HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes 2009-07-07S MINUTE S
~°~~x""'~~'~, SPECIAL MEETING
0
' ~ CITY COUNCIL
° OF THE
c'~LIFOR~l~ CITY OF SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO
P.O. Box 711 (City Hall, 400 Grand Avenue)
South San Francisco, California 94083
CITY HALL
LA]~GE CONFERENCE ROOM
400 GRAND AVENUE
TUESDAY, JULY 7, 2009
6:30 P.M.
Purpose of the meeting:
1. Call to Order 6:31 P.M.
2. Roll Call Present: Councilmen Garbarino, Gonzalez and
Mullin, Vice Mayor Addiego and
Mayor Matsumoto.
Absent: None
3. Public Comments -comments are limited to items on the Special Meeting Agenda.
None.
4. Study Session on the General Fund Revenue Options.
City Manager Barry Nagel and Staff Department heads presented revenue options for consideration and
noted no action was being taken tonight as Staff was just seeking direction. A Full master fee schedule
would be presented at the July 22 meeting for formal approval.
Manager Nagel stated Conference Center Authority (CCA) member, Rudy Ortiz was expected to attend
this evening's meeting to address Item No. Five (5) on the Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT) exemptions
for Federal and State Government Business, but noted Council did not have to wait for his arrival to
discuss the issue.
Mayor Matsumoto noted the Budget Subcommittee included Councilman Garbarino and Vice Mayor
Addiego as its members. She further noted changes on recommendations/fees would be presented at the
July 22 regular City Council meeting. When the fee schedule would go into effect was questionable.
Finance Director, Jim Steele began the Staff Report and noted several revenue funding ideas had been
discussed, augmenting the budget and ;providing more fiscal stability over time. The revenue ideas
presented in the Staff Report included: Possible increases for TOT and the addition of a billboard tax, a
consideration of a Storm Drain Fees similar to the City of Burlingame's, and options for street cleaning.
Proposed increases were also presented for the following service areas: Fire Inspection, Building Permit
Fees for Residential Projects, Park and 1Zecreation Fees and Code Enforcement Database Management
Fees were also presented.
Director Steele stated the TOT tax was currently at 9%. A proposed 1 % increase would bring the South
San Francisco current with surrounding cities, most of who were looking to increase their TOT to 12%.
Mayor Matsumoto questioned the num~-er of budget class hotels versus the number of business class
hotels
Director Steele stated roughly 60-70% was business class.
Vice Mayor Addiego stated reports recerived on "problem" activities tend to occur more at the budget
hotels. He felt some of the monies generated from the higher TOT could helps pay for those troubles that
occur. Based on his quick calculations the increased TOT for business would be something over $16 and
little over $9 for the budget.
Councilman Gonzalez questioned if input had been received from the hotels.
Director Steele responded there had beE;n none.
Mayor Matsumoto questioned if the City was comfortable with a 10%, rather than a 12% increase in
TOT and asked if the CCA had heard of the increase proposal.
Director Steele responded an 1:.5% wc-uld be the effective rate.
Manager Nagel stated CCA member Rudy Ortiz, felt the City was still competitive at the 10% rate and
not out of the norm with the surrounding cities.
Councilman Garbarino questioned if there was a sense of passage from the four (4) cities that were also
considering an increase.
Mayor Matsumoto asked by what percE;ntage was the TOT increase passed the last time it was put up for
a vote.
Director Steele stated Staff had no sens~~e if the ballot measures introduced by the other cities would pass
and to his recollection, the last TOT had passed by a 2/3 vote.
Manager Nagel asked if Council wouldl like Staff to proceed with putting the measure on the ballot for
the November 3 Election.
Councilman Mullin stated if the City was to move forward on revenue measure, he also wanted to move
forward on exemption. as requested in l:tem No. Five (5).
Councilman Garbarino stated he found. room rates to be reasonable and supported the TOT increase.
Referring back to a police perspective, Vice Mayor Addiego noted it only took one incident to cost the
City a large sum of money and therefore the City should not be shy about implementing a raise in the
TOT.
