Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 1988-02-17 Mayor Jack Drago Council: Mark N. Addiego Richard A. Haffey Gus Nicolopulos ~Roberta Cerri Teglia MINUTES City Council Sewage Treatment Plant 195 Belle Air Road February 17, 1988 0057 AGENDA ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING CALL TO ORDER: (Cassette No. i Side A) ROLL CALL: AGENDA REVIEW Vice Mayor Teglia arrived: Motion to waive further reading of the Ordinance; motion to intro- duce the Ordinance; adoption of a Resolution cancelling the 4/12/88 Special Municipal Election for the Orange Park Expansion; adoption of a Resolution. 1st Reading/Introduction AN ORDINANCE REPEALING ORDINANCE NO. 1027-88 AND CANCELLING THE SUBMISSION OF A PROPOSITION OF INCURRING BONDED DEBT FOR THE PURPOSE OF THE ACQUISITION, CONSTRUCTION AND COMPLETION OF ORANGE MEMORIAL PARK IMPROVEMENTS TO THE QUALIFIED VOTERS OF THE CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO A RESOLUTION RESCINDING PREVIOUSLY ADOPTED RESOLUTIONS CONCERNING A SPECIAL MUNICIPAL ELECTION FOR THE PURPOSE OF SUBMITTING TO THE VOTERS A PROPOSITION CONCERNING ISSUING GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS FOR ORANGE MEMORIAL PARK ® Discussion of the Park Maintenance District Funds. (Cassette I Side B) ACTION TAKEN ADJOURNED REGULAR MEETING 7:09 p.m. Mayor Drago presiding. Council present: Council absent: Addiego, Halley, Nicolopulos, and Drago. Tegl i a. AGENDA REVIEW City Manager Lewis stated that he had nothing to add or delete from the agenda. Vice Mayor Teglia arrived at 7:11 p.m. City Clerk Battaya read the title of the Ordinance in its entirety. M/S Haffey/Addiego - To waive further reading of the Ordinance. Carried by unanimous voice vote. M/S Teglia/Haffey - To introduce the Ordinance. Carried by majority voice vote, Haffey voted no. M/S Addiego/Nicolopulos - to adopt the Resolution. RESOLUTION NO. 22-88 Carried by majority voice, Halley voted no, Deputy City Manager/City Engineer Yee stated that there were four Common Greens Districts: West Park i & 2 (10.7 acres), West Park 3 (28 acres), Stonegate Ridge 2/17/88 Page i 2. Discussion - Continued. (3 acres), and Willow Gardens (2.4 acres). He stated that the maintenance of the four districts was $442,000 with a total revenue of $54,000 from the Augmentation Fund. He spoke of a meeting he and the City Attorney had attended with the County Assessor to determine the augmentation formula and City options. He explained the various problems after Proposition 13 had been enacted: that it stopped indi- vidual district funding, and put all of the money into a County Fund; that it established the augmentation fund; that the Council had to hold a public hearing to distribute the augmentation funds to the districts that needed the money, etc. He stated that the City did not have a lot of reserves to balance the expenditures and only had enough to deal with the yearly expenditures. He spoke of repair problems within the common greens, such as irrigation, lighting, concrete paths, structures, and the replacement of trees that could amount to $1,000,000 or more. Councilman Nicolopulos stated that each homeowner in a district had been assessed to maintain the common greens, and questioned if that was still true. Deputy City Manager/City Engineer Yee stated that since Proposition 13 the City was prevented from further assessing the homeowners. City Attorney Armento stated that pre- viously the Council had set a rate each year based on the property evaluation, 5~ per thousand or whatever, and that after Proposition 13 came in and talked about ad valorem taxes, the County revamped the system based on their understanding of the ad valorem taxes. She stated that since that time there had been additional laws and case laws that said, when you have special districts you can still impose taxes on the special district, but it must be done based on the estimated benefit to the parcel as opposed to ad 2/17/88 Page 2 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN Discussion - Continued. valorem. She proceeded to cite methods to impose a tax equally on all parcels that are a benefit to the entire district, rather than to the City. Discussion followed: how the deter- mination of an assessment would be made and by whom; that staff would give input on the needed improvements to Council, who in turn would make the determination - if the improvement would uniformly effect everyone; improvements to stair- ways, pathways and green areas that may not be of benefit to the entire district; that staff wanted Council direction on this item to solicit bids, because the contractor was on a month to month basis without a contract; that staff was suggesting that the special district augmentation funds be distri- buted, as well as making many recommen- dations, i.e., 1) continue with the present landscape contractor month to month; 2) call for bids for a new contract for all the common greens; 3) call for separate bids for each of the common greens or for two or more together; 4) consolidate the districts into one district. Further discussion followed: the augmen- tation formula used by the County; that in reality there were five special districts in the City - not four; that the Parking District would also qualify under the guidelines mentioned; compli- ments to the City Attorney on finding ways to increase revenue; types of assessment formulas used in the four districts; set levels of service