HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-15-2023 City Council Agenda Packet, amended 3-15-2023Saratoga City Council Agenda March 15, 2023 – Page 1 of 4
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
REGULAR MEETING
MARCH 15, 2023
AMENDED AGENDA
• 03/15/2023 STUDY SESSION ITEM WRITTEN COMMUNICATIONS AND
PRESENTATION SLIDES ADDED
• 03/15/2023 ITEM 2.1 PRESENTATION SLIDES ADDED
Public Participation Information
In accordance with Saratoga City Council’s Remote Public Participation Policy, members of the
public may participate in this meeting in person at the locations listed below or via remote
attendance using the Zoom information below.
Members of the public can view and participate in the 6:00 p.m. Study Session by:
1. Attending the meeting in person at:
• City Hall Linda Callon Conference Room, located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga CA
95070
• Villa 8D, Block 32, Ana Capri, Park Island, Ma Wan, New Territories, Hong Kong; OR
2. Accessing the meeting through Zoom
• Webinar URL: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/86846057855
• Webinar ID 868 4605 7855
• Call In: 1.408.638.0968 or 1.669.900.6833
Members of the public can view and participate in the 7:00 p.m. Regular Session by:
1. Attending the meeting in person at
• Saratoga Civic Theater, Council Chambers located at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga CA
95070
• Villa 8D, Block 32, Ana Capri, Park Island, Ma Wan, New Territories, Hong Kong; OR
2. Accessing the meeting through Zoom
• Webinar URL: https://us02web.zoom.us/j/81627041223
• Webinar ID: 816 2704 1223
• Call In: 1.408.638.0968 or 1.669.900.6833; OR
3. Viewing the meeting on Saratoga Community Access Television Channel 15 (Comcast
Channel 15, AT&T UVerse Channel 99 and calling in following the direction above; OR
4. Viewing online at http://www.saratoga.ca.us/watch and calling in following the directions
above.
Written Communication
Comments can be submitted in writing at www.saratoga.ca.us/comment. Written communications
will be provided to the members of the City Council and included in the Agenda Packet and/or in
supplemental meeting materials.
Saratoga City Council Agenda March 15, 2023 – Page 2 of 4
Public Comment
Members of the public may comment on any item for up to three (3) minutes. The amount of time
for public comment may be reduced by the Mayor or by action of the City Council. Public
Comment will begin with speakers attending in-person first followed by those attending via Zoom.
Meeting Recording Information
In accordance with the Saratoga City Council’s Meeting Recording Policy, City Council Study
Sessions, Joint Meetings, Joint Sessions, Commission Interviews, Retreats, meetings with the
Planning Commission, and Regular Session Meetings are recorded and made available following
the meeting on the City website.
6:00 PM STUDY SESSION
City Hall, Linda Callon Conference Room | 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070
2023-24 Capital Improvement Program Project Prioritization Study Session
Recommended Action:
Review and provide direction on projects and funding for the 2023-24 Capital Improvement
Program (CIP) budget.
Staff Report
Attachment A - CIP Prioritization Study Session Package
Attachment B - Survey of Outdoor Dining Program Subsidies
Attachment C - Written Communications
Supplemental Memo - Study Session Item Written Communications
Study Session Presentation Slides
7:00 PM REGULAR SESSION
Civic Theater, Council Chambers | 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL
REPORT ON POSTING OF THE AGENDA
The agenda for this meeting was properly posted on March 10, 2023.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ON NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS
Any member of the public may address the City Council 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
Appointment of Parks & Recreation Commissioner and Planning Commissioners
Recommended Action:
Adopt the Resolution appointing Isabelle Gecils to the Parks & Recreation Commission,
reappointing Anjali Kausar to the Planning Commission, appointing Paul Germeraad to the
Planning Commission; direct the City Clerk to administer the Oaths of Office.
Staff Report
Attachment A - Resolution, Parks & Recreation and Planning Commission Appointments
Saratoga City Council Agenda March 15, 2023 – Page 3 of 4
Proclamation Recognizing March 2023 as American Red Cross Month
Recommended Action:
Present a proclamation recognizing March 2023 as American Red Cross Month to a
representative of the American Red Cross, Silicon Valley Chapter.
Staff Report
Attachment A: Proclamation Recognizing March 2023 as American Red Cross Month
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.
1.1. City Council Meeting Minutes
Recommended Action:
Approve the Minutes for the March 1, 2023 City Council Regular Meeting.
Staff Report
Attachment A - Minutes for the March 1, 2023 City Council Regular Meeting
1.2. Review of Accounts Payable Check Registers
Recommended Action:
Review and accept check registers for the following accounts payable payment cycles:
2/23/23 Period 8; 3/1/23 Period 9.
Staff Report
Attachment A - Check Register 02-23-2023 Period 8
Attachment B - Check Register 03-01-2023 Period 9
1.3. Final Map Approval for Two Lots Located at 19315 San Marcos Road
Recommended Action:
Adopt the Resolution granting final map approval of parcel map application No. ULS22-
0003 for two lots located at 19315 San Marcos Road (APN: 397 13 011).
Staff Report
Attachment A - Resolution Granting Final Map Approval
Attachment B - Site Map
Attachment C - Parcel Map
1.4. Designation of Authorized Agents – Federal Emergency Management Agency
Recommended Action:
Approve the Designation of Applicant’s Agents Resolution.
Staff Report
Attachment A – Designation of the Applicant’s Agents Resolution
2. GENERAL BUSINESS
2.1. 2022 Comprehensive Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
Recommended Action:
Receive and accept the 2022 Comprehensive Cost of Services (User Fee) Study and provide
policy direction to City staff for the preparation of the comprehensive Fee Schedule which
is scheduled for City Council consideration on April 19.
Staff Report
Attachment A - Final Saratoga Fee Study Report
Item 2.1 Presentation Slides
Saratoga City Council Agenda March 15, 2023 – Page 4 of 4
COUNCIL ASSIGNMENTS
Council Assignments
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, Britt Avrit, City Clerk for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting
of the City Council was posted and available for review on March 10, 2023 at the City of Saratoga,
13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California and on the City's website at www.saratoga.ca.us.
Signed this 10th day of March 2023 at Saratoga, California.
Britt Avrit, MMC, City Clerk
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 and are available for review in the office of the City Clerk at 13777
Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, California.
In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Governor’s Executive Order, if
you need assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at
bavrit@saratoga.ca.us or calling 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
MEETING DATE:March 15, 2023
DEPARTMENT:Administrative Services
PREPARED BY:Nick Pegueros, Administrative Services Director
Gina Scott, Administrative Analyst
SUBJECT:2023-24 Capital Improvement Program Project Prioritization Study
Session
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Review and provide direction on projects and funding for the 2023-24 Capital Improvement
Program (CIP) budget.
BACKGROUND:
Attachment A transmits the 2023-24 CIP Prioritization Study Session package, substantially the
same as the CIP Prioritization Package presented at the City Council’s February 10 retreat. City
staff has updated formatting, made minor narrative descriptions,and incorporated mid-year budget
adjustments approved at the March 1 City Council meeting.
Available Funds.Available funds total $6,394,000 and remain unchanged from the retreat packet.
The total includes $3,509,000 in the General Fund Future Capital Reserve, $2,635,000 of revenue
dedicated by City Council policy for the pavement management program and Civic Theater
improvements, and $250,000 in unallocated Streets CIP Funds projected at year-end.
Funding Requests.Requests for priority projects, existing projects, and nominated projects also
remain unchanged, totaling $4,807,000. If all funding requests advance to budget adoption, the
General Fund Future Capital Reserve will have a remaining balance of $1,337,000 for future
allocation.
City Council Requests for Additional Information.City Council requested additional
information on the Pavement Management Program (PMP) priority funding project and the City
Council nominated Village Outdoor Dining Improvements project.
For the 2023-24 PMP, City staff plans on resurfacing Saratoga Avenue from Scotland
Drive to our city limits with San Jose. Resurfacing this segment of Saratoga Avenue will
4
cost approximately $1.2 million and will complete resurfacing of Saratoga Avenue. In the
2021-22 PMP, the City resurfaced Saratoga Avenue from Big Basin Way to Scotland.
City Council requested a survey of cities with outdoor dining grant/subsidy programs.
Attachment B summarizes the information gathered.
Next Steps.City staff seeks direction on Attachment A, including narrative changes that amend
the scope of approved CIP projects, funding for priority and dedicated revenue projects, new
funding for existing projects, nominated projects, and unfunded projects. Requested information
or analysis will return to City Council at their April 9 meeting for final direction on the CIP
component of the 2023-24 City Manager’s Proposed Budget, which is considered the June 7 public
hearing and final adoption on June 21.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – CIP Prioritization Study Session Package
Attachment B – Survey of Outdoor Dining Program Subsidies
Attachment C – Written Communications
5
Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
Prioritization Study Session
March 15, 2023
6
7
City of Saratoga
2023-24 CIP Funding Summary
General Fund Other City Funds Total
Available for 2023-24 Funding Requests
General Fund Future Capital Reserve 3,509,000$ -$ 3,509,000$
Estimated 2023-24 Revenue Dedicated to CIP by City Council policy - 2,635,000 2,635,000
Projected Unallocated Streets CIP Fund Balance - 250,000 250,000
Total Available 3,509,000$ 2,885,000$ 6,394,000$
Priority & Dedicated Revenue Projects
Annual Pavement Management Program (PMP)-$ 2,600,000$ 2,600,000$
Annual Roadway Safety & Traffic Calming 150,000 - 150,000
Annual Sidewalks, Curbs & Gutters, Storm Drains, Bridges Mtc & Repair 250,000 - 250,000
Annual Retaining Wall Maintenance & Repairs 200,000 - 200,000
Annual Parks, Trails, Grounds & Median Infrastructure 250,000 - 250,000
Annual Public Art Infrastructure 25,000 - 25,000
Annual Hakone Gardens Infrastructure Improvements 25,000 - 25,000
Annual Civic Theater Improvements - 35,000 35,000
Subtotal 900,000$ 2,635,000$ 3,535,000$
2023-24 Existing Projects Funding Requests
Safe Routes to School Implementation Plan 160,000$ -$ 160,000$
Fourth Street Bridge Widening 42,000 - 42,000
Park & Trail Fire Mitigation 100,000 - 100,000
ADA Transition Plan Implementation 100,000 - 100,000
Bridge Rehabilitation Project 350,000 350,000
Subtotal 752,000$ -$ 752,000$
Nominated Projects
Village Outdoor Dining Improvements 220,000$ -$ 220,000$
Annual Corrugated Pipe Rehabilitation Project 300,000 - 300,000
Subtotal 520,000$ -$ 520,000$
Total Funding Requests 2,172,000$ 2,635,000$ 4,807,000$
2023-24
CIP Prioritization
ATTACHMENT A - Page 1 8
CIP Prioritization
ATTACHMENT A - Page 2 9
City of Saratoga
Treasurer's Report - Streets CIP Funds
As of January 31, 2023
Prior Year
Carryforward
7/1/2022
Increase/
(Decrease)
Jul - Dec
January
2023
Revenue
January
2023
Expenditure
Net Transfers
In/ (Out)
Fund
Balance
1/31/2023
Streets CIP Fund
Annual Road Improvements 1,009,556$ (1,575,951)$ 715,151$ (26,971)$ 1,000,000$ 1,121,785$
Roadway Safety & Traffic Calming 147,118 - - - 150,000 297,118
Citywide Traffic Signal Battery Backup 266,315 (24,040) -(284) -241,991
Portable Radar Feedback Sign 1,548 - - - - 1,548
Local Roadway Safety Plan 3,410 (363) - - -3,047
Traffic Signal Controller Upgrades - - - - 80,000 80,000
Prospect/Saratoga Median Improvement 309,379 - - - - 309,379
Village Clock 8,626 (6,066) - - - 2,560
Big Basin Way/Blaney Trash Can Replacement 50,802 (18,000) - - - 32,802
Annual Infrastructure Maintenance & Repairs 41,431 (35,702) -(22,928) 250,000 232,801
Guava Court Curb & Gutter Replacement 280,000 - - - - 280,000
El Camino Grande Storm Drain Pump 104 - - - - 104
Saratoga Village Crosswalk & Sidewalk Rehabilitation 49,055 (17,331) - - - 31,724
Quito Road Sidewalk Improvements 43,370 - - - - 43,370
Saratoga/Sunnyvale Road Sidewalk 92,158 - - - - 92,158
Saratoga Sunnyvale Rd. Pathway Rehab Cox to RRX - - - - 50,000 50,000
Quito Road Sidewalk Rehabilitation and Gap Closure 182,609 - - - - 182,609
Quito Road Sidewalk Rehabilitation Gap Closure Phase 2 - - - - 300,000 300,000
Fourth Street Bridge Widening 99,837 (1,438) -(399) -98,000
Quito Road Bridge Replacement 132,197 (2,342) -(2,378) -127,478
Quito Road Bridge - ROW Acquisition 3,662 - - - - 3,662
Bridge Rehabilitation Project Phase 1 - - - - 350,000 350,000
Annual Retaining Wall Maintenance & Repairs 222,450 (15,878) - - 200,000 406,572
Mt. Eden Erosion Repair 59,622 (3,209) - - - 56,412
Continental Circle Landslide Stabilization 57,447 - - - - 57,447
Pierce Road Retainment 300,290 (320,589) - - - (20,299)
Mt. Eden Emergency Landslide 20,080 - - - - 20,080
Unallocated Street Funds - - - - (171,000) (171,000)
Total Street CIP Fund 3,381,066$ (2,020,909)$ 715,151$ (52,960)$ 2,209,000$ 4,231,348$
Streets CIP Grants Fund
Local Roadway Safety Plan (1,619)$ (3,263)$ -$ -$ -$ (4,882)$
Prospect/Saratoga Median Improvement (19,217) - - - - (19,217)
Citywide Signal Upgrade II 18 - - - - 18
Saratoga Ave Sidewalk (34,146) - - - - (34,146)
Village Sidewalk, Curb & Gutter - Phase II Construction (91) - - - - (91)
Saratoga Village Crosswalk & Sidewalk Rehabilitation (834) - - - - (834)
4th Street Bridge - (11,096) - (3,081) - (14,177)
Quito Bridge Replacement 18,597 - - - - 18,597
Quito Road Bridges - ROW Acquisition (9,619) - - - - (9,619)
Total Streets CIP Grants Fund (46,911)$ (14,359)$ -$ (3,081)$ -$ (64,351)$
Gas Tax CIP Fund
Annual Roadway Improvements 194,170$ (953,022)$ 191,638$ (189,598)$ -$ (756,812)$
Prospect/Saratoga Median Improvements 48,278 - - - - 48,278
Big Basin Way Sidewalk Repairs (1,802) - - - - (1,802)
Quito Road Bridges 7,085 - - - - 7,085
Total Gas Tax CIP Fund 247,731$ (953,022)$ 191,638$ (189,598)$ -$ (703,251)$
Total Streets CIP Funds 3,581,886$ (2,988,290)$ 906,789$ (245,639)$ 2,209,000$ 3,463,746$
CIP Prioritization
ATTACHMENT A - Page 3 10
CIP Prioritization
ATTACHMENT A - Page 4 11
City of Saratoga
Treasurer's Report - Parks & Trails CIP Funds
As of January 31, 2023
Prior Year
Carryforward
7/1/2022
Increase/
(Decrease)
Jul - Dec
January
2023
Revenue
January
2023
Expenditure
Net Transfers
In/ (Out)
Fund Balance
1/31/2023
Parks & Trails CIP Fund
Park/Trail Repairs 32,873$ (2,850)$ - - 250,000$ 280,023$
Hakone Gardens Infrastructure Improvements 16,599 - - - 25,000 41,599
Hakone Pond Reconstruction 300,000 - - - - 300,000
Beauchamps Park Playground Replacement 35,131 (19,038) - (6,950) - 9,143
Guava/Fredericksburg Entrance 235,970 (117,450) - - - 118,520
Saratoga Village to Quarry Park Walkway - Design 228,989 - - - - 228,989
Total Parks & Trails CIP Fund 849,562$ (139,338)$ -$ (6,950)$ 275,000$ 978,274$
Park In-Lieu CIP Fund
Orchard Irrigation & Tree Planting 10,947$ - - - 30,000$ 40,947$
Hakone Gardens Infrastructure 82,420 - - - - 82,420
Hakone Gardens Neighbor Wood Fence Replacement - - - 75,000 75,000
Quarry Park Maintenance Building Utility Project - - - 35,000 35,000
Beauchamps Park Playground Replacement 10,079 (60,079) - - 50,000 -
EL Quito Park Pickleball - (9,322) - (3,000) 154,299 141,977
Joe's Trail Phase II - (1,245) - - 132,000 130,755
Joe's Trail Phase III - - - - 264,000 264,000
Trail Pet Stations 25,000 - - - - 25,000
Saratoga Village to Quarry Park Walkway - Design 73,810 - - - 150,000 223,810
Village Oaks Bridge Reconstruction and Erosion Control - - - - 30,000 30,000
Hakone Gardens to Quarry Park Trail Gap Closure Phase 1 - - - - 50,000 50,000
Park and Trail Fire Mitigation - - - - 100,000 100,000
Unallocated Park In-Lieu Funds 970,299 31,343 - - (1,070,299) (68,657)
Total Park In-Lieu CIP Fund 1,172,555$ (39,303)$ -$ (3,000)$ -$ 1,130,252$
Park & Trails CIP Grant Fund
Beauchamps Park Playground -$ (196,841)$ -$ -$ -$ (196,841)$
Park and Trail Fire Mitigation - 100,000 - - - 100,000
Total Park & Trail CIP Grant Fund -$ (96,841)$ -$ -$ -$ (96,841)$
Total Parks & Trails CIP Funds 2,022,117$ (275,482)$ -$ (9,950)$ 275,000$ 2,011,685$
CIP Prioritization
ATTACHMENT A - Page 5 12
CIP Prioritization
ATTACHMENT A - Page 6 13
City of Saratoga
Treasurer's Report - Other CIP Funds
As of January 31, 2023
Prior Year
Carryforward
7/1/2022
Increase/
(Decrease)
Jul - Dec
January
2023
Revenue
January
2023
Expenditure
Net Transfers
In/ (Out)
Fund Balance
1/31/2023
Facilities CIP Fund
Open Work Space 80,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 80,000$
Civic Theater Improvements - 9,486 7,540 - - 17,026
PEG Funded Project 113,650 19,056 - - - 132,706
Community Center Improvement 24,513 (3,351) - (854) - 20,308
Community Center Generator and EV Charging Stations 395,312 (187,473) - - - 207,839
Library Building Exterior Maintenance 10,000 5,000 - - - 15,000
Total Facilities CIP Fund 623,475$ (157,282)$ 7,540$ (854)$ -$ 472,879$
Administrative and Technology CIP Fund
Safe Routes to School -$ (1,245)$ -$ -$ 160,000$ 158,755$
City Website/Intranet 16,948 - - - - 16,948
Development Technology 20,538 (11,520) 228 (4,516) - 4,731
Software Technology Management 118,695 36,881 7,241 - - 162,817
LLD Initiation Match Program 25,000 - - - - 25,000
Horseshoe Beautification 13,295 (1,160) - - - 12,135
Business Renewal Program 6,643 (2,345) - - - 4,298
Citywide Accessibility Assessment 28,066 (49,500) - (23,280) 100,000 55,286
City Art Program 53,669 - - - 25,000 78,669
Safe Routes to School Needs Assessment 15,748 - - - - 15,748
El Quito Neighborhood Improvements 284,507 - - - - 284,507
Parking District ADA Improvements and Rehabilitation 250,000 - - - - 250,000
Storm Drain Master Plan 300,000 - - - - 300,000
ADA Self Assessment - (2,250) - - 322,500 320,250
General Plan Update 238,592 (145,489) 16,028 (64,103) - 45,028
Wildfire Mitigation Program 4,067 - - - - 4,067
Risk Management Project Funding 54,153 - - - - 54,153
Unallocated Administrative Funds - - - - (582,500) (582,500)
Total Administrative and Technology CIP Fund 1,429,921$ (176,628)$ 23,497$ (91,899)$ 25,000$ 1,209,892$
Administrative & Technology CIP Grant Fund
CDD Software/ADA (14,574)$ -$ -$ -$ -$ (14,574)$
General Plan Update (LEAP)(150,000) (41,672) - (35,050) - (226,723)
Total Administrative & Technology CIP Grant Fund (164,574) (41,672) - (35,050) - (241,297)
ARPA/SLFRF CIP Fund
Storm Water Master Plan -$ (374,065)$ -$ (233)$ -$ (374,297)$
Saratoga Village Water Improvement - (132,293) - - - (132,293)
Total ARPA/SLFRF CIP Fund -$ (506,358)$ -$ (233)$ -$ (506,590)$
Total Other CIP Funds 1,888,822$ (881,940)$ 31,037$ (128,036)$ 25,000$ 934,884$
CIP Prioritization
ATTACHMENT A - Page 7 14
CIP Prioritization
ATTACHMENT A - Page 8 15
CIP Prioritization
ATTACHMENT A - Page 9 16
CIP Prioritization
ATTACHMENT A - Page 10 17
CIP Prioritization
ATTACHMENT A - Page 11 18
CIP Prioritization
ATTACHMENT A - Page 12 19
CIP Prioritization
ATTACHMENT A - Page 13 20
CIP Prioritization
ATTACHMENT A - Page 14 21
CIP Prioritization
ATTACHMENT A - Page 15 22
CIP Prioritization
ATTACHMENT A - Page 16 23
CIP Prioritization
ATTACHMENT A - Page 17 24
CIP Prioritization
ATTACHMENT A - Page 18 25
-
Hakone Gardens Neighbor Wood Fence Replacement
Project No. 9222-009
Project
Manager
Department
Shawn Gardner
Public Works
Location
Project No.
Hakone Gardens
9222-009
Description &
Background
This project will replace the existing rotting wood fence with a safe fence along the
parking lot. If not done it will result in sporadic costly repairs and present safety
concerns.
Work will commence in 2022-23.
Funding 2022-23: $75,000 Park In-Lieu Fund
Requirements
CITY OF SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA
ADOPTED FISCAL YEAR 2022-23 BUDGET
CIP Prioritization
ATTACHMENT A - Page 19 26
CIP Prioritization
ATTACHMENT A - Page 20 27
CIP Prioritization
ATTACHMENT A - Page 21 28
CIP Prioritization
ATTACHMENT A - Page 22 29
CIP Prioritization
ATTACHMENT A - Page 23 30
CIP Prioritization
ATTACHMENT A - Page 24 31
CIP Prioritization
ATTACHMENT A - Page 25 32
CIP Prioritization
ATTACHMENT A - Page 26 33
CIP Prioritization
ATTACHMENT A - Page 27 34
CIP Prioritization
ATTACHMENT A - Page 28 35
CIP Prioritization
ATTACHMENT A - Page 29 36
CIP Prioritization
ATTACHMENT A - Page 30 37
CIP Prioritization
ATTACHMENT A - Page 31 38
CIP Prioritization
ATTACHMENT A - Page 32 39
CIP Prioritization
ATTACHMENT A - Page 33 40
CIP Prioritization
ATTACHMENT A - Page 34 41
CIP Prioritization
ATTACHMENT A - Page 35 42
CIP Prioritization
ATTACHMENT A - Page 36 43
CIP Prioritization
ATTACHMENT A - Page 37 44
CIP Prioritization
ATTACHMENT A - Page 38 45
CIP Prioritization
ATTACHMENT A - Page 39 46
CIP Prioritization
ATTACHMENT A - Page 40 47
CIP Prioritization
ATTACHMENT A - Page 41 48
CIP Prioritization
ATTACHMENT A - Page 42 49
CIP Prioritization
ATTACHMENT A - Page 43 50
CIP Prioritization
ATTACHMENT A - Page 44 51
CIP Prioritization
ATTACHMENT A - Page 45 52
CIP Prioritization
ATTACHMENT A - Page 46 53
CIP Prioritization
ATTACHMENT A - Page 47 54
CIP Prioritization
ATTACHMENT A - Page 48 55
CIP Prioritization
ATTACHMENT A - Page 49 56
CIP Prioritization
ATTACHMENT A - Page 50 57
CIP Prioritization
ATTACHMENT A - Page 51 58
CIP Prioritization
ATTACHMENT A - Page 52 59
CIP Prioritization
ATTACHMENT A - Page 53 60
CIP Prioritization
ATTACHMENT A - Page 54 61
CIP Prioritization
ATTACHMENT A - Page 55 62
CIP Prioritization
ATTACHMENT A - Page 56 63
CIP Prioritization
ATTACHMENT A - Page 57 64
CIP Prioritization
ATTACHMENT A - Page 58 65
CIP Prioritization
ATTACHMENT A - Page 59 66
CIP Prioritization
ATTACHMENT A - Page 60 67
CIP Prioritization
ATTACHMENT A - Page 61 68
CIP Prioritization
ATTACHMENT A - Page 62 69
CIP Prioritization
ATTACHMENT A - Page 63 70
CIP Prioritization
ATTACHMENT A - Page 64 71
CIP Prioritization
ATTACHMENT A - Page 65 72
CIP Prioritization
ATTACHMENT A - Page 66 73
CIP Prioritization
ATTACHMENT A - Page 67 74
CIP Prioritization
ATTACHMENT A - Page 68 75
CIP Prioritization
ATTACHMENT A - Page 69 76
CIP Prioritization
ATTACHMENT A - Page 70 77
CIP Prioritization
ATTACHMENT A - Page 71 78
CIP Prioritization
ATTACHMENT A - Page 72 79
CIP Prioritization
ATTACHMENT A - Page 73 80
CIP Prioritization
ATTACHMENT A - Page 74 81
CIP Prioritization
ATTACHMENT A - Page 75 82
CIP Prioritization
ATTACHMENT A - Page 76 83
CIP Prioritization
ATTACHMENT A - Page 77 84
CIP Prioritization
ATTACHMENT A - Page 78 85
CIP Prioritization
ATTACHMENT A - Page 79 86
CIP Prioritization
ATTACHMENT A - Page 80 87
CIP Prioritization
ATTACHMENT A - Page 81 88
CIP Prioritization
ATTACHMENT A - Page 82 89
CIP Prioritization
ATTACHMENT A - Page 83 90
CIP Prioritization
ATTACHMENT A - Page 84 91
CIP Prioritization
ATTACHMENT A - Page 85 92
CIP Prioritization
ATTACHMENT A - Page 86 93
CIP Prioritization
ATTACHMENT A - Page 87 94
CIP Prioritization
ATTACHMENT A - Page 88 95
CIP Prioritization
ATTACHMENT A - Page 89 96
CIP Prioritization
ATTACHMENT A - Page 90 97
CIP Prioritization
ATTACHMENT A - Page 91 98
CIP Prioritization
ATTACHMENT A - Page 92 99
2023-24 CIP Nominated Project: Village Outdoor Dining Improvements
Survey of Outdoor Dining Program Subsidies
March 9, 2023
Page 1
At their February 10 discussion of the Capital Improvement Program (CIP), City Council requested
a survey of outdoor dining program subsidies in other communities. The following summarizes
data collected by Public Works.
