 124965 03/11/14 975 CITY OF SARATOGA-PETTY C 1114101 SCAPPO MEETING 0.00 15.0011111 124965 03/11/14 975 CITY OF SARATOGA-PETTY C 1114101 SCAPPO MEETING 0.00 15.0011111 124965 03/11/14 975 CITY OF SARATOGA-PETTY C 1114101 GIS TRAINING 0.00 6.0011111 124965 03/11/14 975 CITY OF SARATOGA-PETTY C 1112101 CITY MANAGER MEETING 0.00 30.0011111 124965 03/11/14 975 CITY OF SARATOGA-PETTY C 1112201 COUNTY RECORDER 0.00 15.0011111 124965 03/11/14 975 CITY OF SARATOGA-PETTY C 1112201 COUNTY RECORDER 0.00 5.0011111 124965 03/11/14 975 CITY OF SARATOGA-PETTY C 1113101 SCCFOG MEETING 0.00 15.00TOTAL CHECK 0.00 121.0011111 124966 03/11/14 1023 CONTRACT SWEEPING SERVIC 1115103 FEB STREET SWEEP 0.00 13,239.5011111 124967 03/11/14 320 CYGANY INC 1115301 DOG BAGS 0.00 744.0011111 124968 03/11/14 342 DATA TICKET INC 1117101 JAN CITATION FEES 0.00 100.0011111 124969 03/11/14 206 DAVID J. POWERS & ASSOC 4119152-002 QUITO ROAD BRIDGES 0.00 90.3711111 124969 03/11/14 206 DAVID J. POWERS & ASSOC 4319152-002 QUITO ROAD BRIDGES 0.00 361.50TOTAL CHECK 0.00 451.8711111 124970 03/11/14 1 DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE 1117101 FEB 2014 CITATIONS 0.00 150.0011111 124971 03/11/14 1206 DESTINATION CITY OF SARA 4149452-002 MARKETING/PROMOTIONS 0.00 20,000.0011111 124972 03/11/14 373 ECS IMAGING, INC 1112101 SCANNER 0.00 998.7511111 124973 03/11/14 1200 EDWARD W. HAND 4139322-001 FLOOR PAINT FOR STAGE 0.00 204.4511111 124974 03/11/14 419 EVENT SERVICES 1115301 PROSPECT PORTA POTTY 0.00 304.5011111 124975 03/11/14 1096 GRADETECH INC. 411 RETENTION REL PO#114 0.00 4,268.1633
SUNGARD PUBLIC SECTOR PAGE NUMBER: 2DATE: 03/11/2014 CITY OF SARATOGA ACCTPA21TIME: 15:26:47 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUNDSELECTION CRITERIA: transact.ck_date=’20140311 00:00:00.000’ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 9/14 FUND - 009 - DISBURSEMENT FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT --------------VENDOR---- ---------BUDGET UNIT -----DESCRIPTION------ SALES TAX AMOUNT11111 124975 03/11/14 1096 GRADETECH INC. 431 ROUNDING ENTRY 0.00 -0.0111111 124975 03/11/14 1096 GRADETECH INC. 431 RETENTION REL PO#114 0.00 38,413.39TOTAL CHECK 0.00 42,681.5411111 124976 03/11/14 487 HOLLOWAY, GARY L 1116101 EXCURSION 3/11/14 0.00 250.0011111 124977 03/11/14 1053 INFORMATION STATION SPEC 1118101 STREAMCAST SERVICE 0.00 359.4011111 124978 03/11/14 1094 JCB SACRAMENTO 6235202 EQUIPMENT SUPPLIES 0.00 355.3611111 124979 03/11/14 118 JUST FOR KICKS 1116101 INSTRUCTOR-SOCCER 0.00 378.0011111 124980 03/11/14 123 KELEX SECURITY 6246202 ALARM REPAIRS 0.00 195.0011111 124981 03/11/14 127 KELLY MOORE PAINT COMPAN 6246202 PAINTING SUPPLIES 0.00 951.3411111 124982 03/11/14 171 LABOSSIERE, MONICA 1113301 LCW TRAINING 0.00 357.5711111 124982 03/11/14 171 LABOSSIERE, MONICA 1113301 CONFERENCE PARKING 0.00 5.0011111 124982 03/11/14 171 LABOSSIERE, MONICA 1113301 CONFERENCE PARKING 0.00 18.0011111 124982 03/11/14 171 LABOSSIERE, MONICA 1113301 MILEAGE REIMB 0.00 55.33TOTAL CHECK 0.00 435.9011111 124983 03/11/14 500 MARY FUREY 1113101 CSMFO TRAVEL EXP 0.00 78.0011111 124984 03/11/14 500 MEENA RAVURI 111 REFUND FACILITY 0.00 500.0011111 124985 03/11/14 996 MEGAPATH 6223201 ISP SERVICE 2/16-3/15 0.00 739.9611111 124986 03/11/14 79 MUNISERVICES LLC 1113101 INTRNL CORRECTION Q2 0.00 -500.0011111 124986 03/11/14 79 MUNISERVICES LLC 1113101 INTRNL CORRECTION Q2 0.00 500.0011111 124986 03/11/14 79 MUNISERVICES LLC 1113101 3RD Q SALES TAX RPT 0.00 500.00TOTAL CHECK 0.00 500.0011111 124987 03/11/14 83 MUSICAL ME, INC 1116101 INSTRUCTOR-MUSIC 0.00 420.0011111 124987 03/11/14 83 MUSICAL ME, INC 1116101 INSTRUCTOR-MUSIC 0.00 507.0011111 124987 03/11/14 83 MUSICAL ME, INC 1116101 INSTRUCTOR-MUSIC 0.00 252.0011111 124987 03/11/14 83 MUSICAL ME, INC 1116101 INSTRUCTOR-MUSIC 0.00 126.0011111 124987 03/11/14 83 MUSICAL ME, INC 1116101 INSTRUCTOR-MUSIC 0.00 1,260.0011111 124987 03/11/14 83 MUSICAL ME, INC 1116101 INSTRUCTOR-MUSIC 0.00 856.8011111 124987 03/11/14 83 MUSICAL ME, INC 1116101 INSTRUCTOR-MUSIC 0.00 730.8011111 124987 03/11/14 83 MUSICAL ME, INC 1116101 INSTRUCTOR-MUSIC 0.00 1,008.00TOTAL CHECK 0.00 5,160.6011111 124988 03/11/14 89 RENEE RAMSEY/MY FIRST AR 1116101 INSTRUCTOR-ART 0.00 419.6511111 124988 03/11/14 89 RENEE RAMSEY/MY FIRST AR 1116101 INSTRUCTOR-ART 0.00 419.65TOTAL CHECK 0.00 839.3011111 124989 03/11/14 131 NORMAN PAUL PRINT CTR 1114201 CORRECTION NOTICES 0.00 119.8911111 124990 03/11/14 156 OKIN,YELENA 1116101 INSTRUCTOR-BEADING 0.00 29.0011111 124991 03/11/14 540 ORCHARD SUPPLY 6246202 JANITORIAL SUPPLIES 0.00 38.5734
SUNGARD PUBLIC SECTOR PAGE NUMBER: 3DATE: 03/11/2014 CITY OF SARATOGA ACCTPA21TIME: 15:26:47 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUNDSELECTION CRITERIA: transact.ck_date=’20140311 00:00:00.000’ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 9/14 FUND - 009 - DISBURSEMENT FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT --------------VENDOR---- ---------BUDGET UNIT -----DESCRIPTION------ SALES TAX AMOUNT11111 124992 03/11/14 1087 OSCAR URVIZO TELLEZ/OSCA 1115201 REMOVE LIVE OAK 0.00 2,100.0011111 124993 03/11/14 913 OUR CITY FOREST 1115301 QUITO PARK TREE CARE 0.00 370.0011111 124994 03/11/14 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 2525302 PRIDES CROSSING 0.00 24.0711111 124994 03/11/14 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 2555302 TRICIA WOODS 0.00 9.8511111 124994 03/11/14 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 2715302 BEAUCHAMPS 0.00 46.9411111 124994 03/11/14 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 2725302 BELLGROVE CIRCLE 0.00 409.0011111 124994 03/11/14 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 2745302 HORSESHOE DR 0.00 9.8511111 124994 03/11/14 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 2755302 QUITO LIGHTING 0.00 815.6311111 124994 03/11/14 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 1115201 CITY WIDE ST LIGHTS 0.00 1,167.7911111 124994 03/11/14 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 6246202 BUILDINGS 0.00 4,672.8311111 124994 03/11/14 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 1115201 TRAFFIC SIGNALS 0.00 1,157.4711111 124994 03/11/14 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 1115301 PARKS/OPEN SPACE 0.00 514.9411111 124994 03/11/14 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 2315302 VILLAGE LIGHTING 0.00 2,267.0511111 124994 03/11/14 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 2325302 AZULE LIGHTING 0.00 247.4711111 124994 03/11/14 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 2335302 SARAHILLS LIGHTING 0.00 258.9311111 124994 03/11/14 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 2515302 MCCARTYSVILLE 0.00 19.70TOTAL CHECK 0.00 11,621.5211111 124995 03/11/14 393 REED & GRAHAM, INC 4819111-001 STREETS SUPPLIES 0.00 188.5111111 124996 03/11/14 382 RV CLOUD CO 1115301 LANDSCAPE SUPPLIES 0.00 32.6811111 124997 03/11/14 500 SANJEEV & NIHAR DESAI 1114101 TRP14-0057 0.00 125.0011111 124998 03/11/14 500 SANTA CLARA VALLEY UNIT 111 REFUND FACILITY 0.00 300.0011111 124999 03/11/14 729 TERESA PHILLIPS 1116101 INSTRUCTOR-DANCE 0.00 574.7711111 124999 03/11/14 729 TERESA PHILLIPS 1116101 INSTRUCTOR-DANCE 0.00 246.3311111 124999 03/11/14 729 TERESA PHILLIPS 1116101 INSTRUCTOR-DANCE 0.00 191.8211111 124999 03/11/14 729 TERESA PHILLIPS 1116101 INSTRUCTOR-DANCE 0.00 383.6411111 124999 03/11/14 729 TERESA PHILLIPS 1116101 INSTRUCTOR-DANCE 0.00 383.6411111 124999 03/11/14 729 TERESA PHILLIPS 1116101 INSTRUCTOR-DANCE 0.00 383.6411111 124999 03/11/14 729 TERESA PHILLIPS 1116101 INSTRUCTOR-DANCE 0.00 383.6411111 124999 03/11/14 729 TERESA PHILLIPS 1116101 INSTRUCTOR-DANCE 0.00 648.60TOTAL CHECK 0.00 3,196.0811111 125000 03/11/14 147 SHIMODA MICHIKO 1116101 INSTRUCTOR-IKEBANA 0.00 222.0011111 125000 03/11/14 147 SHIMODA MICHIKO 1116101 INSTRUCTOR-IKEBANA 0.00 185.00TOTAL CHECK 0.00 407.0011111 125001 03/11/14 154 SHUTE MIHALY & WEINBERGE 1118201 CTY ATTN COM DEV 0.00 5,562.2011111 125001 03/11/14 154 SHUTE MIHALY & WEINBERGE 1118201 CTY ATTN COUNCIL MTGS 0.00 1,421.0011111 125001 03/11/14 154 SHUTE MIHALY & WEINBERGE 1118201 CTY ATTN PUBLIC WORKS 0.00 1,867.6011111 125001 03/11/14 154 SHUTE MIHALY & WEINBERGE 1118201 CTY ATTN CITY CLERK 0.00 3,491.6011111 125001 03/11/14 154 SHUTE MIHALY & WEINBERGE 1118201 CTY ATTN CITY MANAGER 0.00 3,674.3011111 125001 03/11/14 154 SHUTE MIHALY & WEINBERGE 1118201 CTY ATTN WESTLAW 0.00 109.3411111 125001 03/11/14 154 SHUTE MIHALY & WEINBERGE 1118201 CTY ATTN HUMAN RES 0.00 81.2011111 125001 03/11/14 154 SHUTE MIHALY & WEINBERGE 1118201 CTY ATTN REC/RISK MGR 0.00 121.8011111 125001 03/11/14 154 SHUTE MIHALY & WEINBERGE 1118201 CTY ATTN ADMIN SRVC 0.00 345.1035
SUNGARD PUBLIC SECTOR PAGE NUMBER: 4DATE: 03/11/2014 CITY OF SARATOGA ACCTPA21TIME: 15:26:47 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUNDSELECTION CRITERIA: transact.ck_date=’20140311 00:00:00.000’ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 9/14 FUND - 009 - DISBURSEMENT FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT --------------VENDOR---- ---------BUDGET UNIT -----DESCRIPTION------ SALES TAX AMOUNT11111 125001 03/11/14 154 SHUTE MIHALY & WEINBERGE 1118201 GEN LGL SVC CITY CLRK 0.00 217.1011111 125001 03/11/14 154 SHUTE MIHALY & WEINBERGE 1118201 GEN LGL SVC CITY MGR 0.00 488.8011111 125001 03/11/14 154 SHUTE MIHALY & WEINBERGE 1118201 GEN LGL SVC WESTLAW 0.00 66.4411111 125001 03/11/14 154 SHUTE MIHALY & WEINBERGE 1118201 CODE ENFORCEMENT 0.00 1,995.0011111 125001 03/11/14 154 SHUTE MIHALY & WEINBERGE 1118201 DEFEND CITY 0.00 26,315.77TOTAL CHECK 0.00 45,757.2511111 125002 03/11/14 1079 SIEMENS INDUSTRY, INC. 1115201 TRAFFIC SIGNALS/LIGHT 0.00 1,425.0011111 125003 03/11/14 1205 SOIZIC JOHNSON 1116101 INSTRUCTOR-FRENCH 0.00 210.0011111 125003 03/11/14 1205 SOIZIC JOHNSON 1116101 INSTRUCTOR-FRENCH 0.00 210.00TOTAL CHECK 0.00 420.0011111 125004 03/11/14 826 STEFAN BAUMANN 1116101 INSTRUCTOR-PAINTING 0.00 1,105.6311111 125005 03/11/14 1077 SUNNYVALE BUILDING MAINT 1115301 FEB WKND JANITOR MTC 0.00 715.0011111 125006 03/11/14 277 T.A.K.’S EQUIPMENT SALES 6235202 EQUIP MAINT REPAIR 0.00 987.8011111 125007 03/11/14 336 TLC ADMINISTRATORS 1113301 TLC ADMIN FEES 3/14 0.00 175.0011111 125008 03/11/14 350 TOM’S PLUMBING 2755302 RP CONSTRUCTION BREAK 0.00 615.0011111 125009 03/11/14 354 TONY LEM 1115301 BLANEY - FLAG 0.00 92.7611111 125014 03/11/14 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 6246202 PAINT SUPPLIES 0.00 55.1511111 125014 03/11/14 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 6246202 FACILITIES SUPPLIES 0.00 10.8611111 125014 03/11/14 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 6246202 FACILITIES SUPPLIES 0.00 217.9011111 125014 03/11/14 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1115101 AUTOCAD SUBSCRIPTION 0.00 356.9811111 125014 03/11/14 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1113101 PARMA PARKING 0.00 20.0011111 125014 03/11/14 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1113101 PARMA PARKING 0.00 20.0011111 125014 03/11/14 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1113101 PARMA PARKING 0.00 7.0011111 125014 03/11/14 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1113101 CSMFO CONF LODGING 0.00 628.6511111 125014 03/11/14 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1116101 APPRECIATION GIFT CRD 0.00 25.0011111 125014 03/11/14 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1116101 PLUG N PAY 0.00 15.0011111 125014 03/11/14 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1116101 PLUG N PAY 0.00 15.0011111 125014 03/11/14 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 6118401 PARMA PARKING 0.00 7.0011111 125014 03/11/14 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 6118401 PARMA PARKING 0.00 7.0011111 125014 03/11/14 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 6118401 CAJPA LODGING DEPOSIT 0.00 134.4711111 125014 03/11/14 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1111201 TRAFFIC SAFETY MTG 0.00 9.0711111 125014 03/11/14 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1111201 YAK ATTACK CONF REG 0.00 140.0011111 125014 03/11/14 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1116101 GREAT GETAWAY DEP 0.00 500.0011111 125014 03/11/14 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1112101 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 18.4811111 125014 03/11/14 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1113101 CSMFO CONF LODGING 0.00 641.6511111 125014 03/11/14 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1113101 PARKING -SFO 0.00 72.0011111 125014 03/11/14 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1115301 PESTICIDE GUIDES 0.00 200.0011111 125014 03/11/14 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1115301 MEDIAN BANNER SUP 0.00 11.9411111 125014 03/11/14 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1115301 MEDIAN BANNER SUP 0.00 32.5911111 125014 03/11/14 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1111201 COUNCIL RETREAT 0.00 41.8511111 125014 03/11/14 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1111201 PC STUDY SESSION 0.00 5.9911111 125014 03/11/14 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1111201 MEETING 0.00 103.3111111 125014 03/11/14 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1114101 APA MEMBER-FOSSATI 0.00 415.0036
SUNGARD PUBLIC SECTOR PAGE NUMBER: 5DATE: 03/11/2014 CITY OF SARATOGA ACCTPA21TIME: 15:26:47 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUNDSELECTION CRITERIA: transact.ck_date=’20140311 00:00:00.000’ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 9/14 FUND - 009 - DISBURSEMENT FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT --------------VENDOR---- ---------BUDGET UNIT -----DESCRIPTION------ SALES TAX AMOUNT11111 125014 03/11/14 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1111201 CITY MANAGER MEETING 0.00 27.1411111 125014 03/11/14 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1111201 CITY MANAGER MEETING 0.00 3.4011111 125014 03/11/14 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1111101 COUNCIL MEETING 0.00 42.0311111 125014 03/11/14 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1112201 CITY CLERK’S ASSOC 0.00 130.0011111 125014 03/11/14 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1111101 COUNCIL MEETING 0.00 126.9711111 125014 03/11/14 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1111101 COUNCIL MEETING 0.00 49.0611111 125014 03/11/14 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1111101 COUNCIL MEETING 0.00 34.4711111 125014 03/11/14 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1112201 CTY CLERK’S ASSOC REF 0.00 -130.0011111 125014 03/11/14 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1111101 COUNCIL MEETING 0.00 21.4411111 125014 03/11/14 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1112201 CITY CLERK’S ASSOC 0.00 55.0011111 125014 03/11/14 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1111101 COUNCIL MEETING 0.00 5.0011111 125014 03/11/14 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1112101 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 31.9611111 125014 03/11/14 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1111101 COUNCIL MEETING 0.00 285.7911111 125014 03/11/14 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1111101 COUNCIL MEETING 0.00 39.7011111 125014 03/11/14 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1111101 COUNCIL MEETING 0.00 20.5011111 125014 03/11/14 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1111101 COUNCIL MEETING 0.00 33.0611111 125014 03/11/14 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1111101 COUNCIL MEETING 0.00 21.3711111 125014 03/11/14 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1111101 COUNCIL MEETING 0.00 228.5911111 125014 03/11/14 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1111101 COUNCIL MEETING 0.00 27.1411111 125014 03/11/14 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1116101 GREAT GETAWAY TICKETS 0.00 1,210.0011111 125014 03/11/14 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1116101 CONSTANT CONTACT 0.00 85.0011111 125014 03/11/14 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1116101 GREAT GETAWAY PYMNT 0.00 605.0011111 125014 03/11/14 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1116101 FEB CAMP SNACKS 0.00 17.8411111 125014 03/11/14 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1116101 FEB CAMP SNACKS 0.00 51.5511111 125014 03/11/14 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1116101 FEB CAMP SNACKS 0.00 44.4011111 125014 03/11/14 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1116101 FEB CAMP SUPPLIES 0.00 3.9611111 125014 03/11/14 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1116101 FEB CAMP SUPPLIES 0.00 14.3611111 125014 03/11/14 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1114201 BOOKS & MANUALS 0.00 168.5211111 125014 03/11/14 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1114201 BOOKS & MANUALS 0.00 36.7311111 125014 03/11/14 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1114201 BOOKS & MANUALS 0.00 143.4011111 125014 03/11/14 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 6246202 OFFICE SUPPLIES 0.00 83.7311111 125014 03/11/14 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 6246202 PARMA PARKING 0.00 20.0011111 125014 03/11/14 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 6246202 PARMA PARKING 0.00 20.0011111 125014 03/11/14 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 6246202 PARMA PARKING 0.00 10.0011111 125014 03/11/14 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1115301 LNDSCP CONTRACTOR MTG 0.00 5.8511111 125014 03/11/14 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1115301 LNDSCP CONTRACTOR MTG 0.00 30.5511111 125014 03/11/14 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1115301 LNDSCP CONTRACTOR MTG 0.00 29.9211111 125014 03/11/14 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1115301 LNDSCP CONTRACTOR MTG 0.00 4.5811111 125014 03/11/14 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 6223201 LSR POINT-CNCL CHMBR 0.00 54.4911111 125014 03/11/14 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 6223201 MOZYPRO BACK UPS 0.00 156.9511111 125014 03/11/14 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 6223201 LSR POINT-ADMN CONF 0.00 54.4911111 125014 03/11/14 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 6223201 APPS FOR IPADS 0.00 1.9911111 125014 03/11/14 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 4129225-003 WILDWOOD BRIDGE SIGNS 0.00 67.8911111 125014 03/11/14 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 6223201 HDD STORAGE 0.00 129.4111111 125014 03/11/14 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 6223201 BATTERIES/STORAGE CRD 0.00 41.3811111 125014 03/11/14 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1115201 CHIP SEAL CONFERENCE 0.00 387.0011111 125014 03/11/14 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1115201 CONF LODGE/PRK-TORRES 0.00 254.5011111 125014 03/11/14 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1115201 CONF LODGE-SERRANO 0.00 218.5011111 125014 03/11/14 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1115201 CONF LODGE-VILLALOBOS 0.00 218.5011111 125014 03/11/14 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1116101 YOUNG LEADER CONF 0.00 99.0011111 125014 03/11/14 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1116101 CPRS MTG HENIG/TAYLOR 0.00 70.0011111 125014 03/11/14 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 6235202 VEHICLE KEYS 0.00 81.5637
SUNGARD PUBLIC SECTOR PAGE NUMBER: 6DATE: 03/11/2014 CITY OF SARATOGA ACCTPA21TIME: 15:26:47 CHECK REGISTER - DISBURSEMENT FUNDSELECTION CRITERIA: transact.ck_date=’20140311 00:00:00.000’ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 9/14 FUND - 009 - DISBURSEMENT FUND CASH ACCT CHECK NO ISSUE DT --------------VENDOR---- ---------BUDGET UNIT -----DESCRIPTION------ SALES TAX AMOUNT11111 125014 03/11/14 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1115201 ROAD MAINTENANCE SUP 0.00 137.8411111 125014 03/11/14 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 1115201 ROAD MANTENANCE SUP 0.00 205.4811111 125014 03/11/14 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 6235202 VEHICLE SUPPLIES 0.00 68.3211111 125014 03/11/14 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 6246202 FACILITIES SUPPLIES 0.00 91.4011111 125014 03/11/14 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 6246202 FACILITIES SUPPLIES 0.00 51.0611111 125014 03/11/14 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 6246202 FACILITIES SUPPLIES 0.00 32.0011111 125014 03/11/14 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 6246202 FACILITIES SUPPLIES 0.00 8.6911111 125014 03/11/14 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 6246202 FACILITIES SUPPLIES 0.00 6.4511111 125014 03/11/14 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 6246202 FACILITIES SUPPLIES 0.00 69.3111111 125014 03/11/14 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 6246202 FACILITIES SUP RETURN 0.00 -32.6111111 125014 03/11/14 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 6246202 PAINT SUPPLIES 0.00 352.7111111 125014 03/11/14 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 6246202 FACILITIES SUPPLIES 0.00 38.9211111 125014 03/11/14 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 6246202 FACILITIES SUPPLIES 0.00 14.6611111 125014 03/11/14 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 6246202 PAINT SUPPLIES 0.00 25.5511111 125014 03/11/14 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 6246202 FACILITIES SUPPLIES 0.00 14.3811111 125014 03/11/14 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 6246202 FACILITIES SUPPLIES 0.00 73.7011111 125014 03/11/14 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD 6246202 PAINT SUPPLIES 0.00 32.63TOTAL CHECK 0.00 10,376.0511111 125015 03/11/14 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTE 1115301 FEB RAVENWOOD PARK 0.00 85.0011111 125015 03/11/14 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTE 1115301 FEB EL QUITO PARK 0.00 162.0011111 125015 03/11/14 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTE 2425302 FEB BONNET WAY 0.00 85.0011111 125015 03/11/14 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTE 1115301 FEB DWNTWN GARB CANS 0.00 85.0011111 125015 03/11/14 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTE 2535302 FEB LEGENDS LLA 0.00 165.0011111 125015 03/11/14 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTE 1115301 FEB FOOTHILL PARK 0.00 108.0011111 125015 03/11/14 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTE 1115301 FEB HISTORICAL PARK 0.00 175.0011111 125015 03/11/14 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTE 1115301 FEB CIVIC CENTER 0.00 755.0011111 125015 03/11/14 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTE 1115301 FEB PROSPECT CENTER 0.00 433.00TOTAL CHECK 0.00 2,053.0011111 125016 03/11/14 500 ZHANG AND CHRISTINA DAVI 1114101 TRP14-0053 0.00 125.00TOTAL CASH ACCOUNT 0.00 173,563.89TOTAL FUND 0.00 173,563.89TOTAL REPORT 0.00 173,563.8938
Page 1 of 3
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: March 19, 2014 AGENDA ITEM:
DEPARTMENT: City Manager’s Office CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson
PREPARED BY: Crystal Bothelio DIRECTOR: Dave Anderson
City Clerk
SUBJECT: Award of Contract for Hearing Officer Services
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Authorize the City Manager to execute an agreement with Moscone Emblidge Sater & Otis LLP
for hearing officer services to be performed by Rachel J. Sater.
BACKGROUND:
At the end of March 2014, the City’s existing contracts for hearing officer services will expire.
Agreements with hearing officers may not be renewed. Consequently, in January 2014, the City
released a request for proposals for administrative hearing officer services for a term of 7-years.
The hearing officer is responsible for hearing and making a final decision on appeals regarding
public nuisances and/or violations of City Code.
The City received a total of three proposals prior to the close of the submittal period on February
18, 2014. A summary of the proposals received is below.
Candidate Firm Rate
Rachel J. Sater Moscone Emblidge Sater
& Otis LLP
$150/hour for Hearing Officer (amended
rate)
$200/hour for other firm attorneys (legal
research)
$110/hour for legal assistants
In addition to hourly rates, an
Administrative Fee of 1.5% is assessed
on the total cost of hourly rates.
David Kahn (Primary) &
Randy Riddle (Alternate)
Renne Sloan Holtzman
Sakai LLP
$275/hour for Hearing Officer (amended
rate)
$105/hour for paralegal services (if
required)
39
Page 2 of 3
Other billable expenses:
Large photocopying jobs
Travel (travel to/from hearing location
not billed if there is a minimum of 4
hours of hearing officer services provided
on day of hearing)
William B. Conners $150/hour
$.58/mile to/from hearing location
Other billable expenses:
Printing and mailing of decision
With authorization from the Mayor, a subcommittee comprised of Council Members Page and
Hunter interviewed the three hearing officer candidates. At the conclusion of the interviews,
Council Members Page and Hunter recommended entering into agreement with Rachel J. Sater
of Moscone Emblidge Sater & Otis LLP for hearing officer services.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
Hearing officer services are used as needed. The hourly rate of the current hearing officer
agreements, which expire at the end of March 2014, is $200 per hour. At a rate of $150/hour, the
proposed agreement with Rachel J. Sater of Moscone Emblidge Sater & Otis LLP will reduce the
cost of hearing officer services. Currently, the City pays the full cost of hearing officer services
when they are required.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING THE RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:
The current hearing officer agreements will expire and the City will not have a hearing officer.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S):
N/A
FOLLOW UP ACTION(S):
Implement Council direction.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, this item was properly posted as a City Council agenda
item and was included in the packet made available on the City’s web site in advance of the
meeting. A copy of the agenda packet is also made available at the Saratoga Branch Library each
Monday in advance of the Council meeting.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Agreement for Hearing Officer Services
Attachment B: Hearing Officer Request for Proposals
40
Page 3 of 3
Attachment C: Responses to Hearing Officer Request for Proposals
41
City of Saratoga
Hearing Officer Services Contract
THIS AGREEMENT is made at Saratoga, California by and between the CITY OF SARATOGA, a
municipal corporation (“City”), and Moscone Emblidge Sater & Otis LLP (“Contractor”), who
agree that:
1. Purpose of Contract. This is a contract for Hearing Officer Services to be performed by
Rachel J. Sater as more specifically described in Exhibit A of this Agreement (“Scope of
Work”).
2. Term. The term of this Agreement commences on (check one): ¨ the date last signed
below þ April 1, 2014 (“Effective Date”) and extends through March 31, 2021 .
3. Payment. City shall pay Contractor for work product produced pursuant to this
Agreement and any authorized reimbursable costs. This is a (check one): þ Time and
Materials ¨ Lump Sum contract. If this is a Time and Materials Contract, the Contractor’s
hourly rates are set forth in the Scope of Work. Contractor is not authorized to undertake any
efforts 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.
4. Contract Administration. The primary representatives of City and Contractor for
Contract administration are listed below.
City of Saratoga Moscone Emblidge Sater &
Otis LLP
Primary Representative: Crystal Bothelio, City Clerk Rachel J. Sater
Address: 13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
220 Montgomery Street
Suite 2100
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone:
Fax:
Cell Phone:
408.868.1269
408.867.8559
415.362.3599
415.362.2006
E-mail: ctclerk@saratoga.ca.us sater@mosconelaw.com
5. Insurance. Contractor agrees to procure and provide evidence of insurance as required
by the provisions set forth in Exhibit B.
6. General Provisions. City and Contractor agree to and shall abide by the general
provisions set forth in Exhibit C.
7. Supplemental Requirements. This agreement includes supplemental requirements
described in connection with each box checked below:
¨ This Agreement is funded in whole or in part by an entity other than City. Contractor
shall comply with all rules and regulations required by such funding entity. Applicable
42
Professional Services Contract for Hearing Officer Services - Moscone Emblidge Sater & Otis
LLP
Page 2 of 2
funding entity requirements are set forth in Exhibit D. Nothing in this paragraph or in the
funding entity requirements shall be construed to relieve Contractor of its duty to ensure
that it is in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations.
ý Exhibit E sets forth requirements regarding contract renewal and other contracts with the
City.
8. Exhibits. All exhibits referred to in this Agreement are attached hereto and are by this
reference incorporated herein and made a part of this Agreement.
9. Entire Agreement. This Agreement supersedes any and all agreements, either oral or
written, between the parties with respect to Contractor's completion of the Scope of Work on
behalf of City and contains all of the covenants and agreements between the parties with respect
to the rendering of such services in any manner whatsoever. No amendment, alteration, or
variation of the terms of this Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing and signed by the
parties hereto.
10. Authority to Execute Agreement. Each individual executing this Agreement, on
behalf of one of the parties, represents that he or she is duly authorized to sign and deliver the
Agreement on behalf of such party and that this Agreement is binding on such party in
accordance with its terms. This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, each
of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which taken together shall constitute one and the
same instrument.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement.
City of Saratoga Contractor
__________________________________
Dave Anderson, City Manager
Date: __________________
________________________________
Rachel J. Sater, Partner
Date: _________________
ATTEST:
__________________________
Crystal Bothelio, City Clerk
Date: ____________________
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________
Richard Taylor, City Attorney
Date: ____________________
43
Exhibit A – Page 1 of 1
Exhibit A
Scope of Work
Contractor shall complete the following scope of work:
The Hearing Officer is responsible for hearing and making final decision on appeals regarding
public nuisances and/or violations of City Code and will hear matters presented by affected City
departments. The Hearing Officer will furnish complete professional services, including all the
work necessary for the effective handling of the City’s administrative hearings.
In the event of a conflict between the terms of this Agreement and this Exhibit A or any of the
exhibits referenced in this Exhibit A the terms of the Agreement shall govern.
-End of Exhibit A-
44
Exhibit B – Page 1 of 3
Exhibit B
Insurance
The insurance requirements listed below that have an “X” indicated in the space before the
requirement apply to this Agreement together with the general requirements
Contractor shall provide its insurance broker(s)/agent(s) with a copy of these requirements and
request that they provide certificates of insurance complete with copies of all required
endorsements to: Risk Manager, City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070
with a copy to the Primary Representative listed in section 4 on page 1 of this Agreement.
During the term of this Agreement Contractor shall ensure that its broker(s)/agent(s) provide the
Risk Manager and Primary Representative with updated certificates of insurance reflecting
continued satisfaction of the requirements of this agreement together with updated endorsements
in the event of a change in the underlying insurance policy(ies).
All endorsements shall be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its
behalf. City has the right to require Contractor’s insurer to provide complete, certified copies of
all required insurance policies. As described in more detail below, the City, its officers, officials,
employees, agents, and volunteers are to be covered as insureds.
All certificates and endorsements must be received and approved by City before work
commences.
Insurance Requirements
_ý__ Commercial General/Business Liability Insurance with coverage as indicated:
_ý__ $2,000,000 per occurrence/$2,000,000 aggregate limits for bodily injury and
property damage
___ Coverage for X, C, U hazards MUST be evidenced on the Certificate of Insurance
_ý__ If the standard ISO Form wording for "OTHER INSURANCE", or other
comparable wording, is not contained in Contractor's liability insurance policy, an
endorsement must be provided stating that said insurance will be primary insurance and
any insurance or self-insurance maintained by City, its officers, employees, agents or
volunteers shall be in excess of Contractor's insurance and shall not contribute to it.
_ý__ Auto Liability Insurance with coverage as indicated:
_ý__ $2,000,000 combined single limit for bodily injury and property damage
___ $ 500,000 combined single limit for bodily injury and property damage
___ Garage keepers’ extra liability endorsement to extend coverage to all vehicles in
the care, custody and control of the consultant, regardless of where the vehicles
are kept or driven.
_ý__ Professional/Errors and Omissions Liability with coverage as indicated:
45
Professional Services Contract for Hearing Officer Services - Moscone Emblidge Sater & Otis
LLP
Exhibit B – Page 2 of 3
_ý_ $1,000,000 per loss/ $2,000,000 aggregate
___ $5,000,000 per loss/ $5,000,000 aggregate
Contractor must maintain required Professional/Errors & Omissions Liability
coverage for a period of three years after the expiration of this Agreement.
Contractor may satisfy this requirement by renewal of existing coverage or
purchase of either prior acts or tail coverage applicable to said three-year period.
_ý__ Workers' Compensation as required by the State of California, with statutory limits, and
Employer’s Liability Insurance with a limit of no less than $1,000,000 per accident for
bodily injury or disease.
The Employer's Liability policy shall be endorsed to waive any right of subrogation
against the City, its employees or agents.
All subcontractors used must comply with the above requirements except as noted below:
[]
General Requirements
As to all of the checked insurance requirements above, the following shall apply:
1. Deductibles and Self Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self insured retentions
must be declared to and approved by the City. At the option of the City, either (1) the insurer
shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self insured retentions as respects the City, its
officers, officials and employees; or (2) the Contractor shall procure a bond guaranteeing
payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration and defense expenses.
2. City as Additional Insured. The City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and
volunteers are to be covered as insureds regarding: liability arising out of 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, agents or volunteers. (NOTE: additional
insured language on the Certificate of Insurance is NOT acceptable without a separate
endorsement such as Form CG 20 10.)
3. Other Insurance Provisions. The policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the
following provisions:
Any failure to comply with reporting provisions of the policies shall not affect coverage
provided to the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers.
The Contractor’s insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is
made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability.
46
Professional Services Contract for Hearing Officer Services - Moscone Emblidge Sater & Otis
LLP
Exhibit B – Page 3 of 3
Contractor shall not cancel, assign, or change any policy of insurance required by this
Agreement or engage in any act or omission that will cause its insurer to cancel any insurance
policy required by this Agreement except after providing 30 days prior notice to the City. If an
insurance policy required by this Agreement is unilaterally cancelled or changed by the insurer,
Contractor shall immediately provide written notice to the City and obtain substitute insurance
meeting the requirements of this Agreement. Nothing in this paragraph relieves Contractor of its
obligation to maintain all insurance required by this Agreement at all times during the term of the
Agreement.
4. Waiver of Subrogation. Contractor hereby grants to City a waiver of any right to
subrogation which any insurer of Contractor may acquire against City by virtue of the payment
of any loss under such insurance. Contractor agrees to obtain any endorsement that may be
necessary to effect this waiver of subrogation, but this provision applies regardless of whether
City has received a waiver of subrogation endorsement from the insurer.
5. Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a Bests' rating of
no less than A: VII
-End of Exhibit B-
47
Exhibit C – Page 1 of 10
Exhibit C
General Provisions
1. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. City requires the services of a qualified contractor
to provide the work product described in Exhibit A because it lacks the qualified
personnel to provide the specified work product. Contractor is qualified to provide the
required work product and is agreeable to providing such work product on the terms and
conditions in this agreement.
1.1 In General. At all times during the term of this Agreement, Contractor shall be
an independent contractor and shall not be an employee of City. Contractor shall
complete the Scope of Work hereunder in accordance with currently approved
methods and practices in Contractor's field. No relationship of employer and
employee is created by this Agreement between the City and Contractor or any
subcontractor or employee of Contractor. City shall have the right to control
Contractor only with respect to specifying the results to be obtained from
Contractor pursuant to this Agreement. City shall not have the right to control the
means by which Contractor accomplishes services rendered pursuant to this
Agreement. Any terms in this Agreement referring to direction from City shall be
construed as providing for direction as to policy and the result of the Contractor’s
work only, and not as to the means by which such a result is obtained.
1.2 Non-Exclusive Contract. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be
construed as limiting the right of Contractor to engage in Contractor's profession
separate and apart from this Agreement so long as such activities do not interfere
or conflict with the performance by Contractor of the obligations set forth in this
Agreement. Interference or conflict will be determined at the sole discretion of the
City.
1.3 Standard of Care. Contractor shall complete the Scope of Work required
pursuant to this Agreement in the manner and according to the standards observed
by a competent practitioner of the profession in which Contractor is engaged in
the geographical area in which Contractor practices its profession. All work
product of whatsoever nature which Contractor delivers to City pursuant to this
Agreement shall be prepared in a substantial, first class and workmanlike manner
and conform to the standards of quality normally observed by a person practicing
in Contractor’s profession.
1.4 Qualifications. Contractor represents and warrants to City that the Contractor is
qualified to perform the services as contemplated by this Agreement and that all
work performed under this Agreement shall be performed only by personnel
under the supervision of the Contractor as an employee or, if authorized by the
Scope of Work, a subcontractor. All personnel engaged in the work shall be fully
qualified and shall be authorized, licensed and certified under state and local law
to perform such work if authorization, licensing or certification is required. The
48
Professional Services Contract for Hearing Officer Services - Moscone Emblidge Sater & Otis
LLP
Exhibit C – Page 2 of 10
Contractor shall commit adequate resources and time to complete the project
within the project schedule specified in this Agreement.
1.5 Use of City Equipment. City shall not be responsible for any damage to persons
or property as a result of the use, misuse or failure of any equipment used by
Contractor, or by any of its employees, even though such equipment be furnished,
rented or loaned to Contractor by City.
1.6 Payment of Taxes and Other Expenses. Should City, in its discretion, or a
relevant taxing authority, including, but not limited to the Internal Revenue
Service or the State Employment Development Division, determine that the
Contractor is an employee for purposes of collection of any employment taxes,
the amounts payable under this Agreement shall be reduced by amounts equal to
both the employee and employer portions of the tax due (and offsetting any
credits for amounts already paid by the Contractor which can be applied against
this liability). City shall then forward those amounts to the relevant taxing
authority. Should a relevant taxing authority determine a liability for past
services performed by the Contractor for City, upon notification of such fact by
the City, the Contractor shall promptly remit such amount due or arrange with the
City to have the amount due withheld from future payments to the Contractor
under this Agreement (again, offsetting any amounts already paid by the
Contractor which can be applied as a credit against such liability). Any
determination of employment status above shall be solely for the purposes of the
particular tax in question, and for all other purposes of this Agreement, The
Contractor shall not be considered an employee of City. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, should any court, arbitrator, or administrative authority determine that
the Contractor is an employee for any other purpose, then the Contractor agrees to
a reduction in the City's financial liability so that the City's total expenses under
this Agreement are not greater than they would have been had the court,
arbitrator, or administrative authority determined that the Contractor was not an
employee.
2. COMMUNICATION AND NOTICES. The City’s Primary Representative designated
in section 4 on page 1 of this Agreement is authorized to receive information, interpret
and define City's policies consistent with this Agreement, and communicate with
Contractor concerning this Agreement. All correspondence and other communications
shall be directed to or through the Administrator or the Administrator’s designee.
