The URL can be used to link to this page

03-07-2017 Searchable packetCITY OF CUPERTINO AGENDA Tuesday, March 7, 2017 10350 Torre Avenue, Council Chamber CITY COUNCIL 5:30 PM Special Meeting Televised Study Session (5:30) and Televised Regular Meeting (6:45) NOTICE AND CALL FOR A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that a special meeting of the Cupertino City Council is hereby called for Tuesday, March 07, 2017, commencing at 5:30 p.m. in Community Hall Council Chamber, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California 95014. Said special meeting shall be for the purpose of conducting business on the subject matters listed below under the heading, “Special Meeting." The regular meeting items will be heard at 6:45 p.m. in Community Hall Council Chamber, 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California. SPECIAL MEETING ROLL CALL - 5:30 PM Community Hall Council Chamber, 10350 Torre Avenue STUDY SESSION 1.Subject: City Work Program for fiscal year 2017-2018 Recommended Action: Review and provide direction on the fiscal year 2017-2018 City Work Program Staff Report A - 2017-2018 City Work Program ADJOURNMENT REGULAR MEETING PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - 6:45 PM Community Hall Council Chamber, 10350 Torre Avenue Page 1 CITY OF CUPERTINO 1 March 7, 2017City Council AGENDA ROLL CALL CEREMONIAL MATTERS AND PRESENTATIONS 1.Subject: Proclamation for March as Women's History Month Recommended Action: Present Proclamation for March as Women's History Month 2.Subject: Proclamation for March as Arts Education Month Recommended Action: Present Proclamation for March as Arts Education Month 3.Subject: Proclamation for March as American Red Cross Month Recommended Action: Present Proclamation for March as American Red Cross Month POSTPONEMENTS ORAL COMMUNICATIONS This portion of the meeting is reserved for persons wishing to address the council on any matter not on the agenda. Speakers are limited to three (3) minutes. In most cases, State law will prohibit the council from making any decisions with respect to a matter not listed on the agenda. CONSENT CALENDAR Unless there are separate discussions and/or actions requested by council, staff or a member of the public, it is requested that items under the Consent Calendar be acted on simultaneously. 4.Subject: Approve the February 21 City Council minutes Recommended Action: Approve the February 21 City Council minutes A- Draft Minutes 5.Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending January 6, 2017 Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 17-021 accepting Accounts payable for the period ending January 6, 2017 A - Draft Resolution B - AP Report Page 2 CITY OF CUPERTINO 2 March 7, 2017City Council AGENDA 6.Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending January 13, 2017 Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 17-022 accepting Accounts Payable for the period ending January 13, 2017 A - Draft Resolution B - AP Report 7.Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending January 20, 2017 Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 17-023 accepting Accounts Payable for the period ending January 20, 2017 A - Draft Resolution B - AP Report 8.Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending January 27, 2017 Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 17-024 accepting Accounts Payable for the period ending January 27, 2017 A - Draft Resolution B - AP Report 9.Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending February 3, 2017 Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 17-025 accepting Accounts Payable for the period ending February 3, 2017 A - Draft Resolution B - AP Report 10.Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending February 10, 2017 Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 17-026 accepting Accounts Payable for the period ending February 10, 2017 A - Draft Resolution B - AP Report 11.Subject: Treasurer's Investment Report for Quarter ending December 31, 2016 Recommended Action: Accept the Treasurer's Investment Report for Quarter ending December 31, 2016 Staff Report A - Investment Portfolio B - Wells Fargo Listing of Assets C - Supplemental Portfolio Analysis Page 3 CITY OF CUPERTINO 3 March 7, 2017City Council AGENDA 12.Subject: State Senate bills supporting affordable housing Recommended Action: Adopt a position of support on Senate Bill 2 (Atkins): Building Homes and Jobs Act and SB 3 (Beall): Affordable Housing Bond Act of 2018, and authorize the Mayor to send letters in support of these bills Staff Report A - Sample Letter of Support - SB2 B - Sample Letter of Support - SB3 13.Subject: Response to Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Follow-Up Request Recommended Action: Review the request and authorize the City Manager to sign the proposed response Staff Report A - Proposed Follow-up Responses B - Letter requesting a follow-up response C - 2012 City Response Letter D - 2012 Original Grand Jury Report 14.Subject: Set application deadline and interview date(s) for terms expiring on the Teen Commission Recommended Action: Staff recommends the following deadlines: 1.) Applications due in the City Clerk's office by 4:30 p.m. on Friday, May 5; and 2.) Interviews held beginning at 3:30 p.m. on Tuesday, May 23 and Wednesday, May 24 (as needed) Staff Report 15.Subject: Application for Alcohol Beverage License for JK Bay Area, Inc (dba Round Table Pizza), 20080 Stevens Creek Blvd, Suite 106 Recommended Action: Recommend approval to the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control of the application for Alcohol Beverage License for JK Bay Area, Inc (dba Round Table Pizza), 20080 Stevens Creek Blvd, Suite 106 Staff Report A - Application SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES PUBLIC HEARINGS Page 4 CITY OF CUPERTINO 4 March 7, 2017City Council AGENDA 16.Subject: Review and consider a development proposal submitted (Scandinavian Furniture Site), for consideration by the City Council, to authorize the proposed applicant to submit an application for a General Plan Amendment and staff to commence environmental and project review. (Application No.: GPAAuth-2016-01; Applicant: Kings Mill Group, Keith Fichtner; Location: 19900 Stevens Creek Boulevard; APN: 369-05-038). Postponed from the February 21, 2017 meeting Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the Resolution No. 17-020 (Attachment A) after determining whether the application is authorized to move forward to apply for a General Plan Amendment. Staff Report A - Draft Resolution B - City Council policy for General Plan Amendment application procedures C - Scandinavian Furniture project plans D - General Plan Amendment Request Application: Comprehensive Project Description E - Fiscal Analysis of 19900 Stevens Creek Boulevard General Plan Amendment Application, prepared by Economics and Planning Systems, Inc., dated February 10, 2017 F - Relevant Policies in the EDSP G - Email from Darrel Lum, dated February 26, 2017 ORDINANCES AND ACTION ITEMS 17.Subject: Approval of the Mid-Year Financial Report and recommended budget adjustments for Fiscal Year 2016-17 Recommended Action: 1.Accept the City Manager’s Mid-Year Financial Report for FY 2016-17 2.Approve the Mid-Year adjustments for FY 2016-17 as described in the Mid-Year Financial Report 3.Adopt Resolution No. 17-027 approving Mid-Year budget adjustments Staff Report A - Mid-Year Financial Report B - Draft Resolution C - Performance Measures for each Department D - Mid-Year Budget Journals Page 5 CITY OF CUPERTINO 5 March 7, 2017City Council AGENDA 18.Subject: Regnart Road Emergency Work Declaration, Authorization for the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute a Contract for the Repair Work and Designate the City Manager to apply for Federal and State Disaster Assistance Recommended Action: Staff recommends that Council Adopt Resolution 17-028 to: 1. Declare the repairs necessary to restore Regnart Road as Emergency Work, per Cupertino Municipal Code Section 3.23.130 and Public Contract Code Section 22050, and award a contract without public bidding; 2. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a contract to perform the repairs in an amount not to exceed $350,000; and 3. Designate the City Manager to be authorized to apply for Federal and State disaster asisstance for storm related damages, if available 4. Approve a budget adjustment in the amount of $350,000 to the Transportation Fund 270-85-821 900-990 Staff Report A - Draft Resolution B - Photographs C - Regnart Road Area REPORTS BY COUNCIL AND STAFF 19.Subject: Report on Committee assignments and general comments Recommended Action: Report on Committee assignments and general comments ADJOURNMENT 20.Subject: Adjourn the meeting in memory of Srinivas Kuchibhotla who was recently killed in Kansas Page 6 CITY OF CUPERTINO 6 March 7, 2017City Council AGENDA The City of Cupertino has adopted the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure §1094.6; litigation challenging a final decision of the City Council must be brought within 90 days after a decision is announced unless a shorter time is required by State or Federal law. Prior to seeking judicial review of any adjudicatory (quasi-judicial) decision, interested persons must file a petition for reconsideration within ten calendar days of the date the City Clerk mails notice of the City’s decision. Reconsideration petitions must comply with the requirements of Cupertino Municipal Code §2.08.096. Contact the City Clerk’s office for more information or go to http://www.cupertino.org/index.aspx?page=125 for a reconsideration petition form. In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), anyone who is planning to attend the next City Council meeting who is visually or hearing impaired or has any disability that needs special assistance should call the City Clerk's Office at 408-777-3223, 48 hours in advance of the Council meeting to arrange for assistance. Upon request, in advance, by a person with a disability, City Council meeting agendas and writings distributed for the meeting that are public records will be made available in the appropriate alternative format. Also upon request, in advance, an assistive listening device can be made available for use during the meeting. Any writings or documents provided to a majority of the Cupertino City Council after publication of the packet will be made available for public inspection in the City Clerk’s Office located at City Hall, 10300 Torre Avenue, during normal business hours and in Council packet archives linked from the agenda/minutes page on the Cupertino web site. Members of the public are entitled to address the City Council concerning any item that is described in the notice or agenda for this meeting, before or during consideration of that item. If you wish to address the Council on any issue that is on this agenda, please complete a speaker request card located in front of the Council, and deliver it to the Clerk prior to discussion of the item. When you are called, proceed to the podium and the Mayor will recognize you. If you wish to address the City Council on any other item not on the agenda, you may do so by during the public comment portion of the meeting following the same procedure described above. Please limit your comments to three (3) minutes or less. Page 7 CITY OF CUPERTINO 7 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:116-2230 Name: Status:Type:Study Session Agenda Ready File created:In control:12/15/2016 City Council On agenda:Final action:3/7/2017 Title:Subject: City Work Program for fiscal year 2017-2018 Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:Staff Report A - 2017-2018 City Work Program Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council3/7/20171 Subject: City Work Program for fiscal year 2017-2018 Review and provide direction on the fiscal year 2017-2018 City Work Program CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 3/1/2017Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™8 OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER CITY HALL 10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3212 www.cupertino.org TELEPHONE: (408) 777-7603 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Staff Meeting: March 7, 2017 Subject City Work Program for fiscal year 2017-2018 Recommended Action Review and provide direction on City Work Program for fiscal year 2017-2018. Discussion The City’s Work Program guides the efforts of City staff for the upcoming fiscal year. Each year staff reports on the progress of the City’s Work Program assignments and proposes new projects for Council consideration. The FY 2017-2018 City Work Program reports on 17 completed projects, 63 projects that are in progress, 4 projects that are scheduled but have not begun, and 5 projects that are on hold or have been cancelled. Fiscal Impact The fiscal impact of proposed projects and assignments in the City Work Program will be brought forward as part of the FY 2017-2018 Proposed Budget in May. _____________________________________ Prepared by: Jaqui Guzmán, Deputy City Manager Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager Attachments: A. 2017-2018 City Work Program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¶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¶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¶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³+RZWR6WDUWD%XVLQHVVLQ &XSHUWLQR´SDPSKOHWLQPXOWLSOH ODQJXDJHV ³+RZWR6WDUWD%XVLQHVVLQ&XSHUWLQR´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³6KRS/RFDO´FDPSDLJQ3URPRWHGORFDOEXVLQHVVHVWKURXJK³(DWV ´GLQLQJJXLGHDSSDQG´&XSHUWLQR $W$*ODQFH´ZHEVLWH³6KRS&XSHUWLQR´ PHVVDJHLVSULQWHGRQ&LW\¶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³7HDFKHU+RXVLQJ´SURMHFWLQ SDUWQHUVKLSZLWKDQRQ䇲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䇲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³JUDVVURRWV´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䇲 1RQH &RPSOHWHG2FWREHU.ULVWLQD$OIDUR (PSOR\HH (QJDJHPHQW 0HDVXUHHPSOR\HH VHQJDJHPHQWOHYHO DQGVXVWDLQDQGRULQFUHDVHWKDWOHYHORI HQJDJHPHQW 7KLVLVDQHZSURMHFWWKDWLVDQWLFLSDWHGWR EHUROOHGRXWLQHDUO\)< &RQGXFWEDVHOLQHVXUYH\LQ-XO\$XJXVWRI 3URSRVHG-XQHIRUILUVW URXQG .ULVWLQD$OIDUR DQG.DUHQ %HUQDUG*XHULQ +53RUWDO (QKDQFHPHQW ([SORUHDQGLPSOHPHQWWKH/HDYH 5HTXHVWSRUWLRQRIWKH&LW\ V+53RUWDO 7KLVLVDQHZSURMHFWWKDWLVDQWLFLSDWHGWR EHUROOHGRXWLQ)< +56WDIIWRUHFHLYHWUDLQLQJDQGVHWXSWKH /HDYH5HTXHVWSRUWLRQRIWKHVLWH 3URSRVHG-DQXDU\.DUHQ%HUQDUG *XHULQDQG 7KRPDV/HXQJ /DVHUILFKH ,QWHJUDWLRQ $VSDUWRIDFLW\ZLGHODVHUILFKH LQWHJUDWLRQVWKH+XPDQ5HVRXUFHV GLYLVLRQZLOOPRYHWRHOHFWURQLFHPSOR\HH ILOHV7KH)LQDQFH'LYLVLRQZLOOPRYHDOO ILQDQFLDOGDWDGRFXPHQWVWRODVHUILFKH 7KLVLVDQHZSURMHFWWKDWLVDQWLFLSDWHGWR EHUROOHGRXWLQ)< &LW\ZLGHNLFNRIIDQGGHYHORSPHQWRID ODVHUILFKHFRPPLWWHH 3URSRVHG-DQXDU\/LVD7DLWDQR DQG0DULD -LPHQH] 1HR*RY6LPSOLI\DQGVWUHDPOLQHWKH&LW\ VKLULQJ SURFHVVDQGFRQVROLGDWHMREGHVFULSWLRQ VDODU\DQGEHQHILWLQIRUPDWLRQ 7KLVLVDQHZSURMHFWWKDWLVDQWLFLSDWHGWR EHUROOHGRXWLQ)< ,PSOHPHQWDWLRQRIQHZVRIWZDUHLQ 0D\-XQH 3URSRVHG-XO\/DXUD 0L\DNDZDDQG 7KRPDV/HXQJ 2SHQ*RY %XGJHW%XLOGHU 2SHQ*RY%XGJHW%XLOGHUEHWDSURJUDP 'HSDUWPHQWGLUHFWRUVDQGVWDIIZLOOVXEPLW SURSRVDOVDQGQDUUDWLYHVLQ2SHQ*RY PDQDJHDSSURYDOVDQGFRPPHQWVRQOLQH DQGFUHDWHDFRQVROLGDWHGYLHZRIWKH EXGJHW &LW\XVHGEXGJHWEXLOGHUIRUWKH )LUVW4XDUWHUDQG0LG<HDU5HSRUWVDQG ZLOOXVHLWIRUWKH)<3URSRVHG %XGJHWDVZHOO &LW\LVVFKHGXOHGWRPHHWZLWK2SHQJRY VWDIILQODWHU0DUFKWRGLVFXVVWKHVRIWZDUH DQGFROODERUDWHRQSRVVLEOHLPSURYHPHQW WRWKHVRIWZDUH ,Q3URJUHVV-XQH7KRPDV/HXQJ 2SHQ*RY 7UDQVSDUHQF\ 2SHQ*RY3ODWIRUPWRLQFUHDVHEXGJHWDU\ WUDQVSDUHQF\DQGSXEOLFHQJDJHPHQW &LW\VLJQHGXSIRUDGGLWLRQDORIIHULQJV LQFOXGLQJDGGLWLRQDOUHSRUWLQJFDSDELOLWLHV GDWDVFLHQFH&LYLF'DVKERDUGVDQG PDSSLQJ,QDGGLWLRQLQZHDUHLQWKH SURFHVVRIDXWRPDWLQJWKHPRQWKO\ XSORDGV $XWRPDWHWKHSRVWLQJRIILQDQFLDOGDWD DIWHUPRQWKO\FORVHVWRKDYHFORVHWRUHDO WLPHILQDQFLDOGDWDIRUFRQWLQXHG WUDQVSDUHQF\DQGSXEOLF HQJDJHPHQW$GGDGGLWLRQDOJUDSKLFVDQG GDVKERDUGV ,Q3URJUHVV-XQH7KRPDV/HXQJ 6WDII7UDLQLQJ$OORZIRUDZHOOWUDLQHGVWDIILQDOODUHDVRI $GPLQLVWUDWLYH6HUYLFHLQFOXGLQJEXWQRW OLPLWHGWR+XPDQ5HVRXUFHV)LQDQFH (53DQG%XGJHW $WWHQGHG1HZ:RUOG6\VWHPV1:6 7\OHU7HFKQRORJLHVWUDLQLQJVRQ)0DQG +5PRGXOHVDWWHQGRQOLQHWUDLQLQJV6HQW $GPLQLVWUDWLYH6HUYLFHV'HSDUWPHQWDO DQG7HFKQLFDOVWDIIWRDQQXDO7\OHU FRQIHUHQFH+56WDIIDWWHQGHGDQQXDO+5 &RQIHUHQFHDQG)LQDQFHDQGRWKHU DGPLQLVWUDWLYHVHUYLFHVKDVDWWHQGHGRWKHU *)2$DQG&60)2WUDLQLQJV &RQWLQXHGVWDIIWUDLQLQJDQGGHYHORSPHQW WKURXJKZHELQDUVDQGWUDLQLQJWKURXJK &DO3(56WKH*RYHUQPHQW)LQDQFH 2IILFHUV$VVRFLDWLRQ*)2$1:67\OHU DQG&DO3HOUDWKDWZLOOLQFUHDVHVWDII NQRZOHGJHDQGVNLOOVLQRUGHUWRHQKDQFH FXVWRPHUVHUYLFHIRUWKHFRPPXQLW\ ,Q3URJUHVV2QJRLQJ.ULVWLQD$OIDUR DQG/LVD 7DLWDQR 20 &LW\:RUN3URJUDP 3XEOLF:RUNV 3URMHFW7LWOH 3URMHFW2EMHFWLYH 3URJUHVVWR'DWH 1H[W6WHSV &XUUHQW6WDWXV&RPSOHWLRQ'DWH6WDII/HDG $XGLW6ROLG :DVWH $JUHHPHQW &RQGXFWDXGLWRIVROLGZDVWHIUDQFKLVH DJUHHPHQW $XGLWHVWDEOLVKLQJEDVHOLQHH[SHQVHVIRU DQGKDVEHHQFRPSOHWHG &RPSOHWHG&RPSOHWHG6HSWHPEHU5RJHU/HH )OHHW 0DQDJHPHQW 3ROLFLHV 5HYLHZ)OHHW0DQDJHPHQWSROLFLHV3XEOLF:RUNV)LQDQFHDQG6XVWDLQDELOLW\ VWDIIFRRUGLQDWHDOOQHZIOHHWSXUFKDVHV 8SGDWHRIIOHHWXVHDQGSROLF\ GHYHORSPHQWLVDQRQJRLQJSURFHVV (YDOXDWH&LW\ZLGHIOHHWYHKLFOHVWKDWPD\ EHFRQVLGHUHGIRUUHSODFHPHQW &RPSOHWHG0D\&KULV0HUWHQV -RLQW8VH $JUHHPHQWZLWK &86' 1HJRWLDWHQHZ-RLQW8VH$JUHHPHQWZLWK &XSHUWLQR8QLILHG6FKRRO'LVWULFWIRU VKDUHGVSRUWVILHOGV ([LVWLQJDJUHHPHQWVXQVHWV-XQH&RPSOHWHG-XQH5RJHU/HH 9HKLFOH 5HSODFHPHQW 3URJUDP 8SGDWH0DQDJHG9HKLFOH5HSODFHPHQW 3URJUDP 7ZRDOOHOHFWULFDQGVL[SOXJLQK\EULG YHKLFOHVZHUHDGGHGWRWKHIOHHWLQ )<2QHDOOHOHFWULFLVXWLOL]HGDVD &LW\+DOOSRROYHKLFOH (YDOXDWHIHDVLELOLW\WRWUDQVIHUH[LVWLQJ YHKLFOHVZLWKLQWKHIOHHWVRWKDWSXUFKDVHV LIQHHGHGDUHPRUHHQYLURQPHQWDOO\ FRQVFLHQFH &RPSOHWHG-XO\&KULV0HUWHQV &RQVLGHUFRPSOHWHOLIHF\FOHFRVWV,Q6SULQJWKH/LEUDU\DQGWKH 6HUYLFH&HQWHUDGGHGWZRDQGIRXU HOHFWULFYHKLFOHFKDUJLQJVWDWLRQV UHVSHFWLYHO\ %\6SULQJWKH6HUYLFH&HQWHUZLOO KDYHWZRHOHFWULFYHKLFOHFKDUJLQJ VWDWLRQV &RPSOHWHG-XO\&KULV0HUWHQV (YDOXDWHYHKLFOHHTXLSPHQWVKDULQJZLWK RWKHUDJHQFLHV 7KHWZR\HDUHTXLSPHQWVKDULQJ DJUHHPHQWZLWKWKH7RZQRI/RV*DWRV DQG&LW\RI&DPSEHOOZHUHUHQHZHGLQ )< 6LPLODURSSRUWXQLWLHVPD\H[LVWZLWKRWKHU :HVW9DOOH\&LWLHV &RPSOHWHG-XO\&KULV0HUWHQV (YDOXDWHDOWHUQDWHIXHOYHKLFOHIHDVLELOLW\ IRU6HUYLFH&HQWHUYHKLFOHVHOHFWULF K\EULGEDWWHU\V\VWHPVWRHOLPLQDWHORQJ WHUPLGOLQJ&$30HDVXUH09) 6WDIIFRPSOHWHGDQDQDO\VLVRIDOWHUQDWLYH IXHOYHKLFOHVWRLQIRUPWKH)< 9HKLFOH5HSODFHPHQW6FKHGXOH956 7KLVGRFXPHQWFRQWDLQVDWRROWRHQDEOH VLPLODUDVVHVVPHQWVGXULQJHDFK)<956 7KLVDOWHUQDWLYHIXHOYHKLFOHVWUDWHJ\DOVR JXLGHVWKH&LW\WRZDUGVDGGLWLRQDOIOHHW EHVWPDQDJHPHQWSUDFWLFHVHJIOHHW ULJKWVL]LQJGHYHORSLQJYHKLFOHYRFDWLRQDO VSHFLILFDWLRQVWKDWZLOOEHDGYDQFHGDV SDUWRIWKLV\HDU¶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egislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:117-2310 Name: Status:Type:Ceremonial Matters & Presentations Agenda Ready File created:In control:1/31/2017 City Council On agenda:Final action:3/7/2017 Title:Subject: Proclamation for March as Women's History Month Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments: Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council3/7/20171 Subject: Proclamation for March as Women's History Month Present Proclamation for March as Women's History Month CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 3/1/2017Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™24 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:117-2330 Name: Status:Type:Ceremonial Matters & Presentations Agenda Ready File created:In control:2/6/2017 City Council On agenda:Final action:3/7/2017 Title:Subject: Proclamation for March as Arts Education Month Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments: Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council3/7/20171 Subject: Proclamation for March as Arts Education Month Present Proclamation for March as Arts Education Month CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 3/1/2017Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™25 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:117-2368 Name: Status:Type:Ceremonial Matters & Presentations Agenda Ready File created:In control:2/13/2017 City Council On agenda:Final action:3/7/2017 Title:Subject: Proclamation for March as American Red Cross Month Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments: Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council3/7/20171 Subject: Proclamation for March as American Red Cross Month Present Proclamation for March as American Red Cross Month CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 3/1/2017Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™26 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:116-1948 Name: Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready File created:In control:9/1/2016 City Council On agenda:Final action:3/7/2017 Title:Subject: Approve the February 21 City Council minutes Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:A- Draft Minutes Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council3/7/20171 Subject: Approve the February 21 City Council minutes Approve the February 21 City Council minutes CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 3/1/2017Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™27 DRAFT MINUTES CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL Tuesday, February 21, 2017 REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING ROLL CALL At 6:45 p.m. Mayor Savita Vaidhyanathan called the City Council meeting to order in the Cupertino Community Hall Council Chamber, 10350 Torre Avenue. Present: Mayor Savita Vaidhyanathan, Vice Mayor Darcy Paul (left the meeting at 8:00 p.m.), and Councilmembers Barry Chang and Steven Scharf. Absent: Councilmember Rod Sinks. CEREMONIAL MATTERS AND PRESENTATIONS 1. Subject: Presentation of Certificates of Recognition for the Science Fair winners and Science and Talent Search winners Recommended Action: Present Certificates of Recognition for the Science Fair winners and Science and Talent Search winners Mayor Vaidhyanathan presented the Certificates of Recognition for the Science Fair winners and Science and Talent Search winners. POSTPONEMENTS Chang moved and Paul seconded to postpone item number 10 to March 7. The motion carried with Scharf voting no and Sinks absent. ORAL COMMUNICATIONS Phyllis Dickstein talked about General Plan Amendments Cristina Suarez talked about Vallco redevelopment Muni Madhdhipatla talked about retail rezoning Carlos Almeida on behalf of Pete Heller – talked about The Hills at Vallco project and read a letter from Peter Heller Luke Lang talked about traffic issues 28 City Council MINUTES February 21, 2017 Rhoda Fry talked about noise levels at Lehigh (distributed written comments) Michelle Bazarguin talked about Vallco and retail development. CONSENT CALENDAR Chang moved and Paul seconded to approve the items on the Consent Calendar as presented. Ayes: Vaidhyanathan, Paul, Chang and Scharf. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent: Sinks. 2. Subject: Approve the January 30 special meeting (commissions interviews) City Council minutes Recommended Action: Approve the January 30 special meeting (commissions interviews) City Council minutes 3. Subject: Approve the January 31 special meeting (commissions interviews) City Council minutes Recommended Action: Approve the January 31 special meeting (commissions interviews) City Council minutes 4. Subject: Approve the February 7 City Council minutes Recommended Action: Approve the February 7 City Council minutes 5. Subject: Sidewalk Renovation-Stevens Creek Blvd (Stelling-De Anza) Project, No. 2017-21 Recommended Action: Authorize the City Manager to award and execute a construction contract with JJR Construction, Inc. in the amount of $179,795 and approve a construction contingency of $18,000 for a total of $197,795 6. Subject: Approve a semi-rural designation eliminating the requirement for sidewalks on a portion of San Fernando Avenue, south of the Blackberry Farm Entrance, pursuant to Ordinance No. 1925 Recommended Action: Adopt Resolution No. 17-019 designating a portion of San Fernando Avenue as semi-rural 7. Subject: Planning Commission’s recommendation to select Don Sun as the Environmental Review Committee representative. Recommended Action: Accept the Planning Commission’s recommendation to the Environmental Review Committee. SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES 29 City Council MINUTES February 21, 2017 8. Subject: Second Reading of an ordinance amending Title 11 Chapter 11.08 Sections 11.08.160 and 11.08.180 of the Cupertino Municipal Code Regarding Restrictions on Riding Bicycles on Sidewalks and Pedestrian Paths Recommended Action: Conduct the second reading and enact Ordinance No. 17-2161: “An Ordinance of the City Council of the City of Cupertino Amending Title 11 Chapter 11.08 Sections 11.08.160 and 11.08.180 Regarding Restrictions on Riding Bicycles on Sidewalks and Pedestrian Paths” City Clerk Grace Schmidt read the title of the ordinance. Chang moved and Paul seconded to read Ordinance No. 17-2161 by title only and that the City Clerk’s reading would constitute the second reading thereof. Ayes: Vaidhyanathan, Paul and Chang. Noes: Scharf. Abstain: None. Absent: Sinks. Chang moved and Paul seconded to enact Ordinance No. 17-2161. Ayes: Vaidhyanathan, Paul and Chang. Noes: Scharf. Abstain: None. Absent: Sinks. PUBLIC HEARINGS 9. Subject: Consideration pursuant to a Lease with San Jose Water Company, of the reasonableness of an increase in water rates to customers served by the Cupertino Municipal Water System leased to San Jose Water Company. The increase in rates is substantially identical to that authorized for increased costs of operation and maintenance by the California Public Utilities Commission, for systems owned and operated by San Jose Water Company in other areas within the City. Recommended Action: 1. Hold a Public Hearing on proposed Cupertino Municipal Water System potable water rates and charges, and: 2. Postpone determination of reasonableness of the requested 3.83% rate increase until such time that San Jose Water Company provides to City relevant cost (repair, maintenance, operation) and relevant revenue data specific to the customers serviced by the Cupertino Municipal Water System. Written communications for this item included emails to Council. Director of Public Works Timm Borden reviewed the staff report. Staff answered questions from Council. Mayor Vaidhyanathan opened the public hearing and the following individuals spoke. 30 City Council MINUTES February 21, 2017 Dave McLeroy Luke Lang Michelle Bazarguin Bindu Srikantappa John Tang from San Jose Water Company answered questions from Council. Mayor Vaidhyanathan closed the public hearing. Vice Mayor Paul left the meeting before the vote. Chang moved and Scharf seconded to 1. Hold a Public Hearing on proposed Cupertino Municipal Water System potable water rates and charges, and: 2. Postpone determination of reasonableness of the requested 3.83% rate increase until such time that San Jose Water Company provides to City relevant cost (repair, maintenance, operation) and relevant revenue data specific to the customers serviced by the Cupertino Municipal Water System. The motion carried with Sinks and Paul absent. This item will be re-noticed. 10. Subject: Review and consider a development proposal submitted (Scandinavian Furniture Site), for consideration by the City Council, to authorize the proposed applicant to submit an application for a General Plan Amendment and staff to commence environmental and project review. (Application No.: GPAAuth-2016-01; Applicant: Kings Mill Group, Keith Fichtner; Location: 19900 Stevens Creek Boulevard; APN: 369-05-038) Recommended Action: Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the Resolution No. 17-020 (Attachment A) after determining whether the application is authorized to move forward to apply for a General Plan Amendment. Written communications for this item included an email from the applicant. Under postponements, this item was continued to March 7. ORDINANCES AND ACTION ITEMS - None REPORTS BY COUNCIL AND STAFF 11. Subject: Report on Committee assignments and general comments Recommended Action: Report on Committee assignments and general comments Council members highlighted the activities of their committees and various community events. 31 City Council MINUTES February 21, 2017 ADJOURNMENT At 8:17 p.m., Mayor Vaidhyanathan adjourned the meeting. ______________________ Grace Schmidt, City Clerk 32 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:117-2354 Name: Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready File created:In control:2/9/2017 City Council On agenda:Final action:3/7/2017 Title:Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending January 6, 2017 Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:A - Draft Resolution B - AP Report Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council3/7/20171 Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending January 6, 2017 AdoptResolutionNo.17-021acceptingAccountspayablefortheperiodendingJanuary6, 2017 CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 3/1/2017Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™33 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS PAYABLE IN THE AMOUNTS AND FROM THE FUNDS AS HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED FOR GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS EXPENDITURES FOR THE PERIOD ENDING January 6, 2017 WHEREAS, the Director of Administrative Services or her designated representative has certified to accuracy of the following claims and demands and to the availability of funds for payment hereof; and WHEREAS, the said claims and demands have been audited as required by law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby allows the following claims and demands in the amounts and from the funds as hereinafter set forth in the attached Payment Register. CERTIFIED: _____________________________ Lisa Taitano, Finance Manager PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 7th day of March, 2017, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: _________________________ ________________________ Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Savita Vaidhyanathan, Mayor, City of Cupertino 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:117-2355 Name: Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready File created:In control:2/9/2017 City Council On agenda:Final action:3/7/2017 Title:Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending January 13, 2017 Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:A - Draft Resolution B - AP Report Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council3/7/20171 Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending January 13, 2017 AdoptResolutionNo.17-022acceptingAccountsPayablefortheperiodendingJanuary13, 2017 CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 3/1/2017Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™71 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS PAYABLE IN THE AMOUNTS AND FROM THE FUNDS AS HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED FOR GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS EXPENDITURES FOR THE PERIOD ENDING January 13, 2017 WHEREAS, the Director of Administrative Services or her designated representative has certified to accuracy of the following claims and demands and to the availability of funds for payment hereof; and WHEREAS, the said claims and demands have been audited as required by law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby allows the following claims and demands in the amounts and from the funds as hereinafter set forth in the attached Payment Register. CERTIFIED: _____________________________ Lisa Taitano, Finance Manager PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 7th day of March, 2017, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: _________________________ ________________________ Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Savita Vaidhyanathan, Mayor, City of Cupertino 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:117-2356 Name: Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready File created:In control:2/9/2017 City Council On agenda:Final action:3/7/2017 Title:Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending January 20, 2017 Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:A - Draft Resolution B - AP Report Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council3/7/20171 Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending January 20, 2017 AdoptResolutionNo.17-023acceptingAccountsPayablefortheperiodendingJanuary20, 2017 CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 3/1/2017Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™93 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS PAYABLE IN THE AMOUNTS AND FROM THE FUNDS AS HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED FOR GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS EXPENDITURES FOR THE PERIOD ENDING January 20, 2017 WHEREAS, the Director of Administrative Services or her designated representative has certified to accuracy of the following claims and demands and to the availability of funds for payment hereof; and WHEREAS, the said claims and demands have been audited as required by law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby allows the following claims and demands in the amounts and from the funds as hereinafter set forth in the attached Payment Register. CERTIFIED: _____________________________ Lisa Taitano, Finance Manager PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 7th day of March, 2017, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: _________________________ ________________________ Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Savita Vaidhyanathan, Mayor, City of Cupertino 94 95 96 97 98 99 10 0 10 1 10 2 10 3 10 4 10 5 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:117-2357 Name: Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready File created:In control:2/9/2017 City Council On agenda:Final action:3/7/2017 Title:Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending January 27, 2017 Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:A - Draft Resolution B - AP Report Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council3/7/20171 Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending January 27, 2017 AdoptResolutionNo.17-024acceptingAccountsPayablefortheperiodendingJanuary27, 2017 CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 3/1/2017Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™106 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS PAYABLE IN THE AMOUNTS AND FROM THE FUNDS AS HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED FOR GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS EXPENDITURES FOR THE PERIOD ENDING January 27, 2017 WHEREAS, the Director of Administrative Services or her designated representative has certified to accuracy of the following claims and demands and to the availability of funds for payment hereof; and WHEREAS, the said claims and demands have been audited as required by law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby allows the following claims and demands in the amounts and from the funds as hereinafter set forth in the attached Payment Register. CERTIFIED: _____________________________ Lisa Taitano, Finance Manager PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 7th day of March, 2017, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: _________________________ ________________________ Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Savita Vaidhyanathan, Mayor, City of Cupertino 107 10 8 10 9 11 0 11 1 11 2 11 3 11 4 11 5 11 6 11 7 11 8 11 9 12 0 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:117-2382 Name: Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready File created:In control:2/23/2017 City Council On agenda:Final action:3/7/2017 Title:Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending February 3, 2017 Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:A - Draft Resolution B - AP Report Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council3/7/20171 Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending February 3, 2017 AdoptResolutionNo.17-025acceptingAccountsPayablefortheperiodendingFebruary3, 2017 CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 3/1/2017Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™121 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS PAYABLE IN THE AMOUNTS AND FROM THE FUNDS AS HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED FOR GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS EXPENDITURES FOR THE PERIOD ENDING February 3, 2017 WHEREAS, the Director of Administrative Services or her designated representative has certified to accuracy of the following claims and demands and to the availability of funds for payment hereof; and WHEREAS, the said claims and demands have been audited as required by law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby allows the following claims and demands in the amounts and from the funds as hereinafter set forth in the attached Payment Register. CERTIFIED: _____________________________ Lisa Taitano, Finance Manager PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 7th day of March, 2017, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: _________________________ ________________________ Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Savita Vaidhyanathan, Mayor, City of Cupertino 122 12 3 12 4 12 5 12 6 12 7 12 8 12 9 13 0 13 1 13 2 13 3 13 4 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:117-2383 Name: Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready File created:In control:2/23/2017 City Council On agenda:Final action:3/7/2017 Title:Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending February 10, 2017 Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:A - Draft Resolution B - AP Report Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council3/7/20171 Subject: Accept Accounts Payable for the period ending February 10, 2017 AdoptResolutionNo.17-026acceptingAccountsPayablefortheperiodendingFebruary10, 2017 CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 3/1/2017Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™135 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ALLOWING CERTAIN CLAIMS AND DEMANDS PAYABLE IN THE AMOUNTS AND FROM THE FUNDS AS HEREINAFTER DESCRIBED FOR GENERAL AND MISCELLANEOUS EXPENDITURES FOR THE PERIOD ENDING February 10, 2017 WHEREAS, the Director of Administrative Services or her designated representative has certified to accuracy of the following claims and demands and to the availability of funds for payment hereof; and WHEREAS, the said claims and demands have been audited as required by law. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that the City Council hereby allows the following claims and demands in the amounts and from the funds as hereinafter set forth in the attached Payment Register. CERTIFIED: _____________________________ Lisa Taitano, Finance Manager PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 7th day of March, 2017, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: _________________________ ________________________ Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Savita Vaidhyanathan, Mayor, City of Cupertino 136 13 7 13 8 13 9 14 0 14 1 14 2 14 3 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:117-2391 Name: Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready File created:In control:2/24/2017 City Council On agenda:Final action:3/7/2017 Title:Subject: Treasurer's Investment Report for Quarter ending December 31, 2016 Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:Staff Report A - Investment Portfolio B - Wells Fargo Listing of Assets C - Supplemental Portfolio Analysis Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council3/7/20171 Subject: Treasurer's Investment Report for Quarter ending December 31, 2016 Accept the Treasurer's Investment Report for Quarter ending December 31, 2016 CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 3/1/2017Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™144 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3220 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: March 7, 2017 Subject Treasurer’s Investment Report for Quarter Ending December 2016 Recommended Action Accept the report Discussion and Fiscal Impact The attached slides and investment portfolio listing, including the Wells Fargo List of Assets report, comprise the Treasurer’s Investment Report. Together they show the composition of the portfolio; total portfolio yield in comparison to the Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF), the 1-year Treasury, and the 2-year Treasury; diversification within the government agency securities; and portfolio compliance with the City’s Investment Policy. For quarter ending December 31, 2016, the market value of the City’s portfolio total $130.8 million which is $5.0 million higher than last quarter. The portfolio’s average yield was 0.89% which is an increase from its 0.85% yield of the previous quarter ending September 30, 2016. The average length to maturity decreased from 1.16 to 1.11 years. The LAIF yield increased to 0.68% from last quarter’s yield of 0.55%. LAIF’s balance was $40.7 million which is in compliance with the City Investment Policy and state code. LAIF’s same- or next-day liquidity insures that the City is able to pay its obligations for the next six months and also provides strong liquidity in the short, intermediate, and long-term horizons. Market values on individual securities in the investment portfolio are provided by Wells Fargo Bank Institutional Trust Services using valuations from Interactive Data Pricing and Reference Data, Inc. _____________________________________ Prepared by: Lisa Taitano, Deputy City Treasurer Reviewed by: Kristina Alfaro, City Treasurer Approved by: David Brandt, City Manager Attachments: A – Investment Portfolio B – Wells Fargo Listing of Assets C – Supplemental Portfolio Analysis 145 City of Cupertino Investment Portfolio December 31, 2016 ACTIVITY DATE COUPON ADJUSTEDMATURITYMARKETUNREALIZED PURCHASEMATURITY DESCRIPTION RATEYTMCOST VALUE VALUEPROFIT/LOSS SECURITIES MATURED 04/11/1410/31/16US Treasury Note 1.00%0.62%- 2,000,000 04/11/1411/15/16US Treasury Note 0.63%0.64%- 2,000,000 12/31/1412/09/16Agency notes - FHLB 1.63%0.70%- 3,000,000 SECURITIES PURCHASED 11/23/1610/31/18US Treasury Note 0.75%1.04%- 3,000,000 11/23/1605/24/19Agency notes - FHLMC 1.30%1.30%- 3,000,000 11/23/1611/18/19Agency notes - FFCB 1.10%1.36%- 2,000,000 CITY PORTFOLIO CASH 12/31/16Wells Fargo - Cash - - - 12/31/16Wells Fargo - Workers Comp Checking 15,511 15,511 15,511 12/31/16Wells Fargo - Regular Checking - - - 12/31/16Wells Fargo - Repurchase Agreements 0.02%0.02%7,063,114 7,063,114 7,063,114 7,078,625 7,078,625 7,078,625 LAIF 12/31/16LAIF - State Pool 0.68%0.68%40,737,659 40,737,659 40,737,659 MONEY MARKET FUNDS 12/31/16Wells Fargo Advantage 100% Treasury 0.00%0.00%3,221,685 3,221,685 3,221,685 3,221,685 3,221,685 3,221,685 GOVERNMENT AGENCY NOTES 09/30/1403/08/17Agency notes - FHLMC 1.00%0.84%3,000,897 3,000,000 3,002,400 1,503 12/31/1403/10/17Agency notes - FHLB 0.88%0.81%3,000,386 3,000,000 3,001,110 724 07/07/1407/07/17Agency notes - FHLMC 1.00%1.00%2,997,270 3,000,000 3,004,650 7,380 10/03/1409/22/17Agency notes - FFCB 1.13%1.12%3,000,106 3,000,000 3,006,900 6,794 12/31/1412/18/17Agency notes - FFCB 1.13%1.14%999,896 1,000,000 1,001,970 2,074 09/30/1401/12/18Agency notes - FHLMC 0.75%1.26%994,860 1,000,000 997,960 3,100 09/30/1403/07/18Agency notes - FHLMC 0.88%1.32%994,879 1,000,000 998,700 3,821 03/30/1503/12/18Agency notes - FFCB 1.13%0.95%2,004,101 2,000,000 2,001,900 (2,201) 03/28/16 03/28/18Agency notes - FHLB 1.09%1.09%2,000,000 2,000,000 1,994,860 (5,140) 04/02/1504/02/18Agency notes - FFCB 1.00%0.98%3,000,738 3,000,000 2,996,430 (4,308) 05/11/1505/11/18Agency notes - FFCB 1.03%1.08%1,998,615 2,000,000 1,997,640 (975) 07/23/1406/08/18Agency notes - FHLB 1.25%1.39%2,994,111 3,000,000 3,006,840 12,729 05/07/1508/07/18Agency notes - FHLB 1.05%1.13%1,997,434 2,000,000 1,993,400 (4,034) 09/12/1609/06/18Agency notes - FFCB 0.93%0.82%3,005,521 3,000,000 2,985,210 (20,311) 05/07/1502/27/19Agency notes - FNMA 1.68%1.30%1,007,956 1,000,000 1,006,300 (1,656) 06/22/1603/22/19Agency notes - FHLMC 1.25%1.25%3,000,000 3,000,000 2,985,810 (14,190) 11/23/1605/24/19Agency notes - FHLMC 1.30%1.30%3,000,000 3,000,000 2,979,390 (20,610) 10/16/1509/13/19Agency notes - FHLB 2.00%1.21%2,041,429 2,000,000 2,018,700 (22,729) 11/23/1611/18/19Agency notes - FFCB 1.10%1.36%1,985,291 2,000,000 1,977,140 (8,151) 03/30/1612/30/19Agency notes - FHLMC 1.50%1.50%3,000,000 3,000,000 2,993,010 (6,990) 06/30/1612/30/19Agency notes - FHLMC 1.02%1.02%3,000,000 3,000,000 2,939,550 (60,450) 05/31/1605/26/20Agency notes - FHLMC 1.35%1.35%2,000,000 2,000,000 1,961,880 (38,120) 05/26/1605/26/20Agency notes - FNMA 1.38%1.38%2,000,000 2,000,000 1,966,100 (33,900) 06/30/1606/30/20Agency notes - FHLMC 1.50%1.50%2,000,000 2,000,000 1,984,780 (15,220) 05/25/1611/25/20Agency notes - FNMA 1.50%1.50%3,000,000 3,000,000 2,934,990 (65,010) 06/07/1605/12/21Agency notes - FNMA 0.90%1.87%2,100,000 2,100,000 2,094,771 (5,229) 60,123,490 60,100,000 59,832,391 (291,099) US TREASURY SECURITIES 04/11/1412/31/16US Treasury Note 0.88%0.70%2,000,000 2,000,000 2,000,000 - 03/18/16 03/02/17US Treasury Note 0.00%0.69%998,848 1,000,000 999,220 372 06/23/1406/15/17US Treasury Note 0.88%0.95%2,999,034 3,000,000 3,003,510 4,476 07/23/1409/30/17US Treasury Note 0.63%1.08%2,989,894 3,000,000 2,995,770 5,876 03/18/1602/28/18US Treasury Note 0.75%0.98%1,994,789 2,000,000 1,995,320 531 09/12/1608/31/18US Treasury Note 0.75%0.71%2,001,321 2,000,000 1,987,660 (13,661) 11/23/1610/31/18US Treasury Note 0.75%1.04%2,984,217 3,000,000 2,978,430 (5,787) 09/12/1608/15/19US Treasury Note 0.75%0.84%1,995,515 2,000,000 1,969,220 (26,295) 05/07/1504/30/20US Treasury Note 1.38%1.54%1,989,352 2,000,000 1,987,120 (2,232) 19,952,971 20,000,000 19,916,250 (36,721) Total Managed Portfolio 131,114,429 131,137,969 130,786,610 (327,819) Average Yield 0.89% Average Length to Maturity (in years) 1.11 Duration (calculated by USBank)1.34 TRUST PORTFOLIO Institutional MM AccountWells Fargo Bank Secured 0.20%0.20%48,585 48,585 48,585 BOND RESERVE PORTFOLIO Bond Lease Pymt Acct Goldman Sachs Financial Sq Money Mkt 0.00%0.00%518,584 518,584 518,584 Bond Reserve Acct Goldman Sachs Financial Sq Money Mkt 0.00%0.00%1,594,292 1,594,292 1,594,292 Total Bond Reserve Portfolio 2,112,876 2,112,876 2,112,876 A 146 WE L L S F A R G O Li s t o f A s s e t s : M a r k e t V a l u e R e p o r t Ge n e r a l R e p o r t i n g By A s s e t I D Fr o m M o n t h E n d 1 2 / 3 1 / 2 0 1 6 CI T Y O F C U P E R T I N O 02 / 2 2 / 2 0 1 7 1 2 : 4 5 : 4 3 P M E S T AC C O U N T : A l l A c c o u n t s S e l e c t e d * = T r a d e o r O t h e r A c t i v i t y P e n d i n g Ma t u r i t y I n t e r e s t M a r k e t Pr i c e S & P M o o d y ` s U n i t s i n E n c u m b r d As s e t I D Un i t s D a t e R a t e V a l u e % P r i c e D a t e R a t i n g R a t i n g T r a n s i t i o n U n i t s 16 7 3 7 4 0 0 C I T Y O F C U P E R T I N O .0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 $. 0 0 . 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 .0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 U. S . D O L L A R S 16 7 3 7 4 0 0 C I T Y O F C U P E R T I N O 31 3 0 A 5 7 G 8 2, 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 8 / 0 7 / 2 0 1 8 1 . 0 5 0 0 $ 1 , 9 9 3 , 4 0 0 . 0 0 2 . 4 0 9 9 . 6 7 0 0 0 0 1 2 / 3 0 / 2 0 1 6 A A + A A A .0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 FE D H O M E L N B K D T D 0 5 / 0 7 / 1 5 1 . 0 5 0 0 8 / 0 7 / 2 0 1 8 16 7 3 7 4 0 0 C I T Y O F C U P E R T I N O 31 3 0 A 7 L 8 6 2, 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 3 / 2 8 / 2 0 1 8 1 . 0 9 0 0 $ 1 , 9 9 4 , 8 6 0 . 0 0 2 . 4 0 9 9 . 7 4 3 0 0 0 1 2 / 3 0 / 2 0 1 6 A A + A A A .0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 FE D H O M E L N B K D T D 0 3 / 2 8 / 1 6 1 . 0 9 0 0 3 / 2 8 / 2 0 1 8 16 7 3 7 4 0 0 C I T Y O F C U P E R T I N O 31 3 3 7 8 2 N 0 3, 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 3 / 1 0 / 2 0 1 7 . 8 7 5 0 $ 3 , 0 0 1 , 1 1 0 . 0 0 3 . 6 1 1 0 0 . 0 3 7 0 0 0 1 2 / 3 0 / 2 0 1 6 A A + A A A .0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 FE D H O M E L N B K D T D 0 2 / 0 6 / 1 2 0 . 8 7 5 0 3 / 1 0 / 2 0 1 7 16 7 3 7 4 0 0 C I T Y O F C U P E R T I N O 31 3 3 7 9 D T 3 3, 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 6 / 0 8 / 2 0 1 8 1 . 2 5 0 0 $ 3 , 0 0 6 , 8 4 0 . 0 0 3 . 6 2 1 0 0 . 2 2 8 0 0 0 1 2 / 3 0 / 2 0 1 6 A A + A A A .0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 FE D H O M E L N B K D T D 0 5 / 0 4 / 1 2 1 . 2 5 0 0 6 / 0 8 / 2 0 1 8 16 7 3 7 4 0 0 C I T Y O F C U P E R T I N O 31 3 3 8 3 V N 8 2, 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 9 / 1 3 / 2 0 1 9 2 . 0 0 0 0 $ 2 , 0 1 8 , 7 0 0 . 0 0 2 . 4 3 1 0 0 . 9 3 5 0 0 0 1 2 / 3 0 / 2 0 1 6 A A + A A A .0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 FE D H O M E L N B K D T D 0 8 / 1 2 / 1 3 2 . 0 0 0 0 9 / 1 3 / 2 0 1 9 16 7 3 7 4 0 0 C I T Y O F C U P E R T I N O 31 3 3 E D V U 3 3, 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 9 / 2 2 / 2 0 1 7 1 . 1 2 5 0 $ 3 , 0 0 6 , 9 0 0 . 0 0 3 . 6 2 1 0 0 . 2 3 0 0 0 0 1 2 / 3 0 / 2 0 1 6 A A + A A A .0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 FE D F A R M C R E D I T B K D T D 0 9 / 2 2 / 1 4 1 . 1 2 5 0 9 / 2 2 / 2 0 1 7 16 7 3 7 4 0 0 C I T Y O F C U P E R T I N O 31 3 3 E E F E 5 1, 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 1 2 / 1 8 / 2 0 1 7 1 . 1 2 5 0 $ 1 , 0 0 1 , 9 7 0 . 0 0 1 . 2 1 1 0 0 . 1 9 7 0 0 0 1 2 / 3 0 / 2 0 1 6 A A + A A A .0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 FE D F A R M C R E D I T B K D T D 1 2 / 1 8 / 1 4 1 . 1 2 5 1 2 / 1 8 / 2 0 1 7 16 7 3 7 4 0 0 C I T Y O F C U P E R T I N O 31 3 3 E E J 5 0 2, 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 5 / 1 1 / 2 0 1 8 1 . 0 3 0 0 $ 1 , 9 9 7 , 6 4 0 . 0 0 2 . 4 1 9 9 . 8 8 2 0 0 0 1 2 / 3 0 / 2 0 1 6 A A + A A A .0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 FE D F A R M C R E D I T B K D T D 0 5 / 1 1 / 1 5 1 . 0 3 0 0 5 / 1 1 / 2 0 1 8 16 7 3 7 4 0 0 C I T Y O F C U P E R T I N O 31 3 3 E E T E 0 2, 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 3 / 1 2 / 2 0 1 8 1 . 1 2 5 0 $ 2 , 0 0 1 , 9 0 0 . 0 0 2 . 4 1 1 0 0 . 0 9 5 0 0 0 1 2 / 3 0 / 2 0 1 6 A A + A A A .0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 FE D F A R M C R E D I T B K D T D 0 3 / 1 2 / 1 5 1 . 1 2 5 0 3 / 1 2 / 2 0 1 8 16 7 3 7 4 0 0 C I T Y O F C U P E R T I N O 31 3 3 E E W H 9 3, 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 4 / 0 2 / 2 0 1 8 1 . 0 0 0 0 $ 2 , 9 9 6 , 4 3 0 . 0 0 3 . 6 1 9 9 . 8 8 1 0 0 0 1 2 / 3 0 / 2 0 1 6 A A + A A A .0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 FE D F A R M C R E D I T B K D T D 0 4 / 0 2 / 1 5 1 . 0 0 0 0 4 / 0 2 / 2 0 1 8 16 7 3 7 4 0 0 C I T Y O F C U P E R T I N O 31 3 3 E G J 3 0 2, 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 1 1 / 1 8 / 2 0 1 9 1 . 1 0 0 0 $ 1 , 9 7 7 , 1 4 0 . 0 0 2 . 3 8 9 8 . 8 5 7 0 0 0 1 2 / 3 0 / 2 0 1 6 A A + A A A .0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 Pa g e 1 B 14 7 WE L L S F A R G O Li s t o f A s s e t s : M a r k e t V a l u e R e p o r t Ge n e r a l R e p o r t i n g By A s s e t I D Fr o m M o n t h E n d 1 2 / 3 1 / 2 0 1 6 CI T Y O F C U P E R T I N O 02 / 2 2 / 2 0 1 7 1 2 : 4 5 : 4 3 P M E S T AC C O U N T : A l l A c c o u n t s S e l e c t e d * = T r a d e o r O t h e r A c t i v i t y P e n d i n g Ma t u r i t y I n t e r e s t M a r k e t Pr i c e S & P M o o d y ` s U n i t s i n E n c u m b r d As s e t I D Un i t s D a t e R a t e V a l u e % P r i c e D a t e R a t i n g R a t i n g T r a n s i t i o n U n i t s FE D F A R M C R E D I T B K D T D 1 1 / 1 8 / 1 6 1 . 1 0 0 1 1 / 1 8 / 2 0 1 9 16 7 3 7 4 0 0 C I T Y O F C U P E R T I N O 31 3 3 E G T E 5 3, 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 9 / 0 6 / 2 0 1 8 . 9 3 0 0 $ 2 , 9 8 5 , 2 1 0 . 0 0 3 . 6 0 9 9 . 5 0 7 0 0 0 1 2 / 3 0 / 2 0 1 6 A A + A A A .0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 FE D F A R M C R E D I T B K D T D 0 9 / 0 6 / 1 6 0 . 9 3 0 0 9 / 0 6 / 2 0 1 8 16 7 3 7 4 0 0 C I T Y O F C U P E R T I N O 31 3 4 G 5 A R 6 3, 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 7 / 0 7 / 2 0 1 7 1 . 0 0 0 0 $ 3 , 0 0 4 , 6 5 0 . 0 0 3 . 6 2 1 0 0 . 1 5 5 0 0 0 1 2 / 3 0 / 2 0 1 6 A A + A A A .0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 FE D H O M E L N M T G C O R P M E D T E R M N O T E 16 7 3 7 4 0 0 C I T Y O F C U P E R T I N O 31 3 4 G 8 S 8 3 3, 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 1 2 / 3 0 / 2 0 1 9 1 . 5 0 0 0 $ 2 , 9 9 3 , 0 1 0 . 0 0 3 . 6 1 9 9 . 7 6 7 0 0 0 1 2 / 3 0 / 2 0 1 6 A A + A A A .0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 FE D H O M E L N M T G C O R P M E D T E R M N O T E S E R 0 0 0 5 16 7 3 7 4 0 0 C I T Y O F C U P E R T I N O 31 3 4 G 9 G 4 3 3, 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 1 2 / 3 0 / 2 0 1 9 1 . 0 2 0 0 $ 2 , 9 3 9 , 5 5 0 . 0 0 3 . 5 4 9 7 . 9 8 5 0 0 0 1 2 / 3 0 / 2 0 1 6 A A + A A A .0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 FE D H O M E L N M T G C O R P M E D T E R M N O T E 16 7 3 7 4 0 0 C I T Y O F C U P E R T I N O 31 3 4 G 9 M U 8 3, 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 5 / 2 4 / 2 0 1 9 1 . 3 0 0 0 $ 2 , 9 7 9 , 3 9 0 . 0 0 3 . 5 9 9 9 . 3 1 3 0 0 0 1 2 / 3 0 / 2 0 1 6 A A + A A A .0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 FE D H O M E L N M T G C O R P D T D 0 5 / 3 1 / 1 6 1 . 3 0 0 0 5 / 2 4 / 2 0 1 9 16 7 3 7 4 0 0 C I T Y O F C U P E R T I N O 31 3 4 G 9 M W 4 2, 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 5 / 2 6 / 2 0 2 0 1 . 3 5 0 0 $ 1 , 9 6 1 , 8 8 0 . 0 0 2 . 3 6 9 8 . 0 9 4 0 0 0 1 2 / 3 0 / 2 0 1 6 A A + A A A .0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 FE D H O M E L N M T G C O R P M E D T E R M N O T E S E R 0 0 0 0 16 7 3 7 4 0 0 C I T Y O F C U P E R T I N O 31 3 4 G 9 S B 4 3, 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 3 / 2 2 / 2 0 1 9 1 . 2 5 0 0 $ 2 , 9 8 5 , 8 1 0 . 0 0 3 . 6 0 9 9 . 5 2 7 0 0 0 1 2 / 3 0 / 2 0 1 6 A A + A A A .0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 FE D H O M E L N M T G C O R P M E D T E R M N O T E 16 7 3 7 4 0 0 C I T Y O F C U P E R T I N O 31 3 4 G 9 S K 4 2, 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 6 / 3 0 / 2 0 2 0 1 . 5 0 0 0 $ 1 , 9 8 4 , 7 8 0 . 0 0 2 . 3 9 9 9 . 2 3 9 0 0 0 1 2 / 3 0 / 2 0 1 6 A A + A A A .0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 FE D H O M E L N M T G C O R P M E D T E R M N O T E S E R 0 0 0 1 16 7 3 7 4 0 0 C I T Y O F C U P E R T I N O 31 3 6 F T P 3 7 1, 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 2 / 2 7 / 2 0 1 9 1 . 6 8 0 0 $ 1 , 0 0 6 , 3 0 0 . 0 0 1 . 2 1 1 0 0 . 6 3 0 0 0 0 1 2 / 3 0 / 2 0 1 6 A A + A A A .0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 FE D N A T L M T G A S S N D T D 0 2 / 2 7 / 1 2 1 . 6 8 0 0 2 / 2 7 / 2 0 1 9 16 7 3 7 4 0 0 C I T Y O F C U P E R T I N O 31 3 6 G 3 M D 4 2, 1 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 5 / 1 2 / 2 0 2 1 . 9 0 0 0 $ 2 , 0 9 4 , 7 7 1 . 0 0 2 . 5 2 9 9 . 7 5 1 0 0 0 1 2 / 3 0 / 2 0 1 6 A A + A A A .0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 FE D N A T L M T G A S S N D T D 0 5 / 1 2 / 1 6 0 5 / 1 2 / 2 0 2 1 16 7 3 7 4 0 0 C I T Y O F C U P E R T I N O 31 3 6 G 3 Q B 4 2, 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 5 / 2 6 / 2 0 2 0 1 . 3 7 5 0 $ 1 , 9 6 6 , 1 0 0 . 0 0 2 . 3 7 9 8 . 3 0 5 0 0 0 1 2 / 3 0 / 2 0 1 6 A A + A A A .0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 Pa g e 2 14 8 WE L L S F A R G O Li s t o f A s s e t s : M a r k e t V a l u e R e p o r t Ge n e r a l R e p o r t i n g By A s s e t I D Fr o m M o n t h E n d 1 2 / 3 1 / 2 0 1 6 CI T Y O F C U P E R T I N O 02 / 2 2 / 2 0 1 7 1 2 : 4 5 : 4 3 P M E S T AC C O U N T : A l l A c c o u n t s S e l e c t e d * = T r a d e o r O t h e r A c t i v i t y P e n d i n g Ma t u r i t y I n t e r e s t M a r k e t Pr i c e S & P M o o d y ` s U n i t s i n E n c u m b r d As s e t I D Un i t s D a t e R a t e V a l u e % P r i c e D a t e R a t i n g R a t i n g T r a n s i t i o n U n i t s FE D N A T L M T G A S S N D T D 0 5 / 2 6 / 1 6 1 . 3 7 5 0 5 / 2 6 / 2 0 2 0 16 7 3 7 4 0 0 C I T Y O F C U P E R T I N O 31 3 6 G 3 Q Q 1 3, 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 1 1 / 2 5 / 2 0 2 0 1 . 5 0 0 0 $ 2 , 9 3 4 , 9 9 0 . 0 0 3 . 5 4 9 7 . 8 3 3 0 0 0 1 2 / 3 0 / 2 0 1 6 N / A N / A .0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 FE D N A T L M T G A S S N S E R 0 0 0 2 16 7 3 7 4 0 0 C I T Y O F C U P E R T I N O 31 3 7 E A D C 0 3, 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 3 / 0 8 / 2 0 1 7 1 . 0 0 0 0 $ 3 , 0 0 2 , 4 0 0 . 0 0 3 . 6 2 1 0 0 . 0 8 0 0 0 0 1 2 / 3 0 / 2 0 1 6 A A + A A A .0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 FE D H O M E L N M T G C O R P D T D 0 1 / 3 0 / 1 2 1 . 0 0 0 0 3 / 0 8 / 2 0 1 7 16 7 3 7 4 0 0 C I T Y O F C U P E R T I N O 31 3 7 E A D N 6 1, 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 1 / 1 2 / 2 0 1 8 . 7 5 0 0 $ 9 9 7 , 9 6 0 . 0 0 1 . 2 0 9 9 . 7 9 6 0 0 0 1 2 / 3 0 / 2 0 1 6 A A + A A A .0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 FE D H O M E L N M T G C O R P S E R 1 16 7 3 7 4 0 0 C I T Y O F C U P E R T I N O 31 3 7 E A D P 1 1, 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 3 / 0 7 / 2 0 1 8 . 8 7 5 0 $ 9 9 8 , 7 0 0 . 0 0 1 . 2 0 9 9 . 8 7 0 0 0 0 1 2 / 3 0 / 2 0 1 6 A A + A A A .0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 FE D H O M E L N M T G C O R P D T D 0 1 / 1 7 / 1 3 0 . 8 7 5 0 3 / 0 7 / 2 0 1 8 16 7 3 7 4 0 0 C I T Y O F C U P E R T I N O 91 2 7 9 6 J E 0 1, 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 3 / 0 2 / 2 0 1 7 . 0 0 0 0 $ 9 9 9 , 2 2 0 . 0 0 1 . 2 0 9 9 . 9 2 2 0 0 0 1 2 / 3 0 / 2 0 1 6 N / A N / A .0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 US T R E A S U R Y B I L L D T D 0 3 / 0 3 / 1 6 0 3 / 0 2 / 2 0 1 7 16 7 3 7 4 0 0 C I T Y O F C U P E R T I N O 91 2 8 2 8 2 B 5 2, 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 8 / 1 5 / 2 0 1 9 . 7 5 0 0 $ 1 , 9 6 9 , 2 2 0 . 0 0 2 . 3 7 9 8 . 4 6 1 0 0 0 1 2 / 3 0 / 2 0 1 6 N / A A A A .0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 US T R E A S U R Y N O T E D T D 0 8 / 1 5 / 1 6 0 . 7 5 0 0 8 / 1 5 / 2 0 1 9 16 7 3 7 4 0 0 C I T Y O F C U P E R T I N O 91 2 8 2 8 2 C 3 2, 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 8 / 3 1 / 2 0 1 8 . 7 5 0 0 $ 1 , 9 8 7 , 6 6 0 . 0 0 2 . 3 9 9 9 . 3 8 3 0 0 0 1 2 / 3 0 / 2 0 1 6 N / A A A A .0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 US T R E A S U R Y N O T E D T D 0 8 / 3 1 / 1 6 0 . 7 5 0 0 8 / 3 1 / 2 0 1 8 16 7 3 7 4 0 0 C I T Y O F C U P E R T I N O 91 2 8 2 8 K 5 8 2, 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 4 / 3 0 / 2 0 2 0 1 . 3 7 5 0 $ 1 , 9 8 7 , 1 2 0 . 0 0 2 . 3 9 9 9 . 3 5 6 0 0 0 1 2 / 3 0 / 2 0 1 6 N / A A A A .0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 US T R E A S U R Y N O T E D T D 0 4 / 3 0 / 1 5 1 . 3 7 5 0 4 / 3 0 / 2 0 2 0 16 7 3 7 4 0 0 C I T Y O F C U P E R T I N O 91 2 8 2 8 R X 0 2, 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 1 2 / 3 1 / 2 0 1 6 . 8 7 5 0 $ 2 , 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 2 . 4 1 1 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 / 3 0 / 2 0 1 6 N / A A A A .0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 US T R E A S U R Y N O T E D T D 0 1 / 0 3 / 1 2 0 . 8 7 5 1 2 / 3 1 / 2 0 1 6 16 7 3 7 4 0 0 C I T Y O F C U P E R T I N O 91 2 8 2 8 T 8 3 3, 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 1 0 / 3 1 / 2 0 1 8 . 7 5 0 0 $ 2 , 9 7 8 , 4 3 0 . 0 0 3 . 5 9 9 9 . 2 8 1 0 0 0 1 2 / 3 0 / 2 0 1 6 N / A A A A .0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 US T R E A S U R Y N O T E D T D 1 0 / 3 1 / 1 6 0 . 7 5 0 1 0 / 3 1 / 2 0 1 8 16 7 3 7 4 0 0 C I T Y O F C U P E R T I N O 91 2 8 2 8 T S 9 3, 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 9 / 3 0 / 2 0 1 7 . 6 2 5 0 $ 2 , 9 9 5 , 7 7 0 . 0 0 3 . 6 1 9 9 . 8 5 9 0 0 0 1 2 / 3 0 / 2 0 1 6 N / A A A A .0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 Pa g e 3 14 9 WE L L S F A R G O Li s t o f A s s e t s : M a r k e t V a l u e R e p o r t Ge n e r a l R e p o r t i n g By A s s e t I D Fr o m M o n t h E n d 1 2 / 3 1 / 2 0 1 6 CI T Y O F C U P E R T I N O 02 / 2 2 / 2 0 1 7 1 2 : 4 5 : 4 3 P M E S T AC C O U N T : A l l A c c o u n t s S e l e c t e d * = T r a d e o r O t h e r A c t i v i t y P e n d i n g Ma t u r i t y I n t e r e s t M a r k e t Pr i c e S & P M o o d y ` s U n i t s i n E n c u m b r d As s e t I D Un i t s D a t e R a t e V a l u e % P r i c e D a t e R a t i n g R a t i n g T r a n s i t i o n U n i t s US T R E A S U R Y N O T E D T D 1 0 / 0 1 / 1 2 0 . 6 2 5 0 9 / 3 0 / 2 0 1 7 16 7 3 7 4 0 0 C I T Y O F C U P E R T I N O 91 2 8 2 8 U R 9 2, 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 2 / 2 8 / 2 0 1 8 . 7 5 0 0 $ 1 , 9 9 5 , 3 2 0 . 0 0 2 . 4 0 9 9 . 7 6 6 0 0 0 1 2 / 3 0 / 2 0 1 6 N / A A A A .0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 US T R E A S U R Y N O T E D T D 0 2 / 2 8 / 1 3 0 . 7 5 0 0 2 / 2 8 / 2 0 1 8 16 7 3 7 4 0 0 C I T Y O F C U P E R T I N O 91 2 8 2 8 W P 1 3, 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 0 6 / 1 5 / 2 0 1 7 . 8 7 5 0 $ 3 , 0 0 3 , 5 1 0 . 0 0 3 . 6 2 1 0 0 . 1 1 7 0 0 0 1 2 / 3 0 / 2 0 1 6 N / A A A A .0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 US T R E A S U R Y N O T E D T D 0 6 / 1 6 / 1 4 0 . 8 7 5 0 6 / 1 5 / 2 0 1 7 16 7 3 7 4 0 0 C I T Y O F C U P E R T I N O 99 2 9 9 5 9 4 4 48 , 5 8 5 . 4 9 0 0 .1 9 9 9 $ 4 8 , 5 8 5 . 4 9 . 0 6 1 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 / 3 0 / 2 0 1 6 .0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 WF B P U B L I C I N S T I T U T I O N A L B A N K D E P O S I T A C C O U N T 16 7 3 7 4 0 0 C I T Y O F C U P E R T I N O VP 4 5 2 0 0 0 4 3, 2 2 1 , 6 8 4 . 5 1 0 0 .0 0 4 6 $ 3 , 2 2 1 , 6 8 4 . 5 1 3 . 8 8 1 . 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 2 / 3 0 / 2 0 1 6 .0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 WE L L S F A R G O 1 0 0 % T R E A S U R Y M O N E Y M A R K E T F U N D - # 0 0 8 GR A N D T O T A L 8 3 , 3 7 0 , 2 7 0 . 0 0 0 0 $8 3 , 0 1 8 , 9 1 1 . 0 0 1 0 0 . 0 0 .0 0 0 0 . 0 0 0 0 EN D O F R E P O R T Pa g e 4 15 0 2/22/2017 1 Treasurer’s Investment Report Quarter Ending December 2016 Audit Committee Meeting February 27, 2017 Total portfolio increased from last quarter by $5.0 million, from $125.8 to $130.8 million Average maturity decreased from 1.16 years to 1.11 Average yield increased from 0.85% to 0.89% Portfolio Composition LAIF 31.1% Cash 5.4% Money Market 2.5% Agency Notes 45.9% US Treasuries 15.2% C 151 2/22/2017 2 Yield Comparison 0.00% 0.20% 0.40% 0.60% 0.80% 1.00% 1.20% 1.40% Av e r a g e Y i e l d 2Y Treasury Cupertino LAIF 1Y Treasury Debt issued by federal credit agencies and fully backed by U.S. government guarantee but not its full faith and credit High credit rating ‐second only to Treasury bonds Maturity periods from 1 month to 15 years Agencies that can issue: •FHLMC ‐Federal Home Loan Mortgage Association (Freddie Mac) •FHLB ‐Federal Home Loan Bank •FNMA ‐Federal National Mortgage Association (Fannie Mae) •FFCB ‐Federal Farm Credit Bureau Agency Diversification FHLB 20.0% FHLMC 39.9% FNMA 13.5% FFCB 26.6% 152 2/22/2017 3 Policy Compliance City of Cupertino December 31, 2016 CategoryStandardComment Treasury IssuesNo limitComplies US Agencies No limitComplies Medium Term Corporate Bonds30% with A ratingComplies LAIF$50 millionComplies Money Market Funds20%Complies Maximum MaturitiesUp to 5 yearsComplies Per Issuer Max10% (except for Treasuries and Agencies)Complies Bankers Acceptances 180 days & 40%Complies Commercial Paper270 days & 25%Complies Negotiable Certificates of Deposit30%Complies Repurchase Agreements365 daysComplies Reverse Repurchase AgreementsProhibitedComplies Cash Flow –Coverage The LAIF investment is $40.7 million and yielding 17 basis points lower than the 1‐year Treasury bill. The City is able to pay its obligations for the next 6 months and overall liquidity is strong. 10,000,000 15,000,000 20,000,000 25,000,000 30,000,000 35,000,000 40,000,000 45,000,000 50,000,000 55,000,000 02 / 2 7 / 1 7 03 / 0 6 / 1 7 03 / 1 3 / 1 7 03 / 2 0 / 1 7 03 / 2 7 / 1 7 04 / 0 3 / 1 7 04 / 1 0 / 1 7 04 / 1 7 / 1 7 04 / 2 4 / 1 7 05 / 0 1 / 1 7 05 / 0 8 / 1 7 05 / 1 5 / 1 7 05 / 2 2 / 1 7 05 / 2 9 / 1 7 06 / 0 5 / 1 7 06 / 1 2 / 1 7 06 / 1 9 / 1 7 06 / 2 6 / 1 7 07 / 0 3 / 1 7 07 / 1 0 / 1 7 07 / 1 7 / 1 7 07 / 2 4 / 1 7 07 / 3 1 / 1 7 08 / 0 7 / 1 7 08 / 1 4 / 1 7 08 / 2 1 / 1 7 08 / 2 8 / 1 7 6‐Month Liquidity 153 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:117-2370 Name: Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready File created:In control:2/13/2017 City Council On agenda:Final action:3/7/2017 Title:Subject: State Senate bills supporting affordable housing Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:Staff Report A - Sample Letter of Support - SB2 B - Sample Letter of Support - SB3 Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council3/7/20171 Subject: State Senate bills supporting affordable housing AdoptapositionofsupportonSenateBill2(Atkins):BuildingHomesandJobsActandSB3 (Beall):AffordableHousingBondActof2018,andauthorizetheMayortosendlettersin support of these bills CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 3/1/2017Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™154 1 OFFICE OF THE CITY MANAGER CITY HALL 10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3212 www.cupertino.org TELEPHONE: (408) 777-7603 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: March 7, 2017 Subject State Senate bills supporting affordable housing. Recommended Action Adopt a position of support on Senate Bill 2 (Atkins): Building Homes and Jobs Act and SB 3 (Beall): Affordable Housing Bond Act of 2018, and authorize the Mayor to send letters in support of these bills. Summary These two bills generate short-term and ongoing funding for affordable housing in California. Senate Bill 2 (SB 2) would generate about $500 million per year for affordable rental or ownership housing, supportive housing, emergency shelters, transitional housing and other housing needs through a modest recording fee on certain types of real-estate transactions, excluding real estate sales; while Senate Bill 3 (SB 3) would infuse $3 billion into the affordable housing market on a one-time basis. Discussion With the dissolution of redevelopment agencies, dwindling federal resources for housing programs, and skyrocketing housing costs, Cupertino and many California cities have limited opportunities to make a significant impact on affordable housing issues. As described below, SB 2 and SB 3 would make a significant impact on the state’s housing crisis. Senate Bill 2 (Atkins): Building Homes and Jobs Act SB 2 creates a permanent source of funding for the creation of affordable housing for low and moderate-income residents. The bill would impose a $75 fee paid at the recording of every real estate instrument, paper, or notice required or permitted by law to be recorded with a cap of $225 per transaction. The fee would not be imposed on commercial and residential real estate transactions. The fee is estimated to generate approximately $500 million each year to support affordable housing with a geographically balanced distribution of funds, including a 50% direct allocation to local governments. The allocation of funds would be as follows: 155 2 1. 20% for “affordable owner-occupied workforce housing.” 2. 10% to address affordable homeownership and rental housing opportunities for agricultural workers. 3. 70% may be expended for the following purposes:  Development, acquisition, rehabilitation, and preservation of rental housing that is affordable to extremely-low, very-low, low, and moderate-income households, including necessary operating subsidies.  Affordable rental and ownership housing for those earning up to 120% of area median income (AMI).  Matching funds to local or regional housing trust funds.  Matching portions of funds available through the Low- and Moderate Income Housing Asset Fund.  Capitalized reserves for services connected to the creation of new permanent supportive housing.  Emergency shelters, transitional housing, and rapid rehousing.  Emergency accessibility modifications.  Efforts to acquire and rehabilitate foreclosed or vacant homes.  Homeownership opportunities.  Grants to local and regional agencies to assist in the development and updating of planning documents and zoning ordinances to accelerate housing production.  Fiscal incentives or matching funds to local agencies that approve new housing for extremely low, very low, low- and moderate-income households. If approved, California would join 38 other states that already have housing trust funds with permanent ongoing revenues, including five (Missouri, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Washington) that have dedicated ongoing revenues generated by document recording fees. Since the proposed fee is considered a tax under State law, SB 2 will need a two-thirds majority vote of the Legislature. The bill has significant early support among legislators, with 12 Senate co-authors in addition to the three Assembly co-authors. Local Bay Area co-authors include Senators Beall, Skinner, and Wieckowski, as well as Assemblymembers Bonta and Thurmond. SB 2 passed out of the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee and has been referred to the Governance and Finance Committee. SB 3 (Beall): Affordable Housing Bond Act of 2018 SB 3 would authorize a $3 billion general obligation bond to fund affordable housing programs and infill infrastructure projects. The programs in this bond specifically fund the construction, rehabilitation, and preservation of housing for those at risk of or currently experiencing homelessness and low-income earners, as well as create more homeownership opportunities for low- and moderate-income earners through existing programs as follows: 1. Multifamily Housing Program ($1.5 billion) 2. Transit-Oriented Development Implementation Program ($0.2 billion) 3. Infill Infrastructure Financing Grants ($0.3 billion) 156 3 4. Joe Serna, Jr. Farmworker Housing Grant Program ($0.3 billion) 5. Local Housing Trust Matching Grant Program ($0.3 billion) 6. CalHome ($0.3 billion) 7. Building Equity and Growth in Neighborhoods program ($0.1 billion) These existing programs were all funded previously by the Housing and Emergency Shelter Trust Fund Act of 2006 (Prop 1C bonds), which allocated $2.85 billion in bond funds resulting in the creation of 92,000 housing units and 3,000 shelter spaces, with $250 million remaining to be spent. Similarly, the 2001 Proposition 46 bond funds of $2.1 billion resulted in 91,000 additional housing units. SB 3 is expected to provide a proportionate number of housing units. As a bond measure, SB 3 will require a two-thirds majority vote and will be subject to voter approval. The bill is authored by our Senate representative Jim Beall and has 10 Senate co- authors. It recently passed out of the Senate Transportation and Housing Committee and has been referred to the Governance and Finance Committee. Local Impact With the passage of SB 2 and SB 3, Cupertino will have additional funding to more effectively address affordable housing shortages in our community, a priority of the City Council. The City of Cupertino is in one of the highest cost areas in the country with limited affordable housing options. Funding is critically needed to increase, preserve, and improve the City's affordable housing stock for the City's workforce. For these reasons, staff recommends that the City Council adopt a position of support on SB 2 and SB 3, and authorize the Mayor to send letters in support of these important pieces of legislations. Sustainability Impact Building affordable housing near job centers, like Cupertino, would result in fewer vehicle miles traveled, lower greenhouse gas emissions and overall better quality of life for residents. Fiscal Impact The passage of SB2 and SB 3 would make short and long-term funding streams available to the City of Cupertino for local affordable housing projects. _____________________________________ Prepared by: Jaqui Guzmán, Deputy City Manager Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager Attachments: A. Sample Letter of Support - SB 2 B. Sample Letter of Support - SB 3 157 CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3192 • FAX: (408) 777-3366 svaidhyanathan@cupertino.org March 8, 2017 The Honorable Mike McGuire Chair, Senate Government and Finance Committee State Capitol Building, Room 408 Sacramento, CA 95814 RE: Senate Bill 2 (Atkins): Building Homes and Jobs Act Notice of Support Dear Honorable Chair McGuire: The City of Cupertino writes to express support for SB2 (Atkins): the Building Homes and Jobs Act. The construction of private housing has not kept up with demand, resulting in high rents and home prices well above the national average. This has also impacted the state’s homeless population, which has climbed to 116,000 after years of progress. With the dissolution of redevelopment agencies, dwindling federal resources for housing programs, and skyrocketing housing costs, Cupertino and many California cities have limited opportunities to address the state’s housing crisis. With passage of SB2, California cities will have additional funding to more effectively address affordable housing shortages in our community, a priority of the Cupertino City Council. Cupertino is in one of the highest cost areas in country with limited affordable housing options. Funding is critically needed to increase, preserve, and improve Cupertino’s affordable housing stock for our growing workforce. If approved, California would join 38 other states that already have housing trust funds with permanent ongoing revenues, including five (Missouri, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, and Washington) that have dedicated ongoing revenues generated by document recording fees. For these reasons, the City of Cupertino supports this measure. Please feel free to contact me at (408) 777-3192 or svaidhyanathan@cupertino.org should you have any questions. Sincerely, Mayor Savita Vaidhyanathan City of Cupertino 158 CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3192 • FAX: (408) 777-3366 svaidhyanathan@cupertino.org March 8, 2017 The Honorable Mike McGuire Chair, Senate Government and Finance Committee State Capitol Building, Room 408 Sacramento, CA 95814 RE: Senate Bill 3 (Beall): Dear Honorable Chair McGuire: The City of Cupertino writes to express support for SB3 (Beall): Affordable Housing Bond Act of 2018. Our residents are facing unaffordable high rents and home prices due to the state’s housing shortage, which has also impacted the state’s homeless population. With the dissolution of redevelopment agencies, dwindling federal resources for housing programs, and skyrocketing housing costs, Cupertino and many California cities have limited opportunities to address the state’s housing crisis. A proven method of increasing housing units in the state is the issuance of state bonds. Like Proposition 1C in 2006 and Proposition 46 in 2002, approval of SB3, is estimated to result in over 90,000 additional housing units throughout the state. This will make a significant impact on the state’s housing shortage. For these reasons, the City of Cupertino supports this measure. Please feel free to contact me at (408) 777-3192 or svaidhyanathan@cupertino.org should you have any questions. Sincerely, Mayor Savita Vaidhyanathan City of Cupertino 159 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:117-2381 Name: Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready File created:In control:2/23/2017 City Council On agenda:Final action:3/7/2017 Title:Subject: Response to Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Follow-Up Request Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:Staff Report A - Proposed Follow-up Responses B - Letter requesting a follow-up response C - 2012 City Response Letter D - 2012 Original Grand Jury Report Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council3/7/20171 Subject: Response to Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Follow-Up Request Review the request and authorize the City Manager to sign the proposed response CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 3/1/2017Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™160 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3220 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: March 7, 2017 Subject Response to Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Follow-Up Request. Recommended Action Review the request and authorize the City Manager to sign the proposed response. Background In September, 2012, the Council reviewed the 2011-2012 Santa Clara County Civil Grand Jury Report titled, “An Analysis of Pension and Other Post-Employment Benefits” (Attachment D) and authorized the City Manager to sign the City’s response (Attachment C). State law requires the City to respond to each Civil Grand Jury finding and recommendation directed at the City. Discussion The Civil Grand Jury requested a follow-up response from the City through a letter to City Manager David Brandt (Attachment B). Staff has prepared a response letter that addresses the points requested for the Council’s review and authorization. (Attachment A) Sustainability Impact None Fiscal Impact None _____________________________________ Prepared by: Kristina Alfaro, City Treasurer Approved by: David Brandt, City Manager Attachments: A – Proposed Follow-up Responses B – Letter requesting a follow-up response C – Cupertino’s September 2012 Response D – Original Civil Grand Jury Report 161 1 ANALYSIS OF PENSION/OTHER POST EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CITY OF CUPERTINO September 4, 2012 and February 23, 2017 FINDING 1 Public sector employees are eligible for retirement at least 10 years earlier than is common for private sector employees. Recommendation 1: The Cities should adopt pension plans to extend the retirement age beyond current retirement plan ages. City Response 1: The City concurs with this recommendation and is currently in negotiations to provide a 2% at 60 plan for all new employees with an effective date of January 1, 2013. Follow up on Recommendation 1: (1) City View on Grand Jury Recommendations: City Agreed with Grand Jury recommendations (2) If Grand Jury Recommendations were accepted: Yes, the City adopted a second tier 2% @ 60 prior to the PEPRA implementation that was effective January 1, 2013. This tier is for new employees hired on or after January 1, 2013 with no prior CalPERS or reciprocal agency credit. (3) Plan for Future Action: There is no plan to add any additional tiers at this time. FINDING 2 Campbell, Gilroy, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Milpitas and Palo Alto have adopted second tier plans that offer reduced Benefits, which help reduce future costs, but further changes are needed to address today’s unfunded liability. Santa Clara County and the cities of Cupertino, Los Altos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, San Jose, Santa Clara, Saratoga and Sunnyvale have not adopted second tier plans. Recommendation 2A Santa Clara County and the cities of Cupertino, Los Altos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, San Jose, Santa Clara, Saratoga and Sunnyvale should work to implement second tier plans. City Response 2A: The City concurs with this recommendation and is currently in negotiations to provide a 2% at 60 Plan for all new employees with an effective date of January 1, 2013. Follow up on Recommendation 2A: (1) City View on Grand Jury Recommendations: City Agreed with Grand Jury recommendations (2) If Grand Jury Recommendations were accepted: Yes, the City adopted a second tier 2% @ 60 prior to the PEPRA implementation that was effective January 1, 2013. This tier is for new employees hired on or after January 1, 2013 with no prior CalPERS or reciprocal agency credit. 