Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout09-01-2021 City Council Agenda PacketSaratoga City Council Agenda – September 1, 2021 – Page 1 of 7 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING SEPTEMBER 1, 2021 Teleconference/Public Participation Information to Mitigate the Spread of COVID‐19 This meeting will be entirely by teleconference. All Council members and staff will only participate via the Zoom platform using the process described below. The meeting is being conducted in compliance with the Governor’s Executive Order N‐29‐20 suspending certain teleconference rules required by the Ralph M. Brown Act. The purpose of this order was to provide the safest environment for the public, elected officials, and staff while allowing for continued operation of the government and public participation during the COVID‐19 pandemic. Members of the public can view and participate in the Commission Interviews by: 1. Using the Zoom website https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84795705156 or App (Webinar ID 847 9570 5156) and raising their hand when directed by the Mayor to speak on an agenda item; OR 2. Calling 1.408.638.0968 or 1.669.900.6833, entering the Webinar ID (847 9570 5156), and pressing *9 to raise their hand to speak on an agenda item when directed by the Mayor. Members of the public can view and participate in the Study Session by: 1. Using the Zoom website https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83486005792 or App (Webinar ID 834 8600 5792) and raising their hand when directed by the Mayor to speak on an agenda item; OR 2. Calling 1.408.638.0968 or 1.669.900.6833, entering the Webinar ID (834 8600 5792), and pressing *9 to raise their hand to speak on an agenda item when directed by the Mayor. Members of the public can view and participate in the Regular Session of the meeting by: 1. Using the Zoom website https://us02web.zoom.us/j/88284664133 or App (Webinar ID 882 8466 4133) and raising their hand when directed by the Mayor to speak on an agenda item; OR 2. Calling 1.408.638.0968 or 1.669.900.6833, entering the Webinar ID (882 8466 4133), and pressing *9 to raise their hand to speak on an agenda item when directed by the Mayor; OR 3. Viewing the meeting on Saratoga Community Access Television Channel 15 (Comcast Channel 15, AT&T UVerse Channel 99), calling 1.669.900.6833 or 1.408.638.0968, entering the Webinar ID (882 8466 4133) and pressing *9 to raise their hand to speak on an agenda item when directed by the Mayor; OR 4. Viewing online at http://saratoga.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?publish_id=2 and calling 1.408.638.0968 or 1.669.900.6833, entering the Webinar ID (882 8466 4133), and pressing *9 to raise their hand to speak on an agenda item when directed by the Mayor. Please mute your computer or television before giving public comment. Saratoga City Council Agenda – September 1, 2021 – Page 2 of 7 The public will not be able to participate in the meeting in person. As always, members of the public can send written comments to the Council prior to the meeting by commenting online at www.saratoga.ca.us/comment prior to the start of the meeting. These emails will be provided to the members of the Council and will become part of the official record of the meeting. During the meeting the Mayor will explain the process for members of the public to be recognized to offer public comment. In accordance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Governor’s Executive Order, if you need assistance to participate in this meeting due to a disability, please call 408.868.1216 as soon as possible before the meeting. The City will use its best efforts to provide reasonable accommodations to provide as much accessibility as possible while also maintaining public safety. Meeting Recording Information In accordance with the Saratoga City Council’s Meeting Recording Policy, City Council Study Sessions, Joint Meetings, Commission Interviews, Retreats, Meetings with the Planning Commission, and Regular Session are recorded and made available following the meeting on the City website. 5:30 P.M. COMMISSION INTERVIEWS Members of the public can view and participate in the Commission Interview by: 1. Using the Zoom website https://us02web.zoom.us/j/84795705156 or App (Webinar ID 847 9570 5156) and raising their hand when directed by the Mayor to speak on an agenda item; OR 2. Calling 1.408.638.0968 or 1.669.900.6833, entering the Webinar ID (847 9570 5156), and pressing *9 to raise their hand to speak on an agenda item when directed by the Mayor. Time Name Commission Vacancies Incumbent 5:35 p.m. Barbara Pei Library & Community Engagement 1 Full Term (October 1, 2021-September 30, 2025) No 5:40 p.m. Robert Gulino Library & Community Engagement 1 Full Term (October 1, 2021-September 30, 2025) Yes Saratoga City Council Agenda – September 1, 2021 – Page 3 of 7 6:00 P.M. STUDY SESSION Members of the public can view and participate in the Study Session by: 1. Using the Zoom website https://us02web.zoom.us/j/83486005792 or App (Webinar ID 834 8600 5792) and raising their hand when directed by the Mayor to speak on an agenda item; OR 2. Calling 1.408.638.0968 or 1.669.900.6833, entering the Webinar ID (834 8600 5792), and pressing *9 to raise their hand to speak on an agenda item when directed by the Mayor. Study Session on Parliamentary Procedure 7:00 P.M. REGULAR SESSION Members of the public can view and participate in the Regular Session of the meeting by: 1. Using the Zoom website https://us02web.zoom.us/j/88284664133 or App (Webinar ID 882 8466 4133) and raising their hand when directed by the Mayor to speak on an agenda item; OR 2. Calling 1.408.638.0968 or 1.669.900.6833, entering the Webinar ID (882 8466 4133), and pressing *9 to raise their hand to speak on an agenda item when directed by the Mayor; OR 3. Viewing the meeting on Saratoga Community Access Television Channel 15 (Comcast Channel 15, AT&T UVerse Channel 99), calling 1.669.900.6833 or 1.408.638.0968, entering the Webinar ID (882 8466 4133) and pressing *9 to raise their hand to speak on an agenda item when directed by the Mayor; OR 4. Viewing online at http://saratoga.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?publish_id=2 and calling 1.408.638.0968 or 1.669.900.6833, entering the Webinar ID (882 8466 4133), and pressing *9 to raise their hand to speak on an agenda item when directed by the Mayor. Please mute your computer or television before giving public comment. ROLL CALL REPORT ON POSTING OF THE AGENDA The agenda for this meeting was properly posted on August 27, 2021. REPORT FROM STUDY SESSION 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 Saratoga City Council Agenda – September 1, 2021 – Page 4 of 7 Proclamation Recognizing the 20th Anniversary of Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001 Recommended Action: Present the proclamation recognizing the 20th anniversary of terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS Special Presentation - 2021 Youth in Government Program Recommended Action: Receive presentation from staff on efforts of the Youth in Government program during the summer of 2021 and the recorded student presentation. 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 July 21, 2021. 1.2. Approve Contract with Environmental Science Associates for CEQA and Permitting Support for Citywide Creek Abutments and Bridge Repairs in the amount of $76,500 Recommended Action: 1. Approve contract with Environmental Science Associates (ESA) in the amount of $76,500 2. Authorize a 10% contingency in the amount of $7,650 1.3. Treasurer’s Report for the Month Ended June 30, 2021 Recommended Action: Review and accept the Treasurer’s Report for the month ended June 30, 2021. 1.4. Parking Restriction on Prospect Road Near Beauchamps Lane Recommended Action: Approve the attached Motor Vehicle resolution to adopt a No Parking restriction on Prospect Road. 1.5. 13053 Ten Oak Way – Storm Drainage Easement Vacation Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution Vacating a Storm Drainage Easement at 13053 Ten Oak Way, Saratoga, CA 95070 (APN 393-18-036). 1.6. Review of Accounts Payable Check Registers Recommended Action: Review and accept check registers for the following accounts payable payment cycles: 7/21/21 Period 13; 7/21/21 Period 1; 7/28/21 Period 13; 7/28/21 Period 1; 8/4/21 Period 13; 8/4/21 Period 2; 8/10/21 Period 13, 8/10/21 Period 2; 8/17/21 Period 2; 8/25/21 Period 2 Saratoga City Council Agenda – September 1, 2021 – Page 5 of 7 2. PUBLIC HEARING None 3. GENERAL BUSINESS 3.1. League of California Cities Annual Conference Voting Delegate and Resolutions Recommended Action: Designate the City of Saratoga voting delegate and alternate voting delegate(s) for the 2021 League of California Cities Annual Conference; and to give direction to the voting delegate on the proposed resolutions. 3.2. Fiscal Year 2021/22 Fee Schedule Amendment for Tree Removal Permits Recommended Action: Approve the resolution amending the Fiscal Year 2021/22 Fee Schedule to eliminate tree removal permit fees for certain trees removed in the Wildland Urban Interface. 3.3. Road Conditions Public Engagement Program Recommended Action: Provide direction on the road conditions engagement program and survey. COUNCIL ASSIGNMENTS Mayor Yan Zhao 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 Council Finance Committee Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Policy Advisory Committee VTA State Route 85 Corridor Policy Advisory Board West Valley Mayors & Managers West Valley Sanitation District Vice Mayor Tina Walia Council Finance Committee KSAR Community Access TV Board Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating Council (SASCC) Silicon Valley Clean Energy Authority Board of Directors Saratoga Ministerial Association Council Member Rishi Kumar Santa Clara County Library Joint Powers Authority Santa Clara Valley Water District Commission West Valley Clean Water Program Authority West Valley Solid Waste Management Joint Powers Authority Saratoga City Council Agenda – September 1, 2021 – Page 6 of 7 Council Member Kookie Fitzsimmons Chamber of Commerce Hakone Foundation Board Santa Clara County Housing and Community Development (HCD) Council Committee Saratoga Public Art Committee Sister City Organization Council Member Mary-Lynne Bernald Hakone Foundation Board & Executive Committee Santa Clara/Santa Cruz Airport/Community Roundtable Saratoga Public Art Committee Saratoga Historical Foundation 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 August 27, 2021 at the City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California and on the City's website at www.saratoga.ca.us. Signed this 27th day of August 2021 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, copies of materials distributed to the City Council concurrently with the posting of the agenda, and materials distributed to the City Council by staff after the posting of the agenda are available on the City Website at www.saratoga.ca.us. Following removal of State and local shelter in place orders these materials will be available for review in the office of the City Clerk at 13777 Fruitval e Avenue, Saratoga, California. In Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need assistance to participate in this meeting, please call 408.868.1216 as soon as possible before the meeting. The City will use its best efforts to provide reasonable accommodations to provide as much accessibility as possible while also maintaining public safety. [28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA title II] Saratoga City Council Agenda – September 1, 2021 – Page 7 of 7 08/31 5:00 p.m. Study Session with Planning Commission on Housing Element 09/01 5:30 p.m. Commission Interviews: Library& Community Engagement | 6:00 p.m. Study Session on Rules of Parliamentary Procedure | 7:00 p.m. Regular Session 09/15 6:00 p.m. Joint Meeting with Youth Commission | 7:00 p.m. Regular Session 10/06 6:00 p.m. Joint Meeting with Sheriff’s Office | 7:00 p.m. Regular Session 10/20 5:00 p.m. Commission Interviews: Public Art, Parks & Recreation | 6:00 p.m. Joint Meeting with Historical Foundation | | 7:00 p.m. Regular Session 11/03 5:30 p.m. Joint Meeting with Saratoga Schools | 7:00 p.m. Regular Session 11/17 6:00 p.m. Joint Meeting with Los Gatos Saratoga Recreation | 7:00 p.m. Regular Session 12/01 5:00 p.m. Commission Interviews: Heritage Preservation, Traffic Safety | 6:00 p.m. Joint Meeting with West Valley – Mission Community College District Board of Trustees | 7:00 p.m. City Council Reorganization | Regular Session 12/15 6:00 p.m. Study Session on City Council Norms | 7:00 p.m. Regular Session CITY OF SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING CALENDAR 2021 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:September 1, 2021 DEPARTMENT:City Attorney PREPARED BY:Richard Taylor, City Attorney SUBJECT:City of Saratoga Rules of Parliamentary Procedure RECOMMENDED ACTION: Discuss the City of Saratoga Rules of Parliamentary Procedure and provide direction to staff regarding any proposed revisions to be brought forward for consideration at a regular meeting of the City Council. BACKGROUND: At the December 16, 2020 City Council Operational Policies Study Session, the City Council recached consensus to bring back the Mayoral Rotation Policy, the Electronic Communications Policy, and the Saratoga Rules of Parliamentary Procedures for further review. The Council reviewed the Mayoral Rotation Policy at a study session on April 7 and the Electronic Communications Policy on July 7. A copy of the City of Saratoga Rules of Parliamentary Procedure is included as Attachment A. As part of the 2020 update to the City Council Handbook staff prepared a summary of the Rules and that is included as Attachment B. The Rules were adopted by the City Council in 2009 and are based on Rosenberg’s Rules of Order, Simple Parliamentary Procedures for the 21st Century written by Superior Court Judge and former Yolo County Supervisor and Davis City Council member Dave Rosenberg and published by the League of Cities. Staff will be available to answer questions about the Rules and how they operate. Any proposed revisions the City Council directs would be brought forward for consideration at a regular meeting of the City Council. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A –City of Saratoga Rules of Parliamentary Procedure Attachment B –Rules of Parliamentary Procedure Quick Reference Guide 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Page 1 Saratoga Rules of Parliamentary Procedure Quick Reference Guide MOTIONS The table below includes some of the more common motions, including a sample script, whether debate is allowed, and the type of vote needed to pass the motion. All these motions require a second to be considered. Motions that fail to receive a second are considered a failed motion. Desired Action Script Debate Allowed Vote Needed Take an Action “I move that/to [state desired action, such as accept staff recommendation, direct staff to perform an action, or refer the matter to a Commission or Committee for further study].” Yes Majority Amend a Motion “I move that this motion be amended by [state desired changes to motion].” Yes Majority Substitute a Motion “I move a substitute motion [state new desired action that replaces previous motion entirely].” Yes Majority Adjourn the Meeting “I move that we adjourn.” “I move that we adjourn at [state time of adjournment].” No Majority Take a Recess “I move that we take a recess until [state when the recess will end].” No Majority Suspend or Postpone Consideration of Item “I move that we table [state item to be tabled].” “I move that we table this matter until [state when you wish the item to be considered].” No Majority End Debate “I move that we call the question at this time.” “I move that we call the question [state time you wish debate to end, such as in 15 minutes].” “I move that we do not consider this item.” No Super Majority Reconsider an Action “I move we reconsider [specify when reconsideration will happen, such as now or at a later meeting] our action on [state action previously taken].” Yes Majority  Friendly Amendments to Motions: Though not addressed in the Rules, a member may informally offer a friendly amendment to a motion. If the maker of the motion and the person who seconded the motion accept, that now becomes the motion. 15 Page 2  Withdrawing a Motion: A motion may be withdrawn by the person who made the motion (this is the only person that may withdraw a motion). The motion is immediately deemed withdrawn. No second or vote on the withdrawal is required. Another member may offer the withdrawn motion as their own.  Reconsidering an Action: A motion to reconsider an action that has passed can only be made by a member of the prevailing side of the original vote and is subject to additional rules set forth in the City Code.  Multiple Motions: There can be up to 3 motions on the floor at the same time. The first motion to be voted on will be the last motion made (motion #3 is voted on first). The Chair is responsible for deciding if a motion is a “motion to amend” or a “substitute motion.” If a motion is a substitute motion and is approved there is no further consideration of the other motions on the floor. Similarly, if a motion to amend an earlier motion is approved then there is no further consideration of the original motion that was amended and only the amended motion will be discussed. MEETING ORDER AND DECORUM Generally, a speaker should not be interrupted. The table below describes some exceptions to this rule to ensure order and decorum. Desired Action Script Second Needed Debate Allowed Vote Needed Address Disruptions & Discomforts (noise, temperature, etc.) “Point of privilege, can [state the disruption or issue to be addressed]? No No No vote needed; Chair decides on issue. Object to Procedures or Personal Affronts “Point of order, [state procedural or personal affront to be addressed].” No No No vote needed; Chair decides on issue. Request Information “Point of information, [state the desired information].” No No No vote needed; Chair decides on issue. Object to Decision of Chair “I appeal the Chair’s decision on [state subject of appeal].” Yes Yes Majority 16 Page 3 DISCUSSION FLOW Chair Announces Item Report on Item Questions from Members Public Comment Member Remarks Motion and Second (if action needed) Confirm Understanding of Motion Discussion of Motion Vote on Motion Announces Results of Motion 17 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:September 1, 2021 DEPARTMENT:City Manager’s Department PREPARED BY:Crystal Bothelio, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT:Proclamation Recognizing the 20th Anniversary of Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2001 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Present the proclamation recognizing the 20th anniversary of terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. BACKGROUND: September 11, 2021 marks the 20th anniversary of terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001 that resulted in the loss of 2,977 people. Residents from Santa Clara County and Saratoga responded by reinforcing the importance of diversity and by assisting in response and recovery efforts. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A –Proclamation 18 PROCLAMATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA RECOGNIZING THE TWENTIETH ANNIVERSARY OF THE TERRORIST ACTS OF SEPTEMBER 11, 2001 WHEREAS,at 8:46 a.m. on September 11, 2001, hijackers crashed Flight 11 into floors 93 to 99 of the North Tower of the World Trade Center and 17 minutes later at 9:03 a.m. Flight 175 struck floors 77 to 85 of the South Tower of the World Trade Center; and WHEREAS, 34 minutes later, at 9:37 a.m., hijackers crashed Flight 77 into the west wall of the Pentagon; and WHEREAS, at 9:59 a.m. the South Tower of the World Trade Center collapsed; and WHEREAS,26 minutes later, at 10:03 a.m., Flight 93 crashed—after passengers fought back against hijackers—near Shanksville, Pennsylvania; and WHEREAS, at 10:28 a.m. the North Tower of the World Trade Center collapsed; and WHEREAS,we commemorate the loss of the 2,977 people who died from these attacks, including many from Santa Clara County, and we remember the survivors as well as those who’ve lost loved ones; and WHEREAS, the overwhelming majority of Santa Clara County residents responded to the events of September 11th in a unified and positive manner—reinforcing diversity as a strength in our community—and courageous individuals from our community went to New York to assist in response and recovery efforts; and WHEREAS, the events of September 11 th remain a poignant reminder of the important role firefighters, law enforcement officers, and emergency medical technicians/paramedics play in our communities every day as well as in our individual lives when tragedy occurs; and WHEREAS, the attacks of September 11th have had a lasting impact on our Nation, our State, our County and our local communities. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council of the City of Saratoga does hereby recognize and commemorate the twentieth anniversary of the terrorist attacks on September 11, 2001. WITNESS MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA on this 1st day of September 2021. Yan Zhao, Mayor City of Saratoga 19 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: September 1, 2021 DEPARTMENT: City Manager’s Department PREPARED BY: Jasmine Lee, Community Engagement Intern SUBJECT: Special Presentation - 2021 Youth in Government Program RECOMMENDED ACTION: Receive presentation from staff on efforts of the Youth in Government program during the summer of 2021 and the recorded student presentation. BACKGROUND: The Youth in Government program started in 2017 with the mission to provide educational exposure and hands-on experience in local government through a 2-week summer program. High school students who live in Saratoga are provided the opportunity to apply for this program where they meet elected representatives, learn necessary skills in City government through guest panels, and work on a mixture of individual and team assignments and presentations. At the end of the program, students received a certificate of completion that indicated their attendance of all the sessions within the two weeks. This was the fourth year of the Youth in Government program. Like the 2020 program, the 2021 Youth in Government students met virtually due to COVID-19 safety precautions. In addition to completing the program, the students were asked to provide feedback on the remote-learning aspect of the program, panels, projects and curriculum. The students shared their personal reflections (shared below) in their final assignment, which was to create a mock staff report that captured their experience of being in the Youth in Government program. The students recorded a special presentation for staff to share with the City Council and a short thank you video for staff to share with the guest panelists. Aneri Shah: Going into this program, I did not know what to expect, and what I would learn. At the end of the program, standing tall and proud, I can honestly say I learned quite a lot about the ins and outs of the local government. I learned about the mayor and city managers jobs, learned how staff reports for council proposals can take such a long time to complete, and how the public can actually have a big impact on council decisions. Furthermore, I learned how to research credible sources, and only take the information that was required. This program also taught me how to think on my feet, and answer any question, as the public can have very strong opinions about certain changes that the council is proposing to the city. Moreover, this program taught me 20 how to be more of an active citizen, and how to make my voice heard. Without a doubt, this program truly helped me understand the inner workings of Saratoga, and it’s government. Aarushi Sharma: Before joining this program, my knowledge of government, especially local government was quite limited. I never really paid attention or truly appreciated the things that the local government did for the City of Saratoga. I can confidently say that is not the case anymore. I joined this program since it seemed like an interesting experience and I was eager to learn more about something I knew almost nothing about. After the many interesting panels and educational presentations, I learned quite a lot and even more than I was expecting to. From the group projects to the kahoots, I enjoyed almost everything that we did and learned in this program. I genuinely loved this experience and I was always delighted to go to this class even with the weird circumstances that I was experiencing (my time zone being 12:30 ahead of California). My favorite project out of the 5 we did was definitely the Mock City Council. During that project, I learned a lot of valuable lessons and it made me realize that I might want to consider government or local government as a career option. I started this program as a person with low self confidence who hated group projects and ended it as the opposite. Along with that I gained knowledge that I will probably keep with me for the rest of my life. With that I can say that the whole Youth in Government experience is going to be especially memorable. Ariel Zhou: I came into this program wanting to learn more about how my local government worked. I also wanted to explore my options for the future. After the first few days of Youth in Government, I had already learned so much about Saratoga’s government and I was able to line that up with what panelists said during panels. I really enjoyed being able to learn about all the different jobs that go into Saratoga’s government. The most important thing I can take away from this program is that I am able to work better as a team. Youth in Government helped me understand and learn about the government, and I’m glad that I applied for it. Ayush Sharma: I entered the program with one principal goal in mind: to expand my knowledge on the government by learning about the government in my very own city. As the program draws to a close, I can confidently claim that I am well-versed and knowledgeable on the particular functions, details, and structure of our local government in Saratoga. An example of a situation which forced me to learn and research more about our functioning local government, was when I worked on research for the city council meeting. As a debater, I was adept and knowledgeable on topics such as climate change, affordable housing, and political campaign restrictions. However, having to argue to affirm or negate these resolutions in relation to Saratoga's state of affairs was an eye-opening experience, as the economic, political, and social climate in Saratoga is significantly different when compared to that of the rest of our nation. Presently, as the program comes to its end, I am content and glad that I was able to further my knowledge and become well informed on the functions of my city’s government. Caroline Keogh: I went into this program knowing very little about how our local government here in Saratoga works, but with an extensive interest in public policy. Now that the program is nearing an end, I can happily say that I now know the ins and outs of our local government. Being able to actually experience some of the inner workings such as the mock city council, was by far my favorite part, and was an educational experience that helped me truly understand what it is like being a member of both the staff and city council. This program also contributed in giving me public speaking confidence, something I did not have prior to day 1. Being thrown into this and having to speak on unknown topics helped me get out of my comfort zone, and after 21 not really having to speak with the past year of school being online, I feel as though it has prepared me for the coming in-person school year. Ethan Wen: I applied for this program in order to broaden and expand my knowledge in different fields. Learning things like PEST analysis and stakeholder analysis are two techniques that I believe will come in handy later in life. I liked the mock city council meeting because it allowed me to learn about various government roles as well as issues that Saratoga encounters, such as environmental issues , in an engaging manner.overall, I liked the program since I learnt a lot about a fascinating subject in such a short period of time. Lisa Fung: Coming into the Youth in Government program, I had no more knowledge of city government other than that it "runs the city". However, starting from the very first day, I gained a lot more insight on how Saratoga's city government actually functions and the ways departments must work together to realize goals for our community. Through fun group activities, asking questions to panelists, researching and writing our own staff reports, and participating in a Mock City Council meeting, Youth in Government has provided me with the opportunity of an in- depth experience to learn how our city government makes decisions and helps our city. I've really enjoyed these two weeks of learning about our city government and its many unique aspects. This program has inspired me to become a more engaged citizen and to take part in city government in the future. Nathan Lim: I never really had the biggest interest in government and was a little bit skeptical when I started this program. I wanted to do this program as a way for me to explore different interests that I might want to take part in. Through this program I learned about how our local government operates and how they help the city of Saratoga. My favorite part of this program was the mock city council and how it gave me a hand-on experience. I enjoyed acting in different roles like being a city council member and a staff member. Not only did this program give me hands-on experience, but it also taught me about the different policies that Saratoga has. Through the program I learned new ways to analyze topics and ideas. This program has influenced a small part of me to become a part of the government in the future. I definitely do not regret taking part in this program and learned a lot. Neela Sriram: When I originally joined this program I knew next to nothing about government, and since I grew up closer to the border of Saratoga I never knew all of the places that Saratoga’s government affects. This program allowed me to learn more about the different aspects of Saratoga as a whole that I never knew or experienced prior to this. I managed to learn about the different programs and sectors of Saratoga’s government as well as the different jobs from Mayor to the city clerk. I can wholeheartedly say that I now know more about government as a whole and its intricacies since starting this. I learned all about the different ways to evaluate solutions through the Youth in Government program including a pros/cons list, stakeholder analysis, and the P.E.S.T analysis. I enjoyed the mock city council meeting, as it was a helpful way to truly understand the different aspects and positions of the city government from a first hand perspective. Learning more about the different issues that Saratoga faces and how we can solve them was really interesting, as it gave me more insight on the city that I would have never thought about before. I thought it was fun putting myself in the perspective of people in government through these assignments, and I liked how interactive this program was. This program has led me to become a more informed person, and it has created a greater appreciation 22 for government and government workers. This has caused me to become a more involved citizen in my community. Taylor Chu: Being involved in the Youth in Government Internship Program has definitely taught me a lot about how our local government here in Saratoga works. Prior to joining, I only knew minimal information about our city government and policies. Because of this program, I was able to hear from many panelists such as the Mayor Yan Zhao and City Manager, James Lindsay. I enjoyed participating as staff, public, and a city council member at three separate Mock City Council Meetings, and I gained so much more knowledge about community topics and policies I did not know a lot about. My favorite part was working with the Orange Team, Lisa, Aneri, and Ayush, because I got to hear from different perspectives who came into this program with me, and it was more fun and efficient working together. A key takeaway is to keep an open mind and learn from each other because it will open many opportunities to benefit everyone. This program has influenced me, and it will help my future interests in working and helping to make our community better. 23 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:September 1,2021 DEPARTMENT:City Manager’s Department PREPARED BY:Crystal Bothelio, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT:City Council Meeting Minutes RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve the City Council minutes for the Regular City Council Meeting on July 21,2021. 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 July 21, 2021 24 Saratoga City Council Minutes ~ July 21, 2021 ~ Page 1 of 11 MINUTES WEDNESDAY, JULY 21, 2021 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING At 4:00 p.m., the City Council held a Closed Session via teleconferencing through Zoom. Mayor Zhao invited public comment on the item. No one requested to speak. At 6:01 p.m., the City Council held a Joint Meeting with the Hakone Board via teleconferencing through Zoom. Mayor Zhao invited public comment. No one requested to speak. Mayor Zhao called the virtual Regular Session to order at 7:02 p.m. via teleconferencing through Zoom. Prior to Roll Call, the Mayor and City Clerk explained that the City Council meeting was conducted pursuant to provisions of the Brown Act and a recent Executive Order issued by the Governor to facilitate teleconferencing to reduce the risk of COVID-19 transmission at public meetings. Ordinarily the Brown Act sets strict rules for teleconferencing. The Governor’s Executive Order has suspended those rules. The Executive Order does require that public agencies continue to notice meetings in advance and provide members of the public an opportunity to observe the meeting and offer public comment. The City Council met all of the applicable notice requirements and the public is welcome to participate in this meeting. Information on how the public can observe the meeting and provide public comment was also shared. Additionally, the Mayor explained that votes would be taken through roll call. ROLL CALL PRESENT:Mayor Yan Zhao, Vice Mayor Tina Walia, Council Members Rishi Kumar, Kookie Fitzsimmons, Mary-Lynne Bernald (All Council Members appearing via teleconference) ABSENT:None ALSO PRESENT:James Lindsay, City Manager Richard Taylor, City Attorney Crystal Bothelio, Assistant City Manager Debbie Bretschneider, City Clerk Mary Furey, Administrative Services Director Debbie Pedro, Community Development Director John Cherbone, Public Works Director Chris Riordan, Senior Planner Dennis Jaw, Finance Manager Nicole Johnson, Senior Planner Christina Fusco, Arborist Kayla Nakamoto, Administrative Analyst Emma Burkhalter, Associate Civil Engineer 25 Saratoga City Council Minutes ~ July 21, 2021 ~ Page 2 of 11 Macedonio Nunez, Senior Civil Engineer Mainini Cabute, Environmental Program Manager (All staff members appearing via teleconference) City Clerk Debbie Bretschneider confirmed all City Council members could hear the meeting proceedings and no doubts were expressed regarding the identities of the individuals representing themselves as City Council Members. REPORT ON POSTING OF THE AGENDA City Clerk Debbie Bretschneider reported that the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on July 16, 2021. REPORT ON CLOSED SESSION Mayor Zhao reported that the City Council held a Closed Session on anticipated litigation and to conduct a public employee performance evaluation for the City Manager. There were no reportable actions. REPORT ON JOINT MEETING Ann Waltonsmith, Chair of Hakone Board, and Shozo Kagoshima, Executive Director of Hakone Foundation, spoke about the Joint Meeting with Council. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ON NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS Carl Guardino, Executive Vice President of Bloom Energy, spoke about the August 22, 2021, Stars & Strides Run and Walk. Jeffrey Schwartz spoke about the Brown Act and the RHNA Allocation process. ANNOUNCEMENTS Mayor Zhao shared information about COVID-19 updates, the Housing Element appeal, Safe Routes to School Masterplan, and several Commission recruitments. CEREMONIAL Mayor Zhao and the Council presented retiring City Clerk Debbie Bretschneider with a commendation. SPECIAL PRESENTATIONS Presentation by Silicon Valley Leadership Group CEO Ahmad Thomas Recommended Action: Receive presentation by Silicon Valley Leadership Group CEO Ahmad Thomas. 26 Saratoga City Council Minutes ~ July 21, 2021 ~ Page 3 of 11 Mayor Zhao and the Council received a presentation by Silicon Valley Leadership Group CEO Ahmad Thomas. Mayor Zhao invited public comment on the item. No one requested to speak. 1.CONSENT CALENDAR 1.1. City Council Meeting Minutes Recommended Action: Approve the City Council minutes for the Regular City Council Meeting on July 7, 2021. BERNALD/FITZSIMMONS MOVED TO APPROVE THE CITY COUNCIL MINUTES FOR THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING ON JULY 7, 2021. MOTION PASSED BY VERBAL ROLL CALL. AYES: ZHAO, WALIA, KUMAR, FITZSIMMONS, BERNALD. 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: 07/08/21 Period 13; 07/08/21 Period 1: 07/13/21 Period 13; 07/13/21 Period 1 BERNALD/FITZSIMMONS MOVED TO ACCEPT CHECK REGISTERS FOR THE FOLLOWING ACCOUNTS PAYABLE PAYMENT CYCLES: 07/08/21 PERIOD 13; 07/08/21 PERIOD 1: 07/13/21 PERIOD 13; 07/13/21 PERIOD 1. MOTION PASSED BY VERBAL ROLL CALL. AYES: ZHAO, WALIA, KUMAR, FITZSIMMONS, BERNALD. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. 1.3. City Council and Commissions Electronic Communications Policy Update Recommended Action: Adopt the attached resolution amending the 2010 City Council and Commissions Electronic Communications Policy. Council Member Bernald and Vice Mayor Walia removed this item from the Consent Calendar for discussion. Mayor Zhao invited public comment on the item. No one requested to speak. RESOLUTION 21-049 WALIA/FITZSIMMONS MOVED TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 2010 CITY COUNCIL AND COMMISSIONS ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS POLICY, WITH THESE CHANGES: 1) IN II.B DEFINITION OF E-COMMUNICATION, ADD FACEBOOK AND INSTAGRAM; 2) IN III.G.1, REVISE “THE MAYOR, OR THE MAYOR’S DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE, IN CONSULTATION WITH STAFF IF NECESSARY, WILL RESPOND ON 27 Saratoga City Council Minutes ~ July 21, 2021 ~ Page 4 of 11 BEHALF OF THE COUNCIL TO E-COMMUNICATION ADDRESSED TO THE COUNCIL. THE COMMISSION CHAIR OR COMMISSION STAFF LIAISON WILL RESPOND ON BEHALF OF THE COMMISSION TO E-COMMUNICATION ADDRESSED TO THE COMMISSION.” TO “THE MAYOR, OR THE MAYOR’S DESIGNATED REPRESENTATIVE, IN CONSULTATION WITH STAFF IF NECESSARY, WILL RESPOND ON BEHALF OF THE COUNCIL TO E- COMMUNICATION ADDRESSED TO THE COUNCIL WITH A COPY TO THE CITY COUNCIL. THE COMMISSION CHAIR OR COMMISSION STAFF LIAISON WILL RESPOND ON BEHALF OF THE COMMISSION TO E- COMMUNICATION ADDRESSED TO THE COMMISSION WITH A COPY TO THE COMMISSION.”; AND, IN III.H CITY ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS WITH THE PUBLIC, DELETE “FOR THE CURRENT AND PRIOR CALENDAR YEAR.” MOTION PASSED BY VERBAL ROLL CALL. AYES: ZHAO, WALIA, KUMAR, FITZSIMMONS, BERNALD. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. 1.4. Award of Contract in the amount of $59,970 to Fehr and Peers Transportation Consultants to develop a Local Roadway Safety Plan Recommended Action: 1. Approve contract with Fehr and Peers Transportation Consultants for the Local Roadway Safety Plan development, in the amount of $59,970, and authorize the City Manager to execute the same. 2. Authorize staff to execute change orders to the contract up to $5,997. BERNALD/FITZSIMMONS MOVED TO APPROVE CONTRACT WITH FEHR AND PEERS TRANSPORTATION CONSULTANTS FOR THE LOCAL ROADWAY SAFETY PLAN DEVELOPMENT, IN THE AMOUNT OF $59,970, AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE SAME AND TO AUTHORIZE STAFF TO EXECUTE CHANGE ORDERS TO THE CONTRACT UP TO $5,997. MOTION PASSED BY VERBAL ROLL CALL. AYES: ZHAO, WALIA, KUMAR, FITZSIMMONS, BERNALD. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. 1.5. Resolution of Local Support for the Funding of the Blue Hills Elementary Pedestrian Crossing at UPRR Recommended Action: Adopt the Resolution supporting the Funding Application for the Blue Hills Elementary Pedestrian Crossing at Union Pacific Railroad. RESOLUTION 21-050 BERNALD/FITZSIMMONS MOVED TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION SUPPORTING THE FUNDING APPLICATION FOR THE BLUE HILLS ELEMENTARY PEDESTRIAN CROSSING AT UNION PACIFIC RAILROAD. MOTION PASSED BY VERBAL ROLL CALL. AYES: ZHAO, WALIA, KUMAR, FITZSIMMONS, BERNALD. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. 28 Saratoga City Council Minutes ~ July 21, 2021 ~ Page 5 of 11 1.6. Three Year Contract for Microsoft Enterprise Agreement in the amount not to exceed $25,669 per fiscal year Recommended Action: Authorize the City Manager to enter into a three-year Microsoft Enterprise Agreement through SoftwareONE for Office 365 and Windows Server licenses in the amount not to exceed $25,669 per fiscal year. BERNALD/FITZSIMMONS MOVED TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A THREE-YEAR MICROSOFT ENTERPRISE AGREEMENT THROUGH SOFTWAREONE FOR OFFICE 365 AND WINDOWS SERVER LICENSES IN THE AMOUNT NOT TO EXCEED $25,669 PER FISCAL YEAR. MOTION PASSED BY VERBAL ROLL CALL. AYES: ZHAO, WALIA, KUMAR, FITZSIMMONS, BERNALD. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. 1.7. Sales Tax Consultant Amendment and Novation Agreement Recommended Action: City Council to review and approve the Amendment and Novation Agreement and the Resolution for Sales Tax Consultant services to substitute the legal entity name of MuniServices LLC for Municipal Resources. RESOLUTION 21-051 BERNALD/FITZSIMMONS MOVED TO APPROVE THE AMENDMENT AND NOVATION AGREEMENT AND THE RESOLUTION FOR SALES TAX CONSULTANT SERVICES TO SUBSTITUTE THE LEGAL ENTITY NAME OF MUNISERVICES LLC FOR MUNICIPAL RESOURCES. MOTION PASSED BY VERBAL ROLL CALL. AYES: ZHAO, WALIA, KUMAR, FITZSIMMONS, BERNALD. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. 1.8. Contract with Riverview Systems Group, Inc. for installing video conferencing improvements in the Linda Callon Conference Room in the amount of $35,100 Recommended Action: Authorize the City Manager to enter into a contract with Riverview Systems Group, Inc. for the installation of video conferencing improvements in the Linda Callon Conference Room in the amount of $35,100. BERNALD/FITZSIMMONS MOVED TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO A CONTRACT WITH RIVERVIEW SYSTEMS GROUP, INC. FOR THE INSTALLATION OF VIDEO CONFERENCING IMPROVEMENTS IN THE LINDA CALLON CONFERENCE ROOM IN THE AMOUNT OF $35,100.MOTION PASSED BY VERBAL ROLL CALL. AYES: ZHAO, WALIA, KUMAR, FITZSIMMONS, BERNALD. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. 1.9. Budget Adjustment and Contract for Geographic Information System Consultant - Lynx Technologies, Inc. for $32,500 Recommended Action: 1. Adopt the attached resolution approving an adjustment to the FY 2021/2022 Operating & Capital Improvement Budget for geographic information system (GIS) consulting services; AND 29 Saratoga City Council Minutes ~ July 21, 2021 ~ Page 6 of 11 2. Authorize the City Manager to execute a contract amendment for GIS consulting services with Lynx Technologies, Inc. in the amount of $32,500. RESOLUTION 21-052 BERNALD/FITZSIMMONS MOVED TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION APPROVING AN ADJUSTMENT TO THE FY 2021/2022 OPERATING & CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT BUDGET FOR GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM (GIS) CONSULTING SERVICES AND TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT AMENDMENT FOR GIS CONSULTING SERVICES WITH LYNX TECHNOLOGIES, INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $32,500. MOTION PASSED BY VERBAL ROLL CALL. AYES: ZHAO, WALIA, KUMAR, FITZSIMMONS, BERNALD. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. 1.10. ZOA21-0001 / Amendment to the City’s Tree Regulations Recommended Action: Waive the second reading of the attached ordinance adopting and modifying Article 15-50 (Tree Regulations) to define problematic tree species and eliminate the tree removal permit fee for these trees. ORDINANCE 380 BERNALD/FITZSIMMONS MOVED TO ADOPT THE ORDINANCE MODIFYING ARTICLE 15-50 (TREE REGULATIONS) TO DEFINE PROBLEMATIC TREE SPECIES AND ELIMINATE THE TREE REMOVAL PERMIT FEE FOR THESE TREES.MOTION PASSED BY VERBAL ROLL CALL. AYES: ZHAO, WALIA, KUMAR, FITZSIMMONS, BERNALD. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. 1.11. 4Leaf, Inc. Building Inspection Services Contract for the Amount of $40,000 Recommended Action: Authorize the City Manager to execute a contract with 4Leaf, Inc. for as-needed professional building inspection services in the amount of $40,000.00 for FY 2021-22. BERNALD/FITZSIMMONS MOVED TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A CONTRACT WITH 4LEAF, INC. FOR AS-NEEDED PROFESSIONAL BUILDING INSPECTION SERVICES IN THE AMOUNT OF $40,000.00 FOR FY 2021-22.MOTION PASSED BY VERBAL ROLL CALL. AYES: ZHAO, WALIA, KUMAR, FITZSIMMONS, BERNALD. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. 1.12. Youth Commission Administration, Responsibilities, and Duties Policy Amendment Recommended Action: Adopt the resolution amending the City of Saratoga’s Youth Commission Administration, Responsibilities, and Duties Policy to authorize the Commission to set its regular meeting time and to revise the attendance policy. RESOLUTION 21-058 30 Saratoga City Council Minutes ~ July 21, 2021 ~ Page 7 of 11 BERNALD/FITZSIMMONS MOVED TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AMENDING THE CITY OF SARATOGA’S YOUTH COMMISSION ADMINISTRATION, RESPONSIBILITIES, AND DUTIES POLICY TO AUTHORIZE THE COMMISSION TO SET ITS REGULAR MEETING TIME AND TO REVISE THE ATTENDANCE POLICY.MOTION PASSED BY VERBAL ROLL CALL. AYES: ZHAO, WALIA, KUMAR, FITZSIMMONS, BERNALD. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. 2.PUBLIC HEARING None 3.GENERAL BUSINESS 3.1. Accept the Final Text and Location of Five Point of Interest Markers Recommended Action: Adopt the attached resolutions (Attachments A-E) accepting the final text, marker design and location of five Point of Interest markers and authorizing and directing the Director of Community Development and the Director of Public Works to proceed with contracting for the manufacturing and installation of the markers. Nicole Johnson, Senior Planner, presented the staff report. Annette Stransky, Heritage Preservation Commissioner, was available for questions. Mayor Zhao invited public comment on the item. Jeffrey Schwartz spoke No one else requested to speak. RESOLUTION 21-059 RESOLUTION 21-060 RESOLUTION 21-061 RESOLUTION 21-062 RESOLUTION 21-063 BERNALD/WALIA MOVED TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTIONS ACCEPTING THE FINAL TEXT, WITH THE ADDITION OF ADDING THE NAME HOP KEE IN IMMIGRATING TO CALIFORNIA IN THE 1800’S FINAL TEXT, MARKER DESIGN AND LOCATION OF FIVE POINT OF INTEREST MARKERS, AND AUTHORIZING AND DIRECTING THE DIRECTOR OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT AND THE DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC WORKS TO PROCEED WITH CONTRACTING FOR THE MANUFACTURING AND INSTALLATION OF THE MARKERS. MOTION PASSED BY VERBAL ROLL CALL. AYES: ZHAO, WALIA, KUMAR, FITZSIMMONS, BERNALD. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. Mayor Zhao requested a recess at 8:23 p.m. and resumed the meeting at 8:30 p.m. 31 Saratoga City Council Minutes ~ July 21, 2021 ~ Page 8 of 11 3.2. Authorize Contract for FY21/22 for Pavement Management Program Project in the Amount Not to Exceed $1,167,959 Recommended Action: 1. Move to declare O’Grady Paving Inc. to be the lowest responsible bidder on the project. 2. Move to award a Construction Contract to O’Grady Paving Inc. in the amount of $1,008,959.15 and authorize the City Manager to execute the same. 3. Move to authorize staff to execute change orders to the contract up to $159,000 (15%). Macedonio Nunez, Senior Civil Engineer, presented the staff report. John Cherbone, Public Works Director, and Emma Burkhalter, Associate Civil Engineer, were available for questions. Mayor Zhao invited public comment on the item. No one requested to speak. KUMAR/WALIA MOVED TO DECLARE O’GRADY PAVING INC. TO BE THE LOWEST RESPONSIBLE BIDDER ON THE PROJECT AND TO AWARD A CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT TO O’GRADY PAVING INC. IN THE AMOUNT OF $1,008,959.15 AND AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE THE SAME AND TO AUTHORIZE STAFF TO EXECUTE CHANGE ORDERS TO THE CONTRACT UP TO $159,000 (15%). MOTION PASSED BY VERBAL ROLL CALL. AYES: ZHAO, WALIA, KUMAR, FITZSIMMONS, BERNALD. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. 3.3. Road Conditions Public Engagement Program Recommended Action: Provide direction on the proposed road conditions public engagement program and authorize use of City Council Discretionary Funds for the engagement program. Crystal Bothelio, Assistant City Manager, presented the staff report. Mayor Zhao invited public comment on the item. No one requested to speak. WALIA/KUMAR MOVED TO DIRECT STAFF TO PROCEED WITH A ROAD CONDITIONS ENGAGEMENT PROGRAM USING THE TIMELINE AND APPROACH AS PROPOSED IN THE STAFF REPORT; PRESENT A DRAFT SURVEY ON ROAD CONDITIONS FOR CITY COUNCIL CONSIDERATION AT A MEETING IN SEPTEMBER 2021; PROVIDE INFORMATION AS PART OF THE ENGAGEMENT EFFORT TO HELP COMMUNITY MEMBERS UNDERSTAND THE PAVEMENT CONDITION INDEX (PCI) AND CREATE A MAP, PREFERABLY INTERACTIVE, TO SHOW THE PCI OF INDIVIDUAL STREETS IN SARATOGA; INCLUDE INFORMATION IN OUTREACH MATERIAL AND AT LEAST ONE SURVEY QUESTION TO CONVEY ADDITIONAL FUNDING WILL BE NEEDED TO MAINTAIN CURRENT ROAD CONDITIONS OR IMPROVE THEM AND POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES FOR ROADS; INCLUDE AT LEAST 1 COMMUNITY MEETING AS PART OF 32 Saratoga City Council Minutes ~ July 21, 2021 ~ Page 9 of 11 THE ENGAGEMENT PLAN TO PROVIDE COMMUNITY MEMBERS TO ASK QUESTIONS; AND, AUTHORIZE USE OF THE CITY COUNCIL DISCRETIONARY FUND IN THE AMOUNT OF $6,500 FOR RELATED ENGAGEMENT COSTS. MOTION PASSED BY VERBAL ROLL CALL. AYES: ZHAO, WALIA, KUMAR, FITZSIMMONS, BERNALD. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. 3.4. City Water Conservation Efforts Recommended Action: 1. Receive report. 2. Approve locations for conversion of grass to native landscaping. Mainini Cabute, Environmental Program Manager, presented the staff report. John Cherbone, Public Works Director, was available for questions. Mayor Zhao invited public comment on the item. No one requested to speak. WALIA/ZHAO MOVED TO ACCEPT THE REPORT AND TO APPROVE CONVERSION OF GRASS TO NATIVE LANDSCAPING AT CONGRESS SPRINGS PARK, FOOTHILL PARK, EL QUITO PARK, KEVIN MORAN PARK, AND WARNER HUTTON HOUSE.MOTION PASSED BY VERBAL ROLL CALL. AYES: ZHAO, WALIA, KUMAR, FITZSIMMONS, BERNALD. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. 3.5. City Infrastructure Projects - Update Recommended Action: Receive report. John Cherbone, Public Works Director, and Macedonio Nunez, Senior Civil Engineer, presented the staff report. Mayor Zhao invited public comment on the item. No one requested to speak. 3.6. Annual Code Update for 2021 Recommended Action: Review the proposed cleanup amendments to the City Code and direct staff to prepare an ordinance implementing the amendments for consideration by the City Council. Richard Taylor, City Attorney, presented the staff report. Mayor Zhao invited public comment on the item. No one requested to speak. 33 Saratoga City Council Minutes ~ July 21, 2021 ~ Page 10 of 11 WALIA/FITZSIMMONS MOVED TO DIRECT STAFF TO PREPARE AN ORDINANCE IMPLEMENTING THE PROPOSED ANNUAL CODE UPDATES FOR 2021 WITH THE EXCEPTION OF PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE CODE REGARDING MEETING MINUTES.MOTION PASSED BY VERBAL ROLL CALL. AYES: ZHAO, WALIA, KUMAR, FITZSIMMONS, BERNALD. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. 3.7. Resolution Amending the City’s Records Retention Schedule Recommended Action: Adopt the resolution amending the City’s Records Retention Schedule. Debbie Bretschneider, City Clerk, presented the staff report. Mayor Zhao invited public comment on the item. No one requested to speak. RESOLUTION 21-064 KUMAR/WALIA MOVED TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AMENDING THE CITY’S RECORDS RETENTION SCHEDULE. MOTION PASSED BY VERBAL ROLL CALL. AYES: ZHAO, WALIA, KUMAR, FITZSIMMONS, BERNALD. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. COUNCIL ASSIGNMENTS Mayor Yan Zhao No report Vice Mayor Tina Walia Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating Council (SASCC)– the Board held a special meeting for the Fiscal Year 21-22 budget. Council Member Rishi Kumar No report Council Member Kookie Fitzsimmons No report Council Member Mary-Lynne Bernald Hakone Foundation Board & Executive Committee – the Executive Board is considering hiring a professional fundraiser. Santa Clara/Santa Cruz Airport/Community Roundtable – Council Member Bernald reported that after waiting 5 1/2 years for a report by the FAA on the recommendations made during the 2016 Select Committee on South Bay Arrivals, the FAA presented two briefings on the Northern California Metoplex and on a half dozen flight procedures Tuesday, July 20th and Wednesday, July 21st. The FAA announced it was unable to meet the Nine Criteria outlined by the Select Committee and would not be transitioning the flight path but did indicate that the FAA would continue to work with the SCSC and SFO Roundtables in discussing more flexible criteria to offer improvements to impacted communities. The public’s general reaction was one of anger, 34 Saratoga City Council Minutes ~ July 21, 2021 ~ Page 11 of 11 frustration, and disappointment. Our SCSC Roundtable will continue to work in concert with Congressional offices to make the FAA respond to the need to reduce the impact of aircraft noise, especially in this area. CITY COUNCIL ITEMS Vice Mayor Walia, with support from Mayor Zhao, requested City Council discussion on requiring community partners that receive City support to share a financial overview during Joint Meetings with the City Council. Vice Mayor Walia requested City Council discussion on developing a policy for Planning Commission study session notifications. There was no support. COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS Council Member Kumar spoke about Senate Bill 9 and Senate Bill 10 and asked residents to send in protest emails to the State Assembly. CITY MANAGER'S REPORT James Lindsay thanked retiring City Clerk Debbie Bretschneider for her service to the City of Saratoga. ADJOURNMENT FITZSIMMONS/BERNALD MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 10:13 P.M. MOTION PASSED BY VERBAL ROLL CALL. AYES: ZHAO, WALIA, KUMAR, FITZSIMMONS, BERNALD. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. ABSENT: NONE. Minutes respectfully submitted: Debbie Bretschneider, City Clerk City of Saratoga 35 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:September 1, 2021 DEPARTMENT:Public Works PREPARED BY:John Cherbone, Public Works Director SUBJECT:Approve Contract with Environmental Science Associates for CEQA and Permitting Support for Citywide Creek Abutments and Bridge Repairs in the amount of $76,500 RECOMMENDED ACTION: 1.Approve contract with Environmental Science Associates (ESA)in the amount of $76,500 2.Authorize a 10% contingency in the amount of $7,650 BACKGROUND: Every 2 years, the State Department of Transportation issues Inspection Reports for the 19 bridges that run across the various creeks in the City of Saratoga’s jurisdiction.These Reports identify any deficiencies or changes in the structure of the bridges along with recommendations for work to be done. Recent years of drought have exposed creek banks and bridge abutments that has further increased their erosion and need for repair. Before any actual repair work can be done, the City needs to acquire State and Federal environmental regulatory permits and CEQA. This will require working with several regulatory agencies including the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW),and possibly the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). City Staff would like to engage the services of Environmental Science Associates (ESA) to help develop a clear scope of work and work with all the relevant agencies to secure the necessary regulatory permits and CEQA for the project. Staff therefore recommends approval of a Contract in the amount not to exceed $76,500 with ESA. Additionally, Staff recommends approval of a 10% contingency of $7,650 on the contract. 36 ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A – Map of Bridges Attachment B – Contract with ESA 37 Quito Road OverpassCox Avenue OverpassProspect Road OverpassFreeway 85 & Railroad OverpassCulvert37C-011137C-011237C-011337C-011437C-011937C-031537C-029437C-041637C-029537C-031637C-031737C-029637C-077537C-029737C-029337C-037637C-031337C-029237C-0314City of Saratoga BridgesLegendFreeway 85 OverpassesBridges38 &RQWUDFWRU  3URMHFW1DPH  5HY &LW\RI6DUDWRJD6HUYLFHV&RQWUDFW 3DJHRI  City of Saratoga Standard Services Contract 7KLVDJUHHPHQWLVPDGHDW6DUDWRJD&DOLIRUQLDE\DQGEHWZHHQWKH&LW\RI6DUDWRJDDPXQLFLSDO FRUSRUDWLRQ ³&LW\´ DQGBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB ³&RQWUDFWRU´ ZKRDJUHHWKDW  1. Purpose of Contract.  7KLVLVDFRQWUDFWIRU        7KHSXUSRVHRIWKHFRQWUDFWLVPRUHVSHFLILFDOO\GHVFULEHGLQ([KLELW$RIWKLVDJUHHPHQW ³6FRSHRI:RUNDQG3D\PHQW7HUPV´ ,QWKHHYHQWRIDFRQIOLFWEHWZHHQWKHWHUPVRIWKLV DJUHHPHQWDQGWKH6FRSHRI:RUNRUDQ\RIWKHH[KLELWVUHIHUHQFHGLQWKLV([KLELW$WKHWHUPV RIWKHDJUHHPHQWVKDOOJRYHUQ  2. Term. 6WDUW'DWH(QG'DWH ,I6WDUW'DWHLVOHIWEODQNVWDUWGDWHZLOOEH GDWHODVWVLJQHGEHORZ   2UXSRQSURMHFWFRPSOHWLRQZKLFKHYHU RFFXUVILUVW  3. Payment&LW\VKDOOSD\&RQWUDFWRUIRUZRUNSURGXFWSURGXFHGDQGDQ\DXWKRUL]HG UHLPEXUVDEOHFRVWVSXUVXDQWWRWKLVDJUHHPHQWDQDPRXQWQRWWRH[FHHGWKHWRWDOVXPRI BBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBBB  7KLVFRQWUDFWLVD FKHFNRQH  )L[HG$PRXQW&RQWUDFW±0RQWKO\,QYRLFHV  )L[HG$PRXQW&RQWUDFW±'HOLYHUDEOH7DVN%DVHG,QYRLFHV  1RWWR([FHHG$PRXQW&RQWUDFW±+RXUO\6HUYLFHV  1RWWR([FHHGDPRXQW&RQWUDFW±7DVN%DVHG,QYRLFHV  6HH([KLELW$BBBBBBLQFRUSRUDWHGE\WKLVUHIHUHQFHIRUDGGLWLRQDOSD\PHQWWHUP LQIRUPDWLRQ  &RQWUDFWRULVnot authorizedWRXQGHUWDNHDQ\HIIRUWVRULQFXUDQ\FRVWVZKDWVRHYHUXQGHUWKH WHUPVRIWKLVDJUHHPHQWXQWLOUHFHLSWRIDIXOO\H[HFXWHG3XUFKDVH2UGHUIURPWKH)LQDQFH 'HSDUWPHQWRIWKH&LW\RI6DUDWRJD Environmental Science Associates Permitting and CEQA Support Services Environmental Science Associates Environmental Permitting and CEQA Support for Citywide Creek Abutment and Bridge Repairs 09/01/2021 12/31/2022 76,500.00 ✔ ✔1 39 &RQWUDFWRU  3URMHFW1DPH  5HY &LW\RI6DUDWRJD6HUYLFHV&RQWUDFW 3DJHRI  4. Contract Administration7KHDXWKRUL]HGUHSUHVHQWDWLYHVRI&LW\DQG&RQWUDFWRUIRU &RQWUDFWDGPLQLVWUDWLRQDUHOLVWHGEHORZ7KH&LW\¶VFRQWDFWSHUVRQLVWKH$GPLQLVWUDWRU  Contractor: &RQWUDFWRU1DPH  &RQWDFW3HUVRQ  6WUHHW$GGUHVV  &LW\6WDWH=LS  7HOHSKRQH V   )D[  (PDLO$GGUHVV  6DUDWRJD%XVLQHVV /LF  City of Saratoga 'HSDUWPHQW  &RQWDFW3HUVRQ  6WUHHW$GGUHVV  &LW\6WDWH=LS  7HOHSKRQH  )D[  (PDLO$GGUHVV  5. Insurance&RQWUDFWRUDJUHHVWRSURFXUHDQGPDLQWDLQLQVXUDQFHDVUHTXLUHGE\WKH SURYLVLRQVVHWIRUWKLQ([KLELW%&HUWLILFDWHVRIVXFKLQVXUDQFHDQGFRSLHVRIWKHLQVXUDQFH SROLFLHVDQGHQGRUVHPHQWVVKDOOEHGHOLYHUHGWR&LW\ZLWKLQWHQ  GD\VDIWHUEHLQJQRWLILHGRI WKHDZDUGRIWKHFRQWUDFWDQGEHIRUHH[HFXWLRQRIWKLVDJUHHPHQWE\WKH&LW\  6. General Provisions.&LW\DQG&RQWUDFWRUDJUHHWRDQGVKDOODELGHE\WKHJHQHUDO SURYLVLRQVVHWIRUWKLQ([KLELW&     Environmental Science Associates Permitting and CEQA Support Services Environmental Science Associates Priya Finnemore P.O. Box 7209 Carol Stream, Illinois 60197-7209 408-660-4000 408-660-4001 pfinnemore@esassoc BUS-013165 Public Works Department Poh Yee 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 408-868-1224 408-868-1224 pyee@saratoga.ca.us 40 41 Contractor: Environmental Science Associates Project Name: Permitting and CEQA Support Services City of Saratoga Services Contract – Exhibit A Page 1 of 1 City of Saratoga Services Contract Exhibit A – Scope of Work and Payment Terms Contractor shall complete the scope of work and invoice the City in accordance with the payment terms shown below: Phase 1 Budget Notes Task 1 – Site Studies (3) $30,000 3 Site Studies, for up to 10 sites Task 2 – Draft Project Description $5,000 Task 3 – Agency Outreach $1,500 Task 4 – Assess Impacts, Phase 2 Approach $4,000 Expenses – Task 1-4 $1,800 mileage, tolls, field equipment/supplies, records search fees, etc. Phase 1 Sub-Total $42,300 Phase 2 Task 5 – Final Project Description $2,500 Task 6 – Permit Applications $23,500 3 Permit Applications (USACE, RWQCB, CDFW) + Biological Assessment (for USFWS+NMFS) Task 7 – CEQA Documentation $3,500 Categorical Exemption Task 8 – Permit Agency Follow-up $4,500 Includes up to 24 hours of follow-up and responses to agency inquiries Expenses – Task 5-8 $200 Document printing, postage and delivery, etc. Phase 2 Sub-Total $34,200 TOTAL (Phase 1 + 2) $76,500 AND/OR See Exhibit A-1 incorporated by this reference. - End of Exhibit A - 42 787 The Alameda Suite 250 San Jose, CA 95126 408.660.4000 phone 408.660.4001 fax esassoc.com memorandum date March 26, 2021 to Mr. Poh Yee, City of Saratoga cc Jill Sunahara and Andy Collison, ESA from Priya Finnemore, ESA subject Proposed Scope and Fee for City of Saratoga Bridge Maintenance Repairs: State and Federal Environmental Regulatory Permitting and CEQA Support Dear Mr. Yee, Environmental Science Associates (ESA) is pleased to present this proposal to the City of Saratoga (City) in seeking support for obtaining environmental regulatory permits and preparing California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documentation for the City’s Bridge Maintenance Repairs Project (project). This proposal is for ESA to provide permitting and CEQA services, which include conducting site investigations, developing a Project Description that captures the City’s desired list of bridge repair activities and estimates their environmental impacts, and conducting informal agency outreach to solicit input on permitting considerations. Following these tasks (which are identified as ‘Phase 1’ below), ESA will prepare and submit the necessary state and federal permit applications and prepare CEQA documentation on behalf of the City (per ‘Phase 2’). Project Understanding The City’s proposed project includes conducting maintenance repairs to several bridges within the City of Saratoga, based upon Caltrans Bridge Inspection Reports (Caltrans Reports) prepared in 2020 in accordance with Title 23 of the Federal Highway Act and the National Bridge Inspection Standards. ESA has conducted a preliminary review of the Caltrans Reports provided by the City, as well as a preliminary search of the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB) for any known observations of sensitive species within the vicinity of the subject bridges, in order to inform the Phase 1 tasks included in this proposal. Repairs recommended in the Caltrans Reports range from minor surface repairs to cracked or spalling concrete to more significant structural repairs to undermined or threatened bridge elements. We understand that the City aims to conduct the first round of urgent bridge maintenance repairs, as recommended in the Caltrans Reports, in summer 2022. As the City is aware, certain recommended maintenance repair activities may trigger the need for state and/or federal regulatory permits or approvals, such as if the work would occur in wetlands, waters, or associated Contractor: Environmental Science Associates Project Name: Permitting and CEQA Support Services Exhibit A-1 Page 1 of 8 Exhibit A-1 43 Proposed Scope and Fee for City of Saratoga Bridge Maintenance Repairs: State and Federal Environmental Regulatory Permitting and CEQA Support 2 riparian areas. Based on our preliminary review of the Caltrans Reports provided, approximately 5 to 10 bridges (out of ~15 bridges reviewed) are anticipated to require state and/or federal permits for certain recommended maintenance repairs. Based on our preliminary understanding, ESA anticipates that all or the majority of the planned bridge maintenance repair activities would be categorically exempt from CEQA compliance per California Code of Regulations, Title 14, Division 6, Chapter 3, Article 19, Sections 15300-15332. The City is a CEQA Lead Agency and compliance documentation will be required to obtain state approvals. The City is seeking ESA’s support in pursuing federal and state environmental regulatory permits and approvals for their bridge maintenance repairs from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and California Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW); if determined necessary, the City is also seeking support in obtaining related approvals from the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO). Finally, the City is seeking support in preparing the necessary CEQA documentation, which is assumed to include documentation to support filing a Notice of Exemption under Categorical Exemption Class 1 (existing facilities) and/or Class 2 (replacement or reconstruction). ESA’s proposed scope of services and associated budget to provide this support is presented below, with a list of assumptions following. Scope of Services Because the specific site conditions at each of the approximately 10 bridge locations which may require permits - including potential regulated and/or sensitive regulated resources at these sites - is not yet known, our recommended permitting and CEQA approach consists of two phases. Phase 1 includes conducting site investigation and documentation for up to 10 bridge repair sites, developing a Draft Project Description that captures the City’s desired list of bridge repair activities, estimating approximate anticipated environmental impacts from the desired repairs, and conducting informal agency outreach to solicit input on permitting considerations. Phase 2 includes preparation and submittal of state and federal permit applications, including finalizing the Project Description, and preparing CEQA documentation; the Phase 2 approach and budget may require further refinement at the conclusion of Phase 1, but has been outlined herein based on our current understanding and experience with similar projects. Phase 1 – Scope of Services Task 1 – Technical Site Studies ESA will conduct the following site studies to document existing conditions, as are typically required to support permit applications and CEQA documentation, for up to 10 sites within the City of Saratoga: •Aquatic Resources Delineation - to map the extent of waters, wetlands, and/or riparian areas expected to be subject to federal and/or state environmental regulations. Delineated areas will be limited to the extent of anticipated project disturbance at a total of up to 10 sites, including staging and access areas, as directed by the City. A Delineation Report will be prepared that is suitable for use in analyzing potential project effects to waters or wetlands, development of avoidance and minimization measures, and state and federal permitting, as appropriate. Contractor: Environmental Science Associates Project Name: Permitting and CEQA Support Services Exhibit A-1 Page 2 of 8 44 Proposed Scope and Fee for City of Saratoga Bridge Maintenance Repairs: State and Federal Environmental Regulatory Permitting and CEQA Support 3 •Biological Resources Evaluation - to map existing vegetation communities, record observed species, and characterize potential suitability for supporting sensitive species, particularly special-status species under the protection of federal and/or state agencies, at up to 10 sites. The evaluation will also include the results of records searches for special-status species known in and around the sites (such as the California Natural Diversity Database, USFWS species lists and critical habitat mapper, and the California Native Plant Society List of Rare, Threatened and Endangered Plants). Information developed for the Biological Resources Evaluation will be suitable for use in analyzing potential project effects to biological resources, development of avoidance and minimization measures, and coordination with state and/or federal wildlife agencies, as appropriate. •Cultural Resources Study - to conduct surface surveys of the Area of Potential Effects (including access and staging areas) at up to 10 sites. The study will meet the requirements of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) and include conducting background research at the Northwest Information Center of the California Historical Resources Information System (CHRIS), and contacting the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) to request information on known sacred sites in the project vicinity. The NAHC results and a list of tribes will be provided for the USACE’s use in Section 106 consultation, and recommendations for additional work, if determined necessary, will be provided; this may include further site evaluations, monitoring during project implementation, and/or actions to follow in the event of an inadvertent discovery of archaeological materials or human remains. The above studies will address up to 10 site’s and specifically those areas where ground disturbance and construction activities are expected to occur, as well as potential staging areas and access routes, as directed by the City. Studies will be conducted by qualified field staff and in accordance with current agency-specific guidance, protocols, and requirements. For each subtask above, a memorandum or report will be prepared, in compliance with agency requirements and suitable for use in CEQA documentation and/or permitting (Phase 2, below). Memorandums or reports will include representative site photographs of each bridge site visited, for up to 10 sites. Deliverables: one draft and one final Memorandum or Report (in electronic format, and including maps and graphics) for each of the three studies above. Task 2 – Prepare Draft Project Description ESA, in partnership with the City, will comprehensively describe the desired bridge maintenance repair activities, as recommended in Caltrans Reports and/or by City staff, and identify those bridge repairs that are the most urgent and most easily addressed under various ‘streamlined’ state and/or federal agency permits or approval mechanisms. Generally, this proposed ‘List of Bridge Maintenance Repairs’ should result in minimal environmental impacts; be aimed at maintaining the original character, capacity, and structural integrity of the existing structures (with little or no “new” structures or permanent impact footprints); and should be expected to meet the criteria for the CEQA Categorical Exemption Class 1 and/or 2. ESA will meet with City staff to confirm the desired list of activities, and prepare a Draft Project Description of the ‘List of Bridge Maintenance Repairs’ for City review and