2.1 In General. All notices or communication concerning a party's compliance with
the terms of this Agreement shall be in writing and may be given either
personally, by certified mail, return receipt requested, or by overnight express
carrier. The notice shall be deemed to have been given and received on the date
delivered in person or the date upon which the postal authority or overnight
express carrier indicates that the mailing was delivered to the address of the
receiving party. The parties shall make good faith efforts to provide advance
courtesy notice of any notices or communications hereunder via e-mail. However,
under no circumstances shall such courtesy notice satisfy the notice requirements
49
Professional Services Contract for Hearing Officer Services - Moscone Emblidge Sater & Otis
LLP
Exhibit C – Page 3 of 10
set forth above; nor shall lack of such courtesy notice affect the validity of service
pursuant to the notice requirement set forth above.
2.2 Addresses for Notice. Notices or communications shall be given to the parties at
the addresses set forth in section 4 (“Contract Administration”) unless otherwise
designated in a written notice to the other party. In addition, notices to City shall
be copied to:
Dave Anderson
City Manager
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Crystal Bothelio
City Clerk
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
These copies shall not constitute notice.
2.3 Change of Address. Any party hereto, by giving ten (10) days written notice to
the other, may designate any other address as substitution of the address to which
the notice or communication shall be given.
3. PAYMENT. The payments specified in this paragraph shall be the only payments to be
made to Contractor in connection with Contractor’s completion of the Scope of Work
pursuant to this Agreement. Reimbursable expenses shall be billed only at their actual
cost. Contractor shall submit all billings to City and City shall pay such billings in the
manner specified in this paragraph. Payment shall be made payable to Contractor and
delivered to the address specified in section 4 on page 1 of this Agreement. The making
of any payment by City, or the receipt thereof by the Contractor, shall in no way lessen
the liability of the Contractor to correct or revise unsatisfactory work, even though the
unsatisfactory character of such work may not have been apparent or detected at the time
such payment was made. City may withhold payment to Contractor in any instance in
which the Contractor has failed or refused to satisfy any material obligation provided for
in this Agreement. In no event shall City be liable for interest or late charges for any late
payments.
3.1 Time and Materials. If this contract is designated as a Time and Materials
Contract, invoicing and payment shall be as follows:
(a) Contractor shall submit invoices, not more often than once a month during
the term of this Agreement, based on the cost for work performed in
accordance with the Rate Schedule in the Scope of Work and authorized
reimbursable expenses incurred prior to the invoice date. Invoices shall
contain the following information:
(i) Serial identifications of bills, i.e., Bill No. 1;
(ii) The beginning and ending dates of the billing period;
50
Professional Services Contract for Hearing Officer Services - Moscone Emblidge Sater & Otis
LLP
Exhibit C – Page 4 of 10
(iii) A summary containing the total contract amount, the amount of
prior billings, the total due this period, percentage of work
completed, the remaining balance available for all remaining
billing periods, and a brief description of work completed during
the billing period.
(b) City shall make monthly payments, based on such invoices, for
satisfactory progress in completion of the Scope of Work, and for
authorized reimbursable expenses incurred.
3.2 Lump Sum. If this contract is designated as a Lump Sum Contract following
completion of the work Contractor shall submit a single invoice containing the
beginning and ending dates of the billing period and the total contract amount.
City shall make a single payment, based on such invoice, for satisfactory
completion of the Scope of Work.
4. CONTRACTOR NOT 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.
5. BENEFITS AND TAXES. Contractor shall not have any claim under this Agreement or
otherwise against City for seniority, vacation time, vacation pay, sick leave, personal time
off, overtime, health insurance, medical care, hospital care, insurance benefits, social
security, disability, unemployment, workers compensation or employee benefits of any
kind. Contractor shall be solely liable for and obligated to pay directly all applicable
taxes, including, but not limited to, federal and state income taxes, and in connection
therewith Contractor shall indemnify and hold City harmless from any and all liability
that City may incur because of Contractor's failure to pay such taxes. City shall have no
obligation whatsoever to pay or withhold any taxes on behalf of Contractor.
6. ASSIGNMENT PROHIBITED. The services to be performed by the Contractor are
personal in character and no party to this Agreement may assign any right or obligation
under this Agreement. Any attempted or purported assignment of any right or obligation
under this Agreement shall be void and of no effect. However, with the consent of the
City given in writing, Contractor is entitled to subcontract such portions of the work to be
performed under this Agreement as may be specified by City.
7. PERSONNEL. Contractor shall assign only competent personnel to complete the Scope
of Work pursuant to this Agreement. In the event that City, in its sole discretion, at any
time during the term of this 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 from work in connection with the Scope of
Work.
51
Professional Services Contract for Hearing Officer Services - Moscone Emblidge Sater & Otis
LLP
Exhibit C – Page 5 of 10
8. CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
8.1 In General. Contractor understands that its professional responsibility is solely
to City. Contractor represents and warrants that it presently has no interest, and
will not acquire any direct or indirect interest, that would conflict with its
performance of this agreement. Contractor shall not employ or subcontract with a
person having such an interest in the performance of this agreement.
8.2 Subsequent Conflict of Interest. Contractor agrees that if an actual or potential
conflict of interest on the part of Contractor is discovered after award, the
Contractor will make a full disclosure in writing to the City. This disclosure shall
include a description of actions, which the Contractor has taken or proposes to
take, after consultation with the City to avoid, mitigate, or neutralize the actual or
potential conflict. Within 45 days, the Contractor shall have taken all necessary
steps to avoid, mitigate, or neutralize the conflict of interest to the satisfaction of
the City.
8.3 Interests of City Officers and Staff. No officer, member or employee of City
and no member of the City Council shall have any pecuniary interest, direct or
indirect, in this Agreement or the proceeds thereof. Neither Contractor nor any
member of any Contractor’s family shall serve on any City board or committee or
hold any such position which either by rule, practice or action nominates,
recommends, or supervises Contractor's performance of the Scope of Work or
authorizes funding to Contractor.
9. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS
9.1 In General. Contractor shall keep itself fully informed of and comply with all
laws, policies, general rules and regulations established by City and shall comply
with the common law and all laws, ordinances, codes and regulations of
governmental agencies, (including federal, state, municipal and local governing
bodies) applicable to the performance of the Scope of Work hereunder.
9.2 Licenses and Permits. Contractor represents and warrants 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 License.
10. WORK PRODUCT AND RECORDS
10.1 Property of City. All reports, data, maps, models, charts, studies, surveys,
photographs, memoranda or other written documents or materials prepared by
Contractor pursuant to this Agreement shall become the property of City upon
completion of the work to be performed hereunder or upon termination of this
52
Professional Services Contract for Hearing Officer Services - Moscone Emblidge Sater & Otis
LLP
Exhibit C – Page 6 of 10
Agreement. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, if, in connection
with services performed under this Agreement, the Contractor or its
subcontractors create artwork, copy, posters, billboards, photographs, videotapes,
audiotapes, systems designs, software, reports, diagrams, surveys, source codes or
any other original works of authorship, such works of authorship shall be works
for hire as defined under Title 17 of the United States Code, and all copyrights in
such works are the property of City. If it is ever determined that any works
created by the Contractor or its subcontractors under this Agreement are not
works for hire under U.S. law, the Contractor hereby assigns all copyrights to
such works to City, grants City a royalty-free, exclusive, and irrevocable license
to reproduce, publish, use, and to authorize others to do so, all such works and
agrees to provide any material and execute any documents necessary to effectuate
such assignment and license. The Contractor may retain and use copies of such
works for reference and as documentation of its experience and capabilities.
10.2 Intellectual Property. Contractor represents and warrants that it has the legal
right to utilize all intellectual property it will utilize in the performance of this
agreement. Contractor further represents that it shall ensure City has the legal
right to utilize all intellectual property involved in and/or resulting from
Contractor’s performance of this agreement. Contractor shall indemnify and hold
City harmless from all loss and liability, including attorneys’ fees, court costs and
all other litigation expenses for any infringement of the patent rights, copyright,
trade secret or any other proprietary right or trademark, and all other intellectual
property claims of any person or persons in consequence of the use by City, or
any of its officers or agents, of articles or services to be supplied in the
performance of this Agreement.
10.3 Retention of Records. Until the expiration of five years after the furnishing of
any services pursuant to this Agreement, Contractor shall retain and make
available to the City or any party designated by the City, upon written request by
City, this Agreement, and such books, documents and records of Contractor (and
any books, documents, and records of any subcontractor(s)) that are necessary or
convenient for audit purposes to certify the nature and extent of the reasonable
cost of services to City.
10.4 Use of Recycled Paper and Electronic Documents. Contractor 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.
Documents shall be printed on both sides of the page and City shall be provided
with electronic copies of documents (in Word or .pdf format) except where
unusual circumstances make it infeasible to do so.
11. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION. Contractor shall hold any confidential
information received from City in the course of performing this Agreement in trust and
confidence and will not reveal such confidential information to any person or entity,
either during the term of the Agreement or at any time thereafter. Upon expiration of this
Agreement, or termination as provided herein, Contractor shall return materials which
53
Professional Services Contract for Hearing Officer Services - Moscone Emblidge Sater & Otis
LLP
Exhibit C – Page 7 of 10
contain any confidential information to City. Contractor may keep one copy for its
confidential file. For purposes of this paragraph, confidential information is defined as all
information disclosed to Contractor which relates to City's past, present, and future
activities, as well as activities under this Agreement, which information is not otherwise
of public record under California law.
12. RESPONSIBILITY OF CONTRACTOR. Contractor shall take all responsibility for
the work, shall bear all losses and damages directly or indirectly resulting to Contractor,
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 to the extent predicated on active or
passive negligence of the Contractor or of any subcontractor.
13. INDEMNIFICATION. Contractor and City agree that City, its employees, agents and
officials shall be fully protected from any loss, injury, damage, claim, lawsuit, cost,
expense, attorneys fees, litigation costs, defense costs, court costs or any other cost
arising out of or in any way related to the negligent or otherwise tortious performance of
this Agreement. Accordingly, the provisions of this indemnity provision are intended by
the parties to be interpreted and construed to provide the fullest protection possible under
the law to the City. Contractor acknowledges that City would not enter into this
agreement in the absence of the commitment of Contractor to indemnify and protect City
as set forth below.
13.1 General Indemnity. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Contractor shall
indemnify and hold harmless City, its employees, agents and officials, from any
liability, claims, suits, actions, arbitration proceedings, administrative
proceedings, regulatory proceedings, losses, expenses or costs (including, without
limitation, costs and fees of litigation) of any kind whatsoever without restriction
or limitation, incurred in relation to, as a consequence of or arising out of or in
any way attributable actually, allegedly or impliedly, in whole or in part, to the
performance of this Agreement. All obligations under this provision are to be paid
by Contractor as they are incurred by the City.
13.2 Duty to Defend. In addition to Contractor’s obligation to indemnify City,
Contractor specifically acknowledges and agrees that it has an immediate and
independent obligation to defend City from any claim which actually or
potentially falls within this indemnification provision, even if the allegations are
or may be groundless, false or fraudulent, which obligation arises at the time such
claim is tendered to the Contractor by City and continues at all times thereafter.
13.3 Limitation on Indemnity. Without affecting the rights of City under any
provision of this agreement or this section, Contractor shall not be required to
defend, indemnify and hold harmless City as set forth above for liability
attributable to the sole fault of City, provided such sole fault is determined by
agreement between the parties or the findings of a court of competent jurisdiction.
This exception will apply only in instances where the City is shown to have been
solely at fault and not in instances where Contractor is solely or partially at fault
54
Professional Services Contract for Hearing Officer Services - Moscone Emblidge Sater & Otis
LLP
Exhibit C – Page 8 of 10
or in instances where City's fault accounts for only a percentage of the liability
involved. In those instances, the obligation of Contractor will be all-inclusive and
City will be held harmless, indemnified, and defended for all liability incurred,
even though a percentage of the liability is attributable to conduct of the City.
13.4 Acknowledgement. Contractor acknowledges that its obligation pursuant to this
section extends to liability attributable to City, if that liability is less than the sole
fault of City. Contractor has no obligation under this agreement for liability
proven in a court of competent jurisdiction or by written agreement between the
parties to be the sole fault of City.
13.5 Scope of Contractor Obligation. The obligations of Contractor under this or
any other provision of this Agreement will not be limited by the provisions of any
workers' compensation act or similar act. Contractor expressly waives its statutory
immunity under such statutes or laws as to City, its employees and officials.
13.6 Subcontractors. Contractor agrees to obtain executed indemnity agreements
with provisions identical to those set forth here in this section from each and
every subcontractor, sub tier contractor or any other person or entity involved by,
for, with or on behalf of Contractor in the performance or subject matter of this
Agreement.
13.7 No Waiver. Failure of City to monitor compliance with these requirements
imposes no additional obligations on City and will in no way act as a waiver of
any rights hereunder. This obligation to indemnify and defend City as set forth
herein is binding on the successors, assigns, or heirs of Contractor and shall
survive the termination of this agreement or this section. 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. City approval of the
insurance contracts required by this Agreement does not relieve the Contractor or
subcontractors from liability under this section.
14. DEFAULT AND REMEDIES.
14.1 Events of default. Each of the following shall constitute an event of default
hereunder:
(a) Failure to perform any obligation under this Agreement and failure to cure
such breach immediately upon receiving notice of such breach, if the
breach is such that the City determines the health, welfare, or safety of the
public is immediately endangered; or
(b) Failure to perform any obligation under this Agreement and failure to cure
such breach within fifteen (15) days of receiving notice of such breach, if
the breach is such that the City determines that the health, welfare, or
safety of the public is not immediately endangered, provided that if the
55
Professional Services Contract for Hearing Officer Services - Moscone Emblidge Sater & Otis
LLP
Exhibit C – Page 9 of 10
nature of the breach is such that the City determines it will reasonably
require more than fifteen (15) days to cure, Contractor shall not be in
default if Contractor promptly commences the cure and diligently
proceeds to completion of the cure.
14.2 Remedies upon default. Upon any Contractor default, City shall have the right
to immediately suspend or terminate the Agreement, seek specific performance or
contract with another party to perform this Agreement and/or seek damages
including incidental, consequential and/or special damages to the full extent
allowed by law.
14.3 No Waiver. Failure by City to seek any remedy for any default hereunder shall
not constitute a waiver of any other rights hereunder or any right to seek any
remedy for any subsequent default.
15. TERMINATION. Contractor may terminate this Agreement with or without cause by
providing 10 days notice in writing to the City. The City may terminate this Agreement at
any time without prior notice in the event that Contractor commits a material breach of
the terms of this Agreement. Upon termination, this Agreement shall become of no
further force or affect whatsoever and each of the parties hereto shall be relieved and
discharged from the rights and obligations of this Agreement, subject to payment for
acceptable services rendered prior to the expiration of the notice of termination and
delivery to City of any work in progress, completed work, supplies, equipment, and other
materials produced as a part of, or acquired in connection with the performance of this
Agreement, and any completed or partially completed work which, if this Agreement had
been completed, would have been required to be furnished to City. Notwithstanding the
foregoing and section 2 on page 1, this section and the provisions of this Agreement
concerning insurance (Exhibit B), Funding Agency Requirements (as set forth in Exhibit
D if applicable), Work Product and Records, Confidential Information, Responsibility of
Contractor, Indemnification, Default and Remedies, Litigation, and Jurisdiction and
Severability shall survive termination or expiration of this Agreement.
16. DISPUTE RESOLUTION. The parties shall make a good faith effort to settle any
dispute or claim arising under this Agreement. If the parties fail to resolve such disputes
or claims, they shall submit them to non-binding mediation in California at shared
expense of the parties for at least 8 hours of mediation. If mediation does not arrive at a
satisfactory result, arbitration, if agreed to by all parties, or litigation may be pursued. In
the event any dispute resolution processes are involved, each party shall bear its own
costs and attorneys fees.
17. LITIGATION. If any litigation is commenced between parties to this agreement
concerning any provision hereof or the rights and duties of any person in relation thereto,
each party shall bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs.
18. JURISDICTION AND SEVERABILITY. This Agreement shall be administered and
interpreted under the laws of the State of California. Jurisdiction of litigation arising from
this Agreement shall be in that state and venue shall be in Santa Clara County, California.
56
Professional Services Contract for Hearing Officer Services - Moscone Emblidge Sater & Otis
LLP
Exhibit C – Page 10 of 10
If any part of this Agreement is found to conflict with applicable laws, such part shall be
inoperative, null and void insofar as it conflicts with said laws, but the remainder of this
Agreement shall be in full force and effect.
19. NOTICE OF NON-RENEWAL. Contractor understands and agrees that there is no
representation, implication, or understanding that the City will request that work product
provided by Contractor under this Agreement be supplemented or continued by
Contractor under a new agreement following expiration or termination of this Agreement.
Contractor waives all rights or claims to notice or hearing respecting any failure by City
to continue to request or retain all or any portion of the work product from Contractor
following the expiration or termination of this Agreement.
20. PARTIES IN INTEREST. This Agreement is entered only for the benefit of the parties
executing this Agreement and not for the benefit of any other individual, entity or person.
21. WAIVER. Neither the acceptance of work or payment for work pursuant to this
Agreement shall constitute a waiver of any rights or obligations arising under this
Agreement. The failure by the City to enforce any of Contractor’s obligations or to
exercise City's rights shall in no event be deemed a waiver of the right to do so thereafter.
-End of Exhibit C-
57
Professional Services Contract for Hearing Officer Services - Moscone Emblidge Sater & Otis
LLP
Exhibit E – Page 1 of 1
Exhibit E
Special Requirements
Contractor is engaged to serve as an independent hearing officer and therefore decisions favorable to
the City are neither required nor expected. Contractor shall not be engaged to perform any work for
the City of Saratoga other than that described in Exhibit A during the term of this Agreement for two
years thereafter. This contract may not be renewed and Contractor may not be considered for
reappointment until at least five years following the completion of the term of this Agreement.
454484.7
58
City
of
Saratoga
RFP
–
Administrative
Hearing
Officer
Page
1
of
4
CITY
OF
SARATOGA
Request
for
Proposals
TO:
All
Interested
Parties
SUBJECT:
Request
for
Proposals
for
Administrative
Hearing
Officer
for
the
City
of
Saratoga
DATE:
January
23,
2014
INTRODUCTION:
The
City
of
Saratoga
is
located
50
miles
south
of
San
Francisco
and
approximately
10
miles
southwest
of
Downtown
San
Jose.
Saratoga
is
an
attractive
residential
community
that
is
known
for
its
high
quality
of
life,
excellent
schools,
unique
businesses,
and
small-‐town
vibe.
The
City
of
Saratoga
was
incorporated
in
1956
and
operates
under
a
Council/Manager
form
of
government
with
a
5-‐member
Council.
The
City
of
Saratoga
is
seeking
proposals
from
attorneys
and
law
firms
for
one
or
more
hearing
officers
to
hear
and
decide
appeals
regarding
public
nuisances
and
violations
of
City
Codes
for
a
term
of
7-‐
years.
The
requirements
for
responses
to
the
request
for
proposals
(RFP)
are
below,
including
minimum
qualifications,
selection
procedures,
and
required
information
to
be
submitted.
PROPOSAL
DEADLINE:
The
deadline
for
submission
of
proposals
is
5:00
p.m.
on
February
18,
2014.
Any
proposals
received
after
the
deadline
will
be
deemed
non-‐responsive
and
will
not
be
considered.
PROPOSAL
INQUIRIES:
All
questions
regarding
this
RFP
should
be
directed
to
Crystal
Bothelio
at
(408)
868-‐1269
or
ctclerk@saratoga.ca.us.
TENTATIVE
RFP
SCHEDULE:
RFP
Issued
January
23,
2014
RFP
Submittal
Deadline
February
18,
2014
Finalist
Interviews
Week
of
March
3,
2014
Award
of
Contract
March
19,
2014
59
City
of
Saratoga
RFP
–
Administrative
Hearing
Officer
Page
2
of
4
SCOPE
OF
WORK:
The
City
of
Saratoga
is
seeking
to
retain
the
services
of
one
or
more
attorneys
to
be
able
to
provide
administrative
hearing
services.
The
Hearing
Officer
is
responsible
for
hearing
and
making
final
decision
on
appeals
regarding
public
nuisances
and/or
violations
of
City
Code
and
will
hear
matters
presented
by
affected
City
departments.
The
Hearing
Officer
will
furnish
complete
professional
services,
including
all
the
work
necessary
for
the
effective
handling
of
the
City’s
administrative
hearings.
The
number
of
hearings
required
in
a
given
year
is
variable.
In
recent
years,
there
have
been
no
appeals.
In
some
earlier
years,
there
were
as
many
as
four
appeals
in
a
year.
SUBMITTAL
REQUIREMENTS:
For
proposals
to
be
considered,
they
must
meet
the
submission
requirements
set
forth
below.
A
proposal
shall
constitute
an
irrevocable
offer
for
90
business
days
following
the
deadline
for
its
submission.
1. Cover
Letter:
Briefly
summarize
the
proposal
and
qualifications
of
the
attorney
proposed
to
serve
as
hearing
officer.
2. Table
of
Contents:
Include
a
clear
identification
of
material
by
section
and
page
number.
3. Attorney
Information:
The
following
information
must
be
included
in
the
proposal.
a) Information
about
the
attorney
specifically:
i. Name,
address,
telephone
and
e-‐mail
address
of
the
principal
office
ii. Type
of
organization
(i.e.
sole
practicing,
partnership,
corporation,
etc.)
iii. Brief
description
of
the
type
of
legal
services
usually
provided
by
the
attorney
and
firm
iv. The
name,
professional
qualifications,
and
State
Bar
number
of
the
attorney
who
would
serve
as
hearing
officer
b) The
name,
address,
and
telephone
number
of
the
person
to
whom
correspondence
to
the
firm
or
attorney
should
be
directed.
c) Professional
Errors
and
Omissions
Malpractice
Liability
Coverage
information.
d) Submit
information
listing
at
least
10
matters
the
attorney
has
handled
as
a
hearing
officer
or,
if
fewer
than
10
hearing
officer
matters,
other
matters
demonstrating
skills
and
experience
relevant
to
providing
hearing
officer
services.
Please
note
the
jurisdiction
and
subject
matter
of
the
cases,
whether
the
cases
were
appealed
following
the
decision,
and
if
so,
the
outcome
of
the
appeal.
e) Submit
at
least
two
writing
samples
from
the
attorney
related
to
administrative
hearings
(samples
may
be
decisions
rendered
or
arguments
presented).
60
City
of
Saratoga
RFP
–
Administrative
Hearing
Officer
Page
3
of
4
f) In
narrative
form,
describe
the
attorney’s
understanding
of
the
importance
and
unique
considerations
in
providing
administrative
hearing
officer
services
regarding
appeals
involving
governmental
agencies.
4. Minimum
Qualifications:
The
proposal
shall
demonstrate
that
the
attorney
meets
the
following
minimum
qualifications.
a) Licensed
by
the
State
Bar
of
California
to
practice
law
for
a
minimum
of
seven
years.
b) Demonstrate
particular
expertise
in
the
area
of
public
agency
administrative
hearings.
This
expertise
may
be
demonstrated
by
previous
administrative
hearings
successfully
handled
for
public
agencies.
c) Demonstrate
at
least
seven
years
of
experience
as
an
attorney
in
the
State
of
California,
and
at
least
five
years
of
experience
in
public-‐entity
related
law.
d) The
City
of
Saratoga
is
an
equal
opportunity
employer.
Each
attorney
or
firm
shall
comply
with
Federal,
State,
and
County
equal
employment
opportunity
requirements.
5. Proposal
Price:
The
proposal
shall
include
pricing
for
all
services.
The
proposal
shall
itemize
all
services,
including
hourly
rates
for
all
professional,
technical,
and
support
personnel,
and
all
other
charges
related
to
completion
of
the
work
shall
be
itemized.
6. Business
License:
The
selected
attorney
or
his/her
firm
must
possess
a
City
of
Saratoga
business
license
while
conducting
work
under
this
contract.
7. Standard
Agreement:
Include
a
statement
that
the
proposer
agrees
to
provide
services
pursuant
to
the
terms
of
the
City’s
standard
services
agreement
(attached)
and
identifying
any
proposed
revisions
to
that
agreement.
Please
note
that
in
order
to
assure
fair
and
objective
administrative
hearings,
the
contract
provides
that
the
hearing
officer
agreement
may
not
be
renewed
and
that
neither
the
hearing
officer
nor
the
hearing
officer’s
law
firm
may
be
retained
to
provide
other
services
on
behalf
of
the
City
of
Saratoga.
8. References:
Provide
at
least
3
client
references.
References
should
be
California
cities
or
other
similar
public
agencies
and
similar
in
size
and
nature
to
the
City
of
Saratoga.
Provide
reference
name,
title,
organization,
address,
phone
number,
and
email
address.
9. Supplemental
Materials:
Include
supplemental
information,
if
any,
such
as
a
brochure,
fees
for
additional
services,
etc.,
at
the
end
of
the
proposal.
SELECTION
CRITERIA:
A
City
Council
subcommittee
will
review
and
rank
all
the
proposals
received.
The
City
may
decide
to
invite
only
the
top
ranked
proposers
to
interview
with
and
present
to
the
City.
The
City
may
invite
the
most
qualified
proposer
to
refine
its
proposal
and
negotiate
a
consultant
services
agreement.
The
City
Council
subcommittee
will
make
a
recommendation
to
the
City
Council
for
final
decision.
Proposals
will
be
evaluated
on
the
following
criteria:
- Proposal
pricing;
61
City
of
Saratoga
RFP
–
Administrative
Hearing
Officer
Page
4
of
4
- Demonstrated
experience
in
handling
administrative
hearings
on
governmental
matters
- Demonstrated
knowledge
of
public
entity
law
related
to
administrative
hearings
and
governmental
matters
- Demonstrated
knowledge
of
public
entity
law
related
to
administrative
hearings
and
governmental
matters
- An
understanding
of
the
expectations
of
the
public
regarding
governmental
agencies
- The
relevancy
and
quality
of
recent
work,
including
pertinent
references
- The
capacity
to
perform
work
within
limited
budgets
DISCRETION
AND
LIABILITY
WAIVER:
The
City
reserves
the
right
to
reject
all
proposals
or
to
request
and
obtain,
from
one
or
more
of
the
proposers,
supplementary
information
as
may
be
necessary
for
City
staff
to
analyze.
The
City
may
require
proposers
to
participate
in
additional
rounds
of
more
refined
submittals
before
the
final
selection
of
a
hearing
officer
is
made.
The
City
may
negotiate
with
one
or
more
proposers,
and
may
contract
with
one
or
more
proposers
as
the
City
deems
appropriate.
DISCLOSURE
OF
RESPONSES:
All
responses
to
this
RFP
accepted
by
the
City
of
Saratoga
shall
become
the
exclusive
property
of
the
City.
At
such
time
as
the
City
Council
subcommittee
makes
a
recommendation
to
the
City
Council,
and
such
recommendation,
with
any
recommended
contract
appears
on
the
Council
agenda,
all
proposals
accepted
by
the
City
shall
become
a
matter
of
public
record
and
shall
be
regarded
as
public,
with
the
exception
of
those
elements
of
each
proposal
which
are
defined
by
the
proposer
as
business
or
trade
secrets
and
plainly
marked
as
“Trade
Secret,”
“Confidential,”
or
“Proprietary.”
Each
element
of
a
proposal
which
a
proposer
desires
not
to
be
considered
a
public
record
must
be
clearly
marked
as
set
forth
above,
and
any
blanket
statement
(i.e.
regarding
entire
pages,
documents
or
other
non-‐specific
designations)
shall
not
be
sufficient
and
shall
not
bind
the
City
in
any
way
whatsoever.
If
disclosure
is
required
or
permitted
under
the
California
Public
Records
Act
or
otherwise
by
law,
the
City
shall
not
in
any
way
be
liable
or
responsible
for
the
disclosure
of
any
such
records
or
part
thereof.
62
City of Saratoga
Standard Professional Services Contract
THIS AGREEMENT is made at Saratoga, California by and between the CITY OF SARATOGA, a
municipal corporation (“City”), and_____________________ (“Contractor”), who agree that:
1. Purpose of Contract. This is a contract for ________________ as more specifically
described in Exhibit A of this Agreement (“Scope of Work”).
2. Term. The term of this Agreement commences on (check one): ¨the date last signed
below ¨ [insert specific start date] (“Effective Date”) and extends through [insert specific end
date] or the completion of the project, whichever occurs first. This Agreement may be renewed
for successive __ year terms by a letter agreement between the parties provided, however, that
the total term of such renewals may not extend more than six years beyond the Effective Date.
3. Payment. City shall pay Contractor for work product produced pursuant to this
Agreement an amount not to exceed the total sum of contract maximum dollar amount in words
dollars ($contract maximum dollar amount in numerals) for work to be performed and any
authorized reimbursable costs. This is a (check one): ¨ Time and Materials ¨ Lump Sum
contract. If this is a Time and Materials Contract, the Contractor’s hourly rates are set forth in
the Scope of Work. Contractor is not authorized to undertake any efforts 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.
4. Contract Administration. The primary representatives of City and Contractor for
Contract administration are listed below.
City of Saratoga [Contractor]
Primary Representative: [] []
Address: [] []
Telephone:
Fax:
Cell Phone:
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
[]
E-mail: [] []
5. Insurance. Contractor agrees to procure and provide evidence of insurance as required
by the provisions set forth in Exhibit B.
6. General Provisions. City and Contractor agree to and shall abide by the general
provisions set forth in Exhibit C.
7. Supplemental Requirements. This agreement includes supplemental requirements
described in connection with each box checked below:
63
Professional Services Contract for _________________
Page 2 of 2
¨ This Agreement is funded in whole or in part by an entity other than City. Contractor
shall comply with all rules and regulations required by such funding entity. Applicable
funding entity requirements are set forth in Exhibit D. Nothing in this paragraph or in the
funding entity requirements shall be construed to relieve Contractor of its duty to ensure
that it is in compliance with all applicable laws and regulations.
¨ Exhibit E sets forth requirements regarding __________________________.
8. Exhibits. All exhibits referred to in this Agreement are attached hereto and are by this
reference incorporated herein and made a part of this Agreement.
9. Entire Agreement. This Agreement supersedes any and all agreements, either oral or
written, between the parties with respect to Contractor's completion of the Scope of Work on
behalf of City and contains all of the covenants and agreements between the parties with respect
to the rendering of such services in any manner whatsoever. No amendment, alteration, or
variation of the terms of this Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing and signed by the
parties hereto.
10. Authority to Execute Agreement. Each individual executing this Agreement, on
behalf of one of the parties, represents that he or she is duly authorized to sign and deliver the
Agreement on behalf of such party and that this Agreement is binding on such party in
accordance with its terms. This Agreement may be executed in two or more counterparts, each
of which shall be deemed an original, but all of which taken together shall constitute one and the
same instrument.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement.
City of Saratoga Contractor
__________________________________
Dave Anderson, City Manager
Date: __________________
________________________________
[Name and Title]
Date: _________________
ATTEST:
__________________________
Crystal Bothelio, City Clerk
Date: ____________________
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
__________________________
Richard Taylor, City Attorney
Date: ____________________
64
Exhibit A – Page 1 of 1
Exhibit A
Scope of Work
Contractor shall complete the following scope of work: [insert scope of work or reference to one
or more attachments – Attachment(s) should be labeled “Exhibit A-1, Exhibit A-2 etc. Be sure
to include Contractor’s hourly rates for Time and Materials Contracts and to list any authorized
subcontractors].
In the event of a conflict between the terms of this Agreement and this Exhibit A or any of the
exhibits referenced in this Exhibit A the terms of the Agreement shall govern.
-End of Exhibit A-
65
Exhibit B – Page 1 of 3
Exhibit B
Insurance
The insurance requirements listed below that have an “X” indicated in the space before the
requirement apply to this Agreement together with the general requirements
Contractor shall provide its insurance broker(s)/agent(s) with a copy of these requirements and
request that they provide certificates of insurance complete with copies of all required
endorsements to: Risk Manager, City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070
with a copy to the Primary Representative listed in section 4 on page 1 of this Agreement.
During the term of this Agreement Contractor shall ensure that its broker(s)/agent(s) provide the
Risk Manager and Primary Representative with updated certificates of insurance reflecting
continued satisfaction of the requirements of this agreement together with updated endorsements
in the event of a change in the underlying insurance policy(ies).
All endorsements shall be signed by a person authorized by that insurer to bind coverage on its
behalf. City has the right to require Contractor’s insurer to provide complete, certified copies of
all required insurance policies. As described in more detail below, the City, its officers, officials,
employees, agents, and volunteers are to be covered as insureds.
All certificates and endorsements must be received and approved by City before work
commences.
Insurance Requirements
_ý__ Commercial General/Business Liability Insurance with coverage as indicated:
_ý__ $2,000,000 per occurrence/$2,000,000 aggregate limits for bodily injury and
property damage
___ Coverage for X, C, U hazards MUST be evidenced on the Certificate of Insurance
_ý__ If the standard ISO Form wording for "OTHER INSURANCE", or other
comparable wording, is not contained in Contractor's liability insurance policy, an
endorsement must be provided stating that said insurance will be primary insurance and
any insurance or self-insurance maintained by City, its officers, employees, agents or
volunteers shall be in excess of Contractor's insurance and shall not contribute to it.
_ý__ Auto Liability Insurance with coverage as indicated:
_ý__ $2,000,000 combined single limit for bodily injury and property damage
___ $ 500,000 combined single limit for bodily injury and property damage
___ Garage keepers’ extra liability endorsement to extend coverage to all vehicles in
the care, custody and control of the consultant, regardless of where the vehicles
are kept or driven.
_ý__ Professional/Errors and Omissions Liability with coverage as indicated:
66
Professional Services Contract for _________________
Exhibit B – Page 2 of 3
_ý_ $1,000,000 per loss/ $2,000,000 aggregate
___ $5,000,000 per loss/ $5,000,000 aggregate
Contractor must maintain required Professional/Errors & Omissions Liability
coverage for a period of three years after the expiration of this Agreement.
Contractor may satisfy this requirement by renewal of existing coverage or
purchase of either prior acts or tail coverage applicable to said three-year period.
_ý__ Workers' Compensation as required by the State of California, with statutory limits, and
Employer’s Liability Insurance with a limit of no less than $1,000,000 per accident for
bodily injury or disease.
The Employer's Liability policy shall be endorsed to waive any right of subrogation
against the City, its employees or agents.
All subcontractors used must comply with the above requirements except as noted below:
[]
General Requirements
As to all of the checked insurance requirements above, the following shall apply:
1. Deductibles and Self Insured Retentions. Any deductibles or self insured retentions
must be declared to and approved by the City. At the option of the City, either (1) the insurer
shall reduce or eliminate such deductibles or self insured retentions as respects the City, its
officers, officials and employees; or (2) the Contractor shall procure a bond guaranteeing
payment of losses and related investigations, claim administration and defense expenses.
2. City as Additional Insured. The City, its officers, officials, employees, agents and
volunteers are to be covered as insureds regarding: liability arising out of 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, agents or volunteers. (NOTE: additional
insured language on the Certificate of Insurance is NOT acceptable without a separate
endorsement such as Form CG 20 10.)
3. Other Insurance Provisions. The policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the
following provisions:
Any failure to comply with reporting provisions of the policies shall not affect coverage
provided to the City, its officers, officials, employees or volunteers.
The Contractor’s insurance shall apply separately to each insured against whom claim is
made or suit is brought, except with respect to the limits of the insurer's liability.
67
Professional Services Contract for _________________
Exhibit B – Page 3 of 3
Contractor shall not cancel, assign, or change any policy of insurance required by this
Agreement or engage in any act or omission that will cause its insurer to cancel any insurance
policy required by this Agreement except after providing 30 days prior notice to the City. If an
insurance policy required by this Agreement is unilaterally cancelled or changed by the insurer,
Contractor shall immediately provide written notice to the City and obtain substitute insurance
meeting the requirements of this Agreement. Nothing in this paragraph relieves Contractor of its
obligation to maintain all insurance required by this Agreement at all times during the term of the
Agreement.
4. Waiver of Subrogation. Contractor hereby grants to City a waiver of any right to
subrogation which any insurer of Contractor may acquire against City by virtue of the payment
of any loss under such insurance. Contractor agrees to obtain any endorsement that may be
necessary to effect this waiver of subrogation, but this provision applies regardless of whether
City has received a waiver of subrogation endorsement from the insurer.
5. Acceptability of Insurers. Insurance is to be placed with insurers with a Bests' rating of
no less than A: VII
-End of Exhibit B-
68
Exhibit C – Page 1 of 10
Exhibit C
General Provisions
1. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. City requires the services of a qualified contractor
to provide the work product described in Exhibit A because it lacks the qualified
personnel to provide the specified work product. Contractor is qualified to provide the
required work product and is agreeable to providing such work product on the terms and
conditions in this agreement.
1.1 In General. At all times during the term of this Agreement, Contractor shall be
an independent contractor and shall not be an employee of City. Contractor shall
complete the Scope of Work hereunder in accordance with currently approved
methods and practices in Contractor's field. No relationship of employer and
employee is created by this Agreement between the City and Contractor or any
subcontractor or employee of Contractor. City shall have the right to control
Contractor only with respect to specifying the results to be obtained from
Contractor pursuant to this Agreement. City shall not have the right to control the
means by which Contractor accomplishes services rendered pursuant to this
Agreement. Any terms in this Agreement referring to direction from City shall be
construed as providing for direction as to policy and the result of the Contractor’s
work only, and not as to the means by which such a result is obtained.
1.2 Non-Exclusive Contract. Nothing contained in this Agreement shall be
construed as limiting the right of Contractor to engage in Contractor's profession
separate and apart from this Agreement so long as such activities do not interfere
or conflict with the performance by Contractor of the obligations set forth in this
Agreement. Interference or conflict will be determined at the sole discretion of the
City.
1.3 Standard of Care. Contractor shall complete the Scope of Work required
pursuant to this Agreement in the manner and according to the standards observed
by a competent practitioner of the profession in which Contractor is engaged in
the geographical area in which Contractor practices its profession. All work
product of whatsoever nature which Contractor delivers to City pursuant to this
Agreement shall be prepared in a substantial, first class and workmanlike manner
and conform to the standards of quality normally observed by a person practicing
in Contractor’s profession.
1.4 Qualifications. Contractor represents and warrants to City that the Contractor is
qualified to perform the services as contemplated by this Agreement and that all
work performed under this Agreement shall be performed only by personnel
under the supervision of the Contractor as an employee or, if authorized by the
Scope of Work, a subcontractor. All personnel engaged in the work shall be fully
qualified and shall be authorized, licensed and certified under state and local law
to perform such work if authorization, licensing or certification is required. The
69
Professional Services Contract for _________________
Exhibit C – Page 2 of 10
Contractor shall commit adequate resources and time to complete the project
within the project schedule specified in this Agreement.
1.5 Use of City Equipment. City shall not be responsible for any damage to persons
or property as a result of the use, misuse or failure of any equipment used by
Contractor, or by any of its employees, even though such equipment be furnished,
rented or loaned to Contractor by City.
1.6 Payment of Taxes and Other Expenses. Should City, in its discretion, or a
relevant taxing authority, including, but not limited to the Internal Revenue
Service or the State Employment Development Division, determine that the
Contractor is an employee for purposes of collection of any employment taxes,
the amounts payable under this Agreement shall be reduced by amounts equal to
both the employee and employer portions of the tax due (and offsetting any
credits for amounts already paid by the Contractor which can be applied against
this liability). City shall then forward those amounts to the relevant taxing
authority. Should a relevant taxing authority determine a liability for past
services performed by the Contractor for City, upon notification of such fact by
the City, the Contractor shall promptly remit such amount due or arrange with the
City to have the amount due withheld from future payments to the Contractor
under this Agreement (again, offsetting any amounts already paid by the
Contractor which can be applied as a credit against such liability). Any
determination of employment status above shall be solely for the purposes of the
particular tax in question, and for all other purposes of this Agreement, The
Contractor shall not be considered an employee of City. Notwithstanding the
foregoing, should any court, arbitrator, or administrative authority determine that
the Contractor is an employee for any other purpose, then the Contractor agrees to
a reduction in the City's financial liability so that the City's total expenses under
this Agreement are not greater than they would have been had the court,
arbitrator, or administrative authority determined that the Contractor was not an
employee.
2. COMMUNICATION AND NOTICES. The City’s Primary Representative designated
in section 4 on page 1 of this Agreement is authorized to receive information, interpret
and define City's policies consistent with this Agreement, and communicate with
Contractor concerning this Agreement. All correspondence and other communications
shall be directed to or through the Administrator or the Administrator’s designee.
2.1 In General. All notices or communication concerning a party's compliance with
the terms of this Agreement shall be in writing and may be given either
personally, by certified mail, return receipt requested, or by overnight express
carrier. The notice shall be deemed to have been given and received on the date
delivered in person or the date upon which the postal authority or overnight
express carrier indicates that the mailing was delivered to the address of the
receiving party. The parties shall make good faith efforts to provide advance
courtesy notice of any notices or communications hereunder via e-mail. However,
under no circumstances shall such courtesy notice satisfy the notice requirements
70
Professional Services Contract for _________________
Exhibit C – Page 3 of 10
set forth above; nor shall lack of such courtesy notice affect the validity of service
pursuant to the notice requirement set forth above.