Director Steele presented the consideration of instituting a Billboard Tax. This had previously be
brought to voters on anon-Council Election as a special tax and was defeated because it had not
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 7, 2009
MINUTES PAGE 2
garnered the 2/3 vote threshold. For the November 2009 Election, the measure needed only a majority
vote to be passed as a general tax under Proposition 218. Director Steele noted not many other cities had
this tax and cited the city of Oakland as one of the few.
Councilman Gonzalez asked for clarification on the difference between a special tax and general tax. He
also recalled the last time this issue was on the ballot; there was not much concern about other types of
signage/billboards throughout the City. Now, the measure would include those other types of billboards.
What was the reason for this?
Director Steele stated with a general tax., the funds generated would be for the general fund and broad
usage, whereas a special tax was earmarked for a specific item.
City Attorney, Steve Mattas responded .a general tax could be placed on ballot with a 2/3 Council. -vote
and passed by 50% of the electorate. As to the Councilman's second question, he stated a likely
challenge from the industry could be thc; infringement of the First Amendment if only billboards were
considered. Considering other types of outdoor advertising increased the defensibility of the tax and
could counter any First Amendment challenges.
Mayor Matsumoto questioned the meaning of "other."
Attorney Mattas stated the focus could be on all outdoor, off-site commercial advertising such as the
sign on top of a taxi cab. The structuring of who would be taxed is something that would need to be
looked into more. Some, such as the Oakland Coliseum, impose a franchise fee on the replacement of
billboards in an attempt to lessen the nett reduction (2:1) in billboards. The Franchise fee was aone-time
fee.
Vice Mayor Addiego stated the thought. of Franchise Agreement in regards to electronic billboards
would be something to look into and thought the potential for revenue would be astounding. However,
he wanted to concentrate on TOT ballot as the City could make a stronger argument in its favor.
Councilman Gonzalez saw the number:> presented as not very significant.
Councilman Garbarino stated the Billboard Tax was a valid option and felt the approach should be
explored further but he felt concentration should be on other items.
Councilman Mullin concurred with the idea of tabling the Billboard Tax measure. If a measure did pass,
what discretion would the City have to implement it? Would the measure have to be concurrent with a
Council Election? He expressed concern about structuring something that would generate a real revenue
gain, especially if it were likely to face major litigation.
Attorney Mattas stated an ordinance would go before the voter and could include a provision that did not
require voter approval to change. Council was not prohibited from decreasing a tax only increasing;
therefore the measure could be drafted to give the City maximum discretion.
Director Steele noted the measure would have to be concurrent with a Council Election if it was desired
to pass only needing a 50% plus one vote of the electorate.
Attorney Mattas asked if Council would like Staff to conduct discussions and analysis of a negotiated
fee, along the lines of a franchise fee, prior to 2011.
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 7, 2009
MINUTES PAGE 3
Council stated they would like that to occur as well as a discussion about the elimination of some certain
billboards in key residential areas in the City.
Moving on, Director Steele went over the Storm Drainage Fee two-step ballot procedure. It would first
have to go through a public hearing process similar to what just took place with the Sewer Rate
increase, the ballot would require each parcel getting one vote and a majority approval of returned
ballots would be required for the fee to pass.
Manager Nagel noted the City of Burlingame was successful in getting the majority vote but it had
required a lot of work. If a regional permit were to get approved, the City may need to look harder at
this option.
Vice Mayor Addiego stated Burlingame: was very heavy handed by outlining the reduction of other
services and felt this approach may bacl~fire in our community.
Mayor Matsumoto added Burlingame h;ad a very active committee, which went door to door. She further
noted this item was a very "hot topic" for CCAG and the Water Board had no sympathy for runoff.
These expected regulations were sure tc- happen. Compliance could run $500,000 in administrative costs
to the City.
Councilman Garbarino concurred and added the Board would get stricter and tougher.
Vice Mayor Addiego opined if the environmental factor were highlighted, it may generate more support
out of a general concern for a clean bay that was shared by most.
