HomeMy WebLinkAbout02-16-2018 City Council Retreat Agenda PacketSaratoga City Council Meeting Agenda – Page 1 of 2
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL MEETING
FEBRUARY 16, 2018
9:00 AM CITY COUNCIL RETREAT
Saratoga Foothill Club | 20399 Park Place, Saratoga CA 95070
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS ON NON-AGENDIZED ITEMS
Any member of the public will be allowed to address the City Council for up to three (3) minutes
on matters not on this Agenda. The law generally prohibits the Council from discussing or taking
action on such items. However, the Council may instruct Staff accordingly.
AGENDA ITEMS
9:00 AM Finance Review: Budget Calendar, Fiscal Policies, Mid-Year Budget Status,
and Five- Year Forecast
Recommended Action:
Receive staff report on Summary Budget Calendar, Fiscal Policies, FY 2017/18
Mid-Year Budget status, and Five-Year Forecast
Staff Report
1. Council Budget Adoption Calendar
2. FY 2017/18 Adoption Fiscal Policies
3. Proposed Mid-Year Budget Adjustments
10:30 AM BREAK
10:45 AM FY 2018/19 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) Budget Preview
Recommended Action:
Assess and provide direction to staff on CIP projects to be included in the FY
2018/19 (CIP) Budget.
Staff Report
Attachment A - Proposed Unfunded Projects List
Attachment B - Additional Funding Requests for Current CIP Projects
Attachment C - Nominated CIP Projects
11:45 AM Staffing and Service Levels
Recommended Action:
On overview of existing service levels and proposed staffing changes will be
presented at the Council Retreat.
Staff Report
12:15 PM LUNCH BREAK
Saratoga City Council Meeting Agenda – Page 2 of 2
1:00 PM Public Health Initiatives & Santa Clara County Healthy Cities Campaign
Recommended Action:
Provide direction to staff.
Staff Report
Attachment A – 2017 Healthy Cities Initiative Dashboard with Strategies
Proposed for 2018
Attachment B – 2017 Healthy Cities Initiative Criteria
Attachment C – 2017 Healthy Cities Initiative Countywide Dashboard
1:45 PM Report on 2017 Housing Legislation
Recommended Action:
Accept presentation and discuss the effects on Saratoga of the package of
housing bills approved by the Legislature and signed by the Governor in
September 2017.
Staff Report
Attachment 1 - Housing Element Summary of Housing Opportunity Sites
Attachment 2 - Saratoga Fire Severity Zones
2:45 PM BREAK
3:00 PM Retreat Wrap Up
ADJOURNMENT
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING OF THE AGENDA, DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA
PACKET, COMPLIANCE WITH AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
I, Nora Pimentel, City Clerk for the City of Saratoga, declare that the foregoing agenda for the meeting of
the City Council was posted and available for review on February 8, 2018 at the City of Saratoga, 13777
Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 and on the City's website at www.saratoga.ca.us.
Signed this 8th day of February 2018 at Saratoga, California.
Nora Pimentel, City Clerk
In accordance with the Ralph M. Brown Act, copies of the staff reports and other materials provided to
the City Council by City staff in connection with this agenda are available at the office of the City Clerk
at 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070. Note that copies of materials distributed to the City
Council concurrently with the posting of the agenda are also available on the City Website at
www.saratoga.ca.us. Any materials distributed by staff after the posting of the agenda are made available
for public review at the office of the City Clerk at the time they are distributed to the City Council. These
materials are also posted on the City website.
In Compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, if you need assistance to participate in this
meeting, please contact the City Clerk at 408/868-1294. Notification 24 hours prior to the meeting will
enable the City to make reasonable arrangements to ensure accessibility to this meeting. [28 CFR
35.102-35.104 ADA title II]
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE: February 16, 2018
DEPARTMENT: Finance & Administrative Services
PREPARED BY: Mary Furey, Administrative Services Director
SUBJECT: Finance Review: Budget Calendar, Fiscal Policies, Mid-Year Budget Status, and Five-
Year Forecast
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Receive staff report on Summary Budget Calendar, Fiscal Policies, FY 2017/18 Mid-Year Budget status,
and Five-Year Forecast.
REPORT SUMMARY:
1. Budget Adoption Calendar – Attachment 1 is a summary budget calendar that identifies the
Council’s budget process and meeting dates for the FY 2018/19 Operating and Capital Budgets.
2. Fiscal Policies – Attachment 2 is a copy of the FY 2017/18 Adopted Fiscal Policies. Fiscal Policies
help to guide Council’s budgetary and finance-related decisions, and provide a measure of fiscal
transparency for the Saratoga community. To keep fiscal policies current, the policies are refined
and new policies added, through ongoing reviews and annual updates. Typically, proposed changes
are vetted through the Finance Committee, then brought forth to the Council for review and
discussion during the annual budget process. Council direction is provided at the Budget Study
Session and the approved revisions are brought forward in the budget document for adoption.
This year’s Fiscal Policy discussion is limited to the proposed elimination of one of the General
Fund’s Fund Balance Reserves; the Development Reserve. The Reserve Policy section begins on
page 11 of Attachment 2, with a definition of the overall purpose of reserves, the structural
classification of reserves, and then each reserve’s specific purpose and/or use.
The Development Reserve is one of eleven General Fund reserves. This reserve was established to
separate out and hold development related revenues for development services not yet performed.
The policy defines how the Reserve’s funds can be utilized to supplement current year development
services when downturns in the economy result in development revenue decreases.
The General Fund’s Fiscal Stabilization Reserve is also designed to provide funding in the event of
fiscal downturns, but on a broader scale. The Finance Committee determined that the narrow
purpose of the Development Reserve Fund is unnecessary as the purpose is duplicative, and therefore
recommends the Development Reserve be eliminated. The fund balance would move into the Fiscal
Stabilization Reserve. Additionally, the recent $57,909 loan from the Development Reserve Fund to
the General Plan Update Capital Project is recommended to be forgiven to simplify the change.
Currently, there is $661,653 remaining in the Development Reserve, and $2,500,000 in the Fiscal
Stabilization Reserve. This shift would bring the Fiscal Stabilization Reserve up to $3,161,653, 3
equal to about 15% of the General Fund’s annual expenditure budget. Adoption of this change
would result in the elimination of the Development Reserve Policy, a slight revision to the Fiscal
Stabilization Policy to reflect the higher dollar amount, and modifications in the Finance Policy
Statements that make reference to the Development Reserve. The proposed changes are tracked in
red-strike through in the current FY 2017/18 adopted fiscal policies. If approved, the Finance Policy
revisions will be included in the Proposed Budget document for Council’s final review, and if
adopted, become effective with the fiscal year start date of July 1st.
Councilmembers may provide additional comments or suggestions to the current policies to the
Administrative Services Director by March 1, 2018. These suggestions will be brought to the
Finance Committee for review, and recommended suggestions will be incorporated and brought back
to Council at the Budget Study Session (currently scheduled for April 17, 2018) for final direction.
3. Mid-Year Budget Status – A preliminary Mid-Year Budget Status review will be presented to
Council at the Council Retreat to discuss the current fiscal year’s revenue and expenditure
projections, and any proposed budget adjustment requests. This preliminary review allows Council
the opportunity to seek more detailed explanations for further clarification if they choose. A final
Mid-Year Budget Status report and budget adjustment request will be brought to Council at the
March 7th City Council meeting for final review, direction, and/or formal adoption.
The following are proposed budget adjustments to be brought to Council:
Internal Service Fund: Facility Replacement Fund:
Expenditure Budget Appropriation: $ 41,488
One of the projects scheduled and funded in FY 2016/17 was not paid for until FY 2017/18. The
project funding was not re-appropriated in the current year’s adopted budget as the later completion
date was unknown at the time of budget adoption. This budget adjustment utilizes existing funding;
the adjustment is only to amend the expenditure appropriation in the current year’s budget.
Capital Improvement Project: EV Fast Charge Station
CIP Project Scope Change
The EV Fast Charge Station CIP project was funded with $100,000 from the CIP Reserve for the
purpose of installing a Fast Charge electric charging station for community use, as part of the City’s
effort to promote clean energy vehicles. This project was completed under budget, leaving $63,000.
The City’s vehicle fleet is also moving toward the use of electric vehicles. Staff suggests the EV
Fast Charge project be expanded to fund additional EV charging stations for City and staff use in the
back of the Engineering/Development building. These stations would not require the expensive and
fragile payment tracking software/hardware that makes EV stations costly, and would provide
additional outlets limited to City vehicles and staff use. The expected cost for four additional
stations is $20,000. The remaining funds would flow back into the CIP Reserve for redistribution.
Capital Improvement Project: Saratoga Village to Quarry Park Walkway – (Phase 1)
Additional funding requested: $100,000
Phase 1 (Village to Hakone Gardens) of the Saratoga Village to Quarry Park Walkway project is
currently in the preliminary design process. An additional $100,000 is needed to complete a shovel
ready design to pursue grant funding for the construction of the project.
This project qualifies for park-in-lieu funding. The Finance Committee has recommended the
Magical Bridge Playground CIP project with $128,000 of park-in-lieu funding be moved to the
Unfunded Project List as part of the mid-year adjustment. An early release of these funds and 4
approval of the design funding at the mid-year budget review would allow the walkway design to be
completed ahead of schedule.
Prospect Road Improvements - Additional $1 Million Grant
Additional funding requested: $160,000
An additional $1 million grant is available for the Prospect Road Capital Improvement Project that
would enable the City to complete the project in the manner originally envisioned. The scope of the
initial $4.4 million project was reduced due to higher than expected construction costs; this
additional grant would restore the project in full. However, to obtain the grant, $160,000 of grant
match funding must be pledged by the time the application submission is required in April.
There are a number of funding options available to provide this $160,000 grant match:
Increase GF transfer to the capital project – using current year net operations savings
resulting from higher than budgeted revenues and expenditure savings (this reduces
$160,000 of future CIP funds for FY 2019/20.)
Use CIP close-out funding from current projects (this reduces $160,000 of FY 2018/19 CIP
allocation funds..)
Use the $100,000 Silicon Valley Clean Energy Repayment scheduled to go back into the
Council Discretionary account. The remaining $60,000 would come from one of the above
options. (This reduces Council’s discretionary spending account and $60,000 of future CIP
funding.)
The proposed mid-year budget adjustments are reflected in Attachment 3.
4. Five-Year General Fund Forecast – The Forecast schedule presents a summary-level view of
historical financial activity, current year projected activity and estimated outcomes, and current
projections based on information known as of today. The five-year outlook is developed using static
assumptions, with prior year actuals, current revenue and expenditure trends, and the current adopted
budget as the base. The value of the forecast is to present a long-term view of revenue and
expenditure trends; it acts as a bellwether by highlighting concerns and identifying anticipated
financial impacts that need to be addressed in the future. A forecast is useful in that a longer -term
view helps to detect runaway cost factors and expanding program expenses, and numerically shows
how these individual items put together impact the City’s financial health.
It is important to remember that the Five-Year Forecast is merely a snapshot in time that allows us to
see the bigger long-term budget picture from today’s perspective. This means the forecast’s revenue
and expenditure projection assumptions are only the starting point for the upcoming fiscal year’s
budget. As the proposed budget is developed, financial data will evolve as workplans, funding, and
both current and long term priorities are refined.
The Five-Year Forecast worksheet will be presented at the retreat in conjunction with specific
budgetary explanations and future impacts. The most prominent impact in the forecast will be the
increasing Public Safety costs due to rising PERS costs.
The Sheriff Deputy’s regular cost of living increases will be amplified by rapidly escalating pension
costs in future years due to the combination of the negative amortization structure CalPERS utilized
when they first implemented the 30 year UAL payback timeline, and last year’s actuarial assumption
change that lowered the discount rate incrementally over seven years. On Thursday February 8th,
CalPERS released the result of the 2017 actuarial study that analyzes actual data experience. Their
results indicated assumption changes would raise contribution rates again. These changes are
scheduled to take effect in FY 2018/19 and 2019/20 and will be incorporated into the projections at a
later date. 5
As a result of all these changes, Public Safety costs are expected to increase by almost 50% over the
next five years. The City’s UAL will also increase by another $150,000. Overall impacts to City
expenditures will be reviewed in more detail at the City Council Retreat.
ATTACHMENTS PROVIDED:
1. Council Budget Adoption Calendar
2. FY 2017/18 Adopted Fiscal Policies
3. Proposed Mid-Year Budget Adjustments
ATTACHMENTS TO BE PROVIDED IN COUNCIL RETREAT BINDER:
4. Five-Year Forecast and
5. Forecast Assumptions
6
Attachment 1
2/16/2018 CITY COUNCIL RETREAT
●FISCAL POLICIES: Review current adopted fiscal policies and the Finance Committee's
recommended additions, deletions, and/or changes
●MID-YEAR REVIEW: Review current fiscal year financial status, proposed budget
adjustments, budgetary changes or trends that are impacting budget.
●FIVE-YEAR FORECAST: Review forecast assumptions, revenue and expenditure projections,
net operations, new inititatives, and known or expected trends and financial impacts.
●SERVICE & STAFFING REVIEW: Establish Sheriff's Office service levels for the following
fiscal year, discuss proposed staffing or service changes for upcoming budget year.
●CIP FUNDING & PROJECT REVIEW: Review major Capital Projects, next fiscal year's
funding availability, project funding requests, and nominated projects.
3/7/2018 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
●CIP PRIORITIZATION STUDY SESSION: Review updated CIP funding availability, closed
projects, unfunded project list, current CIP project funding requests, new nominated projects.
Prioritize project funding.
●MID-YEAR REVIEW: Receive summary report on current fiscal year financial status and
proposed budget adjustments for adoption.
4/17/2018 CITY COUNCIL STUDY SESSION
●OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGET STUDY SESSION: Review FY 2018/19 preliminary
proposed Operating Budget and FY 2018/19 - 2022/23 Capital Budget. Provide final
direction.
5/16/2018 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
●PROPOSED OPERATING AND CAPITAL BUDGET HEARING: Receive staff report and
presentation on FY 2018/19 proposed Operating Budget and FY 2018/19 - 2022/23 Capital
Budget.
6/6/2018 CITY COUNCIL MEETING
●OPERATING & CAPITAL BUDGET ADOPTION: Receive/adopt budget adoption staff report
and resolution. Receive/adopt Gann Limit report and resolution. Receive/adopt FY 2018/19
Investment Policy.
7/1/2018 FISCAL YEAR 2018/19 BEGINS
Council's Budget Adoption Calendar
For FY 2018/19
7
CITY OF SARATOGA
INTRODUCTION SECTION
1
FISCAL MANAGEMENT POLICY STATEMENTS
With both a general management philosophy and Council goal to practice fiscal responsibility, the City of Saratoga’s
conservative and cautious financial management is achieved through responsible, sustainable, and enforceable fiscal
policies and internal controls to ensure prudent and efficient use of resources. These policies and controls represent
long-standing accounting, budgeting, debt, investment, and reserve principles and practices, and are the foundation
upon which the City maintains its fiscal stability.
Saratoga’s general fiscal management policy statements provide a summary overview of financial, operational, and
budgetary management, in one comprehensive centralized format to act as guidelines and to assist elected officials
and staff with understanding the City’s financial practices for fiscal operations. Detail level fiscal policies are
administrative in nature and therefore not included in the budget document. However, fiscal policies that rise to
Council review and approval standards at a more specific level are incorporated into the budget document for annual
adoption by Council. Currently this includes the Fund Balance Reserve Policy and the Capital Project Process Policy
which follows this section. Other Council defined policies will be added as directed/approved.
The Summary Fiscal Management Policy Statements in this document are organized into the following categories:
General Financial Principles
Appropriations and Budgetary Control
Auditing and Financial Reporting
Capital Improvement Plan
Development Related Financial Policies
Expenditures and Purchasing
Fixed Assets and Infrastructure
Internal Service Funds
Long-Term Debt
Revenues
Risk Management Policies
Treasury Management
GENERAL FINANCIAL PRINCIPLES
The City’s fiscal policies are structured to ensure fiscal responsibility, accountability, transparency, and efficient
use of resources. Fiscal policies are to be reviewed, updated, and refined as necessary, with general policy level
decisions brought to City Council for review and approval, and administrative and operational level functions
approved by the City Manager.
Proposed revisions to the Fiscal Management Policy Statements and Council Policies are provided to Council at
the annual Council Retreat. Council m embers are to provide comments and concerns regarding revisions to the
Mayor or City Manager at least two weeks prior to the budget study session to clarify or include on the agenda.
The City’s primary long-term financial goals are to maintain the City’s fiscal health, preserve essential services,
reduce financial risk, and support short and long-term administrative, financial, and operational goals in a
financially judicious manner. Long-term financial and infrastructure planning and the annual adoption of a
structurally balanced budget provides the foundation to these long -term financial goals. The City shall promote
and implement strong internal financial controls to manage risks and monitor the reliability and integrity of
financial transactions and operational activities.
8
CITY OF SARATOGA
INTRODUCTION SECTION
2
Financial information shall be provided in a relevant, thorough, and timely manner, to effectively communicate
the City’s financial status to the Council, citizens, employees, and all other interested parties.
Financial stability goals and judicious responsiveness shall be the foundation upon which proactive and
advantageous financial decisions are made, and which guide the City’s response to local, regional, and broader
economic changes through the years.
The City shall undertake, adopt, and integrate new initiatives or programs in a cautious, well planned manner to
support the City’s long-term ability to maintain its essential services at the same level and quality required by its
citizens.
The City Council’s financial and community goals, objectives, and policies are incorporated into and
implemented with the development and adoption of the City’s Operating and Capital Budgets.
Efforts will be coordinated with other governmental agencies and joint power associations to achieve common
policy objectives, create beneficial opportunities and services for the community, share the cost of providing
governmental services, and support legislation favorable to cities at the state and federal level.
The City will seek out, apply for, and effectively administer federal, state, local, foundation, business, and private
grants which address the City’s current priorities and policy objectives.
APPROPRIATIONS AND BUDGETARY CONTROL
The City Council shall adopt an annual balanced operating budget and the first year of an integrated five -year
capital improvement plan budget by June 30th of each year, to be effective for the following fiscal year running
from July 1st through June 30th. Balanced budgets present budgeted sources in excess of budgeted uses. Budgeted
“Sources” include Revenues, Transfers In, and Appropriated Uses of Fund Balance. Budgeted “Uses” include
Expenditures and Transfers Out. Operating and Capital Budgets are to align with the City’s long-term financial
goals.
Each year the Finance & Administrative Services Department provides a short recap of the prior -year budget, a
mid-year budget status report, and an updated five-year financial forecast to the City Council at the Annual
Council Retreat (scheduled in late January or early February ) to assist Council with formulating direction for
long-range fiscal planning, Operating Budget development, and capital funding appropriations.
Budgets are prepared on the same b asis of accounting used for financial reporting: governmental fund types
(General, Special Revenue, and Debt Service) are budgeted according to the modified accrual basis of accounting;
proprietary funds (Internal Service Funds) and fiduciary funds are bu dgeted under the accrual basis of accounting.
The Operating Budget is primarily funded with current year revenues. Dedicated fund balance reserves, such as
the Carryforward or Fiscal Stabilization Reserves represent prior year savings designated for speci fic uses, which
may be used to fund current year operational expenses, in accordance with their purpose, upon Council approval.
Council may also approve the use of long-term debt for operational liabilities if they deem it fiscally prudent.
With funding for other committed reserves already in place, a minimal base amount of $500,000 is to remain in
the Unassigned Fund Balance Reserve at year -end to provide a buffer for unanticipated operational shortfalls and
unforeseen needs in the following fiscal year.
The Capital Budget is funded with both prior year surplus funding and dedicated capital funding resources.
Dedicated funding sources include Gas Tax (HUTA) revenues, road impact assessment revenues; project
revenues and reimbursements; community benefit assessments; and federal, state, local, and private grants.
9
CITY OF SARATOGA
INTRODUCTION SECTION
3
In practice, budgeted revenues are conservatively stated and budgeted expenditures are comprehensive, allowing
for the annual operational and capital improvement goals to be completed. With effectively managed revenue
streams and efficient use of resources, fiscal year -end operational budget surpluses are available to fund future
capital improvement projects and contribute to the City’s fiscally responsible reserve accounts.
The City Council maintains budgetary control at the fund level; any changes in total fund appropriations during
the fiscal year must be submitted to the City Council for review and Council majority approval. Operating Budget
appropriations lapse at the end of each fiscal year unless specifically carried forward by appropriation in the
following fiscal year’s budget. Capital Budget appropriations are structured as a multi -year workplan; therefore
project expenditure balances are automatically carried forward to the followi ng fiscal year as part of the annual
budget adoption until funding is exhausted, modified, or the project is completed.
The City budget shall comply with the annual determination of the City’s appropriation limit calculated in
accordance with Article XIIIB of the Constitution of the State of California and adopt an annual resolution to this
effect.
The City Manager is authorized to implement the City’s workplan as approved in the adopted budget. Within a
specific fund, the City Manager has the discretion to adjust appropriations between categories, departments,
programs, and projects as needed to implement the adopted budget, provided no change is made to the total
appropriation amount provided for any one fund. An example would be to backfill a vacant s alaried position with
a contract service, therefore shifting funds from wage and benefit appropriations to an operating expense
expenditure within the General Fund appropriation. The City Manager also has the authority to withhold filling
the position for a time if conditions warrant a delay.
