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