HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity Council Agenda Packet 2007-03-02SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: March 2, 2007
ORIGINATING DEPT: Admin Services
PREPARED BY: Mary Furey
AGENDA ITEM:
CITY MANAGER:
Dave Anderson
DEPT HEAD: VIA j
ary Fur y
SUBJECT: FY 2006/07 General Fund Financial Status
RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
Review FY 2006/07 General Fund financial status projections and FY 2007/08 budget
preparations.
REPORT SUMMARY:
FY 2006/07 Financial Overview:
Under the City's current budgeting format, the "General Fund" is the primary operating fund net
of several other General Fund activities accounted for within the Special Revenue Fund section,
including all of Community Development services, and some Public Works and Recreation
Department services. The following fiscal information therefore will reflect the City's net
General Fund operations as established by the FY 2006/07 budget.
As the General Fund schedule on page 2 shows, ongoing revenues and transfers -in are expected
to increase from $11,084,856 in FY 2005/06 to $12,102,981 in FY 2006/07 - a little more than
$1.0 million dollars. This increase is primarily due to:
• the additional $786,000 of TEA property tax allocation,
• the end of the ERAF III State Take -Away ($260,000 per year for two years), and
• a slight increase in property tax revenue receipts as a result of property turnover and
assessment increases.
The remaining General Fund revenues for FY 2006 /07 are fairly consistent with prior year
receipts.
The following schedule also shows an increase in FY 2005/06 expenditures of $9,975,202 to
budgeted expenditures of $10,228,236 of budgeted expenditures in FY 2006/07 — a $250,000
increase in General Fund ongoing operational expenditures. This increase is primarily attributed
to funding increases for enhancing the city's web presence, rising utility costs, ABAG Premiums,
Public Safety cost increases, and rising labor and benefit costs.
GENERAL FUND
Prior Year Actuals and Projected Financial Status
at February 21, 2007
FY 2005/06 FY 2006/07 Additional
Beginning Fund Balance Actuals Estimated Budget Adj
Unreserved/Undesignated Fund Balance S 2,755,289
Construction in Progress Reserve 614,997
Total Available Beginning Fund Balance 3,370,286
Revenues
Revenues & Operating Transfers In
TEA Property Tax Allocation
Ongoing Revenues
One Time Revenues
Total Revenues
11,084,856 11,230,204
785,777
11,084,856 12,102,981
780,000 87,000
11,864,856 12,189,981
Total Source of Funds 15.560.267 _
Estimated FY 2006/07 Total Use of Funds includes a recommended $500,000 year -end General
Fund undesignated fund balance, leaving Council with $1.8 million dollars to designate for
specific purposes, as outlined under the discussion of TEA and one -time funds in the last report
of the Council retreat.
Mid -Year Budget Adjustments
The last column on the above schedule is to account for proposed budget adjustments. Any
required budget adjustments identified as a result of the Council's General Fund financial
discussions at the retreat will be brought forward to Council as part of the Mid -Year Budget
Report on March 21, 2007.
FY 2007108 Revenue Projections
In preparation for the development of the FY 2007/08 budget, staff prepared a revenue forecast
based on recent trends and known factors. Significant revenue projections include:
• Property Tax Revenues (inclusive of the TEA allocations) - are projected to grow another 4%
overall from FY 2006/07 estimated revenues, equating to an increase of $186,000 next year.
Total expected Property Tax Revenues are $5.2 million.
N
• Sales Tax Revenue — receipts have not increased from the FY 2005/06 levels, therefore FY
2007/08 revenue projections are being held flat at $988,000.
• VLF in Lieu Revenues — have a slight inflation factor of 2% built into FY 2007/08 projections
as there continues to be a small growth trend ($36,000). The combined total of the VLF
revenue "collected as property tax" and the regular VLF fee is expected to bring the city
approximately $2.4 million next year.
• Transient Occupancy Tax - is also expected to continue a slow growth trend, and is estimated
with a 2% inflation factor for total expected receipts of $173,400 in FY 2007/08, (a net
increase of $3,400). This revenue will be reviewed further as the city is considering initiating
an audit of past receipts.
• Franchise Fees — are received from PGE, Comcast, San Jose Water, and for solid waste
services next year: West Valley Collection and Recycling.
• PGE franchise fees are expected to continue growing at approximately 4% ($15,000)
based on ongoing gas and electric rate increases.
• San Jose Water is projected to grow at a more conservative 2% ($3,000) as there are
both positive and negative fluctuations in this revenue stream over the past several
years.
• Comcast franchise fee revenue is expected to show moderate growth under a 4% trend
increase ($10,000). Additional revenue is expected under a new contract to be
negotiated in September 2008 that will provide a 1% PEG funding pass - through for
KSAR, however this funding was not incorporated into the forecast as the contract is
not in place and the increase would be offset with a matching expenditure out.
• The solid waste franchise fee was restructured from 10% to 16.5% under a new waste
collection franchise contract with West Valley Collection. Overall, solid waste
franchise fees are expected to increase in the General Fund, but also will be offset by
transferred program cost increases, resulting in a cost neutral restructuring. With the
net result of $0, revenue was not increased for forecast purposes.
Overall, General Fund revenues are expected to increase in FY 2007/08 by approximately
$253,400 from these significant revenue sources.
FY2007108 Expenditure Projections
Operating expenditure for FY 2007/08 will include a $200,000 increase for the SCC Sheriff's
basic service contract. For reference, the Sheriff's contract is appropriated at $3,420,700 for FY
2006/07, with a projected cost of $3,621,600 in FY 2007/08. In addition, citywide ongoning
operating expenditure are expected to grow by approximately $300,000 as a result of increases in
operational services, utilities, and materials, and rising labor and benefit costs. Any Council
approved enhancements to the Sheriff's contract or city services will be identified and quantified
during the upcoming budget development, and will further impact total appropriations.
3
FY2007108 FinanciaUBudget Changes:
Staff has begun preparing the City's FY 2007/08 proposed budget, and wanted to take this
opportunity to advise Council of some notable changes they can expect to see this spring. A
primary change is the budget document will be developed under a departmental focus to improve
the organizational understanding of services and budgeted funds. In addition, the budget will
reflect a realignment of the financial structure. Currently, the City's financial structure is not in
conformance with accounting or budgeting standards. Over the years, there has been a great deal
of turnover in the Finance Department and as a result, financial system knowledge and processes
were not transferred effectively. This resulted in many system work - arounds in order to track
information in a manner that staff needed, and in turn, a non - standard fund and account structure.
With the implementation of the new Finance Plus financial system, the accounting structure will
be corrected to conform to accounting and budgeting standards. This change necessitates the
realignment of some funds and programs, and as such, will be reflected in the FY 2007/08
budget. One such change will be the closing of the Integrated Waste Management Fund due to
the elimination of the waste collection surcharge. Program obligations will be subsequently
transferred to the General Fund, as noted earlier. Any remaining fund balance will be brought
forward into FY 2007/08 as either a funding source for designated environmental projects, or
held as a CIP reserve until projects are adopted.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
None at this time. Any required budget adjustments identified as a result of the Council's
General Fund financial discussions at the retreat will be brought forward to Council as part of the
Mid -Year Budget Report on March 21, 2007.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
Council would postpone review and discussion of the city's financial status until the Mid -Year
Budget review on March 21, 2007.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S):
None in addition to the above.
FOLLOW UP ACTION(S):
A Mid -Year Budget Report will be brought forward to Council on March 21, 2007 with any
consensus direction for current fiscal year budget adjustments.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Notice for this meeting.
ATTACHMENTS:
n/a
ld
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: March 2, 2007
AGENDAITEM:
ORIGINATING DEPT: City Manager's Office CITY MANAGER:
PREPARED BY:
Dave Anderson, City Manager
DEPT HEAD:
7
Dave Anderson, City Manager
SUBJECT: Status and direction from Council on expenditure of TEA and one -time funds.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Accept report, discuss alternatives and provide direction.
REPORT SUMMARY:
One -Time Funds
At the retreat held on February 2, 2007 Council discussed priorities for the expenditure of TEA
and other one -time funds of $1.8 million. The minutes of the meeting show there was:
Consensus for replenishing the Council Contingency at $30,000
Substantial consensus for allocating $1.1 million to fund the development of Kevin
Moran Park.
• Majority consensus for developing a Village Master Plan.
