Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 1987-07-01 Mayor Mark N. Addie§o Vice Mayor John "Jack" Drago Counci 1: Ri chard A. Haffey · . Gus Nicolopulos Roberta Cerri Teglia MINUTES 000171 City Council City Council Conference Room City Hall July 1, 1987 AGENDA ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING CALL TO ORDER: (Cassette No. 1) ROLL CALL: PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE 1. Discussion and possible action of San Mateo County Transportation Expenditure Plan. ACTION TAKEN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING 9:07 a.m. Mayor Addiego presiding. Council present: Council absent: Haffey, Drago, Nicolopulos, Teglia and Addiego. None. The pledge of allegiance was recited. Mayor Addiego stated that the Council had received correspondence from Supervisor Huening that addressed the split ballot issue, and addressed Councilwoman Teglia's concerns over the commitment of BART to run through the City of South San Francisco. He stated that a letter had been received in support of the ballot measure from the Center for the Support of the Disabled. Councilwoman Teglia stated that the letter from Supervisor Huening had been somewhat reassuring, however, the Council needed to hear from BART on how solid and real this was. Mayor Addiego stated that the Council needed to understand more than the align- ment, because they were aware of where the line was going to be extended - along the streetcar line. He questioned what type of commitment there would be from SAMTRANS, and how binding that would be. Mr. Gee, SAMTRANS, stated that it was a conceptual plan developed some years ago, a study, by BART and San Mateo County. He stated that this alignment went through the San Bruno branch line. He explained in detail: the horizontal 1118l age 1 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN Discussion - Continued. alignment; where it entered South San Francisco; where it went underground, and the various grades. Ms. Karen Walston, BART, stated that SAMTRANS was the project lead on this potential extension to S.F.I.A., and BART the cooperating agency that was legally allowed to expend any money in San Mateo County because it was not part of the District. Mr. Gee spoke in-depth on the proposed BART Project: how it related to the Colma station, and the environmental impacts; funding; agreement with Colma on the proposed horseshoe through the town; Colma's alternate plan for the alignment underground on the east side of town through the abandoned S.P. line through the cemeteries; that the original study would follow E1 Camino Real above ground, and would cross over between Mission Road and E1Camino Real below ground; that the Chestnut Station would be behind Kaiser Hospital. Discussion followed: that confusion over the project being under or over the ground in Colma; that there was not a signed agreement with Colma on the BART Station. Mr. Dick Winslow, Manager of Planning BART, described the S.F.I.A. access pro- ject in which BART, San Mateo County, South San Francisco and other cities had participated, wherein from 1969-72 a study was performed for a project when funding occurred. He stated that during that time each of the cities had espoused a particular route, and proceeded to describe same. Discussion followed: if the Council sup- ported the scenario for the alternate plan for the streetcar line - how binding would it be before a projection was made to the community; that the project would have to go underground; that nothing was binding until the environmental and engineering work was completed; what /1/8Z age L A G E N D A A C T I 0 N T A K E N 000173 Discussion - Continued. legal rights BART had in reference to local entities such as South San Francisco. City Attorney Armento stated that BART did have condemnation authority within and without the District to foster the purposes of the urban mass transit and did have a preference within various pro- visions in the Public Facilities Code to avail itself of existing rights-of-way, streets and railroad crossings in order to facilitate that. She continued, so there were certain limitations that BART had to meet in terms of proceeding under condemnation activities, but, it does have a number of things weighted on its side in that regard. Mr. Winslow re-emphasized the fact that BART could not pay for capital construc- tion for operating costs for anything outside the BART District until the com- mitment within the BART District has been met for extensions. He continued, the commitment was defined as an extension to Antioch, an extension to Livermore, an extension to Warm Springs District of Fremont, and a commitment to the City of San