HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-02-05 e-packet
-
~'t\\ S:1,N
~
~ . ~~\
o ('l:)
>- .....
~ ~
v 0
C4lIFOR~'\~
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
CITY HALL CONFERENCE ROOM
400 GRAND AVENUE
MONDAY, FEBRUARY 5, 2007
6:00 P.M.
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN, pursuant to Section 54956 ofthe Government Code of the
State of California, the City Council of the City of South San Francisco will hold a Special Meeting
on Monday, the 5th day of February, 2007, at 6:00 p.m., in the City Hall Conference Room, 400
Grand Avenue, South San Francisco, California.
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. Study Session
a) Update on Caltrain Station
b) Update on Long Term Financial Plan / Financial Strategies
c) Fire Department Corporate Training Program
5. Motion to approve South San Francisco Historical Society letter of support
6.
Adjournment
rrnr2
City Clerk ~
~'t\\ S:1N
Ii
~ . ~~
(~ ~I
~ C")
v c
~l~ Staff ReQort
Sp. Agenda Item
#4a
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
February 5, 2007
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Director of Economic & Community Development
STUDY SESSION - CAL TRAIN STATION IMPROVEMENTS - STATUS
UPDATE
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that the City Council provide direction to staff regarding next steps.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
In mid December, JPB staff met with City staff to present the latest proposal on the South San
Francisco Caltrain station. While the overall project components remain substantially similar to
those presented to the Council last June, JPB staff has presented a draft agreement, attached, which
they call the "Principal Points of Agreement" (PP As).
The draft PP As outline specific project obligations that would fall solely to the City:
. The City is to purchase at its cost an approximately 1,000 sf portion of privately owned land
behind the building at 200 Airport Blvd. (Borba property) needed for access to a shuttle
drop-off area;
. The City is to purchase at its cost the Caltrans maintenance yard at the corner of Grand and
Airport;
. The City is responsible to negotiate with Caltrans for a cooperative use agreement to allow
construction easements, access easements and ramp structures to the proposed underpass
under the Caltrain tracks, and to allow the Project to use Caltrans property for staging and
temporary operations during construction;
. Ifthe City does not provide the above properties by the dates specified in the agreement, the
lPB will have the right to eliminate the improvements that were to be constructed over these
properties;
. After construction, the City would be responsible for the maintenance of all improvements
on these properties (south of East Grand), including the pedestrian underpass, the shuttle
drop-off area and all appurtenances including ramps, stairs walkways, landscaping, lighting,
signage, fencing, shelters, etc.
Staff Report
Subject: Caltrain Station Update
Page 2 .
The lPB estimates the cost of the underpass and shuttle drop-off improvements at $21 million. The
Agreement stipulates that the JPB will be responsible for securing this funding. However, it further
states that if the JPB is unsuccessful in securing the funding these improvements would be eliminated
without further obligation on its part.
Project Objectives
The City's primary objectives for this project have been to enhance the image of the station by
improving parking, access, appearance and security of the existing station, developing strong
pedestrian connections to the station from both the Downtown and the East of 101 area, improving
shuttle access, and ensuring that the track configuration provides the best flexibility for expanded
opportunities in the future (ie. Express service, Baby Bullet, etc.).
. Station Access
Staff is generally supportive of the proposed pedestrian underpass and shuttle drop-off/pick-up
design. Further, staff believes that these improvements are necessary facilities for an upgraded
Caltrain station that have been, and should continue to be, part of the base improvement package,
and, as such, should be financed and maintained in the same fashion as the other JPB improvements.
. Optimum Track Configuration
City Engineering staff has requested additional information regarding the track configuration
proposed at the station to evaluate the ultimate
. Maintenance/Cost Sharing
Staff has requested information from the lPB regarding cost sharing arrangements throughout the
system. While some information has been provided, staff is continuing to pursue information about
all the funding sources for the stations in San Mateo County, and will provide additional information
to the Council as it is released.
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council hold off on executing any agreements until a determination is
made by the Transportation Authority regarding funding availability for the underpass and shuttle
drop off facilities portion of the project as it is a vital component of the project and should not be
subject to separate funding sources.
By: J1 .~
Marty Van Duyn, Di1T~ or of ECD/
Assistant City Mana r
Approved:
Attachment: Draft Principal Points of Agreement - December 8, 2006
December 8, 2006
DRAFT
Ray Razavi, City Engineer
City of South San Francisco
400 Grand A venue
South San Francisco, CA 94083
Dear Mr. Razavi:
n
lire
On behalf of the Peninsula Corridor loint Powers Board ("lPB")rl~~~~eby submit to you for your
review an~ consid~ration the Principal Points of Agreement (:;JriPAs'~~~~ween the City of South
San FranCISCO ("City") and lPB. . '!li'dl
These PP As are intended to set forth the overall conceR~IU*I~edtupon bystti~lfpr both entities
with regard to the roles and responsibilities of eachJ\a~ncy in the implementafi~nliC!per,ation and
maintenance ofthe South San Francisco Caltrain,~ftlL and Tfttf.kwork Project'!i,i~cject")'
They will form the basis for a legally binding Memora~~t\m oni'ttHd~rstanding (th!fl~ MOU"). The
M~U will ~ontai~ appropriate risk manag.ement ~rovisioH~III! .
ThIS letter IS not mtended to be, nor shal1l,tlnonStltute or be d~~llied to constltute, a legally
enforceable a~eement; it is m~ant only f~lpUn!W~t~a.1 conveni~~~~1\}p.e pre~arati~n of a
formal MOU III accordance wIth the terms and t:>~~~mWl~s set fortlilHW!ow and IS subject to the
final approval o~both th~ Peninsul~ Corri~or~o.. ~.nt....~~W~fllipard,~~irect~rs and the City of
South San FranCISCO'S CIt.y, C.'. '. RI.lll. cI.I, both III t1i~I,r.:,~Ptle an~\!ij,".j~lete dIscretIOn.
.'Il!hlhl'.I!1 ,Ii.!'... ,[fP
dll!.1 II 'L '
1. Cit of South san.If~:II' C%I isco 0 I, ations: i\, I
, ill l!lpl
1) By 95% Des~gn, w Hh i~~. ~~!Strp~du~!t to occur in February 2008, the City shall
purcbft~~~~I~trtU~st, d~ij lIIiatMi~:~~~~~~ ft of property f?r.use as a shuttle drop-o.ff
~1~UJI,the gen~trrli~ocatl lftlflthe property IS shown on ExhIbIt A and labeled as "Pnvate
,lllr.operty." I ! 1:;1 i II" ' 11111l'! .
