HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 2011-10-18 � S MINUTES
SPECIAL MEETING
CITY COUNCIL
4 A
9LIFOR� OF THE
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, California 94083
CITY HALL CONFERENCE ROOM
400 GRAND AVENUE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 18, 2011
1. Call to Order. 6:33 p.m.
2. Roll Call. Present: Councilmembers Addiego,
Gonzalez, and Matsumoto, Vice Mayor
Garbarino and Mayor Mullin.
Absent: None.
3. Agenda Review.
No changes.
4. Public Comments — comments were limited to items on the Special Meeting
Agenda.
None.
5. Review of Alternative Sewer Rate Fee Structures for Residential Sewer
Customers.
Public Works Director Terry White noted this structure change was completely focused on
residential and not the commercial /industrial side. In 2009, the course was set following prop
218 regulations. Concerns over multi - family units had arisen and become more of an issue.
Staff has collected data over several years. Regarding the business data, there was a loss of
income rather than an increase. Director White provided a PowerPoint presentation explaining
the alternative potential fee structures for residential sewer customers, which included the Flat
Rate, Flow- based, and Hybrid Systems and an across the board adjustment.
Presently, customers pay a flat fee of $532 /year, determined by totaling the costs of sewage
treatment divided by the number of residential units in the City. Residential fees were not being
revisited for financial reasons, but for concerns voiced by residents over a perceived inequity.
Based on 2010 data, Multi- family Units ( "MFU ") use approximately 40% less than Single - family
Units ( "SFU ") and receive no price break for that lower usage.
FLAT RATE - represents no change in the current system. Advantages are that it provides
reliable revenue, eliminating the need for projections and works out to only about $45.00 /month.
The disadvantages are that there is no incentive for reducing water consumption and that those
who do practice reduced usage still bear the burden for heavy users in a system that treats all
users equal, regardless of use.
FLOW BASED — would be based only on consumption and works out to be $8 /HCF (1 HCF =
748 gallons). Advantages are that it is the most equitable, promotes water consumption by
rewarding the lighter user with lower bills while increasing the bill for higher usage.
Disadvantages would be: the fluctuating revenues from year -to -year; difficulty gauging water
prices; creation of a consumption catch -22 when as when usage goes down, price goes up; the
public outreach effort would have to be huge in order to explain how billing works; and using
last years usage as the basis for current charges. Also, if any adjustments were made, Prop 218
noticing would be required all over again.
Councilman Addiego sought to clarify the need for a 2 year lead in; 1 year to communicate with
the consumer so they could adjust, and the utilization of numbers to develop a rate plan.
Director White responded the year would be needed to meet Prop 218 requirements. He
continued that a target number for residential collections would be set and adjusted accordingly.
If the City went to a flow based system, it would be at the mercy of whatever the lack of
consumption was.
He continued to explain the additional options:
HYBRID SYSTEM — charges a base fee of $275 with an additional prorated amount of
$3.85 /HCF. Advantages were that it provides incentive for reduced consumption and provides a
moderately predictable revenue stream, as it would be partially mitigated with the base fee
assessed to all residents. The disadvantages were that it was still not as fair as could be, with not
as much emphasis placed on reduction and still some uncertainty regarding revenues.
ACROSS THE BOARD - Keep a flat rate with adjustments, but decrease MFU by 10% going
from $532 to $477. Advantages were that: the option addresses the equity concerns from MFU
residents, revenue streams are predictable, and the system's health is not endangered by year -to-
year volatility. Disadvantages would be: an increase of 4% to $554 for SFU's, individual use is
not addressed, the plan cannot guarantee property owners would pass on savings to tenants, and
the Prop 218 process would need to be implemented before the 2013 -2014 budget.
Vice Mayor Garbarino asked if every unit in an MFU had a separate meter or shared one.
Director White felt it was safe to say the majority of MFU's have several units connected to one
meter, though there could be some different scenarios. The Vice Mayor felt the property owner
should think about installing separate meters for each unit.
Local multi -unit building owner, Teresa De Laurentis stated that would be very costly. Director
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 18, 2011
MINUTES 2
White added it would be difficult at best.
Ms. De Laurentis continued that in her building, each unit uses close to, or half of what her single
family home uses. She didn't experience problems with tenants wasting water and did not have
landscaping to deal with. She felt her bill kept going up because she was not meeting the usage
needed to meet Cal Waters mandated level of profit.
Councilman Addiego expressed his greatest interest was in the hybrid system and recognized
how it insulated against revenue swings.
Councilwoman Matsumoto noted that as time passes, more and more dwellings will be MFUs.
Vice Mayor Garbarino also felt the hybrid version was most desirable.
Director White stated a certain level of flow would still need to be maintained to avoid things
like corrosiveness. MFUs tend to be elevated and get a little bit more push into the system.
Some of the lines are very flat which is problematic when the flow is slow.
Councilwoman Matsumoto asked if rates were related to NPDS or totally independent. Director
White responded they were independent.
Councilman Gonzalez requested more explanation for options 2 and 4. He liked the idea of
incentives for conservation and felt system #4 had none.