Town of Los Gatos
Los Gatos has a formal guideline for approval of permanent parklets. The Town provides three
standard design options to choose from. Permit fees in the amount $4,800 is subsidized by the
Town. A design fee of $3,900 is required for each project. The estimated construction cost of
$40,000 is also subsidized by the Town.
City of Santa Cruz
Santa Cruz is in the process of developing guidelines for permeant outdoor expansion for
restaurants and retail and have extended their temporary program until then. They anticipate
waiving City permit fees and fund a loan program of up to $50,000 at 3.75% with $25,000 forgiven
over 5 years.
City of Santa Rosa
Santa Rosa has a parklet program with straight forward guidelines. Construction plans go through
a design and permitting process that allows businesses to propose unique designs. The applicant
is required to obtain an encroachment permit which is 12% of the construction estimate in addition
to the cost of construction.
City of Pleasanton
Pleasanton has a parklet design review process that includes standard designs and materials to
assist the applicant. A $1,000 encroachment permit fee is required of the applicant in addition to
the cost of construction.
City of Sacramento
Sacramento has a parklet program manual that is extensive and difficult to navigate. The process
requires many steps and approvals before construction can begin. Project sponsors are required
to pay for design and permit fees and cost of construction. Permit fees are approximately $2,000.
100
2023-24 CIP Nominated Project: Village Outdoor Dining Improvements
Survey of Outdoor Dining Program Subsidies
March 9, 2023
Page 2
City of San Francisco
San Francisco outdoor use program is called Shared Spaces. They have developed a very
complex manual for the endless uses allowed in the program. San Francisco charges an
occupancy fee that ranges from $1,000 to $3,000 for the first space and $250 to $1,500 for each
additional space. An annual license fee is required that ranges from $100 to $2,000. The
different fees are based on the type of occupancy and applicant is required to pay for construction.
City of Napa
Napa’s parklet guidelines uses San Francisco’s parklet and shared spaces manuals for its design
parameters. Napa intends to refer to these guidelines until they develop their own. A flat permit
fee of $620 required and the applicant is required to pay for construction.
City of Sebastopol
Sebastopol is in the process of determining if a permanent parklet program will be established.
Like Saratoga they have a Caltrans highway running through their downtown. They haven’t
developed guidelines and permit fees have not been established. However, Sebastopol City
Council set aside approximately $100,000 in their current budget for a future parklet program.
101
From:Kookie Fitzsimmons
To:Bill Dalton; Belal Aftab; Chuck Page; Tina Walia; Yan Zhao
Cc:James Lindsay; Crystal Bothelio; Britt Avrit
Subject:Re: Regarding the Village Outdoor Dining
Date:Monday, February 27, 2023 5:01:03 PM
Hello Bill,
Thank you for sharing your thoughts on the CIP budget. Your email will be included as written
remarks for the March 15 CIP Prioritization Study Session when staff has been asked to provide the
City Council with additional information on how other communities have handled parklets for
outdoor dining. You are also welcome to join us in person at 6:00 p.m. in the Linda Callon
Conference Room or through Zoom (access information will be available on the agenda when it is
posted online).
Sincerely,
Kookie Fitzsimmons, Mayor
City of Saratoga
From: Bill Dalton
Sent: Monday, February 27, 2023 9:37 AM
To: Belal Aftab <baftab@saratoga.ca.us>; Chuck Page <cpage@saratoga.ca.us>; Kookie Fitzsimmons
<kookie@saratoga.ca.us>; Tina Walia <twalia@saratoga.ca.us>; Yan Zhao <yzhao@saratoga.ca.us>
Cc: James Lindsay <jlindsay@saratoga.ca.us>; Bill Dalton >
Subject: Regarding the Village Outdoor Dining
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when
opening attachments or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Mayor and Council Members,
After more thinking about the proposed Village Outdoor Dining Improvement CIP
project I have the following comments which differ from what I stated at the Friday
Feb 10 council meeting.
1) I support the idea -- no change
2) Who pays for the improvement -- changed
After considering Belal's comment, I feel the city should not be paying for the
improvements. What if for example, a retail business would like the sidewalk widened
so as to allow the display of merchandise. Maybe others would like other changes.
The property owner should pay the design and construction costs. The property
owner can negotiate with the business owner any adjustments to the property lease.
You will find out very soon if it's worth doing.
If the city covers staff time negotiating permission with CalTrans, managing the
design, contract award, and construction; that's more than enough by the city. Some
102
my feel the property owner should also pay for these.
Thank you,
Bill Dalton
103
CITY OF SARATOGA
Memorandum
To: Mayor Fitzsimmons & Members of the Saratoga City Council
From: Britt Avrit, City Clerk
Meeting Date: March 15, 2023
Subject: Written Communications, Study Session Item
Following publication of the agenda packet for the March 15, 2023 City Council Study Session,
written communications were submitted for the Item on the agenda. The communications are
attached to this memo.
104
From:noreply@civicplus.com
To:Chuck Page; Yan Zhao; Belal Aftab; Tina Walia; Kookie Fitzsimmons; James Lindsay; Britt Avrit; Crystal Bothelio
Subject:Online Form Submittal: Council Comments Form
Date:Sunday, March 12, 2023 3:04:21 PM
CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments
or clicking links, especially from unknown senders.
Council Comments Form
Your Name Stan Bogosian
Phone Number
Email Address
Subject Possible Conflict of Interest RE: Village Parklets
Comments Honorable Mayor and Members of the City Council:
RE: March 15, 2023 Capital Improvement Project: Village
Parklets Discussion (Attachment A p. 79-80)
I would like to know if there is a conflict of interest for Mayor
Fitzsimmons and Councilmember Page to continue to participate
in the discussion and the decision on the city funding of the
Village Parklet issue. My understanding is that Mayor
Fitzsimmons owns/has an interest in a parcel(s) of real estate in
the Village, and previously had recused herself from the Housing
Element Discussion/Decision on the designation of the Village
East opportunity site.
It is also my understanding that Councilmember Page rents or
otherwise occupies space for his insurance agency in the
Chamber of Commerce office in the Village.
In the interest of transparency, the people of Saratoga need to
know if a conflict of interest exists for Mayor Fitzsimmons and
Councilmember Page on this agenda item.
Thank You,
Stan Bogosian
CC: City Manager James Lindsay
City Attorney Richard Taylor
Email Subscription Subscribe
Email not displaying correctly? View it in your browser.
105
2023-24
Capital Improvement Program
Prioritization Study Session
March 15, 2023
106
•Review draft 2023-24 Capital Improvement
Program (CIP) Prioritization Packet
•Provide direction for April 5 CIP action item
Action Summary
107
Item
General
Fund
Other City
Funds Total
Revenues and Resources
General Fund Future Capital Reserve $3,509,000 $ -$3,509,000
Estimated 2023-24 CIP Dedicated Revenue -2,635,000 2,635,000
Projected Unallocated Streets CIP Fund Balance -250,000 250,000
Total 3,509,000 2,885,000 6,394,000
(Expenditures)
CIP Priority Funding and Funding Goals (900,000)(2,635,000)(3,535,000)
2023-24 Funding Increases to Existing Projects (752,000)-(752,000)
Nominated Projects (520,000)-(520,000)
Total (2,172,000)(2,635,000)(4,807,000)
Total Available/(Required)$1,337,000 $250,000 $1,587,000
Summary
108
(Expenditures) CIP Priority Funding & Funding Goals
Item
General CIP
Fund
Other City
Funds Total
Annual Pavement Management Program $-$(2,600,000)$(2,600,000)
Annual Roadway Safety & Traffic Calming (150,000)-(150,000)
Annual Sidewalks, Curbs & Gutters, Storm Drains, Bridges (250,000)-(250,000)
Annual Retaining Wall Maintenance and Repairs (200,000)-(200,000)
Annual Parks, Trails, Grounds & Medians Infrastructure (250,000)-(250,000)
Annual Public Art Infrastructure (25,000)-(25,000)
Annual Hakone Gardens Infrastructure Improvements (25,000)-(25,000)
Annual Civic Theater Improvements -(35,000)(35,000)
Priority Funding & Funding Goals subtotal $(900,000)$(2,635,000)$(3,535,000)
109
Item
General CIP
Fund
Other City
Funds Total
Safe Routes to School Implementation Plan (160,000)-(160,000)
Fourth Street Bridge Widening (42,000)-(42,000)
Park & Trail Fire Mitigation (100,000)-(100,000)
ADA Transition Plan Implementation (100,000)-(100,000)
Bridge Rehabilitation Project (350,000)-(350,000)
Funding Increases to Existing Projects subtotal (752,000)-(752,000)
(Expenditures)2023-24 Funding Increases to Existing Projects
110
Unfunded CIP Projects
Project
2022-23
Unfunded
State Route 85/Saratoga Avenue Beautification 250,000
Saratoga Avenue at Herriman Traffic Signal Installation 375,000
Saratoga Avenue at Highway 85 Traffic Signal Adaptive 150,000
Saratoga Heights Landscape Repair 1,950,000
ADA All-Inclusive Playground 200,000
Quarry Park ADA Access to Upper Terrace Parking Lot and Pond 250,000
Restroom & Shower Trailer 60,000
Fruitvale Avenue Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements 550,000
111
Item
General CIP
Fund
Other City
Funds Total
Annual Corrugated Pipe Rehabilitation Project (300,000)-(300,000)
Village Outdoor Dining Improvements (220,000)-(220,000)
Nominated Projects Subtotal (520,000)-(520,000)
(Expenditures)2023-24 Nominated Projects
112
Thank you
113
114
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE:March 15, 2023
DEPARTMENT:City Manager’s Department
PREPARED BY:Britt Avrit, MMC, City Clerk
SUBJECT:Appointment of Parks & Recreation Commissioner and Planning
Commissioners
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt the Resolution appointing Isabelle Gecils to the Parks & Recreation Commission,
reappointing Anjali Kausar to the Planning Commission, appointing Paul Germeraad to the
Planning Commission; direct the City Clerk to administer the Oaths of Office.
BACKGROUND:
In February, an unexpected vacancy occurred on the Commission with the resignation of
Nimisha Mahuvakar whose term ends September 30, 2025. The unexpected vacancy was posted
pursuant to Government Code 54974. The City Council reconsidered two applicants who were
interviewed on January 18, 2023 and selected Isabelle Gecils to be appointed for a partial term
ending September 30, 2025.
In December 2022,the City opened the recruitment for two full terms on the Planning
Commission that end March 31, 2027. After the deadline, staff received four applications. The
City Council interviewed the applicants on March 1, 2023 and selected Anjali Kausar and Paul
Germeraad to be appointed for full terms.
ATTACHMENT:
Attachment A -Resolution, Parks &Recreation and Planning Commission Appointments
115
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
APPOINTING ISABELLE GECILS TO THE PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION,
REAPPOINTING ANJALI KAUSAR TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION AND
APPOINTING PAUL GERMERAAD TO THE PLANNING COMMISSION
WHEREAS, one vacancy was created on the Parks & Recreation Commission with Nimisha
Mahuvakar’s resignation of her unexpired term effective February 12, 2023;
WHEREAS, the City posted the unscheduled vacancy for the Parks & Recreation
Commission and the City Council reconsidered two applicants who were interviewed on January 18,
2023;
WHEREAS,two vacancies were created on the Planning Commission from the expired terms
of Sunil Ahuja and Anjali Kausar;
WHEREAS, the City announced the Planning Commission vacancies, accepted applications
until February 17, 2023 and the City Council conducted interviews on March 1, 2023.
NOW, THEREFORE,the City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves that the following
individuals are appointed or reappointed to Saratoga’s Commissions as follows:
Isabelle Gecils, Parks & Recreation Commission; Partial Term ending September 30, 2025
Anjali Kausar, Planning Commission; Full Term ending March 31, 2027
Paul Germeraad, Planning Commission; Full Term ending March 31, 2027
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the City of Saratoga City Council on this 15th day of March 2023 by
the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Kookie Fitzsimmons, Mayor
ATTEST:
Britt Avrit, MMC, City Clerk
116
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE:March 15, 2023
DEPARTMENT:City Manager’s Department
PREPARED BY:Janet Costa, Executive Assistant
SUBJECT:Proclamation Recognizing March 2023 as American Red Cross Month
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Present a proclamation recognizing March 2023 as American Red Cross Month to a
representative of the American Red Cross, Silicon Valley Chapter.
BACKGROUND:
The American Red Cross was established in Washington D.C. Every year the American Red Cross
responds to more than 62,000 disasters across the country and collects nearly 40 percent of the
nation’s blood supply. American Red Cross, Silicon Valley Chapter, responded to the 2020
wildfires with 120 volunteers and provided food, shelter, and comfort to individuals and families
in need.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A:Proclamation Recognizing March 2023 as American Red Cross Month
117
PROCLAMATION OF THE CITY COUNCIL
OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
DECLARING MARCH AS
AMERICAN RED CROSS MONTH 2023
WHEREAS, the American Red Cross was established in 1881 in Washington D.C by Clara
Barton and is now one of the largest humanitarian organizations in the world; and
WHEREAS, the American Red Cross, through its strong network of volunteers, donors, and
partners is always there in times of need by alleviating human suffering; and
WHEREAS, every year the American Red Cross responds to an average of more than
62,000 disasters across the country, including mudslides in California, a volcano in Hawaii,
destructive hurricanes in Florida and the Carolinas, and wildfires in Colorado and California;
WHEREAS, the American Red Cross collects nearly 40 percent of the nation’s blood
supply, provides 24-hour support to military members, veterans and their families, teaches millions
lifesaving skills, such as lifeguarding and CPR, provides international humanitarian aid, and shelters,
feeds, and provides emotional support to victims of disasters; and
WHEREAS, the American Red Cross would like to remember the volunteers, donors, and
heroes in the City of Saratoga who work tirelessly to assist their neighbors in times of need and to
support the American Red Cross, Silicon Valley Chapter; and
WHEREAS, when the August 2020 wildfires occurred in Santa Clara County, the American
Red Cross, Silicon Valley Chapter responded by deploying nearly 120 volunteers and provided food,
shelter, and comfort to individuals and families in need; and
WHEREAS, March 2023 is American Red Cross Month and is dedicated to all of those who
support the American Red Cross and its mission to prevent and alleviate human suffering in the face
of emergencies.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Saratoga does
hereby recognize March 2023 as America Red Cross Month and encourage all Saratoga residents to
support this organization and its noble humanitarian mission.
WITNESS MY HAND AND THE SEAL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA this 15th day of
March 2023.
___________________________
Kookie Fitzsimmons, Mayor
City of Saratoga
118
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE:March 15, 2023
DEPARTMENT:City Manager’s Department
PREPARED BY:Britt Avrit, MMC, City Clerk
SUBJECT:City Council Meeting Minutes
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Approve the Minutes for the March 1, 2023 City Council Regular Meeting.
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.
ATTACHMENT:
Attachment A -Minutes for the March 1, 2023 City Council Regular Meeting
119
Saratoga City Council Minutes ~ March 1, 2023 ~ Page 1 of 7
MINUTES
WEDNESDAY, MARCH 1, 2023
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING
At 5:30 p.m., the City Council met to reconsider Jason Tseng and Isabelle Gecils for anunexpected
vacancy for one partial term on the Parks and Recreation Commission.
WALIA/PAGE MOVED TO APPOINT ISABELLE GECILS TO THE PARKS AND
RECREATION COMMISSION FOR A PARTIAL-TERM ENDING SEPTEMBER 30,
2025. MOTION PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: AFTAB, PAGE, WALIA,
ZHAO, FITZSIMMONS. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. RECUSED: NONE. ABSENT:
NONE.
At 5:35 p.m., the City Council held interviews for the Planning Commission.
Vice Mayor Zhao stated she needed to recuse herself from the interview with Planning
Commission applicant Manoj Goel because he is a potential business associate of her husband’s
and left the room while the City Council conducted his interview and during his consideration as
a candidate.
PAGE/WALIA MOVED TO REAPPOINT ANJALI KAUSAR TO THE PLANNING
COMMISSION FOR A FULL-TERM ENDING MARCH 31, 2027. MOTION PASSED BY
THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: AFTAB, PAGE, WALIA, ZHAO, FITZSIMMONS. NOES:
NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. RECUSED: NONE. ABSENT: NONE.
WALIA/ZHAO MOVED TO APPOINT PAUL GERMERAAD TO THE PLANNING
COMMISSION FOR A FULL-TERM ENDING MARCH 31, 2027. MOTION PASSED BY
THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: AFTAB, PAGE, WALIA, ZHAO, FITZSIMMONS. NOES:
NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. RECUSED: NONE. ABSENT: NONE.
Mayor Fitzsimmons called the Regular Session to order at 7:00 p.m.
FITZSIMMONS/ZHAO MOVED TO REORDER THE AGENDA TO PROCEED TO THE
RECOGNITION OF THE GIRL SCOUTS IMMEDIATELY AFTER THE PLEDGE OF
ALLEGIANCE.MOTION PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: AFTAB, PAGE,
WALIA, ZHAO, FITZSIMMONS. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. RECUSED: NONE.
ABSENT: NONE.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT:Mayor Kookie Fitzsimmons, Vice Mayor Yan Zhao, Council Members
Belal Aftab, Chuck Page, Tina Walia
ABSENT:None
ALSO PRESENT:James Lindsay, City Manager
Richard Taylor, City Attorney
Britt Avrit, City Clerk
Nick Pegueros, Administrative Services Director
John Cherbone, Public Works Director
David Dorcich, Associate Engineer
120
Saratoga City Council Minutes ~ March 1, 2023 ~ Page 2 of 7
Mainini Cabute, Environmental Programs Manager
Lauren Blom, Public Information Officer
REPORT ON POSTING OF THE AGENDA
The City Clerk reported the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on February 23, 2023.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ON NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS
Mayor Fitzsimmons invited public comment.
The following individuals spoke at this time:
Razi Mohiuddin discussed privacy and mass as it relates to zoning and the City’s Design
Guidelines.
Bill Dalton discussed staff pay and benefits.
ANNOUNCEMENTS
Mayor Fitzsimmons shared information about Let’s Work Volunteer Day, St. Paddy’s Party, Paint
the City and Commission Recruitments.
CEREMONIAL ITEM
Recognition of Girl Scouts of Saratoga
Recommended Action:
Present Certificates of Recognition to Girl Scouts of Saratoga to commend their volunteer
efforts in receiving The President’s Volunteer Service Awards.
The City Council presented Certificates of Recognition to Girl Scouts of Saratoga and
commended their volunteer efforts in receiving The President’s Volunteer Service Awards.
Proclamation Declaring March 2023 as Youth Art Month
Recommended Action:
Present the proclamation declaring March 2023 as Youth Art Month.
The City Council proclaimed March 2023 as Youth Art Month.
1.CONSENT CALENDAR
Mayor Fitzsimmons invited public comment on the Consent Calendar.
The following individuals spoke at this time: Bill Dalton
1.1. City Council Meeting Minutes
Recommended Action:
Approve the Minutes for the February 10, 2023 City Council Special Meeting and the
February 15, 2023 City Council Regular Meeting.
121
Saratoga City Council Minutes ~ March 1, 2023 ~ Page 3 of 7
PAGE/AFTAB MOVED TO APPROVE THE MINUTES FOR THE FEBRUARY 10,
2023 CITY COUNCIL SPECIAL MEETING AND THE FEBRUARY 15, 2023 CITY
COUNCIL REGULAR MEETING.MOTION PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE:
AYES: AFTAB, PAGE, WALIA, ZHAO, FITZSIMMONS. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN:
NONE. RECUSED: 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:
2/7/23 Period 8; 2/13/23 Period 8.
PAGE/AFTAB MOVED TO REVIEW AND ACCEPT CHECK REGISTERS FOR THE
FOLLOWING ACCOUNTS PAYABLE PAYMENT CYCLES:2/7/23 PERIOD 8;
2/13/23 PERIOD 8.MOTION PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: AFTAB,
PAGE, WALIA, ZHAO, FITZSIMMONS. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. RECUSED:
NONE. ABSENT: NONE.
1.3. Treasurer’s Report for the Month Ended January 31, 2023
Recommended Action:
Review and accept the Treasurer’s Report for the month ended January 31, 2023.
PAGE/AFTAB MOVED TO REVIEW AND ACCEPT THE TREASURER’S REPORT
FOR THE MONTH ENDED JANUARY 31, 2023.MOTION PASSED BY THE
FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: AFTAB, PAGE, WALIA, ZHAO, FITZSIMMONS. NOES:
NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. RECUSED: NONE. ABSENT: NONE.
1.4. Final Map Approval for Two Lots Located at 20615 Leonard Road
Recommended Action:
Adopt the Resolution granting final map approval of parcel map application No. SUB22-
0002 for two lots located at 20615 Leonard Road (APN: 503 19 073).
RESOLUTION 23-010
PAGE/AFTAB MOVED TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION GRANTING FINAL MAP
APPROVAL OF PARCEL MAP APPLICATION NO. SUB22-0002 FOR TWO LOTS
LOCATED AT 20615 LEONARD ROAD (APN: 503 19 073).MOTION PASSED BY
THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: AFTAB, PAGE, WALIA, ZHAO, FITZSIMMONS.
NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. RECUSED: NONE. ABSENT: NONE.
1.5. Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program Agreement- Fourth
Amendment
Recommended Action:
1. Authorize the City Manager to execute a Fourth Amendment to the Santa Clara Valley
Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program (SCVURPPP) Agreement.
2. Appoint the West Valley Clean Water Authority Executive Director as the SCVURPPP
Representative for the City.
122
Saratoga City Council Minutes ~ March 1, 2023 ~ Page 4 of 7
PAGE/AFTAB MOVED TO AUTHORIZE THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A
FOURTH AMENDMENT TO THE SANTA CLARA VALLEY URBAN RUNOFF
POLLUTION PREVENTION PROGRAM (SCVURPPP) AGREEMENT AND
APPOINT THE WEST VALLEY CLEAN WATER AUTHORITY EXECUTIVE
DIRECTOR AS THE SCVURPPP REPRESENTATIVE FOR THE CITY.MOTION
PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: AFTAB, PAGE, WALIA, ZHAO,
FITZSIMMONS. NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. RECUSED: NONE. ABSENT:
NONE.
2.GENERAL BUSINESS
2.1. Review of projects subject to Public Resources Code section 4290 concerning
development in Very High Fire Hazard Severity Zones
Recommended Action:
Adopt the Resolution establishing a process for review of development applications subject
to Public Resources Code section 4290 concerning development in Very High Fire Hazard
Severity Zones.
Richard Taylor, City Attorney presented the staff report.
Mayor Fitzsimmons invited public comment.
The following individuals spoke at this time: Stan Bogosian, Bill Dalton, Nancy Lietzke,
Sukhinder Sahota, Glenda Aune, Mike Smith, Harry & Rosemary Wong, Mohini, Gary
Kohlsaat, Litsung, Cheriel Jensen
WALIA MOVED TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A PROCESS
FOR REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS SUBJECT TO PUBLIC
RESOURCES CODE SECTION 4290 CONCERNING DEVELOPMENT IN VERY
HIGH FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONES AMENDING THE ‘NOW THEREFORE’
SENTENCE IN THE RESOLUTION TO INCLUDE “THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SARATOGA HEREBY DETERMINES THAT APPLICATIONS FOR
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES (INCLUDING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS
AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES) ON EXISTING LOTS ON EXISTING ROADS
THAT DO NOT REQUIRE CONDITIONAL USE PERMITS IN THE VERY HIGH
FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONE SUBJECT TO THE FIRE SAFE REGULATIONS
SHALL BE PROCESSED AS FOLLOWS…”
Motion failed for lack of a second.
Additional discussion took place.
123
Saratoga City Council Minutes ~ March 1, 2023 ~ Page 5 of 7
PAGE MOVED TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A PROCESS FOR
REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS SUBJECT TO PUBLIC
RESOURCES CODE SECTION 4290 CONCERNING DEVELOPMENT IN VERY
HIGH FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONES AMENDING THE ‘NOW THEREFORE’
SENTENCE IN THE RESOLUTION TO INCLUDE “THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE
CITY OF SARATOGA HEREBY DETERMINES THAT APPLICATIONS FOR
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES (INCLUDING ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS
AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES) ON EXISTING LOTS ON EXISTING ROADS
IN THE VERY HIGH FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONE SUBJECT TO THE FIRE
SAFE REGULATIONS SHALL BE PROCESSED AS FOLLOWS…”
Motion failed for lack of a second.
Additional discussion took place.
