HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-01-2008 City Council Retreat PacketCITY COUNCIL RETREAT –WARNER HUTTON HOUSE – 13777 FRUITVALE AVENUE 8:30 A.M. CONTINENTAL BREAKFAST CALL MEETING TO ORDER – 9:00 A.M. REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA (Pursuant
to Gov’t. Code 54954.2, the agenda for this meeting was properly posted on January 24, 2008) COMMUNICATIONS FROM COMMISSIONS & PUBLIC Oral Communications on Non-Agendized Items Any member
of the public will be allowed to address the City Council for up to three (3) minutes on matters not on this agenda. The law generally prohibits the council from discussing or taking
action on such items. However, the Council may instruct staff accordingly regarding Oral Communications under Council Direction to Staff. AGENDA TOPICS 1. 9:00 – 10:00 Community Outreach
2. 10:00 –11:30 Status of Greening Efforts 3. 11:30 –12:30 Economic Vitality 12:30 –1:00 Working Lunch 4. 1:00 – 1:30 Expedited Planning Process –follow-up 5. 1:30 – 2:30 Community Development
Work Plan 6. 2:30 –3:30 Council Process, Roles & Procedures 7. 3:30 – 4:30 Mid-Year Bud?get Review 8. 4:30 – 5:00 Community Calendar of Events 5:00 p.m. Adjournment In compliance with
the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), if you need special assistance to participate in this meeting, please contact the City Clerk at (408) 868-1269. Notification 48 hours prior
to the meeting will enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting (28 CFR 35.102-35.104 ADA Title II) Certificate of Posting of Agenda: I, Cathleen
Boyer, City Clerk for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga was posted on January 24, 2008, at the City
of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA 95070 and was available for public review at that location. The agenda is also available on the City’s website at www.saratoga.ca.us Signed
this 24th day of January 2008 at Saratoga, California. Cathleen Boyer, CMC, City Clerk AGENDA COUNCIL RETREAT FEBRUARY 1, 2008
CITY COUNCIL RETREAT PACKET OUTLINE 1. Community Outreach • Outline 2. Status of Greening • Staff Report • Green Point Checklist • LEED for New Construction 3. Economic Vitality • Staff
Report -Façade Program • Before & After Photos • Proposal from Buxton • Banners Outline • Blaney Plaza Banner Calendar • Banner Policy 4. Expedited Planning Process • Staff Report 5.
Community Development Work Plan • Staff Report 6. Council Process, Roles, & Procedures • Resolution 07-075 Council Policy • Commission Mission Statements • City of Santa Clara Code of
Ethics • Article from Western Cities – City of Santa Clara • Information on City of Santa Clara’s Voter Outreach 7 Mid-Year Budget Review Information will be sent to Council next week
8. Community Calendar of Events • Staff Report 1
Community Outreach
1. Community Outreach (Ann Waltonsmith & Aileen Kao) Assumptions that communication would take care of itself (it hasn’t) Consequences when things go badly (too late) Most agencies and
organizations have communications personnel WHAT are Council’s goals for next year – Whom, How, and What to communicate WHAT – relationships /communication with civic organizations and
community Keep residents informed • Schools • Civic Organizations • Neighborhoods (HOA’s) • Businesses • Churches • Youth Sports Groups • etc. WHY – to build a better society, create
community to serve the greater good, provide accurate information of City perspective, and be proactive as well as reactive WHEN /HOW – to best communicate; newsletters, meetings, HOW
– to best build and maintain constructive relationships (Chamber, SVDC, KSAR, SASCC, Hakone, Friends of the Library, Historical Foundation, etc.) WHO – roles for Mayor (responds to initial
e-mail or inquiry), Council, Staff (proactive and responsive follow-up with residents), Commissioners, etc.
2. Status of Greening
Page 1 of 6 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL MEETING DATE: February 1, 2008 AGENDA ITEM: 3 DEPARTMENT: City Manager’s Office CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: Barbara Powell DIRECTOR: Assistant
City Manager John Livingston Community Development Director SUBJECT: Direction to Staff Regarding Santa Clara County Cities Association’s Near-term Policy on Green Building Strategy
RECOMMENDED ACTION: Accept report and provide direction to staff concerning next steps in addressing the Santa Clara County Cities Association’s “Near-term Policy on Green Building Strategy”.
BACKGROUND: The Santa Clara County Cities Association (SCCCA) established a Green Building Policy Collaborative (GBC). One of its goals is to “encourage regional collaboration to adopt
consistent sustainable development ‘green building’ policies and standards that facilitate positive results for the environment, community health, and economic vitality”. The GBC recommended,
and on November 8, 2007, the SCCCA adopted these “Near-term Building Policy Recommendations”: 1. Local governments should formally recognize/adopt Leadership in Energy and Environmental
Design (LEED) & Build It Green’s “GreenPoint Rated” System as the official green building standards for their jurisdiction; 2. As a part of a planning application, local governments
should require the submittal of a completed LEED or GreenPoint Rated checklist; and 3. Local governments should adopt a policy for achieving LEED Silver certification or better for all
public new construction and renovation projects over 5,000 square feet.
Page 2 of 6 DISCUSSION: Recommendation #1: Local governments should formally recognize/adopt Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) & Build It Green’s “GreenPoint Rated”
System as the official green building standards for their jurisdiction. What characterizes the LEED and GreenPoint Rated systems? LEED: In 2,000, the U.S. Green Building Council (USGBC)
developed LEED as a green building rating system. According to the USGBC website: ?? LEED is a system in which projects earn points through meeting specific green building criteria.
?? Currently, LEED Certification is available only for commercial, institutional and high-rise residential buildings. Certification criteria for residential buildings have been drafted
and are currently under review. ?? There are six categories for earning LEED points: Sustainable Sites; Water Efficiency, Energy & Atmosphere; Materials & Resources; Indoor Environmental
Quality; and Innovation in Design. These categories, and the individual criteria within them, are included on project checklists. A sample checklist is provided as Attachment “A” ??
There are four LEED Certification levels, progressing from the lowest level, “Certified”, up through “Silver”, “Gold” and the highest level, “Platinum”. ?? In order to qualify for a
LEED Silver Certification (as recommended by the SCCCA), a building must earn between 33 and 38 out of a total available 69 points. ?? A fee of $450 (USGBC member) or $600 (non-member)
is required in order to initially register a project. An additional fee, which varies by project size (averaging $2,000), is assessed to attain LEED certification. GreenPoint Rated:
The GreenPoint Rated System was developed by Build It Green, “a professional non-profit membership organization whose mission is to promote healthy, energy and resource-efficient buildings
in California”. ?? GreenPoint Rated, similar to LEED, is a system in which projects earn points through meeting specific criteria. ?? Currently GreenPoint rating is available only for
residential construction. ?? There are twelve categories for earning Green Points: Site; Landscaping; Foundation; Structure Frame & Building Envelope; Exterior Finish; Plumbing; Appliances;
Insulation; Heating, Ventilation & Air Conditioning; Building Performance; Renewable Energy; Finishes; Flooring; and Other. As with LEED, these categories, and the individual criteria
within them, are included on project checklists. A sample checklist is provided as Attachment “B”.
Page 3 of 6 ?? Unlike LEED, there are no levels of certification under the GreenPoint Rated system. Rather, a project must attain a minimum of 50 points in order to be awarded certification.
The certification bears the program name and logo. ?? In order to receive certification, a program-certified GreenPoint rater or qualified Implementation Partner must certify that a
project has achieved minimum threshold requirements. ?? Builders, contractors and homeowners seeking certification contract directly with GreenPoint Raters, who conduct verifications
and submit their results to Build It Green, which then issues the certification. ?? Costs vary for attaining certification under the GreenPoint system, depending upon the level of knowledge
and experience architects and contractors possess about green building and the level of complexity of the green building features incorporated into a project. As noted above, certification
fees are directly negotiated with the GreenPoint Rater conducting the certification process. A representative from Build It Green stated that costs can vary from $150 to as much as $1,500
per project. Recommendation #2: As a part of a planning application, local governments should require the submittal of a completed LEED or GreenPoint Rated checklist. What change(s)
in current practice would be involved in implementing this recommendation? 1. Currently, at the time of project application, Planning staff reviews the City’s “Residential Design Handbook”
with the applicant and/or the applicant’s Architect. The Handbook includes techniques to “integrate structures with the environment” and to “design for energy efficiency”, both of which
are supportive of and compatible with green building concepts and methodologies. Applicants are asked to include design elements that support some or all of these techniques in their
plan submittals. Staff includes this information in their report to the Planning Commission. 2. Requiring the submittal of a LEED or GreenPoint Rated checklist (copies of which are attached)
as part of a planning application could increase staff time, if there is also an expectation that staff will review and compile information from the checklists and incorporate the information
in reports to the Planning Commission. The amount of additional staff time required is not known at this time.