/111111111. I I,ll!: 111;11 '
2) B)r~~'ff9 Design, the ld1i~ shall1also purchase, at its cost, the portion of the former State of
Califd~a DepartmenV,Wf Transportation ("Caltrans") maintenance yard that is expected
to be de~1gnflrted as ex~~ss by Caltrans. The location of the property is generally shown on
Exhibit A,~H~I~ff?~hd~' as "Caltrans Excess Property."
!:nl!,
ill!'
3) By 65% Designl t currently scheduled for October 2007) the City will negotiate and enter
into co-operative agreement with Caltrans for the use of Caltrans "airspace" property as
shown on Exhibit A and labeled "Airspace Property" ("Co-Op"). The Co-Op will allow
the Airspace Property to be used as a ramp to the underpass under the Caltrain right of
way and as an amphitheater and ramp, both in the general locations as shown on Exhibit
A. The Co-Op will also allow the Project to use Caltrans property near the Highway 101
off ramp for staging and a shoofly temporarily during construction of the project ("TCE
Area").
Ray Razavi, City Engineer
December 8, 2006
Page 2 of3
4) The City agrees to grant lPB the right to constmct the Project on property currently
owned by the City ("City Property," as shown on Exhibit A).
5) The City agrees to make the Private Property, Caltrans Excess Property, Airspace
Property, TCE Area and City Property (collectively, "Properties") available to JPB
through issuance of an encroachment permit, in a form to be negotiated by the parties,
providing lPB full and complete control of the Properties for the duration ofthe
construction of the Project ("Encroachment Permit"). The Encrojachment Permit will be
issued prior to the advertisement ofthe Project, which is curr('1ntl~srheduled for lune
2008. IIIII '
. . jI,'llllli I .
6) If any of the Properties are not delIvered by the dates ~1~escnt)W~lherem, or the
Encroa~l~ent Pe~it is not .iss~ed in a t~mely m~~rr,l!~if the 'dij~fn~y of an~ o~ the
PropertIes IS teImmated or. SIgnIficantly mterru. ,ftteH;'JPB shall have't~~'f~.t to elImmate
the.components ofthe Project t~at were to bmtonstructrd o:er th~ ~ro~~~\fiS n~t .
delIvered, or to phase constructlon work, ,}YHlp~m!-ay res~~ in addItlonal ~Hml~o' the CIty.
Additional costs may include costs to modify a~~tfffi~dO ~U~P.ts, costs for ~Hnstmction of
temporary stmctural items needed to accommodat~n re construction, and additional
costs for constructing these com~!jr~ts out of sequ ,~
7) After construction of the Proj ect, ~ ~U~lil'f.i!=ent peJIUlil!ii\ ~erminate and City shall
mamtam sole control of the propertI~I..anaIWj~mamtam.th~Wouth pedestnan underpass,
shl~ttle/drop-off area and a~l app.urte.ni~~~sl~&emll~",~in'g but not limited to ramps,
stairs, walkways, ,1_H~mng, lIghtmg, !~,~age, fenc!>>~: shelters, etc.
11!f,qqll!'1 1!I"
8) The City S!ujl~IIll:~ol.e~y re~~IJn sible for co~~~c...t~n~ all n~cessary du~-diligence associated
With the propert'illl~mg d ilvered to the p.t.ti~ect, mcludmg appropnate hazardous
materials investiga . . ~i ~ftmllH,,~hnr~r~my such information with JPB upon
reql;\l?ltM~l.'n g but >>~Mmi~~'~O'~"~iIS t~sting data. c~nduc~ed to support the City's
"<!liraseonW!j~flml:,pr~i,,l~~i~nd/Or the CIty'S negotlatlon WIth Caltrans.
i 'illlli 'liPl, ,P'
II. Peninsi.dMi orridor loint' 'wers Board Obli ations:
1) IPB s~~ 11u'1li\W' and. ~~struct the Project, subject to the limitations described above, as
generally dMsrt~\1~.;~liti the Project Work Plan. lPB will manage the scope, schedule and
budget for the '~~Yect.
,II.
2) lPB shall support the City in its negotiations with Caltrans by developing a Project Study
Report for the Project, providing technical documents to Caltrans for review, and
addressing Caltrans comments, as appropriate.
3) lPB shall be responsible for coordinating with UPRR to develop a constmction plan that
allows for the construction of the south underpass under UPRR's designated freight
tracks, and addresses all other coordination issues between UPRR and JPB.
Ray Razavi, City Engineer
December 8, 2006
Page 3 of3
4) lPB shall provide periodic updates to City Engineering and Planning departments.
5) After completion of constmction, lPB shall issue City a permit to allow City to conduct
maintenance of the South Pedestrian underpass within lPB property, in the form of lPB's
then-current Right of Entry Permit.
6) lPB shall be responsible for securing $21 million from the San Iv,lateo County
Trans~o~ation Authority (! A) Measure A Calt:ain Improve~fftiHt1~ds to cover the cost
of ~esIgmng a~d ~o~stru~tmg .the south pedestnan underp~ml~nd shtittle drop o~f area,
subject to the hmItahons m thIS agreement. If the T A Bq/iffi, ~~,s not approve thIS
funding, the~ the s?uth pedestrian u~de~ass and shutt~~!drop'8ltf!M~a may be eliminated
from the Project WIthout further obhgatlOn on the .~ffi1 o(!PB. '1111'"
"liP' ,I" dllli~'l
'll' II II
Should you concur with these PP As as drafted, pleftft~~ign whe~e indicated bel Hl1hftpr you
provide your concurrence, I will have our ExecutiVe ittttt~ftor si~land return a copft1~!f the fully
signed PPAs for your records. I 'Illlllli!" 1\1, .1
'.111
!lilli, ' .Illllt"
Sincerely, , I. ,I. 'I nfl'l
:q,;:;iih!lll' . ',q lllqii
DRAFT '1111",,' i!.!I::..,.IIIIIlIIlHI.,.I.'1 lllll; Ill"
'II. . ,I. llll , U\!
