03-05-19 Searchable packetCITY OF CUPERTINO
AGENDA
CITY COUNCIL
6:00 PM
10300 Torre Avenue and 10350 Torre Avenue
Tuesday, March 5, 2019
Non-televised Closed Session (6:00) and Televised Regular Meeting (6:45)
CLOSED SESSION - 6:00 PM
City Hall Conference Room A, 10300 Torre Avenue
1.Subject: Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation. Significant
exposure to litigation pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(d)(2): one
potential case
RECESS
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE - 6:45 PM
Community Hall, 10350 Torre Avenue
ROLL CALL
CEREMONIAL MATTERS AND PRESENTATIONS
2.Subject: Proclamation proclaiming March as American Red Cross Month and
presentation from the American Red Cross regarding local activities
Recommended Action: Present Proclamation proclaiming March as American Red
Cross Month and receive presentation from the American Red Cross regarding local
activities
3.Subject: City Attorney presentation on laws governing open meetings and conflicts
of interest: the Brown Act and the Political Reform Act.
Recommended Action: Receive City Attorney presentation on laws governing open
meetings and conflicts of interest: the Brown Act and the Political Reform Act.
POSTPONEMENTS
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Page 1
1
March 5, 2019City Council AGENDA
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 19 City Council minutes
Recommended Action: Approve the February 19 City Council minutes
A - Draft Minutes
5.Subject: Planning Commission's recommendation to select Kitty Moore as the
Environmental Review Committee representative
Recommended Action: Accept the Planning Commission's recommendation to the
Environmental Review Committee
Staff Report
SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES
ORDINANCES AND ACTION ITEMS
6.Subject: Approve the Mid-Year Financial Report and recommended budget
adjustments for Fiscal Year 2018-19
Recommended Action: 1. Accept the City Manager’s Mid-Year Financial Report for
FY 2018-19
2. Approve Budget Modification 1819-043 for Mid-Year adjustments as described in
the Mid-Year Financial Report
3. Adopt Resolution No. 19-021 approving Mid-Year budget adjustments
Staff Report
A - Draft Resolution
B - Mid-Year Financial Report for Fiscal Year 2018-19
C - Mid-Year Performance Measures
D - Mid-Year Budget Adjustment Journal
Page 2
2
March 5, 2019City Council AGENDA
7.Subject: Consider approving the 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee
Report; discussion and consideration of a Resolution declaring the intention to
initiate a proceeding to obtain approval of the City's proposed 2019 Clean Water
and Storm Protection Fee, which is a property-related fee, approving a fee report,
and calling a hearing to consider all protests; discussion and consideration of a
Resolution adopting ballot procedures for the 2019 City's Clean Water and Storm
Protection Fee.
Recommended Action: 1. Receive and approve the Fee Report for the 2019 Clean
Water and Storm Protection Fee; and
2. Adopt Resolution No. 19-022 Initiating a Proceeding to Obtain Approval of the
City of Cupertino's 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee, a property-related
fee conforming to Article XIII D, Section 6 of the State Constitution; and
3. Adopt Resolution No. 19-023 Adopting Ballot Procedures for the City of Cupertino
2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee; and
4. Call for a Public Hearing, tentatively scheduled for May 7, 2019, to receive input
from the public about the proposed 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee, and
to determine whether there is a majority protest to the proposed fee.
Staff Report
A - Fee Report-2019 Clean Storm Water and Protection Fee
B - Draft Resolution
C - Draft Resolution
D - Draft Notice of Public Hearing
8.Subject: Jollyman Park Unfenced Dog Off-Leash Area (DOLA) Trial
Recommended Action: Receive presentation from trial project supporters and
provide staff with direction on whether to include the development of a six-month
trial of a Dog Off-Leash Area (DOLA) at Jollyman Park on the City Council draft
work program for 2019-20.
Staff Report
A - Map of Proposed Area for a Dog Off-Lease Area at Jollyman Park.pdf
B - Jollyman Park Unfenced Dog Off-leash Area Trial Survey.pdf
9.Subject: Cities Association of Santa Clara County Draft Housing Policy Statement
Recommended Action: Accept or Provide Comments to the Cities Association of
Santa Clara County Draft Housing Policy Statement
Staff Report
A - Cities Association Draft Housing Policy Statement
REPORTS BY COUNCIL AND STAFF
Page 3
3
March 5, 2019City Council AGENDA
10.Subject: Report on Committee assignments and general comments
Recommended Action: Report on Committee assignments and general comments
ADJOURNMENT
Page 4
4
March 5, 2019City 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.
IMPORTANT NOTICE: Please be advised that pursuant to Cupertino Municipal
Code 2.08.100 written communications sent to the Cupertino City Council,
Commissioners or City staff concerning a matter on the agenda are included as
supplemental material to the agendized item. These written communications are
accessible to the public through the City’s website and kept in packet archives. You are
hereby admonished not to include any personal or private information in written
communications to the City that you do not wish to make public; doing so shall
constitute a waiver of any privacy rights you may have on the information provided to
the City.
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
Page 5
5
March 5, 2019City Council AGENDA
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 6
6
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:119-5079 Name:
Status:Type:Closed Session Agenda Ready
File created:In control:2/27/2019 City Council
On agenda:Final action:3/5/2019
Title:Subject: Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation. Significant exposure to litigation
pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(d)(2): one potential case
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
Subject: Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation. Significant exposure to
litigation pursuant to Government Code section 54956.9(d)(2): one potential case
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 2/27/2019Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™7
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:119-5046 Name:
Status:Type:Ceremonial Matters &
Presentations
Agenda Ready
File created:In control:2/21/2019 City Council
On agenda:Final action:3/5/2019
Title:Subject: Proclamation proclaiming March as American Red Cross Month and presentation from the
American Red Cross regarding local activities
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
City Council3/5/2019 1
Subject: Proclamation proclaiming March as American Red Cross Month and presentation
from the American Red Cross regarding local activities
Present Proclamation proclaiming March as American Red Cross Month and receive
presentation from the American Red Cross regarding local activities
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 2/27/2019Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™8
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:119-5044 Name:
Status:Type:Ceremonial Matters &
Presentations
Agenda Ready
File created:In control:2/20/2019 City Council
On agenda:Final action:3/5/2019
Title:Subject: City Attorney presentation on laws governing open meetings and conflicts of interest: the
Brown Act and the Political Reform Act.
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
City Council3/5/2019 1
Subject: City Attorney presentation on laws governing open meetings and conflicts of interest:
the Brown Act and the Political Reform Act.
Receive City Attorney presentation on laws governing open meetings and conflicts of interest:
the Brown Act and the Political Reform Act.
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 2/27/2019Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™9
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:118-4523 Name:
Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready
File created:In control:10/24/2018 City Council
On agenda:Final action:3/5/2019
Title:Subject: Approve the February 19 City Council minutes
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:A - Draft Minutes
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
City Council3/5/2019 1
Subject: Approve the February 19 City Council minutes
Approve the February 19 City Council minutes
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 2/27/2019Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™10
DRAFT MINUTES
CUPERTINO CITY COUNCIL
Tuesday, February 19, 2019
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
At 5:30 p.m. Mayor Steven Scharf called the Special City Council meeting to order in the City
Hall Conference Room A, 10300 Torre Avenue.
Present: Mayor Steven Scharf, Vice Mayor Liang Chao, and Councilmembers Darcy Paul, Rod
Sinks, and Jon Robert Willey. Absent: None.
CLOSED SESSION
Council went into closed session and reconvened in open session at 6:45 p.m. in the Cupertino
Community Hall Council Chambers, 10350 Torre Avenue for the Regular Meeting.
1. Subject: Conference with Legal Counsel - Pending Litigation; (Government Code section
54956.9(d)):
a. Friends of Better Cupertino, et al. v. City of Cupertino (SB 35 Vallco Project); Santa Clara
County Superior Court, Case No. 18CV330190
b. Friends of Better Cupertino, et al. v. City of Cupertino (Vallco Specific Plan - 2 Ordinances);
Santa Clara County Superior Court, Case No. 18CV337015
c. Committee Supporting Cupertino Citizens’ Sensible Growth Initiative, et al v. Schmidt, et al.
(Measure C); Santa Clara County Superior Court Case No. 16CV296322
The following individual spoke in open session before Council went into closed session:
Jim Moore (Cupertino resident) – distributed written comments
Written communications received for the closed session included an email to Council.
Mayor Scharf reported that the Council met in closed session to discuss with legal counsel
the following pending litigation for which discussion in open session would prejudice the
City in the litigation.
11
City Council Minutes February 19, 2019
With respect to these items, Mayor Scharf reported that Vice Mayor Chao did not attend
the discussions out of an abundance of caution, pending advice from the FPPC regarding a
potential financial conflict. This concerns the location of the Vice Mayor’s residence, which
is about 939 feet away from the Vallco property line.
With respect to Item c, Mayor Scharf reported that he recused himself from the discussions
of the Measure C litigation on the basis that he was a named plaintiff in the litigation. For
the benefit of the public, he noted that he is no longer a party to the litigation.
With respect to items a and b, Mayor Scharf reported that legal counsel provided an update
on the litigation and no reportable action was taken at this time in closed session.
With respect to item c, for which he recused himself, Mayor Scharf reported that the City
Attorney informed him that legal counsel provided an update on the litigation and that no
reportable action was taken at this time in closed session.
2. Subject: Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; (Government Code
Section 54956.9(d)):
a. Significant Exposure to Litigation (Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(2)) (1 matter)
b. Possible Initiation of Litigation (Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(4)) (1 matter)
Mayor Scharf reported that with respect to these items, Vice Mayor Chao did not attend the
discussions out of an abundance of caution, pending advice from the FPPC regarding a
potential financial conflict stemming from the location of the Vice Mayor’s residence.
Mayor Scharf reported that the Council discussed with legal counsel the letter of complaint
received from the Nielsen law firm, attorneys for Vallco Property Owners, challenging the
validity of the referendum petition challenging the General Plan Amendment resolution for
the Vallco Specific Plan. No final reportable action was taken.
Mayor Scharf reported that the Council discussed the possible initiation of litigation in one
matter related to the referendum petition challenging the General Plan Amendment
resolution for the Vallco Specific Plan. No reportable action was taken. This item is also on
tonight’s open session agenda item as item 12.
In open session, Mayor Scharf also reported out from the February 15 closed session held at 5:30
p.m.:
Subject: Conference with Legal Counsel - Anticipated Litigation; Initiation of litigation
pursuant to Government Code Section 54956.9(d)(4): One potential case:
12
City Council Minutes February 19, 2019
The following individual spoke in open session before Council went into closed session:
Barry Chang (Cupertino resident)
Mayor Scharf reported that the Council discussed possible initiation of litigation in one
matter. No reportable action was taken.
In open session, Mayor Scharf also reported out from the February 19 closed session held at 12:00
p.m.:
Subject: Public Employee Employment (Gov’t Code 54957(b)(1); Title: City Manager
Recruitment
Mayor Scharf reported that the Council discussed the recruitment of a City Manager. No
reportable action was taken.
ADJOURNMENT
REGULAR CITY COUNCIL MEETING
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
At 6:45 p.m. Mayor Steven Scharf called the Regular City Council meeting in the Cupertino
Community Hall Council Chambers, 10350 Torre Avenue and led the Pledge of Allegiance.
ROLL CALL
Present: Mayor Steven Scharf, Vice Mayor Liang Chao, and Councilmembers Darcy Paul, Rod
Sinks, and Jon Robert Willey. Absent: None.
CEREMONIAL MATTERS AND PRESENTATIONS - None
POSTPONEMENTS - None
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS
Gary Sepulveda (Cupertino resident) talked about Regnart Creek Trail.
Heather Dean (Cupertino resident) talked about traffic issues on highway 85, Council protocol
regarding mayoral rotation, and affordable housing.
13
City Council Minutes February 19, 2019
Ian Greensides (Cupertino resident) talked about the Mayor’s comment regarding building
a wall around Cupertino and affordable housing.
Muni Madhdhipatla (Cupertino resident) talked about Lehigh and the referendum.
Connie Cunningham (Cupertino resident) thanked Council and staff for using bird safe
design and materials on the Vallco design process and encouraged use for all future projects.
Ilango Ganga (Cupertino resident) talked about Regnart Creek Trail and the referendum.
Sudha Kasamsetty (Cupertino resident and Cupertino Fine Arts Commissioner) talked about
improving the ambiance and signage at City Hall to reflect Cupertino’s multi-culturalism
and gave some examples.
Krithika (Cupertino resident) talked about the referendum.
Marie Liu (Cupertino resident) on behalf of Cupertino for All talked about affordable
housing.
Jean Bedord (Cupertino resident) talked about the recent Council appointments to City
commissions.
Ra Hopkins (Sunnyvale resident) talked about the Mayor’s comment regarding building a
wall around Cupertino and affordable housing .
Richard Mehlinger (Sunnyvale resident) talked about the Mayor’s comment regarding
building a wall around Cupertino and affordable housing .
Benaifer Dastoor talked about the Regnart Creek Trail (distributed written comments).
Linda Wyckoff gave her time to Benaifer Dastoor.
Phyllis Dickstein talked about the referendum.
Pete Heller (Cupertino resident) talked about transparency regarding closed session vs. open
session Council meetings.
John Schmidt (Sunnyvale resident) talked about the Mayor’s comment regarding building a
wall around Cupertino and affordable housing.
14
City Council Minutes February 19, 2019
Ben Vo (San Jose resident and De Anza College student) talked about the Mayor’s comment
regarding building a wall around Cupertino and affordable housing.
Martin Pyre (Sunnyvale resident) talked about the Mayor’s comment regarding building a
wall around Cupertino and affordable housing.
Jim Moore (Cupertino resident) talked about the positive notes in the State of the City
address and recent commission interviews.
Kitty Moore (Cupertino resident) talked about study sessions needed regarding
employee/housing balance and legislative actions.
Danessa Techmanski (Cupertino resident) talked about the referendum.
Rick Ghallman (Cupertino resident) talked about Vallco and SB35.
Jane Wang (Cupertino resident) talked about an abatement letter she received regarding a shed
in her backyard.
CONSENT CALENDAR
Sinks moved and Scharf seconded to approve the items on the Consent Calendar with an
amendment to item number 4, and with the exception of item number 6 which was pulled for
discussion. Ayes: Scharf, Chao, Paul, Sinks, and Willey. Noes: None. Abstain: None. Absent:
None.
1. Subject: Approve the January 28 City Council minutes (commission interviews)
Recommended Action: Approve the January 28 City Council minutes (commission
interviews)
2. Subject: Approve the January 29 City Council minutes (commission interviews)
Recommended Action: Approve the January 28 (Clerk note: should read January 29) City
Council minutes (commission interviews)
3. Subject: Approve the February 2 (Council Priority Setting Session) City Council Minutes
Recommended Action: Approve the February 2 (Council Priority Setting Session) City
Council Minutes
4. Subject: Approve the February 5 City Council minutes
Recommended Action: Approve the February 5 City Council minutes
15
City Council Minutes February 19, 2019
Written communications for this item included amended minutes.
5. Subject: Coffee Society Lease Agreement, 10800 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014
Recommended Action: Authorize the City Manager to execute a five-year lease agreement
with the Coffee Society, 10800 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, CA 95014
6. Subject: Renewal of Friendship City Relationships
Recommended Action: Approve renewal of five Friendship City relationships, including
Jiangmen, China; Taichung, Taiwan; Taipei, Taiwan; Yilan, Taiwan; and Zhaoqing, China
Vice Mayor Chao asked for more information regarding renewing cities.
Interim City Manager Timm Borden answered questions from Council.
Mayor Scharf opened public comment and the following individuals spoke:
Gilbert Wong
Barry Chang
Mayor Scharf closed public comment.
Willey moved and Sinks seconded to continue this item and directed staff to bring back
more information. The motion carried unanimously.
7. Subject: Application for Alcohol Beverage License for Pacific Catch, Inc. (dba Pacific Catch),
19399 Stevens Creek Boulevard
Recommended Action: Recommend approval to the California Department of Alcoholic
Beverage Control of the application for Alcohol Beverage License for Pacific Catch, Inc. (dba
Pacific Catch), 19399 Stevens Creek Boulevard
8. Subject: Application for Alcohol Beverage License for Stout Cupertino, LLC (dba Stout
Burgers & Beers Cupertino), 10088 N. Wolfe Road
Recommended Action: Recommend approval to the California Department of Alcoholic
Beverage Control of the application for Alcohol Beverage License for Stout Cupertino, LLC
(dba Stout Burgers & Beers Cupertino), 10088 N. Wolfe Road
SECOND READING OF ORDINANCES - None
PUBLIC HEARINGS – None
16
City Council Minutes February 19, 2019
Council recessed from 8:25 p.m. to 8:32 p.m.
STUDY SESSION
9. Subject: Study Session on new budget process
Recommended Action: Conduct study session on new budget process and provide any
input to staff
Written communications for this item included a staff presentation.
Director of Administrative Services Kristina Alfaro reviewed the staff report and
presentation.
Mayor Scharf opened public comment and the following individuals spoke:
Peggy Griffin (Cupertino resident)
Kitty Moore (Cupertino resident)
Council received the presentation on the new budget process.
ORDINANCES AND ACTION ITEMS
10. Subject: Provide direction for the use of increased County staffing budget for the Santa
Clara County Library for FY 19/20 of $428,596
Recommended Action: Provide staff direction whether to:
1. Use the additional staffing budget from the County of $428,596/year to reduce the City's
existing $468,023/year contribution for 12 additional Library hours per week and redirect
$428,596 of City funding toward a new program room attached to the Library (Option 3 as
provided by the Santa Clara County Library District); or
2. Use the additional staffing budget from the County of $428,596/year (including
consideration to add additional City funds over and above the $468,023/year) to implement
one or more of the options provided by the Santa Clara County Library
District (Options 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B, 2C, 4 or any combination thereof).
Written communications for this item included a staff presentation.
Acting Assistant Director of Public Works Chad Mosley reviewed the staff report and
presentation.
Mayor Scharf opened public comment and the following individuals spoke:
17
City Council Minutes February 19, 2019
Peggy Griffin (Cupertino resident)
Henry Sang, Jr. (Cupertino resident) on behalf of Cupertino Library Foundation
(distributed written comments)
Liana Crabtree (Cupertino resident)
Kitty Moore (Cupertino resident)
Rahul Vasanth (Cupertino resident)
Mayor Scharf closed public comment.
Paul moved and Scharf seconded to use the additional staffing budget from the County of
$428,596/year to implement Santa Clara County Library District (SCCLD) option 2B to fund
30 monthly Go Go Biblio school, preschool and community visits for $116,974 per year for
two years with the balance of $311,622 to go toward a new program room attached to the
Library (as noted in SCCLD Option 3).
Sinks added a friendly amendment to round up the amount in option 2B to spend no more
than $117,000 per year for two years to fund 30 monthly Go Go Biblio school, preschool and
community visits with the balance to go toward a new program room attached to the
Library (as noted in SCCLD Option 3). Paul and Scharf accepted the friendly amendment
and the motion carried unanimously.
11. Subject: 2018 Pavement Maintenance Project, Project No. 2019-103 contract award
Recommended Action: Authorize the city Manager to award a contract to G. Bortolotto &
Co. in the amount of $2,584,568 and approve a construction contingency of $258,000 for a
total of $2,842,568.
Written communications for this item included an amended staff report noting that the item
was for the 2019 Pavement Maintenance Project.
Paul moved and Sinks seconded to authorize the city Manager to award a contract to G.
Bortolotto & Co. in the amount of $2,584,568 and approve a construction contingency of
$258,000 for a total of $2,842,568. The motion carried unanimously.
12. Subject: Initiation of declaratory relief or other appropriate action to determine validity of
referendum petition against Resolution No. 18-085 and receipt of City Attorney
memorandum regarding this and three other referendum petitions protesting Vallco Town
Center Specific Plan Project.
Recommended Action: That the City Council authorize the City Attorney, on behalf of the
City Clerk, to initiate a declaratory relief action or other appropriate action to determine
18
City Council Minutes February 19, 2019
whether a referendum petition against Resolution No. 18-085 (approving a General Plan
amendment for the Vallco Town Center Specific Plan Project) substantially complies with
Elections Code requirements. The City Council will also receive a memorandum from the
City Attorney regarding the status of this and the three other referendum petitions
protesting Vallco Town Center Specific Plan Project.
Vice Mayor Chao recused herself on this item and left the dais.
Written communications for this item included emails to Council.
Outside Counsel Perl Perlmutter from Shute, Mihaly & Weinberger LLP reviewed the
City Attorney memo.
Mayor Scharf opened public comment and the following individuals spoke:
Peggy Griffin (Cupertino resident)
Marie Liu (Cupertino resident) on behalf of Cupertino for All
Govind (Cupertino resident)
Jennifer Griffin
James Moore (Cupertino resident)
Sinks moved and Paul seconded to authorize the City Attorney, on behalf of the City Clerk,
to initiate a declaratory relief action or other appropriate action to determine whether a
referendum petition against Resolution No. 18-085 (approving a General Plan amendment
for the Vallco Town Center Specific Plan Project) substantially complies with Elections Code
requirements. The City Council received a memorandum from the City Attorney regarding
the status of this and the three other referendum petitions protesting Vallco Town Ce nter
Specific Plan Project. The motion carried with Chao recusing.
Vice Mayor Chao returned to the dais.
REPORTS BY COUNCIL AND STAFF
13. Subject: Report on Committee assignments and general comments
Recommended Action: Report on Committee assignments and general comments
Councilmembers highlighted the activities of their committees and various community
events.
Mayor Scharf opened public comment and the following individual spoke:
19
City Council Minutes February 19, 2019
Kitty Moore
Mayor Scharf closed public comment.
Councilmembers asked staff to follow-up on these items:
City Attorney presentation explaining the Brown Act (Scharf)
CIP prioritization (Chao/Scharf)
City Manager report at Council meetings (Chao/Scharf)
Revisit summary or verbatim meeting minutes especially for commissions
(Chao/Scharf)
Revisit composition of Housing Commission regarding Financial and Business rep
(Chao/Scharf)
Reaffirm Housing Commission duties/powers/responsibilities (Chao/Scharf)
Look into issue with Regnart Creek Trail Feasibility S tudy and what is posted
online (Chao/Willey)
Revisit role of Economic Development Committee and Strategic Plan (Chao/S charf)
Hold a workshop open to the public regarding budget overview (Paul/Scharf)
Study session on office/housing balance (Paul/Chao)
Study session on State bill process (Paul/Chao)
Agendize City Manager group draft statement on housing policy (Sinks/Paul)
Do another Community survey on General Plan process (Willey/Scharf)
Form Resident Advisory Group (Willey/Scharf)
ADJOURNMENT
At 11:30 p.m., Mayor Scharf adjourned the meeting .
________________________
Grace Schmidt, City Clerk
20
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:119-4937 Name:
Status:Type:Consent Calendar Agenda Ready
File created:In control:1/31/2019 City Council
On agenda:Final action:3/5/2019
Title:Subject: Planning Commission's recommendation to select Kitty Moore as the Environmental Review
Committee representative
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:Staff Report
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
City Council3/5/2019 1
Subject: Planning Commission's recommendation to select Kitty Moore as the Environmental
Review Committee representative
Accept the Planning Commission's recommendation to the Environmental Review Committee
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 2/27/2019Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™21
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 5, 2019
Subject
Planning Commission’s recommendation to select Kitty Moore as the Environmental
Review Committee representative
Recommended Action
Accept the Planning Commission’s recommendation to the Environmental Review
Committee.
Description
On February 12, 2019, the Planning Commission made its annual recommendations for
the selection of a member to the Environmental Review Committee (ERC). In
accordance with City of Cupertino Municipal Code, the City Council shall review and
affirm the selection. The recommendation is for Commissioner Kitty Moore to serve in
this role.
Sustainability Impact
None
Fiscal Impact
None
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Beth Ebben, Deputy Board Clerk
Reviewed by: Benjamin Fu, Interim Director of Community Development
Approved for Submission by: Timm Borden, Interim City Manager
22
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:118-4305 Name:
Status:Type:Ordinances and Action Items Agenda Ready
File created:In control:8/28/2018 City Council
On agenda:Final action:3/5/2019
Title:Subject: Approve the Mid-Year Financial Report and recommended budget adjustments for Fiscal
Year 2018-19
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:Staff Report
A - Draft Resolution
B - Mid-Year Financial Report for Fiscal Year 2018-19
C - Mid-Year Performance Measures
D - Mid-Year Budget Adjustment Journal
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
City Council3/5/2019 1
Subject: Approve the Mid-Year Financial Report and recommended budget adjustments for
Fiscal Year 2018-19
1. Accept the City Manager’s Mid-Year Financial Report for FY 2018-19
2. Approve Budget Modification 1819-043 for Mid-Year adjustments as described in the
Mid-Year Financial Report
3. Adopt Resolution No. 19-021 approving Mid-Year budget adjustments
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 2/27/2019Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™23
1
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: March 5, 2019
Subject
Approve the Mid-Year Financial Report and recommended budget adjustments for
Fiscal Year 2018-19
Recommended Action
1. Accept the City Manager’s Mid-Year Financial Report for FY 2018-19
2. Approve Budget Modification 1819-XXX for Mid-Year adjustments as described
in the Mid-Year Financial Report
3. Adopt a resolution 19-XXX approving Mid-Year budget adjustments
Background
On June 5, 2018, the City Council adopted the Fiscal Year (FY) 2018-19 Budget, a
$131,718,859 million spending plan for the City of Cupertino. On November 20, 2018,
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
of $11,061,145 and carryover appropriations of $37,177,851 from FY 2017 -18.