Generally, recurring expenditures are funded with recurring revenues or revenues specifically designated for
operational use. One time expenditures may be funded with one -time revenues or fund balances reserves. Fund
balance reserves are to be used for non -recurring one-time expenditures and capital projects.
In compliance with Council’s Fiscal Stewardship goal, fiscal stability and sustainability principles are
incorporated into budget planning. Appropriating adequate funds on an annual basis for the replacement and
maintenance of assets through Internal Service Funds, prioritizing infrastructure maintenance and repair in the
capital budget, and institutionalizing prudent payment strategies for long -term liabilities are foundational
strategies of fiscal stability and sustainability.
In FY 2014/15 CalPERS notified the City that as of 6/30/2015, the City’s Unfunded Accrued Liability obligation
of $7.7 million was to repaid over a thirty (30) year payment plan. Approximately 43% of the outstanding liability
was immediately paid through the use of current year net operations and expendable reserve funding.
Council also established an alternative repayment policy to pay the minimum payment amount to be equal to the
amount due at the five-year mark to both lower the overall total long -term cost of the liability while maintaining
fiscal stability into the future. However, because CalPERS revised their UAL estimates significantly as a result
of actuarial changes and further investment losses, this UAL number grew significantly, necessitating an increase
in the annual UAL excess contribution amount from $500,000 to $750,000 effective FY 2017/18.
The City Council appropriates $50,000 annually to a ‘Council Discretionary account’ so that Council has funding
available for unplanned expenditures. Council direction and consensus approval is required to utilize these funds.
Unexpended appropriations are carried forward into the following fiscal year. Parks and Recreation Services are
essential elements in meeting the City’s goal to enhance and promote quality of life in the community. The
Recreation Department provides activities, programs, classes, and rental facilities to the entire Saratoga
community, from infants to seniors, through various services. While these services innately benefit individuals,
and would typically be 100% funded through user fees, Council recognizes the general community benefit and
determined the Recreation Department activities would function under a minimum cost recovery goal of 65%.
10
CITY OF SARATOGA
INTRODUCTION SECTION
4
This calculation is comprised of total program revenues and expenditures for the General Fund’s Recreation
Services, Teen Services, and Facility Rentals programs, as all share the use of the building, equipment, s taff, and
purpose, and are therefore intrinsically connected in the analysis.
The Community Development Department strives to attain full cost recovery plus a $100,000 annual stipend
for advanced planning updates, in recognition that development and building services are provided primarily
for individual and monetary benefit rather than for the community’s benefit. Total department revenues in
excess of total department expenses (net gain) are added to the reserve at year end, and up to one -third of the
reserve fund balance may be used to offset a net loss at year end.
AUDITING AND FINANCIAL REPORTING
California State statutes require an annual financial audit of the City’s financial records and transactions by
independent Certified Public Accountants. The City shall comply with Generally Accepted Accounting
Principles (GAAP) and produce annual financi al reports pursuant to Governmental Accounting, Auditing, and
Financial Reporting (GAAFR) guidelines. The independent auditor will issue an audit opinion to be included in
the City’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) testifying to the financial reports conformance with
accounting principles.
Additional financial reports issued by the Auditor’s may include: Singe Audit Report (annual report of federal
grant expenditures if in excess of the federal single audit limit is expended in a fiscal yea r), a Transportation
Development Act (TDA) report (annual report of TDA fund expenditures), an Appropriations Limit review
report (to establish tax revenue appropriation limit), and a Management report on the City’s Internal Controls.
The City shall submit the CAFR to the Governmental Finance Officers Association (GFOA) Financial Reporting
Program each year for review, and if in compliance with the program’s requirements, to receive an award for
meeting GFOA’s financial reporting standards.
Regularly scheduled external Financial Reports include the following:
State required Annual Cities Report and Annual Streets Report completed in conju nction with the year-
end close
Quarterly SMIP (Seismic Motion) fee reconciliation reports; CASp (ADA Accessibility) reco nciliation
reports: and California Building Standard Commission (green building standards) reconciliation reports
Quarterly Use Tax Reports to remit uncollected sales tax to the State Board of Equalization
SB90 Mandated Cost reports for claims to comply with State regulated legislation
Annual UST Certification report to show fiscal responsibility for the City’s underground storage tanks
Annual Possessory Interest Report submitted to the County’s Assessor’s Office to report City owned
leased property
Regularly scheduled internal Financial Reports include the following:
Weekly check registers and monthly Cash and Investment Treasurer Reports are submitted for review
and approval at City Council meetings.
Quarterly financial reports provide a status update on General Fund revenues and expenditures for the
first, second, and third quarters.
A mid-year budget status report is presented to City Council in February each year to provide a
comprehensive financial overview of the current year’s budget and to propos e recommended budget
adjustments as appropriate.
A year-end financial recap is provided after the City’s annual financial audit is completed.
Formatted: Indent: Left: 0.25"
11
CITY OF SARATOGA
INTRODUCTION SECTION
5
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
A five year Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) is updated annually in conjunction with the operating budget. The
CIP reflects the current and changing needs of the community as well as enhancements to improve the quality
of the community. The first year of the CIP is adopted to authorize appropriations.
The CIP is categorized into programs by project type. The four programs are: Street Improvements, Park &
Trail Improvements, Facility Improvements, and Administrative & Technology Improvements.
All projects within the CIP programs are appropriated, managed, and tracked separately, and each project’s
financial status is reported on a monthly basis in the Treasurers Report.
Project updates are recorded in the annual Capital Budget, with narrative, timeline, and financial summary
information updated with each published budget document.
Capital improvements that specifically benefit a select group of users and/or are fee -for-service based are to be
financed through user fees, service charges, special assessmen ts and taxes, or development impact fees.
The City shall identify and dedicate capital improvement related funding directly to the CIP and to maximize the
use of grant funding for capital improvement projects.
Grants, insurance, or other reimbursement funding is to be returned to the expenditure’s funding source, unless
otherwise directed by Council. For instance, Hillside Reserve funded projects that receive insurance
reimbursement payments are to be returned to the Hillside Reserve, and grant reimbur sements for projects funded
through the CIP Reserve are to be returned to the CIP Reserve when payment is received.
After completion of the prior year’s audit and the General Fund’s priority funding requirements are met, the
remaining net operations are moved into the Capital Project Reserve at year end. Use of the Capital Project
Reserve for the subsequent fiscal year is reviewed and preliminary direction given by consensus of the City
Council at the Annual Council Retreat. Final CIP funding direction is provide through the budget adoption.
Council has designated the following capital projects as fundamental to maintaining City infrastructure on an
ongoing basis, and shall therefore have priority status for available Capital Improvement Reserve fundin g: The
below funding guidelines shall be reviewed by Council for final CIP Budget direction each fiscal year:
$200,000 – Annual Infrastructure Maintenance & Repairs (for Sidewalk , Storm Drains, Curb & Gutter,
and Bridge Maintenance)
$50,000 – Roadway Safety and Traffic Calming
$50,000 – Risk Management and Mitigation Projects
The Annual Roadway Maintenance and Repair (ARM&R) CIP project is the primary CIP project funded in
support of Council’s goal to maintain Saratoga city streets at an average 70 PCI rating. On occasion, separate
street specific resurfacing projects are established due to funding requirements; they also contribute toward this
goal. The ARM&R project was originally established with a $1 million minimum annual funding goal from
dedicated Gas Tax Revenue and Solid Waste Services contract assessed Vehicle Impact Fees. However, after
decreases in the PCI, Council has established a new goal of $2 million annually with the FY 2016/17 budget.
Council is to consider this goal in conjunction with funding requests during the CIP budget discussion each year.
This project shall encompass roadway repairs, resurfacing, and rehabilitation projects, traffic light, curb and
gutter, and other miscellaneous repairs, striping and signage, and assorted street materials and supplies.
12
CITY OF SARATOGA
INTRODUCTION SECTION
6
DEVELOPMENT RELATED FINANCIAL POLICIES
The Development Reserve was established to provide stability for multi -year development related services. The
reserve is funded by Community Development Department revenues in excess of expenses at fiscal year -end. The
reserve is available for use in those years where a shortfall occurs; when development revenues fall below
development expenses. Use of the reserve for operational support is limited to a maximum of 1/3 of the reserve
balance in any given fiscal year; with any budgeted use of the reserve au tomatically rescinded up to the amount
development revenues are sufficient to cover General Fund net operations. The reserve may also be utilized for
other development related uses, such as funding development software upgrades or special projects, per Co uncil
direction. Additional information on this Development Reserve is located in the Fund Balance Reserve Policies
section.
The Williamson Act, also known as the California Land Conservation Act, was passed by the California
Legislature in 1965 to encourage rural & agricultural land owners to keep their land undeveloped. When land
owners enter into a contract under the act, they benefit from lower property taxes, which are based on the property’s
current use, rather than paying market value based tax rates. In exchange, the property is to remain undeveloped
and continue to function in the same manner for the duration of the contra ct. Contracts run for 10 years and are
automatically renewed unless the farmer or rancher cancels it. The City does not limit the number of Williamson
Act contracts entered into each year.
The Mills Act is State-sponsored legislation granting local governments the authority to enter into an agreement
with property owners to allow reduced property tax payments in return for the restoration and continued
maintenance of their historic property. Since the agreement reduces property tax assessment, the City receives a
smaller share of property tax revenue in comparison to a property that is assessed at market value. The City will
allow approval of up to three Mills Act Contracts per year.
EXPENDITURES AND PURCHASING
All expenditures shall be in accordance with the City’s purchasing policy, travel policy, credit card policy,
contract policy and public contract code, state or federal law, or any other applicable guidelines or regulations.
Expenditures are managed at the program level. Program managers are to ensure expenditures do not exceed the
budgeted workplan and must take immediate action if at any time during the fiscal year an operating deficit is
projected at year-end. Corrective actions may include expenditure reductions, or with Council approval, budget
adjustments, or service reductions.
The City’s current purchasing policy establishes purchasing authority levels, purchasing procedures, and
procedural requirements, for the procurement of supplies, equipment, and services, in conformance with Fe deral
and State codes and regulations, and City Ordinance No. 2 -45.
Public Work projects governed by the State’s Public Contract Code are excluded from provisions of the City’s
purchasing policy.
Guidelines established by the City’s Purchasing Policy d irects the City’s departments to purchase the best value
obtainable, securing the maximum benefit for funds expended, while providing all qualified vendors an equal
opportunity to do business with the City.
Services and supplies purchases that exceed $5,000 require written quotes, and must be approved by the
Purchasing Officer or designee, typically through the Purchase Order process. Documentation is to be retained
by the department in accordance with the records retention policy and schedule.
13
CITY OF SARATOGA
INTRODUCTION SECTION
7
Services, supplies, and fixed asset purchases exceeding $25,000 must be authorized by the City Council, unless
purchase is specifically called out in the adopted budget or excluded under the Purchasing Policy.
The City departments shall conduct quarterly program and capital project reviews to determine if projected
operating revenues and expenditures meet budgeted expectations. If an operating deficit is projected at year -
end, the departments shall evaluate and imple ment corrective actions as needed, and notify Council if services
will be impacted.
FIXED ASSETS AND INFRASTRUCTURE
Tangible assets with a cost equal to or greater than $10,000 and a useful life of more than one year are considered
fixed assets and added to the capitalization schedules. Repairs and maintenance of infrastructure assets will
generally not be subject to capitalization unless the repair extends the useful life of the asset.
The City will sustain a long-range fiscal perspective through the use of a five-year Capital Improvement Plan
designed to maintain the quality of City infrastructure, including streets, sidewalks, curbs and storm drains,
lighting, building, parks, and trees, and through Internal Service Fund programs to both maintain and replace
City building infrastructure, fixtures, and equipment, vehicles, and public works and technology equipment on
an ongoing basis
A Capital Asset system will be maintained to identify all City assets, their condition, historical and estimated
replacement costs, and useful life. Asset information is retained to provide information for preparation of
financial statements in accordance with GAAP, with emphasis placed on completion of GASB 34 requirements.
Infrastructure management systems are to be developed and maintained to provide long range financial and
operational planning. These shall include Roadway System management programs, Storm Drain System
management plans, Bridge replacements, Street Signal System replacements, and all other infrast ructure
categories that require significant financial resources to fund the eventual replacement needs.
Information Technology software, hardware, and auxiliary equipment and systems are to be maintained through
the Operating Budget’s Internal Service Replacement Fund, whereas annual appropriations in the Information
Technology Services operating budget or departmental program budgets are to fund ongoing license,
maintenance, and security costs.
INTERNAL SERVICE FUNDS
Internal Services Funds are established to both equitably allocate operating costs to departments for support and
maintenance services, and to stabilize and spread the City’s replacement and operational costs over fiscal years
for the purpose of providing an accurate and balanced long -range fiscal perspective of the use of services and
assets.
Vehicles, Equipment, and Building asset replacement and maintenance types of Internal Service Funds are
structured to provide a consistent level of funding for asset and equipment replacement, and t o ensure sufficient
funding is available for the regular maintenance, repair, and replacement of the City’s vehicles, equipment, and
building fixtures in an ongoing manner.
Technology and Office Equipment replacement and maintenance Internal Service Funds are structured to provide
a consistent level of funding for the replacement of assets and projects, and to appropriately distribute support
and maintenance costs to departments.
14
CITY OF SARATOGA
INTRODUCTION SECTION
8
The Liability and Workers Compensation Insurance Internal Service Funds shall maintain adequate reserves to
pay all valid self-insured claims and insurance deductibles, including those incurred but not reported, in order to
keep the insurance funds actuarially sound.
Each Internal Service Fund will set recovery charges at rates sufficient to meet all operating expenses,
depreciation, and fund balance reserve policy objectives.
LONG-TERM DEBT
The City shall seek to maintain a high credit rating through sound financial practices as a foundational financial
practice, and to maximize borrowing costs.
The City does not incur debt for operations or capital improvements except under extraordinary circumstances
and with citizen support. Under these circumstances the City will seek voter approval for General Obligation
(GO) Bond Debt for major infrastructure rehabilitation.
Long-term Financing Debt is typically incurred for capital improvements or special projects that cannot be
financed from current or dedicated revenues, or for large liabilities resulting in significant financial impacts. In
principal, long-term debt is to be used only if the debt service requirements do not negatively impact the City’s
ability to meet future operating, capital, and cash reserve policy requirements.
Through City Council approval, the City may function as a bonding conduit for special assessment districts.
This may occur when a neighborhood or area is seeking to improve private or cooperatively owned infrastructure,
such as private roads or water system cooperatives. The City shall require full liability protection and cost
recovery as necessary to protect the City and mitigate the cost associated with such actions.
The term for repayment of long-term financing shall: not exceed the expected useful life of the project; include
financing payment terms at a manageable level; and, does not extend beyond functionally appropriate payment
terms.
The City will monitor all forms of debt in conjunction with budget developmen t throughout the year, and will
report concerns and remedies if necessary to the City Council.
The City will ensure compliance with bond covenants, providing financial information to reporting parties as
necessary.
The City will comply with Government Code Section 43605 limitations on debt, which limits general obligation
indebtedness to an aggregate 15% of the assessed value of all real and personal property of the City.
REVENUES
The City will encourage a stable revenue system to offset short-run fluctuations in any one revenue source, in
part through balancing revenue fluctuations to related operational fluctuations. This concept is applied in
Community Development as net operational funding is held in reserve and utilized to fund operational expenses
as needed.
Designated and legally restricted tax and revenue funding sources will be accounted for in the appropriate funds.
General taxes and revenues not allocated by law or some other contractual agreement to other funds are
accounted for in the General Fund. Dedicated Capital Project revenues are to be directly accounted for in the
appropriate capital project fund, within a designated project.
15
CITY OF SARATOGA
INTRODUCTION SECTION
9
A master schedule of User Fees is reviewed and presented to Counc il on an annual basis to adjust fees to an
appropriate level. Operating departments shall review services and the existing fees to ensure discretionary
services (not specifically waived or modified) reflect direct and reasonable indirect costs of provid ing such
services.
The City typically establishes user charges and fees at levels that recover the direct and indirect activity cost of
providing a service or product. The City also considers market rates and charges levied by other municipalities
of similar size for like services in establishing rates, fees, and charges. As some services have partial cost
recovery objectives (such as Recreation classes and facility rentals), cost recovery ratios will vary in accordance
with policy objectives.
The City will follow an aggressive policy of collecting local taxes and revenues due to the City through persistent
follow-up procedures, and external resources as necessary.
Donations may be accepted in accordance with the City of Saratoga Donation Policy most recently approved by
the City Council. Under the current policy, unrestricted donations of $5,000 or less may be accepted or declined
by the City Manager. Restricted donations of $500 or less may be accepted or declined by the City Manager.
Unrestricted donations of more than $5,000 and restricted donations of more than $500 must be brought to the
City Council for consideration. The City Manager may choose to request City Council consideration of any
donation, regardless of value.
RISK MANAGEMENT POLICY
The City is insured for up to $25 million of general liability, auto, and property damage claims through a Joint
Powers Association insurance cooperative up to $5 million, and an excess insurance provider for claims in excess
of this, up to $20 million. The City is self-insured for the first $25,000 for general liability and auto claims;
property damage up to $5,000 and third party auto claims up to $10,000.
Workers Compensation claims are insured for the first $250,000 of coverage through the Ci ty’s participation in
a Workers Compensation risk pool. After the $250,000 limit is met, an excess insurance coverage policy is
activated. The excess coverage provides an employer liability limit of $5 million per occurrence, and workers’
comp per occurrence limit of $100 million. Workers' Compensation claims are managed by a third party
administrator.
The City’s role in managing both its risk management and workers comp programs is to be preventative in nature
which is accomplished through careful monitoring of losses, working closely with the third party administrator,
proactively addressing infrastructure maintenance and potential risks, and by designing and implementing safety
programs to minimize risk and reduce losses.
TREASURY MANAGEMENT
The City’s Investment Policy shall be brought to the Finance Committee and City Council for review, discussi on,
direction, and adoption on an annual basis. California Government Code Section 53600 and City of Saratoga
Municipal Code Section 2 -20.035 require the City Council to annually review and approve the City’s Investment
Policy.
It is the policy of the City of Saratoga to invest public funds in a manner which will provide the maximum security
with the highest investment return, while meeting the daily cash flow demands of the City and conforming to all
state and local statutes governing the investment of funds.
16
CITY OF SARATOGA
INTRODUCTION SECTION
10
Finance staff shall exercise due diligence to comply with the Investment Policy. The City currently practices
conservative and cautious investment practices by limiting its investments to the State’s Local Agency Investment
Fund (LAIF). Certificates of Deposits and high grade investment vehicles may also be utilized under the
Investment Policy, however the Finance Committee will provide oversight, review and direction on any decisions
to move a portion of the City’s available funds into these other permitted investments. Administrative Services
Department’s Finance Division shall prepare a monthly report to the City Council that has sufficient detail to
present the financial condition of the City at month end, the cash and investments balance by fund, and fund
balances by fund type.
17
CITY OF SARATOGA
INTRODUCTION SECTION
11
FUND BALANCE RESERVE POLICIES
Prudent financial management dictate that the City reserve a portion of its funds for future use to: maintain fiscal
stability; ensure the continued orderly operation of government and provision of services to residents; and to mitigate
current and future risks.
As a general budget precept, the City Council decides when and whether to appropriate available funds to and from a
reserve account. Use of reserve funds must be authorized by either specific direction in the annual budget, or by a
separate City Council action – unless specifically directed by policy. Responsible fiscal stewardship also requires
adequate reserves be maintained for all known liabilities and established City Council and community directed
initiatives.
In the following Fund Balance/Reserve Policy guidelines, t he descriptions include identification of the fund type and
classification, the purpose of the reserve, minimum and maximum funding goals if appropriate, appropriate utilization
of the reserve and by what authority, and the procedure for funding the reserv e initially; on an ongoing basis, or after
utilization.
FUND BALANCE AND NET POSITION
In 2009, Governmental Accounting Standards Board (“GASB”) Statement No. 54 revised fund balance classifications
for “Governmental Funds” into five specific classificati ons of fund balance with the intent to identify the extent to
which a specific fund balance reserve is available for appropriation and therefore spendable, or whether the fund
balance reserve is constrained by special restrictions. Government Funds for wh ich these new rules apply include:
the General Fund, Special Revenue Funds, Capital Project Funds, and Debt Service Funds.
For “Non-Governmental Funds”, equity classifications are classified as “Net Position” with sub -classifications of
Restricted or Unrestricted Net Position. A third component of a Non-Governmental Fund’s equity is “Net Investment
in Capital Assets,” which for Saratoga refers to the non -monetary portion of equity such as vehicles and equipment,
net of depreciation. Non-Governmental Fund types include Proprietary Funds (Enterprise and Internal Service Funds)
and Fiduciary Funds.
GOVERNMENTAL FUND TYPE RESERVE CLASSIFICATIONS
The Governmental Reserve classifications are defined as follows, which includes the applicable reserves that fall into
the classification.
Non-Spendable Fund Balance
Represents resources that are inherently non -spendable from the vantage point of the current period. The City does
not presently hold Non-Spendable Reserve funds.
