Additional revenue for Road Repair : 04 27-2021 agenda packet

Saratoga City Council Agenda – April 27, 2021 – Page 1 of 3
SARATOGA CITY COUNCIL
SPECIAL MEETING
APRIL 27, 2021
Teleconference/Public Participation Information to Mitigate the Spread of COVID‐19
This meeting will be entirely by teleconference. All Council members and staff will only
participate via the Zoom platform using the process described below. The meeting is being
conducted in compliance with the Governor’s Executive Order N‐29‐20 suspending certain
teleconference rules required by the Ralph M. Brown Act. The purpose of this order was to provide
the safest environment for the public, elected officials, and staff while allowing for continued
operation of the government and public participation during the COVID‐19 pandemic.
Members of the public can view and participate in the Study Session by:
1. Using the Zoom website https://us02web.zoom.us/j/82619665475 or App (Webinar ID
826 1966 5475) and raising their hand when directed by the Mayor to speak on an agenda
item; OR
2. Calling 1.408.638.0968 or 1.669.900.6833, entering the Webinar ID (826 1966 5475),
and pressing *9 to raise their hand to speak on an agenda item when directed by the
Mayor.
6:00 PM STUDY SESSION
ROLL CALL
REPORT ON POSTING OF THE AGENDA
The agenda for this meeting was properly posted on April 23, 2021.
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
Beauchamps Playground Replacement Project
Recommended Action:
1.Direct staff to add the Beauchamps Playground Replacement project to the Fiscal Year
2021/22 Capital Improvement Plan.
2.Accept and approve the transfer of funding raised by the Youth Commission for their Inclusive
Swing fundraiser for the Beauchamps Playground Replacement Project.
3.Approve the use of available unallocated Park-in-Lieu fees ($10,079) for the Beauchamps
Playground Replacement Project.

4.Approve a transfer from the CIP Reserve for the remaining funds required to reach the $35,590
local match requirement for the California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection
and Outdoor Access for All Act of 2018 Per Capita Grant Program.
American Rescue Plan Funding Strategy
Recommended Action:
Receive staff report and provide direction on the American Rescue Plan Funding Strategy.
Discussion of Additional Revenue for Roadway Maintenance
Recommended Action:
Receive report and direct staff to either: (1) include $150,000 in the FY 2021/22 Operating
Budget to fund the evaluation of a possible ballot measure for roadway maintenance on the
November 2022 general election; or (2) report back to the City Council in 2023 with the results
of next Pavement Management System Report.
Fiscal Year 2021/22 Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office & School Resource Officer Proposed
Costs
Recommended Action:
Direct staff to fund law enforcement services at $6,895,871 for Fiscal Year 2021/22, including
funding for a full time School Resource Officer.
Financial Policy Update Review
Recommended Action:
Receive staff report and provide direction on Financial Policy Statement Updates.
ADJOURNMENT
CERTIFICATE OF POSTING OF THE AGENDA, DISTRIBUTION OF THE AGENDA
PACKET, COMPLIANCE WITH AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT
I, Debbie Bretschneider, 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 April 23, 2021 at the
City of Saratoga, 13777 Fruitvale Avenue, Saratoga, CA 95070 and on the City's website at
www.saratoga.ca.us.
Signed this 23rd day of April 2021 at Saratoga, California.
Debbie Bretschneider
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 408/868-1269. 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]

MEETING DATE: April 27, 2021
DEPARTMENT: Finance & Administrative Services
PREPARED BY: Dennis Jaw, Finance Manager
SUBJECT: Beauchamps Playground Replacement Project
RECOMMENDED ACTIONS:
Review report and direct staff to:
1. Add the Beauchamps Playground Replacement project to the Fiscal Year 2021/22 Capital
Improvement Plan in the amount of $246,051.
2. Apply for the California Drought, Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection and Outdoor Access
for All Act of 2018 Per Capita Grant funding of $196,841.
3. Accept and use the following funds to reach the $49,210 local match requirement:
 Total funds raised by the Youth Commission for an Inclusive Swing by June 30. 2021
(estimated $4,000)
 $10,079 of unallocated Park-in-Lieu Fees
 $27,145 of remaining unallocated FY 2021/22 CIP Reserve
 Current year General Fund Net Operations, not to exceed $10,000
BACKGROUND:
During the March 31, 2021 Capital Improvement Plan Study Session, the City Council prioritized the City’s
available discretionary capital funding and approved the FY 2021/22 Capital Improvement Plan (CIP). As
part of the plan, the Council included the Beauchamps Playground Replacement project in a list of projects
which are to be funded by future Park-In-Lieu Fees as they are received by the City.
Staff was recently made aware that the City is eligible to receive $196,841 as part of the California Drought,
Water, Parks, Climate, Coastal Protection and Outdoor Access for All Act of 2018 Per Capita Grant
Program. This program originates from Proposition 68, placed on the ballot via Senate Bill 5 and approved
by voters on June 5, 2018. Based on the eligibility guidelines for this program, the Beauchamps Playground
Replacement is a suitable candidate project to make use of this grant funding. The grant requires a 20%
local match.
The City of Saratoga’s Youth Commissions over the years have identified inclusion as an opportunity to
bring the Saratoga community closer together. The Commission has organized fundraising for an inclusive
swing to be purchased and installed at one of the Saratoga parks, and they are on track to raise approximately
4

$4,000 through events and online activities. The Youth Commission was presented with the opportunity to
realize their goal as a component of the Beauchamps Park playground replacement and have expressed their
support to apply their efforts to the City’s local match requirement.
To maximize utilization of the full grant amount, staff is recommending that the balance of the local match
be funded using $10,079 of remaining unallocated Park-in-Lieu fees, $27,145 of unallocated FY 2021/22
CIP Reserve, and the remainder from current year General Fund Net Operations. A summary of the
estimated proposed funding for this project is as follows:
Funding Source Estimated Amount
State Grant 196,841
$
Youth Commision Fundraising 4,000
Parks-in-Lieu Fees 10,079
FY 2021/22 CIP Reserve 27,145
Current Year GF Net Operations 7,986
Total Funding for Project 246,051
5

PREPARED BY: Mary Furey, Administrative Services Director
SUBJECT: American Rescue Plan Funding Strategy
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Receive staff report and provide direction on the American Rescue Plan Funding Strategy.
REPORT SUMMARY:
Staff to present the American Rescue Plan Funding Strategy to Council for review and direction in
preparation of the Proposed FY 2021/22 Operating Budget
Attachment A was provided to the Finance Committee to lay out a rough estimate of revenue losses and a
proposed strategy where the funding is used to account for losses over the stimulus funding cycle that ends in
December 2024. The intent of the strategy is to provide funding for the revenue shortfalls as it occurs,
however, since the funding will be received ahead of the expected revenue losses, the funding will address
several FY 2020/21 budget items and float the remainder in a reserve for use each fiscal year as appropriate.
The ARP funding requirements allow for both revenue losses and Pandemic related expenditures, meaning
the report to account for the funds will likely be front loaded with both revenue losses and expenditures costs
of the pandemic, while the deployment of the funds will focus on using the funds over multiple years to
match revenue losses.
The Five Year Forecast will be presented to Council at the Budget Study Session meeting to illustrate how
the American Rescue Plan funding supports City Service while the economy recovers.
ATTACHMENTS PROVIDED:
A. American Rescue Plan Funding Strategy Memo
6

Memorandum
DATE: March 25, 2021
TO: Finance Committee
FROM: Mary Furey, Administrative Services Director
SUBJECT: 7A – American Rescue Plan Funding Strategies
American Rescue Plan Background
The American Rescue Plan’s (ARP) estimated allocation of $5.68 Million to the City of
Saratoga will provide revenue replacement and expense reimbursement funding for
City revenue loss and expenses affected by the COVID-19 pandemic’s economic
impacts from March 2020 through December 31, 2024.
This portion of the ARP funding is intended to support local government, while other
portions are targeted for state, county, and school agencies, and to provide relief for
health, transportation, low-income, unemployment, business, non-profits, and other
segments of the economy. Further, because there is additional legislation in
development to support infrastructure projects, this ARP funding limits infrastructure
funding use to sewer, water, and broadband projects. Specifically, a stimulus funding
plan for roadway infrastructure is expected in the near future.
Saratoga Impacts
For Saratoga, the pandemic resulted in severe declines in Sales Tax, Transient
Occupancy Tax, Interest, Business License Tax, some Franchise Fees, and initially,
Planning and Building services. The shutdown and immediate economic retraction at
the end of FY 2019/20 led to a revenue loss of $670,000. With continued reductions
and closures, we are expecting about $1,340,000 in lost revenue in FY 2020/21, for
an estimated total of $2 million.
Additionally, there were unexpected expenses for equipment and services necessary
to quickly transition to a remote workforce and provide on-line services to the
community. This included laptops and assorted technology equipment, on-line
software systems, firewall and VPN security enhancements, website enhancements,
and numerous IT services needed to change business methods. Fortunately, these
expenses were covered by the $383,000 of CARES Act stimulus funding received in
2020. However, many of these expenses are on-going as community expectations
have transitioned to the quick availability of remote access services and
communications. Because these expenses are in response to the pandemic, the
ongoing costs will also qualify for ARP funding.
With the permanent closure of businesses, financially impacted residents, and
reductions in business investment, the City’s Sales Tax, Transient Occupancy Tax,
Business License, Franchise Fees, and various service revenues are expected to take
7