comment. Upon receipt of consolidated comments from the City, ESA will prepare a final Draft Project Description suitable for refinement and use in future (Phase 2)permit applications and CEQA documentation. The Draft Project Description will include accompanying maps and graphics, including representative site photographs obtained during Task 1 site studies (above). Contractor: Environmental Science Associates Project Name: Permitting and CEQA Support Services Exhibit A-1 Page 3 of 8 45 Proposed Scope and Fee for City of Saratoga Bridge Maintenance Repairs: State and Federal Environmental Regulatory Permitting and CEQA Support 4 Note: the Final Project Description would be prepared as part of Phase 2 services (below). Deliverables: one draft and one final Draft Project Description (in electronic format, and including maps and graphics). Task 3 – Informal Regulatory Agency Outreach In coordination with the City (and following the City’s preferred methods of external communication), ESA will conduct informal regulatory agency outreach to the USACE, RWQCB, and CDFW, NMFS, and USFWS to discuss the proposed project, sensitive/regulated resources, specific agency concerns, recommendations for project design and implementation, and suggested permitting strategies for streamlining the City’s desired maintenance repairs. ESA will prepare an informal Telephone Notes memorandum, summarizing the results of informal agency contact and any key input or recommendations obtained. Deliverables: one draft and one final Telephone Notes memorandum (in electronic format). Task 4 – Assess Anticipated Impacts and Confirm Phase 2 Approach Based on the information and results obtained during Tasks 1-3 above, ESA will conduct a preliminary assessment of approximate project impacts (both temporary and permanent) to regulated environmental resources (waters, wetlands, and riparian areas as well as sensitive cultural and/or biological resources, as documented during Task 1), in order to inform the City and enable confirmation of the permitting and CEQA approaches outlined in Phase 2 below, as well as to evaluate opportunities for avoidance and/or minimization and potential compensatory mitigation requirements. ESA will prepare a brief (2-3 page) Approach Memorandum summarizing the anticipated project impacts and recommended permitting and CEQA approaches (for Phase 2). Based on the above assessment, and following City input on the Memorandum, ESA will confirm, and if needed refine, the Phase 2 approach to obtain regulatory agency permits and approvals and CEQA documentation required for the City’s proposed bridge maintenance repairs. Once an approach is confirmed by the City, we will confirm, and if needed refine, the scope, schedule, and anticipated cost estimate for Phase 2 tasks. Deliverables: one draft and one final Phase 2 Approach Memorandum (in electronic format). Deliverables Note: a revised Phase 2 scope, schedule, and budget may also be prepared, if the below Phase 2 proposal is determined to necessitate substantial revisions based on ESA’s Phase 1 findings or the City’s stated preferences regarding project approach. Phase 2 – Scope of Services Anticipated Phase 2 Tasks are outlined below. Phase 2 tasks, scope, and budget may be refined, if necessary, at the conclusion of Phase 1 tasks, and specifically as a part of Task 4 - Assess Anticipated Impacts and Confirm Phase 2 Approach, above. Work on Phase 2 Tasks shall not proceed without City authorization. Contractor: Environmental Science Associates Project Name: Permitting and CEQA Support Services Exhibit A-1 Page 4 of 8 46 Proposed Scope and Fee for City of Saratoga Bridge Maintenance Repairs: State and Federal Environmental Regulatory Permitting and CEQA Support 5 Task 5 – Final Project Description Prepare the final Project Description, for use in permitting and CEQA (Tasks 6 and 7 below), based on City direction and the results and outcomes in Phase 1, and to include more specifics with respect to anticipated repair methods and durations, construction access and staging, and avoidance and minimization methods. Deliverables: one draft and one Final Project Description (in electronic format, and including maps and graphics). Task 6 – Permit Applications ESA will prepare and submit permit applications to request federal and state authorization to conduct the City’s proposed List of Bridge Maintenance Repairs, and in accordance with the proposed approach developed and confirmed in Task 4 (above). Permit applications will be prepared to meet current agency requirements and guidance. Based on our current understanding, application packages for the following agency permits will be prepared and submitted: •USACE – Section 404 Nationwide Permit •RWQCB – Section 401 Water Quality Certification •CDFW – Section 1600 Streambed Alteration Agreement In addition, to support the USACE’s required assessment of potential effects to federally-listed species during their Section 404 permit processing, ESA will prepare a Biological Assessment (BA) document, based upon the Final Project Description (Task 5) and building upon the baseline information documented in the Biological Resources Evaluation (Task 1). The BA will assess potential project effects to federally listed species and/or habitats protected the USFWS and NMFS, and will be suitable for use by the USACE in conducing consultation(s) with those agencies pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act, as the USACE deems appropriate. Finally, the Cultural Resources Report (prepared under Task 1) will be suitable for use by the USACE in conducing consultation with the SHPO pursuant to Section 106 of the NHPA during their Section 404 permit processing, as they deem appropriate. Deliverables: one draft and one final permit application package for each of the 3 agencies above, and one draft and one final Biological Assessment for use by the USACE (in electronic format, and including maps and graphics). Task 7 – CEQA Categorical Exemption As part of Phase 2, ESA will consult with staff from the City’s Community Development Department to facilitate the City’s determination of the appropriate CEQA document for the project. Based on our current understanding of the bridge repairs to be undertaken, we are assuming that the project would qualify for a Categorical Exemption and that none of the exceptions in CEQA Guidelines Section 15300.2 apply (i.e., that there is no reasonable possibility of a significant environmental effect, that none of the affected bridges qualify as a historical resource, that none of the sites is included on a list compiled pursuant to California Government Code Contractor: Environmental Science Associates Project Name: Permitting and CEQA Support Services Exhibit A-1 Page 5 of 8 47 Proposed Scope and Fee for City of Saratoga Bridge Maintenance Repairs: State and Federal Environmental Regulatory Permitting and CEQA Support 6 Section 65962.5 for hazardous materials, and that none of the locations are within a scenic highway). Potentially applicable Categorical Exemption classes of projects include Class 1: Existing Facilities (CEQA Guidelines Section 15301(c)) and/or Class 2: Replacement or Reconstruction ((CEQA Guidelines Section 15302(c)). Based on the above, ESA would prepare a brief (2-page) Memorandum documenting project compliance with the appropriate class of Categorical Exemption, as confirmed by the City. (Additional scope and budget would be required if the City determines that project does not satisfy the criteria for a Categorical Exemption and that a Mitigated Negative Declaration is instead required.) Deliverables: one draft and one final CEQA Categorical Exemption Memorandum (in electronic format, and including necessary supporting maps or graphics). Task 8 – Permit Agency Follow-Up ESA will support the City by conducting periodic regulatory agency follow-up, after submittal of permit applications, in order to ensure timely agency review and processing, and to answer any questions or submit additional information as requested by the agencies. Coordination services will be provided within the budget allotted for this task. Deliverables: none Assumptions: •The City will provide ESA staff access to up to 10 bridge sites to be included in the project, including any necessary landowner permissions. If landowner notifications are recommended before conducting site visits, the City will conduct the landowner outreach on ESA’s behalf. •The USACE, as the federal agency responsible for a discretionary permit action for the project, will serve as the lead federal agency and be responsible for conducting interagency consultations with USFWS and/or NMFS pursuant to Section 7 of the Endangered Species Act and with SHPO pursuant to Section 106 of the NHPA for the project; ESA will provide studies necessary for these consultations within the scope and budgets presented in this proposal. •The Project will not be federally-funded or located on federal land; as such, no National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA) documentation is expected to be required or included in this scope. •Project descriptions and construction methods, suitable for use in preparing the Project Description and permit application documentation, including impact assessments, will be provided by the City. •No protocol-level special-status plant or wildlife surveys are included in this scope. No arborist survey or tree assessment is included in this scope. If these are determined necessary, they can be provided under separate scope and budget. •No ‘take’ (harm, harassment, injury, or mortality) of state- or federally-listed species is expected to result from project activities (assuming adequate avoidance and minimization measures can be developed and implemented), and therefore a finding of either ‘No Effect’ or ‘May Affect, but Not Likely to Adversely Affect’ is expected to be reached in the Biological Assessment (Task 6). As such, either no consultations Contractor: Environmental Science Associates Project Name: Permitting and CEQA Support Services Exhibit A-1 Page 6 of 8 48 Proposed Scope and Fee for City of Saratoga Bridge Maintenance Repairs: State and Federal Environmental Regulatory Permitting and CEQA Support 7 or ‘informal’ Section 7 FESA consultations with the USFWS and/or NMFS are expected to be undertaken by the USACE, and concurrence with these findings is expected to be sought and obtained for the project by the USACE. •No subsurface archaeological testing is included in this scope; if determined necessary, it could be completed under a separate scope and budget. •All bridges will be determined not eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (Category 5), no archaeological resources will be identified or impacted by the project, no additional architectural resources would be impacted by the project, and the Study’s finding will be ‘No Historic Properties Affected.’ If significant archaeological resources are identified and would be adversely affected, additional documentation and consultation may be required. •The level of effort anticipated for all tasks is reflected in the cost estimate provided below. If additional effort is required to complete Tasks 1-8, including providing follow-up support to the City after submittal of all applications in order to obtain final agency permits and approvals, additional scope and/or budget may be necessary. If contract amendments may be necessary, a meeting with the City will be requested and follow up actions, such as providing a contract amendment request, will be taken as directed by the City. •The City will provide one set of consolidated comments on all draft deliverables; ESA will prepare one final version of each deliverable based on the consolidated set of City comments. Cost Estimate The below table presents our estimated costs, including labor and expenses, for the work described in Tasks 1-8 above, as currently anticipated to be necessary. As noted above, Phase 2 tasks, scope, and budget may be refined, if necessary, at the conclusion of Phase 1 tasks. Additional detail for this cost estimate can be provided upon request. Phase 1 Budget Notes: Task 1 – Site Studies (3) $30,000 3 Site Studies, for up to 10 sites Task 2 – Draft Project Description $5,000 Task 3 – Agency Outreach $1,500 Task 4 – Assess Impacts, Phase 2 Approach $4,000 Expenses - Task 1-4 $1,800 E.g., mileage, tolls, field equipment/supplies, records search fees, etc. Phase 1 Sub-Total $42,300 Phase 2 Task 5 – Final Project Description $2,500 Task 6 – Permit Applications $23,500 3 Permit Applications (USACE, RWQCB, CDFW) + Biological Assessment (for USFWS+NMFS) Task 7 – CEQA Documentation $3,500 Categorical Exemption Contractor: Environmental Science Associates Project Name: Permitting and CEQA Support Services Exhibit A-1 Page 7 of 8 49 Proposed Scope and Fee for City of Saratoga Bridge Maintenance Repairs: State and Federal Environmental Regulatory Permitting and CEQA Support 8 Task 8 – Permit Agency Follow-Up $4,500 Includes up to 24 hours of follow-up and responses to agency inquiries Expenses - Task 5-8 $ 200 Document printing, postage and delivery, etc. Phase 2 Sub-Total $34,200 TOTAL (Phase 1 + 2) $76,500 Schedule - Phase 1 and 2 (as currently anticipated) We understand that the City aims to conduct the first round of urgent bridge maintenance repairs, as recommended in the Caltrans Reports, in summer of 2022. Though ESA cannot guarantee successful procurement of regulatory agency permits and approvals within a desired timeframe, the schedule estimate below was developed to support the City’s schedule goals, and is based on our current project understanding and anticipation of the work required. ESA can begin work on Task 1 within 2 weeks of written Notice to Proceed,. Month: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Phase 1: Task 1 - Site Studies Task 2 - Draft Project Description Task 3 - Agency Outreach Task 4 - Impacts & Phase 2 Approach Phase 2: Task 5 - Final Project Description Task 6 - Permit Applications* Task 7 - CEQA Cat Ex Task 8 - Agency Follow-Up * time shown for Permit Applications includes preparation and submittal; agency permit processing times may vary and can be assumed to require 3-6 months or more, following submittal. ESA appreciates the opportunity to present this proposal, and we look forward to supporting the City with your bridge maintenance permitting needs. Please feel free to contact me with any questions, comments, or requested revisions to this proposal, or to confirm your approval of this proposal and desire to proceed with contracting, at pfinnemore@esassoc.com or (415) 962-8458. Sincerely, Priya Finnemore Regulatory Specialist Contractor: Environmental Science Associates Project Name: Permitting and CEQA Support Services Exhibit A-1 Page 8 of 8 - End of Exhibit A-1 - 50 &RQWUDFWRU3URMHFW1DPH 5HY &LW\RI6DUDWRJD6HUYLFHV&RQWUDFW±([KLELW% 3DJHRI City of Saratoga Services Contract Exhibit B – Insurance 7KHLQVXUDQFHUHTXLUHPHQWVOLVWHGEHORZWKDWKDYHDQ³9´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¶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¶H[WUDOLDELOLW\HQGRUVHPHQWWRH[WHQGFRYHUDJHWRDOOYHKLFOHVLQWKH FDUHFXVWRG\DQGFRQWURORIWKH&RQWUDFWRUUHJDUGOHVVRIZKHUHWKHYHKLFOHVDUHNHSW RUGULYHQ 3URIHVVLRQDO(UURUVDQG2PLVVLRQV/LDELOLW\ ³( 2´ ZLWKFRYHUDJHDVLQGLFDWHG SHUORVVDJJUHJDWH SHUORVVDJJUHJDWH Environmental Science Associates Permitting and CEQA Support Services ✔ ✔ ✔ 51 &RQWUDFWRU3URMHFW1DPH 5HY &LW\RI6DUDWRJD6HUYLFHV&RQWUDFW±([KLELW% 3DJHRI :RUNHUV &RPSHQVDWLRQDVUHTXLUHGE\WKH6WDWHRI&DOLIRUQLDZLWKVWDWXWRU\OLPLWVDQG (PSOR\HU¶V/LDELOLW\,QVXUDQFHZLWKDOLPLWRIQROHVVWKDQSHUDFFLGHQWIRU ERGLO\LQMXU\RUGLVHDVH The Employer's Liability policy shall be endorsed to waive any right of subrogation against the City, its employees or agents. $OOVXEFRQWUDFWRUVXVHGPXVWFRPSO\ZLWKWKHDERYHUHTXLUHPHQWVH[FHSWDVQRWHGEHORZ *HQHUDO5HTXLUHPHQWV $VWRDOORIWKHFKHFNHGLQVXUDQFHUHTXLUHPHQWVDERYHWKHIROORZLQJVKDOODSSO\ 1. Insurance Provisions. 7KHSROLFLHVDUHWRFRQWDLQRUEHHQGRUVHGWRFRQWDLQWKH IROORZLQJSURYLVLRQV x 7KH&LW\LWVRIILFHUVRIILFLDOVHPSOR\HHVDJHQWVDQGYROXQWHHUV HDFKDQ³DGGLWLRQDO LQVXUHG´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¶VSROLF\VKDOOEH SULPDU\DQGQRQFRQWULEXWRU\DQG ZLOOQRWVHHNFRQWULEXWLRQIURPWKH&LW\¶VLQVXUDQFHRUVHOILQVXUDQFHDQGVKDOOEHDWOHDVW DVEURDGDV&*7KLVUHTXLUHPHQWGRHVQRWDSSO\WRHUURUVDQGRPLVVLRQV LQVXUDQFH x $Q\IDLOXUHWRFRPSO\ZLWKUHSRUWLQJSURYLVLRQVRIWKHSROLFLHVVKDOOQRWDIIHFWFRYHUDJH SURYLGHGWRWKH&LW\LWVRIILFHUVRIILFLDOVHPSOR\HHVRUYROXQWHHUV x 7KH&RQVXOWDQW¶VLQVXUDQFHVKDOODSSO\VHSDUDWHO\WRHDFKLQVXUHGDJDLQVWZKRPFODLPLV PDGHRUVXLWLVEURXJKWH[FHSWZLWKUHVSHFWWRWKHOLPLWVRIWKHLQVXUHU VOLDELOLW\ 2. Deductibles and Self Insured Retentions. $Q\GHGXFWLEOHVRUVHOILQVXUHGUHWHQWLRQV PXVWEHGHFODUHGWRDQGDSSURYHGE\WKH&LW\$WWKHRSWLRQRIWKH&LW\HLWKHU  WKHLQVXUHU VKDOOUHGXFHRUHOLPLQDWHVXFKGHGXFWLEOHVRUVHOILQVXUHGUHWHQWLRQVDVUHVSHFWVWKH&LW\LWV RIILFHUVRIILFLDOVDQGHPSOR\HHVRU  WKH&RQVXOWDQWVKDOOSURFXUHDERQGJXDUDQWHHLQJ SD\PHQWRIORVVHVDQGUHODWHGLQYHVWLJDWLRQVFODLPDGPLQLVWUDWLRQDQGGHIHQVHH[SHQVHV7KH OLPLWVRILQVXUDQFHUHTXLUHGLQWKLVDJUHHPHQWPD\EHVDWLVILHGE\DFRPELQDWLRQRISULPDU\DQG Environmental Science Associates Permitting and CEQA Support Services ✔ 52 &RQWUDFWRU3URMHFW1DPH 5HY &LW\RI6DUDWRJD6HUYLFHV&RQWUDFW±([KLELW% 3DJHRI XPEUHOODRUH[FHVVLQVXUDQFH$Q\XPEUHOODRUH[FHVVLQVXUDQFHVKDOOFRQWDLQRUEHHQGRUVHGWR FRQWDLQDSURYLVLRQWKDWVXFKFRYHUDJHVKDOODOVRDSSO\RQDSULPDU\DQGQRQFRQWULEXWRU\EDVLV IRUWKHEHQHILWRI&LW\ LIDJUHHGWRLQDZULWWHQFRQWUDFWRUDJUHHPHQW EHIRUHWKH&LW\¶VRZQ LQVXUDQFHRUVHOILQVXUDQFHVKDOOEHFDOOHGXSRQWRSURWHFWLWDVDQDPHGLQVXUHG 3. Waiver of Subrogation.&RQVXOWDQWKHUHE\JUDQWVWR&LW\DZDLYHURIDQ\ULJKWWR VXEURJDWLRQZKLFKDQ\LQVXUHURI&RQVXOWDQWPD\DFTXLUHDJDLQVW&LW\E\YLUWXHRIWKHSD\PHQW RIDQ\ORVVXQGHUVXFKLQVXUDQFH&RQVXOWDQWDJUHHVWRREWDLQDQ\HQGRUVHPHQWWKDWPD\EH QHFHVVDU\WRHIIHFWWKLVZDLYHURIVXEURJDWLRQEXWWKLVSURYLVLRQDSSOLHVUHJDUGOHVVRIZKHWKHU &LW\KDVUHFHLYHGDZDLYHURIVXEURJDWLRQHQGRUVHPHQWIURPWKHLQVXUHU 4. Verification of Coverage.&RQVXOWDQWVKDOOIXUQLVKWKH&LW\ZLWKRULJLQDOFHUWLILFDWHVDQG DPHQGDWRU\HQGRUVHPHQWVHIIHFWLQJFRYHUDJHUHTXLUHGE\WKLV([KLELW$OOFHUWLILFDWHVDQG HQGRUVHPHQWVDUHWREHUHFHLYHGDQGDSSURYHGE\WKH&LW\EHIRUHZRUNFRPPHQFHV7KH&LW\ UHVHUYHVWKHULJKWWRUHTXLUHDWDQ\WLPHFRPSOHWHFHUWLILHGFRSLHVRIDOOUHTXLUHGLQVXUDQFH SROLFLHVLQFOXGLQJHQGRUVHPHQWVHIIHFWLQJWKHFRYHUDJHUHTXLUHGE\WKHVHVSHFLILFDWLRQVDQG IDLOXUHWRH[HUFLVHWKLVULJKWVKDOOQRWFRQVWLWXWHDZDLYHURIDQ\RI&LW\¶VULJKWVSXUVXDQWWRWKLV DJUHHPHQW 5. Maintenance of Coverage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laims Made Policies.,IDQ\RIWKHUHTXLUHGSROLFLHVSURYLGHFODLPVPDGHFRYHUDJH WKHFRYHUDJHVKDOOEHPDLQWDLQHGIRUDSHULRGRIILYH\HDUVDIWHUFRPSOHWLRQRIWKHFRQWUDFW &RQVXOWDQWPD\VDWLVI\WKLVUHTXLUHPHQWE\UHQHZDORIH[LVWLQJFRYHUDJHRUSXUFKDVHRIHLWKHU SULRUDFWVRUWDLOFRYHUDJHDSSOLFDEOHWRVDLGILYH\HDUSHULRG 7. Acceptability of Insurers.,QVXUDQFHLVWREHSODFHGZLWKLQVXUHUVZLWKD%HVW¶VUDWLQJRI QROHVVWKDQ$9,, 8. Subcontractors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¶VVXEFRQWUDFWZLWKVXEFRQWUDFWRU&RQVXOWDQWVKDOOUHTXLUHDOOVXEFRQWUDFWRUVWR SURYLGHDYDOLGFHUWLILFDWHRILQVXUDQFHDQGWKHUHTXLUHGHQGRUVHPHQWVLQFOXGHGLQWKHDJUHHPHQW SULRUWRFRPPHQFHPHQWRIDQ\ZRUNDQGZLOOSURYLGHSURRIRIFRPSOLDQFHWRWKH&LW\ Environmental Science Associates Permitting and CEQA Support Services 53 &RQWUDFWRU3URMHFW1DPH 5HY &LW\RI6DUDWRJD6HUYLFHV&RQWUDFW±([KLELW% 3DJHRI 9. Special Risks or Circumstances.&LW\UHVHUYHVWKHULJKWWRPRGLI\WKHVHUHTXLUHPHQWV LQFOXGLQJOLPLWVEDVHGRQWKHQDWXUHRIWKHULVNSULRUH[SHULHQFHLQVXUHUFRYHUDJHRURWKHU VSHFLDOFLUFXPVWDQFHV -End of Exhibit B- Environmental Science Associates Permitting and CEQA Support Services 54 &RQWUDFWRU  3URMHFW1DPH  5HY &LW\RI6DUDWRJD6HUYLFHV&RQWUDFW±([KLELW& 3DJHRI  City of Saratoga Services Contract Exhibit C – General Provisions 1. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. &LW\UHTXLUHVWKHVHUYLFHVRIDTXDOLILHGFRQVXOWDQW WRSURYLGHWKHZRUNSURGXFWGHVFULEHGLQ([KLELW$EHFDXVHLWODFNVWKHTXDOLILHG SHUVRQQHOWRSURYLGHWKHVSHFLILHGZRUNSURGXFW&RQVXOWDQWLVTXDOLILHGWRSURYLGHWKH UHTXLUHGZRUNSURGXFWDQGLVDJUHHDEOHWRSURYLGLQJVXFKZRUNSURGXFWRQWKHWHUPVDQG FRQGLWLRQVLQWKLVDJUHHPHQW 1.1 In General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¶V ZRUNRQO\DQGQRWDVWRWKHPHDQVE\ZKLFKVXFKDUHVXOWLVREWDLQHG 1.2 Non-Exclusive Contract.1RWKLQJFRQWDLQHGLQWKLVDJUHHPHQWVKDOOEH FRQVWUXHGDVOLPLWLQJWKHULJKWRI&RQVXOWDQWWRHQJDJHLQ&RQVXOWDQW VSURIHVVLRQ VHSDUDWHDQGDSDUWIURPWKLVDJUHHPHQWVRORQJDVVXFKDFWLYLWLHVGRQRWLQWHUIHUH RUFRQIOLFWZLWKWKHSHUIRUPDQFHE\&RQVXOWDQWRIWKHREOLJDWLRQVVHWIRUWKLQWKLV DJUHHPHQW,QWHUIHUHQFHRUFRQIOLFWZLOOEHGHWHUPLQHGDWWKHVROHGLVFUHWLRQRIWKH &LW\ 1.3 Standard of Care.&RQVXOWDQWVKDOOFRPSOHWHWKH6FRSHRI:RUNUHTXLUHG SXUVXDQWWRWKLVDJUHHPHQWLQWKHPDQQHUDQGDFFRUGLQJWRWKHVWDQGDUGVREVHUYHG E\DFRPSHWHQWSUDFWLWLRQHURIWKHSURIHVVLRQLQZKLFK&RQVXOWDQWLVHQJDJHGLQ WKHJHRJUDSKLFDODUHDLQZKLFK&RQVXOWDQWSUDFWLFHVLWVSURIHVVLRQ$OOZRUN SURGXFWRIZKDWVRHYHUQDWXUHZKLFK&RQVXOWDQWGHOLYHUVWR&LW\SXUVXDQWWRWKLV DJUHHPHQWVKDOOEHSUHSDUHGLQDVXEVWDQWLDOILUVWFODVVDQGZRUNPDQOLNHPDQQHU DQGFRQIRUPWRWKHVWDQGDUGVRITXDOLW\QRUPDOO\REVHUYHGE\DSHUVRQSUDFWLFLQJ LQ&RQVXOWDQW¶VSURIHVVLRQ 1.4 Qualifications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nvironmental Science Associates Permitting and CEQA Support Services 55 &RQWUDFWRU3URMHFW1DPH 5HY &LW\RI6DUDWRJD6HUYLFHV&RQWUDFW±([KLELW& 3DJHRI 1.5 Use of City Equipment.&LW\VKDOOQRWEHUHVSRQVLEOHIRUDQ\GDPDJHWRSHUVRQV RUSURSHUW\DVDUHVXOWRIWKHXVHPLVXVHRUIDLOXUHRIDQ\HTXLSPHQWXVHGE\ &RQVXOWDQWRUE\DQ\RILWVHPSOR\HHVHYHQWKRXJKVXFKHTXLSPHQWEHIXUQLVKHG UHQWHGRUORDQHGWR&RQVXOWDQWE\&LW\ 1.6 Payment of Taxes and Other Expenses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¶VGHVLJQHH 2.1 In General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ddresses for Notice.1RWLFHVRUFRPPXQLFDWLRQVVKDOOEHJLYHQWRWKHSDUWLHVDW WKHDGGUHVVHVVHWIRUWKLQVHFWLRQ ³&RQWUDFW$GPLQLVWUDWLRQ´ XQOHVVRWKHUZLVH Environmental Science Associates Permitting and CEQA Support Services 56 &RQWUDFWRU  3URMHFW1DPH  5HY &LW\RI6DUDWRJD6HUYLFHV&RQWUDFW±([KLELW& 3DJHRI  GHVLJQDWHGLQDZULWWHQQRWLFHWRWKHRWKHUSDUW\,QDGGLWLRQQRWLFHVWR&LW\VKDOO EHFRSLHGWR -DPHV/LQGVD\ &LW\0DQDJHU &LW\RI6DUDWRJD )UXLWYDOH$YHQXH 6DUDWRJD&$ 'HEELH%UHWVFKQHLGHU &LW\&OHUN &LW\RI6DUDWRJD )UXLWYDOH$YHQXH 6DUDWRJD&$  7KHVHFRSLHVVKDOOQRWFRQVWLWXWHQRWLFH 2.3 Change of Address.$Q\SDUW\KHUHWRE\JLYLQJWHQ  GD\VZULWWHQQRWLFHWR WKHRWKHUPD\GHVLJQDWHDQ\RWKHUDGGUHVVDVVXEVWLWXWLRQRIWKHDGGUHVVWRZKLFK WKHQRWLFHRUFRPPXQLFDWLRQVKDOOEHJLYHQ 3. PAYMENT. 7KHSD\PHQWVVSHFLILHGLQWKLVSDUDJUDSKVKDOOEHWKHRQO\SD\PHQWVWREH PDGHWR&RQVXOWDQWLQFRQQHFWLRQZLWK&RQVXOWDQW¶VFRPSOHWLRQRIWKH6FRSHRI:RUN SXUVXDQWWRWKLVDJUHHPHQW5HLPEXUVDEOHH[SHQVHVVKDOOEHELOOHGRQO\DWWKHLUDFWXDO FRVW&RQVXOWDQWVKDOOVXEPLWDOOELOOLQJVWR&LW\DQG&LW\VKDOOSD\VXFKELOOLQJVLQWKH PDQQHUVSHFLILHGLQWKLVSDUDJUDSK3D\PHQWVKDOOEHPDGHSD\DEOHWR&RQVXOWDQWDQG GHOLYHUHGWRWKHDGGUHVVVSHFLILHGLQVHFWLRQRQSDJHRIWKLVDJUHHPHQW7KHPDNLQJ RIDQ\SD\PHQWE\&LW\RUWKHUHFHLSWWKHUHRIE\WKH&RQVXOWDQWVKDOOLQQRZD\OHVVHQ WKHOLDELOLW\RIWKH&RQVXOWDQWWRFRUUHFWRUUHYLVHXQVDWLVIDFWRU\ZRUNHYHQWKRXJKWKH XQVDWLVIDFWRU\FKDUDFWHURIVXFKZRUNPD\QRWKDYHEHHQDSSDUHQWRUGHWHFWHGDWWKHWLPH VXFKSD\PHQWZDVPDGH&LW\PD\ZLWKKROGSD\PHQWWR&RQVXOWDQWLQDQ\LQVWDQFHLQ ZKLFKWKH&RQVXOWDQWKDVIDLOHGRUUHIXVHGWRVDWLVI\DQ\PDWHULDOREOLJDWLRQSURYLGHGIRU LQWKLVDJUHHPHQW,QQRHYHQWVKDOO&LW\EHOLDEOHIRULQWHUHVWRUODWHFKDUJHVIRUDQ\ODWH SD\PHQWV 3.1 Time and Materials.,IWKLVFRQWUDFWLVGHVLJQDWHGDVD7LPHDQG0DWHULDOV FRQWUDFWLQYRLFLQJDQGSD\PHQWVKDOOEHDVIROORZV (a)&RQVXOWDQWVKDOOVXEPLWLQYRLFHVQRWPRUHRIWHQWKDQRQFHDPRQWKGXULQJ WKHWHUPRIWKLVDJUHHPHQWEDVHGRQWKHFRVWIRUZRUNSHUIRUPHGLQ DFFRUGDQFHZLWKWKH5DWH6FKHGXOHLQWKH6FRSHRI:RUNDQGDXWKRUL]HG UHLPEXUVDEOHH[SHQVHVLQFXUUHGSULRUWRWKHLQYRLFHGDWH,QYRLFHVVKDOO FRQWDLQWKHIROORZLQJLQIRUPDWLRQ (i)6HULDOLGHQWLILFDWLRQVRIELOOVLH%LOO1R (ii)7KHEHJLQQLQJDQGHQGLQJGDWHVRIWKHELOOLQJSHULRG (iii)$VXPPDU\FRQWDLQLQJWKHWRWDOFRQWUDFWDPRXQWWKHDPRXQWRI SULRUELOOLQJVWKHWRWDOGXHWKLVSHULRGSHUFHQWDJHRIZRUN FRPSOHWHGWKHUHPDLQLQJEDODQFHDYDLODEOHIRUDOOUHPDLQLQJ ELOOLQJSHULRGVDQGDEULHIGHVFULSWLRQRIZRUNFRPSOHWHGGXULQJ WKHELOOLQJSHULRG Environmental Science Associates Permitting and CEQA Support Services 57 &RQWUDFWRU3URMHFW1DPH 5HY &LW\RI6DUDWRJD6HUYLFHV&RQWUDFW±([KLELW& 3DJHRI (b)&LW\VKDOOPDNHPRQWKO\SD\PHQWVEDVHGRQVXFKLQYRLFHVIRU VDWLVIDFWRU\SURJUHVVLQFRPSOHWLRQRIWKH6FRSHRI:RUNDQGIRU DXWKRUL]HGUHLPEXUVDEOHH[SHQVHVLQFXUUHG 3.2 Lump Sum.,IWKLVFRQWUDFWLVGHVLJQDWHGDVD/XPS6XPFRQWUDFWRQSDJH IROORZLQJFRPSOHWLRQRIWKHZRUN&RQVXOWDQWVKDOOVXEPLWDVLQJOHLQYRLFH FRQWDLQLQJWKHEHJLQQLQJDQGHQGLQJGDWHVRIWKHELOOLQJSHULRGDQGWKHWRWDO FRQWUDFWDPRXQW&LW\VKDOOPDNHDVLQJOHSD\PHQWEDVHGRQVXFKLQYRLFHIRU VDWLVIDFWRU\FRPSOHWLRQRIWKH6FRSHRI:RUN 4. CONTRACTOR NOT AGENT.([FHSWDV&LW\PD\VSHFLI\LQZULWLQJ&RQVXOWDQW VKDOOKDYHQRDXWKRULW\H[SUHVVRULPSOLHGWRDFWRQEHKDOIRI&LW\LQDQ\FDSDFLW\ ZKDWVRHYHUDVDQDJHQW&RQVXOWDQWVKDOOKDYHQRDXWKRULW\H[SUHVVRULPSOLHGSXUVXDQW WRWKLVDJUHHPHQWWRELQG&LW\WRDQ\REOLJDWLRQZKDWVRHYHU 5. BENEFITS AND TAXES. &RQVXOWDQWVKDOOQRWKDYHDQ\FODLPXQGHUWKLVDJUHHPHQWRU RWKHUZLVHDJDLQVW&LW\IRUVHQLRULW\YDFDWLRQWLPHYDFDWLRQSD\VLFNOHDYHSHUVRQDOWLPH RIIRYHUWLPHKHDOWKLQVXUDQFHPHGLFDOFDUHKRVSLWDOFDUHLQVXUDQFHEHQHILWVVRFLDO VHFXULW\GLVDELOLW\XQHPSOR\PHQWZRUNHUVFRPSHQVDWLRQRUHPSOR\HHEHQHILWVRIDQ\ NLQG&RQVXOWDQWVKDOOEHVROHO\OLDEOHIRUDQGREOLJDWHGWRSD\GLUHFWO\DOODSSOLFDEOH WD[HVLQFOXGLQJEXWQRWOLPLWHGWRIHGHUDODQGVWDWHLQFRPHWD[HVDQGLQFRQQHFWLRQ WKHUHZLWK&RQVXOWDQWVKDOOLQGHPQLI\DQGKROG&LW\KDUPOHVVIURPDQ\DQGDOOOLDELOLW\ WKDW&LW\PD\LQFXUEHFDXVHRI&RQVXOWDQW VIDLOXUHWRSD\VXFKWD[HV&LW\VKDOOKDYHQR REOLJDWLRQZKDWVRHYHUWRSD\RUZLWKKROGDQ\WD[HVRQEHKDOIRI&RQVXOWDQW 6. ASSIGNMENT PROHIBITED.7KHVHUYLFHVWREHSHUIRUPHGE\WKH&RQVXOWDQWDUH SHUVRQDOLQFKDUDFWHUDQGQRSDUW\WRWKLVDJUHHPHQWPD\DVVLJQDQ\ULJKWRUREOLJDWLRQ XQGHUWKLVDJUHHPHQW$Q\DWWHPSWHGRUSXUSRUWHGDVVLJQPHQWRIDQ\ULJKWRUREOLJDWLRQ XQGHUWKLVDJUHHPHQWVKDOOEHYRLGDQGRIQRHIIHFW+RZHYHUZLWKWKHFRQVHQWRIWKH &LW\JLYHQLQZULWLQJ&RQVXOWDQWLVHQWLWOHGWRVXEFRQWUDFWVXFKSRUWLRQVRIWKHZRUNWREH SHUIRUPHGXQGHUWKLVDJUHHPHQWDVPD\EHVSHFLILHGE\&LW\ 7. PERSONNEL.&RQVXOWDQWVKDOODVVLJQRQO\FRPSHWHQWSHUVRQQHOWRFRPSOHWHWKH6FRSH RI:RUNSXUVXDQWWRWKLVDJUHHPHQW,QWKHHYHQWWKDW&LW\LQLWVVROHGLVFUHWLRQDWDQ\ WLPHGXULQJWKHWHUPRIWKLVDJUHHPHQWGHVLUHVWKHUHPRYDORIDQ\VXFKSHUVRQV &RQVXOWDQWVKDOOLPPHGLDWHO\XSRQUHFHLYLQJQRWLFHIURPFLW\RIVXFKGHVLUHRI&LW\ FDXVHWKHUHPRYDORIVXFKSHUVRQRUSHUVRQVIURPZRUNLQFRQQHFWLRQZLWKWKH6FRSHRI :RUN 8. CONFLICT OF INTEREST. 8.1 In General.&RQVXOWDQWXQGHUVWDQGVWKDWLWVSURIHVVLRQDOUHVSRQVLELOLW\LVVROHO\ WR&LW\&RQVXOWDQWUHSUHVHQWVDQGZDUUDQWVWKDWLWSUHVHQWO\KDVQRLQWHUHVWDQG ZLOOQRWDFTXLUHDQ\GLUHFWRULQGLUHFWLQWHUHVWWKDWZRXOGFRQIOLFWZLWKLWV SHUIRUPDQFHRIWKLVDJUHHPHQW&RQVXOWDQWVKDOOQRWHPSOR\RUVXEFRQWUDFWZLWKD SHUVRQKDYLQJVXFKDQLQWHUHVWLQWKHSHUIRUPDQFHRIWKLVDJUHHPHQW 8.2 Subsequent Conflict of Interest.&RQVXOWDQWDJUHHVWKDWLIDQDFWXDORUSRWHQWLDO FRQIOLFWRILQWHUHVWRQWKHSDUWRI&RQVXOWDQWLVGLVFRYHUHGDIWHUDZDUGWKH Environmental Science Associates Permitting and CEQA Support Services 58 &RQWUDFWRU3URMHFW1DPH 5HY &LW\RI6DUDWRJD6HUYLFHV&RQWUDFW±([KLELW& 3DJHRI &RQVXOWDQWZLOOPDNHDIXOOGLVFORVXUHLQZULWLQJWRWKH&LW\7KLVGLVFORVXUHVKDOO LQFOXGHDGHVFULSWLRQRIDFWLRQVZKLFKWKH&RQVXOWDQWKDVWDNHQRUSURSRVHVWR WDNHDIWHUFRQVXOWDWLRQZLWKWKH&LW\WRDYRLGPLWLJDWHRUQHXWUDOL]HWKHDFWXDORU SRWHQWLDOFRQIOLFW:LWKLQGD\VWKH&RQVXOWDQWVKDOOKDYHWDNHQDOOQHFHVVDU\ VWHSVWRDYRLGPLWLJDWHRUQHXWUDOL]HWKHFRQIOLFWRILQWHUHVWWRWKHVDWLVIDFWLRQRI WKH&LW\ 8.3 Interests of City Officers and Staff.1RRIILFHUPHPEHURUHPSOR\HHRI&LW\ DQGQRPHPEHURIWKH&LW\&RXQFLOVKDOOKDYHDQ\SHFXQLDU\LQWHUHVWGLUHFWRU LQGLUHFWLQWKLVDJUHHPHQWRUWKHSURFHHGVWKHUHRI1HLWKHU&RQVXOWDQWQRUDQ\ PHPEHURIDQ\&RQVXOWDQW¶VIDPLO\VKDOOVHUYHRQDQ\&LW\ERDUGRUFRPPLWWHHRU KROGDQ\VXFKSRVLWLRQZKLFKHLWKHUE\UXOHSUDFWLFHRUDFWLRQQRPLQDWHV UHFRPPHQGVRUVXSHUYLVHV&RQVXOWDQW VSHUIRUPDQFHRIWKH6FRSHRI:RUNRU DXWKRUL]HVIXQGLQJWR&RQVXOWDQW 9. COMPLIANCE WITH LAWS 9.1 In General. &RQVXOWDQWVKDOONHHSLWVHOIIXOO\LQIRUPHGRIDQGFRPSO\ZLWKDOO ODZVSROLFLHVJHQHUDOUXOHVDQGUHJXODWLRQVHVWDEOLVKHGE\&LW\DQGVKDOOFRPSO\ ZLWKWKHFRPPRQODZDQGDOOODZVRUGLQDQFHVFRGHVDQGUHJXODWLRQVRI JRYHUQPHQWDODJHQFLHV LQFOXGLQJIHGHUDOVWDWHPXQLFLSDODQGORFDOJRYHUQLQJ ERGLHV DSSOLFDEOHWRWKHSHUIRUPDQFHRIWKH6FRSHRI:RUNKHUHXQGHU 9.2 Licenses and Permits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roperty of City.$OOUHSRUWVGDWDPDSVPRGHOVFKDUWVVWXGLHVVXUYH\V SKRWRJUDSKVPHPRUDQGDRURWKHUZULWWHQGRFXPHQWVRUPDWHULDOVSUHSDUHGE\ &RQVXOWDQWSXUVXDQWWRWKLVDJUHHPHQWVKDOOEHFRPHWKHSURSHUW\RI&LW\XSRQ FRPSOHWLRQRIWKHZRUNWREHSHUIRUPHGKHUHXQGHURUXSRQWHUPLQDWLRQRIWKLV DJUHHPHQW:LWKRXWOLPLWLQJWKHJHQHUDOLW\RIWKHIRUHJRLQJLILQFRQQHFWLRQ ZLWKVHUYLFHVSHUIRUPHGXQGHUWKLVDJUHHPHQWWKH&RQVXOWDQWRULWVVXEFRQWUDFWRUV FUHDWHDUWZRUNFRS\SRVWHUVELOOERDUGVSKRWRJUDSKVYLGHRWDSHVDXGLRWDSHV V\VWHPVGHVLJQVVRIWZDUHUHSRUWVGLDJUDPVVXUYH\VVRXUFHFRGHVRUDQ\RWKHU RULJLQDOZRUNVRIDXWKRUVKLSVXFKZRUNVRIDXWKRUVKLSVKDOOEHZRUNVIRUKLUHDV GHILQHGXQGHU7LWOHRIWKH8QLWHG6WDWHV&RGHDQGDOOFRS\ULJKWVLQVXFKZRUNV DUHWKHSURSHUW\RI&LW\,ILWLVHYHUGHWHUPLQHGWKDWDQ\ZRUNVFUHDWHGE\WKH &RQVXOWDQWRULWVVXEFRQWUDFWRUVXQGHUWKLVDJUHHPHQWDUHQRWZRUNVIRUKLUHXQGHU 86ODZWKH&RQVXOWDQWKHUHE\DVVLJQVDOOFRS\ULJKWVWRVXFKZRUNVWR&LW\ JUDQWV&LW\DUR\DOW\IUHHH[FOXVLYHDQGLUUHYRFDEOHOLFHQVHWRUHSURGXFH SXEOLVKXVHDQGWRDXWKRUL]HRWKHUVWRGRVRDOOVXFKZRUNVDQGDJUHHVWRSURYLGH Environmental Science Associates Permitting and CEQA Support Services 59 &RQWUDFWRU3URMHFW1DPH 5HY &LW\RI6DUDWRJD6HUYLFHV&RQWUDFW±([KLELW& 3DJHRI DQ\PDWHULDODQGH[HFXWHDQ\GRFXPHQWVQHFHVVDU\WRHIIHFWXDWHVXFKDVVLJQPHQW DQGOLFHQVH7KH&RQVXOWDQWPD\UHWDLQDQGXVHFRSLHVRIVXFKZRUNVIRU UHIHUHQFHDQGDVGRFXPHQWDWLRQRILWVH[SHULHQFHDQGFDSDELOLWLHV 10.2 Intellectual Property. &RQVXOWDQWUHSUHVHQWVDQGZDUUDQWVWKDWLWKDVWKHOHJDO ULJKWWRXWLOL]HDOOLQWHOOHFWXDOSURSHUW\LWZLOOXWLOL]HLQWKHSHUIRUPDQFHRIWKLV DJUHHPHQW&RQVXOWDQWIXUWKHUUHSUHVHQWVWKDWLWVKDOOHQVXUH&LW\KDVWKHOHJDO ULJKWWRXWLOL]HDOOLQWHOOHFWXDOSURSHUW\LQYROYHGLQDQGRUUHVXOWLQJIURP &RQVXOWDQW¶VSHUIRUPDQFHRIWKLVDJUHHPHQW&RQVXOWDQWVKDOOLQGHPQLI\DQGKROG &LW\KDUPOHVVIURPDOOORVVDQGOLDELOLW\LQFOXGLQJDWWRUQH\V¶IHHVFRXUWFRVWVDQG DOORWKHUOLWLJDWLRQH[SHQVHVIRUDQ\LQIULQJHPHQWRIWKHSDWHQWULJKWVFRS\ULJKW WUDGHVHFUHWRUDQ\RWKHUSURSULHWDU\ULJKWRUWUDGHPDUNDQGDOORWKHULQWHOOHFWXDO SURSHUW\FODLPVRIDQ\SHUVRQRUSHUVRQVLQFRQVHTXHQFHRIWKHXVHE\&LW\RU DQ\RILWVRIILFHUVRUDJHQWVRIDUWLFOHVRUVHUYLFHVWREHVXSSOLHGLQWKH SHUIRUPDQFHRIWKLVDJUHHPHQW 10.3 Retention of Records. 8QWLOWKHH[SLUDWLRQRIILYH\HDUVDIWHUWKHIXUQLVKLQJRI DQ\VHUYLFHVSXUVXDQWWRWKLVDJUHHPHQW&RQVXOWDQWVKDOOUHWDLQDQGPDNH DYDLODEOHWRWKH&LW\RUDQ\SDUW\GHVLJQDWHGE\WKH&LW\XSRQZULWWHQUHTXHVWE\ &LW\WKLVDJUHHPHQWDQGVXFKERRNVGRFXPHQWVDQGUHFRUGVRI&RQVXOWDQW DQG DQ\ERRNVGRFXPHQWVDQGUHFRUGVRIDQ\VXEFRQWUDFWRU V WKDWDUHQHFHVVDU\RU FRQYHQLHQWIRUDXGLWSXUSRVHVWRFHUWLI\WKHQDWXUHDQGH[WHQWRIWKHUHDVRQDEOH FRVWRIVHUYLFHVWR&LW\ 10.4 Use of Recycled Paper and Electronic Documents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nvironmental Science Associates Permitting and CEQA Support Services 60 &RQWUDFWRU3URMHFW1DPH 5HY &LW\RI6DUDWRJD6HUYLFHV&RQWUDFW±([KLELW& 3DJHRI 13. INDEMNIFICATION.&RQVXOWDQWDQG&LW\DJUHHWKDW&LW\LWVHPSOR\HHVDJHQWVDQG RIILFLDOVVKDOOEHIXOO\SURWHFWHGIURPDQ\ORVVLQMXU\GDPDJHFODLPODZVXLWFRVW H[SHQVHDWWRUQH\VIHHVOLWLJDWLRQFRVWVGHIHQVHFRVWVFRXUWFRVWVRUDQ\RWKHUFRVW LQFXUUHGLQUHODWLRQWRDVDFRQVHTXHQFHRIRUDULVLQJRXWRIRULQDQ\ZD\DWWULEXWDEOH DFWXDOO\DOOHJHGO\RULPSOLHGO\LQZKROHRULQSDUWWRWKHSHUIRUPDQFHRIWKLVDJUHHPHQW DVVHWIRUWKEHORZ$FFRUGLQJO\WKHSURYLVLRQVRIWKLVLQGHPQLW\SURYLVLRQDUHLQWHQGHG E\WKHSDUWLHVWREHLQWHUSUHWHGDQGFRQVWUXHGWRSURYLGHWKHIXOOHVWSURWHFWLRQSRVVLEOH XQGHUWKHODZWRWKH&LW\&RQVXOWDQWDFNQRZOHGJHVWKDW&LW\ZRXOGQRWHQWHULQWRWKLV DJUHHPHQWLQWKHDEVHQFHRIWKHFRPPLWPHQWRI&RQVXOWDQWWRLQGHPQLI\DQGSURWHFW&LW\ DVVHWIRUWKEHORZ 13.1 General Indemnity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uty to Defend.,QDGGLWLRQWR&RQVXOWDQW¶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¶IHHVDQG GHIHQVHFRVWVLQSURSRUWLRQWRWKHHVWDEOLVKHGFRPSDUDWLYHOLDELOLW\RIWKH LQGHPQLILHGSDUW\ 13.3 Limitation on Indemnity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nvironmental Science Associates Permitting and CEQA Support Services 61 &RQWUDFWRU3URMHFW1DPH 5HY &LW\RI6DUDWRJD6HUYLFHV&RQWUDFW±([KLELW& 3DJHRI &LW\ZLOOEHKHOGKDUPOHVVLQGHPQLILHGDQGGHIHQGHGIRUDOOOLDELOLW\LQFXUUHG HYHQWKRXJKDSHUFHQWDJHRIWKHOLDELOLW\LVDWWULEXWDEOHWRFRQGXFWRIWKH&LW\ 13.4 Acknowledgement.&RQVXOWDQWDFNQRZOHGJHVWKDWLWVREOLJDWLRQSXUVXDQWWRWKLV VHFWLRQH[WHQGVWROLDELOLW\DWWULEXWDEOHWR&LW\LIWKDWOLDELOLW\LVOHVVWKDQWKHVROH IDXOWRI&LW\&RQVXOWDQWKDVQRREOLJDWLRQXQGHUWKLVDJUHHPHQWIRUOLDELOLW\ SURYHQLQDFRXUWRIFRPSHWHQWMXULVGLFWLRQRUE\ZULWWHQDJUHHPHQWEHWZHHQWKH SDUWLHVWREHWKHVROHIDXOWRI&LW\  13.5 Scope of Consultant Obligation7KHREOLJDWLRQVRI&RQVXOWDQWXQGHUWKLVRU DQ\RWKHUSURYLVLRQRIWKLVDJUHHPHQWZLOOQRWEHOLPLWHGE\WKHSURYLVLRQVRIDQ\ ZRUNHUV FRPSHQVDWLRQDFWRUVLPLODUDFW&RQVXOWDQWH[SUHVVO\ZDLYHVLWVVWDWXWRU\ LPPXQLW\XQGHUVXFKVWDWXWHVRUODZVDVWR&LW\LWVHPSOR\HHVDQGRIILFLDOV 13.6 Subcontractors.&RQVXOWDQWDJUHHVWRREWDLQH[HFXWHGLQGHPQLW\DJUHHPHQWV ZLWKSURYLVLRQVLGHQWLFDOWRWKRVHVHWIRUWKKHUHLQWKLVVHFWLRQIURPHDFKDQG HYHU\VXEFRQWUDFWRUVXEWLHUFRQWUDFWRURUDQ\RWKHUSHUVRQRUHQWLW\LQYROYHGE\ IRUZLWKRURQEHKDOIRI&RQVXOWDQWLQWKHSHUIRUPDQFHRUVXEMHFWPDWWHURIWKLV DJUHHPHQW 13.7 No Waiver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elation to Insurance Obligations.7KHGHIHQVHDQGLQGHPQLILFDWLRQREOLJDWLRQV RIWKLVDJUHHPHQWDUHXQGHUWDNHQLQDGGLWLRQWRDQGVKDOOQRWLQDQ\ZD\EH OLPLWHGE\WKHLQVXUDQFHREOLJDWLRQVFRQWDLQHGLQWKLVDJUHHPHQW 14. DEFAULT AND REMEDIES. 