HomeMy WebLinkAbout03-09-1982 CITY COUNCIL AGENDA9
AV - A SILL NO
DA'I'S: March 9, 1982
CITY OF SARIITOGA
DEp,Vn,M]T• Administrative Services
SUB'ECT: Deferred Compensation Payments
Issue Su,,miary
Initial:
Dept. Hd.
C. Atty.
C. Mgr.
The City Council adopted Resolution 85 -9.52 in June of 1981 in order to
clarify certain fringe benefits relating to the*.Social Security replacement
benefits, and deferred compensation, in particular. The costs of the Social
Security replacement benefit package change yearly as salarie's change.
Adjustments in the amount contributed to deferred compensation should have
been adjusted annually also. The back amount owed to employees covers the
period from April 1979 through March 1981.
Reccmrendation
Adopt Resolution No. Authorizing Appropriation of Fund Reserves for
the Purpose of Deferred Compensation Payments, and direct City Manager to
make the necessary deferred compensation payments to eligible - employees..
Fiscal Imoacis
Total cost for deferred compensation back payments and lost earnings is
$25,000 to be appropriated from reserves. .
E: liibits /Attachm -_nts
Resolution No.
Background Memo
Agenda Bill #34 and attachments
Council Action
3/17: Clevenger /Watson moved approval of Resolution 1062. Passed 5 -0.
W
097f O0 ° UQ)(@&
13777 FRUIIVALE AVENUE • SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA 95070
(408) 887 -3438
TO: Mayor and City Council
FROM: Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Deferred Compensation Payments
DATE: March 8, 1982
In June of 1981, the City Council adopted Resolutuion 85 -9.52 to
clarify certain fringe benefits relating to the Social Security
replacement benefits, and deferred compensation, in particular. The
City should have made an adjustment to the deferred compensation con-
tribution in April of 1979 and again in April of 1980. The implemen-
tation of back adjustments has not yet taken place, and staff is
returning to you at this time in order to have Council authorize
appropriations from the reserves in order to make the appropriate
back payments.
The costs of the Social Security replacement benefit package change
yearly as salaries change. Adjustments in the amount contributed to
deferred compensation, as part of the Social Security replacement
benefits, should also have been adjusted annually. The monthly City
contribution for deferred compensation remained the same from the
program's inception in March of 1978 until an adjustment was made in
April of 1981. The back amount owed to the employees from the City
covers the period from April 1979 through March 1981. All employees
of the City employed during the period April 1979 -March 1951 are
eligible for the back payments.
Adoption of Resolution No, will appropriate $25,000 from reserves
in order to reimburse employees for past payments and lost earnings.
The amount needed was not included in the 1981! =82 operating budget at
the direction of the City Manager, as he viewed it as a prior year
expenditure commitment, and believed budgeting it in 1981 -82 would
distort tze true operating budget.
Deferred Compensation Payments
March 8, 1982
Page two
Recommendation
Adopt Resolution No. appropriating $25,000 from the reserves
and direct City Manager to make the necessary deferred compensation
payments to eligible employees.
Patricia M. Mu ens
ck
s
..a t
Wit' ri.• � '. ,i va �- ,.n•,, t,
c2i74:$r��k: %Ksw �yj�?!L.i� .••It ^ ". :�•'.rar';'s`�?`i:'`:� >+i
RESOLUTIOi NO.
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
AUTHORIZING APPROPRIATION OF FUND RESERVES FOR THE PURPOSE
OF DEFERRED COMPENSATION PAYMENTS
WHEREAS, City Council adoption of Resolution No. 85 -9.52 in
June of 1981 clarified the intent of Social Security replacement
benefits; and
t'idEREAS, the City Council has determined that certain adjust-
ments should have been made in the City contributions for Deferred
Compensation during the period of April 1979 -March 1981;
NOW, TIiEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the amount of $25,000 be
and hereby is, appropriated from the Reserves of the General Fund set
aside in the 1981 -82 budget, and the Finance Director is hereby
authorized to appropriate $25,000 to Fund 21, Account 4016, Program. 305,
Department 30, for purposes of Deferred Compensation payments.
The above and foregoing resolution Was passed and adopted at
a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on
the day of March, 1982, by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
CITY LER
MAY R
�T31- Z NO.
DATE, : 05 -22 -81
34t
CITY OF SARATpGA
Initial:
Dept. Hd.
C. Atty.—AU-4s
DEPARTMENT: Administration C. Mgr.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
SUWEC'!: Social Security. Replacement Benefits /Deferred Compensation
Issue Sumlary
In 1976 the City of Saratoga withdrew frori par-'E i ci paici ors in the Social Security System based
upon a vote of all employees,.and approval of the City Council Five new benefits were
instituted to replace social security. Questions have been raised as to how the replacement
benefits, Deferred Compensation in particular, were to be administered. The resolution
attached, 85_ -9.52 , is to clarify the intent of the social security replacement benefit..
package and avoid future problems as to how those benefits are to be administered.
Costs.of the Deferred Compensation benefit have been included each year as.part of the entire
employee benefit package. However, due to the lack of adjustments in the contribution rate
since the program began in 1978 back adjustments need to be made for the periods April 1979 -
March 1980 and April 1980 - 11arch 1981.
Recormiendation
Adopt Resolution 85 -9.52
Fiscal LTipacts
Adjustment of the benefit contribution for Deferred Compensation for April, May and June
of 1980 -81 will cost approximately $4500. Budget savings will be sufficient to cover these
costs without any additional appropriations.
Approximately $30;000 will need to be included'in the 1981 -82 budget to cover adjustments`
for Deferred Compensation not made in 1979 and 1980. This will be addressed during Council
budget deliberations in the coming months.
Exhibits /Attachments
Resolution 6b-9.5Z
Background Mernorandum
#1 Ksolution 85- 9.34- -
#2 Council.Memorandum 4 -5 -78
#3 Resolution 873
#4 Social Security Committee Report
Council Action
Adopted 4 -0'.
RESOLUTION NO. 85 -9.52
"
A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 85 -9.34,
TO
CLARIFY FRINGE BENEFITS FOR EMPLOYEES OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
The City
Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows:
Section 1:
Section 1.8 of Resolution 85 -9.34 is amended to read as follows:
Section 1.8: Fringe Benefits
w . Kit.
(a)
Purpose
f
The City Council of this City has agreed to contract for cer ; '-ain
replacement benefits in tandem with the decision to terminate social
security coverage for City employees, effective March 31, 1978. The
City's contribution to the costs of these replacement benefits is
- -
established at the estimated annual cost of social security coverage
to the City,to remain fixed at the rate of 6.05% of salary, up to the
social security maximum wage limit contribution. The wage limit contri-
butions are established by the Social Security Administration.
Beginning 1/1./78 Maximum $17,700
:•
« = <":
1/.1./79 22,900
1/1/80 25,900
'
1/1/81 29,700
" l /l/82 31,800
.�`.•;.. _- ,.
In no case shall the City's contribution to the approved replacement
benefits exceed the amount the City would be required to contribute
on behalf of its employees to the social security system. The social
security replacement benefits include the following: PERS 1959 Survivor
Benefit, PERS Survivor Continuance, Retiree's Health Plan, Long Term
Disability Coverage and a Deferred Compensation Program. The first
_
four benefits listed above shall be paid first and any remaining funds
from the 6.05% shall be paid into the Deferred Compensation Program.
(b)
Description of Benefits
PERS 1959 SURVIVOR BENEFIT - (Death prior to Retirement) Paid to an
eligible beneficiary upon death of the member, whether or not the member
_
is eligible for retirement at the age of death.
PERS SURVIVOR CONTINUANCE - One half of the member's unmodified
allowance based on full formula service under PERS, and one - quarter of
the unmodified allowance based on modified formula service (the period
during which the employee was covered jointly by social security and
PERS) is paid to: (a) a surviving spouse; (b) dependent children (if
,'• ' -
no spouse); or (c) dependent parents. In addition the member may choose
one of four retirement options at the time of retirement to increase
the allowance for his beneficiary.
RETIREE'S HEALTH PLAN - The City will provide for the extension
of the current group medical and hospitalization plan to all retirees
who wish to continue their coverage. The City will contribute an amount
"
equal to the agency contribution to the Myers- Geddes Health Plan for an
employee who qualifies for full retirement benefits under PERS .
until the time he qualifies and is eligible for medicare benefits and
until he dies. A disabled worker qualifies as a retired member. The
balance of the monthly premium, if any, shall be born by the employee.
LONG TERM DISABILITY COVERAGE - The City shall pay the monthly
premium to,provide each employee a long -term disability insurance program
>l_,,;:.,'_s_._,_:,r - -•
which affords a monthly stipend to a disabled member after 30 continuous
,`.,
days of disability. The amount of monthly income shall be 66 2/3% of
the first $1500 of the employees monthly salary, to a maximum benefit
of $1000 per month.
yt «F ai a '
MAN" " ���.�y�
't�S.M v='-'s h;�.:.Y]- �S:SC.. 'sw'1T,:. ill ?�- d.',• }•?. c:C:•�it�G4.'y
DEFERRED COMPENSATION - Deferred Compensation allows an employee
to take income out of his peak earning years and set it aside to
provide additional retirement income. No federal income taxes are
paid on the deferred income until the value of,the deferred earnings
is returned either at retirement or when a member withdraws from the
plan. An employee is eligible to receive his contributions upon
termination of employment, retirement, upon becoming disabled or at
the time of death.
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular
meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the day of
June, 1981 by the following vote:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ATTEST:
CITY CLERK
MAYOR
A
It
REPORT TO MAYOR AND
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: 5 -22 -81
COUNCIL MEETING: 6 -3 -81
SUBJECT Social Security Replacement Benefits/
Deferred Compensation
---------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
Par vr_Rniimn
In 1978, the City of Saratoga, based upon a vote of all employees, withdrew from participation
in the Social Security System. Attachment #4 is a copy of the report presented to all
employees and the City Council by the Social Security Committee in 1978. The report gives
detailed information on how the Social Security Replacement Benefits were chosen.
Social Security Replacement Benefits were to include the following five benefits:
1. Public Employees Retirement System (PERS) Survivor Benefit
2. PERS Survivor Continuance
3. Retiree's Health Plan
4. Long Term Disability Coverage
5. Deferred Compensation Program
The above five replacement benefits were instituted (see Attachments 1, 2 and 3) and the
changes were effective March 31, 1978.
During employee negotiations in 1980 the issue of the social security replacement benefits
was raised and the amount of money being allocated for the Deferred Compensation Program
was questioned. The questions raised at that time have been under discussion and study
and are now to the point of being resolved.
DISCUSSION OF THE PROBLEM
Resolution 85 -9.34 relating to replacement benefits for social security was adopted by
the City Council in May 1978. The purpose of Resolution 85 -9.52 is to clarify the entire
replacement benefit package and how it is to be administered. Resolution 85 -9.34 is vague
and as a result is subject to different interpretations. In order to avoid future confusion
as to these benefits and how they are administered, and to clarify distribution and costs
during employee negotiations, Resolution 85 -9.52 has been developed.
Report to Mayor and City Council
Social Security Replacement Benefits /Deferred Compensation
Council Meeting: 6 -3 -81
Page 2
In researching all the documents, reports and resolutions it is clear that the intent of
the Social Security replacement benefits was to pay for benefits equal to but not to
exceed the amount the City would be required to pay to the Social Security System. (For
documentation see attachment 1, Resolution 85 -9.34, Purpose, Attachment #2, and Attachment
#4). This would indicate the City would be paying 6.05% of salary, the percentage rate
going into Social Security at the time of our withdrawal, up to the Social Security salary
maximum "cap "; for the replacement benefits. The Social Security maximum "cap" is the
amount up to which Social Security benefits must be paid. This amount was $17,700 in
1978, is currently $29,700 and will be $31,800 as of 1 -1 -82. The advantage to the City
was that the percentage, 6.05,,was to stay fixed, whereas with Social Security it was to
increase to 6.70% by 1982.
The distribution of the 6.05 %.of salary for the replacement benefits was to have the
PERS Survivor Benefit, the PERS Survivor Continuance; the Retiree's Health Plan, and the
Long Term Disability Insurance paid first, and the remainder of the 6.05% was to be applied
to the Deferred Compensation Program. The cost of these benefits can change yearly and
computation of amounts and appropriate adjustments should have been made yearly. Adjustments
were made yearly in all benefit costs, except for the contribution to Deferred Compensation.
The monthly contribution has remained.the same since the Plan's inception in 1978.
The amount set aside each year for replacement benefits is to be equivalent.to 6.05% of
salary up to the Social Security salary maximum "cap ". Each year as salaries have increased,
adjustments have not been made in the Deferred Compensation Contributions. Adjustments
have been made, as necessary, in the other replacement benefits.
Based upon the above, it appears that adjustments in the Deferred Compensation benefit
should have been made in April of 1979 and again. in April of 1980. The total amount due
for those periods is approximately $30,000 and will be included in the 1981 -82 budget as
a special appropriation. We are in the process of making the necessary adjustments for
April 1981 and have sufficient money in the 1980 -81 budget to cover those adjustments.
