LAFCO City of San Jose

Document Sample
LAFCO City of San Jose Powered By Docstoc
					                                                                RULES COMMITTEE:        5-05-10
                                                                            Item:       F

  CITYOF   ~
           TO: Honorable Mayor &                          FROM: Lee Price, MMC
               City Council Members                             City Clerk

  SUBJECT: The Public Record                               DATE: April 30, 2010
           April 23 - April 29, 2010



(a)    Letter from American Society for Public Administration (ASPA) Host Committee Chair
       Frannie Edwards to Mayor Reed dated April 14, 2010 thanking him for his contribution
       to the ASPA Conference.

(b)    Notification letter from T-Mobile West Corporation as successor in interest to Omnipoint
       Communications, Inc. d/b/a! T-Mobile (U-3056-C) to Consumer Protection and Safety
       Division dated April 21, 2010 for T-Mobile Site No. SF55687D.

(c)    Letter from San Jose Water Company President and Chief Executive Officer Richard
       Roth to Mayor Reed and the City Council dated April 23, 2010 regarding a "Budget
       Deficit Solution Proposal", a possible transaction for the lease or sale of the Municipal
       Water System.

(d)    Letter from Local Agency Formation Commission of Santa Clara County (LAFCO)
       Clerk Emmanuel Abello to the City Clerk dated April 26, 2010 submitting an Application
       from Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District for Sphere of Influence
       Amendment and Annexation 2010-01.

(e)    Letter from Silicon Valley Council of Nonprofits to Mayor Reed and the City Council
       dated April 26, 2010, expressing concern regarding the potential closure of 21
       neighborhood community centers.

(f)    Email from Cheryl Schroeder to the City Clerk received April 21, 2010, urging a ''No''
       vote on the establishment and regulation of marijuana dispensaries in the City of San

(g)    Letter from Local Agency Formation Commission of Santa Clara County (LAFCO)
       Clerk Emmanuel Abello to the City Clerk dated April 27, 2010 submitting a revised
       LAFCO fee schedule, effective April 22, 2010.
Honorable Mayor and City Council Members
April 30, 2010
Subject: The Public Record: Apri123 - 29, 2010

(h)     Email from the State Water Resources Control Board to the City Clerk received April 27,
        2010 releasing a draft list of Impaired Water Bodies and inviting comments from the

(i)     Letter from Local Agency Formation Commission of Santa Clara County (LAFCO)
        Executive Officer Neelima Palacherla to the City Clerk dated April 27, 2010 submitting
        the Proposed LAFCO Budget FY 2010-2011.

(j)     Notice from Hisham Elmowafi, dba CPS Shuttle Service & Limo, filed with the
        California Public Utilities Commission provided to the Office of the City Clerk April 29,

(k)     Letter from David S. Wall to Mayor Reed and City Council dated April 29, 2010 titled
        "The Ghetto Life: Update on the SCEP". (Photographs on file in the Office ofthe City

(1)     Letter from David S. Wall to Mayor Reed and City Council dated April 29, 2010 titled
        "Mayor Reed's Green Vision and Green Jobs production requires innovation".

(m)     Letter from David S. Wall to Mayor Reed and City Council dated April 29, 2010 titled
        "City Policy of Tax Exemptions for Affordable Housing should end".

(n)     Letter from David S. Wall to Mayor Reed and City Council dated April 29, 2010 titled
        "Council should set budget priorities ... and stick to them".

(0)     Letter from David S. Wall to Mayor Reed and City Council dated April 29, 2010 titled
        "Audit of FUND 513 is warranted".

(P)     Letter from David S. Wall to Mayor Reed and City Council dated April 29, 2010 tit\ed
        "Newly created Program Manager at ESD creates unnecessary controversy".         )
                                                                       (> ,/)        {-~-~//,
                                                                   {\7   L
                                                                             <>/   /1 ,
                                                                    ~.~. _>'0L-            ___

                                                                   Lee Price, MMC
                                                                   City Clerk

Distribution:     Mayor/Council                                    Public Information Officer
                  City Manager                                     San Jose Mercury News
                  Assistant City Manager                           Library
                  Assistant to City Manager
                  Council Liaison
                  Director of Planning
                  City Attorney
                  City Auditor
                  Director of Public Works
                  Director of Finance
                  Director of Transportation
                                                                                                         PUBLIC RECORD_a__. _

                                      American Society for Public" Administration
                                      Advancing excellence in pUblic service...

              Puul Posner
           Direttor, 111 MPragIUm
        Genrqa MalOn Unlversily

Meredith A. Newman
                PRESlDENT·mer          April 14, 2010
              Professor and Clluir
  Florida International University

                                       The Honorable Chuck Reed
            Erik Bergred               Mayor, City of San Jose
SFedal AsslslUnt IQ the Pra~dant       200 East Santa Clara Street
                  Pnl"k University     San Jose, CA 95113

Antoinette A. Sumuel                   Dear Mayor Reed:
            EXECUTIVE DlRecrOR                  ,
                 \¥ushingtal1, DC

                                       Thank you for your devotion of time to make the ASPA conference such a
                                       success! Your participation in the Opening Plenary was an important show of
                                       support for public administrators in these difficult times. Your witty speech
                                       challenged us to be creative in seeking resolution of the fiscal challenges facing
                                       our nation. I hope that you will get a few "white papers" as a result of the
                                       conference deliberations.
                                       Many people commented that this was the best conference in recent memory,
                                       including the wonderful opening reception at The Tech, the beautiful patriotic
                                       opening for the Opening Plenary provided by the San Jose State Air Force ROTC,
                                       and the smooth coordination ofthe events. This would not have been possible
                                       without the city's support through the use of The Tech Museum, and the
                                       participation of city staff members in the conference planning, most notably MPA
                                       Student Association President Tim Tung of the city's Finance Department, and
                                       soloist Mario Cuestas ofthe San Jose Fire Department.
                                       My deepest gratitude for your help and support through this once-in-a-lifetime

                                       Pumnie :£tf-wartU
                                       :1-010   1fo"t t:';ommittee "Chair
,   •   g   ••   Mobile-                                        T-MOBILE WEST CORPORATION a
                                                                Delaware Corporation                     L
                                                                1855 Gateway BoulevarBV~t~CORD---J;;:\?_­
                                                                Concord, CA 94520

    April 21, 2010

    Anna Hom
    Consumer Protection and Safety Division
    California Public Utilities Commission
    505 Van Ness Avenue
    San Francisco, CA 94102

    RE:        T-Mobile West Corporation as successor in interest to Omnipoint Communications,
               Inc. d/b/a T-Mobile (U-3056-C).
               Notification Letter for T-Mobile Site No. : SF55687D

    This letter provides the Commission with notice pursuant to the provisions of General Order No.
    159A of the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California (CPUC) that with regard to
    the project described in Attachment A:

    [gJ (a) T-Mobile has obtained all requisite land use approval for the project described m
               Attachment A.

    D       (b) Noland use approval is required because

    A copy of this notification letter is being sent to the local government agency identified below
    for its information. Should the Commission or the local government agency have any questions
    regarding this project, or if anyone disagrees with the information contained herein, please
    contact Joni Norman, Senior Development Manager for T-Mobile, at (925) 521-5987, or contact
    Ms. Anna Hom of the CPUC Consumer Protection and Safety Division at 415-703-2699.

    Enclosed: Attachment A

    Debra J. Figone, City Manager, City of San Jose, 200 East Santa Clara St., San Jose, CA 95113
    Lee Price, City Clerk, City of San Jose, 200 East Santa Clara St., San Jose, CA 95113
    Joseph Horwedel, Planning Director, City of San Jose, 200 East Santa Clara St., San Jose, CA 95113
T-Mobile West Corporation as successor in interest to Omnipoint Communications, Inc. d/b/a T-
Mobile (U-3056-C). Notification Letter for T-Mobile Site No. SF55687D:
April 21, 2010
Page 2 of2
                                    ATTACHMENT A

1. Project Location

   Site Identification Number: SF55687D
   Site Name: San Jose Boat Center
   Site Address: 2144 O'Toole Avenue
   County: Santa Clara
   Assessor's Parcel Number: 237-10-226
   Latitude: 37'27'39.35 N (NAD83)
   Longitude: 121 '54'29.94 W (NAD83)

2. Project Description

   Number of Antennas to be installed: 3 Antennas
   Tower Design:      Monopole
   Tower Appearance: Monopole with Radome covering the antennas
   Tower Height:       60'
   Size of Building: No building

3. Business Addresses of all Governmental Agencies

City of San Jose                 City of San Jose             City of San Jose
Debra J. Figone, City Manager    Lee Price, City Clerk        Joseph Horwedel, Planning Director
200 East Santa Clara St.         200 East Santa Clara St.     200 East Santa Clara St.
San Jose, CA 95113               San Jose, CA 95113           San Jose, CA 95113

4. Land Use Approvals

   Date Zoning Approval Issued: 2/26/10

   Land Use Permit #: SP09-064 1 Issued by San Jose City Planning Department.