Page 4 of 6 Recommendation #3: Local governments should adopt a policy for achieving LEED Silver certification or better for all public new construction and renovation projects over
5,000 square feet. How might this requirement impact the renovation of existing City buildings and/or future new construction? Current City-owned buildings that could potentially be
impacted by this requirement include City Hall, the Civic Theater, and the Community Center. The proposed gymnasium at North Campus would also be affected by this requirement. What factors
should be taken into account when seeking LEED Silver certification for City buildings? According to a report titled “Costing Green: A Comprehensive Cost Database and Budgeting Methodology”
by Lisa Fay Matthiessen and Peter Morris: ?? The best and most economical sustainable designs are ones in which the features are incorporated at an early stage and integrated into the
project, effectively supporting each other. ?? The “bidding climate”, or response of bidders to to green requirements in a contract, is possibly the single most significant factor in
the cost of sustainable design. ?? California currently has one of the highest number of LEED-seeking buildings in the country. Contractors in California are familiar with sustainable
design, and are more willing to bid on green projects. Will the requirement to attain LEED Silver certification add significant costs to a building project? ?? There is significant variability
in building costs; therefore, there are low cost and high cost green buildings, just as there are low cost and high cost non-green buildings. ?? Projects that are most successful in
staying within original budget parameters are those with clear goals established from the start, integrating sustainable elements into the project at an early stage. Projects that attempt
to add sustainable elements as an addition to the scope tend to have the most difficulty staying within budget. OPTIONS: Recommendation #1: Local governments should formally recognize/adopt
Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) & Build It Green’s “GreenPoint Rated” System as the official green building standards for their jurisdiction. What options exist
for addressing this recommendation? 1. The Council could adopt an ordinance requiring LEED and/or GreenPoint Rated certification for specific types of buildings (e.g. public only, minimum
square footage, non-residential only); or
Page 5 of 6 2. The Council could adopt a resolution recognizing the LEED and/or GreenPoint Rated systems as reference documents for information and educational purposes. Recommendation
#2: As a part of a planning application, local governments should require the submittal of a completed LEED or GreenPoint Rated checklist. What options exist for addressing this recommendation?
1. Planning staff could provide information about LEED and GreenPoint Rated systems at the Counter as reference materials only; or 2. Planning staff could provide LEED and GreenPoint
Rated system checklists to applicants and require the completion and submittal of either one as part of the planning application. As noted earlier, a decision should also be made about
whether information from the checklists will be reviewed, compiled and forwarded to the Planning Commission as part of the project submittal. Recommendation #3: Local governments should
adopt a policy for achieving LEED Silver certification or better for all public new construction and renovation projects over 5,000 square feet. What options exist for addressing this
recommendation? 1. As recommended by SCCCA, the Council could adopt a policy requiring LEED Silver certification or better for all City-owned new construction and renovation projects
over 5,000 square feet; or 2. The Council could modify SCCCA’s recommendation by adopting a policy requiring LEED Silver certification or better only for City-owned new construction
projects over 5,000 square feet; or 3. The Council could modify SCCCA’s recommendation by establishing a future date by which all City-owned new construction projects over 5,000 square
feet would be required to attain LEED Silver certification or better (thus exempting existing City-owned buildings). FISCAL IMPACTS: Membership in USGBC is not required in order to use
the LEED system, or the checklists. However, USGBC membership affords discounts on reference materials, conferences and training. USGBC membership for Saratoga would be $500/year. Membership
in in Build It Green is recommended, but not required in order to use the GreenPoint Rated system. Build It Green membership for Saratoga would be $100/year. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING
THE RECOMMENDED ACTIONS: The City would not adopt the “Near-term Building Policy Recommendations adopted by the SCCCA.
Page 6 of 6 ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S): The Council could adopt one or more of the “Near-term Building Policy Recommendations”, modify and adopt one or more of the recommendations, or chose
another approach. FOLLOW UP ACTION(S): Implement Council direction. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Nothing additional. ATTACHMENTS: Attachment A: LEED Checklist Attachment
B: GreenPoint Rated checklist
LEED for New Construction v2.2 Registered Project Checklist Yes ? No Sustainable Sites 14 Points Y Prereq 1 Construction Activity Pollution Prevention Required Credit 1 Site Selection
1 Credit 2 Development Density & Community Connectivity 1 Credit 3 Brownfield Redevelopment 1 Credit 4.1 Alternative Transportation, Public Transportation Access 1 Credit 4.2 Alternative
Transportation, Bicycle Storage & Changing Rooms 1 Credit 4.3 Alternative Transportation, Low-Emitting & Fuel-Efficient Vehicles 1 Credit 4.4 Alternative Transportation, Parking Capacity
1 Credit 5.1 Site Development, Protect or Restore Habitat 1 Credit 5.2 Site Development, Maximize Open Space 1 Credit 6.1 Stormwater Design, Quantity Control 1 Credit 6.2 Stormwater
Design, Quality Control 1 Credit 7.1 Heat Island Effect, Non-Roof 1 Credit 7.2 Heat Island Effect, Roof 1 Credit 8 Light Pollution Reduction 1 Yes ? No Water Efficiency 5 Points Credit
1.1 Water Efficient Landscaping, Reduce by 50% 1 Credit 1.2 Water Efficient Landscaping, No Potable Use or No Irrigation 1 Credit 2 Innovative Wastewater Technologies 1 Credit 3.1 Water
Use Reduction, 20% Reduction 1 Credit 3.2 Water Use Reduction, 30% Reduction 1 Energy & Atmosphere 17 Points Y Prereq 1 Fundamental Commissioning of the Building Energy Systems Required
Y Prereq 2 Minimum Energy Performance Required Y Prereq 3 Fundamental Refrigerant Management Required Credit 1 Optimize Energy Performance 1 to 10 10.5% New Buildings or 3.5% Existing
Building Renovations 1 14% New Buildings or 7% Existing Building Renovations 2 17.5% New Buildings or 10.5% Existing Building Renovations 3 21% New Buildings or 14% Existing Building
Renovations 4 24.5% New Buildings or 17.5% Existing Building Renovations 5 28% New Buildings or 21% Existing Building Renovations 6 31.5% New Buildings or 24.5% Existing Building Renovations
7 35% New Buildings or 28% Existing Building Renovations 8 38.5% New Buildings or 31.5% Existing Building Renovations 9 42% New Buildings or 35% Existing Building Renovations 10 Credit
2 On-Site Renewable Energy 1 to 3 2.5% Renewable Energy 1 7.5% Renewable Energy 2 12.5% Renewable Energy 3 Credit 3 Enhanced Commissioning 1 Credit 4 Enhanced Refrigerant Management
1 Credit 5 Measurement & Verification 1 Credit 6 Green Power 1 continued… *Note for EAc1: All LEED for New Construction projects registered after June 26th, 2007 are required to achieve
at least two (2) points under EAc1. Project Name: Project Address:
Yes ? No Materials & Resources 13 Points Y Prereq 1 Storage & Collection of Recyclables Required Credit 1.1 Building Reuse, Maintain 75% of Existing Walls, Floors & Roof 1 Credit 1.2
Building Reuse, Maintain 100% of Existing Walls, Floors & Roof 1 Credit 1.3 Building Reuse, Maintain 50% of Interior Non-Structural Elements 1 Credit 2.1 Construction Waste Management,
Divert 50% from Disposal 1 Credit 2.2 Construction Waste Management, Divert 75% from Disposal 1 Credit 3.1 Materials Reuse, 5% 1 Credit 3.2 Materials Reuse,10% 1 Credit 4.1 Recycled
Content, 10% (post-consumer + ½ pre-consumer) 1 Credit 4.2 Recycled Content, 20% (post-consumer + ½ pre-consumer) 1 Credit 5.1 Regional Materials, 10% Extracted, Processed & Manufactured
Regio 1 Credit 5.2 Regional Materials, 20% Extracted, Processed & Manufactured Regio 1 Credit 6 Rapidly Renewable Materials 1 Credit 7 Certified Wood 1 Yes ? No Indoor Environmental
Quality 15 Points Y Prereq 1 Minimum IAQ Performance Required Y Prereq 2 Environmental Tobacco Smoke (ETS) Control Required Credit 1 Outdoor Air Delivery Monitoring 1 Credit 2 Increased
Ventilation 1 Credit 3.1 Construction IAQ Management Plan, During Construction 1 Credit 3.2 Construction IAQ Management Plan, Before Occupancy 1 Credit 4.1 Low-Emitting Materials, Adhesives
& Sealants 1 Credit 4.2 Low-Emitting Materials, Paints & Coatings 1 Credit 4.3 Low-Emitting Materials, Carpet Systems 1 Credit 4.4 Low-Emitting Materials, Composite Wood & Agrifiber
Products 1 Credit 5 Indoor Chemical & Pollutant Source Control 1 Credit 6.1 Controllability of Systems, Lighting 1 Credit 6.2 Controllability of Systems, Thermal Comfort 1 Credit 7.1
Thermal Comfort, Design 1 Credit 7.2 Thermal Comfort, Verification 1 Credit 8.1 Daylight & Views, Daylight 75% of Spaces 1 Credit 8.2 Daylight & Views, Views for 90% of Spaces 1 Yes