Brian W. Fitzpatrick 1lll!lLlllP'I 'h! 1
Real Estate Deparm;~~~I' '1'lanagM~IIII!. "1111
,1I1t11 1'11'1" ,llfI"
Read and Acce~llt 111111111,111I.1!llill!liIlI'II"i'"
,;!! ! I: I: 1 ,!ILl 111111111111111111111" ,II !III\ i Ii" I III
~:~~~i~~I~ln ~f Sl~~san Francisco
"11111 pi
, Read and Accepted: il
Michael 1. Scanlon
Executive Director
On behalf of Peninsula Corridor loint Powers Board
/1
100'
\\ \
.~ \
~t \
o 25' 5~'
50'
,/"
,./"
/'
//
\.,../
//
.,..-~,-
(l1ll1sr (
) \), \
~ ,
:?~, \
(:: '
'if..
(TCE) Area
Caltrans Excess Property
Temporary Construction Easement
Airspace Property
City Property
Caltrans Right of Way
Caltrain Right of Way
cal.,
'~!.CIot_..._.
';<nC-.CAMOlll
HNTB ~"-::.:.-
::...."""::::- .::~:::::
Calr
Project Costs Update
November 6, 2006
SSF Caltrain Station and Track
Work Project
1
350/Q
70/0 Escalation
Project Costs
(m i II ions)
Station Upgrade 14.4
Track a~d S,ignal Work 6.5
East-West Connectivity 21.1
TOTAL 42.0
Project
Contingency,
Soft
Cost Summary
600/0
Costs,
(2010$)
2
3
TOTAL
.
So. Underpass
Shuttle Area
Relocate Utilities
Temp. Trackage
9.9
0.8
1.2
1.3
13.2
2.1
21.1
15.8
1.3
1.9
Construction
Costs
(millions)
E-W Connectivity Cost Summary
(2010$)
Project
Costs
(millions)
./" .--
~ "
/./~;;/ :>-\.-
,..--,- .~'-- ~ ---
,...,.. ----...,;-;;:::::;-
uS ,,\G"~~-{
0'
...,-,~._,,,....-,
.~~.-
Ca/e.
IZ:lOs...C_A_
Sanc-.CA.U070
...~.........._,,.,4?~'
\ ~ \
\ ~ \
~ \
\~
\ 'Z, \
\'ii-
"
.,
/ "
//", /./ "\,
/ '\ / )
/ '/ /
,/ > / //
" / /' .;
/' ,/ / -
/ // / --
/ , / I'
/ />~"-7 /
/'o~7- // // ...:
- #" // / /
- /' /~> / - -
-;/ /,/ -
-'- 7-
1,/
/'
/
'\
''\
...
...
...
...
,,/"/ "",// /'
///"
/
HNTB ;:::...~......
:.:.....-::.~'- ::::::=
PENINSULA COARJDOR JOIIIIT POWERS BOARD
PEDESTRIAN UNDERPASS
SSF CALTRAIN STATION
PROPERTY ACQUISITIONS
\.
,// \'\
- \~, ("
~ ,
,,\" .. \;, "
-'.' '\", \
\. \ /'&\"\ \
(. ~~ ' " ;,
" ,. , '"
.,'\ '.' , '" \, , &~
/ \'\\ ," ., \ /
>L"'// , \>'\"l~ \\\, \" ,/
-----" '\ \ " / -'"
,J. L_. /';, ) \ ~\~J' \\ \ /=_-~~~;;T-\<~
I ""7. .' . > ~ ' ., \/":;;0 ~
. , .".. \\ v -' , , "
\; \ ~ ----~fl"_~ / , VLj'b:'J\' ::::--,_>'" __
o "'" _ .. ~" ,.
' . 'I,. " .",,_._ \ .<
~~~ \0\ '" " _\
i...I, . ".__
~rr\~\
C>
uS ,,\G"'ll~~
.--.----""
---_....~.
.-'
,--
...."....J'
\ >\ \
),--/ '\\
/',
i
I
'J,
~
\
~
'"
____________/~~'- //0 "~_,=-
-----l
,/
/~
,-
\
"-
~/
"\
100'
.,.;.. b .~:.-' ":> ___~______
/ /
---r-;
~
.. /
\,;' "....
,."
~
wmm REQUIRED PROPERTY ~1,100 SF
REQUIRED PROPERTY FROM CAL TRANS
REQUIRED COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT WITH
CAL TRANS
CALTRANS RIGHT OF WAY
CAL TRAIN RIGHT OF
WAY
1
September 13, 200.6
Carol Wolf -- JP.B Project Manager
Rick Phillips -- HNTB Director, Urban Design
Conceptua Design of South Pedestrian
Underpass and Shuttle/Drop-off Area
350/0
Contingency,
600/0 Soft
Costs,
70/0 Esca lation
2
Construction Costs Project Costs
(millions) (millions)
Station Upgrade 15.7 25.1
.'
Mainline Track 12.9 20.6
.
Yard Track 16.2 25.9
Ops Improvements 2.2 3.5
Connectivity 10.0 16.0+
TOTAL .. 52.9 91.1
Cost Summary
(2010$)
[] Center Platform
[] North Underpass
[] Upgraded Parking
[] Shift Main.lineTracks
[]
Drainage Imp.rovements 2.2
· TOTAL $38.5
. No CP Colma andCP Sierra Upgrade
. No connectivity
. Yard work only to accommodate shifting of main
$14.6
$ 6.6
$ 2.2
$12.9
$
ne
3
Suggested Best
(2010$ - Project Costs)
Value
Investment
East - West Connectivity
- -
[] C:onnectseast ind.ustrial area with
downtown
II South underpass with ADA access
II ShuttlejDrop<-offfromAirport Blvd
[] Costs$16.0+miHion in 2010 dollars
II Utility relocation costs unknown
II Constructability track costs unknown
II Escalation rate of 70/0
-
4
5
Construction Project Costs
Costs (millions)
(millions)
So. Underpass 8.6 13.8
.
Shuttle Area 1.4 2.2
Relocate Utilities ? ?
. .
Trackage ? ?
. .
TOTAL 10.0+ 16.0+
E...W Connectivity Cost Summary
(2010$)
~'t\\ S:1N
'g
(0 n
>-0 ....