RESOLUTION 23-011
WALIA/PAGE MOVED TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION ESTABLISHING A
PROCESS FOR REVIEW OF DEVELOPMENT APPLICATIONS SUBJECT TO
PUBLIC RESOURCES CODE SECTION 4290 CONCERNING DEVELOPMENT IN
VERY HIGH FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONES AMENDING THE ‘NOW
THEREFORE’ SENTENCE IN THE RESOLUTION TO READ “ THE CITY
COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA HEREBY DETERMINES THAT
APPLICATIONS FOR SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCES (INCLUDING
ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS AND ACCESSORY STRUCTURES) ON
EXISTING LOTS ON EXISTING ROADS THAT DO NOT REQUIRE A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT UNRELATED TO THE RESIDENTIAL USE IN THE
VERY HIGH FIRE HAZARD SEVERITY ZONE SUBJECT TO THE FIRE SAFE
REGULATIONS SHALL BE PROCESSED AS FOLLOWS…”.MOTION PASSED BY
THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: AFTAB, PAGE, WALIA, ZHAO, FITZSIMMONS.
NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. RECUSED: NONE. ABSENT: NONE.
2.2. Mid-year Budget Amendment
Recommended Action:
Adopt the Resolution amending the 2022-23 City Council adopted budget.
Nick Pegueros, Administrative Services Director presented the staff report.
Mayor Fitzsimmons invited public comment.
No one requested to speak.
RESOLUTION 23-012
ZHAO/WALIA MOVED TO ADOPT THE RESOLUTION AMENDING THE 2022-23
CITY COUNCIL ADOPTED BUDGET.MOTION PASSED BY THE FOLLOWING
VOTE: AYES: AFTAB, PAGE, WALIA, ZHAO, FITZSIMMONS. NOES: NONE.
ABSTAIN: NONE. RECUSED: NONE. ABSENT: NONE.
124
Saratoga City Council Minutes ~ March 1, 2023 ~ Page 6 of 7
COUNCIL ASSIGNMENTS
Council Member Tina Walia
Silicon Valley Clean Energy Authority Board of Directors – stated she attended two Committee
meetings for Silicon Valley Clean Energy Authority; the Executive Committee and the Finance
and Administrative Committee meeting with nothing to report.
Council Member Chuck Page
Nothing to report
Council Member Belal Aftab
Saratoga Historical Foundation Board of Directors – stated the Foundation will be holding a
fundraiser on July 22, 2023 and the Blacksmith exhibit is expected to be open in the next couple
of months.
Vice Mayor Yan Zhao
Nothing to report
Mayor Kookie Fitzsimmons
Hakone Foundation Executive Board -stated the Mon project is expected to be completeonMarch
2, 2023, the upper pathway is nearly complete, and tickets for Hanami, the night viewing event of
the cherry blossoms, will go on sale soon.
CITY COUNCIL ITEMS
None
COUNCIL COMMUNICATIONS
None
CITY MANAGER'S REPORT
None
CITY ATTORNEY'S REPORT
None
ADJOURNMENT
PAGE/WALIA MOVED TO ADJOURN THE MEETING AT 9:09 P.M.MOTION PASSED
BY THE FOLLOWING VOTE: AYES: AFTAB, PAGE, WALIA, ZHAO, FITZSIMMONS.
NOES: NONE. ABSTAIN: NONE. RECUSED: NONE. ABSENT: NONE.
Minutes respectfully submitted:
Britt Avrit, City Clerk
125
Saratoga City Council Minutes ~ March 1, 2023 ~ Page 7 of 7
City of Saratoga
126
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: March 15, 2023
DEPARTMENT: Administrative Services - Finance
PREPARED BY: Vivian Lu, Accounting Technician
SUBJECT: Review of Accounts Payable Check Registers
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Review and accept check registers for the following accounts payable payment cycles:
2/23/23 Period 8; 3/1/23 Period 9.
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.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A - 2/23/23 Check Register in the ‘A/P Checks by Period and Year’ report format
Attachment B - 3/1/23 Check Register in the ‘A/P Checks by Period and Year’ report format
REPORT SUMMARY:
Attached are Check Registers for:
Date
Ending
Check #
2/23/2023 146867 146936 70 1,147,724.40 2/23/2023 2/13/2023 146866
3/1/2023 146937 146980 44 182,140.79 3/1/2023 2/23/2023 146936
Accounts Payable checks issued for $20,000 or greater:
Date Check #Dept.Amount
2/23/2023 146869 Able Septic Tank 2023 Storm Fund PW Storm Project - Pierce Rd & Montalvo Rd 31,180.00
2/23/2023 146906 SCC Off of the Sheriff General Fund ASD Law Enforcement February 2023 612,754.50
2/23/2023 146907 O'Grady Paving Inc CIP Street Project Fund PW 2022 Pavement Management 26,400.02
2/23/2023 146908 O'Grady Paving Inc CIP Street Project Fund PW Pierce Road Project 33,500.00
2/23/2023 146909 O'Grady Paving Inc 2023 Storm Fund PW Storm Project - Emergency Sweeping & Potholes Repairs 72,682.50
2/23/2023 146926 The Bank of New York Arrowhead Bond ASD Interest Payment 44,685.72
2/23/2023 146928 Urban Planning Partners CIP Admin Project Fund CDD November & December Housing Element Update 84,728.18
2/23/2023 146933 Vista Landscape & Maintenance Various Funds PW November & December Citywide Landscape Services 33,794.00
3/1/2023 146947 Duran & Venables Inc CIP Street Project Fund PW Sobey Rd Speed Project 41,468.00
3/1/2023 146948 Evans West Valley Spray General Fund PW Weed Control/Abatement 26,800.00
Accounts Payable checks voided during this time period:
AP Date Check #Amount
N/A
Accounts Payable
Accounts Payable
Ending Check
#
Starting
Check #Type of Checks Date
Prior Check Register
Checks ReleasedTotal Checks Amount
Fund Purpose
StatusReason Issued to
Issued to
127
SUNGARD PUBLIC SECTOR PAGE NUMBER: 1
DATE: 02/23/2023 CITY OF SARATOGA VENCHK11
TIME: 19:18:10 CHECK REGISTER - FUND TOTALS ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 8/23
FUND FUND TITLE AMOUNT
111 GENERAL FUND 719,009.01
214 2023 STORM FUND 143,739.85
233 SARAHILLS LIGHTING DIST 236.88
241 ARROYO DE SARATOGA LNDSCP 640.21
242 BONNET WAY LANDSCAPE 393.06
243 CARNELIAN GLEN LANDSCAPE 300.00
244 CUNNINGHAM/GLASGOW LND 552.58
245 FREDERICKSBURG LANDSCAPE 328.56
246 GREENBRIAR LANDSCAPE 1,770.62
247 KERWIN RANCH LANDSCAPE 390.00
248 LEUTAR COURT LANDSCAPE 615.57
249 MANOR DRIVE LANDSCAPE 600.00
251 MCCARTYSVILLE LANDSCAPE 851.12
252 PRIDES CROSSING LANDSCAPE 856.36
253 SARATOGA LEGEND LANDSCAPE 200.00
254 SUNLAND PARK LANDSCAPE 1,794.00
255 TRICIA WOODS LANDSCAPE 100.00
256 ALLENDALE LANDSCAPE 150.00
257 COVINA LANDSCAPING DIST 996.48
271 BEUACHAMPS L&L 662.94
272 BELLGROVE L&L 9,394.34
273 GATEWAY L&L 1,258.50
274 HORSESHOE DRIVE L&L 159.53
276 TOLLGATE L&L 117.70
278 WESTBROOK L&L 100.00
279 BROOKVIEW L&L 471.21
292 PARAMOUNT COURT SWD 606.81
361 ARROWHEAD BOND 45,235.72
411 CIP STREET PROJECTS FUND 77,895.87
414 CIP ADMIN PROJECTS FUND 87,820.18
435 ARPA/SLFRF FUND 822.50
612 WORKERS COMP FUND 289.92
621 OFFICE SUPPORT 206.21
622 IT SERVICES 10,255.97
623 VEHICLE & EQUIPMENT MAINT 4,942.56
624 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 23,028.21
632 IT EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT 5,220.60
633 BUILDING FFE REPLACEMENT 278.58
713 WVCWP AGENCY FUND 5,432.75
TOTAL REPORT 1,147,724.40
128
SUNGARD PUBLIC SECTOR PAGE NUMBER: 1
DATE: 02/23/2023 CITY OF SARATOGA VENCHK11
TIME: 19:16:42 CHECK REGISTER ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 8/23
FUND - 009 - DISBURSEMENT FUND
CHECK NUMBER CASH ACCT DATE ISSUED --------------VENDOR-------------- ACCT -------DESCRIPTION------- AMOUNT
146867 11111 02/23/23 1566 A JUSTICE DESIGN 61313 UNIFORMS 54.04
146868 11111 02/23/23 234 A T & T 63211 MONTHLY RECUR CHARGES 167.43
146868 11111 02/23/23 234 A T & T 63211 PROSPECT CENTER 129.70
146868 11111 02/23/23 234 A T & T 63211 BLANEY IRRIGATION 27.28
146868 11111 02/23/23 234 A T & T 63211 PRSPCT CTR EMER ALARM 294.83
146868 11111 02/23/23 234 A T & T 63211 CRP YRD EMER POTS LNS 53.73
146868 11111 02/23/23 234 A T & T 63211 ALARM SYS CIVIC THTR 259.38
146868 11111 02/23/23 234 A T & T 63211 SENIOR CENTER ALARMS 53.17
TOTAL CHECK 985.52
146869 11111 02/23/23 1130 ABLE SEPTIC TANK SVC 81161 STORM PROJECT-INSTALL 1,790.00
146869 11111 02/23/23 1130 ABLE SEPTIC TANK SVC 64583 STORM PROJECT-PIERCE 29,390.00
TOTAL CHECK 31,180.00
146870 11111 02/23/23 35 ACCENT GRAPHICS 61111 OFFICE SUPPLIES 182.32
146870 11111 02/23/23 35 ACCENT GRAPHICS 61111 OFFICE SUPPLIES 24.56
146870 11111 02/23/23 35 ACCENT GRAPHICS 61111 OFFICE SUPPLIES 48.68
146870 11111 02/23/23 35 ACCENT GRAPHICS 61111 OFFICE SUPPLIES 48.73
146870 11111 02/23/23 35 ACCENT GRAPHICS 61111 OFFICE SUPPLIES 194.92
146870 11111 02/23/23 35 ACCENT GRAPHICS 61111 OFFICE SUPPLIES 97.46
TOTAL CHECK 596.67
146871 11111 02/23/23 500 ANAND PRADHAN 22113 REF BD DEP ARB21-0111 6,860.00
146871 11111 02/23/23 500 ANAND PRADHAN 22111 REF DEP ARB21-0111 769.77
TOTAL CHECK 7,629.77
146872 11111 02/23/23 1600 ARTICULATE SOLUTIONS, INC 64313 WVCWP OUTREACH SPPL 969.75
146873 11111 02/23/23 1763 BAY AREA TRAFFIC SOLUTION 64583 STORM PROJECT-PIERCE 545.60
146873 11111 02/23/23 1763 BAY AREA TRAFFIC SOLUTION 64583 STORM PROJECT-PIERCE 3,007.42
146873 11111 02/23/23 1763 BAY AREA TRAFFIC SOLUTION 64583 STORM PROJECT-PIERCE 14,950.00
TOTAL CHECK 18,503.02
146874 11111 02/23/23 1137 BEAR ELECTRICAL SOLUTIONS 64537 STREETLIGHTS MAINT 660.00
146874 11111 02/23/23 1137 BEAR ELECTRICAL SOLUTIONS 64537 PROSPECT LIGHTS MAINT 1,550.00
TOTAL CHECK 2,210.00
146875 11111 02/23/23 130 CDW GOVERNMENT 61271 LAPTOPS 4,761.15
146875 11111 02/23/23 130 CDW GOVERNMENT 61271 RECYCLE FEE 25.00
146875 11111 02/23/23 130 CDW GOVERNMENT 61271 SALES TAX 434.45
TOTAL CHECK 5,220.60
146876 11111 02/23/23 500 CHARLES RADER 66111 REIMB CERT SUPPLY 78.27
146877 11111 02/23/23 179 CIM AIR, INC 64514 HVAC THEATER CONTROLS 2,500.00
146878 11111 02/23/23 188 CITY OF CAMPBELL 62624 WVCWP 22/23 MAR LEASE 1,967.00
146879 11111 02/23/23 1640 CLOUDCOMPLI, INC. 64311 WVCWP IT SERVICES 2,496.00
146880 11111 02/23/23 1152 CORODATA RECORDS MANAGEME 62631 JAN RECORDS STORAGE 206.21
146881 11111 02/23/23 573 STATE OF CALIFORNIA 64533 OCT-DEC SIG & LIGHTS 1,588.13
146882 11111 02/23/23 1717 DINSMORE LANDSCAPE COMPAN 64541 FEB AZULE PARK 715.00
129
SUNGARD PUBLIC SECTOR PAGE NUMBER: 2
DATE: 02/23/2023 CITY OF SARATOGA VENCHK11
TIME: 19:16:42 CHECK REGISTER ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 8/23
FUND - 009 - DISBURSEMENT FUND
CHECK NUMBER CASH ACCT DATE ISSUED --------------VENDOR-------------- ACCT -------DESCRIPTION------- AMOUNT
146882 11111 02/23/23 1717 DINSMORE LANDSCAPE COMPAN 64541 FEB BROOKGLEN PARK 120.00
146882 11111 02/23/23 1717 DINSMORE LANDSCAPE COMPAN 64541 FEB FOOTHILL PARK 191.00
146882 11111 02/23/23 1717 DINSMORE LANDSCAPE COMPAN 64541 FEB GARDINER PARK 191.00
146882 11111 02/23/23 1717 DINSMORE LANDSCAPE COMPAN 64547 FEB PRODES CROSSING 268.00
146882 11111 02/23/23 1717 DINSMORE LANDSCAPE COMPAN 64543 FEB PROSPECT MEDIANS 417.00
146882 11111 02/23/23 1717 DINSMORE LANDSCAPE COMPAN 64541 FEB RAVENWOOD PARK 120.00
146882 11111 02/23/23 1717 DINSMORE LANDSCAPE COMPAN 64555 FEB TRL DOG STATIONS 652.00
146882 11111 02/23/23 1717 DINSMORE LANDSCAPE COMPAN 64212 STORM PROJECT-REPAIR 924.49
146882 11111 02/23/23 1717 DINSMORE LANDSCAPE COMPAN 64212 STORM PROJECT-REPAIR 924.49
146882 11111 02/23/23 1717 DINSMORE LANDSCAPE COMPAN 64212 STORM PROJECT-REPAIR 982.08
TOTAL CHECK 5,505.06
146883 11111 02/23/23 378 EKIM PAINTING - NORTH, IN 64528 CDD LOBBY REPAIRS 9,200.00
146884 11111 02/23/23 1655 EVANGELINE BUNDANG 61112 POSTAGE REIMB 8.05
146885 11111 02/23/23 454 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEM 64543 FEB ALLENDALE MEDIANS 150.00
146885 11111 02/23/23 454 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEM 64547 FEB ALLNDALE/HARLEIGH 150.00
146885 11111 02/23/23 454 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEM 64543 FEB AUSTIN WAY 100.00
146885 11111 02/23/23 454 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEM 64541 FEB BEAUCHAMPS PARK 360.00
146885 11111 02/23/23 454 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEM 64541 FEB BLANEY PLAZA 300.00
146885 11111 02/23/23 454 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEM 64547 FEB BROOKGLEN LLA 175.00
146885 11111 02/23/23 454 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEM 64543 FEB CANYON VIEW/ELVA 45.00
146885 11111 02/23/23 454 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEM 64541 FEB CONGRESS SPRINGS 600.00
146885 11111 02/23/23 454 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEM 64547 FEB COVINA LLA 105.00
146885 11111 02/23/23 454 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEM 64221 FEB DOWNTOWN LNDSCAPE 700.00
146885 11111 02/23/23 454 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEM 64221 FEB DOWNTOWN TRASH 200.00
146885 11111 02/23/23 454 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEM 64547 FEB FREDRICKSBURG LLA 215.00
146885 11111 02/23/23 454 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEM 64547 FEB HORSESHOE LLA 150.00
146885 11111 02/23/23 454 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEM 64543 FEB HWY 9/VICKERY 57.00
146885 11111 02/23/23 454 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEM 64547 FEB KERWIN RANCH LLA 390.00
146885 11111 02/23/23 454 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEM 64547 FEB LEGENDS LLA 200.00
146885 11111 02/23/23 454 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEM 64548 FEB LIBRARY 688.00
146885 11111 02/23/23 454 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEM 64547 FEB MCCARTYSVILLE LLA 325.00
146885 11111 02/23/23 454 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEM 64543 FEB PALO OAKS/COX AVE 132.00
146885 11111 02/23/23 454 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEM 64547 FEB PARAMOUNT LLA 495.00
146885 11111 02/23/23 454 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEM 64541 FEB PARK TRASH DETAIL 575.00
146885 11111 02/23/23 454 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEM 64542 FEB PROSPECT CENTER 600.00
146885 11111 02/23/23 454 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEM 64543 FEB QUITO/MARTHA 150.00
146885 11111 02/23/23 454 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEM 64543 FEB SARATOGA/KOSICH 85.00
146885 11111 02/23/23 454 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEM 64543 FEB SEAGRAVES 100.00
146885 11111 02/23/23 454 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEM 64547 FEB TOLLGATE LLA 100.00
146885 11111 02/23/23 454 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEM 64547 FEB TRICIA WOODS LLA 100.00
146885 11111 02/23/23 454 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEM 64543 FEB TRINITY 40.00
146885 11111 02/23/23 454 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEM 64547 FEB WESTBROOK LLA 100.00
146885 11111 02/23/23 454 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEM 64543 FEB WORDEN WAY MED 88.00
TOTAL CHECK 7,475.00
146886 11111 02/23/23 454 GACHINA LANDSCAPE MANAGEM 81161 FEB MNTHLY WEED ABATE 884.00
146887 11111 02/23/23 455 GARDENLAND POWER EQUIPMEN 61312 STORM PROJECT-TOOLS 2,173.01
146888 11111 02/23/23 1469 GINA SCOTT 66212 MILEAGE REIMB 180.78
146889 11111 02/23/23 463 GRAINGER 61133 FACILITIES SUPPLIES 37.73
146889 11111 02/23/23 463 GRAINGER 61312 SMALL TOOLS 216.83
130
SUNGARD PUBLIC SECTOR PAGE NUMBER: 3
DATE: 02/23/2023 CITY OF SARATOGA VENCHK11
TIME: 19:16:42 CHECK REGISTER ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 8/23
FUND - 009 - DISBURSEMENT FUND
CHECK NUMBER CASH ACCT DATE ISSUED --------------VENDOR-------------- ACCT -------DESCRIPTION------- AMOUNT
TOTAL CHECK 254.56
146890 11111 02/23/23 463 GRAINGER 81121 STORM PROJECT-SPPL 1,396.12
146891 11111 02/23/23 1608 GREEN HALO SYSTEMS INC. 64323 FEB TRACKING FEE 192.00
146892 11111 02/23/23 14 HYDROTEC IRRIGATION EQUIP 64549 EAST COVINA MAINT 891.48
146892 11111 02/23/23 14 HYDROTEC IRRIGATION EQUIP 81161 MT VISTA PUMP INSTALL 3,220.89
146892 11111 02/23/23 14 HYDROTEC IRRIGATION EQUIP 81161 MT VISTA PUMP MAINT 360.00
146892 11111 02/23/23 14 HYDROTEC IRRIGATION EQUIP 77252 WHH BACK STEP REPAIRS 278.58
146892 11111 02/23/23 14 HYDROTEC IRRIGATION EQUIP 64549 FRUITVALE MED MAINT 76.00
146892 11111 02/23/23 14 HYDROTEC IRRIGATION EQUIP 81161 MT VISTA PIPE REPAIRS 11,474.71
TOTAL CHECK 16,301.66
146893 11111 02/23/23 63 INTERSTATE TRAFFIC CONTRO 81121 STREETS SUPPLIES 2,056.25
146894 11111 02/23/23 500 JOHN SUHR 22111 REF DEP ARB20-0001 5.02
146895 11111 02/23/23 500 KATHY HOGLAN 41411 REF BUS-000505 100.00
146895 11111 02/23/23 500 KATHY HOGLAN 21931 REF BUS-000505 .40
146895 11111 02/23/23 500 KATHY HOGLAN 43473 REF BUS-000505 3.60
TOTAL CHECK 104.00
146896 11111 02/23/23 500 LI LIN & MINGGUI PAN 22111 REF DEP ARB19-0047 414.12
146897 11111 02/23/23 1546 LYNX TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 64341 JAN GIS SUPPORT 375.00
146897 11111 02/23/23 1546 LYNX TECHNOLOGIES, INC. 64341 JAN GIS SUPPORT 375.00
TOTAL CHECK 750.00
146898 11111 02/23/23 1769 MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP, 64159 COMP FEE STUDY & CAP 4,720.00
146898 11111 02/23/23 1769 MATRIX CONSULTING GROUP, 64159 COMP FEE STUDY & CAP 3,180.00
TOTAL CHECK 7,900.00
146899 11111 02/23/23 1164 MOUSER LAW FIRM 65124 FY22/23 NEGO SVCS 5,775.00
146900 11111 02/23/23 79 MUNISERVICES/AVENU 65132 Q3 2022 STARS SERVICE 500.00
146901 11111 02/23/23 1572 NBBM SERVICES, INC 64511 JANITORIAL SERVICES 1,428.00
146901 11111 02/23/23 1572 NBBM SERVICES, INC 64511 JANITORIAL SERVICES 1,526.00
TOTAL CHECK 2,954.00
146902 11111 02/23/23 1572 NBBM SERVICES, INC 64551 FEB WKND PK RESTROOM 3,854.40
146903 11111 02/23/23 110 NBS-GOVT FINANCE GROUP 71123 SB1029 REPORTING SVCS 550.00
146904 11111 02/23/23 1324 READYREFRESH 62614 DRINKING WATER SVC 112.10
146905 11111 02/23/23 1732 NWESTCO LLC 62144 JAN 30TH UST INSPECT 230.00
146906 11111 02/23/23 1 OFF OF SHERIFF-FISCAL SVC 64811 FEB 2023 LAW ENFORCE 612,754.50
146907 11111 02/23/23 777 O'GRADY PAVING, INC. 81161 2022 PAVEMENT MGMT 27,789.50
146907 11111 02/23/23 777 O'GRADY PAVING, INC. 21132 RETENTION HELD PO#095 -1,389.48
TOTAL CHECK 26,400.02
146908 11111 02/23/23 777 O'GRADY PAVING, INC. 81161 PIERCE ROAD PROJECT 32,000.00
131
SUNGARD PUBLIC SECTOR PAGE NUMBER: 4
DATE: 02/23/2023 CITY OF SARATOGA VENCHK11
TIME: 19:16:42 CHECK REGISTER ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 8/23
FUND - 009 - DISBURSEMENT FUND
CHECK NUMBER CASH ACCT DATE ISSUED --------------VENDOR-------------- ACCT -------DESCRIPTION------- AMOUNT
146908 11111 02/23/23 777 O'GRADY PAVING, INC. 81161 PIERCE ROAD PROJECT 1,500.00
TOTAL CHECK 33,500.00
146909 11111 02/23/23 777 O'GRADY PAVING, INC. 81161 STORM PROJECT-REPAIR 72,682.50
146910 11111 02/23/23 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 63111 BEAUCHAMPS 62.94
146910 11111 02/23/23 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 63111 BELLGROVE CIRCLE 742.80
146910 11111 02/23/23 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 63111 BUILDINGS 8,002.91
146910 11111 02/23/23 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 63111 CUNNINGHAM/GLASGOW 9.58
146910 11111 02/23/23 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 63111 HORSESHOE DR. LNDSCAP 9.53
146910 11111 02/23/23 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 63111 MCCARTYSVILLE 19.06
146910 11111 02/23/23 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 63111 PARKS/OPEN SPACE 698.59
146910 11111 02/23/23 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 63111 PRIDES CROSSING 29.67
146910 11111 02/23/23 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 63111 SARAHILLS LIGHTING 236.88
146910 11111 02/23/23 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 63111 TOLLGATE 17.70
146910 11111 02/23/23 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 63111 TRAFFIC SIGNALS 1,790.42
146910 11111 02/23/23 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 63111 CITYWIDE STREETLIGHTS 916.48
146910 11111 02/23/23 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 63111 VILLAGE LIGHTING 2,980.18
146910 11111 02/23/23 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 63111 AZULE LIGHTING 249.74
146910 11111 02/23/23 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 63111 QUITO LIGHTING 699.60
TOTAL CHECK 16,466.08
146911 11111 02/23/23 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 63111 PUB LIB/LNDSCP LIGHTS 26.28
146912 11111 02/23/23 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 63111 CITYWIDE STREETLIGHTS 23.02
146913 11111 02/23/23 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 63111 VILLAGE LIGHTING 495.16
146914 11111 02/23/23 1092 PALACE ART & OFFICE SUPPL 61111 OFFICE SUPPLIES 266.37
146914 11111 02/23/23 1092 PALACE ART & OFFICE SUPPL 61111 OFFICE SUPPLIES 8.51
TOTAL CHECK 274.88
146915 11111 02/23/23 410 RICH VOSS TRUCKING INC 81121 STORM PROJECT-SPPL 300.00
146916 11111 02/23/23 55 ROSS RECREATION EQUIPMENT 61345 SARA LIBRARY BENCH 2,048.21
146917 11111 02/23/23 87 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 63112 12050 BROOKGLN DR 50% 296.21
146917 11111 02/23/23 87 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 63112 ARROYO DE SARATOGA 190.21
146917 11111 02/23/23 87 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 63112 BELLGROVE 998.54
146917 11111 02/23/23 87 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 63112 BONNET WAY 10% 48.06
146917 11111 02/23/23 87 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 63112 FREDERICKSBURG 113.56
146917 11111 02/23/23 87 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 63112 GATEWAY PROJECT 598.50
146917 11111 02/23/23 87 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 63112 GREENBRIAR 570.62
146917 11111 02/23/23 87 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 63112 LEUTAR CT 315.57
146917 11111 02/23/23 87 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 63112 MCCARTYSVILLE 25% 92.86
146917 11111 02/23/23 87 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 63112 PARAMOUNT COURT 111.81
146917 11111 02/23/23 87 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 63112 PARKS/OPEN SPACE 787.50
146917 11111 02/23/23 87 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 63112 PRIDES CROSSING 558.69
146917 11111 02/23/23 87 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 63112 MEDIANS/PARKWAYS 855.92
146917 11111 02/23/23 87 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 63112 MED/PRKWYS 90% BONNET 432.48
146917 11111 02/23/23 87 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 63112 MED/PRKWYS 50% BRKGLN 296.20
146917 11111 02/23/23 87 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 63112 MED/MCCARTYSVILLE 75% 278.59
146917 11111 02/23/23 87 SAN JOSE WATER COMPANY 63112 MCCARTYSVILLE 414.20
TOTAL CHECK 6,959.52
146918 11111 02/23/23 1754 SANDIS CIVIL ENGINEERS SU 81142 VILLAGE PARKING PROJ 822.50
132
SUNGARD PUBLIC SECTOR PAGE NUMBER: 5
DATE: 02/23/2023 CITY OF SARATOGA VENCHK11
TIME: 19:16:42 CHECK REGISTER ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 8/23
FUND - 009 - DISBURSEMENT FUND
CHECK NUMBER CASH ACCT DATE ISSUED --------------VENDOR-------------- ACCT -------DESCRIPTION------- AMOUNT