   If Land use Approval was not required: NIA
                                                                                PUBLIC RECORD-----
           San Jose
'-::11.    Water

          110 W. Taylor Street
          San Jose, CA 9511 0-2131                                 ZOla APR 23 P    ij: , I~

          April 23, 2010

          Mayor Chuck Reed and Members of the City Council
          City of San Jose
          200 E. Santa Clara Street
          San Jose, CA 95113

          Re:      Budget Deficit Solution Proposal

          Dear Honorable Mayor Reed and Members of the City Council:

          San Jose Water Company has reviewed the Mayor's Budget Message (March
          12,2010) and I am writing to provide you with information relating to a possible
          transaction for either the lease or sale of the Municipal Water System (MWS).

          The enclosed Letter of Interest summarizes key issues, transaction
          arrangements/terms, and benefits. Respectfully, we believe the consolidation of
          the MWS would allow the City to preserve jobs, maintain core services, and
          continue to provide a high quality of life for its residents.

          San Jose Water Company welcomes the opportunity to work with you, your staff,
          and the City Administration to fully evaluate this solution. I look forward to
          hearing from you.


          Richard Roth
          President and Chief Executive Officer


          cc:      Deb Figone, City Manager
                   Rick Doyle, City Attorney
                   Ed Shikada, Chief Deputy City Manager
                   John Stufflebean, Director, ESD
                   Lee Price, City Clerk
                                     LETTER OF INTEREST

San Jose Water Company (SJWC) is interested in entering into a public-private partnership
arrangement with the City of San Jose (City) for its Municipal Water System (MWS). SJWC is a
respected, professionally managed, and community-minded company that has served the
greater San Jose metropolitan area for more than 140 years. Currently, SJWC provides water
service to approximately 80% of the City's residents and businesses.

Any binding agreement would require additional due diligence and be contingent upon various
approvals. Accordingly, this letter of interest is not an offer or agreement to enter into a
transaction with the City.


San Jose residents are served by 3 water utilities:

1. SJWC (roughly 80% of the City) with total San Jose-based connections of approximately
2. Great Oaks Water Company (roughly 10% of the City, District 2) with approximately 20,000
   total connections; and
3. MWS (roughly 10% of the City, Districts 8, 4, and 2), with approximately 27,000 total


SJWC suggests two basic alternative transaction structures: 1) An asset purchase, or 2) A
lease concession.

Asset Purchase
SJWC proposes to discuss the purchase of all assets related to the MWS at a price of
approximately $2,000 per connection, resulting in an upfront payment of approximately $54
million to the City. Such price includes all MWS assets and is subject to customary due
diligence. An asset purchase would result in rate parity between MWS and SJWC customers,
and would require a multi-year phase in to SJWC rates.

Under an asset purchase structure, SJWC would propose a franchise fee on revenue from all its
San Jose-based customers. Currently, the City collects approximately $625,000 from a 2%
water utility franchise fee imposed on Great Oaks Water Company and MWS customers.
SJWC has a constitutional franchise and does not currently pay a franchise fee. If a 2%
franchise fee was applied to all water utility customers in the City of San Jose, annual payments
to the General Fund would increase by approximately $4 million. SJWC calculates the
approximate present value to the City of an additional $4 million in annual franchise fees to be
approximately $62 million.

Accordingly, an asset purchase structure would result in an immediate upfront payment of
approximately $54 million, and ongoing annual franchise fees with a present value of
approximately $62 million. We believe an asset purchase and the imposition of a franchise fee
would be contingent upon voter approval. Additionally, California Public Utilities Commission's
(CPUC) approval would be needed to reflect in rates a Citywide franchise fee.

IIPage                                                                   April 22, 2010
Lease Concession
Under a lease concession, SJWC would assume all rights, responsibilities, risks, and
obligations of owning and operating the MWS. Similar to an asset purchase, MWS customer
rates would transition to SJWC rates. Depending upon the terms and length of the agreement,
a concession fee could generate from $25 to $40 million in an upfront payment. A lease
concession would include the transfer of all future MWS capital expenditures, as well as all risks
and responsibilities to SJWC.

We believe that a lease concession does not require voter or CPUC approval. Accordingly, a
lease concession can be expeditiously effected. SJWC has successfully entered into a number
of public-private partnerships with local cities including a long-term lease concession with the
City of Cupertino.


San Jose residents would benefit from having a single, high quality water utility providing
system reliability through multiple sources of supply, citywide rate uniformity, greater tax base,
improved efficiencies, comprehensive and coordinated water conservation programs, and
enhanced customer service.

SJWC's adjacent water system affords a unique opportunity to create synergies for the safe
and cost-effective operation of the MWS. SJWC's local knOWledge, presence, expertise are
manifested in over 140 years of outstanding customer service, environmental stewardship, and
efficient water system operations. We are uniquely and superbly qualified to operate and
integrate the MWS into SJWC's existing regional operations.

Consolidation of the MWS into SJWC would allow the City to retain jobs, focus resources on
core city services, and ensure that critical services and quality of life are maintained. A list of
some of the most important immediate and long-term benefits to the City and residents of San
Jose follow:

       •   Generates a significant upfront payment and potential ongoing annual revenues to the
           General Fund through the imposition of a franchise fee under the asset purchase option;
       •   Effectively eliminates the significant risks associated with the operation of a water
           system resulting from burgeoning water quality regulations and the associated costs;
       •   Transfers all responsibility to SJWC for future capital expenditures associated with
           infrastructure replacement, seismic retrofits, environmental compliance,and
           unfunded regulatory mandates without compromising the water system, water
           quality, water supplies, or customer service;
       •   Assigns full responsibility for operations, maintenance, reporting, water quality
           compliance, and other operational obligations to SJWC thereby allowing the City, at a
           critical juncture, to maintain and provide critical/core City services;
       •   Provides citywide rate uniformity and long-term rate stabilization by spreading the cost
           of future operations and capital expenditures over a larger customer base;

21 Pa g e                                                                    April 22, 2010
      •   Provides MWS customers with an enhanced level of service through a multimodal
          Customer Contact Center, 24/7 coverage, and other important customer service
      •   Integrates all operations and customer service functions, including billing and
          collections under the same procedures and standards required for SJWC's regulated
          operations; and
      •   Transfers responsibility for serving the entire MWS service area to SJWC thus
          ensuring consistency and a common platform for customer communications
          regarding rates, conservation, recycled water, and other relevant city


Most, if not all, key financial, operational, legal, and service issues are known as a result of
previous analyses and could, with commitment and cooperation, be addressed by SJWC and
the City in relatively short order.

Potential issues to be addressed in either of the arforementioned alternatives include:

1. San Jose City Council support and direction
      a. clear and specific direction regarding the scope of work and timeline
      b. support and backing for City Staff
2. Employees
3. Amount and timing of payments to the CSJ
4. Ratemaking
5. Water supply contracts
6. General and customary due diligence


SJWC proposes that the City Council immediately direct and support staff to prepare a
preliminary report and recommendation to be delivered to the City Council before May 18, 2010.
City and SJWC staff would produce the requisite analyses that include an expedited
determination regarding whether a lease concession or asset purchase is best for the City.
Based on that determination, the analyses will also result in a concise report appropriate for
Council consideration in regards to transaction parameters/terms/conditions, timeline, resource
requirements, due diligence reports, and associated documentation (inclUding draft

A transaction of this nature, size, and importance requires strong commitment, support, and
capable resources. The City and SJWC would, through a bilateral, balanced, and transparent
process, address all issues and develop the transaction architecture for Council and/or voter
approval necessary to be included in the 2010-2011 budget.