2.2 Addresses for Notice. Notices or communications shall be given to the parties at
the addresses set forth in section 4 (“Contract Administration”) unless otherwise
designated in a written notice to the other party. In addition, notices to City shall
be copied to:
Dave Anderson
City Manager
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
Crystal Bothelio
City Clerk
City of Saratoga
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
These copies shall not constitute notice.
2.3 Change of Address. Any party hereto, by giving ten (10) days written notice to
the other, may designate any other address as substitution of the address to which
the notice or communication shall be given.
3. PAYMENT. The payments specified in this paragraph shall be the only payments to be
made to Contractor in connection with Contractor’s completion of the Scope of Work
pursuant to this Agreement. Reimbursable expenses shall be billed only at their actual
cost. Contractor shall submit all billings to City and City shall pay such billings in the
manner specified in this paragraph. Payment shall be made payable to Contractor and
delivered to the address specified in section 4 on page 1 of this Agreement. The making
of any payment by City, or the receipt thereof by the Contractor, shall in no way lessen
the liability of the Contractor to correct or revise unsatisfactory work, even though the
unsatisfactory character of such work may not have been apparent or detected at the time
such payment was made. City may withhold payment to Contractor in any instance in
which the Contractor has failed or refused to satisfy any material obligation provided for
in this Agreement. In no event shall City be liable for interest or late charges for any late
payments.
3.1 Time and Materials. If this contract is designated as a Time and Materials
Contract, invoicing and payment shall be as follows:
(a) Contractor shall submit invoices, not more often than once a month during
the term of this Agreement, based on the cost for work performed in
accordance with the Rate Schedule in the Scope of Work and authorized
reimbursable expenses incurred prior to the invoice date. Invoices shall
contain the following information:
(i) Serial identifications of bills, i.e., Bill No. 1;
(ii) The beginning and ending dates of the billing period;
71
Professional Services Contract for _________________
Exhibit C – Page 4 of 10
(iii) A summary containing the total contract amount, the amount of
prior billings, the total due this period, percentage of work
completed, the remaining balance available for all remaining
billing periods, and a brief description of work completed during
the billing period.
(b) City shall make monthly payments, based on such invoices, for
satisfactory progress in completion of the Scope of Work, and for
authorized reimbursable expenses incurred.
3.2 Lump Sum. If this contract is designated as a Lump Sum Contract following
completion of the work Contractor shall submit a single invoice containing the
beginning and ending dates of the billing period and the total contract amount.
City shall make a single payment, based on such invoice, for satisfactory
completion of the Scope of Work.
4. CONTRACTOR NOT 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.
5. BENEFITS AND TAXES. Contractor shall not have any claim under this Agreement or
otherwise against City for seniority, vacation time, vacation pay, sick leave, personal time
off, overtime, health insurance, medical care, hospital care, insurance benefits, social
security, disability, unemployment, workers compensation or employee benefits of any
kind. Contractor shall be solely liable for and obligated to pay directly all applicable
taxes, including, but not limited to, federal and state income taxes, and in connection
therewith Contractor shall indemnify and hold City harmless from any and all liability
that City may incur because of Contractor's failure to pay such taxes. City shall have no
obligation whatsoever to pay or withhold any taxes on behalf of Contractor.
6. ASSIGNMENT PROHIBITED. The services to be performed by the Contractor are
personal in character and no party to this Agreement may assign any right or obligation
under this Agreement. Any attempted or purported assignment of any right or obligation
under this Agreement shall be void and of no effect. However, with the consent of the
City given in writing, Contractor is entitled to subcontract such portions of the work to be
performed under this Agreement as may be specified by City.
7. PERSONNEL. Contractor shall assign only competent personnel to complete the Scope
of Work pursuant to this Agreement. In the event that City, in its sole discretion, at any
time during the term of this 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 from work in connection with the Scope of
Work.
72
Professional Services Contract for _________________
Exhibit C – Page 5 of 10
8. CONFLICT OF INTEREST.
8.1 In General. Contractor understands that its professional responsibility is solely
to City. Contractor represents and warrants that it presently has no interest, and
will not acquire any direct or indirect interest, that would conflict with its
performance of this agreement. Contractor shall not employ or subcontract with a
person having such an interest in the performance of this agreement.
8.2 Subsequent Conflict of Interest. Contractor agrees that if an actual or potential
conflict of interest on the part of Contractor is discovered after award, the
Contractor will make a full disclosure in writing to the City. This disclosure shall
include a description of actions, which the Contractor has taken or proposes to
take, after consultation with the City to avoid, mitigate, or neutralize the actual or
potential conflict. Within 45 days, the Contractor shall have taken all necessary
steps to avoid, mitigate, or neutralize the conflict of interest to the satisfaction of
the City.
8.3 Interests of City Officers and Staff. No officer, member or employee of City
and no member of the City Council shall have any pecuniary interest, direct or
indirect, in this Agreement or the proceeds thereof. Neither Contractor nor any
member of any Contractor’s family shall serve on any City board or committee or
hold any such position which either by rule, practice or action nominates,
recommends, or supervises Contractor's performance of the Scope of Work or
authorizes funding to Contractor.
9. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS
9.1 In General. Contractor shall keep itself fully informed of and comply with all
laws, policies, general rules and regulations established by City and shall comply
with the common law and all laws, ordinances, codes and regulations of
governmental agencies, (including federal, state, municipal and local governing
bodies) applicable to the performance of the Scope of Work hereunder.
9.2 Licenses and Permits. Contractor represents and warrants 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 License.
10. WORK PRODUCT AND RECORDS
10.1 Property of City. All reports, data, maps, models, charts, studies, surveys,
photographs, memoranda or other written documents or materials prepared by
Contractor pursuant to this Agreement shall become the property of City upon
completion of the work to be performed hereunder or upon termination of this
73
Professional Services Contract for _________________
Exhibit C – Page 6 of 10
Agreement. Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, if, in connection
with services performed under this Agreement, the Contractor or its
subcontractors create artwork, copy, posters, billboards, photographs, videotapes,
audiotapes, systems designs, software, reports, diagrams, surveys, source codes or
any other original works of authorship, such works of authorship shall be works
for hire as defined under Title 17 of the United States Code, and all copyrights in
such works are the property of City. If it is ever determined that any works
created by the Contractor or its subcontractors under this Agreement are not
works for hire under U.S. law, the Contractor hereby assigns all copyrights to
such works to City, grants City a royalty-free, exclusive, and irrevocable license
to reproduce, publish, use, and to authorize others to do so, all such works and
agrees to provide any material and execute any documents necessary to effectuate
such assignment and license. The Contractor may retain and use copies of such
works for reference and as documentation of its experience and capabilities.
10.2 Intellectual Property. Contractor represents and warrants that it has the legal
right to utilize all intellectual property it will utilize in the performance of this
agreement. Contractor further represents that it shall ensure City has the legal
right to utilize all intellectual property involved in and/or resulting from
Contractor’s performance of this agreement. Contractor shall indemnify and hold
City harmless from all loss and liability, including attorneys’ fees, court costs and
all other litigation expenses for any infringement of the patent rights, copyright,
trade secret or any other proprietary right or trademark, and all other intellectual
property claims of any person or persons in consequence of the use by City, or
any of its officers or agents, of articles or services to be supplied in the
performance of this Agreement.
10.3 Retention of Records. Until the expiration of five years after the furnishing of
any services pursuant to this Agreement, Contractor shall retain and make
available to the City or any party designated by the City, upon written request by
City, this Agreement, and such books, documents and records of Contractor (and
any books, documents, and records of any subcontractor(s)) that are necessary or
convenient for audit purposes to certify the nature and extent of the reasonable
cost of services to City.
10.4 Use of Recycled Paper and Electronic Documents. Contractor 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.
Documents shall be printed on both sides of the page and City shall be provided
with electronic copies of documents (in Word or .pdf format) except where
unusual circumstances make it infeasible to do so.
11. CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION. Contractor shall hold any confidential
information received from City in the course of performing this Agreement in trust and
confidence and will not reveal such confidential information to any person or entity,
either during the term of the Agreement or at any time thereafter. Upon expiration of this
Agreement, or termination as provided herein, Contractor shall return materials which
74
Professional Services Contract for _________________
Exhibit C – Page 7 of 10
contain any confidential information to City. Contractor may keep one copy for its
confidential file. For purposes of this paragraph, confidential information is defined as all
information disclosed to Contractor which relates to City's past, present, and future
activities, as well as activities under this Agreement, which information is not otherwise
of public record under California law.
12. RESPONSIBILITY OF CONTRACTOR. Contractor shall take all responsibility for
the work, shall bear all losses and damages directly or indirectly resulting to Contractor,
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 to the extent predicated on active or
passive negligence of the Contractor or of any subcontractor.
13. INDEMNIFICATION. Contractor and City agree that City, its employees, agents and
officials shall be fully protected from any loss, injury, damage, claim, lawsuit, cost,
expense, attorneys fees, litigation costs, defense costs, court costs or any other cost
arising out of or in any way related to the negligent or otherwise tortious performance of
this Agreement. Accordingly, the provisions of this indemnity provision are intended by
the parties to be interpreted and construed to provide the fullest protection possible under
the law to the City. Contractor acknowledges that City would not enter into this
agreement in the absence of the commitment of Contractor to indemnify and protect City
as set forth below.
13.1 General Indemnity. To the fullest extent permitted by law, Contractor shall
indemnify and hold harmless City, its employees, agents and officials, from any
liability, claims, suits, actions, arbitration proceedings, administrative
proceedings, regulatory proceedings, losses, expenses or costs (including, without
limitation, costs and fees of litigation) of any kind whatsoever without restriction
or limitation, incurred in relation to, as a consequence of or arising out of or in
any way attributable actually, allegedly or impliedly, in whole or in part, to the
performance of this Agreement. All obligations under this provision are to be paid
by Contractor as they are incurred by the City.
13.2 Duty to Defend. In addition to Contractor’s obligation to indemnify City,
Contractor specifically acknowledges and agrees that it has an immediate and
independent obligation to defend City from any claim which actually or
potentially falls within this indemnification provision, even if the allegations are
or may be groundless, false or fraudulent, which obligation arises at the time such
claim is tendered to the Contractor by City and continues at all times thereafter.
13.3 Limitation on Indemnity. Without affecting the rights of City under any
provision of this agreement or this section, Contractor shall not be required to
defend, indemnify and hold harmless City as set forth above for liability
attributable to the sole fault of City, provided such sole fault is determined by
agreement between the parties or the findings of a court of competent jurisdiction.
This exception will apply only in instances where the City is shown to have been
solely at fault and not in instances where Contractor is solely or partially at fault
75
Professional Services Contract for _________________
Exhibit C – Page 8 of 10
or in instances where City's fault accounts for only a percentage of the liability
involved. In those instances, the obligation of Contractor will be all-inclusive and
City will be held harmless, indemnified, and defended for all liability incurred,
even though a percentage of the liability is attributable to conduct of the City.
13.4 Acknowledgement. Contractor acknowledges that its obligation pursuant to this
section extends to liability attributable to City, if that liability is less than the sole
fault of City. Contractor has no obligation under this agreement for liability
proven in a court of competent jurisdiction or by written agreement between the
parties to be the sole fault of City.
13.5 Scope of Contractor Obligation. The obligations of Contractor under this or
any other provision of this Agreement will not be limited by the provisions of any
workers' compensation act or similar act. Contractor expressly waives its statutory
immunity under such statutes or laws as to City, its employees and officials.
13.6 Subcontractors. Contractor agrees to obtain executed indemnity agreements
with provisions identical to those set forth here in this section from each and
every subcontractor, sub tier contractor or any other person or entity involved by,
for, with or on behalf of Contractor in the performance or subject matter of this
Agreement.
13.7 No Waiver. Failure of City to monitor compliance with these requirements
imposes no additional obligations on City and will in no way act as a waiver of
any rights hereunder. This obligation to indemnify and defend City as set forth
herein is binding on the successors, assigns, or heirs of Contractor and shall
survive the termination of this agreement or this section. 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. City approval of the
insurance contracts required by this Agreement does not relieve the Contractor or
subcontractors from liability under this section.
14. DEFAULT AND REMEDIES.
14.1 Events of default. Each of the following shall constitute an event of default
hereunder:
(a) Failure to perform any obligation under this Agreement and failure to cure
such breach immediately upon receiving notice of such breach, if the
breach is such that the City determines the health, welfare, or safety of the
public is immediately endangered; or
(b) Failure to perform any obligation under this Agreement and failure to cure
such breach within fifteen (15) days of receiving notice of such breach, if
the breach is such that the City determines that the health, welfare, or
safety of the public is not immediately endangered, provided that if the
76
Professional Services Contract for _________________
Exhibit C – Page 9 of 10
nature of the breach is such that the City determines it will reasonably
require more than fifteen (15) days to cure, Contractor shall not be in
default if Contractor promptly commences the cure and diligently
proceeds to completion of the cure.
14.2 Remedies upon default. Upon any Contractor default, City shall have the right
to immediately suspend or terminate the Agreement, seek specific performance or
contract with another party to perform this Agreement and/or seek damages
including incidental, consequential and/or special damages to the full extent
allowed by law.
14.3 No Waiver. Failure by City to seek any remedy for any default hereunder shall
not constitute a waiver of any other rights hereunder or any right to seek any
remedy for any subsequent default.
15. TERMINATION. Either party may terminate this Agreement with or without cause by
providing 10 days notice in writing to the other party. The City may terminate this
Agreement at any time without prior notice in the event that Contractor commits a
material breach of the terms of this Agreement. Upon termination, this Agreement shall
become of no further force or affect whatsoever and each of the parties hereto shall be
relieved and discharged from the rights and obligations of this Agreement, subject to
payment for acceptable services rendered prior to the expiration of the notice of
termination and delivery to City of any work in progress, completed work, supplies,
equipment, and other materials produced as a part of, or acquired in connection with the
performance of this Agreement, and any completed or partially completed work which, if
this Agreement had been completed, would have been required to be furnished to City.
Notwithstanding the foregoing and section 2 on page 1, this section and the provisions of
this Agreement concerning insurance (Exhibit B), Funding Agency Requirements (as set
forth in Exhibit D if applicable), Work Product and Records, Confidential Information,
Responsibility of Contractor, Indemnification, Default and Remedies, Litigation, and
Jurisdiction and Severability shall survive termination or expiration of this Agreement.
16. DISPUTE RESOLUTION. The parties shall make a good faith effort to settle any
dispute or claim arising under this Agreement. If the parties fail to resolve such disputes
or claims, they shall submit them to non-binding mediation in California at shared
expense of the parties for at least 8 hours of mediation. If mediation does not arrive at a
satisfactory result, arbitration, if agreed to by all parties, or litigation may be pursued. In
the event any dispute resolution processes are involved, each party shall bear its own
costs and attorneys fees.
17. LITIGATION. If any litigation is commenced between parties to this agreement
concerning any provision hereof or the rights and duties of any person in relation thereto,
each party shall bear its own attorneys’ fees and costs.
18. JURISDICTION AND SEVERABILITY. This Agreement shall be administered and
interpreted under the laws of the State of California. Jurisdiction of litigation arising from
this Agreement shall be in that state and venue shall be in Santa Clara County, California.
77
Professional Services Contract for _________________
Exhibit C – Page 10 of 10
If any part of this Agreement is found to conflict with applicable laws, such part shall be
inoperative, null and void insofar as it conflicts with said laws, but the remainder of this
Agreement shall be in full force and effect.
19. NOTICE OF NON-RENEWAL. Contractor understands and agrees that there is no
representation, implication, or understanding that the City will request that work product
provided by Contractor under this Agreement be supplemented or continued by
Contractor under a new agreement following expiration or termination of this Agreement.
Contractor waives all rights or claims to notice or hearing respecting any failure by City
to continue to request or retain all or any portion of the work product from Contractor
following the expiration or termination of this Agreement.
20. PARTIES IN INTEREST. This Agreement is entered only for the benefit of the parties
executing this Agreement and not for the benefit of any other individual, entity or person.
21. WAIVER. Neither the acceptance of work or payment for work pursuant to this
Agreement shall constitute a waiver of any rights or obligations arising under this
Agreement. The failure by the City to enforce any of Contractor’s obligations or to
exercise City's rights shall in no event be deemed a waiver of the right to do so thereafter.
-End of Exhibit C-
78
Professional Services Contract for _________________
Exhibit D – Page 1 of 1
Exhibit D
Funding Agency Requirements
[Delete this Exhibit if Not Applicable]
This Agreement is funded in part pursuant to the contract between City and Insert Name of
Funding Agency (“Funding Agency”) attached hereto as Exhibit D-1 (“Funding Agreement”). In
recognition of the Funding Agreement City and Contractor agree that:
1. All contractual provisions required by the Funding Agreement are hereby incorporated by
reference. Anything to the contrary herein notwithstanding, all Funding Agreement-
mandated terms shall be deemed to control in the event of a conflict with other provisions
contained in this Agreement. The Contractor shall not perform any act, fail to perform
any act, or refuse to comply with any City requests which would cause the City to be in
violation of the Funding Agreement terms and conditions.
2. If Contractor claims or receives payment from City for a service, reimbursement for
which is later disallowed by the Funding Agency, the Contractor shall promptly refund
the disallowed amount to City upon City’s request. At its option, City may offset the
amount disallowed from any payment due or to become due to Contractor under this
Agreement or any other Agreement.
3. City may terminate or suspend performance of this Agreement if Funding Agency
suspends or terminates funding pursuant to the terms of the Funding Agreement. In the
event of suspension or termination City shall be obligated to fund only that portion of
Contractor’s work performed prior to the suspension or termination that is not funded by
the Funding Agreement.
4. By executing this Agreement, the Contractor certifies that the Contractor is not
suspended, debarred or otherwise excluded from participation in the program(s)
supported by the Funding Agreement. Contractor acknowledges that this certification of
eligibility to receive Funding Agency funds is a material term of the Agreement.
-End of Exhibit D-
79
Professional Services Contract for _________________
Exhibit E – Page 1 of 1
Exhibit E
Special Requirements
Contractor shall not be engaged to perform any work for the City of Saratoga other than that
described in Exhibit A during the term of this Agreement for two years thereafter. Contractor may
not be considered for reappointment until at least five years following the completion of the term of
this Agreement.
454484.7
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
Response to City of Saratoga
Request for Proposals
Administrative Hearing Officer Services
February 18, 2014
Submitted by
RENNE SLOAN HOLTZMAN SAKAI LLP
PUBLIC LAW GROUP™
Primary Contact:
David Kahn, Partner
350 Sansome Street, Suite 300
San Francisco, CA. 94104
415-678-3800
dkahn@publiclawgroup.com
92
Response to RFP for Administrative Hearing Officer –City of Saratoga February 18, 2014
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I.FIRM QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE .............................................................1
II.LICENSE TO PRACTICE IN CALIFORNIA ...................................................................2
III.STAFF QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE ...........................................................3
A.Mr. Kahn’s Qualifications and Experience .............................................................3
B.Mr. Riddle’s Qualifications and Experience ...........................................................4
IV.RSHS’S UNDERSTANDING OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER
SERVICES ..........................................................................................................................5
V.OFFICE LOCATION .........................................................................................................6
VI.REFERENCES ...................................................................................................................6
VII.LEGAL SERVICE REFERENCES....................................................................................7
VIII.COST PROPOSAL .............................................................................................................8
A.Hourly Litigation and Other Services .....................................................................8
B.Firm Expenses.........................................................................................................8
IX.INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS ......................................................................................8
X.IN-HOUSE QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM .........................................................8
XI.CONFLICT OF INTEREST ...............................................................................................9
Attachment A:Bios of David Kahn and Randy Riddle
Attachment B:Writing Samples of David Kahn
Attachment C:Evidence of Liability Insurance
93
Response to RFP for Administrative Hearing Officer –City of Saratoga February 18, 2014
Page 1 of 9
I.FIRM QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE
Renne Sloan Holtzman Sakai, Public Law Group™,is pleased to submit this proposal to provide
the City of Saratoga with administrative hearing officer services.
With offices in San Francisco, Berkeley and Sacramento,RSHS provides effective, efficient,
creative legal services to meet the distinctive needs of public agencies, including cities, counties,
school districts and special districts. Our philosophy is to provide legal advice and representation
that allows policy makers to achieve their goals while minimizing legal risk.
Some of the firm’s many public agency clients include:
The City of Palo Alto
The City of Brisbane
The City of Richmond
The City of Morgan Hill
Our practice areas include general government and public agency law and litigation,administrative
law, constitutional law (including due process issues),ethics law, land use and CEQA law, labor
law and labor relations, employment law and litigation, ADA accessibility compliance, and public
interest litigation for government agencies. With collective experience in almost every area of
public sector law, our attorneys are skilled and effective counselors and advocates for local
governments.
Attorneys in our General Government Team have decades of high-level experience counseling and
representing public agencies and districts.Louise Renne served as San Francisco’s City Attorney
for sixteen (16)years, overseeing a 200-lawyer public law office and pioneering novel approaches
to public law matters, and subsequently served as the City Attorney for the City of Richmond .
Jonathan Holtzman worked for the City and County of San Francisco for fifteen (15) years in a
variety of roles including Chief Deputy City Attorney and Director of Policy and Labor for Mayor
Willie L. Brown Jr.David Kahn serves as the City Attorney for Brisbane, and served as City
Attorney for the City of Sunnyvale for seven (7)years, Senior Deputy County Counsel for Santa
Clara County for five (5) years, and City Attorney for Mercer Island, Washington for five (5)years.
Randy Riddle served for five (5) years as the City Attorney for the City of Richmond, and
previously served as lead attorney for the San Francisco Department of Elections, Chief of the San
Francisco City Attorney’s Government Litigation Group and Chief Counsel to the California
Secretary of State.Teresa Stricker possesses extensive public law experience,and previously
94
Response to RFP for Administrative Hearing Officer –City of Saratoga February 18, 2014
Page 2 of 9
served as a San Francisco Deputy City Attorney specializing in general government law counseling
and litigation, constitutional law, and appellate advocacy.
Our General Government Team brings together:
Extensive experience in administrative law and public agency law;
Extensive experience appearing before and advising elected and appointed administrative
bodies;
Significant experience in redevelopment and land use law;
Expertise in litigation and appellate advocacy in state and federal courts;
First rate reputations within the legal community at local, state and federal levels;
Extensive experience in law relating to the services of all municipal departments, including
Redevelopment, City Clerk, City Manager/Chief Administrative Officer, Communi ty
Development, Community Resources, Finance, Fire Administration, Housing, Personnel,
Police Administration, Recreation and Parks, and Public Works;
Proven ability to develop and maintain critical relationships with political bodies, including
city councils, boards of supervisors, other boards and commissions; and
Proven ability to proactively solve challenging legal issues for city departments and elected
officials prior to reaching the litigation stage, and to communicate changes in the law
effectively to city departments and officials.
Renne Sloan Holtzman Sakai LLP is committed to complying fully with all Federal, State and County
equal opportunity requirements.If selected, the firm will immediately obtain a City of Saratoga
business license, and will maintain it while conducting work under the contract.
The firm agrees to provide services pursuant to the terms of the City’s standard services agreement.
We recognize that agreement provides that the hearing officer agreement may not be renewed,and that
neither the hearing officer nor the hearing officer’s firm may be retained to provide other services on
behalf of the City of Saratoga.
II.LICENSE TO PRACTICE IN CALIFORNIA
Renne Sloan Holtzman Sakai LLP and all assigned professional staff providing legal services are
properly licensed to practice law in the state of California, and maintain that licensing in good
standing at all times.
95
Response to RFP for Administrative Hearing Officer –City of Saratoga February 18, 2014
Page 3 of 9
No responsibilities for legal advice will be delegated or sub-contracted without prior written
consent of the City.
III.STAFF QUALIFICATIONS AND EXPERIENCE
As the lead counsel, Mr. Kahn also has the background and expertise to provide the administrative
hearing officer services under the Scope of Services.Mr. Kahn has over 26 years of experience in
representing public agencies at both the city and county level.He currently serves as City Attorney
for the City of Brisbane and General Counsel to Sanitary City No. 5 of Marin. He has significant
experience in the area of administrative hearings.
Mr. Riddle also has the expertise to handle all of the required services identified in the City’s Scope
of Work.He has served as the City Attorney of Richmond, Chief Counsel to the California
Secretary of State, and Chief of the Government Litigation Team for the San Francisco City
Attorney’s Office.
Although we work as a team, providing a network of legal and consulting support for our public
sector clients across all of our practice areas, we are pleased to propose David Kahn as the primary
provider of administrative hearing officer services for the City of Saratoga, with Randy Riddle as
primary backup.
Resumes of Mr. Kahn and Mr. Riddle are in Attachment A of this proposal.
A.Mr. Kahn’s Qualifications and Experience
Mr. Kahn (Bar No. 98128)earned his J.D. from Boalt Hall Law School, University of California
in 1980. He was admitted to the Bars for the States of California and Washington in 1981 and
1988, respectively. In 1998, he was admitted to the Bar of the United States Supreme Court .
He recently served as Sunnyvale (population 140,000) City Attorney and Redevelopment Agency
General Counsel from 2005 to 2012. Both the City Council and Redevelopment Agency are
Brown Act boards and David advised at over 200 meetings of these boards. As City Attorney,he
advised the City Council, City Manager and all City departments. He was responsible for the
representation of the City at all administrative hearings, including Skelly hearings, the Civil
Service Personnel Board, code enforcement and appeals, and Planning Commission review and
hearings.
From 2000 to 2005, Mr. Kahn was Senior Deputy County Counsel in Santa Clara County
(population 1,787,694).His clients included the sheriff, Superior Court, airports, finance, tax
collector and grand jury. He represented the Code Enforcement Appeals Board and participated
and advised in contested administrative hearings.Mr. Kahn successfully advised the Census 2000
96
Response to RFP for Administrative Hearing Officer –City of Saratoga February 18, 2014
Page 4 of 9
Redistricting Committee through the politically sensitive redrawing of City boundaries, and
Charter review committees for the City of Sunnyvale.
From 1995 to 2000, Mr. Kahn was City Attorney of Mercer Island, Washington. He advised and
represented the City Council and Planning Commission, both subject to the Washington Open
Meetings Law (the Brown Act equivalent in Washington). He provided legal advice to the Council
and all City departments. From 1988 to 1995, Mr. Kahn was Chief of Litigation for Bellevue,
Washington, a major economic center for the Puget Sound region. In addition, he served as a
Deputy City Attorney for the City and County of San Francisco from 1986 to 1988, representing
the school City, Municipal Railway, police department and other city departments.
Administrative matters Mr.Kahn has handled or supervised include:
1.Representation of City of Bellevue in land use appeal before administrative hearing officer.
2.Representation of City of Bellevue in multiple administrative grievance arbitrations
3.Representation of City of Bellevue in administrative public utility rule-making hearing.
4.Representation of City of Mercer Island in administrative Planning Commission hearings.
5.Representation of County of Santa Clara in administrative Code Enforcement Appeals
Board hearings.
6.Representation of County of Santa Clara in airport contract dispute binding arbitration.
7.Representation of City of Sunnyvale in administrative personnel hearings.
8.Representation of City of San Jose in interest arbitration proceedings.
9.Representation of City of San Jose in administrative grievance arbitration proceeding.
10.Representation of City of Brisbane in administrative code enforcement matters.
Attached as Exhibit B are two writing samples by Mr. Kahn related to administrative hearings.
B.Mr.Riddle’s Qualifications and Experience
In 1985, Mr. Riddle (Bar no. 121788)earned a J.D. from Golden Gate University Law School and
was admitted to the California Bar.
From October 2008 to April 2012, Mr. Riddle served as Richmond City Attorney. In that capacity,
Mr. Riddle provided city officials with a wide range of legal counseling services, including:
97
Response to RFP for Administrative Hearing Officer –City of Saratoga February 18, 2014
Page 5 of 9
Advising and representing the City of Richmond as City Attorney, including supervising
attorneys providing administrative hearing services.
Interpreting charter and ordinance provisions.
Drafting legislation and advising about potential legal issues with proposed legislation.
Counseling the City Council, boards and commissions, and departments about compliance
with First Amendment and other constitutional guarantees, and federal, state and local anti -
discrimination and equal opportunity laws.
Advising about conflicts of interest requirements and related ethics laws.
Counseling about public contract award processes.
Additionally, Mr. Riddle has extensive litigation experience in state and federal courts and is an
experienced and effective appellate advocate for governmental entities, including appeals from
administrative agency decisions.Through this experience, Mr. Riddle has gained significant
knowledge of the constitutional and other legal principles governing the administrative hearing
process.
Before joining Renne Sloan Holtzman Sakai, Mr. Riddle served as Chief Counsel to the office of
the California Secretary of State. He also served as a senior attorney for 15 years in the San
Francisco City Attorney’s Office, serving as chief of the government litigation team. Mr. Riddle
was also legal counsel to the National Senate of the Republic of Palau.
IV.RSHS’S UNDERSTANDING OF THE ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING OFFICER
SERVICES
We understand the critically important and unique role that administrative hearing officers play in
administrative appeals involving government agencies. Case law has made clear that –even
though retained by the City –hearing officers serve in a quasi-judicial capacity, subject to federal
and state due process principles. Accordingly,we recognize that administrative hearing officers,
must be impartial decision-makers, basing our decisions on the evidence presented, and governing
legal principles.
We also appreciate the significant practical aspects of the administrative hearing process.The
administrative hearing process provides the City and other parties the ability to resolve disputes in
a less formal and expensive forum that judicial litigation. We also recognize that this means that
the hearing officer must be available to hear and resolve administrative appeals in an efficient and
timely manner.
98
Response to RFP for Administrative Hearing Officer –City of Saratoga February 18, 2014
Page 6 of 9
V.OFFICE LOCATION
RSHS’s main office is located in San Francisco’s financial district, with its largest branch office
in Berkeley. The Firm’s complete resources can be accessed from either the San Francisco or
Berkeley office.
VI.REFERENCES
Public Agency Reference and description
City of Richmond
450 Civic Center Plaza
Richmond, CA 94804
(510) 620-6500 –ofc
(510) 620-6542 –fax
Bill Lindsay
City Manager
(510) 620-6512
Bill_lindsay@ci.richmond.ca.us
We served as City Attorney for the City of Richmond for five
years and advised on a broad range of municipal law issues.
City of Sunnyvale
Sunnyvale City Hall
456 W. Olive Avenue
Sunnyvale, CA 94086
(408) 730-7500 –ofc
(408) 730-7699 --fax
Gary Luebbers
City Manager
(408) 730-7242
gluebbers@ci.sunnyvale.ca.us
Represented for four years in his capacity as City Manager;
advised weekly on multiple finance, redevelopment and city
legal issues.
City of Richmond
Parks & Landscaping Division
3201 Leona Ave.
Richmond, CA 94804
(510)231-3004 –ofc
(510)231-3072 –fax
Chris Chamberlain
Parks & Landscaping Superintendent
(510) 231-3004
Chris_chamberlain@ci.richmond.ca.us
As City Attorney, Mr. Riddle advised Mr. Chamberlain and his
staff on a broad range of government law and legislative
matters.
City of Brisbane
50 Park
Brisbane, CA.
415-678-2110
Clay Holstine
City Manager
415-508-2110
clayh@ci.brisbhane.ca.us
Currently providing advice and representation on all public
agency legal issues for City of Brisbane.
99
Response to RFP for Administrative Hearing Officer –City of Saratoga February 18, 2014
Page 7 of 9
VII.LEGAL SERVICE REFERENCES
RSHS provides, or has provided in the last 5 years,legal services to the following other public
entity clients:
AC Transit City of Pacific Grove County of Sacramento
Admin Ofc of the Courts City of Pacifica County of San Benito
BAAQMD City of Palo Alto County of San Joaquin
Bay Area Rapid Transit (BART)City of Petaluma County of San Luis Obispo
Ben Lomond Fire District City of Piedmont County of Santa Clara
California State University City of Pittsburg County of Santa Cruz
California Highway Patrol City of Pleasant Hill County of San Bernardino
City of Alameda City of Pleasanton County of Solano
City of American Canyon City of Redding County of Sonoma
City of Atherton City of Redwood City County of Stanislaus
City of Benicia City of Richmond County of Sutter
City of Berkeley City of Rohnert Park County of Tehama
City of Brisbane City of Roseville County of Tulare
City of Burlingame City of Sacramento County of Yolo
City of Capitola City of Salinas Department of Water Resources
City of Ceres City of San Bruno EBMUD
City of Concord City of San Diego East Bay Regional Park District
City of Cotati City and County of San Francisco EDD
City of Cupertino City of San Jose El Dorado Hills Cmty Svcs Dist
City of Daly City City of San Leandro Foothill De-Anza Cmty Coll Dist
City of Davis City of San Luis Obispo Foothill Fire Protection District
City of Desert Hot Springs City of San Rafael Livermore Unified School Dist
City of East Palo Alto City of Santa Cruz Marin Municipal Water District
City of Foster City City of Santa Monica Marinwood Cmty Svcs Dist
City of Fremont City of Saratoga Monterey Bay UAPCD
City of Fresno City of Sausalito Monterey Housing Authority
City of Gilroy City of South San Francisco Napa Sanitation District
City of Half Moon Bay City of Soledad Peralta Community College Dist
City of Healdsburg City of Stockton Sacramento Metro Fire Dept
City of Indian Wells City of Sunnyvale Sacramento Public Library
City of Lancaster City of Tracy San Francisco Cmty College Dist
City of Lathrop City of Vacaville San Francisco Housing Authority
City of Lodi City of Vallejo SF Redevelopment Agency
City of Los Altos City of Walnut Creek San Lorenzo Unified Sch Dist
City of Los Angeles City of Watsonville Santa Clara Valley Transp Authority
City of Los Gatos City of Woodland Santa Cruz IHSS
City of Menlo Park County of Alameda Tiburon Fire Protection District
City of Milpitas County of Contra Costa Town of Windsor
City of Modesto County of El Dorado Transbay Joint Powers Authority
City of Morgan Hill County of Fresno Truckee Meadows Fire Protection Dist
City of Mountain View County of Humboldt UC Regents
City of Napa County of Madera Washoe County, NV
City of Newark County of Marin Yerba Buena Cmty Benefit Dist
City of Newport Beach County of Monterey
City of Oakland County of Napa
100
Response to RFP for Administrative Hearing Officer –City of Saratoga February 18, 2014
Page 8 of 9
Due to the large number of cities, counties and special districts the firm has provided legal services
for and continues to provide legal services for, scope of work, date, engagement partner and total
hours will be provided upon request for specific public agencies that are identified by the City.
VIII.COST PROPOSAL
A.Hourly Litigation and Other Services
The firm will provide administrative hearing officer services to the City of Saratoga at the rate of
$300 per hour.If paralegal services are required, they will be billed at the rate of $105 per hour.
B.Firm Expenses
RSHS fees generally include office administrative support services. We will not bill for routine
clerical work.And we bill for photocopying only for exceptionally large jobs. We will bill for
outside vendor expenses such as electronic legal research, expert witness fees and court reporter
fees. We will not bill for long-distance phone telephone calls, facsimiles or cellular telephone
usage. And, we will not bill for expenses associated with traveling to and from Berkeley. All
travel time and costs are subject to negotiation and will be calculated from the firm’s Berkeley
office.
IX.INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS
The firm meets the RFP’s insurance requirements for coverage and amount and, if retained, will
provide the certificates to document such coverage prior to commending any work.The firm’s
Professional Errors and Omissions Malpractice Liability Coverage information is attached as
Exhibit C.
X.IN-HOUSE QUALITY ASSURANCE PROGRAM
RSHS takes great pride in providing the highest quality advice, representation and work products
to its clients.The firm’s partners, which include both lead and back-up legal counsel for the City,
schedule a weekly conference call to discuss pending matters and any quality concerns or
improvements are put on the agenda and discussed during these calls. Additionally, the partners
have a monthly meeting to discuss firm issues including any qual ity control issues. Each partner
working with the City is senior staff, and is responsible and accountable for the quality of
representation to the City, and there is frequent discussion and sharing of information on legal
developments to insure that legal information is current. To the extent that junior staff performs
work for the City, this work is routinely reviewed and approved by supervising partners prior to
distribution.
101
Response to RFP for Administrative Hearing Officer –City of Saratoga February 18, 2014
Page 9 of 9
XI.CONFLICT OF INTEREST
RSHS is unaware of any current or potential conflict of interest that would prevent it from
providing legal services to the City of Saratoga.
102
ATTACHMENT A:
BIOS OF DAVID KAHN AND
RANDY RIDDLE
103
SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE
t: 415.678.3810
f: 415.678.3838
dkahn@publiclawgroup.com
PRACTICE AREAS
Government Law and Litigation
Labor and Employment
General Counsel to Public Agencies
Redevelopment (Successor
Agencies and Oversight Boards)
Land Use and Development
CEQA
BAR ADMISSION
California
Washington (Inactive)
Navajo Nation (Inactive)
EDUCATION
Boalt Hall Law School, University of
California, Berkeley, J.D.
University of California, Santa Cruz,
B.A.
David Kahn
Partner
EXPERIENCE
Mr. Kahn advises and represents both public agency and private clients on
public agency law, labor, and land use issues. Mr. Kahn brings to his clients
over 32 years of diverse public agency experience and creative solutions to
complex public issues and public-private partnerships. Mr. Kahn is currently
City Attorney for the City of Brisbane and General Counsel for Marin
Sanitation District No. 5. Mr. Kahn has represented many elected boards
and appointed boards including city councils and planning commissions. He
advises city managers on legal aspects of city management issues. Mr.
Kahn has also represented City and County departments as chief counsel.
Former clients include Planning, Human Resources, Police and Fire,
Finance and Public Works, Superior Court, Civil Grand Jury, County
airports, and Tax Collector. He advises on the Brown Act, California Public
Records Act, and Conflict of Interest regulations. In addition, he has also
been the legal advisor to committees such as the Census 2000 County
Redistricting Committee and Charter Review Committees. Mr. Kahn has
substantial litigation and appellate advocacy experience. He received the
2003 County Counsel Litigation Award, and is rated AV-Preeminent by
Martindale-Hubbell. Some of the former and current cases and issues Mr.
Kahn provides advice and representation on include:
Representation of public agency in CEQA and land use review of
major Bayfront development project, and CEQA litigation in multiple
matters.
Representation of public agency in $750 million mixed-use
redevelopment project including environmental remediation.
Personnel investigations involving high-level executive positions.
Representation of private real estate fund in entitlement dispute
with buyer, with successful closing of the deal.
Representation of private equity group in land use review and
negotiations with public agency for major office project.
Representation of large public agency in public safety grievance
and interest arbitrations.
Representation of multiple Redevelopment Oversight Boards for
California cities.
Advice on Reuse and Closure for military base in City.
Advice to City Councils for 12 years as City Attorney.
Negotiations on behalf of City with County and Affordable Housing
Agency leading to partnership and construction of senior affordable
housing at County Clinic site.
Representation of County in 2003 PGE bankruptcy litigation.
104
Trial and appellate counsel for County in Subdivision Map Act
litigation.
Representation of public agencies in civil rights litigation.
Related Experience
Prior to joining Renne Sloan Holtzman Sakai, Mr. Kahn was City
Attorney/Redevelopment Agency General Counsel for the City of
Sunnyvale for seven years. From 2000-2005, Mr. Kahn was Senior Deputy
County Counsel for the County of Santa Clara. From 1995 to 2005, Mr.
Kahn served as City Attorney for the City of Mercer Island, Washington. Mr.
Kahn was Deputy City Attorney/Chief of Litigation for Bellevue, Washington,
from 1988-2007. Mr. Kahn was with the City and County of San Francisco
from 1986-1988, where he led a litigation team representing the police
department, school district, MUNI and public works department. Mr. Kahn
was also a Deputy Public Defender for Santa Clara County from 1981 to
1985.
During law school, Mr. Kahn was an extern to the Chief Justice of the
Alaska Supreme Court, as well as a law clerk with DNA Legal Services on
the Navajo Nation.
Reported Appellate Cases
Pfeiffer v. City of Sunnyvale, 200 Cal. App. 4th 1552 (2011)
Trinity Park LP v. City of Sunnyvale, 193 Cal. App 4th 1014 (2011)
Sunnyvale West Neighborhood Assoc. v. City of Sunnyvale City
Council, 190 Cal. App. 4th 1351 (2010)
Van’t Rood v. County of Santa Clara, 113 Cal. App. 4th 549 (2003)
Zilog v. Superior Court, 86 Cal. App. 4th 1309 (2001)
Lillian F. v. Superior Court, 160 Cal. App. 3d 314 (1984)
Peterson v. City of Bellevue, 56 Wash. App. 1 (1989)
Crippen v. City of Bellevue, 61 Wash. App. 251, cert. denied 117
Wash. 2d 1015(1991)
Rozner v. City of Bellevue, 116 Wash. 2d 342 (1991)
IAFF v. City of Bellevue, 119 Wash. 2d 373 (1992)
Mull v. City of Bellevue, 65 Wash. App. 245 (1992)
Bellevue 120th Associates v. City of Bellevue, 65 Wash. App. 594,
cert. denied 818 P. 2d 1098
Professional Activities
California League of Cities, Brown Act Committee (2011-present)
California League of Cities, Nominating Committee (2011)
California League of Cities Legal Advocacy Committee (2007-09)
Santa Clara County Bar Association Judiciary Committee (2001-02)
Washington State Bar Association, Trustee
United States District Court Magistrate Judge Selection Committee
Chair, United States District Court Pro Bono Committee(1996)
105
SAN FRANCISCO OFFICE
t: 415.678.3814
f: 415.678.3838
rriddle@publiclawgroup.com
PRACTICE AREAS
Appeals & Writs
Elections
Government Law & Litigation
BAR ADMISSION
California
Iowa (Inactive)
Republic of Palau (Inactive)
EDUCATION
Golden Gate University, J.D.