14.1 Events of default(DFKRIWKHIROORZLQJVKDOOFRQVWLWXWHDQHYHQWRIGHIDXOW KHUHXQGHU (a))DLOXUHE\&RQVXOWDQWWRSHUIRUPDQ\REOLJDWLRQXQGHUWKLVDJUHHPHQWDQG IDLOXUHWRFXUHVXFKEUHDFKLPPHGLDWHO\XSRQUHFHLYLQJQRWLFHRIVXFK EUHDFKLIWKHEUHDFKLVVXFKWKDWWKH&LW\GHWHUPLQHVWKHKHDOWKZHOIDUHRU VDIHW\RIWKHSXEOLFLVLPPHGLDWHO\HQGDQJHUHGRU (b))DLOXUHE\HLWKHUSDUW\WRSHUIRUPDQ\REOLJDWLRQXQGHUWKLVDJUHHPHQWDQG IDLOXUHWRFXUHVXFKEUHDFKZLWKLQILIWHHQ  GD\VRIUHFHLYLQJQRWLFHRI VXFKEUHDFK H[FHSWIRUEUHDFKHVVXEMHFWWRVXESDUDJUDSK D DERYH  Environmental Science Associates Permitting and CEQA Support Services 62 &RQWUDFWRU3URMHFW1DPH 5HY &LW\RI6DUDWRJD6HUYLFHV&RQWUDFW±([KLELW& 3DJHRI SURYLGHGWKDWLIWKHQDWXUHRIWKHEUHDFKLVVXFKWKDWWKHQRQEUHDFKLQJ SDUW\GHWHUPLQHVLWZLOOUHDVRQDEO\UHTXLUHPRUHWKDQILIWHHQ  GD\VWR FXUHWKHEUHDFKLQJSDUW\VKDOOQRWEHLQGHIDXOWLILWSURPSWO\FRPPHQFHV WKHFXUHDQGGLOLJHQWO\SURFHHGVWRFRPSOHWLRQRIWKHFXUH 14.2 Remedies upon default8SRQDQ\GHIDXOWWKHQRQGHIDXOWLQJSDUW\VKDOOKDYH WKHULJKWWRLPPHGLDWHO\VXVSHQGRUWHUPLQDWHWKLVDJUHHPHQWVHHNVSHFLILF SHUIRUPDQFHDQGRUVHHNGDPDJHVWRWKHIXOOH[WHQWDOORZHGE\ODZ&LW\VKDOO KDYHWKHULJKWWRFRQWUDFWZLWKDQRWKHUSDUW\WRSHUIRUPWKLVDJUHHPHQW 14.3 No Waiver)DLOXUHE\&LW\WRVHHNDQ\UHPHG\IRUDQ\GHIDXOWKHUHXQGHUVKDOO QRWFRQVWLWXWHDZDLYHURIDQ\RWKHUULJKWVKHUHXQGHURUDQ\ULJKWWRVHHNDQ\ UHPHG\IRUDQ\VXEVHTXHQWGHIDXOW 15. TERMINATION. (LWKHUSDUW\PD\WHUPLQDWHWKLVDJUHHPHQWZLWKRUZLWKRXWFDXVHE\ SURYLGLQJGD\V¶QRWLFHLQZULWLQJWRWKHRWKHUSDUW\7KH&LW\PD\WHUPLQDWHWKLV DJUHHPHQWDWDQ\WLPHZLWKRXWSULRUQRWLFHLQWKHHYHQWWKDW&RQVXOWDQWFRPPLWVD PDWHULDOEUHDFKRIWKHWHUPVRIWKLVDJUHHPHQW8SRQWHUPLQDWLRQWKLVDJUHHPHQWVKDOO EHFRPHRIQRIXUWKHUIRUFHRUDIIHFWZKDWVRHYHUDQGHDFKRIWKHSDUWLHVKHUHWRVKDOOEH UHOLHYHGDQGGLVFKDUJHGIURPWKHULJKWVDQGREOLJDWLRQVRIWKLVDJUHHPHQWVXEMHFWWR SD\PHQWIRUDFFHSWDEOHVHUYLFHVUHQGHUHGSULRUWRWKHH[SLUDWLRQRIWKHQRWLFHRI WHUPLQDWLRQDQGGHOLYHU\WR&LW\RIDQ\ZRUNLQSURJUHVVFRPSOHWHGZRUNVXSSOLHV HTXLSPHQWDQGRWKHUPDWHULDOVSURGXFHGDVDSDUWRIRUDFTXLUHGLQFRQQHFWLRQZLWKWKH SHUIRUPDQFHRIWKLVDJUHHPHQWDQGDQ\FRPSOHWHGRUSDUWLDOO\FRPSOHWHGZRUNZKLFKLI WKLVDJUHHPHQWKDGEHHQFRPSOHWHGZRXOGKDYHEHHQUHTXLUHGWREHIXUQLVKHGWR&LW\ 1RWZLWKVWDQGLQJWKHIRUHJRLQJDQGVHFWLRQRQSDJHWKLVVHFWLRQDQGWKHSURYLVLRQVRI WKLVDJUHHPHQWFRQFHUQLQJLQVXUDQFH ([KLELW% )XQGLQJ$JHQF\5HTXLUHPHQWV DVVHW IRUWKLQ([KLELW'LIDSSOLFDEOH :RUN3URGXFWDQG5HFRUGV&RQILGHQWLDO,QIRUPDWLRQ 5HVSRQVLELOLW\RI&RQVXOWDQW,QGHPQLILFDWLRQ'HIDXOWDQG5HPHGLHV/LWLJDWLRQDQG -XULVGLFWLRQDQG6HYHUDELOLW\VKDOOVXUYLYHWHUPLQDWLRQRUH[SLUDWLRQRIWKLVDJUHHPHQW 16. DISPUTE RESOLUTION7KHSDUWLHVVKDOOPDNHDJRRGIDLWKHIIRUWWRVHWWOHDQ\ GLVSXWHRUFODLPDULVLQJXQGHUWKLVDJUHHPHQW,IWKHSDUWLHVIDLOWRUHVROYHVXFKGLVSXWHV RUFODLPVWKH\VKDOOVXEPLWWKHPWRQRQELQGLQJPHGLDWLRQLQ&DOLIRUQLDDWVKDUHG H[SHQVHRIWKHSDUWLHVIRUDWOHDVWKRXUVRIPHGLDWLRQ,IPHGLDWLRQGRHVQRWDUULYHDWD VDWLVIDFWRU\UHVXOWDUELWUDWLRQLIDJUHHGWRE\DOOSDUWLHVRUOLWLJDWLRQPD\EHSXUVXHG,Q WKHHYHQWDQ\GLVSXWHUHVROXWLRQSURFHVVHVDUHLQYROYHGHDFKSDUW\VKDOOEHDULWVRZQ FRVWVDQGDWWRUQH\V¶IHHV 17. LITIGATION,IDQ\OLWLJDWLRQLVFRPPHQFHGEHWZHHQSDUWLHVWRWKLVDJUHHPHQW FRQFHUQLQJDQ\SURYLVLRQKHUHRIRUWKHULJKWVDQGGXWLHVRIDQ\SHUVRQLQUHODWLRQWKHUHWR HDFKSDUW\VKDOOEHDULWVRZQDWWRUQH\V¶IHHVDQGFRVWV 18. JURISDICTION AND SEVERABILITY7KLVDJUHHPHQWVKDOOEHDGPLQLVWHUHGDQG LQWHUSUHWHGXQGHUWKHODZVRIWKH6WDWHRI&DOLIRUQLD-XULVGLFWLRQRIOLWLJDWLRQDULVLQJIURP WKLVDJUHHPHQWVKDOOEHLQWKDWVWDWHDQGYHQXHVKDOOEHLQ6DQWD&ODUD&RXQW\&DOLIRUQLD ,IDQ\SDUWRIWKLVDJUHHPHQWLVIRXQGWRFRQIOLFWZLWKDSSOLFDEOHODZVVXFKSDUWVKDOOEH LQRSHUDWLYHQXOODQGYRLGLQVRIDUDVLWFRQIOLFWVZLWKVDLGODZVEXWWKHUHPDLQGHURIWKLV DJUHHPHQWVKDOOEHLQIXOOIRUFHDQGHIIHFW Environmental Science Associates Permitting and CEQA Support Services 63 &RQWUDFWRU3URMHFW1DPH 5HY &LW\RI6DUDWRJD6HUYLFHV&RQWUDFW±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¶VREOLJDWLRQVRUWR H[HUFLVH&LW\ VULJKWVVKDOOLQQRHYHQWEHGHHPHGDZDLYHURIWKHULJKWWRGRVRWKHUHDIWHU -End of Exhibit C- Environmental Science Associates Permitting and CEQA Support Services 64 ANY PROPRIETOR/PARTNER/EXECUTIVEOFFICER/MEMBER EXCLUDED? INSR ADDL SUBR LTR INSD WVD PRODUCER CONTACT NAME: FAXPHONE (A/C, No):(A/C, No, Ext): E-MAIL ADDRESS: INSURER A : INSURED INSURER B : INSURER C : INSURER D : INSURER E : INSURER F : POLICY NUMBER POLICY EFF POLICY EXPTYPE OF INSURANCE LIMITS(MM/DD/YYYY)(MM/DD/YYYY) AUTOMOBILE LIABILITY UMBRELLA LIAB EXCESS LIAB WORKERS COMPENSATION AND EMPLOYERS' LIABILITY DESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS / LOCATIONS / VEHICLES (ACORD 101, Additional Remarks Schedule, may be attached if more space is required) AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE EACH OCCURRENCE $ DAMAGE TO RENTEDCLAIMS-MADE OCCUR $PREMISES (Ea occurrence) MED EXP (Any one person)$ PERSONAL & ADV INJURY $ GEN'L AGGREGATE LIMIT APPLIES PER:GENERAL AGGREGATE $ PRO-POLICY LOC PRODUCTS - COMP/OP AGGJECT OTHER:$ COMBINED SINGLE LIMIT $(Ea accident) ANY AUTO BODILY INJURY (Per person)$OWNED SCHEDULED BODILY INJURY (Per accident)$AUTOS ONLY AUTOS HIRED NON-OWNED PROPERTY DAMAGE $AUTOS ONLY AUTOS ONLY (Per accident) $ OCCUR EACH OCCURRENCE CLAIMS-MADE AGGREGATE $ DED RETENTION $ PER OTH-STATUTE ER E.L. EACH ACCIDENT E.L. DISEASE - EA EMPLOYEE $If yes, describe under E.L. DISEASE - POLICY LIMITDESCRIPTION OF OPERATIONS below INSURER(S) AFFORDING COVERAGE NAIC # COMMERCIAL GENERAL LIABILITY Y / N N / A (Mandatory in NH) SHOULD ANY OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED POLICIES BE CANCELLED BEFORE THE EXPIRATION DATE THEREOF, NOTICE WILL BE DELIVERED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE POLICY PROVISIONS. THIS IS TO CERTIFY THAT THE POLICIES OF INSURANCE LISTED BELOW HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE INSURED NAMED ABOVE FOR THE POLICY PERIODINDICATED. NOTWITHSTANDING ANY REQUIREMENT, TERM OR CONDITION OF ANY CONTRACT OR OTHER DOCUMENT WITH RESPECT TO WHICH THIS CERTIFICATE MAY BE ISSUED OR MAY PERTAIN, THE INSURANCE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES DESCRIBED HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO ALL THE TERMS,EXCLUSIONS AND CONDITIONS OF SUCH POLICIES. LIMITS SHOWN MAY HAVE BEEN REDUCED BY PAID CLAIMS. THIS CERTIFICATE IS ISSUED AS A MATTER OF INFORMATION ONLY AND CONFERS NO RIGHTS UPON THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. THIS CERTIFICATE DOES NOT AFFIRMATIVELY OR NEGATIVELY AMEND, EXTEND OR ALTER THE COVERAGE AFFORDED BY THE POLICIES BELOW. THIS CERTIFICATE OF INSURANCE DOES NOT CONSTITUTE A CONTRACT BETWEEN THE ISSUING INSURER(S), AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OR PRODUCER, AND THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER. IMPORTANT: If the certificate holder is an ADDITIONAL INSURED, the policy(ies) must have ADDITIONAL INSURED provisions or be endorsed. If SUBROGATION IS WAIVED, subject to the terms and conditions of the policy, certain policies may require an endorsement. A statement on this certificate does not confer rights to the certificate holder in lieu of such endorsement(s). COVERAGES CERTIFICATE NUMBER:REVISION NUMBER: CERTIFICATE HOLDER CANCELLATION © 1988-2015 ACORD CORPORATION. All rights reserved.ACORD 25 (2016/03) CERTIFICATE OF LIABILITY INSURANCE DATE (MM/DD/YYYY) $ $ $ $ $ The ACORD name and logo are registered marks of ACORD 11/25/2020 License # 0E67768 (619) 788-5795 50206 (619) 574-6288 13056 Environmental Science Associates 550 Kearny St., Suite 800 San Francisco, CA 94108 44520 A 2,000,000 X PSB0007416 12/1/2020 12/1/2021 1,000,000 Cont Liab/Sev of Int 10,000 XCU 2,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 Deductible 0 1,000,000A X PSA0002468 12/1/2020 12/1/2021 Comp.: $1,000 Coll.: $1,000 3,000,000A PSE0003196 12/1/2020 12/1/2021 3,000,000 10,000 A X PSW0004135 12/1/2020 12/1/2021 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 B Prof Liab/Ded. $25K PKC110515 12/1/2020 Per Claim/Aggregate 5,000,000 B Poll Liab/Ded. $25K PKC110515 12/1/2020 12/1/2021 Occurrence/Aggregate 5,000,000 Re: All Operations The City of Saratoga, its officers, officials, employees, agents and volunteers are Additional Insureds with respect to General and Auto Liability per the attached endorsements as required by written contract. Insurance is Primary and Non-Contributory. Waiver of Subrogation applies to Workers’ Compensation. 30 Days Notice of Cancellation with 10 Days Notice for Non-Payment of Premium in accordance with the policy provisions. City of Saratoga Risk Manager 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 ENVISCI-05 MCGRAWM IOA Insurance Services 4370 La Jolla Village Drive Suite 600 San Diego, CA 92122 Ali Smith Ali.Smith@ioausa.com RLI Insurance Company Crum & Forster Specialty Insurance Company X 12/1/2021 X X X X X X X X X X X 65 66 67 68 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: September 1, 2021 DEPARTMENT: Finance & Administrative Services PREPARED BY: Ann Xu, Accountant SUBJECT: Treasurer’s Report for the Month Ended June 30, 2021 RECOMMENDED ACTION: Review and accept the Treasurer’s Report for the month ended June 30, 2021. BACKGROUND: California government code section 41004 requires that the City Treasurer submit to the City Clerk and the legislative body a written report and accounting of all receipts, disbursements, and fund balances. The Municipal Code of the City of Saratoga, Article 2-20, Section 2-20.035 designates the City Manager as the City Treasurer. This report is prepared to fulfill this requirement. The following attachments provide various financial transaction data for the City of Saratoga’s Funds collectively as well as specifically for the City’s General (Operating) Fund, including an attachment from the State Treasurer’s Office of Quarterly LAIF rates from the 1st Quarter of 1977 to present. FISCAL STATEMENT: Cash and Investments Balance by Fund As of June 30, 2021, the City had $904,321 in cash deposit at Comerica bank, and $31,589,131 on deposit with LAIF. The City Council’s adopted policy on the Working Capital Reserve Fund states that effective July 1, 2016: for cash flow purposes and to avoid occurrence of dry period financing, pooled cash from all funds should not be allowed to fall below $1,000,000. The total pooled cash balance as of June 30, 2021, is $32,493,452 and exceeds the minimum limit required. City’s Current Financial Position In accordance with California government code section 53646 (b) (3), the City is financially well positioned and able to meet its expenditure requirements for the next six months. As of June 30, 2021, the City’s financial position (Assets $33.8M, Liabilities $5.3M and Fund Equity $28.5M) remains very strong and there are no issues in meeting financial obligations now or in the foreseeable future. Unrestricted Cash Comerica Bank 904,321$ Deposit with LAIF 31,589,131$ Total Unrestricted Cash 32,493,452$ Cash Summary 69 The following Fund Balance schedule represents actual funding available for all funds at the end of the monthly period. This amount differs from the above Cash Summary schedule as assets and liabilities are components of the fund balance. As illustrated in the summary below, Total Unrestricted Cash is adjusted by the addition of Total Assets less the amount of Total Liabilities to arrive at the Ending Fund Balance – which represents the actual amount of funds available. Fund Balance Designations In accordance with Governmental Accounting Standards Board (GASB) Statement No. 54, Fund Balance Reporting and Governmental Fund Type Definitions, the components of fund balance are categorized as follows: “non-spendable fund balance”, resources that are inherently non-spendable from the vantage point of the current period; “restricted fund balance”, resources that are subject to enforceable legal restrictions; “committed fund balance”, resources whose use is constrained by limitations the government imposes upon itself through formal action at its highest level of decision making and remains binding unless removed in the same manner; “assigned fund balance”, resources that reflects a government’s intended use of resources, such intent would have to be established at either the highest level of decision making, by a body, or an official designated for that purpose; and “unassigned fund balance”, net resources in excess of what can properly be classified in one of the other four categories. Currently, the City’s fund balance reserves fall into one of the four spendable categories; restricted, committed, assigned, or unassigned fund balance. ATTACHMENTS A – Change in Total Fund Balances by Fund under GASB 54 B – Change in Total Fund Balances by CIP Project C – Change in Cash Balance by Month D – Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) Quarterly Apportionment Rates Total Unrestricted Cash 32,493,452$ Plus: Assets 1,330,807 Less: Liabilities (5,267,368) Ending Fund Balance 28,556,891$ Adjusting Cash to Ending Fund Balance 70 ATTACHMENT A CHANGES IN TOTAL FUND BALANCE UNDER GASB 54 *Fund balances are unaudited, and may not include all necessary adjustments. These figures will be updated in future reports once the FY 2020/21 independent audit is completed. **Negative fund balance due to authorized spending of anticipated revenues Fund Description Prior Year Carryforward 7/1/2020 Increase/ (Decrease) Jul-May Current Revenue Current Expenditure Transfer In Transfer Out Fund Balance 6/30/2021* General Fund Restricted Fund Balances: Environmental Services Reserve 113,182 - - - - - 113,182 Committed Fund Balances: Hillside Stability Reserve 1,000,000 - - - - - 1,000,000 Assigned Fund Balances: Future Capital Replacement & Efficiency Project Reserve 2,488,878 - - - - 2,485,500 3,378 Carryforwards Reserve 155,556 - - - - - 155,556 Facility Reserve 3,200,000 - - - - - 3,200,000 Unassigned Fund Balances: Working Capital Reserve 1,000,000 - - - - - 1,000,000 Fiscal Stabilization Reserve 3,150,000 - - - - - 3,150,000 LLD Closeout Reserve 1,062,604 - - - - - 1,062,604 Compensated Absences Reserve 310,479 - - - - - 310,479 Other Unassigned Fund Balance Reserve (Pre YE distribution)1,953,908 3,919,193 2,701,080 3,482,011 - 400,000 4,692,170 General Fund Total 14,434,607 3,919,193 2,701,080 3,482,011 - 2,885,500 14,687,369 Special Revenue Landscape/Lighting Districts 787,733 (9,976) 199,889 104,702 - - 872,943 Debt Service Library Bond 788,245 (353,455) 356,595 - - - 791,385 Arrowhead Bond 294,269 39,050 57,300 1,000 356,840 - 746,458 Debt Service 1,082,514 (314,405) 413,895 1,000 356,840 - 1,537,844 Internal Service Fund Liability/Risk Management 503,819 (115,739) 262,501 (36,404) - - 686,986 W orkers Compensation 252,012 (84,584) 71,460 10,521 - - 228,367 Office Support Fund 135,793 (13,387) 29,384 7,623 - - 144,167 Information Technology Services 382,123 (69,184) 364,910 86,418 - - 591,431 Vehicle & Equipment Maintenance 300,675 (21,389) 68,750 46,031 - - 302,005 Building Maintenance 620,583 19,459 225,000 141,018 - - 724,024 Vehicle & Equipment Replacement 537,331 (65,345) 150,000 42,466 - - 579,520 Technology Replacement 603,042 104,323 37,500 9,166 - - 735,699 Facility FFE Replacement 528,631 100,761 50,000 5,717 - - 673,675 Internal Service Fund Total 3,864,011 (145,085) 1,259,505 312,557 - - 4,665,874 Trust/Agency WVCWP Agency Fund 573,847 (172,831) 245,895 108,887 - - 538,025 Arrowhead Project Fund 356,840 - - - - 356,840 - Trust/Agency Fund Total 930,687 (172,831) 245,895 108,887 - 356,840 538,025 Capital Project Street Projects 2,237,394 (609,522) 58,550 189,229 1,380,500 75,000 2,802,693 Park and Trail Projects 1,135,854 (777,955) - 16,285 795,000 - 1,136,614 Facility Projects 802,334 (139,872) 19,529 24,610 500,000 - 1,157,380 Administrative Projects 481,602 (148,295) 104,954 68,195 285,000 - 655,066 Tree Fund Projects 75,768 (22,686) - 5,444 - - 47,638 Park In-Lieu Projects 205,590 85,719 - - - - 291,309 CIP Grant Street Projects (251,717) 353,168 - 36,768 - - 64,683 CIP Grant Park & Trail Projects (21,234) 21,633 - - - - 399 CIP Grant Administrative Projects (118,978) 104,404 - - - - (14,574) ** Gas Tax Fund Projects 170,247 (236,829) 212,724 32,519 - - 113,624 CIP Fund Total 4,716,861 (1,370,235) 395,757 373,050 2,960,500 75,000 6,254,832 Total City 25,816,417 1,906,660 5,216,022 4,382,207 3,317,340 3,317,340 28,556,891 71 These figures will be updated for future reports once the FY 2017/18 pendent audit is completed. ATTACHMENT B FUND BALANCES BY CIP PROJECT *Fund balances are unaudited, and may not include all necessary adjustments. These figures will be updated in future reports once the FY 2020/21 independent audit is completed. CIP Funds/Projects Prior Year Carryforward 7/1/2020 Increase/ (Decrease) Jul-May Current Revenue Current Expenditure Transfer In Transfer Out Fund Balance 6/30/2021* Street Projects Annual Road Improvements 251,063 482,544 58,550 15,948 - - 776,209 Roadway Safety & Traffic Calming 30,882 (42,921) - 20,771 75,000 - 42,190 Citywide Traffic Signal Battery Backup - - - - 150,000 - 150,000 Prospect/Saratoga Median Improvement 51,402 217,977 - - 40,000 - 309,379 Citywide Signal Upgrade Project Phase II 10,000 - - - - - 10,000 Fruitvale/Allendale Improvement 317,389 (191,516) - 9,344 - - 116,529 Village Clock - (6,014) - - 15,500 - 9,486 Annual Infrastructure Maintenance & Repairs - (190,262) - 41,675 250,000 - 18,063 McFarland Avenue Curb and Gutter Replacement 349,176 (309,487) - - - - 39,689 Village Sidewalk, Curb & Gutter - Phase II Construction 59,230 (27,417) - - - - 31,813 EL Camino Grande Storm Drain Pump 19,098 (17,547) - 147 - - 1,404 Saratoga Village Crosswalk & Sidewalk Rehabilitation 44,000 - - - - - 44,000 Quito Road Sidewalk Improvements 43,370 - - - - - 43,370 Saratoga/Sunnyvale Road Sidewalk 92,158 - - - - - 92,158 Saratoga Sunnyvale Rd. Pathway Rehab Cox to RRX - (15,000) - - 125,000 - 110,000 Fourth Street Bridge Widening 99,837 - - - - - 99,837 Quito Road Bridge Replacement 119,007 (32,831) - - 50,000 - 136,175 Quito Road Bridge - ROW Acquisition 30,925 (24,913) - - - - 6,012 Annual Retaining Wall Maintenance & Repairs 121,113 (166,128) - 3,200 200,000 - 151,785 Mt. Eden Erosion Repair 175,000 (120) - - - 75,000 99,880 Continental Circle Landslide Stabilization 325,000 (187,144) - 89,944 75,000 - 122,912 Pierce Road Retainment - - - 8,200 400,000 - 391,800 Underground Project 98,744 (98,744) - - - - - Total Street Projects 2,237,394 (609,522) 58,550 189,229 1,380,500 75,000 2,802,693 Parks & Trails Projects Park/Trail Repairs 15,787 (87,667) - 11,285 125,000 - 41,835 Hakone Gardens Infrastructure Improvements 15,560 (9,707) - - - - 5,853 Hakone Pond Reconstruction - - - - 300,000 - 300,000 Kevin Moran Park Accessible Parking - (83,069) - - 95,000 - 11,931 Guava/Fredericksburg Entrance 80,262 (31,735) - 5,000 250,000 - 293,527 Saratoga Village to Quarry Park Walkway - Design 203,989 - - - 25,000 - 228,989 Saratoga to Sea Trail - Construction 820,256 (565,778) - - - - 254,479 Total Parks & Trails Projects 1,135,854 (777,955) - 16,285 795,000 - 1,136,614 Facility Projects CDD/PW Lobby Remodel 143,764 (113,177) - 14,611 - - 15,976 Civic Theater Improvements 109,175 (1,251) - - - - 107,924 PEG Funded Project 360,384 52,573 19,529 370 - - 432,116 Preschool Turf Conversion 5,750 - - - - - 5,750 Senior Center Entrance Remodel 42,881 (24,401) - - - - 18,479 Community Center Improvement 130,380 (33,492) - 6,109 - - 90,779 Community Center Generator and EV Charging Stations - (25,125) - 3,520 500,000 - 471,355 Library Building Exterior Maintenance 10,000 5,000 - - - - 15,000 Total Facility Projects 802,334 (139,872) 19,529 24,610 500,000 - 1,157,380 Administrative and Technology Projects City Website/Intranet 16,948 - - - - - 16,948 Development Technology 98,354 11,994 4,954 5,215 - - 110,088 LLD Initiation Match Program 25,000 - - - - - 25,000 Horseshoe Beautification 19,250 (2,025) - 450 - - 16,775 Citywide Accessibility Assessment 55,965 (20,671) - 357 - - 34,937 City Art Program 6,169 (2,500) - - 25,000 - 28,669 Safe Routes to School Needs Assessment - (12,201) - 34,085 60,000 - 13,714 El Quito Neighborhood Improvements - (15,493) - - 150,000 - 134,507 General Plan Update 171,024 (46,629) 100,000 8,188 - - 216,208 Wildfire Mitigation Program - (35,953) - 9,980 50,000 - 4,067 Risk Management Project Funding 88,891 (24,817) - 9,921 - - 54,153 Total Administrative and Technology Projects 481,602 (148,295) 104,954 68,195 285,000 - 655,066 72 budgeted be updated for future reports once. ATTACHMENT B (Cont.) FUND BALANCES BY CIP PROJECT *Fund balances are unaudited, and may not include all necessary adjustments. These figures will be updated in future reports once the FY 2020/21 independent audit is completed **Negative fund balance due to authorized spending of anticipated revenues CIP Funds/Projects Prior Year Carryforward 7/1/2020 Increase/ (Decrease) Jul-May Current Revenue Current Expenditure Transfer In Transfer Out Fund Balance 6/30/2021* Tree Fund Projects Citywide Tree Planting Program 51,643 (23,311) - 5,444 - - 22,888 Tree Dedication Program 24,125 625 - - - - 24,750 Total Tree Fund Projects 75,768 (22,686) - 5,444 - - 47,638 CIP Grant Street Projects Prospect/Saratoga Median Improvement (41,000) 12,000 - 12,000 - - (41,000) ** Citywide Signal Upgrade II (188,725) 188,742 - - - - 18 Saratoga Ave Sidewalk 50,261 - - 24,768 - - 25,493 Village Sidewalk, Curb & Gutter - Phase II Construction 39,909 - - - - - 39,909 Big Basin Way Sidewalk Repairs (131,311) 140,861 - - - - 9,550 Saratoga Village Crosswalk & Sidewalk Rehabilitation 3,368 - - - - - 3,368 4th Street Bridge 2,855 1,771 - - - - 4,625 Quito Bridge Replacement 18,595 - - - - - 18,595 Quito Road Bridges - ROW Acquisition (5,670) 9,794 - - - - 4,124 Total CIP Grant Street Projects (251,717) 353,168 - 36,768 - - 64,683 CIP Grant Park & Trail Projects Saratoga to the Sea Trail - Design (21,234) 21,633 - - - - 399 Total CIP Grant Park & Trail Projects (21,234) 21,633 - - - - 399 CIP Grant Administrative Projects CDD Software/ADA (118,978) 104,404 - - - - (14,574) ** Total CIP Grant Administrative Projects (118,978) 104,404 - - - - (14,574) Park In-Lieu Projects Hakone Gardens Infrastructure 114,505 (32,085) - - - - 82,420 Saratoga Village to Quarry Park Walkway - Design 73,811 - - - - - 73,811 Unallocated Park In-Lieu Funds 17,274 117,804 - - - - 135,078 Total Park In-Lieu Projects 205,590 85,719 - - - - 291,309 Gas Tax Fund Projects Annual Roadway Improvements 46,179 (175,649) 212,724 32,519 - - 50,736 Prospect/Saratoga Median Improvements 48,278 - - - - - 48,278 Citywide Signal Upgrade II 64,728 (61,045) - - - - 3,683 Big Basin Way Sidewalk Repairs 3,977 (135) - - - - 3,842 Quito Road Bridges 7,085 - - - - - 7,085 Total Gas Tax Fund Projects 170,247 (236,829) 212,724 32,519 - - 113,624 Total CIP Funds 4,716,861 (1,370,235) 395,757 373,050 2,960,500 75,000 6,254,832 73 ATTACHMENT C CHANGE IN CASH BALANCE BY MONTH 74 ATTACHMENT D March June September December 1977 5.68 5.78 5.84 6.45 1978 6.97 7.35 7.86 8.32 1979 8.81 9.10 9.26 10.06 1980 11.11 11.54 10.01 10.47 1981 11.23 11.68 12.40 11.91 1982 11.82 11.99 11.74 10.71 1983 9.87 9.64 10.04 10.18 1984 10.32 10.88 11.53 11.41 1985 10.32 9.98 9.54 9.43 1986 9.09 8.39 7.81 7.48 1987 7.24 7.21 7.54 7.97 1988 8.01 7.87 8.20 8.45 1989 8.76 9.13 8.87 8.68 1990 8.52 8.50 8.39 8.27 1991 7.97 7.38 7.00 6.52 1992 5.87 5.45 4.97 4.67 1993 4.64 4.51 4.44 4.36 1994 4.25 4.45 4.96 5.37 1995 5.76 5.98 5.89 5.76 1996 5.62 5.52 5.57 5.58 1997 5.56 5.63 5.68 5.71 1998 5.70 5.66 5.64 5.46 1999 5.19 5.08 5.21 5.49 2000 5.80 6.18 6.47 6.52 2001 6.16 5.32 4.47 3.52 2002 2.96 2.75 2.63 2.31 2003 1.98 1.77 1.63 1.56 2004 1.47 1.44 1.67 2.00 2005 2.38 2.85 3.18 3.63 2006 4.03 4.53 4.93 5.11 2007 5.17 5.23 5.24 4.96 2008 4.18 3.11 2.77 2.54 2009 1.91 1.51 0.90 0.60 2010 0.56 0.56 0.51 0.46 2011 0.51 0.48 0.38 0.38 2012 0.38 0.36 0.35 0.32 2013 0.28 0.24 0.26 0.26 2014 0.24 0.22 0.24 0.25 2015 0.26 0.28 0.32 0.37 2016 0.46 0.55 0.60 0.68 2017 0.78 0.92 1.07 1.20 2018 1.51 1.90 2.16 2.40 2019 2.55 2.57 2.45 2.29 2020 2.03 1.36 0.84 0.63 2021 0.44 0.33 Quarterly Apportionment Rates Local Agency Investment Fund 75 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:September 1, 2021 DEPARTMENT:Public Works Department PREPARED BY:Emma Burkhalter, Associate Engineer SUBJECT:Parking Restriction on Prospect Road Near Beauchamps Lane RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve the attached Motor Vehicle resolution to adopt a No Parking restriction on Prospect Road. BACKGROUND: In late 2020, Public Works staff were informed that parking on Prospect Road was creating sight distances issues for cars turning out of Beauchamps Lane onto Prospect Road. Staff met with the City’s traffic engineering consultants, Fehr & Peers, and they developed a plan to remove parking along a 120-foot stretch of Prospect Road adjacent to the corner. This No Parking zone will increase both the corner and stopping sight distance to 200’,which is the maximum possible given the geometry of the road. Per the attached plan, Fehr & Peers recommends painting the curb red and installing No Parking signage. It is therefore recommended that Council approve the Motor Vehicle resolution to adopt a 120’ No Parking restriction on Prospect Road. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A -Motor Vehicle Resolution Attachment B -Map of Parking Restriction 76 RESOLUTION NO. MV- ______ RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING A NO PARKING ZONE ON PROSPECT ROAD NEAR BEAUCHAMPS LANE The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows: I. Based upon an engineering and traffic study: NAME OF STREETS LOCATION RESTRICTION Prospect Road South side of Prospect Road beginning at the southwest corner of Prospect Rd and Beauchamps Ln, then continuing west for 120 feet. No Parking zone for 120 feet with red curb and signage. II. All prior resolutions and other enactments imposing a parking restriction at the location specified above are hereby repealed to the extent of their inconsistency with the restriction specified above. III. This resolution shall become effective at such time as the signs and/or markings are installed. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted by the City Council of the City of Saratoga at a regular meeting held on the 1 st day of September, 2021, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ______________________________ Yan Zhao, Mayor ATTEST: ____________________________ Britt Avrit, City Clerk 1170540.1 77 City of Saratoga Prospect Road Red Curb at Beauchamps Lane Restrict parking with red curb and “No Parking” signage. N BeauchampsLane78 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:September 1, 2021 DEPARTMENT:Public Works PREPARED BY:Emma Burkhalter, Associate Engineer SUBJECT:13053 Ten Oak Way –Storm Drainage Easement Vacation RECOMMENDED ACTION: Adopt Resolution Vacating a Storm Drainage Easement at 13053 Ten Oak Way, Saratoga, CA 95070 (APN 393-18-036). BACKGROUND: Fidelity National Title Group has requested that the City vacate a 10’ x 20’ storm drain and sanitary sewer easement located at 13053 Ten Oak Way (APN 393-18-036), as described in the attached materials. City Staff inspected the easement and determined that no storm drainage infrastructure was present within the easement. The City has no plans for installing storm drain improvements on this site. Because the easement was described as also being for sanitary sewer purposes, the applicant reached out to the property’s sanitation district (West Valley Sanitation District) and received a letter confirming that no sanitation sewer facilities exist within the easement in question and that the District does not object to the vacation. Since the applicant has fulfilled the requirements of Streets and Highways Code Section 8333 for a summary vacation, it is therefore recommended that City Council adopt the attached Resolution Vacating a Storm Drainage Easement. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A –Resolution Vacating Storm Drainage Easement Attachment A1 –Exhibit “A”-Legal Description & Plat Attachment B –Document 6419-349 Attachment C –Tract Map No. 2965 Attachment D –Sanitation District Letter 79 RECORDING REQUESTED BY City of Saratoga WHEN RECORDED MAIL TO City Clerk City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 SPACE ABOVE THIS LINE IS FOR RECORDER’S USE RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA VACATING A PUBLIC SERVICE EASEMENT WHEREAS, a 10’ x 20’ public service easement for the purposes of storm drain and sewer purposes exists on the real property commonly known as 13053 Ten Oak Way, Saratoga, California or Lot 237, Tract No. 2965 Arroyo De Saratoga Unit No. 4, Tract Map filed on March 26, 1964, Map Book 175, Pages 54 and 55, Santa Clara County Records, APN 393-18-036, (“the Property”); and WHEREAS, a Storm Drainage (Sewer) Easement Dedication was recorded in Book 6419 at Page 349, on March 11, 1964, in Santa Clara County Official Records, for storm drain and sewer purposes (hereinafter “Public Service Easement”) in the location described in the attached Exhibit “A”; and WHEREAS, Public Works Staff inspected the Public Service Easement area and determined that no storm drainage infrastructure exists within it and that the City has no plans for installing storm drainage infrastructure in that location; and WHEREAS, West Valley Sanitation District confirmed that no sanitary sewer facilities exist within the easement and that they do not object to vacating the Public Service Easement; and WHEREAS, a public service easement may be summarily vacated pursuant to Streets and Highways Code Section 8333 if the easement has not been used for five consecutive years immediately preceding the proposed vacation or has been determined to be excess by the easement holder, and there are no other public facilities located within the easement; and WHEREAS, no other easement is vacated by this resolution. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby : 1) Declares the foregoing recitals are true and correct; 80 2) Finds that there are no public facilities located within the Public Service Easement, the easement has not been used for at least five years preceding the date of this resolution, and is not needed for storm drainage or sanitary sewer purposes; 3) Vacates the Public Service Easement pursuant to Streets and Highways Code section 8335; and 4) Declares that from and after the date of this resolution is recorded, the street, highway, or public service easement vacated no longer constitutes a street, highway, or public service easement. The above Resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the 1st day of September, 2021 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ______________________________ Yan Zhao, Mayor City of Saratoga ATTEST: _________________________________________________________ Britt Avrit, City Clerk Date 81 EXHIBIT “A” 10’x20’ Storm Drainage (Sewer) Easement Vacation 13053 Ten Oak Way Saratoga, Ca 95070 Page 1 of 2 Being that certain Storm Drainage (Sewer) Easement, as described in Dedication, recorded in Book 6419 at Page 349, on March 11, 1964, in Santa Clara County Official Records, also as shown as 10’x20’ Sewer Easement over Lot 237 on Tract Map No. 2965 Arroyo De Saratoga Unit No. 4, filed for record in Book 175 of Maps at Page 54 and 55, Santa Clara County Records, and more particularly described as follows; Beginning at the southwesterly corner of the said Storm Drainage Easement, said point being the southwesterly corner of said lot 237; Thence, along the westerly boundary of said Storm Drainage Easement, North 0º07’58” West,10.00 feet, to the northwesterly corner of said Storm Drainage Easement; Thence, along the northerly boundary of said Storm Drainage Easement, North 89º56’12” East, 20.00 feet, to the northeasterly corner of said Storm Drainage Easement; Thence, along the easterly boundary of said Storm Drainage Easement, South 0º07’58” East, 10.00 feet, to the southeasterly corner of said Storm Drainage easement, said point being on the southerly boundary of said lot 237; Thence, along the southerly boundary of said Storm Drainage Easement, South 89º56’12” West, 20.00 feet to the Point of Beginning. Containing 200 square feet, more or less. Basis of Bearing for this description is based on that certain grant deed recorded in Book 6419 of Official Records at Page 349, Santa Clara County Records. This description was prepared under my direct supervision in December, 2020 at the request of Elliot a Division of Nationwide Property & Appraisal Services LLC. _________________________________________ _ Adam S. Rivera PLS 8451 Date My license Expires 12/31/2 2 82 83 84 85 86 87 January 19, 2021 Jorge Picado VIA US MAIL AND EMAIL West Valley Sanitation District 100 East Sunnyoaks Avenue Campbell, California 95008 jpicado@westvalleysan.org Re: Claim No.: 695634 Insured: Shantanu K. Sarangi & Pansy Bansal Property: 13053 Ten Oak Way Saratoga, CA 95070 (the “Property”) Dear Mr. Picado: By way of introduction, I am a claims administrator at Chicago Title Insurance Company (the “Company”) working on resolving a title insurance claim submitted by the owners of the above-referenced Property, Shantanu K. Sarangi & Pansy Bansal (the “Owners”). As discussed below, the claim involves a document entitled “Offer to Dedicate Storm Drainage Easement” recorded on March 11, 1964 (the “1964 Offer”). Although the 1964 Offer has never been formally accepted by the City of Saratoga, it continues to show on title records due to the unlimited duration of a deeded offer for dedication. To resolve the issue, we are applying to the City for the vacation of the 1964 Offer on the Property. One of the requirements of the City’s application is the consent of the West Valley Sanitation District to the vacation, which is the purpose of this letter. I was given your contact information for this request by Emma Burkhalter at the City of Saratoga Public Works Department. If this should be directed elsewhere, please let me know or forward it to the appropriate department. Enclosed for your review are copies of the following: 1)Assessor’s Parcel Map for Santa Clara County APN 393-18-036. 2) Original 1964 Map of Plat for Tract Number 2965. The Property is lot number 237 of the plat. 3) Survey of the Property showing the location of the proposed easement that was offered in the 1964 Offer. 4) Legal description of the area to be vacated. 