In order to further clarify the intent of the Social Security replacement benefits the
Assistant City Manager contacted the previous City Manager to discuss the issue. His
interpretation of the intent is in agreement with the information contained in this
memorandum.
rnNrl II ;TnN
In order to clarify the intent of the Social Security replacement benefits it is recommended
that Resolution 85 -9.52 be adopted.
Pa ricia M. Mul ens '
Assistant City Manager
PMM /Ij
ATTAC k ME: ro-r 1
w:r:�: i , t�` rA'.'` �z.;.. +..Yw�"w.-- �k+••'.�.��i..eY� -3u ri.M,4M`�D�;�v+4"�`�a.' `�'.'."'�Sre� -." man..." wtihs�,}.e`a4"�l!+eYh....+'�'Mt, .` �." ... - �� :,� ;� ji:!�G:�ts�YS.+t'cK�.
RESOLUTION 85 -9.34
t �xar�
A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 85 -9
ADDING TO FRINGE BENEFITS FOR EMPLOYEES
OF THE CITY OF SARATOGA
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows:
SECTION 1: Section 1.8 of Resolution 85.9 is amended to read as follows:
Section 1.8: Fringe Benefits
(a) Purpose
The City Council of this city has agreed to contract for certain
replacement benefits in tandem with the decision to terminate social security
coverage for city employees, effective March 31, 1978. The City's contribution
to the costs of these replacement benefits is established at the estimated
annual cost of social security coverage to the City as of March 31, 1978.
In no case shall the City's contribution to the approved replacement benefits
exceed the amount the City would be required to contribute on behalf of its
employees to the social security system. The social security replacement
benefits include the following: PERS 1959 Survivor Benefits, PERS Post -
Retirement Survivor Benefits, Long -Term Disability Insurance, Retirees' Health
Plan, such "other benefits" as may be enacted by the City Council.
(b) Insurance Policies
The City shall pay the monthly premium to provide each employee
a long -term disability insurance program which affords a monthly stipend to a
disabled employee after 30 continuous days of disability. The program will
afford a monthly income benefit of 66 2/3% of the first $1,500 basic monthly
earnings, to a maximum benefit of $1,000 per month.
(c) Retirees' Health Plan
The City will provide for the extension of the current group medical
and hospitalization plan to all retirees who wish to continue their coverage.
The City will contribute an amount equal to the agency contribution to the
Myers- Geddes Health Plan (currently $16.00 per month) for an employee who
qualifies for full retirement benefits under PERS (currently age 60) until the
time he qualifies and is eligible for medicare benefits (currently age 65)
and until he dies. A disabled worker qualifies as a retired member. The
balance of the monthly premium, if any, shall be borne by the employee.
The City will extend the current group medical and hospitalization
plan to all retirees between age 50 and 60 as long as they are not eligible
for another group plan at a subsequent place of employment. However, the full
monthly premium shall be borne by the employee.
SECTION 2: Unless otherwise indicated, the modifications contained in this resolution
shall be effective as of the first day of April 1978.
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a regular meeting of the
City Council of the City of Saratoga held on the 17 day of May, 1978, by the following
vote:
AYES: Councilmen Kraus, Corr, Kalb, Matteoni, & C
NOES: None
ABSENT: None
ATTEST:
LFR� �
CITY C
`t
A T-rA C H M E A)T
LCG)J�T"y -S;
111 11 1 GM
REPORT TO MAYOR AND
CITY COUNCIL
DATE: 3/20/78
COUNCIL MEETING: 4/5/78
SUBJECT: Social Security Replacement Benefits
This report is in follow -up to the action by the City Council
at its meeting on March 15, 1978, to proceed with the withdrawal
from the Social Security program effective March 31, 1978. The
approved replacement benefits package included the following items.
1. Retirees' Health Plan
2. Long -Term Disability Insurance Program
3. PERS 1959 Survivors Benefit
4. PERS Survivor Continuance
5. Deferred Compensation Program
Each of these benefits is reviewed in this report.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council proceed with the
following:
1. Adoption of Resolution 85 -9.34 (A Resolution Amending
Resolution No. 85 -9 Adding to Fringe Benefits for Employees of the
City of Saratoga).. This provides for a retirees' health plan and
long term disability insurance for all city employees effective
April 1, 1978. In addition, it is recommended that the Council
._, L" �.:.:_._... .._�v_.rs...,,.,.�,..a......�.. ._,.....c.:.:lan: r_; \..- .a,�...:...�... a..� .....' i:. �....... n»•.; c,,,,.....,..:. �>......:,._.: a.:......._..�::r�..,......_.._ ..,.._. �._.. ...... ........___...�....:.�J.:v„_... .. ,.. _ .. __<....,.....�..:. .
authorize the City Manager to contract with Standard Insurance
Company for the long -term disability insurance program.
2. Adopt Resolution No. 350 (A Resolution of Intention to
Amend the Contract between the City of Saratoga and Public Employees'
Retirement System for 1959 Survivors and Post - Retirement Survivors'
Allowance). At the end of April, the Council will be asked to adopt
an ordinance which formally amends the contract. The two survivors
benefits will go into effect May 1, 1978.
3. Temporarily hold in abeyance any action on a deferred
compensation program. Thb funds .that were:-intended to be applied
to this program should be held in reserve.until a determination is
made on how to proceed. This will be enacted by resolution of the
City Council.
BACKGROUND
This report is in follow -up to.the action taken by this
City Ccuncil at its meeting of March 15, 1978, to proceed with the
withdrawal from the Social Security Program effective March 31, 1978.
At that meeting, the Council concurred in the.package of replacement
benefits recommended by the Social Security Committee and approved
by the City employees. It further authorized staff to proceed to
contract for and implement the replacement benefits as soon after
March 31st as possible.
Each of these items is detailed in the memorandum below. They
are implemented through the adoption of Resolution No. 85 -9.34 and
the Resolution of Intention to Amend the Contract with the Public
Employees' Retirement System.
Retirees' Health and Long -Term Disability Insurance
Resolution 85 -9.34 (A Resolution Amending Resolution 85 -9 Adding
to Fringe Benefits for Employees of the City of Saratoga) enacts
a retirees' health plan and long -term disability insurance effective
-2-
April 1, 1978. The wording for the retirees' health plan is the
same as contained in the Social. Security Committee report. It
authorizes a current maximum City contribution of $16.00 per month
toward a group medical and 'hospitalization plan for all employees
who retire after age 60. This terminates at age 65 if the retiree
is eligible for medicare benefits.
The second part of the resolution establishes a long -term
disability insurance program. The purpose of LTDI is to provide
the employee income to partially replace lost income in the event
he becomes totally disabled. It is a supplement to sick - leave,
which is usually insufficient to cover an employee for extended
illness or periods of disability. The insurance provides 24 -hour
coverage (on or off the job).
Quotes were solicitated from insurance companies under the
following guidelines:
O Payment of 2/3 of the first $1500 of monthly salary
(maximum $1,000 per month benefit to a disabled employee)
• 30 -Day Elimination Period (prior to eligibility)
o Benefits payable to age 65 (or 12- months if this is longer)
Four insurance companies were contacted and two responded. Both
Aetna Insurance Company and Union Mutual declined to offer a quote.
Standard Insurance Company and Mutual Benefit (MBL Group) did respond
and proposed the following:
Standard Insurance Company - 1.660 on the first $1500 of each
employees' monthly earnings.
Mutual Benefit - 1.910 on the first $1500 of each employees'
monthly earnings.
-3-
The Standard policy also provides that if the death of
an insured occurs during a period for which monthly income is
payable, payments in the same amount will be continued to the
surviving spouse or children for three months. Standard also
has the City's group policy for life insurance and accidental
death. It is the premier company in the field of long term disability
insurance plans for public entities. The six cities in the immediate
vacinity that offer a disability insurance plan are all covered
by Standard Insurance.
It is recommended that the City Council authorize the
City Manager to enter into a contract with Standard Insurance
.Company for the provision of long -term disability insurance.
Resolution of Intention to Amend Contract with PERS
The adopted replacement benefits package calls for the
City to contract with the Public Employees' Retirement System for
the addition of a 1959 Survivor Benefit and a Survivor Continuance
Plan (post- retirement survivors allowance). Prior to instituting
this, it is necessary for PERS to complete a valuation study.
PERS has just finished this study, and is sending us the
results along with the Resolution of Intention to amend the contract
for 1959 Survivors and Post - Retirement Survivors' Allowance. Tlis
resolution will be included in your supplemental packet on Wednesday
evening. After the Resolution of Intention is adopted, it must
be followed by the adoption of an ordinance. This.will appear on
the Council agenda at the end of April. The Effective date for the
implementation of these two benefits will be May 1, 1978.
Deferred Compensation
The final element in the package of replacement benefits was
intended to be a deferred compensation program. Once the costs of
the other replacement benefits were finalized, the remaining dollars
were to be distributed to each employee as a contribution to a
-4-
deferred compensation program. Based on the actual results of
the PERS valuation study.for the Survivor Benefits, $162 per
employee per year is available. This amounts to $6.75 per employee
for each of 24 pay periods.
However, the whole deferred compensation issue is in a state
of uncertainty. The State of California, and a.great many local
agencies, with the approval of the Internal Revenue Service, have
established deferred compensation programs permitting employees to
defer a portion of their pay until retirement or termination.
Deferred income.is then treated for tax purposes as having been
earned in the year received. These programs would be rendered
ineffective under a proposed Internal Revenue Service rule
published in the Federal Register of February 2,1978. The proposed
regulations would tax currently, compensation which is deferred.
Under the proposed rule, existing planscan continue to operate
only until 30 days after final regulations are published. If these
regulations go into effect, they will dismantle deferred compensation
programs. Until the matter is resolved, it is not wise for us
to proceed with the establishment of a deferred compensation program.
It is recommended that we hold this portion of the replacement
benefits package in abeyance until the Social Security Committee is
reconvened and has an opportunity to explore other options. It
would be ourintention to come back to the City Council within the
next month or so with a recommendation.on how to proceed. Until
an acceptable plan is developed, it is.recommended that the City
set aside the funds that are due each employee from April lst forward.
These would be paid to each employee from April 1st forward once
the issue is resolved. This will be effectuated by resolution of
the City c' un_il.
Ro ert F. Jim Fiend kson
City Manager AssistanC 4City Manager
Time spent in preparation of report: 10 hrs . @ $129.38
t
i
2. Resolution 849, A Resolution of the City of Saratoga
Upholding the Appeal of David De Carion for a Use Permit
(UP -361) to Allow a Tennis Court at 19199 Monte Vista Drive
Mayor Kraus indicated he is voting against this action in
keeping with his comments at the public hearing on March 15.
It was moved by Councilwoman Corr and seconded by Councilman
Kalb Resolution 849 be adopted. Thd motion was carried, 3
to 1, Councilman Kraus in opposition,.Councilwoman Callon
abstaining.
3. Social Security Replacement Benefits
a. Resolution 85 -9.34, A Resolution Amending Resolution
85-9 AcfJ ng to Fringe Benefits for Employees of the
City of Saratoga
b. Resolution 850, A Resolution of Intention to Amend
the Con.r.ract between the City of Saratoga and Public
Employee's Retirement System
(The Council discussed a proposed amendment stipulating that the
City's contribution to the approved replacement benefits not
exceed the amount the City would be required to contribute on
behalf of its employees to the Social Security system.
It was moved by Councilman Kalb and seconded by Councilwoman
,Corr to adopt Resolution 85 -9.34, including the proposed
amendment, and direct the staff to insert the amendment into
the resolution. The motion was carried unanimously.
Jim Hendrickson, Assistant City Manager, read into the
record the following figures, which would be incorporated into
proposed Resolution 850:
1) Increase in employer contribution rate: from 7.213%
to 10.128 %. This represents a 2.9157 increase.
2) Annual dollar costs for first 12 months: estimated
$91,150. This is based on an estimated payroll of
10.128 %.
It was moved by Councilman Kalb and seconded by Councilwoman
Corr the adoption of Resolution 850. Carried unanimously.
5.
Acceptance of Gifts for New Library
6.
Final Acceptances
a. Tract 5256 - Sevilla Lane /Saratoga Foothills
Development Corp. (Resolution 36 -B -176, Accepting
Dedication of Streets)
b. Tract 5319 - Shadowoaks /Saratoga Foothills Develop-
Corp.
ment (Resolution 36 -B -177, Accepting
Dedication of Streets)
`.
V..v rts
c. Tract 5462 - Dagmar- Bonnet /Dividend Industries
(Resolution 36 -B -178, Accepting Dedication'of
I� Lail $
Streets)
d. Tract 5676 - Marion Road /Saratoga Foothills Develop-
ment (Resolution 36 -B -179, Accepting Dedication of
Streets)
7.
Authorization to Call for Bids for Vehicle Inspection
Services
8.
Amendment to Joint Powers Agreement Re: Youth Service
Bureau - Revise Number of Members and Requirement for
a Quorum
9.
Payment of Claims
It
was moved by Councilwoman Corr and seconded by Councilwoman
Callon approval of the Items for Consent Calendar, with the
exception of items 2 and 3. The motion was carried unanimously.