Mayor Matsumoto stated, as with the Billboard tax, the City should look at other options to solve the
runoff problem, even if that meant another fee structure. She would prefer the City to be proactive rather
than reactive on the matter.
Councilman Gonzalez concurred with the Mayor and felt better about deciding later, based on fees
imposed by Water Board against the Cities.
Public Works Director, Terry White stated Staff was waiting to see the position of the Water Board, but
it was made clear that trash was a top priority. By September, it would likely be seen what the Water
Board intended to do. The impact on this fiscal year would be lessened every month they delay, it would
not reach $500,000 this year, but it was, still expected to be in the hundreds of thousands.
Director Steele stated street sweeping costs was another area looked at for generating revenue.
Annually, approximately $500,000 is funded from the general fund with an additional $200,000 funded
from other sources totaling approximately $700,000 spent per year on street sweeping. Other cities with
garbage franchises tended to make the fee part of the garbage bill. Director Steele noted Staff and the
City Attorney were evaluating the possibility and implications of transferring the responsibility to the
solid waste franchise and if Council desired, options could be explored and negotiate with the South San
Francisco Scavenger Company (Scavengers).
Attorney Mattas stated he believed it was possible, under the solid waste franchise laws, to amend the
agreement and have these costs incorporated into the garbage bill. Scavengers would be providing the
service as well as doing the billing.
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 7, 2009
MINUTES PAGE 4
Vice Mayor Addiego asked if this would essential be the privatization of the street cleaning. He further
noted he would like explore the issue and come up with a coordinated system for street sweeping and
garbage pick up.
Attorney Mattas replied it would be the privatization of street cleaning.
Mayor Matsumoto asked if this had been discussed with the Scavengers yet.
Attorney Mattas replied no. He further ~;,larified another option could be just for the Scavengers to incur
the billing option and not both the billing and service.
Councilman Garbarino stated there needed to be a lot of scrutiny done and more information provided.
Vice Mayor Addiego suggested Staff check with San Mateo to see how they bill.
Councilman Gonzalez understood the focus was to use the Scavengers for cost recovery. In turn, they
would receive part of the money to impllement the billing and deliver the fees to the City while the City
would still provide the service. He asked if all streets in the City were swept and how many employees
it took to do this.
Director White responded that all streets were swept once a week by a Staff of two (2) sweepers and two
(2) part time operators for smaller equil>ment and a person who drives a pick up for service for larger
items that cannot be handled by other equipment.
Council requested Staff to continue to pursue all options and provide information as it developed.
Department heads presented options foi- revenue generation within their perspective departments.
Council noted they would respond with questions on items of particular interest.
Fire Chief, Phil White presented options for Fire and Code Enforcement which included: (I) the creation
of an Administrative Code Enforcement fee (II) a $75.00 minimum Annual Fire Inspection fee (III) a
Fire Re-inspection fee (IV) $125 minimum Fire Check Plan fee (V) Fire Protective System Construction
Permit fee (VI) Fumigation or Thermal Insecticide fee (VII) Motor Vehicle Accident Response fee (VIII)
Hazard Mitigation fee and (VIIII) a Municipal Code modification allowing unpaid permit
fees/citations/abatements costs to be placed on personal or property tax bills.
In regards to Administrative fees, Chief White stated initially a courtesy notice could be sent which
would stipulate a $125 fee if offending issue was not addressed within 14 days of receipt of notice. He
added anything that could be done to lessen the cost to compliant citizens would be a good thing.
Further failures to comply would make them subject to other administrative fees in addition to fees
already assessed. If it were a violation that was more involved, an extension for compliance could be
issued. The Chief also noted currently 80% of violators ignore initial contact so administrative fees,
though not acure-all, would provide strong incentive for early compliance and generate cost recovery.
Councilman Gonzalez expressed conce;rn about "garage sale" signs and their removal from street poles
and whether an administrative fee could cover something like that.
Vice Mayor Addiego noted the fee for refrigerator disposal was $40. He wanted to be able to give the
community more information about its options.