146919 11111 02/23/23 500 SHLOKE HAJELA 22113 REF BD DEP ARB20-0049 7,200.00
146919 11111 02/23/23 500 SHLOKE HAJELA 22111 REF DEP ARB20-0049 -440.31
TOTAL CHECK 6,759.69
146920 11111 02/23/23 160 SIERRA PACIFIC TURF SUPPL 61341 LANDSCAPE SUPPLIES 1,220.09
146920 11111 02/23/23 160 SIERRA PACIFIC TURF SUPPL 61341 LANDSCAPE SUPPLIES 52.26
TOTAL CHECK 1,272.35
146921 11111 02/23/23 1690 SOUTHERN COUNTIES LUBRICA 61362 FUEL 4,712.56
146922 11111 02/23/23 1564 SPECIFIED PLAY EQUIPMENT 61348 KMP PLAYGROUND 1,400.00
146923 11111 02/23/23 248 STATE OF CA FRANCHISE TAX 21252 DED:2011 FTB W/H 50.00
146924 11111 02/23/23 256 STEVENS CREEK QUARRY INC 64583 STORM PROJECT-SPPL 14,674.14
146925 11111 02/23/23 1453 SUPERION, LLC 64312 FEB ASP SERVICES 5,545.58
146925 11111 02/23/23 1453 SUPERION, LLC 64311 FINANCIAL UPGRADE JAN 270.00
TOTAL CHECK 5,815.58
146926 11111 02/23/23 710 THE BANK OF NEW YORK MELL 71122 SARATOGA18 INTEREST 44,685.72
146927 11111 02/23/23 1261 THE FRUITGUYS 61192 EMPLOYEE WELLNESS 207.92
146927 11111 02/23/23 1261 THE FRUITGUYS 61192 EMPLOYEE WELLNESS 82.00
TOTAL CHECK 289.92
146928 11111 02/23/23 1707 URBAN PLANNING PARTNERS, 81141 HOUSE ELEMENT UPDATE 84,728.18
146929 11111 02/23/23 1707 URBAN PLANNING PARTNERS, 81141 SAFETY ELEMENT UPDATE 2,222.00
146930 11111 02/23/23 395 VERIZON WIRELESS 63212 ADMIN SERVICES 50.52
146930 11111 02/23/23 395 VERIZON WIRELESS 63212 BUILDING & INSPECTION 114.03
146930 11111 02/23/23 395 VERIZON WIRELESS 63212 GENERAL ENGINEERING 183.76
146930 11111 02/23/23 395 VERIZON WIRELESS 63212 IT SERVICES 97.89
146930 11111 02/23/23 395 VERIZON WIRELESS 63212 PARKS 103.36
146930 11111 02/23/23 395 VERIZON WIRELESS 63212 STREETS 140.41
TOTAL CHECK 689.97
146931 11111 02/23/23 500 VINEET BHAN 22113 REF BD DEP ARB21-0048 6,955.00
146931 11111 02/23/23 500 VINEET BHAN 22111 REF DEP ARB21-0048 -38.74
146931 11111 02/23/23 500 VINEET BHAN 22111 REF DEP GEO21-0002 1,786.75
TOTAL CHECK 8,703.01
146932 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTEN VOID: MULTI STUB CHECK
146933 11111 02/23/23 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTEN 64212 CIVIC CTR LANDSCAPE 860.00
146933 11111 02/23/23 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTEN 64549 BELLGROVE IRR REPAIR 375.00
146933 11111 02/23/23 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTEN 64558 SARA-TO-SEA TRL MAINT 985.00
146933 11111 02/23/23 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTEN 64212 SARA AVE IRR REPAIR 375.00
146933 11111 02/23/23 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTEN 64558 SARA-TO-SEA TRL MAINT 695.00
146933 11111 02/23/23 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTEN 64547 NOV ARROYO SARATOGA 150.00
146933 11111 02/23/23 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTEN 64547 NOV BEAUCHAMPS 200.00
146933 11111 02/23/23 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTEN 64547 NOV BELLGROVE 2,426.00
146933 11111 02/23/23 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTEN 64543 NOV BONNET WAY 175.00
146933 11111 02/23/23 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTEN 64547 NOV BONNIE WAY 115.00
133
SUNGARD PUBLIC SECTOR PAGE NUMBER: 6
DATE: 02/23/2023 CITY OF SARATOGA VENCHK11
TIME: 19:16:42 CHECK REGISTER ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 8/23
FUND - 009 - DISBURSEMENT FUND
CHECK NUMBER CASH ACCT DATE ISSUED --------------VENDOR-------------- ACCT -------DESCRIPTION------- AMOUNT
146933 11111 02/23/23 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTEN 64547 NOV CARNELIAN GLEN 100.00
146933 11111 02/23/23 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTEN 64548 NOV CIVIC CENTER 1,592.00
146933 11111 02/23/23 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTEN 64541 NOV CORP YARD 110.00
146933 11111 02/23/23 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTEN 64547 NOV CUNNINGHAM/GLSGW 181.00
146933 11111 02/23/23 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTEN 64541 NOV EL QUITO PARK 455.00
146933 11111 02/23/23 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTEN 64543 NOV FRANKLIN CT 110.00
146933 11111 02/23/23 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTEN 64541 NOV FRIENDSHIP PARK 140.00
146933 11111 02/23/23 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTEN 64543 NOV FRUITVALE MEDIANS 700.00
146933 11111 02/23/23 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTEN 64547 NOV GATEWAY 220.00
146933 11111 02/23/23 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTEN 64547 NOV GREENBRIAR 400.00
146933 11111 02/23/23 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTEN 64541 NOV HISTORICAL PARK 265.00
146933 11111 02/23/23 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTEN 64543 NOV HUME/PARK 75.00
146933 11111 02/23/23 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTEN 81161 NOV HWY9/FARWELL/VER 290.00
146933 11111 02/23/23 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTEN 64543 NOV HWY9/OAK ST 70.00
146933 11111 02/23/23 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTEN 64541 NOV KEVIN MORAN PARK 720.00
146933 11111 02/23/23 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTEN 64547 NOV LEUTAR CT 100.00
146933 11111 02/23/23 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTEN 64547 NOV MANOR DRIVE 200.00
146933 11111 02/23/23 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTEN 64221 NOV PARKING DISTRICTS 380.00
146933 11111 02/23/23 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTEN 64557 NOV QUARRY PARK 140.00
146933 11111 02/23/23 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTEN 64543 NOV REID/HERRIMAN MED 75.00
146933 11111 02/23/23 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTEN 64543 NOV SAN PALO CT 70.00
146933 11111 02/23/23 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTEN 64543 NOV SARA SUNNYVALE RD 3,150.00
146933 11111 02/23/23 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTEN 64543 NOV SARA VINEYARDS 150.00
146933 11111 02/23/23 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTEN 64543 NOV SARATOGA AVE 1,820.00
146933 11111 02/23/23 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTEN 64547 NOV SUNLAND 598.00
146933 11111 02/23/23 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTEN 64543 NOV THELMA AVE 75.00
146933 11111 02/23/23 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTEN 64547 DEC ARROYO SARATOGA 150.00
146933 11111 02/23/23 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTEN 64547 DEC BEAUCHAMPS 200.00
146933 11111 02/23/23 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTEN 64547 DEC BELLGROVE 2,426.00
146933 11111 02/23/23 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTEN 64543 DEC BONNET WAY 175.00
146933 11111 02/23/23 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTEN 64547 DEC BONNIE WAY 115.00
146933 11111 02/23/23 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTEN 64547 DEC CARNELIAN GLEN 100.00
146933 11111 02/23/23 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTEN 64548 DEC CIVIC CENTER 1,592.00
146933 11111 02/23/23 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTEN 64541 DEC CORP YARD 110.00
146933 11111 02/23/23 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTEN 64547 DEC CUNNINGHAM/GLSGW 181.00
146933 11111 02/23/23 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTEN 64541 DEC EL QUITO PARK 455.00
146933 11111 02/23/23 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTEN 64543 DEC FRANKLIN CT 110.00
146933 11111 02/23/23 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTEN 64541 DEC FRIENDSHIP PARK 140.00
146933 11111 02/23/23 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTEN 64543 DEC FRUITVALE MEDIANS 700.00
146933 11111 02/23/23 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTEN 64547 DEC GATEWAY 220.00
146933 11111 02/23/23 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTEN 64547 DEC GREENBRIAR 400.00
146933 11111 02/23/23 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTEN 64541 DEC HISTORICAL PARK 265.00
146933 11111 02/23/23 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTEN 64543 DEC HUME/PARK 75.00
146933 11111 02/23/23 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTEN 81161 DEC HWY9/FARWELL/VER 290.00
146933 11111 02/23/23 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTEN 64543 DEC HWY9/OAK ST 70.00
146933 11111 02/23/23 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTEN 64541 DEC KEVIN MORAN PARK 720.00
146933 11111 02/23/23 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTEN 64547 DEC LEUTAR CT 100.00
146933 11111 02/23/23 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTEN 64547 DEC MANOR DRIVE 200.00
146933 11111 02/23/23 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTEN 64221 DEC PARKING DISTRICTS 380.00
146933 11111 02/23/23 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTEN 64557 DEC QUARRY PARK 140.00
146933 11111 02/23/23 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTEN 64543 DEC REID/HERRIMAN MED 75.00
146933 11111 02/23/23 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTEN 64543 DEC SAN PALO CT 70.00
146933 11111 02/23/23 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTEN 64543 DEC SARA SUNNYVALE RD 3,150.00
146933 11111 02/23/23 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTEN 64543 DEC SARA VINEYARDS 150.00
146933 11111 02/23/23 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTEN 64543 DEC SARATOGA AVE 1,820.00
146933 11111 02/23/23 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTEN 64547 DEC SUNLAND 598.00
134
SUNGARD PUBLIC SECTOR PAGE NUMBER: 7
DATE: 02/23/2023 CITY OF SARATOGA VENCHK11
TIME: 19:16:42 CHECK REGISTER ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 8/23
FUND - 009 - DISBURSEMENT FUND
CHECK NUMBER CASH ACCT DATE ISSUED --------------VENDOR-------------- ACCT -------DESCRIPTION------- AMOUNT
146933 11111 02/23/23 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTEN 64543 DEC THELMA AVE 75.00
TOTAL CHECK 33,794.00
146934 11111 02/23/23 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTEN 64547 JAN ARROYO SARATOGA 150.00
146934 11111 02/23/23 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTEN 64547 JAN BEAUCHAMPS 200.00
146934 11111 02/23/23 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTEN 64547 JAN BELLGROVE 2,426.00
146934 11111 02/23/23 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTEN 64543 JAN BONNET WAY 175.00
146934 11111 02/23/23 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTEN 64547 JAN BONNIE WAY 115.00
146934 11111 02/23/23 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTEN 64547 JAN CARNELIAN GLEN 100.00
146934 11111 02/23/23 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTEN 64548 JAN CIVIC CENTER 1,592.00
146934 11111 02/23/23 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTEN 64541 JAN CORP YARD 110.00
146934 11111 02/23/23 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTEN 64547 JAN CUNNINGHAM/GLSGW 181.00
146934 11111 02/23/23 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTEN 64541 JAN EL QUITO PARK 455.00
146934 11111 02/23/23 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTEN 64543 JAN FRANKLIN CT 110.00
146934 11111 02/23/23 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTEN 64541 JAN FRIENDSHIP PARK 140.00
146934 11111 02/23/23 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTEN 64543 JAN FRUITVALE MEDIANS 700.00
146934 11111 02/23/23 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTEN 64547 JAN GATEWAY 220.00
146934 11111 02/23/23 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTEN 64547 JAN GREENBRIAR 400.00
146934 11111 02/23/23 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTEN 64541 JAN HISTORICAL PARK 265.00
146934 11111 02/23/23 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTEN 64543 JAN HUME/PARK 75.00
146934 11111 02/23/23 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTEN 81161 JAN HWY9/FARWELL/VER 290.00
146934 11111 02/23/23 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTEN 64543 JAN HWY9/OAK ST 70.00
146934 11111 02/23/23 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTEN 64541 JAN KEVIN MORAN PARK 720.00
146934 11111 02/23/23 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTEN 64547 JAN LEUTAR CT 100.00
146934 11111 02/23/23 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTEN 64547 JAN MANOR DRIVE 200.00
146934 11111 02/23/23 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTEN 64221 JAN PARKING DISTRICTS 380.00
146934 11111 02/23/23 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTEN 64557 JAN QUARRY PARK 140.00
146934 11111 02/23/23 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTEN 64543 JAN REID/HERRIMAN MED 75.00
146934 11111 02/23/23 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTEN 64543 JAN SAN PALO CT 70.00
146934 11111 02/23/23 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTEN 64543 JAN SARA SUNNYVALE RD 3,150.00
146934 11111 02/23/23 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTEN 64543 JAN SARA VINEYARDS 150.00
146934 11111 02/23/23 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTEN 64543 JAN SARATOGA AVE 1,820.00
146934 11111 02/23/23 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTEN 64547 JAN SUNLAND 598.00
146934 11111 02/23/23 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTEN 64543 JAN THELMA AVE 75.00
TOTAL CHECK 15,252.00
146935 11111 02/23/23 1571 WORKTERRA 64163 JAN FLEX ADM FEES 350.00
146936 11111 02/23/23 696 ZAG TECHNICAL SERVICES, I 64315 JAN IT SUPPORT SVCS 4,612.50
TOTAL FUND 1,147,724.40
TOTAL REPORT 1,147,724.40
135
SUNGARD PUBLIC SECTOR PAGE NUMBER: 1
DATE: 03/01/2023 CITY OF SARATOGA VENCHK11
TIME: 19:24:27 CHECK REGISTER - FUND TOTALS ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 9/23
FUND FUND TITLE AMOUNT
111 GENERAL FUND 90,134.10
233 SARAHILLS LIGHTING DIST 227.11
241 ARROYO DE SARATOGA LNDSCP 887.15
252 PRIDES CROSSING LANDSCAPE 1,741.14
411 CIP STREET PROJECTS FUND 47,682.92
412 CIP PARKS PROJECT FUND 7,640.00
414 CIP ADMIN PROJECTS FUND 20.00
432 CIP GRANT - PARK & TRAIL 5,000.00
435 ARPA/SLFRF FUND 4,118.92
621 OFFICE SUPPORT 454.17
623 VEHICLE & EQUIPMENT MAINT 9,659.28
624 BUILDING MAINTENANCE 4,631.10
633 BUILDING FFE REPLACEMENT 9,278.15
713 WVCWP AGENCY FUND 666.75
TOTAL REPORT 182,140.79
136
SUNGARD PUBLIC SECTOR PAGE NUMBER: 1
DATE: 03/01/2023 CITY OF SARATOGA VENCHK11
TIME: 19:23:28 CHECK REGISTER ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 9/23
FUND - 009 - DISBURSEMENT FUND
CHECK NUMBER CASH ACCT DATE ISSUED --------------VENDOR-------------- ACCT -------DESCRIPTION------- AMOUNT
146937 11111 03/01/23 1422 4LEAF INC. 64173 JAN BLDG INSPECTION 14,332.40
146938 11111 03/01/23 234 A T & T 63211 GATEWAY IRR CONTROL 27.34
146938 11111 03/01/23 234 A T & T 63211 ELEC PANEL CVC THTR 27.34
146938 11111 03/01/23 234 A T & T 63211 PHONE LNS PARKS/LIB 27.89
146938 11111 03/01/23 234 A T & T 63211 EMER POTS LINE 27.34
146938 11111 03/01/23 234 A T & T 63211 EMER POT LN CDD LBBY 27.34
146938 11111 03/01/23 234 A T & T 63211 EMER POTS LN VM 32.48
146938 11111 03/01/23 234 A T & T 63211 AM 1610 RADIO 27.34
146938 11111 03/01/23 234 A T & T 63211 BOOK GO ROUND ALARM 53.86
146938 11111 03/01/23 234 A T & T 63211 CSP HVB FOR IRR 54.13
TOTAL CHECK 305.06
146939 11111 03/01/23 35 ACCENT GRAPHICS 61164 HPC COM SUPPLIES 49.11
146939 11111 03/01/23 35 ACCENT GRAPHICS 61111 OFFICE SUPPLIES 93.00
146939 11111 03/01/23 35 ACCENT GRAPHICS 61111 OFFICE SUPPLIES 58.00
146939 11111 03/01/23 35 ACCENT GRAPHICS 61111 OFFICE SUPPLIES 42.56
146939 11111 03/01/23 35 ACCENT GRAPHICS 61167 P&R COM SUPPLIES 55.93
146939 11111 03/01/23 35 ACCENT GRAPHICS 61181 PEBTAC COM SUPPLIES 273.19
146939 11111 03/01/23 35 ACCENT GRAPHICS 61162 TSC SUPPLIES 273.20
146939 11111 03/01/23 35 ACCENT GRAPHICS 64121 ENVELOPES 454.17
146939 11111 03/01/23 35 ACCENT GRAPHICS 61111 OFFICE SUPPLIES 105.73
TOTAL CHECK 1,404.89
146940 11111 03/01/23 1154 AWARD COMPANY OF AMERICA, 61116 RECOGNITION SUPPLIES 471.35
146941 11111 03/01/23 1137 BEAR ELECTRICAL SOLUTIONS 64537 STREETLIGHTS MAINT 660.00
146941 11111 03/01/23 1137 BEAR ELECTRICAL SOLUTIONS 64534 TRAFFIC SIGNAL MAINT 1,417.18
TOTAL CHECK 2,077.18
146942 11111 03/01/23 1316 BELLECCI & ASSOCIATES, IN 81142 SARA TDA SIDEWALK 2,685.00
146943 11111 03/01/23 500 BENJAMIN BIRON 43471 REF PERMIT 22-0675 553.00
146943 11111 03/01/23 500 BENJAMIN BIRON 43117 REF PERMIT 22-0675 20.00
146943 11111 03/01/23 500 BENJAMIN BIRON 41412 REF PERMIT 22-0675 83.72
TOTAL CHECK 656.72
146944 11111 03/01/23 179 CIM AIR, INC 64514 HVAC REPAIR SR CENTER 1,356.00
146945 11111 03/01/23 188 CITY OF CAMPBELL 62251 WVMM MTG 2023 400.00
146945 11111 03/01/23 188 CITY OF CAMPBELL 62251 WVMM MTG 2023 400.00
TOTAL CHECK 800.00
146946 11111 03/01/23 930 COLE SUPPLY COMPANY, INC. 61341 LANDSCAPE SUPPLIES 1,241.33
146946 11111 03/01/23 930 COLE SUPPLY COMPANY, INC. 61341 LANDSCAPE SUPPLIES 1,249.91
TOTAL CHECK 2,491.24
146947 11111 03/01/23 355 DURAN & VENABLES, INC. 81161 SOBEY RD SPEED PROJ 41,468.00
146948 11111 03/01/23 416 EVANS WEST VALLEY SPRAY 64545 WILDWOOD WEED CTRL 2,800.00
146948 11111 03/01/23 416 EVANS WEST VALLEY SPRAY 64545 FRIENDSHIP WEED CTRL 2,800.00
146948 11111 03/01/23 416 EVANS WEST VALLEY SPRAY 64545 HWY9 WEED CTRL 2,800.00
146948 11111 03/01/23 416 EVANS WEST VALLEY SPRAY 64557 QUARRY WEED CTRL 7,000.00
146948 11111 03/01/23 416 EVANS WEST VALLEY SPRAY 64555 MT EDEN WEED CTRL 2,200.00
146948 11111 03/01/23 416 EVANS WEST VALLEY SPRAY 64555 PICEA WEED CTRL 2,200.00
146948 11111 03/01/23 416 EVANS WEST VALLEY SPRAY 64555 DIAMND OAKS WEED CTRL 2,200.00
137
SUNGARD PUBLIC SECTOR PAGE NUMBER: 2
DATE: 03/01/2023 CITY OF SARATOGA VENCHK11
TIME: 19:23:28 CHECK REGISTER ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 9/23
FUND - 009 - DISBURSEMENT FUND
CHECK NUMBER CASH ACCT DATE ISSUED --------------VENDOR-------------- ACCT -------DESCRIPTION------- AMOUNT
146948 11111 03/01/23 416 EVANS WEST VALLEY SPRAY 64545 GLENBRAE WEED CTRL 4,800.00
TOTAL CHECK 26,800.00
146949 11111 03/01/23 1759 GARTON TRACTOR, INC. 64611 MAINTENANCE VEH 9,659.28
146950 11111 03/01/23 1268 GIULIANI & KULL - SAN JOS 22119 JOB#09153 SUB22-0002 155.00
146950 11111 03/01/23 1268 GIULIANI & KULL - SAN JOS 22119 JOB#09153 ULS22-0003 155.00
TOTAL CHECK 310.00
146951 11111 03/01/23 500 HIROE KURITA 22113 REF BD DEP ARB21-0001 10,000.00
146951 11111 03/01/23 500 HIROE KURITA 22111 REF DEP ARB21-0001 3.26
TOTAL CHECK 10,003.26
146952 11111 03/01/23 472 HT HARVEY & ASSOCIATES 64558 SARA-TO-SEA TRL MAINT 4,447.68
146953 11111 03/01/23 1789 HUA QIAN 42591 WILDFIRE GRANT REBATE 5,000.00
146954 11111 03/01/23 14 HYDROTEC IRRIGATION EQUIP 64212 ORCHARD VALVE RPLC 465.12
146955 11111 03/01/23 500 JEFF & CATHERINE KLOPOTIC 43481 TREE REF APTR23-0001 255.00
146956 11111 03/01/23 178 LEAGUE OF CALIFORNIA CITI 62251 2023 PEN DIV MEM DUES 300.00
146957 11111 03/01/23 500 MO KOSHFAM 46263 DEP REFUND QUITO PK 360.00
146958 11111 03/01/23 1164 MOUSER LAW FIRM 65271 FY22/23 JAN LEGAL SVC 2,030.00
146959 11111 03/01/23 1572 NBBM SERVICES, INC 64511 JANITORIAL SERVICES 1,596.00
146960 11111 03/01/23 1062 NI GOVERNMENT SERVICES, I 63211 01/23 AIRTIME 87.35
146961 11111 03/01/23 1745 ODP BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, L 61164 HPC SUPPLIES 53.62
146961 11111 03/01/23 1745 ODP BUSINESS SOLUTIONS, L 61111 OFFICE SUPPLIES 24.71
TOTAL CHECK 78.33
146962 11111 03/01/23 1 OFF OF SHERIFF-FISCAL SVC 64815 FY23 COMM. ACADEMY 4,000.00
146963 11111 03/01/23 1182 ORCHARD CITY LOCK & SAFE, 64549 LANDSCAPE REPAIRS 590.29
146963 11111 03/01/23 1182 ORCHARD CITY LOCK & SAFE, 64549 LANDSCAPE REPAIRS 165.00
TOTAL CHECK 755.29
146964 11111 03/01/23 1087 OSCAR URVIZO TELLEZ/OSCAR 64581 TRAIL TREE MAINT 750.00
146965 11111 03/01/23 173 PACIFIC GAS & ELECTRIC 63111 BUILDINGS (MUSEUM) 254.35
146966 11111 03/01/23 1092 PALACE ART & OFFICE SUPPL 61111 OFFICE SUPPLIES 38.70
146966 11111 03/01/23 1092 PALACE ART & OFFICE SUPPL 66112 MEETING EXPENSES 35.85
TOTAL CHECK 74.55
146967 11111 03/01/23 1777 PUBLIC SOLUTION CONSULTIN 64549 REVIEW OF LANDSCAPE MAINT 227.11
146967 11111 03/01/23 1777 PUBLIC SOLUTION CONSULTIN 64212 REVIEW OF LANDSCAPE MAINT 637.11
146967 11111 03/01/23 1777 PUBLIC SOLUTION CONSULTIN 64549 REVIEW OF LANDSCAPE MAINT 887.15
146967 11111 03/01/23 1777 PUBLIC SOLUTION CONSULTIN 64549 REVIEW OF LANDSCAPE MAINT 1,741.14
TOTAL CHECK 3,492.51
146968 11111 03/01/23 393 REED & GRAHAM, INC 81121 STREETS SUPPLIES 323.86
138
SUNGARD PUBLIC SECTOR PAGE NUMBER: 3
DATE: 03/01/2023 CITY OF SARATOGA VENCHK11
TIME: 19:23:28 CHECK REGISTER ACCOUNTING PERIOD: 9/23
FUND - 009 - DISBURSEMENT FUND
CHECK NUMBER CASH ACCT DATE ISSUED --------------VENDOR-------------- ACCT -------DESCRIPTION------- AMOUNT
146969 11111 03/01/23 1619 RICHARDSON CONSULTING 22119 ENV19-0005 4,095.00
146969 11111 03/01/23 1619 RICHARDSON CONSULTING 65411 JAN ADR PROJ REVIEWS 4,290.00
146969 11111 03/01/23 1619 RICHARDSON CONSULTING 22119 ENV21-0001 1,885.00
TOTAL CHECK 10,270.00
146970 11111 03/01/23 1720 RIVERVIEW SYSTEMS GROUP, 77225 JPCC PROJECTOR RPLC 9,278.15
146971 11111 03/01/23 1686 SAFETY NETWORK TRAFFIC SI 81121 STREETS SUPPLIES 506.06
146972 11111 03/01/23 1754 SANDIS CIVIL ENGINEERS SU 81142 VILLAGE PARKING PROJ 2,343.92
146973 11111 03/01/23 1592 STATE FUND 67712 WVCWP WC 2/14-2/14/24 666.75
146974 11111 03/01/23 1610 THE HOME DEPOT PRO 61132 JANITORIAL SUPPLIES 1,310.25
146975 11111 03/01/23 317 THE NAPKIN RING 66112 MEETING EXPENSES 1,945.70
146976 11111 03/01/23 343 TMT ENTERPRISES INC 64552 FIELD CONVERSION SPPL 2,976.04
146977 11111 03/01/23 976 URBAN TREE MANAGEMENT INC 64544 COMPOST MEMORIAL ARCH 405.00
146978 11111 03/01/23 402 VISTA LANDSCAPE & MAINTEN 81161 BEAUCHAMPS PARK PROJ 7,640.00
146979 11111 03/01/23 1437 WESTFALL ENGINEERS, INC. 81144 VILLAGE PRKING SURVEY 1,775.00
146979 11111 03/01/23 1437 WESTFALL ENGINEERS, INC. 81144 SOBEY ROAD SURVEY 2,700.00
TOTAL CHECK 4,475.00
146980 11111 03/01/23 500 YANIV BENSOUSSAN 22113 REF BD DEP ARB21-0016 752.50
146980 11111 03/01/23 500 YANIV BENSOUSSAN 22111 REF DEP ARB21-0016 481.00
TOTAL CHECK 1,233.50
TOTAL FUND 182,140.79
TOTAL REPORT 182,140.79
139
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE:March 15, 2023
DEPARTMENT:Community Development Department
PREPARED BY:David Dorcich, Associate Engineer
SUBJECT:Final Map Approval for Two Lots Located at 19315 San Marcos Road
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Adopt the Resolution granting final map approval of parcel map application No. ULS22-0003 for
two lots located at 19315 San Marcos Road (APN: 397 13 011).