5)Owners’ vesting deed from 2015. The City has inspected the area and confirmed that no drainage equipment or facility is present in the area, and plans to approve the vacation upon confirmation by utility companies for this area. According to the survey, an inspection of the area, and the history of the 1964 Offer, we believe 88 Rene Rivera, Accounting Technician SUBJECT: Review of Accounts Payable Check Registers RECOMMENDED ACTION: Review and accept check registers for the following accounts payable payment cycles: 8/17/21 Period 2; 8/25/21 Period 2 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 7/21/2021 143616 143665 50 227,825.81 7/21/2021 7/13/2021 143615 7/21/2021 143666 143694 29 78,392.42 7/21/2021 7/21/2021 143665 Accounts Payable P13 7/28/2021 143695 143705 11 14,942.14 7/28/2021 7/21/2021 143694 Accounts Payable P01 7/28/2021 143706 143727 22 127,790.93 7/28/2021 7/28/2021 143705 Accounts Payable P13 8/4/2021 143728 143739 12 215,860.92 8/4/2021 7/28/2021 143727 8/4/2021 143740 143765 26 1,007,728.60 8/4/2021 8/4/2021 143739 8/10/2021 143766 143775 10 30,264.73 8/10/2021 8/4/2021 143765 8/10/2021 143776 143804 29 671,417.45 8/10/2021 8/10/2021 143775 8/17/2021 143805 143850 46 295,213.62 8/18/2021 8/10/2021 143804 8/25/2021 143851 143890 40 404,418.05 8/25/2021 8/17/2021 143850 Accounts Payable checks issued for $20,000 or greater: Date Check #Dept.Amount 7/21/2021 143616 4 Leaf General CDD June Bldg Inspections 22,356.30 7/21/2021 143662 Vista Landscape & Mtn General PW CIP Parks & General 42,383.75 7/28/2021 143711 City of Campbell General Fund PW Q1 FY21/22 Waste Mgmt 25,960.61 7/28/2021 143722 Oscar Urvizo Tellez General PW Landscape 28,175.00 8/4/2021 143728 4 Leaf General CDD June 21 Plan Review 44,442.39 8/4/2021 143729 City of Campbell WVCWP Agency Fund WVCWP WVCWP 20/21 Rev Surplus 44,736.67 8/4/2021 143736 Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger General Admin Legal 31,756.35 8/4/2021 143737 Town of Los Gatos WVCWP Agency Fund WVCWP WVCWP 20/21 Rev Surplus 38,627.46 8/4/2021 143738 Tri-Valley Striping CIP Street Projects Fund PW Remove Striping 20,475.00 8/4/2021 143750 Office of Sheriff General Admin Jul 21 Law Enforcement 570,165.83 8/4/2021 143756 Softwareone, Ince IT Services Admin Microsoft Office 365 25,668.70 8/4/2021 143759 SYL Construction CIP Street Projects Fund PW Curb & Sidewalk Repair 24,380.00 8/4/2021 143760 The Bank of New York Mellon Arrowhead Bond Admin Tax Bond Series 2018 322,894.04 8/10/2021 143793 Office of Sheriff General Admin Aug 21 Law Enforcement 570,165.83 8/10/2021 143798 Superion General Admin Mtn Contract 7/21-6/22 27,317.69 8/17/2021 143805 4 Leaf General CDD July Plan Review 33,706.72 8/17/2021 143825 Orchard Keepers General PW Heritage Orchard Mtn 51,893.93 8/17/2021 143832 Roger & Eileen Zhou General CDD Bond/Dep ARB20-0029 63,263.03 8/17/2021 143557 St Francis Electric General PW Ts on Call Services, Quito & Allendale 21,207.50 8/17/2021 143846 Villalobos & Associates CIP Projects Fund PW Continental Circle Stabilize 35,900.00 8/25/2021 143851 4 Leaf General CDD Bldg Inspections 20,533.66 8/25/2021 143869 Howard Zhou General CDD Dep ARB19-0007 52,542.89 8/25/2021 143882 O'Grady Paving CIP Street Projects Fund PW 2020 Pavement Mgmt 192,534.69 7/21/21 Period 13; 7/21/21 Period 1; 7/28/21 Period 13; 7/28/21 Period 1; 8/4/21 Period 13; 8/4/21 Period 2; 8/10/21 Period 13, 8/10/21 Period 2; PREPARED BY: Ending Check # Starting Check #Type of Checks Date SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:September 1, 2021 DEPARTMENT:Finance & Administrative Services Prior Check RegisterChecks ReleasedTotal Checks Amount Accounts Payable P02 Fund Purpose Issued to Accounts Payable P13 Accounts Payable P01 Accounts Payable P13 Accounts Payable P02 Accounts Payable P02 Accounts Payable P02 89 8/25/2021 143886 Santa Clara Fire Safe Council General Admin FY21/22 Wildfire Prevention 25,000.00 8/25/2021 143888 Saviano Company, Inc CIP Parks Project Fund PW Beauchamps Tennis & Basketball Cts 45,000.00 Accounts Payable checks voided during this time period: AP Date Check #Amount 5/26/2021 143314 Mountain Bikers of Santa Cruz Lost Check 3,760.00 2/3/2021 142637 James Lafferty Revised Amount 739.06 6/23/2021 143490 127.57 8/17/2021 143831 Pioneer Research Group Void & Reissue 152.27 ATTACHMENTS: Check Registers in the 'A/P Checks By Period and Year' report format Void & Reissue Void & Reissue Stevens Creek Quarry Duplicate Voided Wrong Vendor StatusReason Issued to 90 91 92 93 94 95 96 97 98 99 100 101 102 103 SUNGARD PUBLIC SECTOR PAGE NUMBER: 1 DATE: 08/04/2021 CITY OF SARATOGA VENCHK11 TIME: 13:35:33 CHECK REGISTER - FUND TOTALS ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 2/22 FUND FUND TITLE AMOUNT 111 GENERAL FUND 93,091.13 256 ALLENDALE LANDSCAPE 658.83 276 TOLLGATE L&L 135.38 411 CIP STREET PROJECTS FUND 20,475.00 414 CIP ADMIN PROJECTS FUND 8,187.50 624 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 6,077.36 713 WVCWP AGENCY FUND 87,235.72 TOTAL REPORT 215,860.92 104 SUNGARD PUBLIC SECTOR PAGE NUMBER: 1 DATE: 08/04/2021 CITY OF SARATOGA VENCHK11 TIME: 13:34:57 CHECK REGISTER ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 2/22 FUND - 009 - DISBURSEMENT FUND CHECK NUMBER CASH ACCT DATE ISSUED --------------VENDOR-------------- ACCT -------DESCRIPTION------- AMOUNT 143728 11111 08/04/21 1422 4LEAF INC. 22119 JUNE 21 PLAN REVIEW 44,442.39 143729 11111 08/04/21 188 CITY OF CAMPBELL 41172 WVCWP 20/21 REV SRPLS 44,736.67 143730 11111 08/04/21 1428 CLEANSWEEP SERVICES, INC 64539 PRESSURE WASH 1,515.00 143731 11111 08/04/21 1646 O'ROURKE & ASSOCIATES 81141 CAP MONITORING TOOLS 8,187.50 143732 11111 08/04/21 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 63111 PARKS/OPEN SPACE 150.51 143733 11111 08/04/21 87 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 63112 BUILDINGS 311.17 143733 11111 08/04/21 87 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 63112 TOLLGATE 135.38 143733 11111 08/04/21 87 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 63112 PARKS/OPEN SPACE 12,732.26 143733 11111 08/04/21 87 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 63112 MEDIANS/PARKWAYS 2,494.62 TOTAL CHECK 15,673.43 143734 11111 08/04/21 87 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 63112 ALLENDALE LLA 658.83 143735 11111 08/04/21 1039 SANCHEZ ELECTRIC, INC. 64528 BB3 EV STATION PANEL 5,766.19 143736 11111 08/04/21 154 SHUTE MIHALY & WEINBERGER 22119 SB 35 PROJECT 11,055.45 143736 11111 08/04/21 154 SHUTE MIHALY & WEINBERGER 22119 RW 4,131.50 143736 11111 08/04/21 154 SHUTE MIHALY & WEINBERGER 65212 ADMIN SVC 741.00 143736 11111 08/04/21 154 SHUTE MIHALY & WEINBERGER 65213 CDD 3,038.10 143736 11111 08/04/21 154 SHUTE MIHALY & WEINBERGER 65214 CDE 419.90 143736 11111 08/04/21 154 SHUTE MIHALY & WEINBERGER 65219 CITY CLERK 642.20 143736 11111 08/04/21 154 SHUTE MIHALY & WEINBERGER 65211 CM 4,495.40 143736 11111 08/04/21 154 SHUTE MIHALY & WEINBERGER 65216 FACILITIES 123.50 143736 11111 08/04/21 154 SHUTE MIHALY & WEINBERGER 65256 NON-DEP 125.00 143736 11111 08/04/21 154 SHUTE MIHALY & WEINBERGER 65217 OH/CC MEETINGS 1,901.90 143736 11111 08/04/21 154 SHUTE MIHALY & WEINBERGER 65215 PW 3,260.40 143736 11111 08/04/21 154 SHUTE MIHALY & WEINBERGER 65223 GENERAL PLAN 1,822.00 TOTAL CHECK 31,756.35 143737 11111 08/04/21 364 TOWN OF LOS GATOS 41172 WVCWP 20/21 REV SRPLS 38,627.46 143738 11111 08/04/21 1082 TRI-VALLEY STRIPING 81161 REMOVE STRIPING 20,475.00 143739 11111 08/04/21 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 61171 WVCWP ADOB SUBSCRIP 815.52 143739 11111 08/04/21 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 66211 WVCWP CASQA CONF 325.00 143739 11111 08/04/21 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 66211 WVCWP CASQA CONF 325.00 143739 11111 08/04/21 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 66211 WVCWP CASQA CONF 325.00 143739 11111 08/04/21 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 66211 WVCWP CASQA CONF 325.00 143739 11111 08/04/21 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 66211 WVCWP CASQA CONF 325.00 143739 11111 08/04/21 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 61111 WVCWP JUN AMAZON PRME 14.16 143739 11111 08/04/21 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 64313 WVCWP JUN MAIL CHIMP 9.99 143739 11111 08/04/21 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 66111 WVCWP JUN ZOOM 54.99 143739 11111 08/04/21 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 64311 WVCWP JUNE QB 25.00 143739 11111 08/04/21 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 63213 WVCWP MAY COMCAST 270.11 143739 11111 08/04/21 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 61119 WVCWP OUTREACH VIDEO 63.53 143739 11111 08/04/21 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 61119 WVCWP OUTREACH VIDEO 14.96 143739 11111 08/04/21 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 61119 WVCWP OUTREACH VIDEO 17.58 143739 11111 08/04/21 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 61119 WVCWP SHUTTERSTOCK 49.00 143739 11111 08/04/21 391 US BANK PURCHASING CARD P 61119 WVCWP UNIFORMS 911.75 TOTAL CHECK 3,871.59 105 SUNGARD PUBLIC SECTOR PAGE NUMBER: 2 DATE: 08/04/2021 CITY OF SARATOGA VENCHK11 TIME: 13:34:57 CHECK REGISTER ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 2/22 FUND - 009 - DISBURSEMENT FUND CHECK NUMBER CASH ACCT DATE ISSUED --------------VENDOR-------------- ACCT -------DESCRIPTION------- AMOUNT TOTAL FUND 215,860.92 TOTAL REPORT 215,860.92 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 116 117 118 119 120 121 122 123 124 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:September 1, 2021 DEPARTMENT:City Manager’s Department PREPARED BY:Crystal Bothelio, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT:League of California Cities Annual Conference Voting Delegate and Resolutions RECOMMENDED ACTION: Designate the City of Saratoga voting delegate and alternate voting delegate(s) for the 2021 League of California Cities Annual Conference; and to give direction to the voting delegate on the proposed resolutions. BACKGROUND: The League of California Cities Annual Conference will take place in Sacramento on September 22-24, 2021. The League will conduct its Annual Business Meeting on September 24. During the meeting, members take action on resolutions that establish League policy. Each member city is asked to designate a voting delegate and up to two alternate voting delegates. Delegates and alternates must be registered to attend the Annual Conference. The League of California Cities requires that cities submit the names of their designated voter and alternates by Wednesday, September 15, 2021. Once the voting delegate and alternate(s) are selected, the City Council may also provide the delegate and alternate(s) with input on the two resolutions that will be considered during the Annual Conference. The resolutions are listed below and included in Attachment B. Resolution 1:Resolution Calling on the State Legislature to pass legislation that provides a fair and equitable distribution of the Bradley Burns 1% Local Sales Tax from in-State online purchases, base don data where products are shipped to, and that rightfully takes into consideration the impacts that fulfillment centers have on host cities but also provides a fair share to California cities that do not and/or cannot have a fulfillment center within their jurisdiction. Source:City of Rancho Cucamonga Concurring Cities/Officials:Town of Apple Valley, City of El Cerrito, City of La Canada Flintridge, City of Laverne, City of Lakewood, City of Moorpark, City of Placentia, City of Sacramento 125 Summary: This Resolution calls on the League of California Cities (Cal Cities) to request the Legislature to pass legislation that provides for a fair and equitable distribution of theBradley Burns 1% local sales tax from in-state online purchases, based on data where products are shipped to, and that rightfully takes into consideration the impacts that fulfillment centers have on host cities but also provides a fair share to California cities that do not and/or cannot have a fulfillment center within their jurisdiction. Resolution 2:Resolution calling upon the Governor and the Legislature to provide necessary funding for the CUPC to fulfill its obligation to inspect railroad lines to ensure that operators are removing illegal dumping, graffiti and homeless encampments that degrade the quality of life and results in increased public safety concerns for communities and neighborhoods that abut the railroad right-of-way. Source:City of South Gate Concurring Cities/Officials:City of Bell Gardens, City of Bell, City of Commerce, City of Cudahy, City of El Segundo, City of Glendora, City of Huntington Park, City of La Mirada, City of Long Beach, City of Lynwood, City of Montebello, City of Paramount, City of Pico Rivera Summary: The resolution states the League of California Cities should urge the Governor and the Legislature to provide adequate regulatory authority and necessary funding to assist cities with railroad right-of-way areas to address illegal dumping, graffiti, and homeless encampments that proliferate along the rail lines and result in public safety issues. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A – League of California Cities Letter on Annual Conference Designated Voters and Alternates Attachment B – League of California Cities Annual Conference Resolutions Packet 126 1400 K Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95814-3916 | www.cacities.org | (916) 658-8200 June 16, 2021 TO: City Managers and City Clerks RE: DESIGNATION OF VOTING DELEGATES AND ALTERNATES League of California Cities Annual Conference & Expo – September 22-24, 2021 Cal Cities 2021 Annual Conference & Expo is scheduled for September 22-24, 2021 in Sacramento. An important part of the Annual Conference is the Annual Business Meeting (during General Assembly) on Friday, September 24. At this meeting, Cal Cities membership considers and acts on resolutions that establish Cal Cities policy. In order to vote at the Annual Business Meeting, your city council must designate a voting delegate. Your city may also appoint up to two alternate voting delegates, one of whom may vote if the designated voting delegate is unable to serve in that capacity. Please complete the attached Voting Delegate form and return it to Cal Cities office no later than Wednesday, September 15. This will allow us time to establish voting delegate/alternate records prior to the conference. Please note: Our number one priority will continue to be the health and safety of participants. We are working closely with the Sacramento Convention Center to ensure that important protocols and cleaning procedures continue, and if necessary, are strengthened. Attendees can anticipate updates as the conference approaches. • Action by Council Required. Consistent with Cal Cities bylaws, a city’s voting delegate and up to two alternates must be designated by the city council. When completing the attached Voting Delegate form, please attach either a copy of the council resolution that reflects the council action taken, or have your city clerk or mayor sign the form affirming that the names provided are those selected by the city council. Please note that designating the voting delegate and alternates must be done by city council action and cannot be accomplished by individual action of the mayor or city manager alone. • Conference Registration Required. The voting delegate and alternates must be registered to attend the conference. They need not register for the entire conference; they may register for Friday only. Conference registration will open mid-June at www.cacities.org. In order to cast a vote, at least one voter must be present at the Business Meeting and in possession of the voting delegate card. Voting delegates and alternates need to pick up their conference badges before signing in and picking up the voting delegate card at the Voting Delegate Desk. This will enable them to receive the special sticker on their name badges that will admit them into the voting area during the Business Meeting. • Transferring Voting Card to Non-Designated Individuals Not Allowed. The voting delegate card may be transferred freely between the voting delegate and alternates, but Council Action Advised by August 31, 2021 127 1400 K Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95814-3916 | www.cacities.org | (916) 658-8200 only between the voting delegate and alternates. If the voting delegate and alternates find themselves unable to attend the Business Meeting, they may not transfer the voting card to another city official. • Seating Protocol during General Assembly. At the Business Meeting, individuals with the voting card will sit in a separate area. Admission to this area will be limited to those individuals with a special sticker on their name badge identifying them as a voting delegate or alternate. If the voting delegate and alternates wish to sit together, they must sign in at the Voting Delegate Desk and obtain the special sticker on their badges. The Voting Delegate Desk, located in the conference registration area of the Sacramento Convention Center, will be open at the following times: Wednesday, September 22, 8:00 a.m. – 6:00 p.m.; Thursday, September 23, 7:00 a.m. – 4:00 p.m.; and Friday, September 24, 7:30 a.m.– 11:30 a.m. The Voting Delegate Desk will also be open at the Business Meeting on Friday, but will be closed during roll calls and voting. The voting procedures that will be used at the conference are attached to this memo. Please share these procedures and this memo with your council and especially with the individuals that your council designates as your city’s voting delegate and alternates. Once again, thank you for completing the voting delegate and alternate form and returning it to the League’s office by Wednesday, September 15. If you have questions, please call Darla Yacub at (916) 658-8254. Attachments: • Annual Conference Voting Procedures • Voting Delegate/Alternate Form 128 1400 K Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95814-3916 | www.cacities.org | (916) 658-8200 CITY:________________________________________ 2021 ANNUAL CONFERENCE VOTING DELEGATE/ALTERNATE FORM Please complete this form and return it to Cal Cities office by Wednesday, September 15, 2021. Forms not sent by this deadline may be submitted to the Voting Delegate Desk located in the Annual Conference Registration Area. Your city council may designate one voting delegate and up to two alternates. To vote at the Annual Business Meeting (General Assembly), voting delegates and alternates must be designated by your city council. Please attach the council resolution as proof of designation. As an alternative, the Mayor or City Clerk may sign this form, affirming that the designation reflects the action taken by the council. Please note: Voting delegates and alternates will be seated in a separate area at the Annual Business Meeting. Admission to this designated area will be limited to individuals (voting delegates and alternates) who are identified with a special sticker on their conference badge. This sticker can be obtained only at the Voting Delegate Desk. 1. VOTING DELEGATE Name: Title: 2. VOTING DELEGATE - ALTERNATE 3. VOTING DELEGATE - ALTERNATE Name: Name: Title: Title: PLEASE ATTACH COUNCIL RESOLUTION DESIGNATING VOTING DELEGATE AND ALTERNATES OR ATTEST: I affirm that the information provided reflects action by the city council to designate the voting delegate and alternate(s). Name: ____________________________________ Email _________________________________ Mayor or City Clerk___________________________ Date____________ Phone________________ (circle one) (signature) Please complete and return by Wednesday, September 15, 2021 to: Darla Yacub, Assistant to the Administrative Services Director E-mail: dyacub@cacities.org Phone: (916) 658-8254 129 1400 K Street, Suite 400, Sacramento, CA 95814-3916 | www.cacities.org | (916) 658-8200 Annual Conference Voting Procedures 1. One City One Vote. Each member city has a right to cast one vote on matters pertaining to Cal Cities policy. 2. Designating a City Voting Representative. Prior to the Annual Conference, each city council may designate a voting delegate and up to two alternates; these individuals are identified on the Voting Delegate Form provided to the Cal Cities Credentials Committee. 3. Registering with the Credentials Committee. The voting delegate, or alternates, may pick up the city's voting card at the Voting Delegate Desk in the conference registration area. Voting delegates and alternates must sign in at the Voting Delegate Desk. Here they will receive a special sticker on their name badge and thus be admitted to the voting area at the Business Meeting. 4. Signing Initiated Resolution Petitions. Only those individuals who are voting delegates (or alternates), and who have picked up their city’s voting card by providing a signature to the Credentials Committee at the Voting Delegate Desk, may sign petitions to initiate a resolution. 5. Voting. To cast the city's vote, a city official must have in their possession the city's voting card and be registered with the Credentials Committee. The voting card may be transferred freely between the voting delegate and alternates, but may not be transferred to another city official who is neither a voting delegate or alternate. 6. Voting Area at Business Meeting. At the Business Meeting, individuals with a voting card will sit in a designated area. Admission will be limited to those individuals with a special sticker on their name badge identifying them as a voting delegate or alternate. 7. Resolving Disputes. In case of dispute, the Credentials Committee will determine the validity of signatures on petitioned resolutions and the right of a city official to vote at the Business Meeting. 130 Annual Conference Resolutions Packet 2021 Annual Conference Resolutions September 22 - 24, 2021 131 INFORMATION AND PROCEDURES RESOLUTIONS CONTAINED IN THIS PACKET: The League of California Cities (Cal Cities) bylaws provide that resolutions shall be referred by the president to an appropriate policy committee for review and recommendation. Resolutions with committee recommendations shall then be considered by the General Resolutions Committee at the Annual Conference. This year, two resolutions have been introduced for consideration at the Annual Conference and referred to Cal Cities policy committees. POLICY COMMITTEES: Three policy committees will meet virtually one week prior to the Annual Conference to consider and take action on the resolutions. The sponsors of the resolutions have been notified of the time and location of the meetings. GENERAL RESOLUTIONS COMMITTEE: This committee will meet at 1:00 p.m. on Thursday, September 23, to consider the reports of the policy committees regarding the resolutions. This committee includes one representative from each of Cal Cities regional divisions, functional departments, and standing policy committees, as well as other individuals appointed by the Cal Cities president. Please check in at the registration desk for room location. CLOSING LUNCHEON AND GENERAL ASSEMBLY: This meeting will be held at 12:30 p.m. on Friday, September 24, at the SAFE Credit Union Convention Center. PETITIONED RESOLUTIONS: For those issues that develop after the normal 60-day deadline, a petition resolution may be introduced at the Annual Conference with a petition signed by designated voting delegates of 10 percent of all member cities (48 valid signatures required) and presented to the Voting Delegates Desk at least 24 hours prior to the time set for convening the Closing Luncheon & General Assembly. This year, that deadline is 12:30 p.m., Thursday, September 23. Resolutions can be viewed on Cal Cities Web site: www.cacities.org/resolutions. Any questions concerning the resolutions procedures may be directed to Meg Desmond mdesmond@calcities.org. 1 132 GUIDELINES FOR ANNUAL CONFERENCE RESOLUTIONS Policy development is a vital and ongoing process within Cal Cities. The principal means for deciding policy on the important issues facing cities is through Cal Cities seven standing policy committees and the board of directors. The process allows for timely consideration of issues in a changing environment and assures city officials the opportunity to both initiate and influence policy decisions. Annual conference resolutions constitute an additional way to develop Cal Cities policy. Resolutions should adhere to the following criteria. Guidelines for Annual Conference Resolutions 1.Only issues that have a direct bearing on municipal affairs should be considered or adopted at the Annual Conference. 2.The issue is not of a purely local or regional concern. 3.The recommended policy should not simply restate existing Cal Cities policy. 4.The resolution should be directed at achieving one of the following objectives: (a)Focus public or media attention on an issue of major importance to cities. (b)Establish a new direction for Cal Cities policy by establishing general principals around which more detailed policies may be developed by policy committees and the board of directors. (c)Consider important issues not adequately addressed by the policy committees and board of directors. 2 133 KEY TO ACTIONS TAKEN ON RESOLUTIONS Resolutions have been grouped by policy committees to which they have been assigned. Number Key Word Index Reviewing Body Action 1 2 3 1 - Policy Committee Recommendation to General Resolutions Committee 2 - General Resolutions Committee 3 - General Assembly HOUSING, COMMUNITY & ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT POLICY COMMITTEE 1 2 3 2 Securing Railroad Property Maintenance REVENUE & TAXATION POLICY COMMITTEE 1 2 3 1 Online Sales Tax Equity TRANSPORTATION, COMMUNICATION & PUBLIC WORKS POLICY COMMITTEE 1 2 3 2 Securing Railroad Property Maintenance 3 134 KEY TO ACTIONS TAKEN ON RESOLUTIONS (Continued) Resolutions have been grouped by policy committees to which they have been assigned. KEY TO REVIEWING BODIES KEY TO ACTIONS TAKEN 1. Policy Committee A Approve 2. General Resolutions Committee D Disapprove 3. General Assembly N No Action R Refer to appropriate policy committee for study ACTION FOOTNOTES a Amend+ * Subject matter covered in another resolution Aa Approve as amended+ ** Existing League policy Aaa Approve with additional amendment(s)+ *** Local authority presently exists Ra Refer as amended to appropriate policy committee for study+ Raa Additional amendments and refer+ Da Amend (for clarity or brevity) and Disapprove+ Na Amend (for clarity or brevity) and take No Action+ W Withdrawn by Sponsor Procedural Note: The League of California Cities resolution process at the Annual Conference is guided by the Cal Cities Bylaws. 4 135 1.RESOLUTION OF THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES (“CAL CITIES”) CALLING ON THE STATE LEGISLATURE TO PASS LEGISLATION THAT PROVIDES FOR A FAIR AND EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF THE BRADLEY BURNS 1% LOCAL SALES TAX FROM IN-STATE ONLINE PURCHASES, BASED ON DATA WHERE PRODUCTS ARE SHIPPED TO, AND THAT RIGHTFULLY TAKES INTO CONSIDERATION THE IMPACTS THAT FULFILLMENT CENTERS HAVE ON HOST CITIES BUT ALSO PROVIDES A FAIR SHARE TO CALIFORNIA CITIES THAT DO NOT AND/OR CANNOT HAVE A FULFILLMENT CENTER WITHIN THEIR JURISDICTION Source: City of Rancho Cucamonga Concurrence of five or more cities/city officials: Cities: Town of Apple Valley; City of El Cerrito; City of La Canada Flintridge; City of La Verne; City of Lakewood; City of Moorpark; City of Placentia; City of Sacramento Referred to: Revenue and Taxation Policy Committee WHEREAS, the 2018 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Wayfair v. South Dakota clarified that states could charge and collect tax on purchases even if the seller does not have a physical presence in the state; and WHEREAS, California cities and counties collect 1% in Bradley Burns sales and use tax from the purchase of tangible personal property and rely on this revenue to provide critical public services such as police and fire protection; and WHEREAS, in terms of “siting” the place of sale and determining which jurisdiction receives the 1% Bradley Burns local taxes for online sales, the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA) determines “out-of-state” online retailers as those with no presence in California that ship property from outside the state and are therefore subject to use tax, not sales tax, which is collected in a countywide pool of the jurisdiction where the property is shipped from; and WHEREAS, for online retailers that have a presence in California and have a stock of goods in the state from which it fulfills orders, CDTFA considers the place of sale (“situs”) as the location from which the goods were shipped such as a fulfillment center; and WHEREAS, in early 2021, one of the state’s largest online retailers shifted its ownership structure so that it is now considered both an in-state and out-of-state retailer, resulting in the sales tax this retailer generates from in-state sales now being entirely allocated to the specific city where the warehouse fulfillment center is located as opposed to going into a countywide pool that is shared with all jurisdictions in that County, as was done previously; and WHEREAS, this all-or-nothing change for the allocation of in-state sales tax has created winners and losers amongst cities as the online sales tax revenue from the retailer that was once spread amongst all cities in countywide pools is now concentrated in select cities that host a fulfillment center; and WHEREAS, this has created a tremendous inequity amongst cities, in particular for cities that are built out, do not have space for siting a 1 million square foot fulfillment center, are not located along a major travel corridor, or otherwise not ideally suited to host a fulfillment center; and 5 136 WHEREAS, this inequity affects cities statewide, but in particular those with specific circumstances such as no/low property tax cities that are extremely reliant on sales tax revenue as well as cities struggling to meet their RHNA obligations that are being compelled by the State to rezone precious commercial parcels to residential; and WHEREAS, the inequity produced by allocating in-state online sales tax revenue exclusively to cities with fulfillment centers is exasperated even more by, in addition to already reducing the amount of revenue going into the countywide pools, the cities with fulfillment centers are also receiving a larger share of the dwindling countywide pool as it is allocated based on cities’ proportional share of sales tax collected; and WHEREAS, while it is important to acknowledge that those cities that have fulfillment centers experience impacts from these activities and deserve equitable supplementary compensation, it should also be recognized that the neighboring cities whose residents are ordering product from that center now receive no revenue from the center’s sales activity despite also experiencing the impacts created by the center, such as increased traffic and air pollution; and WHEREAS, the COVID-19 pandemic greatly accelerated the public’s shift towards online purchases, a trend that is unlikely to be reversed to pre-pandemic levels; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Cal Cities calls on the State Legislature to pass legislation that provides for a fair and equitable distribution of the Bradley Burns 1% local sales tax from in-state online purchases, based on data where products are shipped to, and that rightfully takes into consideration the impacts that fulfillment centers have on host cities but also provides a fair share to California cities that do not and/or cannot have a fulfillment center within their jurisdiction. 6 137 Background Information to Resolution Source: City of Rancho Cucamonga Background: Sales tax is a major revenue source for most California cities. Commonly known as the local 1% Bradley-Burns tax, since the 1950’s, cities have traditionally received 1 cent on every dollar of a sale made at the store, restaurant, car dealer, or other location within a jurisdiction’s boundaries. Over the years, however, this simple tax structure has evolved into a much more complex set of laws and allocation rules. Many of these rules relate to whether or not a given transaction is subject to sales tax, or to use tax – both have the same 1% value, but each applies in separate circumstances. The California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA) is responsible for administering this system and issuing rules regarding how it is applied in our state. The following chart created by HdL Companies, the leading provider of California sales tax consulting, illustrates the complex structure of how sales and use tax allocation is done in California, depending on where the transaction starts, where the goods are located, and how the customer receives the goods: With the exponential growth of online sales and the corresponding lack of growth, and even decline, of shopping at brick and mortar locations, cities are seeing much of their sales tax 7 138 growth coming from the countywide sales tax pools, since much of the sales tax is now funneled to the pools. Recently, one of the world’s largest online retailers changed the legal ownership of its fulfillment centers. Instead of having its fulfillment centers owned and operated by a third-party vendor, they are now directly owned by the company. This subtle change has major impacts to how the 1% local tax is allocated. Following the chart above, previously much of the sales tax would have followed the green boxes on the chart and been allocated to the countywide pool based on point of delivery. Now, much of the tax is following the blue path through the chart and is allocated to the jurisdiction in which the fulfillment center is located. (It should be noted that some of the tax is still flowing to the pools, in those situations where the fulfillment center is shipping goods for another seller that is out of state.) This change has created a situation where most cities in California – more than 90%, in fact – are experiencing a sales tax revenue loss that began in the fourth quarter of calendar year 2021. Many cities may not be aware of this impact, as the fluctuations in sales tax following the pandemic shutdowns have masked the issue. But this change will have long-term impacts on revenues for all California cities as all these revenues benefiting all cities have shifted to just a handful of cities and counties that are home to this retailer’s fulfillment centers. This has brought to light again the need to address the issues in how sales and use taxes are distributed in the 21st century. Many, if not most cities will never have the opportunity have a warehouse fulfillment center due to lack of space or not being situated along a major travel corridor. These policies especially favor retailers who may leverage current policy in order to negotiate favorable sales tax sharing agreements, providing more money back to the retailer at the expense of funding critical public services. With that stated, it is important to note the many impacts to the jurisdictions home to the fulfillment centers. These centers do support the ecommerce most of us as individuals have come to rely on, including heavy wear and tear on streets – one truck is equal to about 8,000 cars when it comes to impact on pavement – and increased air pollution due to the truck traffic and idling diesel engines dropping off large loads. However, it is equally important that State policies acknowledge that entities without fulfillment centers also experience impacts from ecommerce and increased deliveries. Cities whose residents are ordering products that are delivered to their doorstep also experience impacts from traffic, air quality and compromised safety, as well as the negative impact on brick-and-mortar businesses struggling to compete with the sharp increase in online shopping. These cities are rightfully entitled to compensation in an equitable share of sales and use tax. We do not believe that online sales tax distribution between fulfillment center cities and other cities should be an all or nothing endeavor, and not necessarily a fifty-fifty split, either. But we need to find an equitable split that balances the impacts to each jurisdiction involved in the distribution of products purchased online. Over the years, Cal Cities has had numerous discussions about the issues surrounding sales tax in the modern era, and how state law and policy should be revisited to address these issues. It is a heavy lift, as all of our cities are impacted a bit differently, making consensus difficult. We believe that by once again starting the conversation and moving toward the development of laws and policies that can result in seeing all cities benefit from the growth taxes generated through online sales, our state will be stronger. It is for these reasons, that we should all aspire to develop an equitable sales tax distribution for online sales. 8 139 LETTERS OF CONCURRENCE Resolution No. 1 9 140 www.AppleValley.org 14955 Dale Evans Parkway • Apple Valley, California 92307 • 760.240.7000 July 19, 2021 Cheryl Viegas Walker, President League of California Cities 1400 K Street, Suite 400 Sacramento, CA 95814 Dear President Walker: The Town of Apple Valley strongly supports the City of Rancho Cucamonga’s effort to submit a resolution for consideration by the General Assembly at Cal Cities 2021 Annual Conference in Sacramento. Current policies by the California Department of Tax and Fees (CDTFA) require that the one percent Bradley Burns local tax revenue from in-state online retailers be allocated to the jurisdiction from which the package was shipped from, as opposed to going into a countywide pool as is the practice with out-of-state online retailers. Earlier this year, one of the largest online retailers shifted its ownership structure and now operates as an in-state online retailer as well as out-of-state online retailer. Whereas, all sales tax revenue generated by this retailer’s sales previously went into a countywide pool and was distributed amongst the jurisdictions in the pool. Now the revenue from in-state sales goes entirely to the city where the fulfillment center is located, and the packages shipped from. Cities that do not have a fulfillment center now receive no revenue from this retailer’s online in-state sales transactions, even when the packages are delivered to locations within the cities’ borders and paid for by residents in those locations. Cities that border jurisdictions with fulfillment centers also experience its impacts such as increased truck traffic, air pollution and declining road conditions. This all-or-nothing practice has created clear winners and losers amongst cities as the online sales tax revenue from large online retailers that was once spread amongst all cities in countywide pools is now concentrated in select cities fortunate enough to host a fulfillment center. This has created a growing inequity amongst California cities, which only benefits some and is particularly unfair to cities who have no chance of ever obtaining a fulfillment center, such as those that are built out or are not situated along major travel corridors. No/low property tax cities that rely on sales tax revenue are especially impacted as well as cities struggling to meet their RHNA allocations that are being pressured by Sacramento to rezone precious commercial parcels to residential. The current online sales tax distribution policies are inherently unfair and exasperate the divide between the winners and losers. Ultimately, the real winners may be the retailers, who leverage these policies to negotiate favorable sales tax sharing agreements from a small group of select cities understandably wanting to host fulfillment centers. The current online sales tax distribution policies unfairly divide local agencies, exacerbate already difficult municipal finances, and in the end result in a net loss of local government sales tax proceeds that simply serve to make private sector businesses even more profitable at the expense of everyone’s residents. 