Mayor Mullin questioned the impact on the WQCP.
Director White stated a theoretical advantage would be if consumption was cut down by a
million gallons a day, there would be additional capacity allowing for additional businesses
and /or connections without incurring additional capital costs, roughly a $5 million savings.
Mayor Mullin understood capacity would always be an issue with a growing population and
encouraging conservation was necessary. He felt the flow based system too radical. He
appreciated the element of some predictability in the hybrid system, and felt certain staff could
implement something to educate the consumer. Living in a townhome, he didn't see that much
differential. He felt the hybrid system was a move towards a more equitable direction. If there
was a minimum built in, and conservation is occurring and considering all the improvements to
be done at the WQCP, at least there would be an amount to work with if adjustments were
needed.
Ms. De Laurentis queried what would happen if everyone started to conserve and sewer rates
went down.
Director White stated if the City lost $2 million in revenue, the sewer fund balance would take
the hit. Mandates require there be so much of a balance in the bank to insure payment can be
made.
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 18, 2011
MINUTES 3
Ms. De Laurentis felt a flat rate would guarantee the required amount.
Director White agreed. Director White continued to discuss alternatives noting that if the flat
rate system was abandoned, the current method of billing via property taxes would no longer be
available for use and the City would have to come up with a billing system.
Councilman Addiego thought it important to determine the cost of operating such a billing
system.
Director White noted the additional need for billing collection and lien services. He
acknowledged Council's interest in the hybrid system, which could be further refined if that was
the direction given. Exact details and figures could be brought forward at a later date, and plans
on how to educate and collect.
Mayor Mullin questioned when customer would see the impact if the plan were implemented in
the 2013/2014 budget year.
Director White suggested it would take a 2 year period to allow for adjustments before the new
fee structure could be implemented.
Mayor Mullin repeated his favor towards the hybrid system in practical application and
significance to the customer, but noted much more on the cost of the consequent billing services
would need to be understood.
6. Recommendation to Review and Discuss a Draft Sewer Lateral Inspection Ordinance.
Public Works Superintendent Gary Batis stated that currently the City only had guidelines on
where to place responsibility for sewer lateral problems, as the Municipal Code was unclear on
the issue. Pursuant to an agreement reached in a litigation matter, while no action needed to be
taken a plan to address the issue was to be formulated by November 12`
Superintendent Batis continued that functional laterals have many benefits, some of which are:
prevention of infiltration and prevention of exfiltration. A Sewer lateral inspection ordinance
would oblige property owners to do lateral inspections and repairs prior to sale. The ordinance
would clearly designates the City as being responsible for the public sewer main and individual
homeowners responsible for private sewer laterals, strengthen permit requirements, enact
stronger design standards and inspection and testing requirements, and lastly, grant the City the
power to remove faulty laterals and replace them at the owner's expense if the owner refuses or
is incapable of responding to the City's request for replacement.
In the 50's and 60's the majority of sewer laterals were made of Orangeburg pipe, which is
constructed out of heavy stock paper reinforced with tar. These pipes are poor quality
construction, break easily and designed for a life span of under 50 years. 35% of City residents
have these now. 45% of residents do not have city approved clean out and 75% of businesses
and industries do not have a city approved clean out.
The City has restarted a program aimed at aiding property owners with the costs of replacement
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 18, 2011
MINUTES 4
at 50 %, up to $2500.
Council asked which areas have the most people applying and how many have applied within 1
year. Superintendent Batis responded 24, from all over the City.
Councilmembers wondered if the disclosure of Orangeburg pipe could be a deal breaker for
buyers, as they had heard it could be throughout the County.
Resident and Realtor Rick Ochsenhirt stated realtors generally had no problem with this.
Paul Steward of SAMCAR stated any point of sale ordinance that would have ability to hold up
the sale of property is a problem. It could be problematic during the close of sale if the bulk of
properties you deal with are owned by the bank or short sales.
Mayor Mullin understood that San Mateo had an ordinance crafted to meet Baykeepers
requirements, but did not have the point of sale requirement and asked that it be explained.
Mr. Steward's understanding was that San Mateo had a "You have until here and that's it"
ordinance. Meaning, the city needs to repair private sewer laterals and prepare if something goes
wrong. Homeowners have 36 months to have inspections and if all is good they get a certificate
for 15 years. At a date certain, if you don't get it by this date then it becomes mandatory at the
point of sale. In other words, at some point in time it becomes automatic.
Superintendent Batis reviewed the approximated cost to a homeowner: CCTV inspection: $250,
Repair /Replacement: $4,000 to $8,000, and permits: $100 to $500.
Mayor Mullin expressed a concern about such a small number of houses turning over presently
within the City. Council wants to do the right thing for the environment, the bay and our own
systems, but the Mayor was not comfortable with the point of sale trigger and wondered if there
were other policy prescriptions similar to San Mateo's.
Superintendent Batis stated you would have to have a point of entry for the CCTV to televise the
lateral and since a lot of properties don't have a city approved clean out that is not available.
Staff is open to looking at other alternatives like the San Mateo plan.
Councilman Addiego asked why staff couldn't do the inspection versus a private plumber.
Superintendent Batis stated it was based on manpower. It would also involve disturbing the
home, something the City should not be involved in.
Director White stated focus would be on the Orangeburg pipe replacement with better laterals
using ABS plastic. We don't know how many have been replaced over the years and not all are
at that 50 year point. There was a gush of people who participated in the past, now, not so much
Councilwoman Matsumoto suggested that the Ordinance be written to require an inspection
before a point of sale, but that the action taken afterwards was strictly between the seller and the
buyer.
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 18, 2011
MINUTES 5
City Attorney Mattas explained that if an Ordinance was not adopted, ultimately the City would
have to provide something that would have gotten the same success rate as if it had been adopted
in order to satisfy the Baykeeper requirements.
If an equivalency was required for the Baykeepers, Mr. Steward said he would be happy to
provide Council with verified statistics of home sales within the City, which currently stood at a
turnover rate of 2 %.
Mayor Mullin asked whether tonight's discussion met the in terms of Baykeepers.
Attorney Mattas stated that tonight's presentation met the 90 days portion of the ordinance. Once
staff had a recommendation then Council could take additional action.
7. Direction regarding standards for the granting of Emeritus Status and the role of an Emeritus
Board and Commission Member.
City Clerk Martinelli presented the staff report noting the Emeritus Status granted to a
termed out Board Member. At that time, Council had considered several factors in the
decision and requested to consider formalizing the criteria for such instances in the future.
In addition, liaison staff had requested direction from Council as to the role of an
Emeritus Board Member. After direction is provided on these topics, the City Clerk will
draft an Emeritus Section for inclusion in the City Council Handbook for Council's
approval. Clerk Martinelli then reviewed the factors considered when granting Emeritus
Status, noting they were not exclusive, but meant to serve as points for discussion.
The criteria items were: the applicant had over 50 years of uninterrupted service to the
City in various capacities, including but not limited to, as an employee, a volunteer, and a
Commissioner; the applicant was an active participant in the Community; and the
applicant's historical /institutional knowledge contributed to the Agency's discussions.
The following suggestions were made regarding the role of an Emeritus: the Emeritus will
be a recognized Board and Commission Member, appearing on all rosters and being
invited to all Board and Commission events with Emeritus Status noted; the Emeritus will
receive all Commission paraphernalia, including, but not limited to, nametags, meeting
placards, jackets, T- shirts, etc. with Emeritus Status noted; the Emeritus is not subject to
the Board and Commission absence policy; the Emeritus will sit on the dais and
participate in discussion at meetings of the respective Board or Commission; the Emeritus
does not have a voting role on the Commission; the Emeritus is not necessary for a
quorum; the Commission may schedule a meeting event if the Emeritus cannot attend; the
Emeritus will not participate in Closed Sessions of the respective Board or Commission;
in the case of the Personnel Board, the Emeritus cannot participate in a Personnel Board
Disciplinary Hearing, whether held in open or closed session; Due to the non - voting role,
the Emeritus will not receive a stipend for meeting attendance.
Councilman Gonzalez expressed his concern about the permanence of Emeritus Status
otherwise he was fine with the criteria presented by staff.
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 18, 2011
MINUTES 6
Council approved of the criteria set forth by Clerk Martinelli and added the requirement
that there only be one Emeritus seated at any given time per Board or Commission.
8. Direction pertaining to Board and Commission Interview Procedures.
Clerk Martinelli explained that pursuant to the current Board and Commission Interview Process,
all candidates, including incumbents, appear before Council and answer a standard set of
questions provided to Council by the City Clerk in the staff report for the meeting.
At the Board and Commission Special Meeting for interviews and appointments on July 19,
2011, Council made the following observations regarding the current process: (1) The standard
interview questions constrain Council's ability to engage in meaningful dialogue with applicants;
and (2) Interviews for productive and satisfactorily performing incumbents when no challengers
are present might be inefficient.
So that Council might meaningfully address these concerns, Clerk Martinelli requested that
consideration of the Interview Process be agendized this evening so that improvements might be
considered. Upon direction from Council, the City Clerk will draft modified procedures for
inclusion in the Council Handbook to be presented to Council for approval.
Councilwoman Matsumoto asked for clarification regarding the Design Review Board and
Conference Center Authority appointments as set forth in the Handbook. Clerk Martinelli stated
there were things that needed to be updated, which she would match to the various resolutions.
Council reviewed procedures provided by Clerk Martinelli.
Vice Mayor Garbarino liked having the flexibility of diverging from the script for interviews.
Mayor Mullin liked the questions drafted by the Clerk regarding the individual boards but also
wanted to maintain the flexibility described by the Vice Mayor.
Regarding incumbents that aren't challenged, Council wanted to retain the option of questioning
them or just checking in with them to see how they were doing with their position.
9. Adjournment
Being no further business, Mayor Mullin adjourned the meeting at 8:20 pm.
Submitted: App : ved: /
' - #11W641/14-
Krist. • ' inelli, ity 'erk Ric and A. Garba no, Mayor
City of South San Francisco City of South San Francisco
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING OCTOBER 18, 2011
7
MINUTES