C. ITEMS CONSIDERED SEPARATELY FROM C014SENT CALENDAR
i
2. Resolution 849, A Resolution of the City of Saratoga
Upholding the Appeal of David De Carion for a Use Permit
(UP -361) to Allow a Tennis Court at 19199 Monte Vista Drive
Mayor Kraus indicated he is voting against this action in
keeping with his comments at the public hearing on March 15.
It was moved by Councilwoman Corr and seconded by Councilman
Kalb Resolution 849 be adopted. Thd motion was carried, 3
to 1, Councilman Kraus in opposition,.Councilwoman Callon
abstaining.
3. Social Security Replacement Benefits
a. Resolution 85 -9.34, A Resolution Amending Resolution
85-9 AcfJ ng to Fringe Benefits for Employees of the
City of Saratoga
b. Resolution 850, A Resolution of Intention to Amend
the Con.r.ract between the City of Saratoga and Public
Employee's Retirement System
(The Council discussed a proposed amendment stipulating that the
City's contribution to the approved replacement benefits not
exceed the amount the City would be required to contribute on
behalf of its employees to the Social Security system.
It was moved by Councilman Kalb and seconded by Councilwoman
,Corr to adopt Resolution 85 -9.34, including the proposed
amendment, and direct the staff to insert the amendment into
the resolution. The motion was carried unanimously.
Jim Hendrickson, Assistant City Manager, read into the
record the following figures, which would be incorporated into
proposed Resolution 850:
1) Increase in employer contribution rate: from 7.213%
to 10.128 %. This represents a 2.9157 increase.
2) Annual dollar costs for first 12 months: estimated
$91,150. This is based on an estimated payroll of
10.128 %.
It was moved by Councilman Kalb and seconded by Councilwoman
Corr the adoption of Resolution 850. Carried unanimously.
Resolution 85 -9.34
A Resolution Amending Resolution No. 85 -9
Adding to Fringe Benefits for Employees
of the City of Saratoga
The City Council of the City of Saratoga hereby resolves as follows:
SECTION 1: Section 1.8 of Resolution 85 -9 is amended as follows:
Section 1.8: Fringe Benefits
(a) Insurance Policies
9. Long -term Disability Insurance
The City shall pay the monthly premium to provide
each employee a long -term disability insurance program which
affords a monthly stipend to a disabled. employee after 30
continuous days of disability. The program will afford a
monthly income benefit of 66 2/3% of the first $1500 basic
monthly earnings, to a maximum benefit of $1,000 per month.
(d) Retirees' Health Plan
The City will provide for the extension of the current
group medical and hospitalization plan to all retirees who
wish to continue their coverage. The City will contribute an
amount equal to the agency contribution to the Myers- Geddes Health
Plan (currently $16.00 per month) for an employee who qualifies
for full retirement benefits under PERS (currently age 60) until
the time he.qualifies and is eligible for medicare benefits
(currently age 65) or until he dies. A disabled worker qualifies
as a retired member. The balance of the monthly premium, if any,
shall be borne by the employee.
The City will extend the current group medical and
hospitalization plan to all retirees between age 50 and 60
as long as they are not eligible for another group plan at
a subsequent place of employment. However, the full monthly
premium shall be borne by the employee.
SECTION 2: Unless otherwise indicated, the.modifications contained in
April 1978. this Resolution shall be effective as of the first day of
SECTION 3: Applicability
This Resolution amends Resolution 85 -9 of the City of Saratoga.
This Resolution is an expression of existing policy of the
City of Saratoga and is subject to modification and change by the City
Council from time to time. Nothing herein contained shall be construed as
creating or establishing any of the provisions hereof as terms of any
contract of employment extending beyond any period other than such period
as during which this resolution is in full force and effect. That is to
say, that any employee of the City of Saratoga during the effective period
of this Resolution shall have such employment rights and duties as are
'N q. ; I ,
setforth herein only during such period of time as this Resolution
remains in effect, and not afterward.
The above and foregoing resolution was passed and adopted at a
regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Saratoga held on
the 5th day of April, 1978, by the following vote:
AYES: Councilmen Kolb, Maltconi, Callon, Kraus & Corr
NOES: hone
ABSENT: ioe
-�, l� ,
r1AYOR
ATTEST: V
CITY CLERK
Reso on No. 850
RESOLUTION OF INTENTION TO APPROVE AN
AMENDMENT TO CONTRACT BET14EEN THE
BOARD OF AD•1INISTRATION OF THE
PUBLIC EMPLOYEES' RETIRE1\iENT SYSTEM
AND THE
CITY COTNCIL
OF THE
CITY OF SARATOGA
WHEREAS, the Public Employees' Retirement Law permits the participation of
public agencies and their employees in the Public Employees'
Retirement System by the execution of a contract, and sets forth the
procedure by which said public agencies may elect to subject them-
selves and their employees to amendments to said law; and
WHEREAS, one of the steps in the procedure to amend this contract is the
adoption by the legislative body of the public agency of a resolu-
tion giving notice of its intention to approve an amendment to
said contract, which resolution shall contain a summary of the
change proposed in said contract; and
WHEREAS, the following is a statement of the proposed change:
1. Provide Full 1/50 benefits for miscellaneous members.
2. Provide post- retirement survivor benefits (Section
21263/21263.1).for miscellaneous members.
3. Provide 1959 Survivor benefits (Section 21380- 21388)
for miscellaneous members.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the governing body of the above agency
gives, and it does hereby give notice of intention to approve an
amendment to the contract between the said governing body and the
Board of Administration of the Public Employees' Retirement System,
a copy of said amendment being attached hereto, as an "Exhibit"
and by this reference made a part hereof.
April 5, 1978
(Date adopted and approved)
BY
(Nave)
Mayor
(Title)
CON -122
i
h
it 3��',�i�Ytw. ..�:�.'r, .5 �1.:�s ;�`y.^r,.? -: ��i±ay.W"•9, E?j
ATTtAC 14VM.EA-) T 3
RESOLUTION 873
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF SARATOGA, CALIFORNIA, ADOPTING AN EMPLOYEE'S
DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN AND APPROVING AN
AGREEMENT WITH NATIONAL PLAN COORDINATORS, INC.
FOR COORDINATING THE CITY OF SARATOGA EMPLOYEE'S
DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLAN
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga desires to provide an Employee's
Deferred Compensation Plan.
NOW THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City
Saratoga, California as follows:
Section 1: An employee Deferred Compensation Plan is
hereby adopted. The City consents to a Plan
and assumes the obligations to be performed on its part as
set forth in the Plan.
Section 2: The Plan shall be effective and shall apply to
compensation earned after the effective date.
The City consents to the participation of any employee, or
officer, such participation to be in accordance with the
Participation Agreement.
Section 3: The City Clerk shall certify to the adoption
of this Resolution and shall cause this Resolution
to be entered in the records of the City Council of this
City.
Section 4: Agreement No. 1 , with the firm of National
Plan Coordinators, Inc., to serve as Plan
Coordinators of the above Plan, is hereby approved; and
Section 5: That the City Manager is hereby authorized to
execute said Agreement No. 1 and all other
documents and initiate all other procedures to implement
said Plan.
The above and foregoing resolution was duly and regularly
introduced and passed by the City Council of the City of Saratoga
on the 20th day of,. September , 1978, by the following vote;
AYES: Councilmen Kalb, Matteoni, Callon, Kraus & Corr
NOES: None
ABSENT: NonO
' OR
ATTEST: �J
C AT-r.6,-"---4M EN'T
CITY OF SARATOGA
SOCIAL SECURITY COMMITTEE
REPORT
James B. Hendrickson
Dick Hamilton
Stan Carnekie
January 1978
Bob Willis
Barbara Sampson
Jack Tomlinson
y
SOCIAL SECURITY COMMITTEE REPORT
nrnur_nnymn
Since it was appointed, the Social Security Committee has been
meeting and studying the Social Security and PERS systems since the end
of September 1977. The Committee does not intend to make any recommendations
on whether or not an individual employee should vote to drop Social Security
coverage. This is an individual decision, and it depends upon several
factors.
e The employee's age (and how near he is to retirement)
• Whether he is a low- income, middle- income, or high- income employee
(benefits for lower paid employees are a greater proportion of pre-
-retirement income than those of employees at or above the maximum wale base).
o Whether he is a career or non - career public employee (the -portability-
of Social Security benefits may be the most important benefit
for a non - career employee)
o The employee's martial status
o The number of dependents
• His occupational hazards
e Whether or not he has accumulated 40 quarters under Social Security
(thereby gaining vested rights to benefits)
In order to make this decision, we ask you to review the following
key reading materials:
1. League of California Cities Comparisons - a good overview.
Lists the main arguments favoring termination and arguments
opposing termination. Provides a comparison of benefits and
costs of each system.
2. A_ Study of Social Security Benefits (Intergovernmental Employee
Relations Service Program) - an in -depth study of each system
with specific examples.
3. PERS Benefits for Local Miscellaneous Members - brochure prepared
y PERS.
In assessing your situation, it is important to understand the main
differences between Social Security and an actuarially based retirement
system (such as PERS). Social Security is a plan of social insurance con-
taining certain features which are characteristic of public retirement systems
and private benefit programs. Its purpose, essentially a social one, is
to provide security to a very large number of private and public employees
and their families. Social Security taxes are used to pay current benefits
to pensioners and their beneficiaries (pay -as- you -go). Private systems,
including PERS, operate on a "funded" basis, meaning the current
resources of the plan are always enough to cover all benefits promised
to its participants at retirement. Employer contributions are placed
into funds to provide future benefits for specific groups of employees and
employee contributions are accumulated in individual accounts for employees.
Social Security has traditionally been financed by equal contributions
from employee and employer. During 1977, each contributed 5.85% of the
first $16,500 of earned salary, or a maximum amount of $965.25. Current law
(new legislation that became effective January 1, 1978) provides that the contributions will
increase as follows:
Maximum
Beginning 1/1/78 6.050 of $17,700 = $1,070.85
Beginning 1/1/79 6.130 of 22,900 = 1,403.77
Beginning 1/1/80 6.13% of 25,900 = 1,587.67
Beginning 1/1/81 6.65% of 129,700 = 1,975.05
Beginning 1/1/82 6.70% of 31,800 = 2,130.60
The contribution rate is scheduled to rise in the future because
in 1972 a cost -of- living benefit escalator was incorporated by law. It
provides that if the national consumer price index increases 3% or more
from the previous year, benefit amounts will automatically increase by
the same amount. By way of illustration, the Consumer Price Index has actual3v
increased by the following percentage rates since 1970.
December
1970
- December
1971
= 3.4%
December
1971
- December
1972
= 3.4%
December
1972
- December
1973
= 8.8%
December
1973
- December
1974
= 12.2°
December
1974
- December
1975
= 7.0%
December
1975
- December
1976
= 4.8%
December
1976
- December
1977
= 6.8%
In analyzing your own situation in relation to the social security
system, it is important to be aware of some of the key arguments put
forward by the opponents and proponents of withdrawal. These arguments
have been drawn from the literature referred to above, and by no means
are they intended to be comprehensive statements. They merely highlight
some of the principal items that you should take into consideration
in making your final decision.
1
Arguments in Favor of Withdrawal
• In his analysis of the Fiscal Year 1973 -74 State of California
Budget, the Legislative Analyst surveyed over 200 industrial
retirement plans and found that only one required employee
contributions for other than social security. Furthermore,
a 1972 study revealed that the retirement contribution rate
-2-
applicable to California State Employees (which is the same
as for City of Saratoga employees) is the highest among the
36 states which extend both a state retirement program and
social security to their employees. The California employee
contribution rate is higher in 10 of the 14 states that do
provide social security coverage, as well. The Legislative
Analyst concluded that, "the retirement burden on California
employees is excessive ".
• Due to the pay -as- you -go method of financing the social security
system and the lower fertility rates that have been experienced
recently, the financial support required to keep the system afloat
in the future is expected to be much greater than what will be
provided by the existing schedule of payroll taxes. A recent
study demonstrated a steady decrease in the number of workers
for every beneficiary. This trend is expected to continue in the
future to the point that the ratio will drop to two (2) workers
for every one (1)- beneficiary by the middle of the next century.
i
Civilian Employment SS Beneficiaries Workers/
Year (millions) (millions) Beneficiary
1940
32.4
0.2
145.8
1947
43.9
2.0
22.2
1954
60.1
6.5
9.3
1957
64.1
11.1
5.8
1967
74.4
23.7
3.1
1972
81.7
28.1
2.9
• Most employees prefer the immediate advantages of greater take -home
pay during their working years when the largest demands are placed
on family budgets, rather than sustain high salary deductions
for dual retirement benefits which are payable when family expenses
normally subside. Thus, withdrawal allows both employee and
employer to gain a greater measure of control over their payroll
deductions and more conscious decision making on how to spend
one's income.
-3-
Arguments Against Withdrawal
o A social security administration study points out that even if a
person has been paying the maximum social security tax since
the system was founded in 1937, his total' contribution by
1976 would be only $7,700. If that person retired in 1976,
he would get his full investment back in only 19 months of
typical social security benefits. The noted economist,
Paul Samuelson has said that the beauty of social insurance
is that it is, "actuarially unsound. Everone who reaches
retirement age is given benefits and privleges that far exceed
anything he has put in." This is due to the fact that over the
years social security has been frequently amended which has
resulted in a considerable liberalization of the benefits.