Undesignated Fund Balance is available to carry out the projects above. Additionally, the CIP
contains $50,000 for a Village Improvement Project which is defined as "Provides funding for
small scale Village improvements and/or studies. Scope of work not yet defined."
If Council decides to utilize the existing CIP funds for the Village Master Plan, approximately
$650,000 would be left to fund other projects. Several options are available as follows:
• Fund outside agency requests - KSAR $50,000; SASCC $60,000.
• Funding for the railroad crossing improvement project - $100,000
• Appropriate remaining funds to undesignated CIP fund and determine use at the annual
CIP budget review in September, 2007.
• Allocate now for other specific one -time or CIP purpose(s).
Ongoing Funds
At the February retreat, Council did not reach a substantial or full consensus regarding the
ongoing TEA funds of approximately $786,000. There was a majority consensus to expend a
portion of the TEA funds for capital strategic needs.
The allocation of ongoing funds for capital strategic needs can be accomplished by setting aside a
certain amount of the revenue stream to be allocated to the CIP each year by Council policy. In
the discussion on this topic at the February retreat, two council members suggested that half of
the amount ($393,000) be allocated.
Other potential areas for expenditures of ongoing funds that were discussed at the retreat were as
follows:
• Staffing — Converting selected temporary staffing to regular full time status - $68,400
• Restore Commission support staffing and other commission related direct costs - $95,000
-$110,000
• Additional funding for the Pavement Management Program
• Restoration of pri or service cuts:
• Sheriff's Office Traffic Patrols
• School Resource Officer
• Street sweeping of arterials (reduced from once a week to once a month)
• School crossing guards
• After - school teen programs
• Bonding with part of the revenue stream. ($200,000 over 20 years equals $2,000,000;
$500,000 over 20 years equals $5,500,000)
This item is last on the agenda in order that all topics discussed today having cost implications
can be weighed equally. A copy of the previous staff report on this topic, the proposal from the
Sheriff's Office and a copy of the minutes from the retreat in February are attached for reference.
ATTACHMENTS:
a. February 2, 2007 report on TEA and Other One -Time Funds
b. February 2, 2007 Retreat Minutes
c. Sheriff's Office staffing request letter
2of2
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: February 2, 2007 AGENDA ITEM:
1
ORIGINATING DEPT: City Manager's Office CITY MANAGER:
PREPARED BY:
DEPT HEAD:
Dave Anderson, City Manager Dave Anderson, City Manager
SUBJECT: Status and direction from Council on expenditure of TEA and other one -time
funds.
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Accept report, discuss alternatives and provide direction.
REPORT SUMMARY:
Proposition 13 froze property tax rates for local governments and special districts to pre -
proposition levels. Saratoga, with a legacy of minimum service delivery, had a very low property
tax rate which was subsequently made permanent. Some Cities had no property tax levy prior to
the passage of Proposition 13. Such cities are called "Low -no property tax cities ". Legislation
passed in the wake of Proposition 13 was intended to equalize low -no property tax cities to 7 %.
As a result of the passage of this legislation, all cities in the state were granted a minimum
property tax rate of 7% with the exception of the Cities of Cupertino, Los Altos Hills, Monte
Sereno and Saratoga. Special legislation was introduced at the time to split the increase in
property taxes 45/55% with Santa Clara County. Since the mid 1990's these four Cities have
received only 55% of their full property tax equalization.
This changed with the signing into law of AB 117 in September, 2006. AB 117 restored the
property tax rate to the four cities to 7% on an ongoing basis. Initial estimates of the annual
proceeds from this revenue stream were estimated to be over 1 million dollars for the City of
Saratoga. A compromise that made the passage of the legislation possible reduced the net
proceeds to the city to approximately $785,777 in Fiscal Year 2006 -07. This was due to the
different rate of ERAF payments made by the County and the City and the reluctance of the state
to absorb the loss of revenue represented by the lower city rate.
Since the passage of the legislation during the last session of the legislature was not a certainty,
these funds were not included in the FY 2006 -07 budget. Consequently, the first year of funding
under AB 117 is off - budget and can be viewed as one time monies.
I
One Time Funds
Other one time monies such as the estimated year end fund balance and other accounting
adjustments are listed below:
FY 2006 -07 One -Time Funds
2006 -07 TEA Proceeds $ 785,777
2006 -07 Estimated year end fund balance per audit $ 429,022
Remaining Undesignated Fund Balance $ 536,354
Total Estimated Available funds at June 30, 2007 $1,751,153
These monies are available for appropriation as a mid -year adjustment. As one -time funds, the
City has traditionally used such funds for one time expenditures that will not incur ongoing
financial obligations such as capital projects, replenishing trust and sinking fund accounts and
establishing reserves. With this in mind, there are two unfunded projects that the City has
committed to funding in the recent past that may benefit from the availability of these funds.
Kevin Moran Park net of other funding sources $1,100,000
Hakone Gardens matching funds $ 250,000
Alternatively, the Council may wish to use future park development funding and State bond act
proceeds over a longer period of time to fund these projects.
Another long -term approved CIP project waiting for final Council direction regarding scope of
project/funding levels is the Village Sidewalk Project. When the sidewalks were relinquished by
Ca rans, they only had the authority to provide- 7Q0.000 in funds without going to the
legislature. The City accepted the relinquishment and that level of funding. When the project
was first envisioned, it was envisioned to be more extensive, including decorative paving,
upgrading electrical and water systems, and providing pedestrian safety improvements. The
costs for various levels of improvements are below:
• Option 1 — Remove and Replace Damaged Concrete $ 740,000
• Option 2 — Option 1 + Enhanced Pedestrian Crosswalks: $ 940,000
• Option 3 — Comprehensive Rehabilitation $1,750,000
John Cherbone will be prepared to discuss each option if desired. If Council chooses not to
provide direction on this topic at the retreat, staff will present these options during the CIP
discussion in September, 2007.
2 of 4
Ongoing Funds
While the City has had periodic experience with receipt and expenditure of one -time monies and
coping with the loss of ongoing funding, the City has had relatively little experience with
substantive ongoing increases to revenues.
In this instance AB 117 provides for an ongoing stream of property tax revenue initially set in
FY2006 -07 at $785,777. This is expected to increase with the overall increase in assessed
valuation of property in the City. In recent years this has ranged from a year over year high of
17.61 % in FY 2001 -02 to a low of 3.47% in FY 2002 -03. See the attached graph for an example
of TEA revenue growth over time.
The options for ongoing expenditures are numerous and the funds available limited. Some ideas
for consideration are listed below:
o CIP — In recent years the Capital Improvement fund has never had a steady source of
funding. CIP funding has been hit and miss, using sporadic one time funding, grants
and reprioritization of approved but not completed CIP projects. This has hampered
long -term CIP planning. A consistent stream of revenue would enable the Council to
plan for improvements over a longer time frame and with greater certainty. On the other
hand, by budgeting conservatively and not spending one -time funds on ongoing projects,
new monies for the CIP are generated each year, just not as predictably.
o Pavement Management Program (PMP) — Since FY 2000 -01 the City has consistently
applied about $600,000 to pavement management each year from the general fund, and
in certain years, a substantial amount from local, state and federal grants. The City's
Pavement Management Index is a 70 which is considered relatively good. The pavement
management computer analysis indicates that the City should be funding the PMP at
$1.8 million to keep the index from declining. In FY 2006 -07 the City added $400,000
to the base level funding for a total of $1 million from the general fund. In addition,
federal dollars were available to bring the total up to $1.37 million. (In 2005 -06 the City
allocated $1.17 million). Next fiscal year should see the disbursement of state bond act
monies, which will augment local funding in this area in the amount of $979,665 (one-
time). Proposition 42 funding will be returning as a regular State supplement to the
program at the $200- 300,000 level starting in FY 200X �
0$
o Staffing — This issue is covered in item number 5 on the retreat agenda. As a place
holder for the discussion in the context of this discussion here are the basics:
1) For the past 6 years the City has used temporary staffing to augment regular staffing.
Request to convert temporary staff to regular full time in recognition of the necessary
support role they play. $160,000.
2) Additional support for commissions /enhanced public information and participation.
Staff member in CMO office $95- 110,000. Plus direct cost of commission support
$17,500 (Commission Appreciation dinner, training, travel etc.).
o Selected restoration of service cuts during the recession — Over the past 4 years the
Council had to cut services to the community in order to balance the budget. Some of the
cuts were as follows:
3 of 4
o Sheriffs Office Traffic Patrols
o School Resource Officer
• Street sweeping of arterials reduced from once a week to once a month
• Spring garbage cleanup
• Household hazardous waste drop -off
o SgIlool crossing guards
5 �� ?roSc-rn
The spring garbage pickup and the household hazardous waste drop off programs will be
reinstated under the new solid waste and recycling contract negotiated by the JPA.