Memorandum
many years to fully recover. Projections include a $1 million decrease in revenues
annually for several years, with a gradual recovery in tax and service revenues.
However, as we experienced in the last recession, the $500,000 decrease in interest
is expected to take 7 or 8 years until we see a meager 1% rate again, and 2-3 more
years after that until we reach the 2% rate we were at prior to the pandemic.
Stimulus Funding Support
The ability to use these funds for revenue replacement over this multi-year recovery
time frame will help to restore City finances and maintain City services at levels in
place prior to the pandemic. Without it, the City would be looking at austere service
reductions and a gravely weakened financial standing - services would be severely
impacted, the $3,150,000 Fiscal Stabilization Reserve would likely be depleted,
Capital Project funding would be eliminated, and Internal Service Funds would be in
critical condition.
In summary, the essential need to utilize this ARP funding in a strategic method to
support normal operations is of utmost importance to ensure the City’s long term
fiscal health, to provide services to the public, to maintain infrastructure, and to meet
environmental, health, and legal requirements.
Funding Strategies
One-half of the ARP stimulus funding will be received by the end of this fiscal year.
The other half will be received a year later.
Because the FY 2020/21 budget was balanced through the one-time use of the LLD
Closeout Reserve and numerous expenditure cuts, this year’s budget already reflects
a positive Net Operations. This allows us to move the estimated $2.0 million of FY
2019/20 and FY 2020/21 revenue losses into reserves or impacted funds to bridge
future revenue losses. The remainder of the first $2.8 million will be reserved for FY
2021/22 revenue losses, along with a portion of the second Stimulus Funding
allocation. The remainder of the second allocation will then be banked to offset
revenue losses in fiscal years 2022/23, 2023/24, and first half of 2024/25.
To facilitate this, the Stimulus Funding staff report and proposed budget will
document the funding flow through budget adjustments and year-end fund balance
allocations. Recommended allocations of the $2.0 million of funding includes:
 Repay budget revenue reductions to Internal Service Funds:
(this would be a current year Budget Adjustment)
 $150,000 to Risk Management Fund
 $25,000 to Workers Comp
 $200,000 to the Vehicle and Equipment Replacement Fund
 $150,000 to IT Services Fund
 $25,000 to Office Support
8

Memorandum
 At year end, From Net Operations:
 Increase Fiscal Stabilization Reserve from $3,150,000 to $4,000,000
 Add remaining estimated $600,000 to the following capital improvement
project funding cycle (FY 2022/23).
9

DEPARTMENT: City Manager’s Department
PREPARED BY: James Lindsay, City Manager
SUBJECT: Discussion of Additional Revenue for Roadway Maintenance
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Receive report and direct staff to either: (1) include $150,000 in the FY 2021/22 Operating Budget
to fund the evaluation of a possible ballot measure for roadway maintenance on the November
2022 general election; or (2) report back to the City Council in 2023 with the results of next
Pavement Management System Report.
BACKGROUND:
During the March 17 Study Session on the Fiscal Year (FY) 2022/21 Capital Improvement Plan
(CIP), the City Council received a presentation on the pavement condition index (PCI), including
the current and historical PCI condition of the City’s roadways. As part of that presentation, staff
noted additional revenue sources would be needed to maintain the PCI at its current score of 67.
Staff provided a summary of different options to raise additional revenue at the March 31 Study
Session. Council directed the City retain a consultant to conduct an initial analysis and report back
on what a ballot measure would entail at the April 27, 2021 Budget Study Session. The Council
also requested that staff provide information at the Study Session needed to assess whether City
services or expenses could be cut in lieu of placing a revenue measure on the ballot.
Pavement Management System Report, PCI, & Pavement Expenditures
Every three years, the Metropolitan Transportation Commission provides funding through the
Pavement Management Technical Assistance Program for all Bay Area cities, counties and other
public agencies to conduct a Pavement Management System Report, which includes an assessment
of the condition of their streets and roads. Saratoga’s roadway PCI scores for the past four reporting
periods and expenditures for pavement management are provided below.
2019 2016 2013 2011
Arterial Streets 74 83 80 82
Collector Streets 65 67 67 76
Residential Streets 65 67 65 76
Average 67 71 69 76
Pavement Expenditures $2,076,386 $780,000 $687,000 $680,113
10

Roadway Funding Requirements
Maintenance of Saratoga’s roads is funded through the Annual Roadway Improvements project in
the CIP. The annual revenue for that project currently comes from state and county tax allocations
and subventions totaling approximately $2 million. As shown in the table below, the amount of
funding Saratoga provides per lane mile of roadway is the lowest among similarly sized cities and
nearby cities with hillside roads. As a result of this lower funding level, the City has the lowest
average PCI among the cities surveyed.
City
Average
PCI
Total Lane
Miles
Annual Road
Funding
Funding / Lane
Mile
Cupertino 83 298 $3,000,000 $10,077
Los Altos Hills 80 125 $1,200,000 $9,622
Mt. View 71 333 $4,000,000 $12,019
Los Gatos 69 230 $2,700,000 $11,741
Monte Sereno 69 25 $310,000 $12,385
Campbell 68 220 $2,700,000 $12,283
Los Altos 68 111 $2,000,000 $17,963
Saratoga 67 284 $2,000,000 $7,032
The latest Pavement Management System report identifies that the City would need to provide
approximately $5 million (total of $7 million) in additional funds annually to increase the current
average PCI to 72. To maintain the current average PCI of 67, the City would need to provide
approximately $2 million (total of $4 million) in additional funds annually. At the current $2
million annual funding level, the City’s average PCI is expected to drop to 62 by 2024.
Total Annual
Funding
Average PCI
by 2024
Funding /
Lane Mile
$7 million 72 $24,647
$4 million 67 $14,084
$2 million 62 $7,032
11

Revenue Funding
Provided below are some FY 2018/19 revenue comparisons with other cities in Santa County that
illustrates Saratoga has the lowest tax revenue per capita within the County and minimal funding
resources. FY 2018/19 data has been used as it reflects more common revenue conditions prior to
the pandemic.
City Service Costs
The additional funds needed to adequately maintain City roadways can come from additional
revenues, the elimination of City programs from the operating budget, or a combination of the two.
Council requested a summary of City program costs to evaluate what programs, if any, could be
cut in lieu of placing a revenue measure on the ballot.
$501 $566 $583
$658
$863 $875 $882 $909 $922 $960 $974
$1,052 $1,058
$1,140
$1,632
$-
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
$1,400
$1,600
$1,800
Property / Sales / Hotel Tax Revenue Per Capita
FY 2018/19
$-
$20,000,000
$40,000,000
$60,000,000
$80,000,000
$100,000,000
$120,000,000
$140,000,000
$160,000,000
Property / Sales / Hotel Tax Revenue
FY 2018/19
Property Tax Sales Tax Hotel
12

Local government in its most basic form, enacts and enforces laws and delivers services to the
community not typically provided by the private marketplace. As a general law city in California,
there are many legally required services the City must perform for the community and to satisfy
state laws regarding municipal operations. These required services are listed below.
 Advance Planning  Finance Services
 Building Permits & Inspection  Fleet Maintenance
 City Clerk, Records, & Elections  General Law Enforcement
 City Council / Manager  Human Resources
 Emergency Preparation  Information Technology
 Engineering  Legal Services
 Environmental Services  Parks & Landscape Maintenance
 Facility Maintenance  Streets & Storm Drain Maintenance
The City has budgeted approximately $23 million in operating expenditures in FY 2020/21 and
the required services above represent 86% or $19.7 million of the total budgeted expenditures.
The City has some discretion over the level of service provided in each of these areas, but none
can be eliminated entirely.
$- $1,000,000 $2,000,000 $3,000,000 $4,000,000 $5,000,000 $6,000,000 $7,000,000
Emergency Preparation
Advance Planning
Legal Services
Human Resources
City Clerk, Records, & Elections
Fleet Maintenance
City Council / Manager
Environmental Services
Information Technology
Finance Services
Facility Maintenance
Building Permits & Inspection
Engineering
Streets & Storm Drain Maintenance
Parks & Landscape Maintenance
General Law Enforcement
FY 2020/21 Budgeted Expenditures
Required City Services
13

The remaining services the City provides, while not strictly legally required, do significantly
contribute to the quality of life for Saratoga residents and businesses. These services represent
12% or approximately $2.8 million of the City’s budgeted operating expenditures. Funding for
discretionary services by program is noted below.
The annual funding shortfall for roadway maintenance is between $2 and $5 million depending on
the objective of either maintaining the current PCI or obtaining the goal of 70+. If reductions are
made to discretionary services, they should be done at the program level. However, a discretionary
service that could be reduced, and not eliminated is Enhanced Traffic Enforcement and Safety.
The total cost of that service is almost $700,000 annually. The City Council reduced the hours of
traffic enforcement in the contract with the Sheriff’s Office to save approximately $300,000 per
year during fiscal years 2011/12 through 2013/14.
Revenue Measure Options
Staff retained NAH Advisors to analyze the different options of raising revenue for maintaining
the current PCI or raising it to 70+. Attachment B contains excerpts from NHA Advisors’ City
Property Profile which was used to evaluate the different property tax options, a special tax and a
general obligation bond. Attachment A are the slides that NHA Advisors will be presenting at the
Study Session.
ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – Roadway Maintenance Revenue Alternatives Presentation
Attachment B – Saratoga Property Profile information
$- $100,000 $200,000 $300,000 $400,000 $500,000 $600,000 $700,000 $800,000
City Commissions
Wildfire Mitigation
Enhanced Landscape Maintenance
Code Compliance
Communication & Engagement
Communty Enrichment
Development Services & Aborist
Enhanced Traffic Enforcement & Safety
FY 2020/21 Budgeted Expenditures
Discretionary City Services
14

CITY OF SARATOGA
ROADWAY MAINTENANCE REVENUE ALTERNATIVES
April 27, 2020
15

2
Table of Contents
I. Project Information
II. Funding Strategies
III. Financing Alternatives
IV. Roadway Maintenance Financing Options
V. Process, Timeline & Budget
16

4
City Roadway Maintenance - Cost Estimates
 Existing budget of ≈$2M/year
 Gas Tax, Measure B Sales Tax and Road Refuse Impact Fee
 Project Cost to Maintain PCI Score of 67
 ≈$4.3M/year
 Revenue shortfall of ≈$2.3M/year
 Project Cost to Increase PCI Score above 70
 ≈$7.1M/year
 Revenue shortfall of ≈$5.1M/year
18

6
Funding Strategies
 Pay-As-You-Go: Fund roadway improvements on an annual basis from existing
funding sources
 Current City practice
 Budget Appropriation: Increase funding level above dedicated funding
sources
 General Fund allocation from discretionary sources
 Bond Financing: Finance projects to accelerate roadway improvement
program
 Combination Strategy: Secure new revenue sources to meet annual
maintenance levels and issue bonds to jump-start roadway improvement
program
20

III. FINANCING ALTERNATIVES
21

8
General Obligation Bonds
• Requires 2/3rds voter approval
• Tax rate based on assessed value (not market)
• Ad valorem property tax only for bond debt
service payments
• Ad valorem tax calculated based on all assessed
value in City
• Similar properties may not have equitable tax
amounts due to Proposition 13
• Tends to benefit older property owners with
low assessed values
• Most secure form of municipal bond
• Provides lowest interest rate of any financing
option
Parcel Tax
(Special Tax Bond)
• Requires 2/3rds voter approval
• Can fund ongoing project costs or bond debt
service
• Tax cannot be based on assessed value
• Provides the ability to “customize” the tax
across property types
• Defined maximum rate that can include an
annual inflator to handle future costs increases
• Can have some form of low income or senior
discount or exemption
• May provide for more equitable distribution of
tax among similar property owners
• Considered a “limited” tax and will have slightly
higher interest rates than GO Bond
22