University of Notre Dame, B.S.
Randy Riddle
Partner
EXPERIENCE
Mr. Riddle advises and represents public agency clients on a wide range of
government law issues. From 2008 to 2012, Mr. Riddle served as the City
Attorney for the City of Richmond, where he advised elected and appointed
city officials, attended City Council meetings, supervised litigation, and
managed the City’s legal staff.
Mr. Riddle possesses a unique combination of election law experience,
having served as Chief Counsel to the California Secretary of State and
counsel to a county registrar of voters for ten years. Mr. Riddle, who
teaches Election Law at the University of San Francisco School of Law, has
provided advice and litigation representation on matters related to
constitutional issues, government ethics matters, open government
requirements, initiative, referendum and recall petitions, administrative law,
the legislative process, the Voting Rights Act and the Help America Vote
Act.
Mr. Riddle current serves as a member of the Governing Board of the
Public Law Section of the California State Bar. In 2012, he was named as
one of California’s Top 25 Municipal Attorneys by the Daily Journal. He
was previously named a California Super Lawyer in the area of political law.
Some of the matters on which Mr. Riddle has provided legal services
include:
• Drafting charter amendments and initiative ordinances, and
advising legislative bodies on potential legal issues with proposed
legislation.
• Representing local governments in a broad range of government
law litigation.
Responding to public records requests and open meeting questions
on behalf of local officials.
• Advising and representing public agencies regarding the
requirements of the Voting Rights Act minority language provisions
and the Help America Vote Act.
• Advising and supervising extensive and complex litigation on behalf
of the California Secretary of State in the historic 2003
gubernatorial recall.
• Conducting mandatory AB 1234 ethics training on conflicts of
interest, public records, open meetings and the proper use of
government resources.
Mr. Riddle is also an experienced appellate advocate on behalf of
106
government agencies. He has written numerous appellate briefs on a wide
range of government, election and constitutional law issues. He has also
handled dozens of writ of mandate actions during his career as a
government law attorney.
RELATED EXPERIENCE
Prior to joining Renne Sloan Holtzman Sakai, Mr. Riddle served as Chief
Counsel to the Office of the California Secretary of State where he advised
and represented the agency on the full range of election law issues,
including the implementation of new voting systems. For fifteen years, Mr.
Riddle served in the San Francisco City Attorney’s Office, where he was the
Counsel to the Registrar of Voters and the San Francisco Ethics
Commission. Mr. Riddle later became Chief of the Government Litigation
Team, where he supervised sensitive and complex litigation involving
challenges to city laws and policies, including City employment and
contracting policies.
Mr. Riddle also served as Legal Counsel to the National Senate of the
Republic of Palau, which had recently gained its independence. He drafted
legislation, provided advice on a wide range of domestic and international
issues, and represented the Senate in litigation.
RECENT PRESENTATIONS
• “FPPC Developments,” California City Clerks Association
(November 2012)
• “Developments in California Election Law,” Contra Costa City
Attorneys’ Association (July 2012)
• City Attorneys Continuing Education Seminar, League of California
Cities, Issues in Election Law, Emeryville (February 2008)
• AB 1234 Ethics Training, El Dorado County (December 2006)
• “Courts Take the Initiative,” County Counsels’ Association Annual
Meeting, Monterey (September 2006)
• “Town Hall Meeting on Electronic Voting” (panel member),
conducted by Congressman Mike Honda (March 2005)
107
ATTACHMENT B:
WRITING SAMPLES OF
DAVID KAHN
108
1
2
3
4
5
JONATHAN V. HOLTZMAN (SBN 99795)
RANDY RIDDLE (SBN 121788)
DAVID KAHN (SBN 98128)
ALBERT YANG (SBN 281265)
RENNE SLOAN HOLTZMAN SAKAI LLP
350 Sansome Street, Suite 300
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 678-3800
Facsimile: (415) 678-3838
6 Attorneys for Respondent
CITY OF SAN JOSE 7
8
9
10
11
12
0.. 13
::l
~ 14 i ~ 15
~ 00 16 c5 [';-
"' s ':ij g 17 o«:
...1 <n ~ 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
BEFORE THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE POLICE OFFICERS'
ASSOCIATION,
Plaintiff-Relator,
vs.
CITY OF SAN JOSE, and CITY OF SAN
JOSE CITY COUNCIL
Defendants.
Case No.:
EXEMPT FROM FEES (GOV. CODE§ 6103)
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND
AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO
SJPOA'S APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO
SUE IN QUO WARRANTO; SHOWING OF
GOOD CAUSE WHY LEAVE TO SUE
SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTIIORJTIES IN OPPOSITION TO SJPOA'S APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO
SUE IN QUO WARRANTO; SHOWING OF GOOD CAUSE WHY LEAVE TO SUE SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED
109
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
<='-< 13 ...., ....,
~ 14
"' ~ 15 ~~ s ~ 16
0 " ::c E ~g o-< 17 ..,
"' 18 ! 19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I.
II.
III.
IV.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................ 1
STATEMENT OF FACTS ........................................................................................................... 1
A. NEGOTIATIONS OVER A SUCCESSOR MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT ...... 2
B. THE CITY'S BALLOT MEASURE PROPOSAL.. ......................................................... 2
C. NEGOTIATIONS OVER RETIREMENT REFORM AND THE PROPOSED
BALLOT MEASURE ....................................................................................................... 2
D. PENDING LITIGATION OVER MEASURE B ............................................................. 5
THERE IS GOOD CAUSE TO DENY SJPOA'S APPLICATION TO SUE IN QUO
WARRANT0 .................................................................................................................................. 6
A. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS CONTROL OF A QUO WARRANTO
COMPLAINT AND SHOULD DENY THIS APPLICATION BECAUSE THE
FUNDAMENTAL PRECEPTS FOR QUO WARRANTO ARE NOT MET .................... 6
B. THE UNDISPUTED FACTS DEMONSTRATE THAT THE CITY HAS
FULLY COMPLIED WITH ITS OBLIGATION UNDER SEAL BEACH ..................... 8
C. SJPOA'S APPLICATION FAILS TO MEET THE QUO WARRANTO
"PUBLIC INTEREST" TEST ........................................................................................ 12
1. Leave For SJPOA To Sue In Quo warranto Should Be Denied Where
It Will Result In Multiple Proceedings .............................................................. .12
2. Leave For SJPOA To Sue In Quo Warranto Should Be Denied Where
It Would Be Damaging To Public Policy To Grant The Application ................. l4
CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................................... 16
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO SJPOA'S APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO
SUE IN QUO WARRANTO; SHOWING OF GOOD CAUSE WHY LEAVE TO SUE SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED
110
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
California Attorney General Opinions
72 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 15 (1989) ......................................................................................................... 6, 14
73 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 188 (1990) ........................................................................................................... 12
74 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 77 (1991) ............................................................................................................... 6
75 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. (1992) ........................................................................................................ 7, 12, 13
76 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 169 (1993) ......................................................................................................... 7, 8
State Cases
9 Associated Home Builders etc., Inc. v. City of Livermore, 18 Cal. 3d 582 .............................................. 11
~
10
11
12
13
~ 14
<Zl ~ 15 ~~
:; ~ 16 0 0 :r: E
:;; g 17 0~
u3 ~ 18
"' 19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
Brown v. City of Berkeley (1976) 57 Cal.App.3d 223 ............................................................................ 11
City of Campbell v. Mask (1961)197 Cal.App.2d 640 ............................................................................ 12
Int. Assoc. of Firefighters v. City of Oakland (1985) 174 Cal. App. 3d 687 ............................................ 7
Oakland Municipal Improvement League v. City of Oakland (1972) 23 Cal. App 3d 165 ...................... 7
People ex rel. Seal Beach Police Officers Assn. v. City of Seal Beach (1984) 36 Cal.3d 591 ....... passim
People ex rel. v. Petroleum RectifYing Co. of California (1937) 21 Cal. App. 2d 289 ............................ 7
Public Employment Relations Bd v. Modesto City School Dists. (1982) 136 Cal.App.3d 881 ............... 9
Statutes
Cal. Code of Civ. Proc. 803 ...................................................................................................................... 6
Regulations
Cal. Code of Reg., Title 11, Section 2 ...................................................................................................... 6
Administrative Decisions
Modesto City Schools District (1981) PERB Dec. No. 291 ................................................................... 1 0
Rio School District (2008) PERB Dec. No. 1986 ................................................................................... 1 0
Rowland Unified School District (1994) PERB Decision No. 1053, 18 PERC~ 25126 .......................... 9
State of California (Department of Personnel Administration)
(2010) PERB Decision No. 2102-S, 34 PERC 62 ................................................................................ 9
11
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO SJPOA'S APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO
SUE IN QUO WARRANTO; SHOWING OF GOOD CAUSE WHY LEAVE TO SUE SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED 111
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
0.. 13 ..., ...,
~ 14
C/J " 15 ~j "' f-< 00 16 5 [')'
:I: s ::; g o< 17
..l
C/J
18 J 19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
I. INTRODUCTION
Defendants City of San Jose and City of San Jose City Council ("City") oppose the application
by Relator San Jose Police Officer's Association ("SJPOA") for leave to sue in quo warranto and
hereby show good cause why the application to sue in quo warranto should be denied.
SJPOA fails to meet the first fundamental precept of quo warranto by showing a disputed issue
of fact or law. SJPOA can not contest the fact that the City engaged in 9 months of intense negotiations
and mediation with SJPOA, during which the parties met for a total of21 meetings, and the City made
increasingly favorable proposals to SJPOA. Moreover, SJPOA seeks to transform the Seal Beach
requirement of reasonable negotiations prior to the City's approving a Charter amendment ballot
measure into a requirement that the City engage in perpetual and indefinite negotiations once impasse is
mutually agreed. Seal Beach requires no such thing. It follows that the City's lengthy negotiations with
SJPOA to impasse and mediation present no disputed factual or legal issue on compliance with the Seal
Beach requirement. On this ground alone leave to sue should be denied.
Furthermore, the SJPOA application fails to meet the second fundamental requirement for quo
warranto relief-that granting the application would serve the overall public interest. Before granting
leave to sue in quo warranto, the Attorney General must find that the litigation would serve a public
interest rather than merely a private interest. Just the opposite is true here. If SJPOA's argument
prevails, it would discourage a public employer from ever implementing a concession or mediating after
impasse; this is directly contrary to the public interest.
Moreover, SJPOA and other unions are currently litigating the issues related to Charter
Measure B in multiple forums, including Santa Clara County Superior Court and the Public
Employment Relations Board, and if they are successful would obtain the same relief requested in the
quo warranto complaint: invalidation of Measure B. Precedent compels the AG to deny, or at
minimum defer, allowing the quo warranto complaint to proceed when the issues raised are subject to
resolution in other forums.
II. STATEMENT OF FACTS
In addition to the factual summary provided below, the City has submitted a separate statement
of undisputed facts, underscoring SJPOA's failure to show a contested issue of fact or law.
1
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO SJPOA'S APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO
SUE IN QUO WARRANTO; SHOWING OF GOOD CAUSE WHY LEAVE TO SUE SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED 112
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
'" 13 ..., ...,
~ 14
V> ~ 15 ~~
f-< ~ 16 as ;r: E
~g o< 17 ,_,
V>
I 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
A. NEGOTIATIONS OVER A SUCCESSOR MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT
The City and SJPOA commenced negotiations over a successor Memorandum of Agreement
(MOA), on January 11, 2011. [Statement of Undisputed Facts~ 1.] The City and SJPOA reached a
Tentative Agreement for a successor MOA on June 3, 2011, which included re-opener Side Letters on
several issues, including to continue meeting and conferring on pension and retiree healthcilre benefits
for current and future employees. [Statement of Undisputed Facts~~ 2-3.]
On June 9, 2011, prior to completion of the City/POA Tentative Agreement ratification process,
the City received a joint letter from the Presidents of SJPOA and the International Association of
Firefighters, Local230 (hereinafter, "IAFF, Local230") requesting to commence joint bargaining over
"a second tier of retirement benefits," SJPOA "opt-in proposal," and "a broad discussion that can lead
to a mutually agreeable plan to lawfully modify benefits for existing plan participants as well."
[Declaration of Alex Gurza in Opposition to SJPOA' s Application for Leave to Sue in Quo warranto
(Gurza Dec!.)~ 12, Exh. B.]
B. THE CITY'S BALLOT MEASURE PROPOSAL
On May 13, 2011, Mayor Chuck Reed and several councilmembers issued a memorandum on
"Fiscal Reforms," which suggested, inter alia, that the City Council approve a ballot measure
addressing retirement and pension benefits for current and new employees. [Statement of Undisputed
Facts~ 6.] On May 24,2011, the City Council approved the Mayor's recommendation and directed
City staff to contact the City's unions to bargain over such a ballot measure. [Statement of Undisputed
Facts~ 7.] Although the Council initially targeted a November 2011 date for an election on the ballot
measure, the Council delayed the election to March 2012, and later moved the election to June 2012, to
allow additional time for collective bargaining. [Gurza Dec!.~ 11.]
C. NEGOTIATIONS OVER RETIREMENT REFORM AND THE PROPOSED BALLOT
MEASURE
On June 20, 2011, the City and SJPOA met to begin additional negotiations on retirement
reform pursuant to the parties' re-opener agreement. [Statement of Undisputed Facts~ 8.] That day,
the City and SJPOA agreed to a "framework" that provided ground rules for negotiations. The parties
agreed to negotiate over both the proposed ballot measure and non-ballot measure retirement reforms at
2
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO SJPOA'S APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO
SUE IN QUO WARRANTO; SHOWING OF GOOD CAUSE WHY LEAVE TO SUE SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED
113
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
"" 13 j
~ 14
3 j 15
~ ~
~ ~ 16 0 ~
:I: s
::;; g 17 o-<
ol J 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
the same table. In addition, the parties agreed to conclude negotiations on October 31, 2011, and
submit any remaining dispute to impasse resolution procedures at that time. The impasse resolution
procedures included mediation, followed by interest arbitration under San Jose City Charter Section
1111, if necessary. The parties specifically agreed that the proposed ballot measure would not be
subject to interest arbitration. [Statement of Undisputed Facts~~ 8-9.]
Between June 20 and October 28,2011, the parties participated in thirteen (13) negotiation
sessions regarding retirement reform and the proposed draft ballot measure. [Statement of Undisputed
Facts~ 11.] During this time the parties exchanged numerous proposals. [Statement of Undisputed
Facts n 12-13.] On October 31, 2011, the parties reached impasse under the terms of the ground rules.
[Statement of Undisputed Facts~ 14.]
On November 15 & 16, 2011, the parties participated in mediation over retirement reform and
the proposed ballot measure. [Statement of Undisputed Facts~ 15.] In an attempt to reach a mediated
settlement, the City proposed potential changes to the ballot measure that were virtually identical to
those presented to the San Jose City Council in the November 22, 2011, version of the draft ballot
measure. [Statement of Undisputed Facts~ 18.] Specifically, the City proposed improving the opt-in
benefit formula from 1.5% to 2.0%, decreasing the minimum retirement age for members of SJPOA
and IAFF, Local230 from age 60 to age 57, and increasing the COLA from a maximum of 1.0% to a
maximum of 1.5%. SJPOA was provided the opportunity to explore these changes in mediation, but
ultimately the parties were unsuccessful in breaking the impasse. [Statement of Undisputed Facts
~ 16.]
The City informed SJPOA and all other City unions that the City Council would consider the
November 22, 2011 version of the ballot measure at its December 6, 2011 meeting. [Statement of
Undisputed Facts~ 19.] On December 6, 2011, the City Council approved a ballot measure
substantially similar to the one provided to SJPOA on November 22, 2011. [Statement of Undisputed
Facts~ 22.] At that same meeting, and at the behest of several of the City's bargaining units, including
SJPOA, the City Council postponed the plarmed March 2012 election until June 2012, postponed the
submittal of the final ballot language to the registrar of voters, and directed staff to invite all bargaining
3
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO SJPOA'S APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO
SUE IN QUO WARRANTO; SHOWING OF GOOD CAUSE WHY LEAVE TO SUE SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED
114
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
'" 13 ,..., ,...,
~ 14
"' ~ 15 ~~
f-< ~ 16 6 ~ :r: a :;;il o< 17 ..,
"' I 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
groups to re-engage in mediation regarding all retirement issues, including the related ballot measure.
[Statement of Undisputed Facts~~ 21, 23.]
SJPOA initially resisted a second attempt at mediation, insisting that the parties instead meet
without a mediator. [Statement of Undisputed Facts~ 24.] After two meetings in late December 2011
and early January 2012, the parties agreed to mediation. At the request of SJPOA, and at a significant
cost, the parties engaged an independent mediator rather than Paul Roose, Supervisor of the State
Mediation and Conciliation Service, who had previously served as the parties' mediator. [Statement of
Undisputed Facts~~ 25-26.] The parties participated in mediation on January 17 & 18, 2012, and
February 6 & 10, 2012. [Statement of Undisputed Facts~ 27.]
In an attempt to reach a mediated settlement, the City proposed potential changes to the ballot
measure that were identical to those presented to the San Jose City Council in the February 21, 2012,
version of the draft ballot measure. Specifically, the City proposed postponing the additional retirement
contributions for current employees for one year, delaying the phase out of certain benefit features for
employees choosing to opt into a lower level of benefits and improving the Tier 2, increasing the new
employee benefit formula from 1.5% to 2.0%, and increasing the COLA from a maximum of 1.0% to a
maximum of 1.5%. SJPOA was provided the opportunity to explore these changes in mediation, but
ultimately the parties again were unsuccessful in breaking the impasse. [Statement of Undisputed Facts
~~ 28-29.]
On February 21, 2012, City Administrator Debra Figone issued a staff report to the City Council
recommending that the Council consider a revised Retirement Reform Ballot Measure for the June 5,
. 2012 election. [Statement of Undisputed Facts~ 30.]
On March 2, 2012, twenty-one days after mediation ended, SJPOA submitted a retirement
reform proposal. This proposal was in some regards a step backwards, as it included a proposal from
September 2011 to close the San Jose Police and Fire Department Retirement Plan and move to
CalPERS while maintaining a 90% maximum benefit level. [Statement of Undisputed Facts~ 32.]
SJPOA's March 2, 2012 proposal was almost identical to the one rejected by the City before mediation.
The City explained its reasons for rejecting SJPOA's March 2 proposal in a letter dated March 5, 2012.
[Statement of Undisputed Facts~ 33.]
4
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO SJPOA'S APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO
SUE IN QUO WARRANTO; SHOWING OF GOOD CAUSE WHY LEAVE TO SUE SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED 115
j
I On March 6, 2012, the Council approved those changes and submitted the revised measure,
2 designated Measure B, to voters on the June 5, 2012 ballot. [Statement of Undisputed Facts~ 34.]
3 On June 6, 2012, San Jose voters adopted Measure B by a 69.5% to 30.5% margin. [Statement
4 of Undisputed Facts~ 35.]
5 The projected retirement costs utilized during and throughout the negotiation and mediation
6 process with SJPOA were the most up-to-date information provided by the Retirement Board's
7 independent actuary, Cheiron, dated July 20, 2011. At no time did the City's bargaining team ever
8 refer to or use $650 million as a projected future retirement cost. [Gurza Dec!.~ 32, Exh. I.]
9 D.
10
PENDING LITIGATION OVER MEASURE B
There are a number of pending proceedings in court and before the Public Employment
II
12
13
Relations Board (PERB), which challenge both the substantive validity of Measure Band the City's
bargaining conduct in relation to Measure B. Each ofthese proceedings is potentially dispositive of the
issue presented in SJPOA's Application for Leave to Sue in Quo warranto.
~ 14 On March 16, 2012, SJPOA filed a Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate and Complaint for
Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, Case No. 1-12-CV-220795, in the Santa Clara County Superior
Court. On March 26, 2012, SJPOA filed an Amended Verified Petition for Writ of Mandate and
Complaint. The basis for this amended petition and complaint was the City's alleged failure to meet
and confer in good faith under the MMBA. [Declaration of Jonathan V. Holtzman in Opposition to
SJPOA's Application for Leave to Sue in Quo Warranto (Holtzman Dec!.)~ 4.]
"' " 15 ~~
~ ~ 16
:il a
~ ll 17 o<
ul J 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
On June 6, 2012, SJPOA filed a Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief, Case No. 1-
12-CV-225926, in the Santa Clara County Superior Court. This complaint alleges, inter alia, violation
of various constitutional rights and violation of the MMBA. [Holtzman Dec!.~ 5.]
Also on June 6, 2012, various members of the San Jose Police and Fire Department Retirement
Plan filed a Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief and Petition for Writ of
Mandate/Prohibition, Case No. 1-12-CV-225928, in the Santa Clara County Superior Court. This
complaint alleges that Measure B violates various constitutional rights of the plan members.
[Holtzman Dec!.~ 6.]
5
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO SJPOA'S APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO
SUE IN QUO WARRANTO; SHOWING OF GOOD CAUSE WHY LEAVE TO SUE SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED 116
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
'" 13
..-1 ..-1
~ 14
V> ~ 15 ~~
f-< ~ 16 5 [)'
:o:: E :;;g o< 17 ..,
V>
J 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
On November 23,2011, OE Local3 filed an Unfair Practice Charge, UPC No. SF-CE-900-M,
with PERB. This Charge alleges, inter alia, that the City failed to meet and confer in good faith with
regard to Measure B. [Holtzman Dec!. 'If 7 .]
On February 1, 2012, AFSCME Local!Ol filed an Unfair Practice Charge, UPC No. SF-CE-
924-M, with PERB. This Charge alleges, inter alia, that the City failed to meet and confer in good
faith with regard to Measure B. [Holtzman Dec!. 'If 8.]
On June 4, 2012, IAFF Local230 filed an Unfair Practice Charge, UPC No. SF-CE-969-M,
with PERB. This Charge alleges that the City failed to meet and confer in good faith with regard to
Measure B. [Holtzman Dec!. 'If 9.]
III. THERE IS GOOD CAUSE TO DENY SJPOA'S
APPLICATION TO SUE IN QUO WARRANTO
A. THE ATTORNEY GENERAL HAS CONTROL OF A QUO WARRANTO COMPLAINT
AND SHOULD DENY THIS APPLICATION BECAUSE THE FUNDAMENTAL
PRECEPTS FOR QUO WARRANTO ARE NOT MET
The quo warranto complaint procedure is authorized by California Code of Civil Procedure 803,
providing in relevant part:
An action may be brought by the attorney-general, in the name of the
people of this state, upon his [or her] own information, or upon a
complaint of a private party, against any person who usurps, intrudes into,
or unlawfully holds or exercises any public office, civil or military, or any
franchise, or against any corporation, either de jure or de facto, which
usurps, intrudes into, or unlawfully holds or exercises any franchise,
within this state.
California Code of Regulations, Title 11, Section 2 provides for the filing of the application for
leave to sue and that
the proposed defendant may, within the period provided in Section 3
hereof, show cause, if any he have, why "leave to sue" should not be
granted in accordance with the application therefore.
Quo warranto may be an appropriate method for challenging the adoption of a Charter provision by the
voters. (People ex rel. Seal Beach Police Officers Assn. v. City of Seal Beach (1984) 36 Cal. 3d 591,
595.) But when the complaint is made by a private party and the Attorney General is requested to
authorize the action, the request must be denied when the fundamental precepts for a quo warranto
6
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO SJPOA'S APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO
SUE IN QUO WARRANTO; SHOWING OF GOOD CAUSE WHY LEAVE TO SUE SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED 117
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
0.. 13
....)
....)
~ 14
en ~ 15 ~~
f-< ~ 16 s ~ ::r: E :;;il o< 17
"' en
J 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
action are not met. (74 Ops.Cai.Atty.Gen. 77 (1991) ["San Diego Sheriff's Assoc"].). Leave to sue can
be granted only where the proposed relator establishes that there is a substantial question of law or fact
which requires judicial resolution, and where the action in quo warranto would serve the overall public
interest of the People of this state. (72 Ops.Cai.Atty.Gen. 15, 19 (1989).)
The Attorney General has denied applications to sue in quo warranto where even one of the
fundamental precepts is not met. In San Diego Sheriff's Assoc, supra, the Attorney General denied the
application where a charter amendment adopting a police citizen's review board was within
management prerogative and did not require judicial resolution of compliance with the MMBA.
Similarly, in 75 Ops.Cai.Atty.Gen. 70 (1992), the application to challenge a statewide initiative adopting
new pension levels was not subject as a matter of law to a quo warranto complaint. In addition, it was
held not to be in the public interest to grant the application because the same issues were pending before
PERB.
Although a quo warranto complaint may be initiated by a private party, the Attorney General has
control over both whether to initiate the action and whether to maintain or appeal the action. (People ex
rel. Cage v. Petroleum RectifYing Co. of California (1937) 21 Cal. App. 2d 289; Oakland Municipal
Improvement League v. City of Oakland (1972) 23 Cal. App 3d 165.) The City does not disagree with
SJPOA's assertion that the Attorney General does not have "arbitrary and uncontrolled discretion" (Int.
Assoc. of Firefighters v. City of Oakland (1985) 174 Cal. App. 3d 687), but the corollary is that, when
supported by the facts and law, the Attorney General should exercise her discretion in favor of denying
an application for quo warranto.
In this case, the City has shown good cause supporting a denial of SJPOA's application for quo
warranto. The proposed complaint does not present a prima facie case under the appropriate Seal Beach
analysis, nor does it establish questions of fact or law which need judicial resolution. Furthermore, the
analysis below demonstrates that approving the application is not in the public interest because
accepting SJPOA's argument would undermine effective labor relations, and because there is pending
litigation that would resolve the disputed Charter amendment issue without a quo warranto action.
The undisputed facts demonstrate that the City engaged in extended and exhaustive bargaining
with SJPOA for many months, up to impasse, and continued to meet its obligations by participating in
7
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORJT!ES IN OPPOSITION TO SJPOA'S APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO
SUE IN QUO WARRANTO; SHOWING OF GOOD CAUSE WHY LEAVE TO SUE SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED
118
j
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
~ 14
"' " 15 ~~
~ '!:. 16
&: a ~ Jl 17 0~
ul J 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
mediation and discussions with SJPOA for many more months. Indeed, the parties met on 13 occasions
for bargaining, participated in eight additional mediation and bargaining sessions, and the City
submitted at least 3 ballot proposals before finally placing Measure B on the ballot.
SJPOA's citation to 76 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 169 (1993) (PandA's, page 6) that whether a charter
amendment is valid presents substantial questions of fact and law in complying with the MMBA
curiously omits the following sentence that explains why there was a substantial issue under those
particular facts:
Specifically, the issues here are whether the city was required to give
notice to the unions prior to adopting the resolution proposing the charter
amendment repealing the eight-city formula and whether it was required to
meet and confer with the unions after the resolution was adopted.
(76 Ops.Cal. Atty. Gen. 169 at 172.)
In sharp contrast to this situation where the city allegedly failed to even give notice to the union
that it was adopting a charter amendment, the pension issue and Measure B were negotiated to impasse
and mediated with SJPOA for a total of nine months before the City finally submitted the measure to the
voters. In short, there is no basis for the Attorney General to approve the application for quo warranto
under the facts of this matter.
B. THE UNDISPUTED FACTS DEMONSTRATE THAT THE CITY HAS FULLY
COMPLIED WITH ITS OBLIGATION UNDER SEAL BEACH
The MMBA obligates local agency employers to meet and confer over proposed charter
amendments that would directly impact terms and conditions of employment for their employees. (Seal
Beach Police Officers Ass 'n, supra, 36 Cal.3d at p. 594.) SJPOA claims that the City did not complete
the meet and confer process before placing Measure B on the ballot. The undisputed facts and settled
legal principles compel the conclusion that, as a matter oflaw, the SJPOA's position is without merit.
Accordingly, the Attorney General should decline to grant SJPOA permission to file its requested
complaint.
SJPOA argues that the parties did not reach a valid impasse. Plaintiffs Memorandum of Points
and Authorities, page 8, lines 5-9. That argument, however, is belied by the undisputed fact that the
"framework" signed by SJPOA and the City when they began bargaining over the proposed ballot
8
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO SJPOA'S APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO
SUE IN QUO WARRANTO; SHOWING OF GOOD CAUSE WHY LEAVE TO SUE SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED 119
I
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
0.. 13 ..., ...,
~ 14
en ~ 15 H f-< 00 16 cl ~ ::c El
H 17
..1 en 18 J 19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
measure and non-ballot measure retirement reforms provided that the parties would utilize impasse
resolution procedures, i.e. impasse would occur automatically, if the parties failed to reach agreement by
October 31, 20 II. It is beyond dispute that this is precisely what occurred: the October 31 deadline
passed without an agreement by the parties. Accordingly, under the ground rule set by the parties
themselves, impasse occurred and the parties began mediation.
After a bargaining impasse, "changed circumstances" may arise that show bargaining may no
longer be futile; in such circumstances, the duty to meet and confer is revived. (Public Employment
Relations Bd v. Modesto City School Dists. (1982) 136 Cal.App.3d 881, 899.) However, in California's
public sector, it is well-established that only a change in position by one of the parties which
demonstrates that agreement may now be possible -not a change in the background circumstances
related to the bargaining -is sufficient to break an impasse. (State of California (Department of
Personnel Administration) (2010) PERB Decision No. 2102-S, 34 PERC 62; Rowland Unified School
District (1994) PERB Decision No. 1053, 18 PERC '1[25126.) As PERB has explained, "[t]he
employer's duty to resume negotiations following good faith completion of impasse arises only if the
union's proposals contained a concession from its earlier position which demonstrates that
circumstances have changed and agreement may be possible." (State of California (Department of
Corrections & Rehabilitation) (2010) PERB Dec. No. 2102-S, 34 PERC 62 [italics added].)
Here, the SJPOA's claim is based on the fact that, during the three months the parties were
engaged in mediation, several events occurred that changed the circumstances: the City reported a $10
million surplus in its budget, a television news report claimed the City misrepresented its projected
pension costs, and the Boards' actuaries produced updated estimated pension costs lower than some
previous estimates the City provided to SJPOA and the media. However, SJPOA does not allege that
any ofthese events, or anything else for that matter, actually changed the positions of the parties such
that agreement became possible.
Indeed, SJPOA cannot credibly allege that it changed its position in a way that would indicate
further bargaining would not be futile. Moreover, the City continued to provide SJPOA with amended
ballot language during mediation-amendments that necessarily reflected discussions with all of its
unions, and amendments that SJPOA continuously rejected. Despite that continued movement,
9
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO SJPOA'S APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO
SUE IN QUO WARRANTO; SHOWING OF GOOD CAUSE WHY LEAVE TO SUE SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED
120
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
"" 13 ..., ...,
~ 14
"' " 15 H f-< ~ 16 s ~ ::r: E :;;fl 0~ 17 ..,
"' J 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
SJPOA's final offer, made two days before the Council was to consider further amendments to the ballot
language prior to placing the measure on the ballot, was essentially the same pre-mediation offer the
City rejected in October 2011. That plan would, in many ways, actually have constituted an
improvement to current employees' pensions, rather than a cost-saving reduction, moving the parties
further apart. Accordingly, it was clear to the very end that SJPOA had not made any movement that
could break the impasse.
Any argument to the contrary is completely undercut by the fact that the parties participated in
mediation after the SJPOA made its proposals and were nonetheless unable to reach agreement.
Although the SJPOA argues that it was entitled to return to "negotiations" rather than "mediation" with
the City following its proposals ofNovember 11, November 18, and December 1, 2011, this distinction
is meaningless because, in the public sector, mediation is merely a continuation of the bargaining
process utilizing a neutral third party, not a separate and distinct forum for resolving a labor dispute.
(Rio School District (2008) PERB Dec. No. 1986; Modesto City Schools District (1981) PERB Dec.
No. 291.)
Moreover, the fact that the parties attempted to reach agreement with the assistance of a neutral
mediator and were unable to do so establishes that the parties' revised proposals before mediation were
insufficient to break the impasse between them. Additionally, the failed mediation establishes that, even
if impasse was broken, the parties were once again at impasse by February 2012.
The Union makes much ofthe fact that the City proposed improvements (from the Union's
perspective) in the ballot measure over the months of mediation. Plaintiffs Memo of Points and
Authorities, page 8, lines 5-9. That shows the City was behaving with the ultimate in good faith: Even
though impasse had been reached and the City's legal obligations to negotiate had ended, the City chose
to go far beyond its legal obligations. What is equally clear based on the Union's public final offer to
the City following mediation is that the City's movement was not reciprocated.
The circumstances and conduct of the parties established by the undisputed facts here -and the
application of settled principles of law to these facts -stand in stark contrast to Seal Beach, as well as
other instances where the Attorney General has granted leave to sue quo warranto. Here, unlike those
situations, there is simply no factual or legal basis to grant leave to the SJPOA.
10
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO SJPOA'S APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO
SUE IN QUO WARRANTO; SHOWING OF GOOD CAUSE WHY LEAVE TO SUE SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED
121
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
0.. 13
.-< .-<
§ 14
{/) ~ 15 ~~ '" ~ 16 5 G' ::<: s
H 17
"' {/)
18 J 19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
In Seal Beach, there was no effort whatsoever by the city to negotiate placement of the
challenged measure on the ballot. Rather, it was the position ofthe City that "the city council had the
absolute, unabridged constitutional authority to propose charter amendments to its electorate, which
authority could not be impaired or limited by the requirements of the MMBA." (36 Cal. 3d at 596.)
Similarly, this matter differs significantly from the recent decision of the Attorney General to
grant leave to sue in quo warranto to the Bakersfield Police Officers Association. (2012 WL 2184570
(June 11, 2012). In that matter, far from the material facts being undisputed, the Attorney General noted
that there was "sharp" disagreement between the parties. (See also 76 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 169
(1993)[ noting that quo warranto is appropriate where there are "substantial questions of fact and law"].)
Again, given the body of facts that cannot be credibly disputed here, that cannot be said to be the case in
this matter.
Finally, and critically, in determining whether to grant SJPOA's request, it is imperative to
recognize the unique nature of Seal Beach bargaining. The City Council was not bargaining over an
MOU between a union and the City. Rather, the Council was proposing to the voters an amendment to
the San Jose Charter, which is the City's constitution. (Brown v. City of Berkeley (1976) 57 Cal.App.3d
223, 231.) The views of all City Unions needed to be considered, and the thinking of the Council itself
evolved (in the direction of the Unions) through these negotiations. It was entirely appropriate for the
Council to actually incorporate changes proposed by the Unions, even though those changes were not
ultimately sufficient to reach an overall agreement.
Article XI, section 3 of the California Constitution recognizes that the amendment ofthe City's
constitution is a legislative right reserved solely to the City's voters, to be effectuated only through the
initiative process or proposal of the city council, and constrained by strict election deadlines. And
Article XI, section 5 of the California Constitution gives the voters the additional "plenary" authority to
exercise this right to establish employee compensation, including benefits.
In this case, 69.5% of San Jose voters exercised this right in favor of approving critically
important changes to their City constitution. Neither courts-nor the Office of the Attorney General-
should take action to question the exercise of this constitutional right unless the party challenging it has
11
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO SJPOA'S APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO
SUE IN QUO WARRANTO; SHOWING OF GOOD CAUSE WHY LEAVE TO SUE SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED 122
I affirmatively demonstrated its invalidity. (See Associated Home Builders etc., Inc. v. City of Livermore,
2 18 Cal.3d 582, 591.) Demonstrably, that simply has not happened here.
3 c.
4
SJPOA'S APPLICATION FAILS TO MEET THE QUO WARRANTO"PUBLIC
INTEREST" TEST
j
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
~ 14
"' ~ 15 ~~
~ ~ 16 0 0
:1: E
':i! g 17 0~
ul J 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
1. Leave For SJPOA To Sue In Quo warranto Should Be Denied Where It Will Result
In Multiple Proceedings
As demonstrated above, SJPOA's Application For Leave To Sue in Quo warranto should be
denied because it fails to establish a substantial question of fact or law. Even if SJPOA could meet this
first fundamental requirement of quo warranto, the application should nevertheless be denied for failure
to demonstrate that approving the application would serve the overall public interest.
As stated in City of Campbell v. Mosk (1961 ), 197 Cal.App. 2d 640, the mere existence of a
justiciable dispute does not establish that the public interest requires a judicial resolution ofthe dispute
or that leave be automatically granted for the relator to sue in quo warranto. It is clear that the Attorney
General can deny an application to sue in quo warranto based on the failure to meet the "serve the
overall public interest" prong of the two-part test. (City of Campbell v. Mask (1961)197 Cal.App.2d
640; 73 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 188 (1990).
More specifically, the Attorney General denied an application to sue to challenge a statewide
initiative affecting wages and working conditions of state employees where the same issue was pending
before an administrative agency, PERB. (75 Ops.Cal. Atty.Gen. 70 (1992).) The Attorney General
concluded "(w)here such alternatives have been undertaken, we do not deem it within the public interest
to try the same issues in multiple proceedings." The Attorney General has concluded that it is not in the
public interest to authorize multiple proceedings even when the issue in the quo warranto application is
not identical to the issue pending in another forum, provided that the underlying issue will be decided in
the other forum. (73 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 188 (1990.)
The relief that SJPOA prays for in its Verified Complaint in Quo warranto is for a judicial
determination that San Jose Charter Measure B adopted by the voters on June 5, 2012, is void and of no
effect. The plaintiff in this quo warranto application, the San Jose Police Officers' Association, has
previously filed on June 6, 2012, and is prosecuting its Complaint for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief
12
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO SJPOA'S APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO
SUE IN QUO WARRANTO; SHOWING OF GOOD CAUSE WHY LEAVE TO SUE SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED 123
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
0.. 13
::l
~ 14
C/) " 15 ~~
~ ~ 16
~ E
':i! g 17 0~
ul J 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
in Santa Clara Superior Court in the action San Jose Police Officers Association vs. City of San Jose,
Board of Administration for Police and Fire Department Retirement Plan of City of San Jose et al.
(Case No. 1-12-CV-225926.) Each of the causes of action in that lawsuit seeks invalidation of Measure
B. For example, the seventh cause of action in the complaint alleges a "Violation ofMMBA" by
increasing employee retirement contributions and allegedly eliminating SJPOA's ability to bargain with
the City over retiree health care benefits. SJPOA asks for a declaration and injunction prohibiting the
City from applying Charter Measure B to SJPOA members working for the City before June 5, 2012
(effectively the entire City police force as of the date of the vote on the Charter measure).
Consequently, SJPOA's quo warranto complaint will be directly and dispositively affected by
the result of its pending Superior Court litigation over the legality of Charter Measure B. Approving
SJPOA's application to sue in quo warranto would result in the exact multiple proceedings the Attorney
General has previously determined to not be in the public interest. (75 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. (1992).)
In addition, SJPOA filed and has pending in Santa Clara County Superior Court a Petition for
Writ of Mandate alleging the City's failure to comply with the MMBA, Case No. 1-2-CV-220795.
Resolution of this writ of mandate action will be dispositive ofSJPOA's MMBA claim.
Furthermore, there is another judicial action pending that may also be dispositive of the claims in
SJPOA's quo warranto complaint. In Sapien et al. vs. City of San Jose, Case. No. 1-12-CV-225928,
filed June 6, 2012, plaintiff members of the San Jose Police and Fire Department Retirement Plan are
seeking declaratory and injunctive relief that Charter Measure B cannot be applied because it violates
constitutional and vested contractual rights. It follows that the disposition of this pending litigation may
significantly impact the status and disposition of the quo warranto complaint, and would also result in
multiple judicial proceedings.
Finally, there are three matters pending before PERB that raise the exact issue SJPOA alleges in
its quo warranto complaint-whether the City complied with MMBA requirements prior to placing the
matter on the ballot. These were filed by OE#3, UPC 900-M, AFSCME, UPC 924-M, and IAFF, UPC
969-M. The Attorney General should follow the precedent established in 75 Ops. Cal. AG 70, Opinion
92-104, where application was denied based on the pending PERB review.
13
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO SJPOA'S APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO
SUE TN QUO WARRANTO; SHOWING OF GOOD CAUSE WHY LEAVE TO SUE SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED
124
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
0.. 13 ...., ....,
§ 14
</> ~ 15 ~~
f-< ~ 16 ..., »
0 " :r: E :;;il 0~ 17 ...,
</>
! 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2. Leave For SJPOA To Sue In Quo Warranto Should Be Deuied Where It Would Be
Damaging To Public Policy To Grant The Application
Mere demonstration of a question of law or fact does not by itself support Attorney General
approval of a quo warranto application. There must also be no other proceeding through which the
proposed relator could obtain relief, as shown above, and the issues for determination must serve the
overall public interest. SJPOA 's application to sue in quo warranto additionally fails the "overall public
interest" test. (72 Ops.Cal.Atty.Gen. 15, 19 (1989).)