10 141 We can do better than this. And we should all aspire to develop an equitable sales tax distribution of online sales that addresses the concerns noted above. For these reasons, the Town of Apple Valley concurs that the resolution should go before the General Assembly. If you have any questions regarding the Town’s position in this matter, please do not hesitate to contact the Town Manager at 760-240-7000 x 7051. Sincerely, Curt Emick Mayor 11 142 CITY HALL 10890 San Pablo Avenue, El Cerrito, CA 94530 Telephone (510) 215-4305 Fax (510) 215-4319 http://www.el-cerrito.org July 21, 2021 Cheryl Viegas Walker, President League of California Cities 1400 K Street, Suite 400 Sacramento, CA 95814 RE: Letter of Support for the City of Rancho Cucamonga’s Resolution for Fair and Equitable Distribution of the Bradley Burns 1% Local Sales Tax Dear President Walker: The City of El Cerrito supports the City of Rancho Cucamonga’s effort to submit a resolution for consideration by the General Assembly at the Cal Cities 2021 Annual Conference in Sacramento. Current policies by the California Department of Tax and Fees (CDTFA) require that the 1 percent Bradley Burns local tax revenue from in-state online retailers be allocated to the jurisdiction from which the package was shipped from, as opposed to going into a countywide pool as is the practice with out-of-state online retailers. Earlier this year, one of the largest online retailers shifted its ownership structure and now operates as an in- state online retailer as well as out-of-state online retailer. Previously, all sales tax revenue generated by this retailer’s sales went into a countywide pool and was distributed amongst the jurisdictions in the pool; now the revenue from in-state sales goes entirely to the city where the fulfillment center is located and the packages are shipped from. Cities that do not have a fulfillment center now receive no revenue from this retailer’s online in- state sales transactions, even when the packages are delivered to locations within the cities’ borders and paid for by residents in those locations. Cities that border jurisdictions with fulfillment centers also experience its impacts such as increased truck traffic, air pollution, and declining road conditions. This all-or-nothing practice has created clear winners and losers amongst cities as the online sales tax revenue from large online retailers that was once spread amongst all cities in countywide pools is now concentrated in select cities fortunate enough to host a fulfillment center. This has created a growing inequity amongst California cities, which only benefits some and is particularly unfair to cities such as El Cerrito who have no chance of ever obtaining a fulfillment center as we are a built out, four square mile, small city. Additionally, cities not situated along major travel corridors and no/low property tax cities that rely on sales tax revenue are especially impacted, as well as cities struggling to build much needed affordable housing that may require rezoning commercial parcels in order to meet their RHNA allocations. 12 143 City of El Cerrito Re: Letter of Support – RC League Resolution Page 2 of 2 The current online sales tax distribution policies are inherently unfair and exasperate the divide between the winners and losers. Ultimately, the real winners may be the retailers, who leverage these policies to negotiate favorable sales tax sharing agreements from a small group of select cities understandably wanting to host fulfillment centers. The current online sales tax distribution policies serve to divide local agencies, exacerbate already difficult municipal finances, and in the end results in a net loss of local government sales tax proceeds that simply serve to make private sector businesses even more profitable at the expense of everyone’s residents. We can do better, and we should all aspire to develop an equitable sales tax distribution of online sales that addresses the concerns noted above. For these reasons, the City of El Cerrito concurs that the resolution should go before the General Assembly. Sincerely, Paul Fadelli, Mayor City of El Cerrito cc: El Cerrito City Council City of Rancho Cucamonga 13 144 14145 15146 CITY HALL 3660 "D" Street. La Verne, California 91750-3599 www.cityof laverne.org SST€RCIT ES July 19,2021 Cheryl Viegas Walker, President League of California Cities 1400 K Street, Suite 400 Sacramento, CA 95814 Dear President Walker: The City of La Verne strongly supports the City of Rancho Cucamonga's effort to submit a resolution for consideration by the General Assembly at the League's 2021 Annual Conference in Sacramento. Current policies by the California Department of Tax and Fees (CDTFA) require that the 1 percent Bradley Burns local tax revenue from in-state online retailers be allocated to the jurisdiction from which the package was shipped from, as opposed to going into a countywide pool as is the practice with oulof-state online retailers. Earlier this year, one of the largest online retailers shifted its ownership structure and now operates as an in- state online retailer as well as outof-state online retailer. Whereas all sales tax revenue generated by this retaileis sales previously went into a countywide pool and was distributed amongst the jurisdictions in the pool, now the revenue from in-state sales goes entirely to the city where the fulfillment center is located, and the packages shipped from. Cities that do not have a fulfillment center now receive no revenue from this retailer's online in-state sales transactions, even when the packages are delivered to locations within the cities'borders and paid for by residents in those locations. cities that border jurisdictions with fulfillment centers also experience its impacts such as increased truck traffic, air pollution, and declining road conditions. This all-or-nothing practice has created clear winners and losers amongst cities as the online sales tax revenue from large online retailers that was once spread amongst all cities in countywide pools is now concentrated in select cities fortunate enough to host a fulfillment center. This has created a growing inequity amongst california cities, which only benefits some and is particularly unfair to cities which have no chance of ever obtaining a futfillment center, Such as those that are built out or are not situated along major travel corridors. No/low property tax cities that rely on sales tax revenue are General Administration 909/596-8726 . Water Customer Service 909/596-8744 . Community Services 90S/596'8700 Public Works 909/596-8741 . Finance 909/596-8716 . Community Development 909/596'8706 . Building 909/596-8713 P0lice Depanment 909/596-1913 r Fire Department 909/596-5991 . Gene.al Fax 909/596-8737 Crrv or LaVBRNE 16 147 July 19,2021 Re: Online Sales Tax Equity Support Page 2 especially impacted as well as cities struggling to meet their RHNA allocations that are being pressured by Sacramento to rezone precious commercial parcels to residential. The cunent online sales tax distribution policies are inherently unfair and exacerbate the divide between the winners and losers. Ultimately, the real winners may be the retailers, who leverage these policies to negotiate favorable sales tax sharing agreements from a small group of select cities understandably wanting to host fulfillment centers. The current online sales tax distribution policies unfairiy divide local agencies, exacerbate already difficult municipal finances, and in the end, result in a net loss of local government sales tax proceeds that simply serve to make private sector businesses even more profitable at the expense of everyone's residents. We can do better than this. And we should all aspire to develop an equitabte sales tax distribution of online sales that addresses the concerns noted above. For these reasons, the city of La Verne concurs that the resolution should go before the General Assembly. Sincerely, Bob Russi City Manager City of La Verne 17 148 18 149 CITY OF MOORPARK JANICE S. PARVIN Mayor DR. ANTONIO CASTRO Councilmember CHRIS ENEGREN Councilmember DANIEL GROFF Councilmember DAVID POLLOCK Councilmember 799 Moorpark Avenue, Moorpark, California 93021 Main City Phone Number (805) 517-6200 | Fax (805) 532-2205 | moorpark@moorparkca.gov July 14, 2021 TRANSMITTED ELECTRONICALLY Cheryl Viegas-Walker, President League of California Cities 1400 K Street, Suite 400 Sacramento, CA 95814 Dear President Walker: The City of Moorpark strongly supports the City of Rancho Cucamonga’s effort to submit a resolution for consideration by the General Assembly at the League’s 2021 Annual Conference in Sacramento. Current policies of the California Department of Tax and Fees (CDTFA) require that the one percent Bradley Burns local tax revenue from in-state online retailers be allocated to the jurisdiction from which the package was shipped, as opposed to going into a countywide pool as is the practice with out-of-state online retailers. Earlier this year, one of the largest online retailers shifted its ownership structure and now operates both as an in-state online retailer and as an out-of-state online retailer. Whereas all sales tax revenues generated by this retailer’s sales previously went into countywide pools and were distributed amongst the jurisdictions in the pool, sales tax revenues from in-state sales now go entirely to the city where the fulfillment center is located and the package is shipped from. Cities that do not have a fulfillment center now receive no sales tax revenue from this retailer’s online in-state sales transactions, even when the packages are delivered to locations within the cities’ borders and paid for by residents in those locations. Cities that border jurisdictions with fulfillment centers also experience its impacts such as increased truck traffic, air pollution, and deteriorating road conditions. This all-or-nothing practice has created clear winners and losers amongst cities as the online sales tax revenues from large online retailers that were once spread amongst all cities in countywide pools are now concentrated in select cities fortunate enough to host a fulfillment center. This has created a growing inequity amongst California cities, which only benefits some and is particularly unfair to cities who have no chance of ever obtaining a fulfillment center, such as those that are built out or are not situated along major travel corridors. No/low property tax cities that rely on sales tax revenue are especially impacted, as well as 19 150 Letter of Support Page 2 cities struggling to meet their RHNA allocations that are being pressured by Sacramento to rezone limited commercial properties for residential land uses. The current online sales tax distribution policies are inherently unfair and exasperate the divide between the winners and losers. Ultimately, the real winners may be the retailers, who leverage these policies to negotiate favorable sales tax sharing agreements from a small group of select cities understandably wanting to host fulfillment centers. The current online sales tax distribution policies unfairly divide local agencies, exacerbate already difficult municipal finances, and ultimately result in a net loss of local government sales tax proceeds that simply serve to make private sector businesses more profitable at the expense of everyone’s residents. We can do better than this, and we should all aspire to develop an equitable sales tax distribution of online sales that addresses the concerns noted above. For these reasons, the City of Moorpark concurs that the resolution should go before the General Assembly at the 2021 Annual Conference in Sacramento. Sincerely, Janice S. Parvin Mayor cc: City Council City Manager 20 151 ***** The People are the City Mayor CRAIG S. GREEN Mayor Pro Tem CHAD P. WANKE Councilmembers: RHONDA SHADER WARD L. SMITH JEREMY B. YAMAGUCHI City Clerk: ROBERT S. MCKINNELL City Treasurer KEVIN A. LARSON City Administrator DAMIEN R, ARRULA 401 East Chapman Avenue - Placentia, California 92870 July 14,2021 Cheryl Viegas Walker, President League of California Cities 1400 K Street, Suite 400 Sacramento, CA 95814 Dear President Walker: The City of Placentia strongly supports the City of Rancho Cucamonga's effort to submit a resolution for consideration by the General Assembly at the League's 2021 Annual Conference in Sacramento. Current policies by the California Department of Tax and Fees (CDTFA) require that the 1 percent (1%) Bradley Burns local tax revenue from in-state online retailers be allocated to the jurisdiction from which the package was shipped from, as opposed to going into a countywide pool as is the practice with out-of-state online retailers. Earlier this year, one of the largest online retailers shifted its ownership structure and now operates as an in- state online retailer as well as out-of-state online retailer. Whereas, all sales tax revenue generated by this retailer's sales previously went into a countywide pool and was distributed amongst the jurisdictions in the pool, now the revenue from in-state sales goes entirely to the city where the fulfillment center is located, and the packages shipped from. Cities that do not have a fulfillment center now receive no revenue from this retailer's online in-state sales transactions, even when the packages are delivered to locations within the cities' borders and paid for by residents in those locations. Cities that border jurisdictions with fulfillment centers also experience its impacts such as increased truck traffic, air pollution and declining road conditions. This all-or-nothing practice has created clear winners and losers amongst cities as the online sales tax revenue from large online retailers that was once spread amongst all cities in countywide pools is now concentrated in select cities fortunate enough to host a fulfillment center. This has created a growing inequity amongst California cities, which only benefits some and is particularly unfair to cities who have no chance of ever obtaining a fulfillment center, such as those that are built out or are not situated along major travel corridors. No/low property tax cities that rely on sales tax revenue are especially impacted as well as cities struggling to meet their RHNA allocations that are being pressured by Sacramento to rezone precious commercial parcels to residential. The current onfine sales tax distribution policies are inherently unfair and exasperate the divide between the winners and losers. Ultimately, the real winners may be the retailers, who leverage these policies to negotiate favorable sales tax sharing agreements from a small group of select cities understandably wanting to host fulfillment centers. The21 152 Letter of Support: City of Rancho Cucamonga July 14,2021 Page2 of 2 current onl¡ne sales tax distribution policies unfairly divide local agencies, exacerbate already difficult municipal finances, and in the end result in a net loss of local government sales tax proceeds that simply serve to make private sector businesses even more profitable at the expense of everyone's residents. We can do better than this. And we should all aspire to develop an equitable sales tax distribution of online sales that addresses the concerns noted above. For these reasons, the City of Placentia concurs that the resolution should go before the General Assembly. Should you have any questions regarding this letter, please contact me at (714) 993-8117 or via email at administration@placentia.oro. Sincerely, Damien R. Arrula City Administrator 22 153 23 154 24 155 League of California Cities Staff Analysis on Resolution No. 1 Staff: Nicholas Romo, Legislative Affairs, Lobbyist Committee: Revenue and Taxation Summary: This Resolution calls on the League of California Cities (Cal Cities) to request the Legislature to pass legislation that provides for a fair and equitable distribution of the Bradley Burns 1% local sales tax from in-state online purchases, based on data where products are shipped to, and that rightfully takes into consideration the impacts that fulfillment centers have on host cities but also provides a fair share to California cities that do not and/or cannot have a fulfillment center within their jurisdiction. Background: The City of Rancho Cucamonga is sponsoring this resolution to “address the issues in how sales and use taxes are distributed in the 21st century.” The City notes that “sales tax is a major revenue source for most California cities. Commonly known as the local 1% Bradley-Burns tax, since the 1950’s, cities have traditionally received 1 cent on every dollar of a sale made at the store, restaurant, car dealer, or other location within a jurisdiction’s boundaries. Over the years, however, this simple tax structure has evolved into a much more complex set of laws and allocation rules. Many of these rules relate to whether or not a given transaction is subject to sales tax, or to use tax – both have the same 1% value, but each applies in separate circumstances. Recently, one of the world’s largest online retailers changed the legal ownership of its fulfillment centers. Instead of having its fulfillment centers owned and operated by a third-party vendor, they are now directly owned by the company. This subtle change has major impacts to how the 1% local tax is allocated. This change has created a situation where most cities in California – more than 90%, in fact – are experiencing a sales tax revenue loss that began in the fourth quarter of calendar year 2021. Many cities may not be aware of this impact, as the fluctuations in sales tax following the pandemic shutdowns have masked the issue. But this change will have long-term impacts on revenues for all California cities as all these revenues benefiting all cities have shifted to just a handful of cities and counties that are home to this retailer’s fulfillment centers.” The City’s resolution calls for action on an unspecified solution that “rightfully takes into consideration the impacts that fulfillment centers have on host cities but also provides a fair share to California cities that do not and/or cannot have a fulfillment center within their jurisdiction,” which aims to acknowledge the actions taken by cities to alleviate poverty, catalyze economic development, and improve financial stability within their communities through existing tax sharing and zoning powers. 25 156 Ultimately, sponsoring cities believe “that by once again starting the conversation and moving toward the development of laws and policies that can result in seeing all cities benefit from the growth taxes generated through online sales, our state will be stronger.” Sales and Use Tax in California The Bradley-Burns Uniform Sales Tax Act allows all local agencies to apply its own sales and use tax on the same base of tangible personal property (taxable goods). This tax rate currently is fixed at 1.25% of the sales price of taxable goods sold at retail locations in a local jurisdiction, or purchased outside the jurisdiction for use within the jurisdiction. Cities and counties use this 1% of the tax to support general operations, while the remaining 0.25% is used for county transportation purposes. In California, all cities and counties impose Bradley-Burns sales taxes. California imposes the sales tax on every retailer engaged in business in this state that sells taxable goods. The law requires businesses to collect the appropriate tax from the purchaser and remit the amount to the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA). Sales tax applies whenever a retail sale is made, which is basically any sale other than one for resale in the regular course of business. Unless the person pays the sales tax to the retailer, they are liable for the use tax, which is imposed on any person consuming taxable goods in the state. The use tax rate is the same rate as the sales tax rate. Generally, CDTFA distributes Bradley‑Burns tax revenue based on where a sale took place, known as a situs‑based system. A retailer’s physical place of business—such as a retail store or restaurant—is generally the place of sale. “Sourcing” is the term used by tax practitioners to describe the rules used to determine the place of sale, and therefore, which tax rates are applied to a given purchase and which jurisdictions are entitled to the local and district taxes generated from a particular transaction. California is primarily an origin-based sourcing state – meaning tax revenues go to the jurisdiction in which a transaction physically occurs if that can be determined. However, California also uses a form of destination sourcing for the local use tax and for district taxes (also known as “transactions and use taxes” or “add-on sale and use taxes”). That is, for cities with local add-on taxes, they receive their add-on rate amount from remote and online transactions. Generally, allocations are based on the following rules: •The sale is sourced to the place of business of the seller - whether the product is received by the purchaser at the seller’s business location or not. •If the retailer maintains inventory in California and has no other in state location, the source is the jurisdiction where the warehouse is situated. This resolution is concerned with the growing amount of online retail activity being sourced to cities with warehouse/fulfillment center locations. •If the business’ sales office is located in California but the merchandise is shipped from out of state, the tax from transactions under $500,000 is allocated 26 157 via the county pools. The tax from transactions over $500,000 is allocated to the jurisdiction where the merchandise is delivered. •When a sale cannot be identified with a permanent place of business in the state, the sale is sourced to the allocation pool of the county where the merchandise was delivered and then distributed among all jurisdictions in that county in proportion to ratio of sales. For many large online retailers, this has been the traditional path. Online Sales and Countywide Pools While the growth of e-commerce has been occurring for more than two decades, led by some of the largest and most popular retailers in the world, the dramatic increase in online shopping during the COVID-19 pandemic has provided significant revenue to California cities as well as a clearer picture on which governments enjoy even greater benefits. In the backdrop of booming internet sales has been the steady decline of brick-and- mortar retail and shopping malls. For cities with heavy reliance on in-person retail shopping, the value of the current allocation system has been diminished as their residents prefer to shop online or are incentivized to do so by retailers (during the COVID-19 pandemic, consumers have had no other option but to shop online for certain goods). All the while, the demands and costs of city services continue to grow for cities across the state. As noted above, the allocation of sales tax revenue to local governments depends on the location of the transaction (or where the location is ultimately determined). For in- person retail, the sales tax goes to the city in which the product and store are located - a customer purchasing at a register. For online sales, the Bradley Burns sales tax generally goes to a location other than the one where the customer lives – either to the city or county where an in-state warehouse or fulfillment center is located, the location of in-state sales office (ex. headquarters) or shared as use tax proceeds amongst all local governments within a county based on their proportionate share of taxable sales. Under current CDTFA regulations, a substantial portion of local use tax collections are allocated through a countywide pool to the local jurisdictions in the county where the property is put to its first functional use. The state and county pools constitute over 15% of local sales and use tax revenues. Under the pool system, the tax is reported by the taxpayer to the countywide pool of use and then distributed to each jurisdiction in that county on a pro-rata share of taxable sales. If the county of use cannot be identified, the revenues are distributed to the state pool for pro-rata distribution on a statewide basis. Concentration of Online Sales Tax Revenue and Modernization Sales tax modernization has been a policy goal of federal, state, and local government leaders for decades to meet the rapidly changing landscape of commercial activity and ensure that all communities can sustainably provide critical services. 27 158 For as long as remote and internet shopping has existed, policy makers have been concerned about their potential to disrupt sales and use tax allocation procedures that underpin the funding of local government services. The system was designed in the early twentieth century to ensure that customers were paying sales taxes to support local government services within the community where the transactions occurred whether they resided there or not. This structure provides benefit to and recoupment for the public resources necessary to ensure the health and safety of the community broadly. City leaders have for as long been concerned about the loosening of the nexus between what their residents purchase and the revenues they receive. Growing online shopping, under existing sourcing rules, has led to a growing concentration of sales tax revenue being distributed to a smaller number of cities and counties. As more medium and large online retailers take title to fulfillment centers or determine specific sales locations in California as a result of tax sharing agreements in specific cities, online sales tax revenue will be ever more concentrated in a few cities at the control of these companies. Furthermore, local governments are already experiencing the declining power of the sales tax to support services as more money is being spent on non-taxable goods and services. For more on sales and use tax sourcing please see Attachment A. State Auditor Recommendations In 2017, the California State Auditor issued a report titled, “The Bradley-Burns Tax and Local Transportation Funds, noting that: “Retailers generally allocate Bradley Burns tax revenue based on the place of sale, which they identify according to their business structure. However, retailers that make sales over the Internet may allocate sales to various locations, including their warehouses, distribution center, or sales offices. This approach tends to concentrate Bradley Burns tax revenue into the warehouses’ or sales offices’ respective jurisdictions. Consequently, counties with a relatively large amount of industrial space may receive disproportionately larger amounts of Bradley Burns tax, and therefore Local Transportation Fund, revenue. The State could make its distribution of Bradley Burns tax revenue derived from online sales more equitable if it based allocations of the tax on the destinations to which goods are shipped rather than on place of sale.” The Auditor’s report makes the following recommendation: “To ensure that Bradley‑Burns tax revenue is more evenly distributed, the Legislature should amend the Bradley‑Burns tax law to allocate revenues from Internet sales based on the destination of sold goods rather than their place of sale.” 28 159 In acknowledgement of the growing attention from outside groups on this issue, Cal Cities has been engaged in its own study and convening of city officials to ensure pursued solutions account for the circumstances of all cities and local control is best protected. These efforts are explored in subsequent sections. Cal Cities Revenue and Taxation Committee and City Manager Working Group In 2015 and 2016, Cal Cities’ Revenue and Taxation Policy Committee held extensive discussions on potential modernization of tax policy affecting cities, with a special emphasis on the sales tax. The issues had been identified by Cal Cities leadership as a strategic priority given concerns in the membership about the eroding sales tax base and the desire for Cal Cities to take a leadership role in addressing the associated issues. The policy committee ultimately adopted a series of policies that were approved by the Cal Cities board of directors. Among its changes were a recommended change to existing sales tax sourcing (determining where a sale occurs) rules, so that the point of sale (situs) is where the customer receives the product. The policy also clarifies that specific proposals in this area should be carefully reviewed so that the impacts of any changes are fully understood. See “Existing Cal Cities Policy” section below. Cal Cities City Manager Sales Tax Working Group Recommendations In the Fall of 2017, the Cal Cities City Managers Department convened a working group (Group) of city managers representing a diverse array of cities to review and consider options for addressing issues affecting the local sales tax. The working group of city managers helped Cal Cities identify internal common ground on rapidly evolving e-commerce trends and their effects on the allocation of local sales and use tax revenue. After meeting extensively throughout 2018, the Group made several recommendations that were endorsed unanimously by Cal Cities’ Revenue and Taxation Committee at its January, 2019 meeting and by the board of directors at its subsequent meeting. The Group recommended the following actions in response to the evolving issues associated with e-commerce and sales and use tax: Further Limiting Rebate Agreements: The consensus of the Group was that: •Sales tax rebate agreements involving online retailers should be prohibited going forward. They are inappropriate because they have the effect of encouraging revenue to be shifted away from numerous communities and concentrated to the benefit of one. •Any type of agreement that seeks to lure a retailer from one community to another within a market area should also be prohibited going forward. Existing law already prohibits such agreements for auto dealers and big box stores. Shift Use Tax from Online Sales, including from the South Dakota v. Wayfair Decision Out of County Pools: The Group’s recommendation is based first on the principle of “situs” and that revenue should be allocated to the jurisdiction where the use occurs. Each city and county in California imposed a Bradley Burns sales and use tax rate 29 160 under state law in the 1950s. The use tax on a transaction is the rate imposed where the purchaser resides (the destination). These use tax dollars, including new revenue from the South Dakota v. Wayfair decision, should be allocated to the destination jurisdiction whose Bradley Burns tax applies and not throughout the entire county. •Shift of these revenues, from purchases from out of state retailers including transactions captured by the South Dakota v. Wayfair decision, out of county pools to full destination allocation on and after January 1, 2020. •Allow more direct reporting of use taxes related to construction projects to jurisdiction where the construction activity is located by reducing existing regulatory threshold from $5 million to $100,000. Request/Require CDTFA Analysis on Impacts of Sales Tax Destination Shifts: After discussion of numerous phase-in options for destination sourcing and allocation for sales taxes, the Group ultimately decided that a more complete analysis was needed to sufficiently determine impacts. Since the two companies most cities rely on for sales tax analysis, HdL and MuniServices, were constrained to modeling with transaction and use tax (district tax) data, concerns centered on the problem of making decisions without adequate information. Since the CDTFA administers the allocation of local sales and use taxes, it is in the best position to produce an analysis that examines: •The impacts on individual agencies of a change in sourcing rules. This would likely be accomplished by developing a model to examine 100% destination sourcing with a report to the Legislature in early 2020. •The model should also attempt to distinguish between business-to-consumer transactions versus business-to-business transactions. •The model should analyze the current number and financial effects of city and county sales tax rebate agreements with online retailers and how destination sourcing might affect revenues under these agreements. Conditions for considering a Constitutional Amendment that moves toward destination allocation: Absent better data on the impacts on individual agencies associated with a shift to destination allocation of sales taxes from CDTFA, the Group declined to prescribe if/how a transition to destination would be accomplished; the sentiment was that the issue was better revisited once better data was available. In anticipation that the data would reveal significant negative impacts on some agencies, the Group desired that any such shift should be accompanied by legislation broadening of the base of sales taxes, including as supported by existing Cal Cities policy including: •Broadening the tax base on goods, which includes reviewing existing exemptions on certain goods and expanding to digital forms of goods that are otherwise taxed; and •Expanding the sales tax base to services, such as those commonly taxed in other states. This Resolution builds upon previous work that accounts for the impacts that distribution networks have on host cities and further calls on the organization to advocate for changes to sales tax distribution rules. 