Attachment 09ATTACHMENT 9
From: John Shepardson <shepardsonlaw@me.com>
Date: February 15, 2019 at 10:44:37 PM PST
To: Steven Leonardis <SLeonardis@losgatosca.gov>, Marcia Jensen <MJensen@losgatosca.gov>,
Bspector <BSpector@losgatosca.gov>, Marico Sayoc <msayoc@losgatosca.gov>, Rob Rennie
<rrennie@losgatosca.gov>, Laurel Prevetti <LPrevetti@losgatosca.gov>, Robert Schultz
<RSchultz@losgatosca.gov>
Subject: Comments for Town Council Meeting 2/19/19
Dear Mayor Steve Leonardis, Other Council Members Marcia Jensen, Barbara Spector, Marico
Sayoc, and Rob Rennie, Town Manager Laurel
Prevetti, and Town Counsel Robert Schultz:
The following are my thoughts for your consideration on council agenda items for the
scheduled 2/19/19 meeting:
1. Annexation
FISCAL IMPACT:
Once the annexation is certified by the State Board of Equalization, the Town will receive
approximately 9.6 percent of the property taxes.
What is the cost of services on an approximate basis? My understanding is town services for residential
property exceeds the revenue received. If we don’t have the approximate cost of the services, how can
we fairly consider
the fiscal impact? Should we be taking on more net debt obligations at this time? Would that be fiscally
prudent?
2. Budget
Use additional funds for unfunded liabilities and fire protection?
3. RESOLUTION 2019-
DRAFT RESOLUTION OF THE TOWN COUNCIL OF THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
ADOPTING A COMPLETE STREETS POLICY FOR THE TOWN OF LOS GATOS
WHEREAS, the California Global Warming Solutions Act of 2006 (known as AB 32) sets a
mandate for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions in California, and the Sustainable
Communities and Climate Protection Act of 2008 (known as SB 375) requires emissions
reductions through coordinated regional planning that integrates transportation, housing, and
land-use policy, and achieving the goals of these laws will require significant increases in travel
by public transit, bicycling, and walking; and
Looks like a winner.
4. PPW Job Number 18-811-9901 Annual Street Repair and Resurfacing Project (Rubber Cape Seal) A.
Authorize contract award to the project low bidder, American Pavement Systems, in an amount not to
exceed $1,053,800, including a ten percent construction contingency.
B. Authorize staff to execute potential change orders within the ten percent construction contingency.
C. Recognize $414,061 of project reimbursements and authorize a revenue and expenditure budget
adjustment of $414,061 to the Annual Street Repair and Resurfacing Project.
D. Authorize a revenue decrease of $178,000 in Gas Tax revenue to the Annual Street Repair and
Resurfacing Project.
E. Authorize a revenue increase of $10,650 in GFAR revenue to the Annual Street Repair and Resurfacing
Project.
Staff Report
Attachment 1 - Street List for Project 18-811-9901
Can we seal with cool colors? White, off-white, light green? Get the seal and reduction in street
ambient air temperature? Less use of air conditioning? Enhanced property values and tax revenues?
Creatively address Climate Change?
5. Conditional Use Permit Application U-18-020. Project Location: 114 S. Santa Cruz Avenue. Property
Owner: 102 S. Santa Cruz, LP. Applicant: Brian Edwards.
The promoters, as I recall from reading about them, demonstrated a tremendous work ethic on
the sports field and in the classroom at LGHS. Supposing they
bring that same ethic to their enterprise, they seem poised to benefit the town citizenry. I can envision
them being respectful of the nearby residents.
6. Budget
If the VanNada/Koen concept for paying down unfunded liabilities will not jeopardize
the town’s financial reserves to an imprudent level, it seems to me it is worthy of careful and
thorough review. Their coming up with
creative ways to deal with the liabilities is to be lauded. I feel the town citizenry owes them a
“debt of gratitude”.
As you can see, both Scenario’s 1+2 have their advantages. Scenario 1 requires a $10,895,100 ADP
but has a $18,956,000 overall reduction to pension liabilities over 26 years. Scenario 2 was an
Alternative Mr. Koen devised if the $10,895,100 was too high for some of you.
Scenario 2 requires a $7,006,000 ADP, but reduces pension liabilities by $8,795,000 over 14 years
with 61 % coming in the first 6 years and 87% within the first 10 when we need pension reductions
the most.
We believe that the $11 million can come from the three sources:
1. Excess Capital Project Reserve
2. Excess Internal Service Funds
3. Proceeds from the sale of surplus property
Total
$6,500,000 $3,000,000 $1,900,000
$11,400,000
In addition to the above, the Town could elect to use some of the current 115 Pension Trust balance
to help fund an ADP. For example, if the Town elected to withdraw $2.5m from the current 115
Pension Trust balance, the Town would only need to find an incremental $4.5m from the sources
listed above for Scenario 2.
We hope you find this helpful. We feel that the most important thing Council can do would be to
make as big a payment to CalPERS as possible. I think the above should help you feel better that
we’ll not be shooting ourselves in the financial foot. With either scenario, there will be annual cash
flows in terms of annual payment reductions to the present and future budgets. Our interest is to
provide information to the Council and the Staff that helps with the overall success of the Town by
thinking of creative ways to extricate ourselves from the pension debt.
Jak VanNada Phil Koen
Respectfully,
John Shepardson, Esq.