Encumbrances represent funds for valid obligations related to unfilled purchase orders
or unfilled contracts that are rolled over from one year to the next until those
obligations are fulfilled or terminated. Carryover appropriations are unencumbered
funds for unfinished projects that are carried over for use in the following fiscal year in
order to complete those projects.
In the first two quarters of FY 2018-19, Council approved $6,523,652 in additional
appropriations mostly related to a $4 million increase for Interim City Hall and $558,979
for Apple Park law enforcement services. These increases were offset with the
defunding of several Capital Improvement Program projects noted in Resolution No.
18-104 totaling $4,350,750 which include $1,470,900 for De Anza Median Island
Landscaping Phase II, $991,050 for Service Center Shed No. 3 Improvement, and
$920,500 for Sports Center Upgrades.
24
2
This resulted in an amended budget of $186,481,507. These FY 2018-19 budget
adjustments are summarized in the following table:
Mid-Year Financial Report Summary of Budget Adjustments by Fund
Fund
FY 18-19
Final
Adopted
Carryovers Encumbrances
Adjustments
Approved in
1st-2nd
Quarters
FY 18-19
Amended
Budget as Dec
31, 2018
General $77,639,720 $9,486,150 $5,168,152 $1,511,577 $93,805,599
Special Revenue 13,689,297 15,827,938 4,459,499 $324,411 $34,301,145
Debt Service 3,169,438 - - - $3,169,438
Capital Projects 17,868,000 11,202,852 1,025,302 $4,655,000 $34,751,154
Enterprise 10,854,026 160,707 135,974 $27,864 $11,178,571
Internal Service 8,498,378 500,204 272,218 $4,800 $9,275,600
Total All Funds $131,718,859 $37,177,851 $11,061,145 $6,523,652 $186,481,507
Discussion
The Mid-Year Financial Report focuses on the status of the City’s budget as of
December 31, 2018, and recommends adjustments to ensure the budget reflects the
City’s current revenue outlook and is responsive to changing spending priorities. As
shown in the chart below, $7,722,588 in net budget adjustments are being requested, of
which $8,000,000 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 $194,204,095 across all funds.
Mid-Year Financial Report Summary by Fund
Fund
Amended
Budget as of
December 31,
2018
Requested
Mid-Year
Adjustments
Year End
Projections
General $93,805,599 $8,355,542 $102,161,141
Special Revenue $34,301,145 ($761,762) $33,539,383
Debt Service $3,169,438 $3,169,438
Capital Projects $34,751,154 $65,000 $34,816,154
Enterprise $11,178,571 $63,808 $11,242,379
Internal Service $9,275,600 $9,275,600
Total All Funds $186,481,507 $7,722,588 $194,204,095
The recommended budget adjustments would be funded through the use of
departmental revenue of $815,000 and non-departmental revenue of $9,900,000 of which
$8,000,000 is a movement of cash from the General Fund to the Capital Reserve. A
25
3
projected increase to unassigned fund balance in the amount of $2,992,412 across all
funds would occur as summarized in the table below:
Fund Department Expense Revenue
Fund
Balance Proposal
GENERAL FUNDS
100 General Fund Innovation & Technology 28,750$ -$ (28,750)$ Labor Costing Software
100 General Fund Recreation 63,044$ -$ (63,044)$ Lawson Teen Center, Hidden Treasurers, Sr. Ctr. P/T
100 General Fund Community Development 100,000$ 815,000$ 715,000$ Arborist, Plan Check, Charges for Services
100 General Fund Public Works 163,748$ -$ (163,748)$
Park Fee, Conduit Repair, Overtime, Compressor,
Emergency Roof, Minimum Wage Increase, BBF Café
100 General Fund Non-Departmental -$ 1,900,000$ 1,900,000$ Increase in projected Sales Tax and Property Tax
100 General Fund Non-Departmental 8,000,000$ -$ (8,000,000)$ Transfer out fund balance to the Capital Reserve
TOTAL GENERAL FUNDS 8,355,542$ 2,715,000$ (5,640,542)$
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
265 BMR Housing Community Development 18,000$ -$ (18,000)$ Moving Expenses Program at Aviare
270 Transportation Fund Non-Departmental (779,762)$ -$ 779,762$ Defunding Project
TOTAL SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS (761,762)$ -$ 761,762$
CAPITAL PROJECT FUNDS
420 Capital Improvement Fund Non-Departmental 65,000$ -$ (65,000)$ McClellan Ranch West Parking Lot
429 Capital Reserve Non-Departmental -$ 8,000,000$ 8,000,000$ Transfer in fund balance from the General Fund
TOTAL CAPITAL PROJECT FUNDS 65,000$ 8,000,000$ 7,935,000$
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
560 Blackberry Farm Recreation 3,495$ -$ (3,495)$ Bank charges
570 Sports Center Public Works 19,250$ -$ (19,250)$ Minimum Wage Increase to Janitorial Contracts
570 Sports Center Recreation 41,063$ -$ (41,063)$ Bank charges
TOTAL ENTERPRISE FUNDS 63,808$ -$ (63,808)$
TOTAL ALL FUNDS 7,722,588$ 10,715,000$ 2,992,412$
General Fund Update
4-Year Comparison of Revenues, Expenditures and Changes to Fund Balance
In reviewing the City’s General Fund historical revenue, expenditures and fund
balance, you will note that although the City has historically budgeted the use of fund
balance, this use was not due to a structural deficit but due to the transfer out of excess
fund balance from the General Fund to the Capital Reserve per the City’s one time use
policy. Additionally, in only one of the last three fiscal years has the City actually
26
4
ended the year with expenditures exceeding revenues. This occurred in FY 2015 -16 due
to a $1.4 million payoff of retiree health.
Revenue
As of mid-year General Fund revenue is tracking at $35.8 million or 6% higher than the
same time last year due to changes in the City’s in various revenue sources as shown in
the table and described in greater detail below. Comparison of FY 2017-18 General
Fund Mid-Year Revenue to FY 2018-19
Mid-Year Mid-Year
2017 2018
05 - Sales tax 13,421,916$ 12,646,444$ (775,473)$ -6%
10 - Property tax 6,244,884 7,003,151 758,267 12%
15 - Transient occupancy 2,491,628 3,136,963 645,335 26%
20 - Utility tax 1,148,864 1,201,574 52,710 5%
25 - Franchise fees 807,067 644,658 (162,409) -20%
30 - Other taxes 588,152 684,519 96,367 16%
35 - Licenses and permits 1,257,872 1,730,418 472,546 38%
40 - Use of money and property 826,818 1,007,092 180,274 22%
45 - Intergovernmental revenue 165,981 126,198 (39,783) -24%
50 - Charges for services 4,605,443 5,253,451 648,008 14%
55 - Fines and forfeitures 201,979 174,190 (27,789) -14%
60 - Miscellaneous 197,936 954,728 756,792 382%
65 - Transfers in 1,000,002 10,000 (990,002) -99%
70 - Other financing sources 655,702$ 1,199,524$ 543,823$ 83%
Grand Total 33,614,244$ 35,772,910$ 2,158,666$ 6%
Revenue Category Variance % Change
Sales Tax revenue is received six months in arrears, with dollars received for the most
recent quarter (Oct-Dec 2018) relating to revenue collected in the fourth quarter of the
last fiscal year (Apr-Jun 2018). Sales tax received as of mid-year was $775,473, or 6%,
less than last year due to reduced sales tax localization and an additional clean -up
payment received in first quarter last year. It is proposed that sales tax revenues
estimates be increased by 4% for a total increase of $900,000. This increase, based on
economically adjusted sales tax data, is due primarily to strong growth in the Business
to Business industry group; a 14% increase over the same time period one year ago.
Additionally the State and County pools experienced growth of approximately
$100,000, or 7.5% due to outstanding disbursements that resulted from the State’s
software conversion, and Restaurants and Hotels saw approximately $50,000 or 8.2%
increase due to recent new eateries opening in the City. This growth was offset by a
decrease in Building and Construction of 35.5% or approximately $63,000. The impact
of the Supreme Court decision that requires out-of-state online retailers to collect sales
27
5
taxes on sales to in-state residents has yet to be determined. However, California does
currently collect these taxes from the major retailers like Amazon and Wayfairs . These
tax dollars go into the County Sales tax pool and are then distributed to the various
agencies based on respective share of the pool. As of the last reporting quarter
Cupertino’s share of the County pool was 6.9%.
Property Tax revenue has come in higher than the same time last year by $758,267, or
12%, due to increased residential property values over the prior year and in respect to
agencies in the county pool. As a result of the increase throughout the fiscal year, staff
are proposing an increase of $1,000,000, or 4.5%. Staff will continue to monitor property
tax revenue and propose revenue projection adjustments as necessary throughout the
remainder of the fiscal year.
Transient Occupancy Tax has come in $645,335, or 26%, higher than last year ’s mid-year
point. Increases in Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) revenues are a result of the
Residence Inn by Marriott opening at Main Street in early 2018, which was not open
during mid-year last fiscal year. The City also signed a voluntary collection agreement
with Airbnb to collect TOT, which began in August and has resulted in additional TOT
collection of approximately $113,000 that was not included as part of the final budget.
In early 2018, the City switched from a manual TOT collection process to an automated
process through the City’s revenue consultant firm, HdL, which contributed to more
consistent collection from hotels. This new process also delays monthly TOT payments
by one month to accommodate the third-party collection. The opening of the Hyatt
House Hotel has been delayed to mid-March 2019. This may have an impact on TOT
revenue. Staff will continue to monitor and report back as part of the third-quarter
financial report.
Utility Tax is up approximately $53,000 or 5% due to a $133,000 increase in all utilities
except for AT&T, PG&E and Verizon who collectively experienced a decrease in
revenue of approximately $83,000 under last year. The largest increases in utility
revenue came from Silicon Valley Clean Energy Authority, New Cingular Wireless and
3 Phases Renewables.
Other Taxes have increased by approximately $96,000, or 16%, primarily due to penalties
and interests related to late payment penalties from Apple Inc. and Property Tax
Transfers.
Franchise Fees have decreased by $162,000, or 20%, primarily due to the reduction in
Recology franchise fees in which the City receives a percentage of rental costs for
construction debris boxes.
28
6
Licenses and Permits increased by $473,000, or 38%, due to Apple beginning renovation
at the Infinite Loop Campus and other Apple buildings subsequent to occupancy at
Apple Park.
Use of Money and Property increased by $180,000, or 22%, due to increased interest
earnings due to rising Local Agency Investment Fund (LAIF) rates as well as an
additional $25 million invested in the City’s LAIF account over the prior year.
Intergovernmental Revenue has decreased by $40,000, or 24%, due primarily to the
Transportation Fund for Clean Air (TFCA) grant that was received in the previous fiscal
year.
Charges for Services have increased by $648,000, or 14%, primarily due to increases in
current, mid and long-term planning fees for Vallco Specific Plan. Internal city charges
related to increases in the Information & Technology charges due to additional one -time
project expenses have also contributed to the increase. A corresponding and offsetting
increase can be found in the Cost Allocation section of th e General Fund expenditures.
Staff propose increasing estimated revenues by $815,000, or 11.6%, in anticipation of
Planning fees continuing throughout the remainder of FY 2018-19.
Fines and Forfeitures have decreased $28,000, or 14%, primarily due to a decreased
number of citations administered in the current year.
Miscellaneous revenue has increased by $757,000, or 38%, due primarily to a new
ongoing donation from Apple Inc. to fund increased security at Apple Park.
Transfers In have decreased by $990,000, or 99%, due to a transfer in from the Capital
Reserve last fiscal year that is not budgeted in the current year.
Other Financing Sources is up $544,000, or 83%, due to increased refundable deposit
administrative fees due to the Vallco development.
Expenditures
As of mid-year, overall expenditures in the General Fund are up by $5.2 million, or 14%,
when compared to the same time last year due to increases in salary and benefits,
Contract Services, Cost Allocation, Special Projects and Transfers Out. The following
table shows the differences between General Fund revenues collected as of the mid-year
in the current fiscal year and the prior fiscal year:
29
7
Comparison of FY 2017-18 General Fund Mid-Year Expenditures to FY 2018-19
Mid-Year Mid-Year
2017 2018
05 - Employee compensation 8,021,182$ 8,470,928$ 449,747$ 6%
10 - Employee benefits 3,480,500 3,499,014 18,513$ 1%
15 - Materials 2,239,474 2,110,651 (128,823)$ -6%
20 - Contract services 9,331,120 9,579,257 248,137$ 3%
25 - Cost allocation 4,050,919 4,684,112 633,193$ 16%
30 - Capital outlays 3,038,957 417,937 (2,621,020)$ -86%
31 - Special projects 996,395 2,606,450 1,610,055$ 162%
45 - Transfer out 6,364,686 11,358,912 4,994,226$ 78%
50 - Other financing uses 133,937 133,765 (172)$ 0%
Grand Total 37,657,170$ 42,861,026$ 5,203,856$ 14%
Expenditure Category Variance % Change
Salary and Benefits increases are approximately $468,000, or 4%, due primarily to step
advances as employees progress through the five steps in a given position classification,
negotiated cost of living increases that took effect the first full pay period in July (2.5%)
and fluctuations in vacancies from the previous year. Additionally, there was an
increased number of pay periods this year versus last. In FY 2017-18, 12 pay periods
had been processed and 13 pay periods have been processed in the current year. The
City only processes 26 biweekly pay periods in a fiscal year.
Materials costs are down approximately $129,000, or 6%, due to an overall decrease in
spending on office supplies and general supplies across all departments.
Contract services have increased approximately $248,000, or 3%, due primarily to
increased costs for the City’s contract with the Santa Clara County Sheriff and increased
general liability insurance costs, and also I&T software implementation costs.
Cost Allocation increases are approximately $633,000, or 16%, due primarily to increases
in the Information & Technology charges due to additional one-time project expenses.
Capital Outlay costs are down $2.6 million, or 86%, due to property acquisition of 10301
Byrne Avenue in the previous fiscal year.
Special Projects increases are approximately $1.6 million, or 162%, primarily due to costs
associated with the Vallco specific plan, the water system planning and valuation
assessment project, and the Apple Campus 2 Traffic Mitigation Improvement project
between Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority and the City.
30
8
Transfers Out increases are approximately $5 million, or 78%, higher and are the cause
of the bulk of the increase in costs over midyear last fiscal year. This is due to a change
in methodology for recording operating transfers. The City elected to record them at
the beginning of the fiscal year rather than on a monthly basis.
Other Financing Uses have remained relatively flat.
All Other Funds Update and Year End Projections
Revenue
As of mid-year, revenue in all other funds is tracking at $36.6 million , or 54%, higher
than the same time last year due to changes transfers in and intergovernmental revenue
and is offset by decreases in Charges for Services and Miscellaneous Revenue.
Mid-Year Mid-Year
2018 2019
30 - Other taxes 386,066$ 423,241$ 37,175$ 10%
40 - Use of money and property 359,303 499,622 140,319 39%
45 - Intergovernmental revenue 952,187 1,336,028 383,841 40%
50 - Charges for services 5,862,292 5,485,478 (376,815) -6%
55 - Fines and forfeitures 4,289 2,767 (1,522) -35%
60 - Miscellaneous 2,062,933 54,743 (2,008,190) -97%
65 - Transfers in 13,816,562 28,511,162 14,694,600 106%
70 - Other financing sources 360,859 249,143 (111,716) -31%
Grand Total 23,804,490$ 36,562,183$ 12,757,693$ 54%
Variance % ChangeRevenue Category
Other Taxes increased approximately $37,000, or 10%, due to increases in storm drain
fees which were offset with a reduction in park dedication fees.
Use of Money and Property increased by approximately $140,000, or 39%, due to
increased interest earnings due to rising rates in LAIF as well as an additional $25
million invested in the City’s LAIF account over the prior year.
Intergovernmental Revenue increased by approximately $384,000, or 40%, due to SB1
Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation funding that commenced in FY 2018-19.
Charges for services decreased approximately $377,000, or 6%, primarily due to a
reduction in landfill fees for construction debris box materials, in which the City
previously received pass-through revenue. Starting in January 2018, Recology began
paying International Disposal Corporation directly for the landfill fees.
31
9
Fines and forfeitures decreased approximately $1,500, or 35%, due to a decreased volume
in citations administered over the prior year.
Miscellaneous revenue decreased approximately $2,000,000, or 97%, due primarily to the
one-time donation from Apple in the amount of $1.8 million for the 2016 Bicycle
Transportation Plan that was received in the prior year.
Transfers In increased approximately $14.7 million, or 106%, due to a change in
methodology for recording operating transfers. The City elected to record them at the
beginning of the fiscal year rather than on a monthly basis.
Other financing sources decreased approximately $111,800, or 31%, due to a reduction in
proceeds received from the sale of vehicles and equipment that had reached their useful
lives. A reduction in workers’ compensation cost allocation plan charges also
contributed to the decrease.
Expenditures
As of first quarter, overall expenditures are tracking at $22.6 million or 25% lower than
the same time last year due decreases in capital outlays and special projects.
Mid-Year Mid-Year
2018 2019
05 - Employee compensation 1,848,959$ 2,005,689$ 156,730$ 8%
10 - Employee benefits 1,252,726 1,317,747 65,021 5%
15 - Materials 777,966 741,559 (36,407) -5%
20 - Contract services 2,797,681 2,975,516 177,834 6%
25 - Cost allocation 877,504 1,029,449 151,945 17%
30 - Capital outlays 3,162,713 2,036,118 (1,126,594) -36%
31 - Special projects 10,705,465 3,589,972 (7,115,493) -66%
40 - Debt services - 45,604 45,604 N/A
45 - Transfer out 8,451,878 17,162,250 8,710,372 103%
Grand Total 29,874,892$ 30,903,904$ 1,029,012$ 3%
% ChangeExpenditure Category Variance
Salary and Benefits increases are approximately $221,000 or 7% due primarily to step
advances as employees progress through the 5 steps in a given position classification,
negotiated cost of living increases that took effect the first full pay period in July (2.5%)
and fluctuations in vacancies from the previous year. Additionally, there was an
increased number of pay periods this year versus last. In FY 2017-18, 12 pay periods
had been processed and 13 pay periods have been processed in the current year. The
City only processes 26 biweekly pay periods in a fiscal year.
32
10
Materials has decreased approximately $36,000, or 5%, and is due to various minor
fluctuations including electrical service for Sports Center, printing and duplication
charges for Recreation and Community Services, and auto parts/supplies for the City’s
fleet.
Contract Services have increased approximately $178,000, or 6%, due, but not limited to
increases in for tennis camps and related activities and minor asphalt repair projects.
Cost Allocation increased approximately $152,000, or 17%, due primarily to increases in
the Information Technology charges due to additional one-time project expenses.
Capital Outlays decreased approximately $1.1 million, or 36%, due to a number of
projects being completed in fiscal year 2017-18. These include but are not limited to
storm drain improvements at Foothill and Cupertino Road, street resurfacing projects,
tennis court resurfacing, and fiber network extension to service center. The decrease
over the previous fiscal year is also due to significant defunding in capital improvement
projects in fiscal year 2018-19.
Special Projects decreased approximately $7.1 million, or 66%, due to a one-time
Affordable Housing loan to Stevens Creek L.P. in fiscal year 2017 -18 as well as
decreases in annual asphalt project expenditures year-over-year.
Debt Service, Transfers Out increased approximately $8.8 million, or 103%, due to a
change in methodology for recording operating transfers. The City elected to record
them at the beginning of the fiscal year rather than on a monthly basis.
Budget Adjustment Requests
As of the mid-year a few departments are requesting budget adjustments to ensure they
end the year within budget appropriations. The recommended adjustments are
summarized in the table below:
33
11
Fund GL Account Expense Revenue
Fund
Balance Proposal
GENERAL FUNDS
100 General Fund 100-32-308-600-606 28,750$ -$ (28,750)$ Labor Costing Software
100 General Fund 100-62-608-500-502 25,624$ -$ (25,624)$ Senior Center Part-time Staffing Addition
100 General Fund 100-62-623-500-502 22,320$ -$ (22,320)$ Lawson Teen Center
100 General Fund 100-62-623-600-613 800$ -$ (800)$ Lawson Teen Center
100 General Fund 100-62-623-700-706 2,400$ -$ (2,400)$ Lawson Teen Center
100 General Fund 100-62-623-600-605 1,785$ -$ (1,785)$ Hidden Treasures
100 General Fund 100-62-623-600-613 2,975$ -$ (2,975)$ Hidden Treasures
100 General Fund 100-62-623-700-702 7,140$ -$ (7,140)$ Hidden Treasures
100 General Fund 100-71-701-701-701 20,000$ -$ (20,000)$ Arborist Contract Services
100 General Fund 100-71-702-450-401 815,000$ 815,000$ Increase in projected Charges for Services Revenue
100 General Fund 100-73-715-701-701 80,000$ -$ (80,000)$ Construction Plan Check Contract Services
100 General Fund 100-82-804-700-702 12,600$ -$ (12,600)$ Annual Park Fee Appraisal
100 General Fund 100-85-848-700-702 28,000$ -$ (28,000)$ Conduit Repair for Street Light System
100 General Fund 100-85-848-500-505 13,350$ -$ (13,350)$ Street Lighting Overtime
100 General Fund 100-87-827-700-702 29,729$ -$ (29,729)$ Facilities Emergency Compressor
100 General Fund 100-87-828-700-702 9,470$ -$ (9,470)$ Minimum Wage Increase to Janitorial Contracts
100 General Fund 100-87-829-700-702 25,000$ -$ (25,000)$ Emergency Roof Repair for Service Center Shop
100 General Fund 100-87-831-700-702 5,817$ -$ (5,817)$ Minimum Wage Increase to Janitorial Contracts
100 General Fund 100-87-832-700-702 10,130$ -$ (10,130)$ Minimum Wage Increase to Janitorial Contracts
100 General Fund 100-87-834-700-702 5,832$ -$ (5,832)$ Minimum Wage Increase to Janitorial Contracts
100 General Fund 100-87-837-700-702 2,820$ -$ (2,820)$ Minimum Wage Increase to Janitorial Contracts
100 General Fund 100-87-841-900-990 15,000$ -$ (15,000)$ Air Curtains for BBF Cafe
100 General Fund 100-87-841-900-990 6,000$ -$ (6,000)$ Sun Shade for BBF Ticket Kiosk
100 General Fund 100-90-001-401-401 -$ 900,000$ 900,000$ Increase in projected Sales Tax Revenue
100 General Fund 100-90-001-402-401 -$ 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$ Increase in projected Property Tax Revenue
100 General Fund 100-90-001-800-902 8,000,000$ -$ (8,000,000)$ Transfer out fund balance to the Capital Reserve
TOTAL GENERAL FUNDS 8,355,542$ 2,715,000$ (5,640,542)$
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
265 BMR Housing 265-72-711-750-042 18,000$ -$ (18,000)$ Moving Expenses Program at Aviare
270 Transportation Fund 270-90-962-900-905 (779,762)$ -$ 779,762$ Defunding Project
TOTAL SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS (761,762)$ -$ 761,762$
CAPITAL PROJECT FUNDS
420 Capital Improvement Fund 420-99-030-900-905 65,000$ -$ (65,000)$ McClellan Ranch West Parking Lot
429 Capital Reserve 420-90-001-421-401 -$ 8,000,000$ 8,000,000$ Transfer in fund balance from the General Fund
TOTAL CAPITAL PROJECT FUNDS 65,000$ 8,000,000$ 7,935,000$
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
560 Blackberry Farm 560-63-616-700-707 3,495$ -$ (3,495)$ Bank charges
570 Sports Center 570-87-836-700-702 19,250$ -$ (19,250)$ Minimum Wage Increase to Janitorial Contracts
570 Sports Center 570-63-621-700-707 41,063$ -$ (41,063)$ Bank charges
TOTAL ENTERPRISE FUNDS 63,808$ -$ (63,808)$
TOTAL ALL FUNDS 7,722,588$ 10,715,000$ 2,992,412$
Labor Costing Software – the AdastraGov Labor Costing Module is a cloud-based
software platform that will increase efficiency by providing the ability to easily
calculate the cost of a labor proposal, making changes to benefits, visualizing results,
and benchmarking against other agencies more efficiently. This $28,750 proposal will
increase the transparency for City council, bargaining groups, negotiators, and City
staff, while allowing the user to seamlessly create scenarios at the bargaining table.
Hidden Treasurers - The Hidden Treasurers event at the Senior Center takes in donations
from the community and then in turn sells the donations on the last Thursday in
October. For the past fifteen (15) years, the Senior Center has been using these funds for
the Case Management Program and for the Stay Active Fund. These case management
34
12
funds provide vital resources for clients and members by meeting individual client’s
needs, member’s presentations and lectures, and events such as the health fair. The
Stay Active Fund is a scholarship that helps offset the cost of Senior Cen ter
membership, and a class and event to those residents who are in need. Staff requests
the use of the $11,900 revenue brought in during the Hidden Treasures event to
continue to provide resources to resident members and for the Stay Active Fund
Scholarship.