IV. ROADWAY MAINTENANCE
FINANCING OPTIONS
23

10
Annual Roadway Maintenance Revenue Source
Special Tax Structure
$2.3M/Year for
Road Maintenance
(Maintain PCI Score)
$5.1M/Year for
Road Maintenance
(Increase PCI Score)
Building Square Footage Tax
(All Improved Parcels)
$0.07/Sq. Ft. $0.16/Sq. Ft.
2,600 Sq. Ft. Single-Family (Median)
5,500 Sq. Ft. Building (Average)
$182
$385
$416
$880
Special Tax can be collected in perpetuity and have an escalator
24

11
Special Tax – One-Time Project Financing
Special Tax Structure
$11.5M
Special Tax Bond
$25.5M
Special Tax Bond
Improved Square Footage Tax
(All Taxable Parcels)
$0.02/Sq. Ft. $0.05/Sq. Ft.
2,600 Sq. Ft. Single-Family (Median)
5,500 Sq. Ft. Building (Average)
$56
$118
$124
$262
Special Tax would be collected for 30-years to pay bond debt service
25

12
General Obligation Bond – One-Time Project Financing
GO Bond Structure
$11.5M
GO Bond
$25.5M
GO Bond
Initial Year Tax
$100,000 A.V. $3 $8
Median Home – $1.4M A.V. $49 $108
Highest Property – $36.6M A.V. $1,273 $2,824
26

V. PROCESS, TIMELINE & BUDGET
27

14
Process/Timeline for Voter Initiative
Project
Funding
Research
• April – June 2021
Public
Outreach/
Survey
• June – September 2021
Funding
Plan
Refinement
• October – December 2021
Call for
Election
• 88 Days Prior
• August 12, 2022
Election
• November
2022
Once election is called, City cannot
advocate or financially support the
item
Campaign managed by community
advocates or volunteers
28

15
Budget for Voter Initiative
 Option to engage communications or election project management consultant
 Certain costs subject to moving forward – initial development and survey budget $40K-$50K
Financial Advisory
$15K-$20K
Legal
$5K
Public Survey
$25K-$50K
Tax Formation
Consultant
$25K
Election County
Costs
TBD
29

11
FY 2021 Assessed Value Overview
Land Use
# of
Parcels
2020‐21
Assessed Value
Average
Assessed Value
Median
Assessed Value
Single‐Family Residential 10,299 $16,708,770,206 $1,622,368 $1,418,333
Other Residential 852 $796,629,478 $935,011 $694,709
Non‐Residential 810 $590,322,706 $728,793 $36,686
Exempt Property 180 $0 $0 $0
City Total 12,141 $18,095,722,390 $1,490,464 $416,330
Note: Not market value
31

12
FY 2021 Square Footage by Land Use
Land Use # of Parcels Gross Parcel Sq. Ft. Improved Sq. Ft.
Median Building
(Sq. Ft.)
Single Family Residential 10,299 301,099,788 29,688,145 2,626
Other Residential 852 3,797,125 1,615,433 1,511
Industrial Non‐manufacturing 1 142,006 104,526 104,526
Manufacturing 0 0 0 0
Transportation 45 21,165,368 0 0
Shopping Centers 10 677,794 257,541 13,387
Other Shopping Area 150 2,645,834 772,686 2,685
Other Urban 370 41,769,248 74,109 0
Public and Quasi‐Public Building and Uses 64 11,630,956 151,100 0
Public and Quasi‐Public Open Spaces 14 8,596,130 1,982 0
Agricultural, Extractive and Open Land 156 155,917,793 95,089 0
No Land Use Code 180 4,058,921 0 0
City Total 12,141 551,500,963 32,760,611 2,504
32

13
FY 2021 Single Family Residential Ownership Transfer Summary
Median Purchase Date: 12/21/2012
# of
Parcels
% of
Total
Cumulative
% of Total
Total
Valuation
1950 ‐ 1979 118 1.15% 1.15% $26,866,336
1980 ‐ 1989 254 2.47% 3.61% $165,536,026
1990 ‐ 1999 1,036 10.06% 13.67% $960,709,116
2000 ‐ 2009 2,390 23.21% 36.88% $3,610,946,695
2010 ‐ 2014 2,380 23.11% 59.99% $3,942,700,732
2015 ‐ 2019 3,085 29.95% 89.94% $6,282,539,096
2020 ‐ Present 1,036 10.06% 46.94% $1,719,472,205
Total 10,299 100.00% $16,708,770,206
Property
Transfer Date
Single Family Residential
33

14
FY 2021 Single Family Residential Assessed Value Breakdown
# of
Parcels
% of
Total
Cumulative
% of Total
Total
Valuation
$0 ‐ $249,999 1,323 12.85% 12.85% $200,318,126
$250,000 ‐ $499,999 737 7.16% 20.00% $273,295,068
$500,000 ‐ $749,999 747 7.25% 27.26% $470,928,811
$750,000 ‐ $999,999 947 9.20% 36.45% $834,852,381
$1,000,000 ‐ $1,499,999 1,633 15.86% 52.31% $2,018,794,732
$1,500,000 ‐ $1,999,999 1,658 16.10% 68.40% $2,906,728,719
$2,000,000 ‐ $2,499,999 1,219 11.84% 80.24% $2,722,036,432
$2,500,000 ‐ $2,999,999 849 8.24% 88.48% $2,316,895,080
$3,000,000 ‐ $3,499,999 419 4.07% 92.55% $1,352,896,118
$3,500,000 ‐ $3,999,999 278 2.70% 95.25% $1,033,503,408
$4,000,000 ‐ $4,499,999 192 1.86% 97.12% $813,156,545
$4,500,000 ‐ $4,999,999 89 0.86% 97.98% $420,450,248
$5,000,000 ‐ $5,499,999 67 0.65% 98.63% $349,573,932
$5,500,000 ‐ $5,999,999 39 0.38% 99.01% $224,452,423
$6,000,000 ‐ $6,499,999 37 0.36% 99.37% $231,275,286
$6,500,000 ‐ $6,999,999 18 0.17% 99.54% $121,106,412
$7,000,000 ‐ $7,499,999 18 0.17% 99.72% $129,266,036
$7,500,000 ‐ $7,999,999 4 0.04% 99.76% $30,514,288
$8,000,000 and greater 25 0.24% 100.00% $258,726,161
Total 10,299 100.00% $16,708,770,206
2020‐21
Assessed Value
Single Family Residential
34

DEPARTMENT: City Manager’s Department
PREPARED BY: Crystal Bothelio, Assistant City Manager
SUBJECT: Fiscal Year 2021/22 Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office & School Resource
Officer Proposed Costs
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Direct staff to fund law enforcement services at $6,895,871 for Fiscal Year 2021/22, including
funding for a full time School Resource Officer.
BACKGROUND:
The City of Saratoga has contracted with the Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office for law
enforcement services since 1956. The agreement between the City and Sheriff’s Office, spans from
2014 to 2024, includes: 1) general law enforcement services, such as patrol, response to emergency
calls, and investigative services; 2) supplemental services above and beyond general law
enforcement services as requested by the City, such as increased traffic enforcement or the School
Resource Officer; 3) supplemental reserve services provided by reserve deputies; 4) booking and
processing services for those arrested in City limits and brought to County jail for booking and
detention; and 5) emergency communication services that support Sheriff’s Office and City
operations, including around the clock 9-1-1 call management and radio dispatch.
Under the agreement, the City pays a base rate for services that is adjusted annually based on either
the yearly increases to personnel compensation and pension costs or the Consumer Price Index
plus 2% and pension costs, whichever is less. In addition to the base rate, the City pays for
supplemental services it has opted into, reserve services as needed, and a portion of the West
Valley Substation rental and operating costs, which is shared between Saratoga, Cupertino, Los
Altos Hills, and the County.
Law enforcement costs are proposed to be increased from $6,408,958 to $6,841,990 for Fiscal
Year (FY) 2021/22. A summary of the FY 2020/21 budgeted costs and FY 2021/22 proposed costs
is shown in the table below.
35

Item FY 2020/21 Budgeted Costs FY 2021/22 Proposed Costs
General Law Enforcement $4,662,546 $4,870,568
Investigative Services $551,160 $580,848
Substation $118,898 $117,252
Traffic Enforcement
(Supplemental)
$955,029 $999,668
Reserve Services
(Supplemental)
$21,325 $22,209
School Resource Officer
(Supplemental)
$100,000 $251,445
Total $6,408,958 $6,841,990
The most significant increase in costs is related to the School Resource Officer (SRO). The SRO
provides general law enforcement services on school campuses as well as serving as a liaison
between Saratoga schools and law enforcement, building close partnerships with school
administrators and students to promote a safe school environment.
For many years, a portion of the cost of the SRO has been shared between the City, Saratoga Union
School District (SUSD), and Los Gatos-Saratoga Union High School District (LGSUHD) with the
City has paying for $100,000 per year, each school district paying $29,500 per year, and the
Sheriff’s Office covering remaining costs by utilizing the deputy in other assignments. The
proposed FY 2021/22 costs include transferring the full cost of the SRO to City and school districts
with the City covering 70% of the total cost and each district paying for 15% of the cost. This
would increase the City’s share of the SRO to $251,445 in FY 2021/22.
Organization FY 2020/21 SRO Budgeted Costs FY 2021/22 SRO Proposed Costs
City $100,000 $251,445
SUSD $29,500 $53,881
LGSUHD $29,500 $53,881
The district agreements with the Sheriff’s Office for SRO services expire at the end of June and at
this time it is unclear if the LGSUHD will renew their agreement. The Sheriff’s Office shared that
SUSD intends to renew its agreement for SRO Services.
Since it is unclear if LGSUHD will renew its agreement for SRO services, staff is recommending
that the Council direct staff to fund the SRO position at $305,326 in the 2021/22 budget. This
would cover the City’s share of the SRO costs as well as remaining 15% typically covered by the
high school district. This would ensure that Saratoga has access to a full time SRO. If the high
school district ultimately decides that it does not wish to renew the SRO agreement, the SRO hours
normally dedicated to the high school will be used for other purposes, such as providing support
for Neighborhood Watch, directed traffic enforcement, crime prevention efforts, and community
events. Staff’s recommendation to fund the SRO position at $305,326 in FY 2021/22 would
increase law enforcement budgeted costs to $6,895,871.
FISCAL STATEMENT:
Proposed costs for law enforcement services in FY 2021/22 assuming the LGSUHD funds the
SRO is $6,841,990. Staff recommends allocating $6,895,871 for law enforcement services in FY
2021/22 to fully fund the SRO if LGSUHD decides to opt out of SRO services.
36