The total amount of taxes paid by an individual is affected less
by the amendments or automatic escalation than is the total
amount of benefits he ultimately receives. But, this may change
in the future in that the next social security amendment of
substance is expected to cut back future benefits under certain
conditions from the excessive levels they might otherwise reach.
a Social security benefits are non - taxable, whereas the benefits
provided through the City's contribution to PERS (along with accrued
interest earnings on the investment of funds) are taxable. The
income tax treatment of social security benefits results in an
important federal subsidy to beneficiaries. Depending upon the
individual's income tax bracket after retirement, retirement earnings
subject to taxation would have to be much higher in order to equate
on an after -tax basis with social security benefits:::.
e Social security benefits will be much higher in the future
than they are now, even without an increase in benefits due to
the cost -of- living adjustments. This is due to the fact the
average wage upon which the benefit is based increases annually.
As time passes, the earlier wage bases of $3,000, $3600, $4200
and so on are dropped and replaced by the higher wage bases
of $15,300 (1976 maximum), $16,500 (1977 maximum), and $17,700
(1978 maximum). At the same time, the amount of social security
taxes paid by the worker increases as the wage base escalates.
-4-
A recent study by the State of California concluded that there is
an almost universal misunderstanding of Social Security because of its
complexity. If each employee fully understood Social Security as it
affected his own self- interest and then voted accordingly, the following
would be the potential line -up of employees.
For withdrawal
Younger career employees who moonlight or expect to work after
retirement (to earn a minimum 40 quarters)
Female employees married to covered employees
Higher-paid employees
Against Withdrawal
Employees subject to greater risk of disability
Older career employees
Career employees who don't expect to earn Social Security elsewhere
Non - career employees
Employees with many dependents
Lower -paid employees (in Social Security terms, Saratoga employees
generally qualify as moderate to higher paid)
Married employees with non - covered spouses
-5-
"UNIVERSE" OF REPLACEMENT BENEFITS
An essential point to remember in analyzing your own situation is
that Social. Security benefits cannot be replaced on an exact dollar- for - dollar
or matching benefit basis. Nevertheless, the Committee has surveyed each
facet of the Social Security system - retirement, disability, health,
survivors - and developed an "ideal" list of replacement benefits. If
the City picked up each one of these replacement benefits, it would provide
a superb package. These are listed below.
Exclusive of any City contribution to deferred compensation, the
total cost amounts $92,500 - or approximately 10.2% of total salaries.
This is well in excess of the amount of money available for replacement
benefits.
-6-
Benefit Improvement
% of Total Salary
1.
PEES 1959 Survivors Benefit
1.0%
2.
PERS Survivor Continuance
2.0 -3.0
3.
Long -Term Disability
1.14
4.
Health Insurance - Retirees
0.04
5.
Five - Percent Automatic Cost -of- Living
3.586
Increase to PERS Benefits
6.
25% Increase in 1959 Survivors
1.0
7.
Deferred Compensation
Variable
8.
Increased Life Insurance
0.36
TOTAL:
10.19%
Exclusive of any City contribution to deferred compensation, the
total cost amounts $92,500 - or approximately 10.2% of total salaries.
This is well in excess of the amount of money available for replacement
benefits.
-6-
RECOMMENDED REPLACEMENT BENEFITS
From this "Universe ", the Committee has selected five replacement
benefits that it recontmends the City contract for if the employees vote
to terminate Social Security. The cost of these benefits amounts to
about $49,500 - which is equal to the estimated annual cost of Social
Security coverage to the City as of March 31, 1978. The recommended
package only relates to the employer's contribution (The City of Saratoga).
The savings realized by the employee may be used at his discretion . There
is a slight increase in the contribution rate by the employee to PERS
after social security termination. This amounts to $4.31 per payroll period.
This results because all service from termination date forward is computel
on "full formula" basis. (100W of salary earnings). Past service is based
o;i a "modified formula" for benefit calculations - since the employee contri-
bution is 7% of monthly salary less the first $133.33.
We recommend that the employee consider diverting as much of his
savings as he can afford to the deferred compensation program and /or
to increased life insurance (individual policies). This would add to the
protection he would receive under the replacement benefits package.
We feel that this is a solid package of benefits that will replace
a substantial portion of the coverage we now have under social security.
We recommend that you adopt it if you are in favor cf terminating social
security coverage. Each of these is listed in detail in Exhibit "A ".
-7-
RECOMMEN DAT IONS
In summary, the Social Security Committee recommends the following.
1. Each employee assess his own situation and determine whether he
is in favor of or opposed to terminating Social Security coverage as of
March 31, 1978.
2. If in favor of termination, vote to accept the recommended
replacement benefits package. This includes:
a. PERS 1959 Survivor Benefit
b. PERS Survivor Continuance
C. Long - terra Disability Insurance
d. Retirees Health Plan
e. Deferred Compensation Program
Under the Deferred Compensation Program, the City would contribute
a minimum $1.89 per employee per pay period. This is based on the assumption
that the City must contribute 3.0% of payroll to a survivor continuance
program. If the results of the valuation study (a study conducted by PERS
to determine the City's payroll contribution rate for the funding of
different benefits, which is based upon the profile of the City's work force
and the resultant experience rating) show a lesser contribution rate, the
City will add the difference to its contribution for the deferred compensation
program.
If the City's contribution to deferred compensation program is less than
$5.00 per pay period per employee, the employee may either join the program
or take the City's contribution as an addition to salary. If the City's
contribution is greater than $5.00, the employee must join the program to
qualify for the City's contribution.
3. That each employee use a portion of his savings from social security
to supplement the Citv's contribiiti.on to A deferred compensation program i»
order to meet the necessary minimum of $10.00 per pay period.
4. That each employee use whatever portion of his savings that
remains, which he can afford, to supplement his contribution to deferred
compensation and /or to purchase increased life insurance.
n.
/!L
tames B. Hendrickson Bo Willis
V(J
Dick Hamilton
4,% -' Stan Carnegie
-9-
Barbara Sampson
r
(Jack Tomlinson
U/
t • 1\
Exhibit " A"
1
1. 1959 Survivor Benefit (death prior to retirement)
Description:
Paid to an eligible beneficiary, whether or not the member
is eligible for retirement at death. Supplements basic death
benefit or 1957 Survivor Benefit. Ranges from $180 to $430
per month.
Substantial replacement benefit. In example #1 cited in "A
Study of Social Security Benefits" (pg 22), 1959 Survivor Benefit
would replace 140% of Social Security benefit. For further detail,
see the handout, "Optional Public Agency Contract Provisions under
the PERS ".
Cost: Employee = $2.00 /month
Employer = additional 1.0% of payroll.
2. Suvivor Continuance (death after retirement)
Description:
One half of the member's unmodified allowance based on full. formula
service under PERS, and one- quarter of the unmodified allowance based
on modified formula service (the period during which the employee was
covered jointly by social security and PERS) is paid to: (a) a surviving
spouse; (b) dependent children (if no spouse); or (c) dependent. parents.
In addition, the member may choose one of four retirement options at the
time of retirement to increase the allowance for his beneficiary.
This is succinctly outlined in the booklet, "PERS Benefits for Local
Miscellaneous Members ".
Cost: Employee = None
Eaployer = Additional 2.0 - 3.0% of payroll.
%.
3. Long Term Disability Insurance
Description:
Payment of a monthly stip
a 30 -day elimination period.
shall be 66 2/3% of the first
salary. Benefits are payable
is longer).
end to a disabled employee after
The amount of monthly income
$1500 of the employee's monthly
until age 65 (or 12 months, if this
Total disability is defined as the complete inability of the
employee to engage in any employment or occupation which he is
reasonably fitted to perform. However, if the employee is unable
to perform his regular occupation, he is eligible for benefits
for up to a continuous period of 24 months. Benefits end upon
death; except that the.monthly income will be paid to the employee's
spouse or children for a maximum 3 months after death.
Cost: Employee = None
Employer = $1.27 per $100 of salary per month to a maximum
salary of $1500 per month.
4. Retirees' Health Plan
Description:
The City would contract for a retirees' health plan continuance
with Blue Corss and Kaiser. Thus, on retirement, the employee would
be eligible to continue his coverage under the City's group plan.
The City would contribute an amount equal to an agency's
contribution to the Meyer- Geddes health Plan (currently $1.6.00'per
month) for an employee who qualifies for full retirement benefits
under PERS (currently age 60) until the time he qualifies and is
eligible for medicare benefits (currently age 65) or until he dies.
A disabled worker qualifies as a retired member. In addition, the
City would incorporate any retired worker between acre 50 and 60 into the
retirees health plan, as long as he is not eligible for another
group plan at a subsequent place of employment. But the City would
not pay any of this employee's monthly health premium.
Example:
(1) Joe Jones is covered by Blue Cross and retires when he
reaches age 60. Joe would continue to be covered under the City's
group plan. The City contributes $16.00 a month toward Joe's premium
until Joe signs up for medicare at ar_:e 65.
(2) Mary Brown is covered by Blue Cross and retires when she
reaches age 60. Mary would continue to be covered under the City's
group plan. The City contributes $16.00 per month toward M1ary's
premium. However, Mary does not qualify for medicare at age 65, and
does not wish to buy it on her own. So, Mary would continue to be
covered under the City's group plan unitl she dies.
(3) John Brown is covered by Kaiser and retires when he
reaches age 50. John goes into business for himself, and is not
eligible for group health insurance. So, John would continue to
be covered under the City's group plan until age 60 or until he becomes
eligible for another group health plan. However, John would pay his
full premium.
Cost: Employee = None
Employer = $16.00 per month per retired employee over the
age of 60.
5. Deferred Compensation Program
Description:
Deferred Compensation is a method which allows an employee
to take income out of his peak earning years and set it aside
to provide additional retirement income. You pay no federal income
taxes on the deferred income until the value of the deferred earnings
is returned to you either at retirement or when you withdraw from the
Plan.
When you request the City to defer a portion of your compensation,
you also request it to invest the income in one or more approved
investment vehicles. Typically these include a savings account at
a savings and loan association, life insurance, fixed or variable
annuity, and /or mutual funds. The City establishes the investment
options; but each individual.may select the ones he wishes to invest
in. An employee must contribute a minimum $10.00 per pay period
to enroll in the program.
You are eligible to receive your money if you terminate employment,
retire, become disabled or die. You are paid back in several possible
ways. For example, if you terminate employment, the value of
your account (less any income taxes required to be withheld) may be
distributed as follows:
a. consecutive payments for not more than 7 years,
b. consecutive payments for the rest of your life,
C. a single lump -sum
d. in payments as specified above and postponed to commence
upon reaching your 50th, 55th, 60th, or 65th birthday.
If you retire, you may receive your money as follows:
a. consecutive payments not more than 10 years,
b. consecutive.payments for the rest of your life,
c. a single lump sum payment.
For further detail, please refer to the sample plan outlined in the
booklet, "City of San Jose Deferred Compensation Plan ".
Cost: Employee = maximum $9.11 per pay period (to meet the $10.00
minimum) plus flat 50C administrative charge (payable
to the plan broker).
Employer = minimum $1.89 per pay period per employee.
Deferred Compensation, continued
The minimum contribution of $1.89 by the City is based upon the
dollars that remain to be distributed after the other four replacement
benefits have been paid for. The cost of the survivor continuance
option is estimated to be 2.0% to 3.0% of payroll. The actual rate
depends on the results of a valuation study, which would not be
undertaken unless the employees vote to drop social security and unless
the package of replacement benefits is accepted.
If this occurs, and the valuation study establishes the survivor
continuance cost at 3.0% of payroll, $1.89 per pay period (24 pay periods
in the year) per employee remains to be distributed to a deferred compensation
program. Thus, the employee would have to contribute $8.11 per pay period
to meet the $10.00 minimum.
At the other end of the scale, if the valuation study establishes the
survivor continuance cost at 2.0% of payroll, $8.89 per pay period per
employee will be available for a City contribution to a deferred compensation
program. Then, the employee would only need to contribute $1.11 per pay
period to meet the $10.00 minimum.
As long as the valuation study sets the City's cost for survivor
continuance at about 2.56% to 3.0%, the City's contribution to the deferred
compensation program would be less than $5.00 per pay period. In this
event, the employee would be given the option of joining the deferred
compensation program or taking the City's contribution as an addition to
his salary.
If the valuation study sets the City's cost for survivor continuance
at 2.0% up to about 2.55 %, the City's contribution to a deferred compensation
program would be greater than $5.00 per pay period. In this instance, the
employee would have to participate in the deferred compensation program in
order to qualify for the City's contribution . In no event would he be
required to invest more than $5.00 per pay period to meet the minimum invest-
ment of $10.00 per pay period.
In summary, if the City's contribution to a deferred compensation
program is less than $5.00 per pay period, the employee may either join . the
the program or take the City's contribution as an addition to his salary.
If the City's contribution is greater than $5.00, the employee would have to
participate in the program to qualify for the City's portion.
This is illustrated below:
Deferred Compensation
Cost of Survivor.