162 2 (3) Plan for Future Action: There is no plan to add any additional tiers at this time. Recommendation 2B For Gilroy, Los Gatos, Milpitas and Palo Alto, which have not implemented second tier plans for MISC and Public Safety second tier plans should be implemented for both plans. City Response 2B: Not Applicable Follow up on Recommendation 2B: (1) City View on Grand Jury Recommendations: N/A (2) If Grand Jury Recommendations were accepted: N/A (3) Plan for Future Action: N/A Recommendation 2C All Cities’ new tier of plans should close the unfunded liability burden they have pushed to future generations. The new tier should include raising the retirement age, increasing employee contributions, and adopting pension caps that ensure pensions do not exceed salary at retirement. City Response 2C: Cupertino concurs with this recommendation and is currently negotiating a two-tier plan that will raise the retirement age and utilize a three-year averaging in calculating future payouts. We have not yet addressed increasing employee contributions or adopting pension plan caps. Follow up on Recommendation 2C: (1) City View on Grand Jury Recommendations: City agreed with GJ recommendations (2) If GJ Recommendations were accepted: Yes, the City adopted a second tier 2% @ 60 prior to the PEPRA implementation of the 2% @ 62 that was effective January 1, 2013. Both Tier 2 and the PEPRA tier use a 3 year averaging. This tier is for new employees hired on or after January 1, 2013 with no prior CalPERS or reciprocal agency credit. In addition as part of labor contracts negotiated in October 2016 the city will no longer pay any portion of the employee’s contribution resulting in a 7-8% reduction in retirement costs for the City. These costs savings were offset by increases in employee pay. (3) Plan for Future Action: There is no plan to add any additional tiers at this time. FINDING 3 Retroactive Benefit enhancements were enacted by Cities using overly optimistic ROI and actuarial assumptions without adequate funding in place to pay for them. Recommendation 3 The Cities should adopt policies that do not permit Benefit enhancements unless sufficient monies are deposited, such as in an irrevocable trust, concurrent with enacting the enhancement, to prevent an increase in unfunded liability. City Response 3: 163 3 The City concurs with the recommendation and agrees that benefit enhancement policies should not be adopted unless sufficient monies are available to pay for the additional costs. The City has a Fiscal Strategic Plan Committee that ensures that benefit increases can be absorbed within the short term and long term budget projections. Follow up on Recommendation 3: (1) City View on Grand Jury Recommendations: The City agreed the Grand Jury Recommendation (2) If Grand Jury Recommendations were accepted: Yes, the City has not adopted any benefit enhancements. The City has a Fiscal Strategic Plan Committee that ensures that benefit increases can be absorbed within the short term and long term budget projections. (3) Plan for Future Action: There is no plan to add any additional tiers at this time. FINDING 4 The Cities are making an overly generous contribution toward the cost of providing Benefits. Recommendation 4A The Cities should require all employees to pay the maximum employee contribution rate of a given plan. City Response 4A The City concurs with this recommendation and will consider including this in future negotiations. Follow up on Recommendation 4A: (1) City View on Grand Jury Recommendations: The City agreed with the Grand Jury recommendations. (2) If Grand Jury Recommendations were accepted: Yes, the City has as part of labor contracts negotiated in October 2016 the city will no longer pay any portion of the employee’s contribution resulting in a 7-8% reduction in retirement costs for the City. These costs savings were offset by increases in employee pay. (3) Plan for Future Action: There is no plan to add any additional tiers at this time. Recommendation 4B The Cities should require employees to pay some portion of the Past Service Cost associated with the unfunded liability, in proportion to the Benefits being offered. City Response 4B: The City concurs with this recommendation and will consider including this in future negotiations. Follow up on Recommendation 4B: (1) City View on Grand Jury Recommendations: The City agreed with Grand Jury recommendations. (2) If Grand Jury Recommendations were accepted: No, this change was not negotiated in the last round of labor negotiations. (3) Plan for Future Action: The City will consider including this in future negotiations. FINDING 5 164 4 The Cities are not fully funding OPEB benefits as evidenced by large unfunded liabilities and small funded ratios. Recommendation 5 The Cities, should immediately work toward implementing policy changes and adopting measures aimed at making full OPEB ARC payments as soon as possible. City Response 5: The City concurs with the recommendation and has prepaid our OPEB obligations in the past. In Fiscal Year 12/13, City Council authorized the City Manager to pre-fund our entire OPEB obligations as a long- term financial strategy. Follow up on Recommendation 5: (1) City View on Grand Jury Recommendations: The City agreed with Grand Jury recommendations. (2) If Grand Jury Recommendations were accepted: Yes, the City paid over $8 mil toward the City’s unfunded OPEB liability in January 2015. (3) Plan for Future Action: Continue to monitor costs and may recommended additional lump sum payments as unfunded liability grows. FINDING 6 The City of San Jose permits the transfer of pension trust fund money, when ROI exceeds expectations, to the SRBR, despite the fact that the pension trust funds are underfunded. Recommendation 6 The City of San Jose should eliminate the SRBR program or amend the SRBR program to prevent withdrawal of pension trust money whenever the pension-funded ratio is less than 100%. City Response 6: Not applicable Follow up on Recommendation 6: (1) City View on Grand Jury Recommendations: N/A (2) If Grand Jury Recommendations were accepted: N/A (3) Plan for Future Action: N/A FINDING 7 The Cities’ defined benefit pension plan costs are volatile. Defined contribution plan costs are predictable and therefore more manageable by the Cities. Recommendation 7 The Cities should transition from defined benefit plans to defined contribution plans as the new tier plans are implemented. City Response 7: 165 5 The City concurs with the recommendation and will consider including this in future negotiations. Follow up on Recommendation 7: (1) City View on Grand Jury Recommendations: The City agreed with Grand Jury recommendations. (2) If Grand Jury Recommendations were accepted: No, the City was able to negotiate a second tier for employees hired after 1/1/2013 with prior government agency service and all other new hires will enter the PEPRA tier 2% @62 (3) Plan for Future Action: The City will consider including this in future negotiations. ____________________________ David Brandt, City Manager 166 167 ANALYSIS OF PENSION/OTHER POST EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS CITY OF CUPERTINO September 4, 2012 FINDING 1 Public sector employees are eligible for retirement at least 10 years earlier than is common for private sector employees. Recommendation 1: The Cities should adopt pension plans to extend the retirement age beyond current retirement plan ages. City Response 1: The City concurs with this recommendation and is currently in negotiations to provide a 2% at 60 plan for all new employees with an effective date of January 1, 2013. FINDING 2 Campbell, Gilroy, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Milpitas and Palo Alto have adopted second tier plans that offer reduced Benefits, which help reduce future costs, but further changes are needed to address today’s unfunded liability. Santa Clara County and the cities of Cupertino, Los Altos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, San Jose, Santa Clara, Saratoga and Sunnyvale have not adopted second tier plans. Recommendation 2A Santa Clara County and the cities of Cupertino, Los Altos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, San Jose, Santa Clara, Saratoga and Sunnyvale should work to implement second tier plans. City Response 2A: The City concurs with this recommendation and is currently in negotiations to provide a 2% at 60 Plan for all new employees with an effective date of January 1, 2013. Recommendation 2B For Gilroy, Los Gatos, Milpitas and Palo Alto, which have not implemented second tier plans for MISC and Public Safety second tier plans should be implemented for both plans. City Response 2B: Not Applicable Recommendation 2C All Cities’ new tier of plans should close the unfunded liability burden they have pushed to future generations. The new tier should include raising the retirement age, increasing employee contributions, and adopting pension caps that ensure pensions do not exceed salary at retirement. City Response 2C: 168 Cupertino concurs with this recommendation and is currently negotiating a two-tier plan that will raise the retirement age and utilize a three-year averaging in calculating future payouts. We have not yet addressed increasing employee contributions or adopting pension plan caps. FINDING 3 Retroactive Benefit enhancements were enacted by Cities using overly optimistic ROI and actuarial assumptions without adequate funding in place to pay for them. Recommendation 3 The Cities should adopt policies that do not permit Benefit enhancements unless sufficient monies are deposited, such as in an irrevocable trust, concurrent with enacting the enhancement, to prevent an increase in unfunded liability. City Response 3: The City concurs with the recommendation and agrees that benefit enhancement policies should not be adopted unless sufficient monies are available to pay for the additional costs. The City has a Fiscal Strategic Plan Committee that ensures that benefit increases can be absorbed within the short term and long term budget projections. FINDING 4 The Cities are making an overly generous contribution toward the cost of providing Benefits. Recommendation 4A The Cities should require all employees to pay the maximum employee contribution rate of a given plan. City Response 4A The City concurs with this recommendation and will consider including this in future negotiations. Recommendation 4B The Cities should require employees to pay some portion of the Past Service Cost associated with the unfunded liability, in proportion to the Benefits being offered. City Response 4B: The City concurs with this recommendation and will consider including this in future negotiations. FINDING 5 The Cities are not fully funding OPEB benefits as evidenced by large unfunded liabilities and small funded ratios. Recommendation 5 The Cities, should immediately work toward implementing policy changes and adopting measures aimed at making full OPEB ARC payments as soon as possible. City Response 5: 169 The City concurs with the recommendation and has prepaid our OPEB obligations in the past. In Fiscal Year 12/13, City Council authorized the City Manager to pre-fund our entire OPEB obligations as a long-term financial strategy. FINDING 6 The City of San Jose permits the transfer of pension trust fund money, when ROI exceeds expectations, to the SRBR, despite the fact that the pension trust funds are underfunded. Recommendation 6 The City of San Jose should eliminate the SRBR program or amend the SRBR program to prevent withdrawal of pension trust money whenever the pension-funded ratio is less than 100%. City Response 6: Not applicable FINDING 7 The Cities’ defined benefit pension plan costs are volatile. Defined contribution plan costs are predictable and therefore more manageable by the Cities. Recommendation 7 The Cities should transition from defined benefit plans to defined contribution plans as the new tier plans are implemented. City Response 7: The City concurs with the recommendation and will consider including this in future negotiations. 170 171 2011-2012 SANTA CLARA COUNTY CIVIL GRAND JURY REPORT 1 AN ANALYSIS OF PENSION AND OTHER POST EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS Issue After reviewing the Comprehensive Annual Financial Reports (CAFRs) of all cities, towns and the County of Santa Clara (hereafter referred to as City or Cities1), the Grand Jury was struck by the extent that the pensions and Other Post Employment Benefits (OPEB) (collectively “Benefits”) were underfunded. Subsequently, the Grand Jury sought to answer the following question: “Is the cost of providing pension and other post employment benefits interfering with the delivery of essential City services and is the ultimate cost to the taxpayers a bearable burden?” Introduction The Grand Jury developed a survey to gather information from the Cities and the County. The Survey and responses are important to this report and the Grand Jury encourages readers to read the Survey questionnaire provided in Appendix A before continuing. Due to the technical complexity of this report, the Grand Jury has provided a glossary of the terminology used throughout this report (Appendix B). Acronyms are also included in the glossary. CalPERS2 requires Cities to contribute sufficient funds, held in trust, to pay for pension benefits as they are earned. This helps to ensure sufficient funding is in place to provide the promised pension benefits. This trust money is invested and expected to return a long-range investment return as high as 7.50%3 (after expenses). It is these investment earnings that are expected to pay for as much as 70%4 of the cost of pension benefits. 1 Cities as defined in this report include: Santa Clara County; the cities of Campbell, Cupertino, Gilroy, Los Altos, Milpitas, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, Palo Alto, San Jose, Santa Clara, Saratoga, Sunnyvale; and the towns of Los Altos Hills and Los Gatos, 2 The California Public Employees' Retirement System (CalPERS) is an agency in the California executive branch that manages pension and health benefits for California public employees, retirees, and their families.[ 3 CalPERS recently reduced this rate from 7.75%. 4 Expected to decline as investment yield declines. 172 2 According to interviews, historically high investment earnings in the early 1990s spawned the belief that expensive pension enhancements could be granted and paid for by the excess investment earnings without compromising the Cities’ ability to afford other services. Once these pension enhancements are granted to an employee, they generally cannot be retracted unless a substantially comparable replacement is offered, a concept referred to as vested rights. Cities reported that they felt compelled to enhance benefits to attract and retain the best work force possible. In addition to pensions, employers provide OPEB consisting primarily of health care benefits. Unlike pension funding requirements, there is no requirement for Cities to pre- fund the cost of OPEB benefits. As a result, most Cities have not funded OPEB benefits and have accrued large OPEB debts. Escalating health care costs, the largest component of OPEB, compound this debt problem. As a result of an economic downturn, the average investment rate of return (investment earnings) for the last ten years is considerably below what experts and Cities agree is the still optimistic assumed rate of 7.5%. This return on investment (ROI) leads to an increase in the Cities’ annual payment into the pension fund to make up the difference. The rising costs of pension and OPEB (collectively hereinafter referred to as Benefits), combined with the downturn of the economy have resulted in very large budget shortfalls. These must be paid by current and future tax revenue, which is limited. Thus, according to interviews, paying for these rising costs will come at the expense of other City services. With this in mind, the Grand Jury assessed the viability and sustainability of Cities’ public employee Benefits. This assessment sought to answer the following questions: What are the costs of public employee Benefits and who pays for them? Will Cities’ projected revenues keep up with projected expense of Benefits? What is being done and what can be done to control Benefit costs? Why are public employee Benefits different from those in the private sector? Background Several cities have declared bankruptcy. While the reasons for bankruptcy vary from one municipality to another, and include lower tax revenues and decreased home values, one common reason cited is large unfunded liability associated with providing pension and healthcare benefits to its public employees. Locally, the City of Vallejo declared bankruptcy in 2009 after failing to negotiate pay cuts in the face of $195 million in unfunded pension obligations. Stockton is falling into bankruptcy with less than 70 173 3 cents set aside for every dollar of pension benefits its workers are owed5. A recent Stanford University study regarding public pension funds statewide emphasizes this predicament: “public pension shortfalls of $379 billion or $30,500 per household” exist statewide6 contributing to the downgrading of California’s bond rating. San Jose is proposing pension reform and considering higher taxes resulting from ten consecutive years of budget shortfalls. The full effect of these unsustainable costs is yet to come. Methodology The scope of the Grand Jury’s investigation was limited to the Cities. Special districts and other agencies were excluded from this investigation. The following resources were used to gather and evaluate the data contained in this report: City CAFRs; particularly notes to financial statements concerning Benefits (see Appendix A) Results obtained from a survey created by the Grand Jury and distributed to the Cities (see Appendix B for the complete survey) Interviews conducted with one or more of the following persons from the Cities: Financial Manager, Chief Finance Officer, City Manager, Retirements Service Director, and Human Resource Manager. All interviews were conducted following receipt and evaluation of a survey, affording the opportunity to seek clarification and elaboration on survey responses as necessary. Interviews with CalPERS actuaries and CalPERS consultants Other documents listed in Appendix A. Report Conventions The Grand Jury did not extrapolate, derivate or convert the data provided by the Cities in response to the survey. When the Grand Jury had questions, or found inconsistencies in the data provided, every effort was made to resolve the issues through interviews, email and phone conversations. All dollar figures are expressed in actuarial valuation units,7 not market value, unless otherwise stated. The glossary in Appendix C provides definitions of the terminology used throughout this report. Acronyms are also included in the glossary. 5 "Untouchable pensions may be tested in California," Mary Williams Walsh, New York Times, March 16, 2012. 6 http://siepr.stanford.edu/system/files/shared/Nation%20Statewide%20Report%20v081.pdf 7 See Appendix C Glossary for definition. 174 4 Discussion This discussion consists of three primary sections: Understanding CalPERS presents and discusses the basic concepts of CalPERS public pension benefits to lay a foundation for a more detailed look at City-provided Benefits. Key Survey Results discusses those survey results found to be most relevant to answering the Grand Jury questions. San Jose’s Plan is discussed separately because San Jose is the only city to not use CalPERS. Understanding CalPERS Because all Cities except San Jose8 participate in CalPERS for pension and many use CalPERS for OPEB as well, it is vital to understand the following key concepts: • Basic Pension Plan Formulas • Annual Required Contribution (ARC) • CalPERS Menu Options • Assumed or expected Return on Investment (ROI) • Unfunded Liability. Basic Pension Plan Formulas Employees belong to one of two different groups: Miscellaneous (MISC) or Public Safety,9 each having defined plans. Table 1 lists all first tier10 CalPERS plans utilized by Cities. Note that the plan names include the pension earned per year and the retirement age at which full benefits are received. 8 Excluding the San Jose Mayor and Council Member plan. 9 Police and Fire personnel. 10 See Appendix C Glossary for definition. 175 5 Table 1: First Tier CalPERS Plans Used by the Cities s Plans Public Safety Plans Plan Name Number of Cities Participating Plan Name Number of Cities Participating 2.0%@55 4 3.0%@50 1111 2.5%@55 5 3.0%@55 1 2.7%@55 7 For all plans the pension benefit formula contains the same three primary components multiplied together as shown here: Pension = Earned Benefit Rate x Years of Service x Salary Earned Benefit Rate: This is the percent of salary earned per year of service as indicated by the plan name. Retirement before age 55 for MISC employees and before age 50 for most Public Safety employees results in the Earned Benefit Rate being reduced (per CalPERS’ table). For example, a MISC employee in the 2.0%@55 plan who retires at age 50 gets an earned benefit rate of 1.42612 per year of service rather than 2.0. Similarly, participants of the 2.5%@55 plan as well as the 2.7%@55 plan receive an earned benefit rate of 2.0 at age 50. Interestingly, the earned benefit rate for members of the 2.0%@55 plan continue to rise until the age 63 where it plateaus at 2.41813 percent per year of service. This contrasts with the other two MISC plans that plateau at age 55 at 2.5% and 2.7% respectively. (For a more detailed delineation of earned benefit rates, see www.calpers.ca.gov). Years of Service: This is self explanatory except to point out CalPERS supports reciprocity, which means that employees can transfer from one CalPERS-covered agency (City) or any other public agency that has established reciprocity with CalPERS, to another such agency without forfeiture of earned pension (as is usually the case in the private sector).14 Thus, an employee may work 10 years each for three different cities and earn the same pension benefits as otherwise would have been earned if they had worked for 30 years at a single city. But because each of the three cities pays only its one-third share of the earned pension, statistically, this employee appears as three employees earning a more modest pension from each city. 11 Some Cities contract for police and fire. Gilroy police and fire belong to separate Public Safety plans. 12 From CalPERS Benefit FactorsTable, page 22, Local Miscellaneous Benefits 13 From CalPERS Benefit FactorsTable, page 22, Local Miscellaneous Benefits 14 Reciprocity agreements may also exist between other pension plan providers. 176 6 Salary: CalPERS has guidelines defining what wages and reimbursements qualify for the purposes of determining pension. For a detailed discussion, go to www.calpers.ca.gov. Generally, salary can either be the average highest salary over a three-year period, or a highest single 12-month salary can be used, depending on the plan adopted by the City. Using the highest 12-month salary (rather than highest 36- month average salary in the pension formula shown above) is an example of what is known as a “Class 1” benefit enhancement that is more expensive to provide. It is noted here that Public Safety plan participants have a 90% maximum salary cap that can be earned at onset of retirement. There is no corresponding limit placed on plan participants. In both cases however, the Grand Jury learned that large pensions (expressed as a percent of salary) serve as a deterrent to prolonging employment because one can retire at close to full pay. Subsequent discussions on Employer Paid Member Contribution (EPMC) and Cost-of-Living Allowances (COLA) will show how pensions can actually exceed salary, leading to the paradox of employees losing income if they continue to work as a public employee rather than retire. ARC: What is it and How is it Determined? The ARC is the annual actuarially determined amount that must be paid to ensure there will be enough money to pay for all promised Benefits. As shown below, the pension ARC consists of three principle components added together: ARC = Employee Contribution + Normal Cost + Past Service Cost It should be noted that generally the Normal Cost and Past Service Cost, in accordance with labor contracts, are paid for by the Cities—through tax revenue—and sometimes are supplemented by an employee contribution. Employee Contribution: From the perspective of CalPERS, this is a fixed percent and, as the name would suggest, was intended to be paid by the employees in much the same way as most private workers pay a portion of their own Social Security benefits. For all City employees, the Employee Contribution is either 7%, 8% or 9% of an employee’s salary, depending in which plan the employee participates. It is important to note, however, that in practice, most Cities pay some portion of this cost on behalf of the employees. Normal Cost: Less the employee contribution, if made, this is the amount required to pay for the benefits that were earned in the prior year for the (expected) life of the employee in retirement. This is determined through rigorous actuarial valuations taking many variables into account, including retirement age, life expectancy, and probability of disability. Normal Cost tracks very closely with the degree of Benefits being offered. That is to say, discrete cost increases occur to this component of the ARC with each benefit enhancement proportional to the cost of the benefit. Without benefit enhancements, Normal Cost remains relatively flat over time. 177 7 Past Service Cost: Whenever the plan assets (all previously paid ARCs), including ROI, become insufficient to pay the actuarial accrued cost of benefits, an unfunded liability15 exists. This deficit must be made up in the form of Past Service Cost. This component of the ARC is largely proportional to unfunded liability, increasing as the unfunded liability goes up to begin paying down the debt. For many Cities surveyed, Past Service Cost is approaching and in some cases already exceeds Normal Cost. Later, this report will discuss the three most often cited reasons for unfunded liability: market losses (ROI lower than the assumed rate), retroactive benefit enhancements, and other accumulated actuarial assumption changes (e.g., longer life expectancy, demographic changes). CalPERS Menu Options Each CalPERS plan has numerous benefits that are inherent to the plan itself.16 In addition to these benefits, CalPERS offers a wide range of menu options that can be thought of as upgrades or enhancements to the base plan. They are too numerous to list but include the following: Annual cost-of-living allowance (COLA) increase Employer-paid member contribution (EMPC) Credit for unused sick leave Improved industrial and non-industrial disability Special death benefits Survivor benefits Various military and public service credits. Each enhancement selected results in quantifiably larger ARC payments. One cannot conclude from the plan name that it is necessarily more or less generous than another plan of a different name. For this reason, the Grand Jury’s investigation concerned itself not with the issue of what specific Benefits were being provided but rather what was the total cost of providing the Benefits expressed as a percent of payroll. Cities and CalPERS experts agreed this is a sound methodology for comparing cities of different sizes. 15 See Appendix C Glossary for definition. 16 For a more detailed discussion of menu options, go to www.calpers.ca.gov. 178 8 Sensitivity to Expected ROI All Cities and all CalPERS representatives interviewed consistently told us that somewhere between 65% and 70% of the money to pay for Benefits comes from the ROI of previously accumulated ARC payments. This cannot be emphasized enough. The Cities spoke to their burden in struggling to meet ARC obligations in light of budget constraints, but these ARC payments cover only about 30% of the amount necessary to cover the cost of providing these Benefits. A critical actuarial assumption is the expected ROI, which is currently assumed to be 7.50% after expenses for pension. The actual average ROI over the last ten years has been 6.1% as depicted in Figure 1. The result of this underperformance is higher unfunded liabilities, lower funded ratios, and larger ARC payments (in particular, the Past Service Cost component of the ARC as discussed above). Discussion of San Jose’s ROI included in this figure is deferred until later. Figure 1: Actual Return on Investment Compared to Assumed and Dow Jones17 CalPERS lowered the assumed ROI from 7.75% to 7.5% at a March 14, 2012 meeting. Last year this same recommendation was rejected. This year, a 0.5% change was recommended and only a 0.25% change was approved. Table 2 below is excerpted from “Pension Math: How California’s Retirement Spending is Squeezing the State Budget” written by Joe Nation from Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research. 17 DJIA is calendar year and other data are fiscal year 179 9 Table 2: CalPERS Return on Investment Analysis Investment rate Probability of meeting or exceeding rate CalPERS funded ratio18 9.5% 21.7% 95.1% 7.75% 42.1% 73.5% 7.1% 50.7% 66.7% 6.2% 62.6% 58.3% 4.5% 80.9% 45.1% Two key points in Table 2 are: According to this analysis, there is only a 42.1% chance of meeting or exceeding an assumed investment rate of 7.75% as highlighted in the table. It should be noted that the ROI assumption was recently reduced to 7.5%. Dropping down to a more conservative 6.2% investment rate (still higher than the 6.1% average for the last ten years) is recommended by many leading economists and recognized financial experts. The corresponding funded ratio reduction would result in increases to unfunded liabilities and significantly higher ARC costs. Sunnyvale projects this modest CalPERS-approved reduction of 0.25% in assumed ROI will increase its ARC by 2.3% of payroll for MISC employees and 3.8% of payroll for Public Safety employees, totaling nearly a $3M increase per year in ARC payments. As shown in Table 3, Sunnyvale’s pension cost was just over $25M. So, a $3M increase represents a 12% increase. CalPERS and pension experts we spoke with asserted that the cost of each additional 0.25% reduction in assumed ROI is not linear and warned extrapolating this cost increase would result in underestimating the total cost impact. Unfunded Liability & Funded Ratio Unfunded Liability is the unfunded obligation for prior benefits, measured as the difference between the accrued liability and plan assets. When using the actuarial value of plan assets, it is also referred to as the Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability (UAAL). In everyday language, it is the difference between the cost of the benefits already earned and the amount currently paid; it is the amount due. 18 As of June 30, 2011 180 10 Table 3: Unfunded liability for pension and OPEB for all large cities shows the total for these nine cities is nearly $7B FY 2010 Unfunded Liabilities (Not in Risk Pool)19 Debt per Resident City Pension OPEB Total Santa Clara County $1,455,835,322$1,300,000,000$2,755,835,322 $1,547 Cupertino $18,581,728$18,069,366$36,651,094 $629 Gilroy $35,100,000$4,900,000$40,000,000 $819 Milpitas $70,166,975$31,230,798$101,397,773 $1,518 Mountain View $104,121,296 $29,396,467$133,517,763 $1,803 Palo Alto $153,941,000$105,045,000$258,986,000 $4,021 San Jose20 $1,434,696,471$1,706,081,881$3,140,778,352 $3,320 Santa Clara $223,667,947 $23,855,000$247,522,947 $2,125 Sunnyvale $149,300,000$92,800,000$242,100,000 $1,728 Total $3,645,410,739$3,311,378,512$6,956,789,251 The Funded ratio is the market value of assets at a specified date, over the accrued actuarial liability as of the same date. While technically accurate, these definitions provide no insight into the causes of what have become large unfunded liabilities and correspondingly low-funded ratios. The Grand Jury learned from CalPERS that the three primary reasons for unfunded liabilities are the following: 70% of the unfunded liabilities is attributable to market performance 15% of the unfunded liabilities is attributable to retroactive benefit enhancements 15% of the unfunded liabilities is attributable to other actuarial assumption changes. The percentages shown above are “rule of thumb” values according to the CalPERS representatives; individual City percentages will vary. Key Survey Results With the basic concepts of public pension benefits understood, the Grand Jury prepared a survey to gather information from the Cities. Survey responses and all supplemental data provided by the Cities were analyzed to answer the following questions: 19 Numbers reflect data provided in survey responses. 20 Excluding Mayor and Council Member Plan. 181 11 What is the total amount of unfunded liabilities? What is the total cost each year to provide Benefits and at what rate is the cost going up per year? Why are OPEB funded ratios so low? When were Benefit enhancements enacted and how do they impact unfunded liability? What progress is being made to control escalating costs? Why are public Benefits so different from private sector Benefits? Do vacation, holiday and sick leave policies in the public sector differ from those that are commonly found in the private sector? Unfunded Liability (Large Debts) Table 3 tabulates the unfunded liability for both pension and OPEB for all large cities not belonging to a risk pool and shows the total unfunded liability for these nine cities is nearly $7B. Cities having fewer than 100 employees in a given pension plan (Campbell, Los Altos, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, and Saratoga) are not included because they belong either entirely or in part to a risk pool. CalPERS currently does not provide this information to the Cities in the risk pool. Los Gatos and Morgan Hill, for instance, do not know their portion of a $3,515,314,403 unfunded liability associated with the Public Safety risk pool to which they belong. While Monte Sereno and Los Altos Hills did offer an approximation of their portion of the risk pool liability, CalPERS representatives recommended against using the estimation and as a result are not included in Table 3. The Grand Jury has learned the Government Accounting Standard Board (GASB) is considering a policy change to require the Cities in the risk pool21 to report individual unfunded liability. Many Cities surveyed focused primarily on minimizing the ARC payments, the short-term cost due, as opposed to addressing the larger, endemic problem of its unfunded liability. This is problematic because minimizing ARC payments today at the expense of addressing the growing unfunded liability means shifting the costs to the future, hoping market improvements will solve the problem. If the market does not improve, taxpayers may face increased taxes or reduced services in the future. Using 2010 census data obtained from http://www.sccgov.org together with the data in Table 3, it is possible to estimate the amount owed by each resident to pay down current Benefit debts in the Cities. For example, each resident of San Jose owes $3,320 to the city. As residents of the County, they also owe an additional $1,547 to the 21 See Appendix C Glossary for definition. 182 12 County.22 But while this would pay down the current debt and significantly reduce ARC payments, it does not guarantee staying out of debt going forward. High Cost of Benefits (ARC) . . . and Getting Higher The accumulated City cost of providing annual Benefits in FY2010 was $667,215,205 as shown in Table 4. While it is useful to know the annual cost of providing Benefits it is not possible to judge whether or not any City is paying a disproportionate cost due to the size variance of the Cites (large Cities are expected to pay more because they have more employees). For this reason, the Grand Jury chose to compare the Cities by expressing the ARC as a percent of payroll. Cities and pension experts agreed the Grand Jury’s method of making this calculation was correct. That said, the same values shown in Table 4 are also shown in Figure 2 expressed as percent of payroll separating pension, OPEB and Social Security as applicable. Table 4: Countywide total cost of providing annual Benefits in FY2010 is $667,215,205 City Pension Cost23 OPEB Cost24 Social Security Cost25 Total Santa Clara County $235,630,042 $90,000,000$65,136,430 $390,766,472 Campbell $2,728,302$206,220 $2,934,522 Cupertino $1,841,350$7,616,760 $9,458,110 Gilroy $4,900,000$186,334 $5,086,334 Los Altos $1,842,949$19,505 $1,862,454 Los Altos Hills $190,021$203,000 $393,021 Los Gatos $2,958,209$949,845 $3,908,054 Milpitas $7,164,473$3,356,836 $10,521,309 Monte Sereno $125,713 $0$37,863 $163,576 Morgan Hill $2,763,818$15,119 $2,778,937 Mountain View $8,929,685$4,376,387 $13,306,072 Palo Alto $19,964,080$9,019,000 $28,983,080 San Jose $106,881,000$34,147,000 $141,028,000 Santa Clara $20,257,754$2,115,643$3,494,639 $25,868,036 Saratoga $917,228 NA $917,228 Sunnyvale $25,300,000$3,940,000 $29,240,000 Total $442,394,624$156,151,649$68,668,932 $667,215,205 22 Note these figures are per resident, not per household, and exclude an additional state pension liability all California residents bear, which is outside the scope of this report. 23 Many Cities, but not all, provided separable “sidefund” expenditures from ARC. 24 May include money spent over and above ARC payment. 25 Only MISC employees in Santa Clara County, Monte Sereno and Santa Clara participate in Social Security. 183 13 As shown in Figure 2, the cities of Campbell, Los Altos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill and Saratoga pay less than 20% of payroll towards Benefits while the remaining cities pay more than 20%. Cupertino, Palo Alto and Sunnyvale pay in excess of 30% of payroll towards Benefits. The survey results further indicated that Mountain View is noteworthy because it offers similar plans as Cupertino, Palo Alto and Sunnyvale but at lower cost to the city through cost sharing with employees who pay the entire employee contribution (8% for MISC and 9% for Public Safety) plus some negotiated portion of that city’s cost in the range of 1.5% to 6.8% depending on job type. Cupertino, Palo Alto and Sunnyvale in contrast to Mountain View, pay some portion of the employee contribution with Sunnyvale contributing the most (7% of the required 8% for MISC employees and 8% of the 9% for Public Safety employees). Figure 2: FY 2010 Benefit Ranking by Percent of Payroll 184 14 Comparing the Sunnyvale pension costs expressed in percent of payroll to Mountain View (same plans) demonstrates that employee contributions toward the cost of pensions is just as effective at keeping the cost under control as curtailing the level of pension benefits being offered. Mountain View actually compares favorably to other cities offering lower benefits. Table 5 summarizes the Cities’ plan(s) and the amount contributed by employees. For those Cities that elected to participate in Social Security (MISC employees in the City of Santa Clara, Santa Clara County and Monte Sereno), the cost to the city has been added to reflect the total amount the city is paying toward employee Benefits. The survey responses conveyed how much pension and OPEB were expected to rise during the next five to ten years. Most Cities responded using projections from the latest actuarial valuations, which estimate contributions as a percentage of payroll rather than in dollars. In the case of pension, these valuations are performed by CalPERS and in the case of OPEB, the valuations are performed by an actuary firm under contract to the City. All Cities’ Benefits costs are trending up, in spite of optimistic assumptions regarding the ROI that has been shown to be of paramount importance. Projected San Jose cost increases are discussed separately in subsequent sections. Unfunded Retroactive Pension Benefit Enhancements When a City amends its contract with labor unions to increase the pension formula (e.g., 2% @ 55 to 2.5% @ 55) the increased benefits apply retroactively to all prior years of service. The retroactive application of the increase results in an increase in the unfunded liability and requires an increase in ARC payments by the City. The reason for the increase in ARC payments can be illustrated by this example: Assume an employee has worked for twenty-five years and has paid into the system all those years. The City leaders now approve a retroactive benefit enhancement without funding the retroactive period. Immediately the employee and employer have effectively underpaid for the enhanced unfunded benefits portion for the previous twenty-five years. The difference between what was actually paid and what should have been paid to provide the enhanced benefit adds to unfunded liability, which increases ARC payments. This is now a new liability to the taxpayer. In question three of the Grand Jury questionnaire (Appendix B), Cities were asked to list any significant pension benefit changes that have been made over the past ten years. Table 5 summarizes the responses received by the Grand Jury. As the table shows, most Cities have increased pension benefits within the last ten years. When asked how much these benefit increases changed Unfunded Liability, most cities provided the CalPERS provided answer of 15%. However, Cupertino stated that benefit changes are responsible for 26% of their Unfunded Liability and the City of Santa Clara cited 24.6%. 185 15 Table 5: Pension Benefit Plan Changes Name of City/County 1st Tier Plan 2nd Tier Plan Year of increa se Original Plan Benefit Increase Employee Paid Contribution FY 2011 (Per Survey Responses) Plan Name Year Adopted Employee Paid Contributio n County of Santa Clara 2007 MISC 2%@55 MISC to 2.5%@55 3.931 to 5%None County of Santa Clara 2001 Public Safety 2%@50 Public Safety to 3%@50 0.5 to 9% None Campbell 2002 MISC 2%@55 MISC to 2.5%@55 7% MISC 2%@60 2011 7% Campbell 2001 Public Safety 2%@50 Public Safety to 3%@50 8% Public Safety 2%@50 2010 9% Cupertino 2007 MISC 2%@55 MISC to 2.7%@55 2%None Gilroy 2006 MISC 2%@55 MISC to 2.5%@55 8%None Gilroy 2002 Police 2%@50 Police to 3%@50 9% Police 2%@50 2011 9% Gilroy 2007 Fire 2%@50 Fire to 3%@55 9% Fire 2%@55 2011 7% Los Altos 2004 MISC 2%@55 MISC to 2.7%@55 1%None Los Altos 2003 Public Safety 2%@50 Public Safety to 3%@50 1% None Los Altos Hills* MISC 2%@55 None 0% MISC 2%@60 2011 7% Los Gatos 2008 MISC 2%@55 MISC to 2.5%@55 8%2%@60 2012 7% Los Gatos 2001 Public Safety 2.5%@55 Public Safety to 3%@60 9% None Milpitas 2002 MISC 2%@55 MISC to 2.7%@55 8%2%@60 2011 9% Milpitas 2000 Public Safety 2%@50 Public Safety to 3%@50 9% None Monte Sereno* MISC 2%@55 No pension benefit changes 0% None Morgan Hill 2006 MISC 2%@55 MISC to 2.5%@55 1‐8%None Morgan Hill 2002 Public Safety 2%@50 Public Safety increase to 3%@50 9% None Mountain View 2007 MISC 2%@55 MISC increase to 2.7%@55 8%+ None Mountain View 2001 Public Safety 2%@50 Public Safety increase to 3%@50 9%+ None Palo Alto 2007 MISC 2%@55 MISC increase to 2.7%@55 2%‐5.7% 2%@60 2010 2% Palo Alto 2002 Public Safety 2%@50 Public Safety increase to 3%@50 0%‐9% None San Jose Federated 2.5%@55 4.68%None San Jose Public Safety 3%@50 10.50%None Santa Clara 2006 MISC 2%@55 MISC increase to 2.7%@55 8% None Santa Clara 2000 Public Safety 2%@50 Public Safety to 3%@50 9%‐11.25% None Saratoga* 2%@55 No pension benefit changes 7% None Sunnyvale 2007 MISC 2%@55 MISC increase to 2.7%@55 1% None Sunnyvale 2001 Public Safety 2%@50 Public Safety increase to 3%@50 1%‐3% None * These cities contract out for public safety services, avoiding a direct benefit liability. 