~ ;q
v 0
~l!!:Q}'~\~ Staff Report
Sp. Agenda Item
#4b
DATE:
February 5, 2007
TO:
Honorable Mayor and City Council
FROM:
lim Steele, Director of Finance
SUB1ECT:
UPDATE ON LONG TERM FINANCIAL FORECAST/BUDGET STRATEGY
RECOMMENDATION:
It is recommended that the full Council review and provide feedback on the information
being provided here, which was discussed with the Council Budget Subcommittee over the
past several months,
BACKGROUNDIDISCUSSION:
Staff provided the full Council with a long-term financial projection on April 19, 2006. In that
study session, staff showed a number of various revenue scenarios that resulted in varying levels
~+ ~_~_~+:__ t......:l_~+ ..:l~+:_:+~ t.... 'lr\1 r\ 11 C':__~ +t..~+ +:~~ +t..~ ""~n_~:l t..~~ ~1~~ t..~~_..:l +_~~ ~_
Vl VPI;;-l alUle; UUUe;~l UI;;-Ul"U" U Y ':'V.1 V-.1 .1 . .., Ull,,1;;- Ulal Lilllv, Ulv vVUlll"ll lla" al"V lll"al U 11 Vlll all
outside actuary regarding the unfunded liability for retiree health premiums, which had not been
factored into the projections. Council directed staff to continue working with the Budget
Subcommittee (Councilmembers Fernekes and Matsumoto) on strategies for addressing the long-
term financial health of the General Fund, and to brief employees on the situation.
Since April 2006, the City Manager, Finance Director, and Human Resources Director have
briefed employees during two different timeframes in a number of settings on the financial
situation. Staff has also passed along employee comments to the Budget Subcommittee, along
with information on what steps other San Mateo County cities have used to deal with their
operating budgets. Discussions are still ongoing with members of the Benefits Subcommittee
(Councilmembers Addiego and Femekes) for addressing the expenditure side of the financial
situation, and are not being addressed at this Study Session.
While discussions and potential solutions to our financial health will be ongoing, the Budget
Subcommittee has identified several areas that they concur deserve continued consideration by
full Council. Those strategies are:
1. Consider placing a storm drain tax on the ballot, which would require a 2/3-voter
approval. Such a measure would help place the storm drain fund on more secure footing,
would free up gas tax dollars that could otherwise go to streets or for storm drain capital
improvements, but would have an indirect impact only on the General Fund's structural
deficit. It would, however serve one of Council's goals of enhancing service levels. If
Council were interested in pursuing this, additional analysis and dollars would be
Staff Report
Subject: Update On Long Term Financial Forecast/Budget Strategy
Page 2 of 2
required initially to determine an amount that could be generated to make a dent in the
infrastructure backlog, and to put a fee structure together to address that backlog.
2. Consider adopting a street impact fee. Such a fee would require surveying work and an
engineering study. Staff solicited responses from a number of firms, and received one
response to perform the work from a respected firm in the area of impact fees, HF&H
Consultants, LLC (formerly Hilton Farnkopf & Hobson). Such a fee would provide
additional dollars for street capital work, but would have no direct impact on the General
Fund deficit, and the dollars received would vary from year to year. It would, however,
serve one of Council's goals of enhancing service levels. In order to commence with that
study, if the Council so directs, $55,000 would need to be appropriated, and staff would
return with a budget amendment at a later Council meeting.
3. Increase cost recovery efforts. The Recreation Director has identified revenue/fee
increases that she believes could be implemented beginning luly 1, 2007 that will result
in an additional $275,000 in annual revenue.
4. Consider increasing the business license tax, which is fairly low in South San Francisco.
Such an increase would require majority voter approval if identified as a general tax with
no specific purpose, or a 2/3-voter approval if earmarked for specific purposes. There are
numerous options for structuring a tax, so if the full Council concurs, staff would begin to
explore various options for increasing the tax with the Budget Subcommittee.
Finally, in order to facilitate implementing a new financial software system, staff also
requests u~at the Council approve a two-year operating budget process for the 2007-08 and
2008-09 years. Staff would prepare a budget document for adoption in lune 2007 that also
contains a 2nd year budget for 2008-09. Staff would come back with major updates and
updated revenue projections for the 2nd year data the following lune, but anticipates that there
would not be significant changes. Providing a two-year budget will require fewer staff
resources, better ensuring a successful software implementation.
CONCLUSION:
Council feedback on the various revenue strategies that are included here is requested, as well as
a sense of priority of those items, since some will require further analysis. Concurrence on a
two-year operating budget process for 2007-08 and 2008-09 is also requested.
~
Prepared by: ',.
Jim teele
Fina ceI>irector
Attachments:
Summary of Budget Subcommittee I>iscussions
Taxes, Fees, and Assessment Possibilities
Survey of other San Mateo County Cities
Summary of Budget Subcommittee Discussions:
1. An optimistic revenue scenario shQws an
operating deficit of approximately $1.0 million
by 2010-11, prior to funding retiree health
obligations,
W/2 Big Boxes & More Optimistic Revenue,
Less 1/2 RDA Subsidy in Year 5
(Year 5 = $1,1 million deficit)
$80,000
Ul
c
8 $70,000
c
i: $60,000
~
~
! ~ Re-..enues
1___ Expenditures
$50,000 ,
.J:\~ .J:\co.J:\Q) ~~ ~" ~'l.- ~'!> ~1>. ~~
,,'J" ,,'J" ,,'J",,~ ,,~ ,,\:> ,,~ ,,~ ,,~
v v v v vv .v .v .v
Fiscal Year
2. The Subcommittee agreed it made sense to
target either reducing the budget or raising
revenues by a total of $3.0 million by the
2010-11 Fiscal Year in order to:
a. Reduce the RDA subsidy of the General
Fund by Y2 ($1.0 million) by 2010-11;
Page 1 of5
b. Fund ~ of the retiree health obligation
annually ($1.0 million), Staff recommends
that we begin funding this obligation next
year, in 2007-08.
c. Consider providing another $1.0 million for
service level or facility/capital improvement
augmentations by 2010-11 in areas to be
determined by the Council in future
discussions.
3. The following items are not yet included in
long term budget projections:
a. Simms' potential new parking structure
b. Revenue from the new AMPCO parking
~n....n~,.,. n+ CTIn
oa.Laov at ~.l'V
c. New Terrabay tax revenue (up to $425K for
Phases I and II).
Page 2 of5
4. For information only, a one-year wage freeze
would generate about $2.0 million in savings.
Also note: the Benefits Subcommittee is looking
,at several options for realizing expenditure
savings in the future.
WI One year Wage Freeze,
2 Big Boxes & More Optimistic Revenue,
Less 1/2 RDA Subsidy in Year 5
(Year 5 = $.9 million surplus)
.Ill $80,000
o
o
o $70,000
C
.1Il $60,000
~
= $50,000
~ -s:\co -S:\~ ,,~ ,," ,,'l- ,,~ "b< ,,~
n\S' n\S' n\S' n~ n~ n~ n~ n~ n~
v v V v v v v v v
-+- Re\enues
___ Expenditures
Fiscal Year
Page 3 of5
5. Items recommended for further consideration by
the Subcommittee:
Item Potential Potential Impact on
Revenue, Revenue, General
Low High Fund Target
of $3.0
million?