(24
pay periods)
Addition To
Continuance
Employer
Cost
Employee Cost
Salary
_
(26 pay periods)
Base 3.0%
$1.89
$8.11
$1.74
2.8
3.29
6.71
3.04
- - - - -- Z,56--------------------
----------------------------
5.00
--------------
5. 00---------------
62
2.5
5.39
4.61
- - - -4- -- - - - - --
N/A
2.3
6.79
3.21
N/A
Ceiling 2.0
8.89
1.11
N/A
• dd. �
(OTNIFE o2 ORKMOANOD)OA
13777 FIIUI'I'VALE AVENUE • SARATOGA• CALIFORNIA 95070
(,108)867-3,138
R E V I S E D
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
I hereby certify the following results of the Social Security Election,
held on February 22nd and 23rd, 1978,with absentee ballots received thru 2/28/78.
There were 54 employees eligible to vote on this issue,
with 50 employees actually voting. The results were as follows:
1.. I am in favor of terminating Social Security
coverage, effective March 31, 1978.
Yes 38
No 11
This result represents a 77% approval to terminate Social
Security coverage, effective March 31, 1978.
2, I am in favor of the package of replacement
benefits recommended by the Social Security
Committee.
Yes 36
No 10
The replacement package was approved by a 78% majority vote.
I hereby certify the above is a
true and correct statement of the
votes cast at an election conducted
by the City Clerk of the City of
Saratoga on February 22 & 23, 1978.
CITY OF SARATOGA
AGENDA~ BILL NO.
DATE: March 5, 1982
DEPARTM NT' Administrative Services
SUBJECT' :
Unexpended Village Library Funds
-------------------------------- - - - - --
Issue Summary
Initial:
Dept. Hd.
C. Atty.
C. Mgr.
After the closure of the Village Library on December 4, 1981, services at that site were
consolidated with the Community Library. The balance of funds available for 1981 -82 from
the Village Library closure was $35,171. $8,297 was allocated for Thursday night service.
$20,965 was designated for increased staffing at the Community Library leaving a balance
of $5,909.
The memorandum attached is from the Library outlining their approved plan for the expenditure
of the remaining funds.
Recommendation
Review memorandum
Fiscal Impacts
None
Exhibits /Attachments
Memorandum from Lois Thomas, Head Librarian at the Community Library, dated 2/18/82.
Council Action
3/17: Noted report.
memorandum
TO FROM
Saratoga. City Council Members Lois Thomas
S3 SUBJECT DATE
S_QnA Village Library Money 2/18/82
The Saratoga Library Commission and County Library Administration approved the
following plan for the expenditure of the $5,909 remaining from unexpended Village
funds not allocated to additional staffing at Saratoga Community Library:
CASSETTES: ?2000 - $2500
Language Instruction: French, Spanish, Vietnamese, Korean, etc.
Other Instructional: Yoga, typing (various speeds of dictation), shorthand
(various speeds of dictation), dance, karate, relaxation,
meditation, exercise, etc.
Ethnic: Music, songs, dances
Readings: Poetry, Biblical
REFERENCE BOOKS: $61360.
These titles were selected in response to a strong need for information
more up -to -date end /or in greater depth than the library is at present
able to supply:
Decisions of the Supreme Court, annual, 1963 -64 thru 1980 -81 @$25 /vol.
(We have 1978 -79 only.)
New York Times Film Reviews 1913 -1974, 8 vols. inc. index. $507
(These answer most questions about movies, including what book the
film was based•on. Indexes allow approach by names of the actors,
titles, screen writers, authors, etc.)
New Catholic Encyclopedia, 17 vols. $450
NEW BOOKS, FICTION AND NON- FICTION: 32050 42550
REORDER CODE N0. 963077
Q26 -A REV 2175
CITY OF SARATOGA
2 � Initial:
AGENDA BILL NO. .7 Dept. Hd.
DATE: March 10, 1982 C. At
DEPARTMaVT: Planning & Policy Analysis C. Mgr.
SUBJECT: Revision of ABAG Housing Need Determinations
Issue Sunmary
1. State law requires ABAG to determine housing needs of localities
which must be addressed in their Housing Elements.
2. ABAG's initial determination that Saratoga's 1980 -85 need was
reduced from 469 to 285.
3. City Council must accept or reflect the revision by March 31,
1982 for ABAG review.
Recommendation
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the Resolution accepting the
revised housing need determinations.
Fiscal Impacts
None anticipated since State law (Section 65589(a)(1)) does not require
cities to "expand local revenues for the construction of housing, housing,
subsidies or land acquisition.
Exhibits /Attachments
Exhibit A - Staff report dated 3/9/82
Exhibit B - Re,solution ,approving revision of housing needs determinations.
Exhibit C - S.taff report dated,t2 /19/82
Exhibit D - Staff report dated 2%19/82
Council Action
3/17: Mallory /Watson moved to adopt Resolution 1068. Passed 5 -0.
919W 02 °
HOC
REPORT TO MAYOR
CITY COUNCIL
AND EX6161t fl
DATE: 3/9/82
COUNCIL MEETING: 3/17/82
SUBJECT: Revision of ABAG Housing Needs Determinations
SU1U -ARY
1. State law (Article
Councils of government
of local jurisdictions
Elements.
10.6 of the Government Code) requires
like ABAG to determine the housing needs
which must be addressed in their Housing
2. ABAG's Housing Need Report initially indicated that Saratoga
needs 469 additional units from 1980 -85 to bring housing supply
into equilibrium with housing demand. This number was reduced
to 285 after City staff provided more accurate and reliable
information.
3. The City Council must decide to accept or reject this revision
by March 31, 1982. ABAG then has 60 days to review the City's
proposed revisions and accept or reject them.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the resolution
requesting the revised housing need determinations.
BACKGROUND AND EXPLANATION
Article 10.6 of the Government Code requires cities to address
through their Housing Elements how they will meet their "appro-
priate share of the regional demand for housing." This share of
the housing demand is determined by ABAG for all Bay Area
cities. ABAG was constrained by law to use available data on
market demand, employment opportunities, availability of suitable
sites and public facilities, commuting patterns, type and tenure
of housing, and housing needs of farmworkers.
ABAG Housing Needs
Determinations
March 9, 1982
Page 2
Because of the requirement to use available data, ABAG used 1970
census data in some cases to predict housing availability in
1980 since 1980 census data was incomplete. ABAG also assumed
that land use policies that were in effect in 1975 -76 were also
in effect in 1980 which was a critical factor in projecting
household growth from 1980 -85. These two factors were the most
important in generating the housing need number.
ABAG developed five criteria for accepting local government
revisions to the housing need number. Three of these criteria
applied to Saratoga:
1. Revisions based on more current and reliable data.
2. Updated information on local development policy changes
that would affect household growth.
3. Revised replacement estimates accompanied by adequate
documentation based on available data.
1985 PROJECTED HOUSING NEED
Both the City and County recommended that ABAG use the 1975
special census to determine housing availability in 1980 which
ultimately inpacts the 1985 projected housing need. City staff
then indicated that land development policies significantly
changed in the Northwest Hillsides when Measure A was adopted
in April 1980.
MEASURE A
Measure A called for the adoption of a specific plan containing
standards for density and preservation of rural character as
outlined in the measure. This plan was adopted in June of 1981
and the City is currently completing ordinances which will
implement the plan. Two consecutive moratoria to allow adoption
of the Specific Plan and the implementing ordinances have
essentially prevented development in this area for nearly two
years which has slowed housing production which contributed to
the 1980 shortfall.
Measure A reduced the density allowed in the Northwestern Hillsides
from 40 to 45 percent. The majority of the City's vacant acreage
(850 of 1167 total vacant acres) is in this area so such a
density reduction would have a significant impact on the number
of households that could be contained in the City. Staff estimates
that under the City's current General Plan and Zoning Ordinance
about 1,000 more dwelling units could be built at the time of
buildout. Because of this density reduction, ABAG reduced
.Projected hous eho 1 d growth for 1985 by 40%.
It should be noted that Measure A reduced density in the
Northwestern Hillsides because of environmental and economic
ABAG Housing Needs
Determinations
March 9, 1982
Page 3
factors. The primary environmental factors were the geotechnical
hazards.associated with the steep slopes and potential landslides
in the area. Other environmental factors were the potential erosion
and drainage problems associated with higher density development
in the hillsides. The cost of maintaining such development and
the concomitant financial risks to the City were the primary
economic factors. The limited access provided by Pierce Road
(the primary access for this area) and the difficulties associated
with improving it were also cited as being adversely impacted
by higher densities.
OTHER REVISED HOUSING NEED DETERMINATIONS
The change in the projected number of units needed in 1985 also
changed the number of units distributed by income category and
changed the needed rental stock increase. Staff indicated to
ABAG that we had more accurate housing replacement data which
revised the housing replacement need. These revisions are as
follows:
1. 1985 Projected Need by Income Category
Using the original 1985 housing need determination, the
distribution of housing units by income category to
maintain the City's current distribution of household
incomes was as follows:
1985 Projected Above Moderate
Need Income
469
371
Moderate Low Very Low
Income Income Income
47 23 28
Using the new housing need determination number for 1985,
the distribution will be as follows:
1985 Projected
Need
4.381
Above Moderate
Moderate
Low
Very. Low
- _.Income_
Income
Income
Income
225 "
29
14
17
2. Needed Rental Stock Increase in 1985
ABAG estimated that 15% of Saratoga's housing stock was
made up of rental units in 1980. To maintain this rental
percentage in 1985 ABAG originally estimated that 70
of the 469 units should be rentals. However, the 1975
census indicated only 7.5% of the City's housing stock
were rental units and it is unlikely that the City's
rental stock would have increased 100% in five years. It
is likely the proportion of the City's rental stock has
remained the same for the past 5 years. Considering
this factor and the revised total housing need of 285
units the needed rental stock increase for 1985 should
be 21 units.
ABAG Housing Needs
Determinations
March 9, 1982
Page 4
3. 1985 Housinq Replacement Need
ABAG estimated that 54 units would have to be replaced
by 1985 based partially on HCD estimates. However, City
records for the past six years indicates that only 4
units per year on average have been domolished. Pro-
jecting that average out only 20 units would have to be
replaced by 1985.
IMPACTS OF REVISIONS
The revised housing need determinations listed above indicate
what the City can contribute to meeting both the regional and
State housing goals. There is sufficient land available in
Saratoga to provide for the revised housing need. The next step
in the process is to determine through the Housing Element what
efforts are required to attain the goal of meeting the City's
housing need. Section 65581(c) of the Government Code indicates
that the intent of the Legislature was to recognize that each
locality is best capable of determining what these efforts are
as long as they are compatible with the State housing goal and
regional housing needs.
OPTIONS
1. Approval of Revision
If the Council desires to approve the revisions men-
tioned in this report they should adopt the resolution
that follows this report. The Resolution and this report
will then be submitted to ABAG for their 60 day review
period.
2. Disapproval of Revision
If the Council decides to disapprove the revisions then
the City will have to indicate what revisions are
acceptable and on what data and methodology they are
based. The attached Resolution would have to be modified
to reflect this. However, if ABAG does not accept these
revisions, they could be called to testify against the
City in the event the City is sued on the basis of an
inadequate Housing Element. The courts would then
decide if the City's data and methodology were adequate.
Michael Flores,
Assistant Planner
MF /mgr
Attachment
�eGio�w! �ibi�J ;»z:�+r.M'r:b�a::�*Cc+y?Gr� �:tti:..•+�:F:.� i.:s•1 ci.:,,�F
RESOLUTION NO.
A RESOLUTION REVISING THE HOUSING NEEDS
DETERMINATIONS FOR THE CITY OF SARATOGA
WHEREAS, the Association of Bay Area Governments is the
council of governments (hereinafter "ABAG ") under the Joint Exercise
of Powers Act for the San Francisco Bay Area; and
WHEREAS, each council of governments is required by Section
65584 of the Government Code, as added by Chapter 1143, Statutes
of 1980 (hereinafter "Section 65584 "), to determine the existing
and projected housing needs for its region; and
WHEREAS, each council of governments is further required to
determine each city's and county's share of the regional housing
needs; and
WHEREAS, ABAG's staff has prepared and circulated, for public
review and comment, a draft Housing Needs Report meeting 4&tJz-_ the
requirements of Section 65584; and
WHEREAS, after a duly noticed public hearing held on December
17, 1981, the ABAG Executive Board considered the proposed Housing
Needs Report and comments thereon; and
WHEREAS, the ABAG Executive Board found such report includes
consideration of all factors listed in Section 65584 in proposing
the initial determination of regional housing needs; and
WHEREAS, the Housing Needs Report was approved by the ABAG
Executive Board for the purpose of beginning the official review
and revision of the determinations contained therein; and
WHEREAS, ABAG's staff have worked with the staff of the
City of Saratoga to ensure that the most complete and reliable
information has been used in the determination of housing needs
for this jurisdiction; and
WHEREAS, the City of Saratoga desires to revise its share
of the regional housing need based on available data and accepted
planning methodology in accordance with the requirements of Section
65584;
NOW THEREFORE BE IT
RESOLVED, that, pursuant to Section 65584, the City of Saratoga
revises its share of the regional housing need, as con-
tained in the December 1981 Housing Needs Report publish-
ed by ABAG; and be it further
RESOLVED, that this revision is made effective March 31, 1982;
and be it further
RESOLVED, that the revision, and the data and methodology used to
support such revision, is described in the attached report;
and be it further
RESOLVED, that the ABAG Executive Board is requested to act on
such revisions in accordance with the requirements of
Section 65584; and be it further
Af Qq
REPORT TO MAYOR AND
CITY COUNCIL
Exki6A C...