ATTACHMENTS:
Attachment A – Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office FY 2021/22 Proposed Costs
37

Page | 0
County of Santa Clara
SHERIFF’S OFFICE | 55 WEST YOUNGER AVENUE, SAN JOSE, CA 95110
Law Enforcement Contract - Saratoga
FISCAL YEAR 2021-2022 PROPOSED COSTS
38

Page | 1
This page intentionally left blank
39

Page | 2
Table of Contents
The Sheriff’s Office........................................................................................................................................3
Organizational Chart.....................................................................................................................................8
Law Enforcement Contract – Background ....................................................................................................9
Benefits to Cities of Contracting for Services .............................................................................................11
Local Public Safety Budget and Statistics....................................................................................................13
Contract Costing Model..............................................................................................................................15
Cost Calculation Methodology....................................................................................................................16
Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Proposed Hours ......................................................................................................17
Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Summary of Proposed Costs...................................................................................18
Fiscal Years 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 Costs Comparison ........................................................................19
Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Proposed Hourly Rates ...........................................................................................20
Proposed and Capped Rate Comparison ....................................................................................................21
Contract Cities’ Statistical Data...................................................................................................................22
Statistical Data - City of Saratoga................................................................................................................27
40

Page | 3
The Sheriff’s Office
The Sheriff's Office is divided into 4 major bureaus: Administrative Services, Enforcement, Custody, and
Support Services.
I. Administrative Services
The Administrative Services Director manages Information Systems, Legislative, Contracts and
Analysis Unit, Fiscal Division and Sheriff’s Identification Unit. The Administrative Services Director
also oversees all administrative and support staff for all the bureaus. Together they work with a
team approach to effectively manage this large organization.
II. Enforcement - comprised of the following divisions
Headquarters Patrol
Headquarters Patrol provides 24-hour uniformed law enforcement patrol services for most
county buildings and all Central, East and South unincorporated areas of Santa Clara County. The
unincorporated areas of the Mount Hamilton Range, including Mount Hamilton, San Antonio
Valley, Isabel Valley, San Felipe Valley, and Hall's Valley are patrolled from this station. The
unincorporated south county communities of San Martin, Rucker, and Uvas Canyon as well as the
unincorporated areas surrounding Morgan Hill and Gilroy are patrolled by units from the South
County Station.
The Sheriff’s Office is also responsible for the Parks Patrol Unit that provides law enforcement
services for the 27 parks and lakes managed by the Santa Clara County Parks Department. The
Rural Crimes Unit was formed in 1992 and specializes in crimes associated with rural farming
businesses. The Santa Clara County Sheriff’s Office also enjoys great collaboration with Gavilan
College to provide an additional layer of safety and security for students on campus and the Gilroy
Early College Academy (GECA) which is located on the property.
West Valley Patrol
The West Valley (WV) Patrol Division of the Sheriff’s Office proudly serves the Cities of Saratoga,
Cupertino, Town of Los Altos Hills, as well as the Western Unincorporated areas of the county
from Summit Road to Moffett Field. The WV Patrol Division is committed to providing progressive
law enforcement services and maintaining healthy community partnerships. Deputies are
routinely involved in community events across all cities. There are 83 sworn positions and 7
professional support staff assigned to the West Valley Patrol Division. Deputies provide a full
range of law enforcement responsibilities to include Patrol, Traffic Enforcement, Investigative
Services, School Resource Officers, Neighborhood Resource Officers, K-9 Services and Special
Enforcement assignments.
The Division employs modern strategies such as community oriented policing and predictive
policing, as well as innovative and progressive initiatives geared toward enhancing quality of life
measures. A full time analyst works directly with patrol deputies and detectives to identify crime
trends. Deputies perform daily enforcement duties with the goal of making neighborhoods safe
by bringing criminals to justice. The Division is managed by Captain Rich Urena, who serves as
Commander and works closely with each city and the various communities.
41

Page | 4
Transit Patrol
The Sheriff Transit Patrol Division provides contracted supplemental general law enforcement
services for the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) with the primary goal of safety for VTA
patrons, employees, and the security of VTA vehicles and properties. VTA’s mass transit system
of bus and light rail operations includes a 346 square mile service area which transcends through
15 municipalities and unincorporated Santa Clara County. Law Enforcement responsibilities in
the Sheriff Transit Patrol Division include 24-hour uniformed patrol, explosives detection K-9s,
motorcycle patrol, bicycle patrol, detectives, and 2 special teams focused on transit related crime
suppression.
The Sheriff’s Office Transit Patrol Division also provides supplemental law enforcement services
for Valley Transportation Authority property and assets located at the Milpitas BART Station.
Investigative Services
The Investigative Services Division operates out of three primary locations: Headquarters, West
Valley Station, and South County Station. To accomplish the mission of the Investigative Services
Division, investigators are trained for general investigation and receive additional training for
specific areas of expertise. In order to ensure that each crime is properly investigated by a
detective with skill and experience, the following units are each dedicated to a particular type of
crime.
• Homicide / Major Crimes
• Sexual Assault
• Property Crimes
• Missing Persons / Juvenile Crimes / Child Abuse
• Domestic Violence
• Hate Crime
• Court Liaison
• West Valley Detectives
• South County Investigations
• Jail and Gang Investigations
• Notario Fraud Investigation
• Sexual Assault Felony Enforcement (SAFE) Task Force
• Law Enforcement to Investigate Human Trafficking (LEIHT) Task Force
• Rapid Enforcement Allied Computer Team (REACT) Task Force
• Santa Clara County Regional Auto Theft Task Force ( R.A.T.T.F)
• Crime Scene Investigation
Special Operations
The Special Operations Division encompasses the Air Support Unit, California Multi-Jurisdictional
Methamphetamine Enforcement Team (Cal-MMET), Intelligence Unit, and Marijuana Eradication
Team (MET). We strive to establish a wide, collaborative, consistent and coordinated approach
to abating criminal activity and narcotics trafficking with an emphasis on enforcement,
intelligence gathering, investigation, prosecution, intervention and prevention.
42

Page | 5
Special Operation also oversees all specialized teams in the Office of the Sheriff. Deputies assigned
to this teams are trained in the following areas:
• Bomb Squad
• Sheriff's Emergency Response Team - S.E.R.T.
• Crisis Negotiation Team (CNT)
• Canine Unit K9
• Underwater Search Unit (USU)
• Sheriff's Off-Road Enforcement (SORE)
• Search and Rescue (SAR)
• Crowd Control Unit (CCU)
Civil/Warrants
The Civil Warrants Division serves Civil process in the manner prescribed by law. Civil process
includes restraining orders, bench warrants, arrest warrants, evictions and any other notice or
order from the courts. We also levy on wages, bank accounts, vehicles or any asset of the
judgment debtor.
III. Custody
The Santa Clara County Sheriff's Office Custody Division is the fifth largest jail system in California,
and among the 20 largest systems in the United States. Our jail is among the 100 systems
nationwide with an inmate population of more than 1,000. Currently, the average daily
population for the Santa Clara County Correctional facilities was approximately 2,160 inmates a
day. Approximately 48,000 arrestees are booked annually with an average length of stay of about
206 days.
The Custody Bureau consists of several divisions: Main Jail Facility, Elmwood Correctional Facility,
Custody Administrative Services, Jail Reforms, Support Services, and Compliance.
IV. Support Services
Support Services are comprised of the following services:
Personnel/Recruiting/Backgrounds/Reserves
The Sheriff’s Office Personnel Division is a full functioning Service Center that provides all aspects
of Human Resource support to every employee and retiree of our office. It is responsible for the
Backgrounds and Recruiting unit, Health and Injury Prevention Unit, and the Reserve and Youth
Cadet Programs.
Training & Compliance Division
The Training and Compliance Division oversees all aspects of professional growth and
development for Santa Clara County Sheriff's Office personnel. The mission of the Training and
Compliance Division is to provide creative and collaborative training resources and opportunities
to employees of the Sheriff’s Office; to ensure state and agency specific mandated training is
tracked efficiently to ensure compliance, update agency policies and procedures as needed, and
facilitate the Regional Justice Training Academies of the Sheriff’s Office. The division is composed
of five distinct training programs encompassing a wide variety of training:
• The Santa Clara County Justice Training Center
43

Page | 6
• Field and Jail Training Program
• In-Service Training
• Regional Driver Training Center
• The Regional Firearms Training Facility
All Sheriff's Office personnel must complete either the California Peace Officer Standards or
Training Basic Academy Course or the California Standards and Training for Corrections Core
Course. These basic academy training courses are administered by certified instructors and
Sheriff's Office Recruit Training Officers (RTO).
Once the new peace officer graduates from the Basic Academy, they will go through an extensive
Field Training Program or Jail Training Program. Well qualified peace officers instruct new
deputies on the day-to-day responsibilities of a peace officer.
The Training & Compliance Division also puts on several annual in-service trainings. These courses
include De-Escalation, Tactical Communication, Crisis Intervention, Use of Force, Defensive
Tactics, Driving, First Aid/CPR, Implicit Bias, Blue Courage, Mindfulness, etc. All of these courses
are regulated by the California POST and STC for the Enforcement and Custody Bureaus,
respectively.
Court Security
Court Security division provides security to the seven State of California Superior Courts located
within Santa Clara County on a contract basis. There are more than 220 sworn and professional
staff assigned to the Court Security Contract.
There are many specialized assignments within the Court Security Division to include
Judicial/Dignitary Protection, Felony and Misdemeanor Court Trial Bailiffs, Risk Assessment Unit,
CIT trained Dual Diagnosis Court Bailiffs, Juvenile Dependency Bailiffs, Juvenile Court Bailiffs
Holding Cell Operations and Court Movement Deputies.
More than 1,250,000 people pass through our security screening stations each year. Deputies and
Sheriff’s Technicians operate security screening stations at the entrance of each court facility.
Their primary job is to ensure no illegal or dangerous items enter a court facility.
Valley Medical Center Security
Valley Medical Center Security division provides oversight of all security and law enforcement
services for Santa Clara County’s Health and Hospital System, 24-hours a day/7-days per week.
Valley Medical Hospital system includes 13 Medical/Urgent Care Clinics, O’Connor, St. Louise
Hospitals and De Paul Health Center. Santa Clara Valley Medical Center is the county’s main
trauma center and located in San Jose. Santa Clara County Health and Hospital System employs
approximately 10,000 employees, two thirds of which are assigned to the Valley Medical Campus.
Stanford University
Stanford University division provides oversight and operational authority to Stanford Department
of Public Safety through direct supervision of the assigned Captain. The Sheriff’s Captain acts at
the direction of the Sheriff in policy matters. The Sheriff’s Captain will coordinate cases involving
death and serious felonies to ensure coordination and control with the Sheriff’s Office. The
44

