HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-10-16 e-packet
~~1l sM
(~~)
v 0
C'4lIFOF-~\.'?o:
SPECIAL MEETING
CITY COUNCIL
OF THE
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
P.o. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, California 94083
Meeting to be held at:
CITY MANAGER'S CONFERENCE ROOM
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO CITY HALL
400 GRAND AVENUE
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA
October 16, 2006
12:00 noon
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 54956 ofthe Government Code ofthe
State of California, the City Council ofthe City of South San Francisco will hold a Special Meeting
on Monday, the 16th day of October, 2001, at 12:00 p.m. (noon), in the City Manager's Conference
Room at 400 Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, California. Telephone conference locations shall
also exist at 1250 San Carlos Ave, San Carlos, California and at 300 Lakeside Drive, Oakland,
California. Members of the public may address the City Council at 400 Grand Avenue and at the
teleconference locations.
Purpose of the meeting:
1. Call to Order
2. Roll Call
3. Public Comments - comments are limited to items on the Special Meeting
Agenda
4. Update and potential direction related to San Mateo County Harbor
District municipal service review and sphere of influence review
5.
Adjournment
'& ~
(/tj~ ~p
;City Clerk .[}fjJUY {!i"} (!J~JtZJ
CITY COUNCIL 2005-2006
DRAFT
JOSEPH A. FERNEKES, MAYOR
RICHARD A. GARBARINO, VICE MAYOR
MARK N. ADDIEGO, COUNCILMEMBER
PEDRO GONZALEZ, COUNCILMEMBER
KARYL MATSUMOTO, COUNCILMEMBER
BARRY M. NAGEL, CITY MANAGER
October 16,2006
Martha Poyatos
LAFCO Executive Director
Local Agency Formation Commission
455 County Center--2nd Floor
Redwood City, CA 94063
Re: San Mateo County Harbor District Municipal Services Review and Sphere of
Influence Review
Dear Ms. Poyatos:
As you know, the City of South San Francisco owns the land at the Oyster Point site that
is leased to the San Mateo County Harbor District (Harbor District) through a joint
powers agreement. The City has several comments on the Municipal Services Review
and the Sphere of Influence Review being considered by the Local Agency Formation
Commission (LAFCO) at its October 18 meeting.
The Oyster Point marina area is an important regional recreational asset. The marina area
provides bay access, walking trails, boat berthing, fishing opportunities, and boat launch
facilities that are available to outdoor enthusiasts from throughout the County and the
Bay Area. As a regional asset, the Marina and all of its recreational facilities require a
dedicated and stable revenue stream to supplement the berth and boat launch fees to
enable the Harbor District to continue to maintain the breakwaters, channels, perform
dredging, and provide other marina infrastructure improvements, as well as to maintain
the park and trail facilities.
The City of South San Francisco considers the marina area to be an integral component
of the City and region's continued recreational and economic vitality. Because of its
dramatic setting, the marina could also become a signature destination point for County
residents. In addition, the marina is considered a strategic asset for the City and County
for the following reasons:
. Its proximity to the large East of Highway 101 biotech community,
. Its potential for extended recreational use, and
. Its importance to potentially addressing regional commuter alternatives (i.e. the
existing proposal for construction of a ferry terminal).
-
-
The City understands that the LAFCO proceedings on October 18 are to simply reaffirm
the Harbor District's current sphere of influence, and that no change in the status of the
Harbor District is formally being proposed at this time. However, if the Commission
were to consider dissolution of the District, the City would be in opposition to the
dissolution because of its regional importance and the need for the facilities to have
access to a dedicated and reliable revenue stream.
Sincerely,
Barry M. Nagel
City Manager
Cc: City Council
City Attorney
Assistant City Manager
Finance Director
Chief Planner
CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
CITY ATTORNEY'S OFFICE
INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM
DATE: October 13,2006
TO: Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM: Steven T. Mattas, City Attorney
By: Peter Spoerl, Assistant City Attorney
SUBJECT: Issues Related to LAFCO Recommendations Regarding San Mateo County
Harbor District
On Monday, October 16th, the City Council will hold a special meeting to discuss a possible
response to the San Mateo County Local Agency Formation Commission's ("LAFCO") report
and recommended determinations with respect to the San Mateo County Harbor District ("the
District"). By memorandum dated October 11 th, 2006, our office provided the Council with a
summary of the recently-issued report and its findings and recommendations. The purpose of
this brief memorandum is to summarize, again, the report, and to provide the Council with staff's
analysis of potential impacts on the City and District should LAFCO's recommendation be
implemented. We have also included a draft the letter the Council may wish to direct be sent to
LAFCO.