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 7, 2009
MINUTES PAGE 5
Chief White responded that administrative citations could be issued in various amounts for continuous
sales. The citations worked in regards to continuous garage sales and signage. He also noted
Scavengers would pick up appliances with Freon for a nominal fee.
Councilman Gonzalez asked if Fire inspections were done on a drop in basis or scheduled. He stated
some notification was required to allow compliance with inspections.
Chief White stated a letter was sent for sccheduling, but if not responded to, drop-ins were done.
Inspection and re-inspection fees would be charged to responsible party. As for compliance, Chief
White stated the party would be told abc-ut the violation at the time of inspection but a grace period
would be allowed for education before enforcement took place.
Vice Mayor Addiego asked if re-inspection fees would be billed per hour.
Chief White responded yes.
Council gave support to items V-VIIII v~~ithout further questions or comments.
Chief Building Official, Jim Kirkman presented revenue options for Building Inspection Permits, which
included: (I) a Valuation based fee structure for existing residential (II) increase Residential Permit fee
based on Valuation (III) increase in "other" Inspection fees both Residential and Commercial and (IV)
increase Commercial and Industrial Permit fees. He noted that essentially item (I) was a change of
methodology change in fee assessment. Once a fee structure was in place, there could be a 25% increase
for residential. Even without an increas~,e, he still wanted change the methodology.
Council had no questions or comments regarding the proposed increases.
Parks and Recreation Director Sharon F:anals presented revenue options for the department which
included: (I) a discontinuance of free recreational classes for City employees (II) Co-Sponsored Group
fee changes (III) Reduction in City employee discounts for Child Care (IV) Expansion of Facility Rental
Charges (V) Charge rent to South San Francisco Aquatics Club for use of Orange Pool and (VI) Renting
out commercial kitchen spaces for caterers and small producers
In regards to item (I), Mayor Matsumoto stated the City was losing revenue due to free slots filled by
employees. She asked if the number of available classes could be reduced
Rather than reserving spots for employees, Vice Mayor Addiego asked if slots still available after
registration could be offered to employees at no cost.
Councilman Mullin stated his inclination to say no as it generated little revenue but was a large added
benefit for employees. However, he would support a reduction in the number of classes as suggested by
the Mayor.
Director Ranals stated these things could be considered, but any change would have to wait one year
before going into effect so it could be added to negotiations. She also suggested a fee cap be placed on
the free classes offered to employees.
Regarding item (II), Mayor Matsumoto questioned how fees would affect the Bache club, seeing as they
help maintain the courts.
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING NLY 7, 2009
MINUTES PAGE 6
Director Ranals stated they currently paid $300 and it would go up to $350. She also noted they had use
of the City trailer and the PG & E that went along with it.
Vice Mayor Addiego, referring to item (:[II), stated for the record a complete elimination of the subsidy
was initially requested but the Subcommittee wanted some sort of subsidy in place.
Mayor Matsumoto noted Genentech did not subsidize child care for their employees at all.
Councilman Mullin asked how many err~ployees utilized the service. He wanted to keep some break in
the rates for employees.
Director Ranals noted there were 15 in preschool and a total of 21 staff children in preschool and
before/afterschool programs.
For item (IV) Councilman Gonzalez expressed concern over the rental of certain facilities having a
negative impact of neighborhoods in ways of parking, crowd control and noise levels.
Director Ranals stated the type of party would be considered before renting any specific location facility.
Vice Mayor Addiego asked if the South San Francisco Aquatics team used the entire pool during their
practice time regarding item (V).
Director Ranals stated out of 2 1/z hours of usage per day, one (1) hour of that is exclusive to them
between the hours of 3:30 and 6:00 P.M[.
Moving on to the Parks and Facilities Divisions, Director Ranals highlighted the suggested revenue
options which included: (I) Community Garden Parcel fee increase (II) Artist Studio rental fee increase
(III) Donate aTree/Memorial Tree rate increase and (IV) the establishment of a Residential Street Tree
Maintenance fee.
Vice Mayor Addiego questions what was meant by "maintenance" for item (I). He stated he would
rather see and increase in garden size trian an increase in fees and questioned the demand for the plots.