Page | 7
assigned Captain further reviews policy and procedures to safeguard adherence to the standards
set by the Sheriff.
Currently, the Sheriff’s Office has 1,797 employees. Of those employees, 1,402 of them are sworn law
enforcement officers and 395 of them are non-sworn, civilian staff who provide support to the entire
operation. In addition to the full-time badge staff, the Sheriff’s Office has numerous Reserve Deputy
Sheriffs.
45

Page
|
8
Organizational
Chart
·
-
Office
Of the Sh,
Clf1ilnll«10nlll(
..,..,
..,_
_,_
--
-
~-
••MJA- DWelt Aepcwtto
OSIU: MSD/PRWLO
Off1ce of the Shenff
Sheriff Laurie Smith
I
- ;
Corrc>lianoo
I II lh-
Undenherllf
Public ln~b 0111oer
Lt. David Roberts
Ken ~nder S&t .... lOw
I
Deputy~ Gabaldon
~
"
Adminis.tratile~McesDirector Enforcement :.tantSheriff Custody,.;r.,..,Sheflff su_..5eN~-.antSilenn
luk~ung Mtchael Ooty Timot~Davis Dalla ~nguez
/.>.
~
J ,.........J J
lnveatjfltlve Se~JallCrimea Ma~Joll
v v
capt Den Rodr1(uez Capt. James Kirkland
" fcrmation S)'Sklma U. Jtm., ~- • AOC u.~r.t'IIIICiei·AOC
f-
Stanbd Onl~
WesleyChonC U. Brenctanomotl •MCU U ._bltCIMC)UIO T
... C$pt. Nuno Ribeiro
ISOI,_ u.Jatnet c:.
nan.RAnF U.IICIItU.Siac!M ·CT-
.... LLIIIIIIRIDIII.: · ~ f
..m
.....
v
~
-Volley,....
v
Capt. Ricardo Urena
Capt. Malil Padget v
_ ..... eon..-end Anelylla U. T~hlton ·AOC Court S.W:.arlty
Unit U. Nel Yatentue&l • A.OC LLWN ~·Cbli
Michelle Oov11TUbl11 .... U~Oullll · .vl fMm r- Clpl James Helm•
u~.,.,..,.ct•m Lt. Steven Hernandez
Proe"&m Manater 1
11 U.NIIIUItill~· 0 lte~~t
.....
.... v U, TfC1$1'111111...;.!,r.~
BucWetMln.,.rr:.tend ~tin
~- t'lf-tlnrul v
CApt. Elbert Rivera
..,
Thuyet ztyalan .... Pnllcy VMC
,IMfltltl~tllwtiM ,.....,. Capt Frank Zacharlsen r- Capt. Erldt 8ourasu
IItvin ZltiCfWOOC) .., .... S&t DeMit O...na
OtpiM- IAI.:--1Mllnl....
OMVW•,..,ntJ.
Content " -
.....
Lt. Kelvin Mah
... .... u .. McCabe ~fW/AN~tl'll'l~,_
ldentlbtlon Unit ProCJ11m
....
Manacer Clpt Quit Grumbol
Tlmfayto .., r- Lt. Mlctletle Albin
Stu Dtteotor Tn~~ntilt P.tn'll ~ JanTransltlnn ctwlttlnt Goodaon - HRM
anaftr
.... Copt. llevld l.t<l Jell Refofml ....
U. - Cotdoze •ADC CHSUoloon
.... ~ O.MCI .........cl•
v
u. ~H'r ·Or~
Tn.tNnc
Cl pt. Adam Obttdorfer
HQ""~"' ""trol
""""""~-
L-
Lt. fHchttd Allnit
Capt Roberl Curt
~lluiWrHI~ • ADO Capt Thom11 Our1n
~I.IIJI~t~t~ W
.cneoo- U.N~•m-.. .~
u,lt-,~ C..OciiiMl lLOifpt.-CI• · "'oar~!U
u,.._, · WMtiiCDIMI In"*: ;~.,.~~~
··u•,.,. • -~u
lloci--T- T
Cluolocl!""
fleeta nd eomn.tnlcatlont ...;;....
Q/COml)lltnot
C&p, AOO.rt Ourr ~htllt Ccwerl'lblt t
,....,,m~n...,lll
46

Page | 9
Law Enforcement Contract – Background
I. SERVICES
City of Cupertino, City of Saratoga, and Town of Los Altos Hills entered into an agreement with the County
of Santa Clara, Sheriff’s Office for the following law enforcement services:
A. Law Enforcement Services - include patrol of established beats, responses to emergency calls,
investigative services and other law enforcement services.
B. Supplemental Services – as requested by the City which may include traffic law enforcement
beyond the basic services, crime prevention patrols, and other law enforcement services that are
acceptable of being scheduled and within the capability of the Sheriff to provide.
C. Supplemental Reserve Services – services provided by reserve sheriff deputies such as
transportation of arrestees from the arrest location to the appropriate jail facility and additional
services as requested by City and approved by the Sheriff’s Office.
D. Booking and Processing Services – include booking and processing services to those arrested
persons within the corporate limits of City and who are brought to County jail for booking or
detention.
E. Communication Services – emergency communication services in support of the Sheriff’s Office
and City’s operations. Services include 24 hour per day 9-1-1 telephone answering and radio
dispatching of Sheriff’s personnel.
II. COMPENSATION
Law Enforcement Services
FY 2014-2015 base rate. Annual increase limited to the lesser of (a) percentage increase in total
compensation and annual PERS cost increase or (b) annual CPI/W plus 2% and annual PERS cost increase.
Supplemental/Reserve Services
a. Primary Rate – average full cost of a single Deputy with patrol vehicle
b. Supplemental Day Rate – cost of a single Deputy with patrol vehicle during periods when the
night shift differential salary increment is not payable
c. Supplemental Night Rate – cost of a single Deputy with patrol vehicle during periods when the
night shift differential salary increment is payable
d. Supplemental Reserve Rate – cost of two Reserve Deputy Sheriff with patrol vehicle
e. Investigative Service Rate – average full cost per hour of an investigator’s time.
Base Rent and Operating Costs of Westside Substation
The cities’ share of the base rent and operating cost will be based upon the lease agreement between the
County and Dollinger Properties, LLC. The monthly base rent will increase 2.5% each year. The cities shall
be responsible for the base rent increase and any increase in operating expenses and real estate taxes
allocated to the building to the extent that such expenses exceed costs incurred in the FY2014-2015 base
year. Yearly controllable operating costs shall be capped at 5%. The cities’ share of the operating cost
and base rent will be a prorated amount based upon the actual billable hours as indicated in the COPANA
reports.
47

Page | 10
III. TERM OF AGREEMENT – July 1, 2014 to July 1, 2024.
The agreement may be terminated without cause upon giving 180 days written notice of such termination
to the other party. At the expiration of this ten (10) year contract, this contract can be renewed for an
additional five (5) year period upon written notice of renewal by City and the County to other parties upon
180 days advance notice.
IV. ANNUAL CONTRACT USAGE HISTORY
Saratoga FY15-16 FY16-17 FY17-18 FY18-19 FY19-20 FY20-21
Services
General Law
Enforcement Hours
20,060.0 20,060.0 20,060.0 20,060.0 20,060.0 20,060.0
Traffic Enforcement
– Days - Hours
4,195.4 4,195.4 4,195.4 4,195.4 4,195.4 4,195.4
Investigative Hours 2,400.0 2,400.0 2,400.0 2,400.0 2,400.0 2,400.0
Reserve Activity
Hours
340.0 340.0 340.0 340.0 340.0 340.0
Special Services –
Traffic Sergeant
- - - - - -
School Resources
Officer
$100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000
Projected Costs $4,973,080 $5,176,173 $5,420,767 $5,680,745 $6,057,371 $6,417,203
Actual Costs $4,981,030 $5,170,962 $5,200,757 $5,678,842 $5,958,047
48

Page | 11
Benefits to Cities of Contracting for Services
Contracting for police services may help a community enhance its level and quality of service delivered,
providing an array of services that can be revised as needs change and at a cost less than that for
supporting an independent law-enforcement organization.
Cost Savings
Communities may contract for police services for many reasons, most of which are related to resources.
Contracting for police services most often resulted in significant cost savings. Savings may result from
reducing administrative and command staff positions with consolidation, pooling of resources, and lower
capital costs. Contracting may also provide economies of scale, as larger organizations may be more
efficient and provide services at lower cost than smaller ones.
Enhanced Quality and Level of Service
Since the policing system is highly fragmented and leads to a significant duplication of local services that
consolidation through contracting can mitigate, a city contracting for services may find it can provide
equivalent services with fewer staff than in a stand-alone entity. A city may, for example, provide capacity
for rare events that far exceeds its true needs. By contracting with a larger agency with specialized
capabilities as needed, a city can better focus its resources on base law-enforcement services.
Contracting for police services may provide an opportunity to enhance both the level and quality of service
delivered. By contracting, a community can receive not only the benefits of the contract deputies assigned
to it, but also has access to more specialized areas such as investigations, forensics, crime-analysis services
of the Sheriff’s Office and much more. The breadth and experience in the Sheriff’s Office far exceed those
in smaller cities’ police departments.
Cost savings
Staffing
flexibility
Efficient
use of
resources
Appropriate
staffing
level
Enhanced
level of
service
Enhanced
quality of
service
Breadth &
depth of
experience
49

Page | 12
Efficient Use of Staffing Resources
Contracting can make more efficient use of staffing resources, especially in communities with local law-
enforcement agencies governed by minimum staffing levels. Such levels may be defined by collective
bargaining but more often are driven by policy and practice. Such levels assume departments are
autonomous and cannot rely on nearby agencies for resources. This may lead to communities setting
staffing levels at an unnecessarily high level. The Sheriff’s Office has resources in the other areas, which
allows basic staffing level for the city to be at a lower level but backup and supervision from others can
provide additional resources when needed.
50