DATE: 2/19/82
COUNCIL MEETING: 2/23/82
SUBJECT: ABAG'S Housing Needs Report as it Pertains to Saratoga
---------------------------------------------------------------------- - - - - --
INTRODUCTION
On December 17, 1981 ABAG's Executive Board adopted the Housing
Needs Report, San Francisco Bay Area. This report became effec-
tive December 31st and describes the number of additional dwelling
units that needed to be constructed in 1980 to bring housing
production into equilibrium with housing demand for each City and
County in the region. It also projects housing needs forward to
1985 for all these jurisdictions.
This report was prepared as a requirement of state law due to the
passage of AB 2853 (Art. 10.6) which makes it necessary for local
governments to address their share of the region's housing needs
through their housing elements.
A 90 -day review period began December 31st to allow local
governments to review ABAG's data and revise the housing need
numbers based on existing local data and accepted planning
methodology if this data and methodology were more accurate or
reliable. These revised numbers are then submitted to ABAG for
a 60 day review. At the end of this review ABAG must accept the
revision or indicate why the revision is inconsistent with
regional housing need.
At the end of the 90 day review period (March 31st) the City
must adopt a resolution either accepting ABAG's numbers or revising
them. ABAG suggests that we wait until March 31st to take action
so that we will have maximum review time and allow ABAG's
Executive Board a maximum number ol- meetings to consider the revisions.
ABAG staff wants to work with City staff on any revisions to the
numbers since they are aware that some of their data may be outdated
or City land use policies may have changed. ABAG also wants to
complete the review in a timely fashion so that they can comply
with their May 30th deadline in dealing with the revisions.
F 1,
k.
REPORT' TO MAYOR AND
CITY COXJNCIL
DATE: 2/19/82
COUNCIL MEETING 2/23/82
SU6JE;T'_: ADAG 11 Ho:ds ing Needs Report as it' Pertains*to Saratoga
----------- ---------- --------------------------
INTRODUCTION
-Qn December,17, .19,81 ABAG IS Bxecutive-,Board adopted the Housing
Needs: Report, San Francisco Bay. Area. This re-port became effec-
tive December 31st and describes the'=mber of additional dwelling
units that nee4e(3 to be constructed in 1M to bring housing
production-into equilibrium with housing.demand for each City and
County fn the Region. It also proJectalhousing needs forward to
1985.f6r all thes-p jurisdictidnio.
This 'report wdo prepared'hs a requirement of-State law due to the
passage,.of AS 2853 (Art. 100,6)' which -makes it necessary for local
governmente to address their share of.the region's housing needs
'through their housing :elements..
A'90-day review" jpe.rio4 b,6gairi, Decerr6er 31:4t,to allow local
qovernMents to review ABA-GIs data and 'revise the Housing need
nuinbats based on existing -local data'and accepted planning
methodology if this data and,methodology,,wera.-more aacurate or
.reliable. Theqe revised; numbers. are Ithsxi 'submitted to ABAG for
60 day review. At the end" of, this - review' ABAG must accept the
revision or indicate why the'rdviaion is inconsistent with
regional. housing: need.
At the end of the 90�day review- period (Marah 31st) the City
must ,,Adop,t.a resolution either accepting ABAG's numbers or revising
them.- ABA► suggests that we wait until March 31st to take action
so that we will have maximum review time and allow ABAG's
Executive Board a maximum humberat meetings to consider the revisions.
A13AG staff wants to work with city staff on any revisions to t'Lie
numbers since they are aware that soi,.ie of their data may be outdated.
or, City land use policies iziay have changed. AW G also wants to
complete the review in a timely fashion so that they can comply
with their May 30th deaciline in dealin(- with the revisions.
ABAG'S Housing Needs Report
February 19, 1982
Page 2
SARATOGA HOUSING NEEDS
According to ABAG, Saratoga needed to have 74 additional dwelling
units in 1980 to bring housing supply into equilibrium with
housing demand (see Table B -8). ABAG also projects that 469
dwelling units will need to be constructed between 1980 and 1985
(see Table C -8). The 1980 -85 numbers are then broken down into
needed rental stock (Table D -8) and projected need by income.
(Table E -8). In addition to those numbers, ABAG also projects
that a minimum of 54 dwelling units will have to be replaced
due to demolition by 1985 (Table G -7).
ABAG indicates that the two most important types of data used
were:
1. Household growth trends from 1975 to 1980 and projected
growth from 1980 to 1985.
2. The number of housing units estimated to be available
for year round permanent occupancy.
Both of those types of data are responsible for the "available
vacancy rate" which is the major component in calculating the
housing need numbers. ABAG has indicated that these numbers `should be
focused on in our review.
REVISION CRITERIA
ABAG has established five criteria, three of which apply to
Saratoga, they will use in reviewing and accepting local govern-
ment revisions. The three criteria that apply are:
1. Revisions will be accepted when.a local government
provides more current and reliable data than used by
ABAG.
ABAG used 1980 census data that was available but was forced to
use 1970 census data to estimate the amount of available housing.
(Available housing is that portion of the housing stock available
for year round housing as opposed to second homes, etc.) The
proportion of year round housing in 1970 was used to determine the
proportion of year round housing available in 1980.
In 1975 the County prepared a special census which included
Saratoga. This data could significantly change Saratoga's 1980
housing need number. As an example, Saratoga's proportion of its
housing stock unavailable in 1975 (1.1%) was higher than in 1970
(.5%). This could have the effect of reducing the housing
need number for 1980.
2. ABAG will use updated information on local development
policy changes that would affect the household growth
increments for 1980 to 1985.
The availability of suitable sites and facilities is required to
ABAG'S Housing Needs Report
February 19, 1982
Page 3
be considered in the distribution of housing needs. ABAG used
local policies that were in effect in 1975 -76 and assumed in
Projections 79. Since that time the City has changed its land
development policy for the Northwestern Hillside area where the
bulk of the City's vacant land'is located (850 acres of 1167
vacant acres total). The new specific plan for that area effectively
reduces density from 40 -450 of what was previously allowed. This
could significantly reduce the number of households projected for
Saratoga from 1980 -85 and thus reduce the projected housing need
number. Also, a moratorium on development in the Northwestern
I3illsides has been in effect since April 1980 which could also
reduce the 1980 housing need number.
The annexation of the Sunland Park area must also be incorporated
by ABAG to revise the 1985 projections.
The status of the San Jose -Santa Clara sewage treatment plant,
which is used by the two sanitation districts that serve Saratoga,
may also impact the housing need numbers. If the sewage treatment
plant cannot expand quickly enough, housing production could be
slowed.
3. ABAG will acce
estimates are
on available
pt revised replacement estimates if such
accompanied by adequate documentation based
ata.
ABAG assumes that the rates of loss in the housing stock from
1980 to 1985 will be one -half the rates calculated by HCD (State).
Further, that as housing costs increase rehabilitation will gain
economic feasibility and fewer units will be lost. ABAG's estimate
that 54 units will be lost by 1985 works out to an annual loss of
10 -11 units per year. However, our demolition rate from 1976 to
1981 is about 4 units per year. If this rate continues, as is
likely, then about 20 units per year would need replacement.
4. Other criteri:a.. _
Criteria 4 and 5 established by ABA
county areas and farmworker housing
housing need numbers.
OTHER FACTORS
G deal with unincorporated
which do not impact Saratoga's
In ABAG's projection of needed rental stock increase, 1980
renter /owner breakdowns are used. However, the 15% renter portion
of the housing stock appears to be high when in 1975 only 7.4% of
the housing stock were rental units. It is unlikely that the
proportion of rental housing stock doubled in 5 years. Some
revision of the rental need number would appear to be appropriate.
ABAG used rental numbers from Franchise Tax Board and Department of
Finance Data at the County level to determine rental percentages
which were then uniformly applied to each City. ABAG assumed that
ABAG'S Housing Needs Report
February 19, 1982
Page 4
two - thirds of all 2 -4 unit structure types were rentals and all
5 or more unit structures were rentals. These assumptions do
not really describe Saratoga's situation.
I.t also appears that ABAG may have underestimated the median
income in Saratoga for 1980. ABAG estimated -the median household
income for Saratoga in 1980 to be $40,925. However, in 1981,
Santa Clara estimated Saratoga's median household income to be
$47,700. It is unlikely that median income would increase 16%
over one year so it is possible that the 1980 median income was
underestimated. This number is important because one of the
factors examined by ABAG is the growth of housing value vs. the
growth of household income. If housing costs increase faster
than income it could indicate slower housing production (which
affects housing cost) and thus is an indicator of a housing
shortfall.
CONCLUSION
The purpose of all the housing need numbers generated by ABAG
is to inform each community of its housing need which is a portion
of the regional housing problem. The intent of AB 2853 was to
make sure that local governments were aware of their responsibilities
in contributing to the state housing goal. This goal, in brief,
is the "... early attainment of decent housing and a suitable
living environment for every California family..." This goal
requires the cooperation of the public and private sectors to
accommodate the housing needs of all economic levels.
ABAG has estimated that a 4% regional vacancy rate in 1985 would
stabilize the housing market in the region. Also, housing
production was off with only 9 units produced for every 10 house-
holds by which the region grew. To rectify that problem ABAG
assumed that 11 units should be constructed for every 10 households
projected in regional growth estimates. These assumption form
part of the basis for the housing need numbers generated by ABAG.
These goals and assumptions were approved by ABAG's Executive
Board and reflect the goals of the region.
According to state law, ABAG had to account for six factors in
determining housing need. These factors were market demand for
housing, employment opportunities, availability of suitable sites
and public facilities, commuting patterns, type and tenure of
housing, and housing needs of farmworkers. These factors are
combined in the formulas used by ABAG which appear to be methodo-
logically sound.
However, the accuracy of the housing needs estimated by ABAG can
be questioned based on more accurate data. The information the
City has in some cases is more accurate than ABAG's. Of particular
significance is the 1975 Special Census and the change in land
development policy which reduced densities in the Northwestern
Hillsides. With this new information it can be anticipated that
ABAG'S Housing Needs Report
February 19, 1982
Page 5
ABAG will reduce the housing
of the reduction will not be
information. Staff will be
this new information and its
numbers.
MF /mgr
Attachments
need numbers but the exact amount
known until ABAG processes the new
meeting with ABAG staff to discuss
impact on Saratoga's housing need
r'
Mi6ha-el Fiore ,
Assistant Planner
TABLE III -7
1980 POPULATION AND HOUSING
SANTA CLARA COUNTY
City
Population in
Households
Households
Campbell
26,902
11,639
Cupertino
33,741
12,732
Gilroy
21,457
6,839
Los Altos
25,326
9,116
Los Altos Hills
7,381
2,369
Los Gatos
25,727
10,434
Milpitas
37,074
11,336
Monte Sereno
3,430
1,119
Morgan Hill
16,745
5,232
Mountain View
57,993
27,480
Palo Alto
53,787
23,041
San Jose
618,831
209,375
Santa Clara
84,820
34,037
2q, Lor.
Saratoga
28,793
9,295
Sunnyvale
105,790
42,932
Uninc.
119,874
41,543
Total
1,267,671
458,519
Total
Housing
Units
11,975
13,118 **
7,218
9,314
2,444
10,863
11,659
1,156
5,566
28,576
23,711 **
216,156 **
34,858
9,543
44,021
43,603
473,817
t
Estimated
Available
Housing*
* Estimated by ABAG based on 1970 Census available
stock proportions applied to 1980 Census information.
** Census figure adjusted based on boundary errors in
Census - reported figures.
III -41
11,939
13,065
7,182
9,286
2,410
10,776
11,647
1,143
5,438
28,462
23,592
215,291
34,788
9,495
43,889
42,862
471,265
TABLE B -8
EXISTING HOUSING NEED, 1980
SANTA CLARA COUNTY
City
1980
Need
Ex�isti�ng
as % of
ouH sing
19TUHousing
Need
Stock
AvaiTa 1 e
Campbell
97
0.81%
Cupertino
48
0.37
Gilroy
13
0.18
Los Altos
206
2.22
Los Altos Hills
9
0.37
f
Los Gatos
59
0.55
Milpitas
96
0.82
Monte Sereno
2
0.17
Morgan Hill
18
0.33
Mountain View
177
0.62
Palo Alto
285
1.21
San Jose
1,411
0.66
Santa Clara
331
0.95
Saratoga
74
0.78
Sunnyvale
539
1.23
Unincorporated
554
1.29
Total
3,919
0.83
25
TABLE C -8
PROJECTED HOUSING NEED, 1985
SANTA CLARE. COUNTY
City
1985 .