? No Innovation & Design Process 5 Points Credit 1.1 Innovation in Design: Provide Specific Title 1 Credit 1.2 Innovation in Design: Provide Specific Title 1 Credit 1.3 Innovation in
Design: Provide Specific Title 1 Credit 1.4 Innovation in Design: Provide Specific Title 1 Credit 2 LEED® Accredited Professional 1 Yes ? No Project Totals (pre-certification estimates)
69 Points Certified: 26-32 points, Silver: 33-38 points, Gold: 39-51 points, Platinum: 52-69 po
3. Economic Vitality
Council Retreat: Economic Vitality—Village Façade Improvement Program February 1, 2008 Below is additional information on the Village Façade Improvement Program and low cost economic
development programs that staff was asked to prepare for the Council Retreat discussion on Economic Vitality and the Village Façade Improvement Program. Village Façade Improvement Program
Village Façade Improvement Program FY 2004-2005 The Village Façade Improvement Program was established in 2004 by the City Council to enhance the appearance of the Village. This program
offers a 50% rebate for improvements to storefronts in the Village that are visible from Big Basin Way. The 50% refund is available for projects that cost a total $10,000 or less. More
expensive projects are still eligible; however, the maximum reimbursement is $5,000. The City Council initially set aside $50,000 for the Village Façade Improvement Program and determined
that the money had to be used by the end of the 2004-2005 fiscal year. During the first year year of the program, $43,760.01 was awarded for improvements that ranged from new awnings,
paint, deck work, signage, doors, flower boxes, and gutter repair. The money was distributed to a total of 15 program participants, some of which used the Village Façade Improvement
Program reimbursement as part of a large project that cost much more than $10,000. During Fiscal Year 2004-2005, when the Village Façade Improvement Program was active, approximately
$613,000 was invested in the Village. Past Program Participants: 1. Aegis Gallery Building 14531 Big Basin Way 2. Bella Saratoga 14503 Big Basin Way 3. Cali Investments 14510 Big Basin
Way 4. Clef House Center 14471 Big Basin Way 5. Echo Shop 14477 Big Basin Way 6. Flobell 14519 Big Basin Way 7. French Tailor 14577 Big Basin Way 8. Goldsmith/Gemologist 14519 Big Basin
Way 9. Judge Foster Building 14510-14540 Big Basin Way 10. Paperfunalia, Little Amsterdam, L’Avinger Spa, Benson’s Antiques
14486 and 14490 Big Basin Way, 20601 and 20603 Third Street 11. Plumed Horse 14555 Big Basin Way 12. Rick Rathra Enterprises 14480 and 14482 Big Basin Way 13. Skin Prophecy 14531 Big
Basin Way 14. Uncorked! 14500 Big Basin Way 15. Viaggios 14550 Big Basin Way Village Façade Improvement Program Now The Village Façade Improvement Program currently has just under $20,000
in the program’s budget. After being reactivated in November 2007, the Village Façade Improvement Program has had one program participant. Jim Rosenfeld, property owner of International
Coffee Exchange located at 14471 Big Basin Way, received a reimbursement of $570.00 after a new canopy was installed in front of the coffee shop. Mr. Rosenfeld has thanked the City for
the funds, saying the program extends a feeling of good will between the city and the business and property owners in the Village. Similar Economic Development Programs Signage Grant
Program: provides financial assistance to commercial businesses seeking to install new signage. Financial assistance can cover entire cost of a project or can offer a rebate similar
to the Village Façade Improvement Program. Retail Recruitment: Staff helps identify retail for new tenants seeking retail space in the City and helps property owners find tenants. Relocation/Start
Up Assistance Programs: City offers small grants to cover expenses of starting a business in the City, including all or part of the first months rent, rent deposit, cost of business
permits. Other programs offer marketing assistance, to help attract customers to a new business. Some cities offer consulting services and identify cost savings through conserving energy,
water use, reducing waste, and other environmentally friendly methods for saving money. Small Loan Programs: Provide small, low interest loans for new businesses in the city, businesses
seeking to relocate within the city, or property owners interested in improving their commercial/retail property. Small loans are typically not given by banks, because they do not generate
enough interest for the loan to be cost effective for the bank. Some cities have partnered with local banks to provide loans. Loans can also be provided for business owners who might
not otherwise be approved for a loan, because of bad credit, new business status, or if the business has
collateral/high risk issues. Some cities have provided loans based on certain criteria, including loans for disadvantaged or minority business owners. Web Resources: City posts information
and resources for business owners on the city’s website. Business resources page can include listing of available commercial/retail space, restaurant guide, requests for proposals, downloadable
forms (new business guide, business permits), city demographics, and Chamber of Commerce contact information. Buy Local Campaign: City helps local business by encouraging residents to
purchase from local businesses, encouraging bids on City projects from local businesses by adjusting contract sizes for small local companies, and creating a local business directory.
Business Improvement District (BID): Within a specific boundary, the City collects a supplemental fee for business license applications and renewals. Use of money is decided by businesses
within the BID. Typically, a BID offers incentives for businesses to locate within the district or uses the money to support or fund additional governmental services (street maintenance
or sidewalk repair), non-governmental services that benefit the district (landscaping, marketing, special events that promote district), and capital projects that improve the district
(widening sidewalks, façade improvement). BIDs are usually formed by the business owners in a defined area who have petitioned Council for a BID to be established. Property Based Improvement
District (PBID): PBIDs are funded by a supplemental property tax based on business property in a defined area. PBIDs are limited to a 5 year term and can be renewed at the end of the
term through a petition from property owners to the Council. Property owners decide how the generated money is spent, but it can only be used to provide services that are an addition
to services already provided by the government or BID. PBIDs are becoming increasingly popular, as they offer a larger and more reliable source of revenue.
December 12, 2007 Dave Anderson City Manager City of Saratoga 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Saratoga, CA 95070 Dave, Buxton is pleased to present this proposal to the City of Saratoga. The
objective of this proposal is to outline the scope of services that Buxton can provide for the City of Saratoga, as they pursue a better understanding of the city and the attraction
of retail. Scope of Services Trade Area Delineation -Buxton will delineate a trade area around a central point, as determined by the City of Saratoga. Psychographic Analysis and Retail
Site Assessment -Buxton will profile the psychographic segmentation of the City of Saratoga, based on the determined centralized point o Each unique household will be categorized into
1 of 66 unique segments o Over 4,500 lifestyle characteristics and purchasing behaviors are considered when segmenting any household -Category retail trade potential numbers will be
provided to give the City an idea of the dollar demand within the trade area City Level Leakage Analysis -Buxton will produce a supply/demand report at the city and trade area level.
Buxton will analyze city data between the supply and demand in order to understand the value of the retail dollar being spent within the city versus outside the city. -The City of Saratoga
is losing sales tax revenues due to retail development in surrounding areas. Data will be provided at city and trade area levels to give the City of Saratoga an indication as to how
much sales tax revenue is being lost. Cost and Timeline $20,000 Twenty (20) business days Please sign below indicating your approval of this proposal. ______________________ ______________________
David Glover Dave Anderson Chief Financial Officer City Manager Buxton City of Saratoga 2651 S. Polaris Drive 13777 Fruitvale Avenue Ft. Worth, TX 76109 Saratoga, CA 95070
3. Economic Development -Banners (Jill Hunter) City does not currently allow anything other than non-profit organizations to hang banners. Support efforts to create community spirit
in celebratory events, increase exposure of Saratoga
to visitors, support local business, and raise sales tax revenues. Schedule of eight or nine Village (SVDC) events Request for no charge for hanging banner in Blaney Plaza; options:
501c3 status for SVDC [preferred] Non-profit co-sponsor: (e.g. SHF, FOSL, Foothill Cub, etc.) Council sponsored (gratis) Selective Council sponsorship (gratis during open dates)
City of Saratoga Blaney Plaza Banner Calendar (Revised 10-16-07) 7/2-7/9/07 7/9-7/16/07 7/23-7/30/07 7/30-8/06/07 8/06-8/20/07 Shady Shakespeare Theater Co. 8/20-8/27/07 8/27-9/03/07
9/3-9/17/07 Saratoga Chamber of Commerce 9/17-9/24/07 St. Nicholas Orthodox Church 9/24-10/01/07 10/01-10/08/07 Sacred Heart Homecoming 10/08-10/15/07 10/15-10/22/07 10/22-10/29/07 St.