Restricted Fund Balance
Represents fund balance that is subject to external enforceable legal restrictions. The City maintains the following
restricted fund balances under this designation:
General Fund: Environmental Services Fund Balance Reserve
Special Revenue Funds: Landscape & Lighting Assessment Districts Fund Balances
Debt Services Fund: Library General Obligation Bond Debt Service Fund
Capital Project Funds
18
CITY OF SARATOGA
INTRODUCTION SECTION
12
a) Park in Lieu Funds
b) Highway User Tax Allocation Fund (Gas Tax)
c) Capital Project Grant Funds
Committed Fund Balance
Represents fund balance constrained by limitations the government imposes upon itself at its highest level of decision
making and remains binding unless removed in the same manner. The City maintains the following fund balances
under this designation:
General Fund: Hillside Stability Reserve
General Fund: Facility Replacement Reserve
Capital Improvement Plan Funds: Capital Improvement Project Fund Balance Reserve
Assigned Fund Balance
Represents fund balance identified by Council for an intended use; however as no legal obligations exist, the funds
may be re-designated and utilized for another purpose if Council chooses. The City maintains the following General
Fund reserves under this designation:
General Fund: Future Capital & Efficiency Proje ct Reserve
General Fund: Carryforward Reserve
Unassigned Fund Balance
Represents funding which may be held for specific types of uses or operational funding/stabilization purposes, but is
not yet directed to a specific purpose. Only General Fund reserves can be designated under the “Unassigned” fund
balance classification. Other fund types are by nature structured for specific purposes, hence the fund balances are
therefore considered “assigned” for that purpose.
General Fund: Working Capital Reserve
General Fund: Fiscal Stabilization Reserve
General Fund: Development Services Reserve
General Fund: Other Unassigned Fund Balance Reserve
Fund Balance Ratios
To ensure the City maintains available working cash flow and emergency funding at all times, th e collective total of
the General Fund’s Assigned and Unassigned Reserves shall be sustained at a minimum of 20% of General Fund
expenditure appropriations, net of transfers out.
GENERAL FUND YEAR-END ALLOCATIONS
After the City’s financial records are finalized and audited, with legal obligations and liability reserves funded,
revenues in excess of expenditures are closed out to the Other Unassigned Fund Balance Reserve. A base amount of
funding, as set by budget policy, is to remain in the Other Unassigned Fund Balance Reserve, with the remainder
distributed in the following order:
1. Repayment of Fund Balance Reserve loans - back to established levels (e.g. borrowing from/usage of the Fiscal
Stabilization or Hillside Stability Reserves).
a. For the Hillside Stability Reserve, loan repayment shall be made in annual contributions of $100,000 until
reserve balance reaches the $1 million reserve goal.
b. Fiscal Stabilization loan repayments shall be made as directed by Council.
2. Annual contribution of $500,000 to Facilities Replacement Reserve.
3. Remaining funds are allocated to the Future Capital Improvement and Cost Efficiency Projects Reserve.
19
CITY OF SARATOGA
INTRODUCTION SECTION
13
GENERAL FUND RESERVES
Environmental Services Reserve
Under the Restricted Fund Balance classification, the Environmental Services Reserve represents revenues collected
under a prior funding structure for environmental purposes, and is therefore restricted for use in funding environmental
program costs such as clean water programs, street sweeping, and storm drain cleaning services. Per policy, the
Environmental Service Reserve is being utilized through annual budget appropriations of $50,000.
The Environmental Services Reserve originated from a one-time funding structural change and therefore will not be
replenished when depleted.
Hillside Stability Reserve
Under the Committed Fund Balance classification, a Hillside Stability Reserve of $1 million is set aside to provide
funding for unanticipated or unforeseen emergency or extraordinary costs related to hillside degradation, inclusive of
slide prevention and mitigation, slide repair, and associated drainage and roadwork.
Use of the reserve requires an analysis be prepared and presented to Council for approval, or in t he event of a landslide
requiring immediate emergency work, the Public Works Director may direct use of up to 10% of the reserve to make
emergency repairs and mitigate further damage until Council takes action. Reserve funding is to be used for
emergency work which exceeds operational funding provided for in the Operations Budget. Upon use, refunding of
the reserve shall be provided from year -end net operations in the amount of $100,000 each fiscal year until the
$1,000,000 reserve cap is reached.
Facility Replacement Reserve
The Facility Replacement Reserve is established to accrue funding for the major rehabilitation or replacement of City
Facilities (buildings/structures). Eligible uses of this reserve include both direct funding of public facil ity
improvements, and the servicing of related debt. Small facility building replacements, major facility renovations, and
down payment contributions toward a large facility replacement in conjunction with bond measure funding are
examples of intended Facility Replacement Reserve uses.
An initial contribution of $300,000 was established in FY 2012/13 with Council’s recommendation to continue
funding at this level, as a priority use of year -end net operations funding. Effective FY 2016/17, Council’s dir ection
is to increase the annual year-end contribution amount to $500,000, as funding is available. Council has set a goal to
fund the Facility Replacement Reserve to a level equal to 1/3 of the City’s insured value over the next 20 years (by
FY 2036/37) as a fiscally responsible practice to maintain city infrastructure In principle, Saratoga does not pursue
bond money to fund capital improvements, however, replacing high cost facility infrastructure requires a long -term
funding plan that may or may not be attainable through annual contributions. Therefore, the Facility Replacement
Reserve demonstrates both the City’s good faith funding effort and financial stewardship for future bond measures if
needed, as well as accumulating funding for a down payment on replacement infrastructure to minimize bond funding
needs.
A facility’s insured value represents the initial cost of the facility decreased each year over the facility’s estimated
lifespan. Therefore, insured value represents the remaining life of the facility’s purchase cost –
it does not represent the current cost to replace a facility. The City recognizes insured value is not sufficient to fund
facility replacements, therefore annual contributions will continue as an ongoing funding obligation even after the 1/3
reserve goal is met.
20
CITY OF SARATOGA
INTRODUCTION SECTION
14
Changes in annual contributions and the reserve goal amount shall be determined by Council during the budget
process, in line with changes in the City’s economic situation. Utilization of the reserve shall be bro ught to Council
for discussion and consideration as needed.
Future Capital & Efficiency Projects Reserve
Under the Assigned Fund Balance classification, the Reserve for Future Capital Improvement & Efficiency Projects
shall reserve funding for as yet undefined capital and efficiency improvement projects. Reserve funding is derived
from accumulated General Fund net operations (as available) and is therefore considered a “one-time funding source”.
Reserve Funds are held until Council reviews funding requests and approves a use or transfer to a capital project fund.
Use of the reserve funding is at the Council’s discretion, but typically occurs in conjunction with the annual budget
adoption after Council conducts a comprehensive review of capital and efficiency improvement needs. Reserve
replenishment is dependent upon net operational savings in subsequent fiscal years.
Carryforward Reserve
Under the Assigned Fund Balance classification, the Reserve for Carryforwards represents funding held at the end of
each fiscal year for critical unexpended operating budget appropriations to be purchased in the following fiscal year,
and any remaining Council Contingency funding. The reserve is reconciled at the end of each fiscal year to both
release prior year carryforward funding and reserve current year carryforward funding into the following budget year.
Staff determines the year-end reserve amount after all fiscal year payments are finalized; the reserve amount is
conceptually appropriated by Council each year in the budget adoption resolution.
Working Capital Reserves
In accordance with the City’s cautious and conservative fiscal philosophy, the City’s genera l prevailing financial
policy holds that the City should fund daily operations with current resources in order to avoid use of short -term
borrowing for cash flow management.
To support this policy a Working Capital Reserve is maintained that meets cash flow requirements, and in turn, ensures
the continuance of services to the public while also preserving the City’s credit worthiness. To provide adequate
working capital in the case of extreme circumstances, the City shall maintain, in combination with the Fiscal
Stabilization Reserve, a minimum operational reserve of 60 days of the following year’s General Fund budgeted
expenditures (net of internal service charges and transfers out), up to a maximum operational reserve amount equal to
90 days of the following year's General Fund budgeted expenditures (again, net of internal service charges and
transfers out). This reserve falls under the Unassigned Fund Balance classification.
Beginning with the FY 2016/17 budget, the Working Capital Reserve is maintained at $1 million (reduced from $2
million), and the Fiscal Stabilization Reserve in maintained at $2.5 million (increased from $1.5 million). At this time
a Working Capital Reserve of $1 million is sufficient for cash flow needs, however, the funding level will be assessed
on an annual basis to ensure $1 million is sufficient for cash flow needs. The $1 million funding shift to the Fiscal
Stabilization Reserve reflects a more realistic reserve usage structure – the Working Capital Reserve’s purpose is to
ensure sufficient operating cash; the reserve has no defined fund uses, repayment terms, or authorization requirements.
On the other hand, the Fiscal Stabilization Reserve’s purpose is defined and may be called upon for critical uses in the
future. The overall 60 day General Fund operational reserve minimum requirements shall continue to be met.
Fiscal Stabilization Reserve
Under the Unassigned Fund Balance classification, the Fiscal Stabilization Reserve represents a funding set -aside to
provide temporary financing for budget stabilization caused by fiscal downturns, unanticipated extraordinary
21
CITY OF SARATOGA
INTRODUCTION SECTION
15
expenditures related to a natural disaster or calamity, or from an unexpected liabi lity or funding decrease created by a
legislative action. Effective July 1, 20168, the Fiscal Stabilization Reserve funding level increased by a $1 million
transfer from the Working Capital Reserve, up to $2.5 million. will absorb the closed Development Services Reserve.
This funding shift provides a more accurate reserve funding purpose and utilization structure .a centralized fiscal
stabilization funding source.
Fiscal stabilization uses are defined and restricted to: 1) revenue declines lasting more than one year and equal to more
than 5% of either property tax, the combined total of other taxes, or General Fund revenues in total; 2) an unanticipated
extraordinary operational increases of more than 5% such as from a natural disaster; or 3) an unexpected Federal,
State, County or CalPERS funding change.
Council may utilize funding at budget adoption, by adoption of a budget adjustment resolution during the cou rse of
the year, or after a Federal, State, or locally declared emergency. In the event a locally declared emergency takes
place, the City Manager has the authority to spend funds until such time as the City Council takes action. Reserve
appropriations are to be replenished from year -end net operations, as available, on a priority basis. The $2.5 million
Fiscal Stabilization Reserve funding level will be assessed on an annual basis to ensure this funding level is sufficient
in light of operational reserves and utilization needs.
Development Services Reserve
Under the Unassigned Fund Balance classification, the Development Services Reserve provides fiscal stability and
funding accountability for the Community Development Department’s planning and buildi ng programs. Development
projects are often multi-year activities in which revenues may be collected in one year, while project expenditures
may extend over several years.
In total, this reserve represents accumulated excess planning and building net op eration funds from years when
development revenues exceeded development expenditures. The reserve funds are utilized in years when planning
and building program expenditures exceed revenues, thereby acting as an overall funding stabilizer for multi -year
development activities.
Use of reserve funding for operational support is restricted to 1/3 or the reserve balance in any given fiscal year, with
Council approval. Budgeted use of the Development Reserve is to be rescinded if and to the point where de velopment
revenues are sufficient to cover General Fund net operations at year -end. In addition, the Council may direct reserves
be utilized for specific development related uses, such as for development software upgrades or special projects.
Compensated Absences Reserve
Under the Unassigned Fund Balance classification, the Compensated Absences Reserve is established to smooth
expenditure fluctuations resulting from the payout of accrued leave to employees at service separation and distribution
payouts. Reserve funding equal to one-third of the compensated absences liability is established at year -end. Reserve
funding in excess of one-third of the liability is to be returned to the General Fund’s Other Unassigned Reserve.
Use of the reserve occurs when total annual compensated absences payouts exceed budgeted salary funds. Large
payouts decrease the compensated absences liability at year-end, thereby supporting the practice of utilizing the
reserve as needed. Year-end reconciling allocations to and from the reserve are approved though Council’s budget
resolution adoption each fiscal year, with the liability and resulting reserve amounts determined as part of the year -
end close process.
Council Discretionary Reserve
Under the Unassigned Fund Balance classification, the Council Discretionary Reserve represents unspent funds from
the Council’s annual appropriation. The reserve provides a mechanism to roll forward remaining Council
Discretionary Funds as reserve funds are im mediately re-appropriated into the following fiscal year. This allows
22
CITY OF SARATOGA
INTRODUCTION SECTION
16
Council the flexibility to take advantage of unforeseen opportunities or needs without the restriction of fiscal year
boundaries. Use of the reserve funding requires Council majority a pproval. The reserve exists at year-end only when
there are remaining unspent Council Discretionary funds at the end of the fiscal year.
Other Unassigned Reserve
The ‘Other Unassigned Reserve’ represents accumulated net operations not yet allocated to o ther fund balance
reserves, and by definition, fall into the Unassigned Fund Balance classification.
Other fund’s accumulated net operations are typically accounted for in an undefined reserve account in the fund – and
typically titled ‘Fund Balance Reserve’. As other funds are structured for specific uses or commitments, the fund
balance, by its distinctiveness, already has a directed purpose, whereas the General Fund is used for multiple and
general operational purposes thereby requiring a distincti on of purpose for each reserve. Council may utilize reserve
funding at budget adoption or by adoption of a budget adjustment resolution during the course of the year. Reserve
funding is replenished from year-end net operations, as available.
SPECIAL REVENUE FUND RESERVES
Landscape & Lighting Assessment District Funds
Assessment District Funds are Special Revenue Funds, which is a type of governmental fund. As a governmental
fund, the Landscape and Lighting Assessment District Funds comply with GASB 54 fund balance classifications, and
by nature of the fund’s purpose, fund balance reserves are classified as restricted reserves.
Special Revenue Funds account for and report the proceeds of specific revenue sources that are restricted or committed
to specified purposes (other than for debt service or capital projects.) For the City, Landscape & Lighting Assessment
District Special Revenue Funds were established to account for each individual assessment district; thereby each fund
has its own separate fund balance reserve.
Each district’s fund balance reserve should be sufficient to provide working capital to cover operational expenses
through the first half of assessment receipts in January, therefore equitable to approximately one -half of a district’s
annual expenditure budget. The second half of receipts are received in June. Some districts may include capital
improvement projects in addition to ongoing regular maintenance resulting in fund balance increasing over the years
to accumulate sufficient resources for the improvement projects. As each district’s situation is different, a district’s
maximum fund balance shall be determined by the Public Works Director.
Requests for use of the reserve are approved by Council through budget adoption or by a Council approved budget
adjustment resolution throughout the year. The reserve is replenished from the Fund’s net operations in subsequent
years.
DEBT SERVICE FUND RESERVES
Library General Obligation (GO) Bond Debt Fund
The Library General Obligation (GO) Bond Debt Fund is a Debt Service Fund established to account for the financial
resources accumulated for principal, interest, and cost of issuance expenditures associated with the Library Bond Debt.
As Debt Service Funds are a governmental fund type, the fund reserves fall under the GASB 54 fund balance
classifications. Debt Service Fund reserves are classified as a Restricted Reserve with the funding only spent for
specific purposes as stipulated by the bond covenants.
23
CITY OF SARATOGA
INTRODUCTION SECTION
17
The Library GO Bond Debt Fund ensures receipts are tracked separately, and that funding is available for the GO
Bond debt service requirements. At a minimum, the year-end fund balance reserve shall be sufficient
to provide working capital to cover the semi-annual principal and interest debt payment due on August 1 st as the GO
Bond tax receipts are received after the 1st debt payment is due. December receipts provide for the February payment.
In addition, as bond assessments are collected as a percentage of property values, reserves should provide sufficient
funding to compensate for tax fluctuations. The fund’s reserve maximum is set at no more than one-year of budgeted
annual expenditures.
The reserve balance is increased (or reduced) through establishing assessment rates at more (or less) than the semi -
annual payments and bond services require. Therefore, use or replenishment of the reserve is approved by Council
through budget adoption, and implemented through an increased or reduced assessment rate as a result of the fund’s
net operations.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECT FUND RESERVES
Overview
Capital Improvement Project (CIP) Funds account for the acquisition and maintenance of major capital assets other
than those financed through special assessments or enterprise funds. Capital Project Funds are a type of governmental
fund and therefore comply with GASB 54 fund balance classifications. Because Council has directed the fund’s
appropriated funding be spent on specific capital improvement projects, the Capital Project Fund Balance Reserve is
classified as Committed Fund Balance.
Budgeted capital improvement project funding is determined by the scope of work approved by Council, and remains
assigned for that use until completed or reassigned by Council. Fund Balance amounts represent the total remaining
funds in the individual projects at year -end. As Fund Balance amounts are determined by the amount of project
completion at year-end, they cannot be standardized for minimum or maximum amounts. Fund Balance is re-
appropriated to the capital projects in the following fiscal year for the work to be completed.
Street Improvement Projects Funds
Street Improvement Project Funds provide for a safe and functional roadway and pedestrian street system. Each Street
Improvement Fund (CIP Street Fund, CIP Grant Fund, and Gas Tax Fund) has multiple projects which roll up into the
overall fund balances, but remain designated for use by project.
The CIP Street Fund receives annual funding from designated fees, reimbursements, contributions, and transfers from
other funds. The CIP Grant Fund receives federal, state, and local grants which vary in source and amount from year -
to-year. On occasion, a private grant may be received. Typically, CIP Grant Funds
have a negative fund balance as project work is conducted before reimbursement is received. Gas Tax Funds represent
annual Highway User Tax and Transportation Congestion Relief revenue allocati ons that are to be accounted for
separately and are subject to State audits.
Park & Trail Improvement Project Funds
Park & Trail Improvement Project Funds provide for capital improvements to the City’s neighborhood and city parks
and plaza, the sport fields, bike and pedestrian trails, and open space areas throughout the City. Each of the Park &
Trail Improvement Funds (CIP Park & Trail Fund, CIP Tree Fund, and the CIP Park & Trail Grant Fund) have multiple
projects which roll up into the overall fund balances, but remain designated for use by project.
24
CITY OF SARATOGA
INTRODUCTION SECTION
18
The CIP Park & Trail Fund receives annual funding from Park-In-Lieu fees, occasional subventions, reimbursements
and contributions, and transfers in from other funds. The Tree Fund receives revenue from tree fines and transfers
from other funds upon Council direction. The CIP Grant Fund receives federal, state, local and occasional private
grants which vary in source and amount from year-to-year. Typically, CIP
Grant Funds have a negative fund balance as project work is conducted beforehand and then reimbursed from
expenditure invoices.
Year end fund balance represents the remaining unexpended project funds (net of any negative CIP Grant Fund
Balance) which are subsequently re-appropriated by Council into the following budget year through budget adoption.
Facility Improvement Project Funds
Facility Improvement Project Funds provide for capital maintenance and improvements of the City -owned buildings
and structures throughout the City. Each of the Facility Improvement Funds (CIP Facilities Fund and the Facility
Grant Fund) have multiple projects which roll up into the overall fund balances, but remain designated for use by
project.
The CIP Facilities Fund receives annual funding from a General F und transfer, from Theater Ticket Surcharge Fees,
and from reimbursements and contributions. The Facility Grant Fund receives revenue from grants that vary in amount
from year-to-year. Typically, CIP Grant Funds have a negative fund balance as project wo rk is conducted beforehand
and then reimbursed from expenditure invoices.
Year end fund balance represents the remaining unexpended project funds (net of any negative CIP Grant Fund
Balance) which are subsequently re-appropriated by Council into the following budget year through budget adoption.
Administrative & Technology Improvement Funds
Administrative & Technology Improvement Project Funds provide for major capital expenditures to improve or
enhance administrative, operational, or technology based systems, processes, or functions. Each of the Administrative
& Technology Improvement Funds (CIP Admin & Tech Improvement Fund and the Admin & Tech Grant Fund) have
multiple projects which roll up into the overall fund balances, but remain designated for use by individual project.
The CIP Administrative & Technology Improvement Fund typically receives funding from a General Fund transfer
as administrative and technology improvement focused grants are limited. If grants are received, projects typicall y
have a negative fund balance as project work is conducted beforehand and then reimbursed from expenditure invoices.
Year end fund balance represents the remaining unexpended project funds (net of any negative CIP Grant Fund
Balance) which are subsequently re-appropriated by Council into the following budget year through budget adoption.
INTERNAL SERVICE FUND RESERVES
Overview
Internal Service Funds are established to provide centralized cost centers for shared expenses and services in order to
efficiently track costs and manage resources. Costs are then allocated back to the operational programs based on
usage to more accurately determine cost of services.
The City’s Internal Service Funds include the two Insurance funds: Risk Management a nd Workers Compensation,
four Service/Support funds: Office Support, IT Services, Vehicle & Equipment Maintenance, and Building
Maintenance Funds, and three Equipment Replacement funds: the Vehicle & Equipment Replacement Fund, the
25
CITY OF SARATOGA
INTRODUCTION SECTION
19
Office Technology Equipment Replacement Fund, and the Building FF&E (Furniture, Fixture, & Equipment)
Replacement Fund.
As each fund is accounted for as a separate entity, operational revenues less expenditures result in either a positive or
negative fund balance at any given point in time – Internal Service Funds are similar to the separate checking and
saving accounts a person may use for different purposes. At year end, each fund’s net balance is represented as the
“Fund Balance Reserve”.