Page | 13
Local Public Safety Budget and Statistics
County of Santa Clara, Office of the Sheriff Average Cost Per Resident for Police Services and
Percent of City Budget Allocated to Law Enforcement Services
2020-2021 Police Operating Budgets
# City Land
Area in
Square
Miles
(1)
Population/
Square
Mile
Population
(1)
Police
Budget
Budget per
Capita
Total City
Budget
Percent of
City
Budget
1 Los Altos Hills (2) 8.8 957.2 8,423 $2,065,245 $204.77 $13,181,131 15.7%
2 Cupertino (2) 11.3 5,245.7 59,276 $14,792,330 $233.97 $82,287,295 18.0%
3 Palo Alto 23.9 2,734.9 65,364 $47,110,074 $670.00 $238,801,000 19.7%
4 Saratoga (2) 12.4 2,431.7 30,153 $6,408,958 $205.36 $26,641,745 24.1%
5 Santa Clara 18.4 7,085.1 130,365 $77,593,819 $570.64 $269,399,009 28.8%
6 San Jose 176.5 5,789.2 1,021,795 $455,188,814 $531.95 $1,547,689,229 29.4%
7 Los Altos 6.5 4,629.1 30,089 $12,836,225 $382.92 $43,318,880 29.6%
8 Monte Sereno (3) 1.7 2,046.5 3,479 $1,020,157 $273.80 $3,221,326 31.7%
9 Mountain View 12.0 6,894.9 82,739 $46,152,014 $528.79 $144,021,218 32.0%
10 Sunnyvale (4) 22.0 6,941.0 152,703 $114,306,055 $222.36 $354,913,330 32.2%
11 Milpitas 13.6 6,190.9 84,196 $38,367,020 $453.01 $116,831,532 32.8%
12 Los Gatos 11.1 2,722.7 30,222 $17,587,825 $552.18 $53,180,454 33.1%
13 Campbell 5.8 7,205.7 41,793 $20,229,929 $675.90 $54,559,148 37.1%
14 Morgan Hill 12.9 3,562.2 45,952 $17,697,892 $377.34 $43,763,247 40.4%
15 Gilroy 16.2 3,644.0 59,032 $25,380,854 $407.38 $57,711,594 44.0%
Incorporated Cities 353.1 5,226.8 1,845,581
Unincorporated Areas 937.0 87.8 82,271
County Total 1,290.1 1,494.3 1,927,852
1 US Census estimates on 3/24/21 at "http://www.census.gov/quickfacts"
2 Law enforcement services in Cupertino, Los Altos Hills, and Saratoga are provided under contract by the Santa Clara County Sheriff's Office.
3 Monte Sereno's contract for police services is for 105 hours per week only. The police budget noted above is the flat rate for 105 hours.
4 The City of Sunnyvale includes both police and fire protection costs in the department's public safety budget.
51

Page | 14
Annual Crime Rate
Number of Annual Crimes1
Crime Rate1
(per 1,000 residents)
Name FY 2021 Public
Safety
Budget*
Budget
per Capita
Crime Index1
(100 is
Safest)
Violent Property Total Violent Property Total
Los Altos Hills2
$2,065,245 $205 67 3 68 71 0.36 8.07 8.43
Cupertino2
$14,792,330 $234 32 58 1,027 1,085 0.98 17.33 18.31
Palo Alto $47,110,074 $670 13 89 1,993 2,082 1.36 30.49 31.85
Saratoga2
$6,408,958 $205 66 18 244 262 0.60 8.09 8.69
Santa Clara $77,593,819 $571 9 221 4,766 4,987 1.70 36.56 38.26
San Jose $455,188,814 $532 15 4,633 25,592 30,225 4.53 25.05 29.58
Los Altos $12,836,225 $383 55 23 314 337 0.76 10.44 11.20
Monte Sereno3
$1,020,157 $274 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
Mountain View $46,152,014 $529 13 169 2,474 2,643 2.04 29.90 31.94
Sunnyvale4
$114,306,055 $222 22 266 3,401 3,667 1.74 22.27 24.01
Milpitas $38,367,020 $453 17 106 2,204 2,310 1.26 26.18 27.44
Los Gatos $17,587,825 $552 43 16 423 439 0.53 14.00 14.53
Campbell $20,229,929 $676 11 91 1,362 1,453 2.18 32.59 34.77
Morgan Hill $17,697,892 $377 36 54 709 763 1.18 15.43 16.61
Gilroy $25,380,854 $407 15 254 1,488 1,742 4.30 25.21 29.51
California 174,331 921,114 1,095,445 4.41 23.31 27.72
United States 1,245,410 6,925,677 8,171,087 3.80 21.11 24.91
1 US Census estimates on 3/24/21 at "http://www.census.gov/quickfacts"
2 Law enforcement services in Cupertino, Los Altos Hills, and Saratoga are provided under contract by the Santa Clara County Sheriff's Office.
3 Monte Sereno's contract for police services is for 105 hours per week only. The police budget noted above is the flat rate for 105 hours.
4 The City of Sunnyvale includes both police and fire protection costs in the department's public safety budget.
52

Page | 15
Contract Costing Model
The Sheriff’s Office (SO), Fiscal Division annually develops a cost estimate for the contracting cities based
upon the Contract Costing Model. The model has been developed in-house and takes into account a
variety of cost factors, which are updated annually. It is important to note that not all cost factors in use
within the costing model are developed by the SO. Some of the cost factors are dictated by other County
departments to the SO, and the cost is just passed along to the contracting agencies. The following points
outline the overall approach utilized to calculate the baseline estimates for the contracted cities.
1. Salaries and Benefits – based on Countywide salary table, applicable benefit rates developed by
County Office of Budget and Analysis, and annual salary increases and allowances specified by
labor agreements.
The salaries and benefits section of the contract is where the costs are captured for not only the
direct staff that are assigned to each city, but also the regional and shared staff among the
contracted cities.
2. Services and Supplies – the direct services and supplies include the projected expenditures for
any supplies, materials, or services associated with the direct or shared staff.
3. Indirect Costs
For all services provided, there are direct costs associated (salaries, benefits, services, and
supplies) and indirect costs such as training, countywide support, divisional overhead, and
departmental overhead. To truly capture the full cost of any service, both direct and indirect cost
components must be captured. SO captures all indirect costs associated with the provision of its
law enforcement services.
• Overhead is calculated on a per position and is developed by taking the costs associated
with those services that primarily provide support to the entire SO. The overhead
calculation consists of the Personnel and Training Division, Information Systems Division,
Records and Fiscal Division. For each of these areas, the cost per employee is generated
by estimating the total administrative costs related to these activities and divided it by
the total number of employees that are supported by those activities. The costs are then
allocated to the division providing contract services based on number of staff assigned to
the contract services or annual percentage of time spent on the activities (Records) . The
total costs for these divisions included the applicable division’s share of the Countywide
overhead.
53

Page | 16
Cost Calculation Methodology
54

Page | 17
Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Proposed Hours
Cupertino Los Altos Hills Saratoga
Unincorporated
Areas
General Law Enforcement Services
Proposed Hours 41,881 7,256 * 20,060 14,696
Supplemental Services - Traffic Enforcement - Day
Enforcement Vehicle 3,639 ** - - -
Motorcycle 7,212 1,860 4,195 -
Proposed Hours 10,851 1,860 4,195 -
Proposed Hours 7,200 600 2,400 -
Supplemental Reserve Services
Proposed Hours 1,650 22 340 -
Total Proposed Hours 61,582 9,738 26,995 14,696
School Resources Officer (SRO)
Number of SRO 2 - 1 -
* Includes additional hours equivalent to productive hours of one full-time deputy
** Includes 1 Traffic Sergeant
55

Page | 18
Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Summary of Proposed Costs
Cupertino Los Altos Hills Saratoga
Unincorporated
Areas
General Law Enforcement Services
Proposed Costs $10,168,707 $1,761,757 $4,870,568 $3,568,189
Supplemental Services - Traffic Enforcement - Day
Enforcement Vehicle* $918,336 $0 $0 $0
Motorcycle $1,718,475 $443,082 $999,668 $0
Proposed Costs $2,636,811 $443,082 $999,668 $0
Proposed Costs $1,742,544 $145,212 $580,848 $0
Proposed Costs $107,778 $1,437 $22,209 $0
School Resources Officer (SRO)
Proposed Costs $574,732 $0 $251,445 $0
Operating Costs Of West Valley Substation
Proposed Costs $254,915 $44,068 $117,252 $71,043
Total Proposed Costs $15,485,487 $2,395,556 $6,841,990 $3,639,232
Total Capped Costs** $15,485,487 $2,395,556 $6,841,990
Amount Over/(Below) Capped Costs $0 $0 $0
* Includes 1 Traffic Sergeant
** Increase in costs capped at CPI + 2% (3.53%) and PERS Increase
56

Page | 19
Fiscal Years 2020-2021 and 2021-2022 Costs Comparison
Cupertino Los Altos Hills
General law Enforcement Services
Budgeted Costs FY 2020-2021 $9,734,401 $1,26Q003
Proposed CostsFY 2021-2022 $10,168,707 $1,761,757
Change ($) $434,306 $501,754
Change (%) 4.5% 39.8%.
Supplemental Services- Traffic Enforcement- Day
Budgeted Costs FY 2020-2021 $2,307,678 $421,190
Proposed CostsFY 2021-2022 $2,636,811 $443,082
Chanee (S) $329,133 $21.892
Change (%) 14.3% .. 5.2%
lnve.stigative Services
Budgeted Costs FY 2020-2021 $1,653,480 $137,790
Proposed CostsFY 2021-2022 $1,742,544 $145,212
Change ($) $83,064 $7, 422
Change (%) 5.4% 5.4%
Budgeted Costs FY 2020-2021 $108,488 $1, 380
Proposed CostsFY 2021-2022 $107,778 $1,437
Change ($) $4,290 $57
Change (%) 4.1% 4. 1%
Sl:l nHJI 1oouu.:t:.::.. O((it.:t:t (SRO)
Budgeted Costs FY 2020-2021 $542,290 $0
Proposed CostsFY 2021-2022 $574,732 $0
Change ($) $32,442 $0
Change (%) 6.0% 0%
Operating Costs Of W e.st Valley Substation• u •
Budgeted Costs FY 2020-2021 $249,493 $35,692
Proposed CostsFY 2021-2022 $254,915 $44,068
Change ($) $5,422 $8, 376
Change (%) 2.2% 23.5%
TotalBudgeted Costs FY 2020-2021 $14
, 59Q830 $1,856,055
TotJI Proposed Costs FY 2021-2022 $15,485,487 $2,395,556
Change ($) $894,657 •• $539,501
Change (%) 6.1% 29.1%
• ln<ludes aclclitional hours equivalent to productive hou~ of one full-time deputy
•• Includes cost adjustment for Traffic Sergeant
••• lncludescost adjustment for School ResourcesOfficer
•
Unincorporated
Saratoga Area-
s
$4,662,546 $3,415,791
$4,870,568 $3,568,189
$208,022 $152,398
4.5% 4.5%
$955,029 $0
$999,668 $0
$44,639 so
4.7% 0%
$551,160 $0
$580,848 $0
$29,688 $0
5.4% 0%
$21,325 $0
$22,209 $0
$884 $0
4.1% 0%
$100,000 $0
$251,445 $0
$151,445 $0
15 1.4% ... 0%
$118,898 $72,040
$117,252 $71,043
($1,646) ($997)
-1.4% -1.4%
$6,408,958 $3,487,831
$6,841,990 $3,639,232
$433,082 ••• $151,401
6.8% 4.3%
•••• Costsfor operatirc: the W estV alleySubstation varieseach month dependent upon General lav Enforcem:nt Hours and
Sup5=lemental Hoursused by each city.
57