Storm $500,000 $1,000,000 $250,000(a)
Drain Tax
Street $25,000 $500,000 o (b)
Impact Fees
Business $50,000 $500,000 $250,000( c)
License
Tax
T __ _ __ _ _ _ _
Inl;r~as~
Increase $50,000 $500,000 $275,000
Cost
Recovery
Total $625,000 $2,300,000 $775,000
Notes:
a) Hard to sell a 2/3 voter approval for a tax that
won't provide new service/new infrastructure.
Could consider a portion towards the General
Fund, w/ the bulk towards new infrastructure.
Page 4 of5
Currently, S~orm Drain Fund operating budget
(routine maintenance only) is subsidized by
$200,000 from Gas Tax revenue that could
otherwise go to street or storm drain capital
improvements. The Fund is drawing down on
fund balance by about $115,000 per year and
will need additional dollars in 2-3 years. While
no direct impact on future General Fund
deficits, a Storm Drain Tax would augment
service levels, and therefore count toward the
$3.0 million target for revenue
enhancementslbudget reductions.
b ) Street Impact Fees will vary year to year, and
need to be used for capital expenditures.
'1 T .n.1"\ ' 1- ~ a ..1-1 .. r" a '~n 1-.... ~a n.a1"\ a~n 1 P....1"\ r1 ria -h r" ~ 1- C' h.... t
VV UJ.J. L J.\,;uu\,;\,; .1.ULUl.\,; '-J\,;J.J.\,;J.UJ. .I.' UJ.J.U U\,;.1.J.\,;J.L.:), LJUL
will augment services, and therefore count
towards the $3,0 million target.
c) More information is needed on options before
an estimate can be given business license
taxes.
Page 5 of5
and Assessment Possibilities
Fees,
Taxes,
Discussion
Still Being
Consid-
ered?
Est, of Annual
Revenue
Would require a 2/3-voter
approval. Voters may approve
a tax on businesses. The tax
could be structured to be
higher for large industrial and
modest for small businesses.
Yes.
Note: In order to get a 2/3
vote, it may be necessary to
package this as a service level
increase, meaning only a
portion of the revenue raised
could replace existing General
fund dollars.
$25/month small
commercial would
generate about
$500K-$800K
annually. Larger
parcels would pay
more. Probably
apartments would be
subject to the tax, but
most residential
would otherwise be
exempt.
Faiirness
(Cost is
borne by
USI~
Direct
Relationship/
Fair, but not
as direct or
fair as the fee
above
Volatile
or Stable
Broad based or
narrow
Charge
based on
Type
Very
Stable
and would
impact larger,
commercial parcels
the most
Broad,
# square feet
of impervious
(concrete) per
parcel
Storm
Drain Tax
No voter approval required,
but a nexus study of costs and
fee must be done. Would
require $55,000 budget
amendment.
Yes.
Unknown.
Somewhat Direct
volatile, Relationship/
some Fair
trucking
or
warehouse
firms
could
relocate
Narrow, only
charged against one
type of business
Number of
trucks in SSF
Street
Impact
Fee on
Trucks/
Ware-
houses
allld Assessment Possibilities
Page 2 of 4
Fees,
Taxes,
Discussion
Still Being
Consid-
ered?
Est, of Annual
Revenue
Voter approval needed. South
San Francisco is on the low
side of business license fees.
Any number of changes can be
considered, and more
information can be provided if
Council is interested in
pursuing this.
Yes
Depends on the
alternative.
Fairness
(Cost is
bOl'ne by
USI~
Broadly
applied, but
no direct
Volatile
or Stable
Broad based or
narrow
Charge
based on..,
Type
relationship
between
service and
the charge.
Stable
Broad
Numerous
alternatives
Business
License
Tax
Increase
Yes
Biggest potential is
probably Recreation,
since Building Fees
are already at cost
recovery.
Direct
Relationship/
Fair
Somewhat
Volatile
Narrow
Per User
Update
Cost
Recovery
Goals for
Could generate $50-
500K annually.
City Fees
for
Service in
Dis-
cretionary
Program
Areas
911
V oter approval not needed, but
under litigation. Pending cases
are before the courts with a
decision around March 2007
Not at this
time: wait
until legal
rulings
favorable.
9 million a
Up to $1
year
Pot,ential Use,
but broadly
applied
Very
Stable
Broad
Per Parcel
Dispatch
Fee
Taxes, Fees, and Assessment Possibilities
Page 3 of 4
Discussion
Still Being
Consid-
ered?
Est, of Annual
Revenue
No. Could
be seen as a
duplicate of
the recent
franchise
fee increase
In order to generate
the $450,000 we
spend annually, a fee
of $1!month
residential and
$11!month average
commercial would
Fairness
(Cost is
bOlrne by
Us.ers)
Direct
Relationship/
Fair
Volatile
or Stable
Broad based or
narrow
Charge
based on...
Type
Very
Stable
Broad, and would
impact larger,
commercial parcels
the most
Per Parcel
Shift
Street
Sweeping
to
Garbage
Bill
to
Scavengers.
No, let's not
hit up
property
owners
need to be charged
City pays $291K per
year in operating
budget, and $25K in
CIP, not counting
RDA contribution.
Direct
Relationship/
Fair
NA
Broad
NA
Pass an
Ordinance
that
reqmres
Property
Owners to
Maintain
Sidewalks
in front of
their
parcel
Taxes, Fees, allld Assessment Possibilities
Page 4 of 4
Discussion
Still Being
Consid-
ered?
Est, of Annual
Revenue
No, but a
new parking
structure
will require
a parking
fee increase.
No
:t $100,000
Failrness
(Cost is
borne by
USt~
Direct
Rel.ationship/
Fair
Charge I Broad based or I Volatile
based on... narrow or Stable
Type
Would require voter approval
if
$580,000 Annually
set at $25/year
residential and
Broadly
applied, but
no direct
$100/year
commercial
relationship
between
service and
Narrow, focused on Stable
a few businesses
Broad. A relatively Very
modest per parcel Stable
fee can generate
substantial revenue.
Down- Per Parcel
town
Business
Improve-
ment
District
Parcel Tax Per parcel
Would require voter approval.