Francisco which was the Geary Corridor, etc. Discussion followed: that this City should have a veto power to facilitate a commitment to undergrounding at Macy's and proceed that way; plans for parking at the proposed station; that the John Daly BART Station provided for 1600 cars; that the Chestnut Station would be a subway station, etc. Burlingame City Councilman Pagliaro stated that he had argued with RPC that the Councils were the best bodies to deal with this issue and RPC had responded, that that would constitute too many people. He recommended that this and other Councils should state that this was not the right plan, and together take the 7/1/87 Page 3 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN 00017 Discussion - Continued. time to do the plan right. He stated that it could then be presented to the voters at a later election, with the people being a part of the process. Mr. Gilmore, Building Trades, stated that the transportation problem was getting worse, yet the voters in San Mateo County had never been allowed to vote for or against the issue. He stated his con- cerns: over twenty cities were impacted by the issue, and each city was trying to respond only to their own needs; changing the plan merely for the sake of change; that it would take many EIRs to prove any of the plans offered; that it was not a short term project; that if the discussion became vehement in the next six months, it could turn the voters off entirely; that the average voter was not interested in the politics involved, but was only interested in getting transpor- tation moving in this County; that the transportation was getting worse; over trying to acquire some sort of veto power; if this opportunity for mass tran- sit was lost it would be lost forever. Mr. Gee stated that that was still being negotiated, and that meanwhile SAMTRANS was working on the maintenance and operating costs; and that any costs of connecting the system would be paid for through increased fares. Councilman Nicolopulos stated that this was the type of discussion that led to suspicion, and perhaps Mr. Gee didn't have the answers. He questioned the urgency that would require this to be a measure on the next election. Discussion followed: that BART could effect a surcharge; that most of the sales tax money was earmarked for Caltrans or for highways. Councilwoman Teglia stated that each of the cities had legitimate concerns, and if time was taken those concerns could be ameliorated and workable for the County. 7/1/87 Page 4 A G E N D A A C T I 0 N T A K E N 00017~ Discussion - Continued. Mayor Addiego stated that this City had been very aggressive in trying to solve its transportation problems internally, an as a result did not qualify for funds that it would have had otherwise. Mr. Ken Floyd questioned the number of BART passengers in peak hours, and whether there had been a decrease in riders. Discussion followed: on the capacity of the various BART lines in ridership; changing of commute patterns; whether the Airport wanted BART extended there; that the Airport received revenues from their parking structures; that the major need was for more capillaries to and through corriders; matching funds from SAMTRANS and the Federal Government; putting the measure on the June 1988 ballot; separating the two issues on the ballot; that all cities should vote against the issue being on the November ballot; and reconstitute a committee constituting a member from each City to pursue a June ballot. Atherton City Councilmember Malcolm Dudley, agreed with Councilman Pagliaro, and stated that the public had not had the opportunity to give input for complete understanding of the issues. He stated that the Committee had concerns on a fifteen year commitment, and the 7% sales tax. He stated that if the transportation issue was taken to the voters and it lost, then the opportunity would also be lost to solve the problems - which was the important issue in splitting the ballot measure into two measures. He stated that the chance the cities had now was to put themselves in a position to leverage the 1~ sales tax, which Alameda, Santa Clara had. Vice Mayor Drago questioned if it re- quired eleven cities to vote for each of 7/1/87 Page 5 A G E N D A A C T I 0 N T A K E N ~)'~)~1~C Discussion - Continued. the issues to be on the ballot. He won- dered if the BART issue would be on the ballot regardless of what this City did, then what the City took action on today would basically be the 1/2~ issue and not the BART issue. Councilman Dudley stated that all the cities were being asked to vote on was the tax measure itself. Ms. Betty Sands, League of Women Voters of No. San Mateo County, stated that the