Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-19-2020 Council Agenda - PACKETSaratoga City council Agenda – Page 1 of 5 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING FEBRUARY 19, 2020 5:00 P.M. CLOSED SESSION Linda Callon Conference Room, City Hall | 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 CONFERENCE WITH LEGAL COUNSEL—ANTICIPATED LITIGATION Significant exposure to litigation (Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2)): 1 case 6:00 P.M. JOINT MEETING Linda Callon Conference Room, City Hall | 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 Joint Meeting with Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating Council 7:00 P.M. REGULAR SESSION Civic Theater, Council Chambers | 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSION REPORT ON POSTING OF THE AGENDA The agenda for this meeting was properly posted on February 14, 2020. REPORT FROM JOINT MEETING ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ON NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS Any member of the public may address the City Council for up to three (3) minutes on matters not on the Agenda. The law generally prohibits the City Council from discussing or taking action on such items. However, the Council may instruct staff accordingly. ANNOUNCEMENTS CEREMONIAL ITEMS Commendation for Nancy Howe Recommended Action: Present commendation to Santa Clara County Librarian and Executive Director Nancy Howe. Saratoga City council Agenda – Page 2 of 5 SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS Presentation by the League of Women Voters of Southwest Santa Clara Valley Recommended Action: Accept presentation by the League of Women Voters of Southwest Santa Clara Valley on the Local Election Finance Study II. 1. CONSENT CALENDAR The Consent Calendar contains routine items of business. Items in this section will be acted on in one motion, unless removed by the Mayor or a Council Member. Any member of the public may speak on an item on the Consent Calendar at this time, or request that the Mayor remove an item from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Public Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes. 1.1. City Council Meeting Minutes Recommended Action: Approve the City Council minutes for the Regular City Council Meeting on February 5, 2020. 1.2. Review of Accounts Payable Check Registers Recommended Action: Review and accept check registers for the following accounts payable payment cycles: 2/4/2020 Period 8; 2/12/2020 Period 8. 1.3. Final Acceptance of Subdivision Dedication – Subdivision Application No. SDR-1486 Ashley Way Recommended Action: Adopt the resolution rescinding the previously rejected Offers of Dedications and accepting the street dedications within Subdivision SDR-1486. 1.4. Approval of Fundraising Plan for Saratoga Village Town Clock Recommended Action: Approve the fundraising plan for Saratoga Village Town Clock and authorize the City Manager to execute a donation agreement with the Saratoga Village Development Council (SVDC) for the same. 1.5. Acoustical Study for Saratoga Senior Center Recommended Action: Authorize the use of City Council discretionary funds for an agreement to measure and analyze the acoustical state of the Senior Center’s meeting rooms. 2. PUBLIC HEARING Items placed under this section of the Agenda are those defined by law as requiring a special notice and/or a public hearing or those called by the City Council on its own volition. 2.1. Weed/Brush Abatement Program Assessment Hearing Saratoga City council Agenda – Page 3 of 5 Recommended Action: 1. Open the public hearing, accept public testimony and consider amendments to the assessment report: and 2. Adopt the attached resolution confirming report and assessment of weed/brush abatement program charges. 3. GENERAL BUSINESS 3.1. Saratoga Historical Foundation Signage Request Recommended Action: Consider request from Saratoga Historical Foundation to replace signage at the Saratoga Historical Park at the Saratoga Historical Foundation’s expense. COUNCIL ASSIGNMENTS Mayor Howard Miller Council Finance Committee Saratoga Sister City Organization Silicon Valley Clean Energy Authority Board of Directors Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Policy Advisory Committee VTA State Route 85 Corridor Policy Advisory Board West Valley Mayors & Managers Vice Mayor Mary-Lynne Bernald Association of Bay Area Governments Cities Association of Santa Clara County-City Selection Committee Cities Association of Santa Clara County-Legislative Action Committee Cities Association of Santa Clara County- meetings Council Finance Committee Hakone Foundation Board & Executive Committee Public Art Committee Santa Clara/Santa Cruz Airport/Community Roundtable Saratoga Historical Foundation Council Member Yan Zhao Hakone Foundation Board KSAR Community Access TV Board Public Art Committee Santa Clara County-Comprehensive County Expressway Planning Study Policy Advisory Board Saratoga Chamber of Commerce & Destination Saratoga Council Member Manny Cappello Cities Association of Santa Clara County Board of Directors Santa Clara County Housing and Community Development (HCD) Council Committee Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating Council (SASCC) Saratoga Ministerial Association West Valley Sanitation District Council Member Rishi Kumar Santa Clara County Library Joint Powers Authority Saratoga City council Agenda – Page 4 of 5 Santa Clara Valley Water District Commission West Valley Clean Water Program Authority West Valley Solid Waste Management Joint Powers Authority CITY COUNCIL ITEMS COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS CITY MANAGER'S REPORT ADJOURNMENT CERTIFICATE OF POSTING OF THE AGENDA, DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA PACKET, COMPLIANCE WITH AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT I, Janet Costa, Executive Assistant for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of the City Council was posted and available for review on February 14, 2020 at the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 and on the City's website at www.saratoga.ca.us. Signed this 14th day of February 2020 at Saratoga, California. Janet Costa, Executive Assistant 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. These materials are also posted on the City website. In Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at 408.868.1269. Notification 24 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] Saratoga City council Agenda – Page 5 of 5 02/05 6:00 p.m. Joint Meeting with Santa Clara County Fire at Senior Center, S. Ku Hall | 7:00 p.m. Regular Session 02/19 6:00 p.m. Joint Meeting with SASCC | 7:00 p.m. Regular Session 02/28 Council Retreat | 8:30 a.m. - 4:30 p.m. | West Valley College, Baltic Room 03/04 5:00 p.m. Planning Commission interviews | 6:00 p.m. Joint Meeting with TBD | 7:00 p.m. Regular Meeting 03/09 6:00 p.m. Commission Work Plan Study Session with Heritage Preservation, Planning, Library, Traffic Safety, and Parks & Recreation Commissions in Senior Center. S. Ku Hall 03/18 5:30 p.m. Library Commission Interviews | 6:00 p.m. CIP Prioritization Study session | 7:00 p.m. Regular Session 04/01 No Meeting -Recess 04/15 04/27 6:00 p.m. Joint Meeting with Chamber of Commerce | 7:00 p.m. Regular Session 6:00 p.m. Budget Study session 05/04 Youth Commission interviews (time tentative) 05/06 6:00 p.m. Joint Meeting with Mountain Winery | 7:00 p.m. Regular Session 05/20 6:00 p.m. Joint Meeting with Board of Supervisor Joe Simitian | 7:00 p.m. Regular Session 06/03 5:00 p.m. Traffic Safety Commission Interviews | 5:30 p.m. Joint Meeting with Saratoga Neighborhood & Neighborhood Watch in Community Center, Multipurpose room 06/17 5:00 p.m. Closed Session | 6:00 p.m. Joint Meeting with Saratoga Ministerial Associatio n | 7:00 p.m. Regular Session 07/01 5:00 p.m. Closed Session | 7:00 p.m. Regular Session 07/15 No Meeting - Recess 08/05 No Meeting - Recess 08/19 5:00 p.m. Closed Session | 6:00 p.m. Joint Meeting with Hakone Board and Sister City | 7:00 p.m. Regular Session 09/02 5:00 p.m. Commission Interviews for Library & Parks | 6:00 p.m. Joint Meeting with Montalvo Arts | 7:00 p.m. Regular Session 09/16 6:00 p.m. Joint Meeting with Youth Commission | 7:00 p.m. Regular Session 10/07 5:00 p.m. Joint Meeting with West Valley – Mission Community College Board of Trustees | 6:00 p.m. Joint Meeting - Saratoga Schools and Boards at West Valley College | 7:00 p.m. Regular 10/21 6:00 p.m. Joint Meeting with Sheriff’s Office | 7:00 p.m. Reg ular Session 11/04 6:00 p.m. Joint Meeting with KSAR | 7:00 p.m. Regular Session 11/18 6:00 p.m. Joint Meeting with TBD | 7:00 p.m. Regular Session 12/02 5:00 p.m. Commission Interviews for HPC & TSC | 6:00 p.m. Joint Meeting with Historical Foundation |7:00 p.m. Regular Session 12/10 7:00 p.m. Council Reorganization 12/16 6:00 p.m. Study Session – Council Norms | 7:00 p.m. Regular Session Unless otherwise stated, Joint Meetings and Study Sessions begin at 6:00 p.m. in the Linda Callon Conference Room at Saratoga City Hall at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue and Regular Session begins at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Theater CITY OF SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING CALENDAR 2020 City Council Joint Meeting Dinner will be provided at the Joint Meeting. The City Council Regular Session begins at 7:00 p.m. in the Civic Theater. Joint Meeting attendees are invited to share an overview of the Joint Meeting during the Regular Session. JOINT MEETING WITH SARATOGA AREA SENIOR COORDINATING COUNCIL February 19, 2020 6:00 p.m. –6:50 p.m. Linda Callon Conference Room, City Hall 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Discussion Topics Introductions Acoustic Project Update on R.Y.D.E. Other Remarks & Wrap Up 5 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:February 19, 2020 DEPARTMENT:City Manager’s Department PREPARED BY:Debbie Bretschneider, City Clerk SUBJECT:Commendation for Nancy Howe RECOMMENDED ACTION: Present commendation to Santa Clara County Librarian and Executive Director Nancy Howe. BACKGROUND: After more than 25 years of service with the Santa Clara County Library District, County Librarian and Executive Director Nancy Howe is retiring. Nancy Howe is a Saratoga resident. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A -Commendation for Santa Clara County Librarian and Executive Director Nancy Howe 6 COMMENDATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA HONORING NANCY HOWE WHEREAS, County Librarian and Executive Director Nancy Howe is retiring after more than 25 years of service with the Santa Clara County Library District (SCCLD), which represents the cities of Campbell, Cupertino, Gilroy, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Milpitas, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, Saratoga, and the unincorporated areas of Santa Clara County; and WHEREAS,during her time with the Santa Clara County Library District, Nancy Howe held the following positions in addition to serving as County Librarian and Executive Director: substitute librarian, Saratoga Library adult and teen department manager, Morgan Hill Community Librarian, Deputy County Librarian for Information Technology and Collection, Acting County Librarian, and the co-chair of Silicon Valley Reads; and WHEREAS,in 2013, Nancy Howe was instrumental in promoting and passing Measure A, a 20-year special tax to provide funding for local public libraries; and WHEREAS, County Librarian Nancy Howe was influential in removing fees to use the SCCLD library or obtain a library card, expanding hours at every SCCLD library including being open seven days a week, and initiated passport services at three libraries; and WHEREAS,in 2018, County Librarian Nancy Howe received the Zoia Horn Award for Intellectual Freedom from the California Library Association; and WHEREAS, Nancy Howe has been known for her unwavering commitment to the Library District and her passion for the transformative role of the public library in the community; and WHEREAS,Nancy Howe and her husband are long-time Saratoga residents. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby congratulate County Librarian Nancy Howe on her retirement and recognize her for her many years of service and dedication to the Santa Clara County Library District and the City of Saratoga. WITNESS MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA this 19th day of February 2020. Howard A. Miller, Mayor City of Saratoga 7 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:February 19, 2020 DEPARTMENT:City Manager’s Department PREPARED BY:Debbie Bretschneider, City Clerk SUBJECT:Presentation by the League of Women Voters of Southwest Santa Clara Valley RECOMMENDED ACTION: Accept presentation by the League of Women Voters of Southwest Santa Clara Valley on the Local Election Finance Study II. BACKGROUND: After the November 2016 elections, the League of Women Voters of Southwest Santa Clara Valley conducted a Local Election Finance Study. The study was discussed with local elected officials and presented at the city councils and school boards within Campbell, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, and Saratoga. After the November 2018 election, the League of Women Voters of Southwest Santa Clara Valley created the Local Election Finance Study II. The purpose of the study of local elections is to understand best practices, educate, and explore ways to increase transparency and encourage participation in local elections. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A –League of Women Voters Local Election Finance Study II Attachment B –Presentation by League of Women Voters 8 Local Election Finance Study II League of Women Voters Southwest Santa Clara Valley (SWSCV) Serving the communities of Campbell, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, & Saratoga December 4, 2019 9 2 League of Women Voters of Southwest Santa Clara Valley Local Election Finance Study II League of Women Voters Southwest Santa Clara Valley (SWSCV)1 Serving the communities of Campbell, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, & Saratoga December 4, 2019 Study Committee Tom Picraux*, Danice Picraux*, Eleanor Yick, Corinne Vita, Meg Giberson, Alan Giberson * Co-chairs Preamble The League of Women Voters (LWV) encourages informed and active participation in government, works to increase understanding of major public policy issues, and influences public policy through education and advocacy. The LWV Mission is: Empowering voters. Defending democracy. Preface After the 2016 November elections, the SWSCV League conducted a Local Election Finance Study.2 The study was discussed with local elected officials and presented at the city councils and school boards within our local area of Campbell, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, and Saratoga. The present Local Election Finance Study II, following the 2018 November elections, is a continuation of that effort. The study reviews and analyzes available information on local election regulations, financing and reporting for the cities and school boards within our local area. It also compares local election practices to those of the other cities in Santa Clara County. The purpose of our continuing study of local elections is to understand best practices, educate our membership, and explore ways to increase transparency and encourage participation in local elections. 10 3 League of Women Voters of Southwest Santa Clara Valley Table of Contents Executive Summary 4 1. Introduction 5 2. Study Objective 5 3. Summary of Election Results: Voting and Expenditures 6 4. Voter Information Pamphlet 9 5. Useful Candidate Sources of Information 10 6. Upcoming Election Changes 11 7. Summary of California Election Reporting Requirements 13 8. Local Election Regulations in Cities within Santa Clara County 13 9. Local Election Practices 16 10. Major Findings 17 11. Concluding Remarks 18 References 19 Appendix A. Questions asked to City Clerks 20 11 4 League of Women Voters of Southwest Santa Clara Valley Executive Summary The League of Women Voters seeks to promote participation and transparency in our local elections for both voters and candidates. This study’s focus is an assessment of current election finance and reporting processes for city council and school board elections in Campbell, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, and Saratoga. It is the second study in our series following statewide elections. In this study the results for the November 2018 election are analyzed. There were 20 candidates contending in the four city council races and 12 candidates contending in three school board races. All races were contested and one city council race was decided by a margin of only 65 votes. The money spent on city council races ranged from less than $2000 to over $40,000, with the average spent being $1,560 for Monte Sereno, $6,365 for Los Gatos, $14,506 for Campbell and $20,254 for Saratoga. The average total spending increased in all council races between 2016 and 2018, with increases ranging from 6% in Campbell to 83% in Saratoga. Campaign spending for school district races was also substantial in some races, ranging from less than $2,000 to $40,262 in one case. As part of this study, comparisons were made to additional local election regulations instituted by nearby cities, including maximum contribution limits, voluntary expenditure limits, term limits, and disclosure of top donors in campaign advertisements. As a result of the study we have several major findings that we believe may promote participation and transparency in our local elections for both voters and candidates. . We encourage our League members along with our community members and the leadership of our local cities and school boards to discuss, debate, and consider these findings. The findings are presented in Section 10 of this report and are briefly summarized here: • We encourage our cities to post on their websites detailed candidate guidelines with links to sources of useful candidate information. • We encourage our cities to post more information during election season on their city website regarding candidates running for city council positions such as candidate statements, candidate forum announcements, voter/candidate information websites. • Los Gatos posts city council candidate campaign finance reports (Form 460, 470, 497…) on the city website. We recommend that our other cities consider this practice. • Campbell bears a portion of the candidate statement cost, currently about $1,500 for 200 words ($2,600 for 400 words Saratoga) for the Voter Information Pamphlet mailed to all voters. We recommend that our other city councils consider this practice. • We encourage our cities to discuss the relative merits of voluntary spending limits and/or (non-family) campaign donation limits and to consider instituting voluntary spending limits linked to supporting a portion of the candidate statement cost. • We encourage our school boards to consider sharing a fraction of the cost of the candidate statement ($1,600 to $3,400) to encourage qualified candidate participation in school board elections and to get the candidate’s statement out to the voters. • We encourage our city councils and school boards to discuss and consider the merits of term limits in order to bring forth new candidates and ideas. 12 5 League of Women Voters of Southwest Santa Clara Valley 1. Introduction Local elections are the foundation of democracy. Key tenets of democratic elections are participation and transparency. Participation means to ensure that we have informed voters engaged in the election process who support and encourage local leaders to stand for election and who participate in the governance of our communities. Transparency means that our citizens are well informed about our candidates, their positions, their sources of financial support, and their expenditures. To paraphrase Justice Louis Brandeis, sunlight is “the best of disinfectants.” In democratic elections we strive for a process that is fair, transparent, and available to all. Hence, we should do everything possible to encourage and make the processes of participation and transparency as convenient as possible. Several areas of improvement and opportunities for improvement in participation and transparency have occurred in recent years. There have been major improvements in the convenience of registering to vote as well as voting in California in local, state and national elections. While there have been significant changes in election finance law due to Supreme Court decisions over the last 15 years, there remain certain tools which can and have been utilized at the state, county and local level to control, for example the size of candidate contributions and spending. In addition, current laws requiring detailed reporting of contributions and expenditures help provide transparency to voters. A particularly significant change over the last two decades is the advance of the Internet as a convenient and rapid source of information for all citizens. Nearly everyone in our community has access to the Internet at home, on mobile devices or at libraries. Information can be obtained at one’s convenience, whether at a coffee shop with friends or at home in the middle of the night. The ability of cities to place well-organized and relevant local election information on a city’s website provides a powerful tool to support transparency. A city’s website can and should provide trusted information that can be easily found by both voters and candidates when and where they need it. Many cities in Santa Clara County are pioneering the use of their websites to communicate to voters and candidates. Much is still being learned as to how to most effectively and conveniently provide the information. What is clear, however, is that every city needs to set a priority to develop ways to provide election information to its citizens in an effective and convenient manner. 2. Study Objective The study’s objective is to promote participation and transparency in our local elections for both voters and candidates. The study examines current local election finance and reporting processes, regulations, and results for city council and school board elections in Campbell, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, and Saratoga. We include an analysis of the election results, election reporting processes, and election spending. For comparison, we examine local election regulations in the other cities in Santa Clara County. The study concludes by identifying major findings based on our analysis we believe are worthy of consideration and further dialogue by our League membership, our community and the leadership of our local cities and school boards. Our purpose is to educate our members, inform our community, and encourage best practices for elections. 13 6 League of Women Voters of Southwest Santa Clara Valley 3. Summary of Election Results: Voting and Expenditures As part of our analysis, we reviewed all city council and school board candidate election results and campaign disclosure reports for the Campbell, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, and Saratoga area. The November 2018 election results for the city and town council races in the SWSCV League’s area are shown in Table I. Also shown for comparison are results for the 2016 election.2 We applaud the active participation of our community members in standing for candidacy in the 2018 election. The number of candidates increased in every race compared to the 2016 elections. Also, the differences in the percentage vote totals between winning and loosing a race ranged from as low as 1.6% in Monte Sereno to a maximum of 6.8% in Saratoga. Both these points suggest competitive races in all the elections. In Monte Sereno the vote difference amounted to a deciding factor of only 65 votes in 2018 and only 10 votes in 2016. As the adage goes, every vote counts. As shown in Table I, the amount of money spent by candidates on city council election campaigns varied widely, both between cities and within a given race. At the high end, the total funds spent by one candidate in the Saratoga 2018 race was $40,297, with the average amount spent per candidate in that race being $20,254. In contrast, two candidates in the Monte Sereno 2018 race spent only about $4,700, while the other 4 candidates all spent less than $2000. In accordance with California election laws if total contributions and expenditures are both below $2000, detailed contribution and expenditure reporting is not required. In those cases we just indicate in our tables that the expenditures were less than $2000. The average expenditure per candidate is shown in Table I to range from $1,560 for Monte Sereno, to $6,365 for Los Gatos, to $14, 506 for Campbell, and to $20,254 for Saratoga in the 2018 city council races. As a general rule of thumb, local expenditures for council seat elections are typically greater for more populated cities. More striking, the average expenditure per candidate in 2018 increased in every race compared to 2016, with percentage increases of: 6 % for Campbell, 13% for Los Gatos, 80 % for Monte Sereno, and 83% for Saratoga. While candidate choices in how to most effectively spend funds varies considerably, we found in our previous study that the categories of campaign literature, mailing, and postage accounted for the major expenses, being on average, 49% of the amount spent. Campaign paraphernalia accounted for 11% of funds spent on average, while web and information technology services spending was 8%. Candidates engage voters, become known, and get their messages out in many ways. Hence, campaign spending is only one factor in determining election results. For example, the use of social media, such as Facebook, Instagram, and Twitter, is seen to be increasingly important in campaigns. The increasing impact of social media requires candidates to carefully balance their expenditures for traditional campaign literature printing and mailing with the use of candidate websites and with social media in reaching voters. In addition to campaign spending and social media, the name recognition provided by incumbency is considered to be a significant factor in elections. Incumbency can be inferred to be important in our local elections as well, though it is not the determining factor. As seen in Tables I and II, in aggregate, 7 incumbents and 5 newcomers won 14 7 League of Women Voters of Southwest Santa Clara Valley election to their city council in 2018, while 1 incumbent and 7 non-incumbents lost. In one race in 2018 (Monte Sereno) the incumbent lost to 3 non-incumbents. Table I. City Council Elections, November 2018 and 2016 Campbell 2018 (avg. spent = $14,506) Campbell 2016(avg. spent = $13,632 Los Gatos 2018 (avg. spent = $6,365) Los Gatos 2016 (avg. spent = $5,611) Candidate Votes % Vote Result Funds spent A (I) 9,108 31.1 E $17,305 B (I) 8,325 28.4 E $8,153 C (I) 7,428 25.4 E <$20004 D 4,406 15.1 - <$2000 Monte Sereno 2018 (avg. spent = $1,560) Monte Sereno 2016 (avg. spent = $867) Candidate Votes % Vote Result Funds spent A 897 22.7 E <$2000 B 895 22.7 E $4,700 C 735 18.6 E $4,657 D (I) 670 17.0 - <$2000 E 390 9.9 - <$2000 F 359 9.1 - <$2000 Saratoga 2018 (avg. spent = $20,254) Saratoga 2016 (avg. spent = $11,045) Candidate Votes % Vote Result Funds spent A (I) 9,859 29.6 E $40,297 B (I) 8,321 25.0 E $9,627 C 6,888 20.7 E $39,626 D 4,621 13.9 - <$2000 E 3,600 10.8 - $11,677 1 Letters under Candidate do not represent the same candidate in 2016 and 2018 races. 