BACKGROUND:
Attached is a Resolution, which, if adopted, will grant final approval for a two lot Parcel Map
located at 19315 San Marcos Road (APN 397 13 011). This map is for the urban lot split utilizing
the ministerial process enabled by SB9.Under the Subdivision Map Act, the Council “shall
…approve the map if it conforms to all the requirements of [the Map Act]and any local subdivision
ordinance.” The City Engineer has examined the final map and related documents submitted to the
City in accordance with the provisions of Section 14.40.020 of the Municipal Code and it was
determined that:
1.The Subdivision Map Act, the City's Subdivision Ordinance and all other applicable
provisions of law have been complied with.
2.The final map is technically correct.
Consequently, the City Engineer’s certificate has been executed on the final map and the final map
has been filed with the City Clerk pursuant to Section 14.40.040 of the Municipal Code for action
by the City Council.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A -Resolution Granting Final Map Approval
Attachment B -Site Map
Attachment C -Parcel Map
1619582.1
140
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
APPROVING THE FINAL MAP OF APPLICATION NO ULS22-0003
19315 SAN MARCOS ROAD (APN 397 13 011)
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows:
SECTION 1: That certain Parcel Map prepared by Christensen & Plouff Land Surveying,
dated February 2023, and filed with the City Clerk of the City of Saratoga on
February 9, 2023 is approved as TWO (2) individual lots. The City Manager is
authorized to take action required to record the Parcel Map.
SECTION 2:All streets and easements shown on said map and offered for dedication to
public use are hereby accepted on behalf of the public and the City Manager is
authorized to execute documents necessary to establish this acceptance.
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Saratoga
City Council held on the 15sh day of March 2023 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
______________________________
Kookie Fitzsimmons, Mayor
ATTEST:
____________________________
Britt Avrit, MMC, City Clerk
1619613.1
141
Site Map
19607
14426
145354450
19573
19550
14563
19520
19565
14451
66
19576
9628
19521
14545
625
14431
9609
14448
19516
19519
14551
19521
19551
14581
19520
08
9607
14601
19571
19600 19550
1941119421
14420
19471
19381
19493
19431
1922719271
19401
14450
19287
1941119437
19315
19450
19459
14600
14470
19438
19361
19275
19281
14622
19300
19303
14707
19468
19475
19305
14634
19461
19357
19498
19397
19486 14708
19466 14665
19384
144
14500
145
1445
1448
1
ackWalnutCtCollegeCC o l l e g e C i r
O d d F e l l o w s D r
B u r g un d y W a yFruitvaleAve
R ie s l i n g Ct
Chablis C t
M a n o rC iCollegeCirE u c a ly ptusVasona CreekODD FELLOWS DRFRUITVALE AVES COLLEGE CIR
CHAB
L
I
S
C
T
FRUITVALE A
FARWELL AVE E COLLEGE CIRBURGUNDY WAYFRUITVALE AVEFRUITVALE AVEBLACK WALNUT CTFRUITVALE AVEFRUITVALE AVEBURGUNDY WAY BURGUNDY WAYSAN MARCOS RD
KENOSHA CT
GRANITE WAY2/28/2023, 2:30:21 PM
Owner: Vijay Chaudhary and Pushpa Chauhary, As Trustees of the Chaudhary Family Revocable Trust, Dated April 22, 2011
Applicant: Vijay Chaudhary and Pushpa Chauhary
Meeting Date: March 15, 2023
Site Map
142
143
144
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE:March 15, 2023
DEPARTMENT:City Manager’s Department
PREPARED BY:Crystal Bothelio, Consultant
SUBJECT:Designation of Authorized Agents –Federal Emergency Management
Agency
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Approve the Designation of Applicant’s Agents Resolution.
BACKGROUND:
On January 10, 2023, the City Council adopted a resolution confirming and ratifying a local
emergency due to severe winter storms that started at the end of December and continued into
January. On February 1, 2023, staff reported that the storms resulted in roughly $350,000 in
damages. The City is required to submit a Designation of Applicant’s Agents Resolution to seek
public assistance from the Federal Emergency Management Agency for City damages incurred
during the December and January storms.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A –Designation of the Applicant’s Agents Resolution
145
RESOLUTION NO. 23-___
RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF
THE CITY OF SARATOGA DESIGNATING THE CITY OF SARATOGA’S
AUTHORIZED AGENTS TO ENGAGE WITH THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY
MANAGEMENT AGENCY (FEMA) AND CALIFORNIA GOVERNOR’S OFFICE OF
EMERGENCY SERVICES (CalOES)
WHEREAS, the City Council approved resolution 23-001 affirming the proclamation of
a local emergency due to severe winter storms in December 2022 and January 2023; and
WHEREAS, in February 2023, staff reported that the winter storms resulted in at least
$350,000 in damages to the City; and
WHEREAS, the City may seek public assistance funds from the Federal Emergency
Management Agency; and
WHEREAS, to submit a request for public assistance, the City Council must designate
City Agents responsible for engaging with FEMA and CalOES and executing required agreements
and documents; and
WHEREAS, if the resolution is approved the City Manager, Administrative Services
Director, and Public Works Director will be the City of Saratoga’s Authorized Agents for three
years from the date of approval;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby
designates the City Manager, Administrative Services Director, and Public Works Director as the
City of Saratoga’s Authorized Agents and approves the attached CalOES Form 130.
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the Saratoga
City Council held on the 15th day of March 2023 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
Kookie Fitzsimmons, Mayor
ATTEST:
DATE:
Britt Avrit, MMC
City Clerk
146
DESIGNATION OF APPLICANT'S AGENT RESOLUTION FOR 12167$7($*(1&,(6
%(,75(62/9('%<7+(2)7+(
*RYHUQLQJ%RG\ 1DPHRI$SSOLFDQW
7+$7 25
7LWOHRI$XWKRUL]HG$JHQW
25
7LWOHRI$XWKRUL]HG$JHQW
7LWOHRI$XWKRUL]HG$JHQW
LVKHUHE\DXWKRUL]HGWRH[HFXWHIRUDQGRQEHKDOIRIWKH
1DPHRI$SSOLFDQW
DSXEOLFHQWLW\HVWDEOLVKHGXQGHUWKHODZVRIWKH6WDWHRI&DOLIRUQLDWKLVDSSOLFDWLRQ
DQGWRILOHLWZLWKWKH&DOLIRUQLD*RYHUQRU·V2IILFHRI(PHUJHQF\6HUYLFHVIRUWKH
SXUSRVHRIREWDLQLQJIHGHUDOILQDQFLDODVVLVWDQFHIRUDQ\H[LVWLQJRUIXWXUHJUDQW
SURJUDPLQFOXGLQJEXWQRWOLPLWHGWRDQ\RIWKHIROORZLQJ
-Federally declared Disaster (DR), Fire Mitigation Assistance Grant (FMAG),
California State Only Disaster (CDAA), Immediate Services Program (ISP), Hazard
Mitigation Grant Program (HMGP), Building Resilient Infrastructure and
Communities (BRIC), Legislative Pre-Disaster Mitigation Program (LPDM), XQGHU
-3XEOLF/DZ DVDPHQGHGE\WKH5REHUW76WDIIRUG'LVDVWHU5HOLHIDQG
(PHUJHQF\$VVLVWDQFH$FWRI DQGRUVWDWHILQDQFLDODVVLVWDQFHXQGHUWKH
&DOLIRUQLD'LVDVWHU$VVLVWDQFH$FW
- Flood Mitigation Assistance Program (FMA)XQGHU6HFWLRQRIWKH1DWLRQDO
)ORRG,QVXUDQFH$FWRI
- National Earthquake Hazards Reduction Program (NEHRP) 86&RGH E
$ L[ DQG86&RGH E % 1DWLRQDO(DUWKTXDNH+D]DUGV
5HGXFWLRQ3URJUDPDQGDOVR7KH&RQVROLGDWHG$SSURSULDWLRQV$FW'LY)
'HSDUWPHQWRI+RPHODQG6HFXULW\$SSURSULDWLRQV$FW3XE/1R
- California Early Earthquake Warning (CEEW)XQGHU&$*RY&RGH²*RY7LWOH
'LY&KDSWHU$UWLFOH6HFWLRQV
7KDWWKH DSXEOLFHQWLW\HVWDEOLVKHGXQGHUWKH
1DPHRI$SSOLFDQW
ODZVRIWKH6WDWHRI&DOLIRUQLDKHUHE\DXWKRUL]HVLWVDJHQW V WRSURYLGHWRWKH
*RYHUQRU·V2IILFHRI(PHUJHQF\6HUYLFHVIRUDOOPDWWHUVSHUWDLQLQJWRVXFKVWDWH
GLVDVWHUDVVLVWDQFHWKHDVVXUDQFHVDQGDJUHHPHQWVUHTXLUHG
67$7(2)&$/,)251,$
&$/,)251,$*29(5125
62)),&(2)(0(5*(1&<6(59,&(6
'(6,*1$7,212)$33/,&$17
6$*(175(62/87,21
12167$7($*(1&,(6
2(6)3' 5HY
5(&29(5<',5(&725$7(
),1$1&,$/352&(66,1*',9,6,21
&DO2(6,'1R BBBBBBBBBBBBB
OES-)3' Rev. 2022 3DJHRI
City Council
City of Saratoga
City Manager
Administrative Services Director
Public Works Director
City of Saratoga
City of Saratoga
147
Please check the appropriate box below
7KLVLVDXQLYHUVDOUHVROXWLRQDQGLVHIIHFWLYHIRUDOORSHQDQGIXWXUH
GLVDVWHUVJUDQWVGHFODUHGXSWRWKUHH \HDUVIROORZLQJWKHGDWHRIDSSURYDO
7KLVLVDGLVDVWHUJUDQWVSHFLILFUHVROXWLRQDQGLVHIIHFWLYHIRURQO\
GLVDVWHUJUDQWQXPEHU V
3DVVHGDQGDSSURYHGWKLV BBGD\RI
1DPHDQG7LWOHRI*RYHUQLQJ%RG\5HSUHVHQWDWLYH
1DPHDQG7LWOHRI*RYHUQLQJ%RG\5HSUHVHQWDWLYH
1DPHDQG7LWOHRI*RYHUQLQJ%RG\5HSUHVHQWDWLYH
CERTIFICATION
, GXO\DSSRLQWHGDQG RI
1DPH 7LWOH
GRKHUHE\FHUWLI\WKDWWKHDERYHLVDWUXHDQG
1DPHRI$SSOLFDQW
FRUUHFWFRS\RIDUHVROXWLRQSDVVHGDQGDSSURYHGE\WKH
*RYHUQLQJ%RG\
RIWKH RQWKHGD\RI
1DPHRI$SSOLFDQW
6LJQDWXUH 7LWOH
67$7(2)&$/,)251,$
&$/,)251,$*29(5125
62)),&(2)(0(5*(1&<6(59,&(6
'(6,*1$7,212)$33/,&$17
6$*(175(62/87,21
12167$7($*(1&,(6
2(6)3' 5HY
5(&29(5<',5(&725$7(
),1$1&,$/352&(66,1*',9,6,21
OES-)3'- Rev. 2022 3DJHRI
✔
15th March 23
Kookie Fitzsimmons, Mayor
Britt Avrit City Clerk
City of Saratoga
City Council
City of Saratoga 15th March 23
City Clerk
148
Cal OES Form 130 Instructions
A Designation of Applicant’s Agent Resolution for Non-State Agencies is required of all
Applicants to be eligible to receive funding. A new resolution must be submitted if a
previously submitted resolution is older than three (3) years from the last date of
approval, is invalid, or has not been submitted.
:KHQFRPSOHWLQJWKH&DO2(6)RUP$SSOLFDQWVVKRXOGILOOLQWKHEODQNVRQSDJHV
DQG7KHEODQNVDUHWREHILOOHGLQDVIROORZV
Resolution Section:
Governing Body 7KLVLVWKHJURXSUHVSRQVLEOHIRUDSSRLQWLQJDQGDSSURYLQJWKH
$XWKRUL]HG$JHQWV
([DPSOHVLQFOXGH %RDUGRI'LUHFWRUV&LW\&RXQFLO%RDUGRI6XSHUYLVRUV%RDUGRI
(GXFDWLRQHWF
Name of Applicant 7KHSXEOLFHQWLW\HVWDEOLVKHGXQGHUWKHODZVRIWKH
6WDWHRI&DOLIRUQLD
([DPSOHVLQFOXGH 6FKRRO'LVWULFW2IILFHRI(GXFDWLRQ&LW\&RXQW\RU1RQSURILW
DJHQF\WKDWKDVDSSOLHGIRUWKHJUDQWVXFKDV &LW\RI6DQ'LHJR6DFUDPHQWR
&RXQW\%XUEDQN8QLILHG6FKRRO'LVWULFW1DSD&RXQW\2IILFHRI(GXFDWLRQ
8QLYHUVLW\6RXWKHUQ&DOLIRUQLD
Authorized Agent 7KHVHDUHWKHLQGLYLGXDOVWKDWDUHDXWKRUL]HGE\WKH*RYHUQLQJ%RG\
WR HQJDJH ZLWK WKH )HGHUDO (PHUJHQF\ 0DQDJHPHQW $JHQF\ DQG WKH&DOLIRUQLD
*RYHUQRU·V2IILFHRI(PHUJHQF\6HUYLFHVUHJDUGLQJJUDQWVIRUZKLFKWKH\KDYHDSSOLHG
7KHUHDUHWZRZD\VRIFRPSOHWLQJWKLVVHFWLRQ
7LWOHV2QO\ 7KHWLWOHVRIWKH$XWKRUL]HG$JHQWVVKRXOGEHHQWHUHGKHUHQRWWKHLU
QDPHV7KLVDOORZVWKHGRFXPHQWWRUHPDLQYDOLGLIDQ$XWKRUL]HG$JHQWOHDYHV
WKHSRVLWLRQDQGLVUHSODFHGE\DQRWKHULQGLYLGXDO,I´7LWOHV2QO\µLVWKHFKRVHQ
PHWKRGWKLVGRFXPHQWPXVWEHDFFRPSDQLHGE\HLWKHUDFRYHUOHWWHUQDPLQJ
WKH$XWKRUL]HG$JHQWVE\QDPHDQGWLWOHRUWKH&DO2(6$$1DPHV
GRFXPHQW7KHVXSSRUWLQJGRFXPHQWFDQEHFRPSOHWHGE\DQ\DXWKRUL]HG
SHUVRQZLWKLQWKH$JHQF\ HJDGPLQLVWUDWLYHDVVLVWDQWWKH$XWKRUL]HG$JHQW
VHFUHWDU\WRWKH'LUHFWRU ,WGRHVQRWUHTXLUHWKH*RYHUQLQJ%RG\·VVLJQDWXUH
1DPHVDQG7LWOHV ,IWKH*RYHUQLQJ%RG\VRFKRRVHVWKHQDPHVand WLWOHVRIWKH
$XWKRUL]HG$JHQWVZRXOGEHOLVWHG$QHZ&DO2(6)RUPZLOOEHUHTXLUHGLI
DQ\RIWKH$XWKRUL]HG$JHQWVDUHUHSODFHGOHDYHWKHSRVLWLRQOLVWHGRQWKH
GRFXPHQWRUWKHLUWLWOHFKDQJHV
67$7(2)&$/,)251,$
&$/,)251,$*29(5125
62)),&(2)(0(5*(1&<6(59,&(6
'(6,*1$7,212)$33/,&$17
6$*(175(62/87,21
12167$7($*(1&,(6
2(6)3' 5HY
5(&29(5<',5(&725$7(
),1$1&,$/352&(66,1*',9,6,21
OES-)3'- Rev. 2022 3DJHRI149
Checking Universal or Disaster-Specific Box:$8QLYHUVDOUHVROXWLRQLVHIIHFWLYHIRUDOO
SDVWGLVDVWHUVDQGIRUWKRVHGHFODUHGXSWRWKUHH \HDUVIROORZLQJWKHGDWHRI
DSSURYDO8SRQH[SLUDWLRQLWLVQRORQJHUHIIHFWLYHIRUQHZGLVDVWHUVEXWLWUHPDLQV
LQHIIHFWIRUGLVDVWHUVGHFODUHGSULRUWRH[SLUDWLRQ,WUHPDLQVHIIHFWLYHXQWLOWKH
GLVDVWHUJRHVWKURXJKFORVHRXWXQOHVVLWLVVXSHUVHGHGE\DQHZHUUHVROXWLRQ
Governing Body Representative 7KHVHDUHWKHQDPHVDQGWLWOHVRIWKHDSSURYLQJ
%RDUG0HPEHUV
([DPSOHVLQFOXGH &KDLUPDQRIWKH%RDUG'LUHFWRU6XSHULQWHQGHQWHWF7KH
QDPHVDQGWLWOHVcannot EHRQHRIWKHGHVLJQDWHG$XWKRUL]HG$JHQWV$
PLQLPXPRIWKUHH DSSURYLQJERDUGPHPEHUVPXVWEHOLVWHG,IOHVVWKDQWKUHH
DUHSUHVHQWPHHWLQJPLQXWHVPXVWEHDWWDFKHGLQRUGHUWRYHULI\DTXRUXPZDV
PHW
Certification Section:
Name and Title 7KLVLVWKHLQGLYLGXDOLQDWWHQGDQFHZKRUHFRUGHGWKHFUHDWLRQDQG
DSSURYDORIWKLVUHVROXWLRQ
([DPSOHVLQFOXGH &LW\&OHUN6HFUHWDU\WRWKH%RDUGRI'LUHFWRUV&RXQW\&OHUN
HWF7KLVSHUVRQcannotEHRQHRIWKHGHVLJQDWHG$XWKRUL]HG$JHQWVRU
$SSURYLQJ%RDUG0HPEHU,IDSHUVRQKROGVWZRSRVLWLRQV VXFKDV&LW\0DQDJHU
DQG6HFUHWDU\WRWKH%RDUG DQGWKH&LW\0DQDJHULVWREHOLVWHGDVDQ
$XWKRUL]HG$JHQWWKHQWKDWSHUVRQFRXOGVLJQWKHGRFXPHQWDV6HFUHWDU\WR
WKH%RDUG QRW&LW\0DQDJHU WRHOLPLQDWH´6HOI&HUWLILFDWLRQµ
67$7(2)&$/,)251,$
&$/,)251,$*29(5125
62)),&(2)(0(5*(1&<6(59,&(6
'(6,*1$7,212)$33/,&$17
6$*(175(62/87,21
12167$7($*(1&,(6
2(6)3' 5HY
5(&29(5<',5(&725$7(
),1$1&,$/352&(66,1*',9,6,21
OES-)3'- Rev. 2022 3DJHRI150
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE:March 15, 2023
DEPARTMENT:Administrative Services
PREPARED BY:Nick Pegueros
Gina Scott
SUBJECT:2022 Comprehensive Cost of Services (User Fee)Study
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Receive the 2022 Comprehensive Cost of Services (User Fee)Study and provide policy direction
to City staff for the preparation of the comprehensive Fee Schedule which is scheduled for City
Council consideration on April 19.
BACKGROUND:
On September 7, 2022, City Council approved staff’s recommendation to use Matrix Consulting
to conduct the 2022 Comprehensive Fee Study project.The study’s purpose was to document the
full cost to perform services as listed in our current Fee Schedule and identify any opportunities to
increase or expand fee-based cost recovery.
DISCUSSION:
City Council action on this agenda item allows City staff to compile a comprehensive Fee Schedule
update for an April 19 public hearing where City Council will make a final determination on fees
effective July 1, 2023. City fees may be set at any level directed by City Council. However, most
fees cannot legally exceed the full cost of service. City staff seeks City Council policy direction
on target cost recovery levels for building and planning services which currently receive general
taxpayer support of approximately $896,751, as documented by Matrix Consulting’s report.
The City Council Finance Committee received a copy of the Cost of Services (User Fee)Study
(Attachment A)at their March 7 meeting. Following discussion with staff and Matrix Consulting,
the Committee voted to recommend City Council consideration of City staff’s recommendation
which is to set the cost recovery by program as follows:
Table 1: Recommendation
Recovery Subsidy
Building 74%$502,845
Planning 63%$331,138
Code Compliance 78%$2,241
Engineering 96%$37,712
Business License 48%$22,815
Total
$131,272
$0
$0
$0
$429,760$896,751
90%
75%
no change
no change
no change
Estimated Revenue
Increase, 2023-24
$298,488
Program Current Recommended
Recovery
151
When considering the impact of fee increases the Committee evaluated three factors: consistency
with existing policy, market survey data, and impact on community members.
Consistency with existing policy. Existing City Council financial policy aims to minimize
general tax subsidies for services that benefit individual community members, primarily in
Community Development’s planning and building functions. In both cases, however, the financial
policy must consider whether rates discourage compliance with existing building and zoning
codes, thereby decreasing service volume, i.e., fewer building permits pulled. For example,the
permit fee charged for a new water heater replacement is $80 which is only 40%of the City’s $199
cost incurred to provide a water heater inspection. A new natural gas 50-gallon water heater will
likely cost between $600 and $900 from a local big-box store. While compliance with water heater
replacement may be low for reasons beyond the fee, a $199 permit may increase non-compliance
with the permit requirement resulting in lower revenue to the City and decreased compliance with
codes intended to promote the protection of life and property.
Market Survey Data.The report provides several analyses to compare current Saratoga fees and
full cost recovery fees with the market. Table 2 demonstrates current cost recovery in major
program areas to the typical cost recovery range gathered by Matrix from their extensive work
across the Bay Area. The program generating the highest fee-based revenue is building with a 74%
cost recovery rate which is outside the 80 to 100%typical recovery rates observed by Matrix. The
second highest fee-generating program is Engineering,with a 96% cost recovery rate, which is on
the high end of Matrix’s range of 70 to 100%. Planning is the third highest revenue generating
program recovery with a rate of 63% and is within the typical range of 50 to 80% according to
Matrix.
Table 2:
152
Source: Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report, page 32
Matrix Consulting also studied the total cost to a community member for several representative
services,with an example included below in Table 3. The surveys are included in the report
Appendix beginning on page 39.They provide a visual context of Saratoga’s current fees,full
cost recovery fees, current fees for a representative project in neighboring jurisdictions, and the
average fee across the sampled cities, including Saratoga current fee. When reviewing the data, it
is important to note that fees are a policy decision by each city’s elected body with cities adopting
fees at levels that reflect their individual cost recovery objectives.
Table 3:
Source: Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report, page 38
Impact on Community Members.City staff will apply policy direction on cost recovery levels
to current fees charged to community members. The Finance Committee’s recommendation to
City Council for an overall 90% cost recovery on building services and an overall 75% percent
recovery on planning services impacts each fee at varying rates. To evaluate the impact on a
community member’s cost, Tables 4 and 5 demonstrate the impact of implementing the policy
targets on single-line-item fees. For building, each project is unique and generally incurs multiple
line-item charges.