San Mateo County Transportation Advisory Committee voted on 6/26/87 to separate the issue of an extension of BART into San Mateo County from the issue of a 1/2~ sales tax for transportation projects. She stated that the League supported clear and precise language in ballot measures to provide the voters with a clearer picture of the issues upon which they were to vote. Ms. Diane Process, Marketing Agent Mills Hospital, stated that the tax measure had a provision for transportation for the disabled. Mr. Lou Dell'Angela, Urban Planner, stated that the people should be able to decide what a good plan was, rather than the politicians making that tough deci- sion. He stated that he very strongly felt that the people should have the opportunity to decide the issue in November. He believed that the environmental pro- cess could deal with some of the specific concerns about BART in terms of the Mission Road Station, and that there were other protections built into the system. He stated that the transportation issue needed to be addressed now, and the split ballot issue was very desirable. Ms. Jan Lualhati, Center for the Disabled, spoke in favor of a solution to the transportation issue. 7/1/87 Page 6 AGENDA ACTZON TAKEN Discussion - Continued. (Cassette No. 2) Mr. Jake Jones stated that he too would like to see a better transportation program initiated other than that which existed, however, if the people were to incur a fifteen year indebtedness - they should be fully informed of the program. He stated that no one had given a posi- tive answer today on the impacts to this City. He stated that he had attended the Millbrae meeting and Supervisor Huening had not been positive either - just a lot of maybes. He stated that if the Council voted today to approve a ballot for the ~2~ sales tax, it would have given away its bargaining power. He encouraged the Council to take six months to develop a transportation plan and present it to the people. He stated that he had been in transportation for forty-two years, and noted that SAMTRANS was not effective when you see a $53,000 bus with only three passengers. Councilwoman Teglia stated that Nancy Kelly, PIBC, had to leave, but com- municated that PIBC did not have a problem with the measure being held over to June. Discussion followed: that $1,000,000 was going to be spent on BART, and there had not been discussions on City buy-ins; whether BART could effect a surcharge outside of the District; Vice Mayor Drago supported a split measure; 50-50 matching funds between SAMTRANS and the Federal Government; that money would be taken from sales tax to upgrade Caltrans; that if San Mateo County approved the 7~ sales tax there would not be an option in the future for increasing sales tax for other projects; the composition of SAMTAK Committee; that light rail systems were more effective than BART and less costly; that all cities should have input on the issue; that the RPC was meeting on 7/23/87, and a recommendation would be taken to the Council of Mayors on the measure; forming a new committee with all cities represented for input on a June 7/1/87 Page 7 A G E N D A A C T I 0 N T A K E N 0001 S ' 1. Discussion - Continued. RECESS: RECALL TO ORDER: Councilman Haffey left the podium: Discussion for approval of the 1987-88 Operating Budget for the City of South San Francisco. ~.~/~) ballot; that elected officials in San Mateo County had denied the citizens a vote on the transportation issue; if each city held out for their own city, the measure would never go to the voters; BART capacity between Daly City and down- town San Francisco for an extension to the Airport. Mayor Addiego declared a recess at 11:16 aomo Mayor Addiego recalled the meeting to order at 11:25 a.m., all Council present. Councilman Haffey gave the following reasons for his subsequent Motion: 1) that one of the concerns had been answered - that of a split ballot; 2) had received a maybe of under grounding the project; 3) not answered - was the amount of money spent on freeways and highways as opposed to transportation. M/S Haffey/Teglia - To not support the 1~ sales tax measure at this time, and suggested that a new committee be formed more representative of San Mateo cities and develop a proposal for a June 1988 ballot. Councilwoman Teglia stated that the fourth consideration was the makeup of the agency set up to administer the funds, and where the funds would go. Carried by unanimous roll call vote. Councilman Haffey left the meeting at 12:01 p.m. Vice Mayor Drago stated that he did not feel that this was a balanced budget, namely because of the vacancy factor - which had not worked for two years, and he saw the same built in guaranty there again. He stated that the Council would be back next year looking at departments, that had again over spent their budgets. 