2 I = incumbent 3 E = elected 4 If candidate raises or spends less than $2000, detailed itemization is not required. Candidate1 Votes % Vote Result Funds spent A (I)2 8,323 26.0 E3 $13,683 B (I) 7,128 22.3 E $26,807 C 6,564 20.5 E $8,835 D 5,916 18.5 - $17,064 E 4,051 12.7 - $6,142 Candidate1 Votes % Vote Result Funds spent A 8063 32.7 E $22,845 B 7102 28.8 E $2,232 C 5710 23.1 - $16,487 D 3793 15.4 - $12,964 Candidate Votes % Vote Result Funds spent A (I) 9721 44.4 E $16,834 B (I) 7563 34.6 E <$2000 C 4602 21.0 - <$2000 Candidate Votes % Vote Result Funds spent A 767 26.3 E <$2000 B 765 26.3 E <$2000 C (I) 755 25.9 - $3466 D 626 21.5 - <$2000 Candidate Votes % Vote Result Funds spent A (I) 8748 39.3 E $7,675 B (I) 7449 33.4 E $5,054 C 6075 27.3 - $20,405 15 8 League of Women Voters of Southwest Santa Clara Valley Election results for the elementary school board and high school board races that were held in 2018 and 20162 in our area are shown in Table II. In these races no incumbent lost a race, although there were many open seats, which were won by first- time candidates. Differences at the boundary of winning and loosing a race were small, ranging from 3% in the Los Gatos Saratoga High School District to 5% and 6% in the other 2018 races. This differential was even lower (<2%) for two of the 2016 races. There were significant differences in the total expenditures of each candidate for school board elections in 2018. While 6 candidates spent below the $2,000 threshold, 6 other candidates spent from approximately $6,000 up to a significantly higher level, exceeding $40,000 in one case. The average expenditure levels ranged from less than $2,000 for Saratoga Union Elementary School District, to $3,953 for Los Gatos Saratoga High School District, to $19,619 for Campbell Union High School District, which is a much larger district. The larger expenditures give some cause for concern, since a school board race is often considered one of the entry points for running for elected office. Table II. School Board Elections, November 2018 and 2016 a) 2018 Election Campbell Union High School District (SD) 2018 (Avg. spent = $19,619) Candidate1 Votes % Vote Result Funds spent A 44,953 32.8 E $40,262 B (I) 43,069 31.4 E $13,558 C 28,178 20.5 E $7,755 D 20,971 15.3 - $16,901 Los Gatos Saratoga Joint Union HSD2018 (Avg. spent = $3,953) Candidate Votes % Vote Result Funds spent A (I) 15,386 35.6 E $9,646 B 9,875 22.9 E $6,164 C 9,614 22.3 E <$2000 D 8,304 19.2 - <$2000 Saratoga Union Elementary SD 2018 (Avg. spent = <$2,000) Candidate Votes % Vote Result Funds spent A (I) 6,079 34.3 E <$2000 B 4,561 25.7 E <$2000 C 4,085 23.0 E <$2000 D 3,015 17.0 - <$2000 Campbell Union Elementary SD 2018 No election because incumbents ran unopposed. Los Gatos Union Elementary SD 2018 No election because incumbents ran unopposed. b) 2016 Election Los Gatos Saratoga Joint Union High SD 2016 Candidate Votes % Vote Result A (I) 11968 30.4 E B (I) 11856 30.1 E C 8686 22.0 - D 6879 17.5 - Los Gatos Union Elementary SD 2016 Candidate Votes % Vote Result A 6359 34.5 E B 6195 33.7 E C 5849 31.8 - Saratoga Union Elementary SD 2016 Candidate Votes % Vote Result A 5842 39.5 E B 4660 31.5 E C 4302 29.0 - 1 Letters under Candidate do not represent the same candidate in 2016 and 2018 races. 16 9 League of Women Voters of Southwest Santa Clara Valley 4. Voter Information Pamphlet One notable expense for low budget campaigns is the cost of including one’s candidate statement in the Voter Information Pamphlet. This packet includes the sample ballot and is mailed to all voters. There is a charge for including the candidate statement to cover a share of the county’s printing and mailing expense based on census population data for the election district. As shown in Table III the candidate statement cost for council races in Campbell, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, and Saratoga is $1,628, $1,561, $1,493, and $2,654, respectively. The higher cost for Saratoga is due, in part, to candidates in that city choosing to use 400 word statements, whereas the candidate statement length used in other cities is 200 words. As seen in Table IV, the cost is also substantial for school board races in our area. The candidate statement fee is due immediately upon filing to run. By law this cost can be borne by the candidate, by the local district (city or school board), or can be a shared cost. In our area, the city of Campbell charges candidates for council a $300 fee and pays for the balance of the candidate statement cost. This practice of sharing a portion of the statement fee helps to reduce the possibility that the size of this initial fee will discourage qualified candidates from running for office. The importance of the candidate statement is that voters often perceive a lack of seriousness or effort on the candidate’s part if the statement is missing in the Voter Information Pamphlet, whereas it can be a serious cost consideration for low budget campaigns. Thus in reality low-budget candidates may choose to forgo this expense even though it will reduce information available to voters and may leave a negative impression with some voters. We consider the Campbell practice of sharing in the cost of the candidate statement to be a best practice. It encourages participation by candidates, requires a moderate payment ($300) so that the candidate has some “skin in the game”, and assures the availability of candidate information to voters. Table III. City Council Candidate Costs for November 2018 Election City Population1 Candidate statement length County fee to print candidate statement2 Cost to candidate for statement City filing fee Campbell 42,466 200 words $1,628 $3003 $04 Los Gatos 30,680 200 words $1,561 $1,561 $25 Monte Sereno 3,487 200 words $1,493 $1,493 $25 Saratoga 30,599 400 words $2,654 $2,654 $25 1 U.S. Census Bureau, 7/1/2018 estimate, www.citypopulation.de/en/usa/california/06085__santa_clara/ 2 There is a fee charged by the county Registrar of Voters to have a candidate’s statement included in the Voter Information Pamphlet (mailed to all voters) to cover a share of the county’s printing and mailing expense. It is based on census population data for the candidate’s election district. 3 Campbell charges $300 for the candidate statement and subsidizes the remainder of the county fee charged by the Registrar of Voters. 4 Included in the $300 candidate statement fee. 17 10 League of Women Voters of Southwest Santa Clara Valley Table IV. School Board Candidate Costs for November 2018 Election School District Candidate statement length Cost for candidate statement1 Campbell Union High School District 200 words $3,415 Los Gatos Saratoga High School District 200 words $1,629 Saratoga Union Elementary School District 200 words $1,606 1 Candidates for school board do not pay a filing fee. 5. Useful Candidate Sources of Information There are many useful sources of information for individuals considering running in a local election. For city council races the city clerk’s page on the city web site provides links to local election and candidate information. In addition, it can be very helpful to visit with the city clerk in person. The clerk is well versed on local election procedures and can brief a potential candidate on the required processes. Also, they often provide a candidate guide, which can serve as a handbook for what needs to be done with a convenient timeline. See, for example, the 2018 Los Gatos Candidate Guide (web site given below). The candidate handbooks and toolkits are also helpful for candidates running for school board election (see for example, the CFPP web site “Candidate Toolkit” and Registrar of Voters SCC Candidate Guides given below). In addition, speaking with others who have previously served in the position being considered can be very helpful. Useful websites when running for election are: Registrar of Voters: https://www.sccgov.org/sites/rov/Info/Pages/CandidateINFO.aspx This site includes an election calendar, candidate lists, and candidate guide for upcoming elections. See, e.g., Santa Clara County Candidate Guide November 6, 2018 Election: sccgov.org/sites/rov/Info/Nov2018info/Documents/Candidate%20Guide%20- %20November%206,%202018.pdf Mar. 3, 2020 Election: sccgov.org/sites/rov/Info/Mar2020Info/Pages/Mar2020Info.aspx, and sccgov.org/sites/rov/Info/Mar2020Info/Documents/final%20091019%20Candidate%20G uide%20030320.pdf Nov. 3, 2020 Election: sccgov.org/sites/rov/Info/Nov2020/Pages/Nov2020Info.aspx California Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC): fppc.ca.gov This site details all required filing information and election regulations for California elections. It provides resources for candidates and committees, including rules, helpful web links, and video tutorials. Candidate Toolkit: fppc.ca.gov/learn/campaign-rules/candidate-toolkit-getting- started.html City of Campbell November 6, 2018 Election: ci.campbell.ca.us/930/November-6-2018-General-Election- Informa 18 11 League of Women Voters of Southwest Santa Clara Valley Transition to district elections: ci.campbell.ca.us/978/Transition-to-District-Based- Elections Town of Los Gatos November 6, 2018 Election: losgatosca.gov/15/Election-Voter-Information 2018 Candidate’s Guide: losgatosca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/21168/Candidate-Guide City of Monte Sereno City website for future election postings: http://montesereno.org Candidate handbook available from City Clerk upon request. City of Saratoga Election information for candidates: https://www.saratoga.ca.us/421/Elections Santa Clara County School Boards Association The SCC School Board Association plans to hold their Candidate Information Workshop on a Saturday in early June of 2020 for those interested in running for school board. 6. Upcoming Election Changes 6.1 Voters Choice Act for Nov. 2020 election In 2020 the Voter’s Choice Act (VCA) will enable the Santa Clara County Registrar of Voters to join five other California counties, including San Mateo, that successfully piloted the program in 2018 to offer voters more voting conveniences. Los Angeles and Orange Counties also plan to implement this new voting law for 2020. Implementation of the VCA in Santa Clara County will take effect beginning with the Presidential Primary Election, March 2020. This new model of voting means that all voters will be mailed a ballot prior to Election Day. After marking their ballot, voters will have the choice of returning their postage pre-paid ballot by mail, or dropping their ballot in a ballot drop box anywhere throughout the county, or visiting any Vote Center within the county. Vote Centers will replace traditional polling places to offer an array of services, such as: receiving a replacement ballot, receiving assistance or voting materials in multiple languages; voting using an accessible voting machine; dropping off a vote-by-mail ballot; registering to vote with same day voting available; or updating a voter registration. Vote Centers also allow a voter to cast their ballot at whichever county location is most convenient to them, meaning there is no longer a wrong place to vote, which has the added benefit of reducing the number of provisional ballots issued and cast. 6.2 District Elections The City of Campbell has changed the way that City Council members are elected. Previously, all five Councilmembers were elected at-large, meaning that all registered voters who lived in the City of Campbell had the opportunity to vote for all five City Council positions. Under the new district-based election system all five Council members will be elected by district, this means that Council members will be required to live in the district they represent and will be elected only by the registered voters of that district. The sequencing of the district elections has been determined and, in the November 2020, 19 12 League of Women Voters of Southwest Santa Clara Valley General Election seats for districts one and two will be on the ballot; in November of 2022 the seats for districts three, four and five will be on the ballot. The final adopted map with all five of the district boundaries is shown below. Many cities in California and in Santa Clara County are abandoning at-large election and adopting district elections as a result of the California Voting Rights Act. This 2002 Act prohibits the use of an at-large election in political subdivisions if it would impair the ability of a protected class to elect candidates of its choice or otherwise influence the outcome of an election. The law thus requires local governments to change from at-large to district elections if minority groups can prove racially polarized voting, or that certain racial or ethnic groups have historically voted as a bloc to elect preferred candidates. A voter who is a member of a protected class may bring an action in superior court to enforce the provisions of the California Voting Rights Act, and, if the voter prevails, he or she may be awarded reasonable litigation costs and attorney’s fees. The criteria to guide the establishment of electoral districts and their boundaries are: • Each Council District shall contain a nearly equal number of inhabitants; • Council District borders shall be drawn in a manner that complies with the Federal Voting Rights Act; • Council districts shall consist of contiguous territory in as compact form as possible; • Council districts shall respect communities of interest as much as possible; • Council district borders shall follow visible natural and man-made geographical and topographical features as much as possible. 