Table 4: Example Building Line-Item Fee Change
Current Adjusted
Increase to
Community
Member Current Adjusted
Est. Increase
to City
Building Permit:
Valuation $100,001 to
$500,000
159 $2,231 $2,632 $401 $354,675 $418,507 $63,832
Building Permit:
Valuation $500,001 to
$1,000,000
33 $5,496 $7,033 $1,537 $181,352 $232,089 $50,737
Line-Item 2021-22
Volume
Sample Line-Item Fee Sample Line-Item Projected Annual
Cost Recovery
153
Next steps.City staff will compile a proposed comprehensive Fee Schedule using the policy
guidance provided by City Council. The Fee Schedule requires a public hearing at which City
Council may take action to adopt the fees effective July 1 at or below the fees presented in the
proposed Fee Schedule. Upon adoption, City staff will incorporate the estimated revenue in the
City Manager’s proposed budget for fiscal year 2023-24.
FISCAL IMPACT:
At the City Council’s February 10 retreat, the updated 3-year budget forecast included a
placeholder $100,000 in increased structural revenue from adjustments to the City fee schedule.
The recommended cost recovery policy for building and planning recovers an estimated $429,000
or $329,000 more than what is currently included in the 3-year budget forecast.
ATTACHMENT:
Attachment A – Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
Table 5: Example Planning Line-Item Fee Change
Current Adjusted
Increase to
Community
Member Current Adjusted
Est. Increase
to City
Design Application -
Administrative
Review
37 $3,470 $4,650 $1,180 $128,390 $172,043 $43,653
Design Application -
Planning Commission
Review
22 $5,305 $7,109 $1,804 $116,710 $156,391 $39,681
Sample Line-Item Fee Sample Line-Item Projected Annual
Cost Recovery
Line-Item 2021-22
Volume
154
Report on Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
CITY OF SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA
FINAL REPORT
March 2023
155
Table of Contents
1. Introduction and Executive Summary 1
2. Legal Framework and Policy Considerations 4
3. User Fee Study Methodology 7
4. Results Overview 9
5. Building 10
6. Code Compliance 14
7. Engineering 17
8. Finance & Administrative Services 19
9. Planning 21
10. Development Services Surcharges 25
11. Cost Recovery Considerations 29
Appendix – Comparative Survey 34
156
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Saratoga, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 1
1. Introduction and Executive Summary
The report, which follows, presents the results of the Cost of Services (User Fee) Study
conducted by the Matrix Consulting Group for the City of Saratoga, California.
1 Project Background and Overview
The City of Saratoga last conducted a formal fee study over 10 years ago, in 2006. The
purpose of this study is to evaluate and determine the full cost (direct and indirect) of
providing a variety of city services. The Matrix Consulting Group analyzed the cost-of-
service relationships that exist between fees for service activities in the following areas:
Building, Code Compliance, Engineering, Finance, and Planning. The results of this Study
provide a tool for understanding current service levels and the cost for those services.
2 General Project Approach and Methodology
The methodology employed by the Matrix Consulting Group is a widely accepted “bottom
up” approach to cost analysis, where time spent per unit of fee activity is determined for
each position within a Department or Program. Once time spent for a fee activity is
determined, all applicable City costs are then considered in the calculation of the “full”
cost of providing each service. The following table provides an overview of types of costs
applied in establishing the “full” cost of services provided by the City:
Table 1: Overview of Cost Components
Cost Component Description
Direct
Fiscal Year 2023 Budgeted salaries and allowable expenditures.
Indirect
Program, departmental, clerical, and Citywide support.
Together, the cost components in the table above comprise the calculation of the total
“full” cost of providing any service, regardless of whether a fee for that service is charged.
The work accomplished by the Matrix Consulting Group in the analysis of the proposed
fees for service involved the following steps:
• Department / Program Staff Interviews: The project team interviewed department
/ program staff regarding their needs for clarification to the structure of existing
fee items, or for addition of new fee items.
157
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Saratoga, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 2
• Data Collection: Data was collected for each permit / service, including time
estimates. In addition, all budgeted costs and staffing levels for Fiscal Year 2023
were entered into the Matrix Consulting Group’s analytical software model.
• Cost Analysis: The full cost of providing each service included in the analysis was
established.
• Review and Approval of Results with City Staff: Department management has
reviewed and approved these documented results.
A more detailed description of user fee methodology, as well as legal and policy
considerations are provided in subsequent chapters of this report.
3 Summary of Results
When comparing FY23 fee-related budgeted expenditures with fee-related revenue the
City is under-recovering its costs by approximately $897,000 and recovering 76% of its
costs. The following table shows by major service area / discipline, the revenue collected,
the total annual cost, the resulting difference, and associated cost recovery percentage.
Table 2: Annual Cost Recovery Analysis
Service Area
Total
Revenue
Total
Annual Cost Difference
Cost
Recovery %
Building $1,415,635 $1,918,480 ($502,845) 74%
Code Compliance $8,135 $10,376 ($2,241) 78%
Engineering $863,966 $901,677 ($37,712) 96%
Finance $20,675 $43,490 ($22,815) 48%
Planning $571,140 $902,278 ($331,138) 63%
TOTAL $2,879,551 $3,776,302 ($896,751) 76%
The departments / divisions listed above are all are facing under-recoveries. The City’s
largest under-recovery is related to the Building Division at $502,845, followed by
Planning at $331,138. Overall, Building and Planning’s deficits highlight the disparity
between the current fees charged and the actual cost of providing the service. Therefore,
the City should closely evaluate these service areas and increase fees where appropriate
to help bridge this gap.
The detailed documentation of the Study will show an over-collection for some fees (on
a per unit basis), and an undercharge for most others. The results of this analysis will
provide the Department and the City with guidance on how to right-size their fees to
ensure that each service unit is set at an amount that does not exceed the full cost of
providing that service.
158
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Saratoga, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 3
The display of the cost recovery figures shown in this report are meant to provide a basis
for policy development discussions among Council members and City staff, and do not
represent a recommendation for where or how the Council should act. The setting of the
“rate” or “price” for services, whether at 100 percent full cost recovery or lower, is a policy
decision to be made only by the Council, with input from City staff and the community.
4 Considerations for Cost Recovery Policy and Updates
The Matrix Consulting Group recommends that the City use the information contained in
this report to discuss, adopt, and implement a formal Cost Recovery Policy, including a
mechanism for the annual update of fees for service.
1 Adopt a Formal Cost Recovery Policy
The Matrix Consulting Group strongly recommends that the Council adopt a formalized,
individual cost recovery policy for each service area included in this Study. Whenever a
cost recovery policy is established at less than 100% of the full cost of providing services,
a known gap in funding is recognized and may then potentially be recovered through other
revenue sources. The Matrix Consulting Group considers a formalized cost recovery
policy for various fees for service an industry Best Management Practice.
2 Adopt an Annual Fee Update / Increase Mechanism
The purpose of a comprehensive update is to completely revisit the analytical structure,
service level estimates and assumptions, and to account for any major shifts in cost
components or organizational structures that have occurred since the City’s previous
analysis. It’s recommended the City adopts the practice of conducting comprehensive
analyses every three to five years as this practice captures any changes to organizational
structures, processes, or any new service areas.
In between comprehensive updates, the City should utilize published industry economic
factors such as Consumer Price Index (CPI) or other regional factors to update the cost
calculations established in the Study on an annual basis. Alternatively, the City could also
consider the use of its own anticipated labor cost increases such as step increases,
benefit enhancements, or cost of living raises. Utilizing an annual increase mechanism
would ensure that the City receives appropriate fee increases that reflect growth in costs.
159
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Saratoga, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 4
2. Legal Framework and Policy Considerations
This section of the report is intended to provide an overview regarding overall legal rules
and regulations as well as general policy considerations for fees for service. A “user fee”
is a charge for service provided by a governmental agency to a public citizen or group. In
California, several constitutional laws such as Propositions 13, 4, and 218, State
Government Codes 66014 and 66016, and more recently Prop 26 and the Attorney
General’s Opinion 92-506 set the parameters under which the user fees typically
administered by local government are established and administered. Specifically,
California State Law, Government Code 66014(a), stipulates that user fees charged by
local agencies “…may not exceed the estimated reasonable cost of providing the service
for which the fee is charged”.
1 General Principles and Philosophies Regarding User Fees
Local governments are providers of many types of general services to their communities.
While all services provided by local government are beneficial to constituents, some
services can be classified as globally beneficial to all citizens, while others provide more
of a direct benefit to a specific group or individual. The following table provides examples
of services provided by local government within a continuum of the degree of community
benefit received:
Table 3: Services in Relation to Benefit Received
“Global” Community Benefit “Global” Benefit and an
Individual or Group Benefit Individual or Group Benefit
• Police
• Park Maintenance
• Fire Suppression
• Recreation / Community
Services
• Fire Prevention
• Building Permits
• Planning and Zoning Approval
• Site Plan Review
• Engineering Development
Review
• Facility Rentals
Funding for local government is obtained from a myriad of revenue sources such as
taxes, fines, grants, special charges, user fees, etc. In recent years, alternative tax
revenues, which typically offset subsidies for services provided to the community, have
become increasingly limited. These limitations have caused increased attention on user
fee activities as a revenue source that can offset costs otherwise subsidized (usually) by
the general fund. In Table 3, services in the “global benefit” section tend to be funded
primarily through voter approved tax revenues. In the middle of the table, one typically
finds a mixture of taxes, user fee, and other funding sources. Finally, in the “individual /
160
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Saratoga, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 5
group benefit” section of the table, lie the services provided by local government that are
typically funded almost entirely by user fee revenue.
The following are two central concepts regarding the establishment of user fees:
• Fees should be assessed according to the degree of individual or private benefit
gained from services. For example, the processing and approval of a land use or
building permit will generally result in monetary gain to the applicant, whereas
Police services and Fire Suppression are examples of services that are essential
to the safety of the community at large.
• A profit-making objective should not be included in the assessment of user fees.
In fact, California laws require that the charges for service be in direct proportion
to the costs associated with providing those services. Once a charge for service is
assessed at a level higher than the actual cost of providing a service, the term
“user fee” no longer applies. The charge then becomes a tax subject to voter
approval.
Therefore, it is commonly accepted that user fees are established at a level that will
recover up to, and not more than, the cost of providing a particular service.
2 General Policy Considerations Regarding User Fees
Undoubtedly, there are programs, circumstances, and services that justify a subsidy from
a tax based or alternative revenue source. However, it is essential that jurisdictions
prioritize the use of revenue sources for the provision of services based on the continuum
of benefit received.
Within the services that are typically funded by user fees, the Matrix Consulting Group
recognizes several reasons why City staff or the Council may not advocate the full cost
recovery of services. The following factors are key policy considerations in setting fees
at less than 100 percent of cost recovery:
• Limitations posed by an external agency. The State or an outside agency will
occasionally set a maximum, minimum, or limit the jurisdiction’s ability to charge
a fee at all. An example includes time spent copying and retrieving public
documents and / or transportation permits.
• Encouragement of desired behaviors. Keeping fees for certain services below full
cost recovery may provide better compliance from the community. For example, if
the cost of a permit for changing a water heater in residential home is higher than
the cost of the water heater itself, many citizens will avoid pulling the permit.
161
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Saratoga, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 6
• Benefit received by user of the service and the community at large is mutual.
Many services that directly benefit a group or individual equally benefit the whole
community. Examples include Planning Design Review, historical dedications, and
certain types of special events.
The Matrix Consulting Group recognizes the need for policies that intentionally subsidize
certain activities. The primary goals of a User Fee Study are to provide a fair and equitable
basis for determining the costs of providing services and ensure that the City complies
with State law.
3 Summary of Legal Restrictions and Policy Considerations
Once the full cost of providing services is known, the next step is to determine the “rate”
or “price” for services at a level which is up to, and not more than the full cost amount.
The Council is responsible for this decision, which often becomes a question of balancing
service levels and funding sources. The placement of a service or activity within the
continuum of benefit received may require extensive discussion and at times fall into a
“grey area”. However, with the resulting cost of services information from a User Fee
Study, the Council can be assured that the adopted fee for service is reasonable, fair, and
legal. The City will need to review all fees for service in this analysis and where subsidies
are identified increase them to reduce the deficit, and where over-recoveries are identified
the fee must be reduced to comply with the law.
162
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Saratoga, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 7
3. User Fee Study Methodology
The Matrix Consulting Group utilizes a cost allocation methodology commonly known
and accepted as the “bottom-up” approach to establishing User Fees. The term means
that several cost components are calculated for each fee or service. These components
then build upon each other to comprise the total cost for providing the service. The
following chart describes the components of a full cost calculation:
The general steps utilized by the project team to determine allocations of cost
components to a particular fee or service are:
• Calculate fully burdened hourly rates by position, including direct & indirect costs.
• Develop time estimates for the average time spent to deliver each service included
in the study.
• Distribute the appropriate amount of other cost components to each fee or service
based on the staff time allocation basis, or another reasonable basis.
The results of these allocations provide detailed documentation for the reasonable
determination of the actual cost of providing each service.
One of the key study assumptions utilized in the “bottom up” approach is the use of time
estimate averages for the provision of each fee related service. Utilization of time
estimates is a reasonable and defensible approach, especially since experienced staff
members who understand service levels and processes unique to the City developed
these estimates.
The project team worked closely with City staff in developing time estimates with the
following criteria:
• Estimates are representative of average times for providing services. Extremely
difficult or abnormally simple projects are not factored in the analysis.
DIRECT
(Salaries, Benefits,
Productive Hours)
INDIRECT
(Departmental Admin,
Services & Supplies,
Citywide Overhead etc.)
Total Cost
163
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Saratoga, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 8
• Estimates reflect the time associated with the position or positions that typically
perform a service.
• Estimates provided by staff are reviewed and approved by the department /
division, and often involve multiple iterations before a Study is finalized.
• Estimates are reviewed by the project team for “reasonableness” against their
experience with other agencies.
• Estimates were not based on time in motion studies, as they are not practical for
the scope of services and time frame for this project.
• Estimates match the current or proposed staffing levels to ensure there is no over-
allocation of staff resources to fee and non-fee related activities.
The Matrix Consulting Group agrees that while the use of time estimates is not perfect, it
is the best alternative available for setting a standard level of service for which to base a
jurisdiction’s fees for service and meets the requirements of California law.
The alternative to time estimating is actual time tracking, often referred to billing on a
“time and materials” basis. Except in the case of anomalous or sometimes very large and
complex projects, the Matrix Consulting Group believes this approach to not be cost
effective or reasonable for the following reasons:
• Accuracy in time tracking is compromised by the additional administrative burden
required to track, bill, and collect for services in this manner.
• Additional costs are associated with administrative staff’s billing, refunding, and
monitoring deposit accounts.
• Customers often prefer to know the fees for services in advance of applying for
permits or participating in programs.
• Departments can better predict revenue streams and staff needs using
standardized time estimates and anticipated permit volumes.
Situations arise where the size and complexity of a given project warrants time tracking
and billing on a “time and materials” basis. The Matrix Consulting Group has
recommended taking a deposit and charging Actual Costs for such fees as appropriate
and itemized within the current fee schedule.
164
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Saratoga, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 9
4. Results Overview
The motivation behind a cost of services (User Fee) analysis is for the City Council and
Departmental staff to maintain services at a level that is both accepted and effective for
the community, and to maintain control over the policy and management of these
services.
It should be noted that the results presented in this report are not a precise measurement.
In general, a cost-of-service analysis takes a “snapshot in time”, where a fiscal year of
financial and operational information is utilized. Changes to the structure of fee names,
along with the use of time estimates allow only for a reasonable projection of subsidies
and revenue. Consequently, the Council and Department staff should rely conservatively
upon these estimates to gauge the impact of implementation going forward.
Discussion of results in the following chapters is intended as a summary of extensive and
voluminous cost allocation documentation produced during the Study. Each chapter will
include detailed cost calculation results for each major permit category including the
following:
• Modifications: discussions regarding any proposed revisions to the current fee
schedule, including elimination or addition of fees.
• “Per Unit” Results: comparison of the full cost of providing each unit of service to
the current fee for each unit of service (where applicable).
• Annualized Results: utilizing volume of activity estimates annual subsidies and
revenue impacts were projected.
The full analytical results were provided to City staff under separate cover from this
summary report.
165
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Saratoga, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 10
5. Building
The Building Division is responsible for reviewing building proposals and construction for
adherence to state and local codes and laws. The fees examined within this study relate
to review and inspections of residential and commercial buildings, photovoltaic
installations, grading, mechanical, electrical, and plumbing improvements. The following
subsections discuss fee schedule modifications, detailed per unit results, and projected
annual revenue impacts for the fee-related services provided by Building.
1 Fee Schedule Modifications
In discussions with Building staff, the following fee schedule modifications were
proposed:
• Removed Fees: The following Energy Calculation Review fees were removed as
these are now standard reviews for all plans and accounted for in the Building
Permit and Plan Review fees:
- New Non-Residential Structure
- New Residential Structure
- Addition to Non-Residential Building
- Addition to Residential Building
- Application for Moving Permits
• Expansion of Valuation Based Fees: The City’s current Building Permit Fee
valuation table ranges stop at a high of $1,000,000. However, it was determined
that this amount is too low and does not accurately calculate fees for high-cost
projects. As such, two additional ranges were added: $5,000,000 and $10,000,000.
This table expansion will account for much larger cost projects that do not actually
take an exponential increase in the amount of time to plan review and inspect.
• New Fees: A ‘Re-check Plan Review’ fee was added to help account for significant
additional plan review of projects. This fee would be applied only when a project
has exceeded the estimated hours accounted for in a base permit or plan review
fee.
The modifications noted above ensure that the proposed fee schedule more accurately
reflects the services being provided by the Building Division.
166
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Saratoga, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 11
2 Detailed Results
The Building Division collects fees for building permits, commercial and residential
photovoltaic, grading, re-roofs, retaining walls, landslide repairs, mechanical heating and
air conditioning, electrical, plumbing, and building inspections. The total cost calculated
for each service includes direct staff costs and departmental and citywide overhead. The
following table details the fee name, current fee, total cost, and difference associated
with each service offered.
Table 4: Total Cost Per Unit Results – Building
Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Building Permits Fees
Valuation
$1 to $2,000 $78 $162.45 ($84)
$2,001 base fee $78 $162.45 ($84)
Each additional $1,000 up to $25,000 $17.50 $16.48 $1
$25,001 base fee $490 $541.48 ($51)
Each additional $1,000 up to $50,000 $12.60 $21.66 ($9)
$50,001 base fee $805 $1,082.97 ($278)
Each additional $1,000 up to $100,000 $9.80 $10.83 ($1)
$100,001 base fee $1,242 $1,624.45 ($382)
Each additional $1,000 up to $500,000 $7 $9.21 ($2)
$500,001 base fee $4,042 $5,306.55 ($1,265)
Each additional $1,000 up to $1,000,000 $5.90 $10.18 ($4)
$1,000,001 base fee $7,010 $10,396.50 ($3,387)
Each additional $1,000 up to $5,000,000 $4.56 $3.90 $1
$5,000,001 base fee $25,250.00 $25,991.26 ($741)
Each additional $1,000 up to $10,000,000 $4.56 $2.60 $2
$10,000,001 base fee $48,050.00 $38,986.89 $9,063
Each additional $1,000 $4.56 $1.30 $3
Plan Check Fee 65% 66% -1%
Photovoltaic
Residential Roof Mount Actual Costs
15KW and above $15 $20 ($5)
Ground Mount Actual Costs
Commercial
0-8 KW $690 $612 $78
9-48 KW $925 $769 $156
49 KW and above $2,260 $1,763 $497
Grading Permits
Less than 100 Cubic Yards $510 $524 ($14)
Over 100 Cubic Yards Base $510 $524 ($14)
Each additional 100 Cubic Yards $125 $217 ($92)
Plan Check Fee $545 $582 ($37)
Other Valuations
Demolition Actual Costs
Reroofs - Residential Actual Costs
167
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Saratoga, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 12
Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Landslide Repair Permit At discretion of Building Official
Retaining Walls
Masonry / Concrete $165 $395 ($230)
Wood $85 $297 ($212)
MEP Permits
Mechanical Permits - Heating and Air Conditioning Permits
Minor Remodels, Residential/Commercial without
associated building permit $0.10 $0.18 ($0.08)
Major Remodels, Residential/Commercial without
associated building permit Actual Costs
Miscellaneous permits without associated building
permit Actual Costs
Plan Check Fee 25% 86% -61%
Electrical Permits
Minor Remodels, Residential/Commercial without
associated building permit $0.10 $0.18 ($0.08)
Major Remodels, Residential/Commercial without
associated building permit Actual Costs
Miscellaneous permits without associated building
permit Actual Costs
Plan Check Fee 25% 85% -60%
Plumbing Permits
Water Heater Replacement $80 $199 ($119)
Minor Remodels, Residential/Commercial without
associated building permit $0.10 $0.18 ($0.08)
Major Remodels, Residential/Commercial without
associated building permit Actual Costs
Miscellaneous permits without associated building
permit Actual Costs
Plan Check Fee 25% 85% -60%
Building Inspection Services
Other Inspection Fees
Inspection Outside of Normal Business Hours Actual Costs
Re-Inspection Fees Assessed Under
Section 305(h) of the Uniform Administrative Code Actual Costs
Inspections or plan review for which no fee is
specifically indicated Actual Costs
Permit Extension – prior to expiration Actual Costs
Permit to Final (only if all inspections
except final have been completed) Actual Costs
Alternative Materials or Methods of Construction
Request Actual Costs
Duplicate Permit Card Actual Costs
Stockpiling Permit $310 $325 ($15)
Re-check Plan Review New $196
Generally, Building fees are under-recovering with the largest under-recovery found in
‘Building Permits Valuation - $1,000,001 Base Fee’ at $3,387. The largest over-recovery is
in “Photovoltaic – Commercial – 49 KW and above” at $497.
168
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Saratoga, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 13
3 Annual Revenue Impacts
Based on prior year workload information (FY21-22) the Building Division has a deficit of
approximately $500,000. The following table shows by major fee category the revenue at
current fee, the total projected annual cost, and the resulting difference:
Table 5: Annual Revenue Impacts – Building
Fee Name
Revenue at
Current Fee Annual Cost Difference
Valuation $1,368,755 $1,832,517 ($463,763)
Photovoltaic $5,520 $7,292 ($1,772)
Grading Permits $2,895 $4,297 ($1,402)
Other Valuations $85 $297 ($212)
Mechanical Permits $12,547 $22,081 ($9,534)
Electrical Permits $7,688 $13,738 ($6,050)
Plumbing Permits $18,145 $38,257 ($20,112)
TOTAL $1,415,635 $1,918,480 ($502,845)
The Building Division has a 74% annual cost recovery, which reflects a $502,845 deficit.
The largest component of the deficit is valuation fees, which experiences a deficit of
$463,763, followed by plumbing permits which have a deficit of $20,112. This analysis
indicates that right-sizing the valuation permits based upon the new proposed system as
well as plumbing permits will have a significant impact on the Division’s ability to recover
its costs.
169
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Saratoga, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 14
6. Code Compliance
The Code Compliance Division is responsible for ensuring compliance and overseeing
enforcement of municipal codes and state laws. The fees examined within this study
relate to animal permits, noise exemption, special events, code violation citations, sign
retrieval, abandoned vehicles, and business regulation permits. The following
subsections discuss fee schedule modifications, detailed per unit results, and projected
annual revenue impacts for the fee-related services provided by Code Compliance.
1 Fee Schedule Modifications
In discussions with Code Compliance staff, the following fee schedule modifications
were proposed:
• Removed Fees: The ‘Off-street Vehicle Permit’ fee was removed as Code
Compliance staff no longer issues these permits.
• Consolidated Fees: The following fees appeared more than once in the City’s
master fee schedule and were consolidated to clarify the true fee charged for
these services:
- Special Event permit
- Noise Exemption permit
The modifications noted above ensure that the proposed fee schedule more accurately
reflects the services being provided by Code Compliance. Furthermore, it is
recommended that all Business Regulation Permits be moved to the Code Compliance
section of the master fee schedule to better identify who provides those services.
2 Detailed Results
The Code Compliance Division collects fees for animal permits, noise exemption, special
events, code violation citations, sign retrieval, abandoned vehicles, and business
regulation permits. The total cost calculated for each service includes direct staff costs
and departmental and citywide overhead. The following table details the fee name,
current fee, total cost, and difference associated with each service offered.
170
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Saratoga, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 15
Table 6: Total Cost Per Unit Results – Code Compliance
Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Code Compliance Permits
Animal – Kennel Permit $130 $345 ($215)
Animal – Horse Permit $130 $345 ($215)
Noise Exception Permit $55 $86 ($31)
Enforcement Fees & Penalties
Administrative Citation Fee
First Violation $105 $250 ($145)
Second Violation $205 $500 ($295)
Subsequent Violations $510 $1,000 ($490)
Administrative Citation Late Payment Penalty
Within 30 days after due date 10% 10% 0%
Exceeding 30 days after due date 10% 10% 0%
Notice of Code Violation
Removal of Notice of Code Violation $510 $518 ($8)
Sign Retrieval Fees (per calendar year)
First Occurrence N / A $259 N / A
Second Occurrence $25 $259 ($234)
Subsequent Occurrences $45 $259 ($214)
Sign Abandonment Actual Costs
Sheriff Office Enforcement Fees
Abandoned Vehicle Fee $255 $255 $0
Administrative
General Fees
Subpoena Summons Response Actual Cost $777 N / A
Appeals - Public Hearings
Code Compliance Appeal $410 $1,036 ($626)
Business Licenses
Business Regulation Permits
Bingo
Permit Application Fee $50 $130 ($80)
Circus and Carnivals (Fairs)
Permit Application Fee $100 $173 ($73)
Clean Up Deposit $500 $500 $0
Firearms
Sellers Permit Application Fee $300 $518 ($218)
Sellers Permit Renewal Fee $250 $259 ($9)
Massage Establishments Permit Application Fee $750 $518 $232
Permit for Managing Employee $350 $359 ($9)
Permit for Massage Practitioner $350 $259 $91
Examination Fee As set by the Examiner
Background Investigation / Fingerprinting As set by the Sheriff
Appeal Hearing - Permit Denial $500 $691 ($191)
Appeal Hearing - Permit Suspension or Revocation $1,500 $1,036 $464
Motion Picture Filming
Permit Application Fee $500 $345 $155
Clean-up At discretion of Community Events Official
Special Event
Permit Application Fee $300 $345 ($45)
Clean Up Deposit $250 $250 $0
171
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Saratoga, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 16
Most fees charged by Code Compliance are under-recovering, with the largest under-
recovery being ‘Appeals – Public Hearings – Code Compliance Appeal’ at $626. The
largest over-recovery is within the Massage Establishments section, ‘Appeal Hearing –
Permit Suspension or Revocation’ at $464.