30 161 The Resolution places further demands on data collected by CDTFA to establish a “fair and equitable distribution of the Bradley Burns 1% local sales tax from in-state online purchases.” Such data is proposed to be collected by SB 792 (Glazer, 2021). More discussion on this topic can be found in the “Staff Comments” section. Staff Comments: Proposed Resolution Affixes Equity Based, Data Driven Approach to Existing Cal Cities Policy on Sales Tax Sourcing The actions resulting from this resolution, if approved, would align with existing policy and efforts to-date to modernize sales tax rules. While not formalized in existing Cal Cities policy or recommendations, city managers and tax practitioners generally have favored proposals that establish a sharing of online sales tax revenues rather than a full destination shift. City leaders and practitioners across the state have acknowledged during Cal Cities Revenue and Taxation and City Manager’s working group meetings that the hosting of fulfillment centers and ancillary infrastructure pose major burdens on local communities including detrimental health and safety impacts. This acknowledgement has moved mainstream proposals such as this one away from full revenue shifts towards an equity-based, data driven approach that favors revenue sharing. This Resolution would concretely affix this approach as Cal Cities policy. More Data is Needed to Achieve Equity Based Approach A major challenge is the lack of adequate data to model the results of shifting in-state online sale tax revenues. Local government tax consultants and state departments have limited data to model the effects of changes to sales tax distribution because their information is derived only from cities that have a local transactions and use tax (TUT). Tax experts are able to model proposed tax shifts using TUTs since they are allocated on a destination basis (where a purchaser receives the product; usually a home or business). However, more than half of all cities, including some larger cities, do not have a local TUT therefore modeling is constrained and incomplete. Efforts to collect relevant sales tax information on the destination of products purchased online are ongoing. The most recent effort is encapsulated in SB 792 (Glazer, 2021), which would require retailers with online sales exceeding $50 million a year to report to CDTFA the gross receipts from online sales that resulted in a product being shipped or delivered in each city. The availability of this data would allow for a much more complete understanding of online consumer behavior and the impacts of future proposed changes to distribution. SB 792 (Glazer) is supported by Cal Cities following approval by the Revenue and Taxation Committee and board of directors. Impact of Goods Movement Must Be Considered As noted above, city leaders and practitioners across the state acknowledge that the hosting of fulfillment centers and goods movement infrastructure pose major burdens on local communities including detrimental health, safety, and infrastructure impacts. Not least of which is the issue of air pollution from diesel exhaust. According to California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal EPA): 31 162 “Children and those with existing respiratory disease, particularly asthma, appear to be especially susceptible to the harmful effects of exposure to airborne PM from diesel exhaust, resulting in increased asthma symptoms and attacks along with decreases in lung function (McCreanor et al., 2007; Wargo, 2002). People that live or work near heavily-traveled roadways, ports, railyards, bus yards, or trucking distribution centers may experience a high level of exposure (US EPA, 2002; Krivoshto et al., 2008). People that spend a significant amount of time near heavily-traveled roadways may also experience a high level of exposure. Studies of both men and women demonstrate cardiovascular effects of diesel PM exposure, including coronary vasoconstriction and premature death from cardiovascular disease (Krivoshto et al., 2008). A recent study of diesel exhaust inhalation by healthy non-smoking adults found an increase in blood pressure and other potential triggers of heart attack and stroke (Krishnan et al., 2013) Exposure to diesel PM, especially following periods of severe air pollution, can lead to increased hospital visits and admissions due to worsening asthma and emphysema- related symptoms (Krivoshto et al., 2008). Diesel exposure may also lead to reduced lung function in children living in close proximity to roadways (Brunekreef et al., 1997).” The founded health impacts of the ubiquitous presence of medium and heavy-duty diesel trucks used to transport goods to and from fulfillment centers and warehouses require host cities to meet increased needs of their residents including the building and maintenance of buffer zones, parks, and open space. While pollution impacts may decline with the introduction of zero-emission vehicles, wide scale adoption by large distribution fleets is still in its infancy. Furthermore, the impacts of heavy road use necessitate increased spending on local streets and roads upgrades and maintenance. In addition, many cities have utilized the siting of warehouses, fulfillment centers, and other heavy industrial uses for goods movements as key components of local revenue generation and economic development strategies. These communities have also foregone other land uses in favor of siting sales offices and fulfillment networks. All said, however, it is important to acknowledge that disadvantaged communities (DACs) whether measured along poverty, health, environmental or education indices exist in cities across the state. For one example, see: California Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment (OEHHA) CalEnviroScreen. City officials may consider how cities without fulfillment and warehouse center revenues are to fund efforts to combat social and economic issues, particularly in areas with low property tax and tourism- based revenues. The Resolution aims to acknowledge these impacts broadly (this analysis does not provide an exhaustive review of related impacts) and requests Cal Cities to account for them in a revised distribution formula of the Bradley Burns 1% local sales tax from in- state online purchases. The Resolution does not prescribe the proportions. Clarifying Amendments Upon review of the Resolution, Cal Cities staff recommends technical amendments to provide greater clarity. To review the proposed changes, please see Attachment B. 32 163 Fiscal Impact: Significant but unknown. The Resolution on its own does not shift sales tax revenues. In anticipation and mitigation of impacts, the Resolution requests Cal Cities to utilize online sales tax data to identify a fair and equitable distribution formula that accounts for the broad impacts fulfillment centers involved in online retail have on the cities that host them. The Resolution does not prescribe the revenue distribution split nor does it prescribe the impacts, positive and negative, of distribution networks. Existing Cal Cities Policy: •Tax proceeds collected from internet sales should be allocated to the location where the product is received by the purchaser. •Support as Cal Cities policy that point of sale (situs) is where the customer receives the product. Specific proposals in this area should be carefully reviewed so that the impacts of any changes are fully understood. •Revenue from new regional or state taxes or from increased sales tax rates should be distributed in a way that reduces competition for situs-based revenue. (Revenue from the existing sales tax rate and base, including future growth from increased sales or the opening of new retail centers, should continue to be returned to the point of sale.) •The existing situs-based sales tax under the Bradley Burns 1% baseline should be preserved and protected. •Restrictions should be implemented and enforced to prohibit the enactment of agreements designed to circumvent the principle of situs-based sales and redirect or divert sales tax revenues from other communities, when the physical location of the affected businesses does not change. Sales tax rebate agreements involving online retailers are inappropriate because they have the effect of encouraging revenue to be shifted away from numerous communities and concentrated to the benefit of one. Any type of agreement that seeks to lure a retailer from one community to another within a market area should also be prohibited going forward. •Support Cal Cities working with the state California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA) to update the county pool allocation process to ensure that more revenues are allocated to the jurisdiction where the purchase or first use of a product occurs (usually where the product is delivered). Use Tax collections from online sales, including from the South Dakota v Wayfair Decision, should be shifted out of county pools and allocated to the destination jurisdiction whose Bradley Burns tax applies and not throughout the entire county. Support: The following letters of concurrence were received: Town of Apple Valley City of El Cerrito City of La Canada Flintridge City of La Verne City of Lakewood 33 164 City of Moorpark City of Placentia City of Sacramento 34 165 Sales Tax Sourcing –6 –February 12, 2018 CaliforniaCityFinance.com 35 166 Sales Tax Sourcing – 7 – February 12, 2018 CaliforniaCityFinance.com 36 167 Sales Tax Sourcing –8 –February 12, 2018 CaliforniaCityFinance.com Courtesy of HdL Companies 37 168 Sales Tax Sourcing – 9 – February 12, 2018 CaliforniaCityFinance.com Tax Incentive Programs, Sales Tax Sharing Agreements In recent years, especially since Proposition 13 in 1978, local discretionary (general purpose revenues) have become more scarce. At the same time, options and procedures for increasing revenues have become more limited. One outcome of this in many areas has been a greater competition for sales and use tax revenues. This has brought a rise in arrangements to encourage certain land use development with rebates and incentives which exploit California’s odd origin sales tax sourcing rules. The typical arrangement is a sales tax sharing agreement in which a city provides tax rebates to a company that agrees to expand their operations in the jurisdiction of the city. Under such an arrangement, the company generally agrees to make a specified amount of capital investment and create a specific number of jobs over a period of years in exchange for specified tax breaks, often property tax abatement or some sort of tax credit. In some cases, this has simply taken the form of a sales office, while customers and warehouses and the related economic activity are disbursed elsewhere in the state. In some cases the development takes the form of warehouses, in which the sales inventory, owned by the company, is housed.6 Current sales tax incentive agreements in California rebate amounts ranging from 50% to 85% of sales tax revenues back to the corporations. Today, experts familiar with the industry believe that between 20% to 30% of local Bradley-Burns sales taxes paid by California consumers is diverted from local general funds back to corporations; over $1 billion per year. Moving to Destination Sourcing: The Concept7 A change from origin sourcing rules to destination sourcing rules for the local tax component of California’s sales tax would improve overall revenue collections and distribute these revenues more equitably among all of the areas involved in these transactions. A change from origin based sourcing to destination based sourcing would have no effect on state tax collections. However, it would alter the allocations of local sales and use tax revenues among local agencies. Most retail transactions including dining, motor fuel purchases, and in-store purchases would not be affected. But in cases where the property is received by the purchaser in a different jurisdiction than where the sales agreement was negotiated, there would be a different allocation than under the current rules. 6 See Jennifer Carr, “Origin Sourcing and Tax Incentive Programs: An Unholy Alliance” Sales Tax Notes; May 27, 2013. 7 The same issues that are of concern regarding the local sales tax do not apply to California’s Transactions and Use Taxes (“Add-on sales taxes”) as these transactions, when not over the counter, are generally allocated to the location of use or, as in the case of vehicles, product registration. There is no need to alter the sourcing rules for transactions and use taxes. The Source of Origin Based Sourcing Problems Where other than over-the-counter sales are concerned origin sourcing often causes a concentration of large amounts of tax revenue in one location, despite the fact that the economic activity and service impacts are also occurring in other locations. The large amounts of revenue concentrated in a few locations by California’s “warehouse rule” origin sourcing causes a concentration of revenue far in excess of the service costs associated with the development. In order to lure jobs and tax revenues to their communities, some cities have entered into rebate agreements with corporations. This has grown to such a problem, that 20% to 30% of total local taxes paid statewide are being rebated back to corporations rather than funding public services. 38 169 Sales Tax Sourcing –12 –February 12, 2018 CaliforniaCityFinance.com Destination Sourcing Scenario 1: Full-On 39 170 Sales Tax Sourcing – 13 – February 12, 2018 CaliforniaCityFinance.com Destination Sourcing Scenario 2: Split Source mjgc 40 171 Attachment B RESOLUTION OF THE LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITIES (“CAL CITIES”) CALLING ON THE STATE LEGISLATURE TO PASS LEGISLATION THAT PROVIDES FOR A FAIR AND EQUITABLE DISTRIBUTION OF THE BRADLEY BURNS 1% LOCAL SALES TAX FROM IN-STATE ONLINE PURCHASES, BASED ON DATA WHERE PRODUCTS ARE SHIPPED TO, AND THAT RIGHTFULLY TAKES INTO CONSIDERATION THE IMPACTS THAT FULFILLMENT CENTERS HAVE ON HOST CITIES BUT ALSO PROVIDES A FAIR SHARE TO CALIFORNIA CITIES THAT DO NOT AND/OR CANNOT HAVE A FULFILLMENT CENTER WITHIN THEIR JURISDICTION WHEREAS, the 2018 U.S. Supreme Court decision in Wayfair v. South Dakota clarified that states could charge and collect tax on purchases even if the seller does not have a physical presence in the state; and WHEREAS, California cities and counties collect 1% in Bradley Burns sales and use tax from the purchase of tangible personal property and rely on this revenue to provide critical public services such as police and fire protection; and WHEREAS, in terms of “siting” the place of sale and determining which jurisdiction receives the 1% Bradley Burns local taxes for online sales, the California Department of Tax and Fee Administration (CDTFA) determines “out-of-state” online retailers as those with no presence in California that ship property from outside the state and are therefore subject to use tax, not sales tax, which is collected in a countywide pool of the jurisdiction where the property is shipped from; and WHEREAS, for online retailers that have a presence in California and have a stock of goods in the state from which it fulfills orders, CDTFA considers the place of sale (“situs”) as the location from which the goods were shipped such as a fulfillment center; and WHEREAS, in early 2021, one of the state’s largest online retailers shifted its ownership structure so that it is now considered both an in-state and out-of-state retailer, resulting in the sales tax this retailer generates from in-state sales now being entirely allocated to the specific city cities where the warehouse fulfillment centers is are located as opposed to going into a countywide pools that is are shared with all jurisdictions in those counties that County, as was done previously; and WHEREAS, this all-or-nothing change for the allocation of in-state sales tax has created winners and losers amongst cities as the online sales tax revenue from the retailer that was once spread amongst all cities in countywide pools is now concentrated in select cities that host a fulfillment centers; and WHEREAS, this has created a tremendous inequity amongst cities, in particular for cities that are built out, do not have space for siting a 1 million square foot fulfillment centers, are not located along a major travel corridor, or otherwise not ideally suited to host a fulfillment center; and WHEREAS, this inequity affects cities statewide, but in particular those with specific circumstances such as no/low property tax cities that are extremely reliant on sales tax revenue as well as cities struggling to meet their Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) obligations that are being compelled by the State to rezone precious commercial parcels to residential; and 41 172 Attachment B WHEREAS, the inequity produced by allocating in-state online sales tax revenue exclusively to cities with fulfillment centers is exasperated even more by, in addition to already reducing the amount of revenue going into the countywide pools, the cities with fulfillment centers are also receiving a larger share of the dwindling countywide pool as it is allocated based on cities’ proportional share of sales tax collected; and WHEREAS, while it is important to acknowledge that those cities that have fulfillment centers experience impacts from these activities and deserve equitable supplementary compensation, it should also be recognized that the neighboring cities whose residents are ordering products from those that centers now receive no Bradley Burns revenue from the center’s sales activity despite also experiencing the impacts created by them center, such as increased traffic and air pollution; and WHEREAS, the COVID-19 pandemic greatly accelerated the public’s shift towards online purchases, a trend that is unlikely to be reversed to pre-pandemic levels; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that Cal Cities calls on the State Legislature to pass legislation that provides for a fair and equitable distribution of the Bradley Burns 1% local sales tax from in-state online purchases, based on data where products are shipped to, and that rightfully takes into consideration the impacts that fulfillment centers have on host cities but also provides a fair share to California cities that do not and/or cannot have a fulfillment center within their jurisdiction. 42 173 2.A RESOLUTION CALLING UPON THE GOVERNOR AND THE LEGISLATURE TO PROVIDE NECCESARY FUNDING FOR CUPC TO FUFILL ITS OBLIGATION TO INSPECT RAILROAD LINES TO ENSURE THAT OPERATORS ARE REMOVING ILLEGAL DUMPING, GRAFFITI AND HOMELESS ENCAMPMENTS THAT DEGRADE THE QAULITY OF LIFE AND RESULTS IN INCREASED PUBLIC SAFETLY CONCERNS FOR COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS THAT ABUTT THE RAILROAD RIGHT- OF-WAY. Source: City of South Gate Concurrence of five or more cities/city officials: Cities: City of Bell Gardens; City of Bell; City of Commerce; City of Cudahy; City of El Segundo; City of Glendora; City of Huntington Park; City of La Mirada; City of Long Beach; City of Lynwood; City of Montebello; City of Paramount; City of Pico Rivera Referred to: Housing, Community and Economic Development; and Transportation, Communications and Public Works WHEREAS, ensuring the quality of life for communities falls upon every local government including that blight and other health impacting activities are addressed in a timely manner by private property owners within its jurisdictional boundaries for their citizens, businesses and institutions; and WHEREAS, Railroad Operators own nearly 6,000 miles of rail right-of-way throughout the State of California which is regulated by the Federal Railroad Administration and/or the California Public Utilities Commission for operational safety and maintenance; and WHEREAS, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) is the enforcing agency for railroad safety in the State of California and has 41 inspectors assigned throughout the entire State to inspect and enforce regulatory compliance over thousands of miles of rail line; and WHEREAS, areas with rail line right-of-way within cities and unincorporated areas are generally located in economically disadvantaged zones and/or disadvantaged communities of color where the impact of blight further lowers property values and increases the likelihood of unsound sanitary conditions and environmental impacts upon them; and WHEREAS, many communities are seeing an increase in illegal dumping, graffiti upon infrastructure and homeless encampments due to the lax and inadequate oversight by regulatory agencies; and WHEREAS, local governments have no oversight or regulatory authority to require operators to better maintain and clean their properties as it would with any other private property owner within its jurisdictional boundaries. Thus such local communities often resort to spending their local tax dollars on cleanup activities or are forced to accept the delayed and untimely response by operators to cleaning up specific sites, and; WHEREAS, that railroad operators should be able to provide local communities with a fixed schedule in which their property will be inspected and cleaned up on a reasonable and regular schedule or provide for a mechanism where they partner with and reimburse local governments for an agreed upon work program where the local government is enabled to remove items like illegal dumping, graffiti and encampments; and 43 174 WHEREAS, the State has made it a priority to deal with homeless individuals and the impacts illegal encampments have upon those communities and has a budgetary surplus that can help fund the CPUC in better dealing with this situation in both a humane manner as well a betterment to rail safety. RESOLVED, at the League of California Cities, General Assembly, assembled at the League Annual Conference on September 24, 2021, in Sacramento, that the League calls for the Governor and the Legislature to work with the League and other stakeholders to provide adequate regulatory authority and necessary funding to assist cities with these railroad right-of- way areas so as to adequately deal with illegal dumping, graffiti and homeless encampments that proliferate along the rail lines and result in public safety issues. The League will work with its member cities to educate federal and state officials to the quality of life and health impacts this challenge has upon local communities, especially those of color and/or environmental and economic hardships. 44 175 Background Information to Resolution Source: City of South Gate Background: The State of California has over 6,000 miles of rail lines, with significant amount running through communities that are either economically disadvantaged and/or disadvantaged communities of color. While the Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has primary oversight of rail operations, they delegate that obligation to the State of California for lines within our State. The administration of that oversight falls under the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC). The CPUC has only 41 inspectors covering those 6,000 miles of railroad lines in the State of California. Their primary task is ensuring equipment, bridges and rail lines are operationally safe. The right-of-way areas along the rail lines are becoming increasingly used for illegal dumping, graffiti and homeless encampments. Rail operators have admitted that they have insufficient funds set aside to clean up or sufficiently police these right-of-way areas, despite reporting a net income of over $13 billion in 2020. CPUC budget does not provide the resources to oversee whether rail operators are properly managing the right-of-way itself. The City of South Gate has three rail lines traversing through its city limits covering about 4 miles. These lines are open and inviting to individuals to conduct illegal dumping, graffiti buildings and structures along with inviting dozens of homeless encampments. As private property, Cities like ourselves cannot just go upon them to remove bulky items, trash, clean graffiti or remove encampments. We must call and arrange for either our staff to access the site or have the rail operator schedule a cleanup. This can take weeks to accomplish, in the meantime residents or businesses that are within a few hundred feet of the line must endure the blight and smell. Trash is often blown from the right-of-way into residential homes or into the streets. Encampments can be seen from the front doors of homes and businesses. South Gate is a proud city of hard working-class residents, yet with a median household income of just $50,246 or 65% of AMI for Los Angeles County, it does not have the financial resources to direct towards property maintenance of any commercial private property. The quality of life of communities like ours should not be degraded by the inactions or lack of funding by others. Cities such as South Gate receive no direct revenue from the rail operators, yet we deal with environmental impacts on a daily basis, whether by emissions, illegal dumping, graffiti or homeless encampments. The State of California has record revenues to provide CPUC with funding nor only for safety oversight but ensuring right-of-way maintenance by operators is being managed properly. Rail Operators should be required to set aside sufficient annual funds to provide a regular cleanup of their right-of-way through the cities of California. 45 176 LETTERS OF CONCURRENCE Resolution No. 2 46 177 47 178 48 179 49 180 July 20, 2021 Cheryl Viegas Walker President League of California Cities 1400 K Street, Suite 400 Sacramento, CA 95814 RE: Railroad Oversight Annual Conference Resolution President Walker: The City of Commerce supports the City of South Gate’s effort to submit a resolution for consideration by the General Assembly at the League of California Cities’ (“League”) 2021 Annual Conference in Sacramento. The City’s resolution seeks to address a critical issue within communities, especially disadvantaged communities of color that are home to the State’s freight rail lines. While I am supportive of the economic base the railroad industry serves to the State, their rail lines have often become places where illegal dumping is a constant problem and our growing homeless population call home. The impact of these activities further erode the quality of life for our communities, increase blight, increase unhealthy sanitation issues and negatively impact our ability to meet State water quality standards under the MS4 permits. As members of the League, our City values the policy development process provided to the General Assembly. We appreciate your time on this issue. Please feel free to contact Edgar Cisneros, City Manager, via email at ecisneros@ci.commerce.ca.us or at 323-722-4805, should you have any questions. Sincerely, Mayor Leonard Mendoza CC: Blanca Pacheco, President, Los Angeles County Division c/o Jennifer Quan, Executive Director, Los Angeles County Division, jquan@cacities.org CITY OF COMMERCE 2535 Commerce Way • Commerce, California 90040 • (323) 722-4805 • FAX (323) 726-6231 50 181 CITY OF CUDAHY CALIFORNIA Incorporated November 10, 1960 5220 Santa Ana Street Cudahy, California 90201 (323)773-5143 July 21, 2021 Cheryl Viegas Walker President League of California Cities 1400 K Street, Suite 400 Sacramento, CA 95814 RE: City of South Gate Annual Conference Resolution Dear President Walker: The City of Cudahy supports the City of South Gate's effort to submit a resolution for consideration by the General Assembly at the League's 2021 Annual Conference in Sacramento. The City of South Gate's resolution seeks to address a critical issue within communities, especially those of economic disadvantage and disadvantage communities of color that are home to the State's freight rail lines. While supportive of the economic base the industry serves to the State; their rail lines have often become places where illegal dumping is a constant problem and our growing homeless population call home. These impacts of these activities further erode the quality of life for our communities, increase blight, increase unhealthy sanitation issues and negatively impact our ability to meet State water quality standards under the MS4 permits. As members of the League our city values the policy development process provided to the General Assembly. We appreciate your time on this issue. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call my office at 323-773-5143. Si re Jose Gonzalez Mayor CC: Chris Jeffers, City Manager, City of South Gate 51 182 4'=' Office of the Mayor July 16, 2021 Elected Officials: Drew Boyles. Mayor Chrs Plmentel Mayor Pro Tem Caro/ Pkszkuk, Councrl Member Sco( Nlcol, Council Membgr Lance Gkoux, Councll Member Tracy Weaver, Ciky Clerk Ma[[hew Rabinson. City Treasurer Cheryl Viegas Walker President League of California Cities 1400 K Street, Suite 400 Sacramento, CA 95814 RE: City of South Gate Annual Conference Resolution President Walker: Appointed Officials: The City of EI Segundo supports the Los Angeles County Division's City of South Gate's effort to submit a resolution for consideration by the General Assembly at the League's 2021 Annual Conference in Sacramento. Scoff Mlmick, Crty Manager Mark D. Hensley, CrtyAtlorney Department Directors: Barbara Voss Deputy Cffy Manager Joseph Lllllo, Flnance Chrts rMnovan, Flre Chlef Chades Mallory, Informakron Technology Services Meltssa McCollum, Communlky Services Rebecca Redyk, Human Resources Dams Cook, Inkerlm Development Servlces Jamre Bermudez, {merim Police Chlef Elras Sassoon, Public Works The City's resolution seeks to address a critical issue within communities, especially those of economic disadvantage and disadvantage communities of color that are home to the State's freight rail lines. While supportive of the economic base the industry serves to the State, their rail lines have often become places where illegal dumping is a constant problem and our growing homeless population call home. The impact of these activities further erodes the quality of life for our communities, increases blight, increases unhealthy sanitation issues, and negatively impacts our ability to meet State water quality standards under the MS4 permits. As members of the League, our City values the policy development process provided to the General Assembly. We appreciate your time on this issue. Please feel free to contact El Segundo Public Works Director Elias Sassoon at 310-524-2356, if you have any questions. Sincerely, Mayor of EI Segundo www elsequndo.ora www.elsequndobusrness.com www.elsequndol00.orq CC:City Council, City of EI Segundo Blanca Pacheco, President, Los Angeles County Division c/o Jennifer Quan, Executive Director, Los Angeles County Division, jquanpcacities.orq Jeff Kiernan, League Regional Public Affairs Manager (via email) 350 Main Street, El Segundo, California 90245-3813 Phone (310) 524-2302 Fax (340) 322-7137 52 183 CITY OF GLENDORA CJTY I-IALL (020) 9'l4-8200 July 14, 2021 116 East Fool)iill 131vt, Cilendora, California 9'l741 xviiayv.ci.glenilorci.ca.us Cheryl Viegas Walker, President League of California Cities 1400 K Street, Suite 400 Sacramento, CA 95814 SUBJECT: SUPPORT FOR THE CITY OF SOUTH GATE'S ANNUAL CONFERENCE RESOLUTION Dear President Walker: The City of Glendora is pleased to support the City of South Gate's effort to submit a resolution for consideration by the General Assembly at the Leaguc of Califorriia Cities' 2021 Annual Conference in Sacramento. The City of South Gate's resolution seeks to address a critical issue that many communities, smal) and large, are experiencing along active transportation corridors, particularly rail lines. Given the importance and growth of the ports and logistics sector, and the economic support they provide, we need to do more to ensure that conflicts are appropriately addresscd and mitigated to ensure they do not become attractive nuisances. Our cities are experiencing increasing amounts of illegal dumping (trash and debris) and the establishment of encampments by individuals cxperiencing homelessness along roadways, highways and rail lines. Such situations create unsafe conditions - safety, health and sanitation - that impact quality of life even as we collectively work to address this challenge in a coordinated and responsible manner. As members of the League of California Cities, Glendora vaiues the policy development process provided to the General Assembly and strongly support consideration of this issue. Your attention to this matter is greatly appreciated. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact Adam Raymond, City Manager, at aravi'rioml@citvoi-slendor.i.org or (626) 914-8201. K'aren K. Davis Mayor C: Blanca Pacheco, President, Los Angeles County Division c/o Jcnnifcr Quan, Executive Director, Los Angeles County Division, jquan@cacities.org PRIDE OF THE FOOTHIt[S 53 184 54 185 CITY OF LA MIRADA DEDICATED TOSERVICE July 19, 2021 Cheryl Viegas Walker President League of California Cities 1400 K Street, Suite 400 Sacramento, California 95814 L.1 kffiaJa, C alilcnua 90f;38 PO Hm )'28 La llnad:i, C alil'orm.i 911637-082:' Phl-lnc 1-i(i2)94al-tllll F.l% i51)21')43-1-lti4 iii.xii cuyotlamuada i)Ig SUBJECT: LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR CITY OF SOUTH GATE'S PROPOSED RESOLUTION AT CALCITIES ANNUAL CONFERENCE President Walker: The City of La Mirada supports the City of South Gate's effort to submit a resolution for consideration by the General Assembly at the League's 2021 Annual Conference in Sacramento. The City of South Gate's resolution seeks to address a critical issue within communities that are home to the State's freight rail lines. While the City of La Mirada is supportive of the economic base the railroad industry serves to the State, the rail lines have become places where illegal dumping and a growing homeless population are significant problems The negative impact of these illegal activities decreases the quality of life for the La Mirada community, increases blight and unhealthy sanitation issues, and negatively impacts the City's ability to meet State water quality standards under the MS4 permits As members of the League, the City of La Mirada values the policy development process provided to the General Assembly. We appreciate your consideration on this issue. Please feel free to contact Assistant City Manager Anne Haraksin at (562) 943-0131 if you have any questions Sincerely, C TY OF LA M RADA Ed Mayor cc. Blanca Pacheco, President, Jennifer Quan, Executive Director, Los Angeles County Division c/o Los Angeles County Division, jquan@cacities.org Lcl Eng. Edl-i "}l il Ijl -\ntlioni.'.-\ Okm, DPPD hl.ia.ui Pmi:m Sieie L)c Ruse. L) hlin l l1llliil memlx't .)oluq Lcysis, Esil let ul IILII :iienilic i Jefl- BIIS nion Cll' M+m.tyei55 186 Office of the City Manager 411 West Ocean Boulevard, 10th Floor Long Beach, CA 90802 (562) 570-6711 FAX (562) 570-7650 July 22, 2021 Cheryl Viegas Walker President League of California Cities 1400 K Street, Suite 400 Sacramento, CA 95814 RE: Support for City of South Gate Resolution—Cleanup Activities on Rail Operator Properties Dear President Walker, On behalf of the City of Long Beach, I write to support the City of South Gate’s proposed resolution for the League of California Cities’ (League) 2021 Annual Conference. This resolution seeks to direct the League to adopt a policy urging State and federal governments to increase oversight of rail operators’ land maintenance. The City is a proponent of increased maintenance along railways and believes a League advocacy strategy would help expedite regional responses. The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated the public health and safety concerns on rail rights-of-way, as trash, debris, and encampments have increased exponentially. These challenges erode the quality of life for our communities, increase blight, and contribute to public health and sanitation issues. To address these concerns, the City has engaged directly with regional partners to prioritize ongoing maintenance and cleanups, and has invested $4 million in the Clean Long Beach Initiative as part of the City’s Long Beach Recovery Act to advance economic recovery and public health in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The City of South Gate’s proposed resolution would further advance these efforts for interjurisdictional coordination. The increased oversight proposed by the resolution will help support better coordination and additional resources to address illegal dumping and encampments along private rail operator property. This is a critical measure to advance public health and uplift our most vulnerable communities. For these reasons, the City supports the proposed League resolution. Sincerely, THOMAS B. MODICA City Manager cc: Blanca Pacheco, President, Los Angeles County Division c/o Jennifer Quan, Executive Director, Los Angeles County Division, jquan@cacities.org 56 187 City oJ Lynwood!