SUMMARY
Oyster Point is a public 600-berth marina serving predominantly recreational vessels. The
District, an independent special district formed in 1933 to construct, maintain and administer
harbor facilities within the County, manages harbor facilities at the Oyster Point Marina Park to
State Harbors and Navigation Code Sections 6000 et seq. and operates at locations in South San
Francisco and Half Moon Bay. The Oyster Point MarinaJPark is operated via a Joint Power
Agreement ("JPA") with the City.
In its report, a required study intended to provide an analysis of cost-effectiveness and local
accountability, LAFCO assesses the District's operational structure and financial management.
Based on its analysis, LAFCO staff has provided the Commission with options that include
maintaining the current Harbor District management structure and dissolution of the Harbor
District pursuant to LAFCO procedures with the County identified as the successor agency.
Under the latter scenario, the County would assume the District's responsibility for management,
operation, and maintenance of Oyster Point MarinaJPark under the JP A. When the JP A
terminates, this responsibility shall revert to the City.
A noticed public hearing is scheduled for October 18, 2006 to provide for comment from the
SUBJECT:
PAGE:
October 13,2006
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Steven T. Mattas, City Attorney
By: Peter Spoerl
LAFCO Recommendations Re: Harbor District
2
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
Harbor District and affected agencies and parties. We understand from LAFCO staff that no final
determination will be made at the LAFCO meeting regarding dissolution and that such action
would occur only after a separate formal public process that would have to begin with a request
for dissolution.
Discussion
The property at the Oyster Point facility is owned in fee by the City. Occupancy and conditions
of use at the site are governed by a number of ground leases and operating agreements between
the City, the District, and individual lessors and operators. The proposed dissolution of the
District would have no effect on any of these underlying Agreements. Where such Agreements
are between the City/Harbor District and lessors, the proposed change in administration (to have
the County administer and operate Oyster Point) would have no effect on the terms of the
underlying leases. The Agreements between the District and Oyster Point Village Associates
(King Ventures) contain express provisions binding all successors and assigns to the terms and
conditions of the leases.
As of June of 2005, the District had $19,451,746.00 in long-term debt, which was consolidated
in an Agreement assigning rents and leases ("consolidated loan Agreement") between the District
and the State Department of Boating and Waterways. Under the terms of the consolidated loan
Agreement, the District continues annual debt service payments according to a predetermined
schedule. Under the terms of the loan agreement, the rents, profits, royalties, income and any
other benefit derived from leases serve as security for the underlying debt obligation. In the
event of dissolution of the Harbor District pursuant to LAFCO-initiated proceedings, the
District's debt obligations would inure to the successor agency, ie. the County. In neither case
would the City incur repayment obligations on outstanding District debt.
The most significant impact of the proposed dissolution of the District and transfer of
administrative and operational duties to the County would be in the area of property tax
revenues. The District is a special district that receives property taxes paid by parcels throughout
the County. In 2004-05, the District received $2.7 million in property taxes, and the District has
budgeted $3.1 million for 2006-07. If the District were to be dissolved, the property taxes
currently going to the District would have to be reallocated.
Although it is not clear that this is the situation, if property tax revenues secure the District's
State loans, then those property taxes would go to the successor agency for the purposes of
paying down those loans. If those property taxes are not legally pledged to the loan repayments,
LAFCO staff has stated that they still believe the property taxes would be applied to paying
down the debt under terms of the Knox Hertzberg Act. Once the debt is eventually paid off,
according to LAFCO staff, it isn't clear what the disposition of those property taxes would be.
One possibility is that the District's former property taxes could get reallocated to all taxing
LAFCO _ Harbor District Recommendation Special Meeting Memo (405-001)
SUBJECT:
PAGE:
October 13, 20u6
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Steven T. Mattas, City Attorney
By: Peter Spoerl
LAFCO Recommendations Re: Harbor District
3
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
entities within the County. That is, because the taxes were collected countywide, they could be
redistributed to other cities, school districts, and special districts throughout the county, as well
as to the County of San Mateo.
At this point, LAFCO has not indicated that it intends to pursue dissolution proceedings. Based
on information provided to the City, however, and the possible loss of a dedicated revenue
stream for the District, should LAFCO determine to initiate dissolution proceedings, staff would
recommend that the City Council express its opposition to dissolution via letter.
This report was prepared with assistance from the City Manager office, Finance and Planning
staff.
Barry M. Nagel, City Manager
Marty Van Duyn, Asst. City Manager
Jim Steele, Director of Finance
Susy Kalkin, Chief Planner
LAFCO _ Harbor District Recommendation Special Meeting Memo (405-001)