By his calculations, Vice Mayor Addiego stated the fee increase worked out to $8 per month.
Director Ranals stated maintenance was modest and included watering, cleaning and rototilling.
Currently there was a huge demand for plots with 32 people on the waiting list. Land from the former
greenhouses was available for expansion purposes if needed.
Councilman Gonzalez asked how a plot was assigned and how big were the plots. He noted a
conversation he had with the Manager Nagel about potential pieces of land for expanding the garden and
thought the land by the dog park might have potential.
Director Ranals responded plots were assigned from a list and were 450 sq ft for $75 annual fee. The
Department was breaking even on dire~;,t costs but not in the overhead of maintenance, noting that the
last increase was many years ago. She further commented that Staff would look into the mentioned
locations, but noted the quality of the soil would need to be considered.
Assistant City Manager, Marty Van Duyn stated soil tests had been done and some land is not
appropriate for agricultural uses.
After discussion, Council was in favor 3:2 for the proposed increase.
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 7, 2009
MINUTES PAGE 7
On item (II) Mayor Matsumoto questioned the residential status of artists that occupy the studios.
Director Ranals noted four (4) of the sixl:een (16) were residents of the City.
Vice Mayor Addiego stated he was disappointed the spaces were more often used for storage than not.
Council agreed to the increase often cents per square foot for artist studio space.
Councilman Mullin asked for clarification as to what the Donate a Tree Program did.
Director Ranals explained the program was for residents who wished to purchase a tree in memory of a
loved one, memorial plaques were placed at the Municipal Service Building (MSB). Currently trees
were $125. An increase of $75 was a proposed to cover the escalating costs of tree maintenance.
Vice Mayor Addiego warned that value was not created when pricing was set too low.
Councilman Gonzalez asked if City street trees would be effected to which Director Ranals replied no,
just Memorial trees.
Councilman Mullin stated if a plaque were associated with its tree this world generate more value. He
requested Staff explore a way of placing; a plaque at the actual site rather than MSB.
Mayor Matsumoto cautioned issues could arise if any tree was destroyed based on who it memorialized.
Council's preference was to increase the fee regarding item (III) to $200 per tree with an exploration of
plaques being placed at the tree, generating a different fee cost.
On item (IV) currently there was no fee for tree maintenance, which was done at the request of the
resident. Staff had proposed a $100 fee to cover the costs of street tree maintenance.
Councilman Garbarino stated he would favor charging fee rather than phasing out the service entirely as
residents may not provide maintenance on their own.
For Item (V) Staff had proposed the establishment of a $100 fee to cover the costs the tree removal
permit process, which Director Ranals reported as an extremely Staff-time intensive process.
Vice Mayor Addiego noted other cities require an arborist sign off on any tree being removed.
Councilman Gonzalez asked if Director Ranals was concerned about the size of a tree to be removed.
Director Ranals noted the fee only applied to "Heritage" trees, which are the trees with a certain
circumference in size.
Finance Director, Jim Steele presented revenue option for a Code Enforcement Database fee. The fee
had not been raised since 2001-02. An increase from the current fee of $11 to $15 would generate
approximately $10,000 in additional revenue per year.
Vice Mayor Addiego asked if the bill would be broken down for businesses and questioned why the City
would just not build this into the business tax.
Director Steele replied yes and stated on the business license the tax would state maintenance for
database. As to the business tax question, Director Steele noted a tax increase would require a vote.
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 7, 2009
MINUTES PAGE 8
A draft of the proposed Master Fee Schedule was presented to Council. A final draft would be presented
for formal approval at the regular City Council meeting on July 22. Increases from departments were
highlighted in red and presented by Department Staff.
Mayor Matsumoto asked for fees of returned checks to be looked at as the amount seemed low to her. In
lieu of going through schedule piece by piece, the Mayor requested Staff give a perspective and rationale
of why certain fees were being raised. C"ouncil would question or comment on items as needed.
Senior Planner, Gerry Beaudin noted thE;re were few changes from the Planning Department. New fees
or increases included: the Minor Use Permit fee, Special Event Permit fee, Appeal Process fee,
Environmental fees and the Outdoor Dining Permit without Use Permit.