Lawson Teen Center - The Teen Center at Lawson is a new initiative to introduce a mobile
recreation component to youth and teen programming. Recreation staff would rent a
room at Lawson Middle School and have a pop-up program on-site for teens in 6th - 8th
grade. By having a dedicated space in a school and essentially bringing the Teen Center
to students, staff will have direct access to the teen population and can provide more
community benefit for students after school ends. Additionally, this proposal would
continue to foster the relationship between Cupertino Unified School District and the
City of Cupertino. Of the $25,520 being requested, $22,320 will be allocated to part-time
staffing, $2,400 will be allocated for room rental costs, and $800 will be allocated for
miscellaneous supplies and snacks.
Senior Center Part-time Staffing – A part-time staff is being requested for the Senior
Center. Currently, the Senior Center has one full-time office staff and one part-time
staff. The additional part-time staff will add coverage to equate to one full-time staff so
as to achieve optimal levels of customer services. The $25,624 in additional part-time
staff will also assist with coverage on Saturdays.
On-Call Arborist – City staff are currently searching for an on-call arborist to assist with
tree assessment that is required to process Planning applications. In order to effectively
assess trees on safety, health, and aesthetics, it should be performed by a professional
arborist. Costs for such services would be 100% recoverable to the City. Staff are
requesting an amendment of $20,000 for the remainder of FY 2018-19.
Construction Plan Check Contract Services – Staff are requesting an increase of $80,000 to
on-call contract services for construction plan checks. Due to a major development
submittal received by Planning, current resources will need assistance with plan review
to ensure accurate and timely turn around for applicants. Costs for such services would
be 100% recoverable to the City.
35
13
Blackberry Farm Café – the County Health Department required the installation of three
(3) air curtains to keep insects out of the Blackberry Farm café. Staff is requesting an
amount of $15,000 for the installation that is targeted for completion prior to the
opening of the café in 2019.
Annual Park Fee Appraisal – Cupertino Municipal Code Section 13.08 requires the Public
Works Department to update the fair market value of land within the City on an annual
basis. This appraisal is used to establish the fair market value and will be updated prior
the end of FY 2018-19. Staff are requesting $12,600 to fund this proposal.
Street Lighting Conduit Repair and Street Lighting Overtime – This request of $28,000 is to
facilitate making emergency repairs to the underground power supply circuits for the
existing street light system. The underground power supply to street lights have failed
due to the aging of street light infrastructure. This project can be completed within 60 -
90 days once funding is approved at which point public safety will be improved for
both pedestrian and vehicle traffic. Staff is also requesting $13,350 for additional staff
time to continue with the replacement of 340 street light poles that are 40 -50 years old.
These poles are past their life expectancy and could pose a safety risk. By replacing
these aged poles with new poles that meet current standards, there should not be any
ongoing maintenance required for 30 or more years.
Emergency Roofing Repair – The roofing over the building that houses the mechanics,
sigh shop, wood shop, facilities, and miscellaneous storage has leaked for several
consecutive years. After many attempts at temporary repairs, the entire roof requires a
maintenance coating and other long-term maintenance. This $25,000 request will
provide a roof repair that will last a minimum of five (5) years and keep the existing
roof from corroding further.
Facilities Emergency Compressor – Staff are requesting $29,729 to replace the City Hall
compressor that failed during fiscal year 2018-19. Thermal Mechanical Service was
requested to diagnose the chiller at City Hall that was experiencing some levels of
operational difficulties at which point, an unrepairable internal issue was identified.
Minimum Wage Adjustments for Janitorial Services – Staff is requesting $53,319 for
minimum wage increases for janitorial services to be rendered at Library, Senior Center,
McClellan Ranch, Wilson Park, Creekside Park, and Sports Center.
36
14
Sun Shade at Blackberry Farm – Staff is requesting $6,000 for sun shades for the
Blackberry Farm ticket kiosk in which the existing sun screen is holding moisture and
creating a mold issue. If approved, replacement is targeted to occur before summer of
2019.
Moving Expenses at Aviare – Staff is requesting the appropriation of $18,000 of funds
received from Aviare to administer the Aviare Moving Incentives Program, a
component of the City’s Below Market Rate (BMR) program.
Defunding CIP – The Bicycle Pedestrian Facility Improvement CIP was combined into
the 2016 Bike Plan Implementation CIP in FY 2017-18; however, the funding was not
combined during the same year. As a result of this oversight, $779,762 will be defunded
from the Bicycle Pedestrian Facility Improvement CIP.
McClellan Ranch West Parking Lot – Staff is requesting $65,000 addition to the previously
approved budget of $950,000 for the McClellan Ranch West Parking Lot. The additional
funding is required to comply with permitting requirements identified by the California
Department of Fish and Wildlife (CDFW). Subsequent to the award of the project,
CDFW responded with mitigation requirements that required additional biological
surveys and monitoring. In order to address these requirements, additional consultant
resources are required. Upon completion of this project, the City will have a formal
parking area with 27 stalls and an overflow parking area for an additional 20 vehicles
that can be used year-round. This will support the increased demand for parking at the
location.
Bank Charges – The City’s Recreation and Community Services Department
implemented a new payment processing application in ActiveNet. This application
increased the efficiencies and capabilities in processing related transactions and as a
result, the City is incurring additional processing fees. Staff are requesting an
additional $44,558 to sufficiently fund estimated processing charges for the remainder
of FY 2018-19.
Staffing
The Amended Budget as of December 31, 2018 has a total of 198.75 FTEs. There are no
proposed changes to staffing as part of the Mid-Year Report.
Fund Balance
The City’s General Fund ended FY 2017-18 with $52.42 million in total fund balance. As
part of the FY 2018-19 Adopted Budget, the City projected ending the fiscal year wit h
$45.21 million in total fund balance. As of the First Quarter Report, the City updated its
37
15
year-end projections for FY 2018-19 to $48.96 million in total fund balance, an increase
of $3.7 million due to increases in revenues received and lower expenditures in FY 2017-
18. Projected year-end fund balance as of mid-year FY 2018-19 estimated to be $42.25, a
reduction of $6.71 million from the first quarter projections due primarily to a one-time
transfer out of $8 million to the Capital Improvement Plan Reserve Fund.
General Fund Classification of Fund Balance
Actuals
Year End
Projection Adopted Budget
1st Quarter
Year End
Projection
Mid-Year End
Projection
CLASSIFICATION 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2018-19 2018-19
Non Spendable 0.88 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.46
Restricted 1.02 1.25 0.84 1.25 9.24
Committed 19.00 23.92 27.08 27.08 19.12
Assigned 4.64 5.17 7.93 7.93 7.59
Unassigned 28.06 21.62 8.89 12.23 5.84
TOTAL FUND BALANCE 53.59 52.42 45.21 48.96 42.25
To date, the City’s outside auditors have not completed their review of the City’s
financials. Revenue, expenditure, and fund balance totals listed in this report are
preliminary and subject to change after a full review by the City’s auditors. City Staff
does not anticipate many, if any, changes to these figures.
Per the City’s one Fund Balance Policy, unassigned fund balance over $500,000 are to be
used in the following order to replenish comm itted fund balances with any remaining
balances to be placed in the Capital Reserve:
1. Economic Uncertainty
2. PERS
3. Sustainability Reserve
4. Unassigned
Cash & Investments
The City’s cash and investment balance as of December 31, 2018 was $138.3 million.
This comprised 10.9% cash, 15.2% money market funds, 40.8% LAIF, 25.9% Agency
Notes, and 7.2% US Treasuries. In accordance with California Government Code
section 53646(3) the City maintains the ability to meet its expenditure requirements for
the next six (6) months. As a result, a certain degree of liquidity is necessary within an
agency’s portfolio. The City recently contracted with Chandler Asset Management and
will be constructing and proposing an investment strategy that achieves balance
between safety, liquidity, and return.
38
16
To determine the amount of the City’s cash that is free from internal and/or external
constraint, we apply the “accounting equation” [assets = liabilities + fund balance] to the
City’s General Fund. By taking the total assets (approximately $57.2 million), less the
total liabilities (approximately $11.8 million), we arrive at a total fund balance of
approximately $45.4 million as of December 31, 2018. This is a decrease of
approximately $7.1 million, or 13.5%, over the previous mid-year point and is primarily
due to the change in methodology for recording the City’s operating transfers. From
the total fund balance, we must account for any classifications in which the City is
bound to honor constraints on the specific purposes for which amounts in the General
Fund can be spent. This would include Restricted, Committed, Nonspendable, and
Assigned classifications. This leaves the Unassigned balance, approximately $9 million,
as the amount free from constraint as of December 31, 2019.
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 par t of the Mid-Year
Budget Report, including prior year totals and current year results through December.
Attachment C represents the status of the performance measures as of Mid-Year.
Conclusion
The Mid-Year Financial Report shows the City is well-positioned to move forward. City
staff recommends adjustments of $7,722,588 in new appropriations funded by
respective fund balance. This will be partially offset by the $779,762 in defunded
Transportation Fund appropriations which will increase fund balance. It will also be
partially offset by an increase in estimated revenues of $2,715,000 and an $8,000,000
transfer to the Capital Reserve. In total, if the recommendations are approved,
appropriations would increase by $7,722,588, transfer in revenues would increase by
$8,000,000, non-departmental revenues would increase by $1,900,000, departmental
revenues would increase by $815,000, and estimated fund balance would increase by
$2,992,412.
Prepared by: Toni Oasay-Anderson, Management Analyst
Zach Korach, Finance Manager
Reviewed by: Kristina Alfaro, Director of Administrative Services
Approved for Submission by: Timm Borden, Interim City Manager
Attachments:
A – Draft Resolution
B – Mid-Year Financial Report for Fiscal Year 2018-19
C – Mid-Year Performance Measures
39
17
D – Mid-Year Budget Adjustment Journal
40
ATTACHMENT B
RESOLUTION NO. 19-
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
AMENDING THE OPERATING BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2018-19 BY
APPROPRIATING, TRANSFERRING, AND UNAPPROPRIATING MONIES
FOR SPECIFIED FUNDS
WHEREAS, the orderly administration of municipal government
depends on a sound fiscal policy of maintaining a proper ratio of expenditures
within anticipated revenues and available monies; and
WHEREAS, accomplishing City Council directives, projects and
programs, and performing staff duties and responsibilities likewise depends on
the monies available for that purpose; and
WHEREAS, the City Manager has determined that the balances from the
funds specified in this resolution are adequate to cover the proposed amended
appropriations, and therefore recommends the fund reallocations described herein.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that the City Council does hereby
ratify the attached amended appropriations.
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the
City of Cupertino this 5th day of March 2019, by the following vote:
Vote Members of the City Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
__
Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Steven Scharf, Mayor, City of Cupertino
41
ATTACHMENT B
Appropriation
Amendment by fund
Appropriation
Amendment
Revenue
Amendment
Fund Balance
(Use of)
General Fund 12,068,805$ 2,669,000$ (9,399,805)$
Internal Service Fund 75,900$ 11,475,900$ 11,400,000$
TOTAL 12,144,705$ 14,144,900$ 2,000,195$
42
MID-YEAR REPORT
The following is the Mid-Year Financial Report, submitted by the Administrative Services Department for the period of October
1, 2018 to December 31, 2018 for the 2018-2019 Fiscal Year. It has been prepared to inform the City Council, City leadership and
the public of the City’s fiscal status.
BACKGROUND - On November 20, 2018, 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 of $11,061,145 and carryover
appropriations of $37,177,851 from FY 2017-18. In the first two quarters of FY 2018-19, Council approved $6,523,652 in
adjustments which include, but are not limited to: 1) $3,500,000 New City Hall design, 2) $500,000 Interim City Hall design,
and 3) $558,979 for Apple Park law enforcement services. This resulted in an amended budget of $186,481,507.
FY 2018-19
Proposed Budget through the Mid-Year | Amended Budget FY 2018-19 | Flow of Funds Chart (in Millions)
GENERAL FUND UPDATE - General Fund Revenue, Expenditures and Fund Balance
43
General Fund Classification of Fund Balance
Actuals
Year End
Projection Adopted Budget
1st Quarter
Year End
Projection
Mid-Year End
Projection
CLASSIFICATION 2016-17 2017-18 2018-19 2018-19 2018-19
Non Spendable 0.88 0.47 0.47 0.47 0.46
Restricted 1.02 1.25 0.84 1.25 9.24
Committed 19.00 23.92 27.08 27.08 19.12
Assigned 4.64 5.17 7.93 7.93 7.59
Unassigned 28.06 21.62 8.89 12.23 5.84
TOTAL FUND BALANCE 53.59 52.42 45.21 48.96 42.25
Fund Department Expense Revenue
Fund
Balance Proposal
GENERAL FUNDS
100 General Fund Innovation & Technology 28,750$ -$ (28,750)$ Labor Costing Software
100 General Fund Recreation 63,044$ -$ (63,044)$ Lawson Teen Center, Hidden Treasurers, Sr. Ctr. P/T
100 General Fund Community Development 100,000$ 815,000$ 715,000$ Arborist, Plan Check, Charges for Services
100 General Fund Public Works 163,748$ -$ (163,748)$
Park Fee, Conduit Repair, Overtime, Compressor,
Emergency Roof, Minimum Wage Increase, BBF Café
100 General Fund Non-Departmental -$ 1,900,000$ 1,900,000$ Increase in projected Sales Tax and Property Tax
100 General Fund Non-Departmental 8,000,000$ -$ (8,000,000)$ Transfer out fund balance to the Capital Reserve
TOTAL GENERAL FUNDS 8,355,542$ 2,715,000$ (5,640,542)$
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
265 BMR Housing Community Development 18,000$ -$ (18,000)$ Moving Expenses Program at Aviare
270 Transportation Fund Non-Departmental (779,762)$ -$ 779,762$ Defunding Project
TOTAL SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS (761,762)$ -$ 761,762$
CAPITAL PROJECT FUNDS
420 Capital Improvement Fund Non-Departmental 65,000$ -$ (65,000)$ McClellan Ranch West Parking Lot
429 Capital Reserve Non-Departmental -$ 8,000,000$ 8,000,000$ Transfer in fund balance from the General Fund
TOTAL CAPITAL PROJECT FUNDS 65,000$ 8,000,000$ 7,935,000$
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
560 Blackberry Farm Recreation 3,495$ -$ (3,495)$ Bank charges
570 Sports Center Public Works 19,250$ -$ (19,250)$ Minimum Wage Increase to Janitorial Contracts
570 Sports Center Recreation 41,063$ -$ (41,063)$ Bank charges
TOTAL ENTERPRISE FUNDS 63,808$ -$ (63,808)$
TOTAL ALL FUNDS 7,722,588$ 10,715,000$ 2,992,412$
RECOMMENDED MID-YEAR ADJUSTMENTS
General Fund Revenue and Expenditure Trends
As of December 31, 2018, General Fund expenditures
are $42.9 million; this represents 46% of the budgeted
appropriations. Expenditures at the Mid-Year point of
the prior three years were between 33% and 53% of the
final actual expenditures placing this year within
range. General Fund revenues are at $35.8 million; this
represents 44% of the budgeted revenue. Revenues at
the Mid-Year point of the prior three years were
between 30% and 49%, placing this year within the
range.
Are General Fund Revenues and Expenditures on Trend?
GENERAL FUND UPDATE (continued)
SUMMARY
The Mid-Year Financial Report shows the City is well-positioned to move forward. City staff recommends
adjustments of $7,722,588 in new appropriations funded by respective fund balance. This will be partially offset
by the $779,762 in defunded Transportation Fund appropriations which will increase fund balance. It will also be
partially offset by an increase in estimated revenues of $2,715,000 and an $8,000,000 transfer to the Capital
Reserve. In total, if the recommendations are approved, appropriations would increase by $7,722,588, transfer in
revenues would increase by $8,000,000, non-departmental revenues would increase by $1,900,000, departmental
revenues would increase by $815,000, and estimated fund balance would increase by $2,992,412.
44
City of Cupertino
FY18/19 Budget Performance Measures
City Clerk Division
Enabled by…
All can fully participate in local government to achieve the community & organizational goals.
Enabled by…
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.
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.
Measure FY17
Jul-Jun
FY18
Jul-Jun
FY19
Jul-Dec
Ongoing
Target
City Council minutes
for regular meetings
presented for Council
approval by the
following regular
meeting
100%
100%
100%
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%
100%
Public Record Act
requests responded to
by the Statutory
deadline date
100%
100%
100%
100%
45
City of Cupertino
FY18/19 Budget Performance Measures
Public Affairs Division
Enabled by…
So that…
Residents have access to timely, engaging, and important information.
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.
1Clicks have now been added to the engagement metric, which will bump up the average number.
2The performance measure for “Access Cupertino: Average response time to customers organization-wide” was
revised as Access Cupertino was replaced by Cupertino 311 in September 2017. The target has been revised to
“Average Close Time,” which reflects how many days it took to handle a request. The Cupertino 311 Application is
administered through the IT Department, but each individual department is responsible for responding to its own
requests. Response times are organized by request category.
Measure FY17
Jul-Jun
FY18
Jul-Jun
FY19
July-Dec
Ongoing
Target
Social media
engagement: total
number of followers
including City Hall
Nextdoor, Facebook,
Twitter, and
Instagram accounts
19,250 23,655 25,233 10% annual
increase
Social media
engagement: average
number of
engagements
(reactions, comments,
shares, and clicks1)
per post on City Hall
Facebook account
39.6 87.9 53.6 10% annual
increase
Cupertino 311:
Average time to close
requests (in days)2:
N/A
Average
Close
Time
7.3 Days
Average
Close
Time
4.6 Days
Average
Close Time
5 Days
Leveraging the
communication
skills, knowledge,
and experience of
employees while
also utilizing
existing and
emerging
technologies to
enhance, improve,
and streamline the
communication
process.
46
City of Cupertino
FY18/19 Budget Performance Measures
Sustainability Division
An agency
implementing
Council and
community
sustainability goals to
effectively safeguard
shared resources.
Enabled by…
Cupertino is a healthy, resilient, environmentally -vibrant City for current and future residents
to live, work, learn and play.
Engaged community
partners and
volunteers
supporting CAP
implementation.
Enabled by…
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.
1 Cupertino’s GHG inventories are conducted roughly every 2-3 years.
2 Total number decreased due to closing of 4 certified businesses (Bluelight Cinemas, Fit 36, FitGeek, Amici’s) and
other businesses certification lapsed or business was unresponsive.
Measure FY17
Jul-Jun
FY18
Jul-Jun
FY19
July-Dec
Ongoing
Target
% community-
wide
emissions
reduced from
baseline of
307,288 MT
CO2e/yr 1
2015 inventory:
13.1% decrease in
emissions from
baseline: 294,281
MTCO2e
2017
Inventory
update to
be
completed
Spring
2019
15%
reduction
by 2020
(261,195
MT
CO2e/yr)
Initiate and
implement all
Climate Action
Plan near-term
measures
x% initiated
x% complete
or ongoing
100%
45%
100%
55%
100%
55%
100%
100%
Increase the
total number
of Certified
Green
Businesses
through the
city’s GreenBiz
program to
improve
efficiency and
conserve
resources
63 Total
3 New
6 Re-cert
57 Total 2
1 New
15 Re-cert
57 Total
0 New
5 Re-cert
100 Total
47
City of Cupertino
FY18/19 Budget Performance Measures
Economic Development Division
Enabled by…
Effective
partnerships and
proactive
Economic
Development
programs to
support local
businesses.
Enabled by… GOAL: To actively pursue opportunities in the areas of business attraction, retention, and
expansion as a means of promoting economic vitality, and strengthening the City’s sales tax
base to support Cupertino’s excellent quality of life for its residents, businesses, and daytime
population.
Measure
FY17
Jul-
Jun
FY18
Jul-
Jun
FY19
Jul-
Dec
Ongoing
Target
Economic Development Business
Buzz Readers 489 1,568
943 700 in FY
17-18
Economic Development Business
Workshops & Events 15 12
6 12 per
year
48
City of Cupertino
FY18/19 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.
Enabled by …
All members of the
community are safe,
informed, empowered
and supported.
So that …
GOAL: Maintain a safe environment to live, work, learn and play.
Measu r e FY17
Jul-Jun
FY18
Jul-Jun
FY19
July-Dec
Ongoing
Target
% monitor adequate
response time for
emergency calls
Priority 1
Priority 2
Priority 3
4.71
7.65
14.23
4.14
7.14
14.36
3.95
6.33
13.23
5 minutes
9 minutes
20 minutes
% Education
programs maintain
minimum attendance
Teen
Academy
Citizen
Academy
85%
55%
100%
100%
100%
N/A
100%
80%
A Sheriff’s Office
that is responsive
and engaging.
49
City of Cupertino
FY18/19 Budget Performance Measures
Department: Administrative Services
Citizens can enjoy high quality of services that meet community priorities.
So that…
So that…
GOAL: Financial Stability – Provide a sustainable level of core services that are funded from
ongoing and stable revenue sources.
So that…
Finance
Measure FY17
Jul-Jun
FY18
Jul-Jun
FY19
Jul-Dec
Ongoing
Target
General fund
balance as a % of
budgeted
appropriations
53% 55%
45% 35%
Credit Rating AA+ AA+ AA+ AA+
Funding allocated to
high priority
services (Public
Works, Community
Development, Law
Enforcement)
49% 45% 55% 63%
Actual revenue vs.
budget (within x%
budget)
24% 4% 43% 10%
Actual expenditures
(% below budget) 14% 13% 60% 5%
The City is
financially
responsible.
The City can invest
in Community
priorities.
50
City of Cupertino
FY18/19 Budget Performance Measures
Department: Administrative Services
So that…
So that…
So that…
So that…
Human Resources
Measure FY17
Jul-Jun
FY18
Jul-Jun
FY19
Jul-Dec
Ongoing
Target
# of Worker’s
Compensation Cases
12 16 4 0
Total recordable
Injury Rate YTD
5.2% 6.4% 1.6% 0%
% absenteeism
(% of total annual
work hours)
2.3% 4% 2% 2%
% turnover rate 9.1% 6% 4% 1%
% Employee
satisfaction
N/A N/A N/A 100%
% Employee
participation in
wellness activities
63% 63% 53% 75%
Average # of
applications received
per recruitment
76 40 54 50
Recruitment timeline -
# days from hiring
request to offer letter
81 82 70 60 days
# of Worker’s using
the Telework program
17 15 14 17
Utilization of Full-
service employee
portal
100% 100% 100% 100%
The City can
ensure a safe
working
environment for
all employees.
The agency supports a professional and engaged workforce offering diverse and quality
community services.
GOAL: To create a thriving organization with meaningful careers in public service.
The agency builds
a flexible and
productive work
arrangement.
The City attracts
and retains a
talented
workforce.
51
City of Cupertino
FY18/19 Budget Performance Measures
Department: Recreation and Community Services
Enabled by…
Enabled by…
So that…
GOAL: Create a positive, healthy and connected community.
*Due to a server crash in FY 2017-18, activity, facility, and customer information is
estimated for the period January – June 2018.
Measure FY17
Jul-Jun
FY18
Jul-Jun
FY19
Jul-Dec
Ongoing
Target
% Recreation and
Community Services
Department customers
surveyed who rate
services as good or
excellent
95% 97%*
97%
85%
% programs maintain
minimum registration 71% 70%*
59%
80%
% Department’s total
cost recovery for all
(direct and indirect)
costs
49% 63%*
41.5%
40%
# of new programs or
events offered 132 119*
76
50
% change in participants
-6% 22%*
67%
+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.
52
City of Cupertino
FY18/19 Budget Performance Measures
Community Development Department
Efficient
planning and
building services
and enhanced
customer service.
Enabled by…
So that…
Cupertino is a thriving City to live, work, learn and play.
Effective code
enforcement
services.
Affordable and
Below Market
Rate Housing
programs and
public service
grants.
Enabled by…
Enabled by…
Enabled by… 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 community-
wide quality of life.
Measure
FY17
Jul-
Jun
FY18
Jul-
Jun
FY19
Jul-
Dec
Ongoing
Target
Department cost recovery 93.18% 92% 90% 96%
Website Updates Completed on
Schedule N/A 100% 100% 100%
Planning application reviews
completed 5 days before 30 day
deadline 65% 91% 84% 50%
Building permit applications
reviewed over-the-counter (OTC) 76.55% 65% 58% 80%
Average number of days to initiate
investigation of code complaints 0.97
1.96
1.6 <7
Code enforcement cases resolved
without issuance of citations 98.30%
92.98%
90% 80%
Landlord-tenant counseling and
dispute resolution cases provided 115 70
23 100 per
year
Below market rate rental and
purchase vacancies filled 22 30
16 15 per
year
Housing resources and referrals
provided 600 1040 520 400 per
year
53
City of Cupertino
FY18/19 Budget Performance Measures
Public Works Department
So that…
So that…
So that…
So that…
So that…
So that…
So that…
Capital Project Delivery
GOAL: Deliver capital projects on time and within budget.
Development Services
GOAL: Provide timely review and permitting of privately completed improvements within
the public right of way.
Measure FY17
Jul-Jun
FY18
Jul-Jun
FY19
Jul-Dec
Ongoing
Target
Respond to
complete plan
submittals or
applications within
two (2) weeks
98% 99% 94% 90%
Respond to public
inquiries at the
Public Works
counter in City Hall
within 15 minutes.
100% 100% 97% 95%
Measure FY17
Jul-Jun
FY18
Jul-Jun
FY19
Jul-Dec
Ongoing
Target
Projects are on
budget
(5)
100%
(7)
100%
(4)
100% 80%
Projects are on time (4)
80%
(7)
100%
(3 of 4)
75% 80%
Residents and businesses are assured their community is being improved by efficient use of
taxes and fees.
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.
Projects are
utilized by the
community.