Page | 20
Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Proposed Hourly Rates
General Law Enforcement Services - Deputy
Sheriff
Supplemental Services - Day - Motorcycle Unit
FY 2021-2022 $242.80 FY 2021-2022 $238.28
FY 2020-2021 $232.43 FY 2020-2021 $226.48
Increase $10.37 4.4616% Increase $11.80 5.2102%
Supplemental Services - Day - Patrol Car
FY 2021-2022 $239.49 FY 2021-2022 $246.38
FY 2020-2021 $227.64 FY 2020-2021 $233.76
Supplemental Services - Swing - Patrol Car
FY 2021-2022 $243.19 FY 2021-2022 $242.02
FY 2020-2021 $234.92 FY 2020-2021 $229.65
Supplemental Services - Night - Patrol Car
FY 2021-2022 $246.38 FY 2021-2022 $65.32
FY 2020-2021 $234.92 FY 2020-2021 $62.72
Supplemental Services - Traffic Sergeant
FY 2021-2022 $265.07 FY 2021-2022 $195.70
FY 2020-2021 $251.63 FY 2020-2021 $185.35
58

Page | 21
Proposed and Capped Rate Comparison
For FY 2020-2021 and FY 2021-2022
a b c = a - b d e f = e + d g
Rate Category FY22 Rates FY21 Rates
Increase/
(Decrease)
PERS
Increase
FY21 Rate
w/Increase
of 3.53%
FY22 CAP at
FY21 +
3.53% (=
CPI + 2%) +
PERS
FY22
Proposed
Rates
General Law Enforcement Services - Deputy Sheriff $242.80 $232.43 $10.37 $3.89 $240.63 $244.52 $242.80
Supplemental Services - Day - Patrol Car $239.99 $227.64 $12.35 $3.81 $235.68 $239.49 $239.49
Supplemental Services - Swing - Patrol Car $243.19 $234.92 $8.27 $3.90 $243.21 $247.11 $243.19
Supplemental Services - Night - Patrol Car $246.38 $234.92 $11.46 $3.98 $243.21 $247.19 $246.38
Supplemental Services - Traffic Sergeant $268.09 $251.63 $16.46 $4.56 $260.51 $265.07 $265.07
Supplemental Services - Day - Motorcycle Unit $245.41 $226.48 $18.93 $3.81 $234.47 $238.28 $238.28
Supplemental Services - Swing - Motorcycle Unit $248.61 $233.76 $14.85 $3.90 $242.01 $245.91 $245.91
Supplemental Services - Night - Motorcycle Unit $251.80 $233.76 $18.04 $3.98 $242.01 $245.99 $245.99
Law Enforcement Services - Detective $259.98 $229.65 $30.33 $4.26 $237.76 $242.02 $242.02
Supplemental Reserve Services $80.34 $62.72 $17.62 $0.39 $64.93 $65.32 $65.32
School Resources Officer $196.11 $185.35 $10.76 $3.81 $191.89 $195.70 $195.70
59

Page | 22
Contract Cities’ Statistical Data
2020
Arrests
Totals and Averages
66
Total
Number
Average Per
Deputy
262 3.97
312 4.73
63 0.95
248 3.76
885 13.41
Misdemeanor On View Arrests
Felony Warrant Arrests
Misdemeanor Warrant Arrests (Includes Cite & Release)
Total Arrests
Number of Field Enforcement Deputies
Assigned to West Valley Patrol Division
Felony On View Arrests
60

Page | 23
2020
Citations
Totals and Averages
66
780 11.82
1296 19.64
3706 56.15
5782 87.61
Speeding Citations
Moving Violation Citations
All Other Traffic Citations
Total Citations
61

Page | 24
2020
Reports
Totals and Averages
66
3203 48.53
450 6.82
3653 55.35
Reports (Felony / Misdemeanor / Other)
Accident Reports
Total Reports
62

Page | 25
2020
Calls
Totals and Averages
66
29288 443.76
94807 1436.47
124095 1880.23
Self-Initiated Calls
Total Incidents / Contacts
Radio Generated Calls
63

Page | 26
2020
Priority Calls by District
Totals
Priority Level C H L S W
1 37 1 1 15 4
2 3244 229 634 1996 364
3 4431 406 647 2065 461
C = Cupertino S = Saratoga
H = Unincorporated Santa Cruz Mountains W = Unincorporated West Valley
L = Los Altos Hills
64

Page | 27
Statistical Data - City of Saratoga
City of Saratoga
Selected Crimes
Code Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Joo Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL
Robbery 2110 2115
2018 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 2 0 0 1 0 5
2019 0 0 1 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2
2020 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 3
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Joo Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL
Burglary, 2018 5 10 8 3 4 0 3 5 10 4 8 12 7 2
Residential
4590
10 5 7 2 13 7 2 5 7 2 8 10 78
2019
2020 8 11 4 0 2 2 1 3 5 6 1 6 49
Burglary, 4591 4592
2018 1 1 0 0 1 1 4 1 3 3 2 0 17
Commercial 2019 3 3 2 2 1 2 0 1 4 0 1 2 21
2020 2 1 1 1 3 2 2 0 1 2 1 1 17
Burglary,
4593
2018 2 0 2 2 2 3 1 7 5 6 1 3 3 4
Vehicle 2019 3 0 2 1 0 5 3 1 8 2 4 5 34
2020 3 1 1 0 1 2 7 2 2 1 0 2 22
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jlil Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL
Grand Theft 4870
2018 1 0 3 2 2 1 3 2 3 3 0 3 23
2019 0 9 3 2 2 1 2 1 6 3 1 1 3 1
2020 2 2 3 2 2 6 2 1 2 8 4 10 44
Auto Theft 4703
2018 1 0 0 0 1 3 2 3 2 2 0 0 14
2019 2 0 4 0 0 2 1 1 2 3 3 2 20
2020 0 0 4 3 3 3 4 2 1 2 3 1 2 6
Vandalism 5940 5941
2018 4 1 1 0 0 3 1 0 4 6 0 0 20
2019 1 2 3 1 3 2 5 0 3 2 3 2 27
2020 2 0 3 1 1 5 6 3 2 0 3 4 30
Identity Theft Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Joo Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL
2018 4 6 6 6 3 8 12 3 7 5 8 8 76
Forgery 4700 4702
2019 15 11 12 2 6 4 4 2 4 1 1 5 6 7
Fraud 2020 5 8 7 5 12 6 3 5 7 10 3 5 76
Domestic 2018 1 1 2 1 1 2 1 4 3 0 2 3 21
Violence
2430 2730
1 1 2 2 4 2 4 1 2 2 2 2 2 5
2019
2020 2 5 0 3 2 3 2 0 1 2 0 1 21
Simple&
2400 2401 2018 1 0 2 0 0 1 0 1 0 2 0 0 7
Aggravated 2402 2403
2 0 0 0 0 1 1 1 1 0 3 1 1 0
Assaults 2404 2405 2019
2020 2 2 1 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 3 3 14
2610 2615
2018 0 0 1 0 3 1 2 0 1 2 0 0 10
Sex Crimes 2880 2885
2890 2895 2019 2 1 1 2 3 0 1 0 1 3 0 0 14
2020 0 2 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 5
65

Page | 28
Saratoga Crime Totals 2018-2020
5
Robbery Iii 2
liiil 3
r ~
t 72
Residential Burglary 78
49
I I
17
Commercial Burglary 21
17
I I
t-- j 34
Vehicle Burglary 34
22
I I
-J 23
Grand Theft 31
44
I I
-I
14
Auto Theft 20
26
I I
I j 20
Vandalism 27
30
I I !
J 76
ID Theft, Forgery Fraud 67
76
I I I
J 21
Domestic Violence 25
21
b 7
Assault 10
14
r
J 10
Sex Crimes 14
iiiiiil s
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90
" 2018 11 2019 11 2020
66

Page | 29
Saratoga Crime Index
2019- 2020 VARIANCES
2019 2020 % Difference
Commercial Burglary 21 17 -19% Jl
Residential Burglary 78 49 -37%
l
Vehicle Burglary 34 22 -35%
Jl
Auto Theft 20 26 30% t
Grand Theft 31 44 42%
t
Identity Theft 67 76 13%
t
Robbery 2 3 SO% t
Assaults 10 14 40% t
Domestic Violence 25 21 -16%
i
Sex Crimes 14 5 -64%
l
67

Page | 30
In 15 of the reported cases, known time frame of burglary occurred over course
of multiple days, day of week unknown.
SARATOGA RESIDENTIAL BURGLARIES
68

Page | 31
SARATOGA AUTO THEFT
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58
2011 2012 2013 2014
59
2015 2016 2017
~ 50% - Key was left
l inside/with the vehicle
)
42%- Vehicle was left
unlocked
27%- Vehicle stolen from
contractor, landscaper or
other service provider during
scope of employment
2018 2019 2020
69

Page | 32
SARATOGA GRAND THEFT
r--
ED
--
--- --
-
--- :
1
-
- r-- r--
- E1 E1 E
-
I II I
51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 • Catalytic Converter • Other
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
70