The intent of the Internal Servi ce Funds Reserves is to hold appropriate levels of reserves to support cash flow needs
and minimize interfund loans, not to accumulate funds in excess of expected ongoing operational costs. Reserve levels
are determined by the specific operational needs o f the program, but typically will fall within 25 – 50% of annual
budgeted expenditures.
Internal Service Funds are a type of Proprietary Fund; therefore GASB 54 fund balance classification (for
Governmental Fund types) does not apply. Instead, Internal Service Fund’s financial statement reports are presented
similar to private-sector businesses and use “Restricted” and “Unrestricted Net Position” to define net operational
balances (equity/fund balance reserves).
Unrestricted Net Position allows reserve funding to be used (with Council approval) within the general scope of the
fund’s purpose. Restricted Net Position reserves are limited to a specific use, narrower than the stated purpose of the
fund. For example, grant funding provided for a defined use, as in remaining funds from a Risk Management Training
Grant within the Liability/Risk Management Fund, must be used for qualified training purposes. Most Internal Service
Funds reserves are held in the Unrestricted Net Position category.
Liability /Risk Management Reserve Fund
The Liability/Risk Management Fund’s Unrestricted Net Position reserve supports cash flow needs and minimizes
interfund loans. Appropriate levels are maintained through service chargebacks to the programs, based on operational
risk factors. Most claims are covered under the insurance risk pool JPA. The City is self -insured for up to $25,000
per General Liability and City Vehicle Auto Liability occurrence, and up to $5,000 for Property Dama ge and 3rd Party
Auto Liability. Non-covered claims are paid fully by the City.
The Liability/Risk Management program receives funding from allocations charged to covered departments, from
grant funding, and from claim reimbursements. At year end, unspent funding flows into Unrestricted Net Position or
Restricted Net Position for specific purposes. Requests for use of reserve balance are approved by Council through
budget adoption or by a Council approved budget adjustment resolution during the yea r. The reserve is replenished
from the Fund’s net operations in subsequent years.
Workers Compensation Fund
The Workers Compensation Fund’s Unrestricted Net Position reserve supports cash flow needs and minimizes
interfund loans. Appropriate levels are maintained through service chargebacks to the programs, based on operational
risk factors. The purpose of the Workers' Compensation program is to provide insurance benefit coverage for
employee work-related illness and/or injuries through its membership in a shared risk pool. The risk pool provides
coverage up to $250,000, and excess insurance provides coverage over this amount up to $10 million.
The Workers Compensation program receives funding from allocations charged to covered departments, from gra nt
funding, and from claim reimbursements. At year end, unspent funding flows into Unrestricted Net Position, or
Restricted Net Position for grant funding. Requests for use of the reserve balance are approved by Council through
budget adoption or by a Council approved budget adjustment resolution during the year. The reserve is replenished
from the Fund’s net operations in subsequent years.
26
CITY OF SARATOGA
INTRODUCTION SECTION
20
Office Support Fund
The Office Support program provides a centralized cost center for administrative office support expenses, including
photocopy machine leases, postage machines, shared office machines, and the associated maintenance and repair
services, postage, paper, and copier supplies. For efficiency, office support costs are managed collectively and charged
back to departmental programs on a use-basis allocation. Accumulated net operations are held in the Office Support
Fund for working capital cash flow.
The reserve is funded from the allocations charged to covered departments. At year end, unspent funding flows into
Unrestricted Net Position. Requests for use of excess reserve balance are approved by Council through budget
adoption or by a Council approved budget adjustment resolution during the year. The reserve is replenished from the
Fund’s net operations in subsequent years.
Information Technology Services Fund
Information Technology Services provide for the delivery of technology based services throughout the City’s
operations, including maintenance of the City’s information systems and infrastruct ure, program implementation,
streaming video, internet, landline, and wireless communications systems, cloud based technology, and support of all
existing information technology as well as new technology initiatives. For technology oversight, security, an d
efficiency, information technology costs are managed collectively and charged back to departmental programs on a
service-based allocation to fund the program.
Funding for the program comes from these allocations charged to covered departments. At year end, unspent funding
flows into Unrestricted Net Position. Accumulated net operations are held in the Information Technology Services
Fund for working capital cash flow. Requests for use of the reserve are approved by Council through budget adoption
or by a Council approved budget adjustment resolution during the year. The reserve is replenished from the Fund’s
net operations in subsequent years.
Vehicle & Equipment Maintenance Fund
The Vehicle & Equipment Maintenance program provides for the fuel, ma intenance, and servicing of the City’s fleet
and major equipment to ensure all vehicles and equipment comply with manufacturer’s recommendations and safety
requirements.
To fund the program, vehicle & equipment replacement costs are charged back to the departmental programs based
on assigned usage. Accumulated net operations are held in the Vehicle & Equipment Maintenance Fund for working
capital cash flow. At year end, unspent funding flows into Unrestricted Net Position. Requests for use of the rese rve
are approved by Council through budget adoption or by a Council approved budget adjustment resolution during the
year. The reserve is replenished from the Fund’s net operations in subsequent years.
Facility Maintenance Fund
The Building Maintenance program provides for the custodial, maintenance, and non -major repairs and building
improvement services for all facilities at the Civic Center, Prospect Center, and Museum Park. Additionally, the
program supports the maintenance and repair needs for the tenants of City leased buildings as defined in the lease
agreements. To fund the program, total costs are allocated back to
departmental programs primarily based on building space usage. General and public use is allocated to th e Non-
Departmental program.
Accumulated net operations are held in the Building Maintenance Fund for working capital cash flow. Funding comes
from the allocations charged to covered departments. At year end, unspent funding flows into Unrestricted Net
Position. Requests for use of the reserve are approved by Council through budget adoption or by establishing
chargeback funding levels higher or lower than budgeted expenditures. The reserve is replenished from the Fund’s
net operations in subsequent years.
27
CITY OF SARATOGA
INTRODUCTION SECTION
21
Vehicle & Equipment Replacement Reserve
The Vehicle and Equipment Replacement Fund Balance Reserve accounts for accumulated funding over an asset’s
lifespan, to be used for the replacement of the vehicle or equipment at the end of its useful
life. Initial purchases are paid for through a department’s operational budget. If the purchased item is for ongoing
use, the Vehicle & Equipment Replacement program appropriates an annual allocation for the replacement of the
vehicles and equipment based on the asset’s cost and years of life. Final determination for replacement of the asset is
determined through an analysis of whether the cost of maintenance equals or exceeds the cost of replacing the asset.
The reserve is funded from allocations charged to covered departments and represents accumulated funding, less
amounts expended for asset replacement. At year end, unspent funding is held in Unrestricted Net Position. The
reserve is to be maintained at a level sufficient to provide rep lacement funding of vehicles and equipment in
accordance with replacement schedules.
Requests for use of the reserve are approved by Council through budget adoption or by a Council approved budget
adjustment resolution throughout the year. The reserve is replenished from the Fund’s net operations in subsequent
years.
Office Technology Equipment Replacement Fund
The Office Technology Equipment Replacement Fund accounts for accumulated funding over an asset’s lifespan to
be used for the replacement of office technology based equipment such as desktop computers and monitors, laptops
and tablets, network infrastructure, and various other related equipment. Replacement costs are charged back to the
departments based on assigned equipment costs. Initial purchases are paid for through a department’s operational
budget. If the purchased item is for ongoing use, the Office Equipment Replacement program appropriates an annual
allocation for the replacement of the equipment based on the asset’s cost and years of l ife.
The reserve represents accumulated funding, less amounts expended for replacements. The reserve shall be funded to
provide replacement funding in accordance with replacement schedules. Funding for the reserve comes from the
allocations charged to covered departments. Requests for use of the reserve are approved by Council through budget
adoption or by a Council approved budget adjustment resolution during the year. The reserve is replenished from the
Fund’s net operations in subsequent years.
Facility Furniture, Fixtures & Equipment (FFE) Replacement Fund
The Facility FF&E Fund accumulates funding over an asset’s lifespan to be used for the replacement of furniture –
such as tables, chairs, and cubicle partitions; for fixtures - such as kitchen appliances, sound equipment, lighting, for
equipment - such as HVAC units, boilers, and generators; and for facility infrastructure – such as roof, door, window,
and floor/carpeting replacement.
Initial purchases for new assets may be paid for through the Operating Budget or through the Capital Budget. Annual
replacement charges are charged -back to the supported department programs with full replacement funding to be
accumulated over the asset’s estimated lifetime. Final determination for replacement of the asset is determined
through an analysis of whether the cost of maintenance equals or exceeds the cost of replacing the asset. The reserve
is intended to be maintained at a level sufficient to provide replacement funding in accordance with replacem ent
schedules.
Requests for use of the accumulated reserve funding are approved by Council through budget adoption, or if an
unplanned situation occurs, by a Council approved budget adjustment resolution during the fiscal year. The reserve
is replenished by replacement charge allocations in subsequent years.
28
CITY OF SARATOGA
INTRODUCTION SECTION
22
CIP PROJECT PROCESS POLICY
This procedural policy defines how a project moves through the CIP Budget Funding process: from the initial project
idea, through project development, nomination, and project approval process, and if successful, into the Capital Budget
as a funded project.
The CIP project development stage of the policy takes different tracks, depending upon whether the project idea is
staff driven or Council nominated. These two paths are discussed separately below, until the tracks converge for CIP
project assessment preparation.
STAFF PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
1. CIP Project Initiation
As a function of staff’s day-to-day work, infrastructure improvements and large-scale repairs and maintenance
are identified as potential capital improvement projects. These are often highly-visible tangible public assets such
as street repaving, or park and trail improvements. However, many CIP projects are less noticeable, including
facility roof repairs, tree planting, or ADA enhancements. Projects may also be administrative or technol ogy
improvements, and hence invisible to the general public, such as code updates/revisions, process improvements,
software implementations, or economic vitality programs.
Staff is to discuss the CIP project idea with the appropriate staff or City Manager for feedback and refinement.
Ultimately, projects need clearly defined boundaries to identify project requirements, specifications, and
resources. While this is not always feasible in the initial stages of project development, the understanding that a
project will eventually require a clear and specific scope will encourage better preparation for discussing the
project idea and moving it through the nomination process. After receiving initial approval, staff moves into the
idea development stage.
2. Idea Development
To move the idea forward, staff will need to analyze and articulate the project’s scope, political impacts, priority
factors, resource requirements, and any other relevant considerations.
a. Project Scope – Scope may include the description, project size and location parameters, project purpose,
and goals or deliverables, such as products, services or results. Project justifications and assumptions should
support the project’s purpose and definition, and may include cost -benefit analysis, risk assessments, funding
availability, or even community desirability factors.
The scope should clearly state if a project is to be funded and/or completed in phases rather than as a singular
body of work. If the project is ongoing infrastructure maintenance or a program project, this too should also
be clearly noted. In some cases, project scope may be defined by exclusions – statements about what the
project will not accomplish or produce. Additionally, constraints or restrictions may identify pro ject
limitations.
Project Scope defines a commitment to produce a body of work or end -product with the resources provided
under the stated assumptions. The written scope helps to manage expectations and provide clarity to the
involved parties, reduce confusion and failure, prevent scope creep, and provide transparency to the
community.
b. Political Considerations - Knowledge of historical information, which attests to the necessity of
Council/staff communication is of vital importance in project develo pment. Determine whether this project
29
CITY OF SARATOGA
INTRODUCTION SECTION
23
has come up for consideration before, or why was it not completed previously. Are there lessons to be learned
from a past project proposal?
Another consideration includes knowing whether a project might be controversial. Is there a segment of the
community strongly opposed to, or strongly supportive of this specific project? Will this project prompt
demand for further funding or resources? Have similar projects been
completed in another part of the city? Determine why this project should be considered a priority over others,
and whether the project’s cost or benefits would be supported by the community.
c. Priority Factors - Project priority is an important consideration in the CIP approval decision factor.
Council’s role is to determine which projects are of higher priority than others since there will never be
enough money or resources to do every project. Decision criteria may include factors such as:
Health and Safety Issues
Imminent failure of structure/system
Short-term cost of repair vs. long-term cost of replacement
Availability of external or dedicated funding
Efficiencies
Federal or State mandates
Business or community support
Impacts if project is not completed
A project’s priority is also affected by the severity of the criteria. For instance, a project that falls under the
“Imminent Failure of Structure/System” criteria may be an extremely dangerous situation in need of
immediate repair, or low danger of minor importance and simply remedied by removal. Another example
would occur with Federal or State mandated projects. There may be little impact as to whether the mandate
is met, or there may be severe fines for lack of timely completion. As a result, project priority is based on
the overall assessment of the circumstances; many factors contribute to priority decisions and Council cannot
rely upon a clear hierarchical order upon which to base their decisions.
d. Project Resources - In the City’s project development discussions, resource s typically refer to financial
funding. However, resources may also refer to staff time, equipment and materials, community/stakeholder
participation or support, space requirements, information technology services, or some other type of support
or contribution.
Funding plays a critical role in project development. In many cases, lower priority projects may be approved
ahead of higher priority projects simply because there is designated funding available for the lower priority
projects. The ability to bring designated funding (such as a grant award) with a project proposal greatly
increases the likelihood that the proposed project is approved. Overall, projects that request undesignated
Capital Project Reserve funding are more competitive due to fundin g limitations and the number of projects
competing for the same pot of funds.
An additional component of project resource considerations are the unstated resources (identified above)
required in project construction or implementation. For instance, staff time is limited and time spent working
on one project prevents staff time being spent on another project. Project timing and staff time requirements
are therefore an important component of the project that Council may wish to review.
e. Other Considerations - There are numerous other factors not mentioned above that are also taken into
consideration when assessing a project idea. For example, can the City afford the ongoing operating budget
increases to maintain or implement the project? Does the project contribute toward economic vitality? Are
30
CITY OF SARATOGA
INTRODUCTION SECTION
24
there environmental concerns? Does it enhance the community’s art, education, or cultural resources? Does
the project
provide operational efficiencies or cost savings? Are there risk management or legal lia bility issues?
Possibly the project requires development be staged in phases? Is there strong community interest in this
project? Each project will differ, meaning analysis is specific to the circumstances, and diligent research and
thought should be put into developing project scope and justification.
In summary, the overall goal of idea development is to identify, quantify, and assess the project
comprehensively. This effort is intended to ensure that a proposed project is well -thought-out, developed,
and articulated thereby enabling the City Manager and Council to make educated and rational decisions.
3. City Manager Approval
Staff is to propose the project idea to the City Manager for approval. If approved, the project is moved onto the
CIP Project Candidate List. Staff is to notify the Administrative Services Director of the project’s approval and
provide pertinent project information.
Staff will prepare written narratives with project scope, justification, fiscal impacts, cost estimates, timelines, etc.
as necessary for Council Retreat assessment package.
CITY COUNCIL PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
Council Members are often the recipients of residents’ suggestions for capital project work. Depending on the
topic, Council Members can take these opportunities to: 1) educate the residents on why a project may not be
feasible; or 2) provide residents with information on how to conta ct City staff with their requests to determine
feasibility; or 3) Council may support the project suggestion and decide to act as a proponent for the project by
guiding it through the Capital Project Nomination process:
1. Nomination
To move a project idea onto the CIP Candidate List, a Council Member is to propose the idea to fellow Council
Members at the end of a City Council Meeting during the Council Items session and request that it be put on the
CIP Candidate List for review during the next upcoming CIP budget cycle.
2. Idea Concurrence
A second Council Member must concur with the request to move the project idea onto the Capital Project
Candidate List.
3. Follow-up
A nomination to the Capital Project Candidate List is to be recorded in the City Council minutes, and acted upon
as a follow-up item. City Manager will notify Council Member of project nomination (to clarify/verify
understanding of project scope and of the assignment to a staff member. Staff member will complete Candidate
List step requirements, including: preparation of project scope narrative and justification, fiscal impacts, cost
estimates, timelines, etc. as required for Council Retreat assessment package.
CIP PROJECT ASSESSMENT
1. Assessment Package
In preparation for the annual Capital Project Assessment, Finance will consolidate the CIP Project Candidates,
along with proposed changes to current CIP projects, and the current year’s CIP Unfunded Project List into an
assessment package for Council’s review. The Capital Project Assessment review provides a forum to assess all
projects at one time. These assessment package will include:
31
CITY OF SARATOGA
INTRODUCTION SECTION
25
● A review of available funding
● Existing projects in the current year’s CIP
● Proposed changes to existing projects
● The current CIP Unfunded List
● Proposed changes to projects on the CIP Unfunded List
● New projects on the CIP Candidate List
● Review of requests in conjunction with funding sources
2. Council Retreat
The Capital Project Assessment is to be held annually, prior to the start of the budget development cycle, typically
at the Council Retreat Meeting that occurs in late January or early February. During the assessment review,
Council will review available funding and all project requests.
In their review, Council may request revisions to a project’s scope, funding, or other component. However,
changes that redefine a proposed project must be Council’s consensus direction. As projects are assessed, they
are either:
● Rejected
● Accepted, or
● Modified and Accepted
At the conclusion of the assessment review, Council will prioritize accepted projects and designate project
funding. Projects placed on the Funded List will be brought forward to the upcoming Budget Study Session. The
remainder will be placed on the CIP Unfunded Project List.
NOTE: Rejected project ideas may be nominated for another attempt to become an approved project in the
following year(s), but must again go through the project development and assessment process.
3. Budget Study Session
Updated CIP funding availability and project revisions will be reviewed a final time with Council. Council will
conduct a final assessment and provide consensus direction to staff for inclusion in the upcoming Proposed Budget
Hearing to be held in May.
CIP Project Funding
1. Proposed Budget Hearing
The final Proposed Capital Budget with the recommended project funding will be brought to the City Council
Budget Public Hearing in May. Council is to provide any final comments or direction for budget adoption.
2. Budget Adoption
The Operating and Capital Budgets are brought to Council in June with all final direction incorporated into the
final summaries. Council is to adopt the budget at this time, with budget funding effective on July 1 st of that year.
3. Funding Process Follow-up
Approved CIP projects that do not receive funding allocations will be assigned to the next budget year’s CIP
Unfunded List. The list will be included in the budget document, and assessed again during the following year’s
Capital Project Nomination and Assessment Proces s. The new CIP Unfunded List has a life span of one budget
cycle.
32
CITY OF SARATOGA
INTRODUCTION SECTION
26
33
Attachment 3
Account #Increase Decrease
1.ISF: Facility Replacement Fund
Roofing Replacement 633.6203.77265 41,488 -
2.CIP: EV Fast Charge Station
Narrative/ Scope Change n/a - -
3a.CIP: Village to Quarry Park Walkway - Phase 1
Design 422.9277-004.81142 100,000
3b.CIP: Magical Bridge Playground
Construction 422.9211-009.81161 100,000
4a.Prospect Road Improvements
Construction 411.9122-006.81161 160,000
4b.General Fund or CIP Project
TBD.99999 TBD 160,000
Proposed Mid Year Budget Adjustments
FY 2017/18
34
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE:February 16, 2018
DEPARTMENT:Finance & Administrative Services
PREPARED BY:Anthony McFarlane, Finance Manager
SUBJECT:FY 2018/19 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP)Budget Preview
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Assess and provide direction to staff on CIP projects to be included in the FY 2018/19 (CIP) Budget.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A –Proposed Unfunded Projects List
Attachment B –Additional Funding Requests for Current CIP Projects
Attachment C –Nominated CIP Projects
35
Project
Title
Project
Description
Project
Cost Proposed Cost
1 Big Basin Way Turnaround This project would fund the design and construction of a turn-around on Big Basin
Way to improve traffic circualation through Saratoga Village. Staff is
recommending to fund the construction phase as an Additional Funding
Request for FY 18/19
500,000 175,000
2 Quito Road Sidewalk Improvements This project would fund sidewalk improvements along Quito Road between Hwy 85
and Allendale Avenue.
350,000 500,000
3 State Route 85/Saratoga Avenue Beautification This project would fund the beautification of the entry and exit to State Route 85 at
Saratoga Avenue.
250,000 250,000
4 Saratoga/Herriman Avenues Traffic Signal This project would fund the installation of a three-way traffic signal at the
intersection of Saratoga and Herriman Avenues.
250,000 250,000
5 Beaumont Avenue Traffic Circle This project would fund the installation of a traffic circle on Beaumont Avenue 30,000 30,000
1,380,000$ 1,205,000$
6 Saratoga Village Creek Trail - Construction This project would fund the construction of a trail connecting to the Saratoga Village
to Quarry Park Trail along Saratoga Creek.
3,000,000 3,000,000
7 Saratoga-to-the-Sea Trail This project would fund the design, environmental review, and construction of a trail
connecting Quarry Park to Sanborn Park
2,500,000 3,000,000
8 Saratoga Village to Quarry Park Walkway This project would fund the design and construction of a trail along Big Basin Way
from Saratoga Village to Quarry Park through Hakone Gardens.
3,000,000 2,000,000
9 Norton/Villa Montalvo Emergency Route This project would fund the construction of an emergency access road connecting
the Montalvo Arts Center parking lot with Norton Road.
2,000,000 2,000,000
10 Joe's Trail at Saratoga de Anza - Phase II This project would fund the design and construction of a trail from Saratoga-
Sunnyvale Rd. to Arroyo de Arguello.