Mayor Matsumoto questioned what the Special Events Permit fee would include.
Senior Planner Beaudin stated at would include using the public right of way, usage of tents, barbeques,
exiting issues, and other items of that nature.
Senior Planner Beaudin also noted a new fee for the Appeals Process for a Planning Commission
decision. He stated as of now, there was no fee for the appeal process, and if you wanted to appeal a
decision at the Council level a fee should be assessed to cover staff cost and noticing requirements.
Councilman Gonzalez stated he was not comfortable with a fee and felt it would discourage the effected
neighbor from making appeal.
Council was in favor 4:1 of the Appealsc fee assessment but stated they would like all fees to be a
uniform $400 across the board to increase fairness. Councilman Gonzalez was not in favor of the fee.
Chief of Police Mike Massoni presented fee increase for the Police Department. New fees included: CD
Audio Police Reports and Special Event Application fees.
Mayor Matsumoto questioned if the fingerprinting cost recovery amount was too conservative.
Chief Massoni stated it brought South San Francisco in line with other cities.
Councilman Gonzalez requested the Police Department look into requiring fees for residential parties of
100 or more guests.
Chief Massoni stated only commercial locations are required to obtain permits, but there was an
Ordinance pertaining to unruly gatherings.
Fire Chief, Phil White stated all increased fees for the Fire Department would go from $100 to $125
across the board. The fees in question had not been increased for over five (5) years.
Director Ranals presented increases for• Parks, Recreation and Community Services Department.
Vie Mayor Addiego asked why there was no differential between rates residents and non residents for
the Adult admission for swim.
Director Ranals stated it was easier to keep them the same as non-residents would tend to have a resident
buy the admission card in any case.
Mayor Matsumoto asked when the fee increases would take effect for all departments.
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING JULY 7, 2009
MINiJTES PAGE 9
Attorney Mattas stated it varied due to some waiting periods and previously established permits being
honored.
Councilman Mullin, referring to field reservations, asked if the pricing was in line with other cities.
Director Ranals stated the previous fees were very low but the increase would bring us in line with other
cities. Data could be made available if needed at the July 22 meeting.
Increases from the Engineering, Buildin;; and Library departments were reviewed without comment.
5. Transient Occupancy Tax (TOT)S Exemption for Federal and State Government Business.
Finance Director Jim Steele presented Staff Report and noted the issue was raised by CCA member and
Embassy Suites General Manager, Rudy Ortiz, who felt the lack of an exemption created a competitive
disadvantage for South San Francisco. Upon looking into it, the City indeed had a mechanism for TOT
exemptions for Federal Government, which hotels have provided for several years even though there is
nothing in the Municipal Code in its regard. However, there was no exemption for State Government. It
has been requested to change the Municipal Code to allow TOT exemptions for Federal and State
Government Business. Director Steele noted the exemption would only apply when a traveler was on
official business and presented a government issued credit card for payment.
City Manager Nagel stated the item would have to come back for a formal vote to change the Municipal
Code.
Mayor Matsumoto asked about the possibility of adding Local Government to the exemption.
Councilman Mullin recalled the issue had been vetted and it was determined to be unworkable because
defining "local," with Boards, Commissions, School Districts and the like made it extremely difficult.
Vice Mayor Addiego felt it would be fairer for the hoteliers to take 1% of the rooms and not apply the
TOT, to use as a marketing tool and go along with a special rate. He was not against the request, but felt
there was something about the spirit of it that was off.
Manager Nagel stated item will be brought back in a future meeting for formal consideration.
6. Adjournment.
Being no further business, Mayor Matsumoto adjourned the meeting at 9:26 P. M.
Submitted~byQ:
Zt~-.
Anna Hernandez, Deputy City Cler
City of South San Francisco
Appr ved:
Kary atsumoto, Mayor
City of South San Francisco
SPECIAL CITY COUNCIL MEETING
MINUTES
JULY 7, 2009
PAGE 10