*dLYNWOOD I lncorporated 1921 11330 Bullis Road, Lyowood, CA90262 [310) 603-0220 x 200 CITY OF SOUTH GATE ANNUAL CONFERNCE RESOLUTION luly 20,2027 Cheryl Viegas Walker President League of California Cities 1400 K Street, Suite 400 Sacramento, CA 95814 President Walker: The City of Lynwood supports the City of South Gate's effort to submit a resolution for consideration by the General Assembly at the League's 2021 Annual Conference in Sacramento. The City's resolution seeks to address a critical issue within communities, especially those of economic disadvantage and disadvantage communities of color that are home to the State's freight rail lines. While supportive of the economic base the industry serves to the State, their rail lines have often become places where illegal dumping is a constant problem and our growing homeless population call home. These impact of these activities further erode the quality of life for our communities, increase blight, increase unhealthy sanitation issues and negatively impact our ability to meet State water quality standards under the MS4 permits. As members of the League our city values the policy development process provided to the General Assembly. We appreciate your time on this issue. Please feel free to contact Ernie Hernandez at (310) 603-0220 ext. 200, ifyou have any questions. Sincerel v, na,M yor CC: Blanca Pacheco, President, Los Angeles County Division c/o fennifer Quan, Executive Director, Los Angeles County Division, jquan@cacities.org OFFICE OF TH E MAYOR MARISELA SANTANA RE: City ofSouth Gate Annual Conference Resolution I l 57 188 58 189 CITY BRENDA OLMOS Mayor VILMA CUELLAR ST ALLINGS Vice Mayor ISABEL AGUAYO Councilmember Safe, Healthy, and Attractive LAURIE GUILLEN Councilmember PEGGY LEMONS Councilmembet July 19, 2021 Cheryl Viegas Walker President League of California Cities 1400 K Street, Suite 400 Sacramento, CA 95814 RE: SUPPORT FOR ANNUAL LEAGUE OF CITIES CONFERENCE GENERAL ASSEMBLY RESOLUTION President Walker: The City of Paramount supports the City of South Gate's effort to submit a resolution for consideration by the General Assembly at the League's 2021 Annual Conference in Sacramento. The proposed resolution is attached South Gate's resolution seeks to address a critical issue within communities, especially those of economic disadvantage and disadvantage communities of color that are home to the State's freight rail lines. While supportive of the economic boon the freight industry serves to the State, their rail line rights of way have often become places where illegal dumping is a constant problem and where our growing homeless populations reside. The impact of these activities further erode the quality of life for our communities, increase blight, increase unhealthy sanitation issues and negatively impact our ability to meet State water quality standards under the MS4 permits. As a member of the California League of Cities, the City of Paramount values the policy development process provided to the General Assembly. We appreciate your time on this issue. Please feel free to contact City Manager John Moreno at (562) 220-2222 if you have any questions. Dedicated to providing fiscally responsible services that maintain a vibrant community. 16400 Colorado Avenue a Paramount, CA 90723-5012 - Ph 562-220-2000 a paramountcity.com [lfacebook.com/CityofParamountl !instagram.com/paramountpostsl C) youtube.com/CityofParamount 59 190 Steve Carmona City Manager City of Pico Rivera OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER 6615 Passons Boulevard - Pico Rivera, California 90660 (562) 801-4371 Web.' yi'svw.pico-ris'era.oryq e-mail.' scastro@pico-rivertt.orq City Council Raul Elias Mayor Dr. Monica Sanchez MayorPro Tem Gustavo V. Camacho Counci/member Andrew C. Lara Councilmember Erik Lutz Counci/member CITY OF SOUTH GATE ANNUAL CONFERENCE RESOLUTION July 14, 2021 Cheryl Viegas Walker President League of California Cities 1400 K Street, Suite 400 Sacramento, CA 95814 RE: City of South Gate Annual Conference Resolution President Walker: The City of Pico Rivera supports the City of South Gate's effort to submit a resolution for consideration by the General Assembly at the League's 2021 Annual Conference in Sacramento. The City's resolution seeks to address a critical issue within communities, especially those of economic disadvantage and disadvantaged communities of color that are home to the State's freight rail lines. While supportive of the economic base the industry serves to the State; their rail lines have often become places where illegal dumping is a constant problem and our growing homeless population call home. The impact of these activities further erodes the quality oflife for our communities, increases blight, increases unhealthy sanitation issues, and negatively impacts our ability to meet State water quality standards under the MS4 permits. As members of the League, our City values the policy development process provided to the General Assembly. We appreciate your time on this issue. Please feel free to contact Steve Carmona at (562) 801-4405 if you have any questions. Sincerely, ia a l' ;, . . - % - - City Manager City of Pico Rivera CC: Blanca Pacheco, President, Los Angeles County Division c/o Jennifer Quan, Executive Director, Los Angeles County Division, jquan@cacities.org 60 191 League of California Cities Staff Analysis on Resolution No. 2 Staff: Damon Conklin, Legislative Affairs, Lobbyist Jason Rhine, Assistant Director, Legislative Affairs Caroline Cirrincione, Policy Analyst Committees: Transportation, Communications, and Public Works Housing, Community, and Economic Development Summary: The City of South Gate submits this resolution, which states the League of California Cities should urge the Governor and the Legislature to provide adequate regulatory authority and necessary funding to assist cities with railroad right-of-way areas to address illegal dumping, graffiti, and homeless encampments that proliferate along the rail lines and result in public safety issues. Background: California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) Railroad Oversight The CPUC’s statewide railroad safety responsibilities are carried out through its Rail Safety Division (RSD). The Railroad Operations and Safety Branch (ROSB), a unit of RSD, enforces state and federal railroad safety laws and regulations governing freight and passenger rail in California. The ROSB protects California communities and railroad employees from unsafe practices on freight and passenger railroads by enforcing rail safety laws, rules, and regulations. The ROSB also performs inspections to identify and mitigate risks and potential safety hazards before they create dangerous conditions. ROSB rail safety inspectors investigate rail accidents and safety- related complaints and recommend safety improvements to the CPUC, railroads, and the federal government as appropriate. Within the ROSB, the CPUC employs 41 inspectors who are federally certified in the five Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) railroad disciplines, including hazardous materials, motive power and equipment, operations, signal and train control, and track. These inspectors perform regular inspections, focused inspections, accident investigations, security inspections, and complaint investigations. In addition, the inspectors address safety risks that, while not violations of regulatory requirements, pose potential risks to public or railroad employee safety. CPUC’s Ability to Address Homelessness on Railroads Homeless individuals and encampments have occupied many locations in California near railroad tracks. This poses an increased safety risk to these homeless individuals of being struck by trains. Also, homeless encampments often create unsafe work environments for railroad and agency personnel. While CPUC cannot compel homeless individuals to vacate railroad rights-of-way or create shelter for homeless individuals, it has the regulatory authority to enforce measures that can reduce some safety issues created by homeless encampments. The disposal of waste materials or other disturbances of walkways by homeless individuals can create tripping hazards in the vicinity of railroad rights-of-way. This would cause violations of Commission GO 118-A, which sets standards for walkway surfaces alongside railroad tracks. Similarly, tents, wooden structures, and miscellaneous debris in homeless encampments can create violations of 61 192 Commission GO 26-D, which sets clearance standards between railroad tracks, and structures and obstructions adjacent to tracks. Homelessness in California According to the 2020 Annual Homeless Assessment Report (AHAR) to Congress, there has been an increase in unsheltered individuals since 2019. More than half (51 percent or 113,660 people) of all unsheltered homeless people in the United States are found in California, about four times as high as their share of the overall United States population. Many metro areas in California lack an adequate supply of affordable housing. This housing shortage has contributed to an increase in homelessness that has spread to railroad rights-of- way. Homeless encampments along railroad right-of-way increase the incidents of illegal dumping and unauthorized access and trespassing activities. Other impacts include train service reliability with debris strikes, near-misses, and trespasser injuries/fatalities. As of April 2021, there have been 136 deaths and 117 injuries reported by the Federal Railroad Administration over the past year. These casualties are directly associated with individuals who trespassed on the railroad. Cities across the state are expending resources reacting to service disruptions located on the railroad’s private property. It can be argued that an increase in investments and services to manage and maintain the railroad’s right-of-way will reduce incidents, thus enhancing public safety, environmental quality, and impacts on the local community. State Budget Allocations – Homelessness The approved State Budget includes a homelessness package of $12 billion. This consists of a commitment of $1 billion per year for direct and flexible funding to cities and counties to address homelessness. While some details related to funding allocations and reporting requirements remain unclear, Governor Newsom signed AB 140 in July, which details key budget allocations, such as: • $2 billion in aid to counties, large cities, and Continuums of Care through the Homeless Housing, Assistance and Prevention grant program (HHAP); • $50 million for Encampment Resolution Grants, which will help local governments resolve critical encampments and transitioning individuals into permanent housing; and • $2.7 million in onetime funding for Caltrans Encampment Coordinators to mitigate safety risks at encampments on state property and to coordinate with local partners to connect these individuals to services and housing. The Legislature additionally provided $2.2 billion specifically for Homekey with $1 billion available immediately. This funding will help local governments transition individuals from Project Roomkey sites into permanent housing to minimize the number of occupants who exit into unsheltered homelessness. With regards to this resolution, the State Budget also included $1.1 billion to clean trash and graffiti from highways, roads, and other public spaces by partnering with local governments to pick up trash and beautify downtowns, freeways, and neighborhoods across California. The program is expected to generate up to 11,000 jobs over three years. Cities Railroad Authority A city must receive authorization from the railroad operator before addressing the impacts made by homeless encampments because of the location on the private property. Additionally, the city 62 193 must coordinate with the railroad company to get a flagman to oversee the safety of the work crews, social workers, and police while on the railroad tracks. A city may elect to declare the encampment as a public nuisance area, which would allow the city to clean up the areas at the railroad company’s expense for failing to maintain the tracks and right-of-way. Some cities are looking to increase pressure on railroad operators for not addressing the various homeless encampments, which are presenting public safety and health concerns. Courts have looked to compel railroad companies to increase their efforts to address homeless encampments on their railroads or grant a local authority’s application for an Inspection and Abatement Warrant, which would allow city staff to legally enter private property and abate a public nuisance or dangerous conditions. In limited circumstances, some cities have negotiated Memoranda of Understandings (MOU) with railroad companies to provide graffiti abatement, trash, and debris removal located in the right-of-way, and clean-ups of homeless encampments. These MOUs also include local law enforcement agencies to enforce illegally parked vehicles and trespassing in the railroad’s right- of-way. MOUs also detailed shared responsibility and costs of providing security and trash clean-up. In cases where trespassing or encampments are observed, the local public works agency and law enforcement agency are notified and take the appropriate measures to remove the trespassers or provide clean-up with the railroad covering expenses outlined in the MOU. Absent an MOU detailing shared maintenance, enforcement, and expenses, cities do not have the authority to unilaterally abate graffiti or clean-up trash on a railroad’s right-of-way. Fiscal Impact: If the League of California Cities were to secure funding from the state for railroad clean-up activities, cities could potentially save money in addressing these issues themselves or through an MOU, as detailed above. This funding could also save railroad operators money in addressing concerns raised by municipalities about illegal dumping, graffiti, and homeless encampments along railroads. Conversely, if the League of California Cities is unable to secure this funding through the Legislature or the Governor, cities may need to consider alternative methods, as detailed above, which may include significant costs. Existing League Policy: Public Safety: Graffiti The League supports increased authority and resources devoted to cities for abatement of graffiti and other acts of public vandalism. Transportation, Communications, and Public Works Transportation The League supports efforts to improve the California Public Utilities Commission’s ability to respond to and investigate significant transportation accidents in a public and timely manner to improve rail shipment, railroad, aviation, marine, highway, and pipeline safety 63 194 Housing, Community, and Economic Development Housing for Homeless Homelessness is a statewide problem that disproportionately impacts specific communities. The state should make funding and other resources, including enriched services, and outreach and case managers, available to help assure that local governments have the capacity to address the needs of the homeless in their communities, including resources for regional collaborations. Homeless housing is an issue that eludes a statewide, one-size-fits-all solution, and collaboration between local jurisdictions should be encouraged. Staff Comments: Clarifying Amendments Upon review of the Resolution, Cal Cities staff recommends technical amendments to provide greater clarity. To review the proposed changes, please see Attachment A. The committee may also wish to consider clarifying language around regulatory authority and funding to assist cities with these efforts. The resolution asks that new investments from the state be sent to the CPUC to increase their role in managing and maintaining railroad rights-of- ways and potentially to cities to expand their new responsibility. The committee may wish to specify MOUs as an existing mechanism for cities to collaborate and agree with railroad operators and the CPUC on shared responsibilities and costs. Support: The following letters of concurrence were received: City of Bell Gardens City of Bell City of Commerce City of Cudahy City of El Segundo City of Glendora City of La Mirada City of Paramount City of Pico Rivera City of Huntington Park City of Long Beach City of Lynwood City of Montebello 64 195 2.A RESOLUTION CALLING UPON THE GOVERNOR AND THE LEGISLATURE TO PROVIDE NECCESARY NECESSARY FUNDING FOR CUPC THE CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION (CPUC) TO FUFILL ITS OBLIGATION TO INSPECT RAILROAD LINES TO ENSURE THAT OPERATORS ARE REMOVING ILLEGAL DUMPING, GRAFFITI AND HOMELESS ENCAMPMENTS THAT DEGRADE THE QAULITY QUALITY OF LIFE AND RESULTS IN INCREASED PUBLIC SAFETLY SAFETY CONCERNS FOR COMMUNITIES AND NEIGHBORHOODS THAT ABUTT THE RAILROAD RIGHT-OF-WAY. Source: City of South Gate Concurrence of five or more cities/city officials Cities: City of Bell Gardens; City of Bell; City of Commerce; City of Cudahy; City of El Segundo; City of Glendora; City of Huntington Park; City of La Mirada; City of Long Beach; City of Lynwood; City of Montebello; City of Paramount; City of Pico Rivera Referred to: Housing, Community and Economic Development; and Transportation, Communications and Public Works WHEREAS, ensuring the quality of life for communities falls upon every local government including that blight and other health impacting activities are addressed in a timely manner by private property owners within its jurisdictional boundaries for their citizens, businesses and institutions; and WHEREAS, Railroad Operators own nearly 6,000 miles of rail right-of-way throughout the State of California which is regulated by the Federal Railroad Administration and/or the California Public Utilities Commission CPUC for operational safety and maintenance; and WHEREAS, the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) is the enforcing agency for railroad safety in the State of California and has 41 inspectors assigned throughout the entire State to inspect and enforce regulatory compliance over thousands of miles of rail line; and WHEREAS, areas with rail line right-of-way within cities and unincorporated areas are generally located in economically disadvantaged zones and/or disadvantaged communities of color where the impact of blight further lowers property values and increases the likelihood of unsound sanitary conditions and environmental impacts upon them; and WHEREAS, many communities are seeing an increase in illegal dumping, graffiti upon infrastructure and homeless encampments due to the lax and inadequate oversight by regulatory agencies; and WHEREAS, local governments have no oversight or regulatory authority to require operators to better maintain and clean their properties as it would with any other private property owner within its jurisdictional boundaries. Thus such local communities often resort to spending their local tax dollars on cleanup activities or are forced to accept the delayed and untimely response by operators to cleaning up specific sites, and; WHEREAS, that railroad operators should be able to provide local communities with a fixed schedule in which their property will be inspected and cleaned up on a reasonable and regular schedule or provide for a mechanism where they partner with and reimburse local governments for an agreed upon work program where the local government is enabled to remove items like illegal dumping, graffiti and encampments; and 65 ATTACHMENT A 196 WHEREAS, the State has made it a priority to deal with homeless individuals and the impacts illegal encampments have upon those communities and has a budgetary surplus that can help fund the CPUC in better dealing with this situation in both a humane manner as well as a betterment to rail safety. RESOLVED, at the League of California Cities, General Assembly, assembled at the League Cal Cities Annual Conference on September 24, 2021, in Sacramento, that the Cal Cities League calls for the Governor and the Legislature to work with the Cal Cities League and other stakeholders to provide adequate regulatory authority and necessary funding to assist cities with these railroad right-of-way areas so as to adequately deal with illegal dumping, graffiti and homeless encampments that proliferate along the rail lines and result in public safety issues. The Cal Cities League will work with its member cities to educate federal and state officials to the quality of life and health impacts this challenge has upon local communities, especially those of color and/or environmental and economic hardships. 66 197 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:September 1, 2021 DEPARTMENT:City Manager’s Department PREPARED BY:Crystal Bothelio, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT:Fiscal Year 2021/22 Fee Schedule Amendment for Tree Removal Permits RECOMMENDED ACTION: Approve the resolution amending the Fiscal Year 2021/22 Fee Schedule to eliminate tree removal permit fees for certain trees removed in the Wildland Urban Interface. BACKGROUND: On July 21, 2021, the City Council adopted an ordinance to amend the City Code to allow Monterey pine trees and blue gum eucalyptus trees within the Wildland Urban Interface Area to be removed by adding subsection 15-50.080(a)(12) to the City Code. The ordinance also eliminated the tree removal permit fee for these trees. Additionally, the Finance Committee considered a request from a resident to eliminate tree removal permit fees for trees removed under City Code Section 15-50.080(a)(11)and recommended that the City Council eliminate tree removal permit fees for trees removed under this section of the City Code. This section of City Code allows a tree to be removed if the tree is located on a property in the Wildland Urban Interface, the property is in compliance with defensible space requirements, the tree is within 100 feet of a structure, and the tree cannot be maintained in compliance with defensible space standards. The cost of a tree removal permit is $125. Adoption of the resolution would implement the City Council action on July 21, 2021 for trees removed under City Code Sections 15.50.080(a)(12) as well as the Finance Committee’s recommendation to eliminate fees for trees removed under 15-50.080(a)(11).If the City Council approve the attached resolution, staff will include in the next annual code update an amendment to reflect the fee waiver for subsection (a)(11). ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A –Resolution Amending the Fiscal Year 2021/22 Fee Schedule 198 RESOLUTION NO. 21-___ RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA AMENDING THE FISCAL YEAR 2021/22 SCHEDULE OF FEES WHEREAS, the Fiscal Year 2021/22 Schedule of Fees was established through adoption of Resolution No. 21-023; and WHEREAS, on July 21, 2021, the City Council adopted an ordinance allowing Monterey pines and blue gum eucalyptus trees located in the Wildland Urban Interface Area to be removed and moved that no fee would be required for a tree removal permit; and WHEREAS, the Finance Committee recommended elimination of tree permit fees for trees removed under 15-50.080(a)(11), which allows a tree to be removed if the tree is located on a property in the Wildland Urban Interface, the property is in compliance with defensible space requirements, the tree is within 100 feet of a structure, and the tree cannot be maintained in compliance with defensible space standards; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby amend the Fiscal Year 2021/22 Annual Fee Schedule by adding the following to the Development Permits section of the Fee Schedule: City Code Sections 15-50.080(a)(11) and 15.50.080(a)(12) No fee shall be required for a permit removed under City Code Sections 15-50.080(a)(11) and 15.50.080(a)(12). Tree Removal Permit Fee shall be waived upon verification that tree qualifies for removal under these criteria. The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Saratoga City Council held on the 1st day of September 2021 by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: Yan Zhao, Mayor ATTEST: DATE: Britt Avrit, City Clerk 199 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE:September 1, 2021 DEPARTMENT:City Manager’s Department PREPARED BY:Crystal Bothelio, Assistant City Manager SUBJECT:Road Conditions Public Engagement Program RECOMMENDED ACTION: Provide direction on the road conditions engagement program and survey. BACKGROUND: At the July 21, 2021 City Council Meeting, the City Council directed staff to proceed with a road conditions engagement program to better understand the community’s satisfaction with current road conditions and to gauge the community’s interest in increasing funds for roads through a voter-approved revenue measure or through service reductions. Specifically, staff was directed to: 1.Proceed with the proposed approach and timeline; 2.Return in September 2021 with a draft survey for Council consideration; 3.Help community members understand the Pavement Condition Index (PCI) as part of the engagement process and provide a map, interactive if possible; 4.Provide information about funding needed to maintain current road conditions or improve them as well as potential funding source for roads in outreach and the survey; and, 5.Hold one community meeting to provide community members with a chance to ask questions. The draft survey is included as Attachment A for City Council consideration. With Council approval of the survey, staff will begin implementation of the engagement program outlined below. Currently, one virtual community meeting is tentatively planned for October 14, 2021. Engagement Program Timeline Month Activity September 2021 Present Draft Survey to City Council for Direction October 2021 Launch Informational Webpage Launch Informational Video Conduct Online Outreach (City newsletters and social media) Display Median Banners 200 Send Citywide Postcard Place Display Ad in Saratoga News Hold Community Meeting Open Survey November 2021 Continue Online Outreach (City newsletters and social media) Continue Displaying Median Banners Place Display Ad in Saratoga News December 2021 Continue Online Outreach (City newsletters and social media) Continue Displaying Median Banners Place Display Ad in Saratoga News Close Survey February 2022 Present Survey Results at City Council Retreat ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A – Draft Road Conditions Survey Attachment B – Presentation Slides 201 Roads Conditions Survey Introduction The most recent assessment of Saratoga roads showed a decline in the average condition of City roads. The City Council would like to better understand the community’s satisfaction with current road conditions and gauge the community’s interest in increasing funds to maintain roads at their current condition or improve them to help determine next steps. About the Pavement Condition Index (PCI) The Pavement Condition Index (PCI) is a way to measure the health of roads. The PCI score is based on a scale of 0 to 100, with newly paved roads rated at 100. The PCI score of City streets are averaged to establish an overall PCI for the City. The PCI is developed by surveying a sampling of roads every 3 years. This data is combined with previous survey data adjusted overtime using a required countywide formula to estimate changes in road conditions. The formula adjusts the PCI down overtime as roads age and deteriorate. Similarly, the PCI is adjusted up as roads receive maintenance and rehabilitation through the City’s Annual Pavement Management Program. Since the PCI for the City as a whole is an average, it is normal to see a mix of streets with a high PCI as well as streets with a lower PCI. Additionally, the formula to adjust forecasted PCIs overtime may result in slight differences between estimated and actual PCIs due to impacts caused by real life conditions, like changing traffic routes or emergency utility repairs. Category PCI Description Example Excellent/Very Good 70-100 Little or no distress 202 Good/Fair 50-70 Significant distress Fair/Poor 25-50 Major distress Very Poor/Failed 0-25 Extensive distress City of Saratoga’s PCI The City Council has had a longstanding goal to maintain the 141 miles of Saratoga roadways at an average Pavement Condition Index of at least 70 and has allocated $2 million per year to fund roadway improvements. Funding for road improvements comes from State Gas Tax revenues, Santa Clara County Measure B sales tax revenues, and local Road Refuse Impact Fee revenues. 203 The City of Saratoga’s most current Pavement Condition Index shows a decline in City roads. The City’s average Pavement Condition Index dropped from a score of 71 in 2016 to a score of 67 in 2019 and further dropped to 65 as of July 2021. According to the Metropolitan Transportation Commission, the average PCI of a similar size city in the San Francisco Bay Area is 74 and the average PCI for all cities in the Bay Area is 67. As roads get closer to a Pavement Condition Index of 60, deterioration rapidly accelerates and the need for expensive road rehabilitation becomes more likely. Saratoga Road Maintenance Practices The $2 million per year currently allocated for roadway improvements funds the Annual Pavement Management Program. The Pavement Management Program is funded through State Gas Tax revenues, Santa Clara County Measure B sales tax revenues, and local Road Refuse Impact Fee revenues. Following road maintenance best practices, the Annual Pavement Management Program prioritizes a mix of roads in the worst condition, roads that require minimal maintenance to stay in good condition, and requests for repairs submitted by residents. Additionally, the City conducts small road repairs throughout the year, such as filling potholes. This balanced approach to road maintenance allows the City to maximize the efficiency of road improvement funds. Deterioration rapidly accelerates and the lifespan of a road quickly shortens once roads reach a PCI of 60. A typical section of pavement will deteriorate about 40% in the first 75% of its lifespan and, without treatment, that section of pavement would see an additional 40% of deterioration in the next 12% of its lifespan. Additionally, the cost to repair roads exponentially increases as PCI declines. The type of road maintenance treatments vary based on conditions of the road. Those in Excellent/Very Good condition generally only need a seal or microsurface treatment. Roads in Good/Fair condition generally require a thin overlay while Fair/Poor condition require more costly thick overlay. Roads in the Very Poor/Failed category generally need to be entirely reconstructed. This means the cost to repair the most distressed streets is far more expensive than those with a higher PCI. Using road maintenance funds only on roads in the worst condition would mean the City could only repair a handful of roads per year, resulting in a backlog of maintenance of other roads and an overall decline in road conditions. 204 Funding for Saratoga Roads Maintaining funding for roads at $2 million per year will result in the continued deterioration of roads and backlog of costly infrastructure maintenance. Funding for Saratoga roads comes from State Gas Tax revenues, Santa Clara County Measure B sales tax revenues, and local Road Refuse Impact Fee revenues. To maintain current road conditions and avoid further deterioration, the City estimates that it will need to increase funding for road improvements to $4 million per year. To reach an average PCI rating of 70, the City estimates it would need to increase funding for road improvements to $7 million per year. Additional funds to maintain roads at their current condition or improve them can be generated in several ways. A voter-approved revenue measure to increase funding for road improvements is one option for generating additional funds needed to either maintain current road conditions or improve them. For example, a parcel tax to secure new funds for road maintenance, a general obligation bond to accelerate road improvements, or a combination of a parcel tax and a general obligation bond. • About Parcel Taxes: A parcel tax is a form of property tax applied to each property or parcel in a city. Parcel taxes require 2/3 voter approval to pass. Parcel taxes m ay include discounts or exemptions for low-income individuals and seniors. 205 • About General Obligation Bonds: A general obligation bond is a loan issued to a city that is then repaid by applying a form of property tax to each property or parcel in a city. Please participate in this survey to share your thoughts on current road conditions and interest in increasing revenues for roads by December 31, 2021. Community input collected through this survey will be presented to the City Council for consideration in early 2022. To learn more about road conditions and funding, please visit the City website at www.saratoga.ca.us/roads where you can find additional information and the PCI of your street. You can also attend the virtual community meeting on October 14 to ask questions. Community Meeting • Thursday, October 14, 6:00 p.m. Virtual Meeting ID: 123-4567-8912 www.saratoga.ca.us/meeting Survey 1. Do you live in the City of Saratoga? • Yes • No 2. If you live in Saratoga, how long have you lived in the City? • 0-2 years • 2-5 years • 5-10 years • 10-20 years • 20+ years 3. How old are you? • 19 years or less • 20-24 years • 25-34 years • 35-44 years • 45-54 years • 55-59 years • 60-64 years • 65-74 years • 75-84 years • 85 years and over 206 4. What is your annual household income? • Less than $34,999 • $35,000 - $49,999 • $50,000 - $74,999 • $75,000 - $99,999 • $100,000 - $149,999 • $150,000 - $199,999 • $200,000 or more 5. How many people are in your household? • 1 • 2 • 3 • 4 or more 6. How often do you drive on City of Saratoga streets? • Daily • Weekly • Monthly • Less than once a month 7. Are you generally satisfied or dissatisfied with the condition of roads in Saratoga? • Very Satisfied • Somewhat Satisfied • Don’t Know • Somewhat Dissatisfied • Very Dissatisfied 8. In the last few years, would you say that the condition of public streets in Saratoga have gotten better, worse, or stayed about the same? • Much better • Somewhat Better • About the Same • Somewhat Worse • Much Worse • Don’t Know 9. If an election were held today to create a parcel tax and/or general obligation bond to increase funding for road improvements, do you think you would vote “Yes” in favor of this measure or “No” to oppose it? • Definitely Yes • Probably Yes • Undecided 207 • Probably No • Definitely No 10. If you think you may consider voting “Yes” in favor of a revenue measure to increase funding for road improvements, what annual amount per parcel would you be likely to support? • Not applicable • Up to $50 per parcel per year • Up to $100 per parcel per year • Up to $150 per parcel per year • $200 or more per parcel per year 11. Are there additional suggestions or comments that you would like to share about road conditions and funding for roads in the City of Saratoga? 208 Road Conditions Public Engagement 209 Council Direction 1.Proceed with engagement approach/timeline 2.Present draft survey to Council in September 2021 3.Explain Pavement Condition Index (PCI) and provide a map (preferably an interactive map) 4.Include information about funding needs and options to maintain or improve road conditions 5.Hold 1 community meeting 210 Survey Questions 1.Do you live in the City of Saratoga? 2. If you live in Saratoga, how long have you lived in the City? 3.How old are you? 4.What is your annual household income? 5.How many people are in your household? 6.How often do you drive on City of Saratoga streets? 7.Are you generally satisfied or dissatisfied with the condition of roads in Saratoga? 211 Survey Questions 8.In the last few years, would you say that the condition of public streets in Saratoga have gotten better, worse, or stayed about the same? 9.If an election were held today to create a parcel tax or general obligation bond to increase funding for road improvements, do you think you would vote “Yes” in favor of this measure or “No” to oppose it? 10.If you think you may consider voting “Yes” in favor of a revenue measure to increase funding for road improvements, what annual amount per parcel would you be likely to support? 11.Are there additional suggestions or comments that you would like to share about road conditions and funding for roads in the City of Saratoga? 212 Month Activity September 2021 Present Draft Survey to City Council for Direction October 2021 Launch Informational Webpage Launch Informational Video Conduct Online Outreach (City newsletters and social media) Display Median Banners Send Citywide Postcard Place Display Ad in Saratoga News Hold Community Meeting Open Survey November 2021 Continue Online Outreach (City newsletters and social media) Continue Displaying Median Banners Place Display Ad in Saratoga News December 2021 Continue Online Outreach (City newsletters and social media) Continue Displaying Median Banners Place Display Ad in Saratoga News Close Survey February 2022 Present Survey Results at City Council Retreat 213 Median Banner 214 Postcard 215 Postcard 216 Saratoga News Ad 217 Color PCI Blue Excellent/Very Good 70-100 Yellow Good/Fair 50-70 Orange Fair/Poor 25-50 Red Very Poor/ Failed 0-25 Interactive Map 218 Community Meeting •Thursday, October 14, 6:00 p.m. Virtual 219