750,000 750,000
11 Quarry Park Trail Improvements This project would fund the design, environmental review, and construction of
additional trail improvements in Quarry Park.
250,000 250,000
12 Congress Springs Park - Northside Entrance This project would fund the design and construction of a trail connecting the
residential neighborhood around Cox Avenue east of State Route 85 to the northside
of Congress Springs Park.
200,000 200,000
13 ADA All-inclusive Playground This project would fund costs related to an all-inclusive playground at a city park.200,000 200,000
14 Magical Bridge Playground This project would fund costs related to an all-inclusive playground at a city
park in conjunction with the Magical Bridges Foundation. Staff is
recommending moving this project to Unfunded as a Mid-Year Budget
Adjustment
160,000 160,000
15 Quarry Park Pond Improvements This project would fund the design, environmental review, and construction of
improvements to the pond in Quarry Park.
150,000 150,000
16 Village Clock This project would fund the installation of a clock in Saratoga Village. 150,000 150,000
17 Via Regina Trail This project would fund the construction of a pedestrian-equestrian trail connecting
Via Regina and Villa Oaks Lane.
100,000 100,000
18 Bocce Ball Court The Senior Center has been making progress on fundraising for the bocce ball
court at City Hall ($22K). Public Works recommends updating the project cost
estimate to $70,000. The project was originally nominated as a volunteer-based
project. The increase in cost estimate reflects the full cost of the project.
Improvements would include two bocce ball courts, landscaping improvements,
and seating. Staff is recommending moving project from Unfunded to
Nominated for FY 18/19
50,000 70,000
12,460,000$ 11,960,000$
19 Theater Improvements This project would fund the design and construction of improvements identified in
the Civic Theater Master Plan.
12,000,000 12,000,000
20 Community Development Lobby Remodel This project would fund the remodel of the lobby in the Community Development
department.
150,000 150,000
21 City Hall Courtyard Renovation This project would fund improvements to the courtyard area of City Hall. 100,000 100,000
22 Renovate Existing Stage at Community Center This project would fund ADA accessibility and storage and safety improvements to
the Community Center Multi-Purpose Room Stage.
80,000 80,000
12,330,000$ 12,330,000$
26,170,000$ 25,495,000$
PROPOSED CHANGES TO UNFUNDED CIP PROJECT LIST
FY 2017/18
FACILITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
TOTAL FACILITY UNFUNDED PROJECTS
TOTALS
STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
TOTAL STREETS UNFUNDED PROJECTS
PARK & TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
TOTAL PARKS AND TRAILS UNFUNDED PROJECTS
36
CITY OF SARATOGA
CAPITAL PROGRAM – ADDITIONAL FUNDING REQUESTS
1
CIP
ADDITIONAL FUNDING REQUESTS
37
CITY OF SARATOGA
CAPITAL PROGRAM – ADDITIONAL FUNDING REQUESTS
2
Project
Title Request
Funding
Request
1 Big Basin Way Turnaround This request would fund the construction of a turnaround on Big Basin Way to
improve traffic circulation through Saratoga Village.
175,000
175,000$
2 Parks, Trails, Grounds and Medians
Replacement
This request would increase the annual transfer from $100,000 to $200,000 for
infrastructure maintenance and replacement related to parks, trails, grounds and
medians on an ongoing basis.
100,000
3 Hakone Gardens Infrastructure Improvements This request would fund repair and replacement of the parking lot lights,garden
path accessibility improvements,foundation and roof improvements to the
Azumaya,stairway and railing,electrical,and foundation improvements to the
Upper House, and repair and restoration of the Moon Bridge.
120,000
4 Guava Ct./Fredericksburg Entrance and
Railroad Crossing Improvements
This request is the first of a two year request to fund the removal of the Guava
Court barrier allowing access to Fredericksburg Court near Joe's Trail and
railroad crossing mitigation improvements throughout the City.
680,000
900,000$
5 Community Center/Senior Center Electrical
Panel Upgrade
This request would fund the increase in estimated cost due to additional
electrical engineering and the construction of a wall.
40,000
40,000$
1,115,000$
TOTAL PARKS AND TRAILS REQUESTS
PROPOSED CIP PROGRAM ADDITIONAL FUNDING REQUEST LIST
STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
TOTAL STREET REQUESTS
PARK & TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
TOTAL ADDITIONAL FUNDING REQUESTS
FACILITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
TOTAL FACILITY REQUESTS
38
CITY OF SARATOGA
CAPITAL PROGRAM – ADDITIONAL FUNDING REQUESTS
3
ROADWAY SAFETY PROJECTS
Project Name Big Basin Way Turnaround Project Number 9122-008
Department Public Works Project Manager Emma Burkhalter
Description This project will fund the design and construction of a turnaround on Big Basin Way to improve traffic
circulation through Saratoga Village.
Location The Turnaround is located at the end of Big Basin Way past the corner of 6th Street.
Project
Background
Vehicles driving westbound on Big Basin Way through Saratoga Village towards Hakone Gardens have
limited opportunities to turnaround after passing 6th Street. The City has received numerous complaints
about drivers attempting a turnaround after 6th Street, disrupting traffic or creating a hazard. This project
would improve traffic circulation in the Saratoga Village area and reduce traffic disruptions and hazards.
This project will be completed in two phases, design and construction.
For FY 17/18, $50,000 was allocated from the CIP Reserve for the Design phase of this project. This
phase of the project is anticipated to be completed by April 2018 and will cost approximately $20,000.
Estimated construction costs are $175,000.
Staff recommends a transfer of $175,000 from the CIP reserve to fund the construction phase of this
project.
Operating
Budget Impacts
Engineering and administrative staff costs of $______ for oversight and implementation of this project
will be incorporated into the FY 2018/19 operating budget.
39
CITY OF SARATOGA
CAPITAL PROGRAM – ADDITIONAL FUNDING REQUESTS
4
ROADWAY SAFETY PROJECTS
PROJECT TIMELINE
PROJECT COMPONENT TIMELINE DESCRIPTION
Begin Design Phase July 2017 Begin preparing design and plans
Design Contract Awarded July 2017 Design contract awarded to BKF Engineers
End Design Phase April 2018 Completed project design plans
Begin Bid Process July 2018 Council authorizes bidding for the project
Construction Contract Awarded August 2018 Council awards construction contract
Estimated Construction Start August 2018 Construction begins
Estimated Completion Date November 2018 Project is complete
BIG BASIN WAY TURNAROUND - DESIGN 9122-008
Prior FY Total
Year 2017/18 Funded Project
REVENUES Funded Actuals To Date 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 Funding
CIP STREET FUND
Transfers In - General Fund - 50,000 50,000 175,000 - - - - 225,000
TOTAL REVENUES - 50,000 50,000 175,000 - - - - 225,000
Prior FY Total
Year 2017/18 Expended Project
EXPENDITURES Expended Actuals To Date 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 Expended
CIP STREET FUND
Consultant/Contract Svs - 18,643 18,643 - - - - - 18,643
Construction Expenses - - - 175,000 - - - - 175,000
Transfers Out - 31,357 31,357 - - - - - 31,357
TOTAL EXPENDITURES - 50,000 50,000 175,000 - - - - 225,000
Prior FY Total
Year 2017/18 Project
Activity Actuals Total 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 Activity
CIP STREET FUND
BEGINNING BALANCE - - - - - - -
Revenues & T/I - 50,000 50,000 175,000 - - - - 225,000
Expenditures & T/O - 50,000 50,000 175,000 - - - - 225,000
ENDING BALANCE - - - - - - - - -
Budgeted for Fiscal Year
Budgeted for Fiscal Year
Budgeted for Fiscal Year
40
CITY OF SARATOGA
CAPITAL PROGRAM – ADDITIONAL FUNDING REQUESTS
5
PARK & TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
Project Name Annual Park, Trails, Grounds, & Medians
Replacement
Project Number 9211-001
Department Public Works Project Manager Kevin Meek
Description This project annually funds infrastructure repairs and replacement related to parks, trails, grounds, and
medians.
Location This is a citywide project.
Project
Background
Parks: Parks are maintained by the City of Saratoga Parks Department. Infrastructure includes, but is
not limited to, playground equipment, restroom and concessions buildings, fencing, tennis and
basketball courts, playfields, drinking fountains, pathways, and parking lots.
Trails: Trails are maintained by the City of Saratoga Parks Department. Trail infrastructure incl udes
pathways, signage, irrigation systems, ramps and parking lots.
Grounds: Grounds infrastructure is located at properties including the Civic Center, Saratoga-Prospect
Center, Library, and Blaney Plaza.
Medians: Medians infrastructure includes irrigation systems located at medians throughout the City.
Annual maintenance and replacement of infrastructure related to parks, trails, grounds, and medians
helps to keep them functioning properly for the enjoyment of Saratoga residents.
For FY 17/18 a transfer of $100,000 from the CIP Reserve initially funded this project. Expenses for
the year included repairs to pathways in several parks, the purchase of replacement trashcans, and
improvements to the tennis court in Azule Park.
In review of items identified for replacement in Fiscal Year 2018/19 and beyond, an annual transfer of
$100,000 is not sufficient enough to meet the intended purpose of this project.
Staff is recommending to increase the annual priority transfer from $100,000 to $200,000 on an ongoing
basis.
Operating
Budget Impacts
Administrative and maintenance staff costs of $_______ for oversight and implementation of this
project will be incorporated into the Fiscal Year 2018/19 operating budget.
41
CITY OF SARATOGA
CAPITAL PROGRAM – ADDITIONAL FUNDING REQUESTS
6
CITYWIDE PROJECTS
PROJECT TIMELINE
PROJECT COMPONENT TIMELINE DESCRIPTION
Project Development Ongoing
Contract Award Ongoing
Estimated Construction Start Ongoing
Estimated Completion Date Ongoing
ANNUAL PARKS, TRAILS, GROUNDS, AND MEDIANS MAINTENANCE & REPAIRS 9211-001
Prior FY Total
Year 2017/18 Funding Project
REVENUES Funded Actuals To Date 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 Funding
CIP PARK FUND
AB 8939 Beverage Container 22,059 - 22,059 - - - - - 22,059
CIP Project Reimbursement 64,068 - 64,068 - - - - - 64,068
Transfers In - General Fund 255,000 100,000 355,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,355,000
Transfers In - Other CIP 17,476 - 17,476 - - - - - 17,476
TOTAL REVENUES 358,603 100,000 458,603 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,458,603
FY Total
2017/18 Expended Project
EXPENDITURES Actuals To Date 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 Expended
CIP PARK FUND
Site Acquisition & Prep 2,094 - 2,094 - - - - - 2,094
Materials & Supplies 16,001 - 16,001 - - - - - 16,001
Fees & Expenses 50 - 50 - - - - - 50
Project Equip & Fixtures - 26,764 26,764 - 26,764
Construction Expenses 257,533 - 257,533 273,855 200,000 200,000 200,000 20,000 1,151,388
Transfers Out 82,305 - 82,305 - - - - - 82,305
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 357,983 26,764 384,747 273,855 200,000 200,000 200,000 20,000 1,278,602
Prior FY Total
Year 2017/18 Project
Activity Actuals Total 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 Activity
BEGINNING BALANCE - 619 73,855 - - - - -
Revenues & Transfers In 358,603 100,000 458,603 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,458,603
Exp & Transfers Out 357,983 26,764 384,748 273,855 200,000 200,000 200,000 20,000 1,278,603
ENDING BALANCE 619 73,855 73,855 - - - - 180,000 180,000
Budgeted for Fiscal Year
Budgeted for Fiscal Year
Budgeted for Fiscal Year
42
CITY OF SARATOGA
CAPITAL PROGRAM – ADDITIONAL FUNDING REQUESTS
7
PARK PROJECTS
Project Name Hakone Gardens Infrastructure
Improvements
Project Number 9222-004
Department Public Works Project Manager Iveta Harvancik
Description This project will fund infrastructure improvements at Hakone Gardens.
Location Projects will take place at various locations throughout Hakone Gardens.
Project
Background
Hakone Gardens, a city-owned eighteen-acre park nestled in the foothills just outside of Saratoga
Village, is maintained and operated by the Hakone Foundation, a non-profit organization that seeks to
promote a deeper understanding of Japanese and general Asian culture through the preservation of the
oldest Japanese-style residential garden in the Western Hemisphere.
In May 2016, the City Council approved the Hakone Gardens Master Plan. During the development of
the Plan, a number of deferred maintenance projects that required more than simple maintenance or
repairs were identified. Project examples include well pump replacement, wood damage mitigat ion, pest
control, and garden, electrical, and lighting improvements.
Initial funding for this project came from a $125,000 transfer from the CIP reserve. These funds have
been used for the replacement of railings, lighting, and fixtures, painting of public restrooms, and other
repairs. Fiscal Year 2017/18 improvements include the replacement of the Cultural Center deck railings
and reconstruction of the Upper Wisteria Pavilion.
For Fiscal Year 2018/19, an additional $120,000 is being requested to fund the following; repair and
replacement of the parking lot lights, garden path accessibility improvements, foundation and roof
improvements to the Azumaya, stairway and railing, electrical, and foundation improvements to the
Upper House, and repair and restoration of the Moon Bridge.
Improvements completed through Fiscal Year 2017/18 and proposed for 2018/19 represent ten of the
fourteen deferred maintenance projects identified in the Hakone Gardens Master Plan.
Operating
Budget Impacts
Administrative and maintenance staff costs of $____ for oversight and implementation of this project
will be incorporated into the FY 2018/19 operating budget.
43
CITY OF SARATOGA
CAPITAL PROGRAM – ADDITIONAL FUNDING REQUESTS
8
PARK PROJECTS
PROJECT TIMELINE
PROJECT COMPONENT TIMELINE DESCRIPTION
Contract Award Ongoing
Estimated Construction Start Ongoing
Estimated Completion Date Ongoing
HAKONE GARDENS INFRASTRUCTURE IMPROVEMENTS 9222-004
Prior FY Total
Year 2017/18 Funding Project
REVENUES Funded Actuals To Date 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 Funding
CIP PARK FUND
Transfers In - General Fund 125,000 - 125,000 120,000 - - - - 245,000
TOTAL REVENUES 125,000 - 125,000 120,000 - - - - 245,000
Prior FY Total
Year 2017/18 Expended Project
EXPENDITURES Expended Actuals To Date 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 Expended
CIP PARK FUND
Fees & Expenses 507 - 507 - - - - - 507
Consultant/Contract Svs 7,415 - 7,415 - - - - - 7,415
Construction Expenses 2,565 114,513 117,078 120,000 - - - - 237,078
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 10,487 114,513 125,000 120,000 - - - - 245,000
Prior FY Total
Year 2017/18 Project
Activity Actuals Total 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 Activity
CIP PARK FUND
BEGINNING BALANCE 114,513 - - - - - -
Revenues & T/I 125,000 - 125,000 120,000 - - - - 245,000
Expenditures & T/O 10,487 114,513 125,000 120,000 - - - - 245,000
ENDING BALANCE 114,513 - - - - - - - -
Budgeted for Fiscal Year
Budgeted for Fiscal Year
Budgeted for Fiscal Year
44
CITY OF SARATOGA
CAPITAL PROGRAM – ADDITIONAL FUNDING REQUESTS
9
TRAIL PROJECTS
Project Name Guava Ct/Fredericksburg Entrance and
Railroad Crossing Improvements
Project Number 9274-002
Department Public Works Project Manager Mainini Cabute
Description This project funds the removal of the Guava Court barrier allowing access from Guava Court to
Fredericksburg Drive (Access) near Joe’s Trail.
Location This project is located at Guava Court near Fredericksburg Access at Joe’s Trail.
Project
Background
In 2007, the pedestrian crossings connecting Fredericksburg Drive and Guava Court were declared
unsafe by the California Public Utilities Commission (CPUC) and were consequently closed. Since that
time, the City of Saratoga has developed Joe’s Trail at Saratoga De Anza.
In September 2012, residents living near the Fredericksburg and Guava Court a ccess points expressed
interest in having the crossing reopened. After making improvements to resolve safety issues cited by
the CPUC, the City reopened the Fredericksburg entrance to connect up to Joe’s Trail. The Guava Court
entrance on the other side of the railroad tracks was not reopened, as it requires an easement as well as
pathway and safety improvements.
Residents believe that reopening the access point at Guava Court will eliminate the need to travel along
an arterial street and thereby provide a safer option for pedestrians and bicyclists. Additionally, re-
opening the entrance would provide a pathway to connect the Fredericksburg Drive neighborhood with
Blue Hills Elementary School.
The project is estimated to cost $1.2 million including design ($227,000), construction ($730,000), and
citywide railroad crossing mitigation improvements required by Union Pacific Railroad ($262,500).
Initial funding comes from a $300,000 Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA) grant and City
matching funds of $45,880. Staff is recommending a transfer of $680,000 in Fiscal Year 2018/19 for
construction and phase I of the required railroad crossings mitigation and $193,620 will be needed in
Fiscal Year 2019/20 in order to complete phase II of mitigation.
Operating
Budget Impacts
Engineering and administrative staff costs of $______ for oversight and implementation of this project
are incorporated into the FY 2018/19 operating budget.
45
CITY OF SARATOGA
CAPITAL PROGRAM – ADDITIONAL FUNDING REQUESTS
10
TRAIL PROJECTS
PROJECT TIMELINE
PROJECT COMPONENT TIMELINE DESCRIPTION
Apply for Grant Funding Complete Grant Awarded March 2014.
Permission from CPUC June 2018 Obtain permission from CPUC to proceed, enter into agreement with Union
Pacific, and begin design to extend grant
Design & Environmental Jan – June 2018 Plans, specifications, environmental clearance
Estimated Construction Start August 2018 Construction project begins, may vary depending on railroad schedule
Estimated Entrance Completion December 2018 Guava Court entrance to Joe’s Trail complete, depending on railroad schedule
Estimated Completion Date December 2020 Project, including railroad improvements, is completed
GUAVA COURT/FREDERICKSBURG ENTRANCE 9274-002
Prior FY Total
Year 2017/18 Funding Project
REVENUES Funded Actuals To Date 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 Funding
CIP PARK FUND
Transfers In - General Fund 45,880 - 45,880 680,000 193,620 - - - 919,500
TOTAL CIP FUND 45,880 - 45,880 680,000 193,620 - - - 919,500
GRANT FUND
TFCA Grant - 135,380 135,380 164,620 - - - - 300,000
TOTAL GRANT FUND - 135,380 135,380 164,620 - - - - 300,000
TOTAL REVENUES - 135,380 181,260 844,620 193,620 - - - 1,219,500
Prior FY Total
Year 2017/18 Expended Project
EXPENDITURES Expended Actuals To Date 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 Expended
CIP PARK FUND
Fees & Expenses - 3,000 - - - - 3,000
Consultant/Contract Svs 24,524 10,531 35,055 - 112,500 - - - 147,555
Construction Expenses - - - 618,945 150,000 - - - 768,945
TOTAL STREET FUND 24,524 10,531 35,055 621,945 262,500 - - - 919,500
GRANT FUND
Consultant/Contract Svs 135,380 135,380 56,565 - - - - 191,945
Construction Expenses - - - 108,055 - - - - 108,055
TOTAL GRANT FUND - 135,380 135,380 164,620 - - - - 300,000
TOTAL EXPENDITURES 24,524 145,911 170,435 786,565 262,500 - - - 1,219,500
Prior FY Total
Year 2017/18 Project
Activity Actuals Total 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 Activity
CIP PARK FUND
BEGINNING FUND BAL - 21,356 10,825 68,880 - - -
Revenues & T/I 45,880 - 45,880 680,000 193,620 - - - 919,500
Expenditures & T/O 24,524 10,531 35,055 621,945 262,500 - - - 919,500
ENDING FUND BALANCE 21,356 10,825 10,825 68,880 - - - - -
GRANT FUND
BEGINNING BALANCE - - - - - - -
Revenues & Transfers In - 135,380 135,380 164,620 - - - - 300,000
Expenditures & Transfers Out - 135,380 135,380 164,620 - - - - 300,000
ENDING BALANCE - - - - - - - - -
Budgeted for Fiscal Year
Budgeted for Fiscal Year
Budgeted for Fiscal Year
46
CITY OF SARATOGA
CAPITAL PROGRAM – ADDITIONAL FUNDING REQUESTS
11
FACILITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
Project Name Community Center/Senior Center Electrical
Panel Upgrade
Project Number 9331-008
Department Facilities Project Manager Thomas Scott
Description This project funds the installation of a new, code-compliant main electrical panel with transfer switches
to service the Community Center/Senior Center building.
Location This project is located in the Senior Center maintenance closet.
Project
Background
The existing General electric main switchboard (MSB) that serves both the Community and Senior Center
is dated and unable to meet the electricity demands of the building. During peak hours, fuses are regularly
overloaded due to energy capacity issues. This project is also required before proceeding with the Senior
Center remodel plans that the Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating Council (SASCC) has developed and
is currently raising funds.
When completed, the new electrical panel will meet the energy demands and distribution requirements
of the building and provide code-compliant electrical power. Additionally, the new panel will be
compatible for use of a portable emergency generator in the event of a power outage and would allow for
the potential installation of roof-mounted solar panels for future electrical power.
In FY 2016/17, $120,000 was allocated for this project from the CIP reserve.