City funds capital
improvement
projects.
54
City of Cupertino
FY18/19 Budget Performance Measures
Public Works Department
So that…
Dependable Infrastructure
GOAL: Timely maintain levels of service to meet community and environment
requirements at optimal life-cycle costs.
Measure FY17
Jul-Jun
FY18
Jul-Jun
FY19
Jul-Dec
Ongoing
Target
Pavement condition
index (PCI) > or
equal to 82*
78 81 83 82
Respond to
reported issues
within one (1)
business day:
-Storm drain system
-Street markings &
signs
-Sidewalk and
pathway
-Playground
equipment
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
100%
95%
95%
95%
95%
100%
100%
100%
100%
Respond to
reported issues
within two (2)
business days:
Remove graffiti
Streetlight outages 100%
100%
100%
100%
95%
95%
100%
100%
Respond within one
(1) hour on any
reported safety
issue regarding
traffic signals
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.
55
City of Cupertino
FY18/19 Budget Performance Measures
Public Works Department
So that…
Environment
GOAL: Protect our natural environment for current and future generations.
1Proactive inspections are primarily conducted during Q3 and Q4 each year.
2 Tonnages have only been reported by Recology for July-October 2018. May-October 2018 was 11,326 tons.
3 CalRecycle has a 12 month lag in reporting. Data is for calendar year 2016.
4 Does not include business donations, back haul, or other source reduction, etc.
5 .For FY18, Recology began breaking out multi-family from commercial tonnage. Our data for FY18 Jul-Dec displays
the diversion rates for the multi-family and commercial sector respectively.
6 As of the end of October 2018.
7 An additional 786 site visits were conducted at single-family homes to determine cart contents for a pilot project to
increase organics collection of food scraps in the organics cart.
Measure
FY17
Jul-
Jun
FY18
Jul-
Jun
FY19
Jul-Dec Ongoing
Target
Respond to reports of actual
or potential discharge the
same business day
97% 95%
92% 80%
Percent of businesses in
compliance during annual
proactive inspections
87% N/A5
N/A 1 75%
Tons of waste entering
landfill (does not include self-
haul or material to landfills
other than Newby Island)
30,140 14,917
7251 2
=< 27,000
Diversion Rates rate
By employment 3:
By population1:
Commercial only4:
72%
56%
47%
N/A
21%5
55%5
TBD
TBD
58%5
75%
75%
60%
Number of all business and
multifamily accounts
separating organics out of 496
135/48
8
28%
144/48
3
30%
264/472
56%6 50%
Number of outreach site
visits, workshops, events and
activities to inform residents
and businesses
198 65
48 7
150
% of street, median, and park
trees maintained according to
the Urban Forest Workplan8
164% 68%
57.3% 100%
Number of trees planted
compared to number of trees
removed
-68
+118
=173%
-67
+53
=79%
-85
+105
=123%
110%
56
City of Cupertino
FY18/19 Budget Performance Measures
Public Works Department
So that…
So that…
So that…
%
All new vehicle purchases are
to be hybrid and/or electric
only models
90% 90% 55%* 90%
Potential pollutants
are stopped before
entering the storm
drain system.
Cupertino’s urban
forest is resilient,
healthy and safe.
Vehicles purchased
have the least
environmental
impact possible.
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.
So that…
Current and future residents enjoy a healthy, sustainable environment.
So that…
*5 of 9 total vehicles; hybrid options not available for 4 vehicle replacements
57
FY 2018-19 Mid-Year Budget Adjustment Journal ATTACHMENT D
Fund GL Account Expense Revenue
Fund
Balance Proposal
GENERAL FUNDS
100 General Fund 100-32-308-600-606 28,750$ -$ (28,750)$ Labor Costing Software
100 General Fund 100-62-608-500-502 25,624$ -$ (25,624)$ Senior Center Part-time Staffing Addition
100 General Fund 100-62-623-500-502 22,320$ -$ (22,320)$ Lawson Teen Center
100 General Fund 100-62-623-600-613 800$ -$ (800)$ Lawson Teen Center
100 General Fund 100-62-623-700-706 2,400$ -$ (2,400)$ Lawson Teen Center
100 General Fund 100-62-623-600-605 1,785$ -$ (1,785)$ Hidden Treasures
100 General Fund 100-62-623-600-613 2,975$ -$ (2,975)$ Hidden Treasures
100 General Fund 100-62-623-700-702 7,140$ -$ (7,140)$ Hidden Treasures
100 General Fund 100-71-701-701-701 20,000$ -$ (20,000)$ Arborist Contract Services
100 General Fund 100-71-702-450-401 815,000$ 815,000$ Increase in projected Charges for Services Revenue
100 General Fund 100-73-715-701-701 80,000$ -$ (80,000)$ Construction Plan Check Contract Services
100 General Fund 100-82-804-700-702 12,600$ -$ (12,600)$ Annual Park Fee Appraisal
100 General Fund 100-85-848-700-702 28,000$ -$ (28,000)$ Conduit Repair for Street Light System
100 General Fund 100-85-848-500-505 13,350$ -$ (13,350)$ Street Lighting Overtime
100 General Fund 100-87-827-700-702 29,729$ -$ (29,729)$ Facilities Emergency Compressor
100 General Fund 100-87-828-700-702 9,470$ -$ (9,470)$ Minimum Wage Increase to Janitorial Contracts
100 General Fund 100-87-829-700-702 25,000$ -$ (25,000)$ Emergency Roof Repair for Service Center Shop
100 General Fund 100-87-831-700-702 5,817$ -$ (5,817)$ Minimum Wage Increase to Janitorial Contracts
100 General Fund 100-87-832-700-702 10,130$ -$ (10,130)$ Minimum Wage Increase to Janitorial Contracts
100 General Fund 100-87-834-700-702 5,832$ -$ (5,832)$ Minimum Wage Increase to Janitorial Contracts
100 General Fund 100-87-837-700-702 2,820$ -$ (2,820)$ Minimum Wage Increase to Janitorial Contracts
100 General Fund 100-87-841-900-990 15,000$ -$ (15,000)$ Air Curtains for BBF Cafe
100 General Fund 100-87-841-900-990 6,000$ -$ (6,000)$ Sun Shade for BBF Ticket Kiosk
100 General Fund 100-90-001-401-401 -$ 900,000$ 900,000$ Increase in projected Sales Tax Revenue
100 General Fund 100-90-001-402-401 -$ 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$ Increase in projected Property Tax Revenue
100 General Fund 100-90-001-800-902 8,000,000$ -$ (8,000,000)$ Transfer out fund balance to the Capital Reserve
TOTAL GENERAL FUNDS 8,355,542$ 2,715,000$ (5,640,542)$
SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS
265 BMR Housing 265-72-711-750-042 18,000$ -$ (18,000)$ Moving Expenses Program at Aviare
270 Transportation Fund 270-90-962-900-905 (779,762)$ -$ 779,762$ Defunding Project
TOTAL SPECIAL REVENUE FUNDS (761,762)$ -$ 761,762$
CAPITAL PROJECT FUNDS
420 Capital Improvement Fund 420-99-030-900-905 65,000$ -$ (65,000)$ McClellan Ranch West Parking Lot
429 Capital Reserve 420-90-001-421-401 -$ 8,000,000$ 8,000,000$ Transfer in fund balance from the General Fund
TOTAL CAPITAL PROJECT FUNDS 65,000$ 8,000,000$ 7,935,000$
ENTERPRISE FUNDS
560 Blackberry Farm 560-63-616-700-707 3,495$ -$ (3,495)$ Bank charges
570 Sports Center 570-87-836-700-702 19,250$ -$ (19,250)$ Minimum Wage Increase to Janitorial Contracts
570 Sports Center 570-63-621-700-707 41,063$ -$ (41,063)$ Bank charges
TOTAL ENTERPRISE FUNDS 63,808$ -$ (63,808)$
TOTAL ALL FUNDS 7,722,588$ 10,715,000$ 2,992,412$
58
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:219-4868 Name:
Status:Type:Ordinances and Action Items Agenda Ready
File created:In control:1/14/2019 City Council
On agenda:Final action:3/5/2019
Title:Subject: Consider approving the 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee Report; discussion and
consideration of a Resolution declaring the intention to initiate a proceeding to obtain approval of the
City's proposed 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee, which is a property-related fee,
approving a fee report, and calling a hearing to consider all protests; discussion and consideration of
a Resolution adopting ballot procedures for the 2019 City's Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee.
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:Staff Report
A - Fee Report-2019 Clean Storm Water and Protection Fee
B - Draft Resolution
C - Draft Resolution
D - Draft Notice of Public Hearing
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
City Council3/5/2019 2
Subject: Consider approving the 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee Report;
discussion and consideration of a Resolution declaring the intention to initiate a proceeding to
obtain approval of the City's proposed 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee, which is a
property-related fee, approving a fee report, and calling a hearing to consider all protests;
discussion and consideration of a Resolution adopting ballot procedures for the 2019 City's
Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee.
1. Receive and approve the Fee Report for the 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee; and
2. Adopt Resolution No. 19-022 Initiating a Proceeding to Obtain Approval of the City of
Cupertino's 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee, a property-related fee conforming to
Article XIII D, Section 6 of the State Constitution; and
3. Adopt Resolution No. 19-023 Adopting Ballot Procedures for the City of Cupertino 2019
Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee; and
4. Call for a Public Hearing, tentatively scheduled for May 7, 2019, to receive input from the
public about the proposed 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee, and to determine
whether there is a majority protest to the proposed fee.
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 2/27/2019Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™59
1
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
CITY HALL
10 10300 TORRE AVENUE • CUPERTINO, CA 95014-3255
TELEPHONE: (408) 777-3354 www.cupertino.org
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: March 5, 2019
SUBJECT
Consider approving the 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee Report; discussion
and consideration of a Resolution declaring the intention to initiate a proceeding to obtain
approval of the City’s proposed 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee, which is a
property-related fee, approving a fee report, and calling a hearing to consider all protests;
discussion and consideration of a Resolution adopting ballot procedures for the 2019
City’s Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee.
Recommended Action
1. Receive and approve the Fee Report for the 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection
Fee; and
2. Adopt Resolution No. 19-XXX Initiating a Proceeding to Obtain Approval of the City
of Cupertino’s 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee, a property-related fee
conforming to Article XIII D, Section 6 of the State Constitution; and
3. Adopt Resolution No. 19-XXX Adopting Ballot Procedures for the City of Cupertino
2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee; and
4. Call for a Public Hearing, tentatively scheduled for May 7, 2019, to receive input from
the public about the proposed 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee, and to
determine whether there is a majority protest to the proposed fee.
Background
On June 5, 2018 a study session on potential revenue measures related to business license
tax and storm drain charges was conducted. The business license fee was subsequently
discussed by Council separately from storm drain charges, and Council directed staff to
report back with recommendations as soon as practicable to increase storm water charges
to achieve full cost recovery for the program. At this study session, current property
related storm fees of $12 per residential parcel and $144 per acre for
apartments/commercial/industrial that have not changed since 1992 were described as
funding about one-half of storm water pollution prevention costs (referred to as Non-
Point Source (NPS) program costs in the budget and as Clean Water in this proposed
property-related fee). Clean water costs are incurred to comply with State storm water
pollution prevention requirements. In FY 18/19, these costs are estimated to be $727,000
60
2
with property related storm fees generating only $372,000. The balance of approximately
$355,000 is subsidized by the general fund. Other storm water related expenses are also
subsidized by the general fund.
Total general fund subsidy of all storm water related expenses includes clean water costs
plus operation and maintenance (O&M) costs plus capital costs. These cumulative costs
have ranged from $713,000 in FY 14/15 to a projected $3.5M in FY 23/24.
At the June 5, 2018 study session, Council indicated a willingness to review a process to
double the storm protection charge for residential premises from $12 to $24 per
residential dwelling. Doubling of commercial and other premises was discussed as well.
This was in part due to a survey completed by Voxloca that showed 62% of resident’s
surveyed expressed support for a storm protection service charge increase and that 57%
of those surveyed supported the charge increasing to $24 or more. A doubling of our
storm water fee will not get to full cost recovery for all storm water programs.
Additionally, the City currently has no funding mechanism in place to address the
projects identified in the 2018 Storm Drain Master Plan. For full cost recovery and to have
a dedicated source of funding for clean water and storm protection program that does
not rely on the City’s General Fund, it is likely that storm protection charges would need
to increase to a charge similar to our neighbors in San Jose and Palo Alto.
At the Council meeting of August 21, 2018, staff presented a report titled the “Storm
Water Management Fee Study and Ballot Initiative” with several recommended actions
that had the potential to increase property related storm water fees in FY 19/20. These
actions included the funding and completion of:
A statistically valid survey to determine the level of support and priorities by
the public for a funding measure to fund the clean storm water and storm
protection program;
And upon receiving favorable results and future Council direction, funding and
completion of:
Storm water management fee report (Fee Report) that would determine
equitable charges to various property uses as required by Proposition 218 ; and
Outreach and community education for a citywide balloting process by June
30, 2019
Staff had asked for up to $225,000 to complete these actions but instead received direction
to only complete the survey for an amount not to exceed $20,000. The remaining
61
3
recommended actions were not funded, and staff was directed to report back to Council
with survey results and recommended next steps.
The City entered into an agreement with SCI Consulting Group (SCI) to conduct a survey
and on January 15, 2019 the survey results were presented to the Council. Upon hearing
the survey results, Council approved the funding for the remaining steps in the process
and directed the completion of the Fee Report with SCI. The Fee Report has now been
completed (Attachment A).
Fee Report Summary
Based on the results of the public opinion survey and discussion at the January 15, 2019
City Council meeting, SCI has included all operations and maintenance of the Clean
Water and Storm Protection program, including NPDES requirements, in the Fee Report.
It did not include the Capital Improvement Program in the 2018 Storm Drain Master Plan,
which will need to be funded through other means.
These elements form the basis for the annual revenue requirement of $1,097,787 for fiscal
year 2019-20 (the first year for which revenues would be collected). This has resulted in a
median single-family residential rate of $44.42 per year. The Fee Report also recommends
a 25% reduced fee for multi-residential (condominium or apartment) or commercial
properties that implement low impact development (LID). LID includes facilities such as
rain gardens or capture-and-reuse features that reduce runoff into the storm drainage
system, filters pollutants, and recharges the groundwater basins.
The Fee Report includes an annual adjustment for inflation equal to the Bay Area
Consumer Price Index (“CPI-U”). Although it is capped at 3% for any year, any excess
CPI-U may be held in “reserve” to be used in future years when the CPI-U is less than
3%.
All proceeds from the fee would be required to be deposited into a separate account or
fund separate from the City’s general fund. However, these could be co-located or co-
mingled with the existing Storm Drainage Service Charge account, because its restrictions
align fully with the Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee services.
In addition to the Fee Report, SCI has recommended that the City adopt a fee ord inance
in May that includes the fees as described along with other vital fiscal controls and
accountability:
a. An appeals procedure to allow any property owner who disagrees with the
calculation of his or her 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee to appeal the
fee calculation.
62
4
b. All proceeds from the fee can only be used for Clean Water and Storm Protection
services as defined in the Fee Report and the attached Resolutions.
c. Annual audits would be performed. As a separate account or fund, it would be
identified in the City’s annual audit process.
d. A provision for citizens’ oversight. This task could be added to an existing
committee that already oversees the revenues and expenditures for the City, such
as the Audit Committee.
Each year that the fee is to be collected, the City would need to review the program’s
revenue needs and make a recommendation regarding any change in the fee for the
coming year, with any proposed increase limited by the maximum rated allowed based
on the annual CPI-U adjustment, as described above. Any such changes would be
approved by resolution of the Council each year before the fee data is submitted to the
County in August for collection on the annual property tax bills.
There is no sunset clause for this fee, since maintenance and operations and NPDES
elements of the Clean Water and Storm Drainage Program will continue for as long as
the City continues to be responsible for its storm drainage system. There is no end
foreseen for these obligations, so the fee structure to support them also should not end.
Process Requirements
The Stormwater Fee is a property-related fee. Property-related fees are governed by
Articles XIIIC and D of the State Constitution, which was approved by voters in 1996
through Proposition 218, as well as the Proposition 218 Omnibus Implementation Act
(Government Code Sections 53750 – 53758). In particular, Article XIIID, Section 6
describes the procedures for a property-related fee. Once a proposed fee has been
proposed, approval requires the following steps:
• The City must mail a Notice of Public Hearing of the proposed fee to all
property owners subject to the fee at least 45 days before a public hearing on
the matter. At that hearing, the City shall consider all protests against the fee.
If written protests are presented by owners representing a majority of parcels,
the City shall not seek voter approval of the fee. If a majority protest is not
formed, the City may proceed to the next step.
• No property-related fee, with certain exceptions,1 shall be imposed until it is
submitted and approved by a majority vote of the property owners of the
properties subject to the fee. This election, or ballot proceeding, shall not be
1 The exceptions to the voter approval requirement for new or increased fees and charges in Article XIID, Section
6(c) are “fees or charges for sewer, water, and refuse collection services.”
63
5
conducted less than 45 days after the public hearing. If no majority protest is
formed by the time of the public hearing, the City Council may order the
ballots to be mailed.
Options and Next Steps
Any action taken on the Fee Report is done through the two attached resolutions
(Attachment B and C). The first resolution initiates the proceedings, states the Fee Report
is deemed sufficient and approved, states the annual amount of funds to be collected, and
contains detailed descriptions of the services, procedures, and other features of the Clean
Water and Storm Protection Fee. The second resolution establishes procedures for
conducting the ballot proceeding in accordance with Proposition 218. This is common for
local jurisdictions because neither Proposition 218 nor the statute Omnibus
Implementation Act include detailed procedures.
Attachment D is a draft of the Notice of Public Hearing that will be sent to affected
property owners. This contains critical information about the Clean Water and Storm
Protection Fee, the Public Hearing, the protest procedures, and information about
funding needs, and the projects that will be built with the revenues.
In adopting the two resolutions, the City Council will set in motion a proceeding that will
run through July 2019. The next step would be to print and mail the Notice of Public
Hearing, which is expected to be mailed by March 22, 2019.
Staff, with the support of SCI, plan to conduct three community meetings and several
presentations to local community groups in March and April 2019 to inform the public
about the proposed fee and to answer as many of their questions as possible prior to the
public hearing in May. The dates of the community meetings will be included in the
Notice of Public Hearing.
If the Council does not approve of the Fee Report, it may either direct the Fee Report to
be amended, thereby postponing the adoption of the attached Resolutions and the
subsequent processes necessary to approve the fee, or the Council may elect not to
continue with this process at all.
Future Dates and Milestones
If the City Council directs staff to proceed with a proposed property-related fee for clean
storm water and storm protection, the future steps are tentatively scheduled as follows:
Week of March 18: Public Hearing notices mailed to the public
April: Staff conducts informational community meetings
64
6
May 7: Public Hearing and announcement of whether there is a majority protest
May 7: If there is no majority protest, City Council considers a resolutio n
documenting no majority protest and authorizes ballots to be mailed
May 17: Ballots are mailed
July 5: Close of balloting period
July 8-12: Tabulation of ballots
July 16: City Council certifies ballot results and, if the measure passes, considers
a resolution ordering the fee to be included on the 2019-20 tax bills
Sustainability
There are no negative effects from this action. Proper funding of storm water pollution
prevention programs and improving existing storm water infrastructure will improve the
water quality of storm runoff entering the Bay and reduce the likelihood of property loss
due to flooding.
Fiscal Impact
The storm water program is currently underfunded, and the prospect of additional
inflationary adjustment revenue from the new fees will help reduce funding deficits
related to O&M needs. Continued general fund subsidized funding of storm water
programs and improvements results in a reduction in service in other critical areas. The
Council has already approved the funds to pay for the Fee Report, Notice, and Balloting
process.
If the funding measure passes, it is estimated that the fee will generate revenue of
approximately $1.1 million per year. Program costs, due to proposed enhanced services,
will increase $150,000 per year and an additional estimated amount of $100,000 of
program costs will occur due to storm water related cost transfers from the Resource
Recovery Fund.
____________________________________
Prepared by: Roger Lee, Acting Director of Public Works
Approved for Submission by: Timm Borden, Interim City Manager
Attachments:
A - Fee Report-2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee
B - Draft Resolution No. 19-XXX Initiating a Proceeding to Obtain Approval of the City
of Cupertino’s Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee, a Property-Related Fee
Conforming to Article XIII D, Section 6 of the State Constitution
65
7
C – Draft Resolution No. 19-XXX Adopting Ballot Procedures for the City of Cupertino
Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee, a Property-Related Fee Conforming to
Article XIII D, Section 6 of the State Constitution
D – Draft of the Notice of Public Hearing
1089455.5
66
67
CITY OF CUPERTINO
2019 CLEAN WATER AND STORM PROTECTION FEE REPORT
FEBRUARY 2019
PAGE i
CITY OF CUPERTINO
CITY COUNCIL
Steven Scharf, Mayor
Liang Chao, Vice Mayor
Darcy Paul, Councilmember
Rod Sinks, Councilmember
Jon Willey, Councilmember
INTERIM CITY MANAGER
Timm Borden
PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT
Roger Lee, Acting Director
ENGINEER OF WORK
Jerry Bradshaw, SCI Consulting Group
68
CITY OF CUPERTINO
2019 CLEAN WATER AND STORM PROTECTION FEE REPORT
FEBRUARY 2019
PAGE ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................. 1
OVERVIEW ...................................................................................................................... 1
CITY’S FACILITIES ............................................................................................................ 1
STORMWATER FUNDING BACKGROUND ............................................................................. 2
LEGAL REQUIREMENTS OF STORMWATER FEE ................................................................... 2
FACILITIES AND SERVICES ...................................................................................................... 4
FINANCIAL NEEDS AND REVENUE REQUIREMENTS .................................................................... 5
SUMMARY OF CLEAN WATER AND STORM PROTECTION SYSTEM NEEDS .............................. 5
ANNUAL REVENUE REQUIREMENT ..................................................................................... 6
RATE STRUCTURE ANALYSIS .................................................................................................. 7
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PARCELS AS BENCHMARK ..................................................... 7
NON-SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PARCELS ..................................................................... 9
LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT RATE ADJUSTMENT .............................................................. 11
STORMWATER FEE CALCULATION ................................................................................... 12
ANNUAL COST INDEXING ................................................................................................ 14
MANAGEMENT AND USE OF STORMWATER FUNDS ............................................................ 14
APPENDICES ....................................................................................................................... 15
APPENDIX A – REGULATORY ASSESSMENT & COST AND REVENUE ANALYSIS ..................... 15
APPENDIX B –PERCENTAGE OF IMPERVIOUS AREA ESTIMATIONS ...................................... 28
APPENDIX C – STORMWATER RATES FROM OTHER MUNICIPALITIES .................................. 30
69
CITY OF CUPERTINO
2019 CLEAN WATER AND STORM PROTECTION FEE REPORT
FEBRUARY 2019
PAGE iii
LIST OF TABLES
TABLE 1 – SUMMARY OF PROGRAM REVENUES ........................................................................ 5
TABLE 2 – SUMMARY OF PROGRAM COSTS .............................................................................. 6
TABLE 3 – ESTIMATE OF ANNUAL REVENUE REQUIREMENT ....................................................... 6
TABLE 4 – SUMMARY OF SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PARCELS ............................................... 9
TABLE 5 – SUMMARY OF NON-SFR PARCELS ......................................................................... 10
TABLE 6 – LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT RATE ADJUSTMENT ANALYSIS ..................................... 12
TABLE 7 – PROPOSED 2019 CLEAN WATER & STORM PROTECTION FEE SCHEDULE ................. 13
TABLE 8 – PERCENT OF IMPERVIOUS AREA FROM STORM DRAIN MASTER PLAN ........................ 28
TABLE 9 – PERCENTAGE OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE FROM STORM DRAIN MASTER PLAN ............ 29
TABLE 10 – RECENT STORM DRAIN BALLOT MEASURES .......................................................... 31
TABLE 11 – SAMPLE OF RATES FROM OTHER MUNICIPALITIES ................................................. 32
70
CITY OF CUPERTINO
DRAFT – 2019 CLEAN WATER AND STORM PROTECTION FEE REPORT
FEBRUARY 2019
Page 1
INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
OVERVIEW
The City of Cupertino (“City”) has engaged SCI Consulting Group to study, make
recommendations, and assist in the implementation of a funding approach for its municipal
separate storm sewer system1 (“MS4”) including environmental programs, maintenance and
operations, and compliance with all state and federal regulations associated with the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System2 (“NPDES”) permit.
Since 2013 the City’s Public Works Department has developed several planning documents
pertaining to its Clean Water and Storm Protection program (“Program”). These include the
Trash Reduction Plan (2014), the Green Infrastructure Plan currently under development (to
be completed in 2019) and the Storm Drain Master Plan (“SDMP,” completed in 2018).
These plans made it clear that the Program would need to expand its levels of service to
achieve the goals of responsible environmental stewardship and smart investment in the
City’s aging infrastructure.
In 2018, the City embarked on a two-phase project to determine the feasibility of
implementing a dedicated, sustainable revenue stream to fund the City’s Clean Water and
Storm Protection needs. The first phase included exploring potential funding sources,
estimating user rate ranges for various budget scenarios, and conducting a public opinion
survey of Cupertino residents and property owners to determine storm drain-related priorities
and willingness to support a fee for these services. The City Council has now embarked on
the second phase: implementation of a funding mechanism. This Fee Report is the first step
in that process.
CITY’S FACILITIES
The City operates and maintains a storm drainage system, as it is empowered to do per
Government Code Sections 38900 and 38901. This system is comprised of integrated storm
drain pipes, inlets, outfalls. culverts, and ditches which divert stormwater to local creeks to
prevent flooding. As the community grew and neighborhoods and business districts
expanded, the City’s storm drainage system was developed. When the first NPDES permit
was issued in the early 1990s, the City recognized the fiscal burden these new clean water
requirements would bring and established a property fee on most parcels to fund this activity.
Since that time the City has worked diligently and efficiently to continue meeting the ever-
increasing requirements of the NPDES permit, while the State’s clean water requirements
have evolved into a comprehensive environmental stewardship program.
1 In this report, the terms “storm sewer,” “storm drainage,” “storm protection,” and
“stormwater” are used interchangeably, and are considered to be synonymous.
2 Created in 1972 by the Clean Water Act, the NPDES permit program is authorized by the
EPA to allow state governments to perform many permitting, administrative, and
enforcement aspects of the program.
71
CITY OF CUPERTINO
2019 CLEAN WATER AND STORM PROTECTION FEE REPORT
FEBRUARY 2019
Page 2
The operations and maintenance (“O&M”) side of the Program has also developed many
activities that support a clean water supply and maintain the City’s aging infrastructure to
protect the neighborhoods and businesses from local flooding. On average, the industry-
standard life expectancy of a storm drain system is approximately 60 years. The majority of
the City’s storm drain pipes were installed approximately 50 or more years ago, leaving the
City with a system that is approaching the end of its useful life. Moreover, as noted in the
Storm Drain Master Plan, some of the drainage system does not have adequate capacity.
STORMWATER FUNDING BACKGROUND
The City historically has funded its clean water program and storm drain maintenance activity
primarily through two sources: The General Fund and the Storm Drainage Service Charge3
established in 1992. The 1992 charge, established at $12 per year for single-family
residential and $144 per acre for commercial parcels, has not been increased since its
inception.4 For more than a decade, the General Fund has carried the increasing burden of
the Program. As a result, the City has needed to limit capital expenditures and keep
operations and maintenance activities to a less than desirable level of service, mostly
responding to storm-related emergencies and basic regulatory compliance.
The scale and projected needs of the system in a time of competing demands on the General
Fund point toward the need for developing a separate, dedicated and sustainable funding
stream. As many other municipalities in California have done, including San Jose and Palo
Alto, the City of Cupertino is considering developing a new, additional, more secure and
predictable source of funding for the Program. This Fee Report is the first step in that
process, should the City decide to proceed.
LEGAL REQUIREMENTS OF STORMWATER FEE
This Report calculates the Stormwater Fee as a property-related fee. Property-related fees
are subject to the requirements of Articles XIIIC and D of the State Constitution, which were
approved by voters in 1996 through Proposition 218, as well as the Proposition 218 Omnibus
Implementation Act (Government Code Sections 53750 – 53758).
Any property-related fee must comply with requirements of Article XIIID, Section 6. These
include the following:
▪ Revenues derived from the fee shall not exceed the funds required to provide the
property-related service;
▪ Revenues derived from the fee shall not be used for any purpose other than that for
which the fee was imposed;
▪ The amount of a fee upon any parcel or person as an incident of property ownership
shall not exceed the proportional costs of the service attributable to the parcel;
3 Cupertino Municipal Code Chapter 3.36.
4 This “freeze” on the stormwater fees are due primarily to the stringent requirements of
Proposition 218 for a ballot measure to increase fees.
72
CITY OF CUPERTINO
2019 CLEAN WATER AND STORM PROTECTION FEE REPORT
FEBRUARY 2019
Page 3
▪ No fee may be imposed for a service unless that service is actually used by, or
immediately available to, the owner of the property in question. Fees based on
potential or future use of service are not permitted. Standby charges, whether
characterized as charges or assessments, shall be classified as assessments and
shall not be imposed without compliance with the assessment section of the code;
and
▪ No fee may be imposed for general governmental services including, but not limited
to, police, fire, ambulance or library services where the service is available to the
public at large in substantially the same manner as it is to the property owners.
73
CITY OF CUPERTINO
2019 CLEAN WATER AND STORM PROTECTION FEE REPORT
FEBRUARY 2019
Page 4
FACILITIES AND SERVICES
The City operates and maintains a municipal separate storm sewer system within the City’s
boundaries. The system is made up of man-made drainage systems including, but not limited
to, curbs and gutters, ditches, culverts, pipelines, manholes, catch basins (inlets) and outfall
structures. The natural creek system that runs throughout the City serves as the backbone
of the City’s system. While primary maintenance of those creeks is the responsibility of the
Santa Clara Valley Water District, the City, through its Program, collaborates with the Water
District for creek stewardship and educational activities. The system serves the entire City.
The primary storm drainage service provided by the City is the collection, conveyance, and
overall management of the stormwater runoff from parcels. By definition, all parcels that
shed stormwater into the City’s system, either directly or indirectly utilize, or are served by,
the City’s storm drainage system. The need and necessity of this service are derived from
property improvements, which historically have increased the amount of stormwater runoff
from the parcel by constructing impervious surfaces such as rooftops, pavement areas, and
certain types of landscaping that restrict or retard the percolation of water into the soil lens
beyond the conditions found in the natural, or unimproved, state. As such, open space land
(in a natural condition) and agricultural lands that demonstrate stormwater absorption equal
to or greater than natural conditions are not charged a fee. Other vacant land that was once
improved or has been prepared for future improvements do not qualify as open space or
natural land and will typically be charged a fee.
The 2018 SDMP contains a thorough set of maps and lists of various elements within the
stormwater system. Those descriptions are the basis for this Report.
74
CITY OF CUPERTINO
2019 CLEAN WATER AND STORM PROTECTION FEE REPORT
FEBRUARY 2019
Page 5
FINANCIAL NEEDS AND REVENUE REQUIREMENTS
SUMMARY OF CLEAN WATER AND STORM PROTECTION SYSTEM NEEDS
As part of the fee implementation task, the SCI team conducted an analysis of the City’s
Clean Water and Storm Protection system needs. This analysis is contained in a technical
memorandum dated February 20, 2019 from the firm of Larry Walker Associates and is
included in Appendix A of this Report. This analysis reviewed existing revenues and
estimated the true costs to the Program of preventing local flooding and remaining in
compliance with the current NPDES permit, commonly known as the Municipal Regional
Permit (“MRP”) issued by the Water Board to all Phase 1 permittees in the San Francisco
Bay area. The first MRP was issued in 2009. The second MRP was issued in 2015 and is
referred to as MRP 2.0.
PROGRAM REVENUES
The first step of the analysis was to review the revenues available to the City’s Program.
Based on information provided by the City, the existing revenues are projected through
Fiscal Year 2023-24 as shown in Table 1 below. These values are drawn from
Appendix A, Table 1.
TABLE 1 – SUMMARY OF PROGRAM REVENUES
Current Future
Shown in thousands
Revenue Category 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24
Stormwater Charges 370$ 370$ 370$ 370$ 370$ 370$
Other Revenue 9$ 9$ 9$ 9$ 9$ 9$
General Fund Transfer In 818$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
TOTAL Revenues 1,197$ 379$ 379$ 379$ 379$ 379$
PROGRAM COSTS
The City’s Program is influenced primarily by the requirements to prevent local flooding and
to comply with the MRP 2.0. Cost estimates were based on budgetary and supplemental
information provided by the City. In broadly assessing the Program’s costs and following the
City’s current Budget structure, two main categories were used: Operations and
Maintenance (“O&M”) Costs, and Clean Water Program5 Costs. These categories reflect
how the City generally allocates funds to implement its day-to-day storm drainage-related
operations.
5 The City’s Budget document uses “Non-Point Source” as the name for the Clean Water
program.
75
CITY OF CUPERTINO
2019 CLEAN WATER AND STORM PROTECTION FEE REPORT
FEBRUARY 2019
Page 6
More detailed information can be found in Appendix A. The program costs are summarized
in Table 2 below. The total costs shown in the right-hand column is for the five future years.
These values are drawn from Appendix A, Table 2.
TABLE 2 – SUMMARY OF PROGRAM COSTS
Current Future
Shown in thousands
Category 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22 22-23 23-24 TOTAL
O & M 477$ 552$ 569$ 586$ 603$ 622$ 2,932$
Clean Water 721$ 891 918 964 994 1,025 4,792
TOTAL COSTS 1,197$ 1,443$ 1,487$ 1,550$ 1,597$ 1,647$ 7,724$
ANNUAL REVENUE REQUIREMENT
The proposed fee is scheduled to begin in Fiscal Year 2019-20. Therefore, the data
presented in Appendix A for prior years do not factor into the analysis. What remains is a
five-year window in which projected revenue sources and projected costs are presented.
Over the five fiscal years, the projected costs exceed revenues by $6.0 million. This is the
amount that the proposed Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee would need to generate
in order to bring the Program into balance. The resulting revenue requirement is therefore
based on an annual revenue, adjusted for inflation at 3.0% per year over the five-year period,
that totals $6.0 million over those five years. These projections are summarized in Table 3
below.
TABLE 3 – ESTIMATE OF ANNUAL REVENUE REQUIREMENT
Current Future
Shown in thousands
Category 18-19 19-20 20-21 21-22 22-23 23-24 TOTAL
Revenues na 379$ 379$ 379$ 379$ 379$ 1,895$
Expenditures na 1,443 1,487 1,550 1,597 1,647 7,724
Shortfall na (1,064)$ (1,108)$ (1,171)$ (1,218)$ (1,268)$ (5,829)$
Revenue Requirement * 1,098$ 1,131$ 1,165$ 1,200$ 1,236$ 5,828$
* Revenues are increased by 3.0% annually for inflation
76
CITY OF CUPERTINO
2019 CLEAN WATER AND STORM PROTECTION FEE REPORT
FEBRUARY 2019
Page 7
RATE STRUCTURE ANALYSIS
Proposition 218 states that the amount of a fee upon any parcel shall not exceed the
proportional costs of the service attributable to the parcel. It also states that no fee may be
imposed for a service unless that service is actually used by, or immediately available to,
the owner of the property. As noted earlier, all properties that shed stormwater into the City’s
system are served by that system. In compliance with Proposition 218, the proposed 2019
Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee will only be imposed on properties that shed water,
directly or indirectly, into the City’s system. Additionally, the amount of use attributed to each
parcel is proportionate to the amount of stormwater runoff contributed by the parcel, which
is, in turn, proportionate to the amount of impervious surface area on a parcel (such as
building roofs and pavements).
SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PARCELS AS BENCHMARK
The most widely used method of establishing storm drainage rates6 is to use the average or
median single-family residential parcel7 (“SFR”) as the basic unit of measure, or benchmark,
which is called the single-family equivalent, or “SFE.” Since the metric for this fee structure
is impervious surface area, a benchmark amount of impervious surface area (“ISA”) must
be established.
Cupertino has a wide range of sizes of SFR parcels, which have varying percentages of
impervious area (“%IA”). Generally, smaller, denser parcels tend to have a higher proportion
of impervious area than larger, less dense parcels, which tend to have a lower percentage
of impervious area. (This can be best visualized by the fact that larger residential properties
tend to have a larger proportion of pervious landscaping, and therefore a smaller proportion
of impervious area.) Therefore, the range of SFR was broken into four size categories as
shown in Table 4 below with the medium category containing the largest number of parcels.
The City’s 2018 SDMP includes an analysis of the %IA for Cupertino.8 The SDMP findings
of %IA for various land uses were used as a basis for this Report. Since the categories in
the SDMP don’t completely align with the rate categories established in this Report, some
adjustments were made. A summary of these adjustments is shown in Appendix B.
The median sized SFR parcel is 0.17 acre (approximately 7,405 square feet), which is also
the median parcel size for the medium SFR rate category. That size of parcel is considered
6 Stormwater Utility Survey, 2017, page 2, Western Kentucky University.
7 The SFR category also includes multiplex parcels of two, three or four units, since the lot
development characteristics do not vary significantly from the SFR parcels of similar size.
In all, this includes the approximately 496 multiplex parcels in the City, which were
distributed to the same four parcel size categories as the other SFRs. Any residential
structure with five or more units is categorized as multi-family residential (“MFR”), which is
calculated separately.
8 Section 2.2.3, page 2-6 of the City of Cupertino Storm Drain Master Plan.
77
CITY OF CUPERTINO
2019 CLEAN WATER AND STORM PROTECTION FEE REPORT
FEBRUARY 2019
Page 8
to fall into the low-density residential category of the SDMP, which is reported to have a %IA
of 55%. Therefore, the median parcel in Cupertino contains 4,073 square feet of impervious
surface area (“ISA”) as shown in the calculation below. This will be used as the benchmark
(1 SFE) for all other size categories and other non-residential land uses.
1 SFE = %IA x Median Parcel Size
=55%x 7,405 sf
= 4,073 sf
This becomes the basis for calculating the SFEs for all other types of land uses. The %IA
for each size category was applied to the median size parcel in that category to calculate its
median ISA. The SFE per parcel for each size category is a simple ratio of the median ISA
for each category to the ISA (4,073 sf) for the benchmark category of medium-sized parcels
as shown in the following formula:
Median ISA
4,073
SFE per Parcel =
SPECIAL NOTES ON CONDOMINIUMS
Condominium units are particularly difficult to categorize as they are often on very small
individual parcels yet share larger common areas that are made up of landscaped (pervious)
areas, parking lots and shared roofs, and other recreational uses (either pervious or
impervious). The data for these variables is not readily available, so some assumptions are
made about their characteristics.
Condominiums can be grouped into two categories: High density where they tend to have
units on multiple floors (similar to apartment buildings), and medium density where they are
only one unit high (i.e., townhomes). For the medium-density condominium units, the
presence of common areas with landscape features make them very similar to the small-lot
SFR parcels, and therefore they are assigned the same ISA (3,354 sf) and SFE per parcel
as a small-lot SFR parcel.
For the high-density condominium units, further analysis was done. Fourteen condominium
complexes with 1,246 units were identified throughout the City. Using aerial photographs,
measurements were made of the impermeable areas. A strong trend was found such that
the average ISA per unit was 1,099 square feet. Therefore, the high-density condominiums
are assigned an ISA of 1,099 square feet. This is 33% of the ISA for the medium-density
condominiums.
Table 4 below shows a summary of the SFEs for single-family residential parcels.
78
CITY OF CUPERTINO
2019 CLEAN WATER AND STORM PROTECTION FEE REPORT
FEBRUARY 2019
Page 9
TABLE 4 – SUMMARY OF SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PARCELS
Lot Type
Total
Parcels*
Total
Acres*
Median
Parcel
Size % I A**I S A
SFE per
Parcel
Acres SF SF
Small under 0.13 1,526 159 4,792 70%3,354 0.82
Medium 0.13 to 0.22 8,958 1,510 7,405 55%4,073 1.00
Large 0.23 to 0.40 1,542 420 11,326 45%5,097 1.25
Extra Large over 0.40 345 460 27,878 35%9,757 2.40
Condos 1 (one story) 2,221 95 na na 3,354 0.82
Condos 2+(2+ stories) 1,246 46 na na 1,099 0.27
15,838 2,690
Parcel Size Range
* Total Parcels and Acres do not factor into the basis of the SFE calculation; they are shown for
informational purposes only.
NON-SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL PARCELS
Unlike the SFR parcels, the non-SFR parcels can vary widely in size as well as
characteristics. For this reason, the parcels have been grouped into land use categories
according their %IA characteristics (as shown in Appendix B). The SFE for each land use
category is based on a per-acre basis, so size can be a variable in the calculation of the fee.
The SFE-per-acre can be computed for each category using the following formula:
(43,560 sf / acre) x % I A
4,073 sf
SFE per Acre =
where 4,073 square feet is the amount of ISA in one SFE.
Table 5 below shows a summary of resulting the non-single-family parcel SFEs for each
non-SFR land use category.
79
CITY OF CUPERTINO
2019 CLEAN WATER AND STORM PROTECTION FEE REPORT
FEBRUARY 2019
Page 10
TABLE 5 – SUMMARY OF NON-SFR PARCELS
Land Use Category
Total
Parcels*
Total
Acres*% I A**
SFE per
Acre
Multi-Family (Apartments)79 200 65%6.95
Commercial / Retail / Industrial 256 441 85%9.09
Office 217 372 65%6.95
Church / Institutional 39 98 55%5.88
School (w/playfield)16 329 40%4.28
Park 3 53 15%1.60
Vacant (developed)134 153 5%0.53
Open Space / Agricultural 240 1,192
TOTAL 984 2,837
** %IA is taken from Appendix B
na
* Total Parcels and Acres do not factor into the basis of the SFE calculation; they are
shown for informational purposes only.
Each individual parcel’s SFE is then calculated by multiplying the parcel size (in acres9)
times the SFE per acre for that land use category, as shown in the following formula:
SFE = Parcel Size (acres) x SFE per Acre
DEVELOPED VACANT10 PARCELS
Developed vacant parcels are devoid of obvious structures or improvements but are
distinguished from undeveloped vacant land by one of several characteristics. Typically, a
developed vacant parcel has been graded to be ready for building construction (possibly as
part of the original subdivision or adjacent street grading). In some cases, the parcel
previously contained a structure or improvement that has been removed, but its fundamental
alteration from a natural state remains. Although developed vacant parcels may have
significant vegetative cover, the underlying soil conditions resulting from grading work or
previous improvements usually cause some rainfall to runoff into the storm drainage system.
The %IA for developed vacant parcels is reasonably assumed to be 5%, which is also used
as a minimum value of imperviousness for any land use type (excluding open space and
agricultural land – see next section). Vacant parcels that have significant impervious paving
remaining from prior improvements may be classified as Commercial or some other
classification best representing the %IA of the parcel.
9 Parcel size for non-SFR parcels is calculated to the tenth of an acre or portion thereof.
10 “Vacant” in this Report refers to land that is devoid of improvements. It does not refer to
land with vacant buildings or improvements, which would continue to shed water to the
MS4 the same as if they were occupied.
80
CITY OF CUPERTINO
2019 CLEAN WATER AND STORM PROTECTION FEE REPORT
FEBRUARY 2019
Page 11
OPEN SPACE AND AGRICULTURAL PARCELS ARE NOT CHARGED
The City’s storm drain system was developed in response to land development over the
many decades. Tracts of land that have not yet been developed, or have been used primarily
for agricultural purposes, have not created an impact on the system beyond the natural
condition, and are therefore considered to receive no service from the system. In practical
terms, these parcels generate no additional storm runoff beyond the natural condition. For
these reasons, open space and agricultural parcels are not charged a Fee.
HYBRID PARCELS
Some parcels may have both improvements as well as significant open space areas. For
such parcels that contain a residence, the open space acreage does not increase the fee
because residential parcels are not charged on a per-acre basis. Rather, they are charged
based on the median ISA for that size category.
For such parcels that contain non-residential improvements (which are charged on a per-
acre basis), the chargeable acreage should be adjusted downward to reflect the improved
area only, leaving the open space area “invisible” to the fee calculation. Where parcels have
been found in this category, that acreage adjustment has been made.
LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT RATE ADJUSTMENT
The current NPDES Permit requires certain properties to construct stormwater treatment
and attenuation facilities, also known as low impact development (“LID”). These facilities are
typically designed to capture a portion of the storm flows, retain them, and enable them to
infiltrate into the ground. While this is intended to help filter pollutants from the water, it also
can reduce the parcel’s stormwater runoff quantity to some extent, which in turn can reduce
a parcel’s impact on the system. In addition to NPDES-required LID, other parcel owners
may elect to follow LID guidelines voluntarily.
The section of the MRP that requires LID facilities is Provision C.3 (New Development and
Redevelopment). Compliance with C.3 is a well-established and convenient metric on which
to base customer activities that further Program goals and affect Program costs. C.3
compliance can have impacts to many of the Program elements. In order to analyze the
extent to which C.3 compliance will impact Program costs, each Program element was rated
with one of four impact levels: none (0%), minor (25%), medium (50%), and major (80%).
By applying those impact levels to the costs of each Program element, it was determined
that compliance with Provision C.3 equates to approximately 25% of the overall Program
costs. Table 6 below shows the results of that analysis.
Based on that analysis, a commensurate reduction in the fees for certain C.3-compliant
parcels is warranted. However, C.3 compliance brings with it some additional administrative
burdens to verify ongoing compliance. While this burden is relatively minor, for single-family
parcels where the annual fee is also relatively small, the administrative burden negates the
LID benefits to the program. Therefore, single-family residential parcels do not qualify for
the reduced fee. Conversely, C.3 compliance for condominiums is typically accomplished
on a collective basis, so the minor administrative burden is spread across many parcels
81
CITY OF CUPERTINO
2019 CLEAN WATER AND STORM PROTECTION FEE REPORT
FEBRUARY 2019
Page 12
making it insignificant. Therefore, a 25% reduction in fees will be applied to all C.3-compliant
parcels that are either non-single-family or condominium.
TABLE 6 – LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT RATE ADJUSTMENT ANALYSIS NoneMinorMediumMajorNotes
Program Management Does not lessen Program Management
burden
C.2 Municipal Operations Reduces storm flows in minor storm,
reducing burden on operations
C.1 Permit Compliance Is a small part of overall Program
Compliance
C.2 Municipal Operations Does not lessen Municipal Operations
compliance burden
C.3 New Development and
Redevelopment Is all about C.3
C.4 Industrial and Commercial
Site Controls Provides controls
C.5 Illicit Discharge Detection and
Elimination Does not lessen Illicit Discharge burden
C.6 Construction Site Control Does not lessen Construction Controls
burden
C.7 Public Information and
Outreach Aids in educating property owners
C.8 Water Quality Monitoring Does not lessen WQ Monitoring burden
C.9 Pesticides Toxicity Control Capture & infiltration may filter out
pesticides
C.10 Trash Load Reduction Many C.3 devices are considered a
partial trash capture device
C.11 Mercury Controls Capture & infiltration may filter out
pollutants
C.12 PCBs Controls Capture & infiltration may filter out
pollutants
C.13 Copper Controls Capture & infiltration may filter out
pollutants
C.17 Annual Reports Does not lessen reporting requirements
Impact Level
Clean Water Program
Operations & Maintenance
MRP Provision
STORMWATER FEE CALCULATION
The primary metric in this analysis is the SFE as illustrated above. To arrive at the fee
amount for the various land use categories, the total City-wide SFEs must be divided into
the total revenue requirement to arrive at the rate per SFE. Using the analysis above, that
calculation is represented by the following formula:
82
CITY OF CUPERTINO
2019 CLEAN WATER AND STORM PROTECTION FEE REPORT
FEBRUARY 2019
Page 13
Annual Revenue Requirement
Total SFEs
=SFE Rate
Or, using numbers from the analysis:
$1,097,787
24,713.810
per SFESFE Rate ==$44.42
This SFE rate amount is then multiplied by the SFEs per parcel or acre for the various land
use categories to arrive at the Stormwater Fee Rate Schedule shown in Table 7 below.
TABLE 7 – PROPOSED 2019 CLEAN WATER & STORM PROTECTION FEE SCHEDULE
SFE Rate
Single-Family Residential *
Small (under 0.13 acre)0.824 36.58$ per parcel
Medium (0.13 to 0.22 acre)1.000 44.42$ per parcel
Large (0.23 to 0.40 acre)1.251 55.58$ per parcel
Extra Large (over 0.40 acre)2.396 106.42$ per parcel
Condominium 1 (1 story)0.824 36.58$ per parcel
Condominium 2+(2+ stories)0.270 11.99$ per parcel
Non-Single-Family Residential **
Multi-Family Residential 0.695 30.88$ per 0.1 acre
Commercial / Retail / Industrial 0.909 40.38$ per 0.1 acre
Office 0.695 30.88$ per 0.1 acre
Church / Institutional 0.588 26.13$ per 0.1 acre
School (w/playfield)0.428 19.00$ per 0.1 acre
Park 0.160 7.13$ per 0.1 acre
Vacant (developed)0.053 2.38$ per 0.1 acre
Open Space / Agricultural
*** Low Impact Development Adjustment only applies to condominium and non-single-family
properties.
Low Impact Development Adjustment ***25% Fee Reduction
Land Use Category
Proposed Fee
FY 2019-20
no charge
** Non-SFR parcel size is calculated to the tenth of an acre or portion thereof.
* SFR category also includes duplex, triplex and four-plex units.
83
CITY OF CUPERTINO
2019 CLEAN WATER AND STORM PROTECTION FEE REPORT
FEBRUARY 2019
Page 14
ANNUAL COST INDEXING
The 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee is subject to an annual adjustment tied to
the Consumer Price Index-U for the San Jose Area as of December of each succeeding
year (the “CPI”), with a maximum annual adjustment not to exceed 3%. Any change in the
CPI in excess of 3% shall be cumulatively reserved as the “Unused CPI” and shall be used
to increase the maximum authorized rate in years in which the CPI is less than 3%. The
maximum authorized rate is equal to the maximum rate in the first fiscal year the Fee was
approved adjusted annually by the lower of either 3% or the change in the CPI plus any
Unused CPI as described above.
MANAGEMENT AND USE OF STORMWATER FUNDS
The City shall deposit into a separate account(s) all 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection
Fee revenues collected and shall appropriate and expend such funds only for the purposes
outlined by this Report. The specific assumptions utilized in this Report, the specific
programs and projects listed, and the division of revenues and expenses between the two
primary categories (Clean Water and O&M) are used as a reasonable model of future
revenue needs and are not intended to be binding on future use of funds.
The specific assumptions utilized in this Report, the specific programs or projects listed, and
the division of revenues and expenses between the two primary categories (Clean Water
and O&M) are used as a reasonable model of future revenue needs and are not intended to
be binding on future use of funds.
Dated: February 20, 2019
Engineer of Work
By
Jerry Bradshaw, License No. C48845
84
CITY OF CUPERTINO
2019 CLEAN WATER AND STORM PROTECTION FEE REPORT
FEBRUARY 2019
Page 15
APPENDICES
APPENDIX A – REGULATORY ASSESSMENT & COST AND REVENUE ANALYSIS
On the following pages is a regulatory assessment and cost and revenue analyses, drawn
from a technical memorandum prepared for this project by Larry Walker Associates. The
information contained in this Appendix forms a basis for the fee calculations in the main body
of this Fee Report and is referenced as appropriate.
85
Memorandum
DATE:
Rachel Warren
Airy Krich-Brinton
1480 Drew Ave., Suite 100
Davis, CA 95618
530.753.6400
RachelW@lwa.com
AiryK@lwa.com
February 20, 2019
TO: Susan Barnes, SCI Consulting Group
SUBJECT: Fee Study Report: Regulatory Assessment
& Cost and Revenue Analysis
Cc: Jerry Bradshaw, SCI Consulting Group
Cheri Donnelly, City of Cupertino
Jo Anne Johnson, City of Cupertino
Karen Ashby, Larry Walker Associates
1. INTRODUCTION
In the early 1990s, in response to the federal Clean Water Act (CWA) amendment of 1987 to
address urban stormwater runoff pollution from Municipal Separate Storm Sewer Systems
(MS4s) and the pending federal National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
regulations that would implement the amendment, the San Francisco Bay Regional Water
Quality Control Board (Regional Water Board) issued municipal stormwater Phase I NPDES
permits to the countywide urban areas of Santa Clara, Alameda, San Mateo, and Contra Costa.
These countywide areas had individual permits until 2009, when the Regional Water Board
issued a Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit (MRP).1 The MRP was subsequently reissued in
2015.2
The current MRP regulates stormwater discharges from municipalities in Alameda, Contra
Costa, San Mateo, and Santa Clara counties (including the City of Cupertino), as well as the
cities of Fairfield, Suisun City, and Vallejo in Solano County. The MRP includes requirements
for the following components, including an increased focus on requirements for control of
specific pollutants to address some of the more persistent water quality issues:
• C.1 Discharge Prohibitions and Receiving Water Limitations
• C.2 Municipal Operations
• C.3 New Development and Redevelopment
• C.4 Industrial and Commercial Site Controls
• C.5 Illicit Discharge and Elimination
• C.6 Construction Site Controls
• C.7 Public Information and Outreach
1 Order R2-2009-0074 as amended by Order No. R2-2011-0083
2 Order No. R2-2015-0049
Appendix A 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee Report Page 16
86
• C.8 Water Quality Monitoring
• C.9 Pesticides Toxicity Controls
• C.10 Trash Reduction
• C.11 Mercury Controls
• C.12 PCBs Controls
• C.13 Copper Controls
• C.14 Bacterial Controls
• C.15 Exempted and Conditionally Exempted Discharges
• C.16 Discharges to Areas of Special Biological Significance
• C.17 Annual Reports
The City of Cupertino (City) is committed to water quality and watershed stewardship by
continuing to build a safer, healthier, and more aesthetically pleasing community through
programs, initiatives, and ordinances that align with MRP activities. Over the years, the range of
actions taken by the City has greatly increased in response to evolving regulatory requirements
and community needs.
As a part of the stormwater program initiative, the City leverages its resources by participating in
a comprehensive effort in the Santa Clara Valley, the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution
Prevention Program (SCVURPPP), which was initiated in 1990 and is organized, coordinated,
and implemented in accordance with a memorandum of agreement (MOA) between its 15
member agencies. The Santa Clara Valley collaboration is further supplemented by participation
in the regional Bay Area Stormwater Management Agencies Association (BASMAA). In
addition to directly benefitting member agencies with access to better science, the regional
collaborations enhance technical approaches and ensure consistent messaging to the public and
community decision makers. Implemented when the first stormwater permits were issued to
Santa Clara Valley permittees, the collaboration has effectively assisted member agencies in
maintaining stormwater programs that achieve federally and State-mandated water quality
regulations.
The purpose of this Technical Memorandum is to develop a planning-level cost estimate for the
full costs of implementing the stormwater program, which may be used to support a funding
measure for the City’s storm drain operations and maintenance and Clean Water Program needs.
The assessment includes a summary of known revenues and estimates of prior year, current year,
and future implementation costs of the stormwater program.3 This information may also be used
in the future to budget program funding and/or to identify other potential funding sources. This
memorandum is organized as follows:
1. Introduction
2. Approach
3. Results and Discussion
3.1. Overall Summary
3.2. City Expenditures
3 Prior year is fiscal year 2017-2018; current is fiscal year 2018-2019; future is fiscal years 2019-2020 through
2023-2024.
Appendix A 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee Report Page 17
87
2. APPROACH
To understand the funding needs for the stormwater program, the “true” costs for full
implementation of the MRP requirements must be understood. However, tracking and compiling
staff time and resources across multiple departments can be a complex and time-consuming
process. To identify the implementation costs for the City as comprehensively and efficiently as
possible, an interview was conducted with key City staff, which included structured questions
and discussions regarding the agency’s staffing, implementation approach for the range of MRP
requirements, prior and current stormwater program revenues, and the estimated costs for
program implementation. The revenues and expenditures were compiled and assigned to two
main categories, which reflects how the City generally allocates funds to implement its day-to-
day stormwater-related operations:
• Operations and Maintenance (O&M): This includes ongoing and routine activities
supporting the O&M of the stormwater infrastructure, including inspection and cleaning
of storm drain inlets, storm drain lines, and trash capture devices, as well as street
sweeping management (primarily MRP provision C.2).
• Clean Water Program: This includes ongoing and routine activities that are directly
related to water quality improvement, such as implementation of the MRP requirements,
participation in the SCVURPPP, clean creek programs, community outreach, business
and construction site inspections, street sweeping, and implementation of the City’s trash
reduction plan (all MRP provisions, with the exception of green infrastructure projects).
3. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
A summary and discussion of total City costs for implementation of the MRP during the prior
year (2017-2018), current year (2018-2019), and future years (2019-2020 through 2023-2024), is
provided within this section. The cost information is presented in two ways: a summary of City
expenditures by cost category (O&M and Clean Water Program) (3.1. Overall Summary) and a
detailed breakdown of expenditures (3.2. City Expenditures) as they relate to the two cost
categories. The approach and assumptions used to develop each of these summaries are
described below. All costs are in present-value dollars.
3.1. Overall Summary
Costs for the full implementation of the stormwater program were estimated based on budgetary
and supplemental information provided by the City. The approach and assumptions used were as
follows:
• The revenue and expenditures for 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 were based on the City’s
2018 and 2019 Adopted Budgets.
• Future revenue was assumed to be the same as that for the current fiscal year, 2018-2019,
without the transfers in from the General Fund (i.e., $379,000) (Table 1).
• The category-specific expenditure totals in Table 2 were taken directly from the detailed
City Expenditures for 2017-2018 through 2023-2024 (see Section 3.2, Table 4).
• Future cost projections were based on the available costs from 2017-2018, information
obtained during City staff interviews, and a percentile multiplier (3% for personnel costs
and non-personnel costs and 3.57% for participation in SCVURPPP). Additional details
Appendix A 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee Report Page 18
88
regarding assumptions for future, potential cost increases related to specific MRP
provisions are provided in 3.2. City Expenditures.
Appendix A 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee Report Page 19
89
This page left intentionally blank for printing purposes
Appendix A 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee Report Page 20
90
The estimated revenue for 2017-2018 through 2023-2024 is shown in Table 1 and Figure 1.
Table 1. Overall Summary of Revenue
Revenue Category
Prior[a] Current[a] Future - Projected
2017-2018 2018-2019 2019-2020 2020-2021 2021-2022 2022-2023 2023-2024
O&M Fund 100-85
Total Fund Revenue $1,700 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Transfer in (General Fund) $448,250 $476,503 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Clean Water Program Fund 230-81
Fines and forfeitures $6,000 $9,000 $9,000 $9,000 $9,000 $9,000 $9,000
Charges for services $380,000 $370,000 $370,000 $370,000 $370,000 $370,000 $370,000
Transfer in (General Fund) $375,720 $341,785 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0
Total Revenue $1,211,670 $1,197,288 $379,000 $379,000 $379,000 $379,000 $379,000
[a] Values are from the City’s Fiscal Year 2018-2019 Adopted Budget4 (2018 Adopted Budget and 2019 Adopted Budget for both Non-Point Source (Fund 230-81) (p. 407-409) and
Storm Drain Maintenance (Fund 100-85) (p. 434-435)).
4 https://www.cupertino.org/home/showdocument?id=21776
Appendix A 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee Report Page 21
91
The total estimated expenditures for 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 (based on the 2018 and 2019 Adopted Budgets) and the total estimated
expenditures for the next five years, organized by cost category, are shown in Table 2 and Figure 1.
Table 2. Overall Summary of Total Estimated Costs for MRP, by Cost Category and Fiscal Year
Prior[a] Current[a] Future – Projected
Cost Category 2017-2018 2018-2019 2019-2020 2020-2021 2021-2022 2022-2023 2023-2024
O&M
Fund 100-85 $449,950 $476,503 $552,000 $569,000 $586,000 $603,000 $622,000
Clean Water Program
Fund 230-81 $761,720 $720,785 $891,000 $918,000 $964,000 $994,000 $1,025,000
Total Expenses $1,211,670 $1,197,288 $1,443,000 $1,487,000 $1,550,000 $1,598,000 $1,646,000
[a] Values are from the City’s Fiscal Year 2018-2019 Adopted Budget5 (2018 Adopted Budget and 2019 Adopted Budget for both Non-Point Source (Fund 230-81) (p. 407-409) and
Storm Drain Maintenance (Fund 100-85) (p. 434-435)).
5 https://www.cupertino.org/home/showdocument?id=21776
Appendix A 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee Report Page 22
92
Figure 1. Overall Summary of Total Estimated Costs and Revenue for MRP, by Cost Category and
Fiscal Year
3.1.1. Overall Summary: Discussion
Below are a few key observations regarding the overall estimated expenditures:
• During the observed time period, the estimated cost of stormwater program
implementation will exceed the estimated, dedicated revenue (Figure 1).
• The Clean Water Program costs account for the larger portion (62%, as a seven-year
average) of the City’s stormwater-related costs.
• Overall, it is anticipated that the City’s stormwater program will spend similar
percentages on O&M and the Clean Water Program annually. Additional, one-time cost
increases are included for the Clean Water Program in FY 2021-2022, based on potential
increases in MRP requirements (as described in 3.2. City Expenditures).
• Based on the information available and the assumptions made, the total cost of the
stormwater program is expected to increase by 36% between 2017-2018 and 2023-2024
(Figure 1). However, it should be noted that the cost increase could be greater depending
upon the requirements of the final, renewed MRP.
o Between 2018-2019 and 2019-2020, a 21% increase in the total cost of the
stormwater program is anticipated to occur. This increase is based on a thorough
evaluation of the City personnel and non-personnel costs required to implement the
current MRP provisions and provide storm protection (as described in 3.2. City
Expenditures).
Appendix A 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee Report Page 23
93
3.2. City Expenditures
Costs for the implementation of the stormwater program for the MRP were estimated based on
budgetary and supplemental information provided by the City. When determining which costs to
include, the City considered, at a minimum, the following:
• Labor;
• Materials;
• Contract Services;
• Contingencies; and
• Cost Allocation.
The following key pieces of information were provided by the City:
• “Fund 230-81 - Environmental Programs FY17_18 Expenditure (Actual)” spreadsheet,
which details the expenditures for the Clean Water Program by expense type for FY
2017-2018.
• “Fund 230-81 - Environmental Programs FY17_18 Revenue (Actual)” spreadsheet,
which details the revenues for the Clean Water Program by expense type for FY 2017-
2018.
• “Fund 230-81 - Environmental Programs FY18_19 Expenditure (Budget)” spreadsheet,
which details the amended budget and expenditures to date for the Clean Water Program
by expense type for FY 2018-2019.
• “Fund 230-81 - Environmental Programs FY18_19 Revenue (Budget)” spreadsheet,
which details the amended budget and revenues to date for the Clean Water Program by
expense type for FY 2018-2019.
• “100-85-818 FY17_18 Expense (actual)” spreadsheet, which details the expenditures for
O&M by expense type for FY 2017-2018.
• “100-85-818 FY18_19 Expense (Budget)” spreadsheet, which details the amended
budget and expenses to date for O&M by expense type for FY 2018-2019.
• Hard copy tables describing the staff positions under “230-81-802 Env Mgmt Cln Crk
Strm Drain – Environmental Programs – Non Point Source” and “FTE – General Fund.”
• Hard copy “Resolution 18-039, Schedule B – Engineering” describing the various fees
effective July 1, 2018.
• The City’s Fiscal Year 2018-2019 Adopted Budget6 detailing the revenue, expenditure,
and General Fund Costs for the 2018 adopted Budget and 2019 Adopted Budget for both
Non-Point Source (Fund 230-81) (p. 407-409) and Storm Drain Maintenance (Fund 100-
85) (p. 434-435).
6 https://www.cupertino.org/home/showdocument?id=21776
Appendix A 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee Report Page 24
94
The approach and assumptions used were as follows:
• All costs were identified as O&M Costs or Clean Water Program Costs (Table 4).
• The City’s “Cost Allocation” for each fund, which includes overhead costs such as
Human Resources, Finance, and Information Technology Support, are divided as follows:
o The full Cost Allocation amount for O&M (Fund 100-85) is accounted for under
Provision C.2.
o The Cost Allocation amount for Clean Water Program (Fund 230-81) is allocated
proportionally to specific MRP provisions based on the identified labor costs.
• The City’s contribution to SCVURPPP was determined as follows:
o Based on the Memorandum of Agreement, the City's annual, proportional cost share
is 2.46% of the annual SCVURPPP Program Budget.
o The City's payment history (July 2008 through July 2018) was used to determine the
average annual increase in the City’s contribution (3.57%). This multiplier was used
to estimate contributions for future years.
o The total SCVURPP contribution was distributed equally amongst the MRP
provisions (C.2 through C.13).
• Future costs were projected as follows:
o Future projections were based on the available costs from 2017-2018 and a percentile
multiplier (3% for personnel costs and non-personnel costs and 3.57% for
participation in SCVURPPP). This is based on preliminary feedback from Regional
Water Board staff that the MRP should not change significantly. However, if
significant changes are made to the MRP during the renewal process, then the
estimates should be modified accordingly.
o Implementation costs for specific MRP provisions are anticipated to require an
additional increase during the first year of the next MRP term.7 These increases were
applied as additive percent increases only for FY 2021-2022. These are preliminary
estimates, and the actual cost increases are to be determined upon adoption of the new
MRP. These provisions, the anticipated, potential cost increase for each, and the
rationale for the potential increase are as follows:
- C.3 New Development and Redevelopment (5%). This estimated increase is
based on potential expansion of the C.3 requirements to small projects and
single-family residences, which would necessitate updating the application
materials and guidance, including the C.3 Technical Guidance. In addition,
there will be increased costs associated with enhanced O&M requirements for
green infrastructure projects. This does not include costs for
implementation/installation of green infrastructure projects.
7 The current MRP expires on December 31, 2020. If the MRP is reissued on schedule, the new MRP will begin to
be implemented on January 1, 2021. These increases have been applied to the anticipated, first full year of
implementation of the new MRP, beginning July 1, 2021.
Appendix A 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee Report Page 25
95
- C.10 Trash Load Reduction (7.5%). This estimated increase is based on
anticipated, new monitoring/assessment costs and implementation
requirements, including the assessment of private catchments. In addition, by
2022, the City will need to achieve 100% reduction of the trash load from its
base trash generation level; based on the 2017-2018 Annual Report, the City
is currently achieving 93% reduction.
- C.11 Mercury Controls and C.12 Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs)
Controls (7.5%). This estimated increase is based on implementation of new
programs for building demolition to address mercury and PCBs.
- C.17 Annual Reports (5%). This estimated increase is based on anticipated
changes in reporting requirements and the potential for some increased costs
related to electronic reporting (via EPA) and cost reporting (via the state).
o No incremental projections were made for expenses described as “one-time costs.”
The total expenditures for 2017-2018 (prior year) and 2018-2019 (current year), based on the
adopted budgets for those years, and the total, estimated expenditures for the next five years
(future), organized by cost category (fund) and MRP provision, are shown in Table 4.8 Only
total fund values are included for 2017-2018 and 2018-2019.
8 The total costs for each cost category (fund) are also summarized in Table 2.
Appendix A 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee Report Page 26
96
Table 4. City Estimated Expenditures for MRP, by Cost Category (Fund) and Fiscal Year
Prior[a] Current[a] Future – Projected[b]
Fund MRP Provision 2017-2018 2018-2019 2019-2020 2020-2021 2021-2022 2022-2023 2023-2024
Fund 100-85, Operations & Maintenance
Program Management $59,000 $61,000 $63,000 $65,000 $67,000
C.2 Municipal Operations $493,000 $508,000 $523,000 $539,000 $555,000
Fund Total $449,950 $476,503 $552,000 $569,000 $586,000 $603,000 $622,000
Fund 230-81, Clean Water Program
C.1 Permit Compliance $23,000 $24,000 $25,000 $25,000 $26,000
C.2 Municipal Operations $148,000 $153,000 $157,000 $162,000 $167,000
C.3 New Development and Redevelopment $70,000 $72,000 $77,000 $80,000 $82,000
C.4 Industrial and Commercial Site Controls $83,000 $86,000 $88,000 $91,000 $94,000
C.5 Illicit Discharge Detection and Elimination $129,000 $133,000 $137,000 $141,000 $145,000
C.6 Construction Site Control $43,000 $44,000 $46,000 $47,000 $49,000
C.7 Public Information and Outreach $118,000 $122,000 $126,000 $129,000 $133,000
C.8 Water Quality Monitoring $11,000 $11,000 $12,000 $12,000 $13,000
C.9 Pesticides Toxicity Control $21,000 $21,000 $22,000 $23,000 $23,000
C.10 Trash Load Reduction $130,000 $134,000 $148,000 $152,000 $157,000
C.11 Mercury Controls $24,000 $25,000 $27,000 $27,000 $28,000
C.12 PCBs Controls $51,000 $52,000 $57,000 $59,000 $61,000
C.13 Copper Controls $11,000 $11,000 $12,000 $12,000 $13,000
C.17 Annual Reports $29,000 $30,000 $33,000 $34,000 $35,000
Fund Total $761,720 $720,785 $891,000 $918,000 $964,000 $994,000 $1,025,000
Total $1,211,670 $1,197,288 $1,443,000 $1,487,000 $1,550,000 $1,598,000 $1,646,000
[a] Values are from the City’s Fiscal Year 2018-2019 Adopted Budget9 (2018 Adopted Budget and 2019 Adopted Budget for both Non-Point Source (Fund 230-81) (p. 407-409) and
Storm Drain Maintenance (Fund 100-85) (p. 434-435)).
[b] Each value for the fiscal years under the “Future – Projected” column is considered to be estimated and has been rounded to the nearest $1,000; thus, summing individual values
may result in a slightly different total than those shown in the “Fund Total” and “Total” rows.
9 https://www.cupertino.org/home/showdocument?id=21776
Appendix A 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee Report Page 27
97
CITY OF CUPERTINO
2019 CLEAN WATER AND STORM PROTECTION FEE REPORT
FEBRUARY 2019
PAGE 28
APPENDIX B –PERCENTAGE OF IMPERVIOUS AREA ESTIMATIONS
Section 2.2.3 of the Storm Drain Master Plan (SDMP, 2018) provided information about the
percentage of impermeable area (%IA) for various land use types. Table 8 below
summarizes that information.
TABLE 8 – PERCENT OF IMPERVIOUS AREA FROM STORM DRAIN MASTER PLAN
Land Use % I A
Commercial/Industrial 85
Very Low Density Res.35
Low Density Res.55
Low-Medium Density Res 70
Medium Density Res 80
High Density Res.75
Medium-High Density Res.70
Open Water 100
Parks/Open Space 15
Public (Schools, Gov't, etc.)45
Quasi-Public/Institutional 65
Transportation/Right of Way 90
Undeveloped 0
Several of the SDMP land use types were the same as the rate categories for this Report.
However, some of the rate categories in this Report did not precisely match the land uses in
the SDMP, so adjustments were made. Table 9 below shows the SDMP categories on the
left side and the Fee Report rate categories on the right side. The ones in green matched
sufficiently to use them outright. The ones in beige required some adjustments, which are
explained below the Table.
98
CITY OF CUPERTINO
2019 CLEAN WATER AND STORM PROTECTION FEE REPORT
FEBRUARY 2019
Page 29
TABLE 9 – PERCENTAGE OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE FROM STORM DRAIN MASTER PLAN
Low-Medium Density Res 70 70 Small SFR
Low Density Res.55 55 Medium SFR
45 Large SFR
Very Low Density Res.35 35 Very Large SFR
Quasi-Public/Institutional 65 65 Multi-Fam
Commercial/Industrial 85 85 Comm/Indust
Quasi-Public/Institutional 65 65 Office
55 Institutional
40 Schools
Parks/Open Space 15 15 Parks
5 Vacant
0 Open Space
Fee Report
0Undeveloped
45Public (Schools, Gov't, etc.)
Storm Drain Master Plan
EXPLANATION OF ADJUSTMENTS TO %IA
▪ Large Single-Family Residential – This category falls between the Medium and Very
Large categories without a corresponding land use in the SDMP. That gap was split
evenly to arrive at a %IA of 45%. This created an array of %IA for the residential
rate categories that aligns well with other communities and associated fee reports.
▪ Institutional & Schools – The SDMP grouped schools with other governmental uses,
however the Fee Report distinguishes between governmental/institutional uses and
schools (with play field areas). The SDMP blended rate of 45% was used as a basis
to split the Fee Report categories to arrive at %IA values of 55% and 40%,
respectively. Again, these values align relatively well with other communities and
associated fee reports.
▪ Vacant & Open Space – The SDMP assigned a value of 0% for the undeveloped
land use while the Fee Report distinguishes between open space/natural terrain and
vacant land that has been developed (but not improved). It is assumed that the
SDMP blended the two categories, which was split for the Fee Report categories to
arrive at %IA values of 5% and 0%, respectively. Further justification for the %IA of
zero for open space land is provided in the body of the Fee Report. Again, these
values align relatively well with other communities and associated fee reports.
99
CITY OF CUPERTINO
2019 CLEAN WATER AND STORM PROTECTION FEE REPORT
FEBRUARY 2019
Page 30
APPENDIX C – STORMWATER RATES FROM OTHER MUNICIPALITIES
There have been relatively few voter-approved local revenue measures in the past 15 years
to support stormwater programs in California. A summary of those efforts plus some others
in process or being studied is shown in Table 10 on the following page, in roughly
chronological order. Amounts are annualized and are for single family residences or the
equivalent.
100
CITY OF CUPERTINO
2019 CLEAN WATER AND STORM PROTECTION FEE REPORT
FEBRUARY 2019
Page 31
TABLE 10 – RECENT STORM DRAIN BALLOT MEASURES
Municipality Status Annual
Rate Year Mechanism
San Clemente Successful $ 60.15 2002 Balloted Property-Related Fee
Carmel Unsuccessful $ 38.00 2003 Balloted Property-Related Fee
Palo Alto Unsuccessful $ 57.00 2003 Balloted Property-Related Fee
Los Angeles Successful $ 28.00 2004 Special Tax - G. O. Bond
Palo Alto Successful $ 120.00 2005 Balloted Property-Related Fee
Rancho Palos Verde Successful , then recalled and
reduced $ 200.00 2005, 2007 Balloted Property-Related Fee
Encinitas Unsuccessful $ 60.00 2006
Non-Balloted Property-Related
Fee adopted in 2004,
challenged, balloted and failed
in 2006
Ross Valley
Successful, Overturned by
Court of Appeals, Decertified
by Supreme Court
$ 125.00 2006 Balloted Property-Related Fee
Santa Monica Successful $ 87.00 2006 Special Tax
San Clemente Successfully renewed $ 60.15 2007 Balloted Property-Related Fee
Solana Beach Non-Balloted, Threatened by
lawsuit, Balloted, Successful $ 21.84 2007 Non-Balloted & Balloted
Property-Related Fee
Woodland Unsuccessful $ 60.00 2007 Balloted Property-Related Fee
Del Mar Successful $ 163.38 2008 Balloted Property-Related Fee
Hawthorne Unsuccessful $ 30.00 2008 Balloted Property-Related Fee
Santa Cruz Successful $ 28.00 2008 Special Tax
Burlingame Successful $ 150.00 2009 Balloted Property-Related Fee
Santa Clarita Successful $ 21.00 2009 Balloted Property-Related Fee
Stockton Unsuccessful $ 34.56 2009 Balloted Property-Related Fee
County of Contra Costa Unsuccessful $ 22.00 2012 Balloted Property-Related Fee
Santa Clara Valley Water
District Successful $ 56.00 2012 Special Tax
City of Berkeley Successful varies 2012 Measure M - GO Bond
County of LA Deferred $ 54.00 2012 NA
San Clemente Successful $ 74.76 2013 Balloted Property-Related Fee
Vallejo San & Flood Successful $ 23.00 2015 Balloted Property-Related Fee
Culver City Successful $ 99.00 2016 Special Tax
Palo Alto Successful $ 163.80 2017 Balloted Property-Related Fee
Reauthorization of 2005 Fee
Town of Moraga Unsuccessful $ 120.38 2018 Balloted Property-Related Fee
City of Berkeley Successful $ 42.89 2018 Balloted Property-Related Fee
Los Angeles Flood
Control Successful $ 83.00 2018 Special Tax
City of Los Altos In Process NA NA Balloted Property-Related Fee
City of Alameda Studying NA NA Balloted Property-Related Fee
County of San Joaquin Studying NA NA Balloted Property-Related Fee
City of Sacramento Studying NA NA Balloted Property-Related Fee
City of Salinas Studying NA NA NA
City of Santa Clara Studying NA NA Balloted Property-Related Fee
County of San Mateo Studying NA NA NA
County of El Dorado Studying NA NA NA
County of Orange Studying NA NA NA
County of Ventura Studying NA NA NA
101
CITY OF CUPERTINO
2019 CLEAN WATER AND STORM PROTECTION FEE REPORT
FEBRUARY 2019
Page 32
In addition to the agencies listed above in Table 10 that have gone to the ballot for new or
increased Stormwater Fees, there are several other municipalities throughout the State that
have existing Stormwater Fees in place. Some of these rates are summarized in Table 11
below. Amounts are annualized and are for single family residences or the equivalent.
The City’s proposed $44.42 SFR rate is well within the range of stormwater rates adopted
by other municipalities.
TABLE 11 – SAMPLE OF RATES FROM OTHER MUNICIPALITIES
Municipality Annual
Rate Type of Fee
Bakersfield 200.04$ Property-Related Fee
Culver City 99.00$ Special Tax
Davis 84.94$ Property-Related Fee
Elk Grove 70.08$ Property-Related Fee
190.20$ Property-Related Fee
Hayward 28.56$ Property-Related Fee
Los Angeles 27.00$ Special tax
Palo Alto 136.80$ Property-Related Fee
Redding 15.84$ Property-Related Fee
Sacramento (City)135.72$ Property-Related Fee
Sacramento (County)70.08$ Property-Related Fee
San Bruno 46.16$ Property-Related Fee
San Clemente 60.24$ Property-Related Fee
San Jose 91.68$ Property-Related Fee
Santa Cruz 109.08$ Special Tax
Stockton *221.37$ Property-Related Fee
Vallejo Sanitation and Flood
Control District 23.64$ Property-Related Fee
West Sacramento 144.11$ Property-Related Fee
Woodland 5.76$ Property-Related Fee
* This is the calculated average rate for the City of Stockton, which has 15
rate zones with rates ranging from $3.54 to $651.68 per year.
102
Attachment B
[Type here]
DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 19-XXX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
DECLARING ITS INTENTION TO INITIATE A PROCEEDING TO OBTAIN
APPROVAL OF THE CITY’S 2019 CLEAN WATER AND STORM PROTECTION FEE,
A PROPERTY-RELATED FEE CONFORMING TO ARTICLE XIII, SECTION 6 OF THE
STATE CONSTITUTION
WHEREAS, the City of Cupertino is initiating the 2019 Clean Water and Storm
Protection Fee initiative; and
WHEREAS, the City maintains and manages a municipal storm drainage system
that includes capital improvements, maintenance and operations, and activities to ensure
compliance with all state and federal regulations associated with the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System (“NPDES”); and
WHEREAS, the City’s comprehensive storm drainage system includes man-made
drainage elements such as curbs and gutters, ditches, culverts, pipelines, manholes, catch
basins (inlets), and outfall structures in addition to the City’s natural creek system that
serves as an integral part of the system; and
WHEREAS, the City, through its storm drainage system, provides stormwater
services (“Services”) that include, but are not limited to, collecting, conveying, and
managing stormwater runoff from properties within the City, maintaining the storm
drainage system, and ensuring compliance of the storm drainage system with all state
and federal clean water requirements; and
WHEREAS, the City adopted a Storm Drain Master Plan in January of 2019 to
better understand the condition and capacity of this critical infrastructure system, and
found there are needs for capital improvements of as much as $79.28 million, in addition
to annual maintenance and operations costs; and
WHEREAS, the City does not have adequate funding to pay for all of the storm
drainage system needs identified above, and in order to finance these needs the City
would need to enact the 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee in compliance with
Article XIII D of the Constitution, which would require a ballot proceeding; and
WHEREAS, the City Council authorized SCI Consulting Group to perform a rate
study and draft a Stormwater Fee Report (“Fee Report”) to determine the amount of the
fees on various parcels of land that would, in compliance with Article XIII D of the
103
Attachment B
[Type here]
Constitution, finance certain capital improvements, operations and maintenance needs
and NPDES clean water compliance needs.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Cupertino as follows:
SECTION 1. Intention to Seek Approval of a Property Related Fee. The City intends to
seek property owner approval of a proposed property related fee to fund the Services
(“2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee”), pursuant to Article XIII D, Section 6 of
the California Constitution.
SECTION 2. Fee Report. SCI Consulting Group has prepared and submitted to the City
a Fee Report concerning the proposed 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee. The
Fee Report has been made, filed with the City, and duly considered by the City Council,
and is hereby deemed sufficient and approved. The Fee Report shall stand as the Fee
Report for all subsequent proceedings under and pursuant to this resolution. Reference
is hereby made to the Fee Report for the following: (a) a description of the Services; (b)
the identification of the parcels upon which the 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection
Fee is proposed; (c) the proportional cost of the Services attributable to each parcel; (d)
the amount of the Fee proposed for each parcel; and (e) the basis upon which the amount
of the proposed Fee was calculated.
SECTION 3. Total Amount of Stormwater Fee. The amount of the proposed 2019 Clean
Water and Storm Protection Fee, if approved, that would be collected in Fiscal Year 2019-
20 would be approximately $1,097,787.
SECTION 4. Clean Water and Storm Protection Services. The proposed 2019 Clean Water
and Storm Protection Fee will provide funds for operations and maintenance activities ,
as detailed in the City of Cupertino Storm Drain Master Plan, as well as activities to help
ensure City compliance with all state and federal clean water requirements under the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits issued by the San Francisco
Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board.
SECTION 5. Public Hearing. A noticed public hearing shall be held before this Council
at the City Council chambers at 10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino CA 95014, and is
tentatively planned on May 7, 2019, at 6:45 p.m. for the purpose of conducting a hearing
and to consider all protests of property owners regarding the proposed 2019 Clean Water
and Storm Protection Fee and this Council’s determination whether the public interest,
convenience and necessity require the Services. The date set forth above for the public
hearing may be delayed without returning for additional approval by the Council,
104
Attachment B
[Type here]
provided that such date is not less that forty-five (45) days after the mailing of the notice
required and described in Section 6 below.
SECTION 6. Notice of Public Hearing. The City Clerk is hereby directed to cause a notice
of the hearing ordered hereof (“Notice”) to be given in accordance with law by mailing,
postage prepaid in the United States mail, and such Notice shall be deemed to have been
given when so deposited in the mail. The Notice shall be mailed to all record owners,
who shall be those persons whose names and addresses appear on the last equalized
secured property tax assessment roll for the County of Santa Clara, or in the case of any
public entity, the representative of such public entity at the address thereof known to the
City Clerk or SCI Consulting Group. The Notice shall be mailed not less than forty-five
(45) days before the date of the public hearing.
SECTION 7. Majority Protest. If written protests against the proposed 2019 Clean Water
and Storm Protection Fee are presented to the Council by a majority of owners of the
identified parcels before the end of the public hearing, the Fee shall not be imposed.
Otherwise, this Council may authorize the City to proceed with a property owner ballot
proceeding.
SECTION 8. Description of the Proposed 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee.
Information regarding the 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee, including but not
limited to the amount of the Fee proposed to be imposed upon each parcel, the basis upon
which the amount of the proposed Fee was calculated, the reason for the Fee, and other
elements of the Fee shall be described in the Fee Study, Notice of Public Hearing, Ballot
Guide and/or Ballot.
SECTION 9. Fiscal Controls. All revenues received from the proposed 2019 Clean Water
and Storm Protection Fee shall be spent only to fund the Services. 2019 Clean Water and
Storm Protection Fee revenues received will be deposited into a separate account or fund.
SECTION 10. Cost-of-Living Adjustment Mechanism. If approved by property owners,
the 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee shall be imposed annually. The maximum
rate of the 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee may be adjusted in future years
by an amount equal to the annual change in the Consumer Price Index (“CPI”) for All
Urban Consumers in the San Francisco Bay Area, not to exceed 3% (three percent) per
year without a further vote or balloting process, and any excess CPI may be held in
“reserve” to be used in future years when the CPI is less than 3%.
105
Attachment B
[Type here]
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Cupertino this 5th day of March by the following vote:
Vote Members of the City Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
/s/ /s/
_________________________ ________________________
Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Steven Scharf, Mayor
1089454.6
106
Attachment C
[Type here]
DRAFT RESOLUTION NO. 19-XXX
A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF CUPERTINO
ADOPTING BALLOT PROCEDURES FOR THE CITY’S 2019 CLEAN WATER AND
STORM PROTECTION FEE
WHEREAS, Proposition 218 was adopted on November 6, 1996, adding Articles
XIII C and XIII D to the California Constitution; and
WHEREAS, Article XIII D of the California Constitution imposes certain
procedural and substantive requirements relating to property-related fees; and
WHEREAS, barring a protest by a majority of affected property owners, the City
of Cupertino (“City”) intends to conduct a ballot proceeding to obtain approval of a
proposed property-related fee, called the “2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee”
consistent with the procedures established in Article XIII D of the California Constitution.
If approved, the 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee would raise revenue to pay
for services provided by the City that are necessary to repair, operate and maintain pipes
and other infrastructure to prevent system failure and sinkholes, protect clean drinking
water, comply with mandated clean water standards, and protect the City against future
flooding; and
WHEREAS, the City is initiating the process necessary to adopt the 2019 Clean
Water and Storm Protection Fee.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of the City of
Cupertino as follows:
SECTION 1. Statement of Legislative Intent. In adopting this resolution, it is the
Council’s intent to adopt property-related fee ballot proceedings for adoption of a
proposed 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee that are consistent and in
compliance with Article XIII D of the California Constitution.
SECTION 2. Definition of Property-Related Fee. Article XIII D, section 2(e), of the
California Constitution defines “fee” as “any levy other than an ad valorem tax, a special
tax, or an assessment, imposed by an agency upon a parcel or upon a person as an
incident of property ownership, including a user, or charge for a property r elated
service.”
SECTION 3. Property-Related Fee Ballot Proceeding. Article XIII D, section 6(c), of the
California Constitution states “[a]n agency may adopt procedures similar to those for
107
Attachment C
[Type here]
increases in assessments in the conduct of elections” for a property-related fee. The
following procedures shall be used to conduct a ballot proceeding to seek property owner
approval of the proposed 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee:
A. Property-Related Fee Ballots: The following guidelines shall apply to the property-
related fee ballots:
1. The record owner(s) of each parcel to be subject to the 2019 Clean Water and Storm
Protection Fee shall be determined from the last equalized property tax roll.
2. The ballot shall be designed in such a way that, once sealed, its contents are
concealed.
3. The ballot and/or ballot guide provided by this section shall contain the following
information:
a. The total amount to be charged to parcels City-wide;
b. The amount to be charged to the owner’s particular parcel(s);
c. The duration of Fee payments;
d. The reason for the proposed Fee;
e. The basis upon which the amount of the proposed Fee was calculated;
f. A summary of the procedures for the completion, return and tabulation of the
ballots;
g. A statement that the failure to receive a majority of ballots in support of the
proposed Fee will result in the Fee not being imposed;
h. On the face of the envelope in which the notice of election and ballot are mailed,
there shall appear in substantially the following form in no smaller than 1 6-
point bold type: “OFFICIAL BALLOT ENCLOSED”; and
i. The ballot shall include the City’s address for return of the ballot, the date and
location where the ballots will be tabulated, and a place where the person
returning it may indicate his or her name, a reasonable identification of the
parcel, and his or her support or opposition to the proposed Fee.
108
Attachment C
[Type here]
4. Failure of any person to receive a ballot(s) shall not invalidate the proceedings.
5. All ballots must be returned either by mail or by hand delivery and received by
the City not later than the date and time for return of ballots stated on the ballot
described in this section. Mailed ballots must be returned to the City Clerk at the
address shown on the ballot and pre-printed on the ballot return envelope. Hand
delivered ballots must be returned to the City Clerk at 10300 Torre Avenue,
Cupertino, California 95014.
6. Each ballot must be signed under penalty of perjury.
7. Only one vote will be counted per parcel. If more than one vote per parcel is
submitted, then only the ballot with the most recent date will be counted and any
previous votes submitted for the same parcel will not be accepted or counted. If
more than one vote per parcel is submitted and the ballots for that parcel are not
dated, the replacement ballot will be counted and any other votes for the same
parcel will not be accepted or counted.
8. The City will only accept official ballots issued by the City.
9. If a 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee ballot is lost, withdrawn, destroyed
or never received, the City will mail or otherwise provide a replacement ballot to
the owner upon receipt of a request delivered to the City. The replacement ballot
will be marked to identify it as a replacement ballot. Any request for a replacement
ballot to be mailed to another location must include evidence, satisfactory to the
City, of the identity of the person requesting the ballot. The same procedure
applies to replacement ballots which are lost, withdrawn, destroyed, or never
received.
10. If a 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee ballot is returned by the United
States Post Office as undeliverable, the City may mail a redelivered ballot to the
current property owner, if updated ownership and/or owner mailing address can
be determined. The redelivered ballot will be marked to identify it as a
replacement ballot.
11. A property-related fee ballot is a disclosable “public record” as that phrase is
defined by Government Code section 6252 during and after tabulation of the
ballots.
109
Attachment C
[Type here]
12. To complete a 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee ballot, the owner of the
parcel or his or her authorized representative must (1) mark the appropriate box
supporting or opposing the proposed 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee,
and (2) sign, under penalty of perjury, the statement on the ballot that the person
completing the ballot is the owner of the parcel or the owner's authorized
representative. Only one box may be stamped or marked on each ballot. All
substantially incomplete or improperly marked ballots shall be disqualified from
the tabulation. The Tabulator will retain all such invalid ballots.
13. After returning a 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee ballot to the City
Clerk, the person who signed the ballot may withdraw the ballot by submitting a
written statement to the City directing the City to withdraw the ballot. Such
statement must be received by the City prior to the close of the balloting period.
When ballots for the 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee are tabulated, the
City Clerk will segregate withdrawn ballots from all other returned ballots. The
City will retain all withdrawn ballots and will indicate on the face of such
withdrawn ballots that they have been withdrawn.
14. In order to change the contents of a ballot that has been submitted, the person who
has signed that ballot may (1) request that such ballot be withdrawn, (2) request
that a replacement ballot be issued, and (3) return the replacement ballot fully
completed. Each of these steps must be completed according to the procedures set
forth above.
B. Tabulating Ballots. The following guidelines shall apply to tabulating 2019 Clean
Water and Storm Protection Fee ballots:
1. 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee ballots shall remain sealed until
tabulation commences after the conclusion of the balloting period.
110
Attachment C
[Type here]
2. The ballots shall be tabulated in a location accessible to the public.
3. The City Clerk shall oversee the tabulation of the 2019 Clean Water and Storm
Protection Fee ballots, and may be assisted by technical staff from a third party.
The City Clerk shall follow the rules and procedures of the laws of the State of
California, this resolution and any other rules and procedures of the Council or
the City. All ballots shall be accepted as valid and shall be counted except those in
the following categories:
a. A photocopy of a ballot, a letter or other form of a ballot that is not an official
ballot issued by the City or on behalf of the City;
b. An unsigned ballot, or ballot signed by an unauthorized individual;
c. A ballot which lacks an identifiable mark in the box for a “yes” or “no” vote
or with more than one box marked;
d. A ballot which appears tampered with or otherwise invalid based upon its
appearance or method of delivery or other circumstances;
e. A ballot for which the parcel number is damaged or obstructed, unless the
parcel number or property ownership information is legible and allows the
Tabulator to clearly determine the property(s) identified on the ballot;
f. A ballot received by the City Clerk after the close of the balloting time
period; and
g. A ballot which has been withdrawn, or a ballot for a parcel for which a later
(or replacement) ballot has been counted.
4. The City Clerk’s decision shall be final and may not be appealed to the City.
5. In the event of a dispute regarding whether the signer of a ballot is the owner of
the parcel to which the ballot applies, the City will make such determination from
the official County Assessor records and any evidence of ownership submitted to
the City prior to the conclusion of the balloting period. The City will be under no
duty to obtain or consider any other evidence as to ownership of property and its
determination of ownership will be final and conclusive.
111
Attachment C
[Type here]
6. In the event of a dispute regarding whether the signer of a ballot is an authorized
representative of the owner of the parcel, the City may rely on the statement on
the ballot signed under penalty of perjury that the person completing the ballot is
the owner's authorized representative, and any evidence submitted to the City
prior to the conclusion of the balloting period. The City will be under no duty to
obtain or consider any other evidence as to whether the signer of the ballot is an
authorized representative of the owner and its determination will be final and
conclusive.
7. A property owner who has submitted a 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection
Fee ballot may withdraw the ballot and submit a new or changed ballot up until
the conclusion of the balloting period.
8. A property owner’s failure to receive a 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee
ballot shall not invalidate the proceedings conducted under this section and
Article XIII D, Section 6 of the California Constitution.
9. The City shall retain all 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee ballots for a
period of two (2) years from the date of the close of the balloting period.
10. The period of time in which ballots may be submitted (balloting period) shall end
at 5:00 p.m. on the closing date of the balloting. All 2019 Clean Water and Storm
Protection Fee ballots must be received by this date and time to be tabulated.
11. After the conclusion of the balloting period, the Tabulator shall tabulate the ballots
at the direction of the City Council.
12. The ballot tabulation may be continued to a different time or different location
accessible to the public, provided that the time and location are announced at the
location at which the tabulation commenced and posted by the City in a location
accessible to the public. The City Clerk may use technological methods to tabulate
the ballots, including, but not limited to, punch card or optically readable (bar -
coded) ballots.
13. Each ballot shall count for as many votes as there are parcels with a fee greater
than zero listed on that ballot. If, according to the final tabulation of the ballots,
votes submitted against the 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee exceed the
votes submitted in favor of the 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee, the
City Council shall not impose the 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee.
112
Attachment C
[Type here]
PASSED AND ADOPTED at a regular meeting of the City Council of the City of
Cupertino this 5th day of March by the following vote:
Vote Members of the City Council
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTAIN:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
/s/ /s/
_________________________ ________________________
Grace Schmidt, City Clerk Steven Scharf, Mayor
1089453.3
113
Attachment D
March 18, 2019
Dear Property Owner:
The purpose of this letter is to inform you of an upcoming public process related to the City’s
proposed 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee.
As you are aware, property owners in Cupertino pay a Storm Drainage Service Charge as
part of your annual property tax bill. Since the program’s inception in 1992, this fee has
partially funded the City’s storm water maintenance and pollution prevention programs and
has worked to protect our community’s stormwater infrastructure, local creeks, regional
wetlands and the San Francisco Bay. However, the amount of the fee has never been
increased, and over time the costs to maintain and operate the City’s aging stormwater
infrastructure while continuing to provide environmental protections within our local
watersheds has surpassed the fee’s revenues.
In order to address this funding deficit, the City of Cupertino is proposing a new Clean Water
and Storm Protection Fee this year. In addition to providing environmental protections, the
increased revenue will be used to provide sustainability to our basic citywide storm drain
maintenance and operations. This dedicated, reliable source of funding will reduce the
Program’s reliance on operations and maintenance funds allocated by the City Council from
the general fund, which can rise or fall based on changes in property values and on other City
funding priorities.
Please read the information on the following pages. I encourage your participation in this
process.
Please visit our website for more information: www.Cupertino.org/CleanWater. If you have
any questions about this process, contact us at (408) 777-3354 or
environmental@cupertino.org.
Sincerely,
Timm Borden
Interim City Manager
114
Attachment D
Notice of Public Hearing
2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee
PUBLIC HEARING
Notice is hereby given that the City Council will hold a public hearing on a proposed 2019
Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee for properties within the City of Cupertino.
The Public Hearing has been scheduled for:
May 7, 2019
6:45 p.m.
City Council Chambers
10350 Torre Avenue, Cupertino, California
At this public hearing, the City Council will consider the proposed fee and hear all persons
interested in the matter. The public is encouraged to attend.
The public hearing is held in accordance with Article XIII D of the California Constitution
(Proposition 218) and with the procedures adopted by resolution of the City Council on
March 5, 2019. The procedures may be accessed on the City’s web site at
www.Cupertino.org/CleanWater.
Any owner of a parcel of real property subject to the proposed 201 9 Clean Water and Storm
Protection Fee may object to the proposed fee by filing with the City Clerk, at or before the
time of the hearing, a written protest containing a legible signature of the property owner and
identifying the parcel by address or assessor’s parcel number. The mailing address for a
written protest is as follows: 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee Protest, c/o City
Clerk, 10300 Torre Avenue, Cupertino CA 95014. The property owner may also appear at the
hearing and be heard on the matter.
If the City Clerk does not receive written protests from a majority of property owners
regarding the proposed 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee before the close of the
public testimony portion of the public hearing, the City Council may authorize a mail ballot
proceeding on the question of whether to approve the fee. Under this scenario, ballots would
be mailed to all property owners whose parcels are subject to the fee.
115
Attachment D
The 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Program would be managed by the City of
Cupertino, and the proposed 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee would be collected
and used strictly for the storm water services as summarized below.
COMMUNITY MEETINGS
The City will also be conducting three community meetings to provide additional
opportunities for the public to receive information and provide input regarding the storm
water protection system in Cupertino. The date, time and place of the meetings are shown
below:
Community Meeting #1:
March 28, 2019
7:00 – 8:00 p.m.
Craft Room
Quinlan Community Center
10185 N. Stelling Rd., Cupertino, CA
Community Meeting #2:
April 13, 2019
1:00 – 2:00 p.m.
Room TBD
City Hall
10300 Torre Ave., Cupertino, CA
Community Meeting #3:
April 30, 2019
1:00 – 2:00 p.m.
Cupertino Senior Center
21251 Stevens Creek Blvd., Cupertino, CA
OVERVIEW OF PROPOSED 2019 CLEAN WATER AND STORM PROTECTION FEE
Reason for the Proposed 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee. The storm water
maintenance and pollution prevention program that started in 1992 has been operating at a
deficit to pay for the necessary operations, maintenance, and regulatory requirements
required to proactively service the system and ensure that storm water flowing to the Bay
and creeks is clean. Despite these challenges, in 2013 the City implemented a Trash Reduction
Plan that benefited water flowing into the creeks and in 2017 the City began work on a Green
Infrastructure Plan to reduce pollutants that are running off property and into the storm
protection system. Earlier this year, the City accepted a 2018 Storm Drain Master Plan which
116
Attachment D
makes specific recommendations for flood control and water quality maintenance and
operations, as well as capital improvements spread across the City’s watersheds.
In 2019 the City prepared a comprehensive 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee
Report, including recommendations to update the City’s existing fees and strategic plans to
meet the City’s storm water regulatory compliance requirements and to maintain the storm
protection system. This work is summarized in the Fee Report which contains the Financial
Planning a Funding Options Analysis, as well as recommendations for a fee structure.
PROPOSED 2019 CLEAN WATER AND STORM PROTECTION FEE RATES
If approved, these new fees will be collected on the annual property tax bill along with the
current storm water fee and other fees and charges. The new fee for a single-family home on
a medium sized parcel between 0.13 and 0.23 acres, which is the most common fee, is
proposed to be $44.42 per year. The entire schedule of proposed annual fee rates is shown in
the table below.
Schedule of Proposed Clean Storm Water Fee Rates
117
Attachment D
Single-Family Residential *
Small (Under 0.13 acre)36.58$ per parcel
Medium (0.13 to 0.22 acre)44.42$ per parcel
Large 0.23 to 0.40 acre)55.58$ per parcel
Extra Large (over 0.40 acre)106.42$ per parcel
Condominium 1 (1 story)36.58$ per parcel
Condominium 2+ (2+ stories)11.99$ per parcel
Non-Single-Family Residential **
Multi-Family Residential 30.88$ per 0.1 acre
Commercial / Retail / Industrial 40.38$ per 0.1 acre
Office 30.88$ per 0.1 acre
Church / Institutional 26.13$ per 0.1 acre
School (w/playfield)19.00$ per 0.1 acre
Park 7.13$ per 0.1 acre
Vacant (developed)2.38$ per 0.1 acre
Open Space / Agricultural
Land Use Category
no charge
Proposed Fee
FY 2019-20
* Single-Family Residential category also includes du- tri- and four-plex units
** Non-SFR parcels are charge per the tenth of an acre or portion thereof
*** Low Impact Development Adjustment only applies to condominium and non-single-
family properties.
Low Impact Development Adjustment ***25% Fee Reduction
118
Attachment D
DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSED CLEAN WATER AND STORM PROTECTION
PROGRAM NEEDS
Operations and Maintenance
Effective operations and maintenance are critical to the City’s storm water system. Regular
operations and maintenance tasks include storm-day preparations, periodic video
inspections, timely storm system repairs, as well as ensuring green infrastructure facilities are
working properly. The proposed fee provides funding for operating and maintaining
essential infrastructure.
Safe, Clean and Healthy Water
The City’s storm water system must comply with strict State and Federal clean water
standards to ensure that water discharged from the system is safe, clean and healthy, in order
to protect our local creeks and the Bay. The City has a strong compliance program, but the
current financial analysis indicates that additional funds will be required to continue to
address increasing water quality standards.
Summary
The total additional amount to be collected by the proposed 201 9 Clean Water and Storm
Protection Fee in Fiscal Year 2019-20 is $1,097,787. This proposed fee will fully address the
annual structural financial shortfall of the operations and maintenance and water quality
requirements of the storm water system. A summary table showing a four -year financial
projection for fee revenues and expenditures is shown below.
Current Future
Fiscal Year 2018-19 2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 2023-24 5-Yr
Revenues $ 1,197 $ 379 $ 379 $ 379 $ 379 $ 379 $ 1,895
Expenses $ 1,197 $ 1,443 $ 1,487 $ 1,550 $ 1,597 $ 1,647 $ 7,724
Shortfall $ - $ (1,064) $ (1,108) $ (1,171) $ (1,218) $ (1,268) $ (5,829)
New Revenues $ 1,098 $ 1,131 $ 1,165 $ 1,200 $ 1,236 $ 5,828
SUMMARY OF FISCAL ACTIVITY AND PROJECTIONS
All numbers are in thousands
ADMINISTRATION OF THE 2019 CLEAN WATER AND STORM PROTECTION FEE
How the Fee Is Calculated. The proposed 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee is
based on the quantity of rain water runoff produced by each parcel or category of parcel. This
runoff is based upon the proportional impervious area (e.g. roof tops and pavements) on each
119
Attachment D
category of parcel. A copy of the full 2019 Clean Water and Storm Protection Fee, Fee Report
can be found on the City’s website at www.cupertino.org/cleanwater.
Properties Subject to the Fee. All properties are subject to the fee except for open space,
agricultural land, and other undeveloped parcels that do not include measurable impervious
area.
Annual Inflation Adjustment. In order to offset the effects of inflation on labor and material
costs, the proposed fee is subject to an annual increase based on the change in the Consumer
Price Index, but will be limited to 3% in any single year.
Accountability and Oversight Provision. The proposed 2019 Clean Water and Storm
Protection Fee revenues will be collected and deposited into a separate account that can only
be used for specified storm protection projects, maintenance and operations, and regulatory
activities.
1089452.5
Dr
120
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:119-4968 Name:
Status:Type:Ordinances and Action Items Agenda Ready
File created:In control:2/4/2019 City Council
On agenda:Final action:3/5/2019
Title:Subject: Jollyman Park Unfenced Dog Off-Leash Area (DOLA) Trial
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:Staff Report
A - Map of Proposed Area for a Dog Off-Lease Area at Jollyman Park.pdf
B - Jollyman Park Unfenced Dog Off-leash Area Trial Survey.pdf
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
City Council3/5/2019 1
Subject: Jollyman Park Unfenced Dog Off-Leash Area (DOLA) Trial
Receive presentation from trial project supporters and provide staff with direction on whether
to include the development of a six-month trial of a Dog Off-Leash Area (DOLA) at Jollyman
Park on the City Council draft work program for 2019-20.
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 2/27/2019Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™121
CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
Meeting: March 5, 2019
Subject
Jollyman Park Unfenced Dog Off-Leash Area (DOLA) Trial
Recommended Action
Receive presentation from trial project supporters and provide staff with direction on
whether to include the development of a six-month trial of a Dog Off-Leash Area (DOLA)
at Jollyman Park on the City Council draft work program for 2019-20.
Discussion
A City survey was completed in July 2018 to determine if Cupertino residents would
accept a three to six month trial of an off-leash dog area within Jollyman Park. The DOLA
would only be available during the last two hours the park is open. The proposed location
is in the Southeast section of the park. A map of the area is included (see Attachment A).
A self-selected survey was made available to all Cupertino residents, posted on the City’s
website and Next Door between June 29 and July 23, 2018 (see Attachment B). Of the 304
people who took the survey, 138 completed the survey by registering into the system,
while 166 completed the survey anonymously. Collectively, 61% of survey respondents
lived within ½ mile of Jollyman Park.
Key findings from the survey:
Registered Respondents:
97.8% of respondents lived within the City of Cupertino
73.9% owned a dog. 59% of those dogs were 24 inches or shorter.
74% of respondents lived within ½ mile of the park.
65% of respondents would use the dog off leash area
77.5% think the location is good while 76.6% believe the time the DOLA is available is good.
76.8% of registered respondents supported the dog off leash area trial.
Unregistered Respondents:
97.0% of respondents lived within the City of Cupertino
61.2% owned a dog. 59% of those dogs were 24 inches or shorter
122
50.6% of respondents live within ½ mile of the park
52.7% of respondents would use the dog off leash area
71.2% think the location is good while 64.6% believe the time the DOLA is available is good.
70.0% of unregistered respondents supported the trial dog off leash area.
Overall, 72.7% of respondents supported the dog off-leash area trial.
In October of 2018, staff proposed including the work to support a DOLA trial in an
update to the 2018-19 Work Program, however the City Council chose not to direct staff
to move forward at that time. At the February City Council Priority Setting Session,
several speakers spoke in favor of the Council including this initiative in the upcoming
2019-20 Work Program.
The trial will require a significant amount of staff time to engage local neighbors and
therefore will need to be included in the City Council’s approved work program for
2019/2020. Work would include doing additional community outreach, analyzing
compatibility with other current or potential uses, and determining appropriate signage.
The trial off-leash dog area has been determined to be compatible with the all-inclusive
playground, as concluded by the design consultant, Verde Design (2018).
Sustainability Impact
No sustainability impact.
Fiscal Impact
Preparations for the DOLA would require city staff to install approximately six poles or
barricades to display signs with designated hours of operation. A dog bag dispenser
and garbage cans would also need to be put in place. Following the trial period, turf
renovations will likely need to be initiated. Proposed fiscal impact including materials
and staff time, would be approximately $2,200, which would cover the cost of signs,
poles, trash receptacles, and potential turf renovation.
_____________________________________
Prepared by: Jeff Milkes, Director, Recreation and Community Services
Reviewed by: Timm Borden, Interim City Manager
Approved for Submission by: Timm Borden, Interim City Manager
Attachments:
A – Map of Proposed Area for a Dog Off-Leash Area (DOLA) at Jollyman Park
B – Jollyman Park: Unfenced Dog Off-Leash Area (DOLA) Trial Survey
123
1
124
1 | www.opentownhall.com/6470 Created with OpenGov | July 23, 2018, 9:07 AM
Jollyman Park: Unfenced Dog Off-leash
Area (DOLA) Trial Survey
July 23, 2018, 9:07 AM
Contents
i. Summary of registered responses 2
ii. Summary of unregistered responses 8
iii. Survey questions 14
iv. Individual registered responses 16
v. Individual unregistered responses 121
125
Summary Of Registered Responses
As of July 23, 2018, 9:07 AM, this forum had: Topic Start
Attendees:394 June 29, 2018, 2:59 PM
Registered Responses:138
Hours of Public Comment:15.2
QUESTION 1
1. Is your household located within City of Cupertino limits?
% Count
Yes 97.8% 135
No 2.2%3
QUESTION 2
2. Do you or someone in your household own a dog?
% Count
Yes 73.9% 102
No 20.3% 28
Prefer not to state 5.8%8
QUESTION 3
If yes, please indicate how many:
Average 1.35
Total 138.00
Count 102
Skipped 36
2 | www.opentownhall.com/6470 Created with OpenGov | July 23, 2018, 9:07 AM
Jollyman Park: Unfenced Dog Off-leash Area (DOLA) Trial Survey
Jollyman Park: Unfenced Dog Off-leash Area (DOLA) Trial Survey
126
QUESTION 4
How many of your dogs are less than 24 inches tall?
Average 0.82
Total 81.00
Count 99
Skipped 39
QUESTION 5
How many of your dogs are taller than 24 inches?
Average 0.52
Total 48.00
Count 93
Skipped 45
QUESTION 6
3. How far do you live from Jollyman Park?
% Count
Adjacent 8.7% 12
Within 2 blocks 21.7% 30
Within ¼ mile 14.5% 20
Within ½ mile 17.4% 24
Within 1 mile 13.8% 19
Farther than 1 mile 23.9% 33
3 | www.opentownhall.com/6470 Created with OpenGov | July 23, 2018, 9:07 AM
Jollyman Park: Unfenced Dog Off-leash Area (DOLA) Trial Survey
Jollyman Park: Unfenced Dog Off-leash Area (DOLA) Trial Survey
127
QUESTION 7
4. Would you take your dog(s) to the Jollyman Park Off-Leash Area and run them off leash if the proposal is
implemented?
% Count
Yes 65.0% 89
No 8.8% 12
Not sure 9.5% 13
I do not own a dog 16.8% 23
QUESTION 8
5. Do you feel the location of the proposed dog off-leash area is appropriate?
% Count
Yes 77.5% 107
No 22.5% 31
QUESTION 9
6. Jollyman Park is closed one hour after sunset. Do you feel allowing dogs off-leash the last two hours before
park is closed is satisfactory? The times would change throughout the year (3:30 p.m. - 5:50 p.m. on short winter
days and 7:30 p.m. - 9:30 p.m. on longest summer days).
% Count
Yes 76.6% 105
No 23.4% 32
QUESTION 10
7. It would be the owner’s responsibility to control their dog(s) with voice or visual commands. Do you feel
comfortable that you could control your dog(s) while in the dog off-leash area?
4 | www.opentownhall.com/6470 Created with OpenGov | July 23, 2018, 9:07 AM
Jollyman Park: Unfenced Dog Off-leash Area (DOLA) Trial Survey
Jollyman Park: Unfenced Dog Off-leash Area (DOLA) Trial Survey
128
% Count
Yes 68.6% 94
No 4.4%6
I do not own dog 16.8% 23
I do not plan to walk my dog off-leash 10.2% 14
QUESTION 11
8. What days of the week would you most likely take your dog to the off-leash area?
% Count
Weekdays: Monday-Friday 18.1% 19
Saturdays 8.6%9
Sundays 6.7%7
Every day 66.7% 70
QUESTION 12
9. How many days per week (on average) would you take your dog to the off-leash area?
Average 4.26
Total 469.00
Count 110
Skipped 28
QUESTION 13
Would you like more information on joining this volunteer group?
5 | www.opentownhall.com/6470 Created with OpenGov | July 23, 2018, 9:07 AM
Jollyman Park: Unfenced Dog Off-leash Area (DOLA) Trial Survey
Jollyman Park: Unfenced Dog Off-leash Area (DOLA) Trial Survey
129
% Count
Yes 35.9% 47
No 64.1% 84
QUESTION 14
Name (optional)
Answered 74
Skipped 64
QUESTION 15
Email (optional)
Answered 62
Skipped 76
QUESTION 16
Phone (optional)
Answered 35
Skipped 103
QUESTION 17
11. Based upon your knowledge of park use and this proposal, do you support establishing the dog off-leash area
on a trial basis at Jollyman Park as proposed?
% Count
Yes 76.8% 106
No 22.5% 31
6 | www.opentownhall.com/6470 Created with OpenGov | July 23, 2018, 9:07 AM
Jollyman Park: Unfenced Dog Off-leash Area (DOLA) Trial Survey
Jollyman Park: Unfenced Dog Off-leash Area (DOLA) Trial Survey
130
% Count
Not sure 0.7%1
QUESTION 18
12. If you are opposed to the trial dog off-leash area, please note why and what changes could make you feel
more supportive.
Answered 40
Skipped 98
QUESTION 19
Additional Comments:
Answered 45
Skipped 93
7 | www.opentownhall.com/6470 Created with OpenGov | July 23, 2018, 9:07 AM
Jollyman Park: Unfenced Dog Off-leash Area (DOLA) Trial Survey
Jollyman Park: Unfenced Dog Off-leash Area (DOLA) Trial Survey
131
Summary Of Unregistered Responses
As of July 23, 2018, 9:07 AM, this forum had: Topic Start
Attendees:394 June 29, 2018, 2:59 PM
Unregistered Responses:166
Hours of Public Comment:15.2
QUESTION 1
1. Is your household located within City of Cupertino limits?
% Count
Yes 97.0% 161
No 3.0%5
QUESTION 2
2. Do you or someone in your household own a dog?
% Count
Yes 61.2% 101
No 33.3% 55
Prefer not to state 5.5%9
QUESTION 3
If yes, please indicate how many:
Average 1.25
Total 129.00
Count 103
Skipped 63
8 | www.opentownhall.com/6470 Created with OpenGov | July 23, 2018, 9:07 AM
Jollyman Park: Unfenced Dog Off-leash Area (DOLA) Trial Survey
Jollyman Park: Unfenced Dog Off-leash Area (DOLA) Trial Survey
132
QUESTION 4
How many of your dogs are less than 24 inches tall?
Average 0.85
Total 82.00
Count 96
Skipped 70
QUESTION 5
How many of your dogs are taller than 24 inches?
Average 0.49
Total 48.00
Count 97
Skipped 69
QUESTION 6
3. How far do you live from Jollyman Park?
% Count
Adjacent 2.4%4
Within 2 blocks 16.3% 27
Within ¼ mile 16.9% 28
Within ½ mile 15.1% 25
Within 1 mile 22.3% 37
Farther than 1 mile 27.1% 45
9 | www.opentownhall.com/6470 Created with OpenGov | July 23, 2018, 9:07 AM
Jollyman Park: Unfenced Dog Off-leash Area (DOLA) Trial Survey
Jollyman Park: Unfenced Dog Off-leash Area (DOLA) Trial Survey
133
QUESTION 7
4. Would you take your dog(s) to the Jollyman Park Off-Leash Area and run them off leash if the proposal is
implemented?
% Count
Yes 52.7% 87
No 9.1% 15
Not sure 7.9% 13
I do not own a dog 30.3% 50
QUESTION 8
5. Do you feel the location of the proposed dog off-leash area is appropriate?
% Count
Yes 71.2% 116
No 28.8% 47
QUESTION 9
6. Jollyman Park is closed one hour after sunset. Do you feel allowing dogs off-leash the last two hours before
park is closed is satisfactory? The times would change throughout the year (3:30 p.m. - 5:50 p.m. on short winter
days and 7:30 p.m. - 9:30 p.m. on longest summer days).
% Count
Yes 64.6% 104
No 35.4% 57
QUESTION 10
7. It would be the owner’s responsibility to control their dog(s) with voice or visual commands. Do you feel
comfortable that you could control your dog(s) while in the dog off-leash area?
10 | www.opentownhall.com/6470 Created with OpenGov | July 23, 2018, 9:07 AM
Jollyman Park: Unfenced Dog Off-leash Area (DOLA) Trial Survey
Jollyman Park: Unfenced Dog Off-leash Area (DOLA) Trial Survey
134
% Count
Yes 56.8% 92
No 6.2% 10
I do not own dog 31.5% 51
I do not plan to walk my dog off-leash 5.6%9
QUESTION 11
8. What days of the week would you most likely take your dog to the off-leash area?
% Count
Weekdays: Monday-Friday 21.6% 24
Saturdays 9.9%11
Sundays 9.0% 10
Every day 59.5% 66
QUESTION 12
9. How many days per week (on average) would you take your dog to the off-leash area?
Average 3.59
Total 370.00
Count 103
Skipped 63
QUESTION 13
Would you like more information on joining this volunteer group?
11 | www.opentownhall.com/6470 Created with OpenGov | July 23, 2018, 9:07 AM
Jollyman Park: Unfenced Dog Off-leash Area (DOLA) Trial Survey
Jollyman Park: Unfenced Dog Off-leash Area (DOLA) Trial Survey
135
% Count
Yes 18.0% 27
No 82.0% 123
QUESTION 14
Name (optional)
Answered 42
Skipped 124
QUESTION 15
Email (optional)
Answered 31
Skipped 135
QUESTION 16
Phone (optional)
Answered 15
Skipped 151
QUESTION 17
11. Based upon your knowledge of park use and this proposal, do you support establishing the dog off-leash area
on a trial basis at Jollyman Park as proposed?
% Count
Yes 70.0% 112
No 27.5% 44
12 | www.opentownhall.com/6470 Created with OpenGov | July 23, 2018, 9:07 AM
Jollyman Park: Unfenced Dog Off-leash Area (DOLA) Trial Survey
Jollyman Park: Unfenced Dog Off-leash Area (DOLA) Trial Survey
136
% Count
Not sure 2.5%4
QUESTION 18
12. If you are opposed to the trial dog off-leash area, please note why and what changes could make you feel
more supportive.
Answered 42
Skipped 124
QUESTION 19
Additional Comments:
Answered 39
Skipped 127
13 | www.opentownhall.com/6470 Created with OpenGov | July 23, 2018, 9:07 AM
Jollyman Park: Unfenced Dog Off-leash Area (DOLA) Trial Survey
Jollyman Park: Unfenced Dog Off-leash Area (DOLA) Trial Survey
137
Survey Questions
QUESTION 1
1. Is your household located within City of Cupertino limits?
• Yes
• No
QUESTION 2
2. Do you or someone in your household own a dog?
• Yes
• No
• Prefer not to state
QUESTION 3
If yes, please indicate how many:
QUESTION 4
How many of your dogs are less than 24 inches tall?
QUESTION 5
How many of your dogs are taller than 24 inches?
QUESTION 6
3. How far do you live from Jollyman Park?
• Adjacent
• Within 2 blocks
• Within ¼ mile
• Within ½ mile
• Within 1 mile
• Farther than 1 mile
QUESTION 7
4. Would you take your dog(s) to the Jollyman Park Off-Leash Area
and run them off leash if the proposal is implemented?
• Yes
• No
• Not sure
• I do not own a dog
QUESTION 8
5. Do you feel the location of the proposed dog off-leash area is
appropriate?
• Yes
• No
QUESTION 9
6. Jollyman Park is closed one hour after sunset. Do you feel allowing
dogs off-leash the last two hours before park is closed is
satisfactory? The times would change throughout the year (3:30
p.m. - 5:50 p.m. on short winter days and 7:30 p.m. - 9:30 p.m. on
longest summer days).
• Yes
• No
QUESTION 10
7. It would be the owner’s responsibility to control their dog(s) with
voice or visual commands. Do you feel comfortable that you could
control your dog(s) while in the dog off-leash area?
• Yes
• No
• I do not own dog
• I do not plan to walk my dog off-leash
QUESTION 11
8. What days of the week would you most likely take your dog to the
off-leash area?
• Weekdays: Monday-Friday
• Saturdays
• Sundays
• Every day
QUESTION 12
9. How many days per week (on average) would you take your dog to
the off-leash area?
QUESTION 13
Would you like more information on joining this volunteer group?
• Yes
14 | www.opentownhall.com/6470 Created with OpenGov | July 23, 2018, 9:07 AM
Jollyman Park: Unfenced Dog Off-leash Area (DOLA) Trial Survey
Jollyman Park: Unfenced Dog Off-leash Area (DOLA) Trial Survey
138
• No
QUESTION 14
Name (optional)
QUESTION 15
Email (optional)
QUESTION 16
Phone (optional)
QUESTION 17
11. Based upon your knowledge of park use and this proposal, do you
support establishing the dog off-leash area on a trial basis at
Jollyman Park as proposed?
• Yes
• No
• Not sure
QUESTION 18
12. If you are opposed to the trial dog off-leash area, please note why
and what changes could make you feel more supportive.
QUESTION 19
Additional Comments:
15 | www.opentownhall.com/6470 Created with OpenGov | July 23, 2018, 9:07 AM
Jollyman Park: Unfenced Dog Off-leash Area (DOLA) Trial Survey
Jollyman Park: Unfenced Dog Off-leash Area (DOLA) Trial Survey
139
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:119-5041 Name:
Status:Type:Ordinances and Action Items Agenda Ready
File created:In control:2/20/2019 City Council
On agenda:Final action:3/5/2019
Title:Subject: Cities Association of Santa Clara County Draft Housing Policy Statement
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:Staff Report
A - Cities Association Draft Housing Policy Statement
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
City Council3/5/2019 1
Subject: Cities Association of Santa Clara County Draft Housing Policy Statement
Accept or Provide Comments to the Cities Association of Santa Clara County Draft Housing
Policy Statement
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 2/27/2019Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™140
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 5, 2019
Subject
Cities Association of Santa Clara County Draft Housing Policy Statement
Recommended Action
Accept or Provide Comments to the Cities Association of Santa Clara County Draft
Housing Policy Statement
Discussion
The Cities Association of Santa Clara County is an association of the 15 cities of th e
county. Since 1990, the city representatives gather at one table to share ideas, discuss the
regions problems, and find solutions. The Board of Directors adopted annual priorities
for 2019, which include efforts addressing affordable housing, Accessory Dwelling
Units (ADUs), CASA Compact and legislation, and the Regional Housing Needs
Assessment (RHNA) Subregion.
The Legislative Action Committee (LAC) prepared a working draft of a housing policy
statement. The document has been amended to capture comments of the LAC and the
Board. Comments on the draft housing policy statement are due by March 7, 2019. The
document will be discussed at the LAC and Board meetings on March 14, 2019.
Fiscal Impact
There is no fiscal impact.
Prepared by: Kerri Heusler, Senior Housing Planner
Reviewed by: Benjamin Fu, Acting Director of Community Development
Approved for Submission by: Timm Borden, Interim City Manager
Attachments:
A - Cities Association of Santa Clara County Draft Housing Policy Statement
141
The Cities Association of Santa Clara County recognizes the need for increased housing
opportunities for people at all income levels, and especially for middle and low-income
populations up to 150% AMI. We fully endorse local and regional efforts to encourage the
production of more housing, preserve and increase subsidized below market rate housing and
provide benefits to minimize the impact for current residents in rapidly changing
neighborhoods. The Cities Association encourages MTC, ABAG and the State Legislature to
collaborate with all cities on the ideas contained within the CASA Compact so that we can
collectively formulate workable solutions to address the Bay Area’s housing needs. .
The CASA Compact is a high-level document with only limited detail. Small and medium sized
cities were not well represented in its creation yet represent 66% of the Bay Area population.
Cities want to ensure that their voices are heard as the details of legislation are being crafted,
and that the State avoids a “one size fits all” approach to housing densities and land use
decision making, recognizing that housing is a complex issue and solutions will vary city by city.
We support the calls for action to:
Pass legislation that will provide voters statewide with the opportunity to apply a 55
percent threshold for investments in affordable housing and housing production.
Pass legislation that will return e-commerce/internet sales tax revenue to the point of
sale – not the point of distribution as currently mandated – to provide cities that have a
significant residential base with a commensurate fiscal stimulus for new housing.
We support other new funding sources dedicated to housing and endorse Governor Newsom’s
approach in providing $750 million for a major new incentive package for communities to do the right
thing. We welcome the $250 million in support for cities and counties to update their housing plans,
revamp their zoning process, and get more housing entitled and especially the $500 million more in
general purpose grants to cities when they achieve certain milestones.
We further support Governor Newsom’s call to the private sector to invest significant
contributions into housing, however, we oppose any effort to take away or redistribute
property tax or other existing local revenues from cities as a way to generate new funding for
housing
We support establishing tenant protections as cities deem appropriate for their residents
We support removal of regulatory barriers to building new accessory dwelling units and
incentives for their production as well as thoughtful CEQA reform to streamline the permitting
process.
142
We call for efforts to recognize the importance of keeping local revenue with each city so that
critical services can be provided with the addition of new housing to schools, parks, and the
transportation infrastructure.
(NEW) We strongly support significant increases in transportation investment that provide real
transit solutions at 10-15 minutes headways in communities where increased housing is being
planned for and built and to connect those communities with job growth centers.
(NEW) Should a governance structure be needed to administer new affordable housing funds
and monitor housing production, we support designating ABAG to fulfill this role rather than
establishing yet another agency.
Cities in Santa Clara County are Actively Addressing the Housing Shortage.
Permits for over 24,000 new homes have been approved since 201 which represents
over 40% of the state’s housing goal for Santa Clara County of 58,836 new homes by
2023
X housing units are in the pipeline
Plans for more than X units are being studied/have been zoned for. [to capture 15,000
MV is planning plus whatever other cities have]
In 2016, Santa Clara County voters increased local taxes to support $950 million in
affordable housing funds.
The Cities Association of Santa Clara County is leading the effort to form a 2023-2031
RHNA Sub-Region within the County in hopes of better meeting the RHNA numbers
distributed to the cities in the County.
143
CITY OF CUPERTINO
Legislation Details (With Text)
File #: Version:118-4782 Name:
Status:Type:Reports by Council and Staff Agenda Ready
File created:In control:12/20/2018 City Council
On agenda:Final action:3/5/2019
Title:Subject: Report on Committee assignments and general comments
Sponsors:
Indexes:
Code sections:
Attachments:
Action ByDate Action ResultVer.
City Council3/5/2019 1
Subject: Report on Committee assignments and general comments
Report on Committee assignments and general comments
CITY OF CUPERTINO Printed on 2/27/2019Page 1 of 1
powered by Legistar™144