This would be the potentially
biggest revenue source, but
would hit lower income
residents harder, and could hit
large businesses very hard
unless a cap was placed on it.
No
Hard to estimate as
we have no access to
phone information;
2% Tax could
generate a very large
amount of revenue,
probably in the $2 -
2.5 million range.
the charge.
Broadly
applied, but
no direct
relationship
between
service and
the charge.
Stable-
utility
usage IS
fairly
constant
year to
year
Broad, a relatively
modest tax can
generate substantial
revenue
Utility
consump-tion
Utility
Users Tax
Menlo Park
76%
Hillsbor.
89%
HMB
67%
Foster City
80%
Daly City
82%
Bgame
80%
Brisbane
63%
Belmont
50%
Atherton
78%
on
% of General Fund budget spent
salaries and benefits
(12)
(13)
x
X
X (2)
(14)
X
Cost Reductions:
Wage Freeze
Retirees
(3)
only
Higher co-payments on benefits
Greater share of retirement costs picked up
by employees
(16)
X
17)
Revenue Raising Options:
X
X
(10)
X
Impact Fees
Fee
Street
911
100%
X
100%
X
50%
mprovement District
Downtown Business
X
X
X
Sanitation
District
responsibility
100%
X
No sidewalks
X
Portion of Sidewalk Replacement Paid by
Property Owners, other than 0%:
Street Sweeping included in garbage bi
100%
100%
1 00% for
adult
n3creation
and
building/
planning
100%
100% of
building
division costs
Additional City generated Stormwater fee
after Prop 218
Any specific cost recovery policies or
practices
(1 )
Police
Dispatch
Fire
Fire
Fire admin IFire
and Police
chief
of 2
Page
Fire
(11 )
Any specific service consolidation adopted
San MateolSSF
78%
80%
San Carlos
55%
San Bruno
70%
RWC
71%
Pacifica
52%
Millbrae
77%
0/0 of General Fund budget spent on
salaries and benefits
X (4)
(15)
x
x
Cost Reductions
Wage Freeze
(8)
X (7)
x
Higher co-payments on benefits
Greater share of retirement costs picked up
by employees
Revenue Raising Options:
Under review
mpact Fees
Street
X (9)
Fee
911
100%
Yes
mprovement District
Downtown Business
x
100%
50%
100%
Paid by
in garbage bi
Portion of Sidewalk Replacement
Property Owners, other than 0%:
Street
Sweeping included
Recreation classes:
50% of direct costs.
Building Division is
1 00% cost
100%
except
certain
1 00% for
planning,
building, and
Public Works
1 00% for
planning/
building
100%
except
health
x
Additional City generated Stormwater fee
after Prop 218
Any specific cost recovery policies or
practices
recoverable by
practice
senior and
children's
programs
and
safety
related
T; dispatch
Limited (5)
Fire, Police
Dispatch
Battalion Chief
Page 2 of 2
Fire
admin
and
Police
chief
(6)
Any specific service consolidation adopted
Notes
1 Not finalized at time of survey.
2 One year wage freeze for all units except PO PO postponed 3% at 50 for 2 years
3 Capped retiree health at $50/month for all units except Fire.
4 2 years' wage freeze for all units
5 Limited service sharing in: police dispatch w/ Brisbane, library w/ Hillsborough, landscaping wi school district
6. Dispatch w/ County, Battalion Chiefs w/ San Bruno.
7. For a short time, employees paid a share of the employ€!r's PERS costs in exchange for enhanced PERS benefit.
8. Employees pay about 35% of health cost premium. After retirement, City contribution to retiree health premiums terminates
9. San Bruno adopted a 911 fee, but didn't carry it through due to litigation exposure.
10. Adopted a street impact fee, no longer collect due to litigation exposure.
11. Accounting and garage services through Redwood City, IT services through Palo Alto
12. Wage Freeze for 2 years for Misc. and management employees
13. Management medical benefit frozen for past six years
Higher co payments on medical visits. No more vision coverage.
14. Wage freeze for one year for all employees except PO, Dept heads received a 3% wage rollback.
15. Wage Freeze of up to 4 years, depending on bargainin~l unit, reevaluated each year.
16. General Tax measure on ballot in November for Utility User Tax
17. Bond measure on ballot in November for storm drainage improvements
Page
~'t\\ ~
't;
o 0
1>- ~
~ C")
v c
~~ Staff Report
Sp. Agenda Item
#4c
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
February 5, 2007
Honorable Mayor and City Council
Philip D. White, Fire Chief
Corporate Health and Safety Training Services
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended the City Council approve Fire Department efforts to provide corporate
health and safety training services for residents and local businesses,
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION
The South San Francisco Fire Department is an all risk organization. This means that it responds
to all requests for emergency assistance so as to render assistance, mitigate any hazards that
might exist and assist in recovery efforts for those affected. As a result, it has developed a robust
training program to ensure our personnel are properly trained. The Fire Department's training
program is recognized by the San Mateo County Fire Chief s Association for its excellence in
instruction and for a wide variety of training it offers. Examples of this include its selection as a
site for fire recruit training by San Mateo County fire agencies, its selection by the American
Heart Association as one of three training centers in the County, the approval of the State Fire
Marshal to offer F-STEP courses in Rescue Systems, Permit-Required Confined Space, Basic
Emergency Medical Technician, and by the San Mateo County EMS Agency and the California
Board of Nursing to offer continuing medical education to health care providers.
The South San Francisco Fire Department has supported local businesses over the years by
offering training in frrst-aid, CPR training and how to use a fire extinguisher in an emergency.
Recently, there has been an increase in such requests. In addition, businesses are also asking for
training in other areas. Examples of this include training in building evacuation, emergency
response team (ERT), medical continuing education, permit-required confmed space and
technical rescue (see Exhibit A).
These requests for training by the Fire Department are being driven by several factors,
particularly the fact that much of this training is now required by regulations promulgated by Cal-
OSHA. In addition, many businesses do not have the resources in-house to offer the training
themselves even if they wanted. Finally, their experience with outside contractors who offer this
training has been less than satisfactory due to cost, relevancy or quality of instruction issues.
Staff Report
Subject: Corporate Health and Safety Training Services
Page 2
Concurrently, the City has experienced periods of weak revenues, increasing costs due to State
takeaways and a weak economy. To address this, the City has taken several steps to minimize
costs where feasible, to develop better cost recovery for services delivered, and to increase
revenues when possible. Each Department has been asked to develop creative methods to reduce
expenditures, recover costs for services delivered, and/or raise revenues.