The estimated cost of this project has increased to $160,000. The original cost estimate was prepared
based on the assumption that the project could be done in concert with the Senior Center remodel, but
staff is proposing additional funds to make the panel improvements in advance to prevent any conflicts
with the remodel project timeline.
Staff is recommending a transfer of $40,000 from the CIP reserve.
Operating
Budget Impacts
Administrative staff costs of $______ for oversight and implementation of this project will be
incorporated into the Fiscal Year 2018/19 operating budget.
47
CITY OF SARATOGA
CAPITAL PROGRAM – ADDITIONAL FUNDING REQUESTS
12
COMMUNITY CENTER
PROJECT TIMELINE
PROJECT COMPONENT TIMELINE DESCRIPTION
Begin Design Phase April 2018 Prepare plans and specification
Contract Award July 2018 Council awards contract
Estimated Construction Start September 2018 Construction project begins
Estimated Completion Date December 2018 Project completed
COMMUNITY CENTER/SENIOR CENTER ELECTRICAL PANEL UPGRADE 9331-008
Prior FY Total
Year 2017/18 Funding Project
REVENUES Funded Actuals To Date 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 Funding
CIP FACILITIES FUND
Transfers In - General Fund 120,000 - 120,000 - - - - - 120,000
TOTAL REVENUES 120,000 - 120,000 - - - - - 120,000
Prior FY Total
Year 2017/18 Expended Project
EXPENDITURES Expended Actuals To Date 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 Expended
CIP FACILITIES FUND
Construction Expenses - - - 120,000 - - - - 120,000
TOTAL EXPENDITURES - - - 120,000 - - - - 120,000
Prior FY Total
Year 2017/18 Project
Activity Actuals Total 2018/19 2019/20 2020/21 2021/22 2022/23 Activity
CIP FACILITIES FUND
BEGINNING FUND BAL - 120,000 120,000 - - - - -
Revenues & T/I 120,000 - 120,000 - - - - - 120,000
Expenditures & T/O - - - 120,000 - - - - 120,000
ENDING FUND BALANCE 120,000 120,000 120,000 - - - - - -
Budgeted for Fiscal Year
Budgeted for Fiscal Year
Budgeted for Fiscal Year
48
CITY OF SARATOGA
CAPITAL PROGRAM - NOMINATED PROJECTS
1
NOMINATED
CIP PROJECT NARRATIVES
49
CITY OF SARATOGA
CAPITAL PROGRAM - NOMINATED PROJECTS
2
Project
Title Request Nominee
Funding
Request
1 Saratoga Avenue & Fruitvale Avenue
Intersection Improvements
This project would fund improvements to the intersection of Saratoga and
Fruitvale Avenues.
Staff 250,000
250,000$
2 Quarry Park Bike Path This project would add a bike path through Quarry Park adjacent to Hwy 9.Council 175,000
3 Park & Trail Improvements This project would add fencing and lighting in several City parks.Staff 43,000
4 Quito/Pollard Roads Open Space
Improvements
This project would fund improvements to the open space area located at the
corner of Quito and Pollard Roads.
Staff 75,000
5 Bocce Ball Court This project will fund the installation of a bocce ball court at City Hall in
conjunction with funds raised by the Senior Center
Staff 70,000
363,000$
6 Senior Center Entrance Remodel This project would renovate the exterior entrance and walkways into the
Saratoga Senior Center.
Council 50,000
50,000$
7 Accessibility Assessment This project would assess compliance with accessibility requirements for City
parking areas and traffic signals.
Council 75,000
75,000$
738,000$ TOTALS
TOTAL STREETS NOMINATED FUNDING REQUESTS
TOTAL PARKS AND TRAILS NOMINATED PROJECTS
NOMINATED CIP PROJECT LIST
FY 2018/19
STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
PARK & TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
FACILITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
ADMINISTRATIVE PROJECTS
TOTAL FACILITY NOMINATED PROJECTS
TOTAL ADMINISTRATIVE NOMINATED PROJECTS
50
CITY OF SARATOGA
CAPITAL PROGRAM - NOMINATED PROJECTS
3
STREET IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
Project Name Saratoga Avenue & Fruitvale Avenue
Intersection Improvements
Project Number
Department Public Works Project Manager John Cherbone
Description This project would make improvements to the intersections at Saratoga Avenue and Fruitvale Avenue
and Fruitvale Avenue and Allendale Avenue.
Location This project is located at two separate intersections: Saratoga Avenue and Fruitvale Avenue; and
Fruitvale Avenue and Allendale Avenue.
Project
Background
Saratoga Avenue and Fruitvale Avenue are identified as two of several major thoroughfares within the
City, designed to carry the bulk of traffic passing through Saratoga. The intersections of Saratoga Avenue
and Fruitvale Avenue and Fruitvale Avenue and Allendale Avenue also serve as the primary access to
West Valley College, Redwood Middle School, the Post Office, Saratoga City Hall, and two private
schools on Saratoga Avenue. As a result, the intersections become congested with pedestrian and vehicle
traffic on weekdays during school drop off and pick up.
This project would reconfigure lanes at the Fruitvale Avenue and Allendale Avenue intersection to better
align with peak traffic patterns. The project would also include installation of green bike lanes on
Saratoga Avenue between Scotland Drive and Fruitvale Avenue in the southbound direction to draw
driver attention to bicyclists on the roadway.
Additionally, the right-turn slip lanes will be removed at both intersections. Right-turn slip lanes have a
small island between the intersection and the right turn lane. While these lanes are typically installed to
allow vehicles to make right turns without entering the intersection and to increase traffic flow, they can
also make crossing the street more challenging for pedestrians. It is particularly problem atic in areas
near schools were students may congregate on the right-turn slip area. Removing the right-turn slip lanes
is expected to increase pedestrian visibility and slow vehicle speeds. Eliminating the right-turn slip lanes
will also require removal and replacement of some of the traffic signals at both intersections.
Operating
Budget Impacts
Engineering, administrative, and maintenance staff costs for oversight and implementation will be
incorporated into the operating budget. This project may have operational impacts as the striping may
require ongoing maintenance.
Estimated Cost $250,000
51
CITY OF SARATOGA
CAPITAL PROGRAM - NOMINATED PROJECTS
4
PARK & TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
Project Name Quarry Park Bike Path Project Number
Department Public Works Project Manager John Cherbone
Description This project would add a bike path through Quarry Park adjacent to State Route 9.
Location This project is located at Quarry Park.
Project
Background
Many of the roadways throughout the City were planned and developed on principles for rural
communities, including narrow travel lanes and natural setting. The hilly terrain and beautiful
environment make Saratoga a popular destination for cyclists. A number of popular bicycle routes
include State Route 9, which is part of the State Scenic Highway System. State Route 9 also connects
riders with State Route 35, Saratoga Gap, Stevens Creek Reservoir, and other locations popular amongst
bicyclists looking for challenging hill climbs.
While many sections of State Route 9 are wide enough to allow for standard bicycle lanes, there are
several segments that are too narrow for officially designated bike routes. One of these narrow passages
is located along the frontage of Quarry Park.
This project would add a bike path in Quarry Park starting at the main entrance to the park, through the
parking area, and exiting from the northeast boundary of the park on State Route 9 near Toll Gate Road.
The path would allow cyclists to bypass one of the narrowest parts of State Route 9 within Saratoga City
Limits.
This project was nominated by Council Member Howard Miller with support from Vice Mayor Manny
Cappello at the September 20, 2017 Regular City Council Meeting.
Operating
Budget Impacts
Engineering, administrative, and maintenance staff costs for oversight and implementation will be
incorporated into the operating budget. This project may have operational impacts as the path may
require ongoing maintenance.
Estimated Cost $175,000
52
CITY OF SARATOGA
CAPITAL PROGRAM - NOMINATED PROJECTS
5
PARK & TRAIL IMPROVEMENTS PROJECTS
Project Name Park & Trail Improvements Project Number
Department Public Works Project Manager John Cherbone
Description This project would make improvements at several City parks and at Parker Ranch Trail.
Location This project will be located at Brookglen Park, Foothill Park, Azule Park, Congress Springs Park, and
Parker Ranch Trail.
Project
Background
This project would add new security lighting at Azule Park, new fences at Brookglen Park, Foothill Park,
and Congress Springs Park, and a new set of stairs and bollards at Parker Ranch Trail.
Solar powered lighting at Azule Park would be located near the playground. The lighting is intended to
discourage after hours loitering in the park.
The new fencing will be strategically located to provide additional security at each of the parks by
creating barriers between the park users and vehicle traffic. The fences provide a physical barrier that
prevent children or objects from entering roadway that border the parks. Proposed fences include split-
rail fencing at the front of Brookglen and Foothill Parks and a 3 to 4 foot black chain -link fence at
Congress Springs Park near the baseball warm-up area.
Additionally, the project would include installation of a new stairway and bollards at Parker Ranch in a
section where the trail grade has become very steep due to water erosion and high use. Improvements
will make the trail easier and safer for hikers to use.
Operating
Budget Impacts
Engineering, administrative, and maintenance staff costs for oversight and implementation will be
incorporated into the operating budget. This project may have operational impacts as fencing and lighting
may require ongoing maintenance, but may also reduce damage to turf resulting from vehicles driving
through parks.
Estimated Cost $43,000
53
CITY OF SARATOGA
CAPITAL PROGRAM - NOMINATED PROJECTS
6
PARK & TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
Project Name Quito Road/Pollard Road Open Space
Improvements
Project Number
Department Public Works Project Manager John Cherbone
Description This project would make improvements to the open space area at the corner of Quito Road and Pollard
Road.
Location This project will be located at Quito Road and Pollard Road.
Project
Background
This project would make improvements to the open space area at the corner of Quito Road and Pollard
Road, locally referred to as No Name Park. The property is an excess right -of-way area owned by the
City and is roughly a half acre in size. The project would include beautification, a meditation garden,
landscaping improvements with drought tolerant and/or native species, pathway enhancements, and
irrigation. With the improvements, the area would also be officially designated as a park.
This project was nominated by Mayor Mary-Lynne Bernald with support from Vice Mayor Manny
Cappello.
Operating
Budget Impacts
Engineering, administrative, and maintenance staff costs for oversight and implementation will be
incorporated into the operating budget. This proj ect may have operational impacts that may require
ongoing maintenance.
Estimated Cost $75,000
54
CITY OF SARATOGA
CAPITAL PROGRAM - NOMINATED PROJECTS
7
PARK & TRAIL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
Project Name Bocce Ball Court Project Number
Department Public Works Project Manager John Cherbone
Description
This project would fund the installation of a bocce ball court at City Hall.
Location This project is located at Saratoga City Hall, in the lawn area on the corner of Fruitvale Avenue
and Allendale Avenue.
Project
Background
This project would install two bocce ball courts in a large, underutilized lawn area in front of City
Hall on the corner of Fruitvale Avenue and Allendale Avenue.
This project is being nominated by the Public Works department based upon a recommendation from
several America in Bloom volunteers as an opportunity for a community beautification project. Due
to drought conditions, the lawn area in front of City Hall has received limited watering and much of
the grass is now dead and brown during dryer months.
Staff has recommended increasing the cost estimate to reflect the full cost for this project from
$50,000 to $70,000. The Senior Center has raised approximately $22,000 in support of this project.
This project is recommended to be nominated for funding in Fiscal Year 2018/19.
Operating
Budget Impacts
Engineering, administrative, and maintenance s taff time associated with oversight and
implementation of this project will be incorporated into the operating budget. The project may
increase maintenance costs as the City will be responsible for maintaining additional landscaping,
However, the Bocce Ball court will reduce the amount of turf area in front of City Hall, therby
reducing lawn maintenance and watering costs.
Estimated Cost $70,000.
55
CITY OF SARATOGA
CAPITAL PROGRAM - NOMINATED PROJECTS
8
FACILITY IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
Project Name Senior Center Entrance Remodel Project Number
Department Public Works Project Manager John Cherbone
Description This project would renovate the exterior entrance and walkways to the Saratoga Senior Center.
Location This project is located at the Saratoga Senior Center.
Project
Background
The Saratoga Senior Center, operated by the Saratoga Area Senior Coordinating Council (SASCC), is
attached to the Joan Pisani Community Center. SASCC leases the Senior Center space and provides
services to older adults in the community via contract with the City. The Senior Center offers a variety
of classes and programs that keep the City’s older adults active, social, and happy. Additionally, SASCC
operates the Adult Care Center that serves less independent older adults. The Adult Care Center is open
to individuals who are 50 years or older, need assistance with activities of daily living, and are not able
to participate in other active senior programs.
The Senior Center has two dedicated entrances, one that brings visitors to the Senior Center Lobby and
another to the Adult Care Center. Currently, the entrances to the Senior Center include two ramps and
sparse landscaping. This project would remodel the exterior entrance and the two walkways to the Senior
Center, making improvements to landscaping and si gnage to make the Senior Center more appealing
and welcoming.
This project was nominated by Vice Mayor Manny Cappello with support from Council Member
Howard Miller at the September 6, 2017 Regular City Council Meeting.
Operating
Budget Impacts
Engineering, administrative, and maintenance staff costs for oversight and implementation is
incorporated into the operating budget. This project may have operational impacts to maintain updated
landscaping.
Estimated Cost $50,000
56
CITY OF SARATOGA
CAPITAL PROGRAM - NOMINATED PROJECTS
9
ADMINISTRATIVE & TECHNOLOGY PROJECTS
Project Name Accessibility Assessment Project Number
Department Public Works Project Manager John Cherbone
Description This project would assess compliance with accessibility requirements for City parking areas and traffic
signals.
Location This is a Citywide project.
Project
Background
There are a number of regulations that help ensure people with disabilities can access buildings, parks,
parking, and other facilities. For example, there are specifications establishing minimum ratios of
accessible parking spaces in parking lots and requirements for minimum width for parking spaces and
access aisle to provide individuals in wheelchairs or with mobility limitations with sufficient room to
exit or enter vehicles.
This project would assess the City’s compliance with accessibility requirements across City parking lots,
including those owned or leased by the City, and traffic signals. Additionally, the project would outline
implementation strategies to bring the City into compliance with accessibility requirements, if necessary.
If this project receives funding, staff recommends closing the ADA Signals and Curb Cut -Outs project
so that priories can be assessed before allocation of resources.
This project was nominated by Council Member Howard Miller with support from Vice Mayo r Manny
Cappello at the September 20, 2017 Regular City Council Meeting.
Operating
Budget Impacts
Engineering, administrative, and maintenance staff costs for oversight and implementation is
incorporated into the operating budget. This project may have operational impacts or future capital
improvement budget impacts as the assessment may recommend various improvements.
Estimated Cost $75,000
57
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE:February 16, 2018
DEPARTMENT:City Manager’s Office
PREPARED BY:James Lindsay, City Manager
SUBJECT:Staffing and Service Levels
On overview of existing service levels and proposed staffing changes will be presented at the
Council Retreat.
58
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE:February 16, 2018
DEPARTMENT:City Manager’s Office
PREPARED BY:Crystal Bothelio, Deputy City Manager
SUBJECT:Public Health Initiatives & Santa Clara County Healthy Cities Campaign
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Provide direction to staff.
BACKGROUND:
In 2016, the Santa Clara County Public Health Department launched the Healthy Cities Initiative
Dashboard in partnership with the Cities Association of Santa Clara County to communicate and
acknowledge the work of cities in promoting public health. The dashboard identifies whether a
city has achieved a number of public health strategies within four categories: Active & Safe
Communities; Healthy Food & Beverage Environments; Tobacco-Free Communities; and Cross-
Cutting Strategies. Each city in the County receives a dashboard that shows which strategies the
city has achieved.
The 2017 Dashboard was published in November. Staff reviewed the dashboard and identified
opportunities to expand public health efforts, if desired by the City Council. The 2017 dashboard
with strategies proposed for 2018 is shown in Attachment A.
Staff is proposing an additional 6 strategies within the Active & Safe Communities category, an
additional 4 strategies in the Healthy Food &Beverage Environments category, and an additional
2 strategies in the Tobacco-Free Communities categories. This would bring the total number of
strategies achieved in Active & Safe Communities up from 5 to 11, Healthy Food & Beverage
Environments strategies from 4 to 8, and Tobacco-Free Communities Strategies from 8 to 10 on
the 2018 dashboard. All of the strategies identified by staff can be implemented with existing
resources and with minimal adjustments in the Fiscal Year 2018/19 budget.
Category
Total Possible
Strategies 2017 Total
2018 Total with
Proposed Strategies
Active & Safe Communities 16 5 11
Healthy Food & Beverage Environments 11 4 8
Tobacco-Free Communities 14 8 10
Cross-Cutting Strategies 3 2 2 59
Active & Safe Communities
Within the Active & Safe Communities, staff identified 6 additional strategies that can be
implemented in 2018 to further improve the health of the community by increasing opportunities
to walk or bike. These strategies include:
1. Incentives for Use of Public Transit/and or Ridesharing to Work for City Employees
Strategy:Offer incentives that encourage City employees to use public transit
and/or rideshare when traveling between home and work.
Implementation
Options:
The City currently has a grant funded Wellness Incentive Program that
offers small incentives to employees that subscribe to gym
memberships or that visit the doctor for preventative health purposes.
The program could be expanded to include incentives for employees
that demonstrate use of public transit or ridesharing to commute to and
from work over a sustained period.
For example, employees that show proof of using public transit or
ridesharing 3 times in a month would be eligible to receive an
incentive, such as a $25 gift card. Staff would recommend increasing
the Fiscal Year 2018/19 Wellness Incentive Program budget by $500
to offer an incentive of this type.
In addition or alternatively, the City could provide public
transportation passes or reimbursements up to a certain value. Staff
would recommend increasing the Fiscal Year 2018/19 Wellness
Incentive Program budget by $1,000 to offer an incentive of this type.
Timeline:Incentives could be offered starting July 1, 2018 as part of the Fiscal
Year 2018/19 budget, scheduled for adoption in June 2018.
2. Incentives for Walking and/or Biking to Work for City Employees
Strategy:Offer incentives that encourage City employees to walk and/or bike
between home and work.
Implementation
Options:
Similar to the incentives for use of public transit or ridesharing, the
City could offer small incentives to employees that walk and/or bike.
If the City Council wanted to proceed with this option, the Wellness
Incentive Program budget could be increased by $500 in the Fiscal
Year 2018/19.
Timeline:Incentives could be offered starting July 1, 2018 as part of the Fiscal
Year 2018/19 budget, scheduled for adoption in June 2018.
60
3. Adoption of a Safe Routes to School Resolution
Strategy:Adopt a Safe Routes to School resolution.
Implementation
Options:
The Safe Routes to School Program was established by Congress in
2005 to decrease childhood obesity by increasing the number of
students walking and biking to school, which has seen significant
declines in recent decades. A number of jurisdictions across the
United States have adopted Safe Routes to School resolutions, making
them eligible for Safe Routes to School grant funding.
Timeline:The resolution could be brought to the City Council for consideration
in March 2018.
4. Multi-Disciplinary Safe Routes to School Collaborative/Task Force
Strategy:Create a task force comprised of different stakeholders, including
representatives of law enforcement, traffic/engineering staff, and
school representatives to evaluate school traffic safety manners and
plan and coordinate Safe Routes to School efforts.
Implementation
Options:
A multi-disciplinary task force or committee is frequently required as
part of a Safe Routes to School program. If the City Council would
like to adopt a Safe Routes to School resolution, this multi-
disciplinary committee can easily be formed by making slight
adjustments to the responsibilities of the Traffic Safety Commission,
which already meets many of the requirements of this Safe Routes to
School task force.
Timeline:If the City Council would like to use the Traffic Safety Commission as
the multi-disciplinary task force, the City Council could provide
direction to the Commission at the March 5, 2018 Work Plan Study
Session. Staff could then work with the Commission to determine how
to fit Safe Routes to School responsibilities within the Commission’s
existing obligations before the end of the school year, so that meetings
with school representatives on school traffic safety can occur before or
just after the start of the 2018/19 school year.
5. Dedicated Safe Routes to School and/or Bike/Pedestrian Coordinator
Strategy:Designate a someone to coordinate Safe Routes to School and/or
bicycle and pedestrian non-infrastructure projects, such as outreach
and education with support of a traffic engineer to coordinate
infrastructure projects; or designate one person to coordinate both
non-infrastructure and infrastructure projects.
Implementation
Options:
If the City Council would like to adopt a Safe Routes to School
resolution, the City Council may direct the City Manager to designate
an existing member of City staff as the Safe Routes to School/Bike 61
and Pedestrian Coordinator. The duties of the Coordinator align
closely with existing duties of staff in the Public Works Department.
Timeline:Designation of a Safe Routes to School/Bike and Pedestrian
Coordinator could occur before June 2018.
6. Annual Assessment of Student Travel Mode
Strategy:Conduct an annual assessment of travel methods used by students at
all schools in the City.
Implementation
Options:
An annual assessment of student travel is a common requirement of
Safe Routes to School Programs. This assessment could be conducted
as a voluntary parent survey in partnership with local school districts.
Timeline:The first annual assessment of student travel mode could be conducted
before the end of the 2017/2018 school year.
Healthy Food & Beverage Environments
Within the Healthy Food & Beverage Environments, staff identified 4 strategies that can be
implemented in 2018 to further improve the health of the community by increasing access to
healthy food and beverage choices. These strategies include:
1. Water Access Policy
Strategy:Establish a policy that would require installation of a water
fountain/bottle filling station as part of significant projects to City
property.