SJPOA argues that leave to sue in quo warranto should be granted because "Measure B would
reduce pension benefits for current employees and retirees, it implicates benefits that are indisputably
subject to protection under the 'contracts' clause ofthe California State Constitution." Plaintiffs Memo
of Points and Authorities, page 10, lines 22-24. But this is not an issue that SJPOA's allegations under
the MMBA can resolve. On the contrary, the constitutional impairment of contracts issue is what is
alleged and will be litigated in SJPOA's other complaint currently pending in Santa Clara County
Superior Court, San Jose Police Officers Association vs. City of San Jose, Board of Administration for
Police and Fire Department Retirement Plan of City of San Jose et al., Case No. 1-12-CV -225926.
Nowhere in SJPOA's Verified Complaint is there any mention of constitutional impairment of contract
or that granting leave to sue will address or resolve any impairment of contract dispute. Thus, SJPOA's
reliance on the public importance of the impairment of contract issue for the quo warranto complaint is
simply wrong, as it is not an issue raised in its quo warranto complaint and is in fact the subject of its
other currently filed and pending action in Santa Clara County Superior Court.
That leaves as the sole remaining overall public interest justification "whether the City satisfied
its obligations under the MMBA." Plaintiffs Memo of Points and Authorities, page I 0, lines 18-20.
However, as demonstrated in the Seal Beach discussion above, there is no legitimate factual dispute
about whether or not the City satisfied its bargaining obligation prior to placing Charter Measure B on
the ballot in June, 2012.
SJPOA's attempt to argue that this case is similar to the Bakersfield Police Officers Association
application to sue in quo warranto misses the mark for multiple reasons. That matter is, in fact, readily
distinguishable from the situation presented here.
14
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO SJPOA'S APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO
SUE IN QUO WARRANTO; SHOWING OF GOOD CAUSE WHY LEAVE TO SUE SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED
125
"' _, _,
~
"' " ~~
f-< ~ 5 ~ :r: E :;;g
o<C ,..,
"' J
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
First, Seal Beach held only that that the MMBA and constitutional right to place a Charter
amendment on the ballot were not mutually exclusive and that there had to be a reasonable bargaining
effort prior to placing a ballot measure affecting subjects ofMMBA bargaining. In the Bakersfield case,
the City first informed the union of a possible ballot measure on May 6, 2010, and set a meet and confer
date of June 16,2010. The Council voted on June 9, 2010 to place the Charter measure on the ballot,
before a single meet and confer session with the union had taken place and approximately one month
after first providing notice of the ballot measure. The factual dispute in Bakersfield was over whether
the union was responsible for failing to meet and confer prior to the vote, and whether general
discussions about pension reform constituted met and confer over the ballot measure.
In direct contrast to the Bakersfield facts, SJPOA does not dispute that 1) it was provided with
notice of the possible ballot measure in July, 2011, almost one year prior to the election on the ballot
measure (Verified Complaint, para. 26); 2) SJPOA met, and conferred, 13 times with the City between
July 13, 2011 and October 20, 2011 (Verified Complaint, para. 30); and 3) the City continued to discuss
the ballot measure with SJPOA and participated in mediation and meetings 8 times from December
2011 through February, 2012. The public policy issue in Bakersfield was whether the City's not having
a single meet and confer session on the ballot measure was a breach ofMMBA and Seal Beach. Where
the City of San Jose bargained a minimum of21 times over the course of nine months prior to placing
the ballot measure, there is no overall public policy interest in enforcing meet and confer requirements
because they took place.
Furthermore, SJPOA's argues that-despite extensive meet and confer sessions and mediation
sessions occurring about the proposed ballot measure-the City's election after impasse to incorporate
some concessions in the ballot measure prevented Council action in adopting the ballot measure with
significant concessions in favor of SJPOA. The union's position is directly contrary to the public
interest in the collective bargaining process, and the intent of the Legislature in enacting the MMBA. If
SJPOA's argument is successful, a public employer reaching impasse with a union after extensive
bargaining about a ballot measure will be precluded from agreeing to further mediation or modifYing the
ballot proposal to incorporate concessions favoring the employees because of the risk that it will then be
unable to move forward with the ballot measure. Such a result would not serve the overall public
15
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO SJPOA'S APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO
SUE IN QUO WARRANTO; SHOWING OF GOOD CAUSE WHY LEAVE TO SUE SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED 126
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
p.. ...., ...., 14 §
"' ~ 15 ~~ 16 f-< ~ .., >,
0 ~ :r: E 17 :;;il o-< ..,
18 "' J 19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
I, the undersigned, am a resident of the State of California, over the age of eighteen years, and not a
party to the within action. My business address is 350 Sansome Street, Suite 300, San Francisco,
California, 941 04.
On July 6, 2012, I served the following documents(s) by the method indicated below:
D
D
D
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN OPPOSITION TO SJPOA'S
APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO SUE IN QUO WARRANTO; SHOWING OF GOOD
CAUSE WHY LEAVE TO SUE SHOULD NOT BE GRANTED
by placing the document( s) listed above in the sealed envelope( s) and by causing messenger
delivery of the envelope(s) to the person(s) at the address(es) set forth below. I am readily
familiar with the business practice of my place of employment with respect to the collection
and processing of correspondence, pleadings and notices for hand delivery.
by placing ALL document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope(s) and consigning it to an
express mail service for guaranteed delivery on the next business day following the date of
consignment to the address(es) set forth below.
by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope(s) with postage thereon fully
prepaid, in the United States mail at San Francisco, California addressed as set forth below. I
am readily familiar with the firm's practice of collection and processing correspondence for
mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited in the U.S. Postal Service on that same
day with postage thereon fully prepaid in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on
motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if the postal cancellation date or
postage meter date is more than one day after date of deposit for mailing in affidavit.
by electronic transmission via e-mail attachment (agreed by the parties served in this matter)
Gregg McLean Adam, SBN 203436 Attorneys for Petitioner SAN JOSE POLICE
OFFICERS' ASSOCIATION Jonathan Yank, SBN 215495
Jennifer S. Stoughton, SBN 238309
CARROLL, BURDICK & McDONOUGH LLP
44 Montgomery St, Suite 400
San Francisco, CA 94104
Telephone: (415) 989.5900
Facsimile:. (415) 989.0932
Email: gadam@cbmlaw.com
jyank@cbmlaw.com
jstoughton@cbmlaw.com
I declare under penalty of perjury under the law~ of the S_tate ?.fCalifof11iat~a!_the~b~~'i,s true and
correct. Executed on July 6, 2012, at San Francisco, Cahfo~<J....---····-·--.... _ ) J -~~ =-
Rochelle Redmayne
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE; CASE NO. 112CV220795 128
IN INTEREST ARBITRATION PURSUANT TO SECTION 1111
OF THE SAN JOSE CITY CHARTER
In The Matter of Interest Arbitration
Between
CITY OF SAN JOSE
Employer,
and
SAN JOSE POLICE OFFICERS’
ASSOCIATION,
Association.
JAMS REF# 1110015552
CITY OF SAN JOSE’S POST-HEARING
BRIEF RE SUCCESSOR MOA
Judicial Arbitration Mediation Services
(JAMS)
Before: Hon. John A. Flaherty (Ret.), Chair
Alex Gurza, City Board Member
James Unland, SJPOA Board Member
Hearing Dates: May 6-8, 2013
Jonathan V. Holtzman (99795)
Charles D. Sakai (173726)
David Kahn (98128)
Steven P. Shaw (242593)
RENNE SLOAN HOLTZMAN SAKAI
350 Sansome Street, Suite 300
San Francisco, California 94104
Telephone: (415) 678-3800
Attorneys for City of San Jose
129
i
CITY OF SAN JOSE’S POST-HEARING BRIEF RE SUCCESSOR MOA - JAMS REF# 1110015552
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 1
II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND ...................................................................................... 5
A. Bargaining History .................................................................................................. 5
III. FINAL OFFERS AND ISSUE ............................................................................................ 8
IV. APPLICABLE INTEREST ARBITRATION STANDARDS ............................................ 9
V. STATEMENT OF FACTS ................................................................................................ 11
VI. ARGUMENT ..................................................................................................................... 13
A. San Jose City Charter Section 1111 Establishes the Parameters of the
Arbitration Award ................................................................................................. 13
B. The Average Five-Revenue Increase from Taxes is 1.24% and the Award
Can Not Exceed This Limit .................................................................................. 14
C. SJPOA’s Proposal For A 10% Wage “Restoration” is Subject to the
Section 1111(g)(1) Limit ...................................................................................... 15
D. Application of Charter Criteria to the Parties Proposals ....................................... 16
1. Term .......................................................................................................... 16
2. Wages ........................................................................................................ 17
a. Application of Section 1111(g)(1) ................................................ 17
b. All Other Charter Section 1111 Criteria Support the City’s
Proposal......................................................................................... 18
3. Vacation Accrual and Leave Balance ....................................................... 19
4. Overtime ................................................................................................... 19
5. Premium Pay ............................................................................................. 20
6. Sick Leave Payout - Current Employees and New Hires ......................... 20
E. SJPOA Testimony Did Not Address the Applicable Interest
Arbitration Standards ............................................................................................ 21
VII. CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. 24
130
1
CITY OF SAN JOSE’S POST-HEARING BRIEF RE SUCCESSOR MOA - JAMS REF# 1110015552
Neither side wins in interest arbitration. When an interest arbitrator is saddled with the
task of determining which of the parties offers of settlement best fit the criteria set forth in the
San Jose City Charter, “prevailing” in interest arbitration often means that either the City or
bargaining unit is saddled with results less desirable than that which could have been negotiated.
That truism is more “true” in this case than ever. Here, as demonstrated by continued settlement
proposals after the conclusion of the arbitration hearings, both parties recognize the equities in
increasing police officer compensation beginning in Fiscal Year 2013-14 and moving salaries
towards 2009 levels. However, while both parties have proposed increases in Fiscal Year 2013-
14, the City Charter expressly prohibits the Arbitration Board from issuing an award increasing
compensation by an amount in excess of revenue growth in specific tax categories. This year,
unfortunately, that award amount is zero.
It follows that no matter how much the City or the Arbitration Board wants to increase
police officer compensation in San Jose, that increased compensation must be accomplished
through negotiations rather than through an award in this interest arbitration.
I. INTRODUCTION
This interest arbitration is not about crime statistics. Nor is it about officer morale and
retention issues. While all of those things are extremely important to both the City of San Jose
(“City”) and the San Jose Police Officers’ Association (“SJPOA”) and have driven settlement
proposals by both sides outside of this arbitration process, this case is solely about what the
Arbitration Board is authorized to award under the provisions of the City Charter.
In 2010, the voters amended Section 1111 of the San Jose City Charter. In so doing, the
electorate chose not to eliminate interest arbitration as many other jurisdictions have done.
Instead, the voters placed strict limits on what the Arbitration Board can and cannot do. The
voters made the City’s fiscal situation the primary consideration for any arbitration award and
prohibited the Arbitration Board from making an award which (1) results in a total compensation
increase that exceeds the increase in specified tax revenues over the prior five years,
(2) retroactively increases or decreases compensation (not including wages), (3) creates a new
unfunded liability, or (4) interferes with the discretion of the Police Chief to make managerial,
operational or staffing decisions. (Charter Section 1111(g).) “Compensation” was also defined
131
2
CITY OF SAN JOSE’S POST-HEARING BRIEF RE SUCCESSOR MOA - JAMS REF# 1110015552
to mean “all costs to the City, whether new or ongoing, for salary paid and benefits provided to
employees”, including, among others, wages, healthcare and pension costs. (Charter Section
1111(f).)
This is the first interest arbitration under the new Charter Section 1111. Perhaps
predictably, this case centers on the SJPOA’s desire to return police officer compensation to the
levels they enjoyed in 2009, prior to a negotiated 10% wage reduction in 2011 as the result the
City’s fiscal challenges. This negotiated concession avoided the additional layoffs of police
officers and, therefore, further erosion in public safety services. However, as the City
demonstrated in arbitration, that increase would substantially exceed the limitations of Charter
Section 1111. On the other hand, the City and the SJPOA can reach a negotiated agreement that
is not constrained by Charter Section 1111 limits, and the City has proposed and continues to
propose wage increases to the SJPOA that substantially exceed the Charter limits on the
Arbitration Board. Unfortunately, the parties have been unable to reach a negotiated agreement,
and any SJPOA counter-proposal must take into account the City’s fiscal condition and the need
to restore services to the community. It follows that the issue of compensation and other
applicable Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) terms must be submitted to this Arbitration
Board for an award consistent with San Jose City Charter Section 1111 limitations.
The City of San Jose recognizes and highly values the services and dedication of the
officers represented by the SJPOA. The City strongly wishes its fiscal condition would allow
more flexibility in negotiating salary increases for the SJPOA. But the City and SJPOA must
recognize the realities of the situation. The City experienced $670 million dollars of shortfalls
between 2002 and 2013 in its General Fund, which includes police salaries and benefits. A
major factor in this shortfall is the skyrocketing cost of retirement and health benefits for City
employees, including police. Between the 2008-09 and 2013-14 fiscal years, during the worst
recession since the Great Depression, and despite significant wage concessions by the SJPOA,
average police officer total compensation increased 21% from $160,635 to $193,868, and sixty-
six police officers were still laid off in fiscal year 2011-12. During this same time period, the
City lost 1,687 employees due to lay-offs and departures, and drastically reduced City services to
its residents, notwithstanding significant wage concessions from all city employees including the
SJPOA.
132
3
CITY OF SAN JOSE’S POST-HEARING BRIEF RE SUCCESSOR MOA - JAMS REF# 1110015552
Charter Section 1111
In reaction to the ever-increasing City employee and service cuts and concerns about
prior interest arbitrations awards that ignored the City’s fiscal situation and ability to fund and
sustain the awards and which resulted in service cuts for residents, in November 2010 San Jose
voters amended the San Jose City Charter through Measure V, now incorporated into the revised
Charter Section 1111.1 While Charter Section 1111 is applicable only where the City and
SJPOA are unable to reach a negotiated agreement on terms for a Memorandum of Agreement, it
unequivocally places a number of limits on what this Arbitration Board may award. Most
importantly, Charter Section 1111(g)(1) prohibits this Arbitration Board from issuing any award
that:
Increases the projected cost of compensation for the bargaining units at a
rate that exceeds the rate of increase in revenues from the sales tax,
property tax, utility tax and telephone tax averaged over the prior five
fiscal years.
It is an undisputed fact that the average revenue change for the five years preceding this interest
arbitration is 1.24%.2 And the Arbitration Board’s award is also legally constrained by the
definition of compensation in Charter Section 1111(f):
“Compensation” shall mean all costs to the City, whether new or
ongoing, for salary paid and benefits provided to employees, including
but not limited to wages, special pay, premium pay, incentive pay,
pension, retiree medical coverage, employee medical and dental
coverage, other insurance provided by the City, vacation, holidays, and
other paid time off.
Because the City’s 2013-14 SJPOA retirement costs alone are already increasing by 4%, these
additional costs exceed the permitted 1.24% under Charter Section 1111(g)(1) calculations and
mandate that the City’s last and best offer of status quo is the award closest to the Charter
Section 1111 criteria and accordingly must be the Arbitration Board’s award.3
1 Measure V passed by a 2-1 margin, 66.5% yes to 33.5% no.
2 Telephone tax is excluded due to the lack of five years of data; however, there was no significant growth in
telephone tax revenue over the two years for which data is available. As discussed further herein, and as
demonstrated at arbitration, if the telephone tax data were included, the 1.24% figure would actually decrease.
3 The Charter Section 1111 standards and criteria under which this Interest Arbitration Board can issue an award are
set out in detail in the City’s Pre-Hearing Brief, which is hereby incorporated by reference.
133
4
CITY OF SAN JOSE’S POST-HEARING BRIEF RE SUCCESSOR MOA - JAMS REF# 1110015552
Notwithstanding the legal limits related to the award authority of the Arbitration Board,
the City has offered in negotiations, both pre and post interest arbitration, compensation
increases that substantially exceed the Charter Section 1111(g)(1) limit, and that recognize the
retention and competitive salary issues for the SJPOA. The City’s wage offer immediately prior
to the interest arbitration hearing on May 6 offered a 5.44% compensation increase for 2013-14.
In negotiations subsequent to the May 8 conclusion of the hearing, the City increased its offer to
a 9% compensation increase over two years. Unfortunately, the SJPOA has rejected these
negotiated compensation offers and its counter-offers continue to fail to acknowledge the City’s
fiscal realities. The City’s proposals reflect what it can afford in recognition of the multitude of
services that the City provides to its citizens. The City strongly believes, as should the SJPOA,
that requiring this Arbitration Board to make an award under Charter Section 1111 is not in the
best interests of both the City and the SJPOA. A negotiated agreement, in which the City is
legally permitted to exceed the Arbitration Board’s Charter award limit, should be reached.
The SJPOA presented evidence and testimony related to salary and retention concerns for
San Jose police officers, and evidence related to an apparently improving regional economic
climate. However, nothing that the SJPOA presented at the interest arbitration challenged or
disputed the 1.24% average revenue increase over the past five years and the resulting legal limit
on the Arbitration Board’s ability to award compensation exceeding that amount. Furthermore,
the SJPOA presented testimony that the City should prioritize the wage increases for the SJPOA
at the cost of the other employees of the City who provide other services that the citizens pay for
and expect.
In addition to the wage issue, the parties presented proposals and last offers on the term
of the agreement, vacation pay, overtime, premium pay during leave, and sick leave payout for
new and current employees, which are all deemed “compensation” by Charter Section 1111 and
thus subject to its limitations. Because the SJPOA’s last best offers on these issues would either
result in a violation of the Charter Section 1111(g)(1) limit, or are inconsistent with other Charter
Section 1111 criteria, the Arbitration Board should award the City’s last offers on all of these
issues.
134
5
CITY OF SAN JOSE’S POST-HEARING BRIEF RE SUCCESSOR MOA - JAMS REF# 1110015552
II. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
A. Bargaining History
The City Council in November 2010 approved the budgetary goal of reducing total
ongoing employee compensation by 10%, as well as other cost-saving measures such as
retirement reform, sick leave payout, disability leave supplement, and compensation structure.
The City and SJPOA began bargaining for a successor MOA in January 2011, and reached a
Tentative Agreement on June 3, 2011, that was ratified by the SJPOA and approved by the City.
The Tentative Agreement included a 10% base wage reduction, which the City contended should
be ongoing while the SJPOA asserted the 10% base wage reduction should end after one year.
(JX 19.) When the City and SJPOA could not reach agreement on whether the 10% base wage
reduction was temporary or ongoing, they agreed in June 2011 to submit the issue to interest
arbitration pursuant to Charter Section 1111.4 The City and SJPOA scheduled interest arbitration
for December 12, 2011, but reached a negotiated agreement avoiding the December 2011 interest
arbitration.
The City-SJPOA Agreement reached on December 7, 2011, provided:
Wages. Effective June 26, 2011, all salary ranges for employees
represented by the POA were decreased by approximately 10%. This
resulted in the top and bottom of the range of all classifications
represented by the POA being 10% lower. The parties agree that the
10% wage reduction shall remain the “status quo” unless and until it is
modified through mutual agreement or through the decision of an
arbitrator pursuant to Section 1111 of the San Jose City Charter. (JX 19)
The City and the SJPOA agreed to begin negotiations for the successor MOA by January
1, 2013, and to begin interest arbitration pursuant to Charter Section 1111 by May 1, 2013, with
an award by May 31, 2013.5 (JX 19.) The City’s negotiator, Mr. Sakai, confirmed that the issue
4 Measure V amending Charter Section 1111 to its current provisions before the Arbitration Board was passed in
November 2010 and in effect in June 2011.
5 These timelines were extended by mutual agreement.
135
6
CITY OF SAN JOSE’S POST-HEARING BRIEF RE SUCCESSOR MOA - JAMS REF# 1110015552
of the 10% salary reduction was subject to arbitration under Charter Section 1111.6 (Sakai, TR
Vol. II, 442:6-19.) Mr. Sakai stated:
From our perspective, this arbitration is simply a Section 1111
arbitration based on all the limitations within it. And that was the intent
of the parties at the time was that the POA could come here. They could
certainly propose a 10 percent wage increase based on the fact that
they’ve given the 10% concession, but that that would be subject to
Section 1111 and the limitations thereof…. (Sakai, TR Vol. II, 442:11-
18.)
While the parties believed the agreed-upon arbitration timelines were a catalyst to
reaching agreement, the interest arbitration on May 6, 7 and 8 took place before impasse was
reached at the bargaining table. The City remains hopeful that the wage and other issues can be
resolved at the bargaining table.7
As a result of negotiations that were continuing when the interest arbitration hearing
commenced on May 6, 2013, the City had already proposed wages and compensation
substantially exceeding the Charter Section 1111 cap. The City’s initial wage offer included the
addition of a 2.5% step at the top of the salary range for two years. The City later revised its
wage proposal to include a 2% general wage increase or an additional step of 2.5%; plus 80
hours of leave balance buydown; plus City payment of 50% of the long-term disability premium;
and increasing the uniform allowance to $900. This offer represented an approximate 5.44%
increase in compensation, at a City cost of approximately $8.45 million dollars.8 (Schembri, TR
Vol. III 580:8-581:13; CX 12, p. 4.) In contrast, the SJPOA’s last proposal prior to interest
arbitration was for a 10% wage increase in year 1; plus a 3% increase in year 2; plus removal of
the caps on vacation accrual and overtime; plus ongoing leave buydown of 80 hours; and
increasing the uniform allowance to $1000. At minimum, the cost of the POA’s proposal was
6 The SJPOA negotiator, Mr. Tennant, alleged that the Section 1111 limits on the Arbitration Board did not apply to
the 10% wage “concession” and that it could be restored whether or not it violated the Charter provisions on wage
increases, based only on comparables. (Tennant, TR Vol. II, 442:21-443:14.) But the clear language in the
Agreement, Section 1111, and the idea that the City would agree to a $20 million wage increase without regard to
revenue or other budgetary issues make clear that this interpretation is without merit.
7 As this Board is aware, a separate dispute concerning 2nd Tier retirement benefits mandated by Measure B was
resolved through negotiations shortly before the first day of interest arbitration on that matter, which had been
scheduled for April 26, 2013.
8 2.54% of the wage increase was ongoing.
136
7
CITY OF SAN JOSE’S POST-HEARING BRIEF RE SUCCESSOR MOA - JAMS REF# 1110015552
approximately $33.1 million over 2 years before adding the vacation and overtime costs, nearly
four (4) times the costs associated with the City’s proposal.9 (Schembri, TR Vol. III 583:11-
587:22; CX 12, p. 5.)
It is important to note that for Fiscal Year 2013-14, the City is projecting a small General
Fund shortfall. However, built into the 2014-2018 General Fund Forecast for 2013-14 is a set-
aside for salary adjustments City-wide in the form of an Employee Compensation Planning
Reserve of $11.1 million. The primary reason the City was able to factor in the Employee
Compensation Planning Reserve is that some elements of the Fiscal Reform Plan (approximately
$20 million dollars in General Fund savings) has been implemented and included as part of the
City’s Fiscal Year 2013-14 budget. Without these savings, the City would not have been able to
include this Reserve. This $20 million dollars in savings is currently the subject of litigation and
it is possible that the savings will not be realized in whole or part.
Negotiations between the City and SJPOA have continued after the conclusion of the
interest arbitration hearing on May 8, 2013. On May 16, the City provided SJPOA with a
package proposal for settlement prior to the submission of Last Offers to this Arbitration Board.
The City’s proposal was a 2-year contract term, including a 2.5% general wage increase in year 1
and a 2.5% general wage increase in year 2, plus a 4% non-pensionable retention bonus towards
the end of year 2. After the conclusion of the arbitration hearing, the Budget Office received
additional information on May 17, 2013, allowing it to recommend establishing an earmarked
reserve fund for the full amount of this proposal. The City’s proposal also included sick leave
payout frozen at current hours and rates for current employees; and non-economic proposals on
outsourcing, transfer, weapons, and a reopener for retirement benefits.10 This City proposal,
similar to the pre-arbitration proposal, substantially exceeds the maximum that this Arbitration
Board can award pursuant to Charter Section 1111(g), and expressly states that the City’s last
offer in interest arbitration must be consistent with Section 1111(g) limitations.
Unfortunately, SJPOA’s counter-proposal of a 10.7% wage increase over 2 years coupled
with a 3% retention payment, for a total of 13.7%, plus the cashout of vacation and
9 2.54% of the wage increase was ongoing.
10 A copy of the City’s May 16 proposal is attached. While not part of the arbitration hearing record, the proposal is
a public document and the City requests that the Arbitration Board take judicial notice of the proposal.
137
8
CITY OF SAN JOSE’S POST-HEARING BRIEF RE SUCCESSOR MOA - JAMS REF# 1110015552
compensatory time, continued to demonstrate a failure to acknowledge the fiscal realities of the
City and the City views this proposal as more costly than previous proposals made by the
SJPOA.
III. FINAL OFFERS AND ISSUE
The San Jose Charter provides for “issue by issue” and “last offer” interest arbitration.
Under this system, each party submits a last offer of settlement on each of the issues in dispute at
the conclusion of the arbitration hearings. (San Jose Charter Section 1111(e).) This Interest
Arbitration Board then votes separately on each issue, selecting the last offer of settlement that
most closely meets the criteria specified in the Charter. (Id.)
The City and SJPOA have negotiated and reached impasse on the following successor
MOA terms, and accordingly are asking the Interest Arbitration Board to decide:
Shall the Arbitration Board adopt the last settlement offers proposed by
the City, or those proposed by the SJPOA?
The final settlement offers under Charter Section 1111(e) are as follows:
Issue City of San Jose San Jose Police Officers Association
1. Term of Memorandum
of Agreement
One year Two Years
2. Wages Status quo (1.24% - 4%
retirement and health care cost
increases = 0%)
4% July 1, 2013
3% January 1, 2014
3% July 1, 2014 with contingency to
delay this increase to January 1, 2015
only
3. Vacation Accrual Cap Status quo Suspend vacation accrual cap with re-
opener when 1250 sworn officers
4. Leave Balance
Buydown
Status quo Annual 80 hour cash-out with
contingency. Contingency for one year
only.
5. Overtime Employee option to be paid for
overtime or credited with
compensatory time, subject to
request during pay period
when overtime worked and
Departmental overtime budget
Eliminate cap on cash payment for
overtime
Employee option to receive
compensatory time off in lieu of cash
payment
6. Premium Pay While On
Leave
No premium pay when on paid
or unpaid leave for more than
one pay period
Status quo
138
9
CITY OF SAN JOSE’S POST-HEARING BRIEF RE SUCCESSOR MOA - JAMS REF# 1110015552
Issue City of San Jose San Jose Police Officers Association
7. Sick Leave Payout –
Current Employees
Hourly balance and hourly rate
frozen as of June 23, 2013.
Future sick leave use based on
“last in, first out”. Sick leave
accrual after June 23, 2013 not
eligible for payout
Freeze sick leave balances effective
June 30, 2013
July 1, 2013 – After bank of 300 sick
leave hours, annual payout of 50 hours
if employee uses less than 30 hours sick
leave during fiscal year
8. Sick Leave Payout –
New Employees
No sick leave payout for new
employees
July 1, 2013 – After bank of 300 sick
leave hours, annual payout of 50 hours
if employee uses less than 30 hours sick
leave during fiscal year
IV. APPLICABLE INTEREST ARBITRATION STANDARDS
This arbitration is being conducted under Charter Section 1111, which establishes the
mandatory criteria for this Arbitration Board to make its award. Charter Section 1111(f)
provides that the Arbitration Board “shall decide each issue by majority vote by selecting
whichever last offer of settlement on that issue it finds by the preponderance of the evidence
submitted to the Arbitration Board”:
1. Satisfies section (f), which provides that
a. The primary factors in decisions regarding compensation shall be the
City’s financial condition and, in addition, its ability to pay for employee
compensation from on-going revenues without reducing City services;
and
b. The arbitrators shall also consider and give substantial weight to the rate of
increase or decrease of compensation approved by the City Council for other
bargaining units
2. Is in the best interest and promotes the welfare of the public, and
3. Most nearly conforms with those factors traditionally taken into consideration in
the determination of wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of public and
private employment, including, but not limited to,
a. Changes in the average consumer price index for goods and services,
b. The wages, hours, and other terms and conditions of employment of other
employees performing similar services.
139
10
CITY OF SAN JOSE’S POST-HEARING BRIEF RE SUCCESSOR MOA - JAMS REF# 1110015552
Moreover, Charter Section 1111also places the following express limitations on the
Arbitration Board, including providing that the award:
1. Must include a determination by a majority of the Arbitration Board, based upon
a fair and thorough review of the City’s financial condition and a cost analysis of
the parties’ last offers, that the City can meet the cost of the award from on-going
revenues without reducing City services (Charter Section 1111(f).);
2. Must not increase the projected cost of compensation for the bargaining units at a
rate that exceeds the rate of increase in revenues from the sales tax, property tax,
utility tax and telephone tax averaged over the prior five fiscal years (Charter
Section 1111(g)(1));
3. Must not retroactively increase or decrease compensation, including, but not
limited to, enhancements to pension and retiree health benefit for service already
rendered, but excluding base wages (Charter Section 1111(g)(2);
4. Must not create a new or additional unfunded liability for which the City would
be obligated to pay (Charter Section 1111(g)(3)); and
5. Must not deprive or interfere with the discretion of the Police Chief or Fire Chief
to make managerial, operational or staffing decisions, rules, orders and policies in
the interest of the effective and efficient provision of police and fire services to
the public (Charter Section 1111(g)(4).).
This arbitration centers on matters which fall within the definition of Compensation set
forth in Charter Section 1111(f), which defines compensation as:
“Compensation” shall mean all costs to the City, whether new or
ongoing, for salary paid and benefits provided to employees, including
but not limited to wages, special pay, premium pay, incentive pay,
pension, retiree medical coverage, employee medical and dental
coverage, other insurance provided by the City, vacation, holidays, and
other paid time off. (emphasis added)
Issue 2 (Wages), Issue 3 (Vacation Accrual Cap), Issue 4 (Leave Payout), Issue 5
(Overtime), Issue 6 (Sick Leave Payout – Existing Employees), Issue 7 (Sick Leave Payout –
New Employees), and Issue 8 (Premium Pays During Paid Leave) all fall within the definition of
Compensation. Consequently, the first limitation in Charter Section 1111(g) is the central
determinant of the Arbitration Board’s decision with regard to compensation and is critical to
this Arbitration Board’s deliberations.
140
11
CITY OF SAN JOSE’S POST-HEARING BRIEF RE SUCCESSOR MOA - JAMS REF# 1110015552
V. STATEMENT OF FACTS
City Manager Deb Figone established the context for the 2013 SJPOA negotiations and
this interest arbitration. (Figone TR Vol. I, 189:3-190:8.) The total general fund shortfall
between 2002-03 and 2012-13 was $670 million dollars. (CX 5, p. 3.) Over the ten-year period
from 2002 to 2012, approximately 2,000 City employees lost their jobs due to budget constraints.
(Figone TR Vol. I, 191:10-23.) The current employee count is the same as the City’s staffing
level in 1998-99, when the City had 200,000 fewer residents. (Figone TR Vol. I, 201:17-24.)
The San Jose Police and Fire Department Retirement Board’s independent actuarial study
documented an increase in the City’s retirement contribution rate between 2003 and 2014 from
12.01% to 70.55%; the employee contribution rate increase during the same period was 8.44% to
11.67%. (CX 5, p. 4.) Some of the many cost saving measures the City was required to
implement to address the general fund shortfall included wage freezes and a 10% total
compensation reduction for all City employees; reduction in public safety and other municipal
services; and modifying medical and retirement benefit plans. (CX 5, p. 7; Figone TR Vol. I,
207:19-208:17.)
The factual determination of the increase in revenues from sales tax, property tax, utility
tax and telephone tax averaged over the last 5 years is dispositive for this interest arbitration. As
a purely data-driven fact, it is not subject to dispute. Deputy Budget Director Margaret
McCahan explained how the calculation was derived. The tax revenues from 2006-07 were used
as the base year, with the five subsequent fiscal year figures used to determine the change in
revenue. The average revenue increase for the 5 years prior to the arbitration is 1.24%. (JX 22;
McCahan TR Vol. I, 159:16-163:19).)11 The percentage that the City will be paying toward
police retirement contributions is going up from 65.7% in 2012-13 to 73% in 2013-14.
(McCahan TR Vol. I, 168:12-17.) This means that the City’s compensation costs in 2013-14 will
increase 4% over 2012-13 costs based solely on the increased retirement contribution. (McCahan
TR Vol. I, 168:18-23.)
11 As mentioned in FN 2, supra, the calculation excludes telephone tax due to the lack of 5-year data. However,
including the 2 years of telephone tax data available would not significantly alter the 1.24% average increase, and
would, in fact decrease the average rate of increase to approximately 1.16%.
141
12
CITY OF SAN JOSE’S POST-HEARING BRIEF RE SUCCESSOR MOA - JAMS REF# 1110015552
Jennifer Maguire, Budget Director, testified about the City and Police Department’s
budget. (CX 15.) 99% of the Police Department’s budget is funded by the General Fund.
(Maguire TR Vol. III, 861:25- 862:3; CX 15, p.10.) The Police Department’s budget has
increased by 9% from 2008-09 to 2013-14 fiscal years, which is despite a 13% decrease of
staffing in the same time period. (Maguire TR Vol. III, 862:8-17;CX 15, p.11.) A top step
police officer will receive total compensation of $193,868 in 2013-14, up 21% from $160,635
total compensation in 2008-09. (Maguire TR Vol. III, 863:6-24; CX 15, p. 12.)
The City’s 2013-14 Proposed General Fund Budget includes an Employee Compensation
Planning Reserve of $11.1 million to support approximately 2% compensation increases for
police, fire and all other City employees in the General Fund. (Maguire TR Vol. III, 874:8-11;
CX 15, p. 17.) Subsequent to the interest arbitration hearing, revised property tax data allowed
the City Manager’s Budget Office to recommend an earmarked $10 million dollar reserve fund
for POA to fully fund the City’s May 16 proposal. (JX 33) If the 10% across-the-board
compensation reduction was restored for all City employees, the general fund cost would be
approximately $55,410,000. (Maguire TR Vol. III, 875:8-12; CX 15, p. 22.) If the 10%
reduction was restored only for the SJPOA, it would nonetheless cost approximately
$21,250,000. (CX 15, p. 22.) The budgetary impact of restoring the 10% compensation
reduction to all employees, or even to just the SJPOA, would be detrimental to the City’s efforts
to gradually and responsibly restore wages to all of its employees, and services and service levels
to its citizens.
Although wages represent the majority of a compensation increase, other terms with
economic impacts are also part of compensation. The City proposed a one year non-contingent
term because of a projected $13.7 budget shortfall. (Schembri, TR Vol. III, 580:16-20, 588:13-
19.) The status quo is that vacation accrual is capped at twice the employee’s maximum annual
vacation accrual. The SJPOA’s proposal to remove the vacation accrual cap and allow unlimited
vacation accrual would have a significant cost impact to the City, although the exact amount
can’t be determined until the payouts occur. (Schembri, TR Vol. III, 584:7-585:2.) The City’s
proposal to provide a one-time leave balance buy-down of 80 hours has a cost of approximately
$3.4 million dollars. (Schembri, TR Vol. III, 608:15-609:5.) If the 80 hour buy-down is ongoing
then it adds the $3.4 million as an additional cost every year. (Schembri, TR Vol. III, 609:1-5.)
142
13
CITY OF SAN JOSE’S POST-HEARING BRIEF RE SUCCESSOR MOA - JAMS REF# 1110015552
The MOA currently provides for a maximum of 6 hours of overtime per shift, with additional
hours accrued as compensatory time off. (Schembri, TR Vol. III, 585:6-587:6.) The SJPOA
proposal to remove the overtime pay cap and allow employees the discretion to be paid in cash
or comp time for all overtime “could cost the City quite a bit of money….and it would really
take away any control the City has on overtime costs.” (Id.)
The current sick leave payout provisions provide for unlimited sick leave payout after 20
years of service, at the final hourly rate earned but not necessarily at the hourly rate when the
sick leave hours were actually earned. (Schembri, TR Vol. III, 597:15-23.) In 2011-12, the
SJPOA sick leave payout alone was approximately $3,676,307. (CX 12, p. 11.)
VI. ARGUMENT
As stated on multiple occasions, the City believes it is unfortunate that the issues of
compensation and other MOA terms are being decided through interest arbitration rather than a
negotiated agreement. That said, without a City-SJPOA agreement the Arbitration Board must
issue an award which complies with the Charter limitations of (1) the City’s ability to pay from
ongoing revenues without reducing City services; (2) the rate of increase or decrease of
compensation approved for other bargaining units; (3) promotion of the public welfare and
consideration of traditional factors such as changes in the consumer price index and comparable
wages; and (4) not increasing compensation at a rate exceeding the prior five year average
revenue increase from sales, property, utility and telephone taxes. When the Arbitration Board
applies these San Jose City Charter criteria, it is evident that the City’s last offers on each of the
issues more closely conforms to these criteria than the SJPOA’s last offers. Furthermore, as the
party proposing changes from the “status quo”, the SJPOA would bear the burden of proof even
without the Charter limits. (Elkouri, Ch. 22.10.C.)
A. San Jose City Charter Section 1111 Establishes the Parameters of the Arbitration
Award
The City, the SJPOA, and ultimately this Arbitration Board, are subject to the provisions
of San Jose Charter Section 1111 setting the standards for and limitations on an interest
143
14
CITY OF SAN JOSE’S POST-HEARING BRIEF RE SUCCESSOR MOA - JAMS REF# 1110015552
arbitration award. As the court states in Creighton v. City of Santa Monica, 160 Cal. App
3d (1984):
A city’s charter is, of course, the equivalent of a local constitution. It is
the supreme organic law of the city…Within its scope, such a charter is
to a city what the state Constitution is to the state. (citations omitted)
It follows that any offer or award that exceeds the limits expressly set by Charter Section 1111
would be in violation of the City’s “Constitution” and presumptively invalid and outside of the
Board’s authority. In addition, Charter Section 1111(h) provides that the limitations set forth in
Charter Section 1111 are “mandatory and enforceable” and that “failure to comply with these
provisions shall also constitute an act in excess of jurisdiction.”
B. The Average Five-Revenue Increase from Taxes is 1.24% and the Award Can Not
Exceed This Limit
Notwithstanding the other criteria in Charter Section 1111 for evaluating last offers of
settlement, Charter Section 1111(g)(1) provides that the Arbitration Board “shall not” issue an
award that:
Increases the projected cost of compensation for the bargaining units at a
rate that exceeds the rate of increase in revenues from the sales tax,
property tax, utility tax and telephone tax averaged over the prior five
fiscal years.
The SJPOA requested City information and calculation on the maximum rate of increase
pursuant to Section 1111(g) on March 15, 2013 (JX 21). On March 20, 2013, the City provided
the General Fund Revenue History for 2006-07 through 2012 in a spreadsheet showing what the
tax revenues were for the past five years and the basis for the Charter Section 1111 Calculation.
(JX 22). The undisputed average five year percentage increase is 1.24%. (JX 22; McCahan TR
Vol. I, 159:16-163-19.) It follows that any settlement offer that increases the cost of
compensation in the MOA by more than 1.24% is per se in violation of Charter Section 1111(g).
While the City has proposed substantially more than a 1.24% compensation increase in
its negotiation proposals to SJPOA, and continues to work toward a negotiated resolution, its last
settlement offer of the status quo for a wage increase is mandated by the Charter, as is the
Arbitration Board’s award of the City’s last offer on the wage issue. “Compensation” as defined
by the Charter includes City retiree and health care costs, and pension costs, in addition to
144
15
CITY OF SAN JOSE’S POST-HEARING BRIEF RE SUCCESSOR MOA - JAMS REF# 1110015552
wages. In 2013-14, City costs for pension and retiree health care contributions are increasing by
4%. (JX 1, p. 21; McCahan TR Vol. I, 168:18-23.) Because this already exceeds the 1.24%
Charter cap, the City cannot offer nor can the Arbitration Board award a wage increase that
would add to an amount exceeding Charter Section 1111(g)(1)’s limit. And it is a mathematical
reality that SJPOA’s final offer of a 4% wage increase July 1, 2013, plus a 3% wage increase
December 31, 2013 plus another 3% increase July 1, 2014, plus leave cashouts, would increase
the compensation for the SJPOA well beyond the 1.24% cap and therefore is beyond the
jurisdiction of the Arbitration Board to award.
Moreover, because the Charter defines the term “compensation,” to mean all costs to the
City, including things such as the cost of retiree health care and pensions, any proposed wage
increases increase must be offset by existing cost increases in those other areas. As
demonstrated at the hearing, these benefits will increase the cost of compensation by 4% in
2013-14, without any other increase in the wages or benefits of classifications represented by the
SJPOA. Therefore, the Arbitration Board can make no award that increases the cost of
compensation in 2013-14 and the City, unfortunately, cannot provide a last offer in arbitration
that increases the compensation for the SJPOA.