Schools have largely picked up the funding for the crossing guards.
Restoration of weekly street sweeping of arterial and Village parking districts is estimated
to cost an additional $56,846 yearly.
The Sheriffs Office will be proposing conversion of the Neighborhood Resource Officer
to a School Resource Officer. They will also be proposing a new schedule for patrol
officers to obtain greater efficiencies, and an additional traffic officer ($383,000).
Captain Calderone will be presenting this proposal under item 5 on the retreat agenda.
o Outside agency requests — Representatives of KSAR and SASCC have indicated that they
are each struggling financially. Each organization will be requesting an increase in
financial assistance over what is currently provided to support basic operations. $37,500
SASCC and KSAR — one year bridge payment of $50,000.
Bonding with part of the revenue stream to implement needed improvements — The new
flow of revenue could be used for debt payment for a revenue bond. The benefit to this
approach is that it could generate several million dollars for C1P projects that otherwise
could not be financed. Additionally, the repayment is fixed over a period of years while
the revenue stream will grow with the growth in assessed valuation. A table showing the
approximate amounts that could be generated at different levels of repayment and term(s)
is shown below:
Annual Debt Service Requirement Bonding Capacity
$200,000
10 year term $1,000,000
15 year term $1,500,000
20 year term $2,000,000
$500,000
10 year term $3,000,000
15 year term $4,300,000
20 year term $5,500,000
$700,000
10 year term $4,300,000
15 year term $6,200,000
20 year term $7,900,000
4 of 4
0
N
L
16
O
t
3
O
71'
w
0 o E
O O
M U1 U
O O N
0 C9 1*O
1
0 0 0 0 0 °
0 0 0 0 0
LO 0 0
LO
N N I
43MOj'J
leal
9�
O
S�S2?�y
O
S2d2 -(y
O
O
Fa,� �y
0
20 2
l�q,
O
02S! ey
0
y
,9 Oe
`!o y
e a
!9! 'y H
O LL
9!s! -0,
O
S!X! �y
ts! Oc�
�.r
0
e!2! -(y
0
c'!!! -(y
O
!!o! -(Y
O
olso (y
0
Z;01,
�r
8 `o
e
MINUTES
SARATOGA CITY RETREAT
HAKONE GARDENS
FEBRUARY 2, 2007
Mayor Kao called the Council retreat order at 9:00 a.m.
ROLL CALL
PRESENT: Mayor Aileen Kao, Vice Mayor Ann Waltonsmith,
Councilmembers Chuck Page, Kathleen King, Jill Hunter
ABSENT: None
ALSO Dave Anderson, City Manager
PRESENT: Barbara Powell, Assistant City Manager
Richard Taylor, City Attorney
Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk
Mary Furey, Administrative Services Director
Sandra Sato, Interim Administrative Services Director
John Cherbone, Director of Public Works
John Livingstone, Community Development Director
Joan Pisani, Recreation Director
REPORT OF CITY CLERK ON POSTING OF AGENDA FOR FEBRUARY 2,
2007
Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk reported that pursuant to Government Code Section 54954.2,
the agenda for the meeting of February 2, 2007 was properly posted on January 31, 2006.
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
The following people requested to speak at tonight's meeting:
Priscilla Ho informed the Council that she feels that the Wildlife Center should keep
treated birds with West Nile Virus for at least six months.
TAX EQUITY ALLOCATION (TEA) FUNDS
Dave Anderson, City Manager, presented staff report.
COUNCIL DISCUSSION
One Time Funds
Mayor Kao
• Replenish Council Contingency @ $30,000
• Allocate some funds towards the North Campus renovations
• Fund Kevin Moran Park @ $1.1
• Hold off funding Hakone matching funds
• Investigate the concept of a "Historic Village" designation
Village Sidewalk Project
o Prepare a Sidewalk Master Plan
Suspend the Hakone Gardens matching funds
Vice Mayor Waltonsmith
• Replenish Council Contingency @ $30,000
• Fund Kevin Moran Park @ $1.1
• Fund Hakone Gardens matching funds
• Allocate some funds towards the North Campus renovations
• Village Sidewalk Project
o Supports Option 1 — Remove and Replace Damaged Concrete @
$740,000
Councilmember Page
• Replenish Council Contingency @ $30,000
• Fund Kevin Moran Park @ $1.1
• Delay the Hakone Gardens matching funds
• Saratoga Village needs a Master Plan
• Village Sidewalk Project
o Supports Option 1 — Remove and Replace Damaged Concrete @
$740,000
Councilmember King
• Replenish Council Contingency @ $30,000
• Fund Kevin Moran Park @ $1.1
• Allocate some funds towards the North Campus renovations
• Table the matching funds for Hakone; wait and see if the City receives park
bond funding from the State
• Village Sidewalk Project
o Prepare a Sidewalk Master Plan
Councilmember Hunter
• Replenish Council Contingency @ $30,000
• Does not support the funding of Kevin Moran Park @ $1.1 — would like to
suggest minimum upgrades
• Allocate some funds towards the North Campus renovations
• Delay the Hakone Gardens matching funds
• Investigate the concept of the Village as being designated and marketed as
"Historic Village" through the National Trust
• Install street lights on P Street and Oak Street @ Big Basin
• Would not support any funds being used to prepare a Village Master Plan or to
hire a consultant
COUNCIL DIRECTION
1. Unanimous consensus on the following items:
• Replenish Council Contingency @ $30,000
• Hold off on funding Hakone matching funds
City Council Retreat Minutes 2 February 2, 2007
2. Items where there is substantial consensus
• Fund Kevin Moran Park @ $1.1 million
Items with majority concurrence
• Village Master Plan (includes sidewalks)
Oneoina Funds
Mayor Kan
CIP — integrate all money and project to make Saratoga unique and beautiful.
• Would support allocating a portion of the TEA funds for strategic planning
Vice Mayor Waltonsmith
• Suggested Pavement Management Program allocation is too high for a city the
size of Saratoga
• Supports allocating addition financial assistance from the City to KSAR
• Supports weekly street sweeping
Councilmember Page
• Look at investment opportunities
Councilmember King
• Keep at least half of the TEA money each year for capital strategic needs
• Citizens of Saratoga expect the following to be provided:
o Safety
o Infrastructure
• Community Development
• Business Development
• Recreational Services
• Supports allocating addition financial assistance form the City to KSAR
• Leverage TEA (don't obligate it all on operations) use as matching funds
Councilmember Hunter
• Roads are in good shape
• Does not support allocating $1.8 million to the Pavement Management
Program (PMP), would support allocating $1 million
• Keep at least half of the TEA money each year for capital strategic planning
needs
COUNCIL DIRECTION
• Council Consensus — none
• Substantial consensus — none
• Items with majority consensus to save some of the TEA money each year for
capital strategic needs
2. FACILITIES
Barbara Powell, Assistant City Manager, Joan Pisani, Recreation Director,
Thomas Scott, Facilities Supervisor and Yvonne Lampshire, Facilities Rental
Coordinator, presented staff report.
City Council Retreat Minutes 3 February 2, 2007
c
Mayor Kao
• Asked about solar panels on Fellowship Hall
• Must keep good of community as focus
• Prefers that the Sanctuary building be demolished and use land for community
use
• RFP — whole campus or just front? Send out ASAP
Vice Mayor Waltonsmith
• Two front buildings provide a buffer
• If the Education and Sanctuary buildings are used:
• Must provide a buffer
• Must be open to the community (public use)
• Willing to give long term lease
• If Sanctuary building is demolished would leave an "ugly" space
o Prefer leave as is and use for storage
o Find out proposals for use
• How much does it cost to build a small gymnasium?
Councilmember Page
• RFP a good idea
• If long term lease, turn over to City after lease with improvements
• Need to take noise in account when approving potential uses, as neighbors are
use to an under utilized site
• Open up facilities to the larger community
Councilmember King
• Front property not fully utilized
• City could fund more as matching funds
• RFP ok to consider
Councilmember Hunter
• Prefers no modular buildings
COUNCIL DIRECTION
• Consensus to schedule a Study Session to set parameters for proposals
CITY COMMISSIONS, COMMITTEES, AD HOCS, TASKFORCES
Barbara Powell, Assistant City Manager, presented staff report.