186 16 Cities told the Grand Jury that as recently as 2003, and in 2007 for Campbell and Los Altos Hills, their plans were over funded. Assuming this trend would continue, Cities thought they could enhance Benefits without significantly increasing their costs. Analysis was performed to prove the enhancements could be funded. In hindsight, this did not prove to be the case because the analysis assumed the optimistic ROI would be achieved. The County and a few of the cities attempted to recover some of the increased cost by increasing the employee paid contributions and by eliminating previously enhanced menu options. The Grand Jury learned that in some cases adequate funding was not in place to pay for the enhanced pension benefits at the time they were granted. Without solid plans to fund increases in pension benefit plans, Cities pushed the impact of these increases to future generations of taxpayers. Nearly every City demonstrated an historical pattern of granting unfunded benefit enhancements as discussed here. This practice is beginning to change with the adoption by a few cities of second tier26 plans that extend retirement age and reduce Benefit costs. Table 5 shows that eight cities have adopted second tier plans. Other Cities may be in the process of adopting second tier plans but cannot report this fact because of ongoing union negotiations. Note that all new second tier plans continue to be the defined benefit type; none have adopted any form of defined contribution elements. While the creation of second tier plans will reduce the cost of providing pension benefits,27 these savings will not materialize for many years. All risks associated with market losses remain with the Cities, and ultimately the taxpayers. Increasing employee contribution rates, subject to labor agreements, is the most effective method of controlling cost in the shortest amount of time. Low OPEB Funded Ratios As shown in Table 6, OPEB-funded ratios are low. These OPEB low-funded ratios and corresponding high unfunded liabilities are of concern to the Grand Jury. Cities are required to “pay forward”28 for pensions, but not for OPEB. As a result, many cities only pay the minimum required to cover the current annual OPEB cost; no extra is paid to defray the cost of all current employees when they retire. The Cities referred to this as the “pay-as-you-go” strategy and results in very low-funded ratios—even zero percent. This strategy has resulted in San Jose’s OPEB being $1,706,081,881 underfunded (refer back to Figure 2 for a comparison of San Jose’s underfunded status relative to other cities and the County) 26 See Appendix C Glossary for definition. 27 At the time of this report, the Grand Jury is not aware that Cities are considering OPEB changes in second tier plans. 28 See Appendix C Glossary for definition. 187 17 Table 6: OPEB Funded Ratio City FY 2010 OPEB Funded Ratio29 Santa Clara County 10.10% Campbell 4.00% Cupertino30 0% Gilroy 0% Los Altos 0% Los Altos Hills 23.40% Los Gatos 2.70% Milpitas 24.13% Monte Sereno 0% Morgan Hill 0% Mountain View 55.90% Palo Alto 19.00% San Jose31 12.00%/6.00% Santa Clara 22.80% Saratoga N/A Sunnyvale32 0% Mountain View, Sunnyvale and Cupertino are commended for having begun to implement a “pay forward” strategy, which demonstrates fiscal responsibility. One San Jose public official interviewed stated that the reason San Jose was not fully funding OPEB is that it could not be done without significant curtailment of services, effectively shifting the burden of payment to future generations. Public Benefit Comparison to Private Sector Benefits To put pubic employee Benefits into perspective, consider the average pension for Public Safety employees in Palo Alto retiring between the ages of 51 and 54 with 30 years of service is $108,000. In Sunnyvale, the same employee receives almost $102,000 per year. The most common pension plans offered to public employees who spend their entire career in the public sector not only discourage employees from 29 Some 2010 data is derived from 2009 Actuarial Valuations 30 In 2010 and 2011 the city made payments of nearly $6.5M in excess of ARC to bring this up to 35.6% 31 San Jose has separate OPEB funds for its employees 32 In 2011 the city paid $32M in excess of ARC but impact on funded ratio has not yet been determined via actuarial evaluation 188 18 continuing to work beyond the age of 50 or 55, they penalize them for doing so. The CalPERS reported average pension of under $30,000 per year is misleading because it fails to recognize persons who receive multiple pensions. The Grand Jury learned that some employees actually earn more in retirement than they did while employed. Further, the ratio of active employees to retirees was found to be three to two.33 With budget constraints leading to staffing reductions and as the baby boom generation approaches retirement age, this ratio is expected to continue downward, placing additional financial burdens on the Cities. Public benefits are overwhelmingly of the defined benefit type (refer to Appendix C for the differences between defined benefits and defined contributions). While some private sector companies continue to offer defined benefits, the clear trend in the private sector is to transition away from defined benefits in favor of defined contributions, thereby transferring the risks associated with market performance from the employer to the employee. An additional advantage of the defined contribution is that it leads to less volatile City budgets over time because the cost of providing benefits is constant, not varying over time to compensate for market performance. Determining in any meaningful way what might be considered “standard” private sector benefits for the purposes of comparing to public sector was clearly outside the scope of this investigation. That said, Bureau of Labor Statistics surveys show the majority of private pensions include participation in Social Security and a defined contribution plan such as a 401k. The employee and employer each contribute 6.2% of salary (currently up to $110,100 in salary) per year, to pay for Social Security benefits. While the particulars of 401k plans vary widely, the surveys show that the majority of employees receive some form of matched savings plan described as follows. For every dollar the employee contributes to their own 401k, the employer will contribute some amount: 50 cents or less for most employees. Employees may be limited to the amount they can contribute and employers limit the amount they contribute by specifying that employer contributions cannot exceed a set percent of salary: four percent or less for most employees. As described, the majority of private sector employees contribute more than 50% of the total cost toward their own pensions (exactly 50% in the case of Social Security and greater than 50% of the 401k since an employer only contributes a portion of every dollar the employee contributes). Using 65 as a traditional retirement age, the differences between public and private benefits are summarized in Table 7. The Grand Jury reviewed the survey results and observed the following for all first tier plan employees: All Public Safety employees, except Gilroy fire,34 qualify for full retirement benefits no later than age fifty (assuming at least five years of service) 33 Half the Cities surveyed currently have more retirees than employees. 34 Gilroy fire receives the same at age fifty-five rather than age fifty. 189 19 All Public Safety employees, except Gilroy fire,35 with thirty years of service credit receive no less than 90% of their salary in retirement, not considering annual COLA increases All MISC employees qualify for retirement benefits no later than age fifty-five (assuming at least five years of service) Table 7: Sample comparison of MISC Public versus Private Benefits36 Attributes Public37 Private38 Percent of salary contributed by employee toward Benefits 7 - 8% 14 - 16% Age pension may be drawn without an age- related reduction in eligible amount 55 65 Employee contribution for every dollar of employer contribution 50¢39 $1.4040 Retirement Income expressed as a percent of salary (assuming the retiree reaches full plan benefit age and works 35 or 45 years, respectively) 87.5% 66%41 Who bears the risk if market underperforms? Taxpayer Employee Is subsidized retiree healthcare available? Generally Yes Generally No The majority42 of MISC employees who work 35 years receive 87.5% of their salary in retirement before annual COLA increases. 35 Gilroy fire receives the same benefits at thirty-five years service rather than thirty years. 36 The table is intended for comparison; it is not representative of all situations. 37 Represented by participant in 2.5%@55. 38 Represented by participant in Social Security and 401k Savings plan where employee contributes 8% salary and employer matches 50 cents per dollar. 39 Based on CalPERS data for 2011. Actual varies by city; can be as high as 50¢ or as low as 5¢. 40 Based on the Bureau of Labor statistics. 41 This number assumes a $750K in retirement savings. 42 Los Altos Hills, Monte Sereno and Saratoga are exceptions receiving 70% of salary. 190 20 In consideration of these statistics, and as shown in Table 7, the Grand Jury concludes: Full pension is attained at an earlier age in the public sector than in the private sector – some by ten years or more Pension earned, expressed as a percentage of salary, is greater in the public sector than in the private sector even after adjustment to account for non- participation in Social Security Employees in the public sector contribute less towards their pension plans than their private-sector counterparts Taxpayers in the public sector bear the risk of ROI and actuarial assumptions associated with the pension plan, whereas employees in the private sector bear the risk of market performance. The Grand Jury acknowledges wages and salaries are a large portion of Cities’ budgets, and when salaries escalate this further exacerbates budget shortfalls. It may be asserted that public sector salaries are lower than their private sector counterparts, thus, justifying more generous public benefits. Readers can explore whether this assertion is true by accessing publically available salary data. Accrued Sick Leave Can Be Reimbursed In general, the survey revealed no significant differences between the Cities in regard to holiday, vacation and sick leave policies. However, it is noted that all Cities surveyed except Gilroy, Monte Sereno, and Sunnyvale either reimburse for accrued unused sick time or permit it to be converted into service time for purposes of determining pension. Often reimbursement is at discounted rates and other times the amount of sick time that can be accrued is capped. Gilroy, Monte Sereno and Sunnyvale responded “No” to the survey question asking if accrued sick time is paid upon retirement, without proffering whether or not it could be converted into service time. However, the Grand Jury learned that sick time conversion to service credit is a common CalPERS benefit for all members of risk pools. The survey revealed that the City of Santa Clara grants fire personnel on 24-hour shifts 288 hours of sick leave per year. Up to 96 hours per year can be accrued and paid (discounted to 75% of their hourly wage equivalent) for employees with 25 or more years of service. San Jose’s Plan San Jose is the only city that does not use CalPERS to provide pension benefits (with the exception of the Mayor and Council members who get benefits in accordance with CalPERS 2%@55 plan). San Jose public employees have two independent plans: Federated and Public Safety. Federated Plan members are equivalent to those in a CalPERS Miscellaneous Plan. Public Safety members (police and fire) in San Jose are 191 21 identical to Public Safety members in other Cities. The San Jose Federated and Public Safety plans share commonality with CalPERS 2.5%@55 and 3.0%@50 respectively with the following key differences: COLA is a guaranteed 3% compared to CalPERS’ not-to-exceed 2% Employee-to-employer contribution ratio of three to eight (3:8) Money is invested and managed by the two governing Boards (the Federated Plan Retirement Board and the Public Safety Retirement Board) rather than by CalPERS, and San Jose performs its actuarial valuations independent of CalPERS San Jose participates in a Supplemental Retiree Benefit Reserve (SRBR) program. Each of the major differences cited above is discussed in more detail below. 3% Guaranteed COLA San Jose provides a guaranteed 3% COLA increase every year compared to a CalPERS base COLA which is “not to exceed an accumulated 2% per year”.43 The Grand Jury is unable to quantify the additional cost of increasing COLA. As mentioned previously, CalPERS does provide menu options for increased COLA (including 3%), but no other Cities have opted for this increase, citing cost as a reason. Three-to-Eight (3:8) Employee Contribution Ratio For every eight dollars San Jose spends on the Normal Cost of providing benefits (excluding the Past Service Cost portion of benefits that the employer pays entirely44) employees contribute $3-dollars. This differs substantially from CalPERS, which sets employee contribution as a percent of salary between 7% and 9% depending on the plan. As noted in Table 5, many Cities pay much of the employee contribution on behalf of the employees, further complicating any comparison. As noted in Methodology, the Grand Jury is reluctant to interpolate the data provided. The San Jose survey response shows that Federated employees pay 4.68% (of payroll) toward pension, which compares to CalPERS’ MISC plan at 8%. San Jose’s Public Safety employees pay approximately 10.5% (of payroll) toward pension, which compares to CalPERS’ Public Safety plan at 9%. 43 As a function of inflation, CalPERS COLA has a clause protecting retirees from losing more than 20% of their buying power in retirement which could result in increases greater than 2%. When CPI is less than the 2% promised, CalPERS COLA also entails “banking” of COLA as unneeded credits that can be applied when CPI is greater than 2%. This results in annual COLA increase in excess of 2% when the CPI exceeds 2%. 44 The ratio of Past Service Cost to Normal Cost (expressed in Percent Payroll) for Federated and Public Safety are: 15.58/12.76 and 22/27 respectively 192 22 From a cost perspective, there is insufficient data to determine if the 3:8 ratio results in net savings or increased cost to San Jose, compared to the CalPERS plan. However, excluding Past Service Cost from any form of employee cost sharing does result in San Jose paying a higher portion of the cost of providing Benefits. Self-Managed Investing The Federated and Public Safety Boards independently manage approximately $2B in assets each (approximately $4B total). Both currently assume a 7.5% ROI, similar to the recently adopted CalPERS ROI. As with CalPERS, these investment returns are expected to pay the majority of the costs for providing benefits. It is critical, therefore, to compare the actual investment performance to what is actuarially assumed, and it is useful to compare San Jose’s investment performance to CalPERS. As was shown in Figure 1, both Federated and Public Safety ROI for the last ten years has been below the actuarial assumptions but slightly better than what CalPERS did in the same time period. San Jose did not provide ROI data for 2011. The DJIA is shown in the figure for comparison purposes and is intended to show that both San Jose and CalPERS outperformed the general market (represented by DJIA) by a wide margin, yet still fell below the optimistic actuarial assumptions so critical to economic viability. The largest advantage of managing one’s own plans would seem to be the added flexibility it affords the city in tailoring retirement formulas to meet the needs and means of the city. Although there is little evidence the city is using this advantage in the current first tier plans (as noted, San Jose plans are both very similar to CalPERS plans offered), this advantage may be utilized if and when second tier plans are developed. Supplemental Retiree Benefit Reserve (SRBR) Recall from Table 3 that the combined pension unfunded liability for both the Federated Plan and the Public Safety Plan is $1,434,696,471. As has already been discussed and demonstrated, the largest single contributor to this is when the achieved ROI falls short of the actuarially assumed ROI. With this in mind, it is difficult to comprehend how responsible financial management would allow withdrawal of any portion of excess ROI whenever the market actually does out-perform the expected rate to be used to pay dividends in the form of an additional “thirteenth check”45 to retirees. But this is exactly what the SRBR does. In the case of the Federated Plan, the market must only exceed the expected rate in a single year to permit withdrawal of a portion of the excess ROI for that year. For the same thing to happen in the Public Safety plan, the running five-year average must exceed the expected return rate to permit withdrawal. 45 Generally, a windfall dividend payment. 193 23 It should be noted that San Jose has temporarily suspended the SRBR payouts. Although San Jose has suspended payouts, the funds remain in the account and San Jose has not used the payout to pay down its underfunded liability. In fact, the suspension merely delays eventual payment to retirees in the form of even larger “thirteenth checks.” A better use for these excess funds might be to retain them to pay down the underfunded Benefits, as long as an underfunded liability exists. Why Such Variance with Estimated Future Benefit Costs? Much has been written regarding the predicted ARC cost for San Jose in FY 2015/2016. Published estimates vary in the range of $400M to as much as $650M. The latter figure represents a more than doubling of the current ARC of $245M per year—a rate of increase not seen in any of the other Cities. The Grand Jury interviewed several key personnel associated closely with these predictions to determine why there is so much variability in the estimates. In particular, the Grand Jury wanted to answer the following questions: Were these predictions based on sound, factual data? Does $650M represent a worst case number or could it be higher? The Grand Jury learned that a large set of assumptions factor into any actuarial valuation and many of these assumptions have complex interdependencies with one another. The actuarial valuation itself is a rigorous, precise mathematical calculation based upon these assumptions. The ARC value can vary, from 400M to $650M or higher, when assumptions are adjusted. Just two of those actuarial assumption changes, by themselves, account for $120M of the $250M difference between the high and low estimate. These two assumption changes are: Longer life expectancy of Public Safety employees46 than previously assumed Lower ROI rate. Key personnel associated with making actuarial predictions gave an example where increasing the life expectancy of police and fire to be closer to the life expectancy of miscellaneous employees would increase the cost by approximately $40M. This is a reasonable assumption change to consider since it reflects demographic changes that CalPERS also has begun to reflect. In another assumption query, if the ROI were 46 CalPERS has been recognizing this trend and several Cities cited this as being a contributor to unfunded liability 194 24 lowered by a whole percentage point to 6.5%, more in line with actual ROI for the last ten years, this would contribute an additional $80M to the cost of ARC. Importantly, the rationale for exploring a lower ROI was not to bring it into agreement with recent earnings history, but to move San Jose’s portfolio from one of high risk and high volatility to a position of low risk and low volatility. The $650M per year cost estimate is not a worst case number. Pension experts the Grand Jury interviewed stated that other actuarial assumption changes, within reason and easily justified, would result in ARC costs even higher than $650M per year. The Grand Jury understands that exploring these actuarial assumptions is justified. They help bring attention to the severity of the Benefits crisis and abate the trend of pushing financial problems to future generations of taxpayers. Conclusions Very optimistic actuarial assumptions result in lower ARC costs, leading to insufficient funding and causing unfunded liabilities. The most critical of these is the ROI, which is generally assumed to be 7.5%47. The actual ROI for the last ten years has been 6.1%. This underperformance is the largest contributor to the Cities’ combined unfunded liability of over $7B. Future taxpayers are responsible for paying benefits that are being earned and collected today. Lowering the expected ROI—as recommended by leading economists and recognized financial experts—significantly increases ARC and further exacerbates attainment of balanced budgets. Public employee Benefits, especially after being enhanced retroactively, have been shown to be more generous than those found in the private sector and at an earlier retirement age. The amount a public employee contributes toward benefits is shown to generally be less than an employee in the private sector. As a result of lower public employee contribution rates toward their retirement, increasingly large ARC costs must be funded by taxpayer dollars. Ignoring this largesse will result in increased taxes combined with reduced services. Average pensions are often cited in the range of $30,000, but these statistics can be misleading. For instance, they include persons whose careers lasted five years or part- time employees with longer service periods. Likewise, it can include employees who work an entire career in the public sector but for different public entities over the course of their careers. Each city that the employee worked for pays only its pro-rated portion of the retirees pension. Thus, the employee’s actual pension is larger than the portion attributable to each public entity. Tier 2 plans that Cities are implementing offer a modest reduction to the future liability, but do not significantly impact the unfunded liability in the short term. To address the short-term cost of the public Benefit crisis, possible solutions may be found in two 47 Some OPEB ROI are at lower values. 195 25 elements of private sector benefits. The first is the need to reduce the level of benefits to be more comparable to those found in the private sector, inclusive of extending retirement age. Second, public employees must contribute a greater share towards their Benefits, particularly those employees who receive enhanced Benefits. Such solutions will reduce the burden the unfunded Benefits have placed upon current and future taxpayers. As to the question of defined benefits versus defined contributions, public Benefits continue to be based on a defined benefit model versus the defined contribution model that private industry has moved toward. The defined contribution model works well in the public sector. It offers a working solution to the public sector as a means of reducing the risk of high-cost defined benefit plans. Benefit plans are heavily subsidized by pubic sector employers compared to the contributions of private sector employers. The Grand Jury concludes that until significant modifications are enacted, there is no doubt that the escalating cost of providing Benefits at the current level is interfering with the delivery of essential City services and the ultimate cost to the taxpayers is an unbearable burden. These costs are already impacting delivery of essential services as demonstrated by San Jose reducing police and fire department staffing levels, closing libraries or not opening those newly built, curtailing hours of community centers, and not repairing pot-holed city streets. Other cities in the County are likely to face similar challenges as long as high cost benefit plans face an underfunding liability. Understanding how Cities created this problem through unfunded retroactive benefit enhancements, compounded by poor ROI, helps taxpayers understand that the problem will not go away on its own. 196 26 Findings and Recommendations When the term Cities is used below, it includes the following: Santa Clara County; the cities of Campbell, Cupertino, Gilroy, Los Altos, Milpitas, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, Palo Alto, San Jose , Santa Clara, Saratoga, Sunnyvale; and the towns of Los Altos Hills and Los Gatos. Finding 1 Public sector employees are eligible for retirement at least 10 years earlier than is common for private sector employees. Recommendation 1 The Cities should adopt pension plans to extend the retirement age beyond current retirement plan ages. Finding 2 Campbell, Gilroy, Los Altos Hills, Los Gatos, Milpitas and Palo Alto have adopted second tier plans that offer reduced Benefits, which help reduce future costs, but further changes are needed to address today’s unfunded liability. Santa Clara County and the cities of Cupertino, Los Altos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, San Jose, Santa Clara, Saratoga and Sunnyvale have not adopted second tier plans. Recommendation 2A Santa Clara County and the cities of Cupertino, Los Altos, Monte Sereno, Morgan Hill, Mountain View, San Jose, Santa Clara, Saratoga and Sunnyvale should work to implement second tier plans. Recommendation 2B For Gilroy, Los Gatos, Milpitas and Palo Alto, which have not implemented second tier plans for MISC and Public Safety second tier plans should be implemented for both plans. Recommendation 2C All Cities’ new tier of plans should close the unfunded liability burden they have pushed to future generations. The new tier should include raising the retirement age, increasing employee contributions, and adopting pension plan caps that ensure pensions do not exceed salary at retirement. 197 27 Finding 3 Retroactive Benefit enhancements were enacted by Cities using overly optimistic ROI and actuarial assumptions without adequate funding in place to pay for them. Recommendation 3 The Cities should adopt policies that do not permit Benefit enhancements unless sufficient monies are deposited, such as in an irrevocable trust, concurrent with enacting the enhancement, to prevent an increase in unfunded liability. Finding 4 The Cities are making an overly generous contribution toward the cost of providing Benefits. Recommendation 4A The Cities should require all employees to pay the maximum employee contribution rate of a given plan. Recommendation 4B The Cities should require employees to pay some portion of the Past Service Cost associated with the unfunded liability, in proportion to the Benefits being offered. Finding 5 The Cities are not fully funding OPEB benefits as evidenced by large unfunded liabilities and small funded ratios. Recommendation 5 The Cities, should immediately work toward implementing policy changes and adopting measures aimed at making full OPEB ARC payments as soon as possible. Finding 6 The City of San Jose permits the transfer of pension trust fund money, when ROI exceeds expectations, to the SRBR, despite the fact that the pension trust funds are underfunded. 198 28 Recommendation 6 The City of San Jose should eliminate the SRBR program or amend the SRBR program to prevent withdrawal of pension trust money whenever the pension-funded ratio is less than 100%. Finding 7 The Cities’ defined benefit pension plan costs are volatile. Defined contribution plan costs are predictable and therefore more manageable by the Cities. Recommendation 7 The Cities should transition from defined benefit plans to defined contribution plans as the new tier plans are implemented. 199 29 Appendix A: Documents Reviewed Report Name Report Date Document Source Santa Clara County Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) 30‐Jun‐10 www.sccgov.org/ Santa Clara County Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR) 30‐Jun‐11 www.sccgov.org/ City of Campbell CAFR 30‐Jun‐10 www.ci.campbell.ca.us/ City of Campbell CAFR 30‐Jun‐11 www.ci.campbell.ca.us/ City of Cupertino CAFR 30‐Jun‐10 www.cupertino.org/ City of Cupertino CAFR 30‐Jun‐11 www.cupertino.org/ City of Gilroy CAFR 30‐Jun‐10 www.cityofgilroy.org/ City of Gilroy CAFR 30‐Jun‐11 www.cityofgilroy.org/ City of Los Altos CAFR 30‐Jun‐10 www.ci.los‐altos.ca.us/ City of Los Altos CAFR 30‐Jun‐11 www.ci.los‐altos.ca.us/ Town of Los Altos Hills CAFR 30‐Jun‐10 www.losaltoshills.ca.gov/ Town of Los Gatos CAFR 30‐Jun‐10 www.town.los‐gatos.ca.us/ City of Milpitas CAFR 30‐Jun‐10 www.ci.milpitas.ca.gov/ City of Monte Sereno CAFR 30‐Jun‐10 Monte Sereno city hall City of Morgan Hill CAFR 30‐Jun‐10 www.morgan‐hill.ca.gov/ City of Morgan Hill CAFR 30‐Jun‐11 www.morgan‐hill.ca.gov/ City of Mountain View CAFR 30‐Jun‐10 www.ci.mtnview.ca.us/ City of Mountain View CAFR 30‐Jun‐11 www.ci.mtnview.ca.us/ City of Palo Alto CAFR (Revised December 21, 2010) 30‐Jun‐10 www.cityofpaloalto.org/ City of San Jose CAFR 30‐Jun‐10 www.sanjoseca.gov/ City of Santa Clara CAFR 30‐Jun‐10 www.santaclaraca.gov/ City of Saratoga CAFR 30‐Jun‐10 www.saratoga.ca.us/ City of Sunnyvale CAFR 30‐Jun‐10 www.sunnyvale.ca.gov/ Pension Sustainability: Rising Pension Costs Threaten the City's Ability to Maintain Service Levels ‐ Alternatives For A Sustainable Future 29‐Sep‐10 www.sanjoseca.gov/auditor Cities Must Rein in Unsustainable Employee Costs (Santa Clara County Grand Jury Report) 30‐Jun‐10 http://www.scscourt.org/court_divisions/civil/cgj/grand_jury. shtml Running on Empty (San Mateo County Grand Jury Report) 30‐Jun‐11 www.sanmateocourt.org/court_divisions/grand_jury/ National Compensation Survey: Employee Benefits in Private Industry in the Untited States, 2005 1‐May‐07 www.bls.gov/ncs/home.htm A Preliminary Analysis of Governor Brown's Twelve Point Pension Reform Plan (Prepared by CalPERS) 30‐Nov‐11 www.calpers.ca.gov/eip‐docs/preliminary‐analysis.pdf CalPers Pension Benefit Primer 1‐Oct‐09 www.calpersresponds.com/downloads/Pension_Primer.pdf More Pension Math: Funded Status, Benefits, and Spending Trends for California's Largest Independent Public Employee Pension Systems 21‐Feb‐12 www.cacs.org/images/dynamic/articleAttachments/7.pdf Statement No. 45 of the Governmental Accounting Standards Board 30‐Jun‐04 Santa Clara County Finance Agency 200 30 Appendix B: Grand Jury Survey Instructions: Please complete the questions below. The questionnaire consists of three sections: Section 1 covers questions regarding Pension Benefits, Section 2 covers questions regarding Other Post Employment Benefits and Section 3 covers questions regarding vacation and sick leave payout policy at time of retirement. Insert your responses directly into this file and return it in your email reply. Please respond by Dec 19th to this questionnaire for both the fiscal year ending 6-30-2010 and the fiscal year ending 6-30-2011. If you have questions or require additional time, please reply via email as quickly as possible to allow sufficient time to resolve issues. Thank you. Section 1: PENSION 1. How many defined pension plans do you have? Please identify them by name and answer all subsequent questions for each identified plan name. 2. Does CalPERS administer your pension fund? If not, please identify and describe the manner in which the pension plan is being administered. 3. Please provide a description of each defined pension plan that you provide to your employees. • At what age is an employee eligible for a pension? • How many years must an employee work to be vested for a pension? • Are employees required to make contributions to their own accounts? If so, what percent of their salary is paid toward their pension? Is there any annual or lifetime employee contribution cap? • Does the plan include cost-of-living allowance increases post retirement? 4. For each identified plan, what percent of an employee’s income is earned toward retirement each year of employment? • For each identified plan, is there an identified maximum salary percent cap that can be earned in retirement? 5. Do plan participants contribute to Social Security? 6. For each identified plan, describe the formula for determining final compensation used in factoring a retiree’s pension. Include number of months that income is averaged, whether or not overtime is included or excluded from this calculation, and whether or not any other form of employee payments other than base salary are included in the formula (awards, bonuses, travel compensation, etc.). 7. How much money was contributed in each of the last two fiscal years toward pensions (not including employee contributions)? • What percent was this of total payroll? 8. How much pension money was paid out in each of the last two fiscal years to retirees? • How many retired employees are currently collecting benefits? • How many active employees are there currently? • How many employees are within five years of being eligible for retirement? 9. For each plan, please identify and quantify all significant actuarial assumptions used in evaluation of ARC to include: a) Amortization period b) Investment rate of return c) Projected salary increases d) Overall payroll growth e) Inflation factor f) Smoothing duration g) Other, if applicable 10. What is the unfunded liability of each identified plan for the fiscal years 2010 and 2011? 11. Please indicate the major reasons for the unfunded liability. For each reason provided, indicate the approximate percentage of contribution to total unfunded liability. 12. What is the funded ratio of each identified plan for the fiscal years 2010 and 2011? 13. When was the last time the funds have been funded at the level of 100% or higher? 14. Have pension contributions ever been reduced from calculated ARC payments? • What year was the last time this happened? 15. Please summarize any significant changes to pension benefits over the last ten years for each plan. • For each, indicate if this was a pension benefit enhancement or reduction. 16. Please provide any evidence that indicates how projected pension costs are expected to change in the next 5 to 10 years. (Page referencing within an included URL or separate attachment with appropriate material is an acceptable response.) 201 31 Appendix B: Grand Jury Survey - continued 17. Please provide any evidence of the strategies that are in work to reduce the rate of pension escalation. (Page referencing within an included URL or separate attachment with appropriate material is an acceptable response.) 18. For each plan, please provide evidence as to how pension fund past performance is doing relative to assumed performance for the last ten years. (Page referencing within an included URL or separate attachment with appropriate material is an acceptable response.) Section 2: OTHER POST EMPLOYMENT BENEFITS 1. How many defined benefit plans do you have? Please identify them by name and answer all subsequent questions for each identified plan name. 2. Does CalPERS administer your OPEB fund? If not, please identify and describe the nature of the OPEB benefit plan being used. 3. Please provide a description of the OPEB benefits to include: • At what age is an employee eligible for a OPEB benefits? • How many years must an employee work to be vested for a OPEB benefits? • Are employees required to make contributions to their own OPEB benefits? If so, how much? • Are OPEB benefits limited to employees only or do they include additional family members? Identify any additional family members qualifying for OPEB benefits. 4. Is OPEB generally offering health care benefits (defined benefit) or is it making contributions (defined contribution) toward health care? • Are there caps in what is paid? • Who is at risk for escalating health costs; the employee or the employer? 5. How much money was contributed in each of the last two fiscal years to OPEB (not including any employee contribution)? • What percent of total payroll cost was this? 6. How much money was paid out in each of the last two fiscal years in OPEB benefits? • How many retired employees are currently collecting OPEB benefits? • How many current employees are there? (If the number of current employees is different here than provided above, please explain the difference.) 7. Please identify and quantify all significant actuarial assumptions used in evaluation of ARC to include: a) Amortization period b) Investment rate of return c) Projected health care increases d) Inflation factor e) Smoothing duration f) Other, if applicable 8. What is the OPEB unfunded liability of each identified plan for the fiscal years 2010 and 2011? 9. Please indicate the major reasons for the unfunded liability. For each reason provided, indicate the approximate percentage of contribution to total unfunded liability. 10. What is the funded ratio of each identified OPEB plan for the fiscal years 2010 and 2011? 11. When was the last time the funds have been funded at the level of 100% or higher? 12. Have OPEB contributions ever been reduced from calculated ARC payments? • What year was the last time this happened? 13. Please summarize any significant changes to OPEB benefits over the last ten years. For each, indicate if this was a benefit enhancement or reduction. 14. Please provide any evidence that indicates how much OPEB benefit costs are expected to rise in the next 5 to 10 years. (Page referencing within an included URL or separate attachment with appropriate material is an acceptable response.) 15. Please provide any evidence of plans that are in work to reduce future OPEB costs? (Page referencing within an included URL or separate attachment with appropriate material is an acceptable response.) 16. Please provide any evidence as to how OPEB fund past performance is doing relative to assumed performance? (Page referencing within an included URL or separate attachment with appropriate material is an acceptable response.) 202 32 Appendix B: Grand Jury Survey - continued Section 3: VACATION AND SICK LEAVE ACCRUAL POLICIES 1. Please describe vacation policy to include: • How many vacation days are granted at what seniority levels? • Is there any limit to the amount of vacation time that can be accrued? • Is unused vacation paid upon retirement? 2. Please describe sick leave policy to include: • Is there any limit to the number of sick days allowed per year? • Is there any limit to the amount of sick days that can be accrued? • Are unused sick days paid upon retirement? 203 33 Appendix C: Glossary of Terms & Acronyms Actuarial Assumptions: Assumptions representing expectations about future events (e.g. expected investment returns on plan assets, member retirement and mortality rates, future salary increases, or inflation) which are used by actuaries to calculate pension liabilities and contribution rates. Actuarial Valuation: Technical reports conducted by actuaries that measure retirement plans’ assets and liabilities to determine funding progress. They also measure current costs and contribution requirements to determine how much employers and employees should contribute to maintain appropriate benefit funding progress. Actuary: Professionals who analyze the financial consequences of risk by using mathematics, statistics, and financial theory to study uncertain future events, particularly those of concern to insurance and pension programs. Pension actuaries analyze probabilities related to the demographics of the members in a pension plan (e.g., the likelihood of retirement, disability, and death) and economic factors that may affect the value of benefits or the value of assets held in a pension plan’s trust (e.g., investment return rate, inflation rate, rate of salary increases). Actuarial Accrued Liability (AAL): The value of benefits promised to employees and retirees for services already provided. This concept applies to both the pension liability and retiree health care liabilities. Annual Required Contribution (ARC): The amount of money that actuaries calculate the employer needs to contribute to the retirement plan during the current year for benefits to be fully funded over time. Generally CalPERS uses a 30 year period. CAFR: Acronym for Comprehensive Annual Financial Report CalPERS: Acronym for California Public Employees’ Retirement System Defined Benefit: Promised fixed sum paid or service rendered. The assets in a defined benefit plan are held by the employer who incurs all investments risks. See also defined contribution. Defined Contribution: Contributions made by an employer to an individual employees investment account such as a 401k. All investment gains or losses are those of the employee, not the employer. See also defined benefit. Employer Paid Member Contribution (EPMC): A program whereby the city pays employee contribution in a manner in which the amount paid is considered income for the purposes of determining pension. As exemplified by one city, “For example, an employee with a $100K income and a 7% EPMC retires using a salary of $107K per year rather than $100K per year.” Experience Gains/Losses: Gains or losses that arise from the difference between actuarial assumptions about the future and actual outcomes in an organization’s pension plan. First tier (1st tier) plans: Benefits promised to all employees prior to the implementation of a second tier plan. First tier plans have generally been enhanced; contributing to the cost escalation. See also “second tier” in the Glossary. 