3 Annual Revenue Impacts
Based on prior year workload information (FY21-22) the Code Compliance Division has a
deficit of approximately $2,000. The following table shows by major fee category the
revenue at current fee, the total projected annual cost, and the resulting difference:
Table 7: Annual Revenue Impacts – Code Compliance
Fee Name
Revenue at
Current Fee Annual Cost Difference
Code Compliance Permits $2,475 $3,886 ($1,411)
Admin Fees $410 $1,813 ($626)
Business Regulation Permits $5,250 $4,677 $573
TOTAL $8,135 $10,376 ($2,241)
The Code Compliance Division has a 78% annual cost recovery, which reflects a $2,241
subsidy. The largest component of the subsidy is Code Compliance Permits, including
noise exception permits, which have the highest workload of all code compliance fees
and experience a deficit of $1,411. Administrative fees also show an annual subsidy of
$626. Conversely, business regulation permits show a surplus of $573. Updating these
fees based upon the new proposed system will enable the Division to recover its costs
fairly and equitably for code compliance permits, administrative fees, and business
regulation permits.
172
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Saratoga, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 17
7. Engineering
The Engineering Division is responsible for ensuring private development projects are
constructed in accordance with City guidelines and standards, through the reviewing of
engineering plans and specifications. The fees examined within this study relate to review
and inspections of right-of-way repairs and improvements, subdivisions, and heavy
equipment rentals. The following subsections discuss fee schedule modifications,
detailed per unit results, and projected annual revenue impacts for the fee-related
services provided by Engineering.
1 Fee Schedule Modifications
In discussions with Engineering staff, two minor fee schedule modifications were
proposed, including adding ‘Oversized Load Permit’ to the fee schedule, and renaming the
‘First $50,000 Estimated Construction Cost’ Improvement Plan Check fee to be a base fee
rather than a minimum charge. These modifications ensure that the proposed fee
schedule more accurately reflects the services being provided by the Engineering
Division.
2 Detailed Results
The Engineering Division collects fees for improvement plan checks, review and
inspections of subdivisions, encroachments, major repairs or capital improvements,
equipment rentals, tree and bench dedications, and public works map & plan checks or
inspection services. The total cost calculated for each service includes direct staff costs
and departmental and citywide overhead. The following table details the fee name,
current fee, total cost, and difference associated with each service offered.
Table 8: Total Cost Per Unit Results – Engineering
Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Engineering Fees
Engineering Design & Administrative Review $1,020 $1,129 ($109)
Improvement Plan Check Service Fee
First 50,000 Estimated Construction Cost base fee $5,100 $7,589 ($2,489)
Over 50,000 Estimated Construction Cost 5% 2.11% 3%
Inspection Fees For Subdivisions & Building Site
Improvements 200% 119% 81%
Tentative Subdivision Map, 1 lot $2,550 $3,641 ($1,091)
Each Additional Lot $500 $579 ($79)
173
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Saratoga, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 18
Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Engineering Permits
Encroachment Permits
Permit Application Fee for pipes, drains, conduits,
utility service connections, routine O&M work by utility
agencies, and permanent encroachments. $510 $1,190 ($680)
Major Repairs or Capital Improvements by Utility Agencies / Companies
Up to $250,000 14% 9.73% $0
Between $250,000 and $500,000 $35,700 $24,324 $11,376
Engineer's Estimate over $250,000 8% 17.87% ($0)
Over $500,000 $56,100 $89,367 ($33,267)
Engineer's Estimate over $500,000 7% 2.94% $0
Oversized Load Permit $25 $524 ($499)
Equipment Rentals
Heavy Equipment, Vehicles, and Construction Tools &
Equipment Rentals Actual Cost
Security Deposit To be determined by Fleet Manager
Miscellaneous
Tree and Bench Dedications 50% Actual Cost
Additional Public Works map checks, plan checks, or
inspection services Actual Cost
Generally, Engineering fees are under-recovering. The largest under-recovery relates to
‘Major Repairs or Capital Improvements by Utility Agencies / Companies – Over $500,000’
at $33,267. The largest over-recovery relates to ‘Major Repairs or Capital Improvements
by Utility Agencies / Companies – Between $250,000 and $500,000 at $11,376.
3 Annual Revenue Impacts
Based on prior year workload information (FY21-22) the Engineering Division has a
subsidy of approximately $38,000. The following table shows by major fee category the
revenue at current fee, the total projected annual cost, and the resulting difference:
Table 9: Annual Revenue Impacts – Engineering
Fee Name
Revenue at
Current Fee Annual Cost Difference
Encroachment Permits $140,760 $328,363 ($187,603)
Major Repairs or Capital Improvements by Utility Agency $723,206 $573,314 $149,892
TOTAL $863,966 $901,677 ($37,712)
The Engineering Division has a 96% annual cost recovery, which reflects a $37,712
subsidy. Encroachment permits are the source of this subsidy, with a total deficit of
$187,603, which is partially balanced by the Major Repairs or Capital Improvements by
Utility Agency annual surplus of $149,892. By re-considering fees within both categories
to represent cost of service more accurately, the subsidy could be eliminated.
174
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Saratoga, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 19
8. Finance & Administrative Services
The Finance & Administrative Services Department is responsible for overseeing and
supporting the City’s financial, administrative, and technology related operations. The
fees-related services examined within this study relate to business licensing. The
following subsections discuss fee schedule modifications, detailed per unit results, and
projected annual revenue impacts for the fee-related services provided by the Finance &
Administrative Services Department.
1 Fee Schedule Modifications
In discussions with Finance staff, the following fee schedule modifications were
proposed to the current fee schedule:
• Removed Fees: The following fees should be moved from Finance’s section of the
fee schedule to an alternative department / division’s section as they are not
processed by Finance staff.
- Business Regulation Permits were moved from the Finance fee schedule to
the Code Compliance fee schedule as these services are performed by Code
Compliance Staff.
- Notary Fees were moved from the Finance fee schedule to the Clerk / General
Administration fee schedule as these services are only provided by Clerk staff.
• Combined Fees: The ‘Duplicate certificate’ fee was combined with the ‘Address
change or correction’ fee to make a singular fee called ‘Address change or
correction / Duplicate Certificate.’
The modifications noted above ensure that the proposed fee schedule more accurately
reflects the services being provided by Finance staff.
2 Detailed Results
The Finance & Administrative Services Department collects fees for business licensing.
The total cost calculated for each service includes direct staff costs and departmental
and citywide overhead. The following table details the fee name, current fee, total cost,
and difference associated with each service offered.
175
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Saratoga, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 20
Table 10: Total Cost Per Unit Results – Finance
Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Business Licenses
Processing Fees (Non-Refundable)
a. New application $35 $49 ($14)
b. Application renewal $20 $49 ($29)
c. Address change or correction $15 $24 ($9)
e. Business license listing $35 $32 $3
Overall, Finance experiences an under-recovery for every fee charged except for ‘Business
license listing,’ which over-recovers by $3. The largest under-recovery is ‘Application
renewal’ at $29.
3 Annual Revenue Impacts
Based on prior year workload information (FY21-22) the Finance Department has a deficit
of approximately $23,000. The following table shows by fee category, the revenue at
current fee, the total projected annual cost, and the resulting difference:
Table 11: Annual Revenue Impacts – Finance
Fee Name
Revenue at
Current Fee Annual Cost Difference
Business Licenses
Processing Fees (Non-Refundable)
a. New application $6,475.00 $9,025.11 ($2,550)
b. Application renewal $14,080.00 $34,344.21 ($20,264)
c. Address change or correction $15.00 $24.39 ($9)
e. Business license listing $105.00 $96.59 $8
TOTAL $20,675 $43,490 ($22,815)
The Finance & Administrative Services Department has a 48% annual cost recovery, which
reflects a $22,815 subsidy. The largest component of the subsidy is from application
renewals, which experiences a $20,264 deficit. This indicates that a significant portion of
the subsidy would be eliminated by adjusting the application renewal fee to more
accurately reflect staff time spent on this service.
176
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Saratoga, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 21
9. Planning
The Planning Division is responsible for ensuring development applications comply with
zoning regulations and ordinances. Additionally, they are responsible for long-range
planning activities to inform policy decisions related to the growth and development of
the City. The fees examined within this study relate to appeals, annexation, technical
review, general plan services, conditional use, environmental impact reporting, among
others. The following subsections discuss fee schedule modifications, detailed per unit
results, and projected annual revenue impacts for the fee-related services provided by
Planning.
1 Fee Schedule Modifications
In discussions with Planning staff, the following fee schedule modifications were
proposed to the current fee schedule:
• Removed Fees: The following fees were removed as the Planning Division no
longer provides these services:
- Construction Trailer Permit
- Satellite Dish Antenna Permit
- Storage Permit
- Landscape Bond Acceptance Fee
- Request for Continuance
- Project Notification Sign
- Planning Process Orientation Class
- Fence Enclosure – Application Review
• Re-named Fees: The following three fees were changed to better reflect services
offered by the City:
- ‘Plan Submittal Orientation’, re-named as ‘Pre-Application Review’
- ‘Base Fee, Less than 10 lots’, re-named as ‘Base Fee, 4 or less lots’
- ‘Each additional lot over 10’, re-named as ‘Over 4 lots’
• New Fees: The following fees were added to account for newer services offered
by the City:
- After-the-fact Tree Removal Permit (More than 3 trees)
- SB9: Urban Lot Split
- SB9: Two Unit Development
- Over the Counter (OTC): Minor (e.g., AC Units)
177
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Saratoga, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 22
- Over the Counter (OTC): Major (e.g., Swimming Pool, Gazebo, etc.)
- Outside vendor Surcharge
The modifications noted above ensure that the proposed fee schedule will more
accurately reflect the services being provided by the Planning Division.
2 Detailed Results
The Planning Division collects fees for appeals, annexation, technical review, general plan
services, conditional use, environmental impact reporting, among others. The total cost
calculated for each service includes direct staff costs and Departmental and Citywide
overhead. The following table details the fee name, current fee, total cost, and difference
associated with each service offered.
Table 12: Total Cost Per Unit Results – Planning
Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Planning Permits
Tree Removal Permit
Tree Removal Permit $130 $321 ($191)
After-the-Fact Tree Removal Permit (Up to 3 trees) $415 $568 ($153)
After-the-Fact Tree Removal Permit (More than 3
trees) Actual Cost
Planning Fees
Appeals
Appeal of Administrative Decision to Planning
Commission per City Code Section 15-90.010 $410 $2,476 ($2,066)
From Planning Commission to City Council per City
Code Section 15-90.020 $615 $2,476 ($1,861)
Application Extension Fee $2,550 $1,340 $1,210
Planning Services
Annexation
Annexation Request $5,000 $5,000 $0
Waiver Request $510 $486 $24
City Attorney Services Actual Costs
Noticing Services (Mailing List) Actual Costs
Final Planning Inspections $170 $239 ($69)
Technical Review
Application (up to 3 reviews) $510 $1,032 ($522)
Re-Review $208 ($208)
Special Reports and Studies Actual Cost
Traffic and Economic Studies/Other Special Reviews Actual Costs
Williamson Act Contract Application or Contract
Cancellation $5,000 $5,000 $0
Zoning Ordinance Amendment $3,500 $3,500 $0
Complex Project Fee Actual Costs
General Plan Services
General Plan Amendment $3,500 $3,500 $0
178
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Saratoga, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 23
Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Pre-Development Application Services
Pre-Application Review New $416 ($416)
Property Profile $105 $208 ($103)
Planning Application Reviews
Conditional Use Permit
Administrative Review $3,470 $2,801 $669
Planning Commission Review $4,490 $9,498 ($5,008)
Design Application Review
Administrative Review $3,470 $5,246 ($1,776)
Planning Commission Review $5,305 $9,221 ($3,916)
Environmental Application Review
Department of Fish & Game EIR Fee per AB 3158 Actual Costs
Department of Fish & Game Negative Declaration Fee Actual Costs
Environmental Assessment Fee $1,500 $1,500 $0
Mitigated Negative Declaration Fee Actual Costs
Environmental Impact Report Administrative Fee Actual Costs
Monitoring of Mitigation Measures Actual Costs
Exception – Application & Permit
Planning Commission Review $1,840 $2,448 ($608)
Heritage Preservation Application & Reviews
Mills Act Application Actual Costs
Historic Compliance Review $245 $1,041 ($796)
Application for Designation No Charge $1,319
Permit Application Fee No Charge $416
Appeal Fee No Charge $2,476
Lot Adjustment – Application Review
Application for Lot Line Adjustment $1,530 $2,392 ($862)
Application for Merger of Parcel $1,530 $2,392 ($862)
Application for Reversion to Acreage $1,530 $2,392 ($862)
Modification of Approved Application Review $2,550 $2,318 $232
Sign – Application Review
Administrative Review $310 $662 ($352)
Planning Commission Review $1,840 $2,261 ($421)
Sound Wall Application Review $1,020 $662 $358
Temporary Use Application Review
Administrative Review $435 $555 ($120)
Planning Commission Review $2,655 $3,010 ($355)
Tentative Map Subdivision – Application Review
Base Fee, 4 or less lots Actual Costs $4,697 N / A
Each additional over 4 lots $150 $7,725 ($7,575)
Subdivision Final Map $5,000 $10,198 ($5,198)
Variance – Application Review $2,755 $3,069 ($314)
Water Efficiency Landscape – Application Review $2,500 $2,500 $0
Arborist Services
Arborist Consultant Services/ Field Inspections Actual Costs
Arborist Review Fee $1,000 $1,500 ($500)
Arborist Review of Tree Appeal $255 $2,568 ($2,313)
Tree Fines Penalty
Outside vendor Surcharge
SB9
Urban Lot Split New $4,047 N / A
Two Unit Development New $5,246 N / A
179
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Saratoga, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 24
Fee Name Current Fee Total Cost Difference
Over the Counter (OTC)
Minor (e.g., AC Units) New $104 N / A
Major (e.g., Swimming Pool, Gazebo, etc.) New $1,249 N / A
Other Services
Certificate of Compliance $2,500 $2,500 $0
Geotechnical Review $5,000 $5,000 $0
Lot Line Adjustment Engineering Fees $2,500 $2,500 $0
Map Checking Fees $2,500 $2,500 $0
Traffic Review Fee $2,500 $2,500 $0
Stormwater Design Review Fee $2,500 $2,500 $0
City Surveyor $2,500 $2,500 $0
Vendor Surcharge New 25% N / A
Generally, Planning fees are under-recovering. The largest under-recovery relates to
‘Tentative Map Subdivision – Application Review - Each additional lot over 4’ for $7,575.
The largest over-recovery is the Planning Appeal Application Extension Fee for $1,210.
3 Annual Revenue Impacts
Based on prior year workload information (FY21-22) the Planning Division has a deficit of
approximately $331,000. The following table shows by major fee category, the revenue
at current fee, the total projected annual cost, and the resulting difference:
Table 13: Annual Revenue Impacts – Planning
Fee Name
Revenue at
Current Fee Annual Cost Difference
Planning Permits $45,370 $112,191 ($66,821)
Planning Services $71,400 $144,422 ($73,022)
Planning Application Reviews $292,870 $459,665 ($166,795)
Arborist Services $49,000 $73,500 ($24,500)
Other Services $112,500 $112,500 $0
TOTAL $571,140 $902,278 ($331,138)
The Planning Division has a cost recovery of approximately 63%, reflecting a subsidy of
$331,138. Each of the major fee categories show an under-recovery except for “Other
Services,” which recovers at-cost. The largest subsidy is found in Planning Application
reviews at $166,795, followed by planning service at $73,022. Planning permits,
specifically in the tree removal category, experience the highest workload and show a
subsidy of $66,821. Updating these fees based on the cost of service would help reduce
subsidy in the Planning Division.
180
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Saratoga, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 25
10. Development Services Surcharges
There are two typical surcharges assessed as part of the development review process –
General Plan Maintenance Fee and Technology fee. The City of Saratoga currently
charges a General Plan Maintenance fee as part of the building phase and a Software
Technology Fee during both the Planning and Building phase. The following subsections
discuss the calculation of the General Plan Maintenance and Software Technology Fees.
1 General Plan Update Fee
The City of Saratoga currently assesses a General Plan Maintenance Fee as part of its
building process. The fee is meant to account for updates to the general plan, zoning
ordinance, housing elements, and other long-range planning activities that are part of the
larger General Plan. This is a typical fee charged by many jurisdictions. The City of
Saratoga currently charges this fee as a percentage of building valuation.
The General Plan Maintenance fee is governed by Government Code Section 66014(b)
which states that fees “may include the costs reasonably necessary to prepare and revise
the plans and policies that a local agency is required to adopt before it can make any
necessary findings and recommendations.” This code states that fees can be charged
against zoning changes, zoning variances, use permits, building inspections, and filing
applications.
More typically, the fee is charged during the building permit phase to ensure any
development project, which gets to the building phase, makes enough of an impact to
require the need for an update to the Zoning Code or the General Plan. This fee should
only be applied to major building permits (i.e., new or remodel / tenant improvements)
rather than standalone permits for water heaters or electrical outlets.
The project team used budget information for Saratoga’s Advanced Planning Division to
determine the annual city cost associated with long-range planning. In addition to this
budgeted cost, the project team used citywide overhead calculated through the Full Cost
Allocation Plan to determine the fully burdened cost associated with Advanced Planning.
The following table shows the total annual costs identified in the Advanced Planning
Budget, Citywide Overhead, and the resulting fully burdened cost of Advanced Planning.
Table 14: General Plan Maintenance Fee Cost Components
Cost Category Total Annual Cost
Advanced Planning Budget $207,376
Citywide Overhead $138,940
TOTAL $346,316
181
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Saratoga, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 26
The total annual costs associated with Advanced Planning Plan are approximately
$346,000. To assess this fee as a percentage of building project valuation, the project
team took the annual cost associated with Advanced Planning and divided it by the total
building valuation for FY22. The following table shows this calculation:
Table 15: General Plan Maintenance Fee Calculation
Category Amount
Total General Plan Annual Maintenance Cost $346,316
Total FY22 Building Valuation $113,255,672
General Plan Maintenance Fee .306%
As the table indicates, the calculated General Plan Maintenance Fee is .306% of building
valuation. The following table compares the city’s current fee to the full cost fee
calculated through this study:
Table 16: General Plan Maintenance Fee Per Unit Result Comparison
Category Current Fee Full Cost Surplus / (Deficit)
General Plan Maintenance Fee .285% .306% (.021%)
The City’s current fee is .285% of the building valuation. While the full cost fee would
result in an increase of the City’s current fee from .285% to .306%. For example, if a project
is valued at $100,000, the current General Plan Maintenance Fee would be $285 while the
full cost would be $306.
As part of this analysis, the project team conducted a comparative survey of other local
jurisdictions and their assessment of the General Plan Maintenance Fee. Like other
comparative efforts, the survey below simply shows the fees charged by the jurisdiction
and does not include the basis upon which the other jurisdictions calculated or developed
their fee. The following table shows the results of this comparative analysis:
Table 17: General Plan Maintenance Fee – Comparative Survey
Jurisdiction Fee Amount
Campbell 8% of building permit fee
Cupertino $0.22 – $0.45 per square foot
Los Altos N / A
Los Altos Hills $239 flat fee
Los Gatos 0.5% building valuation1
Palo Alto 0.112% of building valuation
1 Los Gatos also charges the general plan maintenance fee based on 10% of zoning change and subdivision fees.
182
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Saratoga, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 27
Five of the six surveyed jurisdictions charge a General Plan Maintenance Fee. The way
the fee is charged varies based upon percentage of valuation (Los Gatos, Palo Alto),
percentage of permit fees (Campbell), per square foot (Cupertino), and per permit (Los
Altos Hills). Of those cities that charge the fee as a percentage of building valuation, the
City of Saratoga’s current fee of .285% is the highest. Updating the City’s General Plan
Maintenance fee will allow Saratoga to better recover for its long-range planning efforts.
2 Technology Surcharge Fee
The City currently collects a Software Technology Planning Permit fee of 7.25% which is
applied only to Planning permit fees and a Software Technology Building Permit fee of
$20 per application. A Software Technology Fee allows the City to support the costs
associated with the City’s permitting system, staff time for managing the systems,
acquiring the system, mobile devices used for permitting, etc. The project team used the
City’s IT and GIS related costs for all development-related activities to determine annual
technology costs. The following table shows by cost category the resulting annual cost:
Table 18: Technology Surcharge Fee Cost Components
Cost Category Planning Building Engineering
Total Annual
Cost
IT Service – IS Charge $103,704 $49,383 $39,506 $192,593
GIS System Services -LYNX $16,250 $16,500 $32,750
IT Equipment – IS Charges $9,000 $9,000 $7,500 $25,500
GIS License Support - ESRI $8,200 $33,420 $6,250 $47,870
TOTAL $298,713
Based upon the items needed to provide development-related software technology
services, the annual software technology-related costs are approximately $299,000 for
the City of Saratoga. The project team determined that the most relatable nexus for the
Software Technology Fee is proportionate to the permit fee. This means, the greater the
permit fee, the greater the Software Technology Fee as there is more software utilization
and storage space for larger projects. Therefore, the project team took the total Software
Technology Annual Cost and divided it by the annual fee-related cost associated with
Building, Planning, and Engineering. The following table shows this calculation:
Table 19: Technology Fee Calculation
Category Amount
Total Technology Annual Costs $298,713
Total Projected Development Annual Cost $1,587,002
Technology Fee as % of Permit Fee 19%
183
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Saratoga, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 28
Based upon this calculation, the City’s Technology fee would be 19% of the permit fee.
Therefore, if a planning application fee is $1,000 then the current Software Technology
fee would be $72.50, while the full cost fee would be $190. Similarly, if a building
application fee is $1,000 then the current Software Technology fee would be $20 while
the full cost fee would be $190. With these scenarios in mind, the percentage-based
structure clearly enables the Software Technology fee to be more proportionately
distributed based upon the projects and their impact upon the system.
As part of this analysis, the project team conducted a comparative survey of other local
jurisdictions and their assessment of a Technology Fee. Like other comparative efforts,
the survey below simply shows the fees charged by the jurisdiction and does not include
the basis upon which the other jurisdictions calculated or developed their fee. The
following table shows the results of this comparative analysis:
Table 20: Technology Fee – Comparative Survey
Jurisdiction Fee Amount
Campbell 2% of building permit fee
Cupertino N / A
Los Altos 8% of building/MEP permits
Los Altos Hills N / A
Los Gatos 4% of development application fee
Palo Alto N / A
Half of the surveyed jurisdictions charge a Technology fee and of these jurisdictions, all
charge their technology fee as a percentage of the permit fee. Saratoga’s calculated full
cost of 19% of the permit fee is higher than all other surveyed jurisdictions. Updating the
City’s software technology fee will allow Saratoga to fund the current costs for its
development-related permitting needs.
3 Surcharge Funds
It is a best practice to collect and account for General Plan Maintenance and Technology
surcharges in separate accounts. Prior to implementation, the City should ensure that a
separate fund or subaccount is designated to house the General Plan Maintenance
Surcharge and an additional fund or subaccount to house the Technology Surcharge. This
will ensure compliance with funding requirements, enable appropriate allocation of funds
to general plan or technology-related activities, and mitigate any potential issues with
comingling of funds.
184
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Saratoga, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 29
11. Cost Recovery Considerations
The following sections provide guidance regarding how and where to increase fees,
determining annual update factors, and developing cost recovery policies and
procedures.
1 Fee Adjustments
This study has documented and outlined on a fee-by-fee basis where the City is under
and over collecting for its fee-related services. City and Department management will
now need to review the results of the study and adjust fees in accordance with
Departmental and City philosophies and policies. The following dot points outline the
major options the City has in adjusting its fees.
• Over-Collection: Upon review of the fees that were shown to be over-collecting for
costs of services provided, the City should reduce the current fee to be in line with
the full cost of providing the service.
• Full Cost Recovery: For fees that show an under-collection for costs of services
provided, the City may decide to increase the fee to full cost recovery immediately.
• Phased Increase: For fees with significantly low cost recovery levels, or which
would have a significant impact on the community, the City could choose to
increase fees gradually over a set period of time.
The City will need to review the results of the fee study and associated cost recovery
levels and determine how best to adjust fees. While decisions regarding fees that
currently show an over-recovery are generally straight forward, the following subsections,
provide further detail on why and how the City should consider either implementing Full
Cost Recovery or a Phased Increase approach to adjusting its fees.
1 Full Cost Recovery
Based on the permit or review type, the City may wish to increase the fee to cover the full
cost of providing services. Certain permits may be close to cost recovery already, and an
increase to full cost may not be significant. Other permits may have a more significant
increase associated with full cost recovery.
Increasing fees associated with permits and services that are already close to full cost
recovery can potentially bring a Department’s overall cost recovery level higher. Often,
185
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Saratoga, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 30
these minimal increases can provide necessary revenue to counterbalance fees which
are unable to be increased.
The City should consider increasing fees for permits for which services are rarely
engaged to full cost recovery. These services often require specific expertise and can
involve more complex research and review due to their infrequent nature. As such, setting
these fees at full cost recovery will ensure that when the permit or review is requested,
the City is recovering the full cost of its services.
2 Phased Increases
Depending on current cost recovery levels some current fees may need to be increased
significantly to comply with established or proposed cost recovery policies. Due to the
type of permit or review, or the amount by which a fee needs to be increased, it may be
best for the City to use a phased approach to reaching their cost recovery goals.