31 P age                                                                  April 22, 2010
            L FCD
                                                                                                              PUBLIC RECORD__

Local Agency Formation Commission of Santa Clara County
                                       Pursuant to Government Code Section 56658(b)

         TO:           Ken Waldvogel, Fire Chief, Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District
                       Don Jarvis, Deputy Fire Chief, Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District
                       Joe Parker, Battalion Chief, Saratoga Fire Protection District
                       JUze Coupems, President, Los Altos Hills County Fire District
                       Daniel Rich, City Manager, City of Campbell
                       David Knapp, City Manager, City of Cupertino
                       Doug Schmitz} City Manager, City of Los Altos
                       Carl Cahill, Town Manager, Town of Los Altos Hills
                       Greg Larson, Town Manager} Town of Los Gatos
                       Brian Lovcnthat~City Manager, City of Monte Sereno
                       J. Edward Tewes, City Manager, City of Morgan Hill
                       James Keene, City Manager, City of Palo Alto
                       Dave Anderson, City Manager, City of Saratoga
                       Debra Figone, City Manager, City of San Jose
                       John Ferreira, Fire Chief, CalFire San Mateo~Santa Cr\lz Unit and Santa Cmz Fire Dept.
                       Stephen Abbors, General Manager, Midpeninsula Regional Open Space District
                       Beau Goldie, CEO, Santa Clara Valley Water District
                       Suzanne Carrig, Santa Clara County Committee on School District Organization
                       Clerks of Affected Cities and Spedal Districts
                       Superintendents of Affected School Districts
                       Other Affected Agencies

         DATE:         April 26, 2010


         The Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO) of Santa Clara County has received an application
         from Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District to annex eight areas in the Santa Cruz Mountains
         totaling over 20,776 acres. The application also includes a request for induding Area 7 in the DL<;trict's
         sphere of influence (see attached map),

         The proposal is designated Santa Clara County Central Fire Protection District SOl Amendment and
         Annexation 2010~Ol

        It has not been determined at this time whether the appHca tion meets all the necessary filing
        requirements, For further information, please contact LAl1CO office at (408) 299~6415, County
        Government Center, 70 West Heddmg Street, 11 th Floor, East Wing, San Jose, CA 95110,


     70 West Heddlng Strcet • 11th Floor, Ec1St Wing • San Josc., CA 951! 0 , (4013) 299·5127 ' (40!J) 29~H 613 F;!)( , YVWW,S3ntiJclarzuafco.c<J,gov
                         COMMISSIONERS; Pete Constant, Don Gage. Liz Kniss, .Margaret Abc·Kog;;t Small Vh::klwid·Wi!son
                           ALTERNATE COMMISSIONERS: Sam Uccardo, AI Plnl1elro, George Shir,lKilw<l, Terry Trurntwl!
                                                      EXECUTIVE OfFICER Necllmi'l PiJlachet!a
                                                                                                                                                                                        ,,-(           x
                                                                                                                                                                                        o              w
                                                                                                                                                                                        6              Z
                                                                                                                                                                              !]B                      I
                                                                                                                                                                              f-<Z                     I
                                                                                                                                                                              A_                       l-
                       PLAN                                                                                                                                                                            I
                  SCA!.E: '''''''10,000'
                                                                                                                                                                              ~~                       o



                                                                                                             ,/". cr1f/
                                                                                                                                                                              >-1U                     u
     _           AREA TO BE ATTACHED TO S.O.I.
                                                                                                              8 AREAS                                                          - ~
                                                                                                              TOTAL AREA             =20,776 Acres                            ~
                                                                                                                                                                              '" LL.
                                                                                                                                                                              20 '"
                                                                                                              Disclaimer:                                                     °LU
                                                                                                              "For ossesment purposes only. This description of
                                                                                                              land is nat 0 legal proper:ty description as defined
                                                                                                              in the Subdivision Map Act and may not be used as                         :c
                                                                                                              the basis for an offer for sole of the lond described."                   Vl

                                                                                                              NOTES:                                                                           .           '"
                                                                                                              1. DIMENSIONS SHOWN ARE IN FEET AND DECIMALS THEREOF.       ;         ~        ~             ~
                                                                                                              2. PROPERTY UNES AND LOT UNES SHOWN ARE RECORD DATA ONLY.
                                                                                                              3. BEARINGS AND DISTANCES SHOWN ARE RECORD DATA ONLY.       bl~I~!;
                                                                                                                                                                          'U                g~ 1~I
                                                                                                                                                                                 ~; I ~
                                                                                                                                                                              en z

                                                                            /;~                                                                                                     I

10.000   5,000                  5,000      10,000                          JI                                                                                                 Z             U!
  r~'$_- ~
           SCALE: ,"=10,000'
                                                                           ii                                                                                                 O
                                                                                                                                                                              rr. w'"
                                                                                                                                                                              V..J. o.lf
 LEGEND:                                                                                                                                                                      ~<lll
                                                       P.Oll. = POINT OF BEGINNING

                                                                                                                                                                              ~ t~
                  = BOUNDARY OF PROPOSED ANNEXATION                                                                                                                                         -F
                                                                                                                                                            TOTAL AREA
                  = OISTRICT S.O.l. BOUNOARY           s.m. = SPHERE OF INFLUENCE
- - - - - - - - - = EXISTING OISTRICT BOUNDARY      - - - - - - ~ BOUNOARY OF PROPOSEO S.OJ. AMENDMENT                                                    EXHIBIT "B"
                                                                                    PUBLIC RECORD_--

 Silicon Valley Council of Nonprofits
 Sobrato Center for Nonprofits - San Jose
 1400 Parkmoor Ave, Suite 130
 San Jose CA, 95126

 Phone 408.260.3915 Fax 408.249.3496

April 26, 2010

To:      City of San Jose Mayor Chuck Reed and City Council Members

RE:      Community Center ReUse/Senior Nutrition

The Silicon Valley Council of Nonprofits (SVCN) is greatly concerned about the potential closure of 21
neighborhood community centers.

SVCN's primary goal is to preserve vital community services like senior nutrition at San Jose's community
centers, and we believe we can help be a part of the solution if we can agree on some flexibility around
timing, services provided, etc. ReUse may not be a feasible option for all community centers. Therefore, we
suggest the Mayor appoint an immediate taskforce to look at the community center programs and possibility
for re-use.

Here are our recommendations-

All viable community centers need to have minimal staffing in order to engage partnerships,
programming and volunteer activities at the community centers for a full year.

         SVCN has surveyed many of our agencies and only a handful are interested in partnering with the City
         in the ReUse Strategy. Most of these agencies only interested in the bUildings to proVide programming
         for agency services, such as Mental Health and Drug and Alcohol counseling programs, and after school
         activities. Minimal staffing such as scheduling, reception, building security and outreach to promote
         programming will be needed. Over the next year, engaging a mix of service partners will be critical to
         ensure the viability of community centers. Closing 21 community centers in the next 3-5 months is too
         drastic on our residents.

All City Operated Senior Nutrition Sites need to be maintained for a full year while a strategic
plan and comprehensive restructure is developed.

         There are many critical partners including the Council on Aging, County of Santa Clara, the City of San
         Jose, nutrition proViders and senior participants who need to be engaged in a thoughtful strategic plan
         and new service delivery model for senior nutrition. The complex funding, government match, fees for
         service and strategic locations of senior nutrition all need to be carefully considered before any city
         operated senior nutrition site is closed in September 2010. SVCN is convening a summit with the Aging
         Services Collaborative, Health Silicon Valley and others to educate BaS, council aides and key policy
         makers on the benefits of a healthy senior lifestyle and begin the dialog on the future qf senior
         nutrition. SVCN has been in contact with Councilmember Pete Constant and Supervisor Liz Kniss to
         spearhead conversations between the City and County on senior nutrition.
The City strategy around only preserving one HUB in each district should be re-examined. It may
be feasible for the City to look at partner outreach for programming to augment services, to
allow flexibility in programming and/or to free city staff to be available to the smaller sites.