Implementation
Options:
The City Council could direct the Finance Committee and staff to
develop a fiscal policy for the Fiscal Year 2018/19 budget that
requires installation of water fountains/bottle filling stations for:
-Park or facility improvement projects over $150,000 at locations
where there is no water fountain/bottle filing currently in place
-Plumbing improvements at City parks or facilities that can easily
accommodate installation of a water fountain/bottle filing station
and there is no water fountain/bottle filing currently in place
Timeline:The policy could be included as part of the Fiscal Year 2018/19
budget, scheduled for adoption in June 2018.
62
2. Standards for City-Run Adult and Youth-Based Programming
Strategy:Adopt a policy that establishes standards for healthy food and
beverages provided as part of City-run adult and youth-based
programming.
Implementation
Options:
The City Council could direct staff to prepare a policy that establishes
standards for healthy food and beverages for City-run adult and youth-
based programming. The County recommends adopting standards that
require all beverages and at least half of food to meet healthy food
criteria established by the County.
Timeline:A policy could be brought before the City Council for consideration in
April 2018.
3. Standards for City-Run Cafes, Cafeterias, Snack Shacks, and Kiosks
Strategy:Adopt a policy that establishes standards for healthy food and
beverages available for purchase at City-run cafes, cafeterias, snack
shacks, or kiosks.
Implementation
Options:
The City Council could direct staff to prepare a policy that establishes
standards for healthy food and beverages available for purchase at
City-run cafes, cafeterias, snack shacks, or kiosks. The County
recommends adopting standards that require at least half of beverages
and food to meet healthy food criteria established by the County.
Timeline:A policy could be brought before the City Council for consideration in
April 2018.
4. Standards for Events
Strategy:Adopt a policy that establishes standards for healthy food and
beverages made available at City events.
Implementation
Options:
The City Council could direct staff to prepare a policy that establishes
standards for healthy food and beverages provided at City events. The
County recommends adopting standards that require all beverages and
at least half of food to meet healthy food criteria established by the
County.
Timeline:A policy could be brought before the City Council for consideration in
April 2018.
63
Tobacco-Free Communities
Within the Tobacco-Free Communities, staff identified 2 additional strategies that can be
implemented in 2018 to further reduce exposure to secondhand smoke and opportunities for
youth access to tobacco. These strategies include:
1. Prohibit Sales of Tobacco in Pharmacies
Strategy:Adopt an ordinance prohibiting pharmacies from selling tobacco.
Implementation
Options:
The City currently has a Tobacco Retailer Licensing section in the
City Code that identifies requirements for Tobacco Retailers. If the
City Council wanted to pursue this strategy, the City Council could
direct staff to prepare an ordinance amending Tobacco Retailer
regulations to prohibit pharmacies in the City from selling tobacco
products.
Timeline:An ordinance could be brought before the City Council in June 2018
or as part of the Annual Code Updates, if Annual Code Updates are
considered by the City Council by September 2018.
2. Enforcement of Tobacco Sales to Minors
Strategy:Conduct enforcement operation of local and state regulations relating
to tobacco sales to minors.
Implementation
Options:
The City of Saratoga conducts annual enforcement of laws that
prevent sales of tobacco to minors. The City’s 2017 dashboard did not
note completion of this strategy, because enforcement was conducted
after publication of the dashboards.
Timeline:Staff is working with the Sheriff’s Office to conduct enforcement
operations in Spring 2018.
Healthy Cities Initiative 2018 Strategies & Evaluation Timeline
The County Public Health Department is in the process of updating strategies and criteria for
2018. Consequently, the total number of strategies and the criteria for strategies may change.
Due to timing of the evaluation process, staff recommends that any new public health initiatives
be completed before the end of the summer or early fall to be captured in the 2018 Healthy Cities
Dashboard.
SUMMARY:
Staff has proposed 6 additional strategies in the Active & Safe Communities, 4 additional
strategies in the Healthy Food & Beverage Environments category, and 2 additional strategies in
the Tobacco-Free Communities category. If the City Council chooses to implement all
64
recommended strategies, an additional allocation of $2,000 is recommended as part of the Active
& Safe Communities strategies.
Staff is requesting City Council direction on which strategies to implement in 2018. If the City
Council chooses to pursue any of the strategies, staff would like input on implementation options
and timelines for the proposed strategies.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – 2017 Healthy Cities Initiative Dashboard with Strategies Proposed for 2018
Attachment B – 2017 Healthy Cities Initiative Criteria
Attachment C – 2017 Healthy Cities Initiative Countywide Dashboard
65
66
p.1
Policy and Practice Strategies Companion Document
Category Subcategory Strategy How a jurisdiction earns a check (or star, if applicable)
Active & Safe
Communities
Active
Transportation
& Recreation
Initiatives
Vision Zero Initiative Jurisdiction adopts a Vision Zero Initiative or strategy that at a
minimum:
o Sets a clear goal of eliminating traffic fatalities and severe injuries
o Has the public endorsement and commitment of the Mayor/elected
official(s)
o Establishes a clear time frame
o Engages key city departments (Police Department, Department of
Transportation, and Public Health)
Complete Streets
Guidelines
Jurisdiction adopts a Complete Streets Resolution or Complete Streets
language in its General Plan, with the goal of making city streets safer
for all modes of transportation, and as a result more livable and more
economically vibrant
Bicycle, Pedestrian, and/or
Trails Master Plans
Jurisdictions adopts a bicycle, pedestrian, or trails master plan to make
biking and walking more safe, comfortable, convenient, and/or
enjoyable for all community members
Parks and Recreation
Master Plans
Jurisdiction adopts a parks and/or recreation master plan to guide
maintenance and, environmental, recreational, and programming work
in parks, and that establishes priorities for future park renovations and
facility improvements
Bike‐Friendly Designation Jurisdiction has applied for and received a minimum of a Bronze‐level
Bicycle Friendly Community designation from the League of American
Bicyclists in the previous four years
Walk‐Friendly Community
Designation
Jurisdiction has applied for and received a minimum of a Bronze‐level
Walk Friendly Community designation from the University of North
Carolina Highway Safety Research Center in recognition of efforts to
improve a wide range of conditions related to walking, including safety,
mobility, access, and comfort
Bike Parking Near Public
Facilities
Jurisdiction has installed and maintains publicly accessible bike parking
at or near public facilities
Pedestrian, Bike, and/or
Transit‐Oriented Facilities
Jurisdiction has installed infrastructure or designs facilities in ways that
are conducive to walking, biking, or taking transit (e.g. entryways face
the street versus parking lots, etc.)
Workplace
Commute
Planning for
Employees
Incentives for Use of Public
Transit and/or Ridesharing
to Work
Jurisdiction offers its employees financial or other incentives to use
public transportation or ridesharing to commute to and from work
Incentives for Walking
and/or Biking to Work
Jurisdiction offers its employees financial or other incentives to walk or
bike to and from work
Shower Facilities for
Employees who Walk or
Bike to Work
Jurisdiction has installed showers for employees who walk or bike to
work to use at any of its worksite locations
A jurisdiction may earn a star if it has installed showers for all
employees who walk or bike to work to use at all worksite locations
Transportation Demand
Management Policies
Jurisdiction adopts and implements Transportation Demand
Management strategies to discourage employees and residents from
driving (e.g. fees to park) and encourage alternate forms of
transportation
67
p.2
Category Subcategory Strategy How a jurisdiction earns a check (or star, if applicable)
Safe Routes to
School
Safe Routes to School
(SRTS) Resolution
Jurisdiction SRTS Resolution completed to address the acceptance of
federal or state SRTS funding only
A jurisdiction may earn a star if its SRTS Resolution commits support to
a comprehensive Safe Routes to School Program
Multidisciplinary SRTS
Collaborative/Task Force
Outside agency provides administrative support for regular SRTS
Collaborative meetings between representatives from the jurisdiction’s
(enforcement and traffic/engineering) school district and schools
participating in city‐wide SRTS planning, focusing on education and
encouragement
A jurisdiction may earn a star if the jurisdiction itself provides
administrative support for regular SRTS Collaborative meetings
between representatives from the City (enforcement and
traffic/engineering), and school district/schools and parents
participating in city‐wide SRTS planning. SRTS Collaborative must also
address policy, systems and environmental changes impacting SRTS as
well as direct services such as education and encouragement
Dedicated SRTS or Bicycle
and Pedestrian
Coordinator
Jurisdiction has a non‐city funded SRTS Coordinator and/or bicycle and
pedestrian coordinator (funded by temporary or limited time funds or
grants) that coordinates non‐infrastructure projects (education,
encouragement and evaluation activities) for SRTS and/or active
transportation with traffic engineer OR (if one individual only)
coordinates both non‐infrastructure and traffic
engineering/infrastructure
A jurisdiction may earn a star if the SRTS Coordinator and/or Bicycle
and Pedestrian Coordinator is city funded (e.g. not through a grant)
and if they coordinate non‐infrastructure projects with the traffic
engineer OR (if one individual only) coordinates both non‐
infrastructure and traffic
Annual Assessment of
Student Travel Mode
Jurisdiction works with schools to assess student travel mode (e.g.
walking, biking, carpool) during current year
Healthy Food
& Beverage
Environments
Healthy Food &
Beverage
Procurement
Standards
Standards for Meetings
and Celebrations
Jurisdiction adopts any written standards that address healthy food
and beverages served at meetings and celebrations (and that do not
meet model criteria below)
A jurisdiction may earn a star if the written standards require all (100%)
of the beverages served and sold at meetings and celebrations to be
healthy and that no less than half (50%) of the food served and sold at
meetings, events and celebrations to be healthy (details available upon
request)
Standards for Events Jurisdiction adopts written standards that address healthy food and
beverages served at events (and that do not meet model criteria
below)
A jurisdiction may earn a star if the written standards require all (100%)
of the beverages served and sold at events to be healthy and that no
less than half (50%) of the food served and sold at events to be healthy
(details available upon request)
68
p.3
Category Subcategory Strategy How a jurisdiction earns a check (or star, if applicable)
Standards for Vending
Machines
Jurisdiction adopts any written standards that address healthy food
and beverages sold in vending machines (and that do not meet model
criteria below)
A jurisdiction may earn a star if the written standards require all (100%)
of the food and beverages sold in vending machines to be healthy
(details available upon request)
Standards for City‐Run
Adult‐ and Youth‐Based
Programming
Jurisdiction adopts any written standards that address healthy food
and beverages served during City‐run adult and youth‐based
programming (and that do not meet model criteria below)
A jurisdiction may earn a star if the written standards require all (100%)
of the beverages for City‐Run Adult‐ and Youth‐Based Programming to
be healthy and at least half (50%) of the food for City‐Run Adult‐ and
Youth‐Based Programming to be healthy (details available upon
request)
Standards for City‐Run
Cafes, Cafeteria, Snack
Shacks, and Kiosks
Jurisdiction adopts any written standards that address healthy food
and beverages sold in City‐run cafes, cafeterias, snack shacks, and
kiosks, and that do not meet model criteria.
A jurisdiction may earn a star if the written standards require at least
half (50%) of the beverages and food sold in cafeterias, snack bars, and
other purchase points to be healthy (details available upon request)
Water Access Water Access Policy Jurisdiction adopts a policy mandating the installation of water bottle
filling stations in publicly accessible areas whenever significant
improvements are made to city properties
Water‐Filling Stations Jurisdiction has committed and expended resources to install publicly
accessible water‐filling stations
Reduced
Exposure to
Sugary
Beverages
Eliminate Sugary
Beverages as a Default
Option for Kids’ Meals in
Restaurants
Jurisdiction adopts an ordinance requiring restaurants with kids’ meals
to offer water or plain milk as the default beverage option for kids.
Resolution to Refuse Funds
from Sugar‐Sweetened
Beverage Industry
Jurisdiction adopts a resolution to not accept any funds or donations
from the sugar‐sweetened beverage industry
Propose Sugar‐Sweetened
Beverage Tax
Jurisdiction has proposed adopting a sugar‐sweetened beverage tax
Healthy Food
Access
Community Gardens on
city Property/Parks
Jurisdiction maintains or supports community gardens on city
properties
Tobacco‐Free
Communities
Reduced
Exposure to
Secondhand
Smoke
Parks, Trails, and
Recreation Areas
Jurisdiction adopts a written policy or ordinance that restrictions
smoking and/or tobacco use in all areas of parks (not just designated
areas of parks), trails, and/or recreational areas (sports fields, skate
parks, etc).
Outdoor Dining Areas Jurisdiction adopts an ordinance that prohibits smoking in all areas of
outdoor dining areas at bars and restaurants
Entryways Jurisdiction adopts an ordinance that restricts smoking in places within
a certain distance of doors, windows, and other openings into all
enclosed areas where smoking is prohibited
Example: Smoking prohibited within 30 feet of entryways
69
p.4
Category Subcategory Strategy How a jurisdiction earns a check (or star, if applicable)
Service Lines and Areas
(e.g. Ticket Lines, ATM
lines, etc.)
Jurisdiction adopts an ordinance that prohibits smoking at all service
areas.
Multi‐Unit Housing Jurisdiction adopts an ordinance that restricts smoking in multi‐unit
housing complexes (ex. apartments, townhomes, condos), including
individual units
A jurisdiction may earn a star if the multi‐unit smoke‐free housing
ordinance:
o Includes 100% of units; and
o Includes private balconies and patios; and
o Includes all indoor and outdoor common areas; and
o Applies to all complexes with 2 or more units (any shared/attached
walls/ceilings, etc) at apartments, condominiums, and townhomes;
and
o Includes e‐cigarettes (for common areas)
Public Events Jurisdiction adopts a written policy or ordinance that requires that
all public events are 100% smoke‐free
Reduced Youth
Access through
a Tobacco
Retail License
Tobacco Retail Permit Jurisdiction adopts an ordinance that requires tobacco retailers to
obtain a local license or permit to sell tobacco products
A jurisdiction may earn a star if the adopted tobacco retail license or
permit:
o Applies to any retailer engaged in the sale of tobacco products,
including electronic smoking devices (components, parts, e‐juices,
etc) to obtain a local license to sell tobacco products and renew
annually; and
o Includes a license fee requirement that is set high enough to
sufficiently fund an effective program (administration of program
and enforcement); and
o Includes an enforcement plan with a requirement that retailers be
inspected annually for sales to minors; and
o Includes a provision that states any violation of any local, state, or
federal tobacco regulation violates the license; and
o Includes financial fines and penalties for violators including
suspension and revocation of the license that is outlined in the
ordinance
Reduce Density of Tobacco
Outlets
Jurisdiction adopts a written policy or ordinance (or provision within a
local tobacco retail permit ordinance) that places restrictions on where
tobacco retailers can be located. This may include any of the following
restrictions:
o Businesses must be located at least 500 feet from an existing
tobacco retailer; or
o Places a limit to the number of total tobacco retailer licenses that
can be issued (either a total allowable number or based on
population)
Limit Sale Near Schools Jurisdiction adopts a written policy or ordinance (or provision within a
local tobacco retail permit ordinance) that prohibits new tobacco
retailers from being located within 1,000 feet from schools or other
youth populated areas
70
p.5
Category Subcategory Strategy How a jurisdiction earns a check (or star, if applicable)
Flavored Tobacco
Restrictions
Jurisdiction adopts an ordinance (or provision within a local tobacco
retail permit ordinance) that places restrictions on the sale of flavored
tobacco products, including menthol cigarettes (ex. menthol cigarettes,
cigars, little cigars, pipe tobacco and electronic smoking devices)
A jurisdiction may earn a star if its ordinance
o Places restrictions on the sale of flavored tobacco products which
may include any of the following regulations:
No sale of flavored tobacco products at all in the jurisdiction; or
No sale of flavored tobacco products except at adult‐only tobacco
shops; and
o Flavored tobacco restrictions include restrictions on the sale of
products with a characterizing flavor, other than tobacco, including
menthol, mint, wintergreen, cherry, chocolate, etc.; and
o Flavored tobacco restrictions apply to the following products:
menthol cigarettes, non‐cigarette flavored tobacco products
(chewing tobacco, hookah, little cigars, cigarillos, snus, etc), and
include electronic smoking devices and e‐liquids regardless of
whether the product contains nicotine
Prohibit Sale of Tobacco in
Pharmacies
Jurisdiction adopts an ordinance (or provision within a local tobacco
retail permit ordinance) that prohibits the sale of tobacco products in
all pharmacies
Price‐Discounting
Restrictions
Jurisdiction adopts an ordinance (or provision within a local tobacco
retail permit ordinance) that places restrictions on tobacco price
discounting practices. Example policies that fall under this strategy
include:
o Prohibiting the redemption of tobacco discounts and coupons at
store;
o Establishing a minimum package size for little cigars or cigarillos;
o Establishing a minimum price for tobacco products
Tobacco Products Sold
Only in Adult Tobacco
Stores
Jurisdiction adopts an ordinance that restricts the sale of tobacco
products so they can only be sold at adult‐only tobacco shops
Enforcement of Tobacco
Sales to Minors in 2017
During the 2017 calendar year, within the jurisdiction a law
enforcement agency has conducted enforcement operations
(undercover decoy operations/stings) of tobacco sales to minors laws,
including enforcement of any of the following laws that restricts sales
to minors: PC 308, STAKE Act, or local tobacco retail licensing
ordinance
Cross‐Cutting
Strategies
Inclusive &
Comprehensive
Health
Planning and
Programs
Health Language in
General Plan
Jurisdiction has incorporated health language into its general plan
(language should acknowledge the impact of environments on
overweight and obesity, chronic diseases, etc.)
Age‐Friendly City
Designation by the World
Health Organization
Jurisdiction has applied for and received designation as an Age‐Friendly
Community from the World Health Organization
Employee Wellness
Program/Committee
Jurisdiction has established a wellness program or wellness committee
for its employees
Criteria may be updated on an annual basis to ensure the policy strategies are in line with best practices.