Total Available
1980 -85
Projected
Housing Needed
Projected
Households
in 1985
Increase in
Housing Needed
Campbell
12,274
12,745
806
Cupertino
14,068
14,446
1,381
Gilroy
8,528
8,953
1,771
Los Altos
9,486
9,841
555
Los Altos Hills
2,872
2,927
517
Los Gatos
11,351
11,745
969
Milpitas
13,848
14,298
2,651
Monte Sereno
1,208
1,247
104
Morgan Hill
6,278
6,528
1,090
Mountain View
28,789
29,919
1,457
Palo Alto
23,652
24,424
832
San Jose
243,329
251,067
35,776
Santa Clara
35,022
35,991
1,203
Saratoga
9,718
9,964
469
Sunnyvale
46,790
48,244
4,345
Uninc.
45,626
47,484
4,622
Total
512,839
529,813
58,548
36
TABLE D -8
NEEDED RENTAL STOCK INCREASE IN 1985
TO MAINTAIN ESTIMATED 1980 RENTAL PERCENTAGE
SANTA CLARA COUNTY
City
1980
1980
Needed
Rental Units
Percentage
Percentage
Increase in
in Available
Owner
Renter
Availab a
Stock Increase
Stock for
to Maintain
1985
1980 Rental
Percentage
Campbell
55.0
45.0
806
363
Cupertino
67.0
33.0
1,381
456
Gilroy
65.0
35.0
1,771
620
Los Altos
80.0
20.0
555
111
Los Altos Hills
86.0
14.0
517
72
Los Gatos
67.0
33.0
969
320
Milpitas
75.0
25.0
2,651
663
Monte Sereno
88.0
12.0
104
12
Morgan Hill
77.0
23.0
1,090
251
Mountain View
37.0
63.0
1,457
918
Palo Alto
59.0
41.0
832
341
San Jose
66.0
34.0
35,776
12,164
Santa Clara
51.0
49.0
1,203
589.
Saratoga
85.0
15.0
469
70
Sunnyvale
50.0
50.0
4,345
2,173
Unincorporated
76.0
24.0
4,622
2,539
Total
63.0
37.0
58,548
21,662
47
City 1985
Projected
Housing
Need
TABLE
E -8
Campbell.
806
Cupertino
1,381
Gilroy
1,771
Los Altos
555
Los Altos Hills
517
Los Gatos
969
Milpitas
2,651
Monte Sereno
104
Morgan Hill
1,090
Mountain View
1,45.7
Palo Alto
832
San Jose
35,776
Santa Clara
1,203
Saratoga
469
Sunnyvale
4,345
Uninc.
4,622
Total
58,548
31
15
677
136
TABLE
E -8
PROJECTED NEED, 1985,'
BY INCOME
CATEGORY
SANTA CLARA COUNTY
r -.
Above
Moderate
Low
Moderate
Income
Income
Income
411
193
105
912
221
124
673
531
301
444
50
33
450
31
15
677
136
78
1,114,
742
424
83
10
5
533
273
142
976
219
131
624
92
58
17,888
8,944
4,651
674
265
132
371
47
23
2,737
782
391
2,728
924
462
31,295
13,460
7,075
58
Very
Low
Income
97
124
266
28
21
78
371
6
142
131
58
4,293
132
28
435
508
6,718
TABLE G -7
REPLACEMENT NEED 1985
SANTA CLARA COUNTY
City
Modified
Reduced
Housing Value
State
ublic
Adjusted
Method
Removals*
Replacement
stimate
Campbell
237
119
68
Cupertino
259
130
74
Gilroy
142
72
41
Los Altos
184
92
52
Los Altos Hills
48
24
14
Los Gatos
214
107
61
Milpitas
231
116
66
Monte Sereno
23
11
6
Morgan Hill
108
54
31
Mountain View
565
283
161
Palo Alto
468
235
134
San Jose
4,272
2,144
1,221
* Assumes
rate of
** Assumes
rate of
a d j u s t e
between
removals will occur
0.4% assumed in the
removals will occur
0.4% assumed in the
d for housing value
1980 and 1985.
72
at one half the annual
Statewide Housing Plan.
at one half the annual
Statewide Housing Plan,
increases expected
TABLE G-7 (continued)
REPLACEMENT NEED 1985
SANTA CLARA COUNTY
City
Modified
Reduced
Housing Value
ate
T'ubllc
Adjusted
R—e—thod
Removals*
Replacement
estimate **
Santa Clara
690
346
197
Saratoga
188
95
54
Sunnyvale
871
437
249
Unincorporated
850
429
245
Total
9,350
4,694
2,674
Assumes
rate of
Assumes
rate of
a d j u s t e
between
removals will occur
0.4% assumed in the
removals will occur
0.4% assumed in the
d for housing value
1980 and 1985.
at one half the annual
Statewide Housing Plan.
at one half the annual
Statewide Housing Plan,
increases expected
73
6,
0-FL 14-AVI,"
73
G& 6� 0
APPENDIX 1. TEXT OF AB 2853
(CHAPTER 1143, STATUTES OF 1980)
Assembly Bill No. 2853
CHAPTER 1143
An act to amend Section 65302 of, and to add Article 10.6 (com-
mencing with Section 65580) to Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Title 7 of
the Government Code relating to local planning.
(Approved by Governor September 26, 1980. Filed with
Secretary of State September 26, 1980.1
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL'S DIGEST
AB 2853, Roos. Local planning: mobdehome parks and housing
elements.
(1) Existing law authorizes the legislative body of a county or city
to regulate by zoning ordinance the various uses to which property
within the jurisdiction may be put, and requires the legislative body
to establish a planning agency to, among other things, develop and
maintain a general plan.
This bill would require the Department of Housing and
Community Development, within 30 days after the effective date of
this bill, to prepare and send to each county and city a questionnaire
requesting prescribed information concerning the zoning
regulations applicable to mobilehome parks, and would require the
department to evaluate and report to the Legislature on the
information received on or before July 1, 1981.
(2) Existing law requires the adoption by every county and city
of a local general plan, including a housing element. Under present
law, the housing element is required to make adequate provision for
the housing needs of all economic segments of the community.
Under present law, there are no specific time limitations for periodic
revision of the housing element, and the Office of Planning and
Research may grant limited time extensions for completion of the
element.
This bill would enact substantially more detailed requirements for
the housing element and, among other things, would require
counties and cities to plan in the housing element for meeting their
"appropriate share of the regional demand for housing," as
determined pursuant to a specified procedure involving the c6uncil
of governments for the region, the state's Department of Housing
and Community Development, or the department alone in areas not
having such a council. The bill would require each county and city
to conform its housing element to the bill on or before October 1,
1981. The bill would require every city and county to revise its
housing element, as specified at least every 5 years, except that the
first revision would be due by July 1, 1984.
(3) Under existing law, Sections 2231 and 2234 of the Revenue and
Taxation Code require the state to reimburse local agencies and
91 40
I -1
) V
Ch. 1143 —2—
school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Other
provisions require the Department of Finance to review statutes
disclaiming these costs and provide, in certain cases, for making
claims to the State Board of Control for reimbursement. The
statutory provisions requiring reimbursement will be supplemented
by a constitutional requirement of reimbursement effective for
statutes enacted on or after July 1, 1980.
This bill provides that no appropriation is made by this act
pursuant to the constitutional mandate or Section 2231 or 2234, but
recognizes that local agencies and school districts may pursue their
other available remedies to seek reimbursement for these costs.
The people of the State of California do enact as follows:
SECTION 1. The Department of Housing and Community
Development shall within 30 days after the effective date of this
section prepare and send to each county and city a questionnaire
requesting the following information:
(1) The number of mobilehome parks within the jurisdiction, and
the authorized number of mobilehome sites in each park.
(2) The number of requests or permit applications for change of
use of the mobilehome park.
(3) The number of applications for the establishment of new
mobilehome parks.
(4) The disposition of requests or permit applications for change
of use of mobilehome parks or applications for the establishment of
new mobilehome parks and the reasons for denial of such requests
or applications.
(5) The availability of land within the jurisdiction that may be
appropriate for establishment of mobilehome parks.
(6) Local established practices, policies, and ordinances
concerning change of use of mobilehome parks.
(7) Local efforts and policies for reducing the incidence of change
of use of mobilehome parks within the jurisdiction.
The information specified in paragraphs (1) to (4), inclusive, shall
cover the period from January 1, 1979, through December 31, 1979.
The information specified in paragraphs (5) to (7), inclusive, shall
reflect current conditions and circumstances as of the time of the
completion of the questionnaire.
The department shall prepare and submit a written report to the
Legislature on or before July 1, 1981, containing an evaluation of the
information received in response to the questionnaire.
This section shall apply to charter cities and counties as well as
general law cities and counties.
SEC. 2. Section 65302 of the Government Code is amended to
read:
65302. The general plan shall consist of a statement of
development policies and shall include a diagrKm or diagrams and
I -2
-3— Ch. 1143
text setting forth objectives, principles, standards, and plan
proposals. The plan shall include the following elements:
(a) A land use element which designates the proposed general
distribution and general location and extent of the uses of the land
for housing, business, industry, open space, including agriculture,
natural resources, recreation, and enjoyment of scenic beauty,
education, public buildings and grounds, solid and liquid waste
disposal facilities, and other categories of public and private uses of
land. The land use element shall include a statement of the standards
of population density and building intensity recommended for the
various districts and other territory covered by the plan. The land use
element shall also identify areas covered by the plan which are
subject to flooding and shall be reviewed annually with respect to
such areas.
(b) A circulation element consisting of the general location and
extent of existing and proposed major thoroughfares, transportation
routes, terminals, and other local public utilities and facilities, all
correlated with the land use element of the plan.
(c) A housing element as provided in Article 10.6 (commencing
with Section 65580).
(d) A conservation element for the conservation, development,
and utilization of natural resources including water and its hydraulic
force, forests, soils, rivers and other waters, harbors, fisheries,
wildlife, minerals, and other natural resources. That portion of the
conservation element including waters shall be developed in
coordination with any countywide water agency and with all district
and city agencies which have developed, served, controlled or
conserved water for any purpose for the county or city for which the
plan is prepared. The conservation element may also cover:
(1) The reclamation of land and waters.
(2) Flood control.
(3) Prevention and control of the pollution of streams and other
waters.
(4) Regulation of the use of land in stream channels and other
areas required for the accomplishment of the conservation plan.
(5) Prevention, control, and correction of the erosion of soils,
beaches, and shores.
(6) Protection of watersheds.
(7) The location, quantity and quality of the rock, sand and gravel
resources.
The conservation element shall be prepared and adopted no later
than December 31, 1973.
(e) An open -space element as provided in Article 10.5
(commencing with Section 65560) of this chapter.
(f) A. seismic safety clement consisting of an identification and
appraisal of seismic hazards such as susceptibility to surface ruptures
from faulting, to ground shaking, to ground failures, or to effects of
seismically induced waves such as tsunamis and seiches.
I -3
tij,
Ch. 1143 —4—
The seismic safety element shall also include an appraisal of
mudslides, landslides, and slope stability as necessary geologic
hazards that must be considered simultaneously with other hazards
such as possible surface ruptures from faulting, ground shaking,
ground failure and seismically induced waves.
To the extent that a county's seismic safety element is sufficiently
detailed containing appropriate policies and programs for adoption
by a city, a city may adopt that portion of the county's seismic safety
element that pertains to the city planning area within the county's
jurisdiction, in satisfaction of this subdivision.
In adopting a county seismic safety element, a city shall follow all
requirements regarding the content and adoption of general plan
elements as set forth in this article and Article 6 (commencing with
Section 65350) of this chapter.
Each county and city shall submit to the Division of Mines and
Geology of the Department of Conservation one copy of the seismic
safety element and any technical studies used for developing the
seismic safety element.
(g) A noise element, which shall recognize guidelines adopted by
the Office of Noise Control pursuant to Section 46050.1 of the Health
and Safety Code, and which quantifies the community noise
environment in terms of noise exposure contours for both near- and
long -term levels of growth and traffic activity. Such noise exposure
information shall become a guideline for use in development of the
land use element to achieve noise compatible land use and also to
provide baseline levels and noise source identification for local noise
ordinance enforcement.
The sources of environmental noise considered in this analysis shall
include, but are not limited to, the following:
(1) Highways and freeways.
(2) Primary arterials and major local streets.
(3) Passenger and freight on -line railroad operations and ground
rapid transit systems.
(4) Commercial, general aviation, heliport, helistop, and military
airport operations, aircraft overflights, jet engine test stands, and all
other ground facilities and maintenance functions related to airport
operation.
(5) Local industrial plants, including, but not limited to, railroad
classification yards.
(6) Other ground stationary noise sources identified by local
agencies as contributing to the community noise environment.
The noise exposure information shall be presented in terms of
noise contours expressed in community noise equivalent level
(CNEI,) or day -night average level (L&). CNEL means the average
equivalent A- weighted sound level during a 24 -hour day, obtained
after addition of five decibels to sound levels in the evening from 7
p.m. to 10 p.m. and after addition of 10 decibels to sound levels in the
night before 7 a.m. and after 10 p.m. Ld„ means the average
I -4
W
5— Ch. 1143
equivalent A- weighted sound level during a 24 -hour day, obtained
after addition of 10 decibels to sound levels in the night before 7 a.m.
and after 10 p.m.
The contours shall be shown in minimum increments of 5db and
shall continue down to 60db. For areas deemed noise sensitive,
including, but not limited to, areas containing schools, hospitals, rest
homes, long -term medical or mental care facilities, or any other
land -use areas deemed noise sensitive by the local jurisdiction, the
noise exposure shall be determined by monitoring.