       By centralizing city staff in only 10 central HUBS, the City is limiting the potential of providing services
       to the wider community. Some council districts are experiencing multiple community closures while
       some are not experiencing any community center closures. Re-examining a combination of city
       operated and programming partners may allow more flexibility for the community.

Develop a taskforce to look at fee and cost recovery in lieu of utilizing private contract providers.

       As the City examines how to run community centers and begins to seek private or nonprofit operators,
       fees may need to be adjusted and increased. Fees and cost recovery are a critical component to be
       able to operate the vast array of services proVided at community. Our concern is that if the City closes
       community centers and attracts private providers it is highly likely that they will come in and double or
       triple fees to be able to make community centers more cost effective. If the City adjusted fees now
       some services could be maintained within your existing community center structures.

Revisit the 7.1 Policy to allow more flexibility in the process for nonprofits to use community
centers and provide a more accurate assessment of alternative partnership.

        SVCN is most concerned about the impression the City may be giving the neighborhood groups or
        community around ReUse. ReUse is not a silver bullet to saving centers or alternative service delivery.
        Only a few non profits in the SVCN network are interested in Community Centers and most of those
        want it to access free space for their own operations or programming. Private providers have shown
      . interest but we expect those private proViders will dramatically change the current city fee structure
        maybe out-pricing the current low income users of the service

       Nonprofits should have fee waivers to use at community center or at ReUse sites during normal
       business hours and nominal fees for after hour usage to encourage community access and

Request the City provide a comprehensive fact sheet on each potential site on the ReUse list.

       A Fact sheet would consist of the basic size, age, geography, impacted neighborhood groups,
       demographics, current programming, current usage information, current staffing levels etc. This basic
       information is critical in order to find private or nonprofit partners. Additionally, the City should develop
       a list of acceptable and unacceptable programs to run out of these community centers (Le. homeless
       meal programs, drug rehab).

Before closing community centers we urge the City to seek other alternatives, ensuring vital services such as
Senior Nutrition are maintained. We urge the Mayor to convene a taskforce be developed to seek alternative
service delivery strategies rather than the permanent closure of 21 community centers.

We also urge you to attend the Senior Health Lifestyles Summit on Thursday, May 6,2010 at 8:30 AM at
the Sobrato Center for Nonprofits-San Jose, 1400 Parkmoor Avenue, San Jose 95126. The Summit will outline
data, information, and trends on improving senior health and the importance of senior nutrition. Please RSVP
                                                         PUBLIC RfCORD.-£-
Sent: Wednesday, April 21, 2010 12:56 PM
To: City Clerk
Subject: BAN Pot Shops in San Jose!

Cheryl Schroeder

April 21, 2010

City of San Jose
801 North First Street
San Jose, CA 95110-1704

Dear City of San Jose:

It is my understanding that you are considering a proposal that
regulate marijuana shops within San Jose's city limits. I am writing to
urge you to vote "No" on any item that would establish and regulate
marijuana dispensaries and potentially escalate the use and possession
of drugs in this community.

Law enforcement officials are struggling to keep up with the increased
crime associated with the influx of pot dispensaries. In 2007 the city
of Los Angeles passed a moratorium on dispensaries, allowing the 186
already in operation to remain open. The moratorium had a loophole that
allowed dispensaries to file a hardship exemption application. To date
there are
966 marijuana dispensaries registered in Los Angeles, 779 of them have
exemption applications pending, and 260 of them fall within 1,000 feet
of a school, library or park.  One dispensary, LA Collective, is
operating across the street from a library. There are some
neighborhoods in Los Angeles where the number of "medical" marijuana
dispensaries outnumbers the amount of Starbucks and McDonalds.

Within the last two-years, over 200 cities and 14 counties in
California have banned or passed a moratorium on pot shops. This number
speaks volumes about what happens when communities see through the
smokescreen and are enlightened as to what pot shops really bring their
communities-more illegal drug use, more crimes, and more of our youth
being sold marijuana (and sometimes other drugs) from a so-called
medical marijuana patient.

Dispensaries are in business to make money and will sell marijuana to
anyone who produces a written recommendation. These recommendations can
be obtained by paying physicians a fee and claiming any medical
condition, even a headache. Dispensaries claim to operate as nonprofit,
but they have been tied to organized crime gangs and are often multi-
million dollar profit centers.

Dispensaries are easy marks for criminal activities because of valuable
marlJuana crops and large amounts of cash. Operators of dispensaries
have been attacked and murdered by armed criminals both at their
storefronts and at home. Common secondary byproducts related to
dispensaries include:
drug dealing, sales to minors, loitering, heavy vehicle and foot
traffic in retail areas, increased noise, and robberies of customers
just outside the facilities.

Other secondary impacts to communities where dispensaries are located
include: street dealers who hang around to sell at a lower price than
the dispensary, marijuana smoking in public and in front of minors, an
increase in traffic accidents and driving under the influence arrests
in which marijuana is implicated, and the loss of other commercial
businesses who don't want to be located in the vicinity of marijuana

Please take the time to also read the below article.

California r Kevin A. Sabet r Ph.D., is an Advisor to the Inland Valley
Drug Free Community Coalition ( and has been researching
and consulting on drug abuse matters for over fourteen years. A
Marshall Scholar, he is a former Office of National Drug Control Policy
senior official under the Clinton and Bush Administrations r and is
currently working on a book analyzing drug policy.

By Kevin A. Sabet, Ph.D.

RIVERSIDE / SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY, CA - May 21, 2008 - With all of the
talk about medical marijuana dispensaries in California, it is hard to
separate truth and science from ideology and dogma. In recent years,
marijuana activists in the state have donned white coats and exclaimed
a new found concern for the seriously ill, while legislators and judges
have been left to wrestle with the consequences of a poorly written
referendum, Proposition 215.

Unfortunately, Proposition 215 has nothing to do with the sick and
dying r as a simple read of its text reveals that marijuana can be
legally recommended for "any illness for which marijuana provides
relief." This has led to a multi-million dollar, state sanctioned drug
distribution industry, resulting in a substantial increase in medical
fraud (the drug has been recommended for everything from hangnails to
fatigue to reduced sex drive), "medical marijuana" use by minors r and
increased local crime.

That is why scores of California localities, like the northern cities
of San Pablo r San Rafael, Concord, Dublin r Fremont r Livermore, Newark r
Pleasanton, and the southern cities of San Diego, San Marcos r Anaheim r
Oxnard, Rancho Cucamonga, Norco, Hemet, Fontana, Murrieta, Temecula,
Colton, Chino (among others), and after thoroughly studying the issue,
have come out with a ban on such dispensaries. They should be

A recent article in the Los Angeles Times, "This bud's for your and
you, and you" by Joel Stein and a 2007 expose by 60 Minutes have
revealed just how easy it is to obtain marijuana - "sick" or not. So it
is also not surprising that the Food and Drug Administration, American
Medical Association, and the renowned Mayo Clinic have come out against
smoked marijuana as a so-called "medicine." A landmark study almost ten
years ago, conducted by the Institute of Medicine, stated that "...smoked
marijuana should generally not be recommended for...medical use." Smoked
marijuana (smoked anything) has never passed basic medical standards of
safety and efficacy. Medical marijuana dispensaries mask as havens for
the sick, when in reality they serve as city condoned centers for drug

Of course there may be some people who genuinely use it to "feel
from their illness, but smoking a drug as volatile and unstable as
marijuana is like chewing on willow bark to partake in the benefits of
aspirin. For those whose doctors think that some components of the
cannabis plant may be therapeutic, Marinol, derived from the plant's
most active ingredient, THC, already exists. Though it's not often
prescribed, doctors have the right to prescribe this drug if they feel
it would best serve their patient (though non-cannabis based drugs are
almost always chosen as a first resort) .

Other isolated components in marijuana - delivered in aerosol sprays or
patches - are currently being studied and research in this area is
important. Cannabis-based drugs could indeed open new pathways to fight
obesity, nausea, multiple sclerosis, and other illnesses, but, just as
someone should not inject heroin to gain the therapeutic effects of
morphine, these drugs need to be used in the proper context and
Legalizing smoked marijuana under the guise of medicine is
irresponsible and contradictory to basic scientific standards for
therapeutic drugs.
Even if smoking marijuana might make someone "feel better," that is not
enough to call it a medicine. If that was the case, then tobacco
cigarettes or vodka shots could be called medicine because they are
often attributed to making one "feel better."