Andrews School Open House 10/29-11/05/07 11/5-11/12/07 11/12-11/19/07 Chamber of Commerce-Tree Lighting Ceremony 11/19/07-11/26/07 11/26/07-12/03/07 12/03-12/10/07 12/10-12/17/07 12/17-12/24/07
12/24-12/31/07 1/7-1/14/08 Sacred Heart Open House 1/14-1/21/08 St. Andrew’s School Open House 1/21-1/28/08-Saratoga Education Foundation (SEF) 1/28/-2/04/08 Saratoga Music Booster 2/4-2/11/08
Saratoga Mustard Walk 2/11-2/18/08 2/18-2/25/08 2/25-3/3/08 Saratoga High School Boosters 3/3-3/10/08 3/10-3/17/08 3/17/-3/24/08 3/24-3/31/08 3/31-4/07/08 4/7-4/21/08 Los Gatos Rotary
Club 4/21-5/5/08 Saratoga Rotary Art Show 5/5-5/12/08 Santa Cruz Mountain Winegrowers Association 5/12-5/19/08 Hakone Gardens 5/19/-6/02/08 Foothill Club Memorial Day Banner 6/02-6/09/08
6/09-6/16/08 6/16/-6/30/08 Palo Alto Concourse de Elegance’
City of Saratoga Banner Policy 1. Non-Profit Organizations advertising community events or organizations advertising Saratoga-based non-profit events may hang banners in Blaney Plaza
and at North Campus. Groups may be asked to show proof of non-profit or Saratoga residency status. 2. In June of each year, community groups will be asked to submit their requests for
preferred dates from July 1st to June 30th to hang a banner at Blaney Plaza and /or North Campus. The City will consider all requests and finalize the schedule for the coming fiscal
year. Dates open after the calendar is established can be filled throughout the year. 3. Requests will be given the following priority: 1) City of Saratoga sponsored activities, 2) groups
who have previously hung banners, 3) Saratoga-based nonprofit organizations or events, and 4) new groups. 4. Groups may be allowed the use of Blaney Plaza or North Campus no more than
two (2) times in a twelve-month period. 5. A banner may be hung seven (7) days per usage, from Monday Monday through Sunday. If there are no other requests, the seven-day time period
may be extended to a maximum of fourteen (14) days. 6. All banners will be handled by the City’s Recreation Department. Banners must be submitted to the Community Center (19655 Allendale
Avenue, (408) 868-1249, Monday-Friday from 8:30 a.m. – 4:30 p.m.) at least one week in advance of the allotted time. 7. Groups will be charged a fee of $300 per week. Please make checks
payable to the City of Saratoga. Checks are due when the schedule request is confirmed. 8. Banners must be claimed within five (5) working days from the date of its removal. Please claim
banners at the Community Center. Banners not claimed within five (5) working days may be disposed of at the discretion of the Recreation Department.
9. To ensure that your banners be highly effective and properly placed, the following standards must be met: a) Banners must be four (4) feet by at least twenty-five (25) feet long.
If properly prepared, banners up to forty-five (45) feet in length may be allowed. b) Banners must be made from a heavy-duty canvas or awning type of material. c) One-half (1/2) inch
inside diameter metal grommets are to be placed at all four corners of the banner. Rope should be sewn at the top and bottom of the banner with a loop at the end on all four corners.
d) One-half (1/2) inch inside diameter metal grommets must be placed at least every thirty-two (32) inches along the tope edge of the banner. e) Half moon air holes must be cut into
the banner every five (5) feet of length in order to avoid tearing or ripping. Depending on the type and weight of banner fabric, it is recommended the half moon cuts be sewn to avoid
tearing and/or ripping. 10. The City of Saratoga assumes no responsibility or liability for banners, theft, damage or injury that may result from the placement of banners. 11. The City
of Saratoga will be exempt from the fee requirement and the limitation of time per year. Adopted by Saratoga City Council: June 20, 1990 Revised and Approved by Council: July 18, 2007
4. Expedited Planning Process
Page 1 of 1 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL RETREAT MEETING DATE: February 1, 2008 AGENDA ITEM: 4 DEPARTMENT: Community Development CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: John F. Livingstone,
AICP DIRECTOR: John F. Livingstone, AICP SUBJECT: Expedited Planning Process RECOMMENDED ACTION: Direct Staff Accordingly. REPORT SUMMARY: At the request of the City Council the following
report outlines various methods to reduce the time it takes to receive planning approvals. DISSCUSSION: • Hire/retain additional planners and consultants-The City currently manages and
staffs plan review to comply with the Permit Streamlining Act requirements. Plan review includes work by staff and consulting planners, the City Arborist, Public Works Engineer, Geotechnical
Consultant and the Plan Check Engineer. The City could set informal guidelines calling for faster processing than required by state law and hire/retain additional staff and/or consultants
to meet the new deadlines. • Reduce the appeal period from 15 to 10 days. • Move the tracking of the CDBG accounts to the Finance Department or hire a contract person to provide the
service in order to increase the time available for planners to devote to project review. • Improve Geotechnical turnaround time. FISCAL IMPACTS: As directed by the Council. CONSEQUENCES
OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION: N/A FOLLOW UP ACTION: As directed. ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Notice of this meeting was properly posted. ATTACHMENTS: None.
5. Community Development Work Plan
Page 1 of 2 SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL RETREAT MEETING DATE: February 1, 2008 AGENDA ITEM: 5 DEPARTMENT: Community Development CITY MANAGER: Dave Anderson PREPARED BY: John F. Livingstone,
AICP DIRECTOR: John F. Livingstone, AICP SUBJECT: Community Development Department Advance Planning Work Program RECOMMENDED ACTION: Direct Staff Accordingly. REPORT SUMMARY: At the
request of a City Council the following report outlines the current and proposed work program. COMPLETED ORDINANCES: Neglected property Ordinance Newsrack Ordinance CURRENT WORK PROGRAM:
Fence Ordinance Housing Element update The Council has directed staff to start on the Sign Ordinance after completing the Fence Ordinance. RECENTLY DISCUSSED ORDINANCES: • Green Ordinance
• Expedited Planning Process • Review of Conditional Use Permits • Party Hosting Ordinance • SCVWD Stream Guidelines PRIOR LIST OF ORDINANCES NEEDING UPDATES: • Noise ordinances • Nonconforming
Use Ordinance • Antenna Ordinance • Story Poles • Increase Neighborhood Noticing to 500 500 feet on Administrative Design Review projects • Notice Signs on properties with pending projects
• Restrict paint reflectivity in the Hillsides
Page 2 of 2 FISCAL IMPACTS: Ordinances are typically updated by staff and reviewed for legal conformance by the City Attorney. Several of the proposed ordinances will require environmental
review typically in the form of a negative declaration or mitigated negative declaration. The environmental review would be conducted by staff. One new ordinance could be started this
summer. If the Council was interested in moving forward with an additional ordinance the City Attorney’s office is available to write ordinances when needed. The City Attorney has estimated
that the cost for them to write an ordinance instead of staff would be approximately $20,000 per ordinance. The current rate to have a consultant complete a mitigated negative declaration
is approximately $40,000, for a total of approximately $60,000 per ordinance. Some staff time is also needed to manage the project and attend meetings. CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING
RECOMMENDED ACTION: N/A ALTERNATIVE ACTION: Direct the Planning Commission to provide the the City Council with a recommended list of ordinances to be updated. FOLLOW UP ACTION: As directed.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT: Notice of this meeting was properly posted. ATTACHMENTS: None
6. Council Process, Roles, Procedures
Memo To: Mayor and City Council From: Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk Date: February 1, 2008 Re: Commission Profiles & Mission Statements HERITAGE PRESERVATION COMMISSION • Profile The Heritage
Preservation Commission functions as a liaison working in conjunction with the Council, the Planning Commission, and the agencies and departments of the City to implement the City's
Heritage Preservation Ordinance. The Commission's scope includes property surveys within the boundaries of the City of Saratoga for the purpose of establishing an official inventory
of heritage resources and recommending to the City council specific proposals for designation as a historic landmark, heritage lane or historic district. One member is nominated by the
Saratoga Historical Foundation and two members must be trained and experienced in the field of construction and structural rehabilitation, such as a licensed architect, engineer, contractor
or urban planner. • Mission Statement To provide guidance to the City of Saratoga in order to preserve and protect the heritage resources of the community. LIBRARY COMMISSION • Profile
The Library Commission provides counsel and recommendations on library policies, budgets, plans and procedures to the City Council, City staff, the Santa Clara County Library staff,
and the Saratoga Library supervisor. The Library Commission has no administrative authority over the library's operations but does participate in the general planning of the library
operation and library-related programs and policies. One member is nominated by the City of Monte Sereno. City of Saratoga City Clerk’s office
• Mission statement The mission of the Saratoga Library Commission is to ensure that access is provided to informational, educational and recreational library materials and services
that respond to evolving community needs. The Commission advises the Saratoga City council regarding the library facility and grounds, as well as current library issues. The Commission
guides the Santa Clara County Library Joint Powers Authority Board regarding library budgets, policies, plans and procedures. PARKS & RECREATION COMMISSION • Profile After being suspended
for several years, the Parks and Recreation Commission was reinstated by the Council on May 16, 2007. This newly reformed commission will be comprised of 5 members and will meet 6 times
per year. • Mission statement The Parks and Recreation Commission of the City of Saratoga is dedicated toward the planning, acquisition, development, and maintenance of parks, trails,
and other recreational areas and facilities promoting a better living environment and assuring that Saratoga continues embracing its most valued natural and historic resources so that
citizens may enjoy neighborhood and community opportunities now and in the future. PEDESTRIAN, EQUESTRIAN, AND BICYCLE TRAILS ADVISORY COMMITTEE • Profile It is the mission of the Pedestrian,
Equestrian, and Bicycle Trails Advisory Committee to advise the city regarding the planning, acquisition, and development of trails and sidewalks and to maintain the trails network to
enhance the quality of life in Saratoga. PLANNING COMMISSION • Profile The Planning Commission advises the City Council on land use matters such as the General Plan and specific plans,
zoning and subdivisions. The Commission plans for the future orderly physical development of the City and informs and educates the public on current land use and urban planning issues.
In many areas the Planning Commission also acts as a legislative body in making determinations within the framework of applicable State laws and City ordinances. Ultimate decisions on
land use reside with the City Council. Members are required by State law to file an annual statement of economic interests.
• Mission Statement To maintain the unique character of Saratoga by ensuring that the physical development of the City is consistent with the environmental, social and economic goals
as set forth in the City’s General Plan. TRAFFIC SAFETY COMMISSION • Profile The Traffic Safety Commission investigates, reviews and analyzes traffic safety issues raised by the Community
members and Public Safety Agencies. It provides a venue for the public to express concerns regarding traffic safety issues. The Traffic Safety Commission makes recommendations to the
City regarding traffic safety. As an advisory agency the Commission is not authorized to set City policy. • Mission Statement To support the City in its endeavor to provide safe streets
for the citizens of Saratoga and to promote education in the Community regarding traffic, bicycle and pedestrian safety. YOUTH COMMISSION Profile The Youth Commission is comprised of
middle and high school students appointed by the City Council in two-year terms. Youth Commissioners serve as a liaison between the teen community and the City Council. COMMISSION GOALS
The Youth Commissioners serve as teen leaders in the community; communicating youth issues to the City Council; planning, promoting & participating in community service, fundraising,
educational & fun activities for Saratoga youth.
League of California Cities http://www.cacities.org/story_display.jsp?displaytype=pf&zone=wcm§ion=&sub_... 1 of 2 1/24/2008 2:14 PM 2008-01-24 California Cities Helen Putnam Award
for Excellence Santa Clara Infuses Ethics Into Campaigns December 2007 by Rod Diridon Jr. Rod Diridon Jr. was a founding member of both the Santa Clara Campaign Finance Reform Committee
(chair) and the Ethics Ordinance Committee. He is a former two-term city council member and currently the city auditor and elected city clerk for the City of Santa Clara. He can be reached
at rdiridon@ci.santa-clara.ca.us. The City of Santa Clara won the Grand Prize in the Enhancing Public Trust, Ethics and Community Involvement category of the 2007 Helen Putnam Award
for Excellence program. For more about the award program, visit www.cacities.org/helenputnam. For many, "ethical government" is an oxymoron. At all levels of government, too many disap
pointments in promising candidates have made voters skeptical and cynical about the ability of government officials to achieve a high professional standard of ethics. Government reform,
ethics in politics and sunshine laws: Politicians and government officials have talked about these topics for years. The question has never been if these things are important, but rather
how do we formulate policy around them. And most important, whose morals and ethics are we using as a basis for the discussion? The City of Santa Clara has engaged formal "good government"
initiatives for almost a decade. The city's Campaign Finance Reform Act and Code of Ethics and Values set best practices and standards for what government could be at its finest. Campaigning
for Ethics The first step toward internalizing ethical principles as part of the municipal culture was educating and training employees, board and commission members, the city council
and candidates for office. Next was the big step: to engage the public in a real and meaningful way. As much as city officials like to talk about ethics as a policy, the rubber hits
the road when the public is engaged in the process and has access to more information. When the public holds government accountable, city officials and staff are more likely to proactively
do the same. At no time is the public's attention more focused on government, in a potentially positive way, than during an election cycle. The public's openness and awareness surrounding
an election provides an opportunity to set an overall positive tenor for municipal government --in a way that engages people and gives them a reason to be proud of their city. To that
end, in 2002 Santa Clara began focusing on ethics in campaigning. Can didates were asked to sign an ethics pledge and commit to voluntary campaign spending limits. A workshop for candidates
and their supporters featured ethical tactics and the benefits of ethical campaign strategies, and sought to make candidates and their supporters more aware of and more cautious about
what they would be willing to do to win. The innovative Vote Ethics Campaign (voteethics.voteethics.org and santaclaracampaign dollars.org), originally piloted in 2004, was expanded
in 2006 to help voters evaluate the ethics of candidates. The goal was to engage and inform voters on how to become more educated about candidates and politics, without ever telling
them for whom or how to vote. No small task, it took a broad team to compose and implement the program, including members of the public, the city council, the city manager's office,
the city attorney's office and the city clerk's office. Political Tactics Employed Utilizing techniques traditionally used by political campaigns as well as additional avenues specifically
available to the city, 2006 Vote Ethics offered voters the tools to reflect on best practices, incorporate their own ideology and judge candidates more effectively. Candidates were challenged
to hold themselves and each other accountable to the same high standards. The general messages focused on four core areas: 1. How to more effectively research a candidate's ideology;
2. How to more effectively research a candidate's fundraising; 3. How to more effectively interpret direct mail; and 4. The best practices outlined in the city's Code of Ethics and Values.
2006 Vote Ethics included a number of elements normally seen in politics rather than government to engage Santa Clara's 110,000 residents and 47,306 registered voters and teach them
how to hold candi dates more accountable. The city's successful media program included: Printed Outreach. The city sent messages to residents and voters through direct mail, utility
bill inserts and a section included in the city's quarterly newspaper for a total of more than 283,100 pieces of material. Electronic Media. The campaign reached out to residents with
four video news briefs produced in-house that were played 1,050 times, a website that received 4,678 hits, an electronic billboard message on Highway 101 that was shown 22,680 times
and a pre-election day radio public service announcement that aired 15 times. Community Outreach. Grassroots outreach for the program included a presence at community events and service
club meetings that reached 730 people, training in campaign finance and ethics workshops for 91 people, and televised forums that reached both a broad cable audience and 325 people who
attended in person. Media Coverage. The San Jose Mercury News (circulation 253,947) covered the city's Vote Ethics program in an article titled "Politicians Told to Play Nice, Santa
Clara Advances Against Dirty Campaigns" (Nov. 3, 2006). The 2006 Vote Ethics Program cost ap proximately $56,500 in non-programmed expenses, which is an investment of roughly 51 cents
per resident. This did not include previously programmed printing and postage for the utility bill, city newspaper and other "leveraged" items. The Numbers Reflect Success Research shows
that as a result of the Vote Ethics program, Santa Clara residents are more aware of the need for considering ethics when selecting a candidate, and the confidence of voters in municipal
government is increasing. Research was conducted twice to assess the community's attitudes toward ethics in local government with statistically valid data. Faculty from the Markkula
Center for Applied Ethics at Santa Clara University conducted the first benchmark survey. A professional research firm conducted parallel research after the 2006 election. Most of the
original survey instrument was used in the second poll in order to have comparison statistics. In pre-and post-polling, the number of residents who said they are very proud to live in
the City of Santa Clara increased from 49 percent in early 2006 to 77 percent in late 2006, a 28 percent increase. Similarly, residents indicated an 18 percent increase in their ability
to make Santa Clara a better place to live. And the number of residents who felt they had too little information to make informed voting choices decreased by 45 percent (see chart on
page 30). The research confirmed with quantifiable data that the Vote Ethics campaign educated the public and gave them more confidence in municipal government. Conclusion Of course,
each community is different. There are no "one size fits all" solutions. There are some universal truths; murder is bad and chocolate chip cookies are good. But, beyond this type of
basic understanding, the situational nature of politics leads to very few absolutes. If you are interested in developing a program like 2006 Vote Ethics, remember that the program's
formulation should be fluid to reflect the individual needs of your community. Shedding light on the process of governance, be it for an individual citizen or member of the press, is
a healthy thing. And the inclusion of members of the public in these types of decisions is very important. What they say matters, and what they feel will be reflected in the community.
Whatever policies you create should be fair and unbiased for all of those affected. While you never, never, never should tell someone how or for whom to vote, you can provide the unbiased
tools that allow them to become more educated voters. At the end of the day, it's important to acknowledge that whatever you do does not have to be perfect. But it does have to be fair.
Voters are smart and will make the best choices if they are engaged in the process and offered the tools to succeed. And sometimes, just a discussion about ethics is all it takes to
remind people to be at their best. For more information about Vote Ethics, contact Carol McCarthy, deputy city manager, City Manager's Office, Santa Clara; phone: (408) 615-2213; e-mail:
cmccarthy@ci.santa-clara.ca.us. A Look at Some Key Messages Santa Clara used a variety of key messages to reach voters and potential voters about the value of taking ethics into account
when considering which candidate to support. The city's 2005 Annual Report/2006 City Calendar featured ethics as its theme, and was distributed in December 2005 to all residents and
businesses to increase their familiarity with the eight values of the city's Code of Ethics and Values: ethical, professional, service-oriented, fiscally responsible, organized, communicative,
collaborative and progressive. Four-page Vote Ethics tabloids were inserted in city newspapers in fall 2004 and fall 2006. Using the slogan "Ethics in government begins at the ballot
box," the tabloid articles explained how to: Look closely at campaign mailings; Demand a fair fight; Locate financial disclosure information; Evaluate the ethics of candidates; and Register
to vote. Residents received three eye-catching 8 x 10-inch campaign postcards in the mail bearing the messages: "What do you know about the candidates? Making an educated choice at the
ballot box relies on solid information." "It takes more than wishes to run a campaign. Who is supporting the candidates?" "When candidates battle it out, ethics can get scrambled." A
televised public forum called "The Final Word" was held the night before Election Day to hold candidates accountable for their actions, particularly last-minute hit pieces or charges
in the media. 2006 Vote Ethics Program Measures Measures of Success
League of California Cities http://www.cacities.org/story_display.jsp?displaytype=pf&zone=wcm§ion=&sub_... 2 of 2 1/24/2008 2:14 PM last updated : 11/29/2007 Increased Voter Engagement
Voter registration increase: + 1,620 (+ 3.8 percent) Voter turnout increase: + 3,631 (+ 6.5 percent) votes Ethics and Campaign Finance Limit Pledges Code of Fair Campaign Practices Pledge
signed by candidates: 7 (100 percent) Voluntary Campaign Expenditure Limit Pledge signed by candidates: 7 (100 percent) Candidate-Funded Last-Minute "Hit" Pieces: 0
7. Mid-Year Budget
FY 1 FY 2 FY 3 FY 4 FY 5 2004/05 Actuals 2005/06 Actuals 2006/07 Actuals 2007/08 Adopted Budget 2007/08 Estimated Actuals 2008/09 Forecast 2009/10 Forecast 2010/11 Forecast 2011/12 Forecast
2012/13 Forecast Property Tax 3,633,319 4,017,306 5,422,446 5,303,000 5,409,600 5,608,300 5,814,900 6,029,700 6,253,000 6,485,400 VLF Backfill Property Tax 1,701,087 2,124,059 2,154,998
2,200,000 2,200,000 2,244,000 2,288,900 2,334,700 2,381,400 2,429,000 Sales & Use Tax 1,093,968 1,073,370 1,087,353 1,068,100 1,087,900 1,098,800 1,109,800 1,120,900 1,132,000 1,143,400
Franchise Fees 994,798 1,040,424 1,187,806 1,599,335 1,563,400 1,598,300 1,631,500 1,672,500 1,705,800 1,740,300 Transient Occupancy Tax 146,607 163,222 195,261 165,000 180,000 183,600
187,300 191,000 194,800 198,700 Other Taxes 233,419 295,510 206,276 250,000 250,000 255,000 260,100 265,300 270,600 276,000 Business License Tax 298,823 339,648 303,775 320,000 300,000
320,000 329,600 339,500 349,700 360,200 SUB-TOTAL Tax Revenues 8,102,021 9,053,539 10,557,915 10,905,435 10,990,900 11,308,000 11,622,100 11,953,600 12,287,300 12,633,000 Intergovernmental
564,206 991,489 509,604 385,944 362,344 360,300 366,500 372,900 379,500 386,300 Fees, Licenses & Permits 1,304,246 1,603,303 1,434,124 1,416,740 1,466,640 1,432,750 1,474,960 1,515,270
1,532,280 1,573,890 Charge for Services 1,940,127 2,574,990 2,270,505 2,383,666 2,408,666 2,461,600 2,509,500 2,552,400 2,602,300 2,653,500 Fines & Forfeitures 161,721 245,913 395,997
230,000 335,000 339,600 343,300 347,100 350,900 354,700 Interest Income 239,441 574,988 714,976 530,000 530,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 Rental Income 194,290 274,356
242,842 252,350 252,350 252,400 252,400 252,400 252,400 252,400 Other Sources 153,224 148,845 86,743 37,000 37,000 28,000 28,000 28,000 28,000 28,000 TOTAL REVENUES 12,659,276 15,467,423
16,212,706 16,141,135 16,382,900 16,682,650 17,096,760 17,521,670 17,932,680 18,381,790 Fund Transfers In 1,235,477 698,882 671,046 250,761 250,761 306,600 281,600 281,600 281,600 281,600
13,894,753 16,166,305 16,883,752 16,391,896 16,633,661 16,989,250 17,378,360 17,803,270 18,214,280 18,663,390 2004/05 Actuals 2005/06 Actuals 2006/07 Actuals 2007/08 Adopted Budget 2007/08
Estimated Actuals 2008/09 Forecast 2009/10 Forecast 2010/11 Forecast 2011/12 Forecast 2012/13 Forecast Salary 2,894,952 3,332,237 3,664,344 4,433,841 4,433,841 4,573,529 4,735,639 4,896,398
5,030,205 5,159,678 Elected Officials 46,361 24,459 19,528 29,711 29,711 29,711 29,711 29,711 29,711 29,711 Temporary Employees 228,725 245,739 398,659 344,494 344,494 343,773 360,760
369,755 378,854 388,118 Overtime 10,492 49,350 44,088 29,930 29,930 26,738 27,365 28,108 28,871 29,656 Other Salary/Taxes 21,044 39,576 47,219 52,690 52,690 52,690 52,760 52,760 52,760
52,760 Benefits 949,705 1,174,399 1,311,435 1,562,779 1,562,779 1,710,324 1,815,912 1,944,450 2,077,512 2,222,015 SUB-TOTAL Salary & Benefits 4,151,279 4,865,760 5,485,273 6,453,445
6,453,445 6,736,767 7,022,147 7,321,182 7,597,913 7,881,939 Materials & Supplies 249,714 262,208 367,590 321,075 314,925 365,720 383,760 331,870 335,040 338,260 Fees & Charges 760,796
809,487 773,495 711,635 714,335 755,450 776,700 788,820 806,810 825,410 Contract & Consultant Services 5,917,780 5,538,695 5,991,832 6,043,917 6,038,917 6,138,640 6,238,710 6,355,350
6,462,240 6,571,240 Meetings, Events, Training 145,847 123,364 152,940 177,950 177,500 214,610 206,750 217,630 195,550 216,200 Grants & Awards 131,825 123,867 177,045 195,686 195,686
123,000 123,200 123,400 123,600 123,800 Fixed Assets -1,366 204,913 32,000 32,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 Street & Facility Projects 830,552 296,341 1,439,066 -------Internal
Service Charges --55,600 2,053,479 2,053,479 2,120,900 2,190,600 2,262,600 2,337,200 2,414,300 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 12,187,793 12,021,088 14,647,754 15,989,187 15,980,287 16,475,087 16,961,867
17,420,852 17,878,353 18,391,149 Fund Transfers Out 1,898,509 1,634,695 3,016,991 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 14,086,302 13,655,783 17,664,745 16,389,187
16,380,287 16,875,087 17,361,867 17,820,852
18,278,353 18,791,149 NET REVENUES & T/I LESS EXPENDITURES &T/O (191,549) 2,510,522 (780,993) 2,709 253,374 114,163 16,493 (17,582) (64,073) (127,759) CITY OF SARATOGA Forecast Summary
Worksheet -Version 1 TOTAL EXPENDITURES & TRANSFERS TOTAL REVENUES & TRANSFERS EXPENDITURE CATEGORY REVENUE CATEGORY