C. SJPOA’s Proposal For A 10% Wage “Restoration” is Subject to the Section
1111(g)(1) Limit
SJPOA asserted at the hearing that the interest arbitration award on the issue of whether
the June 26, 2011 salary reduction of 10% was ongoing or expired on June 30, 2013, was not
subject to all criteria in Charter Section 1111 -- specifically the five-year average revenue cap.
The evidence, however, demonstrates that the so-called restoration of the 10% salary reduction is
subject to all Charter Section 1111 criteria. The tentative agreement signed by the SJPOA on
December 7, 2011,12 states in relevant part:
Wages. Effective June 26, 2011, all salary ranges for employee
represented by the POA were decreased by approximately 10%. This
resulted in the top and bottom of the range of all classifications
represented by the POA being 10% lower. The parties agree that the
12 SJPOA would have the Arbitration Board consider the language of the prior tentative agreement on wages, which
provided that the parties would arbitrate the issue of whether the 10% wage reduction should be ongoing in
December of 2011. However, the parties’ December 2011 agreement superseded this agreement. Therefore, the
June 2011 agreement is not relevant to this proceeding or to a determination of status quo.
145
16
CITY OF SAN JOSE’S POST-HEARING BRIEF RE SUCCESSOR MOA - JAMS REF# 1110015552
10% wage reduction shall remain the “status quo” unless and until it
is modified through mutual agreement or through the decision of an
arbitrator pursuant to Section 1111 of the San Jose City Charter.
(JX 19.) (emphasis added)
The Charter was amended by San Jose voters in November 2010, to include the current
criteria for interest arbitration, including Section 1111(g)(1). All criteria were in effect on June
3, 2011. The tentative agreement language does not exclude any provisions of Charter Section
1111. There is nothing to indicate that any provisions of Charter Section 1111 would not apply.
Moreover, underscoring the parties’ intent on the issue (which is in any event irrelevant given
plain language of the agreement) is an email exchange between counsel for the parties prior to
the drafting and signing of the tentative agreement, which provided, inter alia, that “10% would
be status quo in bargaining and in arbitration.” (JX 20.) Finally, both Mr. Sakai and Mr.
Tennant, who negotiated this agreement on behalf of the City and the SJPOA, respectively,
testified that the parties understood that the wage reduction would not “sunset” and that the
SJPOA would have the burden of proving that any proposed wage increase would be consistent
with the criteria set forth in Charter Section 1111.
Moreover, the SJPOA has apparently abandoned this position as it has subsequently
proposed wage increases totaling 7% in 2013-14 (4% July 1 and 3% January 1) and 3% in 2014-
15. In other words, the SJPOA proposal is not for a simple restoration of the wage increase.
Instead, the SJPOA proposes 3 different wage increases over the term of the agreement, none of
which are consistent with a “sunset” expiration of the 10% concession or a wage “restoration”.
D. Application of Charter Criteria to the Parties Proposals
1. Term
As demonstrated below, the City’s last proposal of maintaining the status quo for wages
is compelled by the voters’ adoption of the City Charter if the parties are unable to reach
agreement, but does not reflect what the City has proposed as a wage increase during
negotiations. In the event that the SJPOA does not accept a City proposal allowing for an
increase in wages and the Arbitration Board must select the City’s last wage offer maintaining
the status quo, it serves neither party to extend the status quo beyond the next opportunity for
negotiating a successor MOA after one year. Moreover, the limitations set in Section 1111(g)(1)
146
17
CITY OF SAN JOSE’S POST-HEARING BRIEF RE SUCCESSOR MOA - JAMS REF# 1110015552
require that the Arbitration Board review the prior five years’ increases. Since the tax increases
for 2013-14 are unknown, the Arbitration Board would have to maintain jurisdiction over any
second year wage increase to ensure that they meet the limitations of Section 1111. Giving the
parties the opportunity to negotiate over increases for 2014-15 is also in the best interest of the
SJPOA and the public that it serves.
2. Wages
As set forth above, the SJPOA has proposed a wage increase totaling 7% in 2013-14 and
an additional 3% in 2014-15, in addition to cashouts of vacation and compensatory time off.
While the City has proposed a 2.5% general wage increase in each year as part of bargaining
together with a 4% retention bonus in Year 2, the City’s Post-Arbitration proposal is, by legal
necessity limited to the status quo, as required by Charter Section 1111. The City’s proposal
must prevail.
a. Application of Section 1111(g)(1)
Certainly, if the prior five-year average revenue increase in the City met or exceeded 7%,
the Arbitration Board would have the authority to award a 7% compensation increase in 2013-14
(subject to increases in compensation for retirement, health care and other fringe benefits).13
Conversely, without the revenue data supporting an award of a 7% compensation increase the
Arbitration Board is not able to do so, and the status quo must prevail. The City is offering to
restore some of the 10% wage reduction through its current proposals to the SJPOA, and hopes
to restore more in future years as the economic climate and City revenues improve. Because the
SJPOA has declined the City’s offers restoring a significant portion of the 10% wage reduction
and opted instead to force this matter to interest arbitration, Charter Section 1111(g)(1) precludes
the Arbitration Board from awarding the SJPOA’s last offer in SJPOA’s because it far exceeds
the 1.24% Charter limit.
13 The May 29, 2013 memo from the Budget Office demonstrating an adjustment in property tax receipts is
encouraging, but would impact the Charter Section 1111 revenue increases for future MOA’s in the event that
interest arbitration is required.
147
18
CITY OF SAN JOSE’S POST-HEARING BRIEF RE SUCCESSOR MOA - JAMS REF# 1110015552
b. All Other Charter Section 1111 Criteria Support the City’s Proposal
As shown above, Section 1111(g)(1) is dispositive of SJPOA’s last offer. Even if the
Arbitration Board could legally apply the remaining award criteria and disregard Section
1111(g)(1), the evidence still supports selection of the City’s last wage offer rather than the
SJPOA’s. A separate factor in the Arbitrations Board’s compensation award is the City’s
financial condition and ability to pay for employee compensation from on-going revenues
without reducing City services. (CX 1, p. 2.) Budget Director Jennifer Maguire testified about
the City’s budget. To sum up, Ms. Maguire testified that funding for the police department
salaries comes from the City’s General Fund, and that there were General Fund shortfalls
totaling $670 million dollars between the 2002-03 and 2012-13 fiscal years, which was not
disputed by the SJPOA (CX 15, p. 13; Maguire TR Vol. III, 864:8-865:9.) The City’s retirement
costs have soared from $46.3 million in 2000 to a projected $212.9 million in 2013-14, also not
disputed by the SJPOA (CX 15, p. 15; Maguire TR Vol. III, 866:6-867:6.) Restoration of the
SJPOA’s 10% wage reduction would cost $21,250,000, almost double the $11.1 million in
funding for all General Fund City employees in the Employee Compensation Planning Reserve
in the Fiscal Year 2013-14 budget, which was not disputed by the SJPOA. (CX 15, p. 17, 22.)
The May 29 Budget Office memo supports the City’s offer of a 9% compensation increase over
2 years, but unfortunately does not support the immediate restoration of a 10% ongoing wage
increase. Clearly, the City cannot pay for this compensation from ongoing revenues without
reducing some City services. (CX 15, p. 21; Maguire TR e.g., 873:6-878:6; 893:12-894:12.)
Another factor given substantial weight is the rate of increase or decrease approved for
other bargaining units. (CX 1, p. 3; City Charter Section 1111(f).) The City Council has not
approved a wage increase of 10% for any bargaining unit, even though all City employees were
subject to the 10% reduction. (Schembri TR Vol. III, 621:22-622:10.) Moreover, as of today, no
bargaining units have gotten any increases following the 10% Citywide wage reduction
(although negotiations with bargaining units on new contracts have commenced).
In addition, the Arbitration Board can consider comparable wages and terms of
employment for employees performing similar services. Comparing San Jose police officer total
compensation (including employer-paid benefits) to that of officers in the 9 other largest cities in
California, San Jose officers are 25.3% above the average in total compensation. (CX16, p. 2.)
148
19
CITY OF SAN JOSE’S POST-HEARING BRIEF RE SUCCESSOR MOA - JAMS REF# 1110015552
The comparables submitted by SJPOA are based on a random mix of jurisdictions including the
State Highway Patrol, small cities, and county sheriff’s offices. (UX 12.) The SJPOA’s
comparability witness testified that he had no basis for selecting the comparable jurisdictions
other than being given the list by the SJPOA. (Bickert, TR Vol. II, 502:9-16.) Furthermore, the
SJPOA evidence looks only at officer take-home pay and fails to take into account employer-
paid contributions and their cost to the comparable jurisdictions. (Bickert, TR Vol. II, 508:7-17.)
What is more, comparability to other jurisdictions ignores the City’s specific fiscal condition.
Although the SJPOA last offer on wages cannot be awarded because of the Charter
Section 1111(g) limitation, it could also not be awarded based on all of the other economic and
comparability criteria the Arbitration Board is required to apply under Charter Section 1111.
3. Vacation Accrual and Leave Balance
In short, the last offers on vacation accrual and leave balance buydown are subject to the
same Charter Section 1111 revenue limits as the wage proposal, because they are
“compensation” under the City Charter, unless there is a negotiated agreement on MOA terms
that is not submitted for an interest arbitration award. Both increasing the vacation accrual cap
and providing for an ongoing leave balance buydown would increase compensation in excess of
the calculated cap of the 1.24% average revenue increase minus the 4% additional City payments
for retirement pensions, or 0% (status quo) available for increased compensation. The City’s last
offers on these issues are the only ones that conform to the Charter’s requirements.
4. Overtime
The City’s last offer on overtime pay addresses the SJPOA’s concern about limiting
overtime pay to 6 hours and requiring time exceeding 6 hours of overtime to be taken as
compensatory time off. The proposal is that officers working overtime have the option of being
paid in full for all overtime hours worked or to take the time as compensatory time off, provided
the election is made in the pay period during which the overtime hours are worked. However,
payment for overtime hours is subject to there being funds in the Police Department’s overtime
budget allocation to pay for such hours. This proposal allows officers to request and be paid for
all overtime hours worked, rather than taking compensatory time off, up to the budgeted amount
for police department overtime.
149
20
CITY OF SAN JOSE’S POST-HEARING BRIEF RE SUCCESSOR MOA - JAMS REF# 1110015552
In contrast, the SJPOA’s last offer to entirely eliminate the current overtime cap and
allow employees to elect compensatory time off at their sole discretion once again increases
compensation, ignores the budget realities of the Police Department, disregards Charter
limitations, and cannot be awarded.
5. Premium Pay
The San Jose City Auditor issued a report of its audit of Fire Department Injuries in
September, 2012, including Recommendation 15:
We recommend that subject to meet and confer with the bargaining units,
the City should discontinue its practice of paying Fire and Police
employees’ premium pay when the employees are off work due to a
disability.14
As noted in the report, the County of Santa Clara does not pay fire employees premium pay
when they are out on 4850 disability leave. The City’s last proposal is consistent with the Audit
Report recommendation of paying premium pay only when the employee is actually capable of
performing the extra services which justifies the premium pay (with the exception of K-9
officers, who continue to care for their dogs while on disability or leave.) Premium pay is not an
entitlement, but rather is recognition of an employee performing specific duties. It follows that
an employee who is not performing such duties should not receive compensation for those
duties.
6. Sick Leave Payout - Current Employees and New Hires
Sick leave payout paid by the City to SJPOA members who retired was approximately
$6,954,057 in 2009-10, approximately $5,877,313 in 2010-11, and approximately $3,676,307 in
2011-12. (CX 12, p. 11.) Deputy Director Schembri testified that while sick-leave payout is not
uncommon in public agencies, allowing a payout of 100% of sick leave is very high when
compared to other agencies. (Schembri TR Vol. III, 594:16-595:19.) The direction from the
City Council was to eliminate sick leave payout, and proposals in prior bargaining with the
SJPOA included the elimination of sick-leave payouts entirely. (Id.) The City’s last offer allows
all current SJPOA employees to retain their right to cash out all accrued sick leave upon
14 This Audit Report is not part of the record from the interest arbitration hearing. The City requests that the
Arbitration Board take judicial notice of the report as a public document.
150
21
CITY OF SAN JOSE’S POST-HEARING BRIEF RE SUCCESSOR MOA - JAMS REF# 1110015552
retirement, but freezes the accrued sick leave hours and hourly rate as of June 23, 2013. Sick
leave would continue to accrue after June 23, 2013 for both current and new employees, but
would be available only when an employee is sick. New employees are not eligible for sick
leave payout. Current employees would be able to draw on accrued sick leave on a “last in, first
out” basis, so the full sick leave balance on June 23, 2013 would be available for cash-out unless
an officer utilizes the hours for actual sick leave prior to retirement. (Schembri TR Vol. III,
595:20-603:5.) The City’s proposal is consistent with the original intent of providing sick leave
in the first place- to provide employees wage security in the event of an illness, and not a
deferred compensation account.
While the SJPOA’s last offer on this issue takes steps in the right direction by freezing
current sick leave balances on June 30, 2013, it does not address the increase in hourly rates that
drive up the cost of sick leave payout, the reality that employees did not accrue their sick leave
for payout at their current hourly rates, and provides for an ongoing annual payout for both
current and new employees of 50 hours of sick leave that clearly violates Charter Section
1111(g)(1). It follows that the Arbitration Board can only award the City’s last offer on sick
leave payout.
E. SJPOA Testimony Did Not Address the Applicable Interest Arbitration Standards
Notwithstanding that the factors and limitations in Charter Section 1111 govern the
award that may be issued, the SJPOA provided several witnesses whose testimony was of limited
relevance or simply inaccurate.
The SJPOA’s financial expert, Timothy Reilly, was called by the SJPOA to demonstrate
the existence of balances he claimed the City has from year to year irrespective of the City’s
budget documents. Reilly prepared various charts and spreadsheets based on the City’s
Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (“CAFR”). (Reilly TR Vol. I, 73:16-77:10; UX 3.)
However, as discussed by the City’s financial expert, Dave Millican, the CAFR is not a reliable
source to determine whether funds exist to provide compensation increases for police or other
City employees. (Millican TR Vol. II, 334:24-337:24; 340:25-343:17.) This is because the
CAFR is a backwards-looking document that captures a generic picture of what money was
purportedly remaining at the end of past fiscal years, but does not reflect where that money came
from or how it was eventually “reconciled” with the City’s budget. (Id.; see also Millican TR
151
22
CITY OF SAN JOSE’S POST-HEARING BRIEF RE SUCCESSOR MOA - JAMS REF# 1110015552
Vol. II, 345:11-346:24.) As explained by Millican and Budget Director Maguire, much of
whatever remaining balance exists may either be unexpected one-time money or money that was
later used for a specific and required purpose. (Id.; see also Millican TR Vol. II, 352:4-355:23;
Maguire TR Vol. III, 846:10-851:3.) Most fundamentally, whatever balance remains at the end
of each year does not equate to money that the City simply has left over at its disposal for
whatever use it might wish. Reilly made no effort to discern what amount of such balances were
General Fund revenues – from which police employees are paid – or what funds were restricted
for specific purposes. Moreover, Reilly had not even reviewed the City’s budget document and
did not identify any ongoing revenues from which the City could pay compensation increases
without reducing City services, as is required by Charter Section 1111(f). (Reilly TR Vol. I,
136:24-25.)
Similarly, Joe Guerra, who served as the Mayor’s Budget and Policy Director in the Ron
Gonzales administration, was called by the SJPOA to identify funds from which the City could
pay compensation increases. Guerra testified at length regarding political priorities, and while
his testimony about his time in Mayor Gonzales’ office provided a context for the policy
decisions of Mayor Gonzales during his tenure, it did little to demonstrate the availability of any
funds that could be used for compensation increases without cutting City services. (Guerra TR
Vol. III, e.g., 798:23-800:11; 803:6-805:9.) Indeed, Maguire, who is the actual Budget Director
for the City and not the Mayor’s Budget and Policy Director – a political position that serves an
entirely different function – demonstrated that the City had a projected deficit for the upcoming
fiscal year, in part, because of the $11.1 million it budgeted for employee compensation
increases across the General Fund. (Maguire TR Vol. III, 864:8-865:9; 867:16-870:3.) Nowhere
during Guerra’s testimony did he identify any ongoing sources of revenue that the City could use
for additional compensation increases without cutting City services.
Other witnesses for the SJPOA were of marginal relevance and/or presented inaccurate
information. Robert Fairlie, a labor economist at UC Santa Cruz, testified about the general
health of the economy in Silicon Valley and signs that the economy was improving. (Fairlie TR
Vol. II, e.g., 522:17-523:8; 523:24-527:6.) Fairlie’s testimony, while interesting and optimistic,
is irrelevant. The general health or improvement in the economy only matters to the extent it
results in increased revenues to the City. If the economy improves such that in future years the
152
23
CITY OF SAN JOSE’S POST-HEARING BRIEF RE SUCCESSOR MOA - JAMS REF# 1110015552
sales tax and property tax revenues should increase, then the City will have more money
available for service increases, staffing, and compensation adjustments. However, Charter
Section 1111 specifically looks to revenues taken in by the City over the prior five fiscal years,
not revenues that it may or may not receive in the future. At present, the uptick in the economy –
particularly signs of general improvement in the region – does not change the money the City has
available today or the average rate of its tax revenues over the past five fiscal years.
The SJPOA also called as witnesses Sgt. John Robb and Sgt. Dave Woolsey. Sgt. Robb
primarily discussed the retention issues that formed the core of the SJPOA position in this
interest arbitration. (Robb TR Vol. III, e.g., 718:14-722:8.) As explained during arbitration, the
City does not dispute that police officer retention is a significant and legitimate concern. City
Manager Debra Figone expressly recognized this in her testimony. (Figone TR Vol. I, 231:17-
232:1.) However, City Manager Figone further explained that the City must balance the need to
compensate its employees and gradually restore and increase their pay with the need to
responsibly bring back City services and staffing levels that saw precipitous declines during the
Great Recession. (Figone TR Vol. I, 232:2-234:2.) Aside from highlighting the retention issue,
Sgt. Robb – much like each of the SJPOA’s other witnesses – could not identify any ongoing
revenues that would allow the compensation increases they seek. Similarly, Sgt. Woolsey also
discussed retention issues as well as the effect of required contributions that police employees
will have to make if Measure B goes into effect next year. As discussed at arbitration, Measure
B is under numerous legal challenges, including litigation from the SJPOA. It is important to
note that while measures are typically presumed valid until successfully challenged, the City is
not able to budget for, or rely upon, the savings it anticipates occurring if Measure B withstands
the various legal challenges. After the conclusion of all the litigation currently pending, if the
City does begin to realize those savings – which would be sometime in 2014 at the earliest – it
will then be in a position to reassess its budget and have more money available in future years for
employee compensation, City services and payment of unfunded liabilities. Moreover, Sgt.
Woolsey’s testimony, even assuming that Measure B eventually goes into effect, was not
accurate. Among other things, as pointed out by Deputy Director Schembri, Woolsey’s
testimony disregarded that the additional four percent employee retirement contributions can be
avoided by opting in to a voluntary election program provided for under Measure B,
miscalculated retiree health contributions by ignoring an agreed-upon cap between the City and
153
24
CITY OF SAN JOSE’S POST-HEARING BRIEF RE SUCCESSOR MOA - JAMS REF# 1110015552
the SJPOA limiting such contributions to 10%, and misstated that an employee’s current
contribution is normal cost only despite the fact that the current contributions are a portion of the
Annual Required Contributions, or “ARC”, which includes normal costs and unfunded liabilities.
(Schembri TR Vol. III, 610:3-617:3.) Additionally, Sgt. Woolsey’s testimony regarding vacation
denials omitted significant compensatory time officers receive. (Schembri TR Vol. III, 604:9-
607:10.) Sgt. Woolsey also incorrectly referred to the City’s proposals for compensation
increases as “zero”, ignoring the fact that while the City believes the Arbitration Board lacks
authority to award any compensation increase based on the Charter Section 1111 criteria, it has
repeatedly offered – and continues to offer – compensation increases to the SJPOA outside of the
arbitration process in negotiations. (Schembri TR Vol. III, 611:7-612:2.)
In sum, none of the testimony offered by the SJPOA’s witnesses disputed the revenue
numbers provided by the City under Section 1111(g)(1) or demonstrated that compensation
increases could be awarded from any ongoing revenues without the reduction of City services or
eliminating the modest service restorations contained in the City’s budget.
VII. CONCLUSION
In conclusion, the City values and appreciates the contributions of its police officers to
the City and its citizens. The wage and benefit reductions in prior years were the unfortunate
result of a “perfect storm” of skyrocketing pension and health costs and the most challenging
economic downturn the City has ever faced. As the City recovers, it wants to responsibly restore
the police officer wages and benefits that had to be reduced in past years. To that end, the City’s
last proposal to SJPOA on May 16, 2013, sweetened the offer by providing the restoration in the
MOA’s second year of 9% of the prior 10% pay reduction. Unfortunately, the SJPOA’s counter-
proposal included the same non-sustainable terms that have forced this matter to interest
arbitration rather than a negotiated resolution.
While it is not the City’s desire to have these issues determined in interest arbitration,
both parties and the Arbitration Board must comply with the legally binding criteria and limits
set by the voters in Charter Section 1111. The fact that the City’s five-year average revenue
increase was 1.24% coupled with the 4% additional 2013-14 City-paid compensation for pension
costs constrains both the City’s last offers and this Arbitration Board’s award. The City’s last
154
25
CITY OF SAN JOSE’S POST-HEARING BRIEF RE SUCCESSOR MOA - JAMS REF# 1110015552
offers most closely comply with the Charter Section 1111 criteria and, unlike the SJPOA last
offers, do not violate the San Jose City Charter limitations on the Arbitration Board’s award
authority. The City respectfully requests the Arbitration Board to select and award its last offers
on term, wages, vacation accrual cap, leave balance buy-down, overtime, premium pay while on
leave, and sick time payout for current and new employees.
Respectfully submitted,
Dated: June 5, 2013 RENNE SLOAN HOLTZMAN SAKAI LLP
Jonathan V. Holtzman (99795)
Charles D. Sakai (173726)
David Kahn (98128)
Steven P. Shaw (242593)
Attorneys for CITY OF SAN JOSE
155
ATTACHMENT C:
EVIDENCE OF LIABILITY
INSURANCE
156
157
158
159
160
161
162
163
164
165
166
167
168
169
170
171
172
173
174
175
176
177
178
179
180
181
182
183
184
Page 1 of 2
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: March 19, 2014 AGENDA ITEM:
DEPARTMENT: Public Works CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson
PREPARED BY: Macedonio Nunez DIRECTOR: John Cherbone
Associate Engineer
SUBJECT: Joe’s Trail at Saratoga De Anza Project – Notice of Completion.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Move to accept Joe’s Trail at Saratoga De Anza Project as complete and authorize staff to record the
Notice of Completion for the construction contract.
REPORT SUMMARY:
All work for the Joe’s Trail at Saratoga De Anza Project has been completed by the City’s contractor,
Guerra Construction Group and has been inspected by Public Work’s staff. The scope of the work
includes furnishing all materials, equipment and labor to install the 1.3-mile bike and pedestrian trail and
fence extending along the Pacific Gas and Electric (PG&E) right of way.
In order to close out the construction contract and begin the one-year maintenance/warranty period, it is
recommended that the Council accept the project as complete. Further, it is recommended that the
Council authorize staff to record the attached Notice of Completion for the construction contract so that
the requisite 30-day Stop Notice for the filing of claims by subcontractors or material providers may
commence.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
This Project is funded through a Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality Improvement (CMAQ) grant and
a private donor who is contributing the mandatory 11.47% local match. The final contract amount
$1,152,534 is within the approved project budget.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The project would not be accepted as complete and staff would notify the contractor of any additional
work required by the City Council before the project would be accepted as complete.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
N/A
FOLLOW UP ACTION:
185
Page 2 of 2
Staff will record the Notice of Completion for the construction contracts and release the contract sureties
and retentions thirty days thereafter.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
This item was posted as a City Council agenda item and was included in the packet made available on the
City’s web site in advance of the meeting. A copy of the agenda packet is also made available at the
Saratoga Branch Library each Monday in advance of the Council meeting and residents may subscribe to
the agenda on-line by opting in at www.saratoga.ca.us.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Notice of Completion for the Joe’s Trail at Saratoga De Anza Project CML-5332(012).
186
Recording requested by,
And to be returned to:
City of Saratoga
Public Works Department
13777 Fruitvale Avenue
Saratoga, CA 95070
NOTICE OF COMPLETION
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the work agreed and performed under the contract mentioned
below between the City of Saratoga, a municipal corporation, whose address is 13777 Fruitvale
Ave., Saratoga, CA 95070, as Owner of property or property rights, and the Contractor
mentioned below, on property of the Owner, was accepted as complete by the Owner on the 19th
day of March, 2014.
Contract Number: N/A
Contract Date: April 7th, 2010
Contractor’s Name: Guerra Construction Group
Contractor’s Address: 984 Memorex Drive, Santa Clara, CA 95050
Description of Work: Joe's Trail at Saratoga De Anza Project CML-5332(012)
Notice is given in accordance with the provisions of Section 3093 of the Civil Code of the State
of California.
The undersigned certifies that he is an officer of the City of Saratoga, that he has read the
foregoing Notice of Acceptance of Completion and knows the contents thereof; and that the same
is true of his own knowledge, except as to those matters which are therein stated on the
information or belief, as to those matters the he believes to be true.
I certify under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed at the City of
Saratoga, County of Santa Clara, State of California on___________________, 2014.
CITY OF SARATOGA
BY:____________________________ ATTEST:____________________________
Dave Anderson Crystal Bothelio, City Clerk
City Manager Gov. Code 40814
187
Page 1 of 2
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: March 19, 2014 AGENDA ITEM:
DEPARTMENT: Public Works CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson
PREPARED BY: Macedonio Nunez DIRECTOR: John Cherbone
Associate Engineer
SUBJECT: Joe’s Trail at Saratoga De Anza – Approval final Payment and Budget Resolution
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
1. Approve Budget Resolution in the amount of $33,997
2. Authorize increase in construction contingency to Guerra Construction Group of Santa Clara in the
amount of $58,520.
REPORT SUMMARY:
Construction work for Joe’s Trail at Saratoga De Anza Project has been completed by Guerra
Construction Group. The Project was funded through a Congested Mitigation and Air Quality
Improvement (CMAQ) grant and a private donor who contributed the 11.47% local match. The final
contract amount for construction is $1,152,534. The approved construction contract budget was
$1,094,014 which requires an additional $58,520 to make final payment to the City’s construction
contractor. The $58,520 is available in the project budget.
There were additional expenses in the amount of $33,997 in the project during the environmental phase
that did not qualify for reimbursement through the grant and no CIP funds are needed to cover these
expenses.
In order to pay the final invoice to Guerra Construction Group and to cover the additional expenses,
authorization for the additional $58,520 from the project budget and funds in the amount of $33,997 is
requested. The Village Phase I project which was completed in 2012 has a balance of $59,055 available
for other Capital Improvement Projects. Staff recommends approval of the attached budget resolution to
move the requested funds.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
The adopted CIP budget and CMAQ grant covers the construction funding for this project. The approval
of the attached budget resolution will provide the additional funding for expenses not covered in the
grant.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION:
The Budget Resolution and final payment would not be approved and notice of completion will be
delayed. The required Final Report and invoices to Caltrans deadline is on April 1, 2014 will not be met.
188
Page 2 of 2
ALTERNATIVE ACTION:
N/A
FOLLOW UP ACTION:
The construction contract will be amended and funds will be transferred from the Village Phase I project
to the Joe’s Trail Project.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, this item was properly posted as a City Council agenda
item and was included in the packet made available on the City’s web site in advance of the
meeting. A copy of the agenda packet is also made available at the Saratoga Branch Library each
Monday in advance of the Council meeting.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Budget Resolution
189
RESOLUTION NO.__________
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
TO TRANSFER CIP FUNDS TO THE JOE’s TRAIL PROJECT
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to successfully complete the Joe’s Trail project;
WHEREAS, some expenditures incurred during the project do not qualify for reimbursement by the
CALTRANS Grant that largely funds the costs of the project
WHEREAS, CIP funds are needed to cover these expenses
WHEREAS, CIP funds are available as unused balance in the completed Village Phase I project
WHEREAS, it is necessary to make adjustments to the Fiscal Year 2013/14 CIP Budget as follows:
Account Description Account Amount
To reduce the expenditure budget for the Village Phase 1 and transfer funds out of project:
Village Phase I Expenditure 411.9142-004.81161 $ (33,997.00)
Village Phase I Expenditure (Transfer Out) 411.9142-004.99999 $ 33,997.00
To appropriate transfer in funding and additional expenditure for the Joe’s Trail Project:
Joe’s Trail Project CIP Expenditure 411-9274-001.81143 $ 33,997.00
Joe’s Trail Project CIP (Transfer In) 411.9274-001.49999 $ 33,997.00
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby
approves the above adjustments to the Fiscal Year 2013/14 Capital Improvement budget.
BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, the above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a
regular meeting of the Saratoga City Council held on _____ day of ______________, 2014 by the following
vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
_____________________
Emily Lo, Mayor
City of Saratoga
Attest:
_______________________
Crystal Bothelio, City Clerk
190
Page 1 of 2
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: March 19, 2014 AGENDA ITEM:
DEPARTMENT: Community Development CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson
PREPARED BY: Christopher Riordan, AICP DIRECTOR: James Lindsay
SUBJECT: Noise Ordinance Update
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
1. Conduct a public hearing.
2. Introduce and waive the first reading of the attached ordinance to amend various City Code
Articles related to noise control and direct staff to place the ordinance on the consent calendar
for adoption at the next regular meeting of the City Council.
BACKGROUND:
At their March 5, 2014 meeting, the Council adopted a resolution approving the General Plan
Housing Element and a Negative Declaration. The Council also reviewed a draft of an ordinance
to amend various sections of the City Code related to noise control and provided direction on
specific modifications to the proposed ordinance.
DISCUSSION:
The Council discussed the use of wood chippers and how they can be a neighborhood noise
disturbance and directed staff to include noise regulations restricting their use with exemptions
for emergencies. During the meeting staff identified the site construction section of the noise
ordinance as a possible location for the new chipper regulations given the similar noise
characteristics. However, after reviewing both the construction and garden tools section, we
decided to re-organize both sections and added regulations for wood chipper in the new garden
tools section. We believe both sections are now much easier to understand and implement. A
clean (non-redlined) version of just these sections is included as Attachment B. To simplify the
construction regulations we combined the allowed days and times for both residential and
commercial construction which would permit commercial construction on Saturdays.
Commercial construction is currently prohibited on Saturdays under the existing ordinance.
The Council also suggested removing the block regulations for outdoor music events. That
change has been included in the revised ordinance. The Village Outdoor Music Permit process
remains the same including the maximum noise level of 73dBA measured 25-feet away. The
maximum noise level would apply regardless of the number of music events occurring at the
same time.
191
Page 2 of 2
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Ordinance
B. Proposed text (no redlines) for construction activities and garden tools
192
1
ORDINANCE __________
AN ORDINANCE AMENDING ARTICLES 7-20 (ANIMALS AND FOWL), 7-30 (NOISE
CONTROL), 15-11 (AGRICULTURAL DISTRICT), 15-18 (PROFESSIONAL
ADMINISTRATIVE), 15-19 (COMMERCIAL), AND
15-55 (CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS) OF THE SARATOGA CITY CODE
THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA HEREBY ORDAINS AS FOLLOWS:
Findings
1. The City of Saratoga wishes to amend the City Code to implement the policies contained in
the updated Noise Element.
2. These amendments were considered by the Planning Commission of the City of Saratoga
after a duly noticed public hearing on January 22, 2014 and the Planning Commission
recommended adoption of the updates to Articles 7-20, 7-30, 15-11, 15-18, 15-19, and
15-55 of the Saratoga City Code.
3. The City Council of the City of Saratoga held a duly noticed public hearing on March 5,
2014, and March 19, 2014, and after considering all testimony and written materials
provided in connection with that hearing introduced this ordinance and waived the
reading thereof.
Therefore, the City Council hereby ordains as follows:
Section 1. Adoption.
The Saratoga City Code is amended as set forth below. Text to be added is indicated in bold double-
underlined font (e.g., bold double-underlined) and text to be deleted is indicated in strikeout font (e.g.,
strikeout). Text in standard font is readopted by this ordinance. Text in italics (e.g., italics) is
descriptive only and is not part of the amendments to the City Code.
1. Referring the barking dog and animal noise regulations to the noise section
7-20.190 Barking dogs Noise from Animals and Fowl
Noise caused by animals and fowl shall be governed by the provisions of Section 7-
30.060(f). It shall be unlawful for any person to harbor, keep or maintain any dog in the City which
disturbs the peace and quiet of one or more persons in the immediate neighborhood by loud barking
or making unusual noises. "Loud barking" means barking, howling or baying by day or night at
frequent and/or extended periods of time so as to be a nuisance to one or more persons occupying a
house or houses in an immediate neighborhood and preventing such person or persons from the
comfortable enjoyment of their homes. "Loud barking" does not mean barking where a dog is in the
act of protecting or resisting trespassers upon its premises. The burden of proof of such an act of
protection or resistance to trespassers by a dog is upon the person owning, harboring, controlling,
maintaining, possessing or having charge of the dog.
193
2
2. Noise
Article 7-30 NOISE
CONTROL
Sections:
7-30.010 Purposes of Article.
7-30.020 Definitions.
7-30.030 Exemptions.
7-30.040 Ambient noise standards Noise standards.
7-30.050 General noise restriction.
7-30.060 Exceptions for specific activities.
7-30.070 Exhaust fans.
7-30.080 Authority to require noise study.
7-30.090 Exception permits.
7-30.100 Violations of Article; enforcement; penalties.
7-30.010 Purposes of Article.
This Article is adopted for the following purposes:
(a) To maintain or reduce noise levels in the City to avoid exposure to unacceptable or
harmful noise generated by equipment and/or amplified sound that is protect the citizens of
the City from excessive, unnecessary, and unreasonable noises from any and all sources in the
community subject to regulation and control by the City;
(b) To maintain and preserve the quiet residential atmosphere of the City;
(c) To implement the goals and policies contained in the Noise Element of the City's General Plan
by addressing noise transfer between properties;
(d) To promote land-use compatibility by addressing noise exposure from existing and new
noise sources establish noise standards for various land uses and activities within the City;
(e) To prohibit noise which disturbs the peace and quiet of a neighborhood or causes
discomfort or annoyance to persons of normal sensitivities.
7-30.020 Definitions.
For the purposes of this Article, the following words and phrases shall have the meanings
respectively ascribed to them in this Section, unless the context or the provision clearly requires
otherwise:
(a) Acoustic music means live vocal or instrumental music that is not electrically
194
3
enhanced or modified to project or transmit sound through amplifiers, loudspeakers, microphones,
or similar devices or combinations of devices which are intended to increase the volume, range,
distance or intensity of music.
(b) Ambient noise level means the composite of noise from all sources, near and far,
constituting the normal or existing level of environmental noise at a given location, excluding the
noise source in question.
(c)(b) Amplified music means live or recorded music projected or transmitted by electronic
equipment including, but not limited to, amplifiers, loudspeakers, microphones, or similar devices
or combinations of devices which are intended to increase the volume, range, distance or intensity
of music.
(d)(c) Approving authority means the City council, commission, officer or official of the
City having the authority to initially approve or deny a particular type of application.
(e)(d) Background music means recorded music played through permanently mounted
speakers which is clearly incidental to the primary use, and (at any location five feet or more
from the source of the sound) allows for normal conversation levels and conforms to the ambient
noise standards in Section 7-30.040(a).
(f)(e) Daytime means the twelve-hour period from 7:00 A.M. to 7:00 P.M.
(g)(f) Decibel or dB means a standardized unit of sound pressure level. Increasing values
related to louder sounds. Decibel represents the logarithm of the ratio of measured acoustical
energy and a standard reference of 20 microPascals.
(h)(g) Decibel A Scale or dBA means a measure of decibels using the "A" scale or "A"
weighted network of the sound level meter.
(ih) Director means the Community Development Director
(j)(i) Evening means the three-hour period from 7:00 P.M. to 10:00 P.M.
(j) Leq (Equivalent Continuous Sound Level as defined in ANSI S1.1) means the average
A-weighted noise level over a stated time period.
(k) Lmax means the typical maximum A-weighted noise level measured using the “slow”
meter response.
(kl) Nighttime means the nine-hour period from 10:00 P.M. to 7:00 A.M. of the following day.
(lm) Noise level means the maximum continuous sound level or repetitive peak level produced
by a noise source or group of sources, as measured with a sound level meter.
(m) Outdoor music event means the playing of acoustic or amplified music outdoors at
one commercial establishment.
(n) Property plane means a vertical plane located at and perpendicular to the property line
which determines the property boundaries in space of the parcel over or from which the sound
in question is audibly transmitted.
(n) Open Space/Parks means a site which has an Open Space (OS) General Plan land use
designation.
(o) Public and Quasi-Public Facilities means a site which has a Commercial Facilities
195
4
(CFS) General Plan land use designation.
(o) Single event noise means noise generated from a single source which is distinguishable
from the ambient noise level.
(p) Sound level meter means an instrument comprised of a microphone, an amplifier, an
output meter and frequency weighing networks, used for measuring sound levels in decibel units.
7-30.030 Exemptions.
The following sources of noise shall be exempt from the provisions of this Article:
(a) Emergencies. Persons and equipment engaged in essential activities necessary to preserve,
protect or save lives or property from imminent danger, loss or harm.
(b) Alarm systems. Any outside audible alarm system for which a permit has been issued
pursuant to Article 6-10 of this Code, and which complies with the requirements set forth in
Section 6-10.060 of said Article.
7-30.040 Ambient noise standards Noise standards.
(a) Except as otherwise provided in Paragraph (b) of this Section, all proposed uses and
developments shall comply with the following ambient noise standards for the various zoning
districts land uses and times of day as indicated below. The indoor standards apply to noise
produced by exterior noise sources. No person shall cause, produce, or allow to be produced any
noise that exceeds these noise standards at any point outside the property boundary on which
the noise is generated.
(Insert the Following Table)
Maximum Permissible Outdoor Noise Levels Generated (dBA)
Daytime
(7:00 am to 7:00
Evening
(7:00 pm to 10:00
Nighttime
(10:00 pm to 7:00 am)
Land Use Average
Leq
Maximum
Lmax
Average
Leq
Maximum
Lmax
Average
Leq
Maximum
Lmax
Residential
(single and multi-family)
55 65 45 55 40 50
Open Space/Parks 60 70 50 55 45 50
Commercial/Office 65 75 60 70 55 60
196
5
Public and
quasi-Public Facilities 60 70 55 60 45 50
(Remove the Following Table)
Land Use Daytime Evening Nighttime
Residential
Outdoor 60 dBA 50 dBA 45 dBA
Indoor 45 dBA 35 dBA 30 dBA
Public park
Outdoor 60 dBA 50 dBA 45 dBA
Office/Commercial
Outdoor 65 dBA 55 dBA 50 dBA
Indoor 50 dBA 40 dBA 35 dBA
(a) The following land uses are hereby declared to be noise sensitive areas:
(1) Nursing, convalescent, and retirement homes;
(2) Schools, while in session;
(3) Places of worship, while services are being conducted.
(4) Libraries, during hours of operation.
The ambient noise standards for uses and developments to be located in and of the noise
sensitive areas listed above shall be as follows:
(Remove the Following Table)
Daytime Evening Nighttime
Outdoor 50 dBA 45 dBA 45 dBA
Indoor 35 dBA 30 dBA 30 dBA
(b) Subject noise levels shall be measured with a sound level meter as follows:
(1) Noise originating upon a particular site shall be measured at any point outside of the
property boundary for that site at least four feet above the ground/floor and at least four feet
away from any wall or similar large acoustically reflective surface if any is located on the site
receiving the noise generated.
(2) Noise shall be measured with a Class I or II sound level meter set utilizing the “A”
Weighting scale and the “slow” meter response.
(3) Minimum measurement time shall be three minutes.
197
6
(4) With respect to noise originating from a dwelling unit constituting part of a multi-
family development, the measurement can be taken at any point beyond the exterior walls
of such unit or at any point within the habitable interior of another dwelling unit located
on the same site.
7-30.050 General noise restriction.
(a) No person shall cause, produce, or allow to be produced, in any residential zoning district,
any single event noise more than six dBA above the ambient noise level at the location where the
single event noise source is measured.
(b) No person shall cause, produce or allow to be produced, in any office or commercial
district, any single event noise more than eight dBA above the ambient noise level at the
location where the single event noise source is measured.
(b) The single event
(1) With respect to noise originating upon a particular site, the measurement can be taken at
any point outside of the property plane for that site.
(2) With respect to noise originating from a dwelling unit constituting part of a multi-family
development, the measurement can be taken at any point beyond the exterior walls of such unit or
at any point within the habitable interior of another dwelling unit located on the same site.
(3) With respect to any situation not described in subsection (c)(1) or (c)(2) of this Section,
the measurement shall be taken at the point where the noise source is located.