20 13 League of Women Voters of Southwest Santa Clara Valley Other cities in Santa Clara County that have adopted district elections are Morgan Hill, San Jose, Santa Clara, and Sunnyvale. In Campbell’s case, the City received a letter from a law firm on December 3, 2018 alleging that the current at-large method of election violates the California Voting Rights Act. On January 15, 2019, the City Council considered transitioning to district-based elections. At this meeting, Council unanimously adopted a resolution of intent to transition from at-large to district-based elections pursuant to California Elections Code Section 10010(e)(2). The law provides that the City must adopt an ordinance implementing district-based elections within 90 days but allows for a 90-day extension, which the City was granted. 7. Summary of California Election Reporting Requirements California state laws regulate campaign contribution and expenditure reporting through the Fair Political Practices Commission (FPPC). All candidates for public office must file candidate information and campaign disclosure reports during the course of the election, including a statement of economic interests (Form 700). Candidates who raise or spend less than $2000 may file a short report (Form 470), whereas those who raise or spend $2000 or more must file a more detailed report (Form 460). Form 460 reports must identify the name, address, occupation, and amount of all contributions cumulatively of $100 or more from a single source. It also must detail all campaign expenditures of $100 or more by category, as well as list campaign loans and in-kind contributions. Contributions of $100 or more in cash, money orders, traveler’s check or cashier’s check are forbidden. A Form 496/497 must be filed within 24 hours of an expenditure/ contribution greater than $1,000 between Aug. 5 and Election Day for the November 2020 election. Advantages of using a service to enable electronic filing and posting of FPPC forms, as the Town of Los Gatos has done since the 2016 elections, are the convenience to voters to easily access candidate contribution and spending records online and the convenience to candidates to conveniently complete the required forms online. 8. Local Election Regulations in Cities within Santa Clara County California state law authorizes cities to enact additional election requirements as long as they do not conflict with or prevent compliance with the California Political Reform Act. The Act, which is implemented by the FPPC, specifies the content and timing of candidate campaign statement filings for local office. Additional requirements can take the form of disclosure/disclaimer obligations, reporting requirements and other aspects of campaigning. A summary of key local city regulations and practices relevant to city council candidates and voters is given in Table V for the cities in our area and in Table VI for the other cities in Santa Clara County (SCC). Local election regulations may include rules on maximum donor contribution limits, voluntary expenditure limits (VEL), term limits, and disclosure of top donors in campaign advertisements. Six SCC cities have voluntary expenditure limits (see Table VI). However, our local area cities do not have such limits. Some cities also provide special benefits to candidates to encourage the adoption of voluntary spending limits. For example, in Mountain View candidates who accept voluntary expenditure limits and pay 21 14 League of Women Voters of Southwest Santa Clara Valley an initial $500 will receive from the city payment of the balance of the approximately $2,000 cost of the candidate statement printing in the Voter Information Pamphlet. This policy appears to have proven an effective incentive for Mountain View city council candidates to limit campaign spending. For example, all city council candidates accepted the voluntary expenditure limits in the 2016 election. As another indication of the effectiveness of voluntary expenditure limits in Mountain View, the total expenditures for the 6 council candidates in the 2018 election was below or within $1,000 of the $25,539 limit, with the average spent per candidate being $20,985. Another approach used by Palo Alto and Sunnyvale is to wave the filing fee or pay a portion of the candidate statement if a certain number of registered voter signatures are collected. This approach has the advantage of encouraging grass roots interactions of candidates with voters. Mountain View also has enacted a law requiring the top 5 contributors to be identified in campaign advertisements. For small print ads (≤ 20 sq. in.), only the top 3 contributors of ≥ $2500 are required to be listed. In the area of campaign contribution limits, state and federal law allow cities to limit the maximum total contribution an individual, business, or committee can give to a candidate. As seen from Table V no cities in our area currently impose limits on contributions. For other cities in Santa Clara County, 4 have contribution limits for their city council races (Table VI). The limits range from $250 (Milpitas) to $700 (Gilroy) for a single donor. These limits do not apply to the candidates’ own contributions. In the city of Santa Clara, the size of the contribution limit is larger if voluntary expenditure limits are accepted. For example, in the November 2018 election the limit was $590 per donor if voluntary expenditure limits were accepted, and $290 otherwise. Most cities adjust the contribution limits for inflation in subsequent election years. Table V. SWSCV League area: City council election regulations City Maximum contri- bution limits Voluntary expendi- ture limits Term limits1 Election finance reports posted2 Candidate Hand- book Anticipated 2020 election procedure for city council candidates Campbell No No Two 4-yr. terms3 No Info. page City will transition to district-based elections. Los Gatos No No No4 Yes Yes At-large elections. Electronic filing of forms. Monte Sereno No No Two 4-yr. terms5 No Yes At-large elections. Saratoga No No Voluntary6 No Info. page At-large elections. 1 “Term limits” refers to the number of consecutive terms an officeholder may serve in that office. 2 Yes means council candidate campaign finance statements (Forms 460, 470, etc.) are available on the city website. For other cities the City Clerk will provide campaign finance reports on request. 3 Eligible for re-election or appointment after 22 months have elapsed since last served in that office. 4 Term limits are under consideration by the Los Gatos Town Council. In a separate action a group has planned to circulate a petition requiring a November 2020 vote on term limits. 5 Eligible for re-election or appointment after 2 years have elapsed since last served in that office. 6 Saratoga voters passed an advisory measure for a two 4-yr. term limit for city council members in 1992. However, the measure is nonbinding. 22 15 League of Women Voters of Southwest Santa Clara Valley Term limits for city council have been adopted by many local cities. As seen in Tables V and VI, Campbell, Monte Sereno, and 9 other cities impose a limit of two consecutive 4-year terms for city council office. In addition, Saratoga has a voluntary resolution stipulating a 2-term limit. Term-limited councilors can again become a member of council by reappointment or candidacy after a waiting period, typical 1 to 2 years. The Town of Los Gatos is currently considering term limits and a group has proposed collecting signatures to put the question on the November 2020 ballot. One concern that has been expressed for cities with a small population, such as Monte Sereno (population 3,540), is that it can be difficult to find qualified candidates willing to serve. Table VI. Election regulations for other cities in Santa Clara County City (population1) Maximum contribu- tion limits Voluntary expenditure limit (VEL) Term limits2 Election finance posting3 Candidate handbook Other election regulations or services Cupertino (60,170) No Yes, $29,000 Two 4-yr. terms Yes Yes, on web Voluntary expenditure limit acceptance denoted. Gilroy (58,756) $750 Yes, $1/resident No Yes No, when file Voluntary expenditure limit acceptance denoted. Los Altos (30.531) No No Two 4-yr. terms No No Los Altos Hills (8,559) No No Two 4-yr. terms Yes No Milpitas (80,430) $250 No Three 4- yr. terms Yes Yes, on web Morgan Hill (45,135) No No No Yes Yes, on web District elections for city council. Mountain View (83,377) No Yes, $25,5394 Two 4-yr. terms Yes Four page candidate guide on web If VEL accepted city pays balance of candidate statement cost after initial $500. Must disclose top $2,500 contributors in ads Palo Alto (66,666) No Yes, $14,000 Two 4-yr. terms Yes Yes, on web $25 filing fee waved if 100 signatures on petition. San Jose (1,030,119) $600 Yes, $1.25 per resident in district Two 4-yr. terms Yes Yes, on web District elections for city council. Santa Clara (129,488) $290 $590 with VEL Yes, $40,5005 Two 4-yr. terms Yes Yes, on web District elections for city council. City pays half of candidate statement cost if VEL accepted. Sunnyvale (153,185) No No Two 4-yr. terms Yes Four page candidate guide on web District elections for city council to begin in 2020. Candidate statement paid by city if 250 signatures collected on petition. 1 U.S. Census Bureau, 7/1/2018 estimate, www.citypopulation.de/en/usa/california/06085__santa_clara/ 2 Consecutive terms. 3 Campaign finance statements (Forms 460, etc.) available online on city website. 4 2018 limit. The VEL increases by 3% per year. 5 2018 limit. VEL is indexed to San Francisco Bay Area CPI. 23 16 League of Women Voters of Southwest Santa Clara Valley While term limits have been largely accepted for the office of city councilor, there has been little discussion or movement to term limits for school boards. 9. Local Election Practices One notable difference between the cities in our local area and other cities in Santa Clara County is the practice of posting campaign filing reports on the city website. As seen in Tables V and VI, for 10 out of the 11 nearby cities, the candidates’ campaign contribution and spending reports are posted electronically with a convenient link from the city’s website. In contrast, only 1 of the 4 cities in our local area (Los Gatos) posted campaign reports in 2018, and this is an increase from zero for the 2016 election. Among the various State-required filings, the posting of Form 460 is particularly important from a transparency perspective. Form 460 provides a convenient snapshot of the total contributions or expenditures above $2000 as well as detailed information on the contributions, loans, and expenditures, with donor name, address, occupation, amount, and date listed. Thus, one can quickly see if unusually large amounts of money are being raised or spent, identify any special interests making large contributions, and, if so, know the sources and uses of the funds. Electronic filing and posting is usually handled by cities through a business contract for the service and thus entails a cost to the city. While, by law, the Form 460 campaign finance reports are always available from the city clerk’s office their ease of access between online posting and having to make a request provides an impediment to campaign finance transparency. From both a voter’s and candidate’s perspective, there is a significant advantage to being able to easily access candidate disclosure information on the web at any time, in contrast to having to call, email, or go into the city clerk’s office during office hours. We suggest that if cost is an issue a simple, low-cost approach to having the reports available online would be to scan and post them as downloadable files on the city website. While a majority of voters may not wish to review the reports, we believe the easy availability of the reports helps to ensure transparency and voter awareness. One feels an increased confidence, for example if concerns arise, that one can quickly and easily check out a candidate’s campaign finance reports. In light of these considerations we suggest that the posting of campaign reports on a city’s website is a best practice that should be adopted by all our local cities. One other notable practice is providing candidate handbooks to those considering a run for local elected office. As seen in Table III and VI two of the four cites in our area provide a detailed handbook. Six other cities in Santa Clara County also provide a detailed handbook on the web, with two other cities providing abbreviated 4-page guides. For someone considering a first run for election these handbooks can be a great help in deciding on and navigating the nuts and bolts of campaign requirements. We believe such handbooks provide an important service to potential candidates in one’s community. The widespread uses of the World Wide Web and the increase in popularity of social media have significantly influenced campaign strategies for the way election funds are raised and spent. At the local level one may anticipate an increasing impact on elections, 24 17 League of Women Voters of Southwest Santa Clara Valley with a need for candidates to carefully balance expenditures for traditional campaign literature printing and mailing with the use of candidate websites and social media as important ways to reach voters and get out the vote. The ability to track the number of “looks” on a candidate’s website and social media page and, for example, to correlate “looks” with social media posts and use of Facebook or of other media’s “push” posts, have given candidates new tools to fine tune their campaigns. Some candidates have suggested that social media is a more cost effective method of reaching voters than traditional campaign websites, and that the use of social media may even be a deciding factor in election victory in some cases. Thus, while personal contact through door knocking, literature drops, candidate forums, and information posting on websites will remain essential features of communication to voters, the use of social media is increasingly seen to provide important leverage for campaigns. 