As a result, the Fire Department is ideally situated to provide a valuable service to local
businesses by helping them comply with Federal and State health and safety regulations while at
the same time, recovering costs associated with the maintenance of its own training programs.
All corporate health and safety training will be provided by off-duty Department personnel to
avoid impacting its daily operations. Examples of these classes are provided in Exhibit B. The
mechanism of charging a fee for these classes is provided in the current Master Fee Schedule.
The average cost for a First-Aid/CPR class per student is $72.00. The minimum number of
students per class is eight. The gross revenue that will be realized from this class of eight is
$576. After deducting the costs associated with providing the class, the General Fund will net
$239. It is expected the Department will train in excess of 1000 persons per year in First-
Aid/CPR generating $29,875 in net revenue. A more detailed description of how these amounts
were derived is contained in Exhibit C.
Other opportunities for cost recovery exist through the sale of emergency supplies and
equipment. An example of this is the sale of automatic external defibrillators (AED' s). An AED
is often necessary to restart a heart that has stopped following a heart attack (cardiac arrest).
Because of the success of AED' s, the Department has seen increased requests for training,
equipment and supplies. In response, the Department has obtained and received conditional
approval to become a distributor for the Philips Heartstart ONSITE Defibrillator. The wholesale
cost per AED is $1,022. The suggested retail price is $1,460. The Fire Department is proposing
to sell AED's to South San Francisco residents and businesses for $1,050. This pricing schedule
will offer residents and businesses a $410 savings. By providing a significant discount in the
purchase of an AED, the Fire Department hopes to increase their availability throughout the
community as part of its efforts to reduce morbidity and mortality from cardiac arrest. After
deducting the costs associated with the sale ofthe AED, the General Fund will receive $28.00 per
unit sold. It is estimated this activity could bring $7,000 per year into the General Fund while
also increasing survival rates for victims of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. A more detailed
description of how these amounts were derived is contained in Exhibit D.
As AED's are being required to be made available in the workplace, theatres, fitness centers, etc.,
there is also the statutory requirement for AED program management, medical direction,
physician authorization and data management. The cost for these services to be provided
typically is $95.00 per AED. The fee for registering the AED with the San Mateo County EMS
Agency is $65.00. The Department proposes that no fees will be collected when the AED is
purchased for personal or private use.
Staff Report
Subject: Corporate Health and Safety Training Services
Page 3
However, when an AED is purchased for use in a commercial setting, a total of $160.00 in fees
will be collected. The Department has obtained and received a conditional agreement from a
qualified physician to provide medical direction and physician authorization when required.
After deducting the costs for the provision of these services, it is estimated that this activity could
bring $28,125 per year into the General Fund. A more detailed description of how these amounts
were derived is contained in Exhibit E.
FUNDING
Staff is making no request for additional funding to support this program. All costs related to the
provision of these services will be offset by the revenue generated from the sales of AED's,
program management fees, training fees, etc.
CONCLUSION
If the City Council approves of this effort, the Corporate Health and Safety Training Services
Program is expected to generate $100,000 of net revenue for the General Fund in FY 07 ~08 and
potentially much more as word of this program spreads. A more detailed description of how this
amount was derived is contained in Exhibit F. It will take approximately four (4) years to realize
the full potential of this pilot program.
Approval of the Corporate Health and Safety Training Services Program will provide a valuable
service to residents and particularly businesses. This program will also be self-supporting and
can be an important source of net revenue for the General Fund.
By: cA [ Jai:.
Philip D. Whhe
Fire Chief
Attachments: Exhibits A - F
ATTACHMENT A
Corporate first-aid, CPR training offering American Heart Association certification
Corporate permit-required confined space training offering State Fire Marshal
certification
Corporate emergency medical technician (EMT) training offering continuing medical
education credits through the San Mateo County EMS Agency
ATTACHMENT B
The following fees are for classes the Fire Department provides to citizens, health care providers
or other non-SSF fire department personnel.
First-Aid/CPR classes for residents $15.00 per person
(cost of textbook and certification
card)
First-Aid/CPR classes for non-
residents
$75.00 per person
First-Aid/CPR classes provided for
SSF businesses
Pediatric Education for Pre-hospital
Professionals
$55.00 per person
$250.00 per person
American Heart Association
"Professional Level" courses for the
public and other outside agencies.
ACLS Knowledge and Skills
Review Workshops
$175.00 per person
Initial Recognition:
Pediatric Advanced Life Support
(PALS)
$235.00 per person
Advance Cardiac Life Support
(ACLS)
$235.00 per person
Basic Life Support-Health Care
Provider(BLS-HCP)
$75.00 per person
Re-recognition:
Pediatric Advanced Life Support
(PALS)
$190.00 per person
Advance Cardiac Life Support
(ACLS)
Basic Life Support-Health Care
Provider (BLS-HCP)
$190.00 per person
$50.00 per person
12 Lead EKG class
$200.00 per person
Geriatric Education for Emergency
Medical Services
Infrequent paramedic skills
$190.00 per person
$80.00 per person
Other EMS continuing education
classes
$6-10.00 per hour per person
depending on the class, cost of
instruction, etc.
Student materials, supplies, etc.
required to participate
Actual cost plus 24% to cover cost,
CA sales tax and shipping
Certification fees req'd by certifying
authority
$5.00 plus actual cost
The following fees are for classes the Fire Department plans to offer to pre-fire service, fire
service personnel and employees of local businesses. The Fire Department has received
numerous requests to provide such classes.
Emergency Response Team class $10.00 per hour per person
Permit Req'd Confined Space class
Hazardous Materials Responder class
Technical Rescue class
$10.00 per hour per person
$10.00 per hour per person
$10.00 per hour per person
$10.00 per hour per person
$6-10.00 per hour per person
depending on the class, cost of
instruction, etc.
Actual cost plus 24% to cover cost,
CA sales tax and shipping
$5.00 plus actual cost
Vehicle Extrication class
Other Fire Training continuing
education classes
Student materials, supplies, etc.
required to participate
Certification fees req'd by certifying
authority
SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
FIRE DEPARTMENT
~'1" SAN FRANCIS.
tOO Co
FIRE TRAINING
FACILITY
"The success of a fire department is
directly related to the effort put into
the training of personnel. "
International Association of Fire Chiefs
Fee Schedule
are effective January 1, 2fYJ7 and may be subject to change,
Prices
$50 per hour (4 hr mln)
$10 per fire (interior)
$30 per fire (exterior)
Facility:
Fires:
$60 per hour
Fire Prop Operator:
$60 per hour
Safety Officer:
$350 per day
Fire Engine:
$60 per hour
Pump Operator:
$2.50 per bottle
SCBA Compressor:
~'1" SAN FRANCIS.
tOO Co
South San Francisco Fire Department
480 North Canal Street
South San Francisco, CA 94080
Phone (650) 829-3950
Fax (650) 829-3954
www.ssf.netldepts/fire
$20 per hole
Ventilation Prop:
Every firefighter knows the importance
of training, When the bells ring, we
must get it right the first time.