As an example, you may have a current fee of $200 with a full cost of $1,000, representing
20% cost recovery. If the current policy is 80% cost recovery, the current fee would need
to increase by $600, bringing the fee to $800, to comply with the current policy. Assuming
this service is something the City provides quite often, and affects various members of
the community, an instant increase of $600 may not be feasible. Therefore, the City could
take a phased approach, whereby it increases the fee annually over a set period until cost
recovery is achieved.
Raising fees over a set period not only allows the City to monitor and control the impact
to applicants, but also ensure that applicants have time to adjust to significant increases.
Continuing with the example laid out above, the City could increase the fee by $150 for
the next four years, spreading out the increase. Depending on the desired overall increase,
and the impact to applicants, the City could choose to vary the number of years by which
it chooses to increase fees. However, the project team recommends that the City not
phase increases for periods greater than five years, as that is the maximum window for
which a comprehensive fee assessment should be completed.
2 Annual Adjustments
Conducting a comprehensive analysis of fee-related services and costs annually would
be quite cumbersome and costly. The general rule of thumb for comprehensive fee
analyses is between three and five years. This allows for jurisdictions to ensure they
account for organizational changes such as staffing levels and merit increases, as well
as process efficiencies, code or rule changes, or technology improvements.
186
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Saratoga, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 31
Developing annual update mechanisms allow jurisdictions to maintain current levels of
cost recovery, while accounting for increases in staffing or expenditures related to permit
services. The two most common types of update mechanisms are Consumer Price Index
(CPI) and Cost of Living Adjustment (COLA) factors. The following points provide further
detail on each of these mechanisms.
• COLA / Personnel Cost Factor: Jurisdictions often provide their staff with annual
salary adjustments to account for increases in local cost of living. These increases
are not tied to merit or seniority, but rather meant to offset rising costs associated
with housing, gas, and other livability factors. Sometimes these factors vary
depending on the bargaining group of a specific employee. Generally, these factors
are around two or three percent annually.
• CPI Factor: A common method of increasing fees or cost is to look at regional cost
indicators, such as the Consumer Price Index. These factors are calculated by the
Bureau of Labor Statistics, put out at various intervals within a year, and are
specific to states and regions.
The City of Saratoga should review its current options internally (COLA) as well as
externally (CPI) to determine which option better reflects the goals of the Department and
the City. If choosing a CPI factor, the City should outline which CPI should be used,
including specific region, and adoption date. If choosing an internal factor, again, the City
should be sure to specify which factor if multiple exist.
3 Policies and Procedures
This study has identified areas where the City is under-collecting the cost associated with
providing services. This known funding gap is therefore being subsidized by other City
revenue sources.
Development of cost recovery policies and procedures will serve to ensure that current
and future decision makers understand how and why fees were determined and set, as
well as provide a road map for ensuring consistency when moving forward. The following
subsections outline typical cost recovery levels and discuss the benefits associated with
developing target cost recovery goals and procedures for achieving and increasing cost
recovery.
187
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Saratoga, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 32
1 Typical Cost Recovery
The Matrix Consulting Group has extensive experience in analyzing local government
operations across the United States and has calculated typical cost recovery ranges. The
following table outlines these cost recovery ranges by major service area.
Table 21: Typical Cost Recovery Ranges by Department
Department / Program Typical Cost Recovery Ranges
Building 80-100%
Code Compliance 50-70%
Engineering 70-100%
Finance 20-40%
Planning 50-80%
Information presented in the table above is based on the Matrix Consulting Group’s
experience in analyzing local governments’ operations across the United States and
within California and reflects typical cost recovery ranges observed by local adopting
authorities. The following graph depicts how Saratoga compares to industry cost
recovery range standards.
Overall, the City’s cost recovery varies. Engineering and Planning are within typical cost
recovery levels. Finance and Code Compliance are above typical cost recovery. Building
is below the typical cost recovery range.
74%
78%
96%
48%
63%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%BuildingCode ComplianceEngineeringFinancePlanningCost Recovery %Current Revenue Cost Recovery vs. Typical Revenue Cost Recovery
Typical Cost Recovery Current Cost Recovery
188
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Saratoga, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 33
2 Development of Cost Recovery Policies and Procedures
The City should review the current cost recovery levels and adopt a formal policy
regarding cost recovery. This policy can be general in nature and can apply broadly to the
City as a whole, or to each department and division specifically. A department specific
cost recovery policy would allow the City to better control the cost recovery associated
with different types of services being provided and the community benefit received.
189
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Saratoga, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 34
Appendix – Comparative Survey
As part of the Cost of Services (User Fee) study for the City of Saratoga, the Matrix
Consulting Group conducted a comparative survey of development service fees. The
Department identified six (6) Bay Area jurisdictions to be included in the comparative
survey: Campbell, Cupertino, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, and Palo Alto. The
project team then reviewed public documents (i.e., agenda items, staff reports, budgets,
fee schedules, and ordinances), and or contacted jurisdictions to get comparative
information.
While this report will provide the City with a reasonable estimate and understanding of
the true costs of providing services, many jurisdictions also wish to consider the local
“market rates” for services as a means for assessing what types of changes in fee levels
their community can bear. However, a comparative survey does not provide adequate
information regarding the relationship of a jurisdiction’s cost to its fees.
The following sections detail various factors to consider when reviewing comparative
survey results, as well as graphical comparisons of current fees and total calculated
costs for various permits issued or services provided by the City of Saratoga.
1 Economic Factors
To provide additional context to the comparative survey information, the project team
collected economic factors for the jurisdictions included. Three important economic
factors to consider when comparing fees across multiple jurisdictions are: population,
budget, and workforce size. The following tables rank each jurisdiction from smallest to
largest for each of these economic factors:
Table 22: Ranking of Jurisdictions by Population
Jurisdiction 2020 Population2
Los Altos Hills 8,489
Saratoga 31,051
Los Altos 31,625
Los Gatos 33,529
Campbell 43,959
Cupertino 60,381
Palo Alto 68,572
2 Population data is pulled from April 2020 census.
190
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Saratoga, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 35
Table 23: Ranking of Jurisdictions by Citywide Total Budget3
Jurisdiction FY23 Budget
Palo Alto $965,945
Los Altos Hills $25,243,147
Saratoga $39,403,018
Los Altos $73,284,282
Los Gatos $80,570,995
Cupertino $130,587,325
Campbell $160,256,949
Table 24: Ranking of Jurisdictions by FTE
Jurisdiction FY22/23 FTE
Los Altos Hills 54
Saratoga 57
Los Altos 136
Los Gatos 165
Campbell 171
Cupertino 225
Palo Alto 1,018
Based on the data shown in the previous tables, the City of Saratoga ranks on the low end
of surveyed jurisdictions in terms of population, budget, and FTE count.
2 Recency Factor
While the previous comparative information can provide some perspective when
comparing the City of Saratoga’s fees with surveyed jurisdictions, other key factors to
consider are when a jurisdiction’s fee schedule was last updated and when the last
comprehensive analysis was completed. The following tables detail when each surveyed
jurisdiction last updated their fee schedule and last conducted a fee study.
Table 25: Last Fee Schedule Updated
Jurisdiction Response
Campbell 7/1/21
Los Altos Hills 8/23/21
Palo Alto 6/20/22
Los Altos 7/1/22
Los Gatos 7/1/22
Cupertino 7/18/22
3 To ensure appropriate comparisons, full operating budget (all funds) has been used for all jurisdictions.
191
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Saratoga, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 36
Table 26: Last Fee Study Conducted
Jurisdiction Response
Los Altos Hills 2014
Cupertino 2015
Palo Alto 2014
Campbell N / A
Los Altos N / A
Los Gatos N / A
Of the jurisdictions which the project team was able to find data, one has conducted a
fee study within the last five years. However, most jurisdictions do adjust their fees
annually.
It is important to note that even though jurisdictions may have conducted fee studies,
fees are not always adopted at full cost recovery. The comparative results will only show
the adopted fees for the surveyed jurisdictions, not necessarily the full cost associated
with the comparable service.
3 Additional Factors
Along with keeping the statistics outlined in the previous sections in mind, the following
issues should also be noted regarding the use of market surveys in the setting of fees for
service:
• Each jurisdiction and its fees are different, and many are not based on the actual
cost of providing services.
• The same “fee” with the same name may include more or less steps or sub-
activities. In addition, jurisdictions provide varying levels of service and have
varying levels of costs associated with providing services such as staffing levels,
salary levels, indirect overhead costs, etc.
Market surveys can run the risk of creating a confusing excess of data that will obscure
rather than clarify policy issues. Because each jurisdiction is different, the Matrix
Consulting Group recommends that the information contained in the market comparison
of fees be used as a secondary decision-making tool, rather than a tool for establishing
an acceptable price point for services.
192
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Saratoga, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 37
4 Comparative Survey Results
As part of this study, the project team conducted a survey of how the City’s current user
fees and calculated full cost compare to other identified jurisdictions. The following
subsections provide a comparative look at several fee-related services provided by the
City versus the surveyed jurisdictions.
1 Water Heater Replacement
Currently, Saratoga charges an $80 fee to permit a water heater. Through this study, the
project team calculated the full cost of this service to be $199. The following graph shows
how the department’s current fee and full cost compared to the surveyed jurisdictions.
Saratoga’s current fee is below all comparable jurisdictions surveyed and is closest to
Los Altos Hills’ fee of $82. Saratoga’s full cost is above all comparable jurisdictions and
is closest to Campbell’s fee of $155. The jurisdictional average for water heater
replacements is $113. It should be noted that historically, these fees are set below cost
recovery to ensure permit compliance.
2 Residential ADU –$100,000 Valuation and 500 sq. ft.
Currently, Saratoga charges a $2,049 fee, including plan check and permit costs, for a 500
sq. ft. residential accessory dwelling unit (ADU) valued at $100,000. Through this study,
the project team calculated the full cost of this service to be $2,700. The following graph
shows how the department’s current fee and full cost compared to the surveyed
jurisdictions.
$0
$50
$100
$150
$200
$250
Saratoga -
Current Fee
Saratoga - Full
Cost
Campbell Cupertino Los Altos Los Altos Hills Los Gatos Palo Alto
Water Heater Replacement
Fee Average
193
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Saratoga, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 38
Saratoga’s current fee is below the jurisdictional average of $2,803 and is closest to Los
Altos Hills’ fee of $1,881. Saratoga’s full cost is also below the jurisdictional average and
is closest to Palo Alto’s fee of $2,746. The highest fee is charged by Cupertino at $4,003.
3 Single Family Home - $450,000 Valuation and 2,000 sq. ft.
Currently, Saratoga charges a $6,092 fee, including plan check and permit costs for a
2,000 sq. ft. single family home valued at $450,000. Through this study the project team
calculated the full cost of this service to be $8,055. The following graph shows how the
department’s current fee and full cost compare to the surveyed jurisdictions.
Saratoga’s current fee is below all comparable jurisdictions and is closest to Los Altos
Hills’ fee of $7,079. Saratoga’s full cost is also below the jurisdictional average and is
closest to Los Altos’ fee of $8,464. The highest fee is charged by Campbell at $13,770.
4 New Commercial Building - $1.5 Million Valuation and 5,000 sq. ft.
Currently, Saratoga charges a $15,329 fee, including plan check and permit costs, for a
5,000 sq. ft. new commercial building valued at $1.5 million. Through this study, the
project team calculated the full cost of this service to be $20,520. The following graph
$0
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
$3,500
$4,000
$4,500
Saratoga -
Current Fee
Saratoga - Full
Cost
Campbell Cupertino Los Altos Los Altos Hills Los Gatos Palo Alto
Residential ADU ($100,000; 500 sq.ft.)
Plan Check Permit Fee Average
$0
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000
$14,000
$16,000
Saratoga -
Current Fee
Saratoga - Full
Cost
Campbell Cupertino Los Altos Los Altos Hills Los Gatos Palo Alto
Single-Family Home ($450,000; 2,000 sq.ft.)
Plan Check Permit Fee Average
194
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Saratoga, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 39
shows how the department’s current fee and full cost compare to the surveyed
jurisdictions.
Saratoga’s current fee is below the jurisdictional average of $26,517 and is closest to
Cupertino’s fee of $13,475. Saratoga's full cost is also below the jurisdictional average
and is closest to Los Altos Hills’ fee of $22,671. Palo Alto charges the highest fee at
$41,213.
5 Commercial Office Tenant Improvement (TI) - $250,000 Valuation and 1,200 sq.
ft.
Currently, Saratoga charges a $3,782 fee, including plan check and permit costs, for a
1,200 sq. ft. commercial office tenant improvement valued at $250,000. Through this
study, the project team calculated the full cost of this service to be $4,995. The following
graph shows how the department’s current fee and full cost compared to the surveyed
jurisdictions.
Saratoga’s current fee is below all comparable jurisdictions and is closest to Los Altos
Hills’ fee of $4,109. Saratoga’s full cost is also below the jurisdictional average of $5,999
and is closest to Los Altos’ fee of $5,164. The highest fee is charged by Cupertino at
$7,704.
$0
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
$30,000
$35,000
$40,000
$45,000
Saratoga -
Current Fee
Saratoga - Full
Cost
Campbell Cupertino Los Altos Los Altos Hills Los Gatos Palo Alto
New Commercial Building ($1.5 million; 5,000 sq.ft.)
Plan Check Permit Fee Average
$0
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
Saratoga -
Current Fee
Saratoga - Full
Cost
Campbell Cupertino Los Altos Los Altos Hills Los Gatos Palo Alto
Office Tenant Improvement ($250,000; 1,200 sq. ft.)
Plan Check Permit Fee Average
195
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Saratoga, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 40
6 Improvements - $50,000 Valuation
Currently, Saratoga charges a $15,300 fee, including plan check and inspection, to permit
an improvement valued at $50,000. Through this study, the project team calculated the
full cost of this service to be $31,812. The following graph shows how the department’s
current fee and full cost compared to the surveyed jurisdictions.
Saratoga’s current fee and full cost are higher than all comparable jurisdictions and are
closest to Los Gatos’ fee of $13,141. The lowest fee is charged by Los Altos Hills at
$1,326, which is charged as a deposit.
7 Improvements - $250,000 Valuation
Currently, Saratoga charges a $45,300 fee, including plan check and inspection, to permit
an improvement valued at $250,000. Through this study, the project team calculated the
full cost of this service to be $25,893. The following graph shows how the department’s
current fee and full cost compared to the surveyed jurisdictions.
Saratoga’s current fee is above the jurisdictional average of $23,435 and is closest to Los
Gatos’ fee of $46,490 which is the highest fee charge by all comparable jurisdictions.
Saratoga full cost is also above the jurisdictional average and is closest to Palo Alto’s fee
of $27,212. Los Altos Hills has the lowest fee, which is charged as a deposit.
$-
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
$30,000
$35,000
Saratoga - Current
Fee
Saratoga - Full Cost Campbell Cupertino Los Altos Los Altos Hills Los Gatos Palo Alto
Improvements -$50,000
Fee Average
$-
$5,000
$10,000
$15,000
$20,000
$25,000
$30,000
$35,000
$40,000
$45,000
$50,000
Saratoga - Current
Fee
Saratoga - Full Cost Campbell Cupertino Los Altos Los Altos Hills Los Gatos Palo Alto
Improvements -$250,000
Fee Average
196
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Saratoga, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 41
8 Encroachment Application
Currently, Saratoga charges a fee of $510 for an encroachment permit application.
Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost of this service to be $1,190.
The following graph shows how the department’s current fee and full cost compared to
the surveyed jurisdictions.
Saratoga’s current fee is below the jurisdictional average of $630 and is closest to Los
Gatos’ fee of $1,370. Saratoga’s full cost is above the jurisdictional average and is closest
to Palo Alto’s fee of $1,481, which is the highest of all comparable jurisdictions at $1,481.
9 Tree Removal Permit
Currently, Saratoga charges a fee of $130 for tree removal permits. Through this study,
the project team calculated the full cost of this service to be $321. The following graph
shows how the department’s current fee and full cost compared to the surveyed
jurisdictions.
Saratoga’s current fee is below the jurisdictional average of $262.53 and is closest to Los
Alto’s fee of $82. Saratoga’s full cost is above the jurisdictional average and is closest
to Cupertino’s fee of $301. Palo Alto charges the highest fee at $443.
$-
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
$1,600
Saratoga - Current
Fee
Saratoga - Full Cost Campbell Cupertino Los Altos Los Altos Hills Los Gatos Palo Alto
Encroachment Application
Fee Average
$-
$100
$200
$300
$400
$500
Saratoga - Current
Fee
Saratoga - Full Cost Campbell Cupertino Los Altos Los Altos Hills Los Gatos Palo Alto
Tree Removal Permit
Fee Average
197
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Saratoga, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 42
10 Appeal to Planning Commission
Currently, Saratoga charges a fee of $410 for appeals to the Planning Commission.
Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost of this service to be $2,476.
The following graph shows how the department’s current fee and full cost compared to
the surveyed jurisdictions.
Saratoga’s current fee is below the jurisdictional average and is closest to Cupertino’s fee
of $347. Saratoga’s full cost is higher than all comparable jurisdictions and is closest to
Los Gatos’ fee of $934. The lowest fee is charged by Campbell at $200. It should be noted
that appeal fees are often set well below cost recovery so as not be a barrier for the
community.
11 Conditional Use Permit – Planning Commission Review
Currently, Saratoga charges a fee of $4,490 for conditional use permits requiring planning
commission review. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost of this
service to be $9,498. The following graph shows how the department’s current fee and
full cost compared to the surveyed jurisdictions.
$-
$500
$1,000
$1,500
$2,000
$2,500
$3,000
Saratoga - Current
Fee
Saratoga - Full Cost Campbell Cupertino Los Altos Los Altos Hills Los Gatos Palo Alto
Appeal to Planning Commission
Fee Average
$-
$2,000
$4,000
$6,000
$8,000
$10,000
$12,000
$14,000
$16,000
Saratoga - Current
Fee
Saratoga - Full Cost Campbell Cupertino Los Altos Los Altos Hills Los Gatos Palo Alto
Conditional Use Permit -Planning Commission Review
Fee Average
198
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Saratoga, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 43
Saratoga’s current fee is below the jurisdictional average of $7,149 and is closest to
Campbell’s fee of $4,142. Saratoga’s full cost is above the jurisdictional average and is
closest to Cupertino’s fee of $7,048. The highest fee is charged by Palo Alto at $13,413.
12 Temporary Use Application – Administrative Review
Currently, Saratoga charges $435 for administrative review of a temporary use
application. Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost of this service to
be $555. The following graph shows how the department’s current fee and full cost
compared to the surveyed jurisdictions.
Saratoga’s current fee and full cost are below the jurisdictional average of $2,500 and are
lower than all comparable jurisdictions. Cupertino charges the highest fee at $4,256.
13 Sign Application Review
Currently, Saratoga charges a $310 fee for administrative review of a sign application.
Through this study, the project team calculated the full cost of this service to be $662.
The following graph shows how the department’s current fee and full cost compared to
the surveyed jurisdictions.
Saratoga’s current fee is below the jurisdictional average of $532 is the closest to Los
Gatos’ fee of $328. Saratoga's full cost is above the jurisdictional average and is closest
to Cupertino’s fee of $481. Palo Alto charges the highest fee at $1,161.
$-
$1,000
$2,000
$3,000
$4,000
$5,000
Saratoga - Current Fee Saratoga - Full Cost Campbell Cupertino Palo Alto
Temporary Use Application -Admin Review
Fee Average
$-
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
Saratoga - Current Fee Saratoga - Full Cost Campbell Cupertino Los Altos Los Gatos Palo Alto
Sign Application Review -Admin
Fee Average
199
Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report City of Saratoga, CA
Matrix Consulting Group 44
5 Summary
Based upon the comparative survey, the full cost calculated is generally higher than the
current fee charged. Most of the fees compared in this survey showed full costs that
exceeded the average fee charged by comparable jurisdictions. However, as many of the
jurisdictions have not conducted a fee study in the last ten years, it is not accurate to
compare these fees. It is important to note that the results of this survey only show the
fees adopted by council, not the cost recovery policy decisions for departments or a
jurisdiction. As such, the results of this survey should be used as a secondary decision-
making tool.
200
2022 Cost of Service (User Fee) Study
March 15, 2023
201
Action Summary
•Receive Cost of Services (User Fee) Study Report from Matrix
Consulting
•Provide direction to City staff for preparation of the Master Fee
Schedule public hearing on April 19.
202
Background and Process
203
Purpose
•Objective –To document fee-related services, service levels,
and full cost for each unit of service.
•Outcome –Data to support legally compliant fees charged
for City services (Master Fee Schedule)
204
Process
•Kickoff discussion with management and staff
•Data collection
•Iterative analysis with staff performing each service
Avg staff time by
position title per
permit / application
Fully Burdened
Hourly Rate Full Cost Fee
205
Fully
burdened
hourly rate
2022-23 Budgeted Salaries and Benefits
assigned at the position level.Salaries & Benefits
Total available hours subtracting average
sick, vacation, holidays, etc.
Productive Work
Hours
Services and supplies such as internal
service charges, fuel charges, etc.
Services &
Supplies Overhead
Administration divisions,supervisory,
and clerical staff support.
Departmental
Overhead
Finance,Human Resources,and other
general city support.
Citywide
Overhead
206
Example Staff Time Estimates
Fee Name
Intake/
Counter
(Hrs)
Plan
Review Time
(Hrs )
Inspection
Time (Hrs)
Total
Time (Hrs)
Water Heater Replacement0.500.500.75
Retaining Wall –Masonry0.501.000.502.00
New Construction -$25,000 Valuation1.752.504.25
Time is meant to reflect averages (not the easiest or the most complex).
Time includes travel times as well as any re-reviews or re-inspections
needed in the baseline approval of the permit.
207
Policy Considerations
208
Cost
Recovery
Policy
Objectives
9
Individual
•Planning & Zoning Approval
•Building Inspections
•Engineering Development Review
Individual
& Global
•Recreation and Community Services
•Fire Prevention
Global
•Police
•Fire Suppression
Primarily funded by
user fees
Mixture of taxes,
user fees, and other
funding sources
Primarily funded by
tax revenue
209
City Revenue Policies
2022-23 Adopted Budget pages 23 and 453
•The City’s overall goal is to establish user charges and fees at levels that fully recover the
direct and indirect activity cost of providing a service or product.
•Fees have varying level of general taxpayer support:
•Individual Benefit = Full / High Cost Recovery For example, Community
Development’s planning and building fees strive to achieve full cost recovery for
certain land uses and improvements that benefit the property owner.
•Community / Global Benefit = Partial / Low Cost Recovery However, other services
provide a greater community-wide benefit and City Council policy sets a lower cost
recovery for those services. Examples include code compliance and event permits.
10210
Target Cost Recovery
11
Program Benefit Category Target Cost Recovery
Building Individual High
Planning Individual & Community-wide High to medium cost recovery
Engineering Individual & Community-wide High to medium cost recovery
Code Compliance Community-wide Low
Market rates and charges levied by other municipalities (of similar size) for like services
are taken into consideration when establishing rates, fees, and charges.
Some services have partial cost recovery objectives; therefore, cost recovery ratios will
vary in accordance with policy objectives.
211
Requested Direction
212
Overall Cost Recovery by Program
13
Program
Typical Cost
Recovery
Current Cost
Recovery
Est. Maximum
Reduction in
Taxpayer Subsidy
Recommended
Cost Recovery
Building 80% -100%74%Up to $500,000 90%
Planning 50% -80%63%$330,000 75%
Code Compliance 50% -70%78%$2,000 No change
Engineering 70% -100%96%$37,000 No change
Finance 20% -40%48%$22,000 No change
The City’s overall goal is to establish user charges and fees at levels that fully recover the
direct and indirect activity cost of providing a service or product.
213
Example Fee Increase
Table 5: Example Planning Line-Item Fee Change
Current Adjusted
Increase to
Community
Member Current Adjusted
Est. Increase
to City
Design Application -Administrative Review $3,470 $4,650 $1,180 $128,390 $172,043 $43,653
Design Application -Planning Commission
Review $5,305 $7,109 $1,804 $116,710 $156,391 $39,681
Line-Item
Sample Line-Item Fee Sample Line-Item Projected Annual Cost
Recovery
214
Comparative Survey
Most of the fees surveyed showed that the City’s current
fees are below what other jurisdictions are charging.
215
Summary Recommendation
Table 1: Recommendation
Recovery Subsidy
Building 74%$502,845
Planning 63%$331,138
Code Compliance 78%$2,241
Engineering 96%$37,712
Business License 48%$22,815
Total
Program Current Recommended
Recovery
Estimated Cost Recovery
Increase, 2023-24
$298,488
$896,751
90%
75%
no change
no change
no change
$131,272
$0
$0
$0
$429,760
216
Next Steps
•Prepare and publish
a proposed fee
schedule
•April 19th Public
Hearing
•City Council adoption
217
Questions
218
219
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
COUNCIL ASSIGNMENTS
Mayor Kookie Fitzsimmons
Cities Association of Santa Clara County-City Selection Committee
Council Finance Committee
Hakone Foundation Executive Board
Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating Council Board of Directors
West Valley Mayors & Managers Association
Vice Mayor Yan Zhao
Cities Association of Santa Clara County-Legislative Action Committee
Saratoga Ministerial Association
Silicon Valley Regional Interoperability Authority Alternate
Council Member Belal Aftab
Association of Bay Area Governments
Hakone Foundation Board of Trustees
Santa Clara County Housing and Community Development (HCD) Advisory Committee
Saratoga Historical Foundation Board of Directors
Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Policy Advisory Committee
Council Member Chuck Page
Council Finance Committee
Santa Clara Valley Water Commission
Saratoga Chamber of Commerce Board
West Valley Clean Water Program Authority Board of Directors
West Valley Sanitation District Board of Directors
West Valley Solid Waste Management Authority Board of Directors
Council Member Tina Walia
Cities Association of Santa Clara County Board of Directors
KSAR Community Access TV Board
Santa Clara County Library District Board of Directors
Saratoga Sister City Committee Liaison
Silicon Valley Clean Energy Authority Board of Directors
220