Furthermore, it is contrary to common sense and established law to have
the electorate, influenced by big spending from pro-marijuana interest
groups, decide what medicine is. serious loopholes exist in Proposition
215 that permit the abuse of current drug laws, and allow drug dealers
to avoid arrest and prosecution.

These are key reasons why a large, growing number of local city and
county governments have moved toward banning medical marijuana
identification cards and dispensaries. Other California communities
should follow suit.
science needs to be the basis of both our legal and illegal drug
policies,not political ploys designed to legalize smoked marijuana for
any reason.


Cheryl Schroeder
                                                                                                    PUBLIC RECORD~

local Agency Formation Commission of Santa Clara County


         TO:               County Executive
                           City Managers
                           City Clerks
                           Special District Managers/Administrators
                           Special District Board of Directors Clerks

         FROM:             Neelima Palacherla, LAFCO Executive Officer

         SUBJECT:          Revised LAFCO Fee Schedule

         This is to inform you that the Local Agency Formation Commission (LAFCO), at a duly
         noticed public hearing on Apri121, 2010, adopted a revised fee schedule that took effect
         on Apri122, 2010. Attached is the revised Fee Schedule. If you have questions regarding
         the fee revision, please contact me at (408) 299-5127, or Dunia Noel, LAFCO Analyst, at
         (408) 299-5148.

         Revised LAFCO Fee Schedule

 70 West Hedding Street • 1! Ih Floor. East Wing. San Jose. CA 95! 10 • (4081299-5127 • (408) 295-1613 Fax.
                     COMMISSIONEr?S: Pete Constant. Don Gage, Liz Kniss, Margaret Abe-Koga, Susan VickluntJ.·Wilson          .
                       ALTERNATE COMMISSIONERS: Sam Licnm:Jo, AI Pinheiro, George Silltakawa, Tl~rry Trumbull
                                                 EXECUTIVE OFFICER: Ned/rna Palacilerla
Local Agency Formation Commission of Santa Clara County

                                                      LAFCO FEE SCHEDULE
                                                       Effective April 22, 2010
               Type of Proposal                                                                 Fee
          1.   City Conducted Annexations *                                                     $1,154 + SBE Fees
          2.   100% Consent LAFCO Heard Change of Organization                                  $5,914 + SBE Fees
          3.   Deposit Fees ***
               Non-100% Consent LAFCO Heard Change of                                           $11,868 deposit + Actual Costs + SBE
               Organization Proposals***
               Urban Service Area (USA)/Sphere of Influence (SOl)                               $11,574 deposit + Actual Costs
               Out of Agency Contract for Services (OACS) Requests                              $9,670 deposit+ Actual Costs
               Pre-Application Meeting for district formations                                  $1,562 + Actual Costs
               lincorporations (Mandatory, preferably prior to seeking
               signatures on petition)
               District Formation, Consolidation, Dissolution and City                          $11,481 deposit + SBE fees + Actual
               Incorporation and Dissolution                                                    Costs
               Reconsideration Requests                                                         $2,619 deposit + Actual Costs
         4.    Research Fees                                                                    $173/hour

         All fees / deposits are payable at time the application is filed.
         *Please make one check ($1,154) payable to LAFCO and a separate check payable to State Board of
         Equalization (SBE). The SBEfee must be included with the application packet. The SBE fee is based on
         acreage; please see the SBE schedule of fees to determine the SBE fee.
         *** Deposit fees are initial payments towards actual costs of processing applications. Staff time spent on
         pre-application assistance will be counted towards the deposit. Actual costs include staff time, any
         consultant fees and miscellaneous costs such as noticing, copying etc. If actual costs are less than deposit,
         LAFCO will refund the difference to the applicant. If processing costs begin to exceed the deposit,
         additional fees are required. LAFCO approval will be conditional upon final payment within 35 days of
         LAFCO hearing date. Payment of appropriate SBE fees is required where applicable; please see SBE fee

 70 West Hedding Stn:N • I I th Floor, E1JstWing • San Jose, CA 951 J 0 • (408) 299·5127. (408) 295· J613 F,~x • w\lvw.sant;;1Clor,UafcQ,C(I,gov
                    COMMISSIONERS: Pelt; Constant, Don Gage, Liz Kniss. Margaret Alx'O¥oga. Sus,m Vicklund·VJilson
                      ALTERNATE COMM1$SIONEI~$: $"lm Liccardo. AI Pintleiro. George Shirakawa, Terry Trumbull
                                                  EXEClJ'JIVE OFFICER NecUma PaliJcherla
                                                                   RECORD -----
Sent: Tuesday, April 27, 2010 5:41 PM
To: Price, Lee

This is a message from the California Regional Water Quality Control
Board, San Francisco Bay Region (2).


State Water Resources Control Board
1001 I Street     Sacramento, California 95814
Phone: (916) 341-5254 Fax: (916) 341-5252
Web site:        Email:

Contact: 916 341-5254
 April 20, 2010, 2010

Corrects numbers in 4th paragraph


SACRAMENTO - The State Water Board has released a draft list of
California streams, rivers and lakes that are being proposed to be
listed as impaired under the rules of the federal Clean Water Act.
The public is invited to comment on any of the proposed listings.
(Impaired usually means there are contaminants or other factors such as
unnatural temperatures that affect the quality of the water
body. )

The Water Board compiled the list as part of its ongoing commitment to
preserve, enhance and restore the quality of Californias water
resources. The list is required by section 303(d) of the Clean Water
Act.  The Act also requires the state to report to US EPA on surface
water quality.

The State Water Boards Draft 2010 Integrated Report contains both the
proposed 303(d) list and the report on the quality of surface waters in
California (required by Section 305(b) of the Act). The State Water
Boards Draft 2010 Integrated Report compiles the nine Regional Water
Boards Integrated Reports and incorporates State Water Boards staff

The new draft list proposes adding 1,464 listings and removing 195 from
the previous list (2006). (An addition may represent a specific
pollutant newly found in a single body of water or stream/river section
and not an additional body of water. Thus, if a specific lake had
previously been listed for contaminant A and contaminant B were newly
found in that lake, that fact would be reflected with an added listing
this year.)  More data are available this year than for previous lists.
The additional listings do not necessarily reflect further degradation
of water quality since the previous listing cycle but are more likely
due to the availability of more data. Three hundred fifty (350) water
bodies are listed for the first time for one or more pollutants.

More data are available this year than in previous listings.  Water
bodies may have been added to the list because of newly available data,
not because of degradation to water quality since the last list,
compiled in 2006. Some water bodies may have removed from the 2006 list
because of a lack of specific data or because of more recent data.

states are required to develop Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for
listed water bodies. TMDLs are cleanup plans based on the maximum load
of a pollutant that can be discharged into the water body without
exceeding water quality standards.

The State Water Board is scheduled to hear public comments on, and
consider adoption of, the proposed staff recommendations on June 15,
2010.   The draft list is posted on the State Water Boards Web site
at: issues/programs/tmdl/integrated2010
All comments on the proposed changes to the draft list must be
submitted by email, mail, or fax, and postmarked no later than 12:00
noon, May 28, 2010.

State Water Resources Control Board
Office of Public Affairs
Phone: 916.341.5254
Fax: 916.341.5252
Local Agency Formation Commission of Santa Clara County
                                                                                                         PUBLIC RECORD_-


         TO:               County Executive, Santa Clara County
                           City Managers, Cities in Santa Clara County

         FROM:             Neelima     palacherla~oExecutive Officer
         SUBJECT:          Proposed LAFCO Budget FY 2010-2011

         At its Apri121, 2010 meeting, LAFCO adopted its Proposed Budget for Fiscal Year 2010-
         2011. Please see the attached staff report and Proposed Budget for FY 2010-2011.

         LAFCO is scheduled to adopt its Final Budget for FY 2010-2011 at a public hearing on
         Wednesday, June 2, 2010 at 1:15 pm. The hearing will be held in the Board Meeting
         Chambers at the County Government Center, 70 West Hedding Street, San Jose, CA

       : The County Auditor will bill the cities and the County for LAFCO costs based on the
         Final Budget .adopted by LAFCO.