7/1/87 Page 8 MINUTE ORDER 00017 ) CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 1, 1987 Item No. 1. Discussion and possible action on San Mateo County Transportation Expenditure Plan. ACTION TAKEN: Motion by Richard A. Halley, Second by Roberta Cerri Teglia - To not support the 1/25 Sales Tax Measure at this time, and suggest that a new Committee be formed more representative of San Mateo Cities and develop a proposal for a June 1988 Ballot. Carried by unanimous roll call vote. STATE OF CALIFORNIA t SS. COUNTY OF SAN MATEO l, Barbara A. Baffaya, Cffy Clerk of the cffy of South San Fran- cisco, Cbunty of San Malco, State of California, an ex-officio Clerk of the City Council thereof, do hereby certify that the above and fore* going is a full, true and correct copy of Minute Order of the Adjourned REgular Meeting of 7/1/87 on ....... ........................................................ the original of which is on file in my office, and that I have carefu([y compared the same wffh the original, IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto set my hand and the seal of the City of South San Francisco this.2_..l~.d....day o~l.~Ll~ 19 ~7, BARBARA A. BATTAYA Ci~ Clerk ~ Deputy Clt'/C)erk 7/1/87 Page 8a A G E N D A ACTION TAKEN Discussion for approval of the 1987-88 Operating Budget for the City of South San Francisco - Continued. (Cassette No. 3) He stated that the other concern was the transfer of sewer funds in the amount of $330,000, and he wanted to be shown where it had taken that amount of money to do the administrative work for the Treatment Plant. He stated that 15-16% of their budget was done by outside people, such as Council, to account for the administra- tive work being done at the Treatment Plant. City Manager Lewis stated that staff in the last two tight budget years had tried to refine the methods to estimate salaries and expenditures. He stated that the only problem had been in the Fire Department because of minimum manning requirements, and over staffing which had a corresponding effect on vacancy factors. He stated that the only other way to deal with the problem would be in cuts in service levels. He spoke in detail of the depleted'City reserves and decreased revenues, and the estimates of better revenue in the future. Councilman Nicolopulos stated his concern over the robbing of Peter to pay Paul syndrome that had been used in transfers in the Sewer Fund for administrative costs. Discussion followed: that the depart- ments needed to be frugal to achieve a balanced budget; the administrative costs charged to the Sewer Fund being 10%; what actual compilation of departments' time had made up the charges; that a sewer fee was anticipated in the future; that the Treatment Plant also served other com- munities; the enterprise funds; Redevelopment Agency charges; request to see data from other cities on administra- tive costs; questioning overtime; com- position of the Non-Departmental Budget; reduction in overtime in the Police Department was questioned; fees for rental of City buildings; conference expenses; Vice Mayor Drago's request for a reorga- 7/1/87 Page 9 A G E N D A A C T I O N T A K E N OOID~-~TL Operating Budget - Continued. ADJOURNMENT: RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, ~taya, ~ City of South San Francisco nization; that the City Manager was sup- posed to come forward with suggestions for reorganization; concern by Vice Mayor Drago that the 1.3 million dollars in Non-Departmental Budget was enough to cover salary increases in MOUs; that each department had been increased by a percen- tage to provide for anticipated MOUs, because the actual figures would not be known until after the middle of August; Vice Mayor Drago felt that there was not enough money in the individual depart- ments, and as a result all would over spend; that the only way to increase individual budgets would be to reduce services - which was not going to be done; discussion to be continued to the 7/22/87 meeting, in that Councilwoman Teglia would be on vacation and unable to attend the 7/8/87 meeting. M/S Teglia/Drago - To adjourn the meeting. Carried by unanimous voice vote. Time of adjournment 1:28 p.m. APPROVED. ddtego, Mayor City of South San Franci~sco The entries of this Council meeting show the action taken by the City Council to dispose of an item. Oral communications, arguments, and comments are recorded on tape. The tape and documents related to the items are on file in the Office of the City Clerk and are available for inspection, review and copying. 7/1/87 Page 10