204 34 Appendix C: Glossary of Terms & Acronyms - continued Funded Ratio: The market value of assets divided by the accrued liability. Funded ratio is a measure of the economic soundness of a fund. Market Gains/Losses: Gains or losses that arise from an increase or decrease in the market value of a plan’s assets, including stock, real property, and investments. Miscellaneous (MISC) employee/plan: Public employees who are not sworn police or fire. The term MISC generally is used to describe a pension plan. The city of San Jose refers to these employees as belonging to a Federated plan rather than a MISC plan. Normal Cost: That portion of the ARC (see above) which is based solely on the value of the benefits being offered. OPEB: Acronym for Other Post Employment Benefits. OPEB benefits are primarily health care benefits but can include other benefits such as life insurance. Opt In Plan: Term used to designate an employee elective benefit plan; employees choose between maintaining current benefits but at an increased employee contribution rate or elect to receive lower benefits and avoid increases to employee contribution rates. Risk Pool: In 2005 CalPERS created risk pools to aggregate small cities (generally defined as having less than 100 employees) into large pools to eliminate statistical anomalies associated with small sample sizes and gain reporting efficiencies. ROI: Acronym for Return on Investment. See also Market Gains/Losses. Public Safety Employees: Most police and fire personnel. Other public employees are generally referred to as miscellaneous employees (see above) and may include some members of police and fire departments. Second tier (2nd tier) plans: Benefits promised to all employees hired after the date of implementing a plan with reduced benefits. Second tier plans generally have reduced benefits and lower costs. See also “first tier” in the Glossary. Sidefund: Generally the unfunded liability that existed prior to entering a risk pool. A city is responsible for their entire sidefund plus their portion of the risk pool. Sidefund repayment can be accelerated. Some cities did not separate sidefund monies from ARC while others did. Smoothing of Gains/Losses: Actuarial method of spreading, or smoothing, market gains and losses over a period of time. The purpose of smoothing is to minimize short-term, year-to-year contribution rate fluctuations which may result from market swings. The smoothed asset value is also known as the actuarial value of assets. Unfunded Liability: This is the unfunded obligation for prior benefit costs, measured as the difference between the accrued liability and plan assets. When using the actuarial value of plan assets, it is also referred to as the Unfunded Actuarial Accrued Liability (UAAL). 205 35 This report was PASSED and ADOPTED with a concurrence of at least 12 grand jurors on this 17th day of May, 2012. Kathryn G. Janoff Foreperson Alfred P. Bicho Foreperson pro tem James T. Messano Secretary 206 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:117-2396 Name: Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready File created:In control:2/27/2017 City Council On agenda:Final action:3/7/2017 Title:Subject: Set application deadline and interview date(s) for terms expiring on the Teen Commission Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:Staff Report Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council3/7/20171 Subject:Setapplicationdeadlineandinterviewdate(s)fortermsexpiringontheTeen Commission Staff recommends the following deadlines: 1.) Applications due in the City Clerk's office by 4:30 p.m. on Friday, May 5; and 2.)Interviewsheldbeginningat3:30p.m.onTuesday,May23andWednesday,May24(as needed) CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 3/1/2017Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™207 OFFICE OF THE CITY CLERK CITY HALL 10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3223 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: March 7, 2017 Subject Set application deadline and interview date(s) for terms expiring on the Teen Commission. Recommended Action Staff recommends the following deadlines: 1.) Applications due in the City Clerk's office by 4:30 p.m. on Friday, May 5; and 2.) Interviews held beginning at 3:30 p.m. on Tuesday, May 23 and Wednesday, May 24 (as needed) Discussion The Teen Commission, comprised of nine members, has six vacancies this year. The Recreation and Community Services Department will print and distribute flyers, as well as include the information in the summer Recreation Schedule and the Cupertino Scene. The City Clerk’s Office will advertise the vacancies in the Courier and the World Journal. Interviews should be scheduled in May in order to interview applicants before they leave the area for summer activities. Sustainability Impact None Fiscal Impact None _____________________________________ Prepared by: Kirsten Squarcia, Deputy City Clerk Reviewed by: Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager Attachments: A - Adopted Resolution No. 16-138 208 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:216-2224 Name: Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready File created:In control:12/12/2016 City Council On agenda:Final action:3/7/2017 Title:Subject: Application for Alcohol Beverage License for JK Bay Area, Inc (dba Round Table Pizza), 20080 Stevens Creek Blvd, Suite 106 Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:Staff Report A - Application Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council3/7/20172 Subject:ApplicationforAlcoholBeverageLicenseforJKBayArea,Inc(dbaRoundTable Pizza), 20080 Stevens Creek Blvd, Suite 106 RecommendapprovaltotheCaliforniaDepartmentofAlcoholicBeverageControlofthe applicationforAlcoholBeverageLicenseforJKBayArea,Inc(dbaRoundTablePizza), 20080 Stevens Creek Blvd, Suite 106 CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 3/1/2017Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™209 CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: March 7, 2017 Subject Application for Alcoholic Beverage License for Round Table Pizza, 20080 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Suite 106. Recommended Action Recommend approval to the California Department of Alcoholic Beverage Control of the Application for Alcoholic Beverage License for Round Table Pizza, 20080 Stevens Creek Boulevard, Suite 106. Description Name of Business: Round Table Pizza Location: 20080 Stevens Creek Blvd, Suite 106 Type of Business: Restaurant Type of License: 41 – On-Sale Beer & Wine – Eating Place (Restaurant) Reason for Application: Annual Fees, Person-to-Person Transfer Discussion There are no zoning or use permit restrictions which would prohibit the sale of alcohol as proposed and staff has no objection to the issuance of this license. License Type 41 authorizes the sale of beer and wine for consumption on or off the premises where sold. Sustainability Impact None Fiscal Impact None _____________________________________ Prepared by: Jeffrey Tsumura, Assistant Planner, Planning Department Reviewed by: Benjamin Fu, Assistant Director of Community Development; Aarti Shrivastava, Assistant City Manager - Community Development and Strategic Planning Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager Attachment: A - Application COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308 www.cupertino.org 210 211 212 213 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:117-2379 Name: Status:Type:Public Hearings Agenda Ready File created:In control:2/22/2017 City Council On agenda:Final action:3/7/2017 Title:Subject: Review and consider a development proposal submitted (Scandinavian Furniture Site), for consideration by the City Council, to authorize the proposed applicant to submit an application for a General Plan Amendment and staff to commence environmental and project review. (Application No.: GPAAuth-2016-01; Applicant: Kings Mill Group, Keith Fichtner; Location: 19900 Stevens Creek Boulevard; APN: 369-05-038). Postponed from the February 21, 2017 meeting Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:Staff Report A - Draft Resolution B - City Council policy for General Plan Amendment application procedures C - Scandinavian Furniture project plans D - General Plan Amendment Request Application: Comprehensive Project Description E - Fiscal Analysis of 19900 Stevens Creek Boulevard General Plan Amendment Application, prepared F - Relevant Policies in the EDSP G - Email from Darrel Lum, dated February 26, 2017 Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council3/7/20171 Subject:Reviewandconsideradevelopmentproposalsubmitted(ScandinavianFurniture Site),forconsiderationbytheCityCouncil,toauthorizetheproposedapplicanttosubmitan applicationforaGeneralPlanAmendmentandstafftocommenceenvironmentalandproject review.(ApplicationNo.:GPAAuth-2016-01;Applicant:KingsMillGroup,KeithFichtner; Location:19900StevensCreekBoulevard;APN:369-05-038).PostponedfromtheFebruary 21, 2017 meeting StaffrecommendsthattheCityCounciladopttheResolutionNo.17-020(AttachmentA)after determiningwhethertheapplicationisauthorizedtomoveforwardtoapplyforaGeneralPlan Amendment. CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 3/1/2017Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™214 COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3308 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: March 7, 2017 Subject Review and consider a development proposal submitted (Scandinavian Furniture Site), for consideration by the City Council, to authorize the proposed applicant to submit an application for a General Plan Amendment and staff to commence environmental and project review. (Application No.: GPAAuth-2016-01; Applicant: Kings Mill Group, Keith Fichtner; Location: 19900 Stevens Creek Boulevard; APN: 369-05-038) Recommended Action Staff recommends that the City Council adopt the Draft Resolution (Attachment A) after determining whether the application is authorized to move forward to apply for a General Plan Amendment. Discussion Background On September 1, 2015, the City Council adopted procedures for considering future General Plan amendments. The new procedures provide the following benefits over the previous process whereby General Plan amendments were processed as they were received:  Provide ability to achieve orderly development of the City through a managed process;  Ensure that additional development can achieve/improve facility/service and quality of life standards for the community;  Provide opportunity for early community input;  Consider impact on staff and other resources. Pursuant to the new procedures, the City Council will evaluate General Plan Amendment proposals for authorization as follows (see Attachment B for adopted Council policy):  GPA applications would be considered by the Council twice every year;  The Council may allow applications to be re-considered at a continued hearing by the City Council to submit revisions/additional information within 30 days. 215  Applications that are rejected would wait for a year before re-applying (i.e. they would not be allowed to re-apply in the 6 month subsequent cycle). The deadline to apply for consideration in the 2017 First Cycle by the City Council was November 14, 2016. The City received one application for authorization for General Plan amendments – the Scandinavian Furniture Site. The item was on the City Council’s February 21, 2017 meeting agenda; however, t he applicant requested a postponement to March 7, 2017. The City Council on a 3-1-1 vote continued the item (Scharf voting no and Sinks absent). The Analysis section below reviews the project based on the evaluation criteria set forth in the procedures adopted by the Council. Analysis Introduction The proposal is a request to incorporate 1,790 sq. ft. of existing outdoor arcade area into the existing 26,239 sq. ft. retail space on site (Scandinavian Furniture) and convert it to an office use totaling 28,029 sq. ft. The applicant anticipates either an incubator or medical office use. Since the available office allocation balance in the General Plan is not adequate to allow this change of use, the applicant is requesting a General Plan Amendment needed to add office allocation to the Heart of the City Special Area (See Attachments C and D.) The applicant is requesting 16,000 sq. ft. of additional office allocation; however, the proposed project would only need an additional 10,916 sq. ft. of office allocation (see details in Table 3 below). Evaluation Criteria Based on the criteria in the policy adopted by the City Council on September 1, 2015, the project has been evaluated based on:  General Plan goals achieved by the project: o Site and architectural design and neighborhood compatibility – does the project exhibit superior quality of site layout and project design? Is the project compatible with the surrounding uses? o Fiscal impacts, including a diverse economic base – would the project have positive or negative one-time and ongoing impacts to the City’s fiscal base? o Provision of affordable housing – does the project provide or otherwise promote affordable housing above and beyond typical City requirements? o Environmental sustainability – to what extent does the project include features including green building, site design and project operation principles, that promote environmental sustainability above and beyond the City’s typical requirements? 216  General Plan amendments requested – number and type of General Plan amendments requested by the applicant.  Proposed voluntary community amenities – what is the per-square-foot amount of community amenities offered by the applicant?  Staff time and resources required to process the project – would the amount of staff time and resources require hiring of staff or consultants to process the project? It should be noted that applicants would be required to pay the full cost of processing the project, including staff and consultant time and materials. Table 1 includes a high-level analysis of how this application addresses these criteria. A brief discussion of the project is provided later in this report. 217 Table 1: Summary Evaluation of the Development Proposal Project Site and architectural design and neighborhood compatibility Fiscal impacts, including a diverse economic base Provision of affordable housing Environmental sustainability General Plan amendments requested Proposed voluntary community amenities Staff time and resources (2) 1. Scandinavian Furniture a. Site and Architectural design – further review required for design, circulation, site planning and landscaping. (1) b. Neighborhood compatibility – generally compatible in terms of land use and building size. a. Increase in service costs to the City’s General Fund $33,000-$36,000. b. The City’s Economic Development Specific Plan supportive of incubator or co- working uses. c. Moderate increase in property tax revenue. No affordable housing features other than statutorily required payment of Below- Market-Rate Program fees. Project will meet all statutorily required environmental sustainability features No additional sustainability features proposed Office allocation: 16,000 sq. ft. a. School resources – none b. Public open space – none c. Public Facilities – none d. Transportation Facilities – none Total - $0/square foot. 0.3FTE (full-time equivalent) of staff time and consultants for environmental review, etc. (1) ASA-2016-13 & TR-2016-35 to permit parking lot modifications to improve landscaping and ensure parking count conforms to retail standards (1 space/250 sq. ft.) on the site was approved on November 10, 2016. The ASA entitlement does not affect the land use however the design will provide enough parking for either retail or incubator office use. (2) All staff time and resources will be paid for by applicant. 218 Evaluation of Project Proposal: The following is a high-level evaluation of project proposal related to compliance with the City’s General Plan. Location – 19900 Stevens Creek Boulevard Project Description - The proposal for the Scandinavian Furniture site is to incorporate 1,790 sq. ft. of existing outdoor arcade area into the existing 26,239 sq. ft. retail space on site and convert it to either an incubator office or medical office use totaling 28,029 sq. ft. Project Location and Surrounding Uses The 1.92 acre project site is located on the south side of Stevens Creek Boulevard, approximately 350 feet east of the intersection of South Blaney Avenue and Stevens Creek Boulevard. The site contains a 26,239 sq. ft. standalone retail building, occupied by Scandinavian Furniture, and associated parking. The project site is in the Central Stevens Creek Boulevard subarea of the Heart of the City (HOC) Specific Plan Area. Surrounding uses include a mix of retail, office, and a mixed-use condominium development (Travigne) to the north, a townhome development (Portal Plaza) to the east, a standalone restaurant (Arya) and other commercial uses to the west, and single family homes to the south. Application Overview Table 2 contains project data along with General Plan amendments or variances requested and/or required. 219 Table 2: Scandinavian Furniture Site Project Data Requirement/Standard Existing/Allowed/Required Proposed Comments General Plan designation Commercial/Office/Residential No change Primary use: Commercial/ Commercial office Secondary uses: Office above ground level Zoning designation P (CG,Res) – Planned Development (General Commercial) with special development conditions Amend to allow office uses. Lot Coverage Existing – 33.5% Allowed - No Maximum No change Floor Area Ratio Existing – 31% Allowed - No Maximum 33.5% General Plan Development allocation Office Existing (on site) - 0 sq. ft. 28,029 sq. ft. Office allocation in HOC available – 17,113 sq. ft. Additional office allocation required – 10,916 sq. ft. Additional office allocation requested – 16,000 sq. ft. Commercial Retail Existing - 26,239 sq. ft. 0 sq. ft. Existing sq. ft. does not include 1,790 sq. ft. of new interior space proposed. Heart of the City (HOC) Specific Plan Direct Retailing Uses Required – Front - 75% Rear – 50% Existing – 100% Proposed – 0% Project will require an HOC Exception to allow proposed uses. Height Allowed – 45 ft Existing – 20.5 ft No change Slope line (setback to height ratio) 1 : 1 No change Setbacks Front Required – 35 foot from curb Existing – 40 feet to arcade No change Side Required – Greater of: One-half (1/2) bldg. height, or ten (10) ft. Existing – West: 12 ft; East: 72 ft No change Rear Required – Greater of: One and one-half (1.5) bldg. height or 20 ft. Existing – 117.5 ft No change 220 Requirement/Standard Existing/Allowed/Required Proposed Comments Parking Vehicular Parking Office use - 1 space/285 sq. ft. Required - 98 spaces Existing – 78 spaces 107 spaces (approx.) Adequate parking available for office uses. Medical and Dental Office - 1 space/175 sq. ft. Required - 161 spaces Existing – 78 spaces Proposal does not meet Parking Ordinance standard for medical office uses. However, the Parking Ordinance allows the preparation of a parking study to determine an appropriate, alternative parking requirement. Bike Parking Office - 1/1,250 sq. ft. or 1/15 employees, whichever is more restrictive. 23 Class I spaces 23 Class I spaces Medical - 1/1,250 sq. ft. 23 Class II spaces Site and Architectural Design and Neighborhood Compatibility:  The proposed addition to the existing building and site treatments will need further review. Preliminarily, the design has the main (only) entry along the side (east) elevation. Typically, the main entrance should be facing the right-of-way, in this case on the north elevation, along Stevens Creek Boulevard in order to activate the street and as encouraged in the General Plan.  The plans propose a small patio along the front with a seating wall for users of the building. The City has in the past required new developments along Stevens Creek Boulevard to incorporate outdoor seating elements that allow for access directly from the right-of-way and interaction with the public.  The current parking supply on site (indicated on plans) does not conform to retail parking standards (1 space/250 sf) and the site has a deed restriction to limit its occupancy to furniture retail operators. In November 2016, the applicant obtained approval to increase the parking on the site to meet the retail parking standards. However, this construction work is on hold pending a decision on the General Plan Amendment application. In addition, the applicant made an application in January 2017 with the City, to remove the requirement for a deed restriction on the property, to allow other complying retail uses to operate from the site. This was approved by the Planning Commission at its February 14, 2017 meeting. 221 Net Fiscal Impacts:  The applicant’s financial justification for allowing the change in use, is a higher assessed property tax value ($263,087) due to his purchase of the property in 2016, and other property improvements contemplated with the proposal. An analysis of fiscal impacts to the City has been prepared by Economic & Planning Systems (EPS), a third- party consulting firm, which indicates that a more conservative estimate of assessed property tax is $141,700, with the City’s share (allocated to the General Fund) being $8,199. (See Attachment E.)  An increase in sales tax as a result of office workers spending within the City boundary is justified by both the applicant and EPS.  EPS’s fiscal impact report found that, overall, both start-up incubator and medical office uses would generate more service costs to the City’s General Fund, and result in a deficit of $36,000 and $33,000 respectively.  The City’s Economic Development Specific Plan (EDSP) includes policies that support the conversion of underutilized ground floor retail space to incubator or co-working uses (Strategy 4.1) (see Attachment F.) Provision of affordable housing:  The proposal does not include a residential component and the applicant has not proposed to provide any alternatives. However, the applicant will be required to pay any applicable housing mitigation fees as a project requirement. Environmental Sustainability:  None indicated. The project would be required to comply with statutory requirements. Voluntary Community Amenities Proposed: The applicant has not proposed any community amenities with this project as indicated in Table 3 below. Table 3: Proposed Voluntary Community Amenities Categories Proposed Beneficiary Value Comments School resources None N/A $0 Public open space None N/A $0 Public facilities None N/A $0 Transportation facilities None N/A $0 Total Value $0 Total Value/square foot $0 222 Staff Time and Resources The Planning Division will dedicate a project manager (either staff or consultant based on availability) to guide the project through the entitlement process appropriate environmental and city related reviews. It is estimated that about 0.3FTE of staff time would be required to process the project. Staff time and consultant costs will be paid for by the applicant. PUBLIC NOTICING & OUTREACH The following table (Table 4) indicates the public noticing and outreach conducted on the General Plan authorization project. Table 4: Noticing and Outreach Noticing, Site Signage Agenda  Postcard mailed (at least 10 days prior to meeting) to: o All postal customers in the City of Cupertino and o If subject property within 500 feet of city boundary, to properties (even if in adjacent cities) within 500 feet of it  Posted on the City's official notice bulletin board (at least five days prior to the hearing)  Site signage on subject property (at least 10 days prior to meeting)  Posted on the City of Cupertino’s Web site (at least five days week prior to the hearing) Additional outreach has been conducted on the City’s Social Media platforms and advertising on the City Channel. As of publication of this staff report on January 27, 2016, staff has received one comment (Attachment G). ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) does not apply since the City Council’s action, consideration and authorization to allow, or not allow, formal applications, is not a project as defined by CEQA. FISCAL IMPACT Fiscal impact analysis for the project is included in Attachment E.  The fiscal impact analysis indicates that the full service hotel currently proposed by the applicant provides the City with a net fiscal negative revenue of $33,000 - $36,000. 223 NEXT STEPS Projects authorized by the Council to move forward will enter the formal development review process including necessary environmental analysis. The timeline for the projects will begin when the applications are complete and are expected to run about 7-9 months. Projects additionally have the option to resubmit their application with minor adjustments based on Council input within 30 days of the Council meeting. The applications will be brought back to a subsequent meeting later in Spring 2017. _____________________________________ Prepared by: Piu Ghosh, Principal Planner Gian Paolo Martire, Associate Planner Reviewed by: Aarti Shrivastava, Assistant City Manager Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager Attachments: A – Draft Resolution B – City Council policy for General Plan Amendment application procedures C – Scandinavian Furniture project plans D – General Plan Amendment Request Application: Comprehensive Project Description E – Fiscal Analysis of 19900 Stevens Creek Boulevard General Plan Amendment Application, prepared by Economics and Planning Systems, Inc., dated February 10, 2017 F – Relevant policies from the Economic Development Strategic Plan (EDSP) adopted by the City Council on October 4, 2016 G – Email from Darrel Lum, dated February 26, 2017 224 RESOLUTION NO. 17-___ OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AUTHORIZING A PROSPECTIVE DEVELOPMENT PROPOSAL TO PROCEED AS A GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATION PROJECT DESCRIPTION Application No: GPAauth-2017-01; Applicant: Keith Fichtner (Kings Mill Group) Location: 19900 Stevens Creek Boulevard. WHEREAS, on September 15, 2015, the City Council adopted procedures for considering future General Plan amendments, including to review prospective applications twice a year and decide which are authorized to proceed as a General Plan Amendment application; and WHEREAS, the City Council decision to authorize one or more applicants to proceed with a General Plan amendment application, does not in any way presume approval of any proposed amendment or project; and WHEREAS, the City received one application by November 14, 2016, the deadline to be considered in the 2017 first cycle of the General Plan Amendment application review process; and WHEREAS, on March 7, 2017, the City Council held a public hearing to consider said General Plan Amendment authorization applications; and WHEREAS, the proposed Resolution is not a project within the meaning of section 15378 of the California Environmental Quality Act (“CEQA”) Guidelines because it has no potential for resulting in physical change in the environment, either directly or ultimately. In the event that this Resolution is found to be a project under CEQA, it is subject to the CEQA exemption contained in CEQA Guidelines section 15061(b)(3) because it can be seen with certainty to have no possibility of a significant effect on the environment; and WHEREAS, the City Council has adopted criteria for determining whether an application will be authorized for processing as follows: a. General Plan goals achieved by the proposed project, including, but not limited to, the following: (i) Site and architectural design and neighborhood compatibility; (ii) Brief description of net fiscal impacts (sales tax, transient occupancy tax or other revenue provided by the project), including the extent to which the project would diversify the City’s economic base; 225 Resolution No. 17-___ March 7, 2017 Page 2 (iii) The provision of affordable housing; and (iv) Environmental Sustainability. b. General Plan amendments (and any other zoning amendments or variances) requested. c. Proposed voluntary community amenities, defined as (i) school resources, (ii) public open space, such as parks and trails, (iii) public facilities and utilities, such as library, community center or utility systems and (iv) Transportation facilities with an emphasis on city-wide bicycle, pedestrian and transit improvements, such as community shuttles, pedestrian and bicycle bridges, and transit centers/stations d. Staff time and resources required to process the project. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, that after careful consideration of maps, facts, exhibits, testimony, staff reports, public comments, and other evidence submitted in this matter, the City Council of the City of Cupertino has determined that the following proposal is authorized to proceed as General Plan Amendment applications based on the criteria shown in Exhibit A: {Name(s) of project authorized to proceed by the City Council to be inserted here} PASSED AND ADOPTED at a Regular Meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino the 7th day of March 2017, by the following roll call vote: Vote: Members of the City Council: AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: APPROVED: _____________________ _______________________ Grace Schmidt Savita Vaidhyanathan City Clerk Mayor, City of Cupertino 226 Exhibit A Table 1: Summary Evaluation of the Development Proposal Project Site and architectural design and neighborhood compatibility Fiscal impacts, including a diverse economic base Provision of affordable housing Environmental sustainability General Plan amendments requested Proposed voluntary community amenities Staff time and resources (2) 1. Scandinavian Furniture a. Site and Architectural design –further review required for design, circulation, site planning and landscaping. (1) b. Neighborhood compatibility – generally compatible in terms of land use and building size. a. Increase in service costs to the City’s General Fund $33,000-$36,000. b. The City’s Economic Development Specific Plan supportive of incubator or co- working uses. c. Moderate increase in property tax revenue. No benefits in terms of affordable housing other than statutorily required payment of Below- Market-Rate Program fees. Project will meet all statutorily required environmental sustainability features No additional sustainability features proposed Office allocation: 16,000 sq. ft. a. School resources – none b. Public open space – none c. Public Facilities – none d. Transportation Facilities – none Total - $0/square foot. 0.3FTE (full-time equivalent) of staff time and consultants for environmental review, etc. (1) ASA-2016-13 & TR-2016-35 to permit parking lot modifications to improve landscaping and ensure parking count conforms to retail standards (1 space/250 sq. ft.) on the site was approved on November 10, 2016. The ASA entitlement does not affect the land use however the design will provide enough parking for either retail or incubator office use. (2) All staff time and resources will be paid for by applicant. 227 RESOLUTION NO. 15-078 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO ADOPTING PROCEDURES FOR PROCESSING OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATIONS WHEREAS, on December 4, 2014, the City Council adopted an amended General Plan titled Community Vision 2040, which reflects community input, regulatory changes, best practices, and the desire to achieve community-building, sustainability, economic, and fiscal objectives; and WHEREAS, the City has been evaluating various programs to manage development to address development issues in light of concerns about rapid growth and the impacts of such growth overwhelming the City's ability to accommodate it, as well as the substantial impacts of development on quality of life in the community; and WHEREAS, as part of its evaluation process, the City has considered Community Business Incentive Zoning (CBIZ) and Growth Management programs; and WHEREAS, while CBIZ and Growth Management programs can be effective in metering growth and providing for community benefits, they can be difficult to administer, are limited by legal requirements and do not provide the flexibility for managing growth and its substantial impacts on the community; and WHEREAS, California Government Code Section 65358( a) provides that: "If it deems it to be in the public interest, the legislative body may amend all or part of an adopted general plan. An amendment to the general plan shall be initiated in the manner specified by the legislative body ... . ";and WHEREAS, each mandatory element of the City's General Plan may be amended no more than four times during any calendar year and, subject to that limitation, "an amendment may be made at any time, as determined by the legislative body" (Cal. Gov. Code 65358(b)); and WHEREAS, the City's Municipal Code does not address the timing or initiation of general plan amendments; and WHEREAS, rather than pursue a CBIZ or Growth Management program, the City desires to set forth an orderly process, in accordance with its legislative discretion, to consider General Plan amendments and ensure that proposals are fairly considered in light of the City's goals and concerns about growth; and WHEREAS, the City has prepared General Plan Amendment Procedures to provide a process for preliminary review of proposed amendments; and WHEREAS, the City Council conducted a public hearing on the proposed procedures on May 19, 2015, and the Council directed staff to provide more information and options at a future meeting; and WHEREAS, the City held an Open House on the General Plan Amendment Process on June 30, 2015, and the City Council held a Study Session after the Open House; and 228 Resolution No. 15-078 Page2 WHEREAS, at the Study Session, the Council directed staff to look at options that allowed for applications twice a year and that provided a reevaluation process; and WHEREAS, the procedures include, among other things: (1) notice provisions to ensure the public has an opportunity to comment; (2) evaluation criteria to ensure general plan amendments that move through the application process are in the public interest and meet the City's goals for development, including provision of community amenities; and (3) requirements for requesting preliminary review of a proposed General Plan amendment; and . NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council of the City of Cupertino hereby adopts the General Plan Amendment Procedures attached hereto, subject to minor revisions as may be made by the City Manager in consultation with the City Attorney. The City Council hereby authorizes City staff to process proposed General Plan amendments in accordance with the General Plan Amendment Procedures and to take any and all other actions necessary to implement the procedures. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino, the 1st day of September, 2015, by the following vote: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: Members of the City Council Sinks, Chang, Vaidhyanathan Paul, Wong None None Grace Schmidt, City Clerk APPROVED: Rod Sinks, Mayor, City of Cupertino 229 Resolution No. 15-078 Page3 PROCEDURES FOR PROCESSING OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT APPLICATIONS 1. Background/Goals Like many communities throughout the State, Cupertino is concerned about balancing the benefits of economic development with the effects of rapid growth. The impacts of such growth can overwhelm the City's ability to accommodate it and affect the quality of life in the community. The goal is to create a procedure for the consideration of future General Plan amendments that will encourage orderly development of the City and ensure that facility/service and quality of life standards can be met for the community. These procedures only address amendments requested by private parties. The City may initiate General Plan amendments when it deems necessary, such as, to conform to State law or to ensure consistency within the General Plan. 2. Procedure a. The Council will consider the timing and processing of General Plan amendments twice a year, approximately every six months. b. In order to be considered for processing, applicants will be required to apply for authorization to process a General Plan amendment by a designated date. c. In the quarter following the due date (generally), the Council will hold a publicly noticed meeting to preliminarily review the list of proposed General Plan amendments. d. Noticing-City-wide postcard and public meeting requirements. e. Each application will be preliminarily evaluated for the following: (i) General Plan goals achieved by the project including, but not limited to, the following: (1) Site and Architectural design and neighborhood compatibility (2) Brief description of net fiscal impacts (sales tax, transient occupancy tax or other revenue provided by the project) including a diverse economic base (3) The provision of affordable housing ( 4) Environmental Sustainability (ii) General Plan amendments (and any other zoning amendments or variances) requested. (iii) Proposed voluntary community amenities, as defined in Section 3, if any. (iv) Staff time and resources required to process the project. f. Based on the above evaluation the Council will consider which projects, if any, will be authorized to proceed with a General Plan amendment application. The decision does not in any way presume approval of the amendment or project. It only authorizes staff to process the application, but the City retains its discretion to consider the application in accordance with all applicable laws, including the California Environmental Quality Act 230 Resolution No. 15-078 Page4 (" CEQA") and the City's zoning laws and ordinances. Consideration of the application will be in accordance with the City's Municipal Code and regulations. g. Staff will begin processing the General Plan amendment applications per Council direction. A project that applies for processing should be in substantial compliance with the project authorized by Council. h. Proposals not authorized by the Council at the first meeting (per 2.c. above) may be resubmitted with minor amendments within 30 days. Such projects will be considered by the Council at a future public meeting, noticed per the Cupertino Municipal Code, after staff review. 3. Voluntary Community Amenities a. For purposes of this policy, voluntary community amenities are defined as facilities, land and/or funding contributions to ensure that any development with a General Plan amendment application enhances the quality of life in the City, including enhancements of the following: (i) School resources (ii) Public open space, such as parks and trails (iii) Public facilities and utilities, such as library, community center or utility systems (iv) Transportation facilities with an emphasis on city-wide bicycle, pedestrian and transit improvements, such as community shuttles, pedestrian and bicycle bridges, and transit centers/stations 4. Preliminary Review Requirements a. Preliminary documents that would be typically required for the type of application that is requested, such as site plans, preliminary landscape plans, elevations, cross sections, preliminary grading plans and proposed materials. b. A description, including graphics, of the General Plan amendment(s) and land use approvals required, if any. The description should include diagrammatic information as necessary to clearly explain the request. c. An explanation of how the proposed project meets the overall goals of the General Plan and the benefits/impacts of the project to the community and its quality of life. d. A brief summary of net fiscal impacts. e. In order to provide the public with early notice and opportunity to provide input, to the extent the proposed project includes voluntary community amenities, as defined in Section 3 above, of a type typically memorialized in a development agreement, the applicant should include a Term Sheet explaining the proposed terms. The Term Sheet will be memorialized in a Development Agreement as part of the project, if approved. 231 ww w . a r c t e c i n c . c o m PR O J E C T N U M B E R : 1 6 4 1 4 1 A F a c a d e R e m o d e l a n d B u i l d i n g A d d i t i o n f o r : 19 9 0 0 S T E V E N S C R E E K B L V D Cu p e r t i n o , C A 9 5 1 0 4 PR O J E C T T E A M AR C H I T E C T U R A L CO V E R S H E E T DR A W I N G I N D E X A N D I S S U E D A T E S A1 . 0 0 DE M O L I T I O N S I T E P L A N A1 . 0 1 S I T E P L A N A2 . 1 1 F L O O R P L A N A3 . 0 1 E X T E R I O R E L E V A T I O N S A3 . 1 1 R E N D E R E D E X T E R I O R E L E V A T I O N S A3 . 3 1 E X T E R I O R R E N D E R I N G A4 . 0 1 S I T E S E C T I O N PR O J E C T D E S C R I P T I O N FI R S T I S S U E O R N O C H A N G E S S I N C E P R E V I O U S I S S U E MO D I F I C A T I O N S S I N C E P R E V I O U S I S S U E IS S U E D A T E S A N D D E S C R I P T I O N S 05.18.16 PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBMITTAL 09.19.16 PLANNING DEPARTMENT SUBMITTAL 11.14.16 GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENT SUBMITTAL CI V I L C1 . 0 T O P O G R A P H I C S U R V E Y C2 . 0 P R E L I M I N A R Y G R A D I N G & D R A I N A G E C3 . 0 P R E L I M I N A R Y S T O R M W A T E R M A N A G E M E N T P L A N LA N D S C A P E L0 P R E L I M I N A R Y P L A N T P A L E T T E P L A N OWNER NAME: TH E K I N G S M I L L G R O U P PROJECT ADDR E S S : 19 9 0 0 S T E V E N S C R E E K B L V D . CU P E R T I N O , C A 9 5 0 1 4 ASSESSOR'S PA R C E L N O . : A P N 3 6 9 - 0 5 - 0 3 8 ZONING: HE A R T O F T H E C I T Y S P E C I F I C P L A N - C E N T R A L P ( C G , R E S ) SITE AREA, NET : 83 , 7 4 7 S . F . / 1 . 9 2 A C R E S TOTAL BUILDING A R E A : 2 8 , 0 2 9 S . F . FLOOR AREA RA T I O ( F A R ) : 3 3 . 5 % NUMBER OF STO R I E S : 1 CONSTRUCTION T Y P E : II I - B FIRE SPRINKLER S : YE S OCCUPANCY TY P E : B BUILDING FOOT P R I N T : 28 , 0 2 9 S . F . BUILDING COVE R A G E ( % O F S I T E ) : 3 3 . 5 % PROJEC T D A T A VIEW FROM DRIVEWAY PH O N E : CO N T A C T : EM A I L : LA N D S C A P E AR C H I T E C T : KL A , I n c . 15 1 N . N o r l i n S t r e e t So n o r a , C A 9 5 3 7 0 20 9 . 5 3 2 . 