10. Major Findings • We encourage our cities to post on their websites detailed candidate guidelines with links to sources of useful candidate information. Potential candidates do not always have the information needed to launch an effective campaign and may be intimidated by the election process. Many city clerks’ offices in Santa Clara County, including Los Gatos and Monte Sereno, provide a detailed package of guidelines for potential candidates. In some best practice cases we observed such candidate handbooks posted on the web along with links to FPPC guidelines, YouTube training videos, candidate training workshops, and other sources of nuts-and-bolts information on where to obtain additional help. Lowering the barrier for our city’s leading citizens to become candidates encourages participation and is in everyone’s interest. • We encourage our cities to post more information during election season on their city website regarding candidates running for city council positions. For example, the candidate statement, links to the candidate’s web page, the location and date of upcoming candidate forums, the League of Women Voters “Voter’s Edge” website, etc. could be posted as trusted sources of unbiased information for voters. Other forms of social media might also be considered by cities as additional means of promoting citizen awareness and participation in city elections. • We recommend that our cities have their city council candidate campaign reports (Form 460, 470, 497, etc.) posted on their city website. Currently the method by which voters are able to view candidate contribution and expenditure reports is different among the four cities in our area and only Los Gatos has the reports available on their website. Possible approaches range from utilizing available filing services to scanning and posting the reports by hand. We note that 10 of the 11 nearby cities make this information available online, providing greater transparency in the election process. • We suggest that city councils consider bearing a portion of the candidate statement cost, currently about $1,500 for 200 words ($2,600 in Saratoga where 400 words are used), for the Voter Information Pamphlet mailed to all voters. 25 18 League of Women Voters of Southwest Santa Clara Valley The importance of the candidate statement in the sample ballot is that voters often perceive a lack of seriousness or effort on the candidate’s part if the statement is missing, whereas in reality this expense at the outset of filing for office can be a serious cost consideration for low budget campaigns and an impediment to prospective candidates. We consider as a best practice the approach taken in Campbell of sharing the candidate statement fee where, for example, the candidate pays a $300 filing fee and the city pays the balance of the cost so that all candidate statements are printed. These practices could encourage participation of qualified candidates with limited resources in our local elections and provides voters with useful information for all candidates. • We encourage our cities to discuss the relative merits of voluntary spending limits and/or (non-family) campaign donation limits from the perspective of limiting outside influence in cases of extreme campaign finance spending. Voluntary spending limits might be combined with paying a portion of the candidate’s statement fee (typically $1500 to $1600 for 200 words) in the Voter Information Pamphlet. We consider as a best practice the approach taken in Mountain View, where after an initial $500 payment the city pays the balance of the candidate’s statement fee if the candidate accepts the city’s voluntary spending limits. • We encourage our school boards to consider sharing a fraction of the cost of the candidate statement fee ($1,600 to $3,400) to encourage qualified candidate participation in school board elections. The high cost to place the candidate statement in the Voter Information Pamphlet may be an impediment for some highly qualified candidates, who might otherwise run for local school board elections. Each district’s governing board determines whether the district or the candidate will bear the cost of the statement. Since local school boards are a fundamental aspect of our democratic process and often the first step to higher public office, we encourage our local school boards to consider bearing a part of the cost of candidate statements to encourage qualified candidate participation in school board elections and to get the candidate’s statement out to the voters. • We encourage our city councils and school boards to discuss and consider the merits of term limits in order to bring forth new candidates and ideas. After a sufficiently long period of service, for example after three consecutive 4-yr. terms (12 years), such limits would encourage participation in government at the local level and could provide an increased source of local community leaders who might run for higher office 11. Concluding Remarks We encourage our League members, community members and the leadership of our local cities and school boards to discuss, debate, and consider the major findings of this study. As a nonpartisan political organization, the League of Women Voters encourages informed and active participation in government. It is our hope that this study will help in that effort. 26 19 League of Women Voters of Southwest Santa Clara Valley We also would like to encourage candidates and voters to take advantage of the Voters’ Edge California website, http://votersedge.org/ca, during election season. This website is hosted by the League of Women Voters of California Education Fund and by MapLight. Voters’ Edge California neither supports nor opposes political parties, ballot measures, or candidates for public office. Rather, it provides a source of information on candidates and measures prior to the election. Candidates are invited to post information on themselves and their goals; League members approve the materials prior to posting. By entering a zip code you can review the information for all candidates and measures in your area, and by entering your street address you can view your sample ballot. Finally, we would like to express our heartfelt appreciation to the city clerks and others who contributed their time to help us in the study and to the League members who encouraged and supported this study. References 1. Contact League of Women Voters SWSCV at: Website: http://my.lwv.org/california/southwest-santa-clara-valley E-mail: lwv.swscv@gmail.com Phone: 408-LWV(598)-1842 Address: P.O. Box 2865, Saratoga, CA 95070 Facebook: www.facebook.com/lwvswscv Twitter: lwv_swscv Instagram: lwv.swscv 2. The previous Local Election Finance Study, issued in 2017 after the 2016 elections, can be found at: https://my.lwv.org/sites/default/files/leagues/wysiwyg/%5Bcurrent- user%3Aog-user-node%3A1%3Atitle%5D/local_election_finance_study.pdf 27 20 League of Women Voters of Southwest Santa Clara Valley Appendix A. League of Women Voters Southwest Santa Clara Valley 2019 Local Election Finance Study Questions asked to City Clerks Our League provided city officials with a Local Election Finance Study report for the Campbell/Los Gatos/Monte Sereno/Saratoga area after the 2016 election. Our objective was to provide useful information and to encourage practices that would increase transparency and participation in our local elections. Our League is now doing an update to the study that will include the 2018 election results and changes that have taken place since our previous League study. We are asking each city/town the following questions as part of our updated study. 1. Are candidate contribution and expenditure forms (Form 460, etc.) available online from your city’s website? 2. Do you post the candidate statements online on your city’s website? 3. Do you post candidate forum notices on your city’s website? 4. What is the filing fee to run for a city council seat? 5. What is the cost of the candidate statement for your city? Does the city support part of the cost of the statement, and if so how much and what are the associated requirements? 6. Are there maximum contribution limits, voluntary expenditure limits, or term limits for your city council elections? 7. Do you have guidelines for potential candidates available online? Do you offer training or other orientation to candidates running for office? 8. What changes did your city make between the 2016 and 2018 elections in the election rules, information provided voters, or support and guidance for candidates? 9. Did our League’s study have impact on any city or city officials’ actions regarding the election processes? Are there any activities currently in process regarding your city’s election rules or processes? 10. Do you have suggestions or recommendations for what the League should add to its Local Election Finance report as part of our study update? 11. Is there anything else you would like us to know regarding your city’s elections? 28 Local Election Finance Study II League of Women Voters - Southwest Santa Clara Valley Serving the communities of Campbell, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, & Saratoga Study Committee Tom Picraux*, Danice Picraux*, Eleanor Yick, Corrine Vita, Meg Giberson, Alan Giberson * Co-chairs A copy of the study may be found at: my.lwv.org/california/southwest-santa-clara-valley/local-state-and-national-studies February 19, 2020 Saratoga City Council 29 The League of Women Voters As a nonpartisan political organization we promote democracy by: • Encouraging participation in government • Educating voters • Advocating issues—but only after study & consensus on the issue 2 100 Years of Advocacy – Making Democracy Work 30 Local Election Finance Study II • What it does: Ø Analyzes local city council and school board elections Ø Examines local election regulations, financing & reporting Ø Compares practices to other cities Ø Presents findings and promotes best practices • Purpose Promote participation & transparency in local elections for both voters and candidates 3 100 Years of Advocacy – Making Democracy Work 31 4 2018 Voting and Campaign Expenditure Data Campbell Saratoga Los Gatos Avg. spent = $14,506 (6% increase) Avg. spent = $6,365 (13% increase) Avg. spent = $20,254 (83% increase vs. 2016) 7 of 8 (88%) incumbents elected 5 of 12 (43%) non-incumbents elected Monte Sereno Campaign spending varies widely (<$2000 - $40,000 /race) Avg. spent = $1,560 (80% increase) 32 5 Local Election Finance Study II For considering and discussing the merits of term limits, contribution limits and other election regulation changes to encourage election participation and transparency. We commend the Saratoga City Council: 100 Years of Advocacy – Making Democracy Work 33 Consider findings identified as Best Practices • Consider the merits of contribution limits or voluntary campaign spending limits e.g., - San Jose, Santa Clara, Milpitas, Gilroy impose contribution limits ($290 – 750) - Mountain View pays balance of candidate statement above $500 if $25,539 VEL accepted • Post candidate election contribution and expenditure reports on web (Forms 460, 470, 497) e.g., - Total contributions received - Individual contributions including: date, amount, contributor, occupation/employer, address • Cover a portion of the cost of the candidate statement for the Voter Information Pamphlet (Fiscal challenge if retain 400 vs. 200 word statement - $2,654 in 2018) e.g., - Campbell charges the candidate $300 and pays the balance (~$1300) • Continue to enhance your website for well-organized, relevant election information e.g., - Post candidate statement, contact information, & web page link; - Link to upcoming candidate forums; - Link to LWV Voters Edge info on candidates Encourage greater election participation and transparency by - 6 100 Years of Advocacy – Making Democracy Work 34 7 Invitation to Special Event Reception for LWV Centennial Historical Photo Exhibit Thursday, March 5, 6:00 – 7:30 pm Los Gatos Town Council Chambers 110 E. Main Street, Los Gatos 100 Years of Advocacy – Making Democracy Work 35 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:February 19, 2020 DEPARTMENT:City Manager’s Department PREPARED BY:Debbie Bretschneider, City Clerk SUBJECT:City Council Meeting Minutes RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve the City Council minutes for the Regular City Council Meeting on February 5, 2020. BACKGROUND: Draft City Council minutes for each Council Meeting are taken to the City Council to be reviewed for accuracy and approval. Following City Council approval, minutes are retained for legislative history and posted on the City of Saratoga website. The draft minutes are attached to this report for Council review and approval. FOLLOW UP ACTION: Minutes will be retained for legislative history and posted on the City of Saratoga website. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A –Minutes for the Regular City Council Meeting on February 5, 2020 36 Saratoga City Council Minutes ~ February 5, 2020 ~ Page 1 of 7 MINUTES WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 2020 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING At 5:00 p.m., the City Council held a Closed Session in the Fireside Room, Senior Center at 19655 Allendale Avenue in Saratoga. At 6:00 p.m., the City Council held a Joint Meeting in S. Ku Hall, Senior Center at 19655 Allendale Avenue in Saratoga. Mayor Miller called the Regular Session to order in the Civic Theater, Council Chambers at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue in Saratoga at 7:05 p.m. and led the Pledge of Allegiance. ROLL CALL PRESENT:Mayor Howard A. Miller, Vice Mayor Mary-Lynne Bernald, Council Members Manny Cappello, Yan Zhao, Rishi Kumar. ABSENT:None ALSO PRESENT:James Lindsay, City Manager Richard Taylor, City Attorney Crystal Bothelio, Assistant City Manager Debbie Bretschneider, City Clerk Mary Fury, Administrative Services Director Debra Pedro, Community Development Director Lauren Pettipiece, Public Information Officer Kate Bear, Senior Arborist David Dorcich, Associate Civil Engineer REPORT ON POSTING OF THE AGENDA City Clerk Debbie Bretschneider reported that the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on January 31, 2020. REPORT FROM CLOSED SESSION Mayor Miller announced that there no report from Closed Session. REPORT FROM JOINT MEETING The Santa Clara County Fire Department, Fire Safe Council, and the Saratoga Fire District met with the Council for a Joint Meeting. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ON NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS Carl Guardino, Executive Director of Silicon Valley Leadership Group Foundation, thanked the Council for their support of the Turkey Trot. 37 Saratoga City Council Minutes ~ February 5, 2020 ~ Page 2 of 7 Frank Sanchez spoke about the Quito Village project. Michael Balleshuo spoke about the Quito Village project. Michael Bustamante spoke about the Quito Village project and retail. Nancy Jamello spoke about the Quito Village project. Joe Jamello spoke about the Quito Village project. Jim Beebe spoke about the Quito Village project. Lisa Warren spoke about SB35 and Cupertino. Johnny Khamis spoke about SB35 and San Jose. Cheriel Jensen spoke about the Quito Village project. Paul Roland spoke about the Quito Village project. Chris Kurzke spoke about Quito Village and El Paseo projects. Teresa McLean spoke about the Quito Village project. Jim Stallman spoke about public transportation and public safety in Saratoga. ANNOUNCEMENTS Mayor Miller announced Commission recruitments for the Library, Planning, and Youth Commissions, the Community Meeting on Mountain Winery Annexation, and Love Notes in the Saratoga Village. CEREMONIAL ITEMS Commendation for Assistant Fire Chief John Justice Recommended Action: Present commendation to Santa Clara County Fire Department’s Assistant Fire Chief John Justice. Mayor Miller and the City Council presented the commendation to Assistant Fire Chief John Justice. 38 Saratoga City Council Minutes ~ February 5, 2020 ~ Page 3 of 7 Commendations for Science Fair Winners Recommended Action: Present commendations to the 2019 Synopsys Silicon Valley Science and Technology Championship Science Fair participants who live in Saratoga. Mayor Miller and the City Council presented the commendations to the 2019 Synopsys Silicon Valley Science and Technology Championship Science Fair participants who live in Saratoga. 1.CONSENT CALENDAR 1.1. City Council Meeting Minutes Recommended Action: Approve the City Council minutes for the Regular City Council Meeting on January 15, 2020. BERNALD/CAPPELLO MOVED TO APPROVE THE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES FOR THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING JANUARY 15, 2020. MOTION PASSED. AYES: MILLER, BERNALD, ZHAO, CAPPELLO, KUMAR. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. 1.2. Review of Accounts Payable Check Registers Recommended Action: Review and accept check registers for the following accounts payable payment cycles: 1/14/2020 Period 7; 1/22/2020 Period 7; 1/27/2020 Period 7. BERNALD/CAPPELLO MOVED TO ACCEPT CHECK REGISTERS FOR THE FOLLOWING ACCOUNTS PAYABLE PAYMENT CYCLES: 1/14/2020 PERIOD 7; 1/22/2020 PERIOD 7; 1/27/2020 PERIOD 7.MOTION PASSED. AYES: MILLER, BERNALD, ZHAO, CAPPELLO, KUMAR. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. 1.3. Treasurer’s Report for the Month Ended December 31, 2019 Recommended Action: Review and accept the Treasurer’s Report for the month ended December 31, 2019. BERNALD/CAPPELLO MOVED TO ACCEPT THE TREASURER’S REPORT FOR THE MONTH ENDED DECEMBER 31, 2019.MOTION PASSED. AYES: MILLER, BERNALD, ZHAO, CAPPELLO, KUMAR. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. 1.4. Final map approval for two lots located at 20625 Brookwood Lane (APN 503-23-025) Recommended Action: Move to adopt resolution granting final map approval of tentative map application No. SUB 15-0001 for two lots located at 20625 Brookwood Lane (APN 503-23-025). RESOLUTION 20-003 39 Saratoga City Council Minutes ~ February 5, 2020 ~ Page 4 of 7 BERNALD/CAPPELLO MOVED TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION GRANTING FINAL MAP APPROVAL OF TENTATIVE MAP APPLICATION NO. SUB 15-0001 FOR TWO LOTS LOCATED AT 20625 BROOKWOOD LANE (APN 503-23-025). MOTION PASSED. AYES: MILLER, BERNALD, ZHAO, CAPPELLO, KUMAR. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. 2.PUBLIC HEARING None 3.GENERAL BUSINESS 3.1. Contract for Heritage Orchard Maintenance Services Recommended Action: 1. Authorize the City Manager to enter into a 12 month Service Contract with Orchard Keepers, Inc. in an amount not to exceed $124,500 for the maintenance of the Heritage Orchard. 2. Authorize the City Manager to approve unanticipated additional costs of up to 10% of the contract amount ($12,450) as a project contingency. Kate Bear, Arborist, provided the staff report. Mayor Miller invited public comment on this item. The following people requested to speak: Neal Casteel Norman Koepernik Alexandra Nugent Joe Jamello Nancy Jamello Matt Novakovich No one else requested to speak. CAPPELLO/BERNALD MOVED TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A 12 MONTH SERVICE CONTRACT WITH ORCHARD KEEPERS, INC. IN AN AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $124,500 FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF THE HERITAGE ORCHARD AND TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO APPROVE UNANTICIPATED ADDITIONAL COSTS OF UP TO 10% OF THE 40 Saratoga City Council Minutes ~ February 5, 2020 ~ Page 5 of 7 CONTRACT AMOUNT ($12,450) AS A PROJECT CONTINGENCY. MOTION PASSED. AYES: MILLER, BERNALD, ZHAO, CAPPELLO. NOES: KUMAR. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. 3.2. Senate Bill 35 Review Process Recommended Action: Adopt resolution establishing a process for ministerial project review and approval under Senate Bill 35. Debbie Pedro, Community Development Director, provided the staff report. Mayor Miller invited public comment on this item. The following people requested to speak: Chris Kurzke Cheriel Jensen Lisa Warren Paul Roland Michael Bustamante Jim Beebe Joe Jamello No one else requested to speak. RESOLUTION 20-004 BERNALD/CAPPELLO MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A PROCESS FOR MINISTERIAL PROJECT REVIEW AND APPROVAL UNDER SENATE BILL 35. MOTION PASSED. AYES: MILLER, BERNALD, ZHAO, CAPPELLO. NOES: KUMAR. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. 3.3. Temporary Noncommercial Signs Recommended Action: Accept report on temporary noncommercial signage regulations. Richard Taylor, City attorney, presented the staff report. Mayor Miller invited public comment on this item. 41 Saratoga City Council Minutes ~ February 5, 2020 ~ Page 6 of 7 No one requested to speak. CAPPELLO/BERNALD MOVED TO ACCEPT REPORT ON TEMPORARY NONCOMMERCIAL SIGNAGE REGULATIONS. MOTION PASSED. AYES: MILLER, BERNALD, ZHAO, CAPPELLO, KUMAR. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. COUNCIL ASSIGNMENTS Mayor Howard Miller Saratoga Sister City Organization – the Organization held a meeting. Silicon Valley Clean Energy Authority Board of Directors – the Director’s had an interview with Moody’s to apply for a credit rating. The Authority also sponsored a Hack-a-thon. Several Council Members attended the Santa Clara County State of the County. Vice Mayor Mary-Lynne Bernald Hakone Foundation Board & Executive Committee – the Board discussed the upcoming Lunar New Year event on February 23, 2020 and the free shuttle from the Chamber of Commerce in the Village to Hakone. Santa Clara/Santa Cruz Airport/Community Roundtable – the Roundtable has an upcoming meeting and will receive a presentation from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). Council Member Yan Zhao Public Art Committee – during the meeting, the Committee discussed the budget, had a review of last year’s projects, and discussed future art projects. The Committee also decided on the 15 applications to be voted on by the public out of the 67 applications for the five utility boxes that will be painted. Also, the Youth Commission joined them to discuss a combined project, Art Extravaganza. Council Member Manny Cappello Saratoga Ministerial Association – the Association received a presentation by the Census about outreach and discussed possible new events for the year. Council Member Rishi Kumar Santa Clara Valley Water District Commission – the Commission received presentations on the Safe Water program and on Ground Water production charge increases. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS Vice Mayor Bernald, with support from Mayor Miller, requested an agenda item on the new sign for the Saratoga Historical Museum. City Manager Lindsay responded that the item is already scheduled for a future Council meeting. 42 Saratoga City Council Minutes ~ February 5, 2020 ~ Page 7 of 7 COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS Council Member Zhao shared she will be hosting office hours to meet with residents from 8:00 a.m. to 10:00 a.m. on the first Friday of the month starting in February at the Starbucks in Quito Village. Council Member Cappello announced that West Valley College is going to be honored by the Santa Clara County Seniors organization for helping Saratoga Seniors and for being the first Community College to receive the World Health Associations Age-Friendly certificate. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT None ADJOURNMENT BERNALD/CAPPELLO MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 10:27 P.M.MOTION PASSED. AYES: MILLER, BERNALD, ZHAO, CAPPELLO, KUMAR. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. Minutes respectfully submitted: Debbie Bretschneider, City Clerk City of Saratoga 43 Evangeline Bundang, Accounting Technician SUBJECT: Review of Accounts Payable Check Registers RECOMMENDED ACTION: Review and accept check registers for the following accounts payable payment cycles: BACKGROUND: The information listed below provides detail for City check runs. Checks issued for $20,000 or greater are listed separately as well as any checks that were voided during the time period. Fund information, by check run, is also provided in this report. REPORT SUMMARY: Attached are Check Registers for: Date Ending Check # 2/4/2020 140422 140467 46 460,606.40 2/4/2020 1/27/2020 140421 2/12/2020 140468 140501 34 274,366.96 2/12/2020 2/4/2020 140467 Accounts Payable checks issued for $20,000 or greater: Date Check # Dept. Amount 2/4/2020 140437 PW 25,986.78 2/4/2020 140446 PW 35,594.13 2/4/2020 140456 WVCWP Assessment Services 276,454.00 2/12/2020 140475 Comm. Dev. 209,823.34 Accounts Payable checks voided during this time period: AP Date Check # Amount N/A ATTACHMENTS: Check Registers in the 'A/P Checks By Period and Year' report format SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:February 19, 2020 DEPARTMENT:Finance & Administrative Services 2/4/2020 Period 8; 2/12/2020 Period 8. PREPARED BY: Ending Check # Mountain Bikers of Santa Cruz CIP Street/Parks Projects Saratoga-Sanborn Trail Starting Check #Type of Checks Date Accounts Payable Accounts Payable SCVURPPP WVCWP Agency Fund Prior Check Register Checks ReleasedTotal Checks Amount Issued to Fund Purpose StatusReason Issued to Gachina Landscape Management Various Landscape Services Coyote Properties LLC General Tree Bond Deposit Refund 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:February 19, 2020 DEPARTMENT:Public Works PREPARED BY:Emma Burkhalter, Assistant Engineer SUBJECT:Final Acceptance of Subdivision Dedication –Subdivision Application No. SDR-1486 Ashley Way RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt the resolution rescinding the previously rejected Offers of Dedications and accepting the street dedications within Subdivision SDR-1486. BACKGROUND: In 1987, all improvements within Subdivision SDR-1486,located at what is now 20842 Ashley Way,were accepted as complete by City Council Resolution No. 1486-02, and the one-year maintenance period began. Normally, once the maintenance period ends and the street has passed a final inspection, the roadway becomes a public road via a “36-B Resolution”adopted by the City Council. In this case, the resolution was never brought to Council; this fact was recently discovered when an encroachment permit was submitted for work in the unaccepted portion of Ashley Way. Staff inspected the street and determined that the unaccepted portion has been included in the City’s regular maintenance of Ashley Way, and no further improvements are required. It is therefore recommended the Council accepts the street dedication and subdivision improvements. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A -Resolution Accepting Offers of Dedication for Subdivision SDR-1486 Attachment B -Parcel Map of Subdivision SDR-1486 Attachment C -City Council Resolution No. 1486-02 1210114.2 55 Exempt under Gov Code §27383 Page 1 of 2 Recording requested by, and to be returned to: City of Saratoga Attn. City Clerk 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, California 95070 RESOLUTION NO. 36-B-______ RESOLUTION ACCEPTING OFFERS OF DEDICATION SUBDIVISION APPLICATION NO. SDR-1486, ASHLEY WAY WHEREAS, conditions of approval for Subdivision Application No. SDR-1486 required dedication of a public street along Ashley Way; and WHEREAS, offers of dedication satisfying the foregoing conditions of approval were made in the subdivision map listed below. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: That the rejection of the dedication of certain streets as shown on the following described subdivision map: Parcel Map recorded in book 534 of Maps, Page 3 Santa Clara County Records on September 14, 1984. as set forth in the City Clerk’s certification on said map referenced by Resolution No. 1486-02 is hereby rescinded and the previously rejected offers of dedication on said map are hereby accepted; AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that all of the above streets which are accepted under this resolution are hereby declared to be public streets of the City of Saratoga, County of Santa Clara, State of California. 56 Exempt under Gov Code §27383 Page 2 of 2 The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Saratoga City Council held on the 19th day of February 2020 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ______________________________ Howard Miller, Mayor ATTEST: _____________________________________ Debbie Bretschneider, City Clerk 1210113.2 57 58 RESOLUTION NO. 1486-02 RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE C TY OF SSARATOGAAPPROVINGBUILDINGSITEOFTarDoncoffe The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves asfollows: SECTION 1: The 40,122 square feet and 40,036 square feet Parcels shown as Parcel A and •B on the Parcel Map prepared by Jenning, McDermott, Heiss, Inc. and sutmittedtotheCityEngineer, City of Saratoga, be approved as two (2) individualbuildingsites. The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly intro- duced and passed by the City Council of Saratoga at a regulari meeting held on the 5th day of September 19 84 by the following vote: AYES :Councilmebers Callon, Clevenger, Hlava, Moyles and Mayor Fanelli NOES:None ABSENT: None 4s A MAYOR ATTEST: 9-Let.62, t. CITY CLERK 59 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:February 19, 2020 DEPARTMENT:Public Works Department PREPARED BY:John Cherbone, Public Works Director SUBJECT:Approval of Fundraising Plan for Saratoga Village Town Clock RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve the fundraising plan for Saratoga Village Town Clock and authorize the City Manager to execute a donation agreement with the Saratoga Village Development Council (SVDC)for the same. BACKGROUND: SVDC, Village Gardeners, and interested residents desire to enhance the function and beauty of the Village by installing a town clock (Attachment 1). The fundraising plan envisions soliciting individuals and non-profits for cash donations that total a minimum of $15,000 to purchase the clock. The fundraising plan and executed donation agreement (Attachment 2) will allow donations to be recognized for tax purposes. Donors who contribute a minimum of $2,500 will be recognized by name on the base of the clock for their donation. The Saratoga Village Town Clock is planned to be located near the north westerly corner of Big Basin Way and Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road (Attachment 3). It will be two faced so it can be viewed both coming in and going out of the Village. City support for installation of the clock is being requested through the City’s Capital Improvement Program. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A -Town Clock Design Attachment B -Fundraising Plan and Donation Agreement Attachment C -Location Map 60 Photo of town clock in Lexington Virginia 61   City of Saratoga Fundraising Plan      Fundraising Plan Title & Purpose: Please provide a title and description for your fundraising  project.    Fundraising Participants: Please list the names for all groups and individuals that will be  conducting fundraising.    Donation Type/Amount: Please describe the types and amount of donations that will be  sought.    Anticipated Donors: Please describe who will be approached for donations.    Donor Recognition Plan: Please describe how donors will be recognized.    Fundraising Timeline:  Council Review of Fundraising Plan: Fundraising Start:  Fundraising Completion:  Council Review of Donations:  Donor Recognition Complete:  Restrictions/Reporting: Please identify any restrictions or reporting requirements  associated with this fundraising plan.        62 Page 1 of 2 City of Saratoga Standard Donation Agreement The undersigned Donor wishes to make a donation to the City of Saratoga as described in more detail below. Donor is (check and complete all that apply): donating $_________________________ in a lump sum donating $_________________________ in __________________ (monthly, quarterly, etc.) payments of $_________________________ in __________________ installments. donating the following (describe products, services, investment securities, real property, etc.): If this box is checked the City’s acceptance of the donation described above is subject to the conditions specified on Attachment 1. If this box is checked this donation is restricted to the following uses: City will publicly recognize donor by (describe recognition): If this box is checked this donation is being made at the behest of Council Member/Commissioner/City Staff Member __________________________. In connection with administering this agreement, Donor and City shall work through the following primary representatives: City of Saratoga Donor Primary Representative: Address: Telephone: Fax: Cell Phone: E-mail: 63 In addition to the foregoing, Donor and City understand and agree that: 1.The City will provide Donor with a donation receipt indicating the amount of the donation or estimated value of goods or services donated within 30 days of receiving the donation. 2.Donor's contribution to the City will be recognized publicly as described above. 3.Except as provided above, the City may use the donation in any manner at its sole discretion and Donor has no right or obligation to control City's use of the donation. 4.Donor has not and will not receive any goods or services in exchange for the donation and the City will not grant any extra consideration to the donor in relation to City procurement, regulatory matters, or any other business, services, or operations of the City. 5.Donor confirms that unless indicated otherwise above this donation is not made at the behest of a City Council Member or of any member of the Planning or Heritage Preservation Commissions or staff of the Community Development Department. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this agreement. � City of Saratoga J,11�,# J.b� .'.;;'k:'.te_}ames Lindsay, City Manager Name . I / Title Date: ;2 _) / _ Z D Date: f I ��������- ATTEST: Debbie Bretschneider, City Clerk Date: APPROVED AS TO FORM: Richard Taylor, City Attorney Date: Page2of2 64 Attachmen t C Location Map 100 ft N➤➤N © 2019 Google © 2019 Google © 2019 Google 65 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:February 19, 2020 DEPARTMENT:Community Development Department PREPARED BY:Frances Reed, Administrative Assistant SUBJECT:Acoustical Study for Saratoga Senior Center RECOMMENDED ACTION: Authorize the use of City Council discretionary funds for an agreement to measure and analyze the acoustical state of the Senior Center’s meeting rooms. BACKGROUND: In December 2019, staff received direction from the City Council to evaluate options for improving the acoustical effectiveness in three rooms at the Senior Center. On January 22, 2020, staff received a proposal from Charles M. Salter Associates Inc. to provide analysis and recommend modifications to reduce reverberant noise and improve speech intelligibility for the three rooms. FISCAL STATEMENT: The proposal for analysis and recommendations if $4,500 which will be funded by the City Council discretionary fund. ATTACHMENT: Attachment A – Proposal for Acoustical Consulting Services, Charles Salter & Assoc. Inc. 66 22 January 2020 Thomas Scott City of Saratoga, Facilities Maintenance Manager 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 tscott@saratoga.ca.us Subject: Saratoga Senior Center, 19655 Allendale Ave, Saratoga, CA – Proposal for Acoustical Consulting Services Dear Thomas: Thank you for requesting an acoustical consulting proposal to evaluate options for improving room acoustics in three rooms at the Saratoga Senior Center. The intent is to document the existing condition and recommend modifications to reduce reverberant noise and improve speech intelligibility. If desired, we can also document the improvement after solutions have been implemented. This letter outlines a proposed scope of services and estimated fees. SCOPE OF SERVICES Analysis and Recommendations 1. Visit the Senior Center to measure reverberation time in each of the three rooms. The measurements will generate high noise levels for a short period of time, so it would be best to schedule them during early morning or evening hours when the Senior Center is unoccupied. 2. Produce a written report showing the results of acoustical measurements, recommended amount and placement of sound absorbing materials, and contact information for a materials supplier who can also help coordinate installation. 3. Participate in a meeting or conference call to review the report and discuss options. 4. Finalize the report based on input from the meeting. Implementation Phase Services (Optional) Since the level of effort required during implementation is not known, we can provide acoustical consulting services on a time and expenses basis. To estimate a fee, we have assumed up to 6 hours for responding to questions, submittals, RFIs, and substitution proposals, and one site visit. 1. Answer questions during bidding and pre-construction. 2. Review and respond to submittals, RFIs, and substitution proposals during implementation. 3. Visit the site to observe installation in progress. Post-Implementation Acoustical Measurements (Optional) If desired, we can re-measure reverberation time after implementation to document the improvement. This would include a written report of findings. 67 Saratoga Senior Center – Acoustics 22 January 2020 Page 2 FEES We plan to provide acoustical consulting services on a time and expenses basis in accordance with the attached Terms and Conditions. Estimated fees are as follows: Basic Services Analysis and Recommendations: Field Visit and Measurements ................................................ $2,500 Analysis and Recommendations: Report and Meeting ............................................................. $2,000 Total ............................................................................................................................. $4,500 Optional Services Implementation Phase Services (T&E estimate) ..................................................................... $3,000 Post-Implementation Acoustical Measurements ...................................................................... $2,000 Instrumentation use charges are included in the above fee estimates. We do not anticipate incurring any other reimbursable expenses. ADDITIONAL SERVICES The following services are not included in the above scope. If needed, we can develop a separate proposal for some or all of these services. • Audiovisual, telecommunications infrastructure, and security systems design • Analyses, meetings, measurements, or site visits beyond those specifically identified above • Sound isolation or HVAC noise and vibration reduction recommendations Please call if you have questions. To authorize us to proceed, please sign in the space below and return a copy of this proposal to our office. Sincerely, CHARLES M. SALTER ASSOCIATES, INC. AGREED AND ACCEPTED Phil Sanders, LEED® AP By: __________________________________ Senior Vice President City of Saratoga Enclosure Date: ________________________________ erlo/phsa 2020-01-22 Saratoga Senior Center Ac Proposal Salter 68 Saratoga Senior Center – Acoustics 22 January 2020 Page 3 TERMS AND CONDITIONS Insurance General Liability ............................................................................................................ $2,000,000 Workers Compensation .................................................................................................. $1,000,000 Automobile Liability ....................................................................................................... $1,000,000 Professional Liability (“Errors and Omissions”): Professional liability of Charles M. Salter Associates, Inc. (Salter), its officers, employees, and subconsultants is limited to $50,000 or our total fee, whichever is less. The above limitation of professional liability can be increased to $1,000,000 by increasing our total fee by 10% prior to start of our services. Schedule of Hourly Rates President and Senior Vice President ......................................................................................... $400 Vice President ........................................................................................................................ $325 Senior Associate ..................................................................................................................... $275 Associate ............................................................................................................................... $225 Senior Consultant ................................................................................................................... $195 Consultant ............................................................................................................................. $170 Technical Assistant ................................................................................................................. $115 Reimbursable expenses such as travel, subsistence, meals, lodging, and project-related materials are billed in addition at cost. Measurement instrumentation-use charges are at our standard rates. Invoices for technical labor, reimbursable expenses, and instrumentation use are rendered monthly for services performed during the previous month. Payment for each invoice is due within 30 days. Proposals are valid for 60 days. The total fee will be applied as we deem appropriate among the tasks. All proposals assume that services proceed without unreasonable delays, redesign, or scope changes. Such occurrences may warrant a renegotiation of fees. The schedule of hourly rates is valid for one year from the proposal date. A renegotiation of our hourly rates may be required after this period. Salter specifications input and details have all rights reserved by Charles M. Salter Associates, Inc. These documents are for use only on the project for which Salter is retained. It is the project architect’s and/or engineer-of-record's responsibility to coordinate and verify the suitability of all specifications input and details as appropriate for the project. To facilitate drawing reviews, we require drawing files to be electronically transmitted to us or posted online (with notification of posting) in PDF file format, in addition to any AutoCAD or Revit background/model files necessary for design purposes. Site visits and observations, if any, conducted by our firm relate only to our services. We are not responsible for the safety of others at the job site. 69 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 19, 2020 DEPARTMENT: Community Development Department PREPARED BY: Tony Gonzalez, Code Compliance Officer SUBJECT: Weed/Brush Abatement Program Assessment Hearing RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1. Open the public hearing, accept public testimony and consider amendments to the assessment report: and 2. Adopt the attached resolution confirming report and assessment of weed/brush abatement program charges. BACKGROUND: There are two programs in Saratoga that work to protect the City from wildfire risk by reducing potential fuel, like weeds or brush. These two programs include the Weed Abatement Program managed by the City of Saratoga in partnership with the County of Santa Clara via contract and the Brush Abatement Program (Wildland Urban Interface Preparedness Inspection) managed by the Santa Clara County Fire Department. On June 20, 2019, a list of properties that failed to meet requirements of the Weed and Brush Abatement Programs during the 2019 Weed/Brush Abatement Program inspections was presented to the City Council. The City Council adopted a resolution declaring the weeds, brush, and other hazardous conditions on these properties to be a public nuisance and authorizing the Santa Clara County Department of Agriculture to conduct necessary abatement work to remove the nuisance at the property owner’s expense. Following abatement, the City issued bills for related fees and expenses to property owners that failed to comply with Weed/Brush Abatement requirements. Bills were mailed December 18, 2019, by certified and first-class mail, with a payment deadline of January 23, 2020. A total of 7 properties failed to pay their Weed/Brush Abatement bills. Consequently, staff is recommending that the City Council approve the attached resolution confirming the report of unpaid bills and authorizing assessment of Weed/Brush Abatement Program charges outlined in the attachment to resolution and copied below. 70 Address APN Unpaid Bill Admin. Fee Total Mt Eden Rd 503-13-067 $5,122.79 $150.00 $5,272.79 21398 Arrowhead Ln 366-06-027 $575.00 $150.00 $725.00 14076 Quito Rd 403-22-016 $575.00 $150.00 $725.00 15120 Quito Rd 410-40-018 $575.00 $150.00 $725.00 14921 Sobey Rd 397-04-127 $575.00 $150.00 $725.00 Pierce Rd 503-15-019 $575.00 $150.00 $725.00 15401 Via Colina Dr 397-09-004 $846.03 $150.00 $996.03 If the report of unpaid bills and resolution are approved, the unpaid balances will become a lien on the respective properties and constitute a special assessment to be collected in the same time and manner as property taxes. In addition to the Weed/Brush Abatement Program fees, properties included in the accepted resolution will also be subject to a City Administrative Fee of $150. All other fees are determined by the County of Santa Clara. The City Council may waive fees proposed to be assessed, if desired. The City has already paid the County for Weed/Brush Abatement Program expenses and any changes to the fees to be assessed will reduce recovery of City expenses. The remainder of this report describes the Weed/Brush Abatement Programs, including more detailed information about the 2019 and 2020 cycles of the Weed Abatement Program. About Weed and Brush Abatement: The Santa Clara County Weed Abatement Program acts by contract with the City to protect Saratoga from wildfire by reducing potential fuel, like weeds. All properties in Saratoga are subject to the requirements of the Weed Abatement Program. In 2017, the City of Saratoga took a more active role in the administration of the Weed Abatement Program. The City now handles program communications, noticing, outreach, and billing. Santa Clara County Fire Department also operates a similar program, the Brush Abatement Program, with different parameters. The Brush Abatement Program only affects those properties in the Wildland Urban Interface (WUI) area of the City, the sections of Saratoga at the greatest risk for wildfire. Requirements for Brush Abatement are slightly different than the Weed Abatement Program. However, properties that meet Weed Abatement requirements generally also comply with Brush Abatement requirements. Information about both programs is available on the City’s website at www.saratoga.ca.us/weed_brush. Weed Abatement Program List: The Weed Abatement Program List is a list of all properties previously identified as non- compliant. Properties are removed after achieving 3 consecutive years of compliance or by action of the City Council. During Weed Abatement Program inspections, only properties that are on the Weed Abatement List as of January 31 are inspected and subject to fees, nuisance declarations, and abatement orders. If inspectors find a property that is non-compliant while conducting inspections or as a result of a complaint, the property is referred to the City and will be inspected for compliance with the City 71 Municipal Code. If the property is non-compliant with City Municipal Code requirements and conditions are not corrected by the Code Compliance Officer’s deadline, the property will be added to the Weed Abatement Program List the following calendar year. Properties that fail to meet Brush Abatement requirements by the deadline set by Santa Clara County Fire Department and included in the abatement order approved by the City Council may also be added to the Weed Abatement Program List for the following calendar year. 2019 Weed Abatement Program: In February 2019, the City of Saratoga mailed notices to owners with properties on the Weed Abatement Program list. This notice was mailed to both property and owner addresses, if different, and detailed program deadlines, possible fees and penalties, as well as information about how to request an extension to the Weed Abatement deadline. In addition to the notices, the City conducted general outreach on the Weed Abatement Program to bring greater awareness to the program and encourage residents to reduce flammable vegetation on their property, maintain defensible space, and help keep their property safe from wildfire. Following the Weed Abatement Program deadline and inspections, a second notice was sent to owners that failed inspections. This notice was sent in June 2019 and described the nuisance declaration and abatement order, including procedures for raising objections and requesting removal from the nuisance declaration and abatement order. This notice was also sent to both property and owner addresses, if different. 2020 Weed Abatement Program: In February, the City plans to mail notices to owners of properties on the 2019 Weed Abatement Program List. There is a total of 17 properties on the list for 2020. One new property was added to the Weed Abatement Program List in 2019. Notices will include deadlines for compliance with Weed Abatement Program requirements and consequences for non-compliance. Like last year, communitywide outreach will also be conducted to bring greater awareness to wildfire prevention. FISCAL STATEMENT: If the City Council wishes to amend the proposed assessments, program fees will not be recovered. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: A legal advertisement for the public hearing was published in the Saratoga News on February 7, 2020. Additionally, the bill sent to owners in December 18, 2019 included information about the assessment hearing. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A – Resolution Confirming Report and Assessment of Weed/Brush Abatement Program Charges 72 RESOLUTION NO. 20-____ A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA CONFIRMING REPORT AND ASSESSMENT OF HAZARDOUS VEGETATION ASSESSMENT CHARGES WHEREAS, at a regular meeting of the Saratoga City Council held on February 19, 2020, the City Council of the City of Saratoga received a report of all unpaid bills for weed and brush abatement expenses and a proposed assessment list, including the parcels against which said expenses and applicable administrative and collection costs are to be assessed, all pursuant to Article 7-15 of the Saratoga Municipal City Code; and WHEREAS, the City Council, having heard said report and all objections finds that no modifications need to be made to any of said assessments; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the 2019 Weed Abatement Program Assessment Report, City of Saratoga, attached to this resolution as Exhibit A and incorporated herein by reference, is hereby accepted and confirmed. The total amount will be included as a special assessment on the property owner’s tax bill following confirmation of the charges; and the Santa Clara County Auditor will be directed to enter the amounts of said assessments against the respective parcels of land on the County Tax Roll, and to collect the same at the time and in the manner as general municipal taxes are collected. A certified copy of this resolution and assessments shall be filed with the Santa Clara County Auditor. Attachments: Exhibit A – City of Saratoga 2019 Weed/Brush Abatement Program Assessment 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 February 2020 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Howard A. Miller, Mayor ATTEST: DATE: Debbie Bretschneider, City Clerk Attachment A 73 EXHIBIT A CITY OF SARATOGA 2019 WEED/BRUSH ABATEMENT ASSESSMENT REPORT Address APN Unpaid Bill Admin. Fee Total Assessment Mt Eden Rd 503-13-067 $5,122.79 $150.00 $5,272.79 21398 Arrowhead Ln 366-06-027 $575.00 $150.00 $725.00 14076 Quito Rd 403-22-016 $575.00 $150.00 $725.00 15120 Quito Rd 410-40-018 $575.00 $150.00 $725.00 14921 Sobey Rd 397-04-127 $575.00 $150.00 $725.00 Pierce Rd 503-15-019 $575.00 $150.00 $725.00 15401 Via Colina Dr 397-09-004 $946.03 $150.00 $996.03 74 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:February 19, 2020 DEPARTMENT:City Manager’s Department PREPARED BY:Crystal Bothelio, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT:Saratoga Historical Foundation Signage Request RECOMMENDED ACTION: Consider request from Saratoga Historical Foundation to replace signage at the Saratoga Historical Park at the Saratoga Historical Foundation’s expense. BACKGROUND: On February 4, 2020, the City received a request from the Saratoga Historical Foundation to replace the existing signage at the Saratoga Historical Park. A mockup of the proposed signage is below. The current use agreement requires City approval prior to placement any new signage. As a result, staff is seeking City Council direction on the signage request from the Saratoga Historical Foundation. If approved, the Saratoga Historical Foundation would be responsible for signage costs. A letter from the Saratoga Historical Foundation stating the signage request is attached. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A –Saratoga Historical Foundation Signage Request 75 Dear City Manager and City Council: The Saratoga Historical Foundation would like to request a sign in the Saratoga Historical Park with the following information: This will replace the existing sign that is located along the Saratoga-Los Gatos Road. The recent donation by The Valley Foundation allows the Saratoga Historical Foundation to create an endowment program that will enable the Foundation to educate, grow, and sustain our mission of preserving Saratoga's rich history now and for future generations. The 1904 museum, 1850 McWilliams House, and one-room schoolhouse are unique treasures of Saratoga and are a reminder of the roots of the community. Your support of this sign will help us continue to grow and thrive. Please approve this sign. Best, Annette Stransky, President Saratoga Historical Foundation 76