COUNCIL DISCUSSION
Mayor Kao
• If Commissions are reinstated make sure they have clear goals
• Website provides venue for citizen input
o May need to educate people about it
• If Commissioners are appointed; residents would need to speak through the
Commissions
• Each commission will have different goal(s)
City Council Retreat Minutes 4 February 2, 2007
• Parks & Recreation Commisison could focus on the principles of the initiative
Vice Mayor Waltonsmith
• All for reinstating the commission and empowering them
• We have had years of "Top down" approach from City Council.
o Want to avoid in future in the community
• Existing commissions /committees are great "eyes & ears"
• Want Commissions to bring forth ideas
• Try to work with neighborhood groups
• Help build groups in areas without neighborhood groups
• Train residents workings of the City
• Ongoing issues
• Library Commission — who oversees bond money; continue quarterly
meetings
• Finance Commission — make it a committee; could possibly handle
library bond money
• Arts Commission and Parks and Recreation Commission — combined
into one commission; together could provide opportunity to raise
money and promote events
o Traffic Safety— go back to Public Safety Commission
• Heritage Preservation Commission —give direction/channel
• Traffic Safety Commission — ok as is
• Library Commission — mothball
• Finance Commission — manage library bond money; translate budget to public
• Parks & Recreation Commission — reinstate with specific scope
Councilmember Page
• What is the ultimate benefit of each commission?
• Potential problem — "You didn't hear me because you didn't do what I said"
• Have commissioners receive input from residents; come to Council for
direction/focus /priorities
• Library Commission — does not function; purpose is not clear; may not need
• Arts Commission — unfocused (ideas with no money)
• Finance Commission — questioned their need; maybe have a Budget Oversight
Group
• Traffic Safety Commission — ok as is as long as they ask for help with
conflicts like we have experiences recently with the issue of speed bumps on
Pierce Road
• Parks & Recreation Commission — Put back in place; possible conversion to a
Public Use Commission
Councilmember King
• What is the objective?
• Are we trying to get citizens involved?
• Flushing out issues to bring to Council?
• Need to analyze costs vs. benefits
• Two way education about what commission can do
• If no direct relation with City some residents feel disenfranchised
• Would like more community input
• Suggest neighborhood representatives
City Council Retreat Minutes 5 February 2, 2007
• Need to analyze benefit and costs
• Parks & Recreation Commission — support reinstating; have to have clear
objectives /directions right now
• Arts and Finance Commission — not sure about reinstating
• Parks & Recreation Commission — reinstate with specific scope
• Heritage Preservation Commission — give direction
• Take longer time with Commissions during Council joint meeting to provide
focus /direction
• Library Commission— mothball
Councilmember Hunter
• Support reinstating all Commissions
• Commissions need strong direction from Council
• What was /is the cost of not having commissions (what they provide /save the
City)
• Need to communicate that City Council cares
• People feel less disenfranchised if they feel they know who to go to
• Make people feel as if they are part of the governance of Saratoga; part of the
process
• City Councilmembers should sit on commissions
• Model — Saratoga Education Foundation
o Take in input
o Board gives direction
• Reinstate Arts, Finance, and Parks & Recreation Commissions
PUBLIC COMMENTS
Cheriel Jensen stated that she fully supports reinstating the commissions. Mrs. Jensen
pointed out that in the past the Finance Commission provided an overview of the City
financials which was available at the Saratoga Library. Mrs. Jensen would like the
Parks & Recreation Commission to revisit the dog park issue. Mrs. Jensen stated that
she feels commissions can function without staff support. Mrs. Jensen stated that it's
her belief that the more commissions the better.
COUNCIL DIRECTION
Consensus of the City Council to direct staff to prepare a staff report including the
following information:
• Park & Recreation Commission
• Option for terms and number of members
• Extend suspended members terms?
• Staffing
• Larger focus; not focused only on parks and fields
• Council to provide specific direction
• Library Commission —at joint meeting on April 4, 2007 discuss options
• Arts Commission — continue discussion
• Finance Commisiion — purpose; to prepare an executive summary of budget
and audit
City Council Retreat Minutes 6 February 2, 2007
Councilmember King and City Manager Anderson will talk to Villa Montalvo
in regards to a possible formation of a Cultural Council
4. PUBLIC INFORMATION /COMMUNITY OUTREACH
Cathleen Boyer, City Clerk, presented staff report.
COUNCIL DISCUSSION
Mayor Kao
• State of the City — support; mid year
• Saratogan — support but find ways to cut costs (place them at the Post Office
and throughout City Hall, email version)
Vice Mayor Waltonsmith
• Keep newspapers informed
• Update web
• KSAR — Allocate more funds
• Saratogan — reinstate 1 per year
• WVC& R — use quarterly invoices to publish public notices
• Neighborhood meetings — support for major issues
• Citizen Academy — support
• State of the City — support
Councilmember Page
• Create a list serve where more that two Councilmembers could log on
• Look at ways to send out Saratogan (web, email)
• Neighborhood meetings — support; a place to be heard and gather input
Councilmember King
• Create a list serve on key issues
• Use a list serve to learn how people want to receive information
• Use a city -wide voice mail to notify groups of meeting times and dates
Councilmember Hunter
• Use banner at Blaney Plaza only for Saratoga events
COUNCIL DIRECTION
Consensus of the City Council to move forward with the following:
• Continue with currently used methods of outreach
• Incorporate neighborhood meetings into outreach
• Publish one Saratogan
• Prepare a "State of the City" midyear
• Investigate "City Page" in the Saratoga News and Los Gatos Daily
• "Hall of Fame" page on City's web site with photos of people /groups
receiving commendations and proclamations. City Council direction to staff to
purchase a digital camera for this purpose.
• City sponsored list serve
City Council Retreat Minutes
February 2, 2007
5. STAFFING ISSUES (INCLUDING SHERIFF'S OFFICE)
Barbara Powell, Assistant City Manager, presented staff report.
COUNCIL DISCUSSION
Mayor Kao
• Asked the reasons behind recent departure of employees
• Add more employees; workflow would even out
• Offer FTEs more money
• Ease into additional employees
• Would like to keep employees happy
• What is the work load for each department?
Vice Mayor Waltonsmith
• Supports all recommendations in staff report; current staff is exhausted
Councilmember Page
• Suggested that the recommended positions be prioritized
• Requested a cost increase projection for the next few years of employee
salaries, benefits, etc.
Councilmember King
• Concerned about the upcoming employee negotiations
• Concerned with the proposed increase in staff at approximately $160k and the
additional request of $95k for an analyst to manage the Parks & Recreation
Commisison.
• Five additional employees would put the total FTEs at the highest in 10 years
• Staff recommendations could use up to 30% of the TEA funds
• How does Saratoga's attrition compare to other cities?
Councilmember Hunter
Hard to support staff's recommendations; should take one step at a time
Asked why the City does not hire part time employees rather than hiring
temporary employees
Council direction to staff to continue this item to the next retreat and include the
following:
1. Prioritize positions in report
2. Cost projection
3. Cost of benefits
City Council direction to convert the City Council meeting packet onto a CD for
distribution and provide City Councilmembers with laptop computers.
City Council Retreat Minutes 8 February 2, 2007
STAFFING ISSUES - SHERIFF'S OFFICE
Captain Terry Calderone, Santa Clara County Sheriffs Office (SO), presented staff
report. Captain Calderone stated that they are in the same position as the City.
Captain Calderone pointed out that staffing is a real concern and listed the positions
that have been cut from 2001 -2006. Captain Calderone reported that call for service
were up 7% and accident calls up 8 %. Captain Calderone stated the SO would like to
covert the Neighborhood Resource Officer (NRO) position to the School Resource
Officer (SRO).