A part of the noise element shall also include the preparation of a
community noise exposure inventory, current and projected, which
identifies the number of persons exposed to various levels of noise
throughout the community.
The noise element shall also recommend mitigating measures and
possible solutions to existing and foreseeable noise problems.
The state, local, or private agency responsible for the construction,
maintenance, or operation of those transportation, industrial, or
other commercial facilities specified in paragraph 2 of this
subdivision shall provide to the local agency producing the general
plan, specific data relating to current and projected levels of activity
and a detailed methodology for the development of noise contours
given this supplied data, or they shall provide noise contours as
specified in the foregoing statements.
It shall be the responsibility of the local agency preparing the
general plan to specify the manner in which the noise element will
be integrated into the city or county's zoning plan and tied to the
land use and circulation elements and to the local noise ordinance.
The noise element, once adopted, shall also become the guideline for
determining compliance with the state's noise insulation standards,
as contained in Section 1092 of Title 25 of the California
Administrative Code.
(h) A scenic highway element for the development,
establishment, and protection of scenic highways pursuant to the
provisions of Article 2.5 (commencing with Section 260) of Chapter
2 of Division 1 of the Streets and Highways Code.
(i) A safety element for the protection of the community from
fires and geologic hazards including features necessary for such
protection as evacuation routes, peak load water supply
requirements, minimum road widths, clearances around structures,
and geologic hazard mapping in areas of known geologic hazards.
The requirements of this section shall apply to charter cities.
SEC. 3. Article 10.6 (commencing with Section 65580) is added
to Chapter 3 of Division 1 of Title 7 of the Government Code, to read:
Article 10.6. Housing Elements
65580. The Legislature finds and declares as follows:
(a) The availability of housing is of vital statewide importance,
I -5
Ch. 1143 —6—
and the early attainment of decent housing and a suitable living
environment for every California family is a priority of the highest
order.
(b) The early attainment of this goal requires the cooperative
participation of government and the private sector in an effort to
expand housing opportunities and accommodate the housing needs
of Californians of all economic levels.
(c) The provision of housing affordable to low- and
moderate- income households requires the cooperation of all levels of
government.
(d) Local and state governments have a responsibility to use the
powers vested in them to facilitate the improvement and
development of housing to make adequate provision for the housing
needs of all economic segments of the community.
(e) The Legislature recognizes that in carrying out this
responsibility, each local government also has the responsibility to
consider economic, environmental, and fiscal factors and community
goals set forth in the general plan and to cooperate with other local
governments and the state in addressing regional housing needs.
65581. It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this article:
(a) To assure that counties and cities recognize their
responsibilities in contributing to the attainment of the state housing
goal.
(b) To assure that counties and cities will prepare and implement
housing elements which, along with federal and state programs, will
move toward attainment of the state housing goal.
(c) To recognize that each locality is best capable of determining
what efforts are required by it to contribute to the attainment of the
state housing goal, provided such a determination is compatible with
the state housing goal and regional housing needs.
(d) To ensure that each local government cooperates with other
local governments in order to address regional housing needs.
65582. As used in this article:
(a) "Community," "locality," "local government," or
"jurisdiction" means a city, city and county, or county.
(b) "Department" means the Department of Housing and
Community Development.
(c) "Housing element" or "element" means the housing element
of the community's general plan, as required pursuant to this article
and subdivision (c) of Section 65302.
6558.3. The housing element shall consist of an identification and
analysis of existing and projected housing needs and a statement of
goals, policies, quantified objectives, and scheduled programs for the
preservation, improvement, and development of housing. The
housing element shall identify adequate sites for housing, including
rental housing, factory -built housing, and mobilehomes, and shall
make adequate provision for the existing and projected needs of all
economic segments of the community. The element shall contain all
1 -6
is
-7— Ch. 1143
of the following:
(a) An assessment of housing needs and an inventory of resources
and constraints relevant to the meeting of these needs. The
assessment and inventory shall include the following:
(1) Analysis of population . and employment trends and
documentation of projections and a quantification of the locality's
existing and projected housing needs for all income levels. Such
existing and projected needs shall include the locality's share of the
regional housing need in accordance with Section 65384.
(2) Analysis and documentation of household characteristics,
including level of payment compared to ability to pay, housing
characteristics, including overcrowding, and housing stock
condition.
(3) An inventory of land suitable for residential development,
including vacant sites and sites having potential for redevelopment,
and an analysis of the relationship of zoning and public facilities and
services to these sites.
(4) Analysis of potential and actual governmental constraints
upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for
all income levels, including land use controls, building codes and
their enforcement, site improvements, fees and other exactions
required of developers, and local processing and permit procedures.
(5) Analysis of potential and actual nongovernmental constraints
upon the maintenance, improvement, or development of housing for
all income levels, including the availability of financing, the price of
land, and the cost of construction.
(6) Analysis of any special housing needs, such as those of the
handicapped, elderly, large families, farmworkers, and families with
female heads of households.
(7) Analysis of opportunities for energy conservation with respect
to residential development.
(b) A statement of the community's goals, quantified objectives,
and policies relative to the maintenance, improvement, and
development of housing.
It is recognized that the total housing needs identified pursuant to
subdivision (a) may exceed available resources and the community's
ability to satisfy this need within the content of the general plan
requirements outlined in Article 5 (commencing with Section
65300). Under these circumstances, the quantified objectives need
not be identical to the identified existing housing needs, but should
establish the maximum, number of housing units that can be
constructed; rehabilitated, and conserved over a five -year time
frame.
(c) A program which sets forth a five -year schedule of actions the
local government is undertaking or intends to undertake to
implement the policies and achieve the goals and objectives of the
housing element through the administration of land use and
development controls, provision of regulatory concessions and
i -7
Ch. 1143 —8—
incentives, and the utilitzation of appropriate federal and state
Financing and subsidy programs when available. In order to make
adequate provision for the housing needs of all economic segments
of the community, the program shall do all of the following:
(1) Identify adequate sites which will be made available through
appropriate zoning and development standards and with public
services and facilities needed to facilitate and encourage the
development of a variety of types of housing for all income levels,
including rental housing, factory -built housing and mobilehomes, in
order to meet the community's housing goals as identified in
subdivision (b).
(2) Assist in the development of adequate housing to meet the
needs of low- and moderate - income households.
(3) Address and, where appropriate and legally possible, remove
governmental constraints to the maintenance, improvement, and
development of housing.
(4) Conserve and improve the condition of the existing affordable
housing stock.
(5) Promote housing opportunities for all persons regardless of
race, religion, sex, marital status, ancestry, national origin, or color.
The program shall include an identification of the agencies and
officials responsible for the implementation of the various actions
and the means by which consistency will be achieved with other
general plan elements and community goals. The local government
shall make a diligent effort to achieve public participation of all
economic segments of the community in the development of the
housing element, and the program shall describe this effort.
65584. (a) For purposes of subdivision (a) of Section 65583, a
locality's share of the regional housing needs includes that share of
the housing need of persons at all income levels within the area
significantly affected by a jurisdiction's general plan. The
distribution of regional housing needs shall, based upon available
data, take into consideration market demand for housing,
employment opportunities, the availability of suitable sites and
public facilities, commuting patterns, type and tenure of housing
need, and the housing needs of farmworkers. The distribution shall
seek to avoid further impaction of localities with relatively high
proportions of lower income households. Based upon data provided
by the Department of Housing and Community Development
relative to the statewide need for housing, each council of
governments shall determine the existing and projected housing
need for its region. The Department of Housing and Community
Development shall ensure that this determination is consistent with
the statewide housing need and may revise the determination of the
council of governments if necessary to obtain this consistency. Each
locality's share shall be determined by the appropriate council of
governments consistent with the criteria above with the advice of
the department subject to the procedure established pursuant to
1 -3
-9— Ch. 1143
subdivision (c).
(b) For areas with no council of governments, the Department of
f lousing and Coiniaunity Development shall determine housing
market areas and define the regional housing deed for localities
within these areas. Where the department determines that a local
government possesses the capability and resources and has agreed to
accept the responsibility, with respect to its jurisdiction, for the
identification and determination of housing market areas and
regional housing needs, the department shall delegate this
responsibility to the local governments within these areas.
(c) Within 90 days following a determination of a council of
governments pursuant to subdivision (a), or the department's
determination pursuant to subdivision (b), a local government may
revise the definition of its share of the regional housing need. The
revised 'share shall be based upon available data and accepted
planning methodology, and supported by adequate documentation.
Within. 60 days of the local government's revision, the council of
governments or the department, as the case may be, shall accept the
revision or shall indicate, based upon available data and accepted
planning methodology, why the revision is inconsistent with the
regional housing need. The housing element shall contain an analysis
of the factors and circumstances, with all supporting data, justifying
the revision. All materials and data used to justify any revision shall
be made available upon request by any interested party within 45
days upon payment of reasonable costs of reproduction unless such
costs are waived due to economic hardship.
(d) Any authority to review and revise a local government's share
of the regional housing need granted under this section shall not
constitute authority to revise, approve, or disapprove the manner in
which the local government's share of the regional housing need is
implemented through its housing program.
65585. (a) Each city, county, and city and county shall consider
the guidelines adopted by the Department of Housing and
Community Development pursuant to Section 50459 of the Health
and Safety Code in preparation and amendment of the housing
element pursuant to this article. Such guidejines shall be advisory to
each local government in order to assist it in the preparation of its
housing element.
(b) At least 90 days prior to adoption of the housing element
pursuant to this article and Section 65357, or at least 45 days prior to
the adoption of an amendment to this element, the planning agency
of a city, county, or city and county shall submit a draft of the element
or amendment to the Department of Housing and Community
Development. The department shall review drafts submitted to it
and report its findings to the planning agency within 90 days of
receipt of the draft in the case of adoption of the housing element
pursuant to this article, or within 45 days of receipt of the draft in the
case of an amendment. The legislative body shall consider the
I -9
Ch. 1143 _10—
department's findings prior to final adoption of the housing element
or amendment.
(c) Each local government shall provide the department with a
copy of its adopted housing element or amendments. The
department may review adopted housing elements or amendments
and report its findings.
(d) Except as provided in Section 65586, any and all findings made
by the Department of Housing and Community Development
pursuant to subdivisions (b) and (c) shall be advisory to the local
government.
65586. Local governments shall conform their housing elements
to the provisions of this article on or before October 1, 1981.
Jurisdictions with housing elements adopted before October 1, 1981,
in conformity with the housing element guidelines adopted by. the
Department of Housing and Community Development on
December 7, 1977, and located in Subchapter 3 (commencing with
Section 6300) of Chapter 6 of Part 1 of Title 25 of the California
Administrative Code, shall be deemed in compliance with this article
as of its effective date. A locality with a housing element found to be
adequate by the department before October 1, 1981, shall be deemed
in conformity with these guidelines.
65587. (a) Each city, county, or city and county shall bring its
housing element, as required by subdivision (c) of Section 65302, into
conformity with the requirements of this article on or before
October 1, 1981. No extension of time for such purpose may be
granted pursuant to Section 65.302.6, notwithstanding its provisions to
the contrary.
(b) Any action brought by any interested party to review the
conformity with the provisions of this article of any housing element
or portion thereof or revision thereto shall be brought pursuant to
Section 1085 of the Code of Civil Procedure; the court's review of
compliance with the provisions of this article shall extend to whether
the housing element or portion thereof or revision thereto
reasonably complies with the requirements of this article.
65588. (a) Each local government shall review its housing
element as frequently as appropriate to evaluate all of the following:
(1) The appropriateness of the housing goals, objectives, and
policies in contributing to the attainment of the state housing goal.
(2) The effectiveness of the housing element in attainment of the
community's housing goals and objectives.
(3) The progress of the city, county, or city and county in
implementation of the housing element.
(b) The housing element shall be revised as appropriate, but not
less than every five years, to reflect the results of this periodic review,
except that the first such revision shall be accomplished by July 1,
1984.
65589. (a) Nothing in this article shall require a city, county, or
city and county to do any of the following:
I -10
rIM
V II
— I 1 — Ch. 1143
(1) Expend local revenues for the construction of housing,
housing subsidies, or land acquisition.
(2) Disapprove any residential development which is consistent
with the general plan.
(b) 'Nothing in this article shall be construed to be a grant of
authority or a repeal of any authority, which may exist of a local
government to impose rent controls or restrictions on the sale of real
property.
(c) Nothing in this article shall be construed to be a grant of
authority, or a repeal of any authority which may exist of a local
government with respect to measures that may be undertaken or
required by a local government to be undertaken to implement the
housing element of the local general plan.
(d) The provisions of this article shall be construed consistent
with, and in promotion of, the statewide goal of a sufficient supply
of decent housing to meet the needs of all Californians.
SEC. 4. Notwithstanding Section 2231 or 2234 of the Revenue and
Taxation Code and Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California
Constitution, no appropriation is made by this act pursuant to these
sections. It is recognized, however, that a local agency or school
district may pursue any remedies to obtain reimbursement available
to it under Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 2201) of Part 4 of
Division 1 of that code.
SEC. 5. Section 2 of this act shall become operative October 1,
1981.
I -11