2 8 5 6 To m H o l l o w a y to m @ k n o x l a . c o m PH O N E : CO N T A C T : EM A I L : AR C H I T E C T : A R C T E C I N C . 99 A l m a d e n B o u l e v a r d , S u i t e 8 4 0 Sa n J o s e , C A 9 5 1 1 3 40 8 . 4 9 6 . 0 6 7 6 Je f f O p a r o w s k i , A I A jo p a r o w s k i @ a r c t e c i n c . c o m TH I S P R O J E C T C O N S I S T S O F I N F I L L I N G T H E E X I S T I N G E X T E R I O R C O V E R E D C O L O N N A D E A N D A N AD D I T I O N F O R A N E W E N T R Y . T H E F L O O R P L A N E N L A R G E M E N T O F 1 , 7 9 0 S . F . W I L L B R I N G T H E T O T A L AR E A O F T H E B U I L D I N G T O 2 8 , 0 2 9 S . F . A D D I T I O N A L E X T E R I O R R E N O V A T I O N S W I L L C R E A T E N E W WI N D O W S A L O N G T H E S O U T H A N D E A S T E L E V A T I O N S A N D N E W I N C L U D E N E W E X T E R I O R F I N I S H MA T E R I A L S . SI T E I M P R O V E M E N T S I N C L U D E N E W L A N D S C A P I N G A N D H A R D S C A P E A R E A S . VI C I N I T Y M A P N STELLING RD 85 28 0 SI T E E H O M E S T E A D R D ST E V E N S C R E E K B L V D N DE ANZA BLVD N WOLFE RD S DE ANZA BLVD S STELLING RD N BLANEY AVES BLANEY AVE S WOLFE RD MC C L E L L A N R D BO L L I N G E R R D TRANS I T M A P SI T E OW N E R : 1 9 9 0 0 S T E V E N S C R E E K B L V D . , L L C 60 6 8 K i n g s m i l l T e r r a c e Du b l i n , C A 9 4 5 6 8 A Facade Remodel and Building Addition for: 19900 STEVENS CREEK BLVD Cupertino, CA 95104 23 2 19900 STEVENS CREEK BLVD EXISTING BUILDING FOOTPRINT EXISTING RESTAURANT ST E V E N S C R E E K B O U L E V A R D EXISTING COMMERCIAL OFFICE BUILDING EXISTING RESIDENTIAL COMPLEX RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL 372'-4" 22 5 ' - 0 " 372'-3" 22 4 ' - 1 1 " 1 NO PARKING NO PARKING F. E . NO PARKING 3 2 2 4 TYP. 4 TYP. 5 67 TYP. 7 TYP. 7 TYP. 8 TYP. 8 TYP. 8 TYP. 9 TYP. 9 TYP. SCALE: DEMOLITION SITE PLAN 1" = 30'-0" 0'8'15'30' PROJECT NO: DATE DESCRIPTION In Association with: A F a c a d e R e m o d e l a n d B u i l d i n g A d d i t i o n f o r : 19 9 0 0 S T E V E N S C R E E K B L V D Cu p e r t i n o , C A 9 5 0 1 4 164141 05.18.16PLANNING DEPT. SUBMITTAL 09.19.16PLANNING DEPT. SUBMITTAL 11.14.16GEN. PLAN. AMENDMENT SUBMITTAL EXISTING PROJECT DATA . ZONING HEART OF THE CITY SPECIFIC PLAN - CENTRAL P (CG, RES) SITE AREA 83,747 S.F./1.92 ACRES EXISTING BUILDING FOOTPRINT 28,576 S.F. LOT COVERAGE 34.0% EXISTING LEASABLE AREA 26,635 S.F. EXISTING PARKING (2.7/1000) 72 SPACES 1 2 3 EXISTING WALKWAY TO BE REMOVED EXISTING PARKING STRIPING TO REMAIN4 5 EXISTING BUILDING TO REMAIN 7 EXISTING 6" CURB TO REMAIN 8 6 EXISTING MONUMENT SIGN TO REMAIN EXISTING LANDSCAPE AREA TO BE REMOVED EXISTING TRANSFORMER TO REMAIN DEMOLITION KEY NOTES .SYMBOLS LEGEND CURB / STALL STRIPING TO BE DEMOLISHED SETBACK PROPERTY LINE EXISTING PARKING LOT LIGHTING TO REMAIN, TYP. 9 EXISTING PROPERTY LINE A1.00 DEMOLITION SITE PLAN 233 NO PA R K I N G NO PA R K I N G F.E.NOPARKING 26 ' - 0 " P L A N T I N G E A S E M E N T 1 A4 . 0 1 10 1TYP.2 22 3 415TYP.67 2 896 7 2 2 4 12 11 1TYP.1TYP. 1 TY P . 1 TY P . 1TYP. 13 TY P . 13TYP. 10'-6"16'-0"24'-0"16'-0"5'-6" 6'-0"16'-0"24'-0"11'-5"24'-0"18'-0"18'-0"11 19 9 0 0 S T E V E N S C R E E K B L V D PR O P O S E D B U I L D I N G F O O T P R I N T 14 14 35 ' - 0 " M I N . S E T B A C K 9' - 0 " 5 13 TY P . 6 6 1010 9' M I N . 5' MI N . 9' M I N . 9' M I N . 5' MI N . 18' MIN. 9' M I N . 12 ' M I N . 5' MI N . 5' VA N PA R K I N G C O M P L I A N C E N O T E S 1. W H E N N O C U R B O R B A R R I E R I S PR O V I D E D , A W H E E L S T O P I S R E Q U I R E D WH I C H W I L L P R E V E N T E N C R O A C H M E N T OF C A R S O V E R W A L K W A Y S . 2. W H E E L C H A I R U S E R S M U S T N O T B E FO R C E D T O G O B E H I N D P A R K E D C A R S OT H E R T H A N T H E I R O W N . 3. A L L W A L K S A N D P A R K I N G S P A C E S S H A L L HA V E A M A X I M U M C R O S S S L O P E O F 1 : 4 8 . 4. P E D E S T R I A N W A Y S W H I C H A R E AC C E S S I B L E T O P E R S O N S W I T H DI S A B I L I T I E S S H A L L B E P R O V I D E D F R O M EA C H A C C E S S I B L E S P A C E T O R E L A T E D FA C I L I T I E S . AC C E S S I B L E P A R K I N G S I G N S E E 1 6 / - LE V E L L A N D I N G ; 1 : 4 8 M A X . C R O S S - SL O P E ; F L U S H W I T H D R I V E 6" C O N C R E T E W H E E L S T O P T Y P . 2' CU R B R A M P W I T H 1 : 1 2 M A X S L O P E MI N . W I D T H C O N C R E T E W A L K W A Y 3" W I D E D I A G O N A L S T R I P I N G , W H I T E O R B L U E AC C E S S I B L E P A R K I N G S Y M B O L 3 6 " S Q . S E E 8 / - SI G N T Y P E B A B C ST R I P I N G F O R S I N G L E S T A N D A R D AC C E S S I B L E P A R K I N G ST R I P I N G F O R S T A N D A R D AC C E S S I B L E P A R K I N G ST R I P I N G F O R V A N AC C E S S I B L E P A R K I N G 18' MIN.5' 18' MIN.5' 2' 3' 3'3' TY P I C A L N O T E S : 12 " H I G H W H I T E L E T T E R I N G I N A C C E S S A I S L E SI G N T Y P E A 6' M I N . 3" W I D E B L U E S T R I P I N G A T PE R I M E T E R O F A C C E S S A I S L E SC A L E : AC C E S S I B L E P A R K I N G S P A C E S 1/ 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " 3' 6' M I N . RA M P DN . VA N P A R K I N G S P A C E S S H A L L B E P E R M I T T E D T O B E 1 0 8 I N C H E S ( 9 ' - 0 " ) WI D E M I N I M U M W H E R E T H E A C C E S S A I S L E I S 9 6 " ( 8 ' - 0 " ) W I D E M I N I M U M SI G N T Y P E A RA M P DN . RA M P DN . RA M P DN . RA M P DN . RA M P DN . UNAUTHORIZE D V E H I C L E S PARKED IN D E S I G N A T E D ACCESSIBLE S P A C E S N O T DISPLAYING DIS T I N G U I S H I N G PLACARDS O R S P E C I A L LICENSE PLA T E S I S S U E D FOR PERS O N S W I T H DISABILITIES W I L L B E T O W E D AWAY AT OWNE R S E X P E N S E . TOWED V E H I C L E S MAY BE REC L A I M E D A T OR BY TELE P H O N I N G SCALE: ACCESSIBLE PARKING SIGNAGE & UNAUTHORIZED VEHICL E S I G N A G E 1 1/2"=1'-0"SIGN TYPE A:ACCESSIBLE CAR PARKINGSPACE IDENTIFICATION SIGN TYPE B:ACCESSIBLE VAN PARKINGSPACE IDENTIFICATION SIGN T Y P E C : UNAUTHOR I Z E D V E H I C L E WARN I N G S I G N ACCESSIBLE PARKING IDENTIFICATIONSIGNAGE1.REFLECTORIZED SIGN SHALL BECONSTRUCTED OF PORCELAIN STEELWITH BEADED TEXT OR EQUAL2.LETTERS AND SYMBOLS TO BE WHITEON A DARK BLUE BACKGROUND3.SIGN TO BE CENTERED AT THEINTERIOR END OF PARKING SPACE4.CORNERS OF SIGN TO BE RADIUSED1/2" MINIMUM.THIS PORTION OF SIGN TOBE 70 SQUARE INCHESMINIMUM (TYPICAL)BOTTOM OF SIGNAGE:WHEN SIGN IS LOCATED IN A PATH OFTRAVEL, BOTTOM OF SIGN SHALL BE AMINIMUM OF 6'-8" ABOVE THE WALKINGSURFACE.WHEN LOCATED IN A LANDSCAPE AREAOR ON A WALL AT THE END OF THESPACE, THE BOTTOM OF SIGN SHALL BEAT 5'-0" ABOVE ADJACENT GRADE 17" MIN I M U M 24" RECOM M E N D E D 22" MINIMUM 24" RECOMMENDED UN A U T H O R I Z E D V E H I C L E W A R N I N G SI G N A G E 1A . M U S T B E P O S T E D C O N S P I C U O U S L Y A T EA C H E N T R A N C E T O O F F - S T R E E T PA R K I N G F A C I L I T I E S , O R 1B . P O S T E D I M M E D I A T E L Y A D J A C E N T T O AN D V I S I B L E F R O M EA C H A C C E S S I B L E ST A L L O R S P A C E . 2. T H E P H O N E N U M B E R O R A D D R E S S WH E R E T O W E D V E H I C L E S C A N B E RE C L A I M E D I S P O S T E D I N T H E AP P R O P R I A T E L O C A T I O N O N T H E S I G N AN D I S A P E R M A N E N T P A R T O F T H E SI G N . 3. T H E S I Z E O F T H E L E T T E R I N G I S A MI N I M U M O F 1 " I N H E I G H T . INSERT A D D R E S S INSERT TELEPH O N E N U M B E R 3' - 0 " 3'-0" NO T E : TH E C E N T E R L I N E O F T H E S Y M B O L S H A L L BE A M A X I M U M O F 6 " F R O M T H E CE N T E R L I N E O F T H E P A R K I N G S P A C E , IT ' S S I D E S P A R A L L E L T O T H E L E N G T H O F TH E S T A L L A N D I T S L O W E R C O R N E R A T , OR L O W E R S I D E A L I G N E D W I T H , T H E E N D OF T H E P A R K I N G S T A L L ( C B C 11 B - 5 0 2 . 6 . 4 . 1 ) PA I N T S Y M B O L W I T H T W O C O A T S H E A V Y DU T Y W H I T E T R A F F I C P A I N T BA C K G R O U N D T O B E T W O C O A T S H E A V Y DU T Y B L U E T R A F F I C P A I N T SC A L E : AC C E S S I B I L I T Y P A R K I N G S Y M B O L N. T . S . A1 . 0 1 SI T E P L A N PR O J E C T N O : DA T E DE S C R I P T I O N In A s s o c i a t i o n w i t h : A Facade Remodel and Building Addition for: 19900 STEVENS CREEK BLVD Cupertino, CA 95014 16 4 1 4 1 05 . 1 8 . 1 6 P L A N N I N G D E P T . S U B M I T T A L 09 . 1 9 . 1 6 P L A N N I N G D E P T . S U B M I T T A L 11 . 1 4 . 1 6 G E N . P L A N . A M E N D M E N T S U B M I T T A L PR O J E C T D A T A . ZO N I N G HE A R T O F T H E C I T Y S P E C I F I C P L A N - C E N T R A L P ( C G , R E S ) SI T E A R E A 83 , 7 4 7 S . F . / 1 . 9 2 A C R E S PR O P O S E D B U I L D I N G F O O T P R I N T 28 , 0 2 9 S . F . LO T C O V E R A G E 33 . 5 % EX I S T I N G L E A S A B L E A R E A 26 , 2 3 9 S . F . PR O P O S E D A D D I T I O N A L L E A S A B L E A R E A 1, 7 9 0 S . F . TO T A L L E A S A B L E A R E A 28 , 0 2 9 S . F . PA R K I N G A N A L Y S I S . PA R K I N G R E Q U I R E D : OF F I C E ( 1 / 2 8 5 S . F . ) 99 S P A C E S ON - G R A D E P A R K I N G P R O V I D E D ST A N D A R D 10 2 S P A C E S AC C E S S I B L E 4 S P A C E S VA N A C C E S S I B L E 1 S P A C E TO T A L P A R K I N G P R O V I D E D (3 . 8 / 1 0 0 0 ) 1 0 7 S P A C E S * *P O T E N T I A L P A R K I N G L O S S D U E T O I N G R E S S / E G R E S S E A S E M E N T ST A N D A R D -6 S P A C E S TO T A L P A R K I N G P R O V I D E D 10 1 S P A C E S BI C Y C L E P A R K I N G R E Q U I R E D : OF F I C E ( 1 / 1 , 2 5 0 S . F . ) 23 C L A S S I S P A C E S * * ** R E S T R I C T E D A C C E S S C L A S S I B I C Y C L E P A R K I N G A R E A T O B E PR O V I D E D I N B U I L D I N G I N T E R I O R A T T I M E O F T E N A N T IM P R O V E M E N T RE Q U I R E D N U M B E R O F A C C E S S I B L E P A R K I N G S T A L L S ( C B C T A B L E 1 1 B - 2 0 8 . 2 ) 10 1 - 1 5 0 5 CO M P L I A N T MI N I M U M R E Q U I R E D TO T A L P A R K I N G S P A C E S YE S SC A L E : SI T E P L A N 1/ 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " KE Y N O T E S 123 EX I S T I N G M O N U M E N T S I G N T O R E M A I N OU T D O O R A M E N I T Y S P A C E 4 EX I S T I N G P A R K I N G L O T S T R I P I N G , T Y P . 5 EX I S T I N G 6 " C O N C R E T E C U R B , T Y P . WA L K W A Y A N D H A R D S C A P E , R E F E R T O L A N D S C A P E A N D C I V I L D R A W I N G S 7 TR A S H C O M P A C T O R 9 EX I S T I N G P A V I N G 10 8 EX I S T I N G L O A D I N G Z O N E 6 PR O P E R T Y L I N E 11 EX I S T I N G L A N D S C A P E A R E A AC C E S S I B L E P A T H O F T R A V E L S H O W N D A S H E D 12 EX I S T I N G P A R K I N G L O T L I G H T S EX I S T I N G T R A N S F O R M E R 13 3 6 12 SI T E W A L L 0' 5 ' 1 0 ' 20 ' 14 IN G R E S S / E G R E S S E A S E M E N T 15 DE C O R A T I V E P A V I N G 23 4 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 ABC D E F G H K J 1 A3 . 0 1 2 A3 . 0 1 7 A3 . 0 1 8A3.01 1 TY P . 2 1 TY P . 36 4 TY P . 1 TY P . 1TYP.1TYP.75 TY P . 5 TY P . 5TYP. 3 PR O P O S E D O F F I C E A R E A A2 . 1 1 FI R S T L E V E L F L O O R P L A N KE Y N O T E S . NO T A L L K E Y N O T E S M A Y A P P L Y 12 1" I N S U L A T E D L O W E G L A Z I N G S Y S T E M W I T H C L E A R GL A S S I N A L U M I N U M F R A M E S W I T H B U T T G L A Z E D VE R T I C A L J O I N T S BR I C K C L A D D I N G O V E R M E T A L S T U D F R A M E 34 LI N E O F C A N O P Y A B O V E S H O W N D A S H E D NE W E N T R Y D O O R S 5 EX I S T I N G B R I C K C L A D W A L L S T O R E M A I N , P O W E R W A S H TR A S H C O M P A C T O R 67 EX I S T I N G C O N C R E T E T I L T - U P P A N E L S , P A I N T PR O J E C T N O : DA T E DE S C R I P T I O N In A s s o c i a t i o n w i t h : A Facade Remodel and Building Addition for: 19900 STEVENS CREEK BLVD Cupertino, CA 95014 16 4 1 4 1 05 . 1 8 . 1 6 P L A N N I N G D E P T . S U B M I T T A L 09 . 1 9 . 1 6 P L A N N I N G D E P T . S U B M I T T A L 11 . 1 4 . 1 6 G E N . P L A N . A M E N D M E N T S U B M I T T A L SC A L E : PR O P O S E D F L O O R P L A N 3/ 3 2 " = 1 ' - 0 " 23 5 0'-0"+10'-0"+16'-0" +2 0 ' - 6 " 1 TY P . 1TYP. 3 TY P . 4 TY P . 5 3 TY P . 8 9 7 TY P . 10 TY P . 0'-0"-+16'-0"+20'-6"3TYP. 3 TY P . 4TYP.0'-0"+20'-6"+16'-0"+10'-0"+19'-0"5 3 TY P . 7TYP.4TYP. 1 TY P . 1 TY P . 1TYP. 6 80'-0"-+16'-0" 0' - 0 " -2 ' - 8 " +20'-6" 3 TY P . 1TYP.1TYP.8 9 A3 . 0 1 EX T E R I O R E L E V A T I O N S KE Y N O T E S . NO T A L L K E Y N O T E S M A Y A P P L Y 12 ST U C C O I N F I L L , P A I N T AL U M I N U M C O M P O S I T E M E T A L P A N E L C A N O P Y 45 EN T R Y D O O R 6 1" I N S U L A T E D L O W E G L A Z I N G S Y S T E M W I T H C L E A R G L A S S I N A L U M I N U M F R A M E S W I T H B U T T G L A Z E D V E R T I C A L JO I N T S 7 3 EX I S T I N G B R I C K F A C A D E , P O W E R W A S H AL U M I N U M C O M P O S I T E P A R A P E T C A P EX I S T I N G C O N C R E T E T I L T - U P P A N E L , P A I N T 8 BR I C K C L A D C O L U M N A N D P A R A P E T LO A D I N G D O C K A N D T R A S H C O M P A C T O R E N C L O S U R E 9 SM O O T H C O A T S T U C C O C O A T I N G O V E R E X I S T I N G C O N C R E T E T I L T - U P P A N E L , P A I N T 10 PR O J E C T N O : DA T E DE S C R I P T I O N In A s s o c i a t i o n w i t h : A Facade Remodel and Building Addition for: 19900 STEVENS CREEK BLVD Cupertino, CA 95014 16 4 1 4 1 05 . 1 8 . 1 6 P L A N N I N G D E P T . S U B M I T T A L 09 . 1 9 . 1 6 P L A N N I N G D E P T . S U B M I T T A L 11 . 1 4 . 1 6 G E N . P L A N . A M E N D M E N T S U B M I T T A L SC A L E : EA S T E X T E R I O R E L E V A T I O N 1 1/ 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " SC A L E : WE S T E X T E R I O R E L E V A T I O N 2 1/ 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " SC A L E : NO R T H E X T E R I O R E L E V A T I O N 7 1/ 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " SC A L E : SO U T H E X T E R I O R E L E V A T I O N 8 1/ 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " 23 6 0'-0"-+16'-0"+20'-6"0'-0"-+16'-0" 0' - 0 " -2 ' - 8 " +20'-6"0'-0"+20'-6"+16'-0"+10'-0"+19'-0"0'-0"+10'-0"+16'-0" +2 0 ' - 6 " SCALE: 1EXISTING WEST ELEVATION1/8" = 1'-0"SCALE: 1EXISTING SOUTH ELEVATION1/8" = 1'-0"SCALE: 1EXISTING NORTH ELEVATION1/8" = 1'-0"SCALE: 1EXISTING EAST ELEVATION1/8" = 1'-0" 23 7 B1 M1 P1 G1 G1 G1 B1 P1 G1 G1 M1B1 M1 P1 G1 P1 G1 A3 . 1 1 RE N D E R E D E X T E R I O R E L E V A T I O N S FI N I S H L E G E N D . AL U M I N U M C O M P O S I T E M E T A L P A N E L : MA N U F A C T U R E R : R E Y N O B O N D SE R I E S : CO L O R W E L D 5 0 0 FI N I S H : SI L V E R S M I T H 1" I N S U L A T E D L O W E G L A Z I N G S Y S T E M W I T H C L E A R G L A S S I N A L U M I N U M F R A M E S WI T H B U T T G L A Z E D V E R T I C A L J O I N T S : MA N U F A C T U R E R : V I R A C O N CO L O R : CL E A R - 1 PA I N T : MA N U F A C T U R E R : D U N N E D W A R D S CO L O R : DE 6 3 6 6 S I L V E R S P O O N G1M1 P1 TH I N B R I C K V E N E E R : MA N U F A C T U R E R : B E L D E N O R E Q U I V . CO L O R : MA T C H E X I S T I N G B1 PR O J E C T N O : DA T E DE S C R I P T I O N In A s s o c i a t i o n w i t h : A Facade Remodel and Building Addition for: 19900 STEVENS CREEK BLVD Cupertino, CA 95014 16 4 1 4 1 05 . 1 8 . 1 6 P L A N N I N G D E P T . S U B M I T T A L 09 . 1 9 . 1 6 P L A N N I N G D E P T . S U B M I T T A L 11 . 1 4 . 1 6 G E N . P L A N . A M E N D M E N T S U B M I T T A L SC A L E : EA S T E X T E R I O R E L E V A T I O N 1 1/ 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " SC A L E : WE S T E X T E R I O R E L E V A T I O N 2 1/ 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " SC A L E : NO R T H E X T E R I O R E L E V A T I O N 7 1/ 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " SC A L E : SO U T H E X T E R I O R E L E V A T I O N 8 1/ 8 " = 1 ' - 0 " 23 8 A3 . 3 1 EX T E R I O R R E N D E R I N G PR O J E C T N O : DA T E DE S C R I P T I O N In A s s o c i a t i o n w i t h : A Facade Remodel and Building Addition for: 19900 STEVENS CREEK BLVD Cupertino, CA 95014 16 4 1 4 1 05 . 1 8 . 1 6 P L A N N I N G D E P T . S U B M I T T A L 09 . 1 9 . 1 6 P L A N N I N G D E P T . S U B M I T T A L 11 . 1 4 . 1 6 G E N . P L A N . A M E N D M E N T S U B M I T T A L SC A L E : VI E W F R O M D R I V E W A Y E N T R Y T O S I T E 1 NT S 23 9 PROPERTY LINE 120'-0" TO PROPERTY LINE PROPERTY LINE 40 ' - 0 " T O P R O P E R T Y L I N E ST E V E N S C R E E K BL V D A4 . 0 1 SI T E S E C T I O N PR O J E C T N O : DA T E DE S C R I P T I O N In A s s o c i a t i o n w i t h : A Facade Remodel and Building Addition for: 19900 STEVENS CREEK BLVD Cupertino, CA 95014 16 4 1 4 1 05 . 1 8 . 1 6 P L A N N I N G D E P T . S U B M I T T A L 09 . 1 9 . 1 6 P L A N N I N G D E P T . S U B M I T T A L 11 . 1 4 . 1 6 G E N . P L A N . A M E N D M E N T S U B M I T T A L SC A L E : SI T E S E C T I O N 1 1/ 1 6 " = 1 ' - 0 " 24 0 PROJECT NO: DATE DESCRIPTION In Association with: A N e w P r o j e c t f o r : 19 9 0 0 S T E V E N S C R E E K B L V D Cu p e r t i n o , C A 9 5 0 1 4 164141/KLA 16-1820 05.18.16 PLANNING DEPT. SUBMITTAL www.knoxla.com S T ATE OF CAL I F O R N IA L ICENSE D L A N DSCAPE AR C H I T E CT Renewal Date Date Signature THO M A S W . HOLLOWAY # 3 5 8 9 151 N. Norlin St., Sonora, CA 95370 (209)532-2856 (209)532-9510 fax Monument sign with low growing accent plantsDiagonal cobble strips to create bands through the landscape and separation between plant species Alternating rows of low ornamental grass species with a variety of form, color, and texture Low curved wall around grove of existing Canary Island Pines Existing Pines and Redwoods to remain along the west side of the building Street sidewalk Parkway strip with low growing groundcover Large spreading street trees at approximately 40' on center Sidewalk connection to the public right of way Seat wall Circular patio with furniture Bands in the landscape continue through the patio Accent paving to the front door Curved seat wall at main entry Enhanced paving at the main entry reflecting the landscape strips in the other areas of the property Small upright flowering tree New formal row of upright trees along the face of the building to replace the existing - coordinated with window locations Evergreen hedge to screen the loading area Shade trees throughout the parking lot and perimeter of the property Shrubs along the base of the building Low seat wall Enhanced paving patio space with accent bands Low curved seat wall with opening for the walkway Shade trees throughout the parking lot and perimeter of the property Outdoor fire place with seating area around Tall evergreen hedge or Greenscreen fence Large spreading shade tree - accent lighting Landscape Areas Total Planting Area Turf Area Medium Water Use Shrub Area Low Water Use Shrub Area D.G. and Cobble Area Size of Parcel: Percentage of Parcel in Landscape: 17,812 sf 0 sf 3,259 sf 13,035 sf 1,518 sf 83,748 sf (1.92 acres) 21.3% All trees within 5' of curb or sidewalk are to have a linear DeepRoot Model #UB 18-2 root barriers installed during tree installation along the inside edge of the adjacent curb or sidewalk. The following minimum number of panels are to be installed with each tree on each side of the tree that has sidewalk or curb as denoted on the plans: 15 gallon trees 5 panels 24" box trees 6 panels 36" box trees 8 panels Tree sizes not listed above are to be installed with the quantity of panels as specified by the manufacturer. Tree Root Barriers 2"-3" deep layer of Tan Decomposed Granite (D.G.) with steel edging - 1,112 sf. 2"-3" diameter ornamental cobble with steel edging - 406 sf. Non-Living Groundcover WELO Water Use Calculations 1 2 3 176,814 Gallons17,812 sfTOTAL ETO for Cupertino 45.3 Shrubs Shrubs Cobble/DG Medium Low None 0.5 0.3 0 3,259 13,035 1,518 18.3% 73.2% 8.5% Low Flow Bubbler Low Flow Bubbler No Irrigation .88 .88 1 52,007 124,807.2 0 Maximum Applied Water Allowance (MAWA)225,120.5 gallon/year Estimated Total Water Usage (ETWU)176,814 gallon/year Average Irrigation Efficiency .88 ETWU is less than MAWA, therefore water usage as designed exceeds code requirements The following calculations represent the intended hydrozones and water usage as designed with this Preliminary Landscape Plan. As we move through the design process we anticipate minor adjustments/revisions of these calculations. However, compliance with WELO code requirements will always remain. Project Location Not to scaleVicinity Map S. B L A N E Y A V E . STEVENS CREEK BLVD. Irrigation The entire site will be irrigated using a fully automatic system and designed to meet the City's Water Efficient Landscaping Ordinance (WELO). The irrigation system will largely be low-volume design with low flow bubblers and/or drip emitters. Trees will be irrigated on separate circuits from the shrubs. The system will include in-line valves, quick couplers, and gate valves. The irrigation controller will be a "smart" controller by Rainbird, Toro, Hunter, or equal. A complete irrigation design with these parameters will be provided with the submittal of building permit plans. See the WELO calculations in the lower right of this sheet. Shrubs Groundcovers Spreading Groundcover- 1 gal. @ 3'-5' O.C. Archtostaphylus 'Emerald Carpet'Manzanita Baccharis pilularis Dwarf Coyote Bush Ceanothus gresius horizontalis Carmel Creeper Cotoneaster dammeri 'Lowfast'Cotoneaster Juniperus sabina 'Cultivars'Juniper Trachelospermum asiaticum Star Jasmine Low Accent Plants in Formal Placement - 1 gal. @ 24"-36" O.C. Aloe saponaria Soap Aloe Carpobrotus edulis Hottentot Fig Senecio mandraliscae Senecio Large Screening Shrubs - 15 gal., 5 gal. @ 5' O.C. Cuppressus sempervirens 'Tiny Towers' Dwarf Italian Cypress Podocarpus macrophyllos maki Long-Leaf Yellow-wood Prunus caroliniana 'Bright 'N Tight' Carolina Laurel Cherry Thuja occidentalis 'Emerald' American Arborvitae Evergreen vine on Greenscreen or wire fence - 6' tall Background Shrub - 5 gal. @ 6'-7' O.C. Arctostaphyllos densiflora 'Howard McMinn'Manzanita Echium fastousum Pride of Madiera Leucophyllum frutescens 'Texas Ranger'Leucophyllum Rosmarius officinalis 'Majorca Pink' Rosemary Formal Hedge - 5 gal. @ ±3'-4' O.C. Chondropetalum elephantinum Cape Rush Myrtus communis 'Compacta'Myrtle Olea europea 'Little Ollie'Little Ollie Olive Rhaphiolepis umbellata 'Minor'Yeddo Hawthorne Rosmarius officinalis 'Miss Jessups Upright'Rosemary Accent Shrubs and Grass-like Plants - 5 gal. @ 3'-4' O.C. Agave 'Blue Glow'Century Plant Aloe saponaria Soap Aloe Anigozanthos hybridus Kangaroo Paw Callistemon viminalis 'Little John'Bottlebrush Dianelle tasmanica Flax Lily Hesperaloe parviflora Red Yucca Salvia species Sage Zauschneria californica California Fuchsia The Preliminary Plant Palette represents a sampling of the types of shrubs, groundcovers, and vines that we anticipate to be appropriate for the location as well as the design style and overall theme. This is the list from which plant selection will be drawn from. Not all plants listed within this plant palette will be used in the final design and some plants not listed may be introduced. However, the planting design intent will remain consistent with this plan and plant palette. Parking Lot Planting of Shrubs and Grass-like Plants - 1 gal. and 5 gal. @ 3' O.C. Astelia cathamica 'Silver Shadow'Compact Astelia Bouteloua gracilis Blue Gamma Grass Calamagrostic acutifolia 'Karl Forester'Dwarf Feather Reed Grass Muhlenbergia capilaris Pink Muhly Muhlenbergia rigens Deer Grass Nassella tennuissima Dwarf Mexican Feather Grass Pennisetum orientale Dwarf Fountain Grass N. B L A N E Y A V E . PO R T A L A V E . The landscape design concept for the new office building is to provide an enjoyable and aesthetic space for the employees and guests that fits within the landscape framework of the surrounding area. Plant material has been selected that performs well in the special conditions of the South Bay (Sunset Zone #15). No new turf areas are being added. Low and medium water-use hardy trees, shrubs, grasses, and groundcover are proposed for the landscape around building. The landscape (and associated irrigation) has been designed to be compliant with City of Cupertino Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance. Special considerations have been provided in selection of plant material that respects the needs of the office users as well as the guests. Clear and secure view corridors have been provided to ensure safety of people entering the building as well as moving around the site. Landscape Concept Alternating Rows of Low Accent Plants - 1 gal. @ 24"-36" O.C. Astelia cathamica 'Silver Shadow'Compact Astelia Bouteloua gracilis Blue Gamma Grass Festuca ovina glauca Common Blue Fescue Festuca mairei Marie's Fescue Hemerocallis species Day Lily Nassella tennuissima Dwarf Mexican Feather Grass Teucrium chamaedrys Germander Low Flowering Accent Plantings - 1 gal. @ 12"-24" O.C. Armeria maritima Sea Thrift Delosperma cooperi Ice Plant Trachelospermum asiaticum Star Jasmine Spreading Shrubs Under Existing Pines - 1 gal. and 5 gal. @ 48" O.C. Baccharis pilularis Dwarf Coyote Bush Ceanothus gresius horizontalis Carmel Creeper Cotoneaster dammeri 'Lowfast'Cotoneaster Juniperus sabina 'Cultivars'Juniper Existing trees to remain - greater than 6" DBH Existing trees to be removed - greater than 6" DBH Existing trees less than 6" DBH - all to be removed Groundcovers Preliminary Plant Palette Existing wood fence to remain Existing wall/fence to remain Street Trees - 24"-Box @ ±40' O.C. Acer rubrum 'October Glory'October Glory Maple Brachychiton populneus Bottle Tree Pyrus calleryana 'Chanticleer'Chanticleer Pear Parking Lot Trees - 24"-Box Pistachia chinensis 'Keith Davey'Chinese Pistache Quercus coccinea Scarlet Oak Ulmus parvifolia Evergreen Elm Upright Perimeter Trees - 15-gal / 24"-Box Laurus noblis 'Saratoga'Saratoga Laurel Melaleuca quinquenervia Pepperbark Tree Quercus Ilex Holly Oak Rhus lancea African Sumac Tristania laurina Water Gum Narrow Upright Accent Trees- 15-Gal / 24"-Box Brachychiton populneus Bottle Tree Carpinus betulus 'Fastigata'Hornbeam Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle Small Flowering Accent Trees - 24"-Box Cercis occidentalis Western Redbud Chilopsis linearis Desert Willow Lagerstroemia indica Crape Myrtle Narrow Accent Trees - 15-gal / 24"-Box Acacia stenophylla Shoestring Acacia Geijera parvifolia Australian Willow Magnolia grandiflora 'Little Gem'Southern Magnolia Spreading Focal Point Tree - 36"-Box Schinus molle California Pepper Tree Ulmus parvifolia Evergreen Elm Stormwater management system per Civil Engineer 25 11.14.16GEN. PLAN. AMENDMENT SUBMITTAL 241 11.14.16GEN. PLAN. AMENDMENT SUBMITTAL 242 11.14.16GEN. PLAN. AMENDMENT SUBMITTAL 243 11.14.16GEN. PLAN. AMENDMENT SUBMITTAL 244 245 246 247 248 249 M EMORANDUM To: Gian Martire, City of Cupertino From: Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. Subject: Fiscal Analysis of 19900 Stevens Creek Boulevard General Plan Amendment Application; EPS #161195 Date: February 10, 2017 The City of Cupertino retained Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. (EPS) to prepare this impact analysis of an application for a General Plan Amendment (GPA). The site currently is occupied by a 26,000-square foot furniture store. The applicant is requesting an increase of 16,000 square feet of office allocation to be added to the Heart of the City Specific Plan area to allow a change of use from retail to office. With the existing allocation available in the Heart of the City Specific Plan and the additional allocation requested, the applicant could bring either a business start-up incubator or a medical office tenant to the site. In addition to the use change to office, the proposal calls for increasing the square footage of the existing building from 26,000 to 28,125 by enclosing and finishing an existing arcade. This EPS analysis assesses both proposed tenant alternatives:  Start-up Business Incubator and  Medical Office. The Summary of Findings below presents the estimated economic impact of each alternative. The detailed calculations that follow document the Start-up Business Incubator alternative, which is identified as marginally more fiscally burdensome than the medical office alternative. Consistent with previous EPS fiscal analyses of GPA applications, this study focuses on the effect of the proposed development on the City of Cupertino’s General Fund. The objective of the analysis is to quantify whether the proposed GPA will generate adequate revenues to cover the costs of providing ongoing services to the project. The analysis does not consider the impact of the proposal on potential capital facilities cost requirements or other one-time costs. The analysis compares the impact 250 Memorandum February 10, 2017 Cupertino GPA Fiscal Impact Review Page 2 P:\161000s\161195CupertinoGPA\Deliverable\161195_Cupertino GPA Memo_02.10.17.docx of the proposed GPA alternatives at buildout to the baseline impact of the existing use in the project area. Actual fiscal impacts will depend on a number of factors that cannot be predicted with certainty, including the market performance of the project, future changes in City or State budgeting practices, and the efficiency of various City departments in providing services. Key analytical inputs and assumptions used in this analysis are from the development application, City documents, information from City staff, and EPS industry knowledge. Summary of Findings 1. The proposed project is likely to result in a modest annual net fiscal burden on the City of Cupertino’s General Fund. This analysis estimates that the net annual fiscal impact of the GPA proposal on the City’s General Fund is approximately negative $33,000 to negative $36,000. The incubator is likely to generate more tax revenue and more cost to the City, as compared to the medical office alternative. This finding is largely attributable to the anticipated employment density that would be achieved with an incubator tenant. Table 1 Fiscal Impact Comparison 2. An incubator office project likely would generate more tax revenue than the existing furniture store, but also would create more service cost for the City. This analysis estimates that the net annual fiscal impact of a business incubator on the General Fund is approximately negative $36,000, as shown in Table 2. The net increase in General Fund revenues from the project at buildout is estimated at roughly $3,000 more annually than existing uses. However, the net increase in General Fund expenditures is estimated at approximately $39,000 more per year than the current use. If the assessed value of the project is higher than anticipated by this analysis, consistent with the applicant’s estimates, the net fiscal impact of the GPA would be negative $30,000. Sensitiivty Scenario Fiscal Impact at Project Buildout Fiscal Impact Baseline1 Net Fiscal Impact1 Start-up Incubator $0$36,000-$36,000 Medical Office $3,000$36,000-$33,000 (1) This is an estimate of the fiscal impact of the existing furniture store, calculations are detailed in Table 13 251 Memorandum February 10, 2017 Cupertino GPA Fiscal Impact Review Page 3 P:\161000s\161195CupertinoGPA\Deliverable\161195_Cupertino GPA Memo_02.10.17.docx Table 2 Fiscal Impact Summary – Start-Up Incubator 3. The estimated fiscal burden to the City would be marginally less if the tenant of the proposed office space is a medical office user. If the applicant is successful in its negotiations with a medical office end user, the net fiscal burden to Cupertino’s General Fund could be slightly reduced from the results shown in Table 2 above. This alternative likely has a lower revenue generation and lower cost implications for the General Fund, as compared with the incubator alternative. A medical office use is anticipated to operate at a notably lower density of employment. The net fiscal impact of the medical office tenant scenario would be negative $33,000 per year, as shown in Table 3. Table 3 Fiscal Impact Summary - Medical Office Fiscal Impact on the General Fund This section describes the methodology and key assumptions used to estimate the fiscal impacts of the proposed GPA. The analysis is based on information from three key sources: (1) the GPA application material submitted (2) interviews with City planning and finance staff (3) EPS research and industry knowledge EPS has developed a fiscal impact framework based on its in-house methodology and Cupertino- specific factors. EPS has not conducted an independent audit of the City’s budget, performed in- Revenue / Expense Category Fiscal Impact at Project Buildout Fiscal Impact Baseline Net Fiscal Impact General Fund Revenues$40,000$37,000$3,000 General Fund Expenditures$40,000 $1,000 $39,000 Net Impact on General Fund $0$36,000-$36,000 Revenue / Expense Category Fiscal Impact at Project Buildout Fiscal Impact Baseline Net Fiscal Impact General Fund Revenues$27,000$37,000-$10,000 General Fund Expenditures$24,000 $1,000 $23,000 Net Impact on General Fund $3,000$36,000-$33,000 252 Memorandum February 10, 2017 Cupertino GPA Fiscal Impact Review Page 4 P:\161000s\161195CupertinoGPA\Deliverable\161195_Cupertino GPA Memo_02.10.17.docx depth interviews with service-providing City departments, or conducted detailed market analysis. EPS fiscal estimates differ from those provided by the applicant due to the differences in methodology. There are two notable differences between the studies. First, the applicant’s projection does not include an estimate of fiscal costs associated with the project and therefore is not a complete fiscal impact estimate. The second main difference in methodologies is that the EPS analysis is only considers fiscal revenues that accrue to the City of Cupertino’s General Fund (i.e., only a portion of total sales tax and property tax revenue), while the applicant’s analysis includes all property tax and sales tax revenue. In reality, much of the revenue generated through property taxes and sales taxes will be distributed to public entities other than the City. Proposed General Plan Amendment The applicant is proposing a use change and slight intensification of a 26,000-square foot retail space on a 1.92-acre property located at 19900 Stevens Creek Boulevard. The proposal envisions increasing the square footage of the existing commercial space to 28,125 square feet and changing the use from retail to office. According to the GPA application, the applicant has been in negotiations with two potential end users, a business start-up incubator and a medical office operation. The supporting table set below presents the analysis of the business start-up incubator. Analysis of the medical office and existing use rely on the same basic methodology. Table 4 presents the proposed GPA program identified by the applicant. The table also presents EPS assumptions concerning the population and employment that would be supported by the project at buildout. A variety of revenues and costs included in this fiscal analysis are based on the anticipated “service population” which weights a local employee’s service burden at 50 percent of a resident’s burden. Table 4 Development Program and Service Population General Fund Revenues General Fund tax proceeds attributable to the proposed GPA will include sales tax, property tax, property tax in lieu of vehicle license fee (VLF), property transfer tax, utility user tax, franchise fees, and business licenses. Table 5 provides a summary of the Cupertino 2015-16 Adopted General Fund revenue budget and a description of the forecasting method relied upon for each relevant revenue source. Item Forumula Assumption / Units Start-Up Incubator Space a 28,125 SF Worker Density b 150 SF / Employee Employment Estimate c = a / b 188 Service Population (1)d = c * .50 94 (1) Per-person employee burden on City services is weighted at 50 percent of residential burden. 253 Memorandum February 10, 2017 Cupertino GPA Fiscal Impact Review Page 5 P:\161000s\161195CupertinoGPA\Deliverable\161195_Cupertino GPA Memo_02.10.17.docx Table 5 FY2015 - 16 Revenue Budget Summary and Fiscal Impact Estimating Factors FY2015-16 Total Sales Tax Business to Business Sales Tax (1)$13,905,880$0.20per square foot of office Other Sales Tax$6,454,1201.0%of estimated taxable sales Property Tax Property Tax in Lieu of VLF (2)$5,782,5412.1%of Citywide Assessed Value Other Property Tax$10,272,4595.8%of base property tax rate (1%) Transient Occupancy Tax$5,072,00012%of total TOT revenue Utility Tax$3,100,0003.4%of utility bills Franchise Fees $2,800,000$37.98per service population Other Taxes (3) Construction Tax$2,147 - not estimated Business License$512,649$18.34per employee Property Transfer Tax$553,860$0.55per $1,000 in value Other Taxes$331,344 - not estimated Licenses & Permits $6,171,000 - not estimated Fines & Forfeitures$550,000 - not estimated Use of Money & Property $742,530 - not estimated Intergovernmental$600,000 - not estimated Charges for Services$10,590,878 - not estimated Miscellaneous$720,895 - not estimated Total Revenues$68,162,303 (2) FY2015-16 total reflects 36% allocation of the property tax total. Budget detail provided by the City. (3) FY2015-16 total reflects allocation of other taxes based on detail provided by the City. Estimating FactorsItem (1) FY2015-16 total reflects 68% allocation of the sales tax total. Budget detail provided by the City. Estimating factor reflects typical business-to-business sales tax generation in Silicon Valley offices. 254 Memorandum February 10, 2017 Cupertino GPA Fiscal Impact Review Page 6 P:\161000s\161195CupertinoGPA\Deliverable\161195_Cupertino GPA Memo_02.10.17.docx Retail Sales Tax Revenue The proposed GPA is expected to generate retail sales tax revenue accruing to the City of Cupertino through the daily project employee spending on retail goods and services in the City of Cupertino.1 This analysis estimates worker spending based on spending patterns reported in the Office-Worker Retail Spending in a Digital Age, a research publication from the International Council of Shopping Centers (ICSC).2 These survey data were reviewed to identify taxable spending. The analysis estimates that each office worker spends about $6,000 annually on taxable sales in the vicinity of their workplace.3 Because this spending is known to be near work, this analysis assumes that 50 percent of the taxable spending by project workers occurs within the city boundary. The taxable spending captured in Cupertino is multiplied by the number of workers supported by the proposed project. Taxable sales in Cupertino are subject to a sales tax rate of 8.75 percent. However, only 1 percentage point of the sales tax accrues to the City’s General Fund, while the rest goes to the State and other public entities. Table 6 Retail Sales Tax Revenue 1 Business-to-business (B2B) sales tax revenue is estimated in Table 10. 2 Michael P. Niemira and John Connolly, International Council of Shopping Centers. “Office-Worker Retail Spending in a Digital Age,” 2012. Accessed online at: https://www.downtowndevelopment.com/pdf/icsc-report_office-worker-spending.pdf 3 The analysis assumes that retail workers spend less, a factor that applies to the estimated fiscal impact of the existing retail store (i.e., baseline estimate). Item Annual Total at Buildout Project Employee Retail Purchases in Cupertino Daily Office Worker Taxable Spending (1)$25.00per work day Annual Office Worker Taxable Spending240 workdays / year$6,000 Cupertino Spending Capture50%$3,000 Office Workers 188 Daily Retail Worker Taxable Spending $16.67per work day Annual Retail Worker Taxable Spending 240 workdays / year$4,000 Cupertino Spending Capture50%$2,000 Retail Workers 0 Worker Taxable Spending in Cupertino$562,500 Total Retail Sales Tax Revenue 1.0%of taxable sales $5,625 (1) ICSC Research in 2012; inflated to current dollars. Assumptions 255 Memorandum February 10, 2017 Cupertino GPA Fiscal Impact Review Page 7 P:\161000s\161195CupertinoGPA\Deliverable\161195_Cupertino GPA Memo_02.10.17.docx Property Tax Revenue Property tax revenue is based on the estimated assessed value of the proposed project. Relying on the applicant’s proposed development program, EPS estimates the project’s assessed value at $14.17 million at buildout, as shown in Table 7. Since there is no indication that the property will turn over, a complete reassessment of the land and improvements will not be triggered by the Santa Clara County Office of the Assessor. Rather, the value of the interior improvements to accommodate the use modification and the value of the additional construction will be estimated by the County Assessor’s Office and added to the existing value of the property.4 The City’s General Fund captures 5.8 percent of the base 1.0 percent property tax rate. This tax rate factor is specific to the tax rate area that covers the project location. Table 7 Property Tax Revenue 4 Note that the applicant’s proposal indicates roughly $7.7 million in improvement cost while our analysis relies on typical office fit out and construction cost estimates which total $1.1 million. Item Total Assessed Value Estimate Existing Land and Improvement Value $12,100,000 Interior Improvements for Use Change (1)$60Square Foot$1,560,000 Value of Addition (2)$240Square Foot$510,000 Total Assessed Value $14,170,000 Property Tax1.0%Base Property Tax Rate$141,700 Cupertino General Fund Revenue (3)5.8%Allocation to Cupertino General Fund $8,199 Property Tax In Lieu of VLF Existing Citywide Property Tax in Lieu of VLF $5,782,541 Citywide Assessed Value (4)$19,200,000,000 Project Net Assessed Value Increase (5)0.07% Property Tax In Lieu of VLF Revenue (6)$4,268 (1) EPS review of cost estimates for office fit-out. (2) RS Means, construction cost estimate (3) Per Santa Clara County Tax Collector AB8 factor (post ERAF). (4) FY2014-2015 value based on the Santa Clara County Assessor Annual Assessor's Report. (6) Calculated by multiplying existing property tax in lieu of VLF by project net assessed value increase. Assumption / Factor (5) Calculated by dividing the new assessed value by citywide assessed value. 