71
Policy Area Policy ObjectiveCounty of Santa Clara Campbell Cupertino Gilroy Los AltosLos Altos Hills Los Gatos MilpitasMonte Sereno Morgan HillMountain View Palo Alto San Jose Santa Clara Saratoga SunnyvaleVision ZeroXComplete Streets Guidelines XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXBicycle/Pedestrian/Trails Master Plans X XXXXXXXXXXXXXXParks/Trails and Recreation Master PlansXX XX XXNAXXXXXXBike‐Friendly Designation X XXXXXWalk‐Friendly DesignationBike Parking Near Public FacilitiesXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXPedestrian, Bike, and/or Transit‐Oriented FacilitiesX XX XX XXXXX XIncentives for Use of Public Transit and/or Ridesharing to WorkXXXXX XX XXXXXIncentives for Walking and/or Biking to Work XXXXShower Facilities X X X X X MXXXXXXXTransportation Demand Management XXX X NA XXX XResolution M M X X M M X M XMulti‐Disciplinary Collaborative/Task Force NA X M X M M M M MDedicated Bike/Ped Coordinator X M X M X M M X MConduct Annual Assessment of Student Travel Mode (2017)XXX X X XXX XStandards for Meetings and Celebrations M X X XMMXMXStandards for Events M X X XMMXMStandards for Vending Machines M X NAMNAMXMX XXStandards for City‐Run Adult‐ and Youth‐Based ProgrammingMXNAMNAMXXStandards for City‐Run Cafes, Cafeterias, Snack Shacks, and KiosksMNA NANANAMNAM MWater Access Policy XXWater‐Filling Stations XX XXXXX XXXXXXXEliminate Sugary Drinks as a Default Option from Kids' Meals in Restaurants XNAResolution to Refuse Funds from the Beverage Industry Propose Tax on Sugary DrinksNAHealthy Food AccessCommunity Gardens on City Property/ParksXXXX X XXXXXXXParks, Trails, and Recreation Areas XXX X XXNAX XX XXOutdoor Dining Areas (Including Bars) XXX XXNAXXXX XXEntryways XXX X NAXXXX XXService Lines and Areas X X NA X NA X X X X XMulti‐Unit Housing MNA XMMPublic Events XX XXX XXTobacco Retail Permit M X M NA M NA M M X MReduce Density of Tobacco Outlets X NA X NA X X Limit Sales Near Schools X X NA X NA X XFlavored Tobacco Restrictions MNA M NA MProhibit Sales in Pharmacies XNA X NA XPrice‐Discounting Restrictions NA NA XTobacco Products Sold Only In Adult StoresNA NAConduct Annual Enforcement of Tobacco Sales to Minors (2017)XXX XNAX NAXX XXXHealth Language/Element in General PlanXX X XXX XAge‐Friendly Designation XPending WHO review Pending WHO reviewXXXXPending WHO reviewXXXXXXPending WHO reviewEmployee Wellness Program/CommitteeXXXXXXXX XXXXXXXX = AchievedM = Model Policy AchievedNA = Not Applicable to JurisdictionHealthy Food & Beverage Procurement StandardsPolicy Strategy TrackerInclusive & Comprehensive Health Planning & ProgramsActive Transportation & Recreation InitiativesSafe Routes to SchoolReduced Exposure to Secondhand SmokeReduced Youth Access through a Tobacco Retail LicenseWater AccessWorkplace Commute Planning for EmployeesReduced Exposure to Sugary Beverages72
CategoPolicy Area Policy/Practice
Cities w/
Checks
Cities w/
Stars
(Model)
Total
Cities
New in
2017
Potential
Population
Reach
Vision Zero 1 NA 1 1,025,350
Complete Streets Guidelines 15 NA 15 1,833,802
Bicycle/Pedestrian/Trails Master Plans 14 NA 14 1,792,863
Parks/Trails and Recreation Master Plans 11 NA 11 1,608,333
Bike‐Friendly Designation 6 NA 6 517,394
Walk‐Friendly Designation 0 NA 0 ‐
Bike Parking Near Public Facilities 15 NA 15 1,833,802
Pedestrian, Bike, and/or Transit‐Oriented Facilities 10 NA 10 1,719,480
Incentives for Use of Public Transit and/or Ridesharing to Work 11 NA 11 12,559
Incentives for Walking and/or Biking to Work 4 NA 4 2,568
Shower Facilities 11112 13,836
Transportation Demand Management 7 NA 7 11,320
Resolution 4 5 10 590,799
Multi‐Disciplinary Collaborative/Task Force 268 1,411,387
Dedicated Bike/Ped Coordinator 3 5 8 1,573,289
Conduct Annual Assessment of Student Travel Mode (2017) 9 NA 9 1,516,342
Standards for Meetings and Celebrations 5 3 8 3,505
Standards for Events 437 3,383
Standards for Vending Machines 538 11,440
Standards for City‐Run Adult‐ and Youth‐Based Programming 3 2 5 8,518
Standards for City‐Run Cafes, Cafeterias, Snack Shacks, and Kiosks 0 3 3 2,049
Water Access Policy 1NA1 ‐
Water‐Filling Stations 13 NA 13 1,661,516
Eliminate Sugary Beverages from Kids' Meals in Restaurants 0NA0 ‐
Resolution to Refuse Funds from Sugary Beverages Industry 0NA0 ‐
Propose Tax on Sugary Beverages 0 NA 0 ‐
Healthy Food Access Community Gardens on City Property/Parks 11 NA 11 1,760,641
Parks, Trails, and Recreation Areas 10 NA 10 1,560,283
Outdoor Dining Areas (Including Bars) 10 NA 10 1,610,169
Entryways 9 NA 9 1,532,641
Service Lines and Areas 7 NA 7 1,391,551
MUH (Including Common Areas and Units) 123 250,340
Public Events 7 NA 7 446,648
Tobacco Retail Permit 257 1,293,849
Reduce Density of Tobacco Outlets 3NA3 128,336
Limit Sales Near Schools 4 NA 4 183,405
Flavored Tobacco Restrictions 022 97,569
Limit Sales in Pharmacies 2 NA 2 97,569
Price‐Discounting Restrictions 1NA1 1,025,350
Tobacco Products Sold Only In Adult Stores 0 NA 0 ‐
Conduct Annual Enforcement of Tobacco Sales to Minors (2017) 10 NA 10 555,837
Health Language/Element in General Plan 6 NA 6 1,393,911
Age‐Friendly Designation 11 NA 11 1,561,765
Employee Wellness Program/Committee 14 NA 14 13,642
*City and reach totals exclude unincorporated Santa Clara County
Reduced Exposure to
Secondhand Smoke
Reduced Youth Access
through a Tobacco
Retail License
Inclusive &
Comprehensive Health
Planning & ProgramsActive & Safe CommunitiesHealthy Food & Beverage EnvironmentsCross‐Cutting StrategiesTobacco‐Free CommunitiesActive Transportation
& Recreation
Initiatives
Workplace Commute
Planning for
Employees
Safe Routes to School
Healthy Food &
Beverage Procurement
Standards
Water Access
Reduced Exposure to
Sugary Beverages
73
1
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
MEETING DATE:February 16, 2018
DEPARTMENT:City Attorney
PREPARED BY:Richard Taylor, City Attorney
SUBJECT:Report on 2017 Housing Legislation
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Accept presentation and discuss the effects on Saratoga of the package of housing bills approved
by the Legislature and signed by the Governor in September 2017.
DISCUSSION:
In 2017 the Legislature and the Governor approved 15 new laws (the “housing package”) intended
to stimulate housing production in response to the State’s housing crisis. The laws took effect on
January 1 and some will affect project review and long range planning in Saratoga. The sentences
in italics in this staff report describe staff plans to address the requirements of the legislation under
discussion or other elements of particular relevance in Saratoga. The bills most relevant to
Saratoga and discussed in this report are:
Housing Accountability Act Changes (AB 678, SB 167, and AB 1515) make it more
difficult for cities and counties to deny or reduce the density of proposed housing projects,
including mixed-use projects, and increase penalties for jurisdictions that fail to approve
housing projects that meet objective General Plan and zoning standards.
RHNA Reporting Requirements (AB 879, SB 35, AB 1397, AB 72, and SB 166) require
agencies to report more information to the State Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD) each year, make it more difficult to carry forward sites that have not
developed into the City’s next Housing Element, and require cities and counties to identify
new housing opportunity sites when landowners choose to develop at lower densities or
with fewer affordable units than expected by local plans.
The “By Right” Housing Bill (SB 35) provides for streamlined processing and CEQA
exemptions for qualifying projects that are consistent with objective General Plan zoning
standards.
Other bills in the housing package that are not discussed in this report are:74
2
Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) Clean-up Bills (AB 494 and SB 229)making minor
adjustments to the ADU laws adopted last year. Staff is proceeding with relevant updates
to the City Code to implement these bills.
Inclusionary Rental Housing Bill (AB 1505)allows local agencies to require affordable
units as part of any rental development, not just for-sale condominium developments.
Districts for Streamlined Processing (SB 540 and AB 73)are potential alternatives to
specific plans.
Funding Measures (SB 2 and SB 3)provide funding for the State and local agencies
immediately (SB 2) and will put a large funding package on the ballot in November 2018
(SB 3).
Saratoga’s Housing Element and Housing Allocation
As context, the Association of Bay Area Governments (ABAG) is required by State law to
periodically make a “Regional Housing Needs Allocation” or “RHNA” for each city and county
in ABAG’s jurisdiction. The RHNA is intended to represent each jurisdiction’s share of the
regional housing need. Saratoga’s allocation for the 2015-2023 RHNA planning cycle is 439 units.
The RHNA is a core principle in the General Plan Housing Element which documents the policies
the City has adopted to plan for this future housing growth.
Housing Accountability Act Changes
The Housing Accountability Act (Government Code § 65589.5) was amended by the housing
package but has been in effect for a number of years. The law generally prohibits a local agency
from denying or reducing the density of a housing development project (such as a residential
subdivision, condominium, or mixed use project whether market rate or affordable) that meets
objective development standards unless the agency finds:
(1) the project would have specific, quantifiable, direct, and unavoidable impacts on public
health or safety, based on objective safety standards, policies, or conditions in existence at
the time the application was deemed complete; and
(2) these impacts cannot be mitigated except by disapproval or reduction in density. (Gov.
Code § 65589.5(j).)
In addition, for projects that meet specified affordability thresholds, an agency is prohibited from
imposing conditions that render the project infeasible for the use or very low, low, or moderate
income households, unless it makes similar findings. For some affordable housing projects, these
findings may be required even if the project does not comply with objective development
standards. (Gov. Code § 65589.5(d)).
The Housing Accountability Act was already quite restrictive, and recently resulted in successful
litigation by a developer in Los Gatos. Taken together, the three bills in the housing package
require accelerated staff review of development projects and make it more difficult for cities and
counties to disapprove or reduce the number of units in a project by making the following changes
to the prior law:
75
3
An agency must now immediately review development applications and provide a written
explanation of any inconsistencies with objective development standards and policies within
30 days (60 days for projects with more than 150 units). If the agency fails to respond within
these timelines, the project is deemed consistent with all objective standards.
A project must be deemed consistent with objective standards and policies if there is
“substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to conclude” that the project is
consistent. In other words, an agency must find consistency with objective standards as long
as there is relevant evidence to support that finding, even if the weight of the evidence is to
the contrary. In a similar vein, the bills now require agency findings to be supported by a
preponderance of the evidence; this is a much less deferential standard for judicial review of
a decision to deny or reduce the density of a project. Receipt of a density bonus is not a basis
for finding a project inconsistent with objective standards.
The definition of “housing development projects” is expanded to include mixed use projects
where at least two‐thirds of the floor area is designated for residential use.
The bills require an award of attorney’s fees to a successful plaintiff and the imposition of
penalties (at least $10,000 per housing unit) for agencies that fail to comply with a court’s
order within 60 days.
In terms of what constitutes an “objective development standard,” provisions such as density,
height, setbacks, floor area ratio, even specific design guidelines such as required materials should
all be considered to be “objective” standards. On the other hand, subjective criteria such as
“consistent with the character of the neighborhood” are not likely to be considered “objective”
and, if not objective, cannot be the basis for denying a housing project or reducing the density.
Under the recent amendments to the Housing Accountability Act, staff will have only 30 days to
review a project against objective general plan and zoning code standards before the project is
deemed consistent. Although the City may not deny or reduce the density of a project once it is
deemed consistent, most projects will still be subject to discretionary approvals such as design
review as long as subjective standards are not applied to deny or reduce the density. Staff plans
to review the City’s development standards to develop a checklist of the objective standards that
apply and to determine whether there are any subjective standards related to public health and
safety that could be framed in a way that is objective.
RHNA Reporting Requirements
The City’s updated its Housing Element in 2014 and the next update is due in 2023. Under existing
law, the City must provide an annual report to the Department of Housing and Community
Development (HCD). A number of the bills in the housing package affected housing element
requirements and annual reporting of housing development. Each bill is briefly summarized
below.
AB 879 (Grayson) and SB 35 (discussed in more detail below) expand the information required
in the annual report to HCD and impose penalties if reports are not submitted in a timely fashion.
SB 35 relies on these reports to impose new constraints on cities and counties where housing
development is not keeping pace with Housing Element targets. The bills require that the
following information be included in the report:76
4
The number of housing development applications received in the prior year;
The number of units included in all development applications in the prior year;
The number of units approved and disapproved in the prior year;
A listing of sites that were rezoned to accommodate any portion of the local government’s
share of the RHNA for each income level that could not be accommodated on sites identified
in the site inventory of the housing element;
A listing of sites that were identified or rezoned if housing was developed at a lesser density
or for a different income level than anticipated for that site in the housing element site
inventory, in accordance with the new “No Net Loss” requirements in AB 166 (discussed
below);
A production report that identifies the number of net new units of housing (both rental and
for-sale) that have been issued a completed entitlement, a building permit, or a certificate of
occupancy, thus far in the housing element cycle. and the income category that each new
housing unit satisfies, based on the anticipated area median income of the future occupants;
and
A report on the impact of SB 35’s streamlining provisions, including the number of
applications for streamlining, the location and number of each development approved and
building permit issued via SB 35 streamlining, and the total number of units constructed via
streamlining by income category and noting whether the unit is for rent or sale.
Staff is working to determine the best approach to developing and reporting the additional
required information to minimize impacts on other operations. (For example, by reporting on
“completed entitlements” such as final design review approval instead of building permits issued,
the City can more accurately reflect the measures the City can control related to new housing
development.) HCD has indicated that the additional information must be submitted in the annual
reports due on April 1, 2019, but that reports due on April 1, 2018 need only conform with existing
regulations.
AB 1397 (Low) will be important the next time the City updates its housing element. This bill
requires a more detailed analysis before allowing sites with existing uses to be considered suitable
for residential development. The changes would require parcels on a City’s suitable site list to
have “realistic and demonstrated potential” for development during the planning period and
require cities and counties to demonstrate local efforts to remove non-governmental constraints on
housing (e.g., the cost of land, rental rates, financing for below-market rate housing, etc.).
Like most fully developed jurisdictions, Saratoga’s inventory of housing sites relies heavily on
sites that are underdeveloped, but not vacant. In the next Housing Element update the City will
retain consultants to perform the required analyses and consider other approaches to meeting the
state-mandated RHNA numbers. A copy of the current Housing Element’s summary of suitable
sites is attached.
AB 72 (Santiago) requires HCD to review any action or inaction by a locality that it determines
is inconsistent with an adopted housing element (including failure to implement any programs in
the housing element) and to revoke its certification of the agency’s housing element and thereby
facilitate legal challenges to the element. Staff is reviewing each of the implementation programs
in the City’s Housing Element to ensure that the City is making reasonable progress in that regard.
77
5
SB 166 (Skinner)amends the existing “no net loss” provision in state law that requires a local
government to accommodate its remaining unmet housing need at all times throughout the Housing
Element planning period. The bill requires specific “no net loss” findings if a city or county
approves fewer (or no) units or a different income category on a site in its Housing Element’s
inventory than anticipated. (For example, if the landowner proposes developing fewer units or
fewer affordable units on a site than expected.) If the jurisdiction cannot make the finding that the
remaining sites in the Housing Element inventory are adequate to meet the RHNA by income
category, the jurisdiction would need to identify other sites that are already zoned to accommodate
lower or moderate income housing or rezone sites accordingly. Many cities and counties are
considering including a sizeable surplus of sites in their next housing elements to ensure
compliance with these requirements.
Saratoga included sites for 480 units in its 2014 Housing Element. This represented 41 more units
than the City’s RHNA and so would allow the City to approve projects on housing sites that do not
provide the number of units anticipated on that site without coming out of compliance with the
new State requirement. As projects come forward on opportunity sites, staff will report to the
Planning Commission and Council on the effect of the proposal on the City’s inventory of available
sites by income category. (Note that SB166 provides that an agency may not deny a project based
on its effects on the inventory of available site. Some cities are considering adopting inclusionary
housing requirements to assure that at least some units in new housing developments meet
affordability criteria.)
The “By-Right” Housing Bill
SB 35 (Weiner) is called as the “by right” housing bill because it would require local agencies to
expeditiously and ministerially approve housing projects meeting certain eligibility criteria, if
requested by the applicant. Eligible projects would be required to comply only with objective
zoning and design review standards. Discretionary standards such as many of the City’s design
review findings would not be applicable.
A local agency is subject to the provisions of this bill if HCD determines that the agency has not
issued enough building permits to satisfy its RHNA by income category or did not submit the
required annual report to HCD for 2 years. HCD has not yet made the determination as to which
agencies will be subject to the bill, but we anticipate that Saratoga may be subject to the law. This
is based on data through the year 2017 (i.e. through 38% of the housing cycle) showing that
Saratoga has issued permits for 16% of its total RHNA allocation (35% for market rate units and
11% for below market rate units).
The summary below focuses on which projects will be eligible for streamlining under SB 35, and
then discusses the project review and approval process for those eligible projects.
There are a number of requirements that a project must meet to be eligible for SB 35 streamlining.
To be eligible, a project must:
consist of two or more units and be located on a legal parcel or parcels in an area with at least
75% of the perimeter developed with urban uses;
be on a site that is zoned for residential use or residential mixed‐use or has a general plan
designation that allows residential use or a mix of residential and nonresidential uses;
designate at least two‐thirds of the project square footage for residential use;
78
6
be consistent with the current zoning ordinance and all objective zoning standards and
objective design review standards in effect at the time of application;
not be located in a coastal zone, wetland, prime farmland, very high fire severity zone,
hazardous waste site, delineated earthquake fault zone, flood plain or floodway (unless a
flood plain development permit is obtained), within land identified for conservation in an
adopted natural resource protection plan, habitat for protected species, under conservation
easement, or be subject to the mobile home park law;
not propose demolition of a listed historic resource;
not propose demolition of existing dwelling units that are subject to affordability restrictions
or have been occupied by tenants within the past 10 years;
not be on a site that was previously used for housing occupied by tenants that was
demolished within the past 10 years;
not involve a subdivision (except for projects using low income tax credits and paying
prevailing wage or satisfying other labor requirements);
for projects with more than 10 units, provide a minimum percentage of below market rate
units, with the percentage and the level of affordability based on the City’s track record of
unit production at different levels of affordability during the RHNA period;
for projects with 10 units or more, pay prevailing wages; and
if the project consists of 75 units or more, use a skilled and trained workforce (e.g. union
labor).
SB 35 establishes an expedited review and approval process for eligible projects. Within 60 days
of submittal of an application, the City must confirm the project’s eligibility under SB 35 and
provide a list of all inconsistencies with objective zoning standards and objective design review
standards in effect at the time the application is submitted (90 days is allowed for projects
containing more than 150 units). If the agency fails to provide this list within the required
timeframe, the project is deemed consistent with zoning and design review standards. “Objective
standards” means standards that involve “no personal or subjective judgment by a public official
and are uniformly verifiable by reference to an external and uniform benchmark ….”
Cities and counties have a total of 90 days from submittal to process and make a determination on
an SB35 application. Reviews within the first 60 days of submittal can focus on applicability of
the streamlined process under the law, objective zoning standards and “reasonable objective design
standards published and adopted by ordinance or resolution” prior to receipt of the application.
Reviews within the last 30 days can only focus on the reasonable objective design standards.
Reviews may be conducted by staff, commissions and/or the City Council, as long as they are
based on these objective standards, and are conducted within the 90 day timeframe.
SB 35 also would reduce or eliminate parking requirements for some eligible housing projects.
Projects that qualify for streamlined processing are not required to provide any off‐street parking
if they are within: ½ mile of public transit; one block of a car share vehicle location; an area where
on‐street parking permits are required but not offered to the development occupants; or an
architecturally or historically significant historic district. Eligible projects in other locations could
only be required to provide one parking space per unit.
Virtually all of Saratoga (except for a small portion of land in the northwestern hillsides) would
be considered urban and virtually all of the City’s zoning districts allow residential projects.
However, much of the land in the hillsides is a state designated very high fire severity zone and so 79
7
would not be eligible for SB35 by right development. (A map showing the Very High Fore Severity
Zone is attached.) For other parts of the City, project eligibility under SB 35 is likely to be based
on site specific conditions such as whether the site contained rental housing within the last 10
years, has soil or groundwater contamination, or an historic building. Project eligibility will also
be affected by specifics of a developer’s proposal. For example, proposals must comply with
current zoning and meet all objective zoning standards without the need for any variance or
exception and larger projects must pay prevailing wages and meet certain affordability
requirements. (For streamlined projects with more than 10 units, 10% of the units must be
restricted for households earning less than 80% of the area median income.) As noted in the
discussion of the Housing Accountability Act, staff will be reviewing the City’s zoning and design
review standards to develop a checklist for expedited project review and to determine whether
some can be re‐framed as objective standards.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment 1 – Housing Element Summary of Housing Opportunity Sites
Attachment 2 – Saratoga Fire Severity Zones
969650.1
80
B-13
Table B-8. Sites Summary
Table B-8
Sites Summary
Very Low-
Income1
Low-
Income
Moderate-
Income
Above
Moderate-
Income
Total
2014-2022 RHNA Need 147 95 104 93 439
Approved Units/
Subdivisions
0 0 0 33 33
Vacant Land Capacity 0 0 0 77 77
C-N(RHD) Candidate
Sites
173 0 0 173
Saratoga Village Center
Sites
0 22 0 22
Saratoga Gateway
Sites
65 65
Fellowship Plaza
Retirement
Community
75 0 0 75
Second Unit Potential 18 17 35
TOTAL Unit Potential 283 87 110 480
1The Extremely Low-Income need is assumed to be 50 percent of the Very Low-Income allocation = 73 units.
Source: City of Saratoga
81
Saratoga Sunnyvale Rd.Pierce
Rd.
S
a
r
a
t
o
g
a
L
o
s
G
a
t
o
s
R
d
.
(
HW
Y
9
)Basin WayM
t
.
E
d
e
n
Rd.
Big
MontalvoRd.PiedmontRd.Oak St.6thSt
.
Bohlm
a
n
R
d.
Cox Ave.Saratoga Sunnyvale Rd.Pierce
Rd.Fruitvale Ave.S
a
r
a
t
o
g
a
L
o
s
G
a
t
o
s
R
d
.
(
HW
Y
9
)
Sobey Rd.
Saratoga
Ave.Basin WayMiller Ave.M
t
.
E
d
e
n
Rd.
Big
Douglas Ln.
Congress Spring Rd.
(HWY 9)MontalvoRd.PiedmontRd.
Allendale Ave.
P
o
r
t
o
s
D
r
.
Glen
Brae
Dr.Quito Rd.Prospect Rd.Chester Ave.CUPERTINO
SAN JOSE
LOS
GATOSLawrence Expy.SARATOGA
LOS
GATOS
UNINCORPORATED SANTA CLARA COUNTYOak St.6thSt
.
Bohlm
a
n
R
d.
Legend
Very High
High
Moderate
Wildland-Urban Interface
Saratoga City Limits
Saratoga Sphere of Influence
Surrounding City Boundaries
SAFETY ELEMENT
Fire Hazard Zones
Exhibit 7
0 1,500 3,000750 Feet
Prepared by RBF Consulting: 12/04/2012
Sources: City of Saratoga - Zoning Map (2010) Wildland-Urban Interface Fire Area Map (2009) : ESRI Terrain Basemap
County of Santa Clara - CityLimits (2010) StreetEdge (2009) : CA Dept of Forestry and Fire Protection (2007)
C ITY OFSARATOGA
Fire Station
82