• Continue discussion
6. ORDINANCE PRIORITIES
COUNCIL DISCUSSION
None
COUNCIL DIRECTION
• Continue discussion
7. REPRISE TEA — CITY COUNCIL DIRECTION FOR BUDGET
COUNCIL DISCUSSION
None
COUNCIL DIRECTION
• Continue discussion
8. SCHEDULE FUTURE STUDY SESSIONS
Councilmembers discussed the following items for future study session meetings:
• Enhancement of Cooperation with Local School Districts
• Saratoga to the Sea Project
• City Financial Status
• Contract Process
• Mixed Use Housing
• Abrams Property
• Public Safety
COUNCIL DIRECTION
• Continue Council Retreat to March 2, 2007
• Enhancement of Cooperation with Local School Districts - refer this item to
the City Council Adhoc
City Council Retreat Minutes
February 2, 2007
• Saratoga to the Sea Project — remove from list for time being
• City Financial Status — item for the March 2nd retreat agenda
• Contract Process — City Manager Anderson and Director Cherbone to meet
with interested Councilmembers
• Mixed Use Housing — item for the March 2nd retreat agenda
• Abrams Property — schedule this item for discussion at a regular meeting in the
near future
• Public Safety — remove from list
ADJOURNMENT
There being no further business Mayor Kao adjourned the meeting at 5:00 p.m. and
thanked everyone for attending the retreat.
Respectfully submitted,
Cathleen Boyer, CMC
City Clerk
City Council Retreat Minutes 10 February 2, 2007
February 16, 2007
Mayor and Council Members
City of Saratoga
Dear Mayor and Council Members,
I would like to provide you with an update to the projected Public Safety Services. I previously
addressed what I perceive to be necessary additions in Public Safety to meet the requests, and
safety, of the residents of Saratoga. I strongly believe there is a need in Saratoga to increase
resources to respond to the growing requests, and increasing calls for service. I realize this
request is difficult to consider, and you have to consider a number of projects for the community
you serve. I would like to condense my previous request to assist your consideration based on
the services that you feel would appropriately meet the safety concerns of the residents of your
community.
I have continued to evaluate and monitor the need for additional services in the City of Saratoga.
The previous reductions in Public Safety Services in the city continue to have a growing effect
on the ability of the Sheriffs Office to meet our obligations to the residents. We continue to
receive a number of requests for additional traffic enforcement in various residential areas, and at
the schools. In addition I monitored the calls for service, and as I indicated previously, they
continue to rise. The number of calls for service have had minimal effect on our response times,
but every increase in response is a time period that puts safety at risk. I have continued to bring
additional resources into the city to meet these needs.
I have evaluated the needs for services, and prioritized those needs below. I also provided the
costs for each of the services.
#1 Priority - Additional Hours — 1,046 additional hours to cover the increase in resources
that are being brought into the city.
Cost of $141,178
#2 Priority - Traffic Unit — working a swing shift from 1:00 PM to 11:00 PM
Cost of $239,000
#3 Priority - Swin2 Shift Beat Deputy — Working swing shift from 6:00 PM to 6:30 AM
Cost of $237,000
The above priorities will help meet the current needs of the city. The additional hours that I have
requested consist of a percentage of increase in the calls for service (8 %), plus a percentage of
increased hours being provided to cover the calls for service (3 %). I then averaged these two
percentages to reach an additional 5.5 %. This 5.5% increase will help to cover the time that I
now bring additional resources into the city to respond to calls for service, and to cover the units
that are not available to respond to calls. This percentage is added to the total number of hours,
at the projected contract rate. The additional hours will provide for the unincorporated units that
respond into the city, allow for adjustments to various needs, and allow me to remain within the
contractual obligation that we have with Saratoga.
I also prioritized two additional resources that would provide the services necessary to address
the requests in the city. Traffic continues to be a priority for residents of Saratoga, and the
additional traffic unit would meet this need, as well as provide an additional unit to respond to
calls for service. This unit would be in the City of Saratoga, and would not be required to
respond from outside of the city limits. This would increase the unit's response time, and
availability to provide the services needed. Response times on Accident calls can be critical.
The additional Swing Shift Beat would also allow for the same response, and could assist with
the traffic concerns, as well as accidents. Both of these units would be in the city, where the
additional hours allows for units to respond into Saratoga from outside the city limits.
The recent budget cuts that resulted in the reduction of Public Safety Services to the city in past
years has had an effect on the service that the Sheriffs Office provides to Saratoga. The
positions that were cut had an effect on response times, calls for service, and the need for traffic
enforcement. With the elimination of a Code Enforcement Officer, we now provide these
services to Saratoga as well. The priorities listed above would provide for some of the services
that Saratoga residents desire and expect of their Public Safety contract.
I do not have a need at this time to convert the Neighborhood Resource Officer to a School
Resource Officer, as was initially proposed. Instead, I would like to work with City Staff, and
Council, to reorganize the Neighborhood Resource Officer's duties, and responsibilities to
include responsibilities to a number of schools in the city. By doing this, I can provide the
schools with the additional training that is needed, and meet some of their requests for additional
services.
I have an obligation and responsibility to the Council and City Staff to keep you appraised of the
Public Safety concerns facing the city, while maintaining fiscal responsibility in providing the
necessary services to keep the community safe. I appreciate your consideration to address Public
Safety needs, and will continue to work with City Staff and Council to provide professional and
effective service to the city.
Sincerely,
Captain Terry Calderone
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: March 2, 2007 AGENDA ITEM: 2
ORIGINATING DEPT: Citv Mana er's CITY MANAGER:
PREPARED BY: �EPT HEAD:
Barbara Powe , Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Follow -up for Select City Commissions
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Review staff's recommendations, and provide direction concerning the Arts, Finance and Parks &
Recreation Commissions.
REPORT SUMMARY:
Background
At its February 2, 2007 Retreat, the City Council received a staff report concerning options for the
Arts, Finance, Library and Parks & Recreation Commissions. Following discussion, the Council
directed staff to prepare a report including:
• Parks & Recreation Commission
• Proposed options for the focus of the Commission
• Proposed options for number of members and terms (including possible extension of
Commission members serving at the time of suspension)
• Staffing
• Finance Commission
• Mission/focus as discussed at the February 2, 2007 Council Retreat
• Proposed options for number of members and terms
The Council also desires to continue to discuss options for the Arts Commission at its March 2nd
Retreat, and to discuss options for the Library Commission at its joint meeting with the Commission,
scheduled for April 4, 2007.
Parks & Recreation Commission:
1. Focus:
a. Retain the current Commission profile:
"The Parks and Recreation Commission advises the Council on design, use, development,
financing, care and maintenance of parks and playgrounds; landscaping along thoroughfares
and other City streets; walkways, pathways and equestrian paths, and other such matters as may
be requested by the Council. The Commission also advises and makes recommendations
concerning programming and implementation of the City's recreation and leisure activity
programs."
b. Combine the Parks & Recreation Commission profile with the Pedestrian, Equestrian and
Bicycle Trails Advisory Committee (PEBTAC) profile:
"The Parks and Recreation Commission advises the Council on design, use, development,
financing, care and maintenance of parks and playgrounds; landscaping along thoroughfares
and other City streets; walkways, pathways, equestrian paths and sidewalks and to maintain
the trails network to enhance the quality of life in Saratoga, and other such matters as may
be requested by the Council. The Commission also advises and makes recommendations
concerning programming and implementation of the City's recreation and leisure activity
programs."
c. Create an Executive Committee Model, retaining the profile /status of the PEBTAC and
creating other task forces /committees, such as a "Kevin Moran Park Implementation Task
Force ", a "Parks Projects Task Force ", and/or a "Recreation Committee ". Chairs of each Task
Force /Committee would serve on an Executive Committee.
2. Number of Members:
a. Retain the current number of Commission members (7) and PEBTAC members (5)
b. Combine the Parks & Recreation Commission and PEBTAC; appoint 7— 11 members
NOTE: Two PEBTAC members are former Parks & Recreation Commission members
c. Retain the current number of PEBTAC members (5) and create additional task
forces /committees
d. Other combinations(s) of the above options
3. Member Terms:
a. Appoint new members to the Parks & Recreation Commission; retain current PEBTAC
members
b. Contact Parks & Recreation Commission members with terms outstanding (4) to determine if
they desire to continue service on the Commission; recruit additional members as needed.
c. Combine the Parks & Recreation Commission outstanding members desiring to continue
service with the current PEBTAC members
d. Retain the current PEBTAC members and appoint new members to newly constituted task
forces /committees
e. Other combination(s) of the above options
4. Staffing:
If the Parks & Recreation Commission is reinstated, add a Management Analyst position to the City
Manager's Office to provide Commission support and perform other duties. In addition,
approximately one - quarter of a Director's time is required to support the Parks & Recreation
Commission.
Finance Commission:
1. Focus: At its February 2, 2007 Retreat, the Council did not reach clear consensus concerning
the need to reinstate the Finance Commission. However, if the Commission was reinstated, one
purpose could be to prepare an executive summary of the annual budget and audit in a "reader -
friendly" format for public reference.