256 Memorandum February 10, 2017 Cupertino GPA Fiscal Impact Review Page 8 P:\161000s\161195CupertinoGPA\Deliverable\161195_Cupertino GPA Memo_02.10.17.docx Property Tax In Lieu of VLF In 2004, the State of California adjusted the method for sharing VLF with local jurisdictions. Recent State budget changes replaced the VLF with property tax, which grows proportionately with increases in assessed value of the City. The proposed project will add about 0.07 percent to the current assessed value in Cupertino (assuming no other assessed value growth for simplification purposes) and will generate the same increased percentage in in-lieu VLF revenues (see Table 7). Property Transfer Tax The project will generate real estate transfer tax revenue associated with future turnover in ownership. This analysis assumes that ownership of all land use types will turnover every 25 years, an annual turnover rate of 4.0 percent.5 Unlike existing property tax for this project, the transfer tax will be based on market value of the property achieved in a transaction. The property transfer tax rate accruing to the City General Fund is $0.55 per $1,000 of the property value, as shown in Table 8. Table 8 Property Transfer Tax Revenue 5 For institutional investors of commercial real estate a typical holding period is five to seven years (Ciochetti and Fisher, 2002). This analysis assumes a significantly longer holding period due to the property tax benefits of long-term ownership in California. Item Annual Total at Buildout Property Value1 Office $600Per Square Foot$16,875,000 Retail $600Per Square Foot $0 Total $16,875,000 Average Annual Turnover General Office 4.0%$675,000 Retail 4.0%$0 Subtotal $675,000 Property Transfer Tax Revenue $0.55per $1,000 in value $370 Assumption / Factor [1] This table is reporting estimated market value rather than the project's assessed value which is shown on Table 7. 257 Memorandum February 10, 2017 Cupertino GPA Fiscal Impact Review Page 9 P:\161000s\161195CupertinoGPA\Deliverable\161195_Cupertino GPA Memo_02.10.17.docx Utility Tax The City of Cupertino collects tax revenue on utility charges for services provided in the City. New residents and employees will expand the use of utilities in the City. This analysis estimates an average monthly utility expense of $120 per employee. The City of Cupertino collects 3.4 percent of utility charges. Table 9 presents utility user tax revenue attributable to the proposed project at buildout. Table 9 Utility User Tax Revenue Revenues from Other Taxes and Fees In addition to the key revenues described above, other taxes and fees are estimated to be generated by the project. Specifically, EPS forecasts additional business-to-business sales for office uses, new franchise fees, and new business license revenues generated by commercial activity associated with the project. This analysis assumes that office uses generate an average of roughly $20 per square foot in business-to-business sales, which translates to $0.20 per square foot in sales tax revenue.6 This assumption is reflective of a typical office tenant in the Silicon Valley and is believed to hold true for business start-up incubators. Franchise fee revenue and business license revenue reflect averages derived from City budget documents (see Table 5). Table 10 presents forecasting assumptions and revenue estimates. 6 Business-to-business sales and tax revenue estimates reflect the findings of prior EPS analyses conducted in Menlo Park and Palo Alto. Annual Total at Buildout Commercial Total Employees188 employees Monthly Utility Cost $120per employee per month Annual Total $270,000 Total Annual Utility Expenses $270,000 Utility User Tax Revenue 3.4%of utility bill $9,180 Assumption 258 Memorandum February 10, 2017 Cupertino GPA Fiscal Impact Review Page 10 P:\161000s\161195CupertinoGPA\Deliverable\161195_Cupertino GPA Memo_02.10.17.docx Table 10 Revenue from Other Taxes and Fees General Fund Expenditures This fiscal analysis estimates the costs attributable to employment growth by characterizing how expenses will change for each City department. For some departments, employment growth in the City will not dramatically alter operations. For example, administrative functions in the City are not likely to scale up significantly to accommodate new projects. Alternatively, departments that provide services directly to businesses likely will increase their operations and costs to accommodate new employment. It is important to note that a range of external factors may influence responses to growth and cost effects in the future. Examples of factors that are beyond the control of the City and its departments that may act to magnify or reduce department costs over time include the following:  regional growth  technology  state and federal policies  environmental factors This study does not speculate regarding the potential effects of such exogenous influences on the general fund expense budget. It focuses only on those factors attributable directly to the employment growth and land use changes generated by the proposed GPA. The fiscal analysis model relies on categorization of the likely budgetary response to employment growth for each department. The anticipated response to growth is expressed for fiscal modeling purposes in terms of “fixed expenses” and “variable expenses” within the department budget. The fixed expenses are the portion of a City department’s budget which is not affected by population and employment growth. Even a department which is anticipated to grow largely in step with the City’s service population likely would have some fixed cost. For example, in most Item Annual Total at Buildout Business-to-Business Sales Tax $0.20per square foot of office28,125square feet$5,625 Franchise Fees (1)$37.98per service population93.8service pop.$3,560 Business License (1)$18.34per employee188employees$3,439 Subtotal $12,624 Allocation Factor Project Characteristic (1) Franchise Fee and Business License allocation factors are both based on existing general fund revenue per capita. 259 Memorandum February 10, 2017 Cupertino GPA Fiscal Impact Review Page 11 P:\161000s\161195CupertinoGPA\Deliverable\161195_Cupertino GPA Memo_02.10.17.docx cases each department has only one director position, which is a fixed expense for the department. While the department may increase staffing to accommodate growth, the department will not add another director. The variable expenses of a department are those that do increase with growth. As the City grows, increased demand for services requires some departments to scale up operations to meet new demand. The portion of a department’s budget that scales up is identified as the variable share of the budget. EPS uses a per-capita average cost approach to estimate department costs attributable to new residents and workers. The variable portion of each department budget is used to determine the per-capita cost, as shown in Table 11. Then, to determine the new General Fund expenditures generated by the proposed project, the per-capita factors are multiplied by the projected increase in service population. Public Affairs and Non-Departmental expenditures are not estimated because the project is not expected to generate new ongoing costs to these service providers. 260 Me m o r a n d u m February 10, 2017 Cu p e r t i n o G P A F i s c a l I m p a c t R e v i e w Page 12 P: \ 1 6 1 0 0 0 s \ 1 6 1 1 9 5 C u p e r t i n o G P A \ D e l i v e r a b l e \ 1 6 1 1 9 5 _ C u p e r t i n o G P A M e m o _ 0 2 . 1 0 . 1 7 . d o c x Ta b l e 1 1 F Y 2 0 1 5 - 1 6 E x p e n d i t u r e B u d g e t S u m m a r y a n d F i s c a l I m p a c t E s t i m a t i n g F a c t o r s It e m Ci t y G e n e r a l Fu n d E x p e n s e s (F Y 2 0 1 5 - 1 6 ) Pe r c e n t Va r i a b l e ( 1 ) Ann u a l Var i a b l e Ex p e n s e s Pe r C a p i t a Ge n e r a l Fu n d Ex p e n s e Pr o j e c t Po p u l a t i o n / Se r v i c e P o p u l a t i o n Annual Total at Buildout Ge n e r a l Go v e r n m e n t ( 2 ) $8 , 5 5 1 , 3 4 9 1 0 % $ 8 5 5 , 1 3 5 7 3 , 7 3 1 S e r v i c e P o p . $ 1 1 . 6 0 9 3 . 8 $ 1 , 0 8 7 Po l i c e ( 3 ) $ 1 0 , 9 9 4 , 6 8 4 9 0 % $ 9 , 8 9 5 , 2 1 6 7 3 , 7 3 1 S e r v i c e P o p . $ 1 3 4 . 2 1 9 3 . 8 $ 1 2 , 5 8 2 Pu b l i c Af f a i r s ( 4 ) $4 6 2 , 2 9 8 N / A N / A N / A N / A N / A N / A N / A Re c r e a t i o n & Co m m u n i t y Se r v i c e s $6 , 1 5 7 , 1 0 7 7 5 % $ 4 , 6 1 7 , 8 3 0 5 9 , 7 5 6 P o p u l a t i o n $ 7 7 . 2 8 0 . 0 $ 0 Pl a n n i n g & Co m m u n i t y De v e l o p m e n t $7 , 2 3 5 , 3 8 3 5 0 % $ 3 , 6 1 7 , 6 9 1 . 5 0 7 3 , 7 3 1 S e r v i c e P o p . $ 4 9 . 0 7 9 3 . 8 $ 4 , 6 0 0 Pu b l i c W o r k s ( 5 ) $2 2 , 5 6 3 , 2 4 7 75 % $ 1 6 , 9 2 2 , 4 3 5 7 3 , 7 3 1 S e r v i c e P o p . $ 2 2 9 . 5 2 9 3 . 8 $ 2 1 , 5 1 7 No n - D e p a r t m e n t a l $ 1 1 , 6 1 0 , 9 8 5 N/ A N/ A N / A N / A N/ A N / A N / A T o t a l E x p e n d i t u r e s $ 6 7 , 5 7 5 , 0 5 3 $39,786 (1 ) P e r c e n t a g e o f c o s t s t h a t a r e p o p u l a t i o n - d e p e n d e n t , a s o p p o s e d t o f i x e d c o s t s o r c o s t s r e c o v e r e d t h r o u g h f e e s o r c h a r g e s . (2 ) I n c l u d e s C o u n c i l a n d C o m m i s s i o n , A d m i n i s t ra t i o n , a n d A d m i n i s t r a t i v e S e r v i c e s . (4 ) I n c l u d e s p u b l i c a f f a i r s , I T , g o v e r n m e n t c h a n n e l , a n d C i t y w e b s i t e . Es t i m a t i n g F a c t o r s (3 ) R e f l e c t s t h e c o n t r a c t p o r t i o n o f t h e p o l i c e d e p a r t m e n t ' s b u d g e t. T o t h e e x t e n t t h e c u m u l a t i v e e f f e c t o f n e w g r o w t h t r i g g e r s t h e c o n t r a c t t e r m s e x c e e d i n g t h e ca p a g r e e d u p o n i n 2 0 1 4 , t h e c o s t i m p a c t m a y b e a b o v e t h a t e s t i m a t e d b a s e d o n t h e a v e r a g e c o s t a p p r o a c h . (5 ) I n c l u d e s a d m i n i s t r a t i o n , e n v i r o n m e n t a l p r o g r a m s , d e v e l o p m e n t s e r v i c e s , s e r v i c e c e n t e r , g r o u n d s , s t r e e t s , t r e e s a n d r i g h t o f wa y , f a c i l i t i e s a n d f l e e t , tr a n s p o r t a t i o n , a n d o t h e r p r o g r a m s . 26 1 Memorandum February 10, 2017 Cupertino GPA Fiscal Impact Review Page 13 P:\161000s\161195CupertinoGPA\Deliverable\161195_Cupertino GPA Memo_02.10.17.docx Fiscal Impact of Proposed Project Table 12 summarizes the fiscal impact of business start-up incubator alternative on the City of Cupertino’s General Fund, with forecasted revenues and expenditure estimates based on the methodology described above. EPS estimates that General Fund revenues resulting from the proposed business start-up incubator will match the General Fund costs associated with providing ongoing services to the project. Table 12 Summary of Fiscal Impact Analysis – Business Start-Up Incubator Item Annual Fiscal Impact General Fund Revenues Sales Tax (excl. business-to-business sales)$6,000 Business to Business Sales $6,000 Property Tax $8,000 Property Tax in Lieu of VLF $4,000 Property Transfer Tax $0 Transient Occupancy Tax $0 Utility Tax $9,000 Franchise Fees $4,000 Business Licenses $3,000 Total Revenues $40,000 General Fund Expenditures General Government $1,100 Police $12,600 Recreation & Community Services $0 Planning & Community Development $4,600 Public Works $21,500 Total Expenditures $40,000 Net Impact on General Fund $0 262 Memorandum February 10, 2017 Cupertino GPA Fiscal Impact Review Page 14 P:\161000s\161195CupertinoGPA\Deliverable\161195_Cupertino GPA Memo_02.10.17.docx Fiscal Impact of Existing Uses In order to quantify the fiscal impact of the existing retail use located at 19900 Stevens Creek Boulevard, the same fiscal methodology is applied to existing land use program as the proposed GPA. The site currently is occupied by a 26,000 square foot Scandinavian Designs furniture store. The site’s existing conditions provide a positive fiscal impact to the City’s General Fund of about $36,000 a year, as shown in Table 13.7 Table 13 Summary of Fiscal Impact Analysis – Existing Conditions 7 This analysis relies on the applicant’s reported $2.56 million in retail sales at the existing store. City review of taxable sales data indicates actual retail sales likely are higher, and thus the actual fiscal benefit of the existing use is higher than reported here. Item Annual Fiscal Impact General Fund Revenues Sales Tax (excl. business-to-business sales)$26,000 Business to Business Sales $0 Property Tax $7,000 Property Tax in Lieu of VLF $4,000 Property Transfer Tax $0 Transient Occupancy Tax $0 Utility Tax $0 Franchise Fees $0 Business Licenses $0 Total Revenues $37,000 General Fund Expenditures General Government $0 Police $300 Recreation & Community Services $0 Planning & Community Development $100 Public Works $600 Total Expenditures $1,000 Net Impact on General Fund $36,000 263 Memorandum February 10, 2017 Cupertino GPA Fiscal Impact Review Page 15 P:\161000s\161195CupertinoGPA\Deliverable\161195_Cupertino GPA Memo_02.10.17.docx Net Fiscal Impact The proposed land use modification from retail to office, specifically a business start-up incubator, will result in an annual net fiscal burden to the City of Cupertino General Fund. This analysis estimates that the net annual fiscal impact of the GPA proposal on the City’s General Fund is approximately -$36,000, as shown in Table 14. The net increase in General Fund revenues from the project at buildout is estimated at roughly $3,000 more annually than the existing use. The net increase in General Fund expenditures associated with the Project is estimated at approximately $39,000 per year more than the existing use. Table 14 Net Fiscal Impact Summary Revenue / Expense Category Fiscal Impact at Project Buildout Fiscal Impact Baseline Net Fiscal Impact General Fund Revenues$40,000$37,000$3,000 General Fund Expenditures$40,000 $1,000 $39,000 Net Impact on General Fund $0$36,000-$36,000 264 Relevant policies from the Economic Development Strategic Plan (EDSP) 4.1 Allow for the conversion of underutilized ground floor retail space to incubator or co- working uses. There are a number of underutilized retail sites (such as second-floor retail space and spaces located to the side or rear of a property) that could be converted to smaller co-working spaces or incubators. Note that the conversion of some existing retail buildings may require property owners to make investments in infrastructure or building improvements to serve such businesses. 265 From:Darrel Lum To:City Council; Savita Vaidhyanathan; Darcy Paul; Barry Chang; Steven Scharf; Rod Sinks Cc:David Brandt; Aarti Shrivastava; Benjamin Fu; Piu Ghosh; Gian Martire; City Clerk Subject:General Plan Amendment Proposal on February 21, 2017 Date:Sunday, February 26, 2017 1:07:08 PM Agenda Item #10 regarding the Scandinavian Furniture site was postponed from February 21, 2017 to March 7, 2017. Unfortunately, due to a previous commitment I will not be able to attend this City Council meeting so I am submitting this written comment regarding the subject. Our analysis is based on data available February 21, 2017, the original public hearing: 1. For the requested General Plan Amendment #GPAAuth-2016-01, the applicant offer no amenities for its requested General Plan Amendment of an increase of 16,000 sq. ft. of office allocation: a. School resources - none b. Public open space - none c. Public Facilities - none d. Transportation Facilities - none Total - $0/square foot No affordable housing features other than statutorily required payment of Below-Market-Rate Program fees. Source: Table 1: Summary Evaluation of the Development Proposal City Council Staff Report February 21, 2017 2. "The proposed project is likely to result in a modest annual net fiscal burden on the City of Cupertino' s General Fund." Comment: "modest net fiscal burden" = <$33,000> to <$36,000> ??? Source: Summary of Findings #1 and Table 1 Fiscal Analysis of 19900 Stevens Creek Boulevard General Plan Amendment Application; EPS #161195 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. February 10, 2017 Page 2 3. "The estimated fiscal burden to the City would be marginally less if the tenant of the proposed office space is a medical office user." Comment: "Net Impact on General Fund" = <$33,000> Source: Summary of Findings #3 and Table 3 Fiscal Analysis of 19900 Stevens Creek Boulevard General Plan Amendment Application; 266 EPS #161195 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. February 10, 2017 Page 3 4. "In reality, much of the revenue generated through property taxes and sales taxes will be distributed to public entities other than the City." Source: Fiscal Impact on the General Fund Fiscal Analysis of 19900 Stevens Creek Boulevard General Plan Amendment Application; EPS #161195 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. February 10, 2017 Page 4 5. "According to the GPA application, the applicant has been in negotiations with two potential end users, a business start-up incubator and a medical office operation." Comment: "in negotiations with two potential end users" does not equal final end user. Source: Proposed General Plan Amendment Fiscal Impact on the General Fund Fiscal Analysis of 19900 Stevens Creek Boulevard General Plan Amendment Application; EPS #161195 Economic & Planning Systems, Inc. February 10, 2017 Page 4 6. Table 5 "Table 5 provides a summary of the Cupertino 2015-16 Adopted General Fund revenue budget..." Sales Tax $13,905,880 $6,454,120 = $20,360,000 Property Tax $5,782,541 $10,272,459 = $16,055,000 Others ____________ Total Revenues $68,162,303 Source: Table 5 FY2015 - 16 Revenue Budget Summary... Comment: Cupertino 2015-16 Adopted Budget Total Revenues $98,798,270 - Total Expenditure $118,565,638 = <$19,767,368> Sales Taxes $20,360,000 Cupertino 2016-17 Adopted Budget Sales Taxes $22,440,000 7. Sales Tax Sand Hill purchase Vallco 2014 267 Vallco generated $1 million in sales tax Macy's closed April 2015 Sears closed October 2015 > Clearance Sale August 2015 Food Court close during First Quarter 2016 JC Penney closed April 2016 Yet 2016-2017 sales tax revenue will increase to $22,440,000 or $2,080,000 (10%+). Top 40 Sales Tax Producers Third Quarter 2015 = July, August, September 2015 Macy's listed Yet Macy's closed April 2015 In our opinion the General Plan Amendment Application #GPAAuth-2016-01 for 19900 Steven Creek Boulevard (Scandinavian Furniture site) by Kings Mill Group, the applicant, should NOT be authorized to move forward to apply for a General Plan Amendment. Total Control Panel Login To: gianm@cupertino.org From: drlum@pacbell.net Remove this sender from my allow list You received this message because the sender is on your allow list. 268 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:117-2275 Name: Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready File created:In control:1/17/2017 City Council On agenda:Final action:3/7/2017 Title:Subject: Approval of the Mid-Year Financial Report and recommended budget adjustments for Fiscal Year 2016-17 Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:Staff Report A - Mid-Year Financial Report B - Draft Resolution C - Performance Measures for each Department D - Mid-Year Budget Journals Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council3/7/20171 Subject:ApprovaloftheMid-YearFinancialReportandrecommendedbudgetadjustmentsfor Fiscal Year 2016-17 1.Accept the City Manager’s Mid-Year Financial Report for FY 2016-17 2.ApprovetheMid-YearadjustmentsforFY2016-17asdescribedintheMid-Year Financial Report 3.Adopt Resolution No. 17-027 approving Mid-Year budget adjustments CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 3/1/2017Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™269 1 ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES CITY HALL 10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3220 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: March 7, 2017 Subject Approval of the Mid-Year Financial Report and recommended budget adjustments for Fiscal Year 2016-17 Recommended Action 1. Accept the City Manager’s Mid-Year Financial Report for FY 2016-17 2. Approve the Mid-Year adjustments for FY 2016-17 as described in the Mid-Year Financial Report 3. Adopt a resolution approving Mid-Year budget adjustments Background On June 6, 2016, the City Council adopted the Fiscal Year (FY) 2016-17 Budget, a $133.2 million spending plan for the City of Cupertino. On November 15, 2016, Council received an update on the City’s spending plan as part of the City Manager’s First Quarter Financial Report, which revised the budget to account for encumbrances and carryover expenditure appropriations from FY 2015-16 of $38,091,854. Council approved $10,239,848 in additional expenditures in the first two quarters of the FY mostly related to Apple Campus 2 contracts and negotiated salary and benefit increases. This resulted in an amended budget of $181,564,052. These FY 2016-17 budget adjustments are summarized in the table below: Fund FY 16-17 Final Adopted Carryovers Encumbrances Adjustments Approved in 1st-2nd Quarters FY 16-17 Amended Budget as Dec 31, 2016 General $77,222,454 $9,832,658 $3,783,570 $8,935,635 $99,774,317 Special Revenue $16,981,094 $15,287,664 $4,123,770 $479,074 $36,871,602 Debt Service $3,167,538 - - - $3,167,538 Capital Projects $15,072,000 $2,089,910 $1,115,890 $50,000 $18,327,800 Enterprise $10,312,537 $658,872 $67,472 $152,572 $11,191,453 Internal Service $10,476,727 $677,073 $454,975 $622,567 $12,231,342 Total All Funds $133,232,350 $28,546,177 $9,545,677 $10,239,848 $181,564,052 Discussion The Mid-Year Financial Report focuses on the status of the City’s budget as of December 31, 2016, and recommends adjustments to ensure the budget reflects the 270 2 City’s current revenue outlook and is responsive to changing spending priorities. As shown in the chart below, $17,088,519 in budget adjustments are being requested, of which $15,000,000 involves a transfer of excess fund balance to the Capital Reserve per the City’s Reserve and One Time Use Policy. If approved, the City’s new spending plan would total $198,652,571 across all funds. Mid-Year Financial Report Summary by Fund Fund Amended Budget as of Dec 31, 2016 Requested Mid-Year Adjustments Year End Projections General $99,774,317 $16,951,882 $116,726,199 Special Revenue $36,871,602 $46,963 $36,918,565 Debt Service $3,167,538 -$3,167,538 Capital Projects $18,327,800 -$18,327,800 Enterprise $11,191,453 -$11,191,453 Internal Service $12,231,342 $89,674 $12,321,016 Total All Funds $181,564,052 $17,088,519 $198,652,571 The recommended budget adjustments would be funded through the use of department revenue of $22,974,932, of which $15,000,000 is a movement of cash from the General Fund to the Capital Reserve. A projected increase to unassigned fund balance in the amount of $5,886,413 across all funds would occur as summarized in the table below: Fund Department Description Expenditure RevenueFund Balance General FundAdministrative Services $ (22,912.00) $ - $ 22,912.00 Transfer out salary savings to Non-Departmental to fund full-time Business Systems Analyst General FundAdministrative Services 80,000.00$ $ - $ (80,000.00)New Auditor Contract General FundAdministrative Services $ 50,000.00 $ - $ (50,000.00)Purchase and implementation of Business License Module General FundCommissions 30,000.00$ $ - $ (30,000.00)TICC Cellular Capacity/Coverage Study General FundCommunity Development 20,000.00$ $ - $ (20,000.00)Bank Service Charges General FundPublic Works 410,000.00$ $ 410,000.00 $ - Irrigation controller settlement General FundPublic Works $ 20,900.00 $ 20,900.00 $ - Soundwall damage reimbursement General FundPublic Works 62,160.00$ $ - $ (62,160.00)Ash Whitefly treatment at Rancho Rinconada General FundPublic Works $ 9,665.00 $ - $ (9,665.00)City Hall elevator repair General FundPublic Works 15,000.00$ $ - $ (15,000.00)Linda Vista park pump repair and control panel replacement General FundPublic Works $ 1,187,395.00 $ 1,187,395.00 $ - Contribution in lieu for Planned Transportation Project General FundNon-Departmental -$ $ 6,220,000.00 $ 6,220,000.00 Increases in Sales Tax, Property Tax, Construction Tax, and Use of Money and Property General FundNon-Departmental 22,192.00$ $ - $ (22,192.00)Transfer out salary savings to Information Services to fund full-time Business Systems Analyst General FundNon-Departmental 67,482.00$ $ - $ (67,482.00)Transfer out to fund remaining portion of Business Systems Analyst cost General FundNon-Departmental $ 15,000,000.00 $ - $ (15,000,000.00)Transfer out excess fund balance to Capital Reserve Total General Fund16,951,882.00$ $ 7,838,295.00 $ (9,113,587.00) Capital FundNon-Departmental $ - $ 15,000,000.00 $ 15,000,000.00 Transfer in excess fund balance to Capital Reserve Special RevenuePublic Works 21,104.00$ $ 21,104.00 $ - ABAG Grant for sidewalk repair Special RevenuePublic Works $ 25,859.00 $ 25,859.00 $ - Monument sign damage settlement & repair Internal Service Information Services 50,744.00$ $ 50,744.00 $ - Transfer in salary savings from Admin. Services to fund full-time Business Systems Analyst Internal Service Information Services 38,930.00$ $ 38,930.00 $ - Budget for full-time Business Systems Analyst position in IT/Application (Website) Total Other Funds 136,637.00$ $ 15,136,637.00 $ 15,000,000.00 TOTAL ALL FUNDS $ 17,088,519.00 $ 22,974,932.00 $ 5,886,413.00 Recommended Adjustments 271 3 General Fund Update General Fund - Four Year Comparison of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes to Fund Balance Mid Year Actuals Amended Budget Year End Actuals Mid Year Actuals Amended Budget Year End Actuals Mid Year Actuals Amended Budget Year End Actuals Mid Year Actuals Final Budget Amended Budget FY 2013-14 FY 2014-15 FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17 Revenue $21.6 $52.2 $73.9 $48.7 $56.1 $83.5 $25.2 $68.2 $77.9 $38.4 $79.0 $97.2 Expenditures $26.4 $59.4 $64.4 $37.7 $89.7 $86.2 $28.3 $79.6 $65.0 $34.7 $77.2 $99.8 Fund Balance $(4.8)$(7.2)$9.5 $11.0 $(33.6)$(2.7)$(3.0)$(11.5)$12.9 $3.7 $1.8 $(2.5) $(60.0) $(40.0) $(20.0) $- $20.0 $40.0 $60.0 $80.0 $100.0 $120.0 In M i l l i o n s Revenue The City received a one-time payment of $3.5 million dollars in sales tax due to the close out of the Triple Flip as discussed as part of the First Quarter report. In addition, revised estimates on property taxes from the County anticipate that the City will receive an additional $2 million dollars in FY 2016-17. The City also received construction tax revenue for numerous buildings at Apple Campus 2, thus resulting in an additional $600,000 in revenue. Lastly, an additional $120,000 in Use of Money and Property revenue was received due to proactive investing by the City in addition to an increase in interest rates. In total, staff is recommending to increase budgeted revenues in the General Fund by $7.8 million. Expenditures As of Mid-Year, several General Fund departments are requesting adjustments totaling $16.95 million. These requests include staffing, an auditor contract, a business license module, a cellular capacity/coverage study, bank service charges, an irrigation controller settlement, soundwall damage reimbursement, Ash Whitefly treatment in Rancho Rinconada, City Hall elevator repair, park pump repair and control panel replacement, and a contribution in lieu for planned transportation project . These requests would be funded by increases in revenue and General Fund unassigned fund balance. The bulk of the request involves the transfer of $15 million in excess fund balance to the Capital Reserve per the City’s Reserve and One Time Use Policy. These requests are summarized in the table below: 272 4 Fund Department Description Expenditure RevenueFund Balance General FundAdministrative Services $ (22,912.00) $ - $ 22,912.00 Transfer out salary savings to Non-Departmental to fund full-time Business Systems Analyst General FundAdministrative Services 80,000.00$ $ - $ (80,000.00)New Auditor Contract General FundAdministrative Services $ 50,000.00 $ - $ (50,000.00)Purchase and implementation of Business License Module General FundCommissions 30,000.00$ $ - $ (30,000.00)TICC Cellular Capacity/Coverage Study General FundCommunity Development 20,000.00$ $ - $ (20,000.00)Bank Service Charges General FundPublic Works 410,000.00$ $ 410,000.00 $ - Irrigation controller settlement General FundPublic Works $ 20,900.00 $ 20,900.00 $ - Soundwall damage reimbursement General FundPublic Works 62,160.00$ $ - $ (62,160.00)Ash Whitefly treatment at Rancho Rinconada General FundPublic Works $ 9,665.00 $ - $ (9,665.00)City Hall elevator repair General FundPublic Works 15,000.00$ $ - $ (15,000.00)Linda Vista park pump repair and control panel replacement General FundPublic Works $ 1,187,395.00 $ 1,187,395.00 $ - Contribution in lieu for Planned Transportation Project General FundNon-Departmental -$ $ 6,220,000.00 $ 6,220,000.00 Increases in Sales Tax, Property Tax, Construction Tax, and Use of Money and Property General FundNon-Departmental 22,192.00$ $ - $ (22,192.00)Transfer out salary savings to Information Services to fund full-time Business Systems Analyst General FundNon-Departmental 67,482.00$ $ - $ (67,482.00)Transfer out to fund remaining portion of Business Systems Analyst cost General FundNon-Departmental $ 15,000,000.00 $ - $ (15,000,000.00)Transfer out excess fund balance to Capital Reserve Total General Fund 16,951,882.00$ $ 7,838,295.00 $ (9,113,587.00) Recommended Adjustments Fund Balance The FY 2015-16 Amended Budget as of the third quarter anticipated the General Fund would end FY 2015-16 with $31.27 million in total fund balance. As part of the FY 2016- 17 First Quarter Report the City updated its year-end projections for FY 2015-16 to $44.27 million in fund balance in the General Fund, an increase of $13 million due to decreased actual expenditures and increased revenue received. The City, based on unaudited final numbers, is anticipated to end the 2015-16 Fiscal Year with $52.2 million in fund balance in the General Fund. This results in an additional $7.93 million over the first quarter projections and a total of $20.93 million higher than projected as of the third quarter. As part of the First Quarter Report the City anticipated making the following recommendations at Mid-Year: 1. Transfer approximately $3.5 million in fund balance to the Capital Reserve to fund future years of the Capital Improvement Plan 2. Use of approximately $6 million in fund balance to cover year-end encumbrances, budget carryovers, and City Council approval on budget adjustments; including those related to the newly negotiated salary and benefit increases At Mid-Year, staff has revised its recommendations as follows: 1. Transfer $15 million in fund balance to the Capital Reserve to fund future years of the Capital Improvement Plan 273 5 2. Increase the assigned encumbrance reserve by $5 million to account for an increase in encumbrances due to additional contract expenses and changes to existing contracts If approved, the changes above would result in an anticipated year-end fund balance of $40.54 million in the General Fund for FY 2016-17 as shown in the table below, of which $6.57 million would be unassigned. Total projected fund balance is derived by taking actual fund balance as of year-end + (amended budget revenues minus expenses) + (recommended adjustments to revenues minus expenses in this staff report). $52.19 + ($2.54) + ($9.11) = $40.54 Third Quarter Projections First Quarter Projections Unaudited Actuals Final Budget First Quarter Mid Year Projections CLASSIFICATION 2015-162015-162015-162016-172016-172016-17 Non Spendable1.10 1.10 0.94 1.10 1.10 1.10 Restricted0.76 0.76 0.89 0.76 0.76 0.76 Assigned27.50 27.50 20.50 27.50 27.50 32.10 UnAssigned1.91 14.91 29.87 3.69 27.08 6.57 TOTAL FUND BALANCE 31.27 44.27 52.19 33.05 56.44 40.54 Staffing Currently, the city has a total of 186.75 FTEs. As of Mid-Year, staff is requesting one additional full-time position - the conversion of two part-time Business Systems Analysts to full-time positions for the Information Services Department. If approved, this would bring the full-time benefited employee count to 187.75. It should be noted that the request would result in both existing Business Systems Analyst positions being benefitted. Business Systems Analysts Recently, Information Services (IS) was restructured to place enhanced focus on the City’s software applications. A team of one full-time benefitted and two part-time Business Systems Analysts are responsible for research, analysis, user acceptance testing, implementation and maintenance of these applications. Recent success in enhancing business processes, implementing new applications and stabilizing once troublesome systems are results of this team’s talents. The results this team has achieved can be seen not only in the gained efficiencies Citywide but also in the tangible cost savings of over $400,000 in the current fiscal year alone. Due to this talented team, the City has been able to cut back significantly on contract assistance for applications and it has built a budget document preparation software from scratch. The team is making great strides, but requires additional resources to keep pace with current and projected workload. IS requests that both current part-time positions be converted to 274 6 full-time benefitted positions – resulting in a net gain of one FTE. The addition will continue the team’s success as the City implements new large scale systems for recreation and permitting, adds additional transparency to City data and creates a new website for the City. Performance Measures Updated performance measures that align with government and private industry best practices have been included in the Mid-Year Financial Report. Staff will continue to provide updates to Council on the performance measures as part of the quarterly budget reports and the proposed and final budgets. Attachment C represents the status of the performance measures as of Mid-Year. Conclusion City staff recommends adjustments of $17,088,519 in appropriations and $22,974,932 in projected revenue resulting in $5,886,413 added to fund balance across all funds. Staff will continue to monitor the 2016-17 FY Amended Budget and be prepared to make recommendations and changes based on business needs and Council priorities before June 30, 2017 to ensure that the City ends the year within budgeted appropriations. Prepared by: Karen Bernard-Guerin, Senior Management Analyst Reviewed for submission by: Kristina Alfaro, Director of Administrative Services Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager Attachments: A - Mid-Year Financial Report – FY 2016-17 B - Draft Resolution C - Performance Measures for each Department D - Mid-Year Budget Journals 275 General Fund—General Fund Four Year Comparison of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes to Fund Balance Mid Year Actuals Amended Budget Year End Actuals Mid Year Actuals Amended Budget Year End Actuals Mid Year Actuals Amended Budget Year End Actuals Mid Year Actuals Final Budget Amended Budget FY 2013-14 FY 2014-15 FY 2015-16 FY 2016-17 Revenue $21.6 $52.2 $73.9 $48.7 $56.1 $83.5 $25.2 $68.2 $77.9 $38.4 $79.0 $97.2 Expenditures $26.4 $59.4 $64.4 $37.7 $89.7 $86.2 $28.3 $79.6 $65.0 $34.7 $77.2 $99.8 Fund Balance $(4.8)$(7.2)$9.5 $11.0 $(33.6)$(2.7)$(3.0)$(11.5)$12.9 $3.7 $1.8 $(2.5) $(60.0) $(40.0) $(20.0) $- $20.0 $40.0 $60.0 $80.0 $100.0 $120.0 In M i l l i o n s MID-YEAR REPORT The following is the Mid-Year Financial Report for the period of July 2016-December 2016 for the 2016-2017 Fiscal Year. It has been prepared to inform the City Council, City leadership and the public of the City’s financial status at the mid-point of this fiscal year. The report provides revenue and expenditure summaries and recommends adjustments needed to City budgets since the adoption of the Final Budget in June 2016. BACKGROUND On June 6, 2016, the City Council adopted the Fiscal Year (FY) 2016-17 Budget, a $133.2 million spending plan for the City of Cupertino. On November 15, 2016, Council received an update on the City’s spending plan as part of the City Manager’s First Quarter Financial Report, which revised the budget to account for encumbrances and carryover expenditure appropriations from FY 2015-16 of $38,091,854. Council approved $10,239,848 in additional expenditures in the first two quarters of the FY mostly related to Apple Campus 2 contracts and negotiated salary and benefit increases. This resulted in an amended budget of $181,564,052. FY 2016-17 Proposed Budget thru the Mid-Year | Amended Budget FY 2016-17 | Flow of Funds Chart (in Millions) GENERAL FUND UPDATE Proposed Budget thru the Mid-Year | Amended Budget FY 2016-17 | Flow of Funds Chart (in Millions) 276 Revenues General Fund—General Fund Revenue Five Year Comparison The City received a one-time payment of $3.5 million dollars in sales tax due to the close out of the Triple Flip as discussed as part of the First Quarter report. In addition, revised estimates on property taxes from the County anticipate that the City will receive an additional $2 million dollars in FY 2016-17. The City also received construction tax revenue for numerous buildings at Apple Campus 2, thus resulting in an additional $600,000 in revenue. Lastly, an additional $120,000 in Use of Money and Pr operty revenue was received due to proactive investing by the City in addition to an increase in interest rates. In total , staff is recommending to increase budgeted revenues in the General Fund by $7.8 million. $19.3 $21.6 $48.7 $25.2 $38.4 $54.7 $73.9 $83.5 $77.9 $105.1 $66.7 $52.2 $56.1 $68.2 $97.2 $- $20.0 $40.0 $60.0 $80.0 $100.0 $120.0 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 6 Month Actual Year End Actual Budget Expenditures General Fund—General Fund Expenditure Five Year Comparison $30.6 $26.4 $37.7 $28.3 $34.7 $44.7 $64.4 $86.2 $65.0 $116.7 $66.5 $59.4 $89.7 $79.6 $99.8 $26.5 $14.5 $31.6 $9.9 $28.7 $- $20.0 $40.0 $60.0 $80.0 $100.0 $120.0 $140.0 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17 6 Month Actual Year End Actual Budget Transfers Out As of Mid-Year, several General Fund departments are requesting adjustments totaling $16.95 million. These requests include staffing, an auditor contract, a business license module, a cellular capacity/coverage study, bank service charges, an irrigation controller settlement, soundwall damage reimbursement, Ash Whitefly treatment in Rancho Rinconada, City Hall elevator repair, park pump repair and control panel replacement, and a contribution in lieu for planned transportation project. These requests would be funded by increases in revenue and General Fund unassigned fund balance. The bulk of the request involves the transfer of $15 million in excess fund balance to the Capital Reserve per the City’s Reserve and One Time Use Policy. These requests are summarized in the table below: GENERAL FUND UPDATE (continued) Ye a r -En d P r o j e c t i o n s Ye a r -En d P r o j e c t i o n s 277 58% 44% 29% 41%39% 35% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% Revenue Expenditures High Low FY 16-17 Fund Department Description Expenditure RevenueFund Balance General FundAdministrative Services $ (22,912.00) $ - $ 22,912.00 Transfer out salary savings to Non-Departmental to fund full-time Business Systems Analyst General FundAdministrative Services 80,000.00$ $ - $ (80,000.00)New Auditor Contract General FundAdministrative Services $ 50,000.00 $ - $ (50,000.00)Purchase and implementation of Business License Module General FundCommissions 30,000.00$ $ - $ (30,000.00)TICC Cellular Capacity/Coverage Study General FundCommunity Development 20,000.00$ $ - $ (20,000.00)Bank Service Charges General FundPublic Works 410,000.00$ $ 410,000.00 $ - Irrigation controller settlement General FundPublic Works $ 20,900.00 $ 20,900.00 $ - Soundwall damage reimbursement General FundPublic Works 62,160.00$ $ - $ (62,160.00)Ash Whitefly treatment at Rancho Rinconada General FundPublic Works $ 9,665.00 $ - $ (9,665.00)City Hall elevator repair General FundPublic Works 15,000.00$ $ - $ (15,000.00)Linda Vista park pump repair and control panel replacement General FundPublic Works $ 1,187,395.00 $ 1,187,395.00 $ - Contribution in lieu for Planned Transportation Project General FundNon-Departmental -$ $ 6,220,000.00 $ 6,220,000.00 Increases in Sales Tax, Property Tax, Construction Tax, and Use of Money and Property General FundNon-Departmental 22,192.00$ $ - $ (22,192.00)Transfer out salary savings to Information Services to fund full-time Business Systems Analyst General FundNon-Departmental 67,482.00$ $ - $ (67,482.00)Transfer out to fund remaining portion of Business Systems Analyst cost General FundNon-Departmental $ 15,000,000.00 $ - $ (15,000,000.00)Transfer out excess fund balance to Capital Reserve Total General Fund 16,951,882.00$ $ 7,838,295.00 $ (9,113,587.00) Recommended Adjustments GENERAL FUND TRENDS As of December 31, 2016, General Fund expenditures are $34.7 million; this represents 35% of the budgeted appropriations. Expenditures at the Mid- Year point of the prior three years were between 41% and 44% of the final actual expenditures, placing this year below the range. This is primarily due to the timing of expenditures in Capital Outlays and Special Projects being completed later in this fiscal year than in previous fiscal years. General Fund revenues are at $38.4 million; this represents 39% of the budgeted revenue. Revenues at the Mid-Year point of the prior three years were between 29% and 58%, placing this year within the range. The City, based on unaudited final numbers, is anticipated to end the 2015-16 Fiscal Year with $52.2 million in fund balance in the General Fund. This results in an additional $7.93 million over the first quarter projections and a total of $20.93 million higher than projected as of the third quarter. As part of the First Quarter Report the City anticipated making the following recommendations at Mid-Year:  Transfer approximately $3.5 million in fund balance to the Capital Reserve to fund future years of the Capital Improvement Plan  Use of approximately $6 million in fund balance to cover year-end encumbrances, budget carryovers, and City Council approval on budget adjustments; including those related to the newly negotiated salary and benefit increases At Mid-Year, staff has revised its recommendations as follows:  Transfer $15 million in fund balance to the Capital Reserve to fund future years of the Capital Improvement Plan General Fund - Fund Balance 278  Increase the assigned encumbrance reserve by $5 million to account for an increase in encumbrances due to additional contract expenses and changes to existing contracts If approved, the changes above would result in an anticipated year-end of fund balance of $40.54 million in the General Fund for FY 2016-17 as shown in the table below, of which $6.57 million would be unassigned. Total projected fund balance is derived by taking actual fund balance as of year-end + (amended budget revenues minus expenses) + (recommended adjustments to revenues minus expenses in this staff report) $52.19 + ($2.54) + ($9.11) = $40.54. Third Quarter Projections First Quarter Projections Unaudited Actuals Final Budget First Quarter Mid Year Projections CLASSIFICATION 2015-162015-162015-162016-172016-172016-17 Non Spendable1.10 1.10 0.94 1.10 1.10 1.10 Restricted0.76 0.76 0.89 0.76 0.76 0.76 Assigned27.50 27.50 20.50 27.50 27.50 32.10 UnAssigned1.91 14.91 29.87 3.69 27.08 6.57 TOTAL FUND BALANCE 31.27 44.27 52.19 33.05 56.44 40.54 Fund Department Description Expenditure RevenueFund Balance Total General Fund 16,951,882.00$ $ 7,838,295.00 $ (9,113,587.00) Capital FundNon-Departmental $ - $ 15,000,000.00 $ 15,000,000.00 Transfer in excess fund balance to Capital Reserve Special RevenuePublic Works 21,104.00$ $ 21,104.00 $ - ABAG Grant for sidewalk repair Special RevenuePublic Works $ 25,859.00 $ 25,859.00 $ - Monument sign damage settlement & repair Internal Service Information Services 50,744.00$ $ 50,744.00 $ - Transfer in salary savings from Admin. Services to fund full-time Business Systems Analyst Internal Service Information Services 38,930.00$ $ 38,930.00 $ - Budget for full-time Business Systems Analyst position in IT/Application (Website) Total Other Funds 136,637.00$ $ 15,136,637.00 $ 15,000,000.00 TOTAL ALL FUNDS $ 17,088,519.00 $ 22,974,932.00 $ 5,886,413.00 Recommended Adjustments STAFFING Currently, the city has a total of 186.75 FTEs. As of Mid-Year, staff is requesting one additional full-time position - the conversion of two part-time Business Systems Analysts to full-time positions for the Information Services Department. If approved, this would bring the full-time benefited employee count to 187.75. It should be noted that the request would result in both existing Business Systems Analyst positions being benefitted. SUMMARY City staff recommends adjustments of $17,088,519 in appropriations and $22,974,932 in projected revenue resulting in $5,886,413 added to fund balance across all funds. Staff will continue to monitor the 2016-17 FY Amended Budget and be prepared to make recommendations and changes based on business needs and Council priorities before June 30, 2017 to ensure that the City ends the year within budgeted appropriations. MID YEAR BUDGET REQUESTS – ALL FUNDS 279 RESOLUTION NO. 17- Attachment B A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO AMENDING THE OPERATING BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2016-17 BY RATIFYING THE ADEQUACY OF ESTIMATED AMENDED REVENUES TO THE GENERAL AND SPECIAL FUNDS TO COVER AMENDED APPROPRIATED MONIES AND APPROPRIATING MONIES THEREFROM FOR SPECIFIED ACTIVITIES AND ACCOUNTS WHEREAS, the orderly administration of municipal government is dependent on the establishment of a sound fiscal policy of maintaining a proper ratio of expenditures within anticipated revenues and available monies; and WHEREAS, the extent of any project or program and the degree of its accomplishment, as well as the efficiency of performing assigned duties and responsibilities, is likewise dependent on the monies made available for that purpose; and WHEREAS, the City Manager has submitted his estimates of amended anticipated revenues, has determined that estimated amended revenues are adequate to cover amended appropriations, and has recommended the allocation of monies for specified program activities NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby ratify that the attached anticipated amended resources are to be received in the General and Special Funds listed in the attachment during Fiscal Year 2016-17 and that such resources are sufficient to cover the attached amended appropriations. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that there is appropriated from the General and Special Funds the sum of money set forth as amended expenditures for those funds, to be used for the purposes as expressed and estimated in the report before the City Council. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 7th day of March 2017, by the following vote: 280 Page 2 Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTAIN: ATTEST: APPROVED: Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Savita Vaidhyanathan, Mayor City of Cupertino 281 Attachment Expenditure Adjustment by Fund Fund Expenditure Amount General $16,951,882 Special Revenue $46,963 Internal Service $89,674 TOTAL EXPENDITURE ADJUSTMENTS ALL FUNDS $17,088,519 282 City of Cupertino FY16/17 Budget Performance Measures Department: Administrative Services Mission statement: provide exceptional service, encourage all members of the community to take responsibility for one another, and to support the values of education, innovation and collaboration. Citizens can enjoy high quality of services that meet community priorities. So that… So that… So that… Finance GOAL: Financial Stability – Provide a sustainable level of core services that are funded from ongoing and stable revenue sources. 1 “Minimum balance in General Fund (% budgeted appropriations, excluding transfers out)” was revised for clarity. Mission Measure FY16 Actual FY17 Q1 Jul-Sep FY17 Mid-Year Jul-Dec FY17 Target Ongoing Target General fund balance as a % of budgeted appropriations1 70% 53% 39% 35% 35% Credit Rating AA+ AA+ AA+ AA+ AA+ Funding allocated to high priority services (Public Works, Community Development, Law Enforcement) 56% 60% 62% 63% 63% Actual revenue vs. budget (within x% budget) 8% 84% 66% 10% 10% Actual expenditures (% below budget) 18% 83% 70% 5% 5% The City is financially responsible. The City can invest in Community priorities. 283 City of Cupertino FY16/17 Budget Performance Measures Department: Administrative Services Mission statement: provide exceptional service, encourage all members of the community to take responsibility for one another, and to support the values of education, innovation and collaboration. So that… Enabled by … So that… So that… Human Resources GOAL: To create a thriving organization with meaningful careers in public service. Mission Measure FY16 Actual FY17 Q1 Jul-Sep FY17 Mid-Year Jul-Dec FY17 Target Ongoing Target # of Worker’s Compensation Cases 17 6 9 0 0 Total recordable Injury Rate YTD 7.5% 2.93% 4.2 0% 0% % absenteeism (% of total annual work hours) 2% 3% 3% 2% 2% % turnover rate 10% 2% 4% 1% 1% % Employee satisfaction FY 17-18 FY 17-18 FY 17-18 100% 100% % Employee participation in wellness activities 62% 39% 51% 75% 75% Average # of applications received per recruitment 54 53 69.9 50 50 Recruitment timeline - # days from hiring request to offer letter 88 days N/A N/A 60 days 60 days # of Worker’s using the Telework program 15 15 16 17 17 Utilization of Full- service employee portal N/A N/A N/A 100% 100% The City can ensure a safe working environment for all employees. An agency that builds a flexible and productive work arrangement. The City attracts and retains a talented workforce. The agency supports a professional and engaged workforce offering diverse and quality community services. 284 City of Cupertino FY16/17 Budget Performance Measures Community Development Department Mission statement: provide exceptional service, encourage all members of the community to take responsibility for one another, and to support the values of education, innovation and collaboration. Online building & planning information and records that can be easily accessed. Enhanced customer service to increase counter efficiency and expand online services. Enabled by… Enabled by… Cupertino is a thriving City to live, work, learn and play. So that… GOAL: Review and guide development activity to ensure compliance with relevant codes and policies and alignment with community values to promote and enhance Cupertino’s communitywide quality of life. 1 Tracking method not yet established. Mission Measure FY16 Actual FY17 Q1 Jul-Sep FY17 Mid-Year Jul-Dec FY17 Target Ongoing Target Department cost recovery 127% 58% 97% 70% 96% Disclosable digital records can be researched online 16% 17% 24% 20% 100% Building permit applications reviewed over-the- counter (OTC) 67% 47% 34% 70% 80% Submitted building permit applications reviewed within 10 business days; 15 business days for major projects 1 N/A N/A N/A 100% 100% Building inspections performed within one business day 60% 45% 41% 80% 90% Planning application review complete in 30 days 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Project applicants sent survey at project approval/final 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 285 City of Cupertino FY16/17 Budget Performance Measures City Clerk Division Mission statement: provide exceptional service, encourage all members of the community to take responsibility for one another, and to support the values of education, innovation and collaboration. Online information and updated records that can be easily accessed in a timely manner. Response to records requests to comply with State law of 10 days. Enabled by… Enabled by… All can fully participate in local government to achieve the community & organizational goals. So that… GOAL: Streamline information processing for Council, staff and community members for compliance with State requirements and facilitate independent and transparent access to public information. Mission Measure FY16 Actual FY17 Q1 Jul-Sep FY17 Mid-Year Jul-Dec FY17 Target Ongoing Target City Council minutes for regular meetings presented for Council approval by the following regular meeting 91% 100% 100% 90% 100% Adopted City Council resolutions and ordinances processed and scanned to Laserfiche within a week of Clerk’s office receipt of final, signed document 100% 100% 100% 90% 100% Public Record Act requests responded to by the Statutory deadline date 97% 100% 100% 100% 100% 286 City of Cupertino FY16/17 Budget Performance Measures Department: Information Technology Mission statement: provide exceptional service, encourage all members of the community to take responsibility for one another, and to support the values of education, innovation and collaboration. Integrated information services enable customers’ access to the tools and information they need, when and where they need it. So that… Enabled by… GOAL: Provide superior delivery of information and technology services to city employees and constituents while continually enhancing levels of engagement. GIS: Open Data site visits per month 100 120 210 130 140 GIS: Number of annual requests (map, data, Web applications, Cityworks, schema, other) completed 235 60 121 335 400 GIS: Property Information site visits per month 150 40 103 180 200 GIS: Number of Cityworks assets and users deployed 18 18 18 20 26 IT Customer satisfaction % rating of 4 or 5 out of 5 100% 100% 100% 90% 90% Video: % of scheduled projects that were completed on time as scheduled 90% 90% 100% 95% 95% Video: % of outside requests able to perform * * 95% 95% 95% Applications: % of citywide-enterprise application project management performed on time and on budget 90% 95% 95% 95% 95% * New metric. Did not track requests turned down. Tracking started 2nd Quarter FY17. Mission Measure FY16 Actual FY17 Q1 Jul-Sep FY17 Mid-Year Jul-Dec FY17 Target Ongoing Target Tools and services leverage existing, emerging and innovative technologies to enhance, improve, and streamline business and communications processes. 287 City of Cupertino FY16/17 Budget Performance Measures LAW ENFORCEMENT Mission statement: provide exceptional service, encourage all members of the community to take responsibility for one another, and to support the values of education, innovation and collaboration. All members of the community are safe, informed, empowered and supported. Enabled by … So that … GOAL: Maintain a safe environment to live, work, learn and play. Mission Measure FY16 Actual FY17 Q1 Jul-Sep FY17 Mid-Year Jul-Dec FY17 Target Ongoing Target % monitor adequate response time for emergency calls  Priority 1  Priority 2  Priority 3 4.05 6.96 13.02 5.25 8.02 17.28 5.07 8.00 15.79 3.67 6.56 11.75 5 minutes 9 minutes 20 minutes % Education programs maintain minimum attendance  Teen Academy  Citizen Academy 100% 100% N/A N/A 85% 55% 83% 83% 80% 80% A Sheriff’s Office that is responsive and engaging. 288 City of Cupertino FY16/17 Budget Performance Measures Public Affairs Division Mission statement: Promote and increase interest and participation in City services, programs, initiatives, and projects while building community pride and positive identification with the City among its residents. Residents have access to timely, engaging, and important information. Enabled by… So that… GOAL: Promote and increase interest and participation in City services, programs, initiatives, and projects while building community pride and positive identification with the City among its residents. Social media engagement: total number of followers including City Hall Nextdoor, Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram accounts 15,692 16,057 17,470 16,650 10% annual increase Social media engagement: average number of engagements (reactions, comments, shares) per post on City Hall Facebook account 5 8 11 10 10% annual increase Access Cupertino: Average response time to customers organization-wide (days) 1.72 1.92 2 2 Respond within 2 days Mission Measure FY16 Actual FY17 Q1 Jul-Sep FY17 Mid-Year Jul-Dec FY17 Target Ongoing Target Leveraging the communication skills, knowledge, and experience of employees while also utilizing existing and emerging technologies to enhance, improve, and streamline the communication process. 289 City of Cupertino FY16/17 Budget Performance Measures Public Works Department Mission statement: provide exceptional service, encourage all members of the community to take responsibility for one another, and to support the values of education, innovation and collaboration. So that… So that… So that… CAPITAL PROJECT DELIVERY GOAL: Deliver capital projects on time and within budget. Mission Measure FY16 Actual FY17 Q1 Jul-Sep FY17 Mid-Year Jul-Dec FY17 Target Ongoing Target Meet published commitments to Council and community N/A 100% 100% 90% 90% Projects are on budget 83% 100% 100% 80% 80% Projects are on time 83% 100% 100% 80% 80% Residents and businesses are assured their community is being improved by efficient use of taxes and fees. Projects are utilized by the community. City funds capital improvement projects. 290 City of Cupertino FY16/17 Budget Performance Measures Public Works Department Mission statement: provide exceptional service, encourage all members of the community to take responsibility for one another, and to support the values of education, innovation and collaboration. So that… So that… So that… DEVELOPMENT SERVICES GOAL: Provide timely review and permitting of privately completed improvements within the public right of way. Mission Measure FY16 Actual FY17 Q1 Jul-Sep FY17 Mid-Year Jul-Dec FY17 Target Ongoing Target Review and permit private development in a consistent manner in accordance with applicable codes, standards and policies 100% 100% 100% 100 % 100% Respond to complete plan submittals or applications within two (2) weeks 96% 98% 99% 90% 90% Respond to public inquiries at the Public Works counter in City Hall within 15 minutes. 98% 100% 99% 95% 95% Customers expect quality reviews and permitting on a defined schedule. Public Works Department reviews improvements within the public right of way. Projects are constructed to an approved standard by a well-trained staff. 291 City of Cupertino FY16/17 Budget Performance Measures Public Works Department Mission statement: provide exceptional service, encourage all members of the community to take responsibility for one another, and to support the values of education, innovation and collaboration. So that… DEPENDABLE INFRASTRUCTURE GOAL: Timely maintain levels of service to meet community and environment requirements at optimal life-cycle costs. Mission Measure FY16 Actual FY17 Q1 Jul-Sep FY17 Mid-Year Jul-Dec FY17 Target Ongoing Target Pavement condition index (PCI) > or equal to 80* 70 74 78 80 80 Respond to reported storm drain system deficiencies with one (1) business day 100% None Reporte d 100% 100% 100% Remove known graffiti on City property within two (2) business days 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Respond within one (1) business day on any reported unsafe condition of street pavement markings & signs 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Respond within one (1) hour on any reported safety issue regarding traffic signals 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Respond to reported streetlight outages within two (2) business days 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Respond & mitigate sidewalk and pathway deficiencies within one (1) business day 85% 85% 100% 100% 100% Resolve any reported unsafe playground equipment issue within one (1) business day 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% The City consistently funds infrastructure maintenance and safety improvement programs. So that… Infrastructure indicates good condition; safety programs are effective. So that… Cupertino has well maintained infrastructure and programs that meets the needs of the community. 292 City of Cupertino FY16/17 Budget Performance Measures Public Works Department Mission statement: provide exceptional service, encourage all members of the community to take responsibility for one another, and to support the values of education, innovation and collaboration. So that… So that… So that… ENVIRONMENT GOAL: Protect our natural environment for current and future generations. Mission Measure FY16 Actual FY17 Q1 Jul-Sep FY17 Mid-Year Jul-Dec FY17 Target Ongoing Target Compliance with municipal regional permit requirements 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% Respond to reports of actual or potential discharge within one (1) business day 98% 97% 98% 95% 95% Percent of businesses in compliance during annual proactive inspections 88% 100% 100% 75% 75% City is responsible for a comprehensive storm water pollution prevention program. Current and future residents enjoy healthy creeks and a cleaner San Francisco Bay. Potential pollutants are stopped before entering the storm drain system. 293 City of Cupertino FY16/17 Budget Performance Measures Public Works Department Mission statement: provide exceptional service, encourage all members of the community to take responsibility for one another, and to support the values of education, innovation and collaboration. So that… So that… So that… ENVIRONMENT GOAL: Protect our natural environment and conserve resources for current and future generations. Mission Measure FY16 Actual FY17 Q1 Jul-Sep FY17 Mid-Year Jul-Dec FY17 Target Ongoing Target Tons of waste entering landfill (does not include self-haul or material to landfills other than Newby Island) 28,801.20* ~ 7033 12,017 =< 28,000 =< 27,000 Enforce applicable City ordinance and franchise agreement requirements 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% CalRecycle diversion rate 1 By employment: By population: 75% 65% N/A N/A N/A N/A 75% 75% 75% 75% Commercial diversion rate (does not include business donations, back haul, or other source reduction, etc.) 44% 45% 46% 50% 60% Number of all business and multifamily accounts separating organics out of 496 22% (110 accounts) 24% (118 accounts) 24% (119 accounts) 26% 50% Number of outreach site visits, workshops, events and activities to inform residents and businesses 216 25 70 150 150 1 CalRecycle has a 12 month lag in reporting. Data is for calendar year 2015. Diversion of solid waste from landfill is maximized, compost is produced for community use, recyclable material is sold to help offset collection costs and methane gas emissions at landfills are reduced. Current and future residents of Cupertino enjoy a healthy, sustainable environment. City implements solid waste collection services that encourage diversion of waste from landfills. 294 City of Cupertino FY16/17 Budget Performance Measures Public Works Department Mission statement: provide exceptional service, encourage all members of the community to take responsibility for one another, and to support the values of education, innovation and collaboration. So that… So that… So that… So that… ENVIRONMENT GOAL: Protect and expand the City’s urban canopy as visible and tangible commitment to Cupertino’s environment. Mission Measure FY16 Actual FY17 Q1 Jul-Sep FY17 Mid-Year Jul-Dec FY17 Target Ongoing Target Enforce applicable City ordinance and keep current annual urban forest work plan 100 % 100% 100%1 100% 100% % of street, median, and park trees maintained on schedule annually 100 % 17% 81%2 100% 100% Number of trees planted compared to number of trees removed 100 % 30% 148%3 100% 110% Current and future residents enjoy all of the benefits provided by a healthy urban forest. 1 Urban Forest Workplan updated 11/2016. 2 1843 trees maintained out of 2267 scheduled for maintenance in FY17 3 48 trees removed, 71 trees planted City is responsible for the maintenance and enhancement of the urban forest. Cupertino’s urban forest is resilient, healthy and safe. 295 City of Cupertino FY16/17 Budget Performance Measures Public Works Department Mission statement: provide exceptional service, encourage all members of the community to take responsibility for one another, and to support the values of education, innovation and collaboration. So that… So that… So that… ENVIRONMENT GOAL: Invest in technologies that “lead by example” and encourage others to take environmental action through their own purchasing decisions. Mission Measure FY16 Actual FY17 Q1 Jul-Sep FY17 Mid-Year Jul-Dec FY17 Target Ongoing Target All new vehicle purchases are to be hybrid and/or electric only models 70% 0%1 0%2 90% 90% When combustion vehicles are purchased, vehicle selection is to be determined by fuel efficiency, idle efficiency and emissions 100% 100% 100% 90% 90% 1 Proven hybrid/electric options were not available for the types of vehicles purchased. 2 Proven hybrid/electric options were not available for the types of vehicles purchased. The City purchases and maintains vehicle fleet for delivery of services. Cupertino invests in technologies that expand new and emerging markets that support our shared environment. Vehicles purchased have the least environmental impact possible. 296 City of Cupertino FY16/17 Budget Performance Measures Department: Recreation and Community Services Mission statement: provide exceptional service, encourage all members of the community to take responsibility for one another, and to support the values of education, innovation and collaboration. Enabled by… Enabled by… So that… GOAL: Create a positive, healthy and connected community. Mission Measure FY16 Actual FY17 Q1 Jul-Sep FY17 Mid-Year Jul-Dec FY17 Target Ongoing Target % Recreation and Community Services Department customers surveyed who rate services as good or excellent NEW 89% 95% 80% 80% % programs maintain minimum registration NEW 75% 68% 80% 80% % Department’s total cost recovery for all (direct and indirect) costs 76% 75% 60% 40% 40% # of new programs or events offered NEW 45 32 50 50 % change in participants NEW -5% 3% +1% +1% City investment in quality recreation and community programs. Improved business processes to improve customer experience Cupertino has an exceptional system of parks & services that align with community values. 297 City of Cupertino FY16/17 Budget Performance Measures Sustainability Division Mission statement: provide exceptional service, encourage all members of the community to take responsibility for one another, and to support the values of education, innovation and collaboration. An agency implementing Council and community sustainability goals to effectively safeguard shared resources. Engaged community partners and volunteers supporting CAP implementation. Enabled by… Enabled by… Cupertino is a healthy, resilient, environmentally -vibrant City for current and future residents to live, work, learn and play. So that… GOAL: Implement Cupertino’s Climate Action Plan and General Plan Sustainability Element to achieve quantifiable emissions reductions, conserve finite resources, and achieve utility cost avoidance and savings across municipal operations and community partners. Mission Measure FY16 Actual FY17 Q1 Jul-Sep FY17 Mid-Year Jul-Dec FY17 Target Ongoing Target % community- wide emissions reduced from baseline of 307,288 MT CO2e/yr N/A N/A N/A- Inventory in progress Comple te invento ry and Progres s Report 15% reduction by 2020 (355,610 MT CO2e/yr) Initiate and implement all Climate Action Plan near-term measures x% initiated x% complete or ongoing 100% 45% 100% 45% 100% 45% 100% 70% 100% 100% Increase the total number of Certified Green Businesses through the city’s GreenBiz program to improve efficiency and conserve resources 57 59 59 62 100 298 GENERAL FUND EXPENDITURE ADJUSTMENTS 3/7/2017 10090001800902 22192 Transfer Salary Savings to IS to Fund Full Time BSA 3/7/2017 10090001800902 15000000 Transfer out excess fund balance to Capital Reserve 3/7/2017 10090001800902 67482 Funding for remaining balance of the two BSA positions 3/7/2017 10011131700702 30000 TICC Cellular Capacity/Coverage Study 3/7/2017 10041405500501 -15000 Transfer Salary Savings to IS to Fund Full Time BSA 3/7/2017 10041405500507 -108 Transfer Salary Savings to IS to Fund Full Time BSA 3/7/2017 10041405501500 -3500 Transfer Salary Savings to IS to Fund Full Time BSA 3/7/2017 10041405501505 -2743 Transfer Salary Savings to IS to Fund Full Time BSA 3/7/2017 10041405501506 -287 Transfer Salary Savings to IS to Fund Full Time BSA 3/7/2017 10041405501507 -200 Transfer Salary Savings to IS to Fund Full Time BSA 3/7/2017 10041405501508 -208 Transfer Salary Savings to IS to Fund Full Time BSA 3/7/2017 10041405501509 -213 Transfer Salary Savings to IS to Fund Full Time BSA 3/7/2017 10041405501511 -54 Transfer Salary Savings to IS to Fund Full Time BSA 3/7/2017 10041405501516 -599 Transfer Salary Savings to IS to Fund Full Time BSA 3/7/2017 10041405700702 80000 New Auditor Contract 3/7/2017 10041405900906 50000 Purchase and Implementation of Business License Module 3/7/2017 10073715700707 20000 Bank Service Charges 3/7/2017 10083807600608 410000 Irrigation Controller Settlement 3/7/2017 10086824700702 20900 Soundwall Damage Reimbursement 3/7/2017 10086825600613 62160 Ash Whitefly Treatment at Rancho Rinconada 3/7/2017 10087827700702 9665 City Hall Elevator Repair 3/7/2017 10087840700702 15000 Linda Vista Park Pump Repair and Control Panel Replacement 3/7/2017 10088844900968 1187395 Contribution in lieu for Planned Transportation Project 299 GENERAL FUND REVENUE ADJUSTMENTS 3/7/2017 10090001401402 3500000 Additional Revenue projected at Mid Year 3/7/2017 10090001402401 2000000 Additional Revenue projected at Mid Year 3/7/2017 10090001406402 400000 Additional Revenue projected at Mid Year 3/7/2017 10090001406412 200000 Additional Revenue projected at Mid Year 3/7/2017 10090001420411 120000 Additional Revenue projected at Mid Year 3/7/2017 10083807480401 410000 Irrigation Controller Settlement 3/7/2017 10086824480401 20900 Soundwall Damage Reimbursement 3/7/2017 10088844450404 1187395 Contribution in lieu for Planned Transportation Project 300 CAPITAL FUND REVENUE ADJUSTMENT 3/7/2017 42990001421401 15000000 Transfer out excess fund balance to Capital Reserve 301 SPECIAL REVENUE - REVENUE ADJUSTMENTS 3/7/2017 27085820440427 21104.48 ABAG Grant for Sidewalk Repair 3/7/2017 27099954480401 25859 Momument Sign Damage Settlement & Repair 302 SPECIAL REVENUE EXPENDITURE ADJUSTMENTS 3/7/2017 27085820900922 21104.48 ABAG Grant for Sidewalk Repair 3/7/2017 27099954900905 25859 Momument Sign Damage Settlement & Repair 303 INTERNAL SERVICE EXPENDITURE ADJUSTMENTS 3/7/2017 61532308500501 42832 Transfer Salary Savings to IS to Fund Full Time BSA 3/7/2017 61532308500501 11814 Budget for full-time BSA Position in IT/Application (Website) 3/7/2017 61532308500501 38930 Budget for full-time BSA Position in IT/Application (Website) 3/7/2017 61532308500502 -11814 Budget for full-time BSA Position in IT/Application (Website) 3/7/2017 61532308500507 108 Transfer Salary Savings to IS to Fund Full Time BSA 3/7/2017 61532308501500 3500 Transfer Salary Savings to IS to Fund Full Time BSA 3/7/2017 61532308501505 2743 Transfer Salary Savings to IS to Fund Full Time BSA 3/7/2017 61532308501506 287 Transfer Salary Savings to IS to Fund Full Time BSA 3/7/2017 61532308501507 200 Transfer Salary Savings to IS to Fund Full Time BSA 3/7/2017 61532308501508 208 Transfer Salary Savings to IS to Fund Full Time BSA 3/7/2017 61532308501509 213 Transfer Salary Savings to IS to Fund Full Time BSA 3/7/2017 61532308501511 54 Transfer Salary Savings to IS to Fund Full Time BSA 3/7/2017 61532308501516 599 Transfer Salary Savings to IS to Fund Full Time BSA 304 INTERNAL SERVICE REVENUE ADJUSTMENTS 3/7/2017 61030300421401 67482 Funding for remaining balance of the two BSA positions 3/7/2017 61532308421401 22192 Transfer Salary Savings to IS to Fund Full Time BSA 305 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:117-2395 Name: Status:Type:Ordinances and Action Items Agenda Ready File created:In control:2/27/2017 City Council On agenda:Final action:3/7/2017 Title:Subject: Regnart Road Emergency Work Declaration, Authorization for the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute a Contract for the Repair Work and Designate the City Manager to apply for Federal and State Disaster Assistance Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments:Staff Report A - Draft Resolution B - Photographs C - Regnart Road Area Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council3/7/20171 Subject:RegnartRoadEmergencyWorkDeclaration,AuthorizationfortheCityManagerto NegotiateandExecuteaContractfortheRepairWorkandDesignatetheCityManagerto apply for Federal and State Disaster Assistance Staff recommends that Council Adopt Resolution 17-028 to: 1.DeclaretherepairsnecessarytorestoreRegnartRoadasEmergencyWork,perCupertino MunicipalCodeSection3.23.130andPublicContractCodeSection22050,andawarda contract without public bidding; 2.AuthorizetheCityManagertonegotiateandexecuteacontracttoperformtherepairsinan amount not to exceed $350,000; and 3.DesignatetheCityManagertobeauthorizedtoapplyforFederalandStatedisaster asisstance for storm related damages, if available 4.Approveabudgetadjustmentintheamountof$350,000totheTransportationFund270-85- 821 900-990 CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 3/1/2017Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™306 1 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT CITY HALL 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255 TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3354 www.cupertino.org CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT Meeting: March 7, 2017 Subject Regnart Road Emergency Work Declaration, Authorization for the City Manager to Negotiate and Execute a Contract for the Repair Work, and Designate the City Manager to apply for Federal and State Disaster Assistance Recommended Action Staff recommends Council Adopt Resolution 17-XXX to: 1. Declare the repairs necessary to restore Regnart Road as Emergency Work, per Cupertino Municipal Code Section 3.23.130 and Public Contract Code Section 22050, and award a contract without public bidding; 2. Authorize the City Manager to negotiate and execute a contract to perform the repairs in an amount not to exceed $350,000; and 3. Designate the City Manager to be authorized to apply for Federal and State disaster assistance for storm related damages, if available 4. Approve a budget adjustment in the amount of $350,000 to the Transportation Fund 270-85-821 900-990. Discussion The State of California has experienced a period of sustained, significant rains. On February 14, 2017, the Federal Government approved the State of California’s Major Disaster Declaration for the severe winter storms, flooding and mudslides that occurred from January 3, 2017, to January 12, 2017. Since the Federal Disaster Declaration, Cupertino has continued to experience significant rain, resulting in further damage. Many other portions of the State have also experience further damage, which has resulted in the State contemplating an additional Declaration of Disaster for the period of February 13, 2017 to February 22, 2017, more specifically designated the “President’s Day Storm Event”. Due to this storm event, on or around February 20, 2017, the road base along a portion of Regnart Road was washed away, resulting in a section of road that has been undermined. The City maintenance crews set up traffic control devices to direct cars 307 2 away from the destabilized section of roadway. The undermined section of roadway is a clear and imminent danger, requiring immediate action to prevent or mitigate the loss of essential public services to the residents in the Regnart Canyon area. The emergency will not permit a delay resulting from a competitive solicitation for bids, and immediate action is necessary to respond to the emergency and to prevent further destruction of the roadway. As Regnart Road is the only reasonable means of access for approximately 50 residences along Regnart Road and Regnart Canyon Drive, the Public Works Department needs to ensure that the road remains open and is repaired as quickly as possible. Declaring the road repairs as Emergency Work and authorizing the City Manager to negotiate and execute a contract through a non-competitive bidding process will permit the Public Works Department to streamline the construction of the repairs, reducing the potential for any impacts to the residents who live beyond the compromised section of road. It further allows the City to make repairs necessary to prevent additional deterioration of the roadway. The City Council may delegate to the City Manager, through a resolution passed by a four-fifths vote, the authority to cause the repair of a public facility and to take any immediate action required by an emergency, without giving notice for bids to let contracts. Sustainability Impact There is no sustainability impact. Fiscal Impact An amount not to exceed $350,000 to facilitate the repair of the roadway. _____________________________________ Prepared by: Chad Mosley, City Engineer Reviewed by: Timm Borden, Director of Public Works Approved for Submission by: David Brandt, City Manager Attachments: A – Draft Resolution B – Photographs of area needing repair C – Regnart Canyon Area Exhibit 308 CITY OF CUPERTINO 10300 Torre Avenue Cupertino, California 95014 RESOLUTION NO.17-XXX A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO DECLARING REPAIRS TO REGNART ROAD AN EMERGENCY; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO NEGOTIATE AND EXECUTE A CONTRACT FOR THE REPAIR OF REGNART ROAD AND TO APPLY FOR FEDERAL AND STATE DISASTER ASSISTANCE AND AUTHORIZING AN AMENDMENT TO THE ANNUAL OPERATING BUDGET TO APPRORIATE $350,000.00 FOR REGNART ROAD REPAIR WHEREAS, from January 3, 2017 to January 12, 2017, and again from February 13, 2017 to February 22, 2017, the State of California, the County of Santa Clara, and the City of Cupertino experienced a period of sustained, significant rains. On February 14, 2017, the Federal Government approved the State of California’s Major Disaster Declaration for the severe winter storms, flooding, and mudslides from January 3, 2017, to January 12, 2017; and WHEREAS, since the Federal Disaster Declaration, the State, County, and the City of Cupertino continued to experience significant rain, resulting in damage; and WHEREAS, the County of Santa Clara and State of California are further contemplating a Declaration of Disaster for the period between February 13, 2017 to February 22, 2017, more specfically designated the “President’s Day Storm Event”, for purposes of obtaining State and Federal disaster assistance; and WHEREAS, during the Declared Disaster storm events, as well during the President’s Day Storm Event, the City of Cupertino experienced mudslides, roadway damages, and other storm-related damages; and WHEREAS, Regnart Road suffered significant storm damage, as the road base was washed away, compromising the structural integrity of the roadway, and inhibiting its safe use; WHEREAS, Regnart Road poses a clear and imminent danger requiring immediate attention to mitigate the further loss of public facilitites as well as to ensure those residents served by Regnart Road have access to essential public services; WHEREAS, a public bidding process will delay the repair of Regnart Road, increase the likelihood of further damage to the roadway, and potentially remove access for those served by the roadway; and 309 Draft Resolution No. 17-XXX WHEREAS, this action is statutorily exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) under California Code of Regulation, Title 14, Regulation 15269(b); and the City Council is the decision maker and approves this exemption. NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY RESOLVED AS FOLLOWS: Section 1. Recitals: The City Council does hereby find, determine, and resolve that the foregoing recitals are true and correct. Section 2. Approval and Authorization. The City Council does further resolve that: 1. The City Manager is authorized to negotiate and execute a contract for the repair of Regnart Road in an amount not to exceed $350,000.00, without public bidding; 2. The Fiscal Year 2016/2017 Annual Operating Budget is amended to include an increase of $350,000.00 to the Transportation Fund; and 3. The City Manager is hereby authorized to apply for State and Federal disaster assistance. PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Cupertino this 7th day of March 2017, by the following vote: Vote Members of the City Council AYES: NOES: ABSTAIN: ABSENT: ATTEST: APPROVED: Grace Schmidt Savita Vaidhyanathan, Mayor City Clerk City of Cupertino 310 ATTACHMENT B Photographs of Regnart Road Damage 311 312 313 kj kj kj kj kjkj kj kj kj kj kjkj kj kj kj kjkj kj kjkjkj kj kj kj kj kj kj kj kj kj kj kj kj kj kj kj kjkj kj kj kj kj kj kj kj kj kj kj kj LI N D Y LINDY LN YON LINDY L N CT REG N A R T PL MT CR E S T D R DR DR R E G N A R T RD REG N A R T RAI N B O W CIR VIEW LIN D Y REG N A R T R D REGN A R T R D DR PL PA L O S L N REGNART TE R R A B E L L A D R C A N Y O N RAINBOW CT BELL A P L SA N T A T E R E S A D R LIND Y L N VILLA MARIA CT TERRACE DR PA L O S V E R D E S C T RE D O N D O C T MO N T E R E Y C T COLLINGSWORTH STSU T H CR E MT ST SANT A CA N Legend kj Residences Beyond Slide Private Parcels Beyond Slide City Boundary Approximate Slide Location ¯ ApproximateLocation of Slide Attachment C REGNART ROAD AREA 314 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:116-1953 Name: Status:Type:Reports by Council and Staff Agenda Ready File created:In control:9/1/2016 City Council On agenda:Final action:3/7/2017 Title:Subject: Report on Committee assignments and general comments Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments: Action ByDate Action ResultVer. City Council3/7/20171 Subject:Report on Committee assignments and general comments Report on Committee assignments and general comments CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 3/1/2017Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™315 CITY OF CUPERTINO Legislation Details (With Text) File #: Version:117-2399 Name: Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready File created:In control:2/28/2017 City Council On agenda:Final action:3/7/2017 Title:Subject: Adjourn the meeting in memory of Srinivas Kuchibhotla who was recently killed in Kansas Sponsors: Indexes: Code sections: Attachments: Action ByDate Action ResultVer. Subject:AdjournthemeetinginmemoryofSrinivasKuchibhotlawhowasrecentlykilledin Kansas CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 3/1/2017Page 1 of 1 powered by Legistar™316