Page | 33
City of Saratoga
Traffic Related Activity- Patrol and Traffic Units Combined
Code Year Jan Feb M
ar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL
Moving 2018 124 102 80 120 90 103 84 103 88 105 109 81 1189
8300
Violations 2019 102 81 67 62 68 80 93 131 123 113 73 52 1045
2020 66 69 38 8 14 9 29 10 23 27 23 21 337
Year Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL
Speeding 2018 25 55 40 42 44 52 56 36 45 42 19 6 462
Citations
8305
2019 14 27 13 23 14 13 25 22 12 34 24 14 235
2020 4 9 8 3 11 9 11 8 10 25 14 16 128
Other 8310 8315 8320 2018 89 134 127 144 85 204 140 117 110 157 153 128 1588
Citations 8325 8330 8335 2019 199 157 139 162 123 134 185 197 135 242 166 133 1972
2020 219 234 184 so 115 42 51 42 43 74 68 80 1202
2018 0 3 6 1 5 2 2 1 2 0 3 4 29
DUis 8500 8505 8510
2019 2 4 3 0 4 4 1 2 1 3 0 1 25
2020 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3
Accidents, 8000 8005 8030 2018 6 4 2 4 3 4 5 2 4 9 3 2 48
Injury 8035 2019 3 3 6 2 3 1 3 5 4 5 7 3 45
2020 2 6 0 2 7 3 2 5 2 6 2 5 42
Accidents,
Property
8010 8015 8020 2018 9 14 17 12 16 9 12 11 10 13 9 7 139
8025 8040 8045 2019 16 7 10 11 7 4 14 8 10 10 8 7 112
Damage
2020 12 8 8 5 8 7 3 7 7 12 5 5 87
Accidents, DUI 8050 8055 8060
2018 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3
2019 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 2
2020 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3
Citations
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0
2016 2017 2018 2019 2020
• Moving Violation • Speeding Citat ions • Ot her Citations
71

Page | 34
Saratoga Accidents 2020
Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec TOTAL
Injury (8000, 8005) 2 6 0 2 7 3 2 5 2 6 2 5 42
Property Damage (8010) 10 5 6 4 6 5 2 5 6 8 3 3 63
Accident, No Details (8015) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1
Bike / Pedestrian (8020, 8025) 0 1 0 0 0 2 0 1 0 2 2 0 8
Hit & Run - Injury (8030, 8035) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Hit & Run - Property Damage (8040) 2 4 2 1 2 0 1 0 1 2 0 2 17
Hit & Run - No Details (8045) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
DUI - Injury (8050, 8055) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
DUI - Property Damage (8060) 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 3
TOTAL ACCIDENTS 14 16 8 7 17 10 5 13 9 18 7 10 134
11.2
72

PREPARED BY: Mary Furey, Administrative Services Director
SUBJECT: Financial Policy Update Review
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
Receive staff report and provide direction on Financial Policy Statement Updates.
REPORT SUMMARY:
Financial Policies are the foundation of Council’s budgetary and finance-related decisions and provide a
measure of fiscal transparency for the Saratoga community. To keep policies current, the financial policies
are reviewed, refined, and modified through ongoing annual updates. Proposed changes are vetted through
the Finance Committee then recommended changes are brought forth to the Council for final review and
discussion at the Budget Study Session. Approved revisions are included in the budget document at the
Proposed Budget Hearing. Updated policies are subsequently adopted as part of the budget process and
become effective as of July 1 each fiscal year.
Financial Policy Statements are presented by topic category in alphabetical order. This year’s changes reflect
the ongoing demand for transparency and remote access to complete forms and obtain information, as well as
additions to both document and enhance financial policy information.
Attachment A is the FY 2020/21 Adopted Fiscal Policy Statements with redline changes to illustrate
proposed changes as recommended by the Finance Committee. Attachment B is a clean version of the
modified Fiscal Policy Statements for readability.
ATTACHMENTS PROVIDED:
A. FY 2020/21 Draft Proposed Fiscal Policy Statements – Red Line Version
B. FY 2020/21 Draft Proposed Fiscal Policy Statements – Clean Version
73

INTRODUCTION SECTION
CITY OF SARATOGA ● FISCAL YEAR 2021/22 OPERATING & CAPITAL BUDGET 1
FISCAL MANAGEMENT POLICY STATEMENTS
The City of Saratoga practices fiscal responsibility through conservative financial management, and cautious,
sustainable, and enforceable fiscal policies and internal controls to ensure prudent and efficient use of resources.
Policies and controls represent long-standing accounting, budgeting, debt, investment, and reserve principles and
practices, and are the foundation upon which the City prepares its Long-Term Financial Plan.
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 impact budgetary decision making 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.
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 Planning
• Development Related Financial Policies
• Expenditures and Purchasing
• Fixed Assets and Infrastructure
• Grants & Donations
• Internal Service Funds
• Investments
• Long-Term Debt
• Long-Term Financial Planning
• Pension Funding
• Revenues
• Risk Management
• Treasury Management
• Trust & Agency Policies
• User Fees
GENERAL FINANCIAL PRINCIPLES
• The City shall ensure prudent financial practices are incorporated into operational procedures to ensure fiscal
integrity and safeguard the City’s assets.
• 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 as Council Policies, and administrative and operational
level functions approved by the City Manager as Administrative Policies.
• Proposed revisions to the Fiscal Management Policy Statements and Council Policies are reviewed by the Finance
Committee and then provided to the entire City Council at the annual Council Retreat or Budget Study Session.
Council members are asked to provide comments or suggestions for revisions to the Administrative Services
Director at least two weeks prior to the budget study session to clarify or include on the agenda. with the final
draft made available for review by the entire Council prior to adoption.
• The City’s primary long-term financial goals seek 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.
74

• Financial information shall be provided in a relevant, thorough, and timely manner, to effectively communicate
the City’s financial status to the Council, citizensresidents, 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 essential services and infrastructure at the level and quality
required by its residentscitizens.
• The City Council’s financial, operational, 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.
• The City shall develop and incorporate long-term financial planning tools to promote strategic analysis and
prioritization of financial resources in decision making.
• Replacement plans shall be maintained for fixed assets, such as vehicles, equipment, park infrastructure, building
fixtures and equipment, and technology infrastructure.
• Efficient major infrastructure funding requires comprehensive and long-term Master Plans. The City shall
endeavor to develop major infrastructure maintenance and replacement plans for roadways, bridges, retaining
walls, storm drains, streetlights, and similar infrastructure.
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, Finance & Administrative Services Department staff 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, typically at the
Annual Council Retreat (scheduled in late January or early February). This annual review to assists Council
with formulating direction for long-range fiscal planning, Operating Budget development, and capital project
funding appropriations.
• Budgets are prepared on the same basis 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 (Custodial Funds) are budgeted 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 specific uses, which
may be used to fund current year operational expenses, in accordance with their purpose, upon Council approval.
75

• Additionally, a minimal base amount of $500,000 remains in the Unassigned Fund Balance Reserve at year-end
to provide the first layer of fiscal protection for unanticipated operational shortfalls or 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, VTA Measure B funding, road impact assessment
revenues; project revenues and reimbursements; community benefit assessments; and federal, state, local, and
private grants.
• In practice, budgeted revenues are conservatively stated, and budgeted expenditures are funded at the full level
required to meet annual operational and capital improvement goals. With effectively managed revenue streams
and efficient use of resources, fiscal year-end operational budget surpluses are typically 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 following fiscal year as part of the annual
budget adoption until funding is exhausted, modified, or the project is completed.
• The City’s adopted budget shall comply with State law that limits annual budget expenditures to the appropriation
limit calculated in accordance with Article XIIIB of the Constitution of the State of California. Known as the
Gann Limit, the City Council 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 effectively operate, provided the fund’s total appropriation amount is not
changed. An example would be to backfill a vacant salaried position with a contract service, therefore shifting
budgeted funds from wage and benefit appropriations to an operating expense expenditure within the Operating
Expense appropriations. 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 with 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.
• The City Council appropriates $50,000 annually to a ‘Council Discretionary account’ to provide Council with
funding for unplanned expenditures. Council direction and consensus approval is required to utilize these funds.
Unexpended Council Discretionary appropriations are carried forward into the following fiscal year.
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 financial reports pursuant to Governmental Accounting, Auditing, and
Financial Reporting (GAAFR) guidelines. The independent auditor will issue an audit opinion to be included in
Formatted: Space After: 0 pt, Tab stops: Not at 0.3"
76

the City’s Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) testifying to the financial report’s 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 year), 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, apply 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 conjunction with the year-
end close.
 State required Annual Debt Transparency Report for any debt issued after January 21, 2017.
 California Debt and Investment Advisory Commission’s (CDIAC) Mello-Roos Community Facilities
District (CFD) Fiscal Status Report for CFD bond debt.
 Quarterly SMIP (Seismic Motion) fee reconciliation reports; CASp (ADA Accessibility) reconciliation
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 propose recommended budget
adjustments as appropriate.
 A year-end financial recap is provided after the City’s annual financial audit is completed.
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLANNING
• The Capital Improvement Plan is an ongoing process through which the City identifies, prioritizes, and develops
a multi-year workplan for major capital expenditures and their associated funding sources, in the effort to
improve and maintain the City of Saratoga’s roadways, parks, and facility infrastructure. Non-infrastructure
projects may also be included in the CIP under the Administrative & Technology programs if they are one-time,
operational efficiency, technology, or multi-faceted administrative projects.
• Generally, CIP improvements are major expenditures that have a multi-year life span and result in becoming
City assets. The City’s standard definition of a Capital Improvement Plan project is for the construction,
acquisition, rehabilitation or non-routine maintenance work that generally costs $25,000 or more, with a useful
life of at least 5 years at a fixed location. The City also includes projects under $25,000 if they include staged
or ongoing improvement projects, or if they are significant multi-year projects.
• Capital Planning is developed and prioritized through infrastructure and operational assessments of asset
maintenance plans, urgent mitigation needs to prevent structure or system failures, health and safety issues,
77

Additional revenue for Road Repair : 04 27-2021 agenda packet

Additional revenue for Road Repair : 04 27-2021 agenda packet

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

What's hot

What's hot (20)

Similar to Additional revenue for Road Repair : 04 27-2021 agenda packet

Similar to Additional revenue for Road Repair : 04 27-2021 agenda packet (20)

More from Rishi Kumar

More from Rishi Kumar (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Additional revenue for Road Repair : 04 27-2021 agenda packet