2. Members /Terms: The previous Finance Commission consisted of seven members serving four -
year overlapping terms. Several members' terms have lapsed and several others have expressed
they are no longer interested in serving. If the Commission is reinstated, Council would need to
recruit new members. Staff recommends a maximum of five members for this Commission.
3. Staffing: Depending upon the focus and meeting schedule for this Commission, some staffing
support, probably from the Administrative Services Director, will be required.
Arts Commission:
Staff presented the following options for the Arts Commission at the February 2, 2007 Retreat:
a. Reinstate the Arts Commission, better define its role, and provide for a designated revenue
source for it to pursue projects /programs
b. Reactivate a "scaled back" version of the Arts Commission, with less frequent meetings, fewer
members and/or a reduced scope of duties.
c. Dissolve the Arts Commission
An additional option discussed by the Council at the Retreat is to pursue the formation of a Cultural
Arts Council, perhaps in conjunction with Villa Montalvo.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
If Council decides to reinstate one or more of the currently suspended Commissions and/or to increase
the meeting frequency or mission of the Library Commission, staff is recommending adding a position,
at the Management Analyst level, to the City Manager's Office to provide Commission support.
Anticipated cost to the General Fund for this position would be $95,000 to $110,000. As noted earlier,
this position would also provide, among other duties, for the preparation of a community newsletter
and public /media relations services. An additional $17,500 would also be required in order to fund
reinstatement of the Commission Dinner ($7,500) and travel, training, supplies expenses ($10,000).
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION (S):
The Arts, Finance and Parks & Recreation Commissions would remain in suspension.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION (S):
Council may choose to implement one or more of the options provided above.
FOLLOW UP ACTION(S):
Implement Council direction.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Posting of the agenda according to the Brown Act.
ATTACHMENTS:
N/A
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: March 2, 2007 AGENDA ITEM:
ORIGINATING DEPT: City Manager's$ C Y MANAGER:
PREPARED BY: ,r� l EPT HEAD:
Barbara Powell, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Prioritized Recommendations for Select Staffing Changes
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Review staff's recommendations concerning select staffing changes and provide direction for follow -up.
REPORT SUMMARY:
Background:
At its February 2, 2007 Retreat, the City Council received a staff report recommending the following:
➢ Conversion of two full -time, temporary, non - benefited positions to full -time, regular, benefited
positions (I.T. Technician — Administrative Services Department and Parks Maintenance
Worker I, Public Works Department)
➢ Conversion of two part-time, temporary, non - benefited positions to full -time, regular,
benefited positions (Office Specialist III, Human Resources Division and Street Maintenance
Worker I, Public Works Department)
➢ Conversion of a part-time, temporary, non - benefited position to a part-time, regular benefited
position (increasing hours from 20 to 32 per week) to provide for additional Accounting -
related functionality (Accounting Clerk, Administrative Services Department)
Following discussion, the Council directed staff to prioritize the staffing recommendations, thereby
enabling the possible phase -in of these changes over time, and to calculate the multi -year costs of
implementing these changes, taking into account anticipated inflation in salaries and benefits.
Discussion:
Staff used several criteria to establish a priority ranking for the five positions, including provision of:
➢ Direct, visible service/benefit to the community /residents;
➢ Internal organizational support City -wide;
➢ Time - sensitive projects /programs critical to efficient /effective City operations; and
➢ Services tied to compliance with legal requirements.
Based upon these criteria, staff prioritized the five positions as follows:
1. I.T. Technician
2. Street Maintenance Worker I
3. Office Specialist III (HR/City Clerk)
4. Parks Maintenance Worker I
5. Account Clerk
Staff prepared the attached five year cost analysis for converting the I.T. Technician and Street
Maintenance Worker I from temporary employment status to regular status (Attachment "A "). Staff
used conservative (high) assumptions for the analysis of salary increases; benefits increases are based
upon prior year trends. Actual total cost increases per year are likely to be less.
Recommendations:
Staff is recommending the following:
1. Conversion of the I.T. Technician (Administrative Services Department) from a full -time,
temporary, non - benefited position to a full -time, regular, benefited position.
2. Conversion of the Street Maintenance Worker I, (Public Works Department) from a part-time,
temporary, non- benefited position to a full -time, regular, benefited position.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
For FY 2006 -07, anticipated total cost to the General Fund for the changes to the I.T. Technician and
Street Maintenance Worker I positions is $68,400.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION (S):
The current staffing levels would remain in effect.
ALTERNATIVE ACTION (S):
Council may choose to implement one or more of the five prioritized staffing changes.
FOLLOW UP ACTION(S):
Implement Council direction.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Posting of the agenda according to the Brown Act.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A — Five Year Cost Analysis
Attachment "A"
Five Year Cost of Converting Temp to Regular Positions - Page 1 of 2
Benefits
PER's City (9)
IT Tech -Administrative Services Dept.
Convert FT Temp to Reg FT &
2006 -07
2007 -08
2008 -09
2009 -10
2010 -11
upgrade the position from Intern
$6,906.64
$7,390.10
$7,907.41
$8,460.93
$9,053.20
Hrly Budget Rate
$29.00
$31.03
$33.20
$35.53
$38.01
Speciality Pays
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Annual Hours Worked
2080.00
2080.00
2080.00
2080.00
2080.00
Annual Salary (1)
$60,320.00
$64,542.40
$69,060.37
$73,894.59
$79,067.22
OT Hours
$200.00
$200.00
$200.00
$200.00
$200.00
OT Rate
$44.13
$47.22
$50.53
$54.06
$57.85
OT Budget (2)
$8,826.15
$9,443.98
$10,105.06
$10,812.41
$11,569.28
Benefits
PER's City (9)
0.0700
$4,222.40
$4,517.97
$4,834.23
$5,172.62
$5,534.71
PER's - Employee (9)
0.1145
$6,906.64
$7,390.10
$7,907.41
$8,460.93
$9,053.20
Medicare (9)
0.0145
$874.64
$935.86
$1,001.38
$1,071.47
$1,146.47
Mthly Uniform
-
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Mthly Uniform
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Medical (3)
$5,106.00
$5,106.00
$5,616.60
$6,178.26
$6,796.09
$7,475.69
Dental (4)
$294.84
$294.84
$309.58
$325.06
$341.31
$358.38
Unemployment (7)
$238.00
$238.00
$238.00
$238.00
$238.00
$238.00
Mthly Life Ins (6)
$67.56
$67.56
$67.56
$67.56
$67.56
$67.56
Mnthly LTD (6)
$81.00
$81.00
$81.00
$81.00
$81.00
$81.00
Workers Comp (5)
0.0088
$530.82
$567.97
$607.73
$650.27
$695.79
Annual Benefit Cost
$18,321.90
$19,724.65
$21,240.63
$22,879.26
$24,650.80
TOTAL COST $87,468.05 $93,711.03 $100,406.05 $107,586.26 $115,287.30
FTE 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00 1.00
Current Amount Budgeted (8) $51,175.48 $54,757.76 $58,590.81 $62,692.16 $67,080.61
Net Additional Cost $36,292.57 $38,953.27 $41,815.25 $44,894.10 $48,206.68
Attachment "A"
Five Year Cost of Converting Temp to Regular Positions - Page 2 of 2
Benefits
PER's City (9)
Street Maintenance Worker I - Public Works Dept.