7-30.060 Exceptions for specific activities.
Exceptions for sSpecific activities, so long as the noise level at any point twenty-five feet
from the source of noise does not exceed eighty-three dBA or any lesser level specified below,
shall be permitted to exceed the standards set forth in Section 7-30.0540 under the following
conditions:
(a) Residential c C onstruction activities. Residential c C onstruction, alteration, or repair, and
grading activities shall not exceed 100 dBA measured at any point twenty-five feet or more from
the source of noise. Such activities may be conducted between the hours of 7:30 A.M. and 6:00
P.M. Monday through Friday and between the hours of 9:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. on Saturday.
Construction activities shall be prohibited on Sundays and weekday holidays, with the exception of
the following: which are authorized by a valid City permit, or do not require the issuance of a City
permit, may be conducted between the hours of 7:30 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. Monday through Friday
and between the hours of 9:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. on Saturday. Residential construction shall be
prohibited on Sunday and weekday holidays, with the exception of the following:
(1) Residential Cconstruction, alteration or repair activities that do not require a City
permit, or which are authorized by a valid City permit and do not exceed fifty percent of the
existing main or accessory structure, may be conducted between the hours of 9:00 A.M. and
198
7
5:00 P.M. on Sundays and weekday holidays. may be conducted between the hours of 9:00
A.M. and 5:00 P.M. on Sunday and weekday holidays.
(2) Construction, alteration or repair activities which are authorized by a valid City
permit and which do not exceed fifty percent of the existing main or accessory structure
may be conducted between the hours of 9:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. on Sunday and
weekday holidays.
(3) Temporary construction activities authorized by the Director upon his/her
determination of an emergency.
A notice of applicable construction hour restrictions shall be posted conspicuously on site at all
times for all exterior residential construction activity requiring a City permit.
(b) Commercial construction. Construction, alteration or repair activities in Commercial and
Professional and Administrative Office Zoning Districts which are authorized by a valid City
permit, or do not require the issuance of a City permit, may be conducted between the hours of
7:30 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. Monday through Friday. Commercial construction shall be prohibited
on Saturday, Sunday and other holidays. The Director may grant temporary exemptions upon
his/her determination of an emergency.
(c) Subdivision construction. Subdivision Site construction activities which are authorized by
a valid City permit, or do not require the issuance of a City permit, may be conducted between
the hours of 7:30 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. Monday through Friday. Subdivision Site construction
shall be prohibited on Saturday, Sunday and other holidays. The Public Works Director may
grant temporary exemptions upon his/her determination of an emergency.
(d)(b) Powered Ggarden tools. Powered garden tools shall not exceed 78 dBA at any point
twenty-five feet or more from the source of noise. Such tools may be utilized during the following
days and times:
(1) Gasoline powered leaf blowers may be utilized between 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M.
Monday through Friday and Saturdays between 10:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. Use of gasoline-
powered leaf blowers shall not be allowed on Sundays.
(2) Gasoline powered chainsaws may be utilized between 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M.
Monday through Friday and between 10:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. on Saturday and Sundays.
(3) Other powered garden tools (except gasoline powered leaf blowers and chainsaws)
may be utilized between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 9:00 P.M. any day of the week. .
(c) Wood chippers. Wood chippers shall not exceed 100 dBA at any point twenty-five feet or
more from the source of noise. Wood chippers may be utilized between 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M.
Monday through Friday and Saturdays between 10:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. Use of wood chippers
shall not be allowed on Sundays.
(d) Emergencies. The Director may grant temporary exemptions from the requirements in this
Section upon his/her determination of an emergency.
except gasoline-powered leaf blowers may be utilized between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and
9:00 P.M. on Sundays through Saturdays. Gasoline-powered leaf blowers may be utilized
between 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. Monday through Saturday only. No gasoline-powered leaf
199
8
blowers shall be allowed on Sundays. The noise level of all garden tools including gasoline-
powered leaf blowers shall not exceed seventy-eight dBA at any point twenty-five feet or more
from the source of noise.
(b) Pool and spa equipment. Pool and spa equipment located within twenty feet of a side
property line shall only be operated between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 10:00 P.M. Noise from
such equipment shall not exceed fifty dBA twenty-five feet from the source of noise.
(f) Set-up and cleaning of commercial establishments. Set-up and cleaning activities
conducted at restaurants and other commercial establishments located immediately adjacent to a
residential area, which generate any noise audible to the occupants of the adjacent residences,
including noise generated by the operation of delivery or service vehicles, shall not begin prior to
one hour before the normal opening time of the establishment or extend later than one hour after
the normal closing time of the establishment, or such other times as may be specified in a use
permit, license, or other entitlement granted by the City for such establishment.
(g)(e) Indoor live or recorded music. Commercial establishments in commercial zoning
districts may have live or recorded music played inside a building. All doors and windows within
the commercial establishment shall be kept closed after 9:00 P.M. when live or recorded music is
being played except that doors may be opened for ingress or egress if closed immediately after use.
The noise level shall not exceed seventy-three dBA before 9:00 P.M. and sixty-three shall comply
with the standards set forth in Section 7-30.040 dBA after 9:00 P.M. as measured by a sound
level meter five feet outside the building.
(h)(f) Animals Noise. Noise caused by animals shall be governed by the provisions of
Section 7-20.190 concerning barking dogs and Section 15-11.020(h) concerning the keeping of
animals as pets. It shall be unlawful for any person to harbor, keep or maintain any
animal, including birds, in the City which howls, barks, meows, squawks, or makes other
noises which creates a noise disturbance across a property boundary during the following
times:
(1) Between the hours of 10:00 P.M. and 7:00 A.M.
(2) Between the hours of 7:00 A.M. and 10:00 P.M. where the noise disturbance occurs
continuously for a period of five minutes or intermittently for at least thirty minutes
(3) For the purposes of this chapter, the animal noise shall not be deemed a disturbance if
the animal is in the act of protecting its owner, resisting trespassers, or is provoked. The
burden of proof of such an act of protection, resistance to trespassers, or provocation is upon
the person owning, harboring, controlling, maintaining, possessing or having charge of the
animal.
(g) Non-amplified noise from community uses and events that are inherent to a suburban
environment including but not limited to playgrounds, sports facilities and fields, and
common recreational areas.
7-30.070 Exhaust fans.
All exhaust fans and mechanical equipment shall be enclosed for the purpose of
200
9
soundproofing, subject to the Planning Director's review and approval. Exhaust fans lawfully
constructed prior to August 2, 1991, shall be screened to the satisfaction of the Planning Director
no later than two years from the date of notice from the City to the owner.
7-30.080 Authority to require noise study.
As a condition for the granting of any license, permit or development approval the
Director or approving authority may require the preparation of a noise (acoustical) study to
determine whether the proposed activity will comply with the noise standards contained in this
Article. Furthermore, a noise (acoustical) study shall be required where the existing noise
level exceeds Outdoor DNL 60 dB to determine measures needed to reduce noise impacts to
meet City noise standards. The cost of such study shall be paid, in advance, by the applicant. If
the study predicts that any of the noise standards will be violated the approving authority may
require implementation of mitigation measures to reduce the noise impacts, and may further
require the conduct of additional studies after the activity is commenced to determine the
effectiveness of the mitigation measures. If the violation cannot be prevented or corrected
through mitigation measures, the approving authority may deny or revoke the license, permit or
development approval.
7-30.090 Exception permits.
(a) General noise exception permit. If the applicant demonstrates to the satisfaction of the
Director that immediate compliance with the requirements of this Article would be
impractical or unreasonable, the Director may issue a permit to allow exception from any or all
of the provisions contained in this Article, with appropriate conditions to minimize the public
detriment caused by such exceptions. Any such permit shall be for an initial term as specified by
the Director, not to exceed thirty days. Longer terms up to one hundred twenty days may be
granted by the Planning Commission.
In determining whether an exception permit should be issued and the nature and scope of
any conditions to be imposed, the Director shall consider the following factors:
(1) The level and intensity of the noise;
(2) The level and intensity of the background noise, if any;
(3) The proximity of the noise to residential areas;
(4) The time of day when the noise occurs;
(5) The duration of the noise, and whether it is recurrent, intermittent or constant;
(6) The nature and zoning of the area within which the noise emanates or to which it is
transmitted.
(b) Outdoor music permits—CH Zoning District. This Section 7-30.090(b) shall expire
April 1, 2014, and thereafter outdoor music shall not be allowed in the CH Zoning District,
unless a later enacted ordinance that becomes effective on or before April 1, 2014, deletes or
extends that expiration date. An outdoor music permit may be issued on an annual basis to a
commercial establishment located within the CH Zoning District subject to the requirements
201
10
contained in this Section for the purposes of allowing the playing of acoustic and/or amplified
music outside a building. Background music does not require an outdoor music permit.
(1) Each outdoor music permit shall be subject to conditions requiring coordination and
cooperation among holders of outdoor music permits such that acoustic and/or amplified
music played outside a building at the same date and time shall be limited by blocks as described
below:
a. Two events in Block One situated between 3rd Street and Saratoga Los Gatos Road
separated by at least two hundred feet.
b. One event in Block Two situated between 3rd and 4th Street.
c. One event in Block Three situated between 4th and 5th Street.
d. One event in Block Four situated west of 5th Street.
(2)(1) Outdoor acoustic and/or amplified music is permitted at establishments holding an
outdoor music permit during the following days and times provided that it does not exceed the
specified maximum decibel level seventy-three dbA as measured twenty-five feet or more from
the source of the sound:
a. Fridays, 5:00 P.M. to 9:00 P.M., seventy-three dbA.
b. Saturdays, 4:00 P.M. to 9:00 P.M., seventy-three dbA.
c. Sundays, 11:00 A.M. to 4:00 P.M., seventy-three dbA.
The above decibel levels shall be measured twenty-five feet from the source of the sound.
(3) (2) The Director may condition an outdoor music permit on such other requirements
that the Director determines are necessary to protect the public health, safety or welfare.
(4) (3) Continuing jurisdiction and permit revocation. The Director shall retain continuing
jurisdiction over each permit and may modify (by deleting or adding conditions to) or revoke an
outdoor music permit to the extent the Director deems necessary to protect the public health,
safety or welfare, or if the permit holder fails to meet any of the conditions of the permit or to
adequately address changed circumstances.
(5) (4) Denial of a permit. The Director may deny an outdoor music permit if the applicant has
had an outdoor music permit revoked within the past twelve months or if the applicant is
not in compliance with the City Code or a use permit issued pursuant to the City Code.
(6) (5) Hearings and appeals from administrative decisions. Prior to denial, modification, or
revocation of a permit, the Director shall notify the applicant in writing of the intent to deny,
modify, or revoke the permit, the reasons for such intended decision, and that the applicant may
within five days after receipt of such notice file with the Director a written request for a meeting
with the Director. A determination of the Director to approve, conditionally approve, deny,
modify or revoke a permit may be appealed to the Planning Commission in accordance with the
procedures set forth in Article 15-90 for appeals from administrative decisions and
notwithstanding Section 15-90.020, the decision of the Planning Commission on the appeal
shall be final and not subject to appeal to the City Council.
202
11
7-30.100 Violations of Article; enforcement; penalties.
(a) The violation of any provision contained in this Article shall constitute an infraction and
a public nuisance.
(b) It shall be the duty of all policemen, all deputies of the County Sheriff performing police
services in the City, all Community Service Officers and the Planning Director to enforce the
provisions of this Article.
(c) In addition to the penalties for infraction offenses and the procedures for nuisance
abatement as set forth in Chapter 3 of this Code, any noise level and its source in violation of any
of the provisions of this Article may be summarily abated, which may include, but is not
limited to, removal, dismantlement and taking into custody the source of such noise, and in this
regard, the confiscation of any machine or device used to violate any of the provisions of this
Article is hereby authorized to be held for use as evidence in any proceeding that may be brought
for such violation.
3. The keeping of animals in the Agricultural (A) Zoning District
15-11.020 Permitted uses.
The following permitted uses shall be allowed in the agricultural district:
(a) Single-family dwellings.
(b) Accessory structures and uses located on the same site as a permitted use, including barns,
farm out-buildings, storehouses, garden structures; green houses, workshops and one guest house.
(c) Raising of field crops, fruit and nut trees, vegetables, horticultural specialties and timber.
(d) Processing of products produced on the site.
(e) Home occupations, conducted in accordance with the regulations prescribed in Article 15-40
of this Chapter.
(f) Stables and corrals for the keeping for private use of one horse for each forty thousand square
feet of net site area; provided, however, that in the equestrian zone only, one additional horse may be
permitted on the first forty thousand square feet of net site area, and an additional horse may be
permitted for each additional forty thousand square feet of net site area. All horses shall be subject to
the regulations and license provisions set forth in Section 7-20.220 of this Code.
(g) Swimming pools used solely by person’s resident on the site and their guests.
(h) The keeping for private use of a reasonable number of domestic dogs, cats and other small
mammals, birds, fish and small reptiles, subject to the regulations as set forth in Article 7-20 of this
Code, and subject also to the following restrictions:
203
12
(1) All animals shall be kept as pets only, and not for sale, breeding, experimental or commercial
purposes.
(2) Animals shall at all times be confined to the site, unless restrained or caged and under the
direct control of the owner or person having custody of the animal.
(3) No animals shall be permitted which are vicious, poisonous, wild, dangerous, capable of
raucous outcry or other noise disturbing to the peace and quiet of the neighborhood, or otherwise
constitute a hazard to the public health, safety or welfare, and all such animals are hereby declared to
be a public nuisance.
The factors to be considered in determining whether the number of animals upon a site is
reasonable shall include, but are not limited to, the size of the site or portion thereof on which the
animals are kept; the type of animals and extent of noise, odor or other adverse impacts upon the
occupants of neighboring properties the animals may cause by their presence on the site; the
proximity of other dwelling units; the manner in which the animals are confined upon the site; and
the propensity of the animals to cause injury or damage to persons or property.
(i) Antenna facilities operated by a public utility for transmitting and receiving cellular telephone
and other wireless communications, subject to design review under Article 15-44
4. Removing references to noise in the Professional Administrative and Commercial District
15-18.040 General restrictions on use.
(a) All permitted and conditional uses shall be conducted entirely within a completely enclosed
structure, except for off-street parking and loading areas and temporary Christmas tree sales.
(b) No sales, production, repair or processing shall take place on any site except to the extent
customarily carried on in connection with a permitted or conditional use.
(c) No use shall be permitted which emits air pollutants, solid or liquid wastes or dangerous
radioactivity, or which creates odor, noise, vibration, glare or electrical disturbance detectable
beyond the boundaries of the site, or which involves any hazard of fire or explosion.
(d) No use shall be permitted which creates an emission which endangers human health or causes
damage to animals, vegetation or property.
15-19.020 General regulations.
The following general regulations shall apply to all commercial districts in the City:
(c) Expressly prohibited uses. Without limiting the application of Section 15-05.055(a) of this
Chapter, the following uses are expressly declared to be prohibited in all commercial districts:
(1) Any use which emits air pollutants, solid or liquid wastes, radioactivity, or other discharge
which endangers human health or causes damage to animals, vegetation or property.
204
13
(2) Any use which creates offensive odor, noise, vibration, glare or electrical disturbance,
detectable beyond the boundaries of the site, or creates a hazard of fire or explosion.
(3) Any use involving drive-through service, such as restaurants and financial institutions with
drive-through windows.
(4) Any use involving automotive body work, such as collision repair, painting, dismantling or
customizing.
(5) Mini-storage facilities.
(6) Outdoor sales or storage of motor vehicles.
5. Emergency or Stand-by Generators – Conditional Use Permit
15-55.065 Director review and hearing.
(a) Unless the application otherwise requires design review or other approval by the Planning
Commission, the following uses may be permitted by a conditional use permit issued by the Director
in accordance with this Article:
(1) Conditionally permitted uses not exceeding four thousand square feet in area in any
commercial district ("Commercial CUPs"); and
(2) Installation or replacement of a generator in any A, R-1, HR, R-OS or commercial district
pursuant to subsection 15-80.030(k) ("Generator CUPs").
(b) Prior to making a final decision on any conditional use permit application, the Director shall
mail to the applicant, all property owners whose names appear on the latest available assessment roll
of the County as owning property within five hundred feet of the subject property, and to others as
deemed by the Director to be interested or affected a Notice of Intent specifying the proposed
decision. All interested or affected parties will have fifteen calendar days from the date of the notice
in which to review the application, provide written comments to the Director, and make written
request for a public hearing or notice of a hearing if one is to be held. The Director shall make a final
written decision on the application after the close of the review period or, if a public hearing is
requested, after the close of the public hearing. The Director shall mail notice of the decision to the
applicant and to any party that has made written request for a copy of such notice prior to the close
of the public hearing.
(c) If a public hearing is requested the Director shall conduct a public hearing or refer the
application for a hearing and decision before the Planning Commission at such time as the Director
shall determine. The action of the Director to refer a matter to the Planning Commission is not
subject to appeal. Notice of the public hearing shall be given not less than ten days nor more than
thirty days prior to the date of the hearing by mailing, postage prepaid, a notice of the time and place
of the hearing to the applicant and to all persons who have timely requested such notice in writing.
Notice of the public hearing shall also be published once not less than ten days prior to the date of
the hearing in a newspaper having general circulation in the City.
15-80.030(k) Emergency or stand-by generators. No emergency or stand-by generator shall be
allowed in any required front, side or rear setback area. All emergency or stand-by generators shall
be required to meet all applicable requirements of the City Code, including Article 7-30 concerning
noise. Outside a required front, side, or rear setback area, an emergency or stand-by generator may
205
14
be permitted upon the granting of a conditional use permit. Any application for such a permit must
be accompanied with information from the manufacturer documenting the noise generation
characteristics of the generator. A noise assessment study shall be prepared by a qualified acoustical
consultant for all proposed generators. The noise assessment study shall confirm the generator meets
all applicable requirements of the City Code, including Article 7-30 concerning noise. This
restriction shall not apply to generators for which the owner provides evidence of installation prior to
July 1, 2004, provided, however, that removal of nonconforming
generators may be required as a condition of approval for any design review application involving
expansion or reconstruction of more than fifty percent of the main dwelling, as described in Article
15-45.
6. Move from the noise section to the general regulations section for commercial districts, add the
following subsection (j) to Section 15-19.020
(j) Set-up and cleaning of commercial establishments. Set-up and cleaning activities
conducted at restaurants and other commercial establishments located immediately adjacent
to a residential area, which generate any noise audible to the occupants of the adjacent
residences, including noise generated by the operation of delivery or service vehicles, shall not
begin prior to one hour before the normal opening time of the establishment or extend later
than one hour after the normal closing time of the establishment, or such other times as may
be specified in a use permit, license, or other entitlement granted by the City for such
establishment.
7. Establishing Noise Limitation for Habitable Rooms in New Residential Development
16-75.060 Limit on Noise Level for Habitable Rooms in New Residential Development.
New residential development shall be designed and constructed to provide an interior noise
level of DNL 45 dB or less in habitable rooms (due to outdoor sources).
Section 2. Severance Clause.
The City Council declares that each section, sub-section, paragraph, sub-paragraph, sentence, clause
and phrase of this ordinance is severable and independent of every other section, sub-section,
paragraph, sub-paragraph, sentence, clause and phrase of this ordinance. If any section, sub-section,
paragraph, sub-paragraph, sentence, clause or phrase of this ordinance is held invalid, the City
Council declares that it would have adopted the remaining provisions of this ordinance irrespective
of the portion held invalid, and further declares its express intent that the remaining portions of this
ordinance should remain in effect after the invalid portion has been eliminated.
Section 3. California Environmental Quality Act
An Initial Study and Negative Declaration were prepared for the update to the General Plan Noise
Element pursuant CEQA requirements and it was determined that its adoption would not have a
206
15
potentially significant effect on the environment. The proposed amendments and additions to the City
Code would implement the policies contained in the Noise Element. Furthermore, the proposed
amendments and additions to the City Code are Categorically Exempt from the California
Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to CEQA Guideline section 15061(b)(3). CEQA
applies only to projects which have the potential of causing a significant effect on the environment.
Where it can be seen with certainty that there is no possibility that the activity in question may have
a significant effect on the environment, the activity is not subject to CEQA. In this circumstance,
Staff is recommending amendments to the existing City Code and related sections and additions of
provisions and reference appendices to the existing Code; the amendments and additions would have
a de minimis impact on the environment.
Section 4. Publication.
A summary of this ordinance shall be published in a newspaper of general circulation of the City of
Saratoga within fifteen days after its adoption.
Following a duly notice public hearing the foregoing ordinance was introduced at the regular
meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the 19th day of March, 2014, and was
adopted by the following vote on April 2, 2014.
COUNCIL MEMBERS:
AYES:
NAYS:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
SIGNED: ATTEST:
_________________________________ _____________________________
EMILY LO CRYSTAL BOTHELIO
MAYOR OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA CLERK OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
Saratoga, California Saratoga, California
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
____________________________________________
RICHARD TAYLOR, CITY ATTORNEY
567980.1
207
PROPOSED TEXT FOR
CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES & GARDEN TOOLS
7-30.060 Exceptions for specific activities.
Specific activities shall be permitted to exceed the standards set forth in Section 7-30.040
under the following conditions:
(a) Construction activities. Construction, alteration, repair, and grading activities shall
not exceed 100 dBA measured at any point twenty-five feet or more from the source of noise.
Such activities may be conducted between the hours of 7:30 A.M. and 6:00 P.M. Monday
through Friday and between the hours of 9:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. on Saturday. A notice of
applicable construction hour restrictions shall be posted conspicuously on site at all times for
all exterior residential construction activity requiring a City permit. Construction activities shall
be prohibited on Sundays and weekday holidays, with the exception of the following: :
(1) Residential construction activities that do not require a City permit, or which are
authorized by a valid City permit and do not exceed fifty percent of the existing main
or accessory structure, may be conducted between the hours of 9:00 A.M. and 5:00
P.M. on Sundays and weekday holidays.
(b) Powered garden tools. Powered garden tools shall not exceed 78 dBA at any point
twenty-five feet or more from the source of noise. Such tools may be utilized during the
following days and times:
(1) Gasoline powered leaf blowers may be utilized between 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M.
Monday through Friday and Saturdays between 10:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. Use of gasoline-
powered leaf blowers shall not be allowed on Sundays.
(2) Gasoline powered chainsaws may be utilized between 8:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M.
Monday through Friday and between 10:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. on Saturday and Sundays.
(3) Other powered garden tools (except gasoline powered leaf blowers and chainsaws)
may be utilized between the hours of 8:00 A.M. and 9:00 P.M. any day of the week.
(c) Wood chippers. Wood chippers shall not exceed 100 dBA at any point twenty-five feet
or more from the source of noise. Wood chippers may be utilized between 8:00 A.M. and 5:00
P.M. Monday through Friday and Saturdays between 10:00 A.M. and 5:00 P.M. Use of wood
chippers shall not be allowed on Sundays. The Director may grant temporary exemptions upon
his/her determination of an emergency.
(d) Emergencies. The Director may grant temporary exemptions from the requirements in
this Article upon his/her determination of an emergency.
208
Page 1 of 2
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: March 19, 2014 AGENDA ITEM:
DEPARTMENT: City Manager’s Office CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson
PREPARED BY: Crystal Bothelio DIRECTOR: Dave Anderson
City Clerk
SUBJECT: Public Hearing on Resolution Ordering Abatement of a Public Nuisance by Removal
of Hazardous Vegetation (Weeds)
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Open the public hearing, listen to public testimony, and close public hearing. Consider any
objections to the proposed Order for Abatement of Hazardous Vegetation and sustain or overrule
any objections as to specific properties. Adopt the resolution ordering abatement as to specified
properties (with modifications if any objections are sustained).
BACKGROUND:
At the December 18, 2013 City Council Meeting, Council adopted a resolution declaring
hazardous vegetation (weeds) to be a public nuisance and started the first step in the annual
Weed Abatement Program process conducted by the Santa Clara County Department of
Agriculture. The County’s Weed Abatement Program prevents the accumulation of vegetative
growth and combustible materials that represent fire hazards. Properties in the City that currently
have or have recently had an accumulation of weeds or other combustible debris are listed in the
2014 Weed Abatement Commencement Report prepared by the County.
Following adoption of the resolution declaring hazardous vegetation to be a public nuisance,
property owners of parcels on the Commencement Report were notified by the County that they
could protest listing of their properties on Commencement Report during a public hearing that
took place during the January 15, 2014 City Council Meeting. No objections were raised and
Council adopted a resolution declaring the abatement of hazardous vegetation on properties
specified on the 2014 Weed Abatement Commencement Report. This second step in the Weed
Abatement Program authorized the County to perform an inspection of properties on the
Commencement Report to determine if the Weed Abatement Program requirements have been
met.
A second notice was sent to property owners in March to remind that that they have until April
15, 2014 to comply with abatement requirements. Property owners that do not meet minimum
fire safety standards by April 15, 2014 will be charged a $250 inspection fee and the property
will be scheduled for abatement by the County contractor. If abatement work is completed by the
209
Page 2 of 2
County contractor, the property owner will be assessed the contractor’s fees to perform the work
plus an administrative fee of $169 per parcel. Additionally, if this is the property owner’s first
year in the Weed Abatement Program then the property owner will be responsible for a $41 fee to
cover the costs associated with creating and maintaining a file on the property.
To continue the Weed Abatement Program process, Council should adopt the attached resolution
ordering the abatement of hazardous vegetation (weeds). Council may sustain or overrule any
objections to the properties listed on the 2014 Commencement Report.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
There are no direct financial impacts to the City of Saratoga as a result of the Weed Abatement
Program. The Santa Clara County Department of Agriculture expenses are recovered through the
Weed Abatement Program administrative fees charged to property owners.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING THE RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:
The Weed Abatement Program in the City of Saratoga would not proceed.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S):
N/A
FOLLOW UP ACTION(S):
Implement Council direction.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, this item was properly posted as a City Council agenda
item and was included in the packet made available on the City’s web site in advance of the
meeting. A copy of the agenda packet is also made available at the Saratoga Branch Library each
Monday in advance of the Council meeting. Additionally, the public hearing on this item was
noticed in the Saratoga News on March 7, 2014.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Resolution Ordering Abatement of Hazardous Vegetation
Attachment B: 2014 Weed Abatement Program Commencement Report
Attachment C: Resolution 13-083 Declaring Hazardous Vegetation (Weeds) to be a Public
Nuisance
Attachment D: Resolution 14-002 Declaring Abatement of a Public Nuisance as to Specified
Properties Containing Hazardous Vegetation
210
RESOLUTION 14-___
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
OVERRULING OBJECTIONS AND ORDERING ABATEMENT OF
HAZARDOUS VEGETATION (WEEDS) AS A PUBLIC NUISANCE
WHEREAS, the Saratoga City Council declared hazardous vegetation to be a public
nuisance through adoption of Resolution No. 13-083 at the December 18, 2013 City Council
Meeting; and
WHEREAS, the Saratoga City Council adopted Resolution No. 14-002 declaring
abatement of hazardous vegetation on specified properties at the January 15, 2014 City Council
Meeting; and
WHEREAS, the Office of the County Agricultural Commissioner has given written
notice to all property owners of specific properties identified as containing hazardous vegetation
(weeds) described by common name or by reference to the tract, block, lot, code area and parcel
number on the report prepared by and on file in the Office of the City Clerk and of the County
Agricultural Commissioner; and
WHEREAS, the Saratoga City Council conducted a public hearing on March 19, 2014 to
determine whether to order abatement of hazardous vegetation and assess fees associated with
removal of hazardous vegetation by the County of Santa Clara Agricultural Commissioner if
property owners fail to remove hazardous vegetation prior to April 15, 2014; and
WHEREAS, property owners on the 2014 Weed Abatement Program Commencement
Report had the opportunity to voice objections to the abatement order at the duly noticed public
hearing scheduled for the March 19, 2014 City Council Meeting; and
WHEREAS, after consideration of any and all objections to the proposed order for
abatement, the City Council overrules any and all objections and finds that the requisite basis for
adopting such order for abatement exist;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of the City of Saratoga that:
1. The recitals set forth above are true and correct; and
2. The hazardous vegetation (weeds and other materials) on the properties listed in Exhibit
A attached hereto continues to be declared a nuisance; and
3. The hazardous vegetation (weeds and other materials) on the properties in Exhibit A
attached hereto is ordered abated by the County of Santa Clara Agricultural
Commissioner’s Office on or after April 15, 2014; and
4. The owner of each of the properties listed in Exhibit A shall owe and be responsible for
payment of all abatement costs imposed by the County on such owner’s property,
including but not limited to the following:
a. If this is the property owner’s first year in the Weed Abatement Program, the
property owner will be responsible for a fee of $41 per parcel to cover the cost of
creating and maintaining a file in the County’s database;
211
b. If the property owner fails to complete abatement work prior to the County
inspection of the property, the property owner will be responsible for an
inspection fee of $250 per parcel and the property will be scheduled for abatement
by the County contractor;
c. If the property owner completes the abatement work before the County contractor,
the property owner will not incur further charges beyond those described above;
d. If the abatement work is completed by the County contractor, the property owner
will be assessed the contractor’s charges plus an administrative fee of $169.
5. Nonpayment of the abatement costs imposed by the County (including but not limited to
those described above) will result in the same being levied as a special assessment against
the property, to be collected at the same time and in the same manner as ordinary real
estate taxes.
Attachments:
Exhibit A – 2014 Weed Abatement Program Commencement Report
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Saratoga
City Council held on the 19th day of March 2014 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Emily Lo, Mayor
ATTEST:
DATE:
Crystal Bothelio, City Clerk
212
213
214
215
216
217
218
219
220
221
222
223
224
225
RESOLUTION 14-002
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
DECLARING ABATEMENT OF A PUBLIC NUISANCE AS TO
SPECIFIED PROPERTIES CONTAINING HAZARDOUS VEGETATION
WHEREAS, the Saratoga City Council declared hazardous vegetation to be a public
nuisance through adoption of Resolution 13-083 at the December 18, 2013 City Council
Meeting; and
WHEREAS, the Office of the County Agricultural Commissioner subsequently gave
notice to all property owners of specific properties identified as containing hazardous vegetation
weeds) described by common name or by reference to the tract, block, lot, code area and parcel
number on the report prepared by and on file in the Office of the City Clerk and of the County
Agricultural Commissioner; and
WHEREAS, the notice sent to owners of properties specified in Exhibit A, attached to
this resolution, that the City Council would hold a public hearing on January 15, 2014 to
consider any protests or objections to the declaration of a nuisance on pre-specified properties so
as to require the owners of these properties to remove the hazardous vegetation or be subject to a
subsequent order for abatement authorizing the County Agricultural Commissioner to perform
the abatement; and
WHEREAS, a public hearing on said notice was held on January 15, 2014; and
WHEREAS, during the public hearing, the Council voted to remove 20610 Lomita
Avenue (APN 517-12-012) from the list of properties included in the 2014 Weed Abatement
Program; and
WHEREAS, final action on any protests or objections to the proposed removal of weeds
has been made by the City Council;
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, that the hazardous vegetation (weeds) on specified
properties listed on Exhibit A (attached) is declared to be public nuisance and the County
Agricultural Commissioner is hereby designated as the person to cause notice to be given in the
manner and form provided in Saratoga City Code Section 7-15.060, and as the person to
thereafter cause abatement of the seasonal and recurring hazardous vegetation (weed) nuisance
as determined by resolution dated December 18, 2013, and as to specified properties as
determined by this resolution.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that the notice specified in the
preceding paragraph shall require that owners of the properties identified in Exhibit A abate the
hazardous vegetative nuisance or demonstrate at a public hearing before the City Council on
March 19, 2014 why the City Council should not order the County to abate such hazardous
vegetation nuisance thereafter at the property owner's expense.
226
Attachments:
Exhibit A—2014 Weed Abatement Program Commencement Report
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Saratoga
City Council held on the
15th day of January 2014 by the following vote:
AYES: Mayor Emily Lo, Vice Mayor Howard Miller, Council Member Manny
Cappello, Chuck Page, Jill Hunter
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ABSTAIN: None WcA...._ t____
Emily Lo, Mayor
ATTEST:
9\Az.4crd 2,;6\ilik.0 DATE: \ 3_ 14
ryt,t4Bothelio, City Clerk
227
2014 WEED ABATEMENT PROGRAM
COMMENCEMENT REPORT
CITY OF SARATOGA
Situs APN EXHIBIT A CITY/STATE
12050 BEAUCHAMPS LN 366-05-076 XIA,RENXIN AND XU,ANLIN 12050 BEAUCHAMPS LN SARATOGA CA 95070-6514
12022 BEAUCHAMPS LN 366-05-077 NICHOLS,MICHAEL A TRUSTEE 12022 BEAUCHAMPS LN SARATOGA CA 95070-6514
21290 BLUE HILLS LN 366-06-004 VASQUEZ,ELEUTERIO AND 21290 BLUE HILLS LN SARATOGA CA 95070-6521
20851 WARDELL RD 366-14-041 LEE,ARTHUR C AND HARA,DEBRA L 10856 LINDA VISTA DR CUPERTINO CA 95014-4749
21981 PROSPECT RD 366-31-007 SHIE,YAW SHI AND WANG,JING 21981 PROSPECT RD SARATOGA CA 95070-0000
21781 PROSPECT RD 366-32-002 BALL,NIGEL AND BALL,PAMELA 21781 PROSPECT RD SARATOGA CA 95070-0000
12445 PASEO CERRO 386-11-021 ALI,SYED 435 SERRAMONTE 13L COLMA CA 94014-3226
18597 COX AV 386-13-059 MONDAL,SUDHRITY KUMAR AND 18597 COX AV SARATOGA CA 95070-4107
12260 SARATOGA- RD 386-30-035 WEST VALLEY MUSLIM ASSN 12370 SUNNYVALE- SARATOGA CA 95070
13025 SARATOGA AV 389-06-017 MVS COMPANY LP PO BOX 2067 SARATOGA CA 95070
18596 COX AV 389-13-008 DOSS,ROGER E TRUSTEE 18596 COX AV SARATOGA CA 95070-4108
18854 AFTON AV 389-17-010 LITVIN,MIGUEL E AND LITVIN, 18854 AFTON AV SARATOGA CA 95070-4653
18774 AFTON AV 389-17-015 NGUYEN,CHRISTIAN AND VO, 18774 AFTON AV SARATOGA CA 95070-4653
18817 AFTON AV 389-17-059 KOUTALIDES,OLGA AND 21321 MILFORD DR CUPERTINO CA 95014-1327
19010 PORTOS DR 389-30-002 HU,JINGCAO AND KAN,LAN 19010 PORTOS DR SARATOGA CA 95070-5121
13601 MYREN DR 389-37-039 YALLA,SRINIVAS ROSHAN AND 607 GRAYSON WY MILPITAS CA 95035
19705 BRAEMAR DR 393-26-034 GREEN,GREGORY R 262E HAMILTON AV STE D CAMPBELL CA 95008
20210 MERRICK DR 393-42-005 LUKE,CHARLES A 20210 MERRICK DR SARATOGA CA 95070-4936
14141 SOBEY RD 397-03-002 ORANGI,SOHY 14141 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 95070-5605
18860 TEN ACRES RD 397-03-038 SPAUNBURG,JOEL R AND 18860 TEN ACRES RD SARATOGA CA 95070-5639
18905 TEN ACRES RD 397-03-041 MAAS,RYAN 18905 TEN ACRES RD SARATOGA CA 95070-5657
14478 SOBEY RD 397-04-022 CHAU,EUGENE Y AND CHAU, P O BOX 9270 RANCHO SANTA FE CA 92067-4270
14923 SOBEY RD 397-04-126 ANSARI,HOOSHANG 14921 SOBEY RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6235
14921 SOBEY RD 397-04-127 VAJDIC,BRANISLAV PO BOX 3423 SARATOGA CA 95070
24 records of 106 Santa Clara County Weed Abatement Program Page 1
228
2014 WEED ABATEMENT PROGRAM
COMMENCEMENT REPORT
CITY OF SARATOGA
Situs APN EXHIBIT A CITY/STATE
14521 QUITO RD 397-05-028 HINZ,LESTER F P 0 BOX 97 SANTA CLARA CA 95052
14416 OLD WOOD RD 397-05-042 PITZEN,DAVID H AND PITZEN, 14416 OLD WOOD RD SARATOGA CA 95070-5633
18680 VESSING RD 397-06-030 MINETT1,VITO AND MINETTI, 18680 VESSING RD SARATOGA CA 95070-5672
15488 EL CAMINO 397-08-076 ABHARI,AL TRUSTEE&ET AL 15488 EL CAMINO GRANDE SARATOGA CA 95070-6258
14581 FRUITVALE AV 397-17-010 JAVADI,SORAYA AND JAVADI, 13046 TWELVE HILLS RD CLARKSVILLE MD 21029
14805 FRUITVALE AV 397-18-027 BANK OF AMERICA NA SUCC 1800 TAPO CANYON RD SIMI VALLEY CA 93063
14875 BARANGA LN 397-18-039 GHRTBARANGA LLC 22 S SANTA CRUZ AV 2ND LOS GATOS CA 95030-6837
14553 VIA DE 397-40-016 CIFFONE,DONALD L AND CIFFONE, 14553 VIA DE MARCOS SARATOGA CA 95070-6147
14577 VIA DE 397-40-017 URRUTIA,RICARDO J AND URRUTIA, 14577 VIA DE MARCOS SARATOGA CA 95070-6147
14961 VIA DE 397-40-020 RAMAKRISHNA,SUDHAKAR AND 14961 VIA DE MARCOS SARATOGA CA 95070-0000
18540 ALLENDALE AV 397-43-008 CABE,JANET H TRUSTEE 18540 ALLENDALE AV SARATOGA CA 95070-5235
18394 MONTPERE WY 403-23-029 MARHAMAT,MAJID 212 PRINCE ST LOS GATOS CA 95032-1113
15120 QUITO RD 410-40-018 HUYNH,PAUL HONG NGOC AND 21201 LUMBERTOWN LN SARATOGA CA 95070-5712
MT EDEN RD 503-09-006 M E V CORP 22020 MT EDEN RD SARATOGA CA 95070-9729
22060 MT EDEN RD 503-09-021 MUILENBURG,MICHAEL S 22060 MT EDEN RD SARATOGA CA 95070-9729
22040 MT EDEN RD 503-09-022 MCAFEE,ERIC A AND MCAFEE, 22040 MT EDEN RD SARATOGA CA 95070-9729
22530 MT EDEN RD 503-10-067 GARROD,VINCE S TRUSTEE&ET AL 22530 MT EDEN RD SARATOGA CA 95070-0000
13905 PIERCE RD 503-13-018 JOHNSON,PHILIP N TRUSTEE&ET 14435 C BIG BASIN WY#184 SARATOGA CA 95070
MT EDEN RD 503-13-039 HORVATH,DAGMAR M 15209 BLUE GUM CT SARATOGA CA 95070-6268
MT EDEN RD 503-13-067 ALI,SYED AND ALI,SHAISTA 22653 GARROD RD SARATOGA CA 95070-0000
22551 MT EDEN RD 503-13-117 SMIT,CARL EDMOND AND COLES, 1306 WASHINGTON DR ANNAPOLIS MD 21403-4731
MT EDEN RD 503-13-128 IRANY,FRED Z AND IRANY,CHRIS 13937 PIERCE RD SARATOGA CA 95070
22215 MT EDEN RD 503-13-138 KEENAN,JOHN E AND KEENAN,22215 MT EDEN RD SARATOGA CA 95070-0000
22122 MT EDEN RD 503-13-143 AZ CHEMICALS INC ETAL 8226 RINCONADA CT NEWARK CA 94560
48 records of 106 Santa Clara County Weed Abatement Program Page 2
229
2014 WEED ABATEMENT PROGRAM
COMMENCEMENT REPORT
CITY OF SARATOGA
Situs APN EXHIBIT A CITY/STATE
MT EDEN RD 503-13-144 CHAPEL,JUDY PO BOX 22439 SAN DIEGO CA 92192-2439
MT EDEN RD 503-13-145 CHAPEL,JUDY P O BOX 22439 SAN DIEGO CA 92192-2439
13765 PIERCE RD 503-14-008 MCCABE,DAVID A AND MCCABE, PO BOX 707 ONETANGI,WAIHEKE
13615 VAQUERO CT 503-14-034 COCHRANE,JAMES B AND 13615 VAQUERO CT SARATOGA CA 95070-4804
PIERCE RD 503-15-019 TERZIC,JOHN 12943 PIERCE RD SARATOGA CA 95070-3713
13600 SURREY LN 503-16-013 JUANG,SHAU CHAO AND JUANG, 13600 SURREY LN SARATOGA CA 95070-4257
13540 SURREY LN 503-16-015 BAKKE,KRISTIAN V AND BAKKE, 13540 SURREY LN SARATOGA CA 95070-4257
20940 COMER DR 503-16-076 MCSWEENEY,WILLIAM AND 20940 COMER DR SARATOGA CA 95070-3710
21020 COMER DR 503-17-063 YAGER,ROBERT A AND YAGER,21020 COMER DR SARATOGA CA 95070-3710
12901 FOOTHILL LN 503-18-026 OVELAND,CHARLES A AND 12901 FOOTHILL LN SARATOGA CA 95070-3712
12973 PIERCE RD 503-18-060 FAN,YU AND LIU,YING 12973 PIERCE RD SARATOGA CA 95070-3752
12979 FOOTHILL LN 503-18-066 BUSH,JOHN R AND BUSH,PATRICIA J 12979 FOOTHILL LN SARATOGA CA 95070-3712
14639 BIG BASIN WY 503-25-013 HONG BO INVESTMENT GROUP LLC 21991 SCENIC HEIGHTS WY SARATOGA CA 95070
14651 BIG BASIN WY 503-25-015 KANG,JONGHOON AND KANG,SUE 14651 BIG BASIN WY SARATOGA CA 95070-6081
ELVA AV 503-27-081 ISIDORO,FRANK W AND ISIDORO, 15041 PARK DR SARATOGA CA 95070-6421
20895 CANYON VIEW DR 503-28-004 WOROBEY,ANN M 20895 CANYON VIEW DR SARATOGA CA 95070-5763
20905 SULLIVAN WY 503-28-005 SCHAFER,BRUCE F TRUSTEE 20905 SULLIVAN WY SARATOGA CA 95070-5738
20915 SULLIVAN WY 503-28-006 BAHL,SWARAN BALA AND BAHL, 14645 BIG BASIN WY SARATOGA CA 95070-6081
CANYON VIEW DR 503-28-008 HASHEMIEH,JULIA ET AL 106 HEINTZ CT LOS GATOS CA 95032-5036
20851 CANYON VIEW DR 503-28-075 TANG,YAW-SHING AND TANG,20851 CANYON VIEW DR SARATOGA CA 95070-5888
20867 CANYON VIEW DR 503-28-089 LAW,EDWIN AND LAW,VICKY 20867 CANYON VIEW DR SARATOGA CA 95070-5888
21271 SARATOGA RD 503-29-006 BOWLES,JOHN A TRUSTEE&ET AL 21271 SARATOGA HILLS RD SARATOGA CA 95070-5375
21352 SARATOGA RD 503-29-027 SPEAR,LORIJEAN TRUSTEE 21352 SARATOGA HILLS RD SARATOGA CA 95070-5306
21300 SARATOGA RD 503-29-029 MARTIN,VINCENT L AND MARTIN, 2601 W CEDAR LN MILWAUKEE WI 53217
72 records of 106 Santa Clara County Weed Abatement Program Page 3
230
2014 WEED ABATEMENT PROGRAM
COMMENCEMENT REPORT
CITY OF SARATOGA
Situs APN EXHIBIT A CITY/STATE;
21150 SARATOGA RD 503-29-042 WONG,KENLEY HAY AND WONG, 21150 SARATOGA HILLS RD SARATOGA CA 95070-5306
21050 SARATOGA RD 503-29-099 HEGER,CHARLES E AND HEGER, 21050 SARATOGA HILLS RD SARATOGA CA 95070-5372
21421 SARATOGA RD 503-29-124 STEIMLE,ANTHONY E AND ENG,SOO 21421 SARATOGA HILLS RD SARATOGA CA 95070-5377
13845 PIKE RD 503-30-003 LIU,QINGXIANG AND ZHOU,LING 13845 PIKE RD SARATOGA CA 95070-5346
13857 PIKE RD 503-30-042 HORNER,JAMES F AND HORNER, 13857 PIKE RD SARATOGA CA 95070-5346
14150 DORENE CT 503-31-054 FAN,SHERMAN S AND FAN,LILY L 14150 DORENE CT SARATOGA CA 95070-9727
14134 DORENE CT 503-31-058 LIANG,ZHU 14134 DORENE CT SARATOGA CA 95070-9727
21800 MT EDEN RD 503-31-077 LEE,TING PIE AND CHIANG, 21800 MT EDEN RD SARATOGA CA 95070-9722
13957 ALBAR CT 503-31-087 SEIFERT,MICHAEL E AND MOORE, 13957 ALBAR CT SARATOGA CA 95070-9718
13947 ALBAR CT 503-31-088 HWANG,LILY L AND HWANG, 13966 ALBAR CT SARATOGA CA 95070-9718
13921 DAMON LN 503-31-098 EYA,LESLIE A AND LEMPERT, 13921 DAMON LN SARATOGA CA 95070-9720
21761 HEBER WY 503-31-100 PALMER,WILLIAM T AND PALMER, 21761 HEBER WY SARATOGA CA 95070-9700
13966 ALBAR CT 503-31-107 HWANG,LILY L AND HWANG, 13966 ALBAR CT SARATOGA CA 95070-9718
503-47-007 CHATEAU MASSON LLC 0 0 0
13877 UPPER HILL CT 503-50-041 JOHNSON,WAYNE C AND JOHNSON, 13877 UPPER HILL CT SARATOGA CA 95070-5332
21243 DEEPWELL CT 503-55-039 SCHULMAN,STEVEN A AND 21243 DEEPWELL CT SARATOGA CA 95070-5709
TOLL GATE RD 503-62-027 GADDIS.STEPHEN B 420 SELBY LN ATHERTON CA 94027-4043
21786 VIA REGINA 503-69-007 DOWNS,HAROLD ROBERT AND 21786 VIA REGINA SARATOGA CA 95070-4876
21800 VIA REGINA 503-69-010 SHAO,FANG-FEI PHOEBE AND 21800 VIA REGINA SARATOGA CA 95070-4845
21851 VIA REGINA 503-69-030 DER TOROSSIAN,PAPKEN S AND DER 21851 VIA REGINA SARATOGA CA 95070-4861
21781 VIA REGINA 503-69-034 MOAZENI,MEHDI AND MOAZENI, 21781 VIA REGINA SARATOGA CA 95070-4805
21995 VIA REGINA 503-69-039 FAGGIN,MARZIA TRUSTEE&ET AL 3640 COUNTRY CLUB DR REDWOOD CITY CA 94061
14805 MASSON CT 503-72-014 MASSON INVESTMENT LP 520 MILL CREEK RD FREMONT CA 94539
21531 SARATOGA DR 503-72-028 NAGARAJAN,VINOD AND RAMANI, 21531 SARATOGA HEIGHTS SARATOGA CA 95070-5758
96 records of 106 Santa Clara County Weed Abatement Program Page 4
231
2014 WEED ABATEMENT PROGRAM
COMMENCEMENT REPORT
CITY OF SARATOGA
Situs APN EXHIBIT A CITY/STATE
21750 VINTAGE LN 503-72-037 BEDARD,CHARLESJ AND OTT, 21750 VINTAGE LN SARATOGA CA 95070-9713
21770 CONGRESS LN 503-75-008 SHOK,GLEN A ET AL 21770 CONGRESS HALL LN SARATOGA CA 95070-9714
21756 CONGRESS LN 503-75-010 WALKER,MARGARET VIVIEN SIOTE 21756 CONGRESS HALL LN SARATOGA CA 95070-9714
CONGRESS LN 503-75-016 LUTHRA,ANKUR TRUSTEE 14151 TEERLINK WY SARATOGA CA 95070-9735
14930 VINTNER CT 503-75-018 ZARNEGAR,SAMSON 14930 VINTNER CT SARATOGA CA 95070-9712
19370 SARATOGA- RD 510-06-005 DUC,DANIEL A AND DUC,LYNN K 105 HOGANS VISTA SEQUIM WA 98382
15027 BOHLMAN RD 517-13-009 SAMPLE,STEPHEN P AND PHI,CHINH 15027 BOHLMAN RD SARATOGA CA 95070-6354
15600 BELNAP DR 517-14-085 SUN,YUE AND SUN,LILT 15600 BELNAP DR SARATOGA CA 95070-0000
15400 PEACH HILL RD 517-22-072 ARIMILLI,V TRUSTEE&ET AL 15400 PEACH HILL RD SARATOGA CA 95070
106 records of 106 Santa Clara County Weed Abatement Program Page 5
232
Page 1 of 3
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: March 19, 2014 AGENDA ITEM:
DEPARTMENT: City Manager’s Office CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson
PREPARED BY: Brian Babcock DIRECTOR: Dave Anderson
Administrative Analyst I
SUBJECT: Allocation of Annual Saratoga Event Grant Program Funds
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Review Saratoga Community Event Grant Program applications and determine grant allocations.