         Should you have any questions about the attached staff report or the proposed budget,
         please contact me at (408) 299-5127 or at

         Thank you.

        Staff Report and Proposed LAFCO Budget for FY 2010-2011                                                      I'.)

                                                                                                                     a§      ~ ::iI
                                                                                                                             <:...- ...,
        cc:               Board of Supervisors, Santa Clara County                                                   N
                                                                                                                                   tQ ~
                          City Council Members, Cities in Santa Clara County                                         ..D
                          Santa Clara County Cities Association                                                      J>      ~,r-~

                                                                                                                    .:::     A"'

70 West Hedding Street • 11 th Floor. East Wing • San Jose, CA 951 10 • (408) 299-5127 • 1408) 295-1613 Fax •
                    COMMISSIONERS; Pete Constant, Don Gage. Liz Kniss. Margaret Abe-Koga. Susan Vicklund-Wilson
                      ALTERNATE COMMISSIONERS; Sam Liccardo, AI Pinheiro. George Shirakawa. Terry Trumbull
                                                 EXECUTIVE OFFICER; NeelimC1 PC1/acherlC1
Local Agency Formation Commission of Santa Clara County
                                                                                                                ITEM NO.5

          LAFCO MEETING:             April 21, 2010
          TO:                        LAFCO
          FROM:                      Neelima Palacherla, Executive Officer
          SUBJECT:                   Proposed Draft LAFCO Budget FY 2010-2011
                                     Agenda Item # 5

          1.    Adopt the Draft LAFCO Budget for fiscal year 2010-2011.
         2.     Find that the Draft FY 2011 Budget is expected to be adequate to allow the
                Commission to fulfill its statutory responsibilities.
         3.     Authorize staff to transmit the Draft Budget adopted by the Commission including
                the estimated agency costs as well as a notice of public hearing on the adoption of
                the Fiscal Year 2011 Final Budget to each of the cities, the County and the Cities
         LAFCO Budget and Adoption Process
         The Cortese Knox Hertzberg Local Government Reorganization Act of 2000 (CKH Act)
         which became effective on January 1, 2001, requires LAFCO to annually adopt a draft
         budget by May 1 and a final budget by June 15 at noticed public hearings. Both the draft
         and the final budgets are required to be transmitted to the cities and the County.
         Government Code §56381 establishes that at a minimum, the budget must be equal to
         that of the previous year unless the Commission finds that reduced staffing or program
         costs will nevertheless allow it to fulfill its statutory responsibilities. Any unspent funds
         at the end of the year may be rolled over into the next fiscal year budget. After adoption
         of the final budget by LAFCO, the County Auditor is required to apportion the :t:\et
         operating expenses of the Commission to the agencies r,epresented on LAFCO.
        Apportionment of LAFCO Costs
        The CKH Act requires LAFCO costs to be split in proportion to the percentage of an
        agency's representation (excluding the public member) o,n the Commission. Since the
        City of San Jose has a permanent membership on LAFCO, Government Code §56381.6
        requires costs to be split between the County, the City of San Jose and the remaining
        cities. Hence the County pays half the LAFCO cost, the City of San Jose a quarter and
        the remaining cities the other quarter.

70 West Hedding Street • 11 th Floor. East Wing • San Jose. CA 95110 • (408) 299-5127 • (408} 295-1613 Fax •,gov
                   COMMISSIONERS: Pete Constant. Don Gage. Liz Kniss. Margaret Abe-Koga. Susan Vicklund-Wilson
                      ALTERNATE COMMISSIONERS: Sam Liccardo. AI Pinheiro. George Shirakawa. Terry Trumbull
                                                 EXECUTIVE OFFICER: Neelima Palacherla
The cities' share (other than San Jose's) is apportioned in proportion to each city's total
revenue as reported in the most recent edition of the Cities Annual Report published by
the Controller, as a percentage of the combined city revenues within a county.
Government Code §56381(c) requires the County Auditor to request payment from the
cities and the County no later than July 1 of each year for the amount each agency owes
based on the net operating expenses of the Commission and the actual administrative
costs incurred by the Auditor in apportioning costs and requesting payment.

Dates          Staff Tasks / LAFCO Action

March31-       Notice period, draft budget posted on LAFCO web site and
April 21       available for review and coriunent on Apri11

April 21       Public Hearing and adoption of draft budget

April 21       Draft budget along with draft apportionment amounts
               transmitted to agencies (cities and County) together with
               notice of public hearing for the final budget hearing

lune2          Public hearing and adoption of final budget

June 2-        Final budget along with final agency apportionments
July 1         transmitted to agencies; Auditor requests payment from

LAFCO is mandated by the state to process jurisdictional boundary change applications
submitted in accordance with the provisions in the Cortese Knox Hertzberg Act..
Associated with this mandate, LAFCO has several responsibilities / requirements
including but not limited to adopting written policies and procedures, maintaining a
web site, serving as a conducting authority for protest proceedings and conducting
public hearings and providing adequate public notice. Other state mandates for LAFCO
include preparation of service reviews and the corresponding review and update every
five years, of the spheres of influence for each city and special district under LAFCO
jurisdiction within the County. The LAFCO work program for FY 2010- 2011 includes:
Service Reviews LAFCO will complete a countywide fire protection service review of
all agencies that provide fire and emergency medical services in the county and will
update the spheres of influence for the four fire districts as required by the CKH Act.
LAFCO will also conduct a countywide water service review and an update of the

                                                                                  Page 2 o£9
 spheres of influence of the five water districts and the two resource conservation
 districts in the County.
 Application Processing LAFCO staff will respond to public inquiries regarding.
 LAFCO policies and procedures for processing boundary change applications and will
 process all submitted applications. Application processing activity is expected to remain
 at existing levels for all types of applications from special districts and cities. We
 anticipate receiving reorganization proposals from the Santa Clara County Central Fire
 Protection District and urban service amendment applications from the City of Los
 Altos Hills and Morgan Hill in the next fiscal year.
 Island Annexations San Jose is in the process of completing its third phase of island
 annexations which include populated islands. Staff will continue to assist the City with
 coordination of service transitions for these annexations. As follow up to the island
 arinexations that have recently taken place, LAFCO will have to initiate dissolution of
 Sunol Sanitary District that no longer has any territory as a result of annexation of its
 territory by San Jose, thus making the district unnecessary.
 Staff will also continue to assist and work with other cities processing island
 annexations (Los Altos Hills and Los Gatos) to review their annexation information and
 finalize the annexations after city council approval.
. Update of Existing LAFCO Policies I Development of New Policies Staff will
  continue to review all LAFCO policies and update and/or develop new policies, where
  needed, for commission consideration and adoption. LAFCO will need to develop new
  policies to implement new requirements in state law. For example, Government Code
  section 56668 was recently amended to require LAFCO to consider adopted regional
  transportation plans in reviewing proposals.
Publi<;: Information/Communication. Staff will continue to maintain the LAFCO web
site, conduct workshops and make presentations as requested by agencies, communities
or other groups regarding LAFCO programs/ policies and procedures, respond to
general public inquiries, maintain and update digital boundary maps for cities and
special districts, publish an updated wall map of cities in Santa Clara County, and
actively participate in CALAFCO and other conferences, training and workshops.
LAFCO will recognize the 40 th Anniversary of the LAFCO - County - Cities Joint Urban
Development Policies and recognize those individuals that played a critical role in
developing, adopting and implementing them.
Administration Staff will continue to implement LAFCO's el~ctronic records
management system and integrate the system into the various workings of the LAFCO
office. Staff will update as necessary the Memorandum of Understanding between
LAFCO and County for staffing and services. Other administrative work of LAFCO
staff includes managing of consultant contracts, reviewing and updating LAFCO
procedures as necessary, updating and maintaining the LAFCO database, managing

                                                                                Page 3 of9
LAFCO records, tracking LAFCO related legislation and preparing the annual budget
and preparing fee schedule revisions.
The LAFCO Annual Report which will be published at the end of the current fiscal year
will document the types of applications processed and the various activities / projects
that LAFCO has completed in the current fiscal year.
The LAFCO approved budget for the current year is $827,765. It is projected that there
will be a savings of about $187,497 at the end of this fiscal year.
Projected Year End Savings = Projected Year End Revenue - Projected Year End Expenses
Projected Year End Savings = $894,881- $707,384
Projected Year End Savings = $187,497
This savings amount will largely be due to the following:
1. Not having spent the amount ($100,000) allocated as reserves
2. Having a larger fund balance than anticipated from the previous fiscal year. The
   actual fund balance from FY 2009 was approximately $89,116 more than projected.
   ($334,567 - $245,451)                                                      .
The estimated savings of $187,497 at the end of the current fiscal year of 2010, will be
carried over to reduce the proposed FY 2011 costs for the cities and the County.