FY 1 FY 2 FY 3 FY 4 FY 5 2004/05 Actuals 2005/06 Actuals 2006/07 Actuals 2007/08 Adopted Budget 2007/08 Estimated Actuals 2008/09 Forecast 2009/10 Forecast 2010/11 Forecast 2011/12 Forecast
2012/13 Forecast Reserved Fund Balance Petty Cash Reserve 300 1 ,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 Reserve for Retiree Medical --62,500 62,500 62,500 62,500 62,500
62,500 62,500 62,500 Unreserved /Designated Fund Balance Designated for Operations 2,457,847 2,554,150 2,688,036 2,809,036 2,809,036 2,893,307 2,980,106 3,069,509 3,161,595 3,256,443
Designated for Economic Uncertainty 1,350,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 Designated for Carryforwards 128,198 704,214 253,875
200,000 200,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 Designated for Capital Projects -614,997 --------Designated for Special Projects --450,000 450,000 450,000 450,000 450,000 450,000
450,000 450,000 Designated for Claims Payable --38,695 38,695 38,695 38,695 38,695 38,695 38,695 38,695 Designated for Grants --80,000 -------Designated for CIP Radar Signs --47,000
-------Designated for Environmental Services 898,658 909,760 710,667 639,917 639,917 589,917 539,917 489,917 439,917 389,917 Designated for Comm. Development Fund 725,513 734,654 776,190
676,743 676,743 601,743 526,743 451,743 376,743 301,743 Designated for Comm. Development Deposits -604,909 604,909 604,909 604,909 500,000 450,000 400,000 350,000 300,000 Designated
for Information Technology --------Designated for Equipment Replacement --------Designated for Facility Improvement --------Unreserved /Undesignated Fund Balance 1,798,435 2,755,288
1,753,950 1,986,731 2,237,396 2,597,197 2,701,891 2,769,905 2,788,747 2,741,141 7,358,951 10,379,272 8,967,122 8,969,831 9,220,496 9,334,659 9,351,152 9,333,570 9,269,497 9,141,738 12345
Revenue projections do not reflect speculative changes in State funding. While there is an expectation that the State's fiscal crisis will impact City funding, the impact is unknown
at this time time (February 1, 2008) 67 CITY OF SARATOGA Version 1 forecast reflects the current status quo factors, conditions, and assumptions as applied to outyears. This forecast
is a projection of known factors, conditions, and assumptions as applied to current operations for outgoing fiscal years. This forecast is not to be interpreted as actual budget numbers,
it is to be used as a planning tool to identify fiscal trends. The forecast outyears are based on the FY 2007/08 fiscal structure, which was revised from prior years to incorporate operational
staff into General Fund programs, and utilize Internal Service Funds for operational support functions. Forecast Notes TOTAL Fund Balance Forecast Summary Worksheet -Version 1 GENERAL
FUND FUND BALANCE BREAKDOWN General Fund Salary and Benefit amounts for FY 2004/05 -2006/07 reflect reduced staffing amounts as street maintenance staff were previously allocated to
a Special Revenue Fund. (2004/05 = $656,000 /2005/06 = $424,000 /FY 2006/07 = $436,000) Forecast salary and benefit amounts reflect increases utilizing the maximum CPI increase rate
under the current MOU, and anticipated insurance increases based on prior year increases. Also beginning with FY 2007/08, the General Fund is limited to operational programs and expenses.
Capital revenues and expenditures are now reflected in the Capital Improvement Plan's funds/projects.
2008 Forecast Projection -Version 1 City of Saratoga -2,000,000 4,000,000 6,000,000 8,000,000 10,000,000 12,000,000 14,000,000 16,000,000 18,000,000 20,000,000 2004/05 Actuals 2005/06
Actuals 2006/07 Actuals 2007/08 Estimated Actuals 2008/09 Forecast 2009/10 Forecast 2010/11 Forecast 2011/12 Forecast 2012/13 Forecast TOTAL Revenues & Transfers TOTAL Expenditures &
Transfers GF Fund Balance
FY 1 FY 2 FY 3 FY 4 FY 5 2004/05 Actuals 2005/06 Actuals 2006/07 Actuals 2007/08 Adopted Budget 2007/08 Estimated Actuals 2008/09 Forecast 2009/10 Forecast 2010/11 Forecast 2011/12 Forecast
2012/13 Forecast Property Tax 3,633,319 4,017,306 5,422,446 5,303,000 5,409,600 5,608,300 5,814,900 6,029,700 6,253,000 6,485,400 VLF Backfill Property Tax 1,701,087 2,124,059 2,154,998
2,200,000 2,200,000 2,244,000 2,288,900 2,334,700 2,381,400 2,429,000 Sales & Use Tax 1,093,968 1,073,370 1,087,353 1,068,100 1,087,900 1,098,800 1,109,800 1,120,900 1,132,000 1,143,400
Franchise Fees 994,798 1,040,424 1,187,806 1,599,335 1,563,400 1,598,300 1,631,500 1,672,500 1,705,800 1,740,300 Transient Occupancy Tax 146,607 163,222 195,261 165,000 180,000 183,600
187,300 191,000 194,800 198,700 Other Taxes 233,419 295,510 206,276 250,000 250,000 255,000 260,100 265,300 270,600 276,000 Business License Tax 298,823 339,648 303,775 320,000 300,000
320,000 329,600 339,500 349,700 360,200 SUB-TOTAL Tax Revenues 8,102,021 9,053,539 10,557,915 10,905,435 10,990,900 11,308,000 11,622,100 11,953,600 12,287,300 12,633,000 Intergovernmental
564,206 991,489 509,604 385,944 362,344 360,300 366,500 372,900 379,500 386,300 Fees, Licenses & Permits 1,304,246 1,603,303 1,434,124 1,416,740 1,466,640 1,432,750 1,474,960 1,515,270
1,532,280 1,573,890 Charge for Services 1,940,127 2,574,990 2,270,505 2,383,666 2,408,666 2,461,600 2,509,500 2,552,400 2,602,300 2,653,500 Fines & Forfeitures 161,721 245,913 395,997
230,000 335,000 339,600 343,300 347,100 350,900 354,700 Interest Income 239,441 574,988 714,976 530,000 530,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 Rental Income 194,290 274,356
242,842 252,350 252,350 252,400 252,400 252,400 252,400 252,400 Other Sources 153,224 148,845 86,743 37,000 37,000 28,000 28,000 28,000 28,000 28,000 TOTAL REVENUES 12,659,276 15,467,423
16,212,706 16,141,135 16,382,900 16,682,650 17,096,760 17,521,670 17,932,680 18,381,790 Fund Transfers In 1,235,477 698,882 671,046 250,761 250,761 306,600 281,600 281,600 281,600 281,600
13,894,753 16,166,305 16,883,752 16,391,896 16,633,661 16,989,250 17,378,360 17,803,270 18,214,280 18,663,390 2004/05 Actuals 2005/06 Actuals 2006/07 Actuals 2007/08 Adopted Budget 2007/08
Estimated Actuals 2008/09 Forecast 2009/10 Forecast 2010/11 Forecast 2011/12 Forecast 2012/13 Forecast Salary 2,894,952 3,332,237 3,664,344 4,433,841 4,433,841 4,532,491 4,689,906 4,849,272
4,981,648 5,109,647 Elected Officials 46,361 24,459 19,528 29,711 29,711 29,711 29,711 29,711 29,711 29,711 Temporary Employees 228,725 245,739 398,659 344,494 344,494 386,239 360,415
369,401 378,488 387,738 Overtime 10,492 49,350 44,088 29,930 29,930 26,738 27,365 28,108 28,871 29,656 Other Salary/Taxes 21,044 39,576 47,219 52,690 52,690 52,690 52,760 52,760 52,760
52,760 Benefits 949,705 1,174,399 1,311,435 1,562,779 1,562,779 1,693,105 1,796,254 1,923,323 2,054,765 2,197,483 SUB-TOTAL Salary & Benefits 4,151,279 4,865,760 5,485,273 6,453,445
6,453,445 6,720,975 6,956,411 7,252,576 7,526,244 7,806,994 Materials & Supplies 249,714 262,208 367,590 321,075 314,925 365,720 383,760 331,870 335,040 338,260 Fees & Charges 760,796
809,487 773,495 711,635 714,335 755,450 776,700 788,820 806,810 825,410 Contract & Consultant Services 5,917,780 5,538,695 5,991,832 6,043,917 6,038,917 6,138,640 6,238,710 6,355,350
6,462,240 6,571,240 Meetings, Events, Training 145,847 123,364 152,940 177,950 177,500 214,610 206,750 217,630 195,550 216,200 Grants & Awards 131,825 123,867 177,045 195,686 195,686
123,000 123,200 123,400 123,600 123,800 Fixed Assets -1,366 204,913 32,000 32,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 Street & Facility Projects 830,552 296,341 1,439,066 -------Internal