BACKGROUND:
For the last two years, the City Council has considered requests for community event grant
funding through a formal grant application process. However, the annual Community Event
Grant Program does allow for off-cycle applications to come before Council for consideration.
There are two basic criteria standards that events must meet to be considered for grant funding:
events must be held in Saratoga and open to the public. Eligible grant expenses include event
materials, supplies, contract services, permits, City fees and other hard costs. Grants are allocated
on a reimbursement basis with the exception of City-related fees, such as permit fees or park
rental costs.
The program also outlines three priorities, which include:
1. Saratoga-based non-profit organizations holding events in Saratoga will be given first
priority.
2. Non-profit organizations coordinating events in Saratoga will be given second priority.
3. Organizations that have previously coordinated events in Saratoga will be given
preference over organizations that have not.
At its February 7, 2014 retreat Council directed staff to add a question on the Community Event
Grant Program application: “How will your event build a sense of community?” This question
was added to the application after it was released to the public in January. Groups that did not
answer the question on the application were asked to answer the question separately. Those
answers are attached to those groups’ applications.
Fiscal Year 2014/15 Annual Application Process
In accordance with Council direction when the event grant program was established, the annual
application process is conducted during the first part of each year. Consequently, staff sought
Council direction on the funding level for the Community Event Grant Program for Fiscal Year
233
Page 2 of 3
2014/15 at the December 4, 2013 City Council meeting. During the meeting, Council decided to
allocate $20,000 to the Fiscal Year 2014/15 Community Event Grant Program.
The City released the application on January 21, 2014. Past applicants were notified through
email, provided a copy of the application, and informed about the Community Event Grant
Program page on the City’s website. A follow-up email was sent to past applicants on February
18, 2014 and a news brief about this year’s program was printed in the Saratoga News before the
deadline on March 4, 2014. All applicants have been encouraged to attend the March 19, 2014
Council meeting to answer questions Council may have regarding their applications.
Summary of Grants Requests
The City received 11 applications amounting to a total of $32,385 in Community Event Grant
requests. All are for Fiscal Year 2014/15. Below is a brief summary of the applications received.
A more detailed summary is in Attachment A. The applications received are included as
Attachment B and Attachment C lists the history of past event allocations.
Community Events Request Previous Funding?
1 Blossom Festival
Saratoga Historical Foundation w
$4,890 Yes
2 Library: Heart of the Community
Santa Clara County Library District w
$8,000 Yes
3 Memorial Day Observance
Saratoga Foothill Club w
$1,000 Yes
4 Montalvo Arts Splash
Montalvo Arts Center w
$3,000 Yes
5 Opera in the Park
Bay Shore Lyric Opera Company w
$1,750 Yes
6 Saratoga Bollywood $1,500 Yes
7 Saratoga Community Band
LGS Recreation
$600 Yes
8 Saratoga Grammar School Reunion
Saratoga Grammar School Reunion Committee
$410 Yes
9 Saratoga Holiday Wine Stroll
Saratoga Chamber of Commerce w
$4,100 Yes
10 Saratoga July Fourth Celebration $2,135 Yes
11 SASCC Health and Wellness Expo
Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating Council w
$5,000 Yes
Total Grant Requests $32,385
Saratoga-based non-profit w
Non-profit
FISCAL IMPACTS:
A total of $20,000 was allocated to the Community Event Grant Program for Fiscal Year
2014/15.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING THE RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:
Allocations for the Community Event Grant Program would not be made.
234
Page 3 of 3
ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S):
N/A
FOLLOW UP ACTION(S):
Implement Council direction.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, this item was properly posted as a City Council agenda
item and was included in the packet made available on the City’s web site in advance of the
meeting. A copy of the agenda packet is also made available at the Saratoga Branch Library each
Monday in advance of the Council meeting.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A: Summary of Community Event Grant Applications
Attachment B: Community Event Grant Applications
Attachment C: History of Community Event Grant Allocations
235
Attachment A: Summary of Community Event Grant Allocations
Community Event Request Date Attendance Location Organization Non-Profit Prev. Grant
1 Blossom Festival $4,890 March 2015 3,500-5,000 Heritage Orchard,
Civic Center
Saratoga Historical
Foundation
Yes, Saratoga-
based
Yes
2 Library: Heart of the
Community
$8,000 10/11/2014 1,300 Saratoga Library Santa Clara County
Library District
Yes, Saratoga-
based
Yes
3 Memorial Day
Observance
$1,000 5/25/2015 1,500 Blaney Plaza,
Madronia Cemetery
Saratoga Foothill
Club
Yes, Saratoga-
based
Yes
4 Montalvo Arts Splash $3,000 April 2015 3,500 Montalvo Arts
Center
Montalvo Arts Center Yes Yes
5 Opera in the Park $1,750 7/13/2014 500 Wildwood Park Bay Shore Lyric
Opera Company
Yes, Saratoga-
based
Yes
6 Saratoga Bollywood $1,500 August 2014 300 Saratoga Village
Center
Yes
7 Saratoga Community
Band
$600 May 2015 400 Wildwood Park LGS Recreation Yes Yes
8 Saratoga Grammar
School Reunion
$410 7/26/2014 90 Wildwood Park Saratoga Grammar
School Reunion
Committee
Yes
9 Saratoga Holiday
Wine Stroll
$4,100 11/24/2014 3,000 Saratoga Village Saratoga Chamber of
Commerce
Yes, Saratoga-
based
Yes
10 Saratoga July Fourth
Celebration
$2,135 7/4/2014 1,000-1,500 Kevin Moran Park Yes
11 SASCC Health and
Wellness Expo
$5,000 10/18/2014 1,000 West Valley College Saratoga Area Senior
Coordinating Council
Yes, Saratoga-
based
Yes
Total Funding Requested $32,385
236
1
SUMMARY OF EVENT
Event Name: The Blossom Festival, 2015
Event Date: March 22, 2014 (estimated*) Event Hours: 10-4 AM
Event Location: Heritage Orchard, Warner Hutton House, Saratoga Civic Center area
Grant Location: $4890 Total Event Cost: $4890 (estimated)
CONTACT FOR GRANT APPLICATION
Contact Name: Annette Stransky
Title: President
Organization: Saratoga Historical Foundation
Address: PO Box 172 Saratoga, CA 95071
Phone: 408-867-4311 (museum) Email: annette022003@yahoo.com
408-867-7468 (Stransky)
ABOUT THE EVENT
Event Description:
The mission of the Blossom Festival is to present, for education and enjoyment, an event that
commemorates and preserves the memory of its historic celebration of Saratoga’s agricultural
and community-focused life. The Blossom Festival takes place in the Heritage Orchard in
March when the orchard is blooming. In 2013 over 3500 people enjoyed the event with more
expected in 2014. The festival provides a combination of old and new—with vintage cars, old
farm motors, films of the 30s showing the Santa Clara Valley, docent-led orchard history walk,
Saratoga historic characters, prune tasting (!) and a display covering the history of the festival in
tribute to times past. Other activities include the participation of nature-oriented community
groups such as the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society, Master Gardeners, Midpeninsula
Regional Open Space, Santa Clara Valley Beekeeper Society, California Native Plant Society,
and the Wildlife Center of Silicon Valley for people to learn about nature and our environment.
Craftspeople and artists are invited to participate with emphasis on old style crafts. Local poet
laureates and poets provide cultural interest. Entertainment includes a variety of music. In
2014, two areas of the event will have music—old fashioned music with a nod to the past
(Dixieland jazz, cowpoke, barbershop) and student musicians from local schools providing
classical, jazz, rock and roll. Children’s craft activities are provided by the Girl Scouts, local
churches and organizations as well as a petting zoo. Entertainment and activities are reviewed
for appeal to all ages. All activities are free with the exception of the food trucks serving a
variety of tasty food.
237
2
How Will This Event Build a Sense of Community:
History and historic preservation are two tools often used to build and foster a sense of
community. New people to the community want to know more about the history of the
community; longtime residents want to remember the community that shaped Saratoga. The
Blossom Festival, the Heritage Orchard, and the historic Warner Hutton house are all symbols
of the past. Combined they provide a sense of character for Saratoga. The art and cultural
events that are part of the Blossom Festival are also part of the historic legacy of the arts in
Saratoga. The Blossom Festival enables new and old to connect to Saratoga and have a shared
sense of belonging.
Estimated Attendance: 3500-5000 Annual Event
Funding Amount Received from City in Past: $4600 for same event in 2013
Other Funding Sources: Will request funding from other sources, if needed.
Event Promotion Plan:
Promotion includes 7 bold banners in the meridians; two news releases sent to a list of print
publications; information posted on 30 online and social media sites; information posted on
www.saratogahistory.com/blossomfestival; public service announcements sent to radio stations;
information and photos sent to KSAR and television networks; posters sent to local schools for
posting electronically; posters sent to local churches for posting; and posters posted in key areas
of Saratoga.
Prior Event Organizing Experience:
If approved, this will be the third Blossom Festival produced by the Saratoga Historical
Foundation (SHF). SHF produces several events each year including Heritage Day, annual
fund development events as well as membership lectures. Annette Stransky, Blossom Festival
Coordinator, has over 10 years experience in producing corporate, sales, and customer events in
pre-retirement life.
Event Budget:
Description Expense
City Group Permit $100.00
Warner Hutton
rental
$420.00
Park Attendant $200.00
West. Valley
Parking
$ 25.00
Insurance $250.00
Event Services Port-A-Pottie/sink $825.00
Banners Banners (7) $810.00
238
3
City Sign holder
rental
7@ $30 each $210.00
Entertainment (6)
Musical Groups $600.00
Petting Zoo $600.00
Children Prizes $ 50.00
Posters $150.00
Programs $450.00
Decorations on-site $100.00
On-site Signage $100.00
Police/Fire $0
TOTAL $4890.00
*Date dependent on availability of orchard, Warner Hutton House, and Civic Center area
Date submitted: March 3, 2014
239
240
EVENT
BUDGET
Saratoga
Library:
The
Heart
of
the
Community
Celebrating
the
100-‐Year
Anniversary
of
the
Santa
Clara
County
Library
District
Presenters
$2,000*
Booths
$2,400
Contests
$1,000*
Arts
and
Crafts
$500*
Entertainment
$1,500*
Event
Planner
$1,200
Marketing
$1,000*
Hands-‐On
Learning
$2,000*
Miscellaneous
$1,400
Total
$13,000
Note:
Items
with
asterisks
are
suggested
for
city
grant
funding.
241
Saratoga
Library—
Event
Description:
Annual
celebration
of
libraries,
reading,
books,
and
digital
resources
will
include
many
activities
for
all
ages
including:
technology
(eBooks,
3-‐D
printing,
etc.),
arts-‐and-‐crafts,
gardening,
music/entertainment,
games,
“maker”
hands-‐on
learning
activities
inspired
by
San
Mateo
Maker
Faire,
refreshments,
Bookmobile,
Friends’
booths/activities,
authors/illustrators,
contests,
library
resources
and
services
information,
and
community
partners
information.
How
Will
Your
Event
Build
A
Sense
Of
Community:
The
event
will
build
a
sense
of
community
by
bringing
Saratoga
residents
of
all
ages
together
for
an
enjoyable
day
of
learning,
creating,
and
connecting.
Community
partners
will
have
booths
at
the
event
so
that
Saratoga's
residents
can
learn
about
other
community
organizations
in
addition
to
their
library,
which
will
build
a
sense
of
community.
This
event
will
include
presentations
on
topics
of
interest
to
Saratoga
residents,
and
the
event
will
include
collaborative,
hands-‐on,
learning
opportunities
(crafts,
technology,
etc.).
A
sense
of
community
is
established
when
residents
learn
about
interesting
topics
together.
Enjoyable
opportunities
for
all
ages
will
let
residents
meet
other
residents
at
the
event,
such
as
Saratoga
teens
collaborating
on
arts-‐and-‐crafts
or
hands-‐on
technology
projects
together.
Persons
will
learn
about
library
services
at
this
event.
Inviting
persons
to
their
library
and
teaching
them
about
beneficial
library
resources,
programs,
and
services
allows
community
members
to
discover
new
reasons
why
their
library
is
a
valuable
community
center.
Allison
Parham
Saratoga
Community
Librarian
242
243
244
245
246
247
248
Montalvo
Arts
Center—
How
Will
Your
Event
Build
A
Sense
Of
Community:
Montalvo’s
annual
Arts
Splash
helps
to
build
a
strong
sense
of
community
by
bringing
together
thousands
of
individuals
of
all
ages
and
backgrounds
to
celebrate
the
arts,
education
and
creativity.
The
event,
with
dozens
of
participatory
activities,
provides
opportunities
for
citizens
from
Saratoga
and
neighboring
cities
to
engage
socially,
bonding
through
a
shared
experience
and
strengthening
the
connections
that
are
the
foundation
for
a
vibrant
and
engaged
community.
The
event
also
helps
to
brand
Saratoga
as
a
place
that
supports
the
arts
and
culture
and
that
enthusiastically
shares
those
resources
with
other
cities
and
communities.
Emily
Lieu-‐Harris
Institutional
Gifts
Manager
249
250
251
252
!
City%of%Saratoga%%
Community%Event%Grant%Application%
!
SUMMARY%OF%EVENT%
Event%Name:!!
Event%Date:!!Event%Hours:%!
Event%Location:!!
Grant%Request:!!Total%Event%Cost:!!
!
CONTACT%FOR%GRANT%APPLICATION%
Contact%Name:!!
Title:!!
Organization:!!
Address:!!
Phone:!!Email:%!
!
ABOUT%THE%EVENT%
Event%Description:!!
Estimated%Attendance:%!One%Time%Event!!!Annual%Event!!!
Funding%Amount%Received%from%City%in%Past:!!
Other%Funding%Sources:%
Include(source(&(amount!
!
Event%Promotion%Plan:%
Advertising(&(marketing(
!
!
Prior%Event%Organizing%Experience:%
Describe(the(experience(of(the(event(
coordinator(and(the(organization(
requesting(funds(
!
!
Building%Community:(
How(will(your(event(build(a(
sense(of(community?%
%
!
Saratoga Bollywood
5-8TBD - mid August
Front of Wells Fargo (parking lot)
22501500
Shalini GovilPai; Pragato Grover; Tharini Chakaborty
volunteer
saratoga resident
20168 pierce rd saratoga, ca 95070
sgovil@gmail.com650 714 2010
Downtown event/mixer, free for residents and tourists of the village to kick back and enjoy bollywood culture.
300 ✔
1500
SVDC (500)
Facebook, social media, schools, posters and flyers in key saratoga areas (starbucks, stores
etc), word of mouth
Ms Thakker has organized the last 2 events and will be advising us on how to
organize it this year. Ms. Grover is a well known coordinater of many events in
Saratoga
Event will get people to mix, network and enjoy the bollywood culture (dance, music, food,
henna) in a fun and relaxed environment. It will also inspire many to come back to downtown
253
%
EVENT%BUDGET:!Please!attach!an!itemized!list!of!event!expenses.!Identify!the!items!you!are!requesting!grant!funding!
for.!Also!attach!additional!sheets!as!needed!to!answer!application!questions.!
!
SUBMIT%TO:%
Brian!Babcock!!!City!of!Saratoga!
13777!Fruitvale!Avenue,!Saratoga,!CA!95070!
Office:!(408)!868Q1275!!!Fax:!(408)!867Q8559!
Email:!bbabcock@saratoga.ca.us!
254
Expenses
for
Bollywood
Dance
Event
DJ
$600
Tents
$950
Flyers
$100
Noise
Permit
$50
Fire
Permit
$85
Fire
Safety
$340
Inspection
Decorations
$125
Total
$2250
255
256
Saratoga
Community
Band—
How
Will
Your
Event
Build
A
Sense
Of
Community:
The
Saratoga
Community
Band
is
a
group
of
60+
community
members
who
meet
every
Monday
night
to
rehearse
at
Saratoga
High
School’s
Band
room.
The
age
ranges
from
18-‐88
years.
The
members
perform
three
times
a
year
for
family,
friends,
and
neighbors.
A
large
percentage
of
the
members
are
Saratoga
residents.
What
a
special
opportunity
for
children
and
adults
of
all
ages
to
experience
a
live
performance
of
beautiful
music
in
a
local
park
setting.
People
bring
their
chairs
and
food
for
a
lovely,
stress
free
afternoon.
Janet
Sumpter
257
258
259
260
Saratoga
Holiday
Wine
Stroll—
How
Will
Your
Event
Build
A
Sense
Of
Community:
Events,
such
as
the
Hoilday
Open
House,
are
a
time
of
coming
together.
Each
merchant,
patron
and
volunteer
put
forth
a
personal
investment
that
results
in
a
common
commitment
to
the
event
and
its
success.
We
all
look
forward
in
earnest
to
the
events
that
bring
our
community
together
each
year!
It’s
that
coming
together
that
builds
the
sense
of
community.
Pat
Martell
261
262
Saratoga July 4th Celebration - 2014 Budget
Cash Expenses for Grant request
Park Reservation - Kevin Moran 7/4 (City of Saratoga) 270.00
Park Reservation - Wildwood 6/28 (City of Saratoga) 80.00
Event Insurance (City of Saratoga) 250.00
Banners posted (7) (City of Saratoga) 210.00
Chair rental (200) 200.00
Truck rental 100.00
Popsicles (108x7 juice, 360 fudge) 350.00
Water (25 cases of 24) 100.00
Dry ice (6pcs, 27#s total) 75.00
Robert Smith (sound) 100.00
KSAR (video) 100.00
Children's crafts 200.00
flags (500 4"x6") - USA Flag Store 100.00
2,135.00$
Donated Items Donor
Signage 500.00 Rotary and Saratoga Federated Church
Advertising Flyers 600.00 Saratoga Federated Church
Programs 400.00 Saratoga Federated Church
4 20'x30' Canopies and truck 360.00 Saratoga Federated Church
Tables, cones, shade structures 100.00 Saratoga CERT
Advertising to local press 450.00 Annette Stransky
2,410.00$
Total Event Cost 4,545.00$
C:\Users\Okuno\Documents\July 4 2014 Income Statement.xls 2/28/201412:57 PM263
City of Saratoga
Community Event Grant Application
SUMMARY OF EVENT
Event Name: Health and Wellness Expo
Event Date:
October 18, 2014
Event Hours:
8:30AM-1:30PM
Event Location:
West Valley College
Grant Request: $5,000
Total Event Cost: $7,290
CONTACT FOR GRANT APPLICATION
Contact Name: Susan Huff
Title: Executive Director
Organization: Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating Council
Address: 19655 Allendale Ave; Saratoga, CA. 95070
Phone: 408-868-1255
Email: shuff@sascc.org
ABOUT THE EVENT
Event Description:
The Health and Wellness Expo is an annual event which has been hosted at the Senior
Center, for seniors over many years. We have been successfully transitioning through
the past several years to focus on meeting the needs of entire families in the community,
rather than seniors specifically. Last year, through generous sponsorships including from
the City of Saratoga, we were able to upgrade our venue to the Campus Center at West
Valley College. We plan to do the same for the 2014 event.
This event is a major health resource not only for our senior members but for the entire
community as an easily accessible, primary source of health resources and education.
Attendees can look forward to a wealth of current, cutting edge information, screenings,
high tech medical device and equipment demonstrations, and multiple services
conveniently located all together in one place. The event is designed to make getting
vital flu shots, health screenings and healthy living information as easy and convenient as
264
possible for our seniors, youth and families by bringing together such a large group of
health professionals and resources in a familiar and central location.
Key Components
• The intent of the event is to benefit the entire community, not just seniors.
• We are fortunate in that we will have the return of El Camino Hospital as a major
sponsor and contributor for this highly visible event. This adds a dimension that
enables this event to stand out from others.
• The event is free to all attendees.
• Parking is free for both vendors and attendees
• Tables and booths are staffed by organizations that provide important information
on a range of issues including but not limited to home health security,
Alzheimer’s and dementia, cancer, arthritis, foot health, osteoporosis, nutrition,
stress, acupuncture, bicycle safety, car seat inspections, dermatology, travel, and
caregiving among many others. These professionals not only provide general
information but are able to take the time to sort out specific questions and provide
as much detailed information and follow up as possible to address the needs of the
attendees.
• Here is a sampling of what attendees will find from both El Camino Hospital and
from private organizations:
o Free health screenings such as vision, blood pressure, skin, hearing, and
diabetes
o “Ask the Doctor” booths, and innovative health technology
demonstrations, like robotics, from El Camino Hospital
o Important nutrition information, demonstrations, tastings and recipes
o Senior living resources to help older adults and provide assistance to their
families
o Exercise and wellness for all ages
o Medication, battery and outdated mercury thermometer disposal
o Financial planning
o Health education and resources
o Home health and hospice
o Community and social services
o Veterans information
o Transportation resource information
• We will continue in offering a vendor hospitality suite, sponsored by a partnering
organization.
265
• Our Health Committee works with the County Health Department to obtain flu
vaccines. The Navy Reserves organizes a group of RNs to administer the shots.
• We are considering the addition of health-related presentations throughout the
day.
• We have created a professional video for use in demonstrating the services we
provide here at SASCC.
Estimated Attendance: 1000
This is an annual event over many years.
Funding received from the City of Saratoga in the past: $2,380
Other Funding Sources:
As with last year, this event will again be a partnership with El Camino Hospital. Some
of the additional advertising and marketing will be funded by the hospital but is as yet to
be determined.
We will submit a proposal to the Health Trust for support.
We will seek sponsorship from Our Lady of Fatima to fund the hospitality suite.
We will enjoy the use of volunteers from West Valley College classes to assist us in
staffing the event, which is a tremendous offset of staff costs.
Event Promotion and Planning:
We begin getting word out at least 3 months in advance of the event.
We will use our vendors and physician offices to assist in spreading the word.
Through our partnership with El Camino Hospital, the event will be run in the local
papers.
We will have a Facebook page and send reminders to our mailing lists via Constant
Contact.
We will post via Patch, Saratoga Cares Foundation, SVDC Monday Missives, Chamber
of Commerce, City of Saratoga calendar and others.
There will be Special invitations to school board, city council, planning commission
sponsors etc.
Church distributions
Zvents
Full Calendar
The event will be posted throughout local communities.
The event will be advertised in our Outlook newsletter.
We will use the City of Saratoga median banner program.
El Camino Hospital will use all of their internal and external connections to help us
advertise the event.
266
Last year’s event went extremely well for us all. We intend to follow the same plan with
a few logistical improvements and some changes in signage.
Prior Event Organizing Experience
The health fair has been coordinated by different leadership teams through the years. We
keep excellent records and have built a solid list of many organizations who want to
repeat with us on an annual basis. For the past 5 years, the event has been coordinated by
the current management team. Starting in year 2012, the fund development committee
provided significant assistance in growing the event as well as planning for future
expansion. We will have this support once again.
SASCC has been holding this event for well over 10 years, with initial focus primarily on
community seniors. As we know, the demographics of our society have increased the
demand for our services and it is only projected to grow in the future. We have expanded
the target audience to our wellness expo to include all family members of our seniors, or
the sandwich generation. In this way we are helping the next generation of senior citizens
to live a healthy life so they can enter their senior years with an arsenal of resources for
healthy living, allowing them to age well and extend their independence and contribution
for an overall more healthy community. Additionally, our seniors learn about health
concerns and issues regarding their children and grandchildren.
Last year, we were able to move our event to West Valley College. We feel that this last
change of venue has made a tremendous difference in both the quality and the draw.
How will this event build a sense of community?
This event benefits the whole community, not just seniors. Building upon the health and
wellness of the entire of the family unit enhances the benefits to each family member: a
circle of care.
The event is held here in Saratoga at a very familiar and central location to the
community: West Valley College. The time of the event overlaps with the Saratoga
Farmers’ Market which will have a positive impact in growing the attendance by locals.
All are welcome and the Expo is free to all attendees, in keeping with many community
events.
267
Silicon Valley Health and Wellness Expo 2014
Expense Budget
Facility Rental including parking 4,080.00$
Flu shot supplies 50.00$
Banners, posters and flyers printing 1,500.00$
Program Printing 500.00$
Banner placement rentals 7 locations 210.00$
Event site banners and signage 300.00$
Volunteer t-shirts 500.00$
Vendor hospitality suite 150.00$
Vaccines no cost; provided by County Health
Vaccine Administration Staffing and MD volunteer donation of time by Navy Reserves
Staffing most is offset by student volunteers from WVC health programs
Giveaways on hand from previous year
Juice Bars donation
Waters donation
Total projected cost:7,290.00$
Notes:
Any work will be done by volunteers or through staff schedule adjustments.
We will be seeking sponsors as the event date approaches.
Specific Funding Request:
We are requesting $5,000 to help offset the costs of facility rental of West Valley College,banner production and placement rentals
268
ATTACHMENT C: HISTORY OF COMMUNITY EVENT GRANT ALLOCATIONS SINCE FISCAL YEAR 2008/09
EVENT 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14
A Salute to Paul Masson & the Saratoga Wine Industry $650
Bollywood Street Dance - Sponsored by SVDC $1,000 $1,300
Celebrate Saratoga/Art and Wine (Taste of Saratoga) $10,500 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000
Celebrating Service – Assistance League $520
Chamber of Commerce Barbeque $600
Foodie on the Run $1,000 $1,440
Fourth of July Celebration $4,000 $4,000 $100 $1,225 $1,984
Hansel and Gretel – Bay Shore Lyric Opera Company $940
Library - Heart of the Community (Saratoga Library 10th Anniversary) $2,000 $1,380
Memorial Day Observance $300 $750 $750
Montalvo Arts Center – Arts Splash $3,000
Month of the Child Celebration $100
Neighborhood Block Party Support $2,500
Odd Fellows Easter Event $800
Opera at Wildwood – Bay Shore Lyric Opera Company $380
Saratoga Community Band Concert in the Park $240 $350 $325
Saratoga Grammar School Reunion $118
Saratoga Mustard-Blossom Festival $5,000 $4,000 $4,000 $5,000 $4,600
Saratoga Serves Picnic $3,640
Saratoga Sister City 25th and 30th Anniversaries and Open Houses $1,200 $618
SASCC Health and Wellness Fair – Saratoga Trails 5K Walk $2,380
Village Open House and Winter Wine Stroll (Chamber) $1,000 $2,518
Wildwood Cinema Movie Night $1,202 $900
Wildwoodstock $2,328
UNSPECIFIED/UNUSED ALLOCATED FUNDS $5,000 $2,400 $2,043 $22
SUBTOTAL TOTAL $27,400 $14,200 $11,500 $12,700 $20,000 $22,253
269
HISTORY OF CITY EVENT ALLOCATIONS SINCE FISCAL YEAR 2008/09
CITY EVENT 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11 2011/12 2012/13 2013/14
Arbor Day Celebration $100 $100 $100 $250 $250
Citywide Garage Sale $5,000 $5,000
Groundbreakings and Ribbon Cuttings $400 $250 $500
Holiday Tree Lighting $1,000 $1,000 $3,600 $2,000
Wildwood Movie Nights $3,600
SUBTOTAL $1,500 $6,350 $9,200 $250 $5,850
COMMUNITY AND CITY TOTAL $28,900 $20,550 $20,700 $15,000 $20,000 $28,102
270
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: March 19, 2013 AGENDA ITEM:
DEPARTMENT: Community Development CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson
PREPARED BY: James Lindsay DIRECTOR: James Lindsay
SUBJECT: Destination Saratoga Agreement Review & One Year Extension
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Receive report and authorize the City Manager to execute a one-year extension to the agreement.
BACKGROUND:
The Chamber of Commerce initiated an effort in early 2012 to develop a marketing and branding
campaign with local business owners. A number of workshops were conducted and Destination
Saratoga officially formed as a committee within the Chamber. Approximately one year later
Destination members created a separate non-profit organization to further their mission of
promoting the City as a leisure destination. In September 2013 the City and Destination
Saratoga entered into an agreement whereby Destination would perform marketing and
promotion services through June 2014. The compensation for these services consist of matching
funds equal to membership dues collected by Destination within fiscal year 2013-2014 for an
amount not to exceed $20,000.
DISCUSSION:
Destination Saratoga has collected membership dues exceeding $20,000 this fiscal year and has
qualified for the matching funds pursuant to the agreement. Attachment A is a summary of their
marketing and promotion activity through February 2014. A significant highlight of the
promotional activity is an expected “Day Trip” write-up in an upcoming issue of Sunset
Magazine.
Destination Saratoga continues to be an asset for the City because they maintain a city-wide
focus in promotional activities and have been successful in attracting media attention to help
increase business activity. Destination also continues to maintain the website
www.gosaratogaca.com to serve as a gateway to events and marketing efforts.
Attachment B is an addendum to the agreement between the City and Destination Saratoga that
would extend the term by one year, to June 30, 2015, and amend the total compensation to no
more than $20,000 per fiscal year. The scope of services would remain the same. If the Council
approves the amendment then the necessary funds will be budgeted in the FY 14-15 operating
budget.
ATTACHMENTS:
A. Media activity
B. Contract addendum
271
272
273
274
275
276
277
278
AMENDMENT TO
AGREEMENT FOR SERVICES BY AND BETWEEN THE CITY OF
SARATOGA AND DESTINATION SARATOGA
THIS Amendment Agreement is made at Saratoga, California by and between the CITY OF
SARATOGA, a municipal corporation ("City"), and Destination Saratoga ("Destination"), who
agree as follows:
WHEREAS, City and Destination entered into an independent contractor agreement dated
September 4, 2013 (“Original Agreement”); and
WHEREAS, City and Destination wish to amend the Original Agreement in order to change the
term and total payment amount by entering into this Amendment to the Original Agreement.
---The remainder of this page is intentionally left blank---
279
NOW THEREFORE, the parties hereto agree as follows:
1. Amended Term. The term of the Original Agreement commenced on July 1, 2013
and will extended through June 30, 2015 unless it is extended by written mutual
agreement between the parties, provided that the parties retain the right to terminate this
Agreement as provided in Exhibit C to the Original Agreement.
2. Amended Payment Terms. The payment terms included as Exhibit B to the Original
Agreement are hereby extended with additional payment terms attached as Exhibit A to
this Amendment.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Amendment.
City of Saratoga: Contractor:
By: _____________________
Dave Anderson,
City Manager
_______
Date
By: ___________________
Josh Weeks
Destination President
_______
Date
Attest: _____________________
Crystal Bothelio,
City Clerk
_______
Date
Approved as to Form:
_________________________
Richard S. Taylor,
City Attorney
________
Date
Attachments:
Exhibit A - Payment Terms
280
EXHIBIT A
PAYMENT TERMS
1. TOTAL COMPENSATION City shall pay Destination an amount equal to the
membership dues collected but not to exceed the total sum of twenty thousand dollars ($20,000)
for work to be performed pursuant to this Agreement. The total sum stated above shall be the
total which City shall pay for the work product to be provided each fiscal year (beginning July
1st) by Destination pursuant to this Agreement.
2. INVOICES Destination shall submit quarterly invoices (based on a fiscal year
beginning July 1st) during the term of this Agreement. Invoices shall contain the following
information:
A summary of services performed for the quarter including number of media tours, media
placements, press releases, website updates, etc.
A list of Destination members indicating the membership dues each member paid within
the quarter.
3. QUARTERLY PAYMENTS The City will make quarterly payments equal the total
membership dues collected by Destination within the quarter as shown on the invoices
submitted.
281
Page 1 of 2
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: March 19, 2014 AGENDA ITEM:
DEPARTMENT: City Manager’s Office CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson
PREPARED BY: Crystal Bothelio DIRECTOR: Dave Anderson
City Clerk
SUBJECT: Formation of State Route 85 Committee
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Accept report and provide direction to staff on the formation of a State Route 85 committee.
BACKGROUND:
At the March 5, 2014 City Council Meeting, Vice Mayor Miller with support from Council
Member Cappello requested discussion on formation of a committee to deal with issues
regarding State Route 85. Consequently, discussion was scheduled for the March 19 City Council
Meeting.
When direction was given to schedule discussion of a committee on the 85 corridor, staff was
also asked to provide information on successful committees that have been formed by the City in
the past. One of the more comparable committees is the Highway 9 Ad Hoc Committee. This
committee, comprised of two Council Members from the cities of Saratoga, Monte Sereno, and
town of Los Gatos, holds public meetings to review and decide on matters related to the Highway
9 Safety Improvements Project. This committee serves as a vehicle to inform the public of
matters related to Highway 9 and collect public input on decision points.
The City Council could use a similar model for the State Route 85 committee. The committee
could include City Council Members from each city along the 85 corridor and could host public
forums in partnership with the Valley Transit Authority (VTA). During the forums, VTA could
present updates on the State Route 85 project when new information is available or when the
project is approaching a decision point or milestone. During the meetings, the public would be
provided with the opportunity to provide input to both representatives of the participating City
Councils and representatives of VTA.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
N/A
282
Page 2 of 2
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING THE RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:
N/A
ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S):
N/A
FOLLOW UP ACTION(S):
Implement Council direction.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Pursuant to Government Code 54954.2, this item was properly posted as a City Council agenda
item and was included in the packet made available on the City’s web site in advance of the
meeting. A copy of the agenda packet is also made available at the Saratoga Branch Library each
Monday in advance of the Council meeting.
ATTACHMENTS:
None
283