At its February 3, 2010 LAFCO meeting, the Commission appointed a Budget
Subcommittee composed of Commissioners Don Gage and Pete Constant. The
Commission directed the budget subcommittee to develop a draft budget for
Commission consideratiOJ.1. The Budget Subcommittee held meetings on March 10th and
April 7th to discuss issues related to the budget and t.o formulate the budget for FY 2011.
The Budget Subcommittee discussed current and future budget related issues including
the status of the current year budget, the highlights and progress on the current year
work plan, the proposed work plans for the upcoming fiscal year, and other issues such
as purchase of general liability insurance for LAFCO, workers compensation for
commissioners, general counsel costs, LAFCO fees revisions, costs of webcasting
LAFCO meetings and recommended the proposed budget.
The proposed budget for FY 2010-2011 is $809,698 which is about 2% lower than the
current year budget. A detailed itemization of the budget is provided below.
Object 1.    .SALARIES AND BENEFITS $408,826
All three LAFCO staff positions are staffed through the County Executive's Office.
There is no change in' the proposed salaries for the LAFCO staff. The cost of benefits is

                                                                                  Page 4 of9
  as determined by the County. The following is a summary of the LAFCO staff salary
  and benefits.

   LAFCO Executive Officer             $108,756        $52,278      $161,034

   LAFCO Analyst                        $96,300        $48,944      $145,244

   LAFCOClerk                           $62,880        $39,668      $102,548

 5258200        INTRA-COUNTY PROFESSIONAL $55,000
 This amount remains the same as the current year budget and includes costs for
 services from the County Surveyors Office and the County Assessors' Office.
 LAFCO Surveyor $50,000
  The County Surveyor will continue to assist with map review and approval. It is
  estimated that about 400 hours of sefvice will be required in the next fiscal year. The
. County Surveyor's Office charges a rate of $125 per hour.
 ·Miscellaneous Staffing $5,000
 This amount pays for the cost of reports prepared by the County Assessor's Office for
 LAFCO proposals. Additionally, it allows LAFCO to seek technical assistance from the
 County Planning Office on CEQA or other planning issues. LAFCO accesses data in the
 County Planning Office's GIS servet:. This item includes maintenance and technical
 assistance for GIS, if necessary.                                            .
 5255800       LEGAL COUNSEL $55,000
This item covers the cost for general legal services for the fiscal year. In February 2009,
the Commission retained Best Best & Krieger for legal services on a monthly retainer
rate of $5,900. This retainer amount was established using an annual average of 324
hours which amounts to about 27 hours per month. However, the average numbers of
hours of service required based on the last 12 months is only about 16 hours. Therefore,
the contract is being amended to reduce the number of hours required to 240 hours per
year, thus reducing the cost to approximately $53,000 from $70,800.
Each fiscal year, legal counsel's rates automatically increase by CPI for the previous
calendar year. The FY 2011 hourly rate for legal counsel is $221. See Agenda Item #8.
5255500        CONSULTANT SERVICES $90,000
This item is allocated for hiring consultants to assist LAFCO with special projects. This
year, the amount is allocated for hiring consultants to conduct a countywide water

                                                                                  PageS of9
service review and to continue to maintain LAFCO's electronic records management
5285700       MEAL CLAIMS $750
This item is being maintained at $750.
5220200       INSURANCE $6,033
 This item is for the purpose of purchasing general liability insurance and workers'
 compensation coverage for LAFCO. This amount represents a significant increase from
-the prior year when LAFCO was provided insurance coverage by the County. LAFCO
 will now (upon notice by the County to obtain separate insurance) purchase general
 liability insurance policy from an outside insurance carrier and the estimated cost for
 such insurance is approximately $4,533. Additionally, LAFCO may also be required to
 provide workers compensation insurance to its commissioners and an amount of $1,500
 is budgeted for this purpose. Worker's Compensation for LAFCO staff is currently
 covered by the County and is part of the payroll charge. See Agenda Item #7 also.
5250100       OFFICE EXPENSES $2,000
This item is being maintained at $2,000 and provides for purchase of books, periodicals,
small equipment and supplies throughout the year.
~255650      DATA PROCESSING SERVICES $2,463
This item includes funds for support from County Information Services Department
(ISD) including for active directory, enterprise print management, email support and
licenses and LAN support
5225500      COMMISSIONER'S FEES $9,000
This item includes a $100 per diem amount for LAFCO Commissioners and Alternate
Commissioners to attend LAFCO meetings and sub-committee meetings in the Fiscal
Year 2011.
This is being maintained at $2,500 and will be used for publication of hearing notices for
LAFCO applications and other projects/ studies, as required by state law.
5245100      MEMBERSHIP DUES $7,000
This amount provides for the membership dues to the statewide association, CALAFCO
- the California Association of LAFCOs. In recent years, CALAFCO has expanded its
services with the CALAFCO web site, newsletter, CALAFCO Sacramento Office,
legislative representation and member publications such as directories to name a few.
In addition to these services, CALAFCO has implemented other new programs such as
the CALAFCO University, insurance and employee benefit options and research

                                                                                 Page 6 of9
 5250750       PRINTING AND REPRODUCTION $1,500
 An amount of $1,500 is being budgeted for printing expenses for reports such as service
 review reports or other studies.
 5285800       BUSINESS TRAVEL $12,000
 This item is for both staff and commissioners to attend conferences and workshops. It
 would cover air travel, accommodation, conference registration and other expenses at
 the conferences. CALAFCO annually holds a Staff Workshop and an Annual
 Conference that is attended by commissioners as well as staff. In addition, this item
 covers the travel expenses for staff/commissioners' travel to the CALAFCO Board
 meetings. Commissioner Wilson is serving a fourth term on the CALAFCO Executive
 Board and is the current vice-president of the Board. She also serves on several
 committees including the CALAFCO Legislative Committee and the CALAFCO
 structure subcommittee. The Executive Officer serves on the CALAFCO Legislative
. 5285300      PRIVATE AUTOMOBILE MILEAGE $2,000
 This item provides for travel to conduct site visits, attend meetings and training
 sessions etc.
 5285200      TRANSPORTATION AND TRAVEL (for use of County car) $1,000
This item would allow for the use of a County vehicle for travel to conferences,
workshops and meetings.
5281600       OVERHEAD $46,626
This is an amount established by the County Controller's Office, for service rendered by
various County departments that do not directly bill LAFCO for service. This amount is
slightly lower than the current year budget because the projections do not include any
salary increase, although there is an increase in some benefits. The FY 2011 costs
generally include three elements:
First, the overhea,d includes the LAFCO share of the County's FY 2011 Cost Allocation
Plan which is based on actual overhead costs from FY 2009 - the most recent year for
which actual costs are available and include the following charges for LAFCO.
County Executive's Office:          $26,324
Controller-Treasurer:             . $9,875
Employee Services Agency:           $3,406
OBA:                                $976
Procurement:                        $15
Other Central Services:             $102
ISD Intergovt. Service:            $4~082
ISD                                $1,061

                                                                                 Page 7of9
SecondlYf a "roll forward" is applied which is calculated by comparing FY 2010 Cost
Plan with FY 2009 actuals. In this casef there is no significant difference between the
actual and the plan costs and no amount was included in this category.
And lastlYf an additional adjustment of $840 is being made in the FY 2'011 Cost Plan and
is meant ,to reflect the increase in actual PERS costs in FY 2011. By making the
adjustment at this timef the County is hoping to "flatten out" the roll-forward that
would be charged in 2 yearsf when comparing the FY 2011 Plan to the FY 2011 actuals.
5275200       COMPUTER HARDWARE $2,000
This item is being maintained at $2 OOO and will be used for hardware upgrades /

5250800       COMPUTER SOFTWARE $2,000
This item is for purchases of computer software that would be required for the program
and is also being maintained at $2 OOO.