in each district according to what the property owners needed before setting tax rates; having Willow Gardens revert to the pro- perty owners; changing the boundaries of a district; that the maintenance districts fund balance was $6,000 short and needed augmentation funds; that $1,000,000 was needed to update all of the districts for sidewalks, irrigation, play equipment; that staff must identify the needs in service levels in each of the districts, and the sources to 2/17/88 Page 3 Discussion - Continued. increase revenues; the type of additional tax needed to raise the service levels in the districts; that the common greens had deteriorated, etc. Mr. Barnes, Cagwin & Dorward, spoke of the work being done by his company on the common greens; keeping the laws green and mowed, pruning on a routine basis, and making improvements to the various plant material within the confines of the budget. Superintendent of Facility Maintenance Bordi spoke of the common greens being easier to maintain when the area was new and the standards were high. He stated that after Proposition 13 the staff had been cut, and that over the years things had gotten out of hand. He stated that this was when Cagwin & Dorward had taken over the contract, and had five men to handle 42 acres. Deputy City Manager/City Engineer Yee stated that the Council needed to give direction on the augmentation fund in order to close out this fiscal year. Councilman Haffey stated that he could not go along with that without infor- mation from staff on the levels of ser- vice, as well as, what tax rate should be set for the districts to establish reser- ves for maintenance service. Discussion followed: that if there was input from the homeowners on the service levels, there could be an endorsement of a tax being set; that the County notified the City in September as to what the augmentation funds were, and the Council could have taken action in November - and the City Attorney encouraged Council to take action on the funds before the end of the fiscal year; that a public hearing had to be called, wherein Council must decide on the distribution of the funds to the four districts; that staff should provide information to Council before the public hearing was held. 2/17/88 Page 4 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN 0 O ,'? Discussion of needed improvements to the Sewage Treatment Plant. (Cassette 2 Side A) Deputy City Manager/City Engineer Yee described in detail several major pro- jects being considered for the near future: Shaw Road Pump Station Diversion; Co-Generation (Gas Utilization); Sludge Thickener; Dechlorination Conversion; Titlo (Sludge Disposal); that the funding for improve- ments could come from the sewer fund or from bond obligations (the documentation of the proposed expenditures, and sewer fund balance projects are a permanent file in the City Clerk's Office for public inspection). He spoke of the age of various equipment to be replaced in different phases which in total would cost $5,000,000 over a five year period. He stated that because money was a problem for the improvements, the two alternatives for funding had been presented. Discussion followed: that the needed improvements could encompass $7,000,000; that the downtown parking would also be an expenditure issue in the future; that the sewer fund was an enterprise fund; that the sewer expenditures were a necessity; that toxicity at the plant was an important issue, as well as, the sewage discharge being safe environmen- tally;.that the Merck Co. had changed their chemical composition; that the Tillo process had been patented, and the patent had expired; that Tillo took care of all of the sludge, and as a result the City did not have to use the centrifuge; that the Tillo contract had expired 12/31/86; that there was a proposal for a new five year contract with Tillo for the removal of sludge from the Plant -- that Tillo would be responsible for all operating costs incurred including purchase of rice hulls, and the City would pay Tillo $220,000 with an increase of 3% per year, etc. Discussion followed: a breakdown between residential and commercial sewer revenue sources; the Capital Improvement Budget in relation to small sewer plant improve- 2/17/88 Page 5 AGENDA ACTION TAKEN Discussion - Continued. GOOD AND WELFARE CLOSED SESSION Closed Session for the purpose of the discussion of personnel matters, labor relations, property negotiations and litigation. RECALL TO ORDER: ADJOURNMENT: ments; raising sewer rates 14.5% for each of the projected five years; that the sewer fund reserves were $2,000,000 for 1986-87, and $1,001,000 for 1987-88 fiscal years; borrowing $5,000,000 through a twenty year revenue bond issue which would amount to a 62% increase for sewer rates; raising sewer connection fees; the reserve capacity of the system; concern over sewer funds being diverted to M.O.U.s. GOOD AND WELFARE No one chose to speak. CLOSED SESSION Council adjourned to a Closed Session at 9:30 p.m. to discuss the items noticed. Mayor Drago recalled the meeting to order at 10:10 p.m., all Council present, no action taken. M/S Addiego/Haffey - To adjourn the meeting. Carried by unanimous voice vote. Time of adjournment was 10:11 p.m. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED , Barbara A. Batt~erk City of South San Francisco APPROVED. //~ity of South San Francisco 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. 2/17/88 Page 6