Service Charges --55,600 2,053,479 2,053,479 2,070,900 2,138,600 2,208,600 2,281,000 2,355,900 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 12,187,793 12,021,088 14,647,754 15,989,187 15,980,287 16,409,295 16,844,131
17,298,246 17,750,484 18,257,804 Fund Transfers Out 1,898,509 1,634,695 3,016,991 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 14,086,302 13,655,783 17,664,745 16,389,187
16,380,287 16,809,295 17,244,131 17,698,246 18,150,484 18,657,804 NET REVENUES & T/I LESS EXPENDITURES &T/O (191,549) 2,510,522 (780,993) 2,709 253,374 179,955 134,229 105,024 63,796
5,586 CITY OF SARATOGA Forecast Summary Worksheet -Version 2 TOTAL EXPENDITURES & TRANSFERS TOTAL REVENUES & TRANSFERS EXPENDITURE CATEGORY REVENUE CATEGORY
FY 1 FY 2 FY 3 FY 4 FY 5 2004/05 Actuals 2005/06 Actuals 2006/07 Actuals 2007/08 Adopted Budget 2007/08 Estimated Actuals 2008/09 Forecast 2009/10 Forecast 2010/11 Forecast 2011/12 Forecast
2012/13 Forecast Reserved Fund Balance Petty Cash Reserve 300 1 ,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 1,300 Reserve for Retiree Medical --62,500 62,500 62,500 62,500 62,500
62,500 62,500 62,500 Unreserved /Designated Fund Balance Designated for Operations 2,457,847 2,554,150 2,688,036 2,809,036 2,809,036 2,893,307 2,980,106 3,069,509 3,161,595 3,256,443
Designated for Economic Uncertainty 1,350,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 Designated for Carryforwards 128,198 704,214 253,875
200,000 200,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 Designated for Capital Projects -614,997 --------Designated for Special Projects --450,000 450,000 450,000 450,000 450,000 450,000
450,000 450,000 Designated for Claims Payable --38,695 38,695 38,695 38,695 38,695 38,695 38,695 38,695 Designated for Grants --80,000 -------Designated for CIP Radar Signs --47,000
-------Designated for Environmental Services 898,658 909,760 710,667 639,917 639,917 589,917 539,917 489,917 439,917 389,917 Designated for Comm. Development Fund 725,513 734,654 776,190
676,743 676,743 601,743 526,743 451,743 376,743 301,743 Designated for Comm. Development Deposits -604,909 604,909 604,909 604,909 500,000 450,000 400,000 350,000 300,000 Designated
for Information Technology --------Designated for Equipment Replacement --------Designated for Facility Improvement --------Unreserved /Undesignated Fund Balance 1,798,435 2,755,288
1,753,950 1,986,731 2,237,396 2,662,988 2,885,418 3,076,039 3,222,750 3,308,488 7,358,951 10,379,272 8,967,122 8,969,831 9,220,496 9,400,450 9,534,679 9,639,704 9,703,500 9,709,086 12345
Revenue projections do not reflect speculative changes in State funding. While there is an expectation that the State's fiscal crisis will impact City funding, the impact is unknown
at this time time (February 1, 2008) 67 CITY OF SARATOGA This is a revised forecast from the Version 1 current status quo forecast. This forecast incorporates the City Manager's proposed
staffing changes to be brought forth in the FY 2008/09 budget process This forecast is a projection of known factors, conditions, and assumptions as applied to current operations for
outgoing fiscal years. This forecast is not to be interpreted as actual budget numbers, it is to be used as a planning tool to identify fiscal trends. The forecast outyears are based
on the FY 2007/08 fiscal structure, which was revised from prior years to incorporate operational staff into General Fund programs, and utilize Internal Service Funds for operational
support functions. Forecast Notes TOTAL Fund Balance Forecast Summary Worksheet -Version 2 GENERAL FUND FUND BALANCE BREAKDOWN General Fund Salary and Benefit amounts for FY 2004/05
-2006/07 reflect reduced staffing amounts as street maintenance staff were previously allocated to a Special Revenue Fund. (2004/05 = $656,000 /2005/06 = $424,000 /FY 2006/07 = $436,000)
Forecast salary and benefit amounts reflect increases utilizing the maximum CPI increase rate under the current MOU, and anticipated insurance increases based on prior year increases.
Also beginning with FY 2007/08, the General Fund is limited to operational programs and expenses. Capital revenues and expenditures are now reflected in the Capital Improvement Plan's
funds/projects.
2008 Forecast Projection -Version 2 City of Saratoga -2,000,000 4,000,000 6,000,000 8,000,000 10,000,000 12,000,000 14,000,000 16,000,000 18,000,000 20,000,000 2004/05 Actuals 2005/06
Actuals 2006/07 Actuals 2007/08 Estimated Actuals 2008/09 Forecast 2009/10 Forecast 2010/11 Forecast 2011/12 Forecast 2012/13 Forecast TOTAL Revenues & Transfers TOTAL Expenditures &
Transfers GF Fund Balance
8. Community Calendar of Events
Council Retreat: Community Calendar of Events February 1, 2008 Below is additional information on calendaring options staff was asked to prepare for the Council Retreat discussion on
the Community Calendar of Events. Staff Run Calendar: Community calendar events can be submitted to staff, by email or an online form, and then added to the Community Calendar hosted
on the City’s website. Examples of Community Calendars: City of Campbell: http://www.ci.campbell.ca.us/general/calendar.htm) City of Santa Clara: http://www.santaclaraca.gov/calendar_cur.html
City of Sunnyvale: http://sunnyvale.ca.gov/Events/Artsopolis Powered Calendar: Artsopolis, a local non-profit developed to promote arts and culture events in Silicon Valley, offers online
calendar services. Artsopolis has a wide database of cultural events throughout the area and can create a calendar page limited to Saratoga events, including non-cultural events (sporting,
council meetings, community celebrations, etc.). Residents, businesses, or community organizations can add events to the calendar by submitting the event information online. In addition
to filtering posted community events by location, the City can also filter events by type, event sponsor, or any other criteria. Once events are submitted on the City of Saratoga calendar,
they would also register with the calendars of Silicon Valley Community Newspapers, KEZR, KBAY, San Jose Convention and Visitors Bureau, and Artsopolis. If the Council decides to have
Artsopolis create a calendar, two options are available. A link to a Saratoga calendar hosted by Artsopolis can be added to the City’s website or Artsopolis can create a calendar page
that is incorporated into the City’s website (see below). This feature keeps visitors on the City of Saratoga website, making it easier to navigate between the community calendar and
other resources on the City’s website. The initial cost to create a Saratoga Community Calendar page, which is a one time fee, is approximately $6,000. The annual maintenance fee varies
and can be paid through ‘in-kind” services or trade. Silicon Valley Community Newspapers has a calendar powered by Artsopolis and covers the maintenance fee by posting Artsopolis advertisements
in their papers for free. To cover annual maintenance expenses, the City may be able to offer Artsopolis advertising space in The Saratogan, the City Activity Guide, or website. Live
examples of calendars powered by Artsopolis: http://www.community-newspapers.com/image_magazine/
http://todaysbestmix.com/pages/1494883.php Below: Mock up of Saratoga Community Calendar powered by Artsopolis.