5250250       POSTAGE $2,000
This amount is budgeted for the cost of mailing noticesf agendas, agenda packets and
other correspondence and is being maintained at $2,000.
5252100       TRAINING PROGRAMS $2,000
This item provides for staff development courses and seminars.
5701000       RESERVES $100,000
This iteI;ll includes reserves for two purposes: litigation reserve - for use if LAFCO is
involved with any litigation and contingency reserve - to be used to deal with any
unexpected expenses; If used during the yearf this account will be replenished in the
following year. In the past 8 yearSf LAFCO has not had to use the reserves and the
amount has been rolled over to the following year to offset the costs.
4103400       APPLICATION FEES $30,000
It is anticipated that LAFCO will earn about $30,000 in fees from processing
applications. LAFCO has extended the fee waiver for island 'annexations, resulting in
reduced revenues. The actual amount earned from fees is not within LAFCO control
and depends entirely on the actual level of application activity.
4301100       INTEREST $7,000
It is estimated that LAFCO will receive an amount of about $7,000 from interest earned
on LAFCO funds.

                                                                                   Page 8 o£9
 Calculation of Net Operating Expenses
 FY 2011 Net Operating Expenses   =Proposed FY 2011 Expenditures - Proposed FY 2011 Fee Revenues
                                                       - Projected FY 2010 Year End Savings
 FY 2011 Net Operating Expenses = $809,698 - $37,000 - $187,497
 FY 2011 Net Operating Expenses = $585,201
 The proposed net operating expenses for FY 2011 is approximately 9% higher than that
 of the current year net operating expenses despite cutting expenses by 2%. The main
 reason for this increase is that LAFCO did not receive as much revenues as were
 budgeted and consequently will have a smaller fund balance than in the past years.
 Therefore there is a small increase in the cost to the cities and the County from the
 previous year. Please note that the projected operating expense for FY 2011 is based on
 projected savings and expenses for the current year and are not actual figures. It is
 therefore to be expected that there will be revisions to the budget as we get a better
 indication of current year expenses towards the end of this fiscal year. This could result
 in changes to the proposed net operating expenses for FY 2011 which could in turn
 impact the costs for each of the agencies. Provided below is the draft apportionment to
 the agencies based on the proposed net operating expenses f9r FY 2011 ($585,201).
. Cost to Agencies

 County of Santa Clara                $292,601

 City of San Jose                     $146,300

 Remaining 14 cities in the           $146,300

Apportionment of the costs among the 14 cities will be based on a percentage of the
cities' total revenues and will be calculated by the County Controller's Office after
LAFCO adopts the final budget in June. A draft of the estimated apportionment to the
cities is included as Attachment B to provide the cities a general indication of the
LAFCO costs.
Attachment A:        Proposed Draft Budget for FY 2010-2011
Attachment B:        Estimated Costs to Agencies Based on the Proposed Budget

                                                                                        Page 9 of9
                                                                                      ITEM NO.5
                                        PROPOSED LAFCO BUDGET                         ATTACHMENT A
                                         FISCAL YEAR 2010 • 2011

                                                       APPROVED      ACTUALS        END OF PROPOSED
                                                        FY 2009-10 Year to Date     FY 2010 FY 2010-2011
 ITEM #      TITLE                                       BUDGET       3/8/2010 PROJECTIONS      BUDGET

Object 1:    Salary and Benefits                          $391,198    $261,256       $405,620      $408,826
Object 2:   Services and Supplies
 5258200 Intra-County Professional                         $55,000      $5,386        $40,000       $55,000
 5255800 Legal Counsel                                     $70,800     $40,634        $70,800       $55,000
 5255500 Consultant Services                              $110,000     $19,138       $110,000       $90,000
 5285700 Meal Claims                                         $750         $21~          $500           $750
 5220200 Insurance                                           $603         $550          $550         $6,033
 5250100 Office Expenses                                    $2,000        $657         $1,200        $2,000
 5255650 Data Processing Services                           $3,837      $2,934         $3,837        $2,463
 5225500 Commissioners' Fee                                 $9,000      $2,000         $5,000        $9,000
 5260100 Publications and Legal Notices                     $2,500         $64          $200         $2,500
 5245100 Membership Dues                                    $7,000      $7,000         $7,000        $7,000
 5250750 Printing and Reproduction                          $1,500          $0          $200         $1,500
 5285800 Business Travel                                  $13,000       $2,464        $6,000        $12,000
 5285300 Private Automobile Mileage                         $2,000       $646         $1,500         $2,000
 5285200 Transportation&Travel (County Car Usage)          $1,500        $512         $1,500         $1,000
 5281600 Overhead                                         $49,077      $36,808       $49,077        $46,626
 5275200 Computer Hardware                                 $2,000          $0         $1,500         $2,000
 5250800 Computer Software                                 $2,000          $0         $1,400         $2,000
 5250250 Postage                                           $2,000        $127           $500         $2,000
 5252100 Staff Training Programs                           $2,000          $0         $1,000         $2,000
 5701000 Reserves                                        $100,000          $0             $0       $100,000
TOTAL EXPENDITURES                                      $827,765     $380,389      $707,384       $809,698
4103400 Application Fees                                  $40,000     $11,558        $20,000        $30,000
4301100 Interest: Deposits and Investments                 $7,000      $3,722        $5,000         $7,000
            Total Interest / Application Fee Revenue      $47,000     $15,281       $25,000         $37,000
4600100     Cities (Revenue from other Agencies)         $267,657    $267,657       $267,657
5440200 County                                           $267,657    $267,657       $267,657
            Savings/Fund Balance from previous FY        $245,451    $334,567       $334,567      $187,497
TOTAL REVENUE                                           $827,765     $885,162      $894,881

NET LAFCO OPERATING EXPENSES                            $535,314                                  $585,201
            County                                       $267,657    $267,657    $267,656.79      $292,601
            City of San Jose                            $133,829     $133,829      $133,828       $146,300
            Other Cities                                $133,829     $133,829      $133,829       $146,300

                                                                      ITEM NO.5
                                                                      ATTACHMENT 8

              2 0 10/20 11 LAFCO COS T APPORTIONMENT
            Estimated Costs to Agencies Based on the Proposed Budget

                    LAFCO Net Operating Expenses for 2010/2011              $585,201

                       Revenue per
                                      Percentage of      Allocation
 Jurisdictions           2006/2007                                    Allocated Costs
                                      Total Revenue    Percentages

 County                  N/A             N/A           50.0000000%         $292,600.50

San Jose                 N/A             N/A           25.0000000%         $146,300.25

Campbell                $37,893,677      2.2163276%     0.5540819%           $3,242.49

Cupertino               $55,692,872      3.2573679%     0.8143420%          . $4,765.54

Gilroy                  $85,648,532     5.0094163%      1.2523541%           $7,328.79

Los Altos               $35,396,719     2.0702853%      0.5175713%           $3,028.83

Los Altos Hills          $9,035,211     0.5284519%      0.1321130%            $773.13

Los Gatos               $34,668,904     2.0277169%      0.5069292%          $2,966.55

Milpitas              $116,952,583      6.8403294%      1.7100824%         $10,007.42

Monte Sereno             $2,652,541     0.1551420%      0.0387855%            $226.97

Morgan Hill            $67,173,041      3.9288207%      0.9822052%          $5,747.87

Mountain View         $156,866,835      9.1748365%      2.2937091%         $13,422.81

Palo Alto             $367,475,000     21.4928990%      5.3732247%         $31,444.16

Santa Clara           $472,938,700     27.6612660%      6.9153165%         $40,468.50

Saratoga               $19,106,625      1.1175094%      0.2793773%          $1,634.92

Sunnyvale             $248,249,502     14.5196312%     3.6299078%          $21,242.26

Total               $1,709,750,742    100.0000000%    100.0000000%        $585,200.99

Total Cities (minus San Jose)                                           $146,302.24

Shared By: