HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-12-09 e-packet@7:01Wednesday, December 9, 2020
8:30 PM
City of South San Francisco
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
TELECONFERENCE MEETING
Special Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency
Special Meeting Agenda
Or immediately following the City Council Meeting
December 9, 2020Special Successor Agency to the
Redevelopment Agency
Special Meeting Agenda
TELECONFERENCE MEETING NOTICE
THIS MEETING WILL BE CONDUCTED PURSUANT TO THE PROVISIONS OF THE
GOVERNOR’S EXECUTIVE ORDERS N-29-20 AND N-63-20 ALLOWING FOR DEVIATION
OF TELECONFERENCE RULES REQUIRED BY THE BROWN ACT & PURSUANT TO THE
ORDER OF THE HEALTH OFFICER OF SAN MATEO COUNTY DATED MARCH 31, 2020 AS
THIS MEETING IS NECESSARY SO THAT THE CITY CAN CONDUCT NECESSARY
BUSINESS AND IS PERMITTED UNDER THE ORDER AS AN ESSENTIAL
GOVERNMENTAL FUNCTION.
The purpose of conducting the meeting as described in this notice is to provide the safest environment for staff
and the public while allowing for public participation.
Boardmembers Coleman and Nicolas, Vice Mayor Nagales and Mayor Addiego and essential City staff will
participate via Teleconference.
PURSUANT TO RALPH M. BROWN ACT, GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 54953, ALL VOTES
SHALL BE BY ROLL CALL DUE TO BOARD MEMBERS PARTICIPATING BY
TELECONFERENCE.
MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC MAY VIEW A VIDEO BROADCAST OF THE MEETING BY:
Internet: https://www.ssf.net/government/city-council/video-streaming-city-and-council-meetings/city-council
Local cable channel: Astound, Channel 26 or Comcast, Channel 27
Or via Zoom:
Please click on the link below to register for the session:
https://ssf-net.zoom.us/webinar/register/WN_El6p4a8TQkiBzMOqQqbj7Q
After registering, you will receive a confirmation email containing information about joining the meeting.
Please note that dialing in will only allow you to listen in on the meeting. To make a public comment during the
Zoom meeting follow the instructions listed under Remote Public Comments.
Page 2 City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/12/2021
December 9, 2020Special Successor Agency to the
Redevelopment Agency
Special Meeting Agenda
Call To Order.
Roll Call.
Agenda Review.
Remote Public Comments - comments are limited to items on the Special Meeting Agenda.
Speakers are allowed to speak on items on the agenda for up to three minutes. If there appears to be a large
number of speakers, speaking time may be reduced subject to the Chair's discretion to limit the total amount of
time for public comments (Gov. Code sec. 54954.3.(b)(1).). Comments that are not in compliance with the
City Council's rules of decorum may be summarized for the record if they are in writing or muted if they are
made live.
Members of the public wishing to participate are encouraged to submit public comments in writing in advance of
the meeting to e-mail: [email protected] by 5:30 p.m. on the meeting date. Emails received by the deadline will be
forwarded to the Board Members and read into the record by the City Clerk. Emails received after 5:30 p.m.
will not be read during the meeting but will be entered into the record for the meeting. Approximately 300
words total can be read in three minutes.
Oral Comments: Speakers are asked to register in advance by 5:30 p.m. on the meeting date via the Zoom
platform, meeting information listed on the agenda. You will be asked to enter a name, an email address, and
the Agenda item about which you wish to speak. Your email address will not be disclosed to the public. After
registering, you will receive an email with instructions on how to connect to the meeting. When the City Clerk
announces the item on which you wish to speak, your name will be called and you will be unmuted.
No more than three minutes will be allocated to read each email comment, and oral comments will also be
limited to no more than three minutes.
State law prevents Council from taking action on any matter not on the agenda; your comments may be referred
to staff for follow up.
ADMINISTRATIVE BUSINESS
Report regarding a resolution of the Successor Agency to the Former Redevelopment
Agency of the City of South San Francisco, reviewing and approving a Recognized
Obligation Payment Schedule and Administrative Budget for Fiscal Year 2021-22.
(Janet Salisbury, Director of Finance)
1.
Resolution of the Successor Agency to the Former Redevelopment Agency of the City
of South San Francisco reviewing and approving the Recognized Obligation Payment
Schedule and Administrative Budget for the period July 1, 2021 through June 30,
2022, pursuant to the Health and Safety Code Sections 34177(j) and 34177(l).
1a.
Page 3 City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/12/2021
December 9, 2020Special Successor Agency to the
Redevelopment Agency
Special Meeting Agenda
Adjournment.
Page 4 City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/12/2021
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:20-967 Agenda Date:12/9/2020
Version:1 Item #:1.
Report regarding a resolution of the Successor Agency to the Former Redevelopment Agency of the City of
South San Francisco,reviewing and approving a Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule and Administrative
Budget for Fiscal Year 2021-22.(Janet Salisbury, Director of Finance)
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the Successor Agency to the Former Redevelopment Agency of the City of South
San Francisco (“Successor Agency”)adopt a resolution approving the Recognized Obligation Payment
Schedule 21-22 and Administrative Budget for Fiscal Year 2021-22 as required by State law.
BACKGROUND
All California redevelopment agencies were dissolved in 2012 by Assembly Bill x1 26.The Successor Agency
is responsible for winding down the affairs of the Former Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San
Francisco (“RDA”).This includes paying debt obligations and completing projects that were under contract
with the RDA prior to dissolution.
State law requires successor agencies to request funding for enforceable obligations on an annual basis.The
Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule 21-22 (“ROPS 21-22”)requests funding for Fiscal Year (“FY”)2021
-22.The Successor Agency must also adopt an Administrative Budget for the same time period
(“Administrative Budget”).ROPS obligations are funded by property tax revenues from former redevelopment
project areas and other sources,such as repayments of loans issued by the RDA.Funds that are not committed
to ROPS obligations are distributed to affected taxing agencies such as the City,County,schools,and special
districts.
The ROPS must also be approved by the San Mateo Countywide Oversight Board (“Oversight Board”)and
California Department of Finance (“DOF”).The Oversight Board will consider the ROPS 21-22 at its meeting
on January 11,2021.An Oversight Board-approved ROPS must be submitted to DOF by February 1,2021,
who will make a determination by April 15,2021.If the ROPS is not submitted to DOF on time,the City and
Successor Agency could be subject to a civil penalty of $10,000 per day.
DISCUSSION
The ROPS 21-22 requests total of $7.6 million to fund ROPS 21-22 obligations,of which $7.4 million is
requested to fund the former RDA’s share of Oyster Point development costs and $200,895 is requested for the
Administrative Budget.
·Items 12,13,and 14 -Oyster Point Project DDA -The Successor Agency administers a Disposition and
Development Agreement (“DDA”)dated March 23,2011 between the RDA,City,and Oyster Point
Ventures,LLC,which was ultimately assigned and assumed by the current developer KR Oyster Point /
KR-TRS (“Kilroy”).The RDA negotiated the DDA to redevelop a former landfill into a life science
workplace known as Oyster Point.The Successor Agency is responsible for certain costs related to
environmental remediation and construction.The Successor Agency’s investment will result in a
significant increase in annual property tax revenues,from $840,000 in 2011 to approximately $24
City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/12/2021Page 1 of 5
powered by Legistar™
File #:20-967 Agenda Date:12/9/2020
Version:1 Item #:1.
significant increase in annual property tax revenues,from $840,000 in 2011 to approximately $24
million in 2024. This is driven by adding over $2 billion in estimated new development value.
ROPS Item 12 requests $7,073,582 for Oyster Point project costs.Of this amount,$3,161,108 is
requested from Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Funds (“RPTTF”)and $3,912,474 is requested from
Other Funds.Other Funds consists of cash available in the Successor Agency account from non-RPTTF
sources such as loan repayments and interest.
The $7,073,582 requested is primarily related to cost escalations caused by a 20-month construction
delay imposed by third parties as summarized below:
(1)PG&E Power Pole Relocation Delays /Added Generator Costs:PG&E Engineering failed to
approve relocation of power poles in 2018 to supply power to existing Harbor District tenants,
WETA,Yacht Club,and harbor operations.This delayed demolition of existing improvements
and set back the project by five months.It also required utilization of temporary power
generators while new utility lines were installed as part of new roads.
(2)CalWater Special Conditions and Negotiations:CalWater,the project’s water supplier,needed
approval by the California Department of Drinking Water (“DDW”)for a new replacement
domestic water system at the project site.The existing network of water distribution was no
longer in compliance with state regulations and had to be replaced with a new system in the
realigned roadway.The new system needed to comply with current regulatory standards.No
industry standard design details were established for this special condition and DDW would not
provide nor specify acceptable details for material specifications and construction methods.An
Alternate Construction Method approach was negotiated and approved for Phase IC,which
required modifications to final construction plans.While the initial CalWater application to
DDW was ready in June 2019,a final permit was not issued until June 2020 resulting in a 12-
month delay to project.
(3)PG&E Joint Trench Design Review Delays:PG&E Engineering’s protracted approval of
replacement joint trench design in realigned Oyster Point Blvd and Marina Blvd resulted in a six
-month delay.AT&T Engineering was also involved.However,PG&E,as the lead utility in joint
trench design,controlled the process.PG&E Gas introduced new gas main details that were not
previously documented in the PG&E Green Book and therefore required modifications to the
final design plans.
The above third-party delays led to a 20-month longer construction period than anticipated,causing cost
escalations in:
(4)General Contractor GMP Contract -Increased market price for materials and higher labor costs
due to the delay.
(5)General Contractor -Increased General Requirements and General Conditions costs due to the
City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/12/2021Page 2 of 5
powered by Legistar™
File #:20-967 Agenda Date:12/9/2020
Version:1 Item #:1.
longer construction period.
(6)Stormwater Pollution Prevention Program -Revised project schedule requires another winter
season to implement dewatering and collection of rainwater runoff at the Phase IC site.
(7)Project Management,Environmental,and Civil Engineer Construction Administration -
Additional materials testing and inspection services are required due to the longer construction
period.
(8)Restrooms -Two public restrooms (marina replacement)were bid higher than budgeted due to
delayed construction. Design now includes methane monitoring systems.
Table 1 summarizes the additional costs stemming from construction delays as eligible under the DDA.
Attachment 1 to this staff report provides a more detailed cost breakdown and illustrates how the 20-month
construction delay escalated costs since the ROPS 20-21 was approved.
Table 1: ROPS 21-22 Item 12 Cost Breakdown
City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/12/2021Page 3 of 5
powered by Legistar™
File #:20-967 Agenda Date:12/9/2020
Version:1 Item #:1.
PS Item 13 requests $84,604 to pay for the Successor Agency’s 50%share of a ten-year pollution
liability policy.The Successor Agency has an indemnification obligation under Section 5.2 of the DDA
due to potential exposure arising from former solid waste landfill.
ROPS Item 14 requests $206,000 for estimated project-related staff,consultant,and legal costs to
implement these items.This includes reimbursing the City for time the Public Works Director,City
Manager,and Director of Economic &Community Development spend administering the project as
detailed in Attachment 2 to this report. The costs are estimated based on average hours per month.
·Item 48 -Administrative Cost Allowance -The Successor Agency is requesting $200,895 for Fiscal
Year 2021-22 administrative expenses,which is the maximum permitted by law.More details are
provided below.
·Other Enforceable Obligations -Other potential enforceable obligations listed on the ROPS include
development agreements and pension/retiree obligations.There are no anticipated Successor Agency
City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/12/2021Page 4 of 5
powered by Legistar™
File #:20-967 Agenda Date:12/9/2020
Version:1 Item #:1.
development agreements and pension/retiree obligations.There are no anticipated Successor Agency
costs for these items in Fiscal Year 2021-22.These obligations remain listed on the ROPS in case there
are eligible costs in the future.
ADMINISTRATIVE BUDGET
Health and Safety Code Section 34177(j)requires the Successor Agency to prepare an administrative budget
and submit it to the Oversight Board for approval.An Administrative Budget for Fiscal Year 2021-22 is
attached as Attachment 3 to this report for the Successor Agency’s consideration.It will also be submitted to the
Oversight Board for approval.
Staff has prepared an administrative budget of $215,000 for Fiscal Year 2021-22 to cover professional services
(including preparation of the ROPS and auditor fees)and staff costs and overhead required to administer
obligations and prepare legally mandated reports.The ROPS 21-22 requests an administrative cost allowance
of $200,895,which is lower than budgeted but the maximum permitted by law (50%of $401,789 in non-admin
RPTTF distributed in Fiscal Year 2020-21).Any administrative costs incurred in excess of the $200,895
maximum will need to be funded by the City and not the Successor Agency.
CONCLUSION
Adoption of the proposed ROPS 21-22 and Administrative Budget is necessary to obtain funding for Fiscal
Year 2021-22 obligations and are required by State law.
Attachments:
1.ROPS 21-22 Item 12 Oyster Point Detailed Project Cost Breakdown
2.ROPS 21-22 Item 14 Oyster Point Soft Cost Estimate
3.Administrative Budget for FY 21-22
4.Presentation to Successor Agency
City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/12/2021Page 5 of 5
powered by Legistar™
Current ROPS 20-21ROPS 21-22 RequestWork RequiredDDA Section and foot notes Proposed Revised BudgetAgency ObligationDeveloper Obligation TotalAgency ObligationDeveloper ObligationAgency ObligationDeveloper Obligation TotalDDA Exhibit Description3.2.1A Streets and Utilities at Hub 4,059,685$ 16,238,739$ 20,298,424$ 1,382,520$ 6,409,475$ Relocation of PGE electricity and ATT telecommunications (generators); installation of permanent joint trench utilities; Water system installation due to new regulations; PGE and ATT fees; Stormwater Control; Project Management oversight; PGE and ATT fees; increased general requirements, general conditions, escalation of material and labor; 3.2.1(i)(1) [1] [2] 5,442,205$ 22,648,214$ 28,090,419$ 3.2.1BStreets and Utilities at Point 11,030,136$ -$ 11,030,136$ 3,756,298$ -$ Relocation of PGE electricity and ATT telecommunications (generators); installation of permanent joint trench utilities; Water system installation due to new regulations; PGE and ATT fees; Stormwater Control; Project Management oversight; PGE and ATT fees; increased general requirements, general conditions, escalation of material and labor; 3.2.1(i)(2)[2] [3] 14,786,434$ -$ 14,786,434$ 3.2.1CClay Cap Repair at City Parcels - Ph IC 612,900$ -$ 612,900$ 43,792$ -$ Work delayed due to utility underground design, permit, and regulatory approval; increased general requirements, general conditions, project management oversight, escalation of material and labor; 3.2.1(ii)[2] [3] 656,692$ -$ 656,692$ 3.2.1DReconfiguration Parking Lot at Marina & Open Space Landscape8,238,145$ -$ 8,238,145$ 588,620$ -$ Work delayed due to utility underground design, permit, and regulatory approval; increased general requirements, general conditions, project management oversight, escalation of material and labor; 3.2.1(iii)[2] [3] 8,826,765$ -$ 8,826,765$ 3.2.1E Recreation Fields2,723,232$ -$ 2,723,232$ 194,576$ -$ Work delayed due to utility underground design, permit, and regulatory approval; increased general requirements, general conditions, project management oversight, escalation of material and labor; 3.2.1(iv)[2] [3] 2,917,809$ -$ 2,917,809$ 3.2.1F Future Hotel Site1,219,574$ -$ 1,219,574$ 87,139$ -$ Work delayed due to utility underground design, permit, and regulatory approval; increased general requirements, general conditions, project management oversight, escalation of material and labor; 3.2.1(v)[2] [3] 1,306,713$ -$ 1,306,713$ 3.2.1GLandscaping at Beach / Park4,837,618$ -$ 4,837,618$ 345,650$ -$ Work delayed due to utility underground design, permit, and regulatory approval; increased general requirements, general conditions, project management oversight, escalation of material and labor; 3.2.1(vi)[2] [3] 5,183,268$ -$ 5,183,268$ 3.2.1HLandscaping at BCDC Area in City Parcels and Palm Promenade3,658,435$ 9,533,859$ 13,192,294$ 674,986$ 558,367$ Restroom at Marina bids higher than budget; Work delayed due to utility underground design, permit, and regulatory approval; increased general requirements, general conditions, project management oversight, escalation of material and labor; 3.2.1(vii) [2] [4]3.4.1 Exhibit 4,333,421$ 10,092,226$ 14,425,647$ TOTAL 36,379,725$ 25,772,598$ 62,152,324$ 7,073,582$ 6,967,842$ 43,453,307$ 32,740,440$ 76,193,748$ [1] Street and Utilities to the Hub; Successor Agency allocation 20% of the costs.[2] Exhibit 3.2.1 page 28 of 30 note: "A depiction of these improvements as well as quantities and cost estimates are included in the following pages.These quantities, scope of work, and cost estimates were prepared on conceptual plans and will be modified when constrution drawings are prepare." [3] Street and Utilities at Point, Marina Parking Lot, Recreation Fields, Hotel Site, Beach Landscape; Successor Agency allocation 100% of the costs.[4] Landscaping, Restrooms, and Palm Promenade; Developer contribution is $9,533,859 fixed and Successor Agency obligated for overrun.PHASE IC BUDGETAttachment 1 - ROPS 21-22 Item 12 Oyster Point Detailed Project Cost Breakdown
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO ROPS 21-22 ITEM 14
OYSTER POINT DDA SOFT PROJECT MANAGEMENT COSTS
Item Staff Tasks Average
hours per
month
Hourly
Rate
Total
Annual
Costs
Successor
Agency
Engineering
Management
Staffing Costs
Eunejune
Kim, Public
Works
Director
Project and contract
management
specific to Oyster
Point DDA project
10 $187.71 $22,525
West Coast
Code
Consultants
Inc. (WC-3)
Daily project
management; cost
management;
coordination with
contractor,
developer and other
regulatory agencies
25 $170.00 $51,000
Successor
Agency Project
Management
Staffing Costs
Mike Futrell,
Successor
Agency
Executive
Director
Overall project
management,
coordination with
developer, staff and
legal counsel
20 $220.58 $52,939
Alex
Greenwood,
Director of
Economic &
Community
Development
Overall project
management,
coordination with
developer, staff and
legal counsel
4 $187.71 $9,010
Legal
Expenses
Meyers Nave Contract
interpretation,
implementation and
dispute resolution
for all contracts
related to the
enforceable
obligations
included in the
DDA
15 $392.00 $70,560
TOTAL $206,034
3634189.1
Attachment 2 - ROPS 21-22 Item 14 Oyster Point Soft Cost Estimate
Successor Agency to the Former South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency
ROPS 21‐22 Administrative Cost Allowance Budget
Period: 7/1/21 to 6/30/22
Description of Cost/Expense Amount Documentation
Staff salaries, benefits, and payroll taxes 135,000$
Overhead costs and supplies 1,000$
Professional Services ‐ SA Consulting, RSG, Inc. (prepare ROPS,
PPA, cash flow/budgeting, DOF and County Coordination)25,000$
RSG Contract
pending
Professional services ‐ Auditors 4,000$
Maze & Associates
Contract
Professional Services ‐ Legal, Meyers Nave 50,000$
Meyers Nave
Contract
Total 215,000$
Attachment 3 - Administrative Budget for FY 21-22
Attachment 4 - Presentation to Successor Agency
" # ! "! % # " " % ! $# #
" $ % !
"! ! !$ $ % " ! $! $ ! $# "
! * ##%+$*4'.
934'2 0+/4 20,'%40343
4'. 934'2 0+/4/6+20/352#/%' 4'. 934'2 0+/4 20,'%4 #/#)'.'/4
4'. &.+/+342#4+6'034--07#/%'
%*" '+ )*
$"% #
65
PHASE ID PHASE IID PHASE IIID PHASE IVD STREETS & UTILITIES AT HUB STREETS & UTILITIES TO POINT CLAY CAP REPAIR AT PHASE IC RECONFIGURED PARKING AT MARINA RECREATION AREA FUTURE HOTEL SITE BEACH/PARK BAY TRAIL & PALM PROMENDADE B C D E F G F E D H H G B A PHASE IC H C H D D PHASE IIC H PHASE IC UP TO 1,746,230 GSF OF OFFICE/R&D SPACE STREETS & UTILITIES IN BUSINESS PARK RELOCATION OF SEWER PUMP STATION LANDSCAPING AT BCDC PHASES IID-IVD PHASES IID-IVD A P J I PHASES ID UP TO 508,000 GSF OF OFFICE/R&D SPACE CLAY CAP REPAIR AT PHASE ID CLEANUP OF SUMP 1 METHANE MITIGATION SYSTEMS RELOCATION OF REFUSE PHASE IIC REPAVING OF PARKING PHASE IIC LANDSCAPING AT PARKING PHASE IIC LANDSCAPING AT BCDC PHASES IIC SE II J K L L N N N O N O S R R S T T K M EXHIBIT 3.2A Q Q P M 401)/ .+-1 +1) ,&-
401)/ .+-1.-01/2'1+.-"-()/3&4
#+0+.-*./ 401)/ .+-1+,/.4 )&,14
% ! ! !%!$ !(%& (*.-)*!#* )$$+"
+#+"*!,
#!""!%$ #!""!%$
#!""!%$
% ! !! ! ! % % $ #" !$ %()%#&' (%$ $, ' " " &##"-"* " /-""/. *! /&(&/&". /0
/-""/. *! /&(&/&". /+&*/
( 1 ,", &- /&/1 - "(.2% ."
" +*#&$0- /&+*+# -'&*$+/ / -&* ,"* , " *!. ,"
" -" /&+*&"(!.
0/0-"+/"( &/"
*!. ,&*$ /" % -'
*!. ,&*$ /-" &*&/1 - "(. *! ()-+)"* !"
% ! !! ! !% ! "! % !
% ! !! ! !% ! "! % (' &) %$% %$()'*) %$ ",($%()(") %$ 3;)6 30)!)03'%8-32)0%=7 (()()2)6%83637871328,()0%='%97)(&= *%-096)83%4463:)43;)6430)6)03'%8-32328-1))0%=)(()130-8-323*)<-78-2+-1463:)1)287%2(6)59-6)(8)1436%6=43;)6+)2)6%8367;,-0)2);98-0-8=0-2)7;)6)-278%00)(%0$%8)6"4)'-%032(-8-327%2( )+38-%8-327 1328,()0%='%97)(&=74)'-%06):-);%2(2)+38-%8-3276)59-6)(*36%2);6)40%')1)28(31)78-';%8)67=78)1 3-28#6)2',)7-+21328,()0%='%97)(&= 6):-);3*6)40%')1)28.3-2886)2',()7-+22863(9')(2);+%71%-2()8%-078,%8;)6)92(3'91)28)(6)59-6-2+13(-*-'%8-32783*-2%0()7-+240%27)2)6%03286%'836)2)6%0!)59-6)1)287)2)6%032(-8-3272'6)%7)(1%6/)846-')*361%8)6-%07%2(,-+,)60%&36'37872'6)%7)()2)6%0!)59-6)1)287%2()2)6%032(-8-327(9)83032+)6'327869'8-324)6-3("8361;%8)6 30098-32 6):)28-32 63+6%1!):-7)(7',)(90)6)59-6)7%((-8-32%0;-28)67)%73283-140)1)28();%8)6-2+%2('300)'86%-2;%8)66923** 63.)'8 %2%+)1)282:-6321)28%0%2(-:-02+-2))6327869'8-32(1-2-786%8-32((-8-32%01%8)6-%078)78-2+%2(-274)'8-327)6:-')7%6)6)59-6)((9)838,)032+)6'327869'8-324)6-3(!)7863317#;349&0-'6)78633171%6-2%6)40%')1)28;)6)&-(,-+,)68,%2&9(+)8)((9)83()0%=)('327869'8-32)7-+223;-2'09()71)8,%2)132-836-2+7=78)17%)" ",% %$) (
% ! !! ! ! + ! !) ( '!%)!$# $'" &*!' +)2'<!,%6)):)034)6!,%6)"38%0!86))87%2(#8-0-8-)7%89& )03'%8-323* )0)'86-'-8<%2(""8)0)'31192-'%8-327+)2)6%8367278%00%8-323*4)61%2)28.3-2886)2',98-0-8-)7$%8)67<78)1-278%00%8-32(9)832);6)+90%8-327 %2(""*))7!8361;%8)6'328630 63.)'81%2%+)1)283:)67-+,8 %2(""*))72'6)%7)(+)2)6%06)59-6)1)287%2(+)2)6%0'32(-8-3277'%0%8-323*1%8)6-%0%2(0%&36
!86))87%2(#8-0-8-)7%8 3-28
0%<%4 )4%-6%8-8< %6')07= ,%7)$36/()0%<)((9)8398-0-8<92()6+6392(()7-+24)61-8%2(6)+90%836<%4463:%02'6)%7)(+)2)6%06)59-6)1)287%2(+)2)6%0'32(-8-327 63.)'81%2%+)1)283:)67-+,87'%0%8-323*1%8)6-%0%2(0%&36
)'32*-+96%8-323* %6/-2+ 38%8 %6-2% 4)2!4%') %2(7'%4)
)'6)%8-32-)0(7
9896)38)0!-8) %2(7'%4-2+%8)%', %6/
%2(7'%4-2+%86)%-2-8< %6')07%2( %01 631)2%() )786331%8 %6-2%&-(7,-+,)68,%2&9(+)8)($36/()0%<)((9)8398-0-8<92()6+6392(()7-+24)61-8%2(6)+90%836<%4463:%02'6)%7)(+)2)6%06)59-6)1)287%2(+)2)6%0'32(-8-327 63.)'81%2%+)1)283:)67-+,87'%0%8-323*1%8)6-%0%2(0%&36
% ! ! ! !!
%( ) %$ (!( + ' '(%*"",% %*'",) %)" $$*"%() 9&0-'$36/7-6)'836 63.)'8%2('3286%'81%2%+)1)2874)'-*-'83 =78)6 3-28463.)'8
63.)'8 %2%+)1)28")6:-')7$
%-0=463.)'81%2%+)1)28'3781%2%+)1)28'336(-2%8-32;-8,'3286%'836():)034)6%2(38,)66)+90%836=%+)2'-)7
-8= %2%+)6 "9'')7736+)2'=<)'98-:)-6)'836 :)6%00463.)'81%2%+)1)28'336(-2%8-32;-8,():)034)678%**%2(0)+%0'3927)0
-6)'8363*'3231-'31192-8=):)0341)28 :)6%00463.)'81%2%+)1)28'336(-2%8-32;-8,():)034)678%**%2(0)+%0'3927)0
)+%0")6:-')7 )=)67 %:)3286%'8-28)646)8%8-32-140)1)28%8-32%2((-7498)6)73098-32*36%00'3286%'876)0%8)(838,))2*36')%&0)3&0-+%8-327-2'09()(-28,)
%)"() #)
* )
! !#"!% !
) (!&*!%$% %)*-& $) #%+$*!4#((3#-#2+'3$'/'(+43#/&1#920--4#8'3
6'2*'#&%0343#/&3511-+'3 20('33+0/#-!'26+%'3; !5%%'3302)'/%90/35-4+/) !/%
20('33+0/#-!'26+%'3; 5&+4023 #:'330%+#4'3 20('33+0/#-!'26+%'3;')#- '9'23 #6'
%*"+ *
( % #$"$ & #$ ' !%#$
$! ! 6'23+)*40#2& ''4+/) #/5#29
!5'40 '$25#29
'4'2.+/#4+0/5' 12+-
""+342+$54'& 5/'
City of South San Francisco
Legislation Text
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400
Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, CA
File #:20-974 Agenda Date:12/9/2020
Version:1 Item #:1a.
Resolution of the Successor Agency to the Former Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco
reviewing and approving the Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule and Administrative Budget for the
period July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022, pursuant to the Health and Safety Code Sections 34177(j) and
34177(l).
WHEREAS,pursuant to Part 1.85 of Division 24 of the California Health and Safety Code (“HSC”)Section
34170 et seq.(“Dissolution Act”),the Former Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San Francisco
(“RDA”) was dissolved as of February 1, 2012; and
WHEREAS,the Successor Agency to the Former Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San
Francisco (“Successor Agency”)succeeded to all assets,properties,contracts,leases,books and records,
buildings,and equipment of the former RDA and,except as repealed,restricted,or revised by the Dissolution
Act,was vested with all authority,rights,powers,duties and obligations under the California Community
Redevelopment Law (HSC Section 33000 et seq.) previously vested with the former RDA; and
WHEREAS,HSC Section 34177(l)requires the Successor Agency to prepare a Recognized Obligation
Payment Schedule (“ROPS”)for each 12-month fiscal period,which lists the outstanding obligations of the
former RDA and states the sources of funds for required payments; and
WHEREAS,HSC Section 34177(j)requires the Successor Agency to prepare a proposed
administrative budget and submit it to the San Mateo Countywide Oversight Board (“Oversight Board”)for
approval; and
WHEREAS,Successor Agency staff has prepared a ROPS for the July 1,2021 through June 30,2022
fiscal period (“ROPS 21-22”),which,pursuant to HSC Section 34177(l),must be approved by the San Mateo
Countywide Oversight Board (“Oversight Board”)and submitted to the State Department of Finance (“DOF”)
no later than February 1, 2021; and
WHEREAS,the Successor Agency to the Former Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San
Francisco has prepared an administrative budget for the period July 1,2021 to June 30,2022 (“Administrative
Budget”) as set forth in the attached Exhibit B; and
WHEREAS,the Oversight Board will review ROPS 21-22 and the Administrative Budget on January
11, 2021; and
WHEREAS,the Successor Agency desires to approve the ROPS 21-22 and the Administrative Budget
and transmit it to various parties as required by the Dissolution Act; and
City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/12/2021Page 1 of 2
powered by Legistar™
File #:20-974 Agenda Date:12/9/2020
Version:1 Item #:1a.
NOW,THEREFORE,the Successor Agency to the Redevelopment Agency of the City of South San
Francisco, does hereby resolve as follows:
1.The Recitals set forth above are true and correct, and are incorporated herein by reference;
2.The draft ROPS 21-22 attached hereto as Exhibit A was prepared by the Successor Agency,reviewed
and approved by the Successor Agency Board, and will be submitted to the Oversight Board;
3.In accordance with HSC Section 34177(j),the Successor Agency hereby approves the Administrative
Budget for the period July 1,2021 through June 30,2022,attached hereto as Exhibit B,contingent upon
approval by the Oversight Board at its meeting on January 11, 2021;
4.The City Finance Director or designee is authorized to modify the draft ROPS 21-22 and the
Administrative Budget to correct errors,to update the ROPS 21-22 if necessary as a result of subsequent
review by the Oversight Board,and provide clarifications consistent with requirements of the State
Department of Finance and the intent of this Resolution;
5.The Executive Director of the Successor Agency or designee is authorized and directed to take all
actions necessary to implement this Resolution,including without limitation,the submittal of the draft
ROPS 21-22 to the Oversight Board,the County Auditor-Controller,the County Administrative Officer,
the State Department of Finance,and the State Controller,and the posting of this Resolution and the
draft ROPS 21-22 on the Successor Agency’s website;
6.The Finance Director or designee is authorized to incorporate the items on the ROPS into the 2021-22
operating budget once the ROPS is approved;
7.The Executive Director and the Finance Director,and their designees,are authorized and directed to
take such actions as necessary and appropriate to carry out and implement the intent of this Resolution,
including without limitation,the establishment of separate accounts and funds as necessary to
appropriately document the receipts and expenditures of the Successor Agency.
8.The Executive Director of the Successor Agency and/or his designee are authorized to execute contracts
and agreements for the items listed on the July 1,2021 through June 30,2022 ROPS,as approved by the
Oversight Board,up to the amounts specified on the approved ROPS for such items,unless specifically
directed otherwise by the Oversight Board.
*****
Exhibits to Resolution:
Exhibit A - Successor Agency Draft ROPS 21-22
Exhibit B - Successor Agency Fiscal Year 21-22 Administrative Budget
City of South San Francisco Printed on 4/12/2021Page 2 of 2
powered by Legistar™
Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS 21-22) - Summary
Filed for the July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022 Period
Successor Agency: South San Francisco
County: San Mateo
Current Period Requested Funding for Enforceable
Obligations (ROPS Detail)
21-22A Total
(July -
December)
21-22B Total
(January -
June)
ROPS 21-22
Total
A Enforceable Obligations Funded as Follows (B+C+D) $ 3,912,474 $ -$ 3,912,474
B Bond Proceeds - - -
C Reserve Balance - - -
D Other Funds 3,912,474 -3,912,474
E Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund (RPTTF) (F+G) $ 3,652,607 $ -$ 3,652,607
F RPTTF 3,451,712 -3,451,712
G Administrative RPTTF 200,895 -200,895
H Current Period Enforceable Obligations (A+E) $ 7,565,081 $ -$ 7,565,081
Certification of Oversight Board Chairman:
Name Title
Pursuant to Section 34177 (o) of the Health and Safety
code, I hereby certify that the above is a true and
accurate Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule for
the above named successor agency. /s/
Signature Date
Exhibit A - ROPS 21-22 Summary
South San Francisco
Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS 21-22) - ROPS Detail
July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W
Item
# Project Name Obligation
Type
Agreement
Execution
Date
Agreement
Termination
Date
Payee Description Project
Area
Total
Outstanding
Obligation
Retired
ROPS
21-22
Total
ROPS 21-22A (Jul - Dec)
21-22A
Total
ROPS 21-22B (Jan - Jun)
21-22B
Total
Fund Sources Fund Sources
Bond
Proceeds
Reserve
Balance
Other
Funds RPTTF Admin
RPTTF
Bond
Proceeds
Reserve
Balance
Other
Funds RPTTF Admin
RPTTF
$31,529,656 $7,565,081 $- $- $3,912,474 $3,451,712 $200,895 $7,565,081 $- $- $- $- $- $-
12 Oyster Point
Ventures
DDA
OPA/DDA/
Construction
03/23/
2011
11/11/2026 Oyster Pt
Ventures,
LLC
DDA Sections
3.2.1 Phase IC
Improvements
and 3.4.1
Improvement
Costs
Merged 7,073,582 N $7,073,582 - - 3,912,474 3,161,108 - $7,073,582 - - - - - $-
13 Oyster Point
Ventures
DDA
OPA/DDA/
Construction
03/23/
2011
11/11/2026 Various
contractors/
staff
DDA Section
5.2
Environmental
Indemnification
Merged 18,597,872 N $84,604 - - - 84,604 - $84,604 - - - - - $-
14 Oyster Point
Ventures
DDA
Project
Management
Costs
03/23/
2011
11/11/2026 Legal/Staff
costs
Soft project
management
costs
Merged 835,295 N $206,000 - - - 206,000 - $206,000 - - - - - $-
16 Harbor
District
Agreement
Improvement/
Infrastructure
03/25/
2011
11/11/2026 Harbor
District
Secs. 5.0
lease rev; 7.0
temp. office
Merged 1,793,248 N $- - - - - - $- - - - - - $-
17 Harbor
District
Agreement
Project
Management
Costs
03/25/
2011
11/11/2026 Legal/Staff
costs
Soft project
management
costs
Merged 798,341 N $- - - - - - $- - - - - - $-
21 Train Station
Imprvmnts Ph
1(pf1002)
Remediation 03/11/
2009
12/31/2014 TechAccutite/
Wisley Ham
Contracted
work-site
remediation
Merged 87,494 N $- - - - - - $- - - - - - $-
22 Train Station
Imprvmnts
Phase 1
Project
Management
Costs
03/11/
2009
12/31/2014 Staff Costs Soft project
management
costs
Merged 9,309 N $- - - - - - $- - - - - - $-
23 Train Station
Imprvmnts
Phase 2
Remediation 12/09/
2009
12/31/2014 Various
contractors
Site
remediation
per Cal Trans
Agrmt.
Merged 620,000 N $- - - - - - $- - - - - - $-
24 Train Station
Imprvmnts
Phase 2
Project
Management
Costs
12/09/
2009
12/31/2014 Legal/Staff
costs
Soft project
management
costs
Merged 148,115 N $- - - - - - $- - - - - - $-
48 Administration
Costs
Admin Costs 02/01/
2012
12/31/2014 Legal/Staff
costs
Costs to
administer
Successor
Agency
Merged 1,200,000 N $200,895 - - - - 200,895 $200,895 - - - - - $-
51 Accrued
PERS
Unfunded
Liabilities
01/01/
1980
06/30/2016 CalPERS Costs incurred
through 02/01/
Merged 168,800 N $- - - - - - $- - - - - - $-
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W
Item
# Project Name Obligation
Type
Agreement
Execution
Date
Agreement
Termination
Date
Payee Description Project
Area
Total
Outstanding
Obligation
Retired
ROPS
21-22
Total
ROPS 21-22A (Jul - Dec)
21-22A
Total
ROPS 21-22B (Jan - Jun)
21-22B
Total
Fund Sources Fund Sources
Bond
Proceeds
Reserve
Balance
Other
Funds RPTTF Admin
RPTTF
Bond
Proceeds
Reserve
Balance
Other
Funds RPTTF Admin
RPTTF
Pension
Obligations
2012
52 Accrued
Retiree
Health
Obligations
Unfunded
Liabilities
01/01/
1980
06/30/2016 CalPERS
Retiree
Benefit Trust
(CERBT)
Costs incurred
through 02/01/
2012
Merged 197,600 N $- - - - - - $- - - - - - $-
South San Francisco
Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS 21-22) - Report of Cash Balances
July 1, 2018 through June 30, 2019
(Report Amounts in Whole Dollars)
Pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 34177 (l), Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund (RPTTF) may be listed as a source of payment on the ROPS, but only to the extent no other
funding source is available or when payment from property tax revenues is required by an enforceable obligation.
A B C D E F G H
ROPS 18-19 Cash Balances
(07/01/18 - 06/30/19)
Fund Sources
Comments
Bond Proceeds Reserve Balance Other Funds RPTTF
Bonds issued
on or before
12/31/10
Bonds issued
on or after
01/01/11
Prior ROPS
RPTTF and
Reserve
Balances retained
for future
period(s)
Rent, grants,
interest, etc.
Non-Admin
and Admin
1 Beginning Available Cash Balance (Actual 07/01/18)
RPTTF amount should exclude "A" period distribution
amount.
325,654 34,633,058 4,210,172 1,218,212 E: Funds reserved in Oyster Point Escrow
Account ($33,623,471) + Reserve Balances
applied to ROPS 18-19 ($340,442) and
ROPS 19-20 Item 48 ($136,234) + Excess
PPA from ROPS 19-20 ($532,911). F: Other
Funds reserved for ROPS 18-19 ($508,985)
and ROPS 19-20 ($389,263) + Other Funds
unspent from ROPS 17-18 ($424,440) +
Other Funds revenue in 17-18 ($2,887,484)
G: PPA applied to ROPS 19-20 ($626,343)
and ROPS 20-21 ($591,869).
2 Revenue/Income (Actual 06/30/19)
RPTTF amount should tie to the ROPS 18-19 total
distribution from the County Auditor-Controller
285,401 9,945,931 3,908,299 18,778,640 E: Deposits and interest earned Oyster Point
Escrow Account ($9,945,931). F: Other
Funds revenues from rents and interest
($414,452) Commercial Rehab Loan
($29,847), and City repayment for Oyster
Point "Advance to Other Funds" ($3,464,000)
3 Expenditures for ROPS 18-19 Enforceable Obligations 611,055 6,090,442 504,810 18,778,640 E: Oyster Point Escrow Account drawdowns
Pursuant to Health and Safety Code section 34177 (l), Redevelopment Property Tax Trust Fund (RPTTF) may be listed as a source of payment on the ROPS, but only to the extent no other
funding source is available or when payment from property tax revenues is required by an enforceable obligation.
A B C D E F G H
ROPS 18-19 Cash Balances
(07/01/18 - 06/30/19)
Fund Sources
Comments
Bond Proceeds Reserve Balance Other Funds RPTTF
Bonds issued
on or before
12/31/10
Bonds issued
on or after
01/01/11
Prior ROPS
RPTTF and
Reserve
Balances retained
for future
period(s)
Rent, grants,
interest, etc.
Non-Admin
and Admin
(Actual 06/30/19) to make payments pursuant to DDA
($5,750,000) and Reserve Balances spent
per PPA 18-19 ($340,442). F and G: Matches
PPA 18-19
4 Retention of Available Cash Balance (Actual 06/30/19)
RPTTF amount retained should only include the amounts
distributed as reserve for future period(s)
38,488,547 3,701,187 1,218,212 E: Funds reserved inOyster Point Escrow
Account ($37,819,402) + Reserve Balances
applied to ROPS 19-20 Item 48 ($136,234)
and ROPS 20-21 Item 13 ($532,911). F:
Other Funds reserved for ROPS 19-20
($389,263) and 20-21 ($3,311,924). G: PPA
applied to ROPS 19-20 ($626,343) and
ROPS 20-21 ($591,869).
5 ROPS 18-19 RPTTF Prior Period Adjustment
RPTTF amount should tie to the Agency's ROPS 18-19 PPA
form submitted to the CAC
No entry required
6 Ending Actual Available Cash Balance (06/30/19)
C to F = (1 + 2 - 3 - 4), G = (1 + 2 - 3 - 4 - 5)
$- $- $- $3,912,474 $- F: Other Funds unspent from ROPS 18-19
($4,175) + Other Funds revenue in 18-19
($3,908,299)
South San Francisco
Recognized Obligation Payment Schedule (ROPS 21-22) - Notes
July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022
Item # Notes/Comments
12
13
14
16
17
21
22
23
24
48
51
52
Description of Cost/Expense Amount Documentation
Staff salaries, benefits, and payroll taxes 135,000$
Overhead costs and supplies 1,000$
Professional Services ‐ SA Consulting, RSG, Inc. (prepare ROPS,
PPA, cash flow/budgeting, DOF and County Coordination)25,000$
RSG Contract
pending
Professional services ‐ Auditors 4,000$
Maze & Associates
Contract
Professional Services ‐ Legal, Meyers Nave 50,000$
Meyers Nave
Contract
Total 215,000$
Exhibit B - Administrative Budget for FY 21-22
Successor Agency to the Former South San Francisco Redevelopment Agency
ROPS 21‐22 Administrative Cost Allowance Budget
Period: 7/1/21 to 6/30/22