'Von 't practice on the pubhC': - Anonymous
Firefighter
Dedicated in November 2006, this fire
trauung facility with its modem
construction features and state-of-the-art
technology puts firefighters to the test in
learning and honing their fundamental fire
and rescue skills.
Fire Facilities, Inc., building designers and
manufacturers, and Draeger Safety Fire
Training Systems, designers and installers
of the live fire props; both leaders in their
respective industries, has created a facility
that duplicates the occupanc1es and
hazards firefighters face in South San
Francisco and neighboring communities.
.
Multiple anchor points for rope
rescue training.
Dry standpipe system in high-rise
stairwell.
All fire props can be operated from a
central control room, or with wireless
remote pendants. Each bum room has
ventilation, temperature and gas sensing
systems, emergency stops, and smoke
generation.
.
Two forcible entry doors
adjustable tensioners
Laboratory prop on fourth floor of
high rise. (Nmemkr 2m7)
.
with
Balconies on 2nd through Sth floors
for fire attack and rescue training.
.
Sofa prop with wall fire and
rollover effect on first floor.
.
Exterior opening on Sth floor for
high angle rope rescue training.
.
Office prop on
nse. {ftdj 2(J)7}
a
.
A S-story elevator shaft for
confined space training.
.
third floor of high
Storage prop with typical boxes
shelves in garage. {ftdj2001}
.
.
parapet)
props
Tbree roof types (pitched, flat, and
with five roof ventilation
.
and
Stove prop with two individually
controlled fires; a single stage range
hood, and a two-stage stove top on
the first floor. {ftdj 2m7}
THE BUILDING
Over 6000 sqft of training space in an all-
steel building. The facility is designed to
represent a 1- or 2-story single family
residence with garage, a 2-story residence
over commercial, a 2-story apartment
complex with stairway balcony access, and
a S-story high rise. Each bum room has
two or more access points via multiple
stairways and doorways.
Additional features
include:
.
Future phases will include:
The interior prop includes a bed fire with
wall fire and a rollover effect on the 2nd floor.
Features of This Facility
THE FIRE PROPS
The exterior prop is a 100 square foot
base divided into four individually
controlled zones capable of over 3 million
BTU's. Tbree props (2S0 gallon upright
propane tank with "pop-off' effect, SOO
gallon horizontal tank with running fuel
effect, and a flammable liquid storage
locker) can be placed on the base for
various fire fighting challenges.
ATTACHMENT C
First-Aid/CPR Class Expense Example
Cost per Student
Registration $55
Textbook $12
Certification card $5
Total $72
Instructional Costs
Hourly rate $40 per hour
Length of class 8 hours
Per class $320
Minimum Class 8 students
Size
Class Gross $576 per class
Revenue
Class Net to GF $239 per class
Annual Gross $72,000 Based on equivalent
Revenue of 125 classes with
enrollment of 8
students
Annual Net $29,875 Based on equivalent
Revenue to GF of 125 classes with
enrollment of 8
students
AED Pricing
Wholesale
Suggested retail
SSFFD retail
Savings per unit
Annual Gross
Revenue
per AED
units sold
Total
Annual Net
Revenue to GF
Units sold
Net per unit
Total
ATTACHMENT D
AED Pricing Example
$1,022
$1,460
$1,050
$410
$1,050
250
$262,500
250
$28
$7,000
ATTACHMENT E
AED Program Mgt/ Medical Direction /Physician
Authorization/Data Mgt. Pricing Example
One-Time Fee
SMCO EMS
registration
$65 Per unit
Total
Projected that
majority of AED's
will be purchased by
225 businesses
$14,625
Units sold
Annual Fee
AED program mgt
Total
$95.00 Per unit
Projected that
majority of AED's
will be purchased by
225 businesses
$21,375
Units sold
Annual Cost for
AED Program Mgt
Physician oversight
Units enrolled
$35 Penmit
225
$7,875
Total
Annual Gross
Revenue
Total
$14,625
$21,375
$36,000
One-time fee
Annual fee
Annual Net
Revenue to GF
Gross revenue
Physician oversight
Total
$36,000
$7,875
$28,125
Course Fees
First-aid/CPR
AED sales
AED program mgt.
Other training
ATTACHMENT F
Summary of Annual Net Revenue
$29,875 Based on 125
classes with
enrollment of 8
students
Based on 250 units
$7,000 being sold
$28,125 Based on 225 units
being purchased by
businesses
Genentech has
already opened a
purchase order with
the SSFFD for this
amount to provide
on-going continuing
education for its
emergency medical
technicians (EMT)
$35,000 on an annual basis
$100,000
total
Sp. Agenda Item
#5
(dated)
SUB1ECT: LETTER OF SUPPORT - HISTORICAL SOCIETY OF SOUTH SAN
FRANCISCO, INC. MUSEUM
The City Council of the City of South San Francisco submits this letter to the Historical
Society of South San Francisco, Inc., in support of a joint effort to find a facility to
become a permanent site for a historical society museum.
The Historical Society of South San Francisco, Inc. is a California nonprofit, public
benefit corporation that is exempt from federal income taxes under Internal Revenue
Code section 501(c)(3). Its purpose is the collection, preservation, display and
dissemination of historical data and materials relating to the City of South San Francisco.
It is also a matter of record that the operation of the Society is partly funded by
contributions from the City of South San Francisco. The Society currently leases a room
from the City of South San Francisco at the Magnolia Senior Center for the purpose of a
temporary historical society museum. The Society has co-sponsorship with the
Recreation and Community Services Department that assists in the reproduction and
mailing of the Society newsletter; the Public Works Department assists in the landscape
maintenance of the Plymire-Schwarz Center, and an annual grant is provided by the City
for the promotional purposes that helps the Center pay its utilities. These are examples of
the previous support the City has provided to the Society and that its quest to find a
permanent museum is equally supported.
Very truly yours,