Convert PT Temp to Reg FT
2006 -07
2007 -08
2008 -09
2009 -10
2010 -11
Hrly Budget Rate
$20.37
$21.80
$23.32
$24.95
$26.70
Speciality Pays
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Annual Hours Worked
2080.00
2080.00
2080.00
2080.00
2080.00
Annual Salary (1)
$42,369.60
$45,335.47
$48,508.96
$51,904.58
$55,537.90
OT Hours
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
OT Rate
$31.00
$33.17
$35.49
$37.97
$40.63
OT Budget (2)
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Benefits
PER's City (9)
0.0700
$2,965.87
$3,173.48
$3,395.63
$3,633.32
$3,887.65
PER's - Employee (9)
0.1145
$4,851.32
$5,190.91
$5,554.28
$5,943.07
$6,359.09
Medicare (9)
0.0145
$614.36
$657.36
$703.38
$752.62
$805.30
Mthly Uniform
-
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Mthly Uniform
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
$0.00
Medical (3) $12,148.68
$12,148.68
$13,363.55
$14,699.90
$16,169.89
$17,786.88
Dental (4)
$877.80
$877.80
$921.69
$967.77
$1,016.16
$1,066.97
Unemployment (7)
$238.00
$238.00
$238.00
$238.00
$238.00
$238.00
Mthly Life Ins (6)
$67.56
$67.56
$67.56
$67.56
$67.56
$67.56
Mnthly LTD (6)
$81.00
$81.00
$81.00
$81.00
$81.00
$81.00
Workers Comp (5)
0.0088
$372.85
$398.95
$426.88
$456.76
$488.73
Annual Benefit Cost
$22,217.44
$24,092.51
$26,134.40
$28,358.39
$30,781.19
TOTAL COST
$64,587.04
$69,427.98
$74,643.35
$80,262.97
$86,319.09
FTE
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
1.00
Current Amount Budgeted (8)
$32,480.00
$34,753.60
$37,186.35
$39,789.40
$42,574.65
Net Additional Cost
$32,107.04
$34,674.38
$37,457.00
$40,473.57
$43,744.44
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: March 2, 2007 AGENDA ITEM: L�
ORIGINATING DEPT: City Ma ger / CITY MANAGER: —
PREPARED BY: ? (' DEPT HEAD:
Barbara Powell, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Request for Conceptual Proposals —North Campus
RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
Receive report and direct staff accordingly.
REPORT SUMMARY:
At its March 2, 2007 Retreat the City Council received a staff report about the North Campus
including:
• A status report on planned renovations for the Administration Building and Fellowship Hall.
• A status report on rentals of the Administration Building, showing historic data from 2002
through January 2007.
• An overview of proposals received from the public for long -term use of the Education
Building, and some options for Council to consider regarding long -term use of the building
• A report on the condition of the Sanctuary Building and some options for Council to consider
regarding the future of the building
An option considered by the Council for use of the Education Building was to conduct a formal
"Request for Proposals" from interested users of the building. Consideration of this option led to a
broader discussion about the possibility of conducting a formal "Request for Conceptual Proposals"
(RFCP) from users interested in one building, more than one building or, possibly, use of the entire
campus. Council directed staff to schedule a Study Session to set the parameters for the RFCP
process. In order to expedite preparation and distribution of the RFCP (if approved) the Study Session
has been scheduled for the Council's March Retreat.
DISCUSSION:
Council may wish to consider the following questions in order to determine whether an RFCP is
desired, and to establish the parameters for the RFCP process:
1. For which buildings /facilities does the Council desire to enter into an RFCP process?
• Education Building ❑ Sanctuary Building
• Administration Building ❑ Fellowship Hall
❑ Landscaping/Parking
❑ Entire Campus
2. Will the Council consider a long -term lease for any of the buildings?
❑ Education Building ❑ Sanctuary Building
❑ Administration Building ❑ Fellowship Hall
❑ Entire Campus
3. If the Council would consider a long -term lease for one or more of the buildings, what lease
period would be considered?
❑ 3 years ❑ 5 years
❑ 10 years ❑ 15 years
❑ Depends upon the proposal received
4. Will the Council consider the demolition and reconstruction of any of the buildings as part of a
conceptual proposal?
• Education Building ❑ Sanctuary Building
• Administration Building ❑ Fellowship Hall
Will the Council consider a Master Plan for the entire campus?
❑ Yes ❑ No
If "Yes" to #4, will the Council consider:
• Renovation/remodel of existing buildings only
• Demolition and reconstruction of specific buildings with renovation/remodel of other
buildings
❑ Completely new Master Plan for the site as a whole
Should staff continue with planned renovations to the Administration Building and Fellowship
Hall and making the Education Building weatherproof for storage?
• Administration Building ❑ Yes ❑ No
• Fellowship Hall ❑ Yes ❑ No
• Education Building ❑ Yes ❑ No
8. What use(s) would the Council consider for individual buildings and/or the site as a whole?
• Daycare ❑ Pre - school ❑ Entire School Campus ❑ Cultural /Art Center
• Adult Daycare ❑ Community Center ❑ Community Center + Housing
• Athletic Facility ❑ Museum/History Center ❑ Storage
• Other
9. Should preference be given to a non - profit and/or community -based organization's proposal?
❑ Yes ❑ No
10. What funding mechanism(s) will be considered adequate to qualify a proposal?
❑ Full funding upfront ❑ Approved loan(s) ❑ Anticipated grant(s)
❑ Fundraising/pledges ❑ Installment payments ❑ Match from City
❑ Other
11. Are there other criteria/parameters that should be included in an RFCP process?
FISCAL IMPACTS:
Fiscal impacts will need to be determined, following direction received from City Council.
CONSEQUENCES OF NOT FOLLOWING RECOMMENDED ACTION(S):
N/A
ALTERNATIVE ACTION(S):
Do not prepare and issue an RFCP for the North Campus.
FOLLOW UP ACTION(S):
If applicable, implement Council direction.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
Posting of the agenda according to the Brown Act.
ATTACHMENTS:
None
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: March 2, 2007 AGENDA ITEM:
ME
ORIGINATING DEPT: Community Development CITY MANAGER:
Dave Anderson
PREPARED BY: John F. Livingstone, AICP, Com. Dev. Dir. DEPT HEAD:
SUBJECT: Mixed -Use Development Standards
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:
Direct staff accordingly.
REPORT SUMMARY:
Several Council members have asked that Mixed -Use Development Standards be reviewed as
applied in the Village. There have been several projects where the applicants have expressed
interest in building owner occupied housing units in the commercially zoned areas. The current
ordinance requires that all housing in mixed -use projects be rental housing.
BACKGROUND:
In 2002 the General Plan Housing Element was updated. In order to get the Housing Element
certified by the State the City of Saratoga had to show how it would meet the City's share of the
bay area regional housing needs. To do this the City approved two new policies. The first
policy was to make it easier to create second units, and the second policy created additional
housing opportunities through mixed -use development standards.
In 2004 the City of Saratoga's Zoning Ordinance was updated to reflect the Housing Element
policies creating a new ordinance, Article 15 -58 (see attached article). The new ordinance
provided for additional housing opportunities which allowed the Housing Element to be certified
by the State and also acted to preserve the future commercial development in the City by not
allowing the dwellings units to be comprised of more than fifty percent of the total building area
of all buildings on the site.
One of the other requirements of the article is that the residential component of a mixed -use
project be rental and no greater than 1,250 square feet in size. This requirement prohibits owner
occupied units such as condominiums for sale to individual owners.
Applicants have stated that without the economic advantage of selling the owner occupied units
it makes financing the commercial portions of the project very difficult.
City Council Retreat
March 2, 2007
Page 2
In order to remove the rental requirement, both the Zoning Ordinance and the Housing Element
would need to be updated. The Housing Element will need to be updated over the next few years
as part of the State requirements. In order to meet the regional housing demand and get the
element certified by the State a new method to provide for housing opportunities in the City
would be required.
Inclusionary housing ordinances are one of the most common used tools to provide for
affordable housing units. These ordinances are specifically required for cities with
redevelopment agencies but are also used city wide outside of the redevelopment areas.
Inclusionary housing ordinances normally require that a certain percentage of any new units
being developed be affordable units. The specifics of the programs and how they are
implemented vary considerably from city to city. Other methods may also be available to meet
the cities housing needs and could be further researched.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
The budget for this fiscal year includes a 1% General Plan Maintenance Fee on building permits.
Based on average building permit fees generated in past years the Community Development
Department is estimating available revenue to be approximately $70,000 a year. Starting in July
07 the account will begin accruing funds. The majority of the existing funding is being utilized
as part of the current General Plan update. Staff estimates the entire fund of approximately
$70,000 would be needed to update the Housing Element and the ordinance update may need an
additional $20,000.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
As Directed.
FOLLOW UP ACTIONS:
Staff will continue to work on the tasks recommended by the Council.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
The agenda was properly posted for this meeting.
ATTACHMENTS:
1. Article 15 -58 Mixed -Use Development Standards
2. Map of the Village area
Attachment 1
15- 58.010
Article 15-58
MIXED -USE DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS
Sections:
15- 58.010 Purposes of Article.
15- 58.020 Development standards.
15- 58.010 Purposes of Article.
The purpose of the mixed -use development standards is
the implementation of Program I.1 of the Housing Ele-
ment of the General Plan. The goal is to implement this
Housing Program in a consistent manner throughout the
various commercial and office zoned districts of the City.
It is further the goal of these standards to protect existing
and future commercial development. (Ord. 230 § 2 (part),
2004)
15- 58.020 Development standards.
(a) The maximum density is twenty dwellings per net
acre.
(b) The dwelling unit(s) shall be located either on the
second floor or at the rear of the parcel.
(c) The dwelling unit(s) shall not comprise more than
fifty percent of the total floor area of all buildings on the
site. The maximum floor area allowed may be increased
by ten percent for projects providing below market rate
rental housing.
(d) Parking for both the non - residential and the dwell-
ing unit(s) shall be as specified in the Zoning Ordinance,
provided that the Planning Commission may consider
shared parking in some cases.
(e) Perimeter fencing shall be required to the maxi-
mum height allowed in the Zoning Ordinance.
(f) Each dwelling shall have private, usable outdoor
space, i.e., decks, balconies, yards or patios.
(g) The maximum height of a mixed -use structure
shall be twenty-six feet. Structures that are solely non-
residential on a site that has mixed -use, the maximum
height is as it is stated in the underlying zoning.
(h) The design of mixed -use projects will be required
to conform to the policies and techniques of the Residen-
tial Design Handbook and any other design standards in
place for the area of application.
(i) Overall site coverage may be increased up to ten
percent for projects containing deed restricted below mar-
ket rate housing units.
0) Mixed -use projects shall have sound walls and
landscape screening in order to protect the privacy and
quality of life of abutting single-family residential lands
uses.
(S"op Supp. Na 13,12-06) 364
(k) The residential component of a mixed -use project
shall be rental. The individual dwelling units shall range in
size from eight hundred fifty square feet for one bedroom
units to one thousand two hundred fifty square feet for
three bedroom units sequent mixed -use development.
(1) Projects with multiple stories shall be reviewed to
ensure that design features such as setbacks and window
placement provide adequate privacy protection.
(m) Non - residential structures or parcels created or
developed as part of a previous mixed -use development or
multi -family development may not be redeveloped as a
mixed -use development at a greater density or intensity of
use.
(n) Smaller mixed -use projects (twenty or fewer
dwelling units) must pay an in lieu fee for park construc-
tion.
(o) In larger mixed -use projects (more than twenty
dwelling units) either the developer must pay an in lieu fee
for park construction or construct common, useable open
space on site at the discretion of the Planning Commission
based on the vicinity of existing public parks. (Ord. 230
§ 2 (part), 2004)
Attachment 2
,,Rcrirew:o DR
o�
r
-
e
, J
RD` ! ' `•. Ri C`.
NO
AN
I
1
X p
,
� ..��� � � � "'� �� •• � %.r "o Jai 'V� ���.��i. .. 1 �) ,'J�..
AGENDA
COUNCIL RETREAT
HAKONE GARDENS
FRIDAY
MARCH 2, 2007
CITY COUNCIL RETREAT — HAKONE GARDENS — 21000 BIG BASIN WAY
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
February 22, 2007)
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.
1. Ordinance Priorities
9:00 —
10:00 a.m.
BREAK
10:00
— 10:15
2. City Commissions, Committees, Ad Hocs, Taskforces —
10:15
— 11:15
Part II
3. Staffing Issues — Part 11
11:15
— 12:15
LUNCH
12:15
— 12:45
4. North Campus — RFP Discussion
12:45
— 1:15
5. Mixed Use Housing
1:15 —
2:00
6. City Financial Status
2:00 —
2:30
BREAK
2:30 —
2:45
7. Reprise TEA — City Council Direction for Budget
2:45 —
4:00
ADJOURNMENT
4:00 p.m.
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 February 22, 2007, at the City
of�aratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Ave., Saratoga, CA 95070 and was available for public review at
th t Iocy{tion. Thj .g enda is also available on the City's website at www %saratoga. ca. us
2nd day of February 2007 at Saratoga, California.
;er, CMC
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: February 2, 2007 AGENDA ITEM:
ORIGINATING DEPT: Community Development CITY MANAGER: ��G - --
Dave Ande on
PREPARED BY: John F. Livingstone, AICP, Com. Dev. Dir. DEPT HEAD:
SUBJECT: Community Development Department's Advance Planning Activities
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:
Direct staff accordingly.
REPORT SUMMARY:
On January 91h the Planning Commission met in a special study session to discuss what
ordinances they would recommend to the City Council. The Planning Commission started with a
list of 11 possible ordinances. In reviewing the ordinances one of the factors they considered
was which ordinances could be improved to reduce problems and costs to the City associated
with the existing ordinance. Consequently, the Planning Commission selected the fence
ordinance as their number one priority.
Their second priority was the ordinance updates that were recommended as part of the
Administrative Design Review process that the Council reviewed earlier in the year. The
recommendations included story poles, increasing the noticing from 250 feet to 500 feet and
creating a requirement for a 4X8 sign to be posted in front of the project site. Since all three of
those issues are related to the identification and noticing of a project the Planning Commission
recommended that the three items be reviewed together as one package.
The third priority for the Planning Commission was tied between the nonconforming use and
sign ordinance.
ORDINANCES:
#1
The Council asked that this ordinance be updated. The update
Fence Ordinance
should include a fence exception process to allow for taller
fences. This may reduce city staff and attorney time spent
dealing with code complaints on fences.
42
Require all Administrative and Planning Commission Design
Story Poles
Review projects to have story poles erected a minimum of two
weeks prior to a Planning Commission hearing or the mailing
of the Notice of Intent to Approve an Administrative Design
Review project.
City Council Retreat
February 2, 2007
Page 2
#2
Increase the minimum required noticing on Administrative
Increase Noticing on
Design Review projects to match the Planning Commission
Administrative Design
Design Review projects with a 500 foot radius instead of the
Review Applications
existing 250 foot radius.
#2
Require all applicants to place a 4' x 8' notice with a project
Notice sign on properties
description at the proposed project site a minimum of two
Housing Element
(Update required every 5
years)
weeks prior to a Planning Commission hearing or the mailing
2007
of the Notice of Intent to Approve an Administrative Design
1988
Review project.
#3A
The sign ordinance has not been updated in some time and does
Sign Ordinance
not reflect recent developments in the law. This ordinance will
1999
require more time than some of the other ordinances due to the
need for staff to work with the business and real estate
community.
#313
This ordinance has not been updated in some time and does not
Nonconforming Use
reflect recent developments in the law.
Ordinance
The Planning Department is in the process of updating three Elements of the City's General
Plan: the Land Use Element, Conservation and Open Space Element. The Land Use Element
was last updated in 1983, the Conservation Element in 1988, and the Open Space Element in
1993. The following table shows some proposed dates for the other elements to be updated.
General Plans should be updated every 10 years and the Housing Element should be updated
every five years according to State requirements.
GENERAL PLAN:
MANDATORY
ELEMENTS
DATE OF
ADOPTION
PROPOSED
UPDATE
Land Use Element
1983
Update in Progress
Conservation Element
1988
Update in Progress
Open Space Element
1993
Update in Progress
Housing Element
(Update required every 5
years)
2002
2007
Noise Element
1988
2008
Safety Element
1987
2009
Circulation Element
1999
2010
City Council Retreat
February 2, 2007
Page 3
OPTIONAL
DATE OF
PROPOSED
ELEMENTS
ADOPTION
UPDATE
Scenic Highways
1999
2011
Element
Seismic Safety Element
1987
2012
FISCAL IMPACTS:
Ordinance update
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 and one new general plan element could be
started over the next twelve months. Staff time to complete one ordinance would be
approximately .15 FTE depending on the number of neighborhood meetings and study sessions
required.
If the Council was interested in moving forward with an additional ordinance the City Attorneys
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 $20,000, for a total of approximately $40,000 per ordinance. Some staff time is
also needed to manage the project and attend meetings.
General Plan update
The budget for this fiscal year includes a I% General Plan Maintenance Fee on building permits.
Based on average building permit fees generated in past years the Community Development
Department is estimating available revenue to be approximately $70,000 a year. Starting in July
07 the account will begin accruing funds again. The majority of the existing funding is being
utilized as part of the General Plan update which involves the contract planner, staff time, and
the updating of maps. General Plan updates are typically conducted by a consultant with
expertise in that particular area.
ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS:
As Directed.
FOLLOW UP ACTIONS:
Staff will continue to work on the tasks recommended by the Council.
ADVERTISING, NOTICING AND PUBLIC CONTACT